tossacct

To clarify, I think it speaks positively to Notch's character when he says that Infiniminer was the game he wanted to make, and also publishes the statement on his own website for all the web to see.

And I think it's great that he and others were inspired by Infiniminer, and added their own tweaks. I just wish the original inspiration was still around so everyone could see where it all came from.

It honestly surprises me that I haven't heard about Notch helping Zach out financially, since most people seem to think that Notch is a pretty nice and honorable person.

I think that software is a great field for these talented individuals. The necessary tools(other than luck) to produce profitable software products are: 1)talent, 2)experience, 3)a powerful enough computer to develop your software, and 4)an economically feasible way to distribute your software.

It seems like your "1.5-2.0 sigma, in capacity" individuals possess 1) by definition. 4) is ubiquitous now that the internet and payment processing are cheap and ubiquitous. 2) seems achievable for anyone who has 1). 3) is affordable to most interns I know in the software industry!

That said, I agree with your observations(in this and other comments) in reference to corporate structure and social positions and managers and etc. Managers shouldn't be managing their underlings, they should be managing away all of the bullshit that makes their underlings less successful.

>>>5. It's been covered but Notch has used the massive profits of Minecraft ... and really help out the developers who make it possible

Notch may have helped out some of the developers who made Minecraft possible, but I hadn't heard that he helped out the ONE developer who made Minecraft possible.

Here are Notch's words for which developer made the game "Minecraft" possible. http://notch.tumblr.com/post/227922045/the-origins-of-minecr...

>>>But then I found Infiniminer. My god, I realized that that was the game I wanted to do.

Has Notch given some of his massive profits to Zachary Barth, the developer who made Minecraft possible? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zachary_Barth

I was wondering if you could expand on this part of your comment:

>>>I'm not the one making outrageous claims about there being bigger cultural differences between US states than between countries. It's just not true...

It seems like you are making a positive claim about the truth of the parent's statement about cultural differences.

>>>I can't provide data on it because there is no way to measure such a thing.

Now it seems like you are claiming that there is no (scientific, reality-based, data-driven) way to make any positive claims about the truth of the parent's statement about cultural differences.

The "everyone" that you are referring to consists of the vast majority of university majors, which happen to be non-vocational. I would say that STEM majors are generally pretty close to vocational, but as you say lots of people can get the degree without actually learning anything useful to any specific employer.

Which is what vocational schools are for. The biggest pity is that vocational schools aren't held up as great opportunities - lots of them are intellectually challenging - can you name and describe the function of all of the moving and non moving parts in your car? Also vocational schools are just as social as long as they are encompassed in a normal junior college. Oh and JOBS that pay MONEY.

The funniest part of the tragedy is that (on average) someone going to vocational school for a law certificate is going to make less money than someone going to vocational school for an electrician or plumbing or automotive repair certificate. Have we mentioned debt and compound interest?

Does this reduce congestion, traffic, or pollution? Maybe it allows for increased density or more sensible housing/business districts? More reliable commutes?

Given that the population is roughly 8 million and the gdp is roughly $1 trillion, it seems possible that NYC is coming out ahead on that $7B.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_GDP

"Actually changing things" may involve "criticizing congress" but I expect it to be rather more complicated. I think that all of the players in this case should have exercised discretion. The fact that so many people (including the citizens of America) allowed this situation to occur is the tragedy.

I think that the Aaron Swartz tragedy is not an example of an acute failure in America's legal system that we can blame on any specific element: the prosecutor, the congress that passed the law, or the court system that allowed this legal case to proceed as long as it did. I think the legal case is an example of a complete breakdown of America's legal system. In America we have 3 general wings of government that all have a hand in the legal system:

Legislative (e.g. Congress) that writes the laws.

Executive (e.g. prosecutor) that prosecutes potential violations of the laws

Judicial (e.g. the court and judge) that decides whether potential violations of the law are actual violations

I think we can justifiably criticize Ortiz and congress and the judge and Aaron and The American People for their roles in this mess, and I expect that all of them will need to improve before the situation does.

All of the players had opportunities to exercise good judgement and they all failed when presented these opportunities.

Vacri: your comment seems reasonable and educated so I assume that you know the answer to your own question. I'm answering here so that the other folks reading this will also know the answer. I'm not educated about the specifics of the Roman Polanski case, so this is a general comment about the state prosecuting crimes when the victim would like the crime not to be prosecuted.

>>>why be so cavalier with the idea of making victims relive that horror against their mature, expressed consent?

One possibility is the prosecutor "feathering one's own cap" as you said. Another possibility was hinted at in an earlier comment: "prosecutor is representing the state". Convicting an offender of an old crime has the potential to do good things for society. Two of them are:

Bring forth other victims

Create credibility for the claims of future victims("convicted child rapist raped my child" is more believable than "normal upstanding citizen raped my child")

From my understanding, the reason lies in the theories of "crimes of passion/poor judgement" vs "patterns of behavior". If someone commits a crime by accident or in the heat of the moment then certain actions should be taken to explain to them their mistake(e.g. rehabilitation, imprisonment, therapy, probation). If they make a "pattern of behavior" then society can conclude that society doesn't have the tools to convince the offender to end their pattern of offending, and the offender should be physically disallowed from committing future offenses in their pattern:

bad lawyers are restricted from practicing law - "dis-bar-ment"

offending computer users are restricted from using computers

Your "zone" idea is logical. So logical that it is the law in some places, like the Bay Area which is the subject of the comment you replied to.

(2) Out-of-Town Trips. Drivers are authorized to collect 150 percent of the metered rate for out-of-town trips exceeding 15 miles beyond City limits. http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/transporta...

>>>Rigidly fixed prices are NOT a good thing for customers if you want there to be service at any time to/from any region.

This holds true for NY, where you can't call a cab with a phone. Other places you can call, and the cab is legally required to come and pick you up.

>>>The regulations on cabs are not at all utilitarian - they are pure rent-seeking

I agree that some are, but I think that I have listed some laws do service the public good. Am I wrong? NY tip: you can implement the zone system yourself on an ad-hoc basis - give them enough money and they will take you to Brooklyn. I hope you have a lot of money though :) .

Many taxi companies are required to serve anyone at any time(24/7/365) for fixed prices, regardless of the cost of the trip. It is unlikely that the new transit service will steal all the unprofitable customers.

Many of the regulations around transportation are very utilitarian. There are people who can not drive and are unserved by public transportation, but will die if they do not have access to transportation. We the people(you too) have decided to contract out their transportation to cab companies. In exchange for this incredibly unprofitable mandate, cab companies get price fixing which is essentially a monopoly on many routes.

Unfortunately, the system is already supposed to work like this, yet the problem remains unsolved. I have friends that are teachers that make constant calls to police trying to get these kids kicked out of school, all to no avail.

Additionally, my teacher friends say that probably 60% of their students would be in "juvy hall" if the police would respond to their pleas to remove these children from the classroom.

I personally think it would be worth the money to do the experiment, but I'm not sure that everyone would agree. Here are the costs that I was able to find quickly on google:

http://www.bestplaces.net/county/illinois/cook http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/30/us/reducing-jail-rolls-wou... http://www.illinoisloop.org/spending.html

Cost per student per year in cook county Illinois: $11,333

$/Adult Inmate/year in cook county Illinois: $50,000

Note:it costs $240,000/juvenile inmate/year but I assume this is because there are so many fewer juvenile inmates.

I think that there are probably cheaper ways to incentivize students to not use physical violence, but of course the proof is the results of the experiment.

People who want to commit violence can use all means physically available to them. There are violence problems in many prisons as well, another "relatively confined space". Does this answer your question adequately?

If these theoretical contradictors are evenly distributed, spherical, and massless, then it seems natural that around 50% will be busy contradicting other contradictors, and writing well thought out and earnest posts about how great the software is.

One can only hope that they all get sent out into a vacuum.

I'll get specific with two mechanisms of failure that I've seen. Let's say that there is a euphemism treadmill that starts with the word A then proceeds alphabetically to K. A was created in 1852, and K is "the current euphemism du jour". Your favorite word is E, created in 1960 and popularized in the 70s, replaced with F in 1981.

Mechanism 1:your audience consists of people born after 1981 who are unaware that E is even on the treadmill at all, and they don't understand that E->F->G->H->I->J->K .

They have an opportunity to act in good faith and say "lmm, the word E is incredibly offensive to me. Did I misunderstand you?"

And then you could reply "Yes you misunderstood me because political correctness ruined the word E, I actually meant the current euphemism du jour which is K."

Another case is a person who is aware of the treadmill and does understand you, but decides that they are more interested in being offended than continuing the discussion. They will then decide to talk about their poor little feelings instead of whatever the discussion was actually about.

If you want to get a point across to that specific type of idiot, you need to use their language so they can't get distracted with their "feelings". Same thing goes for the rest of their irrational customs, and probably most of yours and mine as well. When in Rome.

One thing to note is that old words sometimes really are so offensive that their meanings should be either treadmilled or redefined. Homosexuality was the technical term for an illegal mental disorder that the computer hero Alan Turing(Turing machine, Turing test, WWII Enigma decoder) was chemically castrated for. Bill Hicks has a short bit about Jesus not wanting to see people wearing crosses when he comes back, I would think the same would apply to people who survived homosexual persecution:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcM01akD0SA&feature=playe...

>>>Human-designed systems have a purpose ... But they can also be viewed as emergent phenomena within the larger System of Everything.

I think that banks and society and weightlifting are all are examples of human-designed systems. Therefore according to you they can "have a purpose ... But they can also be viewed as emergent phenomena..."

In your opinion, is it simultaneously both, or is there some means of deciding which one? I think you answer this question when you mention POV:

>>>From the POV of "society", none of this was ever planned. From the POV of the people working for Eleiko, the bar is a piece of lovingly engineered and carefully manufactured high-grade steel.

I think this is also not controversial and I completely agree with it. But I think it reveals why I disagree with your initial post.

'From the [point of view] of "society", none of this was ever planned'. Luckily we don't look at societal problems from the POV of society....we look at them from our own POV! Which explains my disagreement with your initial post:

>>>Emergent phenomena don't have "objectives", mate.

Using the things you said above, I now think that you meant:

>>>From the POV of the emergent phenomena known as society, society doesn't have objectives, mate.

I contend that we are humans assigning objectives to society from our own POV, and therefore your comment has nothing at all to do with what the OP posted.

Saying that emergent phenomena can't hold their own objectives is a truism and I can imagine it being useful. But the truism doesn't seem to add anything to the OP's discussion. I would love for you to prove me wrong and show me the usefulness of the truism to the OP's discussion.

-------------------------------------------------------

As a show of good faith, here is the usefulness of looking at society from our own human perspective:

If we are humans looking at society from our own perspective (as opposed to society looking at itself from its own perspective...?), then we can assign it purpose and objectives willy-nilly, based on the apparent actions and tendencies of the emergent phenomena.

The tragedy of the commons is an emergent phenomena. From its POV, there is no objective. From our POV, TOTC seems to say that SOMETIMES small collective sacrifices can prevent large collective sacrifices.

From the POV of a fire, there is no objective. From our POV, fire burns things and spreads from house to house so that one neighbor's irresponsible actions can cause a city-wide fire and hurt collective society very greatly(tragedy of the commons). So we should all make a small collective sacrifice and pay some firefighters to combat the selfish and irresponsible house-burning tendencies of our neighbors. Society++ because we have traded millions of dollars of damage and constant fear of burning to death for a small amount of money.

From the POV of toxic waste, there is no objective. From our POV toxic waste hurts the environment that we all share, so we try to take actions to mitigate or prevent the damage of toxic waste. Society++.

To address the OP directly, assigning society objectives seems very useful as it has resulted in firefighting and food stamps and police and healthcare and regulations against toxic waste dumping, all of which have seemed to reduce crime and disease and fear and pain and ignorance and economic uncertainty. Reducing these things allows for more efficiency and entrepreneurship and invention and time-saving and long term planning because we aren't so busy worrying about our next meal or our immediate safety. The OP hopes we can keep making progress.

I agree that the definition of the concept of emergence is that there is no objective. No one even vaguely familiar with the concept could possibly disagree with that. My questions before were not disbelief, just making sure you had some passing familiarity with the concepts before I engaged you.

This is the heart of the matter: you still have not named me one deliberately designed system that has purposes and objectives, like you said you could here:

>>>Deliberately designed systems can absolutely have purposes and objectives.

Your inability to name one thing that is not emergent makes me think this:

1-You believe that everything is emergent. From the hamstring to society, banks and currency and economics and bartering, and everything in between. If everything is emergent then obviously nothing has objectives, since that is in the definition of the concept of emergence.

The vast majority of the people in America and the rest of the world are not upper or middle class. They want both "distinguishment" AND health, because both could improve. Look at health problems and obesity and the poverty line and education rates. Look at what happens to the birth rate when you introduce economic stability and health care access that can more or less guarantee the survival of your children.

>>Emergent phenomena don't have "objectives", mate.

Society may or may not have some emergent qualities, but it definitely has "deliberately designed" qualities, so therefore according to you: society "can absolutely have purposes and objectives".

Examples of deliberately designed qualities: banking system, fiat currency, stock market, credit card infrastructure, etc. All engineered to streamline economic activities and to allow those who control them to wield power(among other purposes).

>>>The production of wealth, as measured by GDP, or by the stock markets, or consumer spending, is our yardstick of success.

What is success other than the ability to succeed at wielding power, control over your environment etc?

A semi-related question:

If no emergent systems have "objectives", then what things do have "objectives"?

What makes you say that, mate?

Are intelligence and consciousness emergent phenomena?

Your original post used it as a reason not to coin a new word: >>>It doesn't matter what you call it - nothing is going to change the reality. You might as well use the first word that was coined for it and stop.

I am saying that the (ET) is precisely the reason to coin a new word. Otherwise, your audience will not understand what you are talking about.

If you speak a language your audience doesn't understand, your audience will not understand your language. This applies to all languages: french, english, perl, python, and the euphemism treadmill.

When in Rome, do as the Romans do, including speaking the languages they understand if you would like them to understand your speech.

Times change, words continuously change meaning. Use the words that your audience understands, not the ones that your audience understood last week or one hundred years ago.

To address your comment in detail:

1)>>>In short, people would take out the insurance right before they commit a crime so they didn't have to pay for their own defense.

2)>>>I don't see how the insurance company could survive in that environment, since the principle of insurance is that most people won't need it.

Point 1: Require the insurance to be delayed: you must pay into the insurance for X number of years before it can be used. In this case, "right before they commit a crime" will end up being long enough to recoup the costs of the defense. An actuary can help find what number of years is needed for the specific business.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actuary

Point 2: All insurance companies are faced with the challenge of survival. They often overcome this challenge by increasing their pool of customers: "most people won't need it" and are profit centers, the few who do need it are the cost centers. Again, actuaries are the folks to call.

It is illegal to do certain things with marijuana. Possession is one of those things. Growing, distributing, selling, processing, all fall under the category of possession.

It is not illegal to write about marijuana, sing songs about it, paint pictures of it, talk about it, or trade photographs of it.

"Gambling" is not illegal.

It is illegal to gamble in certain ways. One of those ways is when a gambling participant wins anything of tangible value greater than what they paid to play the game. This is why some children's arcades that give tickets for games of luck are legal, and some carnival games are legal. Your winnings are required by law be worth less than what you paid to play.

Playing poker is not illegal, playing bingo is not illegal, playing slots is not illegal, playing blackjack is not illegal, guessing who will win the presidential election is not illegal, and guessing how much rain will fall next Tuesday is not illegal. Just don't gamble for tangible value while you do these things!

Wikipedia>>>The "rationality" described by rational choice theory is different from the colloquial and most philosophical use of the word. For most people, "rationality" means "sane," "in a thoughtful clear-headed manner," or knowing and doing what's healthy in the long term. Rational choice theory uses a specific and narrower definition of "rationality" simply to mean that an individual acts as if balancing costs against benefits to arrive at action that maximizes personal advantage.

The concept that you are describing is "rationality". If you do some light reading, you will find that reasonable people disagree that any human possesses or can possess it, especially in the case of economics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bounded_rationality

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_choice_theory#Criticis...

Another assumption: the [thing to get done] will likely eventually be transformed via evolution or destroyed, as all natural things like rocks and species and hydrogen atoms and gluons and the entire known universe starting[?] with the big bang transforms via evolution or gets destroyed.

A conclusion: code that can not be easily changed and evolved will be conveniently destroyed via a complete re-write. This is why "facades" and opaque APIs are so popular - it is theoretically possible to rewrite different components of the code without rewriting the whole entire dang thing.

Case in point: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/810129/how-does-whiles-t-...

>>>while (s++ = t++);

This is code that is hard to understand(hence the stackoverflow question), making it not easily changed. Not a good sign for the survivability of the code.

JoelonSoftware.com makes a sparse point with this example, in that a "good" coder must understand what this does. He leaves the reasoning up to the reader, likely because he is clever enough not to make any claims that can be disagreed with. Luckily I am not this clever and I will make a claim that follows from my assumptions and conclusion above:

Claim: a "good" coder needs to understand the above type of obfuscated code so that they can evolve it or destroy it safely when they see it.

Note that my claim does not say whether a "good" coder would write code like that. A "good" coder gets the job done, whether it's a write-once-use-once-read-never perl one-liner or a big part of a big program. I only claim that a "good" coder must be able to read it, so that they can change it or destroy it safely.

The mass-killers are the issue, not the tools that they use. Effective mental health treatment is a necessary step in reducing the pool of potential mass-killers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_McVeigh#Oklahoma_City_b...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_2005_London_bombings

Some people think that space is expanding as well. These people think that intra-galactic distances are relatively consistent, but inter-galactic distances are increasing in an accelerating fashion.

"Additionally, the expansion rate of the universe has been measured to be accelerating due to the repulsive force of dark energy which appears in the theoretical models as a cosmological constant. This acceleration of the universe, or "cosmic jerk", has only recently become measurable, and billions of years ago, the universe's expansion rate was actually decelerating due to the gravitational attraction of the matter content of the universe. According to the simplest extrapolation of the currently-favored cosmological model (known as "ΛCDM"), however, the dark energy acceleration will dominate on into the future."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space