First programmer?

My wife asked me and my son to change some carpet that had two desks and a chest of drawers on it. I was not enthusiastic, my son even less so. Took two hours or so, moving the furniture around in a Japanese apartment with limited space.

My son was making quite a bit of fuss about the imposition on his time, so I mentioned that computer programming often has a similar sort of problem to solve -- updating or changing software underneath live data in a limited space without damaging things, with minimum interruption to access.

My wife heard that and asked a very interesting question.

Who was the first programmer? Do we know?

One standard answer to that is Ada Lovelace, Charles Babbage's correspondent. From what I have read, I would include Babbage as well, and lean towards calling their work an early example of what we now call "pair programming".

Babbage's differential and analytic engines are said to be the first known devices in which direct corollaries to the elements of modern computers are found. However, they are not the first mechanical computers. As I have tried to demonstrate elsewhere, computing devices have been in use for all of recorded history, and some probable examples pre-date our extant records.

The engineers and artisans who have created these devices built programs into their structure. The diameter of a cog, with the number of teeth and their position, the lengths and orientations of rods and levers, the structure and design of these devices constitute their programs. Thus, Da Vinci was a programmer. Those who constructed astrolabes were programmers, and I would include the designers of Stonehenge.

Re-programmability is not the only yardstick of computing devices, nor is it required for a programmer to do his or her job.

Babbage is said to have conceived his differential engines in response to perusing a table of logarithms with known errors. That table was prepared with the assistance of a computer system, but the computers in the system were humans, computer being, in essence, a task or job title. A mathematician with advanced understanding formulated a series of simple steps which less skilled mathematicians followed to construct the tables.

Defining the steps and coordinating the system were essentially programming tasks. (And humans are definitely re-programmable in this sense, for what it's worth.)

With this concept in mind, we can safely say that any specification of a first programmer, short of God, Himself, is arbitrary.

Software patent limitations

Let's set aside, for the moment, the arguments about software being maths (because too many people are confused by the mathematicians' argument that the whole world is nothing but mathematics).

[Update: I've started a separate blog for this kind of stuff.]

Patents in the physical realm have something that software patents, in their current state, do not have.

Materials.

Structures.

Included devices.

Yeah, limitations.

If we allowed physical patents like the current version of software patents, we'd have patents claiming "materials that have property P" or "materials that perform function F"; claiming "structures that look like S", "structures that perform function F", or "structures that have property P"; claiming "the inclusion of device D", or "devices that look like S", or "devices that perform function F", or "devices that have property P". Etc.

Those who love freedom make a lot of noise about patents on ideas. We'll set those arguments aside for a moment, too.

Surely we can see the problems here. If this kind of patent were allowed, the first patent on any device that reproduced sound would have covered every device that reproduced sound.

Can't you see that?

First, "This patent claims a device that records a physical representation of sound by capturing audio vibrations via a large membrane moving a needle to cut a groove in some plastic medium." paired with, "This patent claims a device that reproduces sound by transferring vibrations recorded in some plastic medium to a physical membrane."



(Don't forget that "plastic" means something besides poly-urethane here.)

These claims would already have been over-broad. (Compare them with history -- think about cylinders vs. discs.)

But the following claims would also have been allowed, most likely in the same patent.

"This patent claims a device that records any representation of sound in any media." paired with, "This patent claims a device that reproduces sound recorded in any media."

Had these claims been allowed, who would have owned the recording industry?

Lock, stock, and barrel. No, broader than that, even.

The courts are trying to restrict these kinds of patents, but they have no guides.

(Perhaps because too many lawyers who conflate maths with human laws have gotten stuck on the software-is-maths argument, drawing the wrong conclusion. The universe is mathematical, but no human has ever yet been able to define the grand unifying theory. The best general theories we have at present are so convoluted they would be subject to patent under the current patent regime -- if we allow software patents in their current form.)

Patents must, absolutely must have some reasonable limitations to be useful. In physical realm patents, materials, structures, included devices, etc., provide the basis for limits. They prevent the patenting of ideas.

(Okay, I snuck that back in. After I showed one of the many problems with patenting ideas, even complicated ideas. So sue me. Wait, someone is likely to do exactly that, so I should set pejorative aside, as well.)

What would be the parallel in software patents? If we absolutely have to have them. (And I think we probably do, at least until we can get our society freed of the atrocity that is the Berne Convention.)

What would provide the basis for limitation?

Source code.

Programming language provides a parallel to materials.

Modules, both physical and program, provide a parallel to included devices. Thus, the libraries linked in, the run-time environment assumed in the compiler, the compiler itself, the operating system, and the physical CPU and peripherals, all those implementation details presently only waved at by the phrase, "implemented in a computer device" provide essential parts of the missing basis for limitation.

("Implemented in which computer device?", for the sake of all that stands before the court.)

And the source code itself is the equivalent of blue-prints, diagrams, methods of assembly, etc. The source code itself is an essential limiting element, and so often missing, except for some symbolic pseudo-code or programming scrap freed from any actual implementation.

Pseudo-code must be unacceptable as a limiting element in patents. You can say anything you want in pseudo-code, because a human gets to figure out the implementation details later. Pseudo-code provides no basis for limitation.

A software patent absolutely must provide compilable source code, and it must be limited by the source code provided, bugs and all. And limited by the compiling environment and the target execution environment, OS specifics and hardware specifics, etc.

All the details of workable implementation, without which, even a very competent computer scientist is hard pressed to reproduce the subject of the patent. Including compilable source code.

These are the missing limitations in the current versions of software patents, and, until we deal with them properly, software patents cannot fail to provide us with an unworkable legal mess.

Tobacco addiction cheap for society?

Some really strange things get said on /. sometimes.

As I was originally starting to type this, there was an article (which I failed to record a link to and now can't be sure which it was) on Bitcoin being used in the black market for illicit drugs. Lots of people in that part of the conversation seem to want to make drugs generally legal in the US, and they cite the supposed failure of Prohibition.

(I thought I had blogged about the supposed failure of prohibition. Apparently not.

It did not fail, but we failed to do it wisely.

We should have specifically authorized the states and communities to prohibit and/or regulate intrastate commerce in alcohol and other substances with strong habit-forming properties and/or negative health consequences, and restricted the states from attempting to prohibit personal and private production and use of the same, except in cases where the production and/or use at private level presented legal issues in other areas. (Production facilities blowing up and/or threatening neighbor's property, health, etc. Also, allowing states and communities to attempt to deal with individuals who, when consuming or using such substances, would lose control and present a clear danger to others.)

And we should have authorized laws to be made regulating and/or prohibiting interstate commerce and transportation of such substances, particularly into states where such was regulated and/or prohibited.

This would have been in keeping with the spirit and letter of the Constitution.

Having failed to do that, we undid the prohibition amendment in a way that left us open to the FDA. That was a bigger failure than the way we originally did prohibition.)

Well, somebody brought up a concept that is apparently making the rounds in parts of Europe -- that tobacco is actually cheaper than euthanasia. Talk about false dilemma and strawman and, well, the whole basic gamut of false logic.

Dealing with the "problem" of an aging society by killing the old folks off with either explicit euthanasia or the implicit use of vice is just plain wrong on all levels.

Old people are valuable. For their experience, if nothing else. But for all sorts of other things, too.

If our economy does not allow us to recognize their value appropriately, then the economy is wrong. Fix the economy, don't fix the non-problem of a rising average age.

Go Fish -- ゴー・フィッシュ

This is the standard game, as I understand it. Some variations noted below.

僕の記憶による、通常のルールを説明してから、ほかのやり方についてもいくつか話します。

Object: To collect pairs of cards by asking other players for cards that match those in your hand.

目的：　自分の手札にあるカードに相当するカードを相手に頼んだりして、２枚ペア組んで集めていく。

Number of players: Two to six.

プレーヤの人数：　２人～６人

Use: A standard deck of playing cards.

遊具：　普通のカードデッキ（トランプ）

Setup -- 用意 :

The dealer shuffles the deck and deals seven cards, face-down so that others can't see them, to each player. The remaining cards are placed in a draw pile where all the players can reach them. (You can call the draw pile the lake or the sea.)

カードをシャッフルして、七枚ずつ配ります。他のプレーヤにカードが見えないように、裏を表に配ります。残りのカードを山にして、プレーヤの皆さんの手の届ける位置に置きます。（この場合は、やまを「海」と言ってもいい。）

Each player looks for any pairs in his hand and places them face up in front of him.

プレーヤは皆、自分の手札に入っているカードの中からペアを探して、自分の前に置きます。

Basic play -- 基本的な遊び方 :

The player to the left of the dealer starts.

ディーラーの左のプレーヤから始まります。

On a players turn, he chooses a card in his hand and chooses another player to ask for its match.

そのプレーヤの番には手札のなかから一枚を選んで、相手の一人も選んで、選んだカードに相当するカードを頼みます。

If the other player has the match, he gives it to him. If not, he says, "Go fish." and the player whose turn it is draws a card from the draw pile.

頼まれたプレーヤにはそのカードを持っている場合は渡します。持っていない場合は、「ゴーフィッシュ」と言って、番になっているプレーヤは山から一枚を引きます。

If the player gets a match, whether by asking or by drawing, he places the pair in front of him. Further, if the match was the card asked for, whether by asking or by drawing, he may play again. 

もらっても、引いてもペアを組めるなら、そのペアを自分の前に置きます。頼んだカードの場合は、もう一回できます。

If the player did not get a match, or got a match but not the card asked for, turn proceeds to the left.

ペア組めない場合、またはペア組めてもそれが頼んだカードではなかった場合、番が時計回りに次に進みます。

The game ends when any one player has no cards left in his hand, to play.

プレーヤの内、誰一人も手札がなくなったところゲームが終わりです。

The player who has collected the most pairs wins.

ペアを多く組めた人が勝ち。

(Four o'clock in the morning, variations will have to be done later.)

[Update: Example game play dialog here. JMR20150408]

not plugged in

(On the train home, last night:)

Of fifteen people near me, on the same seat or the one across from me, three people are not plugged in in any way. (I am plugged in, but not to the network, so maybe that's four.)  By plugged in, I mean, earplugs inserted or cellphone or some other electronics out, and actively using the device.

One of the three is reading smartphone ads from docomo.

I am reminded of some science fiction scene in which everyone is plugged in to the indoctrination station.

Maybe Fahrenheit 451, but portable.

Misinterpreting 1984, implications to security

(From a post of mine to a conversation in progress on /. .)

Learn anything from 1984?

No, we didn't.

My high school English teacher had it pegged:

1984 was neither predictive nor prescriptive. It was descriptive.

An allegory for society as we know it, through a lens double-tinted ever-so-slightly to two extremes, to bring a known secret out in sharp relief.

1984 is the world as we know it, viewed through the glasses of someone who thinks he is smarter than the rest of us trying to see it from the eyes of the rest of us.

Which is why it gave me a headache to read.

Very instructive book. Too bad most people don't think far enough to see the real message.

I think it was my junior year high school English teacher who pointed this out to me (and the rest of her class).

Now, whether Orwell was "right" or "wrong" is the wrong question. Whether our society is becoming "more" or "less" Orwellian is a red herring.

There is a part of our world which functions like this. It has always been this way, since Adam and Eve in the Garden, since Cain, since the Pharaohs, all the way down to the present. (Consider the nomer, "the father of lies".)

Now the lesson which we need to learn is that the Orwellian world mimics the real part of our world.

But we need to be careful how we understand this lesson, or we end up thinking the universe is out to get us.

Or we end up thinking that it's all right to lie, or that there is an establishment that preaches that it is all right to lie for some "greater good". (There are many such establishments, but that is also a red herring.)

The surrealism of youth is not evil. But we do leave it behind.

(There is no choice, even if we try to hang on to the glories of the past, time drags us with it.)

The conclusion of the novel does condemn those who use the instability of "facts" as an excuse to use factoids and factisms to their own gain. (To clarify, it is not the facts that change, it is our understanding of them.

Skipping a lot of literary analysis, pretty much, we will each one of us find ourselves having to face our own worst fears sometime in life. At least once, maybe more than once. (See Abraham, for instance.)

There is a reason that the world is surreal when we are young. Our lack of experience gives an edge to all our senses. But that edge is false.

No, it is not really false. It is just not perfectly true.

When we are young, the best understanding we can have is always going to more or less miss the true mark of reality. We do not have the experience to interpret our experiences properly.

This is a reverse vicious cycle, because we cannot understand without experience, and the only way to gain understanding is to get some experience, and, with the experience of things that are new to us, there must be some incompleteness in our understanding. Therefore, we shall make mistakes.

Which requires more experience, and more incomplete understanding, if we really want to understand things properly, a serious conundrum, but not evil. Incomplete understanding can lead us to complete understanding, if we will let it.

The mistakes leave us open to being judged by the society around us, both the outer societies and the hidden societies.

Because of the judgments of the hidden societies, we will be put on trial. We will be tested, whether we will be true to ourselves or not. And we will find that the real test is not in the events of the trial, but in what we do afterwards.

Winston and Julia find that their affair was an illusion. Of course it was. They also, in the immediate aftermath, find themselves thinking that they have betrayed each other. This is not unusual. When we betray ourselves, we necessarily betray those around us.

Self-betrayal is a common tool of terror politics and tyranny. Reinforcing the impression of self-betrayal by making the betrayal of others explicit is another tool of totalitarian society, as is pretense of rescue.

I would have preferred a preferred a stronger affirmation of the value of reality over surreality in the plot, but it would have been out of character for both Winston and Julia, also for Orwell, himself. It would also have made the novel less accessible, as literature.

But we see in the end that both Winston and Julia have grown up a little. They both understand that life is inherently insecure. And the novel leaves them contemplating whether to give in to the illusion of security provided by the self-deluded Big Brother organization, or to take the next step to real freedom.

They could consider continuing in clandestine activities precisely because they know that everything will be taken away, sooner or later.

Freedom is just another word for being able to behave as if one has nothing (left) to lose.

Real security is in having nothing to lose.

(From here, I'll have to sometime bridge from one linguistic context to another and pick up information systems security, but that will be in a different blog.)

Superiority complex

I'm writing from first hand experience, here.

When you have had it beat into your head that you're not as good as other people, you tend to develop an inferiority complex.

You know better, you know that other people aren't really better than you. Better at some specific thing, but not better in the sense of class. You know you are good at some things. You know that there are some things you are better than many other people at.

But you've had it pounded painfully into your head that you are inherently no good. Inferior. And pain hurts. So you pretend that you are inferior.

But it doesn't settle well. So, you tend to start finding ways to assert your superiority, to counter balance.

This is where the superiority complex kicks in.

Superiority complex can be expressed in two general ways. (Often, both ways in the same person.)

One way is to start simply asserting oneself. This much is actually not inherently bad. But if it goes too far, it becomes overweening pride, which is obnoxious. but still not too bad. One might call this supremacy complex.

The other way is to start trying harder than before. This isn't bad, it's good. But then it may progress to insisting on trying harder than other people. Again, this much is not all that bad, even though some find it obnoxious. (That others confuse it with humility is also worth noting.) It is often called superman complex.

If supremacy complex goes too far, it tends to seek identity with similar people and asserting group supremacy. (Racism, nationalism, sexism, politicized religionism, etc.)

Some of my Mormon friends got dragged into this kind of thing. I managed to stay out of it, partly because I could recognize a spirit that conflicted with the tenets of service that we call core.

If a superman complex goes too far, on the other hand, it seems to avoid group identification. There is a sense of "I can go it alone." Or, at least, a sense that one should be able to go it alone. On the one hand, you're trying to help others, but on the other hand, you aren't letting others help you.

I did not avoid this one, but I am discovering that the superhuman complex also conflicts with gospel principles. Well, I've been fighting with myself over this for thirty years, actually, so I'm thinking it might have been something I brought with me from the spirit world, from before birth.

I've noticed that a lot of the conflicts we have in this world, courtroom battles, market battles, family/spousal feuds, gang/fan violence, outright wars, seem to have roots in superiority complex.