Friam

Fwd: You just went to the Google homepage. What actually happened?

Classic

List

Threaded

26 messages Options

Owen Densmore

Fwd: You just went to the Google homepage. What actually happened?

Administrator

From HN, a pointer to a delightfully clever essay that would be loved by Nick and others who are often bewildered by the hacker alphabet soup of acronyms and buzz words.

Well, what _does_ happen when you got to a web page?

https://plus.google.com/112218872649456413744/posts/dfydM2Cnepe

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5408597

This has the possibility of a new book that somehow makes it all reasonably clear. Maybe.

-- Owen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Owen Densmore

Re: You just went to the Google homepage. What actually happened?

Administrator

Sorry for the double post, but I thought a bit more info from below the fold of essay would help:

For non-technologists, this is all a black box. That is a great success of technology: all those layers of complexity are entirely hidden and people can use them without even knowing that they exist at all. <snip>

That is also why it's so hard for technologists and non-technologists to communicate together: technologists know too much about too many layers and non-technologists know too little about too few layers to be able to establish effective direct communication. <snip>

That is why the mainstream press and the general population has talked so much about Steve Jobs' death and comparatively so little about Dennis Ritchie's: Steve's influence was at a layer that most people could see, while Dennis' was much deeper. <snip>

Finally, last but not least, that is why our patent system is broken: technology has done such an amazing job at hiding its complexity that the people regulating and running the patent system are barely even aware of the complexity of what they're regulating and running. <snip>

On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:

From HN, a pointer to a delightfully clever essay that would be loved by Nick and others who are often bewildered by the hacker alphabet soup of acronyms and buzz words.

Well, what _does_ happen when you got to a web page?

https://plus.google.com/112218872649456413744/posts/dfydM2Cnepe

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5408597

This has the possibility of a new book that somehow makes it all reasonably clear. Maybe.

-- Owen

Parks, Raymond

Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: You just went to the Google homepage. What actually happened?

This is also why, when I talked with Sen Udall's staff about SOPA, they had a hard time understanding my input. They (and presumably all the staff of folks who introduced the bill) had no idea that there is almost no such thing as a "web-page" anymore. For Nick, et al, what you see when you see a "web-page" is a composite built up from content served by many web-servers, most of which aren't even related to the site to which you navigated to see the "web-page".

Ray Parks

Consilient Heuristician/IDART Program Manager

V: 505-844-4024 M: 505-238-9359 P: 505-951-6084

NIPR: [hidden email]

SIPR: [hidden email] (send NIPR reminder)

JWICS: [hidden email] (send NIPR reminder)

On Mar 21, 2013, at 11:08 AM, Owen Densmore wrote:

Sorry for the double post, but I thought a bit more info from below the fold of essay would help:

For non-technologists, this is all a black box. That is a great success of technology: all those layers of complexity are entirely hidden and people can use them without even knowing that they exist at all. <snip>

That is also why it's so hard for technologists and non-technologists to communicate together: technologists know too much about too many layers and non-technologists know too little about too few layers to be able to establish effective direct communication. <snip>

That is why the mainstream press and the general population has talked so much about Steve Jobs' death and comparatively so little about Dennis Ritchie's: Steve's influence was at a layer that most people could see, while Dennis' was much deeper. <snip>

Finally, last but not least, that is why our patent system is broken: technology has done such an amazing job at hiding its complexity that the people regulating and running the patent system are barely even aware of the complexity of what they're regulating and running. <snip>

On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:

From HN, a pointer to a delightfully clever essay that would be loved by Nick and others who are often bewildered by the hacker alphabet soup of acronyms and buzz words.

Well, what _does_ happen when you got to a web page?

https://plus.google.com/112218872649456413744/posts/dfydM2Cnepe

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5408597

This has the possibility of a new book that somehow makes it all reasonably clear. Maybe.

-- Owen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

smime.p7s (4K) Download Attachment

Steve Smith

Re: You just went to the Google homepage. What actually happened?

In reply to this post by Owen Densmore

Jean-Baptiste Quéru's (accurate and complete to my study) description of the details (down to the physical layer) of what happens when you go to Google's homepage reminds me of how, roughly 22 years ago, at LANL:

<long-winded technical anecdote>

We wrote a simple PERL script to act as a daemon (a program running all the time, listening on a logical port (conventionally 80) on the network) to field this new thing called the Hyper Text Transfer Protocol. It would then parse the request (e.g. "HTTP GET SomeGoodStuff"), whereupon the daemon did a directory search of the Gopher directory structure for a directory (or file) at the root named "SomeGoodStuff"... assuming it was a *directory* rather than a *file* it then returned the directory listing enclosed in a <UL> tag and each directory or file name enclosed in <LI>SubdirectoryOrFileName</LI> tag, sending that back over the network to whomever so requested it. If it were a *file*, it would return the contents of the file.   I think this was before MIME types, so the requesting client was left to decide what to do with the contents based on some assumptions about the file extension (.txt, .html, .jpg, etc.) and/or the "Magic Number" (a simple "signature" in the first several bytes of the file).

When we redirected the Directory Name Services (DNS) server for www.lanl.gov and put it up for public access, we alerted Tim Berner's Lee at CERN and we became the 50th listing on his homepage of "other World Wide Web servers. It wasn't long after that that the Web exploded, growing (geometrically?) to rapidly to follow, both in number and complexity of servers and in content type.

Our own Chad Kieffer here on this list, entered the picture as a freshly minted Graphic Designer interning at LANL. I helped to teach him to hand cut HTML along with a half-dozen other designers there, and within a year, they outstripped my knowledge of all things Web, along with hundreds of individuals around LANL learning/creating on their own.   When we retired that PERL Script in favor of an early Apache (a Patchy) server with dedicated (including the Gopher branch) content, I was already losing track of the details that Queru (this has to be a taken name or a psuedonymn doesn't it?) outlines here, and I was right smack in the center of that vortex. As I remember it, Chad took lead on handling the LANL Science Museum's presence and half a dozen others took on equally important branches in our growing bush of nonsense.

In parallel, Alan Ginsparg was building xxx.lanl.gov which was NOT a pornography web server, though LANL and DOE administrators were *sure* it either *was* or would be mistaken *for* such. It was an archive for scientific papers which would eventually become what everyone today knows and loves as ARXIV.org. Alan's xxx.lanl.gov may have been up fielding requests before www.lanl.gov even, it was hard to reconstruct the history later down the line.   Those of us who saw the barest hint of the future knew Alan was on to something and that LANL bureaucrats would do all they could to FF it up. Several of us went to bat with the administrators to keep them off Paul's back, but he didn't need any help or protection, he was a force of nature.

It has been a very short but very long 22 years! I could dig up a screenshot of one of our early pages (even find a few of them on Brewster Kahle's Wayback Machine, but they are quite ugly/clunky and I would just embarass myself). If you do go to the Wayback Machine, you will note that LANL was being crawled a LOT during the 2005-2006 tenure of Retired Admiral Dr. Peter G. Nanos when Doug was using his Pester Power on HIM. Sergey and Larry, be VERY afraid!

Others here may be interested in using the Wayback Machine to traipse down their own "memory lane". Most of us are used to the web being ephemeral... imagining that if we see one thing one day that it will be there forever, yet realizing at the same time that in fact, web pages change all of the time with no record kept by the web server of the earlier versions.   The Wayback Machine and Internet Archive has done as much as it could to grab snapshots of the web (and other internet resources) as often as it can to help ameliorate that. Only history will tell how well they are doing!

</long-winded technical anecdote>

- Steve

Sorry for the double post, but I thought a bit more info from below the fold of essay would help:

For non-technologists, this is all a black box. That is a great success of technology: all those layers of complexity are entirely hidden and people can use them without even knowing that they exist at all. <snip>

That is also why it's so hard for technologists and non-technologists to communicate together: technologists know too much about too many layers and non-technologists know too little about too few layers to be able to establish effective direct communication. <snip>

That is why the mainstream press and the general population has talked so much about Steve Jobs' death and comparatively so little about Dennis Ritchie's: Steve's influence was at a layer that most people could see, while Dennis' was much deeper. <snip>

Finally, last but not least, that is why our patent system is broken: technology has done such an amazing job at hiding its complexity that the people regulating and running the patent system are barely even aware of the complexity of what they're regulating and running. <snip>

On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:

From HN, a pointer to a delightfully clever essay that would be loved by Nick and others who are often bewildered by the hacker alphabet soup of acronyms and buzz words.

Well, what _does_ happen when you got to a web page?

https://plus.google.com/112218872649456413744/posts/dfydM2Cnepe

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5408597

This has the possibility of a new book that somehow makes it all reasonably clear. Maybe.

-- Owen
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Russ Abbott

Re: You just went to the Google homepage. What actually happened?

I disagree with Jean-Baptiste Query's presentation, which implies that you have to understand all levels of any process to understand the process itself. If that were true we would all have to understand quantum mechanics to understand everything. But no one understands quantum mechanics. So no one understands anything.

Even if it's true that no one understands anything, it's not a particularly useful way to approach things.

It astonishes me that we as (mainly) software people who glory in abstractions even consider this insightful.

-- Russ Abbott
_____________________________________________

Professor, Computer Science
California State University, Los Angeles

My paper on how the Fed can fix the economy: ssrn.com/abstract=1977688
Google voice: 747-999-5105

Google+: plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/

vita: sites.google.com/site/russabbott/

CS Wiki and the courses I teach
_____________________________________________

On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Steve Smith <[hidden email]> wrote:

Jean-Baptiste Quéru's (accurate and complete to my study) description of the details (down to the physical layer) of what happens when you go to Google's homepage reminds me of how, roughly 22 years ago, at LANL:

<long-winded technical anecdote>

We wrote a simple PERL script to act as a daemon (a program running all the time, listening on a logical port (conventionally 80) on the network) to field this new thing called the Hyper Text Transfer Protocol. It would then parse the request (e.g. "HTTP GET SomeGoodStuff"), whereupon the daemon did a directory search of the Gopher directory structure for a directory (or file) at the root named "SomeGoodStuff"... assuming it was a *directory* rather than a *file* it then returned the directory listing enclosed in a <UL> tag and each directory or file name enclosed in <LI>SubdirectoryOrFileName</LI> tag, sending that back over the network to whomever so requested it. If it were a *file*, it would return the contents of the file.   I think this was before MIME types, so the requesting client was left to decide what to do with the contents based on some assumptions about the file extension (.txt, .html, .jpg, etc.) and/or the "Magic Number" (a simple "signature" in the first several bytes of the file).

When we redirected the Directory Name Services (DNS) server for www.lanl.gov and put it up for public access, we alerted Tim Berner's Lee at CERN and we became the 50th listing on his homepage of "other World Wide Web servers. It wasn't long after that that the Web exploded, growing (geometrically?) to rapidly to follow, both in number and complexity of servers and in content type.

Our own Chad Kieffer here on this list, entered the picture as a freshly minted Graphic Designer interning at LANL. I helped to teach him to hand cut HTML along with a half-dozen other designers there, and within a year, they outstripped my knowledge of all things Web, along with hundreds of individuals around LANL learning/creating on their own.   When we retired that PERL Script in favor of an early Apache (a Patchy) server with dedicated (including the Gopher branch) content, I was already losing track of the details that Queru (this has to be a taken name or a psuedonymn doesn't it?) outlines here, and I was right smack in the center of that vortex. As I remember it, Chad took lead on handling the LANL Science Museum's presence and half a dozen others took on equally important branches in our growing bush of nonsense.

In parallel, Alan Ginsparg was building xxx.lanl.gov which was NOT a pornography web server, though LANL and DOE administrators were *sure* it either *was* or would be mistaken *for* such. It was an archive for scientific papers which would eventually become what everyone today knows and loves as ARXIV.org. Alan's xxx.lanl.gov may have been up fielding requests before www.lanl.gov even, it was hard to reconstruct the history later down the line.   Those of us who saw the barest hint of the future knew Alan was on to something and that LANL bureaucrats would do all they could to FF it up. Several of us went to bat with the administrators to keep them off Paul's back, but he didn't need any help or protection, he was a force of nature.

It has been a very short but very long 22 years! I could dig up a screenshot of one of our early pages (even find a few of them on Brewster Kahle's Wayback Machine, but they are quite ugly/clunky and I would just embarass myself). If you do go to the Wayback Machine, you will note that LANL was being crawled a LOT during the 2005-2006 tenure of Retired Admiral Dr. Peter G. Nanos when Doug was using his Pester Power on HIM. Sergey and Larry, be VERY afraid!

Others here may be interested in using the Wayback Machine to traipse down their own "memory lane". Most of us are used to the web being ephemeral... imagining that if we see one thing one day that it will be there forever, yet realizing at the same time that in fact, web pages change all of the time with no record kept by the web server of the earlier versions.   The Wayback Machine and Internet Archive has done as much as it could to grab snapshots of the web (and other internet resources) as often as it can to help ameliorate that. Only history will tell how well they are doing!

</long-winded technical anecdote>

- Steve
Sorry for the double post, but I thought a bit more info from below the fold of essay would help:

For non-technologists, this is all a black box. That is a great success of technology: all those layers of complexity are entirely hidden and people can use them without even knowing that they exist at all. <snip>

That is also why it's so hard for technologists and non-technologists to communicate together: technologists know too much about too many layers and non-technologists know too little about too few layers to be able to establish effective direct communication. <snip>

That is why the mainstream press and the general population has talked so much about Steve Jobs' death and comparatively so little about Dennis Ritchie's: Steve's influence was at a layer that most people could see, while Dennis' was much deeper. <snip>

Finally, last but not least, that is why our patent system is broken: technology has done such an amazing job at hiding its complexity that the people regulating and running the patent system are barely even aware of the complexity of what they're regulating and running. <snip>

On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 11:00 AM, Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:

From HN, a pointer to a delightfully clever essay that would be loved by Nick and others who are often bewildered by the hacker alphabet soup of acronyms and buzz words.

Well, what _does_ happen when you got to a web page?

https://plus.google.com/112218872649456413744/posts/dfydM2Cnepe

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5408597

This has the possibility of a new book that somehow makes it all reasonably clear. Maybe.

-- Owen
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Owen Densmore

Re: You just went to the Google homepage. What actually happened?

Administrator

On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 12:40 PM, Russ Abbott <[hidden email]> wrote:

I disagree with Jean-Baptiste Query's presentation, which implies that you have to understand all levels of any process to understand the process itself. If that were true we would all have to understand quantum mechanics to understand everything. But no one understands quantum mechanics. So no one understands anything. <snip>

Well, the point is that for non tech folks, it is a tower of babble.

I like the presentation because it starts with a simple idea: view a web page, and shows the dirty little secret.

I believe it should be the intro to a book that does what I think you might prefer: top down, breadth first introduction to digitology.

Or in other words: modularity, and its implementation in standard formats and protocols. And no, modularity .. tho nice in program structure .. does not happen without the standard formats and protocols.

I have found it hard to explain modularity to non geek folks. Can you do it? Most start with code, which as I say, is wrong. But most folks understand contracts, and that leads into protocols & formats.

I tried to explain DNS once to a very very smart guy. Registrars, Name Servers, TLD hierarchy. His questions kept leading deeper into details, and made it all impossible. My poor friend actually got dizzy and ended up in tears.

-- Owen

Robert J. Cordingley

Re: Fwd: You just went to the Google homepage. What actually happened?

In reply to this post by Owen Densmore

At the risk of hijacking the thread... I liked the comment on the ycombinator:

PeterisP

There exists a viewpoint that in case of a cataclysm (which would involve man-made objects disappearing*) we would never, ever progress past 18th century tech again.
The argument is that getting from animal-powered devices to solar/nuclear/whatever powered devices while at the same time switching from 90%-agricultural workforce to anything more progressive can happen only if there is a cheap source of energy available - and we already have mined and spent all of easily available fossil fuels.
Even if all kinds of fancy devices are available and constructed by rich enthusiasts, the lack of cheap steam power ensures lack of cheap steel/etc, and all the technologies don't get the mass adoption required for their improvements, there are almost no advantages for industrialization, so the world gets stuck in feudal-agriculture systems as the local optimum.

which suggests the Knowledge Ark would be largely a waste of time.

* refers to a preceding comment.

Robert C

On 3/21/13 11:00 AM, Owen Densmore wrote:

From HN, a pointer to a delightfully clever essay that would be loved by Nick and others who are often bewildered by the hacker alphabet soup of acronyms and buzz words.

Well, what _does_ happen when you got to a web page?

https://plus.google.com/112218872649456413744/posts/dfydM2Cnepe

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5408597

This has the possibility of a new book that somehow makes it all reasonably clear. Maybe.

-- Owen
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Gillian Densmore

Re: You just went to the Google homepage. What actually happened?

In reply to this post by Owen Densmore

where's the part of you beem into the google page: it instantly forms metrics about you and presents you with "useful" adds (as aposed to to minuses) :P

On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 4:00 PM, Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 12:40 PM, Russ Abbott <[hidden email]> wrote:

I disagree with Jean-Baptiste Query's presentation, which implies that you have to understand all levels of any process to understand the process itself. If that were true we would all have to understand quantum mechanics to understand everything. But no one understands quantum mechanics. So no one understands anything. <snip>

Well, the point is that for non tech folks, it is a tower of babble.

I like the presentation because it starts with a simple idea: view a web page, and shows the dirty little secret.

I believe it should be the intro to a book that does what I think you might prefer: top down, breadth first introduction to digitology.

Or in other words: modularity, and its implementation in standard formats and protocols. And no, modularity .. tho nice in program structure .. does not happen without the standard formats and protocols.

I have found it hard to explain modularity to non geek folks. Can you do it? Most start with code, which as I say, is wrong. But most folks understand contracts, and that leads into protocols & formats.

I tried to explain DNS once to a very very smart guy. Registrars, Name Servers, TLD hierarchy. His questions kept leading deeper into details, and made it all impossible. My poor friend actually got dizzy and ended up in tears.

-- Owen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Russ Abbott

Re: You just went to the Google homepage. What actually happened?

The standard example is that most people can drive a car even though they don't understand how internal combustion engines work -- and they would even if the car were powered by an electric motor. I have no problem with putting that in terms of contracts: turn the steering wheel and the car wheels turn. One doesn't have to know how power steering works.

-- Russ Abbott
_____________________________________________

Professor, Computer Science
California State University, Los Angeles

My paper on how the Fed can fix the economy: ssrn.com/abstract=1977688
Google voice: 747-999-5105

Google+: plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/

vita: sites.google.com/site/russabbott/

CS Wiki and the courses I teach
_____________________________________________

On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Gillian Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:

where's the part of you beem into the google page: it instantly forms metrics about you and presents you with "useful" adds (as aposed to to minuses) :P

On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 4:00 PM, Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 12:40 PM, Russ Abbott <[hidden email]> wrote:

I disagree with Jean-Baptiste Query's presentation, which implies that you have to understand all levels of any process to understand the process itself. If that were true we would all have to understand quantum mechanics to understand everything. But no one understands quantum mechanics. So no one understands anything. <snip>

Well, the point is that for non tech folks, it is a tower of babble.

I like the presentation because it starts with a simple idea: view a web page, and shows the dirty little secret.

I believe it should be the intro to a book that does what I think you might prefer: top down, breadth first introduction to digitology.

Or in other words: modularity, and its implementation in standard formats and protocols. And no, modularity .. tho nice in program structure .. does not happen without the standard formats and protocols.

I have found it hard to explain modularity to non geek folks. Can you do it? Most start with code, which as I say, is wrong. But most folks understand contracts, and that leads into protocols & formats.

I tried to explain DNS once to a very very smart guy. Registrars, Name Servers, TLD hierarchy. His questions kept leading deeper into details, and made it all impossible. My poor friend actually got dizzy and ended up in tears.

-- Owen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Joshua Thorp

Re: You just went to the Google homepage. What actually happened?

Probably the issue pops up when turning the wheel doesn't have the desired effect. Without knowing more about how the car works all the user can say is "it doesn't work", and all the mechanic can say is bring it in.

Having an idea of how things are supposed to work one or two levels down can be useful when dealing with them when they don't. And knowing who to talk to, and what to say. Sure you can drive without knowing about how internal combustion works, but having an idea that gas is necessary component and when it isn't present the car won't go is also useful and could save you a headache down the road.

Seems to me the more interesting question is what level of detail should we understand something like a web page or a car. We have a fairly worked out basic level of understanding needed for operating a vehicle, but even here that level of understanding is generally going down as we lock up more and more of the operational decisions in black boxes instead of requiring the human to attend to them.

So the question is where do we stop this trend of not knowing, or do we just want to live in a point and click world where everything either works or no help but to go to the experts when it doesn't.

--joshua

On Mar 21, 2013, at 5:11 PM, Russ Abbott <[hidden email]> wrote:

The standard example is that most people can drive a car even though they don't understand how internal combustion engines work -- and they would even if the car were powered by an electric motor. I have no problem with putting that in terms of contracts: turn the steering wheel and the car wheels turn. One doesn't have to know how power steering works.

-- Russ Abbott
_____________________________________________
Professor, Computer Science
California State University, Los Angeles

My paper on how the Fed can fix the economy: ssrn.com/abstract=1977688
Google voice: 747-999-5105
Google+: plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/

vita: sites.google.com/site/russabbott/

CS Wiki and the courses I teach
_____________________________________________

On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Gillian Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:
where's the part of you beem into the google page: it instantly forms metrics about you and presents you with "useful" adds (as aposed to to minuses) :P

On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 4:00 PM, Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 12:40 PM, Russ Abbott <[hidden email]> wrote:

I disagree with Jean-Baptiste Query's presentation, which implies that you have to understand all levels of any process to understand the process itself. If that were true we would all have to understand quantum mechanics to understand everything. But no one understands quantum mechanics. So no one understands anything. <snip>

Well, the point is that for non tech folks, it is a tower of babble.

I like the presentation because it starts with a simple idea: view a web page, and shows the dirty little secret.

I believe it should be the intro to a book that does what I think you might prefer: top down, breadth first introduction to digitology.

Or in other words: modularity, and its implementation in standard formats and protocols. And no, modularity .. tho nice in program structure .. does not happen without the standard formats and protocols.

I have found it hard to explain modularity to non geek folks. Can you do it? Most start with code, which as I say, is wrong. But most folks understand contracts, and that leads into protocols & formats.

I tried to explain DNS once to a very very smart guy. Registrars, Name Servers, TLD hierarchy. His questions kept leading deeper into details, and made it all impossible. My poor friend actually got dizzy and ended up in tears.

-- Owen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Parks, Raymond

Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: You just went to the Google homepage. What actually happened?

Well, if the subject is computer security instead of web-pages then a point and drool, Idiocracy, world will keep me in employment.

On the other hand, point and drool policy makers tend to annoy me with their stupid policies.

Ray Parks

Consilient Heuristician/IDART Program Manager

V: 505-844-4024 M: 505-238-9359 P: 505-951-6084

NIPR: [hidden email]

SIPR: [hidden email] (send NIPR reminder)

JWICS: [hidden email] (send NIPR reminder)

On Mar 21, 2013, at 5:25 PM, Joshua Thorp wrote:

Probably the issue pops up when turning the wheel doesn't have the desired effect. Without knowing more about how the car works all the user can say is "it doesn't work", and all the mechanic can say is bring it in.

Having an idea of how things are supposed to work one or two levels down can be useful when dealing with them when they don't. And knowing who to talk to, and what to say. Sure you can drive without knowing about how internal combustion works, but having an idea that gas is necessary component and when it isn't present the car won't go is also useful and could save you a headache down the road.

Seems to me the more interesting question is what level of detail should we understand something like a web page or a car. We have a fairly worked out basic level of understanding needed for operating a vehicle, but even here that level of understanding is generally going down as we lock up more and more of the operational decisions in black boxes instead of requiring the human to attend to them.

So the question is where do we stop this trend of not knowing, or do we just want to live in a point and click world where everything either works or no help but to go to the experts when it doesn't.

--joshua

smime.p7s (4K) Download Attachment

Russ Abbott

Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: You just went to the Google homepage. What actually happened?

Every once in a while I hear about a survey where it is asked who you would like to have with you in case of a major catastrophe. Overwhelmingly the answer is an engineer. I wouldn't disagree.

-- Russ Abbott
_____________________________________________

Professor, Computer Science
California State University, Los Angeles

My paper on how the Fed can fix the economy: ssrn.com/abstract=1977688
Google voice: 747-999-5105

Google+: plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/

vita: sites.google.com/site/russabbott/

CS Wiki and the courses I teach
_____________________________________________

On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 4:42 PM, Parks, Raymond <[hidden email]> wrote:

Well, if the subject is computer security instead of web-pages then a point and drool, Idiocracy, world will keep me in employment.

On the other hand, point and drool policy makers tend to annoy me with their stupid policies.

Ray Parks
Consilient Heuristician/IDART Program Manager
V: <a href="tel:505-844-4024" value="+15058444024" target="_blank">505-844-4024 M: <a href="tel:505-238-9359" value="+15052389359" target="_blank">505-238-9359 P: <a href="tel:505-951-6084" value="+15059516084" target="_blank">505-951-6084

NIPR: [hidden email]
SIPR: [hidden email] (send NIPR reminder)

JWICS: [hidden email] (send NIPR reminder)

On Mar 21, 2013, at 5:25 PM, Joshua Thorp wrote:

Probably the issue pops up when turning the wheel doesn't have the desired effect. Without knowing more about how the car works all the user can say is "it doesn't work", and all the mechanic can say is bring it in.

Having an idea of how things are supposed to work one or two levels down can be useful when dealing with them when they don't. And knowing who to talk to, and what to say. Sure you can drive without knowing about how internal combustion works, but having an idea that gas is necessary component and when it isn't present the car won't go is also useful and could save you a headache down the road.

Seems to me the more interesting question is what level of detail should we understand something like a web page or a car. We have a fairly worked out basic level of understanding needed for operating a vehicle, but even here that level of understanding is generally going down as we lock up more and more of the operational decisions in black boxes instead of requiring the human to attend to them.

So the question is where do we stop this trend of not knowing, or do we just want to live in a point and click world where everything either works or no help but to go to the experts when it doesn't.

--joshua

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Parks, Raymond

Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Fwd: You just went to the Google homepage. What actually happened?

In reply to this post by Robert J. Cordingley

Steam engines work fine on wood - not as efficient but they worked with wood for years. Hydro-power has worked even better since ancient times.

Charcoal comes from wood and can be made into coke.

All that aside, I don't understand the comment "we already have mined and spent all of easily available fossil fuels". That's stupid on several levels.

Ray Parks

Consilient Heuristician/IDART Program Manager

V: 505-844-4024 M: 505-238-9359 P: 505-951-6084

NIPR: [hidden email]

SIPR: [hidden email] (send NIPR reminder)

JWICS: [hidden email] (send NIPR reminder)

On Mar 21, 2013, at 4:41 PM, Robert J. Cordingley wrote:

At the risk of hijacking the thread... I liked the comment on the ycombinator:

PeterisP

There exists a viewpoint that in case of a cataclysm (which would involve man-made objects disappearing*) we would never, ever progress past 18th century tech again.
The argument is that getting from animal-powered devices to solar/nuclear/whatever powered devices while at the same time switching from 90%-agricultural workforce to anything more progressive can happen only if there is a cheap source of energy available - and we already have mined and spent all of easily available fossil fuels.
Even if all kinds of fancy devices are available and constructed by rich enthusiasts, the lack of cheap steam power ensures lack of cheap steel/etc, and all the technologies don't get the mass adoption required for their improvements, there are almost no advantages for industrialization, so the world gets stuck in feudal-agriculture systems as the local optimum.

which suggests the Knowledge Ark would be largely a waste of time.

* refers to a preceding comment.

Robert C

On 3/21/13 11:00 AM, Owen Densmore wrote:
From HN, a pointer to a delightfully clever essay that would be loved by Nick and others who are often bewildered by the hacker alphabet soup of acronyms and buzz words.

Well, what _does_ happen when you got to a web page?

https://plus.google.com/112218872649456413744/posts/dfydM2Cnepe

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5408597

This has the possibility of a new book that somehow makes it all reasonably clear. Maybe.

-- Owen
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

smime.p7s (4K) Download Attachment

glen ep ropella

Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: You just went to the Google homepage. What actually happened?

In reply to this post by Russ Abbott

Russ Abbott wrote at 03/21/2013 04:45 PM:
> Every once in a while I hear about a survey where it is asked who you
> would like to have with you in case of a major catastrophe.
> Overwhelmingly the answer is an engineer. I wouldn't disagree.

I've always preferred to answer that question with a craftsman or
artisan. In principle, there shouldn't be much difference. But in
practice, I find engineers talk and argue like lawyers whereas artisans
talk very little but produce quite a lot.

--
glen e. p. ropella, 971-255-2847, http://tempusdictum.com
Reprove not an arrogant man, lest he hate you; reprove a wise man, and
he will love you. -- Proverbs 9:8

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Parks, Raymond

Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: You just went to the Google homepage. What actually happened?

How about a craftsman or artisan that understands the engineering principles of what they craft? Too many craftsmen I've met don't know why they do things a certain way - that's just the way they were taught to do it. I can think of two people I'd like to have with me in case of a major catastrophe - one is a rocket scientist who crafted a museum quality (as in museums have offered to buy it) astrolabe, sews costumes from eye (not patterns), and makes water balloon catapults. The other is a carpenter and builder who restores old (as in 1000 year) buildings on the Isle of Jersey. Oddly enough, both are members of the Society for Creative Anachronism - which might be another pre-req for surviving a major catastrophe.

Ray Parks

Consilient Heuristician/IDART Program Manager

V: 505-844-4024 M: 505-238-9359 P: 505-951-6084

NIPR: [hidden email]

SIPR: [hidden email] (send NIPR reminder)

JWICS: [hidden email] (send NIPR reminder)

On Mar 21, 2013, at 5:50 PM, glen e. p. ropella wrote:

Russ Abbott wrote at 03/21/2013 04:45 PM:
Every once in a while I hear about a survey where it is asked who you
would like to have with you in case of a major catastrophe.
Overwhelmingly the answer is an engineer. I wouldn't disagree.

I've always preferred to answer that question with a craftsman or
artisan. In principle, there shouldn't be much difference. But in
practice, I find engineers talk and argue like lawyers whereas artisans
talk very little but produce quite a lot.

--
glen e. p. ropella, 971-255-2847, http://tempusdictum.com
Reprove not an arrogant man, lest he hate you; reprove a wise man, and
he will love you. -- Proverbs 9:8

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

smime.p7s (4K) Download Attachment

Robert J. Cordingley

Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: Fwd: You just went to the Google homepage. What actually happened?

In reply to this post by Parks, Raymond

It would be nice to know the origin of 'the viewpoint'.
Robert C

On 3/21/13 5:48 PM, Parks, Raymond wrote:

Steam engines work fine on wood - not as efficient but they worked with wood for years. Hydro-power has worked even better since ancient times.

Charcoal comes from wood and can be made into coke.

All that aside, I don't understand the comment "we already have mined and spent all of easily available fossil fuels". That's stupid on several levels.
Ray Parks

Consilient Heuristician/IDART Program Manager

V: 505-844-4024 M: 505-238-9359 P: 505-951-6084

NIPR: [hidden email]

SIPR: [hidden email] (send NIPR reminder)

JWICS: [hidden email] (send NIPR reminder)
On Mar 21, 2013, at 4:41 PM, Robert J. Cordingley wrote:
At the risk of hijacking the thread... I liked the comment on the ycombinator:

PeterisP

There exists a viewpoint that in case of a cataclysm (which would involve man-made objects disappearing*) we would never, ever progress past 18th century tech again.
The argument is that getting from animal-powered devices to solar/nuclear/whatever powered devices while at the same time switching from 90%-agricultural workforce to anything more progressive can happen only if there is a cheap source of energy available - and we already have mined and spent all of easily available fossil fuels.
Even if all kinds of fancy devices are available and constructed by rich enthusiasts, the lack of cheap steam power ensures lack of cheap steel/etc, and all the technologies don't get the mass adoption required for their improvements, there are almost no advantages for industrialization, so the world gets stuck in feudal-agriculture systems as the local optimum.

which suggests the Knowledge Ark would be largely a waste of time.

* refers to a preceding comment.

Robert C

On 3/21/13 11:00 AM, Owen Densmore wrote:
From HN, a pointer to a delightfully clever essay that would be loved by Nick and others who are often bewildered by the hacker alphabet soup of acronyms and buzz words.

Well, what _does_ happen when you got to a web page?

https://plus.google.com/112218872649456413744/posts/dfydM2Cnepe

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5408597

This has the possibility of a new book that somehow makes it all reasonably clear. Maybe.

-- Owen
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Russ Abbott

Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: You just went to the Google homepage. What actually happened?

In reply to this post by Parks, Raymond

Either way, the point, of course, is that it's often vitally important to understand how things work.

-- Russ Abbott
_____________________________________________

Professor, Computer Science
California State University, Los Angeles

My paper on how the Fed can fix the economy: ssrn.com/abstract=1977688
Google voice: 747-999-5105

Google+: plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/

vita: sites.google.com/site/russabbott/

CS Wiki and the courses I teach
_____________________________________________

On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 4:58 PM, Parks, Raymond <[hidden email]> wrote:

How about a craftsman or artisan that understands the engineering principles of what they craft? Too many craftsmen I've met don't know why they do things a certain way - that's just the way they were taught to do it. I can think of two people I'd like to have with me in case of a major catastrophe - one is a rocket scientist who crafted a museum quality (as in museums have offered to buy it) astrolabe, sews costumes from eye (not patterns), and makes water balloon catapults. The other is a carpenter and builder who restores old (as in 1000 year) buildings on the Isle of Jersey. Oddly enough, both are members of the Society for Creative Anachronism - which might be another pre-req for surviving a major catastrophe.

Ray Parks
Consilient Heuristician/IDART Program Manager
V: <a href="tel:505-844-4024" value="+15058444024" target="_blank">505-844-4024 M: <a href="tel:505-238-9359" value="+15052389359" target="_blank">505-238-9359 P: <a href="tel:505-951-6084" value="+15059516084" target="_blank">505-951-6084

NIPR: [hidden email]
SIPR: [hidden email] (send NIPR reminder)

JWICS: [hidden email] (send NIPR reminder)

On Mar 21, 2013, at 5:50 PM, glen e. p. ropella wrote:

Russ Abbott wrote at 03/21/2013 04:45 PM:
Every once in a while I hear about a survey where it is asked who you
would like to have with you in case of a major catastrophe.
Overwhelmingly the answer is an engineer. I wouldn't disagree.

I've always preferred to answer that question with a craftsman or
artisan. In principle, there shouldn't be much difference. But in
practice, I find engineers talk and argue like lawyers whereas artisans
talk very little but produce quite a lot.

--
glen e. p. ropella, <a href="tel:971-255-2847" value="+19712552847" target="_blank">971-255-2847, http://tempusdictum.com
Reprove not an arrogant man, lest he hate you; reprove a wise man, and
he will love you. -- Proverbs 9:8

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

glen ep ropella

Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: You just went to the Google homepage. What actually happened?

Russ Abbott wrote at 03/21/2013 05:09 PM:
> Either way, the point, of course, is that it's often vitally important
> to understand how things work.

Naaa. What matters is the effect, not the justification. Ideology is a
disease. I'd prefer a reliable polymathic artisan without understanding
to a book-smart ideologue.

--
glen e. p. ropella, 971-255-2847, http://tempusdictum.com
Every religion in the world that has destroyed people is based on love.
-- Anton LaVey

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Carl Tollander

Re: You just READ the Google homepage. What actually happened?

In reply to this post by Joshua Thorp

You just READ the Google homepage. What actually happened? How do you digest your dinner? The problem at hand is not a new one.

Couple years ago (2011), David Krakauer gave the Ulam lecture, which had some observations on outsourcing competencies. I seem to recall he thought it was a good and necessary thing.

On 3/21/13 5:25 PM, Joshua Thorp wrote:

Probably the issue pops up when turning the wheel doesn't have the desired effect. Without knowing more about how the car works all the user can say is "it doesn't work", and all the mechanic can say is bring it in.

Having an idea of how things are supposed to work one or two levels down can be useful when dealing with them when they don't. And knowing who to talk to, and what to say. Sure you can drive without knowing about how internal combustion works, but having an idea that gas is necessary component and when it isn't present the car won't go is also useful and could save you a headache down the road.

Seems to me the more interesting question is what level of detail should we understand something like a web page or a car. We have a fairly worked out basic level of understanding needed for operating a vehicle, but even here that level of understanding is generally going down as we lock up more and more of the operational decisions in black boxes instead of requiring the human to attend to them.

So the question is where do we stop this trend of not knowing, or do we just want to live in a point and click world where everything either works or no help but to go to the experts when it doesn't.

--joshua

On Mar 21, 2013, at 5:11 PM, Russ Abbott <[hidden email]> wrote:

The standard example is that most people can drive a car even though they don't understand how internal combustion engines work -- and they would even if the car were powered by an electric motor. I have no problem with putting that in terms of contracts: turn the steering wheel and the car wheels turn. One doesn't have to know how power steering works.

-- Russ Abbott
_____________________________________________
Professor, Computer Science
California State University, Los Angeles

My paper on how the Fed can fix the economy: ssrn.com/abstract=1977688
Google voice: 747-999-5105

Google+: plus.google.com/114865618166480775623/

vita: sites.google.com/site/russabbott/

CS Wiki and the courses I teach
_____________________________________________

On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Gillian Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:

where's the part of you beem into the google page: it instantly forms metrics about you and presents you with "useful" adds (as aposed to to minuses) :P

On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 4:00 PM, Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 12:40 PM, Russ Abbott <[hidden email]> wrote:

I disagree with Jean-Baptiste Query's presentation, which implies that you have to understand all levels of any process to understand the process itself. If that were true we would all have to understand quantum mechanics to understand everything. But no one understands quantum mechanics. So no one understands anything. <snip>

Well, the point is that for non tech folks, it is a tower of babble.

I like the presentation because it starts with a simple idea: view a web page, and shows the dirty little secret.

I believe it should be the intro to a book that does what I think you might prefer: top down, breadth first introduction to digitology.

Or in other words: modularity, and its implementation in standard formats and protocols. And no, modularity .. tho nice in program structure .. does not happen without the standard formats and protocols.

I have found it hard to explain modularity to non geek folks. Can you do it? Most start with code, which as I say, is wrong. But most folks understand contracts, and that leads into protocols & formats.

I tried to explain DNS once to a very very smart guy. Registrars, Name Servers, TLD hierarchy. His questions kept leading deeper into details, and made it all impossible. My poor friend actually got dizzy and ended up in tears.

-- Owen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Carl Tollander

Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: You just went to the Google homepage. What actually happened?

In reply to this post by Parks, Raymond

I have had an opportunity to observe craftsmen, and I am pretty sure they do know why they do things a certain way, they just don't quite know how to explain it in terms of engineering principles. Their skills are often acquired via oral traditions, the subskills aren't passed on as codified knowledge as we understand that.

On 3/21/13 5:58 PM, Parks, Raymond wrote:

How about a craftsman or artisan that understands the engineering principles of what they craft? Too many craftsmen I've met don't know why they do things a certain way - that's just the way they were taught to do it. I can think of two people I'd like to have with me in case of a major catastrophe - one is a rocket scientist who crafted a museum quality (as in museums have offered to buy it) astrolabe, sews costumes from eye (not patterns), and makes water balloon catapults. The other is a carpenter and builder who restores old (as in 1000 year) buildings on the Isle of Jersey. Oddly enough, both are members of the Society for Creative Anachronism - which might be another pre-req for surviving a major catastrophe.

Ray Parks

Consilient Heuristician/IDART Program Manager

V: 505-844-4024 M: 505-238-9359 P: 505-951-6084

NIPR: [hidden email]

SIPR: [hidden email] (send NIPR reminder)

JWICS: [hidden email] (send NIPR reminder)

On Mar 21, 2013, at 5:50 PM, glen e. p. ropella wrote:

Russ Abbott wrote at 03/21/2013 04:45 PM:

Every once in a while I hear about a survey where it is asked who you

would like to have with you in case of a major catastrophe.

Overwhelmingly the answer is an engineer. I wouldn't disagree.

I've always preferred to answer that question with a craftsman or
artisan. In principle, there shouldn't be much difference. But in
practice, I find engineers talk and argue like lawyers whereas artisans
talk very little but produce quite a lot.

--
glen e. p. ropella, 971-255-2847, http://tempusdictum.com
Reprove not an arrogant man, lest he hate you; reprove a wise man, and
he will love you. -- Proverbs 9:8

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com