And just why I don't like the GPL - it is the exact antithesis of commercial software and means anyone that writes just software needs to tie their software to hardware to make money or have donors (which usually are corporations that want exclusive rights on their platform).
That's not my experience at all. I work with web consulting companies supplying solutions to organizations that are tired of expensive, inflexible closed source solutions provided by Microsoft or the likes of Kintera and Convio. The initial cost of development of a sophisticated open source site is (maybe) 50% of a closed source solution, so it's certainly not free. And if the client finds that they aren't getting the service from us that they want, they can easily find another shop that can take over development or maintenance of the GPL code base running on a relatively LAMP stack. So we have no "lock in" on our clients, which behooves us to provide quality service.
Yes, I would get paid more if I did the same work for a closed source shop. But I have to say: I like working with clients that like working with me, rather than with clients that have to work with me.
A less restrictive license would be... public domain? There's a lot of closed source, PD software (aka 'freeware') but not too much PD source code, which people usually tend to want to license in some way. The GPL will allow you to use, modify, distribute, even sell the software, but it won't let you deny others access to the source or restrict what others can do with the code. Where the GPL doesn't play nice with other more restrictive licenses, I find that is a failure more of the other licenses trying to restrict freedom than of the GPL that supports freedom. But there is a huge lobby of companies and lawyers who prefer to make their living off of caches of existing intellectual property at extortionary rates rather than actively contribute to socierty and get paid merely a reasonable wage for that work. For me, that is a failure of capitalism as currently practiced, as it supports the established wealthy that have the IP and suppresses the young revolutionary with new ideas.
Free software is not about altruism the way you meant it. Free software is about freedom, and I see no reason why I can't benefit from writing free software while allowing others to benefit from extending it.
I spent my early software days (before GNU - heck, software patents existed) writing and enhancing what was essentially free software. It was a wonderful environment, one in which everything was shared and people copied and imporoved on other people's code. Bob Miner - who wrote the first version of the Oracle database - testified to Congress that if software patents had existed, he would have been able to copy and improve upon the IBM RDB code.
I used to be a follower of the Grateful Dead that was - for many years - the top grossing band in the world. And they actively supported the "taper community" that would make high-quality recordings of their shows that would be traded for free.
I've spent the last ten years being paid well to install, configure and customize free software for clients ranging from Amnesty International to the Smithsonian. Every package I've delivered has included the GPL (or AGPL) stamp, and my clients have benefitted directly from that, as they are not locked into a single vendor and have a community of people enhancing their investment by adding features and fixing security holes.
I consider the practice of software a creative art, and it is a shame that so many feel they must prevent the many from enjoying their creations so that they can extract money from the few who want exclusivity. Sad that you've been taught all these years that it is the only way to survive.
As others have stated, RMS works for 'free software' that gives you the freedom to do anything you want with it. A lot of 'open source' software only lets you see the source, restricting who you can share it with, what modifications you can make to it, etc.
Another important fix to the question would be to replace 'Linux' with 'GNU/Linux' as the former refers only to the kernel which is fairly useless without any of the GNU utilities created by RMS & friends, such as gcc, bash, etc. It is IMO respectful to use the term 'GNU/Linux' and (also IMO) it is worthwhile to be respectful of RMS and the uncompromising life he leads.
I'm a fan of RESTful systems and, while I introduced the XRI folk to SAML, I've also been helping to show how all that SOAP bloat isn't necessary.
And I'm also not a big fan of global name spaces, which @, + and = are used for. They can be a useful shorthand, but =bob and http://xri.neustar.net/bob could be defined to mean the same thing - and there are proposals for this on the table.
The real win comes when you want to do things that just can't be done with URLs such as alternate resolution protocols (say, use Freenet-style DHTs instead of DNS), provide for symbolic links and back-references, and - most importantly - enable trusted, negotiated resolution and access to services according to source and destination without disclosing any unnecessary information about either party.
Yeah, it looks complicated, but http://example.com:8008?q=43&foo\0e=72 looks kinda foreboding too. But we're used to the "://" syntax and we have browsers that make it easier for us. Don't throw away the tech because you don't understand it - there's some very real benefits to XRI, and you can bet that if it catches on, the most useful applications will quickly be sheathed in Web 2.0 GUIs that hide the complexity as they realize the power.
Finally, one can always delegate XRI resolution to a proxy resolver, so apps that need to stay lightweight can remain so.
use OpenID to verify those you know (or their membership in a community you trust) - don't use it for "verification" of a service you know nothing about
Microsoft's CardSpace (InfoCard) protocol can provide a simple mechanism to support this verification
Once the trust is created, then you can use the XRI capabilities of OpenID 2.0 to provide sophisticated profile data sharing and/or service access authorization.
But you are correct: if you're the kind of person who sends money to spammers, OpenID alone will not help you.
"OpenID is a simple single sign-on mechanism advanced by Brad Fitzpatrick of LiveJournal. In OpenID, your identity is a URL." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenID
Basically, OpenID provides for distributed authentication.
IMO, what makes OpenID interesting is that in the 2.0 protocol, XRI (i-names) have been included, which opens the door to enabling selective, authenticated authorization of access to services, be it as simple as the ability to contact me (I would allow any parent of a child in my kid's pre-school class to phone me) or as complicated (eventually) as any contract you can imagine.
OpenPrivacy, on the other hand, assumes such services as a starting point, which is why I suspended development of OpenPrivacy in 2002 and began working on XRI/i-names. OpenPrivacy will use sophisticated techniques such as zero-knowledge proofs to enable distributed reputation providers and truly pseudonymous identities that cannot be traced to their owner (unless such verification is mutually requested), but it requires strong, secure identity as a starting point.
I look forward to creating grassroots i-names-enabled communities soon (starting in March, if all goes well) and eventually getting back to my OpenPrivacy roots - which is where (IMO) things start getting really interesting.
The fact that machines are being built to suppress what people can do with them rather than to enhance our abilities to grow and perhaps go beyond their intended purposes makes them defective by design. Imagine not being able to make a copy of your music for use in your car because you already have one at home, one at your office, and three that were made for iPods (the first two of which were lost or broken). What if you wanted to include it in a mix tape [sic]?
Or it's like buying a computer that will only run M$ software - software that purposely spies on everything you do so that M$ can "protect" you from doing something their contract (that you signed when you turned the machine on) disallows.
There's no doubt that running a secure OS and adhering to good practices (such as never do anything as root that doesn't have to be done by root) is increasingly important these days. One client I work with is running Openwall and it seems to be a good solution. There are many other security enhanced Linix possibilities, too, as well as OpenBSD - which I don't have direct experience with, but I hear it's pretty tight.
At home, I just keep up-to-date with Debian and practice careful management, but for any corporate systems, I'd start with a secure OS.
I've been wearing T-shirts - mostly tie-dye - to work for 25 years. Sometimes I wear shoes (generally if it's cold, and actually, more often for some reason as I've aged). My clothes are always clean and I shower and shampoo daily.
I'm an engineer, so there's no reason to "dress to impress" -- if my work doesn't impress, then fire me.
This M$ program relies on spyware built into XP that keeps track of all the software on your machine. If you're fortunate enough to have an un-infected system (such as Win 2K) you can keep the Genuine (Dis)Advantage spyware off your machine when doing updates by following a simple procedure.
There's an interesting extension to the URI (URL) being created over at OASIS - see the XRI Wiki for details. It provides mechanisms for strong authentication and identity, symbolic links, back links, contractual data access/sharing, and forms the basis for Web 3.0 - a secure and privacy enhancing identity web with reputation mechanisms to aid searching/filtering and directing attention. (Disclaimer: I am on the XRI committee.)
I've known Ted for over 20 years and love his idealism. I believe that XRI can provide a seamless transition from the current document web to the future social web (PDF), complete with authenticated transclusion.
If you've got a passion for creating positive change - and you're a Drupal wizard - check out CivicActions. We're a 100% virtual network of progressive technology revolutionaries empowering people and communities to self-organize through free and open source software.
Read a little about us, send us some code samples, convince us that you've got a good on-line work ethic and can stay in touch via email, IM, Skype and wikis, and you'll not only get to build kick-ass sites for campaigns and organizations that you can be proud of, but you'll also be working with a group of people that understands that your life comes first.
Before it was called, America Online, Quantum Link provided a
pre-Internet online service to Commodore users.
I don't care what wikipedia says, in my book the Internet came about somewhere in 1982 (or so) with the advent of the exterior gateway protocol and gateways that connected BITNET, Usenet, ARPAnet and CSNET, or certainly by 1983 with U of Wisconsin's name server.
I do mostly document printing and occasional photo prints. Two years ago I bought a Canon i850 for $150 and noticed that Costco sold an ink refill set for $17. I did some research online and found that after ten or more refills, it might kill the printheads. Well, I refilled 17 times before the heads died. With a savings of $50 per refill, I saved a *lot* of money, even compared to lasers.
So I just bought a Canon PIXMA 4000 that has 4 color photo printing and an extra large black reservoir for documents - and it even prints on both sides! And with the current $70 rebate, it cost me $30! With my first ink refill, the printer will have paid for itself.
As an interested party in the online identity world and very aware of Microsoft's role in it, I have met with Kim Cameron several times with respect to his Seven Laws and Microsoft's imminent InfoCard identity system that he is sheparding. Kim is a great guy - very sincere - but is but one tornado in a company of a thousand tornados. So I wrote an addendum, Four More "Laws of Identity" that addresses some of my concerns. (Kim said he enjoyed reading them and would comment after Digital ID World, but as yet I suppose he hasn't found the time.)
Some of my concerns stem from a basic distrust of Microsoft as well as the fact that some of the InfoCard technology - though supposed to be open standards - is still bases on WS-Trust, which itself is based on the WS-Security Suite, which as yet is RAND but not RANDz.
I also feel a bit of personal responsibility, as Passport came from Firefly which is partially descended from my 1980 MIT (Media Lab) thesis on a personalized newspaper - NewsPeek - so named as while it provided a "peek at the news", it was also clear even then that centralization of such resources could lead to a Big Brother state (and New Speak). Now Microsoft's InfoCard is not an identity system - it is a trust system - and actually a very noble and good goal. I just worry - as with many Microsoft systems - about how they may seek to "embrace and extend" in the trust arena, perhaps with disastrous consequences. On the other hand, if they manage to free all the necessary standards and really push an open standards/source identity/trust "metasystem", I think it could be excellent not only for Microsoft (sporting an extremely well-integrated UI) but also for the wider community - including all us F/OSS friendlies.
I'll end with two plugs: one for a host of free identity systems that exist (such as the one I worked on for the last couple years until we ran out of angel funding, 2idi; and one for a promising "open standard" InfoCard-like system that could easily be built as a Firefox plugin (alas, in PDF form) that could help in the battle against phishing.
I memorized Pi to 50 digits in 8th grade because I wanted it in a program on a computer that had limited memory and kept losing it, so I had to keep re-typing it in. (This was a 4K PDP/8e in 1969 with nothing but paper tape as permanent storage.)
Haven't been able to forget it, despite years of trying.;-)
First, congratulations! Kids will change your life and though it's hard to let go of some things (like sleep and quiet evenings out) the kid trip is the absolute best!
I've been programming since I sold my first computer game in 1969 - when I was 11. But before that, I was always outdoors, too, and still would rather play games outside than on a computer. (Other than the one I wrote, I've probably spent less than 100 hours of my life playing any sort of electronic game.)
I spend 10 hours a day in front of a computer. I've got a 3.5 year old boy who is not allowed to touch the keyboard or watch TV (though we have allowed him to watch a few videos - up to an hour a day - like Thomas the Train and Nemo. And I would like it if he watched even less.
I'm not really a Waldorf School kinda guy (too rigid) but I like a concept that I heard that I attribute to them (though it may have originated elsewhere). For the first seven years of a child's life, they're learning about their bodies and the world in which they live. Part of that process invlves learning that when something near you moves suddenly, it's a good thing to react. But the Tube teaches you to sit there like a potato.
We caved on some videos because, well, we have no family around to help us with any of the work, nor the money for a nanny (and there are dangers with those too - I've seen kids that are closer with their nannys than with their parents!). So an hour of video gives my wife a much-needed break. But I enjoy watching his imaginitive play much more than seeing him sitting in fronnt of the tube. An hour is enough.
BTW, the best advice I can give for a new family is the book "Healthy Sleep Habits, Happy Child" by Marc Weissbluth. There's controvery about this, too, as the "training" period is rough on everyone. But our kid (and every other one we know that was raised with this book) is well rested, sleeps great and is not at all hyper. Oh, and ix-nay on the sugar.
Yep. Though I use GNU/Linux as my desktop and a Mac for a laptop, as a consultant I often need a Windows box. I've been running Win2K for years on a separate machine and it has been amazingly rock solid. And that is precisely the reason it is being phased out: solid operating systems mean no reason to upgrade, when means no sales.
I prefer "broadcatching" as it inverts one-to-many delivery with "many-to-one" access (and perhaps I'm partial, also, as I coined the word in 1983).
Re:Is Freenet doomed to failure by design?
on
Revamping Freenet
·
· Score: 1
The problem I've had in using Freenet is that they are open to any content. What this says to me is, "If you want to share terrorist information or child porn, you are welcome here."
I believe in free speech. The operative word there is "free." As soon as someone starts saying what is and isn't free, you run into censorship issues. We've had judges saying that photos of two men holding hands were obscene. Who decides?
While I don't currently run a Freenet node, I'm planning on installing Tor, for as long as there are those that would restrict free speech, I think it's essential that others make it possible.
Slashdot Mirror
And just why I don't like the GPL - it is the exact antithesis of commercial software and means anyone that writes just software needs to tie their software to hardware to make money or have donors (which usually are corporations that want exclusive rights on their platform).
That's not my experience at all. I work with web consulting companies supplying solutions to organizations that are tired of expensive, inflexible closed source solutions provided by Microsoft or the likes of Kintera and Convio. The initial cost of development of a sophisticated open source site is (maybe) 50% of a closed source solution, so it's certainly not free. And if the client finds that they aren't getting the service from us that they want, they can easily find another shop that can take over development or maintenance of the GPL code base running on a relatively LAMP stack. So we have no "lock in" on our clients, which behooves us to provide quality service.
Yes, I would get paid more if I did the same work for a closed source shop. But I have to say: I like working with clients that like working with me, rather than with clients that have to work with me.
A less restrictive license would be... public domain? There's a lot of closed source, PD software (aka 'freeware') but not too much PD source code, which people usually tend to want to license in some way. The GPL will allow you to use, modify, distribute, even sell the software, but it won't let you deny others access to the source or restrict what others can do with the code. Where the GPL doesn't play nice with other more restrictive licenses, I find that is a failure more of the other licenses trying to restrict freedom than of the GPL that supports freedom. But there is a huge lobby of companies and lawyers who prefer to make their living off of caches of existing intellectual property at extortionary rates rather than actively contribute to socierty and get paid merely a reasonable wage for that work. For me, that is a failure of capitalism as currently practiced, as it supports the established wealthy that have the IP and suppresses the young revolutionary with new ideas.
Free software is not about altruism the way you meant it. Free software is about freedom, and I see no reason why I can't benefit from writing free software while allowing others to benefit from extending it.
I spent my early software days (before GNU - heck, software patents existed) writing and enhancing what was essentially free software. It was a wonderful environment, one in which everything was shared and people copied and imporoved on other people's code. Bob Miner - who wrote the first version of the Oracle database - testified to Congress that if software patents had existed, he would have been able to copy and improve upon the IBM RDB code.
I used to be a follower of the Grateful Dead that was - for many years - the top grossing band in the world. And they actively supported the "taper community" that would make high-quality recordings of their shows that would be traded for free.
I've spent the last ten years being paid well to install, configure and customize free software for clients ranging from Amnesty International to the Smithsonian. Every package I've delivered has included the GPL (or AGPL) stamp, and my clients have benefitted directly from that, as they are not locked into a single vendor and have a community of people enhancing their investment by adding features and fixing security holes.
I consider the practice of software a creative art, and it is a shame that so many feel they must prevent the many from enjoying their creations so that they can extract money from the few who want exclusivity. Sad that you've been taught all these years that it is the only way to survive.
As others have stated, RMS works for 'free software' that gives you the freedom to do anything you want with it. A lot of 'open source' software only lets you see the source, restricting who you can share it with, what modifications you can make to it, etc.
Another important fix to the question would be to replace 'Linux' with 'GNU/Linux' as the former refers only to the kernel which is fairly useless without any of the GNU utilities created by RMS & friends, such as gcc, bash, etc. It is IMO respectful to use the term 'GNU/Linux' and (also IMO) it is worthwhile to be respectful of RMS and the uncompromising life he leads.
I'm a fan of RESTful systems and, while I introduced the XRI folk to SAML, I've also been helping to show how all that SOAP bloat isn't necessary.
And I'm also not a big fan of global name spaces, which @, + and = are used for. They can be a useful shorthand, but =bob and http://xri.neustar.net/bob could be defined to mean the same thing - and there are proposals for this on the table.
The real win comes when you want to do things that just can't be done with URLs such as alternate resolution protocols (say, use Freenet-style DHTs instead of DNS), provide for symbolic links and back-references, and - most importantly - enable trusted, negotiated resolution and access to services according to source and destination without disclosing any unnecessary information about either party.
Yeah, it looks complicated, but http://example.com:8008?q=43&foo\0e=72 looks kinda foreboding too. But we're used to the "://" syntax and we have browsers that make it easier for us. Don't throw away the tech because you don't understand it - there's some very real benefits to XRI, and you can bet that if it catches on, the most useful applications will quickly be sheathed in Web 2.0 GUIs that hide the complexity as they realize the power.
Finally, one can always delegate XRI resolution to a proxy resolver, so apps that need to stay lightweight can remain so.
- use OpenID to verify those you know (or their membership in a community you trust) - don't use it for "verification" of a service you know nothing about
- Microsoft's CardSpace (InfoCard) protocol can provide a simple mechanism to support this verification
Once the trust is created, then you can use the XRI capabilities of OpenID 2.0 to provide sophisticated profile data sharing and/or service access authorization. But you are correct: if you're the kind of person who sends money to spammers, OpenID alone will not help you."OpenID is a simple single sign-on mechanism advanced by Brad Fitzpatrick of LiveJournal. In OpenID, your identity is a URL." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenID
Basically, OpenID provides for distributed authentication.
IMO, what makes OpenID interesting is that in the 2.0 protocol, XRI (i-names) have been included, which opens the door to enabling selective, authenticated authorization of access to services, be it as simple as the ability to contact me (I would allow any parent of a child in my kid's pre-school class to phone me) or as complicated (eventually) as any contract you can imagine.
OpenPrivacy, on the other hand, assumes such services as a starting point, which is why I suspended development of OpenPrivacy in 2002 and began working on XRI/i-names. OpenPrivacy will use sophisticated techniques such as zero-knowledge proofs to enable distributed reputation providers and truly pseudonymous identities that cannot be traced to their owner (unless such verification is mutually requested), but it requires strong, secure identity as a starting point.
I look forward to creating grassroots i-names-enabled communities soon (starting in March, if all goes well) and eventually getting back to my OpenPrivacy roots - which is where (IMO) things start getting really interesting.
if they shut down free and open net access, we'll just have to fall back on an open, decentralized, reputation-driven model like FidoNet
Update it peer-to-peer wifi with IP-level packet incryption, and it could be nearly as fast and certain;y more secure than the current net.
I couldn't agree more.
The fact that machines are being built to suppress what people can do with them rather than to enhance our abilities to grow and perhaps go beyond their intended purposes makes them defective by design. Imagine not being able to make a copy of your music for use in your car because you already have one at home, one at your office, and three that were made for iPods (the first two of which were lost or broken). What if you wanted to include it in a mix tape [sic]?
Or it's like buying a computer that will only run M$ software - software that purposely spies on everything you do so that M$ can "protect" you from doing something their contract (that you signed when you turned the machine on) disallows.
It's FUBAR.
There's no doubt that running a secure OS and adhering to good practices (such as never do anything as root that doesn't have to be done by root) is increasingly important these days. One client I work with is running Openwall and it seems to be a good solution. There are many other security enhanced Linix possibilities, too, as well as OpenBSD - which I don't have direct experience with, but I hear it's pretty tight.
At home, I just keep up-to-date with Debian and practice careful management, but for any corporate systems, I'd start with a secure OS.
Since I've never allowed Windoze to install "Genuine Advantage" in the first place, this option is not available to me.
I've been wearing T-shirts - mostly tie-dye - to work for 25 years. Sometimes I wear shoes (generally if it's cold, and actually, more often for some reason as I've aged). My clothes are always clean and I shower and shampoo daily.
I'm an engineer, so there's no reason to "dress to impress" -- if my work doesn't impress, then fire me.
This M$ program relies on spyware built into XP that keeps track of all the software on your machine. If you're fortunate enough to have an un-infected system (such as Win 2K) you can keep the Genuine (Dis)Advantage spyware off your machine when doing updates by following a simple procedure.
I've known Ted for over 20 years and love his idealism. I believe that XRI can provide a seamless transition from the current document web to the future social web (PDF), complete with authenticated transclusion.
If you've got a passion for creating positive change - and you're a Drupal wizard - check out CivicActions. We're a 100% virtual network of progressive technology revolutionaries empowering people and communities to self-organize through free and open source software. Read a little about us, send us some code samples, convince us that you've got a good on-line work ethic and can stay in touch via email, IM, Skype and wikis, and you'll not only get to build kick-ass sites for campaigns and organizations that you can be proud of, but you'll also be working with a group of people that understands that your life comes first.
HP and MIT have been working on this same issue with the DSpace Project.
$308M would sure go far if doned to this open source federation!
I do mostly document printing and occasional photo prints. Two years ago I bought a Canon i850 for $150 and noticed that Costco sold an ink refill set for $17. I did some research online and found that after ten or more refills, it might kill the printheads. Well, I refilled 17 times before the heads died. With a savings of $50 per refill, I saved a *lot* of money, even compared to lasers.
So I just bought a Canon PIXMA 4000 that has 4 color photo printing and an extra large black reservoir for documents - and it even prints on both sides! And with the current $70 rebate, it cost me $30! With my first ink refill, the printer will have paid for itself.
As an interested party in the online identity world and very aware of Microsoft's role in it, I have met with Kim Cameron several times with respect to his Seven Laws and Microsoft's imminent InfoCard identity system that he is sheparding. Kim is a great guy - very sincere - but is but one tornado in a company of a thousand tornados. So I wrote an addendum, Four More "Laws of Identity" that addresses some of my concerns. (Kim said he enjoyed reading them and would comment after Digital ID World, but as yet I suppose he hasn't found the time.)
Some of my concerns stem from a basic distrust of Microsoft as well as the fact that some of the InfoCard technology - though supposed to be open standards - is still bases on WS-Trust, which itself is based on the WS-Security Suite, which as yet is RAND but not RANDz.
I also feel a bit of personal responsibility, as Passport came from Firefly which is partially descended from my 1980 MIT (Media Lab) thesis on a personalized newspaper - NewsPeek - so named as while it provided a "peek at the news", it was also clear even then that centralization of such resources could lead to a Big Brother state (and New Speak). Now Microsoft's InfoCard is not an identity system - it is a trust system - and actually a very noble and good goal. I just worry - as with many Microsoft systems - about how they may seek to "embrace and extend" in the trust arena, perhaps with disastrous consequences. On the other hand, if they manage to free all the necessary standards and really push an open standards/source identity/trust "metasystem", I think it could be excellent not only for Microsoft (sporting an extremely well-integrated UI) but also for the wider community - including all us F/OSS friendlies.
I'll end with two plugs: one for a host of free identity systems that exist (such as the one I worked on for the last couple years until we ran out of angel funding, 2idi; and one for a promising "open standard" InfoCard-like system that could easily be built as a Firefox plugin (alas, in PDF form) that could help in the battle against phishing.
I memorized Pi to 50 digits in 8th grade because I wanted it in a program on a computer that had limited memory and kept losing it, so I had to keep re-typing it in. (This was a 4K PDP/8e in 1969 with nothing but paper tape as permanent storage.)
;-)
Haven't been able to forget it, despite years of trying.
First, congratulations! Kids will change your life and though it's hard to let go of some things (like sleep and quiet evenings out) the kid trip is the absolute best!
I've been programming since I sold my first computer game in 1969 - when I was 11. But before that, I was always outdoors, too, and still would rather play games outside than on a computer. (Other than the one I wrote, I've probably spent less than 100 hours of my life playing any sort of electronic game.)
I spend 10 hours a day in front of a computer. I've got a 3.5 year old boy who is not allowed to touch the keyboard or watch TV (though we have allowed him to watch a few videos - up to an hour a day - like Thomas the Train and Nemo. And I would like it if he watched even less.
I'm not really a Waldorf School kinda guy (too rigid) but I like a concept that I heard that I attribute to them (though it may have originated elsewhere). For the first seven years of a child's life, they're learning about their bodies and the world in which they live. Part of that process invlves learning that when something near you moves suddenly, it's a good thing to react. But the Tube teaches you to sit there like a potato.
We caved on some videos because, well, we have no family around to help us with any of the work, nor the money for a nanny (and there are dangers with those too - I've seen kids that are closer with their nannys than with their parents!). So an hour of video gives my wife a much-needed break. But I enjoy watching his imaginitive play much more than seeing him sitting in fronnt of the tube. An hour is enough.
BTW, the best advice I can give for a new family is the book "Healthy Sleep Habits, Happy Child" by Marc Weissbluth. There's controvery about this, too, as the "training" period is rough on everyone. But our kid (and every other one we know that was raised with this book) is well rested, sleeps great and is not at all hyper. Oh, and ix-nay on the sugar.
Have a blast!
Yep. Though I use GNU/Linux as my desktop and a Mac for a laptop, as a consultant I often need a Windows box. I've been running Win2K for years on a separate machine and it has been amazingly rock solid. And that is precisely the reason it is being phased out: solid operating systems mean no reason to upgrade, when means no sales.
I prefer "broadcatching" as it inverts one-to-many delivery with "many-to-one" access (and perhaps I'm partial, also, as I coined the word in 1983).
I believe in free speech. The operative word there is "free." As soon as someone starts saying what is and isn't free, you run into censorship issues. We've had judges saying that photos of two men holding hands were obscene. Who decides?
While I don't currently run a Freenet node, I'm planning on installing Tor, for as long as there are those that would restrict free speech, I think it's essential that others make it possible.