It seems to me like the people driving the MP3 craze are actually people who can't afford to buy CDs, especially when 9 out of 12 tracks suck (people like me). It also seems to me that people dealing in MP3s are technically adept... adept enough not to buy a specific, specialty product when a general product like a laptop will suffice. It also seems that most people who buy cars are also old enough to not know how to operate most MP3 players. In any case, it seems like the margins for this product are infinitely small. So how does this company expect MP3 users to afford or actually choose to purchase this product? I wonder who does the market research for this kind of thing.
Some universities enlist the help of students to serve as the front line... the students live in the dorms that they are responsible for helping.
These students work for a nominal hourly fee (and a few tech perks like a cool email address of their choice and increased print/disk quota). This is the perfect setup because of the bursty nature of this kind of technical support, and also because of the simple nature of most of the problems. The students also like it because it serves as a nice resume builder for young CS students.
I would imagine that this opens up a real big need for open source efx software to match packages like maya, softimage, etc (yeah, i know how hard this is).
Anyone have any idea what types of free efx packages exist out there?
I saw a little bias towards first-person shooters here. Personally, I am willing to admit that one first-person shooter should have been on the list, but that many on the top 10?
Also, not a single sports game on the list? I think any tennis game (or its simple predecessor PONG) should have been given a nod.
Bad metaphor. If you sold nazi memorabilia in the US, and then went to France to teach a seminar on selling Nazi memorabilia... now that's more in line with what happened here.
He is not in jail because he wrote the software... which is a clear violation of US law that took place outside its jurisdiction. He is in jail for sharing his findings and thereby facilitating others to break US copyright law... an illegal act that he did commit in the US.
Lobbying is a fancy word for bribery. But, unlike writing software to aid in breaking law, lobbying is legal.
I agree with you that this is a law that should be changed. And I agree with civil disobedience. And this person broke the law. So it can be one of three things: (1) It was an act of civil disobedience, in which case he knowingly broke the law. And in this case, he deserves the jail sentence (breaking the law with good reason does not automatically free you from consequence);
(2) He knowingly infringed on copyright because he was doing research in good faith when he wrote the software. In this case, he must show that what he was doing is actually "research". In other words, did his work adhere to common practices in the field of computing research. And, further, he must show that by going to a hacker conference (instead of Adobe itself) that he was acting in good faith. This is the hardest case to prove in my opinion; or (3) He was a programmer playing around at home who unknowingly broke US copyright law when he wrote the software, and then unknowingly did so again when he started distributing it. Personally, I don't believe this to be the case. But, once again, this does not free you from a jail sentence, because we are not talking about murder vs. manslaughter here.
So this person should go to jail. And the lawyers should convince a judge now that the DMCA is the problem. Only after the DMCA is reversed, can we argue that this person should be free.
The person doing the "hacking" does not define "good faith". If this person would have approached Adobe Systems with his findings (instead of a hacker convention) perhaps the claim of "good faith" would be more believable.
Moreover, for something to qualify as research it must adhere to common practices in the field of computing research. Before publishing something in a conference there is a very rigorous process that such a paper/presentation follows (including review, etc). Again, the term "research" is not defined loosely when it comes to matters of law.
The DMCA is part of the United States Code of Law. And in section 1201, it clearly states that no person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under copyright law. Does anyone really think that a lawyer would have trouble making the case that software that circumvents the protection on ebooks does not qualify as an infraction of section 1201? I am not a lawyer (or a proponent of the DMCA) and I could argue this case because it is so simple. Cops, lawyers, and judges do not write law! And corporations (despite their power) don't either. So let's all get mad at our politicians.
Like it or not, the DMCA is the law of the land.
It seems to me like people are continuing to attack the Microsoft problem from the supply side, as if there was no demand for the Microsoft products. There are a few problems as I can see with the current approach to fixing the MS problem:
(1) People use Microsoft because it is what they know, not because it is the only thing out on the market. The time investment required to learn to use software is a *real* investment. So, in my opinion, one of the keys to competing against Microsoft is to lower the cost (in time) of learning to use your product. In other words, make Linux "look and feel" exactly like Windows -- control panels and all -- and more people will probably switch. I know this is painful, but it works. Just ask Apple.
(2) People use Microsoft because it is the only thing that they have used. In other words, Windows comes pre-installed on most new hardware. However, demand for Linux-based machines is so small that even devotees like Dell have been forced to drop the offering. Perhaps if we accomplished (1) we might fare better in combatting (2).
(3) People use Microsoft Windows because other people use Microsoft Windows. This is known in economics as a network externality, and there is no way to battle against this with injunctions against future sales. Over 80% (perhaps more) of the world's computers currently run some windows-type OS, which has obvious effects on the number of software packages available and on people's propensity to buy. We would need a task force set up to sneak into people's homes to install other operating systems in order for injunctions to work.
Anyway, the point is that the nature of software encourages monopolies, so there is really no way to get rid of them (especially not with injunctions). No matter what product it is, it will feature high barriers to entry, network externalities, etc... the real question is whether the monopoly hurts consumers, not whether the monopoly should exist. And if it does hurt consumers, then how do we fix the problem. An injunction presumes the former, and does nothing toward the latter.
Firstly, for those who have been waiting for support for specific hardware, the kernel is important. As the kernel normally includes a litany of new drivers with every new release.
Secondly, while GNU/Linux has proven to be such a good operating system that it is competing against Windows, this is not the intention of those that spend their free time developing parts of GNU/Linux. There are two major goals of the GNU/Linux community:
(1) Create quality software (which the open and distributed model of GNU/Linux development helps accomplish); and (2) Give users the freedom to choose. I would argue that these are the things that actually MATTER.
Thirdly, and I really don't care about compatibility with Windows, if you check out SAMBA and other projects you will notice that there have been significant steps in that direction.
Lastly, you (like everyone else) is free to develop for Linux. If there was a demand for any type of product for linux, there would be a legion of geeks to fill that need. So if you are specific, you might see the software you need in no time;).
By the way, for anyone having problems with the
VIA 686a or 686b onboard sound (AC 97), this
kernel fixes the strange sounds on most systems (it certainly did on mine).
Nothing can be done for the student that would sacrifice his education for a grade. So a student's propensity to "focus study" is probably related to his/her own shortcomings as a student, and a course website does not constitute his/her only means of "cheating the system".
For this type of student (and many others in fact), the real purpose of enrolling in a school like MIT is to get the degree, which provides the bearer with a considerable upgrade in the labor market. This is what justifies the financial investment (i.e.future earnings).
For many good students, the purpose of going to school is to learn cool things. And for a few students the learning of cool things will not translate into more income (maybe because they don't want to work for a huge corporation after graduation or because they are already happily employed).
The latter represents the "pure student". The trouble with the pure student is that he can not justify the financial investment required to attend MIT.
So look at this program as a public school financed by a tax on the future earnings of a bunch of MIT students. A student only interested in learning will be able to get access to information without paying the tax on future earnings (since this student will not hold a degree s/he will not compete with the matriculated MIT students in the labor market). Everyone is happy. And perhaps this pure student may gather enough education to do something purely intellectual (that is, not financed by corporations either directly or idirectly -- via colleges).
If the pure student is also poor, then he should make the modest investment in a computer and internet connection more easily than the investment in an MIT education.
I believe that the pure pursuit of knowledge is something that must be supported at some level.
Dr. Michael Anshel is a professor in the department of computer science at my school --
City College of New York. He offered a little background info into the discussion over zeta functions that Mr. Stephenson is referring to.
From: MikeAt1140@aol.com
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 19:07:28 EST
You may find the following exchange prior to Neal
Stephenson' letter of interest. Feel free to forward. Best.-Mike Anshel
In a message dated 2/23/01 1:33:10 PM, schneier@counterpane.com writes:
>
A simple acknowledgment in future discussions of this work by the author and
his agents that there is a cryptography based on zeta functions,introduced in
the open literature by Michael Anshel and Dorian Goldfeld and whose patent
rights are assigned to Arithmetica Inc would do for a starter.
It sounds to me like you will choose to leave this job, so rather then tell you want you already know here are a few things you can do to help your company:
(1) Give them as much notice as possible. Rather than wait here for more posts tell your boss right away that you are planning to leave and give them lots of time before your actual leave.
(2) Offer to help them find a replacement (by participating in interviews, recuiting, etc)
(3) Document everything that you do. This would obviously help in the transition.
(4) This helps a lot in tech world; You can offer to stay on for a week after the new person is hired (if within your "grace" period), and help "train" the person.
I've left a couple of companies, and because I did all of the things I mentioned, I still enjoy a great relationship with the people than run the joint. Just in case they actually do well, and I'm looking to return:). We can never assume that a company will fold on our account:).
No one needs to sell a programmer on the benefits (both personal and professional) of a job programming games (or of scientific programming). How about giving us a few urls discussing how one prepares for and ultimately lands a job developing games?
As I sit in my cubicle coding financial crap, I feel like articles like these only aim at making fun of me! Don't just talk to me about the value of freedom when I'm stuck in a prison... liberate me!
A non-technical note. If you have neighbors, they (and not you) may determine just how powerful your audio system will be. So my advice is to buy the cheapest stereo you can find.
I live in New York City, so buying a powerful stereo is like buying a really fast car.
Anyone care for some speeding tickets?
I thought that both SCSI and Firewire have had capabilities similar to the proposed CPRM for ATA for some time. And, clearly, in this case optional meant optional. Why is the ATA case different?
I think the distinction between these two officers is clearest in software development companies:
CIO - head systems administrator
CTO - head software architect
Basically, the CIO is a "required" officer these days as most systems run computers internally that they have to maintain/upgrade/etc (email, web servers, databases, phones, etc). The CTO is usually a position reserved for tech companies who need an officer to frame the long-term technical vision of the product and be well-versed in architectural issues (networking, software development, or anything else).
Slashdot Mirror
It seems to me like the people driving the MP3 craze are actually people who can't afford to buy CDs, especially when 9 out of 12 tracks suck (people like me). It also seems to me that people dealing in MP3s are technically adept... adept enough not to buy a specific, specialty product when a general product like a laptop will suffice. It also seems that most people who buy cars are also old enough to not know how to operate most MP3 players. In any case, it seems like the margins for this product are infinitely small. So how does this company expect MP3 users to afford or actually choose to purchase this product? I wonder who does the market research for this kind of thing.
Some universities enlist the help of students to serve as the front line... the students live in the dorms that they are responsible for helping.
These students work for a nominal hourly fee (and a few tech perks like a cool email address of their choice and increased print/disk quota). This is the perfect setup because of the bursty nature of this kind of technical support, and also because of the simple nature of most of the problems. The students also like it because it serves as a nice resume builder for young CS students.
I would imagine that this opens up a real big need for open source efx software to match packages like maya, softimage, etc (yeah, i know how hard this is).
Anyone have any idea what types of free efx packages exist out there?
If you are interested in "inside microsoft" type stuff.. some other books you might want to read:
Microserfs, Douglas Coupland -- about the geeks inside microsoft -- funny and light reading.
Renegades of the Empire, Michael Drummond -- a more positive view of the inside of Microsoft.
Hard Drive, James Wallace -- about Bill Gates and the beginning of Microsoft -- a little more impartial.
I saw a little bias towards first-person shooters here. Personally, I am willing to admit that one first-person shooter should have been on the list, but that many on the top 10?
:) !
Also, not a single sports game on the list? I think any tennis game (or its simple predecessor PONG) should have been given a nod.
And ZELDA is the best game ever
Bad metaphor. If you sold nazi memorabilia in the US, and then went to France to teach a seminar on selling Nazi memorabilia... now that's more in line with what happened here.
He is not in jail because he wrote the software... which is a clear violation of US law that took place outside its jurisdiction. He is in jail for sharing his findings and thereby facilitating others to break US copyright law... an illegal act that he did commit in the US.
Lobbying is a fancy word for bribery. But, unlike writing software to aid in breaking law, lobbying is legal.
I agree with you that this is a law that should be changed. And I agree with civil disobedience. And this person broke the law. So it can be one of three things: (1) It was an act of civil disobedience, in which case he knowingly broke the law. And in this case, he deserves the jail sentence (breaking the law with good reason does not automatically free you from consequence);
(2) He knowingly infringed on copyright because he was doing research in good faith when he wrote the software. In this case, he must show that what he was doing is actually "research". In other words, did his work adhere to common practices in the field of computing research. And, further, he must show that by going to a hacker conference (instead of Adobe itself) that he was acting in good faith. This is the hardest case to prove in my opinion; or (3) He was a programmer playing around at home who unknowingly broke US copyright law when he wrote the software, and then unknowingly did so again when he started distributing it. Personally, I don't believe this to be the case. But, once again, this does not free you from a jail sentence, because we are not talking about murder vs. manslaughter here.
So this person should go to jail. And the lawyers should convince a judge now that the DMCA is the problem. Only after the DMCA is reversed, can we argue that this person should be free.
The person doing the "hacking" does not define "good faith". If this person would have approached Adobe Systems with his findings (instead of a hacker convention) perhaps the claim of "good faith" would be more believable.
Moreover, for something to qualify as research it must adhere to common practices in the field of computing research. Before publishing something in a conference there is a very rigorous process that such a paper/presentation follows (including review, etc). Again, the term "research" is not defined loosely when it comes to matters of law.
The DMCA is part of the United States Code of Law. And in section 1201, it clearly states that no person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under copyright law. Does anyone really think that a lawyer would have trouble making the case that software that circumvents the protection on ebooks does not qualify as an infraction of section 1201? I am not a lawyer (or a proponent of the DMCA) and I could argue this case because it is so simple. Cops, lawyers, and judges do not write law! And corporations (despite their power) don't either. So let's all get mad at our politicians.
Like it or not, the DMCA is the law of the land.
It seems to me like people are continuing to attack the Microsoft problem from the supply side, as if there was no demand for the Microsoft products. There are a few problems as I can see with the current approach to fixing the MS problem:
(1) People use Microsoft because it is what they know, not because it is the only thing out on the market. The time investment required to learn to use software is a *real* investment. So, in my opinion, one of the keys to competing against Microsoft is to lower the cost (in time) of learning to use your product. In other words, make Linux "look and feel" exactly like Windows -- control panels and all -- and more people will probably switch. I know this is painful, but it works. Just ask Apple.
(2) People use Microsoft because it is the only thing that they have used. In other words, Windows comes pre-installed on most new hardware. However, demand for Linux-based machines is so small that even devotees like Dell have been forced to drop the offering. Perhaps if we accomplished (1) we might fare better in combatting (2).
(3) People use Microsoft Windows because other people use Microsoft Windows. This is known in economics as a network externality, and there is no way to battle against this with injunctions against future sales. Over 80% (perhaps more) of the world's computers currently run some windows-type OS, which has obvious effects on the number of software packages available and on people's propensity to buy. We would need a task force set up to sneak into people's homes to install other operating systems in order for injunctions to work.
Anyway, the point is that the nature of software encourages monopolies, so there is really no way to get rid of them (especially not with injunctions). No matter what product it is, it will feature high barriers to entry, network externalities, etc... the real question is whether the monopoly hurts consumers, not whether the monopoly should exist. And if it does hurt consumers, then how do we fix the problem. An injunction presumes the former, and does nothing toward the latter.
Firstly, for those who have been waiting for support for specific hardware, the kernel is important. As the kernel normally includes a litany of new drivers with every new release.
;).
Secondly, while GNU/Linux has proven to be such a good operating system that it is competing against Windows, this is not the intention of those that spend their free time developing parts of GNU/Linux. There are two major goals of the GNU/Linux community:
(1) Create quality software (which the open and distributed model of GNU/Linux development helps accomplish); and (2) Give users the freedom to choose. I would argue that these are the things that actually MATTER.
Thirdly, and I really don't care about compatibility with Windows, if you check out SAMBA and other projects you will notice that there have been significant steps in that direction.
Lastly, you (like everyone else) is free to develop for Linux. If there was a demand for any type of product for linux, there would be a legion of geeks to fill that need. So if you are specific, you might see the software you need in no time
By the way, for anyone having problems with the
VIA 686a or 686b onboard sound (AC 97), this
kernel fixes the strange sounds on most systems (it certainly did on mine).
Nothing can be done for the student that would sacrifice his education for a grade. So a student's propensity to "focus study" is probably related to his/her own shortcomings as a student, and a course website does not constitute his/her only means of "cheating the system".
For this type of student (and many others in fact), the real purpose of enrolling in a school like MIT is to get the degree, which provides the bearer with a considerable upgrade in the labor market. This is what justifies the financial investment (i.e.future earnings).
For many good students, the purpose of going to school is to learn cool things. And for a few students the learning of cool things will not translate into more income (maybe because they don't want to work for a huge corporation after graduation or because they are already happily employed).
The latter represents the "pure student". The trouble with the pure student is that he can not justify the financial investment required to attend MIT.
So look at this program as a public school financed by a tax on the future earnings of a bunch of MIT students. A student only interested in learning will be able to get access to information without paying the tax on future earnings (since this student will not hold a degree s/he will not compete with the matriculated MIT students in the labor market). Everyone is happy. And perhaps this pure student may gather enough education to do something purely intellectual (that is, not financed by corporations either directly or idirectly -- via colleges).
If the pure student is also poor, then he should make the modest investment in a computer and internet connection more easily than the investment in an MIT education.
I believe that the pure pursuit of knowledge is something that must be supported at some level.
Sorry about that... lameness.
Here is a link to the full email I got from Dr. Anshel giving a little background to the story.
Dr. Michael Anshel is a professor in the department of computer science at my school --
City College of New York. He offered a little background info into the discussion over zeta functions that Mr. Stephenson is referring to.
From: MikeAt1140@aol.com
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2001 19:07:28 EST
You may find the following exchange prior to Neal
Stephenson' letter of interest. Feel free to forward. Best.-Mike Anshel
In a message dated 2/23/01 1:33:10 PM, schneier@counterpane.com writes:
>
A simple acknowledgment in future discussions of this work by the author and
his agents that there is a cryptography based on zeta functions,introduced in
the open literature by Michael Anshel and Dorian Goldfeld and whose patent
rights are assigned to Arithmetica Inc would do for a starter.
Michael Anshel
It sounds to me like you will choose to leave this job, so rather then tell you want you already know here are a few things you can do to help your company:
:). We can never assume that a company will fold on our account :).
(1) Give them as much notice as possible. Rather than wait here for more posts tell your boss right away that you are planning to leave and give them lots of time before your actual leave.
(2) Offer to help them find a replacement (by participating in interviews, recuiting, etc)
(3) Document everything that you do. This would obviously help in the transition.
(4) This helps a lot in tech world; You can offer to stay on for a week after the new person is hired (if within your "grace" period), and help "train" the person.
I've left a couple of companies, and because I did all of the things I mentioned, I still enjoy a great relationship with the people than run the joint. Just in case they actually do well, and I'm looking to return
No one needs to sell a programmer on the benefits (both personal and professional) of a job programming games (or of scientific programming). How about giving us a few urls discussing how one prepares for and ultimately lands a job developing games?
As I sit in my cubicle coding financial crap, I feel like articles like these only aim at making fun of me! Don't just talk to me about the value of freedom when I'm stuck in a prison... liberate me!
A non-technical note. If you have neighbors, they (and not you) may determine just how powerful your audio system will be. So my advice is to buy the cheapest stereo you can find.
I live in New York City, so buying a powerful stereo is like buying a really fast car.
Anyone care for some speeding tickets?
I thought that both SCSI and Firewire have had capabilities similar to the proposed CPRM for ATA for some time. And, clearly, in this case optional meant optional. Why is the ATA case different?
FYI, there was an article on the advent of online comics and the poor state of the comic industry:
e %3 D/technology/archive/2000/02/08/ape.dtl%26type%3Dt ech_column
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi%3Ffil
FYI, there was an interesting article in the SFGate about the advent of online comics, and the bad state of the comic industry:
e %3 D/technology/archive/2000/02/08/ape.dtl%26type%3Dt ech_column
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi%3Ffil
IMHO (of course)
I think the distinction between these two officers is clearest in software development companies:
CIO - head systems administrator
CTO - head software architect
Basically, the CIO is a "required" officer these days as most systems run computers internally that they have to maintain/upgrade/etc (email, web servers, databases, phones, etc). The CTO is usually a position reserved for tech companies who need an officer to frame the long-term technical vision of the product and be well-versed in architectural issues (networking, software development, or anything else).
This organization is helping out developing countries with technology; they have a trip to Ghana scheduled already and should have more afterward.