4 ms·

So what is your timeless solution?

by makmanalp 15y ago

wtvanhest 15y ago
The court figured that out. $32,500.
- bricestacey 15y ago
  Not really. Settlements aren't really decisions of the court.
  - wtvanhest 15y ago
    Settlements may not technically be in court, but they are the result of the court existing. (my comment about the $32,500 should have been attached to the comment above) Not sure how I clicked the wrong link.
    - masterzora 15y ago
      > Settlements may not technically be in court, but they are the result of the court existing. I want to begin by explicitly letting you know that this is not an attack on you, but rather a suggestion that is applicable to many, many HN members. Being wrong is not a crime. If you happen to be wrong some time, it is better to admit your mistake than to try to twist your original words to be right from a certain point of view. The need to always be right, to argue until some point of view can be reached where you are established as right, is just ridiculous and unbecoming. I struggle with this, too, because I'm far from perfect, but letting go of that "need" is a big step toward more productive conversation. In this case, the settlement may be the result of the court existing, but that does not, in any way, mean that the court figured it out.
bhousel 15y ago
Agh, this is something I absolutely hate about Hacker News. mortenjorck made an incredibly insightful comment.. Why do you feel the need to pull him into a debate that has no possibility of ever coming to any kind of resolution. Not every comment needs a fucking counterpoint or a "citation needed" or a "can you give me an example?" or a "how would you solve the problem?"
- jokermatt999 15y ago
  mortenjorck made a good point, but I think makmanalp asked a perfectly valid and pertinent question. Realizing that both the old and the new way are imperfect is just the first step in the process. Discussing and deciding on what would be a better way is the meat of the discussion, and what I come to Hacker News to read. Anyone can make an observation that things are broken (though perhaps not state it as succinctly), but coming up with a solution is both more interesting and challenging. If HN never moved into that stage, every story could be summed up in one or two comments, and it would basically just be a link aggregater.
  - mortenjorck 15y ago
    I agree. I think makmanalp's comment comes off as somewhat brusque, but it's a perfectly valid topic for debate. I don't have a solution, by the way.
  - earbitscom 15y ago
    I don't think you should have to have a solution just to make an observation. Further, no solution on this topic is going to be timeless, so in fact the question was rather pointless.
    - jokermatt999 15y ago
      I agree that you shouldn't have to have a solution to make an observation. I didn't mean to denigrate his comment, although it does sound like it on rereading. A good succinct summation of the problem does wonders to steer the conversation in the right way. I disagree that the question (and thus, the discussion) are pointless though. I find both participating in and reading through these discussions valuable, as they make me analyze my viewpoints, as well as introducing me to opposing viewpoints I hadn't necessarily considered. For example, the poster who felt "an artist has the right to choose how their work is used" in this thread made me consider how I felt about that. I don't think I'd like my work to be turned into something I hate, but I'm not sure if that means I have a moral right to stop it. Obviously, this discussion comes down to personal opinion on an artist's rights, but I can't say I've really closely examined what I think. We may not all agree, but some of us can come to a better understanding.
iqster 15y ago
1) Proper citation: the person who creates a derivative work cites the source properly. 2) Free as in beer 3) A social structure where it is about ego/glory rather than money Btw ... this is loosely how academia works. Most scientists are in it for the thrill of discovery and glory (we know we can get paid better elsewhere). We kill ourselves trying to get papers at the top conferences - because that gives us and our work the highest visibility. We mostly give away our knowledge for free (this is contentious because of high undergrad tuition and patent happy universities - that said, this doesn't directly go into the scientists pockets). An excellent related quote (I think from Liar's Poker): Money doesn't matter. That's just how we keep score. Academia is essentially the same. Replace money with # of citations, journal prestige, h-index, etc.
- vacri 15y ago
  It'd be funny if science worked the way Maisel does. "What? You repeated my groundbreaking study!? I'll sue for crushing damages! Clearly you've damaged my reputation!" ------ heh: Plaintiff Lawyers: "Right, we're suing you for personal damages of $150,000 per article printed!" Defence Lawyers: "May I remind you that our client is a scientist?" Plaintiff Lawyers: "Right, we're suing you for personal damages of $150 total and perhaps some cheap coffee"

So what is your timeless solution?

wtvanhest 15y ago

The court figured that out. $32,500.

bricestacey 15y ago
Not really. Settlements aren't really decisions of the court.
- wtvanhest 15y ago
  Settlements may not technically be in court, but they are the result of the court existing. (my comment about the $32,500 should have been attached to the comment above) Not sure how I clicked the wrong link.
  - masterzora 15y ago
    > Settlements may not technically be in court, but they are the result of the court existing. I want to begin by explicitly letting you know that this is not an attack on you, but rather a suggestion that is applicable to many, many HN members. Being wrong is not a crime. If you happen to be wrong some time, it is better to admit your mistake than to try to twist your original words to be right from a certain point of view. The need to always be right, to argue until some point of view can be reached where you are established as right, is just ridiculous and unbecoming. I struggle with this, too, because I'm far from perfect, but letting go of that "need" is a big step toward more productive conversation. In this case, the settlement may be the result of the court existing, but that does not, in any way, mean that the court figured it out.

bhousel 15y ago

Agh, this is something I absolutely hate about Hacker News. mortenjorck made an incredibly insightful comment.. Why do you feel the need to pull him into a debate that has no possibility of ever coming to any kind of resolution. Not every comment needs a fucking counterpoint or a "citation needed" or a "can you give me an example?" or a "how would you solve the problem?"

jokermatt999 15y ago
mortenjorck made a good point, but I think makmanalp asked a perfectly valid and pertinent question. Realizing that both the old and the new way are imperfect is just the first step in the process. Discussing and deciding on what would be a better way is the meat of the discussion, and what I come to Hacker News to read. Anyone can make an observation that things are broken (though perhaps not state it as succinctly), but coming up with a solution is both more interesting and challenging. If HN never moved into that stage, every story could be summed up in one or two comments, and it would basically just be a link aggregater.
- mortenjorck 15y ago
  I agree. I think makmanalp's comment comes off as somewhat brusque, but it's a perfectly valid topic for debate. I don't have a solution, by the way.
- earbitscom 15y ago
  I don't think you should have to have a solution just to make an observation. Further, no solution on this topic is going to be timeless, so in fact the question was rather pointless.
  - jokermatt999 15y ago
    I agree that you shouldn't have to have a solution to make an observation. I didn't mean to denigrate his comment, although it does sound like it on rereading. A good succinct summation of the problem does wonders to steer the conversation in the right way. I disagree that the question (and thus, the discussion) are pointless though. I find both participating in and reading through these discussions valuable, as they make me analyze my viewpoints, as well as introducing me to opposing viewpoints I hadn't necessarily considered. For example, the poster who felt "an artist has the right to choose how their work is used" in this thread made me consider how I felt about that. I don't think I'd like my work to be turned into something I hate, but I'm not sure if that means I have a moral right to stop it. Obviously, this discussion comes down to personal opinion on an artist's rights, but I can't say I've really closely examined what I think. We may not all agree, but some of us can come to a better understanding.

iqster 15y ago

1) Proper citation: the person who creates a derivative work cites the source properly. 2) Free as in beer 3) A social structure where it is about ego/glory rather than money Btw ... this is loosely how academia works. Most scientists are in it for the thrill of discovery and glory (we know we can get paid better elsewhere). We kill ourselves trying to get papers at the top conferences - because that gives us and our work the highest visibility. We mostly give away our knowledge for free (this is contentious because of high undergrad tuition and patent happy universities - that said, this doesn't directly go into the scientists pockets). An excellent related quote (I think from Liar's Poker): Money doesn't matter. That's just how we keep score. Academia is essentially the same. Replace money with # of citations, journal prestige, h-index, etc.

vacri 15y ago
It'd be funny if science worked the way Maisel does. "What? You repeated my groundbreaking study!? I'll sue for crushing damages! Clearly you've damaged my reputation!" ------ heh: Plaintiff Lawyers: "Right, we're suing you for personal damages of $150,000 per article printed!" Defence Lawyers: "May I remind you that our client is a scientist?" Plaintiff Lawyers: "Right, we're suing you for personal damages of $150 total and perhaps some cheap coffee"