Wolfram Alpha isn't sure what to do with your input

I have yet to get any answers to any interesting, real question I have had, from Wolfram Alpha.

If RMS has his way, the GPL is dead

The GPL has never made me feel particularly free. Only in a kind of newspeak can you say that constraining the kinds of agreements I can make with people who buy my software enhances my freedom .

I'm not saying I don't like and use GPL software, or that the GPL is unfair. Just don't tell me that handcuffs are extra freedom.

Only copyright law enables GPL to constrain my actions from beyond the grave. In a world without copyright, GPL would be toothless. I would be able to use any freely available software I could get my hands on, incorporate it into my own, and distribute only binaries.

Richard Stallman proposes reducing copyright protection to three years for software. And he admits "It would be necessary to prohibit the use of contracts to apply restrictions on copying that go beyond those of copyright." That prohibition would apply to FOSS too, of course. No copyright after three years; no contract allowing the author to constrain your actions after that.

That would mean that you could link to three year old GPL libraries and ship binaries!

The REST Hypothesis

I'm glad Joe Gregorio frankly assessed Atompub's meager adoption.

Atompub served as an experiment to confirm the REST hypothesis: If you construct distributed systems that look like the world wide web, the world will adopt them broadly and quickly -- the way we adopted the web itself. *

Lesson learned: the world's most successful distributed applications run on the web's architecture. That doesn't mean that by designing around web architecture, you will build the world's most successful distributed application.

Atompub came along at the time a critical mass of thought was building in favor of adopting the web architecture for designing new systems, rather than the ill-named "web services", SOAP and RPC model. Early drafts of Atompub allowed for a SOAP envelope.

The RESTful style prevailed, on its many merits. We got caching, and a resource oriented model, and a small, uniform interface.

But what the real, browser plus HTML web has, that RESTful systems don't, is the user agent. The human in front of her browser. An intelligence that reads and understands the meaning of "Author name" and "Title", and fills in an HTML form using queries against her personal database, stored in her brain.

As Joe put it, the problem is that Atompub clients aren't web browsers.

RESTful systems that aren't web browsers try to substitute understanding of media types for that intelligence. Compare Atom clients to HTML browsers.

An "Atom application" is some sort of content management system: a system that understands the semantics of feed documents. An Atom agent populates <author> and <title> elements. Only machines understand the meaning of <link rel="edit">. It's a world constrained to a narrow range of meanings.

But an HTML application can do anything. A human reads some text next to a form field, labelled "Author name", or "Preferred airline", and enters meaningful answers. If you are writing the kind of content management system where "Preferred airline" is a meaningful concept, HTML might be the way to go. There's no such concept in an Atom feed document. You get to present your own user interface, too.

RESTfully designed systems might profit from superior evolvability, cacheability, and interoperability over RPC systems. They are of the web. But they are not the web. The web is in your browser. The web is HTML.


*The hypothesis was not part of Roy Fielding's thesis. It's a hypothesis that many REST proponents, including me, have deployed.

Cheney Wheelchair Horror

Best comment so far:

If only he had a small cat to pet as they rolled him to the car. You know something that he could stroke until he snapped its neck to suck the blood from its spine.

(by "Brian")

Clojure vs JavaFX Script: only 5x slower!

Chris Oliver compares his JavaFX script to JRuby and Groovy and finds JavaFX 25 times faster.

I failed to get JavaFX compiler running on my Ubuntu, but I easily ran Chris's JRuby 1.1.6 test; so for calibration, my laptop comes in at 3:52, vs 4:22 on Chris's machine. Presumably we can scale results on my machine by 1.13.

Here's my Clojure version of the test:


(defn tak [#^Integer x #^Integer y #^Integer z]
(if (>= y x)
z
(recur (tak (- x 1) y z)
(tak (- y 1) z x)
(tak (- z 1) x y))))

(dotimes [n 1000] (tak 24 16 8))



It runs in about 50 seconds, or 56 after normalizing to Chris' machine speed. This puts Clojure north of JRuby and Groovy, but still 5 times slower than JavaFX.

If you remove the type hints, it runs in 4 minutes, or about the same time as JRuby -- and about 4 or 5 times slower than with type hints.

Clojure uptick

Needing to build a standalone piece of server software as an add on to our Java product, I seized the opportunity to see how far Clojure has come. Getting my dev system set up, and learning the language, I noticed the results Google was returning for my queries were mostly very recent... and lots from just last month.



Could Clojure be approaching critical mass?

I've only written a hundred lines or so of code, but here are some random things I love:

1. Shorthand for maps: {:a 1 :b 3}.
2. sorted-map and hash-map -- thanks for letting me choose. Same shorthand syntax for either.
3. Shorthand to select a value from a map: the map is like a function name (my-map :a).
4. Shorthand for lambdas: #(...code...)
5. Shorthand for generating temporary symbols in macros: my-var#. No need to call (gensym).
4. No looping required -- use recur.
5. Java libraries are easy to use.

I haven't yet fiddled with modifying state.

It's free, it's functional, it's got a hardened standard library, it's got a REPL. You can write a program and deliver it on any platform. What could hold it back?

Flying the F-22

My gut reaction to the internet chatter about distributed version control systems, like Git, was, "What advantage could it possibly offer us, that would justify me and developers spending so much time re-learning how to manage source code?" CVS kinda sucked, but was good enough, and Subversion was better... what more could you want? It's just version control.

But we had a branching requirement, and a customer requiring a branch we'd maintain for a few years.

From the Subversion manual:

Tracking Merges Manually

Merging changes sounds simple enough, but in practice it can become a headache. The problem is that if you repeatedly merge changes from one branch to another, you might accidentally merge the same change twice. When this happens, sometimes things will work fine. When patching a file, Subversion typically notices if the file already has the change, and does nothing. But if the already-existing change has been modified in any way, you'll get a conflict.

Ideally, your version control system should prevent the double-application of changes to a branch. It should automatically remember which changes a branch has already received, and be able to list them for you. It should use this information to help automate merges as much as possible.

Unfortunately, Subversion is not such a system....It means that until the day Subversion grows this feature, you'll have to track merge information yourself. The best place to do this is in the commit log-message.

OK! So, relearning version control might not be a bad idea!

Git is all about changesets, and it can merge changes from branch to branch painlessly. A few months ago, we imported a year or so of changes from SVN to a Git repo (our tree structure was way too f***ed up for git-svn), and never looked back.

I'm a Piper Cub pilot in the cockpit of a F-22 Raptor. There are a lot of switches. I kind of understand some of them. I'm afraid to touch most of them. Every now and then we'll try a new trick -- hey, I think I can just push this changeset to you, from the branch I'm working on to yours... SHIT, THAT WORKED! We haven't crashed yet, and we have the rumbling sense of untapped power.

For reasons unrelated to version control, it turned out we could manage the customer requirements without a long running branch. But we're not going back on Git.

REST Blessed

Gartner has blessed REST architecture by giving it a three letter acronym and a $495 report. But you can get the gist of the paper for free in Nick Gall's blog post: WOA: Putting the Web Back in Web Services.

Commercially, it's a big help that I can now point a customer's solution architect to a Gartner report, rather than to a guy's thesis and 20,000 posts to the REST-discuss mailing list. I hope that doesn't sound cynical -- it's not. It's just that architecture arguments are hard to win just on the merits. You need a little mindshare too. Thanks, Nick!

Electronic Vote Fraud

I think I know how we can use electronic voting to increase our confidence in vote counts -- as opposed to what we have.

What we have is a mad world where you can construct the most extreme hypotheses about what is happening to your vote, and they could be true. You can't prove they're not.

When I complete my vote, I want to receive a printed receipt with a) my vote in clear text, b) a hash of my identity, and c) my digital signature of the above, for non-repudiation.

I should be able to log onto the county's web site, and verify that my vote was recorded for my candidate:

Voter	Candidate
38907389343666	McCain
84567867435432	Obama
45878963063630	McCain
92573532235672	Obama
...	...

Anybody can look at this table and count the votes for McCain and Obama ,and confirm that they match the announced totals. They can confirm, too, that their own vote was counted for the proper candidate.

My voting receipt matches one row of the table. The voting machine prints it out, and I review it. I should be able to confirm the hash of my identity by some public algorithm. It could be a hash of my voter registration number plus some secret password I make up.

My receipt also has a digital signature that I apply only after I review its accuracy. Yep, I voted for that guy. I insert the paper into the machine and it prints a string that's the digital signature of my identity and my vote. That way, I can't claim the machine got my vote wrong -- I reviewed the clear text vote, and signed it.

Voting this way would be lots more verifiable than paper ballots and hanging chads. You'd be able to verify your vote was counted.

Since early voting began Tuesday in Travis County, Texas, the email chain below has grown virally (local news story). And how can you prove these fears are wrong?

From: redacted
Date: October 22, 2008 11:48:50 PM CDT
To: redacted
Subject: DOUBLE CHECK YOUR BALLOT before pushing VOTE

no matter who you are voting for:
A friend of a friend of mine has this horror story about voting this morning
in Austin, TX.

He voted at Fiesta Mart on 38th and IH-35.

He voted a straight Democratic ticket.

When he was reading the 'voted for' listing at the end of his
ballot, all of those listed were Democratic candidates EXCEPT FOR
PRESIDENT. The list showed that he had voted for John McCain!!!

And he voted the straight Democratic ticket.k

He reported it to the election official and that person was as
shocked by it as my friend. They corrected the vote BEFORE he hit
the CAST BALLOT button.

My friend said the experience made him sick to his stomach. He said
he was the youngest person in the voting area and all he could
think is that the older people around him may not proofread their
ballot before pressing the CAST VOTE button. They may believe that
they voted for Obama but the voting machine may have registered a
vote for McCain.

He called the Travis County voting office and they said they would
look into this. When he called me I gave him the telephone number
for the Democratic Party and he then called them to report what had
happened and they said they would look into it, also.

Please PROOFREAD your ballot choices BEFORE hitting the CAST BALLOT
button. This is vitally important. (For EVERYONE who votes,
whichever way you vote.)

Leaps

Dear Lazyweb,

1. In 1929, how many Wall Streeters actually did leap to their deaths from their office windows? I'd be surprised if it were as many as 10. Growing up during the sixties, I had the impression it was raining stockbrokers on Black Tuesday; but now I find it hard to believe.

2. They had names. Who were they?

3. Why did they kill themselves? In 1929, was there a greater sense of personal responsibility for the margin calls they wouldn't be able to make? A greater fear of the shame that would attach to them personally?

4. Has any Wall Streeter killed himself or herself during the current financial crisis?

5. Have any of the current super wealthy attempted to guarantee the system using their personal wealth, as Rockefeller did in 1907?

I pray the answer to 4 is no.... yet I wonder about what level of personal responsibility we should expect, and why it's different than 1929 and earlier.