Intellectual property: Copy & paste
The main component in the production of human artifacts is a technology that in the age of the computer is best known as "Copy & Paste" ( CTRL+C, CTRL + V).
Although it may be hard to deny the creative individual all individual creativity, most artists need some input in order to create.
In a computer, when we copy and paste, the paste is identical to the copy, there is no change.
In a human being, the pasted item is never identical to the copied item.
There is always some element added, or subtracted. This is the human imperfection in copy and paste. The root of individual creativity is the imperfection of the copy & paste mechanism.

The Good, the Bad and the Pragmatic
Microsoft recently announced that they will submit some 20,000 lines of code to the Linux kernel under the GPL license.
The code makes virtual Linux machines run better on Microsoft's virtualization servers. So it may be argued that the code donated serves Microsoft's plans of global domination more than the general well-being. However, as Linus Torvalds, creator of Linux, says:

“I agree that it’s driven by selfish reasons, but that’s how all open source code gets written! We all “scratch our own itches”. It’s why I started Linux, it’s why I started git, and it’s why I am still involved. It’s the reason for everybody to end up in open source, to some degree."

Microsoft contributes to open source on several projects, mostly to ensure that the code runs well on the Microsoft platform. This is no different than many hardware manufacturers who release drivers for their products, like graphic cards.

The open source community is not "The Good", Microsoft is not "The Bad", they are both "The Pragmatic", trying to get the job done.

En kort fortelling om nisser, som ikke er ment å illustrere noe som helst annet enn intet.
Det var rett før jul, jeg hjalp mamma å lage serviettringnisser. Hodet er en trekule, bena fungerer som holder for servietten, de har små filtluer på. Min oppgave var å tegne fjes på nissene. To øyne, munn som peker oppover, evt. nese.

"Så blide de er", kommenterer mamma. Ja, de er blide, tenker jeg. Men hvorfor er de det? Alle nissene trenger ikke være glade. Jeg tegner nedovermunn på neste nisse.

Nissen som nekter å være blid, trekker seg ut av felleskapet og setter sin væren i parentes utenfor de andres blide felleskap. Dermed er den negasjonen av de andre. Og seg selv kan den karakterisere som 'hin annen' relatert til den gemene hop av de blide nisser. Det er på denne måten den menneskelige bevissthet har sitt opphav: Som negasjonen av det andre - som viljen og evnen til ikke. Og slik oppstår også individet, som den ene i relasjon til de mange. Derav utrykket 'intet'.

Dessverre lot ikke mamma seg imponere av den sure nissen. Jeg ble nødt til å gjøre den om til en blid nisse, ved å klusse over den opprinnelige sure munnen. Dette resulterte i at jeg endte opp med å ha laget den aller blideste nissen.

The computer and nothingness

the computer has 0 and 1 as the basis for its understanding. the 0 is not nothing, it is a defined absence of 1. the nothingness of the human condition is the absence of definition. in a computer, everything is defined. even the "undefined"  is really not undefined, only not properly defined in a particular context. a computer can never wait and do nothing, it has to actively listen, and do stuff.  The computer is defined. Nothingness is not. 

The painful truth about trainers: Are running shoes a
waste of money?

svaret er "ja".

The Problem of Universals in Computer Programming
The problem of universals is originally a thread of philosophical discussions with its zenith in medieval times. A typical example of the issues discussed is the question whether the individual (ie. man) or the universal (manhood) is most real.

In computer programming the problem of universals is not in regard to understanding the nature of things, but relates to different methodologies one can apply in practically solving programming problems. As the old problem of universals were concerned with understanding what is already there, the new problem of universals deals with practicalities concerning the creation of computer programs.

Realists will always insist on making solutions that are universal: Every method, routine or piece of code must be created in such a way that it is possible to use it again for solving similar problems.

Nominalists (anti-universalists) maintain that a piece of code should only attempt to solve the problems it was originally intended to solve. It is unnecessary and a waste of time to try to solve all similar problems.


Nominalists will find that if they never try to write code in a universal way, they will have to write an awful lot of code, with a lot of repetition.
Universalists on the other hand, will drown themselves in universal pretensions unless they focus on the concrete issues to be solved.

Cholula
I USA kan det se ut til at Tabascosaus er i ferd med å bli utkonkurrert av en mildere peppersaus kalt Cholula. Dette er meget naturstridig ettersom vi har lært at det er den sterkeste rett som vil overleve. ( Darwins sausenebb)

Ikke desto mindre er Cholula en meget god saus.
Normal Tabascosaus har mye smak av pepper, samt en god del eddik.
Cholula smaker langt mindre pepper, den er mye rundere og har ikke på samme måte en signatur som gjør at en kan si soleklart at en rett er krydret med Cholula.
Eller kanskje det bare er jeg som har bombet i stykker smaksløkene med så mye tabasco at det vil ta årevis før Cholula kan få tre frem i alle sine fine nyanser.
For dette er en saus med dybde, varme og ømhet.
Anbefales til deg som er glad i mat, og ikke bare spiser for å leve. :-)