Thanks for the kind words. Yes, you guessed right, I am writing a book tentatively titled “Understanding Artificial Intelligence”. I hope to finish it fairly soon.

Thanks — the link was “almost” right, there must have been some copy-paste problem. Fixed now, thank you very much.

John

John, USA

I don’t like censoring content but under normal practice “Go fuck yourself” would get you removed from this site.

Just a couple of points:
– I am happy to take a test. I am sure I know as much about American politics as you do. Probably more.
– Trump as a representative of the “common man”? That would be very funny if it weren’t outrageous. You use the word “aristocrat” a lot — I am not an aristocrat, but Trump would be by any measure except honor.

Resorting to insult suffices by itself to reveal the vacuity of your points by showing that you lack rational arguments. If you made them rational arguments I would be happy to discuss them one by one and, undoubtedly, to refute them one by one.

Bertrand,

I respectfully beg to differ.

Trump’s election is very much like that of Andrew Jackson’s in 1828. Jackson, like Trump, was a champion of the common people against the East Coast Establishment. Like Trump, he was rich, but he still had the common touch.

Every country’s aristocracy detests its common people. They add new forks to their dinner settings, use four-liter words when a one-gram word would be clearer, claim that the poor harbor beliefs that are “against their own interests”, etc.

The USA is unique. As Lincoln said, it’s government is of the people, by the people, and for the people.

Not the people with college degrees.

Not the people with the “right” opinions.

Not the people with fineky-honed taste in art.

For, of, and by the people. The vulgar, uneducated, misinformed, cussing, sex-obsessed, and generally “common” people.

The Democratic Party, which once prided itself on representing the common people, sold them out decades ago under Bill Clinton. Since then, they have been politically abandoned by the United State’s two-party system.

Trump just claimed the common people, and common people claimed him.

Now,the aristocrat’s are swooning, not just in the US but worldwide. Their aristocratic policies have been rounded rejected by popular votes in election after election, in favor of crude, vulgar, and simple policies that favor the common people.

Marxist, in particular, have trouble grasping this, as they firmly believe that only the Glorious Revolution can free the people from the chains of capitalism.

But Americans LOVE capitalism. They LOVE seeing the world’s richest man catch a falling rocket out of mid-air. They LOVE seeing a poor (legal) migrant get rich in America, the Land of Opportunity.

Except for the Marxists, of course. Sadly, America’s universities were captured by Marxists a generation ago, and they’ve turned most of the USA’s educational institutions into Marxist/Wokist seminaries.

But the “uneducated” Americans — that is, the Americans who have not been indoctrinated into Marxist groupthink — still love America’s traditional values. They understand that the Democratic Party has not only abandoned them, but abandoned America’s values.

So, they voted for Trump. They voted for traditional America, not the Democrat’s socialist authoritarianism.

You, Bertrand, are not just a European aristocrat, you are an inheritor of the French Enlightenment. I love that about you. It makes your scientific work AWESOME.

But, on American politics? Dude, you don’t know shit, and it shows.

The poorest 20% of Americans are richer than the AVERAGE European. As the recent Draghi Report illuminated, since the Global Financial Crisi 15-ish years ago, the US economy has grown to be half-again as big as the EU, from rough parity.

The aristocratic policies of Europe are impoverished its people relative to the crude, vulgar, deplorable policies of America.

Meanwhile, y’all have luxuriated under the USA’s defensive umbrella, which the USA’s common people have paid for. Maybe, hopefully, Trump will withdraw from NATO, and you silly European aristocrats can either all hang together, or surely hang separately.

So, Bertrand, on this topic, you are entirely wrong. Or, as Trump would say, go fuck yourself, and your shithole country, too.

Respectfully,

Jim

And of course the US actually made a lot better progress on CO₂ reduction by using fracking gas than, for example, Germany with its nuclear exit and mostly failed wind + solar strategy, which basically resulted in more coal being burned.

Thanks, I will fix it (sorry for the late reply).

John, USA

Sorry for the late reply. Here is the information on the Spanish edition:

Prentice Hall, 1998, 1232 pages, with CD-ROM.
ISBN: 84-8322-040-7
If your bookstore has any trouble finding this book, please contact us.

The CD-ROM includes an object-oriented development environment (ISE EiffelBench) and the full hyperlinked text of the English edition.

Traducción:

Miguel Katrib Mora, Universidad de La Habana

Rafael García Bermejo, Universidad de Salamanca

Salvador Sánchez, Universidad Pontificia de Salamanca

Revisión técnica:

Jesus Garcia Molina, Universidad de Murcia

Carmelo R. Fernández Rupérez, European Software Institute

Coordinación de la traducción y revisión técnica:

Luis Joyanes Aguilar, Universidad Pontificia de Salamanca

From the Preface to the Spanish edition by Luis Joyanes Aguilar:

El excelente e inmenso trabajo de Bertrand Meyer permitirá por un lado seguir formando buenos y numerosos profesionales informáticos y de computación y, por otro, formar a especialistas en las modernas tecnologias orientadas a objetos con un énfasis especial en las ideas clave de estos años y del siglo XXI: componentes y reutilización. [Esta] obra será la referencia obligatoria en construcción de software orientado a objetos de los años previos al tercer milenio y durante el tercer milenio…

OOSC-2, no sólo es un libro mágico, magnífico e imprescindible para aprender a construir software orientado a objetos, sino que su lectura conducirá al lector a conseguir la excelencia en el mundo del software.

John

A l’U de Louisville j’ai connu le Dormitory. Les chambres avaient deux occupants (à Poitiers, un seul !). Les étudiants collaient des affiches en août pour trouver un roomate qui ait un edt identique.

Conclusion : qui ne va pas voter NFP ?

En plus, dans les deux enveloppes du foyer, un tract format 21, 29,7 “Non aux projets de CRA” sans nom de candidat, sans nom de parti politique, et non référencé dans les professions de foi. Depuis que j’ai le droit de vote, je n’avais encore jamais vu ça. J’attends la réponse de la préfecture.

Meilleures salutations
P.S. j’ai donné l’adresse de votre blog au petit fils qui va entrer en secondes. En 6e il m’envoyait ses jeux programmés en Python.

Putin came into power in 2000. There were no “dogs” at the time. He was all into integrating Russia into the existing world economic order, obeying international rules and joining WTO (as an example). Didn’t you have a job at Russia at the time? How long did you live there? What was your opinion of that-day-Russia at the time?

In the very much same time the neighbors kept breeding angry dogs and building fences. Do you remember the story with putting missile defense stations in Poland? So, following your analogy, Russia was trying to be a good neighbor but seeing all of their neighbors building a fence for protection. What was the menace at the time?

Now, how exactly do you define a defensive alliance? Will they declare that they “protect” while performing military operations? Do you mean that in all actions ever performed by NATO you think they are right (lawful, executing the defensive spirit of that org)? Don’t you think that having power would eventually lead to exercising it? The whole Europe has united arms forces with a top one overseas country in the world. It’s fine for you as European, it doesn’t look OK for anybody else.

If you see one side as “evil” and the 2nd as “kind” – will it be a better explanation for your personal opinion regarding NATO? You have every right to think the way you do – your country as well as the country of Chomsky allows you to do it. And this applies to me as well (seeing one side as evil etc), but I really don’t understand all this anti-Russian rhetoric coming out from Baltic countries and Poland – years after the Soviet Union collapse. It looks to me like a lot of manipulative and emotional techniques applied to whole societies. I am aware and I understand that it happens in Russia as well. As well as in China, Australia, USA and other countries.

When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpetual peace.
They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.
But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: “Stick to the Devil you know.”

I don’t know if you read my message. But “…Water would certainly wet us, as Fire would certainly burn”.

Throwing away NATO out of the picture? You bet.

Please check this folder at your convenience:

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1pLkmR1VcUEuFt4q7YJETHg3gsXmF3swU?usp=sharing

I’ve highlighted all multiplication symbols replaced by the big dot unintentionally.

Thanks for the fixes. I guess we are quite close to the original printed version. I believe there are still around less than 35 asterisk(*) like characters replaced accidentally due to fixing the errors we reported earlier. I’ve already spotted a few.

What I am doing now is comparing the count of big dots (for member access) and asterisk (and asterisk like) characters in “CD ROM’s pdf” files and the pdf downloaded from this page. “CD ROM’s pdf” files do not seem to have all those problem above, although typographical quality is not quite good. So I think we can use it to check the counts.

CD ROM’s pdf
————-
Big dot (for member access) >>> 970

Actual asterisk >>> 88
Asterisk like type 1 (used for multiplication symbol) >>> 30
Asterisk like type 2 (used in deferred class figure >>> 61

PDF from this page
———————-
Big dot (for member access) >>> 1005 (35 more than the above, which I suppose are wrongly replaced asterisks)

Actual asterisk >>> 88
Asterisk like type 1 (used for multiplication symbol) >>> 0
Asterisk like type 2 (used in deferred class figure oval) >>> 64 result

According the counts above, I think we can assume all bad dots has been fixed (in fact fixed a few more than we should). And I suppose we’ve replaced 3 or 4 multiplication symbols (“Asterisk like type 1”) with “Asterisk like type 2”. That’s why we now have 64 of them. All of the remaining “Asterisk like type 1” possibly have been replaced by big dots accidentally. Some of them I’ve already spotted. Just need to find out where the remaining ones are.

If the above assumptions were correct and i can find where the wrong places are, I will share the screenshots highlighting the places.