What I learned from Class Viewer

[JSH]

One of the reasons I bothered to create the open source project Class
Viewer for Java was that I'd had years of arguing with math people on
newsgroups which kind of happened by accident, as kind of as a lark I
thought I'd ponder some math problems and talked about it. Yuck, what
a mistake.

Math people ripped on me endlessly and told me to shut-up.

I got angry and refused and found I LIKED pondering math problems they
had claimed as their exclusive property and screw them. Over the
years I learned many of them are idiots and they lie a LOT. It is
scary how much they lie about, and there's nothing you can do about it
and most people will not believe it's true because they think these
math people are geniuses.

So I did Class Viewer partly to convince myself that these people
calling me insane, telling me I was "subhuman" and behaving very badly
in many ways as they mounted a very successful smear campaign against
me, were wrong.

To understand how successfully they smeared me, do a search on "James
Harris" in Yahoo! where a hate page attacking my research comes up #6
last time I checked in Yahoo! and consider the millions of people with
that name in the world, but somehow a hate page against me is so
important?

So I wrote Class Viewer and sat back and waited and one day I pointed
out on a math newsgroup that I had this open source project, and what
did they do?

They ripped on it. They argued that it was worthless and not of value
to anyone and pointed to the lack of activity on the SourceForge page
as they maintained that I am just a crackpot loser.

Math people lie all the time.

If you agree then goddamn you if you ever use Class Viewer for Java
and if you agree with them and have it now, delete it off your system.


James Harris

 

[gjedwards]

One of the reasons I bothered to create the open source project Class
Viewer for Java was that I'd had years of arguing with math people on
newsgroups which kind of happened by accident, as kind of as a lark I
thought I'd ponder some math problems and talked about it. Yuck, what
a mistake.

Math people ripped on me endlessly and told me to shut-up.

I got angry and refused and found I LIKED pondering math problems they
had claimed as their exclusive property and screw them. Over the
years I learned many of them are idiots and they lie a LOT. It is
scary how much they lie about, and there's nothing you can do about it
and most people will not believe it's true because they think these
math people are geniuses.

So I did Class Viewer partly to convince myself that these people
calling me insane, telling me I was "subhuman" and behaving very badly
in many ways as they mounted a very successful smear campaign against
me, were wrong.

To understand how successfully they smeared me, do a search on "James
Harris" in Yahoo! where a hate page attacking my research comes up #6
last time I checked in Yahoo! and consider the millions of people with
that name in the world, but somehow a hate page against me is so
important?

So I wrote Class Viewer and sat back and waited and one day I pointed
out on a math newsgroup that I had this open source project, and what
did they do?

They ripped on it. They argued that it was worthless and not of value
to anyone and pointed to the lack of activity on the SourceForge page
as they maintained that I am just a crackpot loser.

Math people lie all the time.

If you agree then goddamn you if you ever use Class Viewer for Java
and if you agree with them and have it now, delete it off your system.

James Harris

I'd love to but the damn thing is so badly written it won't uninstall.
The only way I'll ever feel clean again is to burn my PC in the yard.

 

[JSH]

I'd love to but the damn thing is so badly written it won't uninstall.
The only way I'll ever feel clean again is to burn my PC  in the yard.

Note: reply is from a regular poster on math newsgroups who has flamed
me more than once.

These people are dedicated to what they do.

I've had to do things like Class Viewer to convince myself as well
that they're wrong about me, as these people are so dedicated, do not
stop, and never get off message.

Their message is that whatever I do is worthless and people should not
listen to me when I tell them solutions to math problems that the math
people have appropriated as their area only.

If you ever wrote a prime counter for school, consider how easy it is
for me to show that the prime counting function I wrote is a never
before seen, critical find in the area, and how easily these people
have kept their smear campaign going, as they deny it despite proof.

The behavior is deliberate, and its reason is obvious: they do not
want actual answers known to any number of famous problems.

They don't want the answers known because the actual answers are too
easy.

And easy answers do not support as many math people as there are in
the world supposedly working hard in these areas.

They are not truly working hard as solutions are known which they
ignore.

Like look at my Traveling Salesman Problem solution.

If it is correct, how many researchers in this area are suddenly
displaced by such a trivially easy algorithm?

The people who will not tell you answers because they are doing
research that is simply removed as relevant by a solution are the
kinds of people I fight because they are fighting for their jobs at
the expense of the world.

For them, it is about a paycheck.


James Harris

 

[Joshua Cranmer]

One of the reasons I bothered to create the open source project Class
Viewer for Java was that I'd had years of arguing with math people on
newsgroups which kind of happened by accident, as kind of as a lark I
thought I'd ponder some math problems and talked about it. Yuck, what
a mistake.

Math people ripped on me endlessly and told me to shut-up.

FWIW, given my reading of the newsposts, most of the initial anger was
derived from perceived inadequacies in responding to perceived flaws or
inadequate specification in the algorithm--much like the questions
Patricia and I posed to you recently. Subsequent anger originated from a
positive-feedback cycle wherein you became more detached from your
detractors, inducing them to be even angrier (which is actually probably
not the right word here), which made you more detached, etc.

I got angry and refused and found I LIKED pondering math problems they
had claimed as their exclusive property and screw them. Over the
years I learned many of them are idiots and they lie a LOT. It is
scary how much they lie about, and there's nothing you can do about it
and most people will not believe it's true because they think these
math people are geniuses.

.... and I would consider this a gross mischaracterization of the
situation. I don't believe anyone claimed FLT or factoring as "exclusive
property." Certainly, however, I don't think a cabal arose creating
great myths, but conspiracy theories do seem to be the rage these days.
To each his own.

FWIW, as well, your postings here are not helping your case.

Math people lie all the time.

My interpretation of this is best characterized as an attempt to
rationalize criticisms that many would consider to be valid, or, in
other words, to blame others for one's foibles.

Hmm, I should really start venting outside of writing responses, as I
seem to be coming across as rather pompous for my tastes.

 

[Patricia Shanahan]

How can it be a solution if there are instances of the TSP which it
cannot solve? At best you have a partial solution.

"If it is correct ..." Do not get ahead of yourself James. First you
need to have a correct solution. Start by amending your initial
attempt so it can deal with Patricia's example that your current
algorithm cannot solve.

I get the impression that his algorithm is not intended to handle that
case. If so, it is not a solution to the problem researchers have been
working on under the name "Traveling Salesman". It may be a solution to
some other problem, possibly one of the restricted forms of TSP.

The first step is to precisely define the problem it is designed to
solve. Only JSH can do that.

Until that is done it is impossible to know, for example, whether or not
he is solving a problem whose decision form is NP-complete. It is also
impossible to evaluate correctness without knowing what problem the
algorithm is intended to solve.

Patricia

 

[JSH]

How can it be a solution if there are instances of the TSP which it
cannot solve?  At best you have a partial solution.

You can always get distances between every node to the other by just
putting the nodes on a two-dimensional plane and saying one of the
weights is a distance measure.

So there are no instances for which my algorithm will not give an
answer.

"If it is correct ..."  Do not get ahead of yourself James.  First you
need to have a correct solution.  Start by amending your initial
attempt so it can deal with Patricia's example that your current
algorithm cannot solve.

rossum

She added in additional weights which she did not give values for,
though in her case those "weights" had to do with smuggling and gangs.

A weight is ANYTHING that impacts the decision problem of whether or
not a particular path should be taken.


James Harris

 

[JSH]

I get the impression that his algorithm is not intended to handle that
case. If so, it is not a solution to the problem researchers have been
working on under the name "Traveling Salesman". It may be a solution to
some other problem, possibly one of the restricted forms of TSP.

The first step is to precisely define the problem it is designed to
solve. Only JSH can do that.

I went the extra mile of working an example with 4 nodes which was the
simplest I could think of, where you could have alternate paths.

My algorithm did in fact pick the proper path, given an answer with
paths only, as the distance information dropped away.

My algorithm can be used against any TSP type problem, even if only a
single weight is given and no distance information between nodes is
given, by simply assuming that the weight is a distance between nodes
and graphing the nodes on a two-dimensional plane.

Until that is done it is impossible to know, for example, whether or not
he is solving a problem whose decision form is NP-complete. It is also
impossible to evaluate correctness without knowing what problem the
algorithm is intended to solve.

Patricia

I worked an example so that people can see how the idea works.

There isn't anything more I can do besides the general explanation,
with the idea of a backwards traveler going back in time for people
who like the wordy explanation, a more formalized explanation with
symbols and variables AND a worked example showing the simplest case
possible where the algorithm is stepped through to give a solution.

There is nothing more that can be done when people obstinately refuse
to be reasonable.

I've done my best, as I've often done before, which is why I rely on
objective measures people can't take away from me, like my Class
Viewer program.

I live in a world that doesn't like answers if I'm the person who
gives them.

That is my weight to bear. A weight often born by people like me,
often hated in our own times.


James Harris

 

[Owen Jacobson]

My algorithm can be used against any TSP type problem, even if only a
single weight is given and no distance information between nodes is
given, by simply assuming that the weight is a distance between nodes
and graphing the nodes on a two-dimensional plane.

If that is so, then your algorithm should be able to provide a minimum-
cost Hamiltonion circuit for the following complete graph:

The graph contains five nodes (A, B, C, D, and E). The weights of the
edges between nodes are as follows:

A->B: 1
A->C: 1000
A->D: 1
A->E: 1

B->A: 1
B->C: 1000
B->D: 1
B->E: 1

C->A: 1000
C->B: 1000
C->D: 2000
C->E: 2000

D->A: 1
D->B: 1
D->C: 2000
D->E: 1

E->A: 1
E->B: 1
E->C: 2000
E->D: 1

You are free to treat these weights as distances, costs, combined
distances and costs, number of donuts required, or any other "real
world" quantity you like. The resulting path may begin at any node,
must pass through each node other than the origin node exactly once,
and must end at the origin node. For example, [E, C, D, A, B, E] is a
valid circuit (but not a valid solution, as it is not minimum-cost),
while [A, B, D, E, A] is not a valid circuit as a node is omitted.

-o

 

[Patricia Shanahan]

....
From his insistence on "distance" rather than "weight" I would suspect
that he is trying to solve either the Euclidian TSP or the Metric TSP.

My first guess would be 2-Dimensional Euclidean TSP. However, JSH does
not seem to attach much significance to conventional definitions, so
even if he agreed to that characterization I would not be sure that what
he meant by it was the same as the definition in some reference book.

Patricia

 

[JSH]

Not so.  If the nodes can be plotted on a 2D plane then you are
solving the Euclidian TSP.  Not all instances of the general TSP are
Euclidian TSP.  For example distances on a sphere may not be plottable
on a 2D plane.  The instance may not even be metric.  For example, the

My algorithm calls for straight line distance between nodes.

Even on a sphere, there is a straight line distance even if it goes
through the sphere as the algorithm doesn't care. It just wants the
straight line distance between the nodes without regard to the surface
or whether you can actually go that path. If the straight line
distance goes through the middle of the earth, that's what the
algorithm wants.

There are details about the algorithm which are there for a reason.

Deliberately ignoring things like a line between two points is just a
waste of time.

TSP with weights:

 |A B C
---------
A|- 1 100
B|  - 5
C|    -

is not metric as it does not obey the triangle equality and hence
cannot be plotted on a 2D plane.  In this case there is a toll bridge
between A and C which means that you cannot use simple distance as an
analogue for weight.

A toll is a weight.

Simplest thing is to just use the amount of the toll itself, though
you may shift the weight depending on its impact--as people do in the
real world.

Issue here is that the academically stated problem throws away
distance information, which, well, is stupid.

People taught one way have an investment in that teaching: years of
effort, sense of prestige with their school and their accomplishment,
and social status to the academic world and its pronouncements.

But they did the Traveling Salesman Problem wrong.

Denial does not change the reality that distance information is key
info that should not just be thrown away--even if a professor you
admire greatly or a book you admire greatly, or some other person or
persons you just trust taught you wrong.

Being told that something valued is not worth as much as previously
thought is a huge weight creating a giant cost for a particular path.

By the TSP people will tend to go a different way.

Your life is governed by the proper definition of the problem.

Your life has always been governed by the proper definition of the
problem, as you cannot escape it.

The straight line distance from acceptance of the failure of what you
were taught to the correct answer requiring distance information can
be abstracted out in a space where the length of the path along
acceptance for your case is, unfortunately, probably infinite as you
are someone I do not expect to be capable of accepting reason over
your emotional investment in the wrong knowledge.


James Harris

 

[Joshua Cranmer]

Even on a sphere, there is a straight line distance even if it goes
through the sphere as the algorithm doesn't care. It just wants the
straight line distance between the nodes without regard to the surface
or whether you can actually go that path. If the straight line
distance goes through the middle of the earth, that's what the
algorithm wants.

/me is forcibly reminded of the Mars travel thread on sci.math and does
not want to repeat that.

There are details about the algorithm which are there for a reason.

You are confusing me here. You seem to be simultaneously stating that
distance is important and that it is not important at the same time (by
virtue of your moon example, the point of which still eludes me). So,
which is it?

Issue here is that the academically stated problem throws away
distance information, which, well, is stupid.

You seem to be (re?)discovering some sort of analogue of bidirectional
A* for TSP. If you recall the details of A*, you will note that it is
correct as long as the heuristic only underestimates the distance. There
are many cases--some which you yourself have given--where a blind
distance metric does not guarantee an underestimation, thereby rendering
such a heuristic invalid.

But they did the Traveling Salesman Problem wrong.

No, TSP is essentially an esoteric question. In its most notable role,
an NP-complete problem, distance becomes a redundant metric, since you
define it then as the weights themselves. Cases where distance becomes
involved in the TSP are special cases, labelled Euclidean-TSP, I believe
(WP is down for me ATM).

By the TSP people will tend to go a different way.

SENTENCE PARSE ERROR.

Your life has always been governed by the proper definition of the
problem, as you cannot escape it.

As has been pointed out in sci.math (which is not so abhorrent a forum,
you know), you can't simply take something (like pi) and redefine it as
something else. You have to show that the two definitions are
equivalent, at which point they are interchangeable.

For example, I can't just blithely say that it's easier to solve 3-SAT
than SAT and solve 3-SAT as a general solution. I have to show (which is
actually quite easy) that all SAT problems are actually 3-SAT problems.

Similarly, you can't use an annotated version of TSP to solve all TSP
problems, merely because annotation is easier, you have to show that
that the two are the same.

The straight line distance from acceptance of the failure of what you
were taught to the correct answer requiring distance information can
be abstracted out in a space where the length of the path along
acceptance for your case is, unfortunately, probably infinite as you
are someone I do not expect to be capable of accepting reason over
your emotional investment in the wrong knowledge.

You know what, I would say more than 50%, probably in the range of
80-90%, of those who read your posts would claim the same foible in you.
I've had a prolonged argument (to say debate would make me feel better
but is probably less accurate) with a troll before and I'm sure no one
here wishes the same thing to repeat again.

Anyone else sensing a repeat of "Java and software piracy" or "Great SWT
program"?

 

[JSH]

FWIW, given my reading of the newsposts, most of the initial anger was
derived from perceived inadequacies in responding to perceived flaws or
inadequate specification in the algorithm--much like the questions
Patricia and I posed to you recently. Subsequent anger originated from a
positive-feedback cycle wherein you became more detached from your
detractors, inducing them to be even angrier (which is actually probably
not the right word here), which made you more detached, etc.

Irrelevant to the crucial problem: proof didn't matter.

... and I would consider this a gross mischaracterization of the
situation. I don't believe anyone claimed FLT or factoring as "exclusive
property." Certainly, however, I don't think a cabal arose creating
great myths, but conspiracy theories do seem to be the rage these days.
To each his own.

Do a search on "SWJPAM".

I DID get published in a peer reviewed mathematical journal.

The sci.math newsgroup mounted an email assault against my paper. No
conspiracy theory there. It happened.

The editors yanked my paper AFTER publication. No conspiracy theory
there.

A few months later the mathematical journal folded. No conspiracy
theory there. It happened.

The university which had hosted it, Cameron University, part of the
Oklahoma state university system, removed all mention of the journal
from its webpages.

No conspiracy theory there.

Want a link? Go to:

http://www.emis.de/journals/SWJPAM/

The published editions of the journal were saved from loss by a
European agency.

No conspiracy theory there.

FWIW, as well, your postings here are not helping your case.

There is nothing I can do to help my case!!!

Do you not understand?

These people have locked everything down.

There is nothing that I can do.

The truth does not matter.

My interpretation of this is best characterized as an attempt to
rationalize criticisms that many would consider to be valid, or, in
other words, to blame others for one's foibles.

Hmm, I should really start venting outside of writing responses, as I
seem to be coming across as rather pompous for my tastes.

You have your head in the sand, and why not?

I'm sure you're comfortable in your own way.

It'd take pain and loss and desperation for you to care.

That's the sad thing: no matter what people say, actually caring is
usually about fearing loss.

Comfortable people do not stop uncomfortable wars.


James Harris

 

[JSH]

My first guess would be 2-Dimensional Euclidean TSP. However, JSH does
not seem to attach much significance to conventional definitions, so
even if he agreed to that characterization I would not be sure that what
he meant by it was the same as the definition in some reference book.

Patricia

I don't like when people say something is right because of a
definition, when it's obviously wrong.

That strategy is to deny the truth using social constructs.

Contradictions can be introduced with any real world implementation of
a TSP algorithm that completely ignores distance information showing a
flawed problem formulation.

The cheat that people do, of course, is that they put the information
back in when doing real world problems!

But why take it out in the first place?

Because some academics made a definition?

Sorry, but that is just willful stupidity which would not occur if you
had to do it the right way or fail. The reason you can argue this
point is that your life doesn't depend on the right answer, and
nothing important enough to you depends on the right answer, so you
have the luxury of stupidity in this regard.

Stupid in the real world is often about the luxury to be willfully
wrong.

Distance information is part of the TSP whether you acknowledge it or
not.


James Harris

 

[Patricia Shanahan]

....
Distance information is part of the TSP whether you acknowledge it or
not.

....

No, in my unfortunate ignorance I don't know in exactly what way
distance information is part of the TSP. It certainly is not part of the
version of TSP in the reference books I do know about.

However, I am always willing to learn. Why not just state what you
consider to be the correct definition of TSP, the one you are using in
your algorithm? That way, we would *know* what you meant by TSP, rather
than having to guess.

Patricia

 

[John W Kennedy]

Contradictions can be introduced with any real world implementation of
a TSP algorithm that completely ignores distance information showing a
flawed problem formulation.

Do you /still/ not understand? It's not a question of "ignoring" the
distance. In the real world, it's a question of evaluating /everything/.
Distance, is a factor, but it's not the only factor, and it's not a
direct factor at all, only indirect. Distance affects the time (but not
necessarily one-for-one). It affects fuel costs (but not necessarily
one-for-one). But there are other considerations unrelated to pure
distance. What about tolls? What about bottlenecks, especially bridges
and tunnels near big cities? What about the fact that roads don't go in
straight lines, and also have uphill and downhill sections (and, no, in
practical calculations, those don't cancel out)? What about wear and
tear and depreciation? What about air flights and trains being available
between some cities and not others? What about waiting time in airports
and train stations? What about hotel rates? And, because some of these
things are measured in hours, and some are measured in dollars, you have
to decide how much the traveler is worth in dollars per hour, so that it
all reduces to one number (either dollars or hours will do for the final
result).

In your nothing-but-distance version of the problem, all the values work
out in neat numbers where all the diagonals follow the Pythagorean
theorem. But in the real-world situation, that isn't true. The shortest
distance is not normally the fastest, and the fastest is not normally
the cheapest, and the cheapest is not normally the shortest. If you want
an example, just get any kind of GPS or other route-planning software
that has a fastest/shortest option and compare the results on any
non-trivial journey.

The TSP problem, in general, has to work where the numbers are of these
messy kinds. As Patricia says, even if you /do/ have an algorithm, it
doesn't solve the standard TSP, because it only solves the 2-D Euclidean
simplification, where it is safe to assume that ABC >= AC.

 

[Joshua Cranmer]

That strategy is to deny the truth using social constructs.

Contradictions can be introduced with any real world implementation of
a TSP algorithm that completely ignores distance information showing a
flawed problem formulation.
I don't like when people say something is right because of a
definition, when it's obviously wrong.

Having an irrational and transcendental fundamental constant is messy,
so let's just redefine pi to be equal to 3 (or 22/7), since most people
use that estimate in real life anyways. That's about the gist of your
message, as far as I can tell.

The cheat that people do, of course, is that they put the information
back in when doing real world problems!

When I do anything like a TSP (I'm driving to multiple destinations and
need to decide in which order to get to them), I merely think, "Which
one should I go to next?" based on perceived driving times, the analogue
of an edge weight. Is this based on distance? Only insofar as time is
dependent on distance. Living in the traffic-clogged suburbia means that
distance is not all it's cracked up to be in terms of measuring time
accurately.

Sorry, but that is just willful stupidity which would not occur if you
had to do it the right way or fail. The reason you can argue this
point is that your life doesn't depend on the right answer, and
nothing important enough to you depends on the right answer, so you
have the luxury of stupidity in this regard.

And your life depends on the right answer? Indeed, you've lost sight not
only of the forest, but the whole bloody universe for the sake of
something not even as wholesome as a tree--a leaf, for example. Graphs
do not need to represent physical locations, an error you are willfully
making over and over again.

Graphs could represent everything from bits to be transmitted over a
wire to the mind-boggling positions of a Go board. Distance as a factor
in weight has no comparable analogues in these graphs; in many of these
cases, weights are unitary and heuristics must use theoretical notions
of the "goodness" of a state in their evaluations.

Once you realize that TSP is not merely about finding the shortest paths
between cities/points of interest but about minimizing overall cost in
an arbitrary network, you should understand where the half-dozen of us
actually responding to you are coming from.

 

[Joshua Cranmer]

There is nothing I can do to help my case!!!

And you've ignored the one saving grace that will make people actually
listen to you: /respond/ to criticism. Merely sitting on a pedestal and
shrilly shouting "YOU'RE ALL WRONG! YOU'RE ALL STUPID IDIOTS DWELLING IN
YOUR OWN QUAGMIRE OF EXCREMENT INCAPABLE OF SEEING THE TRUTH! I'M THE
ONLY SANE PERSON HERE!" is not going to win you any sympathy or friends.

If you go back over your first thread about TSP again and read
carefully, you'll notice that people didn't mind your algorithm until
you started screaming in objection to Patricia's classification of your
algorithm as not solving the TSP.

One thing to keep in mind is that Patricia and Lew (among many others in
this newsgroup, among whom I would not count myself) have established
themselves as experts in this newsgroup, so their criticism is not the
idle thoughts of a neophyte, but it is instead the result of expertise.
This expertise has not been established by yourself, so deferring to
masters in a field is a wise recommendation.

In short, if you want to redeem yourself, all you have to do is the
following:
1. Stop screaming and complaining that the world is against you.
2. Show a step-by-step example of how the algorithm works for a 5- or 6-
node problem (at least) in a clear manner, referring to diagrams for
extra clarity. Use only the information provided in the standard
NP-complete (or NP-hard, if you choose) version of the problem.
3. Explain in a detailed manner why you believe the algorithm works for
all cases.
4. Evaluate your algorithm to determine which cases would most likely
break the algorithm. If you complete steps 1-3, you'll probably find
willing volunteers to help with this step.
5. Be prepared to assuage our doubts about your algorithm. Most notably,
if we believe there is a breaking step, be ready to defend why the step
does not break. If we provide an example that breaks your algorithm,
evaluate why your algorithm fails and revise it with that information in
mind.

The most important step here is number 5. Trust me, being polite in
feedback and in responses to feedback opens a lot of otherwise closed doors.

You have your head in the sand, and why not?

You obviously know little about me. I read two daily newspapers--The
Washington Post and The Christian Science Monitor--as well as the weekly
Economist. I keep up very well on current affairs, and am generally
observant in my surroundings. But I'll forgive you for not knowing the
depth to which I look outside the shell of the area in which I work and
live.

It'd take pain and loss and desperation for you to care.

And here I do not forgive you for not knowing my qualities (well, I do,
but that's another story). If you look through my record of postings in
sci.math and c.l.j.p, you'll find that I have far from tried to demonize
you but instead tried to help you along. And outside of the record of
newsgroups, you'll find that it is in my nature to always give someone
the benefit of the doubt and try to work along to a solution to a degree
beyond which many have given up. It is my nature to always care.

I think you'll find that assuming the worst in a person tends to bring
out the worst, but assuming the best tends to bring out the best. If I
really didn't care, after all, I wouldn't be posting, now would I?

Comfortable people do not stop uncomfortable wars.

You're in the wrong newsgroup. Look over in talk.politics, my friend.

 

[Daniele Futtorovic]

...

Anyone else sensing a repeat of "Java and software piracy" or "Great SWT
program"?

Here!

 

[Andrew Thompson]

Here!

Whoa up! It's early stages yet.

"Great SWT program"

The 'ever inaccurate' GG is showing 5277 posts on that
thread. Impressive, though I find that figure hard to
believe.

"Java and software piracy" got a 'mere' 281 posts,
according to GG.

This thread (23 posts) has a long way to go before it
reaches those epic proportions, but I suspect the OP
has it in him (based on the first post, but especially
from links mentioned by others).

..Good luck, everyone!

For those who would prefer to shut down this thread,
I suggest you state that the OP is entirely correct,
everybody else is wrong and being nasty to the OP,
and the OP deserves a ..Nobel prize, or a prize in
Mathematics, or a pony or something for all his
trolling (..errr wait) *efforts.*

 

[Mike Schilling]

"Great SWT program"

The 'ever inaccurate' GG is showing 5277 posts on that
thread. Impressive, though I find that figure hard to
believe.

If anything, that's an underestimate.