And another thing....

Ron Resnick (
Sun, 10 Aug 1997 03:06:39 +0300

At 11:34 PM 8/7/97 PDT, I Find Karma wrote:
>For the record, I love Jameson's.

Nope. Bushmills. But just the regular stuff - not the fancy/pissy 12 year old
Besides- I'm more of single malt scotch kind of guy. Laphroaig. Smells
like moldy sawdust. Peat bogs, actually :-).

>Still going through the weekend's mail and found this gem from Ron.

Glad ya liked :-)

>> Tim had no right posting Joe's thing to the list. I know Joe can take
>> care of himself - he doesn't need me to defend his privacy rights. I'm
>> not defending Joe. I'm expressing my own disgust.
>I'm still grappling with this one.

Already dealt with in "kiss & make up".

>I don't think JoeK ever really enjoyed being on FoRK.

Yes, this is apparently true. I'm a bit puzzled. I really like JoeK. We have
incredibly synergistic views on things it would appear. Between Joe, Mark and
I, dist-obj is turning into a literal whos-who of the academic/commercial
and journalistic distributed object community. I have a hunch my future is
linked with JoeK's in a yet unspecified manner.

But I _do_ enjoy FoRK. Most of the time. Confound it - I'm addicted to the
silly thing. My wife has the same reaction to this that Juliet Barerra
has - I think we need to set up a "FoRK widows" club for Riva, Juliet ,...
Do you think Michelle would want to join, Adam?

FoRK is my soap opera. I need to tune in, to get a fix, to see what's
A day without FoRK postings is so lonely - I feel like the world has gone
away and left me behind :-(.

>> much as I get tempted to quit at times, the benefits of FoRK membership,
>> for me, still outweigh the crap.
>You sure know how to give a complement, Ron. :)

Yup. I'm learning from Rohit ;-).

>> And by Tim postings that contain a single URL and no more.
>Think of them as a challenge.
>For some, the challenge is to figure out their meaning.
>For others, the challenge is in how fast you can hit the delete key.

Fuck that. Seriously.

>> And by pure offensiveness (repeatedly!) about Canada.
>We're just jealous because Canada has all of the amenities of America
>without any of the 23,000 annual murders, and none of the stupidity.
>Plus, you guys have 967-11-11. Why didn't WE think of that?

Oh, don't remind me, you bastard. How I miss and crave .....
What Adam is referring to, of course, is a pizza chain in Ontario
called Pizza Pizza. They're gimmick was to have a single phone
number that made for a nice rhymable jingle - "967-11-11, call Pizza Pizza
, he-ee-e-ey". You dial this number, give them your order and address.
The central switchboard figures out the closest store to where you live,
phones the order to them, who then delivers to your house. Advantage?
Anyone of close to 5 million people in the GTA (Greater Toronto Area)
has to remember only 1 single phone number to get the same dependable
product. It's since been imitated by others, of course, notably 241-0-241
(Get it? They sell you "Two for one" pizzas), and even the really dumb
341-0-341, who's pizzas taste like what you'd expect in a three for one deal.
Anyway, Pizza Pizza remains the original with the famous orange pizza
box and store signs. Again, just proves that in a commodity world the
way to differentiate is by being *first*, not by being truly different.
I think this is Sun's whole strategy on how to make money off of Java.

So, here I am in the fucking tribalistic middle east where they set bombs
off in marketplaces because some people want to build houses where
other people would rather that they don't build houses, and goddamn Rifkin
has to go and make me think about Pizza Pizza. And home.
(Not to mention Rohit's mention just days ago about that traffic site,
and the 407 report. I wanna get freebie drives down the 407 too!
*Damn* I miss home. Real home. Not this sorry nomads-land. Joke. teehee.)

So now I'm thinking about all my other faves. Tim Horton's donuts. And
especially their coffee. Mmmm coffee. Swiss Chalet chicken. Harveys
hamburgers. Mmmm Harveys. Give me all the toppings, but no tomatoes
or mayo, and extra hot peppers. Mmmm. And beavertails.
And who can forget the classic, the only - poutine!

Poutine is a French Canadian "recipe" - if you can call it that. Take greasy
thick cut french fries, add generous heaps of cheese curd chunks, smother
with thick brown gravy. The gravy & fries melt the cheese all over, and you
eat the whole mess with a fork, a spoon, whatever works.
I guess on this list, should be a fork, right? Mmmmmmmmm.

'Fcourse, I was raised in Ottawa right across from the Quebec border.
Summertime we'd go swimming in Lac Philippe and get poutine. That
was before it got "discovered" outside of Quebec. Now, you can get
Poutine at Harveys, Wendys, Burger King and other sterilized places.
It's ok, but it's just not the same as it was back at Lac Philippe. But in
Toronto, hours from those little Quebec towns, it's better than nothing.

Who says Canada hasn't contributed any junk food to the world?
Between Pizza Pizza and Poutine I think we can hold our head up high :-).

>Of course, your national health care system is going to bankrupt you.

Not the way it's going. At least not in Ontario. The premier there -Mike
Harris - can outgingrich Gingrich. He's shutting down hospitals faster
than you can down whisky bottles, Adam.

>Combine this with the Quebec problem,

Quebec problem? What Quebec problem? We love 'em, the endearing
little buggers :-). Personally, I can't wait for the referendum they finally
win, so we can get rid of the whole thing once and for all. (No, I don't
really believe that. But I often wish I did.)

>and we'll see Canada annexed by
>the U.S., certainly by 2050. Probably earlier than that. That's a
>provision in NAFTA, you know. Canada and Mexico both agreed not to be
>completely hostile to a U.S. takeover. Heh heh.

Are you sure you really want Canada to join? Hell, by 2050 who
knows who'll be annexing whom. By then I expect the mujahadeen
to be running the globe. Under direct orders from Bill Gates, of course.

(btw - not that this is in any way relevant, but I thought I'd contribute
a bit on my bio. I actually have 3 citizenships - US, Canada, Israel.
I was born on Long Island NY, but never lived in the States - my Dad
was doing his postdoc at Brookhaven National Labs, and my folks
left a month after I was born. So I'm American by accident, not by
design. I lived most of my life in Canada. Ottawa until leaving my
folks home, then 4 years in Israel doing my MSc (and getting married),
then back to Canada for 6 years in Toronto. We've now been back in Israel
for about 6 months. This time, I came as an immigrant so now I'm a
citizen here. Which means they can draft me. Scummy deal, if you
ask me. Don't ask me why I came here. I won't tell you. But I'm
looking for an escape hatch, heh heh. Just don't tell my wife or my

>> I learned in a hurry that this was not the case. That FoRK could briefly
>> touch on the cool stuff but didn't really want to dwell on it lest it get
>> too nerdy.
>Actually, nerdiness has little to do with it.
>I think the real reason we flip around from topic to topic is threefold:
> 1. We have many different interests.
> 2. We believe in the interconnectedness of all things.
> 3. We have, as a community, a serious attention deficit disorder.

Yes, you're right of course.

>In addition, many of us regularly travel, so that usually by the time we
>return threads are no longer relevant. We just have to wait until the
>next round.
>Sometimes threads are left dangling, but there are too many threads to
>manage, so if a topic is important, chances are we will return to it at
>the next relevant point (that is, when there is new information to add
>to the mix). We have a good institutional memory, and have no qualms
>picking up where we left off three months earlier.

This can be true, but I haven't really seen it done much. Other than
the menthol kleenex business, I can't think of too many examples
of this.

>> Rohit posts an 'XML & Sour grapes' thing. Ron responds. End of thread.
>Not forever. Rohit mulls it over for a while, considering what Ron
>says, and two months later coauthors a "XML for Archiving" paper.
>> 'Clueful Mountain' gets started. Makes a bit of a ruckus. End of thread.
>You're using linear thinking on us.
>The great thing about hypertext --- indeed, about the World Wide Web ---
>is that it freed us from linear thinking.
>Just because we're not overt in our quoting that thread does not mean
>the ideas do not vicariously underlie future posts. (How many negatives
>in THAT sentence?)

True. You're right.

>> 'ONESIMUS' is retrieved from ancient history by Adam. Where did that go?
>I just posted it to provide context. It wasn't intended to start a
>debate. I just wanted people to know something that had happened two
>years ago.
>I have other "classics" I may revive sometime if I get the gumption.

Go for it.

>Things like oSpace, OOFS, kudos, and Cell. Things that underlie the
>whole star TP and munchkins and task-oriented programming ideology.
>Stuff that indicates why we are such firm believers in Web technologies
>like PNG, streaming multimedia, XML, HTTP, and URLs...
>> Offline for a few of us on a private thread. But not on the list.
>> Fair enough. Clearly FoRK just isn't that kind of place.
>But FoRK *is* that kind of place.
>The point is, FoRK isn't *only* that kind of place.

Yeah, what kind of place is this anyway? You guys are all NUTS
around here, y'know? :-). This kind of reminds me of one of those
old hyper Marx Brothers movies, where Harpo is popping in and out of
all the rooms all the time, being chased by the straightman, and Groucho
is wisecracking all the time in the background. Meanwhile Chico is
making off with the goods.....

>> Thus was born dist-obj. Over there, we are very
>> careful to preserve the signal ratio. And it works very well for us.
>Well, sort of. I gotta admit, over there I sometimes fear posting
>for worry of saying something that will be inappropriate.

Trust in your judgement. As Tim said
"Creation exists by trying things with the confidence that you
can achieve something."

You're fairly intelligent Adam. I think you can figure out what "appropriate"
is in most cases.

>With FoRK, I have a blanket that says I can post anything that I think
>is interesting. On dist-obj, I have an obligation to post only what I
>think others will think is interesting. See the distinction?


>Sometimes, I have trouble determining the latter. Example:
>event-oriented programming. *I* think it is interesting, but I didn't
>know if dist-obj would. So I posted it here and not there.

That's cool.

>Someone was nice enough to cross-post it for me (Bob or Dave, I forget

Bob. Haugen.

>which), but it demonstrates me point. I'm much better at gauging what I
>find interesting than I am at gauging what I think an ever-growing list
>of people will find interesting.

Yes, I understand your point. I think there's sort of a graduated scale you
could look at. At one extreme, there is the academic, published communities.
Prestigious journals like ACM Transactions, etc. One notch down, you
have more popular things like Dr.Dobbs. A step below that, you have lists
like dist-obj that aim for high technical content, but are amateur, open,
forums. Next step are things like FoRK - still some technically serious
material, but by no means exclusively. Next step down - gee, I don't know
about Voxers, but I guess that might be the next rung. And below that -

ACM isn't going to take your bits unless they're highly scrutinized and
peer reviewed and accurate and on topic. Backed up be empirical evidence
and mathematical proofs, as appropriate. Literature citations galore.

DDJ will also check your bits. They won't print crap. But you can get away
with more 'opinion' style pieces, with less formalism, less accuracy even.

dist-obj won't check your bits. You can print crap. But you're asked not to.
Very few people do.
There is no peer review prior to publication, but there is a form of peer
immediately following publication. Postings need not be accurate, nor
truthful. They may be pure opinion, even pure fantasy. But they should
adhere to the stated subject matter, which is fairly well described in the
FAQ that you yourself put together, btw.

FoRK won't check your bits. You can print crap. There's no definition of
'crap' on FoRK. Lots of people do print it, regularly
(imho). Whenever a form of peer review occurs on FoRK (as I'm just now
coming off such a session, I'm well informed on this matter :-), it tends
to be
viewed as interference. Postings can be whatever the hell your heart
desires. There is no subject matter. The FAQ, that you yourself put
together, btw, meanders from macarenas to gemara to trust quotations
to the Byars retirement foundation.

Adam - you've been published in professional academic circles. You write
well. You have a knack for knowing what to write, how to target it & package
it and make it appeal to the serious research community. If you can
do that, I fail to see why dist-obj is a problem for you. Sure, it's tighter
than FoRK. But it's looser than other forums you have no problem with.
Still, if you prefer to lurk dist-obj, that's fine too. Like FoRK, there is
no requirement that members have to post. On the contrary, I'm content
with the low posting rate there as it is. FoRK gets more traffic in 2 months
(eg the current Jul/Aug archive file) than dist-obj has had in its entire

>> Having dist-obj around means I don't expect FoRK to fill that gap for
>> me, and can enjoy FoRK purely for what it is. They're not competitive
>> lists- I view them as complementary. That's why I'm a member of both.
>> Unless Rohit decides I'm FoRK-antisocial after this and boots me out.
>Rohit would not boot you out unless you spammed the list with mailbombs.

I mentioned this in 'kiss & make up' too. Why? If butterfly wings can
be significant, who's to say that 7000 copies of 'bulk-email for $50' offers
might not be significant too? Maybe the 'answer' is in those mailbombs
and you'll miss it if you don't receive them graciously?

What, you say that I'm being ridiculous - that there's an 'obvious difference'
between mailbombs and the sort of FoRKposts I *continue* to call crap?
Doesn't look obvious to me. Enlighten me, why don't you. As I said earlier,
I think this is a difference in degree, not in kind. You just want a looser
threshold than I do, that's all.

>That is not the nature of this list, and it is not Rohit's style.
>Rohit believes in live and let live, post and let post.

Yes that's true. And so I may post whatever I like to. If it offends people,
tough shit. Don't feed me koans. But we've been through this already.

>Remember, the natural numbers are the work of God, and the rest is
>the work of man. It's a good principle to live by.
>> I believe that FoRK is at a certain crossroads. It's going to have
>> to choose between Rohit's need to satiate his ego by adding just about
>> anyone, and permitting just about any thread - versus its claim to
>> continuing the discussions in that physics alcove. What's it going to be?
>My vote is for openness. If Nathan Myrvhold wants to join FoRK and
>flood our halls with stuff about dinosaurs, I say we let him. If
>someone we've never heard of before sends an email to
> and wants to be added, we should take that as
>praise for the discussions we've been having, and greet that person with
>open arms.

Yes. Agreed. (Note that dist-obj does the same. Joe's never turned down a
single request to join. Shameless advertising :-).

>If there is too much mail here for someone, or the mail is uninteresting
>to them, we should allow that person to leave, no ill will at all.
>And I'm all for keeping the archives available on the Web for all who
>want to read them. I weekly receive email from someone not on this list
>asking me (or telling me) about something I posted on this list, thanks
>to the openness of the Web pages. I think that's wonderful.
>I'm a big fan of open borders. People should be allowed to flow freely,
>just as information wants to be free. Especially in a global world.

Yup. No surprises here Adam. We've learned enough about each other
to know that we see things far more alike than differently.

>> there is always a 'bigger picture' encompassing the biggest picture you
>> can possibly think of at any time.
>This is true. The universe is a big place, perhaps the biggest.

Nah. The restaurant at the end of the universe is bigger.

>> And that the only way to see bigger and bigger pictures is by
>> infosponging more and more controversial bits from controversial
>> sources. That, to me, is probably the basic philosophy of
>> FoRK (and dist-obj, for that matter.)
>I don't think the bits or the sources need be controversial. Sometimes
>the most innocuous bits and sources are the ones that spark the best
>insights in me.

Sure. But I think I learn more when there's explicit tension between things.
When you can juxtapose static vs. dynamic, by-value vs. by-reference,
strongly vs. weakly typed, object vs. document. Contrast things in their
black and white starkness and it helps you to see the issues better. Sure,
things are really always shades of gray. But humans need to abstract, to
shuck the 'sameness', and concentrate on the 'different', and then reverse.

>> True enlightenment comes from being willing to see the world through
>> constantly changing perspectives and viewpoints. And it's a never
>> ending process. Nobody ever knows it all. Learning isn't just a path
>> to a goal. It *is* the goal.
>Well spoken.

Msglist, msglist, msglist... Kripes, the amount of time I spend writing stuff
at you, and the little I get quoted into the msglist ;-). Just joshin' ya. I'm
not really all that quotable. Now, McCusker. There's a quotable guy.

>> I used to scoff at html/http as an obviously insufficient way to get
>> to the endgame. But keeping an open mind to Adam & Rohit in the last
>> few months has taught me a lot. I can see where they're coming from.
>And that we often think about the Platonic ideal of html/http and not
>the problem-ridden Web we live with today. The ideas underlying html
>and http and url are what we consider so important.

Yeah, I know that. We've already done Mt. Clue, remember? I know
that your web isn't everyone else's. That's why I nicknamed you guys
karmakids, and your view as karma. So I get a progression from CORBA
to Java to karma to ...? I couldn't very well say CORBA to Java to web...
that would be much to confusing.

>We believe there is a lot to learn from what already exists.
>Both what already exists in nature, and what exists in the manmade realm.
>Both as good examples of what to follow, and as bad examples of what to
>> I'm starting to understand the value of XML. I'm incorporating it into
>> my world-view. I may wind up a karmakid yet.
>:) I may wind up a karmakid yet, too. I'm starting to *believe* in
>those ideas in more than just an abstract sense...

All you apparently believe in is drunken stupor and green notebooks.
Watch out Adam - take care.

>> But, there's also some commonsense. I believe in interconnectedness, but
>> perhaps I don't really believe in the interconnectedness of _all_ things.
>I guess that's where we diverge. My approach is holistic. Everything
>has a sign if you're willing to look for it. Every event has the
>potential to fire off another event. Butterfly wings flapping in one
>area of the world can bring El Nino back to roost.

Ah yes, the famous butterflies. I've peppered two posts with butterfly refs.
I have nothing left to say about them here in their original.
Anticlimactic, huh?

>> I don't really believe that my choice of corn flakes vs. rice crispies
>> for breakfast this morning has anything to do with whether the
>> universe will ultimately expand into a frozen waste, or collapse back
>> to a singularity.
>Won't you feel silly when an answer was in the one place you never
>bothered to look?

Sure, I would. The trouble is that if you are going to be worried that
it's in the butterflies or the breakfast cereal, you'll spend your whole life
doing nothing but looking at those things. You really will have ADD, jump
around like a spaz, and spend 5 years in Caltech looking for a thesis
topic (ouch). <Aside: Kevin, in your joinup post, you asked Adam for
help in choosing a thesis topic. You couldn't *possibly* have picked a worse
person to ask this question! ;-)>

Humans have learned that there is a balance between being
open to all possible ideas, and being willing to shunt aside enough
trite ones that they can get on with things. If you really think it's possibly
in the butterflies, why aren't you out at this very moment examining them?
Maybe *you'll* feel silly when it turns out that in the few minutes it'll
take you
to read this post, the Butterfly That Changes The World (TM) is fluttering
right outside your window.

I'm sure you have this conversation routinely with Manny and JoeK. Ie - the
need to settle down and focus. Since they're not true FoRK believers, it's
perhaps easier for you to dismiss them. But perhaps if you hear it from
FoRK believers (and I think I'm one) it might have more of an impact.
(Then again, I'm pretty spazzy myself. I spend all my time with visions
of networked diapers, and *I'm* giving advice like this?? Get real, Ron. :-)

>> There remain things that are clearly interconnected only in the most
>> superficial and uninteresting ways. Learning about Tim's new machine
>> is bits. They're bits which are interconnected to XML and Mt. Clue by
>> virtue of the fact that they're all FoRKposts. Is that a useful or
>> interesting interconnection? I doubt it.
>But perhaps Tim represents a high-end developer, one who would be one of
>the first people willing to adopt a new technology choice when it comes
>around. And perhaps Tim's posting demonstrates to us what platforms
>these high-end developers are tending to choose. This might give us
>insight in what they intend to use such technology for, and anticipate
>what technology innovations they will need. After all, no new
>technology succeeds without a killerapp.

Heh heh heh. You read dist-obj. So I guess you have a pretty good idea
now what I think the killer app is :-). Dr Frankenstein! Quick! Come here!
We are creating nothing less than LIFE in this laboratory! :-)

>Perhaps Tim's needs themselves
>suggest a killerapp, which we can then reverse engineer to retrofit the
>world's Next Great Technology Thang (TM).
>Perhaps that killerapp also suggests what things we will need to put
>into place before we can even begin developing the technology. Things
>like naming conventions and transaction schemes and economic models and
>trust calculi and security policies and routing algorithms and
>communication infrastructures.
>Read between the lines. Why is Tim buying the machine he's buying?
>Does it fulfill a need? What needs doesn't it fulfill, and why?
>Are pure active distributed communicating objects a solution,

Hey, you know me. Sure they are! They're a solution for everything
from hemeroids to world hunger to the reason you're always hungry
an hour after you eat chinese food.

Seriously, I'm not into high-end workstations with really juiced up processors
(sorry Rob, Tim, others..) because I'm just following some trends. Moore's
law tells me that Rob's high end Alpha is going to be the chip powering my
singing birthday card in a couple of years. Stop thinking of processing
power as something to invest in, to centralize in boxes that you have to
outlay real cash for. Start thinking of mips as things that are incidentally
attached to the rest of your atoms - like singing birthday cards are. But
then, add network interfaces. So what's a Pentium or PPC or Alpha class
chip bundled with enough RAM for a small footprint embedded system,
microkernel type OS and wireless, fully digital NIC (network interface
It's got the equivalent mips of today's fullblown workstation, but in a few
years its pocket change, and as small as a credit card (or golf ball ;-).
Note: no display, no secondary storage (although some of 'em could
come with a display like the REX thing Rohit recently posted).
Think of an NC, but seriously
shrink the footprint and chuck the display. And make it wireless. And
now grab 'em by the dozens. By the hundreds. By the thousands. ....
And gang 'em up.

Then, get a ubiquitous software model. Full mobility, full binary
across all of them. Don't know yet if its x86 or Java bcode in hardware,
but it's one of those two. Probably the former. No matter.
Now think of all the bits as encapsulated chunks. Don't want to call them
objects, cuz it scares you of the object bogeyman? Fine. Call them djinns.
Or shadows. Or documents. Or Idontcarewhats.
Now let them compose into distributed sessions. Into nested sessions within
sessions within sessions.... Let them compose dynamically, using self-
discovery, introspection, learning. Let them be equipped with standardized
metadata models, both machine & human parsable. Let them use these
facilities to the hilt. Let there be more metadata than data. More description
*about* than thing that *is*. Let these blobs live on the Great Bitspace. Let
them be freezable (serializeable, persistantable, whatever) and thawable.
Let them be mobile, hopping from this golfball to that. Let them route
as they go. Let them, when perching on a golfball for a time, be able
to converse with their peers in coherent sessions that preserve their
semantic state (ie, let 'em use virtual synchrony or equivalent).
Yea, and the Lord spoke, let there be light. And let there be life....

And on the 7th day the Lord rested, got dressed, took the Cobra out for
a spin on Sunset, and got seriously pissed in Hollywood on a Saturday night

Whoops. Where wuz I? Oh yeah. Tim's high end machine? You know
McNealy (and Sun's) line? The network is the computer. Tim, the *network*
is your high end development machine. Whatever one box can do, a thousand
can do better. And when you go for a trip to Vegas, the cool thing is your
'machine' goes right along with you. The objects just pack up their suitcases
(freeze themselves) in OC, and unpack themselves in your hotel room before
you even check in.

>and if so,
>how can that solution best be adapted to suit his needs.

Right. As I was saying...

>Remember that the good is the enemy of the great. If you want people to
>migrate to a new platform, paradigm, or style, you have to give them a
>compelling reason to do so. You have to make it so that they cannot
>afford NOT to migrate to that new platform.

Right. I think the tech story is getting understood. I'm actually working
on the sell job now as we speak. Mark seems to think it's looking good,
but he's the only one who's seen it so far. I've spent way too much time
fighting with Tim this week, instead of writing it. Somebody stop me!

>Sometimes the bits are not always in the most obvious places.
>Read between the lines and see a universe you've never seen before.
>> JoeB is probably the best assett Microsoft has.
>I don't mean this as a slant on JoeB because I really like the guy, but
>you severly underestimate Microsoft.

Ernie answered this one spot on.

>> The day Spunky joined a few weeks ago was such a spasm.
>True, but we are a dynamic system. We learned to adapt, and we are now
>a better collective than we were before, thanks to tomwhore.

There's a lump in my throat saying it, but yes, you're right. His volume is
under control, and his content is passable to good. His spelling
is so bad I'm sure he's doing it on purpose though. Again, imho (isn't
*always* imho? I mean, in who the fuck else's ho could it be?)

>> It was probably the low point of FoRK in all its history to date.
>Naw, we've done worse. (But don't treat that as a challenge... :)

Heh heh. Don't tempt me Adam. I'm a very quirky and unpredictable person...

>> The real weight on the back happened the day Spunky joined, I suspect.
>> That got so bad that even Adam complained to us on the road about it.
>Actually, that was just part of the feedback cycle Ernie talked about.
>Just giving the group some feedback that less is sometimes more.
>> >> adam will filter the good bits to me anyway - that's what
>> >> he is for, right rohit?
>JoeK made a good Joke.

JoeK is in my top 10 of classy people, all things considered. FoRK's loss.
again, JoeK's loss too. Maybe he'll still reconsider.

>But my filtering to him will probably be a very easy job.
>I pass on nothing, because that's about what he's found useful here.
>FoRK is too high strung a list for him, but that's okay.
>We can't all be chiefs; some of us have to be indians.

So what am I? I know! I'm the blanket they wave over the fire to make
the smoke signals. Now I know why my eyes are always watering!

>Actually, I do. I might be in the market for hardware sometime soon,
>and Tim's opinions on the stuff is top-notch. He's the world's greatest
>beta tester.

Yeah yeah. And 200 million people a day tune in, right? I don't think
Dan Rather, Bill Clinton and Homer Simpson *combined* can get 200
million people a day to pay attention to them.

But, oops, we've buried the hatchet, right? Not trying to goad you Tim.

>> Or that you believe that your views on technology are things the rest
>> of us are interested in.
>I do believe in them. Tim consistently picks the best developer
>platforms, hands down. He's tried everything. His opinions are
>> Yes- I'm insulting and flaming you now. (Rohit, you gonna kick me off
>> for this? Go ahead!)
>Rohit wouldn't. Not his style.

WHAT? Rohit has style? Call the WSJ. The NYT. Slate. Cringley. This
is news! ;-)

>> Let's start with the Canada thing. Surely you know that there are Canadians
>> on this list. Clearly your sense of etiquette is that you're Tim. You're
>> You know everything. It doesn't matter whom you offend.
>Maybe he's right --- what HAS Canada contributed to the world? Michael
>J Fox and Bryan Adams?


>Maybe he's wrong --- Canada does buy more of our goods and services than
>any other country in the world. Canada is partially to thank for our
>economic boom of late.
>Maybe his posts are inappropriate --- that he says things just to get a
>rise out of people.
>Or maybe there is no such thing as an inappropriate post --- so, if
>someone wants to take a flamebait, anti-Canada stance, why should we
>stop them? Flames are duly ignored anyway, so why should we allow them
>to upset us so?

True. Only I happen to be in a particular vulnerable frame of mind lately.
Tim, without realizing it, picked on a scab that's festering pretty badly
for me.
I'm homesick beyond words. I've been kidnapped (no, not really. But I feel
that way sometimes.). The only ray of light I have is pointing my browser
daily to (Toronto Star - crappy paper, but seems easier
to get the local urban Toronto news I crave than the globe&mail)
and to (CBC radio - get Realaudio broadcasts).
Apparently I'm not really after news, I'm just after my sense of lost
community. Know what I find fun? Time difference is 7 hours. I can sit
at my PC at midnight, and get live RealAudio feeds of 5 PM rush hour
traffic from Toronto. Backup on the Gardner, accident at DVP&Eglinton,
OPP investigating, suggest Don Mills as an alternate....
*MAN* that makes me feel 'home'. I'm weird, I know. Show me a FoRKer who

I'm looking forward to SOGS (or whatever you want to call the 'future') when
I can sit in my car and flip (digital audio) radio stations by tuning from
to Tel Aviv to the BBC from London just by turning a dial, tuned to my
bookmarks' :-). Imagine driving down Haifa streets and getting Toronto
traffic reports. Useless. But imagine getting 'smart object' tuners that mix
in Toronto music & news, with Haifa weather and traffic. Better yet, rather
than generic traffic of the whole city - stream in real time just the traffic
reports for my immediate vicinity. Better yet, map my route based on
real time local traffic conditions, with GPS etc. (this is already happening).
Yes people, browsers & munchkins are for cars too.
*Especially* for people on the go. That's why Rohit posted that traffic site,
of course.

>> The fact that there are real people
>> at the other end of this mailing list from you doesn't register - we don't
>> count since we're not right there in Orange County with you, is that it?
>Actually, that *is* the official Republican platform, and they *do*
>control both of our houses in Congress...

So I guess you're shit out of luck in Pasadena too, huh?

>> That we're ultimately netizens in a global economy and global community,
>> not national citizens.
>As long as taxes exist, then citizenship will mean something.
>> 'Canada' is an antiquated industrial age notion of territorial based
>> social organization, governance and economic & taxation policy.
>You said it, brother.

He's not heavy, he's my....

>> Back to netizens: the way
>> netizens speak to each other through networks is with the same tolerance
>> and respect they show each other when physically placed in the same room.
>Sometimes people in the same room put up their dukes and fight each other.

Aw, the fight's over. We've already done the big manly bearhug thing.

>> Now, let's talk about technology. Do you know that very last bit in Adam's
>> FAQ, the part where it asks:
>BTW, the FAQ is not so much something to be taken literally as it is
>philosophies, allegories, and principles.

Oh, sure, *now* he tells me :-)

>> 59.All this sounds so cool. Can I join FoRK?
>> You can join FoRK if you can answer one simple question: what is the
>> difference between the following two statements?
>> "In other words: there's an Orb-like thingie in just about everything,
>> supporting a queryable BO that can do meaningful things?" (saying from
>> Sandor Spruit)
>> "In other words, there's a HTTP server in every device with a
>> processor and a port which can use PEP and HTML to offer a meaningful,
>> composable
>> interface to any other HTTP client?" (saying from Rohit Khare)
>> Hint: There might be an answer floating around somewhere on the
>> Internet.
>Actually, I just put that there to scare off the has-beens and the

So which are we Adam?

>> Do you understand what that's about? You're a FoRK member. Can you answer
>> that 'one simple question'? I doubt it. (Of course, many other FoRKers
>> probably can't either, but they don't post as much 'technology' stuff
>> as you do).
>There are many facets to the technology question. Just because someone
>does not choose to answer the big vision questions, does not mean that
>person is less of a person.

Sure they are. Scum sucking pigs...
Actually, I don't believe I *ever*, at any point, questioned anyone's right
to be thought of as less a person than others. I make a very big deal
of separating debates on words & issues, versus statements that people,
as people, are less worthy. If I did step over this line, I apologize (but I
don't think I did).

>> Do you 'get' why Adam might have
>> chosen to pick those statements as the essence of what FoRK is about?
>> Do you realize that when many of us discuss technology on FoRK, it's with
>> those phrases in mind? That it's not about operating systems, computers,
>> vendors, or the industry. That it's not about Java or CORBA or the Web or
>> Microsoft or Apple, ultimately. That those are all players that have to be
>> understood as part of the prereqs for 'getting' the big picture stuff.
>Well, and that none of them stand still, either, so we always need to
>adjust our opinion of where we think they're all going.

I know. I'm getting damn dizzy. Make it stop, please make it stop!

>> But that the 'big picture' ultimately has something to do with little
>> blobs of intelligence-uncountable numbers of them - spread throughout
>> the reaches of where humans dwell and work and travel. That it's about
>> networks and information and communication far more than it is about
>> technology. That technology is but a stepping stone to human policy,
>> and not the other way around.
>Actually, I'm not sure which one is the chicken and which is the egg.

Nope, this one I'm sure of. We invent technology. We wouldn't do it unless
someone didn't have a policy in mind. Now, as social groupings our policies
aren't very well coordinated. So you get technologies that apparently conflict
with each other and with policies because they come from different
inventing communities (eg documents/objects). But certainly the role
of tech. is to fill the needs of humans. That's an axiom for me.

>> We don't know ultimately what form these networked bit-blobs will take. We
>> have a variety of different opinions (eg, as expressed in the two
>> by Sandor & Rohit above). But we do know that the battles of yesteryear
>> on whether Apple this or MS that are ultimately not relevant.
>But certainly for now, they are the ONLY thing that is relevant.
>Nothing forms out of nothing; everything evolves from something.
>The now is really the only key we have to open the door of the future.
>> You're learning, grasshopper. The key to knowing anything is admitting that
>> you know nothing.
>And yet, this is paradoxical, because nothing forms out of nothing...
>Therefore we'll need to know *something* to create something.........

You're drunk Adam. Go have a shower and a pot of coffee.
It usually helps if you vomit into the toilet too.

>How could this be happening to me;
>I'm lying when I say, "Trust me."
>I can't believe this is true.
>Trust hurts.
>Why does trust equal suffering?
> -- Megadeth, "Trust" (track 1 off their new album, _Cryptic Writings_)

So , are we having fun yet?