How will you (or did you) learn without *tweaking*? Can you just read a book or take a class without trying your knowledge out on a computer, and still gain the same understanding?
Without *tweaking* now, how will you know which code is not only faster, but less complex and eaiser to understand when you need it?
I accept that it is usually good to keep code as simple as possible, while still meeting the business requirements. (although that isn't quite what you said)
You still completely missed the analogy of AMD, however.
You said earlier "If the machine is too slow, buy a faster one."
Suppose that AMD (or Intel, or whoever), in order to get you to buy their processor next year, put *all* their effort increasing the speed and decreasing the cost of the current generation of processors. I would expect that this would quickly put them ahead of their competition. Then when the next generation of processors came out they would suddenly fall behind and, soon enough, go out of business.
You'll notice, however, that succesful processor manufacturers put huge amounts of resources into lines of research that have no market, or even direct application, yet. They know that some of the research won't pan out. They also know that new knowledge will be needed, and are willing to spend now for this future knowledge.
"As for AMD, they only make faster processors because of the competition. Completely different metaphor (unless you are writing software that has to outrun a competitor's)." If you are in business to make money I hope that you are always trying to outperform your competetors in every way you can. Even in the software you use to run your reports.
I do understand, however, that time spent *tweaking* one thing could often be better spent *tweaking* something else. In your example this could mean figuring out reports that are more usefull to the people that read them. It could mean finding ways to increase profits by using computer time that would be freed up if the reports were faster. It could mean making the code easier to understand/modify in the event that is needed.
There doesn't seem to be an immediate benefit, true. Learning how to cut the report time in half now, when it doesn't matter, means that when it does matter the knowledge is there. And when it does matter (surprise deadline or reports have just gotten longer/more frequent) there won't be time to learn it, so if you don't already have the knowledge you lose.
Just be grateful that AMD (for example) doesn't wait for you to need more processor power before they develop a faster processor.
Quote: "Of all of the classes 40 classes or so that I took in college, the professor never called on anybody, male or female. Professors spoke to large silent audiences of students"
You chose the wrong college.
I attended 4 colleges, and graduated from 3. I also taught at 4 colleges. I was a math major the whole way.
In all the classes that I took, taught and studied, the professors called on students. Most of them made a point to try to involve *all* the students in class discussions. Class discussion is a good way to get feedback on student learning and teaching effectiveness. (not the best way, but a good way, and the most immediate feedback possible)
A reality check for prospective college students: It may be worthwhile to know - as in see for yourself - what the teaching style of a college is before you spend your (or your parents', or taxpayers') money and your time on it.
"No other company gets such immature treatment from slashot other than Microsoft."
SCO does. Both major US political parties do. (immature support and immature derision) Slashdot itself gets plenty of immature treatment from us. Just about anything mentioned on/. gets plenty of immature treatment.
I was warned by my parents about the dangers of credit. More than once. (much more) But then, my parents maybe don't count as boomers, since they were born before '40.
I know of a bank who's official policy was to issue home equity loans to pay off credit card debt, but not require cancellation of the cards. The specific end goal was not to get the loan paid off by the borrower, but to get the house.
Of course the ads represented the loans as help, not as a way to slowly take your home.
The idea that there is no evidence in support of a religion depends very heavily on which religion you are referring to, and who you ask.
For example, if you were to ask Thomas Aquinas about Christianity, he would supply wads of pro-religion evidence, which you are free to accept or reject as you choose.
The fact that we can reject evidence (even if the basis for rejection is reasonable) doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
Though you are correct in your statement that the existence of a god (or at least God) can not be disproven.
It is arguable that there is room for reasonable doubt whether God exists.
However, the preponderance of evidence is definitely on the side of existence, since evidence for non-existence of anything is very hard to come by.
Then, since Intel would have no real competitor (for at least a few years, since their business has a fairly high barrier to entry).
This would be very good for the environment, and for programming!!! Prices on new Intel CPUs would skyrocket, so prices on new PC's would skyrocket. Fewer computers would be sold and push old ones to landfills. This would mean that the old 386's you've been using as bookcase supports would start being worth more. This would also mean that processing power would not increase as quickly, as Intel wouldn't have the same incentive to research. So programs would have to get more efficient.
I say, "Go, Intel! Make the world a better place though monopoly power!"
"The whole dominant market position thing does not seem too good an argument for me"
Not even if one company has enough dominance to force yours out of business, by raising their prices to you, if you don't use them exclusively? There are some companies in some markets that have that kind of dominance.
The one that you replied to was about: A company payed an employee to post information that cost someone their job. This information was found to be baseless (this means that there was no reason to believe it). The company that paid to publish the "false" information made no attempt at correction or retraction, even after repeated requests.
And, part of the job of Washington Post editors is to be aware of every word that gets published. Cost effective or not, that's what they're paid for.
According to the article, the Post published allegations about sexual harassment that got the guy fired. These allegations were later found to be baseless, but the Post has never printed a retraction or made any attempt to make ammends.
Is this article (in Globeandmail) more trustworthy than the ones (in the Washington Post) that got the dude fired? I don't know, but that's what I get from it.
I apologize in advance for the length of this post, but practically every point in your long post admitted specific response (if not outright refutation).
I'll start by rephrasing something I said in GP (though phrased slightly differently). The hypothetical libertarian societies I have read about have been so obviously unsustainable as to be almost humorous. (I say almost, because the fact that the creators of these examples didn't see the obvious and gaping flaws is sad evidence that they aren't even looking for flaws, or ways to correct them.)
From Dictionary.com
Anarchy
1. Absence of any form of political authority.
2. Political disorder and confusion.
3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.
and
Chaos
1. A condition or place of great disorder or confusion.
So, how can you say that anarchy doesn't mean chaos?
Thus, I do not live in anarchy most of the time.
No one tells me where to shop, but I live under the common assumption that I have to pay for what I get when I shop.
No law defines who I work for, but there is an underlying structure that (more-or-less) guarantees that the value of my work will be readily convertible into food, clothing, shelter, entertainment, etc. This is not disorder and confusion.
Anarchy means that if I am murdered there are no common standards whereby the murder would be judged.
Anarchy means that if I am powerful enough that I can do what I want, since there is no cohesive principle, such as non-initiation of violence, that would have others band together to stop me.
Finally: Quote: "Libertarians espouse only one principle: Non initiation of force."
Apparently we have read/talked to different groups of people calling themselves libertarians. Or, perhaps the "official" position of an "official" group of libertarians is merely vastly different than the result of such a position, and also very different than the actual beliefs of those calling themselves "Libertarians."
Anyhow, non-initiation of force is one of the easiest things to rationalize into use of force. (generational feuds, etc.)
This also brings up the not-insignificant question of where influence ends and force begins. I'm sure that you can draw a definite line, but if I draw the line somewhere in the region of "mild censure = emotional violence" then you can barely even disagree with me before getting in trouble. This is an extreme example, but a problem statistically sure to come up if there were a "true libertarian society." Any resolution to this question would necessitate some people initiating violence (in my opinion) and the line moves a little farther, and the society is already on the slippery slope to strong government or anarchy.
Except when you're writing a book and let your *friend* see it and he copies it and sells it on via this model that you've described before you're ready. You did the work, the *friend* gets the reward. With no copyright this is entirely legal, if very unethical.
"a criminal taking of the property or services of another without consent"
I think that software development is a service. Notice that the definition of what is theft has nothing to do with the marginal cost of the property or service. (Which may be virtually 0 in the case of software.)
"I've never heard it used as a synonym for plagiarism."
Then you've not been reading the same things on/. as I. I've heard (seen, perhaps read) taking anothers creative work without permission referred to as theft, stealing, copyright infringement, piracy and plagarism here on/., in just the past month.
I have also heard theft used as a synonym for plagarism, by professors of English at more than one of the colleges where I have taught.
Maybe you just need to get out of the basement more. (jk)
Copyright is NOT bad always. I like to read Isaac Asimov, Robert A. Heinlein, Orson Scott Card, Charles Dickens, Anne Perry, Cynthia Voigt, Edgar Rice Burroughs, Weis & Hickman, Louis L'amour, C. S. Forester, P. G. Wodehouse, Roald Dahl, Agatha Christie, , etc.
All of these authors are(were) prolific (at least in some sense), and wouldn't have been nearly so if no one had been obligated to pay them for use of their writings. Anything that creates this kind of obligation is a copyright of some kind.
Asimov is a great example. He loved to write. Money wasn't even his main motivation for writing (according to him). He (again, according to him) worked 80 hours/week on writing sometimes. If he had had to keep teaching college chemistry and doing chemistry research (though he never really did that) to support himself and his family he wouldn't have had nearly as much time to write.
Burroughs is an example of someone that wrote almost solely (probably) for the money. If the money hadn't been there he would have kept looking for (other) work.
In these cases copyright is a GOOD thing for me, because otherwise I would have been deprived of many of their writings, and that would be a BAD thing.
People that by lots of cigarettes have to pay lots of taxes in most states. The people that tried to sneak around the taxes only deferred the payment and made it one lump sum. I don't remember there being much (if any) fine, just back-taxes. Not even really related to the current topic.
It really annoys me when people confuse the constitutional right of free speech (the freedom to voice any idea or belief) with the right to say anything (no matter how false or injurious).
I also don't believe for a second that all the people that run Nike really believes that companies don't have to honestly represent facts. If one of their suppliers or vendors misrepresented facts they would quickly get upset.
What I believe is that some people that represent Nike (lawyers, a few executives) believe that this may be an effective way to get out of the mess they made by lying. (Liars often lie to try to save themselves when caught.)
Slashdot Mirror
"What if you know how, but choose not to?"
How will you (or did you) learn without *tweaking*? Can you just read a book or take a class without trying your knowledge out on a computer, and still gain the same understanding?
Without *tweaking* now, how will you know which code is not only faster, but less complex and eaiser to understand when you need it?
I accept that it is usually good to keep code as simple as possible, while still meeting the business requirements. (although that isn't quite what you said)
You still completely missed the analogy of AMD, however.
You said earlier "If the machine is too slow, buy a faster one."
Suppose that AMD (or Intel, or whoever), in order to get you to buy their processor next year, put *all* their effort increasing the speed and decreasing the cost of the current generation of processors. I would expect that this would quickly put them ahead of their competition. Then when the next generation of processors came out they would suddenly fall behind and, soon enough, go out of business.
You'll notice, however, that succesful processor manufacturers put huge amounts of resources into lines of research that have no market, or even direct application, yet. They know that some of the research won't pan out. They also know that new knowledge will be needed, and are willing to spend now for this future knowledge.
"As for AMD, they only make faster processors because of the competition. Completely different metaphor (unless you are writing software that has to outrun a competitor's)."
If you are in business to make money I hope that you are always trying to outperform your competetors in every way you can. Even in the software you use to run your reports.
I do understand, however, that time spent *tweaking* one thing could often be better spent *tweaking* something else. In your example this could mean figuring out reports that are more usefull to the people that read them. It could mean finding ways to increase profits by using computer time that would be freed up if the reports were faster. It could mean making the code easier to understand/modify in the event that is needed.
Quote: "Optimising it to 2 hours benefits no-one"
I strongly disagree.
There doesn't seem to be an immediate benefit, true.
Learning how to cut the report time in half now, when it doesn't matter, means that when it does matter the knowledge is there.
And when it does matter (surprise deadline or reports have just gotten longer/more frequent) there won't be time to learn it, so if you don't already have the knowledge you lose.
Just be grateful that AMD (for example) doesn't wait for you to need more processor power before they develop a faster processor.
Quote: "Of all of the classes 40 classes or so that I took in college, the professor never called on anybody, male or female. Professors spoke to large silent audiences of students"
You chose the wrong college.
I attended 4 colleges, and graduated from 3.
I also taught at 4 colleges.
I was a math major the whole way.
In all the classes that I took, taught and studied, the professors called on students. Most of them made a point to try to involve *all* the students in class discussions. Class discussion is a good way to get feedback on student learning and teaching effectiveness. (not the best way, but a good way, and the most immediate feedback possible)
A reality check for prospective college students: It may be worthwhile to know - as in see for yourself - what the teaching style of a college is before you spend your (or your parents', or taxpayers') money and your time on it.
A story not typical of the female math students that I have known.
The (male) professor with the office next to mine had a failing female math student come to his office towards the end of the semester.
She discussed her grades,(lack of) homework, the fact that she was failing and that she'd probably have to take the class again next semester.
Then she (student) leaned forward and looked at him (professor), and said, "I would do ANYTHING to pass." And she meant the implied suggestion.
The professor's response?
"How about trying homework and studying next semester."
"No other company gets such immature treatment from slashot other than Microsoft."
/. gets plenty of immature treatment.
SCO does.
Both major US political parties do. (immature support and immature derision)
Slashdot itself gets plenty of immature treatment from us.
Just about anything mentioned on
FTA: "it was concluded that the MS monopoly would not exist with today's software patenting in place back in 1985."
This particular conclusion suggests that MS would prefer the patents as they are now. MS doesn't need a new startup to kick it out of lead position.
Notice that I am not saying whether MS really wants the patent landscape to change, just a comment on this particular quote.
I was warned by my parents about the dangers of credit.
More than once. (much more)
But then, my parents maybe don't count as boomers, since they were born before '40.
If you are hired for a job, than you can't be a lazy slacker at your job and still be honest to your employer.
I know of a bank who's official policy was to issue home equity loans to pay off credit card debt, but not require cancellation of the cards. The specific end goal was not to get the loan paid off by the borrower, but to get the house.
Of course the ads represented the loans as help, not as a way to slowly take your home.
Why limit yourself?
Plenty of people do all three.
Ah, to nitpick a little more.
The idea that there is no evidence in support of a religion depends very heavily on which religion you are referring to, and who you ask.
For example, if you were to ask Thomas Aquinas about Christianity, he would supply wads of pro-religion evidence, which you are free to accept or reject as you choose.
The fact that we can reject evidence (even if the basis for rejection is reasonable) doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
Though you are correct in your statement that the existence of a god (or at least God) can not be disproven.
It is arguable that there is room for reasonable doubt whether God exists.
However, the preponderance of evidence is definitely on the side of existence, since evidence for non-existence of anything is very hard to come by.
Then, since Intel would have no real competitor (for at least a few years, since their business has a fairly high barrier to entry).
This would be very good for the environment, and for programming!!!
Prices on new Intel CPUs would skyrocket, so prices on new PC's would skyrocket.
Fewer computers would be sold and push old ones to landfills. This would mean that the old 386's you've been using as bookcase supports would start being worth more.
This would also mean that processing power would not increase as quickly, as Intel wouldn't have the same incentive to research. So programs would have to get more efficient.
I say, "Go, Intel! Make the world a better place though monopoly power!"
"The whole dominant market position thing does not seem too good an argument for me"
Not even if one company has enough dominance to force yours out of business, by raising their prices to you, if you don't use them exclusively? There are some companies in some markets that have that kind of dominance.
To me, how they were worded isn't the issue here. However they were worded, they apparently got him fired, and no one seems to be denying that.
Which article are you reading?
The one that you replied to was about:
A company payed an employee to post information that cost someone their job. This information was found to be baseless (this means that there was no reason to believe it). The company that paid to publish the "false" information made no attempt at correction or retraction, even after repeated requests.
And, part of the job of Washington Post editors is to be aware of every word that gets published. Cost effective or not, that's what they're paid for.
According to the article, the Post published allegations about sexual harassment that got the guy fired. These allegations were later found to be baseless, but the Post has never printed a retraction or made any attempt to make ammends.
Is this article (in Globeandmail) more trustworthy than the ones (in the Washington Post) that got the dude fired? I don't know, but that's what I get from it.
I apologize in advance for the length of this post, but practically every point in your long post admitted specific response (if not outright refutation).
I'll start by rephrasing something I said in GP (though phrased slightly differently). The hypothetical libertarian societies I have read about have been so obviously unsustainable as to be almost humorous. (I say almost, because the fact that the creators of these examples didn't see the obvious and gaping flaws is sad evidence that they aren't even looking for flaws, or ways to correct them.)
From Dictionary.com
Anarchy
1. Absence of any form of political authority.
2. Political disorder and confusion.
3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose.
and
Chaos
1. A condition or place of great disorder or confusion.
So, how can you say that anarchy doesn't mean chaos?
Thus, I do not live in anarchy most of the time.
No one tells me where to shop, but I live under the common assumption that I have to pay for what I get when I shop.
No law defines who I work for, but there is an underlying structure that (more-or-less) guarantees that the value of my work will be readily convertible into food, clothing, shelter, entertainment, etc. This is not disorder and confusion.
Anarchy means that if I am murdered there are no common standards whereby the murder would be judged.
Anarchy means that if I am powerful enough that I can do what I want, since there is no cohesive principle, such as non-initiation of violence, that would have others band together to stop me.
Finally:
Quote: "Libertarians espouse only one principle: Non initiation of force."
Apparently we have read/talked to different groups of people calling themselves libertarians. Or, perhaps the "official" position of an "official" group of libertarians is merely vastly different than the result of such a position, and also very different than the actual beliefs of those calling themselves "Libertarians."
Anyhow, non-initiation of force is one of the easiest things to rationalize into use of force. (generational feuds, etc.)
This also brings up the not-insignificant question of where influence ends and force begins. I'm sure that you can draw a definite line, but if I draw the line somewhere in the region of "mild censure = emotional violence" then you can barely even disagree with me before getting in trouble. This is an extreme example, but a problem statistically sure to come up if there were a "true libertarian society." Any resolution to this question would necessitate some people initiating violence (in my opinion) and the line moves a little farther, and the society is already on the slippery slope to strong government or anarchy.
Except when you're writing a book and let your *friend* see it and he copies it and sells it on via this model that you've described before you're ready. You did the work, the *friend* gets the reward. With no copyright this is entirely legal, if very unethical.
From dictionary.com
they got it from Merriam-Webster Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
"a criminal taking of the property or services of another without consent"
I think that software development is a service.
Notice that the definition of what is theft has nothing to do with the marginal cost of the property or service. (Which may be virtually 0 in the case of software.)
"I've never heard it used as a synonym for plagiarism."
/. as I. I've heard (seen, perhaps read) taking anothers creative work without permission referred to as theft, stealing, copyright infringement, piracy and plagarism here on /., in just the past month.
Then you've not been reading the same things on
I have also heard theft used as a synonym for plagarism, by professors of English at more than one of the colleges where I have taught.
Maybe you just need to get out of the basement more. (jk)
Now you know why the CherryOS people wouldn't want to admit that it is PearPC (if that's what it is).
Copyright is NOT bad always. I like to read Isaac Asimov, Robert A. Heinlein, Orson Scott Card, Charles Dickens, Anne Perry, Cynthia Voigt, Edgar Rice Burroughs, Weis & Hickman, Louis L'amour, C. S. Forester, P. G. Wodehouse, Roald Dahl, Agatha Christie, , etc.
All of these authors are(were) prolific (at least in some sense), and wouldn't have been nearly so if no one had been obligated to pay them for use of their writings. Anything that creates this kind of obligation is a copyright of some kind.
Asimov is a great example. He loved to write. Money wasn't even his main motivation for writing (according to him). He (again, according to him) worked 80 hours/week on writing sometimes. If he had had to keep teaching college chemistry and doing chemistry research (though he never really did that) to support himself and his family he wouldn't have had nearly as much time to write.
Burroughs is an example of someone that wrote almost solely (probably) for the money. If the money hadn't been there he would have kept looking for (other) work.
In these cases copyright is a GOOD thing for me, because otherwise I would have been deprived of many of their writings, and that would be a BAD thing.
But, providing OO.o supports linux.
People that by lots of cigarettes have to pay lots of taxes in most states. The people that tried to sneak around the taxes only deferred the payment and made it one lump sum. I don't remember there being much (if any) fine, just back-taxes.
Not even really related to the current topic.
It really annoys me when people confuse the constitutional right of free speech (the freedom to voice any idea or belief) with the right to say anything (no matter how false or injurious).
I also don't believe for a second that all the people that run Nike really believes that companies don't have to honestly represent facts. If one of their suppliers or vendors misrepresented facts they would quickly get upset.
What I believe is that some people that represent Nike (lawyers, a few executives) believe that this may be an effective way to get out of the mess they made by lying. (Liars often lie to try to save themselves when caught.)