Slashdot Mirror

Heh.

This proposal is like relegating the whole stack to a newsgroup-level of relevance.

I suspect that if it were actually acted on, you'd be dead on the money.

But I also suspect that the submission was deliberately provocative, designed to make the contrast between a Neutral Internet and what ISPs want as stark as possible. In effect, it seems to be saying, "What they want is not Internet, so we should quit calling it that." Right at the outset, it says:

While we have diverse views about the overall policy approach that the assurance of the open Internet entails, we note here that separating the Internet from specialized services is a dramatic advance in the discussion, one that is very helpful on its own terms to understanding the implications of various concerns surrounding this issue....

As a rhetorical stance, I like it. As a policy position, not so much.

As you rightly note, the vendors will do everything in their power to twist the definitions in order to make their proprietary model look more attractive and to subvert the influence of a truly open Internet. The authors of this work may believe that an open Internet will succeed on its merits alone. I don't. However we arrive at it, Network Neutrality is simply not negotiable.

Bemoan the ineffectual nature of government regulation as much as you like; the fact remains that, left alone, most commercial Internet providers have every financial incentive to lock down their networks.

(According to the dominant business perspective in North American and Europe, anyway. One can make compelling arguments about network effects and the collateral benefits that derive from open, end-to-end networks, but most MBAs don't -and don't want to- get it. They're all about controlling the market and sucking it dry. Profit, alas, beats planning every time.)

Piracy will never prevent the next great opus.

I know that. I was just granting that assertion 'for the sake of argument'. My point is that even if we grant that assertion as true, the methods being used to protect the author (the publisher, actually, but that's a different post) are inappropriate and ineffective.

I didn't read the whole thing but the first 10 paragraphs or so strike me as nothing but a bunch of half-informed fear mongering from a journalist who doesn't know what they are talking about.

If you only read the first 10 paragraphs, then you haven't done the article justice. Hersh is renowned for his long-form journalism. It's old-school, I know, but he takes his time to investigate and analyse. He doesn't foist his conclusions on the reader; he presents his take on the available information and leaves the reader to think it through.

I'll be the first to admit that he's more patient -and more deliberately objective- than most of us. In fact, that's exactly what I wrote about him earlier today.

This is the same guy who broke the story of the My Lai Massacre as well as many of the most important stories about the American military over the last few decades. His sources are impeccable, and his research is world class. Do yourself a favour: load the page onto your favourite e-book reader and take the time to follow his argument all the way to the end.

Well put. A friend of mine who's worked extensively as a war photographer as well as other things once told me that, "Photography hasn’t significantly improved since the early years. It’s just become more convenient.”

It's not misleading; it's the headline's purpose to get straight to the author's point, and the point is that the unintended consequence of our domestic policies has been to enable authoritarian regimes to enforce policies of their own.

To further refine your point: At the core of this lies the implication that, because of such policies, there is very little to separate us from authoritarian regimes. It's a quantum distance, to be sure, in the sense that although it's very small it would require something fundamental to change. But the distance between where we are today and a digital version of the Alien and Sedition Acts is short enough to make many people uncomfortable.

One point that irks me, though, is the contention that we're only now seeing this link. That, frankly, is bullshit.

The head of GCHQ (Britain's SigInt agency) under Tony Blair wrote an entire book on the topic last year. I myself wrote a series of three columns on the topic, all of them dealing with the diminishing gap between authoritarian policies and those of more democratic nations. Forgive me while I quote at some length...

Nokia-Siemens, defending its role in the creation of a centralised mobile telecommunications network, stated recently that:

In most countries around the world, including all EU member states and the U.S., telecommunications networks are legally required to have the capability for Lawful Intercept and this is also the case in Iran. Lawful Intercept is specified in standards defined by ETSI (European Telecommunications Standards Institute) and the 3GPP (3rd Generation Partnership Project).

Yes, decentralised communications come at a cost. They make surveillance efforts of all kinds more difficult. The two competing questions we need to ask ourselves are:

1. How far are we willing to compromise ourselves in the pursuit of state security?
2. How much are we willing to compromise state surveillance capability in order to protect our own freedom to communicate?

These are knotty issues with complex and often subtle ramifications on society. They demand a level of public engagement on the principle - and more importantly, the practice - of free speech that we haven't seen since the Red Scare of the 1950s.

Technology feels like magic to most of us. We don't - and don't want to - to know how our communications come about. We just want them to happen.

But in order for them to happen, we must inform - and arm - ourselves with the knowledge, understanding, law and policies that make it possible. Facile observations like Manjoo's do little if anything to support such an effort.

The Revolution will indeed be digitised, but only if we want it enough.

It's not misleading; it's the headline's purpose to get straight to the author's point, and the point is that the unintended consequence of our domestic policies has been to enable authoritarian regimes to enforce policies of their own.

To further refine your point: At the core of this lies the implication that, because of such policies, there is very little to separate us from authoritarian regimes. It's a quantum distance, to be sure, in the sense that although it's very small it would require something fundamental to change. But the distance between where we are today and a digital version of the Alien and Sedition Acts is short enough to make many people uncomfortable.

One point that irks me, though, is the contention that we're only now seeing this link. That, frankly, is bullshit.

The head of GCHQ (Britain's SigInt agency) under Tony Blair wrote an entire book on the topic last year. I myself wrote a series of three columns on the topic, all of them dealing with the diminishing gap between authoritarian policies and those of more democratic nations. Forgive me while I quote at some length...

Nokia-Siemens, defending its role in the creation of a centralised mobile telecommunications network, stated recently that:

In most countries around the world, including all EU member states and the U.S., telecommunications networks are legally required to have the capability for Lawful Intercept and this is also the case in Iran. Lawful Intercept is specified in standards defined by ETSI (European Telecommunications Standards Institute) and the 3GPP (3rd Generation Partnership Project).

Yes, decentralised communications come at a cost. They make surveillance efforts of all kinds more difficult. The two competing questions we need to ask ourselves are:

1. How far are we willing to compromise ourselves in the pursuit of state security?
2. How much are we willing to compromise state surveillance capability in order to protect our own freedom to communicate?

These are knotty issues with complex and often subtle ramifications on society. They demand a level of public engagement on the principle - and more importantly, the practice - of free speech that we haven't seen since the Red Scare of the 1950s.

Technology feels like magic to most of us. We don't - and don't want to - to know how our communications come about. We just want them to happen.

But in order for them to happen, we must inform - and arm - ourselves with the knowledge, understanding, law and policies that make it possible. Facile observations like Manjoo's do little if anything to support such an effort.

The Revolution will indeed be digitised, but only if we want it enough.

It's not misleading; it's the headline's purpose to get straight to the author's point, and the point is that the unintended consequence of our domestic policies has been to enable authoritarian regimes to enforce policies of their own.

To further refine your point: At the core of this lies the implication that, because of such policies, there is very little to separate us from authoritarian regimes. It's a quantum distance, to be sure, in the sense that although it's very small it would require something fundamental to change. But the distance between where we are today and a digital version of the Alien and Sedition Acts is short enough to make many people uncomfortable.

One point that irks me, though, is the contention that we're only now seeing this link. That, frankly, is bullshit.

The head of GCHQ (Britain's SigInt agency) under Tony Blair wrote an entire book on the topic last year. I myself wrote a series of three columns on the topic, all of them dealing with the diminishing gap between authoritarian policies and those of more democratic nations. Forgive me while I quote at some length...

Nokia-Siemens, defending its role in the creation of a centralised mobile telecommunications network, stated recently that:

In most countries around the world, including all EU member states and the U.S., telecommunications networks are legally required to have the capability for Lawful Intercept and this is also the case in Iran. Lawful Intercept is specified in standards defined by ETSI (European Telecommunications Standards Institute) and the 3GPP (3rd Generation Partnership Project).

Yes, decentralised communications come at a cost. They make surveillance efforts of all kinds more difficult. The two competing questions we need to ask ourselves are:

1. How far are we willing to compromise ourselves in the pursuit of state security?
2. How much are we willing to compromise state surveillance capability in order to protect our own freedom to communicate?

These are knotty issues with complex and often subtle ramifications on society. They demand a level of public engagement on the principle - and more importantly, the practice - of free speech that we haven't seen since the Red Scare of the 1950s.

Technology feels like magic to most of us. We don't - and don't want to - to know how our communications come about. We just want them to happen.

But in order for them to happen, we must inform - and arm - ourselves with the knowledge, understanding, law and policies that make it possible. Facile observations like Manjoo's do little if anything to support such an effort.

The Revolution will indeed be digitised, but only if we want it enough.

Original submitter here.

The point I find most interesting in all this is that Digicel succeeds by defying conventional wisdom about supply and demand. They simply create supply and trust local demand to rise. Here's the second paragraph of the original submission:

"If you just focus on risk, you can't do a thing," said Digicel's billionaire president Denis O'Brien in a 2008 Forbes profile. But O'Brien's small-market revolution should teach us another lesson, too: Traditional economic analysis doesn't work when it comes to communications. Telecommunications is a supply-driven economy. If you build it — no matter where you build it — they will come.

Original submitter here.

The point I find most interesting in all this is that Digicel succeeds by defying conventional wisdom about supply and demand. They simply create supply and trust local demand to rise. Here's the second paragraph of the original submission:

"If you just focus on risk, you can't do a thing," said Digicel's billionaire president Denis O'Brien in a 2008 Forbes profile. But O'Brien's small-market revolution should teach us another lesson, too: Traditional economic analysis doesn't work when it comes to communications. Telecommunications is a supply-driven economy. If you build it — no matter where you build it — they will come.

You think Arc is "steaming pile of 'software'"? I've tried a few of the free alternatives (QGIS, MapWindow, Thuban), and, while ambitious projects, they don't come anywhere close to Arc. Can you suggest something better?

MS Word is better and more feature-ful than the competition, but that doesn't mean it's not a steaming pile. The two categories are not mutually exclusive.

Just finished reading the first couple posts from your blog. Any advice for someone who wants to pickup and move to Vanuatu to either do networking or volunteer work?

Come visit first. There's a regional geek conference that should give you an idea of where things are at, coming up in mid-September. PacINET 2010 promises to be pretty good fun, and registration is free. If you can pony up for the ticket and cheap accommodation (guest houses start at about US$20/night, then you'll be right.

A more general, cautionary note to folks thinking about working in ICT development projects in underdeveloped countries: You'd better be strong, flexible, resourceful, good with (human) languages and have more than the normal allotment of patience.

I've been stuck in cyclones, got malaria, dengue, been hospitalised from the after-effects of prolonged dehydration, had more skin infections in more places than anyone really wants to know. I've been bitten by things straight out of a Tim Burton movie. I've had death threats and constant, insanely unreasonable demands on my time and my pocketbook.

To put things into perspective: we had a 7.5 earthquake here a couple of weeks ago, and were laughing about it within the hour. Nature is tough and unforgiving here. You'd better be prepared.

You may think all this is exciting. It's emphatically not. Put your Hollywood imagination away. It's tedious, uncomfortable and often dangerous in small, boring, trivial ways.

I walked away from an affluent existence as one of the first few professional web developers to enter the field and survive now on a pittance (although I do live moderately well by local standards - my new house has hot water!).

You have to measure success like a batting average. Just assume you'll strike out more than you succeed. Most projects are unwinnable from the start, and you only go through with them because to do nothing would be worse.

On top of all of that, you'll need to adjust to a culture so foreign that it will shock you to your core. And you'll only have yourself to rely on. There won't be any police if you're in a tight spot, the fire truck - if it arrives at all - will come in time to water down the ashes.

You'll see children maimed and even killed by trivially treatable conditions. You'll see good people die and bad people prosper.

But once in a while, someone will smile at you like this, and it will all be worthwhile....

... It better be, anyway, because most of the time, that's all the payment you get.

If, after all that, you're still intent on coming, then read this and come on along.

Just finished reading the first couple posts from your blog. Any advice for someone who wants to pickup and move to Vanuatu to either do networking or volunteer work?

Come visit first. There's a regional geek conference that should give you an idea of where things are at, coming up in mid-September. PacINET 2010 promises to be pretty good fun, and registration is free. If you can pony up for the ticket and cheap accommodation (guest houses start at about US$20/night, then you'll be right.

A more general, cautionary note to folks thinking about working in ICT development projects in underdeveloped countries: You'd better be strong, flexible, resourceful, good with (human) languages and have more than the normal allotment of patience.

I've been stuck in cyclones, got malaria, dengue, been hospitalised from the after-effects of prolonged dehydration, had more skin infections in more places than anyone really wants to know. I've been bitten by things straight out of a Tim Burton movie. I've had death threats and constant, insanely unreasonable demands on my time and my pocketbook.

To put things into perspective: we had a 7.5 earthquake here a couple of weeks ago, and were laughing about it within the hour. Nature is tough and unforgiving here. You'd better be prepared.

You may think all this is exciting. It's emphatically not. Put your Hollywood imagination away. It's tedious, uncomfortable and often dangerous in small, boring, trivial ways.

I walked away from an affluent existence as one of the first few professional web developers to enter the field and survive now on a pittance (although I do live moderately well by local standards - my new house has hot water!).

You have to measure success like a batting average. Just assume you'll strike out more than you succeed. Most projects are unwinnable from the start, and you only go through with them because to do nothing would be worse.

On top of all of that, you'll need to adjust to a culture so foreign that it will shock you to your core. And you'll only have yourself to rely on. There won't be any police if you're in a tight spot, the fire truck - if it arrives at all - will come in time to water down the ashes.

You'll see children maimed and even killed by trivially treatable conditions. You'll see good people die and bad people prosper.

But once in a while, someone will smile at you like this, and it will all be worthwhile....

... It better be, anyway, because most of the time, that's all the payment you get.

If, after all that, you're still intent on coming, then read this and come on along.

Just finished reading the first couple posts from your blog. Any advice for someone who wants to pickup and move to Vanuatu to either do networking or volunteer work?

Come visit first. There's a regional geek conference that should give you an idea of where things are at, coming up in mid-September. PacINET 2010 promises to be pretty good fun, and registration is free. If you can pony up for the ticket and cheap accommodation (guest houses start at about US$20/night, then you'll be right.

A more general, cautionary note to folks thinking about working in ICT development projects in underdeveloped countries: You'd better be strong, flexible, resourceful, good with (human) languages and have more than the normal allotment of patience.

I've been stuck in cyclones, got malaria, dengue, been hospitalised from the after-effects of prolonged dehydration, had more skin infections in more places than anyone really wants to know. I've been bitten by things straight out of a Tim Burton movie. I've had death threats and constant, insanely unreasonable demands on my time and my pocketbook.

To put things into perspective: we had a 7.5 earthquake here a couple of weeks ago, and were laughing about it within the hour. Nature is tough and unforgiving here. You'd better be prepared.

You may think all this is exciting. It's emphatically not. Put your Hollywood imagination away. It's tedious, uncomfortable and often dangerous in small, boring, trivial ways.

I walked away from an affluent existence as one of the first few professional web developers to enter the field and survive now on a pittance (although I do live moderately well by local standards - my new house has hot water!).

You have to measure success like a batting average. Just assume you'll strike out more than you succeed. Most projects are unwinnable from the start, and you only go through with them because to do nothing would be worse.

On top of all of that, you'll need to adjust to a culture so foreign that it will shock you to your core. And you'll only have yourself to rely on. There won't be any police if you're in a tight spot, the fire truck - if it arrives at all - will come in time to water down the ashes.

You'll see children maimed and even killed by trivially treatable conditions. You'll see good people die and bad people prosper.

But once in a while, someone will smile at you like this, and it will all be worthwhile....

... It better be, anyway, because most of the time, that's all the payment you get.

If, after all that, you're still intent on coming, then read this and come on along.

Just finished reading the first couple posts from your blog. Any advice for someone who wants to pickup and move to Vanuatu to either do networking or volunteer work?

Come visit first. There's a regional geek conference that should give you an idea of where things are at, coming up in mid-September. PacINET 2010 promises to be pretty good fun, and registration is free. If you can pony up for the ticket and cheap accommodation (guest houses start at about US$20/night, then you'll be right.

A more general, cautionary note to folks thinking about working in ICT development projects in underdeveloped countries: You'd better be strong, flexible, resourceful, good with (human) languages and have more than the normal allotment of patience.

I've been stuck in cyclones, got malaria, dengue, been hospitalised from the after-effects of prolonged dehydration, had more skin infections in more places than anyone really wants to know. I've been bitten by things straight out of a Tim Burton movie. I've had death threats and constant, insanely unreasonable demands on my time and my pocketbook.

To put things into perspective: we had a 7.5 earthquake here a couple of weeks ago, and were laughing about it within the hour. Nature is tough and unforgiving here. You'd better be prepared.

You may think all this is exciting. It's emphatically not. Put your Hollywood imagination away. It's tedious, uncomfortable and often dangerous in small, boring, trivial ways.

I walked away from an affluent existence as one of the first few professional web developers to enter the field and survive now on a pittance (although I do live moderately well by local standards - my new house has hot water!).

You have to measure success like a batting average. Just assume you'll strike out more than you succeed. Most projects are unwinnable from the start, and you only go through with them because to do nothing would be worse.

On top of all of that, you'll need to adjust to a culture so foreign that it will shock you to your core. And you'll only have yourself to rely on. There won't be any police if you're in a tight spot, the fire truck - if it arrives at all - will come in time to water down the ashes.

You'll see children maimed and even killed by trivially treatable conditions. You'll see good people die and bad people prosper.

But once in a while, someone will smile at you like this, and it will all be worthwhile....

... It better be, anyway, because most of the time, that's all the payment you get.

If, after all that, you're still intent on coming, then read this and come on along.

Just finished reading the first couple posts from your blog. Any advice for someone who wants to pickup and move to Vanuatu to either do networking or volunteer work?

Come visit first. There's a regional geek conference that should give you an idea of where things are at, coming up in mid-September. PacINET 2010 promises to be pretty good fun, and registration is free. If you can pony up for the ticket and cheap accommodation (guest houses start at about US$20/night, then you'll be right.

A more general, cautionary note to folks thinking about working in ICT development projects in underdeveloped countries: You'd better be strong, flexible, resourceful, good with (human) languages and have more than the normal allotment of patience.

I've been stuck in cyclones, got malaria, dengue, been hospitalised from the after-effects of prolonged dehydration, had more skin infections in more places than anyone really wants to know. I've been bitten by things straight out of a Tim Burton movie. I've had death threats and constant, insanely unreasonable demands on my time and my pocketbook.

To put things into perspective: we had a 7.5 earthquake here a couple of weeks ago, and were laughing about it within the hour. Nature is tough and unforgiving here. You'd better be prepared.

You may think all this is exciting. It's emphatically not. Put your Hollywood imagination away. It's tedious, uncomfortable and often dangerous in small, boring, trivial ways.

I walked away from an affluent existence as one of the first few professional web developers to enter the field and survive now on a pittance (although I do live moderately well by local standards - my new house has hot water!).

You have to measure success like a batting average. Just assume you'll strike out more than you succeed. Most projects are unwinnable from the start, and you only go through with them because to do nothing would be worse.

On top of all of that, you'll need to adjust to a culture so foreign that it will shock you to your core. And you'll only have yourself to rely on. There won't be any police if you're in a tight spot, the fire truck - if it arrives at all - will come in time to water down the ashes.

You'll see children maimed and even killed by trivially treatable conditions. You'll see good people die and bad people prosper.

But once in a while, someone will smile at you like this, and it will all be worthwhile....

... It better be, anyway, because most of the time, that's all the payment you get.

If, after all that, you're still intent on coming, then read this and come on along.

Just finished reading the first couple posts from your blog. Any advice for someone who wants to pickup and move to Vanuatu to either do networking or volunteer work?

Come visit first. There's a regional geek conference that should give you an idea of where things are at, coming up in mid-September. PacINET 2010 promises to be pretty good fun, and registration is free. If you can pony up for the ticket and cheap accommodation (guest houses start at about US$20/night, then you'll be right.

A more general, cautionary note to folks thinking about working in ICT development projects in underdeveloped countries: You'd better be strong, flexible, resourceful, good with (human) languages and have more than the normal allotment of patience.

I've been stuck in cyclones, got malaria, dengue, been hospitalised from the after-effects of prolonged dehydration, had more skin infections in more places than anyone really wants to know. I've been bitten by things straight out of a Tim Burton movie. I've had death threats and constant, insanely unreasonable demands on my time and my pocketbook.

To put things into perspective: we had a 7.5 earthquake here a couple of weeks ago, and were laughing about it within the hour. Nature is tough and unforgiving here. You'd better be prepared.

You may think all this is exciting. It's emphatically not. Put your Hollywood imagination away. It's tedious, uncomfortable and often dangerous in small, boring, trivial ways.

I walked away from an affluent existence as one of the first few professional web developers to enter the field and survive now on a pittance (although I do live moderately well by local standards - my new house has hot water!).

You have to measure success like a batting average. Just assume you'll strike out more than you succeed. Most projects are unwinnable from the start, and you only go through with them because to do nothing would be worse.

On top of all of that, you'll need to adjust to a culture so foreign that it will shock you to your core. And you'll only have yourself to rely on. There won't be any police if you're in a tight spot, the fire truck - if it arrives at all - will come in time to water down the ashes.

You'll see children maimed and even killed by trivially treatable conditions. You'll see good people die and bad people prosper.

But once in a while, someone will smile at you like this, and it will all be worthwhile....

... It better be, anyway, because most of the time, that's all the payment you get.

If, after all that, you're still intent on coming, then read this and come on along.

Just finished reading the first couple posts from your blog. Any advice for someone who wants to pickup and move to Vanuatu to either do networking or volunteer work?

Come visit first. There's a regional geek conference that should give you an idea of where things are at, coming up in mid-September. PacINET 2010 promises to be pretty good fun, and registration is free. If you can pony up for the ticket and cheap accommodation (guest houses start at about US$20/night, then you'll be right.

A more general, cautionary note to folks thinking about working in ICT development projects in underdeveloped countries: You'd better be strong, flexible, resourceful, good with (human) languages and have more than the normal allotment of patience.

I've been stuck in cyclones, got malaria, dengue, been hospitalised from the after-effects of prolonged dehydration, had more skin infections in more places than anyone really wants to know. I've been bitten by things straight out of a Tim Burton movie. I've had death threats and constant, insanely unreasonable demands on my time and my pocketbook.

To put things into perspective: we had a 7.5 earthquake here a couple of weeks ago, and were laughing about it within the hour. Nature is tough and unforgiving here. You'd better be prepared.

You may think all this is exciting. It's emphatically not. Put your Hollywood imagination away. It's tedious, uncomfortable and often dangerous in small, boring, trivial ways.

I walked away from an affluent existence as one of the first few professional web developers to enter the field and survive now on a pittance (although I do live moderately well by local standards - my new house has hot water!).

You have to measure success like a batting average. Just assume you'll strike out more than you succeed. Most projects are unwinnable from the start, and you only go through with them because to do nothing would be worse.

On top of all of that, you'll need to adjust to a culture so foreign that it will shock you to your core. And you'll only have yourself to rely on. There won't be any police if you're in a tight spot, the fire truck - if it arrives at all - will come in time to water down the ashes.

You'll see children maimed and even killed by trivially treatable conditions. You'll see good people die and bad people prosper.

But once in a while, someone will smile at you like this, and it will all be worthwhile....

... It better be, anyway, because most of the time, that's all the payment you get.

If, after all that, you're still intent on coming, then read this and come on along.

Just finished reading the first couple posts from your blog. Any advice for someone who wants to pickup and move to Vanuatu to either do networking or volunteer work?

Come visit first. There's a regional geek conference that should give you an idea of where things are at, coming up in mid-September. PacINET 2010 promises to be pretty good fun, and registration is free. If you can pony up for the ticket and cheap accommodation (guest houses start at about US$20/night, then you'll be right.

A more general, cautionary note to folks thinking about working in ICT development projects in underdeveloped countries: You'd better be strong, flexible, resourceful, good with (human) languages and have more than the normal allotment of patience.

I've been stuck in cyclones, got malaria, dengue, been hospitalised from the after-effects of prolonged dehydration, had more skin infections in more places than anyone really wants to know. I've been bitten by things straight out of a Tim Burton movie. I've had death threats and constant, insanely unreasonable demands on my time and my pocketbook.

To put things into perspective: we had a 7.5 earthquake here a couple of weeks ago, and were laughing about it within the hour. Nature is tough and unforgiving here. You'd better be prepared.

You may think all this is exciting. It's emphatically not. Put your Hollywood imagination away. It's tedious, uncomfortable and often dangerous in small, boring, trivial ways.

I walked away from an affluent existence as one of the first few professional web developers to enter the field and survive now on a pittance (although I do live moderately well by local standards - my new house has hot water!).

You have to measure success like a batting average. Just assume you'll strike out more than you succeed. Most projects are unwinnable from the start, and you only go through with them because to do nothing would be worse.

On top of all of that, you'll need to adjust to a culture so foreign that it will shock you to your core. And you'll only have yourself to rely on. There won't be any police if you're in a tight spot, the fire truck - if it arrives at all - will come in time to water down the ashes.

You'll see children maimed and even killed by trivially treatable conditions. You'll see good people die and bad people prosper.

But once in a while, someone will smile at you like this, and it will all be worthwhile....

... It better be, anyway, because most of the time, that's all the payment you get.

If, after all that, you're still intent on coming, then read this and come on along.

So when are you going to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem? Mischaracterizing your opponents isn't scientific either. Sure there's probably a group inimical to science who is doing as you say. And there's cynicism here as everywhere else.

I've posted a slightly longer consideration of the issue here. I think it explains a little more clearly what I'm pointing at. I think you'll agree that the trend I'm describing is real. It's not universal, thank heavens, otherwise I'd lose all faith in humanity. It is, however, a dominant element in the current social dynamic.

But distrust doesn't spring from just ideology. It also comes from failing to deliver.

I'd venture to suggest that yes, distrust of Science does necessarily come from ideology. By definition, if you're able to understand the principles of the scientific method and still fail see how they correct for personal bias, then you are either a victim of ignorance or willful self-deception.

By 'failing to deliver'. I'm going to assume you mean, 'failing to deliver good science.' Anything else would be accusing you of confirmation bias, and I don't think that's the case.

If that's true, then the solution is more science, not less. Distrust individual sources if experience teaches you that they're unreliable, but do not discredit Science just because of a few incompetents.

In my view, the science of climate has been taken over by a bunch of characters more interested in the politics than the science (or pragmatic matters of what do with that knowledge). The scandal of climate change is simply that the science is remarkably sloppy given the stakes.

So you're willing to argue that, because a subset of scientists are drawing conclusions that you feel the data doesn't support or even misusing their findings to pursue political agendas that this somehow subverts scientists as a class? Climate science is a small (but admittedly prominent) sector of Science as a whole.

I'm quite sure that you and I could have a reasonable discussion about the failings of Climate policy, and I'm pretty sure that's not what you mean. If you do feel that way, then you had better take a step back and consider the implications.

[T]here's argument by consensus rather than by science (who in the scientific community should be convinced by the argument that tens of thousands of scientists (the vast majority who don't have any more a clue than I do) have a certain opinion?)

Come on, don't start tilting at straw men. You're smarter than that. You know perfectly well that the argument from consensus is that the vast majority of climate scientists are finding data that meshes well with what others are finding. The fact that a bunch of people less qualified to know also agree neither adds nor subtracts from that contention.

I'm not denying that anyone in favour of action on climate hasn't said something as silly as that. I'm saying that they're part of the problem, because they're no less willfully ignorant than the rest. See where I'm going with this? The Know-Nothing, fear-driven, us-against-them, the-world-is-ending bullshit affects all of us, regardless of our political stance. Anti-intellectualism and resentment of Smart People generally is an equal opportunity subversive.

If what you really meant was that the data is based on too few sources, so the consensus itself is flawed, then that's easily verified, isn't it? And equally easily refuted. So let's have that argument instead. It won't be nearly as frustrating.

And P.S. You're wrong on that count. While the predictive capability of current climate science is necessarily limited (see cloud formation for an example of how complex the systems are that we're attempting to character

Not good news for professional photographers.

Flickr never cared about professional photographers. It's possibly the worst imaginable interface for viewing photos, debasing just about everything that makes photography interesting and engaging.

Contrast this with an interface like that offered by 500px.com. This site was also founded in Torionto by a few guys who are genuinely passionate about photography. While it consciously apes Flickr in some respects, just about every design and editorial decision is made to enhance our appreciation of photography as art and craft.

Flickr drives virtually no traffic to my websites, in spite of my having some interesting and unique photos (I live in a part of the world few have visited). Since I moved to 500px, I haven't even thought about it. Oh it's perfectly fine for sharing snapshots, but any professional, talented photographer who think Flickr is going to help their career is labouring under a delusion.

So yeah, I have reasonably fast internet for a Canadian, but at what price?

As a Canadian expat living in the developing world, you have my sympathy. But you need to put things in perspective. I just wrote a rant about the paucity of Internet in my part of the world that might make you feel a little better.

TL;DR - There are people in Seoul – and countless other cities in the world – who have more bandwidth at their personal disposal than a quarter of a million people here in the Pacific.

As much as we hate Apple's walled-garden approach to an app store, having a central authority with a kill switch for any app, [etc....] are all things that stand in the way of a would be trojan spyware author.

Perhaps, but if you cast your net a little wider, you'll realise that the main thing required is a viable process. Autocratic centralised control is just one of a number of different and equally effective means of managing security for end users. Debian, Ubuntu, Fedora and countless other community-maintained repositories have historically sustained a commendable level of security in their vast software collections. They've built up so much trust, in fact, that the trust itself has become a peculiar kind of strength.

MS products are good in firms that have the resources to insure all machines are homogeneous and up to date, firms that require a high level of collaborations of complex non-technical documents(This does not include most educational places).

Nothing could be further from the truth. MS products are generally terrible for the creation of collaborative, complex, non-technical documents. It's just that organisations are for the most part incurious and unwilling to depart from the well-trodden path.

This isn't exclusively Microsoft's fault. Almost without exception[*], WYSIWYG editors suck.

This is just another example of a phenomenon that remain inscrutable to hackers and geeks the world over. Generally speaking, people are incurious. They don't particularly care about the best or even the right way to do something. In fact, as long as they create the surface impression of having done something (e.g. using Word to create an unparseable, ungodly hodge-podge of visual formatting and calling it a 'complex document'), they're generally satisfied to let things lie.

Of course, this is the fundamental principle that animates the Dilbert universe and makes it the serio-comic tragedy that it is.

--------------
[*] I only say 'almost' because I'm willing to admit that in some parallel universe, some Leonardo of the keyboard might conceivably have invented a WYSIWYG word processor that actually does an adequate job at non-trivial tasks. In that same alternate universe, however, I can skate across a giant butter lake wearing a frilly orange tutu, then mount my flying unicorn and float away over cotton-candy clouds to my home in an enchanted toadstool.

I think we've established that lassez-faire capitalism isn't the answer.

I don't think that's entirely correct. Well, I don't think its entirely wrong, either, but there's an important point to be made about market freedom that often gets thrown out when we start talking about the need for intervention.

The prime motivation behind Network Neutrality is to allow free market forces to manifest themselves on the Internet without being constrained by those who control the physical networks. Network Neutrality actually enforces a laissez faire environment -from the perspective of the information services. It does so, however, by constraining the network owners from using their control over bandwidth/QoS/etc. to subvert the flow of information from particular sources.

As I've written elsewhere:

Absent Net Neutrality, the potential for abuse of control over traffic by carriers is far too great. No compromise is possible in this regard, because degradation of Net Neutrality is a degradation of the market itself.

Why fiddle with consistently formatting a long Word document when you can just load a document class in LaTeX?

I spend my days building systems to process legal documents from over twenty countries. Words like yours make me weep with despair.

If I had my way, I'd do away with word processors entirely. Really.

I couldn't agree more that a little bit of structure goes a long way. But the problem is, the benefits derive to people other than the document authors. In effect, the case you have to make is, "If you would only make a slightly greater effort. my life would be easier."

When it comes to closed systems (e.g. large organisations with strict documentation requirements) and very small, very specialised operations (academic researchers), you can make the benefits felt pretty quickly....

But try telling a Chief Justice that his Word documents aren't up to snuff and that he needs to get his already overworked staff to take some time from what they're doing in order to make things easier for everyone. More often than not, they'll glance at the document, decide that it's perfectly legible (which wasn't the issue) and tell you to get out of their office.

Sometimes you can make the case, and the results are a treat. But sustaining the new standards is a constant battle. Even when you do manage to establish standards and processes, it only takes one new manager to tear it all down.

So now, for my sins, I'm forced to content myself with trying to convince people to use Word styles instead of visual formatting.

"The worst change IMO is going to be journalism."

Journalism, newspapers and magazines are in for some lean years. Then we'll all realize that no, a million random bloggers on the Internet are not a replacement for a trained, professional journalist/writer.

I agree completely with your first statement. Journalism is undergoing a radical transformation. 'Interesting Times' (pun intended) in the worst sense of the Chinese curse.

Your conclusion, though, is too reductive. You're begging the question by implying that the only way to be a skilled journalist is to have training and to be a professional. History tells us otherwise. Many, if not most, of the stars of journalism never went near J-school and a substantial number of the ones who did the most to define journalism spent their careers working against the grain of Establishment attitudes. Billy Russell, Peter Arnett, Robert Capa and Don McCullen are just a few who fell sideways into print and photo journalism, but who were each revolutionary in their own small way.

If I were looking for the future of journalism, I'd be looking carefully at Marcy Wheeler and Nate Silver - people whose extraordinary skill at research and analysis has been enabled by their ability to start a blog and work on their own terms, spending time on subjects and approaches that most bean-counters would never allow.

Full disclosure: I'm biased in favour of such an outcome because I do my own writing and photography on those terms. I don't really care whether I earn money from it (though I do derive a modest income), because I long ago learned that it's just something I love to do.

Maybe my work will never be of more than regional interest. I don't care. The beauty of the format is just this: It doesn't have to be popular. It can just be good. I can focus on quality for its own sake; I can write and photograph what I consider to be in the public interest and allow people to make of it what they will.

"The worst change IMO is going to be journalism."

Journalism, newspapers and magazines are in for some lean years. Then we'll all realize that no, a million random bloggers on the Internet are not a replacement for a trained, professional journalist/writer.

I agree completely with your first statement. Journalism is undergoing a radical transformation. 'Interesting Times' (pun intended) in the worst sense of the Chinese curse.

Your conclusion, though, is too reductive. You're begging the question by implying that the only way to be a skilled journalist is to have training and to be a professional. History tells us otherwise. Many, if not most, of the stars of journalism never went near J-school and a substantial number of the ones who did the most to define journalism spent their careers working against the grain of Establishment attitudes. Billy Russell, Peter Arnett, Robert Capa and Don McCullen are just a few who fell sideways into print and photo journalism, but who were each revolutionary in their own small way.

If I were looking for the future of journalism, I'd be looking carefully at Marcy Wheeler and Nate Silver - people whose extraordinary skill at research and analysis has been enabled by their ability to start a blog and work on their own terms, spending time on subjects and approaches that most bean-counters would never allow.

Full disclosure: I'm biased in favour of such an outcome because I do my own writing and photography on those terms. I don't really care whether I earn money from it (though I do derive a modest income), because I long ago learned that it's just something I love to do.

Maybe my work will never be of more than regional interest. I don't care. The beauty of the format is just this: It doesn't have to be popular. It can just be good. I can focus on quality for its own sake; I can write and photograph what I consider to be in the public interest and allow people to make of it what they will.

True, but that's not what he is questioning. Given two identical projects that are fairly complex (i.e. an OS kernel) he's saying that just being open source doesn't necessarily provide "more eyes". While I think there is a bit of merit to this, it certainly doesn't hurt to have more eyes possible - especially when you don't have to pay for them.

Agreed, of course. However, the converse is important, too:

Given two identical projects that are fairly complex (i.e. an OS kernel), being closed source virtually guarantees that there won't be 'more eyes'.

But the real question is: How many eyes are enough?

The answer is its own problem: Only one more pair. The tricky part is figuring out whose they are. (Yes, I'm in screaming agreement with what the OP is saying.)

It's a quality issue as much as it's a question of quantity. Ben Laurie, writing about the Debian OpenSSL Fiasco, states:

[I]f the Debian maintainer [who created the bug] had asked the [OpenSSL] developers, then we would have advised against such a change.

So yes, it does matter whose eyes are turned to a particular problem. The difference between FOSS/Open Source and Closed Source is therefore whether the Closed Source company has hired the right people and whether the FOSS project has gained the attention and interest of the right people.

Neither of those situations is guaranteed, but they are not at all equivalent. (Especially when we consider that for many of the best FOSS products, gaining the attention and interest of the right people is done by employing them.) Realistically, FOSS faces better odds of having bugs found and fixed, all else being equal.

I think the perpetrators will end up with more on their hands than they at first suspected when a bunch of IT powerhouses decide to start randomly hosing key pieces of their information infrastructure.

I suspect that exactly the opposite is more likely: The IT powerhouses will end up with more on their hands than they at first suspected when the perpetrators decide to start randomly hosing key pieces of their information infrastructure.

... Not that I think either outcome is a certainty, by the way. Nonetheless, perhaps the most interesting part about this whole episode (and I'm including the mass-attack against US military assets earlier in 2009 here) is that the effort was so brazen. And when someone (Google) finally did pipe up, China's effective response was, 'Sit down and shut up if you know what's good for you.'

It's not at all surprising that most of our so-called business leaders acquiesce. If MBA school teaches you anything, it's that you have to go along to get along.

More analysis here, for anyone not frightened by TL;DR.

Is there really? What is the difference, for sake of argument? Pirating is X while sharing mp3 files with strangers via bit torrent is Y. What are X and Y and how are they different?

One is an crime, the other is an activity.

Example: I publish all my photos online under a Creative Commons License (Attribution, Share-Alike, for what it's worth). If you take a copy of a photo and post it on your own site, saying, 'I got this photo from Imagicity, I'm perfectly cool with that. But if - and this happens often enough - you take the photo and you either pretend it's yours or you don't say where you got it, I send you a polite notice saying, 'You're not abiding by the license. Please do so.'

If you keep ignoring me, I'll force you to take it down using whatever legal and technical means are at my disposal. I like sharing my work, but it's not going to generate much work for me if people don't know took the photo in the first place.

So: Both activities consist of sharing someone else's files over the Internet. The second infringes my grant of copyright, the first does not. That's because the infraction consists, not of sharing the file, but of willfully ignoring the terms under which file sharing is allowed.

So-called Content Publishers like to conflate these two acts into one, because it allows them to create exactly the confusion that you're experiencing, which in turn allows them to lobby everyone and his dog, asking to make this behaviour illegal. That would make life much simpler for them, because it would allow them to continue doing business as they always have done.

Unfortunately, actual creators like me prefer to leverage the freely shareable nature of digital file formats in a different way. We encourage people to make the best possible use of technology in order to build recognition and popularity. This is turn creates a market for our work where none existed before.

And that's why I'm willing to spend 15 minutes of my time composing a thoughtful reply to your question, while the *AA and their international cohorts spend millions calling my business model THEFT and PIRACY, all in caps and punctuated by elevenses.

Carr has railed about this problem before, and he's still just as wrong as he ever was.

Here's his analysis of Murdoch's first pronouncements on the topic back in April. And here's why he's just as wrong now as he was then.

(I later turned that post into a newspaper column in the country where I live. It's longer and slightly more polished, but more focused on our particular issues, which aren't necessarily germane to the larger debate.)

Carr has railed about this problem before, and he's still just as wrong as he ever was.

Here's his analysis of Murdoch's first pronouncements on the topic back in April. And here's why he's just as wrong now as he was then.

(I later turned that post into a newspaper column in the country where I live. It's longer and slightly more polished, but more focused on our particular issues, which aren't necessarily germane to the larger debate.)

Suppose it was possible to apply security patches without installing Windows Genuine Advantage (malware by anyone's definition except Microsoft's). Would that make a difference?

Quite likely, but Microsoft is definitely within their rights to insist that people pay for their software. You and I may find it to be unwieldy, intrusive and obnoxious, but that's our problem, not theirs.

If people don't want to deal with the mess and hassle of keeping their Windows machines clean and up to date, they have alternatives. They can pony up for a Mac or they can install Linux. Heck, if they're absolutely committed to using Windows without paying, they can run it in a snapshotted VM on Linux.

Just last week I wrote a newspaper column advocating Ubuntu Karmic over Windows 7, so I'm no fan of Windows whatsoever. But as someone who writes a fair amount of software, I fully respect Microsoft's right to license it - and enforce that license - as they see fit.

The fact that they're doing so in such a way as to drive the world away from them is just gravy, as far as I'm concerned. 8^)

Any chance you'd do a Reddit IAMA?

My time online is generally during working hours. The prospect of having to field hundreds of questions is a little intimidating, to be honest.

But much of what I do is public in nature. I write two columns (one IT-related) for our national newspapers. They're collected on my website (see my profile). I also take a lot of photos.

If you're interested in learning still more, I'd suggest taking a membership in the Pacific Islands Chapter of the Internet Society. PICISOC is a pretty active and engaged community, and there's lots of talk about this kind of work. I'm a frequent contributor to the noise.

Vanuatu? Amazing. Do you know of anybody who believes in "John From"?

OT for this thread, but... yes, this man, for example. There are entire communities on Tanna island that take cargo culture very seriously. And to bring things back on topic (a little), here's a semi-humorous article I wrote about cargo culture and development.

Vanuatu? Amazing. Do you know of anybody who believes in "John From"?

OT for this thread, but... yes, this man, for example. There are entire communities on Tanna island that take cargo culture very seriously. And to bring things back on topic (a little), here's a semi-humorous article I wrote about cargo culture and development.

Why not a compromise that limits the bandwidth advantage a company can give to X percent? That way they can give their own content enough of a boost to justify investing in smaller towns etc., but not enough to throw rivals into pure molasses.

I've stated this before, so I won't bother repeating myself. Here's the summary: Network Neutrality is a fundamental design principle that defines the Internet. As such, it is not negotiable.

And I think he's entirely off-base. Nose-in-the-air "Scholars" like this gentleman fail to recognize that Google's efforts are about making material available to "the rest of us" who don't have access to those major research libraries. And categorical indexing of material makes complete and total sense if you expect to have non-PhD sorts searching for it.

You're fighting the wrong battle here. It's easy to find any number of legitimately nasty things about 'Scholars' and 'Academics' and elitism in general. But arguing for proper classification in Google Books is not one of them.

For several years I was an avid amateur of Information Retrieval. Classification (and other useful organisational models) of information into related collections is essential when you don't know what keywords you're looking for. This is especially important with historical works, where the use of 21st Century names, terms and other common keywords is next to useless.

Google search is useful when you know what you're searching for. But knowing what to look for in Google Books is an entirely different matter. Categorisation matters here.

By using a classification system that is designed for book sellers, Google's chosen a very poor set of criteria. Not only will most of the titles be poorly characterised (and thus harder to find), the effort required to find them increases with their rarity or uniqueness. These aren't always a measure of importance or interest, but often enough, they are.

Asking Google to consider a proven, effective and well-understood categorisation system is not being snooty; it's an effort to suggest - as we geeks often do - that there might actually be a correct way to perform this task.

Sometimes what looks like 'arrogance' is actually the state of being right about something when no one else will listen.

Information is meant to be free, if you think money is incentive for creating it, then what about the entire open source community and millions of free webpages?

A nitpick, but in the time-honoured slashdot tradition, an important one:

The original quote is that 'Information wants to be free. Here's the fuller context:

On the one hand information wants to be expensive, because it's so valuable. The right information in the right place just changes your life. On the other hand, information wants to be free, because the cost of getting it out is getting lower and lower all the time. So you have these two fighting against each other.

That fight is not over by any means. Information is not yet meant to be free. Society (and economics in particular) still has to come to terms with what that means in practical terms. The FOSS movement and various other anarcho-technological philosophies are as often responses to the first desire as anything else. RMS and others have stated before that their actions are in response to the others' tendency to see ideas (and even implementations of those ideas) as belonging to them. If the former didn't exist, the latter wouldn't have to.

The whole issue of Droits d'Auteur - the Enlightenment concept of authors' moral rights over their creations - is an unresolved question. Even copyright was an uneasy (and increasingly untenable) accommodation of an idea that does not ultimately benefit society. Unfortunately, measures such as the one that AP has just announced take the discussion in the wrong direction. Their entire approach is predicated on the existence of authors' rights and on their transferability.

Without author's rights, people can't create economies of scarcity. Without transferable rights, the distributors (AP, *AA et alia) have no business model.

Until we begin to cogently and coherently question those two basic assumptions, the dialectic between information freedom and so-called Intellectual Property will be conducted between law-makers and law-breakers. That's very difficult moral (and ethical and legal) territory.

And the company themselves debunked this rumor. http://www.nokiasiemensnetworks.com/global/Press/Press+releases/news-archive/Provision+of+Lawful+Intercept+capability+in+Iran.htm

That's a rebuttal, not a refutation.

Nokia-Siemens are basically stating (correctly) 'we didn't do anything there that we aren't required to do elsewhere.' That's all well and good, but it doesn't address the fundamental question: Is what they did in Iran (and do elsewhere) the Right Thing?

The whole question about how - and when, and who - to intercept in the context of the Internet is particularly troubling. Here's an excerpt from a longer piece I wrote about the situation:

Nokia-Siemens, defending its role in the creation of a centralised mobile telecommuncations network, stated recently that:

In most countries around the world, including all EU member states and the U.S., telecommunications networks are legally required to have the capability for Lawful Intercept and this is also the case in Iran. Lawful Intercept is specified in standards defined by ETSI (European Telecommunications Standards Institute) and the 3GPP (3rd Generation Partnership Project).

Yes, decentralised communications come at a cost. They make surveillance efforts of all kinds more difficult. The two competing questions we need to ask ourselves are:

1. How far are we willing to compromise ourselves in the pursuit of state security?
2. How much are we willing to compromise state surveillance capability in order to protect our own freedom to communicate?

These are knotty issues with complex and often subtle ramifications on society. They demand a level of public engagement on the principle - and more importantly, the practice - of free speech that we havenâ(TM)t seen since the Red Scare of the 1950s.

I think that this is what you're looking for.

Or this. I've been actively supporting the work done by the People First Network (specifically their efforts to get a similar project up and running in neighbouring Vanuatu) for years now. PFNet has a network of dozens of HF radio stations transmitting email to the farthest reaches that lacks even the most basic infrastructure.

The service they provide is essential, even saving lives occasionally. When a 7.0 earthquake caused a tsunami in one remote area of the Solomons, PFNet staff were the first to generate casualty and damage reports, accompanied by photos and other documentary evidence. Thanks to their early warning, people downstream of the tsunami received a warning in time to move to higher ground.

However, I think setting up WiFi-based 'grid networks' in developing countries is a great idea, but as others have mentioned, what those countries really need is a lot more basic than WiFi.

Actually, there are few more basic needs than communications. I've been writing a weekly column on the topic for a little over 2 years now, looking at the issue of communications in the South Pacific region. The more I look at the issue, the more I realise that, especially in places where infrastructure (both political and physical) is lacking, poor communications slows everything down.

Access to information and the ability to share knowledge makes everything easier. I'm currently helping one project to build and repair roads throughout the country. One of their first prerequisites was ensuring that they'd have good communications between their work crews and the capital. Solutions like this networ-in-a-box are exactly on the mark. They serve a critical need.

If you address the problems of warlords/dictators and ethnic cleansing, corrupt governments, etc, those countries will build their own Internet infrastructure.

Let's ignore warlords for the moment, because about 90% of the developing world doesn't have to deal with them. As far as corrupt politicians are concerned, well... everyone has them. Everyone. In the country where I live, the biggest problem is that the MP gets elected, disappears to the capital for 4 years, and only reappears at election time. If people could actually keep in touch with him, they might be able to actually get some representation from him. Without communications, though, it's just 'out of sight, out of mind.'

Building awareness about what constitutes real political ability, enabling more principled candidates to learn the tools of their craft and - most importantly of all - enabling a dialogue with constituents scattered across large tracts of difficult terrain... all of this requires better communications than we have at the moment.

It's just a matter of having a stable economy

Not to nit-pick, but it's a matter of building a stable economy, and that doesn't happen without improved communications. Internet is the horse, and it's helping to pull the economic cart.

I expect that 'the Internet' for developing countries will first come in the form of digital cell phone networks, then expand from there.)

That's exactly what we've done here, anyway.

I think that this is what you're looking for.

Or this. I've been actively supporting the work done by the People First Network (specifically their efforts to get a similar project up and running in neighbouring Vanuatu) for years now. PFNet has a network of dozens of HF radio stations transmitting email to the farthest reaches that lacks even the most basic infrastructure.

The service they provide is essential, even saving lives occasionally. When a 7.0 earthquake caused a tsunami in one remote area of the Solomons, PFNet staff were the first to generate casualty and damage reports, accompanied by photos and other documentary evidence. Thanks to their early warning, people downstream of the tsunami received a warning in time to move to higher ground.

However, I think setting up WiFi-based 'grid networks' in developing countries is a great idea, but as others have mentioned, what those countries really need is a lot more basic than WiFi.

Actually, there are few more basic needs than communications. I've been writing a weekly column on the topic for a little over 2 years now, looking at the issue of communications in the South Pacific region. The more I look at the issue, the more I realise that, especially in places where infrastructure (both political and physical) is lacking, poor communications slows everything down.

Access to information and the ability to share knowledge makes everything easier. I'm currently helping one project to build and repair roads throughout the country. One of their first prerequisites was ensuring that they'd have good communications between their work crews and the capital. Solutions like this networ-in-a-box are exactly on the mark. They serve a critical need.

If you address the problems of warlords/dictators and ethnic cleansing, corrupt governments, etc, those countries will build their own Internet infrastructure.

Let's ignore warlords for the moment, because about 90% of the developing world doesn't have to deal with them. As far as corrupt politicians are concerned, well... everyone has them. Everyone. In the country where I live, the biggest problem is that the MP gets elected, disappears to the capital for 4 years, and only reappears at election time. If people could actually keep in touch with him, they might be able to actually get some representation from him. Without communications, though, it's just 'out of sight, out of mind.'

Building awareness about what constitutes real political ability, enabling more principled candidates to learn the tools of their craft and - most importantly of all - enabling a dialogue with constituents scattered across large tracts of difficult terrain... all of this requires better communications than we have at the moment.

It's just a matter of having a stable economy

Not to nit-pick, but it's a matter of building a stable economy, and that doesn't happen without improved communications. Internet is the horse, and it's helping to pull the economic cart.

I expect that 'the Internet' for developing countries will first come in the form of digital cell phone networks, then expand from there.)

That's exactly what we've done here, anyway.

I think a spokesman from Nokia claimed that installation of such systems is legally required to build a cellphone network in the western world, so it's not like they'd have had a strong moral standing to deny the sale.

That's correct, but doesn't do anything to excuse Nokia or Siemens.

What it does do is implicate the rest of us in the problem.

For the last couple of weeks, I've been writing about the implications of this issue. In a nutshell, there's an unresolved conflict between logical and physical network design. The Internet was meant to be robust and distributed precisely because we didn't want it to be susceptible to the kind of degradation we're seeing in Iran

.

We have abdicated responsibility for management of the physical networks themselves, relying on old-school, centralised telco models in both carrier-grade and consumer technology.

Our communications systems are symptomatic of our ability to make democracy work. We've been remiss these last 10 years, and have let significant weaknesses creep into our communications, with direct implications on our exercise of democracy.

This is one example where geeks especially should be putting our money where our mouth is. We should be investing significant time and effort into finding ways to mitigate the worst aspects of centralised networks. This means, among other things, making encryption workable, building mesh network applications into consumer devices, and - hardest of all - never, ever letting people forget that what we need is free and open access to the Internet. Not the Web, not just Facebook or Twitter.

We're not paying to subscribe to someone else's data service; we're paying for access to the network itself. We should never have let anyone forget that.

I think a spokesman from Nokia claimed that installation of such systems is legally required to build a cellphone network in the western world, so it's not like they'd have had a strong moral standing to deny the sale.

That's correct, but doesn't do anything to excuse Nokia or Siemens.

What it does do is implicate the rest of us in the problem.

For the last couple of weeks, I've been writing about the implications of this issue. In a nutshell, there's an unresolved conflict between logical and physical network design. The Internet was meant to be robust and distributed precisely because we didn't want it to be susceptible to the kind of degradation we're seeing in Iran

.

We have abdicated responsibility for management of the physical networks themselves, relying on old-school, centralised telco models in both carrier-grade and consumer technology.

Our communications systems are symptomatic of our ability to make democracy work. We've been remiss these last 10 years, and have let significant weaknesses creep into our communications, with direct implications on our exercise of democracy.

This is one example where geeks especially should be putting our money where our mouth is. We should be investing significant time and effort into finding ways to mitigate the worst aspects of centralised networks. This means, among other things, making encryption workable, building mesh network applications into consumer devices, and - hardest of all - never, ever letting people forget that what we need is free and open access to the Internet. Not the Web, not just Facebook or Twitter.

We're not paying to subscribe to someone else's data service; we're paying for access to the network itself. We should never have let anyone forget that.

hasn't there been multiple worms for openssl and apache?

i'm suprised i have to make this point yet again, but there are more machines infected than the whole linux marketshare. until linux is really in the hands of the common newb you won't have an apples and apples comparison.

Silence, in this context, really is golden.

The absence of data actually does signify, as far as this argument is concerned. In effective terms, users can find a secure haven in non-Windows systems. There is, admittedly, some truth to the assertion that there's a myth of invulnerability surrounding FOSS systems. Amusingly, black hats seem to buy into it as much as anyone else.

Want effective protection from malware right now? Don't run Windows.

Will that protection exist tomorrow? Will it exist even after everyone and their dog has flocked to FOSS? These are, for the moment, academic questions. Developers, however, deal with such academic questions all the time. My personal feeling is that FOSS developers are up to the task of securing their systems even in the face of concerted attacks.

So what about that famously touted malware vector, 'stupid user tricks'? Ignorance and naivete are vulnerabilities in any system, technical or human. One doesn't have to look far for proof of that. But there's a fundamental logical flaw in this argument when applied to FOSS systems: The argument essentially says, "Once FOSS is just like Windows, it will be just as insecure as Windows."

This assumes that a mass movement to FOSS won't be accompanied by a cultural change, and I can't see how that's possible. The culture of the incurious, uninvolved and too-trusting Windows user is exactly what keeps Linux (and much of FOSS) off the desktop. FOSS punishes each of those tendencies. In effect, it pushes back against the very behaviour that remains Windows' last, greatest vulnerability.

I'm not trying to make the case for cultural change. Frankly, I'm getting jaded enough that I'm not so sure there will ever be a year of Linux on the desktop. But here's the thing: I don't care. Linux (and FOSS systems generally) work for me and my customers now. That's enough for today. I'll continue looking ahead with caution, but today, at least, I'm safe, and most of the rest of the world is not.

Like Richard Stallman said at the WSIS Tunis panel discussion 2005: This is electronic colonization, i.e. the Africans are supposed to pay for foreign products and remain ignorant and dependent.

He's right, too. I live in a Least Developed Country and write a weekly ICT-related column in one of our national newspapers. When I reported on a closed-door meeting between Microsoft and the Ministry of Education, I made more or less the same observation.

A brief quote:

The world of IT is undergoing the same shift in emphasis and momentum as industrialism underwent in the late 19th Century. Having reached critical mass in the developed world, technology was exported to the developing world, most notably into India, Japan and, to a lesser degree, China. They profited immensely, but the social cost was high.

It was largely due to technological mastery that the great colonial powers managed to control huge parts of the globe. Their communications and logistical capabilities were well beyond anything their opponents could muster, and their industrialised military ensured that they dominated wherever they set foot.

In fairness, this latest excursion into the 'wilds' of the developing world is much more benign than the conquests of the 19th century. Nonetheless, the goals are the same: expansion of business opportunities and profits through the creation of new products and markets.

It's not necessary - or possible - to pass judgement on the process as a whole. Regardless of how we might feel about it, it's happening now, and no one can stop it. This strategic change in approach offers Vanuatu a valuable opportunity and at one and the same time creates challenges that need to be understood and addressed.

I didn't think that was particularly incendiary, but the very next working day, I got a call from a very angry Ministry worker, demanding to know who'd spoken to me. Later that week, a half-page rebuttal was published in the same paper, loudly decrying the use of the term 'Colonialism' in relation to software licensing. They claimed that it was inflammatory and prejudiced.

Interestingly, they didn't refute a single argument I used to support my use of the term.

See some sort of pattern? People will pay for the content if it is valuable enough.

Well put, but I wish more people understood what 'valuable' really means.

People everywhere get that supply and demand is fundamentally different on the Web, but they get the emphasis entirely wrong. I've written about it in more detail elsewhere, but here's a quick summary:

You can't just arbitrarily limit supply and expect it to magically increase in value. The mechanics of digital media make that impossible. You have to have something that's inherently valuable in the first place.

For most people, the generic fluff that fills up 90% of their local newspaper is not something they would have paid for, if they'd had the choice. On the Web, they have that choice, and they don't pay.

I write for two newspapers, and also publish online. I'm sympathetic to the plight of the traditional dailies and weeklies. I just wish they'd get a clue.

What would you suggest? Lesser hardware? Surely there must be a solution somewhere in the middle of "I want this" and "I can use this".

Yep, there is. But it's not always where you think.

Shameless (but hopefully useful) self-promotion:

I've been living and working in Least Developed Countries in the tropics for nearly 6 years now, and for the last 2, I've been writing a weekly IT-related column called Communications. There's a ton of advice in there. Go take a look. Check my tag cloud for relevant topics.

Here are a few fundamentals:

-1- The first thing to do is to adjust both hardware and - and this is important- software to the circumstances. Focus on the task first, then avoid confusing how that task is completed in a North American office environment with 'the right way' to do things.

-2- Scale everything down, in order to make the cost of failure of any single element as small as possible. This way, you get a solution that's replicable, affordable and - most importantly- easily replaced when (not if) it breaks.

-3- If you have unreliable power, then do two things first: Make your system tolerant to current fluctuations[*], and then plan for an intermittently available service. Forget about trying to keep it running at all times. Just minimise the cost of interruptions. A surge suppressing electrical switch on the wall where your main power source enters the building will cost you less and save you more than anything else.

[*] Bad (i.e. poor quality) power is the source of about 80% of hardware failure where I live. Every time the local power company hits us with brown-outs and spikes, I'd get a surge (heh!) of customer service calls.

To me, this situation screams 'require redundancy'. I understand this was not given as an option originally, but with the environment described I would certainly not want to rely on one single server.

Yes, redundancy is good. Cheap, small, easily replaced devices are good. Snap-shotted VMs are also good. The bottom line is that you need to keep the cost of failure low, because the system is certain to fail due to environmental factors. A good motto for working in the Developing World is: If you can't beat 'em, at least don't lose too much.

The best way to do this is to try to run on hardware that's about 3-5 years behind the curve, or to go straight to the bleeding edge of low-power tech.

To the submitter: I have a personal interest in Bangladesh, by the way. You can reach me by leaving a comment on my website. Good luck!

P.S. Unless money and space are no object, you'll never run full-time computing services on solar power. Especially in monsoon season. IMO, best not to try.

...I trust those Debian guys to check the code before they build it into securely signed binary packages for me and other joes to consume. Before it reaches me the software has already had "many eyes" looking at it.

The funny thing is that even when 'many eyes' fail (for example, the recent Debian SSL debacle), people still assume that the process works, including the bad guys.

I wrote more about this issue in an article titled 'Trust Works All Ways'.

I'm no security professional, so I could be wrong here, but I've seen no indication that there was any systematic exploitation of that gaping security hole during the 18 months it was present. Yes, the reason is laxity, and that's a flaw in the process. But the fascinating part is that it appears everyone - white hat to black - has faith in the process.

In that respect, "software freedom" is rather like "freedom of the press," something to be celebrated on the Fourth of July.

It's practical significance is for those in the trade - and even there it can be more symbolic than real.

I was tempted to say that your attitude toward press freedom is telling, but then I decided to replace the word 'symbolic' above with 'potential'.

Ultimately, I think I can accept your premise, if not your interpretation. But then again, I've contributed to more than a couple of FOSS projects, and I write a weekly IT column, precisely because I think there's a place for both every day in the year.

I work in the developing world, and am an aggressive user and promoter of FOSS mostly because of the robustness of the system (if not in all particulars). Speaking from experience, the virtues of an open system have direct, practical applications in my day-to-day work.

Call me lucky, or call me someone who's decided to actually use those things that you insist exist mostly in potentio, but I've actually had FOSS developers travel thousands of miles to see how they can help here.

You can call me lucky if you like, but I don't think I'd agree. I can certainly accept that my example is not common. But it would be more accurate to say that I'm simply one person who's decided that FOSS culture is there to be exploited, and I've been rewarded significantly for my efforts, and those of others as well.

Bottom line: The strengths that you seem to pooh-pooh are real; and they have very real rewards. If you invest in them.