While I agree with one or two of Mr. Sterling's thoughts about different potentials of the internet, I have my share of concerns as well. I see technology as our mirror. The internet is one of the most remarkable innovations today because of the reflection we see in it. As we learn to use that shiny medium in new and different ways, it will continue to reflect human nature -- good and bad.
So I see the call as needing to be much more to the core of each and every one of us, no matter the occupation or role we are playing in the world. The questions we should be asking ourselves come from within. And the answer does the same. We must come to terms with who we are and what we are doing.
The ecological timer of the earth is ticking. It's a shame we don't know how much time is on it. We need some answers to the inner questions or we will destroy ourselves.
Running around squalking and flailing your arms over your head are not going to do much. In my mind, that places you right next to all the "newsie" TV shows that annoy me beyond tolerance. Figure out a way to respond to this other than slamming your fist into the panic button, please.
That said, I agree that we (as a society) need to do some serious soul searching with regards to this particular direction that technology has taken. Unfortunately, I don't think that is going to happen. A quick glance at U.S. history will show that we are perfectly capable of using technology before we understand it's implications and consequences... Hiroshima and Nagasaki. As a human race, we managed to survive that one. I might be being far too optimistic, but I like to think that a few folks managed to learn a lesson then. I do not think we shall be so fortunate with the issue of creating life. This one will catch us before we get the chance to learn the lesson.
Looking at the history of any frontier we have breached in the past yeilds some possibly interesting insight into what is one of the current hot topics: regulation of the internet.
I see a couple of things that are distinguishing the internet from other frontiers we (as the human race) have settled... the first and foremost being the very nature of the internet. It is still very much in the process of defining itself. Kinda hard to regulate what doesn't yet exist. It is also an intangible territory. You can't physically go to a place on the internet to arrest someone.
I think that at best, this ordeal with Australia is a horrible botch job by the government. But at the same time, I do not hold any illusions about any government's ability (or lack thereof) to regulate and/or censor the internet.
The frontier is as of yet untamed. The thing that is making this situation so attention getting is the amount of access the general populace has to an untamed frontier. Please don't get me wrong, I am not in favor of any type of regulation that I have seen or heard of yet. Not even close. But the reality is that it is coming, whether we want it or not.
We will always have outlaws, vigilantes, g-men, consumers, tourists, celebrities, etc... in any environment. And as the majority of the population moves in, they are going to want to feel secure as they are fascinated by this new media.
The fact that Bush may have a legitimate legal gripe is really missing the point. The ability to laugh at oneself, to respond to criticism (founded or not), and to allow others to speak their mind is apparently beyond his grasp.
Most often, the digs that really bother people are not the ones that are completely off base, but the ones that strike a little too close too home. Grow up, George.
Yes!!! This is exactly what comes to my mind when thinking of a hack -- creative problem solving in a dire situation. Especially when in unexplored territory and the tools at hand are grossly inadequate.
There are a few essential elements that make up a "hack" in my mind that seem to have either been glazed over or not given due importance in the definition presented.
A hack is performed in a situation where no tool currently exists for the job, and the custom tool winds up being built out of peices at hand (usually grossly inadequate) or completely from scratch. As much as I hate those kinds of shows, McGyver (sp?) would be a prime example of this. I can also think of numerous trail fixes while on a motorcycle or in a 4-wheel drive that were complete and total hacks, getting me back to civilization with bailing wire and duct tape.
A hack is often performed under a time crunch, thus a large reason for the lack of documentation and/or the job being done properly. A lack of planning also seems to be a common element, but this is frequently due to the nature of completely unexplored territory -- hard to plan for what you don't know about.
Very frequently, large amounts of caffiene and/or nicotine are involved. I really don't think I need to expound on this one.
The job makes you incredibly proud of something that is often horribly ugly, and that the majority of other people view as something akin to magic (have no concept of how such job could possibly have been done or what was involved).
There is something intangible about a hack that will have a different meaning for everybody. But I do think that the most important element was hit upon in the article: CREATIVITY!!!
I am encouraged by this move. SGI put themselves much in my skepticism when they changed from "Silicon Graphics" and started developing NT stations, but have since had another change of leadership. I have been looking for clues that they were back on the right track. I don't know that this is one (a clue, that is), but it lines up with other movements that I like.
Specifically, the fact that Alias|Wavefront is putting out a Maya render engine for LINUX tells me that graphical tides are turning. An editor cannot be far behind. And I have been very happy with the Alias and SGI combinations I have worked on in the past. If the quality and robustness of graphical interface is there... 'twould be nice!
Nice quotes... I will have to check out that text.
I was not, however, under the impression that idic was neccessarily in support of Microsoft or saying that Smith would have been either. Maybe he(/she?) was, I don't know. I guess idic should answer that.
My point is that there are those of us out there that do NOT agree with the tactics that Microsoft employed to get where they are, and would like nothing more than to see Redmond collapse under it's own weight.
I also do not want to see the "White House" stick their hands further in that pie. I don't doubt that the real players are mucking around in it plenty already. Then again, maybe getting John Q. Public interested (and writing messages to each other!) is really what it's all supposed to be about.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know about Y-12, but the outfit that caters to the National Lab right down the street is Buddy's Bar-B-Que. :-)
how many people out there realize the amount of work that goes into not being able to notice any differences?
how many more do not give any appreciation to the bump in speed?
humph. Stuff looks good so far guys. Congrats on getting the job right this far.
While I agree with one or two of Mr. Sterling's thoughts about different potentials of the internet, I have my share of concerns as well. I see technology as our mirror. The internet is one of the most remarkable innovations today because of the reflection we see in it. As we learn to use that shiny medium in new and different ways, it will continue to reflect human nature -- good and bad.
So I see the call as needing to be much more to the core of each and every one of us, no matter the occupation or role we are playing in the world. The questions we should be asking ourselves come from within. And the answer does the same. We must come to terms with who we are and what we are doing.
The ecological timer of the earth is ticking. It's a shame we don't know how much time is on it. We need some answers to the inner questions or we will destroy ourselves.
Running around squalking and flailing your arms over your head are not going to do much. In my mind, that places you right next to all the "newsie" TV shows that annoy me beyond tolerance. Figure out a way to respond to this other than slamming your fist into the panic button, please.
That said, I agree that we (as a society) need to do some serious soul searching with regards to this particular direction that technology has taken. Unfortunately, I don't think that is going to happen. A quick glance at U.S. history will show that we are perfectly capable of using technology before we understand it's implications and consequences... Hiroshima and Nagasaki. As a human race, we managed to survive that one. I might be being far too optimistic, but I like to think that a few folks managed to learn a lesson then. I do not think we shall be so fortunate with the issue of creating life. This one will catch us before we get the chance to learn the lesson.
We shall be our own undoing.
Looking at the history of any frontier we have breached in the past yeilds some possibly interesting insight into what is one of the current hot topics: regulation of the internet.
I see a couple of things that are distinguishing the internet from other frontiers we (as the human race) have settled... the first and foremost being the very nature of the internet. It is still very much in the process of defining itself. Kinda hard to regulate what doesn't yet exist. It is also an intangible territory. You can't physically go to a place on the internet to arrest someone.
I think that at best, this ordeal with Australia is a horrible botch job by the government. But at the same time, I do not hold any illusions about any government's ability (or lack thereof) to regulate and/or censor the internet.
The frontier is as of yet untamed. The thing that is making this situation so attention getting is the amount of access the general populace has to an untamed frontier. Please don't get me wrong, I am not in favor of any type of regulation that I have seen or heard of yet. Not even close. But the reality is that it is coming, whether we want it or not.
We will always have outlaws, vigilantes, g-men, consumers, tourists, celebrities, etc... in any environment. And as the majority of the population moves in, they are going to want to feel secure as they are fascinated by this new media.
The fun has only just begun.
The fact that Bush may have a legitimate legal gripe is really missing the point. The ability to laugh at oneself, to respond to criticism (founded or not), and to allow others to speak their mind is apparently beyond his grasp.
Most often, the digs that really bother people are not the ones that are completely off base, but the ones that strike a little too close too home. Grow up, George.
Yes!!! This is exactly what comes to my mind when thinking of a hack -- creative problem solving in a dire situation. Especially when in unexplored territory and the tools at hand are grossly inadequate.
There are a few essential elements that make up a "hack" in my mind that seem to have either been glazed over or not given due importance in the definition presented.
A hack is performed in a situation where no tool currently exists for the job, and the custom tool winds up being built out of peices at hand (usually grossly inadequate) or completely from scratch. As much as I hate those kinds of shows, McGyver (sp?) would be a prime example of this. I can also think of numerous trail fixes while on a motorcycle or in a 4-wheel drive that were complete and total hacks, getting me back to civilization with bailing wire and duct tape.
A hack is often performed under a time crunch, thus a large reason for the lack of documentation and/or the job being done properly. A lack of planning also seems to be a common element, but this is frequently due to the nature of completely unexplored territory -- hard to plan for what you don't know about.
Very frequently, large amounts of caffiene and/or nicotine are involved. I really don't think I need to expound on this one.
The job makes you incredibly proud of something that is often horribly ugly, and that the majority of other people view as something akin to magic (have no concept of how such job could possibly have been done or what was involved).
There is something intangible about a hack that will have a different meaning for everybody. But I do think that the most important element was hit upon in the article: CREATIVITY!!!
Can't wait to see the list and the nominees.
I am encouraged by this move. SGI put themselves much in my skepticism when they changed from "Silicon Graphics" and started developing NT stations, but have since had another change of leadership. I have been looking for clues that they were back on the right track. I don't know that this is one (a clue, that is), but it lines up with other movements that I like.
Specifically, the fact that Alias|Wavefront is putting out a Maya render engine for LINUX tells me that graphical tides are turning. An editor cannot be far behind. And I have been very happy with the Alias and SGI combinations I have worked on in the past. If the quality and robustness of graphical interface is there... 'twould be nice!
Nice quotes... I will have to check out that text.
I was not, however, under the impression that idic was neccessarily in support of Microsoft or saying that Smith would have been either. Maybe he(/she?) was, I don't know. I guess idic should answer that.
My point is that there are those of us out there that do NOT agree with the tactics that Microsoft employed to get where they are, and would like nothing more than to see Redmond collapse under it's own weight.
I also do not want to see the "White House" stick their hands further in that pie. I don't doubt that the real players are mucking around in it plenty already. Then again, maybe getting John Q. Public interested (and writing messages to each other!) is really what it's all supposed to be about.