Hi, I was listening to another member of the RepRap team, Adrian Bowyer, speak on the radio (actually podcast) today. He is a lecturer at the University of Bath and give some insights into the project. The interview has a great bit when he explains his motivations for open sourcing the project. You can listen to the interview on CBC's Spark website.
The UN is at present the most capable international forum. One has to realized that it is multifaceted organization that cannot be evaluated in vague generalizations. Issues such as its response time have been the result of unwillinginess of Security Council nations to act outside of their myoptic foriegn agendas. Such failures cannot condemn a potentially well-run and highly effecient organization. An organization that would logically operate outside of the Security Council's jurisdiction.
Taking domain issues to an international level is a necessary step for the growth of the internet. A semi-democratically/semi-corporately controlled US based corporation is not legit means of regulating and debating international issues.
I am not so foolish to believe that the UN is perfect for the role. But it has a far greater potential of being a democratic organization than ICANN.
I feel that Larry Sanger's comments are important, but not necessary a threat to Wikipedia. I feel that Wikipedia could be better served if it adopted a policy similiar to debian's different distributions. Articles, like packages, have different levels of quality. Articles begin in unstable and mature to stable. By establishing a distrobution of wikipedia that contains a selection edited or stable Wikipedia articles, one can maintain an edition acceptable for academics, while maintaining an unstable and more dynamic environment for the development of articles.
Part of the importance of wikipedia is that it has been one of the best ways of documenting internet culture. It has flourished because it does not define or editorialize about what articles are needed. I feel that elitism at the submission level would be to the detriment to the project. Although an unstable version would be unreliable at times, but I feel its reliability would be overshadowed by its expansive content.
Also, wikipedia is still developing. Encyclopedias have been around for hundreds of years. One should not be so quick to condemn Wikipedia because it has come along way in a short time.
I think there should be a great deal of concern of new search engines in China. The major customer in China is the state and a number of companies including Cisco, Yahoo, and Microsoft have been catering their software to permit Chinese censorship. The Chinese government has also been active in removing certain keywords from use in popular search engines, like google. If I type in 'Falun Gong' or 'VIP Reference' (page 30-31)' in any of these new search engines, I recieve no content. Sure these my offer new commerical opportunities, like MP3 searching. Both they are part of state control in China. Companies back in 2000 had to agree to self-censorship. These new sites represent a growing trend of corporate complicity in Chinese censorship. And if common search engines are actively controlling what is 'found' on the Internet, there is great concern that average citizens will become acostumed to a regulated Internet.
I'd liked his points especially the three virtues one. I think that internet is really important because its been the only mass technology that has allowed for such seamless participation on all fronts. Its allows for mutually-empowering users.
But what I don't think is correct is in article is the statement that Internet is free from censorship. It quotes John Gilmore, "The Internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." True, it's free from censorship for us, in the developing world, because everday people have access. They are the dominate users and we are actively making sure that it remains free.
However, if you look at a place like China, things differ. Western companies and the Chinese government are doing everything in the power to stop anything unwanted from appearing on the Internet. Basically they are building the Internet to be controlled and frankly, I think it is working.
I still believe the net can be a great tool that can beyond censorship. But I don't think it is that way by default.
Totally true, I think that was what I was trying to say in my post. You just worded it clearer. Its greats for learning about, for me, underground hiphop and electronica. So the banning has, as of yet, had no real effect on me. So yes I totally agree with you that you can get alot of music off Audiogalaxy, just not much music that is mainstream. fenn
I have been using Audiogalaxy for quite sometime now and have actually been pretty happy with it. But I think its structure may make it a harder target for the RIAA than something like Kazaa or Napster. Audiogalaxy already has built in copy protecting. Audiogalaxy has and is preventing a user from downloading certain more main stream songs. You can't get alot of music off Audiogalaxy. This fact is poorly criticized in section 3 of the RIAA statement where it compares its copy-protection to a fishnet filtering water. Also many artists are hosted by Audiogalaxy and it provides the user with a link to buy the album. This is in direct conflict with the RIAA claim that Audiogalaxy has "the ability to download entire sound recording albums, cover artwork..." As well for a fileshare program Audiogalaxy has been one of the most supportive of underground bands and community exchange. Just look at the monthly columns to see why the RIAA is sueing. The bands that are reviewed and advertised on Audiogalaxy are usually ones that aren't controlled by major labels. Although I won't defend the spyware, to me audiogalaxy was the first filesharing that was starting to actually look more like an alternative to the major labels.
I see your point reoccuring in alot of this forum right now, probably what I'm about to say will sound like a skipping record. First, I'm saying that there is no denying that free software is going to do nothing in developing countries, where priority number one is food and basic needs. Education is a prime example of that. Education and food are fundamental prerequites for any other development to occur. But what you'll find is that in Newly Industrialized Countries you have a real success in open source software. Look at India or Mexico. Here is where free software will make a marked improvement as it allows for more open access to computers and computer jobs. But there is no denying that it is not a substitute to education and food.
Also I think Katz is trying to target the larger global institutions rather than offer a development model for the world.
Anways Well Written Post that got me thinking. Thanks fenn
I'd also like to give a short statement coming from an "anti-globalization protester." I'm not as radical as some of the protesters that I know, but I could probably be sterotyped as anti-globalist. I think that is a dangerous misconception. What most "anti-globalization protester" oppose is the rejection of globalization. I'm concerned about issues that effect the planet, me as much as someone in Guatemala, and so I'm thinking about global problems. Now what I see in current "global" economic institutions is a rejection of thinking globally. Instead they operate so as to priviledge a few specific the elite countries and businesses. Now I think labelling someone as anti-globalist is wrong, most want globalization done right and aren't accepting globalization at its current forum. fenn
It kind of makes me nervous that people are so ardent at denying the importantsocial ramifications of Free Software. The world is approaching a time were its current institutions are redefining themselves to adapt to a more global line of thinking. At this time, free software is a very important development because it is runs counter to many established norms in politics and it was done so largely because it is so rooted in global development, ie a part of globalism. It embraces transparent development and is founded on public debate and user participation. I think that these ideas have to considered when one is looking at what the future might bring. It will be a scary world if alot of the values pushed by current institutions dominate the globe. Yet, I think Katz is arguing that free software truely stands as one of the few progressive approaches to society and globalism that remain. Now like or dislike this somewhat idealistic view I think it is important to give free software some political credit. What free software is doing I hope will be mirrored in globalisms development.
I think the biggest problem with such a model is that it places the emphasis on forced compliance to software renewal, rather than on making sure your users are informed and participating in the program's community. Now that might not be happening now, but it doesn't mean it can't or doesn't happen. Free software is based on ideas like that, and by forcing, rather than encouraging, partcipation I think you loose some of the value of a fs/os programming.
I'd like to give John Katz a bit of hope over this issue, because I wonder whether the Internet has really begun to take off. And when it does many of the problems with the Internet might be corrected to some extent.
Firstly, many of the problems that the Katz finds in the Internet are synonymous with the problems in Western culture. Probably his point is that the Internet hasn't corrected these problems. Yet, this line of thinking is that it still an analysis of the Internet in regards to specific regions or countries.
The Internet has the ability to develop past these tradition geographic problems. It has the potential to be a global medium and foster thinking in a global context.
And this has yet to be realized. Where we may see the real potential of the Internet is where people need it the most. In the world that has long sense been silenced. So I'd ask that we hold judgement on the Internet until the world and not just the West have been given the opportunity to speak with it.
Free Software Compared to Democracy
on
Freedom or Power?
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
What I think I see in the article is an arguement for greater social accountability. Although I'm not as radicalized to the point of out right bans I think there is a value social message in this essay. Through freedom of involvement one promotes the development of a community to properly debate and develop the implications of an idea. Software is an example of this as you cannot debate its merits without access to its code. Without this right one does not have a strong community and does not promote civil involvement.
I see this especially clear in representive democracies as there closed nature leads to little political participation. Where in the Free Software/Open Source community, with an open forum one has a very strong level of debate. This is fundamental for a proper democracy.
Now what I see in this article is that Kuhn and Stallman is an argument that one has to ensure that there is a proper forum for civil debate. By defining the licenses of software you are defining their role in the public forum. They are against non-free licenses because they hinder social growth, which is an argument you could say about many governments and countries. They do not provide the tools or encourage proper debate.
Anyways that my two cents. I hope it makes sense.
Globalism and the Not In My Back Yard Attitude
on
Defining Globalism
·
· Score: 1
I beleive that the trend toward globalism is a positive development. Globalism as I see it is the move toward thinking globally The move toward a more connected world is positive in its effects on social development and huamn understanding. This is because it promotes global standards of human rights and accountability.
The problem with the development of a global forum is that it has been saturated with Not In My Backyard (NIMBY) thinking. People, but corporations especially, operate on a global scale, but still continue to benefit their own backyard. Corporate outsourcing to sweatshops in developing countries is an example of this. This leads to a great inequality in global development and hinders the progressiveness that globalism is.
This in turn hinders the most important, yet sorely lacking aspect of globalism, global civil society. In order to ensure that corporations and governments are accountable to the world the voice of people must hold them in check. One is already seeing the rise of this movement through Non-Government Organizations, (MOBGLOB, Amnesty International) and in these forums, where people are able to debate issues of global scale on a global scale.
In conclusion, I see the rise of global thinking (globalism) as a positive development that has been hijacked by attitude that tend to ensure privatized gain at the great expense of the majority of people. The only way I see to counter this is through civil society, which we are all working towards by debating in these forums.
Slashdot Mirror
Hi,
I was listening to another member of the RepRap team, Adrian Bowyer, speak on the radio (actually podcast) today. He is a lecturer at the University of Bath and give some insights into the project. The interview has a great bit when he explains his motivations for open sourcing the project. You can listen to the interview on CBC's Spark website.
Enjoy,
Fenwick
The UN is at present the most capable international forum. One has to realized that it is multifaceted organization that cannot be evaluated in vague generalizations. Issues such as its response time have been the result of unwillinginess of Security Council nations to act outside of their myoptic foriegn agendas. Such failures cannot condemn a potentially well-run and highly effecient organization. An organization that would logically operate outside of the Security Council's jurisdiction.
Taking domain issues to an international level is a necessary step for the growth of the internet. A semi-democratically/semi-corporately controlled US based corporation is not legit means of regulating and debating international issues.
I am not so foolish to believe that the UN is perfect for the role. But it has a far greater potential of being a democratic organization than ICANN.
Thank you for your time,
Fenwick McKelvey
I feel that Larry Sanger's comments are important, but not necessary a threat to Wikipedia. I feel that Wikipedia could be better served if it adopted a policy similiar to debian's different distributions. Articles, like packages, have different levels of quality. Articles begin in unstable and mature to stable. By establishing a distrobution of wikipedia that contains a selection edited or stable Wikipedia articles, one can maintain an edition acceptable for academics, while maintaining an unstable and more dynamic environment for the development of articles.
Part of the importance of wikipedia is that it has been one of the best ways of documenting internet culture. It has flourished because it does not define or editorialize about what articles are needed. I feel that elitism at the submission level would be to the detriment to the project. Although an unstable version would be unreliable at times, but I feel its reliability would be overshadowed by its expansive content.
Also, wikipedia is still developing. Encyclopedias have been around for hundreds of years. One should not be so quick to condemn Wikipedia because it has come along way in a short time.
Sincerely,
Fenwick McKelvey
I think there should be a great deal of concern of new search engines in China. The major customer in China is the state and a number of companies including Cisco, Yahoo, and Microsoft have been catering their software to permit Chinese censorship. The Chinese government has also been active in removing certain keywords from use in popular search engines, like google.
If I type in 'Falun Gong' or 'VIP Reference' (page 30-31)' in any of these new search engines, I recieve no content. Sure these my offer new commerical opportunities, like MP3 searching. Both they are part of state control in China. Companies back in 2000 had to agree to self-censorship. These new sites represent a growing trend of corporate complicity in Chinese censorship. And if common search engines are actively controlling what is 'found' on the Internet, there is great concern that average citizens will become acostumed to a regulated Internet.
fenn
I'd liked his points especially the three virtues one. I think that internet is really important because its been the only mass technology that has allowed for such seamless participation on all fronts. Its allows for mutually-empowering users.
But what I don't think is correct is in article is the statement that Internet is free from censorship. It quotes John Gilmore, "The Internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." True, it's free from censorship for us, in the developing world, because everday people have access. They are the dominate users and we are actively making sure that it remains free.
However, if you look at a place like China, things differ. Western companies and the Chinese government are doing everything in the power to stop anything unwanted from appearing on the Internet. Basically they are building the Internet to be controlled and frankly, I think it is working.
I still believe the net can be a great tool that can beyond censorship. But I don't think it is that way by default.
fenn
Totally true, I think that was what I was trying to say in my post. You just worded it clearer. Its greats for learning about, for me, underground hiphop and electronica. So the banning has, as of yet, had no real effect on me. So yes I totally agree with you that you can get alot of music off Audiogalaxy, just not much music that is mainstream.
fenn
I have been using Audiogalaxy for quite sometime now and have actually been pretty happy with it. But I think its structure may make it a harder target for the RIAA than something like Kazaa or Napster. Audiogalaxy already has built in copy protecting. Audiogalaxy has and is preventing a user from downloading certain more main stream songs. You can't get alot of music off Audiogalaxy. This fact is poorly criticized in section 3 of the RIAA statement where it compares its copy-protection to a fishnet filtering water. Also many artists are hosted by Audiogalaxy and it provides the user with a link to buy the album. This is in direct conflict with the RIAA claim that Audiogalaxy has "the ability to download entire sound recording albums, cover artwork..." As well for a fileshare program Audiogalaxy has been one of the most supportive of underground bands and community exchange. Just look at the monthly columns to see why the RIAA is sueing. The bands that are reviewed and advertised on Audiogalaxy are usually ones that aren't controlled by major labels. Although I won't defend the spyware, to me audiogalaxy was the first filesharing that was starting to actually look more like an alternative to the major labels.
fenn
I see your point reoccuring in alot of this forum right now, probably what I'm about to say will sound like a skipping record. First, I'm saying that there is no denying that free software is going to do nothing in developing countries, where priority number one is food and basic needs. Education is a prime example of that. Education and food are fundamental prerequites for any other development to occur. But what you'll find is that in Newly Industrialized Countries you have a real success in open source software. Look at India or Mexico. Here is where free software will make a marked improvement as it allows for more open access to computers and computer jobs. But there is no denying that it is not a substitute to education and food.
Also I think Katz is trying to target the larger global institutions rather than offer a development model for the world.
Anways Well Written Post that got me thinking. Thanks
fenn
I'd also like to give a short statement coming from an "anti-globalization protester." I'm not as radical as some of the protesters that I know, but I could probably be sterotyped as anti-globalist. I think that is a dangerous misconception. What most "anti-globalization protester" oppose is the rejection of globalization. I'm concerned about issues that effect the planet, me as much as someone in Guatemala, and so I'm thinking about global problems. Now what I see in current "global" economic institutions is a rejection of thinking globally. Instead they operate so as to priviledge a few specific the elite countries and businesses. Now I think labelling someone as anti-globalist is wrong, most want globalization done right and aren't accepting globalization at its current forum.
fenn
It kind of makes me nervous that people are so ardent at denying the importantsocial ramifications of Free Software. The world is approaching a time were its current institutions are redefining themselves to adapt to a more global line of thinking. At this time, free software is a very important development because it is runs counter to many established norms in politics and it was done so largely because it is so rooted in global development, ie a part of globalism. It embraces transparent development and is founded on public debate and user participation. I think that these ideas have to considered when one is looking at what the future might bring. It will be a scary world if alot of the values pushed by current institutions dominate the globe. Yet, I think Katz is arguing that free software truely stands as one of the few progressive approaches to society and globalism that remain. Now like or dislike this somewhat idealistic view I think it is important to give free software some political credit. What free software is doing I hope will be mirrored in globalisms development.
fenn
I think the biggest problem with such a model is that it places the emphasis on forced compliance to software renewal, rather than on making sure your users are informed and participating in the program's community. Now that might not be happening now, but it doesn't mean it can't or doesn't happen. Free software is based on ideas like that, and by forcing, rather than encouraging, partcipation I think you loose some of the value of a fs/os programming.
I'd like to give John Katz a bit of hope over this issue, because I wonder whether the Internet has really begun to take off. And when it does many of the problems with the Internet might be corrected to some extent.
Firstly, many of the problems that the Katz finds in the Internet are synonymous with the problems in Western culture. Probably his point is that the Internet hasn't corrected these problems. Yet, this line of thinking is that it still an analysis of the Internet in regards to specific regions or countries.
The Internet has the ability to develop past these tradition geographic problems. It has the potential to be a global medium and foster thinking in a global context.
And this has yet to be realized. Where we may see the real potential of the Internet is where people need it the most. In the world that has long sense been silenced. So I'd ask that we hold judgement on the Internet until the world and not just the West have been given the opportunity to speak with it.
What I think I see in the article is an arguement for greater social accountability. Although I'm not as radicalized to the point of out right bans I think there is a value social message in this essay. Through freedom of involvement one promotes the development of a community to properly debate and develop the implications of an idea. Software is an example of this as you cannot debate its merits without access to its code. Without this right one does not have a strong community and does not promote civil involvement.
I see this especially clear in representive democracies as there closed nature leads to little political participation. Where in the Free Software/Open Source community, with an open forum one has a very strong level of debate. This is fundamental for a proper democracy.
Now what I see in this article is that Kuhn and Stallman is an argument that one has to ensure that there is a proper forum for civil debate. By defining the licenses of software you are defining their role in the public forum. They are against non-free licenses because they hinder social growth, which is an argument you could say about many governments and countries. They do not provide the tools or encourage proper debate.
Anyways that my two cents. I hope it makes sense.
I beleive that the trend toward globalism is a positive development. Globalism as I see it is the move toward thinking globally The move toward a more connected world is positive in its effects on social development and huamn understanding. This is because it promotes global standards of human rights and accountability.
The problem with the development of a global forum is that it has been saturated with Not In My Backyard (NIMBY) thinking. People, but corporations especially, operate on a global scale, but still continue to benefit their own backyard. Corporate outsourcing to sweatshops in developing countries is an example of this. This leads to a great inequality in global development and hinders the progressiveness that globalism is.
This in turn hinders the most important, yet sorely lacking aspect of globalism, global civil society. In order to ensure that corporations and governments are accountable to the world the voice of people must hold them in check. One is already seeing the rise of this movement through Non-Government Organizations, (MOBGLOB, Amnesty International) and in these forums, where people are able to debate issues of global scale on a global scale.
In conclusion, I see the rise of global thinking (globalism) as a positive development that has been hijacked by attitude that tend to ensure privatized gain at the great expense of the majority of people. The only way I see to counter this is through civil society, which we are all working towards by debating in these forums.
Fenwick McKelvey