OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   RE: [xml-dev] Is Web 2.0 the new XML?

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

Regards Fri, 12 Aug 2005, Bullard, Claude L (Len) and 'Alan Gutierrez' 
[mailto:alan-xml-dev@engrm.com] I respond as follows:

The design of a false argument to "teach controversy" in search of
generating political action for issues which have but one side is a 
standard problem in a top down (federalism type of political environment).
I agree political arguments are not true or false, but I do not agree 
they just are.  They are based in need and greed.

I Agree: Political arguments are designed...
I disagree, ... Creationists have framed the debate..instead I think 
  politicians have framed the debate based on their needs and greed. 
I disagree  Intelligent Design ... is benign, instead it has the same 
purpose as any other system of federalism to make a few very powerful and 
the rest very weak.

I disagree, that..the process that causes the surrender of a people to a 
belief is not a technology.  Such a process can be controlled by 
technology and by gating access to just about every kind of information 
in order to manipulate victims.  

The process that manipulates involves the careful and highly technical 
allocation of information such that victims are allowed to access 
only certain select things (like certain books, certain websites, and 
by other means of gating such as pricing out of reach the access to 
information [the cost will keep many out]. 

The tools that federalist-type politicians use to manipulate the 
mind of their victims include:
  1. the classification of all information that might be used to 
         discover the truth as top secret. 
  2. the approval of authors and textbooks that can be taught
  3. the approval of books that can be placed in the library
  4. the control of access to websites
  5. the use of the monopoly powers of the patent and copyright to
         a. assure ownership 
         b. control access by price
         c. control access by number of copies published
         d. etc.
  6. the restriction on who is eligible to view information. 
  7. the restriction on who is eligible to publish information.
  8. the restriction on who is license to distribute information.
  9. the use of the allocation of federal top down funds to force the 
         adoption by approving local authorities.

The result of the process of controlling access to information may be 
the surrender of the mind to a political system.  Such a system is 
based on propaganda and "education" is the best place to practice  

I have for years said: Education is a bureaucracy, learning is a 
biological process. 

Freedom is the unimpeded access to the space that is bounded at all its 
borders by infinity. Pretty much that is the current situation on the 
Internet, but copyright and patents laws, laws of access by type of 
content, and laws that impose liabilities on those who allow to be 
distributed the publications of others are all limiting open 
collaboration and restricting user access to more things every hour. 

Moreover, these restrictive laws made by lawmakers (patents and copyrights 
are eliminating unimpeded interaction.  Impede the interaction and lose the 
most beneficial aspect of social humanity: "learning", achieved by 
inserting the results of interactions to assemble products made by 
collaborative expressions from a society of human minds.

Democracy is the result of a cooperative and nearly mandatory interaction. 
To be truly democratic it must include all of the persons to be subjected 
to the democracy. It must hear from all of the people who wish to 
express a concern and it much fairly consider all of the issues before it 
can establish a rule by which all must abide.  The rule that a democracy 
establishes must be the result of a collaborative effort by all members 
from the lowest member to the tallest member and each element must be the 
wish of the majority.  The laws made by a democracy cannot be law made by 
an elite elected [congress type] body.

Republicanism eliminates the involvement of the masses. Republicanism 
substitutes a small group (called elected aristocrats) as ruler of the 
nation or of the process that determines the rule of a society.  The 
Internet is a society.  

Republicanism differs from the King and Court only by a periodic popular 
vote for those few who will be the political manipulators [representatives].  

But the vote for representatives in a top down type republican 
government is itself, as is the mind set of the voters, subject to 
political manipulation.  It is the political manipulation bias that 
usually dictates that only aristocrats can actually be elected participants 
in the political congresses.

I agree with the point that "democratization' of information is a
process that is already alive and well, and that it does not 
require Web 2.0.  But those who want to control insist on Web 2.0 and 
then they will want Web 3.0.

The following paragraph [you presented] does not define a political 
process. Instead it defines a system of ownership created by the rule of 
law.  Those who make the laws direct the ownership of the means of 
production into certain camps.  Just as America directed by rule of law 
the ownership of the lands that the American Indian thought belonged to 
all. Ownership of the means of production was the harsh reality of the 
feudal system, it was the strength of the king and the source of his war 
making powers. 
your statement: "There is no issue of democracy here.  You don't get to 
vote on the design of the 757 engine and you don't get to vote on the means 
and processes of evolution. "

  Maybe you don't get to vote on the 757 engine design, but surely 
you get to vote on the assumptions on which the design is based and on the 
risks that are inherent in the design that a user must assume.  
Of course you must have access to the information necessary before you 
can make a rational vote. 

  I think the key difference in a democracy and a republic or other  
federalism is access to the information.  Top down restricts access to 
information to but a limited few, while a bottom up democracy insists that 
all persons have access to all knowledge, all of the time. 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org <http://www.xml.org>, an
> initiative of OASIS <http://www.oasis-open.org>
> The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this list use the subscription
> manager: <http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/index.php>


News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS