wissler

32 ms·

301.
by wissler 14y ago
If this is not an intentional parody of failing to think before you act, it surely will turn out to be an unintentional one.
302.
by wissler 14y ago
The reason we don't achieve lofty visions is that those who would pursue them are being smothered by nationalism. It is ironic that the Apollo mission success is being held out as the ideal (as it always is) because its success is what hera
303.
by wissler 14y ago
Doesn't matter to me. The fact that Amazon can break and enter into my devices with impunity is completely unacceptable. The fact that I can't back up my own purchases without hacking is completely unacceptable. I'll continue using Kindle f
304.
by wissler 14y ago
Pseudo-scientific unwarranted conclusion -- the metaphysical implications of QM are not conclusive.
305.
by wissler 14y ago
Humor?
306.
by wissler 14y ago
"Anyone who denies the law of non-contradiction should be beaten and burned until he admits that to be beaten is not the same as not to be beaten, and to be burned is not the same as not to be burned."--Avicenna
307.
by wissler 14y ago
To be inconsistent is the easiest thing in the world: just refuse to think about the meaning of what you believe or do. I don't think the point of Bezos's remark was that we should aspire to be inconsistent, but rather, we should be open to
308.
by wissler 14y ago
This is an ironic question: on the one hand, you say consistency doesn't make sense, on the other hand, the root meaning of "doesn't make sense" is precisely to be inconsistent.
309.
by wissler 14y ago
Why is it $20? Because it's worth that much. No, it's $20 because they decided to price it at $20, and they decided to price it at $20 for the reasons they stated.
310.
by wissler 14y ago
You are contradicting my point without offering an argument, which amounts to you simply repeating your view over and over in varied forms (as you just did yet again), a basic logical fallacy.
311.
by wissler 14y ago
Do you have something to offer here than merely repeating the contrary of what I said? E.g. "It is very relevant. What is "ethical" in the context of civil and criminal cases is very different." This is not evidence for your contrary stance
312.
by wissler 14y ago
Well if you're not going to pick then I will. The dichotomy between civil and criminal is irrelevant. You don't get to burden your fellow citizens with arbitrary hoops to jump through and also call yourself ethical. An ethical person leaves
313.
by wissler 14y ago
At least the majority if your remarks are patent dishonesty (pun intended). If you want, pick out what you think is the most honest and relevant of your remarks and I'll respond to that one, but I'm not going to get into a tit-for-tat with
314.
by wissler 14y ago
- First, you can't claim to have created an ethical principle if it's self-contradictory. If accidental infringement is an essential result, then something is wrong. - Second, I am not referring to trademarks as presently defined. - Third,
315.
by wissler 14y ago
There are two issues here: whether a given law is ethical or not as written, and whether the spirit of the law can be supported even if it is unethical as written. As it turns out, one can make an argument that copyrights/trademarks can be
316.
by wissler 14y ago
You're right -- if software patents aren't legitimate then no patents are legitimate. And in fact, no patents are legitimate. Worse than that, most people's concept of "legitimate" is not legitimate. What most people seem to have banned fro
317.
by wissler 14y ago
Don't pretend to know that I said what I did because it was a "trend." It's a fact that Edison made no fundamental contribution or discovery. He was a very productive hack. Tesla's contributions are lasting and revolutionary.
318.
by wissler 14y ago
If he'd said it like that, I wouldn't have taken exception to his statement. I do agree with him that ideas for their own sake are a bad idea, especially in an engineering context.
319.
by wissler 14y ago
The problem is that even the most beautiful and simple solutions end up turning into a big pile of dung Until they don't. You don't know what who is going to come up with next.
320.
by wissler 14y ago
If he had only criticized a monolithic kernel and not general ideas in general, then I would not have criticized him. But he takes a single example of an allegedly failed general approach, and then takes a wild leap to the conclusion that
321.
by wissler 14y ago
Now to try it with complex numbers and/or 3D coordinates.
322.
by wissler 14y ago
I would agree with Linus that we should not have an a priori ideology, but I think his argument carves off quite a bit more than that, he's against unified architectures per se, not only ones derived a priori.
323.
by wissler 14y ago
I think you're grossly misconstruing his point -- that you shouldn't let architectural ideology or a preconceived notion of what the best solution to your problem is get in the way of shipping good software. No that's not his point. His p
324.
by wissler 14y ago
His remarks are foolish, yes. If you want to construe that as he is foolish, that's your own personal leap.
325.
by wissler 14y ago
I'm glad to see someone getting the point, which is that we as scientists strive for simplified, unified explanations and systems, and that's a good thing. Linux is nice and practical, but try working with it as a systems programmer somet
326.
by wissler 14y ago
So, you're more interested in picking petty nits in phrasing than grasping the overall point. It was Linus's phrase, and he was wrong to phrase what he was actually talking about that way (no one ever uses "one overriding idea" in every sph
327.
by wissler 14y ago
Your continued comparison of physics to software engineering is horribly flawed. Your contrast of science and engineering is horribly naive. In science, we use Ockham's Razor regarding explaining phenomena; in engineering we use Ockham's
328.
by wissler 14y ago
Yes, certainly Linus is admirable in respects, but he's wrong to dogmatically think that his approach is the "one overriding idea" of how you should approach engineering.
329.
by wissler 14y ago
But engineers know "one overriding idea" never works except in theory On the contrary, good engineers are not dogmatists. They're open to new ideas and strive for simplicity, which means striving for unified approaches based on empirical
330.
by wissler 14y ago
A true scientist seeks an integrated understanding. Newton related the objects that fall on Earth to the motion of the planets. One big sweeping idea for a wide range of phenomena. That's science.

More ›