I can think of a number of ways of solving problems like that, and they don't require lawyers or judges. For example: The community that is immediately affected by the sign (say the 200 or so people that live/work in that area) should get together and, as a group, decide if the sign is acceptable.
No federal legislation, no zoning laws, no "under glass" clauses.
All that would be required is that people respect the decisions that their neighborhoods make.
It just seems to me that laws need to be refactored. Eliminate ones that aren't strictly necessary, simplify ones that are, and stop trying to regulate everything. How to get there, however, is something I don't really know.
(P.S. Sorry your job sucks sometimes too.;) )
Re:Former perl, python, java geek gone to Ruby
on
Ruby 1.8.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
From resolv.rb in 1.6.8:
def each_name(address, &proc)
__lazy_initialize
__if @addr2name.include?(address)
____@addr2name[address].each(&proc)
__end
end
The &proc means to convert the block passed to the "each" function to a proc object and assign it to the variable proc. It is then passed down to the next "each" function in turn.
Its treatment of "functions as data" isn't quite as complete as something like Lisp, but Ruby is a language that programmers tend to rave about, not CS theorists. I think the main thing people like about blocks is that they "just work", however they're implemented internally, so people like them.
Btw, Ruby also has
method objects which have a.call method, so you can pass those around too.
Re:Former perl, python, java geek gone to Ruby
on
Ruby 1.8.0 Released
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Someone already mentioned blocks, which is one big difference. The other is the true OO-ness of the language.
AFAIK, Python doesn't let you subclass built-in types, and it certainly doesn't let you treat integers as objects. At first glance, Ruby does appear similar to python, but if you really look at the OO aspects of the language you'll see some huge differences.
As far as cryptic syntax... the only real similarities I've found between Perl and Ruby are the @ and $ symbols in front of variables. But in Perl @ is an array, and $ is a regular variable. In Ruby, @ is an instance variable of a class (accessible only within the class) and $ is a global variable. Ruby also keeps some of Perl's global variables, which allows for some cryptic looking syntax, but I rarely see or use them.
In summary though, I don't know Python or Ruby well enough to enumerate all the differences between them. I just find that nearly every program I want to write becomes much shorter and easier in Ruby than it was in Python.
Rule 1: Don't steal.
1. What about necessity (need to grab a life jacket from a sinking ship)?
2. What is stealing (picking up a penny from a sidewalk)?
3. What about "borrowing"? (joyriding in a car)
4. Filesharing.
Would someone who "stole" a life jacket from a sinking ship ever be brought up on charges of theft? No. What about picking up a penny from the sidewalk? So why add that part into the text of the law, making the entire set of laws more complex and unwieldy?
Sure, everything becomes complex when you try to enumerate all the potential variations and cases, but is that strictly necessary?
For giggles sometime, post "I use Macs/Windows because they're easy" sometime. See what you get.
Slashdot's audience is extremely tech-savvy and computer-professional centered. While there are some people that might respond like that, others would probably admit it's true that Windows and Macs are easy.
Now tell me, what would happen if I wandered over to a law site and said "Naah, you should never go to trial, always take a plea-bargain, it makes the process so much simpler."
Human bodies are naturally complex things, and it makes sense that you'd need a doctor to understand them well.
Computers are becoming more and more complex all the time, however a lot of effort is going into making the interface as simple and easy to use as possible.
Laws are artificial constructs that don't have any inherent need to be complex, but are becoming more and more complex all the time. No effort whatsoever is going into making them more simple and easy to understand.
I know a lot of people who used to call themselves "software developers". That was their job, then, suddenly, things changed and they were unable to make ends meet in that job. So they found a new job.
The way your industry works depends on copyright staying in its current form, but why should we care? Explain to me how this is different from buggy whip manufacturers complaining when their industry changed.
Copyright wasn't designed to be one-sided. It was a trade-off. For a limited time, you are protected, and once that time is up, the public benefits.
I have no problem with your being allowed to control something you make until your death. You can do that by not sharing it with anybody, or by writing your own NDA type contracts and showing it to a limited number of people. When you decide to release it to the public that's another matter.
The very fact that there are starving artists suggests that they'll keep producing their art even if it doesn't bring in money. There may be fewer artists making a lot of money if the power of copyright is hugely reduced, but who says that's a bad thing?
Seriously. The article says: "He wore only an aerodynamic jumpsuit with a 6-foot (1.8-metre) carbon fin strapped to his back, an oxygen tank from which to breathe, and a parachute to land." Just how does "Only" make sense in that context? Take a look at
the picture. He's got a small house on his back!
I, for one, plan to upstage this guy by jumping across the pacific ocean with only a little bit of padding(*) strapped to my ass.
If the course is designed well, and they don't push the limits of VB, then people probably won't think programming is too hard -- I just think that by choosing something other than VB they could go from "hey, this programming stuff isn't so bad after all." to "Wow, this is so cool, and it's really easy!"
I'd like to hear the other languages he considered too, and to see what made VB a better choice than Python (and hey, maybe the Python developers could use that feedback to make it better).
I think it's more like bitching about how the tricycle's back wheels don't turn so the toddler has to drag the thing around. It's boneheaded design that will turn the toddler off biking completely. The biggest problem I had when I tried to write VB programs is that there were thousands of functions/subroutines/methods arranged in no particular way. If I wanted something that gave me the absolute value of a number I couldn't look in the Math namespace, I had to go through the entire list, bit by bit, until I spotted the one I wanted (luckily in this case it started with an a). That sort of problem is probably more important for beginning programmers than it is for experienced ones who at least know some typical names of functions that do "X".
I definitely don't think people should start programming with C either, and Java is too complicated too. But what about Ruby or Python? Both of these make simple "hello world" type programs, and simple input/output programs super easy. In addition, they both have interpreters. I think having an interpreter when you're just starting out is a great idea. Python's GUI interpreter even does syntax highliting as you go! The only thing that the VB environment has going for it over that sort of thing is the ease with which you can make new GUI components.
For every 1 thing that VB does to make it an easy language for a complete beginner to learn, it has 3 that make it either difficult in another way or hard to move on to better languages later.
Is there a more vile language you can teach to newbies? I guess it must be meant to weed out the people who don't really want to program.
There are so many better choices than VB for teaching, if you really want to show people a GUI, try Java. If you just want something that is clean and easy to get started with, try Ruby or even Python. But VB? It has awful namespace problems, an absurd mishmash of methods vs. functions vs. subroutines, etc. Yuck.
Isn't it odd that I'd recommend to people who want to become programmers to avoid taking Brian Kerningham's class?
I don't know if it has ever been tested, but I do know they have a huge horde of lawyers that they routinely sic on anybody that annoys them. Considering they've actually battled the IRS and won, I don't think they'll be easily stopped by joe blow. Btw -- my guess is that you didn't know about Scientology's nastiness is that they've so successfully used copyright law to support their dubious ways. You do know they're the only ones to have ever forced Slashdot to take down a comment, right?
Guess you don't know the cult huh? They've copyrighted each sentence as a complete work, so if you quote more than one word, they nail you because that's more than fair use allows.
How about distributing Cult of Scientology's copyrighted "religious texts" so that people can see just how messed up it is, and save people from them?
Or how about if a prominent politician or business leader said all kinds of racist / sexist / etc. things in a private place protecting them by copyright. Don't you think it's better that people be informed about something like this rather than blindly obey copyright law?
There are many other examples too. From my point of view, right and wrong have nothing to do with copyright law.
Which makes your comment a combination of 2 and 4?
I happen to agree btw. I'm glad that this time around there's less of 1 and more of 2/4. While I'm here, why not tackle 3: it is just as easy to make a firewall that by default doesn't let anything in that isn't a reply, then open up ports as the need arises. Voila, instant NAT-like firewalling.
Um... size? Size does matter, and for portable music players smaller is better. A Nomad is
140 x 127 x 38mm, an iPod is
103 x 60 x 18mm. On other words, a Nomad is portable CD player size, and an iPod is pack-of-cards size. One can go easily in any pocket, the other can't. I consider the iPod capable of fitting in my pocket, something I can't say for the Nomad. Am I missing something important here?
I suppose you wouldn't consider buying an X-Box and acquiring the game through a means that doesn't give MS money? If downloading and burning it isn't your thing, you could probably buy a used company. This way MS doesn't get any more money from you since the original buyer already paid...
One of the best pieces of evidence of this is the anchor for ABC news in the US,
Peter Jennings, who grew up in Ottawa, Canada.
I'm not saying that the only important quality for a network news anchor is their voice, I mean, hairdos are important too. It is just a majorly important thing.
How this can be used to explain the oft-made-fun-of accent of Tom Brokaw, one of the other two major network anchors, I don't know.
You're right. When I watch the Honda humanoid robot I'm impressed it's as good as it is, but it also shows how great our balance and control mechanisms are. Even on flat ground with a good coefficient of friction the robots have trouble moving at more than a snail's pace. Imagine what would happen if the house-cleaning robot spilled a bit of Mr. Clean on the floor then slipped in it. Buhbye $40,000 robot.
In the course of prosecuting piracy we have found servers containing over 20,000 titles of pirated software, movies, music and games. The value of the copyrighted material on servers like this is frequently in the millions of dollars. Factor in the number of times those titles are distributed over the Internet, and the damage amounts skyrocket. The sentencing structure reflects this harm.
This paragraph convinced me that their view is completely different from mine, and that to me at least, they "just don't get it".
Just because someone has files on their server that correspond to software packges that sell for thousands of dollars, some of which have been downloaded multiple times does *not* make the value in the millions of dollars. A person who downloads one of those files and uses it rather than buy the software for a thousand dollars costs the company that made it a thousand dollars, but that doesn't make that file worth a thousand dollars.
Even once the file is moved off the server doesn't mean that it has acquired a worth. If Joe Blow downloads it, burns it to disk, then puts it in his CD collection, guess what, it's still not worth anything. The only point at which it begins to have an effect on any bottom line is when someone starts using it as an alternative to buying the original.
Say I come across one of those servers and spot Megacorp Jet Designer 4. "Wow", I say, "That software costs $50,000 a copy!" So I download it, and play with it for 10 minutes or so. But I'm not in the business of designing jets, and I don't have any use for the program, so I burn it to a CD (in case I ever want to play with it again), and move on with my life.
Now how does this affect Megacorp? It basically doesn't. Had I not downloaded the program nothing would have changed from their point of view. There was not even a remote possibility that I would have otherwise bought the program.
It is even possible that software downloaded from sites like this will eventually help a company's bottom line. It allows people who would otherwise not try out a product to try it, and if they like it then they may eventually buy it or convince an employer to buy it.
The only honest way to estimate the value of the software on a site would be to use a formula that accounts for: number of sales cost because the potential customer got the product free, number of sales gained because the potential customer decided to try it after buying it, number of new sales due to the increased popularity of the product, the number of people who buy the next version of the product because they liked the previous version which they got for free, and so on.
To my mind, the content people have always ignored everything but the number of cost sales. I would guess that in the short run, that there are more lost sales than there are gained sales, I think in many cases these companies win out in the long run. We're all eagerly anticipating Doom 3. Would iD be where they are today if the first Wolf3D games they released had been completely locked down with DRM, rather than shareware games?
If any of you DoJ lawyers read this post, please consider it. The math isn't as simple as you seem to want it to be.
Slashdot Mirror
I can think of a number of ways of solving problems like that, and they don't require lawyers or judges. For example: The community that is immediately affected by the sign (say the 200 or so people that live/work in that area) should get together and, as a group, decide if the sign is acceptable.
No federal legislation, no zoning laws, no "under glass" clauses.
All that would be required is that people respect the decisions that their neighborhoods make.
It just seems to me that laws need to be refactored. Eliminate ones that aren't strictly necessary, simplify ones that are, and stop trying to regulate everything. How to get there, however, is something I don't really know.
(P.S. Sorry your job sucks sometimes too. ;) )
From resolv.rb in 1.6.8:
def each_name(address, &proc)__lazy_initialize
__if @addr2name.include?(address)
____@addr2name[address].each(&proc)
__end
end
The &proc means to convert the block passed to the "each" function to a proc object and assign it to the variable proc. It is then passed down to the next "each" function in turn.
Its treatment of "functions as data" isn't quite as complete as something like Lisp, but Ruby is a language that programmers tend to rave about, not CS theorists. I think the main thing people like about blocks is that they "just work", however they're implemented internally, so people like them.
Btw, Ruby also has method objects which have a .call method, so you can pass those around too.
Someone already mentioned blocks, which is one big difference. The other is the true OO-ness of the language.
irb(main):001:0> 1.type=> Fixnum
irb(main):002:0> 1.upto(3) {|i| puts i}
1
2
3
=> 1
irb(main):003:0> class MoreThanArray < Array; def is_even?; 0 == length % 2; end; end
=> nil
irb(main):004:0> ma = MoreThanArray.new
=> []
irb(main):005:0> ma[0] = "hello"
=> "hello"
irb(main):006:0> ma.is_even?
=> false
irb(main):007:0> ma[1] = "booga"
=> "booga"
irb(main):008:0> ma.is_even?
=> true
AFAIK, Python doesn't let you subclass built-in types, and it certainly doesn't let you treat integers as objects. At first glance, Ruby does appear similar to python, but if you really look at the OO aspects of the language you'll see some huge differences.
As far as cryptic syntax... the only real similarities I've found between Perl and Ruby are the @ and $ symbols in front of variables. But in Perl @ is an array, and $ is a regular variable. In Ruby, @ is an instance variable of a class (accessible only within the class) and $ is a global variable. Ruby also keeps some of Perl's global variables, which allows for some cryptic looking syntax, but I rarely see or use them.
In summary though, I don't know Python or Ruby well enough to enumerate all the differences between them. I just find that nearly every program I want to write becomes much shorter and easier in Ruby than it was in Python.
So you think we need laws, or parts of laws to handle all the above cases? Laws are simply a way of codifying societal norms. Can't we just have a law saying theft is illegal and carries a punishment of "X", where theft is defined as (the act of) dishonestly taking something which belongs to someone else and keeping it?
Would someone who "stole" a life jacket from a sinking ship ever be brought up on charges of theft? No. What about picking up a penny from the sidewalk? So why add that part into the text of the law, making the entire set of laws more complex and unwieldy?
Sure, everything becomes complex when you try to enumerate all the potential variations and cases, but is that strictly necessary?
Slashdot's audience is extremely tech-savvy and computer-professional centered. While there are some people that might respond like that, others would probably admit it's true that Windows and Macs are easy.
Now tell me, what would happen if I wandered over to a law site and said "Naah, you should never go to trial, always take a plea-bargain, it makes the process so much simpler."
Human bodies are naturally complex things, and it makes sense that you'd need a doctor to understand them well.
Computers are becoming more and more complex all the time, however a lot of effort is going into making the interface as simple and easy to use as possible.
Laws are artificial constructs that don't have any inherent need to be complex, but are becoming more and more complex all the time. No effort whatsoever is going into making them more simple and easy to understand.
Sorry to be harsh, but "so what?"
I know a lot of people who used to call themselves "software developers". That was their job, then, suddenly, things changed and they were unable to make ends meet in that job. So they found a new job.
The way your industry works depends on copyright staying in its current form, but why should we care? Explain to me how this is different from buggy whip manufacturers complaining when their industry changed.
Copyright wasn't designed to be one-sided. It was a trade-off. For a limited time, you are protected, and once that time is up, the public benefits.
I have no problem with your being allowed to control something you make until your death. You can do that by not sharing it with anybody, or by writing your own NDA type contracts and showing it to a limited number of people. When you decide to release it to the public that's another matter.
The very fact that there are starving artists suggests that they'll keep producing their art even if it doesn't bring in money. There may be fewer artists making a lot of money if the power of copyright is hugely reduced, but who says that's a bad thing?
Seriously. The article says: "He wore only an aerodynamic jumpsuit with a 6-foot (1.8-metre) carbon fin strapped to his back, an oxygen tank from which to breathe, and a parachute to land." Just how does "Only" make sense in that context? Take a look at the picture. He's got a small house on his back!
I, for one, plan to upstage this guy by jumping across the pacific ocean with only a little bit of padding(*) strapped to my ass.
Whoa, sounds like your case will need a spoiler.
If the course is designed well, and they don't push the limits of VB, then people probably won't think programming is too hard -- I just think that by choosing something other than VB they could go from "hey, this programming stuff isn't so bad after all." to "Wow, this is so cool, and it's really easy!"
I'd like to hear the other languages he considered too, and to see what made VB a better choice than Python (and hey, maybe the Python developers could use that feedback to make it better).
I think it's more like bitching about how the tricycle's back wheels don't turn so the toddler has to drag the thing around. It's boneheaded design that will turn the toddler off biking completely. The biggest problem I had when I tried to write VB programs is that there were thousands of functions/subroutines/methods arranged in no particular way. If I wanted something that gave me the absolute value of a number I couldn't look in the Math namespace, I had to go through the entire list, bit by bit, until I spotted the one I wanted (luckily in this case it started with an a). That sort of problem is probably more important for beginning programmers than it is for experienced ones who at least know some typical names of functions that do "X".
I definitely don't think people should start programming with C either, and Java is too complicated too. But what about Ruby or Python? Both of these make simple "hello world" type programs, and simple input/output programs super easy. In addition, they both have interpreters. I think having an interpreter when you're just starting out is a great idea. Python's GUI interpreter even does syntax highliting as you go! The only thing that the VB environment has going for it over that sort of thing is the ease with which you can make new GUI components.
For every 1 thing that VB does to make it an easy language for a complete beginner to learn, it has 3 that make it either difficult in another way or hard to move on to better languages later.
Ugh!
Is there a more vile language you can teach to newbies? I guess it must be meant to weed out the people who don't really want to program.
There are so many better choices than VB for teaching, if you really want to show people a GUI, try Java. If you just want something that is clean and easy to get started with, try Ruby or even Python. But VB? It has awful namespace problems, an absurd mishmash of methods vs. functions vs. subroutines, etc. Yuck.
Isn't it odd that I'd recommend to people who want to become programmers to avoid taking Brian Kerningham's class?
I don't know if it has ever been tested, but I do know they have a huge horde of lawyers that they routinely sic on anybody that annoys them. Considering they've actually battled the IRS and won, I don't think they'll be easily stopped by joe blow. Btw -- my guess is that you didn't know about Scientology's nastiness is that they've so successfully used copyright law to support their dubious ways. You do know they're the only ones to have ever forced Slashdot to take down a comment, right?
Guess you don't know the cult huh? They've copyrighted each sentence as a complete work, so if you quote more than one word, they nail you because that's more than fair use allows.
"That's the last we'll hear from b1g_c0ck_23. What's this? Who's this b1g_c0ck_24?? Get him too, Jones!"
How about distributing Cult of Scientology's copyrighted "religious texts" so that people can see just how messed up it is, and save people from them?
Or how about if a prominent politician or business leader said all kinds of racist / sexist / etc. things in a private place protecting them by copyright. Don't you think it's better that people be informed about something like this rather than blindly obey copyright law?
There are many other examples too. From my point of view, right and wrong have nothing to do with copyright law.
If you RTFA you'll see they have their own proprietary media format. It's a 60mm disc, so it's pretty unlikely it will also play CDs.
Considering it doesn't take standard format CDs, that's pretty unlikely.
Ugh. Spell it as article, please.
Which makes your comment a combination of 2 and 4?
I happen to agree btw. I'm glad that this time around there's less of 1 and more of 2/4. While I'm here, why not tackle 3: it is just as easy to make a firewall that by default doesn't let anything in that isn't a reply, then open up ports as the need arises. Voila, instant NAT-like firewalling.
Um... size? Size does matter, and for portable music players smaller is better. A Nomad is 140 x 127 x 38mm, an iPod is 103 x 60 x 18mm. On other words, a Nomad is portable CD player size, and an iPod is pack-of-cards size. One can go easily in any pocket, the other can't. I consider the iPod capable of fitting in my pocket, something I can't say for the Nomad. Am I missing something important here?
I suppose you wouldn't consider buying an X-Box and acquiring the game through a means that doesn't give MS money? If downloading and burning it isn't your thing, you could probably buy a used company. This way MS doesn't get any more money from you since the original buyer already paid...
One of the best pieces of evidence of this is the anchor for ABC news in the US, Peter Jennings, who grew up in Ottawa, Canada.
I'm not saying that the only important quality for a network news anchor is their voice, I mean, hairdos are important too. It is just a majorly important thing.
How this can be used to explain the oft-made-fun-of accent of Tom Brokaw, one of the other two major network anchors, I don't know.
So why is it exactly the the US territories are so more liveable than the motherland? ;)
You're right. When I watch the Honda humanoid robot I'm impressed it's as good as it is, but it also shows how great our balance and control mechanisms are. Even on flat ground with a good coefficient of friction the robots have trouble moving at more than a snail's pace. Imagine what would happen if the house-cleaning robot spilled a bit of Mr. Clean on the floor then slipped in it. Buhbye $40,000 robot.
In the course of prosecuting piracy we have found servers containing over 20,000 titles of pirated software, movies, music and games. The value of the copyrighted material on servers like this is frequently in the millions of dollars. Factor in the number of times those titles are distributed over the Internet, and the damage amounts skyrocket. The sentencing structure reflects this harm.
This paragraph convinced me that their view is completely different from mine, and that to me at least, they "just don't get it".
Just because someone has files on their server that correspond to software packges that sell for thousands of dollars, some of which have been downloaded multiple times does *not* make the value in the millions of dollars. A person who downloads one of those files and uses it rather than buy the software for a thousand dollars costs the company that made it a thousand dollars, but that doesn't make that file worth a thousand dollars.
Even once the file is moved off the server doesn't mean that it has acquired a worth. If Joe Blow downloads it, burns it to disk, then puts it in his CD collection, guess what, it's still not worth anything. The only point at which it begins to have an effect on any bottom line is when someone starts using it as an alternative to buying the original.
Say I come across one of those servers and spot Megacorp Jet Designer 4. "Wow", I say, "That software costs $50,000 a copy!" So I download it, and play with it for 10 minutes or so. But I'm not in the business of designing jets, and I don't have any use for the program, so I burn it to a CD (in case I ever want to play with it again), and move on with my life.
Now how does this affect Megacorp? It basically doesn't. Had I not downloaded the program nothing would have changed from their point of view. There was not even a remote possibility that I would have otherwise bought the program.
It is even possible that software downloaded from sites like this will eventually help a company's bottom line. It allows people who would otherwise not try out a product to try it, and if they like it then they may eventually buy it or convince an employer to buy it.
The only honest way to estimate the value of the software on a site would be to use a formula that accounts for: number of sales cost because the potential customer got the product free, number of sales gained because the potential customer decided to try it after buying it, number of new sales due to the increased popularity of the product, the number of people who buy the next version of the product because they liked the previous version which they got for free, and so on.
To my mind, the content people have always ignored everything but the number of cost sales. I would guess that in the short run, that there are more lost sales than there are gained sales, I think in many cases these companies win out in the long run. We're all eagerly anticipating Doom 3. Would iD be where they are today if the first Wolf3D games they released had been completely locked down with DRM, rather than shareware games?
If any of you DoJ lawyers read this post, please consider it. The math isn't as simple as you seem to want it to be.