As I mention in another comment, so far Mac OS X has been a showstopper. I tried OpenRPG last night (on Linux and Windows) and it seems quite useful... however I couldn't get the client to run on OS X (granted I haven't had a chance to try everything).
OpenRPG uses Python and wxPython, so you need to install the dev. tools and the X11 environment (which I've done). But that wasn't enough. Was there any other "special trick" required to get it to run on your Mac? The machine I was experimenting on is a Macbook Pro, although in the end it will also have to run on a friend's PPC iMac. Any advice?
We experimented with OpenRPG last night... the good news is that it integrates a bunch of useful things (chat, whiteboard, and automated dice rolling). It's a little rough around the edges, but overall a great concept. However it's been a real effort to get it running on OS X, which some in the play group use.
I would have thought that the combination of chat+voice+whiteboard would be so generic that it would be easy to find a bunch of applications (especially OSS ones) to do exactly that... however it's been hard to find a stable app that runs on all platforms.
I suspect that the poster's question will become answered when he receives many email regarding this job opportunity.
Basically a great place to advertise the job is Slashdot! Of course, this is not really a sustainable strategy (not every OSS job offer will merit a Slashdot story)...
You should consider clicking on the "Jobs" link on the OSTG bar that is at the top of Slashdot. I suspect that many OSS-savvy Slashdot readers use that when looking for jobs, so getting the offer listed there (it appears to link to Yahoo! HotJobs) would probably be a good idea.
It's not a safety issue. The issue was the MBP logic board would sometimes "not realize" the battery was there. In particular, if you left the computer unplugged long enough for the battery to drain to zero, the notebook would stop recognizing the battery at all and would thus not recharge it. The end result of this is that you no longer have a "portable" notebook because the battery is useless.
This is what happened to me, and after a quick phone call they shipped the replacement. The new battery arrived within a day and I sent off the old one. I knew it was kinda risky buying a "rev 1" apple product, but luckily they were very fast with the replacement part. Just tell them the serial # and they ship it same-day.
Having the thing doesn't give you a right to download a copy. I've yet to see a respected scholar in the field of IP law say anything like that.
Note that a number of scholars not only say that this should be a moral right, but go further and question the entire notion of "intellectual property" having value to society. For instance, Stephan Kinsella has written against intellectual property, and in Brian Martin's book Information Liberation he simialrly argues against the existence of "IP". These are but a few examples. In the debate about the "ethics of intellectual property" there are many scholars on both sides.
Perhaps what you meant (although not exactly what you said) was that no respected lawyer would argue that it is legal to download a copy based on already owning a copy. I'm not a lawyer, but it doesn't seem so far-fetched a defence to claim that since you already bought a copy, and could have made a copy for your own personal use under fair-use, you simply downloaded a copy for convenience. If this use doesn't limit the copyright-holder's market, then it may not be judged infringement. At the very least I can imagine a lawyer using such an argument for a client... although of course in the end it's up to the judge to decide the merit of the argument.
No I wasn't trolling. You make a wide variety of very good points. I'm not insensitive to the complexities of the current situation. I'm also not necessarily advocating a complete elimination of copyright. I do believe that current copyright is immoral, and that doing away with it entirely (and going to a fully 'public domain' scheme, as you call it) would be more moral than the status quo... but that's not to say that there isn't a middle ground that is even more moral (and more pragmatically useful) than a public domain situation.
So let's just say that I'm against "status quo copyright" (not copyright altogether). And extreme as this may sound: yes I'd be happier with no copyright at all, and with the elimination of revenue models for artists, rather than government-sanctioned lock-down schemes. You describe a vision of the future where (if copyright didn't exist) everything is DRM-locked-down... however I think it is more likely that the amount of pop-art would decrease... so instead of having alot of non-free art, we would have a smaller amount of free art (not made for profit). Your hidden assumption is that the loss of jobs/revenue stream for artists is in and of itself immoral... however I just don't buy it. Nothing morally guarantees people a market for their hobbies.
Besides, the "DRM-encumbered" world you describe is only a problem if the government creates DRM laws. Without such laws people can (and will) legally break the content out and trade it. So without copyright (and DMCA-like extensions), this "DRM future" is not a worry. It is those types of DRM laws that I'm specifically against, of course... for exactly the reasons you describe.
So again, I don't think artists should be (morally or legally) guaranteed a revenue stream for their work. That having been said, the original intent of copyright (the public gives up some freedom so as to encourage the creation of artwork that they want) is a pragmatically reasonable proposition. So in an effort to do away with status-quo copyright, it's worthwhile to investigate alternatives.
You present only two possibilities to status-quo-copyright (donations or stop producing art). I don't think that's fair. Alternatives have been presented and discussed at great length. For example, some type of "release contract" or "hostageware" situation where the artists has a work of art, and sets a bounty on its release to the public. If the bounty is met, the art becomes public domain (and the artist gets money)... if not, the artist can lower their price or advertise more or move on to something else. In such a scheme there is even a place for middle-men, who raise funds, prepare advertising, and coordinate the transfer. Middle-men are not a bad thing.
In fact I'm not against the recording industry per se. In terms of making music people want, they are very talented. What I'm against in that context are monopolies... and it is very much necessary for us as a society to re-instate a marketplace in this particular economic domain. If there were some real competition, then the alternative business models that have been considered could potentially flourish.
I've only presented one alternative to status-quo... but there are many others.
But the entire reason for the existence of copyright is to encourage more and better art to be created -- and it DOES achieve that purpose even now. I don't see how you can realistically ignore that.
No, I'm not ignoring that. It has done a fine job for quite awhile. We have alot of art to be proud of. However society's ability to access that art is now limited, which robs us of the culture which we were promised in the original copyright law. We have given up our freedoms in order to get this art... and now our usage of it is restricted beyond the original scope. I think the laws need to be modified (not necessarily entirely abandoned, although that is one possibility) so that the situation becomes more balanced. My sister happens to be an aspirin
I agree with what you say. However I think some of your points should be even more general. For instance, you say:
the solution is to simply make sure it is more clear to people that Wikipedia is not authoritative and at any particular moment the version of the article you are viewing might be an inaccurate one.
I think people should realize that: the solution is to simply make sure it is more clear to people that any source of information is not the final authority and any particular document you are viewing might be inaccurate.
I think the real problem is that too many people accept information without being critical about it. Wikipedia comes along and suddenly people freak out and yell "you can't trust it for reason X." The truth is that you *always* need to double-check sources if what they are claiming sounds strange, or if you need high accuracy information, or if it is a controversial subject. This applies equally to Wikipedia, Britannica, the NY Times, Slashdot, and quality scientific journals.
I think Wikipedia is an amazing ressource that is right far far more often than it is wrong. However the general lesson here is that we all need to analyze all the information we receive in a more critical fashion. If anything, we can thank Wikipedia for bringing this issue to light (and providing a venue for improving the status quo).
What we agree on is that free markets are generally good for the end consumer. What we disagree on is whether the current entertainment industry is actually a free market. I argue that it is not, since copyright grants monopolies that prevent free-market style competition. I'm not sure why you disagree, but that's certainly your right.
You are advocating that artists produce work and ask nothing for it in return
No, I'm advocating that artists produce work and ask for reasonable compensation at the time of production, and that distribution thereafter (after the artist has been compensated) is free from restriction.
Maybe you should track down all the artists whose music you pirate, and ask them if they are happy about it?
Actually, as a matter of principle I only download creative commons music... and donate to artists when the mood strikes me. That's one of the ways that artists can thrive without copyright, incidentally. It's not the only one, however. I think work-for-hire is probably more stable for most artists.
To conclude, I feel that you are purposefully ignoring that the issue here is "copyright" and not "communism" or whatever else. You seem to be attacking straw men, rather than consider than alternatives to copyright are not only economically viable, but possibly morally superior to the status quo. At the end of the day, we clearly have to agree to disagree on this issue. Thanks for the input.
Carpenters and bricklayers should be paid for their work by those who enjoy the fruits of their labour. Musicians and filmmakers have the same rights.
Carpenters and bricklayers are given money to perform a service. There are no special laws that protect them. Musicians and filmakers should have to behave similarly. If someone wants to pay them to do a show or make a movie, that's fine. However I disagree with creating special laws (called "copyright") to artifically control distribution of information.
Anything else is just quite desperate intellectual willy-waving to justify stealing peoples work for nothing
I respectfully disagree. It is a matter of freedom, and specifically the freedoms we have lost due to copyright.
How do you expect creators of digital content to pay the bills? How do you expect to get anything bigger or better than 'hobby' creation of content?
You'll have to ask people like Linux Torvalds about that. Last I checked, he wasn't starving to death. The fact is there are innumerable viable alternatives to copyright (hostage-ware, donations, grants, sponsors, etc.), but the alternatives are stifled as long as copyright (in its current form) exists.
Im presuming you dont create digital content for a living, because if you did, you'd look upon things a bit differently.
Well actually as an academic all the research and information I generate becomes open and widely distributed. I'm also not starving to death.
What you are advcocating is communism, so at least be honest and say so.
That statement is very confusing to me. You seem to imply that socialist ideas are somehow "bad" which is strange... but stranger still is that you find the idea of "have no special laws to protect artists and let the free market decide how much their time is worth" to be more communist than the status quo of "have the government impose special laws so that everyone is effectively taxed for their consumption of information, and redistribute this money to content creators and middle-men."
Surely anyone who creates anything has the right to set the price for it?
Nope, sorry. I can go outside and paint my house blue and then claim that I'm charging everyone who looks at my house $100 for the pleasure of looking at my house. Do I have a "right" to charge this to people? (Hey, I worked hard to paint my house!... not to mention cost of supplies!) No I do not. There is no law that allows me to charge people just for glancing at my house. Nor should there be such a law. Such a law would be ridiculous.
Thus, there is no general rule (legal or moral) that states that "anyone who creates anything has the right to set the price for it".
Of course, I do have the option of NOT painting my house if I believe there's "nothing in it for me." So I guess I could go around the neighbourhood before-hand and ask that everyone pay me $1 to paint my house, as part of a beautification project. That would be fair (everyone can pay or not, depending on whether they care).
Now, in the case of artistic works, there is a law (called "copyright") that was invented to create artificial, legal barriers for dissemination of these works. The intention is to give artists control over their creations. This has the effect of making duplicatable artistic works seem similar to physical property (even though there are differences).
I personally believe that copyright is immoral because of the restrictions it places on citizens (especially in a digital age where information duplication is so easy and beneficial). As far as I'm concerned, any artist can set a bounty on their work creation (go around asking for $x to make a given thing), or ask for donations, or whatever. But they do not have the right to control their work after it has passed into public view. Once the public becomes aware of it and are able to copy it (at their own expense), they should be free to do so. It's up to the artists to make provisions that they are adequately compensated... or they can release it gratis if that's what they prefer (which, of course, many artists do nowadays... myself included).
You as the customer have the right not to buy it, I cant understand where you assume the right to take it from the creator on your own terms and not theirs?
Information is not the same as a physical good because duplication of information does not lessen the person from which it was duplicated. Stealing is immoral because you deprive someone of something. In my opinion both the creator and the public at large have the right to copy information on their own respective terms. If the artist doesn't want information to be publically distributed, they should keep it secret. If the artist wants compensation they should make appropriate arrangements before releasing it.
So block non-russian IP addresses and take payments in roubles
Why should AllOfMP3 block their customers? There's nothing illegal about what they are doing. Are you claiming that all online businesses should not allow out-of-country customers?... or perhaps that all online businesses should abide by the laws of all countries on earth simultaneously (which is, of course, contradictory and impossible).
My original point was simply that there is no legal difference between US/EU record labels and AllOfMP3. BPI is suing AllOfMP3. That's about as legitimate as AllOfMP3 suing BPI for not sending a portion of their profits to the Russian copyright agency. They are both operating legally in their respective jurisdictions.
With regard to the "morality" however:
but that doesnt mean its fair for a website to sell something they dont own, and quite clearly not pay the artists ANYTHING.
You are arguing with hidden assumptions. You have already assumed that the current North-American version of copyright is morally correct (and thus that the Russian version is not). That is precisely the assumption that many of us are questioning.
Copyright (or at least the current state of it) is (in my opinion) the immoral part. One could argue that the recording industry is simply exploiting the current state of the law. Then again, AllOfMP3 is simply exploiting the current state of Russian law.
I question whether the US record labels "own" the work (in the US) any more or less than AllOfMP3 "owns" the work in Russia. I even question whether the artist "owns" the work. Artists have the right to not make art if they predict that the compensation will be insufficient, but I'm not convinced they have a moral right to control the work once it becomes available to the public.
Yes, I'm one of those people in favor of copyright reform. I'm not saying that the Russian rules are the answer... however I don't like the presumption that the status quo of copyright is "so obviously correct" that it should apply worldwide.
It also raises awareness of the alternatives. I would say most non-geeks don't know AllOfMP3 even exists. They think iTMS is the only way to buy music online. When they realize there is something else, they may be interested.
Consider also what will happen if the case goes the other way. If it is determined that what they are doing is not illegal (even if it turns out that the ruling is simply "this is not a matter that can be decided in UK court because it's external to the UK"), then the increased visibility would mean that people would be aware of an alternative that has been legally verified to NOT BE ILLEGAL.
I think this lawsuit is a risky stunt in any case.
These people basically pay no royalities at all to the muscians, and they give you a false feeling of buying legitimate stuff.
Interesting how that sentence applies equally well to AllOfMP3 and the conventional recording industry.
They make money by selling stuff they have no right to sell.
Again, this applies equally well to the two of them. The record labels in North America claim that they have legally valid contracts that give them the right to make a profit off of the creations of certain artists. I question the morality of what they are doing, but yes it's legal in the country they operate in.
AllOfMP3 claim that they have the legal right to make a profit off of the creations of certain artists, in compliance with Russian copyright law. You question the morality of what they are doing, but yes it's legal in the country they operate in.
1. WGA communicates with Microsoft HQ. The information transferred may or may not be 'sensitive' but this could be considered an invasion of privacy.
2. Any program that uses up system ressources without performing a task explicitly requested by the user is harmful in the sense that it slows down the computer. This is one of the main complaints with spyware/adware: they slow down your computer for no purpose (or at least no purpose that you, the user, are interested in).
3. WGA appears to effectively give someone else (specifically Microsoft) control over your machine (for instance the recently announced "remote shutoff" function). To the user, a program that limits their control of the computer (and gives someone else more control) is harmful. Note that the argument "but Microsoft would only shut off illegitimate versions of Windows" doesn't make any difference. Even if that's true, there is still a loss of control for the user. This is harmful to the user.
To the same extent that any other piece of so-called "spyware" is harmful (installed in a tricky way; sends info back to some company; wastes CPU cycles and disk space; etc.), WGA should also be considered "harmful."
The problem with WGA is that is not an update, security-patch, or feature upgrade. It does *nothing* for the user, and only installs in order to give Microsoft more control/leverage over your machine. From the user perspective, it is a net negative, hence harmful.
It came as a Windows Update, if you wanted to protect yourself you should have turned automatic updates off...
I'm not sure that arguments works. After all, for spyware one could argue "You installed the application (or clicked yes or whatever), if you wanted to protect yourself you should have not installed it." For some spyware/adware/malware, the EULA even indicates that "additional software" will be installed. It is buried in documentation, but the information is there. This doesn't prevent it from being spyware/malware or whatever. The fact is that when something is installed in a circuitous or obfuscated way, it is not really what the user agreed to.
In the case of Windows Updates, I would argue that it is even more out of the user's control. For alot of malware, you have to click "yes install" at some point. For Windows Updates, the recommended state is to "automatically download and install in the background." In theory a user could examine each and every update to figure out what they all do, but in practise the actual purpose of each update is heavily obfuscated. Worse yet, in the case of WGA, once you allow it to install (it seems innocent enough at first), it is used against you to force further installations.
Frankly the tactic Microsoft is using in their updates is not ethical. Everyone is told to do their Windows Updates (for security reasons), and Microsoft is exploiting this to slip in some other software that the user does not necessarily need. Worse yet, this software sends back information to Microsoft HQ without user permission. If this does not count as spyware, I don't know what does.
I hope this lawsuit makes Microsoft wake up to the illegitimacy of their tactics.
Note that your ISP terms of service may prohibit you from allowing third parties (even anonymous third parties without any profit) to access your network connection.
I wonder how the cops would respond...
They would probably say "okay, that's your choice... this was just a friendly note in case you didn't realize that your network was insecure."
The police are maybe worried that open access points are easy on-ramps for malicious hackers (or "pirates"), since they can do some hacking/downloading and remain anonymous and untrackable.
Of course we realize that this is least of the Internet's problems with regard to hacking... but the police's efforts in this case are at least well-intentioned.
IANAL, but I don't think you're going to find a clear answer. What you're talking about is a fringe case, so it's always up for debate. However, you should consider:
1. Is it 'necessary' in the sense that you need that clip to make a point? Remember that satire, commentary, and even artistic pieces are protected. If you need the clip to make your point, then it's probably okay (subject to the next two points)...
2. Is it a small usage? If you are showing only a small clip from a full movie (1%), then it's probably fine.
3. Is it commercial?... in the sense of "are you somehow limiting the original content owner's market?" If you're showing the full movie and charging people, you are cutting into the copyright holder's market (they charge ppl to see the movie, after all). If you are just using a short clip to make a point, and charging people for the presentation/training as a whole, then it's a fair use. Unless the copyright holder in question is actively trying to sell in the "clips for use in training sessions" market, then you're not cutting into his business.
There will never be an iron-clad answer (that can only come out of a court decision). However if you seem to be "okay" with respect to 1, 2, and 3... I would guess that nearly any judge would not find you guilty of copyright infringement.
I also know that in Canada there are explicit exceptions for education. Thus, if it is for teaching you can make copies of a copyrighted work and distribute these to the class. The only requirement is that you properly log all your usage, and that there is no viable, available, commercial alternative that performs the exact same function. I'm not sure if something similar exists in the US.
The only people who will tell you that this is "obviously illegal" are those who are trying to exagerrate how extensive copyright really is. Of course, this is just my interpretation of the laws in question.
A "Free Market" argument presupposes that there is competition for the consumer to take advantage of. As has often been pointed out, this is generally not the case for telcos. It's simply not possible for thousands of companies to lay cable or phone lines or fibre throughout the city/country... hence we have government-granted monopolies, which by their very nature immediately prevent a free market.
Yes there are rules for these companies allowing competitors to make use of the infrastructure, but this is (apparently) not enough. I live in Canada and there are not that many options for high-speed internet access. Luckily I don't use Bell, but frankly when I only have 2 or 3 options available to me, how do I know my provider won't simply do the same thing next year?
I really wish that the free market could help us out here. The first step is for the laws to be structured in a way that either allows competition, or when this is impossible (such as when dividing up public ressources for commercial exploitation) prevents abuse by the companies.
That's a good point, although I would say "Lack of discretion is part of the problem behavior."
Web content that celebrates the exhibition of underage drinking...
In a case like that (if the drinking is truly "underage" in the illegal sense) then I think the problem is not just the exhibition, but the illegal/bad action iteself.
Perhaps one way would be to discourage the public celebration of not acting better, and thus reducing the peer pressure to behave that way and record it as a triumph of some sort?
That's a good point, and I do agree. Certainly it sends an important message to say "it's not good to celebrate bad things" (or whatever). However there is a difference between suggestions/educating and mandating (in this case, the school has decided to do the latter). I certainly understand what you're saying about using such a rule to reduce peer pressure. That's an important point.
However the flip side is (as I mentioned before) that the university is sending the message "it's okay to do bad things as long as you hide it." If there is undesirable behavior going on that the university is embarrassed about, they should either stop it or deal with reality. This is just my opinion, of course (and obviously it is not shared by most universities).
Combine the fact that many student athletes are notorious for bad behavior... Schools really do have a reason to be concerned.
Wouldn't it be more direct (and ethical) to deal with the problem behavior, rather than coming up with ways of hiding it, and thereby protect the university image?
I think your comment really picks up on what I don't like about this whole thing. It's not illegal, but it seems somehow dishonest for a school to try to 'hide' the behavior of their "star students." If the students are engaged in unsavoury activity, this should be dealt with directly. Yes, I know all the players sign these "I will be a good person" contracts, but evidently that's not enough. Somehow I don't think hiding their actions will make them *more* likely to follow those strange contracts. Quite the contrary: by taking extensive measures to hide bad activities, the university is in effect indirectly condoning those actions. They are saying "you can keep being bad as long as you help us cover it up."
Frankly I think the universities should just "deal with it" by which I mean they should either:
1. Find a way to make the players "act better," possibly by having entrance requirements more closely related to "ethics" and "behavior."
2. Accept that the university image will be tied to the actions of these people, for better or worse.
I'm reading the original Science article now (sorry, only available to subscribers, although the Science summary may be available to the general public).
The reason that the gas and liquid transport through nanotubes is so much higher than you might expect is due to the smoothness of the inside walls. The classic hydrodynamic equations have some amount of surface roughness inherently built into them. If you just naively scale them down to nano-dimensions, you'll predict very high resistance to fluid flow. However carbon nanotubes have "perfect" inside walls, that are atomically flat. This allows the water molecules (or gas, or whatever travelling inside them) to travel without "getting caught" or "bumping" into defects. In essence the atomic smoothness of the walls brings us into a whole new (nano) hydrodynamic regime.
This effect was predicted by computer simulations previously, but now has been actually observed in real samples. Very impressive.
You make a valid point. However I think that Google is doing this the "smart way." Instead of jumping into new markets and expecting to dominate it immediately, they are releasing a large number of small of tests and seeing what works. Those that really work (GMail, Google Maps/Google Local) they put more effort into, and start getting a serious return on investment (the ad revenue from GMail must now be quite significant). Those that don't work so well can be allowed to fizzle away.
The point is that Google is moving slowly, incrementally, and always testing the waters with each new product (hence their perpetual beta status). This is the right way to do it, since they don't over-comit to any particular project. They always have their bread-and-butter operation (web search ads) to keep them running, so whenever one of these new ideas takes off, it simply increases their earnings.
Some people think that one day Google will unveil a super-duper WebOS or GoogleOS or something. Instead I think it will be a slow process, where more and more functionality will be included in the "online google suite." I don't think they will ever fully dominate... nor should that be their goal. They can make alot of money by providing a useful set of services. This set of services need not be complete for it to be profitable.
If you can get a user to understand the difference between absolute and relative cell addressing, the problem with editing individual formulas is made a copy-paste task. Instead of typing (or clicking) all the cell references each time, you write the formula pattern and fill it into the appropriate cells.
This is precisely what we do now, and it's inefficient and error-prone. We make nice formula with mixed relative/absolute addressing, and then copy it down the row of hundreds of cells. It works, but it's error prone. It happens very frequently that someone will forget to copy down the row (only the first cell is updated), or forget to make the change somewhere else (think of spreadsheets that have the same formula appearing in different rows, blocks, or worksheets). Expecting the user to remember to paste every place where a formula appears is silly. It should be easy to define some kind of function on-the-fly and use it wherever needed.
An added benefit is that it actually preserves the "play around" usefullness of spreadsheets. If you can modify a single equation, and see your whole spreadsheet (and graphs, etc.) update, it is much easier to get a handle on what's going (versus copying and pasting updates all over the place, and then comparing the before and after).
I agree. Spreadsheets are quite powerful, but I'm often frustrated with them. Since I have programming experience, I can see the ways that spreadsheets could be made more robust and more powerful.
The first thing to change is what you alluded to: code should not be duplicated, but linked instead. When you drag a formula, it should really just fill those cells with references to the formula to be used. When you try and edit any one of those cells, you are given a popup where you can edit the master equation used in that range. This would make it so much easier to fix spreadsheets. With fewer points of failure, it is much easier to find bugs or add functionality.
A related point is that the way a single cell is designed makes it hard to read complex equations. A complex operation should generally be split across multiple cells, as this makes debugging and understanding workflow easier. However sometimes you need a single cell to be quite complex, and the way most spreadsheets display the cell contents (as a single long line) makes it difficult to understand. Again the cell contents should appear in a pop-up, where proper indenting, bracket-balancing, comments, and color-coding can occur (i.e.: everything that a normal programming IDE gives you).
Another thing that would make spreadsheets more useful/powerful would be the ability to COMPILE them into another form. I often use spreadsheets for prototyping a new analysis, and then re-code it into another form (Java, C++, Matlab, etc.) for efficiency purposes. In many cases this is a good idea, since it makes sure the programmer understands the problem fully. However in other cases it is wasted effort. A spreadsheet is slow to calculate but sometimes it provides the best layout for coding a solution. What I would like to see is a spreadsheet program that converts the entire spreadsheet into some kind of human-readable linear code (C++ style syntax or whatever). This would involve converting blocks of numbers into vectors, arrays, or matrices, automatically naming them (based on the column header, for instance), and creating loops to account for iterative operations, and translating all the spreadsheet functions into other types of syntax. Having this human-readable version of the code would be great. It could be fixed and improved (for efficiency or interacting with other programs), commented, and so on.
This human-readable code could then (obviously) be compiled into an efficient binary form. This would make spreadsheet concepts of workflow applicable to more demanding applications.
Lastly, I think spreadsheets need to learn what other programming forms already know: comments are important! The spreadsheet should strongly encourage the user to enter an explanation for every formula they write. Everything should be commented. This is the only way for future people to fix or modify the spreadsheet. Plus, accountability and traceability are easier.
Perhaps I'm asking for too much... but I think if spreadsheets evolve in this direction (towards being a more rigorous programming environment), the benefits would be huge. People are now (more or less) used to using a spreadsheet. This kind of "programmer's spreadsheet" would be great for people who know programming (it becomes more powerful) and also for casual users (some rules enforce better practices).
You're quite right. Femtosecond laser spectroscopy has already pushed the time resolution way beyond what this new report is claiming. In fact attosecond pulses have even been generated, making it possible not only to measure motion of atoms, but motion of electrons within atoms during a chemical reaction.
However, it should be noted that this new report uses X-ray microdiffraction. They obtain picosecond time resolution, simultaneous with structural information. The article summary is not especially exact, but the structural information (positions of atoms) of this technique is indeed unique. Femtosecond laser spectrscopy will return quite a bit of information, but it doesn't really tell you the movement of the atoms in a bulk sample (only movement of atoms in relation to each other, during the chemical reaction). This new technique appears to be applicable to simultaneously deducing the locations and motions of atoms in solids (as opposed to gases/plasmas).
The time resolution is nothing amazing, but it is nevertheless quite impressive that they can deduce the motion of a domain wall in a solid with picosecond time resolution.
For anyone interested, the actually paper in question is: Grigoriev et al. Physical Review Letters (12 May 2006), 187601. DOI 10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.187601
Slashdot Mirror
and it runs on my mac
As I mention in another comment, so far Mac OS X has been a showstopper. I tried OpenRPG last night (on Linux and Windows) and it seems quite useful... however I couldn't get the client to run on OS X (granted I haven't had a chance to try everything).
OpenRPG uses Python and wxPython, so you need to install the dev. tools and the X11 environment (which I've done). But that wasn't enough. Was there any other "special trick" required to get it to run on your Mac? The machine I was experimenting on is a Macbook Pro, although in the end it will also have to run on a friend's PPC iMac. Any advice?
We experimented with OpenRPG last night... the good news is that it integrates a bunch of useful things (chat, whiteboard, and automated dice rolling). It's a little rough around the edges, but overall a great concept. However it's been a real effort to get it running on OS X, which some in the play group use.
I would have thought that the combination of chat+voice+whiteboard would be so generic that it would be easy to find a bunch of applications (especially OSS ones) to do exactly that... however it's been hard to find a stable app that runs on all platforms.
I suspect that the poster's question will become answered when he receives many email regarding this job opportunity.
Basically a great place to advertise the job is Slashdot! Of course, this is not really a sustainable strategy (not every OSS job offer will merit a Slashdot story)...
You should consider clicking on the "Jobs" link on the OSTG bar that is at the top of Slashdot. I suspect that many OSS-savvy Slashdot readers use that when looking for jobs, so getting the offer listed there (it appears to link to Yahoo! HotJobs) would probably be a good idea.
It's not a safety issue. The issue was the MBP logic board would sometimes "not realize" the battery was there. In particular, if you left the computer unplugged long enough for the battery to drain to zero, the notebook would stop recognizing the battery at all and would thus not recharge it. The end result of this is that you no longer have a "portable" notebook because the battery is useless. This is what happened to me, and after a quick phone call they shipped the replacement. The new battery arrived within a day and I sent off the old one. I knew it was kinda risky buying a "rev 1" apple product, but luckily they were very fast with the replacement part. Just tell them the serial # and they ship it same-day.
Note that a number of scholars not only say that this should be a moral right, but go further and question the entire notion of "intellectual property" having value to society. For instance, Stephan Kinsella has written against intellectual property, and in Brian Martin's book Information Liberation he simialrly argues against the existence of "IP". These are but a few examples. In the debate about the "ethics of intellectual property" there are many scholars on both sides.
Perhaps what you meant (although not exactly what you said) was that no respected lawyer would argue that it is legal to download a copy based on already owning a copy. I'm not a lawyer, but it doesn't seem so far-fetched a defence to claim that since you already bought a copy, and could have made a copy for your own personal use under fair-use, you simply downloaded a copy for convenience. If this use doesn't limit the copyright-holder's market, then it may not be judged infringement. At the very least I can imagine a lawyer using such an argument for a client... although of course in the end it's up to the judge to decide the merit of the argument.
No I wasn't trolling. You make a wide variety of very good points. I'm not insensitive to the complexities of the current situation. I'm also not necessarily advocating a complete elimination of copyright. I do believe that current copyright is immoral, and that doing away with it entirely (and going to a fully 'public domain' scheme, as you call it) would be more moral than the status quo... but that's not to say that there isn't a middle ground that is even more moral (and more pragmatically useful) than a public domain situation.
So let's just say that I'm against "status quo copyright" (not copyright altogether). And extreme as this may sound: yes I'd be happier with no copyright at all, and with the elimination of revenue models for artists, rather than government-sanctioned lock-down schemes. You describe a vision of the future where (if copyright didn't exist) everything is DRM-locked-down... however I think it is more likely that the amount of pop-art would decrease... so instead of having alot of non-free art, we would have a smaller amount of free art (not made for profit). Your hidden assumption is that the loss of jobs/revenue stream for artists is in and of itself immoral... however I just don't buy it. Nothing morally guarantees people a market for their hobbies.
Besides, the "DRM-encumbered" world you describe is only a problem if the government creates DRM laws. Without such laws people can (and will) legally break the content out and trade it. So without copyright (and DMCA-like extensions), this "DRM future" is not a worry. It is those types of DRM laws that I'm specifically against, of course... for exactly the reasons you describe.
So again, I don't think artists should be (morally or legally) guaranteed a revenue stream for their work. That having been said, the original intent of copyright (the public gives up some freedom so as to encourage the creation of artwork that they want) is a pragmatically reasonable proposition. So in an effort to do away with status-quo copyright, it's worthwhile to investigate alternatives.
You present only two possibilities to status-quo-copyright (donations or stop producing art). I don't think that's fair. Alternatives have been presented and discussed at great length. For example, some type of "release contract" or "hostageware" situation where the artists has a work of art, and sets a bounty on its release to the public. If the bounty is met, the art becomes public domain (and the artist gets money)... if not, the artist can lower their price or advertise more or move on to something else. In such a scheme there is even a place for middle-men, who raise funds, prepare advertising, and coordinate the transfer. Middle-men are not a bad thing.
In fact I'm not against the recording industry per se. In terms of making music people want, they are very talented. What I'm against in that context are monopolies... and it is very much necessary for us as a society to re-instate a marketplace in this particular economic domain. If there were some real competition, then the alternative business models that have been considered could potentially flourish.
I've only presented one alternative to status-quo... but there are many others.
But the entire reason for the existence of copyright is to encourage more and better art to be created -- and it DOES achieve that purpose even now. I don't see how you can realistically ignore that.
No, I'm not ignoring that. It has done a fine job for quite awhile. We have alot of art to be proud of. However society's ability to access that art is now limited, which robs us of the culture which we were promised in the original copyright law. We have given up our freedoms in order to get this art... and now our usage of it is restricted beyond the original scope. I think the laws need to be modified (not necessarily entirely abandoned, although that is one possibility) so that the situation becomes more balanced. My sister happens to be an aspirin
I think people should realize that:
the solution is to simply make sure it is more clear to people that any source of information is not the final authority and any particular document you are viewing might be inaccurate.
I think the real problem is that too many people accept information without being critical about it. Wikipedia comes along and suddenly people freak out and yell "you can't trust it for reason X." The truth is that you *always* need to double-check sources if what they are claiming sounds strange, or if you need high accuracy information, or if it is a controversial subject. This applies equally to Wikipedia, Britannica, the NY Times, Slashdot, and quality scientific journals.
I think Wikipedia is an amazing ressource that is right far far more often than it is wrong. However the general lesson here is that we all need to analyze all the information we receive in a more critical fashion. If anything, we can thank Wikipedia for bringing this issue to light (and providing a venue for improving the status quo).
the best product wins in the free market
What we agree on is that free markets are generally good for the end consumer. What we disagree on is whether the current entertainment industry is actually a free market. I argue that it is not, since copyright grants monopolies that prevent free-market style competition. I'm not sure why you disagree, but that's certainly your right.
You are advocating that artists produce work and ask nothing for it in return
No, I'm advocating that artists produce work and ask for reasonable compensation at the time of production, and that distribution thereafter (after the artist has been compensated) is free from restriction.
Maybe you should track down all the artists whose music you pirate, and ask them if they are happy about it?
Actually, as a matter of principle I only download creative commons music... and donate to artists when the mood strikes me. That's one of the ways that artists can thrive without copyright, incidentally. It's not the only one, however. I think work-for-hire is probably more stable for most artists.
To conclude, I feel that you are purposefully ignoring that the issue here is "copyright" and not "communism" or whatever else. You seem to be attacking straw men, rather than consider than alternatives to copyright are not only economically viable, but possibly morally superior to the status quo. At the end of the day, we clearly have to agree to disagree on this issue. Thanks for the input.
Carpenters and bricklayers should be paid for their work by those who enjoy the fruits of their labour. Musicians and filmmakers have the same rights.
Carpenters and bricklayers are given money to perform a service. There are no special laws that protect them. Musicians and filmakers should have to behave similarly. If someone wants to pay them to do a show or make a movie, that's fine. However I disagree with creating special laws (called "copyright") to artifically control distribution of information.
Anything else is just quite desperate intellectual willy-waving to justify stealing peoples work for nothing
I respectfully disagree. It is a matter of freedom, and specifically the freedoms we have lost due to copyright.
How do you expect creators of digital content to pay the bills? How do you expect to get anything bigger or better than 'hobby' creation of content?
You'll have to ask people like Linux Torvalds about that. Last I checked, he wasn't starving to death. The fact is there are innumerable viable alternatives to copyright (hostage-ware, donations, grants, sponsors, etc.), but the alternatives are stifled as long as copyright (in its current form) exists.
Im presuming you dont create digital content for a living, because if you did, you'd look upon things a bit differently.
Well actually as an academic all the research and information I generate becomes open and widely distributed. I'm also not starving to death.
What you are advcocating is communism, so at least be honest and say so.
That statement is very confusing to me. You seem to imply that socialist ideas are somehow "bad" which is strange... but stranger still is that you find the idea of "have no special laws to protect artists and let the free market decide how much their time is worth" to be more communist than the status quo of "have the government impose special laws so that everyone is effectively taxed for their consumption of information, and redistribute this money to content creators and middle-men."
Surely anyone who creates anything has the right to set the price for it?
... or perhaps that all online businesses should abide by the laws of all countries on earth simultaneously (which is, of course, contradictory and impossible).
Nope, sorry. I can go outside and paint my house blue and then claim that I'm charging everyone who looks at my house $100 for the pleasure of looking at my house. Do I have a "right" to charge this to people? (Hey, I worked hard to paint my house!... not to mention cost of supplies!) No I do not. There is no law that allows me to charge people just for glancing at my house. Nor should there be such a law. Such a law would be ridiculous.
Thus, there is no general rule (legal or moral) that states that "anyone who creates anything has the right to set the price for it".
Of course, I do have the option of NOT painting my house if I believe there's "nothing in it for me." So I guess I could go around the neighbourhood before-hand and ask that everyone pay me $1 to paint my house, as part of a beautification project. That would be fair (everyone can pay or not, depending on whether they care).
Now, in the case of artistic works, there is a law (called "copyright") that was invented to create artificial, legal barriers for dissemination of these works. The intention is to give artists control over their creations. This has the effect of making duplicatable artistic works seem similar to physical property (even though there are differences).
I personally believe that copyright is immoral because of the restrictions it places on citizens (especially in a digital age where information duplication is so easy and beneficial). As far as I'm concerned, any artist can set a bounty on their work creation (go around asking for $x to make a given thing), or ask for donations, or whatever. But they do not have the right to control their work after it has passed into public view. Once the public becomes aware of it and are able to copy it (at their own expense), they should be free to do so. It's up to the artists to make provisions that they are adequately compensated... or they can release it gratis if that's what they prefer (which, of course, many artists do nowadays... myself included).
You as the customer have the right not to buy it, I cant understand where you assume the right to take it from the creator on your own terms and not theirs?
Information is not the same as a physical good because duplication of information does not lessen the person from which it was duplicated. Stealing is immoral because you deprive someone of something. In my opinion both the creator and the public at large have the right to copy information on their own respective terms. If the artist doesn't want information to be publically distributed, they should keep it secret. If the artist wants compensation they should make appropriate arrangements before releasing it.
So block non-russian IP addresses and take payments in roubles
Why should AllOfMP3 block their customers? There's nothing illegal about what they are doing. Are you claiming that all online businesses should not allow out-of-country customers?
With regard to the "morality" however:
You are arguing with hidden assumptions. You have already assumed that the current North-American version of copyright is morally correct (and thus that the Russian version is not). That is precisely the assumption that many of us are questioning.
Copyright (or at least the current state of it) is (in my opinion) the immoral part. One could argue that the recording industry is simply exploiting the current state of the law. Then again, AllOfMP3 is simply exploiting the current state of Russian law.
I question whether the US record labels "own" the work (in the US) any more or less than AllOfMP3 "owns" the work in Russia. I even question whether the artist "owns" the work. Artists have the right to not make art if they predict that the compensation will be insufficient, but I'm not convinced they have a moral right to control the work once it becomes available to the public.
Yes, I'm one of those people in favor of copyright reform. I'm not saying that the Russian rules are the answer... however I don't like the presumption that the status quo of copyright is "so obviously correct" that it should apply worldwide.
It also raises awareness of the alternatives. I would say most non-geeks don't know AllOfMP3 even exists. They think iTMS is the only way to buy music online. When they realize there is something else, they may be interested.
Consider also what will happen if the case goes the other way. If it is determined that what they are doing is not illegal (even if it turns out that the ruling is simply "this is not a matter that can be decided in UK court because it's external to the UK"), then the increased visibility would mean that people would be aware of an alternative that has been legally verified to NOT BE ILLEGAL.
I think this lawsuit is a risky stunt in any case.
Again, this applies equally well to the two of them. The record labels in North America claim that they have legally valid contracts that give them the right to make a profit off of the creations of certain artists. I question the morality of what they are doing, but yes it's legal in the country they operate in.
AllOfMP3 claim that they have the legal right to make a profit off of the creations of certain artists, in compliance with Russian copyright law. You question the morality of what they are doing, but yes it's legal in the country they operate in.
1. WGA communicates with Microsoft HQ. The information transferred may or may not be 'sensitive' but this could be considered an invasion of privacy.
2. Any program that uses up system ressources without performing a task explicitly requested by the user is harmful in the sense that it slows down the computer. This is one of the main complaints with spyware/adware: they slow down your computer for no purpose (or at least no purpose that you, the user, are interested in).
3. WGA appears to effectively give someone else (specifically Microsoft) control over your machine (for instance the recently announced "remote shutoff" function). To the user, a program that limits their control of the computer (and gives someone else more control) is harmful. Note that the argument "but Microsoft would only shut off illegitimate versions of Windows" doesn't make any difference. Even if that's true, there is still a loss of control for the user. This is harmful to the user.
To the same extent that any other piece of so-called "spyware" is harmful (installed in a tricky way; sends info back to some company; wastes CPU cycles and disk space; etc.), WGA should also be considered "harmful."
The problem with WGA is that is not an update, security-patch, or feature upgrade. It does *nothing* for the user, and only installs in order to give Microsoft more control/leverage over your machine. From the user perspective, it is a net negative, hence harmful.
In the case of Windows Updates, I would argue that it is even more out of the user's control. For alot of malware, you have to click "yes install" at some point. For Windows Updates, the recommended state is to "automatically download and install in the background." In theory a user could examine each and every update to figure out what they all do, but in practise the actual purpose of each update is heavily obfuscated. Worse yet, in the case of WGA, once you allow it to install (it seems innocent enough at first), it is used against you to force further installations.
Frankly the tactic Microsoft is using in their updates is not ethical. Everyone is told to do their Windows Updates (for security reasons), and Microsoft is exploiting this to slip in some other software that the user does not necessarily need. Worse yet, this software sends back information to Microsoft HQ without user permission. If this does not count as spyware, I don't know what does.
I hope this lawsuit makes Microsoft wake up to the illegitimacy of their tactics.
Note that your ISP terms of service may prohibit you from allowing third parties (even anonymous third parties without any profit) to access your network connection.
I wonder how the cops would respond...
They would probably say "okay, that's your choice... this was just a friendly note in case you didn't realize that your network was insecure."
The police are maybe worried that open access points are easy on-ramps for malicious hackers (or "pirates"), since they can do some hacking/downloading and remain anonymous and untrackable.
Of course we realize that this is least of the Internet's problems with regard to hacking... but the police's efforts in this case are at least well-intentioned.
IANAL, but I don't think you're going to find a clear answer. What you're talking about is a fringe case, so it's always up for debate. However, you should consider:
... in the sense of "are you somehow limiting the original content owner's market?" If you're showing the full movie and charging people, you are cutting into the copyright holder's market (they charge ppl to see the movie, after all). If you are just using a short clip to make a point, and charging people for the presentation/training as a whole, then it's a fair use. Unless the copyright holder in question is actively trying to sell in the "clips for use in training sessions" market, then you're not cutting into his business.
1. Is it 'necessary' in the sense that you need that clip to make a point? Remember that satire, commentary, and even artistic pieces are protected. If you need the clip to make your point, then it's probably okay (subject to the next two points)...
2. Is it a small usage? If you are showing only a small clip from a full movie (1%), then it's probably fine.
3. Is it commercial?
There will never be an iron-clad answer (that can only come out of a court decision). However if you seem to be "okay" with respect to 1, 2, and 3... I would guess that nearly any judge would not find you guilty of copyright infringement.
I also know that in Canada there are explicit exceptions for education. Thus, if it is for teaching you can make copies of a copyrighted work and distribute these to the class. The only requirement is that you properly log all your usage, and that there is no viable, available, commercial alternative that performs the exact same function. I'm not sure if something similar exists in the US.
The only people who will tell you that this is "obviously illegal" are those who are trying to exagerrate how extensive copyright really is. Of course, this is just my interpretation of the laws in question.
A "Free Market" argument presupposes that there is competition for the consumer to take advantage of. As has often been pointed out, this is generally not the case for telcos. It's simply not possible for thousands of companies to lay cable or phone lines or fibre throughout the city/country... hence we have government-granted monopolies, which by their very nature immediately prevent a free market.
Yes there are rules for these companies allowing competitors to make use of the infrastructure, but this is (apparently) not enough. I live in Canada and there are not that many options for high-speed internet access. Luckily I don't use Bell, but frankly when I only have 2 or 3 options available to me, how do I know my provider won't simply do the same thing next year?
I really wish that the free market could help us out here. The first step is for the laws to be structured in a way that either allows competition, or when this is impossible (such as when dividing up public ressources for commercial exploitation) prevents abuse by the companies.
Lack of discretion is the problem behavior.
That's a good point, although I would say "Lack of discretion is part of the problem behavior."
Web content that celebrates the exhibition of underage drinking...
In a case like that (if the drinking is truly "underage" in the illegal sense) then I think the problem is not just the exhibition, but the illegal/bad action iteself.
Perhaps one way would be to discourage the public celebration of not acting better, and thus reducing the peer pressure to behave that way and record it as a triumph of some sort?
That's a good point, and I do agree. Certainly it sends an important message to say "it's not good to celebrate bad things" (or whatever). However there is a difference between suggestions/educating and mandating (in this case, the school has decided to do the latter). I certainly understand what you're saying about using such a rule to reduce peer pressure. That's an important point.
However the flip side is (as I mentioned before) that the university is sending the message "it's okay to do bad things as long as you hide it." If there is undesirable behavior going on that the university is embarrassed about, they should either stop it or deal with reality. This is just my opinion, of course (and obviously it is not shared by most universities).
I think your comment really picks up on what I don't like about this whole thing. It's not illegal, but it seems somehow dishonest for a school to try to 'hide' the behavior of their "star students." If the students are engaged in unsavoury activity, this should be dealt with directly. Yes, I know all the players sign these "I will be a good person" contracts, but evidently that's not enough. Somehow I don't think hiding their actions will make them *more* likely to follow those strange contracts. Quite the contrary: by taking extensive measures to hide bad activities, the university is in effect indirectly condoning those actions. They are saying "you can keep being bad as long as you help us cover it up."
Frankly I think the universities should just "deal with it" by which I mean they should either:
1. Find a way to make the players "act better," possibly by having entrance requirements more closely related to "ethics" and "behavior."
2. Accept that the university image will be tied to the actions of these people, for better or worse.
I'm reading the original Science article now (sorry, only available to subscribers, although the Science summary may be available to the general public).
The reason that the gas and liquid transport through nanotubes is so much higher than you might expect is due to the smoothness of the inside walls. The classic hydrodynamic equations have some amount of surface roughness inherently built into them. If you just naively scale them down to nano-dimensions, you'll predict very high resistance to fluid flow. However carbon nanotubes have "perfect" inside walls, that are atomically flat. This allows the water molecules (or gas, or whatever travelling inside them) to travel without "getting caught" or "bumping" into defects. In essence the atomic smoothness of the walls brings us into a whole new (nano) hydrodynamic regime.
This effect was predicted by computer simulations previously, but now has been actually observed in real samples. Very impressive.
You make a valid point. However I think that Google is doing this the "smart way." Instead of jumping into new markets and expecting to dominate it immediately, they are releasing a large number of small of tests and seeing what works. Those that really work (GMail, Google Maps/Google Local) they put more effort into, and start getting a serious return on investment (the ad revenue from GMail must now be quite significant). Those that don't work so well can be allowed to fizzle away.
The point is that Google is moving slowly, incrementally, and always testing the waters with each new product (hence their perpetual beta status). This is the right way to do it, since they don't over-comit to any particular project. They always have their bread-and-butter operation (web search ads) to keep them running, so whenever one of these new ideas takes off, it simply increases their earnings.
Some people think that one day Google will unveil a super-duper WebOS or GoogleOS or something. Instead I think it will be a slow process, where more and more functionality will be included in the "online google suite." I don't think they will ever fully dominate... nor should that be their goal. They can make alot of money by providing a useful set of services. This set of services need not be complete for it to be profitable.
If you can get a user to understand the difference between absolute and relative cell addressing, the problem with editing individual formulas is made a copy-paste task. Instead of typing (or clicking) all the cell references each time, you write the formula pattern and fill it into the appropriate cells.
This is precisely what we do now, and it's inefficient and error-prone. We make nice formula with mixed relative/absolute addressing, and then copy it down the row of hundreds of cells. It works, but it's error prone. It happens very frequently that someone will forget to copy down the row (only the first cell is updated), or forget to make the change somewhere else (think of spreadsheets that have the same formula appearing in different rows, blocks, or worksheets). Expecting the user to remember to paste every place where a formula appears is silly. It should be easy to define some kind of function on-the-fly and use it wherever needed.
An added benefit is that it actually preserves the "play around" usefullness of spreadsheets. If you can modify a single equation, and see your whole spreadsheet (and graphs, etc.) update, it is much easier to get a handle on what's going (versus copying and pasting updates all over the place, and then comparing the before and after).
I agree. Spreadsheets are quite powerful, but I'm often frustrated with them. Since I have programming experience, I can see the ways that spreadsheets could be made more robust and more powerful.
The first thing to change is what you alluded to: code should not be duplicated, but linked instead. When you drag a formula, it should really just fill those cells with references to the formula to be used. When you try and edit any one of those cells, you are given a popup where you can edit the master equation used in that range. This would make it so much easier to fix spreadsheets. With fewer points of failure, it is much easier to find bugs or add functionality.
A related point is that the way a single cell is designed makes it hard to read complex equations. A complex operation should generally be split across multiple cells, as this makes debugging and understanding workflow easier. However sometimes you need a single cell to be quite complex, and the way most spreadsheets display the cell contents (as a single long line) makes it difficult to understand. Again the cell contents should appear in a pop-up, where proper indenting, bracket-balancing, comments, and color-coding can occur (i.e.: everything that a normal programming IDE gives you).
Another thing that would make spreadsheets more useful/powerful would be the ability to COMPILE them into another form. I often use spreadsheets for prototyping a new analysis, and then re-code it into another form (Java, C++, Matlab, etc.) for efficiency purposes. In many cases this is a good idea, since it makes sure the programmer understands the problem fully. However in other cases it is wasted effort. A spreadsheet is slow to calculate but sometimes it provides the best layout for coding a solution. What I would like to see is a spreadsheet program that converts the entire spreadsheet into some kind of human-readable linear code (C++ style syntax or whatever). This would involve converting blocks of numbers into vectors, arrays, or matrices, automatically naming them (based on the column header, for instance), and creating loops to account for iterative operations, and translating all the spreadsheet functions into other types of syntax. Having this human-readable version of the code would be great. It could be fixed and improved (for efficiency or interacting with other programs), commented, and so on.
This human-readable code could then (obviously) be compiled into an efficient binary form. This would make spreadsheet concepts of workflow applicable to more demanding applications.
Lastly, I think spreadsheets need to learn what other programming forms already know: comments are important! The spreadsheet should strongly encourage the user to enter an explanation for every formula they write. Everything should be commented. This is the only way for future people to fix or modify the spreadsheet. Plus, accountability and traceability are easier.
Perhaps I'm asking for too much... but I think if spreadsheets evolve in this direction (towards being a more rigorous programming environment), the benefits would be huge. People are now (more or less) used to using a spreadsheet. This kind of "programmer's spreadsheet" would be great for people who know programming (it becomes more powerful) and also for casual users (some rules enforce better practices).
You're quite right. Femtosecond laser spectroscopy has already pushed the time resolution way beyond what this new report is claiming. In fact attosecond pulses have even been generated, making it possible not only to measure motion of atoms, but motion of electrons within atoms during a chemical reaction.
However, it should be noted that this new report uses X-ray microdiffraction. They obtain picosecond time resolution, simultaneous with structural information. The article summary is not especially exact, but the structural information (positions of atoms) of this technique is indeed unique. Femtosecond laser spectrscopy will return quite a bit of information, but it doesn't really tell you the movement of the atoms in a bulk sample (only movement of atoms in relation to each other, during the chemical reaction). This new technique appears to be applicable to simultaneously deducing the locations and motions of atoms in solids (as opposed to gases/plasmas).
The time resolution is nothing amazing, but it is nevertheless quite impressive that they can deduce the motion of a domain wall in a solid with picosecond time resolution.
For anyone interested, the actually paper in question is:
Grigoriev et al. Physical Review Letters (12 May 2006), 187601. DOI 10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.187601