Your comment about "outsource in a novel way" made me realize that, from a business perspective, open sourcing *is* just a novel way of outsourcing -- getting people who aren't directly involved with the company active in some aspect that improves the company. It's a market transaction -- give me X, I'll give you Y -- rather than an internal one -- you do what I say because I give you a paycheck.
For open-source software, the X is "access to the source, with limited rights to reproduce the source and object code" and Y is "improvements to the source for no additional labor costs i.e. money." Here, it was "full access to all our expensively acquired mining data"in exchange for "a pre-determined amount of cash under particular restrictions". In both cases, there are also additional incentives external to the basic exchange e.g. prestige and improved marketability. That is, just as Linus Torvalds can get better jobs based on his known expertise with Linux, this winning 3-D company will have people coming to them.
One of the interesting things about open-source, of course, is that money doesn't normally change hands at all. Any direct incentives have to be in the use of the code/application. That wasn't the case with the mining company, of course, but then the "source" here -- data for the area around the mine -- can't be as useful an application's source code, except to the owner of the mine. You'd have to sweeten the pot in order to get anyone interested.
I think that this is a main difference -- again, from a business perspective -- between outsourcing and open-sourcing: Is the data I'm getting useful enough to me that I'll forgo additional compensation? On the one hand, this proves your point -- they are just outsourcing -- but on the other it suggests that the difference can be pretty thin.
One question I have is "How is this different from putting this project up for bid?" Someone else in the thread said that it would have been easier just to pay consultants $500K to tell them where the gold was. So, why didn't they? Here's some guesses from someone who knows nothing about mining:
Consultants are more expensive than that.
By making it a "contest" they were able to reap advantages in publicity that made it more cost-effective -- making that $500K worth more.
If they had put it up for bid, they would only have attracted companies that usually did this, and probably just those in their area. They also would have had the "protect your local data" mindset, which would have lead them to include monitoring provisions (e.g. NDAs) that would have increased their costs. Ultimately, these would reduce the "universe" of potential problem-solvers. With fewer people involved, fewer answers would have been put forth and, by extension, the results would not have been as exceptional.
And they were amazing --- something like a 10x increase in yield at 16% of the cost/oz. It's possible that this was an unusual situation -- having a mine "down the street" from a very productive competitor -- but, if not, this could become a very lucrative way of improving one's yields.
And it's all a matter of recognizing that some business-specific data is actually worth more when widely released than when held closely. Just like open-source software.
I like the "utopia" idea, if only because an angel with a revolving fiery sword kept them out afterward. Sounds like the sort of thing that a meteor strike might be interpreted as.
Still -- and not to downgrade your theory -- the whole Genesis story makes more sense as a description of humans becoming self-conscious -- knowledge of Good and Evil, understanding nakedness, sweat-of-your-brow, etc. Even the bit about giving birth in pain is a consequence, since it's all related to the sudden increase in brain size about [mumble] thousands of years ago. (I generally resist the temptation to equate the serpent with dinosaurs, though.)
As for the flood: I don't doubt it was a historical event, but I'm not convinced about the Black Sea theory. I don't know about the Babylonian description, but the Bible mentions a lot of rain, not an advancing tide.
...that the second amendment gives states the right to retain their own military forces.
Unfortunately for this interpretation, Article I, section 10, clause 3 says, nope, they can't. Although one could counter that the 2nd Amendment was the states' way of repealing that clause. Alternatively, one could point to the differences between "Troops" in that clause and "militia" in the 2nd -- except you'll start sounding like a militia is, um, regular citizens again.
In either case, watch what you wish for -- it could be argued that this sort of interpretation leads to all sorts of other problems.
...to "bear arms" was a phrase of the day that meant military service.
Cite, maybe? I find it hard to believe that the 2nd amendment means "Because it's important to have a strong defense, everyone shall be allowed to serve in the military." Especially since the full phrase is "Keep and bear arms."
...the second amendment is a historical curiousity from an age that vanished a long time ago.
Then feel free to take care of this in the constitutionally mandated way: Have your congressman or senators propose an amendment to repeal the 2nd Amendment. Plenty of people probably agree with you, and you only have to convince most of the state legislatures. It could happen...and while I wouldn't support the substance, I would accept that you're trying to improve the country in a way that supports the basic precepts upon which it was founded....instead of requesting that it be ignored because it doesn't matter anymore.
TSG
Re:A new Hitler? Again? And Again?
on
Virtual War
·
· Score: 1
I remember hearing how Idi Amin was another Hitler. And Khomeini And Qaddafi And Noriega And Saddam Hussein And Milosevic And Bin Laden And [$AllRussianLeadersSinceStalin] And [$AllChineseLeadersSinceMao]
These days, I spend far too much time considering the passage in 1984, where the eternal enemy of Oceania changes in the middle of a politician's speech. Every few years, a new Hitler is put forth for us, to hate enough that we don't mind when our government decides to slap them down. Once that foe has been vanquished, another one is brought from the wings and paraded for our amusement, for our hatred, again.
Frankly, I'm getting tired of it.
I don't doubt that some of the honor roll above could have (or may yet) become all-new mini-Hitlers. I supported the Gulf War because I believe that Hussein is a man without honor, who will trade anything for power. I'm sure that Milosevic deserves a Paveway down the chimney as much as any other murderer in this world. And I don't doubt that Putin is as nasty an ex-Communist as is available in his country.
But give Godwin's Law a rest. There's always going to be Another Hitler. Some will fade away before they can amass enough support to matter. Some will, perhaps, be too well known and closely watched to get away with their Final Solutions. And sometimes, one will slip through no matter what is done.
But please don't bother telling me that *this guy* is *really* Hitler Arisen, this time. I've heard it all before.
Ironheart Who at least knows that the USSR had troops in Ethiopia 15 years ago and more...
And the First Amendment only applies to simple printing presses, literal vocal speech, and the religions that existed in the 18th century. (Peaceable assembling hasn't changed much, though, so you can still do that....)
"If a car company discovers that it has shipped x units with bad brakes then it generally issues a recall and replaces the part(s)."
That's what I was thinking of when I read the opinion. In this case, the software company knew about the bug, but didn't think it would happen often enough to matter. The plaintiff lost $1.95 MILLION because of it.
That sounds a whole lot like Ford's attitude towards the Pinto problem: Lawsuits will cost X, fixing it costs Y, Y > X, don't bother fixing. Except I can't imagine the bug costing that much to patch, and this error seems directly related to the purpose of the software.
Which relates to the Dilbert scenario mentioned. The opinion also says that "unconscionable" requirements may not be enforceable. The case that was cited to support this required (no kidding, it's right in there)
"French arbitration company,
payment of an advance fee of $4,000 (half which was nonrefundable),
significant travel fees borne by the consumer,
and payment of the loser's attorney fees."
That suggests that "you will be my towel boy" is not an acceptable contract clause -- and neither is "by reading this post, you agree to send me $X in your local currency."
(A big question for the DeCSS case may be "is forbidding reverse engineering unconscionable?")
Having read it, I feel a *bit* better about shrink-wrap licenses, since they can't demand any important body parts as collateral...but also a bit worse, since there should be some liability if software screws up as royally as happened here.
It was Muppets Tonight, as everyone else mentioned.
I only saw it once -- just stumbled across it really. When I saw that Garth Brooks was the host, I almost turned the channel. Glad I didn't. Too much fun.
Garth was, naturally, used in musical numbers -- but not his usual sort. He did "It's Not Unusual," as Tom Jones, complete with panty-throwing Muppets. Kermit asked him if he could do something a little more country-style, so Garth said he'd do something set on a farm, with chickens, and some fiddles, and dancing, and...
Let's just say that it was from a musical, but not Oklahoma.
Great stuff. I have a solid respect for Mr. Brooks showmanship now. Unfortunately, Muppets Tonight was cancelled soon after.
(I'd been wondering who owned the muppets lately...)
Agreed, big time, that this is a great precedent. Here's some more tidbits:
"Sega expressly sanctioned disassembly." (That's the case Sega v. Accolade, not Sega the company.)
"Sony Corp. of Am. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417, 449-50 (1984) (copying of entire work does not preclude fair use)". (*Smile*) -- Sony's own previous case used against it...(That is the Betamax case, isn't it?)
"This innovation affords opportunities for game play in new environments, specifically anywhere a Sony PlayStation console and television are not available, but a computer with a CD-ROM drive is." Replace game play with movie viewing,"Sony PlayStation console" with "DVD Player," and CD-ROM with DVD-ROM, and DVD-CCA goes down...
Also, note that Connectix asked for help, but Sony refused. (Similarly, a request to make a Linux DVD player was made, but refused by DVD-CCA.) Possible implication: If the licensor doesn't help you, and intellectual property laws don't prevent you, then a lot of leeway in reverse engineering is allowed.
Are you saying that there is a huge underground movement of gamers who can't afford a Playstation+software, but can afford a G3 + broadband net access? Unless they're playing on their school's brand new iMacs, and downloading disc images off their T1 line, I don't see how this could be so.
Furthermore, the spirit of the law wasenforced. The spirit says that the government is supposed to help consumers, and that intellectual property laws are for the betterment of society, not just the enrichment of individuals. And this made it easier for a company engaged in lawful business -- Connectix, that is -- to earn its justified profits.
And, it confirms that reverse engineering is legal, which is a big victory for our side.
Or are you just trolling? If so, ya hooked me, fair and square.
...but a lot of discussion has revolved around whether DeCSS is legal or not as though we should, if DeCSS turned out to be illegal, throw up our arms and go "Doh! My Bad!".
I think that, to some extent, we need to consider this possibility. For example, the DVD-CCA suit is pointing to this as a trade secret issue. If DeCSS was not legally reverse-engineered, then it may be the equivalent of breaking into the vault where the secret recipe is kept. While this wouldn't keep DeCSS away from any individual who wanted to use it, it would be sufficient to prevent Be, Red Hat, Mandrake et al from including it in their distributions.
In that case, it may be necessary to say "Doh! You're right! This contains illegally obtained trade secrets! We're sorry!(*)"
And then say "Here's DVDOpenPlayer. It was reverse-engineered in a clean-room manner, by a team with nothing but a list of specifications that were determined to be necessary to play a DVD. Have a nice day."
If the specifications are already open, though, it may just be a matter of reverse-engineering the keys. But what does that mean? I can't very well write a specification for, say, the Xing key, can I? Or is it okay to say, in the spec, "At this point, one of the following key sequences must be XORed with the data stream."?
I do agree that it's not important whether DeCSS is legal. What's important is that the MPAA not be able to eliminate fair use through careful lobbying, and that the DVD-CCA not be able to hide incompetence behind trade-secret law. And that acts of protest be allowed, regardless
*This does not constitute an apology for posting or linking to the DeCSS code, which was a legal and acceptable protest to a bad law (DMCA) and the actions of DVD-CCA and the MPAA.
We're focusing on the wrong "expression" here. Ignore source code for the moment, because everyone here has been engaged in constitutionally protected speech, whether they can understand the source of DeCSS or not.
Why did anyone here post DeCSS? Was it to pirate films? I doubt it -- pirates would want to keep a low profile. Was it to see DVDs on Linux? Maybe, but I don't have Linux on my computer, nor do I have any DVDs to play on it. Even those of you who do, though, didn't need to post the software. But you did, didn't you? Or maybe you just linked to it, or downloaded it from one of the sites, like the gzipped files that are lurking on my hard drive somewhere, still unopened.
So, what does that leave? Only one thing.
It was an act of protest. Wasn't it?
It was for me. I'm complaining about the DVD-CCA, which practiced security-through-obscurity, and now want the government to protect their trade secrets. I'm objecting to the MPAA, which is using its influence to arrest Norwegian teenagers. And I'm protesting the DMCA, which allows these companies to tell me exactly when and how I can use the bits I bought from them. And I think the record shows that is the case for the vast majority of the people who have an opinion here.
The right to free speech is the right to protest, and that's what 99.9% of the people here are doing. And that's the freedom of expression we should be focusing on in these cases.
The only objection that I can see to this is that our actions are causing harm to others -- "fire" in a moviehouse, etc. I don't accept that -- the code's been out and about for months, plenty long enough for anyone to get it. I'm not causing any additional harm, except to the extent that I may cause the plaintiffs to stop their current practices.
(I'm sure there are holes in this argument. Feel free to point them out.)
In closing, I read the transcript and the memorandum, and I don't think this judge is an imbecile. He had strong evidence to support the plaintiff's claims, minimal evidence from the defendants, and a law that seems to say that they're wrong. He made short work of the defence offered because it was poorly supported. He's just interpreting the law as he sees it, and doesn't understand the average/. poster's views on the subject. But I think he could be educated, with the right arguments and the right evidence. (In the transcript, didja notice the point where he called the defendants the plaintiffs? He's used to seeing the big companies on the the other side of the suit.) Here's hoping.
Slashdot Mirror
For open-source software, the X is "access to the source, with limited rights to reproduce the source and object code" and Y is "improvements to the source for no additional labor costs i.e. money." Here, it was "full access to all our expensively acquired mining data"in exchange for "a pre-determined amount of cash under particular restrictions". In both cases, there are also additional incentives external to the basic exchange e.g. prestige and improved marketability. That is, just as Linus Torvalds can get better jobs based on his known expertise with Linux, this winning 3-D company will have people coming to them.
One of the interesting things about open-source, of course, is that money doesn't normally change hands at all. Any direct incentives have to be in the use of the code/application. That wasn't the case with the mining company, of course, but then the "source" here -- data for the area around the mine -- can't be as useful an application's source code, except to the owner of the mine. You'd have to sweeten the pot in order to get anyone interested.
I think that this is a main difference -- again, from a business perspective -- between outsourcing and open-sourcing: Is the data I'm getting useful enough to me that I'll forgo additional compensation? On the one hand, this proves your point -- they are just outsourcing -- but on the other it suggests that the difference can be pretty thin.
One question I have is "How is this different from putting this project up for bid?" Someone else in the thread said that it would have been easier just to pay consultants $500K to tell them where the gold was. So, why didn't they? Here's some guesses from someone who knows nothing about mining:
And they were amazing --- something like a 10x increase in yield at 16% of the cost/oz. It's possible that this was an unusual situation -- having a mine "down the street" from a very productive competitor -- but, if not, this could become a very lucrative way of improving one's yields.
And it's all a matter of recognizing that some business-specific data is actually worth more when widely released than when held closely. Just like open-source software.
Me
Nun-chucks. Battleaxes. Two-handed swords.
:)
Still -- and not to downgrade your theory -- the whole Genesis story makes more sense as a description of humans becoming self-conscious -- knowledge of Good and Evil, understanding nakedness, sweat-of-your-brow, etc. Even the bit about giving birth in pain is a consequence, since it's all related to the sudden increase in brain size about [mumble] thousands of years ago. (I generally resist the temptation to equate the serpent with dinosaurs, though.)
As for the flood: I don't doubt it was a historical event, but I'm not convinced about the Black Sea theory. I don't know about the Babylonian description, but the Bible mentions a lot of rain, not an advancing tide.
Shouldn't this have the Monty Python Foot "Humor" icon?
Funniest thing I've seen all day. Couldn't even get to the end of the press release.
I hadn't realized that stealth censorship was so much worse than real censorship.
Ironheart
So much for the "end of irony."
Unfortunately for this interpretation, Article I, section 10, clause 3 says, nope, they can't. Although one could counter that the 2nd Amendment was the states' way of repealing that clause. Alternatively, one could point to the differences between "Troops" in that clause and "militia" in the 2nd -- except you'll start sounding like a militia is, um, regular citizens again.
In either case, watch what you wish for -- it could be argued that this sort of interpretation leads to all sorts of other problems.
Cite, maybe? I find it hard to believe that the 2nd amendment means "Because it's important to have a strong defense, everyone shall be allowed to serve in the military." Especially since the full phrase is "Keep and bear arms."
Then feel free to take care of this in the constitutionally mandated way: Have your congressman or senators propose an amendment to repeal the 2nd Amendment. Plenty of people probably agree with you, and you only have to convince most of the state legislatures. It could happen...and while I wouldn't support the substance, I would accept that you're trying to improve the country in a way that supports the basic precepts upon which it was founded....instead of requesting that it be ignored because it doesn't matter anymore.
TSG
I remember hearing how Idi Amin was another Hitler.
And Khomeini
And Qaddafi
And Noriega
And Saddam Hussein
And Milosevic
And Bin Laden
And [$AllRussianLeadersSinceStalin]
And [$AllChineseLeadersSinceMao]
These days, I spend far too much time considering the passage in 1984, where the eternal enemy of Oceania changes in the middle of a politician's speech. Every few years, a new Hitler is put forth for us, to hate enough that we don't mind when our government decides to slap them down. Once that foe has been vanquished, another one is brought from the wings and paraded for our amusement, for our hatred, again.
Frankly, I'm getting tired of it.
I don't doubt that some of the honor roll above could have (or may yet) become all-new mini-Hitlers. I supported the Gulf War because I believe that Hussein is a man without honor, who will trade anything for power. I'm sure that Milosevic deserves a Paveway down the chimney as much as any other murderer in this world. And I don't doubt that Putin is as nasty an ex-Communist as is available in his country.
But give Godwin's Law a rest. There's always going to be Another Hitler. Some will fade away before they can amass enough support to matter. Some will, perhaps, be too well known and closely watched to get away with their Final Solutions. And sometimes, one will slip through no matter what is done.
But please don't bother telling me that *this guy* is *really* Hitler Arisen, this time. I've heard it all before.
Ironheart
Who at least knows that the USSR had troops in Ethiopia 15 years ago and more...
And the First Amendment only applies to simple printing presses, literal vocal speech, and the religions that existed in the 18th century. (Peaceable assembling hasn't changed much, though, so you can still do that....)
That's what I was thinking of when I read the opinion. In this case, the software company knew about the bug, but didn't think it would happen often enough to matter. The plaintiff lost $1.95 MILLION because of it.
That sounds a whole lot like Ford's attitude towards the Pinto problem: Lawsuits will cost X, fixing it costs Y, Y > X, don't bother fixing. Except I can't imagine the bug costing that much to patch, and this error seems directly related to the purpose of the software.
Which relates to the Dilbert scenario mentioned. The opinion also says that "unconscionable" requirements may not be enforceable. The case that was cited to support this required (no kidding, it's right in there)
"French arbitration company,
payment of an advance fee of $4,000 (half which was nonrefundable),
significant travel fees borne by the consumer,
and payment of the loser's attorney fees."
That suggests that "you will be my towel boy" is not an acceptable contract clause -- and neither is "by reading this post, you agree to send me $X in your local currency."
(A big question for the DeCSS case may be "is forbidding reverse engineering unconscionable?")
Having read it, I feel a *bit* better about shrink-wrap licenses, since they can't demand any important body parts as collateral...but also a bit worse, since there should be some liability if software screws up as royally as happened here.
I only saw it once -- just stumbled across it really. When I saw that Garth Brooks was the host, I almost turned the channel. Glad I didn't. Too much fun.
Garth was, naturally, used in musical numbers -- but not his usual sort. He did "It's Not Unusual," as Tom Jones, complete with panty-throwing Muppets. Kermit asked him if he could do something a little more country-style, so Garth said he'd do something set on a farm, with chickens, and some fiddles, and dancing, and...
Let's just say that it was from a musical, but not Oklahoma.
Great stuff. I have a solid respect for Mr. Brooks showmanship now. Unfortunately, Muppets Tonight was cancelled soon after.
(I'd been wondering who owned the muppets lately...)
"Sega expressly sanctioned disassembly." (That's the case Sega v. Accolade, not Sega the company.)
"Sony Corp. of Am. v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417, 449-50 (1984) (copying of entire work does not preclude fair use)". (*Smile*) -- Sony's own previous case used against it...(That is the Betamax case, isn't it?)
"This innovation affords opportunities for game play in new environments, specifically anywhere a Sony PlayStation console and television are not available, but a computer with a CD-ROM drive is."
Replace game play with movie viewing,"Sony PlayStation console" with "DVD Player," and CD-ROM with DVD-ROM, and DVD-CCA goes down...
Also, note that Connectix asked for help, but Sony refused. (Similarly, a request to make a Linux DVD player was made, but refused by DVD-CCA.) Possible implication: If the licensor doesn't help you, and intellectual property laws don't prevent you, then a lot of leeway in reverse engineering is allowed.
I like it. We needed some good news...
Furthermore, the spirit of the law wasenforced. The spirit says that the government is supposed to help consumers, and that intellectual property laws are for the betterment of society, not just the enrichment of individuals. And this made it easier for a company engaged in lawful business -- Connectix, that is -- to earn its justified profits.
And, it confirms that reverse engineering is legal, which is a big victory for our side.
Or are you just trolling? If so, ya hooked me, fair and square.
I think that, to some extent, we need to consider this possibility. For example, the DVD-CCA suit is pointing to this as a trade secret issue. If DeCSS was not legally reverse-engineered, then it may be the equivalent of breaking into the vault where the secret recipe is kept. While this wouldn't keep DeCSS away from any individual who wanted to use it, it would be sufficient to prevent Be, Red Hat, Mandrake et al from including it in their distributions.
In that case, it may be necessary to say "Doh! You're right! This contains illegally obtained trade secrets! We're sorry!(*)"
And then say "Here's DVDOpenPlayer. It was reverse-engineered in a clean-room manner, by a team with nothing but a list of specifications that were determined to be necessary to play a DVD. Have a nice day."
If the specifications are already open, though, it may just be a matter of reverse-engineering the keys. But what does that mean? I can't very well write a specification for, say, the Xing key, can I? Or is it okay to say, in the spec, "At this point, one of the following key sequences must be XORed with the data stream."?
I do agree that it's not important whether DeCSS is legal. What's important is that the MPAA not be able to eliminate fair use through careful lobbying, and that the DVD-CCA not be able to hide incompetence behind trade-secret law. And that acts of protest be allowed, regardless
*This does not constitute an apology for posting or linking to the DeCSS code, which was a legal and acceptable protest to a bad law (DMCA) and the actions of DVD-CCA and the MPAA.
Why did anyone here post DeCSS? Was it to pirate films? I doubt it -- pirates would want to keep a low profile. Was it to see DVDs on Linux? Maybe, but I don't have Linux on my computer, nor do I have any DVDs to play on it. Even those of you who do, though, didn't need to post the software. But you did, didn't you? Or maybe you just linked to it, or downloaded it from one of the sites, like the gzipped files that are lurking on my hard drive somewhere, still unopened.
So, what does that leave? Only one thing.
It was an act of protest. Wasn't it?
It was for me. I'm complaining about the DVD-CCA, which practiced security-through-obscurity, and now want the government to protect their trade secrets. I'm objecting to the MPAA, which is using its influence to arrest Norwegian teenagers. And I'm protesting the DMCA, which allows these companies to tell me exactly when and how I can use the bits I bought from them. And I think the record shows that is the case for the vast majority of the people who have an opinion here.
The right to free speech is the right to protest, and that's what 99.9% of the people here are doing. And that's the freedom of expression we should be focusing on in these cases.
The only objection that I can see to this is that our actions are causing harm to others -- "fire" in a moviehouse, etc. I don't accept that -- the code's been out and about for months, plenty long enough for anyone to get it. I'm not causing any additional harm, except to the extent that I may cause the plaintiffs to stop their current practices.
(I'm sure there are holes in this argument. Feel free to point them out.)
In closing, I read the transcript and the memorandum, and I don't think this judge is an imbecile. He had strong evidence to support the plaintiff's claims, minimal evidence from the defendants, and a law that seems to say that they're wrong. He made short work of the defence offered because it was poorly supported. He's just interpreting the law as he sees it, and doesn't understand the average /. poster's views on the subject. But I think he could be educated, with the right arguments and the right evidence. (In the transcript, didja notice the point where he called the defendants the plaintiffs? He's used to seeing the big companies on the the other side of the suit.) Here's hoping.
Patrick A. Bowman