[no subject]
> > Thomas Edison (I think it was him) once said it took 999 failures to > make 1 success. That makes SourceForge 10 times more successful. > > >> The world is filled with >> millions of wanna-be poets, writers and creators whose sum total >> contribution to the artistic wealth of the world is negative. >> > > >> I'm not just using hyperbole. By poisoning the well with their >> garbage, >> they just make it that little bit harder for genuinely talented >> artists to >> be heard. >> > > Whose opinion? Yours, or the market's? > Just my $0.02: Individuals, and perhaps groups of individuals are the creators of works. Walt Disney was a creator. Disney Inc. is not the creator, but has managed to twist copyright laws to maintain control of Walt's mouse. Tom Edison moved to California so _he_ could skirt copyright laws of the works _he_ was stealing. (See episode 7 of "From the Earth to the Moon" miniseries, re Georges Méliès' 1902 silent film «Le Voyage dans la lune») Edwin Howard Armstrong invented FM radio (and even got the patent), but RCA won the war. The giant corporation was able to twist regulations to drive Edwin to a despairing death. Today, Anne A. Mator might create a new character for Disney Inc., but the copyright belongs to Disney Inc., not Anne. Professor Suchn Such of Abig University might write a book, but "The Regents of Abig University" get the copyright. Annin Ventor might build a better widget for Transnational Megacorp, but Annin will probably never see a dime of profit or recognition. Why? IMHO, most inventors, writers and artists have too much to do and too little spare money to pay lobbyists to have laws written for them. Giant corporations do have the money to get laws written for them. Still, I've never seen a creative corporation or a creative law. The best corporations and governments can do is foster an environment where creativity flourishes and is justly rewarded. Thus, I must express my gratitude to all of those programmers who write open-source code (even if it doesn't go anywhere), and even shareware, and other works which are made available and open at no or reasonable cost. The Python community most of all. A free and open marketplace of ideas and products is quite capable of separating the triticale from the chaff. It makes all of us more productive! --David -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re:Copyright [was Re: Python Obfuscation]
> > Thomas Edison (I think it was him) once said it took 999 failures to > make 1 success. That makes SourceForge 10 times more successful. > > > >> The world is filled with >> millions of wanna-be poets, writers and creators whose sum total >> contribution to the artistic wealth of the world is negative. >> >> > > > >> I'm not just using hyperbole. By poisoning the well with their >> garbage, >> they just make it that little bit harder for genuinely talented >> artists to >> be heard. >> >> > > Whose opinion? Yours, or the market's? > > Just my $0.02: Individuals, and perhaps groups of individuals are the creators of works. Walt Disney was a creator. Disney Inc. is not the creator, but has managed to twist copyright laws to maintain control of Walt's mouse. Tom Edison moved to California so _he_ could skirt copyright laws of the works _he_ was stealing. (See episode 7 of "From the Earth to the Moon" miniseries, re Georges Méliès' 1902 silent film «Le Voyage dans la lune») Edwin Howard Armstrong invented FM radio (and even got the patent), but RCA won the war. The giant corporation was able to twist regulations to drive Edwin to a despairing death. Today, Anne A. Mator might create a new character for Disney Inc., but the copyright belongs to Disney Inc., not Anne. Professor Suchn Such of Abig University might write a book, but "The Regents of Abig University" get the copyright. Annin Ventor might build a better widget for Transnational Megacorp, but Annin will probably never see a dime of profit or recognition. Why? IMHO, most inventors, writers and artists have too much to do and too little spare money to pay lobbyists to have laws written for them. Giant corporations do have the money to get laws written for them. Still, I've never seen a creative corporation or a creative law. The best corporations and governments can do is foster an environment where creativity flourishes and is justly rewarded. Thus, I must express my gratitude to all of those programmers who write open-source code (even if it doesn't go anywhere), and even shareware, and other works which are made available and open at no or reasonable cost. The Python community most of all. A free and open marketplace of ideas and products is quite capable of separating the triticale from the chaff. It makes all of us more productive! --David -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Copyright [was Re: Python Obfuscation]
I realize that this thread skirts with being OT, but there are serious implications for Pythonistas and Open Source software types. I didn't mean to suggest that T.E. moved to California. I did, however, misspeak (mis-type?) when I said Edison formed a studio in California. His was in NJ, according to Google and other officious oracles. A few different accounts of Edison's relationship to the film industry: http://www.filmsite.org/pre20sintro2.html http://www.cobbles.com/simpp_archive/edison_trust.htm FYI, as a newbie to _this_ list, I had some difficulties with my first post to this thread earlier today. It follows at the end of this post. On Nov 13, 2005, at 7:28 PM, Alex Martelli wrote: > David T <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >... >> Tom Edison moved to California so _he_ could skirt copyright laws of > > I'm not aware of any move to California for either the better-known > Thomas Alva Edison, or his lesser-known and less successful son of the > same name. Could you clarify? The movie industry was born in > California to skirt around some of Edison's (and others') patents, but > that's a whole 'nother story, of course. > > > Alex > -- > http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list Just my $0.02: Individuals, and perhaps groups of individuals are the creators of works. Walt Disney was a creator. Disney Inc. is not the creator, but has managed to twist copyright laws to maintain control of Walt's mouse. Tom Edison moved to California so _he_ could skirt copyright laws of the works _he_ was stealing. (See episode 7 of "From the Earth to the Moon" miniseries, re Georges Méliès' 1902 silent film «Le Voyage dans la lune») Edwin Howard Armstrong invented FM radio (and even got the patent), but RCA won the war. The giant corporation was able to twist regulations to drive Edwin to a despairing death. Today, Anne A. Mator might create a new character for Disney Inc., but the copyright belongs to Disney Inc., not Anne. Professor Suchn Such of Abig University might write a book, but "The Regents of Abig University" get the copyright. Annin Ventor might build a better widget for Transnational Megacorp, but Annin will probably never see a dime of profit or recognition. Why? IMHO, most inventors, writers and artists have too much to do and too little spare money to pay lobbyists to have laws written for them. Giant corporations do have the money to get laws written for them. Still, I've never seen a creative corporation or a creative law. The best corporations and governments can do is foster an environment where creativity flourishes and is justly rewarded. Thus, I must express my gratitude to all of those programmers who write open-source code (even if it doesn't go anywhere), and even shareware, and other works which are made available and open at no or reasonable cost. The Python community most of all. A free and open marketplace of ideas and products is quite capable of separating the triticale from the chaff. It makes all of us more productive! --David -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
FiPy visualization results in MacOS Tiger "Bus Error"
Has anyone run across this error? When calling any of several visualization routines from FiPy, Python quits with a Bus Error I'm using MacOS X Tiger 10.4.3, and I've tried several builds of Python 2.4: Framework build of 2.4.1, Fink build of 2.4.2, Fink build of vtkPython 2.4.2. Same crash from each. FiPy seems to run its examples just fine, but the visualization gives me fits. The crash report tells me that FreeType is causing trouble, but the crash comes from deep within OS X. I'd appreciate hearing of any such experiences, solutions, or help in tracking down this bugger. Thanks, --David Command: vtkpython Path:/sw/bin/vtkpython Parent: bash [807] Version: ??? (???) PID:825 Thread: 0 Exception: EXC_BAD_ACCESS (0x0001) Code[0]:0x000a Code[1]:0x05770001 Thread 0 Crashed: 0 <<>>0x8ab0 __memcpy + 784 (cpu_capabilities.h:189) 1 libfreetype.6.dylib 0x053a8530 FT_Stream_ReadAt + 112 (ftstream.c:146) 2 libfreetype.6.dylib 0x053acea4 IsMacResource + 1092 (ftobjs.c:1287) 3 libfreetype.6.dylib 0x053ac700 FT_Open_Face + 648 (ftobjs.c:1519) 4 libfreetype.6.dylib 0x053acfec FT_New_Face + 48 (ftobjs.c:971) 5 ft2font.so 0x0526db38 FT2Font::FT2Font[in-charge] (std::basic_string, std::allocator >) + 460 (ft2font.cpp:322) 6 ft2font.so 0x0526eacc ft2font_module::new_ft2font (Py::Tuple const&) + 684 (ft2font.cpp:1536) 7 ft2font.so 0x05288e08 Py::ExtensionModule::invoke_method_varargs (std::basic_string, std::allocator > const&, Py::Tuple const&) + 788 (Extensions.hxx:285) 8 ft2font.so 0x0527c510 method_varargs_call_handler + 1112 (Objects.hxx:220) 9 libpython2.4.dylib 0x00294b10 PyEval_EvalFrame + 16756 (ceval.c: 3558) 10 libpython2.4.dylib 0x00296ec4 PyEval_EvalCodeEx + 2260 (ceval.c: 2736) 11 libpython2.4.dylib 0x00294d30 PyEval_EvalFrame + 17300 (ceval.c: 3651) 12 libpython2.4.dylib 0x00296ec4 PyEval_EvalCodeEx + 2260 (ceval.c: 2736) 13 libpython2.4.dylib 0x00294d30 PyEval_EvalFrame + 17300 (ceval.c: 3651) 14 libpython2.4.dylib 0x00296ec4 PyEval_EvalCodeEx + 2260 (ceval.c: 2736) 15 libpython2.4.dylib 0x0022ffbc function_call + 332 (funcobject.c: 555) 16 libpython2.4.dylib 0x0020e83c PyObject_Call + 52 (abstract.c:1757) 17 libpython2.4.dylib 0x00218b24 instancemethod_call + 764 (classobject.c:2448) 18 libpython2.4.dylib 0x0020e83c PyObject_Call + 52 (abstract.c:1757) 19 libpython2.4.dylib 0x0028f734 PyEval_CallObjectWithKeywords + 272 (ceval.c:3426) 20 libpython2.4.dylib 0x0021a054 PyInstance_New + 584 (classobject.c:576) 21 libpython2.4.dylib 0x0020e83c PyObject_Call + 52 (abstract.c:1757) 22 libpython2.4.dylib 0x00296470 PyEval_EvalFrame + 23252 (ceval.c: 3768) 23 libpython2.4.dylib 0x00296ec4 PyEval_EvalCodeEx + 2260 (ceval.c: 2736) 24 libpython2.4.dylib 0x00296fd4 PyEval_EvalCode + 48 (ceval.c:490) 25 libpython2.4.dylib 0x002b5e84 PyImport_ExecCodeModuleEx + 292 (import.c:632) 26 libpython2.4.dylib 0x002b6334 load_source_module + 952 (import.c:906) 27 libpython2.4.dylib 0x002b746c import_submodule + 392 (import.c: 2263) 28 libpython2.4.dylib 0x002b76b4 load_next + 260 (import.c:2083) 29 libpython2.4.dylib 0x002b7ce4 import_module_ex + 488 (import.c: 1918) 30 libpython2.4.dylib 0x002b7f6c PyImport_ImportModuleEx + 212 (import.c:1958) 31 libpython2.4.dylib 0x0028641c builtin___import__ + 100 (bltinmodule.c:46) 32 libpython2.4.dylib 0x0020e83c PyObject_Call + 52 (abstract.c:1757) 33 libpython2.4.dylib 0x0028f734 PyEval_CallObjectWithKeywords + 272 (ceval.c:3426) 34 libpython2.4.dylib 0x00293f6c PyEval_EvalFrame + 13776 (ceval.c: 2020) 35 libpython2.4.dylib 0x00296ec4 PyEval_EvalCodeEx + 2260 (ceval.c: 2736) 36 libpython2.4.dylib 0x00296fd4 PyEval_EvalCode + 48 (ceval.c:490) 37 libpython2.4.dylib 0x002b5e84 PyImport_ExecCodeModuleEx + 292 (import.c:632) 38 libpython2.4.dylib 0x002b6334 load_source_module + 952 (import.c:906) 39 libpython2.4.dylib 0x002b746c import_submodule + 392 (import.c: 2263) 40 libpython2.4.dylib 0x002b76b4 load_next + 260 (import.c:2083) 41 libpython2.4.dylib 0x002b7ce4 import_module_ex + 488 (import.c: 1918) 42 libpython2.4.dylib 0x002b7f6c PyImport_ImportModuleEx + 212 (import.c:1958) 43 libpython2.4.dylib 0x0028641c builtin___import__ + 100 (bltinmodule.c:46) 44 libpython2.4.dylib 0x0020e83c PyObject_Call + 52 (abstract.c:1757) 45 libpython2.4.dylib 0x0028f734 PyEval_CallObjectWithKeywords + 272 (ceval.c:3426) 46 libpython2.4.dylib 0x00293f6c PyEval_EvalFrame + 13776 (ceval.c: 2020
Re: OT: Degrees as barriers to entry [was Re: - E04 - Leadership! Google, Guido van Rossum, PSF]
On Jan 3, 2006, at 9:54 PM, Brian van den Broek wrote: > Steven D'Aprano said unto the world upon 03/01/06 07:33 PM: >> On Tue, 03 Jan 2006 08:27:39 -0800, Alex Martelli wrote: >> >> >>> Or some even more stringent qualification, such as the state's >>> Bar exam >>> for lawyers -- you may not be able to sit for that exam w/o the >>> appropriate degree, but the degree by itself is not enough, you >>> still >>> have to pass the exam. It is that way for Engineers in Italy (I >>> passed >>> my State Exam in the early '80s), although you only need the >>> certificate >>> for some specific professional undertakings (e.g. design a ship, >>> or a >>> large building, or technically supervise building operations >>> beyond a >>> certain size -- not to write software or to design chips). >>> >>> Personally, I agree with the theory, first expressed by Adam >>> Smith, that >>> such barriers to entry are mostly useful to grant practitioners of a >>> certain profession the "scarcity value" that lets them charge higher >>> prices, although of course they're always presented as "good for >>> society". Note that in Europe in the Middle Ages you needed strict >>> qualifications of that kind for just about anything -- you could not >>> make hats unless you belonged to the Hatters' Guild, etc; most of >>> those >>> restrictions have since been lifted, but a few groups (doctors, >>> lawyers, >>> accountants, ...) have managed to keep them in place. >> >> >> Let's not confuse the medieval guild system with today's system. >> Guilds >> were more like clubs than professional bodies: it was who you >> knew, rather >> than what you knew, that decided whether you got in. You were >> forbidden >> from becoming (say) a hat maker unless the other hat makers >> allowed you to >> join the guild. There was no independent, or even semi- >> independent, body >> who decided what qualifications were needed to make hats. It was >> all about >> who you knew -- if your uncle's best friend was a hat maker, you >> could be >> apprenticed to a hat maker and join the guild, otherwise there was >> no exam >> to sit that got you in, no matter how talented you were. > > > >> By contrast, today's professional bodies like law, medicine etc. have >> independent standards of skill that must be met. I don't wish to deny >> that knowing the right people can help smooth the procedure of >> becoming >> a doctor, lawyer, etc., but failing to have an uncle who is a >> lawyer is no >> barrier to becoming a lawyer, provided you can pass the bar exam. >> That is >> very different from the guild system. > > > >> Another major difference between today's professional bodies and >> medieval >> guilds is that the scarcity is not entirely (or even mostly) >> caused by >> the professional body. It is the universities controlling >> prerequisite >> degrees that gain more from the scarcity: within reason, the fewer >> places >> they offer for (say) law degrees, the higher fees they can charge for >> them. In my inexpert opinion, the cause of shortages of experts is >> more >> the fault of the universities than of the professional bodies. > > So, just shy of 1 out of every 200 working-aged people in the USA were > lawyers in 2000. > > I'm inclined to agree with the claim that law schools don't have the > correct number of seats, but I think we might just differ on which way > the adjustment should go :-) My professional body (The American Chemical Society, no, I'm not a professional programmer), takes the opinion that the more chemists there are in the world the better. It keeps labor costs down. That's what happens when the professional bodies are controlled by large corporate interests. So, meanwhile, I sit at home and wait for the "undersupply" of scientists to correct itself. I have visions of starting my own manufacturing company, but it's hard to find capital. There are way too many dead and dying small companies around Michigan and way too many unemployed scientists and engineers, and lots of us have great ideas for companies. Fortunately, this gives me plenty of time to learn Python and write code to simulate and optimize my manufacturing process! :--David -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Best Scripting Language for Embedded Work?
We develop embedded software for 32-bit micros using Windows as the development platform. We are seeking a general purpose scripting language to automate certain tasks, like cleaning out certain directories of certain types of files in preparation for ZIP'ing, generating certain source files automatically, etc. Selection criteria: a)Should be able to compile the script interpreter as a monolithic executable (no .DLL dependencies, etc.) for easy versioning and distribution of the script interpreter. (Note that I'm not asking that the script be a single executable, just the interpreter. To run a script you'd need both the script and the interpreter. The script would be a text file, and the interpreter would be a single .EXE.) b)Should be extensible, in that one could add commands or library functions to the script interpreter in C (for efficiency), and the whole script interpreter could again consist of a single executable with no other dependencies. (Note that I'm not asking that the script be a single executable, just the interpreter. To run a script you'd need both the script and the interpreter. The script would be a text file, and the interpreter would be a single .EXE.) c)Should be able to spawn compilers and capture the output, do file I/O, and all the other minor expected stuff. d)Graphical capability would be nice. I know that Tcl/Tk would do all of the above, but what about Python? Any other alternatives? Thanks, Dave Ashley -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Best Scripting Language for Embedded Work?
On Tue, 09 Jul 2013 21:44:48 -0400, Dave Angel wrote: >On 07/09/2013 09:29 PM, David T. Ashley wrote: >> We develop embedded software for 32-bit micros using Windows as the >> development platform. >> >> We are seeking a general purpose scripting language to automate >> certain tasks, like cleaning out certain directories of certain types >> of files in preparation for ZIP'ing, generating certain source files >> automatically, etc. >> >> Selection criteria: >> >> a)Should be able to compile the script interpreter as a monolithic >> executable (no .DLL dependencies, etc.) for easy versioning and >> distribution of the script interpreter. > >Oh, I thought you were going to run this on Windows. You're just >developing it on Windows, and you want to cross-compile to target some >other platform? Which? Sorry, I wasn't very complete. The scripts would run on Windows 7 only, but because they may generate part of the source code for the embedded system, we have to be careful about versioning the interpreter, and a monolithic executable makes that simpler. >> (Note that I'm not asking >> that the script be a single executable, just the interpreter. To run >> a script you'd need both the script and the interpreter. The script >> would be a text file, and the interpreter would be a single .EXE.) > >If you're also constraining your "program" to a single text file, you >don't want Python. It uses modules, imported from your script to do >much of the work. > >> >> b)Should be extensible, in that one could add commands or library >> functions to the script interpreter in C (for efficiency), and the >> whole script interpreter could again consist of a single executable >> with no other dependencies. (Note that I'm not asking that the script >> be a single executable, just the interpreter. To run a script you'd >> need both the script and the interpreter. The script would be a text >> file, and the interpreter would be a single .EXE.) > >And that's supposed to HELP efficiency?? Did I ever claim I wanted efficiency? >> c)Should be able to spawn compilers and capture the output, do file >> I/O, and all the other minor expected stuff. >> >> d)Graphical capability would be nice. >> >> I know that Tcl/Tk would do all of the above, I was able to do this with Tcl/Tk years ago. >I doubt it. > >> but what about Python? >> Any other alternatives? -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: Best Scripting Language for Embedded Work?
On Wed, 10 Jul 2013 14:38:51 -0500, Johann Hibschman wrote: >David T. Ashley writes: > >> We develop embedded software for 32-bit micros using Windows as the >> development platform. >... >> I know that Tcl/Tk would do all of the above, but what about Python? >> Any other alternatives? > >Given that list, I'd say just use Tcl and be done. You could force the >square peg of python into that round hole, but I doubt it'd be worth the >effort. I tend to agree with you. I'm not sure how go monolithic with Python. DTA -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
