Is That All Human Knowledge in Your Pocket...?

...or are you just glad to see me?

This is hardly rocket science, but it's nonetheless potentially highly useful. Apparently the German company Sevenval has stripped Wikipedia down to its bare essentials, making it suitable for access via a mobile phone.

The end-result is rather attractive even in a standard browser, but its real importance is that it puts a large chunk of human knowledge (albeit with some dodgy bits) at your disposal wherever your mobile can hook up to the Internet. (Via Openpedia.org.)

OpenCyc: Wikipedia with Intelligence

One of the long-held dreams of computer science is to create systems that "understand" the world in some sense. That is, they can respond to questions about a knowledge domain and produce answers that aren't simply restatements of existing information. Or as Cycorp, probably the leading company in this field, puts it slightly more technically in describing its main product:

The Cyc Knowledge Server is a very large, multi-contextual knowledge base and inference engine developed by Cycorp. Cycorp's goal is to break the "software brittleness bottleneck" once and for all by constructing a foundation of basic "common sense" knowledge--a semantic substratum of terms, rules, and relations--that will enable a variety of knowledge-intensive products and services. Cyc is intended to provide a "deep" layer of understanding that can be used by other programs to make them more flexible.

If this is your kind of thing, the good news is that there is an open source version called OpenCyc. The president of the associated non-profit Cyc Foundation has an explanation of what the software does that is slightly more user-friendly than the one above:

Foundation president, John De Oliveira, compared the Foundation's "Cyclify" effort to the Wikipedia project. He said, "The Wikimedia Foundation asks us to 'Imagine a world in which every single person is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge.' In the Cyclify project, led by The Cyc Foundation, we ask you to imagine a world in which every single person is given free access to programs that reason with the sum of all human knowledge."

(Via Slashdot.)

TRIPS Tripped up by Doha?

Here's a hopeful analysis. It concerns the pernicious Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement, which is often used by Western nations to force other countries to pass harsh laws that control intellectual monopolies.

The piece claims that TRIPS was accepted by developing countries as a quid pro quo for obtaining fairer treatment for their agricultural goods. But the recent collapse of the so-called Doha round of trade negotiations means that such fairer treatment is unlikely to be forthcoming. So, the logic runs, maybe developing countries should give TRIPS the heave-ho in return. Interesting.

Wikimanifold

Say "Wikipedia", and you probably think of an almost ungraspable quantity of undifferentiated text, but it's much more than that. A good way to appreciate its manifold glory is to take a close look at the Wikimania Awards Finalists page. Me, I'd vote for the diagram showing Han foreign relations and the animation of the Geneva Mechanism. (Via Lessig Blog.)

What's New at Ubuntu

You don't have to be Nostradamus to predict that Ubuntu is well on the way to joining the front rank of distros, along with Red Hat and SuSE. By that I mean not just that it is popular - as the Distrowatch rankings already show - but that it is, or will be, fully capable of satisfying enterprise users too. In part this is a technical issue, but it's also cultural too: Ubuntu is consistently one of the most interesting in terms of how it is approaching the whole process of creating a distribution.

The latest proof of this is the appointment of a "community manager". As Ubuntu's founder and main sponsor Mark Shuttleworth explains, this post is

"uniquely Ubuntu" in that it brings together professional management with community integration. This job has been created to help the huge Ubuntu community gain traction, creating structure where appropriate, identifying the folks who are making the best and most consistent contributions and empowering them to get more of their visions, ideas and aspirations delivered as part of Ubuntu - release by release.

It’s unusual in that it’s a community position that is not an advocacy position. It’s a management position. Our community in Ubuntu is amazingly professional in its aspirations - folks want to participate in every aspect of the distribution, from marketing to artwork to sounds to governance and beyond. And we welcome that because it means we share the ownership of the project with a remarkably diverse and mature team. In the past six months I’ve noticed a number of people joining and having an impact who are mature professionals with great day jobs and a limited ability to contribute in terms of time - but a strong desire to be part of “this phenomenon called Ubuntu”. The job of the community manager will be to make it possible for these folks to have an amplified impact despite having time constraints on their ability to participate.

The job has been given to fellow Brit Jono Bacon, and I wish him well in what sounds like an interesting challenge. (Via DesktopLinux.com.)

Eclipse Becomes Even Healthier

I've written elsewhere about the stunning rise of Eclipse. The news that IBM, the original donor of code, has given some more software to the project, this time in the field of healthcare, is notable. It shows that what began as a rather specific tool for Java programmers is now turning into a general platform. I predict that Eclipse will one day be the main such platform for every kind of development project, whatever the domain. (Via Bob Sutor's Open Blog.)

Wizard Idea, Wirzenius

Lars Wirzenius is not as well known a he should be, for he more than anyone was both witness and midwife to the birth of Linux. Along the way, he garnered an interesting tale or two about that young chap Linus, his fellow student at Helsinki University. Some of these he kindly passed on to me when I was writing Rebel Code.

I'll never forget the interview, because it was conducted as he was walking along, somewhere in Helsinki, and somewhat breathlessly. The sense of movement I received down the line was quite a physically disconcerting experience.

This memory flooded back to me when I came across this link on OSNews about Lars' current project. As his "log" - not "blog" - explains:

I wanted to know how good Linux, or more specifically Debian with GNOME, is for the uninitiated, or more specifically, for someone who has been using Windows for a number of years, and switches to Linux. I'm specifically uninterested in the installation experience.

To see what it is like, I recruited a friend of mine, and gave her my old laptop with Linux pre-installed and pre-configured. She has agreed to try switching all her computer use to Linux, and tell me about any problems she has. We'll do this for several months, to make it realistic. Anyone can suffer through a week in a new computer.

Of course: why hasn't this been done more often? It's precisely what the GNU/Linux community needs to know to make things better. Reviews by journalists are all very well, but you can't beat in-depth, long-term end-user experience. Wizard idea.

Another Boring Open Source Success. Yawn.

So the open IP telephony company Digium scores $13.8 million in VC dosh. Yawn.

What's most amazing about this announcement is how extraordinarily boring it is. Digium was obviously well placed to get VC money, because it's already a huge success. Investing in it is a complete no-brainer (lucky Matrix that somehow convinced it to accept). And all this sheer and utter boringness is yet another measure of how successful open source has become. Of course it gets VC money, of course it's profitable, of course it will wipe out the opposition.

Next question?

The Price of Everything, the Value of Nothing

One of the reasons it took a while for people to accept free software is that there is a traditional diffidence in the face of things that are free. After all, if something's free, it can't be worth anything, can it? The same infuriating obtuseness can be seen writ large when it comes to the environment: since the air and sea are all free, they can't be valuable, so polluting them isn't be a problem.

Against this background, it is no wonder that traditional economics pays scant regard to the value of the environment, and rarely factors in the damage caused to it by economic activities. It is also signficant that the seminal work on valuing all of Nature goes back to 1997, when Robert Costanza and his co-authors put the worth of the planet's annual contribution to mankind at a cool $33 trillion per year, almost certainly an underestimate.

So it's high time that this work was updated and expanded, and it's good to see that the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation is providing some much-needed money to do precisely that:

Over the next year, with an $813,000 grant from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, Costanza and his team will create a set of computer models and tools that will give a sophisticated portrait of the ecosystem dynamics and value for any spot on earth.

"Land use planners, county commissioners, investment bankers, anyone who is interested," Cosntanza said, "will be able to go on the Web, use our new models, and be able to identify a territory and start getting answers."

For example, if a town council is trying decide the value of a wetland--compared to, say, building a shopping mall there--these models will help them put a dollar value on it. If a country wants to emulate Costa Rica's program of payments to landowners to maintain their land as a forest, they'll better be able to figure the ecosystem value of various land parcels to establish fair payments.

This is a critically-important project: let's hope its results are widely applied, and that we can use it as a step towards paying back the debt we owe Nature before it - and we - go environmentally bankrupt. (Via Digg.)

Mooch Ado About Something

You can tell its Bubble Time when people start companies based on permutations of other, already-successful concepts. Sites like eHub are chockablock with ideas that you just now are going to crash and burn. But occasionally you come across something that seems a little different.

A case in point is BookMooch, "a community for exchanging used books". That community part is important, because it indicates that this is not just some wet-behind-the-ears MBA who's out to make a quick killing by plugging into a few buzzwords. Indeed, The Inquirer's interview with John Buckman, the man behind the idea, confirms that it's a labour of love, with its heart in the right place:

The idea for BookMooch came came when I was in Norwich, UK, at a local community center, and they had a "leave a book, take a book" area with bookshelves and couches. The shelves were filled and people were chatting about the books, asking for advice, as well as reading. It was a healthy and natural thing. Reading books can be a very social act, but someone has to provide the meeting place.

I saw this great book-share spot in the UK, and thought "this could be done on the Internet", and it shocked me that no-one had done it yet, at least not in the way I thought it should.

What I like about it - side from all this feel-good stuff - is that it is trying to create an analogue version of some of the ideas that are common in the digital space of the opens:

BookMooch is like a giant bookstore, of all the bookshelves in people's homes. By aggregating everyone's home book collection, we should have the best selection of used books on the planet.

...

Many books go out of print and are hard to find. With BookMooch-- and this is important-- they're still available and what's more, free.

Books are emotional, just like music. They are a cultural product and they matter to us. It feels good to recommend a book to someone, to pass it on, so they'll enjoy it.

Will Zhong Guo Kill Eye Pea?

Intellectual monopolies only work if everyone agrees to play the game. According to this piece, the Chinese don't:

"They don't care about intellectual property. We have to develop something that will take two to three years to copy."

In other words, if the increasingly powerful economy of China decides to ignore global "IP" there's precious little the rest of the world can do about it except keep on coming up with innovative products that take a while to copy. (Via Techdirt.)

It's a Hit

I know little about baseball (or, indeed, any other sport), and care even less. But this Techdirt story about baseball statistics has some interesting aspects. The basic issue was whether anybody owns the factual information about baseball games. Obviously, you can't, because you can't copyright facts, but that didn't stop some witless, greedy company from trying (and failing).

What I found suggestive was the following passage:

baseball (and other sports) have made a lucrative practice out of licensing such information to video game makers as well -- and it seems likely this ruling would apply to them as well. Of course, if MLB were smart, they're view this as a good thing. Getting more real info about real players out there in fantasy and video games should lead to more fans and more interest in the overall sport -- leading to many more opportunities to make money.

So, here we have the sensible suggestion that organisations should be happy for certain kinds of digital information - in this case baseball stats - to be circulating in the public domain, because it will drive people to attend the real games in the analogue world.

For me, this has close parallels with music. It seems increasingly clear to me that the best thing for the music industry to do is to regard digital copies of songs as publicity. If they are passed around for free, well and good, because this will drive more people to concerts - the analogue instantiation of that music - which is increasingly where the money is.

The great thing with this model is that you can't copy the experience of a concert - you really have to be there (well, at least until virtual reality technology makes some serious advances). No more "piracy", and no need for punitive law cases. Result: it's a hit with everyone.

Something Rotten in the State?

Far be it from me to read too much into a piece of ego-bloggery, but there are some very interesting hints in this exit piece from a soon-to-be-ex Microsoftie that the Windows Live initiative has a touch of gangrene. (Via Techmeme.)

The Double Bind of the Commons

User-generated content is cool, so big media wants to co-opt it; user-generated content cares little for copyright laws, so big media wants to crush it. So what's a poor multinational to do? That's the thought at the heart of this nice piece from OnTheCommons.org.

UN Calls for ODF in Asia

The ever-alert Erwin has spotted another push for ODF, this time from the UN's International Open Source Network, and aimed Asia-ward:

Sunil Abraham, manager of the International Open Source Network (IOSN) at the U.N., told ZDNet Asia that most governments in the region have already stated their support for open standards, through their respective government interoperability frameworks.

He hopes that governments in the region will now extend that support and "seriously consider" the OpenDocument Format (ODF).

The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

Matt Asay has an excellent riposte to a singularly wrong-headed post entitled "Open source won't doom traditional enterprise software". As he rightly says, the real question is not the one the above piece thinks to deal with - "Is Enterprise Software Doomed?" - but

"What will be the primary bases for competition once everything is more (or less) open source?"

I believe the answers are also an explanation of why open source does doom traditional enterprise software, because the key differentiators will be things like innovation and serving the customer. Whatever lip-service traditional software companies pay to these ideas, the closed nature of their code, and the fact that customers are locked into their products means that they simply don't deliver either in the way that open source companies will do once they become the norm.

When Elephant Seals Collide

You can't beat a legal battle involving two overlapping pieces of legislation. The sight of lawyers having at each other, secure in the knowledge that the law is on their side, reminds me of nothing so much as two great elephant seals, thwacking each other vigorously, their proboscises all a-jiggle.

We could be in for another of these spectacles, according to this Techdirt article. It seems that the old End-User Licence Agreement (EULA) is being used to trump copyright fair use provisions, and that this might eventually go to the US Supreme Court to sort out (but don't hold your breath for EULAs getting spanked).

Of course, for those of us who use free software, EULAs are but dim memories from some strange, barbaric past, with no question of trumping anything.

Reasons Not to Use Closed Source: No. 471

I've written a couple of times about cases that demonstrate graphically why closed source software is a Bad Thing, but even they pale somewhat beside this story.

The robot that parks cars at the Garden Street Garage in Hoboken, New Jersey, trapped hundreds of its wards last week for several days. But it wasn't the technology car owners had to curse, it was the terms of a software license.

A dispute over the latter meant that the software simply stopped working. And since it was closed source, nothing could be done about it. The results were dramatic:

The Hoboken garage is one of a handful of fully automated parking structures that make more efficient use of space by eliminating ramps and driving lanes, lifting and sliding automobiles into slots and shuffling them as needed. If the robot shuts down, there is no practical way to manually remove parked vehicles.

I bet the garage owners wished they'd chosen open....

Nothing to Fear But Fear Itself

One of the tensions that emerges from time to time in this blog is that between openness and security. In the current climate of the so-called "war on terror", openness is typically characterised as dangerous, irresponsible even, because it gives succour to "them".

Terrorism is not to be trivialised, but it's a question of keeping things in perspective. Magnifying the threat unreasonably and acting disproportionately simply hands victory to those who wish to terrorise. This seems pretty obvious to me, but if you want a rigorously-argued version, you could hardly do better than this one, by John Mueller.

Here's a sample, on the issue of perspective:

[I]t would seem to be reasonable for those in charge of our safety to inform the public about how many airliners would have to crash before flying becomes as dangerous as driving the same distance in an automobile. It turns out that someone has made that calculation: University of Michigan transportation researchers Michael Sivak and Michael Flannagan, in an article last year in American Scientist, wrote that they determined there would have to be one set of September 11 crashes a month for the risks to balance out. More generally, they calculate that an American’s chance of being killed in one nonstop airline flight is about one in 13 million (even taking the September 11 crashes into account). To reach that same level of risk when driving on America’s safest roads — rural interstate highways — one would have to travel a mere 11.2 miles.

(Via Boing Boing.)

Microsoft's Gift to Firefox

Firefox has been incredibly lucky. It has taken Microsoft an extraordinary amount of time to face up to the challenge this free browser represents, during which Firefox has notched up a serious market share that won't be going away any time soon.

However, my great fear was that once Internet Explorer 7 came out, the appeal of Firefox to people who wanted a stable, standards-based browser would diminish considerably. After all, good enough is generally good enough, and surely, I thought, Microsoft will get this one right, and produce what's necessary?

If this report is anything to go by, it seems not.

Incredibly, Microsoft will not be supporting fully the Cascading Style Sheet 2 (CSS 2) standard. As the story explains:

The most critical point in Wilson's post, in my mind, is Microsoft's admission that it will fail the crucial Acid2 browser-compliance test , which the Web Standards Project (WaSP) designed to help browser vendors ensure that their products properly support Web standards. Microsoft apparently disagrees. "Acid2 ... is pointedly not a compliance check," Wilson noted, contradicting the description on the Acid2 Web site. "As a wish list, [Acid2] is really important and useful to my team, but it isn't even intended, in my understanding, as our priority list for IE 7.0." Meanwhile, other browser teams have made significant efforts to comply with Acid2.

If you look at the CSS 2 standard, you'll note that it became a recommendation over eight years ago. And yet Microsoft is still not close to implementing it fully, unlike other browsers. Even if you argue that CSS 2 is only of interest to advanced coders, or at best a standard for the future, it is nonetheless a key test of a browser development team's attitudes and priorities.

This is a tremendous opportunity for Firefox: provided it continues to support standards better than Microsoft - and this now looks likely - it will occupy the high ground with all that this implies in terms of continuing to attract users and designers. Thanks, Microsoft.

Capillary Growth

I see my old chums at OSS Watch have come out with a survey of open source use in higher and further education institutes in the UK, and it makes interesting reading.

The extent to which open source is creeping into higher education almost without anyone noticing is striking. From the summary:

Most institutions (69%) have deployed and will continue to deploy OSS on their servers. Generally, the software on servers is a mix of OSS and proprietary software (PS). The use of OSS is most common for database servers (used by 62% of institutions), web servers (59%) and operating systems (56%).

This is particularly true on the desktop. Although GNU/Linux is not much used there, free software apps are:

Microsoft Office and Internet Explorer are deployed by all institutions on most desktops. Other commonly deployed applications are Microsoft Outlook (82%) and Mozilla/Firefox (68%). The latter's use is now considerably higher than in 2003.

Not mentioned in this summary, is the share for OpenOffice.org (23%) and Thunderbird (22%) both of which are eminently respectable. It's also noteworthy that some 56% of further education establishments surveyed used Moodle.

Turning Back Genomic Time

Bioinformatics allows all kinds of information to be gleaned about the gradual evolution of genomes. For example, it is clear that many genes have arisen from the duplication of an earlier gene, followed by a subsequent divergent specialisation of each duplicate under the pressure of natural selection.

New Scientist describes an interesting experiment to turn back genomic time, and to re-create the original gene that gave rise to two descendants. Moreover, that new "old" gene was shown to work perfectly well, even in today's organisms.

What's impressive about this is not just the way such information can be teased out of the raw genomic data, but that it effectively allows scientists to wind evolution backwards. Note that this is possible because the dynamics of natural selection are reasonably well understood.

Without the idea of natural selection, there would be no explanation for the observed divergent gene pairs, and the experimental fact that their putative ancestor does, indeed function in their stead, as predicted - other than the trivial one of saying that it is so because it was made so. Occam's razor always was the best argument against Intelligent Design.

There's No FUD Like an Old FUD

As readers of these posts may know, I am something of a connoisseur of Microsoft's FUD. So I was interested to come across what looked like a new specimen for my collection:

"One of the beauties of the open-source model is that you get a lot of flexibility and componentization. The big downside is complexity," Ryan Gavin, Microsoft's director of platform strategy, said on the sidelines of the company's worldwide partner conference in Boston last month.

Alas, digging deeper showed this is hardly vintage FUD. Take, for example, the prime witness for the prosecution:

IBS Synergy had started developing products for the Linux platform back in 1998 but gave Linux the boot in early 2004, and now builds its software on the Windows platform. Lim said this was because the company's developers were spending more time hunting for Linux technical support on the Web, and had less time to focus on actual development work.

Right, so these are problems a company had two and half years ago: why is Microsoft raising them now? And is it not just possible that things have moved on somewhat in those 30 months?

So really this is the old "there are too many distributions, you can't get the support" FUD that was so unconvincing that I didn't even bother including it in my FUD timeline above. After all, businesses tend to use, well, Red Hat, SuSE and er, well, that's about it, really. (Via tuxmachines.org.)

Wales's World-Wide Wikia

I wrote about Wikia when it was launched a while back. Now we have WorldWiki, a fairly obvious application of wikis to travel guides - with plenty of advertising potential.

I mention it for two reasons. First, this will be a good test-case of the Wikia idea - if Wales can't get this one up and running, he may have problems with the whole scheme. Secondly, the home page currently has a rather fetching Canaletto-esque view of the Grand Canal, taken from the Rialto if I'm not much mistaken. (Via TechCrunch.)

Blogging the Bloggable

No one has a better bird's eye view of the blogosphere than Dave Sifry, which means that his quarterly report on the same is unmissable. One comment in particular is worth noting.

In the context of the 50 million blog mark being reached on 31 July, he writes:

Will I be posting about the 100 Millionth blog tracked in February of 2007? I can't imagine that things will continue at this blistering pace - it has got to slow down. After all, that would mean that there will be more bloggers around in 7 months than there are bloggers around in total today. I shake my head as I am writing this - the only thing still niggling at my brain is that I'd have been perfectly confident making the same statement 7 months ago when we had tracked our 25 Millionth blog, and I've just proven myself wrong.

For the sake of being wrong, I'll stick my neck out and say that I think he will be reporting 100 million blogs in February next year. The reason is simple - literally.

Blogs are so simple to write, that I think practically everyone who has a Web site will convert unless they have very strong reasons - for example commercial ones - to stick with the free-form Web page. Everyone else - and that's billions of us - just needs a suitable bucket for pouring our thoughts into. And the more basic the bucket, the easier it is to use, and the more that will use it. If this thinking is correct, another 50 million - or even 100 million - blogs is not so hard to achieve.