Firstly, I agree with you BUT this is not about judging the quality of the code, it is about giving money, since this isn't open source. The question is why you would directly give money to someone which you know have a disagreeable outlook, I wouldn't give money to a known pedophile or racist either. If she would've been an open source contributor I wouldn't care.
I only skimmed that "IDM story" page but found nothing which would make it appropriate to compare giving money to them with giving money to a pedophile or a racist. Did I miss something?
Since I clearly need to spell this out. What is appropriate is clearly subjective, I was taking it to the extreme in order to make a point. But I'll reiterate the same question. Why would you not disregard political or religious outlooks, or even crimes for that matter, when buying(i.e. giving money for) "stuff" from "vendor"?
I don't know if you'd get very far if you only traded with people with the same political beliefs as you, and would wager that nearly everyone you trade with is guilty of breaking some law on the books at some level.
I completely and utterly disagree with your comments, but if you were selling something useful to me, I'd consider it like any other product on the market.
I believe you mean "Maemo 6", i.e. what Harmattan would have been if there was no MeeGo.
Latest MeeGo release is 1.1 for handsets, netbooks and in-vehicle infotainment systems, each with their own "user experience" layer on top. The handset UX in 1.1 is for developers to have a peek on the new direction. 1.2 is coming up in a couple of months.
MeeGo distribution will be RPM based; that is inherited from Moblin. That shouldn't change anything substantial. The kernel and other guts are still all true Linux goodness.
I was thinking about lojban (http://lojban.org) when I read this. I mean we do have programming languages, which are unambiguous. Why should we not alter our "natural", i.e. legacy based, communication when dealing with computers?
> Why should we not alter our "natural", i.e. legacy based, communication when dealing with computers?
Or when dealing with each other, for that matter. In Lojban, it is grammatically incorrect for someone to give me vague directions like "we are at the pub to the left of the central plaza". They would instead have to say something like "we-not-you are now at the only pub to the left (when seen from the cinema) of the only plaza".
Imagine political debates where imprecise language and double meaning are much harder to express. Mmm...
> Just because you said "the only plaza" doesn't make it unambiguous.
That was just me compressing it to fit somewhat into English. What it really would say is "the only plaza which fits the current context", as opposed to e.g. "the specific place called The Plaza" or "the only plaza in the universe".
The specific Plaza change wasn't the intended point, though. The "to the left of X while standing at Y" as opposed to "to the left of X" is the biggest clarity gain.
It is obviously possible to express ambiguity in any language, even Lojban, but you have to work harder for it.
Again, the "plaza" part of the sentence is not relevant to the actual point I was making. I did not claim that specific change gave a huge boost in clarity.
> How exactly is that any different from "the plaza"?
It is different in that the ambiguity is explicit.
> What's even "the current context"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Context : "Context is the surroundings, circumstances, environment, background, or settings which determine, specify, or clarify the meaning of an event." Example context: Me and the person who gives me directions commonly use that specific plaza as a reference point. Another possible context: Directions are related to my small town, which only has one proper plaza.
We understand these things, but they are technically ambiguous, saying "the-only-plaza" doesn't remove any ambiguitiy. "The current context" is also implied, stating it explicitly doesn't add anything, what so ever.
Actually, referring explicitly to the current context would probably just cause confusion, it implies that we both agree on the exact meaning/content of the "current context", which is often not exactly the case.
"The only plaza" is either unambiguous (in cities with one plaza) or incorrect (in cities with multiple plazas). Just because a language makes it impossible to be unambiguous doesn't mean it makes it impossible to be wrong.
Why? "Haskell" also works on hugs,yhc,uhc,... http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Implementations
Most implementations are BSD/GPL Licensed. Haskell itself (thinking of Haskell Prime, Haskell98) is a research/community driven project and, as such, open/transparent.
For GHC there is even an intermediate format allowing you to run your code on stuff like llvm.
the original message was talking of specific "stacks", which in my understanding includes an abstract language and a concrete implementation (I'd say also some accompanying development tools: if not an ide, at least a repl, debugger, build system).
"haskell" as such would not qualify, while ocaml, scala and ghc would.
At least here, in Sweden, it was covered by "mainstream media" but now its yesterdays news which means that any point that was actually conveyed about the risks to personal security is now long forgotten.
I like it but I would feel uneasy knowing that it is not just a stupid foam helmet but an airbag and a bunch of gyros. Just reminding that the more complex the system is the more places something can go wrong.
I agree. This is perhaps close to being a luddite. The difference lies in the fact that the airbag, for the car, didn't replace any already simpler and proven security measure.
Consider adding in settings support for the app. That way you could change account@server. This would be useful for people reading other deployments of the HN source.
