Per parsing language, you might want to look at what python's nltk and
Java's gate (less familiar with the later) have done for inspiration.
On Apr 25, 2012 10:07 PM, "Isaac Schlueter" <i...@izs.me> wrote:
> Please do not bicker over politics here. This is not the place, and
> it never ever ends well.
> Please do not call each other idiots or make other personal remarks.
> If you want to say that a piece of *code* is terrible, or that a
> software approach is misguided, or that a statement is factually
> untrue, then that's perfectly fine (as long as it actually is!) but
> the Node.js user list must remain respectful. (Challenging someone
> for benchmark numbers when they've made performance assertions is also
> not only accepted, but encouraged.)
> But a personal insult is not allowed, even if it's warranted. If
> someone's *actually* causing problems, let me or one of the other
> admins know, and they'll get a warning, and if that doesn't work,
> they'll get banned. (Even if the person is an admin. You can
> complain about me to the other core devs on this list, and they'll set
> me straight.) Calling someone a troll is insulting if they are not,
> and it is entertaining if they are.
> Don't complain in public about another user. Just talk to an admin in
> private. (Or email them directly off-list, if you feel comfortable
> doing so.)
> More on topic,
> The MIT license in node (as well as the MIT and BSD licenses in the
> vast majority of open source node programs) explicitly allows use for
> closed-source commercial applications. If Dennis wants to keep his
> source closed, then that's his prerogative. In fact, he can take all
> the modules we create, and use them in his closed-source proprietary
> thing, so long as he abides by the extremely liberal licenses that
> most of them use. If you think he's wrong about the value of open
> source, or its overblownness, refute it with data. (Or don't, and
> just go back to cranking out awesome open source software.)
> Dennis, since you came here ostensibly trying to raise interest among
> other developers (and have been mostly successful, reading through the
> thread), I would suggest re-thinking your approach somewhat. I'm not
> talking about what's right or wrong, merely what's effective. Many
> people come to a project like Node.js because they feel strongly about
> open source software. If your goal is to recruit them, you should
> think about the effects that your words have. If you want to recruit
> developers who *aren't* passionate about open source software, then
> you're in the wrong place.
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 18:20, Dennis Kane <dkan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> You don't come off as an asshole -- and besides, we have no problem with
> >> assholes: we're developers. Saying the things you're saying, to the
> audience
> >> you're saying them to -- well, it's that you come off as an idiot. The
> good
> >> news is this is a lot easier to fix.
> > I'm an idiot because of my political views, and not my programming
> ability,
> > I assume. The only thing I'm worried about is the programming. If
> you've
> > got some criticism about that, I'm all ears.
> >> Oh, you're looking for help? Here's a suggestion: you could open up the
> >> code and see what people do.
> > No. Now chill out about the open source thing. It's boring. Redundant.
> > Etc.
> >> Far be it from us to tell you what to do with your code, but you're the
> >> one asking for help, and this is naturally the first bit of feedback
> you're
> >> going to get. Why would any of us invest much more of our precious time
> >> helping you improve your proprietary product? The world doesn't work
> that
> >> way -- at least, not anymore.
> > Dude, I'm looking to get a business off the ground. People work with
> each
> > other and try to make money off of their labors. It has happened once or
> > twice before. You say the word "proprietary" as if its one of the seven
> > deadly ones.
> >> So yes, back to the thing itself: node.js (this is the node.js list,
> after
> >> all). You've expressed clearly that you have no interest in making your
> work
> >> part of node's ecosystem. So at this point you're just noise, no
> different
> >> than a recruiter. You just said as much yourself: "I'm here because I
> can't
> >> do this thing by myself." At least recruiters, even the worst of them,
> have
> >> a payed position to offer and the good sense not to directly insult the
> >> target audience :P
> > Sorry. I don't have any personal feelings about node's ecosystem. It's
> > just a tool that I take for granted. I set up the site with express, and
> > now I don't think about it. It just works. I have a server hooked into
> the
> > main parser to shuttle stuff between it and express. Sometimes I need to
> > make use of the filesystem. Other that that, I'm pretty much using
> straight
> > javascript. It's google's v8 work that's doing most of the heavy lifting
> for
> > me. Besides, I didn't know that I had to have feelings for the tools
> that I
> > use in order to be accepted in the development community. And yes, I am
> > recruiting people who are interested in doing something awesome with this
> > tool. And I'll offer something even better that paychecks: how about
> > co-ownership?
> >> Good luck to you and your product, but kindly take your noise elsewhere.
> > Nah, I think I'll chill here for awhile. I'm sure there are some people
> > around here like me that appreciate new technology over the same old
> > politics.
On Thursday, April 26, 2012 3:35:48 AM UTC-7, shawn wilson wrote:
> Per parsing language, you might want to look at what python's nltk and > Java's gate (less familiar with the later) have done for inspiration
Yeah, I saw the python nltk yesterday just to see what was currently out there. Despite the fact that I absolutely abhor the indentation enforcement of python (neither here nor there), that whole project is just more of the same "everything and the kitchen sink" mentality. There is so much in the way of graphical representation that has nothing to do with a program that just gets things right. That 's all I care about. As long as the parsing works very well (the logic of 'and', 'or', 'if', 'then', 'because', etc), then everything else will start falling into place. Just think of this as you would any c compiler or script interpreter. The compiler must be able to get the intended logic right. As long as that is the case, the user/programmer can do whatever the frick he or she wants as far as creating meaningful content. This thing is doing pretty damn good with the logic on some highly convoluted statements and sequences thereof. Forward thinking businesses will have to take note of this fact... they have no choice. Then we can all start getting together to determine how to develop the exact dictionaries and statement types that will fit their needs as well as possible.
On Wednesday, April 25, 2012 7:07:52 PM UTC-7, Isaac Schlueter wrote:
> The MIT license in node (as well as the MIT and BSD licenses in the > vast majority of open source node programs) explicitly allows use for > closed-source commercial applications. If Dennis wants to keep his > source closed, then that's his prerogative. In fact, he can take all > the modules we create, and use them in his closed-source proprietary > thing, so long as he abides by the extremely liberal licenses that > most of them use. If you think he's wrong about the value of open > source, or its overblownness, refute it with data. (Or don't, and > just go back to cranking out awesome open source software.)
Let's all remember what open source is really all about. A program is called closed source if it is distributed in binary format only. The open source movement makes the demand that one cannot distribute a binary program using, for example, GPL'ed code without also making the source code available.
But a server side process has nothing to do with any of this! I am not distributing the program... I am interested in running a service like Google (which will hopefully eventually overtake them... but don't tell anyone I said that).
Is anyone seriously demanding Google to freely distribute all of their painstakingly developed search algorithms? Not likely!
The basic fact is that this thing is the result of years and years of absolute psychological warfare between me and my computers. And given the fact that robust NatLang Processing (weak AI) is something of a holy grail for tech enthusiasts, the stakes in all of this are quite big.
I am not saying that releasing the code for this won't ever happen. But I am saying that releasing code is a very major decision that should never be taken lightly. All I do know is that now is not the time.
But I will talk about it. I won't want to give away too many of the technicals in an open forum, but I will give some of them away to people who I can trust. And in order to me to be able to trust someone fully, I have to feel that they actually have an interest in the problems surrounding NLP.
The Net is absolutely littered with freely available NLP projects, code and all . They are just not interesting. But you know what is interesting? A site with a lone input box on a white background with a snazzy, colorful logo above it (sound familiar?) that "just works" as advertised. I want to get something like that on the site pretty soon.
Now that I'm pretty well done with the hair-pulling aspects of my coding, I can start having fun with putting variety into the thing (giving it the "wow factor"). Different kinds of words, statements, sense checking, etc. This kind of stuff should not be very difficult for any competent programmer.
That's what I really want to start getting on the same wavelength with people around here. Stop thinking that this thing has to be some kind of end-all-be-all killer app from the outset. I mean, there are so many things to be done. I want to be able to translate natural ways of referring to time points (last week, the day after tomorrow, etc) into their precise Unix timestamps. Not very difficult work, but it's something that really should start getting worked on.
I really feel that this thing could give quite a few of you out there a comfortable living. This could open up totally new vistas of the tech sector. This has the potential of going places pretty quickly, and the earlier that people get in on it, the greater the potential for reward.
Dennis, since you came here ostensibly trying to raise interest among
> other developers (and have been mostly successful, reading through the > thread), I would suggest re-thinking your approach somewhat. I'm not > talking about what's right or wrong, merely what's effective. Many > people come to a project like Node.js because they feel strongly about > open source software. If your goal is to recruit them, you should > think about the effects that your words have. If you want to recruit > developers who *aren't* passionate about open source software, then > you're in the wrong place.
> I've already been told more than once to rethink/change my approach.
Seriously? I mean, let's get serious here. The only time I get snarky is when people get pushy with their demands to just hand out something that has resulted from years of torment. This just is not any old program. It just isn't. Period.
Again, I have to reiterate that there is a vast difference between the philosophy of open source as espoused by Eric Raymond, Richard Stallman and company and the reality of people actually opening up source code in order to actually *improve* it. Please someone break open the source for emacs right now and make it better. I dare you. My philosophical views are always changing. Conservative, liberal, whatever, blah blah. I'm just not dealing with any of it now. This is a huge technical challenge. That's all. At this point, I don't care if you sit in trees for months on end to save them from getting cut down or if you are a dues paying member of the NRA. I really don't.
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 10:53 AM, Dennis Kane <dkan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 25, 2012 7:07:52 PM UTC-7, Isaac Schlueter wrote:
>> The MIT license in node (as well as the MIT and BSD licenses in the
>> vast majority of open source node programs) explicitly allows use for
>> closed-source commercial applications. If Dennis wants to keep his
>> source closed, then that's his prerogative. In fact, he can take all
>> the modules we create, and use them in his closed-source proprietary
>> thing, so long as he abides by the extremely liberal licenses that
>> most of them use. If you think he's wrong about the value of open
>> source, or its overblownness, refute it with data. (Or don't, and
>> just go back to cranking out awesome open source software.)
> Let's all remember what open source is really all about. A program is
> called closed source if it is distributed in binary format only. The open
> source movement makes the demand that one cannot distribute a binary
> program using, for example, GPL'ed code without also making the source code
> available.
> But a server side process has nothing to do with any of this! I am not
> distributing the program... I am interested in running a service like
> Google (which will hopefully eventually overtake them... but don't tell
> anyone I said that).
> Is anyone seriously demanding Google to freely distribute all of their
> painstakingly developed search algorithms? Not likely!
> The basic fact is that this thing is the result of years and years of
> absolute psychological warfare between me and my computers. And given the
> fact that robust NatLang Processing (weak AI) is something of a holy grail
> for tech enthusiasts, the stakes in all of this are quite big.
> I am not saying that releasing the code for this won't ever happen. But I
> am saying that releasing code is a very major decision that should never be
> taken lightly. All I do know is that now is not the time.
> But I will talk about it. I won't want to give away too many of the
> technicals in an open forum, but I will give some of them away to people
> who I can trust. And in order to me to be able to trust someone fully, I
> have to feel that they actually have an interest in the problems
> surrounding NLP.
> The Net is absolutely littered with freely available NLP projects, code
> and all . They are just not interesting. But you know what is
> interesting? A site with a lone input box on a white background with a
> snazzy, colorful logo above it (sound familiar?) that "just works" as
> advertised. I want to get something like that on the site pretty soon.
> Now that I'm pretty well done with the hair-pulling aspects of my coding,
> I can start having fun with putting variety into the thing (giving it the
> "wow factor"). Different kinds of words, statements, sense checking, etc.
> This kind of stuff should not be very difficult for any competent
> programmer.
> That's what I really want to start getting on the same wavelength with
> people around here. Stop thinking that this thing has to be some kind of
> end-all-be-all killer app from the outset. I mean, there are so many
> things to be done. I want to be able to translate natural ways of
> referring to time points (last week, the day after tomorrow, etc) into
> their precise Unix timestamps. Not very difficult work, but it's something
> that really should start getting worked on.
> I really feel that this thing could give quite a few of you out there a
> comfortable living. This could open up totally new vistas of the tech
> sector. This has the potential of going places pretty quickly, and the
> earlier that people get in on it, the greater the potential for reward.
> Dennis, since you came here ostensibly trying to raise interest among
>> other developers (and have been mostly successful, reading through the
>> thread), I would suggest re-thinking your approach somewhat. I'm not
>> talking about what's right or wrong, merely what's effective. Many
>> people come to a project like Node.js because they feel strongly about
>> open source software. If your goal is to recruit them, you should
>> think about the effects that your words have. If you want to recruit
>> developers who *aren't* passionate about open source software, then
>> you're in the wrong place.
>> I've already been told more than once to rethink/change my approach.
> Seriously? I mean, let's get serious here. The only time I get snarky is
> when people get pushy with their demands to just hand out something that
> has resulted from years of torment. This just is not any old program. It
> just isn't. Period.
> Again, I have to reiterate that there is a vast difference between the
> philosophy of open source as espoused by Eric Raymond, Richard Stallman and
> company and the reality of people actually opening up source code in order
> to actually *improve* it. Please someone break open the source for emacs
> right now and make it better. I dare you. My philosophical views are
> always changing. Conservative, liberal, whatever, blah blah. I'm just not
> dealing with any of it now. This is a huge technical challenge. That's
> all. At this point, I don't care if you sit in trees for months on end to
> save them from getting cut down or if you are a dues paying member of the
> NRA. I really don't.
On Thursday, April 26, 2012 10:57:26 AM UTC-7, Mark Hahn wrote:
> I guess the question everyone is thinking (or asking) is why are you here? > I can understand the recruiting, but I can't think of any other reason.
> Which means: if I don't want to give away the entirety of my labors that
I've been agonizing over for all these years, then I have no legitimate reason to post to this forum. I already said that I will talk about it. But if no one is interested in the coolness factor of the thing, then I guess there's nothing else for me to talk about. I can just move on to other places to find people who want to help me get something pretty awesome started. No worries. I'm just looking for friends who would like to work together. I can't force anyone to get interested.
Oh yeah, there's always this reason: this thread has top ranking on google search "node ai", and my site is now listed on the engines. Before I posted here, my site wasn't even on google!
> Which means: if I don't want to give away the entirety of my labors that
I've been agonizing over for all these years, then I have no legitimate
reason to post to this forum.
No, that is not what I meant. I literally meant "why are you here?".
I had only thought of the recruiting angle but now you have pointed out the
public relations angle. So you have two reasons. In my humble opinion,
those reasons are not appropriate for a public discussion group like this.
There is supposed to be a give and take, not a take and take.
As Isaac said, the fact that you want to build something that is closed
source is not a problem.
I think you could do more however in being cognizant and sensitive to the
values of this group. If you did you would probably find people more
receptive to your ideas.
You may not want to release your code under OSS, thay is fine. But there
are a lot of people here that really value and are passionate about OSS,
and that invest a lot of effort to actually grow the node ecosystem through
OSS. Really it is about helping each other be successful imo.
You may not value it in the same way, but you can still respect that others
do.
Sent from my Windows Phone
------------------------------
From: Dennis Kane
Sent: 4/26/2012 10:53 AM
To: nodejs@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [nodejs] Re: Your thoughts wanted on a node AI project
On Wednesday, April 25, 2012 7:07:52 PM UTC-7, Isaac Schlueter wrote:
> The MIT license in node (as well as the MIT and BSD licenses in the
> vast majority of open source node programs) explicitly allows use for
> closed-source commercial applications. If Dennis wants to keep his
> source closed, then that's his prerogative. In fact, he can take all
> the modules we create, and use them in his closed-source proprietary
> thing, so long as he abides by the extremely liberal licenses that
> most of them use. If you think he's wrong about the value of open
> source, or its overblownness, refute it with data. (Or don't, and
> just go back to cranking out awesome open source software.)
Let's all remember what open source is really all about. A program is
called closed source if it is distributed in binary format only. The open
source movement makes the demand that one cannot distribute a binary
program using, for example, GPL'ed code without also making the source code
available.
But a server side process has nothing to do with any of this! I am not
distributing the program... I am interested in running a service like
Google (which will hopefully eventually overtake them... but don't tell
anyone I said that).
Is anyone seriously demanding Google to freely distribute all of their
painstakingly developed search algorithms? Not likely!
The basic fact is that this thing is the result of years and years of
absolute psychological warfare between me and my computers. And given the
fact that robust NatLang Processing (weak AI) is something of a holy grail
for tech enthusiasts, the stakes in all of this are quite big.
I am not saying that releasing the code for this won't ever happen. But I
am saying that releasing code is a very major decision that should never be
taken lightly. All I do know is that now is not the time.
But I will talk about it. I won't want to give away too many of the
technicals in an open forum, but I will give some of them away to people
who I can trust. And in order to me to be able to trust someone fully, I
have to feel that they actually have an interest in the problems
surrounding NLP.
The Net is absolutely littered with freely available NLP projects, code and
all . They are just not interesting. But you know what is interesting? A
site with a lone input box on a white background with a snazzy, colorful
logo above it (sound familiar?) that "just works" as advertised. I want to
get something like that on the site pretty soon.
Now that I'm pretty well done with the hair-pulling aspects of my coding, I
can start having fun with putting variety into the thing (giving it the
"wow factor"). Different kinds of words, statements, sense checking, etc.
This kind of stuff should not be very difficult for any competent
programmer.
That's what I really want to start getting on the same wavelength with
people around here. Stop thinking that this thing has to be some kind of
end-all-be-all killer app from the outset. I mean, there are so many
things to be done. I want to be able to translate natural ways of
referring to time points (last week, the day after tomorrow, etc) into
their precise Unix timestamps. Not very difficult work, but it's something
that really should start getting worked on.
I really feel that this thing could give quite a few of you out there a
comfortable living. This could open up totally new vistas of the tech
sector. This has the potential of going places pretty quickly, and the
earlier that people get in on it, the greater the potential for reward.
Dennis, since you came here ostensibly trying to raise interest among
> other developers (and have been mostly successful, reading through the
> thread), I would suggest re-thinking your approach somewhat. I'm not
> talking about what's right or wrong, merely what's effective. Many
> people come to a project like Node.js because they feel strongly about
> open source software. If your goal is to recruit them, you should
> think about the effects that your words have. If you want to recruit
> developers who *aren't* passionate about open source software, then
> you're in the wrong place.
> I've already been told more than once to rethink/change my approach.
Seriously? I mean, let's get serious here. The only time I get snarky is
when people get pushy with their demands to just hand out something that
has resulted from years of torment. This just is not any old program. It
just isn't. Period.
Again, I have to reiterate that there is a vast difference between the
philosophy of open source as espoused by Eric Raymond, Richard Stallman and
company and the reality of people actually opening up source code in order
to actually *improve* it. Please someone break open the source for emacs
right now and make it better. I dare you. My philosophical views are
always changing. Conservative, liberal, whatever, blah blah. I'm just not
dealing with any of it now. This is a huge technical challenge. That's
all. At this point, I don't care if you sit in trees for months on end to
save them from getting cut down or if you are a dues paying member of the
NRA. I really don't.
On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 10:53, Dennis Kane <dkan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Let's all remember what open source is really all about. A program is
> called closed source if it is distributed in binary format only. The open
> source movement makes the demand that one cannot distribute a binary program
> using, for example, GPL'ed code without also making the source code
> available.
> But a server side process has nothing to do with any of this!
The GPL and BSD/MIT licenses are very different. What you describe is copyleft.
There's also the LGPL, which *may* be linked against or depended upon
by non-GPL programs, but may *not* be extended or used to create
non-GPL derivative works.
And there's AGPL, which states that you may not use the software in
network programs unless all those who use the software over a network
*also* have access to the source. Ie, it's like GPL, with a broader
definition of "distribution".
The MIT and BSD licenses are much more liberal, and as far as I've
ever seen, they're pretty much equivalent. They are not copyleft, and
not viral. GPL is much less popular in the node community than MIT
and BSD. The Apache license is similar in intent to MIT and BSD, but
with additional language regarding copyrights an patents.
All I'm saying is: saying "the point of open source" is like saying
"the goal of american politics". There are a lot of different
conflicting goals, and groups, and ideologies. Lumping it all into a
single bucket loses a lot of details. In fact, many in the Free
Software movement would object to even being associated with the term
Open Source at all, since to them, it's more about freedom to modify
and extend than having access to code, which is viewed as merely a
means to an end.
> I've already been told more than once to rethink/change my approach.
> Seriously? I mean, let's get serious here. The only time I get snarky is
> when people get pushy with their demands to just hand out something that has
> resulted from years of torment. This just is not any old program. It just
> isn't. Period.
There's a pattern you're matching here, which I'm sure many of us have
seen many times in software communities.
"I have a really awesome killer idea. This is going to change
everything! No, you can't see it. But it's going to be amazing.
I've put *so much* time and effort into it. I've been slaving away
for years. If you come join me (which you will have to be very
motivated, lucky, and exceptional for me to allow you to do), then
untold riches will be yours to share!"
The pattern is:
1. Vague promises of paradigm shifting software of epic proportions.
(The "Noble Ambition")
2. Self-congratulatory claims of effort and sacrifice that went into
its production. (The "Quest")
3. A promise to share with a special few who are up to the challenge.
4. An resistance to sharing *any* relevant details. (When pressed,
reacting with indignant objections regarding principles and
propriety.)
I've taken to think of this as the "Genius Martyr" syndrome. It
doesn't always present with crippling insanity, but that is a common
pathology. It isn't always a technical idea, either; sometimes it's a
new way to handle governance in the group, or a revolutionary business
plan (where they're refusing to take any investment), etc.
It may be that there may come a time when some GM exhibits this
pattern in a technical community, and does in fact have some awesome
thing. Perhaps a few GMs have ideas which are actually worth more
than the paper they refuse to print them on.
If that time comes, if that idea shows up, and it's presented this
way, I'll probably miss out on it. Why? Because in my years in
software communities, 100% of the time that this pattern has presented
(and it is sadly not rare at all), the result has been the same.
A few people react with interest, which then of course leads to more
hinting. Finally people start pushing for proof, at which time the GM
lashes out defensively, claiming that the open source community is a
bunch of greedy hippies who want something for nothing, or questioning
the commitment or competence of those in the community to actually
contribute to the Noble Ambition.
In most cases, a flame war erupts and then the GM goes away
eventually, or sticks around making trouble until they're eventually
banned (or the community just gots to crap, which is sadly very
common.) In a few cases, someone in the group will bait the GM by
feigning interest, attempting to draw out the crazy for their
entertainment.
I'm sure that many of us have *been* a GM at one point or another in
our lives. I know I have. It was embarrassing. I survived.
As a person heavily invested in the Node.js community, I really don't
want to see it devolve into pointless bickering and personal insults.
We just can't have that. It's not good for anyone. It doesn't lead
to creativity or good will, and it tends to keep out the most
productive potential members.
So, Dennis, if you are serious, and you actually have a great idea,
you surely must realize that you need to go create something
*tangible* and *visible* before anyone will take it seriously.
Because, regardless of how talented, intelligent, insightful,
passionate, driven, or *right* you may in fact be, as long as you
*look* like a crazy person, people will think you're crazy. The more
you scream "TAKE ME SERIOUSLY", the less they will. That's just how
it works.
If your goal is to generate publicity for your project, or to recruit
others to your cause, then I think that the facts speak for
themselves, that this is not effective. You can curse the world for
failing to recognize your genius, but that won't make the world
recognize your genius.
> The only time I get snarky is
> when people get pushy with their demands to just hand out something that has
> resulted from years of torment. This just is not any old program. It just
> isn't. Period.
If that's the only time you get snarky, then you should not
participate on this mailing list, because it is common practice here
to demand and expect that bold claims come with compelling evidence,
and excessive snark is not acceptable. No one cares how much torment
went into your program. They care how much value comes out of it.
Period.
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 10:53, Dennis Kane <dkan...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Let's all remember what open source is really all about. A program is
>> called closed source if it is distributed in binary format only. The open
>> source movement makes the demand that one cannot distribute a binary program
>> using, for example, GPL'ed code without also making the source code
>> available.
>> But a server side process has nothing to do with any of this!
> The GPL and BSD/MIT licenses are very different. What you describe is copyleft.
> There's also the LGPL, which *may* be linked against or depended upon
> by non-GPL programs, but may *not* be extended or used to create
> non-GPL derivative works.
> And there's AGPL, which states that you may not use the software in
> network programs unless all those who use the software over a network
> *also* have access to the source. Ie, it's like GPL, with a broader
> definition of "distribution".
> The MIT and BSD licenses are much more liberal, and as far as I've
> ever seen, they're pretty much equivalent. They are not copyleft, and
> not viral. GPL is much less popular in the node community than MIT
> and BSD. The Apache license is similar in intent to MIT and BSD, but
> with additional language regarding copyrights an patents.
> All I'm saying is: saying "the point of open source" is like saying
> "the goal of american politics". There are a lot of different
> conflicting goals, and groups, and ideologies. Lumping it all into a
> single bucket loses a lot of details. In fact, many in the Free
> Software movement would object to even being associated with the term
> Open Source at all, since to them, it's more about freedom to modify
> and extend than having access to code, which is viewed as merely a
> means to an end.
>> I've already been told more than once to rethink/change my approach.
>> Seriously? I mean, let's get serious here. The only time I get snarky is
>> when people get pushy with their demands to just hand out something that has
>> resulted from years of torment. This just is not any old program. It just
>> isn't. Period.
> There's a pattern you're matching here, which I'm sure many of us have
> seen many times in software communities.
> "I have a really awesome killer idea. This is going to change
> everything! No, you can't see it. But it's going to be amazing.
> I've put *so much* time and effort into it. I've been slaving away
> for years. If you come join me (which you will have to be very
> motivated, lucky, and exceptional for me to allow you to do), then
> untold riches will be yours to share!"
> The pattern is:
> 1. Vague promises of paradigm shifting software of epic proportions.
> (The "Noble Ambition")
> 2. Self-congratulatory claims of effort and sacrifice that went into
> its production. (The "Quest")
> 3. A promise to share with a special few who are up to the challenge.
> 4. An resistance to sharing *any* relevant details. (When pressed,
> reacting with indignant objections regarding principles and
> propriety.)
> I've taken to think of this as the "Genius Martyr" syndrome. It
> doesn't always present with crippling insanity, but that is a common
> pathology. It isn't always a technical idea, either; sometimes it's a
> new way to handle governance in the group, or a revolutionary business
> plan (where they're refusing to take any investment), etc.
> It may be that there may come a time when some GM exhibits this
> pattern in a technical community, and does in fact have some awesome
> thing. Perhaps a few GMs have ideas which are actually worth more
> than the paper they refuse to print them on.
> If that time comes, if that idea shows up, and it's presented this
> way, I'll probably miss out on it. Why? Because in my years in
> software communities, 100% of the time that this pattern has presented
> (and it is sadly not rare at all), the result has been the same.
> A few people react with interest, which then of course leads to more
> hinting. Finally people start pushing for proof, at which time the GM
> lashes out defensively, claiming that the open source community is a
> bunch of greedy hippies who want something for nothing, or questioning
> the commitment or competence of those in the community to actually
> contribute to the Noble Ambition.
> In most cases, a flame war erupts and then the GM goes away
> eventually, or sticks around making trouble until they're eventually
> banned (or the community just gots to crap, which is sadly very
> common.) In a few cases, someone in the group will bait the GM by
> feigning interest, attempting to draw out the crazy for their
> entertainment.
> I'm sure that many of us have *been* a GM at one point or another in
> our lives. I know I have. It was embarrassing. I survived.
> As a person heavily invested in the Node.js community, I really don't
> want to see it devolve into pointless bickering and personal insults.
> We just can't have that. It's not good for anyone. It doesn't lead
> to creativity or good will, and it tends to keep out the most
> productive potential members.
> So, Dennis, if you are serious, and you actually have a great idea,
> you surely must realize that you need to go create something
> *tangible* and *visible* before anyone will take it seriously.
> Because, regardless of how talented, intelligent, insightful,
> passionate, driven, or *right* you may in fact be, as long as you
> *look* like a crazy person, people will think you're crazy. The more
> you scream "TAKE ME SERIOUSLY", the less they will. That's just how
> it works.
> If your goal is to generate publicity for your project, or to recruit
> others to your cause, then I think that the facts speak for
> themselves, that this is not effective. You can curse the world for
> failing to recognize your genius, but that won't make the world
> recognize your genius.
>> The only time I get snarky is
>> when people get pushy with their demands to just hand out something that has
>> resulted from years of torment. This just is not any old program. It just
>> isn't. Period.
> If that's the only time you get snarky, then you should not
> participate on this mailing list, because it is common practice here
> to demand and expect that bold claims come with compelling evidence,
> and excessive snark is not acceptable. No one cares how much torment
> went into your program. They care how much value comes out of it.
> Period.
Jesus, dude, thanks for the psychoanalysis. Anyone reading this
thread can see what turned into a slow moving train wreck. I posted
my thing and some people said: Cool! In the first post, I said
something about eventually doing an open source thing. Someone said:
"I want the source!" I said, "Haha you probably don't really want
it". People started getting serious about the holy node ecosystem and
chastising me for my tone. I started getting bitchy cause I found
myself having to defend myself about my politics (or rather my lack of
caring) rather than having fun with the issues that I really enjoy.
Haha whatevs...
Anyway Isaac, tl;dr.
Yes I'm trying to do something big. Big things are the only ones that
interest me. I'm trying to change the world, sorry. I have
psychological issues, so what? But I can program, dammit! Anyone
that wants to learn and help out is welcome. You have my site and my
email is on there.
I'm assuming that no one here is interested in NatLang issues or how
to implement them in Javascript?!
On Apr 28, 9:31 am, Isaac Schlueter <i...@izs.me> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2012 at 10:53, Dennis Kane <dkan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Let's all remember what open source is really all about. A program is
> > called closed source if it is distributed in binary format only. The open
> > source movement makes the demand that one cannot distribute a binary program
> > using, for example, GPL'ed code without also making the source code
> > available.
> > But a server side process has nothing to do with any of this!
> The GPL and BSD/MIT licenses are very different. What you describe is copyleft.
> There's also the LGPL, which *may* be linked against or depended upon
> by non-GPL programs, but may *not* be extended or used to create
> non-GPL derivative works.
> And there's AGPL, which states that you may not use the software in
> network programs unless all those who use the software over a network
> *also* have access to the source. Ie, it's like GPL, with a broader
> definition of "distribution".
> The MIT and BSD licenses are much more liberal, and as far as I've
> ever seen, they're pretty much equivalent. They are not copyleft, and
> not viral. GPL is much less popular in the node community than MIT
> and BSD. The Apache license is similar in intent to MIT and BSD, but
> with additional language regarding copyrights an patents.
> All I'm saying is: saying "the point of open source" is like saying
> "the goal of american politics". There are a lot of different
> conflicting goals, and groups, and ideologies. Lumping it all into a
> single bucket loses a lot of details. In fact, many in the Free
> Software movement would object to even being associated with the term
> Open Source at all, since to them, it's more about freedom to modify
> and extend than having access to code, which is viewed as merely a
> means to an end.
> > I've already been told more than once to rethink/change my approach.
> > Seriously? I mean, let's get serious here. The only time I get snarky is
> > when people get pushy with their demands to just hand out something that has
> > resulted from years of torment. This just is not any old program. It just
> > isn't. Period.
> There's a pattern you're matching here, which I'm sure many of us have
> seen many times in software communities.
> "I have a really awesome killer idea. This is going to change
> everything! No, you can't see it. But it's going to be amazing.
> I've put *so much* time and effort into it. I've been slaving away
> for years. If you come join me (which you will have to be very
> motivated, lucky, and exceptional for me to allow you to do), then
> untold riches will be yours to share!"
> The pattern is:
> 1. Vague promises of paradigm shifting software of epic proportions.
> (The "Noble Ambition")
> 2. Self-congratulatory claims of effort and sacrifice that went into
> its production. (The "Quest")
> 3. A promise to share with a special few who are up to the challenge.
> 4. An resistance to sharing *any* relevant details. (When pressed,
> reacting with indignant objections regarding principles and
> propriety.)
> I've taken to think of this as the "Genius Martyr" syndrome. It
> doesn't always present with crippling insanity, but that is a common
> pathology. It isn't always a technical idea, either; sometimes it's a
> new way to handle governance in the group, or a revolutionary business
> plan (where they're refusing to take any investment), etc.
> It may be that there may come a time when some GM exhibits this
> pattern in a technical community, and does in fact have some awesome
> thing. Perhaps a few GMs have ideas which are actually worth more
> than the paper they refuse to print them on.
> If that time comes, if that idea shows up, and it's presented this
> way, I'll probably miss out on it. Why? Because in my years in
> software communities, 100% of the time that this pattern has presented
> (and it is sadly not rare at all), the result has been the same.
> A few people react with interest, which then of course leads to more
> hinting. Finally people start pushing for proof, at which time the GM
> lashes out defensively, claiming that the open source community is a
> bunch of greedy hippies who want something for nothing, or questioning
> the commitment or competence of those in the community to actually
> contribute to the Noble Ambition.
> In most cases, a flame war erupts and then the GM goes away
> eventually, or sticks around making trouble until they're eventually
> banned (or the community just gots to crap, which is sadly very
> common.) In a few cases, someone in the group will bait the GM by
> feigning interest, attempting to draw out the crazy for their
> entertainment.
> I'm sure that many of us have *been* a GM at one point or another in
> our lives. I know I have. It was embarrassing. I survived.
> As a person heavily invested in the Node.js community, I really don't
> want to see it devolve into pointless bickering and personal insults.
> We just can't have that. It's not good for anyone. It doesn't lead
> to creativity or good will, and it tends to keep out the most
> productive potential members.
> So, Dennis, if you are serious, and you actually have a great idea,
> you surely must realize that you need to go create something
> *tangible* and *visible* before anyone will take it seriously.
> Because, regardless of how talented, intelligent, insightful,
> passionate, driven, or *right* you may in fact be, as long as you
> *look* like a crazy person, people will think you're crazy. The more
> you scream "TAKE ME SERIOUSLY", the less they will. That's just how
> it works.
> If your goal is to generate publicity for your project, or to recruit
> others to your cause, then I think that the facts speak for
> themselves, that this is not effective. You can curse the world for
> failing to recognize your genius, but that won't make the world
> recognize your genius.
> > The only time I get snarky is
> > when people get pushy with their demands to just hand out something that has
> > resulted from years of torment. This just is not any old program. It just
> > isn't. Period.
> If that's the only time you get snarky, then you should not
> participate on this mailing list, because it is common practice here
> to demand and expect that bold claims come with compelling evidence,
> and excessive snark is not acceptable. No one cares how much torment
> went into your program. They care how much value comes out of it.
> Period.
On Sat, Apr 28, 2012 at 10:32, Dennis Kane <dkan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'm assuming that no one here is interested in NatLang issues or how
> to implement them in Javascript?!
On the contrary, everyone's pretty interested. That's why they asked
you to show it off.
As you said yourself, previous explorations in this area have been
somewhat underwhelming. If you're not going to share anything about
your approach that differentiates it, from any others, then why should
anyone think it's any different?
A lot of people say they are going to change the world. Almost none
of them do. We're just playing the odds here.
I wasn't trying to psychoanalyze you, or claim that you're crazy. I
don't have nearly enough data or expertise to do that. I'm just
telling you that what you're doing matches a pattern, so it's a fair
guess that that's how people are interpreting it, accurately or not.
So, break the pattern. Do a different thing. Back up your bold
claims with compelling evidence. Don't ask the world to come to you,
go out and make something that *proves* you're worth taking seriously.
Don't be just another martyred genius.
