This is my dynamic, frequently updated homepage. This is a NewsLog, also known as a WebLog or Blog.
Everything is evolving, so don't assume too much.
People to watch:
Adina Levin
Andrius Kulikauskas
Britt Blaser
Catherine Austin Fitts
Chris Corrigan
Clay Shirky
Dan Gillmor
Dave Pollard
David Allen
David Weinberger
Dewayne Mikkelson
Dina Mehta
Doc Searls
Elisabet Sahtouris
Elizabeth Lawley
Euan Semple
Florian Brody
Frank Patrick
Gen Kenai
George Dafermos
George Por
Graham Hancock
Greg Elin
Hazel Henderson
Heiner Benking
Inspector Lohman
Jean Houston
Jerry Michalski
Jim McGee
Jim Moore
John Abbe
John Perry Barlow
John Robb
Joi Ito
Jon Husband
Jon Lebkowsky
Jon Udell
Jonathan Peterson
Judith Meskill
Julian Elvé
Julie Solheim
Kevin Marks
Lawrence Lessig
Leif Smith
Letecia Layson
Lilia Efimova
Lisa Rein
Marc Canter
Mark Oeltjenbruns
Mark Pilgrim
Mark Woods
Martin Dugage
Martin Roell
Mary Forest
Matt Mower
Max Sandor
Michael Fagan
Mike Owens
Mikel Maron
Mitch Kapor
Mitch Ratcliffe
Nathalie dArbeloff
Netron
Noam Chomsky
Paul Hughes
Peter Kaminski
Phil Wolff
Philippe Beaudoin
Ray Ozzie
Raymond Powers
Rebecca Blood
Roger Eaton
Roland Tanglao
Ross Mayfield
Scott Lemon
Sebastian Fiedler
Sebastien Paquet
Skip Lancaster
Spike Hall
Steven Johnson
Stuart Henshall
Thomas Burg
Thomas Madsen-Mygdal
Thomas Nicholls
Timothy Wilken
Todd Suomela
Tom Atlee
Tom Munnecke
Tom Tomorrow
Ton Zijlstra
Lionel Bruel
Loic Le Meur
Nancy White
Mark Frazier
Merlin Silk
Robert Paterson
Colby Stuart
Nova Spivack
Dan Brickley
Ariane Kiss
Vanessa Miemis
Bernd Nurnberger
Sites to watch:
Webcamorama
Space Collective
Rhizome
Openworld
NotThisBody
Junto
Escape Velocity
Emergent by Design
Do No Harm
Collective Web
Collective Intelligence
Absara
YES Magazine
WorldChanging
ThoughtsOnThinking
Smart Mobs
Nanodot
MetaFilter
Manufacturing Dissent
Independent Media
Imaginify
HeadMap
Greater Democracy
Global Ideas Bank
FutureHi
Friendly Favors
Free Expression Network
Forbidden Science
Explorers Foundation
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Edge
Disinformation
Disinfopedia
Disclosure Project
Co-intelligence Institute
BoingBoing
Action without borders
French:
Emmanuelle
Manur
Elanceur
Loeil de Mouche
IokanaaN
Blog d'Or
Le Petit Calepin
GeeBlog
Absara
Guillaume Beuvelot
Ming Chau
Serge Levan
Jean Michel Billaut
C'est pas Mécanique
I live in Toulouse, France where the time now is:
01:00
Unique Readers:
Primarily
Public Domain
Everything I've written here is dedicated to the
Public Domain.
The quotes from other people's writings, and the pictures used might or might not be copyrighted, but are considered fair use. Thus, overall, this weblog could best be described as being:
Primarily Public Domain. |
Syndication:
 
|
Tuesday, January 10, 2006 | |
|
|
Jaron Lanier: The Gory Antigora. A brilliant essay about the net. Like how we both find examples of the Agora, the ideal democratic collaborative sharing space, and what he calls the Antigora, where somebody mangages to set up huge, efficient profit-making machines built upon the ownership of their proprietary core. And how we in many ways seem to need both, and one builds on the other, in ways that sometimes are rather invisible.
He also laments how we lock ourselves into paradigms that aren't necessarily the best, but that become very stuck. You know, stuff like "files" and "desktops", and the ways we make software, which remains, as he calls it, "brittle". We still make software based on principles that mean it either works more or less 100% or it doesn't work at all. Which makes it all rather fragile, hard to change, and requiring lots of invisible unpaid work at the periphery to make it appear to be working. If you actually accounted for the work people spend in trying to keep their windows computers free of viruses, or trying to solve dumb problems with their software, it would add to up to being outrageously ridiculously expensive. Which it is. But it is still being used because a lot of people voluntarily make up for the gap between what it is supposed to do and what is actually going on. There is no recognition for this effort, nor is there much individual latitude in how it is to be accomplished. In an Antigora, the participants at the periphery robotically engage in an enormous and undocumented amount of mandatory drudgery to keep the Antigora going. Digital systems as we know how to make them could not exist without this social order.
There is an important Thoreau-like question that inevitably comes up: What's the point? The common illusion that digital bits are free-standing entities, that would exist and remain functional even if there were no people around to use them, is unfortunate. It means that people are denied the epiphany that the edifice of the Net is precisely the generosity and warmth of humanity connecting with itself.
The most technically realistic appraisal of the Internet is also the most humanistic one. The Web is neither an emergent intelligence that transcends humanity, as some (like George Dyson) have claimed, nor a lifeless industrial machine. It is a conduit of expression between people. And that is sort of the conclusion. It is really not about technology or economics, it is really all about culture and the playing of an infinite game. [ Knowledge | 2006-01-10 22:55 | | PermaLink ] More >
|
|
Friday, January 6, 2006 | |
|
|
Edge asks the Annual Question to a bunch of smart people. Last year they asked "What do you believe is true even though you cannot prove it?" Here is what I wrote about that. A great question. But, in short, it was a bit surprising how narrow-minded a lot of the answers were. This year the question is "What is your dangerous idea?" An equally great question, trying to inspire people to give their outside-the-box thinking, their most potent ideas that might change everything. At least that's how I would like to define "dangerous" in this context. Something that can upset the status quo catastrophically, but in a good and interesting way. Not all of them use it like that.
A lot of the answers are interesting in various ways. But most of them are not very dangerous. They stay within very safe territory for scientists. And, actually, the underlying subtext is the same as last year for a lot of them. It is obvious that for a lot of these guys THE most dangerous ideas in the world are Religion, God and Consciousness. Meaning, they bend over backwards to insist that it is insane to believe in a God, and that it is a hopeless fantasy to imagine that you actually exist, as anything other than some chemical processes in a brain. And that what we really ought to accept, if we thought it through properly, is that everything is the result of unconscious evolutionary processes, we have no free will, and life is without meaning. Great.
There's a certain kind of circular reasoning that many materialist scientists suffer from, which is similar to religious reasoning like "God exists because the Bible says so, and the Bible is true because God wrote it." But here you find it in versions like John Horgan mentions in connection with his idea "We Have No Souls":"In his 1994 book The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul, the late, great Francis Crick argued that the soul is an illusion perpetuated, like Tinkerbell, only by our belief in it." You know, like, "You don't really exist, you just think you do!". To some people that sounds really clever, and there's no Logic 101 that will make apparent the craziness of such argumentation. Who's the "we" who have beliefs? Who's the agency that wonders whether it exists or not? Who is it that is unsure whether it has free will or not? It is just an illusion? Just a chemical reaction in a brain? Who's concluding that? Is it just turtles all the way down?
There are, however, some nice entries from people who don't just fall into the same circular reasoning trap. Like, Rudy Rucker, with the idea "Mind is a universally distributed quality"Panpsychism. Each object has a mind. Stars, hills, chairs, rocks, scraps of paper, flakes of skin, molecules — each of them possesses the same inner glow as a human, each of them has singular inner experiences and sensations.
I'm quite comfortable with the notion that everything is a computation. But what to do about my sense that there's something numinous about my inner experience? Panpsychism represents a non-anthropocentric way out: mind is a universally distributed quality.
Yes, the workings of a human brain are a deterministic computation that could be emulated by any universal computer. And, yes, I sense more to my mental phenomena than the rule-bound exfoliation of reactions to inputs: this residue is the inner light, the raw sensation of existence. But, no, that inner glow is not the exclusive birthright of humans, nor is it solely limited to biological organisms.
Note that panpsychism needn't say that universe is just one mind. We can also say that each object has an individual mind. One way to visualize the distinction between the many minds and the one mind is to think of the world as a stained glass window with light shining through each pane. The world's physical structures break the undivided cosmic mind into a myriad of small minds, one in each object. There are some folks who actually can engage in a bit of self-criticism as scientists, and think about where scientific beliefs really come from. Like Marcelo Gleiser in "Can Science Explain Itself?":What if this is all bogus? What if we look at science as a narrative, a description of the world that has limitations based on its structure? The constants of Nature are the letters of the alphabet, the laws are the grammar rules and we build these descriptions through the guiding hand of the so-called scientific method. Period. To say things are this way because otherwise we wouldn't be here to ask the question is to miss the point altogether: things are this way because this is the story we humans tell based on the way we see the world and explain it. Or, Thomas Metzinger, in "The Forbidden Fruit Intuition":Is there a set of questions which are dangerous not on grounds of ideology or political correctness, but because the most obvious answers to them could ultimately make our conscious self-models disintegrate? Can one really believe in determinism without going insane? Some present the revolutionary idea that scientists might just need to actually catch up to what science already has established, like "Carlo Rovelli" in "What the physics of the 20th century says about the world might in fact be true". You know, if quantum mechanics actually were how we experienced the world to work, rather than just some bizarre math equations.
Stephen Kosslyn goes the furthest in "A Science of the Divine", to present a way to reconcile science and religion:Here's an idea that many academics may find unsettling and dangerous: God exists. And here's another idea that many religious people may find unsettling and dangerous: God is not supernatural, but rather part of the natural order. Simply stating these ideas in the same breath invites them to scrape against each other, and sparks begin to fly. To avoid such conflict, Stephen Jay Gould famously argued that we should separate religion and science, treating them as distinct "magisteria." But science leads many of us to try to understand all that we encounter with a single, grand and glorious overarching framework. In this spirit, let me try to suggest one way in which the idea of a "supreme being" can fit into a scientific worldview. There's a surprising entry from Michael Nesmith, you know, from "The Monkees", who eloquently argues that "Existence is Non-Time, Non-Sequential, and Non-Objective", and I think I agree.
Several people talk along the lines of Andy Clark's "The quick-thinking zombies inside us" about how most of our decision making, our "free will", really happens at a sub-conscious level, in ways we don't at all understand, so we fool ourselves concerning how much in control we are.
Several people argue for free market economies. Get governments out of the way, and let the invisible hand of the free market sort things out.
Which is an underlying theme here. Humans having figured out that there are complex mechanisms that make things happen. Complex mechanisms that make our decisions. Complex mechanisms that carry on the evolution of life. Complex mechanisms that make economies work. More complex than we simple humans easily can understand. More smart and efficient than any of us consciously can be.
But at the same time we here have a number of well-respected big names in science who claim that they've understood all of that well enough to conclude decisively that these complex mechanisms that are smarter than us aren't intelligent at all. They're just simple random processes with no meaning or purpose or intelligence, that came together completely randomly for no good reason. Confused? Well, you should be. You need to become good at circular reasoning to explain that away.
The real dangerous idea, which most people with scientific credentials apparently are afraid of thinking, is, in my words:
Life the universe and everything is all one system, which is self-organizing, intelligent and eternal. There's no outside to it. Nothing is separate from it. Whatever happens inside of it happens because it is in its nature to happen. It has no outside meaning, but it can create meaning. Its latent qualities might or might not get expressed, but when they do, it is because they're there. So, if something finds itself having self-reflective consciousness, it is because the whole system possesses the potential quality of self-reflective consciousness. Duh. If oxygen and hydrogen mix and become water, that's because they already had the property of being able to do so. If something evolves, it is because the system knows how to evolve. If something is alive, it is because the system is alive. If somewhere in the system time and space exists, and at some "time" a scientist evolves and he decides that he has understood it all and it is all really dumb and random and meaningless and consciousness only exists in brains, except for that it doesn't really exist, well, he's right, makes no difference. It is all natural. Luckily it isn't that scientist, or some guy with a grey beard on a mountain, who's responsible for keeping the whole system working, or it really wouldn't last long. The whole system is much smarter than any brain that comes along at some point and has a short-lived fit of self-importance. Doesn't matter what you call it. You can call it God, or Universe, or Physics, or Nature, Evolution or Mind or Consciousness. It is you, buddy! If you think not, you've become a bit confused by derivatives of your own abstract thoughts. Take a step back and touch Reality. Be conscious. Be very conscious! But don't get cocky. That little point of self-reflective awareness that you identify with, and which is enough to spin yourself into circles, is way, way, way smaller and more ephemeral than the big you who is all of existence, all of evolving spacetime, any dimension, any physical phenomenon, any potential phenomenon, all simultaneously, all forever. It is a lot smarter at running things than your little localized conscious focal point. You're not in control. But if you catch a ride on natural law, and go with the flows, you can go far, very quickly. Because the system works really well. It is self-regenerating. It is open source.
Well, that was my rant. But that maybe doesn't give you anything very practical to do with it. A truly dangerous worldchanging idea would be a meme you let loose, and it just breaks down the old fixed structures, and it guides the self-organization of something new and better. They don't come along all that often, but when they do, it doesn't really matter much what you think about it, as it pretty much happens by itself. It might be time for some ideas that actually change how we perceive ourselves and the world, where nothing will be the same again.
Lots of people have commented on the Edge dangerous ideas thing. Like, I just noticed Dave Pollard's Blinded by Science. He wasn't very impressed either with the dangerousness of those ideas, and he has some alternative suggestions. [ Knowledge | 2006-01-06 00:49 | | PermaLink ] More >
|
|
Sunday, January 1, 2006 | |
|
|
Xooglers is a blog by a couple of ex-Google employees, who share their experiences. Which is fascinating. I read it from one end to the other. They don't have anything particularly bad to say. Rather, they have a bunch of great things to say. Interesting is that this is a couple of very smart people, but still they feel that they didn't entirely measure up to working for Google. Particularly one of them, who was a venerated rocket scientist Ph.D. at JPL, but at Google he rather felt himself to be in the lower 25%, prone to screw up and just not measure up to everybody else. Which mostly says something about the quality of people working at Google. Maybe I'm glad they didn't want me. I don't like being one of the stupid guys. [ Information | 2006-01-01 22:05 | | PermaLink ] More >
|
|
|
Dion Hinchcliffe selected the Best of Web 2.0 software in 2005. A fabulous list of great online software. And you probably don't know all of them. My own favorite on the list is Protopage. [ Information | 2006-01-01 22:18 | | PermaLink ] More >
|
|
Friday, December 23, 2005 | |
|
|
I was worried that the French government would push through the worst copyright law in the world, making the use of several kinds of open source software an offense with serious prison terms. Now read this article. Seems like it is going in quite the opposite direction. The French Parliament voted last night to allow free sharing of music and movies on the Internet, setting up a conflict with both the French government and with media companies.
If the amendment survives, France would be the first country to legalize so called peer-to-peer downloading, said Jean-Baptiste Soufron, legal counsel to the Association of Audionautes, a French group that defends people accused of improperly sharing music files.
The law would be a blow to media companies that increasingly use the courts worldwide to sue people for downloading or sharing music and movie files. Entertainment companies such as Walt Disney Co., Viacom Inc. and News Corp.'s Fox say free downloading of unauthorized copies of TV shows and movies before they are released on DVD will cost them $5 billion in revenue this year. In other words, it is a big fuck-you from the French parliament to the government and the media industry. Note that none of this actually has gone through yet, but this is a very good sign that one can't just sneak through crazy anti-consumer laws here without anybody noticing. [ Politics | 2005-12-23 03:35 | | PermaLink ] More >
|
|
Thursday, December 22, 2005 | |
|
|
This server here is due for a change, and it looks like today's the day. Well, as soon as I've worked out a few annoying details, that is.
The old server is hosted in the data center of a company I used to work for, more than a year ago. They're nice people, but they might easily forget about it, and need to take it down some day with a moment's notice. Actually I'm sure the people who let me have a server there have forgotten all about it, even though I've made very sure the sysadmin hasn't. And, you know, it is a big operation with hundreds of servers, and a number of them are just standing around, forgotten, because they were replaced with something better at some point, and nobody bothered to dismantle the old one.
But I can't keep leaching on their bandwidth forever, and, more importantly, the server has started to run slower the last couple of months, and most likely one of the disks is on the verge of giving up. So, it seems to be time to move on.
I have two other servers, but it would get a little too crowded to combine them, so I went looking for a new hosting deal.
A dedicated root server goes for around $100 per month nowadays. However, the pricing plans vary enormously between different companies, and they frequently leave out something important in the cheaper deals, and suddenly you need to pay a couple hundred dollars more to have the one with more memory or with any meaningful bandwidth quota.
My two other servers are with 1and1 and 1-800-hosting. I got the 800 hosting server first, and at the time the only server I'd be able to pay for would be with 512MB of RAM. Now, that's more or less a mistake, but I needed the server at the time. But 512MB is way too little for any serious server. Oh, it is fine for static web pages and images, but very skimpy when it needs to do mainly dynamic pages with lots of database access. But they provide lots of bandwidth, 1800GB per month, and they have excellent service.
1-and-1 says they're the biggest hosting company in the world, and they certainly know their stuff too. A 2GB server from them, with 1000GB of bandwidth, and that's more useful for some serious activity. They're rather cumbersome to deal with, however. Their U.S. company only wants to provide servers to people who're in the U.S., so one had to give a U.S. address and phone number and they will actually call back that phone number right away, to check that one really is there. OK, I can manage that, but it is a bit annoying. And, half of the time, if I call them or send them an e-mail from outside the U.S., they'll complain about it. And they had various other bureaucratic obstacles to put in one's way. But nothing wrong with the server.
Now, when I looked for the next server, I was surprised to find that the best deals are in Germany. Like, 1and1 has their mother company in Germany, with fantastic deals. Mirrorred RAID drives, unlimited bandwidth, 2GB RAM, etc. But their signup forms make it equally difficult to sign up unless one is in Germany and pays with a German bank transfer.
I don't know what is going on in Germany for them to compete so much on server prices. I'd expect to find good deals in the U.K. but I found nothing I could use. There are some cheap servers, but that would be with 512MB RAM and 50GB traffic per month, and if you want more it adds hundreds of dollars, or pounds, rather. 1-and-1 is in the U.K. too, but they charge more there. And nothing useful in France, or the Netherlands, or Denmark, or other places I'd consider.
So, I ended up with Server4you in Düsseldorf, Germany. A branch of a U.S. company. I don't know what it is with the cheesy company names (Server4you, 1-800-hosting), but as long as they know what they're doing, I'm fine.
The server I got has an AMD Opteron 148 processor, 3GB of RAM, 2x200GB mirrored SCSI drives, 6000GB monthly traffic, for 79 euro per month. And after two years they'll send me the server in the mail. Can't beat that.
The only thing is that they speak German. My German is getting very old, and stuttering myself through a support call with them isn't overly easy. Luckily there isn't too much I should need them for.
Anyway, I'm speeding up the moving schedule, as the old server is getting a lot of traffic, and it is acting up a little too frequently, particularly when I sleep.
I have the content all replicated, so mainly what is in my way right now is that I decided to change mail server programs at the same time. From Sendmail to Postfix. Incoming mail traffic had started to consume a sizable percentage of the CPU, and I need something more efficient. But a whole bunch of things have to change at the same time. The server has many mail accounts and many mailing lists, and mail will be stored in different format (Maildir rather than Mailbox format), so a lot of things have to be converted.
Anyway, I'll get back to work. If all goes well, nobody should notice anything. But a bit of downtime wouldn't be completely unlikely. [ Diary | 2005-12-22 18:08 | | PermaLink ] More >
|
|
Wednesday, December 14, 2005 | |
|
|
Ruby on Rails 1.0 was released yesterday.
Grrr, I have too little time.
I had heard about Ruby and Ruby on Rails for quite some time, but didn't get around to looking more closely before recently.
Ruby is an elegant object-oriented language created in Japan some years ago by Yukihiro Matsumoto. I had looked at it several times, but however good it sounded, there really has to be an exceptional reason for changing the language one programs in. The biggest value is usually in knowing one's tools really well, as opposed to just changing everything whenever another language or platform comes along with slightly better features.
As far as the web is concerned, I first made programs in Perl, because that was basically the obvious choice in 1995. I did shopping cart programs, chat programs, and various other things. But Perl is just too damned cryptic, and I never felt overly comfortable with it.
Then PHP started happening, and it just seemed so much more practical to be able to embed code directly into webpages, and it was more clean and straightforward. So, I switched without much hesitation. Since then I've done hundreds of thousands of lines of PHP code, and PHP has grown into the most widespread solution for coding for webpages.
I've looked at other things in-between. Like Python. More of a "real" language, in that it makes it easier to make clean and well-structured programs that are easy to maintain. But that in itself wasn't enough to switch. But then I looked at Zope, which is a fabulous content management system and development framework, which makes a lot of hard things easier, and which is supported by loads of available modules. I was excited by that, and wanted to switch all my work to Zope. But after a couple of projects, I just felt kind of stupid. If I just used the pre-packaged modules, it was a piece of cake, but in developing new stuff, I just ended up not really grasping the "Zope Way". The people developing the core stuff are obviously super-smart, but so much so that I couldn't easily follow what they were talking about. So I ended up not going any further with that.
Now, Ruby on Rails is a framework built on top of Ruby. It could have been done in other languages, but Ruby lends itself very well to the purpose. It is developed, initially single-handedly, by David Heinemeier Hansson, a young Danish developer. Who is obviously also super-smart, but who additionally has a knack for making things extremely simple, and for just doing everything right. It supports the best practices for development, it supports most things that currently are cool and happening, like Ajax, it is well structured, easy to test, easy to deploy, etc. And with Ruby on Rails you don't pride yourself on how many lines of code you've written and how long it has taken, but quite the opposite. You'll brag about having written some major application in a few weeks, with just a few thousand lines of code.
Rails is built on a fixed, but flexible structure, or pattern, rather, called MVC. Model, View, Controller. The models keep track of the data, connect with databases, validate the data, and store the business rules for the data. The controllers receive requests from the users for doing different kinds of actions. The views are templates for what is presented to the user. That's nothing really new, but it is a good way of organizing an application. One could do that in PHP, but typically one doesn't. Now, Rails enforces a certain structure. There's a set of directories where these various things are stored, and there are certain naming conventions for what they're called. That some of these things are set and known in advance is in part what makes it very simple. A Rails principle is "Convention over Configuration". If we know that the model is always found in the models directory, and that it is named to correspond to the database table, and a few other conventions, we suddenly have little need for configuration files that define where things are and what goes with what.
Another basic principle is "Don't Repeat Yourself" (DRY). Meaning, one should really only do something once. If you have a rule that says that you can not order more than 10 of a given item, there should be one and only one place to say that. Most programmers would want to follow a rule like that, but in most systems it is hard to stay true to it in practice. Not so with Rails, as there typically already is one right place to store that item, so there's no doubt about it.
The online video demos for Rails are mind-blowing. You know, like write a simple weblog program in 15 minutes. If you just want to try Ruby itself, here's a great little interactive tutorial.
Well, I haven't gotten much further than installing Ruby and Rails on my machine and going through a few tutorials. But I'm very impressed, and I think this probably will be a way I'll go.
I'm an expert at PHP programming, and I've done a number of fairly impressive things. But it tends to end up being a bit of a mess. You can do a quick thing in PHP really, really quickly. But a complex program in PHP is very complex. And after you've done it, you discover that there isn't any very good way of testing it, and things break whenever you change something. And everybody does things a little differently, so if you get the job of changing something in somebody else's program, it usually looks like a big pile of spaghetti, however cleverly it might have been written.
I just spoke with one of the people from a company I worked with for several years, developing big things in PHP. I had wondered why I hadn't heard from them for a few months. Turned out that in the meantime they had converted their whole operation to Rails, and they are extremely happy with it, and everything was much easier. That's some folks with very high-volume websites and a few dozen servers. And no wonder they don't need me any more.
Luckily Ruby and Rains are so relatively simple that one can become an expert faster than in various other arenas. Oh, it is not a complete no-brainer, either. Rails can seem a bit intimidating at first. No graphical interface or anything. You're editing text files and running command-line utilities. The productivity mainly starts when one is fluent with all the basic pieces, and one intuitively knows where things go.
Anyway, the best places to learn are the two main bibles, which are lying right here next to me. Programming Ruby and Agile Web Development with Rails. You can read them online too, for that matter.
Ruby and Rails are often connected with "agile" or "pragmatic" programming. These are keywords for modern methods of fast and flexible development which are very different from the traditional slow and linear methods. You know, traditionally one would learn to develop software according to a certain Structured Development Life Cycle (SDLC) approach, which involves copious amounts of formal proposals, specifications, etc. You know, first a committee of people would do feasibility studies, then it would go to an analyst who would make models and specs, etc. And the programmers would be told what to do, essentially. And when they discover that it isn't a great idea to do it that way, or when, later, one discovers that it wasn't really what was needed, it is a bit cumbersome to change. The Agile, Pragmatic or Extreme approach would rather be to go very light on the specs and analysis, and get down to work ASAP, but to do it very quickly, with very short incremental phases, like daily updates, and to do it, as much as possible WITH the stakeholders who need the result. Like, preferably sit down with the end users, and change stuff and show them right away. One could theoretically do that with any language, like PHP, although it isn't easy, and one would probably be crazy to hope to do that with Java or C++. But if you're working with a framework that all the way through is geared towards working like that, it comes much more naturally.
Anyway, I could sure use a 10X productivity boost. And right now Rails looks like the most likely candidate in the programming arena. Plus, I want to be cool too. [ Programming | 2005-12-14 15:15 | | PermaLink ] More >
|
|
|
Stanley "Tookie" Williams was executed in St.Quentin last night. He was the founder of the Crips gang, and was convicted for having killed 4 people, even though he claimed his innocence. I can't judge whether he actually did it or not. But it is a shame because he seemed to be a reformed man who had become a great activist. The most stirring comment I read is from Doc Searls who just happened to be staying in a house overlooking St.Quentin at the time. Governor Schwarzenegger had denied clemency to Williams, in part for these reasons: The dedication of Williams' book "Life in Prison" casts significant doubt on his personal redemption. This book was published in 1998, several years after Williams¹ claimed redemptive experience. Specifically, the book is dedicated to "Nelson Mandela, Angela Davis, Malcolm X, Assata Shakur, Geronimo Ji Jaga Pratt, Ramona Africa, John Africa, Leonard Peltier, Dhoruba Al-Mujahid, George Jackson, Mumia Abu-Jamal, and the countless other men, women, and youths who have to endure the hellish oppression of living behind bars." The mix of individuals on this list is curious. Most have violent pasts and some have been convicted of committing heinous murders, including the killing of law enforcement.
But the inclusion of George Jackson on this list defies reason and is a significant indicator that Williams is not reformed and that he still sees violence and lawlessness as a legitimate means to address societal problems.
There is also little mention or atonement in his writings and his plea for clemency of the countless murders committed by the Crips following the lifestyle Williams once espoused. The senseless killing that has ruined many families, particularly in African-American communities, in the name of the Crips and gang warfare is a tragedy of our modern culture. One would expect more explicit and direct reference to this byproduct of his former lifestyle in Williams¹ writings and apology for this tragedy, but it exists only through innuendo and inference.
Is Williams' redemption complete and sincere, or is it just a hollow promise? Stanley Williams insists he is innocent, and that he will not and should not apologize or otherwise atone for the murders of the four victims in this case. Without an apology and atonement for these senseless and brutal killings there can be no redemption. In this case, the one thing that would be the clearest indication of complete remorse and full redemption is the one thing Williams will not do. And here's Doc's comment: I haven't read any of Williams' books. I don't know if he has redeemed himself. And I am not a lawyer.
But it seems to me the governor is making a political judgement here, and not just a legal one; especially in respect to George Jackson, a charismatic Black Panther considered by many a martyr after he was shot in prison.
I would find the governor's clemency denial much easier to take if he had confined his remarks to the facts of the case, and said Williams should die, as the courts ordered, for the cold-blooded murder of four people. But he didn't. He gave Williams a fatal book review.
And a shallow one at that. Did the governor read past the dedications? He's right. That's outrageous. Sent a man to his death because he mentioned a black panther favorably in the credits of his book. A fatal book review indeed. [ Politics | 2005-12-14 15:46 | | PermaLink ] More >
|
|
Saturday, December 3, 2005 | |
|
|
Cory Doctorow on BoingBoing: France may soon enact the worst copyright law in Europe, sneaking it through in a legislative session scheduled for December 22 and 23.
Europe's equivalent to the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is a controversial directive called the EUCD. Each EU state is responsible for implementing the minimum set of EUCD restrictions (which are far from minimal!) but each state can exceed the minimum, and the entertainment lobby pushes hard to see to it that they do. They've run amok in France, subverting the lawmaking process with a farcical wish-list of penalties, mandates and software bans.
Copyfighters in France have published a detailed alert in French; what follows is a loose, machine-assisted translation (substantive corrections gladly sought):
* A prohibition on all software that permits transmission [disposition is unclear without greater context] of copyrighted material that does not integrate both a watermark and DRM
* A prohibition on marketing or advertising such software
* These prohibitions include legal sanctions
* DRM mandates for digital radio transmission
* A universal wiretapping system for private communication [This is defined elsewhere as a system to check for, say, music files attached to email messages, and not one that would violate the "secret of private correspondence".]
* Creation of a universal filtering system for all ISPs
Summary in French here, and there's a petition one can sign against it. Very disappointing to see the French government in the pocket of multi-national media companies.
Read a news article here. Note that the law being proposed would make the publishing of free software a criminal offense. The government threatens to sue anybody who openly publishes their source code. [ Politics | 2005-12-03 12:49 | | PermaLink ] More >
|
|
Friday, December 2, 2005 | |
|
|
As a webmaster I regularly receive requests to remove some kind of copyright-infringing material somebody has posted. I've never gotten anything for my own blog, but it has happened often for other's blogs. Usually it is an artist who objects to somebody posting one of their pictures. And typically is is stupid of them to object, as it usually is some kind of "Here's a lovely painting from ___ and here's a link to their site". Which really is excellent free promotion for the artist. But many artists seem to be not understand how the web works, so for inexplicable reasons they'd rather be unknown and in control than have lots of people freely mention their stuff. Anyway, typically they ask relatively nicely and the "offending" material gets removed quickly.
But now, I also have this Opentopia site, which has a lot of content that's copied from other places. Mainly places that have a license that allows it. Like, Wikipedia and Open Directory. And at some point I included a lot of articles from GoArticles. It is a site where people can upload articles in any of a number of categories, which are meant to be useful and informative somehow. They're posted with a license that says that anybody can repost them, as long as the footer with the author's information is included. Most of these articles aren't exactly great, but they're somewhat informative. The posters usually put them up for some self-promoting reason, to be able to mention their website, or book, or whatever.
I hadn't really thought of all the people who would contact me based on this content. I was mainly focused on getting some free content, and then thinking about ways of adding value to it, when I got around to it. But quite a few people write to get things corrected. Or, a few suddenly decide they don't like their article to be used by anyone. Usually they include some kind of onerous wording about copyright infringement, but typically they ask fairly nicely, and I just remove their stuff, a little puzzled about why they bothered to post it in the first place, if they didn't want it out there.
The latest one got my attention a little more than normally. A guy named "Kriss Hammond" sends a message with the subject line "Lawsuit against Opentopia.com", and which goes like this:Please remove all links or other refeence regarding Jetsetters Magazine back to your websites or blog. Please remove all feature stories from Jetsetters Magazine from your websites. Do not reference any of Jetsetters Magazine features within your websites.
We plan a ten million dollar lawsuit against your company unless all links to your sites are removed. Do not use Jetsetters Magazine material in your blogs or as an RSS feed. U.C.C. 1-207 We reserve all our rights without prejudice. We have legal representation to handle this matter. Thank you for removing any material from any of our sites from your sites, including www.jetsettersmagazine.com www.beachbooker.com or www.jetstreams.com or www.cabinweb.com
Ten MILLION dollars, wow, that's quite impressive. I'm really scared! Actually, I laughed out loud.
At first I thought it maybe was one of those magazines you get in planes, and somebody had copied some article without asking permission. But then I looked at the articles in question, and I looked around a little on the web, and saw that it was something quite different.
Kriss Hammond calls himself "The Travel Professor", and he runs some outfit that shows people how to get cheap travel, if they just pose as travel journalists and write articles about the sites and hotels and restaurants they go to. And each article must promote Hammond's site. And apparently they post these on any site they can think of that will take submitted articles. Which essentially that acts as his advertising.
Why he then suddenly doesn't want the articles is a bit puzzling. I looked through my article database and found that there were 162 of his articles, all following the same model, all with the same ad for Jetsetters Magazine at the bottom. So, I deleted all of them. Good riddance.
And I realized that the guy was just responding to Google listings. He sent me several identical messages, with a different Google listing in each one. He was threatening a 10 million dollar lawsuit to anybody who mentioned his own website. Strange. Usually that means one has something big to hide somewhere.
And I think I'm getting it. Among highly placed entries in Google we find blogs presenting a little bit of an exposee of Hammond's possibly questionable business operation. So I think he decided to just write and threaten anybody who says anything about him, without even noticing that some of them were his own promotional articles. Not too smart. I would never have cared the slightest bit who he was if he hadn't done it in such a ridiculous manner. I'd still be providing him with 162 promotional articles, and I wouldn't have been writing this little thing here.
Anyway, a professional travel writer named Carl Parkes had written in his blog a post originally entitled "The Jetsetters Scam". You can now find it in this version: The Jetsetters Story. Parkes changed a couple of words, because Hammond started sending his famous "10 million dollar lawsuit" thing to anybody and everybody. The company that made the blogger template he was using, to Google, and to who knows who.
Read follow-ups: here, here, here, here, and well, there's more after that. Parkes wisely shifts over into posting general good information about travel writer scams, fake publishing houses, etc.
Below you can see one of the letters Hammond sends out to people who're interested in his Travel Writers Network. And you can see his business plan at work there. You pay $300 for membership in his network, and he provides you with templates for how you can present yourself as a travel writer to hotels around the world, and, I assume, get cheap or free rooms, meals, etc. And then you promise to write those articles, mentioning Jetsetters Magazine as much as possible.
Is that a scam? Not necessarily. It sounds kind of questionable. But, yes, for it to be a scam, there'd have to be some victims somewhere. The hotels maybe?
But I'd say that nobody goes around threatening to sue everybody who talks about them unless they have something to hide. You be the judge. [ Diary | 2005-12-02 21:53 | | PermaLink ] More >
|
|
Thursday, December 1, 2005 | |
|
|
I just glanced at the e-mail stats for my server. I personally got 94,917 e-mails during the month of November. That's over 3000 per day. 1018MB of "data" for the month.
It's mostly spam, of course. Judging by my spam folder, I get between 1 and 2 spam messages every minute. I'm glad I have a spam folder. And I'm glad I don't have a "You got mail!" message.
No wonder e-mail is getting to be more and more useless.
And sorry if I didn't answer your mail. [ Diary | 2005-12-01 19:42 | | PermaLink ] More >
|
|
|
Wouldn't it be nice if "consumers" were well enough networked and well enough informed that companies just can't get away with screwing them over?
We seem to be getting closer, probably thanks to blogs more than anything else.
Sony BMG released more than 20 million CDs that, if you played them on your windows computer, would install a Root Kit, which would hide itself in your operating system, mess with what you were doing, and report back your activities to Sony. A Root Kit is a hacker technology, for installing hostile programs on your system, while they remain undetected and trick the system into making it look like nothing at all is going on. Sony did that deliberately, as DRM (Digital Rights Management), to try to make sure you didn't violate the rules they'd like you to follow. Remember, we're just talking about a normal audio CD, which you wouldn't expect to install anything in your system. But it installed some very bad stuff, making your system further vulnerable to attacks. Around 500,000 networks were compromised by this hack. Read the timeline here. Because of a storm of bad publicity and a number of class action lawsuits, Sony finally recalled the CDs, although they didn't give more than a very wimpy apology.
The good news is that the debacle probably set back the deployment of DRM several years. Which is good for you, as DRM basically just means that the big music and film companies want to break your equipment so it only does what they'd like it to do, if any of their CDs or DVDs are involved. And most likely Sony will take a big dip in sales because of this. And maybe they'll start getting the message that their customers don't want crap like that, and that enough of them are sufficiently well-informed and loud enough to say so.
The Grateful Dead isn't exactly a big corporation, but they have been a shining icon for file-sharers everwhere. They always allowed fans to make their own recordings of their concerts and to share them freely. And that was part of what kept them having a large following for a long time, and probably a major driver behind their commercial enterprise. But recently their company commanded some websites to remove archives of their music, apparently because Jerry Garcia's widow had changed her mind or something. Which caused a big uproar, and deadheads immediately and loudly started boycotting all things Grateful Dead. Read here. And, now, today they apparently changed their mind and reinstated the archives they had asked to get removed.
And, now, also from the last few days there is this story. An avid amateur photographer wanted to buy a $3000 camera, and an online store in New York called PriceRitePhoto had the best price. But what followed was an outrageous sequence of abusive experiences with them, being threatened and blackmailed in an assortment of ways. But this guy had the guts to post the whole thing on his blog. Which got a LOT of attention, Slashdot, BoingBoing, Digg, and many other sites. And a lot of help too. And despite lots of, probably fake, positive reports on various review sites, it turned out that lots of people had similarly horrifying experiences with that company.
Be sure to read the update section after his account. First more outrageous threats. But then, in brief, in the course of two days it seems that the camera vendor has gotten de-listed from several of the main price listing sites, and that their ISP is considering terminating their account for illegal activity. And the owner of the company called the guy and was suddenly very nice and apologetic, and said the responsible employee was fired. Nothing like seeing one's business go down the drain to get somebody's attention.
What all of this means is that it is a lot harder for a company to do something misleading, unethical, sleazy, illegal, or just unpopular. OK, not all incidents are going to get this kind of publicity, but enough of them are to create an impact. [ Information | 2005-12-01 22:58 | | PermaLink ] More >
|
|
Wednesday, November 30, 2005 | |
|
|
Tony Judge wrote a paper about haikus and martial arts and strategic decision making. As usual, Tony's article is very deep and extremely well researched.
I've never really understood haikus. But this helps. Like, here's a little overview: The following comments on haiku benefit notably from the insights of Kai Falkman (The String Untouched, translation of En Orörd Sträng, Ordfront, 2005).
Haiku is essentially a very short poem depicting a specific experience in nature or in a human context. It is contrasted with a related form, senryū, which tends to be about human foibles while haiku tend to be about nature -- senryū are often cynical or darkly humorous while haiku are serious.
The traditional Japanese rules for haiku require the use of 17 syllables grouped into three lines composed of respectively 5-7-5 syllables. These rules are applied in a multitude of languages by a worldwide "haiku movement" (cf World Haiku Club; Haiku International Association) [more]. The emphasis is clearly placed on succinctness and appropriateness, requiring extremely careful consideration of the pattern of words used and the effect they together create. The superfluous is excluded. In the words of Antoine de Saint Exupery, "Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away."
Non-Japanese haiku poets have explored an even more abbreviated 3-5-3 form of haiku, as explained by Keiko Imaoka (Forms in English Haiku) in discussing the linguistic circumstances that necessitate shorter English haiku to be more loosely structured than Japanese haiku:
Over the years, however, most haiku poets in North America have become aware that 17 English syllables convey a great deal more information than 17 Japanese syllables, and have come to write haiku in fewer syllables, most often in three segments that follow a short-long-short pattern without a rigid structure. This style is called by some "free-form" haiku.
The core feature of haiku is an experience described in a concrete image designed to evoke the same experience in the reader. A good haiku is not simply a static description. Three valued attributes are:
* embodiment of a transformation -- possibly with a surprising ending and/or a lingering poetic atmosphere. This may be catalyzed by describing an impression characteristic of one sensory organ through words normally descriptive of the impression through another. Images may be connected in a surprising way, possibly by changing perspectives calling for movement between them. Thinking is surprised and changes direction. Metaphors are however rarely used in haiku, because the image is expected to speak for itself and not be compared with something else in order to be accentuated or transformed in significance. However it is consequently recognized as a form that is wonderful for metaphorical descriptions
* capacity to hold several layers of meaning that may be discovered or explored -- possibly subsequently on reflection, or over a period of time. This may be achieved by using a proximate image like a fractal to imply the larger context of which it is a detail. Indirect insight is typical of haiku.
* act as a container for deep meaning, as characterized by a sense of poignancy, being touched, existential tragedy, or inevitability beyond conventional frameworks. It offers a value-charged integrative perspective.
Stress is placed on the concreteness of the images. Purely abstract or intellectual concepts are not considered valid haiku -- irrespective of their conformity with the formal rules or the value of the experience they may engender. Meaningful insights overtly expressed are considered as an imposition, potentially alienating to the reader. This is an implicit aesthetic that is discovered by a receptive sensitivity rather than an invasive technique. A degree of detachment or distance is valued. Although the concrete images may be anchored in the immediate or distant past -- perhaps specifically associated with a season -- the effect sought is an experience in the present moment, the immediate here and now.
And then he touches on stuff like the "catalytic role of haiku in kairotic time". Kairos or Kairotic is a concept that's hard to define, but it refers to some kind of irreducible experiential singularity, and it can be seen in contrast to chronological (linear) time. Some kind of moment of clarity and truth. Which relates to haikus, and it relates to tao and martial arts, and to paradoxical states of pure being or of not-doing. You know, going beyond the mind and linear logical thinking, and just experiencing the truth of what's in front of you, or in you. And acting based on that.
But I still can't write a haiku. Well, let me try...
Words in syllables
meaning frozen into portable bits
understanding is wordless
Was that a haiku? Hey, that went pretty well. How about:
I am speechless
A world is there now
saying it all
or
Red, green, blue
Pixels light on my screen
Nothing is hidden
I like the 3-5-3 syllable thing best. [But my mind glazed over, and I didn't notice it said "syllable" and not "word", and I counted words] I also like the Bontos. Actually it is a great creative exercise to construct stuff like that, so let me try one of those:
Have your supper in the fridge
Cold food spoils less
Freezing might catch you a cold
Tempered balance makes your way
Ooh, I can't stop now.
Writing haikus to be strategic
Striving to be singularly decisive
Do I transform or just explode?
Nothing new was known before
[I forgot the syllable rules there too. Poetic license!]
OK, I'm going to push "Post" now. But, indeed, it would probably be wise to check if world leaders, large or small, can get themselves to write haikus. Anybody who only lives in the linear world of mind is likely to be dangerous. [ Patterns | 2005-11-30 21:45 | | PermaLink ] More >
|
|
|
Douglas Rushkoff, except from a forthcoming book, Get Back In The Box: Innovation From The Inside Out, found on BoingBoing:In a renaissance society driven by the need to forge connections, play is the ultimate system for social currency. It's a way to try on new roles without committing to them for life. It's a way to test strategies of engagement without being defined by them forever. It’s a way to rise above the seemingly high stakes of almost any situation and see it as the game it probably is. It’s a way to make one’s enterprise a form of social currency from the beginning, and to guarantee a collaborative, playful, and altogether more productive path toward continual innovation.
And this play begins at work....
In their crude efforts to make work more fun, however, most companies are missing the point. Employers are busy installing foosball tables, hiring chefs, and building gyms for their increasingly disgruntled employees, but these are just ways of trying to make a bad situation more tolerable. (or to coax employees into spending long hours away from home) A foosball table is not the sign of a fun place to work; it's a glaring symbol that work is not fun and employees need a break. Why would they rather be playing foosball than doing whatever it is they've been hired to do?
Many have argued that it’s immature and idealistic to believe that everyone,or even a majority of people,should be allowed to enjoy their jobs. In the words of one dark New York TimesOpEd piece, "We're still just means of production....Work is often more bearable when we don’t, in addition to money, expect it always to deliver happiness." The same might be said for life itself, particularly when our duty to perform an economic function extends from what we can produce to what we can consume. Both work and life should be much more than "bearable."
Luckily, renaissances celebrate immaturity and idealism.
Ah, yes, play! Of course we should be able to enjoy our lives and our work, as it really ought to be the same thing. Crank up the renaissance! [ Patterns | 2005-11-30 22:34 | | PermaLink ] More >
|
|
|
I can't believe I missed the Toulouse Pillow Fight Flashmob last weekend! Thomas was there at least, and took some pictures. It was a very small flashmob, but courageous and pioneering. [ Diary | 2005-11-30 22:46 | | PermaLink ] More >
|
|
<< Newer stories Page: 1 ... 17 18 19 20 21 ... 97 Older stories >> |
|
This is a collage of things that catch my eye, things that need to be said, and stuff I really care about
TRUTH BEAUTY FREEDOM LOVE TECHNOLOGY
|
Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat | Sun |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
31 |
|
|