In my blog entry Dinosaurs and Mamals, I mentioned small application servers that were capable of being highly distrubuted. In conversations on this topic with friends, we discussed various scenarios where such things could have an impact on our daily lives. For instance, I'm sure that many people have heard about the potato powered web server joke and then the real thing that it inspired. This demonstrates the possibility of low-power servers; conjoin that with wareable computing, and mammal application servers, and you have a whole new world...
There was this great game I used to play called "Alpha Centuari" -- the best part was choosing the research your culture would engage in. I find a similar "rush" from the communities one can join in the Orkut online friends network. I know lots of people that love that kind of thing, too... possibly pointing to something inherent in human nature about social groups, hobbies, aquisition, or just bright, shiney objects.
Even now, people have taken this one step closer to "reality": from simple association, to actual contribution. We may not all be able to get PhDs in astrophysics or molecular biology and do research that actively contributes to the human body of knowledge, but we can all run client applications on our workstations that borrow idle CPU cycles to work on problems in which we are interested.
So what happens when web servers can fit in the colar of a shirt, when shoes pumps generate electricity as you walk, when fibres woven throughout your clothes act as wireless antenae? What happens when processing power is literally everywhere and highly moble? Universities, companies, governments, special interest groups, neighborhoods, etc., can all lobby you for your computing resources. They don't have to ask you for your time or your money; you don't have to change the way you do things or when you do them. All you have to do is choose to associate with a group and then give them permission to use your cycles. They get to use CPUs that they don't have to power, insure, air condition, troubleshoot, network, maintain, etc. There is a potentially HUGE amount of money that can be saved for each organization.
But with increased mobility and with large numbers of projects to which you can contribute your unused cycles, comes such ubiquitous evils as marketing, advertising, lobbying, etc. If a company can influence you to change your mind and go with them instead of their competitor, then they can do it with thousands of other potential contributors as well. As quickly as you see a "give-us-your-spare-cycles" advertisement or have a conversation with a friend, you can change your mind and give to someone else: the CPU isn't waiting at home, it's there with you.
The consumer becomes a commodity broker; organizations, the consumer. Decisions are immeidate;
impact on a company's R &D is instantaneous. Profits are now. All of a sudden, the entire technology-enabled population is a rich philanthropist and every organization out there is hoping to get your "funding," hoping you'll let them add one more CPU to the thousands already volunteered. This could give birth to a whole new "processing"economy...
Sunday, May 02, 2004
Saturday, April 24, 2004
Evolving Networks
Note: This is from an email I had with Itamar Shtull-Trauring, who was kind enough to let me blather for a bit...
There was a very interesting article in this year's April issue of Scientific American. It basically discussed a non-neural network in the brain, its own complete entity, but one that is connected to the neural network we know and love. It's a slower network that seems to provide feedback and additional processing/learning power. It uses mechanics and chemistry to communicate along its own network and respond/react to the neural one.It's a great article -- I recommend it (I have severely abused it with that synopsis above).
It got me to thinking... first: what if the original pre-brains were cells that communicated electrically and chemically, but with no neural network capabilities? What if the original multicellular ancestor of the brain was just a simple highly-connected, bi-directional network? What if the chemical and neurological networks grew in tandem and developed together, with the chemical network acting as a "meta-network," providing feedback? And, to really stretch things, what if this feedback is what caused the electrical network to develop into a neural network?Now I'm sure you see where I am going with this and how fruity it is...
Like primitive primordial cellular organisms, our society also has a primitive electrical network: the Internet. How can we develop a functional analog to the biological system (the biological system being proven to work and being insanely efficient... for a neural network...)?
Okay, so that's the visionary's question; no need for reasons or justification -- can we do it? Then let's make it! But why would we want to? Do we really want to turn the insanity of the Internet into something resembling a neural network? Perhaps, but that's not the goal; the ultimate goals might be something like these:
This leads to other questions I'm sure people a lot smarter than me have already examined: can we use nature as an analog for developing network communications into something more mature?
There was a very interesting article in this year's April issue of Scientific American. It basically discussed a non-neural network in the brain, its own complete entity, but one that is connected to the neural network we know and love. It's a slower network that seems to provide feedback and additional processing/learning power. It uses mechanics and chemistry to communicate along its own network and respond/react to the neural one.It's a great article -- I recommend it (I have severely abused it with that synopsis above).
It got me to thinking... first: what if the original pre-brains were cells that communicated electrically and chemically, but with no neural network capabilities? What if the original multicellular ancestor of the brain was just a simple highly-connected, bi-directional network? What if the chemical and neurological networks grew in tandem and developed together, with the chemical network acting as a "meta-network," providing feedback? And, to really stretch things, what if this feedback is what caused the electrical network to develop into a neural network?Now I'm sure you see where I am going with this and how fruity it is...
Like primitive primordial cellular organisms, our society also has a primitive electrical network: the Internet. How can we develop a functional analog to the biological system (the biological system being proven to work and being insanely efficient... for a neural network...)?
Okay, so that's the visionary's question; no need for reasons or justification -- can we do it? Then let's make it! But why would we want to? Do we really want to turn the insanity of the Internet into something resembling a neural network? Perhaps, but that's not the goal; the ultimate goals might be something like these:
- We know the Internet is slow; how can we make it fast? efficient? (fastest paths, memory/learning, ...)
- We know that the Internet is filled with hostiles (spam, viruses, worms, etc.) - how can we safeguard this?
- There will always be something new that the Internet hasn't seen before - how can we integrate anticipation?
This leads to other questions I'm sure people a lot smarter than me have already examined: can we use nature as an analog for developing network communications into something more mature?
- How do complicated organic networks regulate themselves?
- How do they protect themselves from violence?
- How do they self-organize? adapt?
- Are there ways in which we could model these behaviors with special designs (protocols, applications, services)?
Political Views
politics
This blog entry is posted without the premission of the person
with whom I had the conversation, so I do not include the name. It was
a comment made in an email discussion we were having about the
political test mentioned in the blog entry "What is a Libertarian."
However, their point of view is very compelling and educated through
the experiece that I think is most important:
Local.
It is my firm belief that if you cannot implement something locally
in a real and meaningful way, it either can't be done, has no meaning
to "real" people, or is a concoction of smoke and mirrors. Likewise, if
something globally is implemented in a local manner, I don't believe
one can dismiss a problem about its local implementation with a
statement like "oh, yeah... those people in that place act that way,
but that's not the *approved* way; we encourage our members to do this
instead."
That has no meaning. It boils down to experiment vs. theory,
practice vs. preaching. Say what you mean, and do what you say. Here's
what my friend had to say:
Over the years, I've been drawn to more radical ideas, particularly
libertarianism, "lite" socialism, and Ivan Illich's writings on
anarchy. But I find it's really enlightening to actually spend time
with the *people* who follow the ideas...My meetings with the libertarian group in [some US city], for
example, really left me cold. I shared their respect for intelligence,
but I wasn't comfortable with their obvious willingness to let dumb
people just take it in the teeth from cradle to grave.So I veered back toward more planned and buffered visions for
society (socialism, technocracy) for awhile. But that stuff is hard to
swallow, unless you either believe that people will rise to meet
society's expectations (don't count on it), or you're willing to accept
a lot of people cheating the system (welfare cheats, etc).At the moment, I'm sort of resigned to the latter, so I'm leaning
toward a mild nanny state with reasonable safeguards against
parasitism. My guts are telling me that our alternatives are far more
risky--a tough, win/lose society that will come apart at the seams once
the majority comes to the conclusion that they'll never get the brass
ring through competition.But I could be wrong. Check out this column by David Brooks.
Saturday, April 03, 2004
What's a Libertarian?
politics
That's not a rhetorical question, and nor is it sarcastic. I
honestly didn't know until a few days ago when I took the time to look
it up.
I would not describe myself as a political person, and so I have
always ignored much of politics and political definitions. But after
recently taking a poltical mini-quiz (http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html),
l became curious as to how the political positions were defined. After
some reading, it turned out I really am a left-libertarian, just like
the quiz said.
I have beeen passionate about freedom and liberty my whole life. As
I entered high school, learned about our current government in horrible
detail, learned about the genius of the founding fathers, it became
very clear to me I wanted as little of the Federal Government
interferring with my life as possible. Years of watching one Government
scandal after another just reinforced this view. With the birth of the
internet and Open Source Software, these strong opinions evolved
naturally into passions. They have become pillars in everything from
how I teach programming and software development to how I help run a
business.
I started poking around tonight (this morning) and found some interesting things I'd like to share:
From the libertarian FAQ (http://www.theadvocates.org/library/libertarian-faq.html):
"Libertarians believe that, on every issue, you have the right to
decide for yourself what's best for you and to act on that belief so
long as you respect the right of other people to do the same and deal
with them peacefully and honestly.
"Self-government is the combination of personal responsibility and
tolerance. Responsibility means you govern yourself. Tolerance means
you don't force your values on peaceful, honest people."
"Actually, true conservatives tend to be libertarian on economic
issues, and true liberals tend to be libertarian on social issues. The
consistency is to the extent to which one believes in individual
liberty..." --Sharon Harris
Here are some good quotes from http://theadvocates.org/celebrities.html:
I'll put my favorite quote first :-)
"How does one get involved [in libertarianism]? Think about freedom,
and act on your thoughts. Spend your dollars wisely. Oppose the
expansion of state power. Promote 'bottom-up' solutions to public
problems, solutions that empower individuals rather than demanding
intervention by force of government. Give to private charity. Join a
libertarian organization; the Libertarian Party, or the Advocates for
Self-Government, or the Reasonn Foundation. Start your own
business; create wealth and celebrate others who create wealth. Support
voluntary cooperation." --Eric Raymond
"I'm a libertarian. I think a lot of people are libertarians and are afraid to admit it -- or don't know." --Kurt Russel
"The less [government] the better. As far as your personal goals are
and what you actually want to do with your life, it should never have
to do with the government. You should never depend on the government
for your retirement, your financial security, for anything. If you do,
you're screwed... That's all the government should be: Army, Air Force,
Navy, Marines." -- Drew Carey
"Libertarian... Everyone leaves everyone else alone." -- Clint Eastwood, when asked how he saw himself politically
"Milton Friedman is one of this century's most distinguished and
influential economists... His tremendously influential 1979 best-seller
Free To Choose (co-authored with his wife Rose) is a clear and lively
examination of economics and politics. It shows how our freedom has
been eroded and our prosperity undermined through an explosion of laws,
regulations, agencies and government spending, and makes a profound and
convincing argument for repealing most government interference in the
economy... Free to Choose was presented to millions of Americans as a
10-episode series shown on (of all things) PBS."
I wonder if I can still get a hold of that? Sounds like an awesome series.
"Fortunately, we are waking up. We are again recognizing the dangers
of an overgoverned society, coming to understand that good objectives
can be perverted by bad means, that reliance on the freedom of people
to control their own lives in accordance with their own values is the
surest way to achieve the full potential of a great society." --Milton
Friedman
"We are entering a new era of more representative rule-making. As
just one example, internet technology is changing the way government
works..." --Ron Paul
The Ron Paul FREEDOM PRINCIPLES:
* Rights belong to individuals, not groups.
* Property should be owned by people, not government.
* All voluntary associations should be permissionable -- economic and social.
* The government's monetary role is to maintain the integrity of the monetary unit, not participate in fraud.
* Government exists to protect liberty, not to redistribute wealth or to grant special privileges.
* The lives and actions of people are their own responsibility, not the government's.
Related Links:
http://www.americanlibertyfoundation.org/
http://www.mises.org/
http://www.defendyourprivacy.com/
http://www.fee.org/
http://www.cfif.org/
http://www.eff.org/
http://www.ti.org/
Saturday, March 27, 2004
Games for the Future
interactive fiction :: games :: technology
What is a game? Why do people play them? What are people's past
experiences with games? What do they want from them in the future?
I'm sure the gaming industry has poured tons of money and research
into answering these very questions. I have no idea what the public may
want from games; but I can share my own views on the matter.
It is my personal opinion that games exercise that desperate human
element that still longs to be running across the plains with it's
closet tribe members, providing food from the hunt for the community,
being a vital part of the never ending cycle: life and death and life.
We want to touch magic that is "real"; we want an immersive environment
that takes us away from the every-day find-the-cheese-in-the-maze
doldrums.
Playing games let us touch this in ways that are either not possible
or at best very difficult to attain practically. We've played things
like "Pong" or "Donkey Kong"... then there was "Doom" and "Quake" --
all of these games changed our lives in one little way or another. Then
there were more recent knock-outs like "System Shock 2", "Deus Ex", and
"Morrowind." These were much more involved and took the gamer deeper
into another world.
However, the games that I return to over and over again, what little
time I have left to game, are the ones with great story lines: when on
the train with my laptop and no connection to the net, I like to fire
up Zork or Nethack. When I do have an internet connection, I like to
play MUDs and MUSHes. I have even built MUSHes of my own. I even used
one for business -- a place where partners and co-workers could chat
online in a unique, friendly environment. Community-based and living,
these strike me for two reasons:
1) I am a voracious reader. I love words and good stories. I love my imagination;
2) I'm a sucker for that old feeling of sitting around with a bunch of friends playing pen-and-paper RPGs.
Along these lines, I've been working with some friends over the past
year building a universe (history, story-line, etc.) that encompases a
huge time frame with lots of interesting possibilities for game play.
We strive to capture everything from science and politics to mysticism
and space travel; linguistics and psycology to economics and
anthropology. Writing the history and developing the languages has been
the best part of this for me. Playing the game will simply be icing on
the cake.
Though some of us have dreams of making 3D environments that echo
this "reality", my aspirations are far simpler: I want to write fun
code, and I want to play with others in my imagination and I want them
to play with me in theirs. A good MUD or MUSH allows for this kind of
interaction with others in a story environment that brings what I like
about gaming together. When it comes down to it, graphics are great but
they are not the reason I play. It's the story that drives me. It's the
people and creative setting that make it fun. The better the story and
the more immersive the environment, the closer I come to capturing that
feeling of running across the plains with my tribe mates ;-)
Dinosaurs and Mammals
Large software corporations like Microsoft and Oracle in addition to groups of software developers like elements in the Open Source community are giving the world new versions of the same thing: monolithic software for a world that no longer needs or wants such products.
Take for example Microsoft Exchange Server: this is a heavy-duty, if often ridiculed, system of software. This software was meant to handle hundreds to thousands of users and their information. What about the company that wants a Microsoft solution but only has 50 users? They have to pay for Exchange. Yeah, you can get a great discount, etc., but I'm not talking about price -- I'm talking about need. And designing software for need.
Oracle is more guilty of this sin. Let's say I need to have my data highly distributed on remote machines, but that I don't have tons of data and I don't need the horsepower Oracle can provide. Yet, if I use their product or any other large RDBMS like PostgreSQL, SQL Server, or even MySQL, I am using the wrong tool for the job.
Another example: Apache is the world's most popular Web server, but let me commit heresy and ask "Why?" How many people need it's speed? Or its capacity to handle millions of requests? Think of the hundreds of thousands of web sites out there that are visited once a day or once a month. Using something like apache for these is engineering overkill.
Microsoft and Oracle as well as organizations like the Apache Foundation, MySQL, and PostgreSQL are producing software dinosaurs. The have lived, they have thrived, they have helped define our information universe. That universe is changing. With the introduction of programming languages and development processes that foster rapid development, for the first time in the history of modern technology, we are in a place to design enterprise software around the needs of the end user (individulas and organizations), not around the needs of licensing structures and coporate philosophies. Imagine that the motivation behind software development wasn't market domination, but rather market diversity. The right tool for the right job.
I haven't counted the lines of code in the apache web server, but let's just say it's 100,000 lines. What if I only need to serve a couple pages per second and a max of 100 concurrent sessions? What if I could use Web server software that could provide what I need in only 200 lines of code? 100? 6? Why should I use Apache for projects that don't require Apache's strengths? The same thing for my email server and calendar application. What if I could do the same thing for all my networked applications? What if in addition to being small, this software was highly distributable as well? What if I could build office applications perfectly suited for a firm of 40 employees, and they didn't have to pay for licensing of the cliched software products? In addition, as the firm grew, this software could support 100, 1,000, or 100,000 users just as easily simply by adding the required light-weight components.
Software like this is easier to setup and maintain. It's easier to get involved with and understand. It's easier to modify, add to, customize, and enhance. It's easier to provide your firm with what they need.
Enter the new software and application engineering model: the mammal. This is where we are heading. Imgine application servers so light-weight they could run on a 9-volt battery for a week. Imagine them embedded in hundreds of devices all over the country or even the globe... so cheap and distributed, it didn't matter if one went down or even if twenty of them went down. They are quick, nimble mammals, not lumbering dinosaurs.
There are already software developers working on projects with views and goals along these lines. Watch for them: they are small and furry. They move quickly and quietly. Pay attention to them; they will one day rule the world.
Take for example Microsoft Exchange Server: this is a heavy-duty, if often ridiculed, system of software. This software was meant to handle hundreds to thousands of users and their information. What about the company that wants a Microsoft solution but only has 50 users? They have to pay for Exchange. Yeah, you can get a great discount, etc., but I'm not talking about price -- I'm talking about need. And designing software for need.
Oracle is more guilty of this sin. Let's say I need to have my data highly distributed on remote machines, but that I don't have tons of data and I don't need the horsepower Oracle can provide. Yet, if I use their product or any other large RDBMS like PostgreSQL, SQL Server, or even MySQL, I am using the wrong tool for the job.
Another example: Apache is the world's most popular Web server, but let me commit heresy and ask "Why?" How many people need it's speed? Or its capacity to handle millions of requests? Think of the hundreds of thousands of web sites out there that are visited once a day or once a month. Using something like apache for these is engineering overkill.
Microsoft and Oracle as well as organizations like the Apache Foundation, MySQL, and PostgreSQL are producing software dinosaurs. The have lived, they have thrived, they have helped define our information universe. That universe is changing. With the introduction of programming languages and development processes that foster rapid development, for the first time in the history of modern technology, we are in a place to design enterprise software around the needs of the end user (individulas and organizations), not around the needs of licensing structures and coporate philosophies. Imagine that the motivation behind software development wasn't market domination, but rather market diversity. The right tool for the right job.
I haven't counted the lines of code in the apache web server, but let's just say it's 100,000 lines. What if I only need to serve a couple pages per second and a max of 100 concurrent sessions? What if I could use Web server software that could provide what I need in only 200 lines of code? 100? 6? Why should I use Apache for projects that don't require Apache's strengths? The same thing for my email server and calendar application. What if I could do the same thing for all my networked applications? What if in addition to being small, this software was highly distributable as well? What if I could build office applications perfectly suited for a firm of 40 employees, and they didn't have to pay for licensing of the cliched software products? In addition, as the firm grew, this software could support 100, 1,000, or 100,000 users just as easily simply by adding the required light-weight components.
Software like this is easier to setup and maintain. It's easier to get involved with and understand. It's easier to modify, add to, customize, and enhance. It's easier to provide your firm with what they need.
Enter the new software and application engineering model: the mammal. This is where we are heading. Imgine application servers so light-weight they could run on a 9-volt battery for a week. Imagine them embedded in hundreds of devices all over the country or even the globe... so cheap and distributed, it didn't matter if one went down or even if twenty of them went down. They are quick, nimble mammals, not lumbering dinosaurs.
There are already software developers working on projects with views and goals along these lines. Watch for them: they are small and furry. They move quickly and quietly. Pay attention to them; they will one day rule the world.
The Printing Press, Literacy, Education, and Unalienable Rights
community :: technology :: education
There seems to be some very interesting things afoot these
days... subtle revolutions in the works... large-scale evolution taking
place. We are seeing this in all areas of society: technology, law,
government, education, religion and spirituality, and most importantly,
in the community. What follows are some outlines of things my friends
and I have been discussing.
Version 1.0
* Clergy hold monopoly on the written word
* Guttenburg's Press
* Literacy
* Higher Education
Version 2.0
* Corporations and their teams of programmers hold monopoly on software
* Open Source Software movement, improved high-level languages that everyone can learn
* Computer literacy grows
* Information for everyone; power of software generation for everyone
More thoughts on this later...
A Revolutionary's Cookbook
community
So you want to start a revolution? Well, hey, we all want to
change the world. Who are the world changers? Some of them are like
great machines that chew up everything in front of them. Others are
charismatic, fervor inspiring fanatics. There are all kinds. My
favorites, though, are the ones I model my behavior after: parents.
Take it from the Buddha: life sucks. Then we die. Then we get reborn
and have to learn all over again that life sucks. People hate this; it
makes them crazy and irritable. So, when people come in contact with
others who don't seem so upset about the fact that life sucks, it's
attractive.
We're all screwed up; it's the nature of humanity (biochemical
analog programming). We learn crap at an early age that we spend the
rest of our lives dealing with. But when we meet people who embrace
this craziness, things seem okay. We breath a little lighter. Hell, we
might even smile ;-)
Sometimes these sunny folk are even a little stable; sometimes
they're not nomadic hippies; sometimes they seem kinda normal. When
these people stick around in one area, they start to make friends --
people want to be near them. Their positive outlook is not some
bullshit facade, but rather a living reality; one that is upheld as
genuine by proof of these people's actions.
Watching them makes me realize that they treat every part of the
world as if it was their precious child. Every interaction with
existance and all its suffering is both a learning experience and a
teaching experience. I like being around this and I want to be more
like them. These people are community seedlings. They are like the
initial structure and catalyst around which crystals form. They are the
revolution.
Friday, June 06, 2003
The Second Superpower Rears its Beautiful Head
business :: management
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/jmoore/secondsuperpower.html
Sam Jaddalah sent this to me the other day; I have been travelling in
Germany, so I haven´t had the chance to check my mail until now.
However, this article is well worth taking the time during vacation to
submit a weblog entry.
Here´s a tantalizing quote:
"There is an emerging second superpower, but it is not a nation.
Instead, it is a new form of international player, constituted by the
'will of the people' in a global social movement. "
Super power:
"This body has a beautiful mind. Web connections enable a kind of
near-instantaneous, mass improvisation of activist initiatives. For
example, the political activist group Moveon.org, which specializes in
rapid response campaigns, has an email list of more than two million
members. During the 2002 elections, Moveon.org raised more than
$700,000 in a few days for a candidate's campaign for the US senate. It
has raised thousands of dollars for media ads for peace -- and it is now
amassing a worldwide network of media activists dedicated to keeping
the mass media honest by identifying bias and confronting local
broadcasters."
What I find interesting (maybe even extra ordinary) about this is
that is puts people in the same place as huge corporations -- the
ability to mobilize federal/policatal/legislative bodies in our country
with the same lever (the only lever?): cash.
Another intersting quote:
"Meta-blogging sites crawl across thousands of blogs, identifying
popular links, noting emergent topics, and providing an instantaneous
summary of the global consciousness of the second superpower."
To this quote,
"Thus the new superpower demonstrates a new form of 'emergent
democracy' that differs from the participative democracy of the US
government. Where political participation in the United States is
exercised mainly through rare exercises of voting, participation in the
second superpower movement occurs continuously through participation in
a variety of web-enabled initiatives."
I would like to add the following: yes it differs, but it also
provides a means by which the PEOPLE can become as effective
participants in the legislative and political process as big business
and other powerful key players in government.
This makes me think of some of Frank Herbert's non-Dune science fiction works:
"The symbol of the first superpower is the eagle -- an awesome predator
that rules from the skies, preying on mice and small animals. Perhaps
the best symbol for the second superpower would be a community of ants.
Ants rule from below. And while I may be awed seeing eagles in flight,
when ants invade my kitchen they command my attention."
Okay, here he hits the bone I am picking:
"Deliberation in the first superpower is relatively formal -- dictated
by the US constitution and by years of legislation, adjudicating, and
precedent. The realpolitik of decision making in the first
superpower -- as opposed to what is taught in civics class -- centers around
lobbying and campaign contributions by moneyed special interests -- big
oil, the military-industrial complex, big agriculture, and big drugs -- to
mention only a few."
http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/jmoore/secondsuperpower.html
Sam Jaddalah sent this to me the other day; I have been travelling in
Germany, so I haven´t had the chance to check my mail until now.
However, this article is well worth taking the time during vacation to
submit a weblog entry.
Here´s a tantalizing quote:
"There is an emerging second superpower, but it is not a nation.
Instead, it is a new form of international player, constituted by the
'will of the people' in a global social movement. "
Super power:
"This body has a beautiful mind. Web connections enable a kind of
near-instantaneous, mass improvisation of activist initiatives. For
example, the political activist group Moveon.org, which specializes in
rapid response campaigns, has an email list of more than two million
members. During the 2002 elections, Moveon.org raised more than
$700,000 in a few days for a candidate's campaign for the US senate. It
has raised thousands of dollars for media ads for peace -- and it is now
amassing a worldwide network of media activists dedicated to keeping
the mass media honest by identifying bias and confronting local
broadcasters."
What I find interesting (maybe even extra ordinary) about this is
that is puts people in the same place as huge corporations -- the
ability to mobilize federal/policatal/legislative bodies in our country
with the same lever (the only lever?): cash.
Another intersting quote:
"Meta-blogging sites crawl across thousands of blogs, identifying
popular links, noting emergent topics, and providing an instantaneous
summary of the global consciousness of the second superpower."
To this quote,
"Thus the new superpower demonstrates a new form of 'emergent
democracy' that differs from the participative democracy of the US
government. Where political participation in the United States is
exercised mainly through rare exercises of voting, participation in the
second superpower movement occurs continuously through participation in
a variety of web-enabled initiatives."
I would like to add the following: yes it differs, but it also
provides a means by which the PEOPLE can become as effective
participants in the legislative and political process as big business
and other powerful key players in government.
This makes me think of some of Frank Herbert's non-Dune science fiction works:
"The symbol of the first superpower is the eagle -- an awesome predator
that rules from the skies, preying on mice and small animals. Perhaps
the best symbol for the second superpower would be a community of ants.
Ants rule from below. And while I may be awed seeing eagles in flight,
when ants invade my kitchen they command my attention."
Okay, here he hits the bone I am picking:
"Deliberation in the first superpower is relatively formal -- dictated
by the US constitution and by years of legislation, adjudicating, and
precedent. The realpolitik of decision making in the first
superpower -- as opposed to what is taught in civics class -- centers around
lobbying and campaign contributions by moneyed special interests -- big
oil, the military-industrial complex, big agriculture, and big drugs -- to
mention only a few."
Sunday, April 20, 2003
Economics, Entropy, and Management Theory
business :: management
Then I would like to see how one could apply findings from these
connections to management theory, specifically, the management of
networks of individuals and networks of networks within and outside
organizations.
I would like to explore the possible connections between the following:
- economics
- entropy/thermodynamics
- information theory
- the conservation of energy
- neural networks
Then I would like to see how one could apply findings from these
connections to management theory, specifically, the management of
networks of individuals and networks of networks within and outside
organizations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)