Exactly. It's pretty hard to talk about things other than the game while in it. I've played everquest a few times and there is conversation, but it's not at any level that I woulc consider of any depth.
Yes, of course everything someone tells you about themselves could be one big lie crafted in their own image to elicit a false relationship.
Conversely, you can build a trust based relationship, which will give you insight into the mind of an actual person through things like observation of interaction in a group, what others who "actually" know a person have to say about them, etc.
The same goes for off-line. I have thought I'd known some people, but who I thought they were had been fabricated.
Besides being able to verify certain assertions (e.g., lying about someone, having something, or facial expressions), there's not much difference in being able to read a persons thoughts.
I can tell someone is a liar in text when I get to know them, just as in real life.
Yes, it's somewhat disturbing that people could join a group where they hear only what they want to hear. On the other hand, in many communities conversation isn't only relegated to one specific main theme, and conversation can wander into any human interest, which allows individuals to grow from the perspective of others.
"When you have that much time between action and reaction, it really kills off the whole aspect of interaction"
Um, IRC is real time. Same with aim. You can just choose to ignore the interaction much more easily than in person.
IMO, you're using delay as a straw man without giving any logical explanation.
I'm in a room on IRC right now with 120 people in it. It would be a miracle to get 120 people to interact with each other in real life at the same time. In fact, interaction is magnified in this case. I can talk about my daily activities to 100+ people at the same time. I talk to people who I do and don't know in real life. I don't really interact differently with close "virtual" friends and "real" friends except where we're talking about an event in the physical or a person we know off-line (because the "virtual" friends just don't know this other person - though they might if he/she came online). The proxy works similarly, in my experience, for physical friends I know that are divided by activities such as work, play, and uni.
"It's like saying that a bunch of people that subscribe to the same magazine are all part of the same community. They might be. But not at all because of the act of reading the same magazine"
Uh huh. But let's say I start a generic channel named #blah. At first it's just a few friends I know in "real life". Let's say we talk about programming much of the time. Other people are drawn to this channel on irc to talk about programming. However, over time the conversation is more general and more people come on for other reasons than that, because the conversation is a lot more general. Over time, our irc friends even bring on their own physical friends, spouses, girlfriends, boyfriends, etc. The channel may now be primarily for interaction between community although it still may have a dominant theme, like, for example programming, or tech talk, or warez, or emotionally deprived teen/adult talk; whatever. If you venture on to any fairly large IRC channel, many have turned into little sub-communities where people interact with each other daily.
"And what methods are being used to determine how many Napster users are buying music?"
Rofl, oh please. I know hundreds of people who use napster. None of them buy music. If they do, it's because they can't find it on napster in any decent bit rate.
"Judging from the number of people who seem to think that VCD is still a fine format, quality must not be at the top of everyone's list"
That's because VCD groups primarily only release movies currently in the theater. DVD rips exceed this and offer pretty good quality.
That said, years ago I remember downloading braveheart and Ninja Scroll as a 100 meg vivo movie. Quality was fucking amazing for internet video back then. And yes, these were copies of VHS tapes - the internet does change the arena, especially if technologies such as napster are allowed to grow rampantly.
"The author who is discovered after 20 years of writing has hopefully written some nice works during that time, and can "
That's the thing. Let's pretend my name is, hmm... Kurt Vonnegut (used only for effect - Kurt Vonnegut in no way endorses me remarks). In the 60's I wrote a book called 'Slaughterhouse Five'. In the 70's I wrote a book called 'Breakfast of Champions'. Neither were extremely popular except for the last 20 years.
"make money from something other than writing"
I am not a millionaire. I am a writer. A writer writes. Oh sorry, I should have been running a business all these years instead. Stupid me.
"write more works that would now sell because the author is presumably at least mildly famous"
Sorry, as the Valenti battology went: "Congress is with me on this one"
"suffers for the benefit of the only people who stand to significantly help it"
Professor Lessig may be able to weave a web of sophistry, but many of his arguments don't stand up to critical thinking.
He uses the VCR as a reason to invalidate the DMCA because Valenti was proven "wrong". In actuality the reason why said technology hasn't damaged the industry is because of two reasons: a) it takes long to copy a video tape and quality degrades; and, b) anti-pirate measures such as macrovision.
The situation with DeCSS and DVD is such that the release of this circumvention software could result in easy copying and distribution of movies online when it becomes viable for relatively large communities because the internet allows you to share material with not just your friends, but any anonymous person.
I can attest to this as I have a very good divx copy of romeo must die that is 700 megs. Full screen it looks pretty damn good (albeit being a bit grainy), as the original resolution is 640x384. All it takes is one person to make a copy of the dvd and thousands with interest to distribute by trade (e.g., napster) according to their own self interest. That said, I had to have connections to get this movie (namely someone with an ftp server with several extremely large hard drives). Napster is a company that profits off such a shared model.
When asked if some people on napster should have the ability to transfer files to millions, Lessig says paraphrased "in some instances". He doesn't elaborate further, but I can not think of very many instances where legal file trading is occuring.
A ethical counter-argument is that channels of advertising music (radio, tv) are in complete control of these companies, therefore word of mouth is the only alternative. Napster destroys this barrier and provides the consumer with an extremely large collection of music to help with buying decisions. The dilemma here is that users of napster aren't buying music in any significant numbers -- therefore this argument is invalid. However, bands and record companies wishing to build a reputation could probably provide alternative models.
Further on he asks whether it is about control as it seems the RIAA would rather sue and maintain control than negotiate a deal where legal tagged files would be transferred. At a glance, in his context, it sounds like he makes some sense, but when you think about it, there is no reason to be transferring files on napster if legitimate versions are available directly from company web sites.
Lessig then moves on to my.mp3.com which implements technology termed "space shifting". That is, prove you have a cd and then use it from anywhere you like. As a customer of the classical channel on my.mp3.com I have noticed that they take several measures to prevent people from listening on multiple streams at the same time, especially with more than one IP address. That said, you can still create multiple accounts and "beam" (randomly reads sectors on a cd) a music cd up to mp3.com, therefore allowing multiple users access to the same cd's simultaneously. Of course, this is pretty much the same as me physically making a copy with my cd burner, so I think that the inner logic of this argument holds extremely well for fair use -- providing measures are taken so that piracy is not a common occurence.
However, the counter argument is that the owners of the music should retain control over how their work is distributed. Space shifting technology circumvents this right; I don't see it as particularly valid, but there might be concerns about companies springing up and offering a similar less robust service. It's questionable whether a third party should be able to help you execute your fair use without the investigation and blessing (i.e., licensing) to ensure that these technologies are safe. Take the imaginary situation where we extend this to DVD. Let's say I can "beam" DVD's up to a service and then they stream the movie back. My friend in Israel can now watch the movie if I give him a login and password, providing I am not tryin to stream it at the same time. Is space shifting ethical in this situation? How about if I remove the third party and stream directly to this person? Is that lending in fair use? I would probably say no, as it is a dangerous slippery slope.
They might be able to argue that my.mp3.com is not a distribution medium but a tool of fair use, defined as so because no money changes hands for the the actual music as it was already paid for in cd form.
In the case of the third party, technology still convolutes the issue because there is no absolute guarantee that each person actually has a copy of the CD. So we either, a) extend fair use to the third party an allow lawsuits to ensure piracy does not take place; or, b) outlaw such behavior without permission and have all these companies negotiate licensing schemes which keeps control in the hand of the original copyright holders as to how their material is distributed. Is it fair to force (a) just because some of these companies are extremely rich? But is it fair to subvert a new means of fair use with (b)? This is the dilemma.
Another main theme Professor Lessig espouses is copyright terms. He mentions proposals from industry that would have copyright last forever. Copyright was originally only supposed to exist as a means to ensure a decent profit and then fall into the public domain. The current state of copyright is that it lasts effectively forever in terms of viable use; that is, unless it is, for example, an important piece of literature. One side idealogically would have it that copyrighted materials should fall to public domain within a time because there are barriers to information, ideas, and entertainment - given the original copyright owner had actually made a profit. But what of the author who isn't discovered or understood for twenty years? The other side would have it that as long as there is a demand for intellectual property, it should be available for profit. But how about that book written several hundred years ago? Should those that inherit the deed to copyrighted material really have valid control? The longer the space in time, the more absurd it seems. Professor Lessig has an extremely hard hitting point, mentioning that disney -- the same company who had copyright lengths increased -- has used public domain stories in several of their movies, including but not limited to Pinochio, Beauty and the Beast, Cinderella, Aladdin, and Snow White.
But then he goes on to recommend 14 years as an optimal copyright expiry date. Again, what about the author who isn't discovered for 20 years? I do agree on moderation but each specific industry has different needs (exempli gratia, software versus the movie)
Jack Valenti, on the other hand, doesn't have much to say at all.
I think you're talking about an unrestrained evolutionary model with no selection, design, analysis or cleanup.
Just didn't want anyone to mistake the formalized evolutionary model in literature and an evolutionary model he's talking about in OSS software design. I think what he is referring to really, is the pre-waterfall model where everyone would just "code-and-fix". In short, no matter what "model" you use, convoluted code can come as a result of either unskilled labor, ignorance to methods, or outright rejection to adherence. For example: The model elucidated in mythical man month is basically the rapid prototype model. The process flow of the rapid prototype model is; (Product Idea)->((Prototype & [Analysis) & Design])->(Implementation)->(Testing)->(Product Life). An code and fix spin on this would be: (Product Idea) ->(Prototype)->(More Code)->(Test)->(Release).
"When you develop software using the evolutional model, that is: add code/functionality on the fly in an ongoing basis with short term designs and not based on original concepts and designs, you end up with eventually (most likely) a pile of code that has to be rewritten NOW because a new feature asks for it. because most of the time in these projects people do NOT choose to rewrite it, it's added anyway, resulting in spagetti. "
When you don't understand the model and don't adhere to it, then the result will inevitably be unoptimal code. The evolutionary model I am aware of (you may just be using evolutionary as a buzzword analogous to unrestrained OSS, I don't know) includes requirements, specifications, design and analysis. There is no, "lets chuck in whatever code we can think of without thinking of the grand design". There's actually process analysis (you know, the high level business or customer process, how it can be streamlined, how we can enhance or keep work-flow efficiency), requirements elicitation (where you talk to or observe customers/clients, perceived market requirements and timelines), et al. The actual design and implementation of the product is through an iteration of high level design, analysis, prototyping, analysis, prototyping, code clean up, analysis, testing, release, design and product idea, evaluation of new idea as per requirements and then specifications according to informed analysis of said factors, design, analysis, prototyping, clean up code, analysis, clean up code, testing, clean up code, release etc.
"In Short: evolutional model code is code where no theoretical basis is stated, there is no original manifest that illustrates WHY all the code is set up like this. MOST OSS projects are developped using the evolutional model. What helps is an ONGOING theoretical design document to function as a theoretical BASIS for the structure of the code. If there is NO designdocument or conceptdocument stating WHY code is structured the way it is structured, it's bad code. Period. "
No, that's called ad hoc "code and fix".
"What helps is an ONGOING theoretical design document to function as a theoretical BASIS for the structure of the code. If there is NO designdocument or conceptdocument stating WHY code is structured the way it is structured, it's bad code. Period. "
This is true, I think. The documentation has to change with the program, either through comments or informed technical writers or developers documenting. Developer documents tend to get out of date though. That's why I stress staying to customer and market requirements above all -- because you otherwise developers tend to end up doing their own thing or modifying specifications to suit their idea of what a good program should look like, and not what the client/customer/market would want. This doesn't tend to work in the OSS model though, because most are coding for themselves, so they just do whatever, like throw in weird function X, because they think it's cool:). Larger projects though, should definitely get both user and developer documentation up and going so that new developers don't have to worry about the learning curve. Example of big convoluted project: X. Example of pretty successful projects: Linux, because linux and others have maintainer control; FreeBSD, where there is a committee atmosphere where new code is peer reviewed *before* it is committed. I would note that both of those projects have pretty decent documentation unlike some projects (although most are dinky doo-hickey programs, so who cares).
"Another thing that adds up to bad coding is a bad naming scheme, or worse: no naming scheme at all! Nobody is forced to use hungarian coding, but please CHOOSE one! develop your own if no scheme suits you, but a scheme that HAS TO BE used by all developers in a project is a MUST to keep the code clean and updatable, even if you use designdocuments."
I don't know about this for many OSS projects -- but I'd hope that the code is at least readable if not intuitive to understand.
"More and more OSS projects get tighter software teams with people who KNOW how to develop software, thus using designs and theory before starting to jam in the code, and that is a good thing."
I'd definitely agree here. It shouldn't be too hard to turn the "here's a patch to fix or add new functionality X" atmosphere into a more committee based atmosphere where there are actually regular talks about design direction. I'd think, though, that a project has to reach a certain order of magnitude in size before one would start introducing such things. Although it might not be the best idea to have big design meetings regarding tiny inconsequential pieces of software, it would do individual developers better to be ever mindful of stupid functionality that really doesn't need to be in a program.
Dun dun dun. Crash course in Managing Software(and hardware) Development. There are millions of links out there. So here's an introduction so people know what to look for. Remember, there is no magical model that automatically works! --- This is why you learn different management in software development models, because there is no one model that suits everyone. There are generally held principles that anyone can come to, but they aren't solutions that you can work out by common sense.
Here are some general statements:
"Software development is multi-dimensional."
OK, duh.
"Developers pay attention to what they are measured on"
OK, that makes sense. People _respect_ what management _inspects_.
"Some performance dimensions in software may be in conflict"
Makes sense, although a little more complex. (e.g., min memory, min SLOC vs. min effort and max user satisfaction vs max maintainability...)
Objectives in managing software development:
* define the process by which projects are conceived approved, and delivered * define the guidelines and standards that are used by architects, developers and managers who will develop software * define the mechanisms used to deliver the software to the marketplace * general models to develop specific models in particular niche's such as "shrink wrapped" or "web based" or "b2b" or "b2c" or "OEM" etc * define who is involved (e.g., product management, project management, development, technical writers, human factors/ui, localization etc) and their roles and their tasks. * Specifications documents should follow these definitions and management models such as that for cost estimation (e.g., COCOMO, other models). * once tasks are defined, you can help employees do what they are supposed to and evaluate them for future changes to development model
* use formal methods ! * use customer requirements formats such as manuals or other docs ! * your answer must not always be yes ! * proposed changes must be evaluated and rational ! * there is always nearly a version 2.0 ! * the customer almost always values quality over a short delay ! * remain flexible enough to react to the work-place !
I once set up myself as a mirror for the star wars episode 1 trailer and then some dork linked me as a mirror one theforce.net. 150 concurrent users downloading off my ftp site wasn't much fun and you can guess what my co-loc bill was:).
The same thing happens all the time with file postings or links to web sites which aren't set up to handle a gigantic amount of users or a regular amount of users downloading large files (e.g. 20+ jpeg files + database query).
It has been up for about an hour and a half. I bet the initial down time was due to philip linking to those photocd pages with 50 or so jpegs on them each.
Besides, I think the box that runs photo.net is only a hp box with a couple of 180mhz processors.
"Stallman doesn't rant off about guns (creepy) nor say any homophobic remarks publicly"
Just to make it clear. You're not attributing those remarks to ESR are you? Beyond propagandized views, there are real idealogical reasons for believing in the right of arms, based on a few value judgements. There are, in fact, compelling arguments on both sides - which is why the issue is so controversial. The homophobia comment, I think, is a stereotype pertaining to "right wing nuts". Those claiming to adhere to libertarianism, I think, may or may not agree with it, but would uphold the individual rights of the homosexual because they engage in acts between two consenting individuals.
Not being one to judge someone as per association, I would have to say this is all suppositon. I would, however, ask for further evidence regarding these statements if you were attributing these comments to ESR.
Examine the basic scientific method as related to subjectivity and you will find the logical error that Rand makes. What we perceive and what is are only valid so far as current human thought and perception. Some things are just more solidly corroborated than others. Rand presents her objectivist philosophy with subjective thoughts like humans being "heroic beings".
In fact, I am so annoyed at running into so many Ayn Rand phreaks, that I am thinking of setting up a web site to compare many other ism philosophies and movements that say they promote thinking and intellectual evolution, such as environmentalism, punk, goth, freemason, ad infinitum idealogies as compared to objectivism.
Probably because he's more interested in educating people who are multi-disciplinary and, hence, probably have more direction -- from which the education they receive will give necessary tools to solve many of the problems they had originally perceived as complex barriers to getting anything worthwhile done.
That, or he just doesn't want to have to baby people who don't have real determination (as opposed to bounded interest) or questionable credientials due to a problematic evaluation process that would have to be extensive when you're a self-learned individual. I mean, otherwise he would be flooded with requests from a lot of 31337 hax0r script kiddies, right?
"Yes, the tone might not have been the most appropriate...but it comes from exasperation. I used to be on the "right track". But it sure looked like if I held on I would be coming out as yet another preconfigured cog."
Well, there are rote learning sheep who are doomed to live in mediocrity; and there are those that are genuinely interested in their field, probably part of a life long quest to understand the world around them. You can do both at academic institutions at the undergraduate level.
Your comment seems to be a negative assertion regarding the average curriculum's structure, if I'm not mistaken. My answer to that is: yes, there is certainly needless repetition in every undergraduate education -- however, this repetitive mnemonic approach is often necessary to lay the foundations from which one would have a greater understanding of the problems ahead, and shouldn't be mistaken with an attempt to manufacture or program students. It's definitely a downside if you're ahead of the curve, but most will not likely be able to find the intellectual support systems that one needs to grow, outside of the academic community.
Even if you find it a painful experience, there's always graduate programs where you can have lots of fun:)
heh heh, they come in all shapes and forms. Although, what substance does Hillary Clinton have to go on? That senate race seems to be not much more than a popularity contest based on hyper-inflated reputations.
Please allow me to elucidate plainly upon my original point without the weighted "cult" rhetoric which bears an extremely negative connotation:
If you look further into various philosophies, manifesto's, movements, et al, you will find they most always bring one to question their current perceived reality. This applies across to pseudo-religion, cults, racist groups, some political movements, ad infinitum (e.g., environmentalism, punk rockers, liberalism, communism, nazism, freemasons, scientologists, *gasp* even some religions, et al etc etc). For example, if you go call up the local American communist party - do you think they will tell you that they didn't employ skepticism in shaping their idealogy? I thought not.
You have to make the distinction between that and the thoughts elucidated heretofore in the objectivist philosophy. You might then say: "Why do you feel so strongly about such things as political manifesto's? They are harmless.." Well, I have to admit - I too, had fell in a terrible ism pothole many years ago. I too had found that this had opened me up into a world of skeptical thinking. What I later found at the help of another is replacement dogma based on the seeds of that particular belief system presented.
And that is why I despise those wearing things such as objectivism, or environmentalism etc on their belt. Saying such things are harmless and only books flies in the face of those who are dedicated to these philosophies. Even in situations where the progenitors were revealed as complete frauds who managed to elucidate only one single, clear thought in their entire lives, people have still insisted on turning the happenstance into religions, cults, brotherhoods, movements, and so on. People will be people, no doubt.
Anyway, when glazing over the works of philosophers such as Russell, Godel, Nietzsche, Descartes, etc - do you see them concocting rigid belief systems? I thought not. Bertrand Russell even jokes as to how one would easily herd sheep with simple grains of truth. In Ayn Rand's case, she could barely conceal the fact that her books are really a manifesto. In contrast, Orwell actually wrote books based on the merit of his ideas alone - not some cultish ism manifesto philosophy.
Still, one asks what's wrong with the objectivist system. Well, as I said in my other post, it's mostly feel-good self-fulfilling blabble. Subjectivity seems to be lost in all this to "objective" selfishness. It's basically a simplistic look at the complex system we call human life. Black and whites are just so conveniently manipulative. If Ayn Rand really wanted you to think for yourself, she wouldn't have built such a rigid philosophy based on interesting grains of truth, but riddled with logical fallacies. "Objectivism"? Give me a break.
Note that my original response didn't say not to read Ayn Rand's books. It was only a warning to the possibly destructive thought systems she is trying to plant in the readers mind. Just take it with a grain of salt like one should take any other manifesto. Belief systems denying the intellectual evolution of the reader are for wussies:-).
I have no complaint with this point. I meant this in regard to philanthropists in a company using its profits to further their normative world view in a circumstance where they aren't directly helping the company.
If owners of a corporation agree that such philanthropy will be good PR, and the community at large will, according to economic laws of utility, put value in their philanthropic social standing - then so be it. When voting with our dollars in an economic system, we take the sum of variables from utility in our perceived world - whether positive and negative factors. Note that I say perceived because we are only able to take into consideration factors that we are aware of.
I was establishing a colloquialism drawing a parallel from which a corporation would be the "state" and the curch would be the social programs. I apologize for the mixup and should have made that more clear. On slashdot I prefer writing in long incoherent rants, so that often happens:)
"Morality is not about efficiency, it's about doing 'the right thing'"
Yes, again, sorry for not being clear. I was referring to the establishment of social foundations, charity groups, et al in the public corporation. I meant this primarily in regard to issues it is not directly tied to. However, it would make sense if their promotion of such issues would help the company in the long run or somehow morally balance the wrongdoing they are currently doing today and/or in the past (e.g., company x who dropped toxic waste in lakes in the past working with government agency such as EDF to collaborate with other companies {y,z} to create a more environmentally friendly management process because of law or internal or external moral pressures)
"when a company goes to a country that has lax labor laws, or is a dictatorship, it supports them."
Yes, as I said, these are complex ethical issues which can't be glazed over with hasty generalizations. There is a difference between, say, Wal-Mart employing lower wage blue collar work in countries where socio-economic conditions that allow them to produce for less - and one where they are employing child slave labor in Bangladesh and then sticking a "Made In America" sticker on it (which they have done in the past).
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly. It's pretty hard to talk about things other than the game while in it. I've played everquest a few times and there is conversation, but it's not at any level that I woulc consider of any depth.
Yes, of course everything someone tells you about themselves could be one big lie crafted in their own image to elicit a false relationship.
Conversely, you can build a trust based relationship, which will give you insight into the mind of an actual person through things like observation of interaction in a group, what others who "actually" know a person have to say about them, etc.
The same goes for off-line. I have thought I'd known some people, but who I thought they were had been fabricated.
Besides being able to verify certain assertions (e.g., lying about someone, having something, or facial expressions), there's not much difference in being able to read a persons thoughts.
I can tell someone is a liar in text when I get to know them, just as in real life.
This sounds somewhat like doublespeak. Are you telling me you don't listen and respond when others communicate with you -- online or otherwise?
It takes effort to build relationsips; you can push people away just as easily in real life.
Yes, it's somewhat disturbing that people could join a group where they hear only what they want to hear. On the other hand, in many communities conversation isn't only relegated to one specific main theme, and conversation can wander into any human interest, which allows individuals to grow from the perspective of others.
"When you have that much time between action and reaction, it really kills off the whole aspect of interaction"
Um, IRC is real time. Same with aim. You can just choose to ignore the interaction much more easily than in person.
IMO, you're using delay as a straw man without giving any logical explanation.
I'm in a room on IRC right now with 120 people in it. It would be a miracle to get 120 people to interact with each other in real life at the same time. In fact, interaction is magnified in this case. I can talk about my daily activities to 100+ people at the same time. I talk to people who I do and don't know in real life. I don't really interact differently with close "virtual" friends and "real" friends except where we're talking about an event in the physical or a person we know off-line (because the "virtual" friends just don't know this other person - though they might if he/she came online). The proxy works similarly, in my experience, for physical friends I know that are divided by activities such as work, play, and uni.
"It's like saying that a bunch of people that subscribe to the same magazine are all part of the same community. They might be. But not at all because of the act of reading the same magazine"
Uh huh. But let's say I start a generic channel named #blah. At first it's just a few friends I know in "real life". Let's say we talk about programming much of the time. Other people are drawn to this channel on irc to talk about programming. However, over time the conversation is more general and more people come on for other reasons than that, because the conversation is a lot more general. Over time, our irc friends even bring on their own physical friends, spouses, girlfriends, boyfriends, etc. The channel may now be primarily for interaction between community although it still may have a dominant theme, like, for example programming, or tech talk, or warez, or emotionally deprived teen/adult talk; whatever. If you venture on to any fairly large IRC channel, many have turned into little sub-communities where people interact with each other daily.
Exactly, the guy is full of shit. Perhaps he should stick to analyzing themes in Shakespeare or get a real education.
"And what methods are being used to determine how many Napster users are buying music?"
Rofl, oh please. I know hundreds of people who use napster. None of them buy music. If they do, it's because they can't find it on napster in any decent bit rate.
"Judging from the number of people who seem to think that VCD is still a fine format, quality must not be at the top of everyone's list"
That's because VCD groups primarily only release movies currently in the theater. DVD rips exceed this and offer pretty good quality.
That said, years ago I remember downloading braveheart and Ninja Scroll as a 100 meg vivo movie. Quality was fucking amazing for internet video back then. And yes, these were copies of VHS tapes - the internet does change the arena, especially if technologies such as napster are allowed to grow rampantly.
"The author who is discovered after 20 years of writing has hopefully written some nice works during that time, and can "
That's the thing. Let's pretend my name is, hmm... Kurt Vonnegut (used only for effect - Kurt Vonnegut in no way endorses me remarks). In the 60's I wrote a book called 'Slaughterhouse Five'. In the 70's I wrote a book called 'Breakfast of Champions'. Neither were extremely popular except for the last 20 years.
"make money from something other than writing"
I am not a millionaire. I am a writer. A writer writes. Oh sorry, I should have been running a business all these years instead. Stupid me.
"write more works that would now sell because the author is presumably at least mildly famous"
Sorry, as the Valenti battology went: "Congress is with me on this one"
"suffers for the benefit of the only people who stand to significantly help it"
Oh really.
Let me first apologize for being hazy on the exact definition of copyright.
Although I am still grappling with a third party running a service that allows you to exercise your fair use.
Perhaps I should read the case and ruling for the recent precedent setting mp3.com case.
Professor Lessig may be able to weave a web of sophistry, but many of his arguments don't stand up to critical thinking.
He uses the VCR as a reason to invalidate the DMCA because Valenti was proven "wrong". In actuality the reason why said technology hasn't damaged the industry is because of two reasons: a) it takes long to copy a video tape and quality degrades; and, b) anti-pirate measures such as macrovision.
The situation with DeCSS and DVD is such that the release of this circumvention software could result in easy copying and distribution of movies online when it becomes viable for relatively large communities because the internet allows you to share material with not just your friends, but any anonymous person.
I can attest to this as I have a very good divx copy of romeo must die that is 700 megs. Full screen it looks pretty damn good (albeit being a bit grainy), as the original resolution is 640x384. All it takes is one person to make a copy of the dvd and thousands with interest to distribute by trade (e.g., napster) according to their own self interest. That said, I had to have connections to get this movie (namely someone with an ftp server with several extremely large hard drives). Napster is a company that profits off such a shared model.
When asked if some people on napster should have the ability to transfer files to millions, Lessig says paraphrased "in some instances". He doesn't elaborate further, but I can not think of very many instances where legal file trading is occuring.
A ethical counter-argument is that channels of advertising music (radio, tv) are in complete control of these companies, therefore word of mouth is the only alternative. Napster destroys this barrier and provides the consumer with an extremely large collection of music to help with buying decisions. The dilemma here is that users of napster aren't buying music in any significant numbers -- therefore this argument is invalid. However, bands and record companies wishing to build a reputation could probably provide alternative models.
Further on he asks whether it is about control as it seems the RIAA would rather sue and maintain control than negotiate a deal where legal tagged files would be transferred. At a glance, in his context, it sounds like he makes some sense, but when you think about it, there is no reason to be transferring files on napster if legitimate versions are available directly from company web sites.
Lessig then moves on to my.mp3.com which implements technology termed "space shifting". That is, prove you have a cd and then use it from anywhere you like. As a customer of the classical channel on my.mp3.com I have noticed that they take several measures to prevent people from listening on multiple streams at the same time, especially with more than one IP address. That said, you can still create multiple accounts and "beam" (randomly reads sectors on a cd) a music cd up to mp3.com, therefore allowing multiple users access to the same cd's simultaneously. Of course, this is pretty much the same as me physically making a copy with my cd burner, so I think that the inner logic of this argument holds extremely well for fair use -- providing measures are taken so that piracy is not a common occurence.
However, the counter argument is that the owners of the music should retain control over how their work is distributed. Space shifting technology circumvents this right; I don't see it as particularly valid, but there might be concerns about companies springing up and offering a similar less robust service. It's questionable whether a third party should be able to help you execute your fair use without the investigation and blessing (i.e., licensing) to ensure that these technologies are safe. Take the imaginary situation where we extend this to DVD. Let's say I can "beam" DVD's up to a service and then they stream the movie back. My friend in Israel can now watch the movie if I give him a login and password, providing I am not tryin to stream it at the same time. Is space shifting ethical in this situation? How about if I remove the third party and stream directly to this person? Is that lending in fair use? I would probably say no, as it is a dangerous slippery slope.
They might be able to argue that my.mp3.com is not a distribution medium but a tool of fair use, defined as so because no money changes hands for the the actual music as it was already paid for in cd form.
In the case of the third party, technology still convolutes the issue because there is no absolute guarantee that each person actually has a copy of the CD. So we either, a) extend fair use to the third party an allow lawsuits to ensure piracy does not take place; or, b) outlaw such behavior without permission and have all these companies negotiate licensing schemes which keeps control in the hand of the original copyright holders as to how their material is distributed. Is it fair to force (a) just because some of these companies are extremely rich? But is it fair to subvert a new means of fair use with (b)? This is the dilemma.
Another main theme Professor Lessig espouses is copyright terms. He mentions proposals from industry that would have copyright last forever. Copyright was originally only supposed to exist as a means to ensure a decent profit and then fall into the public domain. The current state of copyright is that it lasts effectively forever in terms of viable use; that is, unless it is, for example, an important piece of literature. One side idealogically would have it that copyrighted materials should fall to public domain within a time because there are barriers to information, ideas, and entertainment - given the original copyright owner had actually made a profit. But what of the author who isn't discovered or understood for twenty years? The other side would have it that as long as there is a demand for intellectual property, it should be available for profit. But how about that book written several hundred years ago? Should those that inherit the deed to copyrighted material really have valid control? The longer the space in time, the more absurd it seems. Professor Lessig has an extremely hard hitting point, mentioning that disney -- the same company who had copyright lengths increased -- has used public domain stories in several of their movies, including but not limited to Pinochio, Beauty and the Beast, Cinderella, Aladdin, and Snow White.
But then he goes on to recommend 14 years as an optimal copyright expiry date. Again, what about the author who isn't discovered for 20 years? I do agree on moderation but each specific industry has different needs (exempli gratia, software versus the movie)
Jack Valenti, on the other hand, doesn't have much to say at all.
"It's due to the 'evolution' model"
:). Larger projects though, should definitely get both user and developer documentation up and going so that new developers don't have to worry about the learning curve. Example of big convoluted project: X. Example of pretty successful projects: Linux, because linux and others have maintainer control; FreeBSD, where there is a committee atmosphere where new code is peer reviewed *before* it is committed. I would note that both of those projects have pretty decent documentation unlike some projects (although most are dinky doo-hickey programs, so who cares).
I think you're talking about an unrestrained evolutionary model with no selection, design, analysis or cleanup.
Just didn't want anyone to mistake the formalized evolutionary model in literature and an evolutionary model he's talking about in OSS software design. I think what he is referring to really, is the pre-waterfall model where everyone would just "code-and-fix". In short, no matter what "model" you use, convoluted code can come as a result of either unskilled labor, ignorance to methods, or outright rejection to adherence. For example: The model elucidated in mythical man month is basically the rapid prototype model. The process flow of the rapid prototype model is; (Product Idea)->((Prototype & [Analysis) & Design])->(Implementation)->(Testing)->(Product Life). An code and fix spin on this would be: (Product Idea) ->(Prototype)->(More Code)->(Test)->(Release).
"When you develop software using the evolutional model, that is: add code/functionality on the fly in an ongoing basis with short term designs and not based on original concepts and designs, you end up with eventually (most likely) a pile of code that has to be rewritten NOW because a new feature asks for it. because most of the time in these projects people do NOT choose to rewrite it, it's added anyway, resulting in spagetti.
"
When you don't understand the model and don't adhere to it, then the result will inevitably be unoptimal code. The evolutionary model I am aware of (you may just be using evolutionary as a buzzword analogous to unrestrained OSS, I don't know) includes requirements, specifications, design and analysis. There is no, "lets chuck in whatever code we can think of without thinking of the grand design". There's actually process analysis (you know, the high level business or customer process, how it can be streamlined, how we can enhance or keep work-flow efficiency), requirements elicitation (where you talk to or observe customers/clients, perceived market requirements and timelines), et al. The actual design and implementation of the product is through an iteration of high level design, analysis, prototyping, analysis, prototyping, code clean up, analysis, testing, release, design and product idea, evaluation of new idea as per requirements and then specifications according to informed analysis of said factors, design, analysis, prototyping, clean up code, analysis, clean up code, testing, clean up code, release etc.
"In Short: evolutional model code is code where no theoretical basis is stated, there is no original manifest that illustrates WHY all the code is set up like this. MOST OSS projects are developped using the evolutional model. What helps is an ONGOING theoretical design document to function as a theoretical BASIS for the structure of the code. If there is NO designdocument or conceptdocument stating WHY code is structured the way it is structured, it's bad code. Period.
"
No, that's called ad hoc "code and fix".
"What helps is an ONGOING theoretical design document to function as a theoretical BASIS for the structure of the code. If there is NO designdocument or conceptdocument stating WHY code is structured the way it is structured, it's bad code. Period. "
This is true, I think. The documentation has to change with the program, either through comments or informed technical writers or developers documenting. Developer documents tend to get out of date though. That's why I stress staying to customer and market requirements above all -- because you otherwise developers tend to end up doing their own thing or modifying specifications to suit their idea of what a good program should look like, and not what the client/customer/market would want. This doesn't tend to work in the OSS model though, because most are coding for themselves, so they just do whatever, like throw in weird function X, because they think it's cool
"Another thing that adds up to bad coding is a bad naming scheme, or worse: no naming scheme at all! Nobody is forced to use hungarian coding, but please CHOOSE one! develop your own if no scheme suits you, but a scheme that HAS TO BE used by all developers in a project is a MUST to keep the code clean and updatable, even if you use designdocuments."
I don't know about this for many OSS projects -- but I'd hope that the code is at least readable if not intuitive to understand.
"More and more OSS projects get tighter software teams with people who KNOW how to develop software, thus using designs and theory before starting to jam in the code, and that is a good thing."
I'd definitely agree here. It shouldn't be too hard to turn the "here's a patch to fix or add new functionality X" atmosphere into a more committee based atmosphere where there are actually regular talks about design direction. I'd think, though, that a project has to reach a certain order of magnitude in size before one would start introducing such things. Although it might not be the best idea to have big design meetings regarding tiny inconsequential pieces of software, it would do individual developers better to be ever mindful of stupid functionality that really doesn't need to be in a program.
This is all, just my opinion, though.
also:
The Architect in particular
(missed a " in my last post)
Dun dun dun. Crash course in Managing Software(and hardware) Development. There are millions of links out there. So here's an introduction so people know what to look for. Remember, there is no magical model that automatically works!
e sting)->(Product life)
* -*(testing)->(product life)*[arrows back to design and analysis]
f ) -- more detail (http://www.incose.org/rwg/97panel/97 panel.html) - etc - (http://www.kingst on.ac.uk/~ma_s435/personal/work/CO1032B/tools_5/)
---
This is why you learn different management in software development models, because there is no one model that suits everyone. There are generally held principles that anyone can come to, but they aren't solutions that you can work out by common sense.
Here are some general statements:
"Software development is multi-dimensional."
OK, duh.
"Developers pay attention to what they are measured on"
OK, that makes sense. People _respect_ what management _inspects_.
"Some performance dimensions in software may be in conflict"
Makes sense, although a little more complex. (e.g., min memory, min SLOC vs. min effort and max user satisfaction vs max maintainability...)
Objectives in managing software development:
* define the process by which projects are conceived approved, and delivered
* define the guidelines and standards that are used by architects, developers and managers who will develop software
* define the mechanisms used to deliver the software to the marketplace
* general models to develop specific models in particular niche's such as "shrink wrapped" or "web based" or "b2b" or "b2c" or "OEM" etc
* define who is involved (e.g., product management, project management, development, technical writers, human factors/ui, localization etc) and their roles and their tasks.
* Specifications documents should follow these definitions and management models such as that for cost estimation (e.g., COCOMO, other models).
* once tasks are defined, you can help employees do what they are supposed to and evaluate them for future changes to development model
Interesting links:
a n article
The CMU software engineering institute
more
Defense system management college introduction to project management
wooha lots of links.
needed skepticism regarding empirical analysis with models!!!
"Commercial software models"
Example of cost estimation in use (findings from them at least):
http://www.ll.mit.edu/llrassp/jca/mcmb w.html
_Development models_ include (*== > in double sided->):
The incremental model;
AKA. The market model. Often dictated by management and generally follows QA builds.
(P.1)()()()()(1.0)()()()...(2.0)..
The evolutionary model;
AKA. The pseudo academic model
(Product Idea)*-*(Prototype)->(Clean Code)->(test and rinse)->(evolve)->(repeat)
The spiral model:
This model makes you ask the question as to the value of functionality and what process one would take in implementation.
(Kernel)->(Kernel+key or riskiest functionality)->(kernel+key+less troublesome components)->(K.+key+LTC+Less troublesome functionality)
Waterfall Model:
Intent:
(Product Idea)->(Analysis)->(Design)->(Implementation)->(t
Reality:
(PI)*-*(Analsysis)->(design)*-*(implementation)
Rapid Prototype model:
(product idea)->(prototype & analysis & design)->(implementation)->(testing)->(product life)
Common misuse:
(Product Idea)->(Prototype)->(More Code)->(Test)->(release)
etc, and hybrids like the "extreme programming" model, which seems to be a more detailed rapid prototype model
_Requirements methodologies_:
* generally: Requirements are what. Specifications are how (although they mix).
Incorrect requirements = no product, or bogus development plan
The method from which we develop requirements is:
discovery
refinement
modeling
specifications
requirements elicitation(href="http://www.se i.cmu.edu/pub/documents/92.reports/pdf/tr12.92.pd
How to defend against requirements crep:
* use formal methods !
* use customer requirements formats such as manuals or other docs !
* your answer must not always be yes !
* proposed changes must be evaluated and rational !
* there is always nearly a version 2.0 !
* the customer almost always values quality over a short delay !
* remain flexible enough to react to the work-place !
"without a manual, we don't have a product".
Oh, and an example:
:).
I once set up myself as a mirror for the star wars episode 1 trailer and then some dork linked me as a mirror one theforce.net. 150 concurrent users downloading off my ftp site wasn't much fun and you can guess what my co-loc bill was
The same thing happens all the time with file postings or links to web sites which aren't set up to handle a gigantic amount of users or a regular amount of users downloading large files (e.g. 20+ jpeg files + database query).
Not really. Do the math. Thousands of users loading a ton of images is a gigantic amount of bandwidth and hits.
It has been up for about an hour and a half. I bet the initial down time was due to philip linking to those photocd pages with 50 or so jpegs on them each.
Besides, I think the box that runs photo.net is only a hp box with a couple of 180mhz processors.
"Stallman doesn't rant off about guns (creepy) nor say any homophobic remarks publicly"
Just to make it clear. You're not attributing those remarks to ESR are you? Beyond propagandized views, there are real idealogical reasons for believing in the right of arms, based on a few value judgements. There are, in fact, compelling arguments on both sides - which is why the issue is so controversial. The homophobia comment, I think, is a stereotype pertaining to "right wing nuts". Those claiming to adhere to libertarianism, I think, may or may not agree with it, but would uphold the individual rights of the homosexual because they engage in acts between two consenting individuals.
Not being one to judge someone as per association, I would have to say this is all suppositon. I would, however, ask for further evidence regarding these statements if you were attributing these comments to ESR.
"By endorsing something other than "pure" reason as a means to knowledge, one entirely invalides all of one's knowledge"
HAHAH. Oh man. And how will you be sure as to your pure reason?
Examine the basic scientific method as related to subjectivity and you will find the logical error that Rand makes. What we perceive and what is are only valid so far as current human thought and perception. Some things are just more solidly corroborated than others. Rand presents her objectivist philosophy with subjective thoughts like humans being "heroic beings".
In fact, I am so annoyed at running into so many Ayn Rand phreaks, that I am thinking of setting up a web site to compare many other ism philosophies and movements that say they promote thinking and intellectual evolution, such as environmentalism, punk, goth, freemason, ad infinitum idealogies as compared to objectivism.
Probably because he's more interested in educating people who are multi-disciplinary and, hence, probably have more direction -- from which the education they receive will give necessary tools to solve many of the problems they had originally perceived as complex barriers to getting anything worthwhile done.
That, or he just doesn't want to have to baby people who don't have real determination (as opposed to bounded interest) or questionable credientials due to a problematic evaluation process that would have to be extensive when you're a self-learned individual. I mean, otherwise he would be flooded with requests from a lot of 31337 hax0r script kiddies, right?
"Yes, the tone might not have been the most appropriate...but it comes from exasperation. I used to be on the "right track". But it sure looked like if I held on I would be coming out as yet another preconfigured cog."
:)
Well, there are rote learning sheep who are doomed to live in mediocrity; and there are those that are genuinely interested in their field, probably part of a life long quest to understand the world around them. You can do both at academic institutions at the undergraduate level.
Your comment seems to be a negative assertion regarding the average curriculum's structure, if I'm not mistaken. My answer to that is: yes, there is certainly needless repetition in every undergraduate education -- however, this repetitive mnemonic approach is often necessary to lay the foundations from which one would have a greater understanding of the problems ahead, and shouldn't be mistaken with an attempt to manufacture or program students. It's definitely a downside if you're ahead of the curve, but most will not likely be able to find the intellectual support systems that one needs to grow, outside of the academic community.
Even if you find it a painful experience, there's always graduate programs where you can have lots of fun
ah, but I did !
heh heh, they come in all shapes and forms. Although, what substance does Hillary Clinton have to go on? That senate race seems to be not much more than a popularity contest based on hyper-inflated reputations.
Please allow me to elucidate plainly upon my original point without the weighted "cult" rhetoric which bears an extremely negative connotation:
:-).
If you look further into various philosophies, manifesto's, movements, et al, you will find they most always bring one to question their current perceived reality. This applies across to pseudo-religion, cults, racist groups, some political movements, ad infinitum (e.g., environmentalism, punk rockers, liberalism, communism, nazism, freemasons, scientologists, *gasp* even some religions, et al etc etc). For example, if you go call up the local American communist party - do you think they will tell you that they didn't employ skepticism in shaping their idealogy? I thought not.
You have to make the distinction between that and the thoughts elucidated heretofore in the objectivist philosophy. You might then say: "Why do you feel so strongly about such things as political manifesto's? They are harmless.." Well, I have to admit - I too, had fell in a terrible ism pothole many years ago. I too had found that this had opened me up into a world of skeptical thinking. What I later found at the help of another is replacement dogma based on the seeds of that particular belief system presented.
And that is why I despise those wearing things such as objectivism, or environmentalism etc on their belt. Saying such things are harmless and only books flies in the face of those who are dedicated to these philosophies. Even in situations where the progenitors were revealed as complete frauds who managed to elucidate only one single, clear thought in their entire lives, people have still insisted on turning the happenstance into religions, cults, brotherhoods, movements, and so on. People will be people, no doubt.
Anyway, when glazing over the works of philosophers such as Russell, Godel, Nietzsche, Descartes, etc - do you see them concocting rigid belief systems? I thought not. Bertrand Russell even jokes as to how one would easily herd sheep with simple grains of truth. In Ayn Rand's case, she could barely conceal the fact that her books are really a manifesto. In contrast, Orwell actually wrote books based on the merit of his ideas alone - not some cultish ism manifesto philosophy.
Still, one asks what's wrong with the objectivist system. Well, as I said in my other post, it's mostly feel-good self-fulfilling blabble. Subjectivity seems to be lost in all this to "objective" selfishness. It's basically a simplistic look at the complex system we call human life. Black and whites are just so conveniently manipulative. If Ayn Rand really wanted you to think for yourself, she wouldn't have built such a rigid philosophy based on interesting grains of truth, but riddled with logical fallacies. "Objectivism"? Give me a break.
Note that my original response didn't say not to read Ayn Rand's books. It was only a warning to the possibly destructive thought systems she is trying to plant in the readers mind. Just take it with a grain of salt like one should take any other manifesto. Belief systems denying the intellectual evolution of the reader are for wussies
I have no complaint with this point. I meant this in regard to philanthropists in a company using its profits to further their normative world view in a circumstance where they aren't directly helping the company.
If owners of a corporation agree that such philanthropy will be good PR, and the community at large will, according to economic laws of utility, put value in their philanthropic social standing - then so be it. When voting with our dollars in an economic system, we take the sum of variables from utility in our perceived world - whether positive and negative factors. Note that I say perceived because we are only able to take into consideration factors that we are aware of.
I was establishing a colloquialism drawing a parallel from which a corporation would be the "state" and the curch would be the social programs. I apologize for the mixup and should have made that more clear. On slashdot I prefer writing in long incoherent rants, so that often happens :)
"Morality is not about efficiency, it's about doing 'the right thing'"
Yes, again, sorry for not being clear. I was referring to the establishment of social foundations, charity groups, et al in the public corporation. I meant this primarily in regard to issues it is not directly tied to. However, it would make sense if their promotion of such issues would help the company in the long run or somehow morally balance the wrongdoing they are currently doing today and/or in the past (e.g., company x who dropped toxic waste in lakes in the past working with government agency such as EDF to collaborate with other companies {y,z} to create a more environmentally friendly management process because of law or internal or external moral pressures)
"when a company goes to a country that has lax labor laws, or is a dictatorship, it supports them."
Yes, as I said, these are complex ethical issues which can't be glazed over with hasty generalizations. There is a difference between, say, Wal-Mart employing lower wage blue collar work in countries where socio-economic conditions that allow them to produce for less - and one where they are employing child slave labor in Bangladesh and then sticking a "Made In America" sticker on it (which they have done in the past).