Some friends told me about this... Independent Consultants Exchange (I forget what the D stands for!) a couple of years ago; they'd found good contracts through DICE. I tried it once, but although I did get responses, I didn't follow up since none sounded particularly suitable for my situation.
I am not aware of any hardware that does this, but I saw a very interesting-sounding software package at an event last year (Fall Internet World?) that does something like this. I really, really considered buying it! (-8
Is the device to read/write this stuff going to be independent of the medium? So it could come in PC-Cards, 3 1/2" diskettes, RAM, EPROM form factors, etc.? If it's durable and has good resistance to heat, movement, etc., it might be perfect for the wearable PC I keep trying to design (but I can't keep up with all these innovations it would be great to incorporate!).
If you were to study a field called "philosophy of science," you should come to understand that whereas scientific theories can be "supported" or "not supported" by evidence, the words "true" and "false" do not apply to them... Actually, a theory can be said to be false, if evidence can be found to disprove it, but we can never ultimately "prove" any scientific hypothesis or theorem. See, science is inductive (whereas math and logic are pretty much deductive), which means something different could always come up in the NEXT experience, and then all our previous experiences have to be re-understood.
Don't do that in NYC, or you'll end up shot. Our cops are as lazy as any other town's, but shooting runners is apparently approved by our pols... especially if you're (a) old, (b) of African descent, or (c) mentally ill.
I, also, no longer use credit cards... (just worked in too many banks, I guess (-8 ). So I registered my domain name through a Web host who offered registration, before I found the Web host I really wanted. It's with InterNIC. Now NIC won't let me transfer it to the Web host I really do want. I "replied" as requested to their authorization e-mail, but they sent back some nonsensical e-mail about how I wasn't the one replying (so how did I get it, and how did they expect me to get their response?)!
Recently the Web host to whom I wish to transfer arranged a second time for NIC to send me the form, but when I click the "instruction" button, nothing happens... no such page. That's what happened 6 months ago, too. These are the people you call competent?
This was back in September or August, even earlier, and I had a client pay me (in part) by using her credit card to purchase the account I wanted at the same Web host where I had just placed her. In short, I have already spent a lot of money, and six months later, still cannot upload my site. I started to think about moving the domain from InterNIC, but didn't know if it could be done. Then the recent news broke... Now I'm sure I want to move it!
Try to remember that HTML stands for "hypertext markup language." The point is, although there can certainly be a lot of code involved in a Web site -- as in PERL scripts, possibly even CGI code (although this is certainly a very high level language, if it is a language), the markup tags are NOT a programming language.
All programming languages MUST have certain capabilities, among them:
assignment
branching, and
conditional statements
I code my own HTML from scratch (using a system I designed and implemented myself), so I certainly know it can be hard to do these things, but HTML, in and of itself, is just not "coding."
The copyright law grants AUTHORS copyright immediately they write their text (in any medium), and HTML is not (properly understood) coding or programming. The presumption, unless stated in a contract to the contrary, is that AUTHORS retain all rights to their text. Exceptions: work for hire, and screenplays (where producer has to own the text for various reasons). In both exceptions, the writer must be paid more than for normal text in the expectation that for writers, retention of their right to resell is part of the value of their work.
Now, if you really mean you altered scripts embedded, or dynamic HTML, or the like, you may have a case. But if you basically reused the person's (company's) text, you may well be in violation of their copyright.
I am primarily a writer (a documentation specialist) who treats Web sites as just another type of document when I produce one. Last year, I created (and illustrated) a Web site for a company, and uploaded it, and then asked the owner if it really made sense for me to handle the promotion (at a high rate of pay), or he would hire someone else to do that stuff for him. He, as I hoped, hired someone else to do the promotion (i.e., most of the placement with search engines, etc.). Note that I had already constructed several "gateway" pages so basically anyone could promote the site, too!
So this so-called professional designer who supposedly offered my client his promotional expertise, to whom I gave the password for the site, then changed ONLY the banner and background (replacing them with ones I considered very inferior!). Next he removed my own personal copyright statements, and represented the site as his work!
Well, it isn't. I wrote that site -- especially all its text. I did not give up my copyright by specifying it was a "work for hire" because a lot of what I wrote is reusable. (I have performed many works for hire, normally in cases where the work entails proprietary secrets or is so specific for that client it cannot be reusable, AND I am paid adequately for giving up my copyright to the material.) One of these days, I'll get around to suing that momzer....
Even professional writers don't always understand that the channel (or medium) demands certain characteristics of a story/plot/characters in order to make it work well in that medium. For example, everyone knows early movies were "talky" and "stagy" in a way that no half-decent films are now. In the early days, writers for the big screen assumed that plays could be pretty much transported to the screen. One might take advantage of the easier facilities for making realistic backgrounds, but basically films were treated as "plays, filmed."
That didn't work, because the nature of film is that it gives us NO time to reflect. For example, if I am watching a play, after the character speaks I know I am in "real-time" to the extent that there is some time to consider what she said. In a film, I never know that; there might be an instant (jump) cut to a totally different milieu or character or even time. Plays have to introduce such discontinuities, giving us time to adjust, films don't.
If I want to really explore an issue (which is usually the main thrust of a sci-fi text), a novel is the best format. If I want to make a strong emotional effect without, however, imparting much information, films work better than almost anything else. In film, one can convey character, attitude, mood, or emotion in seconds.
If I want to explore an issue and really involve my audience, while leaving them free to think and take in information, I believe nothing works better than the good old theatre (2500 or more years old, and still going strong!). If what is said will matter, tv or tv miniseries are best; film is at its best when it is used as a primarily visual medium. Novels are more cerebral, and readers can pick them up and put them down; they remain to some extent more detached than is possible in a film (except the Woody Allen film "Interiors," which I recall left me looking at the cinema's wall clock waiting for my companion to finish watching it!).
Now, if you have a favorite book (novel) and really want to make a good film of it, take a look at what Spielberg did to Jaws (and other novels): trim all the subplots, simplify the characters, be iconic in your casting (i.e., typecasting, especially for smaller roles). Have one strong theme and never forget what that theme is... it's the only thing viewers will take from your film (fear of the water/sharks!).
Short stories make the best films, and this is true for the sci-fi genre, especially. Long books like Dune (which I really "dug," to use the idiom of those days!) are great at allowing us to think about or absorb complex ideas like the way society is structured by its environment, or the long-term effects of altering the environment... But Dune really can't become a good film and still explore that kind of issue in depth. Even a tv miniseries (which would have a better chance of conveying the subtle texture of the novel) will necessarily oversimplify. Is Atreides the good guy? Can that be answered in a simple yes/no way? Can tv handle the greys of his character as it develops?
Way, way back before many of you were born (1982 or so), I was asked to evaluate hardware and software for my documentation department. I wrote this wonderfully literate paper carefully analyzing word processing (text processing, etc.) at a high level of abstraction. I pointed out that whatever package we chose needed to be able to perform certain tasks (formatting is particularly critical for technical writing, as is searching and editing rather than just writing). Especially, I pointed out, it would be best if the embedded formatting commands, as well as the rest of the document/data file, contained only ASCII characters.
Much to the dismay of IBM (which lobbied hard with my manager to persuade him to go with the brand-new PC and Wordstar -- which allowed only a single line as header or footer!), we went with ASCII documents. (The software was called LazyWriter, which fit in 32k RAM and allowed 32k data files -- but you could chain them freely -- and had marvellous features I've never seen matched on any other WP. In fact, it even included a terminal emulation feature so we could "read in" any other ASCII file via modem or serial cable, straight into the WP!)
A few years after that, some of the persons responsible for ATEX (used by publishers) created XyWrite, which also only employs ASCII. I started using XyWrite then, I'm still using it now, and I don't know why I would ever stop using it. Among other things, the package comes with programmable macros, keyboards, menus, etc. In fact, I use XyWrite to code HTML (using stored sets of macros and programs), and for each new Web site client, I write a program using XyWrite's XPL (extended programming language) to convert text for their site directly into their own custom templates.
Last year a small PR division in a major corporation (hint: their cable service isn't offering NYPD Blue tonight!) asked me to fix their site after a number of "professional Web design" firms had been in using incompatible packages. Using XyWrite on my trusty laptop, I could see all the excess code these packages had dumped into the pages, and make the simple changes these "Web designers" apparently couldn't make. (After one presses the list button too many times, it seems one can't simply erase an item with these fancy packages?!)
When I write technical documents (or any other client) for end-users to keep, I work in XyWrite first, then convert. I don't know how many conversion packages currently exist, but XWORD and Word for Word are two I've used in the past.
Btw, I already know I will be writing a simple XPL program to convert older Web pages to the new XML/HTML standard, pretty soon!
I first observed many years ago (based on my personal experience!) that young children come complete with empathy and, even, altruism. Social scientists recently discovered this (guess not many of them interacted with young kids without any preconceptions!). I agree we do not need an replacement for empathy (that would be artificial empathy), but I think we DO need enhancements (either via technology, or via profound changes in societal structure).
What happens is, as young children (or members of relatively small, secluded societies) we learn that others are like us, and empathize with them. We reach out to help others like us if they are crying, or hungry; we even assume others will want to share the wonderful experience or treat we just had. Really, kids will do this entirely naturally! As we get older, or live in very large groups (as in large towns or cities) or highly connected (as in with access to starving, fighting, or hateful persons through "broadcast" media), we MUST become self-protective. (If we did not, we either burn out, wear blinders so that we don't even see these people, or define them as non-human [at least, not like us].)
We talk about the world becoming smaller, and what we mean is that broadcast media, as well as (to a smaller extent) advances in travel technology, bring the experiences of potentially everyone near to us. I don't know about you, but I can care quite adequately about the emotional, physical, or other needs of those immediately around me so long as that's not more than, say, 500-1000 persons. After that, I need a filter: That guy's a cop, I can ignore his feelings; that woman's paid plenty to deal with her job, I shouldn't waste my time on her distress; etc. I used to believe the road to the future (warning: pun potential here!) led through extreme restrictions on the use of automobiles. The car, I thought, was what allowed suburbanites to be completely ignorant of one another's lives.
I've evolved a little since then (and lived many years in NYC!), so I no longer think restrictions on technology are realistically achievable. Instead, I'm hoping we create continually evolving communities based not on physical nearness, but on self-selection through similar interests and skill levels.
Whatever the answer to the mess we've made of our world, I remain convinced it must include the restoration of community/society/tribe. We are, after all, primates -- we need one another to be fully human. But our human senses are too overloaded now; we cannot cope. Our dulling of empathy is necessary, yet deadly. Thus, I see the future development of a more interactive, more accessible, faster Internet (or its replacements) as a necessary factor in allowing us to live again as empathetic, caring persons.
Seriously, the largely text-based, barely interactive Internet is only the beginning of new media which can transform our multicultural planet. The most important changes in human society haven't even started yet.
I'm talking about us learning how to live decently, in ways which are protective of youngsters and the elderly (at least those ready to "retire" or, in older parlance, "make their souls"); allow us to share resources in ways we all agree are pretty much fair; protect our planet and the rarer resources; and individually live richly (or "abundantly").
Since Reagan, the setting free of greed in the U.S. (itself effectively the greediest power ever seen on this earth) has horribly accelerated the degeneration of our lives with one another. The Internet is a means by which some of us attempt to create communities, add what's missing -- but I don't think even the most rabid supporter would suggest we achieve this. Yet.
But when we're really all "wired" for interactive communication, complete with cameras to show others what we see, microphones to let others hear what we hear, and possibly other sense-broadcasters, as well as an intuitive ability to tie it all together (because we grew up with the tools and practised the skills all our lives), well, then we really might begin to live a good life. Am I suggesting artificially enhanced empathy? I guess I am.
Doesn't anyone here get it yet? As soon as some smart person realizes we don't want to carry around all these DIFFERENT devices, no matter how connected they can get to be, and no matter how small each separate item is, they'll build my next computer.
Meanwhile, I'm researching how to build it myself. It will be a modular (no more ridiculous complete replacements every two years) wearable PC with connectable/disconnectable options for voice (replace cell-phone, using voice over IP); screen (use "embedded" screen in glasses except when I'm presenting); additional storage devices; AND (most importantly) a single, foldable (hinged, to wear while walking), weather-proof keyboard with light action, power-generation (it's been invented already), and excellent layout. The first version will feature the Crusoe 5400 chip, which I expect to be able to run all day on a widely-available ordinary 9-volt battery.
Is there anybody out there interested in helping me build this? I could raise money so we could both have them by next fall, if we can find a suitable keyboard manufacturer.
...about what we're supposed to be doing... I used to count the number of times a person said "You should..." in a conversation as a good indicator of the person's spiritual maturity. Of course, it's an inverse measure. (-8
P.S. Can anyone tell me where today's quote comes from, quoting "McCloctnik the Lucid" suggesting a rock or a club before resorting to magic? Sounds like something I'd like to read/see/listen to!
In the U.S., one may publish anything so long as it is "without" or "absent" malice. The burden of proof is on the prosecutor -- that there was NO attempt to confirm facts, and WAS an attempt to maliciously damage the alleged victim. A not-terribly-good film starring Paul Newman and Sally Fields (I think), called _Absence of Malice_, illustrated how hard it can be to establish this point.
But the major difference between U.S. and English law (as I recall it) is that in the U.S., the fact that a statement is TRUE shields the publisher from a finding of libel. In England (sorry, U.K.) that a statement is true is NOT a defense against libel.
The thing that really astounds me, however, is not that British libel laws are being used to shut down ISP's, but that they have NOT been used to shut down the dreadful Murdoch papers (and their imitators). I have a lot of sympathy with Dennis Potter here, who said (in his interview when he was terminally ill and everyone knew it), that if he only had the opportunity, what he would absolutely do would be to murder R. Murdoch!
In fact, in the field of theology, a Roman lawyer type (I think Tertullian, but I don't remember for sure) came up with the concept (more accurately, the term) of describing the Trinity as three "persons," based on the even-then-familiar personhood of corporate/company entities.
The problem of an essentially immortal entity not being subject to the death penalty regardless of its behavior is a well-known problem, too. I recall being asked to consider it in classes decades ago.
Back when I was an undergraduate, it was "the '60's" -- which actually began quite late in the decade. One day when I went to a near-campus leather handicrafts shop for some leftover leather to make a shield (I was an armourer in the Society for Creative Anachronism's Armourer's Guild,, despite my unfortunate femaleness), someone working in the shop complained about us "playing" when there was so much serious shit going on out there in the real world. Well, I thought about that. I had also "marched on Washington" and the state capitol and so on, but the fun stuff seemed essential to the "movement" stuff, somehow. Years later I read Havel's work and discovered he (playwright, later president of post-revolution Czechoslovakia) felt exactly the same way.
The one thing that seems very clear is that intelligence is linked to playfulness, across species. Similarly, a long period of relative immaturity (as of the human infant) is essential to non-instinctual responses (that is, learning). I am sorry for you if you have the great privilege of an on-campus, full-time educational opportunity, and waste it on ONLY studying or completing assignments. The most important part of college is what happens between classes (although that may include research and conversation with inspiring teachers).
Btw, I was a National Merit Scholar, graduated with high honors, and received a fellowship to go on graduate school.
I agree with you. The way in which social (or scientific) revolutions really come about is that FIRST people (especially the most insightful, knowledgable, or creative persons) withdraw their participation from institutions of power, THEN they begin to participate in "work-around" communities. Finally, the communities in which meaningful work or other social interactions occur become themselves institutionalized.
The difference between communities (which are generally functional, if only for purposes of social interaction), and institutions (generally dysfunctional, to an extent normally increasing over time) is that any institution's main function is simply perpetuating itself (as a "legal" or recognized entity). But evolution (at least in non-isolated, multi-cultural societies) is the norm for social as well as biological organisms... "legal," frozen institutions almost have to become badly adapted to changing social circumstances because of this.
This analysis applies as much to tax codes (or other forms of support for necessary collective enterprises) as to scientific paradigms, as far as I can tell.
Some months back, while I was searching for information about the free source code movement, LINUX, and GNU, etc., I found a site (almost new then) which offers precisely the facilities you are seeking, albeit specifically for collaborating source-code writers. I didn't have need for it then, so I didn't note the URL, but you might try searching on these terms, also, to find this site. It looked good, and was possibly free (at least, very affordable)!
It is a very recent development in human history for companies to have become the main source of innovation or invention. I don't think you really want to support this, do you? Patents (and copyrights) should be granted to individuals; the length of time the patent (or copyright) is supposed to last is based on reasonable life expectancy of a person, not a corporation, you know!
The real problem is that some decades ago, most corporations began including (in standard employment contracts) clauses about how employees -- or others working for the company -- would not own any ideas they came up with "while working for" the company. As a result, corporations now, in effect, own the brains of their employees. This is where the battle lines should have been drawn -- but in this era of employee-power (based on very low unemployment and high demand for intelligent employees), perhaps it will be possible to force rewording of those exploitive contracts, and make this the new legal standard.
If you think about it, it's pretty ridiculous to pretend any "corporation" can invent anything! Only persons (and possibly, in the future, computers) can invent.
I understand that earlier this year (give or take a few months) the FCC finally decided to grant space on the public airwaves to "microbroadcasters", which they had previously banned. As I understood it, however, particular regulations would apply to this new category of permitted broadcasters. Do you know if royalty rates were set differently for microbroadcasters? (I thought they were, but the topic isn't of particular interest to me, so I could be mistaken.) If they are, your "work-around" proposal probably can't achieve its aim.
I have an elderly friend who shows signs of developing paranoia -- specifically, she is sure a certain maintenance man in her co-op breaks in to mess up her stuff, whenever she goes out (but she has 4 cats!). So some months back, I met her at the local "Spy Shop" (it's a chain -- if you're in a major municipality, there's probably one not far away). With my advice (and being on-hand to drive the price down!), she bought a clock-radio with a built-in b&w camera, plus a wireless transmitter, and a receiver... I hooked up everything to her video machine for her.
This is how I learned that in our state/city, you are legally allowed to tape (PICTURE, but not SOUND). Each jurisdiction has its own rules, however, so you may want to visit the Spy Shop just to gather the relevant information. (Pretend you want to buy.)
I have never heard that an alarm system cannot be linked directly to a police station, btw -- many local businesses' alarm systems, esp. in smaller communities, ARE linked to the police. Perhaps this is another jurisdictional issue?
Now the problems:
If your target is actually a thief, you'll have to hide the VCR device.
Video tapes aren't that long, so even in slowest mode and longest tapes (which are fragile -- not recommended for heavy repeat use), you're only going to get maybe 8 hours of continual coverage.
You might want to get a device that controls the timing, such that only you're recording every third or fourth second or so. Expect this to be expensive.
Alternatively, you might try for a device which is motion- or sound-activated, but these often go off at non-relevant stimuli.
You may want to consider a cheaper deterrent -- better relations with your neighbors! The safest place to live is a mixed community with those old ladies (often widows) who sit and watch out their windows all day. In the absence of this, try enlisting neighborhood kids in your service: If nothing else, consider posting a reward for information regarding break-ins (specify the time and location of the last event).
I had heard glass was a supercooled liquid, and that is also how this article describes it, more or less. Now that we've (perhaps) stopped worrying over the difference between liquid and solid, can we start arguing about plasma? That's far more interesting, I think. Or we could go backwards in time a few hundred years and argue over the other "elements": air, water, fire, and earth, as I recall!
I would agree with most of what you said, but it isn't true that we can't compensate for human stupidities: Stupidity rules only in highly individualistic societies like this (i.e., in the U.S.). For an available counter-example, go to any theatre with a decent-sized audience. You will observe the audience is almost always as smart, alert, receptive, and sensitive as its smartest, most alert, etc. members! (For us playwrights, this is a wonderful fact, over which we rejoice, and on which we depend.) This even holds true in some cinemas. Humans were created social, and in appropriate social groupings, stupidity is quite often held in check, or at least over-ruled.
Your citing Intel vs. AMD almost makes my point for me. How likely are others to get into the chip-production business these days? How likely is that both of these will survive, long-term, unless they specialize?
Let's take Transmeta (new chip manufacturer) as an example, okay? Their new chip(s) were developed to fill a very specific niche market not addressed by the two established manufacturers. If either Intel or AMD were making low-voltage processors, Transmeta would not have invested their years of work and millions of dollars to bring their expensive product to market.
Everyone in the U.S. (a society at the extreme end of the individual/tribal spectrum) has been subjected over and over to the insistence that human society is competitive. Try counting the number of cooperative vs. competitive acts you perform everyday, and you'll get a better picture of reality.
Btw, economic theory really is in a pitiful state. See the recent Science News article about physicists barging into the economists' business, and you may begin to get some sense of the paucity of valuable constructs (let alone testable hypotheses -- forget whole theories!) in the field.
Slashdot Mirror
Some friends told me about this ... Independent Consultants Exchange (I forget what the D stands for!) a couple of years ago; they'd found good contracts through DICE. I tried it once, but although I did get responses, I didn't follow up since none sounded particularly suitable for my situation.
I am not aware of any hardware that does this, but I saw a very interesting-sounding software package at an event last year (Fall Internet World?) that does something like this. I really, really considered buying it! (-8
Is the device to read/write this stuff going to be independent of the medium? So it could come in PC-Cards, 3 1/2" diskettes, RAM, EPROM form factors, etc.? If it's durable and has good resistance to heat, movement, etc., it might be perfect for the wearable PC I keep trying to design (but I can't keep up with all these innovations it would be great to incorporate!).
If you were to study a field called "philosophy of science," you should come to understand that whereas scientific theories can be "supported" or "not supported" by evidence, the words "true" and "false" do not apply to them... Actually, a theory can be said to be false, if evidence can be found to disprove it, but we can never ultimately "prove" any scientific hypothesis or theorem. See, science is inductive (whereas math and logic are pretty much deductive), which means something different could always come up in the NEXT experience, and then all our previous experiences have to be re-understood.
Don't do that in NYC, or you'll end up shot. Our cops are as lazy as any other town's, but shooting runners is apparently approved by our pols... especially if you're (a) old, (b) of African descent, or (c) mentally ill.
I, also, no longer use credit cards... (just worked in too many banks, I guess (-8 ). So I registered my domain name through a Web host who offered registration, before I found the Web host I really wanted. It's with InterNIC. Now NIC won't let me transfer it to the Web host I really do want. I "replied" as requested to their authorization e-mail, but they sent back some nonsensical e-mail about how I wasn't the one replying (so how did I get it, and how did they expect me to get their response?)!
Recently the Web host to whom I wish to transfer arranged a second time for NIC to send me the form, but when I click the "instruction" button, nothing happens... no such page. That's what happened 6 months ago, too. These are the people you call competent?
This was back in September or August, even earlier, and I had a client pay me (in part) by using her credit card to purchase the account I wanted at the same Web host where I had just placed her. In short, I have already spent a lot of money, and six months later, still cannot upload my site. I started to think about moving the domain from InterNIC, but didn't know if it could be done. Then the recent news broke... Now I'm sure I want to move it!
Try to remember that HTML stands for "hypertext markup language." The point is, although there can certainly be a lot of code involved in a Web site -- as in PERL scripts, possibly even CGI code (although this is certainly a very high level language, if it is a language), the markup tags are NOT a programming language.
I code my own HTML from scratch (using a system I designed and implemented myself), so I certainly know it can be hard to do these things, but HTML, in and of itself, is just not "coding."
The copyright law grants AUTHORS copyright immediately they write their text (in any medium), and HTML is not (properly understood) coding or programming. The presumption, unless stated in a contract to the contrary, is that AUTHORS retain all rights to their text. Exceptions: work for hire, and screenplays (where producer has to own the text for various reasons). In both exceptions, the writer must be paid more than for normal text in the expectation that for writers, retention of their right to resell is part of the value of their work.
Now, if you really mean you altered scripts embedded, or dynamic HTML, or the like, you may have a case. But if you basically reused the person's (company's) text, you may well be in violation of their copyright.
I am primarily a writer (a documentation specialist) who treats Web sites as just another type of document when I produce one. Last year, I created (and illustrated) a Web site for a company, and uploaded it, and then asked the owner if it really made sense for me to handle the promotion (at a high rate of pay), or he would hire someone else to do that stuff for him. He, as I hoped, hired someone else to do the promotion (i.e., most of the placement with search engines, etc.). Note that I had already constructed several "gateway" pages so basically anyone could promote the site, too!
So this so-called professional designer who supposedly offered my client his promotional expertise, to whom I gave the password for the site, then changed ONLY the banner and background (replacing them with ones I considered very inferior!). Next he removed my own personal copyright statements, and represented the site as his work!
Well, it isn't. I wrote that site -- especially all its text. I did not give up my copyright by specifying it was a "work for hire" because a lot of what I wrote is reusable. (I have performed many works for hire, normally in cases where the work entails proprietary secrets or is so specific for that client it cannot be reusable, AND I am paid adequately for giving up my copyright to the material.) One of these days, I'll get around to suing that momzer....
Even professional writers don't always understand that the channel (or medium) demands certain characteristics of a story/plot/characters in order to make it work well in that medium. For example, everyone knows early movies were "talky" and "stagy" in a way that no half-decent films are now. In the early days, writers for the big screen assumed that plays could be pretty much transported to the screen. One might take advantage of the easier facilities for making realistic backgrounds, but basically films were treated as "plays, filmed."
That didn't work, because the nature of film is that it gives us NO time to reflect. For example, if I am watching a play, after the character speaks I know I am in "real-time" to the extent that there is some time to consider what she said. In a film, I never know that; there might be an instant (jump) cut to a totally different milieu or character or even time. Plays have to introduce such discontinuities, giving us time to adjust, films don't.
If I want to really explore an issue (which is usually the main thrust of a sci-fi text), a novel is the best format. If I want to make a strong emotional effect without, however, imparting much information, films work better than almost anything else. In film, one can convey character, attitude, mood, or emotion in seconds.
If I want to explore an issue and really involve my audience, while leaving them free to think and take in information, I believe nothing works better than the good old theatre (2500 or more years old, and still going strong!). If what is said will matter, tv or tv miniseries are best; film is at its best when it is used as a primarily visual medium. Novels are more cerebral, and readers can pick them up and put them down; they remain to some extent more detached than is possible in a film (except the Woody Allen film "Interiors," which I recall left me looking at the cinema's wall clock waiting for my companion to finish watching it!).
Now, if you have a favorite book (novel) and really want to make a good film of it, take a look at what Spielberg did to Jaws (and other novels): trim all the subplots, simplify the characters, be iconic in your casting (i.e., typecasting, especially for smaller roles). Have one strong theme and never forget what that theme is... it's the only thing viewers will take from your film (fear of the water/sharks!).
Short stories make the best films, and this is true for the sci-fi genre, especially. Long books like Dune (which I really "dug," to use the idiom of those days!) are great at allowing us to think about or absorb complex ideas like the way society is structured by its environment, or the long-term effects of altering the environment... But Dune really can't become a good film and still explore that kind of issue in depth. Even a tv miniseries (which would have a better chance of conveying the subtle texture of the novel) will necessarily oversimplify. Is Atreides the good guy? Can that be answered in a simple yes/no way? Can tv handle the greys of his character as it develops?
Way, way back before many of you were born (1982 or so), I was asked to evaluate hardware and software for my documentation department. I wrote this wonderfully literate paper carefully analyzing word processing (text processing, etc.) at a high level of abstraction. I pointed out that whatever package we chose needed to be able to perform certain tasks (formatting is particularly critical for technical writing, as is searching and editing rather than just writing). Especially, I pointed out, it would be best if the embedded formatting commands, as well as the rest of the document/data file, contained only ASCII characters.
Much to the dismay of IBM (which lobbied hard with my manager to persuade him to go with the brand-new PC and Wordstar -- which allowed only a single line as header or footer!), we went with ASCII documents. (The software was called LazyWriter, which fit in 32k RAM and allowed 32k data files -- but you could chain them freely -- and had marvellous features I've never seen matched on any other WP. In fact, it even included a terminal emulation feature so we could "read in" any other ASCII file via modem or serial cable, straight into the WP!)A few years after that, some of the persons responsible for ATEX (used by publishers) created XyWrite, which also only employs ASCII. I started using XyWrite then, I'm still using it now, and I don't know why I would ever stop using it. Among other things, the package comes with programmable macros, keyboards, menus, etc. In fact, I use XyWrite to code HTML (using stored sets of macros and programs), and for each new Web site client, I write a program using XyWrite's XPL (extended programming language) to convert text for their site directly into their own custom templates.
Last year a small PR division in a major corporation (hint: their cable service isn't offering NYPD Blue tonight!) asked me to fix their site after a number of "professional Web design" firms had been in using incompatible packages. Using XyWrite on my trusty laptop, I could see all the excess code these packages had dumped into the pages, and make the simple changes these "Web designers" apparently couldn't make. (After one presses the list button too many times, it seems one can't simply erase an item with these fancy packages?!)
When I write technical documents (or any other client) for end-users to keep, I work in XyWrite first, then convert. I don't know how many conversion packages currently exist, but XWORD and Word for Word are two I've used in the past.
Btw, I already know I will be writing a simple XPL program to convert older Web pages to the new XML/HTML standard, pretty soon!
Good one!
Perhaps the new one will be called "head" instead. (And I'm certainly not going to do any riffs on that one!)
I first observed many years ago (based on my personal experience!) that young children come complete with empathy and, even, altruism. Social scientists recently discovered this (guess not many of them interacted with young kids without any preconceptions!). I agree we do not need an replacement for empathy (that would be artificial empathy), but I think we DO need enhancements (either via technology, or via profound changes in societal structure).
What happens is, as young children (or members of relatively small, secluded societies) we learn that others are like us, and empathize with them. We reach out to help others like us if they are crying, or hungry; we even assume others will want to share the wonderful experience or treat we just had. Really, kids will do this entirely naturally! As we get older, or live in very large groups (as in large towns or cities) or highly connected (as in with access to starving, fighting, or hateful persons through "broadcast" media), we MUST become self-protective. (If we did not, we either burn out, wear blinders so that we don't even see these people, or define them as non-human [at least, not like us].)
We talk about the world becoming smaller, and what we mean is that broadcast media, as well as (to a smaller extent) advances in travel technology, bring the experiences of potentially everyone near to us. I don't know about you, but I can care quite adequately about the emotional, physical, or other needs of those immediately around me so long as that's not more than, say, 500-1000 persons. After that, I need a filter: That guy's a cop, I can ignore his feelings; that woman's paid plenty to deal with her job, I shouldn't waste my time on her distress; etc. I used to believe the road to the future (warning: pun potential here!) led through extreme restrictions on the use of automobiles. The car, I thought, was what allowed suburbanites to be completely ignorant of one another's lives.
I've evolved a little since then (and lived many years in NYC!), so I no longer think restrictions on technology are realistically achievable. Instead, I'm hoping we create continually evolving communities based not on physical nearness, but on self-selection through similar interests and skill levels.
Whatever the answer to the mess we've made of our world, I remain convinced it must include the restoration of community/society/tribe. We are, after all, primates -- we need one another to be fully human. But our human senses are too overloaded now; we cannot cope. Our dulling of empathy is necessary, yet deadly. Thus, I see the future development of a more interactive, more accessible, faster Internet (or its replacements) as a necessary factor in allowing us to live again as empathetic, caring persons.
Exercise that imagination: Hup, two, three, four!
Seriously, the largely text-based, barely interactive Internet is only the beginning of new media which can transform our multicultural planet. The most important changes in human society haven't even started yet.
I'm talking about us learning how to live decently, in ways which are protective of youngsters and the elderly (at least those ready to "retire" or, in older parlance, "make their souls"); allow us to share resources in ways we all agree are pretty much fair; protect our planet and the rarer resources; and individually live richly (or "abundantly").
Since Reagan, the setting free of greed in the U.S. (itself effectively the greediest power ever seen on this earth) has horribly accelerated the degeneration of our lives with one another. The Internet is a means by which some of us attempt to create communities, add what's missing -- but I don't think even the most rabid supporter would suggest we achieve this. Yet.
But when we're really all "wired" for interactive communication, complete with cameras to show others what we see, microphones to let others hear what we hear, and possibly other sense-broadcasters, as well as an intuitive ability to tie it all together (because we grew up with the tools and practised the skills all our lives), well, then we really might begin to live a good life. Am I suggesting artificially enhanced empathy? I guess I am.
Doesn't anyone here get it yet? As soon as some smart person realizes we don't want to carry around all these DIFFERENT devices, no matter how connected they can get to be, and no matter how small each separate item is, they'll build my next computer.
Meanwhile, I'm researching how to build it myself. It will be a modular (no more ridiculous complete replacements every two years) wearable PC with connectable/disconnectable options for voice (replace cell-phone, using voice over IP); screen (use "embedded" screen in glasses except when I'm presenting); additional storage devices; AND (most importantly) a single, foldable (hinged, to wear while walking), weather-proof keyboard with light action, power-generation (it's been invented already), and excellent layout. The first version will feature the Crusoe 5400 chip, which I expect to be able to run all day on a widely-available ordinary 9-volt battery.
Is there anybody out there interested in helping me build this? I could raise money so we could both have them by next fall, if we can find a suitable keyboard manufacturer.
...about what we're supposed to be doing... I used to count the number of times a person said "You should..." in a conversation as a good indicator of the person's spiritual maturity. Of course, it's an inverse measure. (-8
P.S. Can anyone tell me where today's quote comes from, quoting "McCloctnik the Lucid" suggesting a rock or a club before resorting to magic? Sounds like something I'd like to read/see/listen to!
In the U.S., one may publish anything so long as it is "without" or "absent" malice. The burden of proof is on the prosecutor -- that there was NO attempt to confirm facts, and WAS an attempt to maliciously damage the alleged victim. A not-terribly-good film starring Paul Newman and Sally Fields (I think), called _Absence of Malice_, illustrated how hard it can be to establish this point.
But the major difference between U.S. and English law (as I recall it) is that in the U.S., the fact that a statement is TRUE shields the publisher from a finding of libel. In England (sorry, U.K.) that a statement is true is NOT a defense against libel.
The thing that really astounds me, however, is not that British libel laws are being used to shut down ISP's, but that they have NOT been used to shut down the dreadful Murdoch papers (and their imitators). I have a lot of sympathy with Dennis Potter here, who said (in his interview when he was terminally ill and everyone knew it), that if he only had the opportunity, what he would absolutely do would be to murder R. Murdoch!
In fact, in the field of theology, a Roman lawyer type (I think Tertullian, but I don't remember for sure) came up with the concept (more accurately, the term) of describing the Trinity as three "persons," based on the even-then-familiar personhood of corporate/company entities.
The problem of an essentially immortal entity not being subject to the death penalty regardless of its behavior is a well-known problem, too. I recall being asked to consider it in classes decades ago.
Back when I was an undergraduate, it was "the '60's" -- which actually began quite late in the decade. One day when I went to a near-campus leather handicrafts shop for some leftover leather to make a shield (I was an armourer in the Society for Creative Anachronism's Armourer's Guild,, despite my unfortunate femaleness), someone working in the shop complained about us "playing" when there was so much serious shit going on out there in the real world. Well, I thought about that. I had also "marched on Washington" and the state capitol and so on, but the fun stuff seemed essential to the "movement" stuff, somehow. Years later I read Havel's work and discovered he (playwright, later president of post-revolution Czechoslovakia) felt exactly the same way.
The one thing that seems very clear is that intelligence is linked to playfulness, across species. Similarly, a long period of relative immaturity (as of the human infant) is essential to non-instinctual responses (that is, learning). I am sorry for you if you have the great privilege of an on-campus, full-time educational opportunity, and waste it on ONLY studying or completing assignments. The most important part of college is what happens between classes (although that may include research and conversation with inspiring teachers).
Btw, I was a National Merit Scholar, graduated with high honors, and received a fellowship to go on graduate school.
I agree with you. The way in which social (or scientific) revolutions really come about is that FIRST people (especially the most insightful, knowledgable, or creative persons) withdraw their participation from institutions of power, THEN they begin to participate in "work-around" communities. Finally, the communities in which meaningful work or other social interactions occur become themselves institutionalized.
The difference between communities (which are generally functional, if only for purposes of social interaction), and institutions (generally dysfunctional, to an extent normally increasing over time) is that any institution's main function is simply perpetuating itself (as a "legal" or recognized entity). But evolution (at least in non-isolated, multi-cultural societies) is the norm for social as well as biological organisms... "legal," frozen institutions almost have to become badly adapted to changing social circumstances because of this.
This analysis applies as much to tax codes (or other forms of support for necessary collective enterprises) as to scientific paradigms, as far as I can tell.
Some months back, while I was searching for information about the free source code movement, LINUX, and GNU, etc., I found a site (almost new then) which offers precisely the facilities you are seeking, albeit specifically for collaborating source-code writers. I didn't have need for it then, so I didn't note the URL, but you might try searching on these terms, also, to find this site. It looked good, and was possibly free (at least, very affordable)!
It is a very recent development in human history for companies to have become the main source of innovation or invention. I don't think you really want to support this, do you? Patents (and copyrights) should be granted to individuals; the length of time the patent (or copyright) is supposed to last is based on reasonable life expectancy of a person, not a corporation, you know!
The real problem is that some decades ago, most corporations began including (in standard employment contracts) clauses about how employees -- or others working for the company -- would not own any ideas they came up with "while working for" the company. As a result, corporations now, in effect, own the brains of their employees. This is where the battle lines should have been drawn -- but in this era of employee-power (based on very low unemployment and high demand for intelligent employees), perhaps it will be possible to force rewording of those exploitive contracts, and make this the new legal standard.
If you think about it, it's pretty ridiculous to pretend any "corporation" can invent anything! Only persons (and possibly, in the future, computers) can invent.
I understand that earlier this year (give or take a few months) the FCC finally decided to grant space on the public airwaves to "microbroadcasters", which they had previously banned. As I understood it, however, particular regulations would apply to this new category of permitted broadcasters. Do you know if royalty rates were set differently for microbroadcasters? (I thought they were, but the topic isn't of particular interest to me, so I could be mistaken.) If they are, your "work-around" proposal probably can't achieve its aim.
I have an elderly friend who shows signs of developing paranoia -- specifically, she is sure a certain maintenance man in her co-op breaks in to mess up her stuff, whenever she goes out (but she has 4 cats!). So some months back, I met her at the local "Spy Shop" (it's a chain -- if you're in a major municipality, there's probably one not far away). With my advice (and being on-hand to drive the price down!), she bought a clock-radio with a built-in b&w camera, plus a wireless transmitter, and a receiver... I hooked up everything to her video machine for her.
This is how I learned that in our state/city, you are legally allowed to tape (PICTURE, but not SOUND). Each jurisdiction has its own rules, however, so you may want to visit the Spy Shop just to gather the relevant information. (Pretend you want to buy.)
I have never heard that an alarm system cannot be linked directly to a police station, btw -- many local businesses' alarm systems, esp. in smaller communities, ARE linked to the police. Perhaps this is another jurisdictional issue?
You may want to consider a cheaper deterrent -- better relations with your neighbors! The safest place to live is a mixed community with those old ladies (often widows) who sit and watch out their windows all day. In the absence of this, try enlisting neighborhood kids in your service: If nothing else, consider posting a reward for information regarding break-ins (specify the time and location of the last event).
Good luck!
I had heard glass was a supercooled liquid, and that is also how this article describes it, more or less. Now that we've (perhaps) stopped worrying over the difference between liquid and solid, can we start arguing about plasma? That's far more interesting, I think. Or we could go backwards in time a few hundred years and argue over the other "elements": air, water, fire, and earth, as I recall!
I would agree with most of what you said, but it isn't true that we can't compensate for human stupidities: Stupidity rules only in highly individualistic societies like this (i.e., in the U.S.). For an available counter-example, go to any theatre with a decent-sized audience. You will observe the audience is almost always as smart, alert, receptive, and sensitive as its smartest, most alert, etc. members! (For us playwrights, this is a wonderful fact, over which we rejoice, and on which we depend.) This even holds true in some cinemas. Humans were created social, and in appropriate social groupings, stupidity is quite often held in check, or at least over-ruled.
Your citing Intel vs. AMD almost makes my point for me. How likely are others to get into the chip-production business these days? How likely is that both of these will survive, long-term, unless they specialize?
Let's take Transmeta (new chip manufacturer) as an example, okay? Their new chip(s) were developed to fill a very specific niche market not addressed by the two established manufacturers. If either Intel or AMD were making low-voltage processors, Transmeta would not have invested their years of work and millions of dollars to bring their expensive product to market.
Everyone in the U.S. (a society at the extreme end of the individual/tribal spectrum) has been subjected over and over to the insistence that human society is competitive. Try counting the number of cooperative vs. competitive acts you perform everyday, and you'll get a better picture of reality.
Btw, economic theory really is in a pitiful state. See the recent Science News article about physicists barging into the economists' business, and you may begin to get some sense of the paucity of valuable constructs (let alone testable hypotheses -- forget whole theories!) in the field.