Because there's only one known format that starts with the year. Yes, theoretically there could be a format in use that is year/day/month, but there isn't, so the point is moot.
What the GP did is use an argument based on copyright, and then leap to the conclusion that this holds for patents as well. In the OP's words:
Algorithms IMHO are simply the words and sentences you use to make software, which is akin to a work of literature. At least it seems that way to me, anyways.
If we're going to beat software patents, it just seems like we should drop the algorithms argument because it seems a little flimsy.
Why is this flimsy? It doesn't follow. If algorithms are like books (which the GP argues), algorithms should fall under copyright (which they do). If this argument is flimsy for software patents, what does this imply for book patents?
There's a world of difference between copyright and patents, and the OP is transferring arguments from one domain to another. If books were patentable, this would make sense. Now it's weird.
Yawn. First your question is wrong. You cannot prove a positive, only disprove it. So with your question it is up to you to disprove that 'all macroevolutionary change is caused by random mutation'. Come with an observable mechanism in nature that causes 'macroevolutionary' change (whatever that means), which is not based on evolution, and that particular statement of evolutionary theory can go collect dust.
I guess however that you want some factual observations (not proof) that support the statement that 'random mutations can cause macro-evolutionary chance'. Such support is abundant and freshmen biologist do this as a matter of standard labwork. Even a simple mathematical experiment can show you that this works. Consider a population of bitstrings of length n. Apply a cost function that will prefer bitstrings that have half of the bits set [e.g., f(x) = ones(x) * (n - ones(x))]. Now evolve bitstrings with repeated selection and random variation (random bitflips, say applied to each bit with probability 1/n). Fairly quickly it will find individuals with exactly half of the bits set. Now split the population in two, without communication, and keep the procedure running. The two populations (with a common ancestor) will slowly drift away from eachother to, depending on the length of the simulation, arbitrary distance. This can be proven and shows that random chance can lead to arbitrary differences, as long as these differences are equally fit.
Consider that this is a static fitness function, where the only mechanism to diverge is genetic drift. Just drift is sufficient to cause macro-evolution, the case becomes stronger with dynamic fitness functions, niche formation, and the like.
So what we have first is the mathematically provable observation that 'random changes combined with selection can cause arbitrary changes in genotypes', and we have evolutionary theory that asserts that 'all changes in genotypes are caused by repeated selection and variation, leading to arbitrary changes in genotypes'. We have a theory, and there is support. Now it's up to you to show observations that disprove the theory, and give an alternative method that nature uses to create arbitrary changes. It needs to be observable though, 'goddidit' is not enough.
$ swipl Welcome to SWI-Prolog (Multi-threaded, Version 5.6.14) Copyright (c) 1990-2006 University of Amsterdam. SWI-Prolog comes with ABSOLUTELY NO WARRANTY. This is free software, and you are welcome to redistribute it under certain conditions. Please visit http://www.swi-prolog.org/ for details.
For help, use ?- help(Topic). or ?- apropos(Word).
?- X. %... 1,000,000............ 10,000,000 years later % % >> 42 << (last release gives the question) ?-
You're absolutely right: there's no such thing as a scripting language. There is however a necessity for scripting, and languages that fit that need are commonly called scripting languages. In my scientific endeavours, I often have the need for post-processing of data. I generally use bash, python and octave for those needs. These are my scripting languages. Some collegues of mine use C, Lisp, or other tools for their scripting needs. These are their scripting languages.
To sum it up, a scripting language is a language suitable to solve scripting needs. Need is personal, but some solutions to these needs are laughable. Using C to process a bunch of data on a one-off basis I find silly. But, if that's all you know, more power to you.
Completely offtopic (Kasparov arrested, chess, and now this), I did once read some article argue that humans are by far the best runners of the animal kingdom. No, we're not the best sprinters, but for long distance, we beat all animals, including dogs, wolves and horses. You know these marathon events, where people are running 200 km or more? No dog can beat their time, let alone a horse.
One tactic of Australian natives to catch a kangaroo, was to simply run the beast to death. Just pursue until they drop dead from exhaustion, then eat.
The article kind of stuck as I was also convinced that humans suck at every athletic skill compared to animals, and we only have our brains to distinguish ourselves. Guess our feet are not so bad as well.
Once my ISP states clearly, in bold letter, as the first paragraph of the license agreement
something like
WARNING: everyting transmitted through this medium is subject to warrentless inspection and subject to
the US government's whim.Use at your own risk. This medium is monitored.
Quick disclaimer before I get flamed. I actually don't know if Parrot got a good sandbox or not. It might. If it targets javascript as well, it might be a winner.
A signed language will not help, unless the signature comes with the guarantee that the language interpreter has a proper sandbox. If not, every piece of code that would be running in the interpreter needs to be signed as well. See the Active-X fiasco.
Although the javascript sandbox is not historically 100% foolproof, the browser makers themselves have an incentive to make it as good as they can. If their javascript sandbox is bad, their browser will be blamed. Thus you can run javascript from untrusted sources without being wide open for even the most trivial of attacks.
The only solution to this dilemma is to have a good sandboxed virtual machine in every browser that multiple languages can target. Extra interpreters running in this VM would be safe. Not surprisingly, this was the solution Sun was advocating all these years ago with the Java VM, but they failed on the multi-lingual part. My guess is that if Sun would have made certain that javascript could compile to the jvm, and run at reasonable speed, everyone but Microsoft would be using the jvm as the browser's sandbox. Instead, they decided to push Java as an alternative to JavaScript, and lost on the browser.
As it is, we're still waiting for a multi-language sandboxed VM for the web. The JVM isn't it (single-language),.Net isn't it (too proprietary, MS & Security?), javascript isn't it (too slow to write interpreters in), and Parrot isn't it (no sandbox).
I'm sorry, you've got it backwards. I've got every right to fly, and the government doesn't have the right to stop me from doing whatever I want, unless there are strong (not theatrical) reason, backed by law, to stop me. The rights I have are not listed, the government's rights are.
In your point of view, there apparently exists a small booklet that enlists everything you have a right to, the rest of your movements and possibilities are luxury items given to you by big government, which can be taken away at a whim. You might want to re-examine that position.
And yes, I think the government has good reasons to scan and search. It should however be re-examined often and thoroughly, and the procedures should be changed quickly when they are not productive, and are needlessly interfering with my freedom of movement.
Things that should go are: shoe search (whoever came up with that idea? One miserable failed attempt to light one's shoe means millions of hours, thousands of manyears, wasted on removing shoes?); no-fly list (700K people on the list, no procedure to get off; shady means to get on; wtf?); taking the laptop out (why? can't they see through the bag?). And these are just the innocent things.
The manufacturer creates a recommendation based on a particular hard-drive usage scenario (read: Windows). If Ubuntu is using the hard-drive differently than expected, for instance by accessing the disk when the system is idle, this will break manufacturer's expectations and all bets are off.
Ubuntu has either to fix the OS's hard-drive usage pattern to mimic the expected usage, or set their own policy for parking disk heads. In both cases, it's Ubuntu's fault for not thinking this through, and they should create a fix.
Stalin defeated the Nazis. US subsequently outwaited a doomed economical system. The great economic machine is currently grinding to a halt. The US was one of the latecomers in ending slavery, and thank you, I prefer the political system I live in. A country that locks up almost a full percentage of its population, while having another percentage point on parole or probation, I cannot see as free.
To have these actions make sense, simply consider that Putin sees all things going on in the former Soviet area as being domestic issues rather than foreign. Checnya = domestic, Iran = foreign.
Yes, and your preferred mode of operating law in a country is? Convict people *before* they break the law? Don't worry, happy days are coming your way.
If you distribute GPL v2 software and then sue for patent infrignement while you still are distributing the software, you are violating the authors' copyrights.
Care to substantiate this? I'm under the impression that the GPL v2 allows this.
Okay, so you're saying that elevating privileges through CreateProcess() was a security risk, while elevating privileges through ShellExecute() is not? And that because the real security risk is the ability to redirect stdout? That's the only reasoning in which your comment makes sense.
Microsoft fucked up security in XP, then they fix it halfway in Vista, and then it's the application developers fault that they couldn't foresee which half would be fixed?
Yes, MS could do this, and force the EU into a quick migration plan (well, after the EU government has declared MS's copyright null and void in the EU). After this they can witness MS stock plummet to 5 bucks overnight, while any linux firm quadruples their stock price. Then, the MS execs should better prepare to fence off the lawsuits from stockholders as they are facing interesting days in court and possibly jail.
And that's just the first day. Soon it will become obvious that international companies with branches in the EU need to migrate away from MS as well if they want to keep their software homogeneous in their enterprise, subsequently forcing, in time, US national companies that are working with these internationals away from MS. In a year it would be over for MS.
Boston to Washington DC is only 450 miles or so. In between are plenty of cities of note. A fast train service on the east coast would make travel quite a bit faster than flying, and more comfortable to boot. European express trains (tgv) make 200 mph, so 2 and a quarter for a train doing the 'long' stretch from Boston city center to Washington DC city center. I've taxied longer than that (*). The east coast is very comparable with Europe in distances. No, I wouldn't expect a useful train service connecting the two coasts, and even New York to Chicago is probably best done by plane, but Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, DC, and quite a few more are better served with a fast train service.
Or the clipboard copy function can not distinguish between plain text, pictures, or embedded documents with macros. It simply pastes content, anything that can be put on the clipboard. If this is the case, then your complaint is more about the laziness of the MS developers that failed to create a waterproof detection algorithm for innocent content on the clipboard, then about any form of DRM.
So, there is more than one logical conclusion for this situation, and I think mine is better.
Slashdot Mirror
Because there's only one known format that starts with the year. Yes, theoretically there could be a format in use that is year/day/month, but there isn't, so the point is moot.
Why is this flimsy? It doesn't follow. If algorithms are like books (which the GP argues), algorithms should fall under copyright (which they do). If this argument is flimsy for software patents, what does this imply for book patents?
There's a world of difference between copyright and patents, and the OP is transferring arguments from one domain to another. If books were patentable, this would make sense. Now it's weird.
I guess however that you want some factual observations (not proof) that support the statement that 'random mutations can cause macro-evolutionary chance'. Such support is abundant and freshmen biologist do this as a matter of standard labwork. Even a simple mathematical experiment can show you that this works. Consider a population of bitstrings of length n. Apply a cost function that will prefer bitstrings that have half of the bits set [e.g., f(x) = ones(x) * (n - ones(x))]. Now evolve bitstrings with repeated selection and random variation (random bitflips, say applied to each bit with probability 1/n). Fairly quickly it will find individuals with exactly half of the bits set. Now split the population in two, without communication, and keep the procedure running. The two populations (with a common ancestor) will slowly drift away from eachother to, depending on the length of the simulation, arbitrary distance. This can be proven and shows that random chance can lead to arbitrary differences, as long as these differences are equally fit.
Consider that this is a static fitness function, where the only mechanism to diverge is genetic drift. Just drift is sufficient to cause macro-evolution, the case becomes stronger with dynamic fitness functions, niche formation, and the like.
So what we have first is the mathematically provable observation that 'random changes combined with selection can cause arbitrary changes in genotypes', and we have evolutionary theory that asserts that 'all changes in genotypes are caused by repeated selection and variation, leading to arbitrary changes in genotypes'. We have a theory, and there is support. Now it's up to you to show observations that disprove the theory, and give an alternative method that nature uses to create arbitrary changes. It needs to be observable though, 'goddidit' is not enough.
Books are not patentable, so your argument is moot.
To sum it up, a scripting language is a language suitable to solve scripting needs. Need is personal, but some solutions to these needs are laughable. Using C to process a bunch of data on a one-off basis I find silly. But, if that's all you know, more power to you.
So, Americans are small, overweight critters that babble unintelligibly. Yes, sounds about right.
One tactic of Australian natives to catch a kangaroo, was to simply run the beast to death. Just pursue until they drop dead from exhaustion, then eat.
The article kind of stuck as I was also convinced that humans suck at every athletic skill compared to animals, and we only have our brains to distinguish ourselves. Guess our feet are not so bad as well.
and no, looking it up on the internet is not an option [smirk]
WARNING: everyting transmitted through this medium is subject to warrentless inspection and subject to the US government's whim.Use at your own risk. This medium is monitored.
I could certainly live with this.
Quick disclaimer before I get flamed. I actually don't know if Parrot got a good sandbox or not. It might. If it targets javascript as well, it might be a winner.
Although the javascript sandbox is not historically 100% foolproof, the browser makers themselves have an incentive to make it as good as they can. If their javascript sandbox is bad, their browser will be blamed. Thus you can run javascript from untrusted sources without being wide open for even the most trivial of attacks.
The only solution to this dilemma is to have a good sandboxed virtual machine in every browser that multiple languages can target. Extra interpreters running in this VM would be safe. Not surprisingly, this was the solution Sun was advocating all these years ago with the Java VM, but they failed on the multi-lingual part. My guess is that if Sun would have made certain that javascript could compile to the jvm, and run at reasonable speed, everyone but Microsoft would be using the jvm as the browser's sandbox. Instead, they decided to push Java as an alternative to JavaScript, and lost on the browser.
As it is, we're still waiting for a multi-language sandboxed VM for the web. The JVM isn't it (single-language), .Net isn't it (too proprietary, MS & Security?), javascript isn't it (too slow to write interpreters in), and Parrot isn't it (no sandbox).
In your point of view, there apparently exists a small booklet that enlists everything you have a right to, the rest of your movements and possibilities are luxury items given to you by big government, which can be taken away at a whim. You might want to re-examine that position.
And yes, I think the government has good reasons to scan and search. It should however be re-examined often and thoroughly, and the procedures should be changed quickly when they are not productive, and are needlessly interfering with my freedom of movement.
Things that should go are: shoe search (whoever came up with that idea? One miserable failed attempt to light one's shoe means millions of hours, thousands of manyears, wasted on removing shoes?); no-fly list (700K people on the list, no procedure to get off; shady means to get on; wtf?); taking the laptop out (why? can't they see through the bag?). And these are just the innocent things.
Ubuntu has either to fix the OS's hard-drive usage pattern to mimic the expected usage, or set their own policy for parking disk heads. In both cases, it's Ubuntu's fault for not thinking this through, and they should create a fix.
Stalin defeated the Nazis. US subsequently outwaited a doomed economical system. The great economic machine is currently grinding to a halt. The US was one of the latecomers in ending slavery, and thank you, I prefer the political system I live in. A country that locks up almost a full percentage of its population, while having another percentage point on parole or probation, I cannot see as free.
Try Liberia. It looks quite like a nation after 10 years of libertarian policies.
Indeed, you're not paying anything more than someone who got a Nokia for free with their ATT plan.
To have these actions make sense, simply consider that Putin sees all things going on in the former Soviet area as being domestic issues rather than foreign. Checnya = domestic, Iran = foreign.
Yes, and your preferred mode of operating law in a country is? Convict people *before* they break the law? Don't worry, happy days are coming your way.
Microsoft fucked up security in XP, then they fix it halfway in Vista, and then it's the application developers fault that they couldn't foresee which half would be fixed?
And that's just the first day. Soon it will become obvious that international companies with branches in the EU need to migrate away from MS as well if they want to keep their software homogeneous in their enterprise, subsequently forcing, in time, US national companies that are working with these internationals away from MS. In a year it would be over for MS.
You need to a seat reservation to get on European express trains. They thought of these things you know.
(*) Here I am exaggerating
So, there is more than one logical conclusion for this situation, and I think mine is better.