In this article, Xinhua's headline tells us, "Likely cause of space shuttle trouble found: NASA." While I'm sure this statement is true, I think that swapping the text on the sides of the colon would be closer to their intent by locating the source of the information -- and not the source of the problem -- with the agency. NASA, after all, is a pretty tricky problem.

While searching for treasures in Widener's stacks recently, I found a beautiful 1896 edition of William Blade's classical book on book collecting and book maintenance: The Enemies of Books. The title and driving metaphor of the book won me over right away. Books seem like inert and relatively unobjectionable objects. Many people dislike certain books or do not care for books in general but who could be the enemies of books in general? Some people may not like books but William Blades is not one of these people. Blades loves books (Caxtons in particular) and has, to say the least, a long list of ways that he wants to see books treated. Anything that violates Blade's sensibilities becomes the enemy of William Blades. Blades is happy happy to speak for books in general. Enemies enumerated include both individuals like the "Bagford the Biblioclast", behaviors, occupations, nature, states of beings, children, and most women. There are chapters on fire, water, gas and heat, dust and neglect, ignorance and bigotry, the bookworm, other vermin, bookbinders, collectors, and servants and children. The book contains something for almost everyone. Blades opens a wonderfully out-of-date section on the danger of gas lighting in libraries stating that, "unfortunately, I can speak from experience on the dire effect of gas in a confined space." Who can't? Nowhere though, is Blades as worked up as when he discusses the evils done by bookbinders who trim (and who frequently overtrim) the margins of books while binding or rebinding them. Blades explains:

Dante, in his "Inferno," deals out to the lost souls various tortures suited with dramatic fitness to the past crimes of the victims, and had I to execute judgment on the criminal binders of certain precious volumes I have seen, where the untouched maiden sheets untrusted to their care have, by barbarous treatment, lost dignity, beauty, and values, I would collect paper shavings so ruthlessly shorn off, and roast the perpetrator of the outrage over their slow combustion. In olden times, before men had learned to value the relics of our printers, there was some excuse for the sins of a binder who erred from ignorance which has general; but in these times, when the historical and antiquarian values of books is freely acknowledged, no quarter should be granted to a careless culprit.

When collectors' turns comes up, Blades rants for pages on the evils of collectors who rip out the title pages or colophons of otherwise good books to build large bibliographic collections. As Mika was looking through the book, the title page fell from the old and rather fragile binding. It seems that we may have a candidate for a new addition to the book. On the other hand, perhaps we have a new distinction: the enemy of The Enemies of Books.

The press, others, and even myself have made much of the Media Lab and One Laptop Per Child's decision to embrace a platform that is fully free and open. There are two major reasons for working with the free world on this project. The first is the philosophical reasons that I've laid out recently. The second is the fact that a free platform will help us leverage the work of a large community to accomplish building, testing, and improving what we believe will ultimately develop into a new and more relevant type of software platform for the world's children. In terms of building community, our first goal must be harnessing the power of the existing free software world and interested parties therein. Later on (i.e., once the machines exist) we can focus on getting governments, non-profits, and ultimately some of the students using the machine, to contribute as well. While there's clearly a bootstrapping phase, we unfortunately, we haven't done much of either so far. Up until now, Red Hat has been doing the legwork in the realm of software. So much so that at points it has been difficult even for some of us officially working on the project (e.g., myself) to make meaningful contributions. While we've had many people express interest in helping with the project from elsewhere in MIT and in non-MIT world, we've been at a loss for ways to plug folks in. As part of a larger effort to address these issues in the next month or so, Walter Bender, myself, and David Cavallo are organizing a short workshop on getting involved in the OLPC/$100 laptop project for people at MIT. We will also be posting information from that workshop online for everyone. If you're at MIT and are interested, please show up. If you are in the area but without an MIT or Harvard affiliation, contact me. If you're out of the area and are interested in getting involved, just stay tuned. The workshop is being offered as a three hours one-day-only IAP class. You can check out the IAP web page and then show up. We will be done with plenty of time to rest up before the MIT mystery hunt begins. It looks like I'll be hunting with Codex Dresden.

Quim Gil asked a number of good questions about the One Laptop Per Child initiative. I will not answer all of his questions now and am not sure answers exist yet for every question. With that said, I will try to answer his final question with the traditional disclaimer that the thoughts expressed here are my own and may or may not be shared by others within the project are not the official position of OLPC. Quim asked, "what measures will be taken to avoid or [inhibit] the spread of a (unconscious or well-intentioned?) cultural neocolonialism?" I have been asked this question many times. It is an issue that concerns me personally. As such, I'll give you my personal feelings on the subject. Discussion of cultural colonialism, Westernization, Americanization or techno-imperialism are hardly limited to OLPC. Sometimes it comes in the form of reactions against what is seen as the homogenizing or Americanizing effect of US-based multinationals (e.g., McDonald's or Nike) or against the culturally oriented US-based motion picture or recording industries. In terms of technology, the debate is often framed in terms of Appropriate Technology. There is an argument that modern information technology -- designed and developed in highly industrialized countries to address their particular set of cultural contexts and needs -- may be inappropriate and potentially dangerous in the developing world. This is a fair critique. But while there may be a danger, insisting that the technology be kept out is unrealistic and may miss the larger evil. These discussions can not responsibly ignore the fact that, depending on whose numbers you trust, there are between and 1 and 2 billion mobile phones in the world today and that number will reach something like 2.6 billion operational units in 2009. That's nearly half the world population and it's not hard to find out where most of those phones are going:

All the growth in subscribers is coming from emerging markets," says David Taylor, Motorola's director of strategy and operations for high-growth markets. Researchers predict that of the 1 billion cell phones expected to be sold in 2010, half will be in developing economies. (link)

Information and communication technology is, in one form or another, on a fast track into the developing world. That may very well be a problem but it's not the biggest problem in this field. The bigger problem is the nature of the technology that is being imported. People in the, rich and developed countries may have cellphones, but they frequently also have computers: full-fledged, reprogrammable, hackable computers; computers that they can use to write software, design hardware, install new OSes on, and even -- if they are really adventurous -- use to reprogram their mobile phone. People in the developing world will have information technology (in the form of cellphones at least) but do not have the ability -- no matter how interested, talented, or intelligent they are -- to change the way they work. This is the greater danger. The most powerful and empowering quality of information technology in the context of personal computers is that as communication is being mediated, facilitated, and defined through software on computers fully within users' control, each user has the ability to determine the terms on which they communicate. In a world where people are communicating, trading, voting, learning, working, and organizing through digital channels, massive power lies in the hands of those who have the tools (e.g., computers and development platforms) and access and permission (e.g., Free and Open source software) necessary to make the necessary changes. In three years, there will be a billion people in the developing world who are using information technology on the terms and at the whim of the today's global elite and they will not be able transcend their role and consumers and subservients in this context. Their ability to transcend their depressed role in larger economic contexts will be highly influenced by this fact. The developing world's "computers" will not be able to create or change the software that define them. The code that runs these devices will be proprietary and will remain immutable even in the context of additional hardware. Unless we do something about it. As far I'm concerned, that something is two steps:

• We need to create and distribute -- real computers that can be used as development platforms -- at a price that can begin to compete with their alternatives (e.g., phones, thinclients, WebTVs, etc).
• We need to make sure that these machines are hackable -- totally hackable -- on every level. That means open hardware. That means Free and Open Source software. That means open specifications, protocols, and data formats.

That is my personal goal in OLPC and it is one that has seemed to have been echoed by others involved in the project. Of course, I have hardly washed myself or my project of the stigma of cultural imperialism yet. That said, while making a completely malleable machine allows every user to, if they choose to, transcend their role as a consumer of technology and technologically-defined culture, one side effect of this process is that it also allows them to do so on their own terms. Because the machine is completely free and open, users are free to use the machine in ways that not only have the originators not considered, but that they could not imagine. With time, the machine -- and its software in particular -- can be rewritten, reshaped, and eventually replaced with something of, by, and for its users. Of course, this will not happen overnight. As the first step, OLPC will attempt to create something we think provides a compelling and flexible platform with which the world can learn and build. With this in hand, governments and ministries of education that purchase the machine will get to shape (or replace?) the platform in line with their own ideas and curricula. As the students and communities to which the machines are deployed learn and build with and upon the machine, another transformation will occur. As those communities grow in relation to their technology, this change will be sustained. The potential for this dynamic and empowering relationship is the reason I'm here.

I was sad to see that the local Cinderella's Pizza is open (and delivers!) past midnight. They do not serve pumpkin pizza (or any other pumpkin dishes) at any time of the night. If I were in charge, things would be different.

Because there are people that seem to be unclear on the subject: The reason people type "l10n" and "i18n" instead of "localization" and "internationalization" is because the words' length makes them difficult to type. Tech communities are willing to put up with this ungainly and opaque shorthand for the sake of our wrists. In spoken English, "EYE-eighteen-EN" is not easier to say that the expanded form. Pronouncing the keyboard shorthand does not imply that speaker is savvy or in the know. It should not be done.

After a unfortunate bout of downtime, I'm happy to announce that Sam Hartman has officially revived the Debian-Boston-Social mailing list and our community is back in business. If you're in Boston and would like to participate in key signings, meetings with local and traveling free software hackers (Debian and otherwise) and to stay keyed into a crowd of people in Boston working on and using Debian and its derivatives, this is your list. You should feel free to attend events and to plan and announce your own in pubs and other points of interests. With its strong academic predisposition and its important place in the history of free software, the Boston/Cambridge has no excuse being shown up by places like New York City when it comes to having a happening Debian scene. You can sign up here.