If by "Hey, I've already been cleared once, what's the deal?" is an Appeal to Motive, then I guess that's true. Not that I'm impressed by his argument, I'm just considering the Double Jeopardy aspects.
Perhaps he could give me a single concrete example of something that I can do with 'enabled' media that I could not do with the same media with the DRM/DCE removed.
Just one - play the media on the DRM/DCE crippled media players which will be the only hardware you can buy.
Enough with the trilogies already. why can't we have a single good movie and just let that be?
Why? What was wrong with Highlander II and Highlander III? Errr, OK, bad example. Matrix II and Matrix III?? Hmmm. Alien3 and Alien Resurection??? OK, I give up.
The Progress 4GL (and database) has a tri-valued boolean: true, false and unknown. There are times when it's useful, rather than saying "assume true" or "assume false", you can say "don't know yet".
if you get rid of MSIE, Outlook Express, MSN Messenger, and Windows altogether, you could be the worst systems administrator ever and you still wouldn't have 1/10 the security breaches and incidents.
You've almost put your finger on it. It's not the products themselves, but Microsoft's love of having applications do whizzo shit that looks great in demos, but shouldn't be done in the first place. Think Active-X webpages, auto-preview in Outlook,.WMV files that can perform system-level operations, macros that execute on load in Word and Excel, executing code from files when viewing directories in thumbnail mode, etc., etc., etc.
Congratulations to you, Andreas and Aidan. Scaling is a major accomplishment. I've thought about this (ontology) issue a lot, ever since I realized how brilliant Roget was. As I've said elsewhere in this thread, to me, the issue of things being on a continuum, and the judgementalism of placing them on that continuum is a serious problem. Then there's the issues of getting everyone to standardize, overlapping ontologies and schema drift over time. I think we'll see most of the initial progress in very vertical domains, (medical perhaps) but some (I'm thinking of legal) are so slippery and fraught with peril, I doubt we'll ever make any serious progress. Good luck to you.
Ah, but that's the rub: most things are not binary, neither this nor that. Things live on a continuum, and it's all too often a judgement call where they should lie.
transparency ==> translucency ==> opacity
Or, to put it in website design terms: "It's not blue enough.
Of course you're correct. It had never occured to me that there would be ontology spam, but of course there will be. Still, for the pure knowledge aspects (think Wikipedia on RDF) it would be a wonderful thing.
Except for the minor little problem of getting everyone to agree on the ontologies. Being able to search quickly is important, but until somebody comes up with the Dewey Decimal System for all knowledge, it won't mean much.
Slashdot Mirror
If by "Hey, I've already been cleared once, what's the deal?" is an Appeal to Motive, then I guess that's true. Not that I'm impressed by his argument, I'm just considering the Double Jeopardy aspects.
Indeed. Hot and cool media. Marshall McLuhan was way ahead of his time.
Damn. That's insightful (and hysterically funny).
Insane?
Dude. That's funny. Major Major will see you now.
Indeed. The best images are from the Chandra X-ray observatory. They have some animations here.
Whoooooosh.
The Progress 4GL (and database) has a tri-valued boolean: true, false and unknown. There are times when it's useful, rather than saying "assume true" or "assume false", you can say "don't know yet".
You work the pedals and I'll steer!
Congratulations to you, Andreas and Aidan. Scaling is a major accomplishment. I've thought about this (ontology) issue a lot, ever since I realized how brilliant Roget was. As I've said elsewhere in this thread, to me, the issue of things being on a continuum, and the judgementalism of placing them on that continuum is a serious problem. Then there's the issues of getting everyone to standardize, overlapping ontologies and schema drift over time. I think we'll see most of the initial progress in very vertical domains, (medical perhaps) but some (I'm thinking of legal) are so slippery and fraught with peril, I doubt we'll ever make any serious progress. Good luck to you.
Ah, but that's the rub: most things are not binary, neither this nor that. Things live on a continuum, and it's all too often a judgement call where they should lie.
transparency ==> translucency ==> opacity
Or, to put it in website design terms: "It's not blue enough.
You are too modest. You're the lead author. Congratulations on a first-rate contribution to mankind. And such a young pup, too.
Of course you're correct. It had never occured to me that there would be ontology spam, but of course there will be. Still, for the pure knowledge aspects (think Wikipedia on RDF) it would be a wonderful thing.
Except for the minor little problem of getting everyone to agree on the ontologies. Being able to search quickly is important, but until somebody comes up with the Dewey Decimal System for all knowledge, it won't mean much.
I guess you've never read Dvorak in print. He uses bold. But, yes, random and unrelated words.
He's being replaced by Aaron McColon.
I remember when John Dvorak got fired from InfoWorld for criticizing the Trash-80 when Radio Shack was one of InfoWorld's biggest advertisers.