Showing posts with label conflit. Show all posts
Showing posts with label conflit. Show all posts

Friday, April 17, 2009

I am losing control of my Internet: net neutrality at stake.

I've realize that, more and more, old institutions and industry agents are trying to shape to way the Internet is use and perceive, and they are putting lots of energy in it. Changes will affect those that are actively using internet, and I think we will move slowly toward a web 2.1: A web "more secure" controlled by large corporation where the users is thrown back to the seat of the spectator, as in old media.

Internet did change our relationship to media and information. User and produced were for a time indistinguishable. People did build a chaotic but democratic sharing of information. Anyone could see and download anything, anytime. This is not true anymore. The traditional media enterprise, that at first neglect Internet as a marginal source of information and spectacle, is now claiming back the industry that is slipping through their hands. They want to secure over the Internet the power they have over traditional media channel. "The chaotic realm of the internet needs to be ordered. "

Lots of energy, and money, is put into this attempt to take back the power from the users. The recent Pirates Bay trial is only an example. Record and movie industry are in court everywhere in the world to claim back their place in the distribution process of cultural products. Internet Service Providers (ISPs) are capping traffic, inspecting it with new deep packet inspection technology and assigning different speed depending of your activity. Bell Canada assigned capped speed to sharing protocol during peak hours. In order to achieve this, they need to inspect the traffic, which seems to me a major violation of privacy. Moreover, they are not only assigning those restrictions to their customers, but also to their resellers. Since Bell own the DSL network, if you are using a DSL modem chance are you traffic is inspected and capped.

Why are they capping the file-sharing protocol? Not only because it is the main channel of pirated file sharing, but also because it is a channel that they have no control over it. They rather you use their web service, and thus bring back home their customers. In a not so distant future, they will probably charge depending the services you will be using: youtube, itune, amazon, etc. like the cable TV. Content provider will need to be large corporation, or they will just disappear. Soon enough, producer of content and users will be two distinct categories. This issue has been known for several years as the net neutrality problematic.

What option is left for the user? They can’t really turn to government. Recent events showed that they will take the side of their traditional allied. CRTC already reject injunction against Bell’s traffic throttling. Sweden court applied American copyrights law to the Pirate Bay’s case, despite a really clever defense on their part, one that shown a better understanding of new technology.

Government doesn’t want the citizen to be in control of those new technologies. They are letting corporation take this control out of our hand, and soon we will be charged more and more to use it.

Tuesday, April 14, 2009

The making of closed source software

The history of free and open source software isn't one where closes source software were liberated and became free and open. Actually, it is quite the opposite. There was a time, when there's was no distinction between hardware and software, between users and programmers that hobbyists shared freely their knowledge. No one wanted to reinvented the wheels each time they used a computer. so they collaborated and share their lines of code.

This early history of computing came to an abrupt end when Bill Gates from Micro-soft send an open letter to the Homebrew Computer Club.




AN OPEN LETTER TO HOBBYISTS

By William Henry Gates III

To me, the most critical thing in the hobby market right now is the lack of good software courses, books and software itself. Without good software and an owner who understands programming, a hobby computer is wasted. Will quality software be written for the hobby market?

Almost a year ago, Paul Allen and myself, expecting the hobby market to expand, hired Monte Davidoff and developed Altair BASIC. Though the initial work took only two months, the three of us have spent most of the last year documenting, improving and adding features to BASIC. Now we have 4K, 8K, EXTENDED, ROM and DISK BASIC. The value of the computer time we have used exceeds $40,000.

The feedback we have gotten from the hundreds of people who say they are using BASIC has all been positive. Two surprising things are apparent, however, 1) Most of these "users" never bought BASIC (less than 10% of all Altair owners have bought BASIC), and 2) The amount of royalties we have received from sales to hobbyists makes the time spent on Altair BASIC worth less than $2 an hour.

Why is this? As the majority of hobbyists must be aware, most of you steal your software. Hardware must be paid for, but software is something to share. Who cares if the people who worked on it get paid?

Is this fair? One thing you don't do by stealing software is get back at MITS for some problem you may have had. MITS doesn't make money selling software. The royalty paid to us, the manual, the tape and the overhead make it a break-even operation. One thing you do do is prevent good software from being written. Who can afford to do professional work for nothing? What hobbyist can put 3-man years into programming, finding all bugs, documenting his product and distribute for free? The fact is, no one besides us has invested a lot of money in hobby software. We have written 6800 BASIC, and are writing 8080 APL and 6800 APL, but there is very little incentive to make this software available to hobbyists. Most directly, the thing you do is theft.

What about the guys who re-sell Altair BASIC, aren't they making money on hobby software? Yes, but those who have been reported to us may lose in the end. They are the ones who give hobbyists a bad name, and should be kicked out of any club meeting they show up at.

I would appreciate letters from any one who wants to pay up, or has a suggestion or comment. Just write me at 1180 Alvarado SE, #114, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 87108. Nothing would please me more than being able to hire ten programmers and deluge the hobby market with good software.


Bill Gates

General Partner, Micro-Soft



This letter is a major schism in the discursive formation of copyright (to embrace some Foucault's notion). This letter bring a fundamental change in the discursive field where hardware and software aren't one anymore, and if you pay for the former, you have to pay for the later too. Programmers and users aren't one either. The first one is working and the later use the product, therefore he needs to pay for it. Those notion seems like self-going today, but they are made out, and the root can be trace back to this very letter, where Bill Gates accused hobbyists of stealing software.


DigiBarn Newsletters: Bill Gates' Open Letter to Hobbyists in Homebrew Club Newsletter Vol 2, Issue 1 (Feb 3, 1976). http://www.digibarn.com/collections/newsletters/homebrew/V2_01/gatesletter.html.


Foucault, Michel. 1969. L'archéologie Du Savoir. Bibliothèque des sciences humaines. Paris: Gallimard.


Gates, Bill. 1976. An Open Letter to Hobbyists. Homebrew Computer Club newsletter 2, no. 1 (February 3): 2.



Tuesday, January 27, 2009

The Anthropologist in mined fields


I think this is the "Table Ronde" Max Forte spoke of during last class. I just received the invitation, here it is for those interesed by the subject:




Altérités presents
ANTHROPOLOGISTS IN MINED FIELDS

Roundtable organized by Yara El-Ghadban and Kiven Strohm

Friday February 6, 2009 from 12h30 to 3h30 pm
Salle Marius Barbeau (C-3061), Département d’Anthropologie,
Université de Montréal

Moderator: Yara El-Ghadban, doctorante en anthropologie, Université de Montréal

INVITED SPEAKERS

Marie-Joëlle Zahar
Professeure agrégée, Science politique, Université de Montréal
Omar Dewachi
Post-doctorant en anthropologie, Université de Montréal
Abdel-Hamid Afana
President of the International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims (IRCT)
Research Associate, Trauma and Global Health Program, Douglas Hospital Research Institute, McGill University
Kiven Strohm, doctorant en anthropologie, Université de Montréal
Maximilian Forte
Associate Professor, Sociology and Anthropology, Concordia University

DISCUSSANTS

Mariella Pandolfi
Professeure titulaire, Anthropologie, Université de Montréal
Nadia Proulx
Doctorante en anthropologie, Université de Montréal

A buffet will be offered during the event

FREE ENTRY

(please see poster below)


SUMMARY

L’intellectuel est peut-être une sorte de contre-mémoire possédant son propre contre-discours qui défend à la conscience de porter son regard ailleurs ou de s’endormir
– Edward Said 2005

Qu’est-ce que l’intellectuel, sinon celui qui travaille à ce que les autres n’aient pas tellement bonne conscience?
– Michel Foucault 1976


In many of Saïd and Foucault’s writings, the intellectual is called upon to keep a critical perspective by staying deliberately out-of-step with current events, in essence by offering a constant counterpoint to the immediacy of the present and its short-sightedness in order to think beyond the surface of things. However, those who undertake research in areas of conflict are often confronted with situations that expose the limits of such a position. In the middle of a conflict zone, the ethnographic text and critical reflection come face to face with the dictatorship of the present, the brutality of finitude, the fragility of human life and the imperative to respond to what seems inhumane, if only to survive.

In such a context, is critical thinking even possible? Being a form of sustained but non-reactive engagement that often occurs at a distance in time and space from the conflict zone, is critical thinking compatible with the acts of engagement that take place in areas of conflict? These are but some of the questions that we wish to discuss in the context of this roundtable, which brings together a range of researchers working in areas of conflict. The discussion will focus on the role of intellectuals in conflict zones with speakers invited to talk about their experiences and their reflections on the risks, challenges and different forms of commitment that working in such conditions inevitably implies. Finally, they are invited to share with the audience the dilemmas and second-thoughts (if there are any) that have shaped their experiences.

Issues covered in this event include :

- How is academic research practiced in areas of conflict?
- What are the risks and challenges of such a practice?
- What to do, as researchers, in the face of experiences that are unspeakable?
- Where do critical thinking and acts of engagement meet and at what point do they come apart?
- What are the traces left by the researchers when they leave these places?