Slashdot Mirror

We've reviewed Wall Street Meat, by Andy Kessler. Andy's recently released Running Money. Below is an excerpt from the book, which we'll be reviewing soon; I've read it already and whole-heartedly enjoyed it.

What is with these Asians? Twice now, they have whacked our fund. Just as things started rolling, some currency gyration would give risk a bad name and we'd be back to break even. This was starting to annoy me.

Long ago, I figured out that I would never invest in Asia. Once a year, I used to travel to the Far East as an analyst for Morgan Stanley. Like William Kaye in Hong Kong, I don't think they ever made any money. I always figured that was their problem, but the world is interconnected, like dominoes, so in reality, it was my problem too.

Osaka, Japan - December 1991

I almost missed out on the most startling revelation of the secret to the supposed success of the Japanese. Across a small conference room in Osaka sat an overweight, middle-aged Japanese man, with a thinning mop of jet-black hair. But his most distinguishing feature was one of his front teeth. It pointed straight at me, like a loaded gun. It was perfectly perpendicular to his face and jutted out from his gums instead of hanging down. And like Mona Lisa, it always stared directly at me. I snuck looks at it while sipping green tea and all I could think about was how he was going to drink from his teacup without drooling it all over his shirt. I couldn't pay attention to much else but his bayonet tooth, but luckily some of his words stuck. He spoke with a huge smile, and -- without realizing it -- explained why Japan was doomed.

Traveling at 250 miles per hour on the bullet train from Tokyo to Osaka, I wasn't sure whether to be scared shitless or impressed by Japanese efficiency. Instead, I struck up a conversation with my colleague, Takatoshi Yamamoto. We had met at the main Japanese train station on a brisk evening in December of 1991. I was always in Japan around Pearl Harbor day, maybe because most Americans avoid it.

Like everyone else scurrying around the station, we loaded up on supplies. He bought what looked like a comic book to read and suggested we buy some food. He picked out two bento boxes from a vendor at Track 5 and then headed to a vending machine and asked if I wanted a can of Pocari Sweat (which turned out to be something like Gatorade). I wasn't drinking anyone's sweat, so I politely declined and scanned what else I could have. I settled for coffee in a can.

We were headed to Osaka to visit Sharp Electronics and I was just trying to figure out how Japan works. Yamamoto-san was the electronics analyst for Morgan Stanley Tokyo, which made him the mirror image of me. We got along well. He set up several days of meetings for me with chip companies, consumer electronics companies and even Nintendo.

"So tell me about Sharp," I said.

"Sharp is one of my favorite stocks. They are a big player in memories and also in liquid crystal displays. I set up meetings with the president of both of these divisions."

"Great, I look forward to meeting them." There was a glut of memory chips on the market, and everyone was bleeding red ink -- I couldn't believe that anyone was making money at it, in Japan, Korea or the U.S.

Just the day before, we had gone to Toshiba in Tokyo and met this tall, handsome, gray haired president of their memory division. I knew that both Texas Instruments and Micron were getting killed selling memory chips, and wondering how Toshiba was doing, so I asked. A stern look crossed his face as he shot a why-did-you-bring-this-American-fool-in-my-presence look to Yamamoto-san.

"Mr. Kessler. You must understand that we are big players in memory, and we must meet our commitment to MITI (Ministry of Industry and Technology) for production. It is in all of our long term interest to sell memories." Yamamoto-san was nodding.

"Mr. Kessler," the man from Toshiba continued, "you must appreciate the power of the Japanese." The word "power" was thrust at me, almost spit as "p-HOW-er." Yamamoto-san smiled and mentioned there weren't any markets in which Japanese couldn't outdo American manufacturers. I got the point. But Japanese or not, this guy was also losing money hand over fist selling memory chips.

I was fascinated by LCDs, which Toshiba also made, but I didn't get to ask anyone about them, so I was looking forward to the meetings at Sharp.

Laptop sales were booming, and someday, computer monitors would be replaced by LCDs -- once they got cheap enough. I had done some homework on how LCDs were made. Basically, they take giant pieces of glass, a couple of feet on a side, and then use the same techniques as chip making: print and deposit the transistors to turn on and off pixels, right on the glass. A light behind red, green and blue tinted glass is either blocked or allowed through for each of the million pixels. But dust was a killer. With chips made on six-inch diameter wafers, 80% or 90% of the chips worked, a very high yield as they say in the industry. Dust or other defects kill the others. With LCDs, dust could kill every display on the giant piece of glass. Yields were more like 5-10%. Tough to make money, which is why no American manufacturers even tried. Shareholders hate money-losing businesses.

The coffee in a can tasted like a used kitchen sponge, and I began jonesing for Yamamoto's can of Sweat. I learned that Sharp was originally a maker of mechanical pencils, hence the name. They ventured into other markets like TVs and VCRs just as those markets were booming in the U.S., Europe and Japan. Now they make everything from laptops to camcorders to cordless phones.

As the train pulled into Osaka, I got a sense of a city of farms and railroad lines interspersed with giant modern factories. It looked like a drab version of Atlanta.

Lots of sushi and Asahi Super Dry's helped launch me into a fitful sleep.

In the morning, we took a taxi over to Sharp Headquarters. The white-gloved taxi driver spoke fluent English. "You American? I get lots of Americans, I take them all over Osaka. Here are some of my American friends." He handed me a stack of business cards. I politely shuffled through them, and noted with amazement that I knew a few names, including Scott Cook, the CEO of Intuit who I had met with a few weeks earlier. Small world.

We entered the lobby, which was filled with visitors. I was handed a five-page application to fill out to enter the building, promising not to steal any of their secrets. I noted with suspicion that Yamamoto-san had a 3x5 card to fill out.

We walked for what seemed like a half a mile to a conference room, passing giant rooms filled with huge tables and people sitting around them, yapping away to each other or on phones. They were like Wall Street trading floors, but without screens.

"This is all marketing," I was told by our guide. I noted maybe one personal computer off to the side in these giant rooms.

We got to the end of the hike and entered a small conference room. They all look the same with furniture from the 1960's. A green couch on one side, two chairs on the other side and another facing the center. I sat in one of the chairs and got a quick "Tsk, tsk" from Yamamoto-san.

"Sorry, Japanese custom, you must sit with your back to the window, and the hosts will face you."

In walked two gentlemen. We shook hands and exchanged cards. I got good at the two-handed grab the card and stare at it a while with interest, which always pleased. But I passed on the bowing. One gentleman ran the memory chip division and the other the LCD division.

We started with memories, and it was clear after a few minutes of listening that they were losing tons of money, probably $100 million a year. But I already knew that. We moved onto LCDs, and that's when I almost stopped listening. Years and several children of mine later, I would sit through multiple screenings of the animation Land Before Time. The baby Tyrannosaurus Rex is named Sharp Tooth, and it would always make me chuckle.

In Osaka, my Sharp Tooth was one of the smartest, most articulate Japanese managers I had ever met. He walked me through their production plans, screens per glass substrate, costs, market prices, overhead, yields, fully loaded depreciation and anything else I asked for. It took me a while, but I figured out that he was dropping between $1.5 and $2 billion a year in operating losses.

Still shaken from the "p-HOW-er" meeting the day before at Toshiba, I was very nervous about how I asked questions. Plus, it was hard to look up from my paper. I chose my words carefully.

"So, this product line is in investment mode?" I asked.

"Yes, I see what you are asking. Of course it is in very big investment mode, but so too is it in investment mode for everybody else. No one is in profit return mode, if you understand my choice of words."

I think he just admitted that he is losing lots of money, as are all of his competitors.

"Either we do this important market, or it will be in Korea or worse, in Taiwan. It is our imperative to invest, as you say, in LCDs."

"And a billion dollar annual investment is what it takes?" I asked.

"Well, Mr. Kessler, probably more like two."

"But isn't there some return expected, from, you know, from the stock market?"

"That's not an issue. Someone else can figure that out. We as a corporation and a nation have priorities." He gave me a smile that I will not forget, for a lot of reasons.

Yamamoto-san and I were then escorted to a large but austere office and introduced to Haruo Tsuji, the President of Sharp Corporation.

"What do you think of my company?" Mr. Tsuji asked. "It's quite impressive," I stammered out. I thought I was going to be asking the questions. "You are clearly a leader in LCDs." "Yes, this is our most important product strategy. Every American will soon carry a notebook computer with one of our color displays." "It is an expensive strategy, yes?" "Of course. But we have the resources and financial strategy to dominate." "Can you elaborate?" He must not have heard me. "Thank you for coming," he said as he handed me a small wrapped gift. "A financial strategy?" I thought. "Aren't you supposed to just make money and eventually show a profit?"

* * *

We next got a tour of the company museum next to the lobby. There was the first mechanical pencil, some old TVs and giant VCRs from the late '70's, and some new projection TVs. At the end of the tour, they had a 17-inch LCD TV playing video of some Japanese golfers and, I think, a Pocari Sweat commercial. It looked pretty good -- I had never seen video on an LCD, but something was wrong. It was too slow between frames. It's hard to describe, but my eyes started to hurt, because some of the previous images were still there as the video played, the golfer's club was still in mid-air as the ball was hit. Very weird.

Three women with clipboards accosted me as I was leaving.

"What do you think?"

"Very nice," I replied. "It's a beautiful museum."

"You like the TV?"

"Yes, the TVs were great, I think I have a Sharp TV at home," I lied as I tried to get away. "And what about the last one?" "The last what?" "The last TV, that one." One woman pointed to the LCD TV. "Very nice," I said. They all scribbled something on their clipboards. "You like?" "Yes." "No, no. What you like?" "I liked the commercial."

"Good TV?"

I figured I would never get out of there at this pace. "Well, if you really want to know, the screen is a little small. I have a 27-inch TV at home."

I heard a few "tsk, tsk"s and more clipboard scribbling.

"And," I continued, "it's a little slow between frames, bad hysteresis, I think." I forgot what hysteresis meant, something from college physics about lags in fields. It sounded good and I figured that would throw them for a while to get me out of there.

I got to the lobby, and we waited for a taxi back to the train station. I picked up an English version of Sharp Electronics' annual report, and noted that the company was making money and had made increasing amounts of money for the last 10 years.

Our next stop was Nintendo. This meant a bullet train to god-knows-where and then a couple of slower trains to Kyoto.

Nintendo was in a white, non-descript one-story building next to some railroad tracks. It could have easily been a warehouse on the south side of Chicago. Management rarely met with investors, but we were able to meet with a few hardware designers in a conference room near the lobby.

Nintendo was fascinating. It was the most valuable company in Japan, maybe even the world. Why? Because it was the most profitable company in the world. They were selling tens of millions of Super NES platforms -- which, at $99 apiece, were almost certainly sold at a loss. But they sold hundreds of millions of game cartridges at $40, which cost them $6. Nice business if you can get it -- and they had twitchy fingers around the globe addicted. It struck me that this was the first Japanese company I had spoken to that actually sold software; the rest were just manufacturers with huge factories.

The hardware designers gave me a 12-page document with a big red symbol with Japanese kanji characters inside of it stamped on the front page. I skimmed through it and it looked like the design and specifications of their next game platform. I got excited -- maybe this was some giant scoop that I could take back to investors in the U.S., and point to some part or another in the next Nintendo game machine.

On the taxi back to the train station, I asked Yamamoto-san "So what does this mean?"

"The meeting?"

"No, this red symbol and Japanese words inside of it."

"Oh, that means top secret, do not distribute outside the company."

"Really. Wow. Can you help me translate the rest of the document?"

"I could, but it's not worth the bother."

"Why not? This is hot stuff!" I screamed, barely able to bottle up my excitement.

"Kessler-san. Do you think they would really just hand you secret documents? They have been trying to figure out for the last 18 months what their next platform will be and have been bouncing ideas off of everybody. They just want feedback."

"Why give it to me?" I asked.

"Because maybe you can get it in the press in the U.S. and competitors will pick it apart, and then Nintendo learns valuable things. I would just throw it out if I were you. Not everything is what it seems in Japan."

I was learning that more each day.

* * *

We finally headed back towards Tokyo and my flight back to NY from Narita. I scanned the headlines of the only English language paper I could get my hands on. One article that caught my eye, but just barely, was about the Japanese Fair Trade Commission, whatever the hell that was, signing a consent decree with Nomura Securities, Daiwa, Nikko, and Yamaichi, who promised never to compensate their clients for stock market losses again.

"Again?" I thought. "Protection against stock market losses? Who gets that? What's this all about?"

The JFTC reminded these firms, the article continued, that if they were caught in similar offenses again, it would lead to criminal charges.

I asked Yamamoto-san, who once worked for Nomura Securities, what this was all about. He shrugged. The Nikkei had peaked at 40,000 a year before, and was now 23,000. He said most people figured it was a wrist slap -- a little house cleaning is good, and the Nikkei would be back.

* * *

A few years later, with the Nikkei at 15,000 and dropping, Yamamoto-san came to Morgan Stanley offices in New York. He looked like he had been through a monsoon.

"You OK?"

"Things very tough."

"What do you mean?"

"Lots of money disappear. You remember our visit to Sharp?"

Who could forget? There were already a few sequels to the Land Before Time animation.

"Yeah, sure. How are they doing?" I asked.

"Big problems. They had $2 billion dollars, about a third of their cash, at a non-bank bank."

"A what?"

"Non-bank bank. It's really just an investment fund. They were speculating with Sharp's cash, in the stock market and in real estate. They used lots of debt."

"Go on."

"Well, with Nikkei down and real estate down, the non-bank bank failed. That $2 billion is gone."

It hit me right then and there. This is what Sharp Tooth was telling me, but I didn't know what he was saying. It seemed to me that not only did Sharp lose $2 billion, but they lost all their earnings. Nomura potentially rigging the Nikkei by paying clients back for losses meant every company could count on a rising stock market. Speculating was a one-way street, and paper profits could be washed through their income statement as earnings. No wonder Sharp was profitable.

LCDs were losing money, but the company was profitable because they were showing speculative stock market and real estate gains as if they were the company's profits from operations. But it was bogus, a sleight of hand. Sharp didn't make money at all. Ouch. If that's true, the entire Japanese electronics business was, well, a profitless pit. Turns out it was worse than that.

code_rage writes "Carolyn Lockhead of The San Francisco Chronicle has written an article about one of the most important, but overlooked, political issues we are facing. Baby-boomers will soon begin retiring, which will result in a huge fiscal imbalance (deficits and debts). The article says that the present value of the anticipated debt is estimated to be between $40 trillion and $72 trillion, depending on the source. To put that in perspective, the current national debt is $7.3 trillion.""

Former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill commissioned a study (free PDF) that was written by Jagadeesh Gokhale and Kent Smetters. To give a sense of how serious the fiscal imbalance is, consider some of the painful measures that the study said would be necessary to balance the books:
- More than double the payroll tax, from 15.3% to 32% of wages
- Raise income taxes by two thirds
- Cut Social Security and Medicare benefits by 45%
- Eliminate all "discretionary" spending (including such constitutionally mandated government functions as the military and the judiciary)

Peter G. Peterson has written a book about the issue: "Running On Empty: How the Democratic and Republican Parties Are Bankrupting Our Future and What Americans Can Do about It." He recently gave an interview at the Council on Foreign Relations. He prefers to express the issue in terms of cash flow, because Social Security and Medicare are "pay as you go" systems (there is essentially no trust fund). The cash flow impacts will be an estimated $783 billion in 2020, increasing to trillions later.

Peterson offers some concrete proposals in the interview, and offers some political cover to the candidates in saying "I have never thought that a political campaign is an optimum environment for serious discussion or practical proposals.

theodp writes "A music windfall promised to WA public schools and libraries from last year's $143M anti-trust settlement with the recording industry wasn't all it was cracked up to be. While WA got 115,241 music CDs out of the deal, folks aren't quite sure what to do with the odd collection, which includes 387 CDs containing explicit lyrics by Big Pun, 310 copies of Will Smith's Willenium and 48 copies of Spooky Scary Sounds for Halloween from Martha Stewart."

theodp writes "A music windfall promised to WA public schools and libraries from last year's $143M anti-trust settlement with the recording industry wasn't all it was cracked up to be. While WA got 115,241 music CDs out of the deal, folks aren't quite sure what to do with the odd collection, which includes 387 CDs containing explicit lyrics by Big Pun, 310 copies of Will Smith's Willenium and 48 copies of Spooky Scary Sounds for Halloween from Martha Stewart."

theodp writes "A music windfall promised to WA public schools and libraries from last year's $143M anti-trust settlement with the recording industry wasn't all it was cracked up to be. While WA got 115,241 music CDs out of the deal, folks aren't quite sure what to do with the odd collection, which includes 387 CDs containing explicit lyrics by Big Pun, 310 copies of Will Smith's Willenium and 48 copies of Spooky Scary Sounds for Halloween from Martha Stewart."

jpkunst writes "Ed Willis, over at O'Reilly's ONLamp.com, gives his varied reactions to Fred Brooks' classic The Mythical Man-Month, after 'having finally read it in its entirety'. '[...] simultaneously you can see just how much the field has changed since the original writing and just how much has stayed stubbornly the same.'"

rjnagle asks: "While trying to access a recipe web page of a friend Mary Anne Mohanraj from work, I was dismayed to find that Webwasher, my company's content filtering application, had blocked it. It's true that Mohranraj's site contains some tastefully written text-only erotic stories, (Mohanraj has published several distinguished books and anthologies ), but apparently Webwasher's filtering rules block everything from the domain--including her writing diary, Sri Lanka travel photoessay, poetry and yes, her reading list of Indian writers. Leave aside for the moment the question of whether employees should do personal surfing on company time or what type of material is appropriate to view from work. Please answer these questions: How can content creators prevent their entire domain from being blacklisted because of a small amount of controversial content? Given that Webwasher's corporate customers rarely tweak Webwasher's default blacklist settings, doesn't this imply the need for Webwasher to make their filtering algorithms readily available? (Apparently, even the product's installation documentation is password-protected). If content filtering programs like Webwasher have a tough time distinguishing between a teacher's educational philosophy and hardcore erotic fiction, shouldn't the software company offer an online form for content creators to appeal being blacklisted? Having lived in Eastern Europe, I've seen firsthand how content filtering (ostensibly for reasons of social utility) has produced a society of ill-informed, unquestioning citizens."

John Miles writes "It's been almost thirty years since young Laura and Sandy Crowther sat down at a Teletype and took their first steps into the mysterious subterranean world their father, Will, created for them. Now, if Nick Montfort's Twisty Little Passages: An Approach to Interactive Fiction is any indication, Crowther and Woods's pioneering computer game Adventure and its descendants are finally beginning to garner the critical recognition they deserve. At only 286 pages, Twisty Little Passages is a small, accessible book that addresses a deep and complex subject. The author's stated intention is to bring us the first book-length consideration of interactive fiction (IF) as a legitimate literary field, and he has certainly succeeded." Read on for the rest of Miles' review. Twisty Little Passages: An Approach to Interactive Fiction author Nick Montfort pages 286 publisher The MIT Press rating 4 out of 5 grues agree: Montfort's one of them! reviewer John Miles ISBN 0262134365 summary The definitive survey of interactive fiction for the literati... and the rest of us

Eight chapters, arranged in roughly-chronological order, detail the lineage of interactive fiction from its origins in Delphic riddles to its newest and most intriguing forms.

Passion and precision Among Montfort's first statements is one that demonstrates a commitment to careful scholarship that recurs throughout the book: "Text adventure and interactive fiction do not mean exactly the same thing." Infocom's Deadline and Emily Short's Galatea are cited as examples of IF that are not "adventures" in the pop-fiction tradition of exotic settings and perilous situations. These titles, among others, demonstrate that IF isn't just a delivery vehicle for the stereotyped themes of juvenile fiction with which it's often associated. Montfort proceeds to explain why he found it necessary to write Twisty Little Passages:

To see why a solid treatment of (IF) needs to be written, one need only consider this selection from the single page that mentions IF in Ilana Snyder's Hypertext: The Electronic Labyrinth (1996):

The precedent was Adventure, developed in the 1960s at Stanford University's Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (SAIL). The program was conceived of as an experimental game. A computerised version of role-playing games like Dungeons and Dragons, Adventure comprises a series of descriptions of fictional locations inspired by J.R.R. Tolkien's fantasy The Lord of the Rings (1954), and set in the surrounding Californian mountains.

These three sentences state six specific things about Adventure - when, where, and why it was developed, that it is a computerized version of Dungeons and Dragons, that its fictional locations are inspired by Tolkien, and that it is set in California. At least four of these six statements are clearly false, and the remaining two are misleading. (pages 9-10)

Essentially, previous authors and critics writing about interactive fiction just didn't care. In Chapter 1, "The Pleasures of the Text Adventure," Montfort shows that he does. Here, and in the following chapter ("Riddles"), he suggests that the IF art form has a much deeper history than we might think:

... the combination of an explicit challenge and a verbal literary work has a clear precedent (:) the riddle. By presenting a metaphorical system that the listener or reader must inhabit and figure out in order to fully experience, and in order to answer correctly, the riddle offers its way of thinking and engages its audience as no other work of literature does. (pages 3-4)

Recognizing that his audience is likely to include technical geeks as well as literary theorists, Montfort defines some lit-crit terms as they apply to interactive-fiction analysis. Towards the end of the first chapter, we're presented with terminology like "story," "narrative," and "plot," but the definitions Montfort offers could have been fleshed out without sending us to the library to brush up on our Russian formalism. The distinction between "diegetic" and "extradiegetic" exchanges (communication with the game world and the game engine, respectively) appears next, illustrated by Zork 's first few interactions with the user. "Metalepsis" comes next, defined as an intrusion or transgression between levels of story and narration -- sometimes unintentional, sometimes with fatal results. (Portions of Floyd's commentary in Planetfall are cited as an example of the former; the protagonist's robot-assisted suicide in Suspended exemplifies the latter). Happily, none of these intimidating-looking terms are prerequisites to an understanding of the book as a whole.

Naming the game Assuming the art of interactive fiction began with the riddle, what constitutes a work of IF today? After a brief excerpt from LookingGlass Technologies veteran Dan Schmidt's For A Change gives us an example of description, interaction and puzzle-solving, Montfort goes on to establish four requisite aspects of IF:

• A text-accepting, text-generating computer program;
• A potential narrative (a system that produces narrative during interaction);
• A simulation of an environment or world; and
• A structure of rules within which an outcome is sought, also known as a game.

Works which do not include each of these elements are deliberately excluded, among them "hypertext fiction," most graphical computer games, and numerous experimental titles. In this respect, Montfort perhaps misses an opportunity to reflect upon the true extent of IF's influence over the rest of the entertainment software world. With a reported 30,000 lines of text in Deus Ex 2 - more than any Infocom game ever boasted - I'd argue that the historical text-only criterion is becoming more questionable all the time.

The rise of the smart machines Much more than a theoretical treatise on IF, Twisty Little Passages is also the most complete chronicle of important IF titles, authors, and publishers assembled to date. Its middle four chapters focus largely on academic and commercial efforts at crafting and publishing interactive fiction. Chapter 3 begins with an introduction of the concept of generative literary machines ("ergodic literature"). Montfort cites the Turing machine-like nature of the I Ching , followed by a mention of Jonathan Swift's satirical machine from Gulliver's Travels, "made of equal parts of irony, sarcasm, and mockery, that would automatically write books on all the arts and sciences." Advancing to the modern era, we encounter Theodor Nelson's early hypertext experiments in 1970; the "Choose Your Own Adventure" books that appeared near the close of the decade; and the Dungeons and Dragons phenomenon that introduced a generation to the idea of participative fiction and inspired more IF and computer-game authors than even the most dedicated scholar could count.

The mother of all computer games, in Montfort's view, was Spanish engineer Leonardo Quevedo's 1912 chess-playing robot. Devised to attack a particular endgame problem on a vertically-oriented chessboard, Quevedo's machine was unique in that it represented the first so-called "chess automaton" that operated by legitimate electromechanical means rather than by fraudulently-concealed midgets. A subsequent refinement of Quevedo's machine would later catch the eye of famed computer scientist and AI researcher Norbert Wiener, achieving recognition as the first genuine attempt at artificial intelligence.

Mechanical curiosities aside, no discussion of human-computer interaction would be complete without inviting Joseph Weizenbaum's ELIZA (1966) to the party. As the first convincing conversation "bot", ELIZA accepted plain-English input from a human interlocutor, transforming it (albeit with no semantic understanding) into a sympathetic textual murmur geared to elicit further input:

Person: Men are all alike.
Computer: IN WHAT WAY?
Person: They're always bugging us about something or other.
Computer: CAN YOU THINK OF A SPECIFIC EXAMPLE?
Person: Well, my boyfriend made me come here.
Computer: YOUR BOYFRIEND MADE YOU COME HERE
Person: He says I'm depressed much of the time.
Computer: I AM SORRY TO HEAR YOU ARE DEPRESSED. (page 82)

Even more impressive than ELIZA was fellow MIT researcher Terry Winograd's SHRDLU, the first computer program capable of modelling, rendering, and allowing a human to interact verbally with objects in a virtual world:

Person: WHAT DID THE RED CUBE SUPPORT BEFORE YOU STARTED TO CLEAN IT OFF?
Computer: THE GREEN PYRAMID.
Person: THERE WERE FIVE BLOCKS TO THE LEFT OF THE BOX THEN.
Computer: NO, ONLY FOUR OF THEM: THE RED CUBE, TWO LARGE GREEN CUBES, AND A LARGE RED BLOCK.
Person: PUT THE BLUE PYRAMID ON THE BLOCK IN THE BOX.
Computer: OK (does it)
Person: IS THERE ANYTHING WHICH IS BIGGER THAN EVERY PYRAMID BUT IS NOT AS WIDE AS THE THING THAT SUPPORTS IT?
Computer: YES, THE BLUE BLOCK. (page 84)

Prior to reading the transcript above in Montfort's book, I'd heard of SHRDLU only in passing. It deserves a lot more attention than it's received. SHRDLU was one hell of an impressive hack in 1970, and it wouldn't be trivial today, judging by the capabilities suggested. Like the incredulous audiences that must have attended the early chess robot demonstrations, I'd have been prying panels off Winograd's PDP-6 with a screwdriver, looking for midgets ex machina.

Worlds from Adventure to Zork After bestowing the title "the first work of interactive fiction" upon a deserving SHRDLU, Montfort summons the spiritual grandfather of them all: William Crowther's Adventure . Released in 1975 for the benefit of his five- and seven-year-old daughters and any interested lurkers on the nascent ARPANet, Adventure combined ELIZA and SHRDLU's human-interaction capabilities with a primitive fictional setting:

YOU ARE AT A COMPLEX JUNCTION. A LOW HANDS AND KNEES PASSAGE FROM THE NORTH JOINS A HIGHER CRAWL FROM THE EAST TO MAKE A WALKING PASSAGE GOING WEST. THERE IS ALSO A LARGE ROOM ABOVE. THE AIR IS DAMP HERE. (page 88)

Crowther is a contemporary of Zork co-author Dave Lebling, who, coincidentally, was a member of the same Dungeons and Dragons group in Cambridge, Massachusetts. In one of Montfort's many personal communications with IF luminaries, Lebling says:

Eric Roberts . . . started running a D&D group a year or so before Adventure was written. Eric had his own ideas about how D&D should be done, emphasizing storytelling and de-emphasizing the mechanical aspects of the game such as die- rolling. He tried to create a Tolkien-inspired world that was fun and consistent with Middle Earth... I think one strong component that carried over into Zork was to try to keep the mechanical workings of the game as hidden as possible, which to me enhanced the fun and immersiveness of the experience. (page 86)

With such similar roots, it's no surprise that Zork and Adventure play like long-lost brothers. In Chapter 4, Montfort details the evolution of Zork and other important IF titles that were created by multitalented college students with free mainframe access and seemingly-limitless time on their hands. Much has been written about Zork and its legendary Implementers, but seldom have we been given such a well-documented survey of the personalities and motivations behind the game's creation. One tongue-in-cheek room description from the mainframe version of Zork didn't make the cut for the commercial releases:

Tomb of the Unknown Implementer
This is the Tomb of the Unknown Implementer. A hollow voice says: "That's not a bug, it's a feature!"
In the north wall of the room is the Crypt of the Implementers. It is made of the finest marble, and apparently large enough for four headless corpses.
The crypt is closed.
There are four heads here, mounted securely on poles.
There is a large pile of empty Coke bottles here, evidently produced by the implementers during their long struggle to win totality.
There is a gigantic pile of line-printer output here. Although the paper once contained useful information, almost nothing can be distinguished now. (pages 102-103)

Zork accepted complex sentences with indirect-object phrases, offered a much-larger vocabulary than its predecessors, and broke significant new ground in multiplatform software development, predating UCSD Pascal as the first commercial application for virtual-machine technology. But it also advanced at least one purely-literary aspect of computer gaming by introducing its first complex interactive character: the wily Thief. One of Montfort's references offers an insightful Joseph Campbell-esque definition of "villain": "the symbolic representation of forces working to seemingly hinder, but actually promoting, the hero's or heroine's development." (pages 112-113) Since Adventure's dwarves and pirate are not representations of anything else ("parental figures or psychological drives"), their deeds are destructive without being truly "wicked." Zork's thief, on the other hand, serves as a foil for the player character's combat skills, as a reflection of the player's own rapacious treasure-lust, and, ultimately, as an unwitting assistant in the quest.

Zork's innovations over the state of the art established by Adventure are too numerous to count, although Montfort explicitly avoids the common mistake of canonizing Zork and Infocom games in general while giving short shrift to other important IF efforts. In Chapter 5, we learn what became of the Zork implementers in their post-MIT lives at Infocom.

Alas, poor Infocom. . . In Montfort's words, Infocom, which was founded June 22, 1979 by Lebling, Blank, Anderson, and seven other MIT alumni, "began work on the foundation of IF while the plot of ground that it was to be built upon had not been completely surveyed." Chapter 5's opening paragraph is revealing:

Adventure is considered the great original epic of interactive fiction. Infocom's works call for a grandiose comparison made on a slightly-different metaphorical ground. Whoever the "Shakespeare" playwright actually was - common or noble, working largely alone or in close collaboration with a theater company - Shakespeare wrote, remarkably, not just the greatest English-language play, by critical consensus, but almost all of the great English-language plays. Similarly, the interactive fiction creators at Infocom devised practically all of the best-loved IF works in the history of the form. (page 119)

Although Scott Adams (no relation to Dilbert's creator) and his company, Adventure International , were the first to sell IF commercially in 1978, Infocom was the most successful IF publisher of its era. The company reached US $10 million in sales in 1985 with over 100 employees on the payroll. A quoted excerpt from the New Zork Times , the company's newsletter, illustrates how Infocom's marketing focused on their games' puzzle-centric design:

Although our games are interactive fiction, they are more than just stories: they are also a series of puzzles. It is these puzzles that transform our text from an hour's worth of reading to many, many hours' worth of thinking. . . . The value of our games is that they will provide many hours of stimulating mental exercise. (page 120)

Montfort subsequently comments:

The company's ... belief in the centrality of problem solving should explain ... why Infocom did not focus on creating what might more easily be seen as artistic and literary works that favored exploration, communication with characters, or alternate plot progressions. Yet Infocom did make some progress along these lines, and advanced the state of the literary art by coupling the textually described worlds and situations with carefully crafted puzzles in ways that great riddlers might, in provocative and affecting ways. (page 120)

Of the thirty-five games that Infocom published before its US $7.5 million sale to Activision in 1986, their earlier releases receive some of the most detailed analyses in Twisty Little Passages. In addition to discussion of the Zork and Enchanter trilogies, Montfort offers us insights on the unconventional, revelation-driven structure of Deadline, the Reagan-era sociopolitical commentary found in Infidel , and the tragic end of Floyd the Robot in Planetfall:

As a character who is also a technological artifact, Floyd is more important than his immediate function in the IF world suggests. He is a figure for the sometimes emotional relationships that people have with computers, or that are mediated through computers. (page 150)

Many other games, from Trinity to A Mind Forever Voyaging and the Douglas Adams- assisted adaptation of Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy are discussed extensively in Chapters 5 and 6. Private communications between Montfort and Adams's collaborator at Infocom, Steve Meretzky, lend a glimpse of what it was like to work with the late, lamented author:

Adams's "world-class procrastination abilities," as Meretzky called them, did cause some problems for the ( Hitchhiker's Guide) project, which began in February 1984 and was slated (ambitiously) to be completed by the following Christmas. Meretzky said of Adams that "being a successful person with tons of interesting acquaintances, he had an extremely distracting life. Plus, he wasn't fond of the actual task of writing. He loved coming up with ideas, but hated wrestling them into a properly-formed work." (page 173)

Montfort's 35-page bibliography is a treasure trove in its own right, with online and printed references given equal weight. Academic grognards may question the long-term utility of online citations, but the omission of sources such as Briceno et al.'s comprehensive Down from the Top of its Game: The Story of Infocom would have been a serious shortcoming. Throughout the book, Montfort's goal of preserving and documenting the great IF works remains clear, with a scholarly ethos that's just as relevant to fans of today's games. He praises Infocom's relatively-lax copy protection schemes, compared to those used by other game publishers whose heavily-protected works may be lost to posterity:

If any examples of heavily-copy-protected computer games survive through another two decades for study and discussion, it will be thanks to the loose, widespread network of teenagers and college students who assiduously cracked these programs, allowing the crippled disks to run freely both on systems at the time and on compatible computers today. (page 159)

Activision, in particular, earns well-deserved props in the book for opening earlier Infocom works and encouraging independent development.

... and other commercial efforts Although Infocom's oeuvre receives the lion's share of attention in Twisty Little Passages, the book does not neglect the many other commercial IF publishing efforts on both sides of the Atlantic in the 1980s and 1990s. Chapter 6 ("Different Visions Worldwide") opens with a quick drive-by tour of Roberta Williams's 1980 Mystery House , recognized as the first graphical adventure game. A number of IF book adaptations were undertaken in the early 1980s as well, among them The Hobbit from Melbourne House and the classics Fahrenheit 451, Rendezvous with Rama, and Nine Princes in Amber from Tellarium. Along with the aforementioned Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy released by Infocom in 1984, Montfort gives favorable attention to US Poet Laureate Robert Pinsky's Mindwheel , published in the same year by Synapse Software.

Brief histories of British IF publishers Level 9 and Magnetic Scrolls round out the chapter, along with an even-briefer mention of Legend Entertainment, written before Legend's shutdown in early 2004. The latter constitutes one of the few weak spots in Twisty Little Passages's coverage of the classics. Legend's integration of music, artwork, graphical navigation, and other interface enhancements in the Spellcasting 101 series went far beyond Infocom's efforts to modernize their own IF engines, and the company deserves more than a single paragraph.

At the end of Chapter 6, Montfort recounts the 2000 failure of former Infocom author Mike Berlyn's Cascade Mountain Publishing, one of the last commercial publishers of pure text-based IF. He proceeds to draw a sheet over the commercial market for interactive fiction in general, pronouncing it as dead as Graham Chapman's parrot:

A few individuals have since sought to sell their IF works, and the occasional company like Activision has re-released older works. The main market for interactive fiction today, however, is on eBay and other auction sites, where packaged disks from the 1980s are bought and sold by collectors and IF enthusiasts. Fortunately, the end of the interactive fiction market is not the end of the story for this form. (page 191)

I don't agree with this proclamation of commercial doom, which is a recurring theme in Twisty Little Passages. It's unreasonable to look at the failure of a single company which released two IF products in two years -- one of them a recycled effort from the mid-1980s -- and draw the conclusion that future IF games will only be offered for sale alongside Beanie Babies, assorted stolen laptops, and someone's spare kidney. Unlike modern PC and console games with multimillion-dollar budgets, a killer IF title can still be written by one guy or girl working the graveyard shift at home. Success is arguably a matter of recalibrating one's expectations -- and business model -- to match contemporary market conditions. (Did it ever make sense for Infocom to employ 100 people in some of the most expensive commercial real estate in Boston, working on a handful of all-text games that fit on 140KB floppies? Montfort stops short of considering this question, but in the post-Ion Storm era we live in, the answer should be pretty obvious.)

Fortunately, as the last two chapters reveal, a healthy independent IF community has sprung up to take the place of the commercial publishers who are no longer with us.

IF's independent authors: the once and future scene In April 1993, at the culmination of a long reverse-engineering effort by "a group of programmers called the InfoTaskForce" (page 202), Graham Nelson released an object-oriented programming language capable of creating story files for the Infocom Z-machine interpreter. Along with a commercially-available text-adventure authoring system known as TADS, Nelson's language, Inform, sparked an indy IF revolution.

The (growing) community of IF authors really began to demonstrate the vitality of the form in the 1990s, innovating in ways that early hackers and later game companies did not. Their IF works are usually even more widely available today than the most successful commercial software of the 1980s, since they are typically free for download and, thanks to the Internet, widely available. ... A relevant FAQ notes that ... there were five IF games in the 1996 Year-End Download Top 40, making these games some of the most popular non-commercial computer games in the world. (page 193)

As Montfort writes, Nelson also fired the first shot of that revolution:

Nelson's most famous piece of interactive fiction - and likely the most well-known IF work since the demise of Infocom - is the first fruit of Inform, the 1993 Curses . This large, complex, and difficult adventure is set in an English country home and in certain other spaces that are linked in fantastic ways to it. Nelson (2002) said he "consciously wrote it in an Infocom-esque spirit, aiming at the same epigrammatic style of wit." (page 203)

Ten years after the first release of Inform, hundreds of independent IF authors and fans congregate on Web boards and Usenet newsgroups to discuss new titles released using Inform, TADS, and a host of other IF platforms. In particular, the annual Interactive Fiction Competition, begun by the denizens of rec.arts.int-fiction and rec.games.int-fiction, celebrates its own tenth anniversary in 2004. Past Competitions have spawned groundbreaking titles like Adam Cadre's Photopia , released in 1998 and still much-discussed today, and Andrew Plotkin's unsettling Shade . These, and many other indy releases, are reviewed extensively in Chapter 7. It would have been good to see more pointers toward longstanding IF fan sites such as Eileen Mullin's XYZZYNews in this chapter, but for the most part, Montfort's latter two chapters do a great job of summarizing the state of interactive fiction's art and culture. His enthusiasm as an observer of the modern IF scene is infectious.

Two tentacles up I can wholeheartedly recommend Twisty Little Passages not only to IF fans and amateur historians, but to anyone serious about the foundations and culture of computer gaming. Infocom and Legend Entertainment auteur Steve Meretzky's back-cover blurb says it all: "(Twisty Little Passages) is a thoroughly-researched history of interactive fiction, as well as a brilliant analysis of the genre. Reading it makes me itch to fire up that old DEC-20 and start writing interactive fiction again!" As a fan of Meretzky's many IF works, I should be so lucky. As a fan of the IF art form as a whole, I'm indeed lucky to have run across Nick Montfort's excellent book.

You can purchase Twisty Little Passages: An Approach to Interactive Fiction from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page

Tom Alaerts writes "I discovered Robert Charles Wilson because of the curiosity-inducing Slashdot review of his previous novel, The Chronoliths. I had read a lot of SF in the past but over the last 10 years I drifted away from the genre. The Chronoliths sparked my interest again, and this was largely because Wilson, next to an interesting story, gives a lot of attention to the character development. I really liked the deliberate pacing of the book (I can understand that some might find it slow), following the characters through a carefully constructed story. It made me curious about his other works such as Darwinia or the short story collection The Perseids. And now Wilson's new novel Blind Lake is available." Read on for his review. Blind Lake author Robert Charles Wilson pages 399 publisher Tor rating 8/10 reviewer Tom Alaerts ISBN 0765302624 summary A book about alien contact and the difficulty of interpretation

Blind Lake takes place in a close future and deals with alien contact and the difficulty of interpreting alien behavior. If you don't want to read further (but I will not include real spoilers, only the setting of the book), I can already summarize as follows: if you liked The Chronoliths or Darwinia, then you will like Blind Lake.

In the book, Blind Lake is one of two locations with an ultra-advanced telescope. This device doesn't work optically, and in fact nobody really understands exactly how it works (there is some amusing technobabble in the book about infinite complexity, adaptive self-programming and the like -- you know the drill), since it was invented accidentally. Anyway the result is that with this telescope, scientists can examine the surface of very far planets in great detail, they can even track an intelligent alien being through its daily life. The book follows Marguerite, a team leader at Blind Lake, her ex-husband, her young daughter (who suffers from a mild personality disorder), and a team of journalists. Marguerite leads a team of "interpreters," which leads to plenty of interesting discussions on how difficult this work is -- it is almost impossible to write the life story of the alien, since we tend to map what we observe to our own habits. Is the alien admiring the view or is he enjoying the air pressure? Etc, etc. Already from the very start of the story, Wilson injects a thriller element: Blind Lake goes into quarantine, with robot drones guarding the perimeter. Nobody knows why. Did something happen with the other telescope? Why are all data streams blocked?

Blind Lake is written with the same attention to detail as The Chronoliths, and the characters are equally well developed. There isn't much adventurous action in the book; it is built rather like a mystery novel with thriller elements, interjected with several interesting ideas. The pacing is similar to that of The Chronoliths. Wilson takes time to flesh out his characters and various background details. I like this thoughtful approach. Towards the end, various new ideas are introduced which are bigger in scope than the original storyline.

While I liked the almost metaphysical (even somewhat new age) concepts introduced in the later chapters, I actually preferred the original storyline (I had the same feeling with Darwinia, which evolves from an alternative history novel into a totally different story). Still, this is only a minor issue and most SF readers will experience a great deal of satisfaction with this book.

I would score Blind Lake 8/10. As a comparison with other Wilson books: I think it's as good as The Chronoliths, while I would rate Darwinia as a 7/10.

Interesting links

• Author's homepage
• Interesting reviews of Wilson's books
• The Blind Lake page at Barnes&Noble has interesting other comments (maybe even already a bit too much info if you haven't read the book yet).

You can purchase Blind Lake from bn.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.

Well, one science journalist's opinion, anyway. Charles Seife writes for Science magazine and is the author of Alpha and Omega: The Search for the Beginning and End of the Universe. These are his answers to your questions, and they're very detailed, to the point where you may want to set aside more than a few minutes of quiet time to read and digest them. Q1) "Publishing hype" by BobTheLawyer (#6606631)

A1)I'm not embarrassed at all because it's not hype. Scientists now know how the universe will end. Of course, as with all things scientific, there's a big honking asterisk on the word "know," but before I get to that, let me explain why I feel justified in making such an arrogant statement.

We're in the middle of a scientific revolution, in the honest-to-god paradigm-shift sense. This revolution started in 1997 when two groups of astronomers, the High-Z Supernova Search Team and the Supernova Cosmology Project used the bright flashes of a particular type of dying star (a type-Ia supernova) to measure the expansion of the universe at different times in the past. Since then, a whole raft of astronomical observations -- of faint patterns in the afterglow of the big bang, of distributions of galaxies, of the composition of intergalactic clouds of gas, of distortions of light going around massive bodies -- have all forced cosmologists into a remarkable consensus about the composition of the universe and, yes, its fate.

Just to give you a little taste of what the difference in the state of knowledge was like: in 1997, if you asked an astronomer how old the universe is, you'd get an answer somewhere between 12 and 15 billion years. Now, you'll get an answer of 13.7 billion years, plus or minus about 100 million. That's a big jump in precision. Similarly, before 1997, nobody had a clue how the universe would end; now, cosmologists agree on its fate. Some of the details haven't been worked out (what an understatement!), but the gross picture of the ultimate fate of the cosmos seems to be pretty well established for the first time in history. And by the end of the decade, a lot of the details will be fleshed out.

The ongoing revolution isn't just astronomical; it's physical. A decade ago, nobody knew whether neutrinos have mass. (For those who aren't particle physicists, neutrinos are particles that so rarely interact with matter that they can easily pass through the Earth without noticing the big chunk of mass they've passed through. This property makes them exceedingly hard to study.) Now, neutrino physicists are in accord -- and they've concluded that neutrinos, collectively, weigh about as much as all the visible stars and galaxies in the universe combined. High-energy physicists are using an accelerator in Long Island to recreate the condition of the universe a few microseconds after the big bang. By next year, they will formally announce the creation of a new state of matter that existed only in the very, very early universe. (There are alreadystrong hints that they've succeeded.) And another particle accelerator under construction in Geneva is very likely going to discover the particle responsible for exotic dark matter. (More on this shortly.)

All these experiments, all these observations, are pointing in exactly the same direction; they reveal the composition of the universe and its fate. But as with any good scientific revolution, such as relativity or quantum mechanics, it generates more questions than it answers. Scientists now know how the universe will end, but that understanding comes at the cost of a new mystery in physics.

As to the asterisk on the word "know," scientists are acutely aware that their theories are subject to revision. But at the same time, they have good reasons for being confident about their theories -- and they are more confident about some theories than about others. The new cosmological picture that's emerged has a darn high confidence rating; extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and the scientific world wouldn't accept the ideas of dark matter, much less dark energy, if there weren't a number of independent lines of evidence that forced scientists to make that conclusion. And while they're not confident about many of the details of the cosmos and the mechanisms that shape it, they are pretty sure that the overall picture is correct. (More on this coming, too.)

Q2) [Almost] Serious question! by Noryungi (#6606694)

and

Q3) Why does the rate of expansion change? by Anonymous Coward (#6606745)

A2,3) The universe will end in... umm... you really want me to give away the ending to my book?

Actually, I reveal the answer in chapter four, because the understanding of the fate of the universe is just the beginning of the current cosmological revolution. So it's not a spoiler to say...

-- drum roll -- the universe will die a heat death, or "Dark & Cold" by your terminology.

In a big bang universe governed by the laws of general relativity, there are two possibilities. (Actually, there are more than two, but all the cases boil down to two real outcomes.) Big crunch or heat death, fire or ice.

The fate of the universe depends on how the universe expands. In general, things that expand cool down and things that are compressed heat up. (This is what causes a propane container to feel so cold after a barbecue -- all the gas that expanded.) After the big bang the universe was extremely hot and was seething with energy. As it expanded, it cooled; free-roaming quarks condensed into protons and neutrons, and wound up as hydrogen, helium, and a handful of other light elements and isotopes. About 400,000 years after the big bang, the universe cooled enough so that the electrons could combine with the nuclei and form neutral atoms. Now, about 14 billion years later, the universe is a pretty cool place.

The expansion of the universe is like a cannonball shot into the air. As the cannonball flies ever higher, the force of gravity tries to drag it back to earth, reducing its upward velocity and slowing it down as it zooms upward. If gravity is very strong, then the cannonball rapidly loses its speed and quickly comes crashing back to the ground. On the other hand, if gravity is very weak, then the cannonball might escape the pull of the earth entirely and zoom away into outer space.

Similarly, the big bang gave the universe an initial cannonshot of expansion. If the mutual gravitational attraction of the objects in the universe is very strong (if there's a lot of matter in the universe) the expansion will slow down, halt, and eventually reverse itself. After the cooling phase of expansion, the universe will begin to swallow itself, getting smaller and smaller each day. This will make it heat up. The skies will get brighter and brighter as galaxies and stars get closer and closer together, and eventually, the universe will become a bath of radiation once more. Electrons will separate from atoms, atoms and then protons and neutrons will shiver into their components, and the universe will collapse in a "big crunch," a reverse big bang. The cosmos will die a death by fire.

On the other hand, if there's not much matter in the universe, then the expansion of the universe will continue forever. The expansion will slow down, but it will never halt and never reverse itself. The universe continues to cool down, and for a long time, space will look pretty much as it does now. Stars will be born and die, and galaxies will age. The night sky would get darker and darker as distant objects get too dim to view, and eventually, as the hydrogen in the universe is consumed, stars and galaxies will begin to wink out. Many billions of years hence, the universe will be a lifeless soup of dim light and dead matter. It will be a death by ice.

In 1997 and 1998, the two supernova teams used the brightness of distant supernovae to measure the rate of expansion at different times in the past. (Because the speed of light is finite, looking into the distance is the same as looking into the past. This causes no end of tense problems when writing a book about cosmology.) What they found was absolutely gobsmacking. Not only was the universe's expansion not slowing down very much -- it was speeding up! The cannonball was zooming into the air faster and faster as if it were propelled by some sort of weird antigravity force. Not only was the cannonball going to escape, it is so OUTTA HERE! This means a death by ice.

Yegads -- an antigravity force. This was a really hard thing for scientists (and probably you) to accept. But there's a number of different lines of evidence that support the idea, and in the book I go through those lines of evidence in great detail. I'll have to settle for a brief summary here. In 2000, a balloon experiment known as Boomerang took very detailed pictures of the ubiquitous afterglow of the big bang, the cosmic microwave background (CMB). This afterglow has hot and cold spots in it, and for years, scientists have been making very, very detailed predictions about the size and distribution of those spots. The results of the Boomerang experiment and the DASI and WMAP experiments matched those predictions incredibly well, giving scientists great confidence in the underlying theory. It also allowed them to figure out the amount of matter and energy in the universe, and 73% of the "stuff" in the cosmos was dark energy, this antigravity force.

There are a number of other lines of evidence, too; the current distribution of galaxies, for example, implies the presence of an antigravity force, and just last month, scientists made a very nice measurement of something known as the late integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect. This effect can't occur unless you have something like dark energy counteracting gravity's pull.

Unfortunately, a fuller exposition requires a lot more writing -- it takes up several chapters in my book. (Shameless plug). But in summary, there's a number of independent observations that all point to the existence of a dark energy. Furthermore, the theories underlying the idea have made very specific predictions that have been verified with incredible precision. It's extraordinary stuff, but no matter how scientists look at it, they're forced by extraordinary evidence to make the same conclusion.

Yes, it's true that scientists don't know the mechanism of dark energy (though they're not entirely at sea) but there's little doubt that the cannonball is zooming into space faster and faster. They don't know precisely why, but the universe is being pushed toward its icy death by an antigravity force. Scientists are watching it happen.

And you don't need to wait billions of years to know the outcome -- you don't need to observe something directly to conclude that it's going to happen. The planet Pluto was discovered in 1930. So why don't people object to the statement that it takes about 250 years to complete an orbit? Just as you don't have to wait until 2180 to confirm the conclusions of Newtonian dynamics, you don't need to witness the end of the universe to be able to figure out its fate or validate the theory that leads you to that prediction.

Q4) Dark Matter by notcreative (#6606772)

A4) You are correct; the nature and location of dark matter are crucial puzzles in modern cosmology, but I think that the answers will be pretty much in hand by the end of the decade.

I've already mentioned results (most notably WMAP) that reveal the amount of "stuff" in the universe, and 73% of it is dark energy. The rest is matter. But the grand total of the matter locked up in visible stars is a mere 0.5% of the stuff in the universe. What is the other 26.5%? That's dark matter, and, in fact, there are two different types.

Scientists have known for decades that most of the matter in the universe is invisible to telescopes. In the 1960s, Vera Rubin measured the motion of stars wheeling around the center of the Andromeda galaxy and concluded that there had to be a lot more matter pulling on those stars than could be seen.

Despite what some contrarians say, dark matter isn't dogma; viable alternatives, like Moti Milgrom's MOND are taken seriously, if not accepted. Unfortunately, all of the alternatives, including MOND, fail in crucial ways. Besides, you can see dark matter, both directly and indirectly. The MACHO and OGLE projects see the twinkle of stars caused by a passing chunk of dark matter, and they can see the distortion of light caused by a huge amount of unseen mass sitting on the fabric of spacetime. (Distant galaxies are stretched into arcs around this gravitational lens.) This is allowing scientists to figure out just where dark matter resides. But at the same time, a number of observations lead scientists to conclude that the minority of the matter (dark or light) in the universe is ordinary, atomic matter -- the stuff of stars, planets, and people. Again, it will take too long to describe all the lines of evidence, but one powerful way of measuring the number of atoms in the universe is to look at the proportion of hydrogen to deuterium, helium, and lithium in primordial gas clouds. In the first three minutes of the universe, atoms were fusing, just as they do in a hydrogen bomb. The universe was a giant pressure cooker, turning protons and neutrons into heavier elements. If there are a lot of atoms, then there is a lot of fusion and a lot of heavy elements made; if there are not very many atoms, then the universe winds up being almost entirely hydrogen. By looking at the ratios of heavy elements to light elements, scientists concluded that atomic matter makes up about 4% of the "stuff" in the universe -- which is precisely what other measurements, like the CMB ones -- imply, too.

So, 27% of the stuff in the universe is matter: 4% "atomic" matter, leaving 23% to be made of "exotic" matter, stuff that's not made of atoms. I've already described some of that exotic matter; neutrinos make up about 0.5% of the stuff in the universe, about the same as the visible matter in the universe. What's the remainder?

That's the big open question, but one that I'd wager will be solved by the end of the decade. There are very good reasons -- particle physics ones, rather than cosmological ones -- for believing that the main constituent of dark matter is a proposed particle known as the LSP. If it is, then the LHC accelerator in Geneva will find it. If not, then the LSP almost certainly doesn't exist and the puzzle will be compounded -- but I think that scientists are extremely optimistic. Again, there's lots more detail in the book about the justification for this.

Q5) variable constants by Cally (#6607000)

A5) The point's well taken, and I'll get to it after a few remarks.

First, you're right in that the supernovae serve much the same purpose as Cepheid variable stars do -- they're both objects of known brightness, or "standard candles," that allow astronomers to make a precise measurement of the distance to a faraway galaxy. However, they are not the same thing. Cepheids are stars that pulsate and the rate of that pulsation reveals its intrinsic brightness. They're what Hubble used to spot the expansion of the universe in the 1920s, but they're relatively dim and impossible to find in very distant galaxies. Type-Ia supernovae are standard candles that are much, much brighter than Cepheids, and so can be seen halfway across the universe. (And as you note, since distant supernovae mean ancient supernovae, they reveal the expansion rate of the universe billions of years ago.)

Second, the time-varying speed of light (or more precisely, the time-varying fine structure constant) is a controversial idea. The scientists that made the observation in question are pretty solid and they're taken seriously. However, my impression is that mainstream thinking is that the results are due to a systematic error. That aside, the effect, even if real, is very small, and it has nothing to do with interpreting the data from standard candles. The interpretation there is quite well established; there's little question that scientists are seeing an expansion of the universe;. Alternative theories, like tired light, fail in countless ways and scientists have even seen the relativistic time dilation caused by the motion of the distant object.

But, yes, it's natural for a layperson to conclude that the concordance cosmological model is looking increasingly kludge-y, and you're naturally led to wonder whether scientists are trying to prop up a failing model with the equivalent of epicycles or aether. I don't think this is the case for a few reasons.

For one thing, the theory isn't really getting added to and made more complex; it's getting subtracted from and being made more simple. This seems counterintuitive, but it comes from the fact that modern big bang theory is really a class of theories, rather than one set-in-stone dictum about the way the universe is. All these theories agree on the basic physics about the manner of the universe's birth, the forces that drive the universe, and the physics behind them; the difference between the theories are the values of a handful of parameters that are not predicted by the theory. These parameters are inputs rather than outputs, and by pinning down the values of these inputs, the acceptable class of theories gets narrower and narrower.

Dark energy is one of these inputs. Although nobody took it seriously before 1998 -- everyone thought that the value of the parameter in question was zero -- it was lurking there nonetheless. It turns out that this parameter is not only non-zero, it's really big, much to everyone's surprise. But this doesn't add complexity to the model, especially since other parameters, such as the "curvature" of the universe as a whole, which many physicists thought would be non-trivial, turn out not to be important after all. (In other words, the universe seems to be slate flat, rather than saddle-shaped or sphere-like.)

So, from a mathematical viewpoint, the model is no more complex than it was in 1997, and is, in fact, significantly leaner. But what about from a physical viewpoint? Dark matter and dark energy seem to fly in the face of Occam. But here, too, the increase in complexity is much less than it appears. Long before this cosmological revolution, astronomers knew that dark matter had to exist; more recently, they've begun to see it. Even without worrying about cosmological questions, astrophysicists had accepted the existence of dark matter. Cosmological measurements like WMAP showed that these astrophysicists were right -- it was an independent confirmation that dark energy exists and that it comes in two forms, something that other astronomers had concluded a while ago.

Dark energy, on the other hand, has more claim to being a "hack" to the theory. It really is something new and unexpected (even though it was always a mathematical possibility, nobody in the physics world suspected it actually existed.) Nevertheless, the groundwork was already there, and modern big bang theory implicitly requires the existence of a form of dark energy in the very early universe. And since the 1930s, scientists knew that even the deepest vacuum is full of energy and can exert pressure (something known as the Casimir effect, which I describe in this book and in my previous book, Zero: The Biography of a Dangerous Idea). Thus, the idea of dark energy wasn't completely alien to physics before 1997, and in some sense, it was a necessary component.

Yes, it's possible that scientists are looking at the cosmos in the wrong way, and somebody will establish a simpler, more elegant theory that takes all these threads and weaves them together. (More on this shortly.) But at the moment, far from having a kludged-up theory, cosmologists have a leaner (if weirder) theory than ever before -- one that makes very precise predictions that are getting verified with stunning accuracy. I think this argues for increased confidence in the theory rather than for increased fear that it's falling apart.

Q6) Universe's container by bios10h (#6606748)

A6) It freaks a lot of people out. There's a lot of philosophical problems with having an infinite universe -- for example, if the universe is truly infinite, and if, as scientists believe, the number of quantum states of a finite volume is finite, then it's hard to escape the conclusion that, some great distance away, there's a bizarro-you on bizarro-earth reading bizarro-Slashdot. On the other hand, there's no positive evidence that I can think of that the universe is truly infinite; it's just the sparest conclusion in a mathematical sense, if not a philosophical sense.

But an infinite universe is not a foregone conclusion. Earlier this year, Max Tegmark at the University of Pennsylvania published an intriguing paper that looked at slight anomalies in the WMAP data that seem to imply that the universe is not only finite, but shaped like a donut. Nobody takes the idea terribly seriously, not even the author, because there are other statistical tests that seem to rule the donut-shaped universe out. But it's the sort of thing that people are looking at very closely.

Whether it's finite or infinite, in a mathematical sense, there's really no need for the universe to be "in" anything -- there are models where our universe is embedded in a higher-dimensional space, but there are models where it isn't. Philosophically, though, I don't see any advantage to embedding the universe in something bigger -- as you say, it just punts the problem forward. (Who, then, will contain the containers?)

It's one of those things that is hard to get comfortable with -- and even when you accept it, it sometimes can cause pangs of uncertainty. Quantum mechanics does this, too... it's just something that's hard to wrap your head around. Take solace in the fact that it's hard for everyone else, too.

Q7) How ultimate is the end of the universe? by Lane.exe (#6606766)

A7) If there were a collapse-type universe, yes, there could be a reboot and a new big bang. (And if Microsoft built the universe, a reboot would be coming sooner rather than later. *duck*)

In fact, the theory behind the cosmic microwave background stemmed from calculations to see whether this was possible. Remember the expansion-cooling/contraction-heating bit I mentioned a while ago? A physicist at Princeton was trying to figure out whether matter would break apart into its constituents in a collapsing universe, so he looked at how the universe heated up as it compressed. He then realized that his calculations worked equally well in reverse -- the young expanding universe was very hot but cooling -- and it had to have an afterglow: the CMB.

There are restrictions on this rebirth argument, though. For one thing, the fact that the universe will expand forever prevents a big crunch in our future, so we're at the end of the line if such a line existed. And in 2001, Alan Guth proved a mathematical theorem that shows that bang/crunch/bang universes can't have an infinite history; they must have started some finite time in the past. (Though there are a few ways around the theorem if you reject a few assumptions.) So yes, it's possible, but there is no reason to believe it actually happened, and there are very good reasons for thinking it won't happen in the future.

Q8) comparable ramifications? by sstory (#6606658)

A8) I'm not going to give the usual B.S. answers about spinoffs (though there are some). And I'm not going to evade the question by saying that genomics hasn't yielded any transformation, because the potential is certainly there. But I will answer this question obliquely.

If I asked you, "Quick! What's the most important scientific achievement of the 20th century?" how would you respond?

You would probably answer relativity or quantum mechanics, or perhaps the Apollo landings. Probably some would say the atom bomb. I suspect that only a handful of people would mention the computer, and even fewer people would say penicillin. (Am I right?)

Science has two faces -- it can transform society (for better or worse), and it can advance human knowledge. The two are not inextricably bound, though they often come together.

Relativity was a profound shift in our understanding of the way the universe works, but you have to look pretty hard to see a direct effect on our lives. Conversely, penicillin wasn't a central advance in understanding biological systems, but it affected all of us -- I suspect many people here on Slashdot wouldn't be alive today without penicillin and its descendants.

For me, though, relativity is a greater scientific triumph than penicillin -- even though penicillin is probably much more important to us. It altered our view of the universe and gave us a greater understanding of the fundamental laws of the universe -- it was a philosophical advance as much as it was a technical one. That's why we seem to admire Einstein more than Fleming and Newton more than Jenner.

The present cosmological revolution won't change our lives dramatically; heck, a good spam filter would probably have more direct effect on our quality of life. But at the same time, it will finally answer some of the most ancient questions of humanity -- where did the universe come from and how will it end -- and when it ends, we will have a firm grasp of the answer of the latter if not the former. It will be a towering intellectual achievement, and I think that is what will set it apart from even the human genome project.

Q9) What is the next paradigm shift? by geeber (#6606890)

A9) I disagree with the idea that there's no paradigm shifts left -- indeed, I think we're in the middle of one now. I think that it will be associated with one in the Standard Model of particle physics that will begin before the end of the decade.

It's hard to say where future paradigm shifts lie, but there are lots and lots of outstanding questions in science, some of which are incredibly basic, yet totally out of scientists' reach. For example, neurologists have a very good idea about how individual neurons work -- how they connect and communicate. But when it comes to explaining how a large sloppy hunk of neurons becomes a conscious entity, they're completely at sea. I don't think there's even a good definition of consciousness, which is crucial if you're going to study it seriously. Even more basic -- scientists are struggling to define what life is. There's a heck of a lot more work to do, and plenty of room for paradigm shifts.

Speaking of paradigm shifts, I'd like to take a bit of issue with the term (which I've used myself a number of times in the responses to these questions.)

For those who don't know, the idea of a "paradigm shift" comes from Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions, a seminal work in history of science. While I think that Kuhn's idea of a paradigm shift has a lot of merit -- models and philosophies do change suddenly and dramatically in the face of mounting conflicting evidence and despite resistance -- I think the term itself is misleading. It implies the complete abandonment of one idea and acceptance of a replacement.

In my view, this is not the way modern science works -- I think that science is cumulative. Each model extends and corrects the previous one, and while there might be a dramatic shift philosophically, there is almost never a dramatic shift physically. Relativity, for example, made a profound change in the way we think about time and space and gravity, yet the functional difference between Newton and Einstein is pretty small. All these complicated tensor equations are approximately equal to Newton's laws in the vast, vast majority of cases -- it's only under conditions of extreme gravity, extreme speed, extreme energy, or extreme time that relativistic predictions diverge from Newton's. Similarly with quantum mechanics.

While I think that relativity and quantum mechanics are paradigm shifts, they're not rejections of the Newtonian picture as much as they are extensions. The paradigm shift can be huge philosophically, but its effects tend to be small in magnitude. And with these small corrections, scientists extend the applicability of their model of the universe -- they can explain the orbit of Mercury or the photoelectric effect -- and in the cases where Newton's laws were strong, these models boil down to Newton's laws.

If I remember my Kuhn correctly, he explicitly rejected the idea of cumulative science; he really saw each model getting completely replaced by its successor, rather than as an extension -- and this leads, at least in my view, to the excesses of postmodernism.

I think that this issue goes to the heart of the questions about how scientists can be sure about the end of the universe if their models can be replaced at any time. To that I'd argue that, yes, all models are provisional, but even with "paradigm shifts" models are usually extended rather than replaced. The central findings of the previous model still hold with good accuracy in most cases, even if the philosophical underpinnings are badly shaken. Maybe scientists are missing some crucial understanding that will simplify the way we look at the universe -- and scientists are seriously pondering alternate models to things as widely accepted as the inflationary big bang -- but even if such a shift occurs, it probably won't invalidate today's discoveries.

Q10) What will it mean? by boatboy (#6607285)

A10) One thing's certain. If I knew the answers, I'd be even more insufferable than I am now.

Seriously, I'm not sure that knowing the answers would have a profound moral and sociological effect. While I think that asking and answering big questions is a hallmark of a prospering society, a society doesn't necessarily draw strength or stability from its intellectual curiosity. (For example, Athenian democracy lasted only about 80 years if I remember right.) Even the most profound philosophical ideas can wind up having little real effect on the everyday functioning of a civilization -- for example, I think that Godel's incompleteness theorem hasn't changed society in the slightest.

As for the next big question, I think there are some in biology: what is life? What is consciousness? How did life arise? Are we alone in the universe? In physics, I think there are profound questions yet to be answered in a realm that I'd describe as "information theory" in the broadest sense -- what's really going on in a black hole? What makes quantum mechanics so weird? And I think that answering the question about the true nature of dark energy will probably have to await a future cosmological revolution. But one of the wonderful things about science is that you don't really know what big questions are within your grasp until you begin to grasp them. We'll know the next revolution when it appears.

Editor's note: Due to long answer lengths, we linked to the questions instead of running them directly here in order to keep this page from getting too large. This was an experiment. If you have comments or questions about Slashdot interview formatting, please email Roblimo.

Science magazine writer Charles Seife has written a new book, Alpha and Omega: The Search for the Beginning and End of the Universe. According to Publishers Weekly, Charles claims, "Scientists...now know how the universe will end and are on the brink of understanding its beginning. Their findings will be among the greatest triumphs of science, even towering above the deciphering of the human genome." A brave statement! Charles is happy to answer your questions about ongoing research that is busily revealing the basic nature of life, the universe, and everything in a serious (as opposed to humorous) sense, so ask away. One question per post, please. We'll post the answers as soon as we get them beck.

Science magazine writer Charles Seife has written a new book, Alpha and Omega: The Search for the Beginning and End of the Universe. According to Publishers Weekly, Charles claims, "Scientists...now know how the universe will end and are on the brink of understanding its beginning. Their findings will be among the greatest triumphs of science, even towering above the deciphering of the human genome." A brave statement! Charles is happy to answer your questions about ongoing research that is busily revealing the basic nature of life, the universe, and everything in a serious (as opposed to humorous) sense, so ask away. One question per post, please. We'll post the answers as soon as we get them beck.

Fyodor is the driving force behind Insecure.org and the top-rated Nmap network exploration and security auditing tool. He's also involved in The Honeynet Project (and is a coauthor of the project's book, Honeynet: Revealing the Security Tools, Tactics, and Motives of the Blackhat Community). One question per post, please. We'll run Fyodor's answers to 10 of the highest-moderated questions as soon as he gets them back to us.

Skyshadow writes "Vermont Bookseller Bear Pond Books has announced that they will purge their sales records at the request of customers . This would effectively sidestep typically insideous a provision of the PATRIOT Act which allows government agencies to secretly seize sales records. The store's co-owner, Michael Katzenberg, put it this way: 'When the CIA comes and asks what you've read because they're suspicious of you, we can't tell them because we don't have it... That's just a basic right, to be able to read what you want without fear that somebody is looking over your shoulder to see what you're reading.' Now if only certain other booksellers would show that same conscience, we might have something here."

This week's Slashdot interview guest is Alton Brown, host of the popular cable TV show Good Eats. This is a "reader request" interview in the wake of the surprisingly popular Slashdot review of Alton's book, I'm Just Here for the Food. Please post your questions below. we'll send 10 of the highest-moderated to Alton, and post his answers when we get them back.

Mark Welch writes: "'The MouseDriver Chronicles' chronicles a modestly successful startup whose mission was to build a product and sell it at a profit -- a concept that seemed almost obscene when the authors launched their new business in mid-1999.) I saw 'The MouseDriver Chronicles' in several bookstores, and passed because it sounded like it would be yet another story of dot-com failure. But finally I decided it looked like a 'fun read' and bought it, and I'm glad I did." Mark has a more complete review, and ChrisD adds his own reaction, below. The Mousedriver Chronicles author John Lusk, Kyle Harrison pages 244 publisher Perseus Publishing rating (See reviews) reviewer Matt Welch, then chrisd ISBN 0738205737 summary Blow-by-blow account of a high-tech startup; either great or awful according to the reviews below.

I'm adding The MouseDriver Chronicles as my number-two title (after Dot.Bomb, by by J. David Kuo) on my "must read" book list for entrepreneurs.

Dot.Bomb was more fun to read, in part because it was about a dot-com company that crashed and burned, and it's always more fun to write about failure than success.

Though The MouseDriver Chronicles isn't quite as fun to read, it is more useful for potential entrepreneurs. The book recounts many logistical and planning issues, in an exceptionally well-written style, using straightforward language and sharing more details (business and personal) than I'd expected (though the details seem to fade in the later chapters, presumably to protect the trade secrets of the continuing company).

Most important, The MouseDriver Chronicles is not about a crash-and-burn dot-com failure.

It's about a modestly successful startup whose mission was to build a product and sell it at a profit, a concept that seemed almost obscene when Lusk and Harrison launched their business in mid-1999. In January 2002, that concept (build a product and sell it at a profit) sounds much better, making the book more timely. Even if there are fewer entrepreneurs this year, they all should profit from reading The MouseDriver Chronicles.

The authors especially deserve credit for admitting how "ignorant" they were (in many respects) when they received their MBA degrees from Wharton, even after earlier careers working for consulting firms. They frankly disclose some embarrassing experiences, which should profit wise readers who may experience fewer mistakes as a result.

My main gripe with the book is that it ends before the end. I expected the final chapter to recount the company's failure, or its sale to a larger company, or some other "exit strategy" that would provide "closure" for the book.

Instead, the book's chronology ends in early 2001, but the company continues even today. Ending the book a year before it reached bookstores (in January 2002) seemed quite unfair (but that is the reality of the book-publishing industry).

Fortunately, the MouseDriver.com web site contains an archive of the author's "Insider" newsletter updates, so I could read "the rest of the story" (which is still unfolding, since the company is still plodding along).

Meanwhile slashdot author/editor chrisd has a different view:

I read an advance copy of The MouseDriver Chronicles (Hereafter referred to as TMD to save me from typing too much) and disliked it immensely. I'd been studiously avoiding writing a review of it as I take no joy from writing about how little I like something. However, since reader Mark Welch was kind enough to write a review (something we here at /. appreciate, thanks Mark!), I couldn't post it without giving my two cents.

As Mark noted, TMD is an enthusiastically, conversationally written book about the founding of a company to capitalize on a single idea. That idea is to make and market a mouse shaped like a Golf Club (Driver) head. While I'm not going to talk about carpal tunnel or repetitive stress injuries, I will say that this is a bad book if you want to be excited and have a view into what starting and running a company is like.

Basically, TMD is a book about two guys, one a former Wharton MBA student and the other an Andersen (not Arthur) Consulting guy who left their respective stations "to the disdain of their friends" to start their company making silly and painful looking mice. "To keep themselves motivated," they kept a diary which they somehow convinced Perseus to publish as this book.

I had to keep reminding myself while reading that this book is not about the product they are trying to sell, so much as about their experiences starting out. I really tried. The point of such a book is to live vicariously through the protagonists and learn something along the way. The only thing I learned was that they were very excited. I really don't want to know these guys, nor do business with them. (Not that they're knocking on the door to buy ads on OSDN, but I digress.) You'll learn very little about business and starting a company from this book. You'll also really not care much about what they do to sell thier product. There just doesn't seem to be much at stake.

They take some measure of pride in some of the "guerilla" marketing they chose to employ. Including crashing a benefit party at the SF metreon and sending "Personalized email (not spam) to publications and organizations that might take an interest in MouseDriver." Ugh.

The book isn't all bad. I mean, the writing isn't bad, much better than is usually seen in management books, and it flows pretty well. You don't pick up a book like this expecting Updike. It succeeds as the kind of book meant to be read while waiting at red lights. Also, it is clear that they see the book is just further promotion for their product and their company, something not usually so straightforward in this kind of book, so it's not crass in that manner.

But in the end, it's an empty book, devoid of useful content. Sort of like caffeine-free Diet Coke. Once you're done with it, all you know is that your glass is empty and your stomach has something in it. I mention this because this is not a cheap book; Barnes and Noble retails this book at $19, you can buy any number of nice things for $19.

Maybe if I was a golf nut this book might have been better.

How about this, if you want a scrappy startup book, go read defunct GO Corp CEO Jerry Kaplans book Start-up or if you want exhausting pacing, a Michael Lewis book -- you'll get more out of a chapter in either than from The MouseDriver Chronicles.

You can purchase The MouseDriver Chronicles from bn.com. Want to see your own review here? Just read the book review guidelines, then use Slashdot's handy submission form.

Mark Welch writes: "'The MouseDriver Chronicles' chronicles a modestly successful startup whose mission was to build a product and sell it at a profit -- a concept that seemed almost obscene when the authors launched their new business in mid-1999.) I saw 'The MouseDriver Chronicles' in several bookstores, and passed because it sounded like it would be yet another story of dot-com failure. But finally I decided it looked like a 'fun read' and bought it, and I'm glad I did." Mark has a more complete review, and ChrisD adds his own reaction, below. The Mousedriver Chronicles author John Lusk, Kyle Harrison pages 244 publisher Perseus Publishing rating (See reviews) reviewer Matt Welch, then chrisd ISBN 0738205737 summary Blow-by-blow account of a high-tech startup; either great or awful according to the reviews below.

I'm adding The MouseDriver Chronicles as my number-two title (after Dot.Bomb, by by J. David Kuo) on my "must read" book list for entrepreneurs.

Dot.Bomb was more fun to read, in part because it was about a dot-com company that crashed and burned, and it's always more fun to write about failure than success.

Though The MouseDriver Chronicles isn't quite as fun to read, it is more useful for potential entrepreneurs. The book recounts many logistical and planning issues, in an exceptionally well-written style, using straightforward language and sharing more details (business and personal) than I'd expected (though the details seem to fade in the later chapters, presumably to protect the trade secrets of the continuing company).

Most important, The MouseDriver Chronicles is not about a crash-and-burn dot-com failure.

It's about a modestly successful startup whose mission was to build a product and sell it at a profit, a concept that seemed almost obscene when Lusk and Harrison launched their business in mid-1999. In January 2002, that concept (build a product and sell it at a profit) sounds much better, making the book more timely. Even if there are fewer entrepreneurs this year, they all should profit from reading The MouseDriver Chronicles.

The authors especially deserve credit for admitting how "ignorant" they were (in many respects) when they received their MBA degrees from Wharton, even after earlier careers working for consulting firms. They frankly disclose some embarrassing experiences, which should profit wise readers who may experience fewer mistakes as a result.

My main gripe with the book is that it ends before the end. I expected the final chapter to recount the company's failure, or its sale to a larger company, or some other "exit strategy" that would provide "closure" for the book.

Instead, the book's chronology ends in early 2001, but the company continues even today. Ending the book a year before it reached bookstores (in January 2002) seemed quite unfair (but that is the reality of the book-publishing industry).

Fortunately, the MouseDriver.com web site contains an archive of the author's "Insider" newsletter updates, so I could read "the rest of the story" (which is still unfolding, since the company is still plodding along).

Meanwhile slashdot author/editor chrisd has a different view:

I read an advance copy of The MouseDriver Chronicles (Hereafter referred to as TMD to save me from typing too much) and disliked it immensely. I'd been studiously avoiding writing a review of it as I take no joy from writing about how little I like something. However, since reader Mark Welch was kind enough to write a review (something we here at /. appreciate, thanks Mark!), I couldn't post it without giving my two cents.

As Mark noted, TMD is an enthusiastically, conversationally written book about the founding of a company to capitalize on a single idea. That idea is to make and market a mouse shaped like a Golf Club (Driver) head. While I'm not going to talk about carpal tunnel or repetitive stress injuries, I will say that this is a bad book if you want to be excited and have a view into what starting and running a company is like.

Basically, TMD is a book about two guys, one a former Wharton MBA student and the other an Andersen (not Arthur) Consulting guy who left their respective stations "to the disdain of their friends" to start their company making silly and painful looking mice. "To keep themselves motivated," they kept a diary which they somehow convinced Perseus to publish as this book.

I had to keep reminding myself while reading that this book is not about the product they are trying to sell, so much as about their experiences starting out. I really tried. The point of such a book is to live vicariously through the protagonists and learn something along the way. The only thing I learned was that they were very excited. I really don't want to know these guys, nor do business with them. (Not that they're knocking on the door to buy ads on OSDN, but I digress.) You'll learn very little about business and starting a company from this book. You'll also really not care much about what they do to sell thier product. There just doesn't seem to be much at stake.

They take some measure of pride in some of the "guerilla" marketing they chose to employ. Including crashing a benefit party at the SF metreon and sending "Personalized email (not spam) to publications and organizations that might take an interest in MouseDriver." Ugh.

The book isn't all bad. I mean, the writing isn't bad, much better than is usually seen in management books, and it flows pretty well. You don't pick up a book like this expecting Updike. It succeeds as the kind of book meant to be read while waiting at red lights. Also, it is clear that they see the book is just further promotion for their product and their company, something not usually so straightforward in this kind of book, so it's not crass in that manner.

But in the end, it's an empty book, devoid of useful content. Sort of like caffeine-free Diet Coke. Once you're done with it, all you know is that your glass is empty and your stomach has something in it. I mention this because this is not a cheap book; Barnes and Noble retails this book at $19, you can buy any number of nice things for $19.

Maybe if I was a golf nut this book might have been better.

How about this, if you want a scrappy startup book, go read defunct GO Corp CEO Jerry Kaplans book Start-up or if you want exhausting pacing, a Michael Lewis book -- you'll get more out of a chapter in either than from The MouseDriver Chronicles.

You can purchase The MouseDriver Chronicles from bn.com. Want to see your own review here? Just read the book review guidelines, then use Slashdot's handy submission form.

Reader amoon writes: "With the rise of XML-based RPC (e.g. SOAP, XML-RPC, APEX), the distributed computing world is starting to really unsettle from the CORBA-RMI-DCOM oligopoly of the 1980s and 1990s. Yet, XML-based RPC is not a panacea (though it is quite cool), especially for those of us involved in the legacy and client-server worlds. Now, what is fascinating: the publishing world is revving up the engines on not only the XML-based RPC stuff, but also the RMI and CORBA stuff -- while rarely applied to the tech industry, the old adage, "what was old is new again," seems to fit well here. This review describes this über-cool trend from the RMI perspective, with a focus on Java RMI (O'Reilly) by William Grosso." Read on for the rest of the review. Java RMI author William Grosso pages 545 publisher O'Reilly rating 8 reviewer amoon ISBN 1-56592-452-5 summary Solid practical insight into the nitty-gritty details of RMI.

The Scoop

Remote Method Invocation (RMI) is the object-oriented remote procedure call (ORPC) facility for distributed programming in Java, since the 1.1 days. RMI also served as motivation and a proof-of-concept for jini, javaspaces, and numerous other solid distributed networking technologies. Of course, anyone from the academic distributed programming world knows Wollrath, Waldo, and Riggs.

Yet, despite a myriad of books over the past five years on network programming, RMI always seemed to be the stepchild: relegated to a single chapter (buried on page 496, of course) that always said that RMI was "better" than sockets and "worse" than CORBA. Now, granted that RMI is operationally rather trivial compared with CORBA and was (prior to RMI/IIOP) a unilanguage distributed ORPC technology -- but still. For those of us who have to interoperate with RMI (whether welcome from the Java world or not), the lack of in-depth technical analysis (beyond the spec) has been a hindrance.

Fortunately, this trend is finally starting to buckle with the release of several in-depth RMI books including: Java RMI, Java.rmi, and Mastering RMI: Developing Enterprise Applications in Java and EJB. As evidence of this problem, Grosso states the same in his introduction – and actually pulls it off without sounding self-serving.

I chose Grosso's text because of the cute squirrel (aka the O'Reilly brand), Grosso's recent series of articles on the hashbelt algorithm, and his unadulterated academic knowledge management and mathematics bent. Fortunately, I was rewarded: this animal returns to O'Reilly's pre-bubble quality. Koodoos to both Grosso and his editors (Knudsen, Loukides, and Eckstein) for getting the train back on the track.

What's to Like

Bottom line is that Grosso simply covers the topics and does so with solid conceptual and code coherence – even by O'Reilly standards (over 40 animals grace my shelves). His prose and explanatory patterns make it clear that he has actually gotten into the real-world of RMI, and doesn't hesitate to highlight both good and bad parts. You cannot be dozing off when you read this (at least not if you expect to understand it) -- this is written by someone with solid analytic thinking skills and it shows. After too many years of "there are no caveats" journalism and publishing, this is a nice reversion. Further, I can only imagine that his current employment is a testament to his real-world knowledge of RMI.

Grosso hits on a vein which is not well-appreciated: when not smoothed over by marketing people, RMI is actually a mostly-capable ORPC technology. Certainly activation and RMI/IIOP really began to make things interesting, from Java2 and EJB respectively. Discussion of reference-counted distributed garbage collection, a feature missing from CORBA and other popular ORPC standards, also contributes a nice bonus (although Grosso's ardent attempt to debunk the "RMI doesn't scale" argument is rather weak, even going so far as to rehash the definition of Threads and threadpools – this complexity mismatch is an ugly giveaway that a well-intentioned editor went astray).

What sets this text apart is the tight focus on nitty-gritty implementation details of RMI itself. After all, these RMI texts are way too late to the game to reteach how to write "baby RMI" code: 5 years after the original spec, you either know how to write RMI or you don't. Grosso simply gives you a solid in-depth analysis of all the obscurities of the RMI runtime, custom sockets, dynamic classloading, activation, MarshalledObjects, and HTTP tunneling. In other words, all the interesting real-world topics whose official documentation is poor and which the various RMI tutorials (written many years ago) ignored.

While canonical, the single banking example followed through the text was well-executed, although authors continue to underestimate the prevalence of readers who consume textbooks non-linearly.

What's Not to Like

RMI/IIOP is shaping up to be a fascinating contributor to the "cleanup the EJB mess" discussion. Dedicating a measly 13 pages (beginning on page 503, no less) to this critical topic seems a bit of an oversight – but maybe that is just my CORBA sentiments speaking. Either way, the mechanics of CORBA are sufficiently intricate in real-world deployments that saying "if you can build an RMI system, you can build a CORBA system" (p. 511) is a bit brazen (or naïve) for my tastebuds. I can only chalk up this oversight to deadline pressure, which is probably a Good Thing, since the book was supposedly in production over almost 2 years.

A minor point: the top-level organization of the book (Part I, II, III) is arbitrary, ignore it -- use the chapter organization instead.

The Summary

Quality: solid practical insight into the nitty-gritty operational implementation details of RMI in the real-world. You simply are not going to find solid O'Reilly-quality coverage of the topics elsewhere.

Relevance: If you are responsible for making RMI actually work in production systems, this might well be the next animal on your shelf – either now or later. If you want a breezy afternoon saunter around RMI, skip this. Instead, google one (of the many) free tutorials online."

You can purchase Java RMI from Fatbrain. Want to see your own review here? Just read the book review guidelines, then use Slashdot's handy submission form.

Reader amoon writes: "With the rise of XML-based RPC (e.g. SOAP, XML-RPC, APEX), the distributed computing world is starting to really unsettle from the CORBA-RMI-DCOM oligopoly of the 1980s and 1990s. Yet, XML-based RPC is not a panacea (though it is quite cool), especially for those of us involved in the legacy and client-server worlds. Now, what is fascinating: the publishing world is revving up the engines on not only the XML-based RPC stuff, but also the RMI and CORBA stuff -- while rarely applied to the tech industry, the old adage, "what was old is new again," seems to fit well here. This review describes this über-cool trend from the RMI perspective, with a focus on Java RMI (O'Reilly) by William Grosso." Read on for the rest of the review. Java RMI author William Grosso pages 545 publisher O'Reilly rating 8 reviewer amoon ISBN 1-56592-452-5 summary Solid practical insight into the nitty-gritty details of RMI.

The Scoop

Remote Method Invocation (RMI) is the object-oriented remote procedure call (ORPC) facility for distributed programming in Java, since the 1.1 days. RMI also served as motivation and a proof-of-concept for jini, javaspaces, and numerous other solid distributed networking technologies. Of course, anyone from the academic distributed programming world knows Wollrath, Waldo, and Riggs.

Yet, despite a myriad of books over the past five years on network programming, RMI always seemed to be the stepchild: relegated to a single chapter (buried on page 496, of course) that always said that RMI was "better" than sockets and "worse" than CORBA. Now, granted that RMI is operationally rather trivial compared with CORBA and was (prior to RMI/IIOP) a unilanguage distributed ORPC technology -- but still. For those of us who have to interoperate with RMI (whether welcome from the Java world or not), the lack of in-depth technical analysis (beyond the spec) has been a hindrance.

Fortunately, this trend is finally starting to buckle with the release of several in-depth RMI books including: Java RMI, Java.rmi, and Mastering RMI: Developing Enterprise Applications in Java and EJB. As evidence of this problem, Grosso states the same in his introduction – and actually pulls it off without sounding self-serving.

I chose Grosso's text because of the cute squirrel (aka the O'Reilly brand), Grosso's recent series of articles on the hashbelt algorithm, and his unadulterated academic knowledge management and mathematics bent. Fortunately, I was rewarded: this animal returns to O'Reilly's pre-bubble quality. Koodoos to both Grosso and his editors (Knudsen, Loukides, and Eckstein) for getting the train back on the track.

What's to Like

Bottom line is that Grosso simply covers the topics and does so with solid conceptual and code coherence – even by O'Reilly standards (over 40 animals grace my shelves). His prose and explanatory patterns make it clear that he has actually gotten into the real-world of RMI, and doesn't hesitate to highlight both good and bad parts. You cannot be dozing off when you read this (at least not if you expect to understand it) -- this is written by someone with solid analytic thinking skills and it shows. After too many years of "there are no caveats" journalism and publishing, this is a nice reversion. Further, I can only imagine that his current employment is a testament to his real-world knowledge of RMI.

Grosso hits on a vein which is not well-appreciated: when not smoothed over by marketing people, RMI is actually a mostly-capable ORPC technology. Certainly activation and RMI/IIOP really began to make things interesting, from Java2 and EJB respectively. Discussion of reference-counted distributed garbage collection, a feature missing from CORBA and other popular ORPC standards, also contributes a nice bonus (although Grosso's ardent attempt to debunk the "RMI doesn't scale" argument is rather weak, even going so far as to rehash the definition of Threads and threadpools – this complexity mismatch is an ugly giveaway that a well-intentioned editor went astray).

What sets this text apart is the tight focus on nitty-gritty implementation details of RMI itself. After all, these RMI texts are way too late to the game to reteach how to write "baby RMI" code: 5 years after the original spec, you either know how to write RMI or you don't. Grosso simply gives you a solid in-depth analysis of all the obscurities of the RMI runtime, custom sockets, dynamic classloading, activation, MarshalledObjects, and HTTP tunneling. In other words, all the interesting real-world topics whose official documentation is poor and which the various RMI tutorials (written many years ago) ignored.

While canonical, the single banking example followed through the text was well-executed, although authors continue to underestimate the prevalence of readers who consume textbooks non-linearly.

What's Not to Like

RMI/IIOP is shaping up to be a fascinating contributor to the "cleanup the EJB mess" discussion. Dedicating a measly 13 pages (beginning on page 503, no less) to this critical topic seems a bit of an oversight – but maybe that is just my CORBA sentiments speaking. Either way, the mechanics of CORBA are sufficiently intricate in real-world deployments that saying "if you can build an RMI system, you can build a CORBA system" (p. 511) is a bit brazen (or naïve) for my tastebuds. I can only chalk up this oversight to deadline pressure, which is probably a Good Thing, since the book was supposedly in production over almost 2 years.

A minor point: the top-level organization of the book (Part I, II, III) is arbitrary, ignore it -- use the chapter organization instead.

The Summary

Quality: solid practical insight into the nitty-gritty operational implementation details of RMI in the real-world. You simply are not going to find solid O'Reilly-quality coverage of the topics elsewhere.

Relevance: If you are responsible for making RMI actually work in production systems, this might well be the next animal on your shelf – either now or later. If you want a breezy afternoon saunter around RMI, skip this. Instead, google one (of the many) free tutorials online."

You can purchase Java RMI from Fatbrain. Want to see your own review here? Just read the book review guidelines, then use Slashdot's handy submission form.

dschuetz writes: "On January 14, 2001, I had the opportunity to attend a book signing event by Orson Scott Card, at Bailey's Crossroads, in northern Virginia. This was the last stop on his tour to promote Shadow of the Hegemon, and, unfortunately (for us), his last book tour, ever. Just like the last time I saw him, though, it was a terrific time, and we all learned all kinds of things about his upcoming projects. Since discussion of Ender's Game seems to be popular here, I thought I'd write up some notes I took during the event and share them with Slashdot." Read more below about what Card had to say about his plans for an Ender movie (perhaps you can make your younger brother a famous child actor), and about his other work both recent and upcoming. Huge thanks to dschuetz for taking these detailed notes for those not lucky enough to be near a book-tour stop.

Ender's Game Movie

The movie is, as OSC said, the same place it was five years ago: Looking for money. Well, maybe not exactly the same place -- they're still working and re-working the script. In short, OSC said that Ender's Game is a scary movie -- not for filmgoers, but for filmmakers. Because its stars are all children, and young children at that, it's a real challenge for anyone to make well enough to be financially successful, and that scares the heck out of the studios. So, OSC's challenge is to come up with a script that keeps the emotion and "truth" of the story intact, while also reducing the fear that studio execs feel while considering how to make a movie out of it.

Despite what you might think, OSC said Ender's Game is tough to make into a movie -- as most of the important stuff happens inside Ender's head. Hard to go there in a film. Card's brought in Richard LaGravense, who wrote The Fisher King, to help with some of the problems, and one of the first things he suggested was that Card should combine Ender's Game and Ender's Shadow. The idea there would be to help remove the need to have Peter and Valentine in the movie, eliminating some complications, and to help add some story elements surrounding the "bonds of brotherhood" between Ender and Bean, and also some more of the rivalry between them. Card loved the idea, and he's working with that in mind now. He also wanted us to remember that "I have absolute power over the film. Why? Because I've taken no money." So, any major change that you don't like, he said, is probably his idea. He's very aware of how important keeping the film as close as possible to the published stories is to his fans, but he's also very much more aware of how difficult it is to get a film made, and how much more difficult it is to make a great film. So he's willing to make some sacrifices in order to get the story told, and told well. But he's not going to hurt the story itself -- some changes will happen (for example, he's considering revealing halfway through the film that Gaff is really Mazar Rackham), but they won't hurt the story as a whole. And, since he's still in control, they'll be done "right."

Anyway, he's still looking for money, still looking for a director, still looking for an actor. The right actor for Ender is probably about 6 years old right now, so it won't be anyone we know -- not Jake Lloyd, not Haley Joel Osmond. Both would have been great if they could have made the film 3 or 4 years ago, but now they're both too old.

Other Film Projects

When I last saw OSC (for the Ender's Shadow book tour), he spoke of some other film projects. I asked him yesterday what was up with those. A TV pilot, Bordertown, that he'd been getting filmed in Mexico, just didn't work. Apparently, the crews they had simply weren't that good, and they didn't get enough usable film to make any good cut of the pilot. He hopes to go back to Mexico with a U.S. crew, rather than Mexican, and try again. He hopes to start this fall on Homebody, an adaptation of his 1998 novel. He's hoping to work soon on a script for Enchantment, which he described as his "favorite novel." The animated mini-series adaptation of Treason is still waiting for a good script, which Card hasn't been able to get to yet. And, finally, his "most anthologized short story," a cyberpunk attempt called "Dogwalker," is in the scripting stage, and he hopes to shoot that in New Orleans.

The Shadow Series

Originally, Card had hoped to have three books in the "Shadow" series (for which he still doesn't have a good overall name to reference it by). But somewhere while writing Shadow of the Hegemon, he realized that he needed to write another (like that's ever happened to a Card series before!) So, there will be an additional two novels in the series. In the afterward of SoH, Card talks about possible titles for the next one, centering on the 23rd Psalm ("The valley of the shadow of death") But his publisher told him that books with "death" in the title sell half what their predecessor sold, so he's changing the title. Currently, his favorite title is Shadow Puppets. After that will come Shadow of the Giant, referring primarily to Bean, but he's considering whether to connect, in some way, to the Giant's Drink from Ender's videogame in Battle School. He was also asked why he changed from "Buggers" to "Formics," and Card had a two-word answer: "Starship Troopers." Actually, it was far longer than two words, but centered around wanting to make sure that nobody who saw a preview for Ender's Game thought of Starship Troopers. And, in retrospect, he says he likes "Formics" much better, anyway.

Also, the copy of SoH currently on the market is, in Card's words, "defective." They printed the wrong draft. Someone pointed out that Ender didn't actually grow up in Greensboro, but that his parents moved there after Ender went to battle school. So an entire scene got rewritten. There'll be a second edition coming out soon, but until then, you can get the "patches" from OSCs web site. Other Forthcoming Books

He still has to write Crystal City, the next (#6) book in the Alvin Maker series. He said that from the beginning, Alvin Maker was meant to be an allegorical retelling of the story of Joseph Smith, but partway through he realized, "I?m adding magic to America. American history couldn't possibly come out the same." So, it became a sort of alternate history series as well, and grew from the original envisioned 3-volume set into a 7-volume series.

Rasputin (the next book in the Mayflower series, where a sentient cat is sent to kill Lovelock) is still exactly where it was two years ago -- stuck on Chapter 7. Card and Kathy Kidd are alternating chapters, like on the last book, and guess who's assigned #7? Actually, he said that there's "something just not right" about the book, and he hasn't been able to figure that one out yet.

He still has two Pastwatch books he wants to write -- the Flood (of Noah), and Eden (about Adam and Eve), and two books in the Women of Genesis series -- Rebecca, and Rachel and Leah.

Finally, Card is working on a project called Slow Leak, about magic "erupting" in Baldwin Hills. He's been hounded by a friend about not having a credible black hero in any of his stories, and Card's stumbling block has been that he's been deathly afraid of venturing into depicting a culture of which he knows nothing. So this will be an attempt at such a novel, and, just as Enchantment was vetted by experts in Russian folk literature, he'll have all kinds of help making sure that this story is true to the community he's trying to depict.

Other Information

As always, the talk before the signing was interesting and informative. It was amazing to see how many people were there (the cafe was packed, standing room only), and great to see so many young people there, as well. There's a lot more to be seen on Card's Web site, and I urge anyone interested in further information to check it out. You might also want to check out a transcript of an online chat with Barnes and Noble.

I'm not sure what OSC's plans are for the future, with no further big tours on the horizon, but hopefully he'll stay in touch through the web site. Maybe we can get him for a /. interview sometime ...

Note: That interview sounds like a good idea, we'll see what we can do :)

Not that programmers or writers are ever a little bit competitive all by themselves, it seems that they have to be motivated with the carrot of fame (or some sort of perverse derivative) and prizes -- check the results of the two contests below and perhaps hone your ideas for next year's versions. Also, the dirt below on how to get Netscape quick (oxymoron?) and a new, old Neal Stephenson book (OK, that one was an oxymoron ...)

Play with directories to find the X-rated version. Remember the Interactive Fiction Contest mentioned here a while ago? Andrew Plotkin writes with some results: "After six weeks of judging, the results of this year's text adventure competition are in. The top three places go to "Kaged", "Metamorphoses", and "Being Andrew Plotkin". But personally I'd be happy to recommend any of the top ten entries.... and not just because my entry (which was not called "Being Andrew Plotkin"!) came in tenth. Heh. Many of the lower-down placers are worth a look, too -- this is one of the best competition rosters we've ever had."

And speaking of contests ... chongo writes: "The International Obfuscated C Code Contest, the oldest Internet based contest, is not ready to go on the cart as some may had feared. With the addition of Simon Cooper as the 4th IOCCC judge and my early vacation return the IOCCC is moving forward again.

We (the judges), have been processing a near record number of entries. We have now entered the final judging out of which the IOCCC winners will be selected. We apologize for the delay and would like to assure all the contestants and the spectators that the IOCCC 2000 winners will be announced prior to the end of the true millennium. :-) Watch the IOCCC news for further development.

P.S. The rumor that some judges are considering opening up the 2001 IOCCC to C++ programs is true."

(Or try the Perry-Casteneda Library at the really big U) Thanks to xFoz you can rest easy in the knowledge that "you won't have to spend big bucks to put that long lost out of print Neal Stephenson book under the tree this year. But you will have to wait for next year for your very own less than $500 a copy of "The Big U." Preorder now and save $2.60! Amazon has the listing here" mattdm points out that "You can pre-order from Barnes and Noble," as well.

Apparently, this is not Stephenson's favorite of his works. In fact, it's also the only one of his books that I didn't read compulsively with little more than breaks for micturation and nutrition, but it's hard to complain about having some more Neal Stephenson to read! (Thanks to my brother for turning me on to The Diamond Age, too.)

Straight up, no chaser LunarOne writes "I accidentally found the real direct link to downloading Netscape 6, without using their annoying little setup app. Thought I would contribute this since I hadn't seen the link anywhere here on /. I found it while downloading the Windows version of Netscape 6. I protect my Windoze box with BlackIce Defender and this firewall-ish program reported back to me the real download site. Anyways, I had low expectations of NS6 due to some negative comments I had heard here earlier. But, I gotta say I really like it. I have been downloading Mozilla builds regularly for a very long while, and still have high hopes for Mozilla. However, right now I'm enjoying Netscape 6, despite the included commercialisms previously condemned in this forum."

We've all read about some of the dumber patents issued recently by the United States Patent and Trademark Office [USPTO]. The Slashdot community is full of talent and creativity, so why not come up with our own stupid patent ideas instead of waiting for Amazon or Priceline or some other company to come up with something amusing? First prize is a $50 ThinkGeek Gift Certificate that I am paying for out of my own pocket, and will personally sign. The winner will be chosen on the basis of originality, believability, and humor value. To start things off, I will describe my own personal contribution to the Stupid Patent Pool: Zero Click Shopping.

As you know, Amazon has successfully patented "One Click Shopping," Barnes & Noble is angry about the patent, and Apple has bought into the idea. Such tomfoolery! This concept is no more deserving of a patent than something as basic as, say, the hyperlink.

So I decided to go Amazon one better and invent Zero Click Shopping:

"A method of using javascript or similar technology to produce a series of Web page-displayed images that, when "rolled over" by a customer's mouse in a predetermined order, either causes a purchase to be consummated or causes a series of preselected items to be placed in a single customer-accessible data file so that the customer can purchase all selected items at the same time instead of having to perform a series of separate transactions."

Remember, you saw it here first!

If anyone tries to patent this silly, rather obvious concept from this day forward, you can point them to this article to show that is was instantly obvious to anyone familiar with the "state of the art," which means that this idea should not be patentable.

But nowadays, the head of the USPTO seems to believe that every boneheaded concept deserves patent protection, and that if you don't like a patent, you are supposed to hire a lawyer and take it to court. Gaaah!

So let's take the idea and lampoon it -- minus the legal fees, of course.

Write a patent summary. It can be for anything, as long as it sounds credible and is written in patent-talk or a reasonable parody thereof. Post it here. We'll let the Slashdot moderators decide which ideas have merit (or at least humor value) and which don't.

The Slashdot Authors, acting in all of their usual chaotic glory, will decide which of the highest-moderated pseudo-patents wins the grand prize.

Three Honorable Mention winners will each receive a Slashdot t-shirt from ThinkGeek.

You must be a registered Slashdot user to win. Entries will be accepted until 11:59 p.m. (2359) GMT on Friday, October 13. Winners will be announced on Tuesday, October 16. Judges' decisions are final. (If you don't like them, hold your own contest, okay?) The purpose of this whole thing is to laugh, not to get rule-bound, so post away, have a good time, and may the dumbest... er... best ... idea win!

There's a boatload of censorware news today, enough for two or three Slashdot stories -- but to conserve electrons, we're bringing it to you all in one easy-to-download package. First, Peacefire has a report on the accuracy of intelligent skin-tone-scanning software, one month after its company said they'd have it working in a month. And since the CEO of ClickSafe spoke at the COPA Commission meeting yesterday, Peacefire ran a check to see how many COPA-related sites its AI blocks. Finally, Waldo Jaquith has a report from the meeting itself which should be sobering but cracked me up anyway. Pay attention, everyone, these are the folks who are going to censor your Internet.

The Child Online Protection Act, passed late last year and then struck down early this year, is still under appeal. Colloquially it's known as "CDAII." Part of what the Act does is establish a Commission that meets every so often -- the Commission's website has details on its mandate and so on.

(Update, a few minutes later: make that "injunctified," or whatever one says for a law against which an injunction has been applied, instead of "struck down." Sorry; IANAL.)

Speaking at the Commission meeting yesterday and today were the CEOs of several major censorware companies. Among them was Michael Stephani, whose company Exotrope makes a product called BAIR.

BAIR

BAIR checks images as they download onto your computer, and claims to be able to tell the difference between pornography and other types of images. The "AI" in its acronym stands for artificial intelligence, running on supercomputers.

When the Wired story on BAIR came out last month (a story "borrowed" from Peacefire -- I'm not going to get into it), Wired quoted the company as saying "they plan to fix the errors within the next month." What errors?

"BAIR incorrectly blocked photographs of Yellowstone, the Baltimore waterfront, Snoopy, boats, sunsets, dogs, vegetables and even a Wired News staff meeting.

"It rated as acceptable for minors -- even on the most restrictive setting -- explicit images of oral sex, anal sex, group sex, masturbation, and ejaculation."

That was one month ago. How's BAIR doing now?

Peacefire retested the same 50 pornographic images that they'd used last month (which presumably BAIR's programmers would have paid extra-special attention to). Their new report finds that, instead of zero, the number of blocked images is now: 34. I've got a great slogan for them: "now your children can only see 32% of the web's oral sex, anal sex, group sex, masturbation, and ejaculation."

One's respect for these programmers is dampened a little, though, because there's more to Peacefire's report. It seems, in a random sample of 50 photos of people's faces, BAIR blocked ... how many? ... 34.

Maybe that slogan should be: "now your children can only see 32% of the web," period.

It's wonderful to live in a world where artificial intelligence offers limitless possibilities. Its website suggests that "Because Artificial Intelligence can be taught to recognize a variety of patterns," -- oh, OK -- "our BAIR can be taught to evaluate other categories such as violence or illegal activities. The BAIR is currently undergoing training in these areas to provide additional filtration selections."

ClickSafe

Richard Schwartz, CEO of ClickSafe, also spoke yesterday at the COPA Commission meeting. Just for kicks, Peacefire decided to try out their spiffy AI software too.

Insert marketblurb here: "...by combining cutting-edge graphic, word and phrase-recognition technology, ClickSafe has achieved accuracy rates of over 99% (according to recent sample tests). ClickSafe can precisely distinguish between appropriate and inappropriate sites (e.g. sites related to issues such as breast cancer will not be blocked)."

What Peacefire did was test this software against the website of the COPA Commission itself, and related sites such as those of speakers or Commission members. They found that blocked pages included:

• The Child Online Protection Act itself, in original and amended form;
• The COPA Commission FAQ;
• Biographies of Commission members Stephen Balkam and John Bastian;
• Bio of Commission member and famed anti-porn crusader Donna Rice Hughes, as well as AppendixA from her book Kids Online: Protecting Your Children in Cyberspace;
• A list of technologies the Commission examines;
• The scope of what the Commission is called upon to do;
• A service agreement from a little company called Network Solutions, whose rep chairs COPA's meetings;
• "About the ICRA" (the makers of RSACi, "a simple, yet effective rating system for web sites which both protected children and protected the rights of free speech");
• Bible study tools: "We hope these free resources foster a desire for Christians to learn more about the Bible, deepening their relationship with God" unless they're using censorware;
• The American Family Association (a conservative Christian group that is trying to force censorware into public libraries, including those surrounding the Slashdot Geek Compound);
• The ACLU, the EFF, and the Center for Democracy and Technology;

and so on.

When I spoke with Bennett about this, he commented that the strange thing was that these flaws are so easy to find; you'd think someone would have run these simple tests already. If anyone reading wants to get their name in Slashdot (and other news media too), censorware is a gold mine of untested misinformation. Buy a product, design a solid unbiased test for it, run the test, and send us what you find. Repeat until the whole world has a clue.

The COPA Commission Meeting

The following is an account of yesterday's COPA Commission meeting, by Waldo Jaquith. Keep in mind that this meeting's purpose, according to the Scope & Timeline Proposal which is blocked by ClickSafe, is to study filtering and blocking software to learn what to recommend in its report to Congress late this year.

Folks,

For more information on the COPA Commission, see http://www.copacommission.org/. (Unless your network has ClickSafe installed, in which case you shouldn't bother.) There is an agenda for this meeting, and there are bios for most people, as well as the prepared speeches for many of the below folks. I've tried to be objective.

Oh, screw that. There's nothing objective about it. But I've tried to give useful facts, quote accurately, etc.

The whole affair, which was scheduled to start at 9:30am, didn't actually start until 10:15am. Which was good, because I didn't get there until 9:45. Although the event was being held at the University of Richmond's Jepson Alumni Center, the room felt like your basic hotel meeting room. Bad carpet, ugly chairs, poor lighting. There were enough chairs to seat about 100 people, but only 35 people were in attendance. Directly in front of the two columns of chairs was a table with chairs, facing away from the audience. This table was for people asked to testify before the COPA Commission. On the other side of that table was a long table, at which was seated the commission, all sixteen members. The result was that the people testifying, who did most of the talking, could only be recognized by the backs of their heads by the audience.

Chairman Donald Telage called the meeting to order and introduced the first panel, who was to speak for approximately 45 minutes on the topic of client-side filters. This panel included Gordon Ross, the President and CEO of Net Nanny, Mark Smith, the President of BrowseSafe, Susan Getgood, the VP and General Manager of Cyber Patrol, and Richard Schwartz, the CEO of Opportunity-America (ClickSafe.com).

Gordon Ross kicked things off with a tremendously boring ten minute speech about how client-side filters work. The only interesting comment that he made was his belief that "consumers should have the ability to analyze each and every site in the database..." [...because his product Net Nanny is the only one of the 150 censorware packages on the market that allows oversight of its blacklist. -ed] He also kicked off the First Amendment references, which nearly every speaker throughout the day would spend some time talking about, but not really saying very much.

Mark Smith from BrowseSafe occupied the next few minutes, giving a rambling speech in which he discussed censorware as if it were some far-off and idyllic concept.

"Most products focus on either client-side- or server-side-based technology. What would happen if the benefits of each could be brought together to provide the user with a new, more flexible and powerful way of surfing the web? What if every sub domain of every site had been categorized and classified by its content? Wouldn't you agree that everyone could benefit from that combination of technology? Of course you would? Now let's walk across the street to the front porch of the family of the home and try to view it from the parent's perspective. What if parents were able to determine what the child sees? What would it be like if e-mail, instant messaging, chat and other computer tools could be also controlled?"

Then, although the topic was client-side filters, he rambled on for several minutes about PlanetGood, a website that was probably unfamiliar to many in the room. He used the site's name in every single sentence for several minutes. And, naturally, he closed talking about "our forefathers" and "these inalienable rights that our forefathers entrusted to us and many of them died for."

Susan Getgood from Cyber Patrol kept things short and sweet, and took the "I'm a new mother and want to protect my children" approach. She muddled the definition of censorship somewhat, saying that "[s]ome critics confuse censorship, which is imposed by the government, with technology that a family or school can choose to use and then set to implement an individual policy." Our school system isn't a part of the government?

Richard Schwartz of ClickSafe.com touted his product nearly as much as Mark Smith promoted the mysterious "PlanetGood." He also described a system that his company has developed that sounds very much like Exotrope's BAIR. "Fleshtone has a very unique set of features [...] Through a combination?of a set of sophisticated algorithms it can establish if something is pornographic. [...] Justice Potter Stewart lives within our system, because he knows it when he sees it. It works, it's been tested out, it's over 99% effective." "We can distinguish between chicken breast and sexy breast." "A consortium of Portuguese and Australian pornographers had been hijacking people off of different sites, including the Harvard Law Review site into their pornographic sites. And then you have to reboot your computer in order to get out."

After the four had testified, we moved into the commission Q&A session. (No questions would be allowed from the audience.) A few interesting questions, answers, and comments cropped up during this portion.

Richard Schwartz, only half kidding, proposed a tax on Internet pornography.

Commissioner Gregory L. Rohde asked Richard Schwartz if his image filter could tell the difference between art and pornography. Astoundingly, Schwartz replied that it could.

Commissioner Jerry Berman asked if there were any plans to create an organization that could provide objective reviews of censorware products to help parents decide what to buy. Gordon Ross said that this had been tried a few years back with SIFT (?), and that it didn't work out.

After a short break, we began the second panel, which addressed server side filtering. Testifying was Kevin Fink, N2H2's CTO; Sunil Paul, Chairman of Brightmail; Stephen Boyles of Library Guardian (Swifteye); Michael Stephani, President and CEO of Exotrope; Ginny Wydler, Director of Standards and Policy at AOL; and Tim Robertson, CEO of FamilyClick.

The first person to say anything interesting was Michael Stephani, who made some fairly interesting claims. He said that their blacklist of sites included four million sites, and that their image-recognition software, BAIR, is 99.8% percent effective. Stephani bragged that it blocked 1 out of 6 general images and 96 out of 100 pornographic images. He pointed out (perhaps rightly) that image filtering is the only real way to filter out pornography, and also that client-side filtering would so go the way of the dodo, given the proliferation of Internet appliances. It wasn't long before he got all 'God bless America' and 'think of the children,' and eyeballs could be heard rolling throughout the room.

As Commissioners asked questions of the panel, Chairman Donald Telage admitted that he wasn't aware that client-side filters were able to use a blacklist. He was under the impression that they could only filter. I had flashbacks from the Napster hearings last week ("Can't you track their intellectual property address?")

Out of the blue, Karen Talbert asked the panel for a show of hands regarding their respective products' ability to work with high-speed connections. Obviously, everybody's hands went up.

How do these people get on the commission?

When given half a chance, Stephani got all "think of the children, my god, won't somebody think of the children?" again. He also bragged that Exotrope has a new, not-yet-released product that filters IM [AOL Instant Messaging -ed.] and even detects innuendo. Stephani said that they just got a contract to install this program on 30,000 school servers. Continuing his spectacular Old Faithful of shit, he cheerfully envisioned a time in the future when there would be "photonic switches" that would maintain a complete blueprint of everything that every user had ever done on-line. Christ, that's frightening. Stephani said that they'd spent $6.5MUS developing BAIR, and went on to point out the coincidence that Peacefire released the report showing that BAIR was 0% effective on the same day that their servers went down. Perhaps he was implying that Peacefire members hacked the server, perhaps that we were taking advantage of them, or perhaps he was just laughing at the circumstances.

There was no promised audience Q&A. That's probably because the whole event ran well over when it was supposed to end. Lacking a better approach, I rushed up to the ebullient Stephani with a copy of the newest BAIR report in hand. Although he was already talking to a reporter, he stopped when he saw my nametag ("Waldo L. Jaquith, Peacefire") and looked a little surprised. He, as well as his sidekick PR guy, enthusiastically introduced themselves. We talked for a few minutes, during which time I said that BAIR appears to suck less than many other censorware programs. But I was still fundamentally opposed to all of them. Between this and the revised report, Stephani was my new best friend. Several other people came forward to read nametags and shake hands, but I continued to talk to Stephani and the reporter, Drew Clark from Technology Daily.

Ten minutes later, when I walked out, I felt a little baffled. Stephani behaved towards me as if Peacefire had just given him the most glowing review that BAIR had ever gotten. This, despite my repeatedly pointing out that Peacefire is fundamentally opposed to filters, always will be, and BAIR is simply rather effective at performing the task that we hate.

I was disappointed that a few major points were never brought up during the discussions:

• Server-side censorware (especially that which is housed with each website) will always be a severe privacy violation, because it needs data on the user in order to establish what information to provide.
• Client-side censorware is doomed to fail because children know more about computers than their parents. The parent has to trust that little Suzy won't uninstall Cyber Patrol. But if Suzy can be trusted, why bother with Cyber Patrol?
• Internet censorship is impossible. The Internet is so large that it's a waste of time, so let's all stop. Gated community models, like AOL, Compuserve and such, are a far better way to provide a "safe" experience for kids.
• The concerns about children's wellbeing presented during the meeting mirror those that parents, since the beginning of time, have always had for their children. How can I keep my child safe when I'm not watching him? How do I know what my child is doing if I'm not around? How do I keep my children from hearing / seeing / saying bad things? Censorware makes no more sense than installing a v-chip in little Suzy's head. Get over it.

In a nutshell, I'm not sure what, if anything, was established at this meeting. It's clear that most of the Commissioners knew every little to start off with, and their opinions are being formed on what amounts to a series of sales pitch sprinkled with god-and-country references, a la mega blowout carpet sales around Independence Day. I'm glad COPA was struck down. Let's get on with our lives.

Best,
Waldo

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:)