I agree the message and not the identitiy of the messenger is whats really important. As someone who admittedly has no direct knowledge of the music industry. I'd doubt that they are that confused. They know that digital technology, the web and file sharing are unstoppable in the long run. Perhaps they simply running interference until they have developed business strategies and infrastructure that allows them to monetize product using these same technologies and mechanisms. Like all large corporates they resemble to tankers which require lots `of time and space to change direction. Aggressive legal tactics and lobbying are being employed to give them that time and space.
Isn't the general idea that individuals are allowed 'free speech' insofar as that right does not affect the same right to expression or freedom of others.
Where freedom expressions conflict with the right of the consumer to be given a 'reasonable' chance to determine the merits of a particular product or service without having to filter information that is in effect a blatant lie, the rights of the consumer take precedence.
Could this problem be partly attributed to the wide use of the imperative programming model.
Checkout the channel 9 interview in which such luminaries as Anders Hejlsberg (designer of C#), Erik Meijer (designer of LINQ), Herb Sutter (C++ expert, and author of the seminal DDJ article "The Free Lunch is Over: A Fundamental Turn Toward Concurrency in Software") and Brian Beckman (one of the first members of Microsoft Research). They discuss subject of the interview was software composability and the future of programming.
"As you would expect from such a meaty subject and heavyweight participants, the video is fascinating. A theme that runs through the interview is the difficulty of composing software into large systems, due to problems that seem to be inherent in the imperative programming model. A large part of the problem is side effects."
"Software reuse can be risky business for an imperative programmer. If you call someone else's method or procedure (or even one that you wrote yourself a little while ago) you are never really sure what background effects are going on. It may work most of the time, but what happens when you combine it with another method that also has unknown effects? I'm reminded of the Joker's evil plot in the 1989 Batman movie: ordinary household items like shampoo and toothpaste, while harmless on their own, would combine into a deadly toxin when used together. Using libraries and code from multiple sources creates bugs - many of them hidden until they are combined for the first time in the user's PC. I believe that this phenomenon goes a long way to explaining various programming pathologies, such as the endless re-invention of the wheel and the "not invented here" syndrome. It can actually be worthwhile to rebuild whole swathes of functionality already created by somebody else, just so that you can understand and control it yourself."
I think he has a good point.
Add to that the fact that code you intend to reause may have bugs, or have been created for a slightly different purpose to your intended use etc and you have a recipe for reinvent the wheel.
The weapons inspectors found nothing which means that there is no proof that weapons existed. Which eventually was confirmed after a lot of "banging and crashing" about. Unfortunately a lot of Iraqi's have paid with their lives for our exploratory operation.
"Regardless, we (the US) currently has a terrible disaster on our hands."
No the Iraqi people have the disaster on their hands, the US just has an inconvenient and expensive problem by comparison. It will soon be forgotten about.
Easy to say
"if they tell us they want us out, out we go".
It was apparently much harder to say "if they tell us they don't want us, we won't go".
Weren't the UN supposed to have a say in whether
"the reason for the reactivation of conflict (failure to comply with the terms of the original cease fire)"
this was the right course of action.
I think the US is more likely to withdraw because/when the public back home can't stomach having their young men and women killed in the field, regardless of what is good for Iraqis or what they want.
I think it's always interesting when looking at any nations approach to conflict, to make a note out when they last fought a war on their home soil, or when they were last invaded themselves. Peoples memories are remarkably short and they are easily manipulated by politicians selling war with talk of surgical and arms length conflict. IMHO it usually provides useful background info when trying to ascertain why certain nations are more gung ho and others look to diplomacy first, with war as a last resort.
Makes me wonder if we'll inadvertently skew natural selection in favour of a super race of droll gulls with an appreciation for British comedy from the early seventies?
Just as everyone else has noted, they re-tool every five minutes anyway...just for the hell of it and we'll get more features (so they can sell us new phones each year of course) and better battery life if the new features don't eat up the extra juice first:-)
News update - slashdot has become the target of a law suite by the Oxford english dictionary who want to reclaim "their" punctuation symbols before release of the next issue.
The turbines will be out at sea so endangered land based birds are safe unless they try to migrate through the blade paths. As far as I'm aware seagulls are not endangered.
If a few die I don't mind. Less smelly gull poo on the pier.
http://bymyreckoning.com/
Re:'Javas slow decline in favor of...' oh please
on
2007 Java Predictions
·
· Score: 1
They said slow decline, your numbers are irrelevant. They only show which is currently more dominant.
http://bymyreckoning.com/
Because it's inextricably connected to the politics of oil
I'm in partial agreement, but much funding of terrorism is (as noted by an anonymous reader), provided by the ruling families in the Middle East, so it's quite indirect. You'd have to remove all their customers to prevent that. However, it's true by virtue of a lot of other factors. Mainly the need for non-oil producing nations to interfere with nations that have something they want/need.
What would happen if in the distant future western oil requirements were to decrease by an appreciable amount, due to technological advances? If they cannot develop this tech for themselves, nations such as Brazil, China, India and other second/third tier nations would probably continue ramp up their economies using fossil fuels and the occasional purchase of "clean technology" from the west. I wonder if this would decrease the total amount of terrorist activity? Would the developers of this new clean technology allow its dissemination to all those who need it in order to avoid a global catastrophe or would they hoard it? Would the lucrative switch from customer to supplier be too great a temptation for our decision makers? Will these attitudes prompt cause another slightly different wave of terrorism?
I can imagine our governments starting a new campaign to force the rest of the world to stop using oil (perhaps by force) and to buy this new and expensive "clean technology" under the guise of protecting the biosphere.
I suspect terror is a red herring here. It's always going to be with us as long as two or more parties fight over scarce resources which are either hoarded or coveted.
you please point to me references where anyone prior to the invasion gave evidence that Saddam didn't have WMDs? I have asked this question at least a dozen times, no one has stepped up to the plate yet.
Since when was absence of evidence proof of somethings non-existence, proof that it exists. Another helping of "flying spaghetti monster" anyone?
I thought that in most cases when on the precipice of a major endeavour (in this case war!) absence of evidence is the prima-facie case for not going ahead. The weapons inspectors found nothing and they are the experts despite the lies the US public were fed.
"A non-trivial amount of money generated by the sale of oil in the middle east *is* used to fund terrorism, war, and other things which make the area such an abysmal place (there is also much greatness in the region, but that's not the issue I'm addressing here)."
So why mention terrorism at all?
Imagine someone outside the US suggesting that we starve the US economy as a means to stop power crazed US presidents from threatening, manipulating and invading foriegn governments?
"Americans coin new words simply because they can't be bothered to pick up a dictionary and find a suitable one that already exists"
Well I'm not an American either, since I hale from the UK, but I feel duty bound to disagree with this statement simply because it picks in the US, when any number of English speaking cultures including the English themselves are guilty of the same thing. As has been stated many times during this thread, language is dynamic and the mixing of cultural influences in the US will inevitably produce new and sometimes downright weird linguistic innovation.
"Or are they created more in the hope (expectation?) that they'll have a better chance of stimulating discussion if they appear to convey something new and original (even when they don't)?"
There is some truth in the above, but I still feel that it's not a bigt problem. Words will quickly fall out of common usage if they offer nothing fresh.
The bottom line is that English as spoken in the UK is also the bastard child of a myriad of cultures, gathering influences from Old Norse, Old Frisian, Old Saxon, but more recently incorporating phrases and concepts from the old colonies and recent immigrants. I imagine that this later category closely mirrors the kind of influences that operate in the US today. In fact the US is now the dominant source of "English" speaking culture and is increasingly becoming the arbiter of linguistic taste. I'm constantly reminded of this by the "MTV English" spoken by people on the European mainland.
Sometimes I hear phrase coined in the US that grate somewhat, however I'm aware that there are two sides to every coin.
Afterall language is the original opensource project is it not?
"management thinks from the gut" I agree and this is often the source of a lot of problems
http://bymyreckoning.com/index.php/2006/11/09/no_b rainer_there_s_no_such_thing.
"Truthiness" is somewhat redundant in my opionon other than as a humorous jide at those holding a particular outlook or philosophy.
Surely it wa spreceeded by superstition, instinct and.....religion!
Slashdot Mirror
I agree the message and not the identitiy of the messenger is whats really important.
As someone who admittedly has no direct knowledge of the music industry. I'd doubt that they are that confused. They know that digital technology, the web and file sharing are unstoppable in the long run. Perhaps they simply running interference until they have developed business strategies and infrastructure that allows them to monetize product using these same technologies and mechanisms. Like all large corporates they resemble to tankers which require lots `of time and space to change direction. Aggressive legal tactics and lobbying are being employed to give them that time and space.
Isn't the general idea that individuals are allowed 'free speech' insofar as that right does not affect the same right to expression or freedom of others.
Where freedom expressions conflict with the right of the consumer to be given a 'reasonable' chance to determine the merits of a particular product or service without having to filter information that is in effect a blatant lie, the rights of the consumer take precedence.
http://bymyreckoning.com/Could this problem be partly attributed to the wide use of the imperative programming model.
Checkout the channel 9 interview in which such luminaries as Anders Hejlsberg (designer of C#), Erik Meijer (designer of LINQ), Herb Sutter (C++ expert, and author of the seminal DDJ article "The Free Lunch is Over: A Fundamental Turn Toward Concurrency in Software") and Brian Beckman (one of the first members of Microsoft Research). They discuss subject of the interview was software composability and the future of programming.
Neil Bartlett http://neilbartlett.name/blog/?p=11 says
"As you would expect from such a meaty subject and heavyweight participants, the video is fascinating. A theme that runs through the interview is the difficulty of composing software into large systems, due to problems that seem to be inherent in the imperative programming model. A large part of the problem is side effects."
"Software reuse can be risky business for an imperative programmer. If you call someone else's method or procedure (or even one that you wrote yourself a little while ago) you are never really sure what background effects are going on. It may work most of the time, but what happens when you combine it with another method that also has unknown effects? I'm reminded of the Joker's evil plot in the 1989 Batman movie: ordinary household items like shampoo and toothpaste, while harmless on their own, would combine into a deadly toxin when used together. Using libraries and code from multiple sources creates bugs - many of them hidden until they are combined for the first time in the user's PC. I believe that this phenomenon goes a long way to explaining various programming pathologies, such as the endless re-invention of the wheel and the "not invented here" syndrome. It can actually be worthwhile to rebuild whole swathes of functionality already created by somebody else, just so that you can understand and control it yourself."
I think he has a good point.
Add to that the fact that code you intend to reause may have bugs, or have been created for a slightly different purpose to your intended use etc and you have a recipe for reinvent the wheel.
http://bymyreckoning.com/I take your point but the government is also deliberately fuelling this fear in order to help justify their other activities.
http://bymyreckoning.com/
The weapons inspectors found nothing which means that there is no proof that weapons existed. Which eventually was confirmed after a lot of "banging and crashing" about. Unfortunately a lot of Iraqi's have paid with their lives for our exploratory operation.
No the Iraqi people have the disaster on their hands, the US just has an inconvenient and expensive problem by comparison. It will soon be forgotten about. Easy to say It was apparently much harder to say "if they tell us they don't want us, we won't go".Weren't the UN supposed to have a say in whether
this was the right course of action.I think the US is more likely to withdraw because/when the public back home can't stomach having their young men and women killed in the field, regardless of what is good for Iraqis or what they want.
I think it's always interesting when looking at any nations approach to conflict, to make a note out when they last fought a war on their home soil, or when they were last invaded themselves. Peoples memories are remarkably short and they are easily manipulated by politicians selling war with talk of surgical and arms length conflict. IMHO it usually provides useful background info when trying to ascertain why certain nations are more gung ho and others look to diplomacy first, with war as a last resort.
Never mind I'm wandering off topic now :-)
http://bymyreckoning.com/You're right there Will :-)
Makes me wonder if we'll inadvertently skew natural selection in favour of a super race of droll gulls with an appreciation for British comedy from the early seventies?
http://bymyreckoning.com/Just as everyone else has noted, they re-tool every five minutes anyway...just for the hell of it and we'll get more features (so they can sell us new phones each year of course) and better battery life if the new features don't eat up the extra juice first :-)
http://bymyreckoning.com/Does this mean that Nitrous Oxide cures hyperthermia?
http://bymyreckoning.com/News update - slashdot has become the target of a law suite by the Oxford english dictionary who want to reclaim "their" punctuation symbols before release of the next issue.
http://bymyreckoning.com/The turbines will be out at sea so endangered land based birds are safe unless they try to migrate through the blade paths. As far as I'm aware seagulls are not endangered. If a few die I don't mind. Less smelly gull poo on the pier. http://bymyreckoning.com/
They said slow decline, your numbers are irrelevant. They only show which is currently more dominant. http://bymyreckoning.com/
No that was a young boy during a photo op. http://bymyreckoning.com/
Isn't it like being asked to sell a car without petrol and refusing because the car won't work?
http://bymyreckoning.com/
Maybe we could hack it and provide a mod with two new characters. Richard Dawkins and a flying spaghetti monster. http://bymyreckoning.com/
I thought that all soldiers were tools http://bymyreckoning.com/
You are correct but far too rational. Ego trumps reason every time.
Best post on this a subject by far.
"Americans coin new words simply because they can't be bothered to pick up a dictionary and find a suitable one that already exists"
Well I'm not an American either, since I hale from the UK, but I feel duty bound to disagree with this statement simply because it picks in the US, when any number of English speaking cultures including the English themselves are guilty of the same thing. As has been stated many times during this thread, language is dynamic and the mixing of cultural influences in the US will inevitably produce new and sometimes downright weird linguistic innovation.
"Or are they created more in the hope (expectation?) that they'll have a better chance of stimulating discussion if they appear to convey something new and original (even when they don't)?"
There is some truth in the above, but I still feel that it's not a bigt problem. Words will quickly fall out of common usage if they offer nothing fresh.
The bottom line is that English as spoken in the UK is also the bastard child of a myriad of cultures, gathering influences from Old Norse, Old Frisian, Old Saxon, but more recently incorporating phrases and concepts from the old colonies and recent immigrants. I imagine that this later category closely mirrors the kind of influences that operate in the US today. In fact the US is now the dominant source of "English" speaking culture and is increasingly becoming the arbiter of linguistic taste. I'm constantly reminded of this by the "MTV English" spoken by people on the European mainland.
Sometimes I hear phrase coined in the US that grate somewhat, however I'm aware that there are two sides to every coin.
Afterall language is the original opensource project is it not?
http://bymyreckoning.com/index.php/2006/12/11/ope"management thinks from the gut" I agree and this is often the source of a lot of problems http://bymyreckoning.com/index.php/2006/11/09/no_b rainer_there_s_no_such_thing.
"Truthiness" is somewhat redundant in my opionon other than as a humorous jide at those holding a particular outlook or philosophy.
Surely it wa spreceeded by superstition, instinct and .....religion!