I do have to say, though, that it doesn't much matter to me whether you buy a Mac or not. But, anyway:
It's much easier for
a 16 year old to spend $300 for something than it is to save $3000 for another.
Sure, and when I was sixteen I worked for a summer with the YCC and bought a TRS-80 Model I, which I hooked up to a B&W tube television that I had found in the trash and rewired to accept video input. It wasn't technically my first computer, because I had built a Cosmac Elf a couple of years earlier, but it was my first computer with a keyboard.
Then I got older.
I develop software for a living.
So do I. And I have two Mac laptops, an older Mac that I hardly use any more, and a PC. I do development for the Palm and Win32 on one of the Macs. The other Mac I use for Cocoa development and video.
With two exceptions, every Mac user I've encountered has preached at me with the furvor of a Deep-South Bible
Thumper
OK, but on the other hand, most of the PC enthusiasts I have met have either been script kiddie wannabes or ignoramuses. Most people are idiots, period.
Here's why I like the Mac. I'll limit it to statements about OS X, although many apply to Mac OS 1-9 as well. Mind you that I've used almost every imaginable machine and OS, from IBM/360 DOS to Dec Vax and Alpha VMS to the Connection Machine to NOS on the ETA-10 and, yes, even every variety of Windows and PC/DOS.
There's crafstmanship in it. From the very first beige toaster, one gets the impression that someone actually sat down and thought hard about every aspect of the hardware and software. In contrast, every other system I've seen seems more thrown-together, even Linux (which I like). Apple didn't always get things right, but getting it right was always important. The sliding washer on the power cord for my titanium iBook: somebody thought of that. There was a rough period in the mid-1990's when they slacked off, but they're back with a vengeance.
Cocoa is fun When I get dragged down by having to develop for patchwork systems, sometimes I just need to freshen my brain, so I sit down and write a little Cocoa application. The development system just works and doesn't get in my way. I get the feeling of cooperating with colleagues rather than struggling against enemies. It restores my hope and reminds me why I'm doing this for a living when there are a lot easier ways to make more money.
It is, after all, UN*X Everything I like in UNIX I can continue to do under Darwin. I can slip back and forth with no effort, and everything fits seamlessly together.
I have a LEGO Mindstorm kit, and I find it great. However, I also find it difficult to get pieces. One of the things I need are some racks. I want to build a robot that will go up and down a track with fairly precise control, and rack and pinion seems to be the best way to do this.
There used to be a LEGO Technic forklift kit with lots of racks and pinions and also an add-on kit with a bunch of racks. However, even when I go to the LEGO outlet, all the Technic kits I see are fairly useless cars or robots, and there don't seem to be any add-on kits. The Mindstorm add-on kit has a lot of weird pieces (including a foot pedal), but no racks.
Does anybody know where to get extra racks, pinions, gears, wheels, and other bread-and-butter pieces for complex kits?
You've gotten many good arguments so far. I hope you read them, too. Especially the points that software is mathematics and software is not a machine or a process for physical transformation.
Is it because the USPTO has so few good examiners
in the area that there is a sense that the quality of software patents is poor?
That's a factor. Most extant software patents are entirely bogus, due to prior art or obviousness.
Or is it simply that because there are so
many talented programmers out there who can write code that does the same thing as the patented code that they
don't want any impediments whatsoever?
Actually, that is precisely the opposite of what is the case. Many talented programmers spend much of their time writing software around patents. From a pure greed standpoint, they should logically be in favor of patents. So, programmers who object to patents are doing so in spite of any greed, not because of it.
As for the former, I agree it is a concern, but one the USPTO is trying to
address by hiring more (and more talented) examiners.
Will these more talented examiners eliminate existing patents that are obviously bogus due to obviousness or prior art? My understanding is that they won't, that the only way to get rid of one is to litigate at a cost of more than what most people make in their lives. It is therefore hardly reassuring.
If everyone needed a few million $ worth
of hardware to make the invention, the patent doesn't add that much value against the masses of people who want
to copy your invention, it only protects you against the few who have the actual resources to do so.
Everyone, effectively, needs a few million dollars worth of money to be able to write software and be secure against bogus patents.
Every other
industry has dealt with patents for years.
Not your industry, which you probably call a profession. None of the documents that you have ever produced as an attorney are patentable.
Furthermore, software development is not an industry. Hardware development and sales are an industry, and their products should be patentable. Software is purely mathematical.
It is time for the software developers as a whole to do so as well.
Why am I not surprised that you are not interested in constructive criticism at all and have already made up your mind?
I'm not
sure that there're actually any software patents out there that have prior art that would've disqualified them.
Oh, there are plenty. The patent on correct-order spreadsheet calculation, based on the prior art of the topological sort. The patent on using exclusive OR for cursors, which is both prior art and totally obvious. The patent on networked games, which is based on prior art and is totally obvious.
Best quality + first to market almost never means success. Inferior but good enough, introduced when people are used to the idea almost always wins.
LISP and CLOS
on
Bitter Java
·
· Score: 1, Flamebait
Somebody has to say it. I'm a LISP junkie, indoctrinated at MIT in the late 1970's. I write LISP and Scheme systems for fun. Even when I write C code, about half the time I start off by implementing a mini-LISP. Its great for memory management and debugging.
However, I'm also an object junkie. CLOS is a joke. It's about as object-oriented as Ada, which isn't much. Not only is Paul Graham right that you can do it, this is what you should do if you want a real O-O system rather than something that basically just uses the word "object" in the documentation.
Do you have a source for that? I have long thought it was obvious that MS profited from piracy, probably deliberately, but it would be nice to have unassailable proof of that.
I saw the original release of Star Wars seven times. I saw the first re-release two times. After that, I lost count.
Star Wars has been successful because it has included the kind of movie that people will go back to see several times on the big screen. Getting away from this is a big mistake.
Another methodology with a catchy name that is supposed to fix all the problems with software development but never quite does. Just what the world needs.
Frankly, it's because "we" are stupid. "We" are stuck in slave morality, in the camel phase of development (as Nietzsche put it). This kind of "I have to do this because my family is my first priority" is not an effective way to acquire lots of money. It is, however, an effective way to become a wage slave at the mercy of one's employer.
The GPL does not prevent you from selling the code under another, non-GPL license for commercial use. To wit, direct from the GPL:
It is not the purpose of this section to induce you to infringe any
patents or other property right claims or to contest validity of any
such claims; this section has the sole purpose of protecting the
integrity of the free software distribution system, which is
implemented by public license practices. Many people have made
generous contributions to the wide range of software distributed
through that system in reliance on consistent application of that
system; it is up to the author/donor to decide if he or she is willing
to distribute software through any other system and a licensee cannot
impose that choice.
Look. Microsoft is lying. It's really that simple. There's no point in discussing how hard it could be, because the statement that it's impossible or even hard is false. There's no need to wonder about it, either. Microsoft sticks to this because it obfuscates the fact that they prevented OEM's from putting a Netscape icon on the desktop back in the day, not due to any technical problems but rather due to a business decision. All they have to do is convince a judge or delay a judgement. If they delay it long enough, it doesn't matter, because they've move on to other things.
It's very simple. Introduce some sort of Draconian legislation, not because you expect it to be passed, but to soften the electorate for a "compromise," which is what you really wanted in the first place.
We don't need legislation. Neither the motion picture industry nor the record industry needs protection. They're doing just fine, and if they started being smarter, they'd do even better. When they say that profits are being sucked out of their businesses by hordes of evil pirates, they are lying and they know it. What they want is very simple; they want more control over the market so that they can bring back the halcyon days of poorly paid "studio talent" and ring in the new days of corporate-controlled boy bands and Britney Spears clones. The motion picture industry tried this before with chains of theaters and this practice was declared illegal. They want legislative imprimateur not only to own the theaters this time but to own the idea of a theater. It is the exact same deal.
What is this, annual Falling for the Bloody Obvious month?
There should be a big difference between learning from someone's code and just copying it. There would be a big difference in any sensibly run system. That's a subjunctive and a conditional, not an indicative. However, according to the GT code, even discussing problems outside of class is cheating. Therefore, GT official policy is that there is no difference. They made the rules; they deserve to be judged by them. They even run a piece of code to detect "cheating" and automatically send students to the dean without a review first. They made the rules; they don't deserve deliberation.
There's one thing you have to understand about Atlanta, which you can't understand unless you're used to another culture but have to spend some time in Atlanta. I also think that, if you're here too long, it spoils the perception. For mercenary reasons, I've been in Atlanta for two years, and I have to deal with GT weenies all the time.
The thing is this: In general, people in Atlanta do not care about substance. At all. To Atlantans, Atlanta is the Jewel of the South. It does not matter that the cultural facilities are almost at the bottom compared to cities of similar size and Atlanta lacks facilities quite common in University towns one-eighth the size. It is the Jewel of the South, dammit. Everything is about who you know, what family you belong to, and how well you can bullshit others.
There are no really good restaurants in Atlanta. I know; I've looked for them. I've even asked chefs, who got defensive and then told me places to go. I went there. There are only Fabulous Restaurant Concepts. Every other city that you can name has restaurants that are primarily for Being Seen There, but they also, usually, make good food. Not so in Atlanta.
A completely accurate summary of Atlanta is this: Yeehaw, Lemuel, let's make one of them city thangs. Ain't it purty.
Similarly, GA Tech is the M.I.T. of the South. It doesn't matter whether they do things to support this. What matters is that enough people believe it. I doubt it even occurs to any of the faculty or administration that teaching well and effectively is important. They'd just blink and say, "But We're The M.I.T. Of The South."
Yeehaw, Lemuel, let's make one of them tech university thangs. Ain't it purty.
OK, maybe there are a few. I'm not entirely poisoned, and so there are probably some others. You can't have four million people without having a few that don't spend all their time licking navels. Yet I feel the creep in my bones. I'm trying like hell to get out of here and will eventually make it. Same for the others, probably.
I used to do this. (No, really. We even got a cover on Bioengineering Laboratory.) Traditionally, the bioinformatic community prefers the following:
SGI
SGI
SGI
Some supercomputer we can get time on
Did I mention SGI?
One of the first decent sequencers was a network application running on a 25 MHz SGI. Now that SGI is getting to be where Apple was five years ago, due partially to losing a lot of engineers to nVidea, perhaps they're going after the SGI market.
The GNU license does not require that any software distributed with the GPL-licensed software be anything. That is a complete and total lie. Software that is distributed with a GPL-licensed product does not have to be anything.
It is only software that incorporates GPL software that needs to be distributed under the GPL. Because there is an ambiguous case with libraries and similar forms, the LGPL exists. If you just link and don't change the basic library functionality, your overall product can be licensed as you like it.
It's really quite simple. GPL prevents people from stealing other people's open source efforts and publishing them as their own. This is the intellectual property "right" that Microsoft wants to have.
Empathy would require the animal to
have emotions, I did not know that cats and dogs were capable of such things, please point out some specific studies.
It's not the pet that has to have emotions; it's the human. All that is necessary is that the pet interact with the human in such a way that it helps build empathy in the human. Dogs certainly do this. It also helps if the pet does not behave in a way that is inconsistent with the hypothesis that the pet has empathy. This is true of dogs; if they lose control with a human, they usually then behave as if they were sorry. It is not true of most cats.
As for whether pets have real love, it isn't a useful question. I don't know if any human other than me can feel love, and there is evidence from some ex-girlfriends and wives that many of them cannot. However, Bosco, Siren, and Tess display more evidence of love for me than you display of the ability of cognition.
Slashdot Mirror
I do have to say, though, that it doesn't much matter to me whether you buy a Mac or not. But, anyway:
It's much easier for a 16 year old to spend $300 for something than it is to save $3000 for another.
Sure, and when I was sixteen I worked for a summer with the YCC and bought a TRS-80 Model I, which I hooked up to a B&W tube television that I had found in the trash and rewired to accept video input. It wasn't technically my first computer, because I had built a Cosmac Elf a couple of years earlier, but it was my first computer with a keyboard.
Then I got older.
I develop software for a living.
So do I. And I have two Mac laptops, an older Mac that I hardly use any more, and a PC. I do development for the Palm and Win32 on one of the Macs. The other Mac I use for Cocoa development and video.
With two exceptions, every Mac user I've encountered has preached at me with the furvor of a Deep-South Bible Thumper
OK, but on the other hand, most of the PC enthusiasts I have met have either been script kiddie wannabes or ignoramuses. Most people are idiots, period.
Here's why I like the Mac. I'll limit it to statements about OS X, although many apply to Mac OS 1-9 as well. Mind you that I've used almost every imaginable machine and OS, from IBM/360 DOS to Dec Vax and Alpha VMS to the Connection Machine to NOS on the ETA-10 and, yes, even every variety of Windows and PC/DOS.
From the very first beige toaster, one gets the impression that someone actually sat down and thought hard about every aspect of the hardware and software. In contrast, every other system I've seen seems more thrown-together, even Linux (which I like). Apple didn't always get things right, but getting it right was always important. The sliding washer on the power cord for my titanium iBook: somebody thought of that. There was a rough period in the mid-1990's when they slacked off, but they're back with a vengeance.
When I get dragged down by having to develop for patchwork systems, sometimes I just need to freshen my brain, so I sit down and write a little Cocoa application. The development system just works and doesn't get in my way. I get the feeling of cooperating with colleagues rather than struggling against enemies. It restores my hope and reminds me why I'm doing this for a living when there are a lot easier ways to make more money.
Everything I like in UNIX I can continue to do under Darwin. I can slip back and forth with no effort, and everything fits seamlessly together.
Cinder block is a poor conductor. Unless there's a lot, radio goes right through.
Frank Zappa did a cover of 4'33" which was actually just a little over 5' long. I guess it was the extended dance remix.
Very helpful information.
I have a LEGO Mindstorm kit, and I find it great. However, I also find it difficult to get pieces. One of the things I need are some racks. I want to build a robot that will go up and down a track with fairly precise control, and rack and pinion seems to be the best way to do this.
There used to be a LEGO Technic forklift kit with lots of racks and pinions and also an add-on kit with a bunch of racks. However, even when I go to the LEGO outlet, all the Technic kits I see are fairly useless cars or robots, and there don't seem to be any add-on kits. The Mindstorm add-on kit has a lot of weird pieces (including a foot pedal), but no racks.
Does anybody know where to get extra racks, pinions, gears, wheels, and other bread-and-butter pieces for complex kits?
You've gotten many good arguments so far. I hope you read them, too. Especially the points that software is mathematics and software is not a machine or a process for physical transformation.
Is it because the USPTO has so few good examiners in the area that there is a sense that the quality of software patents is poor?
That's a factor. Most extant software patents are entirely bogus, due to prior art or obviousness.
Or is it simply that because there are so many talented programmers out there who can write code that does the same thing as the patented code that they don't want any impediments whatsoever?
Actually, that is precisely the opposite of what is the case. Many talented programmers spend much of their time writing software around patents. From a pure greed standpoint, they should logically be in favor of patents. So, programmers who object to patents are doing so in spite of any greed, not because of it.
As for the former, I agree it is a concern, but one the USPTO is trying to address by hiring more (and more talented) examiners.
Will these more talented examiners eliminate existing patents that are obviously bogus due to obviousness or prior art? My understanding is that they won't, that the only way to get rid of one is to litigate at a cost of more than what most people make in their lives. It is therefore hardly reassuring.
If everyone needed a few million $ worth of hardware to make the invention, the patent doesn't add that much value against the masses of people who want to copy your invention, it only protects you against the few who have the actual resources to do so.
Everyone, effectively, needs a few million dollars worth of money to be able to write software and be secure against bogus patents.
Every other industry has dealt with patents for years.
Not your industry, which you probably call a profession. None of the documents that you have ever produced as an attorney are patentable.
Furthermore, software development is not an industry. Hardware development and sales are an industry, and their products should be patentable. Software is purely mathematical.
It is time for the software developers as a whole to do so as well.
Why am I not surprised that you are not interested in constructive criticism at all and have already made up your mind?
I'm not sure that there're actually any software patents out there that have prior art that would've disqualified them.
Oh, there are plenty. The patent on correct-order spreadsheet calculation, based on the prior art of the topological sort. The patent on using exclusive OR for cursors, which is both prior art and totally obvious. The patent on networked games, which is based on prior art and is totally obvious.
Best quality + first to market almost never means success. Inferior but good enough, introduced when people are used to the idea almost always wins.
Somebody has to say it. I'm a LISP junkie, indoctrinated at MIT in the late 1970's. I write LISP and Scheme systems for fun. Even when I write C code, about half the time I start off by implementing a mini-LISP. Its great for memory management and debugging.
However, I'm also an object junkie. CLOS is a joke. It's about as object-oriented as Ada, which isn't much. Not only is Paul Graham right that you can do it, this is what you should do if you want a real O-O system rather than something that basically just uses the word "object" in the documentation.
Do you have a source for that? I have long thought it was obvious that MS profited from piracy, probably deliberately, but it would be nice to have unassailable proof of that.
I saw TPM in the theater once.
I saw the original release of Star Wars seven times. I saw the first re-release two times. After that, I lost count.
Star Wars has been successful because it has included the kind of movie that people will go back to see several times on the big screen. Getting away from this is a big mistake.
Another methodology with a catchy name that is supposed to fix all the problems with software development but never quite does. Just what the world needs.
And why do we feel this way?
Frankly, it's because "we" are stupid. "We" are stuck in slave morality, in the camel phase of development (as Nietzsche put it). This kind of "I have to do this because my family is my first priority" is not an effective way to acquire lots of money. It is, however, an effective way to become a wage slave at the mercy of one's employer.
The GPL does not prevent you from selling the code under another, non-GPL license for commercial use. To wit, direct from the GPL:
It is not the purpose of this section to induce you to infringe any patents or other property right claims or to contest validity of any such claims; this section has the sole purpose of protecting the integrity of the free software distribution system, which is implemented by public license practices. Many people have made generous contributions to the wide range of software distributed through that system in reliance on consistent application of that system; it is up to the author/donor to decide if he or she is willing to distribute software through any other system and a licensee cannot impose that choice.
Yes, Mom, I know I took the candy from the jar. But Billy would have taken candy from the jar if he had been me.
Look. Microsoft is lying. It's really that simple. There's no point in discussing how hard it could be, because the statement that it's impossible or even hard is false. There's no need to wonder about it, either. Microsoft sticks to this because it obfuscates the fact that they prevented OEM's from putting a Netscape icon on the desktop back in the day, not due to any technical problems but rather due to a business decision. All they have to do is convince a judge or delay a judgement. If they delay it long enough, it doesn't matter, because they've move on to other things.
It's very simple. Introduce some sort of Draconian legislation, not because you expect it to be passed, but to soften the electorate for a "compromise," which is what you really wanted in the first place.
We don't need legislation. Neither the motion picture industry nor the record industry needs protection. They're doing just fine, and if they started being smarter, they'd do even better. When they say that profits are being sucked out of their businesses by hordes of evil pirates, they are lying and they know it. What they want is very simple; they want more control over the market so that they can bring back the halcyon days of poorly paid "studio talent" and ring in the new days of corporate-controlled boy bands and Britney Spears clones. The motion picture industry tried this before with chains of theaters and this practice was declared illegal. They want legislative imprimateur not only to own the theaters this time but to own the idea of a theater. It is the exact same deal.
What is this, annual Falling for the Bloody Obvious month?
No corn syrup. Cane sugar.
Ever have a cockroach get into your microwave and try to kill it by turning it on? They like it.
Yeah, just like they learned to wear headdresses from old Tarzan movies.
Legal to videotape, but only without sound.
There should be a big difference between learning from someone's code and just copying it. There would be a big difference in any sensibly run system. That's a subjunctive and a conditional, not an indicative. However, according to the GT code, even discussing problems outside of class is cheating. Therefore, GT official policy is that there is no difference. They made the rules; they deserve to be judged by them. They even run a piece of code to detect "cheating" and automatically send students to the dean without a review first. They made the rules; they don't deserve deliberation.
There's one thing you have to understand about Atlanta, which you can't understand unless you're used to another culture but have to spend some time in Atlanta. I also think that, if you're here too long, it spoils the perception. For mercenary reasons, I've been in Atlanta for two years, and I have to deal with GT weenies all the time.
The thing is this: In general, people in Atlanta do not care about substance. At all. To Atlantans, Atlanta is the Jewel of the South. It does not matter that the cultural facilities are almost at the bottom compared to cities of similar size and Atlanta lacks facilities quite common in University towns one-eighth the size. It is the Jewel of the South, dammit. Everything is about who you know, what family you belong to, and how well you can bullshit others.
There are no really good restaurants in Atlanta. I know; I've looked for them. I've even asked chefs, who got defensive and then told me places to go. I went there. There are only Fabulous Restaurant Concepts. Every other city that you can name has restaurants that are primarily for Being Seen There, but they also, usually, make good food. Not so in Atlanta.
A completely accurate summary of Atlanta is this: Yeehaw, Lemuel, let's make one of them city thangs. Ain't it purty.
Similarly, GA Tech is the M.I.T. of the South. It doesn't matter whether they do things to support this. What matters is that enough people believe it. I doubt it even occurs to any of the faculty or administration that teaching well and effectively is important. They'd just blink and say, "But We're The M.I.T. Of The South."
Yeehaw, Lemuel, let's make one of them tech university thangs. Ain't it purty.
OK, maybe there are a few. I'm not entirely poisoned, and so there are probably some others. You can't have four million people without having a few that don't spend all their time licking navels. Yet I feel the creep in my bones. I'm trying like hell to get out of here and will eventually make it. Same for the others, probably.
I used to do this. (No, really. We even got a cover on Bioengineering Laboratory.) Traditionally, the bioinformatic community prefers the following:
One of the first decent sequencers was a network application running on a 25 MHz SGI. Now that SGI is getting to be where Apple was five years ago, due partially to losing a lot of engineers to nVidea, perhaps they're going after the SGI market.
The GNU license does not require that any software distributed with the GPL-licensed software be anything. That is a complete and total lie. Software that is distributed with a GPL-licensed product does not have to be anything.
It is only software that incorporates GPL software that needs to be distributed under the GPL. Because there is an ambiguous case with libraries and similar forms, the LGPL exists. If you just link and don't change the basic library functionality, your overall product can be licensed as you like it.
It's really quite simple. GPL prevents people from stealing other people's open source efforts and publishing them as their own. This is the intellectual property "right" that Microsoft wants to have.
Empathy would require the animal to have emotions, I did not know that cats and dogs were capable of such things, please point out some specific studies.
It's not the pet that has to have emotions; it's the human. All that is necessary is that the pet interact with the human in such a way that it helps build empathy in the human. Dogs certainly do this. It also helps if the pet does not behave in a way that is inconsistent with the hypothesis that the pet has empathy. This is true of dogs; if they lose control with a human, they usually then behave as if they were sorry. It is not true of most cats.
As for whether pets have real love, it isn't a useful question. I don't know if any human other than me can feel love, and there is evidence from some ex-girlfriends and wives that many of them cannot. However, Bosco, Siren, and Tess display more evidence of love for me than you display of the ability of cognition.