Selling the DRaMa

Last night we rented "Walk the Line" from Hollywood Video, brought it home, and popped it into the computer. Lo and behold, it won't play because of a DRM copy protection that thinks my monitor and graphics card don't belong together. All of my hardware is legitimate, I paid money to rent the video, and I don't get to watch it. Next I tried my Playstation 2 as a DVD player. Again, the DVD won't play because of the copy protection. Finally, I tried my laptop. Again, it refused to play. Three perfectly legitimate devices and not one can play "Walk the Line" because of the DRM copy protection. That kind of ruins your night, you know?

Tonight I was reading an article on IGN.com and came across a quote that sums up exactly what I was feeling yesterday:

"Rampant piracy is just unserved customers" - Jason Holtman, Director of Business Development, Valve Software

If I get a legitimate copy of a movie and can't play it on legitimate hardware, doesn't that make the pirated version more valuable than your frisbee? Can't you get it through your thick skulls!? I want to get the movie legitimately! I want to pay money for it! Stop kicking your own butts! Stop ruining your own business!

Prince of Thieves

It is a well established fact that the music industry takes advantage of artists to such an extreme that it is robbery in fact, if not in law. Based on this fact, many people feel that there is no harm in downloading music illegally, after all, you're just robbing the robbers. It's heroic in a way, like Robin Hood.

This is a misguided line of thought. Robin Hood and his Merry Men had no say over the laws by which they were unfairly governed. On the other hand, you and I have the power to change the laws of the land. The laws that the music industry exploits were put into place by officials that we elected. If we would like to overturn their corruption, it should be done through the rule of law. Of course, this requires time. Public opinion cannot be altered overnight. Fortunately, it is possible and it will happen. Until then, we should subject ourselves to the rule of laws that we ourselves created.

Trust and Internet Safety

"How much?" That is the question that every parent must answer about the control they exercise over their children's internet usage. How much should parents restrict a child's website access? How much should they monitor the websites their child visits? How much should they be monitoring email and chat to ensure their child's safety? Taking an authoritarian approach will certainly help to keep the child safe, but it sacrifices privacy. On the other hand, being overly lax about monitoring can be equivalent to leaving them alone in a strange city - that kid's toast.

What it comes down to is trust. A parent cannot reasonably trust their five year old to make decisions about people who are safe to interact with, nor about content that is suitable for viewing. However, a sixteen year old should be capable of such decisions. This is where trust comes in. Some sixteen year olds will, over time, demonstrate their ability to make responsible decisions, on and off the computer. They should be given your full trust, and only receive the occasional check on browser history. Other sixteen year olds will have demonstrated themselves less trustworthy than a five year old, and should be closely monitored, or restricted from the computer altogether. There is an entire spectrum in between these two extremes, and the level of monitoring should correspond to their ability to be responsible.

Before I finish, I'd like to add one caveat. No matter how much trust a child has earned from their parents, as long as they are under your care, the computer should be placed in a location where it is visible to anyone. It's not even necessary to scrutinize what is on the screen, the presence of others in the room is enough to make a child think twice when tempted to be irresponsible online. Privacy and safety are both important, but as a parent your responsibility is primarily to the latter with a balance to the former.

Open Module Software

Software development typically comes in two flavors. First, the classic style of development is to have a dedicated team of developers slave over the code until it congeals into your product. Second, the open source approach, in which anyone and everyone can scrutinize the code and provide fixes or new functionality. Businesses tend to prefer the first approach because it keeps their code hidden and therefore users must pay for the code in order to use it. The second approach, on the other hand, allows for quick debugging on a wide range of platforms and usage situations. Can a business have the best of both worlds?

Game development in particular must have a closed source, or the game will quickly be distributed and its value to the developer lost. In such a situation, I think a modular approach would be ideal. Certain key pieces of the code can be open sourced to users who can help with blackbox testing. In fact, almost all code could be open sourced, but the artwork withheld. The engine of the game could be supplied, but with a very simple level, and filler artwork. Testers can help debug the engine code, but the same testers would still be interested in buying the game, essentially paying for content. The license for the code could contain a non-compete agreement for anyone who wishes to use the code. This same model could be extrapolated to other types of software, providing the basic engine for testing, but withholding key content.

Open Source, Open World

Open source software has been important in creating a level playing field for people around the world. Software is now part of almost every business, so providing free software and access to source code allows businesses an equal chance to move their product. However, software is only part of the equation in any business.

Recently, my wife showed me a sewing pattern she had found on a website called Burdastyle: Open Source Sewing. Suddenly, a light came on in my mind. Open sourcing software is extremely important, but each industry has its own specialized set of data that could be open sourced. If the foundational dataset from each industry is open sourced, then small businesses will have an easier time launching new ideas. What would set companies apart and allow some to be successful would be the ability to innovate, specialize, or have some good ol' creativity. A new home builder could start making homes from blueprints that are freely available, then specialize their homes to a specific clientèle. An auto maker could start with a vehicle spec they found online, then innovate the design in some way to get a leg up on the competition.

Unfortunately, most industry players won't be interested in giving up even the smallest amount of data to their competition. Creating an open source movement in non-software industries will require a dedicated set of industry geeks to gather online in their own pseudo companies to share ideas. Why would they bother? For the prestige, for the fun, for the greater good. That's how the software geeks were motivated.

Privacy in Thought

This post is written in response to this article on New Scientist.com

Yesterday, Michael Callahan, co-founder of Ambient Corporation, demonstrated a neckband that allows for "telepathic" chat. The neckband can sense signals being sent from the brain to the vocal cords and translate them into computerized text or speech, even if no words are actually spoken. While this is still much different from actual mind reading, in that the sub-vocalization must be intentional on the user's part, it demonstrates the potential for tapping into the brain's signals. This brings up an ethical dilemma. Certainly, tapping into brain signals can be very useful in aiding the disabled. In theory, sight could be restored to the blind, hearing to the deaf, mobility to the disabled. On the other hand, there is the potential that technology could be developed to tap into your inner most thoughts. Even taking the current technology a step further to read audio signals that were never intended to leave the mind would present a serious privacy issue. In a world where panopticon is becoming reality, our thoughts may become our last refuge from peering eyes. We should protect our privacy of thought and never take the step into true mind reading.

Women in Computing

Why are there so few women compared with men in Computer Science? My wife has no interest in Computer Science whatsoever, nor does she have interest in any of the hard sciences. In order to learn more about the nature versus nurture aspects of why women often avoid the sciences, I asked her questions about her personal experiences. What I found is that she never felt pressured to avoid the sciences. She understands that the opportunity is there if she wishes to take it. She feels innately drawn to other subjects like history, art, and health. She is clearly not unhappy about the lack of science in her life, but is this due to her nature as a woman, or the culture she was brought up in?

What I saw in the family I grew up in was that my sisters were introduced to computers at the same time as my brother and I. They also enjoyed using them, but my brother and I were obsessive about them. I believe the culture in my home gave my sisters equal incentive to learn about computers. The difference was the ability to tinker obsessively. I would spend hours to figure out new things that the computer could do; to my sisters that was boring. In my opinion it is the male tinkering obsession that creates the gender gap in Computer Science. Is the obsession caused by nurture or nature? It is most certainly both.