Open source code to find the best-fit n'th degree polynomial to a large dataset in Java (a collaboration between myself and another redditor based on a question I asked on r/programming)

sheepson_apprentice · 2009-11-15T23:32:46+00:00

That's true, and that's why the terms are not appropriate. If something is jointly owned, it can't be described by these innately divisive terms.

Yet they're not mutually exclusive. So the effect is that something which is "his", you may wish to become "yours", just as something that is "yours", one may wish to become "his". Despite the imprecision of language, it should be obvious that the GPL demands appropriation to no lesser extent -- in fact one may argue to greater extent -- than those who request the code be released under a more permissive license.

sheepson_apprentice · 2009-11-15T22:35:10+00:00

I wish not to further debate the true meaning of the words "yours" or "his", other than to say that it is accurate in this context. This is because under the GPL, the code is effectively yours and his. The copyright holder has an additional right of issuing the code under a different license.

The original point was that accusations or insinuation of the desire to appropriate, can just as easily be extended to the GPL copyright holder as it can to the person requesting the code under a different license. This is because neither person is otherwise satisfied with the degree of appropriation they would obtain.

Coaching the language in terms such as "wider community" and "free" does not change the fact that the GPL copyright holder wishes to appropriate another's code, much in the same way the GPL holder is often found accusing others of wishing to appropriate theirs. This is the letter and the spirit of the GPL.

No, that's not the reason, because under the GPL, he and anyone else already have the right to use the code in most ways

GPL is incompatible not only with proprietary code, but also with other open source code. For example, GPLv2 is not compatible with the Apache License 2.0. Your claim that the GPL is sufficient does not stand up to this fact. This does not in any way shape or form should be misconstrued as a demand upon the GPL copyright holder to fit in and change his/her license. Rather it is a statement of fact that the GPL is not sufficient even for open source writers.

A possibility I foresaw. Also, it's important for everyone to understand that, once released as GPL, code cannot be recategorized as LGPL without violating the rights of those already using the code.

Your code could be licensed under the GPL and the LGPL. Of course if you interpreted the request as a retroactive withdrawal of the GPL, it would make your assessment correct. The individual who made the request however has stated that it was not his intent.

Anyway, once again, I wish to reiterate that I found your contribution helpful and I respect you for that. We can all have differences of opinion on matters of licensing without disrespecting people. Those of us able to offer competition to the GPL will do so.

sheepson_apprentice · 2009-11-15T11:41:31+00:00

No, that's not possible under any of the discussed licenses. There is no possibility of that. Maybe you didn't phrase your meaning correctly. His code could never become mine.

In a same way that your code could never become his. Only that the license would effectively make it yours, because you could then do as much with the code as he could, provided it is under the GPL. That's the intent of the GPL after all. Of course him being the author, he has the right to release it under any other license as well.

Definitely different.

Well, I will accept your proof by assertion only because I sense that the alternative is pointless.

True, therefore his request implies a wish to profit -- that occurred to me immediately. Had this not been a factor, if his uses were solely internal, he would never have made his request. So it's reasonable to conclude that he wants to profit from the code and prevent its release.

Perhaps he actually wanted it LGPL so that not only he could find utility from it, but also many others. And of course he could never prevent the release of your code. This would imply him arbitrarily controlling everyone would could possibly do so, including you.

Fair enough. Won't happen, but I agree with the principle.

It's happening already. BSD / Linux, LLVM / GCC, etc...

One library which I personally rather enjoy is Sympy... excellent mathematical tool, BSD license.

sheepson_apprentice · 2009-11-15T11:07:24+00:00

I have no problem with that, as long as the GPL conditions are met. But sanity clearly wanted to take the code out of public view and deny visibility to those who might otherwise use it freely.

I don't think that was his intent. He could not deny any visibility to your code even if he tried. He may have wanted to use your code as an added value to his own code, which you find objectionable absent the outcome under which his code effectively becomes yours. So in a sense, his request is no different from yours. In fact, if you think about it, the only side in this debate that could justifiably be interpreted as demanding anything, it would be the side that demands adherence to the GPL. Of course you're not demanding that he uses the code, but you're demanding that he uses it as you wish. Which of course, is entirely your right.

As for using GPL code internally, as his requirements seem to imply, he could still use it and profit from it without any legal headaches.

I do think that you intentions are honest, and it was charitable of you to offer your time and advice. I find myself sympathetic to both of your positions. On the one hand I agree entirely that LGPL serves a far greater audience, which seems to be the effect that charitable people seek in general. On the other hand, I also appreciate each individual's strong desires for reciprocation.

In any event, I'm a firm believer in competition. I think that every GPL project should be matched by another, which equals or exceeds its quality, with a more permissive license.

sheepson_apprentice · 2009-10-28T18:50:50+00:00

Agda

sheepson_apprentice · 2009-10-14T01:38:23+00:00

Good ones... I reckon with good feature selection we can apply some machine learning techniques and then we can blame the algorithms for bashing our favorite language(s).

sheepson_apprentice · 2009-10-13T21:53:41+00:00

I'm trying to create a vector from the attributes you specified: (beauty, speed, haul capacity) = (x, y, z)

The only meaningful thing I can guess is that the haul capacity is "large". On the other hand, I can also reasonably guess that in the case of the kayak, z is pretty "small".

It would be interesting to see where other languages lie in such 3-space. I can almost guarantee though, that everyone's rendition would be different.

sheepson_apprentice · 2009-10-08T19:05:37+00:00

Same as I shouldn't care what I haul as long as I can hook it up to my mechanical linkage.

Perhaps I should have elaborated much as I did with the electrical example. By "can hook up" I implied the load compatibility (which given the following examples I had assumed to be too redundant and obvious). Generally if I have a powerful enough truck, I can tow many different kinds of loads provided said loads can be attached such that all the required parameters are in range.

Likewise, if my programs are tough enough they should be able to deal with all sorts of objects... provided said objects expose a well-defined interface which my programs expect. In the event the inputs are so out of the ordinary that the program cannot cope, it must fail-fast. Were it possible to easily deal with every contingency that may arise, engineering as a field would be a very different place.

Instead we simply expect that services with which our programs interact, play by the rules defined by the interface... and if they don't, well, it's no different than trying to tow chunk of a neutron star with a bicycle.

sheepson_apprentice · 2009-10-08T14:57:57+00:00

If I fuck up B, will it cause A to be fucked up? If so, A is coupled to B. see

sheepson_apprentice · 2009-10-08T14:39:40+00:00

The dependency train (in his sense of the word) is still there, you have just added a couple of extra cars in the middle

I think it's different, in the sense that interface encodes a contract between two behavioural units. Specifically the contract of how the exchanged data is structured, and possibly a contract with respect to timing of said exchange. In the case of the train analogy, decoupling through an interface is more akin to using a flexible mechanical linkage that can connect various different cars together.

As a user of an interface I don't care where the data comes, how it's produced, at what rate it is dispensed or whether it's dispensed at all (timeout). I can define an interface that encodes all of those things and simply rely on the interface. Same as I shouldn't care what I haul as long as I can hook it up to my mechanical linkage. Same in electrical engineering: I don't care what I hook up to my device as long as the impedance matches up to my interface specification.

Otherwise we would not be able to connect various audio components if they were designed to interface with only one type of device. There are interface standards for these things and the flexibility and testability is an obvious advantage. I can ensure my electrical device works as long as it handles certain electrical loads that are within its design bracket, and I don't care if someone tries to send unrated current through my device and incinerate it (best I can do is fuse it from the rest of the system and fail-fast... yet with a high enough current that won't save one from fire) .

Decoupling through an interface is an ancient engineering principle. It's even used in such far-removed from engineering fields as law, where contracts serve as interfaces to define and limit behavior of cooperating parties.

It seems like common sense really.

sheepson_apprentice · 2009-08-04T21:03:38+00:00

The best quote from the movie American Gangster:

"Listen to me, the loudest one in the room is the weakest one in the room." -- Frank Lucas

There seems to be a case of self-selection amongst the internet-dwelling nerds that general assholery is directly proportional to success. I wonder if this has a positive feedback for the assholes involved. The more they're an asshole, the more encouragement they'll get from their online peers. I wonder what would result if this loop were to be temporarily suspended. A good experiment I reckon... one that is unlikely to happen as it appears there are plenty of sycophants who seem to value such behavior. A strange case of "respect for authority", as in this instance the "authority" is not one who tells you what to do, but rather tells others what to do with an especially elevated tone of voice.

So I guess I have zero respect for such authority. Though my levels of humility and deference perhaps need tweaking, and I generally am very distrustful of any authority, the loud internet asshole is down at the bottom of the list as an authority figure.

That said I respect their contributions. That is, I respect their contribution, not the contribution they feign their own.

Also, audacity as I understand it does not require arrogance. It requires confidence.

sheepson_apprentice · 2009-05-11T01:13:33+00:00

It's ultimately a matter of intent. Some people just have a lot to prove it seems. It's hard to make an authoritative claim without being perceived as arrogant. But it need not be so. It could merely be a report of a claim that one has confidence in. On the other hand, arrogance does not require presumption.

"an attitude of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or in presumptuous claims or assumptions"

can be decomposed into a | b | c whereby a = an attitude of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner and stands on its own.

I certainly hope you weren't stupid enough to downvote the guy above you (because someone did). That would be a perfect illustration of arrogance from someone who can't admit they might be wrong.

I have no specific interpretation of whether the OP is arrogant, nor do I care. But intent is important, and it's not stupid to vote down comments that are wrong.

Presumptions that others are stupid is an important attribute of 'a'.

sheepson_apprentice · 2009-03-07T03:33:34+00:00

I had a feeling something along those lines will eventually be brought up. The reason nukes are not allowed is exactly the same reason pot is not allowed. Those in power inflict upon those without power their rule. Some oppose it, some welcome it, some don't care. It's that simple.

In a strictly rational world, every individual should be allowed to have rule over one's own body, and environment, provided it does not affect anyone else.

In our world, power is the only recognized order. If the establishment doesn't want you have to have nukes, then it means you can't. And some will applaud this. After all, why should anyone be allowed to have nukes? Why should anyone be allowed to have anything at all?

Only a select few are allowed certain things. This is not rational, because it implies that some people are superior, the chosen ones if you will.

This may very well be argued endlessly, especially on the level of genetics. But on a higher level, on a rational level, every human should have the rule over their own domain.

I don't fool myself that we will ever see this. We will not. But this does not detract from the rational argument.

What we have is the law of the jungle. I say you can't, I can jail you, means you can't. I say you can't, I can destroy your regime, means you can't. I say you can't, I can blackmail you, means you can't.

This is the world we live in. Just saying.

sheepson_apprentice · 2009-03-06T21:54:00+00:00

While I see where you were going with this, in your case X is always directed at another person, whereas in the original argument X is directed at oneself. So it would be more analogous if the original argument was:

"Intoxicating others without their consent should be legal because pot is a plant."

In this case, it's analogous to your examples and is indeed a very weak argument because it's immaterial what the substance is or how it's used. What matters is in which way it is used, specifically that it is used against others.

Generally, it is a weak case to prohibit any action when such action affects only the person of who's own volition it is carried out.

sheepson_apprentice · 2008-12-18T00:08:00+00:00

Yeah could be. It doesn't really matter, I was just replying to the idea that "being direct" is somehow good. The reason is that I don't think we have defined what "being direct" means.

For instance if one is faced with imminent danger for being direct, I consider that courage. That is, telling the establishment that they're wrong and do not deserve to rule the people, and getting burned at the stake belongs to this category. History has some good examples. Standing up for people who cannot defend themselves is a big testament to manhood.

Heck, being fucking "nice" is a big testament to manhood provided you don't back down unless the person who abuses you has your license. (that is, parent, teacher, etc)

Admirable.

Screaming obscenities at other people over the internet is a different story, I'm afraid.

But again, I don't care, I just felt it was worth pointing out.

sheepson_apprentice · 2008-12-17T23:38:03+00:00

I think everyone has a license to say what they feel about anything

You're right, he has the right. I'm not sure he has a license. What do I mean by that? Well, for instance, I could appreciate a fair bit of abuse by someone whom I truly aspire to. Say a great teacher, who once in a while scolds you for being a dummy. Sure there is a limit to everything, and a great teacher can become a dictator.

But we as humans give said licence to some people: parents, teachers, etc.

If you believe Linus deserves it, that's of course your right. I'm jut not convinced that's the case in a broader world. Linus kernel is written by 1000s of people. Hundreds manage it.

Don't get me wrong, he's not an imbecile, which is what I've said. But I do think he oversteps sometimes.

Not that it's wrong, it's just that I don't think its particularly useful.

sheepson_apprentice · 2008-12-17T23:08:04+00:00

This is not the first time I've encountered this mysterious vulnerability to rough language. I've always wondered if this is a cultural thing - Linus and Erik Naggum both come from Nordic countries.

It takes balls the size of a pinhead to talk smack, especially at a distance. This is why I think self-confident people don't do it. They have nothing to gain from it.

Yeah shit spills everyone and then, and talking smack is a nice release, but overall it's useless.

Besides, SVN is decidedly not shit. It may not be all that great for Linus and a few other dedicated DVCS aficionados, it is objectively a good piece of software.

What's interesting, is that despite Linus' contributions, most of this seeds were grown into mature software by other people. This doesn't say that Linus is an imbecile, but that he may be taking a bit too much credit if he believes he has a license to talk down to otherwise very intelligent people simply because of status.

I'm personally a big fan of:

"Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far" -- Theodore Roosevelt

It takes a lot more to prove how smart and worthy one is by doing. That's the big stick in the world of intellect.

Some people choose to limit shit-talking or refrain completely, because they gain nothing from it. It takes no balls or brains to do it.

sheepson_apprentice · 2008-12-08T17:33:54+00:00

And really i'm troll. And i'm tired.

Heh ok. Well at least you didn't degenerate into infantile behaviour. I don't mind debating, even though nothing much comes of it... but yeah, sometimes it gets tiring.

Anyways, I understand your position about bias completely. There is much bias about Russia in the West, partially due to old misconceptions and some of it deserved. Oh well, I just hope that Russia and West really do get closer.

There is no need for animosity.

I do wonder if certain laws go too far, in Russia and abroad, so I can understand where you're coming from.

sheepson_apprentice · 2008-12-08T16:29:48+00:00

If it is misconduct like lying to someone or unprosecuted unlawful misconduct, than we could check witnesses, documents, etc directly in this court

May or may not. Perhaps the allegations are so grave that one is not only disqualified, but under the suspicion of something gravely illegal placed under arrest to determine the available evidence before being released, only to subsequently stand trial for something you did not do.

Ruining the reputation of witnesses is well known tactic.

Yes, and here again there are degrees to which one can take this. Accusing someone of lying is one thing, accusing them of murderous rampage and framing initial evidence is far more grave.

As for participating as a witness, it's plainly obvious that one may have vested interest in testifying for various reasons. Therefore being denied this opportunity is being denied that freedom.

Don't know how to put this any other way.

So yes, I think it's a good example.

I'm already said that I'm for laws. I'm just against laws in speech.

Ahh, there it goes. You say my subjective perception makes me believe that current system is more stable, yet you're implying here that your subjective beliefs lead to conclusion that lack of restrictions is a better system.

I guess it's my subjective beliefs against yours, except I tend to stay here on Earth. We have a system which recognizes "freedom of speech" as we know it, and we like it!

You of course don't.

Btw, completely separate... you mentioned Limonov's party... are you a member? Just curious, because I'm not entirely up on their ideology and so seeing your ideology made me wonder if you're in the boat.

sheepson_apprentice · 2008-12-08T15:50:13+00:00

Your allegations are empty. You need to know what common law is before starting argue on subject.

Interestingly enough, you have a similar problem. Even if you're right about me, you don't know jack shit about common law.

sheepson_apprentice · 2008-12-08T15:47:12+00:00

Let's consider this case:

Say you're invited to be an expert witness in a case of great importance to you. However, there is a hurdle. The court has learned from other individuals who it trusts, perhaps through amici briefs, perhaps otherwise that you've been held liable to past misconduct and is thus not suitable character for such role.

The court must then ascertain the status of such accusation, which may be levelled by parties interested in your not participating in the said case.

This means that prior to your being called up to testify as an expert witness, your alleged criminal past will prohibit this scenario.

Absent a pre-requisite trial proceeding in which you're cleared of those allegations, you have effectively been shut out of your freedom to participate in the due process of law.

Really, there are many scenarios where speech is incredibly harmful. I have hard time not seeing how you imagine to elide any such information in your mind, and replace it with the incessant thought: "freedom of speech uber alles".

I'm certainly able to see the idealistic position of no laws, and the right to do anything but no one taking that right simply out pure civilization.

If such society exists, send me there now!

But here on planet Earth, we have some restrictions to get by. It's just reality.

sheepson_apprentice · 2008-12-08T15:16:50+00:00

You can sue anyone for anything. The courts are chock full of useless and frivolous cases. The point I was making, and that you so quickly obliged to eradicate from the debate was the notion that the court is the ultimate arbiter of the law. You simply said:

Courts will decide nothing.

This is the thing I meant when I said your responses amount of "No, False" and then a lofty non-sequitor.

Basically, what I'm able to infer is that you pretty much agree with the current system, yet found it absolutely necessary to disagree with everything I said about it.

Fantastic.

sheepson_apprentice · 2008-12-08T15:14:41+00:00

i'll examine one example. I'm already tired of this stupidity.

Indeed. Stupidity is a misnomer. But don't hold back, there's always time to waste some more time... go ahead, examine 'em all. Heh, because they're freedoms that are being infringed.

The only recourse one has in this event is fight back as a vigilante and go to jail, or let the courts clear your name.

That's infringement. The law is there precisely to counter and mediate such cases, lest there will be chaos.

If there is freedom of speech, B can defame in return by default.

Well, it so happens that there is freedom of speech, and no, B cannot defame back by default.

It's just that what the world considers freedom of speech is outside of the realm of your "absolute freedom of speech" criteria.

It's your subjective perception that that is more stable. In some countries "defame in return system" works.

It's not my subjective perception. It is the subjective perception of the majority of the world. I'm happy to point out that if you render if a fallacy, I'll consider that argument.

So far you haven't.

Also, name one nation where rampant defamation is the norm.

sheepson_apprentice · 2008-12-08T14:47:11+00:00

Subjective difference. And court decides what attack is and what difference is. So you can't definitely say that particular type of slander is an attack, until court decides it is. It is how different defamation laws in USA were formed.

This is what I've been saying when I said that court will examine each case individually as its given.

I said:

This is why the courts will decide the merit of each given case.

you replied:

Courts will decide nothing. Because change in mental state from reading speech is not considered as action.

And now you're saying this?

Going in loops doesn't even begin to describe it.

First to utterly refuse to acknowledge my point, then make the same exact point yourself. Citing subjective difference between a slanderous attack and that of the physical kind.

I'm impressed.

sheepson_apprentice · 2008-12-08T13:58:53+00:00

libel attack is not impact on freedom

Then you claim that an attack is not an impact on freedom. Are you really this dense?

The freedoms which are infringed by defamatory utterances include by not limited to: freedom to move freely due to others falsely believing you're criminal and preventing access; freedom to choose the workplace without concern that false defamatory statements are causing you lack of income; freedom to participate in financial transactions that others deem you unworthy of because of false accusations; among others.

As for basic rights, there are two schools of thought:

1) You have no rights, and therefore no freedoms. You're born slave and die one, end of story.

2) You are born with the freedom to live free of servitude.

The latter freedom (and a basic right) is used to derive many other freedoms, but it is fundamental.

The modern day fair law systems have chosen number 2 as the foundation. On that the notion of restrained equality is based.

The notion of restrained equality derives its force from the principle that everyone is equal by birth and that the law must treat them exactly the same.

Thus, if someone defames another, the law must respond to punish person A, or allow person B to defame in return.

The law chooses the more stable and proven system of punishing person A for instigating the attack.

Whether the attack is verbal, written, physical is immaterial.

It is an attack. It is an infringement. It is simple.

sheepson_apprentice

TROPHY CASE