Processing big data is as much about moving the data around, and minimising latency in this movement as the raw processing speed. so a language that lets you express things efficiently will win in the end.
If by expressing things efficiently you mean easy for the programmer to write, then you're wrong. What matters (doubly so for big data) is full control over the machine's resources, ie how data is laid out in memory, good control over i/o etc. While this has always been the key to fast performance, big data is plagued by big-oh asymptotics. For example, if you can lay out your data structures efficiently enough to keep everything in cache, your running time can easily gain a factor of ten, ie 1 day instead of 10 days. Ask Google or Facebook if they care about that...
Scripting languages have their place where performance doesn't matter _enough_ to optimize, eg your local supermarket chain trying to datamine their customers in time for the end of the month.
Why would Fortran be any faster than any other compiled language?
Because the language is simpler, so the compiler can make assumptions and generate better automatic optimizations. C/C++ are much harder to optimize (=generate optimal assembly instructions).
Which God died and said that you have a moral right to take whatever you want if someone doesn't want to sell it to you?
Morality doesn't come into it. As you know, all publications enter the public domain after some time, which currently is very long. This means that most publishing companies and authors will die before their books are scheduled to enter the public domain. These publishers and authors are only interim caretakers of the works. The public domain is the real owner forever after.
Therefore, we need volunteers to preserve these books in the meantime, until their copyright expiries, so that they can be entered into the public domain in due course. Due to the lengths of time involved, which are long enough for world wars and revolutions to sweep the globe, the only way to have a reasonable chance of reverting the books into the public domain is if many people independently preserve these books by all means necessary, especially highly redundant digital archives.
They had a team of chimpanzees and a team of experts. The results were that the chimpanzees did better than the experts.
That experiment was so unfair! They actually picked really smart chimpanzees.
Anonymous
Desk #2, Room 24, Level 16,
Department of Economics,
William H. Sewell Social Science Building
1180 Observatory Drive
Madison, WI 53706-1393
University of Wisconsin
Applications compiled with a particular compiler do not inherently fall under the copyright license which covers that compiler's implementation, because no copying of the compiler code is involved.
Except for bundled include files, which clearly fall under the compiler vendor's copyright.
For languages such as C, it is impossible to write nontrivial programs without making use of include files. In special cases, such as with the standard system libraries, it may be legal to rewrite them from scratch to include in one's programs, as we've seen in the Google/Oracle lawsuit.
But in general, and for other languages which aren't as standardized and widely used as C, even rewriting one's own version of the compiler include files would likely break copyright protections, as these are original works. An exception in the license would definitely be needed, I believe.
Actually, even within the C family, if we take C++, the STL is largely implemented as include files. So every modern C++ program that makes use of the STL includes large sections of code under the compiler vendor's copyright. Rewriting those files verbatim isn't allowed, and reimplementing them from scratch is a major undertaking no applications developer could afford.
However, I agree with your explanation of dynamic linking issues.
We have selected the GPL because it encourages sharing by ensuring that any applications created with it are also open.
This isn't true for any current compiler available under GPL, why would it be true for thier compiler?
It *is* true for all current compilers in major use. If you look at your favourite compiler's license, you'll see an *explicit* exception that exempts compiled programs from being covered by the compiler's copyright claims. The Microsoft compilers do it, even GCC does it.
There's no substitute for users having total control over their phones. We shouldn't be expecting vendors to merely permit us to have some selected forms of privacy.
If you have control over your phone, you can edit the hosts file if you want, and you can decde exactly what inputs and outputs any program on your machine gets to receive or send. And if you're not too technical, you can install some third party software written by hackers to protect you from commercial exploitation if you want, like many people already do with adblocker addons for their browsers.
But if the phone vendors and network service providers control your phone's systems "for your own good", then you'll always be at their mercy, their greed, and their incompetence.
I'm sure the primary use will be getting directions when driving not watching porn.
I highly doubt that. People don't _need_ directions very often. Quick: do you remember how to drive to work every day? Do you even look at the signs while driving to work? Do you regularly make a left turn when it should be a right turn, and arrive at work 30 minutes late because of it? No? Then you don't need directions.
What you _will_ need from the HUD regularly is entertainment. Because let's face it, driving to and from work is boring, that's why people keep the radio on. Driving to the shopping mall is boring, too. With a HUD, you can watch TV without actually taking your eyes off the road. Possibly porn, but more probably some stupid morning shows and TV series.
It will happen.
Drop the steak from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.
I love xkcd
No offense, but I don't want to pay for a DOJ that staffs an extra 2,000 people just so that they can read every piece of email that comes in, and respond back with a detailed analysis of all the legal mistakes made.
I'd prefer they waste their money on that, than use it to prosecute hackers who copy science papers. The money, once in the budget, will be spent regardless. If it _won't_ be spent on serving the public, it _will_ get spent on selfish career making schemes.
A typical command line program simply reads data from STDIN, parameter values from argv[], and writes some values to STDOUT, maybe some error messages to STDERR. Command line programs don't care if the user is a human being or a script, unlike a ncurses program, whose fancy display formatting is all about human interactivity, but is often difficult to script.
The Mars Rover is now a She? Could it ever have been a He?
No. The Rover is an It.
Tut, tut! Don't assume! Go to Mars, turn her over, and check!
No, patents really are intended to foster innovation.
Intention does not make reality.
Imagine you're a company/individual that's developed some wicked new technology. Maybe you've spent 5-10 years tuning this process/product to the point where it works and you're ready to sell it to the public. You have two choices: keep the actual process and details secret so no one can copy it, or disclose the details in exchange for a finite monopoly privilege.
The monopoly privilege directly harms innovation by third parties. The least destructive option is therefore trade secrets. I have no problem with that, because it allows others to come up with inventions independently.
Let's try an example: you've developed some chemistry that allows extremely high detail, realistic color photographs. Now, if you sell the film and chemicals, any bozo can analyze and replicate the chemistry, and your development work is up in smoke.
As it should be, for if I come up with something that other chemists can duplicate, there's no reason to give me a monopoly. I would only be setting back the scientific advances by a generation.
So, if you want to keep it secret, you have to keep the developer secret and in-house. Force customers to buy sealed cameras and ship them back to the factory for developing and printing. This might still be better than contemporary technology, but you have to admit it's inconvenient.
Nobody said life shouldn't be inconvenient, except those arguing for patents. And they conveniently forget how inconvenient they make life for everybody else, since that is the price for making life convenient for just one.
Suppose you invent an airplane, and patent it. You'll prevent innovation ands stifle your local industry , while in other parts of the world people who are just as smart as you will make huge progress.
That said, you still aren't forced to make sealed cameras, you can sell unsealed cameras that people can tinker with. If your cameras are good, you will still make a nice living from them. And if you get competitors, then the market will grow, and you'll sell more units.
The other alternative is to take patent protection on the formula, maybe even sell/license the developing process to smaller chemists, and sell replaceable-film cameras that people can have developed locally. Much better for the customer.
This is not better. You're monopolizing the process, thereby preventing others from improving "your" idea, expect rent from everyone and cause the idea to be shunned by the vast majority of potential inventors until your patent expires. This is not better for the customer, who could be having a full ecosystem of alternatives and modifications.
A side benefit (to society) of this is that by disclosing the details of the manufacturing process, some other guy can look at those details, find places to improve, and sell consumers even better cameras. The new guy will owe you some royalty for your contribution to his camera, but he ought still be able to make a profit - he has a better product - any you get compensated for your lost sales.
That is pure fantasy. Have you even read a single patent? They are totally unsuitable for learning a process. Nobody reads patents to learn a competitor's secrets, they just look at the other guy's products, and think through the problem or reverse engineer. Granted, this requires other people with the same basic knowledge and intelligence as the inventor. There are plenty of those in the world.
Finally, I don't believe the claim that everybody is better off if the new guy has to pay royalties. In the absence of patents, the new guy can just reinvent his own version of the product, and price it competitively (you don't believe that the first inventor is some unique snowflake with superhuman intelligence, do you?). This increases the new guy's profit since he won't have to pay royalties. It lowers prices and benefits customers, as the products don't have to include royalties. Finally, the original guy gets competition, and has to improve his own product to retain market share. That is after all how a free market is supposed to work.
Or maybe you're a small-time inventor without the resources to build a prototype. If you tell some unethical company about your invention, they'll be able to copy it easily. Maybe be liable for breaching an NDA, if you were clever enough to write a really good one. If you have patent protection, then you can at least farm your idea around to manufacturers with less fear of being undercut.
First of all, if you call yourself an inventor and you cannot build a prototype, then you're no inventor. The world is full of patented bullshit ideas nobody has ever built. Ideas are a dime a dozen. Go to your local university, and ask a physics or engineering student about their top ten undeveloped ideas. You'll be able to write a book in no time.
It is true that a small-time inventor is at a negotiating disadvantage, but as you say that is an issue of contract law. Preventing the whole world from (re)inventing an idea just so one of the inventors who came up with the idea has a negotiating advantage is a terrible social bargain. People must be allowed to work their ideas independently.
Sadly, patents seem to have diverged from protecting actual ideas and products and moved on to trivialities like one-click, like computer analogies of every conceivable physical process, and "business methods." If the patent office could be more clear about what is actually patentable, and more stringent in their application of "obvious," then patents could return to benefiting developers more than lawyers.
Well, I agree with you there. However, I also believe that the original justification of patents is no longer valid. It made sense historically only because the pool of qualified inventors (ie sufficiently educated and with the means to tinker) was small. Today, there are millions of inventors the world over, and what one person can come up with, another can too. So there is no benefit to society in protecting one individual inventor at the expense of many others.
Ya'll hear about the geometer who went to the beach to catch some rays and became a tangent ?
