Yeah, I tend to think so too.
Though it probably couldn't affect Microsoft's own code... but if it got into third party applications written for Microsoft it could be very embarrassing.
The difference between the GPL and the above mentioned Microsoft EULA at the root of this discussion is that :
The GPL tries to guarantee that end users will have access to the source code to read it if they want, developers will be able to build off of it if they want, and users of derivative products will enjoy the same priveledges and subject to the same strictures of openness. Nobody but Microsoft can review their code for holes nor build off of it.
The aforementioned Microsoft EULA tries to keep GPL'd code out of apps developed with the aforementioned SDK, and presumably in the future (and for the purposes of discussion) for Microsoft apps in general. Why ? Probably for two reasons.
(1) To avoid future situations where software written for Windows could come under the GPL. (This is likely to be a small effect: Who else is allowed to write any meaningful code for Microsoft but Microsoft employees ? )
(2) Because Microsoft wants to stomp the GPL out of existence. Code developed under the GPL or similar licences poses the only major threat to Microsoft. (Actually, I rather think they would like to see the GPL go away so that they could incorporate all that wonderful open source code into their own shockingly inferior product - and not have to pay a cent for it.)
So it's not exactly a "tit for tat" matter, sir. One way forces developers to be good citizens; the other way allows monopolistic institutions to dominate developers. GPL makes the world safe for people who like to program and make serious contributions. Microsoft makes the world safe for MBAs, computer criminals, and lawyers.
Congratulations !
Since you have quoted 4 scientists and 1 Spanish Royal Commission, I guess we are to conclude that scientists are a close-minded lot who can't see beyond their own theories. ( And by the way, Einstein's Relativity Theory IS a small decimal effect in our corner of the universe ! )
Also, three out of your five quotes (Kelvin, Jolly via Planck, and Michelson) all refer to continued and/or new measurement in spite of the quoted faith in the physical theories of the day. This is indeed the spirit of science, and I don't think we have to fault these men for their lack of foreknowledge of experiments not yet performed.
Or was your point more that we just have to wait for the next paradigm shift or two, and then the current theortical limits on computing will be bust ?
You're right. I can sit back and imagine a world with computers a billion time faster than Seth Lloyd's limit, operated by men with huge fly heads who keep as yet undetected fairies and gnomes as pets. The scientists say this is unlikely, so in 50 years or so it will likely happen.
While I wait, I'll have a gin and tonic, please.
I've never met a scientist who claimed absolute knowledge about anything. Such a beast is more likely an invention of the media and popular culture. It is religious fanatics, on the other hand, who generally claim absolute knowledge about everything, and no experience is ever sufficient to "shatter their belief" in their knowledge or institutions.
Contemporary theories are roadmaps to discovery, rather than absolute truths. If experimental knowledge is to advance, then theory is the best device we have for comparison. In other words, theories are meant to be revised or, even better, to be replaced.
You seem to take a measure of satisfaction in the fact that theories get "shattered," and that those poor slobs who are "convinced that our current theories are laws of nature" get their comeuppance. How sad.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, I tend to think so too. Though it probably couldn't affect Microsoft's own code ... but if it got into third party applications written for Microsoft it could be very embarrassing.
The GPL tries to guarantee that end users will have access to the source code to read it if they want, developers will be able to build off of it if they want, and users of derivative products will enjoy the same priveledges and subject to the same strictures of openness. Nobody but Microsoft can review their code for holes nor build off of it.
The aforementioned Microsoft EULA tries to keep GPL'd code out of apps developed with the aforementioned SDK, and presumably in the future (and for the purposes of discussion) for Microsoft apps in general.
Why ? Probably for two reasons.
So it's not exactly a "tit for tat" matter, sir. One way forces developers to be good citizens; the other way allows monopolistic institutions to dominate developers. GPL makes the world safe for people who like to program and make serious contributions. Microsoft makes the world safe for MBAs, computer criminals, and lawyers.
Congratulations ! Since you have quoted 4 scientists and 1 Spanish Royal Commission, I guess we are to conclude that scientists are a close-minded lot who can't see beyond their own theories. ( And by the way, Einstein's Relativity Theory IS a small decimal effect in our corner of the universe ! ) Also, three out of your five quotes (Kelvin, Jolly via Planck, and Michelson) all refer to continued and/or new measurement in spite of the quoted faith in the physical theories of the day. This is indeed the spirit of science, and I don't think we have to fault these men for their lack of foreknowledge of experiments not yet performed. Or was your point more that we just have to wait for the next paradigm shift or two, and then the current theortical limits on computing will be bust ? You're right. I can sit back and imagine a world with computers a billion time faster than Seth Lloyd's limit, operated by men with huge fly heads who keep as yet undetected fairies and gnomes as pets. The scientists say this is unlikely, so in 50 years or so it will likely happen. While I wait, I'll have a gin and tonic, please.
I've never met a scientist who claimed absolute knowledge about anything. Such a beast is more likely an invention of the media and popular culture. It is religious fanatics, on the other hand, who generally claim absolute knowledge about everything, and no experience is ever sufficient to "shatter their belief" in their knowledge or institutions. Contemporary theories are roadmaps to discovery, rather than absolute truths. If experimental knowledge is to advance, then theory is the best device we have for comparison. In other words, theories are meant to be revised or, even better, to be replaced. You seem to take a measure of satisfaction in the fact that theories get "shattered," and that those poor slobs who are "convinced that our current theories are laws of nature" get their comeuppance. How sad.