Re: [9fans] The Plan 9/"right" way to do Facebook

[lucio]

> I'm not afraid of people challenging mainstream opinions (this is Plan9,
> isn't it? :-D), I'm afraid of people doubting about evident facts or simply
> ignoring them: climatic changes? unsustainable distribution of wealth?
> parents negating their kids misbehavior? inadequate legal systems for the
> current world? and so on...

Let me remind you that this latter aspect of human behaviour has been
around a lot longer than the scientific method and the latter has had
considerably more impact in any real sense.  That's the thing, you
see: as humans we can learn beyond and contrary to our instincts.
It's when we allow our instincts to take over from our "civilisation"
that things fall apart (I share your political past and, likely,
personal experience closer to the period after the World War II).

This "civilisation" (or "civilising principle") can make all the
difference.  Politicians and their fellow exploiters try to manipulate
the "middle class", but in the burgeoisie resides the conscience
("social knowledge and awareness") of our humanity.  At either end is
"meat eat meat" and eventual, inevitable self-destruction.

Lucio.

Re: [9fans] The Plan 9/"right" way to do Facebook

[Giacomo Tesio]

2016-04-03 6:42 GMT+02:00 :

> > We are already trained to be suspicious about the truth even when it's
> > clearly evident, now we can even start to ignore the information from the
> > physical world, while accepting the virtual information that someone else
> > feed us.
>
> For an Italian inheriting the legacy of Galileo Galilei, you sure
> approach Science from an odd angle.  "suspicious about the truth" is
> good, scientific behaviour.  "clearly evident" is not.
>

Theoretically, this is a very good point! :-D

But what is good for scientific research will work very badly for social
behavior and politics.

As an Italian, I also inherit the legacy of Macchiavelli and believe me:
uncertainty, indifference and divisions (and fear) are among the most
powerful tool to gain and preserve power.

I'm not afraid of people challenging mainstream opinions (this is Plan9,
isn't it? :-D), I'm afraid of people doubting about evident facts or simply
ignoring them: climatic changes? unsustainable distribution of wealth?
parents negating their kids misbehavior? inadequate legal systems for the
current world? and so on...


Giacomo
entirely off topic, sorry

Re: [9fans] The Plan 9/"right" way to do Facebook

[lucio]

> We are already trained to be suspicious about the truth even when it's
> clearly evident, now we can even start to ignore the information from the
> physical world, while accepting the virtual information that someone else
> feed us.

For an Italian inheriting the legacy of Galileo Galilei, you sure
approach Science from an odd angle.  "suspicious about the truth" is
good, scientific behaviour.  "clearly evident" is not.

And "accepting the virtual information that someone else feed us"
becomes a non-sequitur.  Question, question, question.  If you don't,
then you start to pick winners without sound scientific grounds.  The
masses do that and here in South Africa it is pretty obvious what the
consequences are.

Lucio.

PS: Hardly worth worrying about.  This is likely to happen after our
64-bit clocks have run out of nanoseconds.

Re: [9fans] The Plan 9/"right" way to do Facebook

[lucio]

> I'm not sure if we will become entirely virtual.  That would require us
> to give up sex.  :) I don't think we humans will give up such things so
> easily.

I'm sure that in a society of information bubbles, the very concept of
sexual gratification will be nothing more than an atavistic idea :-)

Lucio.

Re: [9fans] The Plan 9/"right" way to do Facebook

[lucio]

> When you get near your favorite Chinese restaurant, a balloon could
> appear in your view, giving you access to information about it.  When
> GPS magic detects that a friend of yours is nearby, an friendly-looking
> arrow appears, indicating the general direction and approximate distance
> to him or her.

No one in his or her right mind is going to wear something that
diminishes the sexual attraction of his or her face in a public place.
Whatever you may think of social media, in public it is the
opportunity for sexual encounters that "informs" (as seems to be
fashinable to say today - and following fashion itself is an act
towards sexual attractiveness, successful or otherwise) the behaviour
of the majority.  Good luck investing in and selling something the
majority is not interested in, at least in the technology sphere.

So, I don't think any form of face gear is likely to win the race for
3-D visual peripherals.

Disclaimer: I only have sight in my left eye and a slightly unsightly
prosthesis for ny right eye, which I cannot afford to replace.  It
makes me a bit sensitive about vision enhancements, possibly
negatively so.

Lucio.

Re: [9fans] The Plan 9/"right" way to do Facebook

[hiro]

i don't use acme.

Re: [9fans] The Plan 9/"right" way to do Facebook

[Richard Miller]

> It's not social to send HTML mails to this mailing list.
> I don't like your typesetting.

If you read it with acme mail, you don't see any typesetting ☺

Re: [9fans] The Plan 9/"right" way to do Facebook

[hiro]

It's not social to send HTML mails to this mailing list.
I don't like your typesetting.

On 4/1/16, Giacomo Tesio  wrote:
> While funny in it's visionary shape, I'm seriously scared about this
> matter.
>
> Take for example Google's material design: any software that successfully
> mimic the physical world (paper layers in particular) is going to bland our
> perception of its "virtuality". Our mind is going to accept it as a
> physical tool. Now, we "know that a programmable computer is no more and no
> less than an extremely handy device for realizing any conceivable mechanism
> without changing a single wire", but are we sure we really want to remove
> the awareness of the wires?
>
> Google glasses scare me even more: we are going to look the world through
> some one else eyes. In the long run, our brain will start to accept the
> virtual baloons like the other physical entities that really exists.
>
> We are already trained to be suspicious about the truth even when it's
> clearly evident, now we can even start to ignore the information from the
> physical world, while accepting the virtual information that someone else
> feed us.
>
>
>
> Giacomo
>
>
>
> 2016-04-01 22:00 GMT+02:00 :
>
>> lu...@proxima.alt.za writes:
>>
>> > I don't even remember the name of the feature, but I used a tool way
>> > back in the very early days of a public Internet (it was called a MOO,
>>
>> > Given a browser-style interface with 3D capabilities, it would address
>> > social networking considerably better than Facebook (with which I have
>>
>> > For that is what social media provide: a world-wide stage on which you
>> > perform selections from your real life and any fantasy life you choose
>>
>> Very interesting.  I was envisioning a system which would (at least on
>> its GUI side) present information in the form of a Web page, like
>> Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.  I hadn't thought of abandoning the Web page,
>> altogether, for some other kind of "social space" browser.  I wonder
>> what that might be like.
>>
>> [Disclaimer: This is NOT a formal or serious proposal for a new Plan 9
>> file system.  (Not yet, at least.)  It's just an exploration of some
>> potentially possible possibilities.]
>>
>> For a social network to be useful, it must provide some intuitive
>> mapping between information in the virtual world and its real-life
>> referents.  (In contemporary social networks, these take the form of
>> person/place names, mugshots, and interactive maps with balloon icons.)
>> The space which humans are most familiar with navigating, of course, is
>> meatspace - the physical, brick-and-mortar world.  It makes sense, then,
>> that the most intuitive interface would offer some kind of three-
>> dimensional virtual reality.  The simplest, most intuitive mapping
>> between virtual space and meatspace would probably be to visually
>> "overlay" information from the virtual space onto meatspace.  Technology
>> (mostly in the form of various head-mounted glasses or goggles) already
>> exists which allows a person to see what's around them, while projecting
>> information ontop of what they see.  A device such as this has generally
>> been called an "eye tap".  But it has a problem: when you turn your
>> head, the display turns with it.  In order for the UI to be as intuitive
>> as the physical world, it would have to maintain orientation with its
>> physical environment.  Tracking motion of the user's head could be done
>> using accellerometers, a la Oculus Rift.  Imagine a Rift with two video
>> cameras on its front (to provide a binocular view on the physical world)
>> that overlays a digital world ontop of the real world you see.  Virtual
>> arrows could guide you where you need to go without needing directions.
>> When you get near your favorite Chinese restaurant, a balloon could
>> appear in your view, giving you access to information about it.  When
>> GPS magic detects that a friend of yours is nearby, an friendly-looking
>> arrow appears, indicating the general direction and approximate distance
>> to him or her.
>>
>> In order for a virtual world to be useful, however, simply mimicking the
>> physical world won't do; its physics must differ from the physics of the
>> real world in some useful way.  If your favorite restaurant is two miles
>> from your present location, for example, you won't want to walk two
>> miles to find its virtual balloon.  :) Navigating the virtual space
>> would require some way to stretch/pan space and time, allowing the user
>> to "fly" about and move forward/backward in time within the virtual
>> world, before restoring the overlay to match normal space/time.  You
>> would, for example, be able to hike the trail I hiked yesterday, even
>> after I got back from hiking it.  If I recorded GPS waypoints and/or
>> stereoscopic video along the way, you could hike right along with me,
>> having a conversation with my avatar about your favorite 

Re: [9fans] The Plan 9/"right" way to do Facebook

[cigar562hfsp952fans]

Staven  writes:

> It's not worth it.
>
> You'll probably think I'm just being flippant, but I'm not.
>
> It's just not worth it.

That's another interesting & novel way to re-think social networking:
just don't have anything to do with it!  Indeed, that's pretty much the
approach that I've ended up taking, myself.

Do you think it will eventually fizzle-out, kind of like pet rocks and
Usenet newsgroups?  Social networking is a logical extension of the
personal information management (PIM) apps that were so popular in the
late 20th century (and continue to be popular, today, on smartphones).
So, I suspect it probably won't just fizzle-out of its own accord.

Do you think that social networking will be overtaken and replaced by
something else?  Will the replacement be better or worse?  Keeping to
the topic, if social networking's successor could be predicted far
enough in advance, it could be designed and implemented to be
smart-compatible (i.e., with a file system interface) from the get go.
That way, when it finally catches on and becomes popular, it won't pose
a burden to us '9ers.  They say that the best way to predict the future
is to create it, right?  So, perhaps the best way to fix the present is
to create the future.

-- 
+--+
|   human   |
|Any sufficiently high intelligence is indistinguishable from insanity.|
+--+

Re: [9fans] The Plan 9/"right" way to do Facebook

[Giacomo Tesio]

While funny in it's visionary shape, I'm seriously scared about this matter.

Take for example Google's material design: any software that successfully
mimic the physical world (paper layers in particular) is going to bland our
perception of its "virtuality". Our mind is going to accept it as a
physical tool. Now, we "know that a programmable computer is no more and no
less than an extremely handy device for realizing any conceivable mechanism
without changing a single wire", but are we sure we really want to remove
the awareness of the wires?

Google glasses scare me even more: we are going to look the world through
some one else eyes. In the long run, our brain will start to accept the
virtual baloons like the other physical entities that really exists.

We are already trained to be suspicious about the truth even when it's
clearly evident, now we can even start to ignore the information from the
physical world, while accepting the virtual information that someone else
feed us.



Giacomo



2016-04-01 22:00 GMT+02:00 :

> lu...@proxima.alt.za writes:
>
> > I don't even remember the name of the feature, but I used a tool way
> > back in the very early days of a public Internet (it was called a MOO,
>
> > Given a browser-style interface with 3D capabilities, it would address
> > social networking considerably better than Facebook (with which I have
>
> > For that is what social media provide: a world-wide stage on which you
> > perform selections from your real life and any fantasy life you choose
>
> Very interesting.  I was envisioning a system which would (at least on
> its GUI side) present information in the form of a Web page, like
> Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.  I hadn't thought of abandoning the Web page,
> altogether, for some other kind of "social space" browser.  I wonder
> what that might be like.
>
> [Disclaimer: This is NOT a formal or serious proposal for a new Plan 9
> file system.  (Not yet, at least.)  It's just an exploration of some
> potentially possible possibilities.]
>
> For a social network to be useful, it must provide some intuitive
> mapping between information in the virtual world and its real-life
> referents.  (In contemporary social networks, these take the form of
> person/place names, mugshots, and interactive maps with balloon icons.)
> The space which humans are most familiar with navigating, of course, is
> meatspace - the physical, brick-and-mortar world.  It makes sense, then,
> that the most intuitive interface would offer some kind of three-
> dimensional virtual reality.  The simplest, most intuitive mapping
> between virtual space and meatspace would probably be to visually
> "overlay" information from the virtual space onto meatspace.  Technology
> (mostly in the form of various head-mounted glasses or goggles) already
> exists which allows a person to see what's around them, while projecting
> information ontop of what they see.  A device such as this has generally
> been called an "eye tap".  But it has a problem: when you turn your
> head, the display turns with it.  In order for the UI to be as intuitive
> as the physical world, it would have to maintain orientation with its
> physical environment.  Tracking motion of the user's head could be done
> using accellerometers, a la Oculus Rift.  Imagine a Rift with two video
> cameras on its front (to provide a binocular view on the physical world)
> that overlays a digital world ontop of the real world you see.  Virtual
> arrows could guide you where you need to go without needing directions.
> When you get near your favorite Chinese restaurant, a balloon could
> appear in your view, giving you access to information about it.  When
> GPS magic detects that a friend of yours is nearby, an friendly-looking
> arrow appears, indicating the general direction and approximate distance
> to him or her.
>
> In order for a virtual world to be useful, however, simply mimicking the
> physical world won't do; its physics must differ from the physics of the
> real world in some useful way.  If your favorite restaurant is two miles
> from your present location, for example, you won't want to walk two
> miles to find its virtual balloon.  :) Navigating the virtual space
> would require some way to stretch/pan space and time, allowing the user
> to "fly" about and move forward/backward in time within the virtual
> world, before restoring the overlay to match normal space/time.  You
> would, for example, be able to hike the trail I hiked yesterday, even
> after I got back from hiking it.  If I recorded GPS waypoints and/or
> stereoscopic video along the way, you could hike right along with me,
> having a conversation with my avatar about your favorite edible plants.
> Then, I could "rewind" time and watch your hike & conversation as well
> (assuming that you decided to share it with me).
>
> An ability to stretch/shrink distances in virtual space enables use of
> non-Euclidean volumes, as well.  

Re: [9fans] The Plan 9/"right" way to do Facebook

[cigar562hfsp952fans]

lu...@proxima.alt.za writes:

> I don't even remember the name of the feature, but I used a tool way
> back in the very early days of a public Internet (it was called a MOO,

> Given a browser-style interface with 3D capabilities, it would address
> social networking considerably better than Facebook (with which I have

> For that is what social media provide: a world-wide stage on which you
> perform selections from your real life and any fantasy life you choose

Very interesting.  I was envisioning a system which would (at least on
its GUI side) present information in the form of a Web page, like
Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.  I hadn't thought of abandoning the Web page,
altogether, for some other kind of "social space" browser.  I wonder
what that might be like.

[Disclaimer: This is NOT a formal or serious proposal for a new Plan 9
file system.  (Not yet, at least.)  It's just an exploration of some
potentially possible possibilities.]

For a social network to be useful, it must provide some intuitive
mapping between information in the virtual world and its real-life
referents.  (In contemporary social networks, these take the form of
person/place names, mugshots, and interactive maps with balloon icons.)
The space which humans are most familiar with navigating, of course, is
meatspace - the physical, brick-and-mortar world.  It makes sense, then,
that the most intuitive interface would offer some kind of three-
dimensional virtual reality.  The simplest, most intuitive mapping
between virtual space and meatspace would probably be to visually
"overlay" information from the virtual space onto meatspace.  Technology
(mostly in the form of various head-mounted glasses or goggles) already
exists which allows a person to see what's around them, while projecting
information ontop of what they see.  A device such as this has generally
been called an "eye tap".  But it has a problem: when you turn your
head, the display turns with it.  In order for the UI to be as intuitive
as the physical world, it would have to maintain orientation with its
physical environment.  Tracking motion of the user's head could be done
using accellerometers, a la Oculus Rift.  Imagine a Rift with two video
cameras on its front (to provide a binocular view on the physical world)
that overlays a digital world ontop of the real world you see.  Virtual
arrows could guide you where you need to go without needing directions.
When you get near your favorite Chinese restaurant, a balloon could
appear in your view, giving you access to information about it.  When
GPS magic detects that a friend of yours is nearby, an friendly-looking
arrow appears, indicating the general direction and approximate distance
to him or her.

In order for a virtual world to be useful, however, simply mimicking the
physical world won't do; its physics must differ from the physics of the
real world in some useful way.  If your favorite restaurant is two miles
from your present location, for example, you won't want to walk two
miles to find its virtual balloon.  :) Navigating the virtual space
would require some way to stretch/pan space and time, allowing the user
to "fly" about and move forward/backward in time within the virtual
world, before restoring the overlay to match normal space/time.  You
would, for example, be able to hike the trail I hiked yesterday, even
after I got back from hiking it.  If I recorded GPS waypoints and/or
stereoscopic video along the way, you could hike right along with me,
having a conversation with my avatar about your favorite edible plants.
Then, I could "rewind" time and watch your hike & conversation as well
(assuming that you decided to share it with me).

An ability to stretch/shrink distances in virtual space enables use of
non-Euclidean volumes, as well.  Imagine "dimension compression"
technology as seen in the (sci-fi) movie Ultraviolet, or in the TARDIS
of Dr. Who.  ("It's bigger on the inside!")  You could stuff as many
files as you want into a single filing cabinet, have a filing cabinet
with a potentially infinite number of drawers, or stuff as many filing
cabinets as you want into a police call box which shrinks down and stows
neatly inside a virtual watch that you wear on your virtual wrist.  Want
to send a FAX?  Press a button on your virtual watch, and out pops your
personal TARDIS.  Reach inside it, grab your virtual FAX machine, grab
the document you want to send, and feed it through.  (You can fast-
forward time, if you like, so you don't have to wait for each page to
scan.)  When you're done, just hit the "poof" button on your virtual
watch, and everything neatly folds itself back inside.

Such a non-Euclidean 4-dimensional space full of nested objects could
certainly be represented as a file system.  Omero and Olive
(technically, o/mero and o/live) from the Octopus project over at LSUB
already allow one to represent a two-dimensional GUI as a file system.
(All or part of a GUI on one machine can be tar(1)ed up and 

Re: [9fans] The Plan 9/"right" way to do Facebook

[cigar562hfsp952fans]

Winston Kodogo  writes:

> That's an awfully long troll.

Or "epic-length".  :) Perhaps your smartphone didn't display to you item
#9 in TOP.  What you (incorrectly) call a "troll" I call "prebuttle".
It makes discussion much more efficient if all the obvious issues/
questions/answers are gotten out of the way, up front.  With all the
obvious stuff out of the way, you can jump right into discussing the
interesting stuff, as Lucio has done...

Re: [9fans] The Plan 9/"right" way to do Facebook

[cigar562hfsp952fans]

Kurt H Maier  writes:

> Your post advocates a
>
> (x) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante
>
> approach to social networking. Your idea will not work. Here is why it 
> won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular 
> idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state
> before a bad federal law was passed.)

Hah, I like that.  Is that an rc script?  An m4 macro?  An Acme plug-in?
Where can I get that?

> Your post advocates a

TOP doesn't "advocate" anything; it poses a theoretical question and
explores the benefits/drawbacks of a few potential solutions.

> (x) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante

Every problem is ultimately a technical problem.  That's true whether
you're building an OS, running for president, or trying to reach
spiritual Nirvana.  If any of these boxes were to be checked, I'd sure
hope it'd be the "technical" one.  :)

> (x) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money

Based on the boxes that you checked, I'm assuming your response was
intended in jest, not meant seriously.  :) So, I won't take time to
address each of your points.  If this assumption is incorrect, however,
and you really do have such concerns, let me know, and I'll post a brief
answer to each of the questions you raise.

> (x) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
> ( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your 
> house down!

Well, I'm happy at least you didn't check that last box!  :D

Re: [9fans] The Plan 9/"right" way to do Facebook

[michaelian ennis]

You had me at cigar.

Ian

Re: [9fans] The Plan 9/"right" way to do Facebook

[Steve Simon]



> On 31 Mar 2016, at 03:09, Lyndon Nerenberg  wrote:
> 
> 
> > cd /n/facebook
> 
> cd /
> unmount /n/facebook
> rm -fr /sys/src/cmd/facebook* /*/bin/facebookfs

Re: [9fans] The Plan 9/"right" way to do Facebook

[Iain Watson Smith]

i'd pay you... to think of an answer.

On 31 March 2016 at 21:17, David Pick  wrote:

> On 31/03/16 10:03, hiro wrote:
>
> > people would probably not talk with me if they had to 2-factor first.
> > they just ring and that's it.
>
> But that *is* two-factor: they're using something you have (the
> telephone number) and a biometric (your voice).
>
> --
> David Pick
> Network Security Manager, IT Services
> Queen Mary University of London
> Tel: +44 (0) 20 7882 7079
> Mob: +44 (0) 7973 379 161
> E-Mail: d.m.p...@qmul.ac.uk
>
> Normal working days are Monday to Wednesday inclusive
>
>
>

Re: [9fans] The Plan 9/"right" way to do Facebook

[hiro]

people would probably not talk with me if they had to 2-factor first.
they just ring and that's it.

Re: [9fans] The Plan 9/"right" way to do Facebook

[lucio]

Nice job, if a touch taxing :-)

> A social network has to be stupid-compatible if it's going to be
> successful.  But it also has to be smart-compatible, i.e., done the
> "right" way, if we are to keep from going insane.  ;)

I don't even remember the name of the feature, but I used a tool way
back in the very early days of a public Internet (it was called a MOO,
I remember now) which had an inner programming language to construct
your identity (today that would be you avatar, but it was more like
your identity, life history and future behaviour all in one and
extendible).

Given a browser-style interface with 3D capabilities, it would address
social networking considerably better than Facebook (with which I have
the lightest of passing acquaintances), but you have to consider how
much working time - and consequently rewarded time - you can afford
your employees to spend in such a virtual world.

For that is what social media provide: a world-wide stage on which you
perform selections from your real life and any fantasy life you choose
to publish.  Stupidly, we still demand that people be consistent, but
that will drift away over time, of that I'm pretty certain.

Where to?  I think we're destined eventually to become bubbles of
information in a purely virtual organism that "may" instantiate itself
as a physical entity as the context demands, and that technology is
going to get us there as quickly as it is able to.  Reminds me of
Philip Jose Farmer's trilogy - long time ago, I'm not sure I can
recall the title of the first book, I do recall Mark Twain and the
Riverboat thing.  Because we're not likely to get Richard Burton and
Mark Twain back, sadly.

But thank you for the stimulating thoughts.

Lucio.

Re: [9fans] The Plan 9/"right" way to do Facebook

[Lyndon Nerenberg]

> cd /n/facebook

cd /
unmount /n/facebook
rm -fr /sys/src/cmd/facebook* /*/bin/facebookfs

Re: [9fans] The Plan 9/"right" way to do Facebook

[Staven]

It's not worth it.

You'll probably think I'm just being flippant, but I'm not.

It's just not worth it.

Re: [9fans] The Plan 9/"right" way to do Facebook

[Kurt H Maier]

On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 11:40:03PM +, cigar562hfsp952f...@icebubble.org 
wrote:
> Greetings, 9fans!
> 

Your post advocates a

(x) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante

approach to social networking. Your idea will not work. Here is why it 
won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular 
idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state
before a bad federal law was passed.)

( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
(x) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
(x) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
(x) Users of Twitter will not put up with it
(x) Facebook will not put up with it
( ) The police will not put up with it
(x) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
( ) Many users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business

Specifically, your plan fails to account for

( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it
(x) Lack of centrally controlling authority for social networking
(x) Open relays in foreign countries
(x) Asshats
( ) Jurisdictional problems
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of communications
(x) Huge existing software investment in Facebook
(x) Susceptibility of protocols other than HTTP to attack
( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
(x) Extreme profitability of Facebook
(x) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
(x) Technically illiterate politicians
(x) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with Twitter
( ) Outlook

and the following philosophical objections may also apply:

(x) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been 
shown practical
( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
( ) Blacklists suck
( ) Whitelists suck
( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
(x) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) I don't want the government reading my email
( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough

Furthermore, this is what I think about you:

( ) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
(x) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house 
down!


hth,
khm

Re: [9fans] The Plan 9/"right" way to do Facebook

[Winston Kodogo]

That's an awfully long troll. Some people have a lot of time on their
hands. And it's not yet April Fool's day, even in New Zealand.

On 31 March 2016 at 12:40,  wrote:

> Greetings, 9fans!
>
> We all know that Plan 9 started as a retrospective "re-take" on UNIX,
> occasionally referred to as "UNIX done right".  This has led to
> differences between "the Plan 9 way" of doing something vs. "the UNIX
> way" of doing it, such as those highlighted by the infamous "Unix to
> Plan 9 command translation" page on the Plan 9 wiki.  More generally,
> this can be viewed as the difference between the "right" way to do
> something versus the "popular" way to do it.
>
> So, my question is, what would be the Plan 9/"right" way to do Facebook?
> Stated differently, if social networking were to be re-imagined and
> re-done "right" this time, how would it be done?
>
>
> E-Mail
> ==
>
> The obvious answer that comes to mind is e-mail.  It worked well for
> decades.  Although 9fans appear to continue this tradition in grand
> style, using e-mail for social networking poses a number of problems:
>
> 1. _Spam.  The fact that SMTP doesn't authenticate senders of e-mail
>messages has led to a proliferation of spam which has greatly
>burdened the medium, requiring complex workarounds that usually put
>legitimate mail at risk of misclassification as "junk".
>
> 2. _`Subject lines`.  Few people seem to know how to choose an
>appropriate "Subject:" line, anymore.  People will use subjects like
>"tonight's meeting", without specifying what group is meeting, when
>the meeting is, or what it is about.  When the topic of a thread
>drifts from its original topic, few people remember (or even think)
>to update the Subject: line.  Often, when one person wants to send a
>second person an e-mail, the first person will simply reply to the
>last message they received from the second person, even if it was on
>a completely different subject.  (This, of course, creates false
>relationships between the Subject: and References: fields used to
>define threads.)
>
>Despite the fact that most MUAs (including Webmail_) offer the
>ability to automatically sort e-mail into different categories, many
>people don't know how to sort incoming mail.  When they get too much
>e-mail in their "Inbox", the become annoyed and confused.
>
>These problems were addressed, somewhat, by the advent of the Web
>forums which were popular in the 2000's.  On a Web forum, moderators
>could reclassify posts and reorganize threads to better reflect their
>content.
>
> 3. Listservs.  For people familiar with mailing lists, sending commands
>to list servers is not difficult.  Unfortunately, many people don't
>understand listservs, and want some way to subscribe to and/or
>unsubscribe from mailing lists using a Web page.  While some
>listservs provide a Web interface in addition to an SMTP interface,
>it is becoming more and more common for mailing lists to append
>footers containing "unsubscribe" links.  This information (which
>usually duplicates information found in message headers and should be
>obvious to anyone who knows how to use the listserv, anyway) pollutes
>the content of the messages.  Furthermore, if a message containing
>such links is forwarded to someone else, the final recipient could
>unsubscribe the forwarding party from the list without his or her
>consent.
>
> 4. _`HTML mail`.  Nowadays, people will write things in e-mail messages
>like, "I've highlighted the changes in red".  On my display, plain
>text is rendered in black-on-white!  Or they'll write something like
>"here's the link," without specifying any URL.  You have to dig into
>the text/html part to find it.  Forwarding an HTML message to other
>recipients can also pose security risks, if _hyperlinks in the
>message offer access to personal information.  HTML mail also makes
>e-mail messages five times the size they need to be.
>
> 5. MIME.  It's great to be able to attach small files to e-mail
>messages, but there are WAY too many people who will just blindly
>attach Word Perfect, Microsuck Word, or ZIP files to their messages.
>I've even seen otherwise "well-educated" lawyers do this.
>
> 6. Large attachments.  MIME permits relatively small files to be
>attached to messages, but it is not really meant for distribution of
>large _files such as large images, audio files, movie files, ISO
>images, or tarballs.  For people like us, that's not a problem; we
>just upload the file to a server and post its location, along with a
>brief description of the file.  People who do not know how to do this
>will typically end up jumping through hoops to upload their file to
>some dreaded third-party service like Flickr or YouTub, and then post
>a link to that.
>
> 7.