I know it's not really the browser.... but, I'd like to see a development in URL so they follow the page when it moves.
Content addressing might be a further option - the link brings up a list of places that the same content is stored at and you choose where to drag your content from, this could also show origin if dates where added into the mix.
In UK this is called 'defensive publication' (as a patent is a monopoly and merely publishing is not therefore a 'patent').
Patent practitioners have a limited amount of time to search every publication (print, audio and video inclusive) in the known universe... hence they cut a few corners. One of those corners involves only searching in certain places (though the internet is one possible place) - patent databases win as number one search place in most technical areas.
However, certain companies (like IBM, HP) produce technical disclosures (which are tantamount to defensive publications) which are included in non-patent databases that patent practitioners use. One such database is http://www.researchdisclosure.com/searchrd/index.h tml. Another, and some more info is at http://www.delphion.com/products/research/products -priorart.
In UK at least the patent office (http://www.patent.gov.uk) will take submissions from third parties concerning a particular application (eg if you spotted prior art - http://www.patent.gov.uk/about/consultations/dereg ulation/chapter4.htm, search on "section 21") in the few months after the first publication... no doubt other jurisdictions do the same.
Perhaps you could do use of online tools as supplemental language aids... eg Onelook dictionary (sorry couldn't resist, likely not a typo as e/i are on different hands?).
Thesauri and [en]cyclopedias are also tools I find useful as writing aids.
There are 'several' strings (how many?) and there are 3 permutations for the strings mentioned (the ones in the above post). For each string there are 24 colours (that should have been fun differentiating 24 colours made with 'primitive' dying methods - 'is that dark-blue or midnight-blue is this one corn yellow or straw yellow?')
So for each string there are 24+3+ maybe a couple more possibilities. Let's say base-29.
Were does the 7 bit binary come in then?
Also the bloke says "This could mean the code used by the makers allowed them to convey some 1,536 separate units of information".
It could. It could be the 24 colours were 24 crops (or different items, perhaps including livestock) and the 4 different variations for each string meant we've got loads, got none, got a few, haven't counted yet. Far less sophisticated than binary.
It could be that the 24 colours (someone do a list of 24 colour names that are easily recognisable... I'm probably wrong but it sounds quite hard) are in fact 6 colours in 4 different shades that are due to archeological effects - surrounding matter of the artifacts, exposure to light, cleaning solutions used.
However, 'I have discovered a writing system comparable with that of Sumerian cuneiform' is sure to persuade an ongoing grant.
Also, while I'm enjoying my rant, using binary where positions in the code have different values we need to know the ordering - in fact it's vital. Permutations vs. combinations. Also I'd query (as I've hinted above) the value of describing a simple on/off indication for several positions as being n-bit binary. It feels wrong to me... sorry can't describe it better... post-lunch lethargy.
In UK at least you can't patent an algorithm alone... like it say patents need some technical effect... so something additional beyond the mere algorithm needs to be patented: you might argue for bz2 that it is 'technical' as it requires less memory to hold files under this compression. The true meaning of technical in this context hasn't been well tested and is open to interpretation in the courts.
I can't see $400 in parts there... perhaps you're including R&D and marketing costs as well?
The hardware manufacturers make the money selling the licenses to the software makers surely?! That is the software makes all the caboodles of $$$ and a large percentage of that goes on the licensing fees.
The thing is that the last-modified is often in no way related to the date the article was written. Just writing the date somewhere in the article (yes a tag would be good for this - search engines could then use dates) would help a great deal.
This really annoys me as well - linux documentation rarely seems to have a date: a link to a page with the current version would be good too, and an expected lifetime for the information.
Eg:... <creation-date>Tues 18 Jan 1998</creation-date> <p>Expected lifespan of this howto version - 1 year; refers to Kmy-prog version 0.9.1</p> <p><a href="http://full.com/address/">Link to version information</a></p>...
Looks like an xml schema (which I know nothing about) would be useful for such things.
In UK things are different - you can't provide the entertainment for free (music included) if you then intend to make money selling snacks or whatever else in the same location; see http://www.intellectual-property.gov.uk/std/faq/co pyright/ex_sound_record.htm
Note that this site refers to playing broadcasts - I gather that one can play broadcasts freely (with the above proviso) but this _does not_ include pre-recorded music/movies!
It didn't evolve - there was some form of directing [group] intelligence (the users of the language) it developed by adoption of different words from different languages and by choice of new words. Clearly there would be some mutation but I don't see it being the main form of linguistic development. Oh, and of course no-one speaks (save freako nerds) medieval German anymore.
You could equally well say if the modern car evolved from the model-T how come everyone is still driving model-T's, doh!
Nice analogy but it doesn't _prove_ anything.
No I'm not a literal creationist, nor an evolutionist but a fence-sitter (ie not enough evidence either way to convince me).
Quote an interesting typo... is this all about anthropomorphism? I mean attributing human characteristics, it's made more easy by the physical similarity and made even easier by the scientific basis. But, at the end of the day it's what's inside that counts and we can only infer that; ie it's down to faith in the end.
I know someone's going to jump in here with 'but chimps use language, yadda yadda'. However, as far as I know the other-minds problem is still open.
pbhj
Lawrence Lessig: Grokster's victory for innovation By Lawrence Lessig Published: May 9 2003 16:35 | Last Updated: May 9 2003 16:35
In 1998, in a string of judicial decisions, courts in the United States found Napster responsible for the copyright infringement that occurred on its file-sharing network. The burden of these decisions effectively closed down the company. Last month, a district court held that neither Streamcast (which distributes "Morpheus") nor Grokster could be held responsible for the copyright infringement that occurred on the file-sharing networks they supported. (They both initially supported the "FastTrack" network; Streamcast now builds its client on the "Gnutella" platform.) Thus, Napster: bad; Grokster/Morpheus: good.
This decision has surprised commentators. From 10,000 feet, the two file-sharing networks look very much alike. But they are technically quite different, and that difference clearly mattered to the court. Yet more important than the technology is the difference in judicial attitude that the district court displayed. It is this difference that would really matter if upheld on appeal.
Grokster and Morpheus run on peer-to-peer networks, which means that content is shared not between them and their users but between the users of the network themselves. This was true of Napster as well. The difference is that Napster kept a central list of all the available files, which enabled it to control who got access to what content. That meant that Napster could be held responsible for copyright infringement happening on its network. Because Napster benefited from the infringement and had the opportunity to stop it, the courts held Napster responsible.
The design of the Morpheus/Grokster networks, however, means that the defendants do not have the same opportunity. Because there is no central list of files that can be shared, neither Grokster nor Streamcast are able to control the content that users access. There is therefore no way for either company to take steps to block infringing sharing.
No doubt, the court observed, these companies benefited from the sharing. And no doubt, it went on, peer-to-peer networks were designed in part to avoid the ability to block infringing sharing. But because the law requires that there be both a benefit from the infringement and an opportunity to do something to stop it, District Court Judge Stephen Wilson was not willing to find either company responsible.
The reason the court hesitated is a good one. As the district court reminded us, the practice in copyright cases has not been for courts to expand liability in response to new technologies. It is instead that any such expansion be done by Congress. This principle was the basis upon which the Supreme Court decided that Sony was not responsible for the copyright infringement that the VCR enabled. As the Court reasoned, no doubt Sony could have designed the VCR to disable the ability of users to record shows from the air. But whether Sony should have been so required was a decision for Congress. The only question that a court should ask is whether the technology is "capable of substantial noninfringing uses". If it is, whether its use should on balance be considered infringing is a question for policymakers, not courts.
In the VCR case, Congress eventually decided that the use should be permitted - even though, without doubt, many people were copying copyrighted material without the permission of the copyright owner, and, no doubt, Sony benefited from that copying. But as Congress and the courts well recognise, copyright law is not absolute. The lines that Congress draws must balance the interests of users and copyright owners to the end of spurring innovation. That balance is inherently political. And therefore, when a new technology changes the balance, the appropriate role for a court is to leave it to the political branch to decide whether the change is to be allowed or to be remedied through new legislation.
It's not! As far as I can discern the only difference is in the length (and quantity) of the connections. Parallel computing normal involves a local cluster of computers (LAN, eg a Beowulf type project) whilst the Grid works on the SETI type system of enlisting processing power across the internet (WAN) - ie many more processors separated by greater differences. Note these are comparative terms so you decide what's a Grid and what's an MPP
Whatis says: Grid computing requires the use of software that can divide and farm out pieces of a program to as many as several thousand computers. Grid computing can be thought of as distributed and large-scale cluster computing and as a form of network-distributed parallel processing. It can be confined to the network of computer workstations within a corporation or it can be a public collaboration (in which case it is also sometimes known as a form of peer-to-peer computing).
Apart from a suspicion that this is not a granted patent (see other post, if you can find it)...
If you read the doc, particularly the bit "DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION" (normally were you find the bits you can actually read and possibly make sense of!), then it appears that what is happening is more like this:
Albert (the 'originating participant') finds an item for sale among several offered (eg at Amazon). Albert decides that he'd like friend Bill to know about it so he clicks "tell a friend" and sends Bill the info (either publicly or privately) about the product via the system. A thread is started by the system for this discussion... from then on it's a standard discussion group (like 'egroups' or whatever).
It appears to be an enhancement of the "tell a friend" about this webpage idea, except that the webpages are for products for sale and that the tell-a-friend starts a discussion ("Bill: isn;t that a bit much for a baloney sandwich; Albert: it's 2c cheaper than the work canteen; Charlie: I saw spam sarnies on e-bay much cheaper last week;... ", et cetera).
Whilst Slashdot (as it existed before Aug 1999) may meet the claims it doesn't appear to knock out the whole disclosure. That is, the applicant can amend and file narrower claims to an un-anticipated invention.
Did 'Slashdot books' allow private discussions? Were the discussions initiated in terms of for sale items? Were messages sent (eg 'subscribe to this discussion') or only posted for later access?
Remember the examiner needs hard evidence not just 'of course this was around'. I think she may find it, but I don't think it will be as easy as Slashdotters are making out.
According to the USPTO (and my own experience), the USPTO recently changed it's practice and started publishing patents before grant. The link (as I know most won't read it) says that items go into the database up to 18 months before grant. That is, this case may not have been examined for novelty/obviousness yet. Most commonly (ie across worldwide patent systems) there is an A and B-publication. The A is published to tell the public what's happening. The B tells the public what's being granted. The claims will nearly always change before B-publication. It appears the US is now following this type of system.
If you look at the linked article from ipmenu the preamble clearly states that this is an "innovation patent" (similar to German Utility patent). This is a _registration_ to prevent others from nabbing your idea. You get a reduced term of protection (ie Monopoly) the Patent Office doesn't search or examine the innovation patent - it's just registered.
Now whether you approve or not is a different matter: big bully companies can use financial clout to enforce an unwarranted monopoly as little weedy companies can't afford the court bills. But by no stretch of the imagination is the Australian PTO failing to perform it's duties here.
Get informed. Try http://www.intellectual-property.gov.uk/ for starters.
Kirkcaldy is only a few miles from St.Andrews University which made all the papers in Britain about 4-5 years ago with news they'd created an image of the perfect woman and man (or something like that)... ie those that are most attractive (on average) to members of the opposite sex. MBCook is right about the metrics involved...
"Considering AOL just posted a loss larger than Russia's entire budget, I don't think money swimming is a common sport over there."
You think that affects how many millions the executives get payed?
> - are courses like this available here? any good? cost? where to find more info?
I think it was a reasonable question.. the only info on open.gov.uk appears to relate to computer camps for the blind. I think you've missed the point of asking the online community.. it makes hard to find information easy to find (though its at a large overall time cost which is partially out-weighed by the entertainment value).
Your right - there should be something - but it seems there isn't.
As for OU, they don't do anything (I'm one of their students), as far as I know, where you get hands-on practice with a network (for example), or repairing PC's (although some courses like T223 have hardware components, a serial port temperature measurement module in this instance, that they post out).
Anyone got anything useful to add. I'm interested in this topic too as I'm currently wanting to set up a community computer project.
Google.co.uk list a few "computer camps", for example the ICC (have to be blind) and one in Ottawa (have to live in Canada or be prepared to travel!) and I think theres one about someone who went on a camp in 1998. The only useful doc notes that:
Although often expensive in practice, the idea of the computer camp offers another community-based initiative little seen in the UK. In the USA this provides children from 7-18 with hands on training in a wide range of computer and Internet skills. Given the frequency with which British children - admittedly many of them middle-class - attend swimming, dancing or sports clubs after school and at the weekend, the expectation of attending a local extra-curricular club is already present in most families. Hence there is considerable potential here for further development, particularly if public funding were available.
My Samsung CDRW was pretty much doa. It was fine reading CDs just when I came to first try writing it failed to ever recognise any CDs except one type... that had been discontinued! It was part of a HP computer and the customer support was useless. I e-mailed saying what I tried and what it didn't do; and they responded have you tried... (all the things I said I'd tried!).
Anyway...
Slashdot Mirror
I know it's not really the browser .... but, I'd like to see a development in URL so they follow the page when it moves.
Content addressing might be a further option - the link brings up a list of places that the same content is stored at and you choose where to drag your content from, this could also show origin if dates where added into the mix.
People do own portions of the electromagnetic spectrum in the region ... so in a way they do "own the air".
In UK this is called 'defensive publication' (as a patent is a monopoly and merely publishing is not therefore a 'patent').
... hence they cut a few corners. One of those corners involves only searching in certain places (though the internet is one possible place) - patent databases win as number one search place in most technical areas.
h tml. Another, and some more info is at http://www.delphion.com/products/research/products -priorart.
g ulation/chapter4.htm, search on "section 21") in the few months after the first publication ... no doubt other jurisdictions do the same.
Patent practitioners have a limited amount of time to search every publication (print, audio and video inclusive) in the known universe
However, certain companies (like IBM, HP) produce technical disclosures (which are tantamount to defensive publications) which are included in non-patent databases that patent practitioners use. One such database is http://www.researchdisclosure.com/searchrd/index.
In UK at least the patent office (http://www.patent.gov.uk) will take submissions from third parties concerning a particular application (eg if you spotted prior art - http://www.patent.gov.uk/about/consultations/dere
Perhaps you could do use of online tools as supplemental language aids ... eg Onelook dictionary (sorry couldn't resist, likely not a typo as e/i are on different hands?).
Thesauri and [en]cyclopedias are also tools I find useful as writing aids.
And no, I'm not perfect either!
There are 'several' strings (how many?) and there are 3 permutations for the strings mentioned (the ones in the above post). For each string there are 24 colours (that should have been fun differentiating 24 colours made with 'primitive' dying methods - 'is that dark-blue or midnight-blue is this one corn yellow or straw yellow?')
... I'm probably wrong but it sounds quite hard) are in fact 6 colours in 4 different shades that are due to archeological effects - surrounding matter of the artifacts, exposure to light, cleaning solutions used.
... sorry can't describe it better ... post-lunch lethargy.
So for each string there are 24+3+ maybe a couple more possibilities. Let's say base-29.
Were does the 7 bit binary come in then?
Also the bloke says "This could mean the code used by the makers allowed them to convey some 1,536 separate units of information".
It could. It could be the 24 colours were 24 crops (or different items, perhaps including livestock) and the 4 different variations for each string meant we've got loads, got none, got a few, haven't counted yet. Far less sophisticated than binary.
It could be that the 24 colours (someone do a list of 24 colour names that are easily recognisable
However, 'I have discovered a writing system comparable with that of Sumerian cuneiform' is sure to persuade an ongoing grant.
Also, while I'm enjoying my rant, using binary where positions in the code have different values we need to know the ordering - in fact it's vital. Permutations vs. combinations. Also I'd query (as I've hinted above) the value of describing a simple on/off indication for several positions as being n-bit binary. It feels wrong to me
pbhj
In UK at least you can't patent an algorithm alone ... like it say patents need some technical effect ... so something additional beyond the mere algorithm needs to be patented: you might argue for bz2 that it is 'technical' as it requires less memory to hold files under this compression. The true meaning of technical in this context hasn't been well tested and is open to interpretation in the courts.
pbh
I can't see $400 in parts there ... perhaps you're including R&D and marketing costs as well?
The hardware manufacturers make the money selling the licenses to the software makers surely?! That is the software makes all the caboodles of $$$ and a large percentage of that goes on the licensing fees.
The thing is that the last-modified is often in no way related to the date the article was written. Just writing the date somewhere in the article (yes a tag would be good for this - search engines could then use dates) would help a great deal.
... ...
This really annoys me as well - linux documentation rarely seems to have a date: a link to a page with the current version would be good too, and an expected lifetime for the information.
Eg:
<creation-date>Tues 18 Jan 1998</creation-date>
<p>Expected lifespan of this howto version - 1 year; refers to Kmy-prog version 0.9.1</p>
<p><a href="http://full.com/address/">Link to version information</a></p>
Looks like an xml schema (which I know nothing about) would be useful for such things.
pbhj
In UK things are different - you can't provide the entertainment for free (music included) if you then intend to make money selling snacks or whatever else in the same location; see http://www.intellectual-property.gov.uk/std/faq/co pyright/ex_sound_record.htm
Note that this site refers to playing broadcasts - I gather that one can play broadcasts freely (with the above proviso) but this _does not_ include pre-recorded music/movies!
Sucks.
It didn't evolve - there was some form of directing [group] intelligence (the users of the language) it developed by adoption of different words from different languages and by choice of new words. Clearly there would be some mutation but I don't see it being the main form of linguistic development. Oh, and of course no-one speaks (save freako nerds) medieval German anymore.
You could equally well say if the modern car evolved from the model-T how come everyone is still driving model-T's, doh!
Nice analogy but it doesn't _prove_ anything.
No I'm not a literal creationist, nor an evolutionist but a fence-sitter (ie not enough evidence either way to convince me).
Quote an interesting typo ... is this all about anthropomorphism? I mean attributing human characteristics, it's made more easy by the physical similarity and made even easier by the scientific basis. But, at the end of the day it's what's inside that counts and we can only infer that; ie it's down to faith in the end.
I know someone's going to jump in here with 'but chimps use language, yadda yadda'. However, as far as I know the other-minds problem is still open.
pbhj
Of course the integral symbol _is_ a (stylised) capital S .. presumably for Sum ..
Lawrence Lessig: Grokster's victory for innovation
By Lawrence Lessig
Published: May 9 2003 16:35 | Last Updated: May 9 2003 16:35
In 1998, in a string of judicial decisions, courts in the United States found Napster responsible for the copyright infringement that occurred on its file-sharing network. The burden of these decisions effectively closed down the company. Last month, a district court held that neither Streamcast (which distributes "Morpheus") nor Grokster could be held responsible for the copyright infringement that occurred on the file-sharing networks they supported. (They both initially supported the "FastTrack" network; Streamcast now builds its client on the "Gnutella" platform.) Thus, Napster: bad; Grokster/Morpheus: good.
This decision has surprised commentators. From 10,000 feet, the two file-sharing networks look very much alike. But they are technically quite different, and that difference clearly mattered to the court. Yet more important than the technology is the difference in judicial attitude that the district court displayed. It is this difference that would really matter if upheld on appeal.
Grokster and Morpheus run on peer-to-peer networks, which means that content is shared not between them and their users but between the users of the network themselves. This was true of Napster as well. The difference is that Napster kept a central list of all the available files, which enabled it to control who got access to what content. That meant that Napster could be held responsible for copyright infringement happening on its network. Because Napster benefited from the infringement and had the opportunity to stop it, the courts held Napster responsible.
The design of the Morpheus/Grokster networks, however, means that the defendants do not have the same opportunity. Because there is no central list of files that can be shared, neither Grokster nor Streamcast are able to control the content that users access. There is therefore no way for either company to take steps to block infringing sharing.
No doubt, the court observed, these companies benefited from the sharing. And no doubt, it went on, peer-to-peer networks were designed in part to avoid the ability to block infringing sharing. But because the law requires that there be both a benefit from the infringement and an opportunity to do something to stop it, District Court Judge Stephen Wilson was not willing to find either company responsible.
The reason the court hesitated is a good one. As the district court reminded us, the practice in copyright cases has not been for courts to expand liability in response to new technologies. It is instead that any such expansion be done by Congress. This principle was the basis upon which the Supreme Court decided that Sony was not responsible for the copyright infringement that the VCR enabled. As the Court reasoned, no doubt Sony could have designed the VCR to disable the ability of users to record shows from the air. But whether Sony should have been so required was a decision for Congress. The only question that a court should ask is whether the technology is "capable of substantial noninfringing uses". If it is, whether its use should on balance be considered infringing is a question for policymakers, not courts.
In the VCR case, Congress eventually decided that the use should be permitted - even though, without doubt, many people were copying copyrighted material without the permission of the copyright owner, and, no doubt, Sony benefited from that copying. But as Congress and the courts well recognise, copyright law is not absolute. The lines that Congress draws must balance the interests of users and copyright owners to the end of spurring innovation. That balance is inherently political. And therefore, when a new technology changes the balance, the appropriate role for a court is to leave it to the political branch to decide whether the change is to be allowed or to be remedied through new legislation.
The wisdom of this rule is s
pbhj
It's not! As far as I can discern the only difference is in the length (and quantity) of the connections. Parallel computing normal involves a local cluster of computers (LAN, eg a Beowulf type project) whilst the Grid works on the SETI type system of enlisting processing power across the internet (WAN) - ie many more processors separated by greater differences. Note these are comparative terms so you decide what's a Grid and what's an MPP
Whatis says: Grid computing requires the use of software that can divide and farm out pieces of a program to as many as several thousand computers. Grid computing can be thought of as distributed and large-scale cluster computing and as a form of network-distributed parallel processing. It can be confined to the network of computer workstations within a corporation or it can be a public collaboration (in which case it is also sometimes known as a form of peer-to-peer computing).
pbhj
I find any monopoly that encumbers independent invention and is granted without examination a Bad Thing.
Me too!
Thanks for the spelling lesson. When I went to school I could spell, honest. It's been few years and alcohol has rotted my brain. pbhj
Apart from a suspicion that this is not a granted patent (see other post, if you can find it) ...
... from then on it's a standard discussion group (like 'egroups' or whatever).
... ", et cetera).
If you read the doc, particularly the bit "DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION" (normally were you find the bits you can actually read and possibly make sense of!), then it appears that what is happening is more like this:
Albert (the 'originating participant') finds an item for sale among several offered (eg at Amazon). Albert decides that he'd like friend Bill to know about it so he clicks "tell a friend" and sends Bill the info (either publicly or privately) about the product via the system. A thread is started by the system for this discussion
It appears to be an enhancement of the "tell a friend" about this webpage idea, except that the webpages are for products for sale and that the tell-a-friend starts a discussion ("Bill: isn;t that a bit much for a baloney sandwich; Albert: it's 2c cheaper than the work canteen; Charlie: I saw spam sarnies on e-bay much cheaper last week;
Whilst Slashdot (as it existed before Aug 1999) may meet the claims it doesn't appear to knock out the whole disclosure. That is, the applicant can amend and file narrower claims to an un-anticipated invention.
Did 'Slashdot books' allow private discussions? Were the discussions initiated in terms of for sale items? Were messages sent (eg 'subscribe to this discussion') or only posted for later access?
Remember the examiner needs hard evidence not just 'of course this was around'. I think she may find it, but I don't think it will be as easy as Slashdotters are making out.
pbhj
According to the USPTO (and my own experience), the USPTO recently changed it's practice and started publishing patents before grant. The link (as I know most won't read it) says that items go into the database up to 18 months before grant. That is, this case may not have been examined for novelty/obviousness yet. Most commonly (ie across worldwide patent systems) there is an A and B-publication. The A is published to tell the public what's happening. The B tells the public what's being granted. The claims will nearly always change before B-publication. It appears the US is now following this type of system.
pbhj
If you look at the linked article from ipmenu the preamble clearly states that this is an "innovation patent" (similar to German Utility patent). This is a _registration_ to prevent others from nabbing your idea. You get a reduced term of protection (ie Monopoly) the Patent Office doesn't search or examine the innovation patent - it's just registered.
Now whether you approve or not is a different matter: big bully companies can use financial clout to enforce an unwarranted monopoly as little weedy companies can't afford the court bills. But by no stretch of the imagination is the Australian PTO failing to perform it's duties here.
Get informed. Try http://www.intellectual-property.gov.uk/ for starters.
Kirkcaldy is only a few miles from St.Andrews University which made all the papers in Britain about 4-5 years ago with news they'd created an image of the perfect woman and man (or something like that) ... ie those that are most attractive (on average) to members of the opposite sex. MBCook is right about the metrics involved ...
More info from a recent BBC article or from the St.A perception labs homepage - the face transformer page here is quite fun.
"Considering AOL just posted a loss larger than Russia's entire budget, I don't think money swimming is a common sport over there." You think that affects how many millions the executives get payed?
> - are courses like this available here? any good? cost? where to find more info?
I think it was a reasonable question .. the only info on open.gov.uk appears to relate to computer camps for the blind. I think you've missed the point of asking the online community .. it makes hard to find information easy to find (though its at a large overall time cost which is partially out-weighed by the entertainment value).
Your right - there should be something - but it seems there isn't.
As for OU, they don't do anything (I'm one of their students), as far as I know, where you get hands-on practice with a network (for example), or repairing PC's (although some courses like T223 have hardware components, a serial port temperature measurement module in this instance, that they post out).
Anyone got anything useful to add. I'm interested in this topic too as I'm currently wanting to set up a community computer project.
Google.co.uk list a few "computer camps", for example the ICC (have to be blind) and one in Ottawa (have to live in Canada or be prepared to travel!) and I think theres one about someone who went on a camp in 1998. The only useful doc notes that:
pbhj
My Samsung CDRW was pretty much doa. It was fine reading CDs just when I came to first try writing it failed to ever recognise any CDs except one type ... that had been discontinued! It was part of a HP computer and the customer support was useless. I e-mailed saying what I tried and what it didn't do; and they responded have you tried ... (all the things I said I'd tried!).
Anyway ...
Just wondering 01110111011010000110010101110010011001010010000001 101001011100110010000001110010
0110111101100010011010010110111000111111