I believe the original poster was using the "I consider that justification to kill you and take it by force" phrase as rhetoric to equate the equivalent "people trespassing my property can be rightfully killed" one often used by radical capitalists.
I think he has a valid point in noticing how "classic" property is not that different to intellectual property, as the moral principles stated to defend both are exactly the same; and if one can be contested, so can the other. In special one characteristic of property, that to be respected forever.
Also, as others have pointed out, your statements that property are related to "what you create" are totally misplaced, since many forms of property don't follow that form.
You do not have a right to what you did not create. If you want something, you should make it yourself.
So you (and the moderators who modded you up) oppose the concept of inheritance? And what should happen after you die to the property that you created?
Property is a muddy concept at least, and one-liner generalizations like "You do not have a right to what you did not create" (or "Your are just totally wrong") don't describe it with justice nor can't be used as moral guidelines, at danger of making a radical out of you.
Do you have some general reference about this use of momentum in local search? I haven't encountered any research on this concept, and I'd like to know how the metaphor applies. Thanks!
Literate programming is an old friend for developers of functional programming languages. I see it like "code for the human mind": it provides a source code that is well adjusted to the needs of the developer, not just the machine.
It interleaves code and documentation in the same files, and provides a specialized compilator to tell the two kinds of codes apart. Just like Doxygen and Javadoc can extract the comments from a source code project, the "tangle" process can extract all the code from a Literate program and pass it to a clasic compiler.
Now that C and C++ seem to have a declining popularity, maybe we can look for better ways of getting away from the bare metal (which, don't forget it, is why those languages become popular at the beginning). Don't get me wrong, they served us well for 36 years, but I think it's time again to begin caring more for the developers' requirements and less for the hardware requirements.
What, you meant static typing check on function declarations? Well, you can have that in Python, too. But I can't see how that single feature can make a language suitable for enterprise work.
You're deceiving yourself in thinking that you don't see advertisements thanks to AdBlock. So you thought that reviews, friends networks, newspapers and "research sources" don't include advertising? Because it's not flashy and contained in a 125x600 banner doesn't mean it's not being marketed. Actually, face-to-face advertising is regarded as one of the raising trends in marketing, specially through the 'net.
So I find the original post's "You're going to see the ads anyway, why not see ads targeted towards products you're interested in?" fairly accurate, unless you cut all contact with your western human peers.
For me, the "social" "push" technology that did the trick was RSS filtered aggregation. Not just web rss aggregators like Google Reader, which lets you review many feeds in a single interface, but intelligent artificial selection of the best posts from the subscribed feeds.
This allows me to create a single RSS feed where all my hundreds of subscriptions are thrown in, and the filtering provides the desired volume of good posts from those sources. The opt-in nature of RSS, combined with the machine-learning selection (based both in popularity, subject and personalization) provides the perfect balance for providing the right amount of interesting news about the subjects I care most.
I have found two services providing this kind of filtering, FeedHub and Aiderss, with competing feature sets and filtering approaches. I find them to complement fairly well.
Really? How? How do liberal arts help one in hardware or sysadmin work? I really don't understand this. Because, at the end, computing is about serving people's needs. There's humans all way down. For you to serve the needs of the computer users sphere, you have to really understand how people dynamics work, if you are to provide a system that will change to support those evolving needs.
Specializing in just the technical aspect gives you some insight on how to serve some specific needs, those of a snapshot of the society that was being served at the moment of your training. But by focusing on just the computer needs you'll miss the underlying principles for which those particular technical details emerged, and won't teach you how those needs will evolve.
This approach may have served some people for the recent years, since computing has been a very conservative field (we still use systems & languages from 35 years ago!) but the current computer users scene is changing again at a rapid pace with the Internet, more focus on people-centered design, and mobile computing (which for the first time takes computing away from a single-machine session and into the realm of distributed user access). If you can't grasp the motivations for those rapid changes in computer culture, your technical skills will be obsolete in less than 5 years.
After I RTFA, is more like he assumes that Iron Man is Windows. He uses the Windows/Linux comparison as a metaphor of the kind of fight than Tony Stark will have to face in this story arc:
He's the open source to Stark's closed source oppressiveness. He has no headquarters, no base, and no bank account. He's a true ghost in the machine; completely off the grid, flexible, and mobile. That absolutely flies in the face of Tony's received business wisdom and in the way business is done. There are banks and lawyers and you have facilities and testing. Stane is a much more different animal. He's a much smarter, more mobile and much quicker to respond and evolved futurist.
Interestingly, Microsoft knows that, and they seem really interested in providing the right framework to "take advantage of the multicore architectures while solving the most common problems with concurrency.
This makes sense coming from this company, since one of their strong points always has been creating good development environments for the not-highly-specialized programmers of the world. These features take a good effort to make them very integrated into the old way of programming, and easy to use even without a "functional mindset".
This makes sense coming from this company, since one of their strong points always has been creating good development environments for the not-highly-specialized programmers of the world. This collection of features could put them again on the right track to dominate the software building environments.
Ruby is friendly to programmers. Research should thrive to make it easy for non-programmers (user friendly for computer users).
Programming is hard That's my point. The holy grail of would be to find a way to make it possible programming (i.e. creating automatized tasks) without a programming language.
Yes but that's an implementation problem of the standard compiler, not a language feature. Different implementations (like, for example,.Net) could solve that. My point was that this kind of languages provide a set of primitives more tailored to parallel programming than purely imperative languages.
You're wrong about your judgements. Astrology is not used for understanding the world, it's for understanding the people. Modern science still has too many unknowns in that regard.
Of course if you try to predict the of an engineering problem/war outcome/economics problem through Astrology you'll be no better than random. But people find useful insights about people through astrology, even when its foundations as a discipline are flawed.
Many personality traits are captured inside the seemingly babble of zodiac signs - people trained in their meaning can provide a summary of a person's profile, with a language which is not to be taken literally (it can be easily misunderstood by us rational thinkers) but that can sometimes provide than the much more younger psychology. I can find this to be true of how many people use oriental disciplines and pseudosciences - that's the reason why they are so successful, because people find a real value in them.
Just because you're not into them you can't dismiss the whole of their validity - you should fight them only when they're used in domains where science is demonstrably better i.e. when predicting facts about the world.
Ah, but they DO want their tedious tasks automated. If you provide users with a way to automate their tasks without them writing a whole program, just by learning what they do often, they will program the machine without knowing.
We are talking about a different set of users. Qt and "Visual X" are NOT for the "relatively ordinary people", they are for highly experienced application programmers (even it DOES easy the work for them).
Anything requiring to understand the distinction between declaration and use of a variable, is not suitable for people not trained into programming. The "almost read like english" was tried quite a while ago with COBOL and BASIC, and it doesn't cut it.
Single-core processor is programmed in-house by the chip maker, through the micro-controlled logic.
A collection of specialized cores would be open to the processor users, allowing for arbitrary programming of the wires, thus (ideally) taking advantage of the hardware potential to the max. It's much more flexible than a hard-wired logic, but it's also publishing the complexity to the world at large to face it.
Idealisms... Unfortunately reality doesn't play by those rules, as thirty years ago bright minds predicted that knowing how to program a machine with high level programing languages would be also a trivial thing for "relatively ordinary people". So what do we see? The "relatively ordinary people" do have powerful computers but they don't go much further than chatrooms, myspace and blogs. That is not because reality is stubborn, it's because programmers are. The main research lines of programming languages have for a long time abandoned the initial pursuit for user-friendly languages, their last successes being in BASIC, Logo and the Fourth Generation Languages (i.e. SQL).
When this track has been taken up again, friendly programming environments like Alice and whole new user-centered-programming paradigms such as Programming By Demonstration have emerged.
Slashdot Mirror
I believe the original poster was using the "I consider that justification to kill you and take it by force" phrase as rhetoric to equate the equivalent "people trespassing my property can be rightfully killed" one often used by radical capitalists.
I think he has a valid point in noticing how "classic" property is not that different to intellectual property, as the moral principles stated to defend both are exactly the same; and if one can be contested, so can the other. In special one characteristic of property, that to be respected forever.
Also, as others have pointed out, your statements that property are related to "what you create" are totally misplaced, since many forms of property don't follow that form.
So you (and the moderators who modded you up) oppose the concept of inheritance? And what should happen after you die to the property that you created?
Property is a muddy concept at least, and one-liner generalizations like "You do not have a right to what you did not create" (or "Your are just totally wrong") don't describe it with justice nor can't be used as moral guidelines, at danger of making a radical out of you.
Do you have some general reference about this use of momentum in local search? I haven't encountered any research on this concept, and I'd like to know how the metaphor applies. Thanks!
Man, you really have to disable the mind2text plugin before posting to
Literate programming is an old friend for developers of functional programming languages. I see it like "code for the human mind": it provides a source code that is well adjusted to the needs of the developer, not just the machine.
It interleaves code and documentation in the same files, and provides a specialized compilator to tell the two kinds of codes apart. Just like Doxygen and Javadoc can extract the comments from a source code project, the "tangle" process can extract all the code from a Literate program and pass it to a clasic compiler.
Now that C and C++ seem to have a declining popularity, maybe we can look for better ways of getting away from the bare metal (which, don't forget it, is why those languages become popular at the beginning). Don't get me wrong, they served us well for 36 years, but I think it's time again to begin caring more for the developers' requirements and less for the hardware requirements.
The trick is in, who is supposing that, and why?
Oh, but Python is strongly typed.
What, you meant static typing check on function declarations? Well, you can have that in Python, too. But I can't see how that single feature can make a language suitable for enterprise work.
You're deceiving yourself in thinking that you don't see advertisements thanks to AdBlock. So you thought that reviews, friends networks, newspapers and "research sources" don't include advertising? Because it's not flashy and contained in a 125x600 banner doesn't mean it's not being marketed. Actually, face-to-face advertising is regarded as one of the raising trends in marketing, specially through the 'net.
So I find the original post's "You're going to see the ads anyway, why not see ads targeted towards products you're interested in?" fairly accurate, unless you cut all contact with your western human peers.
For me, the "social" "push" technology that did the trick was RSS filtered aggregation. Not just web rss aggregators like Google Reader, which lets you review many feeds in a single interface, but intelligent artificial selection of the best posts from the subscribed feeds.
This allows me to create a single RSS feed where all my hundreds of subscriptions are thrown in, and the filtering provides the desired volume of good posts from those sources. The opt-in nature of RSS, combined with the machine-learning selection (based both in popularity, subject and personalization) provides the perfect balance for providing the right amount of interesting news about the subjects I care most.
I have found two services providing this kind of filtering, FeedHub and Aiderss, with competing feature sets and filtering approaches. I find them to complement fairly well.
How do liberal arts help one in hardware or sysadmin work? I really don't understand this. Because, at the end, computing is about serving people's needs. There's humans all way down. For you to serve the needs of the computer users sphere, you have to really understand how people dynamics work, if you are to provide a system that will change to support those evolving needs.
Specializing in just the technical aspect gives you some insight on how to serve some specific needs, those of a snapshot of the society that was being served at the moment of your training. But by focusing on just the computer needs you'll miss the underlying principles for which those particular technical details emerged, and won't teach you how those needs will evolve.
This approach may have served some people for the recent years, since computing has been a very conservative field (we still use systems & languages from 35 years ago!) but the current computer users scene is changing again at a rapid pace with the Internet, more focus on people-centered design, and mobile computing (which for the first time takes computing away from a single-machine session and into the realm of distributed user access). If you can't grasp the motivations for those rapid changes in computer culture, your technical skills will be obsolete in less than 5 years.
Actually I think what he meant to say is:
"During the early 1600s there was an argument, particularly in England, about whether there was free will amongst various protestant faiths or not.
How about providing us with a more efficient feature instead of the (scientificaly proven) suboptimal one that we have been suffering for many years?
Aza Raskin thinks that Bookmarks and History are not the best way to access previous sites, and the address bar is.
Interestingly, Microsoft knows that, and they seem really interested in providing the right framework to "take advantage of the multicore architectures while solving the most common problems with concurrency.
.Net platform.
Their Research Labs are doing a lot of good work with experimental language features, and many of them are getting their way into the
This makes sense coming from this company, since one of their strong points always has been creating good development environments for the not-highly-specialized programmers of the world. These features take a good effort to make them very integrated into the old way of programming, and easy to use even without a "functional mindset".
Interestingly, Microsoft seems really interested in providing the right framework to "take advantage of the multicore architectures while solving the most common problems with concurrency. Their Research Labs are doing a lot of good work with experimental language features, and many of them are getting their way into the .Net platform.
This makes sense coming from this company, since one of their strong points always has been creating good development environments for the not-highly-specialized programmers of the world. This collection of features could put them again on the right track to dominate the software building environments.
Ruby is friendly to programmers. Research should thrive to make it easy for non-programmers (user friendly for computer users).
Programming is hard
That's my point. The holy grail of would be to find a way to make it possible programming (i.e. creating automatized tasks) without a programming language.
You couldn't do anything in C# that you can't already do in Assembler. So why bother?
Higher abstraction, better reusability, easier to develop parallelism?
Yes but that's an implementation problem of the standard compiler, not a language feature. Different implementations (like, for example, .Net) could solve that. My point was that this kind of languages provide a set of primitives more tailored to parallel programming than purely imperative languages.
You're wrong about your judgements. Astrology is not used for understanding the world, it's for understanding the people. Modern science still has too many unknowns in that regard.
Of course if you try to predict the of an engineering problem/war outcome/economics problem through Astrology you'll be no better than random. But people find useful insights about people through astrology, even when its foundations as a discipline are flawed.
Many personality traits are captured inside the seemingly babble of zodiac signs - people trained in their meaning can provide a summary of a person's profile, with a language which is not to be taken literally (it can be easily misunderstood by us rational thinkers) but that can sometimes provide than the much more younger psychology. I can find this to be true of how many people use oriental disciplines and pseudosciences - that's the reason why they are so successful, because people find a real value in them.
Just because you're not into them you can't dismiss the whole of their validity - you should fight them only when they're used in domains where science is demonstrably better i.e. when predicting facts about the world.
Ah, but they DO want their tedious tasks automated. If you provide users with a way to automate their tasks without them writing a whole program, just by learning what they do often, they will program the machine without knowing.
We are talking about a different set of users. Qt and "Visual X" are NOT for the "relatively ordinary people", they are for highly experienced application programmers (even it DOES easy the work for them).
Anything requiring to understand the distinction between declaration and use of a variable, is not suitable for people not trained into programming. The "almost read like english" was tried quite a while ago with COBOL and BASIC, and it doesn't cut it.
Single-core processor is programmed in-house by the chip maker, through the micro-controlled logic.
A collection of specialized cores would be open to the processor users, allowing for arbitrary programming of the wires, thus (ideally) taking advantage of the hardware potential to the max. It's much more flexible than a hard-wired logic, but it's also publishing the complexity to the world at large to face it.
When this track has been taken up again, friendly programming environments like Alice and whole new user-centered-programming paradigms such as Programming By Demonstration have emerged.