...more recent posts
Clay Shirkey's Slahsdot interview responses have been posted. I usually find him quite interesting, and this is no exception.
Clay Shirkey's Slahsdot interview responses have been posted. I usually find him quite interesting, and this is no exception.
Interesting Neil Stephenson letter to Dr. M. Anshel discussing zeta functions (which arise in Stephenson's most recent work Cryptonomicon,) and more interestingly, the line between fiction and reality, and how people like Dr. Anshel are represented (or not represented) in novels.
Interesting Neil Stephenson letter to Dr. M. Anshel discussing zeta functions (which arise in Stephenson's most recent work Cryptonomicon,) and more interestingly, the line between fiction and reality, and how people like Dr. Anshel are represented (or not represented) in novels.
I certainly don't know enough to say for sure, but now it all makes sense to me. For a long time I've been hearing rumors about MacOSX on x86 (intel.) It makes sense in one way since OSX shares so much with FreeBSD, and FreeBSD runs on (among other chips) x86. But it never seemed quite right because Apple's margins are so high on their machines, why would they want to enable cheap Intel based computers? This bit of speculation sounds right to me. This is the "digital hub" that Job's keeps mentioning in a sort of metaphoric way. Here's my further speculation. If apple made a cheap x86 based, airport/ethernet ready computer (an "internet appliance", or "thin client") that would netboot into a remotely hosted OSX session I think they might really have something. For their bottom line, at least, if not for the full good of the customer. What if you bought this really cheap, stylish Apple machine (couple hundred bucks) and then you pay Apple (or Apple/earthlink) $x/month for broadband access. It would seem to you like a regular computer set up. The difference would be that your operating system and programs (but not data) would be running on servers operated by Apple. You would never have to mess with any software. They install, upgrade and keep everything running. Literally ANYBODY could use this machine. But the question is, how much is $x/month?
I certainly don't know enough to say for sure, but now it all makes sense to me. For a long time I've been hearing rumors about MacOSX on x86 (intel.) It makes sense in one way since OSX shares so much with FreeBSD, and FreeBSD runs on (among other chips) x86. But it never seemed quite right because Apple's margins are so high on their machines, why would they want to enable cheap Intel based computers? This bit of speculation sounds right to me. This is the "digital hub" that Job's keeps mentioning in a sort of metaphoric way. Here's my further speculation. If apple made a cheap x86 based, airport/ethernet ready computer (an "internet appliance", or "thin client") that would netboot into a remotely hosted OSX session I think they might really have something. For their bottom line, at least, if not for the full good of the customer. What if you bought this really cheap, stylish Apple machine (couple hundred bucks) and then you pay Apple (or Apple/earthlink) $x/month for broadband access. It would seem to you like a regular computer set up. The difference would be that your operating system and programs (but not data) would be running on servers operated by Apple. You would never have to mess with any software. They install, upgrade and keep everything running. Literally ANYBODY could use this machine. But the question is, how much is $x/month?
Yes yes yes. This is what we need. Jabber-as-middleware (JAM). Jabber is the open source instant messenger project (with fully working/shipping clients and servers.) It interoperates with other IM platforms. It's totally cool. That's jabber. But jabber-as-middleware (JAM) generalizes the idea.
"JAM will give Jabber the ability to send messages between applications, in addition to messages between users. This also means that applications will be able to speak to users, and vice-versa."I'll definitely try to interoperate with this as it develops.
Dizzd seems like the man behind this. I hope he can code as well as he can pitch.
Yes yes yes. This is what we need. Jabber-as-middleware (JAM). Jabber is the open source instant messenger project (with fully working/shipping clients and servers.) It interoperates with other IM platforms. It's totally cool. That's jabber. But jabber-as-middleware (JAM) generalizes the idea.
"JAM will give Jabber the ability to send messages between applications, in addition to messages between users. This also means that applications will be able to speak to users, and vice-versa."I'll definitely try to interoperate with this as it develops.
Dizzd seems like the man behind this. I hope he can code as well as he can pitch.