Monday November 15, 2004 | Colm Smyth's Weblog Gestalt Blogology |
![]() |
|
Java and open-source - to the point
Newsforge has an exceptionally insightful article on Java and open-source, from which I will just quote the conclusion: Businesses and developers who fret about whether or not Java is or will become open source are missing the point. The free availability and near ubiquity of Java in the enterprise software market means that the open source software being created with Java is much more interesting than the open source status of Java. Companies basing their business on Java software must have a well defined strategy about open source. A simple "ignore" or "accept" will not do. Companies as different as Sun and BEA see business value in open source, yet engage open source in very different ways. To succeed today, you must know how to match your business' value with the value of open source. (2004-11-15 14:26:00.0) Permalink
Oblivious, but then ignorance is bliss
Adi Oltean's blog over on MSDN points out a brief but fascinating report hosted on the the American Psychological Association about a well run study that shows that poor performers over-rate themselves, which supports the old saw "the more you know, the more you know you don't know". Well, now you know. But it's interesting to cross-reference that with a second article on the APA site which proposes that social comparison happens subliminally, and automatically. Personally I choose to believe the first report because the second one appears to rely on snap judgements based on looking at photographs of people who are considered to be archetypically young (e.g. a baby), intelligent (e.g. Einstein) or beautiful, or their converse. It seems to me however that the primacy effect and a purely perceptual (rather than cognitive) classification plays too strong a role for that to be an effective predictor of a participant's day-to-day self image. (2004-11-15 13:54:20.0) Permalink
Been there, blogged that (and here's the t-shirt to prove it)
Just Plain English? (no, non, nein, nyet)
In contrast to my earlier post on the importance of having a common office document format for communication, the same logic doesn't apply to human or natural languages... A recent Forbes article muses "Must not a superstate of a score of nations have a common language?". I agree that any form of rich communication requires a language in common, but that is not the same as a single common language.Anyone who immerses themselves in another language discovers not merely a different vocabulary and grammar, but a unique medium for communicating in the mode of a people. The most compelling example I can give of this is the turns of phrase, quotes, sayings and cliches that each language possesses. The simple fact that we love to use these because of their flavour, conciseness and expressiveness demonstrates that they are important; they are also unique to each language, reflecting the history, concerns and ideas of a people. By accidents of history, birth and travel respectively I speak
English,
Gaelic, French and German in that order. English happens for me to be
the most
used among those langages, but it is a unique joy for me to hear and
speak a different language. I have had the very great pleasure also to
hear and in part to understand Italian, Russian, Czech, Hungarian, and
Spanish along with several dialects in their native lands. Each of
these languages has a unique flair - a different pace, a sound, a
fundamental emotion or world view - and because it is often heard in a
certain place, it is part of the mood and atmosphere of a different
land. Language is a standing carrier wave for shared events, beliefs
and culture. As a citizen of a country (Ireland) that has all but lost it's historic language through conquest, I can only hope that this world's rainbow of languages (including Russian for example which appears to be one of several synthetic languages under threat) never succumbs to the pale monotony of a single colour, even in the limited context of business or statercraft. That would be, hmm... double-plus-ungood. (2004-11-15 10:48:30.0) Permalink
Historic advance in communication technology
It may seem like just another baby step (the kind we are used to seeing with web services, which will eventually enable a true pan-vendor service-oriented architecture), but I believe today we are seeing something closer to a "giant step for mankind". A report by the European Commission recommends a common XML-based rich office productivity document format, the OASIS Open Office format, which is being put forward to become an ISO standard. The significance of this can hardly be over-emphasised - client and server applications create short-lived SOAP messages to invoke web services, but people create documents. Imagine being able to use an office application today to create a
document, and in ten years to be able to use a different version of the
same application (or even a completely different application) to open
and modify the same document. Now imagine you (or your child or
grandchild) being able to do that in 50, or even 500
years. That
is exactly what a common open standard document format makes
possible. As we create technologies that are capable of storing ever more information (before the end of this century, we are likely to be able to store the entire content of the Internet on a hand-held device!), a common document format gives us the assurance that the information in our documents remains accessible. Which is good news for those of you who were perhaps thinking we were going to have to save the Internet as hard copy ;) See Simon
Phipps and Erwin
Tenhumberg's comments for more about what was achieved and
who supported it. |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||