You are right. 30 years ago, CS courses included courses in wiring up transistors and electronic and magnetism courses... those things don't have anything to do with Computer Science.
You are confusing Computer Science and Software Engineering. They are two separate fields. Computer Science is concerned with the mathematical aspects of computation, while Software Engineering is considered with developing, testing, and supporting actual software. Your recommendation is good for Software Engineering students, but horrible for Computer Science students.
For example, algorithmic complexity is easily explored on paper, and pen & paper is all a CS student needs (if you really wanted to strip them down to the basics). The founders of Computer Science, Alonzo Church and his student Alan Turing, did not use computers... they used pen and paper.
It took decades to rid "common knowledge" of the confusion between EE (electrical engineering) and CS, and I guess it will take a few more decades to rid it of the confusion between CS and SE (software engineering).
Over and over again, I have posted on slashdot, describing alternate descriptions for the GPL's behaviour. Being a programmer, I prefer descriptive mathematical terms, such as: "recursive" or "inductive". Calling the GPL a recursive license is far more descriptive and accurate than calling it viral. Mathematically, induction and recursion are very closely related, and so, induction is also a very good term for describing the nature of the GPL.
Hell, if Microsoft wants to come up with scary words for describing how the GPL license spreads, they are better off calling the GPL a "pokemon" license because I have been seeing far more pokemons than virii, amongst young kids these days.
I love Mame! I have it installed on all of my PCs, but I also own actual classic arcade PCBs (too poor to own full cabinets). For some of the core games that Mame emulates, it does a really good job, but the emulation is never perfect... true fans that have spent 1000s of hours on a pac-man machine or a Street Fighter II machine will be able to "feel" the difference. The slight timing differences, the slight color problems, the off-ness of the sound emulation. The masturbation analogy is a really good one. You can have fun playing Mame, but its shy of the realy thing.
I donated a while back when they first setup the donation system for Freenet. Look guys, donating $10 to $20 costs you as much as one of those bargin-bin video games, but it gives you so much more: hope for a free network. I wonder what Carnivore (or whatever that packet sniffer that the feds are using is called) thinks of Freenet.
You can complain all you want about over-hyped trash, but if you really want to start seeing better movies, then start by being a better consumer. Don't pay for trash, and make sure to pay for the good stuff, like the movie, Memento.
One thing about the movie, "Memento"... do not read anything about it because the movie can be easily spoiled. Trust me though, its worth your time and money.
"Chairman William H. Gates III says [Windows XP] is Microsoft's most important product since Windows 95."
Yeah, and he said the same thing about Windows ME and Windows 98. If Windows ME or 98 was the most important thing since Windows 95, then shouldn't Windows XP be the most important thing since Windows ME? Whats going on with Billy boy? My guess is that he is no longer alive, and in fact, all public relations with Bill Gates actually takes place with a chat bot written in Visual Basic Script written by some college intern. I heard rumors about a Project 2501 at Microsoft.
AOL/Time Warner should merge with Microsoft. Then have Intel join the bunch, and while they are at it, throw in Standard Oil and all those older guys. This all reminds me of Dune (by Frank Herbert), where one company, CHOAM, runs all legit business, or how about William Gibson's sprawl series (Neuromancer, Count Zero, Mona Lisa Overdrive), where a few extremely large companies absolutely control people's lives. You are born into a company and stay with them until you die. All other business, no matter how small or big has been deemed illegal or black market in William Gibson's world. So, why not just fast foward to what all of the controlling super powers in the world want: a few really really big companies should be formed after behind-closed-doors mergers, and make scary demonizing commie stuff like Linux, the FSF, and GPL style open source - make it all illegal.
Don't mod me down, I am just the messenger of future times.
Sheesh, seems like my joke was a bit too much for the slow-witted slashdot community. The satire in the above post was to point out exactly why Debian is superior. Its not a for profit company. Debian has no CEOs, CIOs, or CTOs. The Debian developers have been doing everything voluntarily from day one.
Maybe these recent events will show people that Debian is the Linux distro that adheres the closest to the free software movement.
Viral is a bad name for describing the GPL
on
Shared Source?
·
· Score: 2
Viral is a terminology that will only scare people away from GPL software. A far more descriptive and less inflammatory word would be "inductive" or "recursive". I would encourage all slashdotters to not use "viral" to describe the GPL. Instead, use "inductive" or "recursive", as we want to encourage people to use the software and the license, not scare them away.
Viral would mean that the GPL infects software, and sucks away vitility. "Recursive" would mean that the same license applies to related works and so on ad infinitum.
Why not start putting Freenet to the test and start mirroring the patent database into it?
In a way, this could help legitimize the use of Freenet, because while it is easy to demonize kiddie porn and mp3z, it would be harder to demonize a bunch of hackers that were fulfilling a need that should have been satisfied by the US Patent Office. Oh, Freenet has searchable indices now. If I had more than a measly 28.8 dialup connection, I would start mirroring. All we need is a bunch of DSL users to pitch in, pick year intervals for the patents that they will be moving, and each start the mass Freenet insertion.
Excuse me, but how the fuck is the parent post "Offtopic"? He is talking about elements of Quake in reference to the new panaoramic rendering mod, for christsakes!
See, I always thought that getting the Pentagram of Protection or Quad, should do something trippy like this to your view. As if being god-like looks different... forces you to see the entire world at once.
Debian, Libranet, Stormix, Progeny, Corel, and other distros support the deb package system and apt-get. Anyone who has actually used a Debian based distro on a regular basis will tell you that apt-get is far more powerful and easier to use than RPMs. It is easier to install software on a Debian distro than it is to install software on Windows 2000! In fact, installing software is so easy with apt-get, that you might think for a second that you were using a Mac.
The article states that the Toshiba will use a polysilicon display, which, according to this article, is one of the new low-power display technologies that is competing against the new organic displays.
As long as this new laptop does not include CD, floppy, or DVD drives, it should be very power efficient. I wonder what the power bottle kneck for such a laptop is. Does the 10GB harddrive zap too much juice? Or is it the graphics chipset? I bet the speakers are the most energy hungry parts on laptops such as this new Toshiba and the newer Sony Powerbooks.
Wouldn't it be more correct to call the GPL an inductive license or a recursive license, as opposed to a viral license? Viral sounds bad and isn't very descriptive of how the license actually works.
If a Slashdot reader can create a pithy and short explanation for how and why a computer program is expressive speech and/or what it expresses, it might be useful.
Oh come on, how many Computer Science students read slashdot? This is easy: The Curry-Howard isomorphism showed that the Lambda-calculus, the prototype programming language , is isomorphic to mathematical proofs. Mathematical proofs are absolutely protected as free expressive speech. Of course its more complicated than that. Its really a certain type of the lambda-calculus and a certain type of mathematical proof, but still, it establishes that a computer program is simply a mathematical proof in a different syntax. You can then use other Chruch-Turing equivalences to spread this to other automata and programming languages. Though you lose the absoluteness of an isomorphism and you are left with some lesser type of equivalence. So you would have to argue that program and proof both express equivalent things as opposed to being exactly the same thing written in two different languages.
You can also use the natural number arguement. You argue that all data are really just numbers. Natural numbers to be exact. Kronecker and many other famous mathematicians have claimed that we are born with the natural numbers (0,1,2,3...). Any which way you take it, any sane person would agree that the natural numbers are mathematics. Therefore, your program is just a number, and so is all that crap on those DVDs.
However, no matter how nicely you say it, no matter how many mathematical proofs/arguements you present showing that program and proof are the same thing... could the courts admit that not only the DMCA, but most previous copyright law contradicts the freedom of expression/speech given to mathematical expression? The government has countless contradicting laws. Laws that even conflict with the bill of rights.
The worst case would end up with the government removing the freedom of expression of mathematical proof. I might just have to go Unibomber/postal/high-school if something like that happened.
Static vs dynamic typing is a matter of taste. Some people like the extra checking, some people don't, and some people don't need it (oddly enough, these tend to Lisp and Smalltalk hackers). The only type errors I can recall making in Lisp recently involve putting the wrong number of d's in cad*r. I'm not having trouble, so why should I throw extra code at a problem that doesn't exist?
A matter of taste, yes, just like:
parachutes, seat belts, helmets, traffic lights, file permissions, and encryption are a matter of taste. People who understand the importance of saftey and garenteed correctness prefer static inference type checking, while those who have never read any software engineering studies on productivity with typed and untyped languages prefer whatever-untyped-language they started with. I am not going to sit here and explain why static type checking is important, while dynamic type checking isn't even really true type checking. Static type checking tells me about errors before I ship my code, and dynamic type checking has my customers telling me about errors through customer support calls. Takes some really bad taste to like that!
Also, you ask "why should I throw extra code at a problem that doesn't exist?" If you are talking about the code required to type things... well, you obviously do not understand Haskell's type inference system. You don't have to tell the compiler what the types of your code expressions are! If there is no problem like you say, then the compiler can figure out the types automatically. It is a win-win situation, and all untyped languages give you is less assurance that your code is correct. Taste has nothing to do with this rational preference for static type inference systems.
If you are referring to some asymptotic time complexity disadvantage of purely functional languages compared to Von Neumann languages... well, while it might seem like such a thing is true, I have yet to see a proof. And you can use arrays through monads, in Haskell.
Also, you should check out a book titled: "The Optimal Implementation of Functional Programming Languages", which describes a new FP interpretation algorithm that is exponentially faster than the strict LISP interpreters/compilers because it optimally reduces beta-redexes (doesn't duplicate work when it doesn't have to). The nature of strict interpretation/reduction, which LISP uses, implies that function arguements are evaluated in a non-optimal way (arguements that aren't even needed are still evaluated and this can have exponential performance penalties... hell, it can have as bad of a performance hit as you want, depending on your program). While I don't know of any Haskell interpreter or compiler that uses this new theory... its just a matter of time before someone implements it.
The fact that LISP dialects don't use a strongly normalizing reduction is enough to point out several other resulting problems of the language, with regards to functional programming and programming in general.
Now, if you want the fastest full-fledged FP language available, you will want to check out Clean, which uses similar theory as the "Optimal" book mentioned above, except it uses Linear Logic theory to allow for linear types or unique types, which let the programmer destructivly update stuff, all the while keeping the language a purely functional language. Offices apps (spreadsheets and the like), video games, compilers, integrated development environments, and more have been implemented in Clean. Purity doesn't mean lack of efficiency or more difficult programming. In fact, purity means nothing more than easier program analysis... you end up with more correct programs because of it.
Clean is like Haskell with uniqueness/linear types. The only reason that I didn't make a post titled: "Why Lisp when Clean?", is because Clean is a proprietary programming language, and it is my belief that an open language has an advantage by default, over any closed language. Not that the people who maked Clean aren't cool and open, but the language is propreitary... anyway, I am ranting. Sorry bout that. It just starts happening.
Note that it is my opinion that the above post is funny, but not insightful. Akira the movie could be summerized as in the parent post... a crude but funny summerization of a very fun anime. However, Akira was originally a manga (Japanese comic book), and therefore its best to refer to the manga's storyline and not the anime's.
The manga has a far more interesting and detailed plot. If you liked the anime, you will definitely like the manga.
While the slashdot header makes it seem like the game is based on the anime movie, the article doesn't mention wether it is based on manga or anime. There is a difference, and a big one to Akira fans.
The computer graphics community has been heavily interested in all kinds of non-photorealistic rendering. Quake3 model shaders and Jet Grind Radio might be two of the most popular video game uses, but its been used for at least the past 10 years.
Still, Jet Grind Radio is a really cool game. Highly recommended. Its worth buying a Dreamcast for. If this Akira game does NPR as well as Jet Grind did it, then it should be a very beautiful game, graphics wise.
Why do people continue to promote old outdated technology, when there are better, open, free alternatives? Lisp is a perfect example. The language is not statically typed in most of its incarnations. It uses strict reduction, as opposed to lazy reduction, and the language isn't purely functional.
Haskell on the other hand:
...is standardized - an open standard.
...also has free quality open source compilers and interpreters which adhere to the open standard.
...uses lazy reduction, which means that a wider variety of functions normalize, as opposed to strict reduction.
...is purely functional, which leads to more elegant and easier to understand programs. Formal analysis is allot easier when the language is purely functional as opposed to polluted.
...allows for imperative or procedural features through the use of monads. So you can have your cake (purity) and eat it too (imperative/procedural aspects).
...uses function currying to ease the use of higher order functions and to decrease the reliance of all those damn parenthesis!
...is statically typed and uses type inference too, so you don't even have to explicitly tell the compiler what types you are using. It can do all the dirty work for you, yet still give you very high automatic assurance of program correctness.
...is simply better designed. Its syntax, semantics, and APIs are more simple, consistant, and pure than Lisp and its many incarnations.
The only drawbacks to Haskell is that it is new and less people know about it and know how to use it. Many universities also do not teach Haskell because, again, it is too new.
So, I ask my question: Why fear new and better things? Why do people keep ranting about the virtues of an outdated programming language, when there are better alternative standard functional programming languages?
If you have no idea what I am talking about, then download Hugs (for Mac, Windows, Linux), a Haskell interpreter, and try it for yourself. Debian GNU/Linux users can simply "apt-get install hugs" and start running hugs. I also recommend a book, if you have never programmed or never programmed in a functional language before:
The Craft. Read the book an hour each day, and play around with hugs while you are at it. After a few weeks, you will understand why writing code in Haskell is allot like writing the poetry of algorithms.
Slashdot Mirror
You are right. 30 years ago, CS courses included courses in wiring up transistors and electronic and magnetism courses... those things don't have anything to do with Computer Science.
You are confusing Computer Science and Software Engineering. They are two separate fields. Computer Science is concerned with the mathematical aspects of computation, while Software Engineering is considered with developing, testing, and supporting actual software. Your recommendation is good for Software Engineering students, but horrible for Computer Science students.
For example, algorithmic complexity is easily explored on paper, and pen & paper is all a CS student needs (if you really wanted to strip them down to the basics). The founders of Computer Science, Alonzo Church and his student Alan Turing, did not use computers... they used pen and paper.
It took decades to rid "common knowledge" of the confusion between EE (electrical engineering) and CS, and I guess it will take a few more decades to rid it of the confusion between CS and SE (software engineering).
Over and over again, I have posted on slashdot, describing alternate descriptions for the GPL's behaviour. Being a programmer, I prefer descriptive mathematical terms, such as: "recursive" or "inductive". Calling the GPL a recursive license is far more descriptive and accurate than calling it viral. Mathematically, induction and recursion are very closely related, and so, induction is also a very good term for describing the nature of the GPL.
Hell, if Microsoft wants to come up with scary words for describing how the GPL license spreads, they are better off calling the GPL a "pokemon" license because I have been seeing far more pokemons than virii, amongst young kids these days.
I love Mame! I have it installed on all of my PCs, but I also own actual classic arcade PCBs (too poor to own full cabinets). For some of the core games that Mame emulates, it does a really good job, but the emulation is never perfect... true fans that have spent 1000s of hours on a pac-man machine or a Street Fighter II machine will be able to "feel" the difference. The slight timing differences, the slight color problems, the off-ness of the sound emulation. The masturbation analogy is a really good one. You can have fun playing Mame, but its shy of the realy thing.
I donated a while back when they first setup the donation system for Freenet. Look guys, donating $10 to $20 costs you as much as one of those bargin-bin video games, but it gives you so much more: hope for a free network. I wonder what Carnivore (or whatever that packet sniffer that the feds are using is called) thinks of Freenet.
You can complain all you want about over-hyped trash, but if you really want to start seeing better movies, then start by being a better consumer. Don't pay for trash, and make sure to pay for the good stuff, like the movie, Memento.
One thing about the movie, "Memento"... do not read anything about it because the movie can be easily spoiled. Trust me though, its worth your time and money.
AOL/Time Warner should merge with Microsoft. Then have Intel join the bunch, and while they are at it, throw in Standard Oil and all those older guys. This all reminds me of Dune (by Frank Herbert), where one company, CHOAM, runs all legit business, or how about William Gibson's sprawl series (Neuromancer, Count Zero, Mona Lisa Overdrive), where a few extremely large companies absolutely control people's lives. You are born into a company and stay with them until you die. All other business, no matter how small or big has been deemed illegal or black market in William Gibson's world. So, why not just fast foward to what all of the controlling super powers in the world want: a few really really big companies should be formed after behind-closed-doors mergers, and make scary demonizing commie stuff like Linux, the FSF, and GPL style open source - make it all illegal.
Don't mod me down, I am just the messenger of future times.
Sheesh, seems like my joke was a bit too much for the slow-witted slashdot community. The satire in the above post was to point out exactly why Debian is superior. Its not a for profit company. Debian has no CEOs, CIOs, or CTOs. The Debian developers have been doing everything voluntarily from day one.
Maybe these recent events will show people that Debian is the Linux distro that adheres the closest to the free software movement.
Viral is a terminology that will only scare people away from GPL software. A far more descriptive and less inflammatory word would be "inductive" or "recursive". I would encourage all slashdotters to not use "viral" to describe the GPL. Instead, use "inductive" or "recursive", as we want to encourage people to use the software and the license, not scare them away.
Viral would mean that the GPL infects software, and sucks away vitility. "Recursive" would mean that the same license applies to related works and so on ad infinitum.
Why not start putting Freenet to the test and start mirroring the patent database into it?
In a way, this could help legitimize the use of Freenet, because while it is easy to demonize kiddie porn and mp3z, it would be harder to demonize a bunch of hackers that were fulfilling a need that should have been satisfied by the US Patent Office. Oh, Freenet has searchable indices now. If I had more than a measly 28.8 dialup connection, I would start mirroring. All we need is a bunch of DSL users to pitch in, pick year intervals for the patents that they will be moving, and each start the mass Freenet insertion.
Ahhh, yes, Microsoft's innovative version of Moore's Law.
Excuse me, but how the fuck is the parent post "Offtopic"? He is talking about elements of Quake in reference to the new panaoramic rendering mod, for christsakes!
The moderators must be smoking crack again.
See, I always thought that getting the Pentagram of Protection or Quad, should do something trippy like this to your view. As if being god-like looks different... forces you to see the entire world at once.
Debian, Libranet, Stormix, Progeny, Corel, and other distros support the deb package system and apt-get. Anyone who has actually used a Debian based distro on a regular basis will tell you that apt-get is far more powerful and easier to use than RPMs. It is easier to install software on a Debian distro than it is to install software on Windows 2000! In fact, installing software is so easy with apt-get, that you might think for a second that you were using a Mac.
Was too much into that power/energy fling.
The article states that the Toshiba will use a polysilicon display, which, according to this article, is one of the new low-power display technologies that is competing against the new organic displays.
As long as this new laptop does not include CD, floppy, or DVD drives, it should be very power efficient. I wonder what the power bottle kneck for such a laptop is. Does the 10GB harddrive zap too much juice? Or is it the graphics chipset? I bet the speakers are the most energy hungry parts on laptops such as this new Toshiba and the newer Sony Powerbooks.
Wouldn't it be more correct to call the GPL an inductive license or a recursive license, as opposed to a viral license? Viral sounds bad and isn't very descriptive of how the license actually works.
Oh come on, how many Computer Science students read slashdot? This is easy: The Curry-Howard isomorphism showed that the Lambda-calculus, the prototype programming language , is isomorphic to mathematical proofs. Mathematical proofs are absolutely protected as free expressive speech. Of course its more complicated than that. Its really a certain type of the lambda-calculus and a certain type of mathematical proof, but still, it establishes that a computer program is simply a mathematical proof in a different syntax. You can then use other Chruch-Turing equivalences to spread this to other automata and programming languages. Though you lose the absoluteness of an isomorphism and you are left with some lesser type of equivalence. So you would have to argue that program and proof both express equivalent things as opposed to being exactly the same thing written in two different languages.
You can also use the natural number arguement. You argue that all data are really just numbers. Natural numbers to be exact. Kronecker and many other famous mathematicians have claimed that we are born with the natural numbers (0,1,2,3...). Any which way you take it, any sane person would agree that the natural numbers are mathematics. Therefore, your program is just a number, and so is all that crap on those DVDs.
However, no matter how nicely you say it, no matter how many mathematical proofs/arguements you present showing that program and proof are the same thing... could the courts admit that not only the DMCA, but most previous copyright law contradicts the freedom of expression/speech given to mathematical expression? The government has countless contradicting laws. Laws that even conflict with the bill of rights.
The worst case would end up with the government removing the freedom of expression of mathematical proof. I might just have to go Unibomber/postal/high-school if something like that happened.
A matter of taste, yes, just like: parachutes, seat belts, helmets, traffic lights, file permissions, and encryption are a matter of taste. People who understand the importance of saftey and garenteed correctness prefer static inference type checking, while those who have never read any software engineering studies on productivity with typed and untyped languages prefer whatever-untyped-language they started with. I am not going to sit here and explain why static type checking is important, while dynamic type checking isn't even really true type checking. Static type checking tells me about errors before I ship my code, and dynamic type checking has my customers telling me about errors through customer support calls. Takes some really bad taste to like that!
Also, you ask "why should I throw extra code at a problem that doesn't exist?" If you are talking about the code required to type things... well, you obviously do not understand Haskell's type inference system. You don't have to tell the compiler what the types of your code expressions are! If there is no problem like you say, then the compiler can figure out the types automatically. It is a win-win situation, and all untyped languages give you is less assurance that your code is correct. Taste has nothing to do with this rational preference for static type inference systems.
If you are referring to some asymptotic time complexity disadvantage of purely functional languages compared to Von Neumann languages ... well, while it might seem like such a thing is true, I have yet to see a proof. And you can use arrays through monads, in Haskell.
Also, you should check out a book titled: "The Optimal Implementation of Functional Programming Languages", which describes a new FP interpretation algorithm that is exponentially faster than the strict LISP interpreters/compilers because it optimally reduces beta-redexes (doesn't duplicate work when it doesn't have to). The nature of strict interpretation/reduction, which LISP uses, implies that function arguements are evaluated in a non-optimal way (arguements that aren't even needed are still evaluated and this can have exponential performance penalties... hell, it can have as bad of a performance hit as you want, depending on your program). While I don't know of any Haskell interpreter or compiler that uses this new theory... its just a matter of time before someone implements it.
The fact that LISP dialects don't use a strongly normalizing reduction is enough to point out several other resulting problems of the language, with regards to functional programming and programming in general.
Now, if you want the fastest full-fledged FP language available, you will want to check out Clean, which uses similar theory as the "Optimal" book mentioned above, except it uses Linear Logic theory to allow for linear types or unique types, which let the programmer destructivly update stuff, all the while keeping the language a purely functional language. Offices apps (spreadsheets and the like), video games, compilers, integrated development environments, and more have been implemented in Clean. Purity doesn't mean lack of efficiency or more difficult programming. In fact, purity means nothing more than easier program analysis... you end up with more correct programs because of it.
Clean is like Haskell with uniqueness/linear types. The only reason that I didn't make a post titled: "Why Lisp when Clean?", is because Clean is a proprietary programming language, and it is my belief that an open language has an advantage by default, over any closed language. Not that the people who maked Clean aren't cool and open, but the language is propreitary... anyway, I am ranting. Sorry bout that. It just starts happening.
Classes exist in the Haskell 98 standard (nt)
Note that it is my opinion that the above post is funny, but not insightful. Akira the movie could be summerized as in the parent post... a crude but funny summerization of a very fun anime. However, Akira was originally a manga (Japanese comic book), and therefore its best to refer to the manga's storyline and not the anime's.
The manga has a far more interesting and detailed plot. If you liked the anime, you will definitely like the manga.
While the slashdot header makes it seem like the game is based on the anime movie, the article doesn't mention wether it is based on manga or anime. There is a difference, and a big one to Akira fans.
The computer graphics community has been heavily interested in all kinds of non-photorealistic rendering. Quake3 model shaders and Jet Grind Radio might be two of the most popular video game uses, but its been used for at least the past 10 years.
Still, Jet Grind Radio is a really cool game. Highly recommended. Its worth buying a Dreamcast for. If this Akira game does NPR as well as Jet Grind did it, then it should be a very beautiful game, graphics wise.
The only drawbacks to Haskell is that it is new and less people know about it and know how to use it. Many universities also do not teach Haskell because, again, it is too new.
So, I ask my question: Why fear new and better things? Why do people keep ranting about the virtues of an outdated programming language, when there are better alternative standard functional programming languages?
If you have no idea what I am talking about, then download Hugs (for Mac, Windows, Linux), a Haskell interpreter, and try it for yourself. Debian GNU/Linux users can simply "apt-get install hugs" and start running hugs. I also recommend a book, if you have never programmed or never programmed in a functional language before: The Craft. Read the book an hour each day, and play around with hugs while you are at it. After a few weeks, you will understand why writing code in Haskell is allot like writing the poetry of algorithms.