What I find most interesting in these great speeches about freedom of information, like what I read in http://www.creativecommons.org/, is that the more strict legislation over what you can do is passed, the more people react to it.
When we were feeling sad about the state of copyright law, feeling that nothing would never enter public domain and become humanity's propery, there comes all these people sharing because they want to. Everything is automagically copyrighted? Fine. I'll explicitly license it to everybody. What are you evil people going to do, tell me I can't license what is mine?
Give them (or us, as I write a little free software here and there) twenty years more; the body of freely licensed knowledge will be so huge there won't be any benefit in anything proprietary. There will be so many musicians and artists licensing their cool stuff that we won't need to infringe on anyone's copyright to listen to good music. Those that try to say "Hey, come here and buy the right to hear this song" will face the question "Why? There's so many free stuff to hear I actually haven't got the time".
The last time I bought a CD was more than two years ago, because they're expensive. But I gladly buy very expensive beer and pay the artist's fee at this jazz cafe I go almost every week. The music is just too good.
I don't understand the problem with XML. I mean, if this format of data-storing was that bad, why the hell is SGML being used to this day?
Anyway, the point of XML is not to automagically be meaningful for every computer software, it is to be parseable by every computer software. At least, for every XML parser computer software.
It means you will be able to feed it into a DOM tree and analyze it no matter what schema it conforms to -- no matter how many schemas it conforms to either -- hell, if you're nice to it, you may even find *parts* of it you (the software) can understand. This is achieved by the single fact that the document is XML. Nevermind, at first, if it is valid.
Based on this fact, you may have documents on the Web that carry semantically meaningful information for a variety of "clients" that are still readable by other clients without needing a parser full of special-exceptions-found-in-practice quirks mode.
With that in mind, people are encouraged to add semantic information to their (XHTML or whatever) pages, knowing that at the very least, it will be ignored. Slowly, this will increase, and "semantic web enable" browsers will offer some neat stuff based on it. Like that Mozilla extension that verifies it a page is licensed under a Creative Commons license.
Well, about number 1, you shouldn't be using document.write() anyway. You are *not* writing to stdout.
You are altering the DOM tree of a XML or HTML document. You should be creating nodes with document.createStuff() and deleting and inserting nodes in the tree.
I'd say that this stuff would be too complicated for 12 year olds learning to code, though.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm saying you should read the post, and the quote therein, to assess if the article is worth reading.
What I find most interesting in these great speeches about freedom of information, like what I read in http://www.creativecommons.org/, is that the more strict legislation over what you can do is passed, the more people react to it.
When we were feeling sad about the state of copyright law, feeling that nothing would never enter public domain and become humanity's propery, there comes all these people sharing because they want to. Everything is automagically copyrighted? Fine. I'll explicitly license it to everybody. What are you evil people going to do, tell me I can't license what is mine?
Give them (or us, as I write a little free software here and there) twenty years more; the body of freely licensed knowledge will be so huge there won't be any benefit in anything proprietary. There will be so many musicians and artists licensing their cool stuff that we won't need to infringe on anyone's copyright to listen to good music. Those that try to say "Hey, come here and buy the right to hear this song" will face the question "Why? There's so many free stuff to hear I actually haven't got the time".
The last time I bought a CD was more than two years ago, because they're expensive. But I gladly buy very expensive beer and pay the artist's fee at this jazz cafe I go almost every week. The music is just too good.
Well, Slashdot articles usually carry these links to stories about the subject you can read...
The way you put it, we should tell who is speaking so people can assess if it's worth listening.
But I'd expect this is the purpose of the quote.
I don't understand the problem with XML.
I mean, if this format of data-storing was that bad, why the hell is SGML being used to this day?
Anyway, the point of XML is not to automagically be meaningful for every computer software, it is to be parseable by every computer software. At least, for every XML parser computer software.
It means you will be able to feed it into a DOM tree and analyze it no matter what schema it conforms to -- no matter how many schemas it conforms to either -- hell, if you're nice to it, you may even find *parts* of it you (the software) can understand. This is achieved by the single fact that the document is XML. Nevermind, at first, if it is valid.
Based on this fact, you may have documents on the Web that carry semantically meaningful information for a variety of "clients" that are still readable by other clients without needing a parser full of special-exceptions-found-in-practice quirks mode.
With that in mind, people are encouraged to add semantic information to their (XHTML or whatever) pages, knowing that at the very least, it will be ignored. Slowly, this will increase, and "semantic web enable" browsers will offer some neat stuff based on it. Like that Mozilla extension that verifies it a page is licensed under a Creative Commons license.
In Firefox, you're redirected to Google if you type such things as "ugh" or "linux rulez". Those are obviously search keywords.
If you type "www.no-such-domain.com" you're not redirected to Google, as the parent post says.
Well, about number 1, you shouldn't be using document.write() anyway. You are *not* writing to stdout.
You are altering the DOM tree of a XML or HTML document. You should be creating nodes with document.createStuff() and deleting and inserting nodes in the tree.
I'd say that this stuff would be too complicated for 12 year olds learning to code, though.