Ah. Well, I do appologize for my ignorance. As I mention in another comment, then perhaps unity of promotion and standards might be other issues.
The question remains: why is lisp not used more in enterprise settings while Java is rapidly overtaking c++?
Most or all of those things have been built in Lisp, and many are available for free or bundled with commercial Lisps.
BTW, my group uses Lisp in a corporate setting. For what we do Java would be a very inferior replacement.
Okay I'll grant you that I am not very familiar with the commercial lisp vendors and what they offer. But then the question remains: why is lisp not used more in a corporate setting?
Probably the real reason is based on marketing and promotion. Java has a single organization which sets/guides the development of the whole platform. Sun has spend a lot of time and money promoting and branding Java. There is one standard way of binding Java to all those different enterprise modules. Is this so in lisp? Again, I don't know, but I doubt it. Is there an enterprise standard (de facto or de jure) for lisp? Is there one organization with lots of money to promote lisp into corporations? These are probably the real reasons. My other comment just reflects my own ignorance, but that ignorance is due to the lack of unified promotion and standards for lisp.
I ended up building a relatively large desk. It is 8' by 3' and about 3" higher than standard. It holds my 22" monitor nicely (1920x1440 res!!!) as well as my 88 key music keyboard.
The great thing about it is that I spent next to nothing: about $90 Canadian (60 US) for materials and only about three hours to build it. I designed it myself to be very simple. I have shelving on it created out of milk crates and the remenants of the materials for the desk proper.
All that said, its kinda ugly! I didn't finish it in any way (used MDF for the surface so that it is smooth).
If anyone knows of a company that sells _big_ desks, I would love to hear about it! Problem is I don't want to spend a fortune on some massive executive desk.
This is quite an interesting study. I use java professionally for most things that I do (I have also used C, Objective-C and a few others in the past).
I have had to work with lisp a bit. Of course I took a lisp oriented AI class in school, but since then I have also had to do some porting from lisp to Java! Perhaps it was just a factor of the people who developed the lisp code, but I found it incredibly difficult to read - and my complaint wasn't with the nesting of parentheses. It wasn't strongly typed (is there such a lisp?) and the singular type of syntax (lists) make many aspects of the code difficult to unravel.
That said, there are some things I really like about lisp, in particular its dynamic nature where you can build lisp functions at runtime and execute them at runtime. Sometimes I really wish I could do this easily with Java (its possible to do, just a huge pain in the butt).
I think the real issue right now is that Java (and C++) are used in the "real world", whereas lisp is mostly isolated to academia. The article point this out. I've used Java for huge projects because it is no longer considered a risky language by large organizations. For whatever reason, lisp has not developed such a reputation. Does lisp have application servers? Does lisp has db connectivity? Does lisp have CORBA bindings? Does lisp have asynchronous messaging? Does lisp have naming and directory bindings? Does lisp have web page templating functionality? I'm sure all that stuff could be built, but I doubt most of it exists right now.
Therefore, lisp is not acceptable for corporate use at this time.
Hi. I have a little experience with this. I'm not going to bore you with the story, rather just get to a simple description of possible architectures for what you want and why you might want them. Finally, I'll conclude by saying that what you are doing is extremely ambitious: don't falter when it gets hard and overwhelming.
Plain XML, without schemas
XML is a markup langauge that is supposed to be human readable. Thus anyone can whip up an XML document that describes some data (e.g. documentation on software). It helps if you have standards to make the XML consistent.
Plain XML, with schema (or DTD)
Creating schemas for all you different types of documentation is probably the first big pain in the butt you will deal with, but it is pretty essential to get a project like you describe to work. It helps by setting common standards which all participants in your org can use to understand the docs they are looking at. Now you also get some tool support for creating and validating your XML documents.
Database -> XML
Store all your documentation data in a database and use common db tools to extract it and format in XML. Why bother? Tool support! Lots of software development project tools support using a db as a repository for the various work products (documentation and code and stuff). This also allows you to have somewhat easier methods for serving your content to interested parties with appropriate security constraints.
Repository -> XML -(XSLT)-> HTML
Here we add the ability to transform the human-readable-but-cumbersome syntax of XML into html for viewing on a browser. The big effort for this sort of architecture is that you have to create the XSLT for all your different document types and you need some way of linking-to/searching your documents from the html into the repository. Some application and web servers help with this. I'm most familiar with the Java space, and Tomcat with various xml libraries can be made to do this.
Repository -> XML -(XSLT)-> XML -(XSLT)-> HTML
This is the most flexible architecture in which pure data XML is transformed into an intermediate form which represents an abstract presentation of the XML and which is then transformed into HTML (or WML or PDF or whatever). The first stage of transformation you need one XSLT style sheet for each document type to convert it into the presentation XML. Then for the second stage you need one stylesheet for each display format. The big advantage here is that if you need to publish to a new document format, you don't need to re-write _all_ of your first stage transformations, you only need to add one new second stage transformation.
Well, I was in a dot-com that crashed. I invested in it (foolishly, fully aware that I would likely never see the substantial sum of money ever again). Luckily I picked up a contract just before things really started to go south in 2000. But the contract has ended and now I'm pounding the keyboard searching for work. Sucks.
But, I managed some really cool stuff in the last several months - I started Oomind.com which is a pretty cool educational concept. The idea is to "open" education: anyone can be a learner and an educator and an accreditor using a sophisticated (some might say complicated) moderation system.
So if any of you out there are thinking about education instead of work, please check out oomind.com. It is set up so that you might even make a little money for your contributions to the system. Check out the following links for more info:
The Philosophy of Oomind Introduction to Oomind
Thanks for taking the time to read my little blatant self-promotion. If anyone has suggestions about the Oomind system, I would love to hear them.
I think it is pretty obvious to everyone here that technology and intellectual property are things which do not work well with the artificial boundaries of nation-states. What sorts of long term strategies does the CPT have for dealing with intellectual property and technology issues at a global level? I am particularly interested in the issues surrounding IP and tech in developing regions.
Actually, this is only true if you are completely stuck in a capitalistic mode where the market model is akin to a law of physics. There is always choice involved, and at some point, individuals and societies can choose greed (what you are describing) or they can choose to share. If Bill Gates/Larry Elison/etc. are the only ones who can personally afford something that is necessary to save lives, then I believe they have a moral obligation to _donate_ to the production of that something. One of the very few things I like about Gates, is that he is doing exactly this.
Come on, the fact that this had to happen is a result of the worst possible combination of MORAL decision making. The Brazilian government is making a bad decision, but it is still the best decision under the circumstances. International law and patents are important yes, but human lives are infinitely more important. Does anyone here get that?
And don't go thinking about any "long-term" crap about saving lives by maintaining corporate profits on research through patents. That's BS too. Governments have a very direct responsibility for the quality of their constituents lives. That's why we support (through taxation usually) research on environmentally friendly technologies, basic reasearch on health, etc. That is the long-term stuff.
By breaking the patent on AIDS drugs, Brazil is definately keeping their long-term interests in mind:
healthier population leads to more human resources
healthier population leads to more grateful constituents who then focus on proactive behavior rather than complaining about their govt
corporations learn that there are limits to how far they can push their greed - will start to strategize in a new conceptual framework and will certainly still be "successful" in creating value for shareholders
good example set of human lives before profits for the rest of the world - allows Brazil to have an excellent international reputation allowing their citizens more access to international facilities, governments, and other processes
Really experienced driver:
Hmm. I've noticed that between this light and the next light, the left hand lane travels slightly faster. If I can deek in, in front of that purple mercedes, I can switch to the left lane and gain at least three positions. I'll have to get over to the right pretty quick after that so that I can avoid the lane reduction coming up in three blocks....
Check out Oomind.com. This is the kind of thing where you can search based on qualities that are important not just keywords - and when you read something, you are also _learning_ it and this can be validated. It's a cool site.
Sorry for the shameless plug, but it seemed really appropriate.
I have done a reasonable amount of training which has been supported by my employers. I have taken project management classes from the University of Toronto, paid by my then employer, which were "for credit". And when I was an employee of Sun Microsystems, I took courses from their SunU - no external credit recognized. Of course I have also had books paid for, etc.
There are advantages and disadvantages to all the different modes of training and learning. Getting books is good from the perspective of time and cost, and sometimes learning effectiveness. Going to a seminar or formal classroom environment is good because of the interactivity and the (human) networking that can be done. Different methods are appropriate to different people with different learning styles.
However, in all cases, the training is in one "direction" only: the employee gains knowledge and noone else does. In other words, the money an employer spends on training an employee is tied up in that employee's head. Unless _extraordinary_ efforts are made to have that employee "share", which is usually done with some form of company show-and-tell session (read: expensive).
Because of this experience, and my generally strong interest in education, I have been working on a knowledge-sharing educational system called Oomind. The basic idea is that a company can set this up so that employees can learn, are motivated to share their knowledge, and can use their critical thinking skills to determine the worth of knowledge.
This system will (doesn't yet) allow a company to train people, track that training, share knowledge in a repository (so that other employees can access it), and have a permanent record of "credit" so that when/if an employee leaves, they have something to show for their training.
And of course, Oomind is meant to be the best place to learn on the Internet. It's still very new so there isn't much content - feel free to register and contribute. Its kinda like nupedia, except tied into a truly open editorial process and more importantly tied in to an educational system!
Hmm. Looks like you have discovered a small session-related bug in our system:-( If you would be so kind as to email me with information about your browser and if you have cookies turned off, I would really appreciate it.
There are lots of interesting things going on with publishing and the web. The thing that traditional journals have is that the editor and the editorial board are all acknowledged experts in the field of the journal. This has benefits and drawbacks obviously: crap is usually weeded out, but radical ideas are also often weeded out. Journals are not "open" or "free". The web on the other hand is a very open and free publishing media. This has reciprocal benefits and drawbacks to the journal system.
So that is all stuff everyone knows.
What is really interesting are those web environments that try to balance openness with peer review. Slashdot is obviously one such environment, everything2 is another, etc. But what they lack is subtlety and organization.
So, even though it's probably a karma bad, I'm going to do a blatant self promotion: oomind is a web system that balances openness and peer review but also provides subtlety and organization. It is brand new, so there isn't much content yet, but please check it out. Here is the philosophy of oomind, and here is the more functional introduction.
Part of the reason we don't recognize the breadth of the War is because of our system of education which is very authoritarian.
Learning in school means:
Our information comes from an "authority". This authority has very little accountability.
Our behavior is checked absolutely by an "authority". Again, very little accountability.
Our ability to change the _system_ while we are learners is almost nil. We might be given small scraps of superficial ability to respond to the teachers' performance.
Most people are satisfied with this system of education because we are aclimatized to it so early in our lives. The internet and the web are really opportunities to change this circumstance by creating a new educational system which is not autocratic but community oriented, not arbitrary but meritocratic, and most of all, not rigorous but incredibly flexible and dynamic and interactive. Knowledge is created by communities, its worth is determined by communities, and spread freely within communities. Why shouldn't education reflect that!!! Please check out Oomind which is an attempt to create a new educational system which works on these principles - its brand new so please forgive the dearth of content. Instead, contribute something!!!
The internet is based on standards. One of the issues that any litigious organizations will encounter is that once a standard is in use and assisting people, it is _very_ difficult to get rid of it. A standard (defactor or dejure) once proven beneficial is not something that can be recalled since there is no _owner_.
So. Why not create a file-sharing standard. Create something that will easily allow the creation of a multitude of different file sharing programs that use this standard. Napster, Gnutella, Aimster, etc. etc. all could implement the standard, provide repositories etc. The ease of creating a client which utilizes the standard protocol/library/interfaces/etc. would encourage a diversity and flexibility to the file sharing "industry" which would be incredibly hard to repress.
And if the standard is Open and Free and if people build Open and Free libraries on top of the standard, so much the better.
(Yes, I know, TCP/IP, FTP, etc. are all protocols which could be used, but they don't really address the broader issues of searching, distributed repositories, security, etc. OTOH, I could certainly be unaware of exactly such an effort - if I am let me know!)
I have been dealing with back pain for about 10 years. Here is a quick summary of my experiences.
CHIROPRACTIC: I have seen at least 8 different chiropracters. Four of them have given me noticable results, and two of them have claimed to be able to "fix" me. There are at least three different styles of chiropractic that I have encountered. The most common is the manual adjustment type where the chiropracter uses his/her hands to adjust the spine. These adjustments are most often accompanied by a popping sound (like cracking your knuckles). Many chriopracters also have a masseuse in the office. I have just left seeing a chiropracter who uses a device called an "activator". This is kinda like a spring loaded finger which is used to administer the adjustments. Symptomatically, I improved from its use, but I felt that it was impersonal and was _only_ dealing with the symptoms. My wife started seeing a chiropracter who uses "active release technique" which involves vigorous massage at the same time as the adjustments are done, plus a very comprehensive set of exercises and stretches which are a requirement for the treatment. I have just switched to this doctor and I am very impressed. Many chiropracters do not prescribe an exercise regimen even if it is requested. I have felt that this is a major flaw in the common practice of chiropractic. The three times I have seen chiropracters who have recommended an exercise program, I have noticed improvements and while I do my exercises those improvements are maintained, even if I stop seeing the chiropracter.
SHIATSU MASSAGE: When I worked at Sun for a short time the division I was part of brought in a Shiatsu massuese for anyone who wished it. These felt _fantastic_ and were very energizing, and would temporarily make my back feel better. Again, though, I felt like this was mostly addressing symptoms rather than root causes.
ALEXANDER TECHNIQUE: Up until a year ago I had never even heard of this. My mother has been receiving treatment and training for the past year. She raves about it as directly addressing the root habits which cause back and other structural problems (which in turn can cause some other symptoms of ill health). She has given me two treatments to demonstrate it. I feel that if I had the time I would definitely pursue it, however it is a very intense course: 4 hours a day five days a week. Basically, it is a very mental process in which you are made aware of your mental control of your physical condition.
EXERCISE: Lets face it - most computer professionals or geeks are basically not living a lifestyle compatible with regular systematic exercise. Probably this is "bad" and "should" be changed somehow, but it won't be in the foreseeable future. I am lucky enough to work from home full time where I can easily get up from my work many times a day without anyone asking stupid questions. If you can, the minimum exercise you should get is to do many different small stretches during the day while you are working, ideally every twenty minutes to half an hour. The real ideal of course is to also get true cardiovascular and strengthening exercise every day, and eat lots of veggies and fruit, and spend time outdoors, and, and...
MARTIAL ARTS: I just started taking Kempo Karate which is karate with strong chinese influences. I found that the regular exercise made me feel great but it didn't help my back much per se. Rather, on ocaision, I would do something in class which would put my back out more! In other word, _be_ _careful_. All that said, for general physical fitness and usefulness and mental discipline, not much beats a martial art!
CHAIR AND OTHER EQUIPMENT: Last summer I developed a pretty serious case of repetitive strain injuries in my wrists and fingers. So I decided to get serious about my home office environment. I purchased a good chair with a high back and (for me) comfortable lumbar support. Very adjustable, but not an Aeron:-( This chair has definately helped my back, but my habits diminish its effects somewhat since I slouch and slide down quite far on my chair (resting on my neck and lower back instead of my bum). As an aside, I also bought gel wrist supports for keyboard and mouse and that cleared up my strain injuries almost immediately (FYI).
Most education done with computers is less effective and possibly more damaging than education in a classroom simply because of the incredibly reduced levels of interactivity. Most educational materials on the internet may have a very small level of local interactivity (choose a path or parameter), but they are disconnected from a larger social and informational context (even with hyperlinks).
One online educational system which is a bit different is Oomind (http://www.oomind.com/). Oomind takes advantage of the Internet's inherent interactivity capabilities by providing multiple levels of feedback and multiple means to participate in the system itself (not just in the learning materials). Of course, it is still not nearly as interactive as a real classroom, and it could never replace a physical location for learning the practical aspects of drama, the arts, etc.
But check it out. Oomind is pretty cool and is based on some principles familiar to the world of Open Source developers. It is still quite new, and personally funded so be patient with it!
I have to admit, I am not terribly surprised by the trend to get rid of the free stuff. Most products and services are not inherently suited to be sold over the Internet. I'm not going to support that statement too much, except to say that the difficulty in finding a viable business model is a sign of this.
But, education is the one thing that I can see as being really good over the web. Obviously I'm not talking about teaching a Drama class:) But I am talking about that part of a discipline which relates to history, theory or criticism. And in many more intellectual disciplines, the practical aspect can also be effectively provided.
The one thing that many dot-com internet businesses failed to take advantage of is the inherent interactivity of the Internet. And it is this inherent interactivity which makes education such a good Internet play. The one big hump that businesses and schools who are doing e-learning will have to deal with is that now old saw "information wants to be free". They have to move beyond selling their content. Sell academic credit - the report card - instead.
Now here comes the blatant self-promotion...
One site which does all this is called Oomind. It is, as far as I know, the only truly open educational system. Anyone can be not just a learner, but also an educator and an accreditor. The whole point of Oomind, is to democratize education (and make a little money doing it). Please check it out.
Coincidentally, I just launched a web app that is almost exactly this. It is called Oomind. It is actually meant to bring research and education back together. People can post articles, papers, essays, stories, in any topic, and they are reviewed. Then there are also quiz questions which can be purchased (you pay for the accademic credit:).
Of course, I'm hoping that this will be the new model for education: everyone is a leraner, an educator, and an accreditor. And therefore anyone who thinks they have a good idea can publish, and it is peer-reviewed to determine quality along a number of attributes.
Check it out: http://www.oomind.com/
PS. Yes this is blatant self promotion. Still, I think it is totally apropriate.
I am starting up a small web based business, and I have found the whois information valuable for two main reasons:
1. I can investigate possible names for my business without having to do a full trademark search for every one. This is deeper than just checking to see if a domain is available because...
2. Some companies have marginal claim to a domain based on their current corporate name or product names and may be willing to part with it, if it is not currently hosting a web site. In this case, it is nice to be able to email or phone a human and ask about the domain's status.
I currently hold about 20 domains. About a third of those are actively being used, and the rest are pseudo-speculation for my business: I want the domains for future branding reasons, but there is no guarentee that I will actually use them.
I am quite happy to supply my contact information regarding those names. Truth be told, I would appreciate being contacted if someone else felt they had a claim on one of the names. And I don't mean that I want to make buckets of cash reselling the domain: it simply makes business sense that if there is already a strong brand, I should probably avoid it for my own business.
On a personal level, as others have mentioned here, the information I have provided is already quite public, although not necessarily so accessible. Is there any current tracking of whois lookups? I don't know for sure, but I certainly doubt it as the quantity of data would be substantial. Such tracking could conceivably be used as discouragement against inappropriate use of the whois data, similar to the tracking of credit information requests. But, such tracking also begs the question... it is also somewhat of an invasion of privacy.
Also like other posters, I don't think it's that critical of an issue, and anyone who is making it so should probably be picking a fight elsewhere. I personally find whois useful, but neither would it destroy me if it was no longer publicly available...
Do you happen to be either a scientist or a philosopher of science?
It is true that science tries to acheive repeatability of results. It also tries to falsify and verify claims. And it also tries to develop models which describe nature. Those models are not prescriptive, they are descriptive. But part of that descriptive nature is their ability to predict those repeatable results. Hmm. Prediction. If we couldn't predict the future (repeatable results), we would have no basis for building anything.
Check out the work of Larry Laudan for some very interesting and convincing descriptions of what science really is.
As a last point, it is interesting that you used the work "hypothesis" - look it up in a couple good dictionaries. No predicting, indeed!
Yup! Which is one of the reasons why we will never solve humanity's problems until we all understand the fundamental unity of humanity. Peace is unattainable, social good is unattainable, global prosperity is unattainable, and environmental health is unattainable until that unity is recognized, and accepted by the people of the world.
This is a load of crap. Corporations predict where their technologies are going to go all the time. Bell predicted many of the long-term social effects of the popularization of the telephone _long_ before it was popular. Some companies have 50, 100 or 500 year plans (although it is not so common in the West). Want some documentation? Check out the book "In the Absence of the Sacred" by Jerry Mander - and don't let the title prejudice you: it is a very well written and thought out book (although it does go a little over the top sometimes).
The whole point of science is to develop models which PREDICT the future. These models are becoming more sophisticated, and more general as we learn more and more. Are you so arrogant as to think that science cannot address the economic, environmental and even societal effects of technologies?
By the way, I want to reveal my bias: I am writing a paper about exactly this issue. I believe there are specific useful areas where we can predict the effects of technology. The paper is not done, and has some parts that are getting old, but if you are interested, here it is.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah. Well, I do appologize for my ignorance. As I mention in another comment, then perhaps unity of promotion and standards might be other issues. The question remains: why is lisp not used more in enterprise settings while Java is rapidly overtaking c++?
Most or all of those things have been built in Lisp, and many are available for free or bundled with commercial Lisps. BTW, my group uses Lisp in a corporate setting. For what we do Java would be a very inferior replacement. Okay I'll grant you that I am not very familiar with the commercial lisp vendors and what they offer. But then the question remains: why is lisp not used more in a corporate setting? Probably the real reason is based on marketing and promotion. Java has a single organization which sets/guides the development of the whole platform. Sun has spend a lot of time and money promoting and branding Java. There is one standard way of binding Java to all those different enterprise modules. Is this so in lisp? Again, I don't know, but I doubt it. Is there an enterprise standard (de facto or de jure) for lisp? Is there one organization with lots of money to promote lisp into corporations? These are probably the real reasons. My other comment just reflects my own ignorance, but that ignorance is due to the lack of unified promotion and standards for lisp.
This is quite an interesting study. I use java professionally for most things that I do (I have also used C, Objective-C and a few others in the past). I have had to work with lisp a bit. Of course I took a lisp oriented AI class in school, but since then I have also had to do some porting from lisp to Java! Perhaps it was just a factor of the people who developed the lisp code, but I found it incredibly difficult to read - and my complaint wasn't with the nesting of parentheses. It wasn't strongly typed (is there such a lisp?) and the singular type of syntax (lists) make many aspects of the code difficult to unravel. That said, there are some things I really like about lisp, in particular its dynamic nature where you can build lisp functions at runtime and execute them at runtime. Sometimes I really wish I could do this easily with Java (its possible to do, just a huge pain in the butt). I think the real issue right now is that Java (and C++) are used in the "real world", whereas lisp is mostly isolated to academia. The article point this out. I've used Java for huge projects because it is no longer considered a risky language by large organizations. For whatever reason, lisp has not developed such a reputation. Does lisp have application servers? Does lisp has db connectivity? Does lisp have CORBA bindings? Does lisp have asynchronous messaging? Does lisp have naming and directory bindings? Does lisp have web page templating functionality? I'm sure all that stuff could be built, but I doubt most of it exists right now. Therefore, lisp is not acceptable for corporate use at this time.
- Plain XML, without schemas
- Plain XML, with schema (or DTD)
- Database -> XML
- Repository -> XML -(XSLT)-> HTML
- Repository -> XML -(XSLT)-> XML -(XSLT)-> HTML
There are of course variations. Check out IS Architectures - Organizing the Web Server for more details when one of your outputs is HTML.XML is a markup langauge that is supposed to be human readable. Thus anyone can whip up an XML document that describes some data (e.g. documentation on software). It helps if you have standards to make the XML consistent.
Creating schemas for all you different types of documentation is probably the first big pain in the butt you will deal with, but it is pretty essential to get a project like you describe to work. It helps by setting common standards which all participants in your org can use to understand the docs they are looking at. Now you also get some tool support for creating and validating your XML documents.
Store all your documentation data in a database and use common db tools to extract it and format in XML. Why bother? Tool support! Lots of software development project tools support using a db as a repository for the various work products (documentation and code and stuff). This also allows you to have somewhat easier methods for serving your content to interested parties with appropriate security constraints.
Here we add the ability to transform the human-readable-but-cumbersome syntax of XML into html for viewing on a browser. The big effort for this sort of architecture is that you have to create the XSLT for all your different document types and you need some way of linking-to/searching your documents from the html into the repository. Some application and web servers help with this. I'm most familiar with the Java space, and Tomcat with various xml libraries can be made to do this.
This is the most flexible architecture in which pure data XML is transformed into an intermediate form which represents an abstract presentation of the XML and which is then transformed into HTML (or WML or PDF or whatever). The first stage of transformation you need one XSLT style sheet for each document type to convert it into the presentation XML. Then for the second stage you need one stylesheet for each display format. The big advantage here is that if you need to publish to a new document format, you don't need to re-write _all_ of your first stage transformations, you only need to add one new second stage transformation.
But, I managed some really cool stuff in the last several months - I started Oomind.com which is a pretty cool educational concept. The idea is to "open" education: anyone can be a learner and an educator and an accreditor using a sophisticated (some might say complicated) moderation system.
So if any of you out there are thinking about education instead of work, please check out oomind.com. It is set up so that you might even make a little money for your contributions to the system. Check out the following links for more info:
The Philosophy of Oomind
Introduction to Oomind
Thanks for taking the time to read my little blatant self-promotion. If anyone has suggestions about the Oomind system, I would love to hear them.
I think it is pretty obvious to everyone here that technology and intellectual property are things which do not work well with the artificial boundaries of nation-states. What sorts of long term strategies does the CPT have for dealing with intellectual property and technology issues at a global level? I am particularly interested in the issues surrounding IP and tech in developing regions.
Actually, this is only true if you are completely stuck in a capitalistic mode where the market model is akin to a law of physics. There is always choice involved, and at some point, individuals and societies can choose greed (what you are describing) or they can choose to share. If Bill Gates/Larry Elison/etc. are the only ones who can personally afford something that is necessary to save lives, then I believe they have a moral obligation to _donate_ to the production of that something. One of the very few things I like about Gates, is that he is doing exactly this.
Come on, the fact that this had to happen is a result of the worst possible combination of MORAL decision making. The Brazilian government is making a bad decision, but it is still the best decision under the circumstances. International law and patents are important yes, but human lives are infinitely more important. Does anyone here get that?
And don't go thinking about any "long-term" crap about saving lives by maintaining corporate profits on research through patents. That's BS too. Governments have a very direct responsibility for the quality of their constituents lives. That's why we support (through taxation usually) research on environmentally friendly technologies, basic reasearch on health, etc. That is the long-term stuff.
By breaking the patent on AIDS drugs, Brazil is definately keeping their long-term interests in mind:
Really experienced driver:
Hmm. I've noticed that between this light and the next light, the left hand lane travels slightly faster. If I can deek in, in front of that purple mercedes, I can switch to the left lane and gain at least three positions. I'll have to get over to the right pretty quick after that so that I can avoid the lane reduction coming up in three blocks....
Prejudice stops a thinking mind.
Sorry for the shameless plug, but it seemed really appropriate.
http://www.oomind.com/
I have done a reasonable amount of training which has been supported by my employers. I have taken project management classes from the University of Toronto, paid by my then employer, which were "for credit". And when I was an employee of Sun Microsystems, I took courses from their SunU - no external credit recognized. Of course I have also had books paid for, etc.
There are advantages and disadvantages to all the different modes of training and learning. Getting books is good from the perspective of time and cost, and sometimes learning effectiveness. Going to a seminar or formal classroom environment is good because of the interactivity and the (human) networking that can be done. Different methods are appropriate to different people with different learning styles.
However, in all cases, the training is in one "direction" only: the employee gains knowledge and noone else does. In other words, the money an employer spends on training an employee is tied up in that employee's head. Unless _extraordinary_ efforts are made to have that employee "share", which is usually done with some form of company show-and-tell session (read: expensive).
Because of this experience, and my generally strong interest in education, I have been working on a knowledge-sharing educational system called Oomind. The basic idea is that a company can set this up so that employees can learn, are motivated to share their knowledge, and can use their critical thinking skills to determine the worth of knowledge.
This system will (doesn't yet) allow a company to train people, track that training, share knowledge in a repository (so that other employees can access it), and have a permanent record of "credit" so that when/if an employee leaves, they have something to show for their training.
And of course, Oomind is meant to be the best place to learn on the Internet. It's still very new so there isn't much content - feel free to register and contribute. Its kinda like nupedia, except tied into a truly open editorial process and more importantly tied in to an educational system!
http://www.oomind.com/
Hmm. Looks like you have discovered a small session-related bug in our system :-( If you would be so kind as to email me with information about your browser and if you have cookies turned off, I would really appreciate it.
http://www.oomind.com/
There are lots of interesting things going on with publishing and the web. The thing that traditional journals have is that the editor and the editorial board are all acknowledged experts in the field of the journal. This has benefits and drawbacks obviously: crap is usually weeded out, but radical ideas are also often weeded out. Journals are not "open" or "free". The web on the other hand is a very open and free publishing media. This has reciprocal benefits and drawbacks to the journal system.
So that is all stuff everyone knows.
What is really interesting are those web environments that try to balance openness with peer review. Slashdot is obviously one such environment, everything2 is another, etc. But what they lack is subtlety and organization.
So, even though it's probably a karma bad, I'm going to do a blatant self promotion: oomind is a web system that balances openness and peer review but also provides subtlety and organization. It is brand new, so there isn't much content yet, but please check it out. Here is the philosophy of oomind, and here is the more functional introduction.
Thanks.
http://www.oomind.com/
Learning in school means:
- Our information comes from an "authority". This authority has very little accountability.
- Our behavior is checked absolutely by an "authority". Again, very little accountability.
- Our ability to change the _system_ while we are learners is almost nil. We might be given small scraps of superficial ability to respond to the teachers' performance.
Most people are satisfied with this system of education because we are aclimatized to it so early in our lives. The internet and the web are really opportunities to change this circumstance by creating a new educational system which is not autocratic but community oriented, not arbitrary but meritocratic, and most of all, not rigorous but incredibly flexible and dynamic and interactive. Knowledge is created by communities, its worth is determined by communities, and spread freely within communities. Why shouldn't education reflect that!!! Please check out Oomind which is an attempt to create a new educational system which works on these principles - its brand new so please forgive the dearth of content. Instead, contribute something!!!http://www.oomind.com/
The internet is based on standards. One of the issues that any litigious organizations will encounter is that once a standard is in use and assisting people, it is _very_ difficult to get rid of it. A standard (defactor or dejure) once proven beneficial is not something that can be recalled since there is no _owner_. So. Why not create a file-sharing standard. Create something that will easily allow the creation of a multitude of different file sharing programs that use this standard. Napster, Gnutella, Aimster, etc. etc. all could implement the standard, provide repositories etc. The ease of creating a client which utilizes the standard protocol/library/interfaces/etc. would encourage a diversity and flexibility to the file sharing "industry" which would be incredibly hard to repress. And if the standard is Open and Free and if people build Open and Free libraries on top of the standard, so much the better. (Yes, I know, TCP/IP, FTP, etc. are all protocols which could be used, but they don't really address the broader issues of searching, distributed repositories, security, etc. OTOH, I could certainly be unaware of exactly such an effort - if I am let me know!)
http://www.oomind.com/
I have been dealing with back pain for about 10 years. Here is a quick summary of my experiences.
...
:-( This chair has definately helped my back, but my habits diminish its effects somewhat since I slouch and slide down quite far on my chair (resting on my neck and lower back instead of my bum). As an aside, I also bought gel wrist supports for keyboard and mouse and that cleared up my strain injuries almost immediately (FYI).
CHIROPRACTIC: I have seen at least 8 different chiropracters. Four of them have given me noticable results, and two of them have claimed to be able to "fix" me. There are at least three different styles of chiropractic that I have encountered. The most common is the manual adjustment type where the chiropracter uses his/her hands to adjust the spine. These adjustments are most often accompanied by a popping sound (like cracking your knuckles). Many chriopracters also have a masseuse in the office. I have just left seeing a chiropracter who uses a device called an "activator". This is kinda like a spring loaded finger which is used to administer the adjustments. Symptomatically, I improved from its use, but I felt that it was impersonal and was _only_ dealing with the symptoms. My wife started seeing a chiropracter who uses "active release technique" which involves vigorous massage at the same time as the adjustments are done, plus a very comprehensive set of exercises and stretches which are a requirement for the treatment. I have just switched to this doctor and I am very impressed. Many chiropracters do not prescribe an exercise regimen even if it is requested. I have felt that this is a major flaw in the common practice of chiropractic. The three times I have seen chiropracters who have recommended an exercise program, I have noticed improvements and while I do my exercises those improvements are maintained, even if I stop seeing the chiropracter.
SHIATSU MASSAGE: When I worked at Sun for a short time the division I was part of brought in a Shiatsu massuese for anyone who wished it. These felt _fantastic_ and were very energizing, and would temporarily make my back feel better. Again, though, I felt like this was mostly addressing symptoms rather than root causes.
ALEXANDER TECHNIQUE: Up until a year ago I had never even heard of this. My mother has been receiving treatment and training for the past year. She raves about it as directly addressing the root habits which cause back and other structural problems (which in turn can cause some other symptoms of ill health). She has given me two treatments to demonstrate it. I feel that if I had the time I would definitely pursue it, however it is a very intense course: 4 hours a day five days a week. Basically, it is a very mental process in which you are made aware of your mental control of your physical condition.
EXERCISE: Lets face it - most computer professionals or geeks are basically not living a lifestyle compatible with regular systematic exercise. Probably this is "bad" and "should" be changed somehow, but it won't be in the foreseeable future. I am lucky enough to work from home full time where I can easily get up from my work many times a day without anyone asking stupid questions. If you can, the minimum exercise you should get is to do many different small stretches during the day while you are working, ideally every twenty minutes to half an hour. The real ideal of course is to also get true cardiovascular and strengthening exercise every day, and eat lots of veggies and fruit, and spend time outdoors, and, and
MARTIAL ARTS: I just started taking Kempo Karate which is karate with strong chinese influences. I found that the regular exercise made me feel great but it didn't help my back much per se. Rather, on ocaision, I would do something in class which would put my back out more! In other word, _be_ _careful_. All that said, for general physical fitness and usefulness and mental discipline, not much beats a martial art!
CHAIR AND OTHER EQUIPMENT: Last summer I developed a pretty serious case of repetitive strain injuries in my wrists and fingers. So I decided to get serious about my home office environment. I purchased a good chair with a high back and (for me) comfortable lumbar support. Very adjustable, but not an Aeron
http://www.oomind.com/
Most education done with computers is less effective and possibly more damaging than education in a classroom simply because of the incredibly reduced levels of interactivity. Most educational materials on the internet may have a very small level of local interactivity (choose a path or parameter), but they are disconnected from a larger social and informational context (even with hyperlinks).
One online educational system which is a bit different is Oomind (http://www.oomind.com/). Oomind takes advantage of the Internet's inherent interactivity capabilities by providing multiple levels of feedback and multiple means to participate in the system itself (not just in the learning materials). Of course, it is still not nearly as interactive as a real classroom, and it could never replace a physical location for learning the practical aspects of drama, the arts, etc.
But check it out. Oomind is pretty cool and is based on some principles familiar to the world of Open Source developers. It is still quite new, and personally funded so be patient with it!
http://www.oomind.com/
I have to admit, I am not terribly surprised by the trend to get rid of the free stuff. Most products and services are not inherently suited to be sold over the Internet. I'm not going to support that statement too much, except to say that the difficulty in finding a viable business model is a sign of this. But, education is the one thing that I can see as being really good over the web. Obviously I'm not talking about teaching a Drama class :) But I am talking about that part of a discipline which relates to history, theory or criticism. And in many more intellectual disciplines, the practical aspect can also be effectively provided.
The one thing that many dot-com internet businesses failed to take advantage of is the inherent interactivity of the Internet. And it is this inherent interactivity which makes education such a good Internet play. The one big hump that businesses and schools who are doing e-learning will have to deal with is that now old saw "information wants to be free". They have to move beyond selling their content. Sell academic credit - the report card - instead.
Now here comes the blatant self-promotion...
One site which does all this is called Oomind. It is, as far as I know, the only truly open educational system. Anyone can be not just a learner, but also an educator and an accreditor. The whole point of Oomind, is to democratize education (and make a little money doing it). Please check it out.
Of course, I'm hoping that this will be the new model for education: everyone is a leraner, an educator, and an accreditor. And therefore anyone who thinks they have a good idea can publish, and it is peer-reviewed to determine quality along a number of attributes.
Check it out: http://www.oomind.com/
PS. Yes this is blatant self promotion. Still, I think it is totally apropriate.
I am starting up a small web based business, and I have found the whois information valuable for two main reasons:
1. I can investigate possible names for my business without having to do a full trademark search for every one. This is deeper than just checking to see if a domain is available because...
2. Some companies have marginal claim to a domain based on their current corporate name or product names and may be willing to part with it, if it is not currently hosting a web site. In this case, it is nice to be able to email or phone a human and ask about the domain's status.
I currently hold about 20 domains. About a third of those are actively being used, and the rest are pseudo-speculation for my business: I want the domains for future branding reasons, but there is no guarentee that I will actually use them.
I am quite happy to supply my contact information regarding those names. Truth be told, I would appreciate being contacted if someone else felt they had a claim on one of the names. And I don't mean that I want to make buckets of cash reselling the domain: it simply makes business sense that if there is already a strong brand, I should probably avoid it for my own business.
On a personal level, as others have mentioned here, the information I have provided is already quite public, although not necessarily so accessible. Is there any current tracking of whois lookups? I don't know for sure, but I certainly doubt it as the quantity of data would be substantial. Such tracking could conceivably be used as discouragement against inappropriate use of the whois data, similar to the tracking of credit information requests. But, such tracking also begs the question... it is also somewhat of an invasion of privacy.
Also like other posters, I don't think it's that critical of an issue, and anyone who is making it so should probably be picking a fight elsewhere. I personally find whois useful, but neither would it destroy me if it was no longer publicly available...
Do you happen to be either a scientist or a philosopher of science? It is true that science tries to acheive repeatability of results. It also tries to falsify and verify claims. And it also tries to develop models which describe nature. Those models are not prescriptive, they are descriptive. But part of that descriptive nature is their ability to predict those repeatable results. Hmm. Prediction. If we couldn't predict the future (repeatable results), we would have no basis for building anything. Check out the work of Larry Laudan for some very interesting and convincing descriptions of what science really is. As a last point, it is interesting that you used the work "hypothesis" - look it up in a couple good dictionaries. No predicting, indeed!
Yup! Which is one of the reasons why we will never solve humanity's problems until we all understand the fundamental unity of humanity. Peace is unattainable, social good is unattainable, global prosperity is unattainable, and environmental health is unattainable until that unity is recognized, and accepted by the people of the world.
This is a load of crap. Corporations predict where their technologies are going to go all the time. Bell predicted many of the long-term social effects of the popularization of the telephone _long_ before it was popular. Some companies have 50, 100 or 500 year plans (although it is not so common in the West). Want some documentation? Check out the book "In the Absence of the Sacred" by Jerry Mander - and don't let the title prejudice you: it is a very well written and thought out book (although it does go a little over the top sometimes). The whole point of science is to develop models which PREDICT the future. These models are becoming more sophisticated, and more general as we learn more and more. Are you so arrogant as to think that science cannot address the economic, environmental and even societal effects of technologies? By the way, I want to reveal my bias: I am writing a paper about exactly this issue. I believe there are specific useful areas where we can predict the effects of technology. The paper is not done, and has some parts that are getting old, but if you are interested, here it is.