With the year coming to an end and the winter setting in, I thought of the estimated 20 million Pakistanis, whose lives were destroyed by the disastrous flooding.
The media interest has been waning and I wondered how the situation is by now. Perhaps unsurprisingly, given the scale, there is still enormous problems to be solved.
The shocking fact about events in Pakistan is that even now, almost two months after this journey in late October, so little has improved. Large areas of Sindh remain under water. Tents, long lines of white canvas along the embankments, have been erected for the many families made homeless as an estimated 1.6 million houses countrywide were damaged or destroyed by the flood waters.
But, as the chill of winter sets in, there are still an estimated 600,000 families without even emergency shelter.
Most of the people affected were living in poverty before the floods, but they made a living. Today they have no home, no income, nothing. Yet, as The Guardian writes, the needs are simple:
The list of what flood victims need to rebuild their lives is astonishingly short and inexpensive: seed for the next crop, fertilisers, some form of subsidy on electricity and irrigation water, and, if you want to be really generous, some financial help to rebuild their homes.
It may not be “news” anymore but we need to remember these people, help them get back on their feet. Several newspapers, including BBC, New York Times and The Guardian, have special sections covering the Pakistan Floods, but it is aid that is truly needed.
Think about that for a minute. Seriously think about it. Every time you write code – even a brand new algorithm in a clean room environment – you could be infringing a patent, somehow, somewhere.
I strongly believe that the potential harm to society from software patents is far greater than the limited benefit to single entities like individuals or companies. Algorithms – and that is what computer programs are, applied mathematics if you will – should not, in my opinion, be patentable.
I agree that inventors should receive protection for a limited time and to a limited extent to reap the benefits of their hard work, but copyright handles this fine (althought I think copyright legislation, in some cases, has been taken too far in that direction).
Earlier this year the German high court ruled all software potentially patentable, an enormous blow to the fight against software patents in Europe. With Germany being the largest economy of the EU, it is likely that this will spread to other countries and eventually be incorporated into EU law.
There areseveralinitiatives to stop software patents and they are fighting an important battle to keep us from the lawsuit mess that is so common in America.
As many large corporations become increasingly worried about the current US patent system, groups in Europe seems eager to follow in the wrong direction. What is needed is a more balanced set of regulations between the interests of corporations and society and software patents is not in society’s interest.
John Siracusa explains where Apple is going with Mac OS X, inspired by the development and limitations of iOS:
Just as the Mac was originally a friendlier alternative to command-line operating systems, iOS today stands in stark contrast to Mac OS X and other powerful, but still relatively complex, desktop operating systems
The Big Picture once again has put together a remarkable photo series: Sulfur mining in the crater of the Kawah Ijen volcano in Indonesia. Looks like photographs from another planet.
Here’s a sound bite I can sign up for, from Simon Phipps: “Wikileaks is like Pirate Bay; something that I don’t like but have to defend because of the collateral damage caused by attacking it.”
Unlike Simon, there are quite a few things I like about WikiLeaks; but even where it’s open to criticism, its sins pale beside those of the rabble of wastrels, guttersnipes, nincompoops, and cowards lined up against it.
Financial Times has an interesting article about Facebook and it looks like they are working on becoming an integral part of what we consider the web to be:
Facebook is no longer merely a social network, where users check out updates from friends, glance at photos and play some games. Rather, it is making moves to be an essential part of the entire online experience. The company is becoming people’s homepage, e-mail system and more. Much in the way Google extended its capabilities from search to include e-mail, maps and books, Facebook is becoming a part of ever more daily services on the web. The company is also making strides to achieve one thing Google has not: it is well on its way to becoming the de facto identity platform for the internet.
It used to be IBM that was the giant, then Microsoft. Today, Apple, Google and Facebook are a huge part of our lives in ways previously unknown. Unlike the open, cooperative and, partly, government funded computer and internet revolution that enabled these to grow, the future is increasingly being built and controlled by corporations. I am not sure that is a good thing.
Fortunately, brilliant things and being built and thought every day as the TED videos demonstrate. I hope there is room for them.
Rachel Botsman makes a compelling argument that we are on the verge of a new way of consuming, that of collaboration. What started online is spreading to the physical world and there are now sites allowing anyone to share or borrow everything from books to cars.
Researchers at Stanford have created a social network based on the standards used every day in email. John Fontana from Ping Identity writes
The goal is to provide an open and federated social network platform, shatter the silos of personal and other data that individual sites control, and give users ultimate power over their data and relationships.
I love how it’s based on an already widespread and robust system for communicating. Email is well understood unlike setting up your own server, that most other decentralized social networks require. Read more at Stanford MobiSocial Lab
