Slashdot Mirror

1. Open source library of knowledge for developing nations (making the world's intellectual wealth available to all)
http://www.oneworld.org/globalp roj ects/humcdrom/
http://www.oneworld.org/globalprojects/& lt;/a>
http://www.oneworld .or g/globalprojects/humcdrom/copyrigh.htm
http://payson.tulane.edu:8888/
; http://www.globalprojects.org/
; http://www.humanitylibraries.net/ http://www.villageearth.org/
http://www.villageearth.org/ATLi bra ry/cdrom.htm

2. Open source knowledge management systems
http://www.bootstrap.org/
http://bootstrap.org/colloquium/ar chi ves.html
http://www.bootstrap.org/dkr/discussion /

3. Self-replicating space habitats (support trillions of humans in style without overrunning the earth)
http://members.aol.com/oscarcombs/s ett le.htm
http://members.aol.com/oscarcombs /sp acsetl.htm
http://www.permanent.com/
http://science.n as. nasa.gov/Services/Education/SpaceSettlement/
http://www.luf.org/
http://www.ssi.org/
http://www.ssi.org/alt-plan.html http://www.spacedev.com/
http://www.spacehab.com/
http://www.kurtz-fernhout.com/oscomak/

4. Pursue the "Ecocity Berkley" vision in the book by that name by Richard Register and look for related visions of sustainable development
http://www.amazon.com/exec/ob ido s/ASIN/1556430094/
http://www.co-intelligence.or g/y 2k_commtyorgs.html
http://www.fuzzylu.com/greencenter/h ome .htm
http://www.ulb.ac.be/ceese/meta/sust vl. html
http://www.rmi.org/

5. Work towards ending the drug war and pardoning hundreds of thousands of Americans imprisoned on non-violent drug charges. (I believe drug use is wrong and should be avoided, and by all means as it is now illegal, so don't do drugs! But as with alcohol and tobacco and caffeine, drug abuse should be considered a medical problem, not a legal one (except when like DUI it hurts or puts at risk others directly)).
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pag es/ frontline/shows/drugs/
http://www.drcnet.org/facts/

6. Teaching tolerance and compassion
http://www.splcenter.org/
http://www.splcenter.or g/t eachingtolerance/tt-index.html

7. Open source educational simulations and simulation construction toolkits (one of the most meaningful ways to use computers in the classroom).
http://www.gardenwithinsight.com/ http://riceinfo.ri ce. edu/armadillo/Simulations/simserver.html
http://www.creativeteachingsite .co m/edusims.html
http://www.workingmodel.com/
http://www.idsia.ch/~andrea/simtools.h tml

8. Preserving biodiversity (when it's gone, it's gone forever)
http://www.tnc.org/
http://www.environment.about.com/newsissues/enviro nment/library/weekly/aa091700.htm

9. Develop any specific sustainable technology in energy (e.g. solar), recycling (e.g. recycle computers), materials (e.g. plastics from starch), society (e.g. participatory democracy & social justice).
http://www.google.com/sear ch? q=sustainable+technology
http://www.edf.org/issues/Recycling.htm l
http://www.sustainable.doe.gov/

10. Make corporations more accountable to human needs
http://www.adbusters.org/inform ati on/foundation/
http://www.adbusters.org/c amp aigns/charter/death.html
Previous link vanished, try instead:
http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:www.adbuste rs.org/ campaigns/charter/death.html+corporate+death+penal ty&hl=en
http://www.cwsl.edu/news/n_corpo rat e_death.html
http://monkeyfist.com/articles/340& lt;br> http://www.chaordic.org/

11. Reform the "Intellectual property" laws and their related organizations, perhaps so that copyrights are for a couple decades and most patents are for a dozen years and only for true innovations. Ensure that any IP developed with any government money is immediately put into the public domain.
http://danny.oz.au/fre e-s oftware/advocacy/against_IP.html
(Lots of other Slashot links!)

12. If you don't want to get you hands dirty volunteering your own time, look around and find good people (not organizations, although the people may be in organizations) already doing good things. Pick people with a track record of years of fighting for the common good or who have already made a major accomplishment demonstrating commitment and just anonymously give them $100K without strings attached. Example: Marty Johnson at Isles, Inc.
http://www.isles.org/mileston.html& lt;br> Find people just starting a career of public service or a charitable venture and struggling to do good things and give them $20K and tell them you believe in their promise and cause. Expect a bunch of the money to be wasted but give it anyway and learn how to give effectively. For ideas, look at the grantees list of any foundation. Then ask those people who they know who are just starting out and trying to do a good job.
http://www.beldon.org/grants2000_07.htm l

When I was about thirteen, I got about seven books out of the library on money thinking I wanted to become a millionaire. Six told me how to get rich (start a business and run it well.) One of them asked me "why do you want to be rich?" That is the one whose name I remember and the ideas in it have changed my life. For advice on setting a direction of what to do with wealth, read the Book "The Seven Laws of Money" by Michael Phillips and Sally Raspberry, especially the chapter on how foundations fail in their mission and how grants go to people who sound good but usually can't deliver (i.e. how hard it is to give money away).
http://www.seeingmoney.com/SevenLaws.ht m
http://www.hallbusi nes ses.com/biographies_primers/1420.shtml

My wife and I are working on a few of these issues ourselves (and a few example links are to our stuff). We make money contracting and spend it to "buy" our own time for making quality software the market can't or doesn't seem to want to pay for. Even without IPO riches, any competent software developer can make $75K-100K in today's market. Graduate students can live on $20K a year, and so can many software developers (kids make it harder) if they follow the path of Voluntary Simplicity. It's a question of priorities.
http://www.life.ca/subject/simplicity .ht ml
http://www.simpleliving.net/slj/ http://www.scn.org/earth/lightly/ http://www.thegarden.net/simplicity/

Voluntary simplicity leaves a lot of funds for doing good deeds - even if they are done on your own time by using your own money to take time off and develop open source software or do other worthwhile ventures. Or take a job that doesn't pay as well but involves helping an organization that you believe in.
http://www.idealist.org/

There are awesome things happening over the next twenty to forty years. According to Moore's law, desktop computers in twenty or so years will be a million times faster than today's. Already computers can drive cars somewhat well and identify vegetable better than humans.

http://www.research.ibm.com/resources/magazine/199 9/number_3/machine399.html ;

Other breakthrough innovations are happening in technological areas like energy, materials, nanotechnology, communications, agriculture, biotechnology, and robotics. Use your wealth to think deeply about what all this means and do something to ensure human survival with style.

It is saddening to see people spend so much money on less important stuff (another night club in this case). Now if it was a night club where these issues are discussed, then maybe it makes sense.

Capitalism without charity is evil, because capitalism only meets the needs of people with money.

Then of course there's the article Against Intellectual Property by Australian academic Brian Martin (which was a /. article a few months back).

Danny.

Unlike tangible goods and real property, the nature of IP -- or any form of knowledge -- is to spread."

Looks a lot like "Information wants to be free" to me.. :)

Yes, but then he goes on to say

As far as IP being worthy of being safeguarded, it matters little to me whether or not a week's worth of my labor was spent fashioning a dining room table or writing code -- both consumed part of my life and are fruits of my labor, and I want both to be guarded from those who would take them without my giving me something in exchange.

The (unspoken) implication is that copyright, patents, and other forms of IP are OK, although strictly speaking he did not state that explicitly.

I think he (and a lot of people, both here and elsewhere) need to be educated and made to realize (or at least confront and argue against) the notion that a government mandated and enforced monopoly isn't necessary for IP creators to be fairly compensated and, furthermore, has a stifling impact on the field of endeavor so affected, not to mention the society, culture, and the economy as a whole.

Nevertheless, while Libertarians are split on the question of IP (and he perhaps falls on the wrong side of that debate), he is quite correct in saying that "our first step on the road to freedom is to return to the Constitution as the rule of law for our nation." We can (and must) fix the debacle that is IP, but he argues (perhaps correctly) that getting bogged down in that is putting the cart before the horse.

Although I disagree with his (implied) stance on patents and copyrights, I have been persuaded to vote for Harry Browne over Ralph Nader nevertheless. There is no candidate I agree with on every issue, but I agree with Harry Browne's agenda on far more points than I do with any other candidate.

(And yes, as someone who was going to vote for Ralph Nader based on his stance WRT corporate and special interests influencing government, I have had my mind changed. This happens from time to time, if one's mind is truly open.)

And any really successfull Egyptian company is likely to find the local equivalent of the BSA knocking on their doors, demanding they buy legal copies of all the proprietary software they are using, at full retail value. Remember the WTO and WIPO are working hard to force countries like China to crack down on illegal copying of copyrighted materials...

And then think about the long-term dependencies created by building industries on proprietary software...

Danny.

Danny.

Danny.

Danny.

I think we can come to this conclusion ourself, if need be, thanks.

Petrely writes:

"The fact is our current system entitles us to some free information, and it requires us to purchase or license other information. You may not like the fact that some information must be licensed, but that's how it is. Those who want information to be free as a matter of principle should create some information and make it free. But what they shouldn't do is license or buy existing information that is not free and then cut it loose without permission. That's just plain wrong,..."

There are two types of objects - tangible and intangible. Tangible objects (food, your car, a minidisc player) can only have one owner at any given moment. Intangible objects (music, inventions, words) can have any number of owners. Physical objects have a single owner out of nessesity - it cannot exist in two places at the same time. But what about an idea? Clearly I can make a copy of your poem without depriving you of that poem.

So what is the point of giving exclusive ownership of an idea when it can be shared by all without depriving the creator of that idea? It is power, clearly enough. I have, you don't, let's negotiate. It is easy to use Napster as a sort of strawman to attack, but it's another issue entirely when you look at intellectual property in the light of the AIDS epedemic where millions have died and continue to die because pharmecuticals own the right to the knowledge. "Give us a half billion for the rights to create our vaccine. OH, you don't have that kind of cash? Oh, your entire country's GDP isn't even half that? Sorry." How about irrigation technologies? I could go on but I think my point is made.

I'll grant that there needs to be an impetus for the company to create the vaccine in the first place, but once it's created that knowledge should be in the public domain.

"...and it demonstrates that what they are interested in is not free speech at all but getting stuff without paying for it."

This is akin to saying electronic hobbyists are only interested in descrambling their cable feed. Can it be a side result? Yes. Is it the point? No.

Are you not aware of what a 21st century, western idea ownership of knowledge is? Is it beyond your ability to comprehend - not even nessesarily to understand but to just acknowledge - that ownship of an idea is repugnent, almost humorous?

As an aside, I enjoy the fact that I can get a song and erase it if I don't like it. No blood no foul. I appreciate the fact that I haven't heard a single radio ad in 2 years. I can't name a single radio station and I live in metro Boston. I haven't seen a single TV ad that I haven't gone out of my way to see.

Free speech, Nick, isn't only about the right to speak myself but the right of others to speak so I might hear them. You've got this idea that free speech means "me me me" but what it really does (and should) stand for is "them them them". And what does a company that control information fear more than anything? Loss of market share, loss of mindshare, loss of control.

And what is intellectual property about if not control?

My .02
Quux26

Danny

And the Australian National Library wouldn't issue me an ISSN, because I didn't have formal issue numbers :-( (lots of numbers)

Danny

Indonesian is spoken by more than a hundred million people, but not as a first language (and there are only about 75 million speakers of Javanese).

Portuguese is probably the tricky one for most peopple - most of the speakers of Portuguese live in Brazil.

Of the Chinese languages other than Mandarin, Yue or Cantonese has about 70 million speakers, while Wu has about 80 million. (I recommend Ramsey's The Languages of China for anyone interested in Chinese languages and linguistics.)

A great source for linguistic facts is Ethnologue.

Danny

(I got this from David Crystal's Language Death).

Danny

Danny

This is all really basic stuff, Usability 101, and there's no excuse for getting it wrong on a really high-profile site. Heck, they ought to have a full-time usability expert for a site like that!

Danny

Danny.

Danny.

It seems to me like this is yet another problem with ownership of "rights": broadcast rights, intellectual property rights, etc. I am a firm believer that each individual person (consumer, citizen, etc) is actually hurt, not helped, because of these so-called rights. The entities that are benefiting from the ownership of these rights are usually corporations or shareholders, who are typically the rich and well-off who have used their positions of power to gain even more. Check this for an excellent argument against intellectual property rights. This argument can easily be applied to broadcast rights. Who wins in a world with broadcast rights? Not you, not me, not the athletes, but the broadcasters and the huge organizations that own the rights. The Internet has brought about an information revolution, and it is seriously time for everyone to think about information "rights" (intellectual property, broadcast, etc.), their value, and how they benefit or hinder actual people, not corporations or shareholders.

Intellectual property is a concept designed for nothing but a profit motive. I can't help but think that if you removed copyrights then the only people making music would be those who loved it. Imagine life w/out Brittney or nSync, or anyone else who had to be beaten into our heads. Oh, the horror.

Here is an interesting link.

My .02
Quux26

I disagree. I am using a firewall program called AtGuard (which has been discontinued and bought by Network Associates) which does a *great* job of blocking all banner ads, including java applets, etc. The heuristics this thing uses must be pretty good, b/c as far as I can tell, it is not eliminating anything but ads. When turning the software on and off and viewing my favorite pages; no non-related ad content is killed, but when turned on, *everything* (regardless of location on page) that is advertising is whacked.

/dev/null =)

In response to the post "Sure, lets all use Junkbuster and make sure nobody makes any money whatsoever... that way we can shut down this stupid Slashdot.org website and put Malda and his boyz out of business.. "

//rant begins here

Do you work for the RIAA/MPAA/BSA or something? Do you and your ilk actually think about the rhetoric that you spout? Guess what? In business, no one "deserves" and damn thing. If you sink a gazillion dollars into personnel, R&D, and somebody comes along with a better distribution model, oh *fscking* well. That's capitalism. Millions of business fail every year, don't go crying when technology and your target market finds a easier/cheaper way to obtain your services/product. And before you start with your moralizing and backward ethics, read this and this. If people could obtain free COPIES of hotdogs or gold bars or whatever, believe me, they would. Stealing, pheh.

//end of rant.

"Slashdot - Better living through moderation."

I can see why the controversy is so strong over how easy it is to copy and distribute music over the net, mostly because it can in a way be regarded as both intellectual and physical property. It's difficult to distinguish between the two because you must buy physical CD's which are more than just ideas and must be manufactured. MP3s on the other hand require no packaging, so all that they contain in essence are ideas, and are thus intellectual property (refer to the link below to learn more about this).

The use of Napster and other MP3 sharing programs is a form of civil disobedience against this intellectual property.

I think that music counts as a collection of ideas because there are many other cultural, educational, and social contributions into a music album from sources outside the artist that they may clearly fail to account for. They may have listened to a previous artist's work and gained valuable knowledge and skill that they could use to enhance their own music. Music has been based upon this very method of collected resources and ideas throughout its history, being expanded upon and improvised throughout the ages. Giving someone an ability to hear a song would merely foster ideas and allow an artist to leave a greater effect on music as a whole.

In the article entitled Against Intellectual Property, there are many similarities that I see between things such as software/MP3 "piracy" and the extremely positive technological/cultural effects if ideas are allowed to be viewed by a greater audience.

• First of all, this is not a paper: it's a chapter of Martin's book, "Information Liberation".
  
• It's hosted in Danny Yee's site site; he proofread it. The rest of the Free Software Advocacy section has other interesting things. He also has a review of the book.
  
• I've been repeatedly trying to submit this to Slashdot, and it got rejected again and again! What was that all about? Jesus.
  
• Finally, considering the above, am I the only one who thinks it's ironic that only one chapter of the book is actually "liberated"?
  

Danny.

Danny.

I've got a 66Mhz 486 running GNU/Linux, 450 days uptime serving up to 10 000 hits a day...

Danny.

1. Development isn't just about handing out food.

In humanitarian emergencies aid/development agencies often just provide water, food, medicines, and so forth. Information matters here, but perhaps not so much.

But development agencies also do work to try and address the longer-term causes of poverty. In this work, handouts are avoided - the idea is to provide tools, education, skills, connections, and knowledge that will still be useful when the aid agency disappears after a year's funding. There's a famous saying along the lines of "give someone a fish and you feed him for a day; give them a net and you give them a tool they can use for a year; teach them a new fishing method and they have something they can use for life - or until a multinational steals or poisons their fishing grounds or fishes out the area...." In this kind of work, information is absolutely critical - and if you're trying to avoid creating dependencies, a central core of public free information is really important.

2. Even if broader information (and computers) are only of minimal use to (say) illiterate women organising in an Indian village, such things would be of great benefit to the local organisations trying to help them.

For example, I visited one project in India where an organisation called SWAPNA was setting up micro-credit saving circles in Indian villages in southern Maharashtra. They were organising women would organise in groups of twenty and each try to save 20 rupee -- maybe 50c -- a month, which would then be pooled to give them a resource to draw on in medical emergencies, ceremonies, etc. (Based on the idea pioneered by the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh.) The organised saving circles were also used as a way of providing sanitation and health information.

Now computers might be useless to the individual women, but SWAPNA, the organisation running the project, could really have used one. Given that their budget was maybe US$6000/year (to employ a dozen staff working in maybe fifty villages, with maybe 1500 women), old hardware running DOS or Linux and doing UUCP to connect to the Net and to other such organisations... that has real potential.

A write up of my trip to India (with some notes on IT possibilities).

Danny.