When you compose an argument using hyperlinks, it’s unnatural to speak of on logical progressions from A to B to C. When your statements are linked not only to the statements of other people but also to all their ramifications, there is no way that you can insist on intellectual property rights. There’s only an intellectual process. And somewhere in that process, hierarchy loses its power.
netscape has put up their standards challenge.
my goodness that’s ugly.
i find myself constantly wishing for more hours in the day.
wow, there’s so much good stuff on camworld today. just thought i’d mention it.
i’ve been reading some more of ray kurzweil’s age of spiritual machines, which i started the end of last year but never got a chance to finish. i’m especially amused with his supplementary section on how to build and intelligent machine in three easy paradigms.
anyway, a good diversion from the market madness going on. like no one knew what was going to happen. some interesting conversations going on at /. right now (threshold 3).
jz writes about his geek pride 2000 experience.
My rap, in a nutshell: Karl Marx said the revolution would put the means of production in the hands of the workers. It didn’t happen under communism, but it is the reality of the web. When Ted Nelson conceived of hypertext in 1965, and when Tim Berners-Lee invented the web in 1990, they empowered every human being on earth to participate in a worldwide creative revolution. And what do we do with this incredible gift? We sell stuff.
it should probably also be noted that vannevar bush described the first hypermedia system (memex) in his 1945 article as we may think. ted nelson was responsible for 30 years of vaporware. yawn. nelson came to usc just this past week, and i probably would have gone, except that his appearance was intelligently booked in a 100 person capacity auditorium and i found out about it 10 minutes before it was supposed to have started. oh well, no big loss.
oh man, the black wizard is back for final fantasy ix. eeeexcellent.
this comment is hilarious:
How’s this for a suitable pnuishment? Microsoft should be required, by law, to ship only bug free products. Think about it — fixing all those bugs will require an enormous amount of work, and be very expensive; it’s a suitably tough penalty. Further, this action will benefit Microsoft customers (who have been shafted for years by being forced by monopoly considerations to buy defective products). Plus, can you imagine Microsoft’s appeal? What is Gates & company really going to say, “We demand the right to continue shipping defective products?” The specific details can be worked out (how much of a per bug fine will Microsoft have to pay, whether Microsoft can “sell” their current stock of existing products under a 100% revenue fine, etc). I sure wish I was a friend of the court right now. (Anyone from the Justice Department reading this?)
must …resist… urge… too much wasted time at stake..