World of Ends Public Draft 81
Doc Searls sent me the link over to the newest work that he and fellow Cluetrain person David Weinberger haveput together. It's called "World of Ends" although I like the subtitle "What the Internet Is and
How to Stop Mistaking It
for Something Else" better - but that's just me. In any case, some interesting reading, particular if you like/d The Cluetrain Manifesto. Update: 03/08 14:42 GMT by CN : Yeah, this is a dupe of yesterday's story. Everyone point at Hemos and laugh.
progress... (Score:3, Funny)
Almost a whole day passed before this dupe was posted. Huzzah!
Dupe - was posted yesterday! (Score:5, Funny)
Yesterday's article:
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/03/07/153
Re:Dupe - was posted yesterday! (Score:1)
Re:Dupe - was posted yesterday! (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Dupe - was posted yesterday! (Score:5, Interesting)
That way if an article gets a dozen "dupe" marks against it while it's still in the queue, it can get held until it's checked by an editor and then pulled if necessary.
Re:Dupe - was posted yesterday! (Score:1)
Re:Dupe - was posted yesterday! (Score:1, Troll)
Proof that DUPES can still get through will subscribers looking into the mysterious future!
You people, I tell you, are saddistic %#@$&rs!!! You simply cannot appreciate the service that
OK... I'll stop now
Re:Dupe - was posted yesterday! (Score:2)
The net isn't rocket science (Score:5, Insightful)
Wasn't the internet invented as part of a military Advanced Research Project Agency, and include a mechanism for redundancy to keep communications going in case of a military attack (often delivered by rockets and missles).
Sounds a lot like rocket science to me...
Re:The net isn't rocket science (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The net isn't rocket science (Score:3)
The internet is effectively built on very simple premises. And as the report says, it took some very smart people to design it that way.
Re:The net isn't rocket science (Score:1)
I still wish I got my "Certified Rocket Scientist" certificate when I was working at Hughes. No one had a fresh copy to put my name on :-)
Re:The net isn't rocket science (Score:3, Funny)
They guys *under* the falling missles are generally working of perfecting their "Run away, run away" science.
We told you geeks to at least join the track team, but would you listen? Noooooooooo!
Making the internet into rocket science wouldn't be rocke. . .
If you can't find a Saturn V on the surplus shelves I guess you can make do by shoving a D size engine up a Timex-Sinclair's butt, although I've discoverd imperically that it's somewhat lacking in stability.
Hide the dog well.
Did I mention I havn't had my coffee yet this morning? That may effect the lucidity of the above, but I'm counting on that fact that you haven't had yours either and won't notice.
I'll go make some now. It's not rocket science.
Oh, wait. Yes it is.
KFG
Re:The net isn't rocket science (Score:1)
You'll never find him now! HAHAHA!
Re:The net isn't rocket science (Score:3, Funny)
-
Making jokes about dupes on slashdot (bonus point if you can include a reference to the Mysterious Future)
-
Pretending you misread "World of Ends" as "World Ends" (bonus point for linking it with Bush/RIAA/Microsoft/{insert favorite evil agency here})
-
Posting the highly moderated comments in the previous story as your own here
Thank you.Re:Duplicate! (Score:1)
World of Ends Public Draft (Score:3, Funny)
Re:World of Ends Public Draft (Score:2)
Word to the wise: on slashdot, it's generally more efficient to realise the grammar doesn't make sense, and THEN read it.
haven't read it... (Score:3, Funny)
Sorry, haven't read "The Cluetrain Manifesto" - however I would like to recommend the editors of Slashdot check out a neat website called SLASHDOT - they usually post articles strikingly similar to "World of Ends."
Aha! (Score:5, Funny)
HA! If that's true, then explain what these "Internet, Inc." stock certificates are, that I bought online!
I shall have free internet access FOREVER, here and on my MOON property that I also bought online...
The Internet is *still* stupid (Score:2)
Obviously. . . (Score:2, Funny)
The end is near.
Re:Obviously. . . (Score:2, Funny)
> The end is near.
Can't see how that follows, surely if one end doesn't know what the other is doing, they must be a long long way from each other. Chances are you're somewhere in the middle... so the end is far!
Ponxx
Repetitive Mistake Syndrome - I like it! (Score:2, Funny)
I wonder if the GNU folks would mind if we just abbriviated that 'RMS'?
Re:Repetitive Mistake Syndrome - I like it! (Score:2)
Re:Repetitive Mistake Syndrome - I like it! (Score:1)
Goddamn it, Slashdot (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Goddamn it, Slashdot (Score:2)
I don't see where I've expressed that opinion. What I have suggested is that Iraq isn't cooperating with inspectors fully. They have begun cooperating more since I wrote those logs--but Iraq still has not been forthcoming. That doesn't automatically mean that I support war to take care of the problem, though.
On the other hand, I'm not a peace-nik either. If, god forbid, there were a draft and I was selected, I would serve. And--not being Captain Perfect--I have to say that getting drafted would still bother me a bit.
Re:Goddamn it, Slashdot (Score:2)
Isnt a draft against the constitution (slavery and all that malarky)?
Re:Goddamn it, Slashdot (Score:2)
Re:Goddamn it, Slashdot (Score:2)
I fail to understand why the 13th ammendment (1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.) doesnt apply?
Re:Goddamn it, Slashdot (Score:2)
Sorry, I assumed that you did when you called it 'the Constitution' rather than 'your Constitution.' Heh.
I fail to understand why the 13th ammendment...doesn't apply?
That's been brought before the Supreme Court before. More or less, it's hard to believe that the creators of the 13th ammendment, just after a civil war featuring large scale use of consription, felt that military service was a form of 'involuntary servitude.' Now, there was a closer case in the 1980's challenging the 'males only' part of selective service that actually got a few justices in disent. Proof of lunacy if you ask me, but most people don't ask me.
Conscription and taxes are probably the two most burdensome forms of government intervention into the lives of its citizens. There are all sorts of freedoms that they conflict with. However, the fact that the social order would collapse without taxes, and would be put in jeopardy with conscription, gives them a pretty good third rail status from even the most utopian of the activist judiciary.
litte story (Score:1)
About time it was realised (Score:1)
One of the most fundamental and important lessons one can learn about the Internet. I'm glad someone's pointing it out at last. Maybe certain companies will stop trying to "proprietize" (can I claim a new buzzword prize for this?) it and just get on with making it so we can communicate with each other efficiently. After all, that's what this is about, isn't it?
"If you have to ask, you'll never know" (Score:1)
Those people who are technologically adept will have realized most of the article's points beforehand. I must admit that I haven't managed to formalize the arguments as well as the article's authors have.
I would like to have leaflets containing the gist of the text to hand out with every ISP account opened. The leaflet should read in bold: "please read and grok before attempting to connect to your new account".
As for being a "stupid network of ends", I bet that the neurons in my brain can be called that too...
Sounds so much like.... (Score:1)
From the article
There are technical reasons why stupidity is a good design. Stupid is sturdy...Thanks to its stupidity, the Net welcomes new devices and people, so it grows quickly and in all directions
Hmm...How much has Slashdot grown in the past few years:-)?
Hehe (Score:3, Insightful)
NICE DUPE (Score:1, Redundant)
The draft for this story (Score:3, Funny)
In the long run... (Score:1)
A good read (Score:4, Interesting)
A couple points about the mistakes being made over and over and over ad nauseum:
Other mistakes we insist on making over and over. For example, thinking that:
*
This one in particular struck me. As has already been proven, users will find ways to block annoying advertising (Guidescope, AdSubtract, Junkbuster, etc.) rendering it useless. Free tip to the ad agencies: an ad that one finds interesting and compels us to explore further is not the same as oner that is obnoxious and gets our attention for the wrong reasons. An ad that is unseen will draw exactly -0- potential customers.
As for those who believe that users who block ads steal content: there is nothing that requires me to read the ads in my local newspaper. If I don't read those ads, am I stealing content there as well? If I pull out the remote control and change the TV channel at a commercial or get up to get a sandwich when the ads come on, am I stealing content? (Yes, I know what the "content providers" say about that, and I say "screw you" to them.)
*
The Internet is a pipe. It is a pipe that transmits data hither and yon. That is it. The only improvements that the telcos and cable providers can do is add better and faster hardware to make the pipe bigger. Using the "Information Superhighway" as the analogy: when you have a freeway through your city and you improve it, you improve the efficiency of the flow of traffic by making it EASIER for traffic to pass through, not HARDER.
*
If AOL, Microsoft, et al won't do it, I bet some intrepid programming brains will write "switchboard" type server software that will do it for them, assuming it hasn't been done already. The IM clients and services are free, so how can AOL be afraid of losing customers of their AIM users can talk directly to MSN Messenger users? Must be that whole territory, ego, alpha-male thing.
*
The threat facing those industries (music and multimedia content) that feel threatened by it is their own failure to embrace the INternet for what it is: a means for these companies to distribute their product practically instantly and at a extremely reduced cost. If I buy ten or twelve tracks from Liquid Audio and burn my own CD, that cost me about $12 or $14 all told. That CD is worth much more than the $16 CD that the local Camelot Music is trying to push with only two or three good tracks.
The non-threatened industries take advantage of the Internet pipe and use it for what it is: a fast and easy means of transmitting data. Cisco apparently saw this when they developed the voice-over-IP phones (which, BTW, are very cool--I had the opportunity to use them over a multi-site network linked by satellite, and they sounded just like a land line) and the telecos are threatened because now users can communicate without using their proprietary, charge-by-the-minute phone systems.
My thoughts for the morning...
Multi-protocol IM (AIM/MSN/ICQ/etc.) clients (Score:2)
It's been done. There are two approaches:
1) Multi-network clients, of which the most popular are probably Trillian (Windows) and Gaim (Unix/Gtk+). These open separate connections to AIM, ICQ, MSN, Yahoo, and so on, at the same time - you need accounts on the appropriate services first though. In particular, you need both an AIM and an ICQ account if you want to talk to people on both AIM and ICQ, despite the fact that they use the same servers and the same protocol - the only difference these days seems to be that ICQ has numbers, AIM has screennames, and the server won't let either sort of user talk to the other.
2) Jabber [http://www.jabber.org]. As well as Jabber servers themselves (Yet Another messaging protocol, this one based on XML and running on an open-source server), this has a nifty feature where you provide your Jabber client with your username and password for "foreign" services, the client passes them on to the server, and the server logs on to AIM/etc. as you, converting incoming messages to Jabber messages to send to your client (sort of like the webmail services which offer to fetch your POP3 mail into the webmail account so it's all in one place, but for IM instead of mail). For a while, AOL IP-banned the main public Jabber server from AIM - they obviously weren't happy about the idea.
Re:Multi-protocol IM (AIM/MSN/ICQ/etc.) clients (Score:2)
I've never used Jabber, but I think I understand your description. However, I'm not sure that was quite what I had in mind. What I am thinking of is something like that, but would convert from any protocol to any other protocol...a IM Babel Fish, if you will. The Jabber workaround requires at least one user to use the Jabber client and server (if I understood you right).
For a while, AOL IP-banned the main public Jabber server from AIM - they obviously weren't happy about the idea.
AOL isn't happy about a lot of things. There was a three or four month time span where AOL and Cerulean Studios were playing cat-and-mouse games; AOL would use some underhanded way to drop the Trillian client and Trillian gets patched to fix it. AOL then tries something else, Trillian gets patched, etc. AOL based their actions on preventing "unauthorized access" to their network. I personally think it was because AOL didn't like the fact that they couldn't push ads or their own "daily content" to a Trillian user. I think AOL just gave up on the idea, as I haven't heard any noise about it in some time.
Cluetrain Manifesto or Gluetrain Manifesto? (Score:2)
The Gluetrain Manifesto [gluetrain.com].
I like the idea, but... (Score:1)
This especially applies to the airwaves. While new technologies (e.g. wireless mesh, ultrawideband, etc.) promise to deliver massively more bandwidth/MHz than the old analog broadcast methods, that doesn't necessarily mean that we have the right to summarily revoke the incumbant telco/broadcasters' rights to use their alloted spectrum without interference. These companies deserve to at least be compensated for the massive amounts of money they spend secureing their specturm licences, and for the infrastructure improvements they're going to have to make to take advantage of the new technologies.
Re:I like the idea, but... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not sure I agree; well technically you're right of course. But the amount of bandwidth on the internet available for each of us is growing exponentially. Beyond a certain point, there ought to be so much bandwidth sloshing around that nobody can easily use it all. Which isn't to say we won't try ;-)
This especially applies to the airwaves. While new technologies (e.g. wireless mesh, ultrawideband, etc.) promise to deliver massively more bandwidth/MHz than the old analog broadcast methods, that doesn't necessarily mean that we have the right to summarily revoke the incumbant telco/broadcasters' rights to use their alloted spectrum without interference.
Yes. Well, they've paid for it. You can't take it away without compensation. I don't think you could take it away legally or morally.
These companies deserve to at least be compensated for the massive amounts of money they spend secureing their specturm licences, and for the infrastructure improvements they're going to have to make to take advantage of the new technologies.
No. I definitely don't agree with this. I mean look at WiFi, nobody paid for the WiFi bandwidth. The users pay for the equipment; and that pays for the R&D. Everyone wins.
Unless you are saying that because of techniques like WiFi, other data carriers should be given a huge compensation from the government? If so- you're nuts.
Re:I like the idea, but... (Score:1)
I'm not really talking about WiFi. There are a bunch of new technologies that are similar to WiFi, but which actually increase bandwidth when there are a lot of nodes in the mesh (I'm not explaining this very well). The point is, they're fundamentally incompatable with current spectrum usage. The high number of low-power transmitters will cause a level of noise and interference that would be unacceptable to an FM broadcaster. That means that if we want the FCC to open up the spectrum that is currently under restrictive licencing, all the incumbent broadcasters will have to ditch their current technology and upgrade. That's the sort of R&D that I think the governement should provide money for.
Re:I like the idea, but... (Score:2)
I don't really believe that UWB can increase bandwidth.
Dupe? Make it a contest! (Score:2)
Of course, those folks at Freshmeat would want in too, and that just wouldn't be fair, unless you had a really good (bad?) month.
Re:Dupe? Make it a contest! (Score:1)
This would only work if the dupe-poster is not allowed to partake of said beer. Otherwise, even the loser wins. Eventually, we'll be seeing all dupes, with even worse spelling and grammatical errors due to sauced-up posters.