Talk:Sourceforge: Difference between revisions
(We should switch from TCP/IP to the ISO/OSI network protocol stack model. NOW!!! ;)) |
(none of this has anything to do with Sourceforge - moved to licensed deliverables]]) |
||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
:This I must think about. Offhandedly you're not making any sense, but on the other hand this tingles as an interesting idea. Proprietary markup as an advantage... outrageous. | :This I must think about. Offhandedly you're not making any sense, but on the other hand this tingles as an interesting idea. Proprietary markup as an advantage... outrageous. | ||
That problem will solve itself if you get the license and XML schema good enough to create a self-improving protocol. There are many good coders, but they do not contribute to projects where others of different values are allowed to just do damage to their code or twist it to be useful to their enemies. All code is political. Look at WAR FTP if you want | That problem will solve itself if you get the license and XML schema good enough to create a self-improving protocol. There are many good coders, but they do not contribute to projects where others of different values are allowed to just do damage to their code or twist it to be useful to their enemies. All code is political. Look at WAR FTP if you want t | ||
Latest revision as of 00:22, 9 June 2003
Dividing the project into three parts:
- XML/DTD and XML/Schema
- ASN.1 minimal bitstream protocol which make the same data distinctions;
- ASN.1, some ITU/ISO formal notation from the eighties! Gimme a break. I mean that the ISO/OSI 7-layer network protocol stack works just great on paper and everything, but somehow everybody seems to just use TCP/IP, eventhough it doesn't have a mammoth of an standards organisation saying that it works.
- Executables which implement this protocol and data model / schema / foundation ontology; Label data which can and must be consistently gathered and is what is subject to audit most often - there will be a need to withdraw support from labels that are just propaganda and say nothing about actual impact on real bodies.
- I could say that I don't care if some label is just propaganda and I don't want to judge what is just brainwashing and what is not. I want to get a system running that allows people and organisations that have expertese and historical, built trust in things like audit, anti-brainwashing techniques, fair economy and safe economy to have their say.
- I ultimatelly mean that centrally controlled economy has already been tested and I recall that it didn't do so well, so I'd rather not see people trying to turn Consumerium into the Pravda (or centrally controlled information economy) of the market economy.
We only need XML for now as all executables and labels data gathering will take place via very many means, one per faction say. These may create their own consortium with their own consortium license, e.g. Greens will not let weapons companies use theirs.
- This I must think about. Offhandedly you're not making any sense, but on the other hand this tingles as an interesting idea. Proprietary markup as an advantage... outrageous.
That problem will solve itself if you get the license and XML schema good enough to create a self-improving protocol. There are many good coders, but they do not contribute to projects where others of different values are allowed to just do damage to their code or twist it to be useful to their enemies. All code is political. Look at WAR FTP if you want t