What is the point of a standard if anyone can change it??
As I said here there is a good reason why (some people) need to be able to modify a "standard" to suit their needs. Agreeing on standards is useful. Preventing people from creating derivatives of a standard to satisfy their particular needs is not. We need some innovators to push the envelope, and those people need the freedom to create derivative standards. (But not necessarily the right to confuse people by claiming that these derivative standards are compatible with the original standard.) Having 1/4-20 screws as a standard is good. Forbidding someone from implementing a metric version of the same idea is bad (hooray for M6 screws!... sometimes the derivative standard is better...).
As long as the original standard is published, anyone is free to implement a converter or reader to access them and the data is hardly "locked".
I think that's a large part about what this debate is. Microsoft is not providing a totally open document standard that anyone can legally re-implement. OpenDocument gives us this. What MS is doing is creating a new standard, and making the documentation available, but subjecting it to various licensing schemes. At first, the schemes seem reasonable available, but in fact the provisions make it unclear if other products will be able to open the MS document standard in perpetuity.
At a minimum, the legalese is confusing and it's not at all clear that the MS document format will be open and useable in the ways we need it to be.
An open format doesn't mean that everyone has a say in what the standard is
Fair enough... but in my book, a format isn't open if I'm not allowed to create a derivative standard (under a new name). I should be allowed to innovate and come up with a variant of OpenDocument (and call it "UberTextFormat!" or whatever), or come up with a new kind of screw or electrical socket, based on current designs. Whether or not the standard becomes widely implemented is another question altogether. It is in our general interest to use a small set of standards to get our work done efficiently. But having a particular standard immune to evolution does not serve our goals.
Yes, the point of a standard is for people to follow the rules to the letter, otherwise it accomplishes nothing. That's why it makes sense for a regulating body to say "we endorse this standard" and to give the standard a name so people can refer to it. But that's why, in my original post, I said: "that will presumably not have the blessing of the official versions' name, since it's not incompatible... but that's okay"
My point is that derivative formats are not a bad thing, as long as they don't become confused with the original formats. A small subset of people can use the derivative (non-official) format if it suits them. They know that it is incompatible with the official format. They should NOT use the name of the official format: to do so would be misleading. But they should be allowed to create a new file format for experimentation purposes, or to suit their need, and base it on an existing format (instead of inventing something from scratch). If the new features of this variant format turn out to be useful, they can be merged into the next version of the "official" version and get all the recognition and compliance that goes along with that.
The argument about format variants applies not so much to the end users at large (who want a minimum number of standards to deal with!), but instead to the developers, programmers and cutting-edge users (i.e.: the people who tend to innovate and define what the next generation of standards will look like).
Coming back to the original article, it should be clear that the Microsoft licensing forbids all that. You get stuck with their next version. No innovation, no variation, no openness.
"designed to prohibit all free software. It covers only code that implements, precisely, the Microsoft formats, which means that a program under this license does not permit modification."
This control that Microsoft wants to maintain has two problems. One, programmers are not free to modify the document format to suit their particular needs. This limits freedom and innovation in many ways.
Two, it means that the future direction of the standard is not truly free or open. Only MS can decide what the next incarnation will be like? Only MS can control the future directions of our document format? That is just another form of control. It still means that our data is locked into a format that we don't really own or control. Yes, being somewhat open, it would be easier, in the future, to migrate to another standard, but ultimately the user still gets screwed. It should be obvious that it's better to have a format that is decided upon in a more transparent and communal way. If new features are needed, they can be debated and possibly added to future versions. If someone doesn't like the trend that the format is taking, they can fork it and create a derivative format (that will presumably not have the blessing of the official versions' name, since it's not incompatible... but that's okay). In the long run, perhaps this variant becomes the "next big thing." With an MS-style control, that innovation cannot happen, and the future of the document standard is weakened.
In short, Microsoft doesn't understand what we mean when we say "we want an open standard."
I have never observed this bug... maybe because I use the "Super Drag and Go" firefox extension. Thus, maybe you could install Super Drag and Go as a workaround for your bug. The bonus is that Super Drag and Go is also very useful. You just drag-and-drop links on webpages to open them. It's easier (in my opinion) than using Ctrl+click (and directional dragging controls whether it opens in foreground or background). You can find it at: https://addons.mozilla.org/extensions/moreinfo.php ?id=137
(Note: This extension claims not to be compatible with FF1.5, but it is. Just follow the instructions in the comments for the extension. Briefly, you download the extension, open it like a zip, and modify the "install.rdf" file so that the max version number is 1.5 instead of 1.07 or whatever. Then save and load the xpi in FF.)
The reason right now is that nobody would pay any attention to such a publication.
I'm confident that this will change. Scientists, as a group, are generally doing science for the love of it, to better society, etc. (they usually are not doing it for the money, that's for sure!). Thus, as a group they are remarkably interested in "doing the right thing." Hence the ongoing debate in the scientific community, with more and more scientists putting support behind the notion of open access. As more open access journals are created, and gain reputation, I think the status quo will change.
A noble sentiment, however there is no mechanism available that provides for making this material available for free yet also allows for the funding of the needs of scientific article publication. There are some pilot programs in place, but at least so far they are not proven to work. Until this evolves to a trustworthy process the traditional methods will have to continue.
There are many mechanisms that are being debated. Obviously there will be growing pains, and obviously the most important thing is for these new open-access journals to gain a decent reputation... and/or for established journals to start experimenting. Luckily both of these things are happening. Thus, the future is bright for open access in academia (in my opinion, at least).
You make some good points. However, I don't agree with this:
Answer: because a printed copy is easier to read as a reference document. Ever try to cut and paste a reference on your computer screen into a actual research notebook?
Well that's not what happens in real life. I know of exactly one professor and zero graduate students that would ever do that. It is much, much easier to print off a single page of a PDF than to go to the library and photocopy the required page.
It still has a cost associated with it in terms of printing supplies, long-term storage media (CDs, DVDs, paper, etc.) and most important to some scientists--time.
Actually it can easily be argued that printing papers from the internet saves ressources compared to paper copies. About 5-6 years ago, we used to get the print versions of some key journals. However once the journals were online it was obvious how silly the print version was. I would only read, at most, 20% of the articles in a given issue. I would only want to keep a few of those. It is more economical to print the few articles I really want, rather than to have a print version with hundreds of pages that I will never even read. Speaking of time, the internet articles were available months before the print versions. That's a huge savings of time and paper.
Could I go get the electronic copy of the IEEE Antennas and Propagation magazine? Sure, since my university subscribes to the IEEE Xplore electronic depository. Is it easier for me to grab a copy off the bookshelf withing arm's reach? Without a doubt.
Again, that's not what I've observed in my lab and others. Inevitably, a lab will only have a few journals. What's the chance that the paper you need today happens to be in a journal you subscribe to? With thousands of journals out there, the chance is low. I read articles from at least a hundred different sources. Not all those journals can be close at hand in paper form. However, with the net they are all close at hand (especially with the usage of DOIs, it's very fast to get the article you want).
Again, I'm not trying to be mean or argumentative. I'm just saying that having journals online has completely changed the way I interact with the literature... it's a highly positive change.
You're quite right... Many scientific societies use the journal money to fund other (often worthwhile) activities. But we should be clear. No one is saying that the scientific societies should be given less money. We are saying that journals should make all published articles available at no charge.
They just have to adapt their payment model. Consider this example. Reviews of Scientific Instruments is a journal that offers authors the option to pay a surcharge ($2000) so that their article is freely available online, instead of being available online to subscribers only (more details here). An author might do this if he has a particular ideology (believes that publicly funded research should be freely available), but he might also do this simply because it gets his papers MORE EXPOSURE. More scientists will read it, cite it, and therefore the work will become more useful, important and influential. In the future, it's quite possible that all journals will always operate in this way: the authors pay a fee to the journal, and then the articles are freely available. In fact, some journals have switched to this mode and it seems to work.
I appreciate what the Royal Society is saying, but ultimately they have to adapt to a new world. There are other systems by which they will receive the same amount of money, be able to maintain the same quality of activities, and yet make the information freely available.
(Note: I'm a publishing academic, so you may consider me to be biased to support the current system or to hate it.)
Some reviewers are good, some are bad. Peer review is not perfect, but when I compare it to how things get done in alot of other areas, I'm amazed at how good it is. The journals take the anonymity very seriously, which is a good thing. Yes, anonymous reviews may enable bias, but they also enable honesty. A good editor can differentiate between insightful reviews and biases, and make the right call (yes, editors can have biases also). Peer review has many good features.
As to how long it takes for the review process... well it's getting much faster than it used to be. With online submission, emailing of PDFs, and so on, a review can take as little as a month (compared to snail mail days, where a year was more typical). Many journals will release articles online as soon as they are approved, months in advance of the paper copies. High profile journals keep amazingly tight schedules. From submission to appearing online can be only a few weeks. That's pretty fast. Not all journals are that good, mind you.
Can the system be improved? Absolutely. Will the web play a crucial role? I think so. Having the peer reviews be online, and allowing the authors of the paper to respond to comments (in an anonymous and regulated slashdot-like way, perhaps)... or even allowing the various reviewers to exchange comments with each other (again, anonymously) would make the current system just that much faster and more robust. Also, there is no reason why the reviewers comments (and author's rebuttals) could not be added to the online version of the paper (under "supplementary material" or whatever).
What we need to do is come up with better systems without ignoring the good aspects of current peer review.
Why would you pay to subscribe to a journal if the papers appear free of charge?
As a publishing scientist, I would venture another question: "Why should I publish in a journal that is not freely available? Why would I pick a journal that limits its readership?"
Science is produced (by and large) by scientists using public funds. It makes no sense that the results of this research become locked away and unavailable to the public. Scientific results should be available to the public, free of charge. The fact that this also helps foster international collaborations, makes science overall more effective, and levels the playing field between rich and poor nations is also a good thing.
Alternate funding models for the journals and publishers are being pursued. For instance, when a scientist publishes a paper, he could pay a fee to cover administrative costs. Then the article appears online, free to all. Some journals have already implemented such systems. It seems to work fine. At the end of the day, it's always the same people paying (universities and scientists pay for it, using public funds).
So to answer the question "Why would you pay to subscribe to a journal if the papers appear free of charge?" Just like now, the public will pay for the journals to operate. However, the public should be allowed access to that which they are funding.
Yes, you're right. There are many ways that this could be abused. I'm assuming (hoping!) that Google has thought about this, and will implement some checks. As I said before, they could have a system where a single IP cannot initiate a whole bunch of phone requests in quick succession (no more than one ever x minutes, no more than y per day, etc.). As with spam, these types of wars can escalate (attacker changes IP address repeatedly, then Google blocks a whole range of IP addresses, etc.).
Another check that Google could run is to check the area code, deduce the time zone, and only allow the call to occur if it is during business hours. Or look up the registered location of the IP and make sure that it comes from the same general location as the area code (yes, I know that proxies and such may screw this up). Google will have to put in some measures to limit abuse. If certain call requests look "strange" then they should not be completed.
I'll be interested to see what happens... whether this gets abused or ends up being quite useful.
Same thing that stops you from entering Darl McBride's email address into a million "please spam me" websites:
(1) you have to know the (correct) contact information (2) you have to be a jerk (3) the middleman must not notice
Basically nothing stops that from happening now. Since Google will formalize this system, it will be quite easy to write a script to enter someone's phone number repeatedly, causing that person to get an enormous flood of calls. However, since Google is acting as the middleman for the calls, they will presumably have a quick sanity check against massive floods against a particular vendor or customer phone # (or repeated activity from a particular IP). I don't think it will be too difficult to keep the noise down.
Admittedly it will be easy to piss off someone you don't like, by giving their phone # to a dozen or so silly companies... but there's no way to stop that.
True... often I use the web because it's much more efficient than trying to talk to someone who doesn't know what they are talking about.
On the other hand, one thing I hate about calling a business is that I have to wait on hold for a very long time. Wouldn't it make more sense for me to give them my phone number, and then they can call me when they have a rep available? I'll be in my office all day... and typically I don't get as many calls as they do, so when they call I probably won't be busy. It just makes sense.
And besides, if I'm thinking about buying a product, and then I have to wait on hold, I'll probably give up and not buy it. If, on the other hand, I can just type in my number and wait for the vendor to get hold of me, then it's much more likely to work out for everyone (me and vendor). I know in the past I've done this before with some companies. They have a web form, you enter the info, and a short while later you get a phone call from someone (who has presumably read your question/request and is ready with an answer/offer). Google is formalizing this system, making it a snap to put customers in touch with companies.
I've looking over issue #1 and am wondering who exactly the target audience is. At first, I would have assumed it was for hard-core FOSS-lovers who want to know how they can convince their boss to use the latest OSS application (or who want to know about "the next big enterprise OSS" thing that they should give a try). However, consider some of these quotes:
An article on page 15 ("Opening the Jar on Google Honeypots") explains: "With this growth in the Internet, a problem arose: finding the page with the information you are actually looking for. This is where search engines come into play, allowing Internet users to find the page that they want."
On page 23, they have an article "An Introduction to Linux and Open Source for Business" written in a Q&A style. The first question is "What is this 'Open Source' thing I keep hearing about?"
You get the idea. These articles are clearly targetted at people who have no experience with OSS, but are curious. They even seem to be targetted at management-types who may be interested in learning about new trends in technology. There are other articles that are clearly aimed at a more experience and techno-saavy crowd. So I guess they are really trying to cover the board, and get a wide variety of people reading their magazine.
I guess I'm wondering if that's the best strategy. For a printed magazine, I can understand trying to appeal to newbies and zealots alike, since they both have good reasons for buying the magazine. For a web-only magazine, however, I strongly suspect that the only people who will ever read it will be the geek crowd anyways, in which case it seems like a bit of a waste to have so many introductory articles.
Interestingly, I asked the exact same question some time ago. If you look at the replies to that post of mine, you'll see some others who said they might be willing to negotiate building a MythTV box for someone else (you can check into those if you want).
If you're interested, what I ended up doing was building it myself. It really was a fun and manageable project. I added this wikibook to describe the process (which also mentions some alternatives to building your own MythTV).
Even without much linux knowledge, building a MythTV is do-able... in fact I used it to get-to-know linux.
Assuming this is true (and that the format will be truly open, not just more marketing exageration), then this is good news. This is exactly what it should be like: competition leads to better products for consumers. Open-source software has forced MS to open up their format.
Now, I admit a part of me is unhappy about this, because it means that many organizations will now just say "let's stick with MS Office" instead of fully making the switch to FOSS... however, at the end of the day, this also means that FOSS compatibility for MS document standards will be much higher. If OpenOffice can flawlessly open and save in OpenDocument format AND the latest MS formats, then that whole "compatibility" reason for ignoring OpenOffice quickly disappears.
So I hope the news is real and true. However, I'm sure all of us are suspicious. It seems quite likely that there will be an "official" version of the standard, and then there will be the version that MS uses (which will use proprietary extensions and whatnot). Even though the official version is open, people will find compatibility issues. Hopefully the standards organizations in question will take this seriously and not let MS use any logos or branding without duly complying with their own standard!
However, I doubt that Sony would have clearly indicated the presence of the rootkit.
No "doubt" is needed. We know what they did. They created a piece of hidden software that would automatically break into users computer's, and install unauthorized software. At no point did a user even have a chance to read a EULA or to understand the implications of what was being installed, since the entire process was being hidden. This sounds suspiciously similar to "computer hacking"... which I think is not especially legal.
If Sony clearly indicated that they were installing a rootkit on the users' systems, than I think indeed they did nothing wrong.
No, if Sony had not installed rootkits on people's computers, then they would have done nothing wrong. Alas, they installed rootkits on computers, without consent. Furthermore, I'm not convinced that explaining in the EULA "we're going to install a rootkit" would even be legal. The company installing a rootkit should still be liable for damages due to negligence, and users can also (very legitimately) claim that they didn't fully understand how bad/vulnerable a rootkit is.
Frankly, the fact that Sony recalled the CDs and is offering free replacements is fine... but the class-action lawsuit against Sony should be continued. Why? Well the average user (who knows nothing about computers) won't know how to check their machine or remove the rootkit, etc. They will have to hire someone more knowledgeable to do so. So really anyone who bought a Sony CD recently should be given enough money to cover the cost of a computer technician checking their machine. Sony should compensate the end-users at least to that extent, in order to actually undo what they've done.
The comparison to other software is absurd. When I download and run some piece of software, I know I'm taking risks that the software might be buggy. When I play a music CD, I take the risk that the CD might not sound great. However, if a company willfully installs vulnerable software on my computer without my consent, that's not the same as a "bug" or "accidental vulnerability"... anymore than purposefully hiding a virus in a piece of software is a "bug" or "accidental vulnerability." In both cases, (CD with rootkit or software with malicious virus) the person distributing the damaging product should be held liable.
I'm not sure I care whether or not this software can predict the next pop craze... but I wouldn't mind a more personalized version. Maybe something that analyzes my mp3 collection, and then automatically checks new releases and looks for tracks that correlate well with my preferences? It would be nice to have a system that pulls out the things I'm most interested in. And a piece of software would be more impartial than the media executives and promoters who want to sell me the "next big sound."
I think lots of people would love something like that. If iTunes automatically integrated technology like that, I think it would be a hit. And best of all, it would level the playing field. Small bands could "get noticed" by the common person if their sound was something that the given person liked.
Consider reading "Information liberation: Challenging the corruptions of information power" by Brian Martin (of course, it's freely available online as a PDF). It discusses aspects of information and freedom. In particular, Chapter 3, "Against Intellectual Property", makes the case for why IP may not be a good thing for society. It oulines the main arguments, and has references to other research where people have analyzed how helpful various forms of IP are.
I refuse to advertise my website, blog or books on/. as it would diminish my credibility, just like F reeI pod do.
I admire your principles. However, I do not think you would be out of line if you had a link to your website in your user profile, or a journal entry talking about what you've written. Also, since another slashdotter specifically asked, I think it would be okay for you to give the info. I know that I would also be interested in taking a look at what you've written, and I suspect that many others feel similarly. Rather than forcing us to each post a (increasingly offtopic) reply on slashdot, it seems simpler for you to just give us the URL!
Your choice, of course. Again I respect that you are thoughtful about such things.
As a matter of fact, post 9/11 the US has put alot of pressure on some biotech research labs and universities to NOT publish some of their results (or to leave out key details from some of the papers they publish). The rationale is of course to prevent terrorists from learning too much about deadly diseases, how to replicate them, etc. There are also, apparently, rules preventing "transfer of knowledge" to non-US scientists. So, for instance, if a non-US professor is visiting a US university, the US professors are not allowed to show the guy how certain machines work, or how certain procedures work. The idea is to protect the US (both economically -- avoid giving away information, and security-wise -- avoid bad people learning sensitive details). The problem, from what I've been told, is that the details are too vague, and so most scientists don't really understand what they are allowed to do and not. The whole idea of regulating scientific research is, in my opinion, misguided, because:
1. It flies in the face of the open exchange of information, upon which science is based. Progress is stifled when scientists cannot freely communicate.
2. It's mostly pointless. Labs in other parts of the world are just as up-to-date as the US. Canada, Europe, China, Taiwan, etc... they are all working on these same things (be it biotech or quantum computing). One country putting regulations on it is silly. It would be better to spend the money on international efforts to prepare with *dealing* with the technology, not preventing it from happening.
Take Quantum Computing: frankly, it's going to be worked on whether you like it or not. So you can either make scientists hide their results (in which case a breakthrough may occur in secret, with that person reaping the rewards), or you can have open research, where the whole world will be able to see the problems ahead and make appropriate changes.
Really the whole thing is silly. No lab on earth is going to suddenly jump from our current state to a fully-functional quantum computer. There will be plenty of steps along the way, and plenty of notice that quantum computers are "coming soon." Thus, we will have time (measured in years or decades) to switch our security infrastructure over to something that is secure against quantum computers (such as, for example, quantum encryption). The emphasis should be on planning for how we will use the technology, not limiting its growth.
Read this PDF. It's an MIT analysis of how the content industry could move away from a licensing model to a "service" model. Instead of charging people for each CD (or each DRM download), the idea would be to charge people a monthly fee to have access to a huge database of all the music (or other content) that there is. Even though this content would not be restricted or DRM'ed in any way, people would still pay for the service. Why? Because the convenience of the service would make it much more valuable than filesharing networks (where copies may be low quality, not have their meta-tags done properly, etc.). As long as it was priced low enough, had a massive amount of content, and wasn't encumbered (i.e.: as long as it's just as convenient as filesharing networks), people will want to use it, and will be willing to pay for the power and convenience.
Anyways, that's the proposal, and you can read their analysis and see if you agree. It seems quite logical and robust to me. I suspec the recording industry could make as much money as they now do, if not more. They just have to evolve to meet customer demands.
it makes it harder (it would seem almost impossible) for hackers to randomly guess a valid address
Good point... this is something that has also occured to me... yet is not often mentioned. Again, according to wikipedia, every person should be able to have over 10^26 addresses just for their own use. Even if I have tons of web-services and devices that I commonly use (say 10,000), it would still be very hard to find a useful address among all the addresses that I'm not using. The address acts as a (admitedly weak) initial password... you need to know the address to start the hack attempt. The ability to just "scan ports" looking for weaknesses is much diminished.
Of course, this is based upon the idea of addresses not being asigned in a very obvious way. Ideally, in fact, they would be assigned quasi-randomly. I know that if I had a certain block of IPv6 address space, I would select random addresses within it to use (I wouldn't just start numbering at 0 or 1 !).
... that makes the question all the more legitimate. I don't think it should just be "funny"... I would like a serious answer to the question:
Given the recent bad press surrounding some of Sony's intrusive software, what changes, if any, are you planning for the copy-protection and cheat-prevention aspects of the game's software. During these change-overs, are you planning on putting in any special software that will monitor the users, and/or software that will attempt to prevent copying the game? Can you guarantee that such software will not "cross the line" and do things not directly related protecting the game itself?
I'll gladly translate into multiple dialects for you.
Marketing language: "20. A method comprosing: receiving a system call, wherein the system call is in synergy with other components of a system, wherein the sum of the system is leveraged to meet market demands in a new and fundamentally influential way, wherein a paradigm-shift results from the impact of the novel processes and inherently forward-looking business model that thereby ensues."
Money language: "20. A method comprising: we program our computer to do something, someone else somewhere on earth programs their computer to do something that turns out to be similar; we determine that they have a computer doing something that only we are allowed to do; we sue; we make money."
Tinfoil-hat language: "20. A method comprising: receiving a system call, wherein the system call is formatted to include all personal information on the computer, wherein this information is then encrypted and sent off to corporate HQ servers in order to be analyzed and thereafter used against the user of the originating personal computer sytem."
(very) Plain english: "20. A method comprising: stuff happens."
Plain english: "20. A method comprising: A translation layer between different operating system abstraction levels. When a running program (which may have been translated from a stored version of the program) makes a system call to the operating system, this methodology will handle that system call in such a way as to be "tamper resistant." For instance, it will only allow operations determined to be acceptable."
Slashdot Mirror
What is the point of a standard if anyone can change it??
As I said here there is a good reason why (some people) need to be able to modify a "standard" to suit their needs. Agreeing on standards is useful. Preventing people from creating derivatives of a standard to satisfy their particular needs is not. We need some innovators to push the envelope, and those people need the freedom to create derivative standards. (But not necessarily the right to confuse people by claiming that these derivative standards are compatible with the original standard.) Having 1/4-20 screws as a standard is good. Forbidding someone from implementing a metric version of the same idea is bad (hooray for M6 screws!... sometimes the derivative standard is better...).
As long as the original standard is published, anyone is free to implement a converter or reader to access them and the data is hardly "locked".
I think that's a large part about what this debate is. Microsoft is not providing a totally open document standard that anyone can legally re-implement. OpenDocument gives us this. What MS is doing is creating a new standard, and making the documentation available, but subjecting it to various licensing schemes. At first, the schemes seem reasonable available, but in fact the provisions make it unclear if other products will be able to open the MS document standard in perpetuity.
At a minimum, the legalese is confusing and it's not at all clear that the MS document format will be open and useable in the ways we need it to be.
An open format doesn't mean that everyone has a say in what the standard is
Fair enough... but in my book, a format isn't open if I'm not allowed to create a derivative standard (under a new name). I should be allowed to innovate and come up with a variant of OpenDocument (and call it "UberTextFormat!" or whatever), or come up with a new kind of screw or electrical socket, based on current designs. Whether or not the standard becomes widely implemented is another question altogether. It is in our general interest to use a small set of standards to get our work done efficiently. But having a particular standard immune to evolution does not serve our goals.
Yes, the point of a standard is for people to follow the rules to the letter, otherwise it accomplishes nothing. That's why it makes sense for a regulating body to say "we endorse this standard" and to give the standard a name so people can refer to it. But that's why, in my original post, I said: "that will presumably not have the blessing of the official versions' name, since it's not incompatible... but that's okay"
My point is that derivative formats are not a bad thing, as long as they don't become confused with the original formats. A small subset of people can use the derivative (non-official) format if it suits them. They know that it is incompatible with the official format. They should NOT use the name of the official format: to do so would be misleading. But they should be allowed to create a new file format for experimentation purposes, or to suit their need, and base it on an existing format (instead of inventing something from scratch). If the new features of this variant format turn out to be useful, they can be merged into the next version of the "official" version and get all the recognition and compliance that goes along with that.
The argument about format variants applies not so much to the end users at large (who want a minimum number of standards to deal with!), but instead to the developers, programmers and cutting-edge users (i.e.: the people who tend to innovate and define what the next generation of standards will look like).
Coming back to the original article, it should be clear that the Microsoft licensing forbids all that. You get stuck with their next version. No innovation, no variation, no openness.
I agree with Stallman, who says:
"designed to prohibit all free software. It covers only code that implements, precisely, the Microsoft formats, which means that a program under this license does not permit modification."
This control that Microsoft wants to maintain has two problems. One, programmers are not free to modify the document format to suit their particular needs. This limits freedom and innovation in many ways.
Two, it means that the future direction of the standard is not truly free or open. Only MS can decide what the next incarnation will be like? Only MS can control the future directions of our document format? That is just another form of control. It still means that our data is locked into a format that we don't really own or control. Yes, being somewhat open, it would be easier, in the future, to migrate to another standard, but ultimately the user still gets screwed. It should be obvious that it's better to have a format that is decided upon in a more transparent and communal way. If new features are needed, they can be debated and possibly added to future versions. If someone doesn't like the trend that the format is taking, they can fork it and create a derivative format (that will presumably not have the blessing of the official versions' name, since it's not incompatible... but that's okay). In the long run, perhaps this variant becomes the "next big thing." With an MS-style control, that innovation cannot happen, and the future of the document standard is weakened.
In short, Microsoft doesn't understand what we mean when we say "we want an open standard."
I have never observed this bug... maybe because I use the "Super Drag and Go" firefox extension. Thus, maybe you could install Super Drag and Go as a workaround for your bug. The bonus is that Super Drag and Go is also very useful. You just drag-and-drop links on webpages to open them. It's easier (in my opinion) than using Ctrl+click (and directional dragging controls whether it opens in foreground or background). You can find it at:p ?id=137
https://addons.mozilla.org/extensions/moreinfo.ph
(Note: This extension claims not to be compatible with FF1.5, but it is. Just follow the instructions in the comments for the extension. Briefly, you download the extension, open it like a zip, and modify the "install.rdf" file so that the max version number is 1.5 instead of 1.07 or whatever. Then save and load the xpi in FF.)
The reason right now is that nobody would pay any attention to such a publication.
I'm confident that this will change. Scientists, as a group, are generally doing science for the love of it, to better society, etc. (they usually are not doing it for the money, that's for sure!). Thus, as a group they are remarkably interested in "doing the right thing." Hence the ongoing debate in the scientific community, with more and more scientists putting support behind the notion of open access. As more open access journals are created, and gain reputation, I think the status quo will change.
As I describe in another post, the highly recognized American Institute of Physics is experimenting with allowing authors to cover the administrative costs, thereby making the publication open-access. Also, the journals from the Public Library of Science are making significant strides towards becoming high-quality yet totally open access. This directory lists nearly 2000 open access journals online. Granted the quality is highly variable. Some are great, some are not. We'll see how they work out.
A noble sentiment, however there is no mechanism available that provides for making this material available for free yet also allows for the funding of the needs of scientific article publication. There are some pilot programs in place, but at least so far they are not proven to work. Until this evolves to a trustworthy process the traditional methods will have to continue.
There are many mechanisms that are being debated. Obviously there will be growing pains, and obviously the most important thing is for these new open-access journals to gain a decent reputation... and/or for established journals to start experimenting. Luckily both of these things are happening. Thus, the future is bright for open access in academia (in my opinion, at least).
You make some good points. However, I don't agree with this:
Answer: because a printed copy is easier to read as a reference document. Ever try to cut and paste a reference on your computer screen into a actual research notebook?
Well that's not what happens in real life. I know of exactly one professor and zero graduate students that would ever do that. It is much, much easier to print off a single page of a PDF than to go to the library and photocopy the required page.
It still has a cost associated with it in terms of printing supplies, long-term storage media (CDs, DVDs, paper, etc.) and most important to some scientists--time.
Actually it can easily be argued that printing papers from the internet saves ressources compared to paper copies. About 5-6 years ago, we used to get the print versions of some key journals. However once the journals were online it was obvious how silly the print version was. I would only read, at most, 20% of the articles in a given issue. I would only want to keep a few of those. It is more economical to print the few articles I really want, rather than to have a print version with hundreds of pages that I will never even read. Speaking of time, the internet articles were available months before the print versions. That's a huge savings of time and paper.
Could I go get the electronic copy of the IEEE Antennas and Propagation magazine? Sure, since my university subscribes to the IEEE Xplore electronic depository. Is it easier for me to grab a copy off the bookshelf withing arm's reach? Without a doubt.
Again, that's not what I've observed in my lab and others. Inevitably, a lab will only have a few journals. What's the chance that the paper you need today happens to be in a journal you subscribe to? With thousands of journals out there, the chance is low. I read articles from at least a hundred different sources. Not all those journals can be close at hand in paper form. However, with the net they are all close at hand (especially with the usage of DOIs, it's very fast to get the article you want).
Again, I'm not trying to be mean or argumentative. I'm just saying that having journals online has completely changed the way I interact with the literature... it's a highly positive change.
You're quite right... Many scientific societies use the journal money to fund other (often worthwhile) activities. But we should be clear. No one is saying that the scientific societies should be given less money. We are saying that journals should make all published articles available at no charge.
They just have to adapt their payment model. Consider this example. Reviews of Scientific Instruments is a journal that offers authors the option to pay a surcharge ($2000) so that their article is freely available online, instead of being available online to subscribers only (more details here). An author might do this if he has a particular ideology (believes that publicly funded research should be freely available), but he might also do this simply because it gets his papers MORE EXPOSURE. More scientists will read it, cite it, and therefore the work will become more useful, important and influential. In the future, it's quite possible that all journals will always operate in this way: the authors pay a fee to the journal, and then the articles are freely available. In fact, some journals have switched to this mode and it seems to work.
I appreciate what the Royal Society is saying, but ultimately they have to adapt to a new world. There are other systems by which they will receive the same amount of money, be able to maintain the same quality of activities, and yet make the information freely available.
(Note: I'm a publishing academic, so you may consider me to be biased to support the current system or to hate it.)
Some reviewers are good, some are bad. Peer review is not perfect, but when I compare it to how things get done in alot of other areas, I'm amazed at how good it is. The journals take the anonymity very seriously, which is a good thing. Yes, anonymous reviews may enable bias, but they also enable honesty. A good editor can differentiate between insightful reviews and biases, and make the right call (yes, editors can have biases also). Peer review has many good features.
As to how long it takes for the review process... well it's getting much faster than it used to be. With online submission, emailing of PDFs, and so on, a review can take as little as a month (compared to snail mail days, where a year was more typical). Many journals will release articles online as soon as they are approved, months in advance of the paper copies. High profile journals keep amazingly tight schedules. From submission to appearing online can be only a few weeks. That's pretty fast. Not all journals are that good, mind you.
Can the system be improved? Absolutely. Will the web play a crucial role? I think so. Having the peer reviews be online, and allowing the authors of the paper to respond to comments (in an anonymous and regulated slashdot-like way, perhaps)... or even allowing the various reviewers to exchange comments with each other (again, anonymously) would make the current system just that much faster and more robust. Also, there is no reason why the reviewers comments (and author's rebuttals) could not be added to the online version of the paper (under "supplementary material" or whatever).
What we need to do is come up with better systems without ignoring the good aspects of current peer review.
so they ask:
Why would you pay to subscribe to a journal if the papers appear free of charge?
As a publishing scientist, I would venture another question: "Why should I publish in a journal that is not freely available? Why would I pick a journal that limits its readership?"
Science is produced (by and large) by scientists using public funds. It makes no sense that the results of this research become locked away and unavailable to the public. Scientific results should be available to the public, free of charge. The fact that this also helps foster international collaborations, makes science overall more effective, and levels the playing field between rich and poor nations is also a good thing.
Alternate funding models for the journals and publishers are being pursued. For instance, when a scientist publishes a paper, he could pay a fee to cover administrative costs. Then the article appears online, free to all. Some journals have already implemented such systems. It seems to work fine. At the end of the day, it's always the same people paying (universities and scientists pay for it, using public funds).
So to answer the question "Why would you pay to subscribe to a journal if the papers appear free of charge?" Just like now, the public will pay for the journals to operate. However, the public should be allowed access to that which they are funding.
Yes, you're right. There are many ways that this could be abused. I'm assuming (hoping!) that Google has thought about this, and will implement some checks. As I said before, they could have a system where a single IP cannot initiate a whole bunch of phone requests in quick succession (no more than one ever x minutes, no more than y per day, etc.). As with spam, these types of wars can escalate (attacker changes IP address repeatedly, then Google blocks a whole range of IP addresses, etc.).
Another check that Google could run is to check the area code, deduce the time zone, and only allow the call to occur if it is during business hours. Or look up the registered location of the IP and make sure that it comes from the same general location as the area code (yes, I know that proxies and such may screw this up). Google will have to put in some measures to limit abuse. If certain call requests look "strange" then they should not be completed.
I'll be interested to see what happens... whether this gets abused or ends up being quite useful.
Same thing that stops you from entering Darl McBride's email address into a million "please spam me" websites:
(1) you have to know the (correct) contact information
(2) you have to be a jerk
(3) the middleman must not notice
Basically nothing stops that from happening now. Since Google will formalize this system, it will be quite easy to write a script to enter someone's phone number repeatedly, causing that person to get an enormous flood of calls. However, since Google is acting as the middleman for the calls, they will presumably have a quick sanity check against massive floods against a particular vendor or customer phone # (or repeated activity from a particular IP). I don't think it will be too difficult to keep the noise down.
Admittedly it will be easy to piss off someone you don't like, by giving their phone # to a dozen or so silly companies... but there's no way to stop that.
True... often I use the web because it's much more efficient than trying to talk to someone who doesn't know what they are talking about.
On the other hand, one thing I hate about calling a business is that I have to wait on hold for a very long time. Wouldn't it make more sense for me to give them my phone number, and then they can call me when they have a rep available? I'll be in my office all day... and typically I don't get as many calls as they do, so when they call I probably won't be busy. It just makes sense.
And besides, if I'm thinking about buying a product, and then I have to wait on hold, I'll probably give up and not buy it. If, on the other hand, I can just type in my number and wait for the vendor to get hold of me, then it's much more likely to work out for everyone (me and vendor). I know in the past I've done this before with some companies. They have a web form, you enter the info, and a short while later you get a phone call from someone (who has presumably read your question/request and is ready with an answer/offer). Google is formalizing this system, making it a snap to put customers in touch with companies.
In short, I think it's a good idea.
I've looking over issue #1 and am wondering who exactly the target audience is. At first, I would have assumed it was for hard-core FOSS-lovers who want to know how they can convince their boss to use the latest OSS application (or who want to know about "the next big enterprise OSS" thing that they should give a try). However, consider some of these quotes:
An article on page 15 ("Opening the Jar on Google Honeypots") explains: "With this growth in the Internet, a problem arose: finding the page with the information you are actually looking for. This is where search engines come into play, allowing Internet users to find the page that they want."
On page 23, they have an article "An Introduction to Linux and Open Source for Business" written in a Q&A style. The first question is "What is this 'Open Source' thing I keep hearing about?"
You get the idea. These articles are clearly targetted at people who have no experience with OSS, but are curious. They even seem to be targetted at management-types who may be interested in learning about new trends in technology. There are other articles that are clearly aimed at a more experience and techno-saavy crowd. So I guess they are really trying to cover the board, and get a wide variety of people reading their magazine.
I guess I'm wondering if that's the best strategy. For a printed magazine, I can understand trying to appeal to newbies and zealots alike, since they both have good reasons for buying the magazine. For a web-only magazine, however, I strongly suspect that the only people who will ever read it will be the geek crowd anyways, in which case it seems like a bit of a waste to have so many introductory articles.
Interestingly, I asked the exact same question some time ago. If you look at the replies to that post of mine, you'll see some others who said they might be willing to negotiate building a MythTV box for someone else (you can check into those if you want).
If you're interested, what I ended up doing was building it myself. It really was a fun and manageable project. I added this wikibook to describe the process (which also mentions some alternatives to building your own MythTV).
Even without much linux knowledge, building a MythTV is do-able... in fact I used it to get-to-know linux.
Assuming this is true (and that the format will be truly open, not just more marketing exageration), then this is good news. This is exactly what it should be like: competition leads to better products for consumers. Open-source software has forced MS to open up their format.
Now, I admit a part of me is unhappy about this, because it means that many organizations will now just say "let's stick with MS Office" instead of fully making the switch to FOSS... however, at the end of the day, this also means that FOSS compatibility for MS document standards will be much higher. If OpenOffice can flawlessly open and save in OpenDocument format AND the latest MS formats, then that whole "compatibility" reason for ignoring OpenOffice quickly disappears.
So I hope the news is real and true. However, I'm sure all of us are suspicious. It seems quite likely that there will be an "official" version of the standard, and then there will be the version that MS uses (which will use proprietary extensions and whatnot). Even though the official version is open, people will find compatibility issues. Hopefully the standards organizations in question will take this seriously and not let MS use any logos or branding without duly complying with their own standard!
However, I doubt that Sony would have clearly indicated the presence of the rootkit.
... which I think is not especially legal.
... anymore than purposefully hiding a virus in a piece of software is a "bug" or "accidental vulnerability." In both cases, (CD with rootkit or software with malicious virus) the person distributing the damaging product should be held liable.
No "doubt" is needed. We know what they did. They created a piece of hidden software that would automatically break into users computer's, and install unauthorized software. At no point did a user even have a chance to read a EULA or to understand the implications of what was being installed, since the entire process was being hidden. This sounds suspiciously similar to "computer hacking"
If Sony clearly indicated that they were installing a rootkit on the users' systems, than I think indeed they did nothing wrong.
No, if Sony had not installed rootkits on people's computers, then they would have done nothing wrong. Alas, they installed rootkits on computers, without consent. Furthermore, I'm not convinced that explaining in the EULA "we're going to install a rootkit" would even be legal. The company installing a rootkit should still be liable for damages due to negligence, and users can also (very legitimately) claim that they didn't fully understand how bad/vulnerable a rootkit is.
Frankly, the fact that Sony recalled the CDs and is offering free replacements is fine... but the class-action lawsuit against Sony should be continued. Why? Well the average user (who knows nothing about computers) won't know how to check their machine or remove the rootkit, etc. They will have to hire someone more knowledgeable to do so. So really anyone who bought a Sony CD recently should be given enough money to cover the cost of a computer technician checking their machine. Sony should compensate the end-users at least to that extent, in order to actually undo what they've done.
The comparison to other software is absurd. When I download and run some piece of software, I know I'm taking risks that the software might be buggy. When I play a music CD, I take the risk that the CD might not sound great. However, if a company willfully installs vulnerable software on my computer without my consent, that's not the same as a "bug" or "accidental vulnerability"
I'm not sure I care whether or not this software can predict the next pop craze... but I wouldn't mind a more personalized version. Maybe something that analyzes my mp3 collection, and then automatically checks new releases and looks for tracks that correlate well with my preferences? It would be nice to have a system that pulls out the things I'm most interested in. And a piece of software would be more impartial than the media executives and promoters who want to sell me the "next big sound."
I think lots of people would love something like that. If iTunes automatically integrated technology like that, I think it would be a hit. And best of all, it would level the playing field. Small bands could "get noticed" by the common person if their sound was something that the given person liked.
in 2048 I'm going to be sitting pretty
You do know that your patent will have long since expired, right? The patent system is broken... but not THAT broken.
Consider reading "Information liberation: Challenging the corruptions of information power" by Brian Martin (of course, it's freely available online as a PDF). It discusses aspects of information and freedom. In particular, Chapter 3, "Against Intellectual Property", makes the case for why IP may not be a good thing for society. It oulines the main arguments, and has references to other research where people have analyzed how helpful various forms of IP are.
I refuse to advertise my website, blog or books on /. as it would diminish my credibility, just like F reeI pod do.
I admire your principles. However, I do not think you would be out of line if you had a link to your website in your user profile, or a journal entry talking about what you've written. Also, since another slashdotter specifically asked, I think it would be okay for you to give the info. I know that I would also be interested in taking a look at what you've written, and I suspect that many others feel similarly. Rather than forcing us to each post a (increasingly offtopic) reply on slashdot, it seems simpler for you to just give us the URL!
Your choice, of course. Again I respect that you are thoughtful about such things.
As a matter of fact, post 9/11 the US has put alot of pressure on some biotech research labs and universities to NOT publish some of their results (or to leave out key details from some of the papers they publish). The rationale is of course to prevent terrorists from learning too much about deadly diseases, how to replicate them, etc. There are also, apparently, rules preventing "transfer of knowledge" to non-US scientists. So, for instance, if a non-US professor is visiting a US university, the US professors are not allowed to show the guy how certain machines work, or how certain procedures work. The idea is to protect the US (both economically -- avoid giving away information, and security-wise -- avoid bad people learning sensitive details). The problem, from what I've been told, is that the details are too vague, and so most scientists don't really understand what they are allowed to do and not. The whole idea of regulating scientific research is, in my opinion, misguided, because:
1. It flies in the face of the open exchange of information, upon which science is based. Progress is stifled when scientists cannot freely communicate.
2. It's mostly pointless. Labs in other parts of the world are just as up-to-date as the US. Canada, Europe, China, Taiwan, etc... they are all working on these same things (be it biotech or quantum computing). One country putting regulations on it is silly. It would be better to spend the money on international efforts to prepare with *dealing* with the technology, not preventing it from happening.
Take Quantum Computing: frankly, it's going to be worked on whether you like it or not. So you can either make scientists hide their results (in which case a breakthrough may occur in secret, with that person reaping the rewards), or you can have open research, where the whole world will be able to see the problems ahead and make appropriate changes.
Really the whole thing is silly. No lab on earth is going to suddenly jump from our current state to a fully-functional quantum computer. There will be plenty of steps along the way, and plenty of notice that quantum computers are "coming soon." Thus, we will have time (measured in years or decades) to switch our security infrastructure over to something that is secure against quantum computers (such as, for example, quantum encryption). The emphasis should be on planning for how we will use the technology, not limiting its growth.
Read this PDF. It's an MIT analysis of how the content industry could move away from a licensing model to a "service" model. Instead of charging people for each CD (or each DRM download), the idea would be to charge people a monthly fee to have access to a huge database of all the music (or other content) that there is. Even though this content would not be restricted or DRM'ed in any way, people would still pay for the service. Why? Because the convenience of the service would make it much more valuable than filesharing networks (where copies may be low quality, not have their meta-tags done properly, etc.). As long as it was priced low enough, had a massive amount of content, and wasn't encumbered (i.e.: as long as it's just as convenient as filesharing networks), people will want to use it, and will be willing to pay for the power and convenience.
Anyways, that's the proposal, and you can read their analysis and see if you agree. It seems quite logical and robust to me. I suspec the recording industry could make as much money as they now do, if not more. They just have to evolve to meet customer demands.
it makes it harder (it would seem almost impossible) for hackers to randomly guess a valid address
Good point... this is something that has also occured to me... yet is not often mentioned. Again, according to wikipedia, every person should be able to have over 10^26 addresses just for their own use. Even if I have tons of web-services and devices that I commonly use (say 10,000), it would still be very hard to find a useful address among all the addresses that I'm not using. The address acts as a (admitedly weak) initial password... you need to know the address to start the hack attempt. The ability to just "scan ports" looking for weaknesses is much diminished.
Of course, this is based upon the idea of addresses not being asigned in a very obvious way. Ideally, in fact, they would be assigned quasi-randomly. I know that if I had a certain block of IPv6 address space, I would select random addresses within it to use (I wouldn't just start numbering at 0 or 1 !).
... that makes the question all the more legitimate. I don't think it should just be "funny"... I would like a serious answer to the question:
Given the recent bad press surrounding some of Sony's intrusive software, what changes, if any, are you planning for the copy-protection and cheat-prevention aspects of the game's software. During these change-overs, are you planning on putting in any special software that will monitor the users, and/or software that will attempt to prevent copying the game? Can you guarantee that such software will not "cross the line" and do things not directly related protecting the game itself?
I'll gladly translate into multiple dialects for you.
Marketing language:
"20. A method comprosing: receiving a system call, wherein the system call is in synergy with other components of a system, wherein the sum of the system is leveraged to meet market demands in a new and fundamentally influential way, wherein a paradigm-shift results from the impact of the novel processes and inherently forward-looking business model that thereby ensues."
Money language:
"20. A method comprising: we program our computer to do something, someone else somewhere on earth programs their computer to do something that turns out to be similar; we determine that they have a computer doing something that only we are allowed to do; we sue; we make money."
Tinfoil-hat language:
"20. A method comprising: receiving a system call, wherein the system call is formatted to include all personal information on the computer, wherein this information is then encrypted and sent off to corporate HQ servers in order to be analyzed and thereafter used against the user of the originating personal computer sytem."
(very) Plain english:
"20. A method comprising: stuff happens."
Plain english:
"20. A method comprising: A translation layer between different operating system abstraction levels. When a running program (which may have been translated from a stored version of the program) makes a system call to the operating system, this methodology will handle that system call in such a way as to be "tamper resistant." For instance, it will only allow operations determined to be acceptable."