5 ms·

people forget that ATOC exists to protect and further the interests of their members: the privately owned Train Operating Companies -- they don't owe random dev

by blibble 14y ago

people forget that ATOC exists to protect and further the interests of their members: the privately owned Train Operating Companies -- they don't owe random developers anything. Network Rail on the other had are (basically) state owned, and their extremely comprehensive feeds are now completely open: http://www.networkrail.co.uk/data-feeds/ http://www.networkrail.co.uk/data-feeds/ these feeds even include the raw signalling data (you even get events when trains activate level crossings) -- there's nothing stopping you building your own NRE API. I've been slowly building up a database of signal locations/berths to lat/longs by matching up my physical position (while riding on the train) to the NR feed events, with the idea of being able to produce a much better map of where the trains are in realtime.

SideburnsOfDoom 14y ago
> they don't owe random developers anything IMHO ATOC, like everyone else, owe random developers one thing: to deal with them fairly; and not say one thing but do another. To not say that they're open when they're just giving it lip service.
- johnpapdu 14y ago
  There's no legal obligation to do that, so why should they? Because of morals? Are your morals demonstrably more correct than theirs? Why should your morals have anything to do with their morals? If you want a company to do something, you either need to go through your representative in our democratic process to suggest a change to the law, withdraw your custom, or shut up. Hoping that they follow your arbitrary morals is bizarre.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 14y ago
    So if I understand your argument, it is basically "how can you possibly say that the arbitrary morals of 'fair dealing' is more correct than 'screwing everyone over'? Bizarre. Shut up." Is that right? Or is there more to it than a simple derailing tactic?
    - mercurial 14y ago
      > Or is there more to it than a simple derailing tactic? I see what you did here.
      - SideburnsOfDoom 14y ago
        Derailing the derailer? Maybe so.
  - mikeash 14y ago
    "If you want a company to do something, you either need to go through your representative in our democratic process to suggest a change to the law, withdraw your custom, or shut up." You forgot the frequently useful response of "make a public fuss until they change things". Which is, incidentally, what's going on here.
  - asg 14y ago
    That is depressing. Companies are nothing but collection of human beings. One would hope that most humans are not happy to go about their lives lying to other humans on a regular basis. So yes, companies don't have a moral point of view. But human beings do, the humans who work for and run these companies. And while philosophers have opined extensively about the relativity of morals, I'd hope that there are some values that an overwhelming majority of human kind subscribes to.
    - rayiner 14y ago
      > I'd hope that there are some values that an overwhelming majority of human kind subscribes to. Sure, but "open" in the sense of what many developers perceive as "open" is not one of them. Remember OpenGroup? That's the way most of the business world did and probably still does perceive the word "open." It needn't by synonymous with "no strings attached."
  - olliesaunders 14y ago
    > There's no legal obligation to do that, so why should they? Because of morals? Are your morals demonstrably more correct than theirs? The people get the government they deserve. If you demand fairness you might get it. This is why it is important people demand ethical behavior from companies and institutions. The quality of any individual’s own morals has little to do with whether one is entitled to do that or not. And even if it did why should they have to demonstrate it? Can you imagine a world like that: “we’re not going to help you until you demonstrate your morals”

by blibble 14y ago

SideburnsOfDoom 14y ago

> they don't owe random developers anything IMHO ATOC, like everyone else, owe random developers one thing: to deal with them fairly; and not say one thing but do another. To not say that they're open when they're just giving it lip service.

johnpapdu 14y ago
There's no legal obligation to do that, so why should they? Because of morals? Are your morals demonstrably more correct than theirs? Why should your morals have anything to do with their morals? If you want a company to do something, you either need to go through your representative in our democratic process to suggest a change to the law, withdraw your custom, or shut up. Hoping that they follow your arbitrary morals is bizarre.
- SideburnsOfDoom 14y ago
  So if I understand your argument, it is basically "how can you possibly say that the arbitrary morals of 'fair dealing' is more correct than 'screwing everyone over'? Bizarre. Shut up." Is that right? Or is there more to it than a simple derailing tactic?
  - mercurial 14y ago
    > Or is there more to it than a simple derailing tactic? I see what you did here.
    - SideburnsOfDoom 14y ago
      Derailing the derailer? Maybe so.
- mikeash 14y ago
  "If you want a company to do something, you either need to go through your representative in our democratic process to suggest a change to the law, withdraw your custom, or shut up." You forgot the frequently useful response of "make a public fuss until they change things". Which is, incidentally, what's going on here.
- asg 14y ago
  That is depressing. Companies are nothing but collection of human beings. One would hope that most humans are not happy to go about their lives lying to other humans on a regular basis. So yes, companies don't have a moral point of view. But human beings do, the humans who work for and run these companies. And while philosophers have opined extensively about the relativity of morals, I'd hope that there are some values that an overwhelming majority of human kind subscribes to.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    > I'd hope that there are some values that an overwhelming majority of human kind subscribes to. Sure, but "open" in the sense of what many developers perceive as "open" is not one of them. Remember OpenGroup? That's the way most of the business world did and probably still does perceive the word "open." It needn't by synonymous with "no strings attached."
- olliesaunders 14y ago
  > There's no legal obligation to do that, so why should they? Because of morals? Are your morals demonstrably more correct than theirs? The people get the government they deserve. If you demand fairness you might get it. This is why it is important people demand ethical behavior from companies and institutions. The quality of any individual’s own morals has little to do with whether one is entitled to do that or not. And even if it did why should they have to demonstrate it? Can you imagine a world like that: “we’re not going to help you until you demonstrate your morals”