xperience has taught me the role of words — not just sentence structure and arguments — in playing with one’s built-in interpretations and connotations. It may vary across cultures, but different cultures usually have different languages/dialects, so there is something universal about connotations within any particular culture. Communication between commons leads to an equilibrium or an agreement on what’s acceptable and what’s not. These are usually incorporated into one’s mind at a young age using imagery, as opposed to strict definitions of words. The way we interpret text and speech (sequences of words) very much differs from the way a computer does that.

Language is a funny thing. By controlling the vocabulary people can control thought. What sounds worse? Open Source, Free software, non-Free software, proprietary software, non-proprietary software, freedom software, licensed code, rented code, or licence to rent binaries? Depending on how this debate is posed, people will judge differently, based on prejudices and assumptions.

What are people defined by? ‘What’ am I? Not an atheist, that’s for sure, as people do not get described through negation — that is, things they do not adhere to. Can one be called a “spaghetti monster denier”? Or “pink unicorns rejectionist”? Of course not, that would be ridiculous. So what word best describes a person who adheres to the real world (or by extension, the universe)? We probably don’t have such a word, at least not in common usage. George Orwell warned about this. Lacking words that we can use, certain modes of thinking can be marginalised as they cannot be communicated. So what word better describes realists? “Logicians” maybe? Basing one’s view of life on reality, based on facts and observations, rejecting the unfounded and accepting that which is proven through rigourous tests — what is it called? Evidence-based reality is a much simpler one, but maybe not as satisfying as fairy tales, fantasy, and destinies that are never to be known (because — by definition — they come ‘after’ life, however this may actually work).

Playing the game of words helps one daemonise one side and win a debate before it’s even started, all through presumptuous labeling. That’s why I don’t call myself an “atheist”, even though others might call me that.

rust used to mean “big”.

Trust used to also mean “concurring with what other people usually believe.”

As a new year’s resolution I intend to explore the issue of trust more closely, as it became rather apparent that trust had become a somewhat political issue and people’s understanding of their surroundings warped accordingly.

As a broad and general word of advice, ask not what the source (person/channel) has to deliver but ask also where that source derives this information from and what motives are at play. Trust is not a matter of falsehoods and truisms (of which there are few in this world, usually pertaining to physical sciences, not social sciences). Trust can be earned based on many criteria and few sources remain which can be trusted. Each source has its biases, which is why news, for instance, is delivered very differently depending on geographical location. Diversity of sources can sometimes establish trust.

Truth should be absolute, so lacking consistency there is no truth to be found.

ANY stubborn folks continue to insist that “Linux” is a more suitable name to use than GNU/Linux (even when entire distributions are involved). What if we just call edit a “Free operating system”? Our friends in the BSD side should receive some recognition as well because some drivers and work is clearly being shared. These are the two main families of Free operating systems, but the general audience will naturally assume that “Free” means “cheap” (and therefore ‘really, really poor’), not “libre”.

ALKING about Linux (or more broadly — about Free software) as a cheap alternative to Macintosh and Windows escapes the main point. This point is made more and more apparent as times goes by (and users lose more space). Linux is about freedom, not cost. The cost of an O/S is not as high as the worth of being allowed to control what your PC actually does. Consider DRM, WGA, spying, flexibility, migration, lock-in, bloat, and many other new factors that make alternatives to Linux repellent. Linux helps the user maintains basic rights and be treated decently.

While some people talk about price, it still encourages the misconception that Linux users are cheap or that Linux is good because it’s inexpensive. What if people spoke about the person actually owning his/her PCs, rather than renting a license to borrow some piece of software that takes over the PC, then restricts, punishes, requests money, and phones Mother Ship?

Another distinction needs to be made to separate what people call “open source” and what we know as “Free software”, which includes Linux. Watch the following new video.

Help human rights. Help Earth.

KAY, the title is just sort of humorous and it’s designed to draw your attention. I once foresaw myself as someone who would work in industry making a decent living. That was when I learned. Later I envisioned myself exploring and researching. That was when I worked on my Ph.D. which I could probably finish when I was 24. But then came the stage when I worked. But I enjoyed it. I was drawn to a newly-found passion of mine. I scratched an itch which was identified when I discovered hostility and propaganda directed at the very same thing that I used and loved — Free software.

Things have changed a lot, but it was not an overnight transformation.

At present, I’m a forever-procrastinating Ph.D. candidate who has been virtually sitting on a ready thesis for over a year but not just in order to stay in campus life, which is convenient and liberating (I’ll be forced to just submit it at the end of this month). I’ve been advocating Free software vigorously for about 2 years and I began helping with Groklaw News Picks a year and a half ago. I consider myself to be one who is intimately familiar with many of Microsoft’s misconducts (recent past, but particularly present) and I recently started to share my findings in more visible places. I find it utterly appalling — knowing what I know — that Microsoft is practically above international laws.

What’s next? Who the heck knows…

All I know is that I’ve become part of a force that brings change. The world will continue to change and I wish to be part it, not a residue or a side effect.

If you don’t stand up for what you believe it, you’ll live according to someone else’s desires. Other people’s personal goals sometimes lead to harm. Our rights are taken away, our home (or planet) is gradually destroyed, and people at the top strive to keep everyone else ignorant enough to not realise this.

I had my childhood and I’ve had what people call a “normal” life. Maybe it’s time to ensure that tomorrow children can have a normal life too because the world is becoming worse and worse as the days go by.

Me, when I was happy to know nothing about
the way our world really operates

Time flies when you do something you enjoy

have been fairly pleased with my last weekend, which is now over. For a a change, I went out to a nice dinner last night and I also managed to relax as the workload is reduced (thank you, summertime). Yesterday, a journalist and author who appears in CNN, NBC and many other top-tier networks got in touch with me. We’ll see where it leads, but all in all, I am less worried about my future than I once used to be.

My worry is not associated with inability to work, but rather it’s about the possibility of no longer doing what I consider play (for a living!). My job at the University pays me over $40 a week for just 5-10 minutes of actual effort. It’s fantastic. How long will this last? We shall see.

For the time being, life treats me fairly well. I live a modest life, my spendings are minimal, but passion transcends and supersedes all else.

THE idea of free culture is centred around democratic values. It changes a few economical status quos (e.g. compartments, pyramid schemes), so no wonder it faces so much resistance and sheer opposition from various authorities. All in all, it involves millions of people getting exposure and becoming contributers rather than having a few ‘stars’ reaching millions who get glued to a couch and dream of being superstars. The former is a case of decentralisation of influence, if not of wealth as well.

That is why I continue to urge everyone to made a gradual migration to software which shifts control back to its rightful owner. Do it for, if you ask me — which you might do — the Free software movement, but mainly for your own benefit. Only when computer use is restricted to a point of end-user suffocation will people wake up. As it stands, with DRM, even personal information is set to expire and become no longer accessible. All the advancements made by sharing are suppressed, which once again leads to stifling of scientific and cultural progress. And it’s very sad. It is in a company’s interest to keep us naive and obedient to anything.

Apple’s Open Source licences are geared towards transparency, but nothing scientific for the betterment and extension through sharing (giving and taking). I find great hope in Linux, unless BSD matures to become as easy to set up. OpenSolaris remains a package that is controlled by a company, so it is too early to consider it.