I’m pretty sure you didn’t spoil SoaP for anyone, Joe, but that revelation about the sled…
(Psyched for SoaP on Sunday night, after I read more about the development of personal injury law, as it relates to train connectors.)
I’m pretty sure you didn’t spoil SoaP for anyone, Joe, but that revelation about the sled…
(Psyched for SoaP on Sunday night, after I read more about the development of personal injury law, as it relates to train connectors.)
First few days of school are like a boot to the head. It turns out fear really does work as a pedagogical device. And honestly, I feel like I’m learning quite a bit- which is scary in and of itself.
Some folks have expressed a bit of curiosity as to what exactly I’m doing right now- something a little more specific than ‘studying law’.
The long answer (well, about three pages printed) is this fairly funny article from one of my profs.
The short answer is this:
Jimbo Wales on ‘ten things that will be free‘:
“The ground rules are: I am talking about free in the sense of GNU, that is: free as in speech, not free as in beer. I was talking to someone about this concept recently who suggested “health care”. That’s not the sort of thing I’m talking about. Think: GNU/Linux. Think: Wikipedia.
For each of the ten, I will try to give some basic (and hopefully not too ambiguous) definitions for what it will mean for each of them to be “solved”, and we can all check back for the next 25 or 50 years to see how we are doing.”
“JIMMY WALES does not come across as the great philosopher king of the technical age. He does not utter sweeping statements about the disconnect of modern society and the salvation that the Internet offers. He does not have a catchy book on the best-seller list; he does not lay down heady projections of where society will be in 20 years.” (Emphasis mine.)
Sounds like an organization in need of a fact checker. Oops. :)
Spent the afternoon doing a scavenger hunt (fairly half-assedly) through Manhattan. Was quite a bit of fun, though we were tired by the end, and pretty much gave up in favor of a beer. Still quite worth it.
Incredible what you find when you go into strange tunnels.
(wax) snakes on a (wax) plane
possibly the best bar sign ever
without doubt the best bar plaque ever
we should get extra points for using the bus
After a few days of completely non-technical law school socializing (nothing too significant to report there; classmates seem pretty nice and easy-going, and are willing to drink ;) I got my geek on for a bit at the ‘Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About the Metaverse but Were Too Afraid To Ask‘ meetup. My notes, for posterity; taken mostly on the 770. (Nice to be computing and web-enabled but still be able to fit everything in a pair of cargo shorts.)
First speaker was Jerry Paffendorf, who is the Futurist in Residence at Electric Sheep. Hell of a job :)
Prokofy Neva and Mark Wallace were next. Mark is the author of the excellent 3pointD blog- if you’re going to follow any one metaverse news source, he’s the one. Prokofy is (generously) a gadfly in second life; (non-generously) the most verbose troll ever; (factually) loathed by many, many active second life participants. Prokofy turns me off, so I admit I didn’t take very good notes here.
Sibley Verbeck of Electric Sheep was up next:
Tony Parisi, who was a co-inventor of VMRL and is now founder of Media Machines.
Paul Hemp, Senior Editor, Harvard Business Review, author of Marketing To Avatars, speaks last. He has basically only one point, but I think a really interesting one- if I’m marketing to an avatar, should I market to the Real Person behind the avatar? To the avatar’s persona? (i.e., someone in the audience is a man in real life, but a woman in second life- does it make sense to sell him Man Stuff when he is in Second Life, or sell him feminine stuff, or what? The marketing bit itself is not all that interesting, but the questions it raises about identity, multiplicity of identity, and trends in identity (will early adopters be more creative in their identities than late adopters?) gets some good discussion and thinking.
There is one question about democracy online; Prokofy answers it (poorly, in my opinion); more constructively, Jerry says ‘talk to Beth Novec and go to State of Play’. The audience is clearly interested in the topic; I’m sure it will be a central issue in the future.
I went out afterwards and had good Thai at Nooch, and talked to the most excellent Ansible Berkman, Paul from HBS, and Grace from Turner Broadcasting. Great to meet new folks- hope to keep doing this.
And now to bed… :)
Andy: The more I think about it, the more I think ‘where do we find capital’ is not going to be an approach that is successful for us as a community, despite what I’ve said about .gnome. Centralized capital means a centralized point of failure; it means reduced competition; it means that the little guys on the end points have a harder time getting involved. And it means problems scaling- the foundation is just never going to be able to support something like flickr or last.fm for all GNOME users, IMHO- the requirements are just too large. And that is even with our current user base.
Mike Linksvayer is probably right: what free software needs is a developer-friendly, user-friendly p2p platform, so that we can do all the things flickr and others do, but do it with shared bandwidth instead of centralized bandwidth. Hard, I know, but quite possibly necessary. Maybe we need to beg the Coral CDN guys for help :)
It is worth noting that integrating GNOME and the web isn’t just about innovation for end users, though that needs to drive everything we do. (Just being ‘usable’ and Free/free isn’t good enough, sadly.) We need to think about developers, too- in the future, Microsoft, Google, etc., will all be offering servers and services along with their desktop API offerings. Tim O’Reilly has a great bit on this here. Money quote: “Being a developer ‘on someone’s platform’ may ultimately mean running your app in their data center, not just using their APIs.” We need to think hard about that future- I’ve always thought that we spent too much time competing with the Windows 95 user experience, but it turns out we’re still competing with the Windows 95 developer experience too. More on this from Jon Udell and O’Reilly, again.
Finally, before I run off for the night, I don’t think the foundation’s problem is a conflict of interest, though I agree that Novell/RH/Sun/etc. and the community are not necessarily always on the same page with regards to brand strength. The big problem with the foundation and sponsors (and really in large part the community) is that in large part everything all three groups do is target established markets and needs. Apple, Yahoo, Google and Microsoft are most dangerous to us when they go out and create new markets (iPod, photo sharing, etc.) and then lock us out of them. Novell, RH, and Sun are all primarily in the business of targeting existing markets (mugshot, whether you think the software is good or not, is an attempt to break out of this rut), and in general the community is in the habit of targeting the last proprietary software many of us used- mostly Windows 98. There is (sadly) little conflict there- we’re all on the same, old, page, and we need to get out of it if we’re to advance. That’s bigger than any silliness about brand or competition between GNOME and the vendors.
Edit later: The excellent Kragen Sitaker also reaches the P2P conclusion, though for different reasons, in a really thought-provoking piece here.
Who says law and code are all that different? A single extra/missing comma can screw you in both, it turns out.