Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Fucking disaster (Score 1) 69

by Mathinker (#48409569) Attached to: Fascinating Rosetta Image Captures Philae's Comet Bounce

> But when you're paid to represent someone else

Obviously, then, whoever hired this guy failed utterly. Just kidding. I find it much more likely that whoever hired him, didn't hire him based on the "15 minutes" of public representation he'd end up making at the end of the mission.

And therefore, whoever decided, not that long ago, that he should be the one to be a public representative, failed. It was probably some PHB who doesn't know any of the technical staff well enough to know that this guy needed to be carefully managed in this particular regard.

> and not an attention-seeking douchenozzle

Do you know him personally? Because my guess is that he's probably one of those technically adept, socially inadept people we often meet in our line of work. Especially since I saw a headline that he broke down and cried when he apologized? You'd think that "an attention-seeking douchenozzle" would have just used the apology for... more exposure. Of course, it could have been an act, I guess.

Comment: Re:Have it your way (Score 1) 260

by Mathinker (#48367369) Attached to: Computer Scientists Ask Supreme Court To Rule APIs Can't Be Copyrighted

> You're just really not on your A game today, are you?

Ad hominem and/or irrelevant.

> Or, perhaps, you really want to Oracle to lose, but can't think of any better reason than because "I don't like Oracle".

I actually have not stated, in this particular discussion, a preference for whether I think API's are or should be protected, nor have I stated any particular aversion to Oracle.

> I don't like Oracle either,

Oh, there you go again --- assuming things which don't follow from the previous discourse. I wonder if you'll do it again in your next reply?

> but that's a really crapy way to set national policy, policy that will affect many, many other situations.

Have to agree totally with you there.

Comment: Re:I explicitly stated otherwise TWICE (Score 1) 260

by Mathinker (#48361949) Attached to: Computer Scientists Ask Supreme Court To Rule APIs Can't Be Copyrighted

Yes, I saw that you stated that, which made it stick out even more when you immediately turn around and assume what you've just questioned, without qualification.

Judging by your reaction, I don't even think you did it intentionally. A pity, really. In my eyes, the language of the last paragraph would be wonderfully disingenuous, if it had been an intentional attempt to attain its actual impact.

Comment: Re:correct, sort of. Claim that it's nothing (Score 1) 260

> If I want my valuable property to be protected from unlawful taking,

Wow, very nice. I don't manage to identify the exact logical fallacies you've invoked. However, it is obvious that you're implicitly assuming the claim in question: whether or not an API is "property", i.e., protected by copyright. In addition, you also appear to be making the bad analogy between copyright infringement and theft (of physical property), but you manage to be a bit ambiguous about it, so that the phrasing can set off a deep emotional reaction without being absolutely incorrect.

Masterful, indeed.

Comment: Re:If IP then unaffected by 230 (Score 1) 260

> So if "intellectual property" is a meaningless term

The poster you're arguing with did not claim it is a "meaningless term", he claimed that (practically) no legal argument can cite "intellectual property" as being its basis, since the diverse branches of IP law are... diverse. He didn't mean "intellectual property" in the sense of that clause, just like he wouldn't preclude discussing the fact that a defendant had taken a course in "IP law" as a justification that infringement by said defendant was flagrant or intentional.

He meant that no lawyer would (or rather, should) say "we are owed money because the other party infringed on our intellectual property" without specifying exactly what specific types of IP were infringed upon and how.

Comment: Re:As any developer worth their salt knows (Score 1) 260

> Think designing an easy to use API is trrivial? ...

Yes, good point. Designing a good API can be difficult and creative. Unfortunately, this has nothing to do with whether it currently is protected by copyright (cf. creating a good recipe, or a fashion design), nor does it shed light on whether it would benefit society if were protected.

Comment: Re: As any developer worth their salt knows (Score 1) 260

> It's simple to make an API. It's actually rather difficult to make a good one.

A good point, but totally off-topic with respect to whether it deserves protection under copyright. Lots of things which are difficult and creative are not protected, and there is no good evidence that protecting them would benefit society.

Comment: Re:Misleading summary (Score 1) 219

by Mathinker (#48295849) Attached to: Is Public Debate of Trade Agreements Against the Public Interest?

> In a shocking turn of events, this has led to a collapse in the public's level of informedness

No, I rather think you're blaming only one side of a two-sided coin. The American public, themselves, fail totally at critical thinking, a skill which would enable them to piece together quite a bit more "informedness" from all of the diverse and biased information sources they currently have.

The fact that they were "OK" when the digested results of critical thinking was spoon-fed to them doesn't absolve them from sharing responsibility. Even the fact that the education system, as it is currently designed, discourages critical thinking, is not an excuse.

Comment: Re:Misleading summary (Score 1) 219

by Mathinker (#48295813) Attached to: Is Public Debate of Trade Agreements Against the Public Interest?

I just said that most of the problems the American people have with American democracy are the fault of the American people.


We don't agree on jack-squat.

No. That's not the problem of the American people which is reflected in our government.

because otherwise one of them would be admitting defeat.

Ah, this is the problem... the American people, as a whole, just aren't intellectually sophisticated enough to understand that compromise isn't defeat. I'd guess that about 0% of them know what a "false dichotomy" is. Well maybe a bit more, but very little, compared with the number who "know" that the stuff they see on television is scary, or know all the gory details about the Kardashians (or other celebs). A previous poster said it before me:

Until the voter develops the strength to resist the propaganda

I think what he meant was critical thinking skills. Funny how those skills aren't a required part of the curriculum in schools, or even for that matter, at the undergraduate level in most universities.

Comment: Re:Spiritual Needs (Score 1) 268

by Mathinker (#48233729) Attached to: Jedi-ism Becomes a Serious Religion

I believe that you think narcc's post is stupid.

Actually, I get the strong impression that you yourself believed that narcc actually meant what he posted. (I don't believe, though, that either of these are examples of something believed "in the face of evidence to the contrary". That kind of belief is more displayed by, for example, battered partners and their ilk, and is rarer. One could make a case that since our beliefs shape the way our mind builds our reality from our sensory input, it's probably quite common that "evidence to the contrary" just gets rejected by the individual until it reaches some kind of critical threshold, whereas others seeing the same evidence see it as "evidence to the contrary" long before.)

Most, if not all, reasoning we make about others' "state of mind" is mere belief. (Maybe in the far future we'll be able to MRI the brains of the people we interact with, in real time --- flash of memory of L. Frank Baum(?) story which included a similar plot device...)

Comment: Re:The language in the old west (Score 1) 387

by Mathinker (#48167257) Attached to: Torvalds: I Made Community-Building Mistakes With Linux

> bet my life on no-one with a six-shooter

You missed the parent poster's

>> (and no one will rat on the shooter)

or just ignored it. My understanding of his point was that alienating the majority of your human contacts, then, was dangerous, if not fatal. You changed it into alienating anyone. Not the same thing. I'd guess that in his model of those times, if a particular enemy murdered you, assuming you weren't alienated from society as a whole, your murder would be likely to be avenged.

Comment: Re: I just hope (Score 1) 151

by Mathinker (#48144131) Attached to: Z Machine Makes Progress Toward Nuclear Fusion

Uh, no. The containment is only going to rupture from the excess pressure long before the pressure is even close enough to, itself, produce fusion (no material known to man, or likely to exist at room temperature and pressure, is strong enough to contain the pressures necessary to produce fusion).

I'm certain you'd be better off just using the electical power from your Mr. Fusion to produce chemical explosives (see my other post).

Blessed be those who initiate lively discussions with the hopelessly mute, for they shall be known as Dentists.