I agree that Flash is your best option, especially if the class is only one semester long. Video games make so many otherwise boring subjects in high school interesting. The math and physics teachers will thank you, because when their students ask why they need to learn those subjects they will just say, "Because then you can take can take a class on video games next semester. Woot!" It's important to lower the bar so the class is accessible to as many students as possible.
If you don't use Flash you should already have many your libraries completed so students don't have to do a lot of work to get results. If you do use Flash try to make it's proprietary shortcomings painfully obvious but don't directly refer to them. That way your students will eventually revolt against Flash and will think they are the first generation to support free and open source software.
Just because Rox has spring loaded folders don't mean they do so legally. The spring loaded folder feature may still infringe on Apple's patent. They are not at the same risk a high profile project like Gnome is, so it's easier for them to take risks. Then again, if these guys can defend the feature then there is no reason Nautilus shouldn't have it. (Unless they too have patented their implementation.)
This was discussed some where by the Gnome people before. They said something about this feature being patented. So unless Gnome can find prior art, or reinvent the feature some how; it won't be showing up in Nautilus.
Over the next 5-10 years, I predict that many laws will be completely rewritten to better accommodate the changes that the internet has brought upon society. Many of these changes will be for the better, and the end result will almost certainly be a more free and open society.
Alternative lisencing scemes have already been created, which are the copyright equivalent to the GPL. These alternative copyright systems will compete with full copyright instead of replaceing it. As more and more artists put their work into liberal lisencing scemes it will become harder for others to do business the old fashoned way. The fact that these alternative lisences exsist ensure the future of full copyright, because now producers and consumers have a choice. For this reason there will always be some content locked out of the public domain. Old fashoned copyright law will not change, but it's perseption and proliferation of use will.
Take the Microsoft anti-trust case for example. It's no coinsedence that the issue puttered out at the same time Linux was gaining in popularity. It seems that legal alternatives, (the GPL) and public action beat the government to the punch. For the most part, copyright will follow the same path.
Here's another positive example. The United States attacks a country that uses Galileo in it's military and by it's citizens. Because they can't block the signals they have no alternative but to attack ground components using intelligence to determine what is military GPS. As a result civilians are killed due to shortcomings in that intelligence. If the system can simply be jammed then nothing needs to be destroyed and no one needs to die while it's disabled.
The site has rather conservative advertisements. For example no pop-ups or animated adds in the middle of a text body. What would the site look like if it had the same advertising to content ratio direct marketeers create in their mediums?
Sure there will be laws saying what you can do out there. But it will take some time for governments to find the means to enforce those laws. Once earth economies start relying on goods from space it will be even harder to enforce property laws out there.
If some one had the tecnology to go to moon right now and extract resources worth billions of dollars who would stop them? What about the next guy who can do it? Who's going to say they can't because there's not enough moon for two partys?
The only way consolidated hardware would work for the console industry would be if there was more than one hardware provider. There should be serveral more or less identicle systems that all run the same game software. Otherwise who ever controls the hardware will control prices and we'll end up with 80 dollar games like back when Nintendo was in power. (Although that involved other factors as well.) If two of the big three team up that won't change much in the industy. It would just make the market for games on that system larger. The larger the market the more profits will be gained from that market. This translates to a more conservitive developer because more money will be invested in games raising barriers to entry. We'll end up with the same troubles we have now.
If we want to focus on supporting content we'll need a more liberal system so developers can profit from making smaller games for nitch markets. That way good ideas have room to grow before they require a large investment. Would take a while to explain such a system so I'll just post a link hinting at similar market. Newgrounds
Or least that's how the article portrayed him. If commercial Linux should unite under a free foundation it should be Fedora. Red Hat is already used commercially in many areas and is the closest to a standard in that market. Or at least that is what I have heard, no hard facts here. It doesn't matter if Fedora is less free than Debian. Right now the market trend seems to be with Red Hat. It's a failing argument that Debian should adopted based it's openness. The market shall decide. It's much easier to compromise and use Fedora as a standard.
Perens shouldn't be wasting his breath advocating commercial Debian in such a general way. If he really wants to increase Debian's commercial use then it needs to be adopted by a successful company and proven in it's business model. To accomplish this he needs to make deals with establishment and convince them to support Debian. General propaganda is of limited use in this case.
Who he is really speaking to is the naive entrepreneur. He's hoping some fool will buy the ideology and build successful enterprise with Debian. Not to say it's a bad idea, but such an endeavor is a bit risky.
I haven't read all of the article yet so bear with me. Just responding to the section on "The Firewalled Consumer" as I come across it. I'd like to get this out before the discussion becomes too old. I'm not above amending my comments so what risk is there to post now? Anyway, you've been warned.
Internet service with blocked or restricted upstream access is what I call 'half' internet service. Needless to say it blows cookies, but it's obvious that most people don't care too much about it. Here are some ideas on how to deal with the issue and (dare I say) make some money in the process.
The general idea is to market free speech as a product. This has already been done to some extent with web blogs but with one fundamental difference. Web blogs are usually offered as a service where the service provider has power over the content. What I propose is to create a preconfigured web server with a content management system (basicly a blog of sorts) built into it. This server could could be plugged into a network just like printer and would be simple enough for any computer user to administrate. As members of a free society most people do value free speech but they are also members of a free capitalist market. Which means it helps if they can purchase something if they are going to 'buy' an idea. No one will value free speech unless they can go next door and brag about how they just bought the best means to express it.
The big question is how do puny mortals bring an idea like this to mass market without the backing of a big hardware company? Because that is what it will take in order for our ISPs to offer 'full' internet service and then for market forces to drive the price down to the point where it eliminates 'half' service. The way the tech industry works is basicly this. Most companies haven't developed the technology they sell they simply copy what others have done first. Sure they all have their clams to fame but most of what they sell is recycled. So more or less it's a me too industry. The reason there are no end user web servers is because no one has proven the concept. Once some one has created a fringe market for the product the big guys will take it and bring it to the main stream.
Lucky the public domain ain't what it used to be. Some how the operating system, web server, CMS, along with everything else you need is available to be sold royalty free. All it needs is a simple setup and administration interface. Burn that stuff into a live CD and you can turn any old computer into a web server. At first it would grow in local market places as Linux geeks and savvy web designers sell the CDs to their clients. People will pay for free software if they lack the drive to obtain it on their own. As people start using it the demand for full internet service will increase. Once the hardware manufacturers hear about they'll start making dedicated devices and full service demand will increase even more.
Eventually more features will be added to the devices like photo and home movie archives. It's easier to post home movies on your own server because space is less expensive and you can upload them locally. Services like that will require a bit of bandwidth so ISPs can offer service upgrades and start to embrace individual hosting instead of resisting it. The problem with broadband today is that it does the same thing that dial-up does, just faster. If broadband clients did something with their upstream then that would add value to the network. ISPs wouldn't have court content owners to offer internet services. The public would create content for each other for free.
Anyway, this is going too long. All I have left to say is, "Get out there and do it!" I'm been working on my Linux skills (n00b) and I already know the customer. (web designer, "Would you like a server with that?") Don't let me beat you to market.
So lets see, you'll pay your isp for bandwidth and then Kazaa will then charge you for a service that uses your upstream bandwidth? Not only is that non-free but that's a rip off. If Kazaa wants to charge people for downloads they can host the files themselves.
Then again most people don't use their upload space and most broadband services have a capped upload speed. So if Kazaa creates profits for isps with plenty of upstream bandwidth it might liberate the connections of the rest of us.
If everyone had enough upstream bandwidth to host a small website, then we'll finally have a real Internet, instead of enthralled as consumers as we usually are.
Adobe needs to quit complaining and to start profiting from Microsoft's stagnation. Macromedia makes plug-ins for web browsers like Shockwave and Flash. These add-ons come closer to true innovation than CSS or Javascript.
Macromedia also uses their popularity to get into the middle-ware market with Coldfusion competing with ASP so Microsoft is effected. If they had better (standard) CSS and Javascript support on Explorer that would take market share from Flash and thus Coldfusion.
The only thing holding innovations like Flash back is their reliance on proprietary software. If there were open source equivalents to the Flash plug-in and authoring environment then the technology could really take off and maybe become more standardized and integrated into most browsers.
Companies like Microsoft and even Macromedia can not afford to liberate their technology to the degree it takes to change the browser. Our only hope is projects that are open to the public.
It doesn't matter what OS the lap tops run. The Kids will create their own exploits. Breaking down security is 2nd nature for middle schoolers. When you have a user base that large some are bound to create trouble.
On the other hand a system that is moderately insecure is less likely to be physically vandalized. Kids will be satisfied messing up Windows instead of carving holes in the lap top case. It's harder to find viruses for Macs so poring ketchup into the CD drive will have to do.
Our upcoming digital television service will run on the new secure Internet protocol called SIPv7. "Our secure Internet protocol is vasty superior to IPv6." Says the lead developer of the SIP open source project. "Our development team is very large and well funded. I believe we represent the forefront in Internet research. Unlike IPv6, ip addresses are divided into two classes with one class for hosting and one class for client connections. Client addresses are virtually limitless, unlike IPv4. On the other side, host addresses number at about 5 and are mandated by God. Of course if you don't like our version of the protocol you can always use the corporate incarnation entitled $IP 2000 Infinity."
This might be wildly off topic, but what happens when you can record and replay your own experiences? I'm talking at the biological level. Would movie studios make their content 100% incoherent?
I must admit I'm a bit foggy on the Unix side of the story. But now that you mention it I do remember reading about the licenses in the past. I jumped to the conclusion that IBM and SCO had temporary licenses.
You know what SGI is going to do if they lose their Unix lisence. The same thing IBM did, they'll start to use Linux even more in their business. SCO needs to shower their clients with gifts instead of alienating everyone Unix and Linux related. Linux seems to be faring well regardless of all this mess. Who's really getting screwed is commercial Unix.
My first assumption what that Europe had adopted American style patent law, but with news of FFII's recommendations getting through who knows what is going on. First of all, will those recommendations survive to become law? And if they do survive, are they effective in practice? It sounds like we'll be getting even more stories on the topic with overblown headlines around here.
Really the conclusion is, 'read' and see. This article only makes me crave more information on the issue.
"What's good for the country is good for General Motors, and vice versa."
Or, what's good for government is good for corporations, and vice versa.
Let's face it, large companies and governments have a lot in common. They are both large organizations of people that function by monopolizing power in that group. It's not surprising that they get along well together.
Some people are predisposed to use command line tools like Vi. These are the same people who correct everyone on spelling and grammar. They easily retain factual information like the capital of this or that etc. These kinds of people are also predisposed to writing so the conclusions of the above article's author is not surprising.
Personally I have a hard time remembering arbitrary commands and facts. Unless I can visualize something, can fit it into some relationship, or have some emotional connection to a bit of information; chances are it won't make it past my short short term memory. Being a web programmer I need to have access to reference material at all times. There are common functions that I have looked up at least a hundred times.
I know people who are severely dyslexic who I went to school with. These people would be hard pressed to do anything on a computer outside of a GUI. On that note I recommend AbiWord to any one who lacks command line mind.
Although, it would be nice if AbiWord had a grammar checker and a more durable spell checker. Spelling and grammar should be an electronic formating standard. We should code spelling and grammar formating software as close to the current implementation of language as we can an then accept new the electronic implementation as correct grammar. That way we don't have to worry about spelling and grammar anymore. If our word processor validates our writings than that's the final word on their correctness.
Grammar is just a means of repressing the vernacular. Why not give the task the heartless machine? That would be preferable to the army sadists we have now.
In order for consoles to compete with PC in mmogs voice communication is essential. My brother learned to play online role playing games while he was learning to read and write. Given a choice at that time he would have gone with a voice game if it was availible. Unfortunatly for him he was forced to become literate.
The first developer to make a good voice communication game and market it to young children stands to make some money. The only problem is that future generations of kids will be exposed the jungle that is the internet at an earlier age. For example, if you ask someone online if Santa is real they'll tell you the truth.
You've all read World of Ends. What's the deal with these boardband partners Infinium talk about on their web site? Are they only going to offer service through ISPs who join with them? Sounds like they are trying to build a business model from the middle of the network. So if their product comes to market it could possibly pervert the nature of the internet. ISPs will expect deals with content and service providers and will block those who don't pay.
Slashdot Mirror
Doh, your doing independent study. Which means it isn't a course and your not a teacher.
Oh well...
I agree that Flash is your best option, especially if the class is only one semester long. Video games make so many otherwise boring subjects in high school interesting. The math and physics teachers will thank you, because when their students ask why they need to learn those subjects they will just say, "Because then you can take can take a class on video games next semester. Woot!" It's important to lower the bar so the class is accessible to as many students as possible.
If you don't use Flash you should already have many your libraries completed so students don't have to do a lot of work to get results. If you do use Flash try to make it's proprietary shortcomings painfully obvious but don't directly refer to them. That way your students will eventually revolt against Flash and will think they are the first generation to support free and open source software.
Just because Rox has spring loaded folders don't mean they do so legally. The spring loaded folder feature may still infringe on Apple's patent. They are not at the same risk a high profile project like Gnome is, so it's easier for them to take risks. Then again, if these guys can defend the feature then there is no reason Nautilus shouldn't have it. (Unless they too have patented their implementation.)
This was discussed some where by the Gnome people before. They said something about this feature being patented. So unless Gnome can find prior art, or reinvent the feature some how; it won't be showing up in Nautilus.
Sorry I can't recall the link.
Over the next 5-10 years, I predict that many laws will be completely rewritten to better accommodate the changes that the internet has brought upon society. Many of these changes will be for the better, and the end result will almost certainly be a more free and open society.
Alternative lisencing scemes have already been created, which are the copyright equivalent to the GPL. These alternative copyright systems will compete with full copyright instead of replaceing it. As more and more artists put their work into liberal lisencing scemes it will become harder for others to do business the old fashoned way. The fact that these alternative lisences exsist ensure the future of full copyright, because now producers and consumers have a choice. For this reason there will always be some content locked out of the public domain. Old fashoned copyright law will not change, but it's perseption and proliferation of use will.
Take the Microsoft anti-trust case for example. It's no coinsedence that the issue puttered out at the same time Linux was gaining in popularity. It seems that legal alternatives, (the GPL) and public action beat the government to the punch. For the most part, copyright will follow the same path.
Here's another positive example. The United States attacks a country that uses Galileo in it's military and by it's citizens. Because they can't block the signals they have no alternative but to attack ground components using intelligence to determine what is military GPS. As a result civilians are killed due to shortcomings in that intelligence. If the system can simply be jammed then nothing needs to be destroyed and no one needs to die while it's disabled.
The site has rather conservative advertisements. For example no pop-ups or animated adds in the middle of a text body. What would the site look like if it had the same advertising to content ratio direct marketeers create in their mediums?
Sure there will be laws saying what you can do out there. But it will take some time for governments to find the means to enforce those laws. Once earth economies start relying on goods from space it will be even harder to enforce property laws out there.
If some one had the tecnology to go to moon right now and extract resources worth billions of dollars who would stop them? What about the next guy who can do it? Who's going to say they can't because there's not enough moon for two partys?
The only way consolidated hardware would work for the console industry would be if there was more than one hardware provider. There should be serveral more or less identicle systems that all run the same game software. Otherwise who ever controls the hardware will control prices and we'll end up with 80 dollar games like back when Nintendo was in power. (Although that involved other factors as well.) If two of the big three team up that won't change much in the industy. It would just make the market for games on that system larger. The larger the market the more profits will be gained from that market. This translates to a more conservitive developer because more money will be invested in games raising barriers to entry. We'll end up with the same troubles we have now.
If we want to focus on supporting content we'll need a more liberal system so developers can profit from making smaller games for nitch markets. That way good ideas have room to grow before they require a large investment. Would take a while to explain such a system so I'll just post a link hinting at similar market. Newgrounds
Or least that's how the article portrayed him. If commercial Linux should unite under a free foundation it should be Fedora. Red Hat is already used commercially in many areas and is the closest to a standard in that market. Or at least that is what I have heard, no hard facts here. It doesn't matter if Fedora is less free than Debian. Right now the market trend seems to be with Red Hat. It's a failing argument that Debian should adopted based it's openness. The market shall decide. It's much easier to compromise and use Fedora as a standard.
Perens shouldn't be wasting his breath advocating commercial Debian in such a general way. If he really wants to increase Debian's commercial use then it needs to be adopted by a successful company and proven in it's business model. To accomplish this he needs to make deals with establishment and convince them to support Debian. General propaganda is of limited use in this case.
Who he is really speaking to is the naive entrepreneur. He's hoping some fool will buy the ideology and build successful enterprise with Debian. Not to say it's a bad idea, but such an endeavor is a bit risky.
Yes, but can you patent your genes?
I haven't read all of the article yet so bear with me. Just responding to the section on "The Firewalled Consumer" as I come across it. I'd like to get this out before the discussion becomes too old. I'm not above amending my comments so what risk is there to post now? Anyway, you've been warned.
Internet service with blocked or restricted upstream access is what I call 'half' internet service. Needless to say it blows cookies, but it's obvious that most people don't care too much about it. Here are some ideas on how to deal with the issue and (dare I say) make some money in the process.
The general idea is to market free speech as a product. This has already been done to some extent with web blogs but with one fundamental difference. Web blogs are usually offered as a service where the service provider has power over the content. What I propose is to create a preconfigured web server with a content management system (basicly a blog of sorts) built into it. This server could could be plugged into a network just like printer and would be simple enough for any computer user to administrate. As members of a free society most people do value free speech but they are also members of a free capitalist market. Which means it helps if they can purchase something if they are going to 'buy' an idea. No one will value free speech unless they can go next door and brag about how they just bought the best means to express it.
The big question is how do puny mortals bring an idea like this to mass market without the backing of a big hardware company? Because that is what it will take in order for our ISPs to offer 'full' internet service and then for market forces to drive the price down to the point where it eliminates 'half' service. The way the tech industry works is basicly this. Most companies haven't developed the technology they sell they simply copy what others have done first. Sure they all have their clams to fame but most of what they sell is recycled. So more or less it's a me too industry. The reason there are no end user web servers is because no one has proven the concept. Once some one has created a fringe market for the product the big guys will take it and bring it to the main stream.
Lucky the public domain ain't what it used to be. Some how the operating system, web server, CMS, along with everything else you need is available to be sold royalty free. All it needs is a simple setup and administration interface. Burn that stuff into a live CD and you can turn any old computer into a web server. At first it would grow in local market places as Linux geeks and savvy web designers sell the CDs to their clients. People will pay for free software if they lack the drive to obtain it on their own. As people start using it the demand for full internet service will increase. Once the hardware manufacturers hear about they'll start making dedicated devices and full service demand will increase even more.
Eventually more features will be added to the devices like photo and home movie archives. It's easier to post home movies on your own server because space is less expensive and you can upload them locally. Services like that will require a bit of bandwidth so ISPs can offer service upgrades and start to embrace individual hosting instead of resisting it. The problem with broadband today is that it does the same thing that dial-up does, just faster. If broadband clients did something with their upstream then that would add value to the network. ISPs wouldn't have court content owners to offer internet services. The public would create content for each other for free.
Anyway, this is going too long. All I have left to say is, "Get out there and do it!" I'm been working on my Linux skills (n00b) and I already know the customer. (web designer, "Would you like a server with that?") Don't let me beat you to market.
So lets see, you'll pay your isp for bandwidth and then Kazaa will then charge you for a service that uses your upstream bandwidth? Not only is that non-free but that's a rip off. If Kazaa wants to charge people for downloads they can host the files themselves.
Then again most people don't use their upload space and most broadband services have a capped upload speed. So if Kazaa creates profits for isps with plenty of upstream bandwidth it might liberate the connections of the rest of us.
If everyone had enough upstream bandwidth to host a small website, then we'll finally have a real Internet, instead of enthralled as consumers as we usually are.
Adobe needs to quit complaining and to start profiting from Microsoft's stagnation. Macromedia makes plug-ins for web browsers like Shockwave and Flash. These add-ons come closer to true innovation than CSS or Javascript.
Macromedia also uses their popularity to get into the middle-ware market with Coldfusion competing with ASP so Microsoft is effected. If they had better (standard) CSS and Javascript support on Explorer that would take market share from Flash and thus Coldfusion.
The only thing holding innovations like Flash back is their reliance on proprietary software. If there were open source equivalents to the Flash plug-in and authoring environment then the technology could really take off and maybe become more standardized and integrated into most browsers.
Companies like Microsoft and even Macromedia can not afford to liberate their technology to the degree it takes to change the browser. Our only hope is projects that are open to the public.
It doesn't matter what OS the lap tops run. The Kids will create their own exploits. Breaking down security is 2nd nature for middle schoolers. When you have a user base that large some are bound to create trouble.
On the other hand a system that is moderately insecure is less likely to be physically vandalized. Kids will be satisfied messing up Windows instead of carving holes in the lap top case. It's harder to find viruses for Macs so poring ketchup into the CD drive will have to do.
Our upcoming digital television service will run on the new secure Internet protocol called SIPv7. "Our secure Internet protocol is vasty superior to IPv6." Says the lead developer of the SIP open source project. "Our development team is very large and well funded. I believe we represent the forefront in Internet research. Unlike IPv6, ip addresses are divided into two classes with one class for hosting and one class for client connections. Client addresses are virtually limitless, unlike IPv4. On the other side, host addresses number at about 5 and are mandated by God. Of course if you don't like our version of the protocol you can always use the corporate incarnation entitled $IP 2000 Infinity."
This might be wildly off topic, but what happens when you can record and replay your own experiences? I'm talking at the biological level. Would movie studios make their content 100% incoherent?
I must admit I'm a bit foggy on the Unix side of the story. But now that you mention it I do remember reading about the licenses in the past. I jumped to the conclusion that IBM and SCO had temporary licenses.
You know what SGI is going to do if they lose their Unix lisence. The same thing IBM did, they'll start to use Linux even more in their business. SCO needs to shower their clients with gifts instead of alienating everyone Unix and Linux related. Linux seems to be faring well regardless of all this mess. Who's really getting screwed is commercial Unix.
My first assumption what that Europe had adopted American style patent law, but with news of FFII's recommendations getting through who knows what is going on. First of all, will those recommendations survive to become law? And if they do survive, are they effective in practice? It sounds like we'll be getting even more stories on the topic with overblown headlines around here.
Really the conclusion is, 'read' and see. This article only makes me crave more information on the issue.
"What's good for the country is good for General Motors, and vice versa."
Or, what's good for government is good for corporations, and vice versa.
Let's face it, large companies and governments have a lot in common. They are both large organizations of people that function by monopolizing power in that group. It's not surprising that they get along well together.
Some people are predisposed to use command line tools like Vi. These are the same people who correct everyone on spelling and grammar. They easily retain factual information like the capital of this or that etc. These kinds of people are also predisposed to writing so the conclusions of the above article's author is not surprising.
Personally I have a hard time remembering arbitrary commands and facts. Unless I can visualize something, can fit it into some relationship, or have some emotional connection to a bit of information; chances are it won't make it past my short short term memory. Being a web programmer I need to have access to reference material at all times. There are common functions that I have looked up at least a hundred times.
I know people who are severely dyslexic who I went to school with. These people would be hard pressed to do anything on a computer outside of a GUI. On that note I recommend AbiWord to any one who lacks command line mind.
Although, it would be nice if AbiWord had a grammar checker and a more durable spell checker. Spelling and grammar should be an electronic formating standard. We should code spelling and grammar formating software as close to the current implementation of language as we can an then accept new the electronic implementation as correct grammar. That way we don't have to worry about spelling and grammar anymore. If our word processor validates our writings than that's the final word on their correctness.
Grammar is just a means of repressing the vernacular. Why not give the task the heartless machine? That would be preferable to the army sadists we have now.
In order for consoles to compete with PC in mmogs voice communication is essential. My brother learned to play online role playing games while he was learning to read and write. Given a choice at that time he would have gone with a voice game if it was availible. Unfortunatly for him he was forced to become literate.
The first developer to make a good voice communication game and market it to young children stands to make some money. The only problem is that future generations of kids will be exposed the jungle that is the internet at an earlier age. For example, if you ask someone online if Santa is real they'll tell you the truth.
You've all read World of Ends. What's the deal with these boardband partners Infinium talk about on their web site? Are they only going to offer service through ISPs who join with them? Sounds like they are trying to build a business model from the middle of the network. So if their product comes to market it could possibly pervert the nature of the internet. ISPs will expect deals with content and service providers and will block those who don't pay.