Are you really saying you can't see how storing a music file on a company's server means you've made a copy of the music and distributed it to that company?
I'm not saying I agree with the ruling; only that it's not as absurd as you make it sound.
Well, it's hard to argue against that position. All I can say is that my gut feeling is that text will always be the most preferred way to write the most complex software systems. I'd love to be proven wrong.
I'd like to refer you to Aardappel, a graphical language. I consider this a very interesting language, and the guy who designed it is very smart. To me, its one big weakness is that it is a graphical language. In fact, in the dissertation, the author actually uses an "equivalent textual representation" of the language, and yet somehow doesn't realize that this is a big flashing red sign that says "my graphical language is impractical". I think the textual representation is a very interesting language, but the graphical representation doesn't even pass the laugh test.
In fact, this is where I get the idea of a graphical representation of quicksort. The image on that page is exactly that. Tell me if you really think that's an intelligible description of quicksort, compared with this one written in Python:
def qsort1(list):
if list == []:
return []
else:
pivot = list[0]
lesser = qsort1([x for x in list[1:] if x < pivot])
greater = qsort1([x for x in list[1:] if x >= pivot])
return lesser + [pivot] + greater
You made a number of points, some of which I agree with, but I wanted to point out this one:
Hieroglypics sacred stone carvings controlled by the prevailing theocracy and used solely to reinforce the myth of eternal life.
They were not programmable or network transparent, they did not make it easier to interface with software and hardware systems, did not let you make a reservation at your favorite restaurant and order a prime rib dinner or let you make a video phone call to your mother in New York. They did not let you browse a catalog of 100,000 works of art or let you enjoy them in an animated stream to participate in a virtual race with 3 friends on a 65" display.
You're talking about user interfaces here. Source code is a description of an extraordinarily complex system, and so pictures aren't really suitable. People will claim that blueprints and engineering diagrams are analogous, but they are not; they are orders of magnitude less complex than modern software systems. If a picture is worth 1000 words, then the system I work on every day would require 2300 pictures, and it's pretty hard to see how that could be feasible.
Source code is a document describing how a computer can achieve something. That document, in my case, is pretty big. If it were a novel, it would be over 9000 pages long. People don't use pictures to write novels.
Source code works by defining certain words and certain rules by which the software operates. In that way, it's not altogether different from a legal code. People don't use pictures for legal codes.
If you can show me an executable diagram of, say, quicksort, I might change my mind.
I made a call to Michael Tiemann, author of the GNU C++ compiler, a few years ago to encourage him to create a programming extension to his work with gnu C++ by adding graphical symbols to C++ which would allow people, especially children, to program in C++ by manipulating graphical symbols the way that C++ programmers now manipulate text to create software.
He said it was impossible.
All that means, really, is that it won't be Michael Tiemann who authors or participates in this inevitable breakthrough. No, what it means is that he knows why we stopped using hieroglyphics many centuries ago.
To be convicted of a crime, you must be culpable (ie. you should have known better). If you're not culpable, you're not convicted, even though it happened.
Conversely, if you are culpable, you can be convicted of a crime even if it didn't happen. Seems fair to me.
Because such a bill would be just another piece of ridiculous regulation? Here's what the driver has to do:
Keep the engine RPM low
Well, it's not quite that simple, or you'd just leave your transmission in 5th gear all the time. I figure that since 3/4 of the energy produced by an engine is heat, there's probably more energy wasted in the engine friction than in moving the car. Therefore, the objective is to try to get from A to B with the fewest total engine revolutions. Keeping it in a high gear is most of the battle, particularly when cruising, but I don't think trying to accelerate with the engine at a low point in its torque curve isn't efficient either.
I like to get up to speed using the highest gear that gives me reasonable torque, then cruise in high gear, or coast.
If I make something, why shouldn't I have the right to choose whether to make it freely available or not? That's the wrong question. Copyright is about preventing others from making copies. When you make something, you would always have the option to keep it private even if there were no such thing as copyright.
It's thinking like that that makes certain evidence inadmissible. People tend to think crimes are committed by "bad people", so if there's a "bad person" in the vicinity of a crime, they must be guilty.
I'm not saying Reiser did it, and I'm not saying he didn't. I'm just saying "what are the odds" isn't much of an argument. For all you know, Reiser said to himself "hey I can get away with this because they'll blame it on her mass-murdering lover". Let's let the justice system do its job.
Most of the hydrogen and helium was formed in the Big Bang, which means that oxygen is the element most frequently produced by nuclear fusion reactions in the interior of the stars. No, that doesn't follow. Helium is still the element most frequently produced in nuclear fusion, even if most of it was formed in the Big Bang.
Althouth there are a few interesting tools I'd still like to see, how many more desktops apps are really needed? Right! And while we're at it, let's close the patent office, since everything we need has already been invented.
Slashdot Mirror
You need to adjust your sarcasm threshold.
My new word for the day.
Awesome troll. Almost believable.
How do you know that's exactly what's happening?
You're 17?
Are you really saying you can't see how storing a music file on a company's server means you've made a copy of the music and distributed it to that company?
I'm not saying I agree with the ruling; only that it's not as absurd as you make it sound.
85% of all statistics are made up.
That's intriguing. Is there more info available?
I'd like to refer you to Aardappel, a graphical language. I consider this a very interesting language, and the guy who designed it is very smart. To me, its one big weakness is that it is a graphical language. In fact, in the dissertation, the author actually uses an "equivalent textual representation" of the language, and yet somehow doesn't realize that this is a big flashing red sign that says "my graphical language is impractical". I think the textual representation is a very interesting language, but the graphical representation doesn't even pass the laugh test.
In fact, this is where I get the idea of a graphical representation of quicksort. The image on that page is exactly that. Tell me if you really think that's an intelligible description of quicksort, compared with this one written in Python:
They were not programmable or network transparent, they did not make it easier to interface with software and hardware systems, did not let you make a reservation at your favorite restaurant and order a prime rib dinner or let you make a video phone call to your mother in New York. They did not let you browse a catalog of 100,000 works of art or let you enjoy them in an animated stream to participate in a virtual race with 3 friends on a 65" display.
You're talking about user interfaces here. Source code is a description of an extraordinarily complex system, and so pictures aren't really suitable. People will claim that blueprints and engineering diagrams are analogous, but they are not; they are orders of magnitude less complex than modern software systems. If a picture is worth 1000 words, then the system I work on every day would require 2300 pictures, and it's pretty hard to see how that could be feasible.
Source code is a document describing how a computer can achieve something. That document, in my case, is pretty big. If it were a novel, it would be over 9000 pages long. People don't use pictures to write novels.
Source code works by defining certain words and certain rules by which the software operates. In that way, it's not altogether different from a legal code. People don't use pictures for legal codes.
If you can show me an executable diagram of, say, quicksort, I might change my mind.
He said it was impossible.
All that means, really, is that it won't be Michael Tiemann who authors or participates in this inevitable breakthrough. No, what it means is that he knows why we stopped using hieroglyphics many centuries ago.
If this is the kind of software you work on, then yes, this solution will work.
To be convicted of a crime, you must be culpable (ie. you should have known better). If you're not culpable, you're not convicted, even though it happened.
Conversely, if you are culpable, you can be convicted of a crime even if it didn't happen. Seems fair to me.
Someone makes this same comment every time advances in CPU technology are mentioned.
Take another look. He's making fun of the date they mentioned (1996).
Well, it's not quite that simple, or you'd just leave your transmission in 5th gear all the time. I figure that since 3/4 of the energy produced by an engine is heat, there's probably more energy wasted in the engine friction than in moving the car. Therefore, the objective is to try to get from A to B with the fewest total engine revolutions. Keeping it in a high gear is most of the battle, particularly when cruising, but I don't think trying to accelerate with the engine at a low point in its torque curve isn't efficient either.
I like to get up to speed using the highest gear that gives me reasonable torque, then cruise in high gear, or coast.
I think a preview is the movie, released a bit early.
Just demand it an hour earlier than you expect to watch it.
It's thinking like that that makes certain evidence inadmissible. People tend to think crimes are committed by "bad people", so if there's a "bad person" in the vicinity of a crime, they must be guilty.
I'm not saying Reiser did it, and I'm not saying he didn't. I'm just saying "what are the odds" isn't much of an argument. For all you know, Reiser said to himself "hey I can get away with this because they'll blame it on her mass-murdering lover". Let's let the justice system do its job.
I'm not exactly the most savvy Slashdot reader around, and even I know this "electric universe" theory is about as credible as the time cube.
Who has thirty 100W bulbs in their house?
Who exactly would do that?