Boris Rarden

If you want to argue about advantages or disadvantages of Pliant, you should refer to objective features, as described on the pliant website www.fullpliant.org. Saying that you can hardly believe that pliant can replace C# and python because you haven't heard about it, is a lot like saying that Rearden Metal is no good because nobody has tried it. So, to put it another way, this post is not to introduce Pliant's features to you -- they are described elsewhere. If you are having trouble following the documentation on the site, I can assist. Otherwise, you can not judge the book by its cover.

So for all those examples I can use Pliant, and cut the size of my dev team by a factor of about four, since I wouldn't need to hire people who know C# and ASP and Python and Javascript. I will avoid the penalty of integration overhead costs that can eat up years of development. Integration and incompatible systems is what inflating the real work that needs to be done. The libraries you have mentioned can not be mixed -- python ones can't be mixed with the .NET ones. Pliant is a consistent system that allows full development in which all levels of abstraction can be handled. Programmers today learn new language when there is a job market for it. Look at Objective-C and Ruby. These languages existed for ages but no one bothered to learn them, until they were forced to do so by the employer. So popularity of language is not any indication on how good it is. For example, Cobol is not popular today, however one can write in one month an application in COBOL that would take years of development with J2EE. Perl was popular and only got stronger now, however there are no jobs in it -- Ruby took the stage even though it is a much weaker language with many bugs still in the runtime. Yet another example is an increased popularity of python only because google provides free hosting through apps engine. So a person who is not looking for quick fix but wants to build a solid foundation, should learn about benefits of pliant.

Hi, I live in Vancouver, and would be interested to meet other objectivists. If we can get enough of us, we can organize a meetup.

Let me answer you with another question. What language would you use today to create a database system like Oracle ? Or microsoft-word ? Or game physics engine ? Or OS kernel ? The answer in each case would be C or C++. It is the most general and fast language today in which any project can be done. Objective-C and C# are only good for some projects (they target a particular layer of abstration). Pliant competes with C++ not with C#.

The technical website about pliant is http://www.fullpliant.org pliant is a language that aims to replace C++. Just like the benefits of C++ are visible only on large projects (on small you can use scripting) same goes for Pliant. Only a large consistent project will show clear benefits of using pliant (extensibility, expressibility, strong libraries, minimal code, high abstraction, low level optimization)

what do you think of this (this is by Mills of BlackLight Power, from preface from his book): ---------------------------------- ... Many paradoxes and internal inconsistencies arise in quantum mechanics such as the requirement that two or more contradictory results exist simultaneously, the existence of infinities, non locality, and violation of causality, to mention a few. Unlike the solutions learned in the freshman year, none of the solutions are unique—algorithms to remove infinities and to add fantastical corrections are totally discretionary [1 14]. One exception is the one electron atom, but the Schrödinger equation is not a directly experimentally testable relationship. Rather, it is postulated. The solutions make no physical sense. Electron spin is missed completely. And, in many cases, the solutions contradict experimental observations [1 14]. To add to this confusion, Newton’s Laws of mechanics are presented as invalid. With the assumption of Galilean transformations, they fail to remain invariant at high speed. Special relativity is introduced as an independent mechanics theory based on the constant maximum of the speed of light, which was demonstrated by the Michelson Morley experiment. But, this experiment addressed light propagation and not mechanics, except for disproving the ether and a universal reference frame in the sense of the speed of light. Maxwell’s equations, which govern light propagation, remain since they are consistent with special relativity and predict c based on universal properties of spacetime. No connection to mass or mechanics is given despite the result of the equivalence of mass and electromagnetic energy from special relativity. There is no connection to particle masses and atomic theory. And, the infinite sea of virtual particles of atomic theory is paradoxically an ether which was abandoned with special relativity. Furthermore, it is taught that the validity of Maxwell’s equations is restricted only to the macro scale and that they do not apply to the atomic scale. This is inconsistent with the application of special relativity to the mechanics of atomic particles at high speed and the radiation of accelerating atomic particles wherein, paradoxically, Maxwell’s equations give the electromagnetic wave equation that governs the emitted radiation. Yet, when the particle motion is thought of as a current, Maxwell’s equations predict the radiation of atomic particles as well. Then, contradictory, postulated quantum mechanical rules apply to the radiation or stability of electrons in atoms, which should be treated electrodynamically. Neither a special relativistic or Maxwellian approach to the radiation is deemed to apply even though the Maxwellian Coulomb potential and special relativistic corrections to the electron mass are invoked. Even more disconcerting is that supposedly special relativity is the basis of electron spin in the Dirac equation. But, the solution requires an infinite sea of virtual particles that is equivalent to the ether. This constitutes a glaring internal inconsistency because the absence of both an ether and an absolute frame is the basis of special relativity in the first place. In addition, considering the simplest atom, hydrogen, no physical mechanism for the existence of discrete radiative energy levels or the stability of the n ? 1 state exists—only circular reasoning between the empirical data and a postulated wave equation with an infinite number of solutions that was parameterized to match the Rydberg lines [1 14]. Furthermore, the elimination of absolute frame by special relativity results in the elimination of inertial mass and Newton’s Second law, foundations of mechanics, and gives rise to the twin paradox and an infinite number of energy inventories of the universe based on the completely arbitrary definition of the observer’s frame of reference. Newton’s Law of gravitation is also to be unlearned. It is replaced by a postulated tensor relationship that only applies to massive gravitating objects. The replacement theory is explained in terms of warping of spacetime without any connection to the physical laws learned as a freshman or any connection to atoms that make up the massive gravitating bodies. General relativity predicts singularities and a deceleration cosmology—the opposite of that which is observed [15 16]. It is to be accepted with quantum mechanics as the correct atomic theory even though these theories are mutually incompatible. It is further disconcerting that the Uncertainty Principle of quantum mechanics—one of its fundamental tenets—predicts a continuum of particle masses and gives no mechanism for the existence of atomic particles of precise inertial and gravitational mass in the first place. And, the infinite sea of virtual particles and vacuum energy fluctuations throughout the entire universe requires an infinite cosmological constant that is obviously not observed. ... ----------------------------------

I'm proposing another way. The technology today allows a single individual to create a business and to hire other people. Creating small units, of about 5 people, running as an individual company, where it is very clear to observe the professionalism of each worker, can be a solution for a large enterprise consisting of such mini-companies. So instead of having teams at a company, have sub-companies in a company. The management overhead can be handled by virtual secretaries. This is already happening today with startups, however, when I startup grows it should just create more startups, rather than bigger company with employees.

I am now going through Feynman Lecture Series, Vol 2.

thank you.

There are several contradictory points in our current understanding of physics, as well. His theories are not more crazy. Weather he can deliver and make it work, is what will give him credibility.

Hi, I have been working with a new programming language called Pliant, that I would like to take to the next level, and run a business based on it -- the idea to go farther and faster than with other technologies, in due time. This is a little like Rearden Metal -- it is very versatile but its benefits will become clear once a business is setup with a real client. If you either want to invest, or you are a solid developer willing to try new things, drop me a line. Thanks, Boris Rarden

Well, when I agreed to take the contract, I was planning to take an exit in two weeks if a better offer comes along, and this was consistent with our agreement, since we agreed that either of us can terminate the contract after two weeks. I didn't really want a long-term job at two-thirds of my rate, but I wanted to work while I search for a job. However, after I agreed, because of equipment issues that we have not discussed in full prior to our agreement, the start date was delayed one week. In a way, I was already loosing a week of work, as well as should any other contract come my way, instead of telling them that I would finish in a week, I'd have to say that I finish in two weeks, which is a big difference for a pressing project. As well, I didn't agree about the delay due to the equipment, as I claimed that I could perform my work using equipment I had, and was ready to start the next day after my verbal agreement. Mr. A was forcing my hand by delaying the start date. As well, another question. Suppose I have started working for another company, and signed, a let's say a 1-year contract. Then, 3 days into my work, another offer comes along that gives me a much better deal. I'd have to start immediately. Wouldn't it be right for me to leave immediately, or should I give a two week notice, as per my contract? Alternatively, suppose I started to work for another company, and expressed my wish to work for them for a year. The contract didn't specify any penalty if I'd leave earlier, however we have expressed verbally an understanding of commitment to this project. Four months into the project an offer comes along at double the rate. If the contract had a penalty for leaving early, I'd gladly pay it and leave. However, since the contract didn't specify such penalty, I'm bound by my word. On the other hand, if the company was going to loose its money, or go through restructuring it would not hesitate to let me go, no matter what is the term of the contract. It would be willing to pay me unemployment fee, as a way to buy itself out of the contract. So why would I take the guilt of a verbal agreement and a contract that didn't specify an exit strategy for me with buying my way out? And more generally, if I go around looking for a job in a big company, I have no way to get it unless I tell them that I would commit for a long term. The actual length is never discussed, since these companies are like cult groups, where you have to live-and-breath that company. On the common "HR" question, where do you see yourself in five years, I couldn't answer "working for another company, or running my own business". They don't want you to have any other vision of life except working for them. However, it is my strong opinion that I can make a difference in any company in three months of work. I want to work just three months, and then go to another company, because I like variety in challenges. So to conclude, there's an imbalance -- when I come to an interview, I'm not meeting the company on an even ground, I'm in a weaker position already since the companies are not objective about work. They want you to be their puppy, not their worker. They pay you for commitment and participation in their culture, and not work. They would hire anytime a weaker developer that would stay for a long time, than a hard-core one that may leave them soon. What do you think?

Hi, I was in communication with a man, lets call him Mr. A, regarding a contract job. We have been bargaining about the price a lot, and agreed on a price that was two-thirds of my original quote. As well, we agreed that either of us could terminate the contract after two weeks, if it wasn't working for either of us. The intention was that after a month of successful work we could renegotiate a better rate for me. I agreed. I expressed the agreement in words and email, not by signing a paper contract. We have started to make arrangements as of the details. Because we had controversy over the work equipment the start date was pushed one week to make time for him to prepare the equipment. We planned that on my first day at work we'd sign the contract. Unexpectedly, I got an offer from another company at my originally requested rate, to start immediately. I took the contract, and emailed Mr. A that I'm breaking up our agreement. I proposed to him alternative solutions in which I could take his job part-time so that his project will not be delayed, until another contractor would be found. I also said that after the end of my contract I will be again available to work. His answer to me was as follows, and these are exact words: "This isn't good. Good luck to you". Do you think I did the right thing? Should now the good-will relationship between me and this man be a total loss, or if my behaviour was a correct business behaviour, the future business relationship should not suffer? Thank you, Boris

This is not about altruism -- this is investment -- you put money on software you care about.

Hello, My name is Boris, and Rarden is my fake last-name that I decided to use on the internet. The website www.online-tipjar.com is my startup idea - it is a donation service that allows you to show support for good things that people do. Examples are free software, support forums, free podcasts, etc. I have created a tipjar also for this forum: http://www.online-tipjar.com/tipjar/objectivism-online The advantage of using my service is that using one account you can tip many different projects, and each tip can be as small as a penny. I also support Bitcoin, which I believe is equivalent to the gold standard. My background: By training I'm a software developer. I am an amateur sax player, and like jazz. In classical music I like Rachmaninov, and agree with Ayn Rand's estimation of his music. I have read Atlas Shrugged and "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal". I have questions, mostly related to the implementation. Many of these questions are being discussed on this forum, and I'm very to happy to become one of its members. I have read Tolstoy and Dostoevsky, and don't agree with Ayn Rand's criticism. For example, in War and Peace there is a similar situation as was with Hank, Galt and Dagny, when Rostov finally picks his love. Tolstoy's idea that one man can't make a difference is not related to philosophy and science, it is related to a leader of people. He says that whatever philosophy people have -- thats the kind of leader they would choose, if majority rule is in effect. I'm also not clear on the issue of democracy and majority rule. What would be the process of "hiring" goverenment officials into the government, under perfect captilism ? Happy to join your community, Boris Rarden

Hello, I am researching places in the world where there is no income tax, or if there is one, it is fixed and reasonably small. Do you know of such places ? Thanks, Boris

Why do you say that Michael Moore is against capitalism ? I read one of his books and watched his movies -- I didn't reach the same conclusion. Where are blatant lies ?

Sounds like a contradiction to me, don't you think ? What does objectism say about such marriage ? Can two people be married if they have diametrically opposed views ?

He needs lessons in public speaking in order to overshadow the legacy of Obama and Bush, who are amazing public speakers that take control of the crowd.

Hello, Richard Stallman says that Rearden Metal formula must be publically available if Rearden is to use the metal outside of his lab. The copyright on the formula can continue to say "Rearden invented it", and perhaps, "who-ever uses the metal must pay Rearden a royalty of a $100 per kg of the metal". So Stallman is not against selling, he is against witholding information. To transfer the analogy to software, the source code and the documentation and the good will must travel together in one bundle. The bundle may cost money, though. He states that software is a new kind of machine, that is not physical, and hence is different from previous products that had to be rebuilt in order to be duplicated. Do you see anything wrong with this ? I have created a website for supporting Open Source software. It is called online-tipjar.com I have read Atlas Shrugged and "Capitalism: The New Ideal" and it all makes logical sense. The Online-TipJar website is inspired by my understading of the objectivism philosophy. I come in where Richard Stallman leaves off -- at the money stage. Programmers making small but meaninful contributions to open source software, that benefits thousands of people, should have a way to make money. That is the idea about Online-TipJar. The concept of online-tipajr was actually suggested by Richard Stallman in his lecture in New York a few years ago. He said that, for instance, a game company can publish a tipjar on its website, and people who enjoy the game can come and leave tips in the tipjar. I thought that this is a good model to allow the individual poeple to make money from micro-donations. Making their software payed is often impossible. For example, consider a patch to Linux that fixes a bug. The patch can't really be sold, because it must be merged with the main body of the source code, and a particular version, and then it dissolves inside it, like a drop of water in a cup of water. Therefore, there is no objective way to sell that bit. I propose the use of tipjar like I have created to monetize this kind of work. I also think that Bitcoin is equivalent of the Gold standard, and decided to implement it on the Online-TipJar site. Would be interested to hear feedback. Thanks, Boris

Aristotle's theory led him to support slavery. Now, Ayn Rand's theory is built on top of Aristotle's theory. Is Ayn Rand ignoring the concusions that Aristotle have reached ?

Hello, I have started a donation website called Online-TipJar. I have created a tipjar for this forum: http://www.online-tipjar.com/tipjar/objectivism-online My primary focus at the moment is free software -- software that everybody uses but the creators of it are making no money on it (but they get better salary on their day jobs, because they are deemed to be better experts). I would be curious to know what you think about my site. Is Free Software Foundation (fsf.org) and GPL is consistent with Objectivist point of view ? I also embrace bicoin, since in my opinion it is the same as the gold standard. Thanks, Boris