Intellectual Problem Facing Global Society
A Solution Ceasing the Opportunity Coincidentally Eradicating the Problem
Section 1: Breakdown of the Information Covered by
Whereas the primary mission of the
yet engages in commercial activities via com and net to fulfill it's mission
this page begins the discussion of the
In the org division there are essentially six(6) sixths, not necessarily by volume, so we refer to them as segments.
The 1st segment is that knowledge which has already been assembled in books and literature, etc, and which is best communicated by visual reproduction of the images of the pages, even if they are only text. In fact, they are best communicated by holding the book, document or artifact in one's hands. A secondary image is a mear reflection, and a computerized regurgitation a shadow. The individual works are complete unto themselves and attempting to alter, manipulate, massage and improve upon them is a disservice and discredit to them. Though additional analysis of them is appropriate, thus the 2nd segment.
The 3nd segment, which shall be discussed here, is also knowledge which has already been assembled in books and literature, etc, but which needs to be regurgitated, the 4th segment and main point of this open invitation.
This 4th segment is to be an analysis (breaking into component parts), understanding (intellectual visualization of the interaction of those component parts), and assimilation (entering into an intellectual database), so that it can then be re-presented in an entirely new form ...
The 5th segment, which shall not be discussed here in detail but is no less important and is discussed elsewherenot yet available is research done upon the previous 4 segments, ie., essentially research done on research.
Finally, the 6th segment, also discussed elsewherenot yet available, is original intellectual work product (not based in a vacuum of course but) utilizing the various aspects of the knowledge of mankind to produce what could genuinely be considered new works, not just reassembliage.
If you are interested in any of the above, then our proposal may be of interest to you even though we are discussing here primarily the 4th segment,
To continue now.
The area of knowledge of consideration is as vast as the knowledge of mankind. There are no topics (save the vice topics of gossip, slander, and hatred, etc) in which
But since we have to begin somewhere we have chosen a fairly well defined area of knowledge the Internet itself, or actually more precisely a superset, computers.
We shall devote subdomains to the various aspects of knowledge. Indeed that was one of the intensions of the creation of subdomains in the Internet.
We shall begin by concentrating upon three, W, WW, and WWW, which shall be assigned as follows:
W.aedok.org shall concerns itself with all aspects of computer hardware, components, and devices.
WW.aedok.org shall concern itself with all aspects of computer programming languages, and programs.
WWW.aedok.org shall concern itself with all aspects of, the Internet and other networt concepts, essentially the inter connection and the intertwining of the prior two(2).
Yet, should you have knowledge and expertise or even just interest in any other area
For, anything you can do, within the constraints of our structure, is work we would want done eventually anyway, and should you not actually have knowledge and expertise but only interest, surely you would learn in the process of working with us and still be of great service since these are intellectual processes, not manufacturing processes requiring vast knowledge on your part at the onset.
Neither is there a restriction on the language in which you wish to create, however, we speak only English, our instructions are in English, and so you will have to make those accommodations. But, only in the setup and communications with us. Otherwise you may create in the language of your choice. Eventually we will catch up with you.we hope
As explained in detail later, whether beginner or expert, the expression of your knowledge, unfettered by monetary constraints and it's undesirable attendant shaping of your presentation, you, the scholar, create and build an asset which we use to draw visitors and thus customers to our
Section 2: Intellectual Problem Facing Global Society
Have you ever tried to acquire an in-depth understanding by way of a search of the web pages on the Internet? (in this case we are discussing computer programming, specifically Internet based programs and programming languages)
The above stated question is not regarding the simple definition of a term or the possible utilization of some function, the question is regarding an in-depth understanding of some term and the complete functionionality in its context.
No doubt often you were left dissatisfied, and too often (though possibly less often but, yet, too) you threw your hands up in submission and failure, ended more puzzled than began.
Before Gutenberg, writing and recording of information was laborious, few wrote and a selected few read. With the advent of the Gutenberg it was now possible to publish the works and thoughts of many great persons. Even infamous. And the common person learned to read. As the demand for books grew, publishers sprung up and to protect their interests they scrutinized carefully that which they published, before they published it. Reading became common. Books were used in school and society begin to learn what those before them had done, accomplished, or failed to accomplished.
Printing became more transient. Soft-cover books were created expressing not necessarily factual but, creative works of art and imagination. Important news was published. Then local news. Then gossip. Small publishers got into the act. Then organizations. Finally it became possible for individuals to self publish thru services offered by other publishers. When the internet sprung up the worms got out of the bag. Anyone on the planet with hands and we mean no disrespect to many people without hands published, and continue to publish.
And whereas early it was easy to spot professional website from the amateur, two(2) most amazing things occurred.
The first was that the technique and technology of publishing on the web (due to evolution of programs to create programs, even to create more programs, to produce finished work) became so sophisticated and easy to use that the proverbial parent would have thought his child was a genius.
But second an even more remarkable and now frightening thing occurred as it is continuing to occur and gather steam.
The authorities and self-appointed thorities began to loose and are losing, intellectual capability. Depending upon spelling check programs, authors produced works with misspelled words.You might even find some in this presentation. Under deadlines and pressure and financial considerations, facts began to be no longer checked. No longer required validation, verification or confirmation. Because news was either boring or depressing, they began hiring persons with an upbeat attitude, thus slanting the news. Then adding humor and mixing it with entertainment. We now have an entire generation who get their news from comedy shows.
And now to the point of this lengthy dissertation.
Authorities and self-appointed athorities, in our area of concern, on the internet, do not know how to communicate!
This inadequacy might be broken down into four(4) phases as follows: foundation, construction, packaging, and verification, thus:
* FOUNDATION: To begin, they often do not fully understand that which they are attempting to communicate in the first place.
* CONSTRUCTION: Proceding from this unsubstantial foundation, they misspell, they interchange words which have a technical significance eg., create vis-á-vis set, should vis-á-vis must, they missuse phrases, they abused the language inadvertently or deliberately,
* PACKAGING: They modify the content and format to fit the search engines to get higher ratings,
* VERIFICATION: They conduct opinion polls to determine whether or not what they say is useful.
All these factors and components combined, they are irresponsible and incompetent as teachers.
Often these would-be teachers are professional writers who don't understand the nuances of the topic, being educated in a vacuum.
Others, have sufficient experience, yet, as is common in technical fields, don't understand their own native tongue sufficiently for clear communication. For, even in the past, those who could speak well could not necessarily teach!
Like a statist who thinks he has solve a problem by passing a law, these think they have educated by utilizing the most recent state-of-the-art tools.
Lipstick on a pig.
Important Note
In the examples to follow, AEDOK is not here, nor at any other time or place, making a blanket judgement on the quality of an entire website or collective work of an author by the selection and/or representation of an example. To do so would first be arrogant, and in the final analysis be unjust. Arrogant because it is easy to find fault with another's work after they have overcome untold barriers and impediments. Unjust, as one would not judge and entire person by a single act. Any example chosen is done so out of convenience without any analysis of the total set from which it is extracted (unless otherwise indicated), for the purpose of illustrating, by example, the point under analysis. For, it is not AEDOK's intention, goal, or modus operandi to destruct or destroy, but rather to construct and create, albeit thru the use of critical analysis, and any conclusions we intend to imply we strive to clearly state.
The scathing conclusions drawn above, such as eg., "All these factors and components combined, they are irresponsible and incompetent as teachers," represents a conclusion drawn on a collection of unknown specific composition, but existent none the less. Since AEDOK is not a proactive-watchdog group or organization, it is not necessary to know the specifics of the composition, for all that is necessary is that a problem be perceived & analyzed and a tentative solution proposed & implemented.
Example 1: The Infamous Circle
Consider this example. You're looking for information on JavaScript valueof and your search engine reveals this:
You strike, and upon clicking you see this:
hmmm.
Interested, on the next screen you see the definition:
hmmm.
Finally you see this:
Well, at least they didn't say, "For more information ..." to which you would respond, "More than what?" So far you've learned nothing more than the initial summary designed to get your attention. Except that interesting term, "primitive value".
Ahha! They have a search box. They're organized, ... cutting edge, ... on top of things.
What do you think would happen if you keyed that term into their search box?
68 results in only 0.12 seconds. Impressive. Presumably the most pertinent one is on top. Let's see:
hmmm. Yea, ahmmm. Do we dare click to learn more?
The infamous circle!
Now its not necessary that you have attended a quality high school to have acquired useful knowledge. But those of you who have attended a quality high school, would surely agree that none of your teachers would have let you get away with what we have just seen.
This is an example of form without substance. A fairly good form, but in the end you only think'imagine' that you have learned something, ... by going thru the motions, the steps, that you have been taught (are supposed to) work.
But learning is not a magical process following an incantation or a chant. You cannot learn if there's nothing to learn, regardless of the motions you may have gone through.
To proceed furtrther (just in this example, certainly not universally), a student, and not someone who already knows the answer, would not necessarily know that what he should have typed for the original search, that began this example, was not valueof but typeof. After all, which of us have not heard or seen the following sentence?
The value of that variable is undefined.
So what term should the student have search for? Why would the term type even occur to him? If indeed this is the context established for the search (which of course it may not have been).
The point of the above example is that we actually have two(2) problems insidiously intertwined.
The first problem is the slap-in-the-face circular motion resulting from the infra structure of the presentation. A serious problem which might occur even if the form of the presentation itself is good, as we pointed out it was. In this (first) case, the person creating the presentation won't even see it's inadequacies! And any evidence suggesting such, would be rejected offhand by examination of the presentation, which could easily appear flawless.
The second problem is clearly the vacuous context in which this presentation was created. Though it may have been created by the most literate scholar, it was done so by one who had no idea nor any concern for the possible reasons why the question would be asked in the first place.
In such a vacuous context, the problem will not be seen on its own, the problem will not be recognized, the problem will not be acknowledged if alluded too, and the problem will not be solved.
As the expression goes:
You can't get there from here.
Example 2: Over Simplification
Consider the following representations regarding cookie deletion. the captains in red above and below the image are ours
 |
The above is an example of a most interesting phenomena, and a systemic problem. A type of statement that is so simple and easily verifiable that it appears to be true by direct testing.Yet one can not test all circumstances. So,by being so incomplete, which is not obvious from visual scrutiny, it is wrong in so many ways as to render it a de facto false statement.
Specifically, if the cookie was not created by the same page (or along the same path, and some complex wording that precisely describes the parameters) and didn't specify a path allowing unfettered access, difficulties arise. The previous sentence, alone, just to describe the problem, is not simple. And, given a real life situation with multiple cookies and complex circumstances, one could spend days trying to figure out why his code doesn't work ... with advice like that.
And that is not the purpose of education. To waste valuable hours of one's life because a self-appointed authority wants to make something look simple.
To reiterate, the purpose of knowledge is not to give the instant, and false, gratification, "Ahh. Yes, now I understand." It is to give understanding.
A dysfunctional reverse trend is in part responsible for those things represented by the above examples.
At one time, manuals were limited in size because too much verbiage in text would make the manual too physically large. Just as dictionaries and encyclopedias grew and grew becomming too bulky to carry, too heavy to place on one's lap, and too expensive to manufacture given the practical upper bound on retail price.
With the Internet these physical limitation are nonexistent, thus a description can go on as long as necessary to properly elucidate the topic without any such physical impediments.
The only impediment is intellectual.
Because of cultural requirements, or more properly stated inadequate addressing of cultural requirements, such as to name just two(2): Search Engine Optimization (SEO) and user-learned instant-gratification, we are collectively taking a giant step backwards.
The examples just presented clearly show this. Cliffs Notes, arguably the epitome of summaries, would be more complete. is most illuminating.
Now, the above examples are just a few of the plethora of wrong ways to teach that are being taught. An enumeration of which is so large as to fill the proverbial book. In fact, one of our projects is to create such a compilation. The failures of others as well as oneself is always a good source of lessons. And it should be excellent reading material for our own members.
But having said all this, we would state that it is not intended as a blanket condemnation of the work product of the world. For there are websites of which we would be proud to have created. They will be our competitors.
And after all, despite the illusion of the smallness of the world due to the Internet and modern technology, the world is after all a large place. Six billion plus people is a lot of people-power.
Therefore we cannot say apriori that what we have not yet created shall necessarily be superior to the cream of the crop who are also working hard.
But just as those quality websites and others yet to be created by the six billion plus people do not deserve criticism for the failings of those who have failed, the failures do not deserve passing grades to avoid offending them.
The remaining sectionions shall describe our plan to proceed.
Section_3: An Opportunity Thereby Arising
Whereas in the recent past (say 50 to 100 years) if a topic had been explored an author would not venture into that territory but would rather seek a less traveled path, today, basic knowledge which is often thought to be already readily available, and thus not worthy of regurgitation, is now being sought by more and more people.
The reasons for this increase are multiple, to include the representations above, and complete enumeration is not important. It is possibly initially due to the shift to the Internet.
Next, the society's ever increasing propensity toward instant gratification, rendering the effort required to read a technical manual excessive (in many's eyes).
Yet, due to the inadequacy explored above, those same people are now expending even more effort than they would have had they just sat down and read the manual!
Almost laughably, since people avoid going in any direction that has even the slightest appearance of 'backward', they are not going to obtain the manual that would solve their problem. They are looking for another solution ... our solution.
This presents an incredible opportunity.
Section 4: A Solution Ceasing the Opportunity Coincidentally Eradicating the Problem
Consider a written description of a programming language and further considerations as to whether or not said description fulfills requirements of elucidation:
* For any given programming language, there already exists, usually from the manufacturer, owner, or originator, thorough specifications of the theoretical operation.
thus, the discovery process is trivial.
* The closer to the source the more likely the explanation is theoretical, the further from the source the more likely the explanation represents actual usage.
thus, there exists a range of applicable and useful easily discoverable information.
* Human languages have generally accepted standards for construction and usage.
thus, a variety of literary styles and templates can be created.
* By reading quality produced technical computer manuals, one can immediately garner headings and subheadings which should be applicable to all computer languages. Such as for example: syntax, definition, meaning, usage, examples, etc.
thus, further solidifying a particular literary style.
* From experience, one can meticulously garner additional headings and subheadings which should be applicable to all computer languages. Such as for example: advantages, disadvantages, caveats, implementation deficiencies, levels of difficulty, possible confusion or ambiguities, opinions, recommendations for usage, recommendations for changes and enhancements, etc.
thus, further expanding a particular literary style.
* Whether or not any of the above headings and subheadings are applicable vis-á-vis a specific term being described, is contingent upon the term.
thus, to ascertain the necessity of the specific heading or subheading vis-á-vis the term, look to the term.
* Whether or not any of the above headings and subheadings are addressed vis-á-vis a specific term being described, is contingent upon the description.
thus, to ascertain the fulfillment of the specific heading or subheading vis-á-vis the term, look to the description.
* By division of labor, one separates description from fulfillment.
Notice interestingly and most importantly, it is not the classic separation of 'necessity' from 'fulfillment' nor 'term' from 'description', which is the separation of the beginnings from the ends, but rather, a separation of the ends themselves.
thus, the scholar can concentrate on description, and
Section 5: AEDOK's Paradigm Shift
The classic technique is to separate specification(beginning) from fulfillment(end). But by so doing, the specifying body which establishes the specifications inadvertently relinquishes qualifications to judge the fulfillment of the fulfilling body. After all, have they not hired experts to produced the results? Thus they have admitted their own adequacies, leastwise they would have done it themselves.
We shall not discussed here in detail the plethora of societal problems that have not and shall not be solved due to utilization of this dysfunctional technique.
However, by separating specifications into fact(specification) and theory(necessity) and by separating fulfillment into fact(description) and theory(fulfillment) and having the specifying body concentrate on specification, necessity and fulfillment and having the fulfilling body concentrate on specification, necessity and description a totally different perspective and functionality is produced.detailed analysis and discussion forthcoming
In this way, each body is totally aware of both aspects of the beginning.
The fulfilling body concentrates on the factual aspects of the end, the function for which it is most qualified. The specifying body concentrates on the theoretical aspects of the end, the function for which it is most qualified.
Thus, the fulfilling body concentrates on filling the gap between specification and necessity by comparison to it's description, and the specifying body concentrates on holes in the gap between specification and necessity by comparison to it's specifications.
This is a form of what we call high level thinking. Rather than looking at what one has done with pride and assuming it is perfect, one looks at what one has done with suspicion and assumes it is flawed. There is nothing wrong with pride, but self inflicted blindness is a vice.
These coordinations, using
Suffice it to say, working together we can produced the most useful interactive manuals in the history of the world.
Section 6: An Example Of What We Intend
Below is an example of the quality of presentation that can be created. This example is taken from our
and is itself an excellent learning tool with regard to implementation of the techniques expounded upon in Section 4: A Solution Ceasing the Opportunity Coincidentally Eradicating the Problem, above. Naturally, this is simply version 1.
As mentioned above, naturally, this is version 1 of the technique, and it has been created manually.
But, more importantly, notice that it needs user selectable detail level, for as usual, some of the explanations become verbose when we tack on discussion which is sort of ancellary after description which is essential, and numerous entire dimensions as referred to in Section 4 as subheadings have not even been incorporated.
On the other hand, this example is by its nature at a much higher level than would be a traditional computer manual. In this example, we are explaining precise specifications for a certain implementation and the parameters are interrelated, whereas in a computer manual, the parameters are for the most part unrelated to one another vis-á-vis independent functions, and functionalities. So the format we have utilized here is still a little choppy. It needs some work.
But it is an interesting concept that as one adds more detail and even whole layers of explanation to clarify, sometimes things can actually become more confusing. Surely some of those who have created what we would call simplistic presentations intended for small mobil devices have used this as a reason for their creations, and we do not discredit them for that realization.
A user inclined toward detail should be able to specify options in the user preferences options and settings section to default to maximum detail. He can then soak up the detail and even reduce down for more information. Why? Because one format is not always suitable for all levels of detail. Different formats, not just different levels of expansion/ contraction, mean different content. Thus, more to study.
On the other hand some of the other more summary-inclined formats say, in the middle shall contain as appropriate interestingly enough more comprehensive verbiage, as well as additional examples that apply to the narration.
But we do not live in a binary world!
Education is not either-or. "Simple or advanced", as it is ridiculously referred to. It is, rather, a constant progression towards better understanding of the complex interrelationship of the numerous components, even for the educators.
Section 7: Colossus: The Forbin Project - Revisited
The problems herein discussed are not of specific cause, but rather, are of systemic cause. Mankind, seeking a goal, has gone astray. Which brings us to the title of this section: Colossus: The Forbin Project.
In the 1970 American science fiction thriller movie, (described briefly here in a manor so as to give only a little away for those who missed it), society had decided it wanted to live in peace. A goal. They established a state of the art computer to which they gave unfettered access to all communications networks, all of mankind's prior knowledge, and ... total control over the defensive systems. With but one objective in mind, the goal, the object oriented perspective, it was given a single directive: That Mankind Should Live In Peace.
After being activated, it immediately set upon it's directive, via the object oriented perspective it was designed around. Within hours, it came up with a solution. Total Domination.
Mankind would live in peace, and it would destroy any one, any group, any nation, that got in it's way.
Section 8:
Our point in the above anecdote is to illustrate, that when one separates the goal from the procedure to attain said goal, that provides the opportunity for unspecified variables which exist whether you specify them or not, to vary and progress in an uncontrolled fashion. The quest for knowledge, mankind's quest for knowledge, is the goal here. A goal being diverted from by an error in judgement, towit:
A shift from the 19th and 20th Century methodical procedure oriented perspective to the modern object oriented perspective without proper consideration of the nature of the reality of our very existence.
Quoting from the website php.net which uses a narrative style which we find to be clear and directly to the point throughout much of it's documentation, and replacing the word API with our word in red, perspective:
With a procedural perspective you call functions to carry out tasks, with the object-oriented perspective you instantiate classes and then call methods on the resulting objects. Of the two the latter is usually the preferred interface, as it is more modern and leads to better organized code.
Notice that there were two(2) reasons given with which we agree. As to the first reason, more modern, as discussed above, most people will not willingly go in a direction that appears retro, regardless of or more correctly in spite of any appearance of effectiveness.
As to the second, more organized code certainly a noble sub goal, this is only because a better solution has not heretofore been presented.
But our very existence, a philosophical consideration ignored by the would-be-practical mentality, is dominated by a one(1) dimensional, uni-directional component.
Time
As a consequence, no matter where you are, no matter who you are, no matter how smart you think you are, where ever you are is a specific point along a specific path. And between you and your goal, even a collective goal, is either none(0), one(1) or several, paths. Often interconnecting, usually overlapping and crisscrossing, and as a whole, interacting with one another in a manor to challenge the highest intellect.
This is not fantasy land where problems are solved by referring to objects defined by someone else somewhere else, and following methods which have no visible link to the goals and also defined by someone else somewhere else, but rather by a constant, persistent, daily, and sometimes hourly, analysis, re-analysis, and comparison, of the view of the paths one sees as he progresses along the path that he must progress as a resultant combination of three(3) factors:
where one is,
where one is going, and
which sub-path is choosen when the branch becomes in view.
The fact that we are discussing here computer concepts, documentation, implementation, et al, does not alter this reality or applicability of the philosophical perspective that has just been expounded.
You can be guaranteed that every one of the currently established so called methods derived from the object oriented perspective will be changed, updated, improved upon, and eventually be replaced. So, why? and what has been gained?
The only thing that is gained is the illusion that is created from the obfuscation resultant from dis-embodied methods. An illusion that the problem has been solved, the path (the procedures) has been established, and therefore need not be viewed.
An illusion! Worse than lipstick on a pig, we've added perfume.
Essentually, it is the pretense that someone else has solved the problem and we need not understand, nor take the effort to understand, the actual, real, undeniable, required, and existing, though buried and hidden, procedure to get to the goal.
Procedures are often complex, and require actual effort to comprehend. This is the pretense that all one need do, because he is so busy and short on time, and also because this is the new and improved way to do it, is to learn the method. There is even an element of magic as things just automatically happen as one initiates the method.
This is clearly apparent when one searches out a topic and then examines the introduction which contains definitions that don't define, immediately followed by examples that contain any number of additional terms, references, and syntaxes, not even alluded to much less defined.
So defacto one can not learn the method, he must memorize the method, or that is, some incantation thereof, with a few of the attendent, if, and, and maybe's. And, what ever your area of interest, be it computers, automotive mechanics, gardening, cooking, politics, religion, physics, chemistry, botany, art, poetry, history or the future, ... it matters not.
The object oriented perspective caters to, and indeed flatters and patronizes, the instant gratification propensity, the illusion of knowledge and success earlier discussed, and a carefree attitude, which is not in the long term healthy.
Which brings us back to the why? asked in conjunction with the what? a few paragraphs back.
The reason that:
every one of the currently established so called methods derived from the object oriented perspective will be changed, updated, improved upon, and eventually be replaced.
is because our knowledge is not perfect. An old philosophical concept repeatedly in need of learning by each generation, and indeed, each person. And the pretense of being able to set in stone these object oriented methods only delays the educational process. And indeed, by adding chaos and confusion by the obfuscation actually hinders. Because with each new and improved incantation comes more rote memorization because understanding of the underlying procedures and principles involved has been abandoned.
With time, one refines his view of the path he is on, what ever path that may be, and baring Armageddon, there is a lot more time ahead than behind. As a consequence, nothing is gained by taking the ostensible shortcut of ignoring the procedure and cuting to the method, because there is no understanding, and this endless process of improvement, and therefore alteration, which is going to happen one way or the other anyway, ironically becomes more difficult.
So what is our better solution alluded to above?
First, reality, and this subdivision of reality with which we are dealing, knowledge, is multi-dimensional. And by multi-dimensional we do not mean a few. We are talking about hundreds, thousands, countless numbers of independent dimensions. Indeed, independence is one of the characteristics of a dimension.
But further, these dimensions are for the most part, fragments. Not complete. Not like the three(3) physical dimensions in which we are said to live which are smooth and uniform as far as the eye can see.
And again further, even what ever measure of completeness one has of these dimensions is not necessarily a complete representation of that dimension, just one's knowledge thereof. So, these dimensions are in flux so to speak. The only certainty is the uncertainty, and rather than pretend for some adolescent need for premature finality, the system incorporates this reality and most importantly does not require completeness. The structure represents what one has.
Conveniently however there are layers, planes, which when view from proper angles gives one perspective of an aspect of the interaction of, or at least similarity of the components, the points.
For example, a critique of this open invitation is a dimensional aspect of this letter itself, along with other dimensions such as the dimension of facts, and the dimension of opinions herein. But then associated with that dimension of critique of this open invitation are also those same two(2) dimensions: dimension of facts, and the dimension of opinions.
In other words, is your critique of the facts and opinions expressed herein based upon your facts or your opinions, and more likely, what combination of the four(4), not two(2).
But these dimensions just mentioned are higher level. At the lower level we have the concepts that we are using characters, and the characters form words, the words are grouped together to form sentences, then paragraphs, chapters, and other groupings not necessarily of known style. But unlike in so-called word-processors, which in fact do not process words but only groups of characters, these words have meaning. And that means there are dimensions of interpretation and dimensions of possibility in what might otherwise have started out as fact!
And this is not a parlor game. One of the reasons many things are not clearly understood is because most people don't even know the difference between a fact and an opinion as just mentioned. This problem extends all the way from gossip to higher level and even critical concepts such as global warming.
During the OJ Trial the author had the good fortune to have the time to watch virtually every minute. One day an associate asked, "So is he guilty or not?" The reply was, "The trial is not over and even if it were, there has not been presented enough information to come to a conclusion." With a surprised look the queryer said, "Wow, I bet they'd like to have you on the jury!"
One would hope so. The purpose of a jury is not to satisfy your vengence, it is to come to a definitive conclusion regarding the truth. That too, has been forgotten.
At any rate,
If it is knowledge, it can be represented to the extent that one has that knowledge. And
The starting point because although there is already sufficient knowledge of mankind to assemble, we make no pretense that we have established this functional multidimensional system, for with the introduction of the
To support this scathing commentary on state of the art 21st century computer languages, consider just these two examples.
Computer languages started out with the if statement. Subsequently if else was added. Because nesting if elses can produce a nightmarish structure, the case statement was created, which is essentially a sequence of ifs with the ability to break the sequence with the break statement. Thus producing a customizable if else sequence without the need to realign opening and closing brackets. But the comparative component of the this sequence of ifs is infantile at best. An expression is evaluated once at the beginning of the sequence, and must resolve to a unique value tested for in the de facto individual if. But there is no comparative component in the individual ifs (other than equality), thus violating the reality of what actually occurs. And thus more functionality is actually obtained by a sequence of genuine ifs, but for the lack of the break statement which can be utilized in the case but not in the genuine sequence of ifs, thereby
rendering the case statement more efficient by way of the ability to terminate the sequence of checks, but only because of the functionality of the break not because of the functionality of the case, but the break itself being limited only to certain types of statements without any syntax of its own which could group any number of arbitrary statements. Its creators needing to add only the additional comparative component in the individual if components which would have then rendered case statement even more powerful, the break limitations needing to be resolved independently.
What we see in the above example is a chaotic implementation of cleverness with no concept whatsoever of order and progression and completeness. Adolescent mentality and best, infantile in some cases. A hodgepodge collection of "Oh boy, we could do it this way and everyone will think we are so smart."
There could be any number of actual reasons, but the one we propose being most common being the inability of the creator to see forward from his own creations. Genius without wisdom. That and the sheer laziness taking precedence over the effort required to actually implement an orderly extrapolation.
Finally, syntax itself seems all too often to be improperly extrapolated, but rather, appears to be established only for convenience and then only to the extent of the limited minds perceiving it.
The consequences of this short coming are dramatic. It means one cannot determine a priori by using simple logic what are the constraining syntax at a given location, but rather, one must resort to memorization of the idiosyncrasies of the moment.
Thus we see and are forced to utilize these stumbling block creations of the very smart but very nieve. Intellect developed at most to the point of adolescence. Possessing in some cases keen awareness but no real and comprehensive concept of order.
For primary reasons such as these, we reiterate therefore that the
And as such we desire to deal with living, thinking humans, as we progress. But we are not aloft nor arrogant. Anyone with knowledge (and not necessarily concerned with these tedious computer considerations) and who is sincere is to whom this invitation is intended and with whom we wish to deal.
Addition: Read this excellent analysis of the (even if the author did not have that intention). Keep in mind as you read, that HTML is a Hypertext Mark-Up Language. It was designed FOR authors. And, one would be hard pressed to find a more fundamental aspect of publishing that indentation. Type styles (fonts) might be more fundamental, but even titles are often indented, and he indirectly refers to fonts in the non-uniform way of handling blank space. Yet, there is only chaos.
Section 9: How Your Participation Is Rewarded
The growth and success of the
You can derive revenue from two(2) sources, yourself or
But the genius of our plan is that you need not provide any goods and services yourself in order to be compensated.
For, not only would we receive a portion of your revenue, you receive a portion of ours.
But unlike traditional click-through methodology which gives you a commission on a sale, rendering the lion's share of the revenue to the seller, as he retains all revenue from repeat sales, at the
The implications of this are dramatic.
* You can begin building your customer base (our mutual customer base) the moment you establish your subdomain.
* Even before you establish your presentable website.
* Even before you establish your first web page.
* With absolutely no effort, or requirement on your part.
* The
* Through your own personal advertising and promotions, you can ensure future revenue.
* Suppose for example, you operate in an academic environment. By your personal notification of your friends and associates of your membership in the
* They are locked in as your referrals. To reiterate, as long as they visit your subdomain first by entering thru your subdomain.
* Even if it takes months for you to get your site presentable (though we encourage a
),
any purchase by these individuals of any goods or services thru
* This is true whether they purchase on the first day you notify them, before you have even established any content, or whether it also takes them months to return and make a purchase.
* Further, and most importantly, having once been established as being your referral, it is inconsequential by which method the referral reenters to make a purchase, across any of the
Please take a moment to contemplate the above vis-á-vis traditional click-through arrangements and compensation agreements. Under traditional arrangements:
* First, a visitor would have to see an advertisement on your website.
* Second, that implies that you a have advertisements on your website. Something you might not want to do, and which if you did want to do would take you time and effort to establish. Many scholarly endeavors appear soiled by advertisement placement. We do have self promotions in
* Third, the visitor would have to click the link. Many times a visitor sees an advertisement, takes no action, and then subsequently upon recall of the advertisement goes directly to the site. This deprives you of any commission.
* Forth, many sellers would not give you a portion of the repeat business, although of course multi-levels do, but they generally require that you too periodically make purchases. Purchases which cut into your revenues and provide the constant distraction of repeated revaluation as to the profitability of you're developing website. Such is not a scholarly environment.
But after having said all this, there is yet one more incredibly powerful tool we have deployed.
Suppose you have a website. Naturally everyone who visits your website knows that you were there. Now suppose you have an associate who has a website of his own on a related topic. Can it be said that all visitors that visit his website know that you exist? Of course not!
But with our exclusive
How is this feat accomplished?
At the left of every screen unless collapsed for more efficient content viewing resides the
Only important items are in the
When you become a member, your homepage is placed in the system
Naturally, we'll have a site map and a list of all the sub domains which would include yours. But have you ever gone to a website and tryed to figure out what pages you haven't visited? It is neigh impossible.
But with the
We dare say that no other website in the world can make that claim. And because we don't abuse it with clutter, it is a tremendous asset to your benefit.
So by becoming a member in the
But now a valid question arises, "Why is
The answer lies in the fact that in the right circumstances a smaller portion of a larger number can be larger than a larger portion of a smaller number. We envision long-term value, revenue, and growth. Your scholarly work should attract viewers indefinitely. Over time we should profit greatly, and so should you.
Section 11: Overview of Steps to Participate
First, you select an area, or areas of interest.
For some personalities, it is necessary to concentrate upon a single area, giving it one's full attention and devotion. For other personalities, their mind jumps from one topic to another, with periods of insight and flashes of inspiration. It is not our goal, nor should it be anyone's goal, to try to force various personalities into a set mold. So at the
Second, you establish your domain(s) by .
Enrolling in this program is synonymous with becoming a Level 4 Active Member. You can enroll now or in the future. We do not engage in scare tactics such as, "Don't miss this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity." Short of Armageddon, there will always be a need for scholarly work. Having said that, naturally we encourage you to enroll now. There are undeniable advantages, the primary of which is that you're revenue is not dependent solely upon goods and services you might offer yourselfdiscussed above. And of course, the sooner you begin, the further along we are to achieving our goals.
Third, you select a website format.
We've launched this
The format of the
This 19 frame nested format has been designed to facilitate implementation of the relational search engine mentioned above, but clearly has utility for a plethora of other venues. Any presentation of information in a progressive or a cascading format, in a dynamic setting as one drills down into the information structure.
Or even the less demanding static contexts as the user selects an item from a simple list, which is then presented with numerous support, frames: main content, analyses, examples, citations, images ... the larger the screen the better.
As mentioned, the format seen here is a live demonstration. No need to have a video, when one can see the real thing? Being version 1.0 early release and not even fully implemented, there are gaps. But this should be of no concern to the author.
The significance of
In the final analysis, even our relationally framed SE format nested frameset demonstrated here, though it be impressively functional, is of no real consequence, if inadequate or inappropriate for ones venue, as the author or business can design a frameset tailored precisely to his or its data presentation requirements.
Implementation is effortless.
But why reinvent the wheel?
* Double Letterhead design with reduced
*
, into which you may launch as we have demonstrated here diversions, explanations, comments, and footnotes. But fear not, for utilization of this technique is not mandatory, should your literary style be otherwise. Though
* The remaining screen space being available for the main content window when all other frames are collapsed.
* Uncollapsiblity of the collapsed frames, properly refreshed, when their utilization is required for deeper study. This refresh is automatic if the page is static. Dynamic pages, which may have led to the content page, may utilize our support library to save the context, which is then have available upon reload, for proper reestablishment of that context.
Forth, you select your literary style
We've launched this
The first literary style is: Technical, Computer Languages. Following this style, one need only format what he knows according to a proper heading.
The second literary style is: Free Format. This would be appropriate for literary work consisting of something like history and development of the language, or lessons, or some analyses.
Fifth, you write the web pages.
Each formatted style has a recommended sequence from which you can deviate as you see fit, utilizing the web publishing software package of your own choosing, and familiarity to obtain your desired effect.
It's quite another matter to load a loan page into the proper frame set for which it was designed
But, with your expertise,
* A convenience for our Level 4 Active Members you.
* An asset which we can market via licensing to non-Level 4 Active Members throughout the world.
In this way, your day to day activities of optimization
But, with the entire globe of intellectuals available to us,
Section 12: Summary and Call to Participate
We have concentrated on computer languages because that is our starting point. But there are literally thousands of areas of interest. Your literary area of expertise is our interest. Whether you be a student or a professor. Whether you be self learned or multiple degrees.
And remember, you might be just, for example, a beginning student in engineering but an expert in photography! Or, maybe you like getting your fingernails dirty and are a mechanic or gardener. Turn that knowledge into a working asset.
For those of you who already have a thriving website and wish to keep the lions portion to yourself, we understand. That's why we have other plans and percentage split arrangements (shown above with the link and shown here again for your convenience) which allow you to still benefit from the advantages of being part of our organization.
Remember, your homepage is in the
And finally, whether you are just starting out, or have a thriving business in a none intellectual area, that's why we have AEDOK.net. Similar financial arrangements, only less structured, and that is why we have separated the intellectual activities from the purely commercial.
In conclusion, we thank you for taking the time to read this open letter and invite you to participate and become a member of the
