A little over a decade ago, the West was convinced that Communism in China was at an end. When the students gathered in Tiananmen Square, we thought that there was no way the Chinese government could step in to stop them, and that they'd tumble down and be replaced by liberal democracy.
Tiananmen Square demonstrated the ruthlessness of the Chinese government. They demonstrated that absolute control over their citizens was more important than economic considerations (of course, we in the West did nothing to hold them accountable for their actions, but they must have at least known what they were risking).
Yes, China does need modern technology to survive and grow, and yes, modern technology means the Internet. They're going to do all they can to have their cake and eat it, too, but when the chips are down and they feel they have to make a choice... well, they've already demonstrated exactly where their position lies.
I, for one, would put nothing past them. Arrest and/or execute enough people and you can pretty much get away with anything. Combine police-state tactics against ISPs and Internet Cafes with heavy technological monitoring, and you can sew the place up pretty tightly...
(email addr is at acm, not mca)
We are Number One. All others are Number Two, or lower.
Based on my own experience, employers will very often make changes in default employment contracts, if the potential employee asks them to.
My suggested strategy is this:
Tell the guy recruiting you about your open source projects. This can often lead to fruitful discussions about how that type of technology might fit into their current organization (they may never have thought about using neural nets for data analysis, or whatever). This also helps to establish your credibility as a developer.
Let the interviewer know that you'd want to keep working on the projects after you've started working there. If he's interested in the technology, tell him that you'd love to integrate the project with your job, but that the project itself would remain under GPL (as it would even if you were integrating someone else's code).
Let him know that the outside work wouldn't have any impact on your job performance, other than maybe continuing to make you a better developer.
Remember, a lot of employers use basically boilerplate forms for this sort of thing. Either they copy them from a centralized service or (in the case of larger firms) they have a lawyer draw one up for them. As such, they're usually not written in stone.
All the company offering the form is trying to do is to make sure you don't walk out the door with the technology they're paying you to develop for them. Unless your project directly overlaps their technology, this shouldn't be a problem (if it does, you've got a special case, and either should look somewhere else or else be prepared to put up a much bigger fight).
(email addr is at acm, not mca)
We are Number One. All others are Number Two, or lower.
I agree with you, for the most part (which is why I enjoy genetic algorithms and complex adaptive systems in general, but rarely get involved with genetic programming, per se). GA's are used very often in function optimization and data fitting, especially in noisy systems.
However, the little anecdote about the FPGA evolving to unexpectedly use (apparently) field effects from 'unused' gates was pretty interesting. That's something that should give people pause when considering traditionally.
(email addr is at acm, not mca)
We are Number One. All others are Number Two, or lower.
I think you're using a *very* non-standard definition of 'evolution.' I can't tell exactly where it would come from, but you're involving spontaneous generation and non-applicable biological (e.g., 'growing' an extra FPGA) concepts.
To evolve is to change incrementally (or possibly in big leaps) over time. That's exactly what genetic algorithms do.
Evolution as a process is most apparent in biological systems, and that's where most of our ideas come from. However, they're applied by trying to break down the essence of evolution as a process which is implemented by biological systems, rather than as something that is wholly bound within biological concepts.
(email addr is at acm, not mca)
We are Number One. All others are Number Two, or lower.
Imagine the philosophical problem this creates. What if you build a critical system for, say, a nuclear power plant. It works and works well, but you don't know how to explain it. Can you implement it? Can you rely on it?
I play with genetic algorithms and I believe that the author's concern is based on a misunderstanding of the nature of the beast.
Modern software systems are incredibly complex, to the degree that no one even considers the possibility of conducting formal proofs as to the viability of the algorithms involved (I'm not talking about an algoritm like in an encryption subroutine, of course, but the program itself as an algorithm).
Genetic algorithms, however, work code much more extensively because they iterate through an unimaginable number of combinations. This leads to a programmatic robustness not generally found in traditional programming techniques.
Can anyone guarantee that any given GA will find all of the possible failure points in a system? Of course not. A GA isn't even guaranteed to find the optimal solution to a given problem (it's more like "a good enough solution in a reasonable amount of time").
Genetic programming (allowing software to evolve the actual programmatic structure of the application) isn't my deepest interest - I'm far more interested in artificial life. Bowever, both of these areas have the potential so revolutionize not only software (and, from this article, hardware) as a disclipline, but also make possible systems that can barely be imagined now.
(email addr is at acm, not mca)
We are Number One. All others are Number Two, or lower.
not knowing anything about the m$ format, i tried the standard 'telnet to port 80 and do a GET', which doesn't work, but does feed you a different url prepended by 'ASF'. opening up that one with the same method gives you a 500 response (server error).
so i opened a connection from a windows media player to a url on my linux box, and captured the GET query with ngrep (Accept:*/*, User-Agent:NSPlayer/4.1.0.3856, + host and pragma info relating to framerates, and an xClientGUID).
pasting that line into a quick and dirty perl script does get you binary output, but it's too short to be the actual stream (~1k) so i'm assuming that it's another redirect-like command.
not really interested enough to actually try to get this part of it down at this point, at least not while there's downloadable utilities that'll do it for me. just thought this was interesting and not really off-topic because this story *is* about copy protection, after all, and this 'streaming-only' enforced through client software obviously isn't anything more than mildly annoying.
if this is the wave of the future, it's not going to do a whole lot in terms of stopping anyone curious, let alone malicious...
(email addr is at acm, not mca)
We are Number One. All others are Number Two, or lower.
Step 1: Write a virus using the latest IE exploit
Step 2: Patent said virus (something along the lines of ("Patent for creating extra dtorage room on PC hard drives through selective file removal via network connection").
Step 3: Litigate, litigate, litigate.
Step 4: PROFIT!
(email addr is at acm, not mca)
We are Number One. All others are Number Two, or lower.
Mitigating factors:
The vulnerability could not be exploited if File Downloads have been disabled in the Security Zone in which the e-mail is rendered. This is not a default setting in any zone, however.
[snip] Would IE always execute the attachment?
No. IE would only execute the attachment if File Downloads were enabled in the Security Zone that the e-mail was opened in. However, File Downloads are enabled in all zones by default.
(email addr is at acm, not mca)
We are Number One. All others are Number Two, or lower.
since the protection model(s) presented in the article achieve their protection by introducing errors onto the disc, and these errors make the disc unplayable in cd-rom drives, shouldn't you be able to return the discs as defective merchandise? imagine the costs to the stores that would pile up if people (some untentionally, some with malice aforethought) went out and did this... the stores (at the very least) would have to protest to the recording industry that the returns were hurting their bottom line.
i mention it because i believe that there's laws dictating that stores have to accept returns on defective merchandise...
(email addr is at acm, not mca)
We are Number One. All others are Number Two, or lower.
all i know is that, if i ever create my own linux distro, i'm absolutely going to charge for it. they managed to take a small, virtually unknown distro, and generate a *huge* amount of traffic and discussion... i dare say that they got more out of the publicity than they'll get from the $15 fee.
(email addr is at acm, not mca)
We are Number One. All others are Number Two, or lower.
Collective "intelligence" isn't really intelligence at all.
wow, that's a pretty false statement. you seem to be saying that the behavior of a group of bees is necessarily a linear extrapolation of the behavior of a single bee. in looking at this sort of thing, it's been found that significant non-linearities exist.
'collective' intelligence is the only intelligence. whether it's the aggregate behavior of the neurons in your head or the bees in a colony or whatever, it's all part of emergent behavior. complex adaptive systems exhibit behaviors as a result of aggregating many simpler agents. a network that displays cas properties would be capable of making decisions based on what has worked well in the past and would be likely to work well in the future.
check out any book written by john holland for more information about cas and why a colony of ants is analogous to systems ranging from intracellular processes to human intelligence.
the key to something as complicated as chess is not creating an exhaustive search of the problem space. if it was, humans would be pretty crappy chess players. what humans excel at, and what we are just learning to tell computers about, is pattern recognition. combine neural net based pattern recognition with a genetic algorithm for determining by process of elimination which strategies work out best, and then you'll get close to the 'perfect' chess player (the player, not the game, is the thing that has to be perfected, of course. the original question was mis-stated).
source code should be protected by all the rules pertaining to free speech, just like any other written form of communication. as to those who are saying that virii, cracks, and that sort of thing should remain verbotten, i'd submit texts like the anarchist's cookbook (or menn kampf, or whatever ticks you off)... it is the application of knowledge that can be ruled against, not the possession or propagation. it's the old 'your rights end where my nose begins' concept. and for those concerned about how this sort of ruling affects copyright laws, recall that although stephen king is allowed to write anything he wants, you are not allowed to freely copy and distribute it. free speech means you are free to express yourself, not that you have free access to anyone else's expressions...
Slashdot Mirror
Tiananmen Square demonstrated the ruthlessness of the Chinese government. They demonstrated that absolute control over their citizens was more important than economic considerations (of course, we in the West did nothing to hold them accountable for their actions, but they must have at least known what they were risking).
Yes, China does need modern technology to survive and grow, and yes, modern technology means the Internet. They're going to do all they can to have their cake and eat it, too, but when the chips are down and they feel they have to make a choice... well, they've already demonstrated exactly where their position lies.
I, for one, would put nothing past them. Arrest and/or execute enough people and you can pretty much get away with anything. Combine police-state tactics against ISPs and Internet Cafes with heavy technological monitoring, and you can sew the place up pretty tightly...
(email addr is at acm, not mca)
We are Number One. All others are Number Two, or lower.
Wouldn't want the budget to overheat...
(email addr is at acm, not mca)
We are Number One. All others are Number Two, or lower.
...trying to deploy Weapons of Math Instruction!
(email addr is at acm, not mca)
We are Number One. All others are Number Two, or lower.
My suggested strategy is this:
Remember, a lot of employers use basically boilerplate forms for this sort of thing. Either they copy them from a centralized service or (in the case of larger firms) they have a lawyer draw one up for them. As such, they're usually not written in stone.
All the company offering the form is trying to do is to make sure you don't walk out the door with the technology they're paying you to develop for them. Unless your project directly overlaps their technology, this shouldn't be a problem (if it does, you've got a special case, and either should look somewhere else or else be prepared to put up a much bigger fight).
(email addr is at acm, not mca)
We are Number One. All others are Number Two, or lower.
Does this mean that the UK has become Xur and the Ko-Dan Armada?
(email addr is at acm, not mca)
We are Number One. All others are Number Two, or lower.
Last line should have read 'traditionally developed systems.'
(email addr is at acm, not mca)
We are Number One. All others are Number Two, or lower.
However, the little anecdote about the FPGA evolving to unexpectedly use (apparently) field effects from 'unused' gates was pretty interesting. That's something that should give people pause when considering traditionally.
(email addr is at acm, not mca)
We are Number One. All others are Number Two, or lower.
To evolve is to change incrementally (or possibly in big leaps) over time. That's exactly what genetic algorithms do.
Evolution as a process is most apparent in biological systems, and that's where most of our ideas come from. However, they're applied by trying to break down the essence of evolution as a process which is implemented by biological systems, rather than as something that is wholly bound within biological concepts.
(email addr is at acm, not mca)
We are Number One. All others are Number Two, or lower.
Imagine the philosophical problem this creates.
What if you build a critical system for, say,
a nuclear power plant. It works and
works well, but you don't know how to explain it.
Can you implement it? Can you rely on it?
I play with genetic algorithms and I believe that the author's concern is based on a misunderstanding of the nature of the beast.
Modern software systems are incredibly complex, to the degree that no one even considers the possibility of conducting formal proofs as to the viability of the algorithms involved (I'm not talking about an algoritm like in an encryption subroutine, of course, but the program itself as an algorithm).
Genetic algorithms, however, work code much more extensively because they iterate through an unimaginable number of combinations. This leads to a programmatic robustness not generally found in traditional programming techniques.
Can anyone guarantee that any given GA will find all of the possible failure points in a system? Of course not. A GA isn't even guaranteed to find the optimal solution to a given problem (it's more like "a good enough solution in a reasonable amount of time").
Genetic programming (allowing software to evolve the actual programmatic structure of the application) isn't my deepest interest - I'm far more interested in artificial life. Bowever, both of these areas have the potential so revolutionize not only software (and, from this article, hardware) as a disclipline, but also make possible systems that can barely be imagined now.
(email addr is at acm, not mca)
We are Number One. All others are Number Two, or lower.
so i opened a connection from a windows media player to a url on my linux box, and captured the GET query with ngrep (Accept:*/*, User-Agent:NSPlayer/4.1.0.3856, + host and pragma info relating to framerates, and an xClientGUID).
pasting that line into a quick and dirty perl script does get you binary output, but it's too short to be the actual stream (~1k) so i'm assuming that it's another redirect-like command.
not really interested enough to actually try to get this part of it down at this point, at least not while there's downloadable utilities that'll do it for me. just thought this was interesting and not really off-topic because this story *is* about copy protection, after all, and this 'streaming-only' enforced through client software obviously isn't anything more than mildly annoying.
if this is the wave of the future, it's not going to do a whole lot in terms of stopping anyone curious, let alone malicious...
(email addr is at acm, not mca)
We are Number One. All others are Number Two, or lower.
the fool who approves these articles, or the fools who follow-up?
(email addr is at acm, not mca)
We are Number One. All others are Number Two, or lower.
Step 1: Write a virus using the latest IE exploit
Step 2: Patent said virus (something along the lines of ("Patent for creating extra dtorage room on PC hard drives through selective file removal via network connection").
Step 3: Litigate, litigate, litigate.
Step 4: PROFIT!
(email addr is at acm, not mca)
We are Number One. All others are Number Two, or lower.
Mitigating factors:
The vulnerability could not be exploited if File Downloads have been disabled in the Security Zone in which the e-mail is rendered. This is not a default setting in any zone, however.
[snip]
Would IE always execute the attachment?
No. IE would only execute the attachment if File Downloads were enabled in the Security Zone that the e-mail was opened in. However, File Downloads are enabled in all zones by default.
(email addr is at acm, not mca)
We are Number One. All others are Number Two, or lower.
since the protection model(s) presented in the article achieve their protection by introducing errors onto the disc, and these errors make the disc unplayable in cd-rom drives, shouldn't you be able to return the discs as defective merchandise? imagine the costs to the stores that would pile up if people (some untentionally, some with malice aforethought) went out and did this... the stores (at the very least) would have to protest to the recording industry that the returns were hurting their bottom line. i mention it because i believe that there's laws dictating that stores have to accept returns on defective merchandise...
(email addr is at acm, not mca)
We are Number One. All others are Number Two, or lower.
all i know is that, if i ever create my own linux distro, i'm absolutely going to charge for it. they managed to take a small, virtually unknown distro, and generate a *huge* amount of traffic and discussion... i dare say that they got more out of the publicity than they'll get from the $15 fee.
(email addr is at acm, not mca)
We are Number One. All others are Number Two, or lower.
wow, that's a pretty false statement. you seem to be saying that the behavior of a group of bees is necessarily a linear extrapolation of the behavior of a single bee. in looking at this sort of thing, it's been found that significant non-linearities exist.
'collective' intelligence is the only intelligence. whether it's the aggregate behavior of the neurons in your head or the bees in a colony or whatever, it's all part of emergent behavior. complex adaptive systems exhibit behaviors as a result of aggregating many simpler agents. a network that displays cas properties would be capable of making decisions based on what has worked well in the past and would be likely to work well in the future.
check out any book written by john holland for more information about cas and why a colony of ants is analogous to systems ranging from intracellular processes to human intelligence.
the key to something as complicated as chess is not creating an exhaustive search of the problem space. if it was, humans would be pretty crappy chess players. what humans excel at, and what we are just learning to tell computers about, is pattern recognition. combine neural net based pattern recognition with a genetic algorithm for determining by process of elimination which strategies work out best, and then you'll get close to the 'perfect' chess player (the player, not the game, is the thing that has to be perfected, of course. the original question was mis-stated).
source code should be protected by all the rules pertaining to free speech, just like any other written form of communication. as to those who are saying that virii, cracks, and that sort of thing should remain verbotten, i'd submit texts like the anarchist's cookbook (or menn kampf, or whatever ticks you off)... it is the application of knowledge that can be ruled against, not the possession or propagation. it's the old 'your rights end where my nose begins' concept. and for those concerned about how this sort of ruling affects copyright laws, recall that although stephen king is allowed to write anything he wants, you are not allowed to freely copy and distribute it. free speech means you are free to express yourself, not that you have free access to anyone else's expressions...