From zero at rawbw.com Mon May 24 00:06:50 2004
From: zero at rawbw.com (0)
Date: Mon May 24 00:05:47 2004
Subject: [FoRK] lies, damn lies, statistics
Message-ID: <20040524000559.A79727@shell.rawbw.com>
http://www.crookedtimber.org/archives/001899.html
May 23, 2004
Sweating the small stuff
Posted by Ted
Last year, I fell off my bike, and had to have my arm in a sling for a
couple of days. I don?t care, even a little bit, that Bush had a spill.
It happens.
But if the White House is going to come out and blame the fall on ?what
the White House described as soil loosened by recent rainfall?? (Here?s
the quote: ?It?s been raining a lot. The topsoil was loose.?)
Well, I can check that. There hasn?t been any rain in Crawford all
week. The last day with more than an inch of precipitation was May 1.
Again, not a big deal, but why would they say that? And do you share my
suspicion that Caren Bohan, who wrote the Reuters report from Crawford,
knows perfectly well that there wasn?t any rain?
UPDATE: Kos has a similar post, with a different data set but the same
conclusion.
Posted on May 23, 2004 09:33 PM UTC
From eugen at leitl.org Mon May 24 08:13:54 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Mon May 24 08:12:52 2004
Subject: [FoRK] cashing out on other's innovation
Message-ID: <20040524151354.GX1105@leitl.org>
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/24/business/24print.html?ei=5062&en=c747ebd0b876e19c&ex=1085976000&partner=GOOGLE&pagewanted=print&position=
May 24, 2004
The Distributor vs. the Innovator
By STEVE LOHR
"The biggest mistake I've made,'' confesses Michael S. Dell, the 39-year-old
founder and chief executive of the fleet front-runner among personal computer
makers, "was not getting into printers sooner."
Lately, Dell Inc. has been making up for lost time. Since it started selling
Dell-branded printers a little over a year ago, shipments have risen at an
encouragingly rapid pace. Mr. Dell predicts "tremendous growth" for his
company's computer printer business over the next 5 to 10 years and vows to
change the economics of the industry. Tomorrow, Dell plans to announce that
it will begin selling printers for the corporate and home market that it
claims will reduce the cost of some printing jobs by 30 percent or more.
Such talk sets Carleton S. Fiorina, the 49-year-old chief executive of the
Hewlett-Packard Company, the powerhouse of the printing business, on edge.
She regards Dell's declared ambitions as an irritating blend of hubris and
hot air. Ms. Fiorina notes that her company's printers and cartridges,
especially the inkjet printheads - clusters of nozzles, each smaller than a
human hair, spurting out millions of superheated droplets a second - are the
result of two decades of sophisticated semiconductor and nanotechnology
research.
"Somebody doesn't just come along, particularly a company that is not an
innovator, and say, 'We're going to do it better,' " Ms. Fiorina said. "Dell
isn't doing anything. It's just distributing other people's products."
The confrontation between Hewlett-Packard and Dell is more than a
particularly lively bout of competition in the $106 billion-a-year printing
industry. It is a clash - and an intriguing test case - of two different
models of innovation and corporate strategy.
With its engineering roots and its corporate tagline "HP Invent,"
Hewlett-Packard is committed to spending heavily on research and then
funneling that home-grown technology into new products. Those products, in
turn, must be able to command profits high enough to keep financing the
corporate invention machine. Hewlett-Packard's printing business is a
showcase of success for internal innovation. Dell, by contrast, is pursuing a
"virtual" research-and-development model. It does some engineering
development work itself, but that typically amounts to tweaking an existing
product. Dell's main role is to scour the world for technology, fine-tune the
products of corporate partners, wring costs from the supply chain and sell
products directly to customers.
There is plenty of technology being developed by companies around the globe,
Dell executives insist, but the technology often lacks an efficient path to
the marketplace. And as it gets bigger and bigger, Dell is becoming the
Wal-Mart of high technology, a marketer so powerful it can set product
standards for its suppliers.
"This competition between Hewlett-Packard and Dell is a collision of two
rival models of innovation," said Henry Chesbrough, executive director of the
Center for Technology Strategy and Management at the Haas School of Business
at the University of California, Berkeley.
Today, Dell is an upstart in computer printing compared with Hewlett-Packard.
Dell sold an estimated 1.5 million printers in its first nine months in the
business last year. This year, analysts estimate that Dell will sell 4
million printers or more. Its revenues from printers and ink cartridges have
already blown past the $1 billion-a-year threshold, the fastest takeoff ever
for Dell in a new product category.
Yet the printing group at Hewlett-Packard reported nearly $23 billion in
revenue last year. It sold 43.6 million printers, more than double its
nearest rival, Epson, reports IDC, a research firm. The business is big and
immensely profitable: it accounted for about 30 percent of Hewlett-Packard's
sales last year, but 80 percent of its earnings.
The Dell strategy is obvious: build a printer business, attack
Hewlett-Packard's crown jewel and, thus, hobble its principal rival. And
Hewlett-Packard is trying to return the favor by cutting prices aggressively
on PC's with the goal of grabbing sales in the corporate PC market, which is
Dell's stronghold.
Hewlett-Packard invests $1 billion a year in research and development for its
printer division, and that spending is on display at its laboratory in San
Diego. Jars and canisters of experimental ink rest alongside the
chromatographs, the scanning tunnel microscopes and the thermotron
environmental chambers. Anything that is not patented - Hewlett-Packard's
printing group holds 9,000 - is protected by trade secrets.
Every day, physicists, chemists and fluid-mechanics engineers puzzle over
ways to make the symphony of nanoscale ink explosions more efficient and
precise. They speak of co-solvents, surfactants, polymers, humectants,
friction coefficients and tailhooking (when the trailing tail of a misfired
droplet splats wildly).
The hundreds of nozzles crammed onto the slender silicon face of the
printhead march to the nanosecond beat of an integrated circuit inside the
cartridge. Yet the hardware of the cartridge is only half the story. The
"software" of this technology is the ink. Hewlett-Packard has more than 100
different ink formulations on the market. Three years or more of research,
development and testing go into each ink variety.
Since its commercial introduction two decades ago, the inkjet printer has
improved at a pace equal to Moore's Law in semiconductors - its performance
doubling every 18 months. Hewlett-Packard printheads, with up to 500 nozzles,
put ink on paper at the rate of 18 million droplets a second, and its labs
are on track to reach 1 billion tiny drops a second before 2010. Many other
companies, including Canon, Epson and Lexmark (Dell's partner and main
supplier), make inkjet printers today, but Hewlett-Packard, the early
pioneer, is still the technology leader, most analysts agree.
Digital photography is a challenge for inkjet printing, but also a showcase
for superior technology. And printing digital photos looms as a huge growth
opportunity for the printer industry, with as many as 50 billion digital
photos taken last year, a number that is projected to increase steadily over
the next several years. A small fraction of digital photos are printed, but
Hewlett holds 50 percent of the market for those printed at home.
The really good news for the printer industry, though, is that a digital
photo is an ink-eating glutton. And the ink is where the money is in printing
- a classic razor and razor blade business. The manufacturers lose money on
the standard home printer, but make hefty profits on all the replacement
ink cartridges people buy.
"Digital photo printing is a trend that H-P is leading, and it is our single
biggest growth opportunity," said Vyomesh Joshi, the executive vice president
in charge of Hewlett-Packard's imaging and printing group.
Mr. Joshi sees promising growth opportunities in other markets besides
digital photos. These include color laser printers, as businesses
increasingly want color for presentations and marketing materials, and fast
multipurpose machines for corporations that combine printing, copying and
scanning, which cost up to $45,000 each.
"I want to add $2 billion every year in revenues," he said.
So far, so good. Hewlett-Packard's printer group indeed added $2 billion in
revenues last year and shows no signs of faltering this year. It is too early
to tell for sure, analysts say, but Dell's initial success in the printer
business seems to have come at the expense of others rather than Hewlett.
Dell, according to Mr. Joshi, can sell several million printers, exploiting
its strength in the PC business, and still not pose a fundamental challenge
to Hewlett-Packard and its profitability. The reason is simple, he said: "We
own the core technology."
A central issue for Dell in printing is how easily it can get its hands on
technology that is comparable or nearly comparable to Hewlett-Packard's. Dell
says there is plenty of powerful printing technology out there, and that its
goal is to work with suppliers and use its efficient distribution system to
lower the cost of printer cartridges.
Over time, Dell contends it can drive down the cost of printing by 25 percent
to 35 percent a page. Shave a third off the cost of a standard color inkjet
cartridge for a home printer, now typically $29.95, and the price tag would
fall to $19.95.
Its lack of a large internal research program, Dell says, is actually an
advantage. "Your reach can be extended enormously if you reach beyond your
own backyard," said Tim Peters, vice president and general manager of Dell's
imaging and printing business. Dell's first partner was Lexmark, the
third-largest maker of inkjet printers after Hewlett-Packard and Epson.
Earlier this year, Dell announced three more partners: Samsung, Fuji Xerox
and Kodak. Analysts say Samsung and Fuji Xerox are strong in office laser
printers, while Kodak has some intriguing digital photo printing technology.
Hewlett-Packard is in theory most vulnerable in laser printers, the workhorse
of office printing, because it relies on an outside technology provider.
Canon supplies the mechanical engine for Hewlett-Packard laser printers and
the toner cartridges.
The technology inside a laser printer - durable, high-speed machines
typically used in offices - is very different from that of inkjet printing.
In laser printing, a tiny laser, making 3,000 rotations a second, zaps
electrical charges on a photo-conducting roller. The toner - finely crushed
bits of plastic; five equal the width of a human hair - is then picked up by
the charged portions of the roller and deposited on a sheet of paper.
Finally, a second, heated roller irons the toner onto the paper.
Hewlett-Packard designs the microprocessor that controls the laser's minute,
manic dance, and it also develops software and handles testing and industrial
design for its laser printers. Laser machines and cartridges represent about
a third of the profits from the company's printing business, analysts
estimate.
There is also the rising challenge of the remanufacturers, who collect used
printer cartridges that they then clean, refurbish and refill. The
remanufacturers sell cartridges for roughly 25 percent less than new ones
from Hewlett-Packard. The quality of remanufactured cartridges, analysts say,
has improved in recent years.
Four years ago a trade association, the International Imaging Technology
Council, was established to develop standards for the remanufacturers. The
refurbishers now account for nearly 30 percent of the laser toner cartridge
market.
Dell has turned heads with the brisk sales of its printers - rebranded
Lexmark machines with a few clever features, like the equivalent of an
ink-cartridge gas gauge that alerts the user when ink is running low and
links to the Dell Web site for reordering.
But it has not yet changed the economics of the printing business. In fact,
according to Jim Forrester, managing editor of The Hard Copy Supplies
Journal, Hewlett-Packard's cost per page is less than Dell's.
Things are just beginning, Mr. Dell replies. "Stay tuned; there's a lot we
can and will do," he said. A better business model, he explains, will beat a
better technology, and he insists the odds are on his side in the printing
business over the long run.
"The days of engineering-led technology companies are coming to an end," Mr.
Dell declared.
For her part, Ms. Fiorina will take that bet. "We're the biggest,'' she said.
"We're the best, and we're getting better in a growing market."
--
Eugen* Leitl leitl
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lair.xent.com/pipermail/fork/attachments/20040524/855a641b/attachment.pgp
From jm at jmason.org Mon May 24 09:38:57 2004
From: jm at jmason.org (Justin Mason)
Date: Mon May 24 09:38:16 2004
Subject: [FoRK] Punk'd!
In-Reply-To: <40AF697C.80805@permafrost.net>
Message-ID: <20040524163858.6A8FA6E82E8@radish.jmason.org>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Owen Byrne writes:
> It seems a reasonable conclusion that the entire Iraq war could be
> described as "effectively an Iranian intelligence operation"
> Owen
All I can say is -- holy shit. That really does make sense...
- --j.
> http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-uschal0522,0,7406020,print.story?coll=ny-top-span-headlines
>
> Agency: Chalabi group was front for Iran
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> WASHINGTON BUREAU
>
> May 21, 2004, 7:29 PM EDT
>
> WASHINGTON -- The Defense Intelligence Agency has concluded that a
> U.S.-funded arm of Ahmed Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress has been used
> for years by Iranian intelligence to pass disinformation to the United
> States and to collect highly sensitive American secrets, according to
> intelligence sources.
>
> "Iranian intelligence has been manipulating the United States through
> Chalabi by furnishing through his Information Collection Program
> information to provoke the United States into getting rid of Saddam
> Hussein," said an intelligence source Friday who was briefed on the
> Defense Intelligence Agency's conclusions, which were based on a review
> of thousands of internal documents.
>
> The Information Collection Program also "kept the Iranians informed
> about what we were doing" by passing classified U.S. documents and other
> sensitive information, he said. The program has received millions of
> dollars from the U.S. government over several years.
>
> An administration official confirmed that "highly classified information
> had been provided [to the Iranians] through that channel."
>
> The Defense Department this week halted payment of $340,000 a month to
> Chalabi's program. Chalabi had long been the favorite of the Pentagon's
> civilian leadership. Intelligence sources say Chalabi himself has passed
> on sensitive U.S. intelligence to the Iranians.
>
> Patrick Lang, former director of the intelligence agency's Middle East
> branch, said he had been told by colleagues in the intelligence
> community that Chalabi's U.S.-funded program to provide information
> about weapons of mass destruction and insurgents was effectively an
> Iranian intelligence operation. "They [the Iranians] knew exactly what
> we were up to," he said.
>
> He described it as "one of the most sophisticated and successful
> intelligence operations in history."
>
> "I'm a spook. I appreciate good work. This was good work," he said.
>
> An intelligence agency spokesman would not discuss questions about his
> agency's internal conclusions about the alleged Iranian operation. But
> he said some of its information had been helpful to the U.S. "Some of
> the information was great, especially as it pertained to arresting high
> value targets and on force protection issues," he said. "And some of the
> information wasn't so great."
>
> At the center of the alleged Iranian intelligence operation, according
> to administration officials and intelligence sources, is Aras Karim
> Habib, a 47-year-old Shia Kurd who was named in an arrest warrant issued
> during a raid on Chalabi's home and offices in Baghdad Thursday. He
> eluded arrest.
>
> Karim, who sometimes goes by the last name of Habib, is in charge of the
> information collection program.
>
> The intelligence source briefed on the Defense Intelligence Agency's
> conclusions said that Karim's "fingerprints are all over it."
>
> "There was an ongoing intelligence relationship between Karim and the
> Iranian Intelligence Ministry, all funded by the U.S. government,
> inadvertently," he said.
>
> The Iraqi National Congress has received about $40 million in U.S. funds
> over the past four years, including $33 million from the State
> Department and $6 million from the Defense Intelligence Agency.
>
> In Baghdad after the war, Karim's operation was run out of the fourth
> floor of a secure intelligence headquarters building, while the
> intelligence agency was on the floor above, according to an Iraqi source
> who knows Karim well.
>
> The links between the INC and U.S. intelligence go back to at least
> 1992, when Karim was picked by Chalabi to run his security and military
> operations.
>
> Indications that Iran, which fought a bloody war against Iraq during the
> 1980s, was trying to lure the U.S. into action against Saddam Hussein
> appeared many years before the Bush administration decided in 2001 that
> ousting Hussein was a national priority.
>
> In 1995, for instance, Khidhir Hamza, who had once worked in Iraq's
> nuclear program and whose claims that Iraq had continued a massive bomb
> program in the 1990s are now largely discredited, gave UN nuclear
> inspectors what appeared to be explosive documents about Iraq's program.
> Hamza, who fled Iraq in 1994, teamed up with Chalabi after his escape.
>
> The documents, which referred to results of experiments on enriched
> uranium in the bomb's core, were almost flawless, according to Andrew
> Cockburn's recent account of the event in the political newsletter
> CounterPunch.
>
> But the inspectors were troubled by one minor matter: Some of the
> techinical descriptions used terms that would only be used by an
> Iranian. They determined that the original copy had been written in
> Farsi by an Iranian scientist and then translated into Arabic.
>
> And the International Atomic Energy Agency concluded the documents were
> fraudulent.
>
> Copyright © 2004, Newsday, Inc.
>
> _______________________________________________
> FoRK mailing list
> http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh CVS
iD8DBQFAsiUhQTcbUG5Y7woRAm4YAJ42Uh9mUmHkNfG5E2lpJt1+e8rQqgCfRSXH
M+wTnG5vhIsd9Op7Jo3xIbw=
=dsEk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
From joe at barrera.org Mon May 24 09:43:08 2004
From: joe at barrera.org (Joseph S. Barrera III)
Date: Mon May 24 09:42:15 2004
Subject: [FoRK] Punk'd!
In-Reply-To: <40AF697C.80805@permafrost.net>
References: <40AF697C.80805@permafrost.net>
Message-ID: <40B2261C.9080900@barrera.org>
Owen Byrne wrote:
> It seems a reasonable conclusion that the entire Iraq war could be
> described as "effectively an Iranian intelligence operation"
Well now we know who won the Iran-Iraq war...
- Joe
From gbolcer at endeavors.com Mon May 24 11:17:50 2004
From: gbolcer at endeavors.com (Gregory Alan Bolcer)
Date: Mon May 24 11:18:48 2004
Subject: [FoRK] Punk'd!
In-Reply-To: <40B2261C.9080900@barrera.org>
References: <40AF697C.80805@permafrost.net> <40B2261C.9080900@barrera.org>
Message-ID: <40B23C4E.5010809@endeavors.com>
CIA estimates of 1 million dead, 2 million wounded, 100,000
imprisoned, 2.5 million refugees, a trillion dollars of damage
to both countries economies, and a whole generation on both
sides decimated.
Now I know why middle east coffee is so bitter and rancid,
there ain't enough cream and sugar to make it taste
so sweet.
Greg
Joseph S. Barrera III wrote:
>
> Well now we know who won the Iran-Iraq war...
>
> - Joe
>
> _______________________________________________
> FoRK mailing list
> http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork
>
--
Gregory Alan Bolcer, CTO | work: +1.949.833.2800
gbolcer at endeavors.com | http://endeavors.com
Endeavors Technology, Inc.| cell: +1.714.928.5476
From jbone at place.org Mon May 24 16:44:30 2004
From: jbone at place.org (Contempt for Meatheads)
Date: Mon May 24 16:43:24 2004
Subject: [FoRK] Christian Reconstructionism - The Foundation of Modern
Conservativism (Politics)
Message-ID: <4D59D398-ADDC-11D8-9B7A-000A95CFE9DE@place.org>
Via k5. NB: it kind of aggravates me when people use words like
"conservativism" because, of course, they're basically meaningless.
There are multiple dimensions and qualia involved; nonetheless I think
this captures a certain aspect of the "conservativism" we're seeing
today.
--
Christian Reconstructionism - The Foundation of Modern Conservativism
(Politics)
By revscat
Sat May 22nd, 2004 at 03:47:58 PM EST
Culture
"He presses the crown rights of the Lord Jesus Christ in every sphere,
expecting eventual triumph."
Christian Reconstructionism is a little heard of religious philosophy
that preaches that every aspect of society must come under biblical
law. In their view, secular governments are in opposition to the word
of God, and therefore they seek to eliminate all legal barriers between
church and state. Founded in 1973 by R.J. Rushdoony, it has had wide
influence in the modern Republican party. The overriding goal of
Reconstructionism is the absolute control of the reigns of government
so that the world may be properly prepared for Jesus's return, and that
achieving this goal will demonstrate the fulfillment of God's will.
(Link)
There are five principles of Christian Reconstructionism, summarized
here:
First, Reconstructionists believe that God should be at the center of
every activity, not just spiritual ones. Faith should be applied to
art, education, and politics "no less than to church, prayer,
evangelism, and Bible study."
Second, Reconstructionists are theonomists (theonomy: "God's Law"),
meaning that laws are only righteous and just when they follow what the
Bible -- primarily the Old Testament -- says. Law should serve three
purposes: 1) To make other people Christian, 2) To provide a standard
set of rules for all Christians, and 3) to maintain civil order. This
has several frightening implications. Reconstructionists believe that
non-Christian religions will be suppressed, that women will have their
political rights stripped away, and that a return to slavery would be
fulfilling God's will.
Third, Reconstructionists do not try and rationally come to a
conclusion about whether the Bible is true or not. They believe in its
infallibility regardless of evidence or reason. The Bible, being (they
believe) the word of God, is above questioning. Similar to
fundamentalist Muslims who believe the only book of any import is the
Koran, Reconstructionists believe the Bible is the ultimate arbiter in
all disputes, minor or major.
Fourth, Reconstructionists believe in the imminent return of Christ and
a kingdom in his name will be established. The Left Behind series of
books by Daniel LaHaye are a good summation of this belief. This ties
into their literal interpretation and absolute belief in the Bible:
some interpretations of the book of Revelation in the Bible purport to
predict such a future. Due to their belief that the world must first be
prepared for Jesus's return, they zealously pursue their political
goals.
Finally, Reconstructionists are Dominionists. In the context of modern
America, this means "[t]hat every area dominated by sin must be
'reconstructed' in terms of the Bible. This includes, first, the
individual; second, the family; third, the church; and fourth, the
wider society, including the state. The Christian Reconstructionist
therefore believes fervently in Christian civilization" (Link).This
belief has its origins in Genesis 1:6: "Let [humankind] have dominion
over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the
cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every
creeping thing that creeps upon the earth." The overriding goal of
dominionism is the absolute control of the government and environment,
and that achieving this goal is the fulfillment of God's will.
Political Conflicts Explained
Much of the modern conservative agenda ties in closely with
Reconstructionist beliefs, and are frequently in lock-step with them.
Some examples:
Welfare - Reconstructionists believe that the state has undermined the
church by many of its duties, specifically aid to the poor, indigent,
and those unable to provide for themselves. Tom Albrecht, an avowed
Reconstructionist, summarized this belief in a Usenet posting as
follows:
The purpose of the state, on the other hand, is to be a minister of
justice (Rom 13:1ff). It alone is given the sword of power to inflict
vengeance on those who would violate the law of God as expressed in the
laws of the state.
In our society the state has, to a large extent, usurped the
"gracious" role of the church by involving itself in areas that are the
exclusive domain of the church or family; ministries to the poor and
needy, education of children, etc. This is a form of paganism in which
the state becomes god to many people under its ever expanding sphere of
influence.
Environmentalism - Obviously if you believe that a divine entity has
given the Earth to you for you to use as you will, you will be angered
at those who seek to stand in your way. Further, environmentalists have
a view of the future that conflicts deeply with the apocalyptic visions
of Reconstructionists, leaving (they believe) no room for Jesus, the
kingdom, and so forth. Taken together, it is easy to see why
Reconstructionists hold a special animosity towards environmentalists.
Civil Liberties - Liberty and freedom are not terms that appear very
frequently in Reconstructionist writings, since so much of
Reconstructionism is in direct opposition to the principles of freedom.
Death Penalty - Since the Hebrew scriptures have many offenses whose
punishment is death, Reconstructionists are staunch supporters of the
death penalty. They feel the death should also be given to adulterers,
blasphemers, heretics, homosexuals, prostitutes, witches, abortionists,
idolaters, etc., as proscribed by the Old Testament.
Slavery - There is debate among Reconstructionists about whether or not
slavery should be reinstituted, but the fact that the debate even
exists is telling in and of itself. Women in particular would have
their status reduced to that of a slave.
Evolution - Since evolution flatly contradicts a strict interpretation
of the creationist story told in Genesis, they are in deep opposition
to it.
Income Taxes - For Reconstructionists, income taxes are antithetical to
Old Testament teachings, and are therefore to be eliminated. Further,
lowering the income received by the government will hasten a crisis
which, they believe, will allow them an opportunity to replace much of
the existent federal government with a more theocratic state.
Moderate Republicans - More traditional Republicans have a view of the
state much different from their Reconstructionist counterparts, and are
therefore sidelined by much of the Republican elite.
Israel - The nation of Israel ties heavily into Reconstructionist
thinking, being the place they believe Jesus will first physically
appear after his return. Further, since they believe that the Jews are
ultimately doomed, they give little thought to the humanitarian
violations visited upon the Palestinians by the Israeli government.
Their only concern insofar as Israel is concerned is to make sure it
continues to exist as a state until the Rapture comes.
Iraq - Iraq (Babylon) also plays a large role in their eschatology,
supposedly destined to become a neutral player in world affairs, and a
focal point of the events that occur during the end-times (Link). They
are therefore staunch supporters of the war in Iraq, and are
hypothesized to have been influential on Pres. Bush in his decision to
go to war.
Conclusion
Reconstructionists would be of less concern if it were not so widely
influential in American political circles. Rep. Tom DeLay, Rep. Joseph
R. Pitts, Rep. Ron Young, Sen. Sam Brownback, and others are all
supporters of the Reconstructionist agenda. Pres. Bush's policies are
more often than not in total synchrony with Reconstructionist desires,
and he has been energetically embraced by them. Most of the current
administration's policies can be tied together under a common thread
when looked at as an execution of Reconstructionist thought, and this
is truly frightening for Americans of all religious traditions.
Reconstructionism is an abhorrent religious philosophy to those who
value liberty, justice untainted by religious fervor, and a secular
democratic form of government. Reconstructionism is based upon a
twisted interpretation of the Bible, and gives little thought to
putting the words of Jesus into action. It varies very little in its
goals and practices from the brand of Islamic fundamentalism forced
upon the people of Afghanistan by the Taliban -- a totalitarian
religious order, doling out justice according to their twisted
interpretations of a religious text, and forcing the people to believe
as they do or suffer violent consequences. They give no thought to the
lessons learned by humanity throughout its bloody history, believing
that all lessons were codified thousands of years ago when the Old
Testament was penned, and that nothing new has been learned since.
Further, it preaches that the highest morality is to spread the word of
God, and that whatever means are used to get to that end are fully
justified.
Further reading:
Christian Reconstructionism - A general description and history
Fanatics of the far right - Older article describing the interplay
between high government officials and various Reconstructionist groups
Christian Reconstruction - Copy of a post made to soc.religion.christian
Christian Reconstructionism, Dominion Theology, And Theonomy
Operation Potomac - How Reconstructionists are taking advantage of the
current trend towards "faith based" charities
Full discussion: http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/5/21/13392/6893
--
Links:
http://www.kuro5hin.org
http://www.au.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5628&abbr=cs_
http://www.dabney.com/charles/Sandlin-CR.html
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0842329129/
qid=1085160242/sr=8-2/ref=pd_ka_2/102-0760528-4244959?
v=glance&s=books&n=507846
http://www.dabney.com/charles/Sandlin-CR.html
http://www.cs.rutgers.edu/pub/soc.religion.christian/others/
reconstruction
http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/11/192003f.asp
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0807077143/
qid%3D1067622069/sr%3D8-1/102-0760528-4244959
http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/ChRecon.html
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/1999/08/04/taxpayers/print.html
http://www.religioustolerance.org/reconstr.htm
http://www.au.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5628&abbr=cs_
From owen at permafrost.net Mon May 24 19:07:40 2004
From: owen at permafrost.net (Owen Byrne)
Date: Mon May 24 19:06:28 2004
Subject: [FoRK] Dog for Rent
Message-ID: <40B2AA6C.7010008@permafrost.net>
As in my dog for your rent. $1800 a month!
Owen
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> May 25, 2004
>
>
> Rooming With the Big Dogs
>
> *By ANDREA ELLIOTT*
>
> People talk to Ego Le Bow. He has the qualities of any good therapist
> - he is calm, seems to listen and is not easily fazed. He is also a
> hulking white dog who at times resembles a polar bear. "They whisper
> in his ear, tell him their dreams," said Dr. Michelle Le Bow, a
> psychologist on the Upper West Side who began involving Ego in her
> sessions with patients eight years ago.
>
> The story of how Ego became a quasi-psychotherapist is as layered and
> quirky as any New York tale, but has its roots in this basic fact: It
> takes creativity to integrate a giant-breed dog into one's life in the
> city. Ego, a Great Pyrenees, hails from a long line of ancestors bred
> to guard sheep in the mountains. He needs to go on four ambling walks
> every day, so Dr. Le Bow started taking him to work, five blocks south
> of the apartment they share. "He gets two extra walks a day that way,"
> she said.
>
> In a city defined by small spaces - cabs, elevators, cramped
> apartments and crowded sidewalks - it is often cause for bewilderment
> that New Yorkers would willingly choose to live with Great Danes,
> Newfoundlands, St. Bernards and Irish wolfhounds. Everything is
> outsize: the hair, the smell, the pull of a passing squirrel, the
> grooming bills, the food intake and its inevitable digestive exit,
> which can summon spectators like some kind of street show.
>
> To enter a dog run is to induce a panic of King Kong proportions.
> Hailing a cab to the vet is an exercise in rejection.
>
> Perhaps the greatest irritant of all are the comments from strangers.
> "If I hear 'Scooby Doo!', 'Marmaduke!' or 'It's a horse not a dog' one
> more time I will jump out of my skin," said Jaime Stankevicius, an
> opera singer who shares a Chelsea studio with his Great Dane, Avalon.
> "If you're really in a hurry, you have to put a hat on, keep your head
> down and walk fast, because otherwise it takes four hours to walk
> around the block."
>
> But, like so many other big-dog owners, Mr. Stankevicius is
> religiously attached to his choice of pet. A smaller dog would "feel
> like a purse," he said. Avalon stands 6 feet 3 inches tall on his hind
> legs and weighs 140 pounds. His nails are trimmed with a Dremel rotary
> power tool. He consumes $30 to $50 worth of food a week. The dog's
> largeness lends him a certain humanity, a soothing thing in a lonely city.
>
> "We're just like roommates," said Mr. Stankevicius, 38.
>
> They do everything together, including sleep in the same four-poster
> bed. There is no other bed suitable in size. For the same reason, two
> Irish wolfhounds in Mott Haven, the Bronx, share a twin mattress. An
> English mastiff on the Upper East Side sleeps on an eight-foot-long couch.
>
> "You can't play that, 'I'm the alpha, I'm the one in charge here,' "
> said Ralina Cardona, 34, the owner of the two Irish wolfhounds. "It
> has to be a coexistence when it's a big dog."
>
> In a city ruled by big personalities, big dogs fare well. Avalon's
> daily trek through Chelsea is like a celebrity tour. It begins at the
> Midtown Lumber Mart on West 25th Street, where he stands on his hind
> legs and lifts his paws onto the counter. The store manager hands him
> a block of pine, which he chews with relish. Customers stare in disbelief.
>
> "Does this guy live in a New York apartment?" asks one customer, Evan
> Alboum, with raised eyebrows. Outside, a woman approaches. "Is this
> Avalon?" she asks before he trots regally to his next spot, a toy
> store on Eighth Avenue where again he stands up to the counter and
> accepts a biscuit as if collecting a payment. The same thing happens
> in restaurants and liquor stores. They all know Avalon.
>
> "It's indecent," said Mr. Stankevicius. "Every day is Halloween for him."
>
> There are certain psyches that take hold with owning a large dog.
> There is the "only a big dog is a real dog" attitude, which owners of
> smaller dogs abhor. There's the vicarious love of big-dog attention.
> "I once counted 40 inquiries in an hour, but that's when the tourists
> are here," said Arnold Lebow, Ego's other owner.
>
> There is big-dog-owner narcissism: the notion that even if these dogs
> had acres of rolling hills or a sprawling home, they would always stay
> near their owners. "I could have 10,000 square feet, and it wouldn't
> matter," Mr. Stankevicius said. (It is true that many large dogs need
> less exercise than smaller dogs.) And then there is the "I will
> sacrifice anything for this dog" fanaticism that is almost universal
> to New York pet owners, but often comes with a greater price when the
> dog is big.
>
> Take Barry and Brutus.
>
> Barry Kellman is 35 years old and going through a divorce. Brutus is 5
> years old and has already gone through his own divorce of sorts.
>
> "When my wife got pregnant, she threw Brutus out," said Mr. Kellman,
> who lives on the Upper East Side and owns a medical management company.
>
> Brutus is an English mastiff whom Mr. Kellman bought over the phone
> when the dog was not yet a month old. He arrived from Philadelphia the
> following week and immediately started getting bigger. He now weighs
> 160 pounds.
>
> "When my wife met him, she loved him. Then, once she moved in - look,
> he's an animal," said Mr. Kellman. "He's a slob."
>
> "Beyond a slob," said the wife, Shane Markus-Kellman, 30, in a
> telephone interview. Brutus, she said, was too much to bear in a
> 740-square-foot apartment with a baby on the way. "The baby's whole
> head could fit into his mouth."
>
> Mr. Kellman would not give Brutus up, so the dog went to live at
> Biscuits & Bath Doggy Gym, which offers overnight boarding a few
> blocks away from Mr. Kellman's Murray Hill office. On visits, he
> sneaked Brutus his favorite treats: steak and beer.
>
> "We used to keep Brutus behind the front desk with us just to see
> people's reactions to this big head," said Meyghan Hill, 25, a
> receptionist.
>
> But nothing compared to living with his owner, and Brutus lost weight.
>
> "I think he sensed all along that he was traded in for a baby," said
> Mr. Kellman, who has photos of both his baby boy and Brutus on his
> cellphone.
>
> After three months, at $55 a night, the boarding bills piled up. So
> Mr. Kellman did the next logical thing (in his mind): he rented a
> one-bedroom apartment for Brutus last July and found him a roommate.
> In exchange for living with Brutus, Mr. Kellman agreed to pay the rent
> in full - $1,800.
>
> To meet Brutus is to appreciate the challenge of living with him. He
> slurps water from his bowl like a horse at a trough. He urinates with
> considerable force and stamina. "This goes for about 15 minutes," said
> Paul D'Amato, the doorman of his building. "He's a tank."
>
> Brutus also drools constantly: when he walks, saliva swings like a
> pendulum. When he shakes his head, it flies onto the walls, the front
> door, Mr. Kellman's clothes (the dry cleaning bill is about $400 a
> month), and in places not to be believed.
>
> "Every now and then you'll see something hanging from the ceiling,"
> said Mr. Kellman. He once found it in his shoes. But Brutus's charm is
> undeniable. His trusting eyes and massive head bring to mind E.T., the
> extra-terrestrial.
>
> Mr. Kellman's marriage ended last fall - not because of Brutus, he
> said - and Mr. Kellman was also suddenly out of a home. He is now
> sleeping on a couch in Brutus's apartment while they look for a bigger
> place.
>
> "I'm a slob anyway," said Mr. Kellman. "We've got the band back together."
>
>
> Copyright 2004
> The New
> York Times Company | Home
> | Privacy Policy
> | Search
> | Corrections
> | Help
> | Back to Top
>
>
>
From udhay at pobox.com Mon May 24 19:44:35 2004
From: udhay at pobox.com (Udhay Shankar N)
Date: Mon May 24 19:54:09 2004
Subject: [FoRK] Punk'd!
In-Reply-To: <40B23C4E.5010809@endeavors.com>
References: <40AF697C.80805@permafrost.net> <40B2261C.9080900@barrera.org>
<40B23C4E.5010809@endeavors.com>
Message-ID: <6.0.1.1.2.20040525081217.0272e8e0@frodo.hserus.net>
At 11:47 PM 5/24/2004, Gregory Alan Bolcer wrote:
>CIA estimates of 1 million dead, 2 million wounded, 100,000
>imprisoned, 2.5 million refugees, a trillion dollars of damage
>to both countries economies, and a whole generation on both
>sides decimated.
To live between a rock and a hard place
In between time --
Cruising in prime time -- soaking up the cathode rays
To live between the wars in our time --
Living in real time --
Holding the good time -- Holding on to yesterdays...
You know how that rabbit feels
Going under your speeding wheels
Bright images flashing by
Like windshields towards a fly
Frozen in the fatal climb -- but the wheels of time --
Just pass you by...
Wheels can take you around
Wheels can cut you down
We can go from boom to bust
From dreams to a bowl of dust
We can fall from rockets' red glare
Down to "Brother can you spare --"
Another war -- another waste land --
And another lost generation...
(Rush, _Between The Wheels_)
--
((Udhay Shankar N)) ((udhay @ pobox.com)) ((www.digeratus.com))
From beberg at mithral.com Tue May 25 01:07:34 2004
From: beberg at mithral.com (Adam L Beberg)
Date: Tue May 25 01:06:27 2004
Subject: [FoRK] cashing out on other's innovation
In-Reply-To: <4A63D8BB-AE21-11D8-A377-003065DAE704@mithral.com>
References: <20040524151354.GX1105@leitl.org>
<4A63D8BB-AE21-11D8-A377-003065DAE704@mithral.com>
Message-ID: <93FD58F4-AE22-11D8-A377-003065DAE704@mithral.com>
> "The days of engineering-led technology companies are coming to an
> end," Mr.
> Dell declared.
Fundamentally, Moore's Law eventually gets you to "enough" at which
point innovation is no longer required, and only price matters.
That's why WalMart (read China) is crushing small businesses by the
thousands every month.
Tis a curse to have enough, you and up with lazy stupid obese and
completely useless people unable to compete with offshore workers -
sounds familiar?
- Adam L. Beberg - beberg@mithral.com
http://www.mithral.com/~beberg/
From jbone at place.org Tue May 25 05:59:07 2004
From: jbone at place.org (Jeff Bone)
Date: Tue May 25 05:57:53 2004
Subject: [FoRK] Count Every Vote: Sign the Petition
Message-ID:
Dear Friend,
I just signed this petition to count every vote this November.
We must act now to ensure that our voting systems produce accurate and verifiable results.
Some states are planning to use machines that will not allow voters to verify their choices. This means that any flaws in the machine or software will never be caught -- and no recount will be possible.
And the head of the largest e-voting machine company -- who is a major contributor to George Bush and has promised to deliver Ohio to him -- asks that we just trust him.
Please join me by signing this call for accountability:
http://petition.democracyforamerica.com/page/p/verify/17648
Thanks!
From gbolcer at endeavors.com Mon May 24 18:50:19 2004
From: gbolcer at endeavors.com (Gregory Alan Bolcer)
Date: Tue May 25 06:52:19 2004
Subject: [Fwd: [FoRK] Count Every Vote: Sign the Petition]
Message-ID: <40B2A65B.7010201@endeavors.com>
If it's going to be a landslide, why waste the effort? Why not just
accept the concession and moveon?
Greg
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [FoRK] Count Every Vote: Sign the Petition
Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 08:59:07 -0400
From: Jeff Bone
To: fork@xent.com
Dear Friend,
I just signed this petition to count every vote this November.
We must act now to ensure that our voting systems produce accurate and verifiable results.
Some states are planning to use machines that will not allow voters to verify their choices. This means that
any flaws in the machine or software will never be caught -- and no recount will be possible.
And the head of the largest e-voting machine company -- who is a major contributor to George Bush and has
promised to deliver Ohio to him -- asks that we just trust him.
Please join me by signing this call for accountability:
http://petition.democracyforamerica.com/page/p/verify/17648
Thanks!
_______________________________________________
FoRK mailing list
http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork
From joe at barrera.org Tue May 25 07:05:05 2004
From: joe at barrera.org (Joseph S. Barrera III)
Date: Tue May 25 07:03:59 2004
Subject: [Fwd: [FoRK] Count Every Vote: Sign the Petition]
In-Reply-To: <40B2A65B.7010201@endeavors.com>
References: <40B2A65B.7010201@endeavors.com>
Message-ID: <40B35291.9090201@barrera.org>
Gregory Alan Bolcer wrote:
> If it's going to be a landslide, why waste the effort? Why not just
> accept the concession and moveon?
Greg,
Can you PLEASE refrain from baiting Jeff? We're all so tired of this...
- Joe
From deafbox at hotmail.com Tue May 25 10:40:46 2004
From: deafbox at hotmail.com (Russell Turpin)
Date: Tue May 25 10:39:27 2004
Subject: [FoRK] Abu Ghraib prison scandal goes all the way to the top.
Message-ID:
Yep. It's Clinton's fault. Rush Limbaugh says so:
"So while all this is going on, the Democrats are claiming this
is a chain-of-command thing, and they're trying to get this
linked all the way to Bush, this is happening because of Bush's
example, this is happening because Bush doesn't care, this is
happening because Bush doesn't use any discipline, this is
because it comes from the top. I would believe that if Bill
Clinton were still in office. If Bill Clinton were still in office, I
could accept the notion this might come from the top and,
in fact, depending on the age of these soldiers over there
they may in fact be. How many stories have we had lately,
oral sex is a great way to stop teen pregnancy? That oral
sex is a great way to have safe sex, just had one this week.
Who popularized oral sex for the nation? And who was
defended day in and day out royally for doing so? Bill Clinton.
And who defended him? The Democrats.."
If ever there were any doubt that oxycontin abuse addles
the brain...
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself with the new version of MSN Messenger! Download today -
it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
From joe at barrera.org Tue May 25 10:46:19 2004
From: joe at barrera.org (Joseph S. Barrera III)
Date: Tue May 25 10:45:04 2004
Subject: [FoRK] Abu Ghraib prison scandal goes all the way to the top.
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID: <40B3866B.2050700@barrera.org>
I never knew that Clinton liked to pile naked men into piles, though.
If he "popularized" that, he didn't do a very good job, because I missed it.
- Joe
From bill at wstoddard.com Tue May 25 10:53:09 2004
From: bill at wstoddard.com (Bill Stoddard)
Date: Tue May 25 10:52:13 2004
Subject: [FoRK] Abu Ghraib prison scandal goes all the way to the top.
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID: <40B38805.4010809@wstoddard.com>
Russell Turpin wrote:
> Yep. It's Clinton's fault. Rush Limbaugh says so:
>
> "So while all this is going on, the Democrats are claiming this
> is a chain-of-command thing, and they're trying to get this
> linked all the way to Bush, this is happening because of Bush's
> example, this is happening because Bush doesn't care, this is
> happening because Bush doesn't use any discipline, this is
> because it comes from the top. I would believe that if Bill
> Clinton were still in office. If Bill Clinton were still in office, I
> could accept the notion this might come from the top and,
> in fact, depending on the age of these soldiers over there
> they may in fact be. How many stories have we had lately,
> oral sex is a great way to stop teen pregnancy? That oral
> sex is a great way to have safe sex, just had one this week.
> Who popularized oral sex for the nation? And who was
> defended day in and day out royally for doing so? Bill Clinton.
> And who defended him? The Democrats.."
>
> If ever there were any doubt that oxycontin abuse addles
> the brain...
>
Definitely the wookie defense in action.
Bill
From jm at jmason.org Tue May 25 11:08:48 2004
From: jm at jmason.org (Justin Mason)
Date: Tue May 25 11:07:56 2004
Subject: [FoRK] Abu Ghraib prison scandal goes all the way to the top.
In-Reply-To: <40B38805.4010809@wstoddard.com>
Message-ID: <20040525180849.9481F6E83CA@radish.jmason.org>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Bill Stoddard writes:
> Russell Turpin wrote:
> > Yep. It's Clinton's fault. Rush Limbaugh says so:
> >
> > "So while all this is going on, the Democrats are claiming this
> > is a chain-of-command thing, and they're trying to get this
> > linked all the way to Bush, this is happening because of Bush's
> > example, this is happening because Bush doesn't care, this is
> > happening because Bush doesn't use any discipline, this is
> > because it comes from the top. I would believe that if Bill
> > Clinton were still in office. If Bill Clinton were still in office, I
> > could accept the notion this might come from the top and,
> > in fact, depending on the age of these soldiers over there
> > they may in fact be. How many stories have we had lately,
> > oral sex is a great way to stop teen pregnancy? That oral
> > sex is a great way to have safe sex, just had one this week.
> > Who popularized oral sex for the nation? And who was
> > defended day in and day out royally for doing so? Bill Clinton.
> > And who defended him? The Democrats.."
> >
> > If ever there were any doubt that oxycontin abuse addles
> > the brain...
> >
>
> Definitely the wookie defense in action.
Me, I'd like to thank Bill Clinton for popularising oral sex for the
nation. ;)
- --j.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Exmh CVS
iD8DBQFAs4uwQTcbUG5Y7woRAjhbAJwPbRwiu4tXQQ5FRsOwTzdn0BZjTACg2d0e
LtTEAJWiT3RLsdcwJl8jnsg=
=ZTbR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
From deafbox at hotmail.com Tue May 25 14:12:12 2004
From: deafbox at hotmail.com (Russell Turpin)
Date: Tue May 25 14:10:51 2004
Subject: [FoRK] Blimps to space!
Message-ID:
This is on Slashdot:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5025388/
I never dreamed knowing the zeppelin bend would
one day increase my job opportunities. ;-)
_________________________________________________________________
Is your PC infected? Get a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfee®
Security. http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
From jbone at place.org Tue May 25 14:58:37 2004
From: jbone at place.org (Contempt for Meatheads)
Date: Tue May 25 14:57:22 2004
Subject: [FoRK] New trend: type "rich" languages?
Message-ID:
This work's apparently rather old; apologies if the bits are stale, I
just ran across this, thought it was interesting.
NB, not talking about typing per se, but rather the ability to
represent a wide variety of things in literal syntax and a general
awareness of units / dimensions of measurement. Seems there's an
increasing trend among some programming *away* from the syntactic
parsimony of early functional and OO systems *towards* using literal
syntax to represent directly in the language a wide variety of
constructions. (Note this isn't contrary to OO or to functional
programming; it's just that in many cases the language provided little
in the way of syntactic support for literally expressing values of some
types.)
Rebol was on the leading edge of this trend a few years back w/ a
literal representation for and native understanding of a "money"
datatype, but this takes the cake...
Check this out:
http://futureboy.homeip.net/frinkdocs/
Frink is sort of a scripting language meets universal conversion
calculator. It's aware of hundreds of different units of measurement
and can perform dimensional analysis and conversion between a stunning
array of them. In some cases it actually utilizes Web services to
dynamically get reference data (US historical prices from US Department
of Labor BLS, British price data, and (pre 1700) historical guesses ---
though unsure why the dynamism is necessary here; exchange rates,
where dynamism is obviously important; etc.) It also provides
conversion of string content between natural languages --- unsure whose
Web translator they're using, haven't peeked at the code yet. All
kinds of fancy time / date manipulation built in, as well as a
geographic database of countries, cities, etc. It understands many
physical constants and referents (Planck's constant; speed of light;
moonmass for mass of the moon, for example) and other amusing tidbits
(keg -> case gives you the ratio of a keg of beer to a case of beer.)
The documentation is a hoot, too, while being quite illustrative. Some
entertaining examples cribbed from the docs more or less directly:
--
Ouch!
At the moment, I'm watching CNN which is discussing some land-mines
used in Afghanistan. They showed a very small mine (about the size of a
bran muffin) containing "51 grams of TNT" and they asked how much
destructive force that carries. Frink's data file includes how much
energy is in a mass of TNT, specified by the unit "TNT". How many feet
in the air could 51 grams of TNT throw me, assuming perfect efficiency,
and knowing energy = mass * gravity * height?
51 grams TNT -> 185 pounds gravity feet
937.7628167428616
Yikes. 937 feet. But the only difference between explosives and other
combustible fuels is the rapidity of combustion, not in the quantity of
energy. How much gasoline contains the same amount of energy?
51 grams TNT -> "teaspoons gasoline"
1.2903255 teaspoons gasoline
1.29 teaspoons? That's not much at all. You're buying a huge amount of
energy when you fill up your car.
--
Liquor
You can set variables on the fly, by using the assignment = operator.
Let's say you want to define a new unit representing the amount of
alcohol in a can of (quality) 3.2 beer. Keep in mind that 3.2 beer is
measured by alcohol/weight, while almost all other liquors (and many
beers) are usually measured in alcohol/volume. The density ratio
between water and alcohol is given by:
water/alcohol
1.267
Water is thus 1.267 times denser than alcohol. 3.2 beer (measured by
weight) is thus actually 4.0 percent alcohol as measured by volume. Now
let's set that variable in terms of a beer's density of alcohol per
volume so we can compare:
beer = 12 floz 3.2 percent water/alcohol
Then, you wanted to find out how many beers a big bottle of champagne
is equal to:
magnum 13.5 percent -> beer
14.07
You probably don't want to drink that whole bottle. Now let's say
you're mixing Jungle Juice (using a 1.75 liter bottle of Everclear (190
proof!)) and Kool-Aid to fill a 5-gallon bucket (any resemblance to my
college parties is completely intentional.) What percent alcohol is
that stuff?
junglejuice = 1.75 liter 190 proof / (5 gallon)
junglejuice -> "percent"
8.78372074090843481138500000 percent
It's really not that strong. About 8.8%. But if you drink 5 cups of
that, at 12 fluid ounces each, how many beers have you had?
5 12 floz junglejuice -> "beer"
10.832 beer
Maybe that's why people were getting punched in the head. QED.
--
Fiscal Calculations
You can calculate the day that your company will run out of cash, based
on their financial statements. The following is an example for a real
company, based on SEC filings, which read as the following:
Cash and Cash Equivalents (in thousands) December 31, 2000
Dec 31, 2000: $86,481
Jun 30, 2001 $46,601
To make this more readable, you can define variables to hold values:
burnrate = (#2001-06-30# - #2000-12-31#) / ((86481 - 41601) thousand
dollars)
burnrate -> dollars/day
248012.89431247435
You can calculate the number of days until the money runs out at this
rate:
41601 thousand dollars / burnrate -> "days"
167.7372 days
Using date/time math, starting from the last report date (June 30,
2001) you can find out the exact date this corresponds to:
#2001-06-30# + 41601 thousand dollars / burnrate
AD 2001-12-14 04:41:38.101 PM (Fri) Mountain Standard Time
Just in time to see the cinema release of the first Lord of the Rings
movie with your last six bucks. Will they know it's Christmas Time at
all?
--
Junkyard Wars
I can't watch Junkyard Wars (or lots of other television shows) without
having Frink at my side. This week the team has to float a submerged
half-ton Cooper Mini... how many oil barrels will they need to use as
floats?
half ton -> barrels water
2.8530101742118243
They're trying to hand-pump air down to the barrels, submerged "2
fathoms" below the water. If the guy can sustain 40 watts of pumping
power, how many minutes will it take to fill the barrel?
2 fathoms water gravity barrel -> 40 watts minutes
2.376123072093987
And how many food Calories (a food Calorie (with a capital 'C') equals
1000 calories with a small 'c') will he burn to fill a barrel?
2 fathoms water gravity barrel -> Calories
1.3620653895637644
Better eat a Tic-Tac first.
--
[JB: back. Lest the point of this is lost on the casual reader, note
the following from the docs...]
Saving Hundreds of Millions of Dollars
"The MCO [Mars Climate Orbiter] MIB [Mishap Investigation Board]
has determined that the root cause for the loss of the MCO spacecraft
was the failure to use metric units in the coding of a ground software
file, "Small Forces," used in trajectory models. Specifically, thruster
performance data in English units instead of metric units was used in
the software application code titled SM_FORCES (small forces)."
--Mars Climate Orbiter Mishap Investigation Board, Phase I Report
This is not to take away from the designers of an wonderfully complex
spacecraft that can travel to Mars; that's an incredibly difficult
problem, and I couldn't do it. However, this is just the type of error
that Frink was designed to help avoid, and because I make these type of
errors a lot, I've designed this tool to help me. Frink tracks units
through all calculations and makes conversions between them
transparent. This is why I'm working toward making Frink a feasible
solution for calculations of this type.
From Kenneth.Meltsner at ca.com Tue May 25 15:54:07 2004
From: Kenneth.Meltsner at ca.com (Meltsner, Kenneth)
Date: Tue May 25 15:52:47 2004
Subject: [FoRK] New trend: type "rich" languages?
Message-ID: <039E46C3C030AE4E871CEEBC6868063904DA7C50@usilms24.ca.com>
Cool. BOTEC calculations in a computer language.
Might be really cool if it handled interval arithmetic, the other refuge
of the envelope-toting engineer. There was a company that sold an
interval add-on for Excel[1], and various libraries, but none of them
have been mainstream successes.
Of course, neither was TK!Solver or Macsyma (and Mathematica is, I
believe), so that's not a criticism of the underlying approach.
[1] http://www.ercim.org/publication/Ercim_News/enw24/rwc.html
Link rot claimed the web pages for Delisoft (the vendor that sold the
technology originally developed by VTT in Finland), and the URL now
points to an annoying directory page, with links to Zagats and other
deli vendors....
Ken Meltsner
From sdw at lig.net Tue May 25 17:24:12 2004
From: sdw at lig.net (Stephen D. Williams)
Date: Tue May 25 17:22:19 2004
Subject: Open Source in Physics - ROOT, was: Re: [FoRK] New trend: type "rich"
languages?
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID: <40B3E3AC.8030008@lig.net>
Skipped content of type multipart/alternative-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: sdw.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 234 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lair.xent.com/pipermail/fork/attachments/20040525/890a3a80/sdw.vcf
From eugen at leitl.org Wed May 26 00:07:09 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Wed May 26 00:05:50 2004
Subject: [FoRK] Re: [Beowulf] Redmond is at it,
again (fwd from rgb@phy.duke.edu)
Message-ID: <20040526070709.GE1105@leitl.org>
----- Forwarded message from "Robert G. Brown" -----
From: "Robert G. Brown"
Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 17:20:51 -0400 (EDT)
To: Jim Lux
Cc: Eugen Leitl ,
Subject: Re: [Beowulf] Redmond is at it, again
On Tue, 25 May 2004, Jim Lux wrote:
> At 03:44 PM 5/25/2004 +0200, Eugen Leitl wrote:
>
> >Management is on Microsoft's agenda, though. The company is hiring one
> >programmer to work on a "graphical and script-based user interface for
> >efficient job and resource management across large clusters" and another to
> >create "automated infrastructure to uncover performance and reliability
> >problems with high performance, large-scale server applications."
>
> Wow! one whole body to work on graphical and script based user
> interfaces! Bill must really be quaking in his boots to invest $200K in this.
>
>
> >According to job postings, Microsoft is adapting MPI to Microsoft's .Net
> >infrastructure. A key foundation of .Net is the C# programming language and
> >the Common Language Runtime, or CLR, which lets C# programs run on a
> >multitude of different systems.
>
> Fascinating... A C# binding for MPI?
There is a common and obvious thread to M$ choices under nearly all
circumstances. It can easily be used to interpret the specific
decisions to make MPI "their own" and eschew TCP/IP, vendor network
drivers, ANSI standard C or C++ or f-whatever, and especially to
interface it with their own version of core network services:
Standards are bad, unless we own them and can alter them on a whim to
effectively clone, co-opt, and eliminate all competition from any
products ever developed that are based on those "standards" and
actually make money.
The key words here being "make money" of course. Microsoft won't ever
jump on a cluster computing bandwagon unless it is running on wheels
they own and all of the seats have a highly proprietary "eject" button
somewhere they can use to get rid of all the rest of the instruments.
A corollary of the above is that "Java is Evil" (an opinion shared by at
least some people who don't work for M$:-). Of course, so is nearly
everything else used in modern networks for the transport layer and most
of the layers above transport in the good old ISO/OSI scheme, so is
http, html, xml, php, perl, python and so forth, and Open Source, Open
Standard software is The Devil Himself -- to M$.
Current systems corporations are thinking "license/lease" and "renewable
revenue stream" instead of "software sales" as the latter era of the
computer revolution draws to a slow end. Red Hat has gone there. Sun
is well along the road. Microsoft is stuck between a fervent wish to go
there and somehow preserve their high margins and the realities of the
expectations of their PC customers that they are "buying a copy" of the
operating system, not the right to use it for a year with automated
prepaid updates. In the corporate world, however, they've moved a long
ways there and I feel confident that they'll go the rest of the way
soon.
So the interesting question is "where's the money" in this move. The
HPC market hasn't proven to be exactly a get-rich-quick proposition for
any of the various groups that have prospected in it. I suspect (given
the reference to "resource management" and "server applications") that
it is seeking to plunder the relatively deep pockets and relatively
non-computer-savvy researchers in the biocluster and medicluster market,
with their bet backed by the proposition that they can reuse their
efforts in a pinch in the HA market (those "server applications").
Bioclusters and biogrids as a market probably does total millions of
dollars per year -- chickenfeed for M$ at this point -- but it also has
some growth potential and integration potential for the future, when we
reach the point where e.g. individuals are bioassayed in real time in
their Dr.'s office, their genes are matched against a huge database
scanning for defects and predispositions and damage and who knows what
else, and genetically matched and tuned therapies are prescribed, where
dog pedigrees and likelyhood of developing hip dysplasia are similarly
determined in real time.
Of course, Moore's law and so forth may eat this market before it fully
matures -- in three or four years at expected rates desktop PCs will
have (possibly multiple) TB size LOCAL SINGLE disks, multiGB of RAM
standard, and at least gigabit interfaces standard with 10 Gbps not
uncommon. With 10+ GHz CPU clocks, 64 bit and better data paths, really
slick memory and device management, and perhaps some onboard
parallelism, would one NEED a cluster to run such a (relatively simple)
application? If not, it leaves one back with just the research market,
and that is, I think, a hopeless case for M$ to make back their not
inconsiderable development and sales costs in without a hedge. They
would at best break even and at worst would both lose money and worse,
lose money EMBARRASSINGLY and publically.
As this list well knows, real, transparent, "windows-level" scalability
is an elusive beast in the parallel HPC world, although you can find
niches where it is possible. And there is no mass market here, per se
-- even if you can find somebody crazy enough to pay out LARGE software
costs that scale per node, there simply aren't that many customers, and
most of those customers always have several proven alternatives with
costs that DON'T scale per node. Those customers will pay for support,
they'll pay for service, but they don't like paying for software and
REALLY hate paying for software and getting lousy service and poor
support to go with it. Plenty of people make money on service and
support, but they don't get (unduly) rich and they work for a living
earning what they earn.
rgb
>
>
> James Lux, P.E.
> Spacecraft Telecommunications Section
> Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Mail Stop 161-213
> 4800 Oak Grove Drive
> Pasadena CA 91109
> tel: (818)354-2075
> fax: (818)393-6875
>
> _______________________________________________
> Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf@beowulf.org
> To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf
>
--
Robert G. Brown http://www.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/
Duke University Dept. of Physics, Box 90305
Durham, N.C. 27708-0305
Phone: 1-919-660-2567 Fax: 919-660-2525 email:rgb@phy.duke.edu
----- End forwarded message -----
--
Eugen* Leitl leitl
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lair.xent.com/pipermail/fork/attachments/20040526/e043025b/attachment.pgp
From Rohit at ICS.uci.edu Wed May 26 03:37:55 2004
From: Rohit at ICS.uci.edu (Rohit Khare)
Date: Wed May 26 04:22:37 2004
Subject: [FoRK] We won an ICSE distinguished paper award (!)
Message-ID:
The ARRESTED paper just won one of five Distinguished paper awards at
ICSE 2004 in Edinburgh! That puts it in the top 10% of accepted papers,
at a conference that only had an acceptance rate of 13% to begin with.
That paper is now available from my home page at
http://www.ics.uci.edu/~rohit/ARRESTED-ICSE.pdf
Time to go work on the slides, though -- a much more valuable prize is
still at stake... the student volunteers get to award an iPod to the
best presenter! :-) :-)
Best,
Rohit
From louie at ximian.com Wed May 26 06:15:10 2004
From: louie at ximian.com (Luis Villa)
Date: Wed May 26 06:15:58 2004
Subject: [FoRK] Re: [Beowulf] Redmond is at it, again (fwd from
rgb@phy.duke.edu)
In-Reply-To: <20040526070709.GE1105@leitl.org>
References: <20040526070709.GE1105@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <1085577310.9620.7.camel@linux.site>
In an attempt to add bits, I can attest that this is the shortest email
Robert G. Brown has ever written about anything. Oh, and he's a damn
fine physics prof.
Seriously, I think the 'niche' argument is an accurate one- if MS
weren't so incredibly paranoid right now about losing /any/ market
share, anywhere, this would be a classic Christensen innovation case
study. As it is, it'll be a much smaller case of the X-box- they'll pour
money generated by their monopoly rents in other fields down a hole just
to kill potential competitors.
Luis
On Wed, 2004-05-26 at 09:07 +0200, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> ----- Forwarded message from "Robert G. Brown" -----
>
> From: "Robert G. Brown"
> Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 17:20:51 -0400 (EDT)
> To: Jim Lux
> Cc: Eugen Leitl ,
> Subject: Re: [Beowulf] Redmond is at it, again
>
> On Tue, 25 May 2004, Jim Lux wrote:
>
> > At 03:44 PM 5/25/2004 +0200, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> >
> > >Management is on Microsoft's agenda, though. The company is hiring one
> > >programmer to work on a "graphical and script-based user interface for
> > >efficient job and resource management across large clusters" and another to
> > >create "automated infrastructure to uncover performance and reliability
> > >problems with high performance, large-scale server applications."
> >
> > Wow! one whole body to work on graphical and script based user
> > interfaces! Bill must really be quaking in his boots to invest $200K in this.
> >
> >
> > >According to job postings, Microsoft is adapting MPI to Microsoft's .Net
> > >infrastructure. A key foundation of .Net is the C# programming language and
> > >the Common Language Runtime, or CLR, which lets C# programs run on a
> > >multitude of different systems.
> >
> > Fascinating... A C# binding for MPI?
>
> There is a common and obvious thread to M$ choices under nearly all
> circumstances. It can easily be used to interpret the specific
> decisions to make MPI "their own" and eschew TCP/IP, vendor network
> drivers, ANSI standard C or C++ or f-whatever, and especially to
> interface it with their own version of core network services:
>
> Standards are bad, unless we own them and can alter them on a whim to
> effectively clone, co-opt, and eliminate all competition from any
> products ever developed that are based on those "standards" and
> actually make money.
>
> The key words here being "make money" of course. Microsoft won't ever
> jump on a cluster computing bandwagon unless it is running on wheels
> they own and all of the seats have a highly proprietary "eject" button
> somewhere they can use to get rid of all the rest of the instruments.
>
> A corollary of the above is that "Java is Evil" (an opinion shared by at
> least some people who don't work for M$:-). Of course, so is nearly
> everything else used in modern networks for the transport layer and most
> of the layers above transport in the good old ISO/OSI scheme, so is
> http, html, xml, php, perl, python and so forth, and Open Source, Open
> Standard software is The Devil Himself -- to M$.
>
> Current systems corporations are thinking "license/lease" and "renewable
> revenue stream" instead of "software sales" as the latter era of the
> computer revolution draws to a slow end. Red Hat has gone there. Sun
> is well along the road. Microsoft is stuck between a fervent wish to go
> there and somehow preserve their high margins and the realities of the
> expectations of their PC customers that they are "buying a copy" of the
> operating system, not the right to use it for a year with automated
> prepaid updates. In the corporate world, however, they've moved a long
> ways there and I feel confident that they'll go the rest of the way
> soon.
>
> So the interesting question is "where's the money" in this move. The
> HPC market hasn't proven to be exactly a get-rich-quick proposition for
> any of the various groups that have prospected in it. I suspect (given
> the reference to "resource management" and "server applications") that
> it is seeking to plunder the relatively deep pockets and relatively
> non-computer-savvy researchers in the biocluster and medicluster market,
> with their bet backed by the proposition that they can reuse their
> efforts in a pinch in the HA market (those "server applications").
> Bioclusters and biogrids as a market probably does total millions of
> dollars per year -- chickenfeed for M$ at this point -- but it also has
> some growth potential and integration potential for the future, when we
> reach the point where e.g. individuals are bioassayed in real time in
> their Dr.'s office, their genes are matched against a huge database
> scanning for defects and predispositions and damage and who knows what
> else, and genetically matched and tuned therapies are prescribed, where
> dog pedigrees and likelyhood of developing hip dysplasia are similarly
> determined in real time.
>
> Of course, Moore's law and so forth may eat this market before it fully
> matures -- in three or four years at expected rates desktop PCs will
> have (possibly multiple) TB size LOCAL SINGLE disks, multiGB of RAM
> standard, and at least gigabit interfaces standard with 10 Gbps not
> uncommon. With 10+ GHz CPU clocks, 64 bit and better data paths, really
> slick memory and device management, and perhaps some onboard
> parallelism, would one NEED a cluster to run such a (relatively simple)
> application? If not, it leaves one back with just the research market,
> and that is, I think, a hopeless case for M$ to make back their not
> inconsiderable development and sales costs in without a hedge. They
> would at best break even and at worst would both lose money and worse,
> lose money EMBARRASSINGLY and publically.
>
> As this list well knows, real, transparent, "windows-level" scalability
> is an elusive beast in the parallel HPC world, although you can find
> niches where it is possible. And there is no mass market here, per se
> -- even if you can find somebody crazy enough to pay out LARGE software
> costs that scale per node, there simply aren't that many customers, and
> most of those customers always have several proven alternatives with
> costs that DON'T scale per node. Those customers will pay for support,
> they'll pay for service, but they don't like paying for software and
> REALLY hate paying for software and getting lousy service and poor
> support to go with it. Plenty of people make money on service and
> support, but they don't get (unduly) rich and they work for a living
> earning what they earn.
>
> rgb
>
> >
> >
> > James Lux, P.E.
> > Spacecraft Telecommunications Section
> > Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Mail Stop 161-213
> > 4800 Oak Grove Drive
> > Pasadena CA 91109
> > tel: (818)354-2075
> > fax: (818)393-6875
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf@beowulf.org
> > To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf
> >
>
> --
> Robert G. Brown http://www.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/
> Duke University Dept. of Physics, Box 90305
> Durham, N.C. 27708-0305
> Phone: 1-919-660-2567 Fax: 919-660-2525 email:rgb@phy.duke.edu
>
>
>
> ----- End forwarded message -----
> --
> Eugen* Leitl leitl
> ______________________________________________________________
> ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org
> 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
> http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net
> _______________________________________________
> FoRK mailing list
> http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork
From khare at alumni.caltech.edu Wed May 26 06:55:52 2004
From: khare at alumni.caltech.edu (khare@alumni.caltech.edu)
Date: Wed May 26 06:54:28 2004
Subject: [FoRK] NYTimes.com Article: Care for Diamonds With Your Eggs?
Message-ID: <20040526135552.BF24C3504F@web38t.prvt.nytimes.com>
The article below from NYTimes.com
has been sent to you by khare@alumni.caltech.edu.
New York, New York :-)
I was recently informed that the *average* house in OC appreciated $342 last year. Per day!
Rohit
khare@alumni.caltech.edu
/--------- E-mail Sponsored by Fox Searchlight ------------\
THE CLEARING - IN THEATERS JULY 2 - WATCH THE TRAILER NOW
An official selection of the 2004 Sundance Film Festival, THE CLEARING
stars ROBERT REDFORD and HELEN MIRREN as Wayne and Eileen Hayes - a
husband and wife living the American Dream. Together they've raised two
children and struggled to build a successful business from the ground
up. But there have been sacrifices along the way. When Wayne is
kidnapped by an ordinary man, Arnold Mack (WILLEM DAFOE), and held for
ransom in a remote forest, the couple's world is turned inside out.
Watch the trailer at: http://www.foxsearchlight.com/theclearing/index_nyt.html
\----------------------------------------------------------/
Care for Diamonds With Your Eggs?
May 25, 2004
With the average apartment in Manhattan now costing nearly
$1 million, many New Yorkers have acquired an immunity to
sticker shock. That would explain the recorded message
you're likely to get at the new sushi restaurant Masa,
which says call volume is too high, so try again later. A
fixed-price dinner or lunch costs $300 - that's per person,
not including drinks, tax and tip. Still, that's a steal
when compared with a new breakfast offering at Norma's, at
the Parker Meridien hotel.
There, $1,000 will get you a six-egg frittata with lobster,
cream and 10 ounces of sevruga caviar. The restaurant staff
rings a cowbell when the egg dish is served, lest other
diners miss the event. With that tab - more than $1,200
with tax and tip - trumpets might be expected. Norma's
executive chef, Emile Castillo, says the item grew out of a
desire to offer something more upscale. In the two weeks
since the frittata made its debut, only a handful of
journalists on assignment have paid for the right to hear
the cowbell, although a woman did call to inquire whether
the dish - which can be shared - could be made for a
birthday party.
This all says less about the considerable wealth of some in
the city than it does about the return of shamelessly
ostentatious consumption and a curiosity about what the
very high-end market will bear.
The folks at Le Parker Meridien realize they won't be
selling many $1,000 frittatas. But they also know that
plenty of people will be drawn to a place that offers such
a choice. And besides, it makes the $28 French toast look
like a bargain.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/25/opinion/25TUE4.html?ex=1086579752&ei=1&en=4b1f9576a7d4f15f
---------------------------------
Get Home Delivery of The New York Times Newspaper. Imagine
reading The New York Times any time & anywhere you like!
Leisurely catch up on events & expand your horizons. Enjoy
now for 50% off Home Delivery! Click here:
http://homedelivery.nytimes.com/HDS/SubscriptionT1.do?mode=SubscriptionT1&ExternalMediaCode=W24AF
HOW TO ADVERTISE
---------------------------------
For information on advertising in e-mail newsletters
or other creative advertising opportunities with The
New York Times on the Web, please contact
onlinesales@nytimes.com or visit our online media
kit at http://www.nytimes.com/adinfo
For general information about NYTimes.com, write to
help@nytimes.com.
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company
From jbone at place.org Wed May 26 08:30:49 2004
From: jbone at place.org (Contempt for Meatheads)
Date: Wed May 26 08:29:22 2004
Subject: [FoRK] 'Pirate Act' raises civil rights concerns
Message-ID:
The best gov't money can buy...
--
'Pirate Act' raises civil rights concerns
By Declan McCullagh
Staff Writer, CNET News.com
http://news.com.com/2100-1027-5220480.html
Story last modified May 26, 2004, 4:00 AM PDT
File swappers concerned about getting in trouble with record labels
over illegal downloads may soon have a major new worry: the U.S.
Department of Justice.
A proposal that the Senate may vote on as early as next week would let
federal prosecutors file civil lawsuits against suspected copyright
infringers, with fines reaching tens or even hundreds of thousands of
dollars.
The so-called Pirate Act is raising alarms among copyright lawyers and
lobbyists for peer-to-peer firms, who have been eyeing the recording
industry's lawsuits against thousands of peer-to-peer users with
trepidation. The Justice Department, they say, could be far more
ambitious.
News.context
What's new:
A proposal that the full Senate could vote on as early as next week
would let federal prosecutors file civil lawsuits against suspected
copyright infringers.
Bottom line:
Copyright lawyers and lobbyists for peer-to-peer companies, who have
been eyeing the recording industry's lawsuits against peer-to-peer
users with trepidation, warn that the Justice Department could be far
more ambitious.
More stories on this topic
One influential proponent of the Pirate Act is urging precisely that.
"Tens of thousands of continuing civil enforcement actions might be
needed to generate the necessary deterrence," Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah,
said when announcing his support for the bill. "I doubt that any
nongovernmental organization has the resources or moral authority to
pursue such a campaign."
The Pirate Act represents the latest legislative priority for the
Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and its allies, who
collectively argue that dramatic action is necessary to prevent
file-swapping networks from continuing to blossom in popularity.
"We view this as a key component of an enforcement package," RIAA
lobbyist Mitch Glazier said Tuesday. "If you're going to try to make
sure that you have effective deterrence, then one of the tools you'll
need is to make sure that prosecutors have flexibility."
Foes of the Pirate Act have been alarmed by the unusual alacrity of the
proposal's legislative progress. It was introduced just two months ago,
on March 25, and not one hearing was held before the Judiciary
committee forwarded it to the full Senate for a vote a month later.
"This was an attempt to move it in a stealthy manner," said Philip
Corwin, a lobbyist for Sharman Networks, which operates the Kazaa
network. "I can't imagine that (Hollywood lobbyist) Jack Valenti or
(RIAA chairman) Mitch Bainwol really wants to come before Congress and
give testimony saying, 'We can't afford to bring these lawsuits. That's
why we want the taxpayer to pay for them.' I can't believe they want to
do that in public."
Potential P2P prosecutions
Underlying the public jockeying over the Pirate Act is a classic
political war of wills between the federal government's legislative and
executive branches.
Under a 1997 law called the No Electronic Theft Act, federal
prosecutors can file criminal charges against peer-to-peer users who
make a large number of songs available for download. A July 2002 letter
from prominent congressmen to U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft urged
the prosecution of Americans who "allow mass copying from their
computer over peer-to-peer networks."
But not one peer-to-peer criminal prosecution has taken place in the
United States. The Justice Department has indicated that it won't
target peer-to-peer networks for two reasons: Imprisoning file-swapping
teens on felony charges isn't the department's top priority, and it's
always difficult to make criminal charges stick.
The Pirate Act was crafted to respond to the Justice Department's
concern. "Federal prosecutors have been hindered in their pursuit of
pirates by the fact that they were limited to bringing criminal charges
with high burdens of proof," Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said in March.
"Prosecutors can rarely justify bringing criminal charges, and
copyright owners have been left alone to fend for themselves, defending
their rights only where they can afford to do so. In a world in which a
computer and an Internet connection are all the tools you need to
engage in massive piracy, this is an intolerable predicament."
The RIAA's Glazier said: "The idea was to give prosecutors the
flexibility to decide whether to bring a civil case against somebody.
Giving them a criminal fine with a criminal record was viewed as a
fairly harsh penalty for the activity...You're still committing a
crime. But (prosecutors) are given a flexible remedy so there's some
proportionality."
For copyright holders, there's an additional bonus. Unlike when the
RIAA files its own lawsuits against peer-to-peer users, such as the 493
defendants it announced this week, the Justice Department likely would
be able to seek wiretaps to collect evidence about P2P infringement.
Current wiretap law says electronic communications may be intercepted
when a potential federal felony is being investigated.
"Corporate copyright welfare"
In addition, the Pirate Act gives Ashcroft six months to "develop a
program to ensure effective implementation and use of the authority for
civil enforcement of the copyright laws" and report back to Congress on
how many civil lawsuits have been filed. The Justice Department would
receive an extra $2 million for the fiscal year beginning in October.
"It represents yet another point in another very long line of major
corporate copyright interests pushing for and receiving what amounts to
significant corporate welfare," said Adam Eisgrau, a lobbyist for the
P2P United trade association. "This legislation literally offloads the
cost of enforcing copyrights traditionally borne by the copyright
holder onto the federal government and therefore the taxpayers."
Last week, the Pirate Act had been considered for a floor vote under a
process normally restricted for noncontroversial measures. But the vote
didn't happen, which one foe of the bill attributed to opposition from
Sen. Norm Coleman, a Republican from Minnesota.
Coleman has slammed the RIAA in the past for going too far in its
fierce legal campaign against individual file swappers. A
representative was unable to confirm Tuesday whether Coleman had placed
a "hold" on the bill.
Critics also charge that the Pirate Act may invent a form of double
jeopardy: It would let the RIAA sue the same people already sued by the
Justice Department.
"The kinds of things we have a double-jeopardy doctrine to prevent seem
to be implicated by the bill," said Jessica Litman, author of "Digital
Copyright" and a law professor at Wayne State University. "I find it
disturbing that the committee reported this out without at least having
a hearing to consider some of the alternatives."
The RIAA points out that the bill does limit damages it can collect in
a subsequent lawsuit, but opponents of the proposal said they weren't
convinced.
"Why should someone be sued by the government and then be subject to a
second lawsuit brought by a private party?" said Corwin, the Sharman
Networks lobbyist. "The RIAA is settling most of these lawsuits. What's
the Justice Department's policy going to be?"
* Related News Senate to mull copyright, piracy measures April 30,
2004
http://news.com.com/2110-1028-5203059.html
* RIAA files new round of file-swapping suits April 28, 2004
http://news.com.com/2100-1027-5201637.html
* Judge: File sharing legal in Canada March 31, 2004
http://news.com.com/2100-1027-5182641.html
* Landmark P2P ruling back in court February 2, 2004
http://news.com.com/2100-1027-5152269.html
* Lawmaker seeks info on RIAA dragnet July 31, 2003
http://news.com.com/2100-1027-5058594.html
* Perspective: The new jailbird jingle January 27, 2003
http://news.com.com/2010-1071-982121.html
* Get this story's "Big Picture"
http://news.com.com/2104-1027-5220480.html
Copyright ?1995-2003 CNET Networks, Inc. All rights reserved.
From lgonze at panix.com Wed May 26 08:39:36 2004
From: lgonze at panix.com (Lucas Gonze)
Date: Wed May 26 08:38:07 2004
Subject: [FoRK] 'Pirate Act' raises civil rights concerns
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID:
Quote:
Last week, the Pirate Act had been considered for a floor vote under a
process normally restricted for noncontroversial measures. But the vote
didn't happen, which one foe of the bill attributed to opposition from
Sen. Norm Coleman, a Republican from Minnesota.
If you are against the Pirate Act, you should help cashdot Norm
Coleman. Contribute online here:
http://www.colemanforsenate.com/
On Wed, 26 May 2004, Contempt for Meatheads wrote:
>
> The best gov't money can buy...
>
> --
>
> 'Pirate Act' raises civil rights concerns
>
> By Declan McCullagh
> Staff Writer, CNET News.com
> http://news.com.com/2100-1027-5220480.html
>
> Story last modified May 26, 2004, 4:00 AM PDT
>
>
>
> File swappers concerned about getting in trouble with record labels
> over illegal downloads may soon have a major new worry: the U.S.
> Department of Justice.
>
> A proposal that the Senate may vote on as early as next week would let
> federal prosecutors file civil lawsuits against suspected copyright
> infringers, with fines reaching tens or even hundreds of thousands of
> dollars.
>
> The so-called Pirate Act is raising alarms among copyright lawyers and
> lobbyists for peer-to-peer firms, who have been eyeing the recording
> industry's lawsuits against thousands of peer-to-peer users with
> trepidation. The Justice Department, they say, could be far more
> ambitious.
>
> News.context
>
> What's new:
> A proposal that the full Senate could vote on as early as next week
> would let federal prosecutors file civil lawsuits against suspected
> copyright infringers.
>
> Bottom line:
> Copyright lawyers and lobbyists for peer-to-peer companies, who have
> been eyeing the recording industry's lawsuits against peer-to-peer
> users with trepidation, warn that the Justice Department could be far
> more ambitious.
>
> More stories on this topic
> One influential proponent of the Pirate Act is urging precisely that.
> "Tens of thousands of continuing civil enforcement actions might be
> needed to generate the necessary deterrence," Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah,
> said when announcing his support for the bill. "I doubt that any
> nongovernmental organization has the resources or moral authority to
> pursue such a campaign."
>
> The Pirate Act represents the latest legislative priority for the
> Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and its allies, who
> collectively argue that dramatic action is necessary to prevent
> file-swapping networks from continuing to blossom in popularity.
>
> "We view this as a key component of an enforcement package," RIAA
> lobbyist Mitch Glazier said Tuesday. "If you're going to try to make
> sure that you have effective deterrence, then one of the tools you'll
> need is to make sure that prosecutors have flexibility."
>
> Foes of the Pirate Act have been alarmed by the unusual alacrity of the
> proposal's legislative progress. It was introduced just two months ago,
> on March 25, and not one hearing was held before the Judiciary
> committee forwarded it to the full Senate for a vote a month later.
>
> "This was an attempt to move it in a stealthy manner," said Philip
> Corwin, a lobbyist for Sharman Networks, which operates the Kazaa
> network. "I can't imagine that (Hollywood lobbyist) Jack Valenti or
> (RIAA chairman) Mitch Bainwol really wants to come before Congress and
> give testimony saying, 'We can't afford to bring these lawsuits. That's
> why we want the taxpayer to pay for them.' I can't believe they want to
> do that in public."
>
> Potential P2P prosecutions
> Underlying the public jockeying over the Pirate Act is a classic
> political war of wills between the federal government's legislative and
> executive branches.
>
> Under a 1997 law called the No Electronic Theft Act, federal
> prosecutors can file criminal charges against peer-to-peer users who
> make a large number of songs available for download. A July 2002 letter
> from prominent congressmen to U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft urged
> the prosecution of Americans who "allow mass copying from their
> computer over peer-to-peer networks."
>
> But not one peer-to-peer criminal prosecution has taken place in the
> United States. The Justice Department has indicated that it won't
> target peer-to-peer networks for two reasons: Imprisoning file-swapping
> teens on felony charges isn't the department's top priority, and it's
> always difficult to make criminal charges stick.
>
> The Pirate Act was crafted to respond to the Justice Department's
> concern. "Federal prosecutors have been hindered in their pursuit of
> pirates by the fact that they were limited to bringing criminal charges
> with high burdens of proof," Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said in March.
> "Prosecutors can rarely justify bringing criminal charges, and
> copyright owners have been left alone to fend for themselves, defending
> their rights only where they can afford to do so. In a world in which a
> computer and an Internet connection are all the tools you need to
> engage in massive piracy, this is an intolerable predicament."
>
> The RIAA's Glazier said: "The idea was to give prosecutors the
> flexibility to decide whether to bring a civil case against somebody.
> Giving them a criminal fine with a criminal record was viewed as a
> fairly harsh penalty for the activity...You're still committing a
> crime. But (prosecutors) are given a flexible remedy so there's some
> proportionality."
>
> For copyright holders, there's an additional bonus. Unlike when the
> RIAA files its own lawsuits against peer-to-peer users, such as the 493
> defendants it announced this week, the Justice Department likely would
> be able to seek wiretaps to collect evidence about P2P infringement.
> Current wiretap law says electronic communications may be intercepted
> when a potential federal felony is being investigated.
>
> "Corporate copyright welfare"
> In addition, the Pirate Act gives Ashcroft six months to "develop a
> program to ensure effective implementation and use of the authority for
> civil enforcement of the copyright laws" and report back to Congress on
> how many civil lawsuits have been filed. The Justice Department would
> receive an extra $2 million for the fiscal year beginning in October.
>
> "It represents yet another point in another very long line of major
> corporate copyright interests pushing for and receiving what amounts to
> significant corporate welfare," said Adam Eisgrau, a lobbyist for the
> P2P United trade association. "This legislation literally offloads the
> cost of enforcing copyrights traditionally borne by the copyright
> holder onto the federal government and therefore the taxpayers."
>
> Last week, the Pirate Act had been considered for a floor vote under a
> process normally restricted for noncontroversial measures. But the vote
> didn't happen, which one foe of the bill attributed to opposition from
> Sen. Norm Coleman, a Republican from Minnesota.
>
> Coleman has slammed the RIAA in the past for going too far in its
> fierce legal campaign against individual file swappers. A
> representative was unable to confirm Tuesday whether Coleman had placed
> a "hold" on the bill.
>
> Critics also charge that the Pirate Act may invent a form of double
> jeopardy: It would let the RIAA sue the same people already sued by the
> Justice Department.
>
> "The kinds of things we have a double-jeopardy doctrine to prevent seem
> to be implicated by the bill," said Jessica Litman, author of "Digital
> Copyright" and a law professor at Wayne State University. "I find it
> disturbing that the committee reported this out without at least having
> a hearing to consider some of the alternatives."
>
> The RIAA points out that the bill does limit damages it can collect in
> a subsequent lawsuit, but opponents of the proposal said they weren't
> convinced.
>
> "Why should someone be sued by the government and then be subject to a
> second lawsuit brought by a private party?" said Corwin, the Sharman
> Networks lobbyist. "The RIAA is settling most of these lawsuits. What's
> the Justice Department's policy going to be?"
>
> * Related News Senate to mull copyright, piracy measures April 30,
> 2004
> http://news.com.com/2110-1028-5203059.html
>
> * RIAA files new round of file-swapping suits April 28, 2004
> http://news.com.com/2100-1027-5201637.html
>
> * Judge: File sharing legal in Canada March 31, 2004
> http://news.com.com/2100-1027-5182641.html
>
> * Landmark P2P ruling back in court February 2, 2004
> http://news.com.com/2100-1027-5152269.html
>
> * Lawmaker seeks info on RIAA dragnet July 31, 2003
> http://news.com.com/2100-1027-5058594.html
>
> * Perspective: The new jailbird jingle January 27, 2003
> http://news.com.com/2010-1071-982121.html
>
> * Get this story's "Big Picture"
> http://news.com.com/2104-1027-5220480.html
>
>
> Copyright ?1995-2003 CNET Networks, Inc. All rights reserved.
> _______________________________________________
> FoRK mailing list
> http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork
>
From eugen at leitl.org Wed May 26 08:52:14 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Wed May 26 08:50:49 2004
Subject: [FoRK] rants on pants and spoons
Message-ID: <20040526155214.GF1105@leitl.org>
http://www.rathergood.com/pants/
http://www.rathergood.com/spoonguard/
--
Eugen* Leitl leitl
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lair.xent.com/pipermail/fork/attachments/20040526/9d111632/attachment.pgp
From jbone at place.org Wed May 26 10:33:00 2004
From: jbone at place.org (Contempt for Meatheads)
Date: Wed May 26 10:31:37 2004
Subject: [FoRK] FoRK archaeology failing: ref to previous HTTP chaining
discussion
Message-ID:
A while back we had a discussion about the merits of HTTP chaining, e.g.
GET http://foo.bar.com?source=...someotherURI.. etc.
A five minute Google session on permutations of URI, HTTP, chaining,
web, services, and so on plus site:xent.com is coming up no love.
Anybody else remember who or what was involved in this discussion?
jb
From beberg at mithral.com Wed May 26 16:45:01 2004
From: beberg at mithral.com (Adam L Beberg)
Date: Wed May 26 18:43:57 2004
Subject: [FoRK] Re: [Beowulf] Redmond is at it,
again (fwd from rgb@phy.duke.edu)
In-Reply-To: <1085577310.9620.7.camel@linux.site>
References: <20040526070709.GE1105@leitl.org>
<1085577310.9620.7.camel@linux.site>
Message-ID:
On May 26, 2004, at 8:15 AM, Luis Villa wrote:
> Seriously, I think the 'niche' argument is an accurate one- if MS
> weren't so incredibly paranoid right now about losing /any/ market
> share, anywhere, this would be a classic Christensen innovation case
> study. As it is, it'll be a much smaller case of the X-box- they'll
> pour
> money generated by their monopoly rents in other fields down a hole
> just
> to kill potential competitors.
Indeed, talk about a waste of MS's time...
Sure there is money in HPC and GRID, but not enough to make it anything
but a ton of hard work as Dr. Brown points out. Oh yea, and it's
incredibly boring and there hasn't been anything "change the world"
about it in 30 years. Really it's a waste of _everyones_ time, "But I
just wanted to do my , what is this MPI garbage?"
It was a fun distraction from getting real work done tho ;)
- Adam L. Beberg - beberg@mithral.com
http://www.mithral.com/~beberg/
From jm at jmason.org Wed May 26 16:47:45 2004
From: jm at jmason.org (Justin Mason)
Date: Wed May 26 18:48:09 2004
Subject: [FoRK] Stock Purchase Circles (fwd)
Message-ID: <20040526234747.0BD1F4E81C4@radish.jmason.org>
http://www.brianstorms.com/archives/000353.html
Brianstorms: Stock Purchase Circles... Revisited. This is hilarious!
Amazon.com (AMZN), $22.97 : Busted! Dreaming about mountain hiking in
the Pacific Northwest, or reading Poems, or reading about Babies or
books on Happiness. Nobody's readin' up on the business or the
next-generation technology! SELL.
Boeing (BA), $25.84 : Wherefore art though (sic), Boeing? We've gone
from mostly-business and technical books, to daydream city: the #1 book
is about . . . weight loss? Plus baseball books, Bushwhacked, a book on
Scrabble (!?), a murder mystery, a self-help book on relationships... Ok
so your stock went up 69%... I don't think it's going to do that again
in the next year. But maybe if everybody loses weight something good
will come of it. HOLD
--j.
From joe at barrera.org Wed May 26 19:00:57 2004
From: joe at barrera.org (Joseph S. Barrera III)
Date: Wed May 26 18:59:32 2004
Subject: [FoRK] Re: [Beowulf] Redmond is at it,
again (fwd from rgb@phy.duke.edu)
In-Reply-To:
References: <20040526070709.GE1105@leitl.org> <1085577310.9620.7.camel@linux.site>
Message-ID: <40B54BD9.9040109@barrera.org>
Counter-Linux PR action.
- Joe
From gbolcer at endeavors.com Thu May 27 10:25:12 2004
From: gbolcer at endeavors.com (Gregory Alan Bolcer)
Date: Thu May 27 10:27:39 2004
Subject: [Fwd: [FoRK] Count Every Vote: Sign the Petition]
In-Reply-To: <40B35291.9090201@barrera.org>
References: <40B2A65B.7010201@endeavors.com> <40B35291.9090201@barrera.org>
Message-ID: <40B62478.2090204@endeavors.com>
Joseph S. Barrera III wrote:
> Gregory Alan Bolcer wrote:
>
>> If it's going to be a landslide, why waste the effort? Why not just
>> accept the concession and moveon?
>
>
> Greg,
>
> Can you PLEASE refrain from baiting Jeff? We're all so tired of this...
>
> - Joe
>
The point was, I had gotten a heads up that Al Gore's speech
sponsored by moveon.org was going to be a passionate plea
for "recapturing our national honor"[1] and I thought it'd
be more subtle than saying I have a friend of a friend who
writes speeches for Democrats or FoRKing the raw text. In
terms of baiting, it's equivalent to fly fishing [0] rather
than the more traditional live nightcrawler writhing
on the sharp metal hook.
Greg
--
Gregory Alan Bolcer, CTO | work: +1.949.833.2800
gbolcer at endeavors.com | http://endeavors.com
Endeavors Technology, Inc.| cell: +1.714.928.5476
[0] http://thecaliforniaranch.com/fishingHunting.html
[1] http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/vl/notes/kagan.html
Donald Kagan on national honor
Donald Kagan, Hillhouse professor of history and classics at Yale,
delivered a paper at a conference, "Intangible Interests and U.S.
Foreign Policy," held in 1996. The article below was adapted from that
paper and published in the April 1997 issue of Commentary.
For the last 2,500 years, at least, states have conducted their affairs
and often gone to war moved by considerations that would not pass the
test of "vital national interests." On countless occasions they have
acted to foster or to defend a collection of beliefs and feelings that
have run, or appeared to run, counter to their secular practical needs,
persisting in this course even when the danger has been evident and the
cost high.
Modern politicians and students of politics commonly call such motives
irrational. But the notion that the only thing rational or real in the
conduct of nations is the search for economic benefits or physical
security is itself a prejudice of our time, a product of the attempt to
treat the world of human events as though it were an inanimate,
motiveless physical universe. Such an approach is no more adequate to
explain behavior today than it ever was.
Honor is the name of one category of concerns and motives that has
dominated relations among peoples and states since antiquity. Honor
includes such elements as the search for fame and glory; the desire to
escape shame, disgrace and embarassment; the wish to avenge a wrong and
thereby to restore one's reputation; the determination to behave in
accordance with certain moral ideals. Although concepts of what is
honorable and dishonorable can vary over time and place, sometimes
superficially and sometimes deeply, and although other people's ideas of
honor, especially those of an earlier time, can seem silly or outmoded,
such surface variations often conceal a fundamental similarity or even
identity.
To say that the pursuit of honor can run counter to a "realist" view of
the national interest, of course, is not to say that it has no place in
the competition for power or tangible advantage. That place may be
easier to grasp if we translate honor into such terms as deference,
esteem, just due, regard, respect, or, especially, prestige. When a
state's power grows, the deference and respect in which it is held are
likely to grow as well. Conversely, when the prestige of a state wanes,
so, too, does its power -- even if materially, or "objectively," that
power appears to remain unaffected.
The first man carefully to observe the relationship of power and honor
in the sense of prestige was the Athenian historian Thucydides. Like a
modern-day "realist," he understood international relations as the
competition for power, and war as the resort to arms in that
competition. But he went beyond most modern scholars in explaining that
in the struggle for power, whether for a rational sufficiency or to
amass all the power there is, people act out of a variety of motives. In
his account of the causes of the Peloponnesian war, and particularly in
his narration of the dispute between the states of Corinth and Corcyra,
Thucydides makes plain how "fear" and "interest," commonplace as they
are, often yield decisively to considerations of "honor" or threats to
honor.
Honor in the particular sense employed by Thucydides -- that is, honor
as prestige -- has played a critical role throughout history. In the
period just before World War I, starting when Germany embarked on its
"new course" in 1897, much of what was happening in Europe amounted to
prestige politics. The German battleship navy was, after all, what
Winston Curchill called it -- a "luxury fleet." Though it played a major
role in causing the war, it took no significant part in the fighting and
never did Germany any practical good. Both the 1909 and 1911 crises with
France over the status of Morocco were provoked by Germany's search for
prestige, and the same could be said of Germany's excessively harsh and
unnecessary ultimatum in the Bosnian crisis of 1908-9. These were the
policies that created, in turn, the prewar alliance system and the arms
race on land and sea, and that set Austria and Russia on a collision
course in the Balkans.
Great Britain's concern for honor, and for the danger that dishonor
posed to its safety and therefore its power, played a large role in the
decisions taken by the British government prior to the war. In his
famous Mansion House speech of 1911, David Lloyd George said: "I believe
it is essential... that Britain should at all hazards maintain her
prestige among the Great Powers of the world... [I]f a situation were to
be forced upon us in which peace could only be preserved by the
surrender of the great and beneficient position Britain has won by
centuries of heroism and achievement, by allowing Britain to be treated,
where her interests were vitally affected, as if she were of no account
in the Cabinet of nations, then I say emphatically that peace at that
price would be a humiliation intolerable for a great country like ours
to endure."
Britain's Foreign Secretary, Sir Edward Grey, spoke in similar terms. On
August 3, 1914 he told parliament that Britain could keep out of the war
by issuing a proclamation of unconditional neutrality, but he rejected
that course: "If we did take that line by saying: 'We will have nothing
whatever to do with this matter,' ...we should, I believe, sacrifice our
respect and good name and reputation before the world, and should not
escape the most serious and grave economic consequences." Years later,
Grey wrote that "The real reason for going into the war was that, if we
did not stand by France and stand up for Belgium against [German]
agression, we should be isolated, discredited, and hated; and there
would be nothing for us but a miserable and ignoble future." The
British, in short, were moved by fear of the danger Germany presented to
their most vital interests, but they understood the danger, and brought
themselves to face its consequences, by seeing it as a threat to their
honor.
At least one kind of honor, then, clearly has a place in calculations of
national power -- more difficult to measure, perhaps, than tangible
"interests," but measurable nevertheless. But nations, like individuals,
uphold other conceptions of honor as well, and they also pursue honor in
ways that are the product not of calculation but of feeling. Thucydides'
account of Corinth's quarell with Corcyra shows, indeed, how these
different ideas and impulses are often intertwined. The Corinthians, he
writes, became involved in an unimportant civil war on the fringes of
the Greek world "out of hatred for the Corcyraeans, for [the latter]
paid no attention to the Corinthians even though they were their
colonists. In the common festivals they did not give them the customary
privileges, nor did they begin by having a Corinthian commence the
initial sacrifices, as the other colonies did, but treated them
contemptuously." It was this blow to their dignity, this failure of
respect, that produced the hatred which caused the Corinthians to act.
No question of economic interest, no requirement of the competition for
power, no danger to security, no practical fear, but rather a sense of
unrequited grievance and shame provoked them to unleash a terrible war.
If the Corinthians acted out of a sense of honor violated, so too did
Mussolini many centuries later when he set out to avenge a defeat
suffered by the Italian army at Adowa in Abyssinia -- that "shameful
scar," in the words of the poet Gabrielle D'Annunzio. But Mussolini's
Abyssinian campaign of 1935 was undertaken not only for the sake of
revenge and to erase a four-decades-old dishonor but in quest of
something as well: it was meant to glorify his Fascist regime and, even
more exaltedly, to recapture the ancient glory of the Roman empire.
Throughout the ages, for better and for worse, honor in this sense -- of
fame, glory, renown, and splendor -- has likewise motivated decisions
about international relations and war and peace. In the heroic world
depicted in the Iliad, Achilles would rather fight at Troy where he
knows he must die than stay safely at home and be immortal, because that
would deprive him on the fame and glory that alone make a hero's life
worth living. In dynastic ages, sovereigns have risked the prosperity
and security of their kingdoms and their persons to achieve glory. In
religiuos eras, crusading monarchs have done the same in the name of
true religion.
The 20th century, I would argue, introduced yet a new sense of honor
into international relations. World War I effectively put an end to the
old dynastic order; thereafter, the struggle would be between
increasingly democratic states on the one hand and, on the other,
tyrannies or dictatorships of one form or another. The victorious
nations in the Great War were themselves democracies, dependent for
their legitimacy on the support of the whole people, and this
circumstance gave birth to a new set of ideas as to what was honorable
in the conduct of nations. War itself, in the new conception, was
believed to be morally wrong, its causes connected with the
aggressiveness natural to authoritarian and despotic regimes. Democracy,
by contrast, was right and good in itself and also a force for peace.
Over time, the idea took root that the only just war was a war in
defense of democracy and self-determination.
Woodrow Wilson was thus not speaking for himself alone when he said that
a crucial aim of the Great War had been the defense and extension of
democracy. Moreover, in contrast to older coalitions like the Quadruple
Alliance of the 19th century, the device Wilson introduced for resisting
aggresion and keeping the peace -- collective security in the form of
the League of Nations -- was the product not of private negotiations
among a few diplomats but of great, open, public discussions, supported
by politicians, public associations, and widespread propaganda.
Political elites in democracies might regard all this with cynicism, but
they would henceforth need to deal with a public opinion that took it
seriously, and that firmly linked the need to resist aggression with the
concept of moral honor.
The Western response to Italy's attack on Abyssinia in 1935 -- itself
undertaken, as we have seen, in the name of honor in the older sense --
provides a good example of the critical role of honor in the new. Before
the Great War it would have been extremely unlikely that a European
assault on a weak African nation of no particular value or interest to
other European powers would have provoked a meaningful reaction. And
even now there was little sentiment within the British government for a
strong stand against Italy. Some argued for a prudent, "realist" policy.
Such a policy, recognizing British military weakness and the need to
hold Mussolini as an ally against Hitler, would be prepared to sacrifice
Abyssinia in the name of British national interests.
But as the historian Correlli Barnett has pointed out, this "was 1935,
not 1835 or 1735. English foreign policy was no longer a matter simply
for the Foreign Secretary or even the Cabinet." By 1935, many British
felt they could not ignore the commitment to resist aggression, whether
or not their country was capable of resisting it effectively. The result
was that although Britain's Foreign Minister Samuel Hoare and France's
Pierre Laval both felt that no real effort should be made to stop
Mussolini, they also sensed that such a decision could not be admitted
to the British public. And they were right: the subsequent Hoare-Laval
agreement, meant to accomodate the Italian successes in Abyssinia, was
greeted in Britain by an outburst of angry disapproval and was widely
condemned as a reward for aggression, a blow to the idea of the League,
and an act of cowardice. Hoare was forced to resign.
The efforts of Neville Chamberlain two years later to conduct a policy
of appeasement based on hard-headed calculations of interests ran into
the same new reality, intensified now by the dishonor of 1935 and its
consequences. When Chamberlain, speaking to his Cabinet, portrayed
England's intended abandonment of Czechoslovakia as a matter of
practicality and common sense, one member was indiscreet enough to
suggest that the required concessions were "unfair to the Czechs and
dishonorable to ourselves." Another compared the present crisis with
1914, when the Germans invaded Belgium: "There was a hard fiber in the
British people which did not like to be told that, unless they
acquiesced in certain things, it was all up with them." In parliament,
the opposition Labor and Liberal parties made their case, as Barnett
writes, "not on strategic grounds, but on the score of morality and
ideology. A robber power -- and, what was worse, a Fascist power -- had
been positively helped by the British government to enlarge itself at
the expense of a small country, and, what was worse, a democratic country".
Chamberlain and his colleagues, it is well known, misjudged the true
nature of Hitler and the threat that he posed. But they also badly
misunderstood the new realities of international relations conducted by
democratic nations. Those realities were well and truly grasped by
Winston Churchill, who became Britain's new leader after the fall of
Norway and Denmark in the spring of 1940 finally forced Chamberlain from
office in disgrace. Firmly rejecting a peace offer from the apparently
irresistible Hitler, Churchill formulated a policy of resistance that
accurately reflected the feelings of most of the British people, who
preferred the risks and suffering of a terrible war to the dishonor of a
shameful peace with a dictator who personified ideas and institutions
that were anathema to them.
Britain's example has had a great influence on Western and especially on
American attitudes ever since. The "Munich analogy" was, of course, a
major force in shaping the policy of the United States in its
confrontation with the Soviet Union. That confrontation was certainly a
contest for power, and it certainly included elements of fear and
interest, to use Thucydides' categories; one need only mention the fear
of nuclear war, and the interest in avoiding it. But no less important
was the conflict of values, in which questions of honor were
inextricably entwined.
To most Americans, the Soviet Union was an aggressive, militaristic
dictatorship not very different from the ones they had just vanquished
in World War II. Not only American security but also decency and honor
argued for its containment, if not its defeat. It is impossible to
believe that the American people would have accepted compulsory military
service, higher taxes to pay for increased armaments, a permanent
European alliance, and both the prospect and the reality of actual
warfare had they not been motivated by factors that went beyond a
conception of their material interest.
To be sure, those same nonmaterialist impulses -- passionate
anti-Communism, the determination to resist its expansion anywhere in
the world, even the intension of defeating it -- appalled and alarmed
the "realist" sectors of the American foreign-policy establishment, who
feared that acting on them would lead to dangerous crusades, an
exhaustion of America's resources, or all-out war and mutual
annihilation. Arguing from calculations of interest, the realists urged
instead that we accept the permanence of world Communism and concentrate
on finding areas of mutual accomodation. When, in the wake of America's
defeat in Vietnam, the balance of world power seemed to be shifting in
favor of the Soviets, realists urged a policy of still greater
accomodation; and such a policy, under the name of d?tente, was in fact
put into place by the administration then in Washington.
Unfortunately, d?tente produced not reciprocal accomodation but more
aggressive expansionism on the part of the Soviets, and gains in the
arms race that upset the balance of power still further. The aftermath
is well known. In the late 1970's, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan
helped to galvanize the sentiments of millions of Americans who had long
regarded d?tente not merely as mistaken but as a dishonorable retreat,
and to sweep into office a new administration committed to restoring
American strength and honor. To the confusion of the realists, Ronald
Reagan's determined effort to build up American defenses and consign the
"evil empire" to dust was followed neither by American economic
implosion nor by suicidal war but by the collapse of the Soviet Union,
the discrediting of Communist dictatorship, and the vindication of
freedom and democracy.
That happy outcome could never have been achieved merely by the pursuit
of what experts considered to be our practical national interests, any
more than the persistent and costly policy of global engagement in the
early decades after World War II could have been maintained without the
commitment of Americans at large to values deeper and more humanly
compelling than concern over economic and geopolitical advantage.
Realists are quite right to point to the centrality of the contest for
power in international relations, and also to the dangers of imprudence
and immoderation that can arise from the pursuit of intangible goals
like honor. But dangers of a no lesser seriousness attend the
competition for power itself, however rationally calculated. Moreover,
power is never pursued for itself, but always for the sake of some value
or values.
In modern democratic states, those values tend to be moral in nature,
and to involve a peculiarly democratic conception of honor. To attempt
to exclude them from consideration is the height of phantasy, and the
opposite of realism.
From elias at cse.ucsc.edu Thu May 27 10:38:10 2004
From: elias at cse.ucsc.edu (Elias Sinderson)
Date: Thu May 27 10:38:16 2004
Subject: [FoRK] diebold posters
Message-ID: <40B62782.8080002@cse.ucsc.edu>
There's a few good ones here that are begging to be printed and posted
about...
Elias
From gbolcer at endeavors.com Thu May 27 10:40:30 2004
From: gbolcer at endeavors.com (Gregory Alan Bolcer)
Date: Thu May 27 10:42:48 2004
Subject: [FoRK] diebold posters
In-Reply-To: <40B62782.8080002@cse.ucsc.edu>
References: <40B62782.8080002@cse.ucsc.edu>
Message-ID: <40B6280E.40906@endeavors.com>
I think that the churchill quote is funny. They
use it opposite of what he was really saying.
Greg
Elias Sinderson wrote:
> There's a few good ones here that are begging to be printed and posted
> about...
>
>
>
> Elias
> _______________________________________________
> FoRK mailing list
> http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork
>
--
Gregory Alan Bolcer, CTO | work: +1.949.833.2800
gbolcer at endeavors.com | http://endeavors.com
Endeavors Technology, Inc.| cell: +1.714.928.5476
From jm at jmason.org Thu May 27 10:53:44 2004
From: jm at jmason.org (Justin Mason)
Date: Thu May 27 10:54:36 2004
Subject: [FoRK] Tom Clancy -- hairy, besandaled peacenik
Message-ID: <20040527175346.0E8D14E81C4@radish.jmason.org>
(via Danny O'Brien's linklog)
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/05/25/1085461759852.html
Tom Clancy new book criticises Iraq war
May 26, 2004
Page Tools
A celebrated author with many admirers in the military has criticised the
US-led invasion of Iraq, citing it as proof that "good men make mistakes".
Tom Clancy also said he almost "came to blows" with a leading war
supporter, former Pentagon adviser Richard Perle.
The hawkish master of such million-selling thrillers as Patriot Games and
The Hunt for Red October has added his own name to critics of the Iraq
war, and not only through his own comments.
His latest book, Battle Ready, is a collaboration with another war critic,
retired Marine General Anthony Zinni.
Battle Ready looks at Zinni's long military career, dating back to the
Vietnam War, and includes harsh remarks by Zinni about the current
conflict.
In an interview today with The Associated Press, Clancy and Zinni sat side
by side in a hotel conference room in Manhattan, mutual admirers who said
they agreed on most issues, despite "one or two" spirited "discussions"
during the book's planning. Advertisement Advertisement
Zinni has openly attacked the war, but Clancy reluctantly acknowledged his
own concerns. He declined repeatedly to comment on the war, before saying
that it lacked a "casus belli," or suitable provocation.
"It troubles me greatly to say that, because I've met President (George W)
Bush," Clancy said. "He's a good guy. ... I think he's well-grounded, both
morally and philosophically. But good men make mistakes."
Battle Ready was published in the United States today with a first
printing of 438,700. It is the fourth in Clancy's "Commanders" series, in
which military leaders reflect on their careers and discuss military
strategy.
"In the movies, military leaders are all drunken Nazis," said Clancy, who
has worked on books about retired General Chuck Horner, who led US Central
Command Air Forces during the Gulf War, and retired General Carl Stiner,
whose missions included the capture of Panama leader Manuel Noriega.
"In fact, these are very bright people who regard the soldiers and Marines
under them as their own kids. I thought the people needed to know about
that. These are good guys, and smart guys."
Zinni served as commander in chief of the US Central Command from 1997 to
2000 and as a special Middle East envoy from 2001-2003.
But even as an envoy, Zinni spoke out against invading Iraq, regarding it
as disastrous for Middle East peace and a distraction from the war against
terrorism. Today, he said getting rid of Saddam Hussein was not worth the
price.
"He's a bad guy. He's a terrible guy and he should go," Zinni said.
"But I don't think it's worth 800 troops dead, 4500 wounded - some of them
terribly - $US200 billion ($286.8 billion) of our treasury and counting,
and our reputation and our image in the world, particularly in that
region, shattered."
In discussing the Iraq war, both Clancy and Zinni singled out the
Department of Defence for criticism.
Clancy recalled a prewar encounter in Washington during which he "almost
came to blows" with Richard Perle, a Pentagon adviser at the time and a
longtime advocate of the invasion.
AP
--j.
From eugen at leitl.org Thu May 27 12:27:50 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Thu May 27 12:28:04 2004
Subject: [FoRK] [NEC] #3.4: Nomic World (fwd from nec@shirky.com)
Message-ID: <20040527192749.GZ1105@leitl.org>
----- Forwarded message from nec@shirky.com -----
From: nec@shirky.com
Date: Thu, 27 May 2004 13:53:17 -0400
To: nec@shirky.com
Subject: [NEC] #3.4: Nomic World
User-Agent: nail 10.4 1/19/03
Reply-To: list-replies@shirky.com, nec@shirky.com
NEC @ Shirky.com, a mailing list about Networks, Economics, and Culture
Published periodically / #3.4 / May 27, 2004
Subscribe at http://shirky.com/nec.html
Archived at http://shirky.com
Social Software weblog at http://corante.com/many/
In this issue:
- Introduction
- Essay: Nomic World
Also at http://www.shirky.com/writings/nomic.html
- Two Interviews
Gothamist - http://www.gothamist.com/interview/archives/2004/04/09/clay_shirky_internet_technologist.php
Neofiles - http://www.life-enhancement.com/neofiles/default.asp?id=35
* Introduction =======================================================
This month's essay is an edited version of a talk I gave last November
at Beth Noveck's "State of Play" conference on games and the law. It
concerns the steps necessary to put users in real control of the
online spaces they inhabit, through adjustments in governence, both
economic and code-based.
-clay
* Essay ==============================================================
Nomic World: By the players, for the players
http://www.shirky.com/writings/nomic.html
I'm sort of odd-man-out in a Games and Law conference, in that my
primary area of inquiry isn't games but social software. Not only am I
not a lawyer, I don't even spend most of my time thinking about game
problems. I spend my time thinking about software that supports group
interaction across a fairly wide range of social patterns.
So, instead of working from case law out, which has been a theme here
(and here's where I insert the "I am not a lawyer" disclaimer) I'm
going to propose a thought experiment looking from the outside in.
And I want to pick up on something that Julian [Dibbell] said earlier
about game worlds: 'users are the state.' The thought experiment I
want to propose is to agree with that sentiment, and to ask "How far
can we go in that direction?"
Instead of looking for the places where game users are currently suing
or fighting one another, forcing the owners of various virtual worlds
to deal with these things one crisis at a time, I want to ask the
question "What would happen if we wanted to build a world where we
maximized the amount of user control? What would that look like?"
I'm going to make that argument in three pieces. First, I'm going to
do a little background on group structure and the tension between the
individual and the group. Then I want to contrast briefly governance
in real and virtual worlds. Finally I want to propose a thought
experiment on placing control of online spaces in the hands of the
users.
- Background
[This material is also covered in A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy -- ed.]
The background first: The core fact about human groups is that they
are first-class entities. They exhibit behaviors that can't be
predicted by looking at individual psychologies. When groups of people
get together they do surprising things, things you can't predict from
watching the behavior of individuals. I want to illustrate this with a
story, and I want to illustrate it with a story from your life,
because even though I don't know you, I know what I'm about to
describe has happened to you.
You're at a party and you get bored -- it's not doing it for you
anymore. The people you wanted to talk to have already left, you've
been there a long time, you'd rather be home playing Ultima,
whatever. You're ready to go. And then a really remarkable thing
happens - you don't actually leave. You decide you don't like this
party anymore, but you don't walk out. That second thing, that thing
keeping you there is a kind of social stickiness. And so there's this
tension between your intellectual self and your membership, however
tenuous, in the group.
Then, twenty minutes later, another really remarkable thing
happens. Somebody else gets their coat, 'Oh, look at the time.' What
happens? Suddenly everybody is leaving all at once. So you have this
group of people, each of whom is perfectly capable of making
individual decisions and yet they're unconsciously synchronizing in
ways that you couldn't have predicted from watching each of them.
We're very used to talking about social structure in online game
spaces in terms of guilds or other formal organizations. But in fact,
human group structure kicks in incredibly early, at very low levels of
common association. Anything more focused than a group of people
standing together in an elevator is likely to exhibit some of these
group effects.
So what's it like to be there at that party, once you've decided to
leave but are not leaving? It's horrible. You really want to go and
you're stuck. And that tension is between your emotional commitment to
the group fabric and your intellectual decision that this is not for
you. The tension between the individual and the group is inevitable,
it arises over and over again -- we've seen that pattern for as long
as we've had any history of human groups we can look at in any detail.
Unfortunately the literature is pretty clear this isn't a problem you
outgrow. The tension between the individual and the group is a
permanent fact of human life. And when groups get to the point where
this tension becomes a crisis, they have to say "Some individual
freedoms have to be curtailed in order for group cohesion to be
protected."
This is an extremely painful moment, especially in communities that
privilege individual freedoms, and the first crisis, of course, is the
worst one. In the first crisis, not only do you have to change the
rules, you don't even have those rules spelt out in the first place --
that's the constitutional crisis. That's the crisis where you say,
this group of people is going to be self-governing.
Group structure, even when it's not explicitly political, is in part a
response to this tension. It's a response to the idea that the
cohesion of the group sometimes requires limits on individual
rights. (As an aside, this is one of the reasons that libertarianism
in its extreme form doesn't work, because it assumes that groups are
simply aggregates of individuals, and that those individuals will
create shared value without any sort of coercion. In fact, the logic
of collective action, to use Mancur Olsen's phrase, requires some
limits on individual freedom. Olsen's book on the subject, by the way,
is brilliant if a little dry.)
- Fork World
If you want to see why the tension between the individual and the
group is so significant, imagine a world, call it Fork World, where
the citizens were given the right to vote on how the world was run. In
Fork World, however, the guiding principle would be "no coercion."
Players would vote on rule changes, but instead of announcing winners
and losers at the end of a vote, the world would simply be split in
two with every vote.
Imagine there was a vote in Fork World on whether players can kill one
another, say, which has been a common theme in political crises in
virtual worlds. After the vote, instead of imposing the results on
everyone, you would send everyone who voted Yes to a world where
player killing is allowed, and everyone who voted No to an alternate
world, identical in every respect except that player killing was not
allowed.
And of course, after 20 such votes, you would have subdivided 2 to the
20th times, leaving you with a million potential worlds -- a world
with player killing and where your possessions can be stolen when you
die and where you re-spawn vs. a world with player killing and
possession stealing but death is permanent, and so on. Even if you
started with a million players on Day One, by your 20th vote each
world would average, by definition, one player per world. You would
have created a new category of MMO -- the Minimally Multi-player Online
game.
This would fulfill the libertarian fantasy of no coercion on behalf of
the group, because no one would ever be asked to assent to rules they
hadn't voted for, but it would also be approximately no fun. To get
the pleasure of other people's company, people have to abide by rules
they might not like considered in isolation. Group cohesion has
significant value, value that makes accepting majority rule
worthwhile.
- Simple Governance Stack
Since tensions between group structure and individual behavior are
fundamental, we can look at ways that real world group structure and
virtual world group structure differ. To illustrate this, I'm going to
define the world's tiniest stack, a three-layer stack of governance
functions in social spaces. This is of course a tremendous
over-simplification, you could draw the stack at all kinds of levels
of complexity. I've used three levels because it's what fits on a
Powerpoint slide with great big text.
- Social Norms
- Interventions
- Mechanics
At the top level are social norms. We've heard this several times at
the conference today -- social norms in game worlds have the effect of
governance. There are some societies where not wearing white shoes
after Memorial Day has acquired the force of law. It's nowhere spelt
out, no one can react to you in any kind of official way if you
violate that rule, and yet there's a social structure that keeps that
in place.
Then at the bottom of the stack is mechanics, the stuff that just
happens. I've pulled Norman Mailer's quote about Naked Lunch here --
"As implacable as a sales tax." Sales tax just happens as a
side-effect of living our normal lives. We have all sorts of
mechanisms for making it work in this way, but the experience of the
average citizen is that the tax just happens.
And between these top and bottom layers in the stack, between
relatively light-weight social norms and things that are really
embedded into the mechanics of society, are lots and lots of
interventions, places where we give some segment of society heightened
power, and then allow them to make judgment calls, albeit with
oversight.
Arresting someone or suing someone are examples of such interventions,
where human judgment is required. I've listed interventions in the
middle of the stack because they are more than socially enforceable --
suing someone for libel is more than just social stigma-- but they are
not mechanical -- libel is a judgment call, so some human agency is
required to decide whether libel has happened, and if so, how it
should be dealt with.
And of course these layers interact with one another as well. One of
the characteristics of this interaction is that in many cases social
norms acquire the force of law. If the society can be shown to have
done things in a certain way consistently and for a long time, the
courts will, at least in common law societies, abide by that.
- The Stack in Social Worlds
Contrast the virtual world. Social norms - the players have all sorts
of ways of acting on and enacting social norms. There are individual
behaviors - trolling and flaming, which are in part indoctrination
rituals and in part population control, then there are guilds and more
organized social structures, so there's a spectrum of formality in the
social controls in the game world.
Beneath that there's intervention by wizardly fiat. Intervention comes
from the people who have a higher order of power, some sort of direct
access to the software that runs the system. Sometimes it is used to
solve social dilemmas, like the toading of Mr. Bungle in LambdaMoo
[http://www.juliandibbell.com/texts/bungle.html], or for dispute
resolution, where two players come to a deadlock, and it can't be
worked out except by a third party who has more power. Sometimes it's
used to fix places where system mechanics break down, as with the
story from Habitat [http://www.fudco.com/chip/lessons.html] about
accidentally allowing a player to get a too-powerful gun.
Intervention is a key lubricator, since it allows the ad hoc solution
of unforeseen problems, and the history of both political norms and
computer networks is the history of unforeseen problems.
And then there's mechanics. The principal difference between real
world mechanics and virtual world mechanics is ownership. Someone owns
the server - there is a deed for a box sitting in a hosting company
somewhere, and that server could be turned off by the person who owns
it. The irony is that although we're used to computers greatly
expanding the reach of the individual, as they do in many aspects of
our lives, in this domain they actually contract it. Players live in
an online analog to a shopping mall, which seems like public space,
but is actually privately owned. And of course both the possibility of
monitoring and control in virtual worlds is orders of magnitude higher
than in a shopping mall.
The players have no right to modification of the game world, or even
to oversight of the world's owners. There are very few environments
where the players can actually vote to compel either the system
administrators or the owners to do things, in a way that acquires the
force of law. (Michael Froomkin has done some interesting work on
testing legal structures in game worlds
[http://intel.si.umich.edu/tprc/papers/2003/240/VirtualReal.pdf].)
In fact what often happens, both online and off, is that structures
are created which look like citizen input, but these structures are
actually designed to deflect participation while providing political
cover. Anyone in academia knows that faculty meetings exist so the
administration can say "Well you were consulted" whenever something
bad happens, even though the actual leverage the faculty has over the
ultimate decision is nil. The model here is customer service --
generate a feeling of satisfaction at the lowest possible
cost. Political representation, on the other hand, is a high-cost
exercise, not least because it requires group approval.
- Two Obstacles
So, what are the barriers to self-governance by the users? There are
two big ones -- lots of little ones, but two big ones.
The first obstacle is code, the behavior of code. As Lessig says, code
is law. In online spaces, code defines the environment we operate
in. It's difficult to share the powers of code among the users,
because our current hardware design center is the 'Personal Computer',
we don't have a design that's allows for social constraints on
individual use.
Wizards have a higher degree of power than other players, and simply
allowing everyone to be a wizard tends to very quickly devolve into
constant fighting about what to do with those wizardly powers. (We've
seen this with IRC [internet relay chat], where channel operators have
higher powers than mere users, leading to operator wars, where the
battle is over control of the space.)
The second big obstacle is economics -- the box that runs the virtual
world is owned by someone, and it isn't you. When you pay your $20 a
month to Sony or Microsoft, you're subscribing to a service, but
you're not actually paying for the server directly. The ownership
passes through a series of layers that dilutes your control over
it. The way our legal system works, it's hard for groups to own things
without being legal entities. It's easy for Sony to own
infrastructure, but for you and your 5 friends to own a server in
common, you'd have to create some kind of formal entity. IOUs and
social agreements to split the cost won't get you very far.
So, if we want to maximize player control, if we want to create an
environment in which users have refined control, political control,
over this stack I've drawn, you have to deal with those two obstacles
-- making code subject to political control, and making it possible
for the group to own their own environment.
- Nomic World
Now what would it be like if we set out to design a game environment
like that? Instead of just waiting for the players to argue for
property rights or democratic involvement, what would it be like to
design an environment where they owned their online environment
directly, where we took the "Code is Law" equation at face value, and
gave the users a constitution that included the ability to both own
and alter the environment?
There's a curious tension here between political representation and
games. The essence of political representation is that the rules are
subject to oversight and alteration by the very people expected to
abide by them, while games are fun in part because the rule set is
fixed. Even in games with highly idiosyncratic adjustments to the
rules, as with Monopoly say, the particular rules are fixed in advance
of playing.
One possible approach to this problem is to make changing the rules
fun, to make it part of the game. This is exactly the design center of
a game called Nomic [http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/nomic.htm]. It was
invented in 1982 by the philosopher Peter Suber. He included it as an
appendix to a book called The Paradox of Self Amendment
[http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/psa/index.htm], which concerns
the philosophical ramifications of having a body of laws that includes
the instructions for modifying those laws.
Nomic is a game in which changing the rules is a legitimate move
within the game world, which makes it closer to the condition of a
real government than to, say, Everquest. The characteristics of the
Nomic rules are, I think, the kind of thing you would have to take on
if you wanted to build an environment in which players had real
control. Nomic rules are alterable, and they're also explicit - one of
the really interesting things about designing a game in which changing
the rules is one of the rules, is you have to say much more carefully
what the rules actually are.
The first rule of Nomic, Rule 101, is "All players must abide by the
rules." Now that's an implicit rule that almost any game anyone ever
plays, but in Nomic it needs to be spelled out, and ironically, once
you spell it out it's up for amendment - you can have a game of Nomic
in which you allow people to no longer play by the rules.
Suber's other key intuition, I think, in addition to making mutability
a move in the game, is making Nomic contain both deep and shallow
rules. There are rules that are "immutable", and rules that are
mutable. I put immutable in quotes because Rule 103 allows for "...the
transmutation of an immutable rule into a mutable rule or vice versa."
Because the players can first vote to make an immutable rule mutable,
and then can vote to change the newly mutable rule, Nomic works a
little like the US Constitution: there are things that are easier to
change and harder to change, but nothing is beyond change. For
example, flag burning is currently protected speech under our First
Amendment, so laws restricting flag burning are invariably struck down
as unconstitutional. An amendment to the constitution making flag
burning illegal, however, would not, by definition, be
unconstitutional, but such an amendment is much much harder to pass
than an ordinary law. Same pattern.
The game Nomic has the advantage of being mental and interpretive,
unlike software-mediated environments, where the rules are blindly run
by the processor. We know (thank you Herr Godel), that we cannot prove
that any sufficiently large set of rules is also self-consistent, and
we know (from bitter experience) that even simple software contains
bugs.
The task of instantiating a set of rules in code and then trying to
work in the resulting environment, while modifying it, can seem
daunting. I think it's worth trying, though, because an increasing
degree of our lives, personal, social and political, are going to be
lived in these mediated spaces. The importance of online spaces as
public gatherings is so fundamental, in fact, that for the rest of
this talk, I'm going to use the words player and citizen
interchangeably.
- How to build it?
How to build a Nomic world? Start with economics. The current barriers
to self-ownership by users is simple: the hardware running the social
environment is owned by someone, and we have a model of contractual
obligation for ownership of hardware, rather than a model of political
membership.
One possible response to current economic barriers, call it the
Co-operative Model, is to use contracts to create political
rights. Here we would set up a world or game in which the people
running it are actually the employees of the citizens, not the
employees of the game company, and their relationship to the body of
citizens is effectively as work-for-hire. This would be different than
the current 'monthly subscriber' model for most game worlds. In the
co-operative model, when you're paying for access to the game world
your dollars would buy you shares of stock in a joint stock
corporation -- citizens would be both stakeholders and
shareholders. There would be a fiduciary duty on the part of the
people running the game on your behalf to act on the political will of
the people, however expressed, rather than the contractual
relationship we have now.
The downside of this model is that the contractual requirements to do
such a thing are complex. The Open Source world gives us a number of
interesting models for valuable communal property like the license to
a particular piece of software being held in trust. When such a
communal trust, though, wants to have employees, the contracts become
far more complex, and the citizens' co-op becomes an employer. Not
un-do-able, but not a great target for quick experiments either.
A second way to allow a group to own their own social substrate is
with a Distributed Model, where you would attack the problem down at
the level of the infrastructure. If the issue is that any one server
has to be owned somewhere, distribute the server. Run the environment
on individual PC's and create a peer-to-peer network, so that the
entirety of the infrastructure is literally owned by the citizens from
the moment they join the game. That pushes some technological
constraints, like asynchronicity, into the environment, but it's also
a way of attacking ownership, and one that doesn't require a lot of
contractual specification with employees.
[Since I gave this talk, I've discovered BlogNomic
[http://blognomic.blogspot.com/], a version of Nomic run on weblogs,
which uses this "distributed platform" pattern.]
A third way could be called Cheap Model; simply work at such low cost
that you can piggyback on low-cost or free infrastructure. If you
wanted to build a game, this would probably mean working in text-based
strategy mode, rather than the kind of immersive graphic worlds we've
been talking so much about today. There are a number of social tools
-- wikis and mailing lists and so on -- that are freely available and
cheap to host. In this case, a one-time donation of a few dollars per
citizen at the outset would cover hosting costs for some time.
Those are some moves that would potentially free a Nomic environment
from the economic constraints of ownership by someone other than the
citizens. The second constraint is dealing with the code, the actual
software running the world.
- Code
Code is a much harder thing to manipulate than economics. Current
barriers in code, as I said, are levels of permission and root
powers. The real world has nothing like root access -- there is an
urban legend, a rural legend, I guess, about the State of Tennesee
declaring the value of pi to be 3, as irrational numbers were
decidedly inconvenient. However, the passage of such a law couldn't
actually change the value of pi.
In an online world, on the other hand, it would be possible to
redefine pi, or indeed any other value, which would in some cases
cause the world itself to grind to a halt.
This situation, where a rule change ends the game, is possible even in
Nomic. In one game a few years ago, a set of players made a sub-game
of trying to pass game-ending rules. Now in theory Nomic shouldn't
allow such a thing, since such rules could be repealed, so this group
of players specifically targeted unrepealability as the core virtue of
all their proposed changes. One such change, for example, would have
made the comment period for subsequent rule changes 54 years long.
Such a rule could eventually have been repealed, of course, but not in
a year with two zeros in the middle.
So unlike actual political systems, where the legislators are allowed
to create nonsensical but unenforceable laws, in virtual worlds, it's
possible to make laws that are nonsensical and enforceable, even at
the expense of damaging the world itself. This means that any
citizen-owned and operated environment would have to include a third
set of controls, designed to safeguard the world itself against this
kind of damage.
One potential response is to create Platform World, with a third,
deeper level of immutability, enforced with the choice of platform.
You could announce a social experiment, using anything from mailing
list software to There.com, and that would set a bounded environment.
You can imagine that software slowly mutating away from the original
code base, as citizens made rule changes that required code changes,
but by picking a root platform, you would actually have a set of rules
embodied in code that was harder to change than classic Nomic rules.
The top two layers of the stack, the social and interventionist
changes, could happen in the environment, but re-coding the mechanics
of the environment itself would be harder.
A second possibility, as a move completely away from that, would be
Coder World. Here you would only allow users who are comfortable
coding to play or participate in this environment, so that a kind of
literacy becomes a requirement for participation. This would greatly
narrow the range of potential participants, but would flatten the
stack so that all citizens could participate directly in all layers.
This flattening would lead to problems of its own of course, and would
often devolve into tests of hacking prowess, and even attempts crash
the world, as with Nomic, but that might be interesting in and of
itself.
Third, and this is the closest to the current game world model, would
be Macro World. Here you would create a bunch of macro-languages, to
create ways in which end-users who aren't coders could nevertheless
alter the world they inhabit. And obviously object creation, the whole
history of creating virtual objects for virtual environments, works
this way now, but it's not yet at the level of creating the
environment itself from scratch. You come into an environment in which
you create objects, rather than coming into a negative space and
letting the citizens build up the environment, including the rules.
A fourth and final possibility is a CVS World. CVS is a concurrent
versioning system, it's what programmers use to keep code safe, so
that when they make a change that breaks something, they can role back
a version. Wikis, collaborative workspaces where users create the site
together and on the fly, have shown that the CVS pattern can have
important social uses as well.
In the Matrix tradition, because I guess that everybody's referred to
the Matrix in every talk today, CVS World would be a world in which
you simply wouldn't care if citizens made mistakes and screwed up the
world, because the world could always be rolled back to the last
working version.
In this environment, the 'crash the world' problem stops being a
problem not because there is a defense against crashing, but rather a
response. If someone crashes the world, for whatever reason, it rolls
back to the last working version. And that would be potentially the
most dynamic in terms of experimentation, but it would also have
probably the most disruption of game play.
- Why do it?
The looming question here, of course, is "Would it be fun?" Would it
be fun to be in a virtual environment where citizens have a
significant amount of control, and where the legal structures reflect
the legal structures we know in the real world?" And the answer is,
maybe no.
One of my great former students, Elizabeth Goodman, said, the reason
academics like to talk about play but not about fun is that you can
force people to play. Much of what makes a game fun is mastering the
rules -- both winning as defined by the rules and gaming the system
are likely to be more fun than taking responsibility for what the
rules are. There is a danger that by dumping so much responsibility
into the citizen's laps, we would end up re-creating all the fun of
city planning board meetings in an online environment (though given
players' willingness to sit around all day making armor, maybe that's
not a fatal flaw.)
Despite all of this, though, I think it's worth maximizing citizen
involvement through experiments in ownership and control of code, for
several reasons.
First, as Ted [Castronova]'s work shows
[http://www.gamestudies.org/0302/castronova/], the economic
seriousness of game worlds has surpassed anything any of us would have
expected even a few years ago. Economics and politics are both about
distributed optimization under constraints, and given the surprises
we've seen in the economic sphere, with inflation in virtual worlds
and economy hacking by players, it would be interesting to see if
similar energy would be devoted to political engagement, on a level
more fundamental than making and managing Guild rules.
Next, it's happening anyway, so why not formalize it? As Julian
[Dibbell]'s work on everything from LambdaMOO to MMO Terms of Service
demonstrates, the demands for governance are universal features of
virtual worlds, and rather than simply re-invent solutions one crisis
at a time, we could start building a palette of viable political
systems.
Finally, and this is the most important point, we are moving an
increasing amount of our speech to owned environments. The economic
seriousness of these worlds undermines the 'it's only a game'
argument, and the case of tk being run out of the Sims for publishing
reports critical of the game show how quickly freedom of speech issues
can arise. The real world is too difficult to control by fiat -- pi
remains stubbornly irrational no matter who votes on it -- but the
online world is not. Even in non-game and non-fee collecting social
environments like Yahoo Groups, the intrusiveness of advertising and
the right of the owners to unilaterally change the rules creates many
fewer freedoms than we enjoy offline.
We should experiment with game-world models that dump a large and
maybe even unpleasant amount of control into the hands of the players
because it's the best lab we have for experiments with real governance
in the 21st century agora, the place where people gather when they
want to be out in public.
While real world political culture has the unfortunate effect of being
either/or choices -- uni-cameral or bi-cameral legislatures, president
or prime minister, and so on -- the online world offers us a degree of
flexibility that allows us to model rather than theorize. Wonder what
the difference is between forcing new citizens to have sponsors
vs. dumping newbies into the world alone? Try it both ways and see how
the results differ.
This is really the argument for Nomic World, for making an environment
as wholly owned and managed by and for the citizens as a real country
-- if we're going to preserve our political freedoms as we moved to
virtual environments, we're going to need novel political and economic
relations between the citizens and their environments. We need this,
we can't get it from the real world. So we might as well start
experimenting now, because it's going to take a long time to get good
at it, and if we can enlist the players efforts, we'll learn more,
much more, than if we leave the political questions in the hands of
the owners and wizards.
And with that, I'll sit down. Thanks very much.
* Two Interviews ========================================================
Curiously, I was interviewed twice in the space of a couple of weeks,
once for an NYC-focused site called Gothamist, and once by R.U. Sirius
for his Neofile series.
Both interviews include questions on my general views on technology
(though the bulk of the Gothamist interview is about live as a New
Yorker.)
- Gothamist - http://www.gothamist.com/interview/archives/2004/04/09/clay_shirky_internet_technologist.php
- Neofiles - http://www.life-enhancement.com/neofiles/default.asp?id=35
* End ====================================================================
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution License.
The licensor permits others to copy, distribute, display, and perform
the work. In return, licensees must give the original author credit.
To view a copy of this license, visit
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/1.0
or send a letter to
Creative Commons, 559 Nathan Abbott Way, Stanford, California 94305, USA.
2004, Clay Shirky
_______________________________________________
NEC - Clay Shirky's distribution list on Networks, Economics & Culture
NEC@shirky.com
http://shirky.com/nec.html
----- End forwarded message -----
--
Eugen* Leitl leitl
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lair.xent.com/pipermail/fork/attachments/20040527/2bbd8c3b/attachment.pgp
From eugen at leitl.org Fri May 28 00:57:04 2004
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Fri May 28 00:57:10 2004
Subject: [FoRK] Re: [p2p-hackers] trust/reputation system threats (fwd from
clausen@gnu.org)
Message-ID: <20040528075704.GN1105@leitl.org>
----- Forwarded message from Andrew Clausen -----
From: Andrew Clausen
Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 08:59:17 +1000
To: "Peer-to-peer development."
Subject: Re: [p2p-hackers] trust/reputation system threats
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i
Reply-To: "Peer-to-peer development."
On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 05:28:41PM +0100, Farez Rahman wrote:
> I'm looking for info/papers describing threat models that are relevant
> to trust/reputation systems, both centralised and decentralised.
>
> Does anyone have any pointers to this?
John Douceur, "The Sybil Attack"
- how you can use multiple identities; or "re-use" identities.
Paul Resnick et al, "Reputation Systems"
- a good overview of reputation systems
Mary Calkins, "My Reputation Always Had More Fun Than Me: The Failure
of eBay's Feedback Model to Effectively Prevent Online Auction Fraud"
- a survey of problems on eBay's feedback system. (She's a
lawyer)
Tuomas Sandholm, "(Im)possibility of safe exchange mechanism design"
- some ideas about how you can('t) use reputation to solve some
problems.
Dan Wallach, "A survey of Peer-to-Peer security issues"
Raph Levien, "Attack Resistant Trust Metrics"
And my own work:
Andrew Clausen, "Online Reputation Systems: The cost of attack of PageRank"
Are you planning to do research/development in this area?
Cheers,
Andrew
_______________________________________________
p2p-hackers mailing list
p2p-hackers@zgp.org
http://zgp.org/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers
_______________________________________________
Here is a web page listing P2P Conferences:
http://www.neurogrid.net/twiki/bin/view/Main/PeerToPeerConferences
----- End forwarded message -----
--
Eugen* Leitl leitl
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lair.xent.com/pipermail/fork/attachments/20040528/d19d4157/attachment.pgp
From rohit at xent.com Fri May 28 03:12:40 2004
From: rohit at xent.com (Rohit Khare)
Date: Fri May 28 03:14:48 2004
Subject: [FoRK] MSN to release PC search sooner than planned
Message-ID: <8D33BC5C-B08F-11D8-A5B3-000A95C941B4@xent.com>
Yep, good ol' Microsoft, shipping early. On-time, after all, is merely
for sissies! :-)
Posted on Wed, May. 26, 2004
Microsoft technology will widen searches
ALLISON LINN
Associated Press
SEATTLE - Microsoft Corp. will soon release technology that takes
search functions far beyond the Internet, allowing users to pour
through e-mails, personal computers and even big databases to find the
information they want, a top executive said Wednesday.
The system being developed by Microsoft's MSN online division "will, as
far as the consumer is concerned, be an end-to-end system for searching
across any data type," Yusuf Mehdi, head of Microsoft's MSN division,
told analysts at a Goldman Sachs Internet conference in Las Vegas
Wednesday. The speech was broadcast over the Internet.
The new technology would be a huge step forward for users trying to
grapple with an increasing amount of digital information, offering a
one-step system instead of having to use several different search
engines, file management systems or other tools.
Microsoft's Windows operating system, which is on 90 percent of
personal computers, provides tools for file management on PCs. But
Mehdi conceded there really isn't a quick system for searching.
"I think it's fair to say that we will tackle all of the things that
you expect, including PC search, as part of the MSN effort," Mehdi
said.
He said Microsoft plans to release an early version of the technology
soon, as part of the software giant's push to compete with Internet
search leader Google Inc. A final version is expected in the next 12
months, he said.
He added that the new technology would be available long before the
next version of Windows, which isn't expected until 2006. Microsoft has
previously said that improving PC search will be a key component of
that system, code-named Longhorn.
Joe Wilcox, an analyst with Jupiter Research, said the end-to-end
search technology illustrates how concerned Microsoft is with besting
rivals including Google, the current Internet search favorite. He
expects Google to also release technology soon for searching the
desktop.
The concern is that Google and others will increasingly encroach on
Microsoft's control over desktop computing.
"Microsoft is scrambling to protect its turf," Wilcox said, noting that
rival Apple Computer Inc. also has a more advanced system for searching
both the Internet and Apple computers.
Microsoft chief executive Steve Ballmer has previously conceded that
one of the Redmond, Wash., company's big missteps was that it didn't
originally invest in building its own Internet search technology,
relying instead on an outside company to provide MSN search results.
But as Google, Yahoo! and other Internet search options have exploded
in popularity, Microsoft has turned massive resources toward building
its own technology. The effort extends across many of Microsoft's
business units, but the most high-profile moves are in its MSN
division.
From gbolcer at endeavors.com Fri May 28 07:09:09 2004
From: gbolcer at endeavors.com (Gregory Alan Bolcer)
Date: Fri May 28 07:11:33 2004
Subject: [FoRK] Re: [p2p-hackers] trust/reputation system threats (fwd
fromclausen@gnu.org)
Message-ID: <60BA1E822D0EF649AD447EF62A8EBA823E6D67@exchange.endeavors.com>
I did a quick google on p2p cancerous node and got a few interesting
references. There's a good 3 slides on freenet related malicious and
honest cancerous nodes.
http://www.math.chalmers.se/~ossa/p2ppres.pdf
More interesting, is the third link which is a response to a Lucas post about
geographical timestamping. The suggestion is a cryptographically
secure, geographical time service, and I think I remember from
one of the TWIST meetings that there was a proposal for one
based on GPS and geotime being transmutable, meaning if you
had one, you could always convert the other--that way you could
always identify the cancerous node immediately and persistently using
a synchronized distributed clock which for most use cases of p2p
is at a time resolution "good enough" leading to the infamous
pagernet proposal.
http://www.isr.uci.edu/events/twist/twist99/abstracts/gorlick_abs.html
http://www.isr.uci.edu/events/twist/twist99/presentations/gorlick/gorlick-qna.html
http://www.isr.uci.edu/events/twist/wisen98/presentations/Gorlick/WISEN.2up.pdf
-----Original Message-----
From: fork-bounces@xent.com on behalf of Eugen Leitl
Sent: Fri 5/28/2004 12:57 AM
To: transhumantech@yahoogroups.com; forkit!
Cc:
Subject: [FoRK] Re: [p2p-hackers] trust/reputation system threats (fwd fromclausen@gnu.org)
----- Forwarded message from Andrew Clausen -----
From: Andrew Clausen
Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 08:59:17 +1000
To: "Peer-to-peer development."
Subject: Re: [p2p-hackers] trust/reputation system threats
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i
Reply-To: "Peer-to-peer development."
On Wed, May 26, 2004 at 05:28:41PM +0100, Farez Rahman wrote:
> I'm looking for info/papers describing threat models that are relevant
> to trust/reputation systems, both centralised and decentralised.
>
> Does anyone have any pointers to this?
John Douceur, "The Sybil Attack"
- how you can use multiple identities; or "re-use" identities.
Paul Resnick et al, "Reputation Systems"
- a good overview of reputation systems
Mary Calkins, "My Reputation Always Had More Fun Than Me: The Failure
of eBay's Feedback Model to Effectively Prevent Online Auction Fraud"
- a survey of problems on eBay's feedback system. (She's a
lawyer)
Tuomas Sandholm, "(Im)possibility of safe exchange mechanism design"
- some ideas about how you can('t) use reputation to solve some
problems.
Dan Wallach, "A survey of Peer-to-Peer security issues"
Raph Levien, "Attack Resistant Trust Metrics"
And my own work:
Andrew Clausen, "Online Reputation Systems: The cost of attack of PageRank"
Are you planning to do research/development in this area?
Cheers,
Andrew
_______________________________________________
p2p-hackers mailing list
p2p-hackers@zgp.org
http://zgp.org/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers
_______________________________________________
Here is a web page listing P2P Conferences:
http://www.neurogrid.net/twiki/bin/view/Main/PeerToPeerConferences
----- End forwarded message -----
--
Eugen* Leitl leitl
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net
From Kenneth.Meltsner at ca.com Fri May 28 09:56:53 2004
From: Kenneth.Meltsner at ca.com (Meltsner, Kenneth)
Date: Fri May 28 09:57:15 2004
Subject: [FoRK] MSN to release PC search sooner than planned
Message-ID: <039E46C3C030AE4E871CEEBC6868063903BF4E93@usilms24.ca.com>
They've had a decent full text indexing system since Windows NT 4.0. It was sort of tacked on at the last minute, so it's never been exploited properly. Nice that they finally got around to adding a user interface.
Big question: will they index PDFs "out of the box"? Previous versions didn't, which was sort of parochial of them.
Ken
-----Original Message-----
From: fork-bounces@xent.com on behalf of Rohit Khare
Sent: Fri 5/28/2004 5:12 AM
To: FoRK Mailing List; Adam Rifkin
Cc:
Subject: [FoRK] MSN to release PC search sooner than planned
Yep, good ol' Microsoft, shipping early. On-time, after all, is merely
for sissies! :-)
Posted on Wed, May. 26, 2004
Microsoft technology will widen searches
ALLISON LINN
Associated Press
SEATTLE - Microsoft Corp. will soon release technology that takes
search functions far beyond the Internet, allowing users to pour
through e-mails, personal computers and even big databases to find the
information they want, a top executive said Wednesday.
The system being developed by Microsoft's MSN online division "will, as
far as the consumer is concerned, be an end-to-end system for searching
across any data type," Yusuf Mehdi, head of Microsoft's MSN division,
told analysts at a Goldman Sachs Internet conference in Las Vegas
Wednesday. The speech was broadcast over the Internet.
The new technology would be a huge step forward for users trying to
grapple with an increasing amount of digital information, offering a
one-step system instead of having to use several different search
engines, file management systems or other tools.
Microsoft's Windows operating system, which is on 90 percent of
personal computers, provides tools for file management on PCs. But
Mehdi conceded there really isn't a quick system for searching.
"I think it's fair to say that we will tackle all of the things that
you expect, including PC search, as part of the MSN effort," Mehdi
said.
He said Microsoft plans to release an early version of the technology
soon, as part of the software giant's push to compete with Internet
search leader Google Inc. A final version is expected in the next 12
months, he said.
He added that the new technology would be available long before the
next version of Windows, which isn't expected until 2006. Microsoft has
previously said that improving PC search will be a key component of
that system, code-named Longhorn.
Joe Wilcox, an analyst with Jupiter Research, said the end-to-end
search technology illustrates how concerned Microsoft is with besting
rivals including Google, the current Internet search favorite. He
expects Google to also release technology soon for searching the
desktop.
The concern is that Google and others will increasingly encroach on
Microsoft's control over desktop computing.
"Microsoft is scrambling to protect its turf," Wilcox said, noting that
rival Apple Computer Inc. also has a more advanced system for searching
both the Internet and Apple computers.
Microsoft chief executive Steve Ballmer has previously conceded that
one of the Redmond, Wash., company's big missteps was that it didn't
originally invest in building its own Internet search technology,
relying instead on an outside company to provide MSN search results.
But as Google, Yahoo! and other Internet search options have exploded
in popularity, Microsoft has turned massive resources toward building
its own technology. The effort extends across many of Microsoft's
business units, but the most high-profile moves are in its MSN
division.
_______________________________________________
FoRK mailing list
http://xent.com/mailman/listinfo/fork
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lair.xent.com/pipermail/fork/attachments/20040528/f5032a78/attachment.htm
From dl at silcom.com Fri May 28 14:09:35 2004
From: dl at silcom.com (Dave Long)
Date: Fri May 28 13:54:55 2004
Subject: [FoRK] [NEC] #3.4: Nomic World (fwd from nec@shirky.com)
In-Reply-To: Message from Eugen Leitl
of "Thu, 27 May 2004 21:27:50 +0200." <20040527192749.GZ1105@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <200405282109.OAA03425@maltesecat>
> The second big obstacle is economics -- the box that runs the virtual
> world is owned by someone, and it isn't you. When you pay your $20 a
> month to Sony or Microsoft, you're subscribing to a service, but
> you're not actually paying for the server directly. The ownership
> passes through a series of layers that dilutes your control over
> it. The way our legal system works, it's hard for groups to own things
> without being legal entities. It's easy for Sony to own
> infrastructure, but for you and your 5 friends to own a server in
> common, you'd have to create some kind of formal entity. IOUs and
> social agreements to split the cost won't get you very far.
This distinction is made in other
venues as the difference between
"non-equity" and "equity" country
clubs.
The Doped Silicon Bitbashing & Server Club?
-Dave
(in other governing areas, I'd say
that one of the biggest financial
problems of the US admininstration
is that our current guys give the
impression that they think they're
managing a non-equity club)
From elias at cse.ucsc.edu Fri May 28 14:08:01 2004
From: elias at cse.ucsc.edu (Elias Sinderson)
Date: Fri May 28 14:08:03 2004
Subject: [FoRK] Pending draft legislation
Message-ID: <40B7AA31.4010809@cse.ucsc.edu>
As seen on congress.org,
,
let's hope this gets shut down before it's too late.
Elias
_______________________
Pending Draft Legislation Targeted for Spring 2005
The Draft will Start in June 2005
There is pending legislation in the House and Senate (twin bills: S 89
and HR 163) which will time the program's initiation so the draft can
begin at early as Spring 2005 -- just after the 2004 presidential
election. The administration is quietly trying to get these bills passed
now, while the public's attention is on the elections, so our action on
this is needed immediately.
$28 million has been added to the 2004 Selective Service System (SSS)
budget to prepare for a military draft that could start as early as June
15, 2005. Selective Service must report to Bush on March 31, 2005 that
the system, which has lain dormant for decades, is ready for activation.
Please see website: www.sss.gov/perfplan_fy2004.html to view the sss
annual performance plan - fiscal year 2004.
The pentagon has quietly begun a public campaign to fill all 10,350
draft board positions and 11,070 appeals board slots nationwide.. Though
this is an unpopular election year topic, military experts and
influential members of congress are suggesting that if Rumsfeld's
prediction of a "long, hard slog" in Iraq and Afghanistan [and a
permanent state of war on "terrorism"] proves accurate, the U.S. may
have no choice but to draft.
Congress brought twin bills, S. 89 and HR 163 forward this year,
http://www.hslda.org/legislation/na...s89/default.asp entitled the
Universal National Service Act of 2003, "to provide for the common
defense by requiring that all young persons [age 18--26] in the United
States, including women, perform a period of military service or a
period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and
homeland security, and for other purposes." These active bills currently
sit in the committee on armed services.
Dodging the draft will be more difficult than those from the Vietnam era.
College and Canada will not be options. In December 2001, Canada and the
U.S. signed a "smart border declaration," which could be used to keep
would-be draft dodgers in. Signed by Canada's minister of foreign
affairs, John Manley, and U.S. Homeland Security director, Tom Ridge,
the declaration involves a 30-point plan which implements, among other
things, a "pre-clearance agreement" of people entering and departing
each country. Reforms aimed at making the draft more equitable along
gender and class lines also eliminates higher education as a shelter.
Underclassmen would only be able to postpone service until the end of
their current semester. Seniors would have until the end of the academic
year.
Even those voters who currently support US actions abroad may still
object to this move, knowing their own children or grandchildren will
not have a say about whether to fight. Not that it should make a
difference, but this plan, among other things, eliminates higher
education as a
shelter and includes women in the draft.
The public has a right to air their opinions about such an important
decision.
[...]
From paulsholtz2004 at hotmail.com Fri May 28 14:08:33 2004
From: paulsholtz2004 at hotmail.com (Paul Sholtz)
Date: Fri May 28 14:08:32 2004
Subject: [FoRK] CNN exposed
Message-ID:
Interesting Web site that gives a totally different "slant" on the "news"
you see "covered" on CNN:
http://www.cnnexposed.com/
_________________________________________________________________
Watch LIVE baseball games on your computer with MLB.TV, included with MSN
Premium! http://join.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200439ave/direct/01/
From paulsholtz2004 at hotmail.com Fri May 28 14:17:04 2004
From: paulsholtz2004 at hotmail.com (Paul Sholtz)
Date: Fri May 28 14:17:02 2004
Subject: [FoRK] Pending draft legislation
Message-ID:
It's so reassuring to see this Congress planning legislation that it wants
to enact *after* the next Congress is in session.. I'm glad that elections
mean so much in American politics..
>From: Elias Sinderson
>To: FoRK
>Subject: [FoRK] Pending draft legislation
>Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 14:08:01 -0700
>
>As seen on congress.org,
>,
>
>let's hope this gets shut down before it's too late.
>
>Elias
>_______________________
>
>Pending Draft Legislation Targeted for Spring 2005
>The Draft will Start in June 2005
>
>There is pending legislation in the House and Senate (twin bills: S 89 and
>HR 163) which will time the program's initiation so the draft can begin at
>early as Spring 2005 -- just after the 2004 presidential election. The
>administration is quietly trying to get these bills passed now, while the
>public's attention is on the elections, so our action on this is needed
>immediately.
>
_________________________________________________________________
FREE pop-up blocking with the new MSN Toolbar – get it now!
http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200415ave/direct/01/
From paulsholtz2004 at hotmail.com Fri May 28 14:18:04 2004
From: paulsholtz2004 at hotmail.com (Paul Sholtz)
Date: Fri May 28 14:18:02 2004
Subject: [FoRK] Terror warning surprises Homeland Security Dept.
Message-ID:
Here's another great one. Also, so very reassuring..
-----------------------
Terror warning surprises Homeland Security Dept.
By Thomas Frank
Washington Bureau
May 28, 2004
WASHINGTON -- The Homeland Security Department was surprised by the
announcement Wednesday by Attorney General John Ashcroft and FBI Director
Robert Mueller that a terrorist attack was increasingly likely in the coming
months, officials said.
The department, created a year after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, is charged
with issuing terrorism warnings to the public, and tension arose when
Ashcroft and Mueller effectively took over that role at a news conference
Wednesday when they said al-Qaida is preparing an attack inside the United
States.
Officials said the Homeland Security Department knew in advance about the
news conference but expected it to focus on seven suspects with ties to
al-Qaida who were wanted for arrest or questioning. Department officials
were caught off guard when Ashcroft went further and warned that al-Qaida
"is ready to attack the United States."
The news conference, which excluded Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge,
raised concerns in Washington that his department was not coordinating the
domestic fight against terrorism, which was confusing the message for the
public and for local authorities.
Earlier on Wednesday, Ridge spoke on morning television shows and appeared
to downplay the threat that Ashcroft would later trumpet, officials said. He
told ABC's "Good Morning America" that the threats are "not the most
disturbing that I have personally seen during the past couple of years."
Lawmakers who oversee the Homeland Security Department said the events
Wednesday appeared to undermine the effort to unify the federal government's
response to terrorism threats.
"The reason that Congress created the Department of Homeland Security is
that we need to merge the various parts of government responsible for pieces
of the war on terrorism into one coordinated effort," said Rep. Christopher
Cox (R-Calif.), chairman of the homeland security committee.
Cox said it was "regrettable" that Ridge did not appear with Ashcroft and
Mueller "because their separate public appearances conveyed the impression
that the broad and close interagency consultation we expect ... may not have
taken place in this case." He noted that the 2002 law creating the
department puts the secretary in charge of issuing "public advisories
relating to threats to homeland security."
Just one week ago, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge had told the Sept.
11 commission at a hearing in Manhattan that his department "has made
widespread information sharing the hallmark of our new approach to homeland
security." Ridge added that his department was sharing information with
local authorities, private officials and the public through bulletins,
alerts and a new Homeland Security Information Network.
White House press secretary Scott McClellan disputed suggestions that the
administration sent mixed signals, saying, "What you're seeing is that these
officials are talking about it from their own positions of responsibility."
Rep. Jim Turner (D-Texas), the committee's senior Democrat, suggested the
Homeland Security Department may not have known that the news conference
would delve into threat conditions.
"If it is true that the FBI did not notify DHS of its intent to hold a press
conference to advise the public of the current threat situation, we clearly
have a lack of coordination between the two key agencies involved in
homeland security," Turner said. "Almost three years after Sept. 11, we have
yet to see a full integration and coordination of efforts to make America
safer."
A similar issue arose two months ago when the FBI - not the DHS - warned
that Texas oil refineries may be a target of attacks. In a letter to Ridge
last month, Cox cited an "inconsistency," noting that a week after the
refinery alert, Homeland Security and the FBI jointly warned about a
possible strike on mass transit systems.
"Having multiple sources of threat advisories emanating from the federal
government can lead to dangerous confusion among our nation's state and
local first responders," Cox wrote.
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/world/ny-uswarn283821917may28,0,6420375.story?coll=ny-worldnews-headlines
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself with the new version of MSN Messenger! Download today -
it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
From joe at barrera.org Fri May 28 15:59:48 2004
From: joe at barrera.org (Joseph S. Barrera III)
Date: Fri May 28 15:59:57 2004
Subject: [FoRK] [Fwd: Re: List of Words and Meanings Reunited]
Message-ID: <40B7C464.9060102@barrera.org>
Am I a bad person? Am I baiting this person?
I'd like to think that I'm just expanding his horizons and
teaching him about other perspectives.
But I'm probably just seeding a 200 message flame war.
Lord, forgive me, but please remember the violence here is purely
virtual....
- Joe
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: List of Words and Meanings Reunited
Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 15:56:06 -0700
From: Joseph S. Barrera III
Reply-To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
To: General Discussion: On-Topic and Off-Topic Posts
References: <200405260808.EAA13784@Sparkle.Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>
<20040528222632.GI1072@rhiannon.rddavis.org>
R. D. Davis wrote:
> > Myself? I'm rather gay, seeing a 3803 Tape Controller that will
> > soon be mine. Oh, wait, maybe I should just say happy...
>
> [time for my politically incorrect statement of the week]
>
> I vote that we take that word back. No offense to homosexuals, but
> someone needs to clue them into the fact that they've been using the
> word 'gay' incorrectly for far too long; they're not the only ones
> with the right to be called happy people. How that started, I don't
Oh, there are enough other words for happy. And there is no better
word for gay than "gay". If you need a new word for happy and
energetic, you can borrow the Japanese "genki".
Language changes. Don't worry; be gay.
- Joe
--
You seemed so sad
I could see through your twisted smile
So unsure, always confused
Pale blue eyes gazing down from your ivory tower
Through the haze all broken and bruised
From sdw at lig.net Sat May 29 17:04:57 2004
From: sdw at lig.net (Stephen D. Williams)
Date: Sat May 29 17:04:29 2004
Subject: [FoRK] Teenagers in SF/SJ
Message-ID: <40B92529.4020704@lig.net>
I'm finally taking a real vacation with my two youngest children in
July. My daughter is 12 and my son is 16. My son's interested in
programming, games, art, and anime. My daughter is interested in
science, shopping, outdoors camps, etc.
Because I have relatives in Hawaii, we're going to be there for a while
and then spend about 4.5 days in SF and surrounding area. I have some
ideas of what's cool, but I thought it might be beneficial to ask for
some geek / academic native / insider ideas.
I considered taking them on some kind of tour, informal or semi-formal,
of Stanford and Berkeley for a feel of non-community colleges.
Other ideas include the obligatory wharf, art shops,
bridge/park/Sasalito, Alcatraz, Chinatown on Saturday (market day,
right?), and the Friday night inline skate around the city.
What do you think is coolest with the above goals?
sdw
--
swilliams@hpti.com http://www.hpti.com Per: sdw@lig.net http://sdw.st
Stephen D. Williams 703-724-0118W 703-995-0407Fax 20147-4622 AIM: sdw
From deafbox at hotmail.com Sun May 30 07:49:39 2004
From: deafbox at hotmail.com (Russell Turpin)
Date: Sun May 30 07:50:02 2004
Subject: [FoRK] What's the difference between Blue and Red?
Message-ID:
The Austin paper this morning had articles on the
increasing political polarization of the nation.
What, really, is at the root of this polarization?
To me, it doesn't seem to be merely a matter of
how people align on a set of political issues. A
politician like Bush can increase the scope of
government, push through a new entitlement, and
suppress states rights -- all things conservatives
traditionally oppose -- yet still be loved by the
Reds. Conversely, there are plenty of Blues who are
conservative by these same measures. Yes, there is
some aggregation on political issues, especially on
the so-called wedge issues like gay marriage. But
that raises the question of what makes this a wedge
issue? There seems to me something deeper than just
how people line up on a set of political issues.
It's tempting to say it is religion. That doesn't
seem quite right, though. The vast majority of
Blues are religious. Those of us who aren't
religious are still such a small minority of the
US population that we hardly matter politically.
Then is it fundamentalism that makes a Red? That
doesn't seem right, either. While most
fundamentalists are Red, surely most Reds aren't
fundamentalist.
Is it nothing? Is this a phenomenon of group
psychology, where if people are divided into skins
and shirts or into owls and pussycats or into other
arbitrary groupings, they will start to create an
ideology that justifies this division, and amplifies
any group difference? Maybe that's part of it. I'm
not convinced that's all of it.
What divides us then?
_________________________________________________________________
Best Restaurant Giveaway Ever! Vote for your favorites for a chance to win
$1 million! http://local.msn.com/special/giveaway.asp
From jeff at vertexdev.com Sun May 30 12:49:05 2004
From: jeff at vertexdev.com (Jeff Barr)
Date: Sun May 30 12:49:03 2004
Subject: [FoRK] Teenagers in SF/SJ
In-Reply-To: <20040530190014.6E97615DC644@xent.com>
References: <20040530190014.6E97615DC644@xent.com>
Message-ID: <1085946545.31851.197445019@webmail.messagingengine.com>
From: "Stephen D. Williams"
> Subject: [FoRK] Teenagers in SF/SJ
> To: fork@xent.com
> Message-ID: <40B92529.4020704@lig.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> I'm finally taking a real vacation with my two youngest children in
> July. My daughter is 12 and my son is 16. My son's interested in
> programming, games, art, and anime. My daughter is interested in
> science, shopping, outdoors camps, etc.
>
> Because I have relatives in Hawaii, we're going to be there for a while
> and then spend about 4.5 days in SF and surrounding area. I have some
> ideas of what's cool, but I thought it might be beneficial to ask for
> some geek / academic native / insider ideas.
>
> I considered taking them on some kind of tour, informal or semi-formal,
> of Stanford and Berkeley for a feel of non-community colleges.
>
> Other ideas include the obligatory wharf, art shops,
> bridge/park/Sasalito, Alcatraz, Chinatown on Saturday (market day,
> right?), and the Friday night inline skate around the city.
>
> What do you think is coolest with the above goals?
There are lots of cool places listed at
http://factorytoursusa.com/Index.asp
Jeff;
----
Syndic8:
* Blog: http://www.syndic8.com/weblog/
* Featured Feeds: http://www.syndic8.com/box/featured_feeds/
* Orkut: http://www.orkut.com/Community.aspx?cmm=1243
From bill at whump.com Sun May 30 14:26:04 2004
From: bill at whump.com (Bill Humphries)
Date: Sun May 30 14:26:25 2004
Subject: [FoRK] Teenagers in SF/SJ
In-Reply-To: <40B92529.4020704@lig.net>
References: <40B92529.4020704@lig.net>
Message-ID:
On May 29, 2004, at 5:04 PM, Stephen D. Williams wrote:
> Because I have relatives in Hawaii, we're going to be there for a
> while and then spend about 4.5 days in SF and surrounding area. I
> have some ideas of what's cool, but I thought it might be beneficial
> to ask for some geek / academic native / insider ideas.
Scharffen Berger Chocolate factory in Berkeley.
http://www.scharffenberger.com/factory/onsite_tour.html
Book in advance, these fill up.
-- whump
From Kenneth.Meltsner at ca.com Sun May 30 15:25:31 2004
From: Kenneth.Meltsner at ca.com (Meltsner, Kenneth)
Date: Sun May 30 15:25:37 2004
Subject: [FoRK] Teenagers in SF/SJ
Message-ID: <039E46C3C030AE4E871CEEBC6868063903BF4E95@usilms24.ca.com>
As a teenager growing up in the East Bay many years ago, I used to love taking the bus, or later driving, into Berkeley:
* Telegraph Avenue, a continuous street fair with bookstores
* Lawrence Hall of Science (when I was younger, to be honest), high in the Berkeley hills
Also:
* Fenton's (ice cream) in Oakland
* Everett and Jones barbecue on San Pablo and University in Berkeley, or Flint's in Oakland
* Chinatown in San Francisco
* Various electronics surplus shops and such in the flats of Berkeley
My memories are now more than a couple of decades out of date -- I know that McCallum's ice cream shop is long gone, for example -- but I think these are still around.
Ken
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lair.xent.com/pipermail/fork/attachments/20040530/7c623f9f/attachment.html
From beberg at mithral.com Sun May 30 22:48:59 2004
From: beberg at mithral.com (Adam L Beberg)
Date: Sun May 30 22:48:50 2004
Subject: [FoRK] What's the difference between Blue and Red?
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID: <3665CD68-B2C6-11D8-94C6-003065DAE704@mithral.com>
On May 30, 2004, at 9:49 AM, Russell Turpin wrote:
> What divides us then?
Simple my dear Turpin....
The Demolicans want to take my money and give it to poor people...
The Republocrats want to take my money and give it to rich people...
Both take my money and put it in their own pockets.
- Adam L. Beberg - beberg@mithral.com
http://www.mithral.com/~beberg/