Ilaw Videos
newest 100 ilaw videos / ilaw widgets / media rss:

Author: TheZStation Added: Thu, 01 May 2008 04:46:20 -0800 Duration: 286Ed. #200804.01 - "Arraning Pateado". Adding some strings to the piano. This was done at a whim so pardon my yapping - I had no script, not even an outline. For more of Let's Jam! & Sessions, please visit: www.thezstation.com/videos/letsjam.

Author: TheZStation Added: Thu, 01 May 2008 04:46:20 -0800 Duration: 286Ed. #200804.01 - "Arraning Pateado". Adding some strings to the piano. This was done at a whim so pardon my yapping - I had no script, not even an outline. For more of Let's Jam! & Sessions, please visit: www.thezstation.com/videos/letsjam.

Strepitoso, Syncback di 2brightspartks e' un programma anche in italiano per fare copie di sicurezza. L'uso personale e' gratuito, l'uso commerciale costa solo 30 dollari oggi. Ne parliamo live con l'avv. Bulgarelli: http://www.civile.it/internet/visual.php?num=51685 Approfondimenti su www.comesiusainternet.it Musica da Kevin MacLeod, www.incompetech.com

Due parole sul come usare internet per approfondire in modo professionale le informazioni.Internet offre migliaia di fonti, ma dobbiamo saper gestire migliaia di fonti.www.blogbridge.com e' un software gratuito multipiattaforma in grado di farci arrivare le voci di tanti siti, con un semplice colpo d'occhio.... prometto: la prossima volta aggiusto meglio la cravatta ... :-)

Click here to play via Amalyah Keshet and Wired Magazine "Hijacked Disney Characters Explain Copyright"The ten minute movie, directed by Eric Faden, came out of Stanford University's Fair Use Project Documentary Film Program. Stanford's Fair Use Project--to which Stanford Law professor, Copyright guru, Creative Commons advocate and Wired writer Lawrence Lessig contributes--was founded last year to "support to a range of projects designed to clarify, and extend, the boundaries of fair use in order to enhance creative freedom." And, well, the movie is damn sure creative, and certainly seems to take the boundaries of fair use about as far as they can go .

Open Source Feminism - Penguin Day is a day-long workshop for nonprofit organizations to explore the range of issues and options inovlved in using Free and Open Source Software. Penguin Days happen in different locations several times a year and for the past three years, these meetings have taken place after the annual NTC: Nonprofit Technology Conference. Last Saturday, I attended my first one. Although I was pretty exhausted by Saturday, I learned a great deal. I was curious to observe the gender balance at Penguin Day and while I'm not as meticulous as Christine in counting and calculating the number of women and men in the room, I took a quick video to get a reading. Very roughly, the percentages for Penguin Day look better than industry standards for both OS and commercial software. The video incorporates some slides from Angela Byron's excellent presentation, Women in Floss which also speaks to the dark side of gender issues in FOSS communities. The presentation offers some good pointers to women in how to get involved in FOSS communities. The morning started off with a Spectrogram Session. A line was drawn with duct tape from one side of the room to the other. Aspiration's Executive Director, Allen Gunn, read a series of opinion statements and asked if we disagreed or agreed or were neutral. Everyone in the room found a place on the line relative to their opinion. A group dialogue followed allowing people to articulate why they felt one way or other. I'm sort of foggy on all the questions - due to my tired state, but the first set of opinion statements was Nonprofits should adopt open source software for practical reasons and Nonprofits should adopt open source software for philosophical reasons. The discussion reminded of the one I heard in the UK and read later on the Circuit Riders list Is Open Source Fair Trade for Nonprofits? (Interesting that KhmerOS had a table at the Cambodia Fair Trade Expo) The video captures those on the philsophical side. I was standing on the adopt for practical reasons side of the line. I was somewhat persuaded to come closer to the middle in listening to David's and Jamie's arguments. I think that of advocates need to have open source technology stewards behind them to be successful -- there is a need for stewards to guide the choices, training, translators -- to help nonprofits adopt open source software. Might I dare suggest that future spectrograms include a question about gender balance in OS? Or, has this issue already been discussed in this context? I attended a session about OS Online Communities facilitated by the Joomla! guy (whose name I can't remember due to my exhausted state and I apologize for that). He told the story about the growth and challenges facing the Joomla! community. (These stories need to be written down and it sparked a memory of a conversation I had with Zittrain at iLaw in 2005 who pointed me to a researcher at HBS who was looking at Open Source Software Communities.) The questions that emerged from this group were not different from those that are asked when we talk about online facilitation and online communities. These folks would be perfect participants for Nancy White's Online Facilitation Workhop. How to bring new people up to speed. How to get the good pieces to rise to the top. What are the tactics for supporting online open source communities? What makes online forums work or not work? What are the best practices? How to get into the forums without being labeled as a stupid newbie How to engage people in valuable conversation? How to prepare the next generation of moderators in OS communities? What is the best tool for very large communities? How well does the tool support the organic growth of the community? What are the techniques for conversational weaving? What is the gensis of an open source community? Since OS communities generally begin with a small group of developers or a scratch your own itch approach and some developers tend to be egomanics - how do you build community within this culture? I participated in the speed geek session where about ten people get to pitch a project or idea to a rotating group of four or five people. I pitched my Open Content game for Nonprofits. In retrospect, I designed the game more for a range people who work in a nonprofits - technical and mangerial - and this audience a mix of more technical and technology providers. Still, I got a lot of great feedback for the next remix of this game. (Sorry Janet, no videos too tired to multi-task.) After a lunch of pizza (which accelerated my tiredness), I lead a very small group informal discussion on Open Content. We didn't play the game, but we had a great discussion about the creative commons licensing and the issues the notion of open content surfaces. While she was busy facilitating a linux session, Michele Murrain had managed to blog a very thoughtful post shining a light on the Open Content issues (pay for it or set it free). I agree with Michele's viewpoint, although I understand why Michael Gilbert and Laura Quinn respectfully disagree:But ultimately, yes, I do think that all content that we provide to the nonprofit sector should be freely available, and under Creative Commons (or similar) licensing. That's the only way to provide important information to nonprofits that need it - some have a hard time affording even nominal fees for that sort of thing. - Adam Thompson Interview At the end of the day, I met Adam Thompson who teaches at UofC Santa Cruz and I discovered that he distributes some of my blog content to his 25-40 students each semester. He notes that the field is changing fast and that the blogosphere moves faster than textbooks and the by license makes this sharing easier. So, if my content was locked up and available on a fee basis, I might make some money but then again I might have less exposure. I guess the key whether your main source of income is from the sales of your actual content or whether your content is line extension and you make your income via consulting or teaching. Lots to think about here. - Are Mediated Experiences Bad? I went out for a group dinner after Penguin Day. I got a ride from Simon Rowland who was using his blackberry and GPS to help navigate to the restaurant to meet up with the rest of the group. In the front seat, Simon was talking about mediated experience with Zac Mutrux and how our engagement with gagets gets in the way of us being in the moment and interacting with people face-to-face. This reminded of a post I wrote called Shall we put away the cameras and have a conversation? This calls to mind a debate in the educator community about some years ago about computer-mediated experiences - and how it is a (mostly) bad thing. Has this view changed by the pervasive Internet access? What struck me is that Simon is probably a Gen Y and Zac a Gen X and I'm a babyboomer. My perception was that younger people do not feel mediated experience is a bad thing. I was wrong -- this attitude isn't necessarily generational. - OS Next Generation Music - Voyage Black And, since I mentioned generations, my kids are We Gen and I wonder if they think mediated experience is a bad thing? I must also mention that the blow up penguins were huge hit in our house - they are still being flung down the stairs. Even more importantly, it gave me a chance to introduce the kids to the concept of Open Source software -- Harry's observations about penguins were interesting.