See, changing bits in the linux kernel *and distributing it* *and claiming it is your own* is an ocean of difference. We're not talking about that.
When you sleep in places you're not supposed to, you're infringing on someone else's physical rights.
When you ride a train without a ticket, you're using up resources you're not paying for.
There is a good reason copyright, patents, trademarks are treated differently, and also much differently than physical property, so stop confusing the issue.
I know you've heard this argument before, because you use words like "freetard". Stop trolling.
What I'm doing might be legally sketchy, but I, and most of the world, certainly doesn't think of it is as morally sketchy. To me it's about the same as saying that playing a cd with too many people in your house so it counts as a public performance. Might be legally sketchy, but only because of *a failure of the legal system*.
You seem like a good, moral person... probably someone who makes a living selling creative works. I want you to keep on doing that, I'm glad you do. I'll make sure that if I copy your works, I compensate you fairly.
If you then tell me it's illegal for me to run your code through a debugger, or reverse engineer your file format... well, that sounds like it's *you* who is the one infringing on my rights.
Of course, we don't know, because the law in this area is so vague and uncertain that we're all violating it somehow. If you develop software, congratulations, you've violated someone's patent.
I know you've heard this before, just know that you can be a "freetard" and not a thief at the same time, okay?
You may have trouble with that concept, the same as a vagrant has trouble with the concept of loitering or peeing in public, but the laws are there to protect business models
Why the animosity here? Modding is not something which infringes anyone else's rights. We're not talking about breaking copyright, we're talking about *changing bits in a piece of hardware that you own*
You may very well be right about the legality of such a thing, but there is a reason you can't sign a contract to take away certain inalienable rights. EULAs are a one sided, non-negotiable contract, but IANAL... I'd just *like* them not to be enforceable.
However, there are very few that I've seen claim such a strong moral high ground against *changing bits in a physical device you own*. I have a lot of problem seeing that as any different morally from rewiring your car.
You think very highly of ownership of land and property, how is this any different? How would you feel if I wanted to sell you a piece of land that with an agreement that says the specific way trees are arranged on this land is my personal intellectual property, and any change to the arrangement of such trees is a violation of our agreement, at which time you will relinquish the rights to the land.
I own a wii... and I've put the homebrew channel on my wii. I've *never* pirated a wii game, but I have set up the homebrew wii SDK and am currently writing software for it, because I think it's an awesome piece of hardware and I'm glad I gave Nintendo my money.
I suppose I'm an evil, contract breaking vagrant peeing on poor Nintendo's property now.
I guess I just can't wrap my brain around the concept that wanting to tinker with something to create something new is *selfish*.
In the US, facts are not copyrightable (I guess that's what the OP is talking about).
The data in question would presumably be US government secrets, which are facts. IANAL, so besides unlawful use of a computer system... I guess they'd charge him with unlawfully obtaining secret or confidential data?
I have no idea how that works. Having held clearance, it is really really *really* illegal to *reveal* government secrets when you have a clearance. I have no idea how that applies to learning government secrets outside of that, especially when you're not a US citizen and do it outside of US borders.
Copyright doesn't really come into play, I think. Besides, US documents aren't generally copyrightable anyway (except for crazy contractor situations).
I'm not saying it's impossible, just that it's *much* harder to understand than simply writing it recursively.
Let me put it this way... suppose in C++ you have a template instantiation defined dimension matrix...
In order to do operations on the matrix, you have to iterate through an arbitrary number of dimensions, then loop over (a subset of) the length of the matrix in that dimension. It's like a for loop inside a for loop, but the number of for loops deep has to be *runtime defined* (well, in my case template defined, but you get the idea). Without recursion you end up either writing gotos, or some other funky math where you determine the overall size of the n-dimensional matrix (dimensions multiplied together) and then loop through that index, and figure out the actual n-dimensional coordinates as you go (messy).
where IndexType is some vector unsigneds of size Dimension, extent is a member function that returns the size of the array in that dimension, and operator() retrieves the value at the given location.
This is a (modified for clarity) member function of a class I have called Array, that has template defined dimension. I'm filling the Array by calling the passed in function on every location in the Array, and assigning the result to the location.
You *can* write it without recursion, but it's even more confusing than what I wrote.
There are probably better examples of exponential time algorithms that are clearer, but they make my head hurt.
By the way, at my old job, our simulation had to interpolate lots and lots and lots of experimentally gathered data in big tables (like an 11 dimensional table for infrared signature data). Writing an arbitrary dimensional interpolation library was the *simplest* option:)
How would you implement an algorithm that is O(2^n) then?
I wrote a template library for arbitrary dimensional matrix math and interpolation, and since many operations were O(2^n) for matrix rank (like linear interpolation), the *only* sane way to implement them was using dual-recursion.
Anything else, though, and I'd probably agree with you. It's easier probably easier to read a loop than it is to read a tail recursive algorithm for anything but purely mathematical problems.
I mean, this is more of synthesis of existing observations rather than *new* observations, but it's still science.
It's taking unexplained observations and incorporating those observations into better theories that fit the data. I'm not an astrophysicist, and this still seems like it's just an hypothesis, but I guess I don't see where the problem is.
What are the problems with DisplayPort on the mini? I'm asking this because I recently got a MacBook which also only has the mini DisplayPort out, but I haven't gotten an adapter yet (not sure if I'll need one). I was looking at the DisplayPort to HDMI adapters on NewEgg and they don't look that expensive... What problems have you had?
I didn't mean to drive the discussion off topic towards Prop 8:)
I really just meant that there are too many instances where it is the courts (either state or national) that, through judicial review, end up reversing bad policy.
Which, I know... is their *job* circa Marbury vs. Madison. But with thing's like COPA... that was just a blatantly un-constitutional law and the congress knew it.
With software patents, I guess I just haven't seen the issue really seriously raised in Congress. I just wish it would be.
Everyone else is infinitely more qualified to discuss this topic than I am... so I think I'll shut up now:)
COPA, Abortion, Gay Marriage, Software Patents, Eminent Domain, Copyright term limits, Privacy Issues/Search and Seizure... does anyone else think that the U.S. has been relying more and more on Judges to make the difficult decisions or clean up the mess left by the legislature?
I'm sure everyone else can think of more examples.
More and more the only hope I ever have of bad laws being fixed is that one day it will go before the Supreme Court. I mean, COPA is a "success story", if you can call it that, but just once I want *Congress* to fix these things.:)
Thank you for responding! I know this story is old so I'll keep this short...
Not quite. The spherical cow is a simplification for ease of communicating a complex idea. The idea of blind justice is the goal we should be working toward, admitting that as imperfect humans we might never actually reach it.
I agree with you, but you shouldn't assume that we're already in such a perfect world. I can't really come up with an example that isn't emotionally charged... but the best thing I can come up with is jury selection. There's a reason that both the prosecution and defense get to cooperatively pick or eliminate jurors. If we assumed a world without prejudice, this would never be necessary.
> You can either balance the equation by ensuring diversity,
Bad idea. I have less objection (there are more and less offensive methods) to the notion of encouraging diversity but 'ensuring' diversity is just code for quotas and I fail to see how you fight discrimination with discrimination.
Bad word choice on my part, and you are absolutely correct in pointing it out. I should have said *encourage* diversity. Again, I'm fairly strongly against affirmative action. (I'm undecided about whether it was necessary).
> I'm no real fan of affirmative action. Was it necessary at one point? Maybe...
A good argument could be mounted that it creates at least as many problems as it solves. The reason we have made progress on these problems is we managed to change minds...
I think we're pretty much in agreement on this point.
> After reading the whole piece, I think I understand what she was trying to say, but it wasn't a great way of saying it.
If it were her only incident perhaps...
You seem to know more about her background than me, so I believe you. I've had talks about how unfair this double is standard before, and I can't say I disagree. I don't know what it's like to be a white male, but from what I've seen you do have to be way more careful than everybody else. I can say that though, because I'm a woman (all joking intended:)
> I think I'm the sort of person you hate.
Only if you are a socialist/marxist/communist...
Socialism is 180 degrees opposed to Truth Justice and the American Way...
Aaah, the labels! This can be argued to death, and I know that some point we have to have words to describe things, but I think we've kinda outgrown such coarse distinction. This is a spectrum that goes all the way from "no personal property" to "social security" to "universal healthcare" to "social services" to "public education" to "progressive taxes". They're the primary colors... sometimes we have to balance:)
> You seem to have a chip on your shoulder when it comes to gay people (this post
I'll keep this short to avoid going too far offtopic. The objection is to the attempt to conflate behavior choices with inate difference in the attempt to make 'gay rights' a civil rights issue. That way leads to madness on too many levels to do justice to here...
I agree that we're off topic, so I'll try to be quick, but I think this is important. (I'm assuming your male, here) Do you think that it is a choice that you are attracted to women? Think *very* hard about this. It's not the least bit instinctual? You didn't ever try to sneak a peak at a dirty magazine or watch porn through the scramble when you were 10? (I'm drawing examples from my cousin here:) Were you actually making a choice there? Do you think you could honestly *choose* to be attracted to men? Do you think that being GLBT is difficult? If so, why would someone ever *choose* that?
Now, if you believe that it is not choice what your instinct is, but that you chose to ignore and suppress it, the question becomes... why do that? Do
I understand what you're trying to say about equality being blind, and I agree with you, but... talking about a world without prejudice is like the scientist saying "imagine a spherical cow...".
You seem to have a chip on your shoulder when it comes to gay people (this post, and a few of your previous posts). Do you think this is influenced by your experience? Do you have any gay friends? No? Do you think that might influence your decision in regards to a court case on, say, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"? I'm gay, and as much as I would try not to, my background would influence me.
So, what do you do? You can either balance the equation by ensuring diversity, or you can ensure perfect application of logic. I like your idea of Vulcans on the court btw... (the REAL vulcans, not the "I'm gonna get mad and hit people every 20 seconds vulcans":)
So, is anyone who suggests diversity as a... say... first step, automatically an "evil progressive"? I don't doubt that there are people out there who fall into this category. But, like the Sotamayor said, there have been an awful lot of otherwise logical people who have made decisions that, in hindsight, look an awful lot like prejudice.
Can you go to far? Absolutely. I'm fairly liberal, but I'm no real fan of affirmative action (also female, so would benefit from it). Was it necessary at one point? Maybe...
Now back to Sotamayor's comment... After reading the whole piece, I think I understand what she was trying to say, but it wasn't a great way of saying it. Saying she's a no better than a white supremacist? maybe a little too far...
I guess I'm really just repeating the parent's arguments. You seem like an intelligent person, and I like hearing intelligent people with different views than mine... but after reading your posting history, I think I'm the sort of person you hate.
I'd like to think that I'm a member of camp A by your definition. I'd also like to think that our goals aren't really all that different, and that we don't have to be angry at each other. Maybe I'm dead wrong, and I'm just a progressive hippie lesbian liberal whacko?
"...provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare..."
Do you think you have the right to have someone else provide you with defense (like an army)? It's okay if you think that defense is protecting a valuable right and health care is not, or vice versa... but it's not so easy to write off the question so quickly.
I've had a very libertarian friend make the point that "defense against all enemies, foreign and domestic" can kinda go in line with health and disease.
I'm not saying that universal health care is a panacea, or even trying to come in on either side... just to say that the question is more complex than that.
Never mind my previous reply... I read the rest of this article's discussion (and all your other posts) and realized that my adorable attempt at diplomacy was like bringing a pillow to a "nuke from orbit" fight.
I'm not an physicist or an expert on quantum mechanics... but I don't think physicists are as convinced about things as you make them sound:)
This wikipedia page lists something like 17 different models of what quantum uncertainty *might* conceptually imply... the math works without us being comfortable with a sane conceptual interpretation.
And science carries on without this arguably very fundamental question being answered, because *it's not science*, it's philosophy. There are people here that have gone down this philosophical road before MUCH better than I ever will, but basically science as it is defined is only concerned with testable conclusions.
To address the GP, that doesn't mean that questions about reason and purpose aren't important, or don't exist... FAR from it. These sorts of questions are arguably *more* important... just not verifiable in any way we have so far conceived.
Scientists also tend (like all humans) to dabble in philosophy or religion occasionally, and it's easy to get *philosophical discussions about science* and *science* mixed up. You'll hear some scientists make bold claims about multiple universes or causality or free will... but it's mostly philosophical wankering (not that there's anything WRONG with that:).
Anyway, the point is that I think most people who understand science don't think that science *replaces* philosophy or spirituality... quite the opposite. It is *woefully inadequate* to handle a whole class of very important questions about the nature of our universe... which is where religion and spirituality take over.
I'm not going to get into a deep discussion of "the nature of science" vs concepts like intelligent design... because others here have done it much better. Just know that when scientist types heavy-handedly discount religion in scientific discussions, it's not supposed to discount religion itself, or the utility of such a thing... just to keep it separate. They're not sticking their heads in the sand or anything... it's just that when you start letting more... fluid... things like belief structures enter into scientific discussion, you tend to arrive at good conclusions much slower.
The reason I felt the need to respond is that I used to be pretty anti-religious... until I met a lot of people which I have a great deal of respect for who are also quite religious. I'm still not personally religious, but I understand why people are. Even science itself has to have a minimum of philosophical aims... like the idea that the universe is understandable at all, or the idea that it would be governed by rules at all, and that these rules might be obtainable through observation and testing. It's like Godel's incompleteness theorem: science cannot be completely described using only science.
Anyway, philosophy is important... science is important... maybe near the end the two will meet... but for now they're kept separate.
I don't know where I'm going with this... I guess I just wanted to let you know that there are some "crazy sciency types" that don't hate religion.
By the way, there should be a Goodwin's Law for philosophical discussions except replace Nazis with mentioning Godel's incompleteness theorem or engaging in any sort of meta-philosophy, except it would probably end every philosophical discussion that has ever occurred.
I don't think that wishing there were more women in C.S. is "Political Censorship". There *used* to be a higher percentage of women in C.S., and there are higher percentages of women in other equally technical fields.
Either women are somehow biologically inferior to men in C.S., or upwards of half of our C.S. talent is going to waste. You don't find this to be a problem?
I guess if you think that we have too many Computer Scientists as it is that's one thing... or if women just tend to migrate to other technical fields and the whole equation balances itself out. I just think that the world would be better without such artificial cultural barriers.
Maybe I'm biased because I am a woman in a C.S. career. I've also never worked directly with any other woman since I got out of college. Just saying I was lonely, I guess.
I don't know why in recent times there is such a disparity of men and women in C.S., but I imagine your attitude might have something to do with it...
I really don't know how to respond to this... you're either trying to be funny (but got modded +3 insightful), or are seriously trying to imply that a woman who's good at C.S. is as much of a freak as a pregnant man.
I absolutely agree with you, and demonizing a group through hyperbole is never constructive or useful, but...
I spent a year as a little girl in a Southern Baptist private school, and live in the American south, so I know a little about being around very Christian people. I've had a lot of devil's advocate (hehe) conversations with very religious people on a pretty regular basis who thought that homosexuality was unquestionably immoral, most of which never knew I was lesbian.
A lot of these people were otherwise very nice, some are still pretty close friends... and I agree that nearly all of them directed aggresion towards the *act* itself, and not the person.
I came out once to a very close co-worker... she was very Christian, and we'd been at lunch together and she started a sort of Christian recruitment... and I told her that I thought it was very nice of her to be so concerned about me and care about my future, but that I wasn't Christian, I had no interest in Christianity, and that a large deciding factor --but certainly not the only factor-- was that I was lesbian.
She told me that her church would never turn me away because of being gay, and that they were accepting of anyone that would walk through their door. I asked her "so... they're okay with homosexuality?" and she responded that they were accepting of all people, and even though they thought homosexuality was unquestionably immoral and wrong... that it's the sin that is the problem, not the sinner. We're all sinners, we sin every day, and every sin is equal... so I was no different from them.
It was a very odd and dichotomous way of being accepting. There was an instance in the future where I caught her basically distributing anti-gay and ultra-traditionalist propaganda -- Women are to be subservient to men, the man and woman relationship is the foundation of society, women have children and men work, divorce is an affront to God, etc... Most Christians are indeed as you say... they concentrate on the sin and not the sinner, but it's an awfully fine line.
I guess I'm not really disagreeing with anything your saying... just that I understand the GPs feelings. It always came across as "I believe your way of life is an affront to God... but you're an okay person if you fundamentally change who you are." (or more precisely, pretend to be something you're not:) I understand they don't see it that way, but it's really hard to remember the distinction sometimes.
I've always found the word "sexuality" to be a bit unsettling in that it sort of leads people to conflate sexuality with sex.
It's never inappropriate for one to talk about a little girl having a crush on a boy, or for a prince and princess to fall in love in a disney movie, but it is "flaunting sexuality" to describe anything other than that.
It's like a conversation I had with my co-workers about whether or not someone could be gay or lesbian as a young man or woman, because they hadn't had sex yet... It seemed very bizarre to me that one would toss aside romantic attraction and define "sexuality" as only "who you *have sex* with".
I don't know if it's because society in general is uncomfortable combining the idea of innocent young love and the idea that, at least biologically, this is supposed to lead to sex or what... but it's always annoyed me.
It reminds me of something I saw on O'Reilly a while back about a lesbian couple being named "cutest couple" in a yearbook... The response O'Reilly gave was that it was inappropriate to "flaunt sexuality" in high school. The guest made the point that if it had been a straight couple, then it wouldn't be flaunting sexuality... O'Reilly responded that of course that wouldn't be flaunting sexuality, because it's perfectly normal!
Other people have made mention of this fact earlier in this story that it's almost impossible *not* to mention "sexuality" in some capacity without feeling like a freak. If I can't say "oh, I have to go, my gf wants to go to dinner" because it indicates sexuality, then I don't really want to be a part of that community. It's true that it's all about context... but the point I'm trying to make is that talking explicitly about *sex* is a different matter entirely, and can absolutely be inappropriate.
By the way, this is coming from a lesbian that lives in the American south hides this fact from her co-workers... the conversation we were having was one of about a hundred we've had that just come up randomly where I feel like a complete tool because I can't really say what I'm thinking, because it would be "the big reveal". It's really upsetting, because we're all very open and close, and they talk about their wives all the time... and I just lie. Don't get me wrong, I don't blame them at all... I'm still a big chicken for not being more open... but there's a societal reason I feel this way. Also, being partially closeted has given me privy to a lot of conversations where otherwise nice and wonderful people basically insult me horribly to my face without knowing it. It would be wonderful if the next generation didn't have to feel like this.
Although Kerrigan might be a lesbian - why else would she keep fending off the Toatally All Awesome Jim Raynor's advances.
I'm psychic... if every time he talked to you YOU got glimpses of his "lonely nights in the barracks" involving thoughts of you, you wouldn't want to date him either...
P.S. I'm a lesbian, starcraft playing, copyright-infringement-nickname-having woman. I couldn't NOT reply to this post.
P.P.S My nick did not come from starcraft, but for the sake of argument, I'll pretend like it does.
P.P.P.S. Now my girlfriend wants to kill Jim Raynor:/
I work in a web company with 7 people in IT, 6 of whom are guys, and I'd have to say that I've never felt that any of them made me regret being in C.S. or feel threatened or out of place.
I'll admit that there are *numerous* occasions where I definitely feel, well, *singled out*, and I'm definitely not "one of the guys", but I've never felt threatened in my job or ever had someone question my IT knowledge simply because I was female... And I can safely say that I'd consider most of my co-workers to be very good friends.
I will admit, though, that in college, I had to pretty much keep to myself in C.S. classes at first, because I had a lot of trouble connecting with any of the guys there. They're nice, there's just this initial barrier where everyone is a little uncomfortable.
Whenever I've been in a new job, there's always that few days (or weeks) where I can tell that everyone around me is a little uncomfortable and doesn't quite know how to handle a woman in IT. Not that they're mean or anything, they just don't know what to expect. A lot of times I feel like I'm invading their space at work, and suddenly they have to "be on their best behavior" or something...
Then, a few weeks go by... they realize that they don't have to treat me with kit gloves, I laugh at a few of the jokes they mistakenly tell when I'm in the room, and everyone's suddenly fine.
I can definitely admit that there is a barrier to acceptance for women in any group mostly composed of men simply because it's *change*... It's not anyone's fault, it just happens. I'm still different from my co-workers, but once they realized that I wasn't going to be ice cold to them, or, I don't know... sue them for sexual harassment or something, then everyone was okay.
So, to any women in C.S. that feel uncomfortable, just stick it out, don't try to be anything you're not, and *don't be afraid*... and everything will be fine. But maybe I'm just lucky...
I've used vim for years... to the point that it is forever ingrained in the way I think and code. I can't even think of the last thing I edited *not* in vim (besides this post:). I consider myself to be *kinda okay* at using it...
Here are three of my *cannot live without* vim features...
1. Highlight text with visual mode and 'gq' to format it according to the currently set formatting rules. I know full-fledged IDEs have this feature, but I can't think of anything outside of vim or emacs that can do this from a thousand miles away in a terminal.
2. "smarttab" mode and the 'retab' command. I've worked in lots of places with very disparate IDEs and environments and everyone seems to produce code with slightly different tabstops and tab consistency. 'smarttab' and 'expandtab' tell vim to output spaces instead of tabs for consistency in viewing across editors, but to treat consecutive spaces as virtual tabs for the purposes of deleting or selecting. 'retab' changes tabs across the entire file to match the currently set convention. *Very Useful* for editing python:)
3. This is the biggest one... macro recording and programmatic repeat. 'q' starts recording a keystroke macro, which thanks to vim can be something as complicated as... "go to start of line, replace text up to first ( with blah, go to second ',' and capitalize the first letter of that word" etc... Then, you can either use the:global command to search a file for lines matching a pattern and execute that macro on each line, or even easier, use V (visual line select mode) to select groups of lines, then execute the macro on all of those, or a subset of those with global. I always do this via the:normal command, which allows you to execute a keystroke based command through command-line mode. So, 'qa^f(cbfoobarf)a const' would replace a function call name with 'foobar' and add a const to the declaration. Select a group of lines with V, then type:normal @a to call the macro on every line. I think there might be a better way to call macros from command-line mode, but that's the only one that I know.
I have actually whined and cried and begged to put vim on everything larger than a toaster where I work so that I don't go crazy. Vim has saved me countless hours of programming time over the years, and I highly recommend trying to learn some of its deeper features.
Plus, all the other editors I use have this weird habit of putting ':wq's and 'dd's in my text...
Slashdot Mirror
See, changing bits in the linux kernel *and distributing it* *and claiming it is your own* is an ocean of difference. We're not talking about that.
When you sleep in places you're not supposed to, you're infringing on someone else's physical rights.
When you ride a train without a ticket, you're using up resources you're not paying for.
There is a good reason copyright, patents, trademarks are treated differently, and also much differently than physical property, so stop confusing the issue.
I know you've heard this argument before, because you use words like "freetard". Stop trolling.
What I'm doing might be legally sketchy, but I, and most of the world, certainly doesn't think of it is as morally sketchy. To me it's about the same as saying that playing a cd with too many people in your house so it counts as a public performance. Might be legally sketchy, but only because of *a failure of the legal system*.
You seem like a good, moral person... probably someone who makes a living selling creative works. I want you to keep on doing that, I'm glad you do. I'll make sure that if I copy your works, I compensate you fairly.
If you then tell me it's illegal for me to run your code through a debugger, or reverse engineer your file format... well, that sounds like it's *you* who is the one infringing on my rights.
Of course, we don't know, because the law in this area is so vague and uncertain that we're all violating it somehow. If you develop software, congratulations, you've violated someone's patent.
I know you've heard this before, just know that you can be a "freetard" and not a thief at the same time, okay?
You may have trouble with that concept, the same as a vagrant has trouble with the concept of loitering or peeing in public, but the laws are there to protect business models
Why the animosity here? Modding is not something which infringes anyone else's rights. We're not talking about breaking copyright, we're talking about *changing bits in a piece of hardware that you own*
You may very well be right about the legality of such a thing, but there is a reason you can't sign a contract to take away certain inalienable rights. EULAs are a one sided, non-negotiable contract, but IANAL... I'd just *like* them not to be enforceable.
However, there are very few that I've seen claim such a strong moral high ground against *changing bits in a physical device you own*. I have a lot of problem seeing that as any different morally from rewiring your car.
You think very highly of ownership of land and property, how is this any different? How would you feel if I wanted to sell you a piece of land that with an agreement that says the specific way trees are arranged on this land is my personal intellectual property, and any change to the arrangement of such trees is a violation of our agreement, at which time you will relinquish the rights to the land.
I own a wii... and I've put the homebrew channel on my wii. I've *never* pirated a wii game, but I have set up the homebrew wii SDK and am currently writing software for it, because I think it's an awesome piece of hardware and I'm glad I gave Nintendo my money.
I suppose I'm an evil, contract breaking vagrant peeing on poor Nintendo's property now.
I guess I just can't wrap my brain around the concept that wanting to tinker with something to create something new is *selfish*.
In the US, facts are not copyrightable (I guess that's what the OP is talking about).
The data in question would presumably be US government secrets, which are facts. IANAL, so besides unlawful use of a computer system... I guess they'd charge him with unlawfully obtaining secret or confidential data?
I have no idea how that works. Having held clearance, it is really really *really* illegal to *reveal* government secrets when you have a clearance. I have no idea how that applies to learning government secrets outside of that, especially when you're not a US citizen and do it outside of US borders.
Copyright doesn't really come into play, I think. Besides, US documents aren't generally copyrightable anyway (except for crazy contractor situations).
I'm not saying it's impossible, just that it's *much* harder to understand than simply writing it recursively.
Let me put it this way... suppose in C++ you have a template instantiation defined dimension matrix...
In order to do operations on the matrix, you have to iterate through an arbitrary number of dimensions, then loop over (a subset of) the length of the matrix in that dimension. It's like a for loop inside a for loop, but the number of for loops deep has to be *runtime defined* (well, in my case template defined, but you get the idea). Without recursion you end up either writing gotos, or some other funky math where you determine the overall size of the n-dimensional matrix (dimensions multiplied together) and then loop through that index, and figure out the actual n-dimensional coordinates as you go (messy).
Here it is in code...
template<typename OpType>
inline Array& eval(OpType op, IndexType index = IndexType(),
size_t dim = 0) {
for(size_t i = 0; i < extent(dim); ++i) {
index[dim] = i;
if(dim == Dimension - 1)
operator()(index) = op(index);
else
eval(op, index, dim+1);
}
return *this;
}
where IndexType is some vector unsigneds of size Dimension, extent is a member function that returns the size of the array in that dimension, and operator() retrieves the value at the given location.
This is a (modified for clarity) member function of a class I have called Array, that has template defined dimension. I'm filling the Array by calling the passed in function on every location in the Array, and assigning the result to the location.
You *can* write it without recursion, but it's even more confusing than what I wrote.
There are probably better examples of exponential time algorithms that are clearer, but they make my head hurt.
By the way, at my old job, our simulation had to interpolate lots and lots and lots of experimentally gathered data in big tables (like an 11 dimensional table for infrared signature data). Writing an arbitrary dimensional interpolation library was the *simplest* option :)
How would you implement an algorithm that is O(2^n) then?
I wrote a template library for arbitrary dimensional matrix math and interpolation, and since many operations were O(2^n) for matrix rank (like linear interpolation), the *only* sane way to implement them was using dual-recursion.
Anything else, though, and I'd probably agree with you. It's easier probably easier to read a loop than it is to read a tail recursive algorithm for anything but purely mathematical problems.
Facts... like unexplained Gamma Ray Bursts?
I mean, this is more of synthesis of existing observations rather than *new* observations, but it's still science.
It's taking unexplained observations and incorporating those observations into better theories that fit the data. I'm not an astrophysicist, and this still seems like it's just an hypothesis, but I guess I don't see where the problem is.
What are the problems with DisplayPort on the mini? I'm asking this because I recently got a MacBook which also only has the mini DisplayPort out, but I haven't gotten an adapter yet (not sure if I'll need one). I was looking at the DisplayPort to HDMI adapters on NewEgg and they don't look that expensive... What problems have you had?
Since when was there affirmative action for gays/lesbians?
Could influence my job hunting strategies....
I didn't mean to drive the discussion off topic towards Prop 8 :)
I really just meant that there are too many instances where it is the courts (either state or national) that, through judicial review, end up reversing bad policy.
Which, I know... is their *job* circa Marbury vs. Madison. But with thing's like COPA... that was just a blatantly un-constitutional law and the congress knew it.
With software patents, I guess I just haven't seen the issue really seriously raised in Congress. I just wish it would be.
Everyone else is infinitely more qualified to discuss this topic than I am... so I think I'll shut up now :)
COPA, Abortion, Gay Marriage, Software Patents, Eminent Domain, Copyright term limits, Privacy Issues/Search and Seizure... does anyone else think that the U.S. has been relying more and more on Judges to make the difficult decisions or clean up the mess left by the legislature?
I'm sure everyone else can think of more examples.
More and more the only hope I ever have of bad laws being fixed is that one day it will go before the Supreme Court. I mean, COPA is a "success story", if you can call it that, but just once I want *Congress* to fix these things. :)
Thank you for responding! I know this story is old so I'll keep this short...
Not quite. The spherical cow is a simplification for ease of communicating a complex idea. The idea of blind justice is the goal we should be working toward, admitting that as imperfect humans we might never actually reach it.
I agree with you, but you shouldn't assume that we're already in such a perfect world. I can't really come up with an example that isn't emotionally charged... but the best thing I can come up with is jury selection. There's a reason that both the prosecution and defense get to cooperatively pick or eliminate jurors. If we assumed a world without prejudice, this would never be necessary.
> You can either balance the equation by ensuring diversity,
Bad idea. I have less objection (there are more and less offensive methods) to the notion of encouraging diversity but 'ensuring' diversity is just code for quotas and I fail to see how you fight discrimination with discrimination.
Bad word choice on my part, and you are absolutely correct in pointing it out. I should have said *encourage* diversity. Again, I'm fairly strongly against affirmative action. (I'm undecided about whether it was necessary).
> I'm no real fan of affirmative action. Was it necessary at one point? Maybe...
A good argument could be mounted that it creates at least as many problems as it solves. The reason we have made progress on these problems is we managed to change minds...
I think we're pretty much in agreement on this point.
> After reading the whole piece, I think I understand what she was trying to say, but it wasn't a great way of saying it.
If it were her only incident perhaps...
You seem to know more about her background than me, so I believe you. I've had talks about how unfair this double is standard before, and I can't say I disagree. I don't know what it's like to be a white male, but from what I've seen you do have to be way more careful than everybody else. I can say that though, because I'm a woman (all joking intended :)
> I think I'm the sort of person you hate.
Only if you are a socialist/marxist/communist...
Socialism is 180 degrees opposed to Truth Justice and the American Way...
Aaah, the labels! This can be argued to death, and I know that some point we have to have words to describe things, but I think we've kinda outgrown such coarse distinction. This is a spectrum that goes all the way from "no personal property" to "social security" to "universal healthcare" to "social services" to "public education" to "progressive taxes". They're the primary colors... sometimes we have to balance :)
> You seem to have a chip on your shoulder when it comes to gay people (this post
I'll keep this short to avoid going too far offtopic. The objection is to the attempt to conflate behavior choices with inate difference in the attempt to make 'gay rights' a civil rights issue. That way leads to madness on too many levels to do justice to here...
I agree that we're off topic, so I'll try to be quick, but I think this is important. (I'm assuming your male, here) Do you think that it is a choice that you are attracted to women? Think *very* hard about this. It's not the least bit instinctual? You didn't ever try to sneak a peak at a dirty magazine or watch porn through the scramble when you were 10? (I'm drawing examples from my cousin here :) Were you actually making a choice there? Do you think you could honestly *choose* to be attracted to men? Do you think that being GLBT is difficult? If so, why would someone ever *choose* that?
Now, if you believe that it is not choice what your instinct is, but that you chose to ignore and suppress it, the question becomes... why do that? Do
I understand what you're trying to say about equality being blind, and I agree with you, but... talking about a world without prejudice is like the scientist saying "imagine a spherical cow...".
You seem to have a chip on your shoulder when it comes to gay people (this post, and a few of your previous posts). Do you think this is influenced by your experience? Do you have any gay friends? No? Do you think that might influence your decision in regards to a court case on, say, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"? I'm gay, and as much as I would try not to, my background would influence me.
So, what do you do? You can either balance the equation by ensuring diversity, or you can ensure perfect application of logic. I like your idea of Vulcans on the court btw... (the REAL vulcans, not the "I'm gonna get mad and hit people every 20 seconds vulcans" :)
So, is anyone who suggests diversity as a... say... first step, automatically an "evil progressive"? I don't doubt that there are people out there who fall into this category. But, like the Sotamayor said, there have been an awful lot of otherwise logical people who have made decisions that, in hindsight, look an awful lot like prejudice.
Can you go to far? Absolutely. I'm fairly liberal, but I'm no real fan of affirmative action (also female, so would benefit from it). Was it necessary at one point? Maybe...
Now back to Sotamayor's comment... After reading the whole piece, I think I understand what she was trying to say, but it wasn't a great way of saying it. Saying she's a no better than a white supremacist? maybe a little too far...
I guess I'm really just repeating the parent's arguments. You seem like an intelligent person, and I like hearing intelligent people with different views than mine... but after reading your posting history, I think I'm the sort of person you hate.
I'd like to think that I'm a member of camp A by your definition. I'd also like to think that our goals aren't really all that different, and that we don't have to be angry at each other. Maybe I'm dead wrong, and I'm just a progressive hippie lesbian liberal whacko?
"...provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare..."
Do you think you have the right to have someone else provide you with defense (like an army)? It's okay if you think that defense is protecting a valuable right and health care is not, or vice versa... but it's not so easy to write off the question so quickly.
I've had a very libertarian friend make the point that "defense against all enemies, foreign and domestic" can kinda go in line with health and disease.
I'm not saying that universal health care is a panacea, or even trying to come in on either side... just to say that the question is more complex than that.
Never mind my previous reply... I read the rest of this article's discussion (and all your other posts) and realized that my adorable attempt at diplomacy was like bringing a pillow to a "nuke from orbit" fight.
I'm not an physicist or an expert on quantum mechanics... but I don't think physicists are as convinced about things as you make them sound :)
This wikipedia page lists something like 17 different models of what quantum uncertainty *might* conceptually imply... the math works without us being comfortable with a sane conceptual interpretation.
And science carries on without this arguably very fundamental question being answered, because *it's not science*, it's philosophy. There are people here that have gone down this philosophical road before MUCH better than I ever will, but basically science as it is defined is only concerned with testable conclusions.
To address the GP, that doesn't mean that questions about reason and purpose aren't important, or don't exist... FAR from it. These sorts of questions are arguably *more* important... just not verifiable in any way we have so far conceived.
Scientists also tend (like all humans) to dabble in philosophy or religion occasionally, and it's easy to get *philosophical discussions about science* and *science* mixed up. You'll hear some scientists make bold claims about multiple universes or causality or free will... but it's mostly philosophical wankering (not that there's anything WRONG with that :).
Anyway, the point is that I think most people who understand science don't think that science *replaces* philosophy or spirituality... quite the opposite. It is *woefully inadequate* to handle a whole class of very important questions about the nature of our universe... which is where religion and spirituality take over.
I'm not going to get into a deep discussion of "the nature of science" vs concepts like intelligent design... because others here have done it much better. Just know that when scientist types heavy-handedly discount religion in scientific discussions, it's not supposed to discount religion itself, or the utility of such a thing... just to keep it separate. They're not sticking their heads in the sand or anything... it's just that when you start letting more... fluid... things like belief structures enter into scientific discussion, you tend to arrive at good conclusions much slower.
The reason I felt the need to respond is that I used to be pretty anti-religious... until I met a lot of people which I have a great deal of respect for who are also quite religious. I'm still not personally religious, but I understand why people are. Even science itself has to have a minimum of philosophical aims... like the idea that the universe is understandable at all, or the idea that it would be governed by rules at all, and that these rules might be obtainable through observation and testing. It's like Godel's incompleteness theorem: science cannot be completely described using only science.
Anyway, philosophy is important... science is important... maybe near the end the two will meet... but for now they're kept separate.
I don't know where I'm going with this... I guess I just wanted to let you know that there are some "crazy sciency types" that don't hate religion.
By the way, there should be a Goodwin's Law for philosophical discussions except replace Nazis with mentioning Godel's incompleteness theorem or engaging in any sort of meta-philosophy, except it would probably end every philosophical discussion that has ever occurred.
I don't think that's true...
Quick google search yielded this:
http://www.pestproducts.com/grits.htm
and this:
http://www.fireant.net/Control/index.php
It's like that myth with rice at weddings and pidgeons...
http://www.snopes.com/critters/crusader/birdrice.asp
I don't think that wishing there were more women in C.S. is "Political Censorship". There *used* to be a higher percentage of women in C.S., and there are higher percentages of women in other equally technical fields.
Either women are somehow biologically inferior to men in C.S., or upwards of half of our C.S. talent is going to waste. You don't find this to be a problem?
I guess if you think that we have too many Computer Scientists as it is that's one thing... or if women just tend to migrate to other technical fields and the whole equation balances itself out. I just think that the world would be better without such artificial cultural barriers.
Maybe I'm biased because I am a woman in a C.S. career. I've also never worked directly with any other woman since I got out of college. Just saying I was lonely, I guess.
I don't know why in recent times there is such a disparity of men and women in C.S., but I imagine your attitude might have something to do with it...
I really don't know how to respond to this... you're either trying to be funny (but got modded +3 insightful), or are seriously trying to imply that a woman who's good at C.S. is as much of a freak as a pregnant man.
All of a sudden I feel very alone in this field.
I absolutely agree with you, and demonizing a group through hyperbole is never constructive or useful, but...
I spent a year as a little girl in a Southern Baptist private school, and live in the American south, so I know a little about being around very Christian people. I've had a lot of devil's advocate (hehe) conversations with very religious people on a pretty regular basis who thought that homosexuality was unquestionably immoral, most of which never knew I was lesbian.
A lot of these people were otherwise very nice, some are still pretty close friends... and I agree that nearly all of them directed aggresion towards the *act* itself, and not the person.
I came out once to a very close co-worker... she was very Christian, and we'd been at lunch together and she started a sort of Christian recruitment... and I told her that I thought it was very nice of her to be so concerned about me and care about my future, but that I wasn't Christian, I had no interest in Christianity, and that a large deciding factor --but certainly not the only factor-- was that I was lesbian.
She told me that her church would never turn me away because of being gay, and that they were accepting of anyone that would walk through their door. I asked her "so... they're okay with homosexuality?" and she responded that they were accepting of all people, and even though they thought homosexuality was unquestionably immoral and wrong... that it's the sin that is the problem, not the sinner. We're all sinners, we sin every day, and every sin is equal... so I was no different from them.
It was a very odd and dichotomous way of being accepting. There was an instance in the future where I caught her basically distributing anti-gay and ultra-traditionalist propaganda -- Women are to be subservient to men, the man and woman relationship is the foundation of society, women have children and men work, divorce is an affront to God, etc... Most Christians are indeed as you say... they concentrate on the sin and not the sinner, but it's an awfully fine line.
I guess I'm not really disagreeing with anything your saying... just that I understand the GPs feelings. It always came across as "I believe your way of life is an affront to God... but you're an okay person if you fundamentally change who you are." (or more precisely, pretend to be something you're not :) I understand they don't see it that way, but it's really hard to remember the distinction sometimes.
I've always found the word "sexuality" to be a bit unsettling in that it sort of leads people to conflate sexuality with sex.
It's never inappropriate for one to talk about a little girl having a crush on a boy, or for a prince and princess to fall in love in a disney movie, but it is "flaunting sexuality" to describe anything other than that.
It's like a conversation I had with my co-workers about whether or not someone could be gay or lesbian as a young man or woman, because they hadn't had sex yet... It seemed very bizarre to me that one would toss aside romantic attraction and define "sexuality" as only "who you *have sex* with".
I don't know if it's because society in general is uncomfortable combining the idea of innocent young love and the idea that, at least biologically, this is supposed to lead to sex or what... but it's always annoyed me.
It reminds me of something I saw on O'Reilly a while back about a lesbian couple being named "cutest couple" in a yearbook... The response O'Reilly gave was that it was inappropriate to "flaunt sexuality" in high school. The guest made the point that if it had been a straight couple, then it wouldn't be flaunting sexuality... O'Reilly responded that of course that wouldn't be flaunting sexuality, because it's perfectly normal!
Other people have made mention of this fact earlier in this story that it's almost impossible *not* to mention "sexuality" in some capacity without feeling like a freak. If I can't say "oh, I have to go, my gf wants to go to dinner" because it indicates sexuality, then I don't really want to be a part of that community. It's true that it's all about context... but the point I'm trying to make is that talking explicitly about *sex* is a different matter entirely, and can absolutely be inappropriate.
By the way, this is coming from a lesbian that lives in the American south hides this fact from her co-workers... the conversation we were having was one of about a hundred we've had that just come up randomly where I feel like a complete tool because I can't really say what I'm thinking, because it would be "the big reveal". It's really upsetting, because we're all very open and close, and they talk about their wives all the time... and I just lie. Don't get me wrong, I don't blame them at all... I'm still a big chicken for not being more open... but there's a societal reason I feel this way. Also, being partially closeted has given me privy to a lot of conversations where otherwise nice and wonderful people basically insult me horribly to my face without knowing it. It would be wonderful if the next generation didn't have to feel like this.
Lesbians don't play Starcraft!
Although Kerrigan might be a lesbian - why else would she keep fending off the Toatally All Awesome Jim Raynor's advances.
I'm psychic... if every time he talked to you YOU got glimpses of his "lonely nights in the barracks" involving thoughts of you, you wouldn't want to date him either...
P.S. I'm a lesbian, starcraft playing, copyright-infringement-nickname-having woman. I couldn't NOT reply to this post.
P.P.S My nick did not come from starcraft, but for the sake of argument, I'll pretend like it does.
P.P.P.S. Now my girlfriend wants to kill Jim Raynor :/
I work in a web company with 7 people in IT, 6 of whom are guys, and I'd have to say that I've never felt that any of them made me regret being in C.S. or feel threatened or out of place.
I'll admit that there are *numerous* occasions where I definitely feel, well, *singled out*, and I'm definitely not "one of the guys", but I've never felt threatened in my job or ever had someone question my IT knowledge simply because I was female... And I can safely say that I'd consider most of my co-workers to be very good friends.
I will admit, though, that in college, I had to pretty much keep to myself in C.S. classes at first, because I had a lot of trouble connecting with any of the guys there. They're nice, there's just this initial barrier where everyone is a little uncomfortable.
Whenever I've been in a new job, there's always that few days (or weeks) where I can tell that everyone around me is a little uncomfortable and doesn't quite know how to handle a woman in IT. Not that they're mean or anything, they just don't know what to expect. A lot of times I feel like I'm invading their space at work, and suddenly they have to "be on their best behavior" or something...
Then, a few weeks go by... they realize that they don't have to treat me with kit gloves, I laugh at a few of the jokes they mistakenly tell when I'm in the room, and everyone's suddenly fine.
I can definitely admit that there is a barrier to acceptance for women in any group mostly composed of men simply because it's *change*... It's not anyone's fault, it just happens. I'm still different from my co-workers, but once they realized that I wasn't going to be ice cold to them, or, I don't know... sue them for sexual harassment or something, then everyone was okay.
So, to any women in C.S. that feel uncomfortable, just stick it out, don't try to be anything you're not, and *don't be afraid*... and everything will be fine. But maybe I'm just lucky...
Sorry to reply to myself, didn't look too closely at the preview and it ate my <esc>
the macro would be i(<esc>ea)<esc>
It's not quite the same... but you can always record a macro to do what you're talking about.
Place the cursor on the start of a word, qa to start recording to 'a', then i(ea) to add parens, then q to end recording.
Now @a does what you're describing.
(Apologies if I'm insulting your intelligence and you already knew this and just wanted a way to do it with '.')
I've used vim for years... to the point that it is forever ingrained in the way I think and code. I can't even think of the last thing I edited *not* in vim (besides this post :). I consider myself to be *kinda okay* at using it...
Here are three of my *cannot live without* vim features...
1. Highlight text with visual mode and 'gq' to format it according to the currently set formatting rules. I know full-fledged IDEs have this feature, but I can't think of anything outside of vim or emacs that can do this from a thousand miles away in a terminal.
2. "smarttab" mode and the 'retab' command. I've worked in lots of places with very disparate IDEs and environments and everyone seems to produce code with slightly different tabstops and tab consistency. 'smarttab' and 'expandtab' tell vim to output spaces instead of tabs for consistency in viewing across editors, but to treat consecutive spaces as virtual tabs for the purposes of deleting or selecting. 'retab' changes tabs across the entire file to match the currently set convention. *Very Useful* for editing python :)
3. This is the biggest one... macro recording and programmatic repeat. 'q' starts recording a keystroke macro, which thanks to vim can be something as complicated as... "go to start of line, replace text up to first ( with blah, go to second ',' and capitalize the first letter of that word" etc... Then, you can either use the :global command to search a file for lines matching a pattern and execute that macro on each line, or even easier, use V (visual line select mode) to select groups of lines, then execute the macro on all of those, or a subset of those with global. I always do this via the :normal command, which allows you to execute a keystroke based command through command-line mode. So, 'qa^f(cbfoobarf)a const' would replace a function call name with 'foobar' and add a const to the declaration. Select a group of lines with V, then type :normal @a to call the macro on every line. I think there might be a better way to call macros from command-line mode, but that's the only one that I know.
I have actually whined and cried and begged to put vim on everything larger than a toaster where I work so that I don't go crazy. Vim has saved me countless hours of programming time over the years, and I highly recommend trying to learn some of its deeper features.
Plus, all the other editors I use have this weird habit of putting ':wq's and 'dd's in my text...