General use standards need to be open...

When a standard is made, specially one that is meant for general use, that may include any component that may require the payment of royalties it has failed from the onset. Any standard made to use by the general public needs to be made entirely free and open, so that it can be used by all on equal terms.

The moment royalties are possible, the standard is discriminating against those who can't pay since it would make that standard unusable for them. If that standard is supposed to be used by as many people or organizations as possible, it should be intrinsically open so that it can be adopted as widely as possible without having to worry possible liability of having found to be infringing of a patent or intellectual property.

The standard used to make everyone using it as a base, should come without any strings attached. The moment there is even a possibility that someone owns even a part of the standard, it defeats the main reason of having that standard.

In many ways, with society relaying on technology ever more for everyday tasks, we need the standards made open. Every piece of technology we use on our daily lives, needs to be open so that we can have access to as many options as possible. Open standards are about avoiding falling into the hands of whoever owns the standard, or most of it, taking us the chance to be able to choose what's best for us.

Not only that, if people aren't allowed to work with, or on, the standard freely we are going to be stuck without improvements to that standard for quite some time. Innovations on products would be few, and far between, since there is no incentive to make products that are distinct that those of the competition. There is no reason to improve the standard, since the main beneficiary would be who controls it, and makes most of the money from it.

It's on the best interest of the majority, that standards intended to be use as a base to be open and transparent on every respect.

Knowledge is not to be monopolized...

Knowledge shouldn't be allowed to be monopolized, and need to remain open to everyone. Access to knowledge needs to be considered a basic human right, since knowledge is vital to improve not only the quality of life of the individual. It's also a way to improve the quality of life of the communities, since it allows to improve almost every aspect of life, by giving better tools and understanding of how things work.

Knowledge belongs to humanity at large, and we all should not only be allowed unrestricted access to any part of it that we need. We also need to be guaranteed the ability to modify it in order to make better use of it, and to share with others freely those improvements.

People, and communities, are empowered by knowledge. They become more readily able to better cope with any problem that comes their way, and to learn from their mistakes. Knowledge gives people the freedom to take on life on their own, and thus depend less on outside help to solve problems. Not that they won't need help from other persons in their communities, but they will be better able to do something to solve their problems.

Now, more than in any other time in history, access has been democratized by the Internet in ways that where hard to imagine a few decades ago. Yet, to keep this access like this we need to keep the Internet open to all. Access needs to be open, and control over by governments or similar entities, should be kept to a minimum.

Knowledge belongs to those who seek it, and they should always be allowed to find it.

Just plain wrong...

There's no valid reason why any government to spy on its citizens, specially one that prides itself of the freedoms it gives them while trying to make other governments give those same freedoms to their citizens.

It strikes me as ironic, that the US government has been doing just that. A government that prides itself about how many freedoms its citizens have, has in effect being breaching those freedoms by spying without a valid reason to do so. Even the reasoning behind it, that it's fighting terrorism, is not enough for people to accept losing its privacy over it.

No government has any business spying on any person without proving that it was a probable cause to believe that the person is involved in some sort of illegal activity. Such process should be transparent, and open to scrutiny by the people. The moment it's done behind the public's back, there is something intrinsically wrong with it and should be repealed. The citizens have the right to know how the government obtains the warrants to spy on them, and under which circumstances those warrants can be enabled to the be used.

Not only that, the citizen that has been targeted for a warrant to be spied upon should be notified on due time about it. And if it was given, what information was obtained and by who. Most importantly, that information should be destroyed if no case was able to be made against the individual. If there was enough to prosecute, that information needs to be safely stored so that only the interested parties can have access to it.

We need to make a stand so that no government spies on their citizens, since we need to be reassured that our privacy is respected wherever we happen to be. Governments having to prove that an individual's privacy needs to be intruded, has to be made each time and only for the information relevant for the case. If it can't, the permission is simply to be denied.

Compatibility and open standards...

It's both, ironic and outrageous, that many companies try to lock users on their proprietary standards in the name of compatibility. If their standard is proprietary, any one who buys into it will be locked to use that company products.

That's why we need to make sure that open standards are used by all companies. This way, we can rest assured that as users we'll not be locked the products and services of a particular company. It's about our freedom to choose whatever product we want to, without having to worry about if it will be compatible with other things we have or with the devices of our friends.

Open standards are vital to keep our freedoms, and rights, as users. Since open standards allow for anyone to use them, without having to develop solutions all by themselves all over again. Not only that, by the very nature of how open standards are developed, it's a lot easier for improvements to the standard to be shared and reach a wider sector of users.

The standard should be one and the same for all, what has more room for differentiation is how the standard is implemented. Where users needs really are not the same is in how the standard is implemented, while the standard is not changed in itself.

One company's products should be compatible with the products of other companies, not just with it's products. If it doesn't, they are not really respecting our rights as users, since they will be locking us to their products, unable to jump to other products without a significant penalty. Proprietary standards are not beneficial for users, but for the company who develops them.

That's why we need to support open standards, since they are the ones that better protect our interests as users. They help ensure our freedoms, and our right to choose what we want to buy to use in our daily lives.

Making sense of information...

What's needed for people to be better equipped to use the volumes of information on the Internet, are the tools that helps them to discern good from bad information. In essence, there is a need to have a better education so people do that data processing on their on.

If we want the Internet really reach it's full potential, one which benefits all of us, we need to give those tools to individuals. Information in itself isn't all that useful, there is a need to be able to know how to make sense out of it in order to make it so. The ability to make sense of the information that can be accessed on the Internet is something that should be a given, since it's needed to be able widen the horizons of people and improve their quality of life.

All starts with the education received from early age, we need to teach children to be critical of all information they come upon. Accepting information without first digesting it, it's detrimental not only for the individual. It also detrimental for the community, since it allows bad information not only to spread. It also grows, making it even more worse as it spreads.

Education is vital, it can be seen as the most important tool to make the Internet more than just a meeting place. Without such a tool, all the information on the Internet won't make any sense at all. That would be a sad fate for a tool that could make such a big positive impact on the human race as a whole.

The Internet is all about social...

The Internet has become so important mainly because it allows people to be social, and share what's important for them with others. It allows us to be social, to interact with others who have the same interests or share the same ideas.

No matter where you go in the Internet, all is about being social and share stories with others just about anything. Even with all the advance technology we have, we all have that craving for sharing with other stories, or information, we like or find interesting.

That's why the Internet has such an important part of our lives, because it allows to share or find those stories that are most interesting with friends and family. In effect, the Internet has become the fireplace where we gather around to listen, or tell stories, with other people with the same craving that us to do the same thing.

We are social by nature, and the Internet gives an outlet to have a greater reach than ever before to find people to tell stories with. The possibilities are endless, we have the chance not to conform with the stories we have at hand. We can actually look for that watering hole that makes us feel like we belong, and share that we care about with others that care about it.

It's important that we are able to use the Internet in the same way as we have been using it until now. The open nature the Internet has had until now, is what has made it so easy to use is in such an open way to be able to come together.

Let's keep the Internet as social as possible.

Software and hardware symbiosis...

Great software and hardware by themselves don't mean much, if their counter part isn't as good as the other. Some might argue that having crappy software or hardware interacting with great software and hardware can kill the whole thing.

Software and hardware should be design as a single product, developed parallel to each other as much as possible. When it feels like both where design for each other, the user experience is much more pleasant. Thus, people will continue to use your products and you're more likely to create a loyal community around you.

It's important to keep in mind, that both don't have to be design under the same roof to work together in a great way. It sure helps when both, software and hardware, are design that way, but it doesn't mean that you can't design great software for hardware made by others. Even the other way around is viable, it can be done if there is commitment to make it work that way.

In order to have the best user experience, we need to start demanding software and hardware companies to work together in order to give us the best they can that works together seamlessly. It shouldn't matter what software the user chooses to load on their hardware, it should work as we expect it do from the onset. All should be built on open standards, and those standards need to be agreed upon by all players on a transparent way to the user and industry at large.

Internet, a success of open technologies...

It's hard to imagine what one can't do on the Internet, but the irony is that people often not know that the Internet as we know it is built on open technologies. If the the Internet wasn't built on those open technologies, it's impact on our world would have been much less important.

Not only that, it has largely been unregulated as whole by third parties. There only have been rules of conduct enforceable on particular sites, or some particularities that affect the owner of the site. Yet, the Internet as a whole has been regulating by itself in a somewhat organic way. Basically, all technologies created for the Internet have been, some more than others, created by consensus in order to be applied by everyone that wants to be part of the Internet.

More importantly, the Internet is the most visible success story for open technologies. The Internet demonstrate that open technologies are viable economically and technically, while being beneficial for a greater number of individuals and for society at large.

We need to fight to keep the technologies used to manage the Internet open, and the processes to create, approved and their use transparent for users and developers alike. Now more than ever, we don't need any part of the Internet to become obscure. Transparency is key to keep the Internet as our common playground.

Not only that, we need to start pushing for other industries start basing their businesses on open technologies. Only by doing so,  we can expect a better future for as many people as possible.

Smartphones lead the mobile revolution...

Smartphones have given us the opportunity to really be able to share with others a lot faster, and also to get information just about anything in seconds. In many ways, smartphones are step forward to making our world even smaller.

More than ever, smartphones give people a chance to empower themselves and to do more to make change happen than ever before. Smartphones makes traditional power brokers to keep information to themselves, and lets people to actually get that same information to share it with others as its coming to them. People are no longer dependent on a few sources to get the information they need, or how to make use of it.

We can be selective not only on the information we share, but also with who we share it with. There is less need for a middle man to handle the information we want to share, since we have the platform to do it so without the middle man. Smartphones gives us the such platform with its connectivity with the Internet. As such, we decide what we want to do with the information we come upon.

Censorship is harder to implement, since people can more easily find ways around it. There are multiple ways individuals can now work around restrictions on the flow of information, by using alternate channels. With this ability, we create a world where governments and corporations have to be transparent about they do just because they have no choice.

I'm hopeful that this will help us to create a better world.

It's on the users needs...

For the looks of it, laptops and tablets will live along each other for quite some time. The smartphone being our constant companion when using a laptop or a tablet is not really that practical, or we aren't near them.

The desktop computer will become a niche product, mainly used when mobility isn't necessary or it better fits the users computer needs. For most people, it would make a lot more sense to have a laptop or a tablet as their main computer.

The choice between a laptop or a tablet, will be based mainly on what it's going to be used for. Each form factor has its strengths and weaknesses, laptops being more adept for working and tablets for consuming. So, which one you should get depends on what you intend to use it for.

Yet, the smartphone will be the second companion for our primary device. Smartphones give us the practicability to be able to take them with us all the time, but the screen size isn't the best one to use for prolonged periods of size or as we would use a laptop or a tablet. I see the smartphone mostly playing a support role, yet vital since it gives us a gateway to discovery when we we can't access a computer.

While most people have a use for a smartphone, the choice between a laptop and a tablet will be dependent on what we are need from our primary computer. So, the discussion of trying to argue for laptops or tablets  is mute. All depends on each user, and what needs it has for their main computer.

My next smartphone will run on open source software..

Even though my experience so far with a BlackBerry device, specifically with the Bold 9650, has been quiet good I still targeting for an Android powered smartphone.

The main reason for me to do so, is that I want as many of my electronic devices run open source software. On my laptop I'm running Ubuntu 13.04, after a couple of months using Linux Mint 14. As such, I want and prefer to run an OS that's open source as Android.

If the timing is right, I'd consider making the jump to an Ubuntu Touch powered smartphone or one using Firefox OS. Both, as Android, are open sourced and are based on Linux. Yet, due to the fact that I already use Ubuntu, an Ubuntu Touch powered smartphone would have a clear advantage for me. It would allow me to better integrate my mobile experience with the one I've on my desktop.

As I said, all is about timing. So, it seems like Android will be the winner on that account, since Android is already available while Ubuntu Touch and Firefox OS aren't at the time. But, in many ways my choice among the three would be one of taste, given that all three OS's are open source and that's the kind of software I want running my smartphone.