hxa7241

34 ms·

241.
by hxa7241 16y ago
Yes, it is good to point out insensitive/mistaken/hypocritical companies. But there is something that can get lost in these cases. Everyone is provoked to a belligerent counter-attack: demand restitution! lawyer-up! sue! But this only conso
242.
by hxa7241 16y ago
I got the impression that something was going to be proposed, but it seemed vague . . . is there something being proposed? On the 303 stuff: I don't understand the problem. RDF can talk about various things, not just web pages: RDF uses gen
243.
by hxa7241 16y ago
> That doesn't mean that what they're saying isn't correct. But it can mean they are only seeing one small area of what is possibly correct. There could be many other correct things out there, that might be even better, but their view i
244.
by hxa7241 16y ago
I suppose it depends how exact you are in defining 'same calculation' -- two possible causes of inconsistency are: * FP means the rules of algebra do not hold, so if the calculation is done in a different equivalent form, you can get a diff
245.
by hxa7241 16y ago
. . . relatedly, from Jim Blinn, from Marvin Minsky -- drawing a circle (near enough), or doing incremental rotation, using just integer add, sub, and two shifts: N = 128 * 3.14159 X = 1000 Y = 0 MOVE(X,Y) FOR I = 1 TO N
246.
by hxa7241 16y ago
> The fact that innovation has marched on and that small-time inventors have invented new and relevant products is evidence for my claim. The logic of that is not right. The presence of both patents and innovations does not prove that i
247.
by hxa7241 16y ago
Perhaps the most interesting or important is: all of heraldry. One might initially think that is rather remote from logos, but it is really a principal root of them. Heraldic devices -- 'armorial bearings' (particularly) -- are defined abst
248.
by hxa7241 16y ago
I feel uneasy about the sense that the music industries appear on the side of right here. And this is a situation where we should hesitate to call things wrong simply because they are illegal. We must remember that copyright is only justifi
249.
by hxa7241 16y ago
Oh, well, you must post that next week then! (From which we may perhaps draw another guide: focus on one topic, and break substantially separate items into separate posts -- where they can be properly addressed . . .)
250.
by hxa7241 16y ago
This might make a good or well-written post, but for successful -- defined as he says by page-views -- he is leaving out half of the story. Popularity is largely dependent on promotion or communication of some form. You have to tell people
251.
by hxa7241 16y ago
Hold on, that begs the question -- how do we know who deserves? that is the problem. The whole thing has a circular dependency: if ranking acts as a filter, then higher rank means more readers, and that in turn means more upvotes and so a h
252.
by hxa7241 16y ago
You sound like a corporate astro-turfer: you don't appear to have understood anything I have said, and counter with non-arguments such as "is really immature" and "everyone knows it is wrong. It is wrong". Neither what I have said, nor the
253.
by hxa7241 16y ago
He seems to be mixing-up value and price, or something like those. Is it bad to have more good stuff -- the choice to have good stuff? That seems wrong. What is going to zero is limits on distribution. Banging on with words like 'illegal'
254.
by hxa7241 16y ago
> wrestling with problems and the straining toward creative insight That sounds like engineering to me -- when it is based on some determinate material with at least a few known logical principles -- which software is.
255.
by hxa7241 16y ago
Let us not over-generalise when it is not needed. Italics and bold are established typographic forms, and if they are what I want let me say so exactly.
256.
by hxa7241 16y ago
> What exactly is so wrong about profiting off intellectual property? Software, music, movies? Because the current system works by an artificial monopoly. Monopolies harm the public. The compensation that copyright is supposed to provid
257.
by hxa7241 16y ago
It is not so much OO that is receding as inheritance . Although that is not recent -- it must have been around 1995-2000 that doubts were becoming popularly known. Inheritance is somewhat interesting though: it is a formalised mechanism or
258.
by hxa7241 16y ago
> How is a producer of that content to get a return on that investment if people don't pay for the product after it is produced? That is the question! Now copyright is looking very inappropriate we need some good answers. I expect it is
259.
by hxa7241 16y ago
> There is still a huge benefit to the internet. ... Well, OK, those are the parts that copyright doesn't interfere with. > Available on the internet, doesn't mean it should be available for free. There are still costs for ... Yes,
260.
by hxa7241 16y ago
> it's more philosophical ... We are consuming everything without conscience The crucial difference is that, unlike most physical things, informational copies are an infinite resource. The only essential moral action is to share them fr
261.
by hxa7241 16y ago
> Anything less would violate the golden rule. But that doesn't address whether we would all benefit from changing the system. Piracy is good because it prompts industries to develop non-copyright-dependent means of funding production.
262.
by hxa7241 16y ago
I seem to remember Yegge's drift was on the next version of JS, which diverges somewhat from what we have here -- the AS3-like one with optional strict typing, formalised classes, and modules. (Having tried AS3, it seemed like a modernise
263.
by hxa7241 17y ago
It is ill-regard of the system, not disregard of the work.
264.
by hxa7241 17y ago
Salary is priced by the market, and that requires regular testing. Saying you don't want to hire regular job-changers is saying you don't want a functioning market. That, of course, is just what one would expect from companies who don't wan
265.
by hxa7241 17y ago
I suppose it is not entirely surprising, since modern programming has drifted away from its most fundamental purpose -- processing data in a certain amount of space and time. Look at common programming languages: the control of how much sto
266.
by hxa7241 17y ago
Yes, and weighing the whole thing against alternatives makes it questionable. First, it might save lots of energy, but it is also a lot more complicated than just having brakes, which it is going to have anyway. And how much energy would it
267.
by hxa7241 17y ago
I would have thought http://www.techdirt.com/ was one of the richest veins to mine.
268.
by hxa7241 17y ago
I like this. It remedies the most obvious representational flaw in functional languages -- at least compared to OO. Does it depend on R6RS? . . . I might consider a port to Chicken. (There is an inconsistency, though: the typing of fields i
269.
by hxa7241 17y ago
Copyright is essentially a law of physical objects. Information is only involved superficially, to modulate it. When information doesn't need objects anymore, copyright is basically dead. It exists only by vestiges of behavioural convention
270.
by hxa7241 17y ago
It is true that some useful information is missing from a specific statement, but I would probably expect much of it would be supplied by the context of where or how you found the document . . .

More ›