This article looks suspiciously similar to reports I saw last year regarding ice-covered oceans suspected on Europa [Scientific America 1999, 'The Hidden Oceans of Europa'].
If Gore takes Florida after the automatic recount, we can all expect Bush to demand recounts in Iowa and Wisconsin.
Both of these states were also taken by Gore, but by less than.5% margins. Both of these states have laws which allow a candidate to demand a recount with such a narrow victory.
If the recount of these states move them to Bush, then Bush will have enough electoral votes even without Florida.
We may be here for a while.
Lando writes: "The article is slashdotted at the moment, so I have not read it, but from the comments it appears that he is just flinging "The Mythical Man-month" by Frederick Brooks out the window... Somehow I doubt that he has enough experience with programming to do so.... "
Wow. You're assuming a lot here. You haven't read the article, and I question your familiarity with Greenspun. In my opinion, he has ample education, intelligence and experience to make all these claims:
- 3 degrees from MIT including a PhD in computer science
- 20 years of software development experience
- co-developed computer science courses for MIT and 10 other universities
- has been managing programmers at ArsDigita since 1977. Company currently has 80-full timers.
I don't see the "marketing genius" part of giving away millions or dollars worth of barcode scanners for free.
One could make the argument that the follow-up revenus from selling database placement (and subsequent referrals) is an interesting business model, but I think it's been well demonstrated here (and elsewhere) that DC's implementation of this model is seriously flawed.
At this point, DC is fighting like mad to prevent other companies from launching databases that can leverage DC's $multimillion outlay to give away all these scanners. Some "marketing geniuses."
(maybe your comments were referring to the genius of putting their private database of user/scan history - their bread and butter - on a public network in an unprotected directory!)
I have the greatest personal respect for you and your books. I've learned a lot from your writing. I'd like to know more about the "software copyright statement" which your CD-ROM will utilize to protect the electronic text.
Did you inquire about the terms and conditions of this "copyright statement?" I suspect it's not a copyright statement at all, but actually a licensing agreement. Is this the case? What rights does it require the purchaser^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hlicenser of your book to forfeit?
Does it require the purchaser of your book to forfeit the right to return the material? This shouldn't be necessary if all you are trying to accomplish is to protect the text. Apply a copyright statement to the appendices and throw the CD in the book. Better yet, apply the copyright statement and post the whole appendix to the McGraw-Hill website.
I feel that it is your responsibility, as an author, to drive the publisher toward ethical, informative and aesthetic publishing (rather than just trying to make a buck).
Sorry the cheap parting shot, but you ought to read Philip Greenspun's book behind the book , especially the part entitled Flaming Summary: Why Computer Books Suck. Make sure to check out the portion about 1200-page books.
In response to mindstrm's criticisms of multicast for software delivery, Consider for a moment the potential uses for a file-transfer algorithm along these lines:
Step one: Major software release announced. Multicast time/date announced. Step two: Software sent over Mbone at some reasonably slow bandwidth for general users to collect. Transfer mechanism allows each end station to identify which parts of the package they have missed. Step three: Millions of end stations send unicast messages back to the source informing it which parts have been missed. Step four: Source distribution site restransmits missed portions prioritized by the number of stations who need it. Step five: Iterate steps three and four a couple more times. Step six: Major mirror sites automatically inform source distribution site that the package is complete and give a URL (or similar handle) for access on their mirror. Step seven: Source site multicasts a message which indicates end of multicasts and lists mirror URLs. End stations still missing portions of the package automatically begin unicast retrieval from mirrors (of just the missing portions).
I believe that this could dramatically reduce the bandwidth clog associated with major releases and could be handled automatically. Further, I don't think there is an RFC (yet) which covers all aspects of this process.
I wrote Dr. Dean Edell concerning this issue. While it isn't strictly health-related, he may indeed decide to share this with his (large) audience, since he has a generally Libertarian POV, and strong opinions regarding medical education.
I agree that the response is well-reasoned. Know what? It's irrelevant.
Yup, doesn't matter. The copyright genie has left the bottle. At least for audio. I can envision no practical solution to the problem which the RIAA faces. Except perhaps for one.
Here's what I mean: - With or without Napster, millions of users will be exchanging audio tracks on the internet. Gnutella, Usenet, IRC, whatever. If all of those go away (which of course they won't), new forms of distribution will appear.
- With or without encryption of the source content, the audio files will continue to appear. If you can play the music to a speaker, you can record it back to an MP3 (or other audio format). Many times without even making the DA-AD loop! (a la vsound and tools like it.)
- The problem isn't Napster. It's people exchanging copyrighted music. And with the convergence of readily available Internet bandwidth + useful audio codecs, the potential for mass distribution of unlicensed music is overwhelming. The RIAA is desperately holding its finger in the dike, but these efforts will be, of course, to no avail.
- The only solution I can envision: offer a better alternative. That would need to be something free or near-free. Convenient to the user. Better than Napster. Maybe a $.20 download that comes with a color.PDF of the liner notes and a fan-club registration card. Easy to burn onto a CD. Something that preserves more of the artist's envisioned format. Fast. Easier access to the songs you are looking for. More reliable downloads. Pick your own important features.
- And don't think for a second that audio files are the only type of media under threat: Video will follow soon behind, as will other media types as they become available on the Internet and the bandwidth becomes sufficient to transmit them. It's plain to me that the result of the Napster case won't make a significant difference to the MP3 exchange phemonenon on the internet. It is, however, a very important case for the precedent it sets. Keep a close eye on it.
While I certainly don't condone cybersquatting, I found it very interesting that the WIPO concluded that attempting to sell a domain name is tantamount to using the name in bad faith.
The rules for transfer of a domain name dictate that the current owner must have both registered and have used the name in bad faith.
The musicweb domain name was never used, only listed for sale. Still, the panel found that this constituted bad faith use.
I disagree with this finding, although I should add that this is a nutty rule to begin with: Theoretically, this would allow one to maintain ownership of a service-mark domain name as long as they didn't attempt to sellit. Perhaps an interesting strategy for a competitor.
Recently I had the occasion to complain to @Home regarding an abuse of my system by one of their users. (My poor system valiantly defended me against over 11 hours of attempted unauthorized logins from an @Home user).
After my complaint email was sent, I received an automated reply stating: a)that I would likely not ever hear anything from them regarding this matter, and b)that they would take no action unless I included my system logfiles and other detailed information.
As a comparison point, I offer my experiences with Pacific Bell Internet Services (pbi.net), @Home's largest competitor in my area (San Jose, CA):
After a similar incident, PBI sent me an automated response, followed by a hand-written email (oxymoronic?) indicating that the user had been contacted and warned that further attempts would violate his service agreement and be grounds for termination of service. A few days later, I received a second personalized email including an explanation of the incident and an apology from the attacker (who explained that this was an accident - he was trying to test his own security and didn't realize his tools were running against a wider range of IPs). While I don't expect this high level of service as a rule, it made me feel good about my choice of ISP.
While I'm not trying to defend the DVD CCA, I'd like to point out that you needn't decrypt the disk to archive its contents. The basis for the arguments against the legal action today have been well summarized many times: Freedom to reverse engineer, freedom to distribute knowledged gained through this process, freedom to link to any information.
I agree that "we don't know you're name, so it's okay to spy on you" is a pathetically weak excuse. By that argument, a camera in the changing-room is acceptable.
I agree that "we don't know you're name, so it's okay to spy on you" is a pathetically weak excuse. By that argument, a camera in the changing-room is acceptable. dp
I strongly recommend that anyone interested in this topic read this month's issue of _Scientific American_ magazine, interesting snippets of which can be found on their website ( http://www.sciam.com ).
This special issue of the magazine is devoted to the topic of "What Science Will Know in 2050," and includes viewpoints from many prominent names in biology, cosmology, mathematics and physics.
Sir John Maddox opens the section with his article entitled "The Unexpected Science of the Future" in which he posits that "the questions we do not yet have the wit to ask will be a growing preoccupation of science in the next 50 years." For support, he analyzes several 50-year periods in the past. In each analysis he contends that science, at the beginning of the period was unable to predict the upcoming advances.
For example, who in 1950 could have imagined the e-commerce explosion of the late 1990's? Even as late as 1980, the upcoming prominence of the personal computer was widely doubted. Or who could have reasonably imagined that we would clone a sheep? DNA had not yet been discovered!
And, if this were not enough evidence, consider that the rate of technical innovation and discovery is accelerating!
In the next 50 years, could we see the dawn of artificial intelligence? Will that intelligence petition for civil rights? Will it be vastly more intelligent than us? If so, will it share its discoveries with humanity? What new directions might they take us?
Will we unify physics? What will the completion of the human genome project yield? Will we drastically alter our climate? Will we discover life outside Earth?
I believe that we might be able to reasonably predict discovery 10-15 years out, with rapidly decreasing success beyond that.
For most of 1997, I lived in Mito, Ibaraki - very nearby the Tokaimura plant. During my stay there, we had headline news regarding accidents at this plant on 3 occasions. When I discussed this with the locals, I received unanimous reactions along the lines of "(yawn) yeah, this kind of thing happens all the time." I think it's worth mentioning that I don't believe the anti-nuke movement has the momentum in Japan that it has in America. Nuclear power facilities there don't seem to be held to the same type of scrutiny that you would expect here. Perhaps this public complancency is a factor in the safety record of this plant.
Slashdot Mirror
This article looks suspiciously similar to reports I saw last year regarding ice-covered oceans suspected on Europa [Scientific America 1999, 'The Hidden Oceans of Europa'].
Both of these states were also taken by Gore, but by less than .5% margins. Both of these states have laws which allow a candidate to demand a recount with such a narrow victory.
If the recount of these states move them to Bush, then Bush will have enough electoral votes even without Florida. We may be here for a while.
Wow. You're assuming a lot here. You haven't read the article, and I question your familiarity with Greenspun. In my opinion, he has ample education, intelligence and experience to make all these claims:
- 3 degrees from MIT including a PhD in computer science
- 20 years of software development experience
- co-developed computer science courses for MIT and 10 other universities
- has been managing programmers at ArsDigita since 1977. Company currently has 80-full timers.
Or just take a look at his resume.
One could make the argument that the follow-up revenus from selling database placement (and subsequent referrals) is an interesting business model, but I think it's been well demonstrated here (and elsewhere) that DC's implementation of this model is seriously flawed.
At this point, DC is fighting like mad to prevent other companies from launching databases that can leverage DC's $multimillion outlay to give away all these scanners. Some "marketing geniuses."
(maybe your comments were referring to the genius of putting their private database of user/scan history - their bread and butter - on a public network in an unprotected directory!)
I have the greatest personal respect for you and your books. I've learned a lot from your writing. I'd like to know more about the "software copyright statement" which your CD-ROM will utilize to protect the electronic text.
Did you inquire about the terms and conditions of this "copyright statement?" I suspect it's not a copyright statement at all, but actually a licensing agreement. Is this the case? What rights does it require the purchaser^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hlicenser of your book to forfeit?
Does it require the purchaser of your book to forfeit the right to return the material? This shouldn't be necessary if all you are trying to accomplish is to protect the text. Apply a copyright statement to the appendices and throw the CD in the book. Better yet, apply the copyright statement and post the whole appendix to the McGraw-Hill website.
I feel that it is your responsibility, as an author, to drive the publisher toward ethical, informative and aesthetic publishing (rather than just trying to make a buck).
Sorry the cheap parting shot, but you ought to read Philip Greenspun's book behind the book , especially the part entitled Flaming Summary: Why Computer Books Suck. Make sure to check out the portion about 1200-page books.
Step one: Major software release announced. Multicast time/date announced.
Step two: Software sent over Mbone at some reasonably slow bandwidth for general users to collect. Transfer mechanism allows each end station to identify which parts of the package they have missed.
Step three: Millions of end stations send unicast messages back to the source informing it which parts have been missed.
Step four: Source distribution site restransmits missed portions prioritized by the number of stations who need it.
Step five: Iterate steps three and four a couple more times.
Step six: Major mirror sites automatically inform source distribution site that the package is complete and give a URL (or similar handle) for access on their mirror.
Step seven: Source site multicasts a message which indicates end of multicasts and lists mirror URLs. End stations still missing portions of the package automatically begin unicast retrieval from mirrors (of just the missing portions).
I believe that this could dramatically reduce the bandwidth clog associated with major releases and could be handled automatically. Further, I don't think there is an RFC (yet) which covers all aspects of this process.
I wrote Dr. Dean Edell concerning this issue. While it isn't strictly health-related, he may indeed decide to share this with his (large) audience, since he has a generally Libertarian POV, and strong opinions regarding medical education.
Yup, doesn't matter. The copyright genie has left the bottle. At least for audio. I can envision no practical solution to the problem which the RIAA faces. Except perhaps for one.
Here's what I mean:
- With or without Napster, millions of users will be exchanging audio tracks on the internet. Gnutella, Usenet, IRC, whatever. If all of those go away (which of course they won't), new forms of distribution will appear.
- With or without encryption of the source content, the audio files will continue to appear. If you can play the music to a speaker, you can record it back to an MP3 (or other audio format). Many times without even making the DA-AD loop! (a la vsound and tools like it.)
- The problem isn't Napster. It's people exchanging copyrighted music. And with the convergence of readily available Internet bandwidth + useful audio codecs, the potential for mass distribution of unlicensed music is overwhelming. The RIAA is desperately holding its finger in the dike, but these efforts will be, of course, to no avail.
- The only solution I can envision: offer a better alternative. That would need to be something free or near-free. Convenient to the user. Better than Napster. Maybe a $.20 download that comes with a color .PDF of the liner notes and a fan-club registration card. Easy to burn onto a CD. Something that preserves more of the artist's envisioned format. Fast. Easier access to the songs you are looking for. More reliable downloads. Pick your own important features.
- And don't think for a second that audio files are the only type of media under threat: Video will follow soon behind, as will other media types as they become available on the Internet and the bandwidth becomes sufficient to transmit them.
It's plain to me that the result of the Napster case won't make a significant difference to the MP3 exchange phemonenon on the internet. It is, however, a very important case for the precedent it sets. Keep a close eye on it.
The rules for transfer of a domain name dictate that the current owner must have both registered and have used the name in bad faith.
The musicweb domain name was never used, only listed for sale. Still, the panel found that this constituted bad faith use.
I disagree with this finding, although I should add that this is a nutty rule to begin with: Theoretically, this would allow one to maintain ownership of a service-mark domain name as long as they didn't attempt to sellit. Perhaps an interesting strategy for a competitor.
dp
After my complaint email was sent, I received an automated reply stating:
a)that I would likely not ever hear anything from them regarding this matter, and
b)that they would take no action unless I included my system logfiles and other detailed information.
As a comparison point, I offer my experiences with Pacific Bell Internet Services (pbi.net), @Home's largest competitor in my area (San Jose, CA):
After a similar incident, PBI sent me an automated response, followed by a hand-written email (oxymoronic?) indicating that the user had been contacted and warned that further attempts would violate his service agreement and be grounds for termination of service. A few days later, I received a second personalized email including an explanation of the incident and an apology from the attacker (who explained that this was an accident - he was trying to test his own security and didn't realize his tools were running against a wider range of IPs).
While I don't expect this high level of service as a rule, it made me feel good about my choice of ISP.
While I'm not trying to defend the DVD CCA, I'd like to point out that you needn't decrypt the disk to archive its contents. The basis for the arguments against the legal action today have been well summarized many times: Freedom to reverse engineer, freedom to distribute knowledged gained through this process, freedom to link to any information.
dp
I agree that "we don't know you're name, so it's okay to spy on you" is a pathetically weak excuse. By that argument, a camera in the changing-room is acceptable. dp
This special issue of the magazine is devoted to the topic of "What Science Will Know in 2050," and includes viewpoints from many prominent names in biology, cosmology, mathematics and physics.
Sir John Maddox opens the section with his article entitled "The Unexpected Science of the Future" in which he posits that "the questions we do not yet have the wit to ask will be a growing preoccupation of science in the next 50 years." For support, he analyzes several 50-year periods in the past. In each analysis he contends that science, at the beginning of the period was unable to predict the upcoming advances.
For example, who in 1950 could have imagined the e-commerce explosion of the late 1990's? Even as late as 1980, the upcoming prominence of the personal computer was widely doubted. Or who could have reasonably imagined that we would clone a sheep? DNA had not yet been discovered!
And, if this were not enough evidence, consider that the rate of technical innovation and discovery is accelerating!
In the next 50 years, could we see the dawn of artificial intelligence? Will that intelligence petition for civil rights? Will it be vastly more intelligent than us? If so, will it share its discoveries with humanity? What new directions might they take us?
Will we unify physics? What will the completion of the human genome project yield? Will we drastically alter our climate? Will we discover life outside Earth?
I believe that we might be able to reasonably predict discovery 10-15 years out, with rapidly decreasing success beyond that.
dp
For most of 1997, I lived in Mito, Ibaraki - very nearby the Tokaimura plant. During my stay there, we had headline news regarding accidents at this plant on 3 occasions. When I discussed this with the locals, I received unanimous reactions along the lines of "(yawn) yeah, this kind of thing happens all the time." I think it's worth mentioning that I don't believe the anti-nuke movement has the momentum in Japan that it has in America. Nuclear power facilities there don't seem to be held to the same type of scrutiny that you would expect here. Perhaps this public complancency is a factor in the safety record of this plant.