Personally, I think it would be nice to see Google work on a standard for 'application markup'.
I would simply preferr a rethink of the whole web application thing. I mean, I'm *so* tired of having to deal with tons of languages that don't work very well by themselves (imagine work together with others) and are not properly implemented in browsers....etc
I look at old designs such as the Unix with its services (read: small applications) and shell, wich provide the means to have applications interacting with each other in non-obvious ways and it makes me (pardon) sick of having to deal with such a messy place that is web applications.
Frankly, I would be very excited to see a single idiom on server/client side talking to each other without layers of translations and the like, and, of course, fully enjoying the power of scripts on browsers.
IMHO, there are many things wrong when it comes to web app, and I'm not sure the efforts are going in the right direction.
Most people do not get that concept: that OO is all about ADT (Abstract Data Types) and that a concrete implementation should be a detail. Some people disagree.
But again....no one seems to agree on what the term OO is for a long time....
Seriously, I wonder who will teach my kids (when, eventually, I do some damage to a gal...), watching the students of today.
I'm a undergrad student here in Brazil, and overall it seems no different from anywhere else. In my faculty, I used to have pride of my course: it required (at the time) 3 monography works to get a degree when other colleges demanded only one monography for the final project. After some time, people who got in the fourth semester would transfer to another college (usually, one wich have really low requirements to get the degree), because they simply freaked out on the *first* monography.
A few years back, 2 of the monographies became 2 "technical reports": very simple works with a professor wich more resambles a nany. And last year, the board tried to remove the 2 reports from the curricula -- and I went berserk.
I've been a student there for 7 years now (Yeah, I have a list of jokes about that) and watched a lot of curricula changes. Seven years ago, one had to make *real* efforts to get approved.
I wonder what is the driving force behind the changes. I mean, I know they are trying to adapt the course to the market demand, but I can't help but think this smells like a dead end. Simply because, after so many changes, I know very few final students that are actually prepared to work for companies. In fact, they leave the course not with a know how, but with a collection of professor's (poor) views and ideas. No thinking on their own and no clue whatsoever about problem solving. I'm freaking tired of this professor-student mediocrity transmission.
Now, I don't know if this is intentional. In the first semester, if you ask the students why they are studing computers, most likely 95% will say "computer professionals have fat sallary" or "I used to play with Adobe Photoshop and I realized I like computers".
Ignoring the second answer, I would think that the colleges et al around here are giving the student what they want: a degree (as paper-requirement) to get a job. Not what they should, wich amongs other things include "prepare the student to work in the society".
No wonder everyone around has an undergrad degree nowadays with no much of an effort, and masters/PhDs etc are what a undergrad was 20 years ago. It's the education pretending to educate and most of the students pretending to learn something at all.
I find quite disturbing to read arcticles about free speech associated with anonymous expression. I aways tought such freedom walks hand in hand with responsibility.
"Employers, including law firms, frequently do Google searches as part of due diligence checks on prospective employees."
And no less disturbing knowing such anonymous claims and unverified information are given credit by people who are familiar with the importance of verifiable information.
Anyway...once I read a sig here saying something like "act as if everything you read on the internet has 'but I may be speaking out of my ass' appended to it".
I'm surprised to see this topic on slashdot, since it is also the subject of a project I worked during the last half of 2006.
I was/am working on a platform and network schema involving social and collaborative network. As I see, the problem of social network is tight coupled with the digital identity (and I recommend watching the identity 2.0 presentation about this), specially when it comes to decentralization and interdependency. And that's something the big players are realizing in slow motion (if realizing at all). It's tiresome to setup an account in a closed service that offers X features, building your digital persona (linking interests, friends, communities, data, etc) and then, watch another service with X+1 interesting features, and not been able to use all the ground (interests, friend networks, photo album, etc) previously crafted. It's tiresome to be locked up by such services as well. Of course, this is just a glimpse on the burden of the present configuration and in the way those services are offered and used (at least, the ones that don't offer appropriated API's or other interoperability mechanisms). Not to mention the focus on features rather than people.
While working on this project, I've found that is more interesting to have a powerful communication standard that could structure people and information rather than create Another Social Network Service. For now, it seems less interesting to focus on application features and services than to focus on human identity, the information that surround it, and the way it is organized, related and published in the network.
I mean...how odd is to have a fragmented identity as we have now, spread along diverse systems that simply refuse to talk with each other? I feel ashamed when remembering I used to take this for granted.
Also, not long time ago, I heard about the project open-croquet. Personally, I fell that this project captures most of the essence I look for when thinking about social/collaborative network and personal computer usage.
Anyway, about the big players approach and inspired by (and quoting, in someway) a friend's affirmation: as long as they (big companies) try to model the user identity in it's own private space, social networking is not going to happen in all it's power. It's simply not good enough. In the same way, it doesn't make sense to have those myriads of social networks as isolated islands.
Our approach for the project, OTOH is an open one. We are looking for something more natural and organic, but still, using the web architecture (as opposed to open-croquet's approach). A better way to express ourselves, to experiment and use the network in social activities. A better way to structure and publish people and information for heterogeneous consumption. And we are working on it, using open standard all the way (such as Jabber, Atom, etc). Not really focusing on developing an application (like the parent), but on a communication model that applications can use (and, of course, proof of concept, prototypes and product implementations). We have made some presentations on free software events, and we will (possibly) go to FISL 8 to give a talk about this subject and our project as well.
Unfortunately we're still moving our project code (mostly prototypes and betas) to a project repository, so we don't have an official (and international) home page yet. But anyone interested in this subject and willing to share ideas (or directly contribute) to create something better in terms of social network is welcome (my contact is on my personal webpage)
Buddha had it right: it's the balance that's important.
Even tough I enjoyed reading your comment, I think it doesn't go all the way for me.
First, our ideia of "owning", frankly and naturally, doesn't seem to fit well with the 'actual' real world, where there is no such thing as "owning" something. There is only the ideia of 'owning', and the ideia that if I own, the object is under my desire and control (at least, that's what we belive). From our point of view, that seems fine, is what we know. But I think that there is a perspective where this seems absurd. I don't think it makes sense to have a balance on owning and sharing, because owning (in this terms) doesn't really makes sense (at least, for me).
The vision we have on ownership doesn't imply a (strong) sense of responsability. I think there are communities that, instead of having the idea of ownership, have the idea of responsability. Where you own a land, actually you are responsible for that land. If you have a great sum of money, it doesn't mean it is yours, in a sense that you can do whatever you want with it. It means that a great sum of resources are in your responsability to manage. Not for you, but for all, and for itself.
Even tough there are some forms of laws that imposes some kind of responsability, responsability itself it is not the driving force behind the idea of ownership. I belive ownership as responsability sounds way more natural. And I belive that what is natural, sooner or later, wins.
...but sharing everything absolutely equally doesn't work well outside of a monastery either
That would be an extremme, probably one that Buddha would have avoided and tought. Also, I'm not sure if it's appropriate to see things that way. After all, is not about 'sharing everything absolutely equally'. Monasteries (at least, the ones I know) don't work that way eihter.
I'm sorry, I'm not able to give a good answer to the "final truth" issue. I belive this is more an human maturity issue, than religion issue. Even in religions wich lacks absolutistm in its roots (such as buddhism, wich has its founder saying something like "Do not belive my teachings just because I sayd it. Taste it in your own lips before judge it.") have belivers with "because this is truth. Buddha said it. Period" behavior.
Now, there is no point in having science incorporate religion, in such a way to destroy what science is. I guess this would be like trying to have a peace of puzzle connect with other peace that simply doesn't match with the selected faces. It will destroy both. They can communicate and interact, as long as they are connected properly and used in a way that fits they purpose. And for that, a conscience of their purpose and nature is nescessary. In other words, we need to know very well those peaces, what it's their role and relevance. This is most important.
Finally, that was an interesting tought. Yes science has an enormous value, given its methods, history and...well, treasures brought by the capable scientists. No doubt. If you are thinking about what actually religion brought to human kind...well...there is...most I can't even imagine (just for a humble start, try Art).
Now, I understand and respect your opinion. I belive it is based on the relevance you give to religion and what kind of role it plays in our lives.
But I also belive that is not really the religion you are reffering to. Is the big giant mess that was created around it.
Anyway, probably all this is just a confusion over how we interpret things...
When I talk about religion, I talk about the most wide-spread religions in the western world.
I find this sadly common. Sadly because the most influential and wide-spread religion concepts wich surround us are expressed in a damaged and conflicted way.
I think I can understand lots of definitions about religion around, because many of them defines it according to the atitude of people with it. I don't see this as a good thing, since it doesn't inform anything about it's roots, but about what people think of it.
The same way I can't accurately judge, define nor investigate science by the atitude of scientists (or people's opinion about it), but by science itself.
i'm sorry if I made the wrong impression. I hesitated in bring what I think about the definition of religion, simply because I don't think it is enough or accurate. But I couldn't agree with you, for what I have researched, so, I simply invited you to go beyond.
Now, for the science and religion relationship, I do belive that only because of some historical figures and specific conflicts it became what it seems today: oposite sides. Seems that we kind of inherited this scenario.
AFAIK in many traditions (such as hindu, and many others), there is no clear line between religion and science. They are integrated aspects of something bigger that englobes many facets (moral codes, laws, science methods, rituals, etc). That is my point and key reference when facing a vision of science being opposed to religion.
For a definition of religion (found by google) that fits nice with what I understand and experienced:
"(Latin: religio, ligo, "to bind together") A way of seeing, thinking, and acting inspired by questions about what things mean: ie Where did we come from?, What is our destiny?, What is true?, What is false?, What is my duty or obligation?, What is the meaning of suffering?, What is the meaning of death?, How shall we live? "
I belive that is the core, what is relevant, and what we should aways have in mind when reflecting about science or religion. Because in the end, that's what those paths try to answer. The rest, is only what people have done with what they have in hands through the history......many times, nothing to do with answers, but with ego.
As for Christianity X science, well....as I see, there is a lot of arrogance in both sides....nothing really incompatible in its concepts, but in people's attitude.
Again, I don't see conflicts in the concepts and aspects of those subjects, but conflicts in people's relationship with those subjects.
Sorry if I couldn't give you enough references, but I'm sure you might find similar thoughts in books about religions and traditions of the world, specially Christianity history.
Religion, in its' definition, is the opposite of science.
Uh...maybe you should review the definition of Religon.
Throughout the history, the religion has oppressed science, and was actively trying to silence down the scientists whenever their theories were opposing the religious view of the world.
And...by the way, try switching the word "religion" for "christianity" above. That would be more acceptable!:)
I mean...its very strange that we get used to see Religion as synonym of Christianity (or any other variant)
Slashdot Mirror
Don't worry. The field is not mature either.
I believe the first hypertext project was Engelbart's NLS (oN-Line System): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NLS_(computer_system)
There's also corruption, prostitution...
Thank god no such things exist in rest of the world! Oh my, Brazil is soo 'retro'...
Personally, I think it would be nice to see Google work on a standard for 'application markup'.
I would simply preferr a rethink of the whole web application thing. I mean, I'm *so* tired of having to deal with tons of languages that don't work very well by themselves (imagine work together with others) and are not properly implemented in browsers....etc
I look at old designs such as the Unix with its services (read: small applications) and shell, wich provide the means to have applications interacting with each other in non-obvious ways and it makes me (pardon) sick of having to deal with such a messy place that is web applications.
Frankly, I would be very excited to see a single idiom on server/client side talking to each other without layers of translations and the like, and, of course, fully enjoying the power of scripts on browsers.
IMHO, there are many things wrong when it comes to web app, and I'm not sure the efforts are going in the right direction.
But again....no one seems to agree on what the term OO is for a long time....
Seriously, I wonder who will teach my kids (when, eventually, I do some damage to a gal...), watching the students of today.
I'm a undergrad student here in Brazil, and overall it seems no different from anywhere else. In my faculty, I used to have pride of my course: it required (at the time) 3 monography works to get a degree when other colleges demanded only one monography for the final project. After some time, people who got in the fourth semester would transfer to another college (usually, one wich have really low requirements to get the degree), because they simply freaked out on the *first* monography.
A few years back, 2 of the monographies became 2 "technical reports": very simple works with a professor wich more resambles a nany. And last year, the board tried to remove the 2 reports from the curricula -- and I went berserk.
I've been a student there for 7 years now (Yeah, I have a list of jokes about that) and watched a lot of curricula changes. Seven years ago, one had to make *real* efforts to get approved.
I wonder what is the driving force behind the changes. I mean, I know they are trying to adapt the course to the market demand, but I can't help but think this smells like a dead end. Simply because, after so many changes, I know very few final students that are actually prepared to work for companies. In fact, they leave the course not with a know how, but with a collection of professor's (poor) views and ideas. No thinking on their own and no clue whatsoever about problem solving. I'm freaking tired of this professor-student mediocrity transmission.
Now, I don't know if this is intentional. In the first semester, if you ask the students why they are studing computers, most likely 95% will say "computer professionals have fat sallary" or "I used to play with Adobe Photoshop and I realized I like computers".
Ignoring the second answer, I would think that the colleges et al around here are giving the student what they want: a degree (as paper-requirement) to get a job. Not what they should, wich amongs other things include "prepare the student to work in the society".
No wonder everyone around has an undergrad degree nowadays with no much of an effort, and masters/PhDs etc are what a undergrad was 20 years ago. It's the education pretending to educate and most of the students pretending to learn something at all.
And that scares the hell out of me.
"Maybe the future is something more like 'write once, run anywhere'."
What about the software that makes it "run anywhere"? Because that software got to be hardware dependent, right?
Wich brings me to...
I find quite disturbing to read arcticles about free speech associated with anonymous expression. I aways tought such freedom walks hand in hand with responsibility.
"Employers, including law firms, frequently do Google searches as part of due diligence checks on prospective employees."
And no less disturbing knowing such anonymous claims and unverified information are given credit by people who are familiar with the importance of verifiable information.
Anyway...once I read a sig here saying something like "act as if everything you read on the internet has 'but I may be speaking out of my ass' appended to it".
I'm surprised to see this topic on slashdot, since it is also the subject of a project I worked during the last half of 2006.
I was/am working on a platform and network schema involving social and collaborative network. As I see, the problem of social network is tight coupled with the digital identity (and I recommend watching the identity 2.0 presentation about this), specially when it comes to decentralization and interdependency. And that's something the big players are realizing in slow motion (if realizing at all). It's tiresome to setup an account in a closed service that offers X features, building your digital persona (linking interests, friends, communities, data, etc) and then, watch another service with X+1 interesting features, and not been able to use all the ground (interests, friend networks, photo album, etc) previously crafted. It's tiresome to be locked up by such services as well. Of course, this is just a glimpse on the burden of the present configuration and in the way those services are offered and used (at least, the ones that don't offer appropriated API's or other interoperability mechanisms). Not to mention the focus on features rather than people.
While working on this project, I've found that is more interesting to have a powerful communication standard that could structure people and information rather than create Another Social Network Service. For now, it seems less interesting to focus on application features and services than to focus on human identity, the information that surround it, and the way it is organized, related and published in the network.
I mean...how odd is to have a fragmented identity as we have now, spread along diverse systems that simply refuse to talk with each other? I feel ashamed when remembering I used to take this for granted.
Also, not long time ago, I heard about the project open-croquet. Personally, I fell that this project captures most of the essence I look for when thinking about social/collaborative network and personal computer usage.
Anyway, about the big players approach and inspired by (and quoting, in someway) a friend's affirmation: as long as they (big companies) try to model the user identity in it's own private space, social networking is not going to happen in all it's power. It's simply not good enough. In the same way, it doesn't make sense to have those myriads of social networks as isolated islands.
Our approach for the project, OTOH is an open one. We are looking for something more natural and organic, but still, using the web architecture (as opposed to open-croquet's approach). A better way to express ourselves, to experiment and use the network in social activities. A better way to structure and publish people and information for heterogeneous consumption. And we are working on it, using open standard all the way (such as Jabber, Atom, etc). Not really focusing on developing an application (like the parent), but on a communication model that applications can use (and, of course, proof of concept, prototypes and product implementations). We have made some presentations on free software events, and we will (possibly) go to FISL 8 to give a talk about this subject and our project as well.
Unfortunately we're still moving our project code (mostly prototypes and betas) to a project repository, so we don't have an official (and international) home page yet. But anyone interested in this subject and willing to share ideas (or directly contribute) to create something better in terms of social network is welcome (my contact is on my personal webpage)
Buddha had it right: it's the balance that's important.
Even tough I enjoyed reading your comment, I think it doesn't go all the way for me.First, our ideia of "owning", frankly and naturally, doesn't seem to fit well with the 'actual' real world, where there is no such thing as "owning" something. There is only the ideia of 'owning', and the ideia that if I own, the object is under my desire and control (at least, that's what we belive). From our point of view, that seems fine, is what we know. But I think that there is a perspective where this seems absurd. I don't think it makes sense to have a balance on owning and sharing, because owning (in this terms) doesn't really makes sense (at least, for me).
The vision we have on ownership doesn't imply a (strong) sense of responsability. I think there are communities that, instead of having the idea of ownership, have the idea of responsability. Where you own a land, actually you are responsible for that land. If you have a great sum of money, it doesn't mean it is yours, in a sense that you can do whatever you want with it. It means that a great sum of resources are in your responsability to manage. Not for you, but for all, and for itself.
Even tough there are some forms of laws that imposes some kind of responsability, responsability itself it is not the driving force behind the idea of ownership. I belive ownership as responsability sounds way more natural. And I belive that what is natural, sooner or later, wins.
That would be an extremme, probably one that Buddha would have avoided and tought. Also, I'm not sure if it's appropriate to see things that way. After all, is not about 'sharing everything absolutely equally'. Monasteries (at least, the ones I know) don't work that way eihter.
I'm sorry, I'm not able to give a good answer to the "final truth" issue. I belive this is more an human maturity issue, than religion issue. Even in religions wich lacks absolutistm in its roots (such as buddhism, wich has its founder saying something like "Do not belive my teachings just because I sayd it. Taste it in your own lips before judge it.") have belivers with "because this is truth. Buddha said it. Period" behavior.
Now, there is no point in having science incorporate religion, in such a way to destroy what science is. I guess this would be like trying to have a peace of puzzle connect with other peace that simply doesn't match with the selected faces. It will destroy both. They can communicate and interact, as long as they are connected properly and used in a way that fits they purpose. And for that, a conscience of their purpose and nature is nescessary. In other words, we need to know very well those peaces, what it's their role and relevance. This is most important.
Finally, that was an interesting tought. Yes science has an enormous value, given its methods, history and...well, treasures brought by the capable scientists. No doubt. If you are thinking about what actually religion brought to human kind...well...there is...most I can't even imagine (just for a humble start, try Art).
Now, I understand and respect your opinion. I belive it is based on the relevance you give to religion and what kind of role it plays in our lives. But I also belive that is not really the religion you are reffering to. Is the big giant mess that was created around it.
Anyway, probably all this is just a confusion over how we interpret things...
I find this sadly common. Sadly because the most influential and wide-spread religion concepts wich surround us are expressed in a damaged and conflicted way.
I think I can understand lots of definitions about religion around, because many of them defines it according to the atitude of people with it. I don't see this as a good thing, since it doesn't inform anything about it's roots, but about what people think of it.
The same way I can't accurately judge, define nor investigate science by the atitude of scientists (or people's opinion about it), but by science itself.
i'm sorry if I made the wrong impression. I hesitated in bring what I think about the definition of religion, simply because I don't think it is enough or accurate. But I couldn't agree with you, for what I have researched, so, I simply invited you to go beyond.
Now, for the science and religion relationship, I do belive that only because of some historical figures and specific conflicts it became what it seems today: oposite sides. Seems that we kind of inherited this scenario.
AFAIK in many traditions (such as hindu, and many others), there is no clear line between religion and science. They are integrated aspects of something bigger that englobes many facets (moral codes, laws, science methods, rituals, etc). That is my point and key reference when facing a vision of science being opposed to religion.
For a definition of religion (found by google) that fits nice with what I understand and experienced:
I belive that is the core, what is relevant, and what we should aways have in mind when reflecting about science or religion. Because in the end, that's what those paths try to answer. The rest, is only what people have done with what they have in hands through the history......many times, nothing to do with answers, but with ego.
As for Christianity X science, well....as I see, there is a lot of arrogance in both sides....nothing really incompatible in its concepts, but in people's attitude.
Again, I don't see conflicts in the concepts and aspects of those subjects, but conflicts in people's relationship with those subjects.
Sorry if I couldn't give you enough references, but I'm sure you might find similar thoughts in books about religions and traditions of the world, specially Christianity history.
Respectfuly
Religion, in its' definition, is the opposite of science.
:)
Uh...maybe you should review the definition of Religon.
Throughout the history, the religion has oppressed science, and was actively trying to silence down the scientists whenever their theories were opposing the religious view of the world.
And...by the way, try switching the word "religion" for "christianity" above. That would be more acceptable!
I mean...its very strange that we get used to see Religion as synonym of Christianity (or any other variant)