Are we to deprive ourselves of the help and guidance of that vast body of knowledge which is daily growing upon the world, because neither we nor any other one person can possibly test a hundredth part of it by immediate experiment or observation, and because it would not be completely proved if we did? Shall we steal and tell lies because we have had no personal experience wide enough to justify the belief that it is wrong to do so?
May This essay is derived from a guest lecture at Harvard, which incorporated an earlier talk at Northeastern. When I finished grad school in computer science I went to art school to study painting.
A lot of people seemed surprised that someone interested in computers would also be interested in painting.
They seemed to think that hacking and painting were very different kinds of work-- that hacking was cold, precise, and methodical, and that painting was the frenzied expression of some primal urge. Both of these images are wrong.
Hacking and painting have a lot in common. In fact, of all the different types of people I've known, hackers and painters are among the most alike. What hackers and painters have in common is that they're both makers.
Along with composers, architects, and writers, what hackers and painters are trying to do is make good things. They're not doing research per se, though if in the course of trying to make good things they discover some new technique, so much the better.
I've never liked the term "computer science. Computer science is a grab bag of tenuously related areas thrown together by an accident of history, like Yugoslavia. At one end you have people who are really mathematicians, but call what they're doing computer science so they can get DARPA grants.
In the middle you have people working on something like the natural history of computers-- studying the behavior of algorithms for routing data through networks, for example. And then at the other extreme you have the hackers, who are trying to write interesting software, and for whom computers are just a medium of expression, as concrete is for architects or paint for painters.
It's as if mathematicians, physicists, and architects all had to be in the same department.
Sometimes what the hackers do is called "software engineering," but this term is just as misleading. Good software designers are no more engineers than architects are.
The border between architecture and engineering is not sharply defined, but it's there. It falls between what and how: What and how should not be kept too separate. You're asking for trouble if you try to decide what to do without understanding how to do it.
But hacking can certainly be more than just deciding how to implement some spec. At its best, it's creating the spec-- though it turns out the best way to do that is to implement it.
Perhaps one day "computer science" will, like Yugoslavia, get broken up into its component parts. That might be a good thing.
Especially if it meant independence for my native land, hacking. Bundling all these different types of work together in one department may be convenient administratively, but it's confusing intellectually. That's the other reason I don't like the name "computer science. But the people at either end, the hackers and the mathematicians, are not actually doing science.
The mathematicians don't seem bothered by this. But for the hackers this label is a problem. If what they're doing is called science, it makes them feel they ought to be acting scientific.
So instead of doing what they really want to do, which is to design beautiful software, hackers in universities and research labs feel they ought to be writing research papers. In the best case, the papers are just a formality.
Hackers write cool software, and then write a paper about it, and the paper becomes a proxy for the achievement represented by the software.
But often this mismatch causes problems. It's easy to drift away from building beautiful things toward building ugly things that make more suitable subjects for research papers. Unfortunately, beautiful things don't always make the best subjects for papers.
Number one, research must be original-- and as anyone who has written a PhD dissertation knows, the way to be sure that you're exploring virgin territory is to to stake out a piece of ground that no one wants. Number two, research must be substantial-- and awkward systems yield meatier papers, because you can write about the obstacles you have to overcome in order to get things done.
Nothing yields meaty problems like starting with the wrong assumptions. Most of AI is an example of this rule; if you assume that knowledge can be represented as a list of predicate logic expressions whose arguments represent abstract concepts, you'll have a lot of papers to write about how to make this work.
As Ricky Ricardo used to say, "Lucy, you got a lot of explaining to do.Back in , the Knight-Ridder newspaper chain began investigating piracy of Dave Barry’s popular column, which was published by the Miami Herald and syndicated widely. Misc thoughts, memories, proto-essays, musings, etc.
And on that dread day, the Ineffable One will summon the artificers and makers of graven images, and He will command them to give life to their creations, and failing, they and their creations will be dedicated to the flames. Aug 20, · This present article is more about a spectator’s experience of Federer, and its context.
The specific thesis here is that if you’ve never seen the young man play live, and then do, in person. We spent the month of August in ashio-midori.com me, it was a return to a city that I had visited 25 years ago.
Lisbon is a very popular place these days, attracting tourists with its beautiful architecture, tiled streets, sunny days (it is known as the sunshine capital), historic sites, and cuisine. Old Habits Die Hard MAG By Unknown, Unknown, Unknown A precarious pile of long overdue library books have been absentmindedly placed in the corner of my bedroom.
Study Hacks Blog Decoding Patterns of Success Deep Habits: Plan Your Week in Advance August 8th, · 68 comments A Planning Habit. On Monday mornings I plan the upcoming work week. I capture this plan in an e-mail and send it to myself so that I will be sure to see it and have access to it daily.