GP was over-zealous in anoligizing between Open Source and anarcho-capitalism. Its about freedom baby. In this particular sphere, ancap conception of freedom isn't really that different from the open source conception. But as you correctly point out, its not really that different from the anarcho-socialist either. So to credit ancarcho-capitalism at the expense of other freedom loving ideologies is wrong, but its also reaching to knock around that ancap strawman which you set up while trying to make it look like anarcho-capitalsim is somehow incompatible or opposed to open source. Anarcho-capitalism says nothing about making profit a "pillar of society". You don't have to believe in validity IP to be an anarcho-capitalist. My impression is that most do not. In fact, I don't see how you can really believe in actual physical property ownership and IP ownwership at the same time. If its my hard drive, I should be allowed to configure the bits on it in any of the available 2^n configurations.
no. don't ban it. declare that there software no longer has status as "property" until they comply with EU provisos. All the monopoly power that MS has is granted to them by state power in the form of IP protection. EU can make them not a monopoly whenever they wish.
exactly. The constitution has been dead since the New Deal. They do whatever they want, then the SCOTUS decides whether they think its good policy, then they retroactively dress up their policy decisions in esoteric legal mumbo jumbo to make it look like they are somehow actually reading the constitution.
The fact that they'll openly admit that neither "interstate" nor "commerce" are really important at all for considering something "intersate commerce" should make that pretty clear.
I've wondered if a cool mythical/medieval kind of game could be based on making the speed of light much much lower than it really is (except for the actual light beams).
Make it so that it just takes an incredible amount of energy to accelerate anything past say 100mph. So make the speed of light say 200mph for Lorentz transformation purposes, but other than that make the physics semi-realistic. Would that make swords axes and arrows the state of the art as far as combat technology goes?
If I was on a jury, and it was my decision, I'd _consider_ treble damages:
(1 + 3) *.99 * 272 = 1077 dollars.
and the fact that they asked for so much more than that to begin with would incline me to not award them antything for their legal representation. (assuming a judge would allow me to hear what the initial offer was).
I disagree, Microsoft didn't get to where they are using patents,
You are correct. It was copyright. Same idea, it's a grant of monopoly. And we shouldn't be surprised that a law which was designed to grant monopoly power has granted monopoly power.
So our choices for reform are:
(1) Grant government the power to pull more arbitrary enforcement mechanismes out of their arse while enforcing ex-post-facto-ish anti-trust laws.
(2) cut back on amount of monopoly power gonvernments are granting to the monopolist.
The fact is that CATO always stands up for big business against the public.
except here, where they are againt the DMCA. So your "fact" is wrong.
[here is the part where I really want to insult you but am resisting]
Unfortunately for all of us, libertarianism is another example of a one-size-fits-all ideology
Now thats funny! You criticize a position paper (or just the authoring organization, completely ignoring what they are actually saying) on one specific piece of legislation, which goes out of its way to stick to a practical/utilitarian analysis (avoiding any kind of principled/property rights analysis). And you criticize it with very general statements about libertarianism being too 'one-size-fits-all', making it clear that you are the one with the excess of ideological rigidity in tow.
I'm thinking you are actually a very clever libertarian, because to make the actual straw man argument that 'Libertarians are never right, they are too ideological' sound almost so reasonable and 'prgoressive' must have taken some work. If not please go [again more self censored insults removed].
I couldn't even make a push theory that I liked to follow a 1/r^2 kind of pattern.
didn't know what to google for.
thats a problem with "crank" physics. There are so many out there its hard to find the exact one you just came up with so that you can read about how its been disproven or deiscredited.
in the sense that we've never defaulted on our debts
except in 1933. and 1972. When "we" borrowed one kind of dollar, redifined it, then paid back the debt with the cheaper variety.
I'd be like be borrowing 3 pounds of corn from you, then redefining the term "pound" to be 0.5 of the old pounds, and paying you back in new units. Good thing I didn't default.
Re:If only we had really reached a crossroads
on
Demise of C++?
·
· Score: 1
ya what this guy said.
I love the idea of the STL. But it still feels like an 8th generation fix for a giant pound define hack. CLU had/has parameterized types, and it was simple. It didn't have this giant clusterf**k feel to it. Why can't I step through a readable/understandable template expansion in my debugger? Why can't I print out a particular object thats a template instantiation and get anything readable?
P.S. Implementing strings as a character Vector is just a tad bit too clever too.
screw dvorak. If I ever change I'm going to make up my own damn keyboard layout. I think the way to do it is to dump the undo contents from a few programming sessions (so that I include all the emacs Ctrl and Alt combos). Then do some kind of relative-frequency / markov-chain/alternating-hand-and-finger analaysis. I guess the dvorak layout is done along the same lines, but why would I expect a layout optimized for typing english text to be that good for writing C or perl in an emacs bufer. get me all the '{}[]()' somewhere easy and make underscore not even require a shift.
hell just moving the ctrl key up to the caps lock position (a 100% useless key) would be a good start.
Question:
anybody know of one of these fancy keyboards where the keys emit via LED er somethin what key they are? so that if I change on the fly I can look and see what the hell is assigned where? I know yoda advises a pure blank keyboard, but Im sorry I've got to have the damn things labelled correctly if/when I try to every move to a new keyboard.
Also there needs to be some way to distinguish betweem a DOS attack and getting 0wn3d. My personal figure of merit would assign about a 50x penalty factor to getting 0wn3d. Might want to use a different lower ratio for a storefront or something, where down time cost you money, but this is explicity designed to be a non-wizard test, and I'd get a wizard if you are depending on a web site to pay your mortgage.
Reminds me of one of the trivia questions that I find most annoying:
"What is the largest island?"
To which I always want to reply "either Eurasia or Eurasia/Africa depending on if you think they are sufficiently connected".
The question they are really trying to ask would be more honestly asked as: "What is the arbitrary cutoff point geographers have defined for 'Island', well at least the geographers we most recently talked to?"
Conventions-through-grey-areas are great for assisting in information transmission and processing when you are clearly on one side of the grey area or the other. But in cases when you are right around the grey area, it actually hampers communication and effective thought when people forget that these words are just arbitrary defintions used to simplify things for our tiny primate brains.
A full-featured any thing goes playe editor where I can reimplenent the Wing-T if thats what I want to do. On Defense too. And let me be able to watch game film on opponents and they watch in on me. It could be a really deep strategy game if they'd push it that way.
A BIG reason is because too many Americans approach politics the way they approach sports. They pick one team and stick with it, unless they get a REALLY good reason not to. To switch parties would make them feel 'disloyal'.
On top of that you have the fact that most political debate is about at the level presented above: "If you like Bush, you must either be stupid or evil". That just tends to make it easier to stay 'loyal'. Because everybody knows they aren't stupid or evil, so the "other" side, in addition to whatever flaws they must have as a result of being one of the bad guys (as learned in the party catechism of the party to which you belong), must also be full of liars.
Slashdot Mirror
SimBoat, builders edition.
so, I actually skimmed the article.
I'm way to lazy to actually read all of the words in it.
But isn't this just a "bus"? but its done with lasers?
I'm not really seeing the advatange, except that you get to use the word "laser" in your IPO?
GP was over-zealous in anoligizing between Open Source and anarcho-capitalism. Its about freedom baby. In this particular sphere, ancap conception of freedom isn't really that different from the open source conception. But as you correctly point out, its not really that different from the anarcho-socialist either. So to credit ancarcho-capitalism at the expense of other freedom loving ideologies is wrong, but its also reaching to knock around that ancap strawman which you set up while trying to make it look like anarcho-capitalsim is somehow incompatible or opposed to open source. Anarcho-capitalism says nothing about making profit a "pillar of society". You don't have to believe in validity IP to be an anarcho-capitalist. My impression is that most do not. In fact, I don't see how you can really believe in actual physical property ownership and IP ownwership at the same time. If its my hard drive, I should be allowed to configure the bits on it in any of the available 2^n configurations.
no. don't ban it. declare that there software no longer has status as "property" until they comply with EU provisos. All the monopoly power that MS has is granted to them by state power in the form of IP protection. EU can make them not a monopoly whenever they wish.
These aren't the droids you are looking for.
You don't need to see our identification.
We can move along now.
exactly. The constitution has been dead since the New Deal. They do whatever they want, then the SCOTUS decides whether they think its good policy, then they retroactively dress up their policy decisions in esoteric legal mumbo jumbo to make it look like they are somehow actually reading the constitution.
The fact that they'll openly admit that neither "interstate" nor "commerce" are really important at all for considering something "intersate commerce" should make that pretty clear.
I've wondered if a cool mythical/medieval kind of game could be based on making the speed of light much much lower than it really is (except for the actual light beams).
Make it so that it just takes an incredible amount of energy to accelerate anything past say 100mph. So make the speed of light say 200mph for Lorentz transformation purposes, but other than that make the physics semi-realistic. Would that make swords axes and arrows the state of the art as far as combat technology goes?
If I was on a jury, and it was my decision, I'd _consider_ treble damages:
.99 * 272 = 1077 dollars.
(1 + 3) *
and the fact that they asked for so much more than that to begin with would incline me to not award them antything for their legal representation. (assuming a judge would allow me to hear what the initial offer was).
I disagree, Microsoft didn't get to where they are using patents,
You are correct. It was copyright. Same idea, it's a grant of monopoly. And we shouldn't be surprised that a law which was designed to grant monopoly power has granted monopoly power.
So our choices for reform are
(1) Grant government the power to pull more arbitrary enforcement mechanismes out of their arse while enforcing ex-post-facto-ish anti-trust laws.
(2) cut back on amount of monopoly power gonvernments are granting to the monopolist.
The fact is that CATO always stands up for big business against the public.
except here, where they are againt the DMCA. So your "fact" is wrong. [here is the part where I really want to insult you but am resisting]
Unfortunately for all of us, libertarianism is another example of a one-size-fits-all ideology
Now thats funny! You criticize a position paper (or just the authoring organization, completely ignoring what they are actually saying) on one specific piece of legislation, which goes out of its way to stick to a practical/utilitarian analysis (avoiding any kind of principled/property rights analysis). And you criticize it with very general statements about libertarianism being too 'one-size-fits-all', making it clear that you are the one with the excess of ideological rigidity in tow.
I'm thinking you are actually a very clever libertarian, because to make the actual straw man argument that 'Libertarians are never right, they are too ideological' sound almost so reasonable and 'prgoressive' must have taken some work. If not please go [again more self censored insults removed].
how bouting skipping an easy class because you are behind and need to catch up in a hard class?
man. that would tick me off.
man. I gotta get into the scorpion vencom business.
man I feel dumb.
I couldn't even make a push theory that I liked to follow a 1/r^2 kind of pattern.
didn't know what to google for.
thats a problem with "crank" physics. There are so many out there its hard to find the exact one you just came up with so that you can read about how its been disproven or deiscredited.
in the sense that we've never defaulted on our debts
except in 1933. and 1972. When "we" borrowed one kind of dollar, redifined it, then paid back the debt with the cheaper variety.
I'd be like be borrowing 3 pounds of corn from you, then redefining the term "pound" to be 0.5 of the old pounds, and paying you back in new units. Good thing I didn't default.
ya what this guy said.
I love the idea of the STL. But it still feels like an 8th generation fix for a giant pound define hack. CLU had/has parameterized types, and it was simple. It didn't have this giant clusterf**k feel to it. Why can't I step through a readable/understandable template expansion in my debugger? Why can't I print out a particular object thats a template instantiation and get anything readable?
P.S. Implementing strings as a character Vector is just a tad bit too clever too.
their are two major drawbacks to the "go door to door with guns" method.
1) the door to door searching.
2) the guns.
other than that it's a great idea.
just remember: when your balls tingle, that means somebody is talking about them!
screw dvorak. If I ever change I'm going to make up my own damn keyboard layout. I think the way to /alternating-hand-and-finger analaysis. I guess the dvorak layout is done along the same lines, but why would I expect a layout optimized for typing english text to be that good for writing C or perl in an emacs bufer. get me all the '{}[]()' somewhere easy and make underscore not even require a shift.
do it is to dump the undo contents from a few programming sessions (so that I include all the emacs Ctrl and Alt combos). Then do some kind of relative-frequency / markov-chain
hell just moving the ctrl key up to the caps lock position (a 100% useless key) would be a good start.
Question:
anybody know of one of these fancy keyboards where the keys emit via LED er somethin what key they are? so that if I change on the fly I can look and see what the hell is assigned where? I know yoda advises a pure blank keyboard, but Im sorry I've got to have the damn things labelled correctly if/when I try to every move to a new keyboard.
That doesn't give them the right to ban variable resistors.
Also there needs to be some way to distinguish betweem a DOS attack and getting 0wn3d. My personal figure of merit would assign about a 50x penalty factor to getting 0wn3d. Might want to use a different lower ratio for a storefront or something, where down time cost you money, but this is explicity designed to be a non-wizard test, and I'd get a wizard if you are depending on a web site to pay your mortgage.
1) tell the french that if they want to block google, they need to take care of that themselves
and
2) permanently hard code in a feature to search engine that treats all searches for "Louis Vuitton" as a search for Dior
Reminds me of one of the trivia questions that I find most annoying:
"What is the largest island?"
To which I always want to reply "either Eurasia or Eurasia/Africa depending on if you think they are sufficiently connected".
The question they are really trying to ask would be more honestly asked as: "What is the arbitrary cutoff point geographers have defined for 'Island', well at least the geographers we most recently talked to?"
Conventions-through-grey-areas are great for assisting in information transmission and processing when you are clearly on one side of the grey area or the other. But in cases when you are right around the grey area, it actually hampers communication and effective thought when people forget that these words are just arbitrary defintions used to simplify things for our tiny primate brains.
Which one of these better explains the bubble sort algorithm:
That'd be the code. I got bored of your text description about half way through and couldn't even finish it.
And get me a damn Play Designer damnit!
A full-featured any thing goes playe editor where I can reimplenent the Wing-T if thats what I want to do. On Defense too. And let me be able to watch game film on opponents and they watch in on me. It could be a really deep strategy game if they'd push it that way.
A BIG reason is because too many Americans approach politics the way they approach sports. They pick one team and stick with it, unless they get a REALLY good reason not to. To switch parties would make them feel 'disloyal'.
On top of that you have the fact that most political debate is about at the level presented above: "If you like Bush, you must either be stupid or evil". That just tends to make it easier to stay 'loyal'. Because everybody knows they aren't stupid or evil, so the "other" side, in addition to whatever flaws they must have as a result of being one of the bad guys (as learned in the party catechism of the party to which you belong), must also be full of liars.