Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!aioe.org!feeder.news-service.com!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed5.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail Return-Path: X-Original-To: python-list@python.org Delivered-To: python-list@mail.python.org X-Spam-Status: OK 0.046 X-Spam-Evidence: '*H*': 0.91; '*S*': 0.00; 'subject:: [': 0.03; 'myself,': 0.09; 'written': 0.12; 'am,': 0.14; 'wrote:': 0.14; 'defined': 0.15; '12:22': 0.16; 'background,': 0.16; 'computation': 0.16; 'excellent,': 0.16; 'explanation': 0.16; 'lawyer': 0.16; 'subject:versus': 0.16; 'mathematics': 0.16; 'math': 0.16; 'subject:] ': 0.16; 'obviously': 0.20; 'cc:no real name:2**0': 0.20; 'cc:2**0': 0.20; 'seeing': 0.21; 'header:In- Reply-To:1': 0.22; 'cc:addr:python-list': 0.22; 'right.': 0.22; 'thu,': 0.22; "haven't": 0.23; 'incorrect': 0.23; 'assume': 0.25; 'says': 0.25; 'equivalent': 0.26; 'message-id:@mail.gmail.com': 0.28; 'problem': 0.29; 'cc:addr:python.org': 0.31; 'avoided': 0.31; 'clear,': 0.31; 'lawyers': 0.31; 'it.': 0.31; 'that,': 0.35; 'subject:software': 0.35; 'received:209.85': 0.37; 'exactly': 0.37; 'apr': 0.38; 'received:google.com': 0.38; 'but': 0.38; 'earlier': 0.39; 'could': 0.39; 'received:209': 0.39; 'how': 0.39; 'said': 0.39; 'greater': 0.40; "it's": 0.40; 'header:Received:5': 0.40; 'might': 0.40; 'scroll': 0.60; 'respect': 0.60; '2011': 0.62; 'url:net': 0.62; 'perfectly': 0.65; 'prove': 0.65; 'credit': 0.67; 'received:209.85.216.181': 0.68; 'received:mail- qy0-f181.google.com': 0.68; 'economic': 0.69; 'become': 0.70; 'subject:Free': 0.72; 'article': 0.75; 'claim': 0.76; 'political': 0.78; 'url:php': 0.79; 'difference.': 0.84; 'to:addr:charter.net': 0.84; 'write-up': 0.84 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=HrDuUdsTfH3as7+kw74BdEB3Vj1AP0SijMeaf+u50wI=; b=bKoGfS9R3+osxuIlGfZ8bnkhDll3FxWfBIq5TcuFtKG8q1l1eieOLv8yhdYxPwv+YL VCVv9yuvcJqsOUjlS1E9BFYPPh/P6mGuWk5FfUyTM+6/nUnkYLLIIb7U/HkkIMJKIuZq MSLc+OxKnN7By65j/VjyX4AS8yK95nlOOQTXE= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=BE/CO8wzzMXR/vzRgOIk9q4W8UADiT4RYfOlAw+DcqWBbIxyLvZdaFcbJHyFjeMm4W fVhj2gCHM6K0AmqsdG6GTqhg2XZAS75NL9+tggOI42LHikCN2TkD6KW78qziLZBMZs/v 0VoDns4KU8nEywiYkRh5RS0XSxgPx1Bss1nJI= MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: <4d9c5ca5$0$29991$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> <87tyebf3r3.fsf_-_@benfinney.id.au> <_Abnp.8356$zn.729@newsfe19.iad> <4d9d6587$0$29992$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> <__top.14604$zn.8052@newsfe19.iad> Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2011 09:51:38 -0700 Subject: Re: [OT] Free software versus software idea patents From: geremy condra To: harrismh777 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: python-list@python.org X-BeenThere: python-list@python.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion list for the Python programming language List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Newsgroups: comp.lang.python Message-ID: Lines: 40 NNTP-Posting-Host: 82.94.164.166 X-Trace: 1302799902 news.xs4all.nl 41102 [::ffff:82.94.164.166]:45171 X-Complaints-To: abuse@xs4all.nl Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.python:3206 On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 12:22 AM, harrismh777 wro= te: > geremy condra wrote: >> >> Having said that, I have a greater respect for mathematics than I do >> for my own economic views, and I don't like seeing it become a >> political football. If you can prove something,*prove it*. If you >> cannot- no matter how close you might feel you are- don't claim that >> math says you're right. > > =A0 =A0Fair enough. > > =A0 =A0http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=3D20091111151305785 > > > =A0 =A0With your background, you will have no problem with this text... > although, and I do apologize, it is a long text... scroll down and begin > reading at the heading: > > =A0 =A0An Explanation of Computation Theory for Lawyers > > =A0 =A0By PolR > > > > =A0 =A0The write-up is excellent, written as well or better than I could = write > it myself, and is very clear and concise... yes, even a lawyer can > understand it. This is not a proof. This is an argument. There's a very big difference. To be clear, this article makes basically the same mistake you do- you assume that a program is exactly equivalent to its computation, while the article makes the additional and even more wrong assumption that a program is perfectly defined by its CPU instructions. It's to your credit that you avoided advancing this obviously incorrect claim, but you still haven't addressed my earlier points. Geremy Condra