"""I thought the emacs mode used 4 spaces? Either way,"""
You're correct. Sorry, I wasn't very clear. What I meant was that in python, good style dictates that one always uses spaces to ident (in C mode, most editors will use a mix of tabs and spaces). For example, in this code:
class Foo: def f(x): print "hello"
in emacs, the leading whitespace preceding the pritn statement is always 8 spaces (and not one tab, as it would be in C mode). <p> I always use modelines in emacs and vim to enforce consistent indenting anyway.
The syntax agrees to the letter of OO design, but not the spirit. The result is that most C++ code consists of procedural function dressed up in OO clothing.
(1) How so ?
(2) But does this have more to do with the fact that a lot of C++ code is actually based on systems already written in C ? I can point to the KDE project as an example of an enormous codebase that is object oriented from the ground up.
Many of the advantages of OOD can not be realised in C++ without some ugly code
Such as ? Examples ?
Unfortunatly, most people learn OOP vis C++, so they realy never quite get what OOP is all about.
Actually, most people learn C with classes via a C++ compiler. They don't really acquire a good feel for C++. Most introductory courses do not teach nontrivial uses of polymorphism, for example.
As a teaching language, Python has a much gentler learning curve than C++, and the lack of strong typing makes the language simpler. The fact that
C++ is not a great teaching language is not due to some inadequacy of the language -- it's due to the fact that if you don't make everything a pointer/reference (like java), OO becomes more complicated.
The problem is that you can't tell what a whitespace character is by looking at it. For example, is that a tab, or is it eight spaces?
In python, it is always 8 spaces. It's considered bad style to use tab. If you use emacs, then emacs will automatically use the correct settings in python mode.
The simple fact is that if you ignore the usual style guidelines for any programming language, there are obvious gotchas. The whitespace gotchas you mention are relatively harmless, as they are caught by the compiler.
There is no way to tell!
There are a lot of ways to tell. For example, in vim,:set list displays tabs as ^I and displays a $ sign on the end of each line.
You can't type in a program printed on paper and be sure that you got the whitespace right.
Spoken like someone who's never tried. Seriously -- never had a problem with this.
Often you can't even be sure that you will get the same whitespace if the program is distributed over the internet as text.
Save to file, and whitespace is preserved.
Until Python replaces significant whitespace with printable characters, it will always be a poor second to Perl in my book.
Pleasing anonymous morons is not one of the design goals of python. Sorry.
Could you please explain how PERL and Python serve different purposes?
Perl is a better shellscript than shellscript. Systems administrators who are tired of dealing with
the horrors of shell script like perl. Perl is also
great for text manipulation. One can write insanely powerful and terse code for this in perl (like sed on steroids). People who yank a lot of text around (web developers, sys admins) often like perl for this reason.
Python is more of a "programmers language". You can't
write insanely terse code in python, because the python philosophy dictates that the code should be comprehensible. You can still write concise code, but you can't "code in grunts" like you can in perl or bourne shell script.
Python has a cleaner OO model (not bolted on). It's easier to extend (via C or C++). It also makes a good high level wrapper for C or C++ libraries. It is infinitely better than perl for coding GUIs.
In particular, I'm not too sure about the performance implications of Python for a real-time game. The game is a free open-source game so it's not a life and death situation but still...
Fortunately, it's very easy to wrap classes written in C++ (or C!) in python. There is a bindings generator called sip (which PyQt is based on) which makes this very easy.
However, I doubt you'll have trouble with performance unless you're doing something extremely computation intensive (in which case, code the appropriate functions and/or classes in C or C++ then wrap them). Line-for-line, python is about 1/200 the speed of C, which is fast enough for many purposes.
I was hacked. You know, ever since all the Lawsuits started happening, there has been an increase of people hacking computers to download music
In a civil suit, they don't need "proof beyond reasonable doubt", they only need "preponderence of evidence". That means that if your lie sounds like BS, you still need to pay up.
This is different from a criminal case (as possession of child-porn would be)
Re:There's one good thing about it.
on
Perl 1.0?
·
· Score: 1
Sorry, but you need to convince me that tab damage isn't going to be a problem with Python, even though it is with every other programming language I've ever used (over a dozen).
Saying that indentation is going to bring python projects to a halt is like trying to argue that unpaired parens will stop a perl project (or LISP!). In practice, it just doesn't work like that. Why ? Is it because it's easy to remember to close all parens ? Or is it perhaps because the interpreter catches these errors very quickly ?
The same happens with python. Indentation errors
are caught very quickly. At worst, it's a minor
nuisance while you fix the settings on your editor.
This, I suspect, is the reason why Python programmers do not in practice run into substantial syntax problems as a result of tabbing. It is a complete non-issue for people who program in python, it's only an issue for people who don't program in python and want something to bitch about.
How would this sort of thing work with regards to burning your excess fat?
I would imagine it would be quite useful. A friend an I were discussing, in jest, a similar idea not that long ago -- we were trying to compute how long a colleagues lunch would be able to power his PDA for. It would be a win-win: the human body is a pretty efficient machine in terms of metabolising fuel.
Now the human body does not store glucose as fat. However, the rate at which you burn fat is affected by blood glucose levels, so by burning glucose, you are forcing your body to get more energy from fat.
Re:There's one good thing about it.
on
Perl 1.0?
·
· Score: 1
No matter how much Python advocates try to convince me that it'll all somehow be better, I already spend too much time having to clean up irregularly-formatted Java and Objective-C code,
Spoken like someone who's never actually tried it.
Look, until you've tried it, you don't know what you're talking about, and you're just blowing smoke (like most people on slashdot). So shut up already.
The problem is that years ago, when here was a very high setup-fee for duplicating music, that kind of monopoly-situation was needed (and it was for a much shorted time than it is now).
I understand this, but I don't agree that it's a reason that copyright is no longer needed. In fact,
the reason they needed the laws in the first place was because it was that it went from being impossible to being possible to
copy -- in other words, the ease of copying increased.
Now, anyone can make copies at about no cost. This is a major change that should have requested a full rethought of the law, now a small adaptation to preserve some status-quo
It's far from a "small change" to "preserve some status-quo". Intellectual works are an enormous part of every modern economy. All of them. There are a number of things
that have evolved to reflect the modern economy. For example, in the world of software, there has been a trend towards licensing and EULAs.
This is a move towards a more appropriate contractual/licensing model for dealing with software. There has been an increase in the emphasis on intellectual works, to reflect the greater role these play on the economy.
So, I argue, it's not that the law has not adapted
to deal with this modern high-tech age -- it's that
the changes are not the ones that you want.
When a big part of the (educated) population is acting agaisnt a law, it's time to sit down and wonder if that law is still OK for the current days...
Of course. These illegal actions are being addressed. The fact that a law is widely broken, however, does not necessarily mean that the law is immoral. It often simply means that the law is easy to break, or hard to comply with. Both of these issues can be addressed, by attacking large scale illegitimate distribution operations (Napster) and by providing legitimate alternatives .
About open source, you should have a look before saying that there are only Tetris-clones. you've Word-processors
I was talking about GAMES. I'm aware of the applications you speak of. I am a Linux user and developer, and author of the font HOWTO, and contributor to some of the syntax highlighting files for vim. BTW, I can't believe you forgot tetex.
Anyway, my point about games still stands. Games simply don't get developed under the open source model. If you want to exclusively use open source,
that's fine. I'd rather not, and I would like to spend money on commerical software, when necessary.
several older commercial games have been put in open-source
Yes, but how was the development of these games funded in the first place ??? The games were funded using the traditional licensing model.
And, if you had read the FSF Manifesto, you'd have had your answer about software as Air trafic control and such... Developpers can still earn money by contract-programming...
That model doesn't work well for all kinds of software. In particular, it's a terrible model for developing games, or anything else with a broad but frugal user base.
As for open sourcing everything -- contract programming is a development model that is often used, but these programs are rarely released at all (open source or otherwise), because the person who is paying for the development has little incentive to cater to the needs of freeloaders.
In conclusion, the problem is that any system that
caters to the demands of freeloaders is ultimately
broken, because it removes incentive to compensate the author for the work in question. There are some cases where free software is contributed as a sort of "gift" to society, but like all gifts, these should not be taken for granted, and we make the transition from grateful recipients to greedy pigs when we start demanding gifts.
I thought we were discussing copyrights, not "intellectual property", and not patents.
As such, these don't take into account facts like computer software running on hardware which don't exists anymore, the fact that, while before a costly setup was needed to start production, now a cheap computer from the local store can do the thing...
On the contrary,
The laws arose in the first place, because the means to copy existed.
The laws have evolved to specifically address the fact that consumer-grade equipment for copying data exists today.
The fact that cheap distribution is possible today is a reflection of the fact that more people
are doing brain work. All the more reason to have
an economic/legal system that is based on brain work, and certainly not a good reason to abolish copyright.
while big companies are pushing for more and more IP protection, the people (which are the one who are said to be represented by politicians) are more and more AGAINST these IP protections.
I would argue that most people simply don't know/ don't care -- they are not really for or against.
If there really was a substantial grass-roots movement, the politicians would listen. Politicians listen to lobby groups who can mobilise a lot of votes. For example, the NAACP, the NRA, the Christian Coalition, gay lobby groups , or and various women's groups can be very influential.
The EFF is not such a lobby group, which tells me that most people just don't know or care.
Musician would continue to create new songs but would mostly earn their money from concerts.
If there is no system in place to fund distribution of recorded music, then how does recorded music get distributed ? And what about musicians who don't do much live performing ?
film industry would be in big trouble. Special FX are expensive. as are big figures. They'd probably have to stop paying insane salaries to actors (and that would also openthe door to new actors,
That's great, but how would they pay for other
aspects of the film ?
Computer companies would have to change much. But that won't distroy them (think about these linux companies who make it although their product is free and this, in a very "hostile" environment as Linux/*BSD are still not so widespread). For more, see FSF web site.
That's great. How many open source games are there, exlucding tetris clones ? How about open source air traffic control systems ? Not all software is well-suited to the open source development model.
About the price of Music, as you said, the price jumped up when the switch was made to CD. and it's probably to do it again at the next format change.
You've offered no convincing argument that there
has been an overall upward price trend. Can
you present some hard evidence that music is more expensive today than it was 20 years ago ?
About things unavailable, try to find some tape/CD of "Meco the time machine, Encounter of every kind" (well, even the vinyl is very difficult to find...).... you're out of luck !!!
That's unfortunate, but it's not in itself a good reason to abolish copyright.
About "free-market" of the labels, I'm NOT talking about the choice for the artists (many of them are locked by a contract with a single label anyway... so, they are NOT free to choose their label anyway) but about the choice for the consumer.
Either way, maybe people would rather make their
own choices. Maybe not everyone wants to use open source software, open source tetris-clone games,
and open source music.
Think about it as the follow : an artist comes with a song and that song can be published by any label, given that they pay to the artist a given amount per CD sold. Then, the labels compete on a free market basis
Which law? The original law created by the founders of the U.S.A, or the mangled version of the law that exists today?
My understanding was that the poster was attacking the notion of copyright in general, and arguing that copyright is an outdated concept. I would argue that
in the case of the original constitutional law, it
is not outdated, and in case of the "mangled version", it is wrong-headed in places more than it is "outdated".
He's not saying it is worthless, but he is saying that giving an author control of copyrights to a work as an incentive to create more works needs to be re-evaluated.
I think if you don't allow the author to control distribution through EULAs or copyrights,
you do end up devaluing brain work.
I haven't come up with an altrernative method, but personally I would like information to spread more rapidly than it does now, with no restrictions.
Well, that's the problem. You can't have it both ways. If you have "no restrictions", how are the creators of such works compensated ?
but for useful information such as works that teach people "how to" do something, it is easy to see the benefit to the country as a whole. For instance, I come up with a new algorithm that makes not only one application more efficient, but also a slew of other applications more efficient if the knowledge of it were spread.
You're discussing patents here. This is not the
same as copyrights. I was specifically discussing copyrights. In principal, I'm not opposed to the idea of patents, but unfortunately, the current patent system is horribly botched.
Where do you shop? I pay $22 on the average per CD.
amazon.com, for example. Most of the CDs I buy, excluding those where the artist is deceased, are $15-$18. I'm talking about CD prices in the US.
From my experience, many works are out of print and no one but the copyright holder has the ability to make them available, thanks to copyright laws. Yes, you can search used/specialty shops for the original, But what if you cannot find it. What if you can only find a copy of it on a file-sharing system because one of the few holders of the original media has chosen to share it? You forgot to handle that case.
That's a corner case. I believe examples like this
can be used to argue for copyright reform, but I don't think it makes a very convincing case for abolishing copyright.
But back to music...the People make laws, and participate in the economy, therefore they have the right to change things if they want...
Yes, and there is a legitimate process for changing things. But this doesn't really address his point--
that you can't participate in the "free market economy" by just taking things that you are supposed to pay for.
So in a way, we do get to decide about the copyright holders, because we could revoke their rights if enough people got together...
Yes, but it's just not going to happen, because copyright does serve the interests of society. It even ultimately serves the interests of the freeloaders, who are effectively subsidised by the
more honest consumers who pay for the production
of the works that they enjoy.
I regularly make original digital recordings for which I receive no compensation. [snip]
No, my argument is absolutely correct. The vast majority of digital work that people enjoy today is produced by artists who are compensated. It's not enough for you to point to the existence of artists who produce work without compensation (I'm not disputing that such exist).
The fact that there exists music that is produced as a result of existing compensation structures does indeed mean that there would be less digital music without it.
No one has to "pay up" for intellectual property. There are plenty of intellectuals who will continue to generate ideas with or without compensation.
Yes, but some might want compensation. If there is
someone who wants to be compensated, and someone who is willing to compensate them, who are you to stand in the way of the deal ?
If someone wants to produce intellectual and creative works for free, fine. If someone wants to
produce them and get paid for their work, that's also fine.
However, I believe the wishes of the artist should be respected. It is the height of hypocrisy to speak of
these great intellectuals and artists who will
produce this work for free, and yet exclusively
use the work of other intellectuals and artists.
If the for-free works are indeed adequate, then
there is no need to pirate. If there is a need to
pirate, it is a sign that the pirate regards the
free stuff as insufficient.
In the world of Intellectual Property, there are no "free riders" because once the idea has been created, there is no "payment" and there is no "cost".
Sure there is. It costs to produce. It costs time
and money to record, produce and distribute. So there is cost. It's just a question of who pays.
SOme people may generously wish to give their work away. Others may want to receive compensation, and they are within their rights to do so.
If car manufacturers found themselves making a product that could be copied at no cost, they would have to find another revenue model.
Copyright and EULAs are revenue models.
ANY model that rewards freeloaders is fundamentally flawed, because under such a model, a rational party will freeload, and let someone else pay the bill. When someone does finally stand
up to pay the bill, they will demand that freeloaders are excluded from the benefits of the
intellectual/creative work in question. Hence you
end up with some sort of contractual EUAL type model.
Funded by governments ? This is fine, if you're a socialist. The rest of us don't want the government controlling our music (or software, for that matter) Patronage works well with some things, but not others. And the patron has their own interests -- such work is likely to be produced under an NDA.
If a CD isn't selling or is being stolen because it's too expensive
Maybe it's being "stolen" because the risk of doing so is low.
something needs to be done.
For example, increase the risk of "stealing" it.
If independent laels can sell CDs at an $11.99 list price, major labels should be able to compete.
They do compete. If the independent labels really
were as good as you say, why don't the artists all
sign up with them ? Maybe the major labels provide a more compelling service to the artist in terms of
promotion, etc.
In most people's minds, this is a crime in exactly the same sense as going 5 clicks over the speed limit. People just don't even think about it.
What about 30 clicks over ? 40 clicks over ? I think
file sharing should be handled in the same ay as speeding: punished with fines, which depend on the degree of the offence.
First, allow me to address the subect line.
No, the law is not "outdated". In fact, quite the opposite. The trends in recent times have not been away from protecting intellectual and creative works. On the contrary, such works have been increasingly important to modern economies, and this is reflected in the law. If you don't like this, you could always move to a country that has
weak copyright protections -- but the chances are that you wouldn't want to. The fact that you enjoy the lifestyle you do is in a large part due to the fact that you are living in a country that values intellectual and creative work. If the law of the land instead said that meat-work is valuable and brain-work is worthless, you would be a poor factory worker in sweatshop economy.
Add to that the fact that many musician complain about recording companies, that even if the manufacturing costs have dropped, the cost of music has increased (the cost of books has DROPPED).
This claim is often repeated on slashdot, but is it actually true ? I remember being in high-scool (1990), and I purchased cassette tapes for anywhere between $8 and $11. A CD would have cost a few dollars more (I think about 12-14), so I didn't buy CDs. Today, a CD is between $11 and $18. So I don't think the price in CDs has jumped substantially relative to the cost of living.
As for books getting cheaper, when was the last time you tried to buy a text book ? I don't think this claim is correct either.
One more is the fact that record companies are introducing more and more "one-shot" artists (making new stars from nothing, using mass advertisement and such). When you like some artist which make new musics of equal (or similar) quality over the time, you are more willing to buy its CD than when it's some "jack out of the box" artist you don't know and which won't last past the summer. You can be willing to support some artist you like, but when it's a one-shot artist, you are NOT given that opportunity.
Well, simple solution: listen to better quality music, instead of whatever is in the top 40. If you want to be a fashion whore, then by all means do so, but don't whine when the flavor-of-the-day changes.
And you can add to that the fact that many songs are unavailable at stores because the recording companies found that these were too old or that there is no interrest in these.
Whine, whine, whine. Go to a specialty music store, or buy from Amazon (very good range).
you'll listen to it again and again nad will need to keep it. and if you can't find it at your local music-store, you're left with only ONE solution : copying it.
This is little but a cheap rationalisation for compulsive thieves. If you can't get it at your local music store, get it off amazon. If you're able to download music, you're surely also able to find your way to an online music store.
For films, we see more and more films with nearly no story but loads of known actors and of special effects.
Again, the simple solution is to watch better quality films, and don't watch junk-movies. It's pretty easy to spot junk-movies just by viewing the previews. BTW, if these movies are so bad, then there's no need to pirate them, right ?
prices have actually gone UP.
Again, I note that you don't support this claim, which makes me suspect that you're just making things up.
Both for music and films, the people feel that it has a "real" value which is constantly decreasing and a price which is increasing...
Evidence please ? Is there a long-term trend of drecreasing box-office sales, for example ? What hard evidence is there that people "feel" that the
"real value" is decreasing ?
Add to that the wories like protected-CD (well... these are not really CD as they don't conform to the standard), mandatory messages on DVD, Zone system on DVD,... which dissappear when you've a copy... These are incentive to copy.
It is amazing to see how the people are always right, ahead of the politicians.
No they're not. Consider the amount of kicking and screaming when the feds tried to pass/enforce civil rights legislation, or the widespread opposition to Abraham Lincoln in his time. The mob are often wrong, which is why mob rule is not highly regarded as a system of government.
Finally, Should Copyright Even Exist? considers the question of whether the ability of computers to make faithful copies of digital data without significant cost so outweighs any benefit that copyright may have to society, that we would be better off if copyright were eliminated entirely.
Why not ? They could just use EULAs instead. You wouldn't necessarily enjoy the rights of "fair use", but they would serve the same purpose as copyright in restricting distribution.
The conclusion that any intelligent person should make from reading this article is that No one believes that sharing intellectual property is morally wrong .
This does not follow. If the question were put that way, it could substantially influence responses. The obvious reason that they "don't care about" copyright, is that they can infringe without getting caught.
Because it's not wrong, no matter how you look at it.
Sorry, it is wrong, depending on how you look at it.
It is wrong, because the infringers are free riders, and the free riders are hypocrites, because their use of the copyrighted works in question is only possible because someone else is
paying up. Read up on Kant's categorical imperative.
There are no victims, and there is no loser from file sharing. Everyone wins.
Not true. If there is no way to seek compensation for producing digital recordings, there will simply be less digital recordings.
That's why filesharing is so popular. The average person knows, deep down inside,
BUT---given the 'powers that be' disdain for my rights, why should I give two hoots about the RIAA rights?
Ahhh yes... two wrongs make a right. It's this sort of mentality that inspired the draconian practices of the RIAA in the first place. Sure, keep repeating it if it makes you feel better, but at the end of the day, it's just a cheap rationalization for amoral conduct.
If the code is not time-critical then why optimize for average case performance?
I meant, time critical as in "must run in less than 0.05ms".
A lot of python code may need to run as fast as possible, but python coders are more likely to be interested in average case (for example, you are really interested in average case with a web application, text processing program, or most scientific computing applications, not worst-case)
If it were possible to compile Python (or any other interpreted language), would this make it anywhere near the speed of C/C++?
Compiling alone wouldn't bridge the gap. Python already reduces interpreter overhead by using a pre-compiled byte-code. A large part of the problem is in dynamic typing: for example, when you say
a+b
in python, it's not equivalent to doing the same in C++. In python, you need to do a runtime type check and then decide what operation to perform, and only then can you add a and b. In C++, the dispatch can be performed compile-time.
What you really need to get a big speedup is some sort of mechanism that can eliminate a lot of this type checking (the other guy posted a link to an interesting approach to this problem)
But I've often been impressed with the ease of coding in such a language
It's a bit of a two-edged sort for the same reason -- the lack of type checking makes it easy to write code quickly, but it also makes it easy to code incorrectly.
You're wrong. The real reason is that for most data sets the Python hash implementation outperforms a balanced tree solution.
Yes -- that's what I said. It outperforms the balanced tree in the average case (but not the worst case) This almost certainly outweighs the benefits of
a guarantee for most python programmers.
The main advantage (as I also pointed out) of a balanced tree approach is that the data is automatically sorted.
Slashdot Mirror
"""I thought the emacs mode used 4 spaces? Either way,"""
You're correct. Sorry, I wasn't very clear. What I meant was that in python, good style dictates that one always uses spaces to ident (in C mode, most editors will use a mix of tabs and spaces). For example, in this code:
class Foo:
def f(x):
print "hello"
in emacs, the leading whitespace preceding the pritn statement is always 8 spaces (and not one tab, as it would be in C mode). <p>
I always use modelines in emacs and vim to enforce consistent indenting anyway.
(1) How so ?
(2) But does this have more to do with the fact that a lot of C++ code is actually based on systems already written in C ? I can point to the KDE project as an example of an enormous codebase that is object oriented from the ground up.
Many of the advantages of OOD can not be realised in C++ without some ugly code
Such as ? Examples ?
Unfortunatly, most people learn OOP vis C++, so they realy never quite get what OOP is all about.
Actually, most people learn C with classes via a C++ compiler. They don't really acquire a good feel for C++. Most introductory courses do not teach nontrivial uses of polymorphism, for example.
As a teaching language, Python has a much gentler learning curve than C++, and the lack of strong typing makes the language simpler. The fact that C++ is not a great teaching language is not due to some inadequacy of the language -- it's due to the fact that if you don't make everything a pointer/reference (like java), OO becomes more complicated.
In python, it is always 8 spaces. It's considered bad style to use tab. If you use emacs, then emacs will automatically use the correct settings in python mode.
The simple fact is that if you ignore the usual style guidelines for any programming language, there are obvious gotchas. The whitespace gotchas you mention are relatively harmless, as they are caught by the compiler.
There is no way to tell!
There are a lot of ways to tell. For example, in vim, :set list displays tabs as ^I and displays a $ sign on the end of each line.
You can't type in a program printed on paper and be sure that you got the whitespace right.
Spoken like someone who's never tried. Seriously -- never had a problem with this.
Often you can't even be sure that you will get the same whitespace if the program is distributed over the internet as text.
Save to file, and whitespace is preserved.
Until Python replaces significant whitespace with printable characters, it will always be a poor second to Perl in my book.
Pleasing anonymous morons is not one of the design goals of python. Sorry.
Perl is a better shellscript than shellscript. Systems administrators who are tired of dealing with the horrors of shell script like perl. Perl is also great for text manipulation. One can write insanely powerful and terse code for this in perl (like sed on steroids). People who yank a lot of text around (web developers, sys admins) often like perl for this reason.
Python is more of a "programmers language". You can't write insanely terse code in python, because the python philosophy dictates that the code should be comprehensible. You can still write concise code, but you can't "code in grunts" like you can in perl or bourne shell script.
Python has a cleaner OO model (not bolted on). It's easier to extend (via C or C++). It also makes a good high level wrapper for C or C++ libraries. It is infinitely better than perl for coding GUIs.
That's about all I can think of for now.
Fortunately, it's very easy to wrap classes written in C++ (or C!) in python. There is a bindings generator called sip (which PyQt is based on) which makes this very easy.
However, I doubt you'll have trouble with performance unless you're doing something extremely computation intensive (in which case, code the appropriate functions and/or classes in C or C++ then wrap them). Line-for-line, python is about 1/200 the speed of C, which is fast enough for many purposes.
In a civil suit, they don't need "proof beyond reasonable doubt", they only need "preponderence of evidence". That means that if your lie sounds like BS, you still need to pay up.
This is different from a criminal case (as possession of child-porn would be)
Saying that indentation is going to bring python projects to a halt is like trying to argue that unpaired parens will stop a perl project (or LISP!). In practice, it just doesn't work like that. Why ? Is it because it's easy to remember to close all parens ? Or is it perhaps because the interpreter catches these errors very quickly ?
The same happens with python. Indentation errors are caught very quickly. At worst, it's a minor nuisance while you fix the settings on your editor.
This, I suspect, is the reason why Python programmers do not in practice run into substantial syntax problems as a result of tabbing. It is a complete non-issue for people who program in python, it's only an issue for people who don't program in python and want something to bitch about.
I would imagine it would be quite useful. A friend an I were discussing, in jest, a similar idea not that long ago -- we were trying to compute how long a colleagues lunch would be able to power his PDA for. It would be a win-win: the human body is a pretty efficient machine in terms of metabolising fuel.
Now the human body does not store glucose as fat. However, the rate at which you burn fat is affected by blood glucose levels, so by burning glucose, you are forcing your body to get more energy from fat.
Spoken like someone who's never actually tried it. Look, until you've tried it, you don't know what you're talking about, and you're just blowing smoke (like most people on slashdot). So shut up already.
I understand this, but I don't agree that it's a reason that copyright is no longer needed. In fact, the reason they needed the laws in the first place was because it was that it went from being impossible to being possible to copy -- in other words, the ease of copying increased.
Now, anyone can make copies at about no cost. This is a major change that should have requested a full rethought of the law, now a small adaptation to preserve some status-quo
It's far from a "small change" to "preserve some status-quo". Intellectual works are an enormous part of every modern economy. All of them. There are a number of things that have evolved to reflect the modern economy. For example, in the world of software, there has been a trend towards licensing and EULAs. This is a move towards a more appropriate contractual/licensing model for dealing with software. There has been an increase in the emphasis on intellectual works, to reflect the greater role these play on the economy.
So, I argue, it's not that the law has not adapted to deal with this modern high-tech age -- it's that the changes are not the ones that you want.
When a big part of the (educated) population is acting agaisnt a law, it's time to sit down and wonder if that law is still OK for the current days...
Of course. These illegal actions are being addressed. The fact that a law is widely broken, however, does not necessarily mean that the law is immoral. It often simply means that the law is easy to break, or hard to comply with. Both of these issues can be addressed, by attacking large scale illegitimate distribution operations (Napster) and by providing legitimate alternatives .
About open source, you should have a look before saying that there are only Tetris-clones. you've Word-processors
I was talking about GAMES. I'm aware of the applications you speak of. I am a Linux user and developer, and author of the font HOWTO, and contributor to some of the syntax highlighting files for vim. BTW, I can't believe you forgot tetex.
Anyway, my point about games still stands. Games simply don't get developed under the open source model. If you want to exclusively use open source, that's fine. I'd rather not, and I would like to spend money on commerical software, when necessary.
several older commercial games have been put in open-source
Yes, but how was the development of these games funded in the first place ??? The games were funded using the traditional licensing model.
And, if you had read the FSF Manifesto, you'd have had your answer about software as Air trafic control and such... Developpers can still earn money by contract-programming...
That model doesn't work well for all kinds of software. In particular, it's a terrible model for developing games, or anything else with a broad but frugal user base.
As for open sourcing everything -- contract programming is a development model that is often used, but these programs are rarely released at all (open source or otherwise), because the person who is paying for the development has little incentive to cater to the needs of freeloaders.
In conclusion, the problem is that any system that caters to the demands of freeloaders is ultimately broken, because it removes incentive to compensate the author for the work in question. There are some cases where free software is contributed as a sort of "gift" to society, but like all gifts, these should not be taken for granted, and we make the transition from grateful recipients to greedy pigs when we start demanding gifts.
I thought we were discussing copyrights, not "intellectual property", and not patents.
As such, these don't take into account facts like computer software running on hardware which don't exists anymore, the fact that, while before a costly setup was needed to start production, now a cheap computer from the local store can do the thing...
On the contrary,
while big companies are pushing for more and more IP protection, the people (which are the one who are said to be represented by politicians) are more and more AGAINST these IP protections.
I would argue that most people simply don't know/ don't care -- they are not really for or against. If there really was a substantial grass-roots movement, the politicians would listen. Politicians listen to lobby groups who can mobilise a lot of votes. For example, the NAACP, the NRA, the Christian Coalition, gay lobby groups , or and various women's groups can be very influential. The EFF is not such a lobby group, which tells me that most people just don't know or care.
Musician would continue to create new songs but would mostly earn their money from concerts.
If there is no system in place to fund distribution of recorded music, then how does recorded music get distributed ? And what about musicians who don't do much live performing ?
film industry would be in big trouble. Special FX are expensive. as are big figures. They'd probably have to stop paying insane salaries to actors (and that would also openthe door to new actors,
That's great, but how would they pay for other aspects of the film ?
Computer companies would have to change much. But that won't distroy them (think about these linux companies who make it although their product is free and this, in a very "hostile" environment as Linux/*BSD are still not so widespread). For more, see FSF web site.
That's great. How many open source games are there, exlucding tetris clones ? How about open source air traffic control systems ? Not all software is well-suited to the open source development model.
About the price of Music, as you said, the price jumped up when the switch was made to CD. and it's probably to do it again at the next format change.
You've offered no convincing argument that there has been an overall upward price trend. Can you present some hard evidence that music is more expensive today than it was 20 years ago ?
About things unavailable, try to find some tape/CD of "Meco the time machine, Encounter of every kind" (well, even the vinyl is very difficult to find...).... you're out of luck !!!
That's unfortunate, but it's not in itself a good reason to abolish copyright.
About "free-market" of the labels, I'm NOT talking about the choice for the artists (many of them are locked by a contract with a single label anyway... so, they are NOT free to choose their label anyway) but about the choice for the consumer.
Either way, maybe people would rather make their own choices. Maybe not everyone wants to use open source software, open source tetris-clone games, and open source music.
Think about it as the follow : an artist comes with a song and that song can be published by any label, given that they pay to the artist a given amount per CD sold. Then, the labels compete on a free market basis
This is actually an interesting idea.
BTW, I want to thank yo
My understanding was that the poster was attacking the notion of copyright in general, and arguing that copyright is an outdated concept. I would argue that in the case of the original constitutional law, it is not outdated, and in case of the "mangled version", it is wrong-headed in places more than it is "outdated".
He's not saying it is worthless, but he is saying that giving an author control of copyrights to a work as an incentive to create more works needs to be re-evaluated.
I think if you don't allow the author to control distribution through EULAs or copyrights, you do end up devaluing brain work.
I haven't come up with an altrernative method, but personally I would like information to spread more rapidly than it does now, with no restrictions.
Well, that's the problem. You can't have it both ways. If you have "no restrictions", how are the creators of such works compensated ?
but for useful information such as works that teach people "how to" do something, it is easy to see the benefit to the country as a whole. For instance, I come up with a new algorithm that makes not only one application more efficient, but also a slew of other applications more efficient if the knowledge of it were spread.
You're discussing patents here. This is not the same as copyrights. I was specifically discussing copyrights. In principal, I'm not opposed to the idea of patents, but unfortunately, the current patent system is horribly botched.
Where do you shop? I pay $22 on the average per CD.
amazon.com, for example. Most of the CDs I buy, excluding those where the artist is deceased, are $15-$18. I'm talking about CD prices in the US.
From my experience, many works are out of print and no one but the copyright holder has the ability to make them available, thanks to copyright laws. Yes, you can search used/specialty shops for the original, But what if you cannot find it. What if you can only find a copy of it on a file-sharing system because one of the few holders of the original media has chosen to share it? You forgot to handle that case.
That's a corner case. I believe examples like this can be used to argue for copyright reform, but I don't think it makes a very convincing case for abolishing copyright.
Yes, and there is a legitimate process for changing things. But this doesn't really address his point-- that you can't participate in the "free market economy" by just taking things that you are supposed to pay for. So in a way, we do get to decide about the copyright holders, because we could revoke their rights if enough people got together...
Yes, but it's just not going to happen, because copyright does serve the interests of society. It even ultimately serves the interests of the freeloaders, who are effectively subsidised by the more honest consumers who pay for the production of the works that they enjoy.
No, my argument is absolutely correct. The vast majority of digital work that people enjoy today is produced by artists who are compensated. It's not enough for you to point to the existence of artists who produce work without compensation (I'm not disputing that such exist). The fact that there exists music that is produced as a result of existing compensation structures does indeed mean that there would be less digital music without it.
No one has to "pay up" for intellectual property. There are plenty of intellectuals who will continue to generate ideas with or without compensation.
Yes, but some might want compensation. If there is someone who wants to be compensated, and someone who is willing to compensate them, who are you to stand in the way of the deal ? If someone wants to produce intellectual and creative works for free, fine. If someone wants to produce them and get paid for their work, that's also fine.
However, I believe the wishes of the artist should be respected. It is the height of hypocrisy to speak of these great intellectuals and artists who will produce this work for free, and yet exclusively use the work of other intellectuals and artists. If the for-free works are indeed adequate, then there is no need to pirate. If there is a need to pirate, it is a sign that the pirate regards the free stuff as insufficient.
In the world of Intellectual Property, there are no "free riders" because once the idea has been created, there is no "payment" and there is no "cost".
Sure there is. It costs to produce. It costs time and money to record, produce and distribute. So there is cost. It's just a question of who pays. SOme people may generously wish to give their work away. Others may want to receive compensation, and they are within their rights to do so.
Copyright and EULAs are revenue models. ANY model that rewards freeloaders is fundamentally flawed, because under such a model, a rational party will freeload, and let someone else pay the bill. When someone does finally stand up to pay the bill, they will demand that freeloaders are excluded from the benefits of the intellectual/creative work in question. Hence you end up with some sort of contractual EUAL type model.
Funded by governments ? This is fine, if you're a socialist. The rest of us don't want the government controlling our music (or software, for that matter) Patronage works well with some things, but not others. And the patron has their own interests -- such work is likely to be produced under an NDA.
Maybe it's being "stolen" because the risk of doing so is low.
something needs to be done.
For example, increase the risk of "stealing" it.
If independent laels can sell CDs at an $11.99 list price, major labels should be able to compete.
They do compete. If the independent labels really were as good as you say, why don't the artists all sign up with them ? Maybe the major labels provide a more compelling service to the artist in terms of promotion, etc.
What about 30 clicks over ? 40 clicks over ? I think file sharing should be handled in the same ay as speeding: punished with fines, which depend on the degree of the offence.
First, allow me to address the subect line. No, the law is not "outdated". In fact, quite the opposite. The trends in recent times have not been away from protecting intellectual and creative works. On the contrary, such works have been increasingly important to modern economies, and this is reflected in the law. If you don't like this, you could always move to a country that has weak copyright protections -- but the chances are that you wouldn't want to. The fact that you enjoy the lifestyle you do is in a large part due to the fact that you are living in a country that values intellectual and creative work. If the law of the land instead said that meat-work is valuable and brain-work is worthless, you would be a poor factory worker in sweatshop economy.
Add to that the fact that many musician complain about recording companies, that even if the manufacturing costs have dropped, the cost of music has increased (the cost of books has DROPPED).
This claim is often repeated on slashdot, but is it actually true ? I remember being in high-scool (1990), and I purchased cassette tapes for anywhere between $8 and $11. A CD would have cost a few dollars more (I think about 12-14), so I didn't buy CDs. Today, a CD is between $11 and $18. So I don't think the price in CDs has jumped substantially relative to the cost of living. As for books getting cheaper, when was the last time you tried to buy a text book ? I don't think this claim is correct either.
One more is the fact that record companies are introducing more and more "one-shot" artists (making new stars from nothing, using mass advertisement and such). When you like some artist which make new musics of equal (or similar) quality over the time, you are more willing to buy its CD than when it's some "jack out of the box" artist you don't know and which won't last past the summer. You can be willing to support some artist you like, but when it's a one-shot artist, you are NOT given that opportunity.
Well, simple solution: listen to better quality music, instead of whatever is in the top 40. If you want to be a fashion whore, then by all means do so, but don't whine when the flavor-of-the-day changes.
And you can add to that the fact that many songs are unavailable at stores because the recording companies found that these were too old or that there is no interrest in these.
Whine, whine, whine. Go to a specialty music store, or buy from Amazon (very good range).
you'll listen to it again and again nad will need to keep it. and if you can't find it at your local music-store, you're left with only ONE solution : copying it.
This is little but a cheap rationalisation for compulsive thieves. If you can't get it at your local music store, get it off amazon. If you're able to download music, you're surely also able to find your way to an online music store.
For films, we see more and more films with nearly no story but loads of known actors and of special effects.
Again, the simple solution is to watch better quality films, and don't watch junk-movies. It's pretty easy to spot junk-movies just by viewing the previews. BTW, if these movies are so bad, then there's no need to pirate them, right ?
prices have actually gone UP.
Again, I note that you don't support this claim, which makes me suspect that you're just making things up.
Both for music and films, the people feel that it has a "real" value which is constantly decreasing and a price which is increasing...
Evidence please ? Is there a long-term trend of drecreasing box-office sales, for example ? What hard evidence is there that people "feel" that the "real value" is decreasing ?
Add to that the wories like protected-CD (well... these are not really CD as they don't conform to the standard), mandatory messages on DVD, Zone system on DVD, ... which dissappear when you've a copy... These are incentive to copy.
No they're not. Consider the amount of kicking and screaming when the feds tried to pass/enforce civil rights legislation, or the widespread opposition to Abraham Lincoln in his time. The mob are often wrong, which is why mob rule is not highly regarded as a system of government.
Why not ? They could just use EULAs instead. You wouldn't necessarily enjoy the rights of "fair use", but they would serve the same purpose as copyright in restricting distribution.
This does not follow. If the question were put that way, it could substantially influence responses. The obvious reason that they "don't care about" copyright, is that they can infringe without getting caught.
Because it's not wrong, no matter how you look at it.
Sorry, it is wrong, depending on how you look at it. It is wrong, because the infringers are free riders, and the free riders are hypocrites, because their use of the copyrighted works in question is only possible because someone else is paying up. Read up on Kant's categorical imperative.
There are no victims, and there is no loser from file sharing. Everyone wins.
Not true. If there is no way to seek compensation for producing digital recordings, there will simply be less digital recordings.
That's why filesharing is so popular. The average person knows, deep down inside,
that they won't get caught.
Ahhh yes ... two wrongs make a right. It's this sort of mentality that inspired the draconian practices of the RIAA in the first place. Sure, keep repeating it if it makes you feel better, but at the end of the day, it's just a cheap rationalization for amoral conduct.
I meant, time critical as in "must run in less than 0.05ms".
A lot of python code may need to run as fast as possible, but python coders are more likely to be interested in average case (for example, you are really interested in average case with a web application, text processing program, or most scientific computing applications, not worst-case)
Compiling alone wouldn't bridge the gap. Python already reduces interpreter overhead by using a pre-compiled byte-code. A large part of the problem is in dynamic typing: for example, when you say
a+b
in python, it's not equivalent to doing the same in C++. In python, you need to do a runtime type check and then decide what operation to perform, and only then can you add a and b. In C++, the dispatch can be performed compile-time.
What you really need to get a big speedup is some sort of mechanism that can eliminate a lot of this type checking (the other guy posted a link to an interesting approach to this problem)
But I've often been impressed with the ease of coding in such a language
It's a bit of a two-edged sort for the same reason -- the lack of type checking makes it easy to write code quickly, but it also makes it easy to code incorrectly.
Yes -- that's what I said. It outperforms the balanced tree in the average case (but not the worst case) This almost certainly outweighs the benefits of a guarantee for most python programmers. The main advantage (as I also pointed out) of a balanced tree approach is that the data is automatically sorted.