not everyone wants to work either, but that's not the point. Why not do some work that people want to pay for? Why do you need some unenforcible law for you to make money? It's not our fault if you sit around and do nothing because you are worried about how many people will copy and "steal" the product of your labor. If you were actually making something people wanted to "steal", you would find a way to make money off of it.
The truth is you are too scared to produce something, so you slave under a salary for material gains. Perhaps I don't know you personally, but I do recognize your defeated attitude. Opportunity hasn't been reduced by piracy or digital communications, it has been enhanced. It's just that people like you haven't adapted to the new landscape.
I can only address your first two points. It seems that you have misconstrued the purpose of patents as protection for your business model, rather than to promote the progress of science and the useful arts.
Without software patents, a large company can "simply" throw a bunch of engineers at the problem and produce something similar very quickly. Is this better that the current software patent system?
Isn't this the original point? If somebody throws an army of engineers at a problem, and it is thus solved, hasn't the world benefited? Patents are not supposed to protect problems you can throw engineers at anyway, they are supposed to protect inventions that are non-obvious to people in the field.
My small company currently has software patents pending. Our valuation and chance of obtaining funding depends on these patents. In today's post dotcom industry, it has become very hard to obtain funding on just an idea alone.
So you're company hasn't built anything? You have "just an idea alone?" Why would anyone give you money? Why don't you make something, and then show it? I don't think patents are necessary in the software world to protect your inventions. After all, the latest trend is for the big guy to buy the little guy for obscene amounts of money. Why do you think this is? Because they are buying talent and brand, not a physical device.
If you read the article, or even remotely follow the argument, he isn't saying that people should give things away, he is saying that there are new ways to profit in an environment where distribution is as good as free.
He also wrote the book The Long Tail, which was a New York Times best seller. He made a lot of money from that, despite the fact that he wrote the book in public view and with public input on his blog thelongtail.com. In fact if you go to that blog right now you will see him discussing the monetary benefits of giving away books.
I don't think it hurts his credibility that he sells the book, actually I think it helps him. Lawrence Lessig's book has a higher purpose of promoting free culture, while Chris Anderson's book is simply observing the changing state of economy. Mr. Anderson is already using the techniques he outlines by giving a long excerpt, and blogging about the contents of his book.
Radio stations (and the artists they play) are supported financially, usually advertising.
That's right, it is a business model. It is a business that is almost completely consolidated and so dominated by advertising that it is essentially shitting on our public airwaves.
Plus, unlike pirated media, radio can't easily form a library the same way CDs or downloads can
Sounds like a Minus to me. Copyrights are supposed to promote the progress of science and the useful arts. Here you are arguing against efficient distribution.
I'd also like to say that's it's the RIAA's own damn business how they distribute their music.
Exactly, and if their business is failing why should we be making law after law to make sure they keep getting money? People like you have forgotten that it is in human nature to create. To create music, art, software, and all intellectual endeavors are what we do that makes us different from monkeys. You don't realize that we don't need a massive distribution industry anymore, we can share our creations directly with each other.
If it's commercially feasible, the free market
It isn't a free market because people like you believed the sony bono crap. Copyrights are automatically granted now, they last for pretty much 2 lifetimes. They are monopolies on the distribution of products that are naturally distributable thanks to the internet.
I think the understanding you are missing is that it wasn't always like this. If you go back and look at world history (or the modern world in other countries) the sharing and collaboration of ideas was encouraged. It is only in the last century that things have gotten so perverted in our country. And it is only in the last decade that the internet has made it clear how far our laws have strayed from our nature. You will not hear my argument until you can accept that the current system is not the best possible system, that it is in fact a terrible system.
It doesn't take a conspiracy theory to see why the Japanese own the car market. The truth is the American companies dropped the ball on engineering.
Saying that every American is greedy probably wasn't meant as an insult either, but as a point about how we view economics. The common argument is that capitalism counts on each individual to make decisions that benefit themselves which results in a greater whole. The problem is that it doesn't always work out ideally as seen in Walmart.
An economic embargo to force China to play nice in the ways that western governments deem nice will work
Your whole post is simple minded but this takes the cake. You think a country with a population of over 1 billion people that is joining the ranks of developed nations can be forced by an embargo to change their ways? You do realize just how many American dollars they own right?
In your ideal view of the world the only things we get from China is the cheap crap we don't need, and if we could just stop being addicted to cheap crap things would go right back to being pleasantville. Keep thinking that while sitting on a chair made out of chinese parts, wearing clothes made by chinese companies, typing on a computer manufactured in china. Do you really want the job of making these things? Wouldn't you much rather get an education and sit around and post on slashdot all day?
It looks like there will be more and more China bashing coming up, and it makes sense. It is easier to see the world as black and white, us vs. them. It is easy to disregard how complex a 1 billion person social system must be that has underwent revolution after revolution in the last hundred years. It is easy to proclaim that American's are the only ones that can properly carry out capitalism, when the Chinese have only been at it for 20 years.
and trust me, I don't like Clinton or her ol' boys network, but you don't know anything about business if you think cutting off one of the largest growing markets is a good idea.
Seeing what we want to see doesn't sound so bad when you think of how things were, seeing what THEY want us to see. I think people have way more musical choice now, even with ipods and headphones. The music of our parents was broadcast on every station and available for sale in every store, if we want it, we know where to find it, but we have so much more choice now. We all go to our own favorite websites to keep up to date, rather than tuning into one of a few channels where somebody else decides in what order and about what subjects I will be hearing about current affairs.
Less connected? I don't think so, my friend hears something she loves and links me, I want to show something so I upload it or copy it to a flash drive. As you said, we can share more, and more often. I do agree that it is important to recognize what is happening, and we should be looking at ways we can take advantage of all the digital technologies to enhance our analog lives. I also don't think this Disney house is going to do that.
This video pretty much cements my support. Perhaps I am naive of the world, but leveraging technology to open the government aligns perfectly with my convictions. If we can see what the government is doing, what it is spending on, what it is planning on, perhaps we will have more recourse for involvement. Perhaps young people won't feel so disconnected from the abstract "political machine." Instead of reading opinions in newspapers or hearing sound-bites on cable news, we will be able to follow a link trail back to the primary source. [citation needed] will have a real impact on the credibility of an article, from any source.
I do have a right to try. But it's hard to try when you have to compete with your own work being traded freely or (worse yet) being sold for a pittance by knock-offs (which we have now but not nearly as badly as we would without copyright.)
So some people have found a way to make a profit by competing with free, but you can't? Furthermore, they are making a profit off of a "pittance." So at the low end, you should be able to make money, what about at the high end? Without copyright it wouldn't be possible to make quality large-scale films? Have you heard of a country called China that is famous for neglecting copyright laws? Have you seen any of their blockbuster movies from the last 20 years? They have huge resources poured into these films, some good, some bad just like hollywood. They keep coming out too, despite the fact that pirates sell knock-offs for a pittance. Mainland China also has a new generation of film-makers who are underground. They command none of these resources and are facing persecution by the government, yet they are still making award-winning films.
I think the real problem is that you are afraid. You are afraid of adapting to a new environment, and you are not alone. Most people are afraid of change, but you are the one that will lose when you "stop producing." So go ahead, quit. It will be easier than adapting your skills and talents to an environment where distribution is no longer an economic factor.
I'm glad that the US will get OLPC's attention. There are plenty of under served communities that could benefit from a cheap laptop for every student.
It is high time that the inefficient paper-based education system be overthrown by digital technologies. Open Source style text-"books" on an Open Source platform could revolutionize education for all the places that can't afford to educate their kids.
I know, I know, I don't normally read the articles either before posting, but if you are going to criticize an article for its redundancy then you should at least make sure you aren't being redundant yourself.:)
I thought the experiment was very interesting, and this article is the first place I've heard about it.
In the good old days, could you brag about designing a skyscraper that can house thousands of people? Mass produce machines that could start fires at the click of a button? go to ikea and have furniture ready in 15 minutes so you could go to the archery range and play instead of hunt for the meal that is already waiting in your fridge?
Personally I like the thought of having twice the life expectancy of 100 years ago. I like that I can communicate instantly with people from all over the world. I like that all of my basic survival needs are pretty much taken care of, and I can do something totally different with my life.
So what if civilization ends tomorrow (it wont), what if I fall into a time machine and go back a couple hundred years. Well what if I get hit by a car? Eaten by a saber-tooth tiger? There are all kinds of what ifs but they won't scare me away from using my computer and enjoying all the benefits of modern life.
You are still missing the point. A laptop + internet infrastructure is the most cost effective way to distribute books AND video broadcast in the long term. The laptops are designed to be ebook readers, and they can play video just fine.
Why invest large amounts of money in centralized antiquated technologies rather than look towards the future? A 200$ laptop + mesh networking has far greater chance of empowering its users than making books and tv programs shower down from the heavens. I think that is one of the greatest benefits of the OLPC project, it does not depend on a centralized organization to distribute knowledge and teach, it just creates the necessary infrastructure.
If you are a citizen of an impoverished nation, focus on the basics: reading, writing, mathematics, science (includng agriculture), and free markets.
How, pray tell do you expect a citizen of an impoverished nation to be reading your English post on an internet forum without a computer and access to the internet? How would they do it if they didn't "focus on the basics" of reading and writing? Where are they supposed to learn about free markets and agriculture?
Wouldn't it be amazing if there was a machine that could give them access to all of this information, as well as the ability to communicate with people from all over the world using the internet? Wouldn't it be awesome if kids could learn the basics from one little machine by teaching themselves, rather than depending on their loving despots?
This isn't a laptop project, its an education project. It isn't a luxury, its a pen, paper, textbook, word processor, paint brush, camera, instrument, and mesh network all rolled into one educational tool.
I'm going to ignore the whole "his effort could go to better causes" bullshit and just address your lack of forward thinking about the OLPC.
Basic literacy COULD come from paper, pencils, a schoolroom and a teacher, or it could come from a laptop. Why depend on tools like pencils, papers, textbooks and teachers which cost money over time? OLPC is all those tools wrapped up in a durable package, with the added benefit of modern communication/creation tools like IM, programming environments, graphics and music programs and futuristic tools like mesh networking.
The whole point of this project is to revolutionize education, not just throw more money at a system that doesn't seem to be working. The goal is to get kids teaching themselves, empowering them with technology that opens many more gateways to knowledge than a piece of paper can hope to accomplish.
Before the printing press it was harder for the uneducated or misinformed to get an audience. Before the television it was harder for the uneducated or misinformed to get an audience. Before websites it was harder for the uneducated or misinformed to get an audience. Before blogs it was harder for the uneducated or misinformed to get an audience. Now its before youtube...
You know, maybe we should go back to the old system, where the only form of written/tangible communication was bible scriptures copied in monasteries. That way the "sighted" could keep leading all of us poor little blind folks in their infinite wisdom.
As for your "Insightful" cynicism about NIH videos being disregarded, I doubt that would have anything to do with their "the man" factor. I wonder why you can't find any medical information from "the man" in a google search, oh wait, you can. You can also find information (and misinformation) from independent sources! Not only can you search out a source you trust, you can compare what you find with the opinions, research and facts presented by other sources.
Once people actually start thinking "oh, I'm feeling sick, I'm going to see if I can find something about my condition on youtube, instead of an easily searchable forum like the web" I'm sure there will be more accurate health related videos on youtube to balance it out.
So, who's to say if "the wirelss connection is working" - The customer? Verizon? The device itself? Application support? What kind of sense does THAT make? I can't hold a call for 5 blocks in a downtown urban area, but because my 'phone provider says the coverage maps report solid coverage, the problem of course must be my handset -- which of course they can replace with a "newer, better model" for just $199.95.
Let's look at this model applied to computers and internet access (which is pretty much what a phone is, a small computer connecting to a network)
So, who's to say if "the internet connection is working" - the customer? Comcast? the computer itself? Windows/Linux support?
Makes sense to me, we deal with this all the time! Would you rather that ISP's sold rigorously tested locked down PCs that they could give customer support on? Or would you rather that connection and your computer remained separate, so you contact them when your internet SERVICE doesn't work, and contact the computer/application developers for support when the device doesn't work.
I think the problem is that people are so used to being fucked by phone companies, its hard to see how things should be. Ideally, service should be completely separate from the device. Yes, you would now have to trust two different entities, the service company for connectivity and the device maker for a robust device, but we seem to do this just fine with TV and computers.
It looks like they are trying to move away from the locked down phones for greedy reasons, but if it works out that way its better for us. If they are actually doing this, I see it as a good thing for competition and the abysmal situation in the US for cell service. Whether or not they actually go through with it only time will tell:)
First off, I'd like to thank you for civil discussion. It's refreshing, I'll try do respond in kind.
The record labels HAVE a practical business model, which is funding and promoting artists and then collecting royalties on the records sold as payment.
I disagree, this is only true if you concede that records are practical to sell. My argument is that records are becoming increasingly irrelevant. This is based on the reality of technology, namely the increasing convenience and speed of digital communication, as well as the mathematical fact that DRM is impossible. The reality (not the legality) of the situation is that distribution will soon be completely decentralized. How soon isn't for certain, but from a/. reader's point of view it is not hard to see the exponential potential of OSS. For every DRM scheme it only takes one cracker, for every cracked piece of media it only takes one torrent tracker. As usability of these programs increases (and their evolution into libraries to be used by other programs) the struggle for control just gets more futile.
That is just the state of technology, we could also look at the sociological aspect of all of this. You mention the selfishness of the pirate hordes. I agree that there are large groups of people who will without qualms take whatever is put in front of them, especially when faced with very slim chances of retribution. I also believe that people want art to be made and enjoy supporting it. Many people argue (and you pointed out) that if prices are low enough and convenience is high enough, people will forgo pirating. I agree with this, but think that we haven't reached that point yet. In fact, I believe we will have to abandon the idea of paying for COPIES of a work, since copying will be (and is already) so trivial. My personal prediction is that new systems for directly supporting the artist will rise (we have seen the beginning of this with Radiohead and Saul Williams, or just the fact that paypal exists).
Finally, I do expect all the people involved will just lay down their arms and surrender, or they will be robbed blind. The end result will be the same, all existing media will be available to everyone. If its hard to believe look at http://youtube.com/universalmusicgroup, thedailyshow.com for some inklings of the future. Here is a giant carefully conceding, trying to stall the inevitable with as much control as possible. I don't think its all bad for them though, I believe they will be putting themselves in position to make money off the new system, slowly adapting to the change. If it doesn't happen too suddenly they may be successful. This is why I and others feel like Robin Hood, we are distributing the pork to the poor, we are seeding torrents,not just keeping it to ourselves.
All of this is still rather speculative of course. I would just like to point out something that should put us all a bit more at ease, and that is that humans love creating. We love creating art and music. The phrase "starving artist" is a cliche, common knowledge. No matter what happens, short of extinction, will stop humans from creating. I just like to think we will be creating more than ever.
There isn't a business model that could truly work
You just said it all, but you draw the opposite conclusion I do. We both agree that there is no feasible business model that aligns with the reality of modern technology.
Only you seem to be focusing on deriding the people who don't pay directly for their copies of music (according to our brief custom of the last 70 years).
Why is it so hard to see that its ok to let companies with no practical business model die off? I know it becomes a touchy subject when we bring art into the picture, but the spirit of copyright law is to promote the creation of art, not to give business models to musicians. It seems particularly hard for people of the last couple generations to fathom that music (or art in general) can be created without being paid for copies of their work. They can't see that the true value in art is the process by which it is created, that is what is rare. This value can still be monetized, and a business model can be developed around it (think service instead of product).
Even if you don't want to or can't believe this old school view of art, you will face the reality of digital technology. Copying is only going to get faster and more convenient. Distributed technology will only get more robust. Controlling the location of 1s and 0s will become increasingly futile. No laws will be able to reverse this, no amount of yelling thief at a generation of hungry minds will hold them back.
What do you think will happen when 1 million 3rd world kids get on the internet through OLPC? What happens when they reach 10 million in the next few years? Can you seriously expect them to even consider intellectual property with an open source key on their keyboard?
Right now there are more people with cell phone in China than there are people alive in the USA. What happens when there are more Chinese online than people in the US? What happens when the same goes for India? Do you think these huge amount of people wont be able to find a way to adapt open source software for their needs? When they are completely bypassing proprietary western solutions, what good will our DMCA do?
So I laugh at the moral indignation of the slighted intellectual property holders. Right now I am stealing. I'm robbing those who were lucky enough to get fat from an unworkable system. Luckily, the system is changing and I wont have to steal in the future. Still, every time they yell thief I feel more like Robin Hood, and I'm not the only one.
I'll take an OLPC thank you very much. Not only would an XO be cuter, its also probably more cuddly...
Seriously, open software, excellent resolution and readability (in and out of sun) and battery life. From the looks of this 80's calculator the XO is probably smaller too.
you are in public, about to take public transportation. People in public places may have access to technology that can broadcast to millions of people. The current state of technology changes the definition of reasonable. There are no laws to prevent this, in fact, in many places the laws are CAUSING this (London, Chicago). Unfortunately for you, your expectations are no longer reasonable.
Slashdot Mirror
The truth is you are too scared to produce something, so you slave under a salary for material gains. Perhaps I don't know you personally, but I do recognize your defeated attitude. Opportunity hasn't been reduced by piracy or digital communications, it has been enhanced. It's just that people like you haven't adapted to the new landscape.
Isn't this the original point? If somebody throws an army of engineers at a problem, and it is thus solved, hasn't the world benefited? Patents are not supposed to protect problems you can throw engineers at anyway, they are supposed to protect inventions that are non-obvious to people in the field.
So you're company hasn't built anything? You have "just an idea alone?" Why would anyone give you money? Why don't you make something, and then show it? I don't think patents are necessary in the software world to protect your inventions. After all, the latest trend is for the big guy to buy the little guy for obscene amounts of money. Why do you think this is? Because they are buying talent and brand, not a physical device.
If you read the article, or even remotely follow the argument, he isn't saying that people should give things away, he is saying that there are new ways to profit in an environment where distribution is as good as free.
He also wrote the book The Long Tail, which was a New York Times best seller. He made a lot of money from that, despite the fact that he wrote the book in public view and with public input on his blog thelongtail.com. In fact if you go to that blog right now you will see him discussing the monetary benefits of giving away books.
I don't think it hurts his credibility that he sells the book, actually I think it helps him. Lawrence Lessig's book has a higher purpose of promoting free culture, while Chris Anderson's book is simply observing the changing state of economy. Mr. Anderson is already using the techniques he outlines by giving a long excerpt, and blogging about the contents of his book.
OpenStreetMap is pretty good, and getting better.
Sounds like a Minus to me. Copyrights are supposed to promote the progress of science and the useful arts. Here you are arguing against efficient distribution.
Exactly, and if their business is failing why should we be making law after law to make sure they keep getting money? People like you have forgotten that it is in human nature to create. To create music, art, software, and all intellectual endeavors are what we do that makes us different from monkeys. You don't realize that we don't need a massive distribution industry anymore, we can share our creations directly with each other.
It isn't a free market because people like you believed the sony bono crap. Copyrights are automatically granted now, they last for pretty much 2 lifetimes. They are monopolies on the distribution of products that are naturally distributable thanks to the internet.
I think the understanding you are missing is that it wasn't always like this. If you go back and look at world history (or the modern world in other countries) the sharing and collaboration of ideas was encouraged. It is only in the last century that things have gotten so perverted in our country. And it is only in the last decade that the internet has made it clear how far our laws have strayed from our nature. You will not hear my argument until you can accept that the current system is not the best possible system, that it is in fact a terrible system.
give me a break.
Think of the quality of programs written in ONLY 1s and 0s. Every single bit would have to be accounted for!
I mean, the barrier of entry would make it so that practically only ROBOTS could would be able to write code.
Oh wait, thats right, we have compilers for higher level languages.
Have you ever driven an American car?
It doesn't take a conspiracy theory to see why the Japanese own the car market. The truth is the American companies dropped the ball on engineering.
Saying that every American is greedy probably wasn't meant as an insult either, but as a point about how we view economics. The common argument is that capitalism counts on each individual to make decisions that benefit themselves which results in a greater whole. The problem is that it doesn't always work out ideally as seen in Walmart.
Your whole post is simple minded but this takes the cake. You think a country with a population of over 1 billion people that is joining the ranks of developed nations can be forced by an embargo to change their ways? You do realize just how many American dollars they own right?
In your ideal view of the world the only things we get from China is the cheap crap we don't need, and if we could just stop being addicted to cheap crap things would go right back to being pleasantville. Keep thinking that while sitting on a chair made out of chinese parts, wearing clothes made by chinese companies, typing on a computer manufactured in china. Do you really want the job of making these things? Wouldn't you much rather get an education and sit around and post on slashdot all day?
It looks like there will be more and more China bashing coming up, and it makes sense. It is easier to see the world as black and white, us vs. them. It is easy to disregard how complex a 1 billion person social system must be that has underwent revolution after revolution in the last hundred years. It is easy to proclaim that American's are the only ones that can properly carry out capitalism, when the Chinese have only been at it for 20 years.
and trust me, I don't like Clinton or her ol' boys network, but you don't know anything about business if you think cutting off one of the largest growing markets is a good idea.
Seeing what we want to see doesn't sound so bad when you think of how things were, seeing what THEY want us to see. I think people have way more musical choice now, even with ipods and headphones. The music of our parents was broadcast on every station and available for sale in every store, if we want it, we know where to find it, but we have so much more choice now. We all go to our own favorite websites to keep up to date, rather than tuning into one of a few channels where somebody else decides in what order and about what subjects I will be hearing about current affairs.
Less connected? I don't think so, my friend hears something she loves and links me, I want to show something so I upload it or copy it to a flash drive. As you said, we can share more, and more often. I do agree that it is important to recognize what is happening, and we should be looking at ways we can take advantage of all the digital technologies to enhance our analog lives. I also don't think this Disney house is going to do that.
This video pretty much cements my support. Perhaps I am naive of the world, but leveraging technology to open the government aligns perfectly with my convictions. If we can see what the government is doing, what it is spending on, what it is planning on, perhaps we will have more recourse for involvement. Perhaps young people won't feel so disconnected from the abstract "political machine." Instead of reading opinions in newspapers or hearing sound-bites on cable news, we will be able to follow a link trail back to the primary source. [citation needed] will have a real impact on the credibility of an article, from any source.
Your candidate of choice would still need to get on the ballot.
So some people have found a way to make a profit by competing with free, but you can't? Furthermore, they are making a profit off of a "pittance." So at the low end, you should be able to make money, what about at the high end? Without copyright it wouldn't be possible to make quality large-scale films? Have you heard of a country called China that is famous for neglecting copyright laws? Have you seen any of their blockbuster movies from the last 20 years? They have huge resources poured into these films, some good, some bad just like hollywood. They keep coming out too, despite the fact that pirates sell knock-offs for a pittance. Mainland China also has a new generation of film-makers who are underground. They command none of these resources and are facing persecution by the government, yet they are still making award-winning films.
I think the real problem is that you are afraid. You are afraid of adapting to a new environment, and you are not alone. Most people are afraid of change, but you are the one that will lose when you "stop producing." So go ahead, quit. It will be easier than adapting your skills and talents to an environment where distribution is no longer an economic factor.
I'm glad that the US will get OLPC's attention. There are plenty of under served communities that could benefit from a cheap laptop for every student.
It is high time that the inefficient paper-based education system be overthrown by digital technologies. Open Source style text-"books" on an Open Source platform could revolutionize education for all the places that can't afford to educate their kids.
This was also the first paragraph of the article.
:)
I know, I know, I don't normally read the articles either before posting, but if you are going to criticize an article for its redundancy then you should at least make sure you aren't being redundant yourself.
I thought the experiment was very interesting, and this article is the first place I've heard about it.
ESP Game:
http://www.espgame.org/
More info:
http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2006/09/more_on_google_image_labeler.html
Very interesting video:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8246463980976635143
In the good old days, could you brag about designing a skyscraper that can house thousands of people? Mass produce machines that could start fires at the click of a button? go to ikea and have furniture ready in 15 minutes so you could go to the archery range and play instead of hunt for the meal that is already waiting in your fridge?
Personally I like the thought of having twice the life expectancy of 100 years ago. I like that I can communicate instantly with people from all over the world. I like that all of my basic survival needs are pretty much taken care of, and I can do something totally different with my life.
So what if civilization ends tomorrow (it wont), what if I fall into a time machine and go back a couple hundred years. Well what if I get hit by a car? Eaten by a saber-tooth tiger? There are all kinds of what ifs but they won't scare me away from using my computer and enjoying all the benefits of modern life.
You are still missing the point. A laptop + internet infrastructure is the most cost effective way to distribute books AND video broadcast in the long term. The laptops are designed to be ebook readers, and they can play video just fine.
Why invest large amounts of money in centralized antiquated technologies rather than look towards the future? A 200$ laptop + mesh networking has far greater chance of empowering its users than making books and tv programs shower down from the heavens. I think that is one of the greatest benefits of the OLPC project, it does not depend on a centralized organization to distribute knowledge and teach, it just creates the necessary infrastructure.
Wouldn't it be amazing if there was a machine that could give them access to all of this information, as well as the ability to communicate with people from all over the world using the internet? Wouldn't it be awesome if kids could learn the basics from one little machine by teaching themselves, rather than depending on their loving despots?
This isn't a laptop project, its an education project. It isn't a luxury, its a pen, paper, textbook, word processor, paint brush, camera, instrument, and mesh network all rolled into one educational tool.
I'm going to ignore the whole "his effort could go to better causes" bullshit and just address your lack of forward thinking about the OLPC.
Basic literacy COULD come from paper, pencils, a schoolroom and a teacher, or it could come from a laptop. Why depend on tools like pencils, papers, textbooks and teachers which cost money over time? OLPC is all those tools wrapped up in a durable package, with the added benefit of modern communication/creation tools like IM, programming environments, graphics and music programs and futuristic tools like mesh networking.
The whole point of this project is to revolutionize education, not just throw more money at a system that doesn't seem to be working. The goal is to get kids teaching themselves, empowering them with technology that opens many more gateways to knowledge than a piece of paper can hope to accomplish.
Insightful? please.
Before the printing press it was harder for the uneducated or misinformed to get an audience.
Before the television it was harder for the uneducated or misinformed to get an audience.
Before websites it was harder for the uneducated or misinformed to get an audience.
Before blogs it was harder for the uneducated or misinformed to get an audience.
Now its before youtube...
You know, maybe we should go back to the old system, where the only form of written/tangible communication was bible scriptures copied in monasteries. That way the "sighted" could keep leading all of us poor little blind folks in their infinite wisdom.
As for your "Insightful" cynicism about NIH videos being disregarded, I doubt that would have anything to do with their "the man" factor. I wonder why you can't find any medical information from "the man" in a google search, oh wait, you can. You can also find information (and misinformation) from independent sources! Not only can you search out a source you trust, you can compare what you find with the opinions, research and facts presented by other sources.
Once people actually start thinking "oh, I'm feeling sick, I'm going to see if I can find something about my condition on youtube, instead of an easily searchable forum like the web" I'm sure there will be more accurate health related videos on youtube to balance it out.
So, who's to say if "the internet connection is working" - the customer? Comcast? the computer itself? Windows/Linux support? Makes sense to me, we deal with this all the time! Would you rather that ISP's sold rigorously tested locked down PCs that they could give customer support on? Or would you rather that connection and your computer remained separate, so you contact them when your internet SERVICE doesn't work, and contact the computer/application developers for support when the device doesn't work.
I think the problem is that people are so used to being fucked by phone companies, its hard to see how things should be. Ideally, service should be completely separate from the device. Yes, you would now have to trust two different entities, the service company for connectivity and the device maker for a robust device, but we seem to do this just fine with TV and computers.
It looks like they are trying to move away from the locked down phones for greedy reasons, but if it works out that way its better for us. If they are actually doing this, I see it as a good thing for competition and the abysmal situation in the US for cell service. Whether or not they actually go through with it only time will tell
I disagree, this is only true if you concede that records are practical to sell. My argument is that records are becoming increasingly irrelevant. This is based on the reality of technology, namely the increasing convenience and speed of digital communication, as well as the mathematical fact that DRM is impossible. The reality (not the legality) of the situation is that distribution will soon be completely decentralized. How soon isn't for certain, but from a
That is just the state of technology, we could also look at the sociological aspect of all of this. You mention the selfishness of the pirate hordes. I agree that there are large groups of people who will without qualms take whatever is put in front of them, especially when faced with very slim chances of retribution. I also believe that people want art to be made and enjoy supporting it. Many people argue (and you pointed out) that if prices are low enough and convenience is high enough, people will forgo pirating. I agree with this, but think that we haven't reached that point yet. In fact, I believe we will have to abandon the idea of paying for COPIES of a work, since copying will be (and is already) so trivial. My personal prediction is that new systems for directly supporting the artist will rise (we have seen the beginning of this with Radiohead and Saul Williams, or just the fact that paypal exists).
Finally, I do expect all the people involved will just lay down their arms and surrender, or they will be robbed blind. The end result will be the same, all existing media will be available to everyone. If its hard to believe look at http://youtube.com/universalmusicgroup, thedailyshow.com for some inklings of the future. Here is a giant carefully conceding, trying to stall the inevitable with as much control as possible. I don't think its all bad for them though, I believe they will be putting themselves in position to make money off the new system, slowly adapting to the change. If it doesn't happen too suddenly they may be successful. This is why I and others feel like Robin Hood, we are distributing the pork to the poor, we are seeding torrents,not just keeping it to ourselves.
All of this is still rather speculative of course. I would just like to point out something that should put us all a bit more at ease, and that is that humans love creating. We love creating art and music. The phrase "starving artist" is a cliche, common knowledge. No matter what happens, short of extinction, will stop humans from creating. I just like to think we will be creating more than ever.
Only you seem to be focusing on deriding the people who don't pay directly for their copies of music (according to our brief custom of the last 70 years).
Why is it so hard to see that its ok to let companies with no practical business model die off? I know it becomes a touchy subject when we bring art into the picture, but the spirit of copyright law is to promote the creation of art, not to give business models to musicians. It seems particularly hard for people of the last couple generations to fathom that music (or art in general) can be created without being paid for copies of their work. They can't see that the true value in art is the process by which it is created, that is what is rare. This value can still be monetized, and a business model can be developed around it (think service instead of product).
Even if you don't want to or can't believe this old school view of art, you will face the reality of digital technology. Copying is only going to get faster and more convenient. Distributed technology will only get more robust. Controlling the location of 1s and 0s will become increasingly futile. No laws will be able to reverse this, no amount of yelling thief at a generation of hungry minds will hold them back.
What do you think will happen when 1 million 3rd world kids get on the internet through OLPC? What happens when they reach 10 million in the next few years? Can you seriously expect them to even consider intellectual property with an open source key on their keyboard?
Right now there are more people with cell phone in China than there are people alive in the USA. What happens when there are more Chinese online than people in the US? What happens when the same goes for India? Do you think these huge amount of people wont be able to find a way to adapt open source software for their needs? When they are completely bypassing proprietary western solutions, what good will our DMCA do?
So I laugh at the moral indignation of the slighted intellectual property holders. Right now I am stealing. I'm robbing those who were lucky enough to get fat from an unworkable system. Luckily, the system is changing and I wont have to steal in the future. Still, every time they yell thief I feel more like Robin Hood, and I'm not the only one.
I'll take an OLPC thank you very much. Not only would an XO be cuter, its also probably more cuddly...
Seriously, open software, excellent resolution and readability (in and out of sun) and battery life. From the looks of this 80's calculator the XO is probably smaller too.
you are in public, about to take public transportation. People in public places may have access to technology that can broadcast to millions of people. The current state of technology changes the definition of reasonable.
There are no laws to prevent this, in fact, in many places the laws are CAUSING this (London, Chicago). Unfortunately for you, your expectations are no longer reasonable.