Geekiest Tatoo Ever
If you have to ask what it means, then you just flat out don't get it.
Luckily I'm from the generation that (cough) eschews tatoos, or I'd be heading to the parlor right now to get me one.
From Gadget Lounge
If you have to ask what it means, then you just flat out don't get it.
Luckily I'm from the generation that (cough) eschews tatoos, or I'd be heading to the parlor right now to get me one.
From Gadget Lounge
I know that I'm not the first to find it; indeed, it's been making the rounds for a couple of days now. This is a brilliant attempt at mapping online communities.
The size of the various "countries" is supposed to represent their user base. Additionally, notice the "Compass Rose-Shaped Island" that determines the communties' orientation along the axes of practical<-->intellectual and focus on rea life<-->focus on the web.
Really quite a solid effort at mapping quite an amorphous collection of sites.
Thanks go out to my daughter Kira for alerting me to this.
This one's making the rounds among the staff at the OSU Valley Library. For good reason.
Hilarious.
Enjoy
I've written earlier about the dangers of technically-illiterate legislation, but this one's from the enforcement side, and it's just so painful to read.
Indulge me a moment while I break it down:
The school computer had an inadequate operating system, out of date ant-virus, and an inadequate firewall; the defense was not allowed to provide expert technical testimony which would have unequivocally cleared the teacher of any wrong doing.
A clueless and technically-illiterate judicial system is potentially sending an innocent person to jail.
Sentencing is March 2nd.
Yesterday Michael Chasen, President and CEO of Blackboard, published the following press release trumpeting his company's largess toward the open source and homegrown educational online learning environment community.
Dear Blackboard Community,I am writing to share some exciting news about a patent pledge Blackboard is making today to the open source and home-grown course management community. We are announcing a legally-binding, irrevocable, world-wide pledge not to assert any of our issued or pending patents related to course management systems or transaction systems against the use, development or support of any open source or home-grown course management systems.
We developed this pledge over several months with the help and dedication of various members of the e-Learning community, such as EDUCAUSE, Sakai and many Blackboard clients. We are very grateful for their time and counsel. Without such a thoughtful and collaborative process, this sort of unprecedented pledge for a company of our size might not have been possible.
"We particularly welcome the inclusion of pending patents , the clarification on the commercial support, customization, hosting or maintenance of open source systems and the worldwide nature of Blackboard's pledge. We also appreciate the willingness of Blackboard to continue with frank and direct dialogue with our two organizations and with other higher education representatives and groups to work toward addressing these problems of community concern ."
-Joint Statement of EDUCAUSE and Sakai Boards of Directors
"We wish to acknowledge the company's actions and express our appreciation to Blackboard in committing to continue to foster creativity and collaboration within the e-Learning community. Such a response can only benefit the teachers and practitioners, the learners, Blackboard, and indeed the wider e-Learning community ."
-Australasian Council on Open, Distance and E-Learning (ACODE)
As a longstanding and leading member of the e-Learning community, we understand that Blackboard plays an important role in promoting the open exchange of ideas, collaboration and innovation. This pledge symbolizes our continued commitment to that role by agreeing not to assert U.S. Patent No. 6,988,138 and many other pending patent applications as well as their international counterparts against the development, use or distribution of open source software or home-grown course management systems anywhere in the world, to the extent that such systems are not bundled with proprietary software. This pledge also extends to the commercial support, hosting, customization and maintenance of such applications.
So those using home-grown or open source systems, professors and teachers contributing to open source projects, open source initiatives, commercially developed open source add-on applications to proprietary products and vendors hosting and supporting open source applications all are covered by this pledge. In addition, we have extended the pledge to many specifically named open source initiatives within the course and learning management system space whether or not they may include proprietary elements within their applications, including Sakai, Moodle, ATutor, Bodington and Elgg.
We are very pleased to take this formal step which is part of a larger effort on our part to engage more deeply with the e-Learning community and help foster greater openness and interoperability. We believe the pledge and the collaboration that brought it about will support and promote new innovation and the free flow of ideas across the global e-Learning community.
The text of the Pledge which incorporates by reference a list of frequently asked questions, as well as the announcement press release may be found on our website at www.blackboard.com/patent. If you have any questions about the Pledge, please contact Blackboard's Chief Legal Officer, Matthew Small, at msmall@blackboard.com.
Thank you again for your continued partnership.
Sincerely,
Michael Chasen
President and CEO
Blackboard Inc.
I'm reproducing the entire press release in order to compare and contrast it with the the tandem statement made by the board of directors of Sakai and Educause, an interesting counterpoint to that of Blackboard, if for no other reason than the latter's tone is much more measured.
One might well ask oneself why these leaders in technology in higher education would take such a tone. Isn't the Blackboard pledge a good thing?
Not really. On the one hand this feels like a face-saving effort on the part of Blackboard in anticipation of possibly losing their patents, patents which they never should have been granted. On the other hand, I get the distinct impression that Sakai and Educause are participating in this because they're more than a little uncomfortable banking on our legal system coming down on the right side of this issue.
I'll say it again, I have firsthand knowledge of there being prior art. I was involved with several projects that used teacher and student roles in course management systems before Blackboard existed. Setting aside, therefore, the huge issue of whether or not software should be patentable (it shouldn't be), these patents should have never been granted.
Given this fact and the home run that the FOSS community hit with last week's ruling, it's highly likely that Blackboard will be facing patent setbacks. So Sakai and Educause can afford to take a sterner tone. It seems to me as if they're just hedging their bets by participating in joint release.
To my mind they seem to be joining in this Blackboard public relations effort just in case Blackboard prevails and maintains their patents. Meanwhile, Blackboard gets to say to higher education, "Don't worry. We're not after you. We play nice. You can trust us. We're only after those who, like us, want to make a profit off of education, those, who--like us--have more mundane and less idealistic motives for being interested in education."
It will be interesting to see what Sakai and Educause will say when (and if) Blackboard's patents are revoked.
I don't have to tell the readers of this blog that I consider our (U.S.) legal system imperfect at best. Today, however, there's some promising news in the software patent wars. Blackboard (link intentionally left out) may actually lose its patents on the courseware management system, patents they received because they have high-powered lawyers, not because they were there first.
They weren't.
Indeed, I was involved in software projects (and so was Greg TR, a loyal reader of this blog) that differentiated between instructors and students long before Blackboard was a twinkle in a venture capitalist's eye.
This one looks promising, and since the CMS has been the centerpiece of my professional career for the last decade or so, you can bet that I'll be following this.
Way to go Software Freedom Law Center!
Dries Buytaert, leader of the Drupal Project, has an interesting discussion on his blog about the future of the CMS, which--in a telling rhetorical move--is alternately defined in the discussion as a content, community, and collaboration management system. Indeed, it is all of the above.
The trajectory of my professional career, in many respects, lands me squarely in the middle of CMS technology/implementations, and Drupal is definitely my favorite CMS (e.g.,1, 2, 3). So to say that I'm interested in the discussion is a bit of an understatement, especially since Dries is conceding that Drupal isn't quite there yet (wherever "there" might be).
What I find most interesting is the notion that the CMS is evolving into a web portal that is tightly integrated with the office suite, ala Microsoft's Sharepoint. For those of you who are, at this point, completely lost, Microsoft actually has a passable description of what Dries, et al, are discussing in their explanation of what Sharepoint--this next generation CMS--is and does, and it's fairly descriptive, despite the obvious digressions into market-speak.
Microsoft Office SharePoint Server 2007 is an integrated suite of server capabilities that can help improve organizational effectiveness by providing comprehensive content management and enterprise search, accelerating shared business processes, and facilitating information-sharing across boundaries for better business insight. Office SharePoint Server 2007 supports all intranet, extranet, and Web applications across an enterprise within one integrated platform, instead of relying on separate fragmented systems. Additionally, this collaboration and content management server provides IT professionals and developers with the platform and tools they need for server administration, application extensibility, and interoperability.
I haven't used Sharepoint since I was at Washington State University a couple years ago, and then only briefly. The way it was being used back then was as a glorified CVS repository, and, as such, I was largely underwhelmed. It seemed clunky, especially because my desktop at the time was Redhat Linux, and, lacking Internet Explorer, I was unable to take advantage of most of the functionality that my Windows colleagues were "enjoying."
But the notion that I could edit, employ document version control, establish workflow rules, share, and publish documents (both to intranet and the Internet) via my unit's CMS is a powerful one. But as one of the commenters makes apparent, it all depends upon the CMS's reliance upon open standards. The Microsoft marketing quote above promises interoperability, but are they serious? As Windows loses marketshare to OS X and Linux, it's going to be increasingly important for enterprises to implement technolgies that play nice with all platforms.
How might Drupal or other Open Source communities respond? That's the theme from the discussion on Dries' blog in which I'm most interested.
I'm tempted to post this without any commentary or contextualization, but I think it's too critical (to those of us who work with technology) to let the issue speak for itself.
First, take a look at the article. Have you done so? Good. Now, consider the source. It's not one of my left-leaning, Linux-junkie, online-only rags; this is mainstream. This is old media. This is CNN <smirk>. Now consider this excerpt:
Microsoft's oversight with SQL is one reason, among many, why analysts don't expect Vista to appear in the workplace until 2008. And it's become yet another sticking point with corporate IT departments already frustrated by their dependence on Microsoft. In the long run, the lack of SQL support could delay widespread adoption of Vista even further. (emphasis added)
I know that in my consulting business I'm frustrated wtih my dependence on Microsoft, and quite a bit of my frustration can be traced back to the fact that I'm comfortable with (if not an expert in) Linux/Unix alternatives. Notwithstanding the perspective of the article--which is nothing, if not critical of the way Microsoft is mismanaging its business--the mere fact that it was written by and for a mainstream media outlet like CNN.com suggests that there may well be broad dissatisfaction with Microsoft and its business model of ensnaring its customers into an quasi-addictive dependence on its proprietary software solutions.
I've said it numerous times, but it bears repeating. The push toward open standards and inoperability among the various file formats/software vendor products is not only ethically and morally sound, it's a good long-term business strategy. Eventually everyone's going to wake up and demand it, and then Microsoft will be one software provider among many. Wouldn't it be better to have been a pioneer in the movement toward open standards than an obstructionist? What happens if this resentment toward Microsoft spreads beyond those "in the know" (those of us who build, noodle with, and program servers) into the real mainstream: the desktop consumer market?
Surely, for all of Ballmer's posturing and Bobby Knight-like antics, even Microsoft sees the handwriting on the wall; even if they dare not discuss it.
Thanks to Paleck for the heads-up on this issue.
Ever since the anti-trust issues of the '90s surfaced, Microsoft has been roundly (and justifiably) accused by the digerati of sowing fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) around issues of Linux, Open Source, and what Lawrence Lessig terms Free Culture. Hence, the agreement to collaborate between Novelll and Microsoft several month ago was greeted by Open Source supporters with suspicion and with much reading of the tea leaves.
Yet, to my mind, the whole discussion has taken on the appearence of a witch hunt. (M$ is evil, dude. Linux is l33t. 3rgo this suks.) This, despite the fact that there is an underlying sound business model here for both Novell and Microsoft. Linux isn't going anywhere (indeed SUSE Linux--a Novell distro--is the platform that yours truly uses whenever he's not gaming, like right now...). And like it or not, neither is Windows going anywhere, at least for the foreseeable future. So why wouldn't two leaders and erstwhile enemies decide that it made good sense to colllaborate and provide their customers with better products and, thereby, give themselves a competitive advantage?
Why not deploy Occam's razor to explain the partnership instead of trying to ferret out the evil conspiracy? The simplest explanation is that the agreement is exactly what it appears to be: a business partnership.
Now don't get me wrong, my mission in life is to get all my games running in Wine so that I never, ever have to install Vista on any computer in my household. I loathe the Microsoft business model. I despise the fact that when I terminated my licensing agreement with them a few months ago that they sent me a nastygram threatening to require me to provide a "certificate of destruction" (whatever that might be?!) if they suspected that I was still running their precious--and for this Linux user, utterly superfluous--software.
Yet, for me, that only means that I won't be buying Vista, SQL Server 2005, Exchange, et cetera, because there are viable and more cost-effective alternatives. It does not mean that I'm going to turn into a conspiracy theorist.
All of which is preface to my including a link to this article, which I believe gets it right.
Members of the open source “community” will probably throw virtual bricks through my Windows (pun intended) because I support this agreement so enthusiastically – just as members of the Microsoft “community” did when my research proved the cost benefits of Linux in January this year. However, I believe it delivers what businesses need – document interoperability, management capabilities for heterogeneous environments, cross-platform support for virtualization, and the freedom to choose the right mix of operating systems for each requirement.This in turn will improve enterprise adoption of Linux and open source.
And it is enterprise adoption – much more so than ill-informed bloggers sitting in their basements tweaking their kernels – that will drive success for Linux and open source.
Well put. It's a good read for my fellow techies out there.
Found an odd post on a newly revamped blog called Web 3.0. What's it promoting? Why Web 3.0 of course, which will (putatively) link artificial intelligence and the web.
If you think that seems a bit circular and self promoting, that's probably because you're right. Nonetheless, there's some content there. Some stuff to struggle with, some good examples. It's not all fluff and hype. Not by a long shot.
The fact that the general public hasn't really caught on to Web 2.0 doesn't really mean much given the cultural logic of the investment community because it's all about getting in on the ground floor. In other words I don't have a problem, per se, with rolling out Web 3.0 before my mother knows what Web 2.0 is. (Sorry Mom. Didn't mean to put you on the spot.) My skepticism is fueled by the fact that all of the examples the writer gives have to do with companies exploiting the labor of human beings who'll be doing their marketing research for them under the guise of their having fun.
Social networking and data mining taken to the next logical step. What's better than poorly paid workers in Asian techno-sweatshops? Why unpaid workers in the developed world, of course. It has the evil ring of authenticity to it, doesn't it folks?
With apologies to Miranda and the Bard, "O brave new world, that hath such technologies/economic systems in it."
Via Slashdot, of course.
A Microsoft-related website has this hilarious screen saver. I'm doing 99% of my personal computing on Linux now, so I rarely boot up under Windows. This, however, makes me wish that I were running XP (don't get me started on Vista).
Maybe I should install it on my work laptop. Hehe.
It's interesting how Microsoft's Technet has embraced this. It's almost as if they've gained enough equanimity to poke fun at their own product. If this keeps up, next thing you'll hear is that they've partnered with Novell to make their software interoperable with Linux.
From Cybernet Technology News.
It's stories like this one that well nigh compel geeks to love Google. Mind you, Google's a business, and it's going to make problematic decisions because its bottom line is always going to be the bottom line.
Yet there's something refreshingly honest about letting your customers walk away from your service with their data. (It's also more than a little arrogant too, isn't it?) I mean, can you imagine Microsoft moving to open standards to allow their customers to migrate away from the .doc file format if they weren't satisfied with the latest Office product? Nope. Me neither.
Google's got a hacker mentality, and that's a good thing.
Thanks to ESR (you conservative libertarian dog you) for keeping the Jargon File online so I could get a reliable definition for Hack.
My favorite music player and one of my favorite open source projects, Amarok, is having a fund raiser during the month of "Roktober." They need donations for their servers and to fund continued development of what is a truly great player.
I know that a few of you are KDE/Linux users, which means that you (like me) are undoubtably using Amarok. If you pony up with a donation of at least $10 US, then you're eligible for the iPod Giveaway.
Support Open Source software.
Proviso: this is a crude, gestational idea--a thought piece. I do however believe it merits discussion.
Again, I suppose that I should have seen it coming. I do, after all, work with technology. On one level I'm sure that I did foresee this. I've certainly read enough Cyberpunk to imagine that we'll someday be constructing virtual worlds that will challenge our notion of the real while, in turn, feeding back into and changing our culture in unforeseen, potentially negative, ways.
What I didn't foresee, however, and something which frankly leaves me stunned, is the degree to which the photorealistic impulse tends toward representations of idealized beauty. This conclusion, of course, is based upon a relatively small sample size (the linked gallery). Nevertheless, it resonates with my experience living in this cultural moment. As the technology progresses and it becomes more difficult to discern just what is live and what is "Memorex," won't our expectations beauty--already extremely problematic--be driven to the boundaries of what is actually representative of human bodies, i.e., bodies that haven't been somehow mediated by technology?
Think, for example, of the psychic, psychological, and therefore spiritual impact of the waif look, or of heroin chic, or of the prepubescent, pubic hairless representations of women that have now become mainstreamed so that Salon.com advice columns are addressing the issue (or not).
I'm not articulating a neo-luddite argument here. On the contrary. What I am concerned about, however, is our seeming need to run from the real to technologically-enhanced. Because representations of our selves--however idealized--ultimately feedback into the culture and impact psychic space.
Does this make any sense?
An alert friend of mine forwarded this to me. What I find so interesting is that this is the only case I can think of when the Bush Administration has appropriately realized (and even beyond the Bushies, for as far back as I can think all the way to the Marshall Plan) that it's not in the United States' best interests to maintain a hegemonic position on anything. Instead, this appears to be a more realistic appraisal of the situation: the realization that what's good for the community (in this case, the world) is actually in the long-term, best-interests of the United States.
If it's true that we're going to resist further strong-arming of ICANN--and there are reasons to think that the administration is back-tracking and paying attention to an issue that it had likely ignored (can you say "Iraq civil war"?) now that conservative voices are suggesting that we behave as if we do own the Internet--then it behooves us to discover why we've abandoned the status quo and wrong-headed common sense and taken a more subtle, statemanlike approach.
If it's true, then it speaks volumes. Somewhere in the decision making process that preceded the ICANN meeting, there was an intelligent analysis that came to a simple, but all-too-often missing, conclusion: in the long run the U.S. loses when it tries to maintain absolute control over a international body. You can be sure that this decision was made by an entirely different group of people than those who've used the Bush/Wolfowitz doctrines to justify absolute unilateralism in all things international.
Yes, there are problems with ICANN having representation from only English-speaking nations. No doubt. It still smacks of techno-colonialism, but it is a step in the right direction away from said colonialism.
For the time being, however, all your DNS are belong to US (yeah, I lifted it).
I'm working on a longer, more complex, posting on why the US should have a more dimished role in ICANN, but in the meantime, this goes a long way toward making one of my points for me. Look at the numbers that this bill is passing by (410-15). I refuse to believe that there are only 15 intelligent representatives in the House. Rather, it's more likely that in an election year, they don't want to be seen as weak on child predators, so they instead create a weak law.
One the few representatives who sees the utter inanity of this legislation, a Michigan Democrat, John Dingell, states:
"So now we are on the floor with a piece of legislation poorly thought out, with an abundance of surprises, which carries with it that curious smell of partisanship and panic, but which is not going to address the problems.... This is a piece of legislation which is going to be notorious for its ineffectiveness and, of course, for its political benefits to some of the members hereabout."
I know that policy making is fundamentally a political process, and I'm all for the politicization of policy making, yet something's quite wrong with this picture. Rather than putting some sort of age verification in place, and, perhaps solving the whole issue of identity/authentication on the Internet, this bill threatens to destroy an entire industry, and will leave most of our children with nothing to fill the space that MySpace or LiveJournal (etc.) resided in. Hmmm. I wonder what they'll do on the computer when they can no longer interact with their peers--who, by the way, vastly, I dare say, infinitely outnumber the "evildoers" of the web? Do you think they might surf for p0rn instead? Maybe?
This bill is completely and utterly wrong. It's a mess.
