unfortunately if you don't think the semantic web requires laying to rest, you need to get back and start studying up on knowledge representation (Kent's a good place to start). Even people involved with its development realise the SW fundamentally flawed and that ternary relations are insufficient to model informational relationships at the logical level.
Kill it off, and start again with actual theory instead of embaressing adhocracy. (Every good coder knows that the first version is always a prototype anyhow).
Okay I have a question someone on slashdot must know the answer to...
Is anyone aware of how pandora determines the attributes of a particular song before it recommends it?
Are they manually tagged by a human 'expert' or is there any automated algorithm that analyses the music?
Now if pandora does utilize human experts surely pandora is going to come under enormous logistical pressure as its remit expands, whereas a social network like Last.fm will flourish?
Oh dear, now its all over, it may best go back and read my previous post there dude. Turns out there might have been some valid points in there after all...
pish. don't get me wrong, there are 3 professional actors acting away, and they are great, but it is very evident that they are acting, and they are all extremely intelligent. Now the feed is on all the time, and the contestants natural, base reactions are at a level a method actor could only dream of. It's obviously not a hoax.
Its so sweet that people have the urge to believe this double hoax, "the joke is on the audience" conspiracy - it indicates important psychological tells in their personality which compel them to think they can see something the stupid masses can't, in the face of otherwise obvious facts, such as:
- no professional actor could possibly act as the contestants have for that length of time and with that level (or rather lack) of intelligence.
- a lack of financial incentive for endemol the producers.
- the viewing public backlash and effect on future reality shows
- and the absolute impossibility of keeping it a secret from the most voraciously carniverous press in the world.
- oh, and a [i]complete lack of any realistic evidence to the contrary[/i].
Just enjoy the hoax. These guys are going to be stars.
>> Bullshit. It would have happened without him. In fact, it did happen without him!
>> He was too busy staring at his navel (Xanadu) to see something truly worthwhile (the Internet).
I know for a fact that Engelbart would not agree with you.
>> "Freedom from... hierarchy" == freedom from organization.
yeah you're right thats why relational databases are never used (!). We should all still be using hierarchical databases. duh.
And of course Hard-links used in/dev in a unix system. References used in c (bi-directional links), etc, etc. All transclusion.
Think man!
About to upgrade to Tiger as I have a couple of macs. Can one of you fine people with experience beta-ing or who currently have tiger running give some indication of the extra processor load with the new OS? Is there any significant difference between panther with spotlight, dashboard, etc ad infinitum running away in the background? Basically do I need a new mac;)
nope, again, wrong. He invented it, through a cunning mix of scone's and english breakfast tea, fused at a temperature of -30K (britsh summertime). As a rocket scientist you should know this.
The difference is, free software innovation can be addressed by government funding. Whereas the owner of a software patent has a monopoly and can charge prohibitively high licensing fees to prevent competition.
While I applaud your principles, if you've had anything to do with government funding initiatives to promote innovation you'll realise that they do not work whatsoever. Unfortunately, due to the nature of humans on what they see as a free lunch you might as well burn the money.
Similarly the original point of patents was only to allow the creator to get a foothold into a market he otherwise couldn't, get past sunken costs and any barriers to entry. The system is highly uncapitalistic in that sense. Thats in principle of course, in practice its now horrifically abused and nonsensical. Just cut all patents for everything (yup even medicines) down to 3 years and the world will be a shinier place.
...invented and named by H. Davy, an english chemist. IUPAC also finalised it as aluminium, so even according to mythical American English you're spelling it wrong (dropping the u's just a colloquialism). Harbor you can have, missing u's are just derived from middle english. Fall instead of autumn... US is right again, as they are with z's instead of s's in words. But aluminum, well just looks like you can't spell. And don't even get started on mispelling arse (from ers, chaucer's time. ass is a flea bitten donkey mongrel). bugger, i fed the troll.
...the world gets excited not about the film, not about the trailer for a film, no... we're excited about an announcement of a trailer for a film. Hot diggity, it's that good.
I'm a big fan of F/OSS and having released code under GPL, Apache and boost-style licenses i'm aware different situations suit different policies. However there seems to be an economic consequence of the GPL here:
CA want enterprise features. People say "code them yourself" but they are a business, and suppose the cost of employing the programmers is not viable for them, as they cannot then sell their work on due to it being subject to the GPL. If there was an off the shelf solution they would be likely to purchase it, but for they same economic reason that CA themselves won't produce the product, neither will anyone else, so the product never exists. I do not see which party of the OSS community ever has the incentive to create this missing component?
While i'm not even sure if I agree with myself and i'm playing devil's avacado here it might be a concern - is this an indication that their _may_ be serious weakness in a GPL model in certain markets?
I think you have embarassingly aimed your colourful reply at someone else's post entirely - it always helps to read the name of the poster first, and you probably owe him, whoever he is, an apology.
Back at the ranch: The current supply of music to retailers is a virtual monopsony, and certainly an oligopsony as with most over-developed markets. As such it is clear that the theories you are espousing don't apply to a commercial situation that is bordering on market failure (consider the colossal barriers to entry if nothing else).
Nothing more complicated than that requires analysis imo.
I reiterate, these situation are so often the case that I believe that the arguments you have put forward relating economics 101 to this discussion, would seem naive to all economists i know.
As someone with economics degrees coming out their arse, and someone who has studied the field now for over a decade, the original poster's analysis and understanding of (mythical) free market economics, supply and demand, market intervention and such like is embarassingly naive. These concepts are all vast simplifications (of underlying psychological and social principles of market economics) taught to first year students. Under any sort of close scrutiny they are quickly shown lacking (as highlighted by most papers in the last 20 years), and in numerous cases are simply incorrect.
"It's not unusual for people with Aspergers to have trouble recognizing the "correctness" of behaviour, facial expressions, etc. Sure, it's not universal, either, but it's definitely not a rarity.
Do I care? No. But, then, I'm not built to care about things like that. This isn't an "I can't help it", because that implies it's wrong to be anything other than a highly socially-aware, socially-structured individual."
I disagree - imo there is something wrong with not being socially aware, as without empathy it is incredibly easy to offend others and to cause them pain. Empathy is key to the human condition and indeed our evolutional history (Do androids dream of electric sheep?). As an example at hand, I extremely hope I don't offend you by this post - that is not its intention, rather just to emphasise the value of empathy. In the end its the single most important form of pattern recognition there is.
"Or, in other words, the concepts are simple to understand - a link just points a finger from here to some other spot somewhere in ordinary linear documents, which we all are used to create, read and manipulate"
Interestingly making it a pointer and not in fact a link which is by definition a circular relationship (like links in a chain...). So the web is built on hyperpointers not hyperlinks.
"It is also simple to use; just make it point. No need to keep track of who is pointing to me; no need to worry about what span to actually point to; no need to worry about the origins of the text that will be the result."
Tell that to Google. The amount of effort that they have put into working round the web's faults through keeping track of backlinks for you is immense.
"There are two problems with it. The first is that no one except Ted thinks that way. That's just not how we tend to organise things to ourselves in the everyday. The second is that you can get 95% of the above functionality with a simple SQL database, which most people do understand."
You may be correct in thinking that few apart from Ted think visually in that way. BUT, inventions are not always used in the way they were originally intended - For example radio was invented as a medium for two-way communication and phonographs as a means of replacing letters.
Equally consider zigzag not as a visualisable structure per say, but rather as a queryable data source, and therein lies its organisational power, where the potential for previously unavailable functionality emerges.
Slashdot Mirror
unfortunately if you don't think the semantic web requires laying to rest, you need to get back and start studying up on knowledge representation (Kent's a good place to start). Even people involved with its development realise the SW fundamentally flawed and that ternary relations are insufficient to model informational relationships at the logical level. Kill it off, and start again with actual theory instead of embaressing adhocracy. (Every good coder knows that the first version is always a prototype anyhow).
Please, please, please will someone finally shoot the semantic web and put it out of its dwindling, painful misery.
Surely enough is enough?
As current grand poobah of the illuminati (london branch) I for one also plan to sue dan brown forthwith.
Okay I have a question someone on slashdot must know the answer to...
Is anyone aware of how pandora determines the attributes of a particular song before it recommends it?
Are they manually tagged by a human 'expert' or is there any automated algorithm that analyses the music?
Now if pandora does utilize human experts surely pandora is going to come under enormous logistical pressure as its remit expands, whereas a social network like Last.fm will flourish?
Oh dear, now its all over, it may best go back and read my previous post there dude. Turns out there might have been some valid points in there after all...
pish. don't get me wrong, there are 3 professional actors acting away, and they are great, but it is very evident that they are acting, and they are all extremely intelligent. Now the feed is on all the time, and the contestants natural, base reactions are at a level a method actor could only dream of. It's obviously not a hoax.
Its so sweet that people have the urge to believe this double hoax, "the joke is on the audience" conspiracy - it indicates important psychological tells in their personality which compel them to think they can see something the stupid masses can't, in the face of otherwise obvious facts, such as:
- no professional actor could possibly act as the contestants have for that length of time and with that level (or rather lack) of intelligence.
- a lack of financial incentive for endemol the producers.
- the viewing public backlash and effect on future reality shows
- and the absolute impossibility of keeping it a secret from the most voraciously carniverous press in the world.
- oh, and a [i]complete lack of any realistic evidence to the contrary[/i].
Just enjoy the hoax. These guys are going to be stars.
>> Bullshit. It would have happened without him. In fact, it did happen without him! >> He was too busy staring at his navel (Xanadu) to see something truly worthwhile (the Internet).
I know for a fact that Engelbart would not agree with you.
unfortunately the afore-mentioned article is well known to be a political hatchet job....
>> "Freedom from ... hierarchy" == freedom from organization.
yeah you're right thats why relational databases are never used (!). We should all still be using hierarchical databases. duh.
And of course Hard-links used in /dev in a unix system. References used in c (bi-directional links), etc, etc. All transclusion.
Think man!
About to upgrade to Tiger as I have a couple of macs. Can one of you fine people with experience beta-ing or who currently have tiger running give some indication of the extra processor load with the new OS? Is there any significant difference between panther with spotlight, dashboard, etc ad infinitum running away in the background? Basically do I need a new mac ;)
nope, again, wrong. He invented it, through a cunning mix of scone's and english breakfast tea, fused at a temperature of -30K (britsh summertime). As a rocket scientist you should know this.
The difference is, free software innovation can be addressed by government funding. Whereas the owner of a software patent has a monopoly and can charge prohibitively high licensing fees to prevent competition.
While I applaud your principles, if you've had anything to do with government funding initiatives to promote innovation you'll realise that they do not work whatsoever. Unfortunately, due to the nature of humans on what they see as a free lunch you might as well burn the money.
Similarly the original point of patents was only to allow the creator to get a foothold into a market he otherwise couldn't, get past sunken costs and any barriers to entry. The system is highly uncapitalistic in that sense. Thats in principle of course, in practice its now horrifically abused and nonsensical. Just cut all patents for everything (yup even medicines) down to 3 years and the world will be a shinier place.
...invented and named by H. Davy, an english chemist. IUPAC also finalised it as aluminium, so even according to mythical American English you're spelling it wrong (dropping the u's just a colloquialism). Harbor you can have, missing u's are just derived from middle english. Fall instead of autumn... US is right again, as they are with z's instead of s's in words. But aluminum, well just looks like you can't spell. And don't even get started on mispelling arse (from ers, chaucer's time. ass is a flea bitten donkey mongrel). bugger, i fed the troll.
I tried to get the DVD's here in England last xmas. Every single shop had sold out. Firefly is a growing colossus sunshine.
Damn, I fed the troll.
BG, B5, SW are all great of course, but hey even talking about them in the same conversation as firefly is looney-tunes.
...the world gets excited not about the film, not about the trailer for a film, no... we're excited about an announcement of a trailer for a film. Hot diggity, it's that good.
fanboy-ism makes no sense in terms of firefly. If you have watched it, then you will be a fan, whether you like sci-fi or not...
I'm a big fan of F/OSS and having released code under GPL, Apache and boost-style licenses i'm aware different situations suit different policies. However there seems to be an economic consequence of the GPL here:
CA want enterprise features. People say "code them yourself" but they are a business, and suppose the cost of employing the programmers is not viable for them, as they cannot then sell their work on due to it being subject to the GPL. If there was an off the shelf solution they would be likely to purchase it, but for they same economic reason that CA themselves won't produce the product, neither will anyone else, so the product never exists. I do not see which party of the OSS community ever has the incentive to create this missing component?
While i'm not even sure if I agree with myself and i'm playing devil's avacado here it might be a concern - is this an indication that their _may_ be serious weakness in a GPL model in certain markets?
I think you have embarassingly aimed your colourful reply at someone else's post entirely - it always helps to read the name of the poster first, and you probably owe him, whoever he is, an apology.
Back at the ranch: The current supply of music to retailers is a virtual monopsony, and certainly an oligopsony as with most over-developed markets. As such it is clear that the theories you are espousing don't apply to a commercial situation that is bordering on market failure (consider the colossal barriers to entry if nothing else). Nothing more complicated than that requires analysis imo.
I reiterate, these situation are so often the case that I believe that the arguments you have put forward relating economics 101 to this discussion, would seem naive to all economists i know.
As someone with economics degrees coming out their arse, and someone who has studied the field now for over a decade, the original poster's analysis and understanding of (mythical) free market economics, supply and demand, market intervention and such like is embarassingly naive. These concepts are all vast simplifications (of underlying psychological and social principles of market economics) taught to first year students. Under any sort of close scrutiny they are quickly shown lacking (as highlighted by most papers in the last 20 years), and in numerous cases are simply incorrect.
Classic slashdot however.
This is beautiful.
Code purity...
It doesn't matter if you can read it. This is _art_. Someone send it to the *king louvre.
"It's not unusual for people with Aspergers to have trouble recognizing the "correctness" of behaviour, facial expressions, etc. Sure, it's not universal, either, but it's definitely not a rarity.
Do I care? No. But, then, I'm not built to care about things like that. This isn't an "I can't help it", because that implies it's wrong to be anything other than a highly socially-aware, socially-structured individual."
I disagree - imo there is something wrong with not being socially aware, as without empathy it is incredibly easy to offend others and to cause them pain. Empathy is key to the human condition and indeed our evolutional history (Do androids dream of electric sheep?). As an example at hand, I extremely hope I don't offend you by this post - that is not its intention, rather just to emphasise the value of empathy. In the end its the single most important form of pattern recognition there is.
"Or, in other words, the concepts are simple to understand - a link just points a finger from here to some other spot somewhere in ordinary linear documents, which we all are used to create, read and manipulate"
Interestingly making it a pointer and not in fact a link which is by definition a circular relationship (like links in a chain...). So the web is built on hyperpointers not hyperlinks.
"It is also simple to use; just make it point. No need to keep track of who is pointing to me; no need to worry about what span to actually point to; no need to worry about the origins of the text that will be the result."
Tell that to Google. The amount of effort that they have put into working round the web's faults through keeping track of backlinks for you is immense.
"There are two problems with it. The first is that no one except Ted thinks that way. That's just not how we tend to organise things to ourselves in the everyday. The second is that you can get 95% of the above functionality with a simple SQL database, which most people do understand."
You may be correct in thinking that few apart from Ted think visually in that way. BUT, inventions are not always used in the way they were originally intended - For example radio was invented as a medium for two-way communication and phonographs as a means of replacing letters.
Equally consider zigzag not as a visualisable structure per say, but rather as a queryable data source, and therein lies its organisational power, where the potential for previously unavailable functionality emerges.