I've been on a Sci-Fi kick. I just finished reading
The
Dispossessed by
Ursula
K. Le Guin. I've read a few of her books before, but I really
liked this one a lot. It reminded me a of some of
Daniel
Quinn's ideas.
I picked it up sorta randomly because I'd read a couple of her
books before. I had it sitting on my desk at work, and a few people
said, "Oh, you're reading that? That's one of the best books I've
ever read". Of course, I got it used for $3.50 at
Powell's. I wonder how they get
away with reprinting such books for $15.
One interesting aspect of the book is that one of the languages
used doesn't really express possessives. So instead of saying, "my
book" it was always rendered as "the book". I didn't really notice
this until near the end. When I did notice it, was when Le Guin
wrote, "the mother" instead of "his mother". This didn't seem quite
right to me, because it doesn't represent the relationship between
"him" and "mother", but it's not really Le Guin's fault... there's no
convenient way to represent this in English without using the
possessive form. Perhaps "the mother of the man," but that still
seems a bit possessive. I believe this is also true of Russian and
Spanish at least.
One way to look at it is that humans are so focused on possession
that we don't have a convenient way to express relationships. But we
are certainly not saying, "The mother that I own." Another way to
look at it is that the so-called possessive case expresses more than
just possession.
In fact, it sometimes means possession and sometimes not. If my
mother fell off her horse and I had to rush back to Ohio to visit her,
and someone asked me why I was going, I might say, "Because she's my
mother!" Not possessive. But clearly, it is sometimes possessive,
particularly in romantic relationships. Jealousy is possible in all
forms of relationships, but is probably most clear in romantic ones.
"Why did you go to the prom with him when you're MY girlfriend?"
This reminded me of the "object" formulation in object-oriented
programming languages. (Didn't know that I was going to say THAT, did
you? Ha!) In a language like Java, you say something like "the car's
first wheel's last screw", "car.wheel[0].screw[3]".
In Haskell, you also have aggregate types, where one type is
composed of others but to access them, instead of saying, "the car's
wheel" we say, "there's a relationship between cars and wheels. It
doesn't matter what the relationship is, but the function from cars to
wheels is called "wheels".
So we have "last $ screws $ first $ wheels car". That is, "the
last screw of the first wheel of the car"... actually that's clearer
than "the car's first wheel's last screw" isn't it? There we go.
I've once again proven that Haskell is morally and technically
superior to C++.
Randomness
Here is
an
article linked from Slashdot about how people are giving up on the
internet because of spam and spyware. The article doesn't mention
GNU/Linux or Firefox.
I just took one of those
quizes
that you've all been doing, and I was pretty disappointed.