Same as it ever was... Ha ha ha

Thanks Jeremy

Open Silliness or World Domination

One of the great social philosophers of our time, Steven Wright, asked the pointed question, "If you had everything where would you put it?"

The answer is very simple. "Everywhere."


If we did in fact dominate the world where would we put it? Would we rearrange the continents? Rename the countries? Demand that people change the color of their eyes? Standardize on a universal breakfast cereal?

If we did dominate the world we would leave it just as it is. Nothing would change. We would still have a world economy. Neighboring people groups would still have long standing disagreements. Some areas of the planet would be warmer/colder/wetter/drier. Local political leaders would be subject to the influences of area political leaders who in turn would be subject to the influences of regional political leaders who would be influenced by ... all the same people who are influential now.

We need to realize that no one wants to dominate the world. No one wants the responsibility of managing any more people or territory than they already have.

Let me be clear on one very serious point here: We, the world population, must remain vigilant. We cannot allow atrocities to occur.

By unburdening ourselves of fear we can begin to grow. When we stop the false "competing" that our respective governments have committed us to we can begin to work cooperatively. Instead of investing in systems and mechanisms that are designed to keep us separate and apart we can concentrate on joining together. Joining as brothers and sisters.

This is just One World. Where else would we put it?

Open Computing

In previous "Open" posts I have focused on the disparity of what we have verses what we need. Today I want to focus on what has come to be known as OLPC. I am astounded at the foot dragging and stone-walling that has been going on with what will be the single greatest contribution to computing community. And I know why the industry hasn't stepped up to OLPC.

1. Consumer electronic manufacturers do not want to acknowledge that a functional PC can be produced for such a small price.
2. Consumer electronic manufacturers do not want to acknowledge just how few resources the average PC user really needs.

Quickly and simply this boils down to Their profit margins and Our needs.

For too long now we have been locked into the BIG box model. Touted as 'bigger is better' and 'Mo' power!' the average consumer has been saddled with a PC that lays dormant 90+ percent of the time. This overgrowth of personal computing power has been driven lock-step by monopolistic software developers who have through rigorous legal wrangling forced us to "upgrade". All the while such upgrades offer little in the way of innovation or even real function. One need only reflect on Microsofts' Vista to see the real failing of this business model.

Were Joe P.C. Average to have a hands-on opportunity I know s/he would do very well with a small form personal computer running a small operating system. But the purveyors of behemoth applications and operating systems decry the lack of functionality. Me thinks they doth protest too much! They have chosen to "give" us what we think we want (at their direction and recommendation) instead of what we need. PC manufactures and their crony software developers should take a very real lesson from the Detroit Big Iron folks.

Remedial Math 101:

Joe Average can afford $100 for a PC. Is it better to sell one PC at $1000 or 1000 PCs at $100?