Pidgin can still send YouTube URLs through MSN if you (and the person at the other end) use something like Pidgin-Encryption. The reason is because they don't know what you are saying in the first place: end-to-end encryption.
I am curious. You say "I'd love to go back to ICQ" Why did you leave it in the first place? I don't understand, is there some kind of attraction to using Microsoft's chat program over any of the other available alternatives?
Thank you for bringing this to my attention, it is very relevant and interesting data that provides additional context to the information presented.
I am curious to know how you figured this out. You must read slashdot very closely.
I would not worry about this guy posting because he is apparently posting at -1. (Actually I don't know for sure because I have post ratings disabled in my user preferences)
In response to the claim "slashdot does nothing", do you think something should be done over and above the applied results of the moderation system, and if so why?
I think most data contains a certain bias, however this does not eliminate its utility as data.
In fact, I am not sure how I would define "un-biased data" when talking about any finite collection of data.
When you say "slashdot has turned reason and common sense and honesty against its own readers", which entity are you meaning to refer to? The editors?
I don't understand. Why would he not just create another account. Surely this is more simple than attempting to bring an account posting at -1 into good standing? Although I admit I am not an expert on the ins and outs of the moderation system
Is this the new way to karma whore, now? Posting worthless asinine comments bemoaning the: the so-called/. declining technical knowledge the so-called/. hivemind the so-called/. herd mentality the so-called/. Microsoft bashism the so-called/. Apple fanboisism the so-called/. bad article summary/bad spelling/bad grammar/bad other tedious shit the so-called/. (whatever idiotic complaint you have about people you disagree with)
that brain-dead Mods stupidly rate as +5 Insightful. Get an enema clue Mods! There's not a goddamn thing insightful about whining. I don't want to read some asshole's post lamenting how much better/. was back in the day. I don't want to read some fucker's tedious, pretentious analysis about what constitutes a "perfect"/. article. That shit is BORING to infinite fucking degree.
If you don't like/., if you don't like the articles posted, if you don't like the comments, then either get the fuck off the website, or start posting something worthwhile to read, Sparky.
BUT KEEP YOUR FUCKING WHINY-ASS COMPLAINTS ABOUT SLASHDOT TO YOURSELF!
BTW, for any Mod that positively rates my rant here because they think it would be funny/ironic, just beware that I will hunt you down, and I will leave a smelly dead cat on your porch. would it be ok to moderate it +1 informative?
I am curious. It seems that there is a trend toward hardware based hypervisor schemas which run an os in a hardware vm. Is it not better to just embrace this than to try to move more functionality into userspace. I am just learning about hypervisor technology so perhaps I am unaware of some failing to be found in this approach? stefan
I am not sure it is really important to spend a lot of time making nice easy software for people who are not interested in learning. Soon there will be tons of web service providers which will all be trying to make their interface more easy/glitzy/whatever in an attempt to attract customers. Good documentation OTOH is very nice.
I have never needed to write a device driver. I have only been using linux for 2 years, and have only programmed in fortran (computerized math). I am just starting with scheme. It will take me some time before I become skilled enough to even begin to attempt to write a device driver for undocumented hardware. Still there is a ton of documentation out there, and If I was to undertake this task "time and persistance" would be exactly what was required.
I dont expect Joe Schmoe to write his own device drivers, I expect him to pay somebody much more productive than he is to "make it all just work".
The nice thing about linux is that you do not need to rely on others to fix your problems. If you find some unsupported hardware and you really want to use it you can make it work yourself. Then everyone else who uses linux can use that hardware too. This requires a certian level of skill and tenacity however, but anyone with time and persitance can learn any skill (generally speaking; some exceptions).
I think the article says in reference to the "democratic sponsored amendment" 4 democrats voted against and one republican voted for. I think it then breaks down to 7 democrats for 1 republican for 4 democrats against 19 republicans against
I think a lot of people live such miserable uninteristing lives (no offense intended) that they are looking for anything which seems new to continually distract themselves from their own life. News corporations are able to make much more money targeting this HUGE audience, than actually producing useful information. That is not to say that the market for useful information does not exist, in fact it is probably presently undervalued. As useful information becomes more and more valuable, I think we will see more and more individuals/institutions becoming interested in producing it.
When I try to imagine how governmental regualtors look at the situation for allowing the collapse of network neutrality, I pretend that the money "interested parties" pay regualtors is only marginally effective. That is to say, our legislators are not so completely corrupt as a whole, that they are simply for sale to the highest bidder. So then I try to imagine the scenario in which the idea of network anutrality seems rational. The story I am presently telling myself is as follows.
By allowing telecom providers fine granularity traffic control you are giving them a licence to print money. They will be better able to charge the maximum the market will bear for connectivity (monopoly style). They will be able to use this monopoly power on the connectivity market to leverage the value of their investments in Internet Services. The telecos are hoping that raising the costs of providing Internet Services for all their competitors will allow their own IS to be a competitive offering in the market.
This looks like a bad thing for consumers, who are getting less service for their dollars overall. However this situation has just increased the value of current internet infrastructure and made future infrastructure development more profitable. This may turn out to be especially true for large IS providers, who may have a large comparitive advantage for the production of IS. Eventually the market should equillabrate at a point where the "value" of IS overall as a function of consumer cost, will be higher (more favorable). This might also mean that the costs of purchasing a service, will be closer to the cost of providing it in the current market situation. (another possible benifit is growth in the markets for high granularity routing equipment {CISCO} and low cost Broadband Infrastructure deployment {not sure who is big in this market, maby also CISCO?})
What are the possible weaknesses in this rationalization? Perhaps network anutrality if taken to an extreme will provide an insurmauntable barrier to free markets in the IS sector in the short run, where existing IS providers will also build their own private networks, destroying the present open internet architecture. This would be bad for consumers as the new market equlibrium, almost certianly would not be as favorable as previously imagined, and in worst case scenario, could actually end up being worse than the original equlibrium.
Hopefully our legislators will look to the best possible outcome in terms of economic growth, and monitor the market realities very carefully. Luckily it seems that there are two large monied interests representing different market interests, which will hopefully be able to keep our legislators a neutral as one could hope for.
I think your claims that "all companies seek to be Enron" and "Corporations ONLY serve their shareholder's interests, not the consumer's" conflict. Clearly the Executives at Enron were not interested in the same thing as their general shareholders.
Just in case you were wondering, corporations are not evil, they are tools created by people to serve a specific purpose. Like any tool they can be used in ways we would call bad or good.
Use the right tool for the job. Pass laws against unethical use of tools. Chainsaw+AnnoyingCoWorker = not legal
As far as the relationship between profit and better customer service, we can reason as follows. In a free market where customers have a choice of providers they will choose the best product at the best price. A company which is able to improve quality of service will attract more customers. These improvements have costs which will be passed on to consumers. If the quality/cost ratio is such that customers are willing to spend a greater portion of their income on this service, profit results. Ideally in a free market each customer will be able to pay for the quality of service they demand, which will approach the cost of providing that service in the long run. (assuming markets clear)
It seems to me that netflix did come up with a refreshing new business model, which is perhaps good for the economy for the whole. It would perhaps be nice if some system could be worked out so that investors in a new buisness model would be protected from a larger capital source coming along and competing with their investment in such a way that its value is destroyed.
This sort of model overly favors large collections of capital, and puts the ecosystem of small intelligent investors in innovation in a position of exaddurated risk, increasing the cost of innovation through this channel as a whole. This is dissapointing because this method of funding innovation, could potentially increase the rate of innovation and economic growth.
The problem whith the patent system, as implemented, as a method for equalizing this market is that the patent system can be used by incumbant large accretions of capital to stifle competitive innovation. Also distressing, is the lack of insight by the patent examiners as to what can be rightly thought of as innovative.
I think it is important for us to ask ourselves, what is the idealism that patents are grounded in. If we wish to build a system which will foster innovative technical growth , whether it be new buisness models, or pharmacuiticals, or even algorithms, then we will need to ENGINEER that system carefully and keep attentive to its actions, so it can be fine tuned.
Ideally all capital investments will grow, and wealth will be abound, however we must also respect the health of the economy as a whole. If Netflix comes along and changes the distribution model for certian media in a way that begins to erode the value of investments in incumbant media distributors should the incumbants be able to emulate this distribution in order to protect their investments? One might even say this is Ideal in an economic sense, minimizing the wasteful duplication of infrastructure. But what of the innovative netfilx, they receive some return on their investment, but the return is less than the value they created for the economy, and if we want to maximize economic benifit, we must maximize the rewards for bringing about economic benifit. From the perspective of a company like blockbuster, a new distribution model which lowers unit prices in hopes that volume will make up the profit, is a potentially risky buisness model, and innovation in the best way to do this is not necessarily a high priority.
Perhaps as a solution we could build some sort of sensitivity to capital into the patent system. Say I am amazon corp with a market capitalization of $$Billion and I have a patent on BuisnessMethod(OneClickShopping!!) If my rival SmallOnlineStore market capitalization of $$thousand wants to use my buisness method, the cost should be proportional to +(my losses of harnessing full value of my patent{with respect to SOB's use of patent})-(economic growth produced by SOB)
the first term would be (my profit for economic transaction x)*SOB transaction x volume so if 1click sale ---> profit $.o1; SOB volume 100 then patent cost $1dollar second term would be (real growth SOB)
obviously I just pulled this algorithm out of my ass, but it exists only to demonstrate a principle, that if we look to what the ESSENTIAL FUNCTION of patents is supposed to be then we can engineer a system that best enables that essential function.
Leaving the realm of abstraction and stepping into the realm of practical action, what should we do? For one thing, keep an open mind about patents, there are a lot of people who want them, and have good reasons for doing so. We need to learn what their reasons are for needing patents and then develop a system which can best serve the needs of everyone. Hopefully we will have upcomming generations of economists who will put forth serious study on these issues and engineer the best possible solution.
Parent provides a concice and important aspect of OpenOffice.org licencing. It seemed earlier in this thread people were somewhat unclear as to what the specific licencing burderns were, of if there in fact ever were any.
I am actually curious to know how people feel about writing open source code in this way. I suppose if you are releasing your code GPL then retaining the copyright is not necessarily important, although I guess it gives sun the ability release commercial versions of open office without being bound by the GPL as free software.
From your post: "The fundamental objection of embrionic stem cell research is not an objection to discovery, but rather that the research is being done with a secondary objective of allowing science to arbitrarily redefine what it means to be human."
So are you meaning to say then that only religion is to be allowed to "arbitrarily redefine what it means to be human"?
Or are you perhaps trying to say only religion can redefine "what it means to be human" in a way that is not arbitrary?
Or perhaps you are trying to say people engaged in science perfer that "what it means to be human" is only redefined arbitrarily?
Or perhaps you mean to signify something else by the above statement, could you please clarify?
It seems as if you are trying to say that science and religion each have a given realm of operation, or some such thing. If this is indeed the case I am curious as to why you beleive "what it means to be human" belongs only to the realm of religion.
Thank you for responding. This is a very good idea, the city gov website does not specify a location so I will need to call them tomorrow. I am so excited to see what riches await me!
stefan
How do I go about finding these free one generation old pcs? I would like so much to have some obsolete hardware to play with. Do you have any strategies for finding these things for free?
It seems to me that using pricewatch you still must spend at least 60 dollars (mobo, ram, cpu, case) and this is for something much more than 1 generation old, and assuming you already have extra monitor/keyboard/modem/whatever.
I am not meaning to sound sarcastic or anything I am actually very interested in finding out how to locate free hardware of almost any sort. If you have some pointers I would be very appreciative. thank you stefan
If these games were really fun it would be a great way to promote interest in science and teach some basic skills.
When my younger brother was perhaps 8 or so we purchased some math games for him, I think one of them was called "math mountain" and he really got into them, playing for hours.
I have seen him play this free MMORPG "Runescape" in which many of the players do things like click on a rock over and over to get ore, then go melt it in a furnace, then make items out of it. If people are willing to do this for empowerment in a game environment, perhaps they would also be willing to design algorithms, chemical synthesis, circuits, whatever, if it could be contextualized within the game.
Probably something like this would have top be a collabaration between scientists and experienced game developers who know how to motivate players to engage with their games. I think this could be highly effective given the willingness many people have to play these sorts of games for HOURS at the exclusion of practically everything else.
I know perhaps not everyone on slashdot believes in the benifits of Freedom software, however if you look at the parent link you will see that firmware which stores the bios is programmable these days. Many people have said in response to this article "good now we can finally have a proper BIOS that does what it should". However there are already several open BIOS alternatives available. LinuxBIOS and OpenBIOS are both mentioned in the discussion here.
The obstacle to a free BIOS is the reluctance of manufacturers to releast the necessary information to allow the BIOS to control the hardware.
Perhaps if they allow their hardware to be freely programmable they will be excluded from the "trusted computing" allowable hardware?
I have a question, if anyone is familiar with this. Do hardware manufacturers take the specs for a BIOS and port it to their hardware when installing it, or do they release their specifications to the BIOS developers?
Perhaps we are needing freedom hardware manufacturers. I wonder, if the F/OSS community was to design specs for free hardware would there be any incentive for someone to manufacture it?
I suppose it depends on how much of a market there is for a totally free/customizable computing system.
Slashdot Mirror
wow that is really smartPidgin can still send YouTube URLs through MSN if you (and the person at the other end) use something like Pidgin-Encryption. The reason is because they don't know what you are saying in the first place: end-to-end encryption.
thank you
I am curious. You say "I'd love to go back to ICQ"
Why did you leave it in the first place? I don't understand, is there some kind of attraction to using Microsoft's chat program over any of the other available alternatives?
Thank you for bringing this to my attention, it is very relevant and interesting data that provides additional context to the information presented.
I am curious to know how you figured this out. You must read slashdot very closely.
I would not worry about this guy posting because he is apparently posting at -1. (Actually I don't know for sure because I have post ratings disabled in my user preferences)
In response to the claim "slashdot does nothing", do you think something should be done over and above the applied results of the moderation system, and if so why?
I think most data contains a certain bias, however this does not eliminate its utility as data.
In fact, I am not sure how I would define "un-biased data" when talking about any finite collection of data.
When you say "slashdot has turned reason and common sense and honesty against its own readers", which entity are you meaning to refer to? The editors?
I don't understand.
Why would he not just create another account.
Surely this is more simple than attempting to bring an account posting at -1 into good standing?
Although I admit I am not an expert on the ins and outs of the moderation system
so in your opinion it will look like this then?
1 year from now
vista ulpc = $x + $200
linux uplc = $x
xp ulps = $.5x + ~$20 (reduced specs)
linux ulpc lite = $.5x (reduced specs)
Knowledge is the best religion.
the so-called
the so-called
the so-called
the so-called
the so-called
the so-called
the so-called
that brain-dead Mods stupidly rate as +5 Insightful. Get an enema clue Mods! There's not a goddamn thing insightful about whining. I don't want to read some asshole's post lamenting how much better
If you don't like
BUT KEEP YOUR FUCKING WHINY-ASS COMPLAINTS ABOUT SLASHDOT TO YOURSELF!
BTW, for any Mod that positively rates my rant here because they think it would be funny/ironic, just beware that I will hunt you down, and I will leave a smelly dead cat on your porch. would it be ok to moderate it +1 informative?
I am curious. It seems that there is a trend toward hardware based hypervisor schemas which run an os in a hardware vm. Is it not better to just embrace this than to try to move more functionality into userspace. I am just learning about hypervisor technology so perhaps I am unaware of some failing to be found in this approach?
stefan
I am not sure it is really important to spend a lot of time making nice easy software for people who are not interested in learning. Soon there will be tons of web service providers which will all be trying to make their interface more easy/glitzy/whatever in an attempt to attract customers. Good documentation OTOH is very nice.
I have never needed to write a device driver. I have only been using linux for 2 years, and have only programmed in fortran (computerized math). I am just starting with scheme. It will take me some time before I become skilled enough to even begin to attempt to write a device driver for undocumented hardware. Still there is a ton of documentation out there, and If I was to undertake this task "time and persistance" would be exactly what was required.
I dont expect Joe Schmoe to write his own device drivers, I expect him to pay somebody much more productive than he is to "make it all just work".
The nice thing about linux is that you do not need to rely on others to fix your problems. If you find some unsupported hardware and you really want to use it you can make it work yourself. Then everyone else who uses linux can use that hardware too. This requires a certian level of skill and tenacity however, but anyone with time and persitance can learn any skill (generally speaking; some exceptions).
Why on earth must it be "very tempting" for the Chineese government to kill large numbers of caucasians indiscriminantly? I do not understand.
I am curious, why is it that you feel market cap is a poor metric for measuring value?
What would be a more Ideal metric to use?
I think the article says in reference to the "democratic sponsored amendment" 4 democrats voted against and one republican voted for. I think it then breaks down to
7 democrats for
1 republican for
4 democrats against
19 republicans against
yum! raw data
I think a lot of people live such miserable uninteristing lives (no offense intended) that they are looking for anything which seems new to continually distract themselves from their own life. News corporations are able to make much more money targeting this HUGE audience, than actually producing useful information. That is not to say that the market for useful information does not exist, in fact it is probably presently undervalued. As useful information becomes more and more valuable, I think we will see more and more individuals/institutions becoming interested in producing it.
When I try to imagine how governmental regualtors look at the situation for allowing the collapse of network neutrality, I pretend that the money "interested parties" pay regualtors is only marginally effective. That is to say, our legislators are not so completely corrupt as a whole, that they are simply for sale to the highest bidder. So then I try to imagine the scenario in which the idea of network anutrality seems rational. The story I am presently telling myself is as follows.
By allowing telecom providers fine granularity traffic control you are giving them a licence to print money. They will be better able to charge the maximum the market will bear for connectivity (monopoly style). They will be able to use this monopoly power on the connectivity market to leverage the value of their investments in Internet Services. The telecos are hoping that raising the costs of providing Internet Services for all their competitors will allow their own IS to be a competitive offering in the market.
This looks like a bad thing for consumers, who are getting less service for their dollars overall. However this situation has just increased the value of current internet infrastructure and made future infrastructure development more profitable. This may turn out to be especially true for large IS providers, who may have a large comparitive advantage for the production of IS. Eventually the market should equillabrate at a point where the "value" of IS overall as a function of consumer cost, will be higher (more favorable). This might also mean that the costs of purchasing a service, will be closer to the cost of providing it in the current market situation. (another possible benifit is growth in the markets for high granularity routing equipment {CISCO} and low cost Broadband Infrastructure deployment {not sure who is big in this market, maby also CISCO?})
What are the possible weaknesses in this rationalization? Perhaps network anutrality if taken to an extreme will provide an insurmauntable barrier to free markets in the IS sector in the short run, where existing IS providers will also build their own private networks, destroying the present open internet architecture. This would be bad for consumers as the new market equlibrium, almost certianly would not be as favorable as previously imagined, and in worst case scenario, could actually end up being worse than the original equlibrium.
Hopefully our legislators will look to the best possible outcome in terms of economic growth, and monitor the market realities very carefully. Luckily it seems that there are two large monied interests representing different market interests, which will hopefully be able to keep our legislators a neutral as one could hope for.
What are your thoughts on this subject?
I think your claims that "all companies seek to be Enron" and "Corporations ONLY serve their shareholder's interests, not the consumer's" conflict. Clearly the Executives at Enron were not interested in the same thing as their general shareholders.
Just in case you were wondering, corporations are not evil, they are tools created by people to serve a specific purpose. Like any tool they can be used in ways we would call bad or good.
Use the right tool for the job. Pass laws against unethical use of tools. Chainsaw+AnnoyingCoWorker = not legal
As far as the relationship between profit and better customer service, we can reason as follows. In a free market where customers have a choice of providers they will choose the best product at the best price. A company which is able to improve quality of service will attract more customers. These improvements have costs which will be passed on to consumers. If the quality/cost ratio is such that customers are willing to spend a greater portion of their income on this service, profit results. Ideally in a free market each customer will be able to pay for the quality of service they demand, which will approach the cost of providing that service in the long run. (assuming markets clear)
???
It seems to me that netflix did come up with a refreshing new business model, which is perhaps good for the economy for the whole. It would perhaps be nice if some system could be worked out so that investors in a new buisness model would be protected from a larger capital source coming along and competing with their investment in such a way that its value is destroyed.
This sort of model overly favors large collections of capital, and puts the ecosystem of small intelligent investors in innovation in a position of exaddurated risk, increasing the cost of innovation through this channel as a whole. This is dissapointing because this method of funding innovation, could potentially increase the rate of innovation and economic growth.
The problem whith the patent system, as implemented, as a method for equalizing this market is that the patent system can be used by incumbant large accretions of capital to stifle competitive innovation. Also distressing, is the lack of insight by the patent examiners as to what can be rightly thought of as innovative.
I think it is important for us to ask ourselves, what is the idealism that patents are grounded in. If we wish to build a system which will foster innovative technical growth , whether it be new buisness models, or pharmacuiticals, or even algorithms, then we will need to ENGINEER that system carefully and keep attentive to its actions, so it can be fine tuned.
Ideally all capital investments will grow, and wealth will be abound, however we must also respect the health of the economy as a whole. If Netflix comes along and changes the distribution model for certian media in a way that begins to erode the value of investments in incumbant media distributors should the incumbants be able to emulate this distribution in order to protect their investments? One might even say this is Ideal in an economic sense, minimizing the wasteful duplication of infrastructure. But what of the innovative netfilx, they receive some return on their investment, but the return is less than the value they created for the economy, and if we want to maximize economic benifit, we must maximize the rewards for bringing about economic benifit. From the perspective of a company like blockbuster, a new distribution model which lowers unit prices in hopes that volume will make up the profit, is a potentially risky buisness model, and innovation in the best way to do this is not necessarily a high priority.
Perhaps as a solution we could build some sort of sensitivity to capital into the patent system. Say I am amazon corp with a market capitalization of $$Billion and I have a patent on BuisnessMethod(OneClickShopping!!) If my rival SmallOnlineStore market capitalization of $$thousand wants to use my buisness method, the cost should be proportional to +(my losses of harnessing full value of my patent{with respect to SOB's use of patent})-(economic growth produced by SOB)
the first term would be (my profit for economic transaction x)*SOB transaction x volume
so if 1click sale ---> profit $.o1; SOB volume 100 then patent cost $1dollar
second term would be (real growth SOB)
obviously I just pulled this algorithm out of my ass, but it exists only to demonstrate a principle, that if we look to what the ESSENTIAL FUNCTION of patents is supposed to be then we can engineer a system that best enables that essential function.
Leaving the realm of abstraction and stepping into the realm of practical action, what should we do? For one thing, keep an open mind about patents, there are a lot of people who want them, and have good reasons for doing so. We need to learn what their reasons are for needing patents and then develop a system which can best serve the needs of everyone. Hopefully we will have upcomming generations of economists who will put forth serious study on these issues and engineer the best possible solution.
Maby we will be able to run our free software on OpenSPARC machines.
Parent provides a concice and important aspect of OpenOffice.org licencing. It seemed earlier in this thread people were somewhat unclear as to what the specific licencing burderns were, of if there in fact ever were any.
I am actually curious to know how people feel about writing open source code in this way. I suppose if you are releasing your code GPL then retaining the copyright is not necessarily important, although I guess it gives sun the ability release commercial versions of open office without being bound by the GPL as free software.
From your post: "The fundamental objection of embrionic stem cell research is not an objection to discovery, but rather that the research is being done with a secondary objective of allowing science to arbitrarily redefine what it means to be human."
So are you meaning to say then that only religion is to be allowed to "arbitrarily redefine what it means to be human"?
Or are you perhaps trying to say only religion can redefine "what it means to be human" in a way that is not arbitrary?
Or perhaps you are trying to say people engaged in science perfer that "what it means to be human" is only redefined arbitrarily?
Or perhaps you mean to signify something else by the above statement, could you please clarify?
It seems as if you are trying to say that science and religion each have a given realm of operation, or some such thing. If this is indeed the case I am curious as to why you beleive "what it means to be human" belongs only to the realm of religion.
I hope very much to hear back from you.
stefan
Thank you for responding. This is a very good idea, the city gov website does not specify a location so I will need to call them tomorrow. I am so excited to see what riches await me! stefan
How do I go about finding these free one generation old pcs? I would like so much to have some obsolete hardware to play with. Do you have any strategies for finding these things for free?
It seems to me that using pricewatch you still must spend at least 60 dollars (mobo, ram, cpu, case) and this is for something much more than 1 generation old, and assuming you already have extra monitor/keyboard/modem/whatever.
I am not meaning to sound sarcastic or anything I am actually very interested in finding out how to locate free hardware of almost any sort. If you have some pointers I would be very appreciative.
thank you
stefan
If these games were really fun it would be a great way to promote interest in science and teach some basic skills.
When my younger brother was perhaps 8 or so we purchased some math games for him, I think one of them was called "math mountain" and he really got into them, playing for hours.
I have seen him play this free MMORPG "Runescape" in which many of the players do things like click on a rock over and over to get ore, then go melt it in a furnace, then make items out of it. If people are willing to do this for empowerment in a game environment, perhaps they would also be willing to design algorithms, chemical synthesis, circuits, whatever, if it could be contextualized within the game.
Probably something like this would have top be a collabaration between scientists and experienced game developers who know how to motivate players to engage with their games. I think this could be highly effective given the willingness many people have to play these sorts of games for HOURS at the exclusion of practically everything else.
I know perhaps not everyone on slashdot believes in the benifits of Freedom software, however if you look at the parent link you will see that firmware which stores the bios is programmable these days. Many people have said in response to this article "good now we can finally have a proper BIOS that does what it should". However there are already several open BIOS alternatives available. LinuxBIOS and OpenBIOS are both mentioned in the discussion here.
The obstacle to a free BIOS is the reluctance of manufacturers to releast the necessary information to allow the BIOS to control the hardware.
Perhaps if they allow their hardware to be freely programmable they will be excluded from the "trusted computing" allowable hardware?
I have a question, if anyone is familiar with this. Do hardware manufacturers take the specs for a BIOS and port it to their hardware when installing it, or do they release their specifications to the BIOS developers?
Perhaps we are needing freedom hardware manufacturers. I wonder, if the F/OSS community was to design specs for free hardware would there be any incentive for someone to manufacture it?
I suppose it depends on how much of a market there is for a totally free/customizable computing system.