You may not have noticed that libraries are a target for the industry. They have never been satisfied with the status quo on the public good of lending libraries. The DRM/DMCA Catch 22 is bespoke for this purpose and you can bet your ass as soon as they get comfortable with the uptake of TCA and pals, they will pull print publication in a heartbeat. The only remaining value-adds for the publishing industry are metadata, catalogs and editorial. Libraries do the first two better, both more openly and more broadly. And simple software agents can do taste-based referral and demographic aggregation better than either libraries or publishers.
That is the *accursed share* identified by George Bataille. The always available surfeit of energy we devote to ritualized waste. The sovereign nonsense that gives meaning to our mundane existence.
You get stuck in the tools you know, I guess. I don't know what the basii are for Tim's assertions in this article. I'm a self-taught programmer via: typesetting; SGML systems scripting, macro writing; some coursework in Java; XML'99/Xtreme Markup and some lucky breaks. I took the markup wonk path. Voila, a 40 yr old newbie developer.
Frankly, I don't know why XSL is so disregarded, else regarded with fear and awe. I am some kind of master esoteric in our staff 'cause I can write recursive templates. I manage the print and presentation tier of a large web application largely with XSL, against some extremely large instances and it is frankly easy. Use a two-stage transformation, manage grouping and re-parenting in the first, adding hooks the second transform will use to fire garbage collection (new output target, fo:page-sequence, et. al.) if memory usage requires any management at all. Cache the stylesheets, hand the transformers a SAX stream and let them manage their own data structures.
And it is maintenance-level programming to extend Saxon or Xalan to handle your regexp, if that's what you gotta have. The first Java class I ever wrote that wasn't an exercise was a Xalan extension.
I think that poetry inspired by technology per se would be a bad idea.
I think that's prejudicial.
Partly it is the nature of poetry: a poem should be the most succint description of itself that is possible; if it can be condensed and rendered literal, then it isn't really a poem anymore.
I believe it is in pursuit of this value and in neglect of others that contemporary poetry finds itself so lost to its audience, as another poster observes. The ineffable everyday object is burdened with all the aspirations of the poet.
Nothing is more succint and accurate an explanation of a technology per se than that technology itself.
That is interesting. There is, then, a poetry of the machine. Aesthetic value in the efficient expression of power, in its simplicity.
Howver, relating the human experience to technology is a different matter. Technological change is, itself, a new constant in human experience.
And this matter is not contingent upon change as a new constant. This is the fertile ground for technology within the poem: not as its focus but as its ground. The poetry of the junkyard, of the tramway, of the computer exists, but as notes within a melody more internal.
I beg to differ. Anti-tech is too strong. Much of modern poetry may regard the machine with ambivalence, but to the extent it features in a poem it partakes of the struggle for relevance with every other external.
There are numberous odes to the bridge of Brooklyn: Mayakovsky and Lorca come to mind.
that the same applications of XML that drive the keening about bloat and hype seen in these comments are precisely those which are driving the specs to the wrong side of the 80/20 for XML/XSL's original goals: bringing the semantic power of SGML and DSSSL to the Web. Goals for which its purist cousins RelaxNG, REST, et. al. remain admirably suited.
The back-end curmudgeons are right, XML stinks for a universal wire format. But for loosely-coupled, message-based, semantically-rich systems it is hard to beat. And document-oriented systems which don't use XML barely deserve notice any longer.
I gently refer s-expression trolls to paul and oleg
News flash: it's 2002, not 1992. Microsoft-bashing is getting a little old.
As though defending yourself and your pocketbook were a fashion trend. Like they are any less a monopoly today. As if they were not actively buying legislative influence, strong-arming interoperability standards and bribing nations to maintain marketshare.
Self-defense is *so* nineties. Value for money is just bourgeois. Ethical behavior, no legal behavior, is, like, last week.
Seamus Heaney's recasting of Beowulf is one of the great original poems of the 20th century. It is in my top five. Highly recommended to those who hate poetry. Absolutely thrilling read.
And you are right, listening would be best. In spite of the degradation of our ability to feel aural experience the way these cultures did, you *can* feel your heart quicken at the right moments in the poem. Keep in mind that for the intended audience, the story was known pat. The bards learnt it off by rote and their art consisted in their *riffs* on the theme.
Heaney has done a masterful job of making this experience real to a modern audience. It is a vital work.
...the Time Warner people, who know a thing or two about advertising, correctly surmised that advertising was not going to support the Internet. And so the plan was to sell users Time Warner content. (In my personal defense, I kept talking about what a dirty place AOL was -- that the Internet was the porn business. But the feeling seemed to be that, first, I was joking and, second, while new entertainment technologies often started dirty, they soon became much more sanitized and mass-market.) This service, which started in the autumn of 1994 and closed in the spring of 1999, was called Pathfinder and proved two things: Selling Time Warner content on the Internet was pretty much a nonstarter, and the people at Time Warner lacked a certain flair for the Internet. We just don't get it, they said. Which was the essential reason for merging with AOL. [Emphasis mine.]
I'm not sure that Mike's getting it any more than TW. Does anyone with any sense imagine that *this internet thing* is going to fall apart if someone can't figure out how to make money on it with standard advertainment/publimation models? Even in '94. And dirty chat is a killer app?
I haven't bought a CD in 15 years. Got little use for Hollywood films. Your entertainment dollar goes a long way at small clubs and art houses. Buy used CDs and used books. And refine your tastes.
What is needed is something better, this does nothing to improve on the confidence of users. If we had a system that used already published material, donated to the public domain with all brandings intact (FDL-like?), then anything I serve will automatically carry more weight.
What gives PBS and Discovery credibility or authority? How do we crib that and make it available to the netizens. Empower us to make rather than just consume; PBS can play as one more peer. These folks at MPN have the right idea, explore ways to crack the credibility nut.
Hey, buddy. The bridgehead of American legal jurisdiction is way more significant to American Global Dominion[TM] than any number of ex-commie hackers, asian tyrants or desert autocrats. The 82nd Airborne is child's play in comparison.
Adobe dropped this case for a reason. And Justice picked it up for a reason.
Perhaps the simplistic, reductive assumptions these machines are making are a function of the simplistic and reductive programming available. The producers are actively targeting demographic profiles; that is, producing != creating.
No, you're not. You don't have to be. You are already considered more as consumer than citizen by your own elected representatives. Your role as economic mote is far more significant than your role in civic affairs. Your congressional representatives deliver *constituent service*; it is considered enlightened thinking that you are a consumer of government services. The HDTV mandates are designed to deliver you and yours to vital industries for the advancement of national technical infrastructure. Your data, your paycheck and your mortgage: just more product. Your vote is a lifestyle choice.
Voila ici, the Market State.
And in the twisted, twenty-first century, we're grateful for it.
Sure, role-playing can be excellent therapy. But why limited, Doc? Is there an acceptable level of role-playing? Certainly losing oneself in the role transcends the definition: the role dissolves in the playing; but isn't that the point, the asymptote the player strives for.
Follow the bouncing bollocks: punk influenced my haircut, my haircut influenced my girlfriend, my girlfriend left me for a street preacher. So the Lord owes me a blowjob.
Slashdot Mirror
You may not have noticed that libraries are a target for the industry. They have never been satisfied with the status quo on the public good of lending libraries. The DRM/DMCA Catch 22 is bespoke for this purpose and you can bet your ass as soon as they get comfortable with the uptake of TCA and pals, they will pull print publication in a heartbeat. The only remaining value-adds for the publishing industry are metadata, catalogs and editorial. Libraries do the first two better, both more openly and more broadly. And simple software agents can do taste-based referral and demographic aggregation better than either libraries or publishers.
love,
Bunky
That is the *accursed share* identified by George Bataille. The always available surfeit of energy we devote to ritualized waste. The sovereign nonsense that gives meaning to our mundane existence.
You get stuck in the tools you know, I guess. I don't know what the basii are for Tim's assertions in this article. I'm a self-taught programmer via: typesetting; SGML systems scripting, macro writing; some coursework in Java; XML'99/Xtreme Markup and some lucky breaks. I took the markup wonk path. Voila, a 40 yr old newbie developer.
Frankly, I don't know why XSL is so disregarded, else regarded with fear and awe. I am some kind of master esoteric in our staff 'cause I can write recursive templates. I manage the print and presentation tier of a large web application largely with XSL, against some extremely large instances and it is frankly easy. Use a two-stage transformation, manage grouping and re-parenting in the first, adding hooks the second transform will use to fire garbage collection (new output target, fo:page-sequence, et. al.) if memory usage requires any management at all. Cache the stylesheets, hand the transformers a SAX stream and let them manage their own data structures.
And it is maintenance-level programming to extend Saxon or Xalan to handle your regexp, if that's what you gotta have. The first Java class I ever wrote that wasn't an exercise was a Xalan extension.
If XML is hard, I don't wanna be easy.
the earth is moving
server room epicenter
earthquake or slashdot?
Interesting.
I think that poetry inspired by technology per se would be a bad idea.
I think that's prejudicial.
Partly it is the nature of poetry: a poem should be the most succint description of itself that is possible; if it can be condensed and rendered literal, then it isn't really a poem anymore.
I believe it is in pursuit of this value and in neglect of others that contemporary poetry finds itself so lost to its audience, as another poster observes. The ineffable everyday object is burdened with all the aspirations of the poet.
Nothing is more succint and accurate an explanation of a technology per se than that technology itself.
That is interesting. There is, then, a poetry of the machine. Aesthetic value in the efficient expression of power, in its simplicity.
Howver, relating the human experience to technology is a different matter. Technological change is, itself, a new constant in human experience.
And this matter is not contingent upon change as a new constant. This is the fertile ground for technology within the poem: not as its focus but as its ground. The poetry of the junkyard, of the tramway, of the computer exists, but as notes within a melody more internal.
I beg to differ. Anti-tech is too strong. Much of modern poetry may regard the machine with ambivalence, but to the extent it features in a poem it partakes of the struggle for relevance with every other external.
There are numberous odes to the bridge of Brooklyn: Mayakovsky and Lorca come to mind.
that the same applications of XML that drive the keening about bloat and hype seen in these comments are precisely those which are driving the specs to the wrong side of the 80/20 for XML/XSL's original goals: bringing the semantic power of SGML and DSSSL to the Web. Goals for which its purist cousins RelaxNG, REST, et. al. remain admirably suited.
The back-end curmudgeons are right, XML stinks for a universal wire format. But for loosely-coupled, message-based, semantically-rich systems it is hard to beat. And document-oriented systems which don't use XML barely deserve notice any longer.
I gently refer s-expression trolls to paul and oleg
News flash: it's 2002, not 1992. Microsoft-bashing is getting a little old.
As though defending yourself and your pocketbook were a fashion trend. Like they are any less a monopoly today. As if they were not actively buying legislative influence, strong-arming interoperability standards and bribing nations to maintain marketshare.
Self-defense is *so* nineties. Value for money is just bourgeois. Ethical behavior, no legal behavior, is, like, last week.
Seamus Heaney's recasting of Beowulf is one of the great original poems of the 20th century. It is in my top five. Highly recommended to those who hate poetry. Absolutely thrilling read.
And you are right, listening would be best. In spite of the degradation of our ability to feel aural experience the way these cultures did, you *can* feel your heart quicken at the right moments in the poem. Keep in mind that for the intended audience, the story was known pat. The bards learnt it off by rote and their art consisted in their *riffs* on the theme.
Heaney has done a masterful job of making this experience real to a modern audience. It is a vital work.
So you are irritated by anything you don't understand? How quaint.
Look, honey, a simpleton.
...the Time Warner people, who know a thing or two about advertising, correctly surmised that advertising was not going to support the Internet. And so the plan was to sell users Time Warner content. (In my personal defense, I kept talking about what a dirty place AOL was -- that the Internet was the porn business. But the feeling seemed to be that, first, I was joking and, second, while new entertainment technologies often started dirty, they soon became much more sanitized and mass-market.) This service, which started in the autumn of 1994 and closed in the spring of 1999, was called Pathfinder and proved two things: Selling Time Warner content on the Internet was pretty much a nonstarter, and the people at Time Warner lacked a certain flair for the Internet. We just don't get it, they said. Which was the essential reason for merging with AOL. [Emphasis mine.]
I'm not sure that Mike's getting it any more than TW. Does anyone with any sense imagine that *this internet thing* is going to fall apart if someone can't figure out how to make money on it with standard advertainment/publimation models? Even in '94. And dirty chat is a killer app?
I haven't bought a CD in 15 years. Got little use for Hollywood films. Your entertainment dollar goes a long way at small clubs and art houses. Buy used CDs and used books. And refine your tastes.
Christ, you are a lamer.
What is needed is something better, this does nothing to improve on the confidence of users. If we had a system that used already published material, donated to the public domain with all brandings intact (FDL-like?), then anything I serve will automatically carry more weight.
What gives PBS and Discovery credibility or authority? How do we crib that and make it available to the netizens. Empower us to make rather than just consume; PBS can play as one more peer. These folks at MPN have the right idea, explore ways to crack the credibility nut.
Hey, buddy. The bridgehead of American legal jurisdiction is way more significant to American Global Dominion[TM] than any number of ex-commie hackers, asian tyrants or desert autocrats. The 82nd Airborne is child's play in comparison.
Adobe dropped this case for a reason. And Justice picked it up for a reason.
Perhaps the simplistic, reductive assumptions these machines are making are a function of the simplistic and reductive programming available. The producers are actively targeting demographic profiles; that is, producing != creating.
Opt out
No, I'm not a conspiracy theorist.
No, you're not. You don't have to be. You are already considered more as consumer than citizen by your own elected representatives. Your role as economic mote is far more significant than your role in civic affairs. Your congressional representatives deliver *constituent service*; it is considered enlightened thinking that you are a consumer of government services. The HDTV mandates are designed to deliver you and yours to vital industries for the advancement of national technical infrastructure. Your data, your paycheck and your mortgage: just more product. Your vote is a lifestyle choice.
Voila ici, the Market State.
And in the twisted, twenty-first century, we're grateful for it.
Sure, role-playing can be excellent therapy. But why limited, Doc? Is there an acceptable level of role-playing? Certainly losing oneself in the role transcends the definition: the role dissolves in the playing; but isn't that the point, the asymptote the player strives for.
Get it together. Are we already so besotted with the dreck this industry calls entertainment that we cannot imagine saying no?
What does this have to do with lawyers?
I'm a small male on a large rock in a good neighborhood.
Er....
This is totally on the money.
And they all stole Lemon Jefferson blind.
Follow the bouncing bollocks: punk influenced my haircut, my haircut influenced my girlfriend, my girlfriend left me for a street preacher. So the Lord owes me a blowjob.
And no, I don't see the connection either.
Take your aesthete wheeze back to the Village Voice. You wouldn't know punk if it kicked you in the nuts.
It simply has no *whole new meaning*. Its the same meaning it always had.
You have characterized the entire bowel movement of their achievement in the guise of a critique.
In the immortal words of Flipper:
Mike, are you on drugs?