I think that you should not be using the computing aspect of the computer, but should be using its memory aspect.
And, your Weblog idea falls in the memory space. You are trying to save the written conversations with one or many in a chronological fashion. So, in a way you are trying to create an institutional memory.
You could show your students what a wonderful "institutional memory" Google is. Do searches or exact quotes by remembering just a few words of the quote. By showing how easy it is, you can teach your students to be more precise in their use of references and paraphrasing ideas.
You could also show the students a wealth of english literature on the web that is freely available, You could introduce them to efforts like the Guttenburg project http://www.gutenberg.net/ and let them know that good books don't have to be expensive or out of easy reach locked up in some library somewhere.
You could explain to the students as to how things can be so easily checked for plagiarism, that it is better to give credit where it is due rather than claim it. It might help cultivate a new generation that has no hesitation in acknowledging where the ideas came from - thus, later allowing for a better public discourse in their civic life.
You could show them the power of weblogs in the evolution of ideas, by exposing the various stages of idea development to criticism by peers - seen and unseen. Though a lone author can come up with a great work after being in isolation, I think the probability if a great work is higher if it is exposed to some criticism as the ideas are coalescing in the writers mind. You could also introduce them to literary discussion groups.
You could expose your students to the chunking of ideas in electronic and cyberspace , because ideas have to be expressed in screenfuls, and thus a sort of an unnatural frame is created around the idea. You could also expose them to the different style of organization of chunks of ideas needed when the reader has some element of choice in deciding the sequence.
If there is another post on this subject soon, I will try to put more of my thoughts across. I think, as long as you keep you focus correct, and not get caught in the computing aspect, by explore the networking aspect, you can't go wrong. After all, what is writing - it is just a network of words and ideas.
Getting someone to organize it is the problem, as you rightly identified.
We still haven't reached the point where we could even attract support from such a small percentage of the people, but I am sure it will happen soon. We just need a few cases where the RIAA/MPAA will bully some personality that will catch the attention of the media and raise the hackles of our types, and we will respond.
But, it would be helpful if such calculations and scenarios could be evaluated - so that when the time come all we have to do is the execution.
The snowball is going to start rolling someday, though we need a good seed to get it all started.
But thanks for stepping up... If we could even get a list started of the people willing to help organize, it would be very helpful to organize support at a moment's notice... I have been trying to build up a case on a discussion list at http://www.quicktopic.com and once I have collected some more background material, I will post it here to seek support, and also forward you a copy.
Which will not help at all until EVERYONE gets in, and that won't happen very soon.
We don't need EVERYONE to get in but a small part. If a small part of us in the CD/DVD consuming unverse, 6.7 % by my calculations, starts showing support to the defendents in the cases against the RIAA and MPAA, we would have the same firepower as these bullies.
It works like this:
If at least 6.7 % of the CD/DVD consuming community donates, not a small share, but the COMPLETE price of the CD or DVD not bought from the members of RIAA and MPAA, for the defense in these cases, we shall have a sufficient amount to take on the RIAA/MPAA lawyers. The logic is that the RIAA and MPAA get a share of the CD or DVD's price to attack us, we array the "complete" price of the CD or DVD against them.
Our contribution, on a per person basis, will be at least 15 times more in value (probably much more as I don't think RIAA and MPAA are getting a dollar from every $15 disc sold; ignoring the movie ticket's revenue) than the crowd buying CD's and contributing to the RIAA's and MPAA's coffers.
Mathematics, luckily says that a share that goes towards them can never be bigger than the complete which goes against them . So, the RIAA and MPAA are bound to be finished.
And if more than 6.7 % of the music consuming community can be brought together we shall have more funds to beat the RIAA and MPAA and their members on their head. And, once we cross the threshold, there is no way to reverse this growing snowball heading in their direction.
People can differ with my assumptions of the numbers, but the point is that EVERYONE does not have to buy in - just a small and dedicated share has to.
CAUTION - EXTREME DREAMING - Consume with care, and a little flight of fantasy.
If I had to use the analogy of a battle with RIAA and MPAA, I would say bring 'em on, and let them open another front in the legal battle. Sue another company or another individual. Stretch them thin by forcing them to go for many many small and diverse legal cases - but never letting them bunch the many cases into a single class-action lawsuit (or, should I say, reverse class-action?). Inflict pain on them at their thousands points of legal cases, and drain their lawyers and their coffers. Then, we should all go in for the kill, and change their business model.
It can all be done by employing simple mathematics in our arsenal.
RIAA and MPAA get a small share of each CD/DVD sold, most probably, indirectly through membership dues being paid to it. The rest of it goes to the studios, middlemen,etc. ( more here for the mp3's)
What if, as we draw the RIAA and MPAA to file thousands of civil cases (trying to avoid criminal cases), a part of us starts showing support to the defendents in these cases. Donate, not a small share, but ALL the price of the CD or DVD not bought from the members of RIAA and MPAA, for the defense in these cases. As our contribution, on a per person basis, will be at least 15 times (probably much more as I don't think RIAA and MPAA are getting dollar from every $15 disc sold) more in value than the crowd buying CD's and contributing to the RIAA's and MPAA's coffers, we just need to be 6.7% of the people in the music consumming community to take on the RIAA amd MPAA lawyers on an equal financial footing.
And if more than 6.7 % of the music consuming community can be brought together we shall have more funds to beat the RIAA and MPAA and their members on their head. And, once we cross the threshold, there is no way to reverse this growing snowball heading in their direction. The logic being that they get a share of the CD or DVD's price to attack us, we array the "complete" price of the CD or DVD against them.
Mathematics, luckily says that a share can never be bigger than the complete. So, the RIAA and MPAA are bound to be finished.
I agree with you that the RIAA will do all it can as it writhes in its death throes after having missed the bus when the Napster Revolution took place.
It reminds me of what Thomas Jefferson wrote:
"I have never dreamed that all opposition was to cease. The clergy, who have missed their union with the State, the Anglomen, who have missed their union with England, and the political adventurers, who have lost the chance of swindling and plunder in the waste of public money, will never cease to bawl on the breaking up of their sanctuary."
--Thomas Jefferson to Gideon Granger, 1801. ME 10:259
I think we are talking about the same thing, but what we differ in is the "role" of limitation. An artist could arbitrarily choose a limitation but they seldom do. The limitations emerge from the nature of things, the primary being that the artist cannot "transfer the entirety of (the artist's) understanding" but the aim still remains to transfer a sufficient amount.
Digressing, in the movie "Immortal Beloved" Beethoven asks Schindler who is listening to one of Beethoven's sonata being performed, "What is music?"
Schindler says "It exalts the soul."
"Nonsense," says Beethoven. "The power of music is that it takes the listener into the mental state of the composer. The listner has no choice. It is like hypnotism."
So the artist would like to approach "transferring the entirety," but of course cannot do, because the communication with the audience can only be done by some medium. The moment a medium is chosen limitations are imposed because no medium can transfer the sounds, the colors, the temperatture, the taste, the humidity... et al. So, the game becomes transferring "a sufficient amount" despite the limitation of the medium. Of course, now, the artist is going to choose a medium that he or she is comforatble with so that the task of overcoming limitations is feasible for him or her based on the talents or capabilities that the artist has.
And then the artist, despite the limitations of the medium, is able to transfer a "sufficient amount," which also implies that the non-artist could not have transferred a "sufficient amount."
Now the limitation that was accepted and overcome by the artist was real, and pretty peculiar to him or her. But, the same limitation is pretty arbitrary from the audience's point of view. Because if another artist had been trying to convey something similar they would have chosen a different medium, and hence different limitations.
From the audience's point of view, it would not have mattered what the medium was, as long as they were "able to get into the mental state of the composer." And so, here we have all the elements of communcation, limitation, talent, expression, real, arbitrary,......
You are right about "expressing and communicating something to an audience." I meant the same when I set up the whole exercise as "if I had to convey the mood in the park." The intention was that the aim to to communicate, but the communication is more than what the medium or tools of communcation should "logically" allow. As I talked about overcoming the "logical limitation" I used the word creatively. But, in essence, all art is about communication, and communicating despite the limitation, where the limitation can be real or arbitrary.
Art is creatively overcoming the limitations that the artist sets upon him or her self. It does not matter what the limitations are, but if the artist can successfully express more than what the limitations should logically allow, then I think it is successful art.
For example, if I had to convey the mood in the park next door to my house I could bring you here. But that is not possible. So, I can decide to express the mood in the park to you only via words, no sight, no sounds, no smells. Then I am a writer.
If on the other hand I choose the limitation of being only able to express in colors, then I am a painter if only through the medium of colors I can convey the mood in the park to you.
Or if I accept the limitation to be just using sounds, no sights, no colors, no smell, then I am a musician.
I can even choose to express the mood in the park by using only matchsticks, or some other arbitrary limitation. As long as I can overcome the "self" or "else" imposed limitations to convey more than what the limitations should logically allow, I think I am a successful artist.
I think gaming is the same way. By accepting limitaions on the medium of the computer screen, keyboard, joystick, the game attempts to transport the gamer into another world, another reality. If it can do that, it is succesful art. It is almost like movies where you suspend disbelief and enter the world of the movie. If you thought about it, all it really is just colored light flickering on a screen in a darkened room, with a bunch of speakers around. If with just these things the flickering light and sound can transport you to antoher world, it is art.
And so, Game Design is an art. Maybe coding by itself is not art, just like an artist can use artisans and craftsmen, but the game design aspect, I believe, is definitely art. It is art because it is able to creatively able to overcome limitations.
And using my definition of art, we can apply it to life too. The limitation of our lives is that they will end. The limitation of life is death, and so if we can live our life in such a way that we can transcend our physical death, our lived life itself then becomes art. So, I guess, in some ways I am saying the way we live our lives is the art of our life.
I understand that in a strange way I have come around to define just about anything as being possibly art, and so maybe I am taking away from the exclusivity of the art. But, not really. because for it to be successful art it has to transcend the limitation, whether the limitation is real or arbitary. Thus, though everything has the potential to be artistic, it becomes art only if it overcomes the limitation. And it requires creativity to achieve that, and not everything is creative. So, not everything is art. Whatever is left, is then definitely art.
Anyway, let me get my fourth cup of coffee. My head is spinning, and maybe if I could do something by overcoming that limitation, I could be an... artist (?) (!)
The bottomline is that it does not matter whether the publisher calls the game or program shareware or not. It is by default shareware, till I decide to convert it to payware or freeware. It just goes to show how the shareware philosophy is no longer on the fringes but it is the mainstream.
With so much of warez, crackz and serialz, put out by some brilliant minds, I think there is no real difference between a shareware and payware today, esp. in this superconnected space of internet. You can try anything, whether shareware or payware, for almost as long as you like, and if you really like it, then you pay for it. It is the same philosophy that I use for music files too.
From many programs that I try, I choose only a few that I eventually buy. Thus, from my point-of-view it makes no difference whether the publisher calls it shareware or not. With all the crackz and serials every game/program is shareware for me till I decide to convert it to either payware or freeware. It is nice that some publishers are waking up to this reality.
A wireless technology returns to become the Wi-Fi for suburbia.
Dec 06, 2002
Article location
http://slate.msn.com/id/2074905/
Ricochet's network was scooped out of bankruptcy court last year by Denver's Aerie Networks, which hopes to revive the service as a viable alternative to DSL or cable modems. The technology that drives Ricochet is devilishly simpleâ"a network of shoe-box-sized transceivers that....
The service has been reactivated in Denver and, just last month, San Diego. The Bay Area may be next.....
Hate Flash too - Re:As much as I hate to say it...
on
Platform Evangelism
·
· Score: 1
But you will be surprised by how many sites have Flash on their homepage, and then give no way to bypass that *cursed* page. I don't have flash, use Opera w/o Java, and many times I see NOTHING on the homepage. No links to get into the site for some info - try http:///www.wilddivine.com (only if you have no flash and use Opera !!) There aren't ANY links on the page, and many times even Google cannot give you a direct link. What terrible site designs....
What gets me is the Flashy flash just for the sake of flashing Flash...
Once sufficent people move to standard formats, and a good set of tools are available to visually manage the data in standard formats, (GUI with Win and Outlook like capabilities) - people will not notice when Windows is slipped from under them and replaced with another OS. The POWER of Windows is Just the GUI that it has created, and a lot of sunken investment of time in learning that GUI. Once the GUI become OUI (Object User Interface) or BUI (Bubble Use Interface) the Windows GUI paradigm will be replaced with something more powerful. And I can feel it in my guts that it is coming - it will almost be akin to a Graphical implementation of XML - really a graphical implementation not based on characters like it is currently.
Personally, I have tried to move to standard formats, and that is where I try to keep all my data.
I like to keep everything in either txt files, or with some personal markup in an XML-like file, and finally html. Word is used only when I am about to print a document, or need to send someone something formatted - required in less that 10 % of the cases really.
I use Excel to view and analyze the data, but try to keep it all in a standard format, i.e. txt, xml-like or html.
I like to keep images in jpg. And I love to annotate images with Winpointer 2 - which saves the annotations in a almost-text file.
If I put stuff in things like an Addressbook I make sure that I can dump the data out into a standard format.
I try to use only the visual and sorting tools in Outlook for differnt categories, hierarchies, but otherwise make sure that all my data is also available in standard format. If Outlook were to disappear from the world tomorrow I would miss it, but would have nothing really "tied" into it.
Basically, If I could do my little bit in separating the Document from the View (which MS has tried to blur for the user), I believe I would be doing my bit for the OS software.
So, yes, you are right. Open Dataformats are the key.
Both are right from their viewpoints, but the problem is that one is focussed on the present and one is focussed on the future. And, unfortunately, the Past, the last element of the trinity of time, (Past Present & Future) heavily influences the trajectory from the Present to the Future, i.e. the massive adoption of Windows and the talent developed around it.
Lobbyists want me to focus on the Present because there paychecks are from week to week, while Linux-Spirited want me to focus on the future because their spirit gets strokes from knowing that the world may be a better place a few years down in the Future. So, when you look at what impels the Closed Source and what impels the Open Source advocate, the motivational engines are different. And if the motivational engines are different, is this battle really about personalities ?
I have the full opportunity to design a small office for an Asian Sports Body. I love the idealism of OSS, and also KNOW that the future belongs to it if the world turns out the way it should, but may have to sign my office to a Windows shop. A request for help in making this choice last week on Slashdot got me some good responses along the same lines. Why ? Because in the PRESENT Windows Platform is big enough to probabilistically hold solutions to all the problems I am likely to come across, but in Linux the world is small enough that statistically I am sure to run into problems for which solutions don't exist.
Two different viewpoints - one by which I select Windows and a different one by which I reject Linux in the PRESENT. And I accept one probabilistically, and reject another statistically.
But I choose Windows over Linux only because I have to choose today, in the Present. If I could broaden my horizon for a year or two, then it is possible that the tradeoff I have designed for Win vs. Linx won't be so lop-sided. And hence, if I could broaden my horizons a better case can be made for Linux. Bottomline, in a narrow window of time I choose Windows or other "closed source" software, but in a broader window of time I choose Linux.
I like to look at this issue as if the battle been set and both the Closed and Open guys are playing their roles on the stage. These battles have to be fought, and who fights them is not that important. What people must do has been predecided by the role they have been cast in, which is based on their motivational engine, which is based on the orientation in time that they can afford to have.
Well, after all this Matrix-like discussion, I hate to come to a cliche conclusion, but, can we cut out these personal attacks, and hash out the real issues? But, again, what is reality ? Maybe it is the Matrix. Wait, does that mean Linus is Neo?
So, if it is opposite of Creative Destruction, could it be called Destructive Creation ??
Actually, now that I have it front of me, Destructive Creation sounds more appropriate. I bet Schumpter would be happy with our reinterpretation. And Boy, wouldn't George Bush be totally in groove with this Destructive Creation thing...
It has been bothering me for some time, but I can someday see that we can automate this whole process of monitoring and reduce costs.
What if some day we start installing devices in the car that automatically print out a ticket whenever you cross the speed limit of a certain area. That way, on your drive from A to B if you overspeed 5 times, 5 tickets get printed for you automatically. It is easy to just match a zone speed limit via GPS, and then look at your speedometer and do they math. By erasing the actual data but only recording the "difference" we can assuage the privacy types on the issue of being tracked by GPS without explicit permission.
We will do away with the inefficiency where the Govt only gets to collect revenue when you are speeding AND a cop sees you. SO the fines will go up and the local govt will get a lot of "sin" tax.
We will save costs by not having to have cops sitting with their radar guns and wasting time trying to catch speeders.
We will save moeny in the hospitals as less accidents (sounds logical though empirical proof is lacking) and hence the Govt will save on budgets.
Selling all these automated Speeding Ticket writers can jump start the economy as millions will have to be installed in millions of cars.
I am sure this will attract the support of all slashdotters who say about privacy "Get over it." And of course all the business type would love it to. But somehw it all sounds very odious to me. That's my 2 cents worth.
I know it has been done many times, but here I go again. I have seen some discussions, but still have not been able to pin it down. Can I as a manager really say Push for Open Source in our office about-to-be-established, or am I setting myself to be shafted by some of the techies advocating Microsoft right now when things may start going wrong.
And I know Windows so could get a lot of troubleshooting done by the techies here itself for a fair price - will I be able to find help outside the group of techies in our department if we go to Linux, and get it for a fair price. Again, paying in dollars is out of question, so I am looking at people who are willing to accept the local rates in India. This is a problem because a lot of the talent resides in exchange-rich countries (i.e. high equivalent wage) so they might not be available to us.
And how hard can I morally press the Windows techies to learn Linux, or find themselves quite irrelevant.
So in addition to the cost issue, and to the philosophical issue, the human resource issue, there is this moral issue. How hard should I press my Windows techies to learn Linux, without crossing into being unreasonable and, must I say, stoopid.
Here is the situation. We are in the process of establishing a small office for an Asian Sports Body. The office is to be set in India. There are 44 countries, but of course many of them do not have good internet facilites. So, the number of countries to really worry about boils down to about 20.
We need to set up 4 desktops, have 2 laptops, and must be able to maintain website for the Association. The website will be hosted on a commercial server.
As the website is to act as a "local newspaper" for the association, it should have "good content management software" and also be able to take in stories automatically from the Association's parent body (about 5-10 new pieces of info everyday).
The website must also be a resource with all statistics of athletic events, and provide images and multimedia for the local presses. It will have to be updated with new events (calendar), statistics for athletes, build up dossiers of web info and news on some athletes, and provide good content. Meaning it should be easy to update by the Editorial People.
Would there be enough Software in Linux to accomplish this. Would it be right to retrain my team from Windows to Linux. Can I get help if stuff happens. Can I make a leap to Linux on faith - not knowing much of the details.
I wonder if I can use pagerank algorithm for the smaller universe of my harddrive itself?
I have over 6,000 files on my PC many of which link to each other, and I am adding more links between them as time goes by. The collection is now so big that I can't even revist my own files and reason out the implications of the links between pages, beacuse of the huge time it would take to even spend a minute on each saved file.
I wonder if something like Pagerank will let the important files that are linked by many others on my PC to rise "up" like the cream to say, and I can avoid having to use keywords and categories to wade through all the clutter on my harddrive...
Any other ideas of how to study the relationship between my 6,000+ files?
I also have quite a few articles, e.g. news items saved from the web itself. I wonder if the pagerank of google for those saved articles could also help me flush out the important "external" articles on my harddrive itself.
Precisely. Now let me show you how I applied UNKNOWN-UNKNOWN to Rumsfeld.
From my earlier post:
"And Donald Rumsfeld is a genius - almost lunatic - in that."
You have explained very well why I chose to call Rumsfeld a genius - it is because he has understood this subtle concept very very well.
Now why did I call him a lunatic. It is because Rumsfeld has developed a way of answering all questions posed to him in such a way, that he traps the questioner in a logical labyrinth, and dodges answering the question. Precisely, what he does is the following.
When a question that is probing the realm of KNOWN-KNOWN and KNOWN-UNKNOWN (as you explained we can't question him on the UNKNOWN-UNKNOWNS) is asked of Mr. Rumsfeld , he instantly reframes the question in such a way that it resembles the framework of an UNKNOWN-UNKNOWN question.
Then, he analyzes the framework of his "reframed and reassembled" question, and shows how patently it truly is a UNKNOWN-UNKNOWN question. And then he scoffs at answering because most people intuitively KNOW that an UNKNOWN-UNKNOWN answer can not be reasonably arrived at. The result is, that he refuses to really answer any question, by trapping the listener in this pseudo "SENTENCE IS TRUE/SENTENCE IS FALSE" construct of his. He shows sincerity because the way he reframed the question it really can't be answered. AND as the answer in UNKNOWN-UNKNOWN cannot be logically arrived at, it has to be arrived at by the gut.
And that is where he then goes for the kill. He has gotten you to drop your logical defenses. He has gotten you to accept that he is the boss. And then it dawns on you that it is really his gut that matters. And finally, as your conscious brain tries to rationalize it, it comes to the conclusion that his gut that is the truth. And as your conscious brain comes to that conclusion, your simultaneously "feel" that it is the truth because of the resonance of the (UN)KNOWN/(UN)KNOWN concept.
Mr. Donald Rumsfeld thus rules !
I personally believe that he takes this all to be a jolly good fencing match, and he thinks he is scoring debating points. And that is why I call him a lunatic.
And that is why I call him a lunatic.
He is genius because he is very smart. He is a lunatic because he is too smart.
My earlier post was rambling, and I appreciate the opportunity to focus the thought. Let me know if my framework jives with your experience.
Your point is very valid if there is a reasonable and rational discussion of the tradeoff's - You know kind of Type I and Type II errors. But the Bushies don't believe in that. Goebellian Ashcroft said that they are willing to use every legal tool available to them to achieve their goals - even if it means ignoring the spirit of the law, and reinterpreting the letters of the law to do whatever they want.
The willingness, in fact eagerness, to overlook collatoral damage is the Hallmark of the Bush Administration. They have rammed policies that wouldn't pass muster support anywhere. It is almost as if they are willing to kill 9 innocent people to prevent the 10th guilty one from escaping.
This mentality shows up in the No Fly list. It shows up in how the Arab immigrants were rounded up, and are now being deported by the thousands. It shows up in how to get to the Saddam "WMD's" they were willing to slaughter Iraqi's. Two or 3 Sept 11 bombers entered with Student visa's so everyone on that visa now gets grandly screwed.
So, logic applies only when the hysteria subsides. If you want you can never let the hysteria subside. And Donald Rumsfeld is a genius - almost lunatic - in that. Like he said in almost poetic form, on Feb. 12, 2002, Department of Defense news briefing, (which means that he could use the concept described in his "poem" below prove anything that he wants - it is almost like dividing by Zero.)
Recently the President of India, APJ Abdul Kalam, also recommended it. Despite the MS largesse to India, the sentiment is towards providing a level playing field to Open Source and Linux, though the reality on the ground is quite different. If the US was incapble of keeping MS in check, what can India reasonably do to change the reality LOL
Need Soundbite- why is privacy important Re:Wa waa
on
Walmart to Push RFID
·
· Score: 1
Let me start of by saying I love my privacy, and believe that it should be my mine and mine only. I also believe in the long run it is the only way to balance the interests of physical people and abstract organizations.
But, now-a-days, I am really struggling to articulate my stance. Why? Why it is that privacy is important? I need to look at specifics rather than a long drawn out philosophical argument. Something that I can use when I am told - sorry, you can't keep that private because "evil" terrorists will use/abuse it. If I were give a chance to write a 250 page defense I could explain it - or say just hand them a copy of 1984.
But, in this age of MTV, I am looking for a short and crisp statement defending the need for privacy and the limits on State (or any organization's) snooping. Something like a sound bite to justify why my privacy is important to me even if it is not important to you. And that soundbite should also capture the notion that that in the long run the privacy is actually better for both of us.
So, could anyone here articulate - Why is Privacy Important?? KISS - Keep it Short & Simple.
It brings to my mind the hack that was done on CyberPatrol, a censorware or dumb internet filter, and the two guys then published a description of how they did it.
I can still clearly remember the night that I read it, and though I couldn't follow some of the technical details, it was more fascinating to me than "How-Done-It"s of Agatha Christie. This is what the Wired article is probably designed to achieve.
In case of CyberPartol hack unfortunately, the guys got sued by CyberPatrol, cowed down (maybe not), and settled out of court. More details are here Cyber Partol Break FAQ" i.e. http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/cpbfaq.html Similarly Tech Industry sued the DeCSS author. But, Wired probably will be ok because suing Wired will probably be pretty low on the Slammer Writer's priorities.
Slashdot Mirror
And, your Weblog idea falls in the memory space. You are trying to save the written conversations with one or many in a chronological fashion. So, in a way you are trying to create an institutional memory.
You could show your students what a wonderful "institutional memory" Google is. Do searches or exact quotes by remembering just a few words of the quote. By showing how easy it is, you can teach your students to be more precise in their use of references and paraphrasing ideas.
You could also show the students a wealth of english literature on the web that is freely available, You could introduce them to efforts like the Guttenburg project http://www.gutenberg.net/ and let them know that good books don't have to be expensive or out of easy reach locked up in some library somewhere.
You could explain to the students as to how things can be so easily checked for plagiarism, that it is better to give credit where it is due rather than claim it. It might help cultivate a new generation that has no hesitation in acknowledging where the ideas came from - thus, later allowing for a better public discourse in their civic life.
You could show them the power of weblogs in the evolution of ideas, by exposing the various stages of idea development to criticism by peers - seen and unseen. Though a lone author can come up with a great work after being in isolation, I think the probability if a great work is higher if it is exposed to some criticism as the ideas are coalescing in the writers mind. You could also introduce them to literary discussion groups.
You could expose your students to the chunking of ideas in electronic and cyberspace , because ideas have to be expressed in screenfuls, and thus a sort of an unnatural frame is created around the idea. You could also expose them to the different style of organization of chunks of ideas needed when the reader has some element of choice in deciding the sequence. If there is another post on this subject soon, I will try to put more of my thoughts across. I think, as long as you keep you focus correct, and not get caught in the computing aspect, by explore the networking aspect, you can't go wrong. After all, what is writing - it is just a network of words and ideas.
Getting someone to organize it is the problem, as you rightly identified.
We still haven't reached the point where we could even attract support from such a small percentage of the people, but I am sure it will happen soon. We just need a few cases where the RIAA/MPAA will bully some personality that will catch the attention of the media and raise the hackles of our types, and we will respond.
But, it would be helpful if such calculations and scenarios could be evaluated - so that when the time come all we have to do is the execution.
The snowball is going to start rolling someday, though we need a good seed to get it all started.
But thanks for stepping up ... If we could even get a list started of the people willing to help organize, it would be very helpful to organize support at a moment's notice ... I have been trying to build up a case on a discussion list at http://www.quicktopic.com and once I have collected some more background material, I will post it here to seek support, and also forward you a copy.
We don't need EVERYONE to get in but a small part. If a small part of us in the CD/DVD consuming unverse, 6.7 % by my calculations, starts showing support to the defendents in the cases against the RIAA and MPAA, we would have the same firepower as these bullies.
It works like this:
If at least 6.7 % of the CD/DVD consuming community donates, not a small share, but the COMPLETE price of the CD or DVD not bought from the members of RIAA and MPAA, for the defense in these cases, we shall have a sufficient amount to take on the RIAA/MPAA lawyers. The logic is that the RIAA and MPAA get a share of the CD or DVD's price to attack us, we array the "complete" price of the CD or DVD against them.
Our contribution, on a per person basis, will be at least 15 times more in value (probably much more as I don't think RIAA and MPAA are getting a dollar from every $15 disc sold; ignoring the movie ticket's revenue) than the crowd buying CD's and contributing to the RIAA's and MPAA's coffers.
Mathematics, luckily says that a share that goes towards them can never be bigger than the complete which goes against them . So, the RIAA and MPAA are bound to be finished.
And if more than 6.7 % of the music consuming community can be brought together we shall have more funds to beat the RIAA and MPAA and their members on their head. And, once we cross the threshold, there is no way to reverse this growing snowball heading in their direction.
People can differ with my assumptions of the numbers, but the point is that EVERYONE does not have to buy in - just a small and dedicated share has to.
CAUTION - EXTREME DREAMING - Consume with care, and a little flight of fantasy.
If I had to use the analogy of a battle with RIAA and MPAA, I would say bring 'em on, and let them open another front in the legal battle. Sue another company or another individual. Stretch them thin by forcing them to go for many many small and diverse legal cases - but never letting them bunch the many cases into a single class-action lawsuit (or, should I say, reverse class-action?). Inflict pain on them at their thousands points of legal cases, and drain their lawyers and their coffers. Then, we should all go in for the kill, and change their business model.
It can all be done by employing simple mathematics in our arsenal.
RIAA and MPAA get a small share of each CD/DVD sold, most probably, indirectly through membership dues being paid to it. The rest of it goes to the studios, middlemen,etc. ( more here for the mp3's)
What if, as we draw the RIAA and MPAA to file thousands of civil cases (trying to avoid criminal cases), a part of us starts showing support to the defendents in these cases. Donate, not a small share, but ALL the price of the CD or DVD not bought from the members of RIAA and MPAA, for the defense in these cases. As our contribution, on a per person basis, will be at least 15 times (probably much more as I don't think RIAA and MPAA are getting dollar from every $15 disc sold) more in value than the crowd buying CD's and contributing to the RIAA's and MPAA's coffers, we just need to be 6.7% of the people in the music consumming community to take on the RIAA amd MPAA lawyers on an equal financial footing.
And if more than 6.7 % of the music consuming community can be brought together we shall have more funds to beat the RIAA and MPAA and their members on their head. And, once we cross the threshold, there is no way to reverse this growing snowball heading in their direction. The logic being that they get a share of the CD or DVD's price to attack us, we array the "complete" price of the CD or DVD against them.
Mathematics, luckily says that a share can never be bigger than the complete. So, the RIAA and MPAA are bound to be finished.
DREAM OVER. Thanks for sharing the journey.
What can we do next? Can we do something else ?
I agree with you that the RIAA will do all it can as it writhes in its death throes after having missed the bus when the Napster Revolution took place.
It reminds me of what Thomas Jefferson wrote:
I think we are talking about the same thing, but what we differ in is the "role" of limitation. An artist could arbitrarily choose a limitation but they seldom do. The limitations emerge from the nature of things, the primary being that the artist cannot "transfer the entirety of (the artist's) understanding" but the aim still remains to transfer a sufficient amount.
So the artist would like to approach "transferring the entirety," but of course cannot do, because the communication with the audience can only be done by some medium. The moment a medium is chosen limitations are imposed because no medium can transfer the sounds, the colors, the temperatture, the taste, the humidity ... et al. So, the game becomes transferring "a sufficient amount" despite the limitation of the medium. Of course, now, the artist is going to choose a medium that he or she is comforatble with so that the task of overcoming limitations is feasible for him or her based on the talents or capabilities that the artist has.
And then the artist, despite the limitations of the medium, is able to transfer a "sufficient amount," which also implies that the non-artist could not have transferred a "sufficient amount."
Now the limitation that was accepted and overcome by the artist was real, and pretty peculiar to him or her. But, the same limitation is pretty arbitrary from the audience's point of view. Because if another artist had been trying to convey something similar they would have chosen a different medium, and hence different limitations.
From the audience's point of view, it would not have mattered what the medium was, as long as they were "able to get into the mental state of the composer." And so, here we have all the elements of communcation, limitation, talent, expression, real, arbitrary, ......
You are right about "expressing and communicating something to an audience." I meant the same when I set up the whole exercise as "if I had to convey the mood in the park." The intention was that the aim to to communicate, but the communication is more than what the medium or tools of communcation should "logically" allow. As I talked about overcoming the "logical limitation" I used the word creatively. But, in essence, all art is about communication, and communicating despite the limitation, where the limitation can be real or arbitrary.
Art is creatively overcoming the limitations that the artist sets upon him or her self. It does not matter what the limitations are, but if the artist can successfully express more than what the limitations should logically allow, then I think it is successful art.
For example, if I had to convey the mood in the park next door to my house I could bring you here. But that is not possible. So, I can decide to express the mood in the park to you only via words, no sight, no sounds, no smells. Then I am a writer.
If on the other hand I choose the limitation of being only able to express in colors, then I am a painter if only through the medium of colors I can convey the mood in the park to you.
Or if I accept the limitation to be just using sounds, no sights, no colors, no smell, then I am a musician.
I can even choose to express the mood in the park by using only matchsticks, or some other arbitrary limitation. As long as I can overcome the "self" or "else" imposed limitations to convey more than what the limitations should logically allow, I think I am a successful artist.
I think gaming is the same way. By accepting limitaions on the medium of the computer screen, keyboard, joystick, the game attempts to transport the gamer into another world, another reality. If it can do that, it is succesful art. It is almost like movies where you suspend disbelief and enter the world of the movie. If you thought about it, all it really is just colored light flickering on a screen in a darkened room, with a bunch of speakers around. If with just these things the flickering light and sound can transport you to antoher world, it is art.
And so, Game Design is an art. Maybe coding by itself is not art, just like an artist can use artisans and craftsmen, but the game design aspect, I believe, is definitely art. It is art because it is able to creatively able to overcome limitations.
And using my definition of art, we can apply it to life too. The limitation of our lives is that they will end. The limitation of life is death, and so if we can live our life in such a way that we can transcend our physical death, our lived life itself then becomes art. So, I guess, in some ways I am saying the way we live our lives is the art of our life.
I understand that in a strange way I have come around to define just about anything as being possibly art, and so maybe I am taking away from the exclusivity of the art. But, not really. because for it to be successful art it has to transcend the limitation, whether the limitation is real or arbitary. Thus, though everything has the potential to be artistic, it becomes art only if it overcomes the limitation. And it requires creativity to achieve that, and not everything is creative. So, not everything is art. Whatever is left, is then definitely art.
Anyway, let me get my fourth cup of coffee. My head is spinning, and maybe if I could do something by overcoming that limitation, I could be an ... artist (?) (!)
The bottomline is that it does not matter whether the publisher calls the game or program shareware or not. It is by default shareware, till I decide to convert it to payware or freeware. It just goes to show how the shareware philosophy is no longer on the fringes but it is the mainstream.
With so much of warez, crackz and serialz, put out by some brilliant minds, I think there is no real difference between a shareware and payware today, esp. in this superconnected space of internet. You can try anything, whether shareware or payware, for almost as long as you like, and if you really like it, then you pay for it. It is the same philosophy that I use for music files too.
From many programs that I try, I choose only a few that I eventually buy. Thus, from my point-of-view it makes no difference whether the publisher calls it shareware or not. With all the crackz and serials every game/program is shareware for me till I decide to convert it to either payware or freeware. It is nice that some publishers are waking up to this reality.
Richochet was back and written about in Slate about 6 months ago. But I wonder if they are doing well right now ....
Here are the excerpts from the article
The New Old Thing - Ricochet
A wireless technology returns to become the Wi-Fi for suburbia.
Dec 06, 2002
Article location
http://slate.msn.com/id/2074905/
Ricochet's network was scooped out of bankruptcy court last year by Denver's Aerie Networks, which hopes to revive the service as a viable alternative to DSL or cable modems. The technology that drives Ricochet is devilishly simpleâ"a network of shoe-box-sized transceivers that ....
The service has been reactivated in Denver and, just last month, San Diego. The Bay Area may be next. ....
But you will be surprised by how many sites have Flash on their homepage, and then give no way to bypass that *cursed* page. I don't have flash, use Opera w/o Java, and many times I see NOTHING on the homepage. No links to get into the site for some info - try http:///www.wilddivine.com (only if you have no flash and use Opera !!) There aren't ANY links on the page, and many times even Google cannot give you a direct link. What terrible site designs ....
What gets me is the Flashy flash just for the sake of flashing Flash ...
This is probably a good time to create a current review of the long distance (>> 300 ft) Wireless solutions that are available in the market.
Richochet is one http://www.ricochet.com/
and another is Vivato http://www.vivato.net/
What are the other ones in the market?
I agree that the key is Open Data formats.
Once sufficent people move to standard formats, and a good set of tools are available to visually manage the data in standard formats, (GUI with Win and Outlook like capabilities) - people will not notice when Windows is slipped from under them and replaced with another OS. The POWER of Windows is Just the GUI that it has created, and a lot of sunken investment of time in learning that GUI. Once the GUI become OUI (Object User Interface) or BUI (Bubble Use Interface) the Windows GUI paradigm will be replaced with something more powerful. And I can feel it in my guts that it is coming - it will almost be akin to a Graphical implementation of XML - really a graphical implementation not based on characters like it is currently.
Personally, I have tried to move to standard formats, and that is where I try to keep all my data.
Basically, If I could do my little bit in separating the Document from the View (which MS has tried to blur for the user), I believe I would be doing my bit for the OS software.
So, yes, you are right. Open Dataformats are the key.
Both are right from their viewpoints, but the problem is that one is focussed on the present and one is focussed on the future. And, unfortunately, the Past, the last element of the trinity of time, (Past Present & Future) heavily influences the trajectory from the Present to the Future, i.e. the massive adoption of Windows and the talent developed around it.
Lobbyists want me to focus on the Present because there paychecks are from week to week, while Linux-Spirited want me to focus on the future because their spirit gets strokes from knowing that the world may be a better place a few years down in the Future. So, when you look at what impels the Closed Source and what impels the Open Source advocate, the motivational engines are different. And if the motivational engines are different, is this battle really about personalities ?
I have the full opportunity to design a small office for an Asian Sports Body. I love the idealism of OSS, and also KNOW that the future belongs to it if the world turns out the way it should, but may have to sign my office to a Windows shop. A request for help in making this choice last week on Slashdot got me some good responses along the same lines. Why ? Because in the PRESENT Windows Platform is big enough to probabilistically hold solutions to all the problems I am likely to come across, but in Linux the world is small enough that statistically I am sure to run into problems for which solutions don't exist.
Two different viewpoints - one by which I select Windows and a different one by which I reject Linux in the PRESENT. And I accept one probabilistically, and reject another statistically.
But I choose Windows over Linux only because I have to choose today, in the Present. If I could broaden my horizon for a year or two, then it is possible that the tradeoff I have designed for Win vs. Linx won't be so lop-sided. And hence, if I could broaden my horizons a better case can be made for Linux. Bottomline, in a narrow window of time I choose Windows or other "closed source" software, but in a broader window of time I choose Linux.
I like to look at this issue as if the battle been set and both the Closed and Open guys are playing their roles on the stage. These battles have to be fought, and who fights them is not that important. What people must do has been predecided by the role they have been cast in, which is based on their motivational engine, which is based on the orientation in time that they can afford to have.
Well, after all this Matrix-like discussion, I hate to come to a cliche conclusion, but, can we cut out these personal attacks, and hash out the real issues? But, again, what is reality ? Maybe it is the Matrix. Wait, does that mean Linus is Neo?
So, if it is opposite of Creative Destruction, could it be called Destructive Creation ??
Actually, now that I have it front of me, Destructive Creation sounds more appropriate. I bet Schumpter would be happy with our reinterpretation. And Boy, wouldn't George Bush be totally in groove with this Destructive Creation thing ...
Ding, Dong ... Round 4 begins.
I guess this is what Schumpter meant by Creative Destruction.
It would of course be better if SCO is destroyed, but if IBM needs to be destroyed SO BE IT !!
I am all for a good fight !!!
P.S. I just hope Linux-spirit does not get destroyed in the uncertainity that will be spawned. What can uncertainity do? Just ask Alan Greenspan.
It has been bothering me for some time, but I can someday see that we can automate this whole process of monitoring and reduce costs.
What if some day we start installing devices in the car that automatically print out a ticket whenever you cross the speed limit of a certain area. That way, on your drive from A to B if you overspeed 5 times, 5 tickets get printed for you automatically. It is easy to just match a zone speed limit via GPS, and then look at your speedometer and do they math. By erasing the actual data but only recording the "difference" we can assuage the privacy types on the issue of being tracked by GPS without explicit permission.
I am sure this will attract the support of all slashdotters who say about privacy "Get over it." And of course all the business type would love it to. But somehw it all sounds very odious to me. That's my 2 cents worth.
I know it has been done many times, but here I go again. I have seen some discussions, but still have not been able to pin it down. Can I as a manager really say Push for Open Source in our office about-to-be-established, or am I setting myself to be shafted by some of the techies advocating Microsoft right now when things may start going wrong.
And I know Windows so could get a lot of troubleshooting done by the techies here itself for a fair price - will I be able to find help outside the group of techies in our department if we go to Linux, and get it for a fair price. Again, paying in dollars is out of question, so I am looking at people who are willing to accept the local rates in India. This is a problem because a lot of the talent resides in exchange-rich countries (i.e. high equivalent wage) so they might not be available to us.
And how hard can I morally press the Windows techies to learn Linux, or find themselves quite irrelevant.
So in addition to the cost issue, and to the philosophical issue, the human resource issue, there is this moral issue. How hard should I press my Windows techies to learn Linux, without crossing into being unreasonable and, must I say, stoopid.
Here is the situation. We are in the process of establishing a small office for an Asian Sports Body. The office is to be set in India. There are 44 countries, but of course many of them do not have good internet facilites. So, the number of countries to really worry about boils down to about 20.
We need to set up 4 desktops, have 2 laptops, and must be able to maintain website for the Association. The website will be hosted on a commercial server.
As the website is to act as a "local newspaper" for the association, it should have "good content management software" and also be able to take in stories automatically from the Association's parent body (about 5-10 new pieces of info everyday).
The website must also be a resource with all statistics of athletic events, and provide images and multimedia for the local presses. It will have to be updated with new events (calendar), statistics for athletes, build up dossiers of web info and news on some athletes, and provide good content. Meaning it should be easy to update by the Editorial People. Would there be enough Software in Linux to accomplish this. Would it be right to retrain my team from Windows to Linux. Can I get help if stuff happens. Can I make a leap to Linux on faith - not knowing much of the details.
I wonder if I can use pagerank algorithm for the smaller universe of my harddrive itself?
I have over 6,000 files on my PC many of which link to each other, and I am adding more links between them as time goes by. The collection is now so big that I can't even revist my own files and reason out the implications of the links between pages, beacuse of the huge time it would take to even spend a minute on each saved file.
I wonder if something like Pagerank will let the important files that are linked by many others on my PC to rise "up" like the cream to say, and I can avoid having to use keywords and categories to wade through all the clutter on my harddrive ...
Any other ideas of how to study the relationship between my 6,000+ files?
I also have quite a few articles, e.g. news items saved from the web itself. I wonder if the pagerank of google for those saved articles could also help me flush out the important "external" articles on my harddrive itself.
My sig says it all. And I hope that someday IM'ing is as easy as just picking up a telephone.
Go Jabber, Go.
Precisely. Now let me show you how I applied UNKNOWN-UNKNOWN to Rumsfeld.
From my earlier post:
You have explained very well why I chose to call Rumsfeld a genius - it is because he has understood this subtle concept very very well.
Now why did I call him a lunatic. It is because Rumsfeld has developed a way of answering all questions posed to him in such a way, that he traps the questioner in a logical labyrinth, and dodges answering the question. Precisely, what he does is the following.
And that is why I call him a lunatic.
He is genius because he is very smart. He is a lunatic because he is too smart.
My earlier post was rambling, and I appreciate the opportunity to focus the thought. Let me know if my framework jives with your experience.
Your point is very valid if there is a reasonable and rational discussion of the tradeoff's - You know kind of Type I and Type II errors. But the Bushies don't believe in that. Goebellian Ashcroft said that they are willing to use every legal tool available to them to achieve their goals - even if it means ignoring the spirit of the law, and reinterpreting the letters of the law to do whatever they want.
The willingness, in fact eagerness, to overlook collatoral damage is the Hallmark of the Bush Administration. They have rammed policies that wouldn't pass muster support anywhere. It is almost as if they are willing to kill 9 innocent people to prevent the 10th guilty one from escaping.
This mentality shows up in the No Fly list. It shows up in how the Arab immigrants were rounded up, and are now being deported by the thousands. It shows up in how to get to the Saddam "WMD's" they were willing to slaughter Iraqi's. Two or 3 Sept 11 bombers entered with Student visa's so everyone on that visa now gets grandly screwed.
So, logic applies only when the hysteria subsides. If you want you can never let the hysteria subside. And Donald Rumsfeld is a genius - almost lunatic - in that. Like he said in almost poetic form, on Feb. 12, 2002, Department of Defense news briefing, (which means that he could use the concept described in his "poem" below prove anything that he wants - it is almost like dividing by Zero.)
Here is the link Indian President Adds Salt to MicroSoft Woes http://news.zdnet.co.uk/story/0,,t269-s2135401,00. html
Let me start of by saying I love my privacy, and believe that it should be my mine and mine only. I also believe in the long run it is the only way to balance the interests of physical people and abstract organizations.
But, now-a-days, I am really struggling to articulate my stance. Why? Why it is that privacy is important? I need to look at specifics rather than a long drawn out philosophical argument. Something that I can use when I am told - sorry, you can't keep that private because "evil" terrorists will use/abuse it. If I were give a chance to write a 250 page defense I could explain it - or say just hand them a copy of 1984.
But, in this age of MTV, I am looking for a short and crisp statement defending the need for privacy and the limits on State (or any organization's) snooping. Something like a sound bite to justify why my privacy is important to me even if it is not important to you. And that soundbite should also capture the notion that that in the long run the privacy is actually better for both of us.
So, could anyone here articulate - Why is Privacy Important?? KISS - Keep it Short & Simple.
It brings to my mind the hack that was done on CyberPatrol, a censorware or dumb internet filter, and the two guys then published a description of how they did it.
I can still clearly remember the night that I read it, and though I couldn't follow some of the technical details, it was more fascinating to me than "How-Done-It"s of Agatha Christie. This is what the Wired article is probably designed to achieve.
In case of CyberPartol hack unfortunately, the guys got sued by CyberPatrol, cowed down (maybe not), and settled out of court. More details are here Cyber Partol Break FAQ" i.e. http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/cpbfaq.html Similarly Tech Industry sued the DeCSS author. But, Wired probably will be ok because suing Wired will probably be pretty low on the Slammer Writer's priorities.