You may be right about the "corn industry", but all you have to do is take a drive through a few states to see that the average corn farmer in the US lives in a small single-wide or if they're lucky a double-wide next to a beautiful rotting farm house. Here in NC, our soybean farmers have to compete with farmers in California, who can mass produce the stuff with almost constant sunshine and free imported water. I've seen farmers in NC who's families look like they'd be better off on welfare.
I blame the "Green revolution", which is time in the 60's when we introduced artificial fertilizers into farming, doubling food production. Since then, we've been loosing farms around the country, especially on the East Coast. Since the 60's, the US has grown more trees than it has cut down, simply because farms are closing down. This is good for CO2 reduction and wildlife habitat, but those poor farmers have had it rough. Giving them a decent price for soybeans would have some impact on our food prices, but the winners would be the guys who actually farm the land, not the "corn industry". It's a bit like the tobacco industry. Here in NC, Big Tobacco buys tobacco from farmers at the lowest price possible, and then lobbies the government for favorable treatment, allowing them to become the giants we have today. They don't actually grow any of the stuff, and no matter how rich they get, our poor farmers are well... poor.
But the efficiency gained by burning oil in a power plant and running with electric motors greatly reduces the oil consumed. By my estimates, if we converted 100% of our transportation energy to the grid, we'd just about eliminate foreign oil imports, while reducing green-house gases. Transportation consumes about 66% of our oil in the US, and about 60% of our oil is imported. Less than 10% of our electrical power is generated from oil.
Nice to hear an informed opinion. Biofuels will have their place, and I hope that farmers can finally make a few bucks on corn and soybeans. However, we need to think in terms of "quads", or quadrillions of barrels of oil. That means we need to stop focusing on low-potential technologies like burning sewage waste, and focus on the big wins. Google's right on the mark here, since converting 50% of transportation energy to the grid would push the needle tons in the right direction. At 2X the well-to-wheel efficiency, the grid and plug-in-hybrids represent a cheap and easy way to make a real dent in the energy problem http://www.teslamotors.com/learn_more/foreign_oil. php. Given recent major battery advances like A123 Systems http://www.a123systems.com/, plug-in-hybrids finally make both green sense and financial sense. So, why hasn't Toyota started shipping them? Conspiracy theories abound...
For those who like details, A123 batteries kill Tesla's argument that smaller batteries just die faster, and don't save money. Small A123 batteries will last longer than your car, and never need to be replaced. They also have way lower series resistance, and can push one of those tiny 300HP induction motors http://acpropulsion.com/ with as much current than they can take. There's simply no reason that a modern plug-in Prius couldn't leave a Porche in the dust (ok, accept for those small hard tires, and crummy handling). By plugging into the grid, we give ourselves the freedom to produce energy however makes the most sense, whether solar, hydro, nuclear, gas, wind, or (God forbid) coal, oil sands, and oil shale. And if this sounds like an add for A123, it turns out that they're simply the first to market among many who will shortly sell competing batteries. Google continues to show some real vision!
We're not really eating M$'s lunch. Linux is a distant 3rd in the market place, by installed seats, and of course even further by revenue. I think the real battle will be for the post-PC devices, where applications have yet to be written. Linux makes a great starting point for such devices, and being essentially free makes it price competitive in a market that can only support a few bucks per device for software.
But, yes, I agree we should keep up the efforts to support FOSS from M$ attacks. It's bad enough having to pay the M$ tax on every Linux box I buy. Their efforts to keep us from sharing software we create is intolerable.
There are more issues here than rehabilitating the spammer. The world needs to know that the US is serious about stopping spam, and a serious sentence will be required as a deterrent. 65 years seems excessive, but this guy needs to do some real time, if not for himself, but to stop others who would follow in his path.
I agree. The scary part is that China is rabid to re-unite with the minority Chinese in Taiwan, and now that Taiwan has the democracy to enable them to declare they are not Chinese, both the Chinese in Taiwan and in China are up-in-arms. Let's face it... wars suck. The after-shocks last generations.
The funny part about this article is it's assumption that the kids will suffer from using Neo Office ratherr than Windows Office. The exact opposite is true. We calcified adults have trouble using anything but Windows and Microsoft Office... our fingers have learned the keyboard shortcuts. Kids are blank slates, and weening them on FOSS can put them on the path to self discovery. The deeper you dive into a FOSS program, the more you discover. If you dive into Microsoft Office, all you get is worthless, boring bits. The article is clearly written by one of us calcified adults, ignorant of the benefits Neo Office will bring to the students.
There are WIMAX wanna-bees who would love a chance to offer all those services for under $100. The streaming bandwidth at that level should not cost over $100/month. However, getting access to the content (TV, movies) is problematic.
Taiwan has always been a satellite around China. The Taiwanese were the first to perfect long-distance sailing because of their trade with China. They then populated islands from Madagascar to Hawaii. I think that the invasion/retreat of the previous Chinese government to Taiwan has confused issues. Neither the Chinese in Taiwan nor the Chinese in China seem very interested in the native Taiwanese population. They just want to do what China has done for thousands of years... unify all the Chinese (of course, each side wants it unified under themselves).
sometime in our lifetimes there will be an attack made on China by US interested parties.
Not a change. China holds too much of our debt, and is too crucial for our economy. Also, China historically is mostly interested in China. Kinda makes for a poor enemy.
We've been doing the same for years, I hear with some success. In the first Iraq war, I heard a story about an infected printer driver that Iraq downloaded that in theory played havoc with their network during the invasion. I also hear we have a special unit tasked to attack information systems in real time, during an invasion, and to protect our own network. How much fun would that job be? I am seriously envious.
Here in the US, most of the services I've seen that offer unlimited bandwidth don't have a lower-cost option that offers limited bandwidth. If the market for un-throttled P2P bandwidth grows, perhaps the ISPs should offer tiered service. Personally, I don't mind the pay-as-you-go model. In short, I want a service that combines TV, radio, phone service, and internet access, and I want to only pay a $100/month fee. If this isn't enough to get the on-demand video I want, perhaps I'd consider that as a premium option, but frankly, $100/month seems like it should cover me for the kinds of realistic use that would be done in my house. Also, I sure-as-hell don't want to be locked into AT&T for all those services, and net neutrality in the form of non-discrimination against packets based on origin needs to be enforced.
Rate capping, fair queueing, etc are all forms of traffic manipulation that I think we agree ISPs should be free to continue. The reason that this is the One definition I feel we should all support is simple: It is the minimal definition (that I've read) that keeps ISPs from doing the evil they claim they want to do. The two specific evils the ISPs have said they want to do are:
- Force content providers to pay to access the ISP's customers
- Charge extra for paid services (like VoIP) placed through any provider but themselves
The sole reason the big telcoms and cable networks are lobbying congress and running a TV FUD campaign is to give them the freedom to do these two evils. Simple non-discrimination against packet origins stops both, without in any way restricting the practices ISPs use to control traffic.
Of course, it depends on your definition, but the best definition for "network neutrality", for which we should all push, is simple:
ISP's will not discriminate against packets based on their origin.
ISPs need to do traffic shaping to remain competitive. Let's not try and take away any truly valuable tools from them in our fight to keep the Internet free.
Nope, not me... that costs real money, and FOSS isn't about real money. My boss will inherit my laptop today, and most likely wipe Ubuntu off it, to install an old Windows XP license we have. Why? Because Windows is more familiar, not that he's dumb (he's actually darned smart). Big companies like Microsoft sue when they see that their profits are actually being damaged. FOSS isn't really doing that. I think we'll simply see several more years of saber rattling, and continued Microsoft FUD. I can't even call Microsoft evil for doing it... all they're doing is standard marketing (the true root of all evil).
I would say yes... that's a good reason to have life insurance. I understand your point, though. It's the same reason many people are against any inheritance tax. It's also a reasonable argument for having something like 18 years after death, but I don't really see why 70 years makes any sense at all.
In my experience with FOSS, it rarely competes with software that people get paid to write. The reason is simple. If a programmer really wants to write a program, he goes and writes it. If he can figure out how to get paid for it, bonus! Thus FOSS only seriously threatens commercial programs that should now be free, but aren't. In particular, Windows and Microsoft Office have been paid for many times over, they have little recently innovative content, and are basically only worth anything because of Microsoft's monopolistic position in the market. And neither Linux nor Open Office are likely to replace them any time soon, so even that's not much threat.
Further, FOSS hobbyists actual expand the market for commercial software, by pushing technology ahead at a faster pace than would occur otherwise, bringing those killer-apps that keep us all employed to market faster. A great example is the original Linksys Cable/DSL home router, which ran Linux. The high-tech future FOSS programmers are helping to create has many opportunities for programmers to make a living, simply because more high-tech gadgets running more software means more programmers are needed to code the innovative new stuff. As a higher and higher percentage of the world's high-tech assets reside in the form of computer programs, FOSS becomes essential for promoting world progress. If we left all of the common low-value programs in the hands of closed-source corporations, we'd have to constantly rewrite that low-value code, slowing progress significantly.
The real problem with FOSS is that people fear it, and don't understand it. Simply because it threatens a small portion of Microsoft's profits, we have to deal with this massive global FUD campaign, from SCO to Micro-Novel. This article's author is either part of this campaign, or one of it's victims.
Possibly... Maybe company copyrights should be shorter than individual? 17 years seems like enough for a movie, but not for a book. My argument for supporting retired artists doesn't hold for companies.
I tend to think more of local artists who didn't make millions, photographers, writers, musicians and such. Many artists have such passion for their art that they live essentially in poverty to pursue their art. I think if they spend their productive years making the stuff, they should benefit during retirement.
I think 17 years is plenty long enough for a patent on technology. However, I think an artist should be able to profit on all their work for longer. Artists don't all keep creating great art as they get old. I think a great artist who devoted his life to his work should continue to profit during retirement... most artists I know barely get by while in their prime, so they have no savings by the time they reach retirement.
It's a short video (about 5 min) composed almost entirely of super-short clips from Disney films. Each clip typically has one or just a few words spoken by a Disney cartoon character, but the words when strung together describe copyright law, and makes a reasonable argument that it should have shorter, rather than longer duration. It also describes fair use. The film starts out with a potential violation, with Disney's film opening (the castle, and tune that goes with it). This was shown as something that can be copyrighted, and clearly does not diminish it's value, so they may be able to argue that it was fair use. I suspect this was done on purpose to pose a challenge to Disney. It ends with full disclosure of the authors, and lists each segment that was borrowed under "fair use". The film says that the original copyright law allowed for only 17 years of protection, but that today the duration is your lifetime plus 70 years for an individual, and over 100 years for a corporation. Personally, I think your works should become public domain after you die, and that corporations should have similar time-periods, let's say about 50 years.
Personally, I hope the authors achieve some success in swaying public opinion in favor of reasonable restrictions on copyright length.
I know many of us Linux users would like to see it replace Windows as the dominate OS, but frankly, why should we care? We Linux users have a wonderful OS that does everything a big geek like me could want, and far more than Windows can do. Saving Joe Sixpack the $70 he pays Microsoft to buy a machine with Windows pre-loaded isn't a cause I get excited about.
I love making predictions, and here's my prediction for the future of Linux: Linux will never beat Windows in the market place. Instead, a new market will emerge for ultra-cheap computers (as in OLPC). Super-cheap computers with lots of RAM and non-volatile storage will one day cost $100 (in 2007 dollars). When this happens, Microsoft will not be able to compete against free Linux as the dominant OS on these machines. There just isn't enough profit per device to support Microsoft-like company. Instead Linux, or a derivative of GNU/Linux software, will power our new ultra-cheap devices. I think Microsoft understands this low-end disruption threat, and that's why they're so desperate to push Windows CE derivatives. However, the bean counters at Microsoft will always try to kill off unprofitable efforts like Windows CE, as the market, margins, and profit just aren't there compared to selling high-end software for high-end machines.
If you think this idea is crazy, have you heard about the iPhone? It may not run Linux proper, but it's clearly in the GNU/open-source camp. Operating systems are mature technology, no longer worth much money. Apple showed great insight in dumping their own, and running with the free stuff. This gives them a huge advantage over Microsoft in the future battle for smart consumer devices. Others will follow Apple's lead, and dump Windows for GNU/Linux as the super low-cost PC/personal-computing-device market emerges. In the end, GNU/Linux will prevail, but never on the traditional high-end desktop that Joe Sixpack buys for web surfing, games, and porn.
Here's another community project that/. could support, with the goal of bringing cheap telephones to the masses in under-developed countries: http://rowetel.com/ucasterisk/index.html. It's David Rowe's Free Telephony Project.
Slashdot Mirror
You may be right about the "corn industry", but all you have to do is take a drive through a few states to see that the average corn farmer in the US lives in a small single-wide or if they're lucky a double-wide next to a beautiful rotting farm house. Here in NC, our soybean farmers have to compete with farmers in California, who can mass produce the stuff with almost constant sunshine and free imported water. I've seen farmers in NC who's families look like they'd be better off on welfare.
I blame the "Green revolution", which is time in the 60's when we introduced artificial fertilizers into farming, doubling food production. Since then, we've been loosing farms around the country, especially on the East Coast. Since the 60's, the US has grown more trees than it has cut down, simply because farms are closing down. This is good for CO2 reduction and wildlife habitat, but those poor farmers have had it rough. Giving them a decent price for soybeans would have some impact on our food prices, but the winners would be the guys who actually farm the land, not the "corn industry". It's a bit like the tobacco industry. Here in NC, Big Tobacco buys tobacco from farmers at the lowest price possible, and then lobbies the government for favorable treatment, allowing them to become the giants we have today. They don't actually grow any of the stuff, and no matter how rich they get, our poor farmers are well... poor.
But the efficiency gained by burning oil in a power plant and running with electric motors greatly reduces the oil consumed. By my estimates, if we converted 100% of our transportation energy to the grid, we'd just about eliminate foreign oil imports, while reducing green-house gases. Transportation consumes about 66% of our oil in the US, and about 60% of our oil is imported. Less than 10% of our electrical power is generated from oil.
Nice to hear an informed opinion. Biofuels will have their place, and I hope that farmers can finally make a few bucks on corn and soybeans. However, we need to think in terms of "quads", or quadrillions of barrels of oil. That means we need to stop focusing on low-potential technologies like burning sewage waste, and focus on the big wins. Google's right on the mark here, since converting 50% of transportation energy to the grid would push the needle tons in the right direction. At 2X the well-to-wheel efficiency, the grid and plug-in-hybrids represent a cheap and easy way to make a real dent in the energy problem http://www.teslamotors.com/learn_more/foreign_oil. php. Given recent major battery advances like A123 Systems http://www.a123systems.com/, plug-in-hybrids finally make both green sense and financial sense. So, why hasn't Toyota started shipping them? Conspiracy theories abound...
For those who like details, A123 batteries kill Tesla's argument that smaller batteries just die faster, and don't save money. Small A123 batteries will last longer than your car, and never need to be replaced. They also have way lower series resistance, and can push one of those tiny 300HP induction motors http://acpropulsion.com/ with as much current than they can take. There's simply no reason that a modern plug-in Prius couldn't leave a Porche in the dust (ok, accept for those small hard tires, and crummy handling). By plugging into the grid, we give ourselves the freedom to produce energy however makes the most sense, whether solar, hydro, nuclear, gas, wind, or (God forbid) coal, oil sands, and oil shale. And if this sounds like an add for A123, it turns out that they're simply the first to market among many who will shortly sell competing batteries. Google continues to show some real vision!
I wonder if the M$ threat could cause RedHat and Ubuntu into some sort of alliance? Seems like natural enemies, but who knows...
We're not really eating M$'s lunch. Linux is a distant 3rd in the market place, by installed seats, and of course even further by revenue. I think the real battle will be for the post-PC devices, where applications have yet to be written. Linux makes a great starting point for such devices, and being essentially free makes it price competitive in a market that can only support a few bucks per device for software.
But, yes, I agree we should keep up the efforts to support FOSS from M$ attacks. It's bad enough having to pay the M$ tax on every Linux box I buy. Their efforts to keep us from sharing software we create is intolerable.
There are more issues here than rehabilitating the spammer. The world needs to know that the US is serious about stopping spam, and a serious sentence will be required as a deterrent. 65 years seems excessive, but this guy needs to do some real time, if not for himself, but to stop others who would follow in his path.
I agree. The scary part is that China is rabid to re-unite with the minority Chinese in Taiwan, and now that Taiwan has the democracy to enable them to declare they are not Chinese, both the Chinese in Taiwan and in China are up-in-arms. Let's face it... wars suck. The after-shocks last generations.
The funny part about this article is it's assumption that the kids will suffer from using Neo Office ratherr than Windows Office. The exact opposite is true. We calcified adults have trouble using anything but Windows and Microsoft Office... our fingers have learned the keyboard shortcuts. Kids are blank slates, and weening them on FOSS can put them on the path to self discovery. The deeper you dive into a FOSS program, the more you discover. If you dive into Microsoft Office, all you get is worthless, boring bits. The article is clearly written by one of us calcified adults, ignorant of the benefits Neo Office will bring to the students.
There are WIMAX wanna-bees who would love a chance to offer all those services for under $100. The streaming bandwidth at that level should not cost over $100/month. However, getting access to the content (TV, movies) is problematic.
Taiwan has always been a satellite around China. The Taiwanese were the first to perfect long-distance sailing because of their trade with China. They then populated islands from Madagascar to Hawaii. I think that the invasion/retreat of the previous Chinese government to Taiwan has confused issues. Neither the Chinese in Taiwan nor the Chinese in China seem very interested in the native Taiwanese population. They just want to do what China has done for thousands of years... unify all the Chinese (of course, each side wants it unified under themselves).
Not a change. China holds too much of our debt, and is too crucial for our economy. Also, China historically is mostly interested in China. Kinda makes for a poor enemy.
We've been doing the same for years, I hear with some success. In the first Iraq war, I heard a story about an infected printer driver that Iraq downloaded that in theory played havoc with their network during the invasion. I also hear we have a special unit tasked to attack information systems in real time, during an invasion, and to protect our own network. How much fun would that job be? I am seriously envious.
Here in the US, most of the services I've seen that offer unlimited bandwidth don't have a lower-cost option that offers limited bandwidth. If the market for un-throttled P2P bandwidth grows, perhaps the ISPs should offer tiered service. Personally, I don't mind the pay-as-you-go model. In short, I want a service that combines TV, radio, phone service, and internet access, and I want to only pay a $100/month fee. If this isn't enough to get the on-demand video I want, perhaps I'd consider that as a premium option, but frankly, $100/month seems like it should cover me for the kinds of realistic use that would be done in my house. Also, I sure-as-hell don't want to be locked into AT&T for all those services, and net neutrality in the form of non-discrimination against packets based on origin needs to be enforced.
Rate capping, fair queueing, etc are all forms of traffic manipulation that I think we agree ISPs should be free to continue. The reason that this is the One definition I feel we should all support is simple: It is the minimal definition (that I've read) that keeps ISPs from doing the evil they claim they want to do. The two specific evils the ISPs have said they want to do are:
- Force content providers to pay to access the ISP's customers
- Charge extra for paid services (like VoIP) placed through any provider but themselves
The sole reason the big telcoms and cable networks are lobbying congress and running a TV FUD campaign is to give them the freedom to do these two evils. Simple non-discrimination against packet origins stops both, without in any way restricting the practices ISPs use to control traffic.
Of course, it depends on your definition, but the best definition for "network neutrality", for which we should all push, is simple:
ISP's will not discriminate against packets based on their origin.
ISPs need to do traffic shaping to remain competitive. Let's not try and take away any truly valuable tools from them in our fight to keep the Internet free.
Nope, not me... that costs real money, and FOSS isn't about real money. My boss will inherit my laptop today, and most likely wipe Ubuntu off it, to install an old Windows XP license we have. Why? Because Windows is more familiar, not that he's dumb (he's actually darned smart). Big companies like Microsoft sue when they see that their profits are actually being damaged. FOSS isn't really doing that. I think we'll simply see several more years of saber rattling, and continued Microsoft FUD. I can't even call Microsoft evil for doing it... all they're doing is standard marketing (the true root of all evil).
How high are the stakes? As an end-user, the payment would be what... $10?
I would say yes... that's a good reason to have life insurance. I understand your point, though. It's the same reason many people are against any inheritance tax. It's also a reasonable argument for having something like 18 years after death, but I don't really see why 70 years makes any sense at all.
In my experience with FOSS, it rarely competes with software that people get paid to write. The reason is simple. If a programmer really wants to write a program, he goes and writes it. If he can figure out how to get paid for it, bonus! Thus FOSS only seriously threatens commercial programs that should now be free, but aren't. In particular, Windows and Microsoft Office have been paid for many times over, they have little recently innovative content, and are basically only worth anything because of Microsoft's monopolistic position in the market. And neither Linux nor Open Office are likely to replace them any time soon, so even that's not much threat.
Further, FOSS hobbyists actual expand the market for commercial software, by pushing technology ahead at a faster pace than would occur otherwise, bringing those killer-apps that keep us all employed to market faster. A great example is the original Linksys Cable/DSL home router, which ran Linux. The high-tech future FOSS programmers are helping to create has many opportunities for programmers to make a living, simply because more high-tech gadgets running more software means more programmers are needed to code the innovative new stuff. As a higher and higher percentage of the world's high-tech assets reside in the form of computer programs, FOSS becomes essential for promoting world progress. If we left all of the common low-value programs in the hands of closed-source corporations, we'd have to constantly rewrite that low-value code, slowing progress significantly.
The real problem with FOSS is that people fear it, and don't understand it. Simply because it threatens a small portion of Microsoft's profits, we have to deal with this massive global FUD campaign, from SCO to Micro-Novel. This article's author is either part of this campaign, or one of it's victims.
Possibly... Maybe company copyrights should be shorter than individual? 17 years seems like enough for a movie, but not for a book. My argument for supporting retired artists doesn't hold for companies.
I tend to think more of local artists who didn't make millions, photographers, writers, musicians and such. Many artists have such passion for their art that they live essentially in poverty to pursue their art. I think if they spend their productive years making the stuff, they should benefit during retirement.
I think 17 years is plenty long enough for a patent on technology. However, I think an artist should be able to profit on all their work for longer. Artists don't all keep creating great art as they get old. I think a great artist who devoted his life to his work should continue to profit during retirement... most artists I know barely get by while in their prime, so they have no savings by the time they reach retirement.
It's a short video (about 5 min) composed almost entirely of super-short clips from Disney films. Each clip typically has one or just a few words spoken by a Disney cartoon character, but the words when strung together describe copyright law, and makes a reasonable argument that it should have shorter, rather than longer duration. It also describes fair use. The film starts out with a potential violation, with Disney's film opening (the castle, and tune that goes with it). This was shown as something that can be copyrighted, and clearly does not diminish it's value, so they may be able to argue that it was fair use. I suspect this was done on purpose to pose a challenge to Disney. It ends with full disclosure of the authors, and lists each segment that was borrowed under "fair use". The film says that the original copyright law allowed for only 17 years of protection, but that today the duration is your lifetime plus 70 years for an individual, and over 100 years for a corporation. Personally, I think your works should become public domain after you die, and that corporations should have similar time-periods, let's say about 50 years.
Personally, I hope the authors achieve some success in swaying public opinion in favor of reasonable restrictions on copyright length.
I know many of us Linux users would like to see it replace Windows as the dominate OS, but frankly, why should we care? We Linux users have a wonderful OS that does everything a big geek like me could want, and far more than Windows can do. Saving Joe Sixpack the $70 he pays Microsoft to buy a machine with Windows pre-loaded isn't a cause I get excited about.
I love making predictions, and here's my prediction for the future of Linux: Linux will never beat Windows in the market place. Instead, a new market will emerge for ultra-cheap computers (as in OLPC). Super-cheap computers with lots of RAM and non-volatile storage will one day cost $100 (in 2007 dollars). When this happens, Microsoft will not be able to compete against free Linux as the dominant OS on these machines. There just isn't enough profit per device to support Microsoft-like company. Instead Linux, or a derivative of GNU/Linux software, will power our new ultra-cheap devices. I think Microsoft understands this low-end disruption threat, and that's why they're so desperate to push Windows CE derivatives. However, the bean counters at Microsoft will always try to kill off unprofitable efforts like Windows CE, as the market, margins, and profit just aren't there compared to selling high-end software for high-end machines.
If you think this idea is crazy, have you heard about the iPhone? It may not run Linux proper, but it's clearly in the GNU/open-source camp. Operating systems are mature technology, no longer worth much money. Apple showed great insight in dumping their own, and running with the free stuff. This gives them a huge advantage over Microsoft in the future battle for smart consumer devices. Others will follow Apple's lead, and dump Windows for GNU/Linux as the super low-cost PC/personal-computing-device market emerges. In the end, GNU/Linux will prevail, but never on the traditional high-end desktop that Joe Sixpack buys for web surfing, games, and porn.
Here's another community project that /. could support, with the goal of bringing cheap telephones to the masses in under-developed countries: http://rowetel.com/ucasterisk/index.html. It's David Rowe's Free Telephony Project.