Copyright Monopoly: The copyright monopoly was never intended to ensure income for a particular group of people. This is a common false counterargument in the copyright monopoly debate, even among people who agree that the current monopoly is beyond insane: “but we must find a way to ensure that artists are compensated for their work”. This is simply a thoroughly false statement; the goal of policymaking is to ensure art is created and available to the public, and whether somebody is paid for it is completely beside the point.
This argument about rewarding creators of art is a very common way of trying to derail a discussion about the copyright monopoly. Regardless of the logical dishonesty in defending a system that locks 99.995% of artists away from any royalty with the argument that “artists must get paid”, and then steals most of the rest of the money from the 0.005% of the artists, it’s still a recurring argument. The problem is that it is utterly false and a diversion; compensating artists monetarily was never a goal with the copyright monopoly.
As I’ve written before, nobody is entitled to any compensation for any amount of work, ranging from minuscule to infinite. The only thing that entitles an entrepreneur – artists included – to any kind of compensation is a sale.
Perhaps the apparently incongruous remarks from Oracle president Mark Hurd foretell a shift in direction for his company. That was my thought when I read ReadWrite‘s piece, “Red Hat to Oracle: Have You Tried Free?” However, writer Matt Asay seems to see Hurd’s comments as either hypocritical or simply odd. What comments, you ask? Ah, let me back up.
Asay compares two posts that appeared on a LinkedIn blog platform a few weeks apart. The first, from Red Hat‘s CEO Jim Whitehurst, describes the way his company succeeds through the sale of affordable but valuable add-ons to open source projects. The key, he says, is creating an equation in which both customer and vendor benefit. We’re all for that.
Soon thereafter, Oracle’s Hurd contributed a post that appears to favor the open source approach by suggesting organizations adopt newer, cheaper technology. This despite the fact that his company seems to embody the very opposite of that concept. Asay explains:
“Hurd’s post is somewhat surreal. Basically, it reads like an anti-Oracle screed, talking up the need for CIOs to do more with less, talking down legacy enterprise apps and infrastructure, but conveniently overlooking the fact that it Oracle that dominates IT budgets—and not in a good way. He derides applications and their underlying infrastructure that are 20 years old (some of Oracle’s applications are 20 years old and its database is even older), insisting that ‘they require enormous funding to keep them fed and watered—and that’s why there’s nothing left over for innovation.’
“According to Gartner’s recently released vendor rating for Oracle, Hurd should know. The Redwood Shores giant gets positive marks for its technology, and improved ratings on support. The one area that it went from bad to worse? Pricing.”
Yes, that Gartner vendor rating also shows that—what with price increases, complex license metrics, and ballooning audits—dealing with Oracle gives IT buyers plenty of headaches. Asay cites those increased audits as evidence that the company is trying to get the most from existing contracts, probably because more businesses are indeed turning to newer, cheaper options. He also calls Hurd’s post “audacious” for suggesting that the cost of outdated systems is hampering businesses, since much of that legacy comes straight from Oracle. See the article for more of Asay’s analysis.
But what if Hurd is really signaling a change of course? Perhaps the company will embrace the open source model. If so, is it too late for Oracle to catch up to companies like Red Hat? Another burning question: will open source revenue now fund America’s Cup yachts?
Update: MicroMappers is now public! Anyone can join to help the efforts!
MicroMappers was not due to launch until next month but my team and I at QCRI received a time-sensitive request by colleagues at the UN to carry out an early test of the platform given yesterday’s 7.7 magnitude earthquake, which killed well over 300 and injured hundreds more in south-western Pakistan.
On Monday, September 23, the President of Estonia, Toomas Hendrik Ilves, gave the key note address at the United Nations panel discussion entitled “A Secure and Free Internet.” That day he was also hailed in a thorough profile on Buzzfeed as “The President of Twitter.”
Today Ilves spoke about Internet freedom and cybersecurity at Columbia University, as part of their World Leaders Forum, with the authority and expertise of a university professor, complete with a patterned bow tie. His talk this afternoon was basically an introductory lecture on modern warfare and the philosophy of informational technologies, punctuated by references to the books taught in Columbia College's common core curriculum.
Ilves compared the Internet revolution to “a sped up version of industrialization.” After going on a technological tangent, he half-heartedly apologized, but pointed out that, “we will all have to know a little bit of technology in order to survive in the future.”
How did he become such a vocal influence and thought leader, online and off, in Internet politics and cybersecurity? Ilves himself traces it back to 2007, when Estonia became the first target—or at least the first target to go public with the information—of cyberattacks motivated by politics.
In an op-ed for the New York Times earlier this year, Ilves wrote that the 2007 attacks were in fact a “blessing—Estonia took cybersecurity seriously earlier than most.”
Among the top foreign languages are all the usual suspects – Spanish, Arabic, and Chinese -whereas less common languages populate the “special interest languages” list – Tagalog, Punjabi, Somali and Urdu.
Similarly, the scores on the Department of Defense's DLPTs (Defense Language Proficiency Tests) can earn you pay incentives within government positions and the US Army for each of three language lists – A, B and C – ranked by importance
What does this mean for entry-level intelligence analysts?
It means that being bi- or multi-lingual is practically a pre-requisite for an intelligence analyst position.
Can't afford Rosetta Stone or other expensive programs? No time in a busy class schedule (or even busier work schedule) for a foreign language course?
Don't worry – You don't have to have a BA in Balkan Studies to pass a Serbo-Croatian language exam. There are plenty of (free!) online resources to help you achieve language proficiency levels all on your own.
Below are the top language learning resources on the web according to the blogosphere:
