I used to think that way.. why should my tax dollars taken from my paycheck which I work hard for go to someone else who contributes nothing to society.
But the truth is, while I didn't exactly grow up rich, I didn't grow up poor. It's largely random chance that I was born to middle class parents.. and as I didn't have to claw my way up from poverty, I try not to judge those who would have to in order to get to my lifestyle.
I don't have much problem with my tax dollars going towards helping out those less fortunate (I'm Canadian though, we tend to be a little more minded in this direction).. as long as it's not being spent foolishly or abused, and with an emphasis on fixing the problem rather than just keeping the status quo.
For instance, we have ethics to consider- we all know from personal experience that some people have various knacks for things in life. For example, many of us have logical, puzzle-loving brains that are great for programming or engineering, yet couldn't design a great-looking webpage or write a sheet of stirring music to save our greasy hides. Does it feel right to you to deny somebody the chance to better themselves (and civilization) based solely on the fact their brains are wired a little differently? Besides, this logic, taken to its conclusion, would have our schools teach nothing but math and science. What use would art, sports, music, etc be in a world such as this?
In theory, society puts a value on these things. The problem with the arts is there is a huge (or atleast perceived, would be interesting to see real statistics) imbalance between people who want careers in the arts and people who are willing to support them. The music major working at McDonalds is somewhat of a cliche, but there is a lot of truth in it.
Art is important, but I think one has to keep in mind that society is only willing to pay for a very small number of people to persue it, and there is a very huge number of people who want to. Giving tax money to people who want to be, say, an actor (and probably don't have a chance in hell) is something the general population doesn't like.
And I realize how unfair this is, as you said some people (my sister falls into this group) are very artsy and will probably never get to turn that into something that will pay the bills or even benifit society.. they will either try and probably fail or force themselves to do something they don't want to. A large part of the problem is that society does undervalue artists.. but that's the reality of it. Throwing money at artists isn't going to fix this.
Much as I think the guy is an ass, I think the whole high profile self promotion thing is somewhat necessary, along with the sensationalism and "we'll be releasing this stuff in x months" stuff. The profile makes it hard to get rid of, the sensationalism ensures it gets some attention (whether this is a good thing or not is largely a personal opinion). The profile also serves to let people know they have a place to send their stuff.. versus the guy posting torrents.. how do you get in touch with him?
Even in the shittiest economy, I think having a law degree is going to lend to a better career than one in the arts... the fact that traditionally strong areas are getting weaker doesn't make the areas that have always been weak a good idea.
As for it being your money.. it's coming from tax dollars, whether it gets re-paid is a public concern.. taking public tax dollars and spending them on something with a damn small chance of resulting in a career capable of repaying said money should be prevented. If people want a generic "drink it if you want" loan, that's what banks are for..
While it might sound good on paper to only give money to those careers that "matter", one should consider that the arts do provide much of our culture and entertainment.
It's not so much about being important as about having any chance of paying back the loan. If the money is going to support the arts, there should also be some justification. How many liberal arts majors actually contribute anything useful. I don't know how the hell one would work this.. it's a lot easier to have someone write a paper showing they've done some research and have a viable plan for getting employment after they graduate than to have someone prove they are worth spending on in the hopes they produce some art that society will benefit from.
Like I said, I definitely think more oversight is necessary...
Personally I don't think the loan should ever even touch the students hands. It should be direct from government to school / bookstore. I think that would eliminate several of the more prominent issues.
We're talking about a loan here.. the idea is it gets paid back.
As to why.. I'd say educating people is generally a good idea. Even if the money was a direct give-away.. I'd rather tax dollars be spent education people so they can contribute something to society vice welfare.
I do think there should be a little more oversight to ensure people who get these loans are doing something with at least a reasonable chance of turning into a job. If you want to get a degree in liberal arts or music.. burn your own money.
The actual products seem to have taken a back seat to everything around them. You have major companies buying other major companies not for their products but for legal ammo so they can sue each other. It's all very depressing.
Yes, I think this would definitely be a step in the right direction.
Devil of course is in the details.. "fair reasonable and non-discriminatory terms" sounds like the kind of stuff that leads to massive lawyer fees. And as you said, won't solve all problems... but I'll take solving some problems!
I agree patents don't work (as said in my post) but we can't pretend that ideas cost nothing to develop. This is especially true in software.
However, I disagree with the "just let products compete on features with no control of inventor rights" thinking.
Lets say there is a common problem. People have difficulty doing A. Company B says "we are going to figure out a way to do A and sell it! They spend a huge amount of money doing studies, experimenting, research, and finally develop something that works. As soon as they start selling their product, Company C says "they makes sense" and builds a copy in 3 months.. and can sell their (exact) version for much cheaper because they didn't have to do the R&D. Unless company A can re-coup their initial expense in 3 months, they are screwed.
Problem with fashion is the name means more than the look itself.
Even if someone made a $10 knock off that was absolutely identical to 's design.. people would spend the $$ on the origional because it's an authentic .
Tech doesn't have that kind of name recognition. Ok.. maybe apple does.. but if someone built a feature for feature, damn near exact clone of the iphone and started selling it for $50.. you'd see apple losing some business.
On one hand, yes, the features probably are largely stolen.
On the other hand, that’s kind of how technology evolves.
Locking down products and ideas to the person who originally introduced them doesn’t work patents don’t work and I don’t think a free for all would either (copying something is always cheaper than development). So what is the solution here?
Would imagine it depends very heavily on what you are actually doing
I’ve got:
- A powerful desktop, - Large fairly expensive file server and a cheap backup file server (same capacity, but cheap hardware and drives) - Several old boxes (mostly previous desktops and stuff I rescued from people who were going to throw them out) one of which is acting as a virtual machine host.. - Two intel atom based boxes. One I use for a whole bunch of random stuff (for instance, all the various UPSen I have are plugged into it, and it coordinates a shutdown of everything when any of them run low on battery. The other I use as my hardware tinkering box.. when playing with stuff I don’t want to plug into my actual computers (I’ve been playing around with USB based electronics).
I have and 2 network switches and essentially have two separate networks.. an internal and external.
People sometimes give me a hard time about spending this much money on hardware (also a lot of this is rackmount.. I got the rack for free, but I do pay the rackmount tax on the hardware).. but the way I see it, it’s my hobby.. and dollar for enjoyment, it’s actually not bad. Compared to people who spend the same money to spend 2 weeks on a boat.. I think it’s a good investment.
My point is, if you are trying to save money for something, ok, look for cost effective. If you’ve got the money though.. this is your hobby.. don’t be afraid to spend some cash if you know it’ll make you happy.
I'd say that the perception of perl as a hack `n slash language didn't come out of nowhere. I'll accept this may have changed as I haven't used perl in a while, and when I did, it was maintaining a very poorly designed system... but it's pretty damn hard to deny that perl at least at one point was the definition of a write once read never language.
Didn't say it was a bad thing (although I don't like it.. I find those redundant braces do add clarity for some reason.. ), still doesn't change the fact that in python, indenting is part of the syntax, whereas in other languages is just a good idea.
You can write a web server in VB6 if you want to, doesn't mean you should.
Perl doesn't force you to write ugly code, and with effort you can write maintainable code, but to me perl isn't designed for this. Perl is a hack and slash language, if you are going to stick to rigid designed code, why use perl in the first place.
I created an entire social networking site in Perl
Not saying people don't use it, or that it's impossible to write maintainable code with it (or any other language), just that it wouldn't be my first choice. Perl doesn't force you to write messy unreadible code, but it does heavily encourage it, and to me writing rigid perl kind of defeats (in my view) the point of perl.
All that said, when it comes to web programming languages you don't exactly have a great set of choices.
and have been maintaining it for way more than a few weeks.
I guess the question would be, is it just you maintaining it. Would someone else be able to come in and pick up where you've left off. This to me is perls huge weakness. Languages like c++, and to an extreme degree java, you can have someone come in and start working. It takes a much longer time to grok perl code.
I agree that it's possible to write maintainable perl, but from my vantage point, perl is not really designed for this.
To me it's more of a hack n` slash language. Code while you think. All those shortcuts and lack of boilerplate code and ability to just say "take this data, compare it with this, and do whatever" in a few lines is to me perl's strength. The fact that the resultant code is hard to read is the weakness. If you are not going to do that, and write code in a more rigid, designed manner to avoid this, why use perl in the first place? To me it's like writing a quick one-off type script in c++.. you can do it, but why would you want to? For the libraries as you said maybe.
The argument that it's not the tools it's the developer stands, however I do think some tools are more oriented towards maintainability (java, c++) and others towards rapid development (perl). You get ugly code in every language, but perl almost directly encourages it. The CPAN tool is _the_ definition of perl. Works, but oh my god is this code or cyphertext!
Never said it _hasn't_ been used to write something maintainable.. just that I wouldn't use it for that (any more.. ).
Yes you can write maintainable code in perl if you make a specific effort to do so, but to me that defeats the point. It's primarily a hack and slash language that lets you crank out code while you think. To me writing maintainable perl is like writing a quick one-off script in c++ or java. Yes you can do it, but why bother. Use the tool that is suited for the task.
And the DNA thing is a perfect example of the kind of "we need an answer to this question, then don't care about the code afterwards" situations where perl is king.
I don't really get the desire to use Perl. I haven't touched Perl for a long time and can't think of any jobs where it would be the best tool. It's ugly.
It's still _the_ tool for quick one-off type stuff. I know of no other tool that lets you just mash data together and produce something useful as easily and quickly as perl. That said, I'd never use it for a serious application or anything that had to be maintained for more than a few weeks. Those days are gone.. maintainability and reliability are king.
Interestingly enough, while I eat a lot of hot peppers and normally find tabasco fairly mild (and actually don't really like it because as you said, it tastes like spiced up vinegar).. mix it with vodka and it actually has more kick than would be expected. That said I don't get how this translated into loss of smell either, but the story has still made me a little more cautious about pulling stunts like that.
I'll admit I've engaged in this kinda macho grandstanding (and enjoyed it).. especially fun when alcohol is involved (although maybe dangerous.. this is a friend of a friend story so may not be true, but I heard of a guy who on his 21's birthday got taken to a bar where he did vodka shots with tobasco until he actually lost his sense of smell)!
There is a pleasurable component of eating spicy food just beyond your tolerance. You still enjoy the food, but just enough burn to kick off the brains endorphin release giving you that mellowed relaxing feeling. I agree though that once you get to the ridiculously hot stage, it's just about saying you did it.
there is nothing to soak the spices and they hit you hard when you eat them raw!
I've noticed that chili peppers in particular seem to impart their flavours on other things. If I cut up a chili pepper on a board, quickly rinse the board, then cut up a tomato on the same board... the tomato tastes like a chili pepper. Doesn't seem to happen with most other peppers.
Slashdot Mirror
I used to think that way.. why should my tax dollars taken from my paycheck which I work hard for go to someone else who contributes nothing to society.
But the truth is, while I didn't exactly grow up rich, I didn't grow up poor. It's largely random chance that I was born to middle class parents .. and as I didn't have to claw my way up from poverty, I try not to judge those who would have to in order to get to my lifestyle.
I don't have much problem with my tax dollars going towards helping out those less fortunate (I'm Canadian though, we tend to be a little more minded in this direction) .. as long as it's not being spent foolishly or abused, and with an emphasis on fixing the problem rather than just keeping the status quo.
For instance, we have ethics to consider- we all know from personal experience that some people have various knacks for things in life. For example, many of us have logical, puzzle-loving brains that are great for programming or engineering, yet couldn't design a great-looking webpage or write a sheet of stirring music to save our greasy hides. Does it feel right to you to deny somebody the chance to better themselves (and civilization) based solely on the fact their brains are wired a little differently? Besides, this logic, taken to its conclusion, would have our schools teach nothing but math and science. What use would art, sports, music, etc be in a world such as this?
In theory, society puts a value on these things. The problem with the arts is there is a huge (or atleast perceived, would be interesting to see real statistics) imbalance between people who want careers in the arts and people who are willing to support them. The music major working at McDonalds is somewhat of a cliche, but there is a lot of truth in it.
Art is important, but I think one has to keep in mind that society is only willing to pay for a very small number of people to persue it, and there is a very huge number of people who want to. Giving tax money to people who want to be, say, an actor (and probably don't have a chance in hell) is something the general population doesn't like.
And I realize how unfair this is, as you said some people (my sister falls into this group) are very artsy and will probably never get to turn that into something that will pay the bills or even benifit society .. they will either try and probably fail or force themselves to do something they don't want to. A large part of the problem is that society does undervalue artists .. but that's the reality of it. Throwing money at artists isn't going to fix this.
Much as I think the guy is an ass, I think the whole high profile self promotion thing is somewhat necessary, along with the sensationalism and "we'll be releasing this stuff in x months" stuff. The profile makes it hard to get rid of, the sensationalism ensures it gets some attention (whether this is a good thing or not is largely a personal opinion). The profile also serves to let people know they have a place to send their stuff.. versus the guy posting torrents.. how do you get in touch with him?
Even in the shittiest economy, I think having a law degree is going to lend to a better career than one in the arts... the fact that traditionally strong areas are getting weaker doesn't make the areas that have always been weak a good idea.
As for it being your money.. it's coming from tax dollars, whether it gets re-paid is a public concern.. taking public tax dollars and spending them on something with a damn small chance of resulting in a career capable of repaying said money should be prevented. If people want a generic "drink it if you want" loan, that's what banks are for..
While it might sound good on paper to only give money to those careers that "matter", one should consider that the arts do provide much of our culture and entertainment.
It's not so much about being important as about having any chance of paying back the loan. If the money is going to support the arts, there should also be some justification. How many liberal arts majors actually contribute anything useful. I don't know how the hell one would work this.. it's a lot easier to have someone write a paper showing they've done some research and have a viable plan for getting employment after they graduate than to have someone prove they are worth spending on in the hopes they produce some art that society will benefit from.
Like I said, I definitely think more oversight is necessary...
Personally I don't think the loan should ever even touch the students hands. It should be direct from government to school / bookstore. I think that would eliminate several of the more prominent issues.
We're talking about a loan here.. the idea is it gets paid back.
As to why.. I'd say educating people is generally a good idea. Even if the money was a direct give-away.. I'd rather tax dollars be spent education people so they can contribute something to society vice welfare.
I do think there should be a little more oversight to ensure people who get these loans are doing something with at least a reasonable chance of turning into a job. If you want to get a degree in liberal arts or music .. burn your own money.
Hmm, good point.
The actual products seem to have taken a back seat to everything around them. You have major companies buying other major companies not for their products but for legal ammo so they can sue each other. It's all very depressing.
Yes, I think this would definitely be a step in the right direction.
Devil of course is in the details.. "fair reasonable and non-discriminatory terms" sounds like the kind of stuff that leads to massive lawyer fees. And as you said, won't solve all problems... but I'll take solving some problems!
Gah.. got my companies mixed up!
*Unless company B can re-coup their initial expense
I agree patents don't work (as said in my post) but we can't pretend that ideas cost nothing to develop. This is especially true in software.
However, I disagree with the "just let products compete on features with no control of inventor rights" thinking.
Lets say there is a common problem. People have difficulty doing A. Company B says "we are going to figure out a way to do A and sell it! They spend a huge amount of money doing studies, experimenting, research, and finally develop something that works. As soon as they start selling their product, Company C says "they makes sense" and builds a copy in 3 months .. and can sell their (exact) version for much cheaper because they didn't have to do the R&D. Unless company A can re-coup their initial expense in 3 months, they are screwed.
Problem with fashion is the name means more than the look itself.
Even if someone made a $10 knock off that was absolutely identical to 's design.. people would spend the $$ on the origional because it's an authentic .
Tech doesn't have that kind of name recognition. Ok.. maybe apple does.. but if someone built a feature for feature, damn near exact clone of the iphone and started selling it for $50 .. you'd see apple losing some business.
On one hand, yes, the features probably are largely stolen.
On the other hand, that’s kind of how technology evolves.
Locking down products and ideas to the person who originally introduced them doesn’t work patents don’t work and I don’t think a free for all would either (copying something is always cheaper than development). So what is the solution here?
Would imagine it depends very heavily on what you are actually doing
I’ve got:
- A powerful desktop,
- Large fairly expensive file server and a cheap backup file server (same capacity, but cheap hardware and drives)
- Several old boxes (mostly previous desktops and stuff I rescued from people who were going to throw them out) one of which is acting as a virtual machine host..
- Two intel atom based boxes. One I use for a whole bunch of random stuff (for instance, all the various UPSen I have are plugged into it, and it coordinates a shutdown of everything when any of them run low on battery. The other I use as my hardware tinkering box.. when playing with stuff I don’t want to plug into my actual computers (I’ve been playing around with USB based electronics).
I have and 2 network switches and essentially have two separate networks.. an internal and external.
People sometimes give me a hard time about spending this much money on hardware (also a lot of this is rackmount.. I got the rack for free, but I do pay the rackmount tax on the hardware) .. but the way I see it, it’s my hobby.. and dollar for enjoyment, it’s actually not bad. Compared to people who spend the same money to spend 2 weeks on a boat .. I think it’s a good investment.
My point is, if you are trying to save money for something, ok, look for cost effective. If you’ve got the money though.. this is your hobby.. don’t be afraid to spend some cash if you know it’ll make you happy.
I'd say that the perception of perl as a hack `n slash language didn't come out of nowhere. I'll accept this may have changed as I haven't used perl in a while, and when I did, it was maintaining a very poorly designed system... but it's pretty damn hard to deny that perl at least at one point was the definition of a write once read never language.
Didn't say it was a bad thing (although I don't like it.. I find those redundant braces do add clarity for some reason.. ), still doesn't change the fact that in python, indenting is part of the syntax, whereas in other languages is just a good idea.
That, uh, would seem to be the definition of position being part of the syntax. Unless I'm missing something...
You can write a web server in VB6 if you want to, doesn't mean you should.
Perl doesn't force you to write ugly code, and with effort you can write maintainable code, but to me perl isn't designed for this. Perl is a hack and slash language, if you are going to stick to rigid designed code, why use perl in the first place.
I created an entire social networking site in Perl
Not saying people don't use it, or that it's impossible to write maintainable code with it (or any other language), just that it wouldn't be my first choice. Perl doesn't force you to write messy unreadible code, but it does heavily encourage it, and to me writing rigid perl kind of defeats (in my view) the point of perl.
All that said, when it comes to web programming languages you don't exactly have a great set of choices.
and have been maintaining it for way more than a few weeks.
I guess the question would be, is it just you maintaining it. Would someone else be able to come in and pick up where you've left off. This to me is perls huge weakness. Languages like c++, and to an extreme degree java, you can have someone come in and start working. It takes a much longer time to grok perl code.
I agree that it's possible to write maintainable perl, but from my vantage point, perl is not really designed for this.
To me it's more of a hack n` slash language. Code while you think. All those shortcuts and lack of boilerplate code and ability to just say "take this data, compare it with this, and do whatever" in a few lines is to me perl's strength. The fact that the resultant code is hard to read is the weakness. If you are not going to do that, and write code in a more rigid, designed manner to avoid this, why use perl in the first place? To me it's like writing a quick one-off type script in c++.. you can do it, but why would you want to? For the libraries as you said maybe.
The argument that it's not the tools it's the developer stands, however I do think some tools are more oriented towards maintainability (java, c++) and others towards rapid development (perl). You get ugly code in every language, but perl almost directly encourages it. The CPAN tool is _the_ definition of perl. Works, but oh my god is this code or cyphertext!
Never said it _hasn't_ been used to write something maintainable.. just that I wouldn't use it for that (any more.. ).
Yes you can write maintainable code in perl if you make a specific effort to do so, but to me that defeats the point. It's primarily a hack and slash language that lets you crank out code while you think. To me writing maintainable perl is like writing a quick one-off script in c++ or java. Yes you can do it, but why bother. Use the tool that is suited for the task.
And the DNA thing is a perfect example of the kind of "we need an answer to this question, then don't care about the code afterwards" situations where perl is king.
I don't really get the desire to use Perl. I haven't touched Perl for a long time and can't think of any jobs where it would be the best tool. It's ugly.
It's still _the_ tool for quick one-off type stuff. I know of no other tool that lets you just mash data together and produce something useful as easily and quickly as perl. That said, I'd never use it for a serious application or anything that had to be maintained for more than a few weeks. Those days are gone.. maintainability and reliability are king.
Interestingly enough, while I eat a lot of hot peppers and normally find tabasco fairly mild (and actually don't really like it because as you said, it tastes like spiced up vinegar) .. mix it with vodka and it actually has more kick than would be expected. That said I don't get how this translated into loss of smell either, but the story has still made me a little more cautious about pulling stunts like that.
I'll admit I've engaged in this kinda macho grandstanding (and enjoyed it) .. especially fun when alcohol is involved (although maybe dangerous.. this is a friend of a friend story so may not be true, but I heard of a guy who on his 21's birthday got taken to a bar where he did vodka shots with tobasco until he actually lost his sense of smell)!
There is a pleasurable component of eating spicy food just beyond your tolerance. You still enjoy the food, but just enough burn to kick off the brains endorphin release giving you that mellowed relaxing feeling. I agree though that once you get to the ridiculously hot stage, it's just about saying you did it.
there is nothing to soak the spices and they hit you hard when you eat them raw!
I've noticed that chili peppers in particular seem to impart their flavours on other things. If I cut up a chili pepper on a board, quickly rinse the board, then cut up a tomato on the same board... the tomato tastes like a chili pepper. Doesn't seem to happen with most other peppers.