Wow... just thought I'd say: Great articles!
I'm taking a course in Quantum Mechanics right now and have been looking for something very much like Kindergarden Quantum Mechanics... To be honest, I never even thought to combine category theory and Quantum Mech. /me really needs to start learning more category theory... it tends to pop up in really cool places.
The problem is that "quantum malware" can be as simple as kicking a machine (or setting off a sufficiently sized bomb nearby). Quantum states are fickle and easy to shift.
This is the same thing as a virus that erases/corrupts your hard-drive.
Computer viruses have come a long way since then, and so will "quantum malware." The real point is that this is the first paper of it's kind (in nearly 2 decades of research on quantum computing).
I don't believe that there is any legal problem with this, but then again IANAL.
The problem with this is the same problem that was (and still is) seen in the emacs vs Xemacs debate: primarily that the code contributions made to the non-compatable codebase can't be ported back without a hassle.
I'm not 100% of my communication skills at 3 in the morning, so I'll give an example.
Someone contributes to the GPL liscenced OpenBSD. The BSD liscence is NOT backward compatable in this case, and those changes can't be automatically applied back to the BSD liscenced OpenBSD, they have to get the author's permission to simply use that patch. This might not seem like a huge issue, but there is the chance that the author of the patch doesn't like BSD and doesn't want his/her code liscensed that way, or that the author simply can't be gotten ahold of.
Besides, if you're releasing code under a BSD liscence, what are the benefits of ALSO having a GPL version. It would only seem to cause lots of headaches.
Slashdot Mirror
And now that you've posted that, any future employer will know you're willing to do whatever it takes to get a job.
Oh well... With a name like Cye Stoner, I'm pretty much up shit creek myself.
Wow... just thought I'd say: Great articles! I'm taking a course in Quantum Mechanics right now and have been looking for something very much like Kindergarden Quantum Mechanics... To be honest, I never even thought to combine category theory and Quantum Mech.
/me really needs to start learning more category theory... it tends to pop up in really cool places.
The problem is that "quantum malware" can be as simple as kicking a machine (or setting off a sufficiently sized bomb nearby). Quantum states are fickle and easy to shift.
This is the same thing as a virus that erases/corrupts your hard-drive.
Computer viruses have come a long way since then, and so will "quantum malware." The real point is that this is the first paper of it's kind (in nearly 2 decades of research on quantum computing).
I don't believe that there is any legal problem with this, but then again IANAL.
The problem with this is the same problem that was (and still is) seen in the emacs vs Xemacs debate: primarily that the code contributions made to the non-compatable codebase can't be ported back without a hassle.
I'm not 100% of my communication skills at 3 in the morning, so I'll give an example.
Someone contributes to the GPL liscenced OpenBSD. The BSD liscence is NOT backward compatable in this case, and those changes can't be automatically applied back to the BSD liscenced OpenBSD, they have to get the author's permission to simply use that patch. This might not seem like a huge issue, but there is the chance that the author of the patch doesn't like BSD and doesn't want his/her code liscensed that way, or that the author simply can't be gotten ahold of.
Besides, if you're releasing code under a BSD liscence, what are the benefits of ALSO having a GPL version. It would only seem to cause lots of headaches.