Re: [OT] price of doing science (was: No call for Ada...)

Re: [OT] price of doing science (was: No call for Ada...)

[Alexander E. Kopilovich]

Marius Amado Alves wrote:

> Believe me, it's perceived as the "price", and not at all "natural", at
> least by the vast majority of scientists, form all over the world, and
> particulary Europe, I've been working with in various institutions for the
> last decade or so.

A scientist, who explicitly asks to believe him regarding a non-private issue
in which he apparently did not conduct any scientific research, looks somehow
strange.

How do you know what those many (vast majority) scientists to whom your are
referring do perceive? You could see only that they displayed publicly (and
the tradition requires them to display distaste for those purely
organizational matters).

> A scientist's dream is to have some department take care
> of all aspects except the scientific when preparing and managing projects.

"We all dream a lot -- some are lucky, some are not" (Rice & Webber, Joseph
and Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat; by the way, I recommend you this opera -
it's a good picture of some scientist's ideal).




Alexander Kopilovich                      aek@vib.usr.pu.ru
Saint-Petersburg
Russia

Re: [OT] price of doing science (was: No call for Ada...)

[Marius Amado Alves]

On Friday 30 April 2004 16:25, Alexander E. Kopilovich wrote:
> Marius Amado Alves wrote:
> > Believe me, it's perceived as the "price", and not at all "natural", at
> > least by the vast majority of scientists, form all over the world, and
> > particulary Europe, I've been working with in various institutions for
> > the last decade or so.
>
> A scientist, who explicitly asks to believe him regarding a non-private
> issue in which he apparently did not conduct any scientific research, looks
> somehow strange.

It is a private issue. I was offering my experience.

> How do you know what those many (vast majority) scientists to whom your are
> referring do perceive?

We talk.

> You could see only that they displayed publicly (and
> the tradition requires them to display distaste for those purely
> organizational matters).

Maybe there is a preverted clerk-at-spirit disguising as a scientist out 
there, but he must be one in a million.

Re: No call for Ada (was Re: Announcing new scripting/prototyping language)

[Dmitry A. Kazakov]

On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 07:41:12 +0400 (MSD), "Alexander E. Kopilovich"
<aek@VB1162.spb.edu> wrote:

>Dmitry A. Kazakov wrote:
>
>> It is merely the price scientists should pay for having an
>> ability to do science.
>
>No, these days majority of professional scientists recognize all that not as
>the price, but as the elements of more or less natural collaborative
>environment. Althought you certainly may say (as some others do) that there
>is no contradiction, as this collaborative environment is exactly the price
>for having an ability to do science. And that is the key - "to do science".
>If you want TO DO SCIENCE then this is The Way.

Who defined The Way?
Why is it the only way now?
Is there any better way?

>When the primary goal changes
>from "to know" and "to understand" to "to do" then the natural form of
>cooperation changes accordingly.

It seems that you are considering all aspects of human activity as
something God-given. Our science, law, market, highway striping and of
course not to forget, MS-Word are as they are. If so then there is no
basis for any discussion.

>> >> Where you saw individual software sellers?
>> >
>> >I'm quite surprised by this question - don't you know, for example, that many
>> >authours of shareware products are individual sellers? Don't you know that
>> >sufficiently many of those shareware products have significant customer base?
>>
>> Shareware products are irrelevant for the software market. They get
>> probably less than 0.1% of its volume.
>
>You are surprizing me again - you are looking at the current proportion only,
>that is, at the proportion of current shareware products in the whole current
>software market. But you seem not interested in how many commercial software
>products or their parts started as shareware products, and not interested in
>how many shareware products are used internally in software development, that
>is, as tools and components used in a development of commercial products.

I do not care how a commertial software started.

>> They are also irrelevant for software development as a phenomenon.
>
>Phenomenon? Is accounting a phenomenon? Is scientific or engineering
>computation a phenomenon? By the way, the WordNet tells me that:
>
>phenomenon -- (any state or process known through the senses rather than by
>intuition or reasoning)

They distinguish intuition from senses, which IMO difficult to do
(intuition is just an n-th sense), but otherwise it is OK.

>Do you really think that software development is known through the senses
>rather than by intuition or reasoning ?

Exactly. It is useless to reason about software development. If you do
not believe me, reread our discussion. It is a perfect example of what
happens when people start to talk about software developing in
general.

>> Because, it is clear that
>> software cannot be produced by individuals,
>
>It is not clear for me. Can an individual produce a novel? Well, a big novel,
>in several volumes? Of course not - because a paper must be produced (even
>for original writing) then the book must be printed in several thousand
>copies, than these books must be sold to thousands people.

To clarify things, I did not mean neither network administrators nor
those who are attaching labels on CDs.

>Certainly an
>individual can't do all that job. So why we still speak about the so-called
>"authors" as creators of novels?

I meant exclusively the software creators: the software architects,
project managers, programmers, testers, technical writers. That's for
software dealing with solely software. For an application,
entertainment software we need to add hundreds of other professions.

>> at least at the current level of technology.
>
>Individuals are very different in their abilities, software is very different
>in its various scales, and current level of technology is a mythical thing
>along with man-year (do you remember man-month?).

I do. Note, even that time software development was already not a
craft.

>> So shareware gives no answer to the question, how
>> humankind should organize software development.
>
>Humankind organizing software development... it's impressive. Worldwide
>Softlag Archipelago, I suppose?

Come on. There is UN, WTO and thousands of other worldwide
organizations trying to influence one or another aspect of human
activity. Most of these activities are far less important than
software development. Because, again, it will influence everything,
and in a very short period of time.

>> >For example, if you product faulted and the user has right to sue for that
>> >then s/he will sue *you*. And then you'll spend time in court, you'll spend
>> >money for lawyers, and even if you win the case, you still may be ruined. And
>> >your competitor can relatively easily provide 10 doubtful cases for you -
>> >just to keep you detracted from your business for some time and as a
>> >consequence - ruined.
>>
>> Why this does not happen (or very limited) in 90% of all other areas
>> of business activity, where one can sue? What is so special about
>> software, which forces us to treat it otherwise?
>
>This does not happen (or almost does not happen) in traditional areas where
>stable experience is present - for example, there is commom understanding
>that you can sue for a rotten food, but you can't sue if you dislike the food
>because it does not correspond to your taste. Also you can sue if a little
>rain destroys your shoe immediatealy after you bought it, but you can't sue
>if it appeared that you bought a shoe of wrong size and it does not fit your
>foot.

It is not experience, it is case law. You cannot have it before suit.
Remember the suits against tobacco industry and McDonalds.

>But there is no such traditional common understanding regarding software
>products - not only because software is too young (about two decades of more
>or less wide public use), but also because software is too generic notion.
>Look at computer games - is it software? If yes than what can be a valid
>cause for a suit? The game annoys me?

This is an unrelated case to what I wrote about. BTW, it is the most
difficult case. Anything heavily related to arts is a huge problem for
"market order". There is no good model to reward creators. The only
known way is copyright and patent law. This model works very poor. I
propose no changes here, for I have no idea how we (humans) could get
out this mess.

>The game damaged eyes of my child?
>The game attracted my child too strong?

These could be valid cases even now.

>Then look at text editors (not 
>necessarily MS Word). Can I sue the vendor of my text editor for passing my
>typo (well, very unplesant typo) into important printed document?

No. As with other products you can sue only if there is a serios
damage.

But what I actually meant, is that if there is a serious defect (such
as periodic crash, data corruption etc), the customer should have
right to get money back (during a definite period of time). There
could be other models. For example the vendor could provide a newer
version with the bug removed and an extended warranty time etc.

Again, all there measures are well known for a long period of time. Of
course no vendor there is happy with these rules. However they should
be, because in medieval Luebeck, they would be placed in a cage
exhibited to public until they die.

>> If yes, then tell me what kind of
>> knowledge one have to possess to really understand all the secrets of
>> words "NO WARRANTY"?
>
>The WordNet tells me that:
>
>guarantee, warrant, warranty -- (a written assurance that some product or
>service will be provided or will meet certain specifications)
>
>So "NO WARRANTY" in the context of a license for some product should mean
>that there is "NO WRITTEN ASSURANCE THAT THIS PRODUCT WILL MEET CERTAIN
>SPECIFICATIONS".
>
>Quite clear, I think. In short: "You can't sue".

See, you need not to be a lawyer.

>> >What I see in reality is quite rapid progress. One may clain that the progress
>> >might be more rapid and more comprehensive if some other rules were in effect.
>>
>> So far the only "rapid progress" you have specified was the number of
>> users. It is irrelevant.
>
>Not just number of users, but many new categories of users and many new
>sorts of applications.

Again this is not progress. It is a law of market which fills all
holes. This would happen anyway. For example Germany (and EU) keep
trying to stop practical use of genetics. They will fail. You cannot
prevent, though you can regulate (a bit).

And note, that legislation usually follows the market. So if a really
new application area appears, it is usually not covered by any law.
For good or bad.

>> >> 3. It gives customers no protection from fraud;
>> >
>> >But that gives vendors protection from dishonest or simply ignorant suits.
>>
>> The legal system. It has been worked so far, so I don't see why it
>> should collapse because of software.
>
>You mean suits about software or use of software tools within the legal
>system? Or the problem of how court, being a user of software will sue the
>software vendor?

The first.

>> Anyway, if you think it would, then prove it.
>
>Quite strange "then". Are we already in court, where I must prove all my
>statements? Anyway, there is nothing to prove.

No, your point seems to be: "there is something very specific in
software products which expulses them from juridical system." This is
a strong statement, so a proof, please.

>> >> 4. It imposes real threat to basic human rights (see DCMA)
>> >
>> >I can't see how introduction of liability of vendor will prevent or destroy
>> >DCMA and alike.
>>
>> Because you will not need "right of software use" to get money from.
>
>So you suppose that software vendors will happily give away their source

I do not care about their happiness! It is not my business, there are
psychoanalysts, gurus, astrologers at their service.

>of
>income and endorse the new one, which you propose, however murky and
>unexplored it is?

It is explored.

>Or you think that the State will go forward and suppress
>their resistance?

Yes. It goes after laughable removal IE from Windows. It goes after
reverse engineering etc. They should find a better occupation for our
taxes!

>Well, possibly there are states that indeed are ready to do
>so, but those countries do not determine the software market, at least
>currently, and probably they will not determine it in near future.

Nonsense.

>> >Generally, I don't see how can your "insurance" (or liability) decrease or
>> >suppress "right of use". I think that you propose to add that liability to
>> >"right of use".
>>
>> I propose that bare "right of use" licenses shall be made void. If
>> Microsoft writes "NO WARRANTY", then it automatically loses its right
>> of *any* legal protection against piracy.
>
>So you indeed propose to add liabiality of vendors to the "rights of use"
>for users. The worst of both worlds in a single bottle. Made in State.

As the first step, for those who are so obsessed with copyright
issues. Later when market will be freed from monopolies it will clean
itself from the "use right of a sequence of 0s and 1s" nonsense.

>> Everybody knows that the copyright protection laws work much
>> less efficiently and have much more nasty side effects than ones
>> regulating product quality.
>
>Not everybody. For example, I suppose that most authors - both in literature
>and in science - do not know that.

I answered that. Software conrolling a car is not literature neither
it is a science, which BTW practically knows no copyright.

>I think that they will not be happy if
>their copyrights were linked with their liability so that every dissatisfied
>reader could sue them. And I doubt that the quality of literature and science
>will advance with introduction of that liability. 

--
Regards,
Dmitry Kazakov
www.dmitry-kazakov.de

[OT] price of doing science (was: No call for Ada...)

[Marius Amado Alves]

"Modern science deals also with budgets, management, conferences, grants,
degrees and citations." (Kopilovich)

"That's scientific bureaucracy. It is merely the price scientists should pay
for having an ability to do science." (Kasakov)

"No, these days [the] majority of professional scientists recognize all that
not as the price, but as the elements of [a] more or less natural
collaborative environment." (Kopilovich)

Believe me, it's perceived as the "price", and not at all "natural", at
least by the vast majority of scientists, form all over the world, and
particulary Europe, I've been working with in various institutions for the
last decade or so. A scientist's dream is to have some department take care
of all aspects except the scientific when preparing and managing projects.
Let me tell you that in academic research centers we loose a lot of
opportunities because we don't have that department. And we don't have it
because we're always on a short budget and prefer to spend it in strictly
scientific activities. Yes it's a vicious circle. (I expect *industrial*
research centers e.g. PARC to have such departments, but I have no inside
knowledge.)