Re: [silk] Life is a game. This is your strategy guide.
On Mar 4, 2014 5:08 PM, Deepa Mohan mohande...@gmail.com wrote: A selfish organism is the very definition of cancer. I'm not sure if I agree with all that you said, Cheeni. But that last line...breathtaking in its simplicity. Thanks Deepa, you are kind as always. :-)
Re: [silk] aqvavit
On 26-Jul-13 12:16 PM, Udhay Shankar N wrote: Another water purification tidbit: http://www.fastcoexist.com/1682625/turn-your-waterbottle-into-a-brita-with-this-coconut-filter Turn Your Waterbottle Into A Brita With This Coconut Filter And another: http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0089934 Open Access Peer-Reviewed Research Article Water Filtration Using Plant Xylem Published: February 26, 2014 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0089934 Abstract Effective point-of-use devices for providing safe drinking water are urgently needed to reduce the global burden of waterborne disease. Here we show that plant xylem from the sapwood of coniferous trees – a readily available, inexpensive, biodegradable, and disposable material – can remove bacteria from water by simple pressure-driven filtration. Approximately 3 cm3 of sapwood can filter water at the rate of several liters per day, sufficient to meet the clean drinking water needs of one person. The results demonstrate the potential of plant xylem to address the need for pathogen-free drinking water in developing countries and resource-limited settings. snip -- ((Udhay Shankar N)) ((udhay @ pobox.com)) ((www.digeratus.com))
Re: [silk] A new buzzphrase: procedural content creation
A little baffled by the tone of voice here. For something that is a piece of self-promotion, on their own website, why write it like a newspaper article? Perhaps this content was also created procedurally. It's good communication. You don't realise that SpeedTree is the hero until much later; but by then you want to beat up the writer of this piece. Thanks. Regards, Rashmi Dhanwani Linkedin: http://in.linkedin.com/in/rashmidhanwani Twitter: www.twitter.com/rashmid On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 10:32 AM, gabin kattukaran gkattuka...@gmail.comwrote: On Mar 2, 2014 11:41 PM, Chandrachoodan Gopalakrishnan chandrachoo...@gmail.com wrote: A little baffled by the tone of voice here. For something that is a piece of self-promotion, on their own website, why write it like a newspaper article? Perhaps this content was also created procedurally. -gabin
Re: [silk] Fwd: [IP] Re The internet is fucked
I'm addressing some of the links Suresh forwarded to the list. Bennett: If we’ve learned anything at all about from the history of Internet-as-utility, it’s that this strained analogy only applies in cases where there is no existing infrastructure, and probably ends best when a publicly-financed project is sold (or at least leased) to a private company for upgrades and management. We should be suspicious of projects aimed at providing Wi-Fi mesh because they’re slow as molasses on a winter’s day. I don’t see any examples of long-term success in the publicly-owned and operated networking space. And I also don’t see any examples of publicly-owned and operated Internet service providers doing any of the heavy lifting in the maintenance of the Internet protocols, a never-ending process that’s vital to the continuing growth of the Internet. One of the oft-overlooked inconvenient facts about the Internet is that it was created by the US military to meet various Cold War objectives. The US government has poured huge amounts of cash into the Internet over the past 50 years. Much of the early work on protocols and structures was done at public universities on the military's dime. The Internet started as a public works project, and public money continues to play a significant role. During the first decade I was online (1976-1986), it was widely understood that the Internet was to be used for military and research purposes. It was not open to commercial purposes. Advertising was not permitted, and it was generally understood that we were online as guests of the military and the universities. The innovations that made the Internet possible did not originate at ATT. ATT, like any other monopoly, views innovation with extreme distrust and stifles it whenever possible. Innovation disrupts their business model, and threatens their control over our communications. ATT fought broadband every step of the way, and lapped up a lot of dollars from the public trough to expand its fiber network to make broadband possible. The cable companies were late entrants to the Internet game, once they realized that they had the broadband cable in place already and just had to figure out the upstream messaging part. The broadband providers, like the railway robber barons of the 19th century American West, are political entrepreneurs. Much of the heavy lifting was done for them at public expense, and now they act like they built the whole thing by themselves and are perfectly entitled to run things just the way they like it. They cry foul when the very government that helped them build the infrastructure with public money wants to regulate the self-same infrastructure. Sherman: Pursuing a public utility model while also desiring competition are fundamentally contradictory goals. Utilities are designed not to compete. Do you, or does anyone you know, have a choice of providers for water, sewage or electricity? My second question would be: is there anyone in the technology world who sees public utilities as a model for innovation? A 1.5 megabit connection (T1) was an unimaginable luxury when I started in tech in the mid-90′s. It was for well-funded companies only. Today, it is a low-end consumer connection and costs around 80% less. Has your sewage service followed a similar trajectory? A public utility is designed to be “good enough” and little more. There is no need, and little room, for differentiation or progress. Your electricity service is essentially unchanged from 20 years ago, and will look the same 10 years from now. Broadband, on the other hand, requires constant innovation if we are to move forward — and it has been delivering it, even if we desire more. Public utilities exist because there are certain services where the infrastructure leads to a natural monopoly. Having these services in private hands created numerous disasters (the history of London's private water companies is instructive here, as is the history of the railroads in California). Thus, these services tend to be either publicly run or heavily regulated. In my experience, publicly run services tend to be cheaper and better than the privately run monopolies. Privately run monopolies are always trying to get one-up on their regulators and the public, while public utilities can get on with the job at hand. Innovation is an interesting thing. Warfare (the business of governments, last time I checked) has been responsible for a great deal of innovation. Public investment in basic research also tends to foster a lot of innovation. People playing around with new toys also leads to a tremendous amount of innovation. Monopoly corporations, on the other hand, do not tend to innovate. They are sticks-in-the-mud heavily invested in maintaining the status quo. Moreover, monopoly corporations often successfully stifle innovation by
Re: [silk] A new buzzphrase: procedural content creation
I think it reflects the overall dumbing down of news and ascendancy of public relations speak. Make a self-promotional piece sound like news and news sound like a public relations piece.
Re: [silk] Fwd: [IP] Re The internet is fucked
Having, in India, started off with an internet which was exclusively a government monopoly and only turned over to private enterprise some years down the line, I would say that making it a utility is something that most people here, given the local conditions, would resent, Innovations were driven by bell labs, not exactly att, some on government funded projects to be sure. But increasingly, down the line, by ISPs and their peers in the market. And by content providers, and by CDNs, and by various other entities that haven't ever received a dime in government funding of research. The Crawford and Wu model of public utility doesn't provide any sensible basis for regulation that I can see, and the model has shifted significantly from the old sense of net neutrality which once related to CLECs and unbundling of services, I have seen claims that the broadband charges in the uk are like two pounds for some insanely fast amount, but then there are surcharges of ten to fifteen pounds more for the local loop costs etc. So that unbundling certainly doesn't cost you less as it makes the pricing transparent and gives you market freedom to switch providers much easier, without the trouble of pulling fresh copper or fiber to your home each time you switch (which currently is not the case here in India, go figure) --srs (iPad) On 06-Mar-2014, at 0:06, Heather Madrone heat...@madrone.com wrote: I'm addressing some of the links Suresh forwarded to the list. Bennett: If we’ve learned anything at all about from the history of Internet-as-utility, it’s that this strained analogy only applies in cases where there is no existing infrastructure, and probably ends best when a publicly-financed project is sold (or at least leased) to a private company for upgrades and management. We should be suspicious of projects aimed at providing Wi-Fi mesh because they’re slow as molasses on a winter’s day. I don’t see any examples of long-term success in the publicly-owned and operated networking space. And I also don’t see any examples of publicly-owned and operated Internet service providers doing any of the heavy lifting in the maintenance of the Internet protocols, a never-ending process that’s vital to the continuing growth of the Internet. One of the oft-overlooked inconvenient facts about the Internet is that it was created by the US military to meet various Cold War objectives. The US government has poured huge amounts of cash into the Internet over the past 50 years. Much of the early work on protocols and structures was done at public universities on the military's dime. The Internet started as a public works project, and public money continues to play a significant role. During the first decade I was online (1976-1986), it was widely understood that the Internet was to be used for military and research purposes. It was not open to commercial purposes. Advertising was not permitted, and it was generally understood that we were online as guests of the military and the universities. The innovations that made the Internet possible did not originate at ATT. ATT, like any other monopoly, views innovation with extreme distrust and stifles it whenever possible. Innovation disrupts their business model, and threatens their control over our communications. ATT fought broadband every step of the way, and lapped up a lot of dollars from the public trough to expand its fiber network to make broadband possible. The cable companies were late entrants to the Internet game, once they realized that they had the broadband cable in place already and just had to figure out the upstream messaging part. The broadband providers, like the railway robber barons of the 19th century American West, are political entrepreneurs. Much of the heavy lifting was done for them at public expense, and now they act like they built the whole thing by themselves and are perfectly entitled to run things just the way they like it. They cry foul when the very government that helped them build the infrastructure with public money wants to regulate the self-same infrastructure. Sherman: Pursuing a public utility model while also desiring competition are fundamentally contradictory goals. Utilities are designed not to compete. Do you, or does anyone you know, have a choice of providers for water, sewage or electricity? My second question would be: is there anyone in the technology world who sees public utilities as a model for innovation? A 1.5 megabit connection (T1) was an unimaginable luxury when I started in tech in the mid-90′s. It was for well-funded companies only. Today, it is a low-end consumer connection and costs around 80% less. Has your sewage service followed a similar trajectory? A public utility is designed to be “good enough” and little more. There is no need, and little room, for
Re: [silk] Fwd: [IP] Re The internet is fucked
Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: Having, in India, started off with an internet which was exclusively a government monopoly and only turned over to private enterprise some years down the line, I would say that making it a utility is something that most people here, given the local conditions, would resent, I agree that any attempt to socialize the Internet would have people screaming bloody murder, but I do believe that the Internet is a utility. In most places, it appears to be a privately-run utility. In some places, it is a government-controlled monopoly where free speech is stifled. In the places where it seems to work best, it seems to be heavily regulated. I do think we're going to see more cities providing free wireless access in high density areas, like New York City does. Innovations were driven by bell labs, not exactly att, some on government funded projects to be sure. But increasingly, down the line, by ISPs and their peers in the market. And by content providers, and by CDNs, and by various other entities that haven't ever received a dime in government funding of research. There have been a lot of players, for sure. Can you help me out, though? While I am aware of many useful things that came out of Bell Labs, I can't think of a single Internet protocol that originated there. Were you thinking of something in particular? The Internet owes a few nods to XEROX PARC (XNS, the precursor of TCP, comes to mind), but I'm drawing a blank for key Internet technologies that came out of Bell Labs. A technology company in the US that has never received a dime of government money would be an odd duck indeed. Certain branches of the US government buy one of everything. --hmm
Re: [silk] Fwd: [IP] Re The internet is fucked
Municipal wifi has a long and checkered history .. And city governments aren't the best funded organizations on the planet is the trouble. Bell labs innovation was pre internet but then Unix did originate there. The internet isn't all networks. (And by the way see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tc4ROCJYbm0 for some fun) And there's a difference between federally funded research and having Uncle Sam as a customer when you bid for federal contracts. I hope I am not splitting too many hairs when I say that, --srs (iPad) On 06-Mar-2014, at 8:13, Heather Madrone heat...@madrone.com wrote: Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: Having, in India, started off with an internet which was exclusively a government monopoly and only turned over to private enterprise some years down the line, I would say that making it a utility is something that most people here, given the local conditions, would resent, I agree that any attempt to socialize the Internet would have people screaming bloody murder, but I do believe that the Internet is a utility. In most places, it appears to be a privately-run utility. In some places, it is a government-controlled monopoly where free speech is stifled. In the places where it seems to work best, it seems to be heavily regulated. I do think we're going to see more cities providing free wireless access in high density areas, like New York City does. Innovations were driven by bell labs, not exactly att, some on government funded projects to be sure. But increasingly, down the line, by ISPs and their peers in the market. And by content providers, and by CDNs, and by various other entities that haven't ever received a dime in government funding of research. There have been a lot of players, for sure. Can you help me out, though? While I am aware of many useful things that came out of Bell Labs, I can't think of a single Internet protocol that originated there. Were you thinking of something in particular? The Internet owes a few nods to XEROX PARC (XNS, the precursor of TCP, comes to mind), but I'm drawing a blank for key Internet technologies that came out of Bell Labs. A technology company in the US that has never received a dime of government money would be an odd duck indeed. Certain branches of the US government buy one of everything. --hmm
Re: [silk] A new buzzphrase: procedural content creation
On 3/2/2014 12:24 PM, Udhay Shankar N wrote: Very interesting - the new frontier of 'content' creation. Herewith the most high profile example so far. I've been following this blog called Procedural World, as the author works on a voxel-based world generator called Voxel Farm: http://procworld.blogspot.com/ This stuff is suddenly in fashion because of Minecraft, so there are new engines and games appearing every day. Voxel Farm is particularly stunning though. I recommend starting from the oldest entries to really get an idea of how far he's come. -Taj.
