Patent wars hurt the consumer the most...

Not a day seems to pass without at least of a couple of news about someone suing someone else on patent grounds. It seems that there is almost nothing out there that doesn't have a patent on it.

Which makes me ponder how much does this affects innovation, and ultimately consumer's ability to have several options to choose from. With a higher risk of being sued, many small companies and startups might not want to take the change of getting sued out of existence and probably not bring to market products that compete with the ones of established players.

This playing it safe attitude is not good for the consumers, since it limits our choices, or to innovation that produces better products though open and direct competition for our money.

The current patent wars need to end, they are not beneficial to innovation or consumers. They are about companies, and how to protect their profit margins.

I can't really hold a straight face anymore when corporations say that the lawsuits they make are for the benefit of consumers, so they can bring the best possible products to them. Each time they fail to mention that by barring newcomers to the market, they are effectively locking the consumer to use their products.

There is a dire need of a new patent system, one that makes it easy to innovate while protecting those ideas that are worth it. Or else, the ones that are set to lose more are the consumers.

A better understanding of science...

As science advances, we gain a better understanding of the world around us. This understanding helps us not only understand our place in the universe, but it gives the opportunity to gain a better quality of life.

Yet, many don't trust science because they don't understand how science works and many misconceptions people have regarding how scientist work. People don't really understand the scientific method, much less many of the concepts that come with advanced fields.

That's why science educations is vital on our schools, so our children grow knowing how science works and have an understanding of at least the most basic scientific concepts on several fields.

In many ways, the problem is not science. The main problem is the lack of understanding of what science is, and how it works. There is a lot of misconceptions that spawn because there is no solid knowledge of science, and the terms it uses. Much less the proper usage of those terms.

When we take into account that all the technology we use comes from scientific discoveries, it becomes more important to give our children exposure to science so to start an interest on it. This with the aim to have some of them to study science, kick starting the next generation of scientist that'll take us to the next level of understanding.

But, it's important for all to have a basic understanding of science. It's vital so we all can better function on societies that are ever more integrated with the fruits of science through technology.

Ownership means total control over your devises..

As technology advances, some embrace it and try to take it to its limits. Most people just take it as is, just doing adding or changing some minor things personalizing their device.

Though the users that go deep into the inner workings of their devices are few, that doesn't give the manufactures the right to limit the ability to do so. Having the option to do so should be at least easily accessed to make any change by the user possible without trouble, or to require the intervention of the manufacturer.

Users should have full control over their devices, even if most won't take full advantage of all the possibilities it gives the user. The user should have full ownership of his devices from the moment of the purchase.

Limitations are just beneficial to the manufactures, not the users. When impose restrictions to what you can do with the devices you bought, they are in fact controlling almost every aspect of what can you can do with the devices you own.

At the end of the day, once a device is purchased the users should be the one who decides on any changes made to it and be on total control of it.

Education, science and research are investments...

I find it to be discouraging and angering that education, science, and research are areas that suffer some of the first cuts when times get though. Worse when the ones who make those cuts talk about how important these areas are for the continued development of people and communities.

Theres is a dire need to see educations, science and research not as expenditures. They are investments, we need to have them well founded so they can bear the fruits we need them to make a better world. These are pillar that make our modern world, and without them we wouldn't have the things we have now, nor we can hope to make the world we live in a better place.

Through education, we can enrich peoples lives while making better citizens. Well educated citizens are beneficial not only to the community they live in, but to themselves since they can actually do something for themselves in various ways. They are only limited by they own imaginations and capabilities, that can help them to go far in life while doing constructive things for themselves and others they come in contact with.

Science has given us all things that have improved the quality of life exponentially in the last century, and can do much more. Yet, to be able to deliver on that, science needs to be well founded to attract the minds to work on the projects that show more promise to deliver the results.

If we can't give them what they need to work, and live, we can't reasonably expect the results needed.

Last, we need to have good research facilities if we want to be able to find a way to apply what science learns. Knowledge by itself is not very useful, if it can't be applied in some way, shape, or form to solve a practical problem. But, it takes time and money to find a way to put them in use.

If that research is well founded, and correctly managed, it becomes an investment. Research is a necessary step to bring science to use in as many areas of human experience as possible. Avoiding it is a risky move, since a potentially beneficial concept can do harm if it's not properly tuned to do its best work.

Without making substantial investments on these three areas, we have more to lose than what we can imagine. Investing on education, science and research, is not only investing on the present; but in a better future too.

Science and technology are not intrinsically good or evil...

Science, and technology, should always be at service our needs and interests first. The interests of companies should come second, while governments should be limited to manage laws and regulations to make sure that the people are not being limited in a harmful way.

Science gives us a better understanding of what happens around us. With this understanding technology can produce new things that improve our lives in several ways. It also helps protect the things that make our lives, or we need to keep ourselves and what we love healthy. There should be regulations that helps to keep science on a track that helps to have a better understanding of our surroundings, giving us the knowledge to better protect what's needed while improving our lives.

Then, we can apply that knowledge to produce technology can apply to produce the devices needed in each case. Well developed technology should produce as little impact as possible, while giving the best possible results for the intended purpose it was meant for.

We need to educate people to understand that science and technology are not evil, or harmful, in themselves. Nor they are intrinsically good in themselves, all depends on how they are applied.

The issue lies on the people who do the scientific research, and those who develop the technology that use the results from the research. It comes down to the ethics that the people involved have, and they way they apply it.

In many ways, at the end it comes down to the people. Not the tools themselves.

We need the Internet to remain free and neutral...

It's hard not to see the community building that the Internet has, since it allows people come together in ways that wouldn't be possible in any other way. In some cases it gives some people access to things, like the ability to learn or communicate, that they wouldn't have in any other way.

There is a true opportunity not only to engage people at the local level, but from your state to the rest of the world. The Internet has been a mayor factor in allowing the construction of a global village, by giving the average person the chance to engage people from all around the world without having to live their respective cities or towns.

The Internet can give people a way to share with others things that would be difficult to do, like pictures or videos with people that live far away and can't afford to see frequently. Keeping in touch is much more easy, with a variety of ways to fit the level of intimacy and what is to be shared with who.

Options consist from email to video chats, all of them becoming easier to do with each passing day. Suddenly, one can share what they want with the ones intended without having to wait to see them in person or on-line.

As with any other tool, the Internet can be used in ways that are harmful. Yet, it would do a lot more harm to just shoot it down or restrain its use by everyone. This is why its control should remain with the people, with no single government, or private entity, so that it remains free and neutral.

It's in our best interest that the Internet to stay as unregulated as possible, since only this way it'll be the tool we all need to really have a smaller and safer world.

As technology advances, it actually gives the people the chance to be more self sufficient. It helps by allowing people get to more information, and people, that helps them do more by themselves or getting in contact that can help them.

It truly helps to build communities to do what's needed to solve almost any problem, in a way allowing people to have more control over their lives. Communities build this way are becoming more powerful, and self sufficient, with each passing day. In many cases, those communities can develop the tools they need to get the job done.

Not only that, communities can also interact directly with each other to get what they don't have or the help needed to solve a particular problem that it hasn't faced before.

This could lead to communities that are more self contained, and that are self governed by the individuals that conform it. Communities would be able to truly have more control on what happens within them, and how they interact with other communities. In many ways, the individual would be the one that benefits the most with a more self sufficient communities.

Mainly because in a smaller communities give the individuals to have a bigger say on what, and how, choices are made. Not only that, when it comes to enact those choices the individual has the possibility to be active in making it happen.

Technology has the potential to truly empower both communities, and individuals, in ways that couldn't be imagined in a few years ago. I just hope we can take this chance, and make the most out of it.

Two great products, ducking it out at the wrong place...

On the mobile space there the two main operating systems out there are Android and iOS. Both are great, and bring different thing to the table.

Not withstanding what many people say, the choice between the two is mainly one of taste and which one most of your friends use. Most users won't tinker with their phones much, so at the end the choice of which one the user will choose will come down to which one gives the user the best experience.

Personally, the one that cuts it's Android. No matter how much I try the iOS, I can't seem to like it or the iPhone. But, I just love the Android in every way that matters to me. There are several handsets out there that I'd love to have, the main ones being the Samsung Nexus or the Motorola Driod Razr. These two handsets are the ones that give me the user experience that I want from a smartphone.

I really believe that some people, and some companies, should let the users make their choice by themselves. Yes, there has been some very bad behavior by Apple and should stand down of their sue everyone campaign. All of this is bad for the costumer, since it distorts what's really going and that's what really confuses the costumer.

Competition should be taking place at the market place, by companies giving information and comparing the their products with others with facts. And market observes, and experts, should be helping the users to make their choice by giving fair independent criticisms and comparisons.

We have two greats products that are doing their fight at the wrong place, the court room.

Mind your digital information....

As we share more of what we do on the Internet, we should be more careful about it. It's easy to forget that much of the information about ourselves on the Internet can actually harm us on the outside world, because the divide between the physical world and the Internet is becoming a fainter.

Many might argue that in some places, such divide longer exists. Our life on the real world and on the Internet are one and the same, since there is an easy way to be at both places at the same time. We can share what is happing to us, where did it happen and with who we are at the moment almost instantly.

So, we need to be careful how we thread. It's not longer all that sure that what we do on the Internet, will not come and bite us if we don't take care. Not only that, we should be claiming the control of how our information is handled and with who it is shared. The information we generate should remain in our control, and possession, until we give explicit permission to be used for other means by a third party.

Even then, we have the right to choose what part of the information can be used for what purpose. We should be the masters of what we generate, and be able to share it as we please.

As in the real world, we should be careful with who we share what. The interconnections that the Internet gives us can be a blessing or a curse, all depending on how we use it. So, being careful and paying attention on with who we are shearing our information is a must.

Not doing so, could mean something much worse than losing your digital information.

Let's give even more importance to the average user...

I find the idea of trying to crown a sole Linux distro as the best distro is not only shortsighted, it doesn't help Linux to grow among users. That's because the distro that is best suited for a certain group of user, is not what other users need or want.

It doesn't have to do with the technical merits of the distros, but it has more to do with what users are going to be using the distro they choose for. Not all users have the same needs or expectations from the OS they use. If they face a distro that fails them, they won't think about moving to another one. They'll just move back to Windows or OS X, because they know those OS and they fulfill the their expectations on how computers are suppose to run.

So, instead of trying to get users to adopt a certain Linux distro we need to change tactics. Let's match the distro to the user, that way users will get the experience that will make them most likely to stick with Linux.

Rather than name a single Linux distro as the king of the hill, let's separate distros into categories defined by their target audience. That will make it easier for users to pick the distro that best matches their needs and expectations, by giving them the package that better suits the way they use their computer.

What we need, is a solid base on which to build those distros. We already have the engine to run them, that being Linux. All that's left is to have to add the rest of the software.

There great web browsers like Firefox and Chrome. On the office suite side there's LibreOffice to begin with, and the list goes on.

So, let's shift some of the focus to the user experience without loosing the great things that Linux and the distros already have. We need to give users something that will not only make them want to stay, but to share with others around them. 

It can be done. If we want to see Linux being even more successful than it already is, there is no other way to do it.

Users must be the ones choosing which desktop environments survive...

When it comes to desktop environments, having several options is a good thing. I like the idea of having different desktop environments available, because it give the users a choice about which one to use.

No two people work the same, or have the same way of doing things, so being able to select a desktop environment that better fits the way the user does things is a good thing have. Not only that, it gives the user, and distros, the option to change to another one if the desktop environment developers take a road that they disagree with.

At the end, it's a good thing to have since it means that people are free to choose what fits better.

The desktop environment should shouldn't get in the way of the user's work flow as it can. It should be almost unnoticeable to the user as it can be, as if it isn't there as all.

One size doesn't fit all, and user's shouldn't be forces to accept a desktop environment just because someone else says they have to. User's should have the freedom to select what desktop environment works for them, and their choices shouldn't be limited by any one else.

A desktop environment success should be determined by how many users adopt it because they like it, and want to use it, not because it was forced to them to use.

If users flock to 2-3 desktop environments, that good. Let the users be the ones who determine which ones survive, and how many of them can co-exist in the market.