Looking at the quality of 90% of the web pages out there, I think it is probably unrealistic that people will being applying RDF in an intelligent way.
In fact, using RDF in a fractured or improper way may even be more detrimental than good 'ol heuristics. Malformed RDF will send syntactically correct, but semantically incorrect metadata to a search engine equipped to handle it. This is a dnagerous combination - it makes bad search results more precisely wrong. I'd rather that have good guess than a precisely wrong answer.
It ultimately boils down to whether you trust users to be able to describe their own metadata. I don't. Perhaps a good apporach is to have centralized servers attempt to create correct RDF files based on a set of common criteria. While this is still a flawed approach, I would rather have search results that are consistent (consistently wrong or consistently right) than try to get inside the psychology of each individuals web designer's implementation of RDF metadata. This approach might also cut down on metadata abuse (trying to bump up page in searches where it should not rank highly, etc).
In other words, I think we're way way off solving the metadata/search issue. For now, the best answer seems to be human categorization (yahoo) or smart smart heuristics (google, inktomi).
Have you looked at the cost of getting a T1 installed and maitained? Its upwards of thousands of dollars a year.
I do agree with your statement in principle though.
On the other hand, cutting taxes might interfere with US policy of bankrolling the Israeli, Egyptian, and South Korean governments, as well as the maintainence of a 500 ship navy to keep the Cubans at bay.
Newt isn't in the loop anymore - ostrasized by his own party.
Even if it were possible, I would not advocate T1 lines to every home. Optics will improve and become cheaper such that within ten years they will make a more realistic wiring option. I would not waste the money now rewiring "the last mile" with T1 capable lines.
A user fee means only truly interested parties are using the service with write access. Of course anyone could read it. If you lose a few good commenters, so what. More will come along.
To get/. back to saneness, you have to reduce the number of posters by about 60%.
The only way to really get moderation here (and I'm going to get flamed for this) - is to make it a paid-for community, with no anonymous access.
Charge $29 a year. Make users use their REAL NAME in posts. If you can't afford $29 a year, I have no pity for you - use usenet until you can save enough coke bottles to foot the bill.
Trust me, paid membership without anonymous access is the ONLY way to keep/. from going the way of the alt.* hierarchy.
The so-called "new economy", which supposedly rewards the creation of good content while minimizing the cost of delivering the content (towards zero eventually), the only way people are going to be able to make a buck is to have some sort of IP protection.
Unless you can propose some radical economic system that drives the cost of production and distribution towards zero, rewards content creators, and yet somehow offers no protection for IP, then please enlighten us. Oh, and please don't offer any ideas where I am required to live on some "standardized income" that does not differentiate between varying demands in society.
Even if Stallman were the devil himself, replacing all FSF packages with non-FSF packages would still be a colossal waste of time, with no performance improvments from the work, and perhaps even performance degradation.
Meanwhile, Linux still has very few applications to draw Windows users to the platform.
This whole point is moot anyway - no one is going to bother following through on Tom's proposal, so there's no point in anymore inane discussion.
Moot point - no one calls it GNU/Linux anyway
on
Feature:Free Linux
·
· Score: 1
It seems liek a lot of work to do just so you can be smug about a name.
This is a great example of how ineffective the free software community can be. Are you willing to spend time replacing components just to snub someone?
The work done by the FSF should be considered DONE.
Build some applications or something else that Linux actually NEEDS.
Well how would I go about "substantiating" the fact that I simply don't like his article? What do you want a reference to? Perhaps the IETF can cobble up some RFC for "Gut Feelings" that I can point to to make you feel better.
I can't say it any more elegantly than you are a retard.
Motorola is pursuing 32 bit Alitvec as a strategic design improvement - IBM is pushing for 64 bit chips that are better suited for AS/400 and Mainframes.
They have bailed out of Somerset.
Apple will obtain chips from Motorola, and IBM will supply its own divisions.
This isn't my "opinion" - it all happened in the last few weeks.
This type of lawsuit is ridiculous. If someone wants to move from Motorola to Intel, they should be able to without hinderance.
This whole notion of "raiding" as an "illegal practice" is as ridiculous as NDAs in general. I've never heard of an NDA being succesfully enforced in court - its just legal mumbo jumbo to protect bad companies from competition.
Motorola should just bite the bullet and admit that Intel has completely killed them in the general CPU market segment - with inferior products at that. Even IBM has dumped Motorola as a partner.
Motorola used to be a blue chip company that was a sure winner. Now they're just lame. Nokia is killing them in cell phones, and Intel is destroying them in ICs.
Distros will eventually be a two horse race
on
Red Hat Backlash?
·
· Score: 1
In any market where the products are very similar, two products eventually domintate the market, with other getting only a small percentage. It may take three or four years for it to shake out, but it eventually will happen.
Slashdot Mirror
God damn the pedantic Welsh...
Sorry, Canadian.
You should know that XML (and SGML) are only standards for creating markup tag languages. RDF is an XML compliant markup language.
Looking at the quality of 90% of the web pages out there, I think it is probably unrealistic that people will being applying RDF in an intelligent way.
In fact, using RDF in a fractured or improper way may even be more detrimental than good 'ol heuristics. Malformed RDF will send syntactically correct, but semantically incorrect metadata to a search engine equipped to handle it. This is a dnagerous combination - it makes bad search results more precisely wrong. I'd rather that have good guess than a precisely wrong answer.
It ultimately boils down to whether you trust users to be able to describe their own metadata. I don't. Perhaps a good apporach is to have centralized servers attempt to create correct RDF files based on a set of common criteria. While this is still a flawed approach, I would rather have search results that are consistent (consistently wrong or consistently right) than try to get inside the psychology of each individuals web designer's implementation of RDF metadata. This approach might also cut down on metadata abuse (trying to bump up page in searches where it should not rank highly, etc).
In other words, I think we're way way off solving the metadata/search issue. For now, the best answer seems to be human categorization (yahoo) or smart smart heuristics (google, inktomi).
Have you looked at the cost of getting a T1 installed and maitained? Its upwards of thousands of dollars a year.
I do agree with your statement in principle though.
On the other hand, cutting taxes might interfere with US policy of bankrolling the Israeli, Egyptian, and South Korean governments, as well as the maintainence of a 500 ship navy to keep the Cubans at bay.
Doesn't make sense, does it? Nor does Newt.
Newt isn't in the loop anymore - ostrasized by his own party.
Even if it were possible, I would not advocate T1 lines to every home. Optics will improve and become cheaper such that within ten years they will make a more realistic wiring option. I would not waste the money now rewiring "the last mile" with T1 capable lines.
f you don't like your ideas challenged
how droll.
A user fee means only truly interested parties are using the service with write access. Of course anyone could read it. If you lose a few good commenters, so what. More will come along.
/. back to saneness, you have to reduce the number of posters by about 60%.
To get
The only way to really get moderation here (and I'm going to get flamed for this) - is to make it a paid-for community, with no anonymous access.
/. from going the way of the alt.* hierarchy.
Charge $29 a year. Make users use their REAL NAME in posts. If you can't afford $29 a year, I have no pity for you - use usenet until you can save enough coke bottles to foot the bill.
Trust me, paid membership without anonymous access is the ONLY way to keep
Of course, he assumes that the majority of the population wants to be good and help their neighbor
Nearly our entire legal system rests on the time-tested notion that the above premise is absolutely false.
We have implemented the Leviathan, for better or worse.
The so-called "new economy", which supposedly rewards the creation of good content while minimizing the cost of delivering the content (towards zero eventually), the only way people are going to be able to make a buck is to have some sort of IP protection.
Unless you can propose some radical economic system that drives the cost of production and distribution towards zero, rewards content creators, and yet somehow offers no protection for IP, then please enlighten us. Oh, and please don't offer any ideas where I am required to live on some "standardized income" that does not differentiate between varying demands in society.
Buyers know this and it will limit widespread adoption of the platform (which I would offer has already missed its realistic adoption window anyway).
Any IT manager worth their salt is going to know better than to throw big money at a vendor's stepchild architecture.
The Yahoo (rhymes with "Yoohoo") database back end does not run on a Sun enterprise system.
And if you continue to spend your Friday nights obsessing over the openness of the Qt license, that situation probably won't change anytime soon.
Try getting some exercise and sunshine now and then.
Even if Stallman were the devil himself, replacing all FSF packages with non-FSF packages would still be a colossal waste of time, with no performance improvments from the work, and perhaps even performance degradation.
Meanwhile, Linux still has very few applications to draw Windows users to the platform.
This whole point is moot anyway - no one is going to bother following through on Tom's proposal, so there's no point in anymore inane discussion.
It seems liek a lot of work to do just so you can be smug about a name.
This is a great example of how ineffective the free software community can be. Are you willing to spend time replacing components just to snub someone?
The work done by the FSF should be considered DONE.
Build some applications or something else that Linux actually NEEDS.
They don't manufacture or design any of it.
unsubstantiated opinions
Well how would I go about "substantiating" the fact that I simply don't like his article? What do you want a reference to? Perhaps the IETF can cobble up some RFC for "Gut Feelings" that I can point to to make you feel better.
I can't say it any more elegantly than you are a retard.
Look up ad hominem in the dictionary, or a philosophy book.
To say you can't critique someone's essay (even though Rob's post explicitly asked for comments) unless you post one yourself is moronic.
You've never run for President, so I guess you can't comment on Clinton.
You trust them to write the software, so you might was well trust them with the keys.
I have to say, RTFM. This repository is mentioned in the man pages for pgp.
The sequel no one asked for.
Its not that they aren't good wirters, its just that they don't have anything interestin to write about.
This forum is turning into web show-and-tell for every amateur hack out there.
Talk about jumping on the ESR bandwagon of hype.
If it means anything to you purists, they won't be open-sourcing the entire Mac OSX. Only parts.
I really don't see how this is going to generate new business for Apple on its own. It seems fairly useless to open-source only part of an OS.
Motorola is pursuing 32 bit Alitvec as a strategic design improvement - IBM is pushing for 64 bit chips that are better suited for AS/400 and Mainframes.
They have bailed out of Somerset.
Apple will obtain chips from Motorola, and IBM will supply its own divisions.
This isn't my "opinion" - it all happened in the last few weeks.
Ever heard of intelectual property?
Call it what you want - just find me one recent substantial judgement supporting an NDA.
Oh, that's news since IBM is real tight with everyone.
Read the news sometime - they split on PowerPC last week. Duh.
Both Intel and Nokia has inferior products
...that are destroying Motorola in the market.
This type of lawsuit is ridiculous. If someone wants to move from Motorola to Intel, they should be able to without hinderance.
This whole notion of "raiding" as an "illegal practice" is as ridiculous as NDAs in general. I've never heard of an NDA being succesfully enforced in court - its just legal mumbo jumbo to protect bad companies from competition.
Motorola should just bite the bullet and admit that Intel has completely killed them in the general CPU market segment - with inferior products at that. Even IBM has dumped Motorola as a partner.
Motorola used to be a blue chip company that was a sure winner. Now they're just lame. Nokia is killing them in cell phones, and Intel is destroying them in ICs.
In any market where the products are very similar, two products eventually domintate the market, with other getting only a small percentage. It may take three or four years for it to shake out, but it eventually will happen.