Poate'așa o s'ajungă la adevăr, prin Google, și românii de prin cele străinătățuri. Iar pt. cei d'acas', drept: secetă mare.
Afli rețeta: zici, "cunoscuta actriță, de teatru și de film..", expresia "pe alocuri.." să se prindă burghezucu' că'i limbaj înalt, dai cu un pic de psihologie ("nevrotic"), atingi și d'ale sufletului și magiei ("diabolic"), după care treci la cantități: "câștigătoare a X premii Y, plus premiul Z", "pe micul și marele ecran" (poți s'adaugi și monitor să se prindă și cei de pe IRC), cu asta l'ai dat gata pe consumurici da', ca să fii sigur, mai dai un detaliu două despre cum a găsit Q pe T, tre'să zici neapărat de kitsch, de ex. că'i sferic etc. , și nu cumva să uiți să zici dacă'i de plâns sau de râs, mai voalat (de ex. comedie), să știe omu' pe ce dă banii.
În fond, n'am de ce mă plânge, suntem în rând cu lumea: Google zeitgeist [sic] zice că luna iulie e dominată de nicole narain, british open, madonna, michael jackson, walmart, weather și expedia.
Partea "literar și artistic" vine cu un articol ce zice "A te ruga în fața moaștelor unui sfânt, a îngenunchea la căpătâiul său și a le săruta cu evlavie e tot ce poate fi mai înălțător în viața unui om".
Autoru'și încheie prea devreme "considerațiunile" și nu zice câte moaște pe metru are de pupat unu' de se vrea'nălțat. Sau încălțat. Păcat.
Nu poți să fii exasperat de un mesaj raționalist decât dacă refuzi explicit să'ți folosești, câtuși de puțin, ai ghicit, rațiunea.
I'adevărat că'i plin de creaturi ce simulează a gândi, și se străduie a da senzația că'i lucru mare (sigur c'asta fac dacă din asta le vine pâinea), da' vin și zic: mintea'i cel mai ieftin instrument la dispoziția oricui, musai s'o folosim, c'altfel vine altu' să gândească'n locu' nost', pe credit, și cu dobândă.
Religia instituționalizată, adică biserica, oricare ar fi ea, e spam: las'pe noi să gândim la cele neverificabile, tu du'te și fă'ți treaba ta'n lume, să poți să ne plătești pt. serviciu.
Ar trebui o lege lungă d'un paragraf:
1. biserica primește cel mult 0% (zero la sută) din taxele pe activitatea pământeană, biserica va primi resurse numai în mod direct, fără intermediari, exclusiv de la:
a. credincioșii oficial și individual înregistrați de pe pământ;
b. cel de sus (conform definiției fiecărei biserici, da' musai imposibil de numit, descris, văzut, auzit, atins, înțeles sau, în fine, măsurabil, de către rațiunea umană).
If the public of a country funds some research or educational activity which results in an article, book or report, that should be accessible unconditionally to that public.
In other words, the results of any kind of activity that is at least partially funded from public money, should be accessible to the public, right? There's no justification for copyright, then.
Ah, some would say, public money, ok, but accessing the results of private research should be paid for. Wait a minute, the public pays that too, if you buy an apple, or a kind of detergent, you are funding the research of that company which sells you the detergent or the apple. So you have the right to access it and use the results.
When you hear that a large company is funding a large musical event, remember it's your own money at work if you ever bought something from them, if not, then it's your neighbour's money, so go thank him for that.
Copyright is a form of getting paid at least twice for the same thing. And it is only encouraged by the people who get a profit out of maintaining the copyright without participating in the creation effort of the copyrighted work (lawyers, publishers).
In the current form, copyright is just another way of transferring money from those who work, to those who make a business out of handling that work, and outside of that work. Aren't you tired of it?
So, what's the point of the copyright then? The only point is to make money at least once more for those who claim to protect such a concept, without ever getting involved in the real work. The irony is, they are already paid once by the same public, either by private or public funding, or by buying from them different consulting services.
Nobody writes or does something out of thin air, there are research grants people use to write books, and they get a salary for that too, or a raise, from either the government or a private company. And the public pays them both. So the public has the right of accessing their results.
My point is that whoever structures information, has the natural right to be considered the author of that work, and that's all of it. Because of that, the author gets known, consulted, hired and paid for those services. Who will hire someone else for help in that specific area where the author commited the work, unless that someone else became a specialist in the same area by making some other work visible?
Beside paying several times for this, everybody's access to the work paid for is effectively cut: copyright stands against progress, it slows down or postpones work built on previous works. If you want to acknowledge the funding of your public, copyleft your work or use a Creative commons license which ensures others can build their work on yours.
It's relatively cheap these days to provide access, electronically, to the research the public paid for, because almost everybody's editing on a computer.
Don't forget to ask that access for "free" to your government, today. It's not for free anyway: you already paid for it.
Today, I used Google and Yahoo to locate "the principle of limited property", or "put limits to wealth", or "imposing limits to wealth", curious enough, only my blog entry was shown, or no finding at all.
But I was expecting most of us are concerned with this issue because it's the primary thing which shuffles our lives permanently since the history has been heard of. Surprise.
What were the socialists been doing? Just tuning up the taxes?
I'll keep an eye on this, and will add new links if I discover anything related.
I will be enumerating here a couple of pressing issues, related to semantic authoring and preservation, in the context of digital creation, administration and usage of scientific documents; accordingly, some present and future solutions to these are sketched out.
Status of authoring
Although some standards related to the structuring of documents have emerged: DocBook for structuring generic documents (books, articles), MathML and/or OpenMath for semantically clean authoring of mathematical expressions, MARCXML for representing and communicating bibliographical records and related metadata, then Unicode for unambigous specification of international or domain specific symbols, and so on, currently, the authors of scientific documents still use TeX or an alternative, proprietary software solution, for authoring.
That is, the scientist is still in the same situation as 10-20 years ago, while authoring his articles or books: no clue as to how these standards can be of help to him, no effective, open source or otherwise, tools, to help him make use of them effortlessly. Why?
Stating the issues
Part of the answer is that neither the publishers, nor the librarians helped the author become aware of, or concerned with, the fate of their own written works. This awareness was not an urgent matter in the paper publishing era (the article will last as long as the paper and sit on a shelf), but in the digital document era it becomes a real issue: it is easy and cheap to create multiple versions or multiple copies of a digital document, so how can the author make sure that these versions are not being corrupt in the process, or their rendering is not broken at a later time (when the reader accesses it), or that they are stored in a place where an indexing machine can find it and list it in on the appropriate query?
The answer to this question is of a much higher priority than, say, digital access rights, unless one chooses to protect a corrupted representation of one's work.
The answer is bound to rely on the open standards noted above.
In comparison to these, proprietary formats and proprietary document authoring solutions do not guarantee an appropriate rendering (or meaning) in the future (be it near or far), unless they commit to a standard semantic vocabulary (or a set of them) which should be used by the author while editing his document.
Defining vocabularies with a meaning (that is, with a formally defined way to use them) is an exciting research topic today (the steps and standards needed to create ontologies in the digital era, are detailed by others), but one cannot reasonably expect an author to suddenly jump from writing plain text or mathematical expressions directly to using ontology defined concepts, simply because the authoring process becomes tedious and would resemble more to computer programming; practically the author is still helpless in ensuring that his work will be reachable and useable after a period of time.
The ontologies are more helpful in extracting and managing the knowledge created by the authors and machines.
We are, though, concerned here mainly with the knowledge creation process.
The need for an effective authoring solution, positioned between being useful directly to the machines and being plain simple to humans to type, is becoming obvious. A bias towards protecting the time of the human authors will be present at sketching a solution in the following sections.
What do I mean? To whom?
These are common questions in the author's mind: the meaning of his work is its capability of being used for a purpose (whether intended or not).
A handwritten article will have a meaning to an appropriately educated human; a computer typed text will have a meaning to some rendering, printing or indexing software (this is the lowest level semantic layer in a digital document) and a different meaning to the final human reader (presumably the highest level of semantics); again, a scan of an old article will have a meaning for the graphical rendering software, another meaning for the character recognition software and a different meaning for the final human reader.
We note, even if it sounds to some as a trivial statement, that an article is, in all cases, meant to be found, read and used by a human being: it is, in short, a message.
The machines can help in the process: index an article, act in a certain way while a specific expression is found (flag a misspelling, validate an expression or start an external process), advertise the presence of the article to the interested audience, check its consistency according to the available semantic rules, render it on different media, append a reader's comments to a section of it, store it in the appropriate digital library slot and relate its presence to the other neighbouring articles, keep a version history of it, assemble it with other documents according to an editor's, or library user's, request.
These functionalities depend on the availability of the semantic layers in the digital document. A collection of such documents, with the services they enable, would form a semantic library.
Some of these layers can be hinted by the author: the computer cannot even infer where a paragraph starts unless the author types some specific keys, it also cannot relate accurately concepts (the consequence of this is the inability of getting effectively useful search results) without the author's hints to a vocabulary of concepts.
Defining a semantic solution
The cardinality of this set of hints should stay minimal while maximizing the functional space to which the document can be made part of. The fuzzy constraint to this problem is the author's patience: he has always the alternative of creating a semantically flat document at the cost of his editors' time and his audience's time and size (a cost which is almost invisible at the time of authoring).
One can name the above requirement: user-friendliness of the authoring package.
But also, the author of a scientific article wants to communicate something and to preserve that message for future readers.
This requirement means: the authored document has to have a well defined structure. Well defined, in turn, means that the document should satisfy the following conditions, at the end of the authoring process:
be created in an open format which is platform neutral (XML),
contain enough information to locate it (administrative metadata: author, date etc.),
contain enough semantic hints for a librarian to store, preserve and manage it (document structure definition for a validating procedure)
contain enough presentational semantic hints for a publisher to render it or relate it to other documents, (TeX-like suggestions about how some symbol should look like)
contain enough hints for the reader to locate and use it (using consistently semantic vocabularies defined in open standards, e.g.MathML-content; and using keywords as often as, and wherever, necessary).
The authoring tool
The requirements above can be satisfied by an authoring tool allowing the author to type cursively, instead of switching between the computer's input devices.
The author should be able to type natural language and expressions belonging to controlled vocabularies.
The authoring tool should provide a straightforward way of creating new definitions by combining older ones, or just renaming them into a shorter/friendlier form, adapted to that specific author's needs and habits, without deteriorating the semantics in the background.
The author should also be able to apply semantic emphases on portions of the message. These become hints to the search agents, and shrink the dimensionality of the search space. This technique enables a much faster location of, say, particular concepts or subtle differences the authors want to point out. Usage of this latter feature would make circulation and reviewing of concepts more fluid than it is today.
Paid online advertisement on sites belonging to other than the producers, advertisements listing engines, or the local administration, is a category of spam and should be outlawed. In terms of today only Froogle-like sites or passive/administrative listings of services/products offered by the entrepreneurs should be legal to exist.
That is because:
1. it's consuming the involuntary reader's bandwith (especially the graphics) and that costs money;
2. it's cluttering the sought after information with garbage (especially the text ads) and it consumes the involuntary reader's time, which also costs money;
3. it mixes the marketing power with the real qualities of the products offered; and this gives a huge advantage to monopolies, that is, delays or kills any alternative new solutions, that is, it results in a monoculture and a society of flat brained morons, that is, it goes against any notion of free market economy (if that ever stood for something);
4. it damages the visual and auditive sensibility of any human receiver, as well as his discernment.
These points are aggressions commited on members of the society, at random. This is nothing less than violence, and, as such, it should be stopped.
If this continues, our society builds on distorsions, and any member of it is bound to feel the consequences, one way or the other.
If you publish paid advertisements for things you don't produce then you are a dealer or reseller, so anything else you have on your site is a fake: a masked intention to make the reader to spend his resources on something he wasn't looking for.
Restricting, by law, the paid online advertisement doesn't affect anybody's wish to put links to products/services they prefer personally if they are done for free, not for a fee.