[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
On Thu, 2004-04-29 at 16:01, Bullard, Claude L (Len) wrote:
> You asked. In deference to Tim, this really
> is raving. Busy people hit delete now.
I'm leaving this on-list because I'm really trying to understand your
routine on-list behavior, and I'm betting that there are others on the
list who would also like to understand.
>
> I don't accept both. I acknowledge both.
> I'm hoping for better because I'm expecting
> worse. They say worse is better. We choose
> our karma by dharma or kama, but we choose.
OK, you accept but disapprove of both behaviors. I still don't get why
the moral outrage against Tim Bray and Jon Bosak, but none against eg
patenting the for-loop or the lies the RIAA told in the 1980s to get the
tax on blank audio cassettes passed. (example chosen because I know
exactly where that body is buried.) I'd like to figure it's because you
believe propellerheads are intrinsically better people than suits, and
thus you're holding them to a higher standard, but I don't really have
any evidence for that.
> To only be ronin, one fights for one's
> lord. That I have done. To be samurai,
> one fights for the way and the land.
> A 'just business' attitude
> takes the samurai and makes him
> yaguska. When the lord no
> longer enables the way, it is
> corrupted, thus corrupting the heart,
> thus corrupting the land.
Another definitional problem. I checked the definitions of both ronin
and samurai, offline and on. I get that you're talking about the ideal
samurai, not just any clown who owned a second sword. (Sir Lancelot vs.
any clown who'd been bonked on the shoulder by another knight.) However
all three definitions I found for 'ronin' definitely specified that a
ronin is masterless. This very much contradicts your paragraph above.
Honest, I'm trying to understand here.
Again, I'm leaving this on-list because I know that I am not the only
one on-list who has been confused by your repeated claims to be ronin
when you are clearly the loyal, capable and devoted liege man of
Intergraph.
>
> When I first saw the draft for ISO 8879, it
> struck me that this was better than
> OOP because OOP would never scale and it
> would never be fully interoperable but it
> sure was technically attractive. SGML was
> rough reading and hard to understand. That
> was the technical call. But when I
> met Goldfarb and the people that were
> working with him on markup, I was impressed
> with their commitment to protecting the
> information from the host system, and
> making sure it could outlive it.
> Although I could not be their technical
> equal, I could fight for them. That was
> the call of my heart.
>
I think this means that the answer to my original question is that the
RIAA is just out to rip off everyone without regard to race, creed,
color, national origin or sexual preference, whereas the folks who did
XML specifically committed an injustice against Charles Goldfarb and
several other people you deeply like and respect. Do I have it?
> Cut the corners. Get the cool stuff out
> there. Then hold on to your pocketbook
> when a group decides it's time to play
> "Revenge of the Crimson Assurance" with
> your product because the IP wasn't worth
> protecting. I don't know how to fix
> inequities in the market, but I have
> to find a way to protect customers
> from them. Any of us in caveat vendor
> markets do. It's called, indemnity.
Arguably the appropriate procedures and technologies for people
answering RFPs involving communicating life and death information are
not 100% appropriate for people creating or buying shrink wrap products
for distributing preprints of physics papers, or reporting football
scores.
I understand that the address of the burning building needs to get
through first time and correctly. Equally, I insist that having to click
reload a couple times when looking up the definition of ronin is a fair
trade for a web infrastructure that costs 20% as much as 'first time and
correctly'.
> Somewhere between going fast
> enough to make the biggest splash and
> moving deliberately to secure
> a future is the right way where better
> is good enough and worse is seen for
> what it is. All I can say for sure is
> that anyone designing software products
> today without understanding that the
> product must interoperate both within
> its local product suite and across
> its market competitor's products is
> not paying attention. What I want
> is a way to know if it does or
> not without having to find the guys
> who built it and ask.
>
Back when I was a hardware guy, the one and only time I couldn't get a
serial link to work and had to write an ECO was the one and only design
that was verified against both Mil-188 _and_ V.34. The ones where I just
dropped in a driver and receiver that everybody used worked just fine. I
found a moral there.
Frank
|
