wissler

38 ms·

331.
by wissler 14y ago
It's not about "one overriding idea", it's about having a fundamental, unified understanding. Edison was about randomly trying things and see what works, Tesla was about seeking fundamental understanding and predicting what will work. Picki
332.
by wissler 14y ago
One of the reasons his methodology seems to work is that that's the only one that's allowed to work on that scale. Politics is definitely an issue, and politics is driven by how individual people think on average, and if how they think on a
333.
by wissler 14y ago
It's about striving to integrate everything that can be integrated into a unified system -- which is precisely what Torvalds opposes.
334.
by wissler 14y ago
Btw, it's not just microkernels. Any time you have "one overriding idea", and push your idea as a superior ideology, you're going to be wrong. Microkernels had one such ideology, there have been others. It's all BS. The fact is, reality is
335.
by wissler 14y ago
Rescind patents for software? Should happen. Won't happen, unfortunately. There's not enough political will, because there is not enough understanding of the principle here. It's inexorable: Barbaric modes of thought practiced generally lea
336.
by wissler 14y ago
The path to hell is paved with "good" intentions. People have a responsibility of thinking through the consequences of their "good intentions."
337.
by wissler 14y ago
It is necessary to create an aura of legitimacy. As I was reading through the legalese for the MPLA, I realized that the typical practices of the legal profession have about as much to do with reality as Dungeons and Dragons. They are playi
338.
by wissler 14y ago
I think nothing less than a revolution in the way humans think is going to solve these problems. I mean, science solves problems better than witchcraft for a reason. Mankind is still using the equivalent of witchcraft in the legal realm.
339.
by wissler 14y ago
There are other ways than patents to get rewards for your work, but patents are a non-starter in principle. Just because you thought of something first does not give you a right to stop someone else from thinking of it second. It's really v
340.
by wissler 14y ago
They can't be reconciled: patents bind another human down from thinking and acting and trading with his fellow human beings. There's no way to justify that; it's blatantly immoral.
341.
by wissler 14y ago
I really hope people in our industry can stop the useless arguments of "end all patents!" Actually, it's failing to stand for a principle that leads to this constant slide downward. Sure, fight this particular battle, but as you're doing
342.
by wissler 14y ago
We? Speak for yourself. Your standards of efficiency are not relevant.
343.
by wissler 14y ago
It's hard to tell what premise you are arguing for. Are you trying to claim that the system I outlined is not really less coupled? Or are you trying to claim that being less coupled does not really lead to less coupling? "All your proposal
344.
by wissler 14y ago
The choice between fiat and gold (or gold/silver) is a false one. On a free market people would trade a wide variety of things, an important class of which are stocks and bonds, which indeed did function as money in the early United States,
345.
by wissler 14y ago
The rules weren't vague, but they relied on a rational (as opposed to legalistic) understanding of what it means to compress data.
346.
by wissler 14y ago
By your sarcasm I gather that you're completely unfamiliar with the concept "unintended consequences".
347.
by wissler 14y ago
There really are bad guys and they want you to submit to their will. Pretending it isn't so only helps them.
348.
by wissler 14y ago
Sounds like something that can easily run afoul of securities laws.
349.
by wissler 14y ago
You're exactly right of course. It's amazing how many people have bought into the myth that prior restraint leads to better overall outcomes.
350.
by wissler 14y ago
Nice way to get rid of honest and insightful employees. "He who dares not offend cannot be honest."--Thomas Paine
351.
by wissler 14y ago
I know it's hard not to respond, but all the OP offered was sneering sarcasm; he in fact has given nothing to respond to, and for that he should be on the defensive, not you. Given all the upvotes he got for a fact-devoid sarcastic sneer po
352.
by wissler 14y ago
Can you please post a reference?
353.
by wissler 14y ago
This is the best response. To be a bit more general: evaluate whether the client is actually willing and able to take the sane course of action starting NOW and continuing over the long term. If not, and you stay, there's no advice that's g
354.
by wissler 14y ago
The "mentor" here is risking destroying himself and his business over this because Vinted has their own unique look and customers are generally not going to approve of his actions.
355.
by wissler 14y ago
No simulations or renderings to show the vision that's being pursued? Beyond stupid. It's insane. I'd speculate that it's probably a requirement driven by lawyers worried about failed projects conferring some kind of liability onto Kickstar
356.
by wissler 14y ago
It's a trap! I'm serious. This is a horrible idea. It's simply a way to get you to forge your own new set of chains.
357.
by wissler 14y ago
Point of fact: you do go to jail if you don't do what is commanded. Another point of fact: sarcasm and sneering are not an argument.
358.
by wissler 14y ago
No product of human thought is "worthy" of using brute violence in preventing another human from having the same thought, or from using that thought to build and sell something useful. You have no right to bind down your fellow human beings
359.
by wissler 14y ago
Clearly, you don't see the slippery slope from: Clearly, there are real patent violations that occur and need stopped to so many ones that benefit only trolls and attorneys By design, patents are not to protect invention, they are a for
360.
by wissler 14y ago
It is their moral responsibility not to initiate attacks. They can morally use patents only defensively.

More ›