Slashdot Mirror

I resolve the difference in the same way that copyright law does: by recognizing that the idea itself and the expression of the idea are two different things.

So, for example. No one "owns" that proprietary software restricts the user's rights. However, the phrase "The licenses for most software are designed to take away your freedom to share and change it" was written by Richard Stallman as part of the GPL preamble. I cannot legitimately claim to have written that particular expression of the idea. If I did so claim, I would be lying, which is wrong. So, although Richard Stallman does not "own" the idea itself, I need to quote and acknowledge him if I want to use his particular expression of the idea.

The principle works out differently in cases of influence. Suppose I were to write "Using proprietary software to create government documents causes preservation problems, because the government needs to preserve documents for the long-term, but the company needs to ensure an ongoing revenue stream, and the two interests conflict." This idea has been discussed by many people, in many ways. This particular expression of it is mine. But I've been influenced by those other expressions of the same idea, particularly John Stone's essay Keeping Stuff. So, although I am not strictly required to provide a reference to that essay, it is polite to do so. In two ways. First, it's polite to acknowledge Stone's work in creating that particularly excellent essay. Second, it's polite to my readers, because it gives them the option to explore the subject further if they'd like. If all we're talking about is "influence," then there is no moral imperative to give a citation but it's still a good thing to do.

The obvious weakness in this is paraphrasing. What happens when somebody takes a direct quotation, changes a few words, and claims it as their own? Is that plagiarism or influence? In that case, I'd argue it's the degree of alteration that's important. If it's only changed a little bit, then that's probably not legit. If it's changed substantially, then it's probably legit. I refuse to draw a hard line on that one; this is an area where the only sensible way to proceed is to evaluate each case individually.

In most of the cases I've encountered, the judgement is usually pretty obvious. And the "paraphrasing" thing doesn't come up all that often. Most of the students I work with have much, MUCH more basic problems to deal with. Like writing sentences that are comprehensible. Frequently, students will hand me essays containing sentences that go on for a quarter of a page and remain incomprehensible even after I've read them three or four times. That's what I spend the most time working on, along with "clue fairy" duties. (I get to play "clue fairy" over all sorts of things. Like pointing out that I-got-drunk-at-a-party-last-night is not a good excuse for missing class. And suggesting that it would be a good idea to track assignment due dates in a calendar or a to-do list or something. The poor dears. They're so charmingly clueless, and they're completely unaware of their own cluelessness. As I'm sure I was, ten years ago.)

I like Stewart's "the facts are clearly biased against George Bush". TV is a useless medium for presenting "balance", because it's unstructured, realtime, and monopolizes attention. The Net is much more appropriate, because media objects can be referenced for alternate content. And it's a more level playing field for access by publishers of nearly any budget (above a low threshold). As the Net matures, more automated commentary and filtering will be available among a more decentralized, global community. That's a greater opportunity for the liberation of free expression, as evidenced by defensive moves like the Great Firewall of China. Personally, I think we'd all be much better off if "web annotation systems" like "Third Voice" had survived the dotcom bust. But the format is begging for update by moblogs...

I would say without a doubt that it has had a profound effect on the way I think about programming and CS as a whole. It's about CS only as much as it is about logic, math, puzzles, reasoning, music, philosophy, and life. It's one of the most well-worn books in my library, and reading it always renews my passion to learn, to explore, to see CS as a road that's worth exploring, not as just a quick way to get from point A to point B.

• "Teach Yourself Scheme in Fixnum Days": A comprehensive tutorial
• "The Scheme Language": a shorter tutorial
• "Invitation to Scheme": yet another tutorial
• The Scheme Language Standard, "R5RS", is actually surprisingly readable, at about 50 pages. Here's a PDF of R5RS, which is useful to have around if you're actually using the language.
• The Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs (SICP) - a.k.a. the wizard book, a very worthwhile and enlightening book, used as an introductory text at MIT. It's available on the web, but it's not a light or quick read.
• How to Design Programs (HTDP) - a book that teach program design techniques, using Scheme.

To clarify, Lisp is the second oldest language still in use. I refer you to these comments:

Fateman, 1998
McCarthy, 1996
Walker, 1997
Reference to McCarthy and Lisp

Why does this article mention a 3.9 GPA at Stuyvesant? As a graduate ('98) the name jumped out at me. Is the idea that a 3.9 at Stuy is better than a 3.9 somewhere else? Well as a side note, they use a 60-100 point scale, with 60 being a failing grade. If the implication that a 3.9 is particularly impressive from Stuy, you might want to think twice. I have never met a place with a more serious case of grade inflation. In my AP Chemistry class my senior year, I did nothing, absolutely nothing. I don't think I got a grade higher than %85, yet I got a %90 in the class. Aside from that I scored a 1400 on the SATs, I did n't study. 1400 is a decent score I believe, but it was considered quite low amongst my friends and associates at Stuy. Now, while this may be construed as an argument as to why one should count a 3.9 from Stuy more than a 4.0 from East Troy, it is not. The important factor is to think about how I, and everyone else got into Stuy in the first place. We took a test, almost exaclty like the SATs. Those who scored well, got in, those with a slightly lower school got into Bronx Science, and then Brooklyn Tech. As you see, Stuyvesant students have been selected as excellent bubble fillers. I would argue that there is no finer group of American standardized test takers in the world. Because of that we were viewed as "smart" by our teachers, parents and the administration. It would not have been appropriate to asign us low grades, hence the inflation. josh p.s. I only took 1 english class at Stuyvesant, I managed to escape from all the rest. What does that say about my potential performance in college. Oh, and I'm doing pretty well in Grinnell College I have a 3.33 GPA, and I am a CS major. p.p.s. Stuyvesant has had a .edu domain ever since I attended. There is a professor there who runs his own ISP and staffs it with Stuy students.