This isn't about censorship. This is about an employer-employee relationship. I've never read George Will, but if his editorials SUCKED I'm sure the Washington Post would tell him to write better editorials or be dropped. JK gets paid for writing this crap, basically spreading his own propaganda. Maybe I'm the exception, but from the writeups I've read very few people seem to actually enjoy it. All I'm saying is that Slashdot should stop wasting its money, and hire someone better.
It is my layman understanding of copyright law that copying and pasting the articles from slashdot and creating your own slashdot would be illegal. JK's and other slashdot articles are not "free". You cannot copy them and redistribute them for commercial use. You also cannot create derivitive works, which admittedly would be difficult to allow.
The downside to OCLing much of the content of slashdot is that it would kill slashdot's business model. As it is, you have to look at the stupid ads at the top of the page. If one could make an alternative slashdot, "steal" the content, and not post ads, slashdot would potentially lose much of its revenue.
So that's why I ask JK to put his money where his mouth is. If he expects programmers to freely give away their software to everyone, he should be doing the same with his articles. At least RMS got that part right (except for the GPL itself, which is under a free as in beer license), and I respect him for that.
Yeah, it's Jon Katz, and he doesn't speak for Slashdot, he speaks for Jon Katz... But it is the responsibility of Slashdot to keep the stories at least somewhat informative to at least some, I would think. Running a couple servers isn't exactly difficult and the software is mostly available for free. If we want to talk about companies which make money without actually doing anything, maybe we should look in the mirror.
Want to talk about competition? What site is there to compete with Slashdot for it's particular high-tech, pro-freedom, psuedo-scientific news for nerds? Maybe Katz and the other writers should start open-content licensing their stories.
So that's my challenge for you, Katz. Open-content license your stories, and stop working for a company which doesn't open-content license all of their content.
Ya know, this could actually be a good thing for mozilla. Now that AOL has basically told us it isn't interested in making a browser any more, the importance of Mozilla becomes very high. IE cannot be the only browser, but Microsoft competing with AOL doesn't make much sense. IE is simply better than Netscape. But having an open-source alternative which runs on most platforms is important. Maybe it's time for someone other than AOL to fork Mozilla and take over development. I'm a big believer that large scale open-source won't work in today's age without corporate (or NPO) backing, but AOL just isn't cutting it.
Isn't California's problem lack of power at the power plants (lack of power plants), rather than lack of infrastructure to carry that power? I think the idea is to provide backup for major power line cuts, which isn't at all the California problem.
No, the original did not. That license is based on copyright law, and under that law, any right not explicitly granted by the author (such as modifications/distribution of said modifications) is reserved to the author.
No, not any right not explicitly granted by the author is reserved. For instance, the right to use the software is not reserved. Only the following is reserved:
copying
preparation of derivitive works
distribution of copies or phonorecords
public display/performance (does not apply to software)
Notably, modification is not one of the reserved rights, only preparation of derivitive works. It is arguable whether or not modification for personal use is considered preparation of a derivitive work. Indeed, there is likely no precedent, since if you don't distribute you're probably not going to get caught.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances
While I agree with your sentiment, I can't agree with you that this is a freedom of speech issue. While the tenth ammendment would probably stop this from becoming a federal law (unless the all-powerful and highly abused interstate commerce clause kicks in), I don't see much that can be done to stop states from creating such rules.
The proper way to fight this is in Connecticut's system, and with a new Constitutional Ammendment, not by claiming that it's a free speech issue. It simply isn't.
If the licence doesn't make clear that the code cannot be modified then you can modify it unless there is some other de-facto law that prevents you from doing it eg copyright or whatever.
Hmm, I'm not so sure about this. Copryight law protects: copying, preparation of derivitive works, distribution, and public display (which does not apply to software). There is no law against modification. You only break the law if that modification creates a derivitive work, or if you distribute the modified product.
Perhaps you should read the tenth ammendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
As applies to copyright, as you said, the constitution says: "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries; "
The supreme court has taken this to imply that copyright which does not "promote the progress of science and useful arts" is unconstitutional. Granted, they could whip out the "interstate commerce" clause, and let the federal government do just about anything it wants (and have done in various other types of cases), but fortunately they have not done that as of yet. Further, they have outlined the fair use guidelines which I posted, and commanded the lower courts to use them.
State law is a completely different matter, the states can restrict anything they want, as long as it does not infringe free speech (and the other constitutional rights). But I'm talking here about federal copyright law. A District Court ruling which gives summary judgement without addressing the Supreme Court guidelines with regard to fair use would be immediately struck down by the Supreme Court. The District Court would then have to listen to the fair use defense, and make a ruling. An improper ruling by the District Court would then go back to the Supreme Court.
I contend that disallowing bug fixes and minor compatibility enhancements for a product does not even arguably promote the progress of science and useful arts. I'm talking about a product which you already have the source code for, I understand that it can be argued that not providing the source in the first place promotes the progress of science and useful arts. But I'm saying that this case is pretty much indisputable.
That's what fair use is all about. You got half of it right, but you forgot about the tenth ammendment.
The primary objective of copyright is not to reward the labor of authors, but "[t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." To this end, copyright assures authors the right to their original expression, but encourages others to build freely upon the ideas and information conveyed by a work. This result is neither unfair nor unfortunate. It is the means by which copyright advances the progress of science and art. - Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 US 340, 349(1991)
I've used FVWM95. "Close enough" is debatable, but "few would notice the difference" is certainly an exageration. I direct you to "ftp://mitac11.uia.ac.be/html-test/screenshot-full.gif" How long does it take you to figure out which one it is? Besides, when I click on the URL box, I want the url to automatically highlight. Netscape on FVWM95 doesn't do that. But that one's just a pet peeve of mine.
Anyway, I'll leave it at that. It's debatable. But personally, if I were in charge of a lab, I'd never allow FVWM95 to be the sole solution, and I'd fire anyone who made that decision without letting me talk them out of it.
If a lab wants to switch computers over, 2 or 3 at a time, that's a completely different story. It'll cost more in the short term, when you only have a few computers, but in the long term, you'll be able to calculate impact much more accurately. Of course, this only works if you're a relatively large computer lab.
Besides, if you want to do it right, you don't want to have 50 machines, you want one or two big machines, and a bunch of X-terms. Whether or not linux can handle that, I don't know, I've only seen it done on Solaris, and that was fairly successful (but it also wasn't the only alternative).
This is a funny case of worse is better. Running copper wires to homes and carrying voice communications over it is extremely inefficient. You use very little of the potential bandwidth in those copper wires. Once fibre became reasonable, phone companies found out that they could be much more efficient by multiplexing many phone conversations over a single line. Then enter DSL, and we found a way to use all the inefficiencies in the copper wires. Those who got the more efficient fibre get screwed.
Whether or not anything can even be done depends on how much of the bandwidth is available. Presumably, if the phone company dedicates enough bandwidth through the fibre to allow every phone line to be in use at once, part of it could be used for the unguaranteed internet packets. But even that requires some major changes to the multiplexors that are doing the conversion from copper to fibre.
I would think, that customers with all-fiber connections could just be wired directly into the Internet.
Sure, if you're already paying to have a strand of fibre in the home, all you have to do is pay for the equipment on each end, and the bandwidth. First of all, I doubt you have a strand of fibre in your house. Secondly, the equipment and bandwidth won't be cheap (well, the bandwidth charges won't be bad if you only want DSL level speed).
Because no one is going to know what the hell they're doing. You're living in a dream world if you don't think that help-desk questions are going to go up significantly when you start introducing Linux. You'll spend thousands of dollars just answering "Where's the start button?"
Then you go on to show just how biased you are. Windows has permissions. You can block people from installing things, if you so choose.
It is also my experience that a Linux desktop machine, used for desktop applications, crashes much much more than a Windows machine. Sure, you don't have to reboot the entire machine, just the X or WM or whatever, but clueless users aren't going to understand that part. But this part, is just opinion. I think the helpdesk part is pretty much undisputable.
For 100 users, Office will run you $100/user if it is OEM installed, and about $300 for upgrades 2-3 years from now. that comes out around $10000/yr for office software.
For 100 simultaneous users, all of whom have no clue how to use the software, you figure you need about 5 trained sysadmins. Let's say you only run the lab 5 days a week for 10 hours, and pay your sysadmins $10/hour. In three years: 5*5*52*3*10*10=$390,000. Lets say using Windows software saves you only one of those sysadmins. 1*5*52*3*10*10=$78,000. I think we have a winner.
I think maybe it would be a good thing if Mozilla died and IE support was dropped on Linux and Mac. The fact of the matter is that the HTML spec has become rediculous. Mozilla is forced to reverse engineer much of the shit in IE in order to behave properly. If IE is dropped on non-Windows platforms, people won't switch to Windows, people will just stop coding shitty webpages that only work on IE. Not to mention that that will never happen, since it isn't in Microsoft's interests, AND they'd get in big trouble with the govt. if they did it.
Well, the thing is, companies are required by law to behave rationally. Thus, if something is legal, and it is in the best interests of the company to do it, they are required by law to do it.
There are two major flaws to this distinction, however. First of all, I contend that it is always in a company (and an individuals) best interest to behave morally. I'm not talking about silent altruism, I'm talking about having morals, following them, and letting everyone know that you follow them. Indeed, it is even more in the best interest of a company, because they have perpetual life, and their reputations are much more public and widespread.
Secondly, I argue that just as many, if not most, corporations behave selfishly, humans, when acting anonymously and with regard to the general public, also tend to act selfishly. I'm not denying altruism, that is certainly part of human behavior, but altruism is usually directed at a particular special interest. In any case, I'd actually prefer to donate (money, or other limited resources) to a company than a random Joe Schmoe on the street. I can research the actions of a company, and find out exactly what it is they're going to do with it. With Joe Schmoe, for all I know s/he is going to use it to hire a contract killer.
Companies, just as humans (who happen to run the companies), are neither good nor evil. Just as you have your Hitlers, your Mother Theresas, and your Richard M. Stallmans (to pick a representative for someone in between), corporations are the same way.
The purpose and character of the use - to fix bugs and create compatibility, add features
The nature of the copyrighted work - pretty much standard here
The amount and substantiality - because this isn't copying, presumably this would be counted differently
The effect of the use upon the potential market - zero
I'll take my chances. I believe that the constitution protects my rights to modify source code (or even binaries) for personal use. I don't think this would extend to cirumvention of particular intentional parts of the product (for example, for example an expiration or limit on simultaneous users), but I do think it extends to bug fixing, compatibility enhancement, and minor feature enhancement.
Well, I'm claiming that he is not within his rights, barring an EULA, to restrict modification of the source for personal use. But there are only 9 people in the US who can make that determination, ultimately. In the mean time, I'll feel free to modify source for personal use. First of all, I won't get caught, and secondly, I believe I'd have an adequete defense even if I did.
Well, it depends on the type of shareware. Many are open-ended "if you like this, send me $10" types. And the rest are, realistically, the same thing. No one pays for shareware, and no one releases shareware with the intention that everyone is going to pay them. But I guess I'm more referring to what I'll call donationware, which there is a lot of out there.
I completely agree with this argument, but look at it from the point of view of shareware, or donationware. It's pretty much the same thing, except it's a corporation (oo, bad bad) doing it, instead of an individual.
Personally, I don't believe in donations, either to a corporation, or to an individual, except to a non-profit corporation with a mission which I agree with. Which implies that the NPO itself does more than just donate the items off to individuals. Personally, I support Goodwill, which provides jobs and low cost goods, and generally improves society at both ends, not just handouts. Plus they're not Christian, and they don't try to force people to stop drinking alcohol, which is why I prefer them to something like Salvation Army.
You wouldn't want to run apache on the PDA. Even Jennicam doesn't run the webserver at her house. Follow her lead, write a cron job to send the data to a well connected webserver, and run apache (or preferably something more lightweight if all you're doing is HTML) there.
Perhaps Apache is a bad example of what a PDA can run?
Think ricochet (not per-minute) and a web-cam.
Hmm, actually, since that's only 128K that wouldn't be a very good solution, you'd want to run a cron to upload the picture to a real webserver with a faster connection.
OK, fair enough, I can't come up with a useful use for apache.
Slashdot Mirror
This isn't about censorship. This is about an employer-employee relationship. I've never read George Will, but if his editorials SUCKED I'm sure the Washington Post would tell him to write better editorials or be dropped. JK gets paid for writing this crap, basically spreading his own propaganda. Maybe I'm the exception, but from the writeups I've read very few people seem to actually enjoy it. All I'm saying is that Slashdot should stop wasting its money, and hire someone better.
It is my layman understanding of copyright law that copying and pasting the articles from slashdot and creating your own slashdot would be illegal. JK's and other slashdot articles are not "free". You cannot copy them and redistribute them for commercial use. You also cannot create derivitive works, which admittedly would be difficult to allow.
The downside to OCLing much of the content of slashdot is that it would kill slashdot's business model. As it is, you have to look at the stupid ads at the top of the page. If one could make an alternative slashdot, "steal" the content, and not post ads, slashdot would potentially lose much of its revenue.
So that's why I ask JK to put his money where his mouth is. If he expects programmers to freely give away their software to everyone, he should be doing the same with his articles. At least RMS got that part right (except for the GPL itself, which is under a free as in beer license), and I respect him for that.
Only if those innocent bystanders have broken auto-responders, which is unlikely.
Yeah, it's Jon Katz, and he doesn't speak for Slashdot, he speaks for Jon Katz... But it is the responsibility of Slashdot to keep the stories at least somewhat informative to at least some, I would think. Running a couple servers isn't exactly difficult and the software is mostly available for free. If we want to talk about companies which make money without actually doing anything, maybe we should look in the mirror.
Want to talk about competition? What site is there to compete with Slashdot for it's particular high-tech, pro-freedom, psuedo-scientific news for nerds? Maybe Katz and the other writers should start open-content licensing their stories.
So that's my challenge for you, Katz. Open-content license your stories, and stop working for a company which doesn't open-content license all of their content.
Ya know, this could actually be a good thing for mozilla. Now that AOL has basically told us it isn't interested in making a browser any more, the importance of Mozilla becomes very high. IE cannot be the only browser, but Microsoft competing with AOL doesn't make much sense. IE is simply better than Netscape. But having an open-source alternative which runs on most platforms is important. Maybe it's time for someone other than AOL to fork Mozilla and take over development. I'm a big believer that large scale open-source won't work in today's age without corporate (or NPO) backing, but AOL just isn't cutting it.
Isn't California's problem lack of power at the power plants (lack of power plants), rather than lack of infrastructure to carry that power? I think the idea is to provide backup for major power line cuts, which isn't at all the California problem.
No, the original did not. That license is based on copyright law, and under that law, any right not explicitly granted by the author (such as modifications/distribution of said modifications) is reserved to the author.
No, not any right not explicitly granted by the author is reserved. For instance, the right to use the software is not reserved. Only the following is reserved:
Notably, modification is not one of the reserved rights, only preparation of derivitive works. It is arguable whether or not modification for personal use is considered preparation of a derivitive work. Indeed, there is likely no precedent, since if you don't distribute you're probably not going to get caught.
- More music
- Less music
- The same amount of music
- Cowboy Neal
- I don't use napster
This poll is hereby released into the public domain.Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances
While I agree with your sentiment, I can't agree with you that this is a freedom of speech issue. While the tenth ammendment would probably stop this from becoming a federal law (unless the all-powerful and highly abused interstate commerce clause kicks in), I don't see much that can be done to stop states from creating such rules.
The proper way to fight this is in Connecticut's system, and with a new Constitutional Ammendment, not by claiming that it's a free speech issue. It simply isn't.
If the licence doesn't make clear that the code cannot be modified then you can modify it unless there is some other de-facto law that prevents you from doing it eg copyright or whatever.
Hmm, I'm not so sure about this. Copryight law protects: copying, preparation of derivitive works, distribution, and public display (which does not apply to software). There is no law against modification. You only break the law if that modification creates a derivitive work, or if you distribute the modified product.
Perhaps you should read the tenth ammendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
As applies to copyright, as you said, the constitution says: "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries; "
The supreme court has taken this to imply that copyright which does not "promote the progress of science and useful arts" is unconstitutional. Granted, they could whip out the "interstate commerce" clause, and let the federal government do just about anything it wants (and have done in various other types of cases), but fortunately they have not done that as of yet. Further, they have outlined the fair use guidelines which I posted, and commanded the lower courts to use them.
State law is a completely different matter, the states can restrict anything they want, as long as it does not infringe free speech (and the other constitutional rights). But I'm talking here about federal copyright law. A District Court ruling which gives summary judgement without addressing the Supreme Court guidelines with regard to fair use would be immediately struck down by the Supreme Court. The District Court would then have to listen to the fair use defense, and make a ruling. An improper ruling by the District Court would then go back to the Supreme Court.
I contend that disallowing bug fixes and minor compatibility enhancements for a product does not even arguably promote the progress of science and useful arts. I'm talking about a product which you already have the source code for, I understand that it can be argued that not providing the source in the first place promotes the progress of science and useful arts. But I'm saying that this case is pretty much indisputable.
That's what fair use is all about. You got half of it right, but you forgot about the tenth ammendment.
The primary objective of copyright is not to reward the labor of authors, but "[t]o promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." To this end, copyright assures authors the right to their original expression, but encourages others to build freely upon the ideas and information conveyed by a work. This result is neither unfair nor unfortunate. It is the means by which copyright advances the progress of science and art. - Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 US 340, 349(1991)
I've used FVWM95. "Close enough" is debatable, but "few would notice the difference" is certainly an exageration. I direct you to "ftp://mitac11.uia.ac.be/html-test/screenshot-full .gif" How long does it take you to figure out which one it is? Besides, when I click on the URL box, I want the url to automatically highlight. Netscape on FVWM95 doesn't do that. But that one's just a pet peeve of mine.
Anyway, I'll leave it at that. It's debatable. But personally, if I were in charge of a lab, I'd never allow FVWM95 to be the sole solution, and I'd fire anyone who made that decision without letting me talk them out of it.
If a lab wants to switch computers over, 2 or 3 at a time, that's a completely different story. It'll cost more in the short term, when you only have a few computers, but in the long term, you'll be able to calculate impact much more accurately. Of course, this only works if you're a relatively large computer lab.
Besides, if you want to do it right, you don't want to have 50 machines, you want one or two big machines, and a bunch of X-terms. Whether or not linux can handle that, I don't know, I've only seen it done on Solaris, and that was fairly successful (but it also wasn't the only alternative).
This is a funny case of worse is better. Running copper wires to homes and carrying voice communications over it is extremely inefficient. You use very little of the potential bandwidth in those copper wires. Once fibre became reasonable, phone companies found out that they could be much more efficient by multiplexing many phone conversations over a single line. Then enter DSL, and we found a way to use all the inefficiencies in the copper wires. Those who got the more efficient fibre get screwed.
Whether or not anything can even be done depends on how much of the bandwidth is available. Presumably, if the phone company dedicates enough bandwidth through the fibre to allow every phone line to be in use at once, part of it could be used for the unguaranteed internet packets. But even that requires some major changes to the multiplexors that are doing the conversion from copper to fibre.
I would think, that customers with all-fiber connections could just be wired directly into the Internet.
Sure, if you're already paying to have a strand of fibre in the home, all you have to do is pay for the equipment on each end, and the bandwidth. First of all, I doubt you have a strand of fibre in your house. Secondly, the equipment and bandwidth won't be cheap (well, the bandwidth charges won't be bad if you only want DSL level speed).
Because no one is going to know what the hell they're doing. You're living in a dream world if you don't think that help-desk questions are going to go up significantly when you start introducing Linux. You'll spend thousands of dollars just answering "Where's the start button?"
Then you go on to show just how biased you are. Windows has permissions. You can block people from installing things, if you so choose.
It is also my experience that a Linux desktop machine, used for desktop applications, crashes much much more than a Windows machine. Sure, you don't have to reboot the entire machine, just the X or WM or whatever, but clueless users aren't going to understand that part. But this part, is just opinion. I think the helpdesk part is pretty much undisputable.
Really, this is starting to get rediculous. It's no wonder web companies aren't making any money, they can't even steal half-decent news well.
I've always liked "Sending People Annoying Messages"
For 100 users, Office will run you $100/user if it is OEM installed, and about $300 for upgrades 2-3 years from now. that comes out around $10000/yr for office software.
For 100 simultaneous users, all of whom have no clue how to use the software, you figure you need about 5 trained sysadmins. Let's say you only run the lab 5 days a week for 10 hours, and pay your sysadmins $10/hour. In three years: 5*5*52*3*10*10=$390,000. Lets say using Windows software saves you only one of those sysadmins. 1*5*52*3*10*10=$78,000. I think we have a winner.
I know it's essentially suicide to mention anything PRO-Microsoft, but I'm going to take the leap.
But fortunately, posts which start with a "I know this post is going to get modded down" tend to get modded up.
I think maybe it would be a good thing if Mozilla died and IE support was dropped on Linux and Mac. The fact of the matter is that the HTML spec has become rediculous. Mozilla is forced to reverse engineer much of the shit in IE in order to behave properly. If IE is dropped on non-Windows platforms, people won't switch to Windows, people will just stop coding shitty webpages that only work on IE. Not to mention that that will never happen, since it isn't in Microsoft's interests, AND they'd get in big trouble with the govt. if they did it.
Well, the thing is, companies are required by law to behave rationally. Thus, if something is legal, and it is in the best interests of the company to do it, they are required by law to do it.
There are two major flaws to this distinction, however. First of all, I contend that it is always in a company (and an individuals) best interest to behave morally. I'm not talking about silent altruism, I'm talking about having morals, following them, and letting everyone know that you follow them. Indeed, it is even more in the best interest of a company, because they have perpetual life, and their reputations are much more public and widespread.
Secondly, I argue that just as many, if not most, corporations behave selfishly, humans, when acting anonymously and with regard to the general public, also tend to act selfishly. I'm not denying altruism, that is certainly part of human behavior, but altruism is usually directed at a particular special interest. In any case, I'd actually prefer to donate (money, or other limited resources) to a company than a random Joe Schmoe on the street. I can research the actions of a company, and find out exactly what it is they're going to do with it. With Joe Schmoe, for all I know s/he is going to use it to hire a contract killer.
Companies, just as humans (who happen to run the companies), are neither good nor evil. Just as you have your Hitlers, your Mother Theresas, and your Richard M. Stallmans (to pick a representative for someone in between), corporations are the same way.
Fair Use criteria:
- The purpose and character of the use - to fix bugs and create compatibility, add features
- The nature of the copyrighted work - pretty much standard here
- The amount and substantiality - because this isn't copying, presumably this would be counted differently
- The effect of the use upon the potential market - zero
I'll take my chances. I believe that the constitution protects my rights to modify source code (or even binaries) for personal use. I don't think this would extend to cirumvention of particular intentional parts of the product (for example, for example an expiration or limit on simultaneous users), but I do think it extends to bug fixing, compatibility enhancement, and minor feature enhancement.Well, I'm claiming that he is not within his rights, barring an EULA, to restrict modification of the source for personal use. But there are only 9 people in the US who can make that determination, ultimately. In the mean time, I'll feel free to modify source for personal use. First of all, I won't get caught, and secondly, I believe I'd have an adequete defense even if I did.
Well, it depends on the type of shareware. Many are open-ended "if you like this, send me $10" types. And the rest are, realistically, the same thing. No one pays for shareware, and no one releases shareware with the intention that everyone is going to pay them. But I guess I'm more referring to what I'll call donationware, which there is a lot of out there.
I completely agree with this argument, but look at it from the point of view of shareware, or donationware. It's pretty much the same thing, except it's a corporation (oo, bad bad) doing it, instead of an individual.
Personally, I don't believe in donations, either to a corporation, or to an individual, except to a non-profit corporation with a mission which I agree with. Which implies that the NPO itself does more than just donate the items off to individuals. Personally, I support Goodwill, which provides jobs and low cost goods, and generally improves society at both ends, not just handouts. Plus they're not Christian, and they don't try to force people to stop drinking alcohol, which is why I prefer them to something like Salvation Army.
You wouldn't want to run apache on the PDA. Even Jennicam doesn't run the webserver at her house. Follow her lead, write a cron job to send the data to a well connected webserver, and run apache (or preferably something more lightweight if all you're doing is HTML) there.
Perhaps Apache is a bad example of what a PDA can run?
Think ricochet (not per-minute) and a web-cam.
Hmm, actually, since that's only 128K that wouldn't be a very good solution, you'd want to run a cron to upload the picture to a real webserver with a faster connection.
OK, fair enough, I can't come up with a useful use for apache.