I also think it's the book not the language. I prefer Ruby to Perl and Python, by a lot, in terms of writing code (running code is another story - for that I prefer Lua!).
The ruby language is by far the most expressive and intuitive syntax I've ever used. I'd encourage you to give it another try, and for example use Dave Thomas' Prag Prog book not _why's. (My girlfriend loved reading _why's book but I don't think she ever got a strong handle on the ruby internals, which isn't what that book was for - she just liked reading it!).
I'm with you. A project I'm working on has a bunch of Python devs so against my better judgment I let them use python for our solution. I would literally rather write in Javascript than Python. There I said it.
Great point. I hate digging into Java code, but if I could write java libs without the painful syntax I would be more inclined. Now that you point it out, I suspect the JRuby guys are in the same boat. They'd be more likely to contribute to Java libs if they could write in syntax less like java and more like ruby. This seems like a pretty big win for JRuby also b/c it might unleash a horde of ruby devs into javaland (well, hopefully only the good ones).
Performant is helpful in tech communications at times. It helps to refer to gradations in meaning, exactly along the lines you refer to. If I'm discussing two solutions and I say one is going to be more performant, this is not marketing speak. This is a quick statement enabled by this word that permits the recipient of the communication to understand that I'm talking about performance issues and not something else. I could have said "going to have better performance" instead, but I don't see why anyone should care which word is used? If the issue is that performant technically doesn't exist as an English word, then 25% of my technical vocab has got to go as well. I believe that the word "contact" used to be unacceptable as a verb?
You're right that saying a solution "is performant" is silly and like all marketing borrows the word from a valid and grounded use.
Yes but. My reading of Google's process for the Linux headers is that they specifically strip out all the comments and complex macros such as what you describe. Their readme even describes how they optimize some macros to make them simple (by short circuiting or otherwise). Presumably they do this to optimize but also to make them trivial and therefore free to distribute in a non-gpl header.
Oh - that's interesting. Can you give more details? I haven't yet heard that CDMA and GSM will ever merge. Please share any info/links you've got on that, for LTE or anything else. Thanks....Unless you mean ATT and T-Mobile have to merge to get enough spectrum for LTE? That seems very plausible.
I'd doubt that FTC would see a single GSM provider as worthy of anti-trust either. Since it's a spectrum issue, FCC might. If we're lucky FCC will get a deal like Comcast/NBC where Comcast basically agrees to support net neutrality in exchange for the deal. Maybe FCC can use that again. I doubt they'll get much more.
By the time this deal is consummated you may be lusting after something nicer/newer. 12-18 months seems about as fast as I could imagine this going through anti-trust and FCC. Comcast/NBC is a good benchmark for the time period you have to buy a new phone if you want to leave ATT/GSM (that one was announced Sept 2009, consummated Feb 2011 -- or estimating Sept 2012 for this case to be approved)..
In my opinion/experience (having worked at FCC), FCC will never intervene on those grounds. They see CDMA and GSM as competition. They don't look at from the consumer point of view - they look at it like DSL and cable.
Would somebody with points mod P up? Google is attempting to strip out complex inline functions, comments and all the rest of it, apparently to make an uncopyrightable version of Linux header files. They even allude to this in their bionic readme: how they have an optimizer that figures out when an inline function can be reduced to something simpler and they do the reduction in their output. They seem to have tried to think this through, and specifically to be in-line with Baystate v Bentley.
But why should I pay the same same, inflated monthly fee for a used phone I buy off of ebay?
If they give me a free new phone b/c they make it up on monthly fees, it stands to reason that if they don't give me a new phone, my monthly fee should be somewhat lower? From what I understand Europe uses only this later business model, with no subsidized phone/plan combos?
Linus back in 2003 seems to disagree in this post, cited by one of TFA's:
"In short: you do _NOT_ have the right to use a kernel header file (or any other part of the kernel sources), unless that use results in a GPL'd program."
"So you can run the kernel and create non-GPL'd programs [...] BUT YOU CAN NOT USE THE KERNEL HEADER FILES TO CREATE NON-GPL'D BINARIES. Comprende?" -- http://lkml.org/lkml/2003/12/5/13
All good points. I wish they had introduced a fourth option, which could have been like how automatic toll payments work in the SF Bay Area (and probably elsewhere, dunno). I put in a "retainer" amount of some value (say $20). When that amount drops to below a certain value, the system automatically "tops" me back up to the max amount (the toll system is slightly more dynamic than this but you get the idea).
If I could put $20 in escrow with NY Times, I'd happily do so. Every time I read an article they could ding me $.25 or something. When I run out of article credits they top my account up by auto-charging again. I don't think many institutions could get me to subscribe in this way but NY Times is definitely one of them.
I think internet models are most profitable when they are monthly subscriptions but they lose a lot of customers who don't want a monthly fee for something they use irregularly. Amazon is basically taking those customers in the internet rental business - Netflix charges subs, and Amazon charges per rental. I wish NY Times had introduced a per rental model *in addition* to the ones they did announce, for people like me who like the service but don't use it regularly enough to justify a monthly sub.
Some types of ADHD are caused by neurotransmitter problems - adding an amphetamine like Ridalin can actually alter the receptor/neurotransmitter balance inducing more focused and calmer behavior. For people with "normal" neurotransmitter mixes, adding amphetamines can result in "amped up" behavior..
Here's my best understanding: You are not legally accountable simply for foreseeable consequences of your reporting, in cases of journalism freedom. You may be legally accountable for things you intend to do or happen as a result your reporting. This is why journalists are supposed to be neutral reporters, not agitators. They can be aware that their reporting has consequences, but if their intent is to cause a problem such as tortious interference (disrupting a contract between two other people) then they could have legal troubles.
In your case, the issue would be tricky b/c you're taking action on behalf of a family member. You wouldn't have journalistic protections most likely since you're not a neutral by-stander. But you would have other protections being an involved party in the issue. So bringing to the attention of management the faults of a doctor who killed your brother would almost never be tortious interference, as best as I understand the law.
And to your last point, intent can matter greatly in the law. There is a concept called "guilty mind" that does play in some crimes. For a classic law school example: if you walk into room and see your enemy sleeping on a couch, and you take the opportunity to shoot and kill him. It turns out that he had died in his sleep hours before, so really you just shot a corpse. If the prosecution can prove you intended to kill the man, you could still be convicted of attempted murder (instead of just some misdemeanor offense of shooting a corpse unlawfully).
Proving intent is very hard in most cases, so it doesn't come up often. But in first degree murder trials, as far as I'm aware, the *only* way you can get a conviction is to prove premeditated intent. So without premeditated intent, you are not guilty of first degree murder, ever.
In this case, the blogger took partial credit for getting the guy fired in a subsequent blog article. This probably helped establish his intent for the writing the original story in the minds of the jury..
All that said, I still want to say that I think this particular verdict is wrong and will hopefully be overturned on appeal.
In the case I was on, the juror was telling everyone that this was their intent, so pretty easy to prove it when the juror is telling all the other jurors and the judge!:)
The juror backed down when they got schooled on the law and realized that if they persisted they could rapidly move from the jury box to the defendant's chair..
I did also see a juror get a bench warrant issued for them when they just stopped showing up. Never did find out what happened to that person, but I learned an important jury duty tip: once you start showing up for jury duty you had better finish the process (not showing up at all seems like a much, much less serious offense if any at all).
You're right on the moral point. Sorry I was vague. My experience (and California is where I specifically had this experience) is that it is illegal to disregard the law for certain reasons. The specific case I was on where the judge started briefly down the road towards tossing a juror in jail was where a juror was saying "I don't care if the law says XYZ or the facts say ABC, I'm tired of this trial and I want to go home. I'm just going to vote DEF to get done with this." Maybe the crime was in ignoring what the facts say? But I think the judge said that it's illegal to ignore the process of the law as well (though he omitted the moral issue / nullification right that juries have, unsurprisingly). But I don't think jury nullification rights would protect a juror behaving this way?
Apparently a non-moral/conscience action like this is not legal (in CA?). Maybe contempt of court? I didn't learn the law involved as it didn't get that far, but I don't think that all actions / reasons for actions in the jury room are legal. Moral disregard for the law, as you point out, is legal..
Maybe I've got my facts wrong, but this was my experience. The judge wasn't just pressuring a juror to fall in line (as you point out, that's common) the judge was saying that if the juror persisted with that behavior, they could be guilty of a crime..
In all events, thanks for expanding on this point and for the civil dialogue.
If you want to see a great (re-enacted) example of "tortious interference" and how it can be used to stifle free speech, watch the Insider by Michael Mann. In fact I found it on Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_ShktXHPII
This issue was apparently at play in the "real" story behind the movie too - from what I understand.
Journalists are supposed to be neutral which is a big defense against tortious interference and other similar claims. Gotcha bloggers and journalistic muckrakers are at bigger risk if they display not just "gotcha" intentions, but intentions to disrupt or cause harm to the other party. They also, of course, have to print the truth or be at risk of slander or libel, but as Gershon says in the clip above "the greater the truth, the greater the damages" which is a classic example of how the legal system can turn everything upside down..
Great follow up - thanks for the additional info there. As another CP noted, there is a thing called jury nullification where if the jury decides the law is not "right" it can disregard it.
I was more referring to cases where a juror wants to go home early and decides that following the law (mechanically as you say) will take too long. That's illegal, or at least I'm pretty sure it is..
Good point and thanks for the correction. I'm still pretty sure it's unlawful to flout the legal instruction - but as you say if the law is "wrong" the jury can nullify. I was on a jury where someone was ignoring the law and the judge mentioned that they could go to jail for ignoring the law in this way. They weren't doing it for a "moral" reason or b/c they thought the law was wrong. They just didn't want to follow it, so they could shorten deliberation and go home early.
Good point! You're welcome to get out in front of the legal determination, but if the ruling goes the other way, you're hung out to dry. Which is why big media never does it.
I wonder if there are exceptions for extremely long running civil trials? For example, calling Bill Gates a monopolist before the gov't won it's case? It might be years before it's determined one way or the other? What if the person you *potentially* libeled sues you before the first case runs its course? Hmm. I guess you're left with only the evidence you can muster that you're not guilty of libel, and not able to use the legal ruling itself which is more iron clad in terms of a defense. So your example of tons of video and public eye witness statements, which ought to be a good enough shield.
I guess the real issue with the Bill Gates example is "law of most lawyers" where it almost doesn't matter whether something's legal if the other guy has many, many more lawyers.
Agree with all your points, except that the law appears in many places in the US to say "If you publish facts with the intent to disrupt a contract between two other people or orgs, you may not have all the first amendment protections you would otherwise expect." (aka tortious interference)
So neutral journalists are more protected than people publishing information with an agenda. Proving that someone has an agenda is hard. In this case, the blogger apparently wrote a follow up article claiming partial credit for getting the guy fired, which may be where his legal troubles actually began.
Still, I agree with you, this case should probably have first amendment protections trumping the tortious interference claim, and maybe that's what will happen on appeal.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah so true - it's the interpreted language family's version of assembler!
You can dig yourself into such a deep bunch of dog doo in Ruby if you want.
I also think it's the book not the language. I prefer Ruby to Perl and Python, by a lot, in terms of writing code (running code is another story - for that I prefer Lua!).
The ruby language is by far the most expressive and intuitive syntax I've ever used. I'd encourage you to give it another try, and for example use Dave Thomas' Prag Prog book not _why's. (My girlfriend loved reading _why's book but I don't think she ever got a strong handle on the ruby internals, which isn't what that book was for - she just liked reading it!).
I'm with you. A project I'm working on has a bunch of Python devs so against my better judgment I let them use python for our solution. I would literally rather write in Javascript than Python. There I said it.
Great point. I hate digging into Java code, but if I could write java libs without the painful syntax I would be more inclined. Now that you point it out, I suspect the JRuby guys are in the same boat. They'd be more likely to contribute to Java libs if they could write in syntax less like java and more like ruby. This seems like a pretty big win for JRuby also b/c it might unleash a horde of ruby devs into javaland (well, hopefully only the good ones).
Performant is helpful in tech communications at times. It helps to refer to gradations in meaning, exactly along the lines you refer to. If I'm discussing two solutions and I say one is going to be more performant, this is not marketing speak. This is a quick statement enabled by this word that permits the recipient of the communication to understand that I'm talking about performance issues and not something else. I could have said "going to have better performance" instead, but I don't see why anyone should care which word is used? If the issue is that performant technically doesn't exist as an English word, then 25% of my technical vocab has got to go as well. I believe that the word "contact" used to be unacceptable as a verb?
You're right that saying a solution "is performant" is silly and like all marketing borrows the word from a valid and grounded use.
Yes but. My reading of Google's process for the Linux headers is that they specifically strip out all the comments and complex macros such as what you describe. Their readme even describes how they optimize some macros to make them simple (by short circuiting or otherwise). Presumably they do this to optimize but also to make them trivial and therefore free to distribute in a non-gpl header.
Oh - that's interesting. Can you give more details? I haven't yet heard that CDMA and GSM will ever merge. Please share any info/links you've got on that, for LTE or anything else. Thanks.. ..Unless you mean ATT and T-Mobile have to merge to get enough spectrum for LTE? That seems very plausible.
I'd doubt that FTC would see a single GSM provider as worthy of anti-trust either. Since it's a spectrum issue, FCC might. If we're lucky FCC will get a deal like Comcast/NBC where Comcast basically agrees to support net neutrality in exchange for the deal. Maybe FCC can use that again. I doubt they'll get much more.
By the time this deal is consummated you may be lusting after something nicer/newer. 12-18 months seems about as fast as I could imagine this going through anti-trust and FCC. Comcast/NBC is a good benchmark for the time period you have to buy a new phone if you want to leave ATT/GSM (that one was announced Sept 2009, consummated Feb 2011 -- or estimating Sept 2012 for this case to be approved)..
In my opinion/experience (having worked at FCC), FCC will never intervene on those grounds. They see CDMA and GSM as competition. They don't look at from the consumer point of view - they look at it like DSL and cable.
And second addendum is to mute your audio before playing as that has to be the most annoying bass riff I've ever heard.
Would somebody with points mod P up? Google is attempting to strip out complex inline functions, comments and all the rest of it, apparently to make an uncopyrightable version of Linux header files. They even allude to this in their bionic readme: how they have an optimizer that figures out when an inline function can be reduced to something simpler and they do the reduction in their output. They seem to have tried to think this through, and specifically to be in-line with Baystate v Bentley.
But why should I pay the same same, inflated monthly fee for a used phone I buy off of ebay?
If they give me a free new phone b/c they make it up on monthly fees, it stands to reason that if they don't give me a new phone, my monthly fee should be somewhat lower? From what I understand Europe uses only this later business model, with no subsidized phone/plan combos?
Linus back in 2003 seems to disagree in this post, cited by one of TFA's:
"In short: you do _NOT_ have the right to use a kernel header file (or any other part of the kernel sources), unless that use results in a GPL'd program."
"So you can run the kernel and create non-GPL'd programs [...]
BUT YOU CAN NOT USE THE KERNEL HEADER FILES TO CREATE NON-GPL'D BINARIES.
Comprende?" -- http://lkml.org/lkml/2003/12/5/13
All good points. I wish they had introduced a fourth option, which could have been like how automatic toll payments work in the SF Bay Area (and probably elsewhere, dunno). I put in a "retainer" amount of some value (say $20). When that amount drops to below a certain value, the system automatically "tops" me back up to the max amount (the toll system is slightly more dynamic than this but you get the idea).
If I could put $20 in escrow with NY Times, I'd happily do so. Every time I read an article they could ding me $.25 or something. When I run out of article credits they top my account up by auto-charging again. I don't think many institutions could get me to subscribe in this way but NY Times is definitely one of them.
I think internet models are most profitable when they are monthly subscriptions but they lose a lot of customers who don't want a monthly fee for something they use irregularly. Amazon is basically taking those customers in the internet rental business - Netflix charges subs, and Amazon charges per rental. I wish NY Times had introduced a per rental model *in addition* to the ones they did announce, for people like me who like the service but don't use it regularly enough to justify a monthly sub.
You're talking about law and morality the way you want it to work (fairness). I'm trying to tell you how it actually does work.
Nope. Ritalin is closely related to amphetamines such as cocaine and meth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methylphenidate
Some types of ADHD are caused by neurotransmitter problems - adding an amphetamine like Ridalin can actually alter the receptor/neurotransmitter balance inducing more focused and calmer behavior. For people with "normal" neurotransmitter mixes, adding amphetamines can result in "amped up" behavior..
The brain is weird.
Here's my best understanding: You are not legally accountable simply for foreseeable consequences of your reporting, in cases of journalism freedom. You may be legally accountable for things you intend to do or happen as a result your reporting. This is why journalists are supposed to be neutral reporters, not agitators. They can be aware that their reporting has consequences, but if their intent is to cause a problem such as tortious interference (disrupting a contract between two other people) then they could have legal troubles.
In your case, the issue would be tricky b/c you're taking action on behalf of a family member. You wouldn't have journalistic protections most likely since you're not a neutral by-stander. But you would have other protections being an involved party in the issue. So bringing to the attention of management the faults of a doctor who killed your brother would almost never be tortious interference, as best as I understand the law.
And to your last point, intent can matter greatly in the law. There is a concept called "guilty mind" that does play in some crimes. For a classic law school example: if you walk into room and see your enemy sleeping on a couch, and you take the opportunity to shoot and kill him. It turns out that he had died in his sleep hours before, so really you just shot a corpse. If the prosecution can prove you intended to kill the man, you could still be convicted of attempted murder (instead of just some misdemeanor offense of shooting a corpse unlawfully).
Proving intent is very hard in most cases, so it doesn't come up often. But in first degree murder trials, as far as I'm aware, the *only* way you can get a conviction is to prove premeditated intent. So without premeditated intent, you are not guilty of first degree murder, ever.
In this case, the blogger took partial credit for getting the guy fired in a subsequent blog article. This probably helped establish his intent for the writing the original story in the minds of the jury..
All that said, I still want to say that I think this particular verdict is wrong and will hopefully be overturned on appeal.
In the case I was on, the juror was telling everyone that this was their intent, so pretty easy to prove it when the juror is telling all the other jurors and the judge! :)
The juror backed down when they got schooled on the law and realized that if they persisted they could rapidly move from the jury box to the defendant's chair..
I did also see a juror get a bench warrant issued for them when they just stopped showing up. Never did find out what happened to that person, but I learned an important jury duty tip: once you start showing up for jury duty you had better finish the process (not showing up at all seems like a much, much less serious offense if any at all).
You're right on the moral point. Sorry I was vague. My experience (and California is where I specifically had this experience) is that it is illegal to disregard the law for certain reasons. The specific case I was on where the judge started briefly down the road towards tossing a juror in jail was where a juror was saying "I don't care if the law says XYZ or the facts say ABC, I'm tired of this trial and I want to go home. I'm just going to vote DEF to get done with this." Maybe the crime was in ignoring what the facts say? But I think the judge said that it's illegal to ignore the process of the law as well (though he omitted the moral issue / nullification right that juries have, unsurprisingly). But I don't think jury nullification rights would protect a juror behaving this way?
Apparently a non-moral/conscience action like this is not legal (in CA?). Maybe contempt of court? I didn't learn the law involved as it didn't get that far, but I don't think that all actions / reasons for actions in the jury room are legal. Moral disregard for the law, as you point out, is legal..
Maybe I've got my facts wrong, but this was my experience. The judge wasn't just pressuring a juror to fall in line (as you point out, that's common) the judge was saying that if the juror persisted with that behavior, they could be guilty of a crime..
In all events, thanks for expanding on this point and for the civil dialogue.
If you want to see a great (re-enacted) example of "tortious interference" and how it can be used to stifle free speech, watch the Insider by Michael Mann. In fact I found it on Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_ShktXHPII
This issue was apparently at play in the "real" story behind the movie too - from what I understand.
Journalists are supposed to be neutral which is a big defense against tortious interference and other similar claims. Gotcha bloggers and journalistic muckrakers are at bigger risk if they display not just "gotcha" intentions, but intentions to disrupt or cause harm to the other party. They also, of course, have to print the truth or be at risk of slander or libel, but as Gershon says in the clip above "the greater the truth, the greater the damages" which is a classic example of how the legal system can turn everything upside down..
Great follow up - thanks for the additional info there. As another CP noted, there is a thing called jury nullification where if the jury decides the law is not "right" it can disregard it.
I was more referring to cases where a juror wants to go home early and decides that following the law (mechanically as you say) will take too long. That's illegal, or at least I'm pretty sure it is..
Good point and thanks for the correction. I'm still pretty sure it's unlawful to flout the legal instruction - but as you say if the law is "wrong" the jury can nullify. I was on a jury where someone was ignoring the law and the judge mentioned that they could go to jail for ignoring the law in this way. They weren't doing it for a "moral" reason or b/c they thought the law was wrong. They just didn't want to follow it, so they could shorten deliberation and go home early.
Good point! You're welcome to get out in front of the legal determination, but if the ruling goes the other way, you're hung out to dry. Which is why big media never does it.
I wonder if there are exceptions for extremely long running civil trials? For example, calling Bill Gates a monopolist before the gov't won it's case? It might be years before it's determined one way or the other? What if the person you *potentially* libeled sues you before the first case runs its course? Hmm. I guess you're left with only the evidence you can muster that you're not guilty of libel, and not able to use the legal ruling itself which is more iron clad in terms of a defense. So your example of tons of video and public eye witness statements, which ought to be a good enough shield.
I guess the real issue with the Bill Gates example is "law of most lawyers" where it almost doesn't matter whether something's legal if the other guy has many, many more lawyers.
Agree with all your points, except that the law appears in many places in the US to say "If you publish facts with the intent to disrupt a contract between two other people or orgs, you may not have all the first amendment protections you would otherwise expect." (aka tortious interference)
So neutral journalists are more protected than people publishing information with an agenda. Proving that someone has an agenda is hard. In this case, the blogger apparently wrote a follow up article claiming partial credit for getting the guy fired, which may be where his legal troubles actually began.
Still, I agree with you, this case should probably have first amendment protections trumping the tortious interference claim, and maybe that's what will happen on appeal.