I think conferences and journals should require complete code submission alongside paper submissions. Then the code won't be published unless the paper is published, but we will create a more open and honest system and stimulate more advancement (since other groups can then build on top of a good sturdy platform instead of always having to start from scratch to build up their own code base).
Not entirely. Another problem is that a research group may have a large body of code that is required to do research in an area. A new research group entering the area would currently have to duplicate all that code in order to be able to add to it. In my field, there are certain subfields that we won't even touch because it would take a year of coding to build up the necessary platform to be able to compete against established groups. If all code were open, anyone could download and begin improving/extending it. The result is that certain subfields that require a large body of background code to do study in have only a few players and no-one else can really enter the subfield without sacrificing a few years of publishing. This is bad, because then all research in an area is being done by a very small number of individuals and there isn't any cross pollination from other fields since the cost of entry is too high. The simple fix is to make the code open. Then anyone can make improvements.
Also, as to verifiability. You can't spend a year writing code to verify someone else's results. That may be the utopian ideal, but in practice it never happens. You don't get papers out of spending a full year doing nothing but verifying that yes, the research was actually done correctly. Having open code would most definitely lead to more verification.
Credentials: I am a doctoral student in the sciences.
Unfortunately computer science is pretty closed off as well. Too few projects end up in freely available open code. It hinders advancement (because large departments and research groups can protect their field of study from competition by having a large enough body of code that nobody else can spend the 1-2 years required to catch up) and it hinders verifiability (because they make claims on papers about speed/accuracy/whatever and we basically have to stake it on their word and reputation and whether it SEEMS plausible--this also means that surprising results from lesser known researchers might be less likely to get published).
I think it our duty as scientists to ALWAYS release the code, even if it is uncommented and unclean. I'm very glad to be researching under an advisor who requires that we always release our code as open source after papers have been published so that other groups can build on what we've done. This should absolutely be universal.
Nice answer. Because of this I think the best advice is to close your connection. If you leave it open and head to the bathroom a coworker has access to your home computer. Since we can't say anything meaningful about whether AES or DH is more secure then the only obvious security vulnerability is this one. I say close 'em.
Rather than hire more staff to handle the increasing volume of patent applications the USPTO has decided to lower its volume by requiring that you send your fax right side up. If the volume starts to get back up to normal they'll simply turn their fax machines upside down and claim that everyone needs to stop sending upside down faxes.
I agree with you. What I was taking issue with was "This whole "just don't buy it" thing is getting ridiculous. What you're basically teaching the next generation to do is to accept whatever the corporate overlords give them, or go to a corner and shutup." which simply isn't true. Not buying it is not going "to a corner and shut[ting ]up." Its treating the corporation as it ought to be treated. "You, corporation, are not worthy of my time nor my notice until you actually make a good product." That is a perfectly fine way to respond to a corporation, and you can bet if a product this anticipated flops there will be a TON of focus grouping and analysis to figure out why even if people are having protest marches on the streets (over a stupid device, I mean come ON how much complaining can a group of people who haven't even used it yet generate?)
This is true. However, if a product flops you can bet that the company will have a team of analysts and focus groups working to figure out why, regardless of how vocal people are being.
How exactly is not buying a device that you don't want oppression? If 10% of the people don't like the product and then also don't buy it, I don't understand how you call that oppression. That's like saying, "I don't like the policies of China, so I refuse to live there," and then go around complaining to everyone about how much China is oppressing you. You might be able to say that China is oppressing its citizens, but it isn't oppressing you.
Anyway, you clearly didn't read carefully the post I was responding to. The poster said that they are tired of hearing "don't buy it" and I responded that not buying it is the correct way to send a message in a capitalist society. If you think something Apple is doing is "oppression," as you say, then don't give them your money. Duh.
Agreed. Except the educated leaving which I think is slightly more complicated. It is caused by economics, but there is also a cultural gap between people who have been educated and the majority of the people living in country. A lot of my friends back in Uganda are very educated and skilled Ugandans and they have a terrible tightrope to walk between western culture and local culture that I don't in the least envy. I have a friend who is a PhD student in mathematics, a Kenyan, who is planning to go back home with his degree--but he says he is expecting it to be very hard because skill in theoretical mathematics, and his level of education, are basically so undervalued that people will look down on him.
I'm glad someone else sees that Fairtrade is actually BS. I thought that most people had bought into it hook line and sinker.
I may have middle class American morality but I lived in one of the poorest parts of one of the poorest countries in the world--right on the border between Uganda and DRC. Many of my friends there are incredibly heart achingly poor, and yet they remain honest and feel very called to a very similar morality to mine. Your arrogance that your middle class western existence is the only one that can produce good values is the real problem. You sell people short by saying that they are simply a product of their circumstances. People are much more than that. There are bad people in the world. Some started out rich, some started out poor. Saying that the poor ones aren't really bad because they're poor is insane and disrespectful to all the other poor people who do stay honest.
Also, I have not met a single African who thinks America is no better than an organized crime group. They do think we are fabulously wealthy (and we are), but the African view of money is not even close to ours (it would take me quite a long post to adequately touch on it). Many of them are working to better their country's welfare and many of them use foreign aid to do it. They don't think of it as getting money from a bunch of crooks, they see it as receiving help from people who care.
Finally, the scammer in the article was driving around a BMW which is insane for sub sarahan africa. This means that even if he thought that people in the US were all crooks with too much money he should easily recognize that he was exactly the same way. But if you read the article, he didn't think this at all. He knew he was ripping people off who were poor also. He knew it, he admits he knew it, and he has no excuse for his actions other than straight greed.
Being a westerner price was not really an issue. I was just agreeing with the parent that locally produced goods were available at prices local people tended to be able to afford while foreign goods were the same cost (after exchange rates are applied) as they are everywhere. When a person makes $1.00 per day with a decent wage a coke (and any other foreign good) starts to look like it costs quite a bit more.
Side note: I really miss 5c avocados. I love avocados but they are basically unaffordable now that I'm back.
I totally agree. I feel that supporting the de-corruption of governments is the best way to give people legal opportunities. A big part of the reason wages are so low is corruption. Case in point: when travelling around Uganda in local taxis the drivers would stop every 15 miles or so at police checkpoints and pay bribes to the police. Those are wages being stolen by corrupt government officials from people who could really use it. And if they didn't have to pay bribes they could charge less and so their fares would in turn have more money to spend. Also a lot of the foreign government aid sent over never makes it to the people it is intended to help due to the corruption in the local governments.
And yet for every down on his luck guy that turns to crime there is a down on his luck guy that stays honest. Dealing with these people as anything other than criminals basically punishes the person who is honest while rewarding the person who isn't.
I don't know what the solution is, other than continuing to support anti-corruption movements within countries and provide any support to help governments clean up their acts. When the governments become less corrupt, everybody in the country wins.
You might be right, but most computer illiterates still use IE (unless they have an informed geek in their life) even though they have a choice in browsers (and better choices than IE). Having a choice is not equated with making a good and informed decision and some times ignorantly making a choice is a lot worse than simply having choices made for you.
I think we're mostly an echo chamber. People outside of the tech community aren't reading slashdot or reading the latest publications of RMS, the EFF or the FSF. Go ask the typical college iphone user about it, and I bet they don't know anything about any of this controversy--and they are the majority, unfortunately. If the EFF is ever mentioned on a mainstream news source, like NPR, there is virtually a paragraph explaining who they are and what they do, which means that journalists assume regular people don't already know who they are and what they do, which probably means that most people really don't know.
"Why are the privacy nutcases always so ready to imagine the most terrible wrongs about potential abuse of power by the government, but think it is super okay to give all control to a corporation?"
Because government has authority over you and companies don't.
I'm sure the reality distortion field will have waned in 60 days and sales will be driven by the actual in-hand experience people have. If they like it, they'll buy it, otherwise they won't. Personally I'm not passing judgement until I get to play with one. I can see really great use-cases for it, especially in areas that I've been annoyed with using either my laptop or smart phone for, but will it really fill the niche? That remains to be seen.
Or perhaps we can use the xbox analogy. An xbox is a device that is basically a computer that only runs (without hacking) products that are licensed by Microsoft. These applications either come on discs or are available for download and are written for "licensed publishers" working on "approved titles." The cost to entry is much higher than the $99 apple developer fee. Oh wait, that is even more difficult to develop for than the iPad and no one is complaining about it. The bottom line is that there are multiple models for doing this. Many instances of open models (like car after market parts, software on general computers, etc) and plenty of closed models (like the iPhone, XBox, probably much of the electronic equipment hidden in your TV). This is nothing new. It just depends on what consumers think ought to be on this particular device and if they are willing to pay for it--which I guess we will see in 60 days.
I think the disconnect is that we're thinking of this as a computer while Apple is thinking of it as a new device. We think--we'll its just a computer so it ought to have an open software install base. Apple thinks of it similarly to the way MS thinks about the xbox 360--this is a specialized device with certain use-cases that aren't fully satisfied by a computer and we think this is the right way to handle it. The real question is not whether this is right or not, but whether consumers will buy into it or not. The moral issue that people are making seems more to be a lot of hot air than anything else.
The "just don't buy it" thing is precisely HOW you influence the actions of a corporation. If Apple can't sell these things because of the closed-ness, it will change overnight. If 90% of consumers don't care and buy it anyway, then the vocal 10% that do care will just be ignored. The "just don't buy it" thing is far from ridiculous. It is precisely how you vote in the corporate world--with your dollars. If you buy it, then you are endorsing the product and encouraging the company to keep doing what they are doing. My guess with this iPad, however, is that like the iPhone many people simply don't care about the open/closed debate and will buy it anyway. That or they are happy that unlike Android, there aren't known malicious apps being downloaded in the app store.
And I'm not saying I like the closed system. I'm an app dev and I would much prefer to skip the annoying approval process, but the bottom line is that consumers don't care or they really wouldn't have bought it.
Yeah, I have looked at netbooks (I actually probably won't buy an iPad b/c it costs money which I don't got). The problem with netbooks is that it isn't really different than a laptop except for portability. The screens are generally too small (although this might have changed, correct me if it has). Netbooks are just slow, small, portable laptops which don't have any features that my laptop doesn't have (aside from added portability). What I really want is something different and the iPad *MIGHT* be such a device. The touch screen is definitely very tempting, especially for things like reading and image editing.
Another thing about netbooks is that they run apps that were designed with larger screens in mind. They really just don't have the right feel.
Slashdot Mirror
I think conferences and journals should require complete code submission alongside paper submissions. Then the code won't be published unless the paper is published, but we will create a more open and honest system and stimulate more advancement (since other groups can then build on top of a good sturdy platform instead of always having to start from scratch to build up their own code base).
Not entirely. Another problem is that a research group may have a large body of code that is required to do research in an area. A new research group entering the area would currently have to duplicate all that code in order to be able to add to it. In my field, there are certain subfields that we won't even touch because it would take a year of coding to build up the necessary platform to be able to compete against established groups. If all code were open, anyone could download and begin improving/extending it. The result is that certain subfields that require a large body of background code to do study in have only a few players and no-one else can really enter the subfield without sacrificing a few years of publishing. This is bad, because then all research in an area is being done by a very small number of individuals and there isn't any cross pollination from other fields since the cost of entry is too high. The simple fix is to make the code open. Then anyone can make improvements.
Also, as to verifiability. You can't spend a year writing code to verify someone else's results. That may be the utopian ideal, but in practice it never happens. You don't get papers out of spending a full year doing nothing but verifying that yes, the research was actually done correctly. Having open code would most definitely lead to more verification.
Credentials: I am a doctoral student in the sciences.
Unfortunately computer science is pretty closed off as well. Too few projects end up in freely available open code. It hinders advancement (because large departments and research groups can protect their field of study from competition by having a large enough body of code that nobody else can spend the 1-2 years required to catch up) and it hinders verifiability (because they make claims on papers about speed/accuracy/whatever and we basically have to stake it on their word and reputation and whether it SEEMS plausible--this also means that surprising results from lesser known researchers might be less likely to get published).
I think it our duty as scientists to ALWAYS release the code, even if it is uncommented and unclean. I'm very glad to be researching under an advisor who requires that we always release our code as open source after papers have been published so that other groups can build on what we've done. This should absolutely be universal.
Not if its a church school and a requirement of the school. Have you ever taught young boys in school?
Nice answer. Because of this I think the best advice is to close your connection. If you leave it open and head to the bathroom a coworker has access to your home computer. Since we can't say anything meaningful about whether AES or DH is more secure then the only obvious security vulnerability is this one. I say close 'em.
Rather than hire more staff to handle the increasing volume of patent applications the USPTO has decided to lower its volume by requiring that you send your fax right side up. If the volume starts to get back up to normal they'll simply turn their fax machines upside down and claim that everyone needs to stop sending upside down faxes.
I agree with you. What I was taking issue with was "This whole "just don't buy it" thing is getting ridiculous. What you're basically teaching the next generation to do is to accept whatever the corporate overlords give them, or go to a corner and shutup." which simply isn't true. Not buying it is not going "to a corner and shut[ting ]up." Its treating the corporation as it ought to be treated. "You, corporation, are not worthy of my time nor my notice until you actually make a good product." That is a perfectly fine way to respond to a corporation, and you can bet if a product this anticipated flops there will be a TON of focus grouping and analysis to figure out why even if people are having protest marches on the streets (over a stupid device, I mean come ON how much complaining can a group of people who haven't even used it yet generate?)
This is true. However, if a product flops you can bet that the company will have a team of analysts and focus groups working to figure out why, regardless of how vocal people are being.
How exactly is not buying a device that you don't want oppression? If 10% of the people don't like the product and then also don't buy it, I don't understand how you call that oppression. That's like saying, "I don't like the policies of China, so I refuse to live there," and then go around complaining to everyone about how much China is oppressing you. You might be able to say that China is oppressing its citizens, but it isn't oppressing you.
Anyway, you clearly didn't read carefully the post I was responding to. The poster said that they are tired of hearing "don't buy it" and I responded that not buying it is the correct way to send a message in a capitalist society. If you think something Apple is doing is "oppression," as you say, then don't give them your money. Duh.
Agreed. Except the educated leaving which I think is slightly more complicated. It is caused by economics, but there is also a cultural gap between people who have been educated and the majority of the people living in country. A lot of my friends back in Uganda are very educated and skilled Ugandans and they have a terrible tightrope to walk between western culture and local culture that I don't in the least envy. I have a friend who is a PhD student in mathematics, a Kenyan, who is planning to go back home with his degree--but he says he is expecting it to be very hard because skill in theoretical mathematics, and his level of education, are basically so undervalued that people will look down on him.
I'm glad someone else sees that Fairtrade is actually BS. I thought that most people had bought into it hook line and sinker.
I may have middle class American morality but I lived in one of the poorest parts of one of the poorest countries in the world--right on the border between Uganda and DRC. Many of my friends there are incredibly heart achingly poor, and yet they remain honest and feel very called to a very similar morality to mine. Your arrogance that your middle class western existence is the only one that can produce good values is the real problem. You sell people short by saying that they are simply a product of their circumstances. People are much more than that. There are bad people in the world. Some started out rich, some started out poor. Saying that the poor ones aren't really bad because they're poor is insane and disrespectful to all the other poor people who do stay honest.
Also, I have not met a single African who thinks America is no better than an organized crime group. They do think we are fabulously wealthy (and we are), but the African view of money is not even close to ours (it would take me quite a long post to adequately touch on it). Many of them are working to better their country's welfare and many of them use foreign aid to do it. They don't think of it as getting money from a bunch of crooks, they see it as receiving help from people who care.
Finally, the scammer in the article was driving around a BMW which is insane for sub sarahan africa. This means that even if he thought that people in the US were all crooks with too much money he should easily recognize that he was exactly the same way. But if you read the article, he didn't think this at all. He knew he was ripping people off who were poor also. He knew it, he admits he knew it, and he has no excuse for his actions other than straight greed.
Being a westerner price was not really an issue. I was just agreeing with the parent that locally produced goods were available at prices local people tended to be able to afford while foreign goods were the same cost (after exchange rates are applied) as they are everywhere. When a person makes $1.00 per day with a decent wage a coke (and any other foreign good) starts to look like it costs quite a bit more.
Side note: I really miss 5c avocados. I love avocados but they are basically unaffordable now that I'm back.
I totally agree. I feel that supporting the de-corruption of governments is the best way to give people legal opportunities. A big part of the reason wages are so low is corruption. Case in point: when travelling around Uganda in local taxis the drivers would stop every 15 miles or so at police checkpoints and pay bribes to the police. Those are wages being stolen by corrupt government officials from people who could really use it. And if they didn't have to pay bribes they could charge less and so their fares would in turn have more money to spend. Also a lot of the foreign government aid sent over never makes it to the people it is intended to help due to the corruption in the local governments.
This is true. When I lived in subsaharan Africa a pineapple was less than 10 cents whereas a coca cola was still about 50 cents for 300 mL.
that's the right question
And yet for every down on his luck guy that turns to crime there is a down on his luck guy that stays honest. Dealing with these people as anything other than criminals basically punishes the person who is honest while rewarding the person who isn't.
I don't know what the solution is, other than continuing to support anti-corruption movements within countries and provide any support to help governments clean up their acts. When the governments become less corrupt, everybody in the country wins.
You might be right, but most computer illiterates still use IE (unless they have an informed geek in their life) even though they have a choice in browsers (and better choices than IE). Having a choice is not equated with making a good and informed decision and some times ignorantly making a choice is a lot worse than simply having choices made for you.
I think we're mostly an echo chamber. People outside of the tech community aren't reading slashdot or reading the latest publications of RMS, the EFF or the FSF. Go ask the typical college iphone user about it, and I bet they don't know anything about any of this controversy--and they are the majority, unfortunately. If the EFF is ever mentioned on a mainstream news source, like NPR, there is virtually a paragraph explaining who they are and what they do, which means that journalists assume regular people don't already know who they are and what they do, which probably means that most people really don't know.
"Why are the privacy nutcases always so ready to imagine the most terrible wrongs about potential abuse of power by the government, but think it is super okay to give all control to a corporation?"
Because government has authority over you and companies don't.
I think the DRM dropping had more to do with competition from Amazon than the FSF. Dollars move companies, not voices, generally speaking.
"bullshit publicity"
I'm sure the reality distortion field will have waned in 60 days and sales will be driven by the actual in-hand experience people have. If they like it, they'll buy it, otherwise they won't. Personally I'm not passing judgement until I get to play with one. I can see really great use-cases for it, especially in areas that I've been annoyed with using either my laptop or smart phone for, but will it really fill the niche? That remains to be seen.
Or perhaps we can use the xbox analogy. An xbox is a device that is basically a computer that only runs (without hacking) products that are licensed by Microsoft. These applications either come on discs or are available for download and are written for "licensed publishers" working on "approved titles." The cost to entry is much higher than the $99 apple developer fee. Oh wait, that is even more difficult to develop for than the iPad and no one is complaining about it. The bottom line is that there are multiple models for doing this. Many instances of open models (like car after market parts, software on general computers, etc) and plenty of closed models (like the iPhone, XBox, probably much of the electronic equipment hidden in your TV). This is nothing new. It just depends on what consumers think ought to be on this particular device and if they are willing to pay for it--which I guess we will see in 60 days.
I think the disconnect is that we're thinking of this as a computer while Apple is thinking of it as a new device. We think--we'll its just a computer so it ought to have an open software install base. Apple thinks of it similarly to the way MS thinks about the xbox 360--this is a specialized device with certain use-cases that aren't fully satisfied by a computer and we think this is the right way to handle it. The real question is not whether this is right or not, but whether consumers will buy into it or not. The moral issue that people are making seems more to be a lot of hot air than anything else.
The "just don't buy it" thing is precisely HOW you influence the actions of a corporation. If Apple can't sell these things because of the closed-ness, it will change overnight. If 90% of consumers don't care and buy it anyway, then the vocal 10% that do care will just be ignored. The "just don't buy it" thing is far from ridiculous. It is precisely how you vote in the corporate world--with your dollars. If you buy it, then you are endorsing the product and encouraging the company to keep doing what they are doing. My guess with this iPad, however, is that like the iPhone many people simply don't care about the open/closed debate and will buy it anyway. That or they are happy that unlike Android, there aren't known malicious apps being downloaded in the app store.
And I'm not saying I like the closed system. I'm an app dev and I would much prefer to skip the annoying approval process, but the bottom line is that consumers don't care or they really wouldn't have bought it.
Oh, an owning two apple devices does not constitute a fanboy. I also run a dell with Windows 7.
Yeah, I have looked at netbooks (I actually probably won't buy an iPad b/c it costs money which I don't got). The problem with netbooks is that it isn't really different than a laptop except for portability. The screens are generally too small (although this might have changed, correct me if it has). Netbooks are just slow, small, portable laptops which don't have any features that my laptop doesn't have (aside from added portability). What I really want is something different and the iPad *MIGHT* be such a device. The touch screen is definitely very tempting, especially for things like reading and image editing.
Another thing about netbooks is that they run apps that were designed with larger screens in mind. They really just don't have the right feel.
At this point though, its mostly opinion.