Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Bytecode not Textcode (Score 1) 192

by diamondmagic (#48180235) Attached to: JavaScript and the Netflix User Interface

I'm pretty sure that's what Java was supposed to be.

In any event, the problem they're discussing isn't unique to JavaScript/ECMAScript, it would plague a bytecode solution too... They're deciding to send all the dependencies they could possibly need over the wire before they know they'll need them, instead of deciding which ones to send on the server-side when the page is requested.

Comment: Re:language != abuse (Score 1) 387

by diamondmagic (#48173333) Attached to: Torvalds: I Made Community-Building Mistakes With Linux

At the very least, there was some sort of drama around it recently, regarding the DOM and such: DOM is supposed to be a generic data model and API for all XML vocabularies, implementable in a variety of programming languages, though it also defines an extension API for HTML, and SVG defines an extension API too. But someone decided the DOM spec was antiquated (true), and the way to fix that is to redefine it (uhhhh...). They've redefined DOM to be HTML-specific, causing API incompatibilities with generic XML parsers... it's a mess. Same thing for many JavaScript/ECMAScript APIs, merging them them into the single (already very bloated) document defining HTML. Because when all your products are about Web browsers, what's the difference?

Apparently to Google, the only kind of user agent (nay, software) is a Web browser. (Their crawler operating like an automated web browser, even.)

Comment: Re:language != abuse (Score 2) 387

by diamondmagic (#48168685) Attached to: Torvalds: I Made Community-Building Mistakes With Linux

In the parts of the W3C I work in, they're awfully nice and very responsive. They communicate, consensus is a requirement for moving forward (with provisions for voting if and only if there's an impasse - I've never seen it used), and follow-ups will be made several weeks after you make an objection to verify the resolution stayed resolved. Some of the most helpful companies I've worked with recently have been, to my surprise, IBM, Adobe, PayPal, and Oracle (that is to say, their representatives are interested in consensus).

No, I'm talking specifically about Google (and Mozilla in many cases, I think due to being Google funded). I should have said them instead. Deciding to drop support features when it isn't relevant to their business model - accessibility features, the Link header, alternate stylesheets, new document DTDs, MathML, SVG, DANE, the "http://" in the address bar... Oh, but let's go all out on WebRTC, because that'll be useful to every website ever. Way more useful than DNSSEC (that's sarcasm, yes? You don't need TLSA records when you have your own Certificate Authority.). The problems seem to be caused when they don't get their way, they fork (or rewrite entirely) the relevant specification (like HTML), take all the credit, none of the responsibility (like the royalty-free patent requirement), and then all the blame lands on the WG.

Comment: Re:language != abuse (Score 1) 387

by diamondmagic (#48167363) Attached to: Torvalds: I Made Community-Building Mistakes With Linux

Sure, I'll close a bug report after 30 days of waiting for a response, and do it with an invitation to re-open the issue if desired.

If I close a bug report because I think I fixed the issue, I'll follow up after 30 days and make sure that I really did, in fact, fix the person's problem.

These "asshat maintainers" don't bother with doing either.

Comment: language != abuse (Score 5, Insightful) 387

by diamondmagic (#48164277) Attached to: Torvalds: I Made Community-Building Mistakes With Linux

I hope it's not just me, I don't really have a problem with the strong language or pointed critique. Linus only really employs it for smart people who should know better, and will actually engage in conversation, and he's typically constructive. And funny.

The asshats are the people like Pottering, GNOME, and certain figures editing the HTML spec who don't give a damn about users, authors, and/or developers. The people who can't possibly imagine any use-case outside themselves or their company.

They're the maintainers in Open Source who close your bug reports without any questions because they can't imagine how your use case could possibly be relevant to them. Come on guys, at least ask a question if you don't understand the bug report/feature request.

Comment: Re:Our PC society will be our demise! (Score 1) 193

Um, the positions of the parties have been shifting more authoritarian, on average.

The USA was kind of founded on radical individual liberty and freedom. Today you can't find a party wanting to touch the war machine, drug laws, social security, or other massive programs that the Framers couldn't even have dreamt about.

Go back and look at the conflicts that the two parties fought over back then. It seems like a joke now. There was a time we actually fought over a centralized banking system? Light houses? Slavery?

Comment: Re:Does that mean they'll get to vote? (Score 1) 385

by diamondmagic (#48107579) Attached to: Chimpanzee "Personhood" Is Back In Court

We were able to do that without that legal shenanigans (just like other countries do).

What legal shenanigans? It's much simpler just to say "Hey, I can form a corporation that can make contracts and conduct business just like a sole proprietor can". You know, instead of having to write into the law "An individual or civil union or LLC or LLP or corporation or..." every time you want to refer to the concept.

Are you suggesting I should be able to sue chimps but not corporations?

1. False dichotomy.

It can't be a false dichotomy, it has a yes or no answer (or maybe "sometimes").

2. A better suggestion would be to sue individuals on whose behalf, by virtue of negligence or criminality, a corporation became liable for debts and crimes (specially crimes.)

Would you go to work knowing you could become liable for a botched order, or if your employer went bankrupt? Possibly losing your second car, maybe have to sell your house? Didn't think so. (That can and does happen to sole proprietors.)

Comment: Re:Does that mean they'll get to vote? (Score 1) 385

by diamondmagic (#48107533) Attached to: Chimpanzee "Personhood" Is Back In Court

Also, you are using misdirection. Corporate person hood refers to more than the ability to hold a corporation liable. It refers to giving the corporation rights and protections in addition to those already enjoyed by the individuals who make up the corporation.

The ability to enter into a contract necessarily implies you have rights to own property, and trade that property with whoever you wish. Corporations have just as much right to buy or sell bananas or advertisements or widgets as I do.

The concept taken to it's extreme would give my wife and I (who now hold control of a corporation) an extra vote in an election.

In the US, votes aren't given to persons, but to individuals who are citizens of a certain age, and possibly other restrictions depending on state. Do mind the semantics, because corporate persons obviously don't fit in here.

If a different standard for voting was used, e.g. "Property owners cast votes proportional to how much land they own", then yes, corporations would cast votes. This is how it already works for voting for membership of corporate boards, so I don't see a problem with this. Obviously, that's a big "if".

Most importantly, from the liability you aspect you mentioned, is that instead of my wife and I being responsible for the crimes we collectively commit under the umbrella of that piece of paper, the paper is liable. We can do all sorts of unethical and evil using it's name, then fold that paper up and put it away if it doesn't all work out.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Marriage means you and your wife are considered a single person for certain purposes. Even if you have an LLC, you can't commit fraud - that's criminal, and you could be individually found guilty.

Comment: Re:Does that mean they'll get to vote? (Score 1) 385

by diamondmagic (#48107433) Attached to: Chimpanzee "Personhood" Is Back In Court

Acme. You do not need corporate personhood to sue Acme.

If the company is a single-person entity, yeah, pretty much. If it is a LLC, then you go after the corp's asset. And if it is a corporation, you go after the corporation's assets.

Regular individuals can't bring a lawsuit against property ("John Doe v. Three gallons of milk" makes as much sense as "John Doe v. 60 shares of Acme, Inc."). Hence, corporate personhood.

Any intelligent business entity would never entered into a contract under such conditions. Also, contracts spell out responsibilities (who pays what and how much when defaulting a contract), in a document enforced by the law.

How much commerce do you think we do without the ability to enter into high-value contracts? Virtually none.

How do you think we enforce contracts against corporations? Corporate personhood.

You do not need corporate personhood. It is a stupid American legal aberration. How the hell do you think developed countries like Japan or Germany that do not have such a notion handle violation of contracts or trials against corporations?

They aren't Common Law states (countries), but nonetheless it's handled roughly the same.

Comment: Re:Does that mean they'll get to vote? (Score 2) 385

by diamondmagic (#48101255) Attached to: Chimpanzee "Personhood" Is Back In Court

That's how criminal negligence already works, when's the last time a corporation was tried in court for murder?

I'm talking about enforcing contracts. My company orders a million dollars of widgets from Acme and they're never delivered. Who's responsible? I don't want to sue an individual, I'm never seeing my money back if that's the only option available. And if I did, some poor employee for Acme is going to lose their second car and probably have to sell their house.

Comment: Re:The high heritability of educational achievemen (Score 5, Informative) 154

It didn't need to, the study was on twins. Further, testing on both identical and fraternal twins allowed researchers to calculate how much genetics plays into it, because the genetic makeup for both kinds of twins is highly predictable.

There is no royal road to geometry. -- Euclid