[News] Open Source Values Defended, Explained
Roy Schestowitz
,----[ Quote ]
| "Open source enables people to reach all those customers. It's a
| distribution model. The people who create great software can now reach
| the rest of the world."
|
| Businesses get the most protection from the GPL, he insisted. "They
| get protection from competition." The license's insistance on
| reciprocity means no one can take the code you wrote, tweak it, then
| compete with you.
`----
asj
To put it respectfully: BS. Now they can compete with you on service
and support (which commercial entities also compete on) - this simply
means there is less to differentiate you from your competitors.
I've never really understood what was so great about the open source
ecosystem model...it doesn't make sense because i see no positives
about it except for one thing - the ability to create extremely complex
apps with less problems because of the tons of people you can get to
work on it on the cheap. Unfortunately, 99.999999% of open source
projects don't fit this optimum as there is no monetary motivation for
most projects.
It's the same as communism - it looks great on paper and it surely
would have made a better world theoretically - EXCEPT human beings are
inherently selfish and a system like that would not work well in human
societies because of this flaw in human nature.
You can put out all the examples of opens source eating away at
commercial entities, but what exactly does that prove? When one thing
is free or almost free and the other side costs mucho dinero, the
consumer usually will pick the free or cheap one so long as the
features and performance are similar. So what does that show?
Basically, it shows other companies that it doesn't pay to do research
because they can't compete with companies that simply use free labor
from developers. So who does this hurt int he end? Developers! It
commoditizes software development, and takes away a source of high
income from developers. Unless of course those developers like doing
service and support....
.
Larry Qualig
->->Unless of course those developers
->-> like doing service and support....
The problem with even this part is that "service and support" (might)
work fine for larger projects like the operating system or a RDBMS but
it fails miserably for smaller projects.
How many people/companies out there are buying support contracts for
the Gimp? Does k3b make big bucks from support contracts? OpenOffice
writer... has anyone *ever* bought a support contract for the product?
asj
Before you start cursing me and hurling stuff, let me clarify...i still
think the open source model, when it reaches some level or tipping
point where an onrush of developers contribute freely to the project
and the project becomes self-sustaining, is the best development model
out there in terms of producing large, complex software. Nothing can
beat it, not even microsoft with its billion dollar war chest. In this
sense, i think open source will slowly overwhelm even microsoft in the
end, simply because the windows OS has grown so complex and large not
even a dominant company like MSFT can continue to grapple with the
complexities inherent in its structure.
I just don't think open source should take over the world because i
think it hurts developers in the long run.
On another subject, i am still vehemently anti-microsoft - not because
microsoft uses proprietary software, but because its monopoly (or near
monopoly) stifles competition and hinders innovation. Monolithic
entities are almost always less innovative than a very diverse
environment with many competing entities.
Paul Cooke
> On another subject, i am still vehemently anti-microsoft - not because
> microsoft uses proprietary software, but because its monopoly (or near
> monopoly) stifles competition and hinders innovation. Monolithic
> entities are almost always less innovative than a very diverse
> environment with many competing entities.
where would computing be now if Microsoft hadn't achieved monopoly status?
Hopefully, we'd have had masses of innovative new systems over that
period... remember how fast home computers evolved in the 80? I'm thinking
stuff like ZX80, ZX81, ZX Spectrum... three years apart, massive
differences in capability. Or who remembers the Sinclair QL? That should
have taken off if he'd used real disk drives and hadn't been facing the
start of the IBM clonopoly in the Office desktop arena... Who remembers the
Atari ST. That was mindblowing compared to the early IBM's and the Clones
of it's period.
Of course business would have been in a pickle... nothing to standardise
on... and businesses don't like that, they require a herd to follow as they
want to feel safe in their decisions. They don't like being different as it
means if things go wrong, then they get the chop for it, whereas if they
were using the "industry standard" then it's just shit happens... you don't
get fired for choosing the nice safe "Industry standard".
Hopefully Linus would still have messed around and created Linux. Mind you,
he might have had a far, far more powerfull computer to play with at first
for his money than that 386 he did get.
One of these days, people will get fired for having chosen Microsoft... Then
there'll be a big shift.
--
XP, unsafe on the information highway at any speed
John Bailo
> where would computing be now if Microsoft hadn't achieved monopoly status?
> Hopefully, we'd have had masses of innovative new systems over that
> period... remember how fast home computers evolved in the 80?
The thing is, taken as a whole, Microsoft in the IT industry was never ever
close to a monopoly. Yes, on the consumer desktop, but in the backroom?
No, no way. They had an outside in approach. Sell the desktop, then make
inroads into the server and database markets. Linux and Unix were always
the backbone of the Internet. And VM/MVS the backbone of business
computing.
Now the inside out approach is rebounding and taking over the desktop with
superior technology.
--
Texeme Textcasting powers
http://www.you-read-it-here-first.com
Larry Qualig
asj wrote:
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> > Augustin still believes in open source values
> >
> It's the same as communism - it looks great on paper and it surely
> would have made a better world theoretically - EXCEPT human beings are
> inherently selfish and a system like that would not work well in human
> societies because of this flaw in human nature.
>
I did some major <snippage> because this "inherent selfishness in human
beings" is the point I want to focus on. There *IS* a demonstrable
amount of truth to this and is the reason why communism doesn't last in
the long term and why free software is bound to have problems further
down the road. Ultimately people want what is rightly theirs. Communism
didn't work and in the long run I don't see how people will be willing
to create software for free while Google/Redhat/etc. make loads of
money from their efforts.
This "inherently selfish" behavior was very well illustrated in a
course that I took several years back. We had just moved to the Boston
area and I was working full-time but was also going to BU nights for my
MBA. One of my classes was called something like "Human psychology and
behavior in business" and one session the professor did an excellent
class experiment that demonstrated that humans are ultimately greedy
and selfish. He even put his own money on the table to prove this.
It's one of those "you had to be there" to fully appreciate the dynamic
but I'll do my best to explain how this worked. The experiment was a
"game" where the class was divided into 2 teams. (Worth noting that
this was a night class composed mainly of adults with families, full
time jobs, etc with real world experience. We weren't a bunch of kids.)
The game worked like this. Each team received $10 in one-dollar bills
and the game would last twenty "rounds." The teams were allowed to meet
one time before the first round of the game.
The game is simple. Each team gets two marbles… one red and one green.
Each round the team representative would walk up to the professor with
one of the two marbles. The team in the end with the most money wins
the game. Depending on what marbles were brought up the payout would be
as follows:
Green + Green = Both teams receive $1 from the professor.
Red + Red = Both teams give $1 to the professor.
Green + Red = Team with the Red marble receive $1 from the professor
and $1 from the other team.
So the game begins….
The two teams meet and we agree to bring Green marbles… each round.
We'd clean up from the professor and make $1 each round.
[Round 1]
Both teams bring a green marble. We each get $1 from the professor.
[Round 2]
Both teams bring a green marble. We each get another $1 from the
professor.
[Round 3]
We bring a green marble but the other team (cheats) and brings a red
marble. We lose a dollar and they get $2. (We give them a nasty stare.)
[Round 4]
We bring a green marble but the other team (cheats again) and brings a
red marble. We lose a dollar and they get $2. (We give them a very
nasty stare.)
[Round 5 through end]
We get tired of getting screwed and start bringing a red marble every
time. The other team also brings a red marble. Each round we both lose
and each give $1 back to the professor.
Inherent human greed and selfishness caused both teams to lose all of
our money back to the professor. It would have been easy for each team
to get $1 every round but greed prevailed. The professor then said
something like how he's been using this game in his class for 23 years
and has yet to lose a single dollar.
Tim Smith
> Green + Green = Both teams receive $1 from the professor.
> Red + Red = Both teams give $1 to the professor.
> Green + Red = Team with the Red marble receive $1 from the professor
> and $1 from the other team.
> [Round 1]
> Both teams bring a green marble. We each get $1 from the professor.
>
> [Round 2]
> Both teams bring a green marble. We each get another $1 from the
> professor.
>
> [Round 3]
> We bring a green marble but the other team (cheats) and brings a red
> marble. We lose a dollar and they get $2. (We give them a nasty stare.)
>
>
> [Round 4]
> We bring a green marble but the other team (cheats again) and brings a
> red marble. We lose a dollar and they get $2. (We give them a very
> nasty stare.)
>
> [Round 5 through end]
> We get tired of getting screwed and start bringing a red marble every
> time. The other team also brings a red marble. Each round we both lose
> and each give $1 back to the professor.
>
>
> Inherent human greed and selfishness caused both teams to lose all of
> our money back to the professor. It would have been easy for each team
> to get $1 every round but greed prevailed. The professor then said
> something like how he's been using this game in his class for 23 years
> and has yet to lose a single dollar.
Note that once it is clear that the other team is always doing red,
effectively the choice for your team is:
red: you lose $1
green: you lose $1
So, at this point, it doesn't matter financially to your team what it does.
Yet it choose red, to make sure the other team would also lose.
So, in addition to greed and selfishness, this little test also showed
vindictiveness. They deviated from green, and your team punished them, even
though that had no effect on your winnings or losings.
--
--Tim Smith
Mike
news:1149904515....@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> I've never really understood what was so great about the open source
> ecosystem model...it doesn't make sense because i see no positives
> about it except for one thing - the ability to create extremely complex
> apps with less problems because of the tons of people you can get to
> work on it on the cheap. Unfortunately, 99.999999% of open source
> projects don't fit this optimum as there is no monetary motivation for
> most projects.
You should find a couple of the _successful_ open source venture capitalists
and listen to what they have to say. I read an article a while back by one
such person who had three Cs of open source analysis: he looked for
Commodity, Community, and Cushion. To be financially successful, he argued,
all three Cs are required. It needs to be a Commodity product since so few
people are going to pay for the product or for support, and it had better
fit into existing businesses with minimal modification to the business or
the software. There better be a significant and dedicated Community, since
open source companies don't have the resources to do development and support
like a traditional software company. Last, it needs a serious price Cushion.
Open source can't compete with low-priced commercial software because there
isn't enough financial incentive, but a company like MySQL can compete quite
nicely with a company like Oracle.
-- Mike --
Otis Bricker
news:128mnqf...@news.supernews.com:
It may not have been Vindictiveness though his phrasing supports that.
It might just have been a desire not to see deceit and breech of contract
rewarded. IS it wrong when you have nothing to directly gain to see that
bad behavior is punished? If only as an example to others of the need to
act in good faith?
OB
Jeroen Wenting
> think the open source model, when it reaches some level or tipping
> point where an onrush of developers contribute freely to the project
> and the project becomes self-sustaining, is the best development model
which will never happen for the simple reason that if there's no more money
to be made creating software noone will do it anymore (at least not when the
then-current generation of programmers dies out).
> out there in terms of producing large, complex software. Nothing can
> beat it, not even microsoft with its billion dollar war chest. In this
BS. Without financial incentive people will only make "fun" software.
Looking at OS now 99% of it are developer tools, "frameworks", and things
like that.
Very little software in the sectors where the real users are (business
applications) are OS, and of those only a very small percentage is of any
quality (and that small percentage is created under heavy corporate
sponsorship).
> sense, i think open source will slowly overwhelm even microsoft in the
> end, simply because the windows OS has grown so complex and large not
> even a dominant company like MSFT can continue to grapple with the
> complexities inherent in its structure.
>
OS teams will have even more trouble managing projects of such magnitude
simply because there's no incentive for the members to listen to the leaders
(in fact they all want to play the boss) and follow orders.
So it quickly devolves into a free for all where everyone does what he
himself likes most, and the most critical parts of the system get completely
ignored.
Maintenance is shunned in favour of adding fun new features.
> I just don't think open source should take over the world because i
> think it hurts developers in the long run.
>
That's an understatement.
> On another subject, i am still vehemently anti-microsoft - not because
> microsoft uses proprietary software, but because its monopoly (or near
> monopoly) stifles competition and hinders innovation. Monolithic
> entities are almost always less innovative than a very diverse
> environment with many competing entities.
>
In other words you've fallen heads over heels for the religious
anti-Microsoft campaign launched by the priests of slashdot.
Jeroen Wenting
"Paul Cooke" <paul.c...@NOSPAMblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:2164130.Q...@127.0.0.1...
> asj wrote:
>
>> On another subject, i am still vehemently anti-microsoft - not because
>> microsoft uses proprietary software, but because its monopoly (or near
>> monopoly) stifles competition and hinders innovation. Monolithic
>> entities are almost always less innovative than a very diverse
>> environment with many competing entities.
>
> where would computing be now if Microsoft hadn't achieved monopoly status?
> Hopefully, we'd have had masses of innovative new systems over that
> period... remember how fast home computers evolved in the 80? I'm thinking
> stuff like ZX80, ZX81, ZX Spectrum... three years apart, massive
so tons of mutually incompatible hardware and software systems causing a
massive increase in the cost of running a software company.
Stunted growth in the software sector as companies have to choose to either
content with a miniscule market or spend inordinate amounts of money to
create software to run on dozens of platforms.
The era you revere was good for only one thing: hardware development.
In effect we see the same now in the game console business, which is
hardware driven rather than software driven.
> differences in capability. Or who remembers the Sinclair QL? That should
> have taken off if he'd used real disk drives and hadn't been facing the
> start of the IBM clonopoly in the Office desktop arena... Who remembers
> the
> Atari ST. That was mindblowing compared to the early IBM's and the Clones
> of it's period.
>
It was also aimed at a market segment that was rather narrowly defined and
very small compared to that for the IBM PC.
In the end flexibility and open standards won out over rigidly defined and
protected hardware/software systems.
Microsoft won the OS wars by creating an operating system that wasn't
hardwired to a single exact hardware combination but could run on pretty
much anything out there as long as it ran on a specific CPU architecture.
> Hopefully Linus would still have messed around and created Linux. Mind
> you,
> he might have had a far, far more powerfull computer to play with at first
> for his money than that 386 he did get.
>
He wouldn't have because there'd have been no receptive computers to run it
on.
> One of these days, people will get fired for having chosen Microsoft...
> Then
> there'll be a big shift.
>
That'll be the day.
I'd fire anyone choosing any OS or hardware without proper justification,
especially Linux which is almost exclusively chosen based on religious
reasons rather than business requirements.
Windows works, as long as people don't install any piece of crap they
download from the internet on it.
The same cannot be said about Linux, which can take years to properly get it
configured on a system, by which time there have been a dozen new versions
to replace it.
Larry Qualig
Otis & Tim,
Just to reiterate that my original post contained the following line -
"It's one of those "you had to be there" to fully appreciate the
dynamic but I'll do my best to explain how this worked."
It was a very interesting experiment for several reasons. Mainly
because we had a very friendly class. The atmosphere was generally
light and friendly and we all got along well. But when it came
competitive this way something happenend.
It's hard to remember the exact emotions we had at the time (it was
over 10 years ago) but I'd say that these changed as the game
progressed. The first time we "went red" it was probably a 'jab' at the
other team.... a reminder. As the game progressed the reason eventually
changed to vendiction and ultimately to dispair.
It was basically "just a stupid game" but there was no way we were
going to sit there like a bunch of stooges and have the other team take
our money as we sit by. If we were going to "lose out" because of them
then damn-it, we were going make sure that they lost out too.
The prof used his own money for this (a whole $40) but as he said...
he's been doing this for twenty something years and has yet to lose a
single dollar. Human reaction is more predictable then people are
willing to believe.
Tor Iver Wilhelmsen
> which will never happen for the simple reason that if there's no more money
> to be made creating software noone will do it anymore (at least not when the
> then-current generation of programmers dies out).
There's a difference between making money creating software (which is
the dwindling market) and adapting (free) software to a client's needs
(which is the market where money can be made). If our company can
deliver a customized solution running happily on Tomcat or JBoss
instead of paying Oracle or IBM for an application server, that's and
advantage for us, since we don't have a middleware license cost to add
to the cost.
> BS. Without financial incentive people will only make "fun"
> software. Looking at OS now 99% of it are developer tools,
> "frameworks", and things like that.
What is "fun" about tools and middleware? Is your view of software
development so narrow you only look at desktop applications?
> Very little software in the sectors where the real users are (business
> applications) are OS, and of those only a very small percentage is of any
> quality (and that small percentage is created under heavy corporate
> sponsorship).
Business applications like SAP and Oracle Financials implement complex
business rules. But do they provide any more "guarantees" than the
no-guarantee open source licenses do?
Let's look at http://www.cio.com/archive/enterprise/011598_erp.html
shall we?
The costs associated with, say, SAP R/3, are mostly tied to training,
integration, testing, data conversion, and analysis. These costs would
have been the same for an OS solution like one of these:
http://www.compiere.org/
http://www.ofbiz.org/
http://www.tinyerp.org/
But in addition, someone picking SAP or Oracle's solution would have a
license cost (or more, i.e. Oracle will also sell you their Enterprise
database because their solutions are tied to the database) added to
that bill.
Someone choosing an OS solution would be able to alter the software to
suit their needs faster than by submitting change requests to one of
the two (after Oracle bought Peoplesoft and Siebel) giants.
> OS teams will have even more trouble managing projects of such
> magnitude simply because there's no incentive for the members to
> listen to the leaders (in fact they all want to play the boss) and
> follow orders.
Why not? Your view of OS development is very flawed and prejudiced -
most OS projects have one or more "bosses" who steer the project.
> So it quickly devolves into a free for all where everyone does what
> he himself likes most, and the most critical parts of the system get
> completely ignored.
Hardly.
> Maintenance is shunned in favour of adding fun new features.
Examples, please?
> In other words you've fallen heads over heels for the religious
> anti-Microsoft campaign launched by the priests of slashdot.
Well that was very mature of you... I presume back in 1980 you would
have accused anyone defending tiny Microsoft against the charges that
their MS-/PC-DOS wrecked the livelihoods of CP/M programmers as
"anti-Digital Research priests".
Ray Ingles
> Before you start cursing me and hurling stuff, let me clarify...i still
> think the open source model, when it reaches some level or tipping
> point where an onrush of developers contribute freely to the project
> and the project becomes self-sustaining, is the best development model
> out there in terms of producing large, complex software.
[...]
> I just don't think open source should take over the world because i
> think it hurts developers in the long run.
You are, not suprisingly, far from the first person to say such things.
However, this sort of thinking is based on a misunderstanding:
http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/magic-cauldron/ar01s03.html
"When most people try to reason about software-production economics,
they tend to assume a 'factory model' which is founded on the following
fundamental premises:
1. Most developer time is paid for by sale value.
2. The sale value of software is proportional to its development cost
(i.e., the cost of the resources required to functionally replicate it)
and to its use value.
In other words, people have a strong tendency to assume that software
has the value characteristics of a typical manufactured good. But both
of these assumptions are demonstrably false...
Scanning the employment section of your local newspaper is an
enlightening experiment that I urge the reader to perform for him- or
herself. Examine the jobs listings under programming, data processing,
and software engineering for positions that involve the development of
software. Categorize each such job according to whether the software is
being developed for use or for sale.
It will quickly become clear that, even given the most inclusive
definition of or sale', at least 19 in 20 of the salaries offered are
being funded strictly by use value (that is, value as an intermediate
good). This is our reason for believing that only 5% of the industry is
sale-value-driven. Note, however, that the rest of the analysis in this
essay is relatively insensitive to this number; if it were 15% or even
20%, the economic consequences would remain essentially the same."
The whole thing's worth reading:
http://www.catb.org/~esr/writings/cathedral-bazaar/magic-cauldron/
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
One of the real motives for the invasion of Iraq was to give the
world a demonstration of American power. It's a measure of how
badly things have gone that now we're told we can't leave because
that would be a demonstration of American weakness. - Paul Krugman
Oliver Wong
"Larry Qualig" <lqu...@uku.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1150034939.0...@j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
For this "stupid game", do the rules allow you to speak to the other
team? That is, after rounds 5 through 10, are you allow to sent a diplomat
over to the other team and say "This is stupid. We're both losing $1 to the
professor. Let's agree to go back to green marbles and we'll BOTH gain
something. Next game, we'll bring a green marble. And remember, if you screw
us over and bring a red marble, you'll gain $2 that ONE day, and then we'll
start bringing red marbles, and we'll both lose. So in the long term, red
marbles will hurt us. If we BOTH bring green marbles, then we can BOTH gain
$1 indefinitely (i.e. MUCH more than a mere $2)." etc. And then go ahead and
bring another green marble. And if they're idiots and bring another red
marble, then pay the $1 and then stop playing.
- Oliver
Ray Ingles
> I did some major <snippage> because this "inherent selfishness in human
> beings" is the point I want to focus on. There *IS* a demonstrable
> amount of truth to this and is the reason why communism doesn't last in
> the long term and why free software is bound to have problems further
> down the road.
Free software/open source (two concepts with common subsets) is as much
about 'communism' as is using metric parts. Common standards for
infrastructure make sense, economically.
> One of my classes was called something like "Human psychology and
> behavior in business" and one session the professor did an excellent
> class experiment that demonstrated that humans are ultimately greedy
> and selfish.
The real world seldom maps neatly to a game. If he'd decided to play
the Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma or Stag Hunt the results might have been
different.
> Inherent human greed and selfishness caused both teams to lose all of
> our money back to the professor.
Can you imagine conditions whereby the result might have been
different? I think perhaps you are overgeneralzing the result.
Note: I don't believe that humans are inherently decent and sweetness
and light. I just don't believe the converse, either.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"When Hollywood drops a bomb, nobody cares. When NASA loses
a similar amount of money trying to advance human knowledge,
it's practically the end of the world." - John Miles
Larry Qualig
I don't remember the exact rules but my best recollection is that we
*definitely* were able to meet with the other team before the game
started. I'm fairly certain that we were able to meet with them one
additional time after N-many rounds of the game. (Somewhere around
round 8 would be my guess.) I'm positive on the initial meeting but not
100% certain on the 2nd one.
> And if they're idiots and bring another red
> marble, then pay the $1 and then stop playing.
"Stop playing" was not an option we could invoke. Any more than Sun
Micro can decide that they are suddenly going to stop playing because
they don't like what their competitors are doing.
Larry Qualig
Ray Ingles wrote:
> On 2006-06-10, Larry Qualig <lqu...@uku.co.uk> wrote:
> > I did some major <snippage> because this "inherent selfishness in human
> > beings" is the point I want to focus on. There *IS* a demonstrable
> > amount of truth to this and is the reason why communism doesn't last in
> > the long term and why free software is bound to have problems further
> > down the road.
>
> Free software/open source (two concepts with common subsets) is as much
> about 'communism' as is using metric parts. Common standards for
> infrastructure make sense, economically.
>
> > One of my classes was called something like "Human psychology and
> > behavior in business" and one session the professor did an excellent
> > class experiment that demonstrated that humans are ultimately greedy
> > and selfish.
>
> The real world seldom maps neatly to a game. If he'd decided to play
> the Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma or Stag Hunt the results might have been
> different.
This game had similarities to the iterated prisoners dilemma with the
exception that there was no way to 'punish' bad behavior. When the
other team "misbehaved" with a red marble their betrayal would get
rewarded but we didn't have a means to punish them without also
punishing our own team.
> > Inherent human greed and selfishness caused both teams to lose all of
> > our money back to the professor.
>
> Can you imagine conditions whereby the result might have been
> different? I think perhaps you are overgeneralzing the result.
Most certainly. Without "different results" the world as we know it
today would be very different. Charities, philanthropy, volunteering,
etc. all wouldn't exist. I don't believe the purpose of the exercise
was to show that this is *always* the nature of human behavior. But
rather to show that under certain conditions human behavior is
predictable.
Ray Ingles
>> The real world seldom maps neatly to a game. If he'd decided to play
>> the Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma or Stag Hunt the results might have been
>> different.
>
> This game had similarities to the iterated prisoners dilemma with the
> exception that there was no way to 'punish' bad behavior.
That is a key feature, and shows up a lot in studies of this sort of
phenomenon. See, e.g.:
http://www.hpl.hp.com/research/idl/projects/multiagent/dilemmas/
(HP is applying this research to Internet protocols, actually.)
> I don't believe the purpose of the exercise
> was to show that this is *always* the nature of human behavior. But
> rather to show that under certain conditions human behavior is
> predictable.
In a statistical sense, perhaps. But even then, well, there were people
who protected Jews and Gypsies from the Nazis...
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"Una saus victus nullam sperare salutem." - The one hope
of the damned is not to hope for safety.
Oliver Wong
>
> Oliver Wong wrote:
>
>> And if they're idiots and bring another red
>> marble, then pay the $1 and then stop playing.
>
> "Stop playing" was not an option we could invoke. Any more than Sun
> Micro can decide that they are suddenly going to stop playing because
> they don't like what their competitors are doing.
I don't know all the laws involved in running a business, but I assumed
that at any point, you could decide to just close down your business, sell
all your assets, and keep the cash, (or equivalently, just transfer
ownership of the business to someone else) assuming it's privately owned. I
also assumed you could do something similar for a publicly traded company,
except you'd probably need the majority vote of the shareholders.
In the context of the "stupid game" though, since you're forced to keep
playing, I suppose it'll take a lot of "something" (guts? zen? stupidity?)
to be able to force yourself to bring in the green marble, even after your
adversary has kept bringing in the red marble.
- Oliver
Jamie Hart
that there was only two sides in the game when in reality there were
three. By the end, both teams were so conserned with not letting the
other team gain an advantage, that they allowed all their money (alright
all the profs money that he loaned them) to be taken by that third side.
And yes I admit that this would be successful practically every time,
even those that worked out that the object of the game wasn't to get the
most money, or even to stop the other team getting the most, but to make
sure the game didn't go the way the professor expected, would have a
hard time convincing his team mates.
Obviously the answer was for your team to take green marbles every time,
then it's irrelevant what the other team does, you are still ensuring
that the professor is losing money.
Mark Kent
Ray Ingles <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> espoused:
> On 2006-06-13, Larry Qualig <lqu...@uku.co.uk> wrote:
>>> The real world seldom maps neatly to a game. If he'd decided to play
>>> the Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma or Stag Hunt the results might have been
>>> different.
>>
>> This game had similarities to the iterated prisoners dilemma with the
>> exception that there was no way to 'punish' bad behavior.
>
> That is a key feature, and shows up a lot in studies of this sort of
> phenomenon. See, e.g.:
>
> http://www.hpl.hp.com/research/idl/projects/multiagent/dilemmas/
>
> (HP is applying this research to Internet protocols, actually.)
The approach is not necessary - information theory is enough to
demonstrate how networks need to operate. Whilst it might be interesting
to consider the behaviour of higher level functions, in reality,
you only need to worry about whether they're trying to send a file,
message or stream. If it's a stream, then it's time-critical, otherwise
it's not. If it's not, then you can afford to use lossy protocols, like
IP, if it is, then protocols like IP only work if they're significantly
over-provided - which is expensive & wasteful.
>
>> I don't believe the purpose of the exercise
>> was to show that this is *always* the nature of human behavior. But
>> rather to show that under certain conditions human behavior is
>> predictable.
>
> In a statistical sense, perhaps. But even then, well, there were people
> who protected Jews and Gypsies from the Nazis...
>
There've been numerous studies of this kind, invariably they show that
people are just not very nice at all, have an overblown deference to
authority (or perceived authority), and given what they perceive to be
the backing of authority, are willing to inflict extremely unpleasant
actions on individuals.
As you say, there have been some exceptions - unfortunately, that
appears to be what they remain as.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
As Zeus said to Narcissus, "Watch yourself."
asj
> I don't see how people will be willing
> to create software for free while Google/Redhat/etc. make loads of
> money from their efforts.
Because:
(1) There's always new fish in the water who are idealistic like heck
(2) Society has imbued into the creation of software a non-monetary
value which to many people is as good as money - bragging rights or
pride in that they were the creators or part creators of that software
(3) In every population, there really are people who will continue to
unselfishly give their all no matter that they don't get any money for
it - so long as they believe it is for the general good.
Ray Ingles
>> http://www.hpl.hp.com/research/idl/projects/multiagent/dilemmas/
>> (HP is applying this research to Internet protocols, actually.)
>
> The approach is not necessary - information theory is enough to
> demonstrate how networks need to operate.
I'm not so sure, considering that there's actual malware intended to
*break* systems (e.g. DOS attacks) and then there's some "net
accelerators" I've seen which deliberately interfere with TCP's
exponential back-off feature. Sure, the guy doing it gets faster
performance, slowing down everyone else... until two people are doing
it, and *everyone's* performance, including the malefactors, goes to
hell.
> There've been numerous studies of this kind, invariably they show that
> people are just not very nice at all
Um, in a word, no.
There are *circumstances* in which people are *very rarely* nice, and
*other* circumstances where people *tend* to be very cooperative and
even courageous.
A perhaps relevant Heinlein quote: "Being generous is inborn; being
altruistic is a learned perversity. No resemblance."
> As you say, there have been some exceptions - unfortunately, that
> appears to be what they remain as.
One reason for studying this sort of thing is to discover what sort of
circumstances help produce those 'exceptions'. And then making them more
common.
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"Just because you're manic doesn't mean the walls aren't bouncy!"
- Mr. Manic on Slashdot
Mark Kent
Ray Ingles <sorc...@localhost.localdomain> espoused:
>>> http://www.hpl.hp.com/research/idl/projects/multiagent/dilemmas/
>>> (HP is applying this research to Internet protocols, actually.)
>>
>> The approach is not necessary - information theory is enough to
>> demonstrate how networks need to operate.
>
> I'm not so sure, considering that there's actual malware intended to
> *break* systems (e.g. DOS attacks) and then there's some "net
> accelerators" I've seen which deliberately interfere with TCP's
> exponential back-off feature. Sure, the guy doing it gets faster
> performance, slowing down everyone else... until two people are doing
> it, and *everyone's* performance, including the malefactors, goes to
> hell.
As I note below, everyone would do this if they thought that there might
be advantage from it. A good example is to look at car driving
behaviour, particularly in Essex!
In terms of how to make the internet work, it's easy, but the solutions
are at lower network layers, and remain essentially based on the same
things that telco networks have been based on for many years - that's
why you can more or less always get through when you make a phone call,
and yet on the internet half the time you can't make a connection -
consider that the internet has way more bandwidth than the phone
network, and yet still doesn't work.
Information theory holds the answers, and they turn out to be three
networking modes.
>
>> There've been numerous studies of this kind, invariably they show that
>> people are just not very nice at all
>
> Um, in a word, no.
Um, yes there have... I recall studying them in my psychology subsid,
and my sister is doing a masters in this stuff at the moment...
>
> There are *circumstances* in which people are *very rarely* nice, and
> *other* circumstances where people *tend* to be very cooperative and
> even courageous.
And the balance is... determined by the prisoner's dilemma thinking.
People only cooperate if they feel its the only way of getting what they
want.
>
> A perhaps relevant Heinlein quote: "Being generous is inborn; being
> altruistic is a learned perversity. No resemblance."
I've never ever seen any evidence that altruism exists.
>
>> As you say, there have been some exceptions - unfortunately, that
>> appears to be what they remain as.
>
> One reason for studying this sort of thing is to discover what sort of
> circumstances help produce those 'exceptions'. And then making them more
> common.
>
I don't think that you can... although I'd agree that it would be nice
if you could.
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
"Good health" is merely the slowest rate at which one can die.
Ray Ingles
>> There are *circumstances* in which people are *very rarely* nice, and
>> *other* circumstances where people *tend* to be very cooperative and
>> even courageous.
>
> And the balance is... determined by the prisoner's dilemma thinking.
> People only cooperate if they feel its the only way of getting what they
> want.
People are self-serving, yes, but that is not the same as 'malicious',
or even necessarily 'greedy'. All but a few psychology experiments are
short-lived affairs where long-term interests (as in, longer than an
hour or two) don't come up. In such circumstances short-term gains
dominate, yes.
But longer-term studies do show that people are capable of cooperating
for mutual benefit when the timeframe is long enough for that to be
significant. Of course, this is where people are given relative parity
in terms of power - when that's not the case, well, you get this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment
>> A perhaps relevant Heinlein quote: "Being generous is inborn; being
>> altruistic is a learned perversity. No resemblance."
>
> I've never ever seen any evidence that altruism exists.
If you'll study the quote carefully, it's not claiming that it does.
>> One reason for studying this sort of thing is to discover what sort of
>> circumstances help produce those 'exceptions'. And then making them more
>> common.
>
> I don't think that you can... although I'd agree that it would be nice
> if you could.
No way to know until you try...
--
Sincerely,
Ray Ingles (313) 227-2317
"...we must ask not whether the guilty deserve more protection than
those procedures afford, but whether the innocent do."
- Ronald Dworkin, on military tribunals, detention without charges,
and surveillance of lawyer-client communication