Julien Boyreau's

Aller au contenu | Aller au menu | Aller à la recherche

lundi 4 février 2008

Chatting With A Computer Beyond Programming Languages

Any person on Earth knows a language.

This may be English, French, Mandarin, Spanish or whatever, but any person knows at least one among these.

Any text between persons are in one of this language.

We've been writing and speaking with each other in these languages since a long time and they all became quite robust and powerful to tell what you want.

Then since the 50s, we've been writing and speaking not only to persons but to computers.

And we've kept on "making" new languages to talk with computers, from assemblers to Javascript, XHTML and CSS by C, C++, Lisp, Java, Smalltalk...

All of these languages for computers seem to me to share false starting points.

1) They're choosing an "orientation" be it "imperative", "declarative", "object", "functional", whereas languages for persons are multi orientation.
2) They have thus a specific grammar, focused on a single concept such as "object", "function", "query", "tag", "class", "resource", "triple"...completely different from the grammar for languages for persons, that ALL exhibits COMPLEMENTARY ideas such as "noun", "verb", "adjectives", "adpositions", "affirmation", "question"...
3) They let a person choose whatever words to reinvent "identifiers" from words picked up in a language for persons, either by concatening them ("PersonsWithASalary") or abbreviating ("iframe" or "char"...).

All of these draw a line between persons that took the time to learn one of this language and the others.
With time, the so called "programmers" group has been growing but in 2008, it's still a very small one compared to the rest.

One of the refreshing idea of the past 10 years has been XML : this is not a language per se, but symbols or syntax to talk to computers.

The problem of XML are however serious by design.
1) The "tag" and "attribute" in XML are not mapped to any natural language, so two persons can equivocally do what they want with them.
2) Even if it can be made clear what a tag and an attribute are for, two relationships are not enough to tell everything you can tell in a natural language.
3) You can make whatever tag or attribute you want, exposing people to the drama of "nominalization" ("creation"), "concatenation" ("RectangleWithRoundedCorners") and abbreviation ("char").

Point 2 is particularly serious.
For example, 'animal' => 'dog' => 'Malik', 'USA' => 'San Fransisco' => 'Malik', 'Clara' =>'dog' => 'Malik', or 'Malika' => 'Malik' are 4 different meanings, that is, Malik is a dog, Malik is at San Fransico, Malik is Clara's dog and Malik is from Malika.
In English, it's easy to tell ; in XML, it's just equivocal or impossible to do.

For me, what's needed is thus not a new "language" but symbols much better than XML, but one that is :
a) Richer than the 2 "tag" and "attribute" thing.
b) Nearer from the grammar of a language, with way to see a noun, verb, adjectives...
c) Univocal to tell what a symbol is for.
d) More restrictive on words, preventing a person to reinvent a noun, verb or adjective already in a language.

I have been working for 1 year on such symbols and making recently progresses to make them into a working example.
The coolest right now is that I can tell it in plain French, let it get what I told from French for this to be told in English and for this to be thought about from English.

In the next 3 to 4 months, I hope I will show it to more people than myself ;).

Stay in touch if you're interested to overcome "programming" languages and moving to more natural interfaces.

jeudi 17 janvier 2008

On the most interesting in the keynote from Steve Jobs : Time Capsule.

As a fan, I watched the latest keynote from Steve Jobs at Macworld.
What's the saddest is that we are less and less surprised since most of it is revealed before from the WWW.

However, one was not known before and is by far the most interesting : Time Capsule.

Thinner MacBook, better software for iPhones, better business model to see films from iTunes, better Apple TV, any among these was to plan.
But Time Capsule is really more : unlike Jobs, I don't think Time Capsule is a perfect companion for a Mac, but it is for an iPhone!!!

What's missing the most in iPhone is not to be faster but to not have enough memory to hold my digital life. Even if it was, as I am carrying my iPhone anywhere I am, I am much more in danger to lose my data (being crashed, lost or stolen) than at home.

Imagine a direct link between my Time Capsule and my iPhone.
Imagine this link in Wifi at home or via the Internet when not at home.
Now add a way for me to get/post to my iPhone wirelessly on big screen/keyboards when available.

With this 3, you have the beginning of the end of both laptops, and desktops for anyone but audio and video makers.

Upgrading the iPhone and now having done Time Capsule, Apple will keep on thinking : how not to kill our Mac business ?

mercredi 9 janvier 2008

On my first 40 days with my iPhone : what can be better ?

I bought an iPhone and upgraded to a plan for iPhones 40 days ago.
My previous phone was a 3410 from Nokia with a GSM only plan (not even SMS!) so the upgrade was quite huge ;)
Everything's been told about an iPhone but I will tell you how I feel with it.

I) The present

1) It's so beautiful.
I am keen on gadgets mixing usability and art and I must say my iPhone is really the most beautiful I've ever had.
In the first few days, I was keeping on just looking at it and felt pleased.
The lines are so perfect, stripped down, "pure" that I don't know how one can be more beautiful.

2) being pervasive and unlimited mitigates how slow EDGE is.
Yes, EDGE is not the fastest and having Wifi on my iPhone is reinforcing this fact.
But coupling how pervasive it is and that it's unmetered makes me feel the biggest value similar to the transition from dial up to DSL : you don't even think about connectivity, you don't hesitate to grab some news or a map when you want it, it's just there.

3) music and videos is great.

4) the internet eventually.
Since 2000, carriers has been stuck into the idea that you should need a language (WML) and a protocol (WMP) for what's via the Web on your mobile.
Surfing the Internet on my iPhone definitely trumps this idea off !
The navigation is really simple, double tapping is smooth.

II) The future

When you're working in this industry and once you tasted an iPhone, the tough question came around : how to make this better ?

1) Short term.
At least 4 better are obvious and easier predict.
i) Faster cellular : HSPA then LTE...
ii) Better camera : 3 then 5 then 8...
iii) More memory : 16GB then 32GB the...
iv) More precise location : cell triangulation then GPS then...

2) Mid term
It became there harder to say.
v) NFC : to pay or pass gates with your iPhone.
vi) Automatic wireless connection to a bigger screen or keyboard : this will come but may be dangerous for Apple because it will put an iPhone in a competition with laptops and desktops for persons in the mainstream.
vii) Automatic wireless backup to a bigger and safer memory : would it be at home or at Apple's ?

3) Long term.
Somewhere in 2009-2010, an iPhone with the previous will come out ; it will be engined by a chipset as Moorestown from Intel, fast enough to do most of what the mainstream want.
It will be the ultimate monolythic-and-carried-in-a-pocket computer, to get only smally better.
Here will come the need for a new era, more than personal, not monolythic, not carried in a pocket, the first symbiotic computer.

vendredi 4 janvier 2008

On what I want : living without states.

I was born in 1980, near Bordeaux, in France.
I have been in Paris, in France, since 1998.
I am ruled by the state in France, topped by N. Sarkozy.
I am thus forced to :
a) give money of mine to persons in the state to do what the biggest minority told them to do.
b) follow the rules made by persons in the state.

I don't want any person that wants to give its money and follow the rules to stop doing it.
But I want any of these persons to stop forcing me to do so.

Secessionism has always been an idea highly tighted to geography.

The idea is to apply on a whole wide land new rules edicted by a new government.
This lead to wars and the reconstitution of governments, oppression and legal theft.

I don't want to force people to kill what they're cheerishing or follow me in statelessness.
Just the right to it for me and any person that wants it.

Living without a state is easy for most of the parts : no benefits from the state for no obligations.
No money from it for no money to it.

In France, it's however slightly more complex than anywhere else as the state is so embedded in almost any part of my life.

The compromises to do are :

  1. 1 : any road except highways are the state's right now and would be too long to give to someone's.

=> I will give money to the state to be at the state's roads AND will follow rules made for them by the state.

  1. 2: some televison and radio channels are the state's and would be too long to exclude me from seeing and hearing them.

=> I will give money to the state to see and hear its television and radio channels.

  1. 3: trains and busses are the state's and highly subsidized.

=> I will give the right money to the state's companies leading them.

I don't want to give my money for anything else, either because I don't need it or because I can get better and/or cheaper from some groups or persons.

I could decide alone to apply this.
But as soon as I will be seen by the persons in the state, I will probably go to a prison.

That's why I am writing this, for two kind of people.
Those who want the same as me to join me : the more we'll be, the harder it'll be for the state to jail us once we'll apply our plan.
Those who want the status quo to leave us : the more they'll be, the easier it'll be for them to force the state not to jail us.

Hoping some people, anywhere in the world and especially in France will join.

mercredi 5 décembre 2007

On the fuel for our minds : softwares

60 years ago, John Von Neumann made a revolution when he figured out his famous architecture for computers.
Computers at this time were told what to do as any other machine ; by plugging cables once to do only one thing.
Von Neumann introduced first the idea of a computer with a memory to remember.
Some persons used this memory idea to remember as digits numbers, colors, texts.
Von Neumann then introduced a second more important idea : a computer able to remember an instruction aka "what to do".

Since then a computer was able to get from memory what to do as instructions.
This made an interface between circuits made with transistors to "do" the instructions and something else to make many instructions triggered by only one instruction from a person.
This gave birth to what we're calling now "software", the capability for a computer to do many things from one thing from a person.

The problem since then has always been the gap between the instructions done by circuits in a computer and the instructions a person can tell to do.

A person is thinking and telling to other persons in a language such as English, French, Mandarin or Spanish whereas a circuit can understand only instructions in a so called "machine language" to move, calculate and compare numbers.

The history of software is the one of narrowing this gap by making stuffs between "natural" languages and "machine" languages.

This history is full of attempts from assembly language to C, C++, LISP, Smalltalk, Java, Python, Ruby, Perl, Javascript, HTML, CSS...

This history is also full of (very) successful companies, from Microsoft to Google.

Any successful company today has to deal with software.

What is the most striking to me is that NONE of the most successful software makers don't sell it to individuals using it!

Yes, Microsoft is selling software but gets 90% of its sales and profits by selling it either to PC makers selling to people or to companies buying PCs for employees or servers for themselves.
Yes, Apple is selling to people but gets 90% of its profits by not selling the software but the machines (iPods and Macs) in which the software is.
Google is not selling software at all but the spacetime people spent using its software to advertisers.
Adobe is selling software not to users but to groups making either software, videos or images.

That is the rule to remember : if you want to get big profits from making software for people, don't sell it to them !!!

lundi 26 novembre 2007

Closing the loop: toward a symbiotic aware computer

In 1960, J.C.R Licklider wrote a text called Man-Computer Symbiosis.
In it, he drew the path towards the ultimate vision of the relationship between a person and a computer, envisioned as a symbiosis.

A symbiosis is between two beings, so the person AND the computer have an independent reality. The computer is not only a deadly mere machine, it has a kind of soul.
A symbiosis profits from the two's skills to solve problems surrounding them.
A symbiosis is a mutual dependency as each needs the other.

This text is from 1960, a year when neither personal computers or the Internet or higher level languages were made.
However, as the famous "As we may think" from Vanevar Bush, it really paved the way to the future.
Looking at where we are now, in the nascent "iPhone" era and what may be next, I think we are on the verge to fulfill Licklider's vision by the end of this decade, closing the loop in 50 years.

1) A symbiotic computer will be more than personal

In 50 years, we moved from big corporation's computers to personal computer.
The latest version of it, iPhone, like any mobile phones, is really becoming personal, a perfect one-to-one matching between a person and a computer.
A symbiotic computer will be more than personal.
It will survive to hardware lifecycle, getting faster and faster but never losing what it learnt.
It will live nearer than a bag or a pocket, may be on a person's wrist, being more often here and less often lost, crashed or stolen.
It will see, read and hear most of what a person can see, read and hear to remember it as digits on a hard drive.
It will get better ones for a person to read, see and hear because it will be the only one to remember everything.
It will be a person's and in a person's computer, not those of Facebook or Google, opened to non authorized third parties.

2) An aware computer will be more than connected.

In 2007, a person has still to think about how to "connect" to the Internet and how to another person or group of persons by HTTP domain names, SMTP email addresses, IBAN bank accounts, ZIP building addresses, ENUM phone numbers or whatever...
In the same way, a person has still to ask a computer to remember what he saw, hear, read or do.
To tell a computer how to do something, a person must know some bizarre languages, different from what he already knows.
An aware computer will remember whitout a person asking for it and will know how to a person without a person to ask by some cryptic computers' protocol.
An aware computer will do from a person without these bizarre languages.

3) A person with a symbiotic aware computer will be more than a person.

Persons quit the hazardous and uncontrolled genetic evolution since a long time.
What makes persons different is that we can make for a purpose.
A person with a symbiotic aware computer will be more than a person.
He will remember everything he saw, read, heard or did.
He will be able to get and post with persons much more easility and faster than before.
He will taylor the world to his ends, cure his diseases and know about changes faster.

In a sense, a person with his symbiotic computer will represent the ultimate step in humanity's journey : human-machine symbiosis.

mardi 20 novembre 2007

Will 2011 be like 1951 ?

For 6 months, I have been reading more and more often texts polluted with this "cloud" meme.
Many among the most brilliant and salient tellers keep on talking about the magic of the cloud, how it will change everything and how good it is.

Be careful ! This is just the latest version of the famous "the network is the computer" propaganda made by Sun Microsystems and Oracle 10 years ago.

To get back on Earth, let's think about the underlined question behind the cloud : whose are computers and how many are they ?

1) In the 50s, computers were few and states'.

The first commercial computer was an UNIVAC and was sold to the US Census Bureau. Around 50 were made later and sold either to groups in states or to the biggest companies.
These had very big problems to solve and as a computer at this time was for 150 000 dollars, only big groups could afford them.

2) In the 60s, computers were few and companies'

The posterchild computer for this time was PDPs sold by DEC to more and more companies as they were for around tens of thousands dollars.
At this time yet, there were mostly one or two computers in a group but more and more persons wanted to use it.
So they had to SHARE it, that lead to persons responsible for deciding who to use it and to use it for.
A person had a screen and a keyboard to tell the group's computer to do something for him.

3) In the 70s, computers were many and companies'

Moore's law dropped the price of transistors at a point where you could make a computer cheap and small enough for companies to buy a computer for more and more employees.
An employee did not need now to share a computer.

4) Since the 80s, some computers were made a person's

The revolution of "personal" computing is less about "microprocessor" or "GUI" or "Apple" than that for the first time, a computer was "really" made a person's.
Since now, a person can decide what to do with his computer by getting software.

5) Will 2010 be like 1951 ?

Here we are : behind the cloud, there is this trend to come back to the 50s where :
There are more and more computers.
There are all in less than 10 gigantic mainframes that are companies', such as Google, Microsoft, Yahoo, eBay and...Facebook ?
A person has only a screen (to touch) ; anything else is Google's.

Some problems may be rooted in this :
The more you tell Google's, the more dependent you will be on one provider.
The more you tell, the harder it will be for you to switch to another provider.
The more many tell, the more painful it will be when there is a failure of Google.
Google will be more and more tempted to sell what it knew from you to advertisers.
There will be a day when you want to do something Google does not want : without your computer, you won't be able to do it.

6) Or will there be a personal computing new champion ?

Let's face it : Microsoft screwed the personal computer, by delivering bad updates (think V...) and forgetting his DNA to seduce corporations and advertisers, running behind Google.
The reaction to it is a belief that the best way to beat Microsoft is to come back to the 50s with mainframes.
We already know the leader of this camp, Google, a company that's morphing into the third giant in computing history, after IBM and Microsoft.
I am still waiting for a company that will move forward the personal computing revolution, sell a computer to a person, investing in P2P technology...

Will this be Apple, Nokia or someone else ?

mardi 13 novembre 2007

On the biggest dangers in our minds : nouns

This may seem a very bizarre theme to tell about.

But the more I am reading, writing for making software and thinking about it, the more I am surprised how burried this is in my and problably your mind.

A noun is a word as is a verb, an adjective, an adverb or an adposition. But for a reason I don't yet fully understand, it is the most cool to tell for most of people.

1) Making a noun is too easy ; damn affixes !

In many languages, as English, French and German, is a very powerful feature we're abusing : this is affixes, at the beginning or the end of words, for example to make an adverb from an adjective, or a verb from a noun.
This is over used to make a noun from anything.

2) A noun from a verb

Yes, saying "writer" is shorter but when you get back the word in it, the "write" verb, you will tell more, forced to say, "one that's writing", "one that wrote", "one that will write" so telling the "when" that was lost in the noun.
The worst is when the verb is "to be" or "to have" and there you're entering in the endless scratching of your head known as philosophy, making nouns as "object", "being","entitiy", "subject", "thing", "resource"...or "owner", "proprietaire", "property", "attribute"...countless more or less synonyms for one that is or that has.

3) A noun from an adjective

A rich, a poor are not like a person, an atom or a dog. The later cannot not be one ! Moreover, as I told once, an adjective for anything but to compare is harder to use.
Talking about a "length", "usability", "width", "prettiness" or whatever is the same : you're losing that it is never "long" but either as long or longer or less long than something else.

4) A noun from an adposition

An adposition (a noun for what's telling where ;) ) is a word that's so powerful in languages. It is most often shorter than a noun and is between words to make a sense.
Why are we keeping on making a noun from this ?
a "cost" for money "from" you
a "revenue" for money "to" you
a "profit" for money to whose it is.
a "message" for what's from one to else.
an "element", "member", "content", "part", "component", "module" for what's in.
a "class", "set", "collection", "container", "div", "package" for one where there is.
a "interface", "service", "contract" for what's between.
a "Chinese" for what's from China.
a "source", "cause", "reason", "beginning", "sender"...for one "from" which it is.
a "position", "location", "situation"...for one where there is.
a "end", "consequence", "arrival", "receiver"...for one "to" which it is.
a "process", "thread", "task", "action", "performance" for what's done.

I might keep on but I'm hoping you figured out how many nouns from adpositions we made, most for nothing more than being shorter but more expensive because of synonyms and lost meaning. I must tell that once I saw it, avoiding them is actually harder than I thought.

5) When there is no proper noun

This is among the ones I'm preferring.
It is especially terrible in front of a computer that keeps asking a name for anything.
Yes, for any person there's a name.
Yes, for some images, sounds or videos, there's name too.
But, most often, there's no obvious one

what's the craziest is that people are thinking they need to give a proper noun to anything.

6) digits are not for proper nouns

+33 6 88 44 45 66 ? 134.32.123.456 ? 75015-0222 ? 00004440404404040404 ? N95 ?

Do you think these are good as nouns ?

dimanche 21 octobre 2007

On the most misunderstood word : "rich".

Among words between us, I came to think that the most misunderstood is "rich".

Let's try to clear some about it.

1) You can never tell whether you are rich.

This seems to be possible but it's not. Not because you are stupid or I want to negate the word, but just because of grammar ! "Rich" as tall or old is an adjective, a kind of word men made to compare 2 ones with each other. Think about it. For tall, we're using meters to compare. For old, we're using years. For rich, there is one most seen than others : that one is known as "money".

2) You can always tell whether you are richer than a person.

Yes, when that person has more money than you, he is richer than you.

3) Telling it with "poorer" or "less rich" is moral tactics.

Telling that you are poorer than me is exactly the same that telling you are less rich than me. But the first will be better to touch persons' heart and convince them to help you. Good tactics.

4) Richer is better.

Not big news here. With more money, you may get more goods.

5) There are 2 plans to get richer.

Plan A : You can get more money. Plan B : You can give less money.

6) You can do both at the same time !

Hard ? Easy ! Let's say that you have no money : a) you are giving a good you made for 120 in money. For 120, only one person gave it to you. b) a person is asking 120 for a good you want. you gave the 120 for the good. After these, you have a good but not much money.

Let's now say that later : a) you are giving a good you made for 80 in money. For 80, two persons gave it to you. b) the person you once gave 120 made the same and is now asking 80 for a good you want. You gave 80 for the good. After these, you got 160 for what you made, or 40 more, and you got the good for 80 or 40 less ! So, you have a good and 80 in money. You won on both ways !!

Where's the trick, you may say ?

7) Persons can shrink the time to make.

Aesthets will use the more complex word "productivity" but that is what it is. With organization, tools, machines, thinking or whatever, we are shrinking time. So you can make at once more and more and thus ask less money per one, sell more and get more money. The trick is when you can sell twice more before asking twice less money, what an aesthet would name how elastic the demand is.

There is also a variant of this.

8) As cheap but better

That's basically a variation. You give the same money again and again to get better and better. Intel or Free are making a lot of money with this simple approach. For the same quality, you would give less money.

All of these seem simple ? Yes it is. But there's a but.

9) Which one to be money ?

To see it, remember this : the more goods for the same money, the cheaper they are. That's the heart of why Plan B is working. For this to happen, there should be the least more money, or to say differently it has to be scarcier. Men tried many goods to be money. They eventually agreed on one, it was Gold.

10) From Goldsmiths to banks.

The only problem with Gold, as with money, was when someone wanted to steal yours. For this, some people, known as goldsmiths, once proposed to persons to keep Gold safe. For a person to get back his Gold from them, goldsmiths were writing it on a paper. A person could thus leave his Gold at a goldsmith in say Paris and give the paper back to a goldsmith of the same family in say Florence, to get his Gold back. Soon, goldsmiths, once Gold safekeeper, became known as "banks".

11) From paper for Gold to paper for nothing.

The revolution came once goldsmiths saw 2 things : a) More and more persons were not giving Gold to each other but instead the PAPER for it. b) Few persons were giving back the papers at once to get Gold back. So the occasion was too sexy : i) Goldsmiths started to make more papers than the ones for Gold, that is paper for nothing. ii) Goldsmiths started to LEND these papers as money to persons.

12) When Gold was here, the risk to die limit the number of papers.

With gold, the strategy of banks was risky. When too many persons were not trusting a bank making too much paper, they could always go to the bank to get Gold back. when too many were doing it at once, the bank died. The fear of dying was preventing banks to make too much paper.

13) A murder in 3 acts.

Knowing this makes you understand why banks did not love Gold as money. So they looked for a way to kill Gold. Unfortunately, they found the strongest ally in their quest, states. As you may know, persons in a state have 3 ways to get more money : i) Force persons to give more money as taxes. ii) Borrow money from banks. iii) Make more paper and tell that this is money.

The 3rd is the best for them because most of people do not see the consequence.

But Gold, as for banks, was a serious danger to the plan. So, some banks and states decided to murder Gold as money.

Act 1 : in 1910, on the Jekyll Island, in USA, the biggest banks and persons in Congress acted to create the Federal Reserve, for banks not to be killed by making too much paper and for a state to be the first to get the money from nothin. Act 2 : in 1944, at Bretton Woods, profiting from post War climate, every link to Gold as money were broken except for papers for dollars. Act 3 : On the 15th of August, 1971, Richard Nixon broke the link between dollars and Gold.

14) Where is the problem ?

Remember the rule : the more goods for the same money, the cheaper they are. Reverse it, it's still working : the same goods for more money, the more expensive they are.

With dollars alone and the power to MAKE money from nothing, there are no limits to more money.

So with time, you have exactly the reverse of Plan B : you're getting less and less goods for your dollars.

15) Epilogue : it's up to you to call back Plan B.

If you're still there after this long speech, I hope you understood a bit more. It's up to you to revive the plan B to get richer. I hope you will now want, as me, to murder dollars and get Gold back.

samedi 13 octobre 2007

On the worst idea since Communism : Environmentalism.

I am scared Day after day, reading, watching TV, listening, I am more and more scared. Seeing Al Gore and the persons in GIEC to get the Nobel Prize made me sicker.

Why ?

Because of this meme that is contaminating more and more persons : "the danger for Environment caused by climate change caused by persons"

Some of my thoughts.

1) "Nature" or "Environment" is not something.

This is the most efficient tactic : to see something as a person, to tell that it can be "harmed", "suffers", "to protect" or whatever.

Have you ever met Environment ? What did he tell you ? When was he suffering ?

Environment with a capital E in English or "L'Environnement" in French is not like you and me.

Even "an environment" with a little e is not even a good common noun at all. How many environments do you know ? Which environment is this one ? Can you show me an environment ?

It's actually two times more dangerous : make a person from a common noun, moreover from a common noun that means nothing.

2) "Climate change" is almost a pleonasm.

In the same way that a fire is burning or a water is wetting, a climate is changing ! Look anywhere in a day, a hundreds days, a thousands, million, billion years, "climate" may be the one that is changing the most !!! Morever, a climate is highly local. The climate of Earth is not a single one.

3) More CO2 cannot be the source of a greater temperature.

On any study plotting the temperature and CO2 in athmosphere with time : Yes, I saw a correlation between how they changed. However, greater CO2 ALWAYS FOLLOWED greater temperature, on any period in a graph and on any graph. So CO2 cannot be the source but the consequence of greater temperature. So persons as a source of CO2 cannot be the source of greater temperatures.

4) No one can predict whether higher or lower temperature is better in "general"

Yes, you saw some "serious" prediction about the "cost" of global warming. But, the consequences of a warming will be different for a person to another person. There will be some better and some worse for any person.

5) Many different persons want this meme to spread for their own interest.

I can see many ones but don't know yet which is the biggest :

a) Persons that need a substitute for Communism. As the founder of Greenpeace once told, these kind of groups were contaminated in the late 80s by many people seeing or predicting that USSR and Communism will disappear. These are the exact years when this meme started to contaminate.

b) Persons in states and UNO to justify we need them. Oh, yeah, from Al Gore to J. Chirac, "Environment" is a "global" problem. So this needs a "global" solution. So this needs states.

c) Persons to have a new "cause that transcend us all" Yes, a person needs a "quest". Some are dreaming about how to make better cars or computers to help a person. Some are dreaming about how to force a person not to release CO2 to help "Environment".

d) Persons "studying" climate change to get money from persons in states. "Climate Change" specialists are now getting 10 times more money that before the "Climate change as a risk for humanity" thing.

e) Persons on television, radios, newspapers...to get audience thus money. These persons saw big audience anytime you're showing images of dying bears or hotting ice...to tell how nasty you are. So they'll keep on showing the images.

The c)s can be excused. The e)s are followind winds and can reverse the situation. The d)s are dangerous because they think that stamping their work with "Scientific" will make it a truth. The a)s and b)s ones are the worst because among them, most of them are completely cynical.

Whatever the ones, I keep on seeing the vicious circle of this heteroclyt coalition to spread the meme over and over.

Conclusion : next force to come ?

I once thought that the collapse of USSR, the millions persons dead in China, the persons dying from hunger in Korea, or the 40 years lost by persons in most of countries in Africa, would have vaccinated us against collectivism.

Yes, the "Proletariat" personification is dead. But, the "Environment" is well being, alive and ready to justify violence for years to come.

dimanche 7 octobre 2007

2008-2010 : get prepared for the computer battle royale.

The last 2 months has been such an avalanche of news that it was very hard to connect all the dots.

What's sure is we will see from 2008 to 2010 the most impressive and exciting Shumpeterian creative destruction since the first successful personal computers in the 1980s.

It will be so big that anyone among the most successful 2007's stars may not survive to it !

First, 5 technical earthquakes:

  1. 1) With the new Cortex family of chips, designed by ARM, the "cellphone" lignea of personal computers will become powerful enough to cover the needs of mainstream.
  2. 2) With the new Silverthorne and Moorestown family of chips, designed by Intel, the "desktop" lignea of personal computers will become energy-savvy enough to power the needs of mainstream for a full day on a battery, and small enough to fit in a pocket.
  3. 3) Wireless USB over UWB will allow these computers to wirelessly connect to big screens and keyboards when needed.
  4. 4) With fiber, any home will have the bandwidth to become a server.
  5. 5) Hard disk drive will pass the milestone where anything done trhough a computer can be remembered.

Second, 5 market consequences

  1. 1) Computers in the home will revive, as a safe place to store data and server to the fiber
  2. 2) Laptops will die : too big for the pocket and not safe enough for the data.
  3. 3) Home+Pocket Integration will be key : especially for data backup and network mobility.
  4. 4) Every big guy will think towards the endgame : to sell at once pocket+home+connectivities+services.
  5. 5) As no big guy can MAKE the 4, some will move from B2C to B2B

Finally 10 questions :

  1. 1) Will Apple sacrify the "Mac" or the "iXxxx" brand to build the Home+Pocket combination ?
  2. 2) Will Nokia sacrify the subsidies from carriers to build the combination of devices+connectivities ?
  3. 3) Will Texas Instruments and Qualcomm survive if x86-based chips breach into the pocket ?
  4. 4) Will Intel survive if ARM-based chips breach into the home ?
  5. 5) Will Intel try to break Microsoft by pushing Linux down to pocket, up to home ?
  6. 6) When will Nintendo update the DS to kill cellphones and iPods ?
  7. 7) Will ONE carrier decide to focus on connectivity as a B2B service for Googles or Nokias ?
  8. 8) Will Microsoft become an Apple and update Zune and XBox for Home+pocket ?
  9. 9) Will Dell survive ?
  10. 10) What will Google do ?

dimanche 30 septembre 2007

I am born again

Here it is, I am born again !

I profited from the close down of my old provider to finally light my domain up.

This is very interesting to eventually feel oneself at home.

The more time goes by, the more I am sure that the HTTP domain is the ultimate interface between people via computers.

It is owned as such. (around 10€/year). It is not visibly dependent on a third party as an SMTP address. It is not technically attached to a third party service as a GSM number. It is opened by design to GET information FROM and POST information TO.

In a near future, HTTP domains may replace GSM numbers and SMTP addresses for everything:

You want to get something FROM me ; GET it from my domain. You want to post something TO me ; POST it to my domain.

Today, the "something" is mainly text in HTML. Tomorrow, the "something" may be anything, from text then colors or sounds (voice calls), to property's right.

Stay tuned to this domain to get information about what's coming beyond.

vendredi 28 septembre 2007

Premier billet

Je suis le premier billet. Modifiez moi.

page 2 de 2 -