zumbrunn.com - Google goes Rumantsch

Google goes Rumantsch

> Sur da Google
> Tschertgar cun Google

09.06.2005, 15:48

Safari 1.3

Safari 1.3 gets some of the 2.0 goodies :

HTML Editing
Safari 1.3 supports HTML editing, both at the Objective-C WebKit API level and using contenteditable and designMode in a Web page. The new Mail app in Tiger uses WebKit for message composition. You can write apps that make use of WebKit's editing technology and deploy them on Panther and Tiger.

The DOM Exposed
The entire level 2 DOM has been exposed a public API in Objective-C. This means various holes have been filled in Safari's DOM level 2 support. In addition to exposing the DOM to Objective-C, the JS objects that wrap DOM objects can also be accessed from Objective-C, allowing you to examine and edit the JS objects themselves to inject properties onto them that can then be accessed from your Web page.

XSLT
Safari 1.3 on Panther now supports XSLT. 10.3.9 includes libxslt, and Safari uses this excellent library to handle XSLT processing instructions it encounters in Web pages.

16.04.2005, 20:21

Incrementalism in the Mozilla roadmap

E4X, SVG and <canvas> in Firefox 1.1 this summer, later the rearchitected Gecko's graphics subsystem.

Brendan also reports from the XTech in Amsterdam: "don't hold your breath for XHTML 2"

01.06.2005, 9:19

BSD is designed. Linux is grown.

"The differences between BSD and Linux aren't just surface things that happened accidentally; they're the result of different philosophical and developmental processes. This is an attempt to explain why and how BSD works"...

"BSD for Linux users" explained by Matthew D. Fuller

"BSD is what you get when a bunch of Unix hackers sit down to try to port a Unix system to the PC. Linux is what you get when a bunch of PC hackers sit down and try to write a Unix system for the PC."

"...Linux methodology is the living incarnation of chaos, whereas the BSD methodology is far more about control." ... "Linux grew out of a spare-time hacking background, while BSD grew out of a controlled engineering background." ... "Naturally, the BSD method is far more amenable to keeping things ordered, while the Linux method practically necessitates utter chaos."

"Linux (and its various distributions) are moving in all sorts of different directions, with very little real coordination. That means they're going to end up in a lot of places the BSDs, with their more careful and orderly progression, will only get to more slowly (if at all). A lot of those places are going to be icky and horrible, and places you don't want to be. But some of them are going to be absolute jewels, that you could never reach any other way." ... "Linux may hit lower lows, and they may even be more numerous. But the sheer number of people and projects pushing in so many different directions practically assures you of striking gold."

"Is BSD better than Linux? Well, I think so. But that doesn't mean much. It is, however, different."

20.06.2004, 02:46

The limits of harmonization

My response to Richard on his " How does harmonisation work? " post:

As I mentioned before, I certainly see harmonization as a crucial factor in a direct democracy. The two concepts are directly linked. The more harmonization, the more democracy.

However, I fear the system you are describing could in the real world manifest itself as an incubator for technocracy. Breeding an elite of people that are willing to involve themselves in the process. Specially if you start to stack this process through various levels of "hierarchy", like you have described in a comment to a previous post , this "danger" becomes more and more significant.

I believe your system suppresses some factors that contradict with the concept of harmonization but are also important factors in a direct democracy.

Should "emotional disagreement" be ignored? The harmonization process requires involvement and reasoning that not everybody will be willing or able to contribute. The wisdom of instinct is an integral factor in a direct democracy. People must have the right to vote on an issue even if they can not articulate their concern and their vote is based more on a gut feeling than on facts. This is a feature, not a bug.

What about the interests of those not interested? Harmonization can't be mandatory. Or even if you think it can be, I don't think it should be. Even in your ideal scenario where the outcome of the harmonization process at higher levels would in theory still reflect every individuals consent, I believe that a safety mechanism that allows the people to force an issue to a vote should be a requirement. Those that didn't participate in the process for whatever reason get a chance to veto its outcome.

Harmonization is about reaching a consensus for "change" but "change" is only half of the story. There is also an already existing consensus for "no change", the result of a previous harmonization process, the status quo. The decision between "change" and "no change" should happen outside of the harmonization process. This is where the direct vote of the people controls the process.

When individuals involve themselves in different interest groups and the system forces these interest groups through harmonization in order to reach a consensus then that outcome will likely be accepted by the people in a vote. There is no need to eliminate the direct vote from the process. It does not contradict with harmonization but it makes the process safer and allows it to be designed more efficient.

While harmonization in my opinion shouldn't replace referendum and initiative, it does make the concept of political parties obsolete. A direct democracy does not have a "governing party" and would never have an "opposition". In a direct democracy interest groups form around specific topics and work together to achieve concordance. The composition of the executive and the government then reflects that concordance.

I like your description of harmonization and I do know that it works. But I see it as a puzzle piece in a larger concept. Harmonization as the "best practice" for building consensus and achieving "governance in concordance" between all the different interest groups. At any level where policies are discussed and rules are drafted, the harmonization process should be applied to develop consensus. But the direct vote by the people should keep that process under control.

02.07.2005, 22:06

Steuerungsabgabe statt Steuern

Gestern Abend haben wir wieder einmal eine kleine Weltverbesserungsdiskussion geführt und dabei das Encourage the Good - Discourage the Bad Prinzip andiskutiert. Nachher habe ich mir noch so meine Überlegungen gemacht und habe die Terminologie etwas angepasst... Das Wort Steuerungsabgabe scheint mir im Moment als sinnvoller Begriff zu dienen, um zugleich den Unterschied wie auch die Redundanz von "Lenkungsabgaben" und "Steuern" zu unterstreichen.

Interessanterweise findet Google unter dem Begriff Steuerungsabgabe kaum etwas - im wesentlichen nur ein Dokument zum Thema "Welthandelsrecht und Umweltschutz" und eines zu Silvio Gesell :-)

11.04.2004, 12:58