2,237 Matching Annotations
  1. Apr 2015
    1. To suggest that faculty are innocently waiting to be pounced on by predators is to deny their agency and their ability to make choices about their own work. There may be days where that metaphor seems apt, but I think overall this is a damaging mentality to librarians interested in promoting new models of scholarly communication.

      A nice point about how librarians need to be thoughtful in the way they present the pitfalls of the emerging open access model of scholarly communication.

    1. “fluency”

      I think I am a little adverse to the term. Fluency (same reason I don't like literacy) is dichotomous. You are fluent or you are not. For me its more of an Open Mentor Continuum or "The Teach Like a Mozillian Continuum"

    2. ’d love to hear thoughts on this approach to placing a lens on the Web Literacy Map. Please ask questions, push back, give feedback to this thinking-in-progress.

      I think you have gotten far in the unique characteristics of effective blended teaching. Specifically the online stuff.

      There are other fundamental elements there could be missing. I also wonder if the grid approach if most beneficial. There maybe better heuristics to represent what it means to be a webmaker mentor or leader.

  2. Mar 2015
    1. Any contributor to our open source projects is already familiar with a bit of software that we use internally and would require less training if they joined the company.
    2. At Twitter, our open source program has a team of developer advocates focused on growing open source ecosystems which are important for us to ensure they thrive and evolve to our benefit.
    3. hosting events, speaking at conferences, reaching out to contributors, writing documentation to lower the barrier of entry to new contributors
    4. suffers from an over protective legal organization
    5. respecting open source licenses to making it easier for engineers to open source code and ensuring we’re giving back to the open source projects we depend on
    1. Yet, these are not certain, and the future of the ecosystem as I hope to shape it depends upon a growing core of influencers who are genuinely committed to and uncompromising about the value of the commons.

      Lets expand this beyond badges and commit to an protecting an open web.

    2. democratizing technology and authoritarian technology.

      I wonder how tool is separated from technology. Is technology different from a tool or is every tool a new technology? And i f we mean that is the case does that mean every tool we have ever touched either has a democratizing technology or an authoritarian technology?

      And if is every tool we have touched is the tendency in the tool or is us?

    3. There are inherent affordances and limitations to the technology that make some things possible and other things more likely. At the same time, there are complex individual and societal forces that impact how it develops, especially the power structures that develop alongside a given technology.

      getting at the definition of technology.

    4. but they are instead examining how it developed in a give context.

      Reaffirming a tool is used is defined by affordances, agent, and context.

    5. We saw this happen with Microsoft. It started out with a big vision: How do we get a PC on every desk and in every home? It was profoundly democratizing.

      This is not true. Closed and proprietary was baked into microsofts DNA since Day.

      Though Microsoft today proves Bull's thesis. As they have become a loser, or less of a winner they have started to shake things up. Windows 10 maybe kinda free. Office Apps everywhere.

    1. Here’s a presentation at the 2013 Personal Democracy Forum that provides a little more context for our project.

      This is an inspiring talk.

    1. lowRISC is producing fully open hardware systems. From the processor core to the development board, our goal is to create a completely open computing eco-system. Our open-source SoC (System-on-a-Chip) designs will be based on the 64-bit RISC-V instruction set architecture. Volume silicon manufacture is planned as is a low-cost development board. There are more details on our plans in these slides from a recent talk lowRISC is a not-for-profit organisation working closely with the University of Cambridge and the open-source community.
  3. ronja.twibright.com ronja.twibright.com
    1. Ronja is a free technology project for reliable optical data links with a current range of 1.4km and a communication speed of 10Mbps full duplex. Applications of this wireless networking device include backbone of free, public, and community networks, individual and corporate Internet connectivity, and also home and building security. High reliability and availability linking is possible in combination with WiFi devices. The Twibright Ronja datalink can network neighbouring houses with cross-street ethernet access, solve the last mile problem for ISP’s, or provide a link layer for fast neighbourhood mesh networks.
    1. RISC-V: free and open instruction set architecture (ISA). including "rocket chip" cpu reference implementation.

  4. Feb 2015
    1. Did you think people would get angry about clones. "2048 was based on 1024, which apparently is a clone of Threes," he says succinctly. "I had no idea of this, and I didn't even know Threes existed, before releasing 2048. Not thinking that 2048 would be successful, I didn't really consider any of the possible repercussions."
  5. Dec 2014
  6. Nov 2014
    1. Ich vermute sehr, dass offenes Annotieren im Web eine zentrale digitale Kommunikationsform der näheren Zukunft wird.

      Dies gilt jedenfalls, wenn Annotationstools so einfach und intuitiv gestaltet sind wie dieser Annotator.

    1. If we believe in equality, if we believe in participatory democracy and participatory culture, if we believe in people and progressive social change, if we believe in sustainability in all its environmental and economic and psychological manifestations, then we need to do better than slap that adjective “open” onto our projects and act as though that’s sufficient or — and this is hard, I know — even sound.
    2. that the moments when students generate “education data” is, historically, moments when they come into contact with the school and more broadly the school and the state as a disciplinary system
  7. Oct 2014
    1. WordPress, Drupal and many other complete web applications come ready made for deployment.

      Even if cheap, I wonder what the TCO (total cost of ownership is like)

  8. Jun 2014
    1. Technology leadership is not defined by patents, which history has repeatedly shown to be small protection indeed against a determined competitor, but rather by the ability of a company to attract and motivate the world’s most talented engineers. We believe that applying the open source philosophy to our patents will strengthen rather than diminish Tesla’s position in this regard.

      "Technology leadership is....defined by...the ability of a company to attract and motivate the world's most talented engineers."

      The key components of this applied "open source philosophy" seem to be about increasing input, visibility, and collective motivation by taking fear out of the interaction equation.

  9. Apr 2014
  10. Mar 2014
    1. A traditional bookseller, no matter how large he is, will not be able to justify the investment necessary for creating a consumer proposition in the range of Kindle, Kobo or Nook. But he is able to afford the Tolino white-label Ecosystem. And then suddenly he is able to compete at the same level as the digital global players.

      open standards allow small players to enter the competition!

  11. Feb 2014
  12. Jan 2014
    1. If federally funded research is going to broadly benefit society, it has to be widely accessible, not just to curious private citizens, but also to industries, private organizations, and federal, state, and local governments where scientific knowledge can help create new products, solve problems, educate students, and make policy decisions.

      It is The People who will most benefit from open access to federally funded research.

    2. Giving the public what it paid for sounds noble, but from where I sit, a scientist at a well-funded research university, ensuring that research papers are available to the public for free seems pointless.

      This seems to be a comment sentiment-- the open access arguments don't address the individual "what's in it for me?" question. And it is not wrong for people to be asking this question-- not just what benefits them, but also what misery are they in for if they start down this unknown (and possibly treacherous) path? It is the rare few intrepid leaders in this space that can see beyond the immediate benefits and risks-- that can see a new world of science that could exist and are willing to make the epicly dangerous journey along with their loyal argonauts who can withstand the siren song and sail safely through the academic scylla and charybdis.