I don't have the evidence so I can't make a judgement about whether Zenimax or Carmack is in the wrong here, but this does point out something strange in our court system and that is where a "jury of peers" which translates to normal people with little to no knowledge of the underlying subject matter. As our society becomes more specialized it seems a bit absurd to have people make judgements mostly based on how well…
It is true and it would help to have a jury that has the technical background of the subject. On a note though unfortunately even with a jury like that, it doesn't resolve the problems for preferences and bias that someone can have. We still have "wars" over Go vs Scala or React vs Angular.
John Carmack on expert witnesses and 'non literal' copying
301–310 of 322 posts
Re: John Carmack on expert witnesses and 'non literal' copying
#302Earlier quoted context omitted.
Insulting. But doesn't make it any less true or false. To presume that your average joe has bothered to play in the realm of academic, diligent logic and reason is a mistake. I am not saying you need to go into a university, I'm not claiming a piece of paper will lend you credibility in this regard. It's about the time and effort that people spend practicing these subjects. How many people do you know outside of STEM…
>But doesn't make it any less true or false. To presume that your average joe has bothered to play in the realm of academic, diligent logic and reason is a mistake. To presume that your average academic has is likewise a mistake.
Re: John Carmack on expert witnesses and 'non literal' copying
#303Earlier quoted context omitted.
Every dev knows how to wipe a drive. Buy an identical drive. Throw old drive into the incinerator.
Lack of history is a clue system was wiped or reinstalled from scratch. Its very difficult to make windows appear to be an old actively used install. Encase (or new software, I havent done forensic for >6 years now) will tell you everything about timestamps and what that means.
Re: John Carmack on expert witnesses and 'non literal' copying
#304Earlier quoted context omitted.
The assertion is based on the idea that this thing you did is a reflection on who you are, so people who interact with you have a right to know about it so they can judge you by it. I agree that in this specific instance, it was the job of Oculus' legal team to discredit the report in front of the court. Publishing it after the fact for review by the public doesn't make sense, and calling for it is petty.
> Publishing it after the fact for review by > the public doesn't make sense, and calling for it is > petty. Carmack isn't calling for it to be published. He only said he thinks the system should work that way.
Re: John Carmack on expert witnesses and 'non literal' copying
#305Earlier quoted context omitted.
You have unrealistic expectations for 2017, i think. The loyalty you receive will be proportional to the loyalty you demonstrate. When I am paid a salary every month, my expectation is that I am being paid for services rendered, and that what I am paid is a fraction of the value I produced. There is no loyalty demonstrated there; it's just business. As the company I work for now had in the past kicked me to the curb…
It is amazing to me how loyalty is this unrealistic expectation in the US job market. I still believe paying a salary every month is a risk for any employer and I appreciate that. The abundance of opportunities in a free market is a poor reason for letting go of important things like loyalty, gratefulness.
Paying a salary is zero risk for an "at will" employee. You are paying for the work, or at least for the exclusive on-demand availability. Whether that can be monetized to a degree sufficient to pay the salary is entirely attributable to management's effort and skill. If at any time you feel that you do not have the skill or the will to make the employee's labor cashflow-positive, you can fire them.
In contrast, the employee taking on a salaried position with a new employer is a much greater risk. That often becomes their sole source of income, they may be foregoing other available opportunities to take it, and may also be relocating to an area that is less advantageous for them personally.
It is for these reasons that I believe the burden is upon the employer to make demonstrable shows of loyalty to their employees first, to prove that they are trustworthy employers. Instead, they are often the ones to betray even the low default levels of employee loyalty. These days, I hear about mass layoffs far more often than I hear about employee strikes or walkouts.
I agree that we should mourn deeply the passing of employer-employee loyalty, but it has been fading for quite a long time. If you are a loyal employer, you will eventually see more loyalty in your employees. In time, they will even enhance your reputation via word-of-mouth recommendations. But reputation is slow to build and easy to squander, and US employers have utterly destroyed any reputation they may have had for loyalty.
I am surprised that you are amazed, but that may only be because you have never worked "at will" jobs in markets away from hot-spots like SV and NYC. Even just by reading HN, you should have noticed that the endemic career advice to maximize your earnings is to change jobs every 2-4 years, and only spend a longer period at a single job if a lucrative vesting schedule demands it. Employers do not retain and retrain temporarily unproductive employees, nor do they make noticeable efforts to retain productive ones with bonuses and pay rises.
Re: John Carmack on expert witnesses and 'non literal' copying
#306Earlier quoted context omitted.
Clearly we aren't running in circles! I agree that those coinflip cases exist, but if cases are so close a coinflips (or elections) can decide them then why do sums like $500 million depend on them as in the article? A system which promotes charisma instead of factual accuracy doesn/t just result in muddy grey areas where things were already close. Things like climate change, which pretty much all experts agree on, a…
The problem in your last sentence is the trick, one which humanity has yet to solve in any sort of sustainable way. Maybe strong AI can finally save us from ourselves.
If western industry creates the super AI and somehow Google, MS, Facebook, Amazon, Apple and western society in general trust it why should China and Baidu?
Re: John Carmack on expert witnesses and 'non literal' copying
#307Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not how it works; that's leading the witness, and just because you are an expert in one field (comparing code) doesn't mean you are an expert in another (assessing the value). I've actually been in this exact situation as an expert witness. The defendant had written code in language "A", sold it, then wrote similar code in language "B". The question was whether code "B" had been written while looking at code "A". The…
New code won't have the same history, and therefore should not have the same structure. If it does, the code must have been copied. This seems a little weird--what if the author just remembers to, for example, make sure and handle those edge cases when starting again?
Re: John Carmack on expert witnesses and 'non literal' copying
#308Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly this. You would be surprised how petty and subjective academics are in practice. There is a reason why everything is done through committees in academia.
You would be surprised how petty and subjective academics are in practice. Sayre's Law[1] was paraphrased by Henry Kissinger as, "Academic politics are so vicious because the stakes are so small." 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayre's_law
> "In any dispute the intensity of feeling is inversely proportional to the value of the issues at stake."
I hadn't heard of Sayre's Law. It seems like a much more eloquent expression of the concept of bikeshedding.
Edit: I thought about this some more. I think bike shedding and sayre's law are slightly different - Sayre is like the law of gravity, bike shedding is like saying “and this is what gravity actually is caused by”.
Re: John Carmack on expert witnesses and 'non literal' copying
#309Earlier quoted context omitted.
"right after he researched on Google how to wipe a hard drive" I find it difficult to believe that Carmack needs to google how to wipe a hard drive ...
The ATA security erase implementations in SSDs frequently lie, and few people know off the top of their heads what tools/procedure use to get to that command in the first place. Nobody knows how to issue this command or knows if this command works on their drive off the top of their heads. (OTOH I have researched this issue a few times a year despite rarely personally applying the information, so this Google trail is…
Sure they do.
You overwrite the drive with a known large file and then check the checksum of it.
It doesn't matter what kind of mumbo-jumbo the SSD is doing - it doesn't have phantom-double-capacity hiding in there ... if the (drive sized file) you wrote checksums out, you're done.
And if you're paranoid, do it a few times with different (drive-sized-files). Quick and easy and faster than googling anything.
Re: John Carmack on expert witnesses and 'non literal' copying
#310Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't get your point about "after the fact. To pick a name is creative. To use that name afterword is not - it's literally referring to something by its given name. My mother was being creative, you're just reading my business card. > Even minor things like order of operands are creative choices. They can be. But where they're standardized, they aren't. If the API specifies these things they're now functional. >…
"Literally referring to something by its given name" is like calling an API , not copying an API . Oracle didn't sue Google for writing software that merely called the Java APIs, or writing software that included information about the APIs. If you wrote out a prose description of each Java class, each method, and the types and order of each parameter, that would not be copyright infringement, even under the Federal C…
If you're saying that the API reference itself can be copyrighted, yes, I agree. My typesetting of it, my method ordering, etc. All protectable. But not the facts on which it's based.
> If you wrote out a prose description of [...]
Of course that would be fine, but you don't have to go that far.
And I could take your prose description and strip the prose from it and turn it back into an API description. In that scenario, whose copyright do you think is being violated? The original work which I've never seen, or yours?