Are you saying that the only code protected by copy-write is the code inside the function curly braces, and not the code outside (i.e. the functions, parameters, returns).
Even in C, this wouldn't be the case, because some code that actually does stuff is outside functions. But your parenthetical is almost right - the function names, and parameter and return types.
What about expressive languages that blur the lines between function declarations and executable code? What if significant code is all written in a macros, where there is no difference?
There is no difficulty here. The specification of what must be given to the program and what will be returned from the program. Everything else can be subject to copyright.
As programmer it makes no sense to me.
Think about what the world would be like if interfaces had been copyrightable. The precedent comes from Borland v. Lotus, where it was ruled that you can't be granted a monopoly on interfaces like "File > Print." One immediate consequence would have been that every program we use would have to have something different from a set of drop down menus containing the names "File" and "Print," where a user interaction and document input lead to a print command. Of course, this would extend to every way in which we interact with standard desktop applications, but also to how you choose to name your functions and choose their signatures. It already sucks that any cool algorithm you come up with might be subjected to litigation attempts based on patents. But now we might not be able to use the names e.g. of other browsers' non-standard CSS either. We'd have to search through every preexisting program to make sure the function names are unique, etc.
Further, the most critical interfaces in modern computing are those defined by programming languages and operating systems. For many languages, one would need to obtain a license in order to write a compiler/interpreter - so no Octave or Scilab, no OpenJDK, many fewer C, C++ and FORTRAN compilers. No UNIX-like operating systems.
As a programmer, what's really terrifying (and makes no sense), is that my own independent developments, let alone attempts at compatibility, might be restricted by government-enforced monopolies on ideas.
In the first case, the judge was ignorant of programming so taught himself before the case started.
It's the same judge (William Alsup), and he still knows how to program (in Java). The menu analogy is poor, and recursive acronyms aren't funny to everyone, I guess. It doesn't make him clueless, and anyone who has followed these cases could tell you that Alsup is considers Google to be in the right (thus his ruling in the first case).
The "greater male variability" hypothesis has been falsified. The first link provides a current analysis of data from around the world, while the second is an older study in which a former supporter of that hypothesis also determines that it does not stand up empirically.
It's best when one chooses to support one's claims with quantitative facts rather than emotion and ideology. If the numbers agreed with you, I would too. But they don't.
California sees less return on federal dollars than is taken in taxes. (Who's the parasite, again?) You sure about that? Hint: look at all the Federal expenditures in California, including welfare.
Yes, we are sure. Our federal tax imbalance is similar in size to our budget deficit.
You could at least base your claims on logic and numbers instead of emotion and expectations.
It's easy to quantify/my/ productivity as a support tech (at the U of CA) in number of tickets resolved per shift. But sysadmins have a number of duties which they are performing/continuously/, so how can you quantify that?
...is pretty awesome. They have each of the competitors solve their cubes, then follow the same steps to mix it up. Then each of the competitors places their cube on a central pad and their hands on two pads to either side. Each person has a their own digital timer, which will be activated when they lift their hands from the pads. A ref blows a whistle, the competitors lift their cubes and solve and then stop their timers by dropping the solved cube on the central pad.
The best time I've seen is 12.3 seconds. Frickin' ridiculous.
(I was working during the Caltech winter 2005 competition)
As far as I can tell no one has mentioned this, but rear-view screen type ideas aren't good.
When you're looking out at the road, your eyes are focused to infinity. When you look into the mirrors, they can stay focused to infinity. But if you look at a screen, your eyes will need to refocus, and that takes time, more than you think, especially for people with stigmatisms.
Slashdot Mirror
Any idea why it would be gps and not radio waves in general?
Either narrow(er) band interference, or it involves control of the satellites themselves in some way.
Are you saying that the only code protected by copy-write is the code inside the function curly braces, and not the code outside (i.e. the functions, parameters, returns).
Even in C, this wouldn't be the case, because some code that actually does stuff is outside functions. But your parenthetical is almost right - the function names, and parameter and return types.
What about expressive languages that blur the lines between function declarations and executable code? What if significant code is all written in a macros, where there is no difference?
There is no difficulty here. The specification of what must be given to the program and what will be returned from the program. Everything else can be subject to copyright.
As programmer it makes no sense to me.
Think about what the world would be like if interfaces had been copyrightable. The precedent comes from Borland v. Lotus, where it was ruled that you can't be granted a monopoly on interfaces like "File > Print." One immediate consequence would have been that every program we use would have to have something different from a set of drop down menus containing the names "File" and "Print," where a user interaction and document input lead to a print command. Of course, this would extend to every way in which we interact with standard desktop applications, but also to how you choose to name your functions and choose their signatures. It already sucks that any cool algorithm you come up with might be subjected to litigation attempts based on patents. But now we might not be able to use the names e.g. of other browsers' non-standard CSS either. We'd have to search through every preexisting program to make sure the function names are unique, etc.
Further, the most critical interfaces in modern computing are those defined by programming languages and operating systems. For many languages, one would need to obtain a license in order to write a compiler/interpreter - so no Octave or Scilab, no OpenJDK, many fewer C, C++ and FORTRAN compilers. No UNIX-like operating systems.
As a programmer, what's really terrifying (and makes no sense), is that my own independent developments, let alone attempts at compatibility, might be restricted by government-enforced monopolies on ideas.
Be careful of mistaking a judge who is unaware for a judge that is letting counsel have enough rope to hang themselves.
Especially when you'd have to be clueless about the two cases to think Alsup is himself clueless.
In the first case, the judge was ignorant of programming so taught himself before the case started.
It's the same judge (William Alsup), and he still knows how to program (in Java). The menu analogy is poor, and recursive acronyms aren't funny to everyone, I guess. It doesn't make him clueless, and anyone who has followed these cases could tell you that Alsup is considers Google to be in the right (thus his ruling in the first case).
The "greater male variability" hypothesis has been falsified. The first link provides a current analysis of data from around the world, while the second is an older study in which a former supporter of that hypothesis also determines that it does not stand up empirically.
[1] Kane, J and Mertz, J. "Debunking Myths About Gender and Mathematics Performance." Notices of the American Mathematical Society. 2012.
[2] Feingold, A. "Gender differences in variability in intellectual abilities: A cross-cultural perspective." Sex Roles. 1994.
Google may be able to monopolize transient search demand for Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., but only the King Center can monopolize his ideas.
...maybe BASF could investigate using sequencing some intelligence into the politicians
Unfortunately, they would engineer them to be congenitally incapable of refusing bribes.
It's best when one chooses to support one's claims with quantitative facts rather than emotion and ideology. If the numbers agreed with you, I would too. But they don't.
Tax burden report, 2006
Tax burden report, 2009
Tax burdens by state, 1981-2005
California 2011-12 Budeget Outlook
Do you have a link to the reports or data that supports this? I'd like to see it.
I doubt they will be forthcoming. As you've probably already found, the data simply does not support those claims.
2009 Special Report
2006 Special Report
Tax burdens by state, 1981-2005
California sees less return on federal dollars than is taken in taxes. (Who's the parasite, again?)
You sure about that? Hint: look at all the Federal expenditures in California, including welfare.
Yes, we are sure. Our federal tax imbalance is similar in size to our budget deficit.
You could at least base your claims on logic and numbers instead of emotion and expectations.
[1] 2009 Tax Burden Report
[2] 2006 Tax Burden Report
[3] Tax burden by state, 1981-2005
[4] California 2011-12 Budget Outlook
It's easy to quantify /my/ productivity as a support tech (at the U of CA) in number of tickets resolved per shift. But sysadmins have a number of duties which they are performing /continuously/, so how can you quantify that?
But their plan was to do a ground-up rewrite of the OS every several years, so they could have corrected past mistakes. Too late now, of course...
...is pretty awesome. They have each of the competitors solve their cubes, then follow the same steps to mix it up. Then each of the competitors places their cube on a central pad and their hands on two pads to either side. Each person has a their own digital timer, which will be activated when they lift their hands from the pads. A ref blows a whistle, the competitors lift their cubes and solve and then stop their timers by dropping the solved cube on the central pad. The best time I've seen is 12.3 seconds. Frickin' ridiculous. (I was working during the Caltech winter 2005 competition)
As far as I can tell no one has mentioned this, but rear-view screen type ideas aren't good. When you're looking out at the road, your eyes are focused to infinity. When you look into the mirrors, they can stay focused to infinity. But if you look at a screen, your eyes will need to refocus, and that takes time, more than you think, especially for people with stigmatisms.
Doesn't that seem like too much money? I mean, wont people simply stop buying mp3 players in the Netherlands?