Talk:Count Zero

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Novels: Sci-fi Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Science fiction task force.

This page is linking to a full copy of the book, copy wish i think is ilegal to distribute in most countries, what's wikipedia's policy about this ?

I guess this is technically legal, but probably not what Wikipedia should be encouraging. DJ Clayworth 17:27, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Are you talking about the link to the sample chapter at Gibson's own website? If he wants to give away a bite of the book as a loss-leader, that's his privilege. It's certainly not a copyright infringement. --Michael K. Smith 04:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A frontleaf of the book states that it comes from "count zero interrupt", an interrupt that triggers the decrementing of the counter to zero. Whoever wrote here that the counter reaches zero thus exiting the loop must not have read that. The text of this article should be changed OR deleted, because what's written is backward: Instead of a zero count terminating a loop, a loop termination that sets the count to zero is what's intended by the novel's author. 198.49.180.40 00:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone actually point to a use of the term "count zero interrupt" in computer architecture, or did Gibson make up the term himself? If he made it up, then not only is there no point in arguing over the details, but we should mention in the article that it's not a real term. Alternatively, "count zero" could refer to a real concept in computer architecture, but Gibson could have misinterpreted it when he wrote his book. (Similar case: Neal Stephenson's referring in Snow Crash to "a bios, a Built-In Operating System" — when that's not what BIOS stands for.)

So, can anyone find an attestation for "count zero interrupt" that predates Gibson's book? --Quuxplusone (talk) 05:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gibson just picks these terms up and uses them for his own pseudoscientific devices. He has stated as such in countless interviews. I wouldn't get too worked up about it. Skomorokh ^incite 17:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I'm not "worked up" about it. You're pouring oil on waters that aren't terribly troubled to begin with. ;)   Can you find a link to one of those interviews? (I tried, but it's hard to Google for.) See, if the "count zero interrupt" is a legend made up by Gibson, then we shouldn't be reporting it as if it were fact. And no matter whether it turns out to be factual or fictitious, it would be nice for Wikipedia to have that information, instead of just limply reporting that Gibson is claimed to have said such-and-such with a perpetual {{fact}} tag. --Quuxplusone (talk) 03:32, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you check the last few paragraphs of the William Gibson article there's a well-sourced discussion about his relationship to technology. Here's a particularly pertinent interview:

VIII. THE TOM CLANCY OF CYBERSPACE -- NOT

Q. I thought your nanotechnology stuff in "All Tomorrow's Parties" was really interesting -- the idea of an old watch descending into a bed of nanobots and emerging brand-new. I was wondering: Are there "Neuromancer" fans who are working on nanotechnology and call you and say, "Check out what we're working on"? Do you get any "inside information"?

A. [laughs] In a way, I'd like to pretend I'm sort of like the Tom Clancy of cyberspace, and I hang out with these guys. And sometimes I DO hang out with them, but I'm more inclined to take note of what they're wearing.

Q. [laughs]

A. You know, I listen to them talk about their dating problems more closely that I listen to them talk about what they're actually doing. For me, I'm pretty sure the way I use nanotechnology in these novels actually BUGS the real nanotechnologist to no end. They'd probably be inclined to dismiss me as sort of willfully lightweight about the whole thing. But when you've got somebody promising you a technology that will make everyone immortal and abolish the very concept of wealth, I just kind of throw up my hands and say, "You win -- I can't imagine that." You know -- "There's no work for me here."

Not that it's much use as a source for the count zero conundrum, but just putting it in context. Skomorokh ^incite 13:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated that section of the article to say that Gibson apparently invented the term. --Quuxplusone (talk) 08:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion explained a lot to me. I'm a programmer from way back, and have worked on real time systems at the processor instruction and interrupt level. Gibson's explanation doesn't make much sense. I suspect that Gibson's explanation has a sub-text of "hey guys, this is fiction -- enjoy the ride." A more reasonable real world explanation would have been an interrupt triggered when a counter decrements to zero. These are actually quite common. Ferritecore (talk) 15:47, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am the original source of the definition, and I was simply wrong. Bill had seen the phrase "count zero interrupt" somewhere (he didn't make it up), and asked me what it meant. I was building modular analog synthesizers, so he thought that I might know. It sounded like what happens when a sequencer receives a pulse on its reset input, so that's what I told him. The above definition by Ferritecore is correct. Sorry about all the trouble. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Okvern (talk • contribs) 03:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Countzerobook.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can some enterprising editor provide links to mainstream reviews of this novel? Barton Foley (talk) 18:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have got to be kidding. This got nomintted for the fucking Nebula and Hugo awards. The author is William Gibson, one of the most famous SF writers of the centurty. I suggest you read WP:NB and get a clue —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.86.172.139 (talk • contribs) 12:50, August 29, 2008

Then provide references - that's all that's being asked by the tag. If you read WP:NB, to which you yourself linked, you'll see that it states "Claims of notability must adhere to Wikipedia's policy on verifiability; it is not enough to simply assert that a book meets a criterion without substantiating that claim with reliable sources."

Provide the references within the article, and that resolves the issue so that the tag can be removed at that point. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing: the 1987 Nebulas are for books from 1986. Now go read the sentence in the intro. Does it use the right wording? Maury (talk) 20:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm about to delete some material at the end of the Bobby Newmark section because it relates not to Count Zero but to Mona Lisa Overdrive. I understand that "spoilers" are inevitable in encyclopediac content, but that applies to spoilers about the work being discussed -- I think it's unnecessary (and a little thoughtless) to include spoilers about other works as well. It's certainly appropriate to mention that Bobby appears in Overdrive, but I think that fact was accompanied by way too much detail. HMishkoff (talk) 03:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Count Zero. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110605230752/http://www.locusmag.com/SFAwards/Db/Nebula1987.html to http://www.locusmag.com/SFAwards/Db/Nebula1987.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:53, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]