I did something like that on the Apple ][ a long time ago. There was a piece of code the would execute in the main loop every so often that, if you looked at the ASCII values, was my company name. At the time, I was running my own software business so it wasn't technically an Easter Egg (I did own the code) but the idea was to prevent anyone from trying to patch out the copyright notice. When it executed it would copy certain values into memory that other parts of the program would check. It took a while to figure out a combination of opcodes that would do that (and it was a mix of upper/lower case an had spaces/nulls in funny places) but it worked. Zero it out or put your own name in there, and the program would either crash, or tell you that it was unauthorized.
Now, in some products (say entertainment products) I think easter eggs should be a near requirement.
Even so, the placement of such code should be a design/management decision, not that of an individual developer who thinks it would "cool." Of course, it wouldn't really be a true Easter Egg then.
You don't expect a "jack in the box" pop-up doll on a spring to jump out at you when you open the hood on your new car, do you? And if such a thing were to happen, would you say to yourself, "wow, those guys at Aston Martin, don't they have a great sense of humour!"? Frankly, I suspect you'd see it as being a bit weird.
A lot of people would call their lawyers, especially if that little bastard accidentally poked out an eye.
I think we're talking a difference in definitions here. To me, an Easter Egg is hidden functionality in a software product which is placed there by development staff without the foreknowledge or approval of management. I put plenty of finishing touches in my software, and sometimes there are hidden features that end users aren't told about until they need them. I see nothing wrong with that. Furthermore, such features always relate to the primary purpose of the application (diagnostics, auto-repair functions, etc.) and are not just a way for me to put my stamp on the product. As the senior engineer on the job, the product itself does that.
Also (and this is important) I'm totally up front about everything that I'm designing into the software, management is aware of what I'm doing and approves it, and there are no surprises. So yes, I do believe a developer placing unauthorized code into an application not owned by him or her is suffering from an ethical lapse, regardless of how "harmless" that code is claimed to be. Depending upon the application, the mere existence of such code can cause problems. I guess you don't work on anything that would qualify as "mission critical", that's all I can say.
And furthermore, it's not up to the individual developer to make the judgment about "harmlessness" either, not when it comes to potential legal liability, corporate PR or customer satisfaction. Just do your job to the best of your ability, and live with the knowledge of a job well done. If that's not enough for you, maybe a career change is in order.
I am a robot. I do only as instructed. Beep beep. Bloop Bloop.
Be insulting if you wish. If you're a programmer or a software engineer, one day you may get involved with a project that has a serious penalty for failure (and no, I don't mean a bank or e-commerce Web site or something equally safe.) Believe me, when that happens you'll change your tune and get pretty damn serious. "Easter Eggs" and other irrelevancies suddenly become significant liabilities, and you don't even think about them anymore.
I'm happy when a customer notices that the software functions well, is easy to work with, and is solid. In other words, if get noticed it's because I did my job right, not because of some childish desire for attention.
Still, if you work on trivial applications it's okay to treat them like toys, I suppose. I don't, on either score. In any event, I agree with Burnhard. It boils down to whether you want to satisfy some psychological need, or want to earn the trust of both your employer and your customers. The latter is usually more satisfying.
Easter Eggs? No, funny comments/error messages, and bizarre variable names, absolutely.
I will never forget the day a student who was using my software for a project asked during a meeting what an 'out of cheese' error was. The poor kid was so confused:)
Nothing really tops the Amiga's "Guru Meditation Error".
Speaking as a Software Engineer (I consider myself a professional); you are undermining the customer's trust in your product simply to massage your own ego. Customers are naturally concerned about integrity and security (more so today than ever before). Once you've demonstrated a desire to hide "secret features" in their products, they may start to wonder what other (perhaps malign functionality) is lurking in the code.
Thank you. I was starting to think that attitude was entirely missing from the Slashdot crowd. "Easter Eggs", bah. Programmers and engineers should make their mark in the world by designing and implementing quality products and not, as you say, massaging their obviously-inflated egos.
Having easter eggs and unexpected bugs/flakiness in an initial release would be embarrassing, and call into question the seriousness of your coding.
What? Installing an easter egg into a product at any point in its development cycle calls into question not only the seriousness of your coding, but your professional ethics. This whole thread is stupid: your employers don't pay you to insert unauthorized code into their commercial software, and if you think they do, odds are you're mistaken.
It's a point of international pride. The European Union now has something bigger than the United States. They want to be the new cultural center for science. Having their baby explode and fail to do anything for two years after its completion date, when it has cost far more than originally expected (and now needs still more money) is a political black eye. This setback means that the United States is still where it's at for particle physics for the next two years now.
Oh, come on mods. Given the politically-charged and highly competitve nature of the modern scientific scene, the post is entirely reasonable.
It IS a black eye, any way you slice it. Sure, they'll fix it, and the LHC will do great work, but for now they took a hit.
Still, this does not in any way invalidate my point: Enforcing rights is part of the charter of a government. Or, extending your own arguments, we'd conclude that, since there are laws on the books that provide remedy and punishment for car theft, we should just leave it for litigation, and police shouldn't do squat if they witness a car being stolen.
My goodness, are you reaching to make a point. There are far too many issues completely ignored by your post that I'd suggest you go back and get a slightly larger picture here. Start with Ray Beckerman's blog and work from there. You seem intelligent: I think you'll be able to figure out the flaws in your argument after a little research.
He is a nutter, and that's a good thing for rallying a cause. It's not so good once the cause becomes influential--then you need great orators, which AFAIK, neither Linus nor RMS can claim to be.
"You should never hand someone a gun unless you're sure where they'll point it. Your mistake." -- Cmdr. Jeffrey Sinclair; Babylon 5: "By Any Means Necessary"
I agree with you, but a fictional character from a mediocre sci-fi series probably doesn't make the best supporting reference. To be fair though, Commander Sinclair was one of my favorite characters. Never did like Boxleitner in that role: too preachy. Sinclair just went out and did what he had to do.
But I feel the first question we need to ask is will this position have any real power.
There's power, and there's power. Whether or not such a person has an real legal authority is an issue, of course, but no matter what they will have influence. They will also have far more of the public's ear than ten million Slashdotters ever could. The right person (and that's the real trick) in this slot could do much to put copyright back on track. I'm not sure who that person would be. Lessig is an excellent choice, looking at his credentials and his stance on the issues. Whether he's the right person from the PR/political perspective I wouldn't know.
And don't forget that many like Comcast are compressing the hell out of HD. So much so that in my eyes at least the HD picture looks worse than the uncompressed SD.
Well, I'm no fan of Comcast (ha, look at my sig) but I have to admit that at least in my area, the 1080p channels are crystal clear. Where you see degradation is generally on re-runs (for example, when I watch the occasional old Stargate SG-1 it's compressed all to hell.) I had the same problem back when I had Dish Network. What I was told is that the stuff is often precompressed by whoever owns a show, in order to save transmission charges.
Last I heard the only things actually broadcast in HD are the World series and the Super Bowl, so yeah, I'd say that if you're watching a lot of broadcast TV but not much sports, you're just as well off getting a 720p anyway.
What do you mean by "HD" here? Because a number of shows are available on broadcast television in full HD. Hell, we even have the Create channel broadcasting in 1080 in the major markets, and that's basically nothing but cooking shows.
No kidding. All the local channels in my area have gone HD (mostly 1080p) and even our local PBS broadcasts are in 720p here and look pretty damn good because most of the recent programming was shot in HD. Raw display resolution means squat if the source material sucks. Matter of fact, I actually started watching some of their nature series because the extra detail compared to NTSC brings them to life. You really feel like can just reach in there and pet the cuddly cougar cub.
I'm not much into organized sports myself, but a friend of mine is a hockey fan (I would say "rabid hockey fan", but that's generally assumed, I think) and he stopped by a couple days after we installed our 56" DLP. I put on the local hockey game in 1080p, and he just sat there stunned for about an hour. "Oh my GOD! I can see the puck!" he said.
So High Definition is here, and it's only going to get more pervasive with time.
Ok, seriously. Do Americans have running water yet?
How can a country like America be so backward in respects to technology? Astonishing.
No need to be obnoxious. Doesn't help you make your point, and we may be complaining about your country next time.
Remember, it's not so simple for our government (specifically, the FCC) to mandate sweeping changes. There's a lot of requirement for input from the public and involved corporations (broadcasts, cable companies, equipment makers, etc.) That all takes time.
As it happens, I have a 56" DLP television with plenty of true HD 1080p channels and they look great. Most of my local broadcast channels have already gone digital (mindblowing improvement over old NTSC) and the full switchover nationwide will occur in a couple of months. The problem with HD implementation here was that the FCC took longer than expected to come up with a viable standard, and broadcast and cable providers kept lobbying and delaying matters. But that's over with now.
Also, there were/are a LOT of NTSC receivers here, and a lot of people that just don't give a damn about digital or HD. They needed time to deal with the coming switch to all digital, since they're having it shoved down their throats whether they want it or not. You would not believe the media blitz surrounding the switch to broadcast DTV. Anyone that isn't aware of the cutoff date now probably has no need for a TV anyway.
I challenge you to sell an antenna without the "HD" appended to it. I've tried and it's nigh-impossible. The average consumer believes they need an "HD antenna" and they won't buy anything that lacks that designation.
I don't care what his or her IQ happens to be: the average consumer is an idiot when it comes to buying decisions. Wal-Mart, Target and the rest have proven that rather conclusively. American consumers focus entirely on price to the exclusion of all else, unless they can be convinced that a distinction exists, whether there is one or not. Often that distinction is entirely imaginary, and created through sophisticated marketing compaigns and plenty of hyperbole.
Drives me nuts when somebody absolutely must have a particular product but can't give a good reason as to why they made that choice, other than that "well, everybody else has one." Argh.
Slashdot Mirror
I did something like that on the Apple ][ a long time ago. There was a piece of code the would execute in the main loop every so often that, if you looked at the ASCII values, was my company name. At the time, I was running my own software business so it wasn't technically an Easter Egg (I did own the code) but the idea was to prevent anyone from trying to patch out the copyright notice. When it executed it would copy certain values into memory that other parts of the program would check. It took a while to figure out a combination of opcodes that would do that (and it was a mix of upper/lower case an had spaces/nulls in funny places) but it worked. Zero it out or put your own name in there, and the program would either crash, or tell you that it was unauthorized.
Now, in some products (say entertainment products) I think easter eggs should be a near requirement.
Even so, the placement of such code should be a design/management decision, not that of an individual developer who thinks it would "cool." Of course, it wouldn't really be a true Easter Egg then.
You don't expect a "jack in the box" pop-up doll on a spring to jump out at you when you open the hood on your new car, do you? And if such a thing were to happen, would you say to yourself, "wow, those guys at Aston Martin, don't they have a great sense of humour!"? Frankly, I suspect you'd see it as being a bit weird.
A lot of people would call their lawyers, especially if that little bastard accidentally poked out an eye.
This isn't about charm. This is about having to explain to management why a customer is unhappy.
Which comes down to keeping your job, or otherwise.
I think we're talking a difference in definitions here. To me, an Easter Egg is hidden functionality in a software product which is placed there by development staff without the foreknowledge or approval of management. I put plenty of finishing touches in my software, and sometimes there are hidden features that end users aren't told about until they need them. I see nothing wrong with that. Furthermore, such features always relate to the primary purpose of the application (diagnostics, auto-repair functions, etc.) and are not just a way for me to put my stamp on the product. As the senior engineer on the job, the product itself does that.
Also (and this is important) I'm totally up front about everything that I'm designing into the software, management is aware of what I'm doing and approves it, and there are no surprises. So yes, I do believe a developer placing unauthorized code into an application not owned by him or her is suffering from an ethical lapse, regardless of how "harmless" that code is claimed to be. Depending upon the application, the mere existence of such code can cause problems. I guess you don't work on anything that would qualify as "mission critical", that's all I can say.
And furthermore, it's not up to the individual developer to make the judgment about "harmlessness" either, not when it comes to potential legal liability, corporate PR or customer satisfaction. Just do your job to the best of your ability, and live with the knowledge of a job well done. If that's not enough for you, maybe a career change is in order.
I am a robot. I do only as instructed. Beep beep. Bloop Bloop.
Be insulting if you wish. If you're a programmer or a software engineer, one day you may get involved with a project that has a serious penalty for failure (and no, I don't mean a bank or e-commerce Web site or something equally safe.) Believe me, when that happens you'll change your tune and get pretty damn serious. "Easter Eggs" and other irrelevancies suddenly become significant liabilities, and you don't even think about them anymore.
I'm happy when a customer notices that the software functions well, is easy to work with, and is solid. In other words, if get noticed it's because I did my job right, not because of some childish desire for attention.
Still, if you work on trivial applications it's okay to treat them like toys, I suppose. I don't, on either score. In any event, I agree with Burnhard. It boils down to whether you want to satisfy some psychological need, or want to earn the trust of both your employer and your customers. The latter is usually more satisfying.
You decide.
Easter Eggs? No, funny comments/error messages, and bizarre variable names, absolutely.
I will never forget the day a student who was using my software for a project asked during a meeting what an 'out of cheese' error was. The poor kid was so confused :)
Nothing really tops the Amiga's "Guru Meditation Error".
Speaking as a Software Engineer (I consider myself a professional); you are undermining the customer's trust in your product simply to massage your own ego. Customers are naturally concerned about integrity and security (more so today than ever before). Once you've demonstrated a desire to hide "secret features" in their products, they may start to wonder what other (perhaps malign functionality) is lurking in the code.
Thank you. I was starting to think that attitude was entirely missing from the Slashdot crowd. "Easter Eggs", bah. Programmers and engineers should make their mark in the world by designing and implementing quality products and not, as you say, massaging their obviously-inflated egos.
Having easter eggs and unexpected bugs/flakiness in an initial release would be embarrassing, and call into question the seriousness of your coding.
What? Installing an easter egg into a product at any point in its development cycle calls into question not only the seriousness of your coding, but your professional ethics. This whole thread is stupid: your employers don't pay you to insert unauthorized code into their commercial software, and if you think they do, odds are you're mistaken.
Do you add Easter Eggs to the software that is produced at the office?
No. Period. End-Of-Statement. Even if I worked for a game studio (and I used to) I wouldn't do that. It's thoroughly unprofessional.
It's a point of international pride. The European Union now has something bigger than the United States. They want to be the new cultural center for science. Having their baby explode and fail to do anything for two years after its completion date, when it has cost far more than originally expected (and now needs still more money) is a political black eye. This setback means that the United States is still where it's at for particle physics for the next two years now.
Oh, come on mods. Given the politically-charged and highly competitve nature of the modern scientific scene, the post is entirely reasonable. It IS a black eye, any way you slice it. Sure, they'll fix it, and the LHC will do great work, but for now they took a hit.
Still, this does not in any way invalidate my point: Enforcing rights is part of the charter of a government. Or, extending your own arguments, we'd conclude that, since there are laws on the books that provide remedy and punishment for car theft, we should just leave it for litigation, and police shouldn't do squat if they witness a car being stolen.
My goodness, are you reaching to make a point. There are far too many issues completely ignored by your post that I'd suggest you go back and get a slightly larger picture here. Start with Ray Beckerman's blog and work from there. You seem intelligent: I think you'll be able to figure out the flaws in your argument after a little research.
Although the main reason I'd like to see this is because I want the media cartels to have scored an own goal.
Well, in the case of the Sony (rootkit) Corporation it would be an pwn goal.
He is a nutter, and that's a good thing for rallying a cause. It's not so good once the cause becomes influential--then you need great orators, which AFAIK, neither Linus nor RMS can claim to be.
Well, they could take some classes.
Oh, I get it. But honestly I can't think of a shorter way of expressing the concept of a "baize cloth routine."
What does that mean anyway? Never mind, I'll Google it.
Common sense?
I run away from people that claim such a thing exists.
Oh, it exists all right, but it's a transient affair at best. Most of the time, it's below the noise level.
Was it absolutely necessary for you to make me spit coffee all over my keyboard!? Asshole!
I learned years ago not to read Slashdot with coffee up my nose.
"You should never hand someone a gun unless you're sure where they'll point it. Your mistake." -- Cmdr. Jeffrey Sinclair; Babylon 5: "By Any Means Necessary"
I agree with you, but a fictional character from a mediocre sci-fi series probably doesn't make the best supporting reference. To be fair though, Commander Sinclair was one of my favorite characters. Never did like Boxleitner in that role: too preachy. Sinclair just went out and did what he had to do.
But I feel the first question we need to ask is will this position have any real power.
There's power, and there's power. Whether or not such a person has an real legal authority is an issue, of course, but no matter what they will have influence. They will also have far more of the public's ear than ten million Slashdotters ever could. The right person (and that's the real trick) in this slot could do much to put copyright back on track. I'm not sure who that person would be. Lessig is an excellent choice, looking at his credentials and his stance on the issues. Whether he's the right person from the PR/political perspective I wouldn't know.
Well I get equally frustrated with Slashdotters who claim U.S. broadcast tv will be ending in February
I have the feeling those people don't actually live here. Because, if they did, they'd have to be idiots.
And don't forget that many like Comcast are compressing the hell out of HD. So much so that in my eyes at least the HD picture looks worse than the uncompressed SD.
Well, I'm no fan of Comcast (ha, look at my sig) but I have to admit that at least in my area, the 1080p channels are crystal clear. Where you see degradation is generally on re-runs (for example, when I watch the occasional old Stargate SG-1 it's compressed all to hell.) I had the same problem back when I had Dish Network. What I was told is that the stuff is often precompressed by whoever owns a show, in order to save transmission charges.
The previous message was brought to you by the National Cyclops Council.
Good thing for you I wasn't drinking anything when I read that.
What do you mean by "HD" here? Because a number of shows are available on broadcast television in full HD. Hell, we even have the Create channel broadcasting in 1080 in the major markets, and that's basically nothing but cooking shows.
No kidding. All the local channels in my area have gone HD (mostly 1080p) and even our local PBS broadcasts are in 720p here and look pretty damn good because most of the recent programming was shot in HD. Raw display resolution means squat if the source material sucks. Matter of fact, I actually started watching some of their nature series because the extra detail compared to NTSC brings them to life. You really feel like can just reach in there and pet the cuddly cougar cub.
I'm not much into organized sports myself, but a friend of mine is a hockey fan (I would say "rabid hockey fan", but that's generally assumed, I think) and he stopped by a couple days after we installed our 56" DLP. I put on the local hockey game in 1080p, and he just sat there stunned for about an hour. "Oh my GOD! I can see the puck!" he said.
So High Definition is here, and it's only going to get more pervasive with time.
That's an American thing
Ok, seriously. Do Americans have running water yet?
How can a country like America be so backward in respects to technology? Astonishing.
No need to be obnoxious. Doesn't help you make your point, and we may be complaining about your country next time.
Remember, it's not so simple for our government (specifically, the FCC) to mandate sweeping changes. There's a lot of requirement for input from the public and involved corporations (broadcasts, cable companies, equipment makers, etc.) That all takes time.
As it happens, I have a 56" DLP television with plenty of true HD 1080p channels and they look great. Most of my local broadcast channels have already gone digital (mindblowing improvement over old NTSC) and the full switchover nationwide will occur in a couple of months. The problem with HD implementation here was that the FCC took longer than expected to come up with a viable standard, and broadcast and cable providers kept lobbying and delaying matters. But that's over with now.
Also, there were/are a LOT of NTSC receivers here, and a lot of people that just don't give a damn about digital or HD. They needed time to deal with the coming switch to all digital, since they're having it shoved down their throats whether they want it or not. You would not believe the media blitz surrounding the switch to broadcast DTV. Anyone that isn't aware of the cutoff date now probably has no need for a TV anyway.
I challenge you to sell an antenna without the "HD" appended to it. I've tried and it's nigh-impossible. The average consumer believes they need an "HD antenna" and they won't buy anything that lacks that designation.
I don't care what his or her IQ happens to be: the average consumer is an idiot when it comes to buying decisions. Wal-Mart, Target and the rest have proven that rather conclusively. American consumers focus entirely on price to the exclusion of all else, unless they can be convinced that a distinction exists, whether there is one or not. Often that distinction is entirely imaginary, and created through sophisticated marketing compaigns and plenty of hyperbole.
Drives me nuts when somebody absolutely must have a particular product but can't give a good reason as to why they made that choice, other than that "well, everybody else has one." Argh.