Slashdot Mirror

Hugh Pickens writes "Dr. Jeffrey H. Toney writes that a team of biomedical engineers at the University of Pittsburgh led by Henry Zeringue have managed to grow an active brain in a dish, complete with memories by culturing brain cells capable of forming networks, complete with biological signals. To produce the models, the Pitt team stamped adhesive proteins onto silicon discs. Once the proteins were cultured and dried, cultured hippocampus cells from embryonic rats were fused to the proteins and then given time to grow and connect to form a natural network. The researchers disabled the cells' inhibitory response and excited the neurons with an electrical pulse which were then able to sustain the resulting burst of network activity for up to what in neuronal time is 12 long seconds compared to the natural duration of .25 seconds. The ability of the brain to hold information 'online' long after an initiating stimulus is a hallmark of brain areas such as the prefrontal cortex. The team will next work to understand the underlying factors that govern network communication and stimulation, such as the various electrical pathways between cells and the genetic makeup of individual cells. 'This is amazing,' writes Toney. 'I wonder what the "memory" could be — could be a good subject for a science fiction story.'"

Chinobi writes "Di Gao, an assistant professor at the Department of Chemical and Petroleum Engineering at the University of Pittsburgh, has developed a method of separating oil from water within just seconds using a cotton cloth coated in a chemical polymer that makes it both hydrophilic (it bonds with the hydrogen atoms in water) and oleophobic (oil-repelling), making it absolutely perfect for blocking oil and letting water pass through. Gao tested his filter successfully on Gulf Oil water and oil and has an impressive video to demonstrate the results." This is a laboratory demonstration; the technology hasn't been tested at scale.

theodp writes "Many US colleges and universities have notices posted on their websites informing US companies that they're tax chumps if they hire students who are US citizens. 'In fact, a company may save money by hiring international students because the majority of them are exempt from Social Security (FICA) and Medicare tax requirements,' advises the taxpayer-supported University of Pittsburgh (pdf) as it makes the case against hiring its own US students. You'll find identical pitches made by the University of Delaware, the University of Cincinnati, Kansas State University, the University of Southern California, the University of Wisconsin, Iowa State University, and other public colleges and universities. The same message is also echoed by private schools, such as John Hopkins University, Brown University, Rollins College and Loyola University Chicago."

Frequent Slashdot contributor Bennett Haselton writes "The Virginia Supreme Court has ruled that the state's anti-spam law, which prohibits the sending of bulk e-mail using falsified or forged headers, violates the First Amendment because it also applies to non-commercial political or religious speech. I agree that an anti-spam law should not outlaw anonymous non-commercial speech. But the decision contains statements about IP addresses, domain names, and anonymity that are rather basically wrong, and which may enable the state to win on appeal. The two basic errors are: concluding that anonymous speech on the Internet requires forged headers or other falsified information (and therefore that a ban on forged headers is an unconstitutional ban on anonymous speech), and assuming that use of forged headers actually does conceal the IP address that the message was sent from, which it does not." Click that magical little link below to read the rest of his story.
The first 20 pages of the decision, which are all about legal standing, jurisdiction, and overbreadth, made my eyes glaze over. I'm not analyzing those at all except to point out that on most of those issues, the lower court came to exactly the opposite conclusion from that of the Virginia Supreme Court, and there is no reason to think that the higher court is any more likely to be "correct" than the lower court (even granting the assumption that there is an objectively "correct" answer to these questions). Any time you feel intimidated by "experts," it's helpful to step back and ask whether the alleged experts even agree with each other.

Page 21 is where the technical stuff starts that we can tear apart directly. The decision says, in talking about the transmission of e-mail:

The IP address and domain name do not directly identify the sender, but if the IP address or domain name is acquired from a registering organization, a database search of the address or domain name can eventually lead to the contact information on file with the registration organizations. A sender's IP address or domain name which is not registered will not prevent the transmission of the e-mail; however, the identity of the sender may not be discoverable through a database search and use of registration contact information.

These are statements that are only true if you play some kind of parlor game to find a way to read them as "true," not statements that indicate the court knew what was going on. To review: IP addresses in the U.S. are generally allocated by ARIN in blocks to Internet service providers and Web hosting companies; these companies then lease the IP addresses to their customers. You can look up an IP address with ARIN to determine which ISP or hosting company has been assigned that particular block, but the ISP or hosting company generally won't tell you the identity of their customer who has leased it from them. And anybody can register a domain, but most domain registrars give you the option of registering the domain anonymously, so that only the registrar knows the owner's true identity. So the court's statement that a database search "can eventually lead" to contact information is correct only if you clarify that it "can" lead there, but it usually won't. As a finding of fact, this is 100% true, and about as useful as "Obama might win in November. Or he might not."

But it's impossible to defend what the court says next:

As shown by the record, because e-mail transmission protocol requires entry of an IP address and domain name for the sender, the only way such a speaker can publish an anonymous e-mail is to enter a false IP address or domain name. Therefore ... registered IP addresses and domain names discoverable through searchable data bases and registration documents "necessarily result[] in a surrender of [the speaker's] anonymity."

Now, there are two possible definitions of "anonymity" to consider: (1) you can be anonymous to the extent that ordinary citizens reading your content cannot determine your identity without a subpoena; or (2) you can be anonymous to the extent that even the government, armed with subpoenas and wiretaps, can never find out who you are. But under either interpretation of the word, the court's statement that "the only way such a speaker can publish an anonymous e-mail is to enter a false IP address or domain name," is wrong.

By default, almost all Internet users are already anonymous in the first sense, even without using forged headers or other tricks in their e-mails. When you send e-mail through your own Internet service provider's mail server, or when you log on to Hotmail and send messages from a Hotmail account, or when you lease a dedicated server from a Web hosting company and use it to send mails, the messages don't contain any more information about your true identity than you decide to put in them. Only the government could ordinarily discover your identity in those cases, by looking at the IP address that the message was sent from, and subpoenaing the Internet service provider or hosting company for the identity of the person using that IP address at that time.

But there are even ways to be anonymous in the second sense -- such that not even the government could identify you -- without resorting to forged e-mail headers. You can create Hotmail and Gmail accounts without giving the providers any of your true information. When you send messages through those services, they pass along the IP address that you used to connect to their Web sites, but you can obscure your IP address as well, by using an anonymizing proxy or a service like Tor.

Elsewhere in their decision, the court indicated that what they really wanted to protect was the right to send anonymous bulk e-mails that were political or otherwise non-commercial. But even by that standard, it's still possible to use Hotmail and Gmail together with an anonymizing proxy (the mail services do impose limits on how many messages each account can send in a day, but if you want to send bulk mails badly enough, you can always sign up for multiple accounts). And if you only care about staying beyond the reach of U.S. subpoena power, you can always sign up for a dedicated host overseas and send the bulk mails from there.

Apart from the court's misstatement that forged headers are the only way to publish anonymously in e-mail, there is the incorrect presumption that forged headers actually do afford anonymity in either of the senses given above. The court wrote, "[T]he only way such a speaker can publish an anonymous e-mail is to enter a false IP address or domain name." But while it is possible to enter any domain you want in your return e-mail address when you send an e-mail, the court apparently didn't know what it was talking about when it referred to "entering a false IP address." You can't just "enter" any arbitrary IP address when sending an e-mail. If user@domain name.com receives an e-mail, the mail server at domain name.com has to receive the message over a connection made from some other machine, and the domain name.com mail server can always see the IP address of the machine on the other end of the connection. Normally, this machine on the other end would be the mail server of the sender's Internet service provider. Or if the sender has leased a dedicated machine at a hosting company, that dedicated machine would be the one connecting to the domain name.com mail server. Some desktop spamming programs let you turn your home computer into the sending mail server, so that it connects directly with the remote mail server to send the message. In all of these cases, the receiving mail server can see the IP address of the sending machine, so a government subpoena would usually be enough to determine the sender's identity. (I know you all know this, but I have delusions that some helpful clerk will print out this article and explain this to the judge.)

When spammers "enter" false IP addresses in sending mails, that usually means entering made-up IP addresses in headers that are sent along with the contents of the message. However, these would normally only have the effect of throwing someone off the trail who opened the message sent to user@domain name.com and was reading the headers manually. Perhaps they would see some random IP addresses scattered in the headers, would go to ARIN and look up the hosting company or ISP that those IP addresses were assigned to, and would mistakenly file a complaint with that company. But the domain name.com server can always see the true IP address that the message was received from, and for people who know how to read the headers properly, that IP address will be indicated in the headers as the address that connected to the domain name.com mail server to send the mail.

So the court's statement that "the only way such a speaker can publish an anonymous e-mail is to enter a false IP address or domain name" is doubly wrong: because it's easy to send e-mails anonymously without using forged headers, and because forged headers do not in fact provide the level of anonymity that the court said should be protected anyway. The only way to truly obscure your identity by hijacking a third-party IP address without permission, would be to hack into a third party's computer, by infecting a user's home computer with a Trojan horse for example, and using it to send mail. Presumably the court was not contemplating that such an activity should be considered legal, even as a means of sending political speech.

It would presumably be unconstitutional for an anti-spam law to prohibit anonymous political e-mails which attempted to hide the sender's identity -- that is after all what "anonymous" means! You couldn't pass a law outlawing Tor, for example. But the Virginia law doesn't apply to senders merely trying to hide their identity, it applies only to the use of computers "to falsify or forge electronic mail transmission information or other routing information in any manner in connection with the transmission of unsolicited bulk electronic mail" (emphasis added). There is a difference between obscuring one's identity (which Tor and anonymous remailers allow you to do), and actively trying to frame an existing third party by using forged headers to make the mail appear that it came from somewhere else, especially when sending bulk mail, which is likely to generate complaints whether it's commercial or not.

By contrast, the Washington anti-spam law prohibits any mail which "misrepresents or obscures" the origin of the message (emphasis added). This is broader and could be construed to include a wider range of things, such as the use of overseas IP addresses to send bulk mail on behalf of a U.S. company, or the use of anonymously registered domains to hide the sender's identity. It would probably be unconstitutional to prohibit these obscuring techniques for non-commercial anonymous e-mail, which is why the Washington law specifically applies only to commercial messages.

But here I'm getting into issues like constitutional law where different experts might disagree. The clear-cut technical fact is that, contrary to the court's ruling, forged e-mail headers do not provide true anonymity when sending mail, whereas there are other, legal, ways of sending mail that do make the sender truly anonymous.

What is frustrating about the court's misstatements about IP addresses, domain names, and anonymity, is that the judge is obviously intelligent and could have understood the concepts if they had been explained correctly to him. I held some misconceptions for a long time myself about domain names and IP addresses, because the first explanations I read were incomplete or wrong, or I didn't understand them. But the mistakes in the ruling would have been caught if the judge had just showed a draft to an Internet guru and said, "Hey, can you check if there's anything wrong here?" I know, I know, that's "just not done" (and there are probably formal rules in most states against showing a draft of a ruling to a third party before publishing it, even if the third party reviewer is sworn to secrecy, as they should be). But there's nothing stopping the judge from asking a technical expert during the trial, "It seems to me that the only way to publish anonymously on the Internet would be to use forged headers in e-mail. Can you tell me if that's right before I go too far down that line of reasoning?"

I've appeared before judges in Small Claims court who did ask questions about any part of the technical issues that they wanted to understand, and were even willing to revise some prior misconceptions. But all of them, even the open-minded ones, proceed by gathering information during the trial, and then in the conclusion, spell out their argument and their ruling (during which time you're not allowed to interrupt), which is then set in stone unless you appeal. I've never seen a judge say, "Here's the line of reasoning in my head right now, and my tentative conclusion. Is there anything in that chain of reasoning that you want to dispute, before I make it final? I am not promising to change my mind just because you disagree with something. But I will take it into account." This is essentially what scientists do when they submit their papers for peer review before publishing them, to minimize the chance of making an error. Judges could do the same thing -- if not formally, because they're not allowed to show opinions to third parties, then at least informally, by running their ideas past the experts assembled in their courtroom -- to reduce the chance of making a mistake. But have you ever heard of a judge doing that?

The Virginia judges probably did about as well as one could be expected to do, having learned all these technical terms only recently, and then withdrawing to their chambers to form an argument without any feedback from any technical experts. So, given the technical howlers that ended up in the ruling, the moral is that forming an argument in isolation from experts is probably not the right way to go about it.

himicos was one of many readers to point out one recent success of scientists working to develop working brain-machine interfaces, writing "A team at the university of Pittsburgh has finally advanced a 2002 technology enough for use in prosthetic limbs, the targeted application all along. Training computer models to the firing patterns of the neurons in the parts of the brain that control motion, they are able to project the intentions of a monkey to a robotic arm, which follows the will of the animal. The sad thing about the articles is that the beauty of the mathematics used to create and train the models is totally ignored." Reader phpmysqldev adds a link to coverage at the BBC, and writes "This of course brings significant hope to amputees and other other people with physical disabilities." (Note that this research has been going on for quite some time.)

eldavojohn writes "PhysOrg is covering an interesting year-old paper that proposes an alternative six-dimensional theory of space and time. George Sparling's proposition, based on Einstein's general relativity and Elie Cartan's triality, is a twistor space (which I've only read of in Roger Penrose's latest work). The gist is that space-time is modeled not by four dimensions but by six, and that the extra two dimensions are time-like. Sparling is hoping that tests from the Large Hadron Collider will help prove his theory. The paper is heavy but the PhysOrg article summarizes it nicely."

AnamanFan writes "Many years ago an easter egg was uncovered on the MacOS System 7.1 CD included with the Quadra 660av and 840av machines. A 91mb MOV file shows the Cyclone/Tempest team celebrating with a nice pirate flag in the background. Don't have your old System 7.1 CD from your Quadra? It's now available online, or if you'd like to you're welcome to use the Torrent."

AnamanFan writes "Many years ago an easter egg was uncovered on the MacOS System 7.1 CD included with the Quadra 660av and 840av machines. A 91mb MOV file shows the Cyclone/Tempest team celebrating with a nice pirate flag in the background. Don't have your old System 7.1 CD from your Quadra? It's now available online, or if you'd like to you're welcome to use the Torrent."

noims writes "Sunday is the one hundredth anniversary of the birth of John Von Neumann, the man with one of the strongest claims to the title of Father of Modern Computing. Although, as noted at the time by Mark Stanley of Freefall, several sources indicate that it may have been December 3rd." Update: 12/28 01:07 GMT by T : deja206 writes "Today (December 28, CET) also is Linus Torvalds' 34th birthday. Now we probably wouldn't be here talking about all this stuff if it weren't for him. Thank you for Linux, happy birthday!"

legolas writes "ABC News has a story on a new blood sugar monitoring tool being developed for diabetics by the University of Pittsburgh. Using special "photonic crystals" (materials that change colours in the presence of specific chemicals), Dr. Asher's group is developing contact lenses that change colour in response to the blood sugar level in the diabetic's tears. Instead of needles, the diabetic need only a mirror." Maybe the insulin can be stored there too.

Pray_4_Mojo asks: "I'm an engineering student at the University of Pittsburgh, and I'm currently taking a required class known as 'Computer Interfacing'. While I enjoy the instructor, I find most of the material to be severely dated. We will spend the majority of the class covering RS232/XMODEM/Token Ring means of computer-to-computer communication. Almost no mention of USB, Firewire, or IRDa is made within the class. I am trying to convince my professor that this material is relevant, as these types of interfaces will be dominate in the world we future grads will be working in. As an example, I demonstrated that the keycard access system to gain access to the Interfacing Lab has a USB port for data download/firmware programming. The professor seems interested, but it seems that I need to convince the department to revise the course requirements. Has anyone attempted to modernize their CS/Engineering program and met with success?"

Jonathan Jessup writes "This is an update to a story you reported on about two years ago. There were many requests for Alandale to release the source code to Dungeon Master Java and now he has released the source code on the Dungeon Master Java site. Dungeon Master was an all time classic RPG game first released in 1987 that made monumentous improvements in user interface design in gaming, and many other improvements. If you read the slashdot comments on the last article, there are a few good posts on what the game changed for the industry and its lasting legacy." I loved Dungeon Master.

Major news Web sites routinely rewrite stories after they are published, sometimes so heavily that they only bear a glancing resemblance to what was posted earlier. This CNN/Money article about the penalty phase of the Microsoft trial is a prime example. What you see at the other end of the link is quite different from the story that first appeared at that URL. Even the headline and byline have changed. But CNN/Money managing editor Allen Wastler says there is nothing wrong with this practice, even though there is no indication on the site that the article was heavily modified after it first appeared. To see how radically this story was changed after Slashdot linked to it, check this snapshot of the original, provided by Slashdot reader John Harrold.

The second iteration was more favorable -- or at least less unfavorable -- to Microsoft than the original, but Wastler denies any Microsoft involvement in the change. "Advertisers do not interfere with our content," he says, and notes that neither he nor any other CNN/Money editors were contacted by Microsoft about this story. He does say, though, that the later version was "more balanced" than the earlier one.

In my experience, Microsoft PR people are not capable of reacting to anything as quickly as this story changed, so the chance of a conspiracy here is about zero. As for Wastler's "more balanced" comment, that is his judgement, and you are free to agree or disagree with it. (I'm sure some Slashdot readers will say he is correct, and others will say he is not. Editorial decisions never please everyone.)

"Writethroughs" are Routine in Online News

In the news business, stories that change after the originals run are called "writethroughs." This practice originated with wire services like UPI, AP, and Reuters, who might send subscribing editors a story with the headline, "Office building on fire in downtown Cleveland," followed by one or two paragraphs of copy, with progressively longer versions of the same story coming through the wire, hour by hour, as reporters on the scene gather more information.

Wastler says CNN/Money readers look at his site "like a wire service" and expect stories to change over the course of a day. As an example, during our phone conversation he pointed me to a recently posted CNN/Money story with the headline, U.S. productivity soars, and noted that this story might be updated and expanded several times, so that "by the end of the day, it might become a magazine length feature."

Online News Association President Bruce Koon says, via email, "Writethroughs are very common nowadays among news sites, from MSNBC to CBSMarketWatch to CNN. Pretty standard practice nowadays to freshen headlines and leads as new developments occur. Some sites have labels such as 'update' or 'breaking news' but it varies. For top stories, I don't see that kind of labeling." In his day job, Koon is Executive News Editor for Knight Ridder Digital, so he ought to know.

I was not aware that this practice was routine in the online news business until a few days ago. Old-style wire service writethroughs were as specific as a rigorously kept programmer's changelog, right down to paragraph and line number. Maybe I'm naive, but if I am going to trust a news source, I expect that same level of care in story updates, or at least something like News.com's corrections page, which lets readers know what changes, if any, have been made to published stories before they are archived.

What's the Difference Between an Update and a Correction?

I doubt that most news site readers know the story they are seeing at the moment they read it is not necessarily the same as the story that was published earlier at the same URL -- unless we tell them. We run the risk of getting into the habit of "getting it first" at the expense of "getting it right" if we start thinking, "Well, we can fix it later, so let's go with what we have now even if it's not confirmed as carefully as we'd really like."

This is not the same as running a story that begins by saying something like, "An unconfirmed statement by...," followed by a later story that either confirms or denies the original statement, and it is not the same as an Update notice added to the original story when it is expanded or corrected. At CNN/Money, when a story is updated it gets a fresh time/date stamp, and Wastler says that's plenty. The problem with this is that someone reading the latest version who didn't see the previous one has no way to know that an earlier -- possibly incorrect -- version ever existed.

Columbia University journalism professor Sreenath Sreenivasan (AKA Sree) says, "You really need to make it clear to your readers if your stories have been changed or updated." He makes his students do that on Columbia's Web sites, even though some of them complain that commercial news sites, where many of them hope to work after graduation, wouldn't necessarily make them take this extra step.

Sree feels strongly that if a Web site changes a news story, for whatever reason, it should put, "'last updated at' or something like that" along with the original publication time and date.

More Analysis of the CNN/Money Story Example

Andrew Nachison, of the American Press Institute's Media Center, took a close look at our original CNN/Money example and gave us this analysis:

The Microsoft trial story on CNN looks like a typical write-thru of an earlier story, with new information from afternoon events. The morning's top news, that a Microsoft witness had trouble answering some questions, got bumped lower in the story as other witnesses testified later in the day. On its face, no big deal.

However, CNN did a disservice to its audience - especially the audience paying close attention to that particular story - by failing to explain the changes. A brief note would have helped, or a link to a journal of update notes for the story, so users - like newspaper wire editors - could, in a glance, understand how the story had changed from previous versions.

Something else would have helped CNN's audience: if CNN had an obvious, standard policy for publishing update notes that the audience expected and was used to.

What's most remarkable to me is that we're well into the digital publishing era but most digital news providers have yet to develop clear standards for how to handle updates and notes about updates so users are better informed. Publishers need to do this for two reasons: first, to better serve their audiences (which should translate into credibility with the audience) and second, to promote expectations and standards that audiences can come to expect of all credible news providers.

Errors that require corrections add a whole different level of challenge to digital publishing. Today it's virtually impossible to erase a mistake once it's published online. Web browsers call up cached versions stored on hard drives, some sites intentionally archive Web sites for historical research, and Internet service providers like AOL cache popular pages to speed service to customers. So AOL customers may hit a cached version of a story that contains errors corrected in a subsequent version that has yet to be cached by the AOL servers.

If online news publishers truly have their audience's best interests in mind then they should go out of their way to alert the audience to corrections and to make it clear when an update corrects previously published errors. They need to set the record straight.

University of Florida journalism professor Mindy McAdams has also looked at our example story. She says:

Updating the story in real time without noting that it has been changed: That's okay by me, in principle. But in this case, it's really very different.

I would be inclined to believe the Money.CNN folks who told you it's no big deal -- for them. In other words, I do NOT believe it's sneaky or anything like that.

But for the rest of the world (non-journalists), this MUST be very confusing!

I asked Wastler if CNN/Money had ever thought about archiving older story versions as new ones appeared, and linking from the new versions to the older, archived ones. He said, "The name of the game is speed, getting [stories] up on the site." He talked of the sheer number of stories a site like his publishes daily, and how loading any more work on his editorial staff, like moving old story versions to an archive, "would bog things down." I pointed out that this was something a simple script could do with a single "replace story/move old story to archive" click from an editor, and his reply was, "Well, I am not as technical as you... I don't know about that."

(This was not a hostile conversation. Wastler reads Slashdot now and then and likes it, and says, "My tech guys love Slashdot." Perhaps one of you Slashdot-reading CNN tech guys could talk to Wastler and other CNN editors about automatic story versioning. Wastler said that because of syndication deals and inbound links, his main concern was keeping a stable URL for each story even if went through a series of updates. This should not be hard to arrange.)

Future Directions for Online News

In a followup email, Bruce Koon said the idea of constant story updates on the Internet should not surprise anyone. His exact words:

How is the model different from TV or radio broadcast news? As news gets reported as it's happening, facts are going to change, new developments are happening. If anything, we've been trying to get newspapers away from this notion that they print once. The Internet is about continuous updates and reporting.

Also, unlike Slashdot or other new forms of information gathering and reporting, news audiences only go to a news site a few times a day to read what the latest news is. Most seem to know that the version of the story they're reading now is different from what they read before, just as they know the top of the hour report on the radio news may be different from what they heard two hours earlier.

Based on Koon's statement, the long term question seems to be whether Internet news evolution should be based on a broadcast model, with broadcast-style immediacy as its most important goal, or whether it should be based on a print model that assumes we are writing the "first rough draft of history" so that what we say today has archival significance tomorrow.

I think the two patterns are going to coexist, and rather than "convergence" we are going to see a gradual divergence between the two as "Internet news" simply becomes "news" instead of being seen as different or separate from other media. Watching how readers (viewers?) react to this change (assuming they notice it at all) over the next decade or so is going to be interesting.

A big part of the change is going to be figuring out how to maintain audience trust when it is so easy to digitally morph stories, pictures and almost anything else into states that are far different from their original ones. As Nachison points out, despite the apparently transitory nature of online news, nothing on the Internet ever quite goes away. It is all archived or cached somewhere once it gets into digital form, whether it was originally prepared for delivery on the Internet, on printed pages or for cable or over-the-air broadcast.

Professor Sreenivasan says, "We're all in the early days of this business. We need to evolve standards."

That we do. But is the "we" who evolves standards going to be the people who read (or view) the news or is "we" going to be the people who produce it? And that leads to another question: Where will we draw the line between reporters and readers/viewers, or will we even bother to differentiate between them, when PDAs with broadband wireless connections and built-in digital video cameras become common, everyday consumer items?

thegrommit writes: "It seems someone has been hacking the UT OpenGL driver to produce a relatively cheap VR environment. " It's really just another Cave thing, but it's still something to lust after. Imagine using a treadmill instead of pushing the up arrow. If only I was attached to my general pear-like shape.

Jonathan J. writes "Back in 1987 an all-time classic RPG game came out called Dungeon Master. It defined gui for that type of rpg to this day. It's still fun to play. Chaos Strikes back (1989) was the first sequel, and D.M. 2 came out in 1995 (dm2 was the least exciting, for me). There are a lot of very loyal fans of the first two, like myself. Please announce that Dungeon Master Java is out, it's free! The graphics are greatly improved and it's a whole new game with new content! There is also a level editor included. For more information about the game check the Dungeon Master Encyclopedia website " I can distinctly remember many hour spent playing this game in the basement of my friend's house - in between Alamaze and Monster Island - 'course I'm still playing the latter two, so it might be time to play the former again as well.

When you "purchase" software, what do you get? Increasingly, the answer is: nothing. Nothing tangible; no rights; and no resale value. This rant is spurred by Microsoft's changes to its distribution policy for all future editions of Windows. No longer will you receive a CD which is capable of installing the operating system with your new computer - Original Equipment Manufacturers are forbidden to ship you one, even though you just paid ~$100 for the software, and even though the change makes customers less than happy. Meanwhile, Adobe's chairman has the gall to tell us it's our own fault. I take a look at the future of software licensing.

MS's most recent abuses of its customers are just the latest in a series of increasing restrictions. OEM's are no longer permitted to include full-capability Windows disks with new machines - instead, what you'll get is either a disk image on your hard drive or an image on a "recovery CD". The "recovery CD" must be crippled so that it won't run on any hardware except that specific machine.

So what you bought is either some extra bits on your hard drive (sure hope you didn't want to use the full capacity of the drive; sure hope your disk doesn't fail) or a nearly-useless CD which is solely capable of restoring your PC to its original state - you'll have to backup and restore all of your data, reinstall all other software, re-change all settings you've customized, etc., if you ever use that CD. But you're a Microsoft customer [motto: "Your time isn't worth a bucket of warm spit to us"], so get used to it.

If you did something foolish, like swap in a new hard drive, or a new motherboard, well, I'm sorry, but you've lost any ability to restore your Microsoft operating system. And naturally, of course, you won't be able to copy it to another computer - even if you delete it from the first one. You can't sell it, you can't lend it, hell, you can barely use it yourself. Office 2000 with its forced registration procedure is much the same, and we're now getting submissions about this from people who didn't catch stories last year about it. Office 2000 binds itself to your system with the registration in exactly the same way as the "Recovery" CDs must be bound by the OEM to the system they ship.

The main effect of this will be to eliminate the concept of "used software". Software vendors like this; they can sell more retail copies if there's no aftermarket.

Generally, copyrighted works are governed by what is known as the "first sale" doctrine. This means that once the copyright owner has sold the item the first time, they lose all control over it - it can be resold without limitation. This matter originally came up when a book publisher was trying to prevent Macy's from selling books at a discount price. Essentially, the publisher (Scribner and Sons, still in business today) had a nice scheme going where it set "minimum" prices for its books. In fact, the scheme is practically identical to the scheme that music publishers have going today, and that software publishers like Microsoft are now moving to.

A brief quote from one of the cases:

The appellant is the owner of the copyright upon 'The Castaway,' obtained on the 18th day of May, 1904, in conformity to the copyright statutes of the United States. Printed immediately below the copyright notice, on the page in the book following the title page, is inserted the following notice:

The price of this book at retail is $1 net. No dealer is licensed to sell it at a less price, and a sale at a less price will be treated as an infringement of the copyright.

The Bobbs-Merrill Company.

I know what you're thinking. You're thinking, "That sounds just like a shrinkwrap license on software! Or it sounds like what the giants of the music industry [Sony, Time-Warner, MCA, Polygram, Bertelsmann and EMI Music] do with their 'Minimum Advertised Price' policies, which has resulted in a class-action suit and an ongoing FTC investigation!" Am I right?

So how did the Court look at this particular issue?

What does the statute mean in granting 'the sole right of vending the same?' Was it intended to create a right which would permit the holder of the copyright to fasten, by notice [210 U.S. 339, 350] in a book or upon one of the articles mentioned within the statute, a restriction upon the subsequent alienation [transfer of property] of the subject-matter of copyright after the owner had parted with the title to one who had acquired full dominion over it and had given a satisfactory price for it? It is not denied that one who has sold a copyrighted article, without restriction, has parted with all right to control the sale of it. The purchaser of a book, once sold by authority of the owner of the copyright, may sell it again, although he could not publish a new edition of it.

Software publishers have this in mind. So they don't actually "sell" anything at all. If you make a contract to license something, the terms can be anything that a court doesn't regard as "unconscionable" - whatever the other party demands. So in fact copyright has almost nothing to do with the "sale" of commercial software products - companies could just as easily license to you software written by, say, the Federal Government (which would be in the public domain) They don't need copyright at all, since the contract alone is sufficient to bind your permitted activities, if the courts say a binding contract has been created.

The idea here is to get away from copyright, because copyright has all those nasty exceptions carved out by the legal system such as the "first sale" doctrine. But if you license something rather than sell it... and if you can cripple it with technology so that regardless of what the law says, the product can't be resold... ahhh, then you're in business!

Why have courts permitted software licensing to usurp copyright? Why do book-title-page-licenses not bind you but back-of-a-software-box-licenses do? Why doesn't the purchase of a copyrighted piece of software entitle you to do just about anything with it except sell copies, just like the purchase of a book does? It's a long story, but basically, I think it's because the first cases to hit the court system looked a lot like standard corporate contract disputes rather than mass-market sales. Individuals have only started purchasing software at retail within the last ten years or so. And now that people have caught on that this is a Bad Thing, we get laws like UCITA, designed to expressly legitimize these sorts of licenses. Remember that UCITA applies to software-hardware combinations as well, so your next PC might have a license agreement applying to the hardware.

But back to what started this rant. Microsoft's licensing. Microsoft has wanted for some years to move to a rental system, where not only do you not actually purchase anything for them, you get to pay for nothing every year. (In fact, they delayed the announcement of it so it wouldn't overlap with the anti-trust decision - might look bad to be simultaneously losing an anti-trust suit and announcing how you were going to get millions of people to rent software from you.) That way they can extract truly maximal profits from their operating system - raise the rents when it seems appropriate, cut sweetheart rental deals with some companies and viciously expensive ones with others, depending on whether or not you testified for the DOJ...

Microsoft has a couple of goals here, you see. Getting shrinkwrap licenses validated by the legal system allows them to control pricing in much the same manner as Scribner and Sons' attempt at book-wrap licensing. And building protective technological measures into their software, such as the OEM system-lock for the operating system or Office 2000's single-system registration procedure, allows them to get around the first sale doctrine - you could sell the item, copyright law says you can, but you can't sell it, because the software won't work for anyone else.

At a minimum, you could donate it to a charity or school when you're no longer using it and get a tax break. But that Windows 2000 Recovery CD or an already-registered Office 2000 CD are just coasters. Microsoft, of course, can cheerfully continue to donate software licenses and take tax write-offs for the full retail price of the software, a strategy which saves them hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes every year at a cost to them of approximately zero. And don't you dare to try to circumvent those controls in order to exercise your legal right to resell the software - that's a violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, I doubt you want to spend five years in prison.

In a non-monopoly marketplace, the fact these two products are worth a lot less to you than their predecessors would force a reduction in price. Instead, Microsoft raised the prices on both. Lawyers have considered the interplay of contract, copyright, and technological restrictions - here's a paper, here's another - but the time is long past for this issue to be considered by the public.

And that's why the threats of Adobe chairman Warnock are the last straw. Microsoft and all the other familiar names in commercial software have been increasing their restrictions for years. It doesn't have anything to do with piracy; we're

"...going to have a piece of music that will only play on one Walkman. [We're] going to have a piece of software that will only work on one machine. It will provide enormous inconvenience."

regardless of what the fictitious figures of the Business Software Alliance say about copyright infringement. Listen to what Warnock is saying: if only we evil customers didn't make copies of software, Microsoft wouldn't force computer manufacturers to cripple the Windows installed on their machines. Yeah, right. Tell me another one, John.

But Warnock is absolutely right: it's a failure of the general population that is responsible for this licensing mess we're in. The failure is: insufficient regulation of the software industry.

If you buy a car, you are almost certainly protected by state "lemon laws". They were enacted to prevent the abuses that were extremely common, and so you acquired certain minimum rights in the purchase transaction which cannot be waived: if the car breaks down all the time, you can return it and get a refund plus your expenses paid. No matter what the sales contract says. Similarly there are restrictions on just how small the fine print can be, how egregious the interest rate can be, etc. The laws have had a salutory effect on auto sales - dealers are much less likely to try to cheat customers, and manufacturers have incentives to build better-quality cars. It is, in fact, a win-win situation - even though auto manufacturers screamed that laws like these would put them out of business in a week.

We haven't got anything of the sort with software purchases. And like Adobe's chairman just told us, the race to the bottom - who can have the most restrictive licensing, who can gouge the customer the most - is in full swing. It took a long time to get lemon laws enacted across the country, many years of abuses and horror stories, many years of opposition by the automobile manufacturers doing exactly what the software manufacturers are doing now: dumping buckets of cash into Congress. Are we going to learn from our experiences of the past and put some restraints on these abusive restrictions? Are we going to makes software sales into sales, and make software companies stand behind their products? We are, no doubt about it; abuses like these will only be stood for so long. The question is only this: How long will we stand for it?

What do you mean I don't own my software?
Adobe software is owned by Adobe. When you purchase software, you purchase a license to use the application. The use of the software must be in compliance with the End User License Agreement that is included with the software. Misuse of software is punishable by Federal Copyright Law.

-- from http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/antipiracy/main.html

We can fix that, Adobe.

apocalypse_now asks: "I live in Pittsburgh, and the city is trying its damnest to attract young people, especially those involved in high-tech -- much like every other city in the country. My question is, how can they do this effectively? I know that they are trying, but they just don't seem to understand the concept of attracting geeks. What would an optimal geek city be?" Interesting thought. What keeps you folks where you are at the moment (especially you Pittsburgh readers)?" (More)

apocalypse_now continues:

"...Just so you know, I don't work for the city -- I am a resident geek at a local university.

Pittsburgh has large research institutions in various high-tech fields -- robotics, computer engineering, bioengineering, and so on. CMU and UPMC are two of the largest and most well-known research institutions in the country. There are jobs. And yet, Pittsburgh loses people every year. Almost all graduates leave the city and region. So what can the city do to make geeks feel at home -- to make them feel that they are not only needed, but truly wanted? And would this even be enough to get people to move somewhere?"

apocalypse_now asks: "I live in Pittsburgh, and the city is trying its damnest to attract young people, especially those involved in high-tech -- much like every other city in the country. My question is, how can they do this effectively? I know that they are trying, but they just don't seem to understand the concept of attracting geeks. What would an optimal geek city be?" Interesting thought. What keeps you folks where you are at the moment (especially you Pittsburgh readers)?" (More)

apocalypse_now continues:

"...Just so you know, I don't work for the city -- I am a resident geek at a local university.

Pittsburgh has large research institutions in various high-tech fields -- robotics, computer engineering, bioengineering, and so on. CMU and UPMC are two of the largest and most well-known research institutions in the country. There are jobs. And yet, Pittsburgh loses people every year. Almost all graduates leave the city and region. So what can the city do to make geeks feel at home -- to make them feel that they are not only needed, but truly wanted? And would this even be enough to get people to move somewhere?"

Matt Singerman writes "NEWS.com is running a little story about how the NASDAQ stock market is "giving Windows NT a chance." Now is the time to sell. " H:For those of wondering, NASDAQ is going to try a NT system and test it to see if it can handle the enormous amount of transactions that it undergoes-stress testing, basically.

Matt Singerman sends in " An interesting article about how the group that is expected to make the largest number of PC purchases in 1999 will be those with a household income of less than $35,000. "

Matthew Weigel writes "Although his real role is unclear, Clinton has appointed a new adviser for encryption. Check here for the whole story, but it's supposed to be a re-affirmation of current policy (wanting key recovery here in the States), now that the old crypto adviser is working in the Commerce Dept. (an anti key-recovery player). It's not clear whether Steven Honigman, the new guy, will have any power, or simply be a mouthpiece."

The second issue of LinuxFocus is out, and published simultaneously in several languages. The articles in this issue include a very cool intro to OpenGL programming. This seems to be another very cool source of regular Linux Information... I hope that this and all the other recently popping up linux news magazines can fill the gap the I know I see.