When are we going to get real markup? A lot of this stuff just falls out of an effort to get a real, working markup language, instead of this HTML related crap we've been shoveling around for years.
If the markup is part of the content, it's not really pure content, or good markup. Markup tags should reference the content, not be embedded in it.
The separate Structure, Content and Markup layers should all be parsable without knowledge of the others.
I've recently come to realise that it's crucial that I start adding metadata to my photos, before I forget it, or die. (I hope I've got 50-60 more years, but you never know)
I've seen references to a program called exifcomment, which sounds nice. I'm also using ThumbsPlus to put the metadata into an Access database. It might even be useful to sync the two.
Yes, it's redundant to use YYYYMMDD, but it helps prevent accidents, and makes it much easier to drop a folder into a backup, and not lose the context.
Because of rollover, for each numeric name, I've got 8 different images with that filename. (Yes, I've got 8 separate files named DSCN9999.JPG, all different) Obviously I've got to rely on the full pathname for context, so I figure it's a little insurance to keep the full YYYYMMDD string in the path, regardless.
The reason that google works at all is the free metadata that it mines from all the HTML out there. If we had an honest to goodness markup language standard, this would be a lot easier to do. It would support three separate layers: content, structure, and presentation. HTML need not apply, it doesn't do real markup. (As I define it below)
Real markup includes:
Markup is separate from content
Markup can be layered
Content can be transcluded
It should be possible to build a markup langauge that does all of this, and is human readable. You'll know you've got it right when you can mark up the page in a layer than can turn on and off, then mark over that. (All without stupid rules about "overlapping tags")
If we had a standard way do markup, we'd be able to solve this issue (the need for metadata) on our own, without the need to revisit the idea of a hierarchical filesystem.
We'll eventually get there... the only question is if we'll be locked into a Microsoft based implementation when we do.
Saying something is bad just because Microsoft is working on it is counterproductive, at best. They are pushing the pursuit of knowledge using some brute force the rest of us might not have available. It's possible it'll make them money, but it's guaranteed we'll all learn something from the effort.
I've been to at least 10 weddings in the past 5 years (including my own)... so WHICH wedding? There are many different clues (MetaData) to find the right photo of the right bride in the right wedding. We need to keep all of them.
If Dylan had a more common name, like, uhm...Mike... the value would go down. What would you do to include the names of the other 4 people in the photo? How do you link it to Dylan's other photos, etc?
Renaming files doesn't work... how many times have you had to search using the "containing text" features of Windows (or some other OS)?
It's saved my bacon more than once. As we move away from text, we become completely dependent on metadata to find things. Standards for metadata need to be settled soon, or Moore's law means our computers will become less and less useful.
I have a set of folders with names like: C:\photos\1997\1997_01_05
which later morphed into c:\photos\source\2003\20031205
Where you know what kind of image file (source vs altered, cropped, etc) then the year (to keep the directory listings reasonably short) then the YYYYMMDD to file by date.
Trivia: Most digital cameras roll over after 9999 photos, it gets annoying.
The fact is that thumbnails need to be at least 200x200 pixels before you can really tell what's in the picture. Once you pass the first few thousand photos, it's no longer feasable to visually search through them... your brain starts to hurt!
I store them by date photographed, using ThumbsPlus to view thumbnails and metadata stored in a database. So far, it's worked out for the 45Gb of photos I've taken in the past 5 years.
--Mike--
PS: Yes, I'll chat with and give ideas to anyone who wants to make this better... even Microsoft.
Real money is hard to counterfeit, the only two authorized implementations are made from the precious metals gold and silver. Anything else is just a placeholder at best, and a fraud at worse.
While we're at it, throwing technology at a simple matter of lining up the rear view mirror properly... let's see if we can kill privacy while we're at it. Let's require the radar transmit an ID signal to make it easier for the TIA (Total Information Awareness) folks to track us.
If you're not lining up the inner edge of your drivers side mirror with the outer left edge of your inside center mirror, you're going to miss a lot of things... but if you do, there is no blind spot, no surprises, and life is good.
Thawte is attempting to hijack the term. I call foul!
The web of trust, as described with PGP (who first used it in regards to PKI) doesn't require any root. I alone determine who I decide to trust, and who I will consider as a transitive source of trust.
Thawte wants to insert themselves as a middleman, and is thus attempting to hijack the term. It's immoral to do so. They must be opposed.
PGP is a type of Public Key Infrastructure... SSL keys aren't the only game in town. The only difference between the whole "Root CA" and PGP is that the "Root CA" list gets distributed with most SSL implementations, with PGP, you make your own lists.
Technically, anyone can make themselves a root CA, just like anyone can set up their own DNS root. It's a simple matter of consensus, the roots are as valid as the users believe the are.
I favor an alternative approach, which the authors concede has some merits, but quickly dismiss, sender authentication.
If I start rejecting all email which is not from a verifiable sender, I'll quickly cut spam, and impose some costs onto those who wish to sent me email. I'm willing to pay those costs when it becomes my turn to send an email. I would start with the recent authorized sender protocols, in addition to Public Key Infrastructure, to begin to authenticate a sender.
Once PKI starts to take hold, there would be an incentive for the spammers to start creating throw-away identities, which we could counter with a reputation system for the sender's domain. We could also create a "web of trust", automatically managed by our mail servers, or ourselves, to nip the counteroffensive.
So, there it is... my alternative... sign and validate all email.
It's all about context, and how computers throw information away. IMHO, here are the real underlying issues:
Source Authentication is missing. (Email, Web, etc)
Source Identification is discarded (Web page links, attachments, etc)
Context is hidden or obscured. (Where does this form really send its data?)
Metadata is hidden. (Why does Windows now default to hiding file extensions? It's assinine!)
HTML doesn't allow the inclusion of data in a document, it's transcluded, unlike the markup... brain dead decision in an insecure environment.
The fact is that computers now hide most of the information necessary to make a well informed decision about their use. If I could be sure that an email was actually from Microsoft, would it be a problem to trust it for a bug patch? If I could know that the file was actually just a text file, why shouldn't I open it?
HTML email is a really big evil, if the graphics files were embedded in the document, instead of transcluded from an unknown (and hidden to the user) source, a great deal of trouble with email bugs, and URL tweaks, etc... would just disappear.
It's easy to blame the user, it's harder to step back, and figure out how to make a better system that makes things more transparent, and useful.
I'm stuck with an older version of Symantec Antivirus (because the current one doesn't run on Exchange Server 5.5), and I can't just delete the fscking message, I have to explain, over and over, just how the user doesn't have to worry... it's already taken care of.
There seems to be a deep seated bug in Windows 2000 server when it comes to delayed writes and USB. The USB spec calls for a maximum transfer of 128k, but Win2k attempts a 512k trasfer after it's cached up a few writes, which results in "Delayed Write Failure", and lost files.
I can't seem to find any fix, the driver software doesn't permit caching to be disabled in the advanced properties box, so it's rendered an otherwise fine 120 GB Western Digital drive as an expensive paper weight, at least as far as Windows is concerned.
From what I've been able to read, it appears that Linux knows better, and respects the 128k per packet limit, and doesn't have this issue, but I've not confirmed that yet.
It's a bitch to be doing a backup (using copy) of 45 Gb of photos, and lose a few along the way.
Cars are VERY hostile to electronics. You've got the pulse noise from the ignition, a power supply that can vary from 0 to 15+ volts during normal operation, and environmental extremes that go from whatever the coldest night you encounter, through more that 20 degrees C over the hottest noon.
Needless to say, it sounds like you're going to take the prudent choice and let someone else do the engineering. Try not to be surprised when your system has to deal with the oddities.
If he doesn't get killed first, in 2 years, Saddam will be running Iraq again, with our blessing.
Yes, stupid, improbably, and unlikely... but there... I've said it on the record.
We don't dare put him through a fair public trial. We'll either keep him drugged up to prevent a fair defense, or we'll just play it safe, and Jack Ruby him.
Slashdot Mirror
If the markup is part of the content, it's not really pure content, or good markup. Markup tags should reference the content, not be embedded in it.
The separate Structure, Content and Markup layers should all be parsable without knowledge of the others.
--Mike--
I've seen references to a program called exifcomment, which sounds nice. I'm also using ThumbsPlus to put the metadata into an Access database. It might even be useful to sync the two.
--Mike--
Because of rollover, for each numeric name, I've got 8 different images with that filename. (Yes, I've got 8 separate files named DSCN9999.JPG, all different) Obviously I've got to rely on the full pathname for context, so I figure it's a little insurance to keep the full YYYYMMDD string in the path, regardless.
--Mike--
--Mike--
Real markup includes:
It should be possible to build a markup langauge that does all of this, and is human readable. You'll know you've got it right when you can mark up the page in a layer than can turn on and off, then mark over that. (All without stupid rules about "overlapping tags")
If we had a standard way do markup, we'd be able to solve this issue (the need for metadata) on our own, without the need to revisit the idea of a hierarchical filesystem.
We'll eventually get there... the only question is if we'll be locked into a Microsoft based implementation when we do.
--Mike--
Saying something is bad just because Microsoft is working on it is counterproductive, at best. They are pushing the pursuit of knowledge using some brute force the rest of us might not have available. It's possible it'll make them money, but it's guaranteed we'll all learn something from the effort.
--Mike--
--Mike--
If Dylan had a more common name, like, uhm...Mike... the value would go down. What would you do to include the names of the other 4 people in the photo? How do you link it to Dylan's other photos, etc?
--Mike--
It's saved my bacon more than once. As we move away from text, we become completely dependent on metadata to find things. Standards for metadata need to be settled soon, or Moore's law means our computers will become less and less useful.
--Mike--
C:\photos\1997\1997_01_05
which later morphed into
c:\photos\source\2003\20031205
Where you know what kind of image file (source vs altered, cropped, etc) then the year (to keep the directory listings reasonably short) then the YYYYMMDD to file by date.
Trivia: Most digital cameras roll over after 9999 photos, it gets annoying.
--Mike--
I store them by date photographed, using ThumbsPlus to view thumbnails and metadata stored in a database. So far, it's worked out for the 45Gb of photos I've taken in the past 5 years.
--Mike--
PS: Yes, I'll chat with and give ideas to anyone who wants to make this better... even Microsoft.
--Mike--
Stop asking if we can, Start asking if we should.
--Mike--
If you're not lining up the inner edge of your drivers side mirror with the outer left edge of your inside center mirror, you're going to miss a lot of things... but if you do, there is no blind spot, no surprises, and life is good.
--Mike--
The web of trust, as described with PGP (who first used it in regards to PKI) doesn't require any root. I alone determine who I decide to trust, and who I will consider as a transitive source of trust.
Thawte wants to insert themselves as a middleman, and is thus attempting to hijack the term. It's immoral to do so. They must be opposed.
--Mike--
Technically, anyone can make themselves a root CA, just like anyone can set up their own DNS root. It's a simple matter of consensus, the roots are as valid as the users believe the are.
--Mike--
--Mike--
Or maybe I've just got PGP on the brain today?
If I start rejecting all email which is not from a verifiable sender, I'll quickly cut spam, and impose some costs onto those who wish to sent me email. I'm willing to pay those costs when it becomes my turn to send an email. I would start with the recent authorized sender protocols, in addition to Public Key Infrastructure, to begin to authenticate a sender.
Once PKI starts to take hold, there would be an incentive for the spammers to start creating throw-away identities, which we could counter with a reputation system for the sender's domain. We could also create a "web of trust", automatically managed by our mail servers, or ourselves, to nip the counteroffensive.
So, there it is... my alternative... sign and validate all email.
--Mike--
- Source Authentication is missing. (Email, Web, etc)
- Source Identification is discarded (Web page links, attachments, etc)
- Context is hidden or obscured. (Where does this form really send its data?)
- Metadata is hidden. (Why does Windows now default to hiding file extensions? It's assinine!)
- HTML doesn't allow the inclusion of data in a document, it's transcluded, unlike the markup... brain dead decision in an insecure environment.
The fact is that computers now hide most of the information necessary to make a well informed decision about their use. If I could be sure that an email was actually from Microsoft, would it be a problem to trust it for a bug patch? If I could know that the file was actually just a text file, why shouldn't I open it?HTML email is a really big evil, if the graphics files were embedded in the document, instead of transcluded from an unknown (and hidden to the user) source, a great deal of trouble with email bugs, and URL tweaks, etc... would just disappear.
It's easy to blame the user, it's harder to step back, and figure out how to make a better system that makes things more transparent, and useful.
--Mike--
I hate being forced into supposed "up"grades.
--Mike--
I can't seem to find any fix, the driver software doesn't permit caching to be disabled in the advanced properties box, so it's rendered an otherwise fine 120 GB Western Digital drive as an expensive paper weight, at least as far as Windows is concerned.
From what I've been able to read, it appears that Linux knows better, and respects the 128k per packet limit, and doesn't have this issue, but I've not confirmed that yet.
It's a bitch to be doing a backup (using copy) of 45 Gb of photos, and lose a few along the way.
--Mike--
What the heck are these files doing on E: on this machine? Fsck! Ok... let's delete them...
Sudden realization that it wasn't local after all.. it was our main server for the ISP we ran, 25 miles away!
Hopped in car, had to reinstall, got it back up and running about 2 sweat filled hours later.
Moral: Always be mindful of WHERE the command is running.
--Mike--
I meant to say that it could reach the maximum ambient + 20C.
--Mike--
Needless to say, it sounds like you're going to take the prudent choice and let someone else do the engineering. Try not to be surprised when your system has to deal with the oddities.
Good luck!
--Mike--
Yes, stupid, improbably, and unlikely... but there... I've said it on the record.
We don't dare put him through a fair public trial. We'll either keep him drugged up to prevent a fair defense, or we'll just play it safe, and Jack Ruby him.
--Mike--