skylan_q

42 ms·

481.
by skylan_q 13y ago
Nothing at all. People in tech have this need to bring up how Reagan is the devil. It's very odd because it was a sitting duck presidency, if there ever was one. Hardly a Senate majority for some of the time, no house majority at any p
482.
by skylan_q 13y ago
Great! 100,000 signatures! This will surely lead to something!
483.
by skylan_q 13y ago
But... but... their gunna take are guns!!! No. They won't. That's because not a single shot will be fired in retaliation to government intrusion and control. Not a single thing will be done about it.
484.
by skylan_q 13y ago
I wouldn't feed the troll. My family ran away from a country with a planned economy. I'm getting ready to jump ship in the same fashion if they start "planning" the economy where we currently are.
485.
by skylan_q 13y ago
The damage caused by economic engineering leaves no good alternatives.
486.
by skylan_q 13y ago
You actually buy into the conspiracy theory that the government is in bed with corporations and storing and combing through tons of our own data that we trust with these companies? Hahahahah! You're a real conspiracy theorist believer!
487.
by skylan_q 13y ago
It's odd, I hear people saying, "no big deal, nothing will change." But then I wonder, if you're saying it's no big deal, are you an American or not?" There is a fear of having guns taken, but there is an eve
488.
by skylan_q 13y ago
Get all your stuff that's yours out of the office. Don't go back.
489.
by skylan_q 13y ago
The wrong is in wanting one such kind of society for his country. Who decides that it's wrong or right?
490.
by skylan_q 13y ago
Does not prevent existing copyrighted art to be build so does not look like an issue to me. It makes derivative work difficult or impossible. Authors prefer to be paid for their work? Let me ask you - if you had not been paid for whateve
491.
by skylan_q 13y ago
Anyone care to say why he's wrong? I'd like a bit more elaboration from his argument, but it's possible that he's right.
492.
by skylan_q 13y ago
It does not prevent you from enjoying your free art. It prevents people from building on existing copyrighted art. Talent is redirected to creating work that becomes copyrighted. As a result, people have less to draw from without paying r
493.
by skylan_q 13y ago
And, most importantly, how are you going to compel authors to give their work into public domain? People made things public before copyright law existed. People continue to make things freely accessible and public in spite of current copy
494.
by skylan_q 13y ago
You're right about blockbuster movies, though—nobody will make them anymore. Yes, I can see this happening as well. Why is it taken for granted that they are a necessity? I think people are just too set in their ways to comprehend the wor
495.
by skylan_q 13y ago
...without making it almost impossible for artists to afford to be artists If we never had copyright enforcement, would we be thinking this way? Jokes aren't copyright-able, but we still have comedians. These copyright laws had their plac
496.
by skylan_q 13y ago
So 99% control 61% of the wealth.
497.
by skylan_q 13y ago
Too bad. :)
498.
by skylan_q 13y ago
Google and Facebook are now basically corporate interests/extended arms of the USG.
499.
by skylan_q 13y ago
They are dumb and evil. But in some ways they're also very bright. It's the most dangerous mix possible; To be effective at being incompetent.
500.
by skylan_q 13y ago
Nothing they do makes any sense. The ruling elite live in a different world from us commoners. Holder probably thought people would view him as a hero or something.
501.
by skylan_q 13y ago
It only takes one counterexample to nullify a hypothesis. That is the epitome of science. The t-test isn't science in the strictest sense. It's a statistical method which informs us of probabilities and distributions. If I find that eating
502.
by skylan_q 13y ago
Most researchers who publish studies are unfamiliar with the scientific method and hypothesis nullification. Either that, or it's not in the interests of the publishers to properly apply these concepts in their studies. We've gotten to a sc
503.
by skylan_q 13y ago
> It's not empirical I'm going to stop you right there and say that evidence is empirical. I'll believe personal experience and observation over some conclusion from a published paper that used obscure statistical methods, possibly l
504.
by skylan_q 13y ago
Yes, because there is a shortage of X workers until wages hit the federally mandated minimum.
505.
by skylan_q 13y ago
Lisp is a lot of fun and easy to start with. Don't be afraid by all these nasty (()) and weird (+ 4 5) operations , it will make sense quite fast. They aren't as ugly as XML ;) This was a great read convincing me so: http://www.defmacro.
506.
by skylan_q 13y ago
We need to continue providing non-forgiveable gov't loans to students so that they can continue funneling $8000/year into their schools while also taxing them and their parents to give grants to profs on tenure so that publishers can concea
507.
by skylan_q 13y ago
I'm speaking for the majority of people that can't afford racks of servers and custom-laid transatlantic fiberoptic lines. I'm speaking about typical americans that have their money in 401(k) accounts or maybe buy stocks from an online bro
508.
by skylan_q 13y ago
Will we as a community fail to innovate then? Yes, because there was no innovation until patent protection came to be. Do you seriously think we would have invented and shared the secret of making fire over 10,000 years ago without patent
509.
by skylan_q 13y ago
Complacent? Get in on HFT if you feel that it's making it unfair for human traders.
510.
by skylan_q 13y ago
Yes. That's what it does. If you, as a human, try to trade like this, the computers will destroy you. That's why people shouldn't trade like computers and they should use their experience and judgment to guide them.

More ›