"The Semantic Web sounds great, but I really don't trust people creating websites to include pertinent and accurate metadata about their site."
You're quite right to suspect that the Semantic Web won't start in the blogs of the world. It doesn't scratch any particular itch for individual web authors.
But consider its value for a business that works with dozens (or hundreds, or thousands) of large clients, all of whom submit their data in more or less arbitrary formats. There is huge value for them in standardising the means by which they translate the data they work with.
"the ironic thought that pops to mind is that if you've got a set of universal descriptors, then don't you already have an ontology? And if you don't have a set of universal descriptors, how would you ever create a coherent ontology?"
There's nothing particularly ironic about it. The question you're asking exposes a fairly common misunderstanding of what the Semantic Web's all about. Several years ago, I attended the talk by Tim Berners Lee in which he announced the principles of the Semantic Web. As I recall, the fundamentals are remarkably simple:
If a == b and b == c then a == c
Now, this can lead to the question: if we have ontologies that are mappable, why do we need mappable ontologies?
But that's the wrong question. Try asking this one: If we can map at least part of one ontology to another, why shouldn't we be able to map between all of them using the same means?
People who have worked in data mapping and transformation, Information Retrieval and other disciplines that work with large volumes of 'unstructured' data realise this kind of goal is a Holy Grail. It's not easily, nor ever wholly achievable. But if we work on the incremental basis that Tim B-L suggests, mapping data atomically rather than holistically, the amount of machine-driven contextualisation that becomes possible is incredible.
It's true that data spoofing is a real threat to its widespread applicability. There are, however, any number of places where the disincentives for spoofing far outweigh the incentives to do so. Likewise, not everything on the web is a blog entry; there are huge volumes of information that are not at all ambiguous.
Price data is a good example. Imagine being able to comparison shop from sites anywhere in the world, and always viewing the total cost (including shipping and applicable taxes) in your own currency. The questions concerning trust and reliability of the data don't disappear, nor are they meant to. What does happen, though, is that the data itself is presented in a format that's useful and consistent to you. No more scurrying around between sites, running currency converters and freight calculators while trying to shave a few pennies off a price. That, in and of itself, is worth something.
I believe that we'll see the Semantic Web insinuate itself into our lives, rather than appear with the same kind of bang the WWW did. As more people begin to rely on the transformative/translational power of the Semantic Web, more people will invest in making in trustworthy and reliable.
HIV/AIDS caused by changing sexual mores? Puh-leese.
Perhaps you could explain how this observation works with the fact that the most virulent New World disease (Syphilis) managed to spread like wildfire from Catholic Spain at the height of the Inquisition, throughout European society. And while you're at it, perhaps you could explain how it was still a significant and common disease at the height of the Victorian period.
Maybe I'll save you the effort. Both Syphilis and HIV/AIDS were enabled by revolutions in *Human Mobility*, not changes in morality. The syphilis epidemic erupted at the same time that commerce via ship hit a spike, and HIV/AIDS hit us when air travel spiked.
It's no surprise that 'Patient Zero' in the US HIV/AIDS outbreak was an airline steward. It *is* a coincidence that he happened to be gay.
"A boss who's been using Windows since 3.1 will find Linux totally insane to work on because her expectation is an easy friendly GUI that does everything (goods and bads) for you."
It's funny you should mention that, because as I sit here reading your comment, I'm twenty feet from a man who's never used anything but Windows in his life. He's using Linux for the first time in his life right now, creating a staff payroll spreadsheet using OO.o on Mandrake 10. In the last hour, he has asked exactly one question, which I was able to answer in about 3 minutes.
I can't count the number of times people have objected to the idea of running Linux because it's 'not like Windows'. Problem is, I've so rarely seen evidence of it.
"Red Hat back-patches the fix to version x and makes a new funny version number to signify this. They might include a couple other things from x+1 in the back-patch to version x. Except that the funny redhat version number doesn't signify much to anyone on the surface."
I'm probably missing something from your description of the problem, but having worked three years for a company that uses older RH-based kernel versions in the business server we sell, we've never had any particular difficulty keeping track of security issues at the kernel level.
Keeping track of the reliable sources of security information, watching for new patches and reading the changelogs generally gives you a very clear picture of what is in the patch.
It is true that RH has sometimes bundled batches of mixed value in the same update. If we had the time and the energy, we'd likely have rolled our own patches on about 3 occasions.
"The only system that MS has ever released that encourages users to use administrator is XP Home, which is designed for home use, where that is probably more appropriate."
With all due respect: This statement is bollocks. Windows has never graduated from the assumption that there's only one user on the computer and she is God. The 'Run as...' feature is considered a Great New Thing, for crying out loud. That feature is only 20 years old in other operating systems.
And just FYI, anybody who knows anything about security would not ever run normally as root - not at home, not anywhere. The admin/root account is for changing the state of the machine, and nothing else. There's no evidence more damning than this that Microsoft just doesn't get security.
Please, offer whatever opinion you like about OSes, but try to base them on something bearing a passing resemblance to fact.
"NOrman Spinrad has been predicting the end of civilization as we know it, and/or the collapse of the US into fascism, for thirty years that I remember."
[Emphasis mine.]
Okay, so what you're saying is that this guy really hit the nail on the head, right? And saw it coming from a long way off, too.
Thanks for the heads-up. I'm off to the store to buy me some Spinrad books.
"[Orson Scott Card] refers to himself as a Democrat."
Yeah, and my mother refers to herself as '39'.
Self-description is generally inaccurate. In Card's case, there is no doubt whatsoever that his opinions and writings adhere closely to what even an American would call Right Wing. That said, his stories don't leave the tenets of fascism unquestioned, and he invariably uses conscience as a leavening factor in his plots.
We Canuckistanis have had nuclear capability for decades. I used to live near our biggest nuclear research installation, and you can bet your bottom dollar that we know everything there is to know about building nuclear weapons. But, being sane, we decided that having them was worse than not having them.
Our efforts to convince our southern neighbour of this have been less than successful....
"...its interesting to note that attorneys (typically a high strung bunch) experience the highest rate of depression among all professions in the United States...."
"Reading Miguel mention that many APIs (Avalon, Tk, Swing, GNOME, Xview, Motif) at least gives one the impression that he might actually know what he's talking about. Let me give him the benefit of the doubt."
What a spendid idea!
But why stop there? While we're at it, why don't we look at his development track record, at the innumerable public talks he's given, and, lest we forget, at the applications and development environment he's designed and developed in the past?
"I should say that I'm no real programmer..."
I'll have to agree with your assessment, because if you did know what you're talking about, you'd be a troll.
Remember that China is not signatory to the international copyright agreements. There is absolutely nothing compelling them to play nice in this regard, or any other.
They may *choose* to do so because it behooves them, but they simply cannot be bullied.
China has historically referred to itself as 'The Middle Kingdom', implying that they're at the centre of the earth. For any other nation, this might be seen as hubris. For China, it's axiomatic.
I'm going to skip around the obvious jokes lying here, and actually say something serious. Clippy. Serious. It's making me sweat.
The biggest problem with recent MS interfaces - and Word in particular - is the, ahem, helpful suggestions they try to make, that only confuse the issue entirely. I ranted about it here.
"1) A GPL source code will continue to be available. 2.4.1, 2.4.2... will have a GPL source for *nix on this web page.
Er, no, you do not get to choose to release *some* of the source code. If you distribute software which contains GPL code, you MUST make the source available to those who receive the binaries. Unless the Windows build is a complete re-write of the application, all of the code therein is bound by the GPL.
"2) My particular Windows release is not released under GPL."
While he's welcome to license his own software any way he likes, all GPL'ed software MUST remain GPL'ed, unless the original authors agree to the license change.
Again, unless the binary that he's releasing contains NO GPL code, or ONLY code which he has written, he must distribute according to the terms of the GPL.
...and nitpicking about how blogs are narcissistic and boring, how links in text are a pain(!), Geekcorps is creating a nationwide information network in Mali.
I'm kinda glad that most people in the US ignore the world outside. It makes it easier for the rest of us to get things done.
Sorry, they want to send MS code over the network so that people can run it sight unseen on a local machine that's 'ready to accept it'?
AND this service is going to be 'easy to use' and 'safe' just like all the other MS products we've seen in the past?
AND... businesses are going to pay for this pleasure?
Before I start laughing so hard I fall from my chair, may I remind you that the last time they wanted to integrate online capabilities into their software they gave us IE and Outlook?
As someone who's set up Internet servers in the high Arctic and who quite recently found himself posting 'I'm still alive' updates to my blog as the remote South Pacific island I was on was being battered by a hurricane, I STILL made sure to use ssh/ssl to connect to remote servers.
I was dialed in over a microwave link running at about 10Kbps. Even pathetic bandwidth is no excuse not to use simple security measures.
P.S. I'm posting from yet another Pacific Island, where I regularly use an ssh tunnel to connect to my home IMAP server, over a modem line that I share with 12 other computers on our local network.
I can tell you from experience that it is NOT easy to stand at the front of a computer class and explain Master and Slave in a nation whose population was nearly cut in half by slavery.
"Forget the power. Power is doable for many poor countries..."
Thank goodness! Someone who gets it. 8^)
There are any number of low-power computing devices that one can use. In the South Pacific nation where I'm currently living, solar power is available to communities, and there are generators around, at least one per village.
"...it's the monthly Internet access fee which will kill you."
No kidding. I work for an organisation with over twenty employees. We share a single unlimited dial-up connection between 12 computers. The price? A mere USD 200 per month.
You know what's scandalous? Before the unlimited package became available, the organisation was paying over USD 1000 per month in overtime charges. Only when the government threatened to call in the regulators did this slightly less larcenous package appear.
And yes, in a country with an average per capita income of less then USD 1000 per year, I can guarantee you that if affordable computers and Internet were available at the kind of price that this article discusses, there is not a village that wouldn't have at least two.
BTW, for a more interesting approach to this same problem, check this out.
Slashdot Mirror
"I'm still waiting for my unfirewalled 'nix box to be rooted ;)"
Oh, it won't be rooted... again. I've tightened things up nicely, now.
P.S. Thanks for the porn!
"The Semantic Web sounds great, but I really don't trust people creating websites to include pertinent and accurate metadata about their site."
You're quite right to suspect that the Semantic Web won't start in the blogs of the world. It doesn't scratch any particular itch for individual web authors.
But consider its value for a business that works with dozens (or hundreds, or thousands) of large clients, all of whom submit their data in more or less arbitrary formats. There is huge value for them in standardising the means by which they translate the data they work with.
Now that is an itch worth scratching. 8^)
"the ironic thought that pops to mind is that if you've got a set of universal descriptors, then don't you already have an ontology? And if you don't have a set of universal descriptors, how would you ever create a coherent ontology?"
There's nothing particularly ironic about it. The question you're asking exposes a fairly common misunderstanding of what the Semantic Web's all about. Several years ago, I attended the talk by Tim Berners Lee in which he announced the principles of the Semantic Web. As I recall, the fundamentals are remarkably simple:
If a == b and b == c then a == c
Now, this can lead to the question: if we have ontologies that are mappable, why do we need mappable ontologies?
But that's the wrong question. Try asking this one: If we can map at least part of one ontology to another, why shouldn't we be able to map between all of them using the same means?
People who have worked in data mapping and transformation, Information Retrieval and other disciplines that work with large volumes of 'unstructured' data realise this kind of goal is a Holy Grail. It's not easily, nor ever wholly achievable. But if we work on the incremental basis that Tim B-L suggests, mapping data atomically rather than holistically, the amount of machine-driven contextualisation that becomes possible is incredible.
It's true that data spoofing is a real threat to its widespread applicability. There are, however, any number of places where the disincentives for spoofing far outweigh the incentives to do so. Likewise, not everything on the web is a blog entry; there are huge volumes of information that are not at all ambiguous.
Price data is a good example. Imagine being able to comparison shop from sites anywhere in the world, and always viewing the total cost (including shipping and applicable taxes) in your own currency. The questions concerning trust and reliability of the data don't disappear, nor are they meant to. What does happen, though, is that the data itself is presented in a format that's useful and consistent to you. No more scurrying around between sites, running currency converters and freight calculators while trying to shave a few pennies off a price. That, in and of itself, is worth something.
I believe that we'll see the Semantic Web insinuate itself into our lives, rather than appear with the same kind of bang the WWW did. As more people begin to rely on the transformative/translational power of the Semantic Web, more people will invest in making in trustworthy and reliable.
HIV/AIDS caused by changing sexual mores? Puh-leese.
Perhaps you could explain how this observation works with the fact that the most virulent New World disease (Syphilis) managed to spread like wildfire from Catholic Spain at the height of the Inquisition, throughout European society. And while you're at it, perhaps you could explain how it was still a significant and common disease at the height of the Victorian period.
Maybe I'll save you the effort. Both Syphilis and HIV/AIDS were enabled by revolutions in *Human Mobility*, not changes in morality. The syphilis epidemic erupted at the same time that commerce via ship hit a spike, and HIV/AIDS hit us when air travel spiked.
It's no surprise that 'Patient Zero' in the US HIV/AIDS outbreak was an airline steward. It *is* a coincidence that he happened to be gay.
"A boss who's been using Windows since 3.1 will find Linux totally insane to work on because her expectation is an easy friendly GUI that does everything (goods and bads) for you."
It's funny you should mention that, because as I sit here reading your comment, I'm twenty feet from a man who's never used anything but Windows in his life. He's using Linux for the first time in his life right now, creating a staff payroll spreadsheet using OO.o on Mandrake 10. In the last hour, he has asked exactly one question, which I was able to answer in about 3 minutes.
I can't count the number of times people have objected to the idea of running Linux because it's 'not like Windows'. Problem is, I've so rarely seen evidence of it.
"Red Hat back-patches the fix to version x and makes a new funny version number to signify this. They might include a couple other things from x+1 in the back-patch to version x. Except that the funny redhat version number doesn't signify much to anyone on the surface."
I'm probably missing something from your description of the problem, but having worked three years for a company that uses older RH-based kernel versions in the business server we sell, we've never had any particular difficulty keeping track of security issues at the kernel level.
Keeping track of the reliable sources of security information, watching for new patches and reading the changelogs generally gives you a very clear picture of what is in the patch.
It is true that RH has sometimes bundled batches of mixed value in the same update. If we had the time and the energy, we'd likely have rolled our own patches on about 3 occasions.
"The only system that MS has ever released that encourages users to use administrator is XP Home, which is designed for home use, where that is probably more appropriate."
With all due respect: This statement is bollocks. Windows has never graduated from the assumption that there's only one user on the computer and she is God. The 'Run as...' feature is considered a Great New Thing, for crying out loud. That feature is only 20 years old in other operating systems.
And just FYI, anybody who knows anything about security would not ever run normally as root - not at home, not anywhere. The admin/root account is for changing the state of the machine, and nothing else. There's no evidence more damning than this that Microsoft just doesn't get security.
Please, offer whatever opinion you like about OSes, but try to base them on something bearing a passing resemblance to fact.
"NOrman Spinrad has been predicting the end of civilization as we know it, and/or the collapse of the US into fascism, for thirty years that I remember."
[Emphasis mine.]
Okay, so what you're saying is that this guy really hit the nail on the head, right? And saw it coming from a long way off, too.
Thanks for the heads-up. I'm off to the store to buy me some Spinrad books.
"[Orson Scott Card] refers to himself as a Democrat."
Yeah, and my mother refers to herself as '39'.
Self-description is generally inaccurate. In Card's case, there is no doubt whatsoever that his opinions and writings adhere closely to what even an American would call Right Wing. That said, his stories don't leave the tenets of fascism unquestioned, and he invariably uses conscience as a leavening factor in his plots.
We Canuckistanis have had nuclear capability for decades. I used to live near our biggest nuclear research installation, and you can bet your bottom dollar that we know everything there is to know about building nuclear weapons. But, being sane, we decided that having them was worse than not having them.
Our efforts to convince our southern neighbour of this have been less than successful....
"...its interesting to note that attorneys (typically a high strung bunch) experience the highest rate of depression among all professions in the United States...."
That's not depression - that's guilt!
8^)
"Reading Miguel mention that many APIs (Avalon, Tk, Swing, GNOME, Xview, Motif) at least gives one the impression that he might actually know what he's talking about. Let me give him the benefit of the doubt."
What a spendid idea!
But why stop there? While we're at it, why don't we look at his development track record, at the innumerable public talks he's given, and, lest we forget, at the applications and development environment he's designed and developed in the past?
"I should say that I'm no real programmer..."
I'll have to agree with your assessment, because if you did know what you're talking about, you'd be a troll.
Remember that China is not signatory to the international copyright agreements. There is absolutely nothing compelling them to play nice in this regard, or any other.
They may *choose* to do so because it behooves them, but they simply cannot be bullied.
China has historically referred to itself as 'The Middle Kingdom', implying that they're at the centre of the earth. For any other nation, this might be seen as hubris. For China, it's axiomatic.
"This, by the way, is the origin of Clippy."
I'm going to skip around the obvious jokes lying here, and actually say something serious. Clippy. Serious. It's making me sweat.
The biggest problem with recent MS interfaces - and Word in particular - is the, ahem, helpful suggestions they try to make, that only confuse the issue entirely. I ranted about it here.
"Yet more spin by /. zealots who don't take the article at face value."
Er, don't get me wrong, but I don't take anything anyone says at face value. Not even my mother.
... Okay, especially my mother, but let's not go there.
"1) A GPL source code will continue to be available. 2.4.1, 2.4.2... will have a GPL source for *nix on this web page.
Er, no, you do not get to choose to release *some* of the source code. If you distribute software which contains GPL code, you MUST make the source available to those who receive the binaries. Unless the Windows build is a complete re-write of the application, all of the code therein is bound by the GPL.
"2) My particular Windows release is not released under GPL."
While he's welcome to license his own software any way he likes, all GPL'ed software MUST remain GPL'ed, unless the original authors agree to the license change.
Again, unless the binary that he's releasing contains NO GPL code, or ONLY code which he has written, he must distribute according to the terms of the GPL.
...and nitpicking about how blogs are narcissistic and boring, how links in text are a pain(!), Geekcorps is creating a nationwide information network in Mali.
I'm kinda glad that most people in the US ignore the world outside. It makes it easier for the rest of us to get things done.
Sorry, they want to send MS code over the network so that people can run it sight unseen on a local machine that's 'ready to accept it'?
AND this service is going to be 'easy to use' and 'safe' just like all the other MS products we've seen in the past?
AND... businesses are going to pay for this pleasure?
Before I start laughing so hard I fall from my chair, may I remind you that the last time they wanted to integrate online capabilities into their software they gave us IE and Outlook?
I'm sorry, the Emperor still has no clothes.
Erm, you mean, like people getting friendly with one another? Like really close, and, er, cuddling and stuff? Like, maybe, becoming intimate?
You're telling me you can't find any of this on the Internet?
"(I work in IT at an east cost university)"
And we all appreciate your honesty. 8^)
"Every time I build a windows PC for a friend, I make them buy a licence of xp."
And so they should. I believe everyone who decides to run insecure, third-rate software should be made to pay a fine.
Those who write the software should be allowed to do so only if they're sitting on ground glass while they code.
[Humour-impaired moderators: please mod 'insightful']
8^)
As someone who's set up Internet servers in the high Arctic and who quite recently found himself posting 'I'm still alive' updates to my blog as the remote South Pacific island I was on was being battered by a hurricane, I STILL made sure to use ssh/ssl to connect to remote servers.
I was dialed in over a microwave link running at about 10Kbps. Even pathetic bandwidth is no excuse not to use simple security measures.
P.S. I'm posting from yet another Pacific Island, where I regularly use an ssh tunnel to connect to my home IMAP server, over a modem line that I share with 12 other computers on our local network.
I can tell you from experience that it is NOT easy to stand at the front of a computer class and explain Master and Slave in a nation whose population was nearly cut in half by slavery.
These things seem silly until they affect YOU.
"Forget the power. Power is doable for many poor countries..."
Thank goodness! Someone who gets it. 8^)
There are any number of low-power computing devices that one can use. In the South Pacific nation where I'm currently living, solar power is available to communities, and there are generators around, at least one per village.
" ...it's the monthly Internet access fee which will kill you."
No kidding. I work for an organisation with over twenty employees. We share a single unlimited dial-up connection between 12 computers. The price? A mere USD 200 per month.
You know what's scandalous? Before the unlimited package became available, the organisation was paying over USD 1000 per month in overtime charges. Only when the government threatened to call in the regulators did this slightly less larcenous package appear.
And yes, in a country with an average per capita income of less then USD 1000 per year, I can guarantee you that if affordable computers and Internet were available at the kind of price that this article discusses, there is not a village that wouldn't have at least two.
BTW, for a more interesting approach to this same problem, check this out.
My first thought on reading the headline was:
"Why is LiveJournal recommending database servers?"
My second thought was:
"LiveJournal has EDITORS?!!??"