Re: is free, open source software ethical?

In article <PuidnZW4oqS9UFLanZ2dnUVZ8rKdnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
 Richard Heathfield <rjh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> Ron Garret said:
> 
> <snip>
>  
> > Of course random data can "occasionally" be compressed.
> 
> Well done.

Since you're going to be so smug about it I will add that "occasionally" 
in this case is actually "very rarely."  So rarely that it is 
effectively meaningless.

Consider your ten-coin-flip example.  If you use run-length encoding you 
need four bits to encode the number 10.  Then you need another bit to 
encode the fact that this was a run of tails and not heads.  So you've 
compressed 10 bits down to 5.  But this encoding achieves compression 
only for runs of length six or greater.  (Actually, without some 
boundary markers, it achieves compression only for runs of length 
between 6 and 16.  And only if those runs are isolated and not embedded 
within a larger random sequence.)  The probability of encountering such 
a run is quite small.  Figuring the exact odds is left as an exercise.

I reiterate that there is an elementary (but non-constructive) proof 
that incompressible data exists.  Also, there are known incompressible 
numbers (Chaitin Omegas).  Their discovery was considered a major 
achievement in mathematics.


> > But the mere existence of a lot of
> > ignorant people does not change the underlying truth.
> 
> I agree entirely, but of course one's categorisation of people into 
> "ignorant" and "non-ignorant" depends on one's perception of the 
> underlying truth about which they are ignorant or non-ignorant. I would 
> guess (perhaps wrongly) that you perceive that I am ignorant of some 
> pretty important underlying truths - and you would be right to guess
that 

Well, at least we can agree on something.

> I perceive that you are likewise ignorant of some pretty important 
> underlying truths.

Try me.

> > Does heat exist?
> 
> Let's try experimental evidence, shall we?
> 
> Ouch!
> 
> Yes, heat exists.

OK.  Does phlogiston exist?


> >> > ... Maybe some day
> >> > you'll be in a bind and your friend will suddenly remember that
back
> >> > in the day you did her a favor and that will push her over the edge
to
> >> > do you one in return.
> >> 
> >> It's possible, but (a) it's unlikely, because neither she nor I think
in
> >> terms of transactions where friendship is involved, and (b) it's
> >> irrelevant, since it didn't form part of my reasoning when I agreed
to
> >> help her. I agreed to help her because she needed help, not because I
> >> expected to get anything out of it.
> > 
> > OK... I need help.  I need $100.  Will you give it to me?
> 
> I would gladly give you a hundred dollars if I had a hundred dollars to 
> give you. Unfortunately, I have only one dollar, which I keep merely as
a 
> curio.

I'll take Euros.  In fact, I'd prefer Euros.  Will you give me 100 
Euros?  (OK, I'll settle for 50, which is still less than US$100 for the 
moment.)

> >> >> In any case, the objection is simply wrong. Altruism is about
intent.
> >> >> I will gladly concede that some free software developers give away
> >> >> their code in the hope of some gain. But there are certainly those
> >> >> who give away their code because they want to benefit others. That
> >> >> *is* altruism in action.
> >> > 
> >> > Can you cite an example?
> >> 
> >> I did already.
> > 
> > I must have missed that.  Who was it?
> 
> Me. I will freely confess that I don't give away a /lot/ of code, but I 
> have certainly given away some in the past, and no doubt I will do so 
> again in the future - and I don't expect any return for it, either 
> financial or otherwise.

Not a convincing example.  We have only your word that you didn't have 
any ulterior motives.

rg