I don't want to learn about strings and notes, I just want to play the guitar!
No, it's more like people wanting to hear music and you saying "for that you have to learn how to play the guitar!". People would manage with a "just press the Play button on the CD-player" instead. Why force them to learn something that they don't require to solve their needs?
Then why couldn't I call those data points "facts"? It makes sense. Or else you could considere "scientific X recorded data Y at time Z under conditions C" a fact.
No, observed results are a report of what a person believes he/she has observed; nowhere in that report is the assumption that her senses are reliable (that's why scientific experiments are expected to be replicated!).
Now, thinking that there exist humans with senses would qualify as a theory! Is that what you mean?
I think he meant that a centralized approach doesn't support the logic of *all users*. You can put *your* logic in your Flicker-web-images DB, but would you also merge in it all the latest scripts developed by your users on top of your web app?
No, you publish an API and other people use that API to access your contents. The logic of *their* web applications is in their sites, not in your DB.
Also, may I ask, is there an experiment by which we could falsify evolution?
Sure. Watch any female animal givin birth, and if the baby born belongs to a whole different species than its mother (without genetic engineering involved), evolution theory is false.
Well, now that you begin to address the things I actually said (except for the "takes away the open public BSD version of it" bit), we can begin to talk.
People will only contribute to the project as long as the care. A BSD allows that a strong company forks the code and releases an improved version without providing the source; that company can always take the changes publicly released and the inverse is not true, so the public version will always be playing catch-up to the better, closed one.
That situation makes likely that those maintaining the public version will no longer care. It's not about legal possibility, it's about motivation (WTF is difficult to understand about that?).
See the Wine/Cedega as an example. My bet of why Wine still survives is because they switched to GPL.
Since code gets obsolete, the original BSD code will likely not be useful some years from now.
Most code requires aditional work to remain useful, and those who make that work *can* keep it closed, so it's likely that the current and updated version of the code will not be openly available.
Did you read anything I wrote? I never said that the chosen license warrants a flow of programers to work in the project. What the BSD does, and the GPL doesn't, is allow the existing programmers to close their contributions so that their source is inaccessible to the existing community.
Since code gets obsolete, the original BSD code will likely not be useful some years from now. Since most code requires aditional work to remain useful, and those who make that work *can* keep it closed, it's likely that the current and updated version of the code will not be openly available.
Actually why do you use rand() at all? Conway's game didn't have anything random. You could use "chaotic" rules for evolution instead (for example "when a predator eats a creature surrounded by three others, it evolves one level").
I would find it much more elegant, specially since a population behavior would be repeatable.
Slashdot Mirror
Perpetuating the "hide things from the stupid user" UI philosophy only makes people less willing to learn
You don't have a clue about what usability is, do you? Have you ever heard about goal-driven and user-driven design?
I don't want to learn about strings and notes, I just want to play the guitar!
No, it's more like people wanting to hear music and you saying "for that you have to learn how to play the guitar!". People would manage with a "just press the Play button on the CD-player" instead. Why force them to learn something that they don't require to solve their needs?
What can you, as a person, improve easier? CLI typing speed or GUI mouse accurracy?
How about a keyboard-driven GUI? One GUI that has it's strenght in receiving commands, and doesn't have all the one-dimensionality problems of a CLI.
is it reasonable to expect 100,000,000 non-technical users ...to consistently and correctly enter (and update!) metadata about their files?
To me, they seem to be doing it fairly well.
Then why couldn't I call those data points "facts"? It makes sense. Or else you could considere "scientific X recorded data Y at time Z under conditions C" a fact.
No, observed results are a report of what a person believes he/she has observed; nowhere in that report is the assumption that her senses are reliable (that's why scientific experiments are expected to be replicated!).
Now, thinking that there exist humans with senses would qualify as a theory! Is that what you mean?
There are no scientific facts. Only theories.
And how do you call the observed results of experiments?
No, "stupid" is just stupid. UI people consider "simple, clever" interfaces as good. They don't need to be less powerful, but less complex.
Making a complex & powerful interface is easy, but making it good is dificult.
This headline from Reuters amused me mightily
The reason was that he missed Reuters saying in which country this happens!
So you do think that evilness is embedded in objects? (i.e. a property of those objects)
If not, why do you say it's objective?
I think he meant that a centralized approach doesn't support the logic of *all users*. You can put *your* logic in your Flicker-web-images DB, but would you also merge in it all the latest scripts developed by your users on top of your web app?
No, you publish an API and other people use that API to access your contents. The logic of *their* web applications is in their sites, not in your DB.
Also, may I ask, is there an experiment by which we could falsify evolution?
Sure. Watch any female animal givin birth, and if the baby born belongs to a whole different species than its mother (without genetic engineering involved), evolution theory is false.
That one was a famous Spanish minister.
are we doing this to any other animals as well?
Dogs? Cats? Cows? Sheep? We've been doing it to pets for millenia, and it has not been harmful (at least not always).
a VW Taureg run by 100000 lines of code can hit 40 mph
How much lines of code can it transmit when loaded with tapes and speeding down the highway?
can a post be insightful and flamebait at the same time?
It can't. If he has problems with his Firefox installation then he should be bugreporting to Bugzilla, not flamebaiting to Slashdot.
There's a SF world called Orion's Arm based on a post-singularity scenario.
It's collaboratively created and published with a Creative Commons license.
Go here [blueshoes.org] for some good examples.
Which ones, those Checkbox and Radio controls that won't work if javascript is *disabled*?
Well, i'd say that definitely the article author actually *has* done something new here.
I can lie, and I'm not lying.
Well, now that you begin to address the things I actually said (except for the "takes away the open public BSD version of it" bit), we can begin to talk.
People will only contribute to the project as long as the care. A BSD allows that a strong company forks the code and releases an improved version without providing the source; that company can always take the changes publicly released and the inverse is not true, so the public version will always be playing catch-up to the better, closed one.
That situation makes likely that those maintaining the public version will no longer care. It's not about legal possibility, it's about motivation (WTF is difficult to understand about that?).
See the Wine/Cedega as an example. My bet of why Wine still survives is because they switched to GPL.
Since code gets obsolete, the original BSD code will likely not be useful some years from now.
Most code requires aditional work to remain useful, and those who make that work *can* keep it closed, so it's likely that the current and updated version of the code will not be openly available.
Did you read anything I wrote? I never said that the chosen license warrants a flow of programers to work in the project. What the BSD does, and the GPL doesn't, is allow the existing programmers to close their contributions so that their source is inaccessible to the existing community.
Since code gets obsolete, the original BSD code will likely not be useful some years from now. Since most code requires aditional work to remain useful, and those who make that work *can* keep it closed, it's likely that the current and updated version of the code will not be openly available.
Actually why do you use rand() at all? Conway's game didn't have anything random. You could use "chaotic" rules for evolution instead (for example "when a predator eats a creature surrounded by three others, it evolves one level").
I would find it much more elegant, specially since a population behavior would be repeatable.
Science fiction has a tradition of writing about religious themes. Since SF is a frequent subject in narrative games, it would be a good starting point for asking (and even answering) religious questions.