wissler

49 ms·

451.
by wissler 14y ago
Quoting from the link you gave: "foxes who draw on a wide variety of experiences and for whom the world cannot be boiled down to a single idea (examples given include Herodotus, Aristotle, ...)" I don't think your interpretation of "rationa
452.
by wissler 14y ago
> "This sounds incredibly naive...." Yes, well, speaking of naive, I'm well aware of the dogmas they fill your head with in public school, so you don't need to go citing the monopoly dogma 101 stuff. What they don't tell you in those cl
453.
by wissler 14y ago
You make a good point -- I don't think any statistical study will ever be able to show that static typing is better. I do think that a rational argument can show it, but my argument is too long to fit into the margin.
454.
by wissler 14y ago
Every example of a harmful monopoly I know about had government backing in some form or another. In a true free market, no one can obtain a harmful monopoly, unless the vast majority of human beings want the harm, in which case I can't se
455.
by wissler 14y ago
Different people mean different things by "free market." You mean "free for all", some kind of "law of the jungle" where people see what they can get even if it violates others. I mean rule of law, where that law is based on a precise idea
456.
by wissler 14y ago
Heaven forbid that someone complain that diabetes pump research is abysmally retarded due to government distortion of the free market. Heaven forbid that someone complain that longevity research is abysmally retarded due to the same thing.
457.
by wissler 14y ago
Don't miss seeing the animation toward the end of the video.
458.
by wissler 14y ago
Explains 90% of what is taught in college nowadays.
459.
by wissler 14y ago
Art is about values. If you don't "get" a particular work of art, it's because the values embodied in it not only do not resonate with your own values, but aren't even part of the universe of values that you think about. It's not because yo
460.
by wissler 14y ago
There's no really good way around it other than by changing the attitudes of the culture. At present, people generally like their nanny state and want more of it, not less. So we'll all suffer the consequences in the meantime.
461.
by wissler 14y ago
"You seem to have turned this discussion into an argument about their codebase having a problem and requiring action. Who's being presumptuous?" You are, and in a very ironic way. I never said their codebase had a problem. I don't know anyt
462.
by wissler 14y ago
I'd never preemptively judge what could be done with an architecture without looking at it first. There are always creative possibilities, so if their is something wrong with their technology choice (not saying there is), then I wouldn't pr
463.
by wissler 14y ago
Don't miss out on the emacs/ed/vi jokes: http://www.gnu.org/fun/jokes/ed-msg.html
464.
by wissler 14y ago
Yes, a beautiful job description. However, for me these two statements are inherently contradictory: "You consider critical thinking to be among your core competencies." "But technology is a means and not the ends for you, and you don’t fli
465.
by wissler 14y ago
I don't understand this instant knee-jerk reaction to call the lawyers out and bandy about the idea of a lawsuit. Public shame is powerful, and is often much more efficient than the legal system at solving the actual problem.
466.
by wissler 14y ago
The Constitution is merely an expression of sentiment. Its force comes not from the fact that it is the "law of the land", but from its general support amongst the populace. Could government agents flout the Constitution and public sentimen
467.
by wissler 14y ago
"Nobody relies on Apple software or hardware to power their business." This is simply not true. You are the one living in the reality distortion field, not Apple.
468.
by wissler 14y ago
ashish*: "Did you just suggest that, to teach Apple a lesson for protecting granted patents[1] - which is legal - the government should control what they can and cannot do with something they created?" No, I said if the free market were in
469.
by wissler 14y ago
"please provide citations and don't expect people to clean up after you. and still it's a hearsay, no link to memo" Who do you think you are that you can tell people on what terms they can cite a quote from the New York Times? No, I am not
470.
by wissler 14y ago
"I'm much more fearful of a legal regime that could step in and simply dictate the business operations of a private entity." Which is so unlike the legal regime that backs up that "private" entity when it uses government granted privilege t
471.
by wissler 14y ago
Really. What about Apple hardware and software?
472.
by wissler 14y ago
Please use Google instead of posting mindless sarcasm. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/09/opinion/09lee.html?_r=1
473.
by wissler 14y ago
"Your world would eliminate people like Steve Jobs and Bill Gates." You've got to be kidding. Do you know nothing about the history of software? "If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today’s ideas were invented
474.
by wissler 14y ago
It's not the 90% maintenance that's the problem, it's this: "But then I got to hear I wasn't allowed to improve the existing code and to only focus on bug fixes when a bug gets reported." A product that is not worth improving? This is calle
475.
by wissler 14y ago
One more thing. I regard patents as nearly tantamount to cannibalism: patent trolls eat the efforts of honest, productive people. I don't think gentle words are appropriate and civilized for cannibalism proper, nor for the evil of patents.
476.
by wissler 14y ago
Next time you're seething with rage that someone crossed your arbitrary line about what you mistakenly think is "civil", save your breath and save your energy. As to your silly play by play, it's all just your own self-serving spin. You hav
477.
by wissler 14y ago
jeremyrussell: "People don't work that way" is question-begging (if you don't know what that logical fallacy is please see Wikipedia). The point is that they ought to work that way. People can and should change. Answering "well they don't w
478.
by wissler 14y ago
This is horribly embarrassing argument. It's a blatant post hoc ergo proper hoc fallacy. What's worse is that it ignores the central point: the cost of your system is that individuals who think of an idea that happens to match one that is p
479.
by wissler 14y ago
Men who have minds large enough to envision the kinds of ideas that would deserve a patent (if patents were moral) are precisely the kind who would invent regardless of whether they could get one. See Nicola Tesla or the many scientists thr
480.
by wissler 14y ago
No, you misunderstand ethics. There is and can be no ethical principle that bans you from creating a physical object that happens to be similar to an object someone else created, unless you had explicitly consented to being bound to an ag

More ›