wissler

108 ms·

481.
by wissler 14y ago
There is no moral justification for patents. Period. There can be no actually moral argument that says "you are not allowed to think of the same thing this other fellow did and then trade it with someone." Patents are a form of feudalism. T
482.
by wissler 14y ago
Your deranged sarcasm eloquently sums up what's wrong with our educational system: kids are taught that their opinions matter, regardless of how idiotic they are. Well the truth is, your uninformed opinion doesn't matter.
483.
by wissler 14y ago
I don't "assume", I induce. See Newton's rules of reasoning. Pay particular attention to Rule IV. It is clear from many examples that rationality gives us the utmost ability to adapt, prosper, and survive over the long term. And there is n
484.
by wissler 14y ago
No, research did't show that "we do this" or "our approach is that" or "humans aren't rational" -- what the research showed is that the typical person does this or that. A similar experiment where people draw the wrong conclusions is the
485.
by wissler 14y ago
Is it really that hard to engineer in hardware or bios-based failsafes? It seems like bad design to leave basic hardware safety issues to the OS.
486.
by wissler 14y ago
Calling someone a "fanatic" and pointing out the fact that they don't fit in or that they make some people uncomfortable or angry does not in fact make them wrong. Raymond has no actual argument, so it comes across as a petty personal attac
487.
by wissler 14y ago
The way you work is more important that what you work on. One can work on either important or unimportant problems and end up in the same place, if the motives and methods are good. Richard Feynman explains: "In his eccentric collection of
488.
by wissler 14y ago
"No matter what actually happened, you should've been prepared." This is just plain false. Being prepared comes at a cost. If you over-prepare, then your customers have to pay more for no good reason, and they don't necessarily want to. You
489.
by wissler 14y ago
Continue in that vein, then if there is a natural disaster then it is their fault as well. The information is useful. Heroku should provide it. We're done here.
490.
by wissler 14y ago
Luck has everything to do with him returning to Apple, which is what I was talking about. Yes, he would have been a successful person regardless. Indeed, he was a successful person already. But he was very lucky to be allowed back at Apple.
491.
by wissler 14y ago
"Ferociously independent" might be a more accurate characterization than "control freak." And you're right, I don't see Jobs submitting himself to being led around by mentors. On the other hand, he didn't have to deal with the much more com
492.
by wissler 14y ago
But Jobs had to be lucky enough for Apple to nearly go bankrupt so they would entertain having him return and turn them around. This cosmically lucky event is not very reproducible.
493.
by wissler 14y ago
One of the great things about working in software is that if you want to work at the frontier and push the limits of what has been done before, you still can. Your peers may deride you as a "cowboy programmer", but they can't stop you. Many
494.
by wissler 14y ago
Ayn Rand's opinion on genius was similar. She said that what was unique to genius was the ability to very easily shift between different levels of abstraction. I would not refer to this as "memory", but as understanding. Memory is of course
495.
by wissler 14y ago
Occasionally?
496.
by wissler 14y ago
You asked why I found it ironic, I gave an honest answer. And for that you give me rude sarcasm. Classy.
497.
by wissler 14y ago
Neither. His remark wasn't funny, it was foolish. The subject here is about fools. Ergo the irony.
498.
by wissler 14y ago
I can't believe you upvoted him at all, he wasn't joking he was mocking you while failing to comprehend the connection you were making. Given the subject matter here, I find that very ironic indeed.
499.
by wissler 14y ago
This is exactly right. The fact is that at every point in the development of our culture, most people have been horribly misinformed about many important things, and when someone came on the scene and questioned one of these things, he was
500.
by wissler 14y ago
Stuxnet was very clearly sabotage. I can't believe the herd here. Downvote away.
501.
by wissler 14y ago
I can't believe the level of dishonesty here. The point is obvious: NONE of the acts cited by the WP article were acts of violence. Did you miss out on Sesame Street? "One of these things are not like the other..." No I'm not trolling. I a
502.
by wissler 14y ago
Firstly, I wasn't only talking about Wiki definitions, I had a more basic argument that is being ignored. Secondly, the Cold War has two possible referents among political scientists (see the link I posted), and the one in question is not t
503.
by wissler 14y ago
Sabotage is not "indirect", it is very direct, and what's more, it's not even listed on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_war_(general_term) You're wrong, but at least you're not a coward.
504.
by wissler 14y ago
It's easy to hit the downvote button. It'd show more courage and intelligence to counter with an actual argument. Incidentally, Wikipedia backs my definition of "cold": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_war_(general_term) "A cold war or c
505.
by wissler 14y ago
"No open hostilities" is a definition by non-essentials. It's fallacious. As I already said and as you failed to address. Whether certain people happen to know whether there is an attack or who is behind it does not change anything. A sta
506.
by wissler 14y ago
"Cold War doesn't mean no loss of life or destruction, just that there aren't two armies going at it on the battlefield" If so, then "cold" vs. "hot" would be a distinction without a difference. I don't think the populace is generally educa
507.
by wissler 14y ago
The centrifuges could have been destroyed, and with loss of human life. The system itself was damaged. I wouldn't call this a "cold" war. It is a very real, very physical war(albeit precisely targeted, for now).
508.
by wissler 14y ago
(Natural) Scientists: study nature. Engineers: study how to build. This may include original theorizing pertaining to methods of building -- they don't just ape scientists' theories, they create their own. Engineering is itself the science
509.
by wissler 14y ago
Feynman had it right: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lL4wg6ZAFIM
510.
by wissler 14y ago
No, I don't think it is the difference between savings and investment because the dichotomy itself is an arbitrary artifact of the monetary regime. Saving should mean things like "saving grain for the next season". That's a real thing that

More ›