FFII: Logic Patents in Europe
This type of use of the patent system has always truly bothered me. I didn't like it when Amazon.com patented the "one-click" shopping. Of course, Microsoft et al. have been attempted to patent & derived royalty fee for years for what is the internet equivalent of oxygen & gravity. The issue of "Logic Patents" in Europe has the timber of one of those "over there" problem but it could very well happen here. Attempts are all ready underway to thrwart the open source and free software communities. All you have to do is read and follow SCO attempts to derive royalty payments & licensing fees from large entreprises. They even have the temerity to sue IBM. For an interesting account of this legal battle, all you have to do is go to GrokLaw. What is also interesting is how this "blog" has been the focus of ire and scorn of SCO. It is a very good blog to read if you are interested in the intersection of intellectual property, free software, and business. If people think of the the free market as a panacea for what ails us, all they have to is read a few account of business trying to make money by exploiting the legal system.
Friday, October 29, 2004
Data mining in the US Senate
Data Mining in the US Sensate
A great paper describing the different data Senate Data sources available to everyone via the web.
If you interesting in finding what & when things happen in Congress, who vote for what, and what the actual text of bills are in the House or Senate, visiting & learning the Thomas supported and maintaine by the Library of Congress.
I am still learning to navigate the various twists & turns but it is extrememly. One of the things that I have learned from the 2004 Presidential Campaign and the current administration is to go to the primary sources. Read the original text of transcripts, bills, Presidential Daily Briefing, etc. Make up your own mind based on the best available data or evidence. It is quite evident that both political parites, the corporate media, and special interest groups do not have any intention of being forthright with their analytical techniques, data sources, or creative editing.
A great paper describing the different data Senate Data sources available to everyone via the web.
If you interesting in finding what & when things happen in Congress, who vote for what, and what the actual text of bills are in the House or Senate, visiting & learning the Thomas supported and maintaine by the Library of Congress.
I am still learning to navigate the various twists & turns but it is extrememly. One of the things that I have learned from the 2004 Presidential Campaign and the current administration is to go to the primary sources. Read the original text of transcripts, bills, Presidential Daily Briefing, etc. Make up your own mind based on the best available data or evidence. It is quite evident that both political parites, the corporate media, and special interest groups do not have any intention of being forthright with their analytical techniques, data sources, or creative editing.
Monday, October 18, 2004
"Without a Doubt" by Ron Suskind, NY Times, Oct, 17, 2004
The New York Times Magazine, "Without a Doubt" by Ron Suskind
(registration may be needed but it should be free)
This is a powerful, comprehensive article that everyone should read. Challenge the assumptions, seek out the primary sources, gather data and conduct your own objective analysis, let this process guide you. I have always felt that everytime you make a decision should have to be able explain your reasoning and how you arrive at your decision stating the facts you used and the ones you discarded.
Degrees & certificates do not make you smart. Using what you learned does, including your mistakes as well as your successes.
(registration may be needed but it should be free)
This is a powerful, comprehensive article that everyone should read. Challenge the assumptions, seek out the primary sources, gather data and conduct your own objective analysis, let this process guide you. I have always felt that everytime you make a decision should have to be able explain your reasoning and how you arrive at your decision stating the facts you used and the ones you discarded.
Degrees & certificates do not make you smart. Using what you learned does, including your mistakes as well as your successes.
Thursday, October 14, 2004
iAbolish -- Web Portal of the American Anti-Slavery Group
iAbolish -- Web Portal of the American Anti-Slavery Group
Yesterday at Saint Michael's College, I had the privilege of hearing Francis Bok tell his story of being captured, forced into slavery, and subsequent escape ten years later in Sudan.
I was a very compelling and thought-provoking account. If you have the opportunity, go & hear Francis Bok's story.
His talk ranged from his saddening experiences as a slave in the Sudan to his unrelenting desire for freedom and finally ending with his optimistism, energy, and drive to improve himself, get an education and educate others about suffering in Sudan.
A remarkable story from a remarkable individual. Just go and listen for yourself.
Yesterday at Saint Michael's College, I had the privilege of hearing Francis Bok tell his story of being captured, forced into slavery, and subsequent escape ten years later in Sudan.
I was a very compelling and thought-provoking account. If you have the opportunity, go & hear Francis Bok's story.
His talk ranged from his saddening experiences as a slave in the Sudan to his unrelenting desire for freedom and finally ending with his optimistism, energy, and drive to improve himself, get an education and educate others about suffering in Sudan.
A remarkable story from a remarkable individual. Just go and listen for yourself.
Tuesday, October 05, 2004
Can you hear me now? (Gawd, I hope not)
Can you hear me now? is an editorial by Allison Lazarz, executive editor of the Saint Michael's College on-line student publication which say what I have been thinking for quite some time.
The prevalence of cell phones is a boon for all and a bane for many. It is wonderful that our collective worlds have shrunk to a device smaller than a pack of cigarettes and certainly more healthy. We are available to family, friends, and coworkers anytime and nearly any place but what price, other than $40/month, are we paying? What are the actual benefits of being available? If you have a cell phone, are you now expected to actually have it turned on? Have people expections become unrealistic because of instant communication?
"Hey, If I can contact you anytime and anyplace, why can't your respond likewise?"
When we sent actually paper letters to friends and family, we would not expect a response for days, weeks or even months. Now, with the advancement of email into most nooks & crannies of our culture, we expect a reply by the next day, before the end of the day, or even within the hour. Now, with instant messaging (IM), the "send-receive" loop is even tighter, often so our the expections, real and perceived.
Let me assure you, I am the farest thing from being a luddite or neo-luddite. I have three IM clients running, 4 email accounts, high speed internet at home and office, a cell phone with nation-wide coverage & text messaging, and a mailbox near the front door of my home. However, I will be defying convention and getting rid of my cell phone. Why? Just no real need. When I am available, there is a phone nearby which I will answer immediately. When I am not available, there may be phone nearby, however I will not answer it or take the message unless it is a family emergency. Since the amount of time I am unavailable is a very small percentage of the total time. I think it's fair to spend as I see fit, i.e. talking with people in person, having coffee, reading the paper at a cafe, watching a play, listening to a lecture or just sitting on the porch watching people.
In our rush to "not miss anything", it would be ironic if we were doing just that.
The prevalence of cell phones is a boon for all and a bane for many. It is wonderful that our collective worlds have shrunk to a device smaller than a pack of cigarettes and certainly more healthy. We are available to family, friends, and coworkers anytime and nearly any place but what price, other than $40/month, are we paying? What are the actual benefits of being available? If you have a cell phone, are you now expected to actually have it turned on? Have people expections become unrealistic because of instant communication?
"Hey, If I can contact you anytime and anyplace, why can't your respond likewise?"
When we sent actually paper letters to friends and family, we would not expect a response for days, weeks or even months. Now, with the advancement of email into most nooks & crannies of our culture, we expect a reply by the next day, before the end of the day, or even within the hour. Now, with instant messaging (IM), the "send-receive" loop is even tighter, often so our the expections, real and perceived.
Let me assure you, I am the farest thing from being a luddite or neo-luddite. I have three IM clients running, 4 email accounts, high speed internet at home and office, a cell phone with nation-wide coverage & text messaging, and a mailbox near the front door of my home. However, I will be defying convention and getting rid of my cell phone. Why? Just no real need. When I am available, there is a phone nearby which I will answer immediately. When I am not available, there may be phone nearby, however I will not answer it or take the message unless it is a family emergency. Since the amount of time I am unavailable is a very small percentage of the total time. I think it's fair to spend as I see fit, i.e. talking with people in person, having coffee, reading the paper at a cafe, watching a play, listening to a lecture or just sitting on the porch watching people.
In our rush to "not miss anything", it would be ironic if we were doing just that.
Friday, October 01, 2004
U.S. vs Microsoft : The End of an Era
A case of insecure browsing by Andrew Chin.
Very good concluding remarks by Andrew Chin to the US v. Microsoft Anti-Trust suit brought six years ago. Mr. Chin was Judge Penfield's legal extern on this landmark case. A case brought by the Clinton administration and a case essentially ignored by the current administration.
What is rather ironic is that our nation's very own CERT agency which is partnership with the Department of Homeland Security recommends (but also mentions the appropriate Microsoft security fixes) that the public use a different browser than Microsoft's Internet Explorer (IE) because of its seemingly constant security holes. The CERT report also mentions that using a different browser with only minimize the threats because you cannot actually remove IE from your system due to being integrated and sharing code with the operating system. This enables the wiley black-hat hackers to exploit the Microsoft IE security holes even if you choose to use another browser without taking proper precautions. This is a direct result of Microsoft's insistence that the browser must integrated into the operating system thus supporting their anti-competitive, predatory claims that they had to give away the IE browser resulting in the unfortunate undermining and eventual demise of the Netscape browser products. Now, we are stuck with IE buried into the de facto desktop standard operating system despite its inherent & constant computer security vunerabilities.
Now, we will never know how the Supreme Court would rule on this case. Too bad.
Very good concluding remarks by Andrew Chin to the US v. Microsoft Anti-Trust suit brought six years ago. Mr. Chin was Judge Penfield's legal extern on this landmark case. A case brought by the Clinton administration and a case essentially ignored by the current administration.
What is rather ironic is that our nation's very own CERT agency which is partnership with the Department of Homeland Security recommends (but also mentions the appropriate Microsoft security fixes) that the public use a different browser than Microsoft's Internet Explorer (IE) because of its seemingly constant security holes. The CERT report also mentions that using a different browser with only minimize the threats because you cannot actually remove IE from your system due to being integrated and sharing code with the operating system. This enables the wiley black-hat hackers to exploit the Microsoft IE security holes even if you choose to use another browser without taking proper precautions. This is a direct result of Microsoft's insistence that the browser must integrated into the operating system thus supporting their anti-competitive, predatory claims that they had to give away the IE browser resulting in the unfortunate undermining and eventual demise of the Netscape browser products. Now, we are stuck with IE buried into the de facto desktop standard operating system despite its inherent & constant computer security vunerabilities.
Now, we will never know how the Supreme Court would rule on this case. Too bad.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
