Slashdot Mirror

It is so obvious. He has had previous GPL violations. There was a page that listed them, but I can't find it anymore. He has made a lot of other software that was based off other software under the GPL. Then there is also the fact that he originally claimed to have written from scratch and then there's the time he claimed that he fired a co-programmer. WTF?! He said he had written it from scratch! Then what about the bogus explanation about variable and function names "sounding the same" because there are only "certain ways to do things". The man is a liar - plain and simple.

Found a good link with info from both cherryos developers and pearlpc developers. here

... the First Amendmentment gives us. As much as I despise some the the conservative laws in the US, I'm still proud of the fact that we support freedom of speech in some of the most extreme cases.

In Australia it is illegal to commit, or attempt to commit suicide.
Suicide and sedition: the only crimes where those who suceed aren't prosecuted.

--
Free iPod? Try a free Mac Mini
Or a free Nintendo DS, GC, PS2, Xbox
Wired article as proof

My main gripe with the default BT client is the lack of per file settings. BitTornado allows the user to download specific files in the torrent. This is useful since people can post aggregated torrents and the user can just select the files that he wants.

--
Free iPod? Try a free Mac Mini
Or a free Nintendo DS, GC, PS2, Xbox
Wired article as proof

On the Slashdot/RSS thing, RSS is getting quite a reputaton for really unpleasant surge loads. Something we're factoring in to anything we doing relation to RSS, designing for caching. Not really a surprise if Slashdot has had to do some tweaking.

We were suffering a bit today from the combination of Slashdot, Wired News (Wikipedia Becomes a Way of Life) and Spiegel Online with an overloaded image server. Image server was bouncing around 100% utilization, kept some pages in the queue too long and that hurt overall apache capacity. We've seen far worse and we're getting rid of that bottleneck. As a temporary measure we've asked people to remove some pretty but not content images from a few places. Won't last long, though.

On the fund-raising side, the drive ended early after exceeding its $75,000 target. It's currently at around $95,000 probably with some data still to arrive, close to reaching $100,000, my initial thought of a target. Really good news for those of us doing the capacity and reliability work but it'll take a few months for it to be visible. Thanks to everyone here who helped!

Anyone who wants to spend a bit of money on another useful project might consider sending a bit to Freenode.net, the IRC host. Among other things they host our channels, including our offsite 24/7 IRC NOC and a superb MySQL channel, regularly inhabited by MySQL employees. Providing good service to lots of other open source projects.

This is already happening, wired even had an article on it, and the advance comes from the porn industry which has a number of contributions to the internet to its credit.

It's a flag at the IP level which routers use to handle different traffic classes (realtime, low-bandwith/low-lag, etc. In particular, bulk data is high-bandwith and lag tolerant so that someone using a high lag system like a sat. connection can route the packets in a manner that improves overall performance. This normally involves allowing for bigger chunks of data at a time with less feedback (the ACKs) for each chunk.

--
Free iPod? Try a free Mac Mini
Or a free Nintendo DS, GC, PS2, Xbox
Wired article as proof

My main gripe with the default BT client is the lack of per file settings. BitTornado (site's down at the moment) allows the user to download specific files in the torrent. This is useful since people can post aggregated torrents and the user can just select the files that he wants.

--
Free iPod? Try a free Mac Mini
Or a free Nintendo DS, GC, PS2, Xbox
Wired article as proof

Has anyone found pictures of the lava flow?

--
Free iPod? Try a free Mac Mini
Or a free Nintendo DS, GC, PS2, Xbox
Wired article as proof

Unless whatever contract the person signed when then applied for the university prohibitied this behavior, isn't this just good business sense? All businesses twist the laws and contracts to wring every bit of usefulness out of them. In that sense, wouldn't finding out information ahead of time be a wise business tactic? Or would it be a better business tactic for the 119 applicants to get together and hire a lawyer sue Harvard for this?

--
Free iPod? Try a free Mac Mini
Or a free Nintendo DS, GC, PS2, Xbox
Wired article as proof

I would think that the people designing the bots would test them first. Or did the bots beat all of the designers in arm wrestling? If they did, I wouldn't be too suprised.

--
Free iPod? Try a free Mac Mini
Or a free Nintendo DS, GC, PS2, Xbox
Wired article as proof

I don't think there is any implication in the leaked information that Apple was doing something the least bit wrong with the mini. I'm guessing that fact that the leaked information revealed good things that Apple was doing (and that others can copy for profit) had a large part to play in the decision. If Apple was using young children to build the products, then the blogger might have a case.

--
Free iPod? Try a free Mac Mini
Or a free Nintendo DS, GC, PS2, Xbox
Wired article as proof

Given the speed at which the industry moves, I'm guessing yes. Intel quickly created a Mac Mini clone so having extra time to figure out how to copy Apple could result in a nice chunk of sales. This is also more important for Apple since a lot of their high profile innovations (nothing high tech about a 10GB MP3 player by itself) aren't based on strange tech which makes it easy to replicate once you know what's happening. Ideas are worth big money in the design market.

--
Free iPod? Try a free Mac Mini
Or a free Nintendo DS, GC, PS2, Xbox
Wired article as proof

Pretty much. It's the same reasoning protecting trade secrets that protects copyrights for private companies. Unless the public is at risk (E.g. company dumping toxic wastes in a daycare center), there is no constitutional reason to allow people to disclose trade secrets like that. Journalistic protection against governments is because the people have the right to know what their leaders are doing. Customers and other companies don't have those rights.

--
Free iPod? Try a free Mac Mini
Or a free Nintendo DS, GC, PS2, Xbox
Wired article as proof

Another interesting article on Wiki at Wired, The Book Stops Here, discusses some interesting points regarding the difference between Wikipedia and other more traditional encyclopedias.

The article sheds a light on the interesting "power structure" of wikipedia, i.e. some users have the power to "lock" pages that are changed to often and so on.

One would think that at some stage, a more Linux like "patch accepted/rejected" system would be beneficial. It could be a two tier system, "This article was accepted by Someone" and "This is a new article and hasn't been reviewed". It would be an attepmt to get the best of both worlds, the respectability of traditional encyclopedias and the variety and width of an online wiki.

page 1 of the article.

The link in the post goes to page two for me ... not very nice.

Look at their privacy policy.

--
Free iPod? Try a free Mac Mini
Or a free Nintendo DS, GC, PS2, Xbox
Wired article as proof

Also, good to see Google isn't doing an eternal beta on this product like its Google News offering (the whole beta thing gets annoying after 2 continuous years!)

That's a legal issue. If Google starts making money from other news sites without actually paying them, then they risk legal action for use of copyrighted material. Right now, they have no ads because this (in theory) puts them in the fair use section

--
Free iPod? Try a free Mac Mini
Or a free Nintendo DS, GC, PS2, Xbox
Wired article as proof

Maybe they could jump ship and try for one of the proposed manned space programs in other countries. The pilots and engineers shouldn't have a problem finding jobs in the private sector as it begins to take off (no pun intended) since there will be a need for people who know how to get a hunk of metal moving at 7km/s on the ground in once piece. The scientists and other mission personal would have trouble finding spots in the private sector unless it becomes profitable. This would require something like feasible zero-gee engineering that NASA has always been looking at. Maybe one of the big biotech or chemical companies would pay for a science team to spend some time in orbit to do some material engineering research. However, it would be harder to get private science crews into space who can't show short term profits. This would probably require a government for funding.

--
Free iPod? Try a free Mac Mini
Or a free Nintendo DS, GC, PS2, Xbox
Wired article as proof

Free iPod? Try a free Mac Mini
Or a free Nintendo DS
Wired article as proof

Related Wired articles:

• Privacy-Assurance Seal Yanked
• IPod Promoters Feel the Heat

Free iPod? Try a free Mac Mini
Or a free Nintendo DS
Wired article as proof

Related Wired articles:

• Privacy-Assurance Seal Yanked
• IPod Promoters Feel the Heat

When you use a mouse, do you have your forearm at an angle to the mouse with your index finger on the left button (assuming right-handedness), your middle finger on the right button, and your ring finger on the "forward" button on 5-button mice? I've found that having my forearm parallel to the mouse with my middle finger on the scroll, my ring finger on the right mouse button, and my pinky on the forward button reduces the stress on my wrist since my wrist is no longer twisted at an odd angle. I was wondering if anyone else did this too.

--
Free iPod? Try a free Mac Mini
Or a free Nintendo DS
Wired article as proof

The editors should just link to mirrordot in each story. Story Picture

--
Free iPod? Try a free Mac Mini
Or a free Nintendo DS
Wired article as proof

It's a term coined by Adam Curry of iPodder. He developed the technique for downloading webcasts/interenet radio shows into iTunes and subsequently onto his iPod for later listening. Of course, the casts are not limited to iPods.

See Wired's article.

1. Providing water utilities (treads on Ozarka's profits).
2. Providing public swimming pools (treads on Splash Town USA attendance)
3. Providing mail service (cuts into FedEx and UPS profits).
4. Protecting us with police officers (reduces profit earned by private security firms like Wackenhut).

You'll be pleased to know that communism was defeated in Pennsylvania last year. Governor Ed Rendell signed into law a bill prohibiting the Reds in local government from offering free Wi-Fi throughout their municipalities. The action came after Philadelphia, where more than 50 percent of neighborhoods don't have access to broadband, embarked on a $10 million wireless Internet project. City leaders had stepped in where the free market had failed. Of course, it's a slippery slope from free Internet access to Karl Marx. So Rendell, the telecom industry's latest toady, even while exempting the City of Brotherly Love, acted to spare Pennsylvania from this grave threat to its economic freedom.

This is my reply:

RE: Why Your Broadband Sucks

Perhaps Lawrence Lessig should stick to law, rather than demonstrating his ignorance in economics. Lessig starts with "city leaders stepped in where the free market had failed." What free market? The government given monopoly in cable and telephone? Where in the US is there anything approaching a free market in broadband? Does Lessig believe that Taiwan is so far ahead of the US because US businessmen can't compete with their Taiwanese counterparts in broadband? He calls government-supplied telecommunications "free." Most government services cost more than free-market equivalents; the bill just comes in taxes.

There is a problem with all of Lessig's comparisons to other government functions: he never claims that government does them better. Simply doing something is no argument for doing other, similar things. Congress passed the DMCA and the Mickey Mouse... I mean Sony Bono Copyright Extension Act. Does Lessig believe they should therefore pass more similar legislation? These comparisons with other government services either compare apples to oranges, or don't support his case. Street lights and roads are textbook examples of "free rider" problems. The difficulty of charging for street light usage probably outweighs the efficiencies of market provision; but billing for internet access is easy. As for busses and water, studies indicate that, ceteris paribus, markets provide them better, making a counterexample to his point.

Closer comparisons to government broadband are Soviet industry, or the nationalized Jaguar. Real costs are higher than those of competitive services, quality is worse, and innovation stops. Sensible deregulation brings lower prices, higher quality, and more options.

The worst fallacy is the conclusion: "let the markets, both private and public, compete" What public markets? What does "competition" mean when your "competitor" forces every customer to pay them any price, makes rules for you, and taxes your income to fund themselves? This is like the "competition" between a mugger and his victim. What do you think would happen to FedEx if the USPS was "free?" Perhaps not all innovation would stop. Like public schools, public internet access might become so bad that high quality services will serve the rich elites who can afford them, leading to the opposite of his egalitarian goals.

If we want to see the US plunge from 13th on the list down to wherever Cuba is, then by all means, let the government "compete" in the telecommunications industry. If you want to stand up to the "self-serving lobbyists," stand against their government-granted monopolies, not against saving themselves and us from socialized industry.

This has nothing to do with blue/red states! It just makes sense that municipalities can offer free wifi access - it's obvious there are many benefits downstream.

For a good taste of how simply ludicrous this whole banning of free access by local and state govt's via the neighborhood telcos, see Lessig's latest article in Wired.

This Wired article has some great insight into the difficulty of licensing the music that occurs, even fleetingly, in TV shows. David Pogue also commented on this in his NY Times blog recently. He was told by a TV producer that segments that air only once, such as news shows, couldn't be offered for download because of the licensing nightmare to clear every visual and audio element of the broadcast that may have licensing restrictions. These issues might not be insurmountable but they sure represent a huge hurdle for an industry that's not inclined to embrace the Internet as a distribution method in the first place.

I'm sure we'll find a technical solution to the problems presented by this Tragedy of the Commons just like we were able to find a technical solution for the similar one with Spam.

Oh, wait...

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.03/yahoo.htm l

The link as a hyperlink.

The last time the FCC tried to do this, they were struck down by the SCotUS who agreed with a lower court which ruled that the FCC can't censor cable broadcasts the way they wanted to. This is seperate from the airwaves since cable TV isn't a public right like access to the EM spectrum. This ruling pretty much said that cable operators can do whatever they want with regards to content since the customer always has the option of not subscribing to the cable network. Most channels still self-censor, but they are under no legal requirement to do so. In fact, MTV sometimes airs uncensored videos at odd hours of the night and there is nothing the right wing can do about it but complain to the advertisers.

I also believe that cable TV will pretty much die out once we have enough bandwith that the majority of people can legally order shows in real time over their Internet connection. It's just going to take a while for the big dinosaurs to realize that they have to adapt or die.

BTW, the original case of US v. Playboy: http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2000/98- 1682.html

--
Free iPod? Try a free Mac Mini
Or a free Nintendo DS
Wired article as proof

The last time the FCC tried to do this, they were struck down by the SCotUS who agreed with a lower court which ruled that the FCC can't censor cable broadcasts the way they wanted to. This is seperate from the airwaves since cable TV isn't a public right like access to the EM spectrum. This ruling pretty much said that cable operators can do whatever they want with regards to content since the customer always has the option of not subscribing to the cable network. Most channels still self-censor, but they are under no legal requirement to do so. In fact, MTV sometimes airs uncensored videos at odd hours of the night and there is nothing the right wing can do about it but complain to the advertisers.

I also believe that cable TV will pretty much die out once we have enough bandwith that the majority of people can legally order shows in real time over their Internet connection. It's just going to take a while for the big dinosaurs to realize that they have to adapt or die.

BTW, the original case of US v. Playboy: http://www.fcc.gov/ogc/documents/opinions/2000/98- 1682.html

--
Free iPod? Try a free Mac Mini
Or a free Nintendo DS
Wired article as proof

Same general topic (evil RIAA), but showing how else the corrupt music industry is screwing over consumers of TV programs.

Oh, and here's the Wired article.

Feel free to go google DMCA abuse. There's about 100,000 hits, and you might find one or two in there that might lead you to understand WHY it's reasonable to think that a corporation might go after this, using the DMCA as a weapon, because they've done it before.

The FatWallet one is particularly educational. I invite you to go read it. It's even less applicable to the DMCA than card-stripe reading, and it happened anyway.

Is it just me, or does this sound very familiar to what a UFO looks like, a large bright light? Even if optical stealth is compromised, if you applied this to spy drones, etc.., and with complete radar invisibility, then the public are going to think that they are UFO's and we all know how the military reacts when it gets calls about UFO's. It would make the perfect cover!

Although it wouldn't be the first time a spy drone was thought to a ufo by the general public:
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,66588, 00.html

The only difference between this and what's going on in the US, is in this case, it's a state-controlled monopoly and in the US it's the few remaining Baby Bells doing the same with trying to ban municipal wi-fi.

Unfortunately, it's all about the telecom industry, both in the US, and abroad, trying to consolidate power, and shut out open access, whether it's data or voice.

it's called "Toothing".

Yeah. Just take a look at this...

Alas, it doesn't seem to be, uh, compatible with my hardware, but I can't help wondering --- does it work?

From Wired:
But the campaign claims to be very close to securing $3 million from three anonymous donors who helped fund a commercial space flight venture.

Doesn't sound very anonymous to me :-)

And apatently the money has been pledged but since it is not "legally" obligated, (he could take it back) the total can not be added to the counter.
More details....

first on technology, then on television, and then on education...

Steve Jobs: The Next Insanely Great Thing
Interview by Gary Wolf, Wired Magazine, February 1996.

Rethinking Revolution

What's the biggest surprise this technology will deliver?

The problem is I'm older now, I'm 40 years old, and this stuff doesn't change the world. It really doesn't.

That's going to break people's hearts.

I'm sorry, it's true. Having children really changes your view on these things. We're born, we live for a brief instant, and we die. It's been happening for a long time. Technology is not changing it much - if at all.

These technologies can make life easier, can let us touch people we might not otherwise. You may have a child with a birth defect and be able to get in touch with other parents and support groups, get medical information, the latest experimental drugs. These things can profoundly influence life. I'm not downplaying that. But it's a disservice to constantly put things in this radical new light - that it's going to change everything. Things don't have to change the world to be important.

The Web is going to be very important. Is it going to be a life-changing event for millions of people? No. I mean, maybe. But it's not an assured Yes at this point. And it'll probably creep up on people.

It's certainly not going to be like the first time somebody saw a television. It's certainly not going to be as profound as when someone in Nebraska first heard a radio broadcast. It's not going to be that profound.

Then how will the Web impact our society?

We live in an information economy, but I don't believe we live in an information society. People are thinking less than they used to. It's primarily because of television. People are reading less and they're certainly thinking less. So, I don't see most people using the Web to get more information. We're already in information overload. No matter how much information the Web can dish out, most people get far more information than they can assimilate anyway.

The problem is television?

When you're young, you look at television and think, There's a conspiracy. The networks have conspired to dumb us down. But when you get a little older, you realize that's not true. The networks are in business to give people exactly what they want. That's a far more depressing thought. Conspiracy is optimistic! You can shoot the bastards! We can have a revolution! But the networks are really in business to give people what they want. It's the truth.

So Steve Jobs is telling us things are going to continue to get worse.

They are getting worse! Everybody knows that they're getting worse! Don't you think they're getting worse?

I do, but I was hoping I could come here and find out how they were going to get better. Do you really believe that the world is getting worse? Or do you have a feeling that the things you're involved with are making the world better?

No. The world's getting worse. It has gotten worse for the last 15 years or so. Definitely. For two reasons. On a global scale, the population is increasing dramatically and all our structures, from ecological to economic to political, just cannot deal with it. And in this country, we seem to have fewer smart people in government, and people don't seem to be paying as much attention to the important decisions we have to make.

But you seem very optimistic about the potential for change.

I'm an optimist in the sense that I believe humans are noble and honourable, and some of them are really smart. I have a very optimistic view of individuals. As individuals, people are inherently good. I have a somewhat more pessimistic view of people in groups. And I remain extremely concerned when I see what's happening in our country, which is in many ways the luckiest place in the world. We don't seem to be excited about making our country a better

The issue of election integrity is bigger than the Kerry Bush race. For the first time in the history of this democracy, we are trusting electronic tabulating machines to count votes in a presidential race. Machines which reknown computer scientists and cryptologists have proven to be insecure and untrustworthy.

In addition to being insecure and untrustworthy these machines left no "paper trail", no way of verifying the machine's count in a recount. When you have no paper trail, the only tool to investigate the integrity of a machine count is that of statistics, as Berkeley researchers were forced to rely upon when they concluded that voting irregularities lead them to believe 260,000 votes were invalidly awarded to Bush. In fact when 4,258 votes were awarded by a Diebold machine to Bush in Franklin County, Ohio we only knew that result had to be wrong because only 638 voters had casted ballots. Unfortunately this wasn't an isolated event as Diebold has stirred a string of such voting irregularities. According to Bob Fitrakis:

Due to computer flaws and vote shifting, there were numerous reports across Ohio of extremely troublesome electronic errors during the voting process and in the counting. In Youngstown, there were more than two-dozen Election Day reports of machines that switched or shifted on-screen displays of a vote for Kerry to a vote for Bush. In Cleveland, there were three precincts in which minor third-party candidates received 86, 92 and 98 percent of the vote respectively, an outcome completely out of synch with the rest of the state (a similar thing occurred during the contested election in Florida, 2000). This class of error points to more than machine malfunction, suggesting instead that votes are being electronically shifted from one candidate to another in the voting and counting stage.

All reported errors favored Bush over Kerry.

Which leads us to question the integrity of the election especially when the exit polls were so clearly in favor of Kerry.

The CEO of Diebold has made no attempt to hide his support for Bush. Ironically, he has publically stated that he is "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year". Later he stated it was a mistake to have said that, he meant it as an American, not as the CEO of a corporation that was contracted to count votes in Ohio. The CEO however isn't the only one to be painted with a big brush of suspicious, as at least five convicted felons secured management positions in his company. One of which served time in a Washington state correctional facility for stealing money and tampering with computer files in a scheme that "involved a high degree of sophistication and planning."

In my response I have analyzed the integrity of the Ohio election through the prisim of electronic voting, others have made other arguments regarding why they think an investigation is warranted as I can assure you the problems with Diebold is not limited to Ohio nor is electronic voting the only "irregularity" in Ohio [1] [2]

The issue of election integrity is bigger than the Kerry Bush race. For the first time in the history of this democracy, we are trusting electronic tabulating machines to count votes in a presidential race. Machines which reknown computer scientists and cryptologists have proven to be insecure and untrustworthy.

In addition to being insecure and untrustworthy these machines left no "paper trail", no way of verifying the machine's count in a recount. When you have no paper trail, the only tool to investigate the integrity of a machine count is that of statistics, as Berkeley researchers were forced to rely upon when they concluded that voting irregularities lead them to believe 260,000 votes were invalidly awarded to Bush. In fact when 4,258 votes were awarded by a Diebold machine to Bush in Franklin County, Ohio we only knew that result had to be wrong because only 638 voters had casted ballots. Unfortunately this wasn't an isolated event as Diebold has stirred a string of such voting irregularities. According to Bob Fitrakis:

Due to computer flaws and vote shifting, there were numerous reports across Ohio of extremely troublesome electronic errors during the voting process and in the counting. In Youngstown, there were more than two-dozen Election Day reports of machines that switched or shifted on-screen displays of a vote for Kerry to a vote for Bush. In Cleveland, there were three precincts in which minor third-party candidates received 86, 92 and 98 percent of the vote respectively, an outcome completely out of synch with the rest of the state (a similar thing occurred during the contested election in Florida, 2000). This class of error points to more than machine malfunction, suggesting instead that votes are being electronically shifted from one candidate to another in the voting and counting stage.

All reported errors favored Bush over Kerry.

Which leads us to question the integrity of the election especially when the exit polls were so clearly in favor of Kerry.

The CEO of Diebold has made no attempt to hide his support for Bush. Ironically, he has publically stated that he is "committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year". Later he stated it was a mistake to have said that, he meant it as an American, not as the CEO of a corporation that was contracted to count votes in Ohio. The CEO however isn't the only one to be painted with a big brush of suspicious, as at least five convicted felons secured management positions in his company. One of which served time in a Washington state correctional facility for stealing money and tampering with computer files in a scheme that "involved a high degree of sophistication and planning."

In my response I have analyzed the integrity of the Ohio election through the prisim of electronic voting, others have made other arguments regarding why they think an investigation is warranted as I can assure you the problems with Diebold is not limited to Ohio nor is electronic voting the only "irregularity" in Ohio [1] [2]

hereand
here

Sure. Except that you have no idea how paper receipts work.

Machines LOST votes? I assume you mean this which I think could just as easily happen with paper ballots if people ran out of them. And for that matter, I'm sure you remember the "found" ballot boxes. Paper is certainly not any more immune to idiots than machines.

Interestingly enough, Y2K was not the first time he predicted the end of the world. Check this out for some fun reading about Mr. North.

Clark Tech corps

wired article

I for one welcome the possibility of an open source advocating/understanding overlord =P

(Granted the dean and clark campaigns weren't a political success, but dean's online campaign was considered initially a social networking success... until he ARRRRRRGGGGGD himself out of the race...)

Good luck!

e.

And Lessig misses this point, as he is trying for compromise.

Some related issues:

If copyrights impose a burden on society (like real estate), why not tax them annually at some self-assessed buyout value (the cost the copyright holder would be content with to have the work in the public domain)?

Oh, but copyright holders might protest they can not fairly evaluate the copyright as some copyrights make a lot of money, and most do not. But there we have it -- the notion of copyright as a lottery ticket which the essay touches on. Do we want creative works funded as lotteries?

Also, with the increasing use of automation and robotics, people are less and less needed to produce things, so ultimately most people will become out of work in our society -- unless they get a guaranteed income in terms of a part of the production of the automated systems. If people had such a guaranteed income, then they would not need an incentive to create digital works, and they would not need to receive royalties from copyrights just to get the basics of food, water, shelter, education, manufactured goods, and medical care for themselves and their children.

So the future you are talking about is bound up into issues like a guaranteed income or fair share of rapidly increasing industrial productivity. So essentially a "Star Trek" like society, with matter replicators -- which are at most ten or twenty years away, as people are using limited prototypes of them now. Remember, thirty years ago, for most people there was no such thing as desktop publishing or local printing. Now you typically get a printer bundled for "free" with a computer. Thirty years from now, it may seem as ludicrous to get something other than raw materials delivered or to go out to shop for an object as it would seem now to have one-off printing done at some remote computer center (as was typical thirty years ago).

Related links:

The Abolition of Work
http://www.deoxy.org/endwork.htm

Robot Nation
http://marshallbrain.com/robotic-nation.htm

The Dream Factory: Any product, any shape, any size - manufactured on your desktop!
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.12/view.html ?pg=4

Getting Paid in Our Jobless Future: Only a guaranteed basic income can ensure economic growth, technological innovation and social welfare
http://betterhumans.com/Features/Columns/Change_Su rfing/column.aspx?articleID=2003-09-22-1

US BIG: The basic income guarantee (BIG) is a government insured guarantee that no citizen's income will fall below some minimal level for any reason. All citizens would receive a BIG without means test or work requirement. BIG is an efficient and effective solution to poverty that preserves individual autonomy and work incentives while simplifying government social policy. Some researchers estimate that a small BIG, sufficient to cut the poverty rate in half could be financed without an increase in taxes by redirecting funds from spending programs and tax deductions aimed at maintaining incomes.
http://www.usbig.net/

More discussion of "BIG" - Basic Income Guarantee (source of some links)
http://novogate.com/exco/thread.php?forumid=5374&t hreadid=79208

When Tim Berners-Lee was writing the software to serve GIF files, he asked co-worker Silvano de Gennaro for a few pictures of the singers. One of the band photos was among the first five pictures published on the Web.