The problem isn't the AIS, it's that the funding model is wrong. State institutes and the AIS shouldn't compete for athletes, and athletes should pay back their scholarships (as with HECS/FEE-HELP/whatever it's called now) if they earn over some figure.
In the absence of a space agency, the AIS produces most of Australia's non-defence technological spinoffs. I wrote firmware for a nanotech device developed in conjunction with the AIS. There are some really good scientists working there.
Hopefully the compilation step isn't that slow -- if it is, ask your boss for a faster development computer, it will pay for itself many times over.
I've worked on large (several MLOC) C++ codebases where the full rebuild time was over an hour. Admittedly this was 15+ years ago. Templates are better now.
That's only partly true. Modern strongly typed languages make it very cheap to create a new compiler-checked type and free to use at run-time. This encourages the use of "strong typedefs" which a programmer can use to get the type checker to check other kinds of bugs.
So, for example, you can get the compiler to check physical units. If you divide a "distance" by a "time", you'd better assign it to a variable of type "velocity".
Except that weakly typed languages, Python, JS, and Perl, tend to more concise and quicker to write than strongly typed languages such as C, C++, and Java.
I think this is precisely TFA's point. Part of the reason why JS programs are quicker to write is that fewer bugs are removed before shipping.
In a language like C++ or Haskell, that time spent getting the compiler to accept your code is credited to "programming". A similar amount of time is spent in well-written Python or JS, but it's credited to "testing" or "debugging" instead.
Some languages (e.g. Java) are basically unusable without modern IDEs. Whether it's code completion or refactoring editing, I'm pretty sure that it's impossible to get any work done in Java without the toolchain.
More seriously, though, for languages like C++, the state of debugging is absolute shit outside of IDEs. You will never to back to pain GDB and LLDB once you've used a real IDE-based debugger.
I'd rather program in Vim (if you would rather program in Emacs or whatever, good for you; get one decent editor and learn to use it well), but I'd rather debug in just about any IDE than use most open source Linux tools.
Oh, absolutely. Just for the record, I was comparing this potential treatment with vaccines because it was the first "percentage of STI strains" figure that came to mind.
Sure it is. With h.264 and AES implemented in silicon and the keys known only to the video chip, it's fairly straightforward for the chip to decompress a h.264 video stream, encrypt it with AES, and write it to the frame buffer... then at output time, read it back from ram, decrypt it, re-encrypt it with HDCP, and output it to the display.
Well, there goes my battery life on my mobile device.
Seriously, someone should reframe DRM as a climate change issue.
The question of whether or not software engineering is really engineering is an interesting question. It's certainly applying science, you're certainly using (and, at its best, accounting for) natural resources, and you're really building things that could really hurt people.
The key word here is "include". I still mostly write software, but now they make me understand everything from instruction timings to community outreach.
Some one who had begun to read geometry with Euclid, when he had learnt the first theorem, asked Euclid, "What shall I get by learning these things?" Euclid called his slave and said, "Give him threepence, since he must make gain out of what he learns."
And all of them had the exact same duties: take specs, design an algorithm when needed, and implement it in a programming language.
Some companies gave the title 'engineer' because that was how the pay grades worked.
My job title changed to "engineer" when my duties started to include things like:
- Going through contracts and turning them into milestones. - Timeline and budget estimation, and tracking projects relative to the estimate. - Managing a team and mentoring other people. - Appraisal of and response to issues raised by professional ethics, safety, privacy, environmental impact, and other legal requirements and the public interest.
It's definitely not clear cut, but Prince has at least a good legal argument, that his art comments on the original work. The Cariou case hinged on the fact that Prince never straight-up said he was commenting on the original photos, but the appeals court made it clear that any reasonable art-lover would know that he was.
Now fast forward to the Instagram photos. Remember, he's been through this before, and has found that appropriation art can be fair use if it comments on the original. In the case of the Instagram photos, the "commenting on the original" was literal. His artwork literally made a comment on social media.
Don't you think that's just a little bit clever?
Oh, the guy is a grade A dickhead, don't get me wrong. But the ingenuity is undeniable.
"Parody", in this sense, means using the thing to comment on the thing. It's clear that is not what is going on in most (all?) Pepe memes.
It's probably legally okay (sort of) to use Mickey Mouse to parody Mickey Mouse, Disney, the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act, the animation industry, Bob Eiger, etc. It probably isn't okay to use Mickey Mouse to parody Kim Jong-un. In that case, the thing being used is not the thing being parodied.
I suspect it would be tough to sustain a SLAPP challenge in this case. Unless an authorised use of Pepe is to parody or comment on Pepe, Boy's Club, Matt Furie, or something else related, the parody defence is not available. Using Pepe to comment on something else is not, legally speaking, "parody". There may be some other fair use defence available, but not that one.
The stupid part is that Cernovich admits this in the piece: "What’s weird is that I don’t even care about Pepe and hardly ever talked about him."
Having said that, a journalist reporting on a Pepe meme is probably okay if they reproduce it as part of the reporting.
It's fairlywell-established that parody is only a valid defence if the thing itself is being parodied. If you're not making a parody of Boy's Club or Pepe, then you can't validly claim fair-use parody.
What you're talking about is "satire" (i.e. using the work to criticise something else), which is on shakier grounds, legally, and an active topic of discussion.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem isn't the AIS, it's that the funding model is wrong. State institutes and the AIS shouldn't compete for athletes, and athletes should pay back their scholarships (as with HECS/FEE-HELP/whatever it's called now) if they earn over some figure.
In the absence of a space agency, the AIS produces most of Australia's non-defence technological spinoffs. I wrote firmware for a nanotech device developed in conjunction with the AIS. There are some really good scientists working there.
Hopefully the compilation step isn't that slow -- if it is, ask your boss for a faster development computer, it will pay for itself many times over.
I've worked on large (several MLOC) C++ codebases where the full rebuild time was over an hour. Admittedly this was 15+ years ago. Templates are better now.
Alternate hard and soft layers.
That's only partly true. Modern strongly typed languages make it very cheap to create a new compiler-checked type and free to use at run-time. This encourages the use of "strong typedefs" which a programmer can use to get the type checker to check other kinds of bugs.
So, for example, you can get the compiler to check physical units. If you divide a "distance" by a "time", you'd better assign it to a variable of type "velocity".
Except that weakly typed languages, Python, JS, and Perl, tend to more concise and quicker to write than strongly typed languages such as C, C++, and Java.
I think this is precisely TFA's point. Part of the reason why JS programs are quicker to write is that fewer bugs are removed before shipping.
In a language like C++ or Haskell, that time spent getting the compiler to accept your code is credited to "programming". A similar amount of time is spent in well-written Python or JS, but it's credited to "testing" or "debugging" instead.
Some languages (e.g. Java) are basically unusable without modern IDEs. Whether it's code completion or refactoring editing, I'm pretty sure that it's impossible to get any work done in Java without the toolchain.
More seriously, though, for languages like C++, the state of debugging is absolute shit outside of IDEs. You will never to back to pain GDB and LLDB once you've used a real IDE-based debugger.
I'd rather program in Vim (if you would rather program in Emacs or whatever, good for you; get one decent editor and learn to use it well), but I'd rather debug in just about any IDE than use most open source Linux tools.
To clarify my original claim, the original Gardisil protected against the strains that cause 70% of cervical cancers.
And yes, there's a new one.
Oh, absolutely. Just for the record, I was comparing this potential treatment with vaccines because it was the first "percentage of STI strains" figure that came to mind.
99% of strains killed is better than most vaccines. Gardisil is only good for about 70% of HPV strains.
Sure it is. With h.264 and AES implemented in silicon and the keys known only to the video chip, it's fairly straightforward for the chip to decompress a h.264 video stream, encrypt it with AES, and write it to the frame buffer... then at output time, read it back from ram, decrypt it, re-encrypt it with HDCP, and output it to the display.
Well, there goes my battery life on my mobile device.
Seriously, someone should reframe DRM as a climate change issue.
Vape only homeopathic nicotine.
I'm sure you're really good at what you do.
I'm not so sure, but thanks for the kind words anyway.
The question of whether or not software engineering is really engineering is an interesting question. It's certainly applying science, you're certainly using (and, at its best, accounting for) natural resources, and you're really building things that could really hurt people.
I don't even work for a private company. Nice try though.
Making things on time and on budget isn't meaningless,but it's surprisingly hard when you're doing actual research for a living.
The key word here is "include". I still mostly write software, but now they make me understand everything from instruction timings to community outreach.
^ Person who has never had to maintain software written by a biologist detected.
- Serenus of Antinouplis
And all of them had the exact same duties: take specs, design an algorithm when needed, and implement it in a programming language.
Some companies gave the title 'engineer' because that was how the pay grades worked.
My job title changed to "engineer" when my duties started to include things like:
- Going through contracts and turning them into milestones.
- Timeline and budget estimation, and tracking projects relative to the estimate.
- Managing a team and mentoring other people.
- Appraisal of and response to issues raised by professional ethics, safety, privacy, environmental impact, and other legal requirements and the public interest.
You know, actual engineering.
South Park is careful not to rely on fair use.
It's definitely not clear cut, but Prince has at least a good legal argument, that his art comments on the original work. The Cariou case hinged on the fact that Prince never straight-up said he was commenting on the original photos, but the appeals court made it clear that any reasonable art-lover would know that he was.
Now fast forward to the Instagram photos. Remember, he's been through this before, and has found that appropriation art can be fair use if it comments on the original. In the case of the Instagram photos, the "commenting on the original" was literal. His artwork literally made a comment on social media.
Don't you think that's just a little bit clever?
Oh, the guy is a grade A dickhead, don't get me wrong. But the ingenuity is undeniable.
"Parody", in this sense, means using the thing to comment on the thing. It's clear that is not what is going on in most (all?) Pepe memes.
It's probably legally okay (sort of) to use Mickey Mouse to parody Mickey Mouse, Disney, the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act, the animation industry, Bob Eiger, etc. It probably isn't okay to use Mickey Mouse to parody Kim Jong-un. In that case, the thing being used is not the thing being parodied.
IANAL etc etc.
I suspect it would be tough to sustain a SLAPP challenge in this case. Unless an authorised use of Pepe is to parody or comment on Pepe, Boy's Club, Matt Furie, or something else related, the parody defence is not available. Using Pepe to comment on something else is not, legally speaking, "parody". There may be some other fair use defence available, but not that one.
The stupid part is that Cernovich admits this in the piece: "What’s weird is that I don’t even care about Pepe and hardly ever talked about him."
Having said that, a journalist reporting on a Pepe meme is probably okay if they reproduce it as part of the reporting.
It's fairly well-established that parody is only a valid defence if the thing itself is being parodied. If you're not making a parody of Boy's Club or Pepe, then you can't validly claim fair-use parody.
What you're talking about is "satire" (i.e. using the work to criticise something else), which is on shakier grounds, legally, and an active topic of discussion.
Huh? How is killing off a character in a storyline is not the same thing as relinquishing control of the (ugh, hate this term) intellectual property?
Believe me, Disney/Lucasfilm hasn't relinquished control of Han Solo. Oh, wait, spoiler alert.