Julien Boyreau

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

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 -