Tsikbal: from my perspective

The purpose of technology should always be enhancing humanity, not being its substitute. If any new technology doesn't enhance our life in a positive way, it isn't worth developing. Technology shouldn't be something that to be feared, but it should be something useful for people. All technological development should put peoples needs and interests first, so that it makes their lives better and enjoyable. It should be adding value to our lives, not subtracting from it. People should be at the center of every technological development. There should be clear commitment to make the world a better, and how it'll meet that commitment. There shouldn't be any development just for the sake of doing so, just because something can be done doesn't mean it should be done. The purpose of all and every technology is to be at the service of society. There should be no need to question this, and it should be the basis for all technological development. It doesn'...

The Internet, and other communication technologies, won't bring revolutionary change by themselves. These are just tools, and the contributions they bring are dependent on how people use them. At the end of the end, people are the ones who make change happen. If they don't act, that change they want won't come at all. What the Internet and other technologies bring to the table, is a way by which people can inform themselves and organize to act to do what they believe it must be done. People are the ones that must act in order to bring change, and technology is the tool that can help us to make that change a reality. And the Internet, mobile phones, among other technologies, give us a real chance to organize ourselves to bring the change we want. More than ever, people can have the control over how they interact with each other in order do what's needed to make a difference. Now more than ever people building the society they want is no longer a dream, but s...

The possibilities that modern technology are almost limitless, and any limitation that currently exists can be made mute by giving it enough though and effort to make it through. It's easy to say that this or that isn't possible, but history shows that where theres a will theres a way. It comes down to asking the right questions, and to face the problem with the right mind set. More often that not, when we fail to see how we can solve a problem it isn't because the problem is unsolvable. It's because we aren't able to see beyond what we have right in front of us. The answer might be where we least expect it to be, but we have to be able to see it by not closing our minds to it. Just because something hasn't been done before, it means that it can't be done. Quite often the main limitation to solve a problem is not it's difficulty, but that we can't seem to be able to think on ways to solve it. We limit our possibilities to what we know, n...

Technology can be as humanizing, or dehumanizing, as each user wants it to be. All comes down on how the user handles technology, and what use is made out of technology on daily basis. It's true that technology is a double-edged sword, since it can be used to enhance social interaction or thwart it. Yet this is not the fault of technology itself, since technology can not make choices for the user. At the end the one making choices on how it's used is the user, technology is just the medium that facilitates the action that derives from the choices made by the user. The argument that technology is the origin, and end, of all what's wrong with society is shortsighted to say the least. It doesn't take into account a host of other factors that make people use the technology they use they way they do. Or how we can give people the tools to avoid the pitfalls that comes with any technology. At the other hand, technology by itself wont solve all the problems that h...

One of the best things about FOSS(free and open-source software), is that users have choice over their computer experience in all aspects. With open source, software adapts to they users needs, not the other way around. FOSS isn't about being free in the sense of having no monetary cost, or that developers can't have a profit from their work. FOSS is about the users freedom to control their software, and hardware, by being able to study, modify and redistribute any piece of software installed on their computers. In many ways, is putting the users freedoms ahead of other concerns. It's about people and the communities they make to work on the same objectives, or people just getting together to share what they are passionate about. It's time to put users freedoms at the forefront of software development, and not the interests of corporations and their profits. All software needs to protect the freedoms of its users as principle, and serve their interests as w...

The perception that science and technology are boring and hard to understand, are two persistent misconceptions. Those perceptions steam from how they are presented to society at large, we are told that they are that way all the time. Adding the fact that our schools systems seem to be on the business of teaching it so it becomes boring, making it harder for our children to become interested on them. Since we remember how science classes where boring, it becomes evident that it becomes hard to understand because people had no incentive to study science in a way they can make sense of it. Not only that, in many ways science classes don't tie what they teach with technologies, or other instances, on which what it's being teach is applied. So, many just don't see why science is useful, or how it's part of their everyday life. If we want to keep moving science forward, and to benefit from its fruits trough new technologies, we need to give people at least worki...

When I think about getting a new laptop, the first question that comes to mind is which design is one that I'll be happy to use for at least the next 2-3 years. That is that minimum amount of time I expect any good laptop to last with the type of use I give to my laptops. As a matter of fact, I could use one up to 5 years before I need to change it because it can't be repaired or because the specs are not up to my everyday usage. My current laptop has about 3 years, and I can safely say that could last about 1 more year. So, it's time for to start thinking about the replacement. The only two factors that aren't subject to change are that it has to be able to run Ubuntu, and that the screen size shouldn't be less than 13". All other aspects are variable, and all depends on what offering are on the market that meet the prior two requirements while being something that I can see me using for at least 2 years. I want it to last for at least that lo...

I've been using Ubuntu 12.10 for some time now, and I'm liking it much so far. I upgraded from the 12.04 version, and most of the things I use regularly have been improved. The main thing that I've noticed so far, is that Unity has been improved a lot from what I was used to. As it has been the norm for each time that I came to the latest version of Ubuntu, I've like it better than the one before. There has been some details with which I'd some problems, but overall Ubuntu has delivered on each release. If work on Ubuntu keeps going as it has, I'll be a long term user of the OS. My next laptop replacement has to be Ubuntu compatible if I'll buy it, this requirement is not optional. Now, I only need to change my smartphone to an Android powered one to have all my devices running on open source software.

Great design is not just about making software looking pretty, or about the ease of use. It's about both, since people judge both aspects at the same time. We like the software we use to look good, while it's easy to use and let's you do what you want without getting in your way. Software needs to have both in order to be the best it possible can, if one is lacking it'll suffer as a whole. Being the best in one area is not enough to compensate for the lack of the other, no matter how well it's executed. Yet, as with anything else that deals with people, there is no single implementation that'll be universally liked by all. There a few things that every implementation would have in common, but everything else will be different depending on the people using it. That's why having different users interfaces on Linux is not a bad thing, since it let's people to choose the best one for their needs. If you don't like one, use another that bette...

When it comes to education, and research, I don't like when  politicians  say they'll increase or  maintain  the expenditure. Money given to those areas shouldn't be seen as an expense, it's an  investment  on our people and our future. As with health care or security, education and research are areas that should have a big percentage of the budget assign to them. These areas are not just expenses, they are investments and the money assigned to them is going to pay back in the future when the recipients starts using their education, or when research bears fruits by advancing our quality of life. Not investing on those areas don't just hurt the individuals who don't get access to them, the society as whole gets hurts because its members can't develop their full potential or have access to a better quality of life. Having quality education and research make society better as a whole, it doesn't just benefit a sector or the individuals who r...

It's impressive that many people out there don't have a clear background of many subjects not because they aren't smart or intelligent enough, but because their understanding of many basic concepts is lacking or there are several misunderstandings about what is happening. To make matters worse, people are not willing to take a look on what's going and how things happen. Most are contempt with having a shallow view of what happens around them, and the consequences of events can have on theirs lives. They seem to be happy, or just be contempt, to accept whatever media or other outlets tell them is going to happen. Consequences are not thought, so when they arrive the surprise that comes with them can be quite a shock. Some even feel offended because no one told them about them, even when just having thought their actions before hand could have prevented any harm. Not only that, they don't stop to think what they should do. They just do as they are to do at ...

The Internet is not just a tool to reach out to the world, but also to attract the world's attention to any particular issue that needs to be taken into account. It can really become a great tool to bring attention to an issue, and to explain why it matters. There are few tools with more power to bring attention to an issue than the Internet, since it's a platform that allows individuals or small groups the chance to directly contact people that could be of help. There is little need for intermediaries, making the exchange between the ones who need help, and those that could give it, more direct and faster. With the Internet we have the most powerful tools to create awareness about the issues that truly matter to the communities, and the individuals. There are less middle men than ever before, making contact between interested parties a lot easier with less aggregated interests to them. The messages becomes more clear, and honest, to the message that the originator int...

It's rather interesting how communication technology has been integrated to our daily lives in such an intricate way. Modern smartphones let us to share with others in many ways, it can be as private as phone call or as public as a Twitter entry. We can even share photos and videos from our mobile devices from the spot we took them, it's as easy as just selecting the file we want to upload and push a button to do so. There is a few things we can't share yet, not to mention that the smartphone is at all times with us. Information overload is an ever present possibility, and it's ever more important to be able to filter noise from useful and relevant information. So, there is a need to learn how to effectively filter all the information we get in order not to be overwhelmed, or not be able to differentiate good from bad information. The hard part is to be able to know which information is relevant to us, so that we can actually do something, and not if the in...

One of the main areas where education is lagging behind, is on science and technology. Since many people don't really understand the basic scientific concepts, it becomes harder to try to explain concepts that are more complex or how technology works. This lack of understanding is what generates a lot of the lack of trust in science in general, and why many can't really explain how the technology they use works. In many ways, since many don't really know what to expect from them, the results are never they want them to be. There is also the fact, that because of this we are losing a lot of brilliant scientist and engineers. Since many children, and teenagers, don't have the motivation to take on studies related to these areas they move on to others that seem to be a lot more interesting. As a society that depends so much on science and technology, we need to have a higher level of interest and understanding of science to be able to explain the basic concept...

When it comes to the path taken by Canonical selected for Ubuntu, as an user and fan of the OS, I agree and like with it. Yes, there are somethings that I don't like and others than I just love about Ubuntu. The one thing that I like the most about Ubuntu, is the Unity shell. Personally, I like the way it works and it actually doesn't get in my way. Not only that, most of the bugs and lack of customization have been solved to my satisfaction on the Precise Pangolin (12.04) version. And for the looks of it, Unity will become even more refined on the upcoming Quantal Quetzal(12.10) version. In the 2 years I've been using Ubuntu, I've had no major problems. The only crash I had was while testing a beta version, which is not really that much of the issue. Not only that, all the software I need can be used on Ubuntu without much trouble. I'm not saying that Ubuntu is perfect, it's not the best option for everybody and it may not fit all tasted. I find ...

In order for science and technology become a driving force that improves our lives, we need to start making them more open and facilitate people ability to get more knowledge about what it's been work on in those areas. Not only that, communities should be allowed to grow around then to work directly on those projects. That work should be allowed to be within the any set of rules made by the initial group that started the project, or independently by other communities. There should be some level of interaction, and compatibilities, among what worked by the different communities. Yet at what level of interaction should be left to the members of each community to decide. There should be some ground rules on how the can use, and what levels of compatibilities, should be allowed. But, those restrictions shouldn't interfere with the ability to work with the core technology being work with. Independent efforts, more often than not, are not as effective as efforts made in...

One of the attributes that I like about open source, is that it gives anyone the chance to take a piece of software to work with it. By allowing this, it opens up the chance for people to create versions of the software that wouldn't exist otherwise, because the original developer doesn't have the resources or any other reason. It also benefits users by allowing to make custom versions of the software they, since it maybe that the software doesn't work as well for them as it comes of the shell. Adding or subtracting capabilities could be as easy as adding modules, since in some cases there is no need to change the source code,or the source code could be modified to better comply to what it's needed by the end user. All this could be made in house, or by third parties if there is no way to do it any other way. Those changes then could be shared back to the main version of the software, or shared with others with the same needs than the one who made those changes...

Education and technology are two of the cornerstones that have to be there in order to build a better and fairer society. Both are interdependent, since in order to advance technology there needs to be educated individuals and to be able to use technology people need to have a certain level of education. One can not exist without the other,  yet both are needed if we want to advance the quality of life for society at large. There is no need to be afraid of what technology can bring, if people are given the education to use it to the best possible end. People are the ones who make use of technology, and the choices made by the people is what dictates what will come out of the use being given to any technology. This is why it's so important to give proper education, so people make the best use of technology for the individual and society at large. Technology is there to serve society, since it's a tool to use for the betterment of society. As with all tools, th...

It's shortsighted to try to pin all worthwhile innovations to a single company in any area of science and technology, when most innovations require the collaboration of whole teams that span more of one company or institute. There is a need to create the conscience that modern technologies not the work of a single company, and that individuals can be a part of bringing them forward. Not only that, all of the processes that bring any new technology, or innovation, should be open to be revised by third parties to verify that every step was taken to ensure the safety and that it meets the specifications set by the originators. Technological advancement is a collective endeavor, which requires the work of many people toward a common goal. Not only that, there could be several answers to a single problem that could work depending on the circumstances where those solutions are to be applied. Regulations need to be placed that allow open collaboration, where all process can b...

The only thing that can make things riskier for the user than closed source, is when the software they depend on for anything they do is control just be one vendor. Being dependent on one vendor means that your data it's tied to the faith of that company, if it ever goes down your data goes down with it. The argument that a company is to big to fail has been demonstrated to be shaky at best, since in the past decade there have been at least a couple of companies with big names going down. And some others that had dominant positions on their fields are having trouble staying afloat. This is why we must push to have all important, specially fundamental, technologies to be open sourced so that those technologies can be worked on not only by companies. Individuals should be allowed to work on them freely as well, to make sure that those technologies don't fall in hands on just a few powerful companies, or groups, but they remain free for the benefit of us all. It's...

It's hard no to see how many people don't realize that going to closed gardens to find some level of protection isn't that good idea, since being on a closed gardens isn't the same same thing as having software with robust security. The same goes to the idea that a software being open source makes it insecure is false, since that anyone can see the source code doesn't mean that they can put malicious code into it without someone else noticing it and removing the code. As the matter of fact, open source tends to be safer because there are several people combing the code and knows what's suppose to be there. Those people also know what part of the code is supposed to do, so any part of the code that is new to them can be expected to be reviewed to make sure it does as advertised. It becomes harder to put malicious code into it, because of the nature of source code means that if someone misses the code there will be several other that have a chance to see it. ...

I've often wondered if people are aware of the power that the Internet gives them, when it's truly free and open. Curtailing Internet's free and open nature is in detriment of the people, since it cuts from reach any information that's behind the block. The Internet is, by is nature, one of the greatest forums for the exchange of ideas and information between people regardless of their location, age, sex, or beliefs. The only thing you need, other than an Internet connection, is to be interested in the subject and the will to participate. That's why, we as users of the Internet need to do as everything in our hands to keep the Internet free and open to all. Most importantly, we need to find ways that allow even more people to connect to the Internet so they can be part of, and use, all the resources that come with it. It's vital to do all this, since knowledge is power than can help us all to advance forward and enhance our quality of life. Also, th...

As technology has advanced, there has been great improvements in the quality of life of some people. Other have not been so lucky, and haven't seen much of the benefits that technology has brought. Some of the blame can be put on the fact that much technology is closed, and has the burden of patents or some types of closed licenses that make quite expensive for those places. In some cases, the technology can't be used as is at a particular location because it would need some modifications. Yet, those modifications can only be made by technical personnel of the company that has the patents, or rights for the use, adding more cost. This is why open sourcing, or having more permissive licenses, so the technology could be built and customized for the needs of the users would be most beneficial to bring new technology to those places. By allowing those who need the technology, but can't afford it as is, to be able to study, build, and modify any technology they ...