Only recently are we seeing the real dominace of Linux in ISPs, and that again is partly becuase of IBM and Sun (Cobalt, etc).
Sorry, but that's just ignorant. It's only recently (like the last 5 years) that Windows even existed in the ISP arena. The reason? Before that all Microsoft server platforms were a joke (anyone remember MS DNS from circa '95 when it wouldn't even interoperate with bind reliably?). And rebooting your server to install a new version of XXX doesn't fly too well when you have customers using the box (you can bite me if you think clustering is a good solution to that problem).
Unix has *always* dominated the ISP world, what's changed is the migration from Solaris to *BSD and Linux... Windows just picked up scraps from people that didn't know better, or had a vested interest in serving the Windows world.
I'm very involved in one of the many community wireless networks which are sprouting up around the world. We are basically trying to build a common property network infrastructure (ie. a network which is open to, and maintained by, the pubic).
It seems to me that our ideals fairly directly represent a lot of what you talk about. So my question is... are you aware of us, and if so what advice do you have for us on how we should shape our goals and seek resources to make this network endure?
you have a bogus presumption which is "all that matters about software is how easy it is to use". there are many things that make software worth using which don't directly relate to "ease of use".
for example ease of use for the beginner is often inversely proportional to ease of use for the power user (eg. a large part of ease of use for the beginner means keeping it simple).
then there are the philosophical issues, the primary one being freedom. there is *value* in having the ability to download the source code to your program and poke around it. there is value in knowning that even if you aren't a programmer you can find a friend or hire a college kid to help with problems you're having. there is value in knowing that the software you're using has been subjected to peer review and scrutiny.
as a regular user of pine i can say this. i love pine but it is lacking serveral features which would make it a lot better.
decent mime handling. so it can, for example, handle stuff like pgp/mime.
builtin hooks for pgp/gpg (follows previous problem). all the existing pgp/pine proggies are ugly and handle error conditions extremely badly.
DISCONNECTED MODE IMAP. uw wrote the damn standard pretty much and their mail client still doesn't support this, which basically makes pine useless as an imap client over anything less then ethernet speeds.:-( i don't want to use fetchmail because i want to leave my mail on the server, but without local caching it's so slow it's basically useless over wan links.
adam.
ps. i know mutt does all of this but disconnected mode imap, but i don't like mutts lack of editor integration and it's never going to be "fixed" because the mutt pundits consider it a "feature".
However, old apps need to work with new libraries. Here is a solution. Add a libc call called expect_version(). Your program calls it with the version it expects. The library will behave in a way compatible with that version.
remember that bloat that everyone gives windows, and commercial software in general, a hard time for? this is why it's bloated, because they always have to maintain backwards compatibility.
personally *i* like the fact that linux is a hacker os. i like that it's extended to those of us that aren't guru programmers, but i don't think it's bad that linux is dynamic and changing. that is what has allowed it to catch up with commercial offerings. if you want to force backwards compatibility then you are going to cause bloat and and the slow down of innovation.
imho this is where distributions like caldera have the chance to shine, and they are what vendors should be porting large commercial aps to. caldera provides businesses a more traditionally stable unix for vendors to port to and for business users to use.
don't force commercial standards on the linux developers, that is the job of the distributions that choose that path. now if only there was a distro like caldera that was based on debian...
you're right that "From: " indicates the sender of a message in the message headers. however that is totally different from what the poster is talking about.
what the poster was talking about is the message delimeter in mbox format mailboxes which is "\nFrom " (note the newline and the lack of a colon).
i have two main questions (i spoke to them at length at defcon and never got a satisfactory answers to these questions).
the mojo to dollar ratio is ratio is flexible and they expect it to decrease steadily over time as bandwidth and storage costs decrease. so what this means is that it's very dangerous to build up mojo equity because your stored mojo is going to constantly decrease in value. thus to get the most $$'s for your mojo you are forced to pull your mojo out of the system at regular intervals.
second because anyone can post anything, and you only get mojo for what people download directly from you, what is the incentive for people to post information into the network? since it's impossible to maintain control over the information once it's posted into the network why would anyone post it? at least offering something for free on a web site you get content hit logs, can offer advertising (maybe use it as a loss leader?) and have direct control over the data presentation. i have difficulty imagining why people will post information into the net unless it's illegal. i can see mojo nation being a great place to store child porn, mp3's etc... but why would people use it as a legitimate method of data distribution?
don't get me wrong, i think mojo nation is very very technically cool, i just don't understand what's gonna stop it turning into another irc/usenet where very little of actual value happens.
to answer some of you questions (as best i can from memory).
1. yes, data is redundant by default, your data is broken up into 8 pieces and any 4 is sufficient ot restore it.
3. i don't believe there are any. but they have fairly carefully designed their system to be self regulating. the idea is that they don't want to have any direct control over it for legal reasons.
6. yes, anyone can "sell" anything on the mojo nation network. they don't care and they can't stop you.
7. anything that you can make work on top of http will work now. they plan to add other transport mechanisms later, i don't know if multicast is one of them.
I've been using a dinky flat keyboard for six years, and have been training with Aikido for half that time, and believe me, the second half of those six years were the better. Though I'm not suggesting every geek join a dojo, I am suggesting that every geek with sore wrists go out and do something physically demanding which will strengthen them.
actually i have to second that. i stopped doing aikido about six months ago, and even though i'm typing less and being more careful with posture and general ergonomics, i have having more trouble with my wrists. in general i find that if i get a decent 1-2 hours exercise 2-3 times a week, i can type forever, on anything and not really have problems. aikido is the best form of exercise i've found for this though (and it's fun).
An excellent point, which has been made not enough times before. Nature clones all the time, there's nothing horrible about it.
nature makes carbon monoxide and cfc's as well, but it doesn't make enough of them to damage the ozone layer like we are seeing currently (a silly example hopefully you get the point). nature typically works as part of a system, and thus maintains some semblence of balance. humanity is under no such restriction.
Even genetic mutation and refinement in the same individual happens all the time...
right, but mutation and refinement are slow processes. humans have a tendency of making huge changes very quickly.
1000-year old redwoods have different genes today than when they started out, they just evolve all the time. I wouldn't mind this happening to me!
i would like to be genetically superiour as well. i'd like to have a kick ass immune system, superious stregth and stamina, a brilliant mind etc etc etc. i wouldn't say no for myself or my kids... i'm guessing that this might be part of the very problem we will find our selves facing.
Excellent point. We shouldn't allow this technology because of the potential for it to be abused. Just like books. We shouldn't have books, because evil dictators could ban the ones they don't like. Down with books!
i'm not opposing it, i'm speculating on the ramifications. there is a difference. i'm saying "here is a concievable situation that this new technology could help create. what could we do about it? is this something we even want to do something about?"
Come on, at least be realistic in your rebuttles...
my point was meant to be unrealistic. eg. to exagerate the point to where you can see there is something to think about. i guess i failed.
cloning is not an evil science, it is not even practical, we do need biodiversity and I think that in the end it will be achieved anyway. Different couples want different traits in their babies, boys, girls, different hair.
are you so sure of that? are you ready to bet your species future existence on it? don't get me wrong if i had to bet money on it, my money would go on "it's gonna be okay", but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't think about the other alternatives.
just like programming. if you can anticipate what stupid, unexpected and weird things someone is going to do to your program, you have a much better chance of your program dealing with it gracefully when it happens.
Doctors also understand the need for biodiversity and they will keep that in mind when developing cloning and DNA editing techniques.
just like the people the genitically produce grain seed (wheat, rice etc) for commercial farmers? just like the people that breed animals for farmers? just like the people that are strip mining our rain forests? the money that funds these things doesn't give a damn about anything but making more money. if people will pay for children that are all exactly the same, and "play well together", and we can make them... it will happen. regardless. the only solution to this is the education of the consumer and that is a slow process.
You don't get it... he would be born, but without the debilitating genetic desease he is afflicted with now.
of course i understand that, but you can't change someones genes without changing who they are. maybe his disease helped give him the motivation and determination to dedicate his life to this. i know that if i was stuck in a wheelchair i'd spend a lot less time drinking beer and chasing girls... and more time working on other things i love doing:-).
i'm not claiming anything. i'm just baffled by your (and others) unwillingness to think. idle speculation and bullshit about things like this over coffee/beer is fun. i think these are great questions to ask. none of us know the answers to them so why not chew the fat and try and come up with some reasonable ideas?
i think most people have overreacted to this article. i interpreted it mostly as "thinking out load" and hoping for people to think back.
And Katz speaks of this as if it were a BAD thing! Really, what could the interest of a politician, or of a whole bunch of congresscritters add to the debate except fuck it up?
maybe nothing, but we are talking about something which has the potential to change the very nature of humanity. maybe not soon, but that is the eventual goal. don't you think it's interesting that we are embarking on something this huge without more support from our leaders? the only other thing i can think of which humanity has attempted which is even on vaguely the same scale is sending people to the moon.
Er... genotype is an existing word. Look up its meaning in a dictionary (hint: you are using it incorrectly).
err... i'm hardly an expert but from the dictionary:
1.The genetic constitution of an organism or a group of organisms. 2.A group or class of organisms having the same genetic constitution.
this doesn't seem wildly off base, certainly his intended meaning is clear.
For a whole variety of reasons. I, for example, definitely don't want my kids to be cheerful and pliant consumer-drones. In my book being "strange" is good.
this i actually agree with, but i harbour no illusions that the majority of the world feels, or would act, this way. anything that makes people's lives easier will gain acceptance quickly enough. look at the statistics on how much time people spend in front of the tv every day.
think through all the people you know. how many of them have examined their beliefs and when you keep asking "why?" can explain themselves. hell how many of them have even tried to examine themselves and ask hard questions about why they do things the way they do. not many has been my experiece, it's hard work, there are no immediate gains and it takes a certain type of stubborness for it to be fun.
So, what's bad about human cloning? You've spent paragaphs hinting darkly about unspeakable horrors, but what are they? What is all that awful and horrible about human cloning? After all when it happens naturally and twins are born, nobody seems to be all that excited about it...
well right, when it happens naturally, but when it doesn't there are suddenly all these new possibilities. what if some wacko dictator says it's illegal for new babies have red hair? do you care? what about if they make having new male babies illegal? wouldn't this be considered a breach of human rights? what do you do about it? how can you stop it? do you want to stop it or do you just want to view it as another stage of evolution? we're already getting rid of biodiversity in nearly everything we touch... it doesn't seem beyond belief to me that given the ability to control our children we would, as a culture/species, remove our own bio-diversity to the point where our ability to surive some catastrophic event would be impaired. again, do we care? does this give us the right to stop people doing something which we think is harmfull to our species survival?
Well, I don't know about Katz but I would be perfectly comfortable living in the world where there are no disabled people. I would also like to ask -- is Katz comfortable living in the world where nobody is sick with bubonic plague? How could he stay in the US where it is so hard to find cholera sufferers? And, to think, for example, about the artificialness of prostheses -- why, in the good old days if you lost a leg, you just lived without a leg, not tried to put on these awful metal-and-plastic contraptions -- right, Katz?
again you miss the point. what about people like stephen hawking? with the control we're talking about he probably would never have been born. if we remove these bad things is there a hidden cost? no one doubts that the diseases are bad, and we all want to remove the suffering from people around us, but could there be a hidden cost?
i am reminded of an orson scott card book ("the worthing cronicles" i think it was) where the big lesson was "look back on your life, and remember all the things you are the most proud of. weren't they the times which were the hardest and most painfull, and isn't that why you are proud of them?" given that is true, who are we to steal someone elses suffering.
i wouldn't wish some nasty, genitically avoidable disease/malfunction on anyone. but don't these things enrich the world around us? do we really understand what we're doing?
You mean if everybody can't have it, nobody should have it? I thought that this was a basic idea of Russian communism in the 20s, but it kinda went out of fashion since then.
no, he means "wow, look, yet another way to seperate the 'haves' and the 'have-nots'". what could the implications of that be?
All in all, this is another content-free rant.
especially when you work as hard as you did to not actually think about anything he said.
and finally, in case there is any doubt, i am in favour of experimentation. i think it's great, and i don't think we can stop it, one way or another, someone will figure out how to do this stuff eventually, so we may as well plunge into it openly then force it underground.
but i do object to your labelling someones attempt to think about things as stupid and anti-progress.
Re:"Viridian Movement"? someone tell me more!
on
Ask Bruce Sterling
·
· Score: 1
it was from a speach he gave as part of the "new minds" series in san francisco. i was lucky enough to be in sf for apachecon in 1998 and got to see it. very cool.
Slashdot Mirror
Only recently are we seeing the real dominace of Linux in ISPs, and that again is partly becuase of IBM and Sun (Cobalt, etc).
... Windows just picked up scraps from people that didn't know better, or had a vested interest in serving the Windows world.
Sorry, but that's just ignorant. It's only recently (like the last 5 years) that Windows even existed in the ISP arena. The reason? Before that all Microsoft server platforms were a joke (anyone remember MS DNS from circa '95 when it wouldn't even interoperate with bind reliably?). And rebooting your server to install a new version of XXX doesn't fly too well when you have customers using the box (you can bite me if you think clustering is a good solution to that problem).
Unix has *always* dominated the ISP world, what's changed is the migration from Solaris to *BSD and Linux
Not true, NocatAuth doesn't care in the slightest what you are using for network connectivity. It just acts as a gateway between two or more networks.
Personal Telco has many NoCat nodes setup and only a couple of them are using a Linux Access Point.
Adam.
I'm very involved in one of the many community wireless networks which are sprouting up around the world. We are basically trying to build a common property network infrastructure (ie. a network which is open to, and maintained by, the pubic).
... are you aware of us, and if so what advice do you have for us on how we should shape our goals and seek resources to make this network endure?
It seems to me that our ideals fairly directly represent a lot of what you talk about. So my question is
you have a bogus presumption which is "all that matters about software is how easy it is to use". there are many things that make software worth using which don't directly relate to "ease of use".
for example ease of use for the beginner is often inversely proportional to ease of use for the power user (eg. a large part of ease of use for the beginner means keeping it simple).
then there are the philosophical issues, the primary one being freedom. there is *value* in having the ability to download the source code to your program and poke around it. there is value in knowning that even if you aren't a programmer you can find a friend or hire a college kid to help with problems you're having. there is value in knowing that the software you're using has been subjected to peer review and scrutiny.
- decent mime handling. so it can, for example, handle stuff like pgp/mime.
- builtin hooks for pgp/gpg (follows previous problem). all the existing pgp/pine proggies are ugly and handle error conditions extremely badly.
- DISCONNECTED MODE IMAP. uw wrote the damn standard pretty much and their mail client still doesn't support this, which basically makes pine useless as an imap client over anything less then ethernet speeds.
:-( i don't want to use fetchmail because i want to leave my mail on the server, but without local caching it's so slow it's basically useless over wan links.
adam.ps. i know mutt does all of this but disconnected mode imap, but i don't like mutts lack of editor integration and it's never going to be "fixed" because the mutt pundits consider it a "feature".
remember that bloat that everyone gives windows, and commercial software in general, a hard time for? this is why it's bloated, because they always have to maintain backwards compatibility.
personally *i* like the fact that linux is a hacker os. i like that it's extended to those of us that aren't guru programmers, but i don't think it's bad that linux is dynamic and changing. that is what has allowed it to catch up with commercial offerings. if you want to force backwards compatibility then you are going to cause bloat and and the slow down of innovation.
imho this is where distributions like caldera have the chance to shine, and they are what vendors should be porting large commercial aps to. caldera provides businesses a more traditionally stable unix for vendors to port to and for business users to use.
don't force commercial standards on the linux developers, that is the job of the distributions that choose that path. now if only there was a distro like caldera that was based on debian ...
you're right that "From: " indicates the sender of a message in the message headers. however that is totally different from what the poster is talking about.
what the poster was talking about is the message delimeter in mbox format mailboxes which is "\nFrom " (note the newline and the lack of a colon).
the mojo to dollar ratio is ratio is flexible and they expect it to decrease steadily over time as bandwidth and storage costs decrease. so what this means is that it's very dangerous to build up mojo equity because your stored mojo is going to constantly decrease in value. thus to get the most $$'s for your mojo you are forced to pull your mojo out of the system at regular intervals.
second because anyone can post anything, and you only get mojo for what people download directly from you, what is the incentive for people to post information into the network? since it's impossible to maintain control over the information once it's posted into the network why would anyone post it? at least offering something for free on a web site you get content hit logs, can offer advertising (maybe use it as a loss leader?) and have direct control over the data presentation. i have difficulty imagining why people will post information into the net unless it's illegal. i can see mojo nation being a great place to store child porn, mp3's etc ... but why would people use it as a legitimate method of data distribution?
don't get me wrong, i think mojo nation is very very technically cool, i just don't understand what's gonna stop it turning into another irc/usenet where very little of actual value happens.
to answer some of you questions (as best i can from memory).
1. yes, data is redundant by default, your data is broken up into 8 pieces and any 4 is sufficient ot restore it.
3. i don't believe there are any. but they have fairly carefully designed their system to be self regulating. the idea is that they don't want to have any direct control over it for legal reasons.
6. yes, anyone can "sell" anything on the mojo nation network. they don't care and they can't stop you.
7. anything that you can make work on top of http will work now. they plan to add other transport mechanisms later, i don't know if multicast is one of them.
--
moderate me up, i might be right.
actually i have to second that. i stopped doing aikido about six months ago, and even though i'm typing less and being more careful with posture and general ergonomics, i have having more trouble with my wrists. in general i find that if i get a decent 1-2 hours exercise 2-3 times a week, i can type forever, on anything and not really have problems. aikido is the best form of exercise i've found for this though (and it's fun).
An excellent point, which has been made not enough times before. Nature clones all the time, there's nothing horrible about it.
nature makes carbon monoxide and cfc's as well, but it doesn't make enough of them to damage the ozone layer like we are seeing currently (a silly example hopefully you get the point). nature typically works as part of a system, and thus maintains some semblence of balance. humanity is under no such restriction.
Even genetic mutation and refinement in the same individual happens all the time...
right, but mutation and refinement are slow processes. humans have a tendency of making huge changes very quickly.
1000-year old redwoods have different genes today than when they started out, they just evolve all the time. I wouldn't mind this happening to me!
i would like to be genetically superiour as well. i'd like to have a kick ass immune system, superious stregth and stamina, a brilliant mind etc etc etc. i wouldn't say no for myself or my kids ... i'm guessing that this might be part of the very problem we will find our selves facing.
Excellent point. We shouldn't allow this technology because of the potential for it to be abused. Just like books. We shouldn't have books, because evil dictators could ban the ones they don't like. Down with books!
i'm not opposing it, i'm speculating on the ramifications. there is a difference. i'm saying "here is a concievable situation that this new technology could help create. what could we do about it? is this something we even want to do something about?"
the keyword here is speculating.
Come on, at least be realistic in your rebuttles...
my point was meant to be unrealistic. eg. to exagerate the point to where you can see there is something to think about. i guess i failed.
cloning is not an evil science, it is not even practical, we do need biodiversity and I think that in the end it will be achieved anyway. Different couples want different traits in their babies, boys, girls, different hair.
are you so sure of that? are you ready to bet your species future existence on it? don't get me wrong if i had to bet money on it, my money would go on "it's gonna be okay", but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't think about the other alternatives.
just like programming. if you can anticipate what stupid, unexpected and weird things someone is going to do to your program, you have a much better chance of your program dealing with it gracefully when it happens.
Doctors also understand the need for biodiversity and they will keep that in mind when developing cloning and DNA editing techniques.
just like the people the genitically produce grain seed (wheat, rice etc) for commercial farmers? just like the people that breed animals for farmers? just like the people that are strip mining our rain forests? the money that funds these things doesn't give a damn about anything but making more money. if people will pay for children that are all exactly the same, and "play well together", and we can make them ... it will happen. regardless. the only solution to this is the education of the consumer and that is a slow process.
You don't get it... he would be born, but without the debilitating genetic desease he is afflicted with now.
of course i understand that, but you can't change someones genes without changing who they are. maybe his disease helped give him the motivation and determination to dedicate his life to this. i know that if i was stuck in a wheelchair i'd spend a lot less time drinking beer and chasing girls ... and more time working on other things i love doing :-).
i'm not claiming anything. i'm just baffled by your (and others) unwillingness to think. idle speculation and bullshit about things like this over coffee/beer is fun. i think these are great questions to ask. none of us know the answers to them so why not chew the fat and try and come up with some reasonable ideas?
And Katz speaks of this as if it were a BAD thing! Really, what could the interest of a politician, or of a whole bunch of congresscritters add to the debate except fuck it up?
maybe nothing, but we are talking about something which has the potential to change the very nature of humanity. maybe not soon, but that is the eventual goal. don't you think it's interesting that we are embarking on something this huge without more support from our leaders? the only other thing i can think of which humanity has attempted which is even on vaguely the same scale is sending people to the moon.
Er... genotype is an existing word. Look up its meaning in a dictionary (hint: you are using it incorrectly).
err... i'm hardly an expert but from the dictionary:
1.The genetic constitution of an organism or a group of organisms.
2.A group or class of organisms having the same genetic constitution.
this doesn't seem wildly off base, certainly his intended meaning is clear.
For a whole variety of reasons. I, for example, definitely don't want my kids to be cheerful and pliant consumer-drones. In my book being "strange" is good.
this i actually agree with, but i harbour no illusions that the majority of the world feels, or would act, this way. anything that makes people's lives easier will gain acceptance quickly enough. look at the statistics on how much time people spend in front of the tv every day.
think through all the people you know. how many of them have examined their beliefs and when you keep asking "why?" can explain themselves. hell how many of them have even tried to examine themselves and ask hard questions about why they do things the way they do. not many has been my experiece, it's hard work, there are no immediate gains and it takes a certain type of stubborness for it to be fun.
So, what's bad about human cloning? You've spent paragaphs hinting darkly about unspeakable horrors, but what are they? What is all that awful and horrible about human cloning? After all when it happens naturally and twins are born, nobody seems to be all that excited about it...
well right, when it happens naturally, but when it doesn't there are suddenly all these new possibilities. what if some wacko dictator says it's illegal for new babies have red hair? do you care? what about if they make having new male babies illegal? wouldn't this be considered a breach of human rights? what do you do about it? how can you stop it? do you want to stop it or do you just want to view it as another stage of evolution? we're already getting rid of biodiversity in nearly everything we touch ... it doesn't seem beyond belief to me that given the ability to control our children we would, as a culture/species, remove our own bio-diversity to the point where our ability to surive some catastrophic event would be impaired. again, do we care? does this give us the right to stop people doing something which we think is harmfull to our species survival?
Well, I don't know about Katz but I would be perfectly comfortable living in the world where there are no disabled people. I would also like to ask -- is Katz comfortable living in the world where nobody is sick with bubonic plague? How could he stay in the US where it is so hard to find cholera sufferers? And, to think, for example, about the artificialness of prostheses -- why, in the good old days if you lost a leg, you just lived without a leg, not tried to put on these awful metal-and-plastic contraptions -- right, Katz?
again you miss the point. what about people like stephen hawking? with the control we're talking about he probably would never have been born. if we remove these bad things is there a hidden cost? no one doubts that the diseases are bad, and we all want to remove the suffering from people around us, but could there be a hidden cost?
i am reminded of an orson scott card book ("the worthing cronicles" i think it was) where the big lesson was "look back on your life, and remember all the things you are the most proud of. weren't they the times which were the hardest and most painfull, and isn't that why you are proud of them?" given that is true, who are we to steal someone elses suffering.
i wouldn't wish some nasty, genitically avoidable disease/malfunction on anyone. but don't these things enrich the world around us? do we really understand what we're doing?
You mean if everybody can't have it, nobody should have it? I thought that this was a basic idea of Russian communism in the 20s, but it kinda went out of fashion since then.
no, he means "wow, look, yet another way to seperate the 'haves' and the 'have-nots'". what could the implications of that be?
All in all, this is another content-free rant.
especially when you work as hard as you did to not actually think about anything he said.
and finally, in case there is any doubt, i am in favour of experimentation. i think it's great, and i don't think we can stop it, one way or another, someone will figure out how to do this stuff eventually, so we may as well plunge into it openly then force it underground.
but i do object to your labelling someones attempt to think about things as stupid and anti-progress.
it was from a speach he gave as part of the "new minds" series in san francisco. i was lucky enough to be in sf for apachecon in 1998 and got to see it. very cool.
i put up the speach at:
http://www.spack.org/essays/viridian.html