Re: [semantic-web] <none>

John,

It looks you misread what Renato tried to tell you. 

 

There are two classes of people, people of science and folks doing business. Those who in the first class all their conscious life are engaged in the search of truth and knowledge for its own sake, like men of art seeking beauty for its own sake, without any practical ends. All great intellectual deeds and outstanding achievements and revolutionary explorations have been done by this unique kind of people, designated as the class of intellectuals, marked by a romantic disregard for money. And Truth is their only real divinity.

 

Now, those who belong to the second class are mostly concerned about making capital for themselves at the expense of others, if ever possible.   So, they are supposed to be selfish men doing money out of anything, be it even a sacred cause. They are very realistic and sensible about practical matters, with down-to-earth common sense, and commercial approach to any situation. All big commercial exploits and business enterprises mostly have been done by this kind of people, marked by seeking commercial profit in any activity. And Mammon is their only real deity.

 

One cannot serve both Truth and Mammon. But I am not inclined to demonize the second class and sanctify the first one, for all are doing their contribution to the advancement of humanity for better life and society.

 

The point is, in this commercial society, the intellectuals look more defenseless, since they can do nothing but think and create by mental means, and so can be easily used and exploited by the second class of people, with no proper pecuniary compensation for their services.

What you have been politely hinted, just show a proper respect for a man of intelligence, who earned high regard, instead of showing your shrewdness and disrespect and now sarcasm. 

 

Also, be ready that your exploit may be all for naught, a pathetic goose end, at best, adding a pile of patents with something of temporal importance, while true ideas, as you might guess, will survive all of us, now being embodied as ontologies in semantic technology and intelligent machines. 



take care,  

 

azamat abdoullaev 

 

http://www.igi-pub.com/books/details.asp?id=7641 

 


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: John Milton 
  To: renato@ebi.ac.uk ; M. David Peterson 
  Cc: Tim Berners-Lee ; SW-forum Web 
  Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2008 3:12 PM
  Subject: Re: [semantic-web] <none>


  Dear Saint Renato:

  How thrilled I am to be in the exalted presence of someone destined to sit at the right hand of God, along with Mother Teresa. Freed at birth from unholy sin, Saint Renato walks among us, a shining light to that which we must all aspire. How noble you are, how saintly, how much better than all of us lowly sinners. We are not worthy to walk the same streets. You exist only for others, never for yourself. 

  Please forgive a lowly sinner (like myself) who wishes to take umbrage with Saint Renato's musings. I and the world at large truly treasure all the moments when Saint R. has excreted his profundities upon everything and everyone within reach. But perhaps a few points might have some value.

  For a sinner's view of Saint Renato's POV, please take a moment on the comments below.


  ----- Original Message ----
  From: Renato golin <renato@ebi.ac.uk>
  To: M. David Peterson <m.david@xmlhacker.com>
  Cc: John Milton <swdemon1981@yahoo.com>; Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>; SW-forum Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
  Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2008 8:41:16 AM
  Subject: Re: [semantic-web] <none>

  M. David Peterson wrote:
  > Technology is both an act of invention and an act of refinement.

  There is no invention, only refinement. Everything you invented was 
  already invented, only not patented.

  Okay -.....

  If technology is A (act of invention) AND.. B (act of refinement) ... then how do you reconcile this with the next line ..

  There is no A (invention), just B (act of refinement).

  Since Technology (according to Saint R.'s excretion) is both A and B, and A does not exist, then Technology does not exist.

  Faith based technology. How far have we not come.




  The universe is just an expression of its intimate laws. Everything on 
  top of that (like a fractal) will be another expression on top of the 
  basic ones.

  What you are is only another form of expression and like you, your 
  brain. When you were born you had a few hard-coded (by nature through 
  natural selection) instructions and *everything* you saw later already 
  existed in nature.


  Saint R. makes another good point for his faith based dogma. Since what you are is A (hardcoded - by nature and natural selection) AND B (also "everything" else is also previously in nature) then You are simply nature.

  Saint R. now states that humans are not different from rocks, comets, or large quantities of methane gas.





  Therefore, as your brain was selected by nature and what you learn comes 
  from nature, the ultimate owner of *ALL* ideas is nature itself, and 
  because nature has no bank account we store its money on our own by 
  creating a very stupid idea like patents.

  Saint R. has another wonderful point. In nature, everything is food for everything else. Since Saint R.is now food for anything that can grab him, perhaps he might wish to pubish his address. I am getting hungry. Yum, Yum, some Saint R. bum.





  When will people learn that copyright, patents, intellectual property 
  [1], anti-piracy, RIAA and the like is *ONLY ABOUT MONEY*?

  I wonder if Saint R. can understand what is truly involved in that last statement. Money is the expression of the idea that a man lives by his own production and is entitled to it, in full. The world is full of thieves, who produce nothing but consume all they encounter.

  Saint R. might want to revisit this last statement or he may find that the reward he is looking for in the next life might come from one of God's former acolytes instead.


  There is no ideals, ideas, thoughts, anything. All legal techniques are 
  ways to protect your *money* not your ideas, for ideas are recurrent, 
  inherent and natural.

  You can sue me because you have a patent and I implemented the same 
  thing, only later, but you *CAN'T* sue me because I had the same idea as 
  you had.

  Saint R. - we can finally agree on something. You have no ideas. Since all comes from nature, in your view, noting you are or have is yours. It is all something you got from someone else. Since, in nature, most things are taken by force (the lion does not ask for permission to eat a goat), whatever you have or are, was acquired the same way.

  Thieves always take by force or stealth. infinging a patent is just another form of this. 

  Not quite sure, however, how you are going to reconcile this incessant thievery of yours with your hopes of sitting at the right hand of the Almighty.



  Finally,

  I'm not in this list because I want financial return or I think that my 
  ideas will be implemented by W3C so I can further sue them. I'm not 
  spending my time here because I think there will be money or a job or 
  prizes in return.

  I'm here to make this world a better place and, for a change, people 
  could stop suing each other for something they were naturally selected 
  to do.

  Dear Saint R.  Let me make two points.

  1)  I will always treasure the chance to have conversed with you. Your natural superiority to all of the rest of us is heartening.

  2)  Let us look to nature to see how this last sentence of yours can be interpreted.

  If productive people are naturally selected, then so must be unproductive people. In nature, a bull elk guards his harem. Productive people guard their patents. I wouldn't compare you to a cow elk, because they are productive as well.

  You are more like the a frustrated young bull, trying to become productive yet doomed for years to hang around another's herd, hoping one day to secure the status that allows you to become productive.

  Like the young bull, bugling his frustration yet fearful that the dominant bull will notice you, you hover around the productive people, hoping one day to join their ranks.

  Your fate (because in nature, you have only fate and no chance to change outside the laws of your own genes) does not guarantee  an ultimate success in this world. You may move into the next world with your frustration intact.

  Take heart ...  someone will understand.


  J.M.





  best regards,
  --renato

  [1] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.xhtml





------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.