Do you support the adoption of open source DRM technologies primarily because you think we need open alternatives, or because you think the technologies are good and useful in themselves? (Or for some other reason?)
The biggest problem with DRM is not the idea of protection in the first place, but the idea that if company x goes bust in y years, then all documents "protected" by their technology become inaccessible...
Playing Devil's Advocate:
Is that really the biggest problem with DRM? The hypothetical future in Stallman's "The Right to Read" emerges pretty naturally from the idea of universally adopted DRM. An open source, free software DRM server would speed adoption of these technologies tremendously.
When I first read Stallman's RTR, it seemed loony and beyond belief. Now, several years later, it seems prescient and ominous. I can imagine something vaguely like it coming to pass. Donating our efforts to help create this future seems mindbending.
Admittedly, there are lots of arguments for building open source DRM technologies, and one of them, like you said, is to prevent their monopolization by proprietary interests. But if we have a choice between helping them grow and stymieing their adoption in the first place, shouldn't we choose the latter?
Some folks support open source software because they think the open source paradigm is a superior way to develop software. Others support it because they think open source is the right thing for society. Some people think both.
Given that there's at least some conflict between open source ideals and DRM, is an open source DRM server something to work for or against? Seems like this could have profound ramifications down the road either way.
Thanks for the info. I'd figured something similar about Texas having big areas that might be unprofitable to cover, but you've got a lot more intimate knowledge of Texas than I do. Thanks for the facts.
I think you've made a slight flaw in equating People per Sq. Mile with Population.
Obviously, you're right -- it's 3.3 x more towers per sq. mi,, not per person, although I felt that was a little misleading, too. There are states with the same number of towers per sq. mile as TX but they also have many times the populaton density. NY, for instance, has about the same number of towers per sq. mi. that TX does, but has 5.5 x more people per sq. mi. So the best unit would be "towers per person per sq. mi.", but that seemed so awkward that I just dropped off the last bit and figured people would know what I was getting at.:) My bad.
Part of the Clark Kent persona is, even if the guy looks a little like Superman and maybe even sounds a little like him, you have to come off thinking, "No way could this yutz be Superman."
I've always thought that Clark's best disguise wasn't that he was clownish or incompetent, but that he was simply too button-down and square for anyone to consider the possibility that he's Superman. In my mind, Clark Kent is an echo of the NASA engineers of 60s -- just a little more buff, and with a slightly better haircut.
One of the fascinating things about the Superman character is that Clark's job is a mental one. He chose the one profession his super-powers wouldn't allow him to fake competence in. I don't think I've ever read a take on Superman which focused on him as a writer.
Chris Reeve's performance as Clark Kent/Superman was amusing and enjoyable. Clark was fun in a Vaudevillian sort of way. But since they've already done it that way once, I'd like to see them treat Supes differently this time around; make him as real as they can make a super-powered flying x-ray visioned cape-wearing alien from outer space.:)
I remember when Tim Burton first announced that Michael Keaton was going to play Batman -- "there's something in his eyes," he said -- and the fanboy crowd went ballistic. They shouted that Batman wasn't Mr. Mom, and that Burton had ruined the one comic book movie that fans had been waiting their whole lives for.
Now, a decade later, nearly every post says Keaton was the definitive Batman, and all the other actors (who at first blush seemed to be perfect Batman types) were the ones who ruined the franchise.
Michael Keaton's gotta be proud. He played a legendary character no one thought he could pull off, and then walked away from it, so everyone could see just how tough the job actually was. Now he's doing, what, Jack Frost II? Hollywood oughtta make him Perry White, Clark Kent's editor, in the new Superman pic. They owe him.
FWIW, I don't think we've seen the definitive Superman performance yet. Chris Reeve's Clark Kent was too buffoonish, his Superman too milquetoast. If Batman is supposed to have gone off the deep end because his parents were killed, how much more insane would losing your parents, your species, and your entire planet make you? Superman's a fascinating character, in his own way at least as flawed as Batman. I hope Hollywood can find an actor who can give as much to Superman's character as Keaton did to Batman.
(I should say that I have nothing but respect for Chris Reeve as an actor and human being. Superman is fantasy; Chris is real, and through his tireless advocacy and fundraising he may ultimately be responsible for saving more lives than his comicbook counterpart.)
this appears to me to be the the best role for a "benevolent virus" (in this case, more of a network scanner/meta-virus, as actual infection is not necessary) - by detecting possible routes of infection/actual infection on a system, and warning that system of possible/actual infections.
I can't vouch for the efficacy of CycSecure -- I only know what I've read here and a few other places -- but it seems like an free software version of this tool would be a big step towards continuous security for non-expert users.
I think you're right on the money here. When it comes to software, for example, we don't have a clue what to do with government money. Would our economy would be better off if the government subsidized development of free software? Or is it more important for our economy that the government sticks to licensing proprietary software from the software industry? No one really knows at this point.
I suspect we'd be better off with the first option, but at this point, it's just a hunch. These issues really need to be investigated so we can justify the choices we make either way, and not simply continue on the same old paths out of tradition.
That's the point I was trying to make -- it's not just because Texas is "bigger" that it has more cell towers for sale, or at least that's not all of it.
Take a look. Texas has more towers for sale than Minnesota, Utah, West Virginia, Washington, New York, New Mexico, Nevada, and Illinois combined. But this doesn't tell us too much on the face of it.
Let's just look at Washington. According to the 1990 census, Washington has an average of 73.1 people per square mile, while Texas has an average of 64.9. So they're pretty close in terms of population density.
Texas (261,914 sq.mi) is 3.9 times as big as Washington (66,581), so it seems reasonable to expect 3.9 times as many towers for sale in Texas.
But that's not what we get. Washington has 6 towers for sale. Multiplied by 3.9 gives us 23.4 towers expected for Texas. But Texas has 72 towers for sale, 3 times as many as predicted.
It seems that you'll get the same result for any state of similar population density. Texas has 3.3 times more towers per person than West Virginia, for example, even though West Virginia has roughly the same population density as Washington.
So why does Texas have 3 times as many towers per person as Washington or West Virginia? I don't know. Maybe someone else does. Is the market for microwave towers worse in Texas than in Washington for some reason, or was there a need for more towers to begin with? (It's not all academic. If the market for microwave towers in Texas is worse for some reason, you might be justified in offering a significantly lower bid on one.) It's worth looking in to.
They almost all have fantastic views, too. The idea of getting one for a cabin seems really appealing. (Too bad the buildings don't have windows.)
I can't help but wonder how helpful the American Tower staff will be if I call, though. I get the sense that they want to sell these towers to carriers and other businesses, not to the average John or Jane Doe.
BTW: Anyone have any idea where the rumored $25,000 average price tag came from? Because if $25,000 is the average, then that means a significant number are probably selling for less than $25 grand. I don't want to overpay. : )
Can't anyone come up with something more creative or interesting? I mean, if you actually need 320 GB drives to back up your pr0n collection, you've crossed over from pastime into obsession. That's more pathetic than it is funny.
I miss my SX-64. I used it all the way until the early 90's, even running VIPTerm in 80 column Eyestrain-O-Vison on that tiny CRT.
It's too bad it's so damn heavy -- the SX-64 is portable in the roughly same way that a cement block is portable. You could probably kill someone by swinging an SX-64 at their head. Also, don't forget your extension cord because the SX-64 never heard of batteries, and the cord that comes with it is about as long as your arm..
But you can play an aracde perfect game of Ms. Pac Man or Donkey Kong on it, check your e-mail, write a paper, surf the web, watch some fantastic demos, and crank up the SID chip music. It's hardc0re.
...a built-in camera, synced with iPhoto? (Hey, Danger is pretty close to doing this.)
You're not the only one wishing for a mobile device that works in tandem with your desktop. The kind of scenarios you describe are the stuff of my dreams, too. The only problem I see is that Apple already has a handheld device on the market -- the iPod.
MP3 playing is one of the primary functions people want in a good handheld, and I don't see Apple competing with itself by offering two handheld mobile devices.
Could Apple evolve the iPod into this new dream handheld by slowly adding features? I don't know. The iPod's genius is in its form factor -- it's perfect for playing MP3s. Unfortunately, the same thing that makes it a great MP3 player makes it awkward as a general purpose device. And redesigning the iPod to make a better general purpose device would make the MP3 player experience worse.
I think this, frankly, bites, because Apple is the only company that can pull off the user experience I want in a mobile device. I want it wirelessly synced with every aspect of my desktop, I want to be able to plug in a pair of headphones and watch video while lying in my hammock. I want it all integrated seamlessly, and only Apple can pull that off. But I suspect their experience with the Newton has soured them on the idea, and the iPod fills its niche so well, there's not much room left to grow. More's the pity. The iPod's a great MP3 player, but it's not anything close to what Apple could do if it tried.
This little flubbery anemone thing isn't AI any more than a Tamagotchi is. It really has nothing to do with intelligence, artificial or otherwise. It's just an animatronic plant, putting on a show so MIT researchers can watch how people react to it. Not a lot of difference between this and the Plastic Daisies that Wear Sunglasses and Dance When You Clap.
I do like the idea of having an icon for stories that really do deal with some aspect of AI, though. The HAL eye sounds like a good icon.
I've read this story before, and it fills me with a mixture of wonder and sadness. I'm amazed at how clever evolutionary processes can turn out to be; I'm disappointed by the fact that they often seem to be cleverer than we humans can figure out.
If the workings of a simple tone-differentiating circuit are beyond human understanding, what hope do we have of gaining a deep understanding of the human brain, the most complex machine in the universe? It makes me wonder if perhaps the secrets of our intelligence are too complex for that intelligence to grasp.
Well, like I said before, I'm not a lawyer, but the license is pretty clear:
1.4 "Deploy" means to use, sublicense or distribute Covered Code other than for Your internal research and development (R&D) and/or Personal Use, and includes without limitation,
any and all internal use or distribution of Covered Code within Your business or organization except for R&D use and/or Personal Use, as well as direct or indirect sublicensing or distribution of Covered Code by You to any third party in any form or manner
If you're using code commercially, even internally, I'd think that means you've gone beyond mere research and development and are now subject to the terms of the APSL regarding deployment, which include releasing your source. Pretty clear cut.
I'm not a lawyer, but I've read the entirity of the APSL, and it's the APSL that would, in fact, require you to release your changes to the community if you use them in any commercial way.
The APSL differentiates between using code for your own personal use and/or internal research, and "deployment". There's a whole section of the APSL which defines deployment, and it's pretty specific: deployment is using the code in any way other than for personal use or research. If you deploy the code -- meaning you use it commercially, even if just internally -- under the APSL, you've gotta release your changes back to the community.
It's kinda disingenuous to say, "If the government produces IP, everyone should get a piece," and then turn around and say the government can pay others to produce software for it that everyone won't get a piece of. If you're paying a winning bidder to develop government software that relies upon an Open Source license like the GPL, ultimately, taxpayer dollars are being spent developing non-public domain software.
I'm not attacking you here; I've been thinking about the same thing myself for a while. Public domain is pretty obviously the best way of developing & releasing government source, since it preserves the ability of the code to be used for either proprietary or Open Source projects in the future. But limiting ourselves to public domain software is likely to be grossly inefficient as Open Source becomes more and more pervasive.
My own feeling is that guidelines should exist which take different licenses and their cost of development into account. For instance (very roughly):
All things being equal,
If the cost of creating public domain software is 150% or more of the cost of coding comparable software which relies on GPL code, the GPL software should be chosen.
If the cost of creating software which relies on GPL code is 150% or more of the cost of licensing comparable proprietary software, proprietary software should be chosen.
____
The actual percentages could change, obviously, but should still embody the notion that there is an acceptable amount extra we will pay for public domain software, and a smaller amount extra we will pay for Open Source software. Proprietary software is the worst deal, since it leaves us nothing to give back to taxpayers, so we should only choose it if it does everything we want and it's much cheaper than any other solution.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you support the adoption of open source DRM technologies primarily because you think we need open alternatives, or because you think the technologies are good and useful in themselves? (Or for some other reason?)
The biggest problem with DRM is not the idea of protection in the first place, but the idea that if company x goes bust in y years, then all documents "protected" by their technology become inaccessible...
Playing Devil's Advocate:
Is that really the biggest problem with DRM? The hypothetical future in Stallman's "The Right to Read" emerges pretty naturally from the idea of universally adopted DRM. An open source, free software DRM server would speed adoption of these technologies tremendously.
When I first read Stallman's RTR, it seemed loony and beyond belief. Now, several years later, it seems prescient and ominous. I can imagine something vaguely like it coming to pass. Donating our efforts to help create this future seems mindbending.
Admittedly, there are lots of arguments for building open source DRM technologies, and one of them, like you said, is to prevent their monopolization by proprietary interests. But if we have a choice between helping them grow and stymieing their adoption in the first place, shouldn't we choose the latter?
Some folks support open source software because they think the open source paradigm is a superior way to develop software. Others support it because they think open source is the right thing for society. Some people think both.
Given that there's at least some conflict between open source ideals and DRM, is an open source DRM server something to work for or against? Seems like this could have profound ramifications down the road either way.
Thanks for the info. I'd figured something similar about Texas having big areas that might be unprofitable to cover, but you've got a lot more intimate knowledge of Texas than I do. Thanks for the facts.
:) My bad.
I think you've made a slight flaw in equating People per Sq. Mile with Population.
Obviously, you're right -- it's 3.3 x more towers per sq. mi,, not per person, although I felt that was a little misleading, too. There are states with the same number of towers per sq. mile as TX but they also have many times the populaton density. NY, for instance, has about the same number of towers per sq. mi. that TX does, but has 5.5 x more people per sq. mi. So the best unit would be "towers per person per sq. mi.", but that seemed so awkward that I just dropped off the last bit and figured people would know what I was getting at.
Part of the Clark Kent persona is, even if the guy looks a little like Superman and maybe even sounds a little like him, you have to come off thinking, "No way could this yutz be Superman."
:)
I've always thought that Clark's best disguise wasn't that he was clownish or incompetent, but that he was simply too button-down and square for anyone to consider the possibility that he's Superman. In my mind, Clark Kent is an echo of the NASA engineers of 60s -- just a little more buff, and with a slightly better haircut.
One of the fascinating things about the Superman character is that Clark's job is a mental one. He chose the one profession his super-powers wouldn't allow him to fake competence in. I don't think I've ever read a take on Superman which focused on him as a writer.
Chris Reeve's performance as Clark Kent/Superman was amusing and enjoyable. Clark was fun in a Vaudevillian sort of way. But since they've already done it that way once, I'd like to see them treat Supes differently this time around; make him as real as they can make a super-powered flying x-ray visioned cape-wearing alien from outer space.
I remember when Tim Burton first announced that Michael Keaton was going to play Batman -- "there's something in his eyes," he said -- and the fanboy crowd went ballistic. They shouted that Batman wasn't Mr. Mom, and that Burton had ruined the one comic book movie that fans had been waiting their whole lives for.
Now, a decade later, nearly every post says Keaton was the definitive Batman, and all the other actors (who at first blush seemed to be perfect Batman types) were the ones who ruined the franchise.
Michael Keaton's gotta be proud. He played a legendary character no one thought he could pull off, and then walked away from it, so everyone could see just how tough the job actually was. Now he's doing, what, Jack Frost II? Hollywood oughtta make him Perry White, Clark Kent's editor, in the new Superman pic. They owe him.
FWIW, I don't think we've seen the definitive Superman performance yet. Chris Reeve's Clark Kent was too buffoonish, his Superman too milquetoast. If Batman is supposed to have gone off the deep end because his parents were killed, how much more insane would losing your parents, your species, and your entire planet make you? Superman's a fascinating character, in his own way at least as flawed as Batman. I hope Hollywood can find an actor who can give as much to Superman's character as Keaton did to Batman.
(I should say that I have nothing but respect for Chris Reeve as an actor and human being. Superman is fantasy; Chris is real, and through his tireless advocacy and fundraising he may ultimately be responsible for saving more lives than his comicbook counterpart.)
this appears to me to be the the best role for a "benevolent virus" (in this case, more of a network scanner/meta-virus, as actual infection is not necessary) - by detecting possible routes of infection/actual infection on a system, and warning that system of possible/actual infections.
This sounds something like CycSecure.
I can't vouch for the efficacy of CycSecure -- I only know what I've read here and a few other places -- but it seems like an free software version of this tool would be a big step towards continuous security for non-expert users.
I think you're right on the money here. When it comes to software, for example, we don't have a clue what to do with government money. Would our economy would be better off if the government subsidized development of free software? Or is it more important for our economy that the government sticks to licensing proprietary software from the software industry? No one really knows at this point.
I suspect we'd be better off with the first option, but at this point, it's just a hunch. These issues really need to be investigated so we can justify the choices we make either way, and not simply continue on the same old paths out of tradition.
I replied here and thought you might be interested.
That's the point I was trying to make -- it's not just because Texas is "bigger" that it has more cell towers for sale, or at least that's not all of it.
Take a look. Texas has more towers for sale than Minnesota, Utah, West Virginia, Washington, New York, New Mexico, Nevada, and Illinois combined. But this doesn't tell us too much on the face of it.
Let's just look at Washington. According to the 1990 census, Washington has an average of 73.1 people per square mile, while Texas has an average of 64.9. So they're pretty close in terms of population density.
Texas (261,914 sq.mi) is 3.9 times as big as Washington (66,581), so it seems reasonable to expect 3.9 times as many towers for sale in Texas.
But that's not what we get. Washington has 6 towers for sale. Multiplied by 3.9 gives us 23.4 towers expected for Texas. But Texas has 72 towers for sale, 3 times as many as predicted.
It seems that you'll get the same result for any state of similar population density. Texas has 3.3 times more towers per person than West Virginia, for example, even though West Virginia has roughly the same population density as Washington.
So why does Texas have 3 times as many towers per person as Washington or West Virginia? I don't know. Maybe someone else does. Is the market for microwave towers worse in Texas than in Washington for some reason, or was there a need for more towers to begin with? (It's not all academic. If the market for microwave towers in Texas is worse for some reason, you might be justified in offering a significantly lower bid on one.) It's worth looking in to.
Alaska is BIGGER. Alaska has zero. Duh yourself.
They almost all have fantastic views, too. The idea of getting one for a cabin seems really appealing. (Too bad the buildings don't have windows.)
I can't help but wonder how helpful the American Tower staff will be if I call, though. I get the sense that they want to sell these towers to carriers and other businesses, not to the average John or Jane Doe.
BTW: Anyone have any idea where the rumored $25,000 average price tag came from? Because if $25,000 is the average, then that means a significant number are probably selling for less than $25 grand. I don't want to overpay. : )
Anyone have any idea why there's so many towers available in Texas? 72 is a lot.
Dude, I wish I could mod you up +1 as Funny.You're hilarious!
Can't anyone come up with something more creative or interesting? I mean, if you actually need 320 GB drives to back up your pr0n collection, you've crossed over from pastime into obsession. That's more pathetic than it is funny.
I miss my SX-64. I used it all the way until the early 90's, even running VIPTerm in 80 column Eyestrain-O-Vison on that tiny CRT.
:)
It's too bad it's so damn heavy -- the SX-64 is portable in the roughly same way that a cement block is portable. You could probably kill someone by swinging an SX-64 at their head. Also, don't forget your extension cord because the SX-64 never heard of batteries, and the cord that comes with it is about as long as your arm..
But you can play an aracde perfect game of Ms. Pac Man or Donkey Kong on it, check your e-mail, write a paper, surf the web, watch some fantastic demos, and crank up the SID chip music. It's hardc0re.
I think it's time for me to buy another one.
...a built-in camera, synced with iPhoto? (Hey, Danger is pretty close to doing this.)
You're not the only one wishing for a mobile device that works in tandem with your desktop. The kind of scenarios you describe are the stuff of my dreams, too. The only problem I see is that Apple already has a handheld device on the market -- the iPod.
MP3 playing is one of the primary functions people want in a good handheld, and I don't see Apple competing with itself by offering two handheld mobile devices.
Could Apple evolve the iPod into this new dream handheld by slowly adding features? I don't know. The iPod's genius is in its form factor -- it's perfect for playing MP3s. Unfortunately, the same thing that makes it a great MP3 player makes it awkward as a general purpose device. And redesigning the iPod to make a better general purpose device would make the MP3 player experience worse.
I think this, frankly, bites, because Apple is the only company that can pull off the user experience I want in a mobile device. I want it wirelessly synced with every aspect of my desktop, I want to be able to plug in a pair of headphones and watch video while lying in my hammock. I want it all integrated seamlessly, and only Apple can pull that off. But I suspect their experience with the Newton has soured them on the idea, and the iPod fills its niche so well, there's not much room left to grow. More's the pity. The iPod's a great MP3 player, but it's not anything close to what Apple could do if it tried.
Thanks for the great post.
This little flubbery anemone thing isn't AI any more than a Tamagotchi is. It really has nothing to do with intelligence, artificial or otherwise. It's just an animatronic plant, putting on a show so MIT researchers can watch how people react to it. Not a lot of difference between this and the Plastic Daisies that Wear Sunglasses and Dance When You Clap.
I do like the idea of having an icon for stories that really do deal with some aspect of AI, though. The HAL eye sounds like a good icon.
I've read this story before, and it fills me with a mixture of wonder and sadness. I'm amazed at how clever evolutionary processes can turn out to be; I'm disappointed by the fact that they often seem to be cleverer than we humans can figure out.
If the workings of a simple tone-differentiating circuit are beyond human understanding, what hope do we have of gaining a deep understanding of the human brain, the most complex machine in the universe? It makes me wonder if perhaps the secrets of our intelligence are too complex for that intelligence to grasp.
If you're using code commercially, even internally, I'd think that means you've gone beyond mere research and development and are now subject to the terms of the APSL regarding deployment, which include releasing your source. Pretty clear cut.
I'm not a lawyer, but I've read the entirity of the APSL, and it's the APSL that would, in fact, require you to release your changes to the community if you use them in any commercial way.
The APSL differentiates between using code for your own personal use and/or internal research, and "deployment". There's a whole section of the APSL which defines deployment, and it's pretty specific: deployment is using the code in any way other than for personal use or research. If you deploy the code -- meaning you use it commercially, even if just internally -- under the APSL, you've gotta release your changes back to the community.
Exactly right. It's supposed to be over-the-top in that way. Slashdotters are notorious for missing the nuances in things, and this is no exception.
The need to relieve yourself is not the same as making an active choice to use company resources for things you can do on your own time.
You can't hold it? C'mon, you're a big boy. Maybe you need to schedule your time better. Eat less bran. Drink less water.
And the cameras will be installed next week.
Their toilets.
Still think you don't deserve any privacy?
It's kinda disingenuous to say, "If the government produces IP, everyone should get a piece," and then turn around and say the government can pay others to produce software for it that everyone won't get a piece of. If you're paying a winning bidder to develop government software that relies upon an Open Source license like the GPL, ultimately, taxpayer dollars are being spent developing non-public domain software.
I'm not attacking you here; I've been thinking about the same thing myself for a while. Public domain is pretty obviously the best way of developing & releasing government source, since it preserves the ability of the code to be used for either proprietary or Open Source projects in the future. But limiting ourselves to public domain software is likely to be grossly inefficient as Open Source becomes more and more pervasive.
My own feeling is that guidelines should exist which take different licenses and their cost of development into account. For instance (very roughly):
All things being equal,
If the cost of creating public domain software is 150% or more of the cost of coding comparable software which relies on GPL code, the GPL software should be chosen.
If the cost of creating software which relies on GPL code is 150% or more of the cost of licensing comparable proprietary software, proprietary software should be chosen.
____
The actual percentages could change, obviously, but should still embody the notion that there is an acceptable amount extra we will pay for public domain software, and a smaller amount extra we will pay for Open Source software. Proprietary software is the worst deal, since it leaves us nothing to give back to taxpayers, so we should only choose it if it does everything we want and it's much cheaper than any other solution.