larry lessig – the creative commons

writes books to figure out what he thinks

“code” – a dark story to be told, because the world didn’t recorgnise how computer

architecture and code embeds values into the world, and also how by not undertanding that

lawyers can screw that up and destroy it’s promise.

what are the values in the arhcietcture?

built into the core of the end-to-end interent was an archiectures, an essence that

guarantees a certain type of competition and freedom of creativity.

what wins what people choose, not what the content owners decide.

what the edge wants, not what the centre controls.

“future of ideas” – a dpressing story to be told again. threats to the structure of

particiaption from vested interests. war against the potential for innovation the internet

represents. they are winning the war. defenders of last century’s way of doing business..

suceeding in the popular mind and press… a story is being sold of “property vs. anarchy”

where property ownership = freedom, and the rest represented by communists, thieves and

anarchists.

between the extremes, there should be a “creative commons”.

freedom in the USA was architected…

the vested interested don;t want the competition that these structures engender.

Jack Valenti “they are waging a terrorist war against the most important industry in

america”

# etcon oreilly books under founders copyright. wild applause.

panel discussion –
including: David Reed, http://www.reed.com/dprframeweb/dprframe.asp?section=biography
talking about the historical lessons that allocation of radio spectrum can teach us.
carl malamud – http://www.media.org/carl.html

“copyright is dying” – david henkel wallace

“property is the sort of thing you pay taxes on -when is the last time that disney paid

taxes on their interlecttual property” – lessig.

the distinction of consumer and producer is broken down… (“the former audience” cf dan

gillmor via Doctorow). Producers WANT to control use in reaction to this break-down of the

status-quo.

questions from the floor:
going to steal the coverage from the conf. IRC channel
from #etcon:
can you be anonymous and still put something into the public domain?
the unknown comic
from Cory’s book: concept from high school whoopie, your reputation.
Reptuation becomes a key driver of choice. Reputation economy.

cory: how do we get the tech companies to do the right thing.

david keen – we have to give the people particpating in the policy creation the “right

words” – they won;t repeat a religion.

lessig – compaines aren;t paid to “do the right thing” their job is to make money…

apporach companies not as individuals that will do the right thing but as organisms that

want to make money… other wise we will fail. stop getting congress to get companies t tell

them to how to make poilcy. let;s recognise that they are very powerful entities that want

to make money, and address that.

from #etcon:
grr. that attitude winds me up. companies *can* be more responsible
we can’t just says about companies: “oh, we know they’re evil but they can’t help

it”.
make them accountable.
yes

and at some point if the standard position of companies *was* to be responsible,

then an irresponsible company would be rightly attacked
These guys make the gear. They make the content. They own the transport.

lessig – “there is no evidence that patents spur innovation… but there is evidence that it

costs millions of dollars to avoid them… patent searches, liability etc, etc” “stops small

groups of innovators from ‘stepping into the pool’ “policy makers don;t get how this

structure is destroy oppotunities for innovation”

clay

wb services aren;t really that webby
EDI+

smenatics are A HARD PORBLEM
we need a new defn of local in a network world

differnt kinds of context horzion are created by webservicezs…

iversions of scope… appication can contain mullitple machines, instead of multiple appilcations on one machine

no longer bounded by the firwall

all our defn of bundles, quanta of IT are gone

context horzions

trust horizons (lberty alliance, MSpassport etc.)
coroodination horizons – when do the members of the group go beyond that i can grasp or be comfortbale with
semantic horzioons

whre do standards come from

the powerful human desire to join together in a spirit of cooperation and collaboration (is this local to tech indystry? = “you dont get an oscar for sharing”)

stock ticker examples prevalent… no sematic problems with the problem, yet still out of 5 exmaples, none are interoperable..!

where do standards come from?:
standards bodies
800lb gorrillas (google… unilaterqally does somthing and is big enough to drag everyone with them)
results of standards wars
microsfot (ubiquiotos enough, and high renough up the stack to effect standards)
or
no standards

near-term predicitons (1-2 years)

-two thread
EDI++ (XML + internet instead of proprietary) -big win to b2b but booo-ring…
RPC++ – slower, harder

more standards wars – xml makes it easier to right a standard..
people think they can own stanards… and can build them easier.. so go for stanards landgrab.
therfore stanbrds wars are
-started faster
ended faster, limited domains (fought mainly on just the semantics)
easier on the losers (cos not heaviy investment… just semantics)

rap[id deployment in controlled environments
-intrantes, supply chains, extranets
– in-company standards wars!!!
-everyone is a software publisher (first level of web, everyone was a publisher.. had to take on new responsiblity… now next level rises to level of reposobiluty and support of that of a software house)

slow deployment in large heterogenous environments
-e.g the internet.

q from audience – what about on devices, arfe they controlled envinements?
clay – prediciton still applies “higher in stack these things are towards the suer.. the more semantic coordination problems”

q- will webservices be viewd as us-cenytric standards seting?
clay – like EDI, the UN has created a web services standard – but yes… still tensions, pressures to create counterstandards along trade-bloc/national/linguistic lines.

clay – “remember that it took us twenty years to get to TCP/IP”

creative commons

once – islands of interllectual property protection in a “sea of freedom”

now the opposite is true.

it’s actually worse, because the islands of public domain, but it’s impossible to know where they are!

copyright is broad, growing and applies automatically

this default protection doesn;t always match creators intentions

transactions costs make it difficult to change the default

cretaive commons wants to cultiavte and clarify the public domain.
restoring the balance between te public and the proprietary

help people dedicate their works to the pu blic domain or disclaim some rights

help them communciate those intentions clearly to others

make it easy to identify and locate workls and the ways they may be used

increase the store of works online that people can share clearly

launching web-based application to do this.

why would someone do this

who – scolars, artists, musicians filmakaers

why – fame fortune freedom

how – public domain dedication / custom licensing

overall goal – increase the store of works online that people can share clearly

it’s very very cool.

lisa rein is demonstrating the web app – clear and easy to follow… fricitonless… y’know… it could take off. let’s hope so. so good to see the good guys doing something amazingly well in cooperation…

Bruce Scheiner is talked about the difficulties of securing the “most complex machine we’ve ever built” – The Internet. His thesis is that security is a social/human and business culture problem, not a technology problem.

Sounds a lot like this Neal Stephenson riff:

“I think that security measures of a purely technological nature, such as guns and crypto, are of real value, but that the great bulk of our security, at least in modern industrialized nations, derives from intangible factors having to do with the social fabric, which are poorly understood by just about everyone. If that is true, then those who wish to use the Internet as a tool for enhancing security, freedom, and other good things might wish to turn their efforts away from purely technical fixes and try to develop some understanding of just what the social fabric is, how it works, and how the Internet could enhance it. However this may conflict with the (absolutely reasonable and understandable) desire for privacy.”

» PDF FILE: Counterpane Security: “Fixing Network Security by Hacking the Business Climate”

“fell in love with a girl” by the white stripes sounds great played on an accordion.

jc herz

gaming is where 21c tech meets stone-age anthropology

“grooming gossip”
http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/DUNGRO.html

verbally grooming each other by having conversation.

there are some basic archectypes of players of social games.
http://www.mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm

a successful game has to support all 4 archetypes to create a robust and healthy ecology
multiple ways to win.

ecologies have niches – there have to be multiple niches for an ecosystem to be robust

“different strokes”

games have to build value for the diff role in a persistent way.
pulled up the learning curve by the accretion of skills in a structured way. levl 1 -> levl

2 -> levl 3… power-ups…

we have to be able to display our status, our skills the things we have acrrued… it

happens in a story, a narrative. that skills-accretion curve in its self is a satisfying

narrative in succesful games (RPGS are self-actualising) [singing yourself into being]

human beings live in time, we like to see things grow over time, or imporve over time,

that’s the feedback that enourages our investment.

“artifacts of experience”
– boy/girl scout merit badges.
– stamps on your passport – badges of experience.
– skaters’ scars.. a narrative about how you got them
– tattoos.

how do you build an engaging system that feels like something is being built over time?
(cf. mattwebb http://interconnected.org/home/2001_01_14_archive.shtml#2023411)

how transparent to the player is the system that the player is building a persona within…

personalisation on the web… building of profile… they want to spend time refining the

persona.

pokemon – gotta catch ’em all. acquistion and transaction.

we’re wired to be hunter/gatherers.

streetbeam in NYC – infrared palm http://www.streetbeam.com/website/index.asp

after acquisition, comes trading… “trading is huge locus of value in game itself”

social currency – you make something that is valuable to other people. ways to groom each

other…. blogging links…

acknowledge/nodding/recognition – smallest quanta of human interaction. blogrolling =

grooming.

when you used to share music – it was a social interaction… making a mixtape for a girl…

napster stripped this away??? where was the articfact, the interaction?
uplister – the sleevenotes, not the music… the layer of context that you provide around

the object of experience.

group experience – the fact that people have a shared expeirnence… the fact that a lot of

people are having te same experience as you adds value to the experience… social

metadata… how do you represnet the social metadata??? sometimes more important than the

obect of experience.

web 1.0: indivdual whole wide world
multiplayer games: individual (player) group (clan, guild) whole wide world

why people like to expose the “to:” header of their funny/interesting email… so the group

can recognise itself.

stangers don;t matter that much…
two types that strangers that matter
1) celebrity
2) stangers in aggregate – the mob… (those who created yahoo’s 50 most popular stories)

tech always changes – the monkeys don;t… human nature persists, [but reacts diff to new

tech]

JC tells companies to do global search and replace -> replace “user” with “player” becuase

it will change what you build.

eric bonabeau: swarm intelligence

swarm intelligence is a mindset

how to you connect the dumb parts to get useful results.
kevin kelly quote from out of control.
[seems to paraphrase baran]

social insects can do it (ants, bees, termites and wasps)

social insect colony is:
-flexoible: colony can respond to internal petrbuation and external challenges
-robust tasks are completed even if some indivudals fail.
-dencentralised the is no central controller
-self organised the solutions are emegent rather than predefnid.

eric is an enginerr, not a bio-purist… a feature doen;t have to be biologically plausible

for it to work… what works works… but when he was exploring it purely fro the exotic and

exciting and novel apporach it WORKED!

how do we shape emergence – ow do we define indivdual behavior and interactions to produce

emergent patterns?

no indivdual ant knows the shortest route to the food source, just that they recognise the

trail scent that is strongest, which is statiscally emergent from the ant that got to the

food and back first getting back quickest… [my bad summation of experiement…]

efficient systems = ratio of explotation vs. exploration

if we are pure to biological models, then our systems are not efficient…

http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/ncontextsummary/346645/0 [from peterme]

“NO ANTS WERE HARMED IN THE SOLVING OF THIS ALGORITHM”

coverage will continue with matt webb as it’s too clever for me.
http://interconnected.org/home/more/etcon/swarm.txt

steven johnson
ants brain cities software – self-organising system … not necessarly having command and control system.. .collective inteeligence from simple elements interacting

cities and blogs

cities – small pieces loosely joined… massively parallel decision

james wolcott quote – business 2.0

“our emerging superbrain could use a little work”

emergence doesn’t just happen? push towards the point where this happens… there is some design involved….

tainted history of all digital communities allied to urban theor (too literal… apple eWorld… not a visual metahphor) more about flows and layout and interactions.

what cities are good at:
clusters – legibilty, collective memory (cf. samina quershi http://voice.aiga.org/transcripts/presentations/samina_quraeshi.pdf)
public spaces diversity
optimal density (just enough activity to keep a street lively – but not too overcrowded)

CLUSTERING
great cities are good at answering “search requests” – you can find the areas devoted to your goals/tasks – clustering…

there is a danger that the web becomes a city with know neighbourhoods… how is clustering created?

combination of top-down and bottom-up structure. washington sq. plan on some level to make space open… but people come and populate it, and infect it with their partcipation, and their agendas. busy, bustling… people playing “freebird” on gutair.

optimal denisty – how does this happen. (cf. jane jacobs, chris alexander)
look at the road patterns in chelsea area of NYC… foot traffic channel to the large avenues. large avenues feel vital, have lots of big chain stores. but overcrowded but at night the croos-streets feel pretty deserted.

compare to west village – diversity of routes that anyone can take through the space – flow of foot traffic is spread. every street has something going on at any given time, but no street has too much… optimal density… no chain stores!

feels intuitively human – human scale of size and acitivty.

how do cities do it

bottom-up interactions (every time it’s planned heavily it seems to fail – sucks out the self-organisation)
the strollers create as much of the structure as the shopkeeps (flaneur theory – cf. Lucy Kimball)
passive organisation
the swerve – when you walk from x -> y and stumble across Z…. serendiptous reactions. e ngineer (people who like this book like this one – amazonian)

to paraphrase Lennon: “cities are what happen when you buzy makin’ other plans”

this a problem in car centric cities – you can;t swerve at 50 miles a hour…

THE BLOG PREDICAMENT
problems forming higher-levl groups
– how to visualise neighbourhoods of blogs??
manangin overpopulation

the tyranny of time
little passive organisation
readers lack input
-in structuring the blogsphere
catastrophic success
-great explosion of tols, and a crticial mass… but need to hit next level (more is different)

great citites are not just great towns – jane jacobs.

“the pedestrian centric model”
bloggers come to you – surf engine model
search requerst based on current documents – paragraphs you;ve written
search limited on chosen bloggers

key words categories created passivley by usage
no need to ask users or creators to create keywords actively (cf. cory – metacrap)
grows more organised with se
suers can creat permanent searches
clusters of like-minded blogs form around shared keywords

Panel Discussion:
clay – brings the POWER LAW!!!! how do power law relationships relate to cities – the way you travel around the web is not the way you travel around the city.

question – stores are next to each other to maximse exposure to prime audience…. there is no economic cost to travel to disparate points on te web? so how will clustering emerge
clay – mental transaction cost – of keeping track paying attention to diff sites… that is what is creating clustering in the web – link-organisation (daypop, blogdex were curiousities, now daily necessitiy)

geoff cohen – go there (to the cluster) gets you exposed to so much more other info in the cluster: mental outlay – cost/benefit. (the swerve) get the incidental association, the useful link organisation, clustering around you in your cluster.

johnson – big sites resisting what the web was good at – trying to keep you on their sites. surfing happens cos you are interested, not cos you are bored. not like zapiing channels on the tv.

non-player chracters – real – lots of people don;t know tey can particapte yet… blogs make it easier for ordinary people to participate

Geoff Cohen

the problem of metaphor -a bridge is a good metaphor for a bridge.

technology better at extremes of performance – SR71s fly faster than balckbirds
technology moves quickly

nature evolves slowly

nature adapts well to complexity

a few simple rules

– embrace legacy (because you don’t have a choice)

– try everything (diversity works)
scan the large, multidimensional solution space (genetic alogrithms – don’t get infatuated with specific techniques – sometimes you just need to be smart about searching and make big leaps) some times if you ape biolgy you can ape the wqrong model, or we make the wrong biological observations.

– Pay attention
look to the outside world. software tofday is basically dead – the walking undead – zombies not demons… make software like a living organism – that know whatis going on around it. what is changing it’s circumstances. part of this is metrics… fitness (cf. google methodology of good click/bad click)

– Reflection.
self-examination, self-diagnosis. all most no systems have good reflection at this point.
necessary for software to see what it is doing and change. code needs to become more plastic.

– change
paying attention to what works, and amplify that… evolution is the process of amplifying success through feedback.

– be fruitful and multiply
distributed software seems to have a better chance of evolving??

group at MIT – amorphous computing research.
Don’t need the biological side… we should be able to aply biological princioes today to build better software.

clez virus… the bad guys are already doing this (viruses infecting viruses)

– stay loose
emit and accept (cf. POstel/tim’oreilly talk)

– work bottom up
termites build termite mounds… make termites poster-child of emergence, not ants!

– plan top-down.
don’t be bio-purist. humans do things that lots of nature can’t.

– rest in piece.
let things die. we can;t handle software death. how can we account for what happens when software should or does die. plan beyond a year?

10 principles – probably wnrg, evolve over time with feed back.

what is roadmap?

accept complexity. software is emergnet already – we call them bugs! it’s how complex things work.

reform the guild – major changes in how we teach software, may mean major changes in what “software” means. we inside the guild care, but real people don’t. “software artifact”? (cf. wombling, see further) need more people to be able to create sftware. to the extent that people who cannot read cannot read software… doesn;t mean everyone has to be a programmer. (turn of the centruy people assuming everyone had to behave like phone operators to use a phone… we just changed how phones were used) specifying goals, rather than speicifying procedure.

– abandon computATION
alan turing is the father of computing – maybe it’s time to move out of the house. how much further would we have got to if he was still alive (cf. morthogenesis)

– do we need a new language?
maybe not… (cf. benjamin l. whorf: whorf hypothesis – “the language you use changes the way that you think” – very true in computer science) address problems in the way your languiage pref makes you analysis and procedurally think. (cf. milton glaser)

– what we mst give up
“in all revolutions there must be terms of surrender” – things we hold close to our hearts…
-have to give up that performance is what we are aiming for
-that software is predictable and repeatable.
– will human readility go away (cf. cory) – how do you debug a natural system
– entering scary world of change – where computers say “maybe” get comfortable with “maybe”
– people are biological too… study our interactions…

cory doctorow

* ban the words “high quality content”

in the 50’s movie studios would let films be shown on tv. they were afraid of lsing their “revenue streams” walt disney broke the cartel by broadcasting his movies on NBC, to rasie money to build his thempark

al gore – information superhighway – hollywood invited to hearings they said “we are here to tell you there will be no-one there unless we put our content there”

10 years of innovation because hollwood didn;t want to put it’s movies online… people are the fundatmenal component of content on the ent, not movies…

digital tv take up in USA, FTC has been convinced by hollywood that high quality content is going to drive this.. . therefore no tamper-friendly devices (firewire, video cards, dvd burners) can be connected to US digital TV standards

* ban words “mission critical”

mission-critical mindset would have prevented email from being invented.
napster died yesterday – napster wasn’t reliable, wasn;t mission critical. 70 million subscribers in 18months… fasted adopted tech in the world. at ltigation point forced to go legal… get relaiable… reliable naspter sucked. no one wanted it. zombienapster.

the natural order of things as seen by business and legal is not the natural human order of things.

lots of great exmaples of grown-up “high quality content / mission critical”apporaches have been foiled by kids plaing with unrealiable stuff.

humna appraoch to catalogoing internet – if net keeps growing then every human would have to be indexing for 18 hours a day every day to supply metainfo.

google sidestpd this… distributed bottoom up, and as a result has killed all other searchengines and directories… even powers yahoo.

CNN vs. the distributed republic of Blogistan.
9/11 bloggers were sometimes faster and more reliable than trad. news orgs. (car bomb outside state dept.)

ban the word “optimal”

optimal for what? for who? usually for those who like reliability. optimsied. innovation is not optimal. the things that take us into the future are not optimal… by contraining the system to only foster that which is optimal, we hamstring our ability to go further.

turing machines are not optimal. universal machines not optimsed by defn. suboptimal, primordial goo tat we can make anything for.

legislative mindset based on optimisation means that Turing machines constrained.

TIVO is a great example…strapping a PVR and collab filter to TV was never envisioned by broadcasters… when you are reliable and optimised you close the door to innovation…

…to design for web-services.

From Fiona Raby and Tony Dunne’s profile on zeit.de

“think ab-user friendliness”

» Dunne and Raby

can be found at:

• Their official page (with photos)
• Wes Felter
• Cory Doctorow/BoingBoing
• Ben Hammersley
• Aaron Swartz
• Rael Dornfest

If I’ve missed any – please post them in the comments field! Danny is maybe going to add a liveblogs pod to the panopticon.

please ignore typos and stream-of-semi-consciouness… will tidy up this evening…

Mike Masnick: If you have the killer app, why aren’t I dead yet
killer app is a marketing term that does no-one any good. If the technological advance is intrinsically useful, then the killer app will emerge. Hype overshadows users.

“For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.” – Richard Feynman

Brewster Kahle: Preservation through replication
factors that influence preservation: Hardware, programer error, format obsolesence, institutional drift, law/goverment.

Created full mirror of library of alexandria, egypt. 100terabytes! look at the history of libraries – libraries are burned by goverments! people don’t want the past around. make copies in multiple places. Physical installation to squirt back out into space in alexandria.

web has grown up outside of the arhivist’ ecology – the wayback is an attempt to bring it back into the fold.

copyright – archve of scanned documents OCR’d for seachability. . right holders can premeptively sue. cease and desist. put it up anyway…. wasn;t that big a deal… seek forgiveness not permission again! was inexpensive to do, and so was doable as a non-rpofit… therefore was seen as asenstive apporach.. .seen as heling not hurting therefore doesn;t get attacked so much.

interllectual property persevers – creaive commons – “national parks for information” – preseving and serving the information films on wayback has started an explosion of films that reuse te archive footage… cheap doumenetaries, film students, crazy videos… opening up content for recombination and greater creativity.

Cory has much more succinct desc. of Brewster’s talk

Meg Hourihan: user-centred web services for the real world
newsblogger -> pyra/moreover.com: first experience of web servics. what possibilites are offrered by the recomibination of a number of data soruces and applciations around a task that affect reall poeple in thre real world
meg’s defn of web services
machine to machine communciation
ways to hook into systems
open standard
cross- platform interaoperbale and ubiquitous (promise)
“faceless”

what are they trndy? web is the app platform of choice, more devices touch te web, standards are emerging, so is cooperation not necessaruily tech centred advacnements, maybe user/task centred adavcnes
rudeuce costs, expanad/extend business models

risk involved though – why do it? are you cutting you own throat? risk to self-sufficiency of your system – what happens if the web-services you are recombing disappear… or the companies you have outsourced to disappear – small pieces loosely joined replaced by small pieces tightly bound by byzantine service level agreements???

why use web services

to get access to one of a kind services
to get access to data that change rapidly
to take advantage of something yourlocal computer cannot handle… what does that mean??

user taks are joined up on the web, but websites cannot predict those paths. webservices

utopia would mean the joins wouldn’t show.

but who would do this? who would provide this? “infomediary” idea again in another form.

combine multiple sources of data in new and interesting ways. topic or task based products

rather than company based. build off some of the good ideas of appliation-service provision.

so away from the utopia… if it;s useful there’s risk… (esp. outsourcing)
bweare of “proof-of-concept” web services
reliabilty / quality assurance… all these things are jury-rigged… and left behind…

more midwives than nannys… or even absentee parents… one-time assembley
more mundane issues: speed and secuirty – speed of dfifernt connections to diff servcies…

design / page layout implicatiopns.

my question – these are still
a) business-centred drivers for creation
b) or user-drivern, expect the users are super-users who can hack the web services

together… even with SOAP etc… it’s still a specicilist/web-dev/hobbyist level of skill to create anything useful. how can the ad-hoc recombination of content/data/info/apps/services be done by a mainstream, real , normal person? Meg answered that there may be another level of mediator of web-services… maybe like a “moreover” for web services to create ad-hoc bundles.

however – the real-world exmaple that meg used was one of travel frustration – where she wnated to recombine te infomation REACTIVELY as events unfolded. One thing we have learned is that it is HARD for companies to model our experiences to our satsisfaction, and what’s more it’s hard us OURSELVES to truly, proactively model our experiences, our needs, we way we do things. Great things about the web and the current wave of web-services is the ad-hoc, REACTIVE, recombinatin of servcies… how take this mainstrream.. what about the microasfot
work on “inductive UI” could that be a possible methodolgy for providing mainstream recombinatory, reactive webservices to real people – will try and et discussion on this at the BOF this evening.

John Ko: Emerging User interfaces
zoomworld/raskin. -> cincro zanvas web.

today’s UI challenges
data scalability
human to human interaction
information flow – one to few
p2p doesn;t cut it scalability and security (refered to centalisation as a way to avoid chaos – but emergence from chaos is theme???)

need for web-servcies that offer session based interaction to foster collaboration and human to human communcation around content
sacalbel, real-time instead of transactional data services – unifed: creation sharing and collaboration (wikis??? IM???)

going beyond HTML to rend this
lack of sacale content deliv ery
dynamic updates difficult – it’s about packages of documents… transactional centric

new appraoch
information decomposition – exploit for edge-accerlation of web content… finer grain of contetn being sent around than is being describeed by page-centric mechanism of http/html.

spatial interfaces? what question are they the answer to?? they almost killed those kids at the end of Jurrasic Park (“hey i know this, it;s UNIX system!”)

inferred from the fact that we are spatial animals. are we? or are we storytelling, pattern recgonising animals.instantenous, dynamic? – but that is a factor of the plug-in and the way it communicated. not the spatial nature of the display of infomation. infinate zoomable space? unique way of delivering to PDA? yes – delivering information, but not delivering understanding. why is it an infinite usauble space that he has bullet-pointed lists in slides that he is delivering in serial order? it;s because it’s a pattern we’re used to.

fine-grain, dynamic creation. object-oriented. wysiwyg. not wizard/transactional based.

terabytes of information are being generated by digital camera users everyday. what is being done with it? what if you could bring that all into a shared space and have instant intraction with others around that. people do this in effect with file-sahiring, but may be uncomratbale with the concept of sharing without control.

asked question about why the zooming was important – answer was about real estate limits, but also realting to “messy desk syndrome” (cf. gladwell, social life of paper”) allowing peope to build meaning in ways they want.

question from floor referred to jef raskin’s hospital information system – easy to understand in a zoomable UI casue it is geographcially based.

rick rashid – microsoft

moore’s law –“what have you done for me latelY”
graphics in games have changed – not gameplay. is this as much of advance as we think?
the underlying concepts that nderly UNix in 1970’s are not that diff. that they are in 2002
a time-traveler from the 70’s could get by…

“time is now to really rethink fundamental realionships people have with operating systems”

how can we leverage moores law
new forms of input
handwriting
gesture
speech
reading, annotation, note taking – harness power of doodling

new ways to analyse info
-assisted understanding – language recognition (grammar tools in word etc)
– general purpose understanding – summarising automatically
-Mindnet laguage knowledge base – words (nodes) connected by realtionships
mine onformation by looking for actual answer to the given question
allow users to ask questions naturally – information retrieval vs docuement retrieval
“ASkMSR” http://www.microsoft.com/usa/presentations/Breese_MSResearchUpdate_FINAL.ppt
good when there is a lot of information to be cross-corelated
we have so much data in the network so it can be mined usefully fr answers.

modeling user-behaviour using powerful tech
understanding priorities of the user in their context.
there has been a complete switch from historically when computers time was more valuable than users. work by MSresearch called “priorities” – eric horvitz
look at communciation histories, sender, recipient realtionships (from company org charts, and/or from more informal means?)
model I/O to user using this context
http://research.microsoft.com/~horvitz/attend.htm

be aware of office context – “office awareness” use microphone or cam to understand when you’re busy, on the phone, talking to someone face to face etc.

changing realtionship to computer, changing computers relationshoip to it’s context

human scale storage – i can think seriously about keeping everything i ever have or do on my personal storage.

user-centric computing model
task centric vs program centric
user selecs task not application
task creates a context for data access code excutuion and visualisation and I/O in general.
capatalise on natural user contexts

memory – what hav i seen
what have i done in the past
task
people
who am i working with wat are they doing, how are they changing things i care about.
data
what is related to this picec of information

Susan Dumais – “stuff i’ve seen”
http://research.microsoft.com/~sdumais/

*query vs hierarchy*
traditional operating system dominated by “location” and hierachy based concepts
we’ve created a dewey decimla system for data – hierarchies

peope more natural think in terms of association

continuous execution – event driven vs expicit command – cf. Lifestreams??? gelertner
security vs personal security
digital rights management vs centralisd trust
no distinction any more between local and distributed

ui: cognition, perSONALISATION, emotion
Lili cheng http://research.microsoft.com/adapt/

user interface -> visualisation modules-> queries and filters -> mapping, clustering sorting -> data collectors checking changies in system -> back round again in a continuous flow

much more suited to distributed systems.

old OS = determinsitc
new OS = probabalistic

some peope think visually ,some liguitscall, some proceederally – acoomadte them all… model and respond to user behaviour and ways of undertasning things

make systems that adapt and PAY ATTENTION.

I’m going to try and record rough notes as they happen – I’ll refine at the end of the day I hope.

Tim O’Reilly’s Keynote
Hackers beat entrepreneurs every time.
Hackers create magic – in the Arthur C. Clarke, sufficiently-advanced-technology send of the word.

What are the bigger patterns in the magic being wrought? How is networking changing our world.

First shift -> a generation of creators who assume that the Internet is the platform as default. This was the fundamental lesson of napsters, over MP3.com. MP3.com had big server farm and said “We have all the songs”; whereas Shaun Fanning said “Why do I need to have all the songs? my friends have all the songs, the netcloud has all the songs…”

Second shift -> “ask forgiveness not pemission” -> reverse engineering of web sites, extract what you want and discard the rest: “the URL is seen as a primative but powerful command-line”. This turns Db-powered websites into software components. As the web becomes more systematised, then it turns into a more and more powerful data-source for applications.

The critical breakthough pattern of the PC-centric era, was to see Windows as Marc Andreesen derogatorily put it “just a bag of drivers”.

We’re getting to the stage where the “bag of drivers” for the Internet-as-operating-system.

Ray Kurzweil – Study trend-analysis so that you know your inventions will make snese in the world where you finish your project, rather than the world where you start your project.

Trends: Unix: loosely-coupled architecture, simple rules based and biased towards communication. Analogous to the architecture of the internet.

However – an architecture of control is being built upon the internet.

“Control points naturally emerge out of even the most radically decentralised structure…”

While the Internet is an architecture of particpation, not permission, we are moving through a phase of evolutionary systemisation. We have to work hard to maintain the network’s participatory nature.

“SOme architectures are more particpatory than others”

Cf. Natalie Jeremienko. Need to mak simple rules for particaption, that let people keep joining the party, and make sure that the endpoints are still where the play is.

Simple rules: John Postel – “be rigourous in what you send out, be liberal in what you accept in”

How do foward-looking businesses adapt? Win/Win to supply refined web services? People are going to brute force your stuff anyway, so work with that audience to refine and cut out the inefficiencies. There is a fundamental oppotunity to move from being a website to being a supplier of network components. Powerful exmaple waiting to happen = MapQuest.

Examin business model in context of tech. trends – back to Kurzweil quote. How can your company be a citizen of a collaborative network???