Bruce Sterling on Geeks and Spooks 187
apsmith writes: "Bruce Sterling's
latest Viridian piece is a written version of a talk on why we're in such a mess with crypto, why the computer industry is going nowhere for the next few years, and what Lawrence Lessig, the NSA, Echelon, Oliver North and Abdullah Catli have in common. Thought-provoking stuff, even if you might not agree with quite everything ("Why don't you geeks just sit down with your cheap, crappy plastic boxes, and shut up? Here in the TV biz, our boxes look nicer anyway!")." This is a lunch-time talk, and it's meant to be entertaining, and it is. :)
Computer Industry (Score:2, Redundant)
Re:Computer Industry (Score:2)
(Except he describes Lawrence Lessig as "an American Justice Department lawyer who had his head handed to him in court by Microsoft," which is pretty confused on a few levels.)
Re:Computer Industry (Score:1)
Re:Computer Industry (Score:1)
Re:Computer Industry (Score:1)
Re:Computer Industry (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Computer Industry (Score:1)
1) Get an idea
2) Write an 0.1 version
3) Archive at SourceForge
4) Repeat
Rigor is a function of one of two conditions: economics or obsession. Innovation based on economics/market is the Microsoft approach, which is why they're the 800-pound gorilla.
Re:Computer Industry (Score:1)
Re:Computer Industry (Score:2, Interesting)
Note on the word release: *any* release is really just a beta until users get a chance to test it, only with Microsoft they can't call their first release beta because then no one would pay for it, the updates in the form of service packs are usually no charge-- free software can call stuff beta forever if they want, giving a package a release number is good for the public process of knowing when to feature freeze and do more rigorous testing for a while, but not much else.
Personally I think Sterling is flat out wrong. He does give some okay insights into why geeks might be a little wary of the government (after all the spooks are scary to just about anyone, and the spooks are actually interested in the geeks), but as to his assertion that there is no innovation going on... I think that's just plain nonsense.
Of course, when computing finally reached the level where you could put a really powerful machine on someone's lap there was a rush to fill in all the blanks, software-wise. But there's still plenty to be done, and people are working on it. Natural language parsing, non-mouse/non-keyboard interfaces, wearables, portables, AI, agent software, there may be lots of great clients out there (like Excel or Powerpoint), but just wait until there is an Excel server and two people can really easily start to work on the same spreadsheet simultaneously... I could go on and on with the things that are likely happening or have happened that we aren't really aware of yet...
His quick dismissal of Moore's law is based on small computers, look at the things big computers are doing that before were essentially impossible! Even if the underlying software or programming paradigms are the same, the real world application of the tools is drastically improving.
Finally, just because the last fifty years have seen this rate of growth in computing that's astronomical, we cannot and should not expect it to always feel like that: it's not even safe. When you get on the freeway you accelerate from zero to 60 rather quickly, but once you're on the road, just because you've stopped accelerating doesn't mean you're slowing down. Tech is perhaps done accelerating, but even at cruising speed we're still going places.
Re:Computer Industry (Score:2)
I think that's far too optomistic view of where we are.
Right now, I would say that we are the caveman stage of using computers.
There's tons of stuff that I've thought of that I'll never have time to write... Right now I'm working on some software that I think is fairly unique and inovative. I'll tell you in a month what it is maybe...
If you look at things like napster. Everyone thought about writing it but only one person actually did.
It's all been done??? Not likely (Score:1)
Sexy, cool geeks? (Score:3, Funny)
Is this guy in denial, or what?! Sounds like the wet dreams of (insert favorite tech company CEO/Microsoft poster boy here): "I'm rich.... and SEXY.. and COOL... and I'm an 3l3t3 ha(k0r to boot!"
A good read, though. Nice afternoon entertainment..
Re:Sexy, cool geeks? (Score:1)
Re:Sexy, cool geeks? (Score:1)
Re:Sexy, cool geeks? (Score:1)
http://members.rogers.com/wesleyhodgson/web/mis
Oh wait, I guess I AM an 31337 h4x0r afterall (if you're going to make fun, at least do it right), what with the CopyLeft shirt.
Re:Thanks (Score:3, Interesting)
Why not use a PGP/GPG like signature on passports? Or drivers licenses for that matter? A simple national key for signing all visas, passports, or other means of identification could easily verify the validity of such a piece of paper. It would be hard to forge, and easy to verify.
Bruce also made some rather silly/stupid comments:
You know what I want? I don't want a National ID Card. I want a Global Coalition Visa. .
Now, I was all for the national ID card when the idea was first proposed. It seemed worthwhile at the time : every person known to have terrorist connections could be tracked ; airlines could notify the government of movement, the government could warn the airlines that a suspected terrorist was on a plane. I realized the negative possibilities of this system, and have since changed my viewpoint, now seeing it as a possible way to eliminate virtually any privacy that even remotely exists on a personal level. A global card would be remarkably worse: not only would one not have any privacy at home, one would not have any privacy away from home; escape would become impossible. I, for one, have always assumed that IF domestic policies ever got to the point that they seriously bothered me, I would leave. A global card leaves you with no destination.
Re:Thanks (Score:2)
Re:Thanks (Global ID) (Score:1)
We already have a global ID card only it's not mandatory if you never leave the CONUS- it's called your passport.
Executive summary (Score:3, Interesting)
A few people care an awful lot about cryptography, but the overwhelming majority of people just want safe credit card transactions. So that's what we've gotten. Cypherpunk types have colorful fantasies but are a joke if you're talking about real world implications. So the anti-crypto forces have beaten them but it's a Pyrrhic victory since the real challenge to the secret-keepers is highly available global information sharing.
Also, Sealand is stupid.
Re:Executive summary (Score:1)
Re:Executive summary (Score:1, Insightful)
I hate to say it, but that's about right.. the cypherpunks have got some great ideas for applying strong crypto, near-ironclad anonymity, secret cash transfers, et al, but if John/Jane Q. Net.user won't use them because they're too esoteric, it means precisely nothing.
Now if it was suddenly cool to be able to use such software, then it would be a lot more widespread.
Re:Executive summary (Score:2)
Um... no. If it was too complicated for you ("that gave me a huge headache") please don't try to summarize it for others. ;-P His main point was that the particular attitudes and priorities of those holding power in the crypto game -- M$ geeks and the spooks -- have managed to bore the public and run the whole thing into a dead end. He seems to think that cryptography actually has a whole bunch of practical uses that could make a substantive difference in our lives, but that's gotten lost thanks to misplaced priorities. The crypto issue, however, is just a representative example of how the dominant players in certain industries have detoured our huge push of technological progress off a bridge. (And, as is true with most any issue, the absolutists on either end of the spectrum are out of their minds.)
Also, Sealand is stupid.
Cyberfeudalism, cyberguilds, and the cyber-papacy (Score:2, Interesting)
Taking the medieval analogy to its logical conclusion I have one question: who gets to be the pope? Bill Gates or Richard Stallman?
This is NOT off-topic...
Powerful? Only in your own minds! (Score:5, Interesting)
OSS projects as centers of power? Are you kidding me? The manager at your local K-Mart has more power than Linus Torvalds and Richard Stallman combined.
What you're missing, is that the "code artists" are the serfs. Writing code is low-level labor--to the information age what plowing fields was to the age of agriculture. The only way you can cease to be a serf, is to cease writing code. Code is just a commodity, like wheat. Useless in and of itself. Useful if you can make money off its sale. The management class is the one that structures deals and creates wealth. That's the way it always has been and always will be.
The ironic origin of guilds (Score:2, Interesting)
If...wait, BIG IF...Sterling and Lessig are right about the concentration and fragmentation of power going on right now, then in order to attract new features/projects, the big remaining software powers, lacking all creativity, will eventually be forced to grant monopolies to the most promising software creators. (Just as in the medieval period, guilds were often established as a "recruiting tool" to snarf the foreign experts in some new field.)
It is the combined package of code that works, lore about that code, and restricted access to the CVS tree that is interesting... Without this, I agree with you that serfdom is the unfortunate result.
Re:The ironic origin of guilds (Score:1)
Re:The ironic origin of guilds (Score:1)
I also was not saying anything about the "dissolution of intellectual property." Just like guilds, open source communities are often about control, mutual protection, and subsidy. Hardware vendors and device manufacturers, for example, often underwrite development efforts; businesses have been known to band together around shared interests or cost-sharing; individuals who have an itch wish to share the resulting project with an adoring public; etc. As Lessig says in The Future of Ideas, copyright is not based on the concept of tangible property...instead, it is about tangible control over who can use the copyrighted material. Property was only a secondary factor for guild success (if at all), and creation of source code may turn out to be secondary to ongoing nurture of that source code for my hypothetical "open source guilds."
Most important was (and is) the successful commerce in services that resulted! (Neo-mercantilism must be just around the corner... :)
Re:The ironic origin of guilds (Score:1)
Compare the advancements of the guild system in its own time (many centuries) vs. the advancements of a generally economic system such as the US.
I never doubted the intention of the guild systems of mutual protection and control; I'm sure Google will support your point. Search for "Advancements in the Middle Ages" and I believe that Google will support mine.
Re:The ironic origin of guilds (Score:2)
I'll save your Comp101 instructor some trouble: using Google hits as primary support for your thesis is of dubious value.
Just a few facts will serve to moot your comparison: literacy, currency, horsepower.
Your construction equating value with property is a gross simplification. You should do some reading beyond the material supporting your political fetish.
Re:The ironic origin of guilds (Score:1)
Re:The ironic origin of guilds (Score:1)
You compare the rate of advancement (cultural/political/technical, I am unsure) during the Middle Ages to that demonstrated by America. The comparison is absurd in the extreme, partly by virtue of disparities in the three areas I mention, among a host of others, but principally in consequence of the fact that modern American progress is impossible without the historical foundation laid in the West. I was astonished at your snarky tone with a poster who was pointing out the benefits represented by a form of collective enterprise which predates and supports the latter development of mercantile capitalism and all the blossoms that tree bears.
As to the equation of value and property, perhaps you should consult your post again.
Re:The ironic origin of guilds (Score:1)
Re:The ironic origin of guilds (Score:1)
Literacy:
(middle ages - single digits, admit vanishingly small)
(1870 america - 80%*)
Currency:
Prior to the eleventh century, an effective currency of exchange did not even exist. Coinage was that left from Roman times and did not figure in the effective economy at all. Even as late as the fifteenth century, commerce was carried out via Bills of Exchange denominated in Moneys of Account. The vast majority of Europeans before this lived and died without ever seeing a coin, let alone using one in a transaction.
The United States has enjoyed a more or less stable system of currency since its inception.
Horsepower:
Prior to the development of an agriculture based on animal husbandry in the fourteenth century, the use of draft animals in europe was effectively non-existent. Thus, available horsepower was contingent upon the size of one's family. Industry, such as it existed, was able to make use of wind and water to some benefit.
Steam.
You contend that a comparison between the rate of advancement of living standards in the Medieval period and even nineteenth century America supports your argument that the guild system is somehow inferior to a system of free enterprise. I suggest that a productive comparison between these two systems is effectively impossible, not least because a comparison of *rates of advancement* is untenable in consequence of the disparity of circumstance outlined above. This is merely *a precis*. Your argument is such a gross simplification as to beggar discussion. As to the evolution of capitalism, western economy in general and its relation to the medieval system of guilds, I refer you to the first chapter of the above book. Until you've done a deal of reading, further debate is impossible.
Re:Powerful? Only in your own minds! (Score:2)
Certainly, managers, leaders, executives earn even more money... But really, compare "code serf"'s income to that of general population, and see if it looks all that bad. About "programming in and of itself is useless"; I agree. Same can be said about practically any single activity known to humankind. Earning money is pretty much useless, in and of itself; using money makes earning much more interesting.
Re:Powerful? Only in your own minds! (Score:2)
Grab.
Re:Powerful? Only in your own minds! (Score:1)
Well, this is an age old argument about "what is coding"... But I still disagree with notion of good non-coding design eliminating (or even seriously lessening) need for good code-level architecture and design.
I don't believe in having a few barely literate programmers writing out stupid code based on smart design. If that is possible, then the design work has already been programming, to large degree. And if so, programmers have all but entered the source code to computer. The only stupid component required here is the compiler (compiler plus other tools that help people do their job, that is).
In large projects, huge amounts of time are spent on requirements and design phases (I should know, working for a largish company). Most of that stuff is required, yet it doesn't even touch implementation. Business requirements, business logics, some high-level architectural questions, all are necessary prerequisites... After which implementation phase starts, consisting of more low-level design etc, including actual 'physical' implementation, programming.
Re:Powerful? Only in your own minds! (Score:1)
Re:Powerful? Only in your own minds! (Score:2)
Re:Cyberfeudalism, cyberguilds, and the cyber-papa (Score:2)
Taking the medieval analogy to its logical conclusion I have one question: who gets to be the pope? Bill Gates or Richard Stallman?
Who says there has to be only a single Pope? Ever hear of the Great Schism [newadvent.org]? Even in the middle ages there were times when 2 or even 3 popes existed, each excommunicating the other(s).
There's nothing new under the sun.
Re:Cyberfeudalism, cyberguilds, and the cyber-papa (Score:2)
NSA Spooks? (Score:1)
Re:NSA Spooks? (Score:2)
Re:NSA Spooks? (Score:2)
There are exceptions to this, the head of the CIA (I mean the real one, the Deputy not the politician at the top), for example has a job that is well known. He may even have a listed telephone number. As a manager of spooks though he/she (remember Stella Rimmington) is definitely a spook.
The main point about spooks is their anonymity. I like uniformed police officer because whenever they think about breaking the law, they have to remember that their identity is known (think about that even the cars are identified on their roofs).
Spooks are ghosts, there is no identity and no accountability.
Re:NSA Spooks? (Score:1)
Re:NSA Spooks? (Score:1)
(oh wait, sorry, DBZ's a TV show, hehe)
Lynch mob? (Score:5, Funny)
Now, if you turn the entire population into anonymous snoops and peeping Toms, it's a nation of snitches, which is very destabilizing. I'm not suggesting that.
This is the civilian militia Minuteman version of surveillance.
How does Bruce distinguish this from a lynch mob or posse of surveillance?
I read through those paragraphs several times, and I really can't figure out how Bruce gets around the destabilization problem that he himself points out. Somehow the fact that these are really sophisticated, cool devices is supposed to make them immune to mis-use.
Re:Lynch mob? (Score:1)
Re:Lynch mob? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Lynch mob? (Score:1)
Re:Lynch mob? (Score:1)
You don't even need to cite the long history of government abuses of power for this one (though that would help). Open information, sunshine laws, freedom of information: usually a good thing; in this case, they allow just anyone to view the data. Which in itself is not so bad, but then people can say "there is data in the archives", and use that claim - without letting others verify it, just banking on public desire for scandal to let the public assume it's actually there - to accuse others of anything. Yes, it falls far short of our (and most legal) standards of proof, but I'm talking about the court of public opinion.
Sure, it wouldn't prevent someone dressing up like you and doing whatever, but geez, that possibility is out there right now with camcorders... He's just talking about making it widespread.
Aye, and there's another rub. If video evidence is even more heavily believed and easier to obtain, then the cost/benefit to faking a personal act and filming it shifts in the faker's favor.
Re:Lynch mob? (Score:5, Insightful)
If they wore T-shirts with their driver's license numbers writ large and visible from all angles, they wouldn't have formed lynch mobs.
Read the text Mr. Sterling wrote between the last two sentences you quoted:
Re:Lynch mob? (Score:1)
I would use no key but one I have created myself with software I trust.
Our Bruce fails to mention this, I believe. In fact, he proposes builtin keys.
Re:Lynch mob? (Score:5, Insightful)
sPh
Re:Lynch mob? (Score:1, Interesting)
That conveniently ignores the fact that the county sheriff usually knew exactly who the members of the lynch mob were, and his deputies were often part of the mob. So if an imbalance of power exists, having that information would probably only make it worse for those at the wrong end of the see-saw.
</blockquote>
Of course the sheriff knew, but his job was not upholding moral righteousness, merely responding to things the community wanted him to respond to or would complain about.
If KKK members had their driver's license printed on their t-shirts, the sheriff can no longer claim ignorance, and would be forced to follow up reports or be accused of corruption during the next election.
Did the FBI know too? (Score:2)
Re:Lynch mob? (Score:1)
> "If they wore T-shirts with their driver's license numbers writ large and visible from all angles, they wouldn't have formed lynch mobs."
"That conveniently ignores the fact that the county sheriff usually knew exactly who the members of the lynch mob were"
There's one thing that you are missing. Even if the sheriff knew who the local KKK members were, with the hoods, the sheriff could either feign total ignorance of the lynchers' identities, or simply say that the hoods kept him from identifying *which* KKK members were doing the lynching.
Re:Lynch mob? (Score:2)
In otherwords, the people across the nation would see what the sheriff was doing, and tell him to take a hike. With a mask, nobody knows it's the sheriff, and he can deny any involvement.
You really can't argue that the minority in charge ever goes against the majority sentiment in favor of the rights of any group. That just hasn't been the case historically.
Minority groups always recieve their rights only after the majority of the people agree that they should have those rights. The leaders just look at the polls and go along with the people (unless it's one of their financial sponsors being on the wrong side of public opinion).
Re:Lynch mob? (Score:2)
Re:Lynch mob? (Score:2)
Bob
Re:Lynch mob? (Score:1)
Civilian surveillance is a Good Thing. It keeps the authorities more or less in line.
Google around for police shooting WTO protersters and more...
missing the point (Score:3, Interesting)
Something is amiss here... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Something is amiss here... (Score:1)
Re:Something is amiss here... (Score:1)
Without that guarantee, it's a tool of big brother, because I can be snooped on whenever the listeners wish. And don't give me some hogwash about taking out the batteries; if it were that easy, someone would take out my batteries before they took me out.
Re:Something is amiss here... (Score:1)
Re:Something is amiss here... (Score:1)
Re:Something is amiss here... (Score:1)
This is just off the top of my head - there are probably more subtle approaches promising more accurate results.
Kiwaiti
Re:Something is amiss here... (Score:1)
Re:Something is amiss here... (Score:1)
Re:Something is amiss here... (Score:1)
Actually, this has been going on ever since the LA cops got caught whalin' on some DUI named Rodney King. Most of the news footage from 11.9.01 came from amateurs. And CNN's videophones are starting to catch on, sort of like mobile videoconferencing.
The pipe dream in all of this is making it equivalent to a form of ID. Do I really want to lug this thing around with me everywhere I go? What if I want to mix and match, a Sony camera and a Nokia phone? And what it I want to use this thing for private entertainment? What do you meain, I can't? Does that mean I need an extra version for private use?
This shoudn't be in the hands of a regulatory body.Each customer and manufacturer should decide for himself how deep and in which direction they want to go. Sorta like what's happening as we speak--er, write.
Sterling's idea is already taking shape...sort of. (Score:2, Interesting)
Sure, perhaps we would suddenly see thousands more videos a la Rodney King or perhaps even volunteer "Thought Police"-types of citizan groups (there's a Louisville, KY paper called "Snitch") but isn't that reason alone NOT to make such things? Enabling people to securely document unseemly behaviour of authorities would surely prompt many "corporate privacy protection" laws or the outright declaration that video recordings of Federal, State, and Municipal employees are verboten. On the other hand, the goody-two-shoes neighborhood snitch crowd would threaten the private citizen's right to be anonymous.
But despite these objections, these things are already starting to happen -- the surveilence culture is already well established. Xcam, anyone? Indymedia [indymedia.org] is an example of how cheap video equipment, the internet, and PHP can provide an alternative news service for those who disdain the mainstream sources. The cops routinely videotape everything they do, and sometimes re-edit it later as they see fit [autonomedia.org].
The difference between the current trend of surveillence culture and Sterlings's pleas to geeks are that regular joe can't compete with the likes of CNN in getting those memes out there. Plus States' resources in information management; ie. linking downtown London's streetcorner cameras to Interpol mugshots.
Imagine a Slashdot style system of posting video clips (except really really user-friendly); user-moderated, with "karma" exploded into multiple ratings axes (rather than being 1-dimensional), decentralized, with multiple points of entry (not just different browsers -- different ways of getting the info).
The difference between this and TV news is a reported doesn't simply present information -- they interpret and filter it to a large degree. However, how could a news organization ignore a video clip that gets boosted to the top of the pile?
Brainstorm, rant, reaction....
Re:Sterling's idea is already taking shape...sort (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah, right.
"Holy shit! Citizen CX29BR7 just saw Homeland Defence Squad HDS4787 gunning down dissident JF78Z4 and reported it as a terrorist act. Homeland Response Squyad HRS5651 has been dispatched to terminate CX29BR7."
Re:Sterling's idea is already taking shape...sort (Score:2)
Re:Sterling's idea is already taking shape...sort (Score:2)
Also, there was explicit mention in the book of an airplane being deliberately crashed into a highrise tower.
That was in The Running Man, not The Long Walk
About the conclusion (Score:3, Insightful)
Industry going nowhere?? (Score:2, Insightful)
Before the microprocessor, the world was under the impression nothing would change until mainframes got a LOT bigger, made of fewer discrete components. Before handhelds, people thought laptops were going nowhere. Before the Internet people thought BBSes were going nowhere.
Before Linux started picking up, people thought the only thing that could run on PCs was Windows and DOS. Little did they know!
So, something big is gonna happen in the computer industry soon. Sweet
Re:Industry going nowhere?? (Score:2)
Bollocks. Don't you remember GEM? Ran under DR-DOS (in itself superior to MS-DOS) and if it hadn't been for Apple hobbling Digital Research it would have been a real contender...
Re:Industry going nowhere?? (Score:2)
The very fact that you have to ask underscores his point.
You wouldn't ask "don't you remember Windows?"
Interesting! (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, our quality of life out on Sealand is pretty high. Any geek thing which fits in 5k square feet of dedicated-to-accomodations space, for a fairly small number of people, we have. Gig-e, dvd library, 5 TB of mp3s (and divx), wavelan throughout, on-site anonymizing proxies and mixmaster remailers, a pool of laptops, IEC 320 outlets on the walls, and about 16L of diet coke per person per week. It's really no different from a big house in the middle of nowhere, except in 2 hours I can be in London, or 4 hours in Amsterdam, or 11 hours in San Francisco, LA, etc. Admittedly, I'd far prefer living in one of the 5 interesting cities in the world, but this makes money. And, most of the people living here are security/maintenance, not geeks. The big drawback is our no-drug/no-alcohol policy, and the lack of random unplanned social interaction; friends of mine from SF fly out and visit, but nothing really happens spontaneously or serindipitously. Again, much like living on a farm or something.
No one really promotes Sealand as a tourist destination or place to live; it's effectively a big colocation facility at present, and likely to remain so indefinitely.
I *do* agree with his fundamental point there, though -- if I were going to be living in isolation with a small number of people, I don't know if people who are dedicated to bringing down governments and complete individual liberty are the best companions. Although *bland* people are probably the "easiest" to get along with, if I were picking some people to spend long amounts of time with in a remote location, once basic skills were taken care of, people interested in science, art, literature, etc. would be a lot more interesting than "glee club" or debating society or politicians or lawyers or the others Sterling mentions as the most interesting. A lot of the "hacker" conferences attract a good cross-section of people; I think of all the 5000-person subsets of the world, the people at events like HAL, nanotech conferences, Burning Man, etc. would be some of the better ones.
As for his overall point about the rate of cypherpunk progress; I don't know. A lot of the things we want already exist -- ssh is *widely* deployed (to the point that anyone sending passwords in the clear over the net is a fucking moron, and widely recognized as such); SSL web pages are common; anonymization through mixmaster or proxies is understood and deployed. HavenCo provides a small piece of the puzzle by making it easy to anonymously, reliabily, and security host servers. The only thing we're missing is true blinded ecash, but progress is still being made on that front, and almost-as-good alternatives, like e-gold, paypal, etc., already exist. I'd say we've done a pretty good job on the datahaven front, given that it's been discussed in sci-fi for 20-30 years, and most of the pieces are there now; how long were they discussing space travel, biotech, wide area networks, etc. before they were deployed to a similar degree? The dotcom collapse is certainly a setback for everyone, but the underlying trend of decentralization and individual control which started before the dotcom boom is still going strong.
Re:Interesting! (Score:2)
Re:Interesting! (Score:2)
I've got to agree. As someone who spends all day working for politicians (who are usually lawyers), I'd much rather have people who are interested in all sorts of different aspects of life. Politicians and lawyers, debate team captains, all know the rules for formal debates. But quite often they lack the passion and knowledge to really share something significant about a subject.
It must be interesting to have an opportunity to, in some sense, choose the kind of people who will be around you. The interview process for SeaLand must be an interesting one.
Completely off topic, but I know your sister Jess really well. We were friends when I was at PSU, and worked together last summer. I still talk to her a few times a month.
Re:Interesting! (Score:2)
As for coworkers, we've had female staff before, but don't currently have any. It worked pretty well. I don't think any female who could work around a bunch of ex-military maintenance/security people and geeks would have much reluctance to kick someone for thinking about them in that way, though, in a professional context. Coworkers are not chicks even if they're hot babes.
The dude went over the deep end (Score:2, Interesting)
When it comes right down to it, the culprit is the maturation of the tech industry. Its not so fun anymore, all the low hanging fruit has been picked. And the drama about crypto and spy-hackers that gave geeks a sort of mystery and coolness just never amounted to much, and wishing won't make it so.
High Times conclusions (Score:1)
spooks want to FIGHT Redmond.
Republicans are on the side of geeks.
All geeks want to sell pirated software.
He must be smoking some real cheap Peruvian marching powder.
Does anybody else think... (Score:1, Funny)
Don't worry, Bruce (about one thing at least) (Score:2, Interesting)
I firmly believe that a moment will come when there will be something better to run than a desktop OS. (And for the desktop head over to www.kde.org right away
Speaking AI? Knowledge based systems, machine learning, planning, language processing, and a whole lot more. There will be stuff that you wouldn't dare write in a novel.
Speaking network? Where is my distributed OS, will there be one Avalon that I can login to? Who knows... Today we've got lots of cluster stuff, computational network projects and a beowulf at our research lab but tomorrow...
Speaking privacy? Come and decypher my GnuPG encrypted emails. The better algo's we need, the more they will be made.
Happy writing,
Re:Don't worry, Bruce (about one thing at least) (Score:2)
Speaking AI? Knowledge based systems, machine learning, planning, language processing, and a whole lot more. There will be stuff that you wouldn't dare write in a novel.
Only the AI revolution has been in the works for a couple of decade, and while everything else in computers is ahead of what was predicted, AI is the only thing that's behind.
Re:Don't worry, Bruce (about one thing at least) (Score:1)
How would geeks and spooks or Sterling know? (Score:5, Interesting)
If one looks at the technology and software that's out there, it can be easy to conclude that there's little real innovation out there. It would seem that we're in a period of small refinements to old hat stuff. But isn't it the social innovation that really makes the internet unique?
Part of the problem with science fiction writers is they tend to write novels where one person single-handedly saves the world or changes it in opposition to some monolithic oppressive entity. I'm afraid Sterling's fallen prey to that - he's looking at the people who want to be big players and what they're doing, while all the time, the bit actors are stealing the show by sheer force of numbers. Yeah, great, the government's going to have a number on everyone and observe everything they do - but how in the hell are they going to keep track of it all? How many words are created on the internet a day and how many people would you need to keep track of them all? People argue about anomynity all the time, but there's a simple truth - if you are one of millions, you are anomynous unless you do something very obvious to draw attention to yourself or get very unlucky.
What he's done here is the equivalent of judging the ocean by what he can see looking down on it. He sees the first few surface feet and meanwhile, 99.99% of the water goes uninspected.
Re:How would geeks and spooks or Sterling know? (Score:1, Interesting)
Geek@Microsoft? (Score:2, Interesting)
I've always been under the impression that Microsoft was more a marketing-management invention; Aside from the founder-coders, Microsoft is actually (I've heard) rather rough on its geeks (outsourced labour and permatemps and all that 'Niaomi Klein' jazz. I would be more inclined to think of geeks as the usual Slashdot cast --- interested in technological innovation and (as a distant second) society in general, not so interested in thumbing through wads of cash made by market hammerlock (a lot of us write code for free, for chrissakes.)
And what is it with Bruce's prediliction for, you know, the second tense colloqualisms? Sorry. IMO speeches shouldn't read like character dialogue.
Cyberanarchy papers (Score:2)
The enemy is copyright over-protection. (Score:1)
What happens if copyright, just like patent, is returned to its constitutional "limited time"? Say 7 years.
What were you using, reading, buying in 1994 that the company/writer is still making money off of today? And I mean real money, not penny-ante "residules" for M*A*S*H re-runs.
I assert that it's *squat*. Except for massive self-serving multinational corps like Disney who thrive on no one ever, EVER using an idea that they bought with out their permission, the actual individuals who do the work and write the stories and invent this wonderful shared culture have already made their money and moved on to new projects in that "limited time" that patent and copyright were designed to protect.
As if I'm going to use Win3.1 today just because it wouldn't be a crime to copy it? Get real.
Bob-
Re:The enemy is copyright over-protection. (Score:2)
In Britain, we have our Official Secrets Act, which you usually have to sign before you work for the Government (in almost any capacity). However, the greatest weapon of all is Crown Copyright. All documents produced by the government are subject to copyright. If you give them to a paper, they are not bound by the Official Secrets Act, but to publish is a breach of copyright.
Lawrence Lessig, Justice Department lawyer? (Score:2, Informative)
Perhaps this is what confused Sterling. Lessig was asked by Judge Jackson to submit a brief in the Microsoft case and apparently it was quite influential [wideopen.com].
Re:Lawrence Lessig, Justice Department lawyer? (Score:1)
Perhaps incompatible with fifth amendment (Score:2)
If an accuser comes forward with information implicating an alleged criminal/terrorist/whatever, then the accused party would want every single peice of evidence that even slightly pertains to the crime at his disposal. That might include every peice of video that the accuser produced for months preceding the crime, and all video produced within a mile of the incident.
I don't know if this would be a legitimate request on the part of the accused, but I have a feeling it might be. Of course it would be impossible to supply, because it would require people to testify against themselves if they were filming something unrelated and incriminating.
Is there a good way to compare this problem to a present day scenario in evidence rules?
Re:Perhaps incompatible with fifth amendment (Score:2)
Is there a good way to compare this problem to a present day scenario in evidence rules?
Sure. This is no different than getting the spoken testimony of those people. First, you gotta find 'em. Then, you gotta either convince them to testify, or get a judge to compel them.
Then, you can't make 'em testify against their own Fifth Amendment rights. The courts wouldn't have any trouble sorting this one out.
Re:Perhaps incompatible with fifth amendment (Score:2)