Slashdot Mirror


Jaron Lanier on the Semi-Closed Internet

Will Wilkinson writes "Jaron Lanier's recent essay, The Gory Antigora: Illusions of Capitalism and Computers, kicks off a discussion of 'Internet Liberation: Alive or Dead?' at the Cato Institute's new blogazine, Cato Unbound. In Lanier's essay today, find out how the 'brittleness' of software has kept the Internet from realizing its potential as 'a cross between Adam Smith and Albert Einstein; the Invisible Hand accelerating toward the speed of light.' Also, find out why, upon meeting Richard Stallman, Lanier's reaction was: 'An open version of UNIX! Yuk!'"

57 of 248 comments (clear)

  1. Bunk. by RevDobbs · · Score: 4, Interesting
    The unfortunate Internet has only one peer when it comes to obfuscation due to an inundation of excessive punditry,

    That peer is the very sentance you are writing, correct?

    This entire essay is bunk; every paragraph the author brings up a point that can quickly be refuted. He overgeneralizes issues and adds a big dollup of emotional appeal to make his points. And frankly, his points are just misguided, if not straight out wrong.

    1. Re:Bunk. by dada21 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I agree. The author holds on to old theories about marketplaces and interactivity and completely forgets that the web and instant global communications are opening up new ways to do previously unthought of tasks.

      To point at the ways previous successes worked and try to see them in the future is a bad idea. The reality is that we won't know what is succesful in the future because we don't know what previously unlinked services or products might work better together.

      Now my reply is as confusing as the article, sheesh.

    2. Re:Bunk. by Ironsides · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Now my reply is as confusing as the article, sheesh.

      Let me try to deconfuse your theory.

      1) We don't know what will hapen with the internet.
      2) Pointing to what happened with other older technologies does not always apply to newer technologies.
      3) We don't have new ideas yet to revolutionize the world or we would have tried them already.
      4) We're still learning what we can do with this thing, partly we're seeing what we can do online that we can already do offline, partly we're trying to see what we can do that no one has ever done before.

      --
      Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
    3. Re:Bunk. by kfg · · Score: 2, Funny

      This entire essay is bunk. . .

      You misspelled "llshit."

      KFG

    4. Re:Bunk. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This entire essay is bunk; every paragraph the author brings up a point that can quickly be refuted.

      Interesting then, that you've done exactly that for exactly none of the points in question. Actually refuting the points would be adding content and having a discussion. Instead of doing that, you're basically flinging poo. I wonder if this sort of behavior is what was meant by "excessive punditry." Ironic.

    5. Re:Bunk. by dada21 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Whoa, smart!

      Actually, you're spot on. I do believe that the Internet is the best form of anarchocapitalism that we've ever seen and I hope to see it instill some faith in voluntary cooperation (ie, capitalism) over time.

      Everyone I know who has done business online has been screwed once. They had no real recourse through legal means, and in the end the guy who ripped people off went out of business. The great thing about the de-regulated economy online is that the costs are lower, so in the rare occasion that you do get ripped off you are still ahead once you factor in the taxes you'd have paid (that are supposed to be used to protect you).

    6. Re:Bunk. by Ironsides · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'd like to add one more thing to help debunk this guy.

      The Internet and the Web would be fabulous Antigoras if they were privately owned.

      Here he proves he knows nothing about the internet, or at least the internet in the US. The net is almost completely (if not completely) privately owned in the US.

      --
      Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
    7. Re:Bunk. by aqfire · · Score: 2, Funny
      The unfortunate Internet has only one peer when it comes to obfuscation due to an inundation of excessive punditry,

      The very same peer that resets my connection every 5 minutes.

      DAMN YOU PEER!!!

    8. Re:Bunk. by blamanj · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A couple of obvious technical ones:

      Files have become too fundamental to reconsider.
      In fact, there are systems (I believe the IBM z/OS is one, not sure) that don't have file systems, they are instead database-oriented or stream-oriented.

      [Unix] is based on the premise that people should interact with computers through a "command line."
      Unix is based on the idea that programs should do one thing well, and that it should be easy to wire them together to get the benefit of multiple tools. The fact that the implementations are command-line based is a function of technology. There's no reason a "visual shell" couldn't be substituted for bash/csh/etc.

      The article seems to be written by someone who's very fond of hearing his own voice.

    9. Re:Bunk. by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 2, Insightful
      opening up new ways to do previously unthought of tasks.

      If they were previously unthought of, how could there have been an old way to do them?

    10. Re:Bunk. by timeOday · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Well, you've missed the point of his command-line argument. He considers the familiar GUI to be a command-line interface:
      First the person does something, usually either by typing or clicking with a pointing device. And then, after an unspecified period of time, the computer does something, and then the cycle is repeated.
      (I think he should call it the "command-based" interface instead of the "command-line" interface though.)

      Anyways, his complaint seems that command-based interfaces treat interaction as a linear sequence of discrete events, with actions normally initiated by the user. You might say they're "turn-based," whereas people don't normally interact with the world that way.

      Now, he might or might not have a point. I'd like to hear him propose an alternative.

      If there's anything wrong with the article, it's that any single paragraph would yeild more interesting discussion than the whole thing together.

    11. Re:Bunk. by Deskpoet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, you're spot on. I do believe that the Internet is the best form of anarchocapitalism that we've ever seen and I hope to see it instill some faith in voluntary cooperation (ie, capitalism) over time.

      I'm sorry for picking a nit here, but there is no such thing as "anarchocapitalism" (that is, outside the fevered dreams of the David Freidman cult; see why anarchocapitalism is an oxymoron here), and expecting technology designed to control information to deliver a society without hierarchy is farcical. Of course, that is not the point for the "anarchocapitalist", is it? All they are after is immediate economic freedom for themselves, a kind of supply-side, trickle-down freedom machine whose obvious flaws will be visited on those who are unfortunate enough to not be in on the ground floor when this wonderful world manifests itself from the struggles of all the oppressed millionaires.

      Any "freedom" predicated on technology is simply another form of control: if you can turn it off, or point it at someone, then someone, in a play to exert control, inevitably will. Capitalism is inherently hierarchal, and the Internet is, as well. To expect either to change into a truly anarchic state is simply overshooting any real probability; you might as well expect a fish to evolve directly into an antelope.

      --
      "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."--Tacitus, The Histories
  2. Nothing to see here by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There isn't much in TFA except a nice point about how we should be able to "browse" video games in the way we browse through books or newspapers. Which does, in fact, make me wonder why stores don't allow you to rent a copy of a game, bring it back and decide whether or not to buy it. I've been doing that for years, but never with one store.

    1. Re:Nothing to see here by Ironsides · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There isn't much in TFA except a nice point about how we should be able to "browse" video games in the way we browse through books or newspapers. Which does, in fact, make me wonder why stores don't allow you to rent a copy of a game, bring it back and decide whether or not to buy it. I've been doing that for years, but never with one store.

      Because people will either:
      1) Copy the video game at home and return it saying they don't want it, thus having the game without paying for it.
      2) Play the game, beat it, return it, having "used" all the content without paying for it.

      For the most part, I understand #1 is the main reason stores no longer allow returning opened games. As for trying out the games, isn't that what playable Demos are for? Such as the Unreal Tournament 2K4 demo?

      --
      Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
  3. Puff piece... by webword · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Not much new here, especially if you look at this from a history of technology perspective. The same comments about "lock in" (a.k.a., capitalism is evil) apply to telephones, electricity, and the water wheel. Bottom line: Humans continue to get stuff done whether there is "lock in" or not.

  4. Re:I didn't understand any of that. by Rei · · Score: 5, Funny

    Here, I'll translate it for you:

    Yo, buss dis. My man Will be up and writin 'bout JL's recent papah, "Da Gory Antigora: Trippin 'Bout Computers and Bling", be kickin off, rappin 'bout 'Intanet Liberation: Dead Or Alive!' at da Cato Institute's new blogazine, Cato Unbound, aiii? JL be writing today 'bout how da softwares dat run yo Intanet can get a cap bust up in they a--, an' don't do all 'dey can to mix the ideas of th' devil and Albert E; dat is, dey don't have some invisible hand puttin the smack down at th' speed of light.' You can also read yourself 'bout how when JL met my man RMS, JL done say: 'An open version of UNIX! Nigga, please!'"

    Peace.

    --
    The *special* hell.
  5. My mouse is broken. by Elwood+P+Dowd · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm confused.

    Dumbasses didn't put clicky links on their image. Why not? So that you can dig, dig, dig and find the long winded articles?

    Maybe they haven't figured out the internet as well as they think. Blogs with 5000 word essays tend to be a pain in my ass. I'm barely literate. How much do they expect slitscan to read?

    --

    There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
  6. I'm So Conflicted... by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 5, Funny

    Jaron Lanier... Cato Institute... 'blogazine'... Richard Stallman

    After that summary, I can't decide whether I need to take an aspirin or a shower first.

  7. Another day, another advertisement by sczimme · · Score: 4, Funny

    From the summary:

    at the Cato Institute's new blogazine

    Alarm bells are ringing, Willie:

    Fluff topic? Check.

    A grandiosely named organization? Check

    A newly-coined, silly, and far-too-hip word modeled after another newly-coined, silly, and far-too-hip word? Check.

    Also, find out why, upon meeting Richard Stallman, Lanier's reaction was: 'An open version of UNIX! Yuk!'

    This part is probably true, although without the 'An open version of UNIX!' part.

    --
    I want to drag this out as long as possible. Bring me my protractor.
  8. I have a sore leg. by LightningBolt! · · Score: 3, Funny

    But I just got a prescription for "blogazine", a topical ointment which alleviates muscle pain.

    --
    Old people fall. Young people spring. Rich people summer and winter.
  9. Self promotion as the major accomplishment by wintermute42 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I remember Jaron Lanier from the 1990s when he gained some fame from his pronouncements about virtual reality. Perhaps I'm ignorant of his real accomplishments, but Lanier, like Paris Hilton, seems to be famous as a result of self promotion, rather than anything he has achieved. In the world of pundits it appears that it is quite possible to create yourself from thin air (or perhaps hot air). Unless I'm simply ignorant of Lanier's accomplishments, why should we listen to anything he has to say?

    1. Re:Self promotion as the major accomplishment by Animats · · Score: 2, Informative
      Jaron Lanier does have something of a cult image, but he once did real technical work. He did build the first immersive virtual reality system with a head-mounted display and input gloves. I tried it, back in the mid-80s, and met Jaron. The system took two SGI machines to drive it, and the lag was terrible. No collision detection. You couldn't do much more than look around. But it did work.

      Eventually the lag and cost problems were solved. But that wasn't the real problem. Friends of mine at Autodesk tried to do a 3D CAD system in virtual reality. Real work in a gloves-and-goggles environment turned out to be painful, and much slower than keyboard-and-mouse. Remember those Hollywood movies about VR, where people are making gestures and reaching for things? It can be, and has been, implemented, but it's hell to use. VR is good for moving and shooting. That's about it.

      Eventually Jaron's company, VPL, tanked, because there weren't any useful applications for gloves-and-goggles VR.

    2. Re:Self promotion as the major accomplishment by monopole · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Jaron Lanier is the Vanilla Ice of the tech world all the way down to the dreadlocks.

      Having ludicrously overhyped virtual reality, and his contribution to it, through the late '80s and early '90s he ran his startup into the ground with the VCs collecting all the IP. His predictions of ubiquitous VR were completely wrong while completely missing the rise of the Web and mobile computing.

      My favorite example of of his utterly clueless pursuit of hype occured when his company was circling the drain. He announced that we could not let the millitary get their hands on VR technology and use it for destructive purposes! Of course, everything that Lainer had hyped as his new technology had been pioneered by the military at least a decade ago.

      I nearly ran into him (literally) at SIGGRAPH two years ago. He had the air of a lesser rock star that had seriously gone to seed, I quickly backed off, got upwind, and made tracks to the other side of the exhibition hall.

    3. Re:Self promotion as the major accomplishment by generic-man · · Score: 2, Funny

      Don't compare someone to Vanilla Ice unless you can prove that he got his ass kicked by Todd "Willis" Bridges on national television.

      --
      For more information, click here.
    4. Re:Self promotion as the major accomplishment by capsteve · · Score: 2, Funny

      jason on the whole is a pretty smart guy, and was instrumental in helping sell the dream of virtual reality. it's too bad too, because personally i don't think it was so much the lack of real world virtual reality applications that ended up tanking the whole VR scene (although technology and implmentation were way behind concept), it was that somehow goggled-and-gloved-freaky-white-guy-with-dreadlock s jason lanier became the poster child of VR. that image of jason with the glove and the goggles propped on his head must have made more than one corporate VC type question what the hell he was doing with their money. if evan's and sutherland were the posterkids for VR in the 80's and 90's the way jason was, VR/VRML might not have tanked...

      --
      three can keep a secret, if two are dead - benjamin franklin
  10. snipe by aachrisg · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Also, find out why, upon meeting Richard Stallman, Lanier's reaction was: 'An open version of UNIX! Yuk!'" Richard Stallman has spent decades creating software used by millions of people. Jaron Lanier has created ummm...what again?

    1. Re:snipe by generic-man · · Score: 4, Funny

      Lanier created a blogazine. Do I need to spell it out for you? B-L-O-G-A-Z-I-N-E. There, I did it.

      --
      For more information, click here.
    2. Re:snipe by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm thinking about creating a magalog, myself. Or maybe a blook. Not a blamphlet, though. That would be dumb.

  11. Translation by Slashcrap · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The unfortunate Internet has only one peer when it comes to obfuscation due to an inundation of excessive punditry, and that peer is religion.

    Translation - I've got nothing very interesting to say, but just look at the words I'm saying it with!!! Ain't I hip?

    I'd be more scathing if it weren't for a nagging suspicion that the author is just taking the piss.

  12. Jaron's Title by pHatidic · · Score: 2, Informative

    The Gory Antigora

    For those who don't know, this is what is known as a Chiasmus. That is, a sound pattern of ABBA. Other famous examples include, "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country" and "Never let a fool kiss you or a kiss fool you."

    The reason I point this out is that of all the literary devices, the Chiasmus is probably both the coolest and also the most difficult to come up with. So props to Jaron for this one.

    1. Re:Jaron's Title by Kadin2048 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      There are a couple of cool things in the article. Not particularly interesting things, and I'm not sure whether they really hold any water, intellectually, upon any sort of lengthy consideration, but I think people are giving it a bit of a kneekjerk response here on /.

      He makes an interesting point about the idea of files and how entrenched that idea is. I would take this further and say that the whole idea of the desktop metaphor is very entrenched, although I don't think I'd go so far as to say that we'll necessarily still be using it in a thousand years.


      Prior to sometime in the mid-1980s, there were influential voices in computer science opposing the idea of the file because it would lead to file incompatibility. Ted Nelson, the inventor of the idea of linked digital content, and Jef Raskin, initiator of the Macintosh project at Apple, both held the view that there should be a giant field of elemental data without file boundaries. Since UNIX, Windows, and even the Macintosh--as it came out the door after a political struggle--incorporated files, the idea of the file has become digitally entrenched.

      We teach files to undergraduates as if we were teaching them about photons. Indeed, I can more readily imagine physicists asking us to abandon the photon in a hundred years than computer scientists abandoning the file in a thousand.


      An exaggeration, to be sure, but it's still a decent point.

      As he gets further and further down his conclusions become more and more farfetched, and I don't agree with his dislike of UNIX, either (frankly I find the commandline to be somewhat empowering, although I dislike the knowledge-cult attitude that it seems to generate sometimes).

      I think he makes a relatively salient point as well about content protection:

      The most attractive designs, from the point of view of either democratic ideals or the profit motive, would have intermediate qualities; they would leak, but only a little. A little leakage greatly reduces the economic motivation for piracy as well as the cost of promotion. A little leakage gives context to and therefore enhances the value of everything.


      To my eye, Apple's iPod and iTMS system is a system which leaks "a little." There's some content protection (keeping you from moving the files from the iPod to a friend's computer) but it's nothing that can't be bypassed by a bright 12-year-old. As such, it succeeds in being commercially viable -- as totally open systems aren't -- without disempowering users to the extent that competitors systems do. They could have been a lot more thorough with the copy protection; they were not and it shows. Instead they did what they needed to do to get it out the door. I'm sure there are other examples of this around, but having just restored a music collection from an iPod yesterday, this was foremost in my mind.

      At any rate, I think it would be wrong to dismiss Lanier out of hand. I don't know his history or reputation -- apparently it's not great -- and I'm not sure how I feel about his politics regarding ultra-privatization of everything. But there are some things worth discussing in there, among the pretentious academic language. We'd be doing ourselves a bit of a disservice if we didn't bother to bring them up at all.
      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
  13. Re:I didn't understand any of that. by Assmasher · · Score: 3, Funny
    --
    Loading...
  14. Ack by Alioth · · Score: 3, Funny

    Oh good god, they've managed to find a word even more annoying than blogosphere: blogozine :/

  15. Askling the wrong questions by RealProgrammer · · Score: 5, Insightful
    From TFA's thesis paragraph:
    Are ideas like virtual citizenship beyond the nation-state, untraceable electronic currency, and the consciousness expanding powers of radical interconnectivity defunct? Is there untapped revolutionary power waiting to be unleashed?
    The Internet levels the playing field for those who have access to it. A search bar, a blog, and ebay are all you need to find out almost anything, tell the world your take on it, or operate a business. And with so many sources of information, voices, and people selling things it is impossible for a monopoly to exist in any one of those areas.

    We aren't to the point of virtual citizenship, but we may be in the middle of a trend toward borderless loyalty. People are becoming less loyal to the nation-state and more loyal to ideas and movements (religions, software models, companies, professions). I hope that the trend doesn't result in a single world government before the individual borderless movements get powerful enough to keep one in check.

    Untraceable electronic currency doesn't have any chance: the people issuing the currency want to know where it is. It's enough that numbers are inherently abstract, though. It will always be necessary to launder your funds if you want their movement kept discrete.

    As far as the conciousness expansion of free information goes, that too is the wrong question. (Some) people will always choose to be blissfully ignorant about (some) things, and you can't force them to learn. The network makes it easy to find information, but it's always going to be more like fishing than a floodlight. People have to want the information you have.

    In general, it's too soon for Utopia but the world is getting newer all the time.

    --
    sigs, as if you care.
  16. My god! by jachim69 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    He has a terminal case of verbal diarrhea!

  17. They can't usually rent non-console games legally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Copyright law prohibits the rental of software, generally speaking, unless the software is specifically for video game machines (i.e. not for a general-purpose computer) or cannot be odinarily copied (e.g. a hardwarre game cartridge). See 17 USC 109(b). (This section was originally written to stop "record rental", but was later expanded to software.)

    Nonprofit lending by libraries, however, is exempted from this prohibition.

  18. The Cato Propaganda Institute. by RandoX · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Cato is infamous for questionable research that politicians have used to support some ridiculous claims. Nothing different from them here.

    1. Re:The Cato Propaganda Institute. by j-turkey · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Cato is infamous for questionable research that politicians have used to support some ridiculous claims. Nothing different from them here.

      I don't think that the Cato institute has ever professed to not be a Libertarian think tank. They've always been pretty up front with their political stance. Some of their research is actually quite intriguing. Other research appears to just be Libertarian banter. It's up to the reader to place judgement on individual articles...however, it would be unwise to dismiss everything that the Cato institute has ever written (regardless of your political leanings). The link you posted tends to rely on citing inflammatory political topics and does not appear to be much more than a political soundboard. Why not take things at face value rather than first assessing whether or not the writer shares your political convictions?

      --

      -Turkey

  19. Check out the Author's Agenda by mpapet · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yes, the article is full of bunk in every paragraph and then somewhere in it he claims some of it anyway is a farce. If you refer to his bio, there's a clue in there.

    "Phenotropics," concerns rejecting traditional protocol-based approaches in favor of statistical and pattern-recognition techniques to bind software components together in order to improve large scale reliability.

    The whole "software is brittle" agenda is cleary his own.

    SLIGHTLY OT
    I was watching a remake of "the music man" with my daughter yesterday and his whole "software is brittle" agenda reminds me of how the main character runs around the small town talking very nonsensically about how the new billiards hall is going to corrupt the citizens. Of course the citizens love controversy, so it becomes a "social problem." The main character has the solution, buy musical equipment from him. Now, if only Jaron would sing he can remake the Music Man... Again!

    --
    http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
  20. Lanier is a self-promoting, no-talent technophobe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Lanier's claim to fame is that he "invented" virtual reality. or something like that. His real fame comes from being a huge fat guy with white boy dreads who has an unfounded reputation for being a "luminary". He cons people into paying him to write articles, speak, "conceptualize", and keeps the repuation going for more cons.

    I worked alongside him at Time Inc. New Media, back in the Pathfnder days. He kept on proposing one project after another that simply couldn't be done - the technology didn't exist. I called them "Flying Car Projects" - sounds good, but creating a Flying Car is tough once you start dealing with logistics of fueling, licensing, training, etc. etc.

    His biggest "idea" was called GigaJam, where we'd have millions of surfers hit virtual keys, somehow turning that into music, and streaming it back to them. In realtime. That'd be difficult to do today, but totally impossible back in 1996. Moreover, I'm not sure that there would have been much of a point to devote resources to something like that. To a user, that would have been fun for about 2 minutes.

    Rumor was that he was boinking one of the head honchos at TINM, which is likely how he got the job. He was likely getting paid an assload of money to do nothing but bother people with his silly notions. After a year, he had contributed NOTHING. Not one of his projects was ever adopted in any fashion. And I heard that he had difficulty using a Macintosh to do things like, say, copy files.

    So here's a guy that has fed (and rather overfed) himself on being a technology pundit, who doesn't understand the first thing about technology. Plus he's fat and smelly. So take his opinions with a huge chunk of salt.

    All the above opinion, rumor, innuendo :)

  21. Welcome to the conservitive think-tank. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting
    The Cato institute is one of the more conservitive think tank. From what I understand, they will publish stuff like this so that the NeoCons in Congress can quote them as a reliable source.
    This is the same loose affiliation that will scream about "liberal media" until their noise drowns out any other signal. And the Cato Institute is the "section" that sets up the "information" that is going to be sited.

    My big concern here is that this is the beginning of the hard core lock down of the internet. Their typical tactic is to chip away until nothing is left. Think imperialist presidency, with their "Us" in control. It almost sounds like fascism, remember, Hitler was elected too.

    Go ahead, mark this as a troll, but the Libertarians should be just as scared as the Liberals.

  22. Or "you can prick your finger . . ." by mmell · · Score: 2, Funny

    Oh, but you know the rest.

  23. Re:Simple. by indifferent+children · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Because Jaron Lanier is an insufferable, pretentious, idiot. That's why.

    And Stallman is an insufferable, pretentious, genius. No wonder they can't get along.

    --
    Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it. --Mark Twain
  24. Why? by LukePieStalker · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Why is a right-wing propaganda machine like the Cato Institute being given a forum here? At least be honest and put it in the politics forum.

  25. some good point, but mostly FUD by prgrmr · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Every computer user spends astonishingly huge and increasing amounts of time updating software patches, visiting help desks, and performing other frustratingly tedious, ubiquitous tasks

    Define huge. Hundreds of hours? Double-digit percentage of all time spent using the computer? He doesn't say, and I doubt it's close to either metric for all but the most inept of users. For the average person *any* amount of time spent doing *any* one of these tasks is, in their opinion, too much. Time spent doing basic maintenance is one of the most overstated stats thrown around.

    The biggest point he comes close to touching but then completely misses is with the language analogy. The informational content of language is almost entirely context sensative. For example, I can make the statement "I'm blue", and without context, you don't know if I'm refering to the color of the clothes I'm wearing, my emotional disposition, me political affiliation, if I'm pretending to be a cartoon dog while playing with my kids, or any other reference for which the word "blue" might apply.

    Langauge has the the immediate context of the conversation in which it is occuring, and the ultimate context of the physical world. What he misses is that not only does computer software have to be precise, it has to supply it's own virtual context; i.e. your web browser exists in the virtual context of the network, which connects it to an application which exists in a vitual context of a combination of, for example, a java environment on top of a database on top of an operating system. All the underlying layers provide a context for the next layer above in which to exist and interact. And we had to create every single layer from scratch!

    Lanier then makes the usual eglatarian conceit with the statement "Only culture is rich enough to fund the Antigora." The Internet is its own culture, which both incorportates and yet transends mutiple, different national, tribal, and social cultures. Lanier and all the other Internet pundits need to recognize that, get the hell over it, and move on.

  26. Re:Killing Me Softly by Kadin2048 · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'd dare say as soon as they created a browser that could render HTML and graphics we had all these things.

    No, I can tell you exactly when the problems began, and that was with the BLINK tag.

    Everything before that was pretty tame -- it's when things started to move that it got really obnoxious. From blinking crap it was pretty much a straight downward progression to animated GIF crap, and then to Flash crap.

    --
    "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
  27. Against files by Animats · · Score: 2, Interesting
    There's an argument against "files" as the basis of an operating system. The most successful movement in that direction was Tandem's operating system, Guardian. The bottom-level storage system in the classic Tandem world was a relational database, not "files". All database operations were atomic and recoverable, and the database was duplicated across multiple disks and computers. Tandem machines were all clusters, decades before other companies figured out how to do clustered systems. Business systems built on Tandem's hardware and software could be, and were, able to run for years, sometimes decades, without failure. Machines in the cluster could be fail and be replaced without a shutdown. This worked for real transactions where updates mattered, not just for stateless operations like web page serving. Many banks and stock markets still run Tandem systems for that reliability.

    If you needed a "text file" in the Tandem world, it was treated as a big object (a BLOB) in the database, and handled as a unit. THis seems wierd, but it allowed program development on Tandem machines. Storing a file was, of course, an atomic operation; you never had a truncated file.

    Apple's "resource fork" was a step in the right direction, but the implementation of updates in the classic MacOS was so unreliable that it was hopeless as a data-storage mechanism. Apple backed off from the resource fork when they went to a UNIX-type file system after the NeXT acquisition. Now it's making a comeback in a minor way.

    Early visions of Microsoft's Longhorn seemed to be moving in that direction, but Microsoft couldn't bring it off.

    UNIX/Linux has terrible file reliability semantics. Locking is an afterthought. File transactions aren't atomic. (Even lock file creation isn't atomic if the the file system is on NFS.) Nobody understands two-phase commit, the technique that keeps your bank account from being debited twice if the ATM loses power during a transaction. There have been attempts to fix these problems (see UCLA Locus), but they never caught on.

    The most likely company to fix this problem is Google. Google's own machines are full of databases of text, not "files". In a sense, we're all using a system that's not file-based - we just don't see it.

  28. I liked the essay, but a criticism by maynard · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I think the most serious problem with Lanier's logic is that in arguing for the 'antigora' he uses utopic examples of capitalism and technology that ignore the difference between necessary goods and value added products. In his discussion of Walmart as a semigora, for example, he states:

    "[...]a person making a marginal income at the periphery of one of the Antigoras can survive, because the efficiencies make survival cheap. It's 2025 in Cambodia, for instance, and you only make the equivalent of a buck a day, without health insurance, but the local Wal-Mart is cheaper every day and you can get a robot-designed robot to cut out your cancer for a quarter, so who cares?"


    And as for a Luddite revolution:

    "The super-rich who own the Antigoras become so fabulously wealthy that in the context of changing biomedical and other technologies they effectively become a new species. Perhaps they become the immortals, or they merge with their machines. Unlike the Wells story, though, the lumpenproletariat do not revolt because their cost of living has retreated faster than their wages. From their local perspective they are doing better and better, even as the gap between them and the rich is growing at an accelerating rate."


    So robots build vast volumes of cheap goods and thus the value of a dollar relative to the cost of goods declines to the point where even the poor can afford automated health care. Or new computers, or HDTVs, and other technology. Except it ignores the stagnant and high cost of necessary goods: energy, food and shelter being the most obvious examples. Even assuming automated food production - robots ploughing the fields - there is only so much land. Maybe building housing will be cheap with robots, but we'll still need to heat or cool it depending on the climate. Providing these basic necessities cannot be automated away because they rely on fixed and limited resources. The best we can do increase the efficiency of utilization, or find a radical and unknown new method for creation.

    But - unlike slashdot conventional wisdom in this forum - I thought the essay was well written and highly contemplative. A good read. Thanks Jaron!
    1. Re:I liked the essay, but a criticism by Kadin2048 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think the biggest issue I take with Lanier's Luddite Revolution is that it doesn't consider human nature. Even if the proletriat's cost of living retreated more quickly than their income, so that their standard of living went up, it still would have a destabilizing effect on society if there is no clear path up the societal ladder.

      American society is maintained, in part anyway, because there is a widespread perception that it is possible for a person to be a 'self-made man.' That is, no matter how poor or unskilled or stupid or whatever you are, it is possible -- however unlikely -- for you to own a 3-bedroom house and drive a Ford and have a wife and kids. And although we are becoming more cynical by the day and many of us would say that we don't believe in the 'american dream nonsense,' people act as though they are attempting to realize that dream all the time.

      Also, there is a self-fulling prophecy at work here. When someone does manage to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and fullfill the self-made-person fantasy, they normally receive a certain amount of notoriety for it (at least in extreme cases). This publicity helps to reinforce the idea that such a climb up the social ladder is possible, and keeps people at the bottom at work every day.

      If you were -- perhaps through germline genetic engineering or biological/technological fusion -- to create an unbridgeable chasm between the 'haves' and 'have nots,' so that it was no longer possible for a low-class person to even imagine that they might one day be able to join the ranks of the well-to-do, you would remove a lot of of the reason why people at the bottom of society go to work every morning. It would destabilize society, and could easily result either in a revolution, or in the upper-class being required to use force in order to constantly suppress the threat of one.

      The fact that they can buy a refrigerator or a big-screen TV isn't going to keep people from strapping blocks of C4 and nails to their chests, when they know that there are people in society that have riches -- vastly prolonged lives, for instance -- that they can barely dream about and will never have. There is a strong human tendency to despise anyone who has something that you cannot get, and which we keep in check only by collectively believing in the notion that anyone can achieve anything if they really try. If we made that notion -- fallacious as it may be -- completely implausible, we'd really be in trouble.

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
  29. I was Wondering Whatever Happened to Jaron... by eno2001 · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...just a few days ago. I remember the promise of the virtual world back in the late 80s and early 90s. Whatever happened to the neo-hippy, VR enhanced, smart drug world that I was promised almost 20 years ago???

    --
    -"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
  30. Hierarchies and relations and ramndom walks... by argent · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The problem is that databases and other non-file data stores are more brittle than files. The more complexity there is in the metadata, the easier it is to lose information, and the more you're locked in to one specific form of metadata.

    And databases came first. back in the 60s and even well into the 70s, a "file" was seen as a column in a table, or a table, in a database. As databases became more powerful, data stores tried to follow... you had RMS on DEC operating systems, "typed" data sets and files, systems like Pick, Apple's "resource forks", and Be's BeFS. No matter how the data's stored, eventually anything more than a shopping list (oh, yes, there are very complex shopping lists: address books, customer databases, and lots and lots of indexes into collections of flat files like Harvest and Spotlight and Google) becomes a flat block of text with embedded links to other blocks of text.

    Whether those links are "see chapter 10" or "#include stdio.h" or "import io"... those links are not links to databases, they're links to files.

    ---

    The idea that an unstructured block of data was the default was a breakthrough. The idea that a command line interface could be relatively terse and simple so that mere humans could learn to use it, that was a breakthrough too. UNIX cut through an enormous amount of user interface trash and laid bare what was, for the end of the '60s, at least as dramatic an improvement in UI design as GUIs were for the '70s. It's a linguistic interface, not a gestural one, but the first linguistic interface that provided concurrency (through the & background scheme, then through shell layers and job control) and the complete OPPOSITE of the normal "user submits a command, user waits for a response" that every other system in the world used.

    I implemented a UNIX shell with explicit backgrounding on RSX-11 and showed it to my boss, and he was astonished. Even though RSX has an ability to hit return and get a new prompt at any time, so you already have the ability to "interrupt" a program and do something else, he'd never used that other than to treat that MCR prompt as an "I'm still busy" message. But being able to take something that was going to take a long time and throw it off into the background under his control was great.

    Given the hardware limitations of the time, I submit that the UNIX shell and the UNIX plain-text-file pipes-and-filters job-control environment is close to the very best user interface that could be developed. It's the "tabbed browser" of the command line world. Alas, X-Windows came along and people stopped really using and understanding the shell, and X11's high-latency message based interface became the standard for the UNIX world.

    It's really X11, a non-UNIX-like window system developed for UNIX and VMS at MIT in the '80s, that Lanier should be complaining about. Because UNIX itself doesn't suffer from the flaws that he's attributing to it. UNIX is small, tight, fast, responsive, and concurrent, a UNIX shell is a team of willing slaves that does WHAT you want WHEN you want it, and you NEVER have to wait for them unless you choose to.

    ---

    File systems with UNIX semantics, by the way, work well. That's the problem with NFS. NFS is *not* a UNIX file system, and its semantics make it a huge nightmare for applications developed on REAL UNIX file systems. It was a hack-job designed to make it possible to implement a reasonably fast and efficient file system in the kernel on a 68000-based Sun workstation in the '80s. It should have been turfed long since and again IT'S NOT UNIX, IT'S NOT UNIX FAULT.

    ---

    For structured data, databases are great. Using a file system for database operations was a result of UNIX coming from an era before there was a really common way to talk about relational operations linguistically. Bad as SQL is, at least it gives us a framework to deal with the problem. But for hierarchical randomly interrelated data the filesystem model works well.

    Google is an index, it's not the data itself. The data that gives google its value is in a file system.

  31. Dislikes UNIX? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2, Insightful
    As it happens, I dislike UNIX and its kin because it is based on the premise that people should interact with computers through a "command line." First the person does something, usually either by typing or clicking with a pointing device. And then, after an unspecified period of time, the computer does something, and then the cycle is repeated. That is how the Web works, and how everything works these days, because everything is based on those damned Linux servers. Even video games, which have a gloss of continuous movement, are based on an underlying logic that reflects the command line.

    He seems to be extending the command line concept to GUI and hypertext interfaces, which is fine for me, but I dont see him raising any genuinely new UI concepts apart from touching on Virtual Reality.

    I wish he would, because we do need new ideas. Basically he seems to be saying that everything is a dialog at the moment (commands and responses). Well OK but anything we develop is going to go that way in any event.

  32. Re:I didn't understand any of that. by anaesthetica · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Seriously. Someone needs to buy that author a copy of The Elements of Style. Lanier couldn't write a clear sentence if his life depended on it.

  33. "Our PRICES are INSANE!!!" by Tungbo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    When the salesman on TV tells you that it's a once in a life time
    oppportunity to buy his slightly used automobile, do you rush
    down to his auto lot to check it out ?

    The act of talking about issue A and not issue B can be deliberate.
    Some people want to talk about bringing democracy to the people,
    but don't want to talk about the cost (# of people killed in the process).

    It's simple common sense to take into account the speaker's
    views and motivations in order to understand what IS said and
    what ISN'T being said.

  34. Jaron is a few decades out of date by idlake · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Jaron vision is about as stale as civil war cookies left in a damp basement: the computer science community has been abuzz for several years now with notions of "organic computing" and "autonomic computing", and even those are fads that reflect an obsession with biologically inspired computer science that goes back half a century.

    Of course, little has come of it so far: as it turns out, merely applying ideas of biology to computer science does not lead to robust systems. And non-biologists tend to overestimate how good biology actually is--biological systems have high failure rates and lots of trouble spots.

    What I can't figure out is whether people like Jaron are simply deluding themselves into thinking that they have come up with a novel vision, or whether they actively scour the world for on-going trends and deliberately plan a strategy to make it appears that it is "their" vision.

  35. OT: Slashdot doesn't care about black people... by toiletsalmon · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Most of the time, I can read most of the comments on this site and forget that I'm surrounded by a bunch of whiteboys. Then, there are the times that the sad truth comes bubbling furiously to the surface.

    (Score:5, Funny)

    That's just...sad. That being said, I'm certain that I will now be modded down into oblivion. Goodbye cruel world. I hardly knew ye.

  36. Re:Flowers to slashdot crowd by anaesthetica · · Score: 2, Funny

    I seriously have no clue what you just wrote, or how it is even remotely related to my post. Would you like a copy of The Elements of Style as well?