IBM announcement - in history section:
"But in 1994, Peter Shor of AT&T Research described a specific quantum algorithm for factoring large numbers exponentially faster than conventional computers -- fast enough to defeat the security of many public-key cryptosystems. The potential of Shor's algorithm stimulated many scientists to work toward realizing the quantum computers' potential. Significant progress has been made in recent years by numerous research groups around the world."
Maybe Magic Lantern isn't needed, and maybe the feds should be more concerned about quantum scientist as the next great public threat? Lets' see now... Hacker used to be a positive connotation.....how to turn Quantum into a negitive connotation...or is ther another name by which these scientists go by?
Well I guess this is why they are trying to charge me multi-system access to my single dialup account for which I cannot possibly have more then one system connected (1 modem and a hard switch between 2 systems). I wonder how many other people they are trying to do this to, you know, to subsidize this wireless deal..
Hmmm, went to a noon showing at a 16 screen theater that has 4 screens dedicated to LOTR (two always running at the same time.)
It was a spur of the moment decission to go see it as I found the noon showtime at about 10 mins after 11:00am and I still had to get a shower. Bought the ticket online so I knew I'd have a seat. And I wouldn't have to wait in line.
Actually I did have to wait in line as two other parties were ahead of me in the prepurchase line, but in the regular line there was no waiting in line for any of the movies.
Was concerned about getting a good seat and ended up with a whole row fifth row back (just right) of stadium high back seating, to myself. Could have layed down and watched the movie.
For a three hour movie to leave me feeling like it was to short...... I didn't want to lay down and watch it.
There was maybe 20 other people in that screen room.
I have to believe that a number of factors contributed to such a sparse audience. And I do not expect this sort of experience to be repeated from this time on. But things like being a school day before the xmas break (?) a mid week day where most were working and those who weren't were doing Xmas shopping. 3 hours is alot of shopping time (but then again the mall wasn't very busy either).
anyway, thought I'd post something in contrast to the long line and wait mentioned in the post above this one.
Though the sparseness did cause me to be concerned about whether or not there will be continuation of the story. Then I found out that they filmed all three at the same time!!!!
Mentioning Amiga on Slashdot is dangerious.
But here's the scoop.
Linux is of course GPL but running on top of that is the tao-group "intent" Java engine which is proprietary and where the AmigaDE exist upon.
This is not the AmigaOS (as those who have had amigas know) but rather a new product of Amiga Inc. (a two year old start up that bought the name and all other Intellectual and stock property from Gateway - except for the patents which gateway still owns).
I understand that Tao-group makes a linux version of "intent" w/o the Amiga stuff but I don't know where one may obtain it.
The deal is one of Amiga acting something like a talent agent for programmers, complete with providing programmers application distribution and financial/royality cuts, etc.
I really don't know what development Amiga is doing with the AmigaDE (Amiga Digital Environment) as although I bought the SDK, I found I had been mislead in being told it was not encrypted, where in fact it is and requires a registration process that does not apeal to me. Additionally additional libraries for sound and I think video have yet to be made available as promised somewhere around a year ago (in a month or so).
Amiga is actiing as a content provider to the consumer while acting as a talent agent for the programmers.
It about computer functionality, not politics or writing documentation of recommendations and specification that are then either applied in interpretation inconsistancy or ignored.
The only politics that should exist here is that if identifying any party that decides they want to play sandbox bully in applying proprietary extensions. The politics simply being the responce of kicking them out of the organization for not holding to the objectives of establishing standards that are there for everyones benefit.
I have no interest in getting tangled up in the sequence of characters that make up all the W3C is and has become. I don't want to hear or see hooks and lures trying to reel me into it.
But from outside of whatever there is, this is what I see:
There are those products that are outside of W3C need to be involved, such as rebol, or any other product that handles it's own details of what data it handles and transfers over the internet.
These thinmgs establish their own standards.
What remains, such as HTML and such products that make use of this is in need of compression. That is the determination of what such products are capable of processing and how, and then identifying the minimal set of integrated functionality needed to handle it all.
Instead of presenting "Recommendations", create that functionality in a generic programming language like standard C or Java. In other words communicate it more directly to computers, not thru the interpretation of numerious an disconnected programmers creating user interfaces and such, who are more likley to interpret it differently. As such the developer will save themselves time in development in using pre-coded standard functionality (no need to reinvent.) To apply this functionality thru a library or plugin leaves open the possibility to update browsers and what ever alot easier.
To really be an open standard, it needs to be GPL, where it would have the OSS force behind it and most important it would be an additional insurance that keeps sandbox bullies from messing up the works.
The FONT vs. CSS is a good example of creating bigger problems to solve a problem. The way to really solve such problems is to make the functionality that processes the data of web pages and whatever else, more versatile. Don't Break what is, but expand what can be. This way when a product doesn't handle an extension someone came up with, there is a default available allowing the data to still be viewable.
Things like Javascript, which is different than HTML, is just another block of functionality that has a way to pipe to and from....etc.
Open ended common code base is how to establish standards. But from what I can tell, most of the W3C current list of "recommendations" has yet to be implimented in a broad scale. Being open to developers to interpret and reinvent code, doesn't help. In fact it's a hell of a waste of resources. Not to mention the hell it causes those wanting to produce pages that are compatable across platforms an products.
This TAG thing..... clean up what you have before moving forward, otherwise the flooring will have alot of garbage under it from prior construction, making it uneven and the paint will have alot of grit and dirt mixed in.
It's not about documenting primarily, it's about establishing an open common code base.
Let me suggest that Microsoft knows this and is why it uses a dll that many application can tap into. Only it's code base is not open, or at least enough put competition aside for the sake of establishing platform independant standards across the internet.
If in Atlanta during rush hour on a bad traffic day.....
The Answer is to get out of the car and start walking, unless you are lucky enough to have one of them Segways. Then you can fall you way there, and there and there.
That compaired to having stayed in your car.... You did better then NP complete.
that won't get you all there is. The oldest post I can find is from 1992 and posted via another person forwarding it from some other posting system network. try exact phrase "Tim Rue"
Get your bets in on when people will stop trying to define what is happening here in this natural evolution of software development (using terms that are not advanced enough to correctly identify it, not to mention communicate it accurately and in simple terms.)
Man has developed societies over time, in order to deal with growing complexities of population growth. Perhaps the tower of babel was one such example where a problem developed in complexity?
But we learn how to overcome such problems (who knows maybe we will overcome the language barrier, thru some new and improved portable babelfish speach to text to speech converter).
And in overcomming such problems encountered in the growing population of society, we build upon common ground what we have as a whole.
In the software industry, where does this "common ground" that we are building upon exist?
Consider the roads/highways in the US, where would business be if there weren't such common pathways of the quality and quantity of US roads?
And where does the money to build and maintain such roads come from?
As others have correctly pointed out, software is unlike any other product, it's non-physical in essence, though recorded upon very inexpensive media, perhaps even pencil and paper.
MicroSoft is a good example of trying to build a tower of babel into the heavens.
Instead the natural evolution of software development is building the highway that can handle the weight and transport alot more than a stairway or elevator can.
When Bill Gates yelled piracy, he in effect cause a distraction, a detour of this natural evolution and by the carrot of money. But that was when the software industry was small enough to do so in even gaining money hungry followers to help sustain the distraction, the detour.
Much of this works that trys to explain what is going on here, does so based on the current market share. Look back what others were saying even 5 or 6 years ago and realize this. Then project forward and realize that companies like Microsoft who want to control the road/highway with toll stations, simply will not exist. Instead they wil be more like vechicle manufactures (or at least that's a good distraction for them at this time.)
Without this common ground highway, we simply cannot go as far as the population demands. And the population is going to do what is good for it, rather than for the self selected few who want to put up toll booths. Even governments are more and more supporting the common ground highway as they also need to travel over the highway.
But it's not just software, it's information too, but one thing at a time.
I did read it, the paper. More or less, as it "used alot of big acidemic words" and found it difficult to follow what it was saying. But I was able to conclude a few things. The least of which is the title. If the title is not representitive of the content then it's a non-sequitur. Even the conclusion suggested a big "if" and I read even more, I read other postings in trying to get ahold of the essence from different perspectives.
The conclusion I came to is what I posted. So what if I did what I could simplify my comment to it's essence. Even now there seems to be posted another story regarding more along this line of analysis of what is happening, an interview with someone about social impact...
People are trying to define something in terms and concepts that are not advanced enough to properly identify it.
Read the interview, then see my home page (see my url above).
Then reconsider what you said. Don't judge a book by it's cover, right?
Considering the title of the paper: The Fading Altruism of Open Source Development
I think it's safe to say that this is just another of those anti-oss works designed to discourage OSS.
But the thing is, OSS evolution has many variables that each contributor only needs enought to inspire them to do it. Which may be a very small number compaired to the list of reasons total.
But the fact of the matter is that OSS is a natural evolution in software development. And as such it will not be addhearent to the wishes, desires and attempts to control it by those who find it threatening. For if that could be done then MS would have been able to do something to indicate this to all those in opposition to OSS.
The natural place for OSS is that of establishing the common base of software development. For without such an OSS baseline the actual potential as to how far we can really take software would be a great deal less. The Baseline of OSS will advance and as such the proprietary industry will have to continue to move forward themselves. It's called competition in an industry where the proprietary holders thoiught they cornered the industry with control over it. Only people, developer, students, users can't be so easily cornered in mass. For you'd have to get them all in the same mass first.
It should not be supprising to see stuff like this article and there will be more, until the hard reality of nature is finally accepted by those who want to deny nature of humans to not be constrained by false limits.
Groups Google thread regarding HTML usage and I finally decided it was easier to just dl the popular browsers and test my stuff thru them rather than deal with....... well, HTML is an interpreted language, not an institution as my last response (maybe yet to be posted +1 correction) states.
Ok, the third link basicly states two proofs that expose the limitations of mathmatics. And I take it as simply an example of the fact that you cannot solve a general language problem by creating another language. (math as an abstraction set is a subset of all possible abstractions). Perhaps this link you gave in effort to suggest a/the "meta-language" solution? (as is what link #1 is about.) At any rate, link #3 is a statement of fact that I can assure you I'm aware of, even without having ever heard of these two.
As to link #1, Grabbed my attention but degenerated into "what if?" IP whining. Ok, so the whining expressed an apparent problem and projected concern, but it is either to speculative (what if upon what if upon what if...)or to entrapped within IP cannot based law thinking that it cannot manage to excape enough to see another solution. (or maybe a little something is lost in the translation that is admittedly a poor translation of the original french version. - But I must add, not so poor that it didn't get the message across.)
Getting past that corporate-political projected bottomless pit depressing illusion of IP whips, chains and bars (though some valid points were made), it got somewhat interesting again.
The solution the paper strives to reach, is in fact far more possible to achieve thru OSS and GPL side of the spectrum software development directions, than thru closed systems of any kind.
In the writting of this respose/post I went to check on some things I read and recalled the comment "There exists, as far as we know, only one project resolutely oriented towards this direction" and upon accessing and spending several hours looking thru that site I realize that my comment above about the third link you gave, may in fact not yet be fully understood by the author of the paper or the tunes collective.
And as such it is probably why nothing has yet to actually be established and done in the tunes project.
I bet they all have been feeling like they have been trying to grab their own shadow and make it solid. Of course never being able to really quite do that, but it's oh so close, like words on the tip of your......
For they have smack dab run head first into the proofs of the #3 link you gave. And haven't yet realized it.
"Thomas Paine was one of the first journalists to use media as a weapon against the entrenched power structure. He should be resurrected as the moral father of the Internet. Jon Katz explains why. "
Let me suggest that size and force of the "media" has simply become ubiquitous. Can't see the forest that has grown, for the single tree you are looking at one foot in front of you, Jon.
Consider this forest enabling us all to integrate information in ways that would be impossible to even dream of before, not to mention now having the ability to share that new information with others so that they can help make productive use of new integrations.
As an Example integrating the world information to the computer industry to the individual....
First, thanks for the links. They could turn out to be very helpful in a number of ways. I'm now in the process of printing two of them out. The second link/paper I cannot access (it is either a corrupt file or I can't find a.gz dearchiver to work on it - using a windoze box).
Anyway, if I can beat, dismiss, or whatever you want to call it in getting over the problems these papers present, will people listen to me better?
I agree that providing real world incentive is a good thing. Certainly recognition and rewards is how we teach our children to do good. But to give the reward of the power to restrict others from using the good you have done is worse to those you say no to then had you not done good (for the possibility that they or someone else to do the same good without restriction, no longer exist.)
So the goal is to remove this problem while also keeping valuable incentive in place for those who do the good. If more people are allowed to use the good, then the good will do more good! From this it should be recognize there needs to be an incentive to not restrict.
Exactly how to accomplish from where we are now (getting from a to b) is a matter to be explored. The information I pointed you to just some concept that might be applied in developing such a solution.
Slashdot Mirror
IBM announcement - in history section:
"But in 1994, Peter Shor of AT&T Research described a specific quantum algorithm for factoring large numbers exponentially faster than conventional computers -- fast enough to defeat the security of many public-key cryptosystems. The potential of Shor's algorithm stimulated many scientists to work toward realizing the quantum computers' potential. Significant progress has been made in recent years by numerous research groups around the world."
Maybe Magic Lantern isn't needed, and maybe the feds should be more concerned about quantum scientist as the next great public threat? Lets' see now... Hacker used to be a positive connotation.....how to turn Quantum into a negitive connotation...or is ther another name by which these scientists go by?
Well I guess this is why they are trying to charge me multi-system access to my single dialup account for which I cannot possibly have more then one system connected (1 modem and a hard switch between 2 systems). I wonder how many other people they are trying to do this to, you know, to subsidize this wireless deal..
Hmmm, went to a noon showing at a 16 screen theater that has 4 screens dedicated to LOTR (two always running at the same time.)
It was a spur of the moment decission to go see it as I found the noon showtime at about 10 mins after 11:00am and I still had to get a shower. Bought the ticket online so I knew I'd have a seat. And I wouldn't have to wait in line.
Actually I did have to wait in line as two other parties were ahead of me in the prepurchase line, but in the regular line there was no waiting in line for any of the movies.
Was concerned about getting a good seat and ended up with a whole row fifth row back (just right) of stadium high back seating, to myself. Could have layed down and watched the movie.
For a three hour movie to leave me feeling like it was to short...... I didn't want to lay down and watch it.
There was maybe 20 other people in that screen room.
I have to believe that a number of factors contributed to such a sparse audience. And I do not expect this sort of experience to be repeated from this time on. But things like being a school day before the xmas break (?) a mid week day where most were working and those who weren't were doing Xmas shopping. 3 hours is alot of shopping time (but then again the mall wasn't very busy either).
anyway, thought I'd post something in contrast to the long line and wait mentioned in the post above this one.
Though the sparseness did cause me to be concerned about whether or not there will be continuation of the story. Then I found out that they filmed all three at the same time!!!!
Mentioning Amiga on Slashdot is dangerious.
But here's the scoop.
Linux is of course GPL but running on top of that is the tao-group "intent" Java engine which is proprietary and where the AmigaDE exist upon.
This is not the AmigaOS (as those who have had amigas know) but rather a new product of Amiga Inc. (a two year old start up that bought the name and all other Intellectual and stock property from Gateway - except for the patents which gateway still owns).
I understand that Tao-group makes a linux version of "intent" w/o the Amiga stuff but I don't know where one may obtain it.
The deal is one of Amiga acting something like a talent agent for programmers, complete with providing programmers application distribution and financial/royality cuts, etc.
I really don't know what development Amiga is doing with the AmigaDE (Amiga Digital Environment) as although I bought the SDK, I found I had been mislead in being told it was not encrypted, where in fact it is and requires a registration process that does not apeal to me. Additionally additional libraries for sound and I think video have yet to be made available as promised somewhere around a year ago (in a month or so).
Amiga is actiing as a content provider to the consumer while acting as a talent agent for the programmers.
midori from Linus/transmeta
Did a search on the comments to see if there was any mention of midori. Didn't find any.
Any comments on Midori as an Embedded linux?
Post Tramatic Stress Disorder treatment - The cheaper it is the more that can be helped sooner.
Now people will be standing around waiting to get the message
Or here are some messages to strategicly place.
and these over selective locations.
Not only good for spammers but activists
It about computer functionality, not politics or writing documentation of recommendations and specification that are then either applied in interpretation inconsistancy or ignored.
The only politics that should exist here is that if identifying any party that decides they want to play sandbox bully in applying proprietary extensions. The politics simply being the responce of kicking them out of the organization for not holding to the objectives of establishing standards that are there for everyones benefit.
I have no interest in getting tangled up in the sequence of characters that make up all the W3C is and has become. I don't want to hear or see hooks and lures trying to reel me into it.
But from outside of whatever there is, this is what I see:
There are those products that are outside of W3C need to be involved, such as rebol, or any other product that handles it's own details of what data it handles and transfers over the internet.
These thinmgs establish their own standards.
What remains, such as HTML and such products that make use of this is in need of compression. That is the determination of what such products are capable of processing and how, and then identifying the minimal set of integrated functionality needed to handle it all.
Instead of presenting "Recommendations", create that functionality in a generic programming language like standard C or Java. In other words communicate it more directly to computers, not thru the interpretation of numerious an disconnected programmers creating user interfaces and such, who are more likley to interpret it differently. As such the developer will save themselves time in development in using pre-coded standard functionality (no need to reinvent.) To apply this functionality thru a library or plugin leaves open the possibility to update browsers and what ever alot easier.
To really be an open standard, it needs to be GPL, where it would have the OSS force behind it and most important it would be an additional insurance that keeps sandbox bullies from messing up the works.
The FONT vs. CSS is a good example of creating bigger problems to solve a problem. The way to really solve such problems is to make the functionality that processes the data of web pages and whatever else, more versatile. Don't Break what is, but expand what can be. This way when a product doesn't handle an extension someone came up with, there is a default available allowing the data to still be viewable.
Things like Javascript, which is different than HTML, is just another block of functionality that has a way to pipe to and from....etc.
Open ended common code base is how to establish standards. But from what I can tell, most of the W3C current list of "recommendations" has yet to be implimented in a broad scale. Being open to developers to interpret and reinvent code, doesn't help. In fact it's a hell of a waste of resources. Not to mention the hell it causes those wanting to produce pages that are compatable across platforms an products.
This TAG thing..... clean up what you have before moving forward, otherwise the flooring will have alot of garbage under it from prior construction, making it uneven and the paint will have alot of grit and dirt mixed in.
It's not about documenting primarily, it's about establishing an open common code base.
Let me suggest that Microsoft knows this and is why it uses a dll that many application can tap into. Only it's code base is not open, or at least enough put competition aside for the sake of establishing platform independant standards across the internet.
FONT and CSS junk
and
Web page development tools that don't work - from the W3C
Maybe someone will read thru these and make some recomendations to the W3C!!!!
If in Atlanta during rush hour on a bad traffic day.....
The Answer is to get out of the car and start walking, unless you are lucky enough to have one of them Segways. Then you can fall you way there, and there and there.
That compaired to having stayed in your car.... You did better then NP complete.
Don't cha think preventitive warfare is in order.
You know, like preventitive healthcare.
osearth - Who are the real terrorist?
that won't get you all there is. The oldest post I can find is from 1992 and posted via another person forwarding it from some other posting system network. try exact phrase "Tim Rue"
How long you been around?
Wanna cup of Prior Art?
Get your bets in on when people will stop trying to define what is happening here in this natural evolution of software development (using terms that are not advanced enough to correctly identify it, not to mention communicate it accurately and in simple terms.)
Man has developed societies over time, in order to deal with growing complexities of population growth. Perhaps the tower of babel was one such example where a problem developed in complexity?
But we learn how to overcome such problems (who knows maybe we will overcome the language barrier, thru some new and improved portable babelfish speach to text to speech converter).
And in overcomming such problems encountered in the growing population of society, we build upon common ground what we have as a whole.
In the software industry, where does this "common ground" that we are building upon exist?
Consider the roads/highways in the US, where would business be if there weren't such common pathways of the quality and quantity of US roads?
And where does the money to build and maintain such roads come from?
As others have correctly pointed out, software is unlike any other product, it's non-physical in essence, though recorded upon very inexpensive media, perhaps even pencil and paper.
MicroSoft is a good example of trying to build a tower of babel into the heavens.
Instead the natural evolution of software development is building the highway that can handle the weight and transport alot more than a stairway or elevator can.
When Bill Gates yelled piracy, he in effect cause a distraction, a detour of this natural evolution and by the carrot of money. But that was when the software industry was small enough to do so in even gaining money hungry followers to help sustain the distraction, the detour.
Much of this works that trys to explain what is going on here, does so based on the current market share. Look back what others were saying even 5 or 6 years ago and realize this. Then project forward and realize that companies like Microsoft who want to control the road/highway with toll stations, simply will not exist. Instead they wil be more like vechicle manufactures (or at least that's a good distraction for them at this time.)
Without this common ground highway, we simply cannot go as far as the population demands. And the population is going to do what is good for it, rather than for the self selected few who want to put up toll booths. Even governments are more and more supporting the common ground highway as they also need to travel over the highway.
But it's not just software, it's information too, but one thing at a time.
I did read it, the paper. More or less, as it "used alot of big acidemic words" and found it difficult to follow what it was saying. But I was able to conclude a few things. The least of which is the title. If the title is not representitive of the content then it's a non-sequitur. Even the conclusion suggested a big "if" and I read even more, I read other postings in trying to get ahold of the essence from different perspectives.
The conclusion I came to is what I posted. So what if I did what I could simplify my comment to it's essence. Even now there seems to be posted another story regarding more along this line of analysis of what is happening, an interview with someone about social impact...
People are trying to define something in terms and concepts that are not advanced enough to properly identify it.
Read the interview, then see my home page (see my url above).
Then reconsider what you said. Don't judge a book by it's cover, right?
Considering the title of the paper: The Fading Altruism of Open Source Development
I think it's safe to say that this is just another of those anti-oss works designed to discourage OSS.
But the thing is, OSS evolution has many variables that each contributor only needs enought to inspire them to do it. Which may be a very small number compaired to the list of reasons total.
But the fact of the matter is that OSS is a natural evolution in software development. And as such it will not be addhearent to the wishes, desires and attempts to control it by those who find it threatening. For if that could be done then MS would have been able to do something to indicate this to all those in opposition to OSS.
The natural place for OSS is that of establishing the common base of software development. For without such an OSS baseline the actual potential as to how far we can really take software would be a great deal less. The Baseline of OSS will advance and as such the proprietary industry will have to continue to move forward themselves. It's called competition in an industry where the proprietary holders thoiught they cornered the industry with control over it. Only people, developer, students, users can't be so easily cornered in mass. For you'd have to get them all in the same mass first.
It should not be supprising to see stuff like this article and there will be more, until the hard reality of nature is finally accepted by those who want to deny nature of humans to not be constrained by false limits.
It's not just Linux
Groups Google thread regarding HTML usage
and I finally decided it was easier to just dl the popular browsers and test my stuff thru them rather than deal with....... well, HTML is an interpreted language, not an institution as my last response (maybe yet to be posted +1 correction) states.
Though I did make this comment on slashdot a few days ago.
another slashdot thread that only goes into the forest from one direction.
Perhaps you can give me a link to those scientist you are refering to?
Ok, the third link basicly states two proofs that expose the limitations of mathmatics. And I take it as simply an example of the fact that you cannot solve a general language problem by creating another language. (math as an abstraction set is a subset of all possible abstractions). Perhaps this link you gave in effort to suggest a/the "meta-language" solution? (as is what link #1 is about.) At any rate, link #3 is a statement of fact that I can assure you I'm aware of, even without having ever heard of these two.
......
As to link #1, Grabbed my attention but degenerated into "what if?" IP whining. Ok, so the whining expressed an apparent problem and projected concern, but it is either to speculative (what if upon what if upon what if...)or to entrapped within IP cannot based law thinking that it cannot manage to excape enough to see another solution. (or maybe a little something is lost in the translation that is admittedly a poor translation of the original french version. - But I must add, not so poor that it didn't get the message across.)
Getting past that corporate-political projected bottomless pit depressing illusion of IP whips, chains and bars (though some valid points were made), it got somewhat interesting again.
The solution the paper strives to reach, is in fact far more possible to achieve thru OSS and GPL side of the spectrum software development directions, than thru closed systems of any kind.
In the writting of this respose/post I went to check on some things I read and recalled the comment "There exists, as far as we know, only one project resolutely oriented towards this direction" and upon accessing and spending several hours looking thru that site I realize that my comment above about the third link you gave, may in fact not yet be fully understood by the author of the paper or the tunes collective.
And as such it is probably why nothing has yet to actually be established and done in the tunes project.
I bet they all have been feeling like they have been trying to grab their own shadow and make it solid. Of course never being able to really quite do that, but it's oh so close, like words on the tip of your
For they have smack dab run head first into the proofs of the #3 link you gave. And haven't yet realized it.
try my home page!
From the intro to the original Article in Wired.
"Thomas Paine was one of the first journalists to use media as a weapon against the entrenched power structure. He should be resurrected as the moral father of the Internet. Jon Katz explains why. "
Let me suggest that size and force of the "media" has simply become ubiquitous. Can't see the forest that has grown, for the single tree you are looking at one foot in front of you, Jon.
Consider this forest enabling us all to integrate information in ways that would be impossible to even dream of before, not to mention now having the ability to share that new information with others so that they can help make productive use of new integrations.
As an Example integrating the world information to the computer industry to the individual....
Dark Matter is not as dark as previously believed!
Does this mean that the jedi knights are winning with the fifth element weapon?
Star Wars episode III: The Perfect Element, Source of Clones!
Liability - world military spending
Asset - military spending resources available to convert into productive value from destructive values.
What the World Wants!
Well I guess that's proof (potential to validate) that doing the wrong thing is more costly.
.
Convert "Cannot" based law into "Can" based law....
Convert "Liability" rule into "Asset" rule.
Target - human incentive - make it more profitable to all involved to do the right thing, more costly to do the wrong thing.
Just saying, as a general goal which of course needs to have the detail worked out.
.
First, thanks for the links. They could turn out to be very helpful in a number of ways. I'm now in the process of printing two of them out. The second link/paper I cannot access (it is either a corrupt file or I can't find a .gz dearchiver to work on it - using a windoze box).
Anyway, if I can beat, dismiss, or whatever you want to call it in getting over the problems these papers present, will people listen to me better?
I agree that providing real world incentive is a good thing. Certainly
recognition and rewards is how we teach our children to do good. But to
give the reward of the power to restrict others from using the good you
have done is worse to those you say no to then had you not done good (for
the possibility that they or someone else to do the same good without
restriction, no longer exist.)
So the goal is to remove this problem while also keeping valuable
incentive in place for those who do the good. If more people are allowed
to use the good, then the good will do more good! From this it should be
recognize there needs to be an incentive to not restrict.
Exactly how to accomplish from where we are now (getting from a to b) is a
matter to be explored. The information I pointed you to just some concept
that might be applied in developing such a solution.
.