current_call

When I said that this movie is more or less a Carmack movie, it's because of how teenage Carmack is described. He's arrogant, but not so much he'd surround himself with idiots. When he meets other smart programmers at Al's company, he's elated.

So yeah, it is cheesy, but it does more justice to the hacker subculture than anything else I've seen. It certainly has more to do with actual hackers than hacker news does.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hackers_%28film%29

Your analogy is irrelevant. Your example neighbor is only putting up signs for one person, and you don't explain why he takes down the signs.

Censorship is selective removal of unwanted ideas to prevent those ideas from spreading. Removing all ideas for some other reason is not censorship.

Edit: According to you, shouldn't Twitter be at fault for letting Pax say such hurtful things? They're providing him a platform.

People don't have an obligation to uncritically pass on any and all messages. True.

That a publisher only publishes certain books is not censorship of all the other books. True.

That you promote your own views without simultaneously mentioning all other views is not censorship. True.

Freedom of speech means that you can put up your own lawn signs in your lawn. It doesn't mean that you get to put your lawn signs in other people's yards. It certainly doesn't mean that they are obligated to print and put up your signs in their yard. True.

These are all true, but irrelevant. Refusing to help spread a message is different than trying to stop other people help spread a message. I've been repeating this for a while now. If you're still confused, try rereading our discussion until you see the difference.

There was a time when no one knew the equations of gravity in exquisitely rigorous detail, yet if you walked off a cliff, you would fall. http://www.yudkowsky.net/rational/the-simple-truth/

People are of course free to try and stop neutral providers. They are also free to lobby for a government that will censor them.

No, that is censorship.

transitive verb : to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable <censor the news>; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable <censor out indecent passages> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/censoring

Holding providers of "audience" infrastructure accountable means that the only unorthodox groups that can communicate as effectively as the orthodoxy are groups with members that can provide "audience" infrastructure. Now the unorthodox suffer a disadvantage. The purpose of this system is to prevent dangerous and harmful ideas from being spread. This is still censorship.

Oh my god, shut up about free speech. It's his privately owned website and he can do whatever he wants with it.

Removing neutral infrastructure is restricting free speech through social conventions instead of through government. It's still censorship.

If the "learn to code" movement doesn't flop, it won't be a sellers market. Problem solved!

Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable. http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/V1.htm#6

Second, we don't have time to become experts in every subject, so we defer some decisions to existing experts.

Learning Common Lisp is like learning Smalltalk in another way, Common Lisp shares some of Smalltalk's features.

For instance, if I messed up something in my code and had an error, the debugger pops up. In this debugger I can not only browse the stack trace and manipulate those objects, I can actually fix what is broken and resume execution of the program from that point.

This is also true for Common Lisp. When I hit a bug, I can edit the broken code, reload it, and resume execution from where the program stopped. I can load edited code and freeze the program to inspect objects at any time. It's enjoyable to edit some opengl code and see changes in real time.

I used to use Light Table with Clojure and Javascript to kind of recreate the effect, but what the author writes is true: abandoning your familiar textual tools lets you do some really awesome things. It completely changes your development and debugging workflow.

If anyone was wondering why some people don't like Clojure being described as a modern Lisp or the future of Lisp, this is one reason.

I wouldn't be so sure of that.

Don't forget web browsers. Web browsers are horrible.

"The subsequent research has in some respects vindicated my views: some have tried to argue that the declines are due to picking all the low-hanging fruit in articles or in available editors, that lower quality editors merited additional procedures."

"Please let’s not have a discussion about Turing Equivalence. Computer Science “Theory” tells us “there’s no such thing as more powerful.” Perhaps we share the belief that In theory, there’s no difference between theory and practice. But in practice, there is."

Programming paradigms are about how programs are written. If a problem can be solved in one language, it can be solved in every language, but that doesn't mean it can be solved in every paradigm in every language.