What is really at issue here is that like so many things in this brave new world is that we have encountered the 21st century equivalent of a platypus. Source code is neither mathematical algorithms nor "literature" but both algorithm AND literature. Source can (and I feel should) be viewed as a both-neither artifact that falls in the cracks of what we understand things to be. As both a poet and programmer, I could write a poem that is also a program. I could encode the letters and words in ASCII, put them into a char array, and have them sent to the System.out (in java) to produce an original poem. What in this could or should be copyrighted? The ASCII characters? The code itself outside the ASCII characters? I could argue that the way that I programmed the poem to print was part of the poem itself and should be copyrighted and cited every time someone does something similar ( I would of course be full of crap).
The way I look at it copyrighting low-level source-code like vectors, hashes, linked lists should be forbidden. It would be akin to copyrighting commonly used words, but copyrighting large systems that incorporate these common "patterns" of ideas should be permissible, but under a different form of copyright that includes its own set of fair use (for research, non-commercial applications, education etc). This copyright should only be applicable when it is clear that a full "cut and paste situation" has been found. Microsoft should not be allowed to cut and paste a competitors source into their own project, but if they create a functionally identical and source similar (methods that differ and ways of catching errors that differ, factored differently, etc) they should be allowed to do as they wish.
Think of the implication for Linux in the SCO trial if even having similar code to the Unix kernel is verboten. Additionally, with evolutionary programming coming along, it is feasible that highly evolved applications written by computer systems could closely resemble each other by sheer evolutionary accident. Think for example in nature between a bat and a bird. Very different animals with many of the same structures and qualities.
Amen Mr. AlterTick!
The argument Bush should have made was this--"Sadam's refusal to cooperate with the U.N. leads us to suspect that his regime has chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. He may be bluffing in order to maintain some kind of relevance in the stage of world politics. He may be bluffing in order to keep Iran scared of attacking him directly. He may be bluffing to keep Iraq's Shia and Kurds in line. We may get there and find absolutely nothing-- but when a world trembles due to the actions of one pissant madman who kills anyone he pleases including his own people, friends and family, America cannot sit by and wait for the evidence to continue to trickle in. America cannot sit by while the erudite pundits of the world analyze and reanalyze scraps of intelligence. America cannot sit by while good-hearted people hesitate, ponder and re-ponder the moral implications of removing this tyrannical, homicidal madman. People may ask 'Why Sadam? Why not the various corrupt monarchies, theocratic dictatorships, and Stalinist nut jobs who are also wrecking the world?' First, he violated a cease-fire agreement with this country by not cooperating with the U.N. inspectors. Second, he has proven himself willing and capable of using weapons of mass destruction, and finally, because we can. Sometimes you have to stand up to chicken-sh## little bullies and let them know that YOU are bigger and stronger than they ever hoped to be and that their insecurity about the size of their penis doesn't give them license to terrorize the world and give you grief. In short, we're mad as hell and we're not going to take it any more. Get ready for Pax Americana."
I've been an avid solarbotic fan for a year or so now. I'm kind of making a jump from software to hardware and the physical world. We should be teaching how to do electronics, play with robots, innovate with limited resources and the like in school along the lines of playing. Unfortunatly, too many standardized tests and controlled lesson plans get in the way.
If you have ever had a loved one truly hurt by a defective product this case should anger you, but I am glad that America is a country that uses courts as a means of consumer protection as opposed to excessive government regulation. It really is almost a binary choice. Either you have the government aggressively regulate everything from paper clips to chainsaws or you allow aggrieved parties to bring suit against each other. The advantage that a court has is that 12 citizens that make the decision to award "victims." I've lived in places in Europe where there was a ministry office that covered whatever product was on the market and these "philosopher king" bureaucrat could issue whatever edict that they wanted. I remember specifically hearing that there was a Norwegian law on the books regulating the color of cheese wax (this could have been a joke though). Sure we do this to a large extent in the US. The FDA really acted WAY out of line when they outlawed Ma-Huang (ephedrine) because a couple of idiots ate it like candy, but take a look at what the EU proposes to regulate and you soon get the idea that Europe would rather have the state act like a nanny and shoo consumers away from making their own choices.
MM, I'd have to disagree with you on your comment "Slavery certainly was not the norm in Europe." In fact the very word slave itself comes from the European practice of taking Slavic people (Slavs) as slaves. It is sad to note that the Nazi's inhuman treatment and slavery of Poles, Jews, Rom, and other peoples grew from a uniquely European tradition. The only thing "new" about the American experience was that it was a new land, and the beginnings of industrialization allowed for these things to occur on a larger scale. Indentured laborers were also in many cases slaves. One of the basic foundations of contracts is that a contract must provide some benefit to both parties. While some apprentice servitude did exist, many "indentured" people were sold by parents, governments, corporations, and the like. Here in Alabama, for example, it wasn't until the late 1960's that forced labor in the coal mines by prisoners and the poor wasn't abolished. You could literally be arrested for a petty crime just to fill out a work detail contract between the state and U.S. Steel.
One final thought on all of this. It is profoundly disturbing that human trafficking today is such a major industry in the "enlightened" industrial nations and that we turn a blind eye to it. Women and children from around the world are sold into the sex industry and not so much as a "ho-hum" seems to come from those of us who know it is going on and is destroying lives.
Exactly Coed. "Successfull" doens't equate to moral. Education does not equate to wisdom and morality. Look at Ted Bundy. He was college educated and had a law degree (if I recall correctly). I don't remember who said it but it basically goes that "man is not a rational animal, he is a rationalizing animal." I live in the South of the US. I know people who are good, kind, and loving people. They worship God every Sunday, love their country, love their community, are kind to strangers of all sorts and races, but give them half a chance, and they'll pull out some of the most racist diatribe that you'd ever care to hear.
Likewise, I know plenty of "liberal" minded people who raised their children not to hate anyone of any race, but when it came to brining home someone who is darker (or lighter for that matter) than they expected, their true colors came out.
Around here you hear it from all sorts of people, black and white. Hell, I remember a girl I liked back in high school. Her parents were Chinese and she said they'd freek out if I asked her out. Bigotry is unfortunatly a universal condition.
Hold on a second there. I in no way want to defend slavery or genocide, but Columbus was a man acting in his time with his time's morality and ethics. First, the "genocide" that you refer to happend as a result primarily of diseases and their effects that Columbus could not have been aware of. Second, at that time in the world, all of the world, slavery was the norm not the exception. Owning a slave and using his or her body for labor however you wished was no more "immoral" than you or I owning a car or eating meat. Would you want someone 100+ years from now who lives in a society of pedestrian vegitarians judging you on the basis of your driving a car or eating meat. I wouldn't. What happend to the slaves and the American Indians was a tragedy in hind sight. But don't kid yourself. If the poor African slave had guns and the upperhand, they would have (and in many cases did) enslaved other peoples. If the Indians had developed technology permitting them to take over Europe and had the need to go on conquest, they would have done so as well. The history of the Native Americans is littered with bloody battles between the various tribes.
My point is that "man is a bad animal" wherever and whenever he is. We'll kill our own kind, crap where we eat, and take more than we need and then use our wonderful rational mind to justify it all.
It always amazes me that many so called "scientifically" minded individuals subscribe to the Gaia theory--the theory that the Earth is an organism and that all life is just a part of the greater being and that the Earth has its own collective "intelligence," but refuse to extrapolate to the universe. Logically it follows that because we are intelligent and that we are a part of the universe, the universe itself is intelligent. Even in evolutionary programming, the way fundamental elements relate to each other and the "criteria" for success have to be set down prior to setting the system in motion. Is it so hard to believe that the Universe (or God or the Tao or whatever) has a self-organizing intelligence?
Also consider that the Turing test attributes "intelligence" to a system where an observer perceives intelligence. To the religiously minded, the universe/god/the tao has simply met their level of satisfaction for the definition of intelligence.
It is ridiculous to not see that skepticism requires us to acknowledge that our skepticism, our perceptions, and our faith (or lack thereof) may also be flawed. When we examine a bee's aerodynamics, the flagella of a paramecium, the human eye, or whatever we examine, skepticism and science require us to take a near Buddhist attitude that there both is and is not intelligent design at work. Science and Religion have been hijacked by extremists who refuse to acknowledge the fundamental uncertainty and doubt that is at the center of everything (or may not be at the center of everything). I think it is due to fear and laziness that religion refuses to consider that chaos may rule fate and for science to acknowledge (and examine honestly) that intelligence may be a work in the world.
As a native Gibber, I resent the implication that anyone can simply computerize the Gibberish language. While seemingly chaotic, Gibberish has complex linguistic features unique among the Indo-Iranian-Ubangi language group that simply do not fit neatly into computer generation. While Gibberish may be a near dead language, I remind you all that it is the official language of the U.S. Congress and would point all of you towards our greatest orator Donald Rumsfeld for an example of the beauty found in the known unknowns in this complex language. In closing, I'd like to say that two ducks making wine may find rabbits in unexpected places.
Thanks.
I agree wholeheartedly! I've wondered for years how they might make a movie or series of movies based on these books. I never once thought about a graphic novel series. It is a much better fit than just about any other visual media. I've always suspected King also wanted another crack at editing and expanding the saga of Roland. Now he has the chance.
Ma belle monopole! Heck I remember when AT and T refused to let any phone other than an AT and T phone on the lines. My parents had some equipment that came from some shady Communist eastern block nation (Canada I think) and they made them give it up.
Yeah, it's always the small words that do it. I am a victim of the spell check generation.
Poem idea....
I've seen the best minds of my generation unable to spell
Jonezing for the F7 key howling at the curser...
Nah, I'd have to turn queer and fall in love with the sound of my own voice to become the next Ginsberg (sp?;)
Like double negatives, English has long used split infinatives. Most Germanic languages have the ability to split infinatives and (I believe) many actually do so. The whole BS of not splitting the infinative came about because 18th and 19th century grammarians wanted to make English more like Latin (which cannot split infinatives because the infinative is one whole word/unit). Spelling, too, is only a recent convention and is one I'd rather see go the way of the Dodo as well as I am a dyslexic with an MA in English.
Slashdot Mirror
What is really at issue here is that like so many things in this brave new world is that we have encountered the 21st century equivalent of a platypus. Source code is neither mathematical algorithms nor "literature" but both algorithm AND literature. Source can (and I feel should) be viewed as a both-neither artifact that falls in the cracks of what we understand things to be. As both a poet and programmer, I could write a poem that is also a program. I could encode the letters and words in ASCII, put them into a char array, and have them sent to the System.out (in java) to produce an original poem. What in this could or should be copyrighted? The ASCII characters? The code itself outside the ASCII characters? I could argue that the way that I programmed the poem to print was part of the poem itself and should be copyrighted and cited every time someone does something similar ( I would of course be full of crap). The way I look at it copyrighting low-level source-code like vectors, hashes, linked lists should be forbidden. It would be akin to copyrighting commonly used words, but copyrighting large systems that incorporate these common "patterns" of ideas should be permissible, but under a different form of copyright that includes its own set of fair use (for research, non-commercial applications, education etc). This copyright should only be applicable when it is clear that a full "cut and paste situation" has been found. Microsoft should not be allowed to cut and paste a competitors source into their own project, but if they create a functionally identical and source similar (methods that differ and ways of catching errors that differ, factored differently, etc) they should be allowed to do as they wish. Think of the implication for Linux in the SCO trial if even having similar code to the Unix kernel is verboten. Additionally, with evolutionary programming coming along, it is feasible that highly evolved applications written by computer systems could closely resemble each other by sheer evolutionary accident. Think for example in nature between a bat and a bird. Very different animals with many of the same structures and qualities.
Amen Mr. AlterTick! The argument Bush should have made was this--"Sadam's refusal to cooperate with the U.N. leads us to suspect that his regime has chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. He may be bluffing in order to maintain some kind of relevance in the stage of world politics. He may be bluffing in order to keep Iran scared of attacking him directly. He may be bluffing to keep Iraq's Shia and Kurds in line. We may get there and find absolutely nothing-- but when a world trembles due to the actions of one pissant madman who kills anyone he pleases including his own people, friends and family, America cannot sit by and wait for the evidence to continue to trickle in. America cannot sit by while the erudite pundits of the world analyze and reanalyze scraps of intelligence. America cannot sit by while good-hearted people hesitate, ponder and re-ponder the moral implications of removing this tyrannical, homicidal madman. People may ask 'Why Sadam? Why not the various corrupt monarchies, theocratic dictatorships, and Stalinist nut jobs who are also wrecking the world?' First, he violated a cease-fire agreement with this country by not cooperating with the U.N. inspectors. Second, he has proven himself willing and capable of using weapons of mass destruction, and finally, because we can. Sometimes you have to stand up to chicken-sh## little bullies and let them know that YOU are bigger and stronger than they ever hoped to be and that their insecurity about the size of their penis doesn't give them license to terrorize the world and give you grief. In short, we're mad as hell and we're not going to take it any more. Get ready for Pax Americana."
If they'd used an alethiometer to begin with we wouldn't be having such an issue with this stuff. BTW my daemond is a slug.
I've been an avid solarbotic fan for a year or so now. I'm kind of making a jump from software to hardware and the physical world. We should be teaching how to do electronics, play with robots, innovate with limited resources and the like in school along the lines of playing. Unfortunatly, too many standardized tests and controlled lesson plans get in the way.
If you have ever had a loved one truly hurt by a defective product this case should anger you, but I am glad that America is a country that uses courts as a means of consumer protection as opposed to excessive government regulation. It really is almost a binary choice. Either you have the government aggressively regulate everything from paper clips to chainsaws or you allow aggrieved parties to bring suit against each other. The advantage that a court has is that 12 citizens that make the decision to award "victims." I've lived in places in Europe where there was a ministry office that covered whatever product was on the market and these "philosopher king" bureaucrat could issue whatever edict that they wanted. I remember specifically hearing that there was a Norwegian law on the books regulating the color of cheese wax (this could have been a joke though). Sure we do this to a large extent in the US. The FDA really acted WAY out of line when they outlawed Ma-Huang (ephedrine) because a couple of idiots ate it like candy, but take a look at what the EU proposes to regulate and you soon get the idea that Europe would rather have the state act like a nanny and shoo consumers away from making their own choices.
One final thought on all of this. It is profoundly disturbing that human trafficking today is such a major industry in the "enlightened" industrial nations and that we turn a blind eye to it. Women and children from around the world are sold into the sex industry and not so much as a "ho-hum" seems to come from those of us who know it is going on and is destroying lives.
Around here you hear it from all sorts of people, black and white. Hell, I remember a girl I liked back in high school. Her parents were Chinese and she said they'd freek out if I asked her out. Bigotry is unfortunatly a universal condition.
My point is that "man is a bad animal" wherever and whenever he is. We'll kill our own kind, crap where we eat, and take more than we need and then use our wonderful rational mind to justify it all.
What else should I be All apologies What else could I say Everyone is gay --Nirvana
I stand corrected. You can see why they don't pay me the big buck(s)! jd
Or to be more truthful-- another day another 0.0027378507871321013004791238877481 cents
Maybe he was refering to the way that Microsoft (small & soft) solved the problem of "men" with Viagra XP. No more blue veined scream of death....
LDA #AD Some assembly required.....
It always amazes me that many so called "scientifically" minded individuals subscribe to the Gaia theory--the theory that the Earth is an organism and that all life is just a part of the greater being and that the Earth has its own collective "intelligence," but refuse to extrapolate to the universe. Logically it follows that because we are intelligent and that we are a part of the universe, the universe itself is intelligent. Even in evolutionary programming, the way fundamental elements relate to each other and the "criteria" for success have to be set down prior to setting the system in motion. Is it so hard to believe that the Universe (or God or the Tao or whatever) has a self-organizing intelligence? Also consider that the Turing test attributes "intelligence" to a system where an observer perceives intelligence. To the religiously minded, the universe/god/the tao has simply met their level of satisfaction for the definition of intelligence. It is ridiculous to not see that skepticism requires us to acknowledge that our skepticism, our perceptions, and our faith (or lack thereof) may also be flawed. When we examine a bee's aerodynamics, the flagella of a paramecium, the human eye, or whatever we examine, skepticism and science require us to take a near Buddhist attitude that there both is and is not intelligent design at work. Science and Religion have been hijacked by extremists who refuse to acknowledge the fundamental uncertainty and doubt that is at the center of everything (or may not be at the center of everything). I think it is due to fear and laziness that religion refuses to consider that chaos may rule fate and for science to acknowledge (and examine honestly) that intelligence may be a work in the world.
I'm Norwegian, we're staring at our feet hoping nobody notices us.
As a native Gibber, I resent the implication that anyone can simply computerize the Gibberish language. While seemingly chaotic, Gibberish has complex linguistic features unique among the Indo-Iranian-Ubangi language group that simply do not fit neatly into computer generation. While Gibberish may be a near dead language, I remind you all that it is the official language of the U.S. Congress and would point all of you towards our greatest orator Donald Rumsfeld for an example of the beauty found in the known unknowns in this complex language. In closing, I'd like to say that two ducks making wine may find rabbits in unexpected places. Thanks.
I agree wholeheartedly! I've wondered for years how they might make a movie or series of movies based on these books. I never once thought about a graphic novel series. It is a much better fit than just about any other visual media. I've always suspected King also wanted another crack at editing and expanding the saga of Roland. Now he has the chance.
Ma belle monopole! Heck I remember when AT and T refused to let any phone other than an AT and T phone on the lines. My parents had some equipment that came from some shady Communist eastern block nation (Canada I think) and they made them give it up.
Yeah, it's always the small words that do it. I am a victim of the spell check generation. Poem idea.... I've seen the best minds of my generation unable to spell Jonezing for the F7 key howling at the curser... Nah, I'd have to turn queer and fall in love with the sound of my own voice to become the next Ginsberg (sp? ;)
Like double negatives, English has long used split infinatives. Most Germanic languages have the ability to split infinatives and (I believe) many actually do so. The whole BS of not splitting the infinative came about because 18th and 19th century grammarians wanted to make English more like Latin (which cannot split infinatives because the infinative is one whole word/unit). Spelling, too, is only a recent convention and is one I'd rather see go the way of the Dodo as well as I am a dyslexic with an MA in English.