Unrepetant, Wikipedia justifies the decision to reveal the ending of the play.

It's bad enough when a corporation tries to pretend it is one person with one consistent opinion, but can the Wikipedia even be said to have a single, consistent opinion? Yes, the edit wars usually end when one party gets tired and they find a way to convey both sides of the matter, but that's not what's going on here. The information is either revealed or its not. There's no compromise and compromise is an integral part of converging on a particular choice of words.

Thanks for both responses. I had a feeling it wasn't that novel an idea.

Several years ago, I was thinking in the same general vein and decided to experiment with an Invention Disclosure . I wonder how Apple structured their patents-- if they did-- because it's a pretty simple idea. I'm surprised that more cell phones haven't implemented it. Maybe they have. Does anyone know if others are experimenting with it too?

You can convert .class files with a tool called dx and you don't need to do it by hand.

But let me explain what I was thinking when I said "It won't look pretty". That could mean a text line output or some other Android interface. I think I should have been more specific and spelled out just how much work it will be if you're trying to duplicate some of the code that isn't available.

Yes, a fair point. I shouldn't have used "all", although I think you could probably get Swing and even AWT working with a shoehorn.

But it's got a JVM and JVMs take byte code...

And while I wouldn't want Derby or some other serverside process gumming up my phone, I do like the ease of using the same packing and unpacking routines on both platforms. They're just more likely to work a bit better together.

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/01/13/surveillance-secruity-and-the-google-breach/

The older I get, the more I appreciate the hard work of the editors who fix most of my errors and the sales team that collect the money from the advertisers and subscribers. They create an environment that helps me, the nominal creator and the only one who gets a byline, produce something that's better.

Now it may be that the market will decide that they don't want to pay extra for these layers. That's a decision that all of us will make consciously or unconsciously when we decide what content we want to consume. But there's no doubt that they do something.

Let me first thank everyone who's submitted an article to Slashdot with a link to something I've written. The comments are almost always a great gift and I look forward to reading most of what people write, especially the ones who RTFA.

My only request is for everyone to be open to new ways of paying for the synthesis of information. It is very difficult for humans to compete with the robot link farms and the casual content created on places like Facebook. If we want people to synthesize we have to find some way to come together as a society and fund them.

I realize that it's attractive to look at the almost non-existent distribution costs of digital content and imagine a world where information can be completely free, but this avoids dealing with the costs of creating it in the first place. We need to find a good way for everyone who consumes content to effectively share the costs of creating it. If we don't, the information ecosystem will collapse.

Please be open to the writers and publishers who are going to try out more mechanisms for distributing the costs among the consumers. Try them out and reward the ones that deliver something of value. Ignore the ones that aren't worth your time. But please don't dismiss them out of hand.

Finally, I want to point out a piece I've written about some of the downsides of the free ecosystem for information. Perhaps this might suggest that there are some advantages in embracing a paywall, at least occasionally.

http://www.wayner.org/node/67

I took up Cory's offer and created an iPhone version of _Makers_:

http://www.wayner.org/node/66

Please send along any comments about the interface.

Here's the problem. This isn't just about me and my way of making an income. I stopped relying on textbooks a long time ago. I diversified and I've done all of those things. But as a consumer I like a world where I can buy a textbook written by someone else who is interested in creating a good textbook, not pushing t-shirts. I like a textbook over a speaking gig because I can choose when I read, how much I read, and whether I re-read it. A textbook is a neat, time-shifting device. So I like paying directly for it. I don't want to pay $50k to go to a college to take a course. I don't want to buy t-shirts. I don't want to spend extra for laminated reference sheets. A textbook is already more convenient and more personalized than all of those things. It's pure information created by someone who wants to please an audience.

  I like a world where I can come together with other folks to share the cost of creating art or knowledge. It's not about asking damn kids to get off my lawn. It's asking you to quit destroying a marketplace that's perfectly adequate for many people. If you want free information, go create your information for free. If you want you to lock out non-sharing individuals, bind it up with a super GPL. But let those of us who like to support artists, support them.

Ah, but if you like the service or want it to continue, you better not undermine the business model. If you're seeing enough ads for them to drive you nuts-- something I can understand given some of the obtrusive ones-- then maybe you're depending upon the content. If the ads don't support the content, it will disappear.

And so you've got to decide how much you like free content. If you do, then you better find a way to help or at least not hurt the business model.

those who truly have something of value will have to charge for it. What's wrong with that?

It just reduces the options for everyone and paywalls appear. It may be how everything does evolve because advertising isn't delivering enough revenue for anyone, but it would be sad if it evolved out of anarchy.