I'm certain not to be the first to say but, "Since the statute predates the Constitution of the U.S., a clever lawyer could argue it applies here equally." That's inane.
The ONLY arguments from foriegn courts have to do with common international standards of conduct, not laws that happen to be on the books.
Fucking hell, did you hear about the American Revolution.
or is that sentence just a troll for people like me.
that word, are you sure you are using it correctly
on
Foundations of Ajax
·
· Score: 1
"... deliver content in ways unimaginable only a few short years ago"
but, but, I remember imagining it. I remember it all over the tech press... and those guys that wrote the technology, they -imagined- it! For GOD'S SAKE WE ALL IMAGINE THAT SHIT!!!!
I do get your point (I've read the Mythical Man Month a couple time... excellent recommendation).
What I think you are forgeting in practice is that what people usually do with software flaws is live with them...
And this the hard reality of a lot of coding, they are not committing to top notch software. They don't incur those costs they just put up with the crap... and if was delivered "working" (aka "running") in the first place, it'll still be running.
people don't have the fund up front and then don't have them later either.
make up the cost? I don't think you understand the idea of cost entirely, no insult intended.
the better code will not nec. make any more money for people, so even if the code is "worth" 2x, that doesn't mean they'll get 2x, also, in research you don't always have the money, you literally have to do the best with the resources you have, and that might not likely include a pseudocode engineer.
add to that the fact that hiring software engineers is often a crap shoot and you get people that are not that great and just expenses...
very well put, that's an excellent point, if linus made it... um, thanks for making it again in three paragraphs.
That's a very strong case... also emphasizing the gpl3 is a new license, gpl2 still exists, if there is a way these licenses work together as you've described... that's fantastic, isn't it.
you have to build dams at the narrow parts of the river.
the key in all strategic battle is controls of these sorts of points and other types of high ground, pressure, and choke points.
if you have goals... you'll need to fight in the right places... not the merely logically morally right places, but wherever in reality you can accomplish your goals, and that will be whichever areas you are strongest in.
Now that sounds general like I'm not really disagreeing with you in that I'm not sure you're wrong in where you say we should fight... because I'm only making this generalization, that strategically you have to fight places you have power and supply lines, etc, and so I don't think the model yours is going to work because it's true, morally, it's not the Postal Carrier's fault.
If your neighbor has put a gate on a drive that was an access road (not allowed in most states), you might have to go to the Post Office to use the power of the post office, and say, "the carrier can't get to my house any more because my neighbor closed off my right of way". I know, maybe you get a lawyer and take the guy to court... or you do both and more. Sometimes you have to pull in third parties because they are part of the whole situation.
In this case... I'm not sure where I stand, but I think defeating the idea and structure of DRM is worth fighting on every front, especially since it's unlikely to be defeated.
we mainly agree then, because I endorse this "that the passion and pride any true craftsman has for their work is derived from the results they get" in spirit.
We still disagree, however, in that, I know some furniture makers do take pride in, for example, using a traditional plane rather than a powered tool for the same job.
Also we seem to disagree on how the semantics should be arranged, all components require tools, I say, though the tools may be hands.
And while I agree with the spirit of your crafstman as you put it, I think if we fix the crafstman and vary the tools, of course the same craftsman will have better results with better tools and will therefore value the tools highly for he'll recognize they do help the quality of the result just as careful skill does.
And if you are still denying that a worse craftsman might make a better creation with access to tools that were better enough, I still feel they might, because as we admit, it can be hard to sand a piece of wood without a tool, at least sandpaper. There is a limit, an upper limit, and that bound is defined by the tool.
I endorse praising the craftsman, but tools matter.
You admit tools matter, but want to emphasize the role of the craftsman, correct? That's fine with me... because I agree the craftsman is more important than the tools... and there is no tool great enough that a poor craftsman can't misuse it.
first, this is an interesting line of debate to me, so thanks...
>Nails, glue, and tape are components, not tools.
I don't think this distinction will get you far, nail and glue are components, but if you don't have a hammer, the nails are useless... so I think that distinction just won't take you far.
>Obviously, better components will produce better results: I can build a better house given bricks and cement than even the best builder armed with a bucket of water, irrespective of relative skill levels (near zero in my case) or the tools being used.
and this extends to the tools, because components are built to the tools and vice versa.
>I refute your assertion that craftsmen collect tools, because most of the ones I've met (and that's quite a lot) have no more than they actually require.
semantics, I didn't mean in the sense that people collect beanie babies or useless things... I mean to use. By "collect" I meant more that they care about the difference between a quality tool and a lousy tool and take care to know the differences (or else they find out the hard way, then take care).
>Finally, you should consider the fact that some of the most astounding examples of craftsmanship in the world were made by people who had access to what we would consider quite rudimentary tools. Stradivarius and Guarnarius for example made musical instruments in the 1600s that
yes, I admit that, and many of the tools we have are not considered good because of the quality of the result, but because they are time savers though they degrade the quality.
My only point is that out of all of this, the tools remain important, and they do have an affect of their own.
But in general I also do agree with you that THE MOST IMPORTANT tool is the human skill and creativity.
even if that was true, it has nothing to do with what I said, because the better craftsman will love the better tools and be able to appreciate them... good craftsmen collect good tools.
but it's also not true... I can make a better piece of furniture with power tools and nails than a better furniture maker can make with glue and tape.
Your line of reasoning here can only devolve into "tools don't matter" and no good craftsman really thinks that, even if the human skill is the most important tool of all.
had a similar first experience with Python, which I'll be using for work next year, and also, for hobby projects, as I realized the C++ framework I was making was not the fun part I decided to buy the hype for a couple hours about rails and by the end it's like one of those, "it's fun to program" things.
I cannot believe Ruby, or Rails... it's fantastic stuff.
think about this, do you think mice are not thinking organisms... and when they act, do they know they act? Do they know they eat, while they ear? i.e. are they not already conscious?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm certain not to be the first to say but, "Since the statute predates the Constitution of the U.S., a clever lawyer could argue it applies here equally." That's inane.
The ONLY arguments from foriegn courts have to do with common international standards of conduct, not laws that happen to be on the books.
Fucking hell, did you hear about the American Revolution.
or is that sentence just a troll for people like me.
well it worked.
it's bigger than some stars!
still 3x size of Pluto.
Does it "wander" in the sky? Yes? Planet.
if there even is such a thing as progress is in dispute, philosophically, and part of a long running argument.
I believe in progress, that makes me progressive.
no way do I believe EA is getting off the brand-lease crack... you must be nuts.
It's nice to say when you have a game like this to sell though.
I hope they don't comply in time 1000%
"... deliver content in ways unimaginable only a few short years ago"
but, but, I remember imagining it. I remember it all over the tech press... and those guys that wrote the technology, they -imagined- it! For GOD'S SAKE WE ALL IMAGINE THAT SHIT!!!!
I do get your point (I've read the Mythical Man Month a couple time... excellent recommendation).
What I think you are forgeting in practice is that what people usually do with software flaws is live with them...
And this the hard reality of a lot of coding, they are not committing to top notch software. They don't incur those costs they just put up with the crap... and if was delivered "working" (aka "running") in the first place, it'll still be running.
people don't have the fund up front and then don't have them later either.
blaming bad links on ajax is sort of desperate.
make up the cost? I don't think you understand the idea of cost entirely, no insult intended.
the better code will not nec. make any more money for people, so even if the code is "worth" 2x, that doesn't mean they'll get 2x, also, in research you don't always have the money, you literally have to do the best with the resources you have, and that might not likely include a pseudocode engineer.
add to that the fact that hiring software engineers is often a crap shoot and you get people that are not that great and just expenses...
imo
very well put, that's an excellent point, if linus made it... um, thanks for making it again in three paragraphs.
That's a very strong case... also emphasizing the gpl3 is a new license, gpl2 still exists, if there is a way these licenses work together as you've described... that's fantastic, isn't it.
you have to build dams at the narrow parts of the river.
the key in all strategic battle is controls of these sorts of points and other types of high ground, pressure, and choke points.
if you have goals... you'll need to fight in the right places... not the merely logically morally right places, but wherever in reality you can accomplish your goals, and that will be whichever areas you are strongest in.
Now that sounds general like I'm not really disagreeing with you in that I'm not sure you're wrong in where you say we should fight... because I'm only making this generalization, that strategically you have to fight places you have power and supply lines, etc, and so I don't think the model yours is going to work because it's true, morally, it's not the Postal Carrier's fault.
If your neighbor has put a gate on a drive that was an access road (not allowed in most states), you might have to go to the Post Office to use the power of the post office, and say, "the carrier can't get to my house any more because my neighbor closed off my right of way". I know, maybe you get a lawyer and take the guy to court... or you do both and more. Sometimes you have to pull in third parties because they are part of the whole situation.
In this case... I'm not sure where I stand, but I think defeating the idea and structure of DRM is worth fighting on every front, especially since it's unlikely to be defeated.
he'll also send you a dollar for every time you forward this comment...
we mainly agree then, because I endorse this "that the passion and pride any true craftsman has for their work is derived from the results they get" in spirit.
We still disagree, however, in that, I know some furniture makers do take pride in, for example, using a traditional plane rather than a powered tool for the same job.
Also we seem to disagree on how the semantics should be arranged, all components require tools, I say, though the tools may be hands.
And while I agree with the spirit of your crafstman as you put it, I think if we fix the crafstman and vary the tools, of course the same craftsman will have better results with better tools and will therefore value the tools highly for he'll recognize they do help the quality of the result just as careful skill does.
And if you are still denying that a worse craftsman might make a better creation with access to tools that were better enough, I still feel they might, because as we admit, it can be hard to sand a piece of wood without a tool, at least sandpaper. There is a limit, an upper limit, and that bound is defined by the tool.
I endorse praising the craftsman, but tools matter.
You admit tools matter, but want to emphasize the role of the craftsman, correct? That's fine with me... because I agree the craftsman is more important than the tools... and there is no tool great enough that a poor craftsman can't misuse it.
first, this is an interesting line of debate to me, so thanks...
>Nails, glue, and tape are components, not tools.
I don't think this distinction will get you far, nail and glue are components, but if you don't have a hammer, the nails are useless... so I think that distinction just won't take you far.
>Obviously, better components will produce better results: I can build a better house given bricks and cement than even the best builder armed with a bucket of water, irrespective of relative skill levels (near zero in my case) or the tools being used.
and this extends to the tools, because components are built to the tools and vice versa.
>I refute your assertion that craftsmen collect tools, because most of the ones I've met (and that's quite a lot) have no more than they actually require.
semantics, I didn't mean in the sense that people collect beanie babies or useless things... I mean to use. By "collect" I meant more that they care about the difference between a quality tool and a lousy tool and take care to know the differences (or else they find out the hard way, then take care).
>Finally, you should consider the fact that some of the most astounding examples of craftsmanship in the world were made by people who had access to what we would consider quite rudimentary tools. Stradivarius and Guarnarius for example made musical instruments in the 1600s that
yes, I admit that, and many of the tools we have are not considered good because of the quality of the result, but because they are time savers though they degrade the quality.
My only point is that out of all of this, the tools remain important, and they do have an affect of their own.
But in general I also do agree with you that THE MOST IMPORTANT tool is the human skill and creativity.
even if that was true, it has nothing to do with what I said, because the better craftsman will love the better tools and be able to appreciate them... good craftsmen collect good tools.
but it's also not true... I can make a better piece of furniture with power tools and nails than a better furniture maker can make with glue and tape.
Your line of reasoning here can only devolve into "tools don't matter" and no good craftsman really thinks that, even if the human skill is the most important tool of all.
wouldn't it be nice if we could have sex with code.... sigh.
... on what you do in the video.
had a similar first experience with Python, which I'll be using for work next year, and also, for hobby projects, as I realized the C++ framework I was making was not the fun part I decided to buy the hype for a couple hours about rails and by the end it's like one of those, "it's fun to program" things.
I cannot believe Ruby, or Rails... it's fantastic stuff.
what you say is the death of the craftsman.
oh, it's just sludge.
a good tool is sexy, to a good toolmaker, to a good craftsman.
a good tool is spiritual, it calls to the creators soul and whispers "freedom" and also "power".
humans identify phenomenon with words... even though it's really just a hundred elements...
thinks should merely be named by their chemical composition.
it's r.a.i.l.'s
j/k... or am i?
no doubt.
think about this, do you think mice are not thinking organisms... and when they act, do they know they act? Do they know they eat, while they ear? i.e. are they not already conscious?
humans are just stupid animals as well.
unless there is no yuck factor... mice with human brains sound interesting to me.
... for buying Microsoft.
That one fucked up the whole list.
I'll remember to use switches that have started to fail though... that won't get me fired.
wait a second, I'm a software engineer... making fun of admins never got me fired.