"So, our photon could easily have more than ten to the tenth states. I leave the arithmetic to you as an exercise."
That looks like about 33 bits or about 4 bytes per photon. Of course the equipment required to generate and measure frequencies with 33 bit accuracy probably requires a volume large enough to hold terabytes of information using more conventional means.
I think the GP acknowledged that case. The problem in encoding information in a single natural entity is precision. It's the old "significant figures" issue from Chemistry 101.
"Seems like a good way to drive rich people abroad so there'd be no money coming into the government at all. Then the poor would have to pay their own way."
That might work if they plan on living in a third-world country, but most modern countries don't allow foreigners to become residents without following strict requirements. You can't just buy your way in.
"I sense the article is just another attempt to bash Google for anything and everything."
I think the perception of Google is changing from "everything Google does is smart, right and good" to a more balanced one. I think there's still a bit of a pro-Google bias out there, but it's slowly fading.
I was fully aware of what the GP was talking about. He responded to my statement about the situation for "non-cheaters" as if I were talking about "cheaters" and presented it as if it refuted what I said. It really didn't make much sense, actually.
"Yeah, that proprietary software has to become GPL instead of just being plain old illegal. You could always go with what was available before -- you have the option of keeping the proprietary software as a copyright infringement, just like it would have been."
No, the proprietary software was never illegal, never infringing on copyright. Then the owners of this original work decide that they want to incorporate GPL'd code in their application. In order to do this legally, they must GPL their own code too. The GPL forces proprietary code to be GPL'd in the exactly the same sense that RIAA forces you to pay for the music you want to hear (if you don't want to violate copyright law). Nobody is really forced to GPL their code or pay for music to stay out of trouble, but they do it because they have determined that the benefits outweigh the costs.
"The GPL says you can redistribute the software with the source code. Saying you can't redistribute without the source code isn't a demand set by the license (though it is certainly clarified there), but by copyright law"
It's not clear which source code you are talking about, but the point is that copyright law says nothing about having to distribute the new part of a derivative work, it just says you can't distribute anything without permission. The requirement to GPL your added code is part of the terms under which you are allowed to create and redistribute a derived work. These terms are unusual but they play the same role as paying a fee or any other consideration given in exchange for access to someone else's property.
"The licensee does not give up any rights (there is nothing that the licensee can't do under the GPL that he could do without it)."
This is simply false. Someone who doesn't hold the copyright to source code has no rights to it, so there's nothing to give up there. But that same person might create new lines of code that he has the right to keep secret but he agrees to give up that right in order to combine his new code with GPL'd code. Thus there is, in fact, something that a licensee can't do under the GPL that he could do without it: keep his code secret. Note that this "something" doesn't include distributing a derivative work, but that's a different "something".
I'm not saying that the GPL is evil or unfair, but it's a bit silly to suggest that it makes no demands on those who wish to create a derivative work. If it didn't make any demands there would be no reason why RMS would prefer it to the BSD license.
I guess I'm a bit old fashioned. If I take advantage of a license my first thought isn't "what happens if I cheat?". For non-cheaters, the GPL does force proprietary code to become GPL in exchange for the right to create a derivative work. There would be no point in creating the GPL if one assumed most people weren't going to accept this bargin.
The fundemental difference is that the GPL is as interested in the code a licensee adds as it is in the orginal code. Proprietary code owners are fundementally concerned in protecting their own code and don't really care about the value that added code might have.
In any case the debate is about whether the GPL demands something (which it does as I described before), not about the relative niceness of the GPL vs. proprietary legalities.
How can requiring that additional source code added by the licensee must be distributed along with the original source not be considered a demand? A GPL licensee is giving up their rights to keep their source code secret in exchange for being able to incorporate GPL'd code in their application.
You can argue about legal definitions all you want, but as a practical matter the GPL is indistinguishable in effect from a "licensing agreement" to those that intending to distribute derivative code.
I didn't realize you were talking about yourself. My point still remains, however. If you want to have a career in CS, you need to have a degree no matter how much knowledge and talent you have. Looks like you're wise enough to realize that.
Without knowing the details of the basic apps, the websites, and the kernel hacking, I couldn't tell you which represented the biggest accomplishment. Writing your own working kernel from scratch is a significant acheivement, changing a few lines of code in the Linux kernel, not so much.
In any case, if a high school student is a gifted programmer he/she would be foolish not to go on to college after graduation and I suspect most do.
Perhaps you're not familiar with University CS progams. They include as much math and physics courses as most engineering programs. I don't understand what you mean by "natural science, with real observations". Undergrad Engineering students mostly cook-book their way through the same experiments that students have been performing for 20 years; there's no fundemental scientific research being done at that level.
"Joyce Park, CTO of invitation site Renkoo.com, has written a two-part essay exploring why there is no pipeline of self-taught female engineers entering the tech industry via Open Source or other individual efforts."
I'm not sure about the male vs. female angle here, but I think it's a myth that there's a lot of self-taught individuals who have established a viable, sustainable career in software development without a college education (at least for those under 50).
I disagree. While programmers aren't trained to do everything an EE may do, many of the problems that programmers solve are similiar to the kinds of problems EEs solve (particularly in digital, embedded and scientific projects). If this were not the case, it would be impossible for software implementations to be traded against hardware implementations. They are often working in the same problem space.
Re:VB already gets the respect it deserves...
on
Lisp and Ruby
·
· Score: 0
"Yeah, except I have better things to do than argue about how I might not yet have articulated my deeply held belief yet."
Apparently not.
Re:VB already gets the respect it deserves...
on
Lisp and Ruby
·
· Score: 1
You seem to be bouncing back and forth between saying "it's just my opinion" and "I think it'll help the world". If you make an argument and somebody challenges that argument you shouldn't hide behind the fact that it's just an opinion.
Re:VB already gets the respect it deserves...
on
Lisp and Ruby
·
· Score: 1
"Sure you can do lots of stuff with it, but whatever. I'm not interested in how much stuff someone can do in something - that's a pragmatic approach. But I should only be concerned with my own actions. Using VB in my own life would be knowingly limiting myself. So I cannot. Therefore VB sucks."
It's fine if language X sucks for you, but if you expect to influence anybody else's opinion, you can't ignore pragmatics.
Re:Performance, anyone?
on
Lisp and Ruby
·
· Score: 1
"Anyone who's paid a salary is paid by the hour, it just doesn't appear that way at first glance."
No. Most engineers (in the US at least) on salary are exempt and thus only get paid for 40 hours a week but typically work more.
Re:VB already gets the respect it deserves...
on
Lisp and Ruby
·
· Score: 1
This is where I would mention missing features in Ruby (if I knew anything about Ruby). The point I was trying to make is that the lack of a particular language feature (and they're all missing something) doesn't mean that the language sucks.
In the case of VB, some developers are threatened by the marketplace reality that people can create successful applications without using politically-correct languages or following every academic rule. This attitude is most common with new grads, but most outgrow it eventually.
Slashdot Mirror
"So, our photon could easily have more than ten to the tenth states. I leave the arithmetic to you as an exercise."
That looks like about 33 bits or about 4 bytes per photon. Of course the equipment required to generate and measure frequencies with 33 bit accuracy probably requires a volume large enough to hold terabytes of information using more conventional means.
Saying that the number of bits that can be encoded depends on the number of possible states is just another way of saying it depends on the precision.
I think the GP acknowledged that case. The problem in encoding information in a single natural entity is precision. It's the old "significant figures" issue from Chemistry 101.
"Seems like a good way to drive rich people abroad so there'd be no money coming into the government at all. Then the poor would have to pay their own way."
That might work if they plan on living in a third-world country, but most modern countries don't allow foreigners to become residents without following strict requirements. You can't just buy your way in.
"I sense the article is just another attempt to bash Google for anything and everything."
I think the perception of Google is changing from "everything Google does is smart, right and good" to a more balanced one. I think there's still a bit of a pro-Google bias out there, but it's slowly fading.
I was fully aware of what the GP was talking about. He responded to my statement about the situation for "non-cheaters" as if I were talking about "cheaters" and presented it as if it refuted what I said. It really didn't make much sense, actually.
"You seem to want this to be a comparison between GPL and public domain."
Not at all. My argument doesn't have anything to do with public domain.
"Yeah, that proprietary software has to become GPL instead of just being plain old illegal. You could always go with what was available before -- you have the option of keeping the proprietary software as a copyright infringement, just like it would have been."
No, the proprietary software was never illegal, never infringing on copyright. Then the owners of this original work decide that they want to incorporate GPL'd code in their application. In order to do this legally, they must GPL their own code too. The GPL forces proprietary code to be GPL'd in the exactly the same sense that RIAA forces you to pay for the music you want to hear (if you don't want to violate copyright law). Nobody is really forced to GPL their code or pay for music to stay out of trouble, but they do it because they have determined that the benefits outweigh the costs.
"The GPL says you can redistribute the software with the source code. Saying you can't redistribute without the source code isn't a demand set by the license (though it is certainly clarified there), but by copyright law"
It's not clear which source code you are talking about, but the point is that copyright law says nothing about having to distribute the new part of a derivative work, it just says you can't distribute anything without permission. The requirement to GPL your added code is part of the terms under which you are allowed to create and redistribute a derived work. These terms are unusual but they play the same role as paying a fee or any other consideration given in exchange for access to someone else's property.
"The licensee does not give up any rights (there is nothing that the licensee can't do under the GPL that he could do without it)."
This is simply false. Someone who doesn't hold the copyright to source code has no rights to it, so there's nothing to give up there. But that same person might create new lines of code that he has the right to keep secret but he agrees to give up that right in order to combine his new code with GPL'd code. Thus there is, in fact, something that a licensee can't do under the GPL that he could do without it: keep his code secret. Note that this "something" doesn't include distributing a derivative work, but that's a different "something".
I'm not saying that the GPL is evil or unfair, but it's a bit silly to suggest that it makes no demands on those who wish to create a derivative work. If it didn't make any demands there would be no reason why RMS would prefer it to the BSD license.
MS isn't a "convicted monopolist" anyway. The antitrust case was a civil one and you can't be "convicted" for anything in a civil case.
I guess I'm a bit old fashioned. If I take advantage of a license my first thought isn't "what happens if I cheat?". For non-cheaters, the GPL does force proprietary code to become GPL in exchange for the right to create a derivative work. There would be no point in creating the GPL if one assumed most people weren't going to accept this bargin.
The fundemental difference is that the GPL is as interested in the code a licensee adds as it is in the orginal code. Proprietary code owners are fundementally concerned in protecting their own code and don't really care about the value that added code might have.
In any case the debate is about whether the GPL demands something (which it does as I described before), not about the relative niceness of the GPL vs. proprietary legalities.
I don't see how that has anyting to do with my argument.
How can requiring that additional source code added by the licensee must be distributed along with the original source not be considered a demand? A GPL licensee is giving up their rights to keep their source code secret in exchange for being able to incorporate GPL'd code in their application.
You can argue about legal definitions all you want, but as a practical matter the GPL is indistinguishable in effect from a "licensing agreement" to those that intending to distribute derivative code.
I didn't realize you were talking about yourself. My point still remains, however. If you want to have a career in CS, you need to have a degree no matter how much knowledge and talent you have. Looks like you're wise enough to realize that.
Without knowing the details of the basic apps, the websites, and the kernel hacking, I couldn't tell you which represented the biggest accomplishment. Writing your own working kernel from scratch is a significant acheivement, changing a few lines of code in the Linux kernel, not so much.
In any case, if a high school student is a gifted programmer he/she would be foolish not to go on to college after graduation and I suspect most do.
Perhaps you're not familiar with University CS progams. They include as much math and physics courses as most engineering programs. I don't understand what you mean by "natural science, with real observations". Undergrad Engineering students mostly cook-book their way through the same experiments that students have been performing for 20 years; there's no fundemental scientific research being done at that level.
"Joyce Park, CTO of invitation site Renkoo.com, has written a two-part essay exploring why there is no pipeline of self-taught female engineers entering the tech industry via Open Source or other individual efforts."
I'm not sure about the male vs. female angle here, but I think it's a myth that there's a lot of self-taught individuals who have established a viable, sustainable career in software development without a college education (at least for those under 50).
I disagree. While programmers aren't trained to do everything an EE may do, many of the problems that programmers solve are similiar to the kinds of problems EEs solve (particularly in digital, embedded and scientific projects). If this were not the case, it would be impossible for software implementations to be traded against hardware implementations. They are often working in the same problem space.
"Yeah, except I have better things to do than argue about how I might not yet have articulated my deeply held belief yet."
Apparently not.
You seem to be bouncing back and forth between saying "it's just my opinion" and "I think it'll help the world". If you make an argument and somebody challenges that argument you shouldn't hide behind the fact that it's just an opinion.
"Sure you can do lots of stuff with it, but whatever. I'm not interested in how much stuff someone can do in something - that's a pragmatic approach. But I should only be concerned with my own actions. Using VB in my own life would be knowingly limiting myself. So I cannot. Therefore VB sucks."
It's fine if language X sucks for you, but if you expect to influence anybody else's opinion, you can't ignore pragmatics.
"Anyone who's paid a salary is paid by the hour,
it just doesn't appear that way at first glance."
No. Most engineers (in the US at least) on salary are exempt and thus only get paid for 40 hours a week but typically work more.
This is where I would mention missing features in Ruby (if I knew anything about Ruby). The point I was trying to make is that the lack of a particular language feature (and they're all missing something) doesn't mean that the language sucks.
In the case of VB, some developers are threatened by the marketplace reality that people can create successful applications without using politically-correct languages or following every academic rule. This attitude is most common with new grads, but most outgrow it eventually.
Thus the need for the new term 4GL.