Interesting that you chose the word "bitful" instead of the word
"clueful" here. I don't mean to make trouble, I just find it interesting.
> Or, you might see it as unfulfilling that discussion doesn't key off
> of technical contributions. VERY few FoRKposts are ever followed up;
> hence its scrapbook nature.
Subterranean by design.
> FoRK is *too* technical.
Interesting paradox. FoRK is too technical to non-technies, and
not technical enough to techies.
> I do my part, and I see a heck of a lot of other folks doing the same:
> from Thanhisms to Spiceworld. And, oh yeah, internet ad rates,
> increasing returns, PICSRules, and orgasm pills.
For the record, I would not consider my Spiceworld post to be bits. :)
Nor would I consider my recommendation of Titanic, Good Will Hunting,
and As Good As It Gets (in that order) to be bits.
Here are some (slight) bits, but you really have to see us give the talk
to get the full metal jacket impact from it:
Or should I not have let that out yet, Rohit?
> The most amazig thing about this whole RC5-64 thread has been the
> *very socialization of it*. Distributed computing and metacomputing
> and globus and all that jazz can take a flying leap until they can
> figure out this amazing phenomenon of mass cooperation. SETI@Home groks
> it. Dist-objers don't. The stats server is more key to their success
> than any aspect of divide and conquer...
Agreed, in retrospect, though I found it painful at the time...
> And, remember, per Dan Connolly, "we believe in the interconnectedness
> of all things" -- it keys back into my thinking about munchkin
> cooperative recursive auctions, render framing in hollywood, and
> ... At least it does for me.
I couldn't begin to endeavor to fathom the Rohit greymatterverse.
> > Eg, *this* is a good humourous, mocking FoRKpost:
> > http://xent.ics.uci.edu/FoRK-archive/spring97/0133.html
Just wanted to leave that in there. :)
> > Anyone seen anything like that around here lately?
> Sure. That's why I hang out here: I never know what's coming up next.
Sounds like instead of an appointment scheduling notebook, you could use a
disappointment scheduling notebook.
> I don't see it as you rejecting Tim, it's rejecting me. But that's OK.
We believe in the interconnectedness of all rejections?
> Motehr Jones dedicated an enitre issue to the topic.
Damn, I keep meaning to fork the Mother Jones article, "Where won't
Microsoft go tomorrow?"
> Quoting Dan again (which is ridiculous, since he isn't even on this
> darn thing!), we all provide a service in digesting bits.
Dan is on FoRK in spirit; he just doesn't like to drink his water from a
firehose. He, like at least a dozen others, drinks from the fountain of
knowledge at his own leisure.
ObBit -- Iris Chang, Sunnyvale author, did this great interview for
C-Span's Book Notes on her latest book, "The Rape of NanKing." Sounds
like a compelling read -- not to mention shocking: 57,000 raped in a
single day. Truly horrifying that in the U.S. we've heard little to
nothing about it: time and time again, totalitarian rule and absolute
power set the climate for genocide. Anonymous remailers have at least
one very legitimate purpose: they allow politically repressed people to
post about the horrors of living behind a bloody curtain without a fear
of retaliation from the bastions of power.
Check out the Book Notes site off the C-Span page:
"I read your book last night."
"So you were the one."
-- Good Will Hunting