You've twisted his argument into something else. He was talking about attitudes of the people. Literacy is not just being able to read words; it also includes understanding the theme behind them.
He didn't say that having a high school and undergraduate education from India provided an assurance of quality. He was only commenting on the attitudes of his peers in India versus what the attitudes would have been in the US.
Everyone seems to be discussing if/when math skills are useful for programming. Since when is programming equivalent to computer science?? Programming is a very useful (maybe even necessary except for theorists) skill for computer scientists, but it is NOT the only thing computer scientists do. If it were, then any hacker (in the classical sense, not the malicious sense) could be called a computer scientist. In my mind, reducing computer science to programming is the same as calling any IT guy who patches/installs/upgrades software a computer scientist. If you REALLY cannot understand what else there could be to computer science other than programming, then I would hesitate to call you a computer scientist.
I have an idea for a t-shirt/slogan that I thought up awhile ago, but I am not artistic enough to do the art work. Anyone willing to help me on it? I can provide the details and sketch, and then you can finish up the artwork. If we win, we split the money. Anyone interested?
You've misunderstood what I've said. In fact what you've written complements in some ways what I wrote.
I simply made two arguments. One was to counter attack the person I was replying to who said that algorithms didn't have intrisic value but if software used it, the source did. The second argument was arguing that algorithms (and ideas) do have instrinsic value and are therefore worth rewarding those that come up with them.
First off, if source code is physical why would algorithms not be physical? In essence, source code is just a bunch of algorithms put together to form a bigger algorithm. So you are saying the set of algorithms is a product and should be allowed to be patented, but the individual algorithms are not? What if I had the source code to do just the individual algorithm itself? Would that be physical and hence morally patentable?
Your second argument is that algorithms are just "mathematical constructs which were always there". How were they always there? Someone needed to have thought long and hard to develop and discover these mathematical ideas. If they are always there then why are there people today who are still doing research in mathematical and computational algorithms? When they discover something new, should they not be rewarded for their hard work?
I am NOT saying that I disagree with the FSF movement, because it has been a great benefit to myself and others. However, I do believe that individuals should be rewarded for their work. If they choose to be rewarded with monetary items, then that is their right. On the other hand, if they choose to be rewarded by recognition, pure enjoyment of the task, or some other way, that is also their right. In fact, the latter is what motivates the contributors of the FSF movement.
Slashdot Mirror
BBN's Boomerang http://boomerang.bbn.com/
You've twisted his argument into something else. He was talking about attitudes of the people. Literacy is not just being able to read words; it also includes understanding the theme behind them.
He didn't say that having a high school and undergraduate education from India provided an assurance of quality. He was only commenting on the attitudes of his peers in India versus what the attitudes would have been in the US.
Everyone seems to be discussing if/when math skills are useful for programming. Since when is programming equivalent to computer science?? Programming is a very useful (maybe even necessary except for theorists) skill for computer scientists, but it is NOT the only thing computer scientists do. If it were, then any hacker (in the classical sense, not the malicious sense) could be called a computer scientist. In my mind, reducing computer science to programming is the same as calling any IT guy who patches/installs/upgrades software a computer scientist. If you REALLY cannot understand what else there could be to computer science other than programming, then I would hesitate to call you a computer scientist.
http://tdrwww.exp-math.uni-essen.de/inhalt/forschu ng/sctp_fb/ is a better tutorial.
Other resources are available at www.sctp.org, www.sctp.de, and pel.cis.udel.edu
I have an idea for a t-shirt/slogan that I thought up awhile ago, but I am not artistic enough to do the art work. Anyone willing to help me on it? I can provide the details and sketch, and then you can finish up the artwork. If we win, we split the money. Anyone interested?
You've misunderstood what I've said. In fact what you've written complements in some ways what I wrote.
I simply made two arguments. One was to counter attack the person I was replying to who said that algorithms didn't have intrisic value but if software used it, the source did. The second argument was arguing that algorithms (and ideas) do have instrinsic value and are therefore worth rewarding those that come up with them.
First off, if source code is physical why would algorithms not be physical? In essence, source code is just a bunch of algorithms put together to form a bigger algorithm. So you are saying the set of algorithms is a product and should be allowed to be patented, but the individual algorithms are not? What if I had the source code to do just the individual algorithm itself? Would that be physical and hence morally patentable?
Your second argument is that algorithms are just "mathematical constructs which were always there". How were they always there? Someone needed to have thought long and hard to develop and discover these mathematical ideas. If they are always there then why are there people today who are still doing research in mathematical and computational algorithms? When they discover something new, should they not be rewarded for their hard work?
I am NOT saying that I disagree with the FSF movement, because it has been a great benefit to myself and others. However, I do believe that individuals should be rewarded for their work. If they choose to be rewarded with monetary items, then that is their right. On the other hand, if they choose to be rewarded by recognition, pure enjoyment of the task, or some other way, that is also their right. In fact, the latter is what motivates the contributors of the FSF movement.