Slashdot Mirror

heliocentric asks: "I have been asked to speak the upcoming SIGCSE conference of the ACM and I would like to give a presentation on the history of hacking. I'm thinking about security incidents that have altered either Computer Science as a whole or set precedence for legal actions. I have been following this subject for years and I have compiled several useful links, but I'm wondering why a book on this subject hasn't been written? Yes, it would go out of date the moment it hits the press, but wouldn't it stand up better than so-called hacker guides that show how to exploit 1980s telephone systems that are being printed today? I'm not looking for links about this subject (I guess they wouldn't be a bad thing at this point) but information about hold-in-your-hand books covering this subject. I'm looking at this presentation as a college researcher should, you want many and diverse resources - entirely relying on the Internet for sources does not make for good research."

jkoshy asks: "I would like to make very large (10'x10') color fractal images using A4 size printouts that I would be assembling to make up the final picture. Most fractal generation programs that I have seen are designed for on-screen fractal viewing. Are there any programs (or scripts driving fractal generation programs) that can generate large printouts of fractal images?" I can't resist a good fractal poster and would love to be able to produce one on my own, as well. In addition to the poster's question, how difficult is it to get posters made from fractal images? What resolutions are typically required?

guerby writes "On October, 2d the french "Cour de cassation" (France highest court) ruled that a company cannot monitor personal emails without breaking privacy protection offered by the law. The case was between a french engineer and his employer Nikon France. As I couldn't find any article in english on the subject here is one in Le Monde and a discussion on LinuxFR. Of course if you don't do anything but personal email, you can still be fired :)."

stinkbomb writes "The venerable Association for Computing Machinery has posted a legal brief on it's site regarding Felten vs. RIAA. The ACM position is: 'ACM believes that the application of any law to limit the freedom to publish research on computer technology will impose a cost not only on ACM's members, but also on the academic community, the process of scientific discourse, and society in general.'"

stinkbomb writes "The venerable Association for Computing Machinery has posted a legal brief on it's site regarding Felten vs. RIAA. The ACM position is: 'ACM believes that the application of any law to limit the freedom to publish research on computer technology will impose a cost not only on ACM's members, but also on the academic community, the process of scientific discourse, and society in general.'"

Slashback tonight with another word on eInk's color displays for portable computing, a temporarily happy ending for Keith Henson; a cool online-movie update, and a slight return to the subject of carpal tunnel syndrome.

But strenuous exercise might not be the answer ... Amigan writes: " Foxnews.com is reporting another story, based on a study done by the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, MN that significantly cuts in to the number of people claiming to be Carpal Tunnel suffers."

Of course, neither this nor the Canadian study mentioned shortly ago say that people don't suffer from true carpal tunnel afflictions -- only that it may be a widely mis-diagnosed condition.

Please drop quarters into your bedside cable modem kzinti writes: "Over two years ago CmdrTaco posted a story about a video clip archive and an animated short called 'Tripping the Rift' by Chris Moeller of 'King of the Hill.' TTR is a bawdy parody of popular science fiction like Star Trek and Star Wars, and is one of the funniest things you'll ever see. Alas, the clip available in 1999 from the archive (which has since shut down) was small and of poor quality. I recently decided to see if I could find a better quality copy on the net somewhere and struck gold at, wouldn't you know it, trippingtherift.com. Not only does this site have a newly posted, high-quality MPEG edition of TTR, but it also has a couple of DivX versions and links to Quicktime and other versions of TTR. The best news is that a second episode of TTR has been produced and should be available for download 'shortly.' Trip Now!"

Lookin' clever. Regarding Chris DiBona's walk through the recent Society for Information Display expo, SID Attendee writes: "Your SID correspondent missed one of the coolest demos, from eInk. These displays use charged particles with black & white pigments on opposing ends to form a pure reflective display. The contrast and resolution was great, easily like a newspaper. They consume zero power when the display is static, and can be made incredibly thin (less than 1mm). This could be the thing that makes ebooks/webpads for real. Color is on the horizon (they had a very crude color demo at the show).

PS - I wasn't that impressed with the OLEDs - many of the LCD displays outperformed them, and seem to have fewer lifespan issues."

Thanks for the first-hand report.

6 points for Canada! iamklerck writes: "Apparently the Scientology critic who was to go on trial for interfering with a religion has been granted "refugee" status in Canada. I wish him luck, as I'm sure we all do. Perhaps some day he'll be able to return to the U.S. without having his rights violated."

Detritus writes: "First Monday, a peer-reviewed journal on, and about, the Internet, has published an excellent and thought provoking paper by Clifford Lynch, the Director of the Coalition for Networked Information, titled The Battle to Define the Future of the Book in the Digital World. The paper lays out and examines the complex questions raised by the migration from dead trees to bits, and the competing interests of authors, publishers, readers, libraries and society."

rhaig writes: "According to the Austin American Statesman, The Garriott brothers, Richard and Robert, the creators of Austin's Origin Systems Inc., are back in the gaming business. The pair scooped up about 30 recently laid-off Origin employees to staff their new Austin-based online game company, Destination Games."

Craig Pfeifer wrote this review of Server-Based Java Programming, and in a world of books loaded with buzzwords, and sometimes volume at the expense of clarity, he claims that this volume suffers neither fault. (Even if you're sick of the word "Enterprise.")

Server-Based Java Programming author Ted Neward pages 556 publisher Manning rating 10 reviewer Craig Pfeifer ISBN 1884777716 summary From designing and building the nuts and bolts of your own java application server, to understanding and integrating common middleware technologies and patterns, this book covers it all.

The Scenario

Whether you're building your own Java application server, or evaluating your options when it comes to building an enterprise class application, there's an awful lot to consider. Everyone likes to throw around the adjective 'enterprise'; 'enterprise class,' 'enterprise information system,' 'enterprise solution' but what does this mean? What is an enterprise solution? And more importantly how do you build one? This book cuts through the J2EE hype and gives you the straight dope on desiging/implementing realistic java based distributed systems.

What's Bad?

If you are looking for a Java2 Enterprise Edition (J2EE) overview (Enterprise Java Beans (EJB), Servlets, Java Server Pages (JSP)...) or an intro to Java fundamentals, this book is not for you. This book covers some fundamentals of threads, classloaders and sockets, but the bulk of the text is the application of these concepts. If you aren't already familliar with how these features are commonly used, you might find yourself doing a little prerequisite work to get the full value out of the material in these chapters.

Additionally, several code samples span multiple pages and it can be tough to keep this sample (along with all of the previous samples, as they build on each other) in your head when you read it in more than one sitting. This could be remedied by presenting a series of UML diagrams to show how the current example extends or interfaces with the previous examples, and the existing classes in the Java SDK.

What's Good?

This book goes from narrow to broad in it's coverage of different aspects of enterprise systems. Ted starts off chapter 1 with a wonderful overview of what characterizes 'enterprise development,' and 'enterprise systems.' According to Ted, enterprise development projects:

• get less QA time
• have shorted development cycles
• typically require expert administration
• must work within an existing architecture

From here, he goes into a discussion of key build vs. buy decision criteria and a justification/defense of using Java on the server side. This first chapter should be torn out and given to every development manager in every internal IT department in every company everywhere. Many managers feel that any project dealing with 'enterprise' and 'java' require a product like IBM's webSphere or BEA's webLogic, but this is simply not the case. These are excellent products, but for most of the projects out there, basing a solution around a full blown J2EE appserver only makes building, deploying and maintaining the system more far more complicated and expensive that it really needs to be.

Just as I started to worry that this book would be all talk and hand-waving, the next two chapters (approx 60 pages) were a gloves-off, down and dirty discussion of Java's classloader functionality. Many developers take the classloader for granted (including myself), and don't fully understand/exploit its power. Ted shows all of the rules that a Java classloader must follow, and the role it plays in the application lifecycle. He builds sample classloaders that can load classes from an HTTP server, an FTP server and even from an internal hashtable. The most impressive part of these two chapters is Ted's explanation of how the differences between the Java 1.1 and the Java2 classloader. This illustrates Ted's depth of the Java platform, and is just one example of the knowledge (not just information) that this book is chock full of. Ted's sample classloaders are the foundation of the Generic Java Application Server (GJAS) that you build as you progress through the book.

In the next few chapters Ted takes on his two other major topics for the book: threading, and sockets. These topics are worthy of entire books on their own, but Ted keeps it focused and talks primarily about how they are applied in the context of an enterprise application server. He doesn't just rehash the threading and sockets APIs, but provides common usage patterns for each and even provides implementations for useful new primitives. Some of these primitives include an implementation of a PollingThread, a ScheduledThread, an HTTPSocket and a SocketServer. For all of the examples in the book, Ted lets you in on his design process as the GJAS evolves. He lays out the alternatives, makes a selection, and then justifies it. When he applies design patterns from the Gang of Four (GoF), he tells you why he is applying that particular pattern, and how it solves the problem at hand. This is the core of this book, and it's strong point.

Interspersed in the threading and sockets chapters are about server configuration and control structures for services that get executed on the server. Ted discusses different implementations of user services running in their own thread (so as not to interrupt other processes on the server), and in doing so makes use of the thread primitives he laid out in a previous chapter.

The later chapters are typical server programming fare: business objects, business object models, persistance and middleware. However, Ted covers them in a style consistant with the rest of the book: copious code examples, design justifications, and years of valuable on the job experience communicated in a scant 160 pasges.

So What's In It For Me?

As a Sun Certified Java 2 Developer, I've read more than my fare share of bad java books. The good thing is that they are very easy to spot: they are typically extremely thick books with trivial examples and a huge API reference (that you can download from Sun's Java Developer Connection) for filler. This book is a voice of reason in Sun's flood of J2EE (especially EJB) hype. It's a wholly remarkable Java book. Ted Neward should be rewarded and congratualted for this book, it sets a new standard in content quality for Java books.

Based on this book, and the review of the Manning Swing Book, Manning now ranks right up there w/O'Reilly in my list of top-quality technical book publishers.

Table of Contents

1. Enterprise Java
2. ClassLoaders
3. Custom ClassLoaders
4. Extensions
5. Threads
6. Threading Issues
7. Control
8. Remote Control
9. Configuration
10. Sockets
11. Servlets
12. Persistance
13. Business Objects
14. Business Object Models
15. Middleware
16. Java Native Interface
17. Monitoring

You can purchase this book at Fatbrain.

sachachua asks: "You know CS could be taught better. I've decided that I really want to get into improving CS education. My university seems like the best place to start. I like the way we do CS, but I know it can be improved. I want to find the weaknesses in our CS program. I want to know how other schools are teaching computer science - what they're doing better, what they're doing differently. Then I want to help improve the way CS is being taught and learned. I'd like to benefit from this before I graduate. (See? I have a selfish reason after all.)" Do you think that the current CS teaching practices used in college or uni are insufficient for the new century? How would you improve the curriculum and the way in which these classes are taught?

"I've been reading through the ACM SIGCSE proceedings and there are some studies I'd like to do in order to give myself some research training (we don't get much of that in our regular curriculum). We're also trying to organize peer mentoring and code clinics (but that brings up interesting ethical questions). What are other things students can do to improve the quality of their CS education?

My university's already doing some pretty cool things. One of my professors sneaked some patterns into an introductory course. The teachers are super-approachable. But it's just that I look at our curriculum and classes and teachers and I realize that there's so much more that can be done.

I want to know this:

Lots of people have probably already tried this before - improving the way CS is taught/learned. I want to know how it turned out or how it's turning out. Do you have any advice? Notes? Ideas? Know anyone I should talk to? I'm an insanely motivated geek here and I want to make sure I get the best CS education with the (rather limited) resources available. If it incidentally helps other people, then that would be a Really Good Thing. =)"

Tonight: Reactions and reductions of previous Slashdot appearances, including but not limited to: in-dash video gaming for the less upwardly mobile; a CSS descrambler you could scratch as a crib onto the side of your #2 pencil; and more on the engineers vs. scientists brouhaha. Enjoy!

I like the driving game in front of the windshield. Not everyone has the cash or the gumption to outfit his Macintosh with a Pathfinder; for the computationally experimental on a more modest budget, there is an easier way. wing_king writes: "A fellow named Troy Kellogg managed to hack an actual Atari 2600 console into the dashboard of his 1978 Volkswagen. The "AtariMobile" even has controller ports and a screen built right into the dash! The AtariMobile site has some pictures of the unit and some details on its construction. What a way to kill all that time sitting at stoplights."

Please tell me this is only for passengers and while parked, ok? I own one of these micro televisions, and it seems like playing on a screen that size while hunched over the stickshift might constitute more work than this labor-intensive project took in the first place. Wow.

Stir, reduce and simmer, stir in indignation: Aimster has removed the Pig Latin Encoder software from its site. And if that wasn't enough trivial encoding for you ...

If just over 500 bytes still wasn't small enough for your new MPAA-mocking tattoo, note that the famous Content Scramble System most famously De-flated with DeCSS has fallen anew.

PotatoNO writes: "Charles H. Hannum has created an even smaller DeCSS decoder than the perl script posted a few days ago. This one is written in C and takes 442 bytes, beating the perl script by 30 bytes. It's small and in C, so of course it's speedy. Hannum's program can decode in excess of 21.5MBps which is faster than the DVD spec allows for. That means it can actually be used for realtime playback."

Now hold on a goldarned minute there! William Evans, of Clark University's Dept. of Computer Science, took issue with the report Tuesday night in which drhpbaldy wrote: "At the latest ACM meeting, scientists and engineers threw mud at computer scientists for not contributing anything useful."

Wrote Evans in response:

"There seems to be some confusion as to what computer science is, and who computer scientists are. Programmers and other IT workers are not, for the most part, computer scientists--they're programmers and other IT workers. This is by no means disparaging, but simply a delineation based on definition.

Computer scientists study the branch of mathematics dealing with computation.

In the terms of your story, it was perhaps 'computer scientists' throwing mud at 'programmers and other IT professionals.' In actuality, though, it was mud thrown at business executives, and the ages-old indictment of the larger culture of western corporate management."

What medal do you get for 11th? ;) Rathnor writes: "I've spent the last week or so in Vancouver, Canada in the lead up to the ACM International Collegiate Programming Contest World finals. I'm a reserve in the University of NSW Team from Australia. Its been a great week with lots of cool things done for us from IBM and UPE.

The results are officially out and presented: The winners were: St Petersberg State University Second place: Virginia Tech the rest of the standings can be found here. (We made 11th)"

bsletten writes "Researchers at the Duke University Medical Center have successfully grown fat cells into cartilage, that they hope to use to repair/create new joints for patients. Normal cartilage does not repair itself well so this should be a boon to people with knee and hip problems." Cartilage doesn't repair at all, and there aren't any good replacements for it. I think teflon disks are the state of the art now, and they wear out eventually, which necessitates more surgery. Creating real cartilage replacements would be a major advance.

Jason Bennett, frequent reviewer of books, now regales you with this great piece on the background and development of the new encryption standard to replace the pretty-good-till-now DES. It's full of linked information you'll want to digest, too. Update: 02/23 12:32 AM by T : Note: The links I borked are better now; mea culpa (and beware copying in Mozilla).

Since it was officially approved by the U.S. Government in November of 1976, most of the world's sensitive commercial traffic has been secured through the use of the Data Encryption Standard (DES). In its twenty-five year lifetime, it has become the most widely used, most widely trusted, and most widely studied encryption algorithm in existence. Alas, in the same way that your Atari 2600 ^[?] is currently sitting on the floor of your closet, DES' lifetime has come to an end as well. This was most dramatically demonstrated in the three DES Challenges sponsored by RSA Labs between January of 1997 and January of 1999, with a DES-encrypted message eventually being broken in less than 24 hours. This challenge also witnessed the birth of a DES-specific cracking computer, a machine widely theorized about, but never before (publicly) built. Although variants of DES (most notably Triple DES) are still widely used, it became clear that a new algorithm would be needed for the next twenty-five years.

Thus was born the Advanced Encryption Algorithm Development Effort. Beginning in January, 1997 (just before the RSA challenges finally broke DES), the National Institute of Standards and Technology announced its intent to begin the Advanced Encryption Standard (AES) process. The initial AES workshop was held in April, with the official call for algorithms going forth in September. Importantly, this call specified that the algorithms submitted have a key length of 128 bits, and be free of intellectual property constraints. Algorithms would be accepted from domestic and international submitters, and the resulting algorithm would be completely public. The con test would also consider both the hardware and the software implementation -- a divergence from DES, which was specifically designed for use in hardware. Importantly, the hardware that the AES had to operate in could vary from the largest supercomputer to a ROM-based smart card or other embedded ed environment. A candidate algorithm might well be optimized for one or the other, but had to perform at least reasonably well on all to have a real chance of being selected. Finally, this algorithm would be designed from the ground up to use the long key length, and thus would be faster and more secure than Triple-DES is at that length.

Thus came the warriors to the joust. On August 20-22, 1998, the first AES conference was held, with fifteen different algorithms being presented. Over the next seven months, these algorithms were tested in laboratories around the world to probe for weaknesses and to test the their speeds. There is a huge selection of papers on these tests at the AES1 site for your perusal, so I will not try and detail those tests here. Suffice to say, several of the algorithms had serious problems identified, while others came through with flying colors. The next March, the second AES conference was the forum for the presentation of these results, and a subsequent discussion of which algorithms should thus advance to the final round. These finalists were announced in August of 1999, thus beginning the second round of competition. NIST subsequently issued an excellent report detailing their rationale about each algorithm, including the problems and benefits associated with each.

The AES finalists were:

• MARS (IBM) (their case)
• RC6 (RSA) (their case)
• Rijndael (their case) (how to pronounce it)
• Serpent (their case)
• Twofish (Counterpane) (their case)

Obviously, each candidate comes to the conclusion that their cipher is the best. Nevertheless, there are some shared criticisms of the various ciphers that show patterns in each one. Serpent, for example, is universally named the slowest algorithm (in software), even by its creators. Nevertheless, they make their case based on being the most secure algorithm of the bunch. RC6 and MARS are both very fast on certain processors, but terrible on others. As noted above, any serious AES candidate had to perform well across all platforms, and thus this variable performance tended t o compromise these candidates. None of the algorithms were ever broken by a practical attack, however, and all should be considered secure enough for serious encryption work. Thus was held the third AES conference in April of 2000. This was the final conference before the official AES selection, and the last chance for each algorithm to make it s case. The statements above were presented at the end of this conference in an effort to make that case. Once the conference ended, it was up to NIST to make its selection. The candidates could only wait.

Finally, on October 2, 2000, NIST released their final decision, that R ijndael was to be the AES selection. Simultaneously, NIST released a paper detailing their rationale for the selection. In sum, this paper says that any of the finalists could have been selected (an opinion echoed by man y in the industry), but that Rijndael proved to have the proper balance necessary between speed in hardware, speed in software, and security. To quote from NIST's statement:

Rijndael appears to be consistently a very good performer in both hardware and software across a wide range of computing environments regardless of its use in feedback or non-feedback modes. Its key setup time is excellent, and its key agility is good. Rijndael's very l ow memory requirements make it very well suited for restricted-space environ environments, in which it also demonstrates excellent performance. Rijndael's operations ons are among the easiest to defend against power and timing attacks. Additionally, it appears that some defense can be provided against such attacks without significantly impacting Rijndael's performance. Rijndael is designed with th some flexibility in terms of block and key sizes, and the algorithm can accommodate alterations in the number of rounds, although these features would require e further study and are not being considered at this time. Finally, Rijndael's internal round structure appears to have good potential to benefit from instruction-level parallelism.

At this point, it's all over but the shouting. At some point later this year, the Secretary of Commerce will officially designate Rijndael the Advanced Encryption Standard, and a new era will have begun. AES was specified (and is expected) to remain a standard for at least as long as DES, and to protect data for even longer, and barring a major development (such as faster-than-forseen developments in quantum computing), this standard will likely be met. No one expects research into new algorithms to die, however. There will continue to be parallel algorithms developed and used, just as there are today. Thanks to be combined efforts of NIST and the community, however, there will always be the bedrock of AES available.

In conclusion, I'd like to point out the positive role that the U.S. Government, as represented by NIST, has played in this process. The Free Software/Open Source community has taken its share of shots at the government over patents, copyright and crypto export over the past several years, and deservedly so. The AES process, however, was lauded throughout the encryption community as a fair and open process that brought together the best minds available to select the algorithm for the next century (as NIST likes to say). Making an algorithm a FIPS standard gives it a legitimacy that cannot be obtained in any other way, especially given the way that this standard was arrived at. The algorithm is completely free of any IP hurdles, as was specified at the beginning of the process, and since the code is open, it can be downloaded by anyone in the world (and since it was designed outside of the U.S., any attempt to regulate its export from the U.S. would be silly). It is reasonable to criticize when a situation is bad, but it is only fair to praise when something is good.

Bibliography

I used a great number of sources from print and the web, so it's only fair to list them here. I also put many links in the body itself, most of which go into much more detail than I did.

• NIST's main AES site is the place to start. It links to most of the technical information I linked to above.
• RSA's crypto FAQ has been around for many years, and the latest edition only gets better. Covers all sorts of ground on cryptography, both general and specific. If you're trying to learn more about crypto, this is the definitive place to go.
• SANS InfoSec has a good overview of the process and the finalist algorithms.
• A Cryptographic Compendium has a good AES section
• SecurityPortal has an excellent perspective on what AES means
• Everyone's favorite IT rag The Register has a solid overview of the process
• Bruce Schneier publishes a crypto newsletter through his company, Counterpane Internet Security. See especially the issues from May 15, 1998, March and August 15, 1999, and April and October 15 of 2000.
• Simon Singh's The Code Book provided some excellent background

hmckee points to this Reuters story on TechWeb indicating that French computer buyers may soon face extra fees to compensate artists for illegal copying, levied on hard drives as well as more conventional recording media like magnetic tape. Computer-based recordable media like CD-Rs and mini-disks will be taxed starting later this month as well. hmckee writes: "Although it's not definite for France, I didn't know Germany started at the beginning of the year."

The move to patent anything, everything, and all that remains after those categories are exhausted continues apace. rozzin writes: "ColorMax, who makes colour-blindness-compensatory lenses, has acquired a "patent for the human genes responsible for common, hereditary, red-green colorblindness"." Read below for a longer take on another disputed patent, which raises the all-important issue of actually determining what all those words in a patent application really mean. We can probably agree on whether something is a sphere, but what about whether something is "type data," or what constitutes the act of location? How patentable ought such things be? (I suggest browsing The League for Programming Freedom site for some cogent thoughts on this, including RMS's "The Anatomy of a Trivial Patent." Can anyone point to the best online apologia favoring software patents, or perhaps suggesting higher thresholds for them?)

Jim Lochowitz writes "A friend of mine just sent me this ( posted with permission) :

I just looked at Judge Zagel's ruling from yesterday in Eolas Technologies, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation, 99 C 0626, which is currently pending in federal court in the Northern District of Illinois. Eolas alleges that Microsoft has infringed its patent, #5,838,906, issued November 18, 1998. If memory serves, the gist of the suit is that both Windows and Internet Explorer infringe the patent.

If you want to look at the text of the patent again, it can be found on the PTO's website [here]. (Or search for the patent #5,838,906 from [this] page.)

At this point in the case, the court is trying to resolve exactly *what* the patent covers before it can consider whether or not whatever Microsoft did infringed it. Yesterday's ruling had to do with what was meant by the following key language in the patent (found in Claim 1 and Claim 6):
"wherein said object has type information associated with it utilized by said browser to identify and locate an executable application".

As Judge Zagel put it,
"What is an executable application? What is type information that must be associated with the object? What does it mean for the type information to be utilized by said browser to identify and locate the executable application?"

Experts testified as to the answers to these questions. Eolas' expert was Edward Felten, who is an Associate Professor of Computer Science at Princeton. Microsoft's experts were H.E. Dunsmore, Associate Professor of Computer Science at Purdue University, and Michael Wallent, Product Unit Manager for Internet Explorer.

Judge Zagel found that (as used in the patent language), an "executable application" is computer program code which is launched to enable an end-user to directly interact with data, and one which is not an operating system or utility. He found that "type information" "may include the name of an application associated with the object." Finally, he found that "utilized by said browser to identify and locate" meant that those functions are performed by the browser.

Now that Judge Zagel has determined what this key language in the patent means, the court is now in a position to determine whether Microsoft has, in fact, infringed the patent. Trial could be the next step. It will be interesting to see what happens! I suspect that no matter who wins at the trial court level, there is likely to be an appeal. It will be a while yet before we learn what the resolution will be.

If you want to read the text of the opinion yourself, you can find it on CourtWeb as [this] pdf file.

Many of the rulings thus far in the case are available online. Put in "Northern District of Illinois," hit the "proceed to CourtWeb" button, and then enter the case number on the next screen. (The case # is 99cv0626.) Put in the date range you want- note that the case was filed in February 1999.

"

davecb writes: "Louis Pouzin, the inventor of datagrams, just contributed an article to Multicians.org on the creation of the first shell, "runcom," on CTSS and later Multics." Multicians is one of the coolest sites I've seen -- if you think the odd Atari 2600 is retro, look out. They also provided information on the Multics scheduler a little while ago.

Jason Bennett contributed this review of the depressingly named Death March : The Complete Software Developer's Guide to Surviving " Mission Impossible" Projects. But if you're ever part of a software project which seems to be going nowhere fast, and over very rocky roads, perhaps the words he's written will point you to a source of solace. This book seems to have some decent strategies for dealing with impossible demands and even more impossible deadlines. And while no book will give you a better boss or timetable, at least you'll know you're not the only one.

Death March author Edward Yourdon pages 218 publisher Prentice Hall rating 8 reviewer Jason Bennett ISBN 0-13-014659-5 summary Another excellent effort by Yourdon that gives insight into the "doomed to fail" project.

Background Ed Yourdon has a long and storied publishing history, most notably for his books on structured design and his duology (is that a two book series?) Decline and Fall of the American Programmer and The Rise and Resurrection of the American Programmer. Of course, he's better known recently for his (somewhat apocalyptic) Y2K books. This one, of course, is a couple of years old, but like most of the books I tend to gravitate to, addresses themes that endure. In this case, the desire to do more with less. The Scenario

Death March: [A project] whose "project parameters" exceed the norm by at least 50%. [The metaphor is used to suggest] a "forced march" imposed upon relatively innocent victims, the outcome of which is usually a high casualty rate. (2)

Yourdon's definition, as related above, does not necessarily imply a long-term project (although long-term death marches are worse than short-term ones), but instead describes a project with a low rate of success and a high personal impact. The project is either underfunded, underscheduled, understaffed, overfeatured, or some combination of the above. The introduction deals with the reasons DM projects happen, and why people actually agree to work on them. Having been on one myself, I can say that "ego" is one of the major reasons.

The subsequent chapters deal with various facets of the death march project, and how those facets are unique in such a project. Chapter 2, politics, has an especially interesting section on identifying what type of DM project one is on, and the chances of success for such a project. Yourdon rates projects on a four-quadrant scale: low and high likelihood of success, and low and high happiness factor (giving four combinations). Suffice to say, there are good combinations, bad combinations, and worse combinations. :-)

Chapter 3 deals with an important part of any project, but one that is hypercritical for any death march project: negotiation. Needless to say, good negotiation can turn a DM project into an almost-normal project, while bad negotiation can turn a bad situation into a nightmare. Yourdon provides some excellent tips on how to deal with upper management in these situations, which should be useful even if you've negotiated for a standard project before. Clearly, management is going to be much less forgiving in a DM situation.

Chapter 4 deals with "peopleware" issues in death march projects. As with negotiation, nothing really changes from a standard project to a DM project, but everything is emphasized. If you have poor workspace when you're on a normal deadline, consider how that workspace will affect you when you're under extreme time pressure. Overtime, and the limits of such, are another important issue Yourdon deals with.

Chapter 5 deals with an issue I've addressed many times in my reviews: process. I greatly appreciate Yourdon's take on process in a DM project. Simply put, while the Methodology Police will make any DM project worse, the lack of process will completely destroy one. Don't try to do all the paperwork while you're cramming to get the software out the door, but abandoning process will insure your failure. Things like requirements management and configuration management are all the more critical on a likely-to-fail project. If you lose only a week to a requirements change, that might be a quarter of your schedule!

Chapter 6, tools, simply reminds us that technology will not solve the human problem of programming. No CASE tool or supercompiler is going to come along to write your DM software for you. Use what you are most comfortable with, and you'll be the most productive.

The concluding chapter 7 proposes an interesting scenario: what if death march projects were to become normal? That is, how do you live and work rationally in an environment that is irrational? Suffice to say, this impacts everything about a software team, including the people who are hired and how careers advance within the company.

Throughout the book, Yourdon includes some excellent footnotes taken from correspondence with various software practitioners. These email excepts, gleaned from a questionnaire Yourdon sent out about the book's subject, give excellent insight into the nature of a death march project.

Although few people actually want to be sucked into a death march project, it will likely happen to most developers at some point in time or another. Being prepared for the occurrence might well mean your survival of such a project.

What's Bad/Good I found very little to dislike about this book. The text is concise yet thorough. The presentation is excellent. The ideas are reasonable and well-stated. I find Yourdon to be quite moderate in his position, neither justifying death marches nor railing against them overly. The advice on this book could easily be applied to any sort of project, and in fact is fairly standard in the literature, only ramped up for an intense, death march experience. Very little has changed in the industry since this book was initially published, and I doubt its timeliness will cease anytime soon. So What's In It For Me? If you write software, or work on any knowledge team, you will likely face a death march project at some point in your career. This book will help prepare you to deal with, and triumph over, such an experience. Table of Contents Preface

1. Introduction
2. Politics
3. Negotiations
4. People in Death March Projects
5. Processes
6. Tools and Technology
7. Death March as a Way of Life

Puchase this book from Fatbrain.com.

guerby writes: "Dan Bricklin's (author of Visicalc) article The Software Police vs. the CD Lawyers recently reprinted on the ACM Ubiquity magazine provides an interesting (and debatable) parallel between the SIIA (Software and Information Industry Association) and RIAA (well known to /. readers ;-) strategy against 'pirates.'" It does raise some good points -- and helps explain why groups like the BSA don't raise hackles the way the RIAA does: they tend to go after the large-scale counterfeiters, not kids with a cracked copy of Photoshop.

guerby writes: "Dan Bricklin's (author of Visicalc) article The Software Police vs. the CD Lawyers recently reprinted on the ACM Ubiquity magazine provides an interesting (and debatable) parallel between the SIIA (Software and Information Industry Association) and RIAA (well known to /. readers ;-) strategy against 'pirates.'" It does raise some good points -- and helps explain why groups like the BSA don't raise hackles the way the RIAA does: they tend to go after the large-scale counterfeiters, not kids with a cracked copy of Photoshop.

guerby writes: "Dan Bricklin's (author of Visicalc) article The Software Police vs. the CD Lawyers recently reprinted on the ACM Ubiquity magazine provides an interesting (and debatable) parallel between the SIIA (Software and Information Industry Association) and RIAA (well known to /. readers ;-) strategy against 'pirates.'" It does raise some good points -- and helps explain why groups like the BSA don't raise hackles the way the RIAA does: they tend to go after the large-scale counterfeiters, not kids with a cracked copy of Photoshop.

alecto writes: "The Naked PC page directed at independent computer shops compares selling PC's without an operating system with "selling a house without a roof." It also implies that the dealer knows "full well" the buyer's just going to install an infringing copy of Windows -- and that they should "politely decline" to sell a machine without an OS. The just-below-the-surface message is that dealers could be liable for infringement if a customer buys a "naked" machine from them and subsequently installs an infringing copy of Windows. (Nowhere in the text is the possibility that the customer might want to install a legal, free operating system mentioned.)" It's very much a salesmen type help piece, but it's a pretty funny read. The most amusing comment is that they say "tell them that you're best equipped to install the OS." I'm kinda curious, who keeps the default install? I mean, even if it's Windows, I always had to reinstall just to make it functional anyway. Maybe that's changed, but I still hear that solution in a context that makes it sound like conventional wisdom.

Lets start this off with some eyecandy from Mdog. Hi res pics of coronal loops meet Rob's First Rule of Art. Wow. Not enough eye candy? tradica noted that Pixar's new movie 'Monsters Inc.' now has trailers available even the the movie won't be out for a year. Course since Jobs is @ pixar, no surprise that I can't watch the clip. Instead of food for your retinas, Nerf97A4 sent in recipes that will never be used on Iron Chef since they all involve cooking with twinkies in some form or another. Deep fried Twinkies? Makes me shudder... maybe instead you should look at jedigeek fouund an online store called CyberCandy which allows you to buy candy from around the world. funferal noticed that a OECD have publshed their Privacy Statement Generator. Ant noted one wizard that that probably doesn't exist in Word. alecto sent us a fun link where you can read 99 Bottles of Beer on the Wall which has code snippets to generate the song in languages from APL to zsh. PhadeRunner sent us Mr. T vs. The Matrix. and FlameSnyper sent The Matrix and Ghost in The Shell. One is slightly more serious then the other. An anonymous reader documented filling a cubicle with packing peanuts in case your boss is out of time and you need some help. Speaking of bosses, Need a weapon? WD_40 aims you at a site where you can learn how to create your own spud gun. Course you could do it the old fashioned way: pimp showed us a site dedicated to electrocuting common household stuff. Like, for example, a furby. While on the subject of electricity, loose_change sent in several links about Power meters and how they aren't exactly the best in user interface. A competition followed to try to make a better on. The winner is definitely less hostile ;) CresentCityRon sent in something you don't want to electrocute: apparently MIT students are working on Geek Porn which is pretty much what is sounds like. School officials aren't so happy about it.

Rikul writes "Great article over at linuxplanet.com about Xi Graphics trying to remarket CDE under a different name, DeXtop. Aside from fact that DeXtop wouldn't work without Xi's X server, it also breaks many libraries that Gnome/KDE/e depend on. " The piece is definitely op-ed, but raises some interesting points.

Thanks to Jason Bennett, who wrote this review of The Limits of Software. Robert N. Britcher explores in this book what software is and where software is going -- and what it really means.

The Limits of Software author Robert N. Britcher pages 214 publisher Addison Wesley rating 7 reviewer Jason Bennett ISBN 0-201-43323-0 summary Where we've been, where we're going, and the implications therein

Background

Before I launch into my latest review, I'd just like to say thanks to Hemos and Slashdot on the occasion of my twentieth review posted here. It's been 25 months since the first one (August, '98), and I've really appreciated the opportunity they've given me. Nice excuse to do something I should do anyway! :-)

The Scenario

"But it is not the practitioners alone who are so moved. A thousand years in the making, the religion of technology has become the common enchantment, not only of the designers of technology but also those caught up in, and undone by, their godly designs. The expectation of ultimate salvation through technology, whatever the immediate human and social costs, has become the unspoken orthodoxy, reinforced by a market-induced enthusiasm for novelty and sanctioned by a millenarian yearning for new beginnings. This popular faith, subliminally indulged and intensified by corporate, government, and media pitchmen, inspires an awed deference to the practitioners and their promises of deliverance while diverting attention from more urgent concerns. Thus, unrestrained technological development is allowed to proceed apace, without serious scrutiny or oversight -- without reason. Pleas for some rationality, for reflection about pace and purpose, for sober assessment of costs and benefits -- for evidence even of economic value, much less larger social gains -- are dismissed as irrational. From within the faith, any and all criticism appears irrelevant, and irreverent." (TLOS, xxiii)

-- David F. Noble, The Religion of Technology, as quoted in The Limits of Software

I had the privilege of spending a few weeks with a good friend of mine in Eastern Europe back in July. Of course, to go anywhere on a budget in Europe requires a lot of train travel. Alas, there are no bullet trains in Slovenia, which gave me plenty of time to take in some reading when I wasn't chatting with my fellow passengers ...

The Limits of Software is a unique book in many ways, not the least of which is that it reads more like a collection of life stories than a lecturing textbook. Most computer books simply give you data, or even information, in a straightforward manner, hopefully punctuated by some interesting anecdotes. Britcher, instead, has packaged with words slices of time which illustrate various points about where computer programming has been, and where software development is going (note the terminology change). I certainly won't try to describe them all, but theme which runs through the book is illustrated in the opening quotation: software is not our savior. There is no "one great system" that will be able to handle things. The FAA's botched air traffic control system is used as one illustration in the book, but the point is made about all software: we cannot and must not worship it.

There's one point that I find simultaneously funny and sad: It's in the chapter on testing, and the inherent futility of such an activity on complex programs. Britcher discusses the Y2K bug, and mentions the survivalist movement.

"Just as regular folks built bomb shelters in the 1950s and 1960s to add life time to a planet white with nuclear snow, regular folks are now storing large caches of food, water, toilet paper, clothing, and, of course, the American twinship: sacred literature and ammo. One man who agreed to be interviewed for the piece was quoted: 'When you first hear about it, most people are in total denial. They can't believe that Bill Gates won't come up with a magic bullet.' (That the general population believes that Bill Gates has the answers to our programming problems is more frightening than the rollover of the millennium.)" (TLOS, 59)

I quote this not as a shot at Bill (although, this being Slashdot, I'm sure some will take it that way), but to point out the inherent risks in the statement, which illustrate Britcher's point. Software is dangerous, because it does so much yet is so fragile. We (even we programmers at times) view it as a holy grail. We cannot understand how our mechanical saviors could possibly fail us. Yet, software failures are rampant, in every facet of our society (see the Risks Digest if you need examples). Software cannot solve our problems. Our problems are inherent within ourselves. As we continue to rely more and more on machines to live for us, we must remember that they, like their creators, are fallible. What's Bad? / What's Good?

When I finished TLOS, my first reaction was to think of the old saw about the life of a fighter pilot: "hours and hours of sheer boredom, punctuated by moments of sheer terror." Britchner's stories seemed to drone on at points. The FAA story was left to the end. Why did he have to go on and on about all this random stuff?

In retrospect, though, I think I have a better grasp of what Britcher was trying to convey. This is not a disaster movie told in the guise of software engineering; this is a story about one man's journey through software, and the conclusions he's come to. Read this as an technological autobiography, and I think you'll appreciate the points being made. As I said earlier, it's different, but rewarding in the end.

So What's In It For Me?

A reminder that the Tower of Babel still lives in the hearts and minds of men.

You can purchase this book at Fatbrain.

Table of Contents

• Foreware by Robert L. Glass
• Prologue
• Part I
  1. Early Systems
  2. Theories of Programming
  3. The Human Element
  4. Designing
  5. Code: The Stuff of Programs
  6. Testing Computer Systems
  7. The Impossible Profession
  8. Life on the Project
• Part II
  1. Supervision Through Language
  2. How Technology Changes Methods
  3. Size and Intellectual Gravity
  4. The Marketing of Science
  5. Errors
  6. The One Great System
  7. The Government of Programming
  8. The System to End All
  9. The End-All of Programming
• Afterward
• Reading List

rkent writes: "In this NYTimes article, Microsoft makes a good point, the wrong way. They argue that their case was 'so technical and esoteric' that Judge Jackson couldn't understand it. However, the Business and Technology Division Task Force in Maryland is examining the viability of setting up special courts for tech cases. Which may or may not have helped Microsoft. But would it have helped 2600? And future Internet 'pirates?'"

Setting up special 'techno-courts' has the glossy sheen of futurism and hipness, but if the proposed high-tech courts are specialized by the content of their trials, what's to stop them from becoming self-perpetuating, invasive, and self-aggrandizing bodies within their particular fields of purported expertise, and using that expertise as a means of blocking criticism? Would such special courts be an improvement over better educating the existing judiciary?

ljrittle writes: "Vinton Cerf might be the rubber stamp that the FBI was trying to find. The ACM article says that according to Vinton, Carnivore ``does not pose a threat to innocent computer users' privacy'' and that [we] mere Internet users need not see code." This is nearly as reassuring as the Justice Department's decision to change the name of Carnivore, as pointed out by observant reader Ripped_Edge. Walks like a duck, talks like a duck ...

ljrittle writes: "Vinton Cerf might be the rubber stamp that the FBI was trying to find. The ACM article says that according to Vinton, Carnivore ``does not pose a threat to innocent computer users' privacy'' and that [we] mere Internet users need not see code." This is nearly as reassuring as the Justice Department's decision to change the name of Carnivore, as pointed out by observant reader Ripped_Edge. Walks like a duck, talks like a duck ...

ICANN's endorsement period for potential At-Large candidates is almost over. Three candidates have clear leads, but there's still time if you haven't endorsed anyone. Lots more below.

(You have read the background, haven't you?)

The total number of At-Large members who have "activated" their PINs in North America is just over 10,000, so since one of the requirements for nomination is 2% of the members must endorse you, the floor for a successful nomination is just over 200 endorsements. Here are the current stats:

• Karl Auerbach - 473
• Barbara Simons - 351
• Emerson Tiller - 324
• Eric Lee - 96
• Subhash Gupta - 61
• Nick Nicholas - 54
• Robin Bandy - 50

You can see the rather large gap between 3rd and 4th place. Since there are only three spots open on the ballot, Auerbach, Simons and Tiller are looking good to be nominated.

Included below is the Cyber-Federalist, a newsletter covering internet governance issues.

Date sent: Wed, 06 Sep 2000 01:20:42 +0200
To: cyber-federalist@cpsr.org
From: Hans Klein
Subject: CYBER-FEDERALIST NO.5: The ICANN Member Nomination Process

Please forward
********************************************************
CYBER-FEDERALIST No. 5 September 6, 2000

THE ICANN MEMBER NOMINATION PROCESS

Civil Society Democracy Project (CivSoc)
of
Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR)
(CivSoc of CPSR)
http://www.civsoc.org
http://www.internetdemocracyproject.org/
http://www.cyber-federalist.org (archive)
********************************************************
The Member Nominations phase of the ICANN elections ends this Friday (September 8). With just a few days left, we can begin to see some likely nominations and some electoral trends.

The most useful website for following the elections is the ICANNnot site, which summarizes each region's election. That site is located at:
http://www.ICANNnot.org
(Many thanks to Mr. Andrew Bloch for creating that site!)

In what follows, I summarize the present state of each regional election and speculate about the future.

EUROPE
======
Europe has had the highest turnout of any region, with over 32% of all activated members voting (21% of all members in the region.) Europe also has the fewest open positions for member nominations -- only 2 of 7, with the other 5 positions already filled by ICANN's nominees.

The two candidates most likely to win a nomination are Andy Mueller-Maguhn and Jeanette Hofmann, both from Germany and both with strong credentials for representing civil society concerns on the ICANN Board. The clear leader is Mueller-Maguhn, with more than twice the endorsements of any other candidate. Mueller-Maguhn is the Speaker of the Chaos Computer Club (www.CCC.de), an organization that promotes issues like privacy and freedom of information. (My German colleagues have uniformly emphasized that the term "chaos" refers to its philosophy of freedom and non-hierarchical organization.)

Jeanette Hofmann is a university-based social scientist who has done extensive studies of the IETF. She is a founding member of the European chapter of Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (www.CPSR.org) and a signatory to the Civil Society Statement (www.civilsocietyinternetforum.org).

Two other leading European candidates are Lutz Donnerhacke and Dmitri Bourkov. Donnerhacke is a co-founder of FITUG (www.FITUG.de), which is a member of the Global Internet Liberty Campaign (www.GILC.org). With about 800 endorsements, he is only about 250 votes behind the Jeanette Hoffman at the time of this writing. Bourkov, the only non-German candidate with large numbers of endorsements, has a background in the technical areas of network development in Eastern Europe and Russia.

Election data for Europe is available at:
http://www.icannnot.org/icannel.cgi?s=e&r=EU&l=e
An archived discussion forum for Europe is available at:
http://www.fitug.de/icann-europe/index.html


ASIA/AUSTRALIA/PACIFIC
======================
The region with the greatest contrast to Europe is Asia. There, only about 12% of activated members have voted (less than 5% of all Asia regional members.) Asia has three candidate positions still open, but so far only one member has passed the 2% threshold for nomination.

The leading candidate is Hong Jie Li from China, who has over 1000 votes. He has a business background and expresses concerns about business development. Three other candidates each have between 400 and 500 votes. Kuo-Wei Wu, from Taiwan, has a background in the technical and research community and is active in APNIC. Jon Ho Kim, from Korea, is an expert in intellectual property law.

The fourth candidate is Yukika Matsumoto from Japan. She is the only leading Asian candidate to strongly advocate civil society issues. She has worked with NGO's, most notably JCA-NET, which is the Japanese member of the Association for Progressive Communications (www.APC.org). At the time of this writing she has the third-highest number of votes, but has still not passed the 2% threshold needed to win a nomination.

Election data for Asia is available at:
http://www.icannnot.org/icannel.cgi?s=e&r=AP&l=e


NORTH AMERICA
=============
The North American region has three clear leading candidates for its three open positions. All three have strongly supported values of civil society.

Karl Auerbach was a co-founder of the Boston Working Group, which played an important role in ICANN's creation, ensuring that there would be an At Large membership. His extensive reform platform for ICANN can be seen at: http://www.cavebear.com/ialc/platform.htm. Barbara Simons is the former President of the Association for Computing Machinery (www.ACM.org) and founded its Internet Governance Project (http://www.acm.org/serving/IG.html), which supported the work of Kathy Kleiman. Simons is also a long-time member of CPSR. Both Auerbach and Simons have endorsed the Civil Society Statement (Auerbach contributed significantly to its creation.) The third candidate who has also passed the 2% threshold is Emerson Tiller, whose platform supports free speech and open democratic governance of ICANN.

Election data for North America is available at:
http://www.icannnot.org/icannel.cgi


LATIN AMERICA/CARIBBEAN
=======================
In this region one candidate has emerged as a clear leader, although a second person may still pass the 2% limit. With the majority of ICANN members located in Brazil, it is not surprising that both candidates are from that country.

Claudio Silva Menezes has over 800 votes out of a total of 924 at this time. He works for the Banco do Brasil in IT management. In a distant second place is Aluisio Nunes, with 60 votes. He is an independent consultant in strategic management and marketing research.

Election data for Latin America are available at:
http://www.icannnot.org/icannel.cgi?s=e&r=LA&l=e


AFRICA
======
Although only 54 votes have been cast so far in this region, the rates of participation are roughly equivalent to North America. Here the threshold to surpass is the fixed limit of 20 voters. Two of the three candidates are still far below that, with 8 and 6 votes.

The leading candidate here is Calvin Browne of South Africa. He is a director of the corporation managing the .co.za domain name space, which is the South African equivalent of .com. He also has years of experience participating in activities of ICANN and the Internet Society.

Election data for Africa is available at:
http://www.icannnot.org/icannel.cgi?s=e&r=AF&l=e


COMMENTARY
==========
These data allow one to speculate on what the future holds.

Clearly nationalism is a strong factor in these regional elections. In each region, the leading candidates are citizens of the countries with the most voters. The big countries are Brazil, Germany, United States, South Africa, and China and Japan.

In two regions -- Europe and North America -- voters have shown a clear preference for candidates expressing concerns for free speech, privacy, and democracy (what I here call "civil society values.") Every single successful candidate in Europe and North America has advocated civil society values.

For the final elections in North America, where Lawrence Lessig is also a candidate, fully 4 of the 7 Board candidates in October will likely be explicit supporters of such values. (This multiplicity of candidates does not risk splitting the vote and causing them all to lose, because the election rules will allow for the aggregation of votes.)

In Europe, only 2 of the 7 likely candidates in October seem to have a strong background in civil society issues. However, they are both from Germany, the country likely to exercise the greatest influence on outcomes. Thus, 2 of the 3 final German candidates will almost certainly be strong supporters of such values.

In Asia, there is still some chance that one civil society candidate may make it on the ballot -- Yukika Matsumoto. Otherwise, that region's electoral choices in October will largely be among candidates from the industry and technology communities.

In Africa and Latin America, the candidates with the clearest civil society orientation will be those nominated by ICANN. Both of ICANN's African nominees endorsed the Civil Society Statement (see: http://www.cpsr.org/internetdemocracy/friends-of-civsoc.html ). One of ICANN's Latin American nominees, Raul Echeberria, also endorsed the Statement and was the recipient of an endorsement from the Association for Progressive Communications (www.APC.org).

Between now and Friday's election deadline, a few questions remain. The biggest question is whether Asia voters will nominate Yukika Matsumoto, the only advocate of privacy, speech, and the public interest who has a chance to get on the ballot. In Europe, Jeanette Hoffman could still lose her position to Lutz Donnerhacke, although support for Hoffman seems to be increasing as the deadline approaches.

The election rules do allow members to switch endorsements. Yukika Matsumoto could still benefit from a last-minute wave of switched endorsements, particularly of other candidates with no prospect of success declare their support for her. That may allow her to pass the 2% threshold.

In October the big question will be whether voter behavior in this phase will be repeated in the October election. Today's voter behavior has been characterized by considerable support for candidates supporting civil society values. If the October elections look like the Member Nomination phase, then new Directors may be elected who will supplement ICANN's current concern with property rights with a concern for speech, privacy, and consumer rights.

The Civil Society Statement is available at:
http://www.CivilSocietyInternetForum.org/


###

Candidates and readers are welcome to comment on this analysis. Comments on the previous Cyber-Federalist, No.4, have been offered by: Vint Cerf, Christoph Weber-Fahr, Carl Malamud, Hans Klein, and David Reed. See: http://www.cyber-federalist.org

=========================================================

CYBER-FEDERALIST is a regularly-published series of analyses and commentaries on Internet governance and ICANN elections. It is produced as part of the Internet Democracy Project. See:
http://www.civsoc.org
http://www.internetdemocracyproject.org/
http://www.cyber-federalist.org

Subscribe to the CYBER-FEDERALIST!
send an Email to: cyber-federalist-subscribe@cpsr.org

=========================================================

Alan Shutko asks: "I was playing with different resolutions recently, and got confused. 640x480, 800x600, 1024x768, 1152x864, 1400x1050, 1600x1200, they all have a 4x3 aspect ratio. But 1280x1024 has a 5x4 aspect ratio. What's up with this? Somewhere in the annals of computing history, someone must have come up with 1280x1024. Why did they choose such an odd aspect ratio?"

Jason Bennett took a look at the triply-authored Java Modeling in Color with UML. What he came away with ... well, that's for you to find out, but computer book writers everywhere ought to be grateful that Slashdot book reviewers are not granted the power of the emperor's thumb.

Java Modeling in Color with UML author Peter Coad, Eric Lefebvre, and Jeff De Luca pages 218 publisher Prentice Hall rating Far belo reviewer Jason Bennett ISBN 0-13-011510-X summary Peter Coad's attempt to integrate another dimension to modeling

Background Back in my wild college days (ok, so maybe they weren't that wild ...), my introduction to object-think and object-speak came through two main conduits: Smalltalk, and Peter Coad. His Object-Oriented Programming helped teach me how to think natively in objects, and gave me my share of vending-machine problems. When I learned that he had come out with a new book, I knew I had to get it and see how his views had developed in the era of Java and UML. This was not what I had in mind. The Scenario

This book is mainly divided into three parts. Part one is composed of chapter 1, where the authors describe the concept of modeling with color. It's an excellent idea, really, color coding class design to distinguish the parts the objects play. Color coding has the advantage of adding another dimension of information to a diagram without clogging the diagram with more words. The chapter also includes a discussion of the "domain-neutral component," the fitting together of archetypes into standard patterns. This is the basis for part two, comprised of chapters 2-5. Part two is basically a series of object models strung together with a bit of text to describe each of them. Various views of the model, including UML activity diagrams, are shown. Finally, part three is composed of chapter 6, where the authors describe the concept of Feature-Driven Development, that is developing software in narrow slivers, thus maximizing deliverables and customer satisfaction.

What's Bad?

A dangerous question to ask about this book. I approached this book looking for something that would teach me about patterns, what they do, some examples, and ways to use them in my work. What I got was a pattern dictionary with no instruction in their use. Since I get paid to design and write Java, and since I have some formal training in OO, I like to think that I have some sort of clue about this stuff. Unfortunately, this book still didn't make any sense to me, and still didn't seem useful at all. Why do I want 20 pages of manufacturing models? How did they come about? Why would I want to do it that way? How else could I do it? What the heck is going on with this model? It's like trying to expand your vocabulary by reading the dictionary, with no example sentences to guide you.

The other parts are mildly interesting, but not special in and of themselves. The color idea is nice, if you design like Coad. If you don't, I have to wonder how usful they would be. Feature-driven development has been expressed in other ways before, but this book does not address a major problem with the concept: how can you develop narrowly when you need a broad backing for the application? In other words, it's all well and good to get one feature out at a time, but if you have to write half the middle-tier and all the back-end for that one feature, have you really bought yourself anything? I don't mean to settle the debate here, only point out that an entire book could be written on that concept (and in the case of Extreme Programming, has been), and one chapter does not do it justice. In many ways, it seems tacked on.

What's Good?

Well, as I said, the first and last chapters have some promise. If you read the comments on Fatbrain and Amazon, the opinions seem to be strongly divided. People either love or hate this book. If you need these models, and can intuit a lot from the diagrams, this book could be very useful to you. If you're anything less than an expert, though, I doubt what you will be able to get much from this book.

So What's In It For Me?

I'm currently ordering Applying UML and Patterns, as that has been highly recommended to me as an intro patterns book. I'll let you know how that turns out. I do believe in the pattern concept, as that is exactly how the other engineering disciplines work. I truly hope we can make it work for software engineering.

Table of Contents

• Preface
• About the Authors

1. Archetypes, Color, and the Domain-Neutral Component
2. Make of Buy
3. Sell
4. Relate
5. Coordinate and Support
6. Feature-Driven Development

• Appendix A: Archetypes in Color
• Appendix B: Modeling Tips
• Appendix C: Notation
• Index

This book is available at Fatbrain.

Pointwood writes: "Joakim Ziegler (Webmaster for Helix Code) has written an article about where computer interface design may be heading. It takes a paper called "The Anti-Mac Interface" written in 1996 by Don Gentner and Jakob Nielsen and take a look at where we are now. In the Anti-Mac Interface paper, Don Gentner and Jakob Nielsen explore the types of interfaces that could result if they violate each of the Macintosh human interface design principles." Excellent article.

More information below -- for your edification and amusement -- on black holes (if they exist), Napster (a happy outcome for once), comparitive computer languages (after Chris Rijk's Java / C comparison) and more. Even a (gasp) positive statement about Microsoft. Hope you enjoy it.

What goes up must go SPLOOSH. Detritus writes: "The BBC is reporting that GRO has reentered the atmosphere and splashed down in the Pacific ocean, as predicted." So just what is the space equivalent of Davy Jones' Locker?

Serbo-Croatian, Swahili, Esperanto. After many spirited comments regarding Chris Rijk's Java / C shootout, Nilsson writes: "John Pierce has done some interesting language performance tests. Instead of benchmarking how a problem can be solved in the fastest possible way he tries to benchmark how an average programmer would have solved the problem in various languages. C, Awk, Java, Perl, Pike and Tcl are tested. You can probably start religious wars with this document." Tools for the job, tools for the job ...

Just like an after-school special. Landaras writes "NYC pointed out in a thread that The Offspring and Napster have reached a very amicable settlement over the whole t-shirt issue link Since you clarified that Napster wasn't suing (it was a cease and decist) you might want to again clarify that the cease and decist has been dropped. In fact, Napster is now helping The Offspring create new products." Writing in with more detail, mishaco pointed out this link to an NME story noting that " Napster have now backed down, allowing the band to sell the material, but only if the proceeds are donated to charity."

If it exists, it blows. Which doesn't suck, necessarily. dthor writes: "The Hubble Space Telescope finds more freaks of space: a black hole that's been switched from suck to blow. Apparently, a black hole in the Virgo cluster has begun to emit largish bubbles of colourful nebula gas (or rather...began to emit hundreds of years ago, but CNN is just now catching up). Read the article, complete with an "interactive" Anatomy of a Black Hole (the regular sucking kind). Neato." [Updated 8 June 12:05GMT by timothy] Note that, as readers like daVinci1980 point out below, this is entirely consistent with current black hole theory and observations. There's not really a "suck / blow" switch on black holes' control panels. That we know of.

How the suits saw it. Duncan Lawie penned -- err, "tapped" -- his account of the UK Linux Expo 2000 in London, and it was at least partly about code, distributions and drinking beer. On the other side of the aisle, meanwhile ... Xolution writes "There's a small article on CNN.com about Linux starting to come into the mainstream."

Out of the goodness of their 8-chambered hearts? Kaufmann writes: "Bruce reports: they've received email from a MS product manager, promising to fix the Interix GPL violation (recently reported on Slashdot as well). That's a relief." Nice to hear; thanks for Bruce and company for the sharp eye and persistence.

Greetings, all. I thought I'd let things settle down a little bit after my Cluetrain review, and try something slightly safer. :-) It never ceases to amaze me how, in an age where we use the phrase "that's so yesterday!" without flinching, the best lessons are those from "long ago." Book burning has been a hallmark of our century, although we certainly did not invent it. From the blatant actions of the Nazis to the self-censorship of the post-WWII age to today's filtering fights, the struggle to express ourselves has never ended. Come the middle of this century, at a time when the status quo was as strong as it has been in recent memory, a man with a story reminded us of something that Thomas Jefferson expressed two centuries before, that a little revolution now and then is a good thing. That revolution may generate some uncomfortable instability, but in the end we as a society are better for it. Fahrenheit 451 author Ray Bradbury pages 179 publisher Del Rey rating 10/10 reviewer Jason Bennett ISBN 0-345-41001-7 summary Although written in a "calmer" era, F451 still resonates with us today as uncomfortable views continue to be repressed.

The Scenario Since this is fiction, I'll keep this short to avoid giving away the story. Imagine the Jetsons in a time where owning a book is illegal, in a society dominated by mindless media. In other words, it's set in the present, as the present could be. Ok, I'm exaggerating, but not as much as I'd like to be. In this time, houses have been made completely fireproof, and therefore the firemen don't stop fires -- they start them, by burning down houses containing contraband (books). The rationale is quite simple: Books are divisive. There's always someone complaining, or feeling attacked, or generally unhappy that someone else knows something he shouldn't. But there's no need to repeat what Bradbury has so eloquently expressed.

Now let's take up the minorities in our civilization, shall we? [Giant list of every possible philosophical group] The bigger your market, Montag, the less you handle controversy, remember that! ... It didn't come from the Government down. There was no dictum, no declaration, no censorship, to start with, no! Technology, mass exploitation, and minority pressure carried the trick, thank God. [italics mine] ... Surely you remember the boy in your own school class who was exceptionally 'bright'.... And wasn't it this bright boy you selected for beatings and tortures after hours? ... And so when houses were finally fireproofed completely... [firemen] were given the new job, as custodians of our peace of mine, the focus of our understandable and rightful dread of being inferior: official censors, judges, and executors.

Jon Katz, fifty years early. Be afraid.

What's Bad? I'm supposed to tell you what's bad about a classic of science fiction written around the time of my parent's birth? Yeah, right. I gave it a zero above for a reason: there's no way to rate this. Is this a better book than, for example, Cryptonomicon? In terms of influence and longevity, certainly. Will you like it more? Go find out for yourself! It's short!

What's Good? The best books are the ones that last, the ones with the timeless lessons that speak across the ages. I felt this way with my first review for Slashdot, of The Mythical Man Month, and I feel the same now. Fahrenheit 451 expresses the issue just as well today as it did when it was written. Cyberpatrol, the CDA, and peacefire may have been decades away, but that only makes the lesson all the more poignant. In addition, there are more recent addenda in this edition written by Bradbury himself that relate some of what has happened since the original publication. All in all, a satisfying and poignant read.

So What's In It For Me?

A needle that will prick your heart, and a voice that will speak to your soul.

Purchase this book at ThinkGeek.

Table of Contents

• Part One: The Hearth and the Salamander
• Part Two: The Sieve and the Sand
• Part Three: Burning Bright
• Afterword
• Coda

Muad asks: "Suppose someone had a really cool site like /. - how do you get the word out? In other words, once the work is done, how do you build the hype and let your potential users know that the result of so much of your hard work is finally online? Granted, you could use a lot of money, but the really interesting question arises when you don't have a large marketing budget, or none at all." In the absence of an advertising budget, and after you've added your site to every search engine you can find (accurate entries, please) you still can't beat the word-of-mouth method as a way to get folks to visit your site. However, you will soon discover that the hard part isn't getting folks to visit the site...it's getting them to come back.

Thanks to Crag Pfeifer for sending a review of James Gleick's Faster. If you've ever felt like life's moving faster then ever, this is worth reading. Faster: The Acceleration of Just About Everything author James Gleick pages 324 publisher Pantheon, 1999 rating 8/10 reviewer Craig Pfeifer (cpfeifer@acm.org,http://www.cpfeifer.org ISBN 0679408371 summary An observation of some of the causes, symptoms and results of living in an accelerated age.Rating: (8/10)

The Scenario Ever feel that the pace of life today is much faster than 10 or 20 years ago? You're not alone. James Gleick offers us 37 insightful observations of the causes, symptoms and results of living in an accelerated age. Interestingly enough, this book is the victim of the condition it describes: out of the 37 chapters, not one of them is more than 12 pages long (7.36 pages on average).

If you are looking for high theory about the effects of technology on society and culture, shoot for Marshall McLuhan. If you're wondering who flipped the switch 20 years ago to push western society into overdrive, read on.

What's Bad? Absolutely nothing. The anecdotes hit their mark each time. But don't expect a precise scientific examination of the psycho/sociological effects of technology. Faster is a well-grounded reflection on the current state of society with references to relevant articles and interviews. These reflections do tend to wander slightly off course. For example, you probably didn't expect to receive a history of the major advances in modern elevator technology, in the middle of an explanation of the origin of the 'close door' button. What's Good? Gleick's perspective has the clarity of someone looking in the window of the western world, and the intimacy of a fellow participant. Gleick has a gift for expressing technical subjects with such sensitivity, passion and understanding that the topics and people come alive on the page. This is evident in Gleick's other works, Genius: The Life and Science of Richard Feynman most notably. Also, a wonderful bibliography is provided for further reading.

Summary of Selected Chapters: Pacemaker "Humanity is now a species with one watch and this is it," explains Gleick on his trip to the National Directorate of Time at the Naval Observatory in northwest Washington, DC. In the first chapter, Gleick takes us on a visit to the global metronome that measures time in units so small they pass before you notice they existed. Here devices track the frequencies of atoms and engage 50 other devices around the world in the same conversation millions of times a day: what time is it? We know that a day is 24 hours, 1440 minutes, 86,400 seconds, but the length of a year changes. To account for the subtle wobble of the earth's axis and gradually slowing spin rate, they add a "leap" second whenever it is neccessary to keep everthing in synch. As time goes on, we will have to add this second more and more often.

The second half of this chapter is an overview of the 36 upcoming vignettes: Technology enables us to process more information than ever before, but it also allows us to produce more information than ever before. "500 channels" at the click of a button on a remote control, 30 different coffees at the corner coffee franchise. "What is true that we are awash in things, information, in news, in the old rubble and shiny new toys of our complex civilization, and -- strange, perhaps -- stuff means speed."

How Many Hours Do You Work? Juliet Schor calculated that the average American employee spends a full extra month working today compared with similar employees in the 1970's. Based on this, Gleick examines where all of this time went. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, payroll records show a stedy decling in weekly hours over the past four decades. But the research is inconclusive: some studies show that we're working more than ever, others show that working hours actually have decreased steadily since the 1950's. This could be due to the fact that the traditional definition of "work time" is changing. Today more people "work from home," spend more time outside of the office thinking about work, spend more time commuting, and take less vacation time than 20 years ago. Why? Gleick posits that time has become a "negative status symbol." If you have "spare time", you must not be very important. How about lunch next week? Let me check my Palm Pilot/Franklin Planner/leather-bound officious looking object that projects to everyone around me that I'm a very busy person... This week is bad, how about in two weeks? "Overwork equals importance." says Gleick. Attention Multitaskers! This chapter (weighing in at a terse 5.5 pages) hits very close to home. One of the biggest contributors to the speed up of life in the western world: multitasking. The simultaneous execution of unrelated activities (flossing and catching up on email) makes us feel more efficient that we shave seconds off of our daily routine, and ensures that we never have to sit idle. New devices have encouraged this habit: cell phones, so we can have meaningful conversations wherever we are, the remote control so we can watch 3 programs all at once, and the ultimate multitasking tool, the computer. Gleick tells us about a Bloomberg employee who is engaged in a phone conversation to a colleague in New York, and simultaneously exchanging e-mail volleys with another colleague in Connecticut. Multitasking is another way we try to do more with our vanishing time, and make sure that every second of our attention is fully utilized. So What's In It For Me? The insights are painfully true, and hit home on multiple levels. The French novelist Stendahl said "a novel is a mirror walking down a road." And that is exactly what purpose this books serves; it is a reflection of the collective choices we have made as a society over the past 20 years, for better or worse. Faster doesn't pass judgement about whether the acceleration that has taken place over the past 20 years is a "good thing" or a "bad thing," it simply points them out and presents the context which allowed them to happen.

Purchase this book at ThinkGeek.

Table of Contents

1. Pacemaker
2. Life as Type A
3. The Door Close Button
4. Your Other Face
5. Time Goes Standard
6. The New Accelerators
7. Seeing in Slow Motion
8. In Real Time
9. Lost in Time
10. On Internet Time
11. Quick -- Your Opinion?
12. Decomposition takes time
13. On Your Mark, Get Set, Think
14. A Millisecond Here, a Milisecond There
15. 1,440 Minutes a Day
16. Sex and Paperwork
17. Modern Conveniences
18. Jog More, Read Less
19. Eat and Run
20. How Man Hours Do You Work?
21. 7:15 Tooke Shower
22. Attention! Multitaskers
23. Shot-Shot-Shot-Shot
24. Prest-o! Change-o!
25. MTV Zooms By
26. Allegro ma Non Troppo
27. Can You See it?
28. High-Pressure Minutes
29. Time and Motion
30. The Paradox of Efficiency
31. 365 Ways to Save Time
32. The Telephone Lottery
33. Time is Not Money
34. Short-Term Memory
35. The Law of Small Numbers
36. Bored
37. The End
38. Acknowledgements and Notes
39. Index

Professor Pollack put a lot of time and thought into answering your questions, and it shows. What follows is a "deeper than we expected" series of comments about Artificial Intelligence and intellectual property distribution from one of the acknowledged leaders in both fields. How do you justify your expectations? (Score:5, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward For the past 40 years, AI has just been 10 years or so away.

It's still just 10 years or so away.

It's not getting any closer.

How do you justify any degree of optimism about the future of AI at this point? What makes now fundamentally different from anytime in the past 40 years?

It is funny, this is the same question I asked Marvin Minsky, the father of AI, at ALife 5 in Japan. He attacked every modern approach, including neural nets, fuzzy logic, evolutionary algorithms, and so on for over an hour, suggesting that his student's (Winston's) thesis should have been the paradigm of the field! I asked, "If AI sucks so much, why are you still in the field after 40 years?"

Hypocrite! Here I am, still in the field after 20 years! As soon as I've convinced myself one approach to AI is too slow, I find another, leaving quietly without attacking the friends I've made. AI is a big wide open field with a lot of smart people trying different things. (Savage attacks by insiders exiting are the worst thing in science, such as Bar Hillel's attack on Machine Translation in the 60's. Forty Years later, MT is "cool" again, in this month's issue of Wired.)

So I can say that, from my perspective as having worked on many different approaches to AI, writing problem space search algorithms for solving puzzles will not result in a general problem solver. Automating predicate logic won't make a computer equivalent to a philosopher. A computer can't do natural language any better than Eliza, without an internal need to communicate to survive and a large blessing of custom hardware. Neural nets are great function approximators with good mathematical results on limited kinds of learning, but we can't set 12 weights to get what we want, let alone 10 billion weights. And even though simple nonlinear systems give off chaos and fractals, Kolmogorov's law tells us simple systems are still simple. Evolution is one path to complexity, but most genetic algorithms simply search a finite search space and optimize a fixed goal.

So I'm locally pessimistic but globally optimistic! Who said AI is 10 years away? It's here now, in limited forms, yielding a lot of economic value, as your mouse clickstream is datamined so the ads which pop up are for things you might actually buy. But the SF ideal of a humanoid robot like Commander Data is centuries away.

I hold the view that any system which responds to its environment in a conditional way based on some internal state, even a thermostat, has a bit of intelligence. Immune systems, ecologies, and economies design things and solve problems. Every computer program you write has a bit of intelligence captured in it. The problem is, real AI of the sort you are alluding to is an organization which might be realizable as a 10 billion line program or a 10 billion weight dynamical neural system, and no human software engineering team can write autonomous code which is more than 10-100 million lines. Even Windows is just DOS with wallpaper, and big applications always require a human in the loop, selecting subprograms from menus or command lines.

Since 1994, we've been working on how to automatically evolve physical symbol systems which would have 10 billion unique moving parts, what we call "Biologically Complex" systems. When I say "We," it is because everything I do is in collaboration with my Ph.D students! A 10 Billion Line program is an absurd goal obviously, but it drives our research to focus in on the process of growth itself, rather than on what shortcuts we can accomplish by hand. We look at co-evolution, which involves machine learners training each other, and on questions of what kinds of substrates for computing could provide a universe of functionality while being constrained in a way which reduces the size or dimensionality of the search space. This constraint is called inductive bias. We seek minimal inductive bias systems, in which the human hints, or "gradient engineering" tricks are fully explicit. (Sevan Ficici, Richard Watson) We still work on neural nets and fractals as a substrate, and have made some progress in understanding how they work (Ofer Melnik, Simon Levy).

It's been more than five years, and while we are not even at the million line mark yet, I am still optimistic and haven't given up on co-evolution to move to a new field. I think that my lab has made progress in understanding why Hillis's sorting networks and Tesauro's Backgammon player were such breakthroughs and where they were limited. (Hugue Juille, Alan Blair). I think we have begun to understand the nature of mediocrity as an attractor in educational systems and how to change the utility functions to avoid collusion, and apply this to human learning (Elizabeth Sklar). We have become more applied, bring co-evolution to the Internet and to robotics, replicating and extending the beautiful results of Karl Sims from 1994 (Pablo Funes, Greg Hornby, Hod Lipson). All the work is available to study at the laboratory's Web site.

AI and ethics. (Score:5, Interesting) by kwsNI What do you say to the people that feel it is unethical to try to create "intelligence"?

I take this as a shorter version of the longer religious question the editor thankfully didn't select. I've talked to myrabbi, perhaps one of the great theologians around today. Even though I am an atheist, he thinks I am on a spiritual quest to understand [God as] the principles of the universe which allow self-organization of life as a chemical process far from equilibrium which dissipates energy and creates structure that exploits emergent properties of physics. Can a spiritual quest be unethical? I suggest that people with this question read Three Scientists and Their God, by Robert Wright, or watch the Morris documentary "Fast, Cheap and Out of Control".

A second ethical question, besides usurping God's rights, is how can you take funding from national and military agencies like NSF, Darpa and ONR? For the past 50 years at least, they have been the seed capital for the science behind most of the technological progress I know about. With the venture capital economy, that curiosity-based seed function may be privatized, if some of the big VC funds dedicate 10% for long range science, and the ethical question of whether you are doing something for public good or private gain begins to dominate over the religious and military questions. That is the same question many scientists and Linux hackers ask themselves daily: Can I do good and make money without a conflict of interest?

Turing award. (Score:5, Funny) by V. Do we win something if we can fool him into answering a computer-generated question? ;)

It has always been the case that limiting the range of dialog leads to more successful masquerading. In our CEL online educational game, for example, the only interactions between players are the actual plays, which enables artificial agents to be accepted as game partners.

BTW, the Turing Award is an annual lifetime achievement award in computer science, which has gone to people like John Backus for his eloquent apology for Fortran when he should have given us APL and LISP. The Turing Test is the name given to Alan Turing's proposal for testing for successful AI. Given that we don't deny airplanes fly, I think if AI ever flies, we won't question it. So I propose using the Louis Armstrong Test, his answer to the question "What is jazz?"

How should an amateur get started working on AI? (Score:5,Interesting) by Henry House It seems to me that a significant problem holding back the development of AI is that few non-professionals grok AI well enough to offer any contribution to the AI and open-source communities. What do you suggest that I, as a person interested in both AI and open source, do about this? What are the professionals in the AI field doing about this?

Reading is fundamental.

Frankenstein (Score:5, Interesting) by Borealis For a long time there has been a fear of a Frankenstein being incarnated with AI. Movies like The Matrix and the recent essay by Bill Joy both express worries that AI (in the form of self replicating robots with some AI agenda) can possibly overcome us if we are not careful. Personally I have always considered the idea rather outlandish, but I'm wondering what an actual expert thinks about the idea.

Do you believe that there is any foundation for worry? If so, what areas should we concentrate on to be sure to avoid any problems? If not, what are the limiting factors that prevent an "evil" AI?

AI doesn't kill People. AI might make guns smart enough to sense the weight or handsize of the user, preventing children from killing each other. Everything ever invented is capable of good or evil. Evil arises most often when masses of humans are denied fundamental rights. The Evil Rate and Unemployment Rate are closely linked.

I read Bill Joy's article in Wired last month. And I loved the Unabomber's excerpt because it is based on some of the best Philip Dick paranoid Science Fiction, like: Vulcan's Hammer, We Can Build You, and the Simulacrum. There is a lot of SF on the Golem question and one of my favorites is Marge Piercy's He, She, and It , which proposes a moratorium on AI inside humanoid robots. You can have smart software on the Web, and human looking idiobots, but you can't put real AI inside human looking robots, or you have to pay the price.

My lab is indeed working on self-replicating robotics and were worried for a split second about getting the fetal brain tissue reaction when our paper comes out shortly. We can now envision the "third bootstrap", after precision manufacturing and computation, where machines make the machines which make themselves, just as machine tools are used to make more machine tools, and computers compile their own programs. But the replication loop is quite a sophisticated automatic manufacturing process, which requires a large industrial infrastructure, and a lot of liability insurance. So far, no VC's, Saudi Princes, or government agencies have offered the necessary $500M first round of financing for fullyautomateddesign.com.

It would be wrong of me to say leave my frankenbots alone, and go after frankenfoods and frankenano. I think Joe Weizenbaum's book should be required reading, because every few years somebody else comes up with the idea of inserting computers inside animal bodies, so that the first act of any war will be to exterminate all nonhuman life forms. But I do think we have to worry more about large scale industrial and agricultural processes which are allowed to externalize their by-products affecting the environment, than we need worry about robotic ice-9. We will die quicker from e-mail spam caused by viral marketing customer acquisition schemes or from global warming and ozone depletion triggering major climactic change, red tide or another pollutant taking out fish from the food chain, or even from people throwing away old EGA screens and 386 motherboards in landfills, poisoning the aquifers. I promise that for every robot we build, there will be another robot to recycle it when its job is complete.

Anyhow, IMO Joy's angst must reflect the Sun setting on any instruction set architecture besides x86, but that's a different discussion. Talk to me about the ethics, when your very own open source movement leads to the inevitability of an Intel instruction set monopoly by providing a useful alternative to Microsoft :)

Questions based on your academic path (Score:5, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward The way to the field of AI isn't always extremely clear. What type of background do they expect? Is it mostly a researching position or is it treated like a normal job with normal goals? Are there any classes or subjects or schools you recommend to make it into the AI field? Also, how exactly did you get into the field? How did AI intrigue you into what you do now, despite all the controversy to create an intelligence that could possibly be considered a "god" compared to the human existence? Very interesting to say the least, and something I'm interested in.

There is no AI business field to speak of which is differentiated from the general software business. Most companies which were "AI companies" in an earlier generation of university spin-offs for Lisp Machines, and Expert Systems Shells, failed miserably. Venture Capitalists won't fall into the same sinkhole twice. There are industrial process control companies which use refined bits of AI, e.g. in visual inspection of manufacturing processes, and Neural Network companies, like HNC, who have changed business plans and are now "pattern-recognition e-commerce security." companies. The Speech recognition industry has condensed into one company. Web- based AI means search engines and Language Engines. Ask Jeeves and Google and Direct Hit and many others may use bits of AI and adaptive technologies in their system.

Jobs in AI are just like software jobs everywhere: chain you to a workstation and make you work out boring details in exchange for salary and very little equity. But find a great graduate program in computer science, and you will likely find fun and exciting work for no salary and no equity! And you have to be great at both real and discrete mathematics as well as a natural born programming genius.

As for me, I started programming computers in APL as a freshman in college, and because it was such a high level language and I didn't sleep much, I wrote an awful lot of code in a few years. I was naturally drawn to building heuristic puzzle solvers, game players, and logical theorem provers. Before I met my wife, friends thought I was in love with computers. After working at IBM, I went to graduate school in Urbana and worked with David Waltz on LISP hacking, natural language processing, and reinvented neural networks, which were censored from the AI curriculum of the early 80's. I came to the limit of what could be done with neural networks for intelligence by 1988, and at Ohio State University, started looking at fractals and chaos as a source for generativity. Unfortunately, interesting behavior requires lots of levels and lots of parameters, which is why we started looking at evolution for selecting and adjusting lots of parameters, a focus since I've been at Brandeis.

While there is a lot of detailed work and dead ends, the search for mechanical intelligence is one of the great unsolved problems, which is in some way deeply equivalent to questions on the origin of life, human language, morphogenesis, child development, and human cultural and economic change. John Casti's book is a great place to start reading about these big problems.

Human brain - AI connection - is there? (Score:5, Interesting) Do you think that a greater understanding of the human brain and how intelligence has emerged in us is crucial to the creation of AI, or do you think that the two are unconnected? Will a greater understanding of memory and thought aid in development, or will AI be different enough so that such knowledge isn't required?

Also, what do you think about the potential of the models used today to attempt to achieve a working AI? Do you think that the models themselves (e.g. the neural net model) are correct and have the potential to produce an AI given enough power and configuration, or do you think that our current models are just a stepping stone along the way to a better model which is required for success?

Obviously there are clear medicinal benefits to brain research. And the study of any real biological system leads to interesting metaphors which can be the basis for a novel computational model. But I think it is unlikely that research into the biology of the brain is crucial to understanding cognition or replicating intelligence. It's like studying the width of wires in integrated circuits of a computer. Even if you get the whole wiring diagram for a computer, it still tells you little about the programs running on it. I think understanding the brain is a problem which is underestimated. I heard 25,000 scientists attend the annual Neurosciences meeting, three times the largest ever interested in AI. It could be called the Mandelsciences meeting, and different labs compete to describe what they find in those little windows on the Mandelbrot set! But I have a lot of friends who are neuroscientists, and I can be just as facetious about linguistics.

Seriously, I believe we have to understand and replicate the processes which lead to the development of the brain and its behavior, not replicate the mammalian brain itself.

The second part of your question "how intelligence has emerged in us" can be interpreted as a more interesting direction. Here, there is a lot of opportunity to relate human intelligence as animal intelligence plus a little more. The fields of evolutionary epistemology, adaptive behavior, and computational neuroethology are quite interesting. It is a great question to understand cognition as it appears in other animals, insects, worms, and even bacterial colonies. The basic principles of multicellular cooperation are more important than the millions of specific adaptations of the human brain.

As for models question, it is sort of like asking whether a chair is built out of metal, wood, plastic, rubber, or cardboard. It doesn't matter, as long as it are strong enough. The organization of molecules has to provide a surface and a normal force at the right height for sitting. As for the organization of 10 billion things which might make an AI? Doesn't matter if it is c, java, lisp, neurons, or tightly coupled markovian 2nd order polynomial fuzzy sets. Will it stand, or collapse under its own weight?

most likely path? (Score:5, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward Dr Jordan:

Do you think that AI is more likely to arise as the result of explicit efforts to create an intelligent system by programmers, or by evolution of artificial life entities? Or on the third hand, do you think efforts like Cog (training the machine like a child, with a long, human aided learning process) will be the first to create a thinking machine?

We are taking the second path, seeking the principles for self-organization so we can harness them to create and invent forms of organization.. There is a 4th path you don't mention, which is the terminator/Truenames hypothesis, that AI will simply arise among the powerful router machines of the internet. How would we recognize coherent behavior arising in telecom infrastructure if it didn't wake up talking English? I think a SETI for coherent intentional behavior emerging out of the infrastructure would be a fun project to do for the people worrying about risks to the information infrastructure.

Software Market & Open Source (Score:5, Insightful) by Breace In your 'hyperbook' about your idea of a software market I noticed that you say that Open Source evangelists should support your movement because it will be (quote) A way for your next team to be rewarded for their creative work if it turns into Sendmail, Apache, or Linux.

I assume (from reading other parts) that you are talking about a monetary reward. My question is (and this is not meant as a flame by any means), do you really think that that's what the Open Source community is after, after all? Do you think that people like Torvalds or RMS are unhappy for not being rewarded enough?

If the OS community doesn't care about monetary rewards, is there an other benefit in having your proposed Software Market?

According to economic theory, utility is what motivates you to make decisions in your own self interest. Simple games, like the prisoner's dilemma, rationalize utility with numeric values to illustrate the concept, but it isn't money at all. If someone behaves in an unpredictable way, we must have our definition of their utility wrong.

There are plenty of motivations for writing open source code, including the challenge and the feeling of altruism, both of which have utility. A lot of people may write open source for credit in the community, which also has utility. If RMS was a radical advocate of anonymity who wrote the GPL so you couldn't put your name on the source code because it promoted the glorification of the individual, participating might provide less utility.

Why not Write a Screensaver? (Score:5, Interesting) by peteshaw First of all, it is indeed an honor to pester a big name scientist with my puny little questions! Hopefully I will not arouse angst with the simplicity of my perceptions. Aha! I toss my Wheaties on Mount Olympus and hope to see golden flakes drift down from the sky!

I have always thought that distributed computing naturally lends itself to large scale AI problems, specifically your Neural Networks and Dynamical Systems work. I am thinking specifically of the SETI@home project, and the distributed.net projects. Have you thought about, or to your knowledge has anyone thought about harnessing the power of collective geekdom for sort of a brute force approach to neural networks. I don't know how NN normally work, but it seems that you could write a very small, lightweight client, and embed it into a screen saver a'la SETI@home. This SS would really be really a simple client 'node'. You could then add some cute graphics like a picture of a human brain and some brightly colored synapses or what have you.

Once the /.ers got their hands on such a geek toy I have no doubt you'd have the equivalent of several hundred thousand hours or more of free computer time, and who knows, maybe we could all make a brain together! I would love to think of my computer as a small cog in some vast neural network, or at least I would until Arnold Schwarzenegger got sent back in time to kill my mom. Whaddayathink, Jordan? Is this a good idea, or am I an idiot?

No, its very imaginative. You could be one of my AI grad students. But rather than focusing on neural networks, which, because of matrix multiplication, do not distribute well, people are looking at such systems for evolutionary computation. You can evolve individuals on networked workstations and collect them, or evolve populations which interact occasionally and pass dna around. Look at Tom Ray's Net Tierra project to see how it is going. My colleague Hod Lipson is developing a screensaver for our evolutionary robotics project, but release 1 will be Windows rather than Linux compatible (./sorry)

Actually, one of my early business plans for the Internet, circa the first working java browsers, was to show naughty pictures while harvesting cycles from your computer and reselling them to people needing computer time. All was needed was an assembly language interpreter in java and some interfacing. The problem is that most computationally intense problems people want to solve have large data flow requirements which conflict with the download of the naughty pictures! When I recently tried to corner the market in pig latin domain names for my new "incubator", panies.com panies.com, I didn't secure putation.com because it sounded bad. One week later I realized it was a pretty good name for a distributed computation service, but somebody else had grabbed the URL!

However, there is a critical piece missing from all these visions. intelligence is a property of an organization of computation, it is not computation itself. The problem of robotics is not the limited power of microcomputers, since we could drive any robot from a supercomputer if we knew what to write! We can get infinite cycles already, but nobody can write a coherent program bigger than 10M lines. We have figure out to use cycles towards discovery of a process of self-organization, rather than on a known software organization itself.

AI Metrics (Score:5, Interesting) by john_many_jars I have read several coffee table science books on the subject and often find myself asking for a way to measure AI. As has been noted, AI is always elusive and is just around the corner. My question is how do you gauge how far AI has come and what is AI?

For instance, what's the difference between your TRON demonstration and a highly advanced system of solving a (very specific) non-linear differential equation to find relative and (hopefully absolute) extrema in the wildly complicated space of TRON strategies? Or, is that the definition of intelligence?

This is a very hard question which I won't be able to joke my way out of. I think that system performance in specific domains can be measured, like a rating system for a game likeTRON. I think we might be able to get a measure of the generative capacity of a system in all possible environments, by capturing strings of symbols representing different actions, and looking at the grammar of behavior. In general, however, observers have an effect on their observations of computational capacity. I usually think of intelligence as a measurement, not the thing being measured, sort of like the difference between temperature and heat, or weight and mass. It could be a measurement of operational knowledge (programmed, not static in a database), or of efficient use of knowledge resources. This measurement is applied to an organization. So committees of very smart people can operate idiotically, and groups of dumb insects can be very intelligent.

My current best working definition is that intelligence is the ratio of the amount of problem-solving accomplished to the number of cycles wasted. When I say we need 10B lines of code, it is not to say that raw program size is a measure of intelligence, but to express the idea that inside that code are enough different heuristics and gizmos to solve lots of problems effectively.

And what about Freedom? (Score:5, Insightful) by Hobbex Mr. Pollack,

I read your article about "information property" and was surprised to find you dealt with the matter completely from the point of view of advancing the market. Their are those of us who would argue that the wellbeing of the market is, at most, a second order concern, and that the important issues that Information age gives rise regarding the perceived ownership of information are really about Freedom and integrity.

These issues range from the simple desire to have the right to do whatever one wants with data that one has access to, to the simple futility and danger of trying to limit to paying individuals something that by nature, mathematics, and now technology is Free. They concern the fact that our machines are now so integral in our lives that they have become a part of our identity, with our computers as the extension of ourselves into "cyberspace", and that any proposal which aims to keep the total right to control over everything in the computer away from the user is thus an invasion into our integrity, personality, and freedom.

Do you consider the economics of the market to be a greater concern than individual freedom?

This is a beautiful question, thank you. My book is exactly about freedom and rights: The freedom to sell a copy of a book you are done reading. The freedom to share in the rewards when something you design or write is in demand by millions of people. The right to own what you buy.

I see an inexorable movement towards dispossessionism, both coming from the "right," with UCITA, secured digital rights, anti-crypto-tampering in the DMCA, and ASP subscription models, and coming from the "left", with ideas that we should give our writing up into free collectivist projects.

The Internet is the beginning of Goldstein's "celestial jukebox," the encyclopedia of everything anyone has ever written, every episode of every TV show, and every song by every band. It sounds wonderful until you realize that you will have to pay per view! Bill Gates now has the money to deploy satellites which will force you to rent his word processor for $1/hour, the same rate for renting a movie. The laws on theft of satellite programs, unfortunately, as legal doctrine goes, considers decoding satellite broadcasts as theft of cable services, rather than as protected first amendment rights to receive radio broadcasts. Once secure distribution of programs on a rental basis is established, all content publishing will move inexorably into that mode to maximize profits. No more books, no more records. No more ownership. Dispossession.

The Free software movement, League for Programming Freedom, Open Source Software, on the other hand, talk idealistic young individuals out of their writing. "Contribute it towards a greater good." Be rewarded by occasional e-mails of thanks from your peers. The Free Music movement, or "let's RIP our CD's and trade MP3s through Napster" isn't as politically as economically motivated, but is also making musicians contribute their work for the greater good, at least of dormitories! Dispossession.

Fascism and Communism, while they have philosophical appeal for their mimetic simplicity, have proven themselves consistently the enemies of freedom, enterprise and creativity. Ordinary people are "dispossessed" of their property, which ends up, not surprisingly, in the pockets of the promoters of the simple philosophy.

My purpose in writing License to Bill is to begin a discussion not only on a societal remedy to the microsoft problem, but to secure, as a human right, the right to own information properties I buy, rather than just being able to rent them. I especially want the right to own and sell copies of my own creations, and to own a library of other's creations, reasonably priced based on supply and demand, without fear that a change in technology will render my investments worthless..

A market is just a mechanism which humanity uses to allocate resources fairly. It is neither good nor evil.

To which I would add... (Score:5, Interesting) by joss I also read your IP proposal, and agree with the points mentioned above.

However, I also have a problem with your proposal from an economic perspective:

Property laws developed as a mechanism for optimal utilization of scarce resources. The laws and ethics for standard property make little sense when the cost of replication is $0. The market is the best mechanism for distributing scarce resources, so you propose we make all IP resources scarce so that IP behaves like other commodities and all the laws of the market apply.

We are rapidly entering a world where most wealth is held as a form of IP. Free replication of IP increases the net wealth of the planet. If everybody on earth had access to all the IP on earth, then everybody would be far richer - it's not a zero sum game. Of course, we're several decades at least from this being a viable option since we've reached a local minima. (Need equivalent to starship replicators first - nanotech...)

Artificially pretending that IP is a scarce resource will keep the lawyers, accountants, politicians in work, and will also allow some money to flow back to the creatives, but at the cost of impoverishing humanity.

I could actually see your proposal being adopted, and I can see how it will maintain capitalism as the dominant model, but I also believe that it is the most damaging economic suggestion in human history

Could you tell me why I'm wrong.

Wow! "I also believe that it is the most damaging economic suggestion in human history" Surely this is a wonderful compliment.

The history and future of money is very interesting, and one you can read about in various books, including one byMilton Friedman, and one from the Cato Institute. I think today's software houses who force upgrades on their customers are like the wildcat banks of the nineteenth century, printing up banknotes, and then declaring bankruptcy, vanishing with the deposits and setting up shop in another town.

Before money, there was simply trade in raw and polished goods. Then there was weighing and coinage. Lots of people thought coins were the real value and heartily resisted paper money. The gold and silver standards gave way, and eventually the idea that there was gold for every dollar bill was revealed as a hoax, and now "money" is simply a record in your bank's computer that there is a certain amount you are entitled to withdraw based on the amounts other banks have deposited for you. The only essential different between a rich and poor person is what the bank computers and the registrar of deeds say it is, backed by military force. And the money supply and international exchanges now somehow represents our national wealth with respect to other nations, and other nation's confidence that our banking system isn't duplicating dollars. Instead of objects of trade, money is information about potential trade.

While you might not like the idea that money is abstract and in limited supply, and you have more or less than you want, it is the soft underbelly of "Starship Economics" that Gene Roddenberry died before coming up with the backstory for how to have a non-mediocre society with unlimited replication for all.

I once invented a transporter machine for paper using public key crypto and fax technology. It would hold the source paper in a metal box, verify the copy was printed, and then destroy the original and legitimize the copy. With this system, you could fax a dollar bill to a friend! Now: is a dollar bill is just the likeness of a dollar bill on a crinkly piece of thermal paper, or the actual piece of green stuff? If Paypal can figure out how you can beam money from your palmpilot to mine, but a bug lets you keep a copy of the money, I bet their valuation would go way down.

I am simply saying that permanent use and resale licenses to changeable information (software, art, literature, music, movies) which can be traded securely, without loss or duplication, in a public market, is a form of currency.

Unlimited replication of currency just doesn't work, any more than two copies of William Shatner.

I stake the middle ground. Both the "right" copyright publishers who make currency loss through expiring keys and forced upgrades, and the "left" copyright violators who duplicate currency, will be welcome at my table when they see the light.

----------

Thanks for your interesting questions. My comments do not reflect the official position of my employer Brandeis University, the sponsors of my laboratory's research, or the companies i am involved with, Abuzz, Xilicon, or Thinmail.

Humbly yours,
Jordan Pollack
Bigname@scientist.com
P.S. you too can be a scientist thanks to mail.com:)

Here's another doubleheader review, this time of The Cluetrain Manifesto, the four-author print extension of the Web site of the same name. Hemos and Jason Bennett here dissect the book and provide some insight into where the cluetrain is steaming. The Cluetrain Manifesto author Rick Levine, Christopher Locke, Doc Searls, and David Weinberger pages 190 publisher Perseus Books, 12/1999 rating Suits:9/ reviewer hemos, Jason Bennett ISBN 0738202444 summary The book based on the website, TCF is a radical vision of the impact of the Internet on business-as-usual. Review One: hemos It's not often that I actually read a book that's targeted at the business market. Such books often get sent to our offices here for review, and we usually hold a short ceremony in which we desecrate the books, then send them out to the vast CEO gulags we've started outside of town.

Scratch that last part. In any case, it is true that I usually manage to avoid "business" writing. I've mostly found that the point the authors attempt to make could have been said in 15 pages, versus the 150 they took to say it. Even the most beautiful graphs cannot disguise a lack of content.

However, when Doc Searls (one of the authors of The Cluetrain Manifesto) passed along several copies of the book, I was a bit taken aback. I'd heard it being talked up by quite a number of people, all of whom were (hurried intake of breath!) Manager-types! But the people writing it -- from Doc, to Christopher Locke, Rick Levine and David Weinberger -- are all folks I've either met, heard or read before and people I respect.

That left me with a bit of a conundrum. If this book was written by people I respected, but as a rule business books have been the closest to Harlequin romances in terms of worth, what the heck was going on? The answer, my dear Watson, is quite elementary: this is not a business book.

Or rather, it is. But not a book about how business today should run and operate, about "disintermediation" and other piles of drivel that I think should be apparent for what they are to anyone willing to think. Instead, Cluetrain gets at the heart of what's actually going with this whole "Internet Revolution" -- people talking to people. And I think that particular message has gotten lost in the haze of convenience, price-difference and all the other media hyped ideas about what's going on with the business side of the Internet. What the authors of the book argue is that what's actually happening, in many ways, is that we are ripping down the artifical walls between producers and sellers. I agree. Disintermediation by any other name, maybe, but their treatment is refreshing in that it focuses on the human side. Any book that includes the mantra: "I am not a business. I am a human being." is good by me. And they also mention "undead evil." I'm serious.

OK, here's my take on the book with some sembalance of mental order: Cluetrain does a great job of exploding much of the hype about the present revolution. Instead, the revolution we're creating is something that humanity had for a while, and lost. We're bringing back the conversation now, and we're taking it global. That's the book in a nutshell. But the folks writing it can actually make that message interesting enough to read for roughly two hundred pages -- enough that you want to read the author credits, and drop them a line, like I did. The book also gathers strength from its use of excellent quotes and examples.

Who should this book be read by? You, of course, but also passing the book along to bosses and friends who are afraid of the Internet. I'm serious -- this book has become my defacto primer for people who don't understand what the Internet is going to do -- and doing -- and are scared about it.

And even if you don't trust me, read the sample chapter. Review Two: Jason Bennet

Background

Greetings, all, and good to be back. After finishing some books in the past month, as well as finally getting some others written up, I'm ready to unleash a string of reviews on Slashdot. The first of these is one of the more talked-about books to come out recently, The Cluetrain Manifesto. I have to admit I didn't see the Web site until recently, and thus am a newcomer to the movement, but I must say the rhetoric is revolutionary, regardless of how much impact it eventually has. If nothing else, take a look at the site and read over the 95 theses. You may or may not agree with them, but they will make you think.

What's the book about?

Before addressing the various essays that make up the manifesto, I'll try to summarize the ideals and ideas behind the movement. Basically, commerce as we know it is a lie. For most of human history, trade has been about interacting with other people. Going to the market, seeing your friends, checking out the various stalls, conducting business, and generally doing the important things of life. Craftsmen proudly displayed their wares to all who would see, touch, and smell them. People discussed which merchants were fair, who had the best quality, and so on. The market was the center of human interaction, where politics, society and business merged (see the Greeks for an excellent example). The Industrial Revolution changed all that, however. With the advent of mass production and economies of scale, production and consumption became all important. Craftsmanship was discarded in favor of turning out as much interchangeable product as possible, using interchangeable workers in interchangeable factories. The marketplace ceased to be a conversation, and became a one-way street, aimed directly at the consumer. The rise of mass media completed the transformation from conversation to lecture. No longer did customers roam the marketplace, but instead consumers were lulled, bribed and manipulated into buying the latest and greatest, because TV told them so. The idea of the interchangeable consumer came to be the industrial ideal. Nothing was left to chance: You could get anyone to buy anything made by anyone, and all that mattered was the money. This ideal never totally came to pass, of course, but it was the driving force behind many decades of business.

The Internet has broken these chains, however. The market no longer stares exlusively at the great tube, but instead is engaged in the greatest conversation in human history. Customers now tell each other what is happening, and shoot down the grandiose marketing schemes of giant corporations. You can now talk to hundreds of people in your town about the latest restaurants, which car dealer is best, or what doctors give the best care. The bazaar has returned with a vengeance. The mass media assume we are stupid; the Internet makes us collectively smart. The Internet is a conversation.

Commensurate with the redemption of customers from the bondage of industry, workers are no longer cogs in a great production machine, but are now talking to each other in ways they never could before. Hierarchies are broken when you can e-mail anyone, anytime, to give or get help. It doesn't matter where you sit, or what your place is, everyone has access. Even worse, those employees (nee' resources) and those customers can now talk to each other easily. The two great conversations, inside the business and inside the market, are on a collision course. The only question is, will that collision propel your business to new heights, or destroy it?

Chapter 1 is more or less an overview of what is to come, and where I drew the above summary from. In short, because of the Internet, you, the customer, now have a voice, the ability to make yourself heard to others over the din of advertising and other stilted "business communication." You know what business-speak sounds like, you know what people sound like, and you know what you prefer and who you believe. Just as the customer is empowered, so is the worker, precisely because of the knowledge that a network allows to flow. These conversations threaten to completely overthrow business as we know it, and their merger will transform the market.

Chapter 2 quickly sums up why we so desperately want our voice back: because we sacrificed it, traded our souls, to be good professionals. The Web allows us to be ourselves again.

Chapter 3 discusses what's behind the Web: the unique voice of each person participating in the conversation. These voices are carried along various conduits: e-mail and mailing lists, newsgroups, chat rooms, and personal Web pages. The chapter details various ways that these modes of communication are already breaking down the barriers among customers, and between business and customers, including a very interesting newsgroup exchange about Saturn automobiles. Most of this will be old hat to Slashdot readers, but likely not to suits. Authenticity is the key here, along with spontaneity and a human touch. All of these things are conveyed by people in a conversation, and not conveyed by brochures or Powerpoint presentations. It doesn't matter so much that your company participates in all of these conversations, as it does that it is honest when is does participate. Some examples of honest, open organizations (United, Sun's Java team, at least at first) and closed organizations (Intel with the Pentium bug, Java later on) are analyzed, with clear results: those companies that try to talk succeed, while those that don't talk only hurt themselves. Someone will be talking, and it had better be you.

The anecdote which opens chapter 4 sums up the theme: even after hearing about markets as conversations for several hours to a group, some people still don't get it. The first few paragraphs basically repeat what has already been stated: markets stopped being conversations around the time mass production and mass marketing took over. What replaced this conversation was a one-way message, delivered from business to consumers. Unfortunately, no one really wants to listen to an overblown hype machine. The entire role of marketing is to make us want what we are supposed to want, but don't really want. This anti-conversation, however, is slowly but surely being pushed back by the rich tones of conversation on the Web. The knowledge contained in these conversations increases exponentially as more and more people join the party. Attempts to dominate this conversation with targeted message, i.e. push technology, have failed utterly. No one wants another television. In point of fact, conversation built the Web, manifested in the open source movement. Apache, Linux and the rest are all products of conversations. These are living examples of what can be accomplished when the market talks. The only way for marketing to survive is to work with the conversation, to give it what it wants. No more brochureware, but real information that the market recognizes as such. Work with the customer on price. Truely reposition, don't just spout different lines. Marketing sees the consumer as the enemy. The conversation is waiting for them to realize what's happening. All you have to do is talk honestly, and people will listen and talk back.

Chapter 5 details the other side of this sea change -- the change within business. In a "hyperlinked organization," people don't need the fancy office building or the top-down bureaucracy, they just want to be able to work with those people that best let them get a job done. Employees (or, dare I say it, resources) need no longer be bound by lines on an organizational chart. People go to who they need to get what they need. Centralized control is replaced by a web of people working with whoever they need. Groups form and collapse on an ad-hoc basis to meet the demands of the moment. All of the knowledge generated is managed through people telling each other stories. We already have tons of information; what we need is more knowledge, more understanding. Human communication generates this understanding. Because of all of this communication, and lack of hierarchy, it is inevitable that your customers will join in. Business intranets will expand to include customers along with employees, working together to make sure everyone gets what he needs. Business as a message is dead; Business as a conversation is beginning.

Chapter 6 summarizes the points made so far, then launches into a treatise on the future of the Web. Unfortunately, we're asking the wrong questions. We don't need to ask questions out of fear of the Web, but out of our desire to converse. The conversation we have will shape the Web the way it needs to be. There's no easy way to do this, just a journey into the unknown.

Chapter 7 concludes the Manifesto by stating that the revolution has already begun, and it's too far gone to stop. What we must do now is break our old habits, and start behaving in a new way. It's so tempting to keep an old, patched machine going even when everyone knows it needs to be replaced. Just remember, "I am not a company, I am a human being."

What's Good?

This book will blow your mind, all the more so if you're new to the Internet or unsure about what it means. It presents a radical new way to think about how we interact with commerce and with each other. To some extent or another, I think we all feel what is being communicated here. We're all tired of being cogs, of being consumers, of being resources. We want to be people, friendly customers, employees. As the conclusion says, it's already too late to stop this transformation. The Internet will only grow, and its fundamental nature means that the old is gone, and the new is come. If you are in business, you need to understand what is happening. You can either surf the wave, or drown in it.

What's Bad?

Any controversial book has its issues, and Cluetrain is no exception. The only reason I gave the book a Geek rating of 7 is because you already know what is being said. You know how people talk in newsgroups, and you probably don't want to read 50 pages telling you that. You don't need to hear this message repeated five times in the course of 200 pages. It's a good read, but know that you're likely to skip some parts, because you're tired of being beaten over the head with something you've already figured out.

Having said that, I do have quarrels with a few points that Weinberger makes when he discusses how the Internet came to be. I get the impression that he feels that the Internet sprung from chaos like Athena from Zeus, magically appearing out of the mist of conversation alone. He certainly believes that hierarchy is counterproductive in the Internet age. "[T]he most complex network ever imagined...[the WWW] has been implemented without any central control whatsoever," he writes on page 130. What exactly are the IETF and the W3C then? Didn't a small group of people design TCP/IP? There was a conversation, of course, but there was also control and hierarchy. No good open-source project lacks a leader, and every movement needs its inspiration. The Internet might not be the encrusted bureaucracy of a megacorporation, but authority is helpful in getting things done. I find the quote "[t]he Web succeeded where the Internet failed ..." (page 142) especially interesting. Although, as he says, the Web gave us the user-friendly browser, I'd rather think the Internet spawned the Web, since it is what transports the Web. Oh, and if someone can tell me what a "Unixlike language (145)" is, I'd appreciate it. I also find humorous the notion that e-mail has to be poorly written to be authentic. Finally, Chapter 6 is far too much of a political rant for my taste. Wanting to push pornography to the side does not make one a control freak. Control is not a bad thing. Anyway, I'm ranting now myself. It's a good book, despite these issues.

So What's In It For Me?

I think I've already said that. :-) This is an important book. You might love it. You might hate it. You'll likely feel threatened by it. Nevertheless, you owe it to yourself to at least read the 95 Theses. They will make you think. If you're a business type, read this. You need to, especially if you're still learning this Internet thing. If you've been around, read it if you want. There'll be some full parts, but it will mean a lot. The revolution has already begun.

Purchase this book at ThinkGeek.

• Table of Contents
• Foreward
• The Cluetrain Manifesto
• Introduction
  1. Internet Apocalypso
  2. The Longing
  3. Talk is Cheap
  4. Markets are Conversations
  5. The Hyperlinked Organization
  6. EZ Answers
  7. Post-Apocalypso
• Acknowledgements
• About the Authors

GeorgieBoy writes: "Adaptec has announced support for Ultra160 SCSI adapters under Intel 64-bit Linux. Looks like IA-64 Linux will be pretty well supported upon Itanium's arrival." There already are SCSI adapters for the (also 64-bit) Alpha under Linux, but this move sounds like a smart one for Adaptec to tie their name to both Linux and IA-64. Other companies planning pre-emptive hardware support? Step right up, please.

crovira wrote to us with an article from the NYT (free reg. req'd.) Apparently, both Toshiba and IBM are dissatisified with the current state of monitor development. To that end, they've created some wondrous toys like 16.5" LCD screens that display 200 PPI. They've run into a most curious problem however: Legacy software/drivers. Click thru to read more - and if IBM should want to send a couple screens my way, I'd see what we can whip up around the office *grin*.

Krimsen writes "Looks like Clemson Universty felt the pressure from angry students being denied free long distance. They are allowing access to dialpad.com."

sdriver writes "For those of us who enjoy *panic*, *oops*, and suddenly seeing their video BIOS... the newest version is out! Be the first on your block to submit a new patch! ;) " If you don't know where to get it, you probably should stick to your warm and cuddly 2.2.x kernel *grin*. Now outta my way, I wanna crash my laptop!

Nothing like some quality quickies to survive humpday. Magus311X sent us linkage to an awesome web site that has the plans for nearly every set of legos. If you still have your big bucket, you'll love it. I always got bored half way through the plans tho. Started putting guns on my castles and plants on my spaceships wings. HP LoveJet (I like that one) sent us a webpage that will compute your Wu-Tang name ('Rob Malda' = 'Grand Moff Puppeteer') Blaxthos sent us a photo of the most amazing toilet mankind has developed thus far. Looking for some new comics? Bob Barker pointed us to Tug House and Cecil noticed EtherLife v1.5.. I dig EL15. And now the pointless violence and stupidity portion of the quickies: DragonHawk sent us some nice pictures of people ignoring the warning labels on spray cans, and also building a potato gun capable of firing spuds at 550 MPH. Then we have a guy who builds "sparkler bombs" by setting off 1000 sparklers at a time. Jura sent us pictures of computers that he apparently shot the hell out of. Elwood sent us linkage to another license, this one is the BPL or The "Bastard Public License" Next, random Slashdot references from around the net: Raps sent us writes Alfdot, a Slashdot parody weblog about everyone's favorite lame 80s sitcom (cancelled no doubt do to government conspiracy). Slashdot Man earned a special place on my list of 'people to get a restraining order for' his fan page. Eeeek rebrane sent us a Slashdot drinking game. And the perfect quickie to get some closure on the day: McAdder sent us Final Thoughts which is a website that spams your friends and family upon your death to send them your, well, final thoughts from beyond the grave. Wierd.

gark writes "The Java Lobby has a weblog on Java success stories. Many of the successful applications are servlet based, and several use Apache JServ. Perhaps WORA [write once, run anywhere] really has been achieved, at least for server apps."

icing asks: "With the story about the Melissa trial, some people argue that Microsoft is partly to blame. Negligence in making a product safe to use, cannot be excused. And again, software is compared to real world things like cars and how car makers could not get away with what Microsoft is doing. Does not the same argument apply to makers and distributors of open software? Could makers or distributors of Open Source be held liable? Under which conditions? Or do we have a double standard here?" Hmmm...a touchy issue. What are your impressions?

Bob Cunningham asks: "Is there any US Federal and State Income Tax software for Linux? Normlly, I would just snag the evaluation copy of whichever Win9x product appeals to me (i.e., lowest cost). This year I'd like to try something different: Do my taxes under Linux. My initial searches have failed to uncover a single native tax package for Linux, nor even rumors of any related development being underway. Right now, it seems my only option will be to run a Win9x package under Wine, and hope it is well behaved. Is Win9x/Wine my only option? If so, are there any packages that have already been tested under Wine?" Financial software has traditionally been lacking under Linux, but I'm hoping that someone will soon step up and write something like this.

Noise asks: "It's not easy to find information on drivers for network cards or modems. I installed Linux on a notebook (works great!), but have not been able to find the drivers for my PCMCIA "combo" card. In particular, I am using Red Hat 6.0 and have a 3Com 10/100+56k modem card (model 3CCFEM556B). Where can I find drivers for these types of cards? "

SEGV has continued his tradition of excellent reviews with an examination of Jon L. Bentley's Programming Pearls (Second Edition), recently released by Addison-Welsey. One of the classics of programming, the new version continues the first edition's heritage of excellence. Click below to read more. Programming Pearls (Second Edition) author Jon L. Bentley pages 239 publisher Addison-Wesley, 10/1999 rating 10/10 reviewer SEGV ISBN 0-201-65788-0 summary A classic revised.

Choice and Precious

One definition of pearl is something "very choice or precious." Like the programming pearls it describes, Bentley's collection of essays has itself transcended the ordinary to achieve pearl status.

Originally published in Bentley's "Programming Pearls" column in Communications of the ACM, these fascinating essays were collected and revised in book form in 1986. Now revised 14 years later, this material has definitely stood the test of time. The first edition remains #2 on McConnell's Code Complete Reading List, and is listed favourably in an article on Great Books in Computer Science.

A Sense of Wonder

It was directly because of McConnell's Code Complete reading list that I, a few years ago, purchased and read Programming Pearls and its sequel, More Programming Pearls. Despite McConnell's effusive praise and corroboration from a colleague, I was not fully prepared for the experience.

I say experience, because that's what it was. It reminded me of reading Alice's Adventures in Wonderland [1] or Godel, Escher, Bach [2] (perhaps not coincidentally, also on the above list of great books in computer science). It filled me with a sense of wonder that is difficult to describe. It confirmed my love for computer science.

I believe that I am not alone in this regard.

What's New?

Twelve of the thirteen columns in the first edition have been edited substantially for this edition, and three new columns have been added. The new columns are on the topics of testing & debugging & timing, set representations, and string problems. This new edition is about 25 percent longer.

Although the first edition had been getting a little long in the tooth, the revisions once again place the essays in the modern world. Discussions of performance take into account modern hardware, caches, and instruction-level parallelism. Modern languages (C++, Java) are compared and contrasted where appropriate. Modern books (such as McConnell's Code Complete and Musser & Saini's STL Tutorial and Reference Guide [3]) are referenced and recommended.

Like Meeting an Old Friend

Re-reading this book was like meeting an old friend. Notwithstanding the major revisions, it has changed in subtle ways. Some anecdotes have been updated, some material reorganized. But it's still the same book. All of the energy and fun remains, youthful as ever.

I'm pleased to see that Bentley is still happy working at Bell Labs / AT&T / Lucent. Perhaps that's why this book is so great. There's a lot of intelligent people working there, and they put out some fine books. Bentley produces a Markov text generator in column 15, and compares it favourably to his colleagues' (Kernighan and Pike) version in the recent book The Practice of Programming [4].

Supporting Material

I must say that the supporting web site for this book (URL below) is excellent. It has all the information on why this book was updated, along with exactly what was revised. There the curious reader will find excerpts from columns, some problems and their solutions, and many other parts of the book available online.

All of the source code is available and free for use. Relevant web sites are linked and annotated. I love the Java applet that demonstrates sorting algorithms (source available!). Bentley even provides some overhead transparencies for use in teaching.

Recommendation

This is a no-brainer. I've always recommended reading this classic, and even re-reading it. The second edition is merely an excuse to purchase and (re-)read a revised copy. The time spent is well worth it. (Remember, only one column per sitting!)

I also recommend scrounging a copy of the sequel, which is out of print [5].

Purchase this book at fatbrain.

Links

Programming Pearls (Second Edition) Official Site

Programming Pearls (Second Edition) at Addison-Wesley

Programming Pearls (First Edition) at Addison-Wesley

More Programming Pearls: Confessions of a Coder at Addison-Wesley

Table of Contents

Part I: Preliminaries
1. Cracking the Oyster
2. Aha! Algorithms
3. Data Structures Programs
4. Writing Correct Programs
5. A Small Matter of Programming
Part II: Performance
6. Perspective on Performance
7. The Back of the Envelope
8. Algorithm Design Techniques
9. Code Tuning
10. Squeezing Space
Part III: The Product
11. Sorting
12. A Sample Problem
13. Searching
14. Heaps
15. Strings of Pearls
Epilog to the First Edition
Epilog to the Second Edition
Appendix 1: A Catalog of Algorithms
Appendix 2: An Estimation Quiz
Appendix 3: Cost Models for Time and Space
Appendix 4: Rules for Code Tuning
Appendix 5: C++ Classes for Searching
Hints for Selected Problems
Solutions for Selected Problems
Index

Notes

[1] Why do people (book sellers, web sites, bibliographies, etc.) insist on incorrectly calling this book Alice in Wonderland? It's not just for kids; Lewis Carroll was a mathematician, and it abounds in metaphor, puzzles, hidden treats. Read it. Accept only the John Tenniel illustrations!

[2] Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid is subtitled A Metaphorical Fugue on Minds and Machines in the Spirit of Lewis Carroll. It was reviewed on Slashdot: Godel, Escher, Bach (Review).

[3] However, use this book instead: Austern's Generic Programming and the STL.

[4] I reviewed this book for Slashdot: The Practice of Programming (Review).

[5] Why? I don't understand why some classics go out of print. I'm still trying to find copies of Artificial Life II, On Numbers and Games, Computation: Finite and Infinite Machines, and a host of others.

C|Net recently made waves with its "Top 10 Hacks" story which seemed to say that Hack==Website Defacement. Derek Glidden found that wrong. And I'm glad he did because he's proposed that we do our own top 10 hacks. He's written a fabulous article, and challanges us to come up with a real list of hacks: The good stuff. Not the script kiddie stuff that the media likes to use to generate extreme headlines. Read this story. Its a good one.

A lot of people pointed out in Slashdot's recent coverage of an article run on C|Net called "The Top 10 Subversive Hacks of All Time" that 8 out of the 10 so-called "Hacks" listed were merely website defacements and not deserving of the "Hack" label at all. Here's your chance, as the Slashdot community, to set the record straight!

C|Net, perhaps in some kind of bizarre response to millenia fever, has lately been printing a few "Top 10 Lists" of sensational-sounding topics but rather lame content:

The Top 10 Technology Terrors - Billed as "10 products that will scare you to death" complete with a cute little Grim Fandango-esque skeleton as a mascot. Of course Back Orifice is on the list. Are you terrified yet?

Top Ten Terrors That Scare Web Builders - I'm not even sure where this article is supposed to be going. I know when I'm building a website I'm always "scared" of the Y2K problem as it relates to interfacing with my mainframe...

Ten Tricks for Digital Pranksters - Which I'd hoped might be at least slightly amusing, but turns out to be amusing in the same way that going to a K-Mart, finding the Commodore 64's on display, disabling BREAK and writing that BASIC program '10 PRINT "K-MART SUCKS "; 20 GOTO 10' was amusing when I was 12. (But then, it's not a "Top Ten" list, so I shouldn't complain.)

Given the trend, one wonders when their "Top 10 Pr0n Websites That Will Make Your Child Grow Up Into A Pervert If He or She So Much As Thinks About The URL", "Top 10 Most Violent Video Games Guaranteed To Make The Flesh Of Your Flesh And Blood Of Your Blood Turn Into A Deviant Sociopath Who Will Probably Shoot Up A McDonalds By The Time They're 25" or "Top 10 Really Annoying Top 10 Lists That We've Broken Up Into One Page Per Entry To Maximize Our Banner Ad Display" lists will show up.

Regardless of whether or not C|Net gets it in general, (I think I've made my opinion on that clear by now. :) they surely dropped the ball on their "Hacks" article. Rob and the gang at Slashdot liked my suggestion that the question be put to the Slashdot community and find out what you consider a "Great Hack."

So what is a "Hack"?

A lot of people reading that article were disappointed that C|Net decided to more or less define "Hack" as being equivalent to "website defacement", completely ignoring the traditional, more creative and useful meaning of the word. (Notice here how I deftly sidestep the whole 'hacker' vs. 'cracker' debate...) How should we determine what's a "Great Hack", much less the Top 10 of All Time, then?

Eric Raymond's Jargon File defines "Hack" in the first two meanings as:

"1. n. Originally, a quick job that produces what is needed, but not well. 2. n. An incredibly good, and perhaps very time-consuming, piece of work that produces exactly what is needed."

(Which are entirely contradictory, but hackers never let mundane things like paradoxes slow them down.) He further refines the meaning in Append ix A, "The Meaning of Hack" as:

"Hacking might be characterized as `an appropriate application of ingenuity'. Whether the result is a quick-and-dirty patchwork job or a carefully crafted work of art, you have to admire the cleverness that went into it."

If you'll notice, nothing in these definitions say anything about a "Hack" being computer-related. There have been many great Hacks that are not computer-related; it's just that people tend to associate the word "hack" with computers.

Adding to the ideas defined above, an "All-Time Great Hack" will probably also have:

• longevity - people should still be talking about it 20 or 30 years later, or even beyond.
• social and/or technological impact - it should change some aspect of life, either by directly changing every-day life or indirectly by changing how people view the world
• "eleganc e" - note however, that this does not necessarily equate simplicty. (Some people may consider the Saturn V booster a truly moby hack, as it got its job done precisely well with no doubt as to its purpose, but was anything but simple.)
• that not-easily definable quality of "I shoulda thought of that!" A Great Hack doesn't have to be "not immediately obvious" - it may just be something nobody else has done yet. For example: the WWW - there's nothing "unobvious" about defining a set of page layout macros that include text and graphics and a way to transmit and view them, but it didn't become commonplace until Tim Berners-Lee made it a big deal.

Some examples of things I would consider "Great Hacks" by these guidelines:

• Putting Apollo 11 on the moon - the NASA engineers at the time of the Apollo project are, to my mind, some of the greatest hackers in history. When you consider the state of technology at the time, what they accomplished is amazing.
• Ken Thompson's "cc hack" - No explanation necessary. A truly elegant hack that is already part of computer folklore.
• Both the "development" of AT&T UNIX into BSD UNIX and the way BSD was distributed, essentially creating the first widespread market demand for "open source software."
• Of course, no Slashdot feature article would be complete without mentioning: the development of the Linux Kernel, both for what it is and how it was/is developed.

But wait, there's more!!

In his Appendinx on "The Meaning Of Hack", ESR also says:

"An important secondary meaning of hack is `a creative practical joke'."

and MIT's Gallery of Hacks defines "hack" as:

"The word hack at MIT usually refers to a clever, benign, and "ethical" prank or practical joke, which is both challenging for the perpetrators and amusing to the MIT community (and sometimes even the rest of the world!)."

A sure point of dissent in this definition is going to be the "ethical" clause. I'll take the easy road out and leave this point to be decided by the audience - if enough people think a particular hack is a "Great Hack" regardless of ethics - then into the pot it goes.

On the other hand, the closest thing I can think of to a "Great Hack" that skirts ethical boundaries is the Robert Morris Worm. It's an event that will live in infamy in the lore of the Internet for all times for the problems it caused, but that it could accomplish what it did shows an incredible understanding of the way the systems worked and how they were interconnected at the time it happened.

It's still not entirely easy to think of "All-Time Great Hacks" that fit this definition, including the "ethical" clause:

• The canonical example is usually the MIT hack of the Harvard-Yale football game in which MIT students caused a six-foot weather baloon covered with the letters "MIT" to inflate at the 40 yard line during a pause in gameplay
• In the Slashdot article, "Uruk" pointed out that Orson Welles' broadcast of "The War Of The Worlds" in 1938 is arguably the best example of this definition of "Hack" that the world has ever known

So we have two definitions to deal with: The "Classic" Hacks, and the "MIT-Style" Hacks. It may or may not be worthwhile to separate these out into two distinct categories - I think we'll have to wait to see if there are enough unique entries in each category to require two lists.

What now?

In this feature, I would like you to list what you think are the "Greatest Hacks of All Time" and after a time to let enough people enter their suggestions and comments, I'll come back and gather up the most popular/frequent responses. Those suggestions will go up as a Slashdot poll, and the top ten from that poll will be officially listed in a subsequent feature article: "Slashdot's Top 10 Hacks of All Time" along with a bit of background on each one; rather like C|Net, except we'll put them all on one page for you.

There is only one restriction I would like to impose on suggestions: they have to be able to be documented somehow. I used to know a guy who could make his TRS-80 machines play music with software that somehow buzzed the floppy disk motor at different rates, which is a neat hack, but as I have no idea where he lives, if he still has a copy of his software, or even where to find a TRS-80 to play with anymore it's not a good candidate for this.

I've defined what it takes for a hack to be a "Great Hack", I've given some examples to help "seed the idea pool", and now it's your turn: what do you think should go on Slashdot's list of the Top 10 Hacks of All Time?

We've mentioned stuff related to this in the past, but louridas sent us an interesting article called The Myth of the Keys which talks about how Dvorak isn't really any faster than QWERTY, but the most interesting part is how this relates to the MS AntiTrust case.

amit_kr writes "ACM electronic magazine 'Crossroads' has an entire issue dedicated to Linux. Perhaps more interestingly, 'Crossroads' is sponsored in part by Microsoft. Do you think they asked Microsoft before running this issue? :-)" Actually, Amit, most reputable publications - even ones many Slashdot readers think are "bought" by Microsoft - are pretty strict about keeping a strong "wall" between the ad people and the editorial departments. But the irony here is still fun - and the articles are excellent, too, and well worth reading, no matter who sponsored them.