Slashdot Mirror
Open Source... Mining?
farrellj writes "In mining, geophysical data is the "source code" of the industry, and is usually guarded as closely as Microsoft guards their source code for their programs, sometimes even more so. But one Canadian mining company opened up their data, and reaped the rewards of Open Source in higher profits. Read all about it at: FastCompany. NOTE: Originally seen on Linux Today."
If a mine has exclusive rights to mine in the area it has surveyed, what is the incentive to hide the geological data? After all, any additional information that outsiders provide based on the data will either help the mine or at worst help a neighboring mine. In neither scenario will the first mine be hurt if anyone else sees their data. So I don't see how the culture of secrecy became so ingrained.
I guess that just shows that Open Source > *
=]
In many cases, consessions for exploitation are only obtained after ascertaining the presence of whatever it is your after. Drilling for oil comes to mind. In such cases it is naturally vital to keep your data secret, as you don't want any competitors moving in and reaping the rewards of your hard work.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Come, open source as usually perceived and promoted is that by "contributing to the public software" and "scratching an itch", much good comes to all as you everyone can then use this freely.
The valuable use of this data is pretty much restricted to the property owners of the gold mine. This was just a fancy version of a contest (not a random-lottery style one), whereby skilled competitors vie for the prize, but one without an entry fee, and no signup form. The data is inherently useless (in terms of mineral rights) to anyone that is not the property owner, or interested in control over what happends to the property (hostile takeover threat).
If Microsoft had been the property owner, this story would have been on Slashdot, decrying the shameless use of skilled dupes working for Microsoft and getting a small return on their investment of time & talent. The mine owners were clever enough to capitalize on the positive name association with "Open Source" more than anything. A smart business that take a gamble (hostile takeover threat, etc.) that paid off well.
For either deep sea or deep space based search, mine and recovery?
These are the folks that came up with the 3D mine map - so it looks like it was a good investment for them.
And so it looks like the Open source model has been proven valid in areas outside of computing.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
From the story I've just read, I get the feeling that the "opening up of the data" does not sounds like "open source".
Rather, I get the feeling that it sounds more like BOUNTY HUNTING.
Like bounty hunters, there is a target. All you need to do is to get the target and you get your bounty. That's just what the company does.
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Between the new high-grade discoveries and the mine's modernized facilities, Red Lake is finally performing along the lines that McEwen had envisioned. In 1996, Red Lake was producing at an annual rate of 53,000 ounces at $360 an ounce. By 2001, the mine was producing 504,000 ounces at $59 an ounce. On the open market, gold currently trades for about $307 an ounce. The grade of the ore at McEwen's mine is extraordinarily high, confirming his suspicion that the vein that ran through the neighboring mine continues through Red Lake.
is this a typo?
53000*360 = $19,080,000
504000*59 = $29,736,000
while the second number is larger than the first i find it hard to believe the price dropped from 360 to 59 in 5 years. if it was 60 in 1996 it would make more sense.
-- john
I've looked around at their Challenge site, and can't find any data. I'd like to see what this data looks like...
That's their cost for pulling an oz out of the ground. It has gone down as they've gotten bigger and better at getting the gold out due to economies of scale, etc.. The price they can actually sell metal for is another thing, altogether (thankfully...).
JMR
My opinions != those of any employer.
Try e-gold - (contact me). I'm NOT e-
The company posted its data on the net, offered $500k in prizes, big deal. That much can easily be spent by hiring outside consultants to tell you where the gold is. The contest was inspired by Open Source, but I fail to see how making the data publically available makes it open source.
What did the company get for its efforts anyhow?
In one word: Lucky.
Lucky that an Australian firm looking for North American PR took a bath and lost money on creating a professional 3D model of the mine:
Although the prize money, which Archibald's team shared with Taylor Wall & Associates, barely covered the cost of the project, the publicity has boosted the firm's business. "It would have taken us years to get the recognition in North America that this project gave us overnight," he says.
You said:
"Bounty hunting is a viable model for open source revenue though"
You got a valid point there.
Methinks that the future looks bright for open source, for people can see and check the quality of the product ( source code ) and if they like what they see, and if they have a need for an extension or project with similar goal, those who produce the code can reap in the bounty.
Thanks for the reply.
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
www.emotioncafe.com
Maybe you could call this "open data". Really, though, it's a fascinating example of how thinking outside the box can benefit a company.
-Thomas
Open source comparison is a sham
No, it isn't a sham, but it is a poor choice of wording.
Free Software, Free Media, and Open Source are subsets of a much more fundamental, and important, concept, namely freedom of information, freedom of thought, and freedom of expression, which together might be termed simply freedom were it not that that particular word has been so abused by pundits over the last century as to have lost much of its meaning. These freedoms are antithetical to secrecy at their most basic levels, and in their consiquences, whether that is secrecy of information, secrecy of methodology, or secrecy of design (to name just three).
So, while mapping the benefits of open and free information to those of open and free software is a bit of a misnomer, clearly the underlying theme that free information is, unsurprisingly, bringing the same benefits to this particular mining company that free source code does to software companies is a valid parallel to draw, in that these benefits are a consiquence of freedom of knowledge and freedom of information, in other words, of the freedoms being granted, of which free software and free geological data are but two small examples.
It is a shame that our intellectual property laws are such that these freedoms must be granted rather than assumed by default, making them (and their obvious benefits) so much rarer in our society than they need to be.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
In mining, geophysical data is the "data" of the industry.
Jeez, how hard is that to figure out.
"Is that why Windows XP has so many bugs..."
Whatever the reason, Windows XP is VERY buggy. There are more than ten serious bugs in just the command line interface (DOS).
Yeah, because we all know societies that do this (e.g., China, Cuba, etc.) are vastly more productive places for ideas than the United States.....err yeah. Show me a time in history or a place in the world that has been as productive or spends as much money on research and development (proportionately speaking). The United States is extremely successful in this reguard because of our strong IP, not inspite of it. It may cost you, say, 100 dollars to purchase that textbook and that may be something of a negative, and of itself, but then you're taking for granted its creation and that its secondary benefits (i.e., your education from it, ideas you may have taken from it, etc) are generally free AFTER that point. For all the complaints of information being locked away, it simply does not stand up by and large. There is a TONS of information out there for anyone that wants it, it may cost a little something and take a little time, but the vast majority of information nonetheless available (and productive) to an extent that it's NOT anywhere else in the world (because it largely does not exist in those other places). EOF
Hmmmm, personally I would have thought the sandworms a dead give away!
"They do not preach that their god will rouse them, a little before the Nuts work loose." Kipling, 'The Sons of Martha'
It might not be a direct analogy, but the Open Source movement certainly inspired their actions to pursue this type of open bidding process.
So while they might not be equivalent, I think that it's really cool that non-conventional approaches in other industries are being inspired by the growing success and profile of Open Source solutions in software.
If other industries begin to seriously experiment with various types of peer collaboration models some of the new approaches might stick. If they point to Open Source and Free Software as inspiration for whatever success they achieve, I think that the community should accept that as a good reflection and recognition of the real impact this way of thinking is starting to make. It's also great advertising for Open Source -- I'm sure this story has exposed a bunch of mining executives and analysts to Linux etc. for the first time, and in a positive light at that.
The Open Source movement is as much (or more) about thinking outside of the box as it is about code, copyrights, and collaboration.
I'd love to see more stories like this on Slashdot, even if the direct links are sometimes tenuous.
My next sig will be ready soon, but friends can beat the rush!
Man Wins Lottery! Proof everyone should play!
Of course, that's absurd. Only idiots play the lottery. Only idiots give away source code.
. See also: egg frying in too-hot iron skillet
Initially I didn't envision actual mineral mining with this. What came to my mind was the idea of data mining Open Source code for segments of code that could be used to help construct applications. After I've given it a little thought, I think it might be worth looking at for someone with the resources and technical know-how to see if there is a way to set up sort of a "source code search engine". Set up a database specifically geared to holding source code files, sorted by function type (if this is possible to code in a search engine environment) and application type. This way, people could not only use Open Source code to modify the application as a whole, but it could make it much easier to use chunks of code from seperate projects to combine with original code and create new software. Why rewrite the same kind of function from program to program if it's possible to use it from another source? The biggest drawback to this that I can see would be keeping track of contributed code by owner. And I'm sure there could be a pretty hearty debate about whether or not this idea would cause the overall quality of code to improve or not, but I have suspicions that the benefits that might come from a source code search system could be a pretty good resource. As I envision it, there're a few things that a source code search process would need for basic functionality. It would need to track who contributed to which projects in the search database. It would need to list which code trees are available in a browsable fashion. Another touch that I feel would be needed, would be a way for users of the system to record which code pieces they're using. It would be very good to have a way a user could log into the system to search, then have an automatically generated page showing the authors/projects of code they could mark as used in whatever project they're working on themselves. This idea would also require a fairly well maintained revision control system. As the code trees would be almost constantly updated, the engine would need to be able to handle older versions (at least to a point) and manage keeping itself updated on a near continual basis. My suggestion would start with the idea of using only submitted source in the database, to help verify that code incorporated into the system met GPL standards. The more I think about it, the more I think an database like this could be an excellent addition to SourceForge's offerings both commercial and publically accessible. I'd really like to hear what people think about this, because honestly this is the best place I know of to propose such an idea. And I don't know how many people are going to read this thread.
My own pointless vanity vintage computing page
One of the problems faced by small software development houses in the scientific field is acquiring enough sample data that allows for meaningful testing of algorithms. Since most geophisical data is considered intellectual property of exploration companies it is closely guarded and hard to obtain unless you're already established in the market and have good reputation. Artificially generated data just doesn't have the same qualities real life samples have. I have seen the same algorithms work perfect on artificial SEG-Y data that crumbled when exposed to some real life heavily faulted seismic.
Your pizza just the way you ought to have it.
The article focused mostly on Goldcorp's Redlake mine. Slashdotters might be more interested in the software technology behind the winning bid.
Have a look here but please let our servers come back up by Monday!!
(Yep, I work for them)
You said:
"You raise a good point, but you neglect the fact that more than just a few open source
developers won't accept money for their work on a project-- because it's a hobby"
"To get paid would make it more than a hobby--like a job, and it's quite likely that they would
loose enthusiasm for their work, and your employment."
Perhaps taking this particular case as an example is a mistake - for we are talking about a GOLD ($$$) MINE and that fella put up $$$ as a reward.
I want to focus on the term "getting paid" because, although it looks like something involving $$$, "getting paid" may NOT be the only option ( or reward ) on this scheme.
Going back to the term "bounty hunting" - there's a target, and first one to get it get paid - we are talking along the line of people offering help to others, and, bounty hunters surely are NOT the only kind of people who help others.
Police officers, fire fighters, volunteers in hospitals, and although many are being paid for what they are doing, some ain't.
And if we look at that, maybe we can adapt what we have today into the Open Source arena
For those who aren't comfortable in the spotlight, a pad on the back may be all they are after
I never believe that there's a ONE SIZE FITS ALL answer to anything, and I believe that the Open Source scene is no exception.
Perhaps, bounty hunting may work in some cases, and in other cases, the good ol' Linux style of oneupsmanship do the trick.
I think the good thing about this case is we can take this bounty hunting approach as yet another viable option for the Open Source community.
Thank you for your insightful comment.
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
You said:
"Which does entail a risk that anyone can learn about the target and maybe grab it for
themselves, but even so the potential benefits (you might get your target, someone else
gets paid too) outweigh the drawbacks (you never get your target, no one gets paid)."
When there's a risk, there's a reward, and methinks the "bounty-hunting" approach may work on a case-by-case basis.
There's a tendency for people to take a "one size fits all" approach in doing things, and methinks that the outcome under this approach almost always ends up in disaster.
And if we want to avoid disasters in the Open Source community, we should be flexible enough to adapt more than one approach, and methinks that the "bounty hunting" approach ought to be considered as just ONE OF the viable approaches to accomplish what we are after.
Thanks for your comment !
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !