Because if you cure cancer (Somehow...... cancer really refers to a vast number of genetic defects each with its own kink), or AIDS (perhaps more likely) you'll save billions of lives over the course of history.
Malaria however is another one desparately in need of research. Kills more than aids and yet gets a fraction of the research dollars.
But when you're still providing us with Windows XP in 2011, you are doing it wrong.
You do realize that not every company or department has the funds to provide you with the "latest and greatest". Some of us have to work with limited budgets brought down from up above. XP isn't ideal, but it's still being supported for the next 2+ years, which gives IT time to make sure the business apps will continue to function after the new OS is rolled out.
The problem is, and its not necessarily an IT depts fault, is that its often *more expensive* to underfund IT.
My last job at a major company I had to develop software on an ancient mac with 2 gig of ram and spent most of my time staring at the beachball. Every time I hit save, the beachball would spin. Every time I searched my code, the beachball would spin. Hell entering a line of code would make the beachball spin.
So my simple request "Can I please have 8 gig of ram" was denied because "Well if we do that all the coders will want it."
I pointed out that since i was being paid nearly $70 an hour, and I'm losing a good couple of hours a day on computer slugishness, that the investment would pay itself off in about 2 days, since not having the ram was costing the company about $140 a day. No dice.
Eventually myself and the other coders made an estimate of how much the non upgrades where costing the company in lost productivity , close to $8000 a week, and took it straight over the IT depts head to the big boss.
The next day a very reprimanded IT dept head personally installed my new ram.
Refactoring and metrics are often rarely agree. I remember one job I came into, I was given this steaming horrible piece of php (ugh) mess to fix up and add a bunch of features for the client. I took one look at it, and said "I need a good two months to fix this code" and demonstrated a series of horrible vunerabilities and fuckups in the code. Realising the vunerabilities (hint, demonstrating security holes in existing code is a REALLY good way to convince management you need to spend some quality time refatoring it) where just plain dangerous, I got given the go ahead.
A couple of weeks in, the manager called me into the office asking "Shayne, this is very strange. You know we take a metric of how many lines of code per hour are written into account here?". "Yes" I replied, "You also know I think its idiotic". The guy said "Right , well your registering a highly negative score on this. I dont even know if this is working right?".
The reality was this code was written by someone who really didn't "get" databases. A table would be loaded in, then iiterated over, and each pass would issue new sql calls for data, which would then be loaded in and iiterated again. I'd just delete all of the twenty+ pages of code, write a half-page winner of an SQL query, drop it into a mysql stored procedure, and select from it, then spending half a page formatting it and displaying it. It was robust, safe, and fast as hell. I went through the whole code like this turning hundreds of pages of code into tens of pages, all neatly commented, scrubbed of nasties, isolating out the design from the logic, putting models into model classes, views into templates and controllers to glue it all together.
And the end result was every day the code would lose twenty-thirty pages of code and develop 2 or 3 pages of terse, clean, maintainable code.
And as an end result, my metrics where fucked. I tried to argue that they needed to look at more sane metrics, like what was coming out of the CI software, and if they wanted to be really clever, things like complexity metrics and the like.
Ultimately however,they still wanted the "codes of line per day" metrics because as non technical people it made them feel like they understood what was going on, but ultimately they didn't. My suggestion to them however was "When developing fresh new code, that number should increase, when refactoring code, it should decrease. But only if the coder knows what he's frigging doing."
From a developer point, its actualy a fair comment about android. Having done low level development (VOIP apps) for the android, its a hard platform to target because under the hood there is a fair degree of diference between models. Not symbian hard (f**** that platform. never again) but its enough to be a painful at the best of times. Subtle differences in things like resolution or what C apis are supported become massive differences when a backyard developer needs to buy 10 models of the phone to make sure there aint no gotchas on all of them. But in androids defence, for MOST development the davlik stuff does seem to abstract most of that guff away. In contrast its a fairly baseless claim with IOS. The things amazingly consistent between phones, and as long as you develop to whatever you consider your acceptable lowest denominator (Id say 3GS is about right for most things) you cant really go wrong. And sure the mac is different, but who the heck wants to run iphone apps on a mac, or for that matter mac apps on iphones. Porting is MOSTLY easy (Although I'd like to see apple implement UIKit compatibility on the mac), but its not often that its needed. Put it this way, I doubt most dot net developers are going to be wanting to simply recompile to the winmo phones without some serious refactoring of the UI at least. Ballmers a bulbous fool. I miss Gates:(
Well actually it was the minmitar nerf that broke the camels back (why "lets remove the most ridiculously fun setup in game, the 'comedy scimitar setup' was even a thought process is beyond me).
Except perhaps in completely ridiculous cases (the insane original titan configuration where you could remotely blow up hundreds of people without leaving the pos, which caused tonnes of people to give up eve in frusturation) it seems the better option to overpowered setups is instead of nerfing which just punishes people for spending time training up the skills, buff countermeasures. ECM too strong? Buff EECM. Vultures too hard to shoot? Give some other ship the tools to provide a staunch opposition. And so on. But having my setups constantly nerfed (burn eden raidens where also shitloads of fun too, Insane slippery T2 cruise ravens coupled with a bubble ruled. And yeah that got killed by the stab nerf, but I kind of understand that particular one) everytime I spent 3-4 months training it up just ended up wearing me out.
Woz never really wanted to be a high flying executive. He just wanted to be a happy geek who made cool shit, and was uncomfortable with Jobs business focus. The two remained good friends right until the end.
Actually I'm rather fond of Gnome, or at least old gnomes, UI. Its never been the prettiest thing, but its always been pretty damn simple to use. My *grandmother* can drive around Ubuntu.
I do agree this is partly microsofts own fault that the start button was dying. In its windows 95-2000 incarnations it was simplicity itself. Click->programs->pick a program.
From there it just got wierder and wierder, and much less intuitive.
Burn down their house, enslave their children, forcibly sell their wives into slavery. Napalm the suburb, nuke the capital. Use waterboarding, electric shock, exposure and "pressure points". Rape their dog, garrot their parents, and TNT the homes of their high school sweethearts.
But please, we live in a civilized world, lets not debase ourselves with such barbarianism as asking our enemys go on hunting trips with Dick cheney.
I started using usenet around , maybe 93? Back when here in australia the only internet I could get was a crazy little BBS run by a couple of paraplegic guys turned ISP that boasted of its 128kb ISDN connection to the local university back when all internet in australia was run by the universities and they where starting to lease connections out to private providers. Getting TCP/IP to work properly with MS-DOS proved beyond my technical skills at the time and TCP/IP just didn't exist on my minix machine. What I *could* do however was modem into the ISP and set up a terminal to a shell account and use USENET via, uh I think it was PINE. It was amazing, I could argue with anyone (and boy did I like arguing) , read about news from all sorts of wierd places, read bizzare nonsense from the church of the subgenius (really the internets first comedy "meme") , read the ongoing fight between usenet users and scientologists, and so on.
But there absolutely was spam. Starting with the green-card lawyer scandal and spreading out from there. It wasn't TOO bad (and thankfully they hadn't stumbled upon trying to fuzz out spam checkers via deliberate spelling errors) , and in fact was mostly controllable via a handfull of dudes like cancel-moose sending out usenet cancel messages.
Porn did exist, but it was an absolute bastard, especially in an era when a full-screen gif image could take a bunch of minutes to download, as you'd have to track down all the pieces of the image, download them and then run them through a piece of software that extracted the binary. Then you'd view it on a chunky looking EGA screen and yup, Samantha fox's tits.
It wasn't that compelling to be honest.
I guess what I'm saying was I was there not quite at the beginning, but very much on the rising side of the bell curve, and there WAS spam, porn, and warez, its just that there wasn't really very much.
If one however is going to blame warez for anything, its that flooding usenet with terabyte upon terabyte of wares has made it unprofitable for most ISPs to carry a usenet mirror, and THAT is a problem.
Am I the only one who reads this and is reminded of the scene in 4 lions with the terrorist who wants to strap dynamite to pigeons to blow up , uh, jews or something.
Pretty sure if a 757 can't destroy the pentagon, sure as hell a toy airplane with a stick of dynamite taped to it sure as hell wouldn't.
At some point we're going to realise that most western terrorists are not Bin laden's but angry clowns.
I'd strongly implore europeans to look at similar moves. The EU courts have proven time again to have backbone when it comes to anti-competitive behaviour in the IT industry, and right now this is Microsoft playing the checkmate card its been threatening for a long long time.
Have you any idea how these pirates work? MPEG-LA is not a charity, its a business with an extremely predatory model. Collect patents together and then try and collect rent from developers.
If WebM needs protection, google will protect it. Nobody is asking MPEG-:LA to pool patents to sieze licencing rights to something they didnt invent (They didn't invent ANYTHING they licence out by the way, MPEG-LA is not MPEG. They just exploit the fact you cant trademark acronyms).
Patent pools are incompatible with free/open source. If someone forces mozilla to licence a patent, guess what only mozilla can use that code and its not free software no more. If parents cover webkit, its not free software no more.
We might well end up with a scenario that the only browsers distributable with linux are those without video.
A world without firefox, VLC , and so on is a world without free access to user created content, and that ultimately is a spike in the heart of free speech.
Man , I miss the days when the ACCC forced australian shops to only sell multiregion DVD plays and litigated to PROTECT modchipping , because it was necessary to protect parallell importing.
Then we signed a useless treaty with the US that wrecked our sugar exports and in return we "won" tighter copyright controls. Dickhead conservatives:(
Office is one of microsofts most profitable product lines, just behind windows. It would be commercial suicide for them to kill it off, just to spite a competitor.
Remember: Selling to your competitors customers is more profitable than refusing to sell to them.
Plus I suspect microsoft and apple have an understanding that goes something like "You keep making bootcamp so we can sell mac users windows and we'll keep making office". The presence of apple alternatives to office is more as an insurance policy if microsoft decides to go scorched earth on them. Remember that apple mostly sees software as a tool to sell hardware.
But particle physics in particular seems to have vanished up its own asshole in the last couple of decades Every problem seems to be solved by inventing a new particle which will show up if only we spend ten times as much on the next machine
That doesn't mean they are wrong however. As a physicist friend put it to me, "The more we study the universe the only thing we can be certain about it, is that the universe is actually very fucking wierd".
Whats needed is a web of trust system that lets users define who they trust and who they don't. If I'm doing financial transactions, I'd probably trust *visa* more than some crappy SSL reseller to certify the SSL. If I'm looking at a government page, I'd trust the government. But if I'm looking an anti-government stuff I'd love to be able to say "If the govt is in the web of trust here, let me know, because I dont like that".
Its strange to me that if I set up a store with a credit card I get have to get an SSL from verison, despite the fact I *actually* have to convince VISA I'm safe. What this means is if I'm dodgy , even if VISA goes "Man no dude, your business is a ponzi", my customer visible certification is from verison who has no such protections. Why cant I send my business plan to my bank, the bank then signs a certificate using creds it got from visa which then I can in turn sign for MY subdomains so the web of trust is clear: Shaynes budget dongles is trusted shaynecorp which is trusted by widget-bank which is trusted by VISA, which is trusted by , uh, maybe the WTO (or something) which in turn is trusted by (etc). If I dont want to deal with VISA anymore, I revoke my trust of VISA and any VISA enabled site becomes untrusted so I instead look for ones with Mastercard trustedness.
Political groups could create their own trust chains (and you can inspect them and go "Hey hang on, I dont trust republicans, fuck that , revoke"). Company chains could create their own. But they are all related by a web of trust rather than a heirachy, and from there peoples intuitions about who to trust rather than "I hope verisign isnt issuing garbage SSLs again".
It would kill dead the stupid oligopoly over SSL whilst providing more robust tools for determining who the hell your actually talking to in a secure transaction.
You cant prove the existance of moral laws (they dont exist), but you can derive them via solid logic if you accept a couple of limited precepts. Kant for instance more or less derived an entire moral code from logically mapping the implications of the idea that the law of non-contradiction should apply to morals by arguing that it meant roughly "If you think its good for others then its good for yourself since a good thing cant be an evil thing and an evil thing cant be a good thing". And thats just one code. Benthem derived a compltely different set of moral laws by starting from "your actions ought maximise utility and not decrease it" more or less.
This is where people get confused. There are actually many moral codes, and many can be "proved". But sometimes those moral codes contradict each other and you have to evaluate them on their merits or argumentation to see who's moral claim seems most able to withstand scrutiny. Very few except those of the religionists are just plucked out of the air.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess in this version, the "griefers" are called DEA.
Because if you cure cancer (Somehow...... cancer really refers to a vast number of genetic defects each with its own kink), or AIDS (perhaps more likely) you'll save billions of lives over the course of history.
Malaria however is another one desparately in need of research. Kills more than aids and yet gets a fraction of the research dollars.
But when you're still providing us with Windows XP in 2011, you are doing it wrong.
You do realize that not every company or department has the funds to provide you with the "latest and greatest". Some of us have to work with limited budgets brought down from up above. XP isn't ideal, but it's still being supported for the next 2+ years, which gives IT time to make sure the business apps will continue to function after the new OS is rolled out.
The problem is, and its not necessarily an IT depts fault, is that its often *more expensive* to underfund IT.
My last job at a major company I had to develop software on an ancient mac with 2 gig of ram and spent most of my time staring at the beachball. Every time I hit save, the beachball would spin. Every time I searched my code, the beachball would spin. Hell entering a line of code would make the beachball spin.
So my simple request "Can I please have 8 gig of ram" was denied because "Well if we do that all the coders will want it."
I pointed out that since i was being paid nearly $70 an hour, and I'm losing a good couple of hours a day on computer slugishness, that the investment would pay itself off in about 2 days, since not having the ram was costing the company about $140 a day. No dice.
Eventually myself and the other coders made an estimate of how much the non upgrades where costing the company in lost productivity , close to $8000 a week, and took it straight over the IT depts head to the big boss.
The next day a very reprimanded IT dept head personally installed my new ram.
Refactoring and metrics are often rarely agree. I remember one job I came into, I was given this steaming horrible piece of php (ugh) mess to fix up and add a bunch of features for the client. I took one look at it, and said "I need a good two months to fix this code" and demonstrated a series of horrible vunerabilities and fuckups in the code. Realising the vunerabilities (hint, demonstrating security holes in existing code is a REALLY good way to convince management you need to spend some quality time refatoring it) where just plain dangerous, I got given the go ahead.
A couple of weeks in, the manager called me into the office asking "Shayne, this is very strange. You know we take a metric of how many lines of code per hour are written into account here?". "Yes" I replied, "You also know I think its idiotic". The guy said "Right , well your registering a highly negative score on this. I dont even know if this is working right?".
The reality was this code was written by someone who really didn't "get" databases. A table would be loaded in, then iiterated over, and each pass would issue new sql calls for data, which would then be loaded in and iiterated again. I'd just delete all of the twenty+ pages of code, write a half-page winner of an SQL query, drop it into a mysql stored procedure, and select from it, then spending half a page formatting it and displaying it. It was robust, safe, and fast as hell. I went through the whole code like this turning hundreds of pages of code into tens of pages, all neatly commented, scrubbed of nasties, isolating out the design from the logic, putting models into model classes, views into templates and controllers to glue it all together.
And the end result was every day the code would lose twenty-thirty pages of code and develop 2 or 3 pages of terse, clean, maintainable code.
And as an end result, my metrics where fucked. I tried to argue that they needed to look at more sane metrics, like what was coming out of the CI software, and if they wanted to be really clever, things like complexity metrics and the like.
Ultimately however ,they still wanted the "codes of line per day" metrics because as non technical people it made them feel like they understood what was going on, but ultimately they didn't. My suggestion to them however was "When developing fresh new code, that number should increase, when refactoring code, it should decrease. But only if the coder knows what he's frigging doing."
From a developer point, its actualy a fair comment about android. Having done low level development (VOIP apps) for the android, its a hard platform to target because under the hood there is a fair degree of diference between models. Not symbian hard (f**** that platform. never again) but its enough to be a painful at the best of times. Subtle differences in things like resolution or what C apis are supported become massive differences when a backyard developer needs to buy 10 models of the phone to make sure there aint no gotchas on all of them. But in androids defence, for MOST development the davlik stuff does seem to abstract most of that guff away. In contrast its a fairly baseless claim with IOS. The things amazingly consistent between phones, and as long as you develop to whatever you consider your acceptable lowest denominator (Id say 3GS is about right for most things) you cant really go wrong. And sure the mac is different, but who the heck wants to run iphone apps on a mac, or for that matter mac apps on iphones. Porting is MOSTLY easy (Although I'd like to see apple implement UIKit compatibility on the mac), but its not often that its needed. Put it this way, I doubt most dot net developers are going to be wanting to simply recompile to the winmo phones without some serious refactoring of the UI at least. Ballmers a bulbous fool. I miss Gates :(
Nerfing the falcon was why I quit the damn game.
Well actually it was the minmitar nerf that broke the camels back (why "lets remove the most ridiculously fun setup in game, the 'comedy scimitar setup' was even a thought process is beyond me).
Except perhaps in completely ridiculous cases (the insane original titan configuration where you could remotely blow up hundreds of people without leaving the pos, which caused tonnes of people to give up eve in frusturation) it seems the better option to overpowered setups is instead of nerfing which just punishes people for spending time training up the skills, buff countermeasures. ECM too strong? Buff EECM. Vultures too hard to shoot? Give some other ship the tools to provide a staunch opposition. And so on. But having my setups constantly nerfed (burn eden raidens where also shitloads of fun too, Insane slippery T2 cruise ravens coupled with a bubble ruled. And yeah that got killed by the stab nerf, but I kind of understand that particular one) everytime I spent 3-4 months training it up just ended up wearing me out.
corsairbaiebaie.be would be available too for the french speaking belgians too.
Just like the town of Batman in turkey where Robin first met his mentor.
Woz never really wanted to be a high flying executive. He just wanted to be a happy geek who made cool shit, and was uncomfortable with Jobs business focus. The two remained good friends right until the end.
Actually I'm rather fond of Gnome, or at least old gnomes, UI. Its never been the prettiest thing, but its always been pretty damn simple to use. My *grandmother* can drive around Ubuntu.
I do agree this is partly microsofts own fault that the start button was dying. In its windows 95-2000 incarnations it was simplicity itself. Click->programs->pick a program.
From there it just got wierder and wierder, and much less intuitive.
Burn down their house, enslave their children, forcibly sell their wives into slavery. Napalm the suburb, nuke the capital. Use waterboarding, electric shock, exposure and "pressure points". Rape their dog, garrot their parents, and TNT the homes of their high school sweethearts.
But please, we live in a civilized world, lets not debase ourselves with such barbarianism as asking our enemys go on hunting trips with Dick cheney.
That boat sailed long ago. This is just a bunch of javascript.
WebGL is pretty much in every browser (Well maybe not IE, not sure) , and has been for a while now.
I started using usenet around , maybe 93? Back when here in australia the only internet I could get was a crazy little BBS run by a couple of paraplegic guys turned ISP that boasted of its 128kb ISDN connection to the local university back when all internet in australia was run by the universities and they where starting to lease connections out to private providers. Getting TCP/IP to work properly with MS-DOS proved beyond my technical skills at the time and TCP/IP just didn't exist on my minix machine. What I *could* do however was modem into the ISP and set up a terminal to a shell account and use USENET via, uh I think it was PINE. It was amazing, I could argue with anyone (and boy did I like arguing) , read about news from all sorts of wierd places, read bizzare nonsense from the church of the subgenius (really the internets first comedy "meme") , read the ongoing fight between usenet users and scientologists, and so on.
But there absolutely was spam. Starting with the green-card lawyer scandal and spreading out from there. It wasn't TOO bad (and thankfully they hadn't stumbled upon trying to fuzz out spam checkers via deliberate spelling errors) , and in fact was mostly controllable via a handfull of dudes like cancel-moose sending out usenet cancel messages.
Porn did exist, but it was an absolute bastard, especially in an era when a full-screen gif image could take a bunch of minutes to download, as you'd have to track down all the pieces of the image, download them and then run them through a piece of software that extracted the binary. Then you'd view it on a chunky looking EGA screen and yup, Samantha fox's tits.
It wasn't that compelling to be honest.
I guess what I'm saying was I was there not quite at the beginning, but very much on the rising side of the bell curve, and there WAS spam, porn, and warez, its just that there wasn't really very much.
If one however is going to blame warez for anything, its that flooding usenet with terabyte upon terabyte of wares has made it unprofitable for most ISPs to carry a usenet mirror, and THAT is a problem.
In the Air Force, we had EOD take care of the problem.
With C4.
And I'm not making this up. The drives weren't working, so we couldn't just wipe them, and EOD was bored and had explosives...
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. In this case its a very very fun hammer.
Am I the only one who reads this and is reminded of the scene in 4 lions with the terrorist who wants to strap dynamite to pigeons to blow up , uh, jews or something.
Pretty sure if a 757 can't destroy the pentagon, sure as hell a toy airplane with a stick of dynamite taped to it sure as hell wouldn't.
At some point we're going to realise that most western terrorists are not Bin laden's but angry clowns.
I'd strongly implore europeans to look at similar moves. The EU courts have proven time again to have backbone when it comes to anti-competitive behaviour in the IT industry, and right now this is Microsoft playing the checkmate card its been threatening for a long long time.
Have you any idea how these pirates work? MPEG-LA is not a charity, its a business with an extremely predatory model. Collect patents together and then try and collect rent from developers.
If WebM needs protection, google will protect it. Nobody is asking MPEG-:LA to pool patents to sieze licencing rights to something they didnt invent (They didn't invent ANYTHING they licence out by the way, MPEG-LA is not MPEG. They just exploit the fact you cant trademark acronyms).
Patent pools are incompatible with free/open source. If someone forces mozilla to licence a patent, guess what only mozilla can use that code and its not free software no more. If parents cover webkit, its not free software no more.
We might well end up with a scenario that the only browsers distributable with linux are those without video.
A world without firefox, VLC , and so on is a world without free access to user created content, and that ultimately is a spike in the heart of free speech.
Fan slash fiction is about to get even creepier folks. Much much creepier.
Since when is art about being lawful?
Much Graffiti is grwat art, but t wouldn't even BE graffiti if it was legal.
Man , I miss the days when the ACCC forced australian shops to only sell multiregion DVD plays and litigated to PROTECT modchipping , because it was necessary to protect parallell importing.
Then we signed a useless treaty with the US that wrecked our sugar exports and in return we "won" tighter copyright controls. Dickhead conservatives :(
Office is one of microsofts most profitable product lines, just behind windows. It would be commercial suicide for them to kill it off, just to spite a competitor.
Remember: Selling to your competitors customers is more profitable than refusing to sell to them.
Plus I suspect microsoft and apple have an understanding that goes something like "You keep making bootcamp so we can sell mac users windows and we'll keep making office". The presence of apple alternatives to office is more as an insurance policy if microsoft decides to go scorched earth on them. Remember that apple mostly sees software as a tool to sell hardware.
That doesn't mean they are wrong however. As a physicist friend put it to me, "The more we study the universe the only thing we can be certain about it, is that the universe is actually very fucking wierd".
Whats needed is a web of trust system that lets users define who they trust and who they don't. If I'm doing financial transactions, I'd probably trust *visa* more than some crappy SSL reseller to certify the SSL. If I'm looking at a government page, I'd trust the government. But if I'm looking an anti-government stuff I'd love to be able to say "If the govt is in the web of trust here, let me know, because I dont like that".
Its strange to me that if I set up a store with a credit card I get have to get an SSL from verison, despite the fact I *actually* have to convince VISA I'm safe. What this means is if I'm dodgy , even if VISA goes "Man no dude, your business is a ponzi", my customer visible certification is from verison who has no such protections. Why cant I send my business plan to my bank, the bank then signs a certificate using creds it got from visa which then I can in turn sign for MY subdomains so the web of trust is clear: Shaynes budget dongles is trusted shaynecorp which is trusted by widget-bank which is trusted by VISA, which is trusted by , uh, maybe the WTO (or something) which in turn is trusted by (etc). If I dont want to deal with VISA anymore, I revoke my trust of VISA and any VISA enabled site becomes untrusted so I instead look for ones with Mastercard trustedness.
Political groups could create their own trust chains (and you can inspect them and go "Hey hang on, I dont trust republicans, fuck that , revoke"). Company chains could create their own. But they are all related by a web of trust rather than a heirachy, and from there peoples intuitions about who to trust rather than "I hope verisign isnt issuing garbage SSLs again".
It would kill dead the stupid oligopoly over SSL whilst providing more robust tools for determining who the hell your actually talking to in a secure transaction.
To quote the apple lawyer "What could possibly go wrong?". Yeah, pissing off a trial judge has a very poor history of working out well for people.
You cant prove the existance of moral laws (they dont exist), but you can derive them via solid logic if you accept a couple of limited precepts. Kant for instance more or less derived an entire moral code from logically mapping the implications of the idea that the law of non-contradiction should apply to morals by arguing that it meant roughly "If you think its good for others then its good for yourself since a good thing cant be an evil thing and an evil thing cant be a good thing". And thats just one code. Benthem derived a compltely different set of moral laws by starting from "your actions ought maximise utility and not decrease it" more or less.
This is where people get confused. There are actually many moral codes, and many can be "proved". But sometimes those moral codes contradict each other and you have to evaluate them on their merits or argumentation to see who's moral claim seems most able to withstand scrutiny. Very few except those of the religionists are just plucked out of the air.