News for nerds, stuff that matters
Sections
About
Slashdot Log In
D.A. Zollinger (549301)
(email not shown publicly)
http://slashdot.org/
Imagination was given to man to compensate for what he is not,
and a sense of humor to console him for what he is.
Journal of D.A. Zollinger (549301)
Power of the Corporation
So on Slashdot this evening is an article about how MediaDefender is trying to explain its actions when it seeded a bit-torrent server that Revision3 operates with bogus files, and when Revision3 altered the configuration on its bit-torrent tracker to stop external seeds, MediaDefender performed a denial of service attack on Revision3. Now, a good portion of the comments circled around how if this had been done by an individual, they would already be in jail, the prosecutor would be warming up his speeches, and the judge would be looking at maximum sentencing. But because this was caused by a corporation there is no way they will be found guilty of a crime, much less be charged with one. I truly hope that justice is served in this case. We cannot allow for vigilante justice on the Internet. But in case the nay-sayers are correct, it gave me an excellent idea...
Blackwater for America
People for years have been saying that corporations have been able to get away with murder. Well, what if we created a company which did just that? Lets call it company XYZ. And we would need to give it a legitimate excuse to exist. Say private police force. We could protect the rich from the crazy masses who want to kill them. This serves two purposes, it puts us in touch with the rich people who really run this country, and feeds on their paranoia. In addition, we would have a super secret department, which we would protect in NDA agreements with employees, corporate secrets, intellectual property concerning business practices, etc. This would be the wetworks dept. which would perform domestic assassinations. The way I see it, there are 3 ways they could perform their work.
1) Stage an Accident - If it looks like there was no foul play, why investigate?
2) Witness the Event - If you kill someone in cold blood, but have 5 guys to tell the police that he was only protecting himself from this madman who was about to kill him, it will never go to court.
3) Leave no Evidence - Kill people in a way which leaves no forensic evidence, if there is no evidence, the investigation will be incomplete.
I like this idea because as a chief officer of such a company, you have the ability to kill your enemies as well as the enemies of people you wish to do favors for, and if the government catches wise, you have several options: Rely on your customers to help you out, "If the government shuts us down, who will protect you from the crazies?" Play the scapegoat, "This wasn't some company sanctioned event, this employee went crazy and took it upon himself to kill that person!" I would hope by this time some political favors have been processed, "Remember that message we sent to Senator X by silencing their child? You really want that coming back to you?" Or even the good old standby, "You shutdown this company and your district will be responsible for the loss of a lot of jobs, as well as a large contributor to the tax base. Is this what you really want based on a misunderstanding? An accident?"
Then again, who's to say such an organization doesn't already exist? -Paranoid and cynical
Going to School
Last evening there was a discussion about how a high school kid would ever be able to afford to go to his first choice in schools (MIT) as his parents weren't willing to help foot the bill for his education. He felt that going to another CS school where he would not be able to express himself fully in his creative CS talents would compromise his future.
Being someone who went to a not-well-known school, I do not feel as if my future has been compromised by not going to a well-known school. If you want to go to a well-known CS school, there are plenty. Comments in the article mentioned UC Berkley, and Purdue has been mentioned plenty of time on Slashdot. However, to provide counterpoint, I must mention that in the Ph.D. program I am currently enrolled in, one of my fellow Ph.D. students has both his BS and MS in CS from MIT. Do I think differently about him because of his background? Hell yes! For just about everyone in the industry MIT is known as the gold standard in CS - the school and program that most other schools strive to emulate! So yes, if you walk into a new job sporting a degree from MIT, your street credibility in computer science will have already been proven.
However, it is not just the end results from going to school at MIT that is so special. I have talked with my MIT friend at length about his education in Boston. The theme that always seems to run through our conversations is about environment. The environment of Boston as an open environment. The environment of MIT as a learning environment. The facts that you are surround by so many others to think like you, act like you, have similar senses of humor as you, and who have had similar backgrounds as you. Top if off with professors who "get" you, laboratories designed around freedom of expression, and access at all hours day or night. This is not a corporate, 9 to 5 environment - this is a learning environment designed to accommodate the student.
Not being able to pay for MIT is a shame. It is not the end of the world, but it is bothersome. For me it is especially bothersome considering that many schools assume the parents are going to assist for the first few years of education, and most financial aid programs are based on that assumption. If your parents can afford to send you to school, you will be denied financial aid, whether or not your parents do help pay or not. Irregardless of the fact that once you turn 18 your parents can change the locks on the house dump your crap on the front lawn, and never have a thing to do with you ever again.
I have many opinions on how our educational system is messed up, but this is not the time to go into detail on my opinions. Sufficed to say that this event (not attempting to be the best you can be because of worry concerning cost of education) is another example in how our educational system is screwed up, and needs to be fixed.
Pot, meet Kettle
I saw a link in the signature of one of the discussion points here on slashdot point to playfullyclever.com with the link "fix slashdot." I know I have my problems with Slashdot, but what do others think is broken? Being the curious individual that I am, I thought I would see what kind of complaint this individual has about the site upon which I spend so much time. It linked to another slashdot style discussion site, mostly the interests of one individual and their soap-box from which to talk. Almost a page down, I found what I was looking for, a link to a page where the individual listed what they felt was wrong, and what they wanted done about it.
Their complaint? That slashdot discouraged open discussion, and encouraged group thought. The post encouraged moderators to mod up dissenting points, even if the moderator disagreed with what was being stated, and only mod down obvious trolls (like GNAA, FP, etc). Very admirable goals. But, what are you adding that isn't already in the moderation guidelines? Oh, did I mention? This link was in an article stating why they troll Slashdot, and ends with the remark, "bring back the slashdot we all knew and loved."
So let me get this right - you are actively trolling slashdot, increasing the amount of noise, just so you can make the site better? You are destroying what you like because you think it will fix the problem? It never ceases to amaze me how the minds of some people work. Maybe they watched one too many b-movies when they were young, and now think that all things can be fixed with violence, mayhem, and disruption. It reminds me of the guys from the Earth Liberation Front (ELF) who incite eco-terror in order to "protect" mother earth. Like the lodge in Colorado that they burned to the ground because the builders were giving it a log-cabin look, and ELF had a problem with them using tree trunks. Well, now, instead of cutting down X number of trees, the builders had to cut down 2X number of trees. Way to save the earth, guys!
So instead of finding like-minded individuals, writing a petition, and suggesting a real change to Cmdr Taco, and other editors of the site, they would rather shout out at the top of their lungs, ignoring all others (I tried to post my comments on the site, only to find out that they do not allow anonymous posts - score another for Slashdot and freedom of speech). To be honest, I don't think that the problems that they think are wrong with Slashdot are technical ones. I think they are sociological ones. They cannot be fixed by any technical development, and trolling will only make the problem worse. I think in truth, they are the very problem that they are bemoaning. Their action encourages others to act in an underhanded manner that makes people second guess whether a dissenting post is real, or an attempt to incite readers. Instead of thinking the problem through, and finding a real solution, they would rather yell "Look at me!" and hope that the chaos they are bringing somehow makes it all right again.
Win Win proposition
While I am sure the poster wrote the comment in jest, he does have a good idea, if applied differently should benefit all parties involved. Why not put a deposit on music you are borrowing? Let me explain: You visit a site, and register to use their music "borrowing" service. For every song you want to "borrow" you pay a set deposit fee (say 0.99, or since we know we are borrowing, 0.50). For as long as you are a subscriber to the service (with a nominal overhead, service, or administrative fee - say $1 per month) you can continue to listen to your music as much as you want, as long as you use the music as intended. Once you cancel the service, the music stops working - a la Napster - but the service refunds your music deposit of
With this business model, while you have limited access to their music, they have limited access to your money. While
What about the artists? They have the option of taking a cut of the borrowing fee when it is paid by the listener, or they can claim partial ownership of the fee as it is invested, much like taking part in a mutual fund, and they can either cash out at anytime less an administrative fee, or they can get a percentage of the fund when the listener returns the song.
Lets put this all in perspective. Lets say I want to borrow song X by artist Y. I pay the company $0.50 to download song X with all of the DRM included. Lets take several scenarios with the artist. If the artist has a contract with the company that asks for his funds to be taken out right away (lets be generous and give the artists 10%) he would get $0.05 immediately. The company invests the money while I am listening to my borrowed song. Lets say I listen to it for 3 years before I decide to return it. Lets say that in the 3 years while I was listening to the music, the company invested my money and tripled it. They pay me my $0.50 back, give the artist his cut of $0.15, and they keep the remaining $0.85.
That is how the system would work, but in real life, it would look more like this: 40,000 people pay $20,000 to download 40,000 songs this month. The company invests that $20,000 into its own aggressive growth fund that may be worth millions of dollars. Lets say that during that same month, 1000 people quit the service or "return" their songs. The company withdraws $500 from its own fund, and pays back listeners their deposit. Making calculations on growth from the time those listeners borrowed the music until now, the company withdraws a set amount of money per rental/per artist, and seperate the funds out into accounts for those artists, and send cheques to those artists. The fund continues to grow, and is only touched to pay salaries (this whole process can easily be totally automated) and pay out fees to artists and listeners.
Wow, thats not half bad. Time to write another business plan!
Pirating Software, and Doom3
The next question centered on pirating, and of course much was made of copies downloaded a couple of days before the release. In fact id staff was in Hong Kong a few days before the US release and they found pirated copies being sold with full packaging.
CEO Todd Hollenshead particularly hit away at this issue. It is his belief that pirating only hurts the industry particularly as game production becomes more expensive. He feels studios like Looking Glass may be around if it wasn't for pirating. He worries that continued pirating will lead to a gaming world of movie games and focus group games only which is not good for anyone.
Oh, man, where to begin? I love games, and I was willing to plop my $50 down to play Doom3 the day it came out. What I can't understand are those who insist on shortchanging the developer who worked so hard on producing the game. But it seems that game developers are in a lose-lose proposition. Make a poor game, and word gets out, and no one buys it. Make a great game, and no one buys it - they download a free copy off the Internet instead. Truth be told, after playing the game from beginning to end, I would have been willing to pay up to $100 for that game, and the incredible experience it created. But I know I am in the minority, and would have had a hard time coughing up $100 without knowing what I was getting into.
I had a conversation with a friend of mine who the day I purchased my copy told me he was downloading his copy off the Internet. When I steered the conversation towards how his actions could hurt the developer, he brushed it off saying that he would be willing to buy it when it came out, however living in Europe delayed his ability to purchase a copy for another week or so. (Being that a week has passed, I should ask him if he bought a copy, or completed the game and has no desire to purchase a game he already played. My guess is that id software won't see a dime from my european friend despite his good intentions.)
I made it well known at work that I was playing the game. I placed the box cover on top of my cubicle, a tradition that several of us gamers have created in the office. One of my colleagues asked if I could make him a copy, and I told him my stance on pirating software, and that I would not make him a copy, and encouraged him to purchase a copy for himself. After all, the game does not cost that much, my colleague is single, and is well compensated for what he does. Surely he can afford it! He accepted my position, and the next day asked if I could bring the game into the office. I felt it wouldn't hurt to show him, and others who had expressed interest in the game what all the hype was about. I do not spend my entire day at my desk, and by mid-day my Doom3 disks had disappeared. When they returned by late afternoon, I started asking questions. Turns out my friend had "borrowed" my disks, and my cd key, and made a copy for himself - after I had expressly told him my feelings about the subject. Needless to say, I am rather upset by my colleague's actions. He claims it was to see if it would run on his machine/was a good enough game to play. I find both claims bogus as he could easily find the answers to both questions online.
What I can't understand is why. Why do people insist in cheating hard-working, honest software developers. Don't they understand that they are only hurting themselves? What happens when John Carmack and the other owners decide that id software is no longer profitable, and take all the millions of dollars they made on their previous games and call it quits? From where I am sitting I see that as a bad thing. If it weren't for id software, many of the games we play today would never have been developed. id software drives hardware and software innovation. Many software studios exist to modify the id 3D engine to produce other games. id software practically invented 3D on the computer, and their current innovations drive development even further. Despite all the hype surrounding both Far Cry and Half-Life 2, both engines are technically inferior to the Doom 3 engine. The Doom 3 engine can do things (graphically) that neither Source, or CryTek can do, and that will be something that many developers will consider when they create their next 3D game; which engine will they licence, and will they live with the limitations created by an inferior engine, or will they use the Doom 3 engine, and be limited only by their imagination.
I know most people who make illegal copies find someway to justify it to themselves. The easiest one is "its only 1 copy, they aren't going to miss my $50." Problem is, it isn't just your $50 dollars they are missing. It is the hundreds and thousands of others who are doing it as well. If it was just you, then you would be correct, and they most likely would not even miss it. As it is today, you are one of many, and you are voting with your money. However, instead of saying, "Yes, this is worth your time and effort to develop," you are saying, "Your product is not worth the time and effort you put into creating it." You are discouraging the creation of better games. You are discouraging the advancement in technology, by denying the researchers of those advancements a monetary return on their time and effort to develop those advancements.
My fear is that one day I may be so outnumbered by those who want to pirate good software, that the developers who would want to develop good software will decide against it for fear that they will be unable to make a living on their creations.
