RE: [semantic-web] <none>

John, 
 
you are a clever man - but not clever enough. I have already patented
the idea of dividing people into classes. Specifically, I consider the
case of dividing people into two classes. Further more I have
implemented the idea that people can be divided into truth-seekers and
self-seekers (so eat dirt Azamat). I believe my patent covers your
division as well. Please refer to me before attempting any more
classifications of people.
 
Tim. 

________________________________

From: semantic-web-request@w3.org [mailto:semantic-web-request@w3.org]
On Behalf Of John Milton
Sent: 24 February 2008 23:56
To: Azamat; SW-forum
Subject: Re: [semantic-web] <none>


Azamat:

You do not make one mistake that Saint R. made. You talk about your
holiness only indirectly. That is some progress at least.

Now .....

There are two kinds of people but ... not the way you divide them up.

There is one kind who make no bones about how they earn a living. They
exchange values to mutual benefit, with one overriding proviso. They
never force anyone to buy their product. Both businessmen and scientists
are in this category. The claims such people make are always limited to
this governing condition ... The person buying my value believes he is
better off than if he didn't buy it.  Otherwise, in a free market, he
wouldn't buy it.

The second make a living by extracting values in an exchange for which
there is no mutual consent. Businessmen and scientists are in that
category, as well as most politicians. Their claim is somewhat
different...  I am going to force you to buy my value at a price
acceptable to me, whether you want it or not.

In the second group, known hereinafter as The Saints Who Walk Among Us
(TSWWAU), there is a kind of general battle cry. .... I am doing this
for the public good. I benefit all of mankind. I serve the people. All
the while, their tenured existence is possible because of revenues that
have no link to their output. Without the holier than thou
rationalization, which does fool some people,  the sham might have to
come to an end. Imagine universities where the professors would be
forced to sell themselves and their ideas to students who would be
willing to pay for the knowledge they acquire. 

Saint R. makes a living ... or he would not survive. If he works for
himself or for others where the discipline is of the first kind, then he
is not "spending my time here because I think there will be money or a
job or prizes in return".  He would be subject to the discipline that he
must  produce daily in a way that he generates surplus value, for
himself and for his customers.

I suspect, however, that I nailed Saint R.'s situation spot on. He works
in some place where his pay cheque is not linked to his output. He eats
food (grown by other men), at a table, (built by other men) and housed
in a building (constructed by other men). And as long as he wishes, they
will continue to work to provide his daily table.

Now ... where in that scenario, does he acquire the credentials to claim
that property belonging to  people (who daily must be productive, to
survive) is somehow not theirs.  Where does such arrogance come from? It
comes not from accomplishment .... that we all know.

You say I misread what he tried to tell me? 

I wrote about what he was not saying.  I don't take the claims of a
human being that he is a saint to heart.  When a man cries repeatedly
that he is honest, I know him to be something else. When a man says,
"trust me", we all know that we should run.

All men, good and bad, come from the same clay as myself, including
Saint R. For his own sake, he should admit that.

And the consequences of that self admission are stark. Saint R. (and all
the silent wannabes) has to face his own fallibility. He may work for
all mankind but unless his output meets the test of being exchangeable
in a free market, it is suspect. Our history as men is full of failed
experiments where the value of any output was never tested against a
free market. Rather it was forced upon others. And what happens when
ideas are forced upon others by the do gooders. Disaster.

Failure to test oneself against a free market, in exchange for one's
daily bread is bad enough. but to claim, as Saint R. stood up to do,
that the property of productive people is somehow not theirs and have as
your only credential that you sponge values away from others in exchange
for nothing is what got me to send my emails.

I have followed this issue since the first notices were sent out years
ago that RDF falls within an issued patent. So I got a copy of the
patent and I read it. And I read the RDF specs. They are really quite
similar.

The only answer that people come up with (other than the "I am holy, you
are dirt" nonsense from Saint R.) is that it is all invented before.
Really????

Then answer me this, if you can.

If it was all there before, why spend over 10 years since Oct of 1997,
debating the RDF standard that was created over 2.5 years previous to
that. If it was all there, neatly organized, why not just go down to the
local convenience store and pick up a six pack of it for two dollars.

The answer to that - which is the answer that no one wants to admit - is
that it was NOT invented before. There may have been some spurious hints
but no one made the connection until the good folks who own the patent.
And since they filed their patent in late 1994 - before the MCF was
invented by Guha at Apple in 1995 ... which is what Netscape worked on
for a year before they sent it to W3 in January of 1997 - seems to me
you have to admit one of two things.

1)   Everyone at the W3 has engaged in a sham, inventing 50 times over
what has already been invented a hundred years ago... or

2)   you have all been working on something which is not yours.

There is only one way out and Saint R. has come up with that alternative
- all patents are invalid.

Good luck with that one.

JM 






----- Original Message ----
From: Azamat <abdoul@cytanet.com.cy>
To: SW-forum <semantic-web@w3.org>
Cc: John Milton <swdemon1981@yahoo.com>
Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2008 10:00:03 AM
Subject: 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
<http://www.igi-pub.com/books/details.asp?id=7641>  

 

 

	----- Original Message ----- 
	From: John Milton <mailto:swdemon1981@yahoo.com>  
	To: renato@ebi.ac.uk ; M. David Peterson
<mailto:m.david@xmlhacker.com>  
	Cc: Tim Berners-Lee <mailto:timbl@w3.org>  ; SW-forum Web
<mailto:semantic-web@w3.org>  
	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.
<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51734/*http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsear
ch/category.php?category=shopping> 



________________________________

Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo!
Search.
<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51734/*http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsear
ch/category.php?category=shopping>