sorry to say this, but I think you missed the point. OpenLaw is not about making laws or the results of a case "better" in the sense that software is improved in quality/ reliability/ and the like through OpenSource-methods and peer review. The thing about laws is whether they meet people's needs and allow minorities their chances. OpenLaw isn't just trying to copy our methods. As I see it, the idea is that the possibilities through Internet-based collecting, exchanging and discussing of ideas as well as the organization of parctical measurements can empower the very people our government and our laws are supposed to represent and defend in the same way as the whole OpenSource-practice empowers "simple" people to achieve better results than large commercial-based organisations. It's not they're imitating us because computers and sharing ideas are hype. It's just a totally natural reaction to and consequence of the shift of power already apparent in various powerful public outcries like the demonstrations in Seattle last December. Our democracy has already become a lot more direct than one is inclined to notice at first glance.
Sounds like a well-deserved score3 if I may say so;) . OpenSource is more than just a tool for efficiently making good software that is free. It empowers people by enabling us to do things that large corporations with large sums of money at their disposal often don't see themselves able to. On a larger scale, the net empowers people - everybody, not just programmers - in a similar way by providing opportunities for everybody to take part in issues one finds of interest. The very logical next step is to include people in government-related issues or cases. The government of the future could allow minorities with a strong interest in something (like the anarchist etc at Seattle, WTO) to take part in decision-making processes. What I've heard so far about open law seems like a good step in that direction.
Even M$ knows they don't have a technical monopoly just a monopoly in people's minds. Especially in the minds of CEO's who usually aren't techies. So, one day the CEO noticed those strange huge "boxes" somewhere in "his" company and presently asked the CTO: "Tell me - what are these?" The CTO then goes on to explain they are server computers and, asked for the OS they are running, informs the CEO that they run Linux/FreeBSD/...(insert here other Unix-derivates). So guess what happens. The CTO is told by the CEO that "we don't trust those open source OS's that you can't get support for" and that the company is to switch to a Windows-system. This happens (compare Netcraft). And that's also why commercially offered Linux-support will help spreading Linux even though it violates our initial ideals.
check out do identical twins have... and why do identical twins... . They both say that the DNA of identical twins is notexactly the same due to slight changes caused by environmental influences (already starting before birth). Probably it hasn't always been easy to tell the difference between two pieces of DNA that similar. I wonder though - the articles seem to suggest that even the DNA of a clone could be slightly different from the DNA of the being the DNA for the cloning was taken from. Does this mean we might eventually find ways to change one's DNA enough to avoid identification with DNA-samples taken say a few years back, for instance through the influence of viruses that cut little DNA bits and insert them somewhere else...
tnx for the correction - I suppose the explanation is myself not having used windoze in ages;) I still don't quite see the point in browsers predicting where missing tags should be as that comes down to making the user believe he's doing bugfree stuff when that is not at all so.
Netscape has a few features too that IE doesn't have - for instance noticing little mistakes in html-code so you have to correct it instead of just pretending everything's fine while it just is on your browser (i.e. IE). Also the option to type in part of an address you don't remember properly. Such aspects aside, how could we possibly allow the net to live only on a browser that is not open-source and M$-controlled. I'll gladly put up with Netscape's present shortcomings until I can use a better browser on Linux.
Slashdot Mirror
sorry to say this, but I think you missed the point. OpenLaw is not about making laws or the results of a case "better" in the sense that software is improved in quality/ reliability/ and the like through OpenSource-methods and peer review. The thing about laws is whether they meet people's needs and allow minorities their chances. OpenLaw isn't just trying to copy our methods. As I see it, the idea is that the possibilities through Internet-based collecting, exchanging and discussing of ideas as well as the organization of parctical measurements can empower the very people our government and our laws are supposed to represent and defend in the same way as the whole OpenSource-practice empowers "simple" people to achieve better results than large commercial-based organisations. It's not they're imitating us because computers and sharing ideas are hype. It's just a totally natural reaction to and consequence of the shift of power already apparent in various powerful public outcries like the demonstrations in Seattle last December. Our democracy has already become a lot more direct than one is inclined to notice at first glance.
Sounds like a well-deserved score3 if I may say so;) . OpenSource is more than just a tool for efficiently making good software that is free. It empowers people by enabling us to do things that large corporations with large sums of money at their disposal often don't see themselves able to. On a larger scale, the net empowers people - everybody, not just programmers - in a similar way by providing opportunities for everybody to take part in issues one finds of interest. The very logical next step is to include people in government-related issues or cases. The government of the future could allow minorities with a strong interest in something (like the anarchist etc at Seattle, WTO) to take part in decision-making processes. What I've heard so far about open law seems like a good step in that direction.
Even M$ knows they don't have a technical monopoly just a monopoly in people's minds. Especially in the minds of CEO's who usually aren't techies. So, one day the CEO noticed those strange huge "boxes" somewhere in "his" company and presently asked the CTO: "Tell me - what are these?" The CTO then goes on to explain they are server computers and, asked for the OS they are running, informs the CEO that they run Linux/FreeBSD/...(insert here other Unix-derivates). So guess what happens. The CTO is told by the CEO that "we don't trust those open source OS's that you can't get support for" and that the company is to switch to a Windows-system. This happens (compare Netcraft). And that's also why commercially offered Linux-support will help spreading Linux even though it violates our initial ideals.
check out do identical twins have... and why do identical twins... . They both say that the DNA of identical twins is notexactly the same due to slight changes caused by environmental influences (already starting before birth). Probably it hasn't always been easy to tell the difference between two pieces of DNA that similar. I wonder though - the articles seem to suggest that even the DNA of a clone could be slightly different from the DNA of the being the DNA for the cloning was taken from. Does this mean we might eventually find ways to change one's DNA enough to avoid identification with DNA-samples taken say a few years back, for instance through the influence of viruses that cut little DNA bits and insert them somewhere else...
tnx for the correction - I suppose the explanation is myself not having used windoze in ages ;) I still don't quite see the point in browsers predicting where missing tags should be as that comes down to making the user believe he's doing bugfree stuff when that is not at all so.
Netscape has a few features too that IE doesn't have - for instance noticing little mistakes in html-code so you have to correct it instead of just pretending everything's fine while it just is on your browser (i.e. IE). Also the option to type in part of an address you don't remember properly. Such aspects aside, how could we possibly allow the net to live only on a browser that is not open-source and M$-controlled. I'll gladly put up with Netscape's present shortcomings until I can use a better browser on Linux.