Right, but apps you write on your Tivo can't run on a GNU/Linux installation or an Android installation. You have three platforms now. The API is the platform, and Tivo has the Tivo API, Android has its own toolset and libraries, and X11 is a third.
All of them will probably support very basic command-line software with just a recompile, but if you're coding a finished app with a UI and the sort of interaction with high-level services users expect, you're going to be writing three different apps.
I believe, and have repeatedly said, that the supposed "scientific consensus" on CAGW is not a conspiracy but an error cascade.
With all due respect, human beings do not cascade errors, machines do. What you're suggesting is that hundreds, thousands of PhDs, all taking either their own measurements or analyzing a broad corpus of measurements collected by generations of researchers, of all manner of phenomena, are all arriving at the same erroneous conclusion, over and over, and that no one with the qualifications to catch the mistake is catching the mistake, for decades.
Yes, because political ideology makes everything else in a persons life irrelevant.
Ask ESR what he had for breakfast that morning and you're likely to get a lecture on Murray Rothbard. Everything he contributes is subsumed by his ideology, his politics, and his bizarre peccadilloes.
All he's arguing is historical accuracy--someone really did perform a ceremony that's pretty much a curse.
You're giving him quite a lot of credit, not only does he assert that the curse was real and effective, he also declares that he's a "third degree wiccan" and then identifies the deities he would have would invoked. There's no question that he believes the Haitian people actually invoked the santeria deity known as Ogun to liberate them from French domination, and that the earthquake may have been Ogun collecting on the debt.
In all seriousness, why is this guy still a thing in the Open Source movement? He wrote a few books in the 90s, very good ones, but he's been irrelevant for years and he's a nut. He has nothing to offer.
I believe, but cannot prove, that global “AIDS” is a whole cluster of
unrelated diseases all of which have been swept under a single rug for
essentially political reasons, and that the identification of HIV as
the sole pathogen is likely to go down as one of the most colossal
blunders in the history of medicine.
You picked an extremely bad example there; Turing was atypical in a way that damages your case. If you examine the actual circumstances of Turing’s exposure, you’ll discover that he was remarkably and willfully self-destructive about it. Outed himself, under circumstances where he could easily have covered and (as I read it) the cop was trying to look the other way. Still, I’m not “pro” Turing’s suicide, just refusing to blame anyone else for it. He made his choice and died. End of story.
It's a Linux kernel, but it's not a Linux platform. It's good for kernel development because they have all these big juicy Google brain cells hacking in the kernel. It's a total wash for Linux application developers, because Android might as well be iOS in terms of porting their software to a phone.
I do a lot of odds and ends in Max/MSP and Reaktor for work. Normally I do the more robust stuff in C, ObjC and Ruby.
They're "dataflow" languages, you have boxes that transform data, and you wire them together in the order you want the transformation to happen. Everything's graphical. It's designed to be easy enough that someone with no computer background could use it– a composer or synth programmer will learn it for a few days and then off they go.
I've noticed some things:
Code sharing almost never happens. You can't email a snippet of your "patch" (a program) as text, you can't post it in a text box at stackoverflow, it's almost impossible to communicate with other people about what you're working on without emailing the binary document. When you send someone a patch to look at, you're doing a lot of "look to the left of this," and "look for the red box."
Code reuse can be difficult because boxes generally aren't typed in any way, so interfaces are difficult to verify and document.
... This leads the dev environments to only be as good as their templates and default libraries. People prefer Reaktor to Max not because it's easier for developing, but because it comes with a bunch of really useful default synths and sampler instruments, which people will tweak slightly.
It's very difficult to talk about the algorithm itself, you have to spend all your time orienting yourself. If the program you're building is a simple pipeline, it's easy to see what's happening, but if you have loops and divergences it becomes very hard to understand what's going on in the abstract.
Data types are a hack. You end up having to have different color wires that carry different things, type-tagging of binary data is routine, and you often have to do conversions because the environment runs different data connections at different levels of service. Trial and error is usually required to see if a box responds to a message in the way you want; I can write correct C without having to run the code, I would never try that in Reaktor.
Execution order is a hack. If you connect one output to two inputs, which input will process the output first? There's conventions: In Max: the rightmost box will act first, and your graph is traversed depth-first right-to-left (this rule introduces ambiguity when dataflow is fed back). There are also boxes/modules that can make execution order explicit in various ways. (Note that in most cases we don't care about execution order, and the implicit multithreading is quite nice.)
Doing N of anything is a pain. In Max, It's easy to build a sampler that can play one sample. It's easy to build one that can play two. It's basically impossible to build a sampler that can play N, without using the textual scripting language (ha!) to dynamically rewrite your patch based on creation arguments.
If I have something thats useful, I'll often conceptualize stuff in Max and then rewrite it in C with CoreAudio, because I know the Max code is basically a dead end for its usefulness.
Yeah, none of this seems to conflict with parallel construction. Brady disclosure doesn't require disclosing a parallel construction of evidence -- the fact that evidence was obtained from an NSA wiretap doesn't make it "exculpatory," unless the wiretap shows you didn't do the thing. Evidence isn't exculpatory because of how it was gotten, it's exculpatory because of what it says; as the wiki says "material to guilt or punishment." The illegality of a wiretap is not material to your guilt.
Not at all. The 6th amendments means you can't be brought up on a secret indictment, or no indictment at all. A grand jury has to conclude there's enough evidence to support the contention that you were running drugs, and they hand up the indictment.
If they've got a picture of you running drugs, they've got the evidence. How they knew to put a camera on that particular street corner that day isn't "the cause for your indictment."
The Constitution says the defense is supposed to get all the evidence. That's been taken to include the whole story of what opened the case, and what led the cops to look where.
I'd love to see where you see that in the US Constitution, because no such specific language exists as far as I know. "Due process of law" is all that seems to be required, and in practice that means that discovery has to proceed in a normal manner and the prosecution may bring as much or as little evidence against you as they may require to convict you, no more or less. They must produce this evidence, and how they got it; any evidence they don't bring to court, they don't have to explain.
There's no solid, indisputable proof that evolution occurred.
There's no "solid, indisputable proof" that anything has ever occurred. All things in the world may be disputed, that's called "falsifiability."
Teaching Christian Fundamentalism however, requires accepting a priori that the Bible is the only source of solid, indisputable proof, and that any attempts to prove it right or wrong are pointless.
C. A teacher shall teach the material presented in the standard textbook supplied by the school system and thereafter may use supplemental textbooks and other instructional materials to help students understand, analyze, critique, and review scientific theories in an objective manner, as permitted by the city, parish, or other local public school board.
It's been made clear that teachers are permitted to bring Bibles into the science class as "other instructional materials." Bobby Jindal stated as much:
I’ve got no problem if a school board, a local school board, says we want to teach our kids about creationism, that people, some people, have these beliefs as well, let’s teach them about ‘intelligent design.’
It's all about devolving the responsibility to the local school board, where rule changes happen without much accountability and things happen with a wink and a nudge. If you were a teacher a few years ago and brought your Bible into science class, you could be disciplined. Now, though, your boss can't do anything and parents complaints would be unavailing, at least until they tried to take it to court. Thus, a common sight in a Louisiana public school now:
Paintings of Jesus Christ, Bible verses, and Christian devotional phrases adorn the walls of many classrooms and hallways, including the main hallway leading out to the bus pick-up area. A lighted, electronic marquee placed just outside the building scrolls Bible verses every day.
“In the main foyer of the school, one display informs students that “ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS.” It includes several posters urging students to “Pray,” “Worship,” and “Believe,” while a poster displayed near the waiting area of the main office announces that “[i]t’s okay to pray.
All "supplemental materials" brought in from home, bought with the teacher's own money, and thus protected by state law and encouraged by the state government.
Your second link:
Neither the state board of education, nor any public elementary or secondary school governing authority, director of schools, school system administrator, or any public elementary or secondary school principal or administrator shall prohibit any teacher in a public school system of this state from helping students understand, analyze, critique, and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught.
What it's about is making it impossible to discipline a teacher for teaching religion -- the overt teaching is left up to the teachers, and it's illegal to fire a teacher for teaching the Bible.
The textbook, called simply “World History,” contains a 32-page chapter fondly devoted to “Muslim Civilizations.” Sections include descriptions of the Koran, the growth of the Muslim empire and the Five Pillars of Islam.
What's your problem? There were Muslim civilizations, the several successive caliphates radically changed the middle east over a millennium etc.
Your SFGate article is over 5 years old, one of those "Community content" articles than isn't written by a reporter or checked by an editor -- the author was a regular NewsBusters contributor and the article is filled with a bunch of links to WorldNetDaily. So yes, "FAUX news... DISMISS" is probably in order.
Teaching children that Islam exists, that its tenets are X, Y and Z, and that Muslim people actually participate in American society without murdering anybody(!) would probably be considered acceptable public school curriculum in most places. I can find no credible evidence of "indoctrination" or forced religious observance in your links, as opposed to teaching Biblical Creation, which nobody debates is happening and is a forced religious observance.
Clearly, I was talking about the money taken away from a business through taxation -- not about personal income tax.
Your assertion was that every dollar paid in taxes is a dollar not paid in salary, that if taxes are lowered then salary goes up in 1:1 correspondence.
And you make the old dumb argument that the "rich people won't starve without their money." They don't spend it on food or on personal needs.
That is an argument for marginal utility of dollars, which is not in my post; I'm identifying the difference between income from growth and income from economic rent. If a guy only made $10k a year on economic rent and you taxed 100% of it, it would create no deadweight loss, his gross income is irrelevant.
We distinguish between taxation that causes deadweight loss and taxes that do not. A tax on an economic rent does not. The general goal of neoliberal taxation is to collect as much rent as possible from deadweight, non-Parero optimal activities.
You are talking about personal income tax. I am talking about income tax on business.
I'm talking about taxes in the most general case. If you put a 10% tax on the sale of apples, apple vendors may lose that money from their profits, or they may pass the costs on to the people buy apples (losing nothing), or a mix of the two. The mix is determined by the elasticity of demand for apples -- if people can replace apples with a supplemental good, or elect to buy them less, then apple vendors can't pass on the tax. If a good has inelastic demand, a good like gasoline, which only very slowly responds to plaice signals, then 100% of the tax will be passed on in the price and none of the company's income available to invest will be affected.
It works the same way with the labor market, if you put a tax on a business activity, this may result in lower salaries, but wether it does or not depends on the labor market they're operating in. It's possible that they can't afford to offer lower salaries because people wouldn't accept the work, they'd be able to find work somewhere else, in which case the costs either come from profits or from another activity. Your analysis above is operating with the assumption of a completely inelastic market for the company's goods, a completely inelastic labor market, the firm is collecting no economic rents of any kind, and is working at a perfect and unimprovable level of efficiency and productivity. The assumptions are wildly unrealistic.
None of this is relevant to your extremely general point, which can be summarized as "taxes is the suxx0r." But your specific, original claim that taxes always deprive workers of wages is simply not true in many cases.
Slashdot Mirror
Right, but apps you write on your Tivo can't run on a GNU/Linux installation or an Android installation. You have three platforms now. The API is the platform, and Tivo has the Tivo API, Android has its own toolset and libraries, and X11 is a third.
All of them will probably support very basic command-line software with just a recompile, but if you're coding a finished app with a UI and the sort of interaction with high-level services users expect, you're going to be writing three different apps.
There's some variation on the "Only old people in Korea..." Slashdot meme in this.
What, because anybody who's rich is in danger?
Or because now the CIA/NSA/Fed/Bavarian Illuminatus/Zeta Reticulans will "get" him or some such nonsense?
With all due respect, human beings do not cascade errors, machines do. What you're suggesting is that hundreds, thousands of PhDs, all taking either their own measurements or analyzing a broad corpus of measurements collected by generations of researchers, of all manner of phenomena, are all arriving at the same erroneous conclusion, over and over, and that no one with the qualifications to catch the mistake is catching the mistake, for decades.
I admit my reading was not as charitable as it could have been :P
Ask ESR what he had for breakfast that morning and you're likely to get a lecture on Murray Rothbard. Everything he contributes is subsumed by his ideology, his politics, and his bizarre peccadilloes.
You're giving him quite a lot of credit, not only does he assert that the curse was real and effective, he also declares that he's a "third degree wiccan" and then identifies the deities he would have would invoked. There's no question that he believes the Haitian people actually invoked the santeria deity known as Ogun to liberate them from French domination, and that the earthquake may have been Ogun collecting on the debt.
We can go on like this for days, by the way.
In all seriousness, why is this guy still a thing in the Open Source movement? He wrote a few books in the 90s, very good ones, but he's been irrelevant for years and he's a nut. He has nothing to offer.
Do you still deny a link between HIV and the disease known as AIDS?
Do you still blame Alan Turing for his fate? So have you become a total crackpot since September 11th, or was it something that was always sorta brewing under the surface.
It's a Linux kernel, but it's not a Linux platform. It's good for kernel development because they have all these big juicy Google brain cells hacking in the kernel. It's a total wash for Linux application developers, because Android might as well be iOS in terms of porting their software to a phone.
That's no moon...
With the caveat that the deciding vote was cat not by a Floridian, but by Sandra Day O'Connor.
I can write 10-15 lines into codepad and it works, that's about it though :P
You're right, but the diffs and the blames are useless, and merge conflict resolution is impossible.
Also, you can't check visual languages into Git. Serious drawback.
I do a lot of odds and ends in Max/MSP and Reaktor for work. Normally I do the more robust stuff in C, ObjC and Ruby.
They're "dataflow" languages, you have boxes that transform data, and you wire them together in the order you want the transformation to happen. Everything's graphical. It's designed to be easy enough that someone with no computer background could use it– a composer or synth programmer will learn it for a few days and then off they go.
I've noticed some things:
If I have something thats useful, I'll often conceptualize stuff in Max and then rewrite it in C with CoreAudio, because I know the Max code is basically a dead end for its usefulness.
Yeah, none of this seems to conflict with parallel construction. Brady disclosure doesn't require disclosing a parallel construction of evidence -- the fact that evidence was obtained from an NSA wiretap doesn't make it "exculpatory," unless the wiretap shows you didn't do the thing. Evidence isn't exculpatory because of how it was gotten, it's exculpatory because of what it says; as the wiki says "material to guilt or punishment." The illegality of a wiretap is not material to your guilt.
That's reasonable, but that's not in the Constitution.
If they've got a picture of you running drugs, they've got the evidence. How they knew to put a camera on that particular street corner that day isn't "the cause for your indictment."
"Exculpatory" means "shows you didn't do the thing." It doesn't mean "can get your case dismissed by dint of rules of evidence."
I'd love to see where you see that in the US Constitution, because no such specific language exists as far as I know. "Due process of law" is all that seems to be required, and in practice that means that discovery has to proceed in a normal manner and the prosecution may bring as much or as little evidence against you as they may require to convict you, no more or less. They must produce this evidence, and how they got it; any evidence they don't bring to court, they don't have to explain.
There's no "solid, indisputable proof" that anything has ever occurred. All things in the world may be disputed, that's called "falsifiability."
Teaching Christian Fundamentalism however, requires accepting a priori that the Bible is the only source of solid, indisputable proof, and that any attempts to prove it right or wrong are pointless.
In your first link:
It's been made clear that teachers are permitted to bring Bibles into the science class as "other instructional materials." Bobby Jindal stated as much:
It's all about devolving the responsibility to the local school board, where rule changes happen without much accountability and things happen with a wink and a nudge. If you were a teacher a few years ago and brought your Bible into science class, you could be disciplined. Now, though, your boss can't do anything and parents complaints would be unavailing, at least until they tried to take it to court. Thus, a common sight in a Louisiana public school now:
All "supplemental materials" brought in from home, bought with the teacher's own money, and thus protected by state law and encouraged by the state government.
Your second link:
What it's about is making it impossible to discipline a teacher for teaching religion -- the overt teaching is left up to the teachers, and it's illegal to fire a teacher for teaching the Bible.
From your first link:
What's your problem? There were Muslim civilizations, the several successive caliphates radically changed the middle east over a millennium etc.
Your SFGate article is over 5 years old, one of those "Community content" articles than isn't written by a reporter or checked by an editor -- the author was a regular NewsBusters contributor and the article is filled with a bunch of links to WorldNetDaily. So yes, "FAUX news... DISMISS" is probably in order.
Teaching children that Islam exists, that its tenets are X, Y and Z, and that Muslim people actually participate in American society without murdering anybody(!) would probably be considered acceptable public school curriculum in most places. I can find no credible evidence of "indoctrination" or forced religious observance in your links, as opposed to teaching Biblical Creation, which nobody debates is happening and is a forced religious observance.
Your assertion was that every dollar paid in taxes is a dollar not paid in salary, that if taxes are lowered then salary goes up in 1:1 correspondence.
That is an argument for marginal utility of dollars, which is not in my post; I'm identifying the difference between income from growth and income from economic rent. If a guy only made $10k a year on economic rent and you taxed 100% of it, it would create no deadweight loss, his gross income is irrelevant.
We distinguish between taxation that causes deadweight loss and taxes that do not. A tax on an economic rent does not. The general goal of neoliberal taxation is to collect as much rent as possible from deadweight, non-Parero optimal activities.
I'm talking about taxes in the most general case. If you put a 10% tax on the sale of apples, apple vendors may lose that money from their profits, or they may pass the costs on to the people buy apples (losing nothing), or a mix of the two. The mix is determined by the elasticity of demand for apples -- if people can replace apples with a supplemental good, or elect to buy them less, then apple vendors can't pass on the tax. If a good has inelastic demand, a good like gasoline, which only very slowly responds to plaice signals, then 100% of the tax will be passed on in the price and none of the company's income available to invest will be affected.
It works the same way with the labor market, if you put a tax on a business activity, this may result in lower salaries, but wether it does or not depends on the labor market they're operating in. It's possible that they can't afford to offer lower salaries because people wouldn't accept the work, they'd be able to find work somewhere else, in which case the costs either come from profits or from another activity. Your analysis above is operating with the assumption of a completely inelastic market for the company's goods, a completely inelastic labor market, the firm is collecting no economic rents of any kind, and is working at a perfect and unimprovable level of efficiency and productivity. The assumptions are wildly unrealistic.
None of this is relevant to your extremely general point, which can be summarized as "taxes is the suxx0r." But your specific, original claim that taxes always deprive workers of wages is simply not true in many cases.