Evolution and the big bang are still considered theories, Newton's law of gravity, over 300 years old is still considered a theory, and you are telling me you consider global warming, which just cropped up over the last 10-20 years, is 'scientific fact'? Get out of here.
Why should he get out of here? Gravity is a theory. If I drop a penny off the observation deck of the Empire State building, that penny is going down, not up. That's a fact. The calculation of the global climate temperature is not a direct observation like the direction of a penny dropped off the top of a tall building, but if that temperature is going up, that is a fact. The mechanism for that temperature increase may be a theory.
What does '10-20 years' have to do with anything? (Besides the fact that it is incorrect. Discussions of global warming go back further than that.) Indirectly, more time for study and more data points generally yield better predictions, but an older fact isn't necessarily more true than something found more recently. Older theories aren't more reliable than new theories strictly on the basis of being older.
There is no "special case". There is a bug in the 1st equation because it is poorly formed. The 2nd equation rewrites the code to remove the bug. The first equation requires an error handler to work properly. The bug is a result of poor programming - it is not a fundamental property of the math that needs to be duplicated to ensure that the equations are identical.
I think you're all missing the point. The point is, programs are just tools. The beautiful tools are in harmony with their purpose. The beautiful hammer would be one such that, from just the hammer and the nail, it is impossible to deduce whether the hammer was designed to drive the nail or the nail was designed to be driven by the hammer.
For "F=ma" vs "F=mxa/x": what is the purpose? Perhaps the design was for an expression of force equals mass times accelerate, with the special case of no meaningful calculation of force when x=0. In that case, "F=ma" would not be correct tool. Or perhaps the purpose is to calculate force without consideration of the value of x. In either case, you cannot evaluate the beauty/usefulness/correctness of any program without an understanding of the purpose.
Code isn't done when there is nothing left to add. Code is done when there is nothing left to take away.
It's a matter of degree, of course, but if someone says "This is for sale but not to you," I think they are too often being a dick and just taking a little power trip. I find it a tad irritating.
But this whole business of offering things for sale and then jerking them back at the last second, seemingly at random, just strikes me as symbolic of a "I don't have to follow any nominal rules of social interaction; I make my own" mindset that seems more and more common these days.
Sounds like you're taking these policies a bit too personally. Most likely it has nothing to do with which "kind of person they want to do business with." Rather, one of two situations exist.
One, the web site advertises the same stock as is offered for sale in the meat-space store, and inventory control is not automated. That is, you put in a purchase request for the glock 357 with the night scope and Hello Kitty mother of pearl handle. That same day, someone walks into the store and buys the glock 357 with the night scope and Hello Kitty mother of pearl handle. At the end of the day, the seller checks his email for orders from the web site and updates the site for any sales made that day. You don't get the glock 357 with the night scope and Hello Kitty mother of pearl handle, not because of some imagined grudge the seller holds against you, but because someone else bought it before you did.
Or two, the web site is advertising items the shop might sell but not necessarily what they have in inventory at the moment. You linked to a $20,000 hand made instrument--not exactly the same as ordering the latest Harry Potter book. I grant it would be probably be better if that site did not have a shopping cart at all, but rather just a phone number you could call to check if your desired item was in stock. In other words, I'm betting the disclaimer should be read, "just because we have a picture of a bassoon on our web site does not mean we have an actual bassoon in stock," and not, "just because we have a picture of a bassoon on our web site does not mean we like you enough you sell it to you."
Are people just getting ruder, stupider, and prouder of it?
No, only you. Is there some traumatic shopping incident in your past that causes you to interpret every store policy as specifically targeted to granting the owner the right not to sell to you?
BTW, since the web sites have clearly posted policies, both your examples seem to be the exact opposite of "jerking them back at the last second."
From one of the rounds of human-computer chess matches of recent years, I remember something about the computer analyzing previous games played by the human opponent, while the human was given no such background on the computer. Studying an opponent's history of play is accepted; the issue here is one side had this aid while the other did not.
Anyway, in this case,
Unlike computer chess programs, which require immense amounts of computing power to determine every possible future move, the Polaris poker software is largely precomputed, running for weeks before the match to build a series of agents called "bots" that have differing personalities or styles of play, ranging from aggressive to passive.
The human can change style of play based on the situation and the opponents, especially in reaction to the opponenets style of play, but we're still talking about one person. In this case, the match is between a person--a single physical entity tied to a single logical entity--and a computer running many agents--sounds like a single physical entity but many logical ones. Doesn't seem quite fair.
I'm sure contests like this are lots of fun, but for this to be a serious contest, either the programmers need to come up with a single bot that can adjust its style of play, or we find a human with split personalities that are all expert poker players with different styles.
Unless the iPhone is some Nobel-prize worthy, civilization-changing jump in technology, sounds like it would drive me crazy. I've yet to encounter the machine I trust to think for me. Process the key I hit, not the key you guess I meant to hit.
I'm generally an even-tempered guy--folks occasionally stop by my cube to check for a pulse--but when software tries to guess what I want, rather than take what I've actually done, I usually end up wanting to put my first into the screen.
On the one hand (if you'll allow me a bit of net-cultural hubris), we're a demographic of above-average intelligence, above-average income, with an above-average tendency to spend money on brand new technology, and who have an above-average impact on what other people will buy. On the other, we refuse to share our habits with "big brother,"...
So you're saying advertisers trying to reach the affluent trend-setters on the internet should advertise on the sites with the least (recorded) traffic?
Part of the fun of the original series was the non-closure (no solid proof or clarity) and the tension between believer and skeptic.
Didn't Scully once do a hostage swap with an alien corpse for Mulder? Wasn't that in the first season? I was a big fan back in the day, but I think was fun involved a lot of ignoring the solid proof and carefully avoiding the lack of tension between believer and skeptic.
That said, the only time I ever dreamt I was married, it was to Gillian. So if she's in it, I'll watch it.
I don't relish the idea of missing out on a popular thing, missing the laugh in jokes and quotes, and generally not participating in this part of my culture.
"More than meets the eye."
There you are, all caught up with the in-jokes and quotes.
Why? Seriously, why should my chair have some unique identifier, and why should you need to search it? It is a physical entity that I sit on. If it is physically present then I can sit there, if not then I'll hunt for it myself. I don't need google to find it.
Yes, but with a unique identifier you can track which chairs you've thrown and which chairs are left to throw.
If the photographer and publisher have an agreement that permits republishing in an archive like microfilm, then a medium like a CD falls into this category.
While the case does address the issue of shifting (in this case) the magazine from print to CD-ROM, it is not simply a question of archiving.
In this case, a new presentation was produced for the CD-ROM. The production of new derivative works using the freelance photographs may have been covered in the original contract with the photographer, but this issue is not addressed in the discussion of archiving.
I read it as "Taking content that was originally bought for distribution in a (paper) magazine and then distributing it online, still in the magazine context, does not necessarily qualify as 're-purposing'."
This case is certainly addressing re-purposing. The transfer of the magazine from print to CD-ROM may have been part of the original case, but explicitly mentioned as part of the appeal is a new presentation produced for the CD-ROM.
Selling an archive of print magazines on CD-ROM was compared by the court to the publisher archiving magazines by transfer to microfilm or microfiche. (Wasn't a similar issue addressed for freelance writers when, if memory servers, the New Yorker put out a CD-ROM collection of their entire run?)
Anyway, specifically addressed here is a case of the publisher creating a new presentation of the work, not just putting the original magazine in a new format.
In this case a ruling is overturned (if I'm not totally off, it was essentially done-away-with) which would seem to result in less law. As per my above observation, I think this is good.
I don't think the analogy holds in this case. The presumption for most traffic laws is no one wants to hit another car or purposely hit a pedestrian. Traffics laws are instructive to help us all get along on the road.
In this case, the corporation doesn't mind hitting the freelancer. In fact, it will hit him, throw the thing into reverse, and do it again, if it is to its advantage. The law should be protective, not instructive.
In the case of a freelance photographer and National Geographic, I agree transfer between mediums shouldn't be an issue. If the magazine wants to sell a collections of issues on CD-ROM, the original agreement should hold. But the issue for the photographer in this case was not a simple transfer of the original photographs from print to CD, but a change from the context of the magazine to a special presentation produced exclusively for the CD-ROM.
Here is a better analogy: music sampling. I sample someone's song on my CD. Should I get an OK from the copyright holder on the song or from the record company that did the distribution? (These may be the same entity, but in this case let's assume not.)
The ruling in this case says I only need to go to the distributor. Although the original intent may have been to only release these sounds in the context of the song as a unit, the distributor can now change the context of the distribution. The photographer may have intended to release his pictures in the context of the magazine, the distributor is now free to change that context in any manner.
This ruling just reinforces that fact that the current copyright system heavily favors distributors (such as publishers and record companies) to the determent of the content producers (writers, photographers, musicians).
(BTW, I have seen, and been involved in, several parking lot collisions. But I agree with your general premise on why there aren't more collisions in parking lots.)
...in the coffin for the argument that these laws and regulations protect creators and innovators.
We've seen it with RIAA and MPAA cases, and here it is again. The system is being rigged in favor of large corporate distributors and against the people who actually create the content.
The point is that, no matter how indignant people get about traditions being trampled, indignation simply does not trump actual harm to things. If it were tradition for half the population of Norway to murder half the population of Sweden every year, there might be public outcry if it were outlawed, but it would still be the right thing to do.
Straw man much?
Anyway, where is the all-knowing, perfectly-objective judge to make this decision? Some say, people killing whales is causing us to run out of whales, and running out of whales would be bad, and so all people killing whales should stop.
Some other people might say, we've been killing whales with canoes and spears for thousands of years and it's never been a problem. We never ran out of whales. It's the new kids on the sea with what are basically warships and canons (to make war on sea life) that are causing the problems.
How about the folks that are having problems living off the sea stop being so destructive, and stop bothering with the folks who are living with the sea?
Slashdot Mirror
Since the individual is not a unit capable of making claims of ownership, what means this "my concerns"?
Why should he get out of here? Gravity is a theory. If I drop a penny off the observation deck of the Empire State building, that penny is going down, not up. That's a fact. The calculation of the global climate temperature is not a direct observation like the direction of a penny dropped off the top of a tall building, but if that temperature is going up, that is a fact. The mechanism for that temperature increase may be a theory.
What does '10-20 years' have to do with anything? (Besides the fact that it is incorrect. Discussions of global warming go back further than that.) Indirectly, more time for study and more data points generally yield better predictions, but an older fact isn't necessarily more true than something found more recently. Older theories aren't more reliable than new theories strictly on the basis of being older.
In short, you fail.
I think you're all missing the point. The point is, programs are just tools. The beautiful tools are in harmony with their purpose. The beautiful hammer would be one such that, from just the hammer and the nail, it is impossible to deduce whether the hammer was designed to drive the nail or the nail was designed to be driven by the hammer.
For "F=ma" vs "F=mxa/x": what is the purpose? Perhaps the design was for an expression of force equals mass times accelerate, with the special case of no meaningful calculation of force when x=0. In that case, "F=ma" would not be correct tool. Or perhaps the purpose is to calculate force without consideration of the value of x. In either case, you cannot evaluate the beauty/usefulness/correctness of any program without an understanding of the purpose.
Code isn't done when there is nothing left to add. Code is done when there is nothing left to take away.
It's Google.com.
should be: from the it's-a-wonderful-second-life dept.
Fair enough.
Sounds like you're taking these policies a bit too personally. Most likely it has nothing to do with which "kind of person they want to do business with." Rather, one of two situations exist.
One, the web site advertises the same stock as is offered for sale in the meat-space store, and inventory control is not automated. That is, you put in a purchase request for the glock 357 with the night scope and Hello Kitty mother of pearl handle. That same day, someone walks into the store and buys the glock 357 with the night scope and Hello Kitty mother of pearl handle. At the end of the day, the seller checks his email for orders from the web site and updates the site for any sales made that day. You don't get the glock 357 with the night scope and Hello Kitty mother of pearl handle, not because of some imagined grudge the seller holds against you, but because someone else bought it before you did.
Or two, the web site is advertising items the shop might sell but not necessarily what they have in inventory at the moment. You linked to a $20,000 hand made instrument--not exactly the same as ordering the latest Harry Potter book. I grant it would be probably be better if that site did not have a shopping cart at all, but rather just a phone number you could call to check if your desired item was in stock. In other words, I'm betting the disclaimer should be read, "just because we have a picture of a bassoon on our web site does not mean we have an actual bassoon in stock," and not, "just because we have a picture of a bassoon on our web site does not mean we like you enough you sell it to you."
No, only you. Is there some traumatic shopping incident in your past that causes you to interpret every store policy as specifically targeted to granting the owner the right not to sell to you?BTW, since the web sites have clearly posted policies, both your examples seem to be the exact opposite of "jerking them back at the last second."
(Or rather, the people using the computer cheat.)
From one of the rounds of human-computer chess matches of recent years, I remember something about the computer analyzing previous games played by the human opponent, while the human was given no such background on the computer. Studying an opponent's history of play is accepted; the issue here is one side had this aid while the other did not.
Anyway, in this case,
The human can change style of play based on the situation and the opponents, especially in reaction to the opponenets style of play, but we're still talking about one person. In this case, the match is between a person--a single physical entity tied to a single logical entity--and a computer running many agents--sounds like a single physical entity but many logical ones. Doesn't seem quite fair.
I'm sure contests like this are lots of fun, but for this to be a serious contest, either the programmers need to come up with a single bot that can adjust its style of play, or we find a human with split personalities that are all expert poker players with different styles.
Unless the iPhone is some Nobel-prize worthy, civilization-changing jump in technology, sounds like it would drive me crazy. I've yet to encounter the machine I trust to think for me. Process the key I hit, not the key you guess I meant to hit.
I'm generally an even-tempered guy--folks occasionally stop by my cube to check for a pulse--but when software tries to guess what I want, rather than take what I've actually done, I usually end up wanting to put my first into the screen.
Apparently you do, since you are asking people to read your sig.
So you're saying advertisers trying to reach the affluent trend-setters on the internet should advertise on the sites with the least (recorded) traffic?
What is it's not my time? The guy sitting next to me, what if it's his time, and I'm just caught in the crossfire? What then, mysticism-boy?
Did you ever watch the X-Files?
Didn't Scully once do a hostage swap with an alien corpse for Mulder? Wasn't that in the first season? I was a big fan back in the day, but I think was fun involved a lot of ignoring the solid proof and carefully avoiding the lack of tension between believer and skeptic.
That said, the only time I ever dreamt I was married, it was to Gillian. So if she's in it, I'll watch it.
"More than meets the eye."
There you are, all caught up with the in-jokes and quotes.
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=megan+fox
Now you're hip to the plot and visuals.
Feel better?
Yes, but with a unique identifier you can track which chairs you've thrown and which chairs are left to throw.
That may be the scariest sentence in the history of the english language.
Call the Black Panthers.
While the case does address the issue of shifting (in this case) the magazine from print to CD-ROM, it is not simply a question of archiving.
In this case, a new presentation was produced for the CD-ROM. The production of new derivative works using the freelance photographs may have been covered in the original contract with the photographer, but this issue is not addressed in the discussion of archiving.
This case is certainly addressing re-purposing. The transfer of the magazine from print to CD-ROM may have been part of the original case, but explicitly mentioned as part of the appeal is a new presentation produced for the CD-ROM.
Selling an archive of print magazines on CD-ROM was compared by the court to the publisher archiving magazines by transfer to microfilm or microfiche. (Wasn't a similar issue addressed for freelance writers when, if memory servers, the New Yorker put out a CD-ROM collection of their entire run?)
Anyway, specifically addressed here is a case of the publisher creating a new presentation of the work, not just putting the original magazine in a new format.
I don't think the analogy holds in this case. The presumption for most traffic laws is no one wants to hit another car or purposely hit a pedestrian. Traffics laws are instructive to help us all get along on the road.
In this case, the corporation doesn't mind hitting the freelancer. In fact, it will hit him, throw the thing into reverse, and do it again, if it is to its advantage. The law should be protective, not instructive.
In the case of a freelance photographer and National Geographic, I agree transfer between mediums shouldn't be an issue. If the magazine wants to sell a collections of issues on CD-ROM, the original agreement should hold. But the issue for the photographer in this case was not a simple transfer of the original photographs from print to CD, but a change from the context of the magazine to a special presentation produced exclusively for the CD-ROM.
Here is a better analogy: music sampling. I sample someone's song on my CD. Should I get an OK from the copyright holder on the song or from the record company that did the distribution? (These may be the same entity, but in this case let's assume not.)
The ruling in this case says I only need to go to the distributor. Although the original intent may have been to only release these sounds in the context of the song as a unit, the distributor can now change the context of the distribution. The photographer may have intended to release his pictures in the context of the magazine, the distributor is now free to change that context in any manner.
This ruling just reinforces that fact that the current copyright system heavily favors distributors (such as publishers and record companies) to the determent of the content producers (writers, photographers, musicians).
(BTW, I have seen, and been involved in, several parking lot collisions. But I agree with your general premise on why there aren't more collisions in parking lots.)
...in the coffin for the argument that these laws and regulations protect creators and innovators.
We've seen it with RIAA and MPAA cases, and here it is again. The system is being rigged in favor of large corporate distributors and against the people who actually create the content.
Straw man much?
Anyway, where is the all-knowing, perfectly-objective judge to make this decision? Some say, people killing whales is causing us to run out of whales, and running out of whales would be bad, and so all people killing whales should stop.
Some other people might say, we've been killing whales with canoes and spears for thousands of years and it's never been a problem. We never ran out of whales. It's the new kids on the sea with what are basically warships and canons (to make war on sea life) that are causing the problems.
How about the folks that are having problems living off the sea stop being so destructive, and stop bothering with the folks who are living with the sea?
still??
My true name is, honestly... Dave Chappelle.
Could be worse. Your name could be Michael Bolton.