Science and technology should work for the common good...

It's ironic that science in general is getting a less money to work with, even though modern society is based on what science has achieved.

In society forgets rather easily that we are dependent on what science has given us, to do most of what we do on daily basis. Most technology is so deeply integrated to what we do, that is easy to forget that is there and take it for granted.

Life as we know it couldn't be possible with science, and the technology that it help develop. There is virtually no part of our life that it hasn't become part of, from health care to how we communicate technology plays a part in it.

The think that makes me more amazed, is how well technology has been integrated into our everyday activities. The only moment we notice it, is when it fails to work properly. If not, we act as if the technology we use has always been there.

For most intends and purposes, we all accept technology as something natural and that is there for our service. Unless is something radical, or that it touches something taboo, there is little resistance to embrace it. As matter of fact, what once was science fiction is routinely becoming science fact. New technologies are coming almost as fast as they can be envisioned.

That's why we need to give it more resources, and more importantly we need to keep science and technology working for the common good. That's why we need to keep public research centers well founded.

If we want science to produce technology that has the good of the society as the most important aim, society must be its biggest sponsor.

Android core is unaffected by verdict...

One of the things that the Apple vs. Samsung made me see, is that many people see the verdict as a defeat to the whole Android ecosystem. The truth is that it isn't, because the case was only against Samsung's implementation of Android.

Android can be modified by each smartphone manufacturer to better fit its needs, and what each carries ask to add to it so it can be offered by them. That's why you Samsung's implementation is different from Sony's or HTC's. Also, you can see different apps on the same model from carrier to carrier.

This is because all want to look different from everyone else, and add whatever each one of them thinks will make a difference for its users.

At the end, Android is the platform that enables manufactures to run a modern and powerful mobile OS. All this while they can modify it in order to differentiate their implementation from other in the market, and also giving user access to apps across a large range of handsets.

It makes the market a lot more diverse. It add value to the OS making it more flexible for both manufactures and users, while also giving a larger choice and freedom.

At the end, Google and the other manufactures remain free to work on Android to make better for all of us. The good thing, is since Android is open source anyone can take it copy of its source code and work on it too.

I hope that with time, there will be a whole community of independent developers working on it to help make Android as good as it can be. For me, that's the true spirit of open source.

Users are not stupid...

I wonder how many people that use mobile phones really confuse the iPhone with any Android handset, if there are given a good look of them.

By the looks of it, most people are more than able to differentiate between them without much trouble after a few seconds. The same goes for the iPad and all the rest of the tablets, most people don't have any problem at all telling them apart.

The people that call any tablet an iPad, do so because for them the brand has become somewhat of a generic term for all tablet computers. On the iPhone side, it doesn't happen that much because people are used of having several handset with the same general design characteristics.

As a matter of fact, most users that use smartphones can tell one handset from the other with ease. Usually the ones that have trouble are the ones who have little or no information about the differences, or simply don't care much about the matter all together.

Let's face it, Android has a larger user base than iOS does. Only when you look the numbers by manufactures iPhone comes ahead of some Android phones. Time after time it has been proven that many users buy Android phones knowing what they where buying, not because they didn't know it wasn't an iPhone.

Google has implemented things on Android in a different way than Apple has on the iPhone. And almost all companies that use Android use their own user interface to make it look different from other Android powered phones, trying to appeal users to use their products.

I find it offensive to users that one of the main arguments that Apple had against Android is the fact that users would be stupid enough for not being able to tell the difference between the two.

Let's face it, most of Apple arguments are based on the fact that users are not smart enough to decide by themselves.

Open source can be easy to use, and it can be trusted...

It's quite interesting that many people don't seem to trust open source software when asked if they would use it, but many use Chrome or Firefox as their browser of choice.

Some even use Android powered mobile phones without much concern.

It seems that in most cases, people are misinform about what makes software open source and how it's created. It seems that people tend to equate open source software with being difficult to use, or simply alright dangerous because its open nature.

Both statements are false, and misleading. As Firefox, Chrome, and Android show, open source software can be at least as easy to use as any close source software. In many cases, most people find it open source software easier to use.

On the danger side, as with any piece of software, it all depends on the source of the software. One should be always careful about where one gets any software, and choose well established companies to supply, and implement, any software. And Mozilla, Google, and Canonical are just some of the names of well established and trusted open source software providers.

There is no doubt that open source companies can provide with quality software. That's why companies like Google and Twitter depend on open source, because it works. Even the some Indian government dependencies can be counted in, since they are adopting LibreOffice and Ubuntu.

At the end it all comes on what software you're getting, and from where are you getting it.

The Internet can be key...

The Internet is a two-edged sword. It can help to keep in touch and share what you want with the people you care about in an instant. Yet, it can also be the source of people actually being a lot more apart from each other, and can enable them to go for days with little or no human interaction.

Yet, as with any tool, all depends on how each individual uses the Internet. Blaming the Internet for whatever each individual chooses to do in his life is short sighted at best, since choices are made in a lot more complexed ways that are influenced by many factors.

The connections that the Internet allows help people reach a lot more people than ever before, and also puts a wealth of information at his disposal. This combinations gives the Internet a importance that is paramount to the interest of the people. Since it allows all to engage their some activities on a very interactive ways, and share what they love with the world almost instantly. Most importantly, it give people more control than ever on how, with who, and when they can access and share all the information they come across they find interesting.

Even though the Internet is a treat to the old model of doing politics and business, it must remain as it is in order for the average person can have access to the knowledge and freedom that being able to communicate, share, and exchange with others freely.

All these can make this world a better place to live in.

Installed based is not a measure of quality...

Today a coworker said that he had installed Windows 7 on a laptops that came with SUSE Linux, and he said that Windows should be better because it has a larger installed base.

It seems that many see quantity as a measure of quality, which more often than it's not true. In most cases, a large installed base doesn't mean that the software is good or the best possible option for the task at hand.

Windows has such a lead mainly because most people don't know they have other options, or just use it because is what it comes with it.

Now things are changing because of Apple, with it making more inroads into the consumers minds. With that, people are aware that there are other operating systems out there.

With that awareness, the chance that some Linux distros might have a chance to make inroads into the average user. Distros like Ubuntu, Linux Mint and Zorin OS are quite user friendly and stable. Not only that, users have the at the disposal all the software they'll need to run their digital lives.

Not only that, there are some places where there is a need to have specialized operating systems to run applications that general purpose operating system can't handle. This is not a matter of quality, but having something that better suits the needs of the tasks needed to be taken care of.

The quality of any software should be measured not by it's installed base, but on how well it does the work it was designed to do.

Interoperability is not optional...

Computers have the potential to bring people closer, all this by letting them share, work and play together in a way that wasn't possible before. Finding others with the same interest, that want products or services that we can provide, is a lot easier and faster to do.

But for all this to work as well as we need and want it to, there needs to be a higher level of interoperability among the software that is used for the same purposes. Any software that lock users to keep using it, without the possibility of changing to another one for whatever reason the user want to, should not be allowed in any way, shape or form.

The user should have full control over the data that it's managed, and how the software interacts with the rest of the system. Not only that, the user should be able to study the source code and to make any modification to it if there is a need to do so. Once the any software is install on the user's system, it can't do anything else than it's intended purpose without the user's consent.

It's key that the user remains in full control of any data that's put into the software. Not only that, the user should be be able to share with others or make the best use for his interests.

The user's interest should be above all other's, people need to be free to use their data as they see fit. Without interoperability users loose control over their data, and what they can do with it. It effectively ties the user to the fate of a single vendor.

Interoperability needs to be the norm on software, since it benefits the user's the most.

Open source is a lot more safe than you might imagine...

There are many people who seem to believe that software that's released as open source isn't safe, or as reliable, since anyone can see and modify the source code. The truth is that it isn't like that at all, since open source software has been shown to be at least as reliable as it's closed source counterparts.

It might sound counterintuitive, but it works because there are many people working on open source software to make it reliable and safe. And since the code is there for anyone to see, it becomes that much harder to put any malicious code into it without someone noticing. So, if there is any change in code that is harmful, it can be detected a lot sooner by someone scanning the code.

And since open source projects tend to rely on a few coders to work on it, any new contribution by someone that doesn't normally contribute code is routinely checked for anything that could be harmful. There is a difference between allowing people to contribute valuable code to the project, and just admitting whatever happens to be submitted.

That people work together to a common goal, is what makes open source code so great. Software made through open source becomes property of those who make it, and those who use it.

There is always a risk of malicious code getting through, but this risk is greatly mitigated by the amount of people working to keep it out. All that people is working for the common goal of making the software they use, and sometimes love, as safe and reliable as it can possibly be.

So when you use open source software, you're putting your trust not just on a those who originally make the software. You're also putting your trust on all the community that works on it outside that original group.

And if that isn't enough, you can always personally make sure your software is as safe as you want it to be.

Actions define a person merits...

As a geek, and a man, I find it sad that many men in the community don't give women a fair chance or respect them as equals.

Women are as capable with tech as any man is, and should be ranked for their merits. No person should be given a role to play because of their gender, but because of what they want and their abilities.

So, if a girl want to go into the field of math, engineering or science, she should be given all the support to go for it. If she wants to do so, she should have the same opportunities to carve a place for herself as any man has. Personally, many of my role models have been women.

Marie Curie, Kari Byron, and Margaret Thacher are some of the examples of women that have done something that makes a difference in the world. There are hundreds of women that demonstrate that they are just as capable as men are, and sometimes they do it even when they face obstacles set in place by men just to see them fail.

So when anyone say that women are not as capable as men, I don't get mad about it. I just feel sorry for the person who said that, because obviously that person doesn't realize that by belittle women it's only showing his or her ignorance.

I hope someday woman won't have to defend themselves from that kind of persons. Their actions, and accomplishments, should be the ones doing the talking.

At the end of the day, a person is as great as his or her actions not because of the gender.

A free, and leveled, virtual world...

One of the areas where FLOSS can have a big impact, is on support on social causes by giving people a tool that isn't dependent on the interests of a single private vendor.

When there is a way that allows the creation of software directly by those interested, without having to depend on someone or a company to act, more opportunities can be acted upon rapidly. Not only that, people can choose how and when is best for them to act upon any given situation. Or even if they want to engage it at all.

People are empowered to really act, and do, as they thing is best for them. We could actually have a say on what information we want, and with who we want to share it with. We would be in control of what goes on not only with out real life, but also of our virtual one.

All the freedoms we enjoy on the outside world, should be carried into the virtual world. There shouldn't be any question about it, it should be a given.

As it happens on the outside world, people should have the same freedoms on the virtual world. All the rules that apply on the virtual world, are to be put in by the people, and should be enforced by the people or by those we all agree that should have the power to do so.

The people should have the tools that allow them to freely interact with each other as they see fit for their interests, and to exchange ideas, informations or anything they feel is on their best interest to do so. What should be narrow, is the what can't be exchanged freely and this should be defined so by the people. Any, and all restrictions, should be the ones that the people agree upon, not the ones imposed to them by a third party.

We need to make sure that we keep all software free and open for us to work on without restrictions that limit what we can do with it. If there should be some limit, it should be on how to give credit to the originator of the idea and those who made any relevant contribution. Any other limitation, or restriction, should have no place and must be avoided.

After all, software is something that should completely at our service and out control.

FLOSS gives alternatives that fit better...

One of the great things of FLOSS, is that the end users gets a choose from several options what's the best for what they do. On top of that, the users get to customize even more if they think it would better for them by doing so.

At the end of the day, the users are the ones who have the final say on what software to run and how it'll run on their systems. They have the freedom to study and modify the software they use, and share those modifications with others. It creates an ecosystem where all are equal, and people can truly come together to work on what's important to them.

By working like this, the end product becomes greater than the sum of it's parts. People actually have a chance to enter something that brings them together to work on something that can has the potential to be far reaching, and be an agent of change bigger than any of them could be individually.

FLOSS can give everyone a gate to discover about everything and anything there is an interest, as it should be. We all should have free and unrestricted access to knowledge, to use and share with other that what is our passion.

People gives it best when they are allowed to do so freely, and encouraged to share with others. It becomes a way of life if its made the norm from a young age.

By letting people to share knowledge, it becomes easier for them to do things for themselves. They become less dependent on the abilities of others, and are able to contribute back to their communities more valuable things. By give them alternatives that work better for them, that work will be even more valuable to all.

The user should choose what works for him, not being forced to use a solution that doesn't fit his needs.