I was just posting questions to get people to think. That particular question is based on the events that have caused some of us to lose freedoms, at least for awhile.
It's not like there hasn't been effort to outlaw GPL, you know.:)
Correct me if I'm wrong but what that article points out is that the telephone companies are unlike broadband and such, in that they have to, by law, provide unbiased access.
Should such an overtaking of the internet happen, there is always the going back to building our own. And come to think of it, it'd probably cause some innovation to happen. You know making things streamline and faster, no ads... etc..
So how would we replace the university backbones that began the internet?
Hasn't there already been some efforts in this direction?
Do we have to be concerned about anti-ad-free networks or laws banning such?
GNU/Linux/GPL began a direction of user/consumer options. How might this play out with commercial free internet?
Should we begin now or push more for commercial free networks, or wait?
Federal Criminal Charges need to be brought (and not dropped) against Microsoft in this case.
This way the Government can come to a settlement with MS where those who were harmed by the hole can't sue MS. Along the lines of the deal struck between the tobbacco industry and government.
Seriously, with all the digital rights issues going, certainly the compromise caused by such a hole but without criminal legal action against mircrosoft is only going to tell people that lady justice doesn't have her blindfold on.
Thats' a serious problem! Assisting criminal activity knowingly.....
Now that I have read Lessigs responces, I got to wondering about what he said regarding taking action. And it occured to me that Slashdot has had absolutely no effort on the part of posters to write anything, right? Is that is why Slashdot doesn't keep comments past a given time or makes it difficult to access them.
What I'm getting at is this:
This comments posters have made are worth something, otherwise the posters wouldn't have taken the time to make them. But what are they really worth?
Who is getting what value from the postings?
Certainly not much value to the posters, there doesn't seem to be any sort of archive accesable by the posters.
But what if some party wanted to sample the market for opinions and data mine for ideas?
Certainly this is not a value the posters are benefiting from. So who is?
What about these issues Lessig wants the slashdot poster to do something about?
When you go into a court room, what is it that you present? Talk? opinions, bias, truth? What is the difference between the sum total weight of which the posters produce than the basis of arguement given in a court room?
Seems to me that companies back down when they get a negitive reaction to something they are doing that their customer don't like. That to me seems to have more power than going into a court room, in fact so much power that the matter is resolved before a court dates are even considered.
Perhaps what Lessig and EFF and the likes need to be doing is getting laws passed that require such open publication of matters that take public and consumer rights away. I mean, isn't that the real issue and problem to address, Informing the public?
Seems to me being here is somehwat preaching to the quire, where it ain't gonna really do much good but get the quire to present possible opposition so that those wanting to places more constraints on us can create a better arguement for what they want. In enough time (not long) there is no proof that anyone or many said anything at all thru slashdot (far as I can tell).
Maybe Lessig shouldn't be bitching about our actions but rather recognizing the value of our actions and helping us to protect them and even use them to defend ourselves? Freedom of speech you know!
And I guess that is why if you look back far enough, nobody has said anything here on slashdot.
Maybe I'm wrong, so where is the archive that I can reasonable find the first comment I made on slashdot?
Haven't yet read the 12.6 printed page response to questions from Lawrence Lessig yet, but will. I do however, understand th ejist of what he is on about and with that in mind I post here links to two other comments I have made today to other (but related) articles.
I do believe there may be a facet of the big picture Lawrence is missing, as is most all the rest of those involved. How do you remove "the commons" from language use?
Genuine Software Engineering (genuine computer science) as in what has yet to be done, rather than having been distracted by the carrot of money since the mid 1950's.
There have been other slashdot articles in the past addressing one or more aspects of this money distraction of computer science research.
----
SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN - Sept. 1994
Article - "Software's Chronic Crisis"
The article also goes more into solution efforts with software development on large scale projects. But finding consistent solutions are still hard to come by.
Mary M. Shaw of Carnegie Mellon University, observes a parallel between chemical engineering evolution and software engineering evolution. However, this evolution has not made the connection between science and commercialization required to establish a consistent experimental foundation for professional software engineering.
----
Translation? If I only explain ideas in rants, they are not real?
Rants? is this related to opinions or judgements or physics and nature? Sender or receiver perspective?
""You give my cousin a ball." is impossible, without context, to correctly translate to German "
Yes, there are limitations in the expressiveness of any language, including mathmatics and programming languages. For they are all "abstract" and that is also what they have in common. That they are abstract tools which are used to communicate. So in the case of "cousin" you have a choice. You can either create a german word that is defined to be what a "cousin" is in the family tree, or you can use the word "cousin" by defining it in the vocabulary of German to identify what "cousin" is in the family tree.
The point is to communicate, not trip over the abstract tools being used. If you ever listen in on a Asian language conversation, don't be supprised if you hear an english word or name being used. But instead note that the party using it either doesn't know the asian word or there is not one.
Mathmatics is a subset of the sum total of all absractions and even math has self imposed limitations such as Godel's Theorem and Alan Turnings Halting Problem. But these are just the limitations of the abstraction set being used.
Programming. What is programming but the act of automating the use of something more complex (yet made up of simple things). Automation on top of automation on top of automation, etc. and it all comes down to the fundamental equation of "word = definition" be it human language, mathmatics, or programming language. The syntax and semantics of use are only the dynamics of how a given abstraction set is defined to be used, and something that can as well be automated.
Ultimately the task of automating translation is so big or in need of being versatile that the only way to accomplish it is to do it in a manner that allows any and all to participate when and where they choose.
And what that means is that the natural laws of the physical phenomenon or abstraction mechanics needs to be identified, that is the action constants. And from there moved into an openly accessible configuration of computer functionality that represents the action constants, so as to supply a non-patentable common user interface for user controlled integration. A tool that allows participation by all who so choose to do so.
Though IBM autonomic computing direction doesn't identify such a core of "action constants" functionality, they do recognize the need to be open (regardless of the fact that they are the leading US patent holder and generator/obtainer).
Maybe see other slashdot posts and home page of yours truely?
an example of besides copyrights is.... well now that software is patentable [rolls eyes] but even beyond this you have to consider what the essence of computers and computing really is. They be machines of abstraction manipulation and translation.
Input -} Processing -} Output
As a creative person, an artist, an inventor, etc.. what tools do I use to do such work? But to build upon what others have done before me. Who was it that said something like "I stand high because I stand on the shoulder of giants before me"?
There are many ways which such a machine of abstraction manipulation and translations can be applied to benefit mankind and society. Perhaps the most valuable is that of Human to Human Translation, but such a translation machine inherently is also capable of human to machine translation, and not just from the current programming language level, but from more what we call natural human languages (though I don't recall being born understanding english and there are those who say I still don't have it down) to machine understood programming. (see my comments in the "The Internet Shifts East" slashdot article.)
Of course to be able to program a computer using human language, perhaps even spoken (voice to text "translation") you will eventually get to the programming level of what it would take to programme a holodeck composed in details down to the dirt under a holodeck character fingernail (if that be so relative) to the furniture, scenery, settings, interactions (character action/reaction), etc.. within the holodeck experience. All of which is or will be a programme created from composition of elements from a database created by as many as can and will create it.
Now imagine where all the content on the internet come from today, even here, this post is content. The resources for content is as limitless as there are creators of such content. From direct Content business like Time Warner to the Furniture designer and builder of that simply makes an image of their work available on their web site, or perhaps the 3D file of a kitchen from a cabinet maker or Car manufacture 3D automobile file. Keeping in mind what would make for a realistice virtual reality is to be able to use images and details of hat you find in real life.
Now imagine what it would be like to try and gather copyright licenses for for all the element you have used in the creation of a holodeck program. And all this generated from words of instructions you have spoken into the computer.
Of course the "Abstraction manipulation machinery" of computer continues to go beyond even this. Into medicine development, fabrication processes, etc. as we are all aware of even currently, but with far greater and wider user/consumer population access for individuals to control and create their work.
All of this can't happen so easily with current "Cannot" based laws. The Can based laws are what we need to create, develope and to have such goals as to inspire people to increase assets rather than "get away with theift".
I know it sounds so alien or foriegn, but that is because we have been practicing "Cannot" based IP laws for so long. So the first step is to know that we are the ones who make up the laws and as such can make them better, change them to work in accord to the creative nature of the humans we are, rather than the non-productive humans the "Cannot based Laws" want us to be restricted to. (to feed the elite? who are? Read the last paragraph or two of the article slashdot points to!)
The real issues at hand are far more reaching than copyrights. The Digital Media functionality that computers provides all of us with most certainly goes way beyond the copyright dimension.
They may not realize it yet, but eventually will have no other choice but to recoignize that the "CANNOT" base intellectual property laws will have to be changed to be "CAN" based.
I'm all for artists, creators, those who produce additional productive and pleasure values to be recognized and rewarded. For such carrots is how we teach our children to help make our society a better place of all of us to enjoy.
But the bottom line is to get people to want to recognize and reward those who do good. And the only way that is going to happen is change the laws so as to motivate and inspire people to do so.
Lawrence Lessig pointed out to me that there are two parts to dealing with Intellectual Property. The first part I believe was in reference to beng granted IP rights as a creator, the second part being liability law. I suppose this is the part in most need of changing into "asset" law.
"Because computers are potentially very efficient and capable copying machines, and because the Internet is potentially a very efficient and capable distribution mechanism, even in the hands of ordinary individuals, the Content Faction has set out to restructure the entire digital world we have today. They want to rearchitect not just the Internet, but every computer and digital tool on or off the Net that might be used to make unauthorized copies."
" In an effort to build shared understanding of Web Architecture principles, W3C has chartered and assembled a Technical Architecture Group - the TAG for short. The TAG will document cross-technology Web architecture principles, and resolve architectural issues. "
".....but any claims that this will cause some great shift in how the world uses the web is pretty silly. "
On the surface you are probably right, but the underside will change greatly. Under what you see in what you access, will be a translator that will not only enable a greater level of communication but this will also break thru many barriers including the programming barrier often called the "software crisis".
Translation is a very imporant issue in all of this. The best and fastest way to enable it is thru the methodology used of OSS/GPL sort of Open teamwork by whoever and whenever and how much they want to help.
Langage is a "commons", as Lawrence Lessig often makee use of it. The whole Point of Language is to enable communications, and it's value only goes as far as it's agreed upon use is adherd to. This naturally make it's most useful in a "commons" state. Perhaps this is a factor that Lawrence has yet to integrate into his thinking regarding his perceptions of the future of ideas?
(as even programming languages are "language")
Anyways, the issue of translation and fortunately the mechanics of it, is of such nature that it cannot be patented or otherwise Intellectual Property constrained from use.
Thru such a Universal Translator, the "official Human spoken language" wouldn't change much from how that is applied today. But to determine what the most used language s on teh internet would then be a matter of population choice. And I suspect in having a universal translator you and I will use our native language most often.
Technology exist already that is better than what you are using for translation.
To identify the gears and bearings of translation (the naural laws of the physical phenomenon of Abstraction manipulation) in such a manner that can be created in computer functionality and accessible by all, it then become possible to apply the OSS/GPL model of the Bazzar (sp?) to create the various language translation vocabulary, syntax, semantics sets, including slang and even programming languages (any language).
In the open model you can improve translations as you come across a place where you see a need and have the knowledge to do. Perhaps as little as a word or phrase at a time. But in time..... well....the open community force would certainly be bigger than the developer community of Linux!
It's not going to be about who has to learn what language in order to use the internet. But rather what language do you want to use to access the internet? Where the most used is determined by internet population of langauge use.
Give yourself a universal translator and it don't matter what language you speak or use. But what language is used most would inherently be relative to what the native language is of most of the users.
The article is suggesting, without saying it out right, that such a translator will exist in wide use by then.
It's really not so difficult to believe. But what is more difficult to accept for many psuedo programmers is that the same technology can and will be used to translate human languages into programming language (auto-coding) and therefor allow anyone who learns basic programming concepts to program using their natural human language.
It's not a problem once computer science gets back to genuine computer science and establishes the Natural Laws of the Physical Phenomenon of Translation Mechanics/Machinery - (Abstraction manipulation mechanics).
One you have the universal translator core, it become only a matter of doing the vocabulary, syntax and semantics programming to then be able to translate into whatever other language you want, including human to machine programming.
Oops! And you thought the great wall of china was hard to get thru! Try the Wall of the psuedo programmer elites!
What is a programming language but a man created abstraction set, syntax, semantics that gets TRANSLATED into that which a binary based machine can understand.
The Translation mechanics or machinery is the same, whether you are translating human language to machine language or Human Language to Human language.
Language is not the issue, TRANSLATION is!
This is one place where computer science needs to get back to being a genuine science. But in doing so, the whole field of computer programming will have to change. Psuedo Programming will become something of the past as Auto-coding replaces it. Genuine Software Engineering will become The Skill it has yet to be recognized completely for. And thru the tools of Software engineering, many things even outside coding will be done, such as establishing human to human translations, along with natural human to machine translations.
What human language you use to generate machine code is as open as it can be defined to be. For that is how we create a language - word = definition! And that can be some chinese character sequence = selected HTML tag....
China now has Hong Kong and they intend to keep it capitalistic for it gives them a way to study it from all sides.
There is something else as well. China is the only country doing economicly well right now. The reason for this is that they were not playing in the world stock market that has cause so much damage from the "card counters".
"In the summer of 1997, across Thailand, property prices plummeted. This sparked a panic that swept through Asia. As banks went bust from Japan to Indonesia, people took to the streets - events so improbable they had never been included in anyone's models."
"Sources all over Asia tell Uscher that Asians know about local corruption but believe America is taking advantage of the situation to grab Asian
markets and Asian wealth."
"The austerity measures were a condition of the International Monetary Fund's $43 billion aid package to bail out the southeast Asian nation. "
Where the US bailout was only (pbs article):
"We expect that they're going to explain to the members of this Committee why the Federal Reserve has organized the $3.5 billion bail-out for billionaires, why Americans should be worried about the gambling practices of the Wall Street elite"
But the point is: As man moves forward in his trial and error approach to society, there is a diversity kept in place so that all of mankind is unlikely to fall should things go bad. It was said The Former Soviet Union was mans experiment gone bad.....
China is part of the Lab. Their entrance into the WTO only helps verify this. [shrug]
Hmmm, the Virtual Interaction Configuration IQ command (stand alone) has been ported to python.
And the python version is better in several ways.
It is an OSS and GPL oriented project.
What's it got to do with the this slashdot article? It's one of them things that can far better happen in the OSS/GPL side of the spectrum of computer science and use, than in the closed minded and limited systems of corporate proprietary.
I suspect my knowing this has something to do with my initial comment regarding limitations in corporate proprietary computing and the distractions and deceptions of such anti-OSS/GPL/Linux hype, as what the slashdot article is really about (misleading anti-linux hype).
Never mind such internet devices in the market, hiting the market, and planned on going into the market that use Linux.....
Is it really supprising to see all the anti-linux marketing going on?
Lawrence Lessig did an interview on vision.yahoo.com this Dec 18th "Who's Killing Innovation On The Internet?"
Of course the stats are biased. It's the only hope the competition has to slow the OSS/GPL/Linux side of the spectrum down.
Let me suggest that this side of the spectrum is going to be attacked by all other sides because ultimately this is where the genuine foundation of computer science and general use is going to settle down to. You can't beat it, but only try and slow it down by throwing distractions and deceptions in it's way.
What has yet to be widely understood is that there is a limit to computing under the corporate model of proprietary control. To go beyond that limit requires open non-proprietary models. IBM recognizes this in autonomic computing directions. But be careful and understand this is comming from the leading US patent holder and obtainer. Do understand that they do recognize the limitations of the corporate proprietary model and intend to corner the open side as best they can.
You can expect more and more distractions and deceptions being throwing into the path of this side of the computing spectrum. Consider what has come so far and that's with what, less than 2% (at best?) of the internet browsing Desktop market...
Slashdot Mirror
I was just posting questions to get people to think. That particular question is based on the events that have caused some of us to lose freedoms, at least for awhile.
:)
It's not like there hasn't been effort to outlaw GPL, you know.
The Internet Under Siege - by lawrence Lessig
Ok so I've been a little slack on responding....
Correct me if I'm wrong but what that article points out is that the telephone companies are unlike broadband and such, in that they have to, by law, provide unbiased access.
Should such an overtaking of the internet happen, there is always the going back to building our own. And come to think of it, it'd probably cause some innovation to happen. You know making things streamline and faster, no ads... etc..
So how would we replace the university backbones that began the internet?
Hasn't there already been some efforts in this direction?
Do we have to be concerned about anti-ad-free networks or laws banning such?
GNU/Linux/GPL began a direction of user/consumer options. How might this play out with
commercial free internet?
Should we begin now or push more for commercial free networks, or wait?
Federal Criminal Charges need to be brought (and not dropped) against Microsoft in this case.
This way the Government can come to a settlement with MS where those who were harmed by the hole can't sue MS.
Along the lines of the deal struck between the tobbacco industry and government.
Seriously, with all the digital rights issues going, certainly the compromise caused by such a hole but without
criminal legal action against mircrosoft is only going to tell people that lady justice doesn't have her blindfold on.
Thats' a serious problem! Assisting criminal activity knowingly.....
What are we really getting in return?
Now that I have read Lessigs responces, I got to wondering about what he said regarding taking action. And it occured to me that Slashdot has had absolutely no effort on the part of posters to write anything, right? Is that is why Slashdot doesn't keep comments past a given time or makes it difficult to access them.
What I'm getting at is this:
This comments posters have made are worth something, otherwise the posters wouldn't have taken the time to make them. But what are they really worth?
Who is getting what value from the postings?
Certainly not much value to the posters, there doesn't seem to be any sort of archive accesable by the posters.
But what if some party wanted to sample the market for opinions and data mine for ideas?
Certainly this is not a value the posters are benefiting from. So who is?
What about these issues Lessig wants the slashdot poster to do something about?
When you go into a court room, what is it that you present? Talk? opinions, bias, truth? What is the difference between the sum total weight of which the posters produce than the basis of arguement given in a court room?
Seems to me that companies back down when they get a negitive reaction to something they are doing that their customer don't like. That to me seems to have more power than going into a court room, in fact so much power that the matter is resolved before a court dates are even considered.
Perhaps what Lessig and EFF and the likes need to be doing is getting laws passed that require such open publication of matters that take public and consumer rights away. I mean, isn't that the real issue and problem to address, Informing the public?
Seems to me being here is somehwat preaching to the quire, where it ain't gonna really do much good but get the quire to present possible opposition so that those wanting to places more constraints on us can create a better arguement for what they want. In enough time (not long) there is no proof that anyone or many said anything at all thru slashdot (far as I can tell).
Maybe Lessig shouldn't be bitching about our actions but rather recognizing the value of our actions and helping us to protect them and even use them to defend ourselves? Freedom of speech you know!
And I guess that is why if you look back far enough, nobody has said anything here on slashdot.
Maybe I'm wrong, so where is the archive that I can reasonable find the first comment I made on slashdot?
Haven't yet read the 12.6 printed page response to questions from Lawrence Lessig yet, but will. I do however, understand th ejist of what he is on about and with that in mind I post here links to two other comments I have made today to other (but related) articles.
Content vs. Tech faction - comment and The Internet Shifts East - comment
I do believe there may be a facet of the big picture Lawrence is missing, as is most all the rest of those involved. How do you remove "the commons" from language use?
Genuine Software Engineering (genuine computer science) as in what has yet to be done, rather than having been distracted by the carrot of money since the mid 1950's.
There have been other slashdot articles in the past addressing one or more aspects of this money distraction of computer science research.
----
SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN - Sept. 1994
Article - "Software's Chronic Crisis"
The article also goes more into solution efforts with software development on large scale projects. But finding consistent solutions are still hard to come by.
Mary M. Shaw of Carnegie Mellon University, observes a parallel between chemical engineering evolution and software engineering evolution. However, this evolution has not made the connection between science and commercialization required to establish a consistent experimental foundation for professional software engineering.
----
Translation? If I only explain ideas in rants, they are not real?
Rants? is this related to opinions or judgements or physics and nature? Sender or receiver perspective?
""You give my cousin a ball." is impossible, without context, to correctly translate to German "
Yes, there are limitations in the expressiveness of any language, including mathmatics and programming languages. For they are all "abstract" and that is also what they have in common. That they are abstract tools which are used to communicate. So in the case of "cousin" you have a choice. You can either create a german word that is defined to be what a "cousin" is in the family tree, or you can use the word "cousin" by defining it in the vocabulary of German to identify what "cousin" is in the family tree.
The point is to communicate, not trip over the abstract tools being used. If you ever listen in on a Asian language conversation, don't be supprised if you hear an english word or name being used. But instead note that the party using it either doesn't know the asian word or there is not one.
Mathmatics is a subset of the sum total of all absractions and even math has self imposed limitations such as Godel's Theorem and Alan Turnings Halting Problem. But these are just the limitations of the abstraction set being used.
Programming. What is programming but the act of automating the use of something more complex (yet made up of simple things). Automation on top of automation on top of automation, etc. and it all comes down to the fundamental equation of "word = definition" be it human language, mathmatics, or programming language. The syntax and semantics of use are only the dynamics of how a given abstraction set is defined to be used, and something that can as well be automated.
Ultimately the task of automating translation is so big or in need of being versatile that the only way to accomplish it is to do it in a manner that allows any and all to participate when and where they choose.
And what that means is that the natural laws of the physical phenomenon or abstraction mechanics needs to be identified, that is the action constants. And from there moved into an openly accessible configuration of computer functionality that represents the action constants, so as to supply a non-patentable common user interface for user controlled integration. A tool that allows participation by all who so choose to do so.
Though IBM autonomic computing direction doesn't identify such a core of "action constants" functionality, they do recognize the need to be open (regardless of the fact that they are the leading US patent holder and generator/obtainer).
Maybe see other slashdot posts and home page of yours truely?
Here's a recent slashdot Virtual Reality article to make what I've said above a bit more ........Real????
an example of besides copyrights is .... well now that software is patentable [rolls eyes] but even beyond this you have to consider what the essence of computers and computing really is. They be machines of abstraction manipulation and translation.
Input -} Processing -} Output
As a creative person, an artist, an inventor, etc.. what tools do I use to do such work? But to build upon what others have done before me. Who was it that said something like "I stand high because I stand on the shoulder of giants before me"?
There are many ways which such a machine of abstraction manipulation and translations can be applied to benefit mankind and society. Perhaps the most valuable is that of Human to Human Translation, but such a translation machine inherently is also capable of human to machine translation, and not just from the current programming language level, but from more what we call natural human languages (though I don't recall being born understanding english and there are those who say I still don't have it down) to machine understood programming. (see my comments in the "The Internet Shifts East" slashdot article.)
Of course to be able to program a computer using human language, perhaps even spoken (voice to text "translation") you will eventually get to the programming level of what it would take to programme a holodeck composed in details down to the dirt under a holodeck character fingernail (if that be so relative) to the furniture, scenery, settings, interactions (character action/reaction), etc.. within the holodeck experience. All of which is or will be a programme created from composition of elements from a database created by as many as can and will create it.
Now imagine where all the content on the internet come from today, even here, this post is content. The resources for content is as limitless as there are creators of such content. From direct Content business like Time Warner to the Furniture designer and builder of that simply makes an image of their work available on their web site, or perhaps the 3D file of a kitchen from a cabinet maker or Car manufacture 3D automobile file. Keeping in mind what would make for a realistice virtual reality is to be able to use images and details of hat you find in real life.
Now imagine what it would be like to try and gather copyright licenses for for all the element you have used in the creation of a holodeck program. And all this generated from words of instructions you have spoken into the computer.
Of course the "Abstraction manipulation machinery" of computer continues to go beyond even this. Into medicine development, fabrication processes, etc. as we are all aware of even currently, but with far greater and wider user/consumer population access for individuals to control and create their work.
All of this can't happen so easily with current "Cannot" based laws. The Can based laws are what we need to create, develope and to have such goals as to inspire people to increase assets rather than "get away with theift".
I know it sounds so alien or foriegn, but that is because we have been practicing "Cannot" based IP laws for so long. So the first step is to know that we are the ones who make up the laws and as such can make them better, change them to work in accord to the creative nature of the humans we are, rather than the non-productive humans the "Cannot based Laws" want us to be restricted to. (to feed the elite? who are? Read the last paragraph or two of the article slashdot points to!)
The real issues at hand are far more reaching than copyrights. The Digital Media functionality that computers provides all of us with most certainly goes way beyond the copyright dimension.
They may not realize it yet, but eventually will have no other choice but to recoignize that the "CANNOT" base intellectual property laws will have to be changed to be "CAN" based.
I'm all for artists, creators, those who produce additional productive and pleasure values to be recognized and rewarded. For such carrots is how we teach our children to help make our society a better place of all of us to enjoy.
But the bottom line is to get people to want to recognize and reward those who do good. And the only way that is going to happen is change the laws so as to motivate and inspire people to do so.
Lawrence Lessig pointed out to me that there are two parts to dealing with Intellectual Property. The first part I believe was in reference to beng granted IP rights as a creator, the second part being liability law. I suppose this is the part in most need of changing into "asset" law.
comments?
maybe see other slashdot posts by your truely?
"Because computers are potentially very efficient and capable copying machines, and because the Internet is potentially a very efficient and capable distribution mechanism, even in the hands of ordinary individuals, the Content Faction has set out to restructure the entire digital world we have today. They want to rearchitect not just the Internet, but every computer and digital tool on or off the Net that might be used to make unauthorized copies."
Slashdot article on W3C TAG
" In an effort to build shared understanding of Web Architecture principles, W3C has chartered and assembled a Technical Architecture Group - the TAG for short. The TAG will document cross-technology Web architecture principles, and resolve architectural issues. "
"Of course, getting them into computers has been a problem in the past, but, modern technology has allowed their use pretty much without problems."
Any links to such uhhhh, keyboarding?
Or is this somehing to be better dealt with in voice to text processing?
Translation is where it's at in any case, but am interested in any links.
".....but any claims that this will cause some great shift in how the world uses the web is pretty silly. "
On the surface you are probably right, but the underside will change greatly. Under what you see in what you access, will be a translator that will not only enable a greater level of communication but this will also break thru many barriers including the programming barrier often called the "software crisis".
Translation is a very imporant issue in all of this. The best and fastest way to enable it is thru the methodology used of OSS/GPL sort of Open teamwork by whoever and whenever and how much they want to help.
Langage is a "commons", as Lawrence Lessig often makee use of it. The whole Point of Language is to enable communications, and it's value only goes as far as it's agreed upon use is adherd to. This naturally make it's most useful in a "commons" state. Perhaps this is a factor that Lawrence has yet to integrate into his thinking regarding his perceptions of the future of ideas?
(as even programming languages are "language")
Anyways, the issue of translation and fortunately the mechanics of it, is of such nature that it cannot be patented or otherwise Intellectual Property constrained from use.
Thru such a Universal Translator, the "official Human spoken language" wouldn't change much from how that is applied today. But to determine what the most used language s on teh internet would then be a matter of population choice. And I suspect in having a universal translator you and I will use our native language most often.
mabe se other posts by yours truely?
Language is not an issue, translation is.
perhaps see other posts by yours truely?
Technology exist already that is better than what you are using for translation.
To identify the gears and bearings of translation (the naural laws of the physical phenomenon of Abstraction manipulation) in such a manner that can be created in computer functionality and accessible by all, it then become possible to apply the OSS/GPL model of the Bazzar (sp?) to create the various language translation vocabulary, syntax, semantics sets, including slang and even programming languages (any language).
In the open model you can improve translations as you come across a place where you see a need and have the knowledge to do. Perhaps as little as a word or phrase at a time. But in time..... well....the open community force would certainly be bigger than the developer community of Linux!
Maybe see other posts from your truely?
It's not going to be about who has to learn what language in order to use the internet. But rather what language do you want to use to access the internet? Where the most used is determined by internet population of langauge use.
Give yourself a universal translator and it don't matter what language you speak or use. But what language is used most would inherently be relative to what the native language is of most of the users.
The article is suggesting, without saying it out right, that such a translator will exist in wide use by then.
It's really not so difficult to believe. But what is more difficult to accept for many psuedo programmers is that the same technology can and will be used to translate human languages into programming language (auto-coding) and therefor allow anyone who learns basic programming concepts to program using their natural human language.
mabe see other posts by yours truely?
It's not a problem once computer science gets back to genuine computer science and establishes the Natural Laws of the Physical Phenomenon of Translation Mechanics/Machinery - (Abstraction manipulation mechanics).
One you have the universal translator core, it become only a matter of doing the vocabulary, syntax and semantics programming to then be able to translate into whatever other language you want, including human to machine programming.
Oops! And you thought the great wall of china was hard to get thru! Try the Wall of the psuedo programmer elites!
maybe see other posts by our truely?
How much does China really need to buy, that they cannot make themselves? (Re: WTO, WIPO)
Their production and resource cost are going to relative to their economy.
What is a programming language but a man created abstraction set, syntax, semantics that gets TRANSLATED into that which a binary based machine can understand.
The Translation mechanics or machinery is the same, whether you are translating human language to machine language or Human Language to Human language.
Language is not the issue, TRANSLATION is!
This is one place where computer science needs to get back to being a genuine science. But in doing so, the whole field of computer programming will have to change. Psuedo Programming will become something of the past as Auto-coding replaces it. Genuine Software Engineering will become The Skill it has yet to be recognized completely for. And thru the tools of Software engineering, many things even outside coding will be done, such as establishing human to human translations, along with natural human to machine translations.
What human language you use to generate machine code is as open as it can be defined to be. For that is how we create a language - word = definition! And that can be some chinese character sequence = selected HTML tag....
see my home page...
China now has Hong Kong and they intend to keep it capitalistic for it gives them a way to study it from all sides.
There is something else as well. China is the only country doing economicly well right now. The reason for this is that they were not playing in the world stock market that has cause so much damage from the "card counters".
As identified in the Trillion Dollar Bet!
"In the summer of 1997, across Thailand, property prices plummeted. This sparked a panic that swept through Asia. As banks went bust from Japan to Indonesia, people took to the streets - events so improbable they had never been included in anyone's models."
and in Indonesia May 1998: abcnews
"Sources all over Asia tell Uscher that Asians know about local corruption but believe America is taking advantage of the situation to grab Asian
markets and Asian wealth."
and (read the article!!!): CNN
"The austerity measures were a condition of the International Monetary Fund's $43 billion aid package to bail out the southeast Asian nation. "
Where the US bailout was only (pbs article):
"We expect that they're going to explain to the members of this Committee why the Federal Reserve has organized the $3.5 billion bail-out for billionaires, why Americans should be worried about the gambling practices of the Wall Street elite"
And this rabbit hole goes deeper: More!
But the point is: As man moves forward in his trial and error approach to society, there is a diversity kept in place so that all of mankind is unlikely to fall should things go bad. It was said The Former Soviet Union was mans experiment gone bad.....
China is part of the Lab. Their entrance into the WTO only helps verify this. [shrug]
Perhaps there is a question to ask: What was it people were doing that they had that kind of time to play solitary?
Cumulative hours waited for internet to download this year
I was just using mapquest and it seems that IE wants to download everything, even what you have already downloaded once.
Geee, I suppose I do have time to play solitary.
An off topic stab at me?
Hmmm, the Virtual Interaction Configuration IQ command (stand alone) has been ported to python.
And the python version is better in several ways.
It is an OSS and GPL oriented project.
What's it got to do with the this slashdot article? It's one of them things that can far better happen in the OSS/GPL side of the spectrum of computer science and use, than in the closed minded and limited systems of corporate proprietary.
I suspect my knowing this has something to do with my initial comment regarding limitations in corporate proprietary computing and the distractions and deceptions of such anti-OSS/GPL/Linux hype, as what the slashdot article is really about (misleading anti-linux hype).
Never mind such internet devices in the market, hiting the market, and planned on going into the market that use Linux.....
Is it really supprising to see all the anti-linux marketing going on?
Lawrence Lessig did an interview on vision.yahoo.com this Dec 18th "Who's Killing Innovation On The Internet?"
Of course the stats are biased. It's the only hope the competition has to slow the OSS/GPL/Linux side of the spectrum down.
Let me suggest that this side of the spectrum is going to be attacked by all other sides because ultimately this is where the genuine foundation of computer science and general use is going to settle down to. You can't beat it, but only try and slow it down by throwing distractions and deceptions in it's way.
What has yet to be widely understood is that there is a limit to computing under the corporate model of proprietary control. To go beyond that limit requires open non-proprietary models. IBM recognizes this in autonomic computing directions. But be careful and understand this is comming from the leading US patent holder and obtainer. Do understand that they do recognize the limitations of the corporate proprietary model and intend to corner the open side as best they can.
You can expect more and more distractions and deceptions being throwing into the path of this side of the computing spectrum. Consider what has come so far and that's with what, less than 2% (at best?) of the internet browsing Desktop market...