I thought that Erdos proved that it's possible to be a bright spark until you die (at a reasonably old age), even if you don't have a life outside mathematics.
I wasn't trying to exclude computation theory from computer science. I was trying to include many other areas that are not seen as part of the science by some. Namely, such "earthly" things as object oriented programming.
I was objecting to the notion that "object oriented languages" are but a tool for craftsmen and therefore have no place in universities. If that were the case, then languages such as Scheme or Prolog are also merely instruments, and should not be taught (what can you achieve in Prolog that cannot be achieved in Java, C or assembly, other than convenience?). Why then teach about compilers? They're only tools of the trade. Computer graphics? merely a visual approximation, uninteresting with respect to computation. Databases? Nothing to research here, it's already proven to be boring. Operating systems? insignificant. Parallel algorithms? equivalent to a Turing machine. Cryptography? depends on computational power and hence trivial.
Of course Church, Godel and Turing were computer scientists (and Turing most definitely programmed a computer and was aware of its physical limitations). I was actually a student of Michael Rabin, who was a student of Alonzo Church, and both are computer scientists without a doubt. But so are many others who research the many diverse areas of "computer science". If anything, the poster I was replying to was excluding the many great minds that came up with "object oriented programming" as mere "tool builders" rather than researchers and pioneers.
Computation is one thing: what can be computed, what's the minimum number of operations it takes to compute it, what cannot be computed, etc.
But this is only one part of computer science. Computer scientist don't all deal with computation - some are experts in computer graphics, some in operating systems, some in programming languages, some in human-computer interfaces, some in databases, some in artificial intelligence.
The question of "what can be computed" was answered by Turing. Classes of algorithms (in terms of run-time, randomness etc.) is a very important part of computer science. But that's not all there is to it. "Computation" in itself does not need anyone to develop better compilers, and does not explain why some languages are better than others for certain things. But surely compiler theory and programming languages are also part of computer science. "Computation" doesn't tell you what is secure - from a theoretical point of view there's no difference between RSA keys with 512 bits and keys with 4096 bits. But there is a difference. Natural language analysis is part of computer science, even though it could be just a question of "how big is your rules database", which is not a "scientific" question. Still, research takes place in universities about these things, and they are considered part of "computer science".
Yes, computation is an important part, and you could sit with a pen and a paper and prove a lower-bound on a problem. But I don't think computer science is confined to that. Everything from "what can be computed" down to "how to implement it" is a subject of research. Alas, even object-oriented programming...
We teach music *theory*, not how to play an instrument. Nothing to do with us.
Computers are tools. You program them to get them to do something useful. They're not an abstraction, they're real. Computer science is about the theory behind computers. It's not about some "higher dimension" of thought that is unrelated to programming machines, it's all about what you can achieve by programming those complex machines.
Otherwise, why study functional or logical programming? That's "dirty" as well, isn't it? Why have a computer lab? Why call it "computer science" when we hate computers and programming so much?
Some computer scientists wish they were mathematicians - sit in an office, use a pen and a paper, and come up with ideas. That's not what computer science is about - that's what mathematics is about. Computer science is about understanding what can and cannot be done with a computer - it's a tool, and people use it. The actual use of computers is a subject of huge (practical!) amount of research - human interaction, programming languages, computer graphics, artificial vision. If your idea of a computer is an abstraction, why would you ever care about programming languages? They're all equivalent to a Turing machine, and the details are only of interest to "peasants" - the programmers.
In that case, why worry about parallel computation? It's all just "dirty" details - you have more than one processor or more than one machine - it's just details. Who cares which programming language or paradigm is suitable - maybe "craftsmen" care, but they're peasants - worrying about whether to use a shovel or a hoe. This is so far removed from the work of a true computer scientists, why even worry about such details?
So universities should not teach "computer science" because it's a contradiction of terms. Computers are machines, tools, and science, well, science is elevated. It's not about experimenting with reality, about the interaction between time, space, cost, humans and machines. It's about mathematics and P=NP.
Well, it just isn't. It's the same old story: Chemists say to biologists "everything is chemistry". Physicists say to chemists "everything is physics", mathematicians say to physicists "everything is mathematics". But a mathematician who doesn't grow yeast in a lab is not a biologist. And a computer scientist who never writes a program or touches a computer, is not a computer scientists but a mathematician.
Yes, but how do you create a transistor? Do you just buy one?
I think all studies should start from scratch - throw you on an island and let you invent calculus yourself. What's the point in progress if you can't explain it to a 10 year old in two sentences?
If you read future predictions from 1950, you get the following picture: By 2010 people would have a lot more leisure time and they wouldn't know how to cope with it. Work will be done by robots and the factory would only need one employee to turn them on and off. So the rest will have all the time in the world for study and recreation.
That's still true, but whoever gets the money (and it's not like in a recession someone is burning money - if you have less, someone has more) is not sharing it with you. So the factory still needs a single employee, but you have to find the money to feed your family.
You want a job? Fine. But your "free time" is ours, the day is long and you work weekends when we need you to. Paid overtime? We'll find someone who's not that picky - there are enough bright people in the world that can live on less than what you're asking.
So it's not "How long are they going to let this go on". This is the reality, and if it ever changes it's only for the worse. What went wrong with the 1950 prediction? The fact that it was ignoring 90% of the world's population because they weren't competing for your job back then.
I've actually found a strong correlation between the sectors of the lawn my dog chooses to piss in and the stock exchange. And I don't even have a dog.
I agree with most of what you say, and I don't believe that "Tetrada" is a trademark violation (I didn't say that it was).
But I still believe that just because a word has a meaning, it doesn't mean that you cannot trademark that word.
To be honest, I'm not sure that anyone could trademark the word "four" (it's like a trademark on the word "pizza" or "shoe"). But if you have a trademark and your business depends on it, then why not? All it means is that when my game (called "four") sells millions of copies, I won't have to worry about clones also called "four" using my reputation. Whether I have any claims against a game called "Fantastic Four (tm)" is another matter (probably not).
I only replied to the poster that said that The Tetris Company should not be allowed to trademark the word "four" (in Ancient Greek). I don't believe that's true. In fact, "Tessera" (the actual Ancient Greek word for "four") is already trademarked. But not by The Tetris Company.
Apple derives its name from the word apple, the ancient English word for apple.
I urge you to name your software company "Apple".
Trademark has nothing to do with whether you can find the word in the dictionary or not. It's whether you're allowed to use it exclusively when you name a company or a product (in a given industry). Nothing wrong with a trademark on the word "Tetris", or on the word "four" or "apple" or "face".
You fantastic post will be lost in the slashdot history bin. Wouldn't it be better to put it somewhere where Google will be able to find at some later date? Even for your own sake (although the trip seems to have left such an impression on you that I don't think you'll forget it any time soon).
My personal feeling is that if you don't want to be bound by it, do the right thing and don't use code licensed under it.
Absolutely! Just because you're not paying money it doesn't mean "do whatever you want with it" (to be honest, it should probably be the exact opposite - if I pay for it I should be allowed to do more with it, e.g. take it apart and learn from it, modify and customise it etc. That's not how reality works, though).
Even BSD has some restrictions, and there are many devices (for example the PS3) that acknowlegement libjpeg, openSSL, FreeType etc. as described in the licence.
Unfortunately in many cases the decision is not based on "what should we do" but on "what can we get away with, given our legal department's budget", which is simply wrong in my opinion.
Actually, my company sells software. If we use a 3rd party software component, it has to have the right licence. In fact, our customers insist that we don't use GPL, because they don't want to find themselves in trouble.
FUD or not, if your customer says "make sure you don't use GPL'ed modules and libraries" then you make sure or you find yourself out of business.
Also, using a GPL'ed library to build an application and not releasing the code (of the application) goes against the licence. Check out http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfLibraryIsGPL and find out for yourself. If you write software for a rocket launcher and link it against busybox, you have to release the rocket launching code. You may not like the word "viral", but it's a fairly accurate description.
Even though I have not contributed one line of code, I'm still affected by it as a software developer. I earn my living by writing software for my company. I do not use GPL because I know it's illegal not to publish the code, and my company cannot afford to publish our code, due to competition.
This means that my company invests time and money (which directly affects my livelihood due to competition) into software development, while other, larger companies just take GPL'ed code and use it without fear (and without any intention to release their code). So they have an unfair advantage over my company. It's unfair, because what they do is illegal. Not "mildly" illegal, like taking candy from a baby (= taking code from whining hippy spare-time developers), but very illegal, like stealing code from a competitor. Basically this business practice harms competition, and indirectly it also harms the consumer - big companies destroy their competiton by illegal means, and the consumer is left with less choice.
GPL has a purpose - to make the code, changes and derivatives available to everybody. Using it in other ways gives big companies unfair advantage, which is in many places an illegal practice (like bribing politicians or abusing public resources with impunity). Yes, it's the way of the world, but many people are angry about corrupt politicians even if they are not directly affected.
What bothers me is that it seems that women are less interested in everything. This fact alone can explain many things, but I'm wondering whether it's true, and if it is, why.
It is possible that it's not that chess itself is a war game, but that any competitive sport (or any competition in general, including academia and politics) is a war, and women tend to avoid wars (genetically).
You got fired because you don't write perfect code? You got fired because you said that you don't write perfect code? You get fired because you asked for testers?
No, you got fired because your manager was an idiot.
People monitor the things that are easy to monitor, that's all.
It's very easy for the IT department to log every improper use of the internet connection, but not so easy to make sure that people work while they sit at their desks.
Are they thinking about work right now, or about their dog's broken leg?
Do they keep making mistakes and then correcting them (strictly speaking a waste of their employer's time and money) or maybe working more slowly than what they're capable of?
Are they annoying their co-workers (thus reducing their productivity) by speaking to the computer while they're working?
Three are many many ways to waste the employer's time on the job, it's just that "misuse of IT" is so easy to monitor. When I see a report about the various ways people drive their colleagues up the walls I'll start taking IT abuse seriously. Until then, 5 minutes on Facebook is much better than constant farting.
I don't even know what "Improper use" is. Shopping for shoes online? Sending an e-mail to your wife? Checking the news, weather, traffic jams? Going on Facebook?
Strictly speaking, even going the toilet is a waste of public money. But seriously... is day-dreaming for five minutes better than going on the Internet for five minutes?
Slashdot Mirror
I thought that Erdos proved that it's possible to be a bright spark until you die (at a reasonably old age), even if you don't have a life outside mathematics.
Every person is different.
I wasn't trying to exclude computation theory from computer science.
I was trying to include many other areas that are not seen as part of the science by some.
Namely, such "earthly" things as object oriented programming.
I was objecting to the notion that "object oriented languages" are but a tool for craftsmen and therefore have no place in universities.
If that were the case, then languages such as Scheme or Prolog are also merely instruments, and should not be taught (what can you achieve in Prolog that cannot be achieved in Java, C or assembly, other than convenience?). Why then teach about compilers? They're only tools of the trade. Computer graphics? merely a visual approximation, uninteresting with respect to computation. Databases? Nothing to research here, it's already proven to be boring. Operating systems? insignificant. Parallel algorithms? equivalent to a Turing machine. Cryptography? depends on computational power and hence trivial.
Of course Church, Godel and Turing were computer scientists (and Turing most definitely programmed a computer and was aware of its physical limitations). I was actually a student of Michael Rabin, who was a student of Alonzo Church, and both are computer scientists without a doubt. But so are many others who research the many diverse areas of "computer science". If anything, the poster I was replying to was excluding the many great minds that came up with "object oriented programming" as mere "tool builders" rather than researchers and pioneers.
That's what I don't agree with.
Computation is one thing: what can be computed, what's the minimum number of operations it takes to compute it, what cannot be computed, etc.
But this is only one part of computer science. Computer scientist don't all deal with computation - some are experts in computer graphics, some in operating systems, some in programming languages, some in human-computer interfaces, some in databases, some in artificial intelligence.
The question of "what can be computed" was answered by Turing. Classes of algorithms (in terms of run-time, randomness etc.) is a very important part of computer science. But that's not all there is to it. "Computation" in itself does not need anyone to develop better compilers, and does not explain why some languages are better than others for certain things. But surely compiler theory and programming languages are also part of computer science. "Computation" doesn't tell you what is secure - from a theoretical point of view there's no difference between RSA keys with 512 bits and keys with 4096 bits. But there is a difference. Natural language analysis is part of computer science, even though it could be just a question of "how big is your rules database", which is not a "scientific" question. Still, research takes place in universities about these things, and they are considered part of "computer science".
Yes, computation is an important part, and you could sit with a pen and a paper and prove a lower-bound on a problem. But I don't think computer science is confined to that. Everything from "what can be computed" down to "how to implement it" is a subject of research. Alas, even object-oriented programming...
We teach music *theory*, not how to play an instrument. Nothing to do with us.
Computers are tools. You program them to get them to do something useful. They're not an abstraction, they're real. Computer science is about the theory behind computers. It's not about some "higher dimension" of thought that is unrelated to programming machines, it's all about what you can achieve by programming those complex machines.
Otherwise, why study functional or logical programming? That's "dirty" as well, isn't it? Why have a computer lab? Why call it "computer science" when we hate computers and programming so much?
Some computer scientists wish they were mathematicians - sit in an office, use a pen and a paper, and come up with ideas. That's not what computer science is about - that's what mathematics is about. Computer science is about understanding what can and cannot be done with a computer - it's a tool, and people use it. The actual use of computers is a subject of huge (practical!) amount of research - human interaction, programming languages, computer graphics, artificial vision. If your idea of a computer is an abstraction, why would you ever care about programming languages? They're all equivalent to a Turing machine, and the details are only of interest to "peasants" - the programmers.
In that case, why worry about parallel computation? It's all just "dirty" details - you have more than one processor or more than one machine - it's just details. Who cares which programming language or paradigm is suitable - maybe "craftsmen" care, but they're peasants - worrying about whether to use a shovel or a hoe. This is so far removed from the work of a true computer scientists, why even worry about such details?
So universities should not teach "computer science" because it's a contradiction of terms. Computers are machines, tools, and science, well, science is elevated. It's not about experimenting with reality, about the interaction between time, space, cost, humans and machines. It's about mathematics and P=NP.
Well, it just isn't. It's the same old story: Chemists say to biologists "everything is chemistry". Physicists say to chemists "everything is physics", mathematicians say to physicists "everything is mathematics". But a mathematician who doesn't grow yeast in a lab is not a biologist. And a computer scientist who never writes a program or touches a computer, is not a computer scientists but a mathematician.
Yes, but how do you create a transistor? Do you just buy one?
I think all studies should start from scratch - throw you on an island and let you invent calculus yourself. What's the point in progress if you can't explain it to a 10 year old in two sentences?
I thought that all the people who said "Windows 7 was my idea" were actually on the development team.
If you read future predictions from 1950, you get the following picture: By 2010 people would have a lot more leisure time and they wouldn't know how to cope with it. Work will be done by robots and the factory would only need one employee to turn them on and off. So the rest will have all the time in the world for study and recreation.
That's still true, but whoever gets the money (and it's not like in a recession someone is burning money - if you have less, someone has more) is not sharing it with you. So the factory still needs a single employee, but you have to find the money to feed your family.
You want a job? Fine. But your "free time" is ours, the day is long and you work weekends when we need you to. Paid overtime? We'll find someone who's not that picky - there are enough bright people in the world that can live on less than what you're asking.
So it's not "How long are they going to let this go on". This is the reality, and if it ever changes it's only for the worse. What went wrong with the 1950 prediction? The fact that it was ignoring 90% of the world's population because they weren't competing for your job back then.
I've actually found a strong correlation between the sectors of the lawn my dog chooses to piss in and the stock exchange. And I don't even have a dog.
I agree with most of what you say, and I don't believe that "Tetrada" is a trademark violation (I didn't say that it was).
But I still believe that just because a word has a meaning, it doesn't mean that you cannot trademark that word.
To be honest, I'm not sure that anyone could trademark the word "four" (it's like a trademark on the word "pizza" or "shoe"). But if you have a trademark and your business depends on it, then why not? All it means is that when my game (called "four") sells millions of copies, I won't have to worry about clones also called "four" using my reputation. Whether I have any claims against a game called "Fantastic Four (tm)" is another matter (probably not).
I only replied to the poster that said that The Tetris Company should not be allowed to trademark the word "four" (in Ancient Greek). I don't believe that's true. In fact, "Tessera" (the actual Ancient Greek word for "four") is already trademarked. But not by The Tetris Company.
Apple derives its name from the word apple, the ancient English word for apple.
I urge you to name your software company "Apple".
Trademark has nothing to do with whether you can find the word in the dictionary or not. It's whether you're allowed to use it exclusively when you name a company or a product (in a given industry). Nothing wrong with a trademark on the word "Tetris", or on the word "four" or "apple" or "face".
I thought the model these days was: give your stuff for free and get bought by Oracle. And who would want to do that?!
Thank you thank you thank you thank you so much!
... and making all sorts of money so at your death you can have a viking funeral, burning on piles of $1 bills.
Fabulous post and fantastic quote. You're abstolutely right.
You fantastic post will be lost in the slashdot history bin. Wouldn't it be better to put it somewhere where Google will be able to find at some later date? Even for your own sake (although the trip seems to have left such an impression on you that I don't think you'll forget it any time soon).
"... that allows players to master a specific mechanic."
I thought he was a plumber.
My personal feeling is that if you don't want to be bound by it, do the right thing and don't use code licensed under it.
Absolutely! Just because you're not paying money it doesn't mean "do whatever you want with it" (to be honest, it should probably be the exact opposite - if I pay for it I should be allowed to do more with it, e.g. take it apart and learn from it, modify and customise it etc. That's not how reality works, though).
Even BSD has some restrictions, and there are many devices (for example the PS3) that acknowlegement libjpeg, openSSL, FreeType etc. as described in the licence.
Unfortunately in many cases the decision is not based on "what should we do" but on "what can we get away with, given our legal department's budget", which is simply wrong in my opinion.
Actually, my company sells software. If we use a 3rd party software component, it has to have the right licence. In fact, our customers insist that we don't use GPL, because they don't want to find themselves in trouble.
FUD or not, if your customer says "make sure you don't use GPL'ed modules and libraries" then you make sure or you find yourself out of business.
Also, using a GPL'ed library to build an application and not releasing the code (of the application) goes against the licence. Check out http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfLibraryIsGPL and find out for yourself. If you write software for a rocket launcher and link it against busybox, you have to release the rocket launching code. You may not like the word "viral", but it's a fairly accurate description.
Even though I have not contributed one line of code, I'm still affected by it as a software developer. I earn my living by writing software for my company. I do not use GPL because I know it's illegal not to publish the code, and my company cannot afford to publish our code, due to competition.
This means that my company invests time and money (which directly affects my livelihood due to competition) into software development, while other, larger companies just take GPL'ed code and use it without fear (and without any intention to release their code). So they have an unfair advantage over my company. It's unfair, because what they do is illegal. Not "mildly" illegal, like taking candy from a baby (= taking code from whining hippy spare-time developers), but very illegal, like stealing code from a competitor. Basically this business practice harms competition, and indirectly it also harms the consumer - big companies destroy their competiton by illegal means, and the consumer is left with less choice.
GPL has a purpose - to make the code, changes and derivatives available to everybody. Using it in other ways gives big companies unfair advantage, which is in many places an illegal practice (like bribing politicians or abusing public resources with impunity). Yes, it's the way of the world, but many people are angry about corrupt politicians even if they are not directly affected.
What bothers me is that it seems that women are less interested in everything.
This fact alone can explain many things, but I'm wondering whether it's true, and if it is, why.
It is possible that it's not that chess itself is a war game, but that any competitive sport (or any competition in general, including academia and politics) is a war, and women tend to avoid wars (genetically).
Reading is never a mistake. Following bad advice is another matter. Read, consider, reject.
You got fired because you don't write perfect code?
You got fired because you said that you don't write perfect code?
You get fired because you asked for testers?
No, you got fired because your manager was an idiot.
Did you just say "dancing baby" or was I only dreaming it?
Blocked: Category Humour not permitted.
That is the saddest message I have ever seen in my life.
People monitor the things that are easy to monitor, that's all.
It's very easy for the IT department to log every improper use of the internet connection, but not so easy to make sure that people work while they sit at their desks.
Are they thinking about work right now, or about their dog's broken leg?
Do they keep making mistakes and then correcting them (strictly speaking a waste of their employer's time and money) or maybe working more slowly than what they're capable of?
Are they annoying their co-workers (thus reducing their productivity) by speaking to the computer while they're working?
Three are many many ways to waste the employer's time on the job, it's just that "misuse of IT" is so easy to monitor. When I see a report about the various ways people drive their colleagues up the walls I'll start taking IT abuse seriously. Until then, 5 minutes on Facebook is much better than constant farting.
I don't even know what "Improper use" is. Shopping for shoes online? Sending an e-mail to your wife? Checking the news, weather, traffic jams? Going on Facebook?
Strictly speaking, even going the toilet is a waste of public money. But seriously... is day-dreaming for five minutes better than going on the Internet for five minutes?