I went on a sky tour at the Davis Mountain Observatory of the University of Texas. The instructor used a laser pointer, just like that one, to point out features in the night sky.
Of course, this was out in the middle of nowhere outside of congested airspace.
I am sure they won't ban the devices - the FAA will probably put a moratorium on utilizing them within X miles/feet of controlled airspace.
Education for people using these devices would probably help too.
I read the article (and it was one rambling screed to begin with, only more-so with the comments). I give the original author points for vocabulary, I give the annotator points for a valient attempt to bring it to a contemporary crowd.
I will attempt to clarify the issue for the community in more simple terms (see notes below for more technical explanation if so inclined):
1. A computer is a simulation device which can simulate anything at all, given unlimited resources.
2. In practice we (programmers) build a subset of simulations that are most useful or entertaining for the users (because that pays the bills).
3. An operating system is a simulation that allows us to more easily manipulate our computer to run other simulations and communicate to and through ever more complex and sophisticated devices (sound cards, video cards, network interface cards, joysticks, mice, etc) that we hang off the side.
4. A very small subset of programmers have made an ungodly amount of money selling said simulations. The article kind of loses focus at this point and goes off on a tangent - I won't burden the reader here with that.
5. The CLI will not die simply because its utility and expressiveness outweigh the lack of utility and expressiveness found in pure graphical interfaces. The future is begining now - and is a hybrid - both the CLI and GUI coexisting for mutual benefit leveraging the strengths of both in ways far more sophisticated than we can envision today.
My own editorial: Until people stop reading altogether, or natural speach recognition becomes a reality, keyboards will be around for the foreseable future.
Notes (numbered to reference the numbered sections above):
1. Alan Turing came up with the concept of a Turing Machine which could be used as a general purpose device to simulate any other machine or process using very simple instructions in building block fashion to produce more complex simulations. The brilliant scientist John Von Neumann further extended the idea to encompass the first stored program computer architecture for practical use.
It is interesting to note that modern computer chips do not have what we think of as the basic instruction set - Assembler - hardcoded into the chip. Instead the Assembler instruction set is itself a simulation running on a far simpler 'micro code' instruction set that is hardcoded into the chip.
I think a better metaphor for computer software (which encompasses everything running on a computer, from the OS to what we think of as applications) is a series of of small boxes within larger boxes, which themselves are inside of a larger box. Some of the boxes may have more than one box inside of them (like the OS running multiple applications, for example). The largest 'lower level' boxes have the ability to serve as simulation 'stage' for the boxes that they contain. At the highest levels (the small boxes at the 'top' of the stack) they may or may not have facilities for doing further simulation (now-a-days it is more prevelant to see applications that have macros up to and including full-blown programming languages and interpreters for creating your own simulations within the instruction sets provided). The OS is simply one of the larger boxes near the bottom of the stack.
2. Sometimes the users are ourselves; this is why we see a plethora of noddy programs/simulations that don't do much usefull for larger audiences.
3. See the 'boxes-within-boxes' metaphor in number 1 above.
4. Not much more can be said. I will state my own philosophical view: I think it is more useful to programmers and to society as a whole to invent more flexible and open simulations that allow computers (and other less-general purposes devices) to communicate more seamlessly and make them a true and natural tool to augment our senses and intellect. It is not impossible -- we just have to dream it up and make it happen.
I have GNUstep running on one of my Linux servers. I run GNOME on my workstation, and my firewall doesn't have X loaded at all (all CLI baby!).
In all cases I am running modified Slackware distros.
You make an excellent point that I think some naive users don't realize: the X window environment allows you to utilize remote CPU cycles to run a graphical application while displaying and allowing you to interact with it via the interface on a local system that is also running X. Most people don't realize this, and when they do a lightbulb seems to pop over their head (not only can I run my remote CLI terminals - I can run just about any application remotely - from one central 'command' console). Things that take forever on a lone machine - and thus degrade the experience with the interface can be shipped off to another machine (potentially breathing life into an older machine that would normally be scrapped in a MSWindows environment), so things keep snapping on the console while the work chugs along in the background.
Another thing I do is run a website off one of my linux servers. I have a content management system (I can upload files of all types through the browser and organize them with meta-data; built-in search engine for the files), a wiki (where I jot down quick ideas - I use it kind of like hyperlinked index cards on emerging thoughts - some of which eventually gets into the CMS), and an XML authoring tool. Most of stuff I author now is done via the web. The only thing I do on-board my local machine anymore is graphics (Gimp), sound (mp3s and recording), and software development (python) - and a good chunk of that ends up on the website once I have it in a 'finished' state (and I can even download the finished versions and touch them up later if needed). My next project is to integrate a CVS repository into the website for my programming - but also to leverage it for my XML files as well.
This offloads quite a bit of processing, memory and disk utilization from my workstation, and provides an easy means of backing up and restoring the database, as opposed to tracking down a myriad of individual files on the filesystem. At first blush this might seem counter to the idea of ubiquitousness - however, I am authoring using XML - so I can translate my files residing on the website into any format you care to mention as needed. That is powerful.
Linux/*nix lets you have your cake and eat it too; it is only a matter of time before it achieves and surpasses the non-expert usability threshold which, coupled with its underlying power - which will always be there - will make a killer combination imho.
Different metadata types require different kinds of implementation, handling, organization, and use.
I disagree with this approach because it complicates something from a programatical standpoint that does not have to be. The reason there are such percieved differences in the first place is that the developers of extant systems have only been looking at their individual "trees"; I am saying, "look at the forest" - the forest that I see - a world where everything is potentially metadata rather than artificial pigeonholes.
This is a logical extension of all of the significant steps that have been made in computer science. Think about what abstraction and microprogramming, for example, have achieved and apply that to the problem at hand. The key to a hyper-efficient classification system is to abandon the idea of classifications altogether and form a fresh perspective on the subject.
De-specialize, that is all I am saying. Once you understand that, then you can build the ultimate system to address the problem.
P.S. I am not saying the article is bad. It is interesting to look at different aspects of a problem. However, I believe the ultimate solution lays at a higher meta-level.
My point is, corporate entities have a vested interest in applying glitzy names to existing ideas in order to sell more product. This clouds the issues. I think the KISS principle applies here when thinking about implementation.
My thought is to keep the concepts simple. At its simplest level we are talking about attaching meta data to existing objects. XML, for example, can be extended as you suggest - by defining new vocabulary on the fly. This can be automated to shield the nasty details from naive users and allow the flexibility you are talking about. While you can do this generically in an RDBMS on the backend, an dynamic object database makes this easier.
As a user I want to ubiquitously classify information and use my classification scheme as well as other's schemes to retrieve information for me. I want my scheme to be hyper-linkable (no strict hierarchy unless that seems relevant) so I can jump from related objects (and sub-objects) easily. Above all, I want it to be simple and easy to use across platforms (www client, email client, PDA apps, network attached cellphone apps, etc). That is it in a nutshell.
Arguing about the name of the thing, 'Tags', 'Folksonomies', etc. is all a load of BS as far as I am concerned. The real issue is that we have a means of attaching meta data to other datum in a way that is easy to use and easy for computer systems to digest and parse.
There is already a standard that allows this - and even allows you to extend it as needed: XML. What is lagging behind are the tools to make that an easy process for the end user, as well as a flexible data storage medium that does not have the current limitations RDBMSs [relational database management systems] incur - (at this juncture it is probably useful to bring up that there are object oriented database systems that can be useful in this vein - Zope is one example, and there are others - far more flexible and extensible than traditional RDBs which require the attentions of a database administrator for even minor changes).
Something else to consider: with the exception of a small subset of the total information store at any given moment, it is not possible to effectively systematize the classification of all information in a way that is useful to everyone. What needs to take place is for the end users of the information to also overlay their own classification system upon disparate datasets - tieing them together in a meaningful way for them. Just as every individual thinks differently and approaches various activities in different ways, so too should their information systems.
My first exposure to computers was via the Pong game console at a friend's house in 1976. Shortly thereafter the video arcade scene exploded with games like pac-man, tank, red baron, tron, centipede, and zaxxon being some of the cutting edge titles in the years that followed. I spent much grass-cutting money in the intervening time in the arcade.
In 1981 (my Junior year in HS) I saw that the school started a computer science course - building a small computer science lab. This was the first such class provided by my school. We had 2 CRT terminals and a printer terminal timeshared off of the school district mini-computer, as well as several NCR machines and a gaggle of Apples.
I learned Fortran on the NCR machines, and Basic on the Apples and via the CRT terminals. Used the CRTs to play dungeon (precursor to Zork), and learned some hackerly things - not realizing the rare opportunity I had. In later years I often wish I had dug into the timeshared machine with more zeal as it was a PDP machine (but slow due to the many terminals attached to it). We used the terminals mainly to load and printout the output of our applications on the printer/terminal.
At this time my parents bought me a TI-99a PC - which had the basic language built-in (would boot into basic interpretor without game/application module installed. I began hacking the box in every waking moment, and learned how to manipulate the sprites to respond to keyboard control to make a small 'ship' move and turn by the user with the arrow keys.
The wealth was controlled by fewer people still in previous ages; while those of us who work for corporations may consider ourselves 'wage slaves' - the 'middle class' certainly has a much better standard of living (that would be considered wealthy) compared to serfs in feudal times.
How would you suggest distributing the wealth? What if the shoe were on the other foot, and you had worked hard to amass a minor fortune, wouldn't you expect to enjoy the benefits that would entail? Where do you draw the line?
Excesses of corporations can be addressed via legislation and extant antitrust law. There is plenty of criminal law to address individuals. There is little we can do (other than boycott their products/services) to corporations or individuals who do immoral things that, while distasteful, are perfectly legal.
Do you honestly think there is a better system than our current one? If so, describe how it would work (because I am flat out of ideas, beyond what the founders put together - and won't pretend to be more informed than they on the architecture of a just government).
The most intractible problem with Sangor's ideas is his argument to respect 'expertise' and 'authority'.
I have known doctorates who have less of a working knowledge of their area of expertise than bacheloreates, yet they may have impressive credentials. Just because someone is considered an 'authority' on a subject does not mean they can not make a mistake, or learn something new that changes their view of the subject.
Who certifies who is an expert and who is not? If we go for a review process (similar to the slashdot karma system, for example) how do we ensure that it is completely unbiased?
The fact of the matter is: we can't.
As long as there are people with agendas our view of the world will be shaped by those agendas; every system has some flaw that serves as a springboard to further some agenda.
This is why our (United States) system of government is a republic, rather than a simple democracy - because mob rule loses more in noise than it gains in inclusiveness. This is also why we have checks and balances (some would argue have been erroded) to control the centralization of power to make it work for everyone (even the minorities). So far this system has been successful. However we would all agree it is still far from perfect.
Accept the anarchy or modify it by creating a 'republic' of expert contributors, peer reviews or other mechanisms to modulate the noise. In all cases the result will be the same: some group or groups will feel disenfranchised from the process and in no way can we definitively certify the encyclopedia's authority.
Largely it comes down to acceptance - faith, if you will. Whether you are using the Wikipedia or the Encyclopedia Britanica, you have to 'buy-in' to the authority - because for the large breadth of knowledge covered there will be no way to verify your choice for every article in any meaningful way.
Ironically, this is exactly what Sangor is arguing for - an illusion of acceptability to 'legitimize' it as a 'serious' reference and research tool. The people who put credence in such things are just fooling themselves (as I have illustrated).
I will offer one suggestion: rather than having everyone able to edit one single article on a subject, why not have different viewpoints shown as different interpretations of the subject - fully segregated and attributed to the specific author. Where facts can be independently verified, put that information without any editorial comment into the intro, then have sections where the subject can be interpreted. This will avoid the revert-wars and bring some stability to the reference for the end users - who will be able to tell fact from interpretation. This won't prevent agendas from being put forward, but it will prevent any one agenda from drowning out the others.
The point is when you hear what people say it seems there are more rebels - so you would expect less vanilla things to end up on top. However it seems people are full of hot air, and not so interesting as they would have you believe.
Nothing progressive or revolutionary ever came from pandering to the base instincts of the majority. It is always some individuals or small group struggling in cold isolation that turns the corner and brings us a new world of possibilities.
Every ecology needs its scavengers - I just don't want to be one of them. Of course that is a generalization that is probably just as inaccurate as the statistics presented by Google.
This is why software patents are evil - plain and simple.
Thankfully patent enforcement history is replete with case law that will shoot 90% of the frivilous(sic) software patents out of the water - on prior art alone. Mostly this 'big stick' in the form of patent portfolios is used to leverage cash away from other businesses through the threat of legal action - most cases that are solid don't go to court, and the infringing company pays thier royalties like a good corporation.
On the other hand solid cases are in the minority. Given the fact that GPL software developers don't have much, if any money to begin with - and the fact that most of those patents are garbage due to prior art - I'm not going to lose much sleep over it. Think about it, even if M$ got an injunction against, lets say 'Gnome' - do you think they would have a snowball's chance in hell of shutting down all the mirrors for it spread across the world? For smaller applications that aren't on the radar to begin with they wouldn't even bother - they are looking for either money or a monopoly from which to suck more money out of, neither of which applies to most FOSS development. Again, M$ is going down - it is just a matter of time now - that is why they have been using SCO as their sock-puppet: they know it is inevitable and are stalling for time through a surrogate so the backlash isn't so bad when it comes.
I think the key point is as long as you have a version of an application that says 'version 2 or any following version' - you don't have to worry about what the FSF or RSM does in the intervening years - you will still be able to follow the less-restrictive version 2 license in perpetuity for that version of the source.
Per the GPL FAQ:
"
Why should programs say "Version 2 of the GPL or any later version"?
From time to time, at intervals of years, we change the GPL--sometimes to clarify it, sometimes to permit certain kinds of use not previously permitted, and sometimes to tighten up a requirement. (The last change was in 1991.) Using this "indirect pointer" in each program makes it possible for us to change the distribution terms on the entire collection of GNU software, when we update the GPL.
If each program lacked the indirect pointer, we would be forced to discuss the change at length with numerous copyright holders, which would be a virtual impossibility. In practice, the chance of having uniform distribution terms for GNU software would be nil.
Suppose a program says "Version 2 of the GPL or any later version" and a new version of the GPL is released. If the new GPL version gives additional permission, that permission will be available immediately to all the users of the program. But if the new GPL version has a tighter requirement, it will not restrict use of the current version of the program, because it can still be used under GPL version 2. When a program says "Version 2 of the GPL or any later version", users will always be permitted to use it, and even change it, according to the terms of GPL version 2--even after later versions of the GPL are available.
If a tighter requirement in a new version of the GPL need not be obeyed for existing software, how is it useful? Once GPL version 3 is available, the developers of most GPL-covered programs will release subsequent versions of their programs specifying "Version 3 of the GPL or any later version". Then users will have to follow the tighter requirements in GPL version 3, for subsequent versions of the program.
However, developers are not obligated to do this; developers can continue allowing use of the previous version of the GPL, if that is their preference."
Additionally, you can create a derivative license, per the GPL FAQ:
"
Can I modify the GPL and make a modified license?
You can use the GPL terms (possibly modified) in another license provided that you call your license by another name and do not include the GPL preamble, and provided you modify the instructions-for-use at the end enough to make it clearly different in wording and not mention GNU (though the actual procedure you describe may be similar).
If you want to use our preamble in a modified license, please write to for permission. For this purpose we would want to check the actual license requirements to see if we approve of them.
Although we will not raise legal objections to your making a modified license in this way, we hope you will think twice and not do it. Such a modified license is almost certainly incompatible with the GNU GPL, and that incompatibility blocks useful combinations of modules. The mere proliferation of different free software licenses is a burden in and of itself."
This is my first time looking at this annual data, and the most striking thing about it is how vanilla it is.
There is nothing interesting going on; it appears most people are depressingly mundane in their interests and tastes. Where are all the 'rugged individualists', the 'rebels without a cause'? As much as we pay lip service to our desire to stand-out, we are strangely sheepish.
I am begining to believe Asimov's 'The Marching Morons' is, in fact nonfiction...
This is why all marketing is incredibly stupid, because it is based on the most common attribute in order to maximize profits.
Conversely, we have the technology today to automate the personalization of products - which, strange as it may seem, would actually produce more profit (consider, not only would we gather all of the vanilla folks, we would also pull in those wanting unique attributes: X + Y > X every time). Yet most, if not all businesses refrain from this approach.
Given that - this data is useless to me, other than to make me look around at my fellow men and women for the tell-tale vacuous stare.
Graphics programs - I will hand you that; you probably do need direct access to the graphics card to do anything non-trivial - just as video games do.
Gaim - actually there are several browser based chat applications floating around already. These could certainly be extended to do the same things as Gaim.
A terminal emulator would also be fairly trivial - as this would be similar to a chat application (realtime updates of screen state).
Text editing, word processing - actually these are very well suited to a web application. For example, I no longer keep my traditional documentation/writings on my hard drive, I have a server that I access via an http client - I do all my writing on the web, and when I save - it saves the content as XML. I have a choice of either editing the raw XML - or using a wysiwyg editor - such as kupu - a completely web based and fully functional 'word processor' style editor (and there are others as well). Once it is saved, then I can attach meta-data to the content, I can search, sort, filter and plug it into a revision control system. As for program code, while that does reside on my workstation - after debugging is done, I check it into my CVS system via a WWW interface.
A spreadsheet is certainly doable on the web - but accountants and others who use these heavily are so entrenched and the tools so mature, it would take a major act of God to make them change. Probably something I would leave on the desktop for now.
The nice thing about my setup is that most of my files reside on the server - which means I can access them from anywhere in the world (using VPN of course) on any machine connected to the internet. I am not tied down to one machine - and I don't have to remember to take my laptop with me everywhere I go - an internet cafe, or a friend's workstation will do in a pinch.
Another thing that is nice about a centralized setup is I can do global searches across the content, and meta-data associated with that content - information I have collected and created is at my fingertips. On my workstation disk the information was scattered across unrelated files - and remembering where I put something and what I happened to name it was a real headache. Not anymore.
I have multiple machines, one is for development (mostly website related), one is for building linux distros, one is my game machine, and one is a firewall. As you would expect, I record a lot of information about those machines; having it in one central place makes it easy to get to and if I accidentally (or on purpose) wipe a disk, I still have the data available. This would be equally useful to anyone who creates or collects a large number of files, and who doesn't these days?
Finally, disaster recovery is a snap; I have multiple backups of my web server database that I burn to CD and move offsite periodically - I simply reinstall the software then restore the database and I am back online with minimal damage. If my house burns down, I can still recover the vast majority of my data from the offsite CDs. Another thing I will be doing in the future is mirroring two machines so there will be no downtime during recovery (provided the house doesn't burn down - simply reinstall the software, then resync from the good mirror).
Most people don't have the stable of machines that I do nor the inclination to do your own development, so a more simple setup (but not for the faint of heart) would be to have two machines:
1. Workstation game box. (load python or perl for automation - OS of your choice) 2. Linux server machine (load perl python/Zope - install zope products: plone, silva, kupu)
plone is a content management system - allows you to build a folderish structure, upload files into it, and associate meta-data with those files. It has a built-in search capability similar to a google search interface. You can also create/compose your own files using plain text, structured text or xhtml. You can als
or better yet, build a web-based GUI using your favorite development framework (java/apache, python/zope etc..). Why is anyone building stand-alone applications other than video games and web browsers anymore?
You can't because the corporations will have no impetus to move the now public domain works to another type of media. The government would need to make a law forcing the corporations to do this at the expiration of the copyright protection - but that is not likely to happen given the vast sums of money corps pay politicians. Even if a law is passed, enforcement would be very difficult and time consuming - tied up in the court system.
To top it off, copyright law has moved inexorably toward a perpetual protection of works (in 1710 copyright protection was just 28 years - it is now the life of the author plus 75 years; which means if the author lives to be 80 years old - and assuming he published a work at the age of 20, it would take 135 years for the work to enter the public domain. For all intents and purposes the work is lost to the public domain for several generations.)
Here are some possible solutions, rather than eating the dog food:
1. Support Indy Bands/Artists - if nothing else by downloading their work and sharing it with your friends so they become popular. Better yet - take the money you would have given the RIAA and give it to Indy artists.
2. Entertain yourself and others - learn an instrument if you don't already play one. Compose some music or learn some tunes you like - perform it for friends and family. If you are good enough get a gig at the local tavern - or simply put on an impromptu concert on the town commons. If your stuff is really good, set up a computer as a recording studio (multitrack recording software is cheap and full featured today) and generate MP3s for the web and open-source it.
3. Support Indy movie makers. Give them the money you would have given the MPAA.
4. Become an Indy movie maker. If the market has crap - then make something better and open-source it. If people donate to your cause, all the better.
Instead of being a good 'consumer', feeding at the trough of corporate crap, why not step back and do something different with your time and your money?
Our forebears were able to keep themselves entertained without all the trappings of our technological society. Life will go on without the entertainment mega-corps.
There won't be a Windows 2009 to play it on; instead it will be an X-box-like device attached to your super-high-speed fibre network (which will also pipe in your run-of-the-mill TV, VOIP telephony, and IP network) that will download the game from a central server (for a fee, of course). That is Microsoft's vision - master control - with ultra simple interfaces for the masses...progress!
On the other hand, true independent developers will be building games and apps for Linux - tech heads and 'old folks' (those 20 to 40 now) will still use classic computers - but hardware manufacturers will be less and less likely to build them - since network aware devices will be taking over.
By 2030 computers as we know them will not exist except in museums.
Given the recent bittorrent raids in Europe at the behest of the MPAA etc..
What agreements are there between Europe and the U.S. concerning patent law?
I know the Berne Conventions have established parity between the U.S. and Europe regarding copyright law - essentially making U.S. copyrights enforceable in Europe and visa-versa. Are there similar agreements regarding patents?
If so, European developers may not be off the hook. Sure European companies won't be able to create software patents - but that wouldn't stop Microsoft or other U.S. companies from enforcing their patents.
Is there a lawyer (or someone that passes for one) in the house?
Slashdot Mirror
I went on a sky tour at the Davis Mountain Observatory of the University of Texas. The instructor used a laser pointer, just like that one, to point out features in the night sky.
Of course, this was out in the middle of nowhere outside of congested airspace.
I am sure they won't ban the devices - the FAA will probably put a moratorium on utilizing them within X miles/feet of controlled airspace.
Education for people using these devices would probably help too.
I read the article (and it was one rambling screed to begin with, only more-so with the comments). I give the original author points for vocabulary, I give the annotator points for a valient attempt to bring it to a contemporary crowd.
I will attempt to clarify the issue for the community in more simple terms (see notes below for more technical explanation if so inclined):
1. A computer is a simulation device which can simulate anything at all, given unlimited resources.
2. In practice we (programmers) build a subset of simulations that are most useful or entertaining for the users (because that pays the bills).
3. An operating system is a simulation that allows us to more easily manipulate our computer to run other simulations and communicate to and through ever more complex and sophisticated devices (sound cards, video cards, network interface cards, joysticks, mice, etc) that we hang off the side.
4. A very small subset of programmers have made an ungodly amount of money selling said simulations. The article kind of loses focus at this point and goes off on a tangent - I won't burden the reader here with that.
5. The CLI will not die simply because its utility and expressiveness outweigh the lack of utility and expressiveness found in pure graphical interfaces. The future is begining now - and is a hybrid - both the CLI and GUI coexisting for mutual benefit leveraging the strengths of both in ways far more sophisticated than we can envision today.
My own editorial: Until people stop reading altogether, or natural speach recognition becomes a reality, keyboards will be around for the foreseable future.
Notes (numbered to reference the numbered sections above):
1. Alan Turing came up with the concept of a Turing Machine which could be used as a general purpose device to simulate any other machine or process using very simple instructions in building block fashion to produce more complex simulations. The brilliant scientist John Von Neumann further extended the idea to encompass the first stored program computer architecture for practical use.
It is interesting to note that modern computer chips do not have what we think of as the basic instruction set - Assembler - hardcoded into the chip. Instead the Assembler instruction set is itself a simulation running on a far simpler 'micro code' instruction set that is hardcoded into the chip.
I think a better metaphor for computer software (which encompasses everything running on a computer, from the OS to what we think of as applications) is a series of of small boxes within larger boxes, which themselves are inside of a larger box. Some of the boxes may have more than one box inside of them (like the OS running multiple applications, for example). The largest 'lower level' boxes have the ability to serve as simulation 'stage' for the boxes that they contain. At the highest levels (the small boxes at the 'top' of the stack) they may or may not have facilities for doing further simulation (now-a-days it is more prevelant to see applications that have macros up to and including full-blown programming languages and interpreters for creating your own simulations within the instruction sets provided). The OS is simply one of the larger boxes near the bottom of the stack.
2. Sometimes the users are ourselves; this is why we see a plethora of noddy programs/simulations that don't do much usefull for larger audiences.
3. See the 'boxes-within-boxes' metaphor in number 1 above.
4. Not much more can be said. I will state my own philosophical view: I think it is more useful to programmers and to society as a whole to invent more flexible and open simulations that allow computers (and other less-general purposes devices) to communicate more seamlessly and make them a true and natural tool to augment our senses and intellect. It is not impossible -- we just have to dream it up and make it happen.
I have GNUstep running on one of my Linux servers. I run GNOME on my workstation, and my firewall doesn't have X loaded at all (all CLI baby!).
In all cases I am running modified Slackware distros.
You make an excellent point that I think some naive users don't realize: the X window environment allows you to utilize remote CPU cycles to run a graphical application while displaying and allowing you to interact with it via the interface on a local system that is also running X. Most people don't realize this, and when they do a lightbulb seems to pop over their head (not only can I run my remote CLI terminals - I can run just about any application remotely - from one central 'command' console). Things that take forever on a lone machine - and thus degrade the experience with the interface can be shipped off to another machine (potentially breathing life into an older machine that would normally be scrapped in a MSWindows environment), so things keep snapping on the console while the work chugs along in the background.
Another thing I do is run a website off one of my linux servers. I have a content management system (I can upload files of all types through the browser and organize them with meta-data; built-in search engine for the files), a wiki (where I jot down quick ideas - I use it kind of like hyperlinked index cards on emerging thoughts - some of which eventually gets into the CMS), and an XML authoring tool. Most of stuff I author now is done via the web. The only thing I do on-board my local machine anymore is graphics (Gimp), sound (mp3s and recording), and software development (python) - and a good chunk of that ends up on the website once I have it in a 'finished' state (and I can even download the finished versions and touch them up later if needed). My next project is to integrate a CVS repository into the website for my programming - but also to leverage it for my XML files as well.
This offloads quite a bit of processing, memory and disk utilization from my workstation, and provides an easy means of backing up and restoring the database, as opposed to tracking down a myriad of individual files on the filesystem. At first blush this might seem counter to the idea of ubiquitousness - however, I am authoring using XML - so I can translate my files residing on the website into any format you care to mention as needed. That is powerful.
Linux/*nix lets you have your cake and eat it too; it is only a matter of time before it achieves and surpasses the non-expert usability threshold which, coupled with its underlying power - which will always be there - will make a killer combination imho.
60% of online Americans are probably AOL customers...
berbo said:
I disagree with this approach because it complicates something from a programatical standpoint that does not have to be. The reason there are such percieved differences in the first place is that the developers of extant systems have only been looking at their individual "trees"; I am saying, "look at the forest" - the forest that I see - a world where everything is potentially metadata rather than artificial pigeonholes.
This is a logical extension of all of the significant steps that have been made in computer science. Think about what abstraction and microprogramming, for example, have achieved and apply that to the problem at hand. The key to a hyper-efficient classification system is to abandon the idea of classifications altogether and form a fresh perspective on the subject.
De-specialize, that is all I am saying. Once you understand that, then you can build the ultimate system to address the problem.
P.S. I am not saying the article is bad. It is interesting to look at different aspects of a problem. However, I believe the ultimate solution lays at a higher meta-level.
My point is, corporate entities have a vested interest in applying glitzy names to existing ideas in order to sell more product. This clouds the issues. I think the KISS principle applies here when thinking about implementation.
My thought is to keep the concepts simple. At its simplest level we are talking about attaching meta data to existing objects. XML, for example, can be extended as you suggest - by defining new vocabulary on the fly. This can be automated to shield the nasty details from naive users and allow the flexibility you are talking about. While you can do this generically in an RDBMS on the backend, an dynamic object database makes this easier.
As a user I want to ubiquitously classify information and use my classification scheme as well as other's schemes to retrieve information for me. I want my scheme to be hyper-linkable (no strict hierarchy unless that seems relevant) so I can jump from related objects (and sub-objects) easily. Above all, I want it to be simple and easy to use across platforms (www client, email client, PDA apps, network attached cellphone apps, etc). That is it in a nutshell.
Why don't we just call it what it is, meta data?
How hard was that !
Arguing about the name of the thing, 'Tags', 'Folksonomies', etc. is all a load of BS as far as I am concerned. The real issue is that we have a means of attaching meta data to other datum in a way that is easy to use and easy for computer systems to digest and parse.
There is already a standard that allows this - and even allows you to extend it as needed: XML. What is lagging behind are the tools to make that an easy process for the end user, as well as a flexible data storage medium that does not have the current limitations RDBMSs [relational database management systems] incur - (at this juncture it is probably useful to bring up that there are object oriented database systems that can be useful in this vein - Zope is one example, and there are others - far more flexible and extensible than traditional RDBs which require the attentions of a database administrator for even minor changes).
Something else to consider: with the exception of a small subset of the total information store at any given moment, it is not possible to effectively systematize the classification of all information in a way that is useful to everyone. What needs to take place is for the end users of the information to also overlay their own classification system upon disparate datasets - tieing them together in a meaningful way for them. Just as every individual thinks differently and approaches various activities in different ways, so too should their information systems.
My first exposure to computers was via the Pong game console at a friend's house in 1976. Shortly thereafter the video arcade scene exploded with games like pac-man, tank, red baron, tron, centipede, and zaxxon being some of the cutting edge titles in the years that followed. I spent much grass-cutting money in the intervening time in the arcade.
In 1981 (my Junior year in HS) I saw that the school started a computer science course - building a small computer science lab. This was the first such class provided by my school. We had 2 CRT terminals and a printer terminal timeshared off of the school district mini-computer, as well as several NCR machines and a gaggle of Apples.
I learned Fortran on the NCR machines, and Basic on the Apples and via the CRT terminals. Used the CRTs to play dungeon (precursor to Zork), and learned some hackerly things - not realizing the rare opportunity I had. In later years I often wish I had dug into the timeshared machine with more zeal as it was a PDP machine (but slow due to the many terminals attached to it). We used the terminals mainly to load and printout the output of our applications on the printer/terminal.
At this time my parents bought me a TI-99a PC - which had the basic language built-in (would boot into basic interpretor without game/application module installed. I began hacking the box in every waking moment, and learned how to manipulate the sprites to respond to keyboard control to make a small 'ship' move and turn by the user with the arrow keys.
I think he meant 'sleazy' due to M$ anti-competitive business practices...
The wealth was controlled by fewer people still in previous ages; while those of us who work for corporations may consider ourselves 'wage slaves' - the 'middle class' certainly has a much better standard of living (that would be considered wealthy) compared to serfs in feudal times.
How would you suggest distributing the wealth? What if the shoe were on the other foot, and you had worked hard to amass a minor fortune, wouldn't you expect to enjoy the benefits that would entail? Where do you draw the line?
Excesses of corporations can be addressed via legislation and extant antitrust law. There is plenty of criminal law to address individuals. There is little we can do (other than boycott their products/services) to corporations or individuals who do immoral things that, while distasteful, are perfectly legal.
Do you honestly think there is a better system than our current one? If so, describe how it would work (because I am flat out of ideas, beyond what the founders put together - and won't pretend to be more informed than they on the architecture of a just government).
The most intractible problem with Sangor's ideas is his argument to respect 'expertise' and 'authority'.
I have known doctorates who have less of a working knowledge of their area of expertise than bacheloreates, yet they may have impressive credentials. Just because someone is considered an 'authority' on a subject does not mean they can not make a mistake, or learn something new that changes their view of the subject.
Who certifies who is an expert and who is not? If we go for a review process (similar to the slashdot karma system, for example) how do we ensure that it is completely unbiased?
The fact of the matter is: we can't.
As long as there are people with agendas our view of the world will be shaped by those agendas; every system has some flaw that serves as a springboard to further some agenda.
This is why our (United States) system of government is a republic, rather than a simple democracy - because mob rule loses more in noise than it gains in inclusiveness. This is also why we have checks and balances (some would argue have been erroded) to control the centralization of power to make it work for everyone (even the minorities). So far this system has been successful. However we would all agree it is still far from perfect.
Accept the anarchy or modify it by creating a 'republic' of expert contributors, peer reviews or other mechanisms to modulate the noise. In all cases the result will be the same: some group or groups will feel disenfranchised from the process and in no way can we definitively certify the encyclopedia's authority.
Largely it comes down to acceptance - faith, if you will. Whether you are using the Wikipedia or the Encyclopedia Britanica, you have to 'buy-in' to the authority - because for the large breadth of knowledge covered there will be no way to verify your choice for every article in any meaningful way.
Ironically, this is exactly what Sangor is arguing for - an illusion of acceptability to 'legitimize' it as a 'serious' reference and research tool. The people who put credence in such things are just fooling themselves (as I have illustrated).
I will offer one suggestion: rather than having everyone able to edit one single article on a subject, why not have different viewpoints shown as different interpretations of the subject - fully segregated and attributed to the specific author. Where facts can be independently verified, put that information without any editorial comment into the intro, then have sections where the subject can be interpreted. This will avoid the revert-wars and bring some stability to the reference for the end users - who will be able to tell fact from interpretation. This won't prevent agendas from being put forward, but it will prevent any one agenda from drowning out the others.
Sorry; I answered another question I saw earlier here that may, or may not have been attributable to you.
The point is when you hear what people say it seems there are more rebels - so you would expect less vanilla things to end up on top. However it seems people are full of hot air, and not so interesting as they would have you believe.
Nothing progressive or revolutionary ever came from pandering to the base instincts of the majority. It is always some individuals or small group struggling in cold isolation that turns the corner and brings us a new world of possibilities.
Every ecology needs its scavengers - I just don't want to be one of them. Of course that is a generalization that is probably just as inaccurate as the statistics presented by Google.
You are correct; I confused another author's pseudonym story with Asimov. My apologies, however the point still stands: the majority are morons...
This is why software patents are evil - plain and simple.
Thankfully patent enforcement history is replete with case law that will shoot 90% of the frivilous(sic) software patents out of the water - on prior art alone. Mostly this 'big stick' in the form of patent portfolios is used to leverage cash away from other businesses through the threat of legal action - most cases that are solid don't go to court, and the infringing company pays thier royalties like a good corporation.
On the other hand solid cases are in the minority. Given the fact that GPL software developers don't have much, if any money to begin with - and the fact that most of those patents are garbage due to prior art - I'm not going to lose much sleep over it. Think about it, even if M$ got an injunction against, lets say 'Gnome' - do you think they would have a snowball's chance in hell of shutting down all the mirrors for it spread across the world? For smaller applications that aren't on the radar to begin with they wouldn't even bother - they are looking for either money or a monopoly from which to suck more money out of, neither of which applies to most FOSS development. Again, M$ is going down - it is just a matter of time now - that is why they have been using SCO as their sock-puppet: they know it is inevitable and are stalling for time through a surrogate so the backlash isn't so bad when it comes.
Per the GPL FAQ:
Additionally, you can create a derivative license, per the GPL FAQ:
This is my first time looking at this annual data, and the most striking thing about it is how vanilla it is.
There is nothing interesting going on; it appears most people are depressingly mundane in their interests and tastes. Where are all the 'rugged individualists', the 'rebels without a cause'? As much as we pay lip service to our desire to stand-out, we are strangely sheepish.
I am begining to believe Asimov's 'The Marching Morons' is, in fact nonfiction...
This is why all marketing is incredibly stupid, because it is based on the most common attribute in order to maximize profits.
Conversely, we have the technology today to automate the personalization of products - which, strange as it may seem, would actually produce more profit (consider, not only would we gather all of the vanilla folks, we would also pull in those wanting unique attributes: X + Y > X every time). Yet most, if not all businesses refrain from this approach.
Given that - this data is useless to me, other than to make me look around at my fellow men and women for the tell-tale vacuous stare.
Graphics programs - I will hand you that; you probably do need direct access to the graphics card to do anything non-trivial - just as video games do.
Gaim - actually there are several browser based chat applications floating around already. These could certainly be extended to do the same things as Gaim.
A terminal emulator would also be fairly trivial - as this would be similar to a chat application (realtime updates of screen state).
Text editing, word processing - actually these are very well suited to a web application. For example, I no longer keep my traditional documentation/writings on my hard drive, I have a server that I access via an http client - I do all my writing on the web, and when I save - it saves the content as XML. I have a choice of either editing the raw XML - or using a wysiwyg editor - such as kupu - a completely web based and fully functional 'word processor' style editor (and there are others as well). Once it is saved, then I can attach meta-data to the content, I can search, sort, filter and plug it into a revision control system. As for program code, while that does reside on my workstation - after debugging is done, I check it into my CVS system via a WWW interface.
A spreadsheet is certainly doable on the web - but accountants and others who use these heavily are so entrenched and the tools so mature, it would take a major act of God to make them change. Probably something I would leave on the desktop for now.
The nice thing about my setup is that most of my files reside on the server - which means I can access them from anywhere in the world (using VPN of course) on any machine connected to the internet. I am not tied down to one machine - and I don't have to remember to take my laptop with me everywhere I go - an internet cafe, or a friend's workstation will do in a pinch.
Another thing that is nice about a centralized setup is I can do global searches across the content, and meta-data associated with that content - information I have collected and created is at my fingertips. On my workstation disk the information was scattered across unrelated files - and remembering where I put something and what I happened to name it was a real headache. Not anymore.
I have multiple machines, one is for development (mostly website related), one is for building linux distros, one is my game machine, and one is a firewall. As you would expect, I record a lot of information about those machines; having it in one central place makes it easy to get to and if I accidentally (or on purpose) wipe a disk, I still have the data available. This would be equally useful to anyone who creates or collects a large number of files, and who doesn't these days?
Finally, disaster recovery is a snap; I have multiple backups of my web server database that I burn to CD and move offsite periodically - I simply reinstall the software then restore the database and I am back online with minimal damage. If my house burns down, I can still recover the vast majority of my data from the offsite CDs. Another thing I will be doing in the future is mirroring two machines so there will be no downtime during recovery (provided the house doesn't burn down - simply reinstall the software, then resync from the good mirror).
Most people don't have the stable of machines that I do nor the inclination to do your own development, so a more simple setup (but not for the faint of heart) would be to have two machines:
1. Workstation game box. (load python or perl for automation - OS of your choice)
2. Linux server machine (load perl python/Zope - install zope products: plone, silva, kupu)
plone is a content management system - allows you to build a folderish structure, upload files into it, and associate meta-data with those files. It has a built-in search capability similar to a google search interface. You can also create/compose your own files using plain text, structured text or xhtml. You can als
If you want true cross platform GUI development:
Perl and TK
Python and TK
or better yet, build a web-based GUI using your favorite development framework (java/apache, python/zope etc..). Why is anyone building stand-alone applications other than video games and web browsers anymore?
You can check for availability of DSL via the telco in your area at this link:
SBC DSL AVAILABILITY
You can't because the corporations will have no impetus to move the now public domain works to another type of media. The government would need to make a law forcing the corporations to do this at the expiration of the copyright protection - but that is not likely to happen given the vast sums of money corps pay politicians. Even if a law is passed, enforcement would be very difficult and time consuming - tied up in the court system.
To top it off, copyright law has moved inexorably toward a perpetual protection of works (in 1710 copyright protection was just 28 years - it is now the life of the author plus 75 years; which means if the author lives to be 80 years old - and assuming he published a work at the age of 20, it would take 135 years for the work to enter the public domain. For all intents and purposes the work is lost to the public domain for several generations.)
Here are some possible solutions, rather than eating the dog food:
1. Support Indy Bands/Artists - if nothing else by downloading their work and sharing it with your friends so they become popular. Better yet - take the money you would have given the RIAA and give it to Indy artists.
2. Entertain yourself and others - learn an instrument if you don't already play one. Compose some music or learn some tunes you like - perform it for friends and family. If you are good enough get a gig at the local tavern - or simply put on an impromptu concert on the town commons. If your stuff is really good, set up a computer as a recording studio (multitrack recording software is cheap and full featured today) and generate MP3s for the web and open-source it.
3. Support Indy movie makers. Give them the money you would have given the MPAA.
4. Become an Indy movie maker. If the market has crap - then make something better and open-source it. If people donate to your cause, all the better.
Instead of being a good 'consumer', feeding at the trough of corporate crap, why not step back and do something different with your time and your money?
Our forebears were able to keep themselves entertained without all the trappings of our technological society. Life will go on without the entertainment mega-corps.
There won't be a Windows 2009 to play it on; instead it will be an X-box-like device attached to your super-high-speed fibre network (which will also pipe in your run-of-the-mill TV, VOIP telephony, and IP network) that will download the game from a central server (for a fee, of course). That is Microsoft's vision - master control - with ultra simple interfaces for the masses...progress!
On the other hand, true independent developers will be building games and apps for Linux - tech heads and 'old folks' (those 20 to 40 now) will still use classic computers - but hardware manufacturers will be less and less likely to build them - since network aware devices will be taking over.
By 2030 computers as we know them will not exist except in museums.
Big Brother will be watching you...
Given the recent bittorrent raids in Europe at the behest of the MPAA etc..
What agreements are there between Europe and the U.S. concerning patent law?
I know the Berne Conventions have established parity between the U.S. and Europe regarding copyright law - essentially making U.S. copyrights enforceable in Europe and visa-versa. Are there similar agreements regarding patents?
If so, European developers may not be off the hook. Sure European companies won't be able to create software patents - but that wouldn't stop Microsoft or other U.S. companies from enforcing their patents.
Is there a lawyer (or someone that passes for one) in the house?
Fibre RTs are going up every day. You might be able to get DSL now - have you tried asking the telco if and when you will get it in your neighborhood?