handyfloss

A couple of weeks ago I sent a new to Menéame (collaborative news site in Spanish), and today I said to myself: WTF? I am running out of good ideas for blog entries (if I ever had any), so I could as well copy-paste that new here :^)

Basically, it follows the line of my first post in this blog (and a later one), dismantling stupid accusations of “vulnerabilities” of FLOSS programs (then, Firefox, now, OpenOffice.org).

Kaspersky Labs announced some time ago that OpenOffice.org was vulnerable to a malicious script attack, something they tagged as “virus”, but which is definitenly not. The answer from OOo can be read at LinuxWeeklyNews.net.

This is not to say FLOSS is devoid of bugs and vulneravilities. I only want to point out lame FUD campaigns, no doubt sponsored by commercial software companies (you know who). The only aim of these misinformation campaigns is to make the average user think that FLOSS is not so good, after all, and that, if Linux doesn’t even have this invulnerability they speak of, then, what good is it?

Now, how lame is that? Instead of putting themselves together and fixing their pathetic crap of OS, they spend their money throwing shit to the FLOSS, in the hope that both will be regarded as rubbish, instead of none.

[Update: (Nov 19, 2007) The LinuxAdvocate.org link seems to have disappeared. You can find a related analysis in PDF format at cybersource.com.au]

You can find a nice explanation, in everyday english, of what the different clauses of the Windows XP EULA (End Use License Agreement) mean at: LinuxAdvocate.org.

The original EULA can be found at the Microsoft site, and below is a comparison with the wonderful xxdiff graphical file (and directory) comparator. It proves that the EULA given at LinuxAdvocate.org is correct, because the grey text (the quoted EULA) is equal in both sides, and the only difference is the added (green) sections in the LinuxAdvocate.org side, which correspond to the explanations.

Figure 1: xxdiff of WinXP Eula (right), and LinuxAdvocate.org explanation (left). Click to enlarge

Interesting excerpts:

You agree that at any time, and at the request of content providers Microsoft may disable certain features on your computer, such as the ability to play your music or movie files.

These restrictions apply to all software that you get from Microsoft in the future. Future software may contain further restrictions.

Microsoft may cancel any service that they provide to you at any time and for any reason.

You agree that Microsoft can automatically and without your consent put new software on your computer.

Microsoft assures you that Windows XP Home will work correctly for the first 90 days. They do not assure you that Windows XP Home or any service packs or hot fixes will work correctly after this time.

Uff, follow the link above and read it yourself, because all the clauses are juicy.

Think of the kind of subjugation commercial software asks from you. Think freely. Think free. Think FLOSS!!

Today the power supply has failed again, so here goes the updated list of blackouts I have been able to compile, with comments if any:

1. 2005-Dec-13
2. 2005-Dec-21
3. 2006-May-26 (The card-based automated access to the Faculty broke down)
4. 2006-Jun-04
5. 2006-Jun-08
6. 2006-Jun-13
7. 2006-Jun-16

Summary: 7 blackouts in 184 days, or 26.3 dpb (days per blackout).

First post in the series: here

What do pharmaceutical, commercial software, film and discographic companies have in common? Well, among other things, fear to piracy. The three of them make products that are first generated at a high cost, but are afterwards trivially replicated. Actually, patents are designed with this into mind. From the Wikipedia entry for patent, one of the four main reasons for patents would be that:

[…] in many industries (especially those with high fixed costs and low marginal costs and low reverse engineering costs – pharmaceuticals and computer software being the two prototyical examples), once an invention exists and has been tested, the cost of actually turning it into a product is typically six times or more the R&D cost. Unless there is some way to prevent copies from competing at the marginal cost of production, companies will not make that productization investment.

Recently I discussed with a friend the recurrent subject of fair use of copyrighted material, and the applicability of the term “piracy” for downloading music and movies from the Internet. We stumbled upon a thorny double moral problem, because my friend would not see any moral or legal problem in downloading copyrighted material from the Internet, while at the same time a patent breach (he actually holds some drug patents) would outrage him!

Justifications for the alleged legality and morality of p2p sharing of copyrighted material abound. You can find out about them in the Justification section of the copyright infrigement entry of the Wikipedia and in the Legal controversy section of the p2p entry of the same source.

Influential bloggers also post in defense of the p2p interchange, and I will mention three Spanish ones: Enrique Dans (e.g. 9-Jun-2006, 3-Jun-2006, 1-Jun-2006), David Bravo (12-Jun-2006, 25-May-2006, 10-Apr-2006), Nacho Escolar (4-Jun-2006, 29-MAy-2006, 22-May-2006, 10-Jun-2004).

Now, one of the main mottos (to which I actually agree), is that the technology has made difussion of culture so easy, that the audiovisual industry has to change its business model, because the present one is obsolete and tyranical with the user, appart from no longer enforceable by the stablishment. Something similar happens to the commercial software industry: the rise of the much more efficient and legally, morally and practically sound, free software (the FLOSS that gives its name to this blog), makes it ridiculous to mantain the 80s and 90s proprietary software model.

However, although criticism to present market models make some of us turn to media licensed under Creative Commons (mainly music), and software licensed under the GPL and other free licenses (like the Debian GNU/Linux operating system or the web browser Firefox), some others feel that downloading copies of commercial of software (Windows, Photoshop, AutoCAD, ChemOffice…), or copyrighted material (music and movies) from p2p networks is somehow OK.

Much could be said about the morality and/or legality of this practice, but, for the sake of the argument, let’s accept it’s legal and moral. Let’s accept that sharing any audiovisual material through a p2p network is fair use, and that any attempt from the lobbies that control these materials to stop it are not only condemned to fail, but also injust.

OK, I can accept that, but… why not apply this to the pharmaceuticals?. What is the difference? A pharmaceutical company makes a big effort to discover new drugs, and then market them if approved by the corresponding autorities. The exclusive marketing of a drug, or a fair compensation when marketed by third parties, is ensured through patents. A patent, according to the Wikipedia, represents:

[…] the exclusive rights granted by a state to a person for a fixed period of time in exchange for the regulated, public disclosure of certain details of a device, method, process or composition of matter (substance) (known as an invention) which is new, inventive, and useful or industrially applicable.

The exclusive right granted to a patentee is the right to prevent others from making, using, selling, offering to sell or importing the claimed invention. The rights given to the patentee do not include the right to make, use, or sell the invention themselves. The patentee may have to comply with other laws and regulations to make use of the claimed invention.

This is very interesting. The researcher (the musician), comes up with a new drug (a new song), and wants to get a just reward for her effort. She patents the drug (puts the song under copyright), which gives here a negative right to ban any other person from even producing the drug (performing the song) without her prior approval.

Usually the researcher (musician) is not directly able to market her invention (distribute her music), and so conveniently hands it down to someone who can, e.g. a pharmaceutical company (a discographic company). They are the ones who make the effort to put it in the market, passing the due approvals (bribing the due radio stations for advertising).

Now, when someone else wants to make use of the publicly available instructions (the publicly available p2p network) to produce the drug (to download, listen and/or perform the song) herself, the patent holder (copyright owner) has the right to prevent her from doing so. The pharmaceutical company (the discographic company) can even choose not to market the drug (the song) at all, if it is not economically advantageous for them. The patent (copyright) allows them to do so.

Now, the parallelism is absolute, and hence I can’t see the difference between the following examples:

a) A kid likes a music group, but can not afford, or does not want to pay for, their CD, so resorts to eMule to download it. Now, no-one can prosecute her, because it is legal.

b) There are thousands in Africa dying of a disease that is not mortal in the first world, because there is a (patented) drug that can cure it. Unfortunately, the Africans of this example, can’t afford the price the pharmaceuticals charge… so tough luck. Now, the Red Cross, or even an African individual, downloads the “recipe” for the drug from the Internet, and starts producing it and giving it away for free. Is it prosecutable?

What is the difference between a) and b)? If the drug could be put online, and downloaded as a piece of music or video, would it be any different? How come the latest Hollywood blockbuster, or MTV hit, are of public interest and hence should be publicly and freely available, regardless of the wishes of the lobbies behind its production, and the drugs that can potentially save millions are not?

For me, that’s a non sequitur.

Yesterday I watched the Argentinian movie Tiempo de valientes, and I have to say it is a superb movie.

Like many Argentinian movies, it tells the story of everyday people whose life goes through tough times, but at the same time the story is full of humour. No wonder it is like that, since the Argentinian real life is much like that, with a brittle economy since the corralito in 2002, but with humorous and optimistic citizens, nontheless.

The movie Tiempo de valientes, however, is not a tragic comedy, but an action comedy. The main characters are a policeman in need of psychologycal aid, and the psychologist who assists him. As the movie moves on, the latter becomes more and more involved in the professional affairs of the former, with interesting results. It portrays the Argentinian society also in the fact that the economic problems make corruption abound, specially within the police, but still some honest people save the day with their good practices.

Highly recommendable movie. Go ahead and enjoy it!

Today the power supply failed twice within a couple of minutes, and it just fed me up. I don’t know if our supplying company (Iberdrola) was the culprit or not. Most likely it was, as it has definitely been in the past.

I am presently a member of Prof. J.M. Ugalde‘s research group, in the Chemistry Faculty of the Donostia Campus of the UPV-EHU (University of the Basque Country), and thus the reader must realize that the blackouts I’ll enumerate have affected several Faculties in the University Campus, as well as the Donostia Internatinal Physics Center (DIPC), a first-class research center located nearby. The latter has suffered plenty computer problems (hard disks, power supplies and motherboards breaking down) due to the numerous blackouts. Needless to say, so has our Computational Chemistry group.

I would like to highlight the facts that:

• The blackouts are innacceptably frequent. We live, allegedly, in the first world.
• Each blackout, each interrupted computer activity, each fried down computer… represents a kick in the groin for the research activities. The irresponsible ways of Iberdrola are effectively handicapping the progress in the Basque Country. Yes, as simple as that.

Without further ado, here goes the list of blackouts I have been able to compile, with comments if any:

1. 2005-Dec-13
2. 2005-Dec-21
3. 2006-May-26 (The card-based automated access to the Faculty broke down)
4. 2006-Jun-04
5. 2006-Jun-08
6. 2006-Jun-13

Summary: 6 blackouts in 181 days, or 30.2 dpb (days per blackout). How much is acceptable? 100 dpb, maybe? 365 dpb (one a year)? Certainly one a month is not.

Hoy me ha dado el punto y se me ha ocurrido mandar esta carta a la dirección de feedback de la página web de Bebe. No sé si esa dirección servirá para contactar con ella, o solo tiene como fin comentar aspectos de la página web. Igual Bebe acaba leyendo el mensaje en este blog antes que por aquel medio :^)

Vaya por delante mi respeto por la artista, y mi aprecio a su música. Sé que la situación que describo ocurre con muchos artistas y muchos CDs, pero… a mí me pasó con ella.

Este mensaje no es sobre la página web en sí, sino para Bebe, porque es la única manera que he encontrado de contactar con ella. Yo estaría muy agradecido de que llegara a ella, y estoy seguro de que ella también valorará la información que contiene.

Estimada Bebe,

No sé si estás al corriente de las protecciones anticopia con las que se comercializa tu CD, pero yo, lamentablemente, sí.

Te comento cómo consumo yo la música: me voy a la tienda, me compro el CD, lo meto en el ordenador de mi casa, lo paso a MP3, saco el CD, lo guardo en su caja, y ya NUNCA MÁS lo saco. Siempre escucho de la copia del disco duro, a través de los altavoces del ordenador (frente al que trabajo todo el día).

Por motivos obvios, esta estrategia es imposible con tu CD, el cual compré, y tengo muerto de risa en una balda. Como yo quiero escuchar tu música, recurrí a pedirle un CD pirata a un amigo, del cual pude sacar los MP3 sin problemas.

Ahora bien, ¿no es irónico que no pueda escuchar la música que compré, pero sí la que NO compré? En las circunstancias mencionadas, ¿crees que me siento incentivado para comprar tu siguiente CD, cuando me veré obligado a hacer la misma jugada? ¿Con qué cara puedo criticar la “piratería”, si gracias a ella puedo escuchar el CD que a través de su compra legal no pude disfrutar como yo quería? Mi “recta moral” me puede llevar a comprar tu segundo CD, aún sabiendo que me será inservible, simplemente para compensarte económicamente… pero estaremos de acuerdo en que eso requiere un huevo de “recta moral”.

Puede que pienses que un sistema anticopia impide, o dificulta, el tráfico ilegal de grabaciones de tu CD, pero esto no es así. En cuanto UNA sola persona rompa la protección (este proceso suele durar, como mucho, horas tras la salida al mercado del CD), esta la pondrá en internet y ya está, así de fácil. La persona que me pasó la copia pirata, ni sabía que tu disco tuviera protección anticopia. La protección solo molesta a las personas como yo, que nos hemos comprado el disco legalmente, y no recurrimos a métodos ilegales, a menos que se nos fuerce a ello.

Por eso, en bien tanto de tus seguidores, como tuyo propio, porque venderás más, te invito a elimiar cualquier sistema anticopia de tus subsiguientes discos, que espero con impaciencia, para comprarlos si no incluyen tecnologías lesivas para mis intereses como consumidor.

OK, I wanted to watch Jet Li’s Fearless (Sin miedo), but I was late for it, so I dumped it for What the bleep do we know!? (¿¡Y tú qué sabes!?). In my defense, I’ll say that the other options where X-Men III and Crash, which I had already watched and commented here.

Everything was odd from the start. First off, the ticket clerk made me repeat the title of the movie. I thought that he hadn’t understood it the first time I’d said it, but retrospectively I wonder whether his “Sorry, what movie?” wasn’t an exclamation of disbelief.

I then entered the theater room, just to find out that I was the only one there. Once the movie started, a young couple came in too, making a grand total of 3 people.

If you want a short comment of the movie, here you are: For God’s sake, never ever watch it!

The long story: the movie is a blend of a fiction story and some documentary-like interviews and voice-over comments. It comprises three stages: in the first one, a pseudo-scientific discussion of Quantum Physics is given, strongly focused in the state superposition theory (that there are infinite “realities” happening at the same time, and we see a “sum” of all of them. The view of the movie is that we see “one” of them), and the effect of the observer in the observed (Is reality there when we don’t look?). They take it to stupid limits, like implying that we create the reality (and can therefore twist it at our will), because the reality doesn’t exist independently from the observer. I am finishing a Ph.D. in Quantum Chemistry myself, and trust me: the quantum theory doesn’t say that.

The second part of the movie is devoted to explaining the molecular chemistry behind the feelings and the way the brain works. This part was quite interesting, and, from what I know as a Bc.S. chemist, mainly correct (Disclaimer: I am not a biologist).

The third part was a presentation of the conclusions “based on” the “scientific evidence” presented in the first two sections, which mainly consisted on some New Age sect ideas (go to “Beliefs” in the preceding link), chiefly the belief that consciousness creates the reality, a diffuse idea of God (instead of its denial), spirituality above all, and ad hoc inclusion of scientific theories into that spirituality.

I find it sad to make such a max-mix of science and pseudo-science to justify funny ideas dope smokers come up with, but… that’s New Age for you.

Hace tiempo que vengo diciendo esto a quien me quiera oir, y hoy me he dicho ¿pa qué está el blog?

Todos sabemos que las compañías aseguradoras son unas hijas de la grandísima… madre que las fundó, así que básicamente no voy a decir nada nuevo. Lo que sí puede ser esclarecedor es una reflexión sobre cómo nos timan.

Tomemos una de las cláusulas de las que más se vanaglorian las propias aseguradoras (hablo de seguros de coche), y que más valoran los propios asegurados: la bonificación por buen conductor. Señoras y señores, esto es un TIMO.

Todos tendemos a pensar que somos los mejores conductores del mundo, y que los demás son unos torpes. Así, nuestro egoísmo nos hace considerar que, dado que otros van a causar más gasto a la aseguradora (porque sus accidentes van a ser más frecuentes), y nosotros no vamos a accidentarnos nunca, pues deberían ser esos otros los que pagaran más. Las aseguradoras saben que somos unos cabronazos egoístas y, sobre todo, unos egocéntricos y unos chulos y que vamos a pensar aplicando el razonamiento anterior, así que nos ponen la trampa con el queso delante, y picamos como tontos.

¿Están deseando distribuir las cuotas más equitativamente entre sus asegurados? No, claro. Lo que desean es ganar más dinero, como es de esperar (y legítimo). ¿Qué es lo que realmente ocurre? La aseguradora tiene un seguro a todo riesgo con una cuota X, igual para todos. Ahora sube la cuota base a 2X, y dice que hace un descuento del 50% a los “buenos conductores”, que se definen como aquellos que no reportan un accidente en, digamos, 6 meses.

El resultado es que, en el mejor de los casos, casi todo el mundo sigue pagando lo mismo que antes, pero creyéndose afortunados por beneficiarse de un megadescuento del 50%, mientras que algunos pagan el doble. Pero no solo eso. Es que, además, cuando los “buenos conductores” tienen un accidente leve, no dan parte por miedo a perder la jugosa “bonificación” del 50%.

En el fondo, la “bonificación” del 50% no es más que una coacción, en la que nos amenazan con cobrarnos un 100% más de lo que ya pagamos si nos atrevemos a exigir la contraprestación contractualmente estipulada para un hipotético accidente. ¡Es realmente vil y retorcido! Se comprometen a compensarnos económicamente en caso de accidente, a cambio de una cuota (ese es el fundamento de un seguro), pero luego echan mano de todos los mecanismos que puedan para coartar nuestro derecho a pedir esa compensación cuando la necesitamos, Y ENCIMA NOS HACEN CREER QUE NOS ESTÁN HACIENDO UN FAVOR, COBRANDO MÁS A LOS “MALOS” CONDUCTORES.

Pues sí, tras el de Sabina el domingo pasado, he ido (ayer) a un segundo concierto en apenas seis días, pues tocaba El Canto del Loco en el Velódromo de Anoeta (Donosti).

Dani, el cantante

Esta vez era de un estilo de música más comercial y “juvenil” que Sabina… Y lo de juvenil va en serio, porque yo doblaba en edad (literalmente) al 90% de los asistentes. O mejor dicho, LAS asistentes, porque había más niñas que en el patio de un colegio femenino.

No puedo por menos que resaltar estas y otras diferencias entre ambos conciertos, porque eran realmente llamativas. Este concierto, por ejemplo, ha sido bastante más multitudinario, y el escenario lo han colocado en un extremo corto del óvalo del velódromo, mientras que Sabina lo puso en un lado largo (dejando menos sitio para la gente).

También es cierto que, con todo lo viejo y cascado que está Sabina, se pegó dos horas y cuarto pasadas cantando, mientras estos apenas llegaron a hora y tres cuartos, ¡con todo los jóvenes y llenos de energía que se supone deben ser! Y, a mí al menos, se me hizo más corto aquel concierto que este… o sea que igual me estoy haciendo viejo.

Otra diferencia es que para la iluminación del concierto de anoche tuvieron que volver a abrir la central nuclear José Cabrera, y me han dicho que se consumieron un par de toneladas de U-235… ¡o más! Si no se ha visto una mezcla de Star Wars y el episodio de Pokemon que provocaba epilepsia, no puede uno hacerse a la idea de la cantidad e intensidad de luces, colores y destellos. Durante un rato creí ver un elefante rosa… y de hecho quizá lo había.

El concierto en sí estuvo muy bien, con ritmos muy pop y mucha pose de niño malo, pero con la música pegadiza y fácil de escuchar que buscamos cuando escuchamos al El Canto del Loco, añadido a la frescura de la actuación en vivo. Yo me lo pasé muy bien, por mucho que no sean mis ídolos.