The problem with 'size of government' questions is that they're never up front about what they mean. I beleive in small government -- let's cut the military by 50%. That would REALLY make it smaller. We probably should cut expenditures on interstate highways and development of foriegn markets too. That's good small government. In most cases, 'size of government' is code for whether or not we ought to have social programs (for the middle-class and poor). If that's the question, then ask it plainly.
I'm thinking that what may be needed most in freeing library software are some new protocols we can demand vendors adhere to in RFPs. That would open up the wide world of library automation to alternate modules. If we can get free, or even 3rd party, software to interact reliably with our proprietary behemoths it'd be a huge win.
At that point, a 'market' might open up for development of free software to add functionality to proprietary systems, which in turn creates the possiblilty of (simple) free core systems which can take advantage of the new modules.
The obvious area for this kind of thing is in web (or other remote) access to library automation systems. Vendors are providing their own 'solutions' -- but with access to protocols, much more could and would be done. z39.50 will allow some of the things I'm thinking of, but only to a point. (And why's it always so slow?!)
You've worked on this a good deal -- do you see what I'm getting at? Any insights?
If I read it right, investment types have long thought that Corel was poorly managed and unresponsive to them. It was the same with Apple until recently.
Cowpland leaving looks like a good thing to me too. The company *is* very well positioned to be a commercial Linux software company, all the slagging comments here to the contrary. They have linux experience, talent, and code -- plus infrastructure/experience for big distribution and operations, and name recognition. Valuable assets still. But they haven't executed well, and, of course, there's no guarantee that they will. But the opportunity is still there if they can get their house back in order.
Censorship is dangerous, but this question doesn't have to be a binary yes/no. Let's look again at the problem.
We used to have human mediation for things like porn vis a vis young folks -- in varying degrees, of course, and hopefully not TOO much. And hopefully without puritanical attitudes. When kids saw porn, it was usually because someone effectively said: "You're not old enough yet, but I'll look away this time."
The internet does away with that message. One could argue that an adult should actually be there 'to look the other way', but there generally won't be, and I don't think it's implied. You surf alone. Now while there's some terrific freedom in that, without any software mediation it also contains the message "We don't care".
(For example, kids anxious to see a nipple or a penis can easily hit on ten cocks cumming into the mouth of a tied-up woman on her knees in simulated (?) pain. That's the reality. Is "We don't really care one way or the other" how we want to leave it?)
So what's the answer?
I think the answer has to be, or ought to be anyway, software which maintains an adult presence without being authoritarian. The software ought to 'ALERT'. Something like: "This site has been identified as adult-only, which we feel is inappropriate for this room. You may make your own decision about this. Click here to go back, or here to proceed. If you feel this site has been misidentified, please click here." You get the idea. The message is once again "I'll look away this time, judge for yourself. I'm here and I trust you." That's healthy, I think.
Contrary to the many of the posts here, I find that commercial filtering software does a very good job of blocking porn. The problem is that it also blocks huge swaths of non-porn and hides its operation and criteria when these should be plain. It should also be transparent to administrators as to exactly which sites/words/etc are being blocked -- something untrue of all the commercial products.
So developers, can we have an open, responsible, browsing alert? Please. We don't want to censor, but in certain cases we need to show a way to be progressive adults that gets beyond the 'unfiltered' vs. 'lockdown' debate.
My $.02. It seems Corel's getting squeezed by some bad timing. The Windows market has squeezed them out and the Linux market isn't big enough yet. If they had a ton of cash around, that might not be a problem. But they're a big company with weak finances. If they can keep it together for another year or two, they should do great. The market they seem to be after is Linux apps, an excellent choice, but a very small market for the time being. That'll change, but it may be changing slower than Corel had hoped.
New GUI's move beyond monitor and keyboard/mouse. Imagine you can do anything, then new gui's start to seem easy. How about a physical address book for browsing digital information? How about legos for file management? (Throw something in the trash like you mean it.) A clock-radio messaging device -- all extensions of the desktop machine. Pulling discreet functions into discreet objects is the key. My folks get really confused trying to work all these different functions on ONE interface, the monitor/kbd/mouse.
Here's a favorite of mine: Calm Technology (1995). A dangling string as 'gui' for network traffic. And a big recent gui improvement: the scrolling mouse. Not a huge thing, but yeah! That makes sense. We need to be ambitious about these things. Remember, it's supposed to be fun.
Sorry. 'Great' was too strong a word. He wrote some things are still in use and probably will be for a good while. I'll leave subjective evaluation out of it.
No. But 20 years isn't all that long. One thing that comes to mind is the recent news about South Korea executing 2000 leftists without trials. The US government knew about this and went to war to support the government there. (North Korea is no better, of course.) I won't even touch Columbia, Indonesia, Honduras, little Grenada, etc. etc.
Along with all the argument about taking Randism in vain, could we PLEASE show a little more respect for what anarchism has historically meant? (I'm talking to you, ESR.) Sure, if you want to redefine anarchism as free market capitalism I can't really stop you. But the anarchists who really put their work and their lives on the line for that name over the past century or so were ANTI-capitalist.
(Why? Because egalitarian free-association runs into problems in an economic system which gives people power based on their wealth. Just by way explanation. My main point is just to show a little respect. I don't recall any free-marketers being jailed or deported from the US for their beliefs.)
Looks to me like what I suspected all along: put head-to-head with someone who can really think in social-political arguments, ESR comes off like a upset and poorly thought through ideologue. That he happens to support a good cause and is an important programmer only explains his longevity. 'Cathedral' is ok as a tract, but junk as analysis.
.01: Most of the pros and cons discussed here hold, but I'll add that the libraries that I'm familiar with have all been adding public net access at a pretty brisk pace for the past year and will be for the forseeable future. Comments from people who travelled a year ago probably understate availability now or months from now.
.02: "Someone" should organize a site which collects data and reviews on public access to the net around the US, and the world. When people travel they could just hit that site really quick from their current locale to report. Shouldn't be hard to set up. Someone please. (I have no dedicated connection.)
Huh. I'd agree, then, he ought to. It's obvious what the imposter's intent is. If they want to use a pseudonym that's fine, but this is deliberate, and damages community trust.
Seems these disputes could be addressed on a case by case basis. Some kind of open proceedure (court) would be needed, and plainly is needed.
(As should be obvious, my post replied only to the content of the message, not the person. But that's beside the point of the imposter issue.)
Yes, banning things does tend to make people less mature about the proper handling of it, but is there really ever a proper handling of porn for children?
Sure. Porn is not appropriate for children, but they will see it -- if not at the library then somewhere else -- and not much at all if they don't look for it. Proper handling will differ from one child to the next, but I think it involves honesty and guidance in accord with the parent's values. It does not entail denying that porn is out there. Kids aren't stupid. And they can't be kept from discovering all that is good and bad in the world.
I believe that since humans interact by ways of speech, in order to close the gap between man and machine, we need to interact with the machine in the same way we interact with other humans. Speech.
Why? Machines aren't humans. Even intelligent machines aren't humans. Maybe speech is a good way to interact with machines, maybe not. But it doesn't follow that because people interact through speech (and voicing, and gesture, and touch, and a range of symbolic forms) that that's the best way to interact with a machine. We've certainly got a lot done on computers without VR so far.
Obviously, I have an opinion here. I think VR will succeed in some narrow domains, but for the most part, VR will be a bad fit. Carry a machine around for a day and talk to it. Try it for ten minutes even. Not pleasing.
It's been mentioned in a few nooks and cranies here, but I feel the need to say it plain: what Google implemented, namely, citation indexing, has been around for decades at least. It's a great library/information science tool, used to index scientific journal articles. It is not orginal as far as Google is concerned. Now, what they have done is created a very nice implementation for web pages. Whether that implentation can or should be patented is the question, and would that preclude other people from creating their own implentations of citation indexing for the web?
Worst case scenario: the idea of applying citation indexing to web pages gets patented. Not substantially different from patenting 'search engine' itself as a concept.
Just want to add my vote strongly on the handwritting side. A few points:
* I think most people have low expectations for handwritting recognition because the most they are familiar with is Graffiti. Graffiti is bunk. It's a highly circumscribed gesture system. Special characters, one at a time, not 'in place' on the screen, no visible ink. There's some acceptable reasons that Palm chose it when they did, but real handwriting recognition is something else entirely. Expect it to read your writting with 99.9% ease and accuracy, and within a couple years we'll be there.
* HWR is not for desktops, it's for portable devices. Keyboards are easier for most everyone when they are practical. That said, there's at least one place where good HWR really excels, and that's with form based info. Sure you can tab between items with a keyboard easily enough, but there's nothing more intuitive than writing information _where it goes_. It's fluid.
* Voice recognition has its place, but it's also a drag. I remember reading an interview with Jeff Hawkins (Palm/Handsping) where he describes trying out handheld voice recognition by talking to a dummy handheld for a day. Drove him crazy. I think that goes for most people. Try it for 15 minutes yourself, especially with other people around. Now compare that to writing with a stylus. Our technologies should be graceful, not vulgar (I say). That's how I'd characterize the two. (To elaborate: yes, there is nothing more natural than speech. But talking is not a data input device, and if a friend ever spoke to me that way I'd probably hit them.)
The CIC news is great. Handhelds are probably _behind_ where you'd think they would be by now. I'm sure some Linux competition will get things moving again...
I have no special knowledge of this, but I'm sceptical...
SDI was wholy consistent with the military atmosphere of the Reagan administration. Namely, don't worry about cost, feasibility, or even need -- the $$ all goes to our contractor friends anyway. And besides, wouldn't it be GREAT if we could nuke those gaddam ruskies without worrying about any bombs landing here! The USSR was rightly worried that if the US succeeded they'd find themselves at the business end of a nuclear first strike.
Interestingly, George W. has started talking about SDI again too. Presumably the pretext is 'rouge states' -- but again, the more likely reason is that he's fine with transferring $$ to defense contractors and he'd really like it to work -- it would allow the US to use nukes as it suits us.
the philosophy that a distribution uses is very significant to those that are picking out a distribution for the first time.
Makes sense. Care to sum up the philos of the major distros for me? I have a sense of them, but have only used LinuxPPC and need to select one to install on a friends x86 machine. Thanks!
I don't think people think of Linux as an "American" project now that Linus has moved here, nor do I believe for one minute that his departure has lessened the appeal of hacking in his native country... The fact that some will leave for well paid jobs abroad would seem to be a source of inspiration for would be hackers since these people become "sucessful" role models.
The problem with brain drain is that coders, scientists, etc in places like Mexico City (fer ex.) don't have the very best and brightest around to hang out with, learn from, and mutually inspire.
There's value in concentrating talent -- hence Silicon Valley -- but after a certain point, density produces high returns for individuals (careerism, if you like -- and yes, we're all entitled to some), but diminishing social returns. By supporting individuals who want to work outside of the US, we develop new sites of concentrated talent, which begin to self-perpetuate. Eventually, not one big mess of Silicon Valley, but literally dozens or even hundreds of unique centers around the world.
But I don't think this happens magically by 'market forces'. People have to decide where to invest their time and $$, and 'early adopters' of other places may not see as much $$ return either short or long term. So there's a tension between the social interest and the individual one.
I agree. I'm happy and sad to see this move for Miguel.
A while back I nominated MdI for Linux PR figurehead. (Not an ESR fan, sorry.) It was pointed out that however qualified he was for the job, he couldn't perform it fully from Mexico. So for this I'm glad. Hopefully he'll find time and inclination to represent.
Practically speaking, it's obvious why this is a good move for MdI, but like uradu above, I'm a little sad to see it. Linux has been developed internationally from day one. No one doubts that it can be done.
Diversity is healthy (ask an evolutionary biologist). Working in different cultural settings produces different work. I respect MdI's personal decision, but I hope we can take the long-view that there is value in developing talent in more places than one. (U.S. VCs, are you listening?)
That didn't sound like much of an argument to me. "Know how much I'm making = fair". Huh?
The fact is, sales taxes are flat and represent a much greater burden for lower income folks than for the rich. Income taxes at least have the promise of being progressively assessed. That's why you see so many rich folk who want to do away with income tax. Of course they'd rather fund government at the same rate as the minimum wage worker. (And don't pretend for a minute that the rich use government services any less than the poor. Please.)
Remember, your employer is, on the one hand, the manager you see around, who may care deeply about their employees; your employer is, on the other hand, the company's owners who care about ROI and not much else. If treating you with respect is more profitable, great, if not, tough. So who do you want to work for again?
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with 'size of government' questions is that they're never up front about what they mean. I beleive in small government -- let's cut the military by 50%. That would REALLY make it smaller. We probably should cut expenditures on interstate highways and development of foriegn markets too. That's good small government. In most cases, 'size of government' is code for whether or not we ought to have social programs (for the middle-class and poor). If that's the question, then ask it plainly.
First, thanks for a quality post.
I'm thinking that what may be needed most in freeing library software are some new protocols we can demand vendors adhere to in RFPs. That would open up the wide world of library automation to alternate modules. If we can get free, or even 3rd party, software to interact reliably with our proprietary behemoths it'd be a huge win.
At that point, a 'market' might open up for development of free software to add functionality to proprietary systems, which in turn creates the possiblilty of (simple) free core systems which can take advantage of the new modules.
The obvious area for this kind of thing is in web (or other remote) access to library automation systems. Vendors are providing their own 'solutions' -- but with access to protocols, much more could and would be done. z39.50 will allow some of the things I'm thinking of, but only to a point. (And why's it always so slow?!)
You've worked on this a good deal -- do you see what I'm getting at? Any insights?
If I read it right, investment types have long thought that Corel was poorly managed and unresponsive to them. It was the same with Apple until recently.
Cowpland leaving looks like a good thing to me too. The company *is* very well positioned to be a commercial Linux software company, all the slagging comments here to the contrary. They have linux experience, talent, and code -- plus infrastructure/experience for big distribution and operations, and name recognition. Valuable assets still. But they haven't executed well, and, of course, there's no guarantee that they will. But the opportunity is still there if they can get their house back in order.
Censorship is dangerous, but this question doesn't have to be a binary yes/no. Let's look again at the problem.
We used to have human mediation for things like porn vis a vis young folks -- in varying degrees, of course, and hopefully not TOO much. And hopefully without puritanical attitudes. When kids saw porn, it was usually because someone effectively said: "You're not old enough yet, but I'll look away this time."
The internet does away with that message. One could argue that an adult should actually be there 'to look the other way', but there generally won't be, and I don't think it's implied. You surf alone. Now while there's some terrific freedom in that, without any software mediation it also contains the message "We don't care".
(For example, kids anxious to see a nipple or a penis can easily hit on ten cocks cumming into the mouth of a tied-up woman on her knees in simulated (?) pain. That's the reality. Is "We don't really care one way or the other" how we want to leave it?)
So what's the answer?
I think the answer has to be, or ought to be anyway, software which maintains an adult presence without being authoritarian. The software ought to 'ALERT'. Something like: "This site has been identified as adult-only, which we feel is inappropriate for this room. You may make your own decision about this. Click here to go back, or here to proceed. If you feel this site has been misidentified, please click here." You get the idea. The message is once again "I'll look away this time, judge for yourself. I'm here and I trust you." That's healthy, I think.
Contrary to the many of the posts here, I find that commercial filtering software does a very good job of blocking porn. The problem is that it also blocks huge swaths of non-porn and hides its operation and criteria when these should be plain. It should also be transparent to administrators as to exactly which sites/words/etc are being blocked -- something untrue of all the commercial products.
So developers, can we have an open, responsible, browsing alert? Please. We don't want to censor, but in certain cases we need to show a way to be progressive adults that gets beyond the 'unfiltered' vs. 'lockdown' debate.
A good analysis of the group of candidates as a whole is in the latest Cyber-Federalist Newsletter (Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility and Internet Democracy Project):u mber_4.html
http://www.cpsr.org/internetdemocracy/cyber-fed/N
My $.02. It seems Corel's getting squeezed by some bad timing. The Windows market has squeezed them out and the Linux market isn't big enough yet. If they had a ton of cash around, that might not be a problem. But they're a big company with weak finances. If they can keep it together for another year or two, they should do great. The market they seem to be after is Linux apps, an excellent choice, but a very small market for the time being. That'll change, but it may be changing slower than Corel had hoped.
Here's a favorite of mine: Calm Technology (1995). A dangling string as 'gui' for network traffic. And a big recent gui improvement: the scrolling mouse. Not a huge thing, but yeah! That makes sense. We need to be ambitious about these things. Remember, it's supposed to be fun.
Sorry. 'Great' was too strong a word. He wrote some things are still in use and probably will be for a good while. I'll leave subjective evaluation out of it.
No. But 20 years isn't all that long. One thing that comes to mind is the recent news about South Korea executing 2000 leftists without trials. The US government knew about this and went to war to support the government there. (North Korea is no better, of course.) I won't even touch Columbia, Indonesia, Honduras, little Grenada, etc. etc.
Along with all the argument about taking Randism in vain, could we PLEASE show a little more respect for what anarchism has historically meant? (I'm talking to you, ESR.) Sure, if you want to redefine anarchism as free market capitalism I can't really stop you. But the anarchists who really put their work and their lives on the line for that name over the past century or so were ANTI-capitalist.
(Why? Because egalitarian free-association runs into problems in an economic system which gives people power based on their wealth. Just by way explanation. My main point is just to show a little respect. I don't recall any free-marketers being jailed or deported from the US for their beliefs.)
Looks to me like what I suspected all along: put head-to-head with someone who can really think in social-political arguments, ESR comes off like a upset and poorly thought through ideologue. That he happens to support a good cause and is an important programmer only explains his longevity. 'Cathedral' is ok as a tract, but junk as analysis.
Am I the only one that noticed that this was basicly just the latest John Hughes movie?
Agreed. I'm suggesting that some other proceedure may be appropriate.
I don't think I'd want to set a precedent that could lead to more difficult decisions later on
But more difficult decisions will come along. Let's practice resolving them while they're simpler.
As another public librarian, I'll add my $.02.
.01: Most of the pros and cons discussed here hold, but I'll add that the libraries that I'm familiar with have all been adding public net access at a pretty brisk pace for the past year and will be for the forseeable future. Comments from people who travelled a year ago probably understate availability now or months from now.
.02: "Someone" should organize a site which collects data and reviews on public access to the net around the US, and the world. When people travel they could just hit that site really quick from their current locale to report. Shouldn't be hard to set up. Someone please. (I have no dedicated connection.)
Huh. I'd agree, then, he ought to. It's obvious what the imposter's intent is. If they want to use a pseudonym that's fine, but this is deliberate, and damages community trust.
Seems these disputes could be addressed on a case by case basis. Some kind of open proceedure (court) would be needed, and plainly is needed.
(As should be obvious, my post replied only to the content of the message, not the person. But that's beside the point of the imposter issue.)
Sure. Porn is not appropriate for children, but they will see it -- if not at the library then somewhere else -- and not much at all if they don't look for it. Proper handling will differ from one child to the next, but I think it involves honesty and guidance in accord with the parent's values. It does not entail denying that porn is out there. Kids aren't stupid. And they can't be kept from discovering all that is good and bad in the world.
Why? Machines aren't humans. Even intelligent machines aren't humans. Maybe speech is a good way to interact with machines, maybe not. But it doesn't follow that because people interact through speech (and voicing, and gesture, and touch, and a range of symbolic forms) that that's the best way to interact with a machine. We've certainly got a lot done on computers without VR so far.
Obviously, I have an opinion here. I think VR will succeed in some narrow domains, but for the most part, VR will be a bad fit. Carry a machine around for a day and talk to it. Try it for ten minutes even. Not pleasing.
It's been mentioned in a few nooks and cranies here, but I feel the need to say it plain: what Google implemented, namely, citation indexing, has been around for decades at least. It's a great library/information science tool, used to index scientific journal articles. It is not orginal as far as Google is concerned. Now, what they have done is created a very nice implementation for web pages. Whether that implentation can or should be patented is the question, and would that preclude other people from creating their own implentations of citation indexing for the web?
Worst case scenario: the idea of applying citation indexing to web pages gets patented. Not substantially different from patenting 'search engine' itself as a concept.
Just want to add my vote strongly on the handwritting side. A few points:
* I think most people have low expectations for handwritting recognition because the most they are familiar with is Graffiti. Graffiti is bunk. It's a highly circumscribed gesture system. Special characters, one at a time, not 'in place' on the screen, no visible ink. There's some acceptable reasons that Palm chose it when they did, but real handwriting recognition is something else entirely. Expect it to read your writting with 99.9% ease and accuracy, and within a couple years we'll be there.
* HWR is not for desktops, it's for portable devices. Keyboards are easier for most everyone when they are practical. That said, there's at least one place where good HWR really excels, and that's with form based info. Sure you can tab between items with a keyboard easily enough, but there's nothing more intuitive than writing information _where it goes_. It's fluid.
* Voice recognition has its place, but it's also a drag. I remember reading an interview with Jeff Hawkins (Palm/Handsping) where he describes trying out handheld voice recognition by talking to a dummy handheld for a day. Drove him crazy. I think that goes for most people. Try it for 15 minutes yourself, especially with other people around. Now compare that to writing with a stylus. Our technologies should be graceful, not vulgar (I say). That's how I'd characterize the two. (To elaborate: yes, there is nothing more natural than speech. But talking is not a data input device, and if a friend ever spoke to me that way I'd probably hit them.)
The CIC news is great. Handhelds are probably _behind_ where you'd think they would be by now. I'm sure some Linux competition will get things moving again...
I have no special knowledge of this, but I'm sceptical...
SDI was wholy consistent with the military atmosphere of the Reagan administration. Namely, don't worry about cost, feasibility, or even need -- the $$ all goes to our contractor friends anyway. And besides, wouldn't it be GREAT if we could nuke those gaddam ruskies without worrying about any bombs landing here! The USSR was rightly worried that if the US succeeded they'd find themselves at the business end of a nuclear first strike.
Interestingly, George W. has started talking about SDI again too. Presumably the pretext is 'rouge states' -- but again, the more likely reason is that he's fine with transferring $$ to defense contractors and he'd really like it to work -- it would allow the US to use nukes as it suits us.
Makes sense. Care to sum up the philos of the major distros for me? I have a sense of them, but have only used LinuxPPC and need to select one to install on a friends x86 machine. Thanks!
The problem with brain drain is that coders, scientists, etc in places like Mexico City (fer ex.) don't have the very best and brightest around to hang out with, learn from, and mutually inspire.
There's value in concentrating talent -- hence Silicon Valley -- but after a certain point, density produces high returns for individuals (careerism, if you like -- and yes, we're all entitled to some), but diminishing social returns. By supporting individuals who want to work outside of the US, we develop new sites of concentrated talent, which begin to self-perpetuate. Eventually, not one big mess of Silicon Valley, but literally dozens or even hundreds of unique centers around the world.
But I don't think this happens magically by 'market forces'. People have to decide where to invest their time and $$, and 'early adopters' of other places may not see as much $$ return either short or long term. So there's a tension between the social interest and the individual one.
I agree. I'm happy and sad to see this move for Miguel.
A while back I nominated MdI for Linux PR figurehead. (Not an ESR fan, sorry.) It was pointed out that however qualified he was for the job, he couldn't perform it fully from Mexico. So for this I'm glad. Hopefully he'll find time and inclination to represent.
Practically speaking, it's obvious why this is a good move for MdI, but like uradu above, I'm a little sad to see it. Linux has been developed internationally from day one. No one doubts that it can be done.
Diversity is healthy (ask an evolutionary biologist). Working in different cultural settings produces different work. I respect MdI's personal decision, but I hope we can take the long-view that there is value in developing talent in more places than one. (U.S. VCs, are you listening?)
The fact is, sales taxes are flat and represent a much greater burden for lower income folks than for the rich. Income taxes at least have the promise of being progressively assessed. That's why you see so many rich folk who want to do away with income tax. Of course they'd rather fund government at the same rate as the minimum wage worker. (And don't pretend for a minute that the rich use government services any less than the poor. Please.)
Remember, your employer is, on the one hand, the manager you see around, who may care deeply about their employees; your employer is, on the other hand, the company's owners who care about ROI and not much else. If treating you with respect is more profitable, great, if not, tough. So who do you want to work for again?