Stalled Software

Stallman makes some important arguments about free software. Some of his arguments were more convincing than others. His refutation of the emotional argument states that the work of a programmer is quickly signed over to a large corporation, undermining its status as an integral “extension” of the programmer. It may be true that many programmers work for large corporations, but not all do. Is it okay to steal the software of those programmers who sign over their work to their employer and not okay for those who do not sell their work? It seems like the only distinction being made between the two is a comfort distinction. The author is comfortable taking from someone who he doesn’t have to face, someone who he doesn’t know. It would be uncomfortable for him to steal a program from his neighbor, for example. Stallman attempts to justify taking the software (which is illegal) through emotional arguments of his own. His argument that restricting access to software (charging money for it) causes “psychosocial harm” was one of his more ridiculous notions. Supposedly, restricting (is white bread restricted because people have to pay $1.50 for it?) software changes people’s relationships with each other, making them less likely to share. This argument would be great if it didn’t implicate almost every other commodity bought and sold in our country.

There are points made by Stallman that I think have merit. By implementing an “ownership” system of software, certain innovative capabilities are severed for aspiring programmers. Curious students are unable to view the source code for many programs, making it impossible to learn from the coding. In the interest of education, should all software be unprotected and fully available? Perhaps. But since when was it “the spirit of competition” to force a company to reveal its method or secret to success? Isn’t Dr. Pepper successful, because the Coca Cola Company spent the time, effort and money to cultivate the perfect flavor? Software isn’t soda, I know. But what is the basis for giving programmers no ownership of, credit for or rights to their own work? Stallman says that even with free software, programmers would still develop new programs (for some reason). That may be the case, but what motivation could a programmer, or a company for that matter, have to develop cutting-edge software that will change people’s lives? I think benevolence only gets us so far. I think benevolence maybe could get us “Word Perfect” or “Paint,” but not the Microsoft Office Suite. I think we need to think about the real consequences of unregulated, royalty-free software before jumping into the great unknown.
PS: I definitely think Stallman should move to Russia.

OLPC - Opportunity?

I support the efforts of U.N. agencies and charitable organizations who put cutting-edge technologies in the hands of underprivileged students from the Third World. It can give them a leg-up in a world where digital literacy is a prerequisite to success and prosperity. Bringing students across the fold with technology is a great idea and should be continued in any manner possible. I realize that the argument against OLPC is that the organization is spending money on technology rather than a system to provide running water or shelter, much more essential needs. I agree that there must be a clear focus on the fundamental needs of these children, but I think it's a mistake to criticize any effort that doesn't constitute nutritional aid. I don't think there is anything wrong with an organization providing the means for these students' mental nourishment. These countries have the potential to leap across the digital divide without enduring the long process that we went through. Ireland, for example, is now the technology hub of Europe. Yet just a few decades ago, it was far from digitally integrated into the European network. The country was able to leapfrog much of the development required of previous nations making the same transition.

I also think that the OLPC program brings up important questions of privacy. I was surprised to learn that the laptops are controlled by a centralized computer system operated by the administrator. There are clear advantages to having the laptops be controlled by a centralized computer in such a tumultuous part of the globe. Should a laptop go missing, the central computer can disable it's operation and remotely control it in hopes of retrieving it. The downsides are illustrated in recent events here in America. Recently it was reported that Pennsylvania student was being spied on by school administrators through a school laptop he took home with him. There are clear concerns about the potential abuse of donated or lent technology. As with this Pennsylvania student, the African students are somewhat at the mercy of their international benefactors. In spite of the good intentions of Nicholas Negroponte, questions of privacy begin to cloud the positive feelings about this program. Questions of privacy are paramount in people's minds today, as they should be. Take a look at this clip of Google CEO Eric Schmidt discussing privacy concerns with CNBC. Unsettling to say the least.

Digital Divide is an Economic Divide

While discussing the “digital divide” in class last week, one image kept popping into my mind. When I was younger, I loved maps. But my favorite map was a night image Mercator projection of the earth. It was fascinating to see where civilization “lights up.” Interestingly enough, a large swath of lights along the Sahel region (Sub-Saharan Africa) of Africa were described as out of control forest fires. While I had thought, maybe these people had begun to benefit from the international aid sent to them, able to prosper and succeed; it turned out to be nothing more than a horrific natural disaster. The map puts into perspective several of the points made by the Taiwanese researchers who published our reading for the week. The United States has a disproportionate hold on wealth and technology relative to its population. The map shows the United States brighter than any other section of the globe, fueled by a prosperous economy. Yet, much more densely populated areas of the globe sometimes barely show up at all. This reality extends to the unequal distribution of Internet access. The digital divide occurs along these “light divides,” representing political and economic stability.

A friend of mine visited South Korea as a Marine several years ago. I remember him telling the story of visiting the De-Militarized Zone between the two warring nations. He had enjoyed the bright lights and vibrant activity of Seoul, the capital of South Korea. Yet, just a few miles away at the border, he was able to look across into North Korea. He found nothing but desolation and darkness. It stunned him to see the disparity in the distribution of wealth and opportunity. And it all came down to this one specific line that divided the countries. The fact is that the digital divide is a result of political realities. Nations with certain kinds of governments will more likely prosper economically. As a result, as our authors noted, the more economically developed nations have greater Internet penetration. So as we see more and more people gaining access to the Internet, it is still occurring largely behind this economically-based dividing wall. I believe that the solving the digital divide involves addressing political difficulties more than finding the money to donate laptops to underprivileged children. It is important to have benevolent peoples donating their time and money to send the technology to these far corners of the globe. But with corrupt political forces at work on both sides, I think there are more fundamental issues that need to be addressed first.

Education and the Web

I think there are numerous ways in which our education system has been improved by new technologies, including the internet. While in high school, I took several online courses through Brigham Young University’s Independent Study. The program made it very easy for me to take some required courses over the summer and free up some room in my schedule to take classes that interested me. I took my Economics and American Government courses over the Internet. I had an assigned number of pages to read. After finishing a chapter, I would go on their website and take a quiz.Interestingly, the quiz instructions included an “honor code,” where the student would click “yes,” affirming that they would not use study materials during the quiz. The quizzes were not exceptionally difficult, but it is interesting to see their entire online quizzing system hinging on an “honor code.” BYU is a Mormon institution, but I’m sure a large portion of their Independent Study participants are not. Without some kind of religious conviction, how do they know you’ll be honest? The final exam was proctored at my school with a supervising teacher, but even then, most of the test questions are directing taken from the quizzes. So if you know the quiz answers, you’d be fine on the exam. I was surprised such a large school district allowed this class loophole for students. The classes demanded much less reading than a normal course with teacher supervision. The student is free to progress at their own rate and learn (or not learn) the material in whatever way suits them.

I agree with Don Tapscott that people learn in a variety of ways. The standard professor-lecture system does not address the changing realities of students today. It is not a mistake for schools to tailor their teaching styles to the needs of the students. Tapscott contrasts the “broadcast model” of our parent’s generation with the “digital model” of our generation. With the Internet and various web technologies, new channels and opportunities are opened to reach students in a way that is familiar to them. Being able to interact with your teachers outside of class through email and Blackboard is much more convenient than trying to reach the teacher in the five minutes following class. I think the “just-in-time” teaching method sounds like a great idea, even if it’s a bit idealistic. I think it would streamline the learning process in such a way that the students do not spend time listening to things in the lecture hall that they already know. Instead, the teacher is able to focus on what is not understood, and to have a more targeted approach to the students’ comprehension. Of course, it would take much more time and involvement by students and teachers. But if the pedagogical system is such a sham, as people love to say, why not try something different?