## 2011-01-13

### Heritage

A huge part of our heritage is turning to dust as we speak, this due to the the extension on Copyright terms. this dust is made of the once grate films of the past, made on nitrous-base. just turning to dust.

edit at the end.....

I am listening to "Free Culture" a book by Lawrence Lessig and I get infuriated with how the media companies and the MPAA could not support the "The Eldred Act" but instead demand that it would hurt copyright holders.
there argument went something like this: "We con not let other peoples movies get in to the public domain, cus we will not have control over the public domain. It is better that the cultural heritage in these moveis turn to dust!" -- Jack Valenti of the MPAA
This is not relay what he said, but it was the essence of it.

Well I relay hove nothing to say about this, I encourage you to read the book, available here and here( Audio Book) and here.

So
the double edged sword:
I am a copy right holder, when I make a note to my dad, that is copyrighted, when I write here, it is copyrighted, it is my work, I own it. But, is it rely necessary that you are not allowed to reprint this, in any way shape or form until 50 years after my death?
No, it is not.
If I were to make a book ( whish I hope that I will one day do) I will put on the first page: "In event of my death this work will become Public Domain" and/or "This work will become public domain after 25 years of its initial publication.
Why?
Cus, all the revenue that I will probably make will be a) during my life time b) with in 25 years of its first print.
How do I know this?
Easy: I have books in my shelf that is no longer in print, and I have no Idea how to contact the copyright holder if I wanted to make an digital version of it and make public so that this grate works would "stay alive" so to say. I have to wait till the copyright owner dies, then wait 50 years more.
He would not make a dime of its digital copy, granted, but he does not make a dime of it now. So I think that something like a shorter copyright term (say 25 years) would be ideal, and then have the right to extend it for a fee of something like 1€ to extend it an other 25 years and then again, but no more then 75 years.

But then we have software. I wonder what the FSF and the GNU project has to say about this? I mean is the project as a howl one work, or is every file its own work? if you do the sums you will soon see that it all adds up if you were to extend the licence term of some of the projects, so they do not pass in to the public domain. And if the were to become public domain the GPL would be nullified on old revisions. this making them fair game for leeches.

You can see where I am going with this.

When I write or draw stuff that I put up on the net, I always put it under CC-BY-SA (not including this blog ATM), this due to I want my work to not become orphaned in case of my death, but put in it archives, and be part of a time line of human history, my "thoughts echo on in future minds" so to say.

I relay thought that I had something to say here, but my knowledge in the subject is limited, so I will end this post here.

Edit:
Found this on the intratubez: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhTUzNKpfio it is a video by from TEDxNYED with Lawrence Lessig.
Even though I hate Conservatives and Libertarians, he makes a good point.
(I am the lefty lefty, free market loving, free culture promoting guy)...

## 2011-01-05

### The code

EDIT: Some one does not know what the One True Brace Style is... Let me help you google it.

My problems with the coding standard that are in use today.
I have so many problems with the coding standard for c-like languages in most project: first of the idea that starting brackets should be on a new like, this makes the code IMHO look like fuck:

class foo(){   x=2+3;   print(x);  }

Am I the only one that sees the problem with this? The fukking bracket is not on the same line as the class! it is an eye sole!

The brackets on a new like makes the code look messy, and hard to read. It looks like a coding error to me.

this is the way it is suppose to be done:
class foo(){     x = 2 + 3;   print(x);  }

it is no longer an eye sore.

So how did the coding standard that is in use today come to be so popular?
The KnR style was invented by Kernighan and Ritchie's book The C Programming Language* and I can draw the conclusion that this book was read by many future programmers, and then these programmers started projects, and wrote books about programming which then inspired others.... A downward spiral of programming style.
And this downward spiral was accelerated by the the coding standard enforced by GNU** that encapsulated lodes of project that are a part used in our day to day lives.

I am a promoter of the One True Brace Style*** or its derivitive that is intended at making the more reader friendly. Even the Whitesmiths Style**** is better then the KnR Style, even though the end brace is at the wrong level.

help out and stop this downward spiral in to coding hell and convert your code from KnR to 1TBS or one of its derivative.

On White Spaces VS Tabs:
I do not give a fukk, I like tabs, but white spaces can be better if you are doing code with many indentation levels. b/c as you know a line of code has to be less then the 80 characters/columns ( this is just a standardised convention for interoperability and niceness of code)***** and with a tab taking up eight characters we have a when you hit the tenth level in your code.
And btw, gedit converts my tabs to what I want if I want.

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indent_style#K.26R_style
** http://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/standards.txt
***http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indent_style#Variant:_1TBS
**** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indent_style#Whitesmiths_style
***** I have lines that are longer then 80 chars, but I try to minimise it as much as possible.

## 2011-01-02

### Physics and Life

"Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a day, Teach a man how to make fire and he will be warm the rest of his life" -- someone

Education phails - Why do I need to know physics?
I have been looking in to higher education and find it has relay high requirements for prior education: I need no have done the A and B* coarse in Physics to be able to attend the courses I have been looking at (Programming and Computer Science -shy). Here is the problem: I do not have Physics B .... I have to go and "read up" those courses, But I do not want to do it over the intrawebs (done that, I phaild miserably) , or with a bunch of High School Students who are running around...

Why do I even need to know Physics to write code and thesis? It does not make any sense. I think that I would fit in to the "IT"-crowd at UNI quite well and be a "good" student. I already know some basic Python, C, PHP, (Java) and such. I see no reason why I need to know Physics when I am working on a computer science thesis or collaborating with my mates on a project.

Time to restructure the system!
I am a advocate of the "system of basic knowledge before entering a program"-procedure, but sometimes that hurts the system.
As an institution, the unis have to keep up a standard, but that standard is set by the students previous education, not the students real Knowledge. I can get "competence" in a subject by doing courses and doing good in class and on the tests, but that is not a test of real knowledge only temporary or surface learning, not real learning. An admission test would be a better test, a test that you had a week to do a test that consists of a number of points like: write a program to do X, what were your sources for this? Do a collaborative project with a/two test mate(s), How did you collaborate? what were the problems you encounter? write an essay on any subject you like. etcetera etcetera.

Or have a system where you can submit a personal paper, some code you have been working on, some of your prior essays and a letter of approval from some one. and that would weigh as much as any degree or mark. (provided you have a basic minimum degree).

What are your thoughts on this?