There are a zillion different things going on on the web every moment. Even if you were to successfully implement your program, you'd have to get users, most of whom are wholly uninterested in finding web resources, to use the Semantic web system. Essentially, you'd become just another niche in an infinite universe of niches.
At this point in time it would be practically impossible to backtrack to a systematically laid out web. Probably the best you could do is simulate one using a search engine that constantly sought and categorized pages intelligently. Even then, you'd have to convince people to use your search engine, which, unless you really provide a superior one like Google or a deep catalog like Yahoo!, would be pretty hard to do.
Reminds me of a story...
Tim was a software designer, he designed the coolest technology and its use spread to all corners of the world. People used his technology to share ideas and conduct business. With different people pulling his technology in a hundred directions at once, his technology grew and became chaotic and beautiful. Unfortunately, the information was becoming factioned and harder to find for Tim.
To seek a remedy he went to the council of shamans and asked for help. "The solution to your information problem is easy. You only need to apply a systematic storage structure to your technology," said the council chief. The chief waved a bloody chicken over Tim's head and spat on him several times then handed him a goosedown pillow. "Take this pillow to the top of Mt. Shasta. Once there, shake out all the feathers into the wind. Return with your results."
Tim left and did as the shaman said and returned with the empty pillowcase. "I emptied the pillow of feathers, but I still don't understand what this has to do with applying a systematic storage structure to my technology," he said to the shamans.
"Then go back to the top of the mountain and put all the feathers back into the pillowcase."
I just think it's pathetic when the whole point of your study is showing someone else is wrong, rather that searching out new truth. I honestly believe that most of these therapeutic touch therapists are interested in helping people, even if their science is a bit wacky. Whatever... I hope you excuse me while I spend time learning how to treat people with Love and Respect, not hatred and disdain.
Which shows you respect a patient more? To fool a person into believing something false or to reveal a practice as quackery?
Isn't scamming people in their last days the ultimate sign of disrespect?
It is definitely a matter of perspective. Flooding a street with cow dung is quite a bit more annoying to residents than the spreading of it over a corn field (although the farmer would probably want to know what the hell you were doing). One man's trash is another man's (or planet's, in this case) treasure.
I saw something on Discovery or Nova a while back, which is why I mentioned it. It certainly is counterintuitive that in order to make a landscape more hospitable, we have to pollute it.
Assuming that these geothermal heat sources could supply heat and power to colonies, the lack of temperate atmosphere would make long term survival nearly impossible. Without some form of agriculture, food supplies would quickly run out.
It may turn out that we will need to take our most polluting power generators up there with us just to improve the atmosphere.:-)
What needs to be guarded against are patents that stifle innovation by being so broad as to block all comers. Just as an example, take GemStar as an example. They patented the displaying of TV listings onscreen. Now it is effectively impossible to come up with a similar system that does not infringe on their patent.
The idea that software is not patentable at all is really a step backward. As much as we may bitch and moan about how stupid the One-Click patent may be, is it so much different than an invention that allows one-button starting of a car? Whether or not either patent would be valid is another story, but the fact remains that few would have qualms issuing the second patent. The difference is merely the distance between tangible space and electronic space.
Now should patents be applied to software products? That is a different question. The One-Click patent should clearly explain the process involved in creating a working system (whether through actual source code or through a series of diagrams). In this way, the idea of a one-click system is still open for innovation by other developers who wish to seek new ways of improving on the idea. To prematurely close off a whole area of software by issuing a broad patent would be a bad thing.
Unfortunately, the forces of good aren't coming together on this project. Not to take anything away from Sony's evilness, but the presence of Toshiba as DRAM provider points to an evil lurking underneath. Yep, Rambus.
With this IP leech sucking on the DRAM supply, driving prices up at every turn, users are forced into paying the Rambus tax.
Seriously, though... This is quite like the/. story about the magnetically propelled projectiles. In the end, it looks like electromagnetism has the ability to produce more instantaneous force than ye olde combustion engine.
Will the Chechnyans get their cellular phone service back?
Will their service be restored before the Russians move in?
Will Boris Yeltsin bring a revolution in bra-snapping techniques?
What does society need? It needs information that is truly available to its citizens---for example, programs that people can read, fix, adapt, and improve, not just operate. But what software owners typically deliver is a black box that we can't study or change.
Society also needs freedom. When a program has an owner, the users lose freedom to control part of their own lives.
Sounds like the FSF would like nothing more than the abolition of copyright (at least as far as software is concerned).
I don't see what the FSF or the GPL have to do with ownership of software.
It has everything to do with ownership of software.
Whether no one owns software or everyone owns software, the effect is the same.
Fuzzily or not, if the FSF were to succeed and copyrights were abolished, I would have full rights to any information that I could lay my eyes upon. In essence, I would *own* everything that I could copy. Of course I would be limited in my ownership insofar as everyone else would have the same ability to share "my" work.
So, does the GPL give me ownership (per se) of my copy of Linux? No. Is the central theme of the FSF user ownership of software? Yes.
A web pr0n pioneer gets $10,000? What was I doing? I've been viewing web pr0n since my first dialup account in college (remember Slipknot?). I should have remembered this...
The idea that you own a work that you had no hand in creating
There's nothing like this in the GPL or the FSF's philosophy.
Really? I have a copy of SuSE Linux at home. I own that copy. I could make minor changes (or even no changes) and redistribute it as Dancin Santa Linux. I don't own just the CD, but all the contents too. The GPL may require me to jump through a hoop or two (distribute with source and GPL), but for all intents and purposes I have full control over this software. I have full copyright privileges as spelled out in the GPL. So does everyone else that uses a GPL'd piece of code.
You are right, of course, that arguing with religious zealots is pointless (though my own religiousity is showing through rather clearly). However, when arguing whether one philosophy is "better" than another, it is only temporal effects that can be successfully argued.
What are the temporal effects of copyright? Essentially, it allows the creator (or his holding company) the sole discretion in the reproduction of his work, which in turn makes the copyright holder the primary distributor of it. As such, the copyright holder has the right to dictate (to himself) the terms of distribution. Reproducing the work, whether electronically or not, and distributing it is a direct violation of the copyright. Of course, there are fair use issues that need to be dealt with, but the crux of the matter is that violating copyright is illegal and a violation of the copyright holder's rights.
Gnutella, Freenet, even napster, are existant proof that not everyone shares your worldview.
That there are people who want something for nothing is no surprise. There are many people who wouldn't break into a storefront under normal circumstances, but will loot nonetheless during a riot. Because an action is easy and the likelihood of getting away with it is high does not make an action any less wrong.
Maybe, just maybe, the whole point is that the notion of anyone owning or controlling *any* information is simply wrong.
Maybe, just maybe, the fact that I created something gives me the right to dictate the terms of distribution.
This has an economic impact on the value of the work created. It is now worth less...Maybe they will only get $.25 per song downloaded
Your head is so deep in the sand that you don't even realize that you are contradicting yourself. Something that has no value will not be paid for, and anyone who expects to be paid for something worthless is deceiving themselves.
However, a work of art (whether it be music, art, or software) has value because of both the amount of time and energy the creator put into creating it and its value resulting from its utility. To create an environment that does not reward creators, by artificially forcing all works to be freely available by some means, results in a removal of some of the incentive to create.
Just because the method of reproduction and distribution of information makes it incredibly cheap and easy, you do not automatically get a Right to reproduce and distribute works that are not yours. You get that right when the creator of the work allows you to, which is to say if the creator releases his work under a license like the GPL or into the public domain.
Slashdot Mirror
There are a zillion different things going on on the web every moment. Even if you were to successfully implement your program, you'd have to get users, most of whom are wholly uninterested in finding web resources, to use the Semantic web system. Essentially, you'd become just another niche in an infinite universe of niches.
At this point in time it would be practically impossible to backtrack to a systematically laid out web. Probably the best you could do is simulate one using a search engine that constantly sought and categorized pages intelligently. Even then, you'd have to convince people to use your search engine, which, unless you really provide a superior one like Google or a deep catalog like Yahoo!, would be pretty hard to do.
Reminds me of a story...
Tim was a software designer, he designed the coolest technology and its use spread to all corners of the world. People used his technology to share ideas and conduct business. With different people pulling his technology in a hundred directions at once, his technology grew and became chaotic and beautiful. Unfortunately, the information was becoming factioned and harder to find for Tim.
To seek a remedy he went to the council of shamans and asked for help. "The solution to your information problem is easy. You only need to apply a systematic storage structure to your technology," said the council chief. The chief waved a bloody chicken over Tim's head and spat on him several times then handed him a goosedown pillow. "Take this pillow to the top of Mt. Shasta. Once there, shake out all the feathers into the wind. Return with your results."
Tim left and did as the shaman said and returned with the empty pillowcase. "I emptied the pillow of feathers, but I still don't understand what this has to do with applying a systematic storage structure to my technology," he said to the shamans.
"Then go back to the top of the mountain and put all the feathers back into the pillowcase."
Dancin Santa
I think you'll find yourself doing it. Mainly because if you don't do it, it will be easy to find someone who will.
Someone who's already got it in their head to use Spam as a marketing tool is beyond reason.
Dancin Santa
Now if they would only look into unmanned solutions. This might become cost effective.
Dancin Santa
My internet connection just went down over Minneapolis!
Dancin Santa
It's the waking up in time to get there. The stress levels aren't so high, but Man, dragging myself out of bed in the A.M. is just torture.
Of course I only work one day a year, but you know where I'm coming from.
Dancin Santa
I just think it's pathetic when the whole point of your study is showing someone else is wrong, rather that searching out new truth.
I honestly believe that most of these therapeutic touch therapists are interested in helping people, even if their science is a bit wacky.
Whatever... I hope you excuse me while I spend time learning how to treat people with Love and Respect, not hatred and disdain.
Which shows you respect a patient more? To fool a person into believing something false or to reveal a practice as quackery?
Isn't scamming people in their last days the ultimate sign of disrespect?
Maybe our definitions of Respect are different.
Dancin Santa
It is definitely a matter of perspective. Flooding a street with cow dung is quite a bit more annoying to residents than the spreading of it over a corn field (although the farmer would probably want to know what the hell you were doing). One man's trash is another man's (or planet's, in this case) treasure.
Dancin Santa
I saw something on Discovery or Nova a while back, which is why I mentioned it. It certainly is counterintuitive that in order to make a landscape more hospitable, we have to pollute it.
Dancin Santa
Assuming that these geothermal heat sources could supply heat and power to colonies, the lack of temperate atmosphere would make long term survival nearly impossible. Without some form of agriculture, food supplies would quickly run out.
:-)
It may turn out that we will need to take our most polluting power generators up there with us just to improve the atmosphere.
Dancin Santa
What needs to be guarded against are patents that stifle innovation by being so broad as to block all comers. Just as an example, take GemStar as an example. They patented the displaying of TV listings onscreen. Now it is effectively impossible to come up with a similar system that does not infringe on their patent.
Dancin Santa
The idea that software is not patentable at all is really a step backward. As much as we may bitch and moan about how stupid the One-Click patent may be, is it so much different than an invention that allows one-button starting of a car? Whether or not either patent would be valid is another story, but the fact remains that few would have qualms issuing the second patent. The difference is merely the distance between tangible space and electronic space.
Now should patents be applied to software products? That is a different question. The One-Click patent should clearly explain the process involved in creating a working system (whether through actual source code or through a series of diagrams). In this way, the idea of a one-click system is still open for innovation by other developers who wish to seek new ways of improving on the idea. To prematurely close off a whole area of software by issuing a broad patent would be a bad thing.
Dancin Santa
If you're buying SDRAM from anyone other than Micron, Infineon, or Samsung, you're paying the Rambus tax.
www.rambusite.com
Dancin Santa
Unfortunately, the forces of good aren't coming together on this project. Not to take anything away from Sony's evilness, but the presence of Toshiba as DRAM provider points to an evil lurking underneath. Yep, Rambus.
With this IP leech sucking on the DRAM supply, driving prices up at every turn, users are forced into paying the Rambus tax.
Dancin Santa
How does it compare to the hacked Powerwheels?
/. story about the magnetically propelled projectiles. In the end, it looks like electromagnetism has the ability to produce more instantaneous force than ye olde combustion engine.
Seriously, though... This is quite like the
Dancin Santa
You can do that now. It's called "riding the bus".
Dancin Santa
Will the Chechnyans get their cellular phone service back?
Will their service be restored before the Russians move in?
Will Boris Yeltsin bring a revolution in bra-snapping techniques?
Stay tuned true believers!
Dancin Santa
Which just makes me all the more bitter... ;-)
We wouldn't want to give the illusion of frequent downtime, would we?
Who said anything about abolishing copyrights?
What does society need? It needs information that is truly available to its citizens---for example, programs that people can read, fix, adapt, and improve, not just operate. But what software owners typically deliver is a black box that we can't study or change.
Society also needs freedom. When a program has an owner, the users lose freedom to control part of their own lives.
Sounds like the FSF would like nothing more than the abolition of copyright (at least as far as software is concerned).
I don't see what the FSF or the GPL have to do with ownership of software.
It has everything to do with ownership of software.
Whether no one owns software or everyone owns software, the effect is the same.
Dancin Santa
Fuzzily or not, if the FSF were to succeed and copyrights were abolished, I would have full rights to any information that I could lay my eyes upon. In essence, I would *own* everything that I could copy. Of course I would be limited in my ownership insofar as everyone else would have the same ability to share "my" work.
So, does the GPL give me ownership (per se) of my copy of Linux? No. Is the central theme of the FSF user ownership of software? Yes.
Dancin Santa
A web pr0n pioneer gets $10,000? What was I doing? I've been viewing web pr0n since my first dialup account in college (remember Slipknot?). I should have remembered this...
Dancin Santa
The idea that you own a work that you had no hand in creating
There's nothing like this in the GPL or the FSF's philosophy.
Really? I have a copy of SuSE Linux at home. I own that copy. I could make minor changes (or even no changes) and redistribute it as Dancin Santa Linux. I don't own just the CD, but all the contents too. The GPL may require me to jump through a hoop or two (distribute with source and GPL), but for all intents and purposes I have full control over this software. I have full copyright privileges as spelled out in the GPL. So does everyone else that uses a GPL'd piece of code.
Dancin Santa
You are right, of course, that arguing with religious zealots is pointless (though my own religiousity is showing through rather clearly). However, when arguing whether one philosophy is "better" than another, it is only temporal effects that can be successfully argued.
What are the temporal effects of copyright? Essentially, it allows the creator (or his holding company) the sole discretion in the reproduction of his work, which in turn makes the copyright holder the primary distributor of it. As such, the copyright holder has the right to dictate (to himself) the terms of distribution. Reproducing the work, whether electronically or not, and distributing it is a direct violation of the copyright. Of course, there are fair use issues that need to be dealt with, but the crux of the matter is that violating copyright is illegal and a violation of the copyright holder's rights.
Gnutella, Freenet, even napster, are existant proof that not everyone shares your worldview.
That there are people who want something for nothing is no surprise. There are many people who wouldn't break into a storefront under normal circumstances, but will loot nonetheless during a riot. Because an action is easy and the likelihood of getting away with it is high does not make an action any less wrong.
Dancin Santa
Maybe, just maybe, the whole point is that the notion of anyone owning or controlling *any* information is simply wrong.
Maybe, just maybe, the fact that I created something gives me the right to dictate the terms of distribution.
This has an economic impact on the value of the work created. It is now worth less...Maybe they will only get $.25 per song downloaded
Your head is so deep in the sand that you don't even realize that you are contradicting yourself. Something that has no value will not be paid for, and anyone who expects to be paid for something worthless is deceiving themselves.
However, a work of art (whether it be music, art, or software) has value because of both the amount of time and energy the creator put into creating it and its value resulting from its utility. To create an environment that does not reward creators, by artificially forcing all works to be freely available by some means, results in a removal of some of the incentive to create.
Just because the method of reproduction and distribution of information makes it incredibly cheap and easy, you do not automatically get a Right to reproduce and distribute works that are not yours. You get that right when the creator of the work allows you to, which is to say if the creator releases his work under a license like the GPL or into the public domain.
Dancin Santa
Linus: I've created this little OS that's just like Unix, but built from the ground up. I bet you could do a lot of different things with it!
L'Eggs: We've created this great pantyhose that makes your legs shine and it doesn't run!
Napster: We've created an area for you to distribute your MP3s. Just type in the name of the artist you are looking for, and voila! Free music!
Only one of those was designed with its primary purpose being to break the law.
Dancin Santa