Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Just to get through the misleading stuff: (Score 1) 93

by Halo1 (#47423231) Attached to: Single European Copyright Title On the Horizon

this is the first term that the European Parliament's members will presumably have the power to block EU directives (something that remains to be seen how it works out)

That's incorrect. Look up the codecision procedure, it's been around since a long time. Since the Lisbon treaty, directives on more topics have come under codecision, but that one has been in effect for quite a while now.

and this is the only part that they will have in the law-making process

No, it's not just blocking or passing. They can, and do, also amend directives. These amendments then have to agreed upon with the Council of Ministers, but the opposite is also true.

--the European Parliament DOES NOT have the power of legislative initiative.

That's true, only the Commission has this power.

FYI, so you do not get carried away by flashy designations and think that this is an actual parliamentary representative democracy akin to national parliaments: it is not.

It's indeed not, since a lot of member states are heavily opposed to a "Federated States of Europe"-style organisation.

It's funny.  Laugh.

Homestar Runner To Return Soon 57

Posted by samzenpus
from the back-soon dept.
An anonymous reader writes with good news for everyone who loves Strong Bad.Back in April, Homestar Runner got its first content update in over four years. It was the tiniest of updates and the site went quiet again shortly thereafter, but the Internet's collective 90s kid heart still jumped for joy...The site's co-creator, Matt Chapman, popped into an episode of The Jeff Rubin Jeff Rubin Show to chat about the history of Homestar — but in the last 15 minutes or so, they get to talking about its future. The too-long-didn't-listen version: both of the brothers behind the show really really want to bring it back. The traffic they saw from their itty-bitty April update suggests people want it — but they know that may very well be a fluke. So they're taking it slow.

Comment: Re:What happened to Scheme? (Score 1) 411

by jbolden (#47413783) Attached to: Python Bumps Off Java As Top Learning Language

I absolutely agree with you. I have some doubt though that SICP needs to be a first course.

Embedded, ROMs, low level OS components... is obviously the old paradigm. Most of an OS or VM though I'd say is going to be high level library manipulation. As for writing a library, I think it depends on the library. Most libraries today are highly dependent on other libraries.

Comment: Re:What happened to Scheme? (Score 1) 411

by jbolden (#47410841) Attached to: Python Bumps Off Java As Top Learning Language

Scheme was developed from LISP to prove the possibility of constructing a language from the ground up using a Meta-circular evaluator. That was important for SICP because it meant that every student knew how to create a language using arbitrary primitives, a DSL. There is no way in an 1 year introductory Python class the students would be anywhere near ready to implement a Python with different primitives. You can argue that the entire LISP philosophy is the wrong approach to solving complex problems, and I think history has perhaps show that, but arguing it was just stupid is a bit much.

As for going 18 levels deep that probably should be broken out about every 5 levels into smaller simpler functions.

As for arrays:

    (array dimensions element0 ...) -> array
    (array '(2 3) 'a 'b 'c 'd 'e 'f) -> {Array 2 3}

That doesn't seem that hard.

as a functional language, new students must first learn to think along a different paradigm, one opposed to how they had been thinking their whole life, before they can begin to comprehend the basic concepts they're supposed to be learning

Most students can handle Excel, a functional language. I think breaking them of their bad habits is a good thing for an intro course. It puts most of the students on the same level regardless of background. In a week they won't get there, in a year certainly.

Mostly if I were teaching an intro course today I'd probably go with Python. But I don't think it is nearly as clear as you do. Haskell for example (which keeps most of the essence of LISP with giving them more modern concepts) would be a consideration.

Comment: Re:What happened to Scheme? (Score 1) 411

by jbolden (#47410613) Attached to: Python Bumps Off Java As Top Learning Language

The people who designed the SICP curriculum felt it wasn't teaching the right paradigms. SICP was built around a world where a programmer wrote small programs and tied them together. An individual programmer could really understand an entire production program. Today's programming world involves programmers using massive and complex specialized libraries with far more large group projects. SICP/Scheme didn't train people for that sort of environment. They needed to switch from "what data-structure would best accomplish this goal" to "which library would best accomplish this goal" and Scheme encourages much the opposite.

SICP is probably still the best programming concepts book ever written but those concepts are less important than they used to be.

Comment: Re:On this 4th of July... (Score 1) 349

by jbolden (#47406135) Attached to: Qualcomm Takes Down 100+ GitHub Repositories With DMCA Notice

There is no way you are going to have a legal framework where knowingly distributing materials for which you do not have a license is going to be no big deal. There is no way you are going to have a legal framework where judges are going to be the first step in any copyright dispute.

It is not going to happen.

Comment: Re:On this 4th of July... (Score 1) 349

by jbolden (#47395023) Attached to: Qualcomm Takes Down 100+ GitHub Repositories With DMCA Notice

My point wasn't that it was likely that anybody filing a counter-claim would be sued. I merely am saying that it is possible, which means they're taking a risk, and they probably stand to gain nothing personally by taking it. That is likely to have a chilling effect.

No question it has a chilling effect. Right now we have a very wide open casual publishing culture and a legal framework designed for a formal publishing culture. At their point of contact things are messy. My point is that the DMCA isn't the problem. The problem is that if people are worried about getting sued for content they need to respond to cease and desist.

If we did what most of the other people recommend Qualcomm would be suing that out of the blue with no warning.

Comment: Re:On this 4th of July... (Score 1) 349

by jbolden (#47392219) Attached to: Qualcomm Takes Down 100+ GitHub Repositories With DMCA Notice

A cease and desist order on other topics can turn an unintentional act int an intentional one. DMCA and safe harbor is just a specific example of that. Cease and desist create intent, that is their point.

The easy way to see that is if the website presented information to the ISP of their licenses for everything in advance the DMCA wouldn't require any action other than passing that information back. It is legal to distribute content assuming everyone is properly licensed without establishing that first. That's very generous. Of course it is not legal to distribute content once someone contests the content and the originator won't at least claim they are licensed.

Comment: Re:On this 4th of July... (Score 1) 349

by jbolden (#47391261) Attached to: Qualcomm Takes Down 100+ GitHub Repositories With DMCA Notice

Publishing by any measures is exploding in the USA. Content creation whether it be movies, books, music, blogs (citizen journalism), websites ... has exploded. That simply isn't happening.

I agree that there are problems with the laws. For example copyright seems to last too long. But the complaints about about the DMCA are just ignoring the concept of copyright all-together. It might be reasonable to make copyright effectively unenforcible but the fact that the DMCA doesn't do that doesn't mean the law is abusive.

Comment: Re:On this 4th of July... (Score 1) 349

by jbolden (#47391073) Attached to: Qualcomm Takes Down 100+ GitHub Repositories With DMCA Notice

Right but the argument that everyone is making is that Qualcomm doesn't really think that and if they did a proper analysis on their side they would agree they were in the wrong. That the DMCA is putting too much of a burden on distributors. Your hypothetical is that Qualcomm would still believe it was theirs after a proper analysis. That's a much more serious matter and does deserve escalation.

Comment: Re:And here I'm hoping... (Score 1) 669

Unspending users can only hold back technological progress if software vendors keep maintaining obsolete technology to please them. Which doesn't make much sense

Developers of applications didn't want to drop part of the market. And the cycle becomes self feeding. Updates do less so customers feel less compelled to update.

except in the context of trying to keep meaningful competition from arising.

That was Microsoft until recently. They were very worried about the bottom of the market and disruption from below. Now that it has happened they are shifting up market.

Your Bill Gates quote is excellent for that.

They are relatively good but absolutely terrible. -- Alan Kay, commenting on Apollos

Working...