I've seen a number of posts stating why violating IP protections with medical r&d is bad in terms of halting future development. The point that people miss is that the drug companies have made a significant amount of money selling AIDS drugs in the US and in other countries that can afford them. I'm not sure if they've recovered their R&D costs entirely, but its a pretty good possibility that they have.
The important distinction to make is that Brazil isn't making their own AIDS drugs because they don't WANT to pay for the legit ones. They are doing so because they CAN'T afford the insanely expensive medications. In reality, I don't think that the drug companies are losing much money because countries like Brazil couldn't afford to buy the drugs at market price anyway. Its not a question of name brand AIDS drugs or cheaper homegrown ones. Its a question of homegrown AIDS drugs or no AIDS drugs.
This is where I think the idea of eminent domain and IP are really important. The drug companies have done a service to the world by creating AIDS drugs that save lives and help slow the epidemic in developing nations. Unfortunately, they are profit-making ventures, and producing those drugs cost money. I agree that they should be compensated for their efforts and expense. However, the first priority should be saving human lives. We should worry about distributing these absoutely neccessary drugs where they are needed first, and about paying the drug companies later. Still, in order to continue development, we need to somehow ensure that the drug companies get compensated. This is where organizations such as the IMF, WTO, UN, and other governmental organizations should foot the bill for the R&D. I think they should develop some policy for seizing the IP of the companies and fairly compensating them for it. At the same time, they need to ensure that it is clearly defined when a country can violate IP. If a country can afford to buy the drugs at fair market prices, they should. Similarly, if a country is financially mismanaged, these organizations need to help these countries develop more stable governments with more sound (and less corrupt) fiscal practices so that they wil some day be able to participate in global markets. Simply burrying countries deeper and deeper in debt (as is the current practice of the IMF) doesn't do anything for the developing nations. The drug companies might not make as much money as they would like, but this way they won't lose money. It might not be totally fair for the companies, but in the end, human life is more important than IP.
As and addendum, some hard asses that have posted are suggesting that the AIDS epidemic is the fault of individuals who participate in unsafe behavior. While this is certainly the case in some instances, particularly given the lack of education in the third world, it is important to note that most of the developing nations with AIDS epidemics have huge pediatric AIDS problems as well. Certainly young children who contract AIDS from their mothers are not responsible for their terrible disease. I think that the interests of children alone provide a good enough warrant for Brazil's actions.
I think these arguments are unwarrented. First, the idea that open source is unamerican is ridiculous. I would say that freedom is a higher tenet than intellectual propery. Furthermore, the ability to do what I want with my intellectual property seems fundamental to the whole concept of ip. If I want to take something I create and give it away for free to benefit as many people as possible, that is my decision, and my freedom. To restrict this in any way undermines American freedom as well as the idea of intellectual property.
Also, the idea that free software is economically harmful is empirically denied. We have seen huge growth in free and open source software in recent years. Has microsoft gone out of business? Are they going to go out of business any time soon? No and no. It is clear that free software and free markets can co-exist. I think that there is a place for both and eliminating free software stands to hurt society more than the additional profit microsoft would garner would benefit it.
This is super scary. As much as I would like to have a free web for everyone, there are some types of content that really aren't appropriate for schools or public libraries. So I'm a proponent of filtering, right? Wrong! The problem with filtering is that it doesn't work. Not only does it fail to protect free speech in terms of things like women's and gay issues, human rights, and sexuality, but it censors pages that are inarguably G-rated. The software just doesn't work, and the software companies seem more intent on whipping up hysteria than making technology that filters only hard-core pornography and nothing else. It frightens me that the government is promoting technology that just doesn't work in the interest of "protecting our children". In fact, because it often limits the ability for individuals to use the Internet as a legitamite learning tool (remember it censors completely innocent sites on a frighteningly common basis) it harms children. The government pushing this type of technology is irresponsible and would be analogous to promoting car seats that occasionally explode or shear off the arm of the infant.
I find it interesting that John McCain is a huge supporter of filtering. I saw John McCain speak and he talked about the Internet bringing freedom and democracy to China. He also talked about promoting filtering. GET A CLUE! China has the Internet, the reason that they don't have freedom or democracy is because that Internet access is highly censored by the government. The reason we have things like freedom and some semblance of human rights in the U.S. is because we have great things like the protection of free speech. If not for the gravity of the issue, it would be funny to see how politicians at McCain thought the freedoms of the Internet abroad but take a step towards the policies of the Chinese government in their own country by wantonly trampling on free speech and the education of their children.
The course of action that the government should take is to develop free and open Internet filtering software that allows users to KNOW what is being filtered and to fine tune the filtering to block only content that is genuinely inappropriate. Only then should filtering even be considered in schools or libraries. I think the free software/open source community should work to develop free, open, and rational filtering software so that institutions that would be forced to use filtering software could have a software alternative that minimizes the free speech impacts. Furthermore, everyone should write their representative explaining why they are opposed to mandatory filtering. Also remember, no computer can (at least not yet) replace supervision and guidance by a good teacher or librarian to ensure that individuals receive the greatest value from Internet resources. Finally, if this policy is enacted, the guys at peacefire have created software to bypass to filtering software with the click of a mouse. It is available here: http://www.peacefire.org/bypass/.
And start thinking of the implications when this does inevitably happen. Even if these scientists feel that this is wrong and do not proceed, someone else will, and eventually, they will succeed. That is why we need to instead think about the implications of this when it does happen, be they ethical or environmental. For example, if we do have hallmark create-a-kid, this will clearly be made only available to the upper class. This would be bad! Or, as another poster mentioned, we could create something that could destroy earth's fragile eco-system as we know it. That is why we need to debate the applications of this technology NOW and create legislation to stop future abuse of this technology NOW before it is too late. This technology will forge ahead. Lets make sure we as a society are ready for it.
This does indeed sound like a good resource to share ideas, which is what open source needs. They ought to make a seperate section for coders working for free who can "bid" on a project not for cash, but simply to let others know that they have started something like this or to recruit other developers. It might help reduce redundant projects. In an idealized state it would allow developers who are working on similar projects, unbeknownst to each other to pool their resources, check out each others' code, and say "oh wow, this guy accomplished this much better than I did, but I have this functionality which I could add in to what he's doing". Also it would be good for budding programmers like me who want to get involved in developing OSS but don't really have a project of their own that they want to work on. If sites like cosource have this kind of dual functionality, then they will be promoting open source in general and not just the compensation of developers for a few projects.
From what I understand, Coven is not the end all project for Mark Borchardt. Instead it was simply a film he was making to finance his true project which is a film about life in his Milwaukee, Wisconsin neighborhood. I have even heard talk that the filmakers who made the documentary are considering makeing a sequal of some sorts following Borchardt's further projects.
First, I think comparing genocide to censorship, at least in this case, is a flawed analogy. It is one thing to pull the lever when there are no repurcussions for not doing so, and its another thing to pull the lever when someone is holding a gun to the head of your family. In the latter case, you can still make the argument, and rightly so, that pulling the lever is still wrong, but in that situation, how many of us would act differently? The point you are missing is that this guy is not a large ISP and therefore there were assumed real world consequences to keeping the video up. I don't know how small this guy's ISP really was, or how much the FBI would have hurt his business if they actually had some legal precedence backing their thug like threats. However, assuming that this guy could have been ruined, or at least given that impression, he made the same decision most rational, responsible people would have made. One can't expect someone to by a martyr for free speech when he isn't getting any support. Had he been given accurate information from the get go instead of flames, I'm sure he would have decided not to take the content down. The real tragedy here is that the flamers didn't instead try to work with this guy and point him in the right direction or give him legal aid. Instead, they acted as thug-like as the FBI. They've polarized the general public's view of free speech advocacy and all in all done far more harm than good. Remember, HE PUT THE VIDEO BACK UP after he got the correct info. If he would have gotten this info sooner everybody could have been happy much sooner.
So they say it will run win98. Think about it. It has a pentium processor, 64 MB of memory, and from the looks of things, a standard video and ps/2 port. Looks like you could linux it pretty easily. I think that portable computers are really cool, but many companies are still thinking in desktop terms. For instance, they're discusiing a keyboard? Pointless. The coolest thing about the palm pilot is graphiti. I heard of some people developing a language that would "type" via sensed finger movements. Repackaging a pentium into a small package is easy. Creating uncumbersome display and input devices is the hard part.
I understand the reasoning for KOffice, since Star Office isn't open source. However, what is the motivation for developing another browser? It seems to me that Netscape already has become the standard for *Nix platforms as far as web browsers go, and it suprised me that the KDE team was working on a browser now that Netscape has an open source project. Is browser/file manager integration (which I assume will equal functionality similar to Windows/Internet Explorer on windows without the crashes:-) ) that important? Is there some special niche that Konq will fill, similar to how Opera focusses on being speedy and lightweight? In short, what is the justification for re-creating the wheel?
I don't think that we have much to worry about here. It seems to me that Bridges lets users run windows apps off of a windows box over a network and have them display on a Linux workstation. Wine, on the other hand, lets users run windows apps directly off the hard drive under a Linux environment. Two completely different functions for two completely different sets of tasks. I could see where each would be useful under certain circumstances. I'm really impressed with WINE thus far, and I hope that development continues. If MS were smart, they ought to help with WINE development to try to skirt anti-trust action ("see our apps do run on other OSs, we don't have an OS monopoly"). I'm still not able to run all the apps I'd like (have to use vmware for that), but still, alot of progress has been made with the WINE project, and I'm excited to see how it progresses
The arguments against this are ridiculous. I'm not advocating copying the windows version, or the linux version, and then never buying an official, licensed version. What I am advocating is that for the foaming quake heads who must own the game the day it comes out, that it would be better for future development of linux games if they appeased their urges by borrowing their friends copy and waiting a few days/weeks until they are able to buy the Linux version from their local store or until it gets shipped to them via if they ordered off the web (hell, they could order it the same day they burn the copy, so the distributor is getting the money right away). The analogy to violating the GPL is seriously flawed for one reason. I am not advocating a permenant breaking of the license. What I am suggesting would be akin to releasing code that breaks the GPL license as a matter of expediency, and then, shortly thereafter re-releasing the code in a manner that conforms to the GPL. Is the initial violation completely innocuous? No, not entirely. However, in the grand scheme of things, this would have little negative impact. What I'm advocating is akin to id releasing a shareware version for download that would work for a week, then be broken. Obviously nothing illegal, or imoral with that. The point in all of this is that the intent of the law is more important than the letter.
Just thought of something I didn't include in my first post. Why not just put the Windows and Linux versions on the same CD and in the same Box and simply have a business reply card that says "Which operating system did you purcahse this software for, check one..." I can't speak for the rest of the community, but I would definitely take the 3 seconds and 33 cents required to show my support of the Linux version in this manner. This would really be the best way to do it, I think since it is easier on every party involved.
I think that in this case, piracy might be justified. If you really can't wait for the Linux version, pirate the windows version off of a friend until the Linux version is available. Everybody's still getting the money so no big deal right, and by waiting for the Linux version, we're all making a statement in support of Linux software. Finally, I think it would be neat to put Linux/Windows versions on the same CD and just use different boxes to track shipping. I'm sure if they're clever they could even put it in the same box and give it two different codes. Then the retailer will use the Linux code if it is sold as a Linux box, and the Windows code if it is sold as a windows box. That way the retailers can "alter" their stock to meet supply and demand but still get accurate records.
I think its cool that you want to go back to school. And it does seem as though distance learning programs in general (though I don't know of any great ones in specific) are advancing by leaps and bounds from well known universities down to small community colleges. However, you expressed an interest in teaching at the university level and stated that you were having trouble getting your foot in the door. If this is your end goal, I'm not sure if simply obtaining a degree or doing it via distance learning is the right path to take. It seems that most of the universities I have had experience with tend to be somewhat incestuous, and it seems logical that getting your degree in the manner you suggest might throw you out of the loop even more, while opportunities might go to less qualified, but better know students. I know that many doors have been opened for my at the university level because I've built a repoire with professors and admninsitrators. While I guess this is possible to do over the phone/via e-mail, in my mind nothing beats a good person to person chat as far as getting what you want out of people. Just wanted to give you something to consider... Best of luck with whatever route you take.
I for one don't understand all the controversy regarding these issues. I think if a student posts notes or other material that a professor has photocopied and distributed to a student then this IS a violation of intellectual property rights. However, if a student is simply taking down their personal notes regarding a professor's lecture, it is THE STUDENTS INTERPRETATION of a professor's notes and thus not an infringement on the professor's intellectual property rights. In most cases, the notes I, and the majority of my collegues take omit some information, add additional information, paraphrase, and clarify upon a professor's presentation in such a way that the majority of the work done, and the material written is my own. In general the majority of college professors I have had have not given notes, as much as lectures and a few key points. It is the STUDENT's job to take the notes. The only grey area I see is if a professor writes notes on the board during the lecture, and the notes that are posted by the student on these websites do not differ from these notes. However, in the vast majority of these cases, professors (unfortunately) do not present data in this manner. Therfore, I think that intellectual property rights arguments could be legitimate on a case by case basis, viewed from the professor's perspective, but certainly not from the institution's.
The name of the H323 proxy that I am familiar with is called phonepatch. I've been using it under Linux w/ IP masq and it works very well. I imagine it will work ok for your application as well. I don't remember the URL, but a web search on "phonepatch" should find what you're looking for
The BSA needs to wake up! 1) They will never control software piracy. The mechanisms by which it works and the nature of the 'net make it impossible to police effectively. 2) Software piracy losses are exagerated. I can't speak for everyone who pirates software, but it seems to me that the majority of software trafficked on the net is traded and not sold. Furthermore, I don't use pirated software that I would consider buying, so they're not losing any profit from me. I just think its ludicrous to charge $50-60 for software that I need to use once, or a couple of hundred dollars for software that I NEED for my already costly education. Hopefully the Linux/OSS movement will make old school software companies realize that there can be profits made without gouging the public by charging exhorbitant prices for software. With this realization piracy becomes less and less of an issue.
I'm really glad to hear that the Mozilla project is still going strong. While I don't really have the time to look at the source/contribute, I think that this is not only a great project but a VERY VERY important one as well. A recent slashdot editorial discussed how lack of funcionality with new types of content made the writer's wife turn away from Linux and I think that is a reasonable fear. I think that MSIE has some big problems, but I do like some of its features/support for web content (however superfluous/nonstandard it may be). I think that one of the greatest strength's of having an open source browser project is that it allows developers to add functionality. I don't know what the license is for Mozilla, but they really ought to make it GPL. Why? Simple. I don't expect netscape or any browser company to stay abreast of all the new features of their competitors browsers or of all the new web content mediums. However, I think nerds, programmers and developers everywhere can and will. If Mozilla was GPL'd, when MS comes out with a new browser with a new feature that Netscape lacks, programmers could easily add the functionality and release "their" version of netscape. Then, netscape, realizing how cool this new feature is, could put it into the "official" release. The same scenario could be repeated to add support for new web technologies. This is the strength of the project that can't be overlooked. By making this project open source, it allows the OSS and Linux communities to have a browser that can stay abreast of new web technologies faster than any closed source MS venture, can fix bugs and security holes (of which MSIE is NOTORIOUS) faster than its closed source rivals, and thus ensure both NS's position in the browser market as well as Linux's position in the OS market.
not sure if this is the right place for linux
on
Linux on Palm
·
· Score: 3
I think that this is kind of excessive. I think that the idea of a GUI Linux for small computers is interesting, but the point is that the reason I don't like CE is it is bloated. PalmOS does a great job at organizing my life, and keeping track of basic info. I don't really thing the nature of the Palm Pilot architecture in general lends itself to power computing or to an environment where a Linux based OS would be advantageous. Now, don't get me wrong, I think this is cool as hell, but more like geek eye candy. I think perhaps some of the cooler aplications would be to get a Linux based GUI embedded on systems like o-scopes and logic analyzers where CE seems to have a strangle hold. Seems to me that using a Linux solution might reduce costs here. Finally, does anyone know if this will work on the Handspring Visor? I'm kind of a sucker for its pretty colors. but I', kind of dismayed by lack of linux support. Is this compatible (since the Visor runs palm OS), and are there any plans of creating Linux software to support uploads/downloads from the visor?
Yeah, This is where I would concentrate on in your acticle. For those of you who don't know "Celebration" was/is Disney's planned small-town utopian community. While the theme parks are, in my oppinion, basically a public spectacle, "Celebration" was an actual attempt to put some of Disney's ideas into practice. They have a very "wired" community, their own transportation system, and schools among other things. IMO this community seems really ugly and homoginized and elitist. That's not the point though. The problem with technology isn't inherent to the technology, it is its application. The parallel I see with Disney/Celelbration is that people have tried to use technology to make for a better community. Unfortunately, they've made it so its accessible to only a small group of people who can afford it. Yes, technology is a driving force in our society, but in order for it to better society, it must reach all members of our society and not just the upper class. I think that this might be something, thematically that your article SHOULD explore. Furthermore, this all begs the question, what if, instead of creating theme parks and planned communities, all of the creativity and technological know how had gone into doing something really great for all of humanity. I don't think that all technology has to be socially concious, but the fact that technology has become intertwined with our society means that to some extent, there is a responsibility for technologists to develop technology for the betterment of society. Hope this gives you some food for thought.
The worst thing about this incident is that they are punishing the student for using a constructive outlet for what I would consider his well placed rage considering the conditions in our schools. I was not harrassed tremendously in school, but did have my problems with other students, teachers and the administration. I would definitely be called a "discipline problem" (despite the fact that I ranked 1 in my class and played soccer and captained quiz bowl and debate)I even recall writing a story about blowing up the school on parent-teacher conference night. Fortunately, I was smart enough not to share it with the morons at the school and the only teacher who did see it, understood it for its real value- A LITTLE RANT TO HELP ME COPE WITH THE STUPIDITY OF JUNIOR HIGH EDUCATION. I think that writing art and music are all good ways for people to let out their agression towards a deserving institution. In fact, I think these outlets, writing, art, and punk rock, were the things that kept me sane. When schools take these things away they will not be curtailing violence, but driving frustrated kids that much closer to the brink. On another halloween note, my younger brother and his friend spent tons of time creating ellaborate FFVII and Darth Mal costumes (check them out at http://user.pa.net/~ghing/g/ , click on pics), the latter which took 2 hours to apply the makeup. These kids are both great students, student-athletes, and much less of a "discipline" problem than I was. They got no direct complaints. Even the teacher with whcih they were going to a local university to take some test had no complaints. However, the moron principal seemed to think that this was a bad representation of the school since the school had visitors from other schools. Oh, I guess creativity and craftsmenship are not values we should teach in school, my bad! He also cited that their costumes depicted "blood dripping from their mouths". As I said before the guy's a moron. I encourage any of you, particularly adults who hear about this sort of thing going on in your communitites to give the school administration a piece of your mind. These kids are the best and brightest and we can't afford to have them become jaded and burn out because they get no support.
The only thing that kept the Matrix from being total crap was ana amazing concept and good special effects. Unless the creators can do something more with the concept of alternate reality and their surprisingly original post-apocolyptic futurescape, all audiences will be left with is superflous effects and dismall acting. Any other slashdot readers have any ideas on expanding upong the initial conceptual framework of the movie? Can't seem to think of anything off the top of my head. Oh, and I hope that in the future I'm not still using a monitor and keyboard to do I/O.
This completely unrelated to his book, but another recently related Gaimon project is he english dub of the Japanese animated file Princess Mononoke. It features the voices of Claire Danes, Gillian Anderson, Billy Bob Thorton and others. I was lucky enough to see a screening (with Gaiman in atendance no less) and the film was wonderful. Definitely worth checking out if you have the chance.
Slashdot Mirror
I've seen a number of posts stating why violating IP protections with medical r&d is bad in terms of halting future development. The point that people miss is that the drug companies have made a significant amount of money selling AIDS drugs in the US and in other countries that can afford them. I'm not sure if they've recovered their R&D costs entirely, but its a pretty good possibility that they have.
The important distinction to make is that Brazil isn't making their own AIDS drugs because they don't WANT to pay for the legit ones. They are doing so because they CAN'T afford the insanely expensive medications. In reality, I don't think that the drug companies are losing much money because countries like Brazil couldn't afford to buy the drugs at market price anyway. Its not a question of name brand AIDS drugs or cheaper homegrown ones. Its a question of homegrown AIDS drugs or no AIDS drugs.
This is where I think the idea of eminent domain and IP are really important. The drug companies have done a service to the world by creating AIDS drugs that save lives and help slow the epidemic in developing nations. Unfortunately, they are profit-making ventures, and producing those drugs cost money. I agree that they should be compensated for their efforts and expense. However, the first priority should be saving human lives. We should worry about distributing these absoutely neccessary drugs where they are needed first, and about paying the drug companies later. Still, in order to continue development, we need to somehow ensure that the drug companies get compensated. This is where organizations such as the IMF, WTO, UN, and other governmental organizations should foot the bill for the R&D. I think they should develop some policy for seizing the IP of the companies and fairly compensating them for it. At the same time, they need to ensure that it is clearly defined when a country can violate IP. If a country can afford to buy the drugs at fair market prices, they should. Similarly, if a country is financially mismanaged, these organizations need to help these countries develop more stable governments with more sound (and less corrupt) fiscal practices so that they wil some day be able to participate in global markets. Simply burrying countries deeper and deeper in debt (as is the current practice of the IMF) doesn't do anything for the developing nations. The drug companies might not make as much money as they would like, but this way they won't lose money. It might not be totally fair for the companies, but in the end, human life is more important than IP.
As and addendum, some hard asses that have posted are suggesting that the AIDS epidemic is the fault of individuals who participate in unsafe behavior. While this is certainly the case in some instances, particularly given the lack of education in the third world, it is important to note that most of the developing nations with AIDS epidemics have huge pediatric AIDS problems as well. Certainly young children who contract AIDS from their mothers are not responsible for their terrible disease. I think that the interests of children alone provide a good enough warrant for Brazil's actions.
I think these arguments are unwarrented. First, the idea that open source is unamerican is ridiculous. I would say that freedom is a higher tenet than intellectual propery. Furthermore, the ability to do what I want with my intellectual property seems fundamental to the whole concept of ip. If I want to take something I create and give it away for free to benefit as many people as possible, that is my decision, and my freedom. To restrict this in any way undermines American freedom as well as the idea of intellectual property. Also, the idea that free software is economically harmful is empirically denied. We have seen huge growth in free and open source software in recent years. Has microsoft gone out of business? Are they going to go out of business any time soon? No and no. It is clear that free software and free markets can co-exist. I think that there is a place for both and eliminating free software stands to hurt society more than the additional profit microsoft would garner would benefit it.
This is super scary. As much as I would like to have a free web for everyone, there are some types of content that really aren't appropriate for schools or public libraries. So I'm a proponent of filtering, right? Wrong! The problem with filtering is that it doesn't work. Not only does it fail to protect free speech in terms of things like women's and gay issues, human rights, and sexuality, but it censors pages that are inarguably G-rated. The software just doesn't work, and the software companies seem more intent on whipping up hysteria than making technology that filters only hard-core pornography and nothing else. It frightens me that the government is promoting technology that just doesn't work in the interest of "protecting our children". In fact, because it often limits the ability for individuals to use the Internet as a legitamite learning tool (remember it censors completely innocent sites on a frighteningly common basis) it harms children. The government pushing this type of technology is irresponsible and would be analogous to promoting car seats that occasionally explode or shear off the arm of the infant. I find it interesting that John McCain is a huge supporter of filtering. I saw John McCain speak and he talked about the Internet bringing freedom and democracy to China. He also talked about promoting filtering. GET A CLUE! China has the Internet, the reason that they don't have freedom or democracy is because that Internet access is highly censored by the government. The reason we have things like freedom and some semblance of human rights in the U.S. is because we have great things like the protection of free speech. If not for the gravity of the issue, it would be funny to see how politicians at McCain thought the freedoms of the Internet abroad but take a step towards the policies of the Chinese government in their own country by wantonly trampling on free speech and the education of their children. The course of action that the government should take is to develop free and open Internet filtering software that allows users to KNOW what is being filtered and to fine tune the filtering to block only content that is genuinely inappropriate. Only then should filtering even be considered in schools or libraries. I think the free software/open source community should work to develop free, open, and rational filtering software so that institutions that would be forced to use filtering software could have a software alternative that minimizes the free speech impacts. Furthermore, everyone should write their representative explaining why they are opposed to mandatory filtering. Also remember, no computer can (at least not yet) replace supervision and guidance by a good teacher or librarian to ensure that individuals receive the greatest value from Internet resources. Finally, if this policy is enacted, the guys at peacefire have created software to bypass to filtering software with the click of a mouse. It is available here: http://www.peacefire.org/bypass/.
And start thinking of the implications when this does inevitably happen. Even if these scientists feel that this is wrong and do not proceed, someone else will, and eventually, they will succeed. That is why we need to instead think about the implications of this when it does happen, be they ethical or environmental. For example, if we do have hallmark create-a-kid, this will clearly be made only available to the upper class. This would be bad! Or, as another poster mentioned, we could create something that could destroy earth's fragile eco-system as we know it. That is why we need to debate the applications of this technology NOW and create legislation to stop future abuse of this technology NOW before it is too late. This technology will forge ahead. Lets make sure we as a society are ready for it.
This does indeed sound like a good resource to share ideas, which is what open source needs. They ought to make a seperate section for coders working for free who can "bid" on a project not for cash, but simply to let others know that they have started something like this or to recruit other developers. It might help reduce redundant projects. In an idealized state it would allow developers who are working on similar projects, unbeknownst to each other to pool their resources, check out each others' code, and say "oh wow, this guy accomplished this much better than I did, but I have this functionality which I could add in to what he's doing". Also it would be good for budding programmers like me who want to get involved in developing OSS but don't really have a project of their own that they want to work on. If sites like cosource have this kind of dual functionality, then they will be promoting open source in general and not just the compensation of developers for a few projects.
From what I understand, Coven is not the end all project for Mark Borchardt. Instead it was simply a film he was making to finance his true project which is a film about life in his Milwaukee, Wisconsin neighborhood. I have even heard talk that the filmakers who made the documentary are considering makeing a sequal of some sorts following Borchardt's further projects.
First, I think comparing genocide to censorship, at least in this case, is a flawed analogy. It is one thing to pull the lever when there are no repurcussions for not doing so, and its another thing to pull the lever when someone is holding a gun to the head of your family. In the latter case, you can still make the argument, and rightly so, that pulling the lever is still wrong, but in that situation, how many of us would act differently? The point you are missing is that this guy is not a large ISP and therefore there were assumed real world consequences to keeping the video up. I don't know how small this guy's ISP really was, or how much the FBI would have hurt his business if they actually had some legal precedence backing their thug like threats. However, assuming that this guy could have been ruined, or at least given that impression, he made the same decision most rational, responsible people would have made. One can't expect someone to by a martyr for free speech when he isn't getting any support. Had he been given accurate information from the get go instead of flames, I'm sure he would have decided not to take the content down. The real tragedy here is that the flamers didn't instead try to work with this guy and point him in the right direction or give him legal aid. Instead, they acted as thug-like as the FBI. They've polarized the general public's view of free speech advocacy and all in all done far more harm than good. Remember, HE PUT THE VIDEO BACK UP after he got the correct info. If he would have gotten this info sooner everybody could have been happy much sooner.
So they say it will run win98. Think about it. It has a pentium processor, 64 MB of memory, and from the looks of things, a standard video and ps/2 port. Looks like you could linux it pretty easily. I think that portable computers are really cool, but many companies are still thinking in desktop terms. For instance, they're discusiing a keyboard? Pointless. The coolest thing about the palm pilot is graphiti. I heard of some people developing a language that would "type" via sensed finger movements. Repackaging a pentium into a small package is easy. Creating uncumbersome display and input devices is the hard part.
I understand the reasoning for KOffice, since Star Office isn't open source. However, what is the motivation for developing another browser? It seems to me that Netscape already has become the standard for *Nix platforms as far as web browsers go, and it suprised me that the KDE team was working on a browser now that Netscape has an open source project. Is browser/file manager integration (which I assume will equal functionality similar to Windows/Internet Explorer on windows without the crashes :-) ) that important? Is there some special niche that Konq will fill, similar to how Opera focusses on being speedy and lightweight? In short, what is the justification for re-creating the wheel?
I don't think that we have much to worry about here. It seems to me that Bridges lets users run windows apps off of a windows box over a network and have them display on a Linux workstation. Wine, on the other hand, lets users run windows apps directly off the hard drive under a Linux environment. Two completely different functions for two completely different sets of tasks. I could see where each would be useful under certain circumstances. I'm really impressed with WINE thus far, and I hope that development continues. If MS were smart, they ought to help with WINE development to try to skirt anti-trust action ("see our apps do run on other OSs, we don't have an OS monopoly"). I'm still not able to run all the apps I'd like (have to use vmware for that), but still, alot of progress has been made with the WINE project, and I'm excited to see how it progresses
The arguments against this are ridiculous. I'm not advocating copying the windows version, or the linux version, and then never buying an official, licensed version. What I am advocating is that for the foaming quake heads who must own the game the day it comes out, that it would be better for future development of linux games if they appeased their urges by borrowing their friends copy and waiting a few days/weeks until they are able to buy the Linux version from their local store or until it gets shipped to them via if they ordered off the web (hell, they could order it the same day they burn the copy, so the distributor is getting the money right away). The analogy to violating the GPL is seriously flawed for one reason. I am not advocating a permenant breaking of the license. What I am suggesting would be akin to releasing code that breaks the GPL license as a matter of expediency, and then, shortly thereafter re-releasing the code in a manner that conforms to the GPL. Is the initial violation completely innocuous? No, not entirely. However, in the grand scheme of things, this would have little negative impact. What I'm advocating is akin to id releasing a shareware version for download that would work for a week, then be broken. Obviously nothing illegal, or imoral with that. The point in all of this is that the intent of the law is more important than the letter.
Just thought of something I didn't include in my first post. Why not just put the Windows and Linux versions on the same CD and in the same Box and simply have a business reply card that says "Which operating system did you purcahse this software for, check one ..." I can't speak for the rest of the community, but I would definitely take the 3 seconds and 33 cents required to show my support of the Linux version in this manner. This would really be the best way to do it, I think since it is easier on every party involved.
I think that in this case, piracy might be justified. If you really can't wait for the Linux version, pirate the windows version off of a friend until the Linux version is available. Everybody's still getting the money so no big deal right, and by waiting for the Linux version, we're all making a statement in support of Linux software. Finally, I think it would be neat to put Linux/Windows versions on the same CD and just use different boxes to track shipping. I'm sure if they're clever they could even put it in the same box and give it two different codes. Then the retailer will use the Linux code if it is sold as a Linux box, and the Windows code if it is sold as a windows box. That way the retailers can "alter" their stock to meet supply and demand but still get accurate records.
I think its cool that you want to go back to school. And it does seem as though distance learning programs in general (though I don't know of any great ones in specific) are advancing by leaps and bounds from well known universities down to small community colleges. However, you expressed an interest in teaching at the university level and stated that you were having trouble getting your foot in the door. If this is your end goal, I'm not sure if simply obtaining a degree or doing it via distance learning is the right path to take. It seems that most of the universities I have had experience with tend to be somewhat incestuous, and it seems logical that getting your degree in the manner you suggest might throw you out of the loop even more, while opportunities might go to less qualified, but better know students. I know that many doors have been opened for my at the university level because I've built a repoire with professors and admninsitrators. While I guess this is possible to do over the phone/via e-mail, in my mind nothing beats a good person to person chat as far as getting what you want out of people. Just wanted to give you something to consider... Best of luck with whatever route you take.
I for one don't understand all the controversy regarding these issues. I think if a student posts notes or other material that a professor has photocopied and distributed to a student then this IS a violation of intellectual property rights. However, if a student is simply taking down their personal notes regarding a professor's lecture, it is THE STUDENTS INTERPRETATION of a professor's notes and thus not an infringement on the professor's intellectual property rights. In most cases, the notes I, and the majority of my collegues take omit some information, add additional information, paraphrase, and clarify upon a professor's presentation in such a way that the majority of the work done, and the material written is my own. In general the majority of college professors I have had have not given notes, as much as lectures and a few key points. It is the STUDENT's job to take the notes. The only grey area I see is if a professor writes notes on the board during the lecture, and the notes that are posted by the student on these websites do not differ from these notes. However, in the vast majority of these cases, professors (unfortunately) do not present data in this manner. Therfore, I think that intellectual property rights arguments could be legitimate on a case by case basis, viewed from the professor's perspective, but certainly not from the institution's.
The name of the H323 proxy that I am familiar with is called phonepatch. I've been using it under Linux w/ IP masq and it works very well. I imagine it will work ok for your application as well. I don't remember the URL, but a web search on "phonepatch" should find what you're looking for
The BSA needs to wake up! 1) They will never control software piracy. The mechanisms by which it works and the nature of the 'net make it impossible to police effectively. 2) Software piracy losses are exagerated. I can't speak for everyone who pirates software, but it seems to me that the majority of software trafficked on the net is traded and not sold. Furthermore, I don't use pirated software that I would consider buying, so they're not losing any profit from me. I just think its ludicrous to charge $50-60 for software that I need to use once, or a couple of hundred dollars for software that I NEED for my already costly education. Hopefully the Linux/OSS movement will make old school software companies realize that there can be profits made without gouging the public by charging exhorbitant prices for software. With this realization piracy becomes less and less of an issue.
I'm really glad to hear that the Mozilla project is still going strong. While I don't really have the time to look at the source/contribute, I think that this is not only a great project but a VERY VERY important one as well. A recent slashdot editorial discussed how lack of funcionality with new types of content made the writer's wife turn away from Linux and I think that is a reasonable fear. I think that MSIE has some big problems, but I do like some of its features/support for web content (however superfluous/nonstandard it may be). I think that one of the greatest strength's of having an open source browser project is that it allows developers to add functionality. I don't know what the license is for Mozilla, but they really ought to make it GPL. Why? Simple. I don't expect netscape or any browser company to stay abreast of all the new features of their competitors browsers or of all the new web content mediums. However, I think nerds, programmers and developers everywhere can and will. If Mozilla was GPL'd, when MS comes out with a new browser with a new feature that Netscape lacks, programmers could easily add the functionality and release "their" version of netscape. Then, netscape, realizing how cool this new feature is, could put it into the "official" release. The same scenario could be repeated to add support for new web technologies. This is the strength of the project that can't be overlooked. By making this project open source, it allows the OSS and Linux communities to have a browser that can stay abreast of new web technologies faster than any closed source MS venture, can fix bugs and security holes (of which MSIE is NOTORIOUS) faster than its closed source rivals, and thus ensure both NS's position in the browser market as well as Linux's position in the OS market.
I think that this is kind of excessive. I think that the idea of a GUI Linux for small computers is interesting, but the point is that the reason I don't like CE is it is bloated. PalmOS does a great job at organizing my life, and keeping track of basic info. I don't really thing the nature of the Palm Pilot architecture in general lends itself to power computing or to an environment where a Linux based OS would be advantageous. Now, don't get me wrong, I think this is cool as hell, but more like geek eye candy. I think perhaps some of the cooler aplications would be to get a Linux based GUI embedded on systems like o-scopes and logic analyzers where CE seems to have a strangle hold. Seems to me that using a Linux solution might reduce costs here. Finally, does anyone know if this will work on the Handspring Visor? I'm kind of a sucker for its pretty colors. but I', kind of dismayed by lack of linux support. Is this compatible (since the Visor runs palm OS), and are there any plans of creating Linux software to support uploads/downloads from the visor?
Yeah, This is where I would concentrate on in your acticle. For those of you who don't know "Celebration" was/is Disney's planned small-town utopian community. While the theme parks are, in my oppinion, basically a public spectacle, "Celebration" was an actual attempt to put some of Disney's ideas into practice. They have a very "wired" community, their own transportation system, and schools among other things. IMO this community seems really ugly and homoginized and elitist. That's not the point though. The problem with technology isn't inherent to the technology, it is its application. The parallel I see with Disney/Celelbration is that people have tried to use technology to make for a better community. Unfortunately, they've made it so its accessible to only a small group of people who can afford it. Yes, technology is a driving force in our society, but in order for it to better society, it must reach all members of our society and not just the upper class. I think that this might be something, thematically that your article SHOULD explore. Furthermore, this all begs the question, what if, instead of creating theme parks and planned communities, all of the creativity and technological know how had gone into doing something really great for all of humanity. I don't think that all technology has to be socially concious, but the fact that technology has become intertwined with our society means that to some extent, there is a responsibility for technologists to develop technology for the betterment of society. Hope this gives you some food for thought.
The worst thing about this incident is that they are punishing the student for using a constructive outlet for what I would consider his well placed rage considering the conditions in our schools. I was not harrassed tremendously in school, but did have my problems with other students, teachers and the administration. I would definitely be called a "discipline problem" (despite the fact that I ranked 1 in my class and played soccer and captained quiz bowl and debate)I even recall writing a story about blowing up the school on parent-teacher conference night. Fortunately, I was smart enough not to share it with the morons at the school and the only teacher who did see it, understood it for its real value- A LITTLE RANT TO HELP ME COPE WITH THE STUPIDITY OF JUNIOR HIGH EDUCATION. I think that writing art and music are all good ways for people to let out their agression towards a deserving institution. In fact, I think these outlets, writing, art, and punk rock, were the things that kept me sane. When schools take these things away they will not be curtailing violence, but driving frustrated kids that much closer to the brink. On another halloween note, my younger brother and his friend spent tons of time creating ellaborate FFVII and Darth Mal costumes (check them out at http://user.pa.net/~ghing/g/ , click on pics), the latter which took 2 hours to apply the makeup. These kids are both great students, student-athletes, and much less of a "discipline" problem than I was. They got no direct complaints. Even the teacher with whcih they were going to a local university to take some test had no complaints. However, the moron principal seemed to think that this was a bad representation of the school since the school had visitors from other schools. Oh, I guess creativity and craftsmenship are not values we should teach in school, my bad! He also cited that their costumes depicted "blood dripping from their mouths". As I said before the guy's a moron. I encourage any of you, particularly adults who hear about this sort of thing going on in your communitites to give the school administration a piece of your mind. These kids are the best and brightest and we can't afford to have them become jaded and burn out because they get no support.
The only thing that kept the Matrix from being total crap was ana amazing concept and good special effects. Unless the creators can do something more with the concept of alternate reality and their surprisingly original post-apocolyptic futurescape, all audiences will be left with is superflous effects and dismall acting. Any other slashdot readers have any ideas on expanding upong the initial conceptual framework of the movie? Can't seem to think of anything off the top of my head. Oh, and I hope that in the future I'm not still using a monitor and keyboard to do I/O.
This completely unrelated to his book, but another recently related Gaimon project is he english dub of the Japanese animated file Princess Mononoke. It features the voices of Claire Danes, Gillian Anderson, Billy Bob Thorton and others. I was lucky enough to see a screening (with Gaiman in atendance no less) and the film was wonderful. Definitely worth checking out if you have the chance.