On Jan 6, 2008 9:38 PM, Matthew Szudzik wrote: > Not true. Language can define the laws of of physics or of mathematics > in extremely clear, precise, and absolute terms.
Many if not most physicists and mathematicians would dispute that statement. There are numerous important debates in the fields of physics and mathematics about what fundamental rules mean and how they may and may not be used. (There are also multiple useful, mutually-inconsistent formal systems in both fields.) In math, physics, or software licensing, one must ask whether problems of clarity are the result of the language and how it is used, or the result of people not knowing quite what they mean when they use the language. Imprecise language is valuable when one wants to communicate imprecise ideas. > Bringing the discussion back to operating systems, I think that the our > legal system is a giant complicated mess for the same reason that > Microsoft Windows is a giant complicated mess: a cleanly-organized > system was simply not a priority for its creators. A cleanly-organized legal system would operate efficiently and consequently be extremely powerful. Horrible atrocities would result. The US legal system was designed for the express purpose of limiting its own efficiency. I doubt the creators of Microsoft Windows made a bad operating system to empower the people who would be most directly affected by it. While not everything about Microsoft is bad, I wouldn't give them so much credit as to compare their products to a poorly functioning government. -Eliah
