Slashdot Mirror
O'Reilly Giving Away Open Government As Aaron Swartz Tribute
jones_supa writes "The classic hacker book publisher O'Reilly is releasing their book Open Government for free as a tribute for Aaron Swartz. The book asks the question, in a world where web services can make real-time data accessible to anyone, how can the government leverage this openness to improve its operations and increase citizen participation and awareness? Through a collection of essays and case studies, leading visionaries and practitioners both inside and outside of government share their ideas on how to achieve and direct this emerging world of online collaboration, transparency, and participation. The files are posted on the O'Reilly Media GitHub account as PDF, Mobi, and EPUB files."
The classic hacker book publisher O'Reilly
I wonder how O'Reilly feels about being labeled this way?
If you think they're unhappy, just wonder how 2600 feels...
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Whatever might have been not to like about Aaron Swartz as a person, fact is that he's a victim of excessive persecution. A persecution resulting from a jurisdiction that is slave to the economy, an economy this time impersonated by the content industry. Nice and noble gesture of O'Reilly.
It means that Mr T pitied him.
I can't wait for our government to reverse itself once Obama replaces Bush. We'll stop having FOIA requests denied, we'll close Gitmo, we'll stop sending troops overseas, and the abomination of "extrajudicial killings" of US citizens will finally end.
The US already has a plurality voting system. I suspect you meant "proportional representation" in which case the US would be run by 4chan. It's far easier to get a bunch of pranksters to vote in support of something silly than it is to get a bunch of serious activists to agree on the right solution to complex problems.
For example, banning fracking would protect our water supply, but doom our energy supply. Fixing energy by supporting renewable power sources threatens jobs in fossil fuel extraction and transport. Protecting employment requires supporting expansion opportunities. Fracking is an expansion opportunity.
Everything is more complex than everyone thinks. Changing voting systems will not settle more disputes. It will just transfer the disputes from discussion into law, so problems are even harder to fix and people will (rightfully) have even less faith in the government.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Everything is more complex than everyone thinks.
No it's not. The fact that they have you tricked into believing that is proof as to how well the Duopoly is at keeping it's power. There are a LOT of problems, the majority in fact, that the country has no partisan disagreement about. But the political parties are not interested in those problems. They are only interested in problems that they can disagree on, and win political points on. Gun control, Abortion, Climate change, fracking. All this stuff is just to distract you from what they're not doing and focus you in on their arguments.
Kids are starving in this country. I know it's hard to believe, but children go hungry every night. Is there political disagreement on that? Are we going to have a political argument on sunday morning between a Democrat and Republican on weather a 5yr old should have FOOD? No? Then why the hell are kids still starving? We have troops in every country on earth practically. Would there be any disagreement on withdrawing troops from, lets say, Germany? I know the Keiser could rise from the dead any minuite... but how about we shut down just 2 or 3 bases and use that money to feed kids that are starving. Or for cancer research... or AIDs... or maybe, just maybe, we could just NOT speand the money so the country isn't bankrupt for the kids that don't manage to starve to death before their 20th birthday...
Yes, this country has some intractible, impossible to solve problems... fortunately it has far far more problems that are easy. Lets start focusing on easy to solve, high impact problems. And stop focusing on shit that gets the current office holders re-elected.
That's totally untrue. He was a light pepsi user.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
If O'Reilly really wanted to honor Swartz' memory, shouldn't they release all of their books for free? Isn't that closer to what he was after?
Releasing just one book, in his name, while still planning to charge everybody for everything else in their catalog, sounds more like a publicity stunt.
I pity the foo that can't get into a bar.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
In this country, many people go without health insurance, because premiums are too high. As a result, people get sick every day but don't go and see their doctor because they can't afford it. The US has the best quality health care in the world! why can't sick people get affordable treatment?
This should really be an easy, high impact problem to solve, right?
For example, banning fracking would protect our water supply, but doom our energy supply.
[citation needed]
The US has the best quality health care in the world!
That should be "had", you lost the #1 spot about 40yrs ago, although your still among the leaders in medical research.
This should really be an easy, high impact problem to solve, right?
Yep, many other countries manage to provide better care with a lot less money and have been doing so for decades.The irrational fear of the word "socialism" is the root cause of the problem in the US, it creates a blind spot that prevents Americans from even contemplating the measurably superior systems that exist in very similar nations such as Australia.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
banning fracking would protect our water supply, but doom our energy supply
Doom is a strong word, "dent" is more descriptive of the reality. The problem with fracking in the US is that the frackers are not bound by law to tell anyone what chemicals they are pumping into the groundwater. They get a free pass on oversight because the formulas for the liquids are classed as trade secrets. Is it too much to ask for some evidence that fracking has more benefits than costs to society? - Are you personally willing to drink the stuff they are pumping?
Protecting employment requires supporting expansion opportunities. Fracking is an expansion opportunity.
Blind faith in corporations is just as dangerous as blind faith in government. If the job on offer is an overall detriment to society why would you want to support it's creation? How about creating a few jobs to oversee what these people are pumping into the groundwater?
Everything is more complex than everyone thinks.
No, the rule here is so simple even a CEO can understand it - don't shit in MY drinking water. However it's impossible to apply that simple rule to fracking because the relevant information is legally withheld from society.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
The US has the best quality health care in the world!
That should be "had", you lost the #1 spot about 40yrs ago, although your still among the leaders in medical research.
It really depends on what you measure. For the average person you're absolutely right. For somebody with the money to pay for healthcare and good sense in using the current system the US is as good as any place else on the planet, and sometimes better.
Some observations as somebody who has had a fair bit of exposure to the US healthcare system (I care for somebody with some serious chronic and from time-to-time acute conditions):
1. There is not universal health insurance. That means that for the average person the US healthcare system sucks, period.
2. Those who have insurance lose it when they're out of work, or may need to change doctors from time to time due to the dictates of insurance negotiations, and so on. The latter actually helps to control prices, but all of this is bad for continuity of care and prevention.
3. The entire system is super-expensive for everybody. That means that even those with insurance or wealth end up being a bit limited in what they can afford compared to elsewhere.
4. The way payment works creates perverse incentives for providers. That means that people might not get good advice (unnecessary procedures, etc). When you pay people for procedures you tend to get more procedures, unless people go against their doctor's advice (which doctors don't like, and patients are hesitant to do). Plus, ignoring a doctor's advice can be bad for you sometimes, and how is somebody to tell.
Bottom line is that in the US everything is there for the taking, more or less, but people don't get steered in the right direction, or they often can't afford it. However, if you can get past the cost and the bad advice, the actual delivery of treatments/etc is probably the best in the world.
BTW, I'm all for reform. The whole US-healthcare-is-bad thing is just misleading because it doesn't distinguish between the aspects of the system that work REALLY well, and the parts that are, frankly, abysmal. Then reformers don't understand why their reforms aren't popular - and that is because the system isn't completely broken to begin with.