Categories
Just Shelley

New York, New York

It isn’t Fall without trees changing color, birds flying south for the Winter, and being in New York to speak at the Internet World conference — this time as part of the Webmaster Forum.

However, this time, I stayed in New York for a few days. What an adventure.

New York Cabbies

The cab that took me from Penn Station to my hotel was driven by a gentleman from Haiti who happened to have strong religious beliefs. I know he was religious because he kept playing religious tapes, and would slam on the brakes occasionally in order to jot something down in a notebook he kept by his seat. I knew he was Haitian as he would alternate this behavior with Haitian utterances under his breath as he literally tore through that town, determined to get me to my hotel at all due speed.

I didn’t know one could drive between cars in car lanes in New York. I also didn’t know that one could drive 60MPH down Park Avenue in the middle of the day. I do now. I also received a lesson in the finer points of car horn blasting in New York.

There’s the light tatoo on the horn that says “Yo!”. There’s the more emphatic tatooing that seems to say “Yo! Stupid!”.

There’s the single tap that just lets folks know you’re in the vicinity and to watch out. Compare this with the heavy hand on the horn that will get even the most diehard New Yorker’s attention. If the horn blower is a cab driver, people seem to understand that the cabby is just letting someone know that they are invading the driver’s personal territory, whatever that may be.

I also know that pedestrians in New York don’t walk in front of the cabs without looking at the driver’s face, first. How does this driver define territory…

Cab rides are a way to experience New York, but I can’t experience a new town or city from a car — I just don’t like cars. So, I decided to walk to Central Park. On foot. No cabs.

Walking to Central Park

I started my walk on Madison Avenue — established home of advertising agencies everywhere.

Madison Avenue doesn’t have the crowds other streets do in New York, thought there are a large number of gray and black suited people, all with cellphones glued to their ears (call them New York earrings).

The buildings along the way reminded me of some of the canyons I used to explore in Arizona, except those canyons were created by water flows over a millenium of time. New York canyons are built on man’s desire to one up nature. I did notice, though, when I crossed over to Fifth Avenue that the human tide is remarkably similar to a moving river. Woe to you going against that tide of affluent and determined shoppers.

(I particularly treasure a moment when two older, well dressed women walking behind me suddenly stopped in the middle of the sidewalk and murmured “Armani” in one breath. I consider this to be a quintessential New York moment.)

The Park

Central Park is a surpise after all the opulence of the surrounding stores and the shadows cast by the towering buildings elsewhere in downtown New York.

Part of the Park was closed off for renovation, but I walked every last bit of those sections that were open. And it was a long walk.

First, let me state categorically that I cannot BELIEVE that anyone would jog in the Park after dark. The place is full of nooks and crannies, dark corners, and bushes. Charming by day, sinister by night. A horse carriage ride, yes — but not a lonely stroll through the footpaths. I’d rather play tag with a grizzley. It would be safer.

Central Park is pretty, but the trees look a little tired, and more than a bit dusty. However, the bushes and lawns are very pretty, as are the little specialized areas such as the Dairy farm.

I found an old fashioned carousel and thought about taking a ride, but dignity intruded — dammit.

My favorite sections of the Park were rocky outcroppings with bits of mica scattered about, sparkling in the noon day sun. Something like the windows at Tiffany’s and Cartier’s I passed on the way, only I could touch the rocks at Central Park and not get arrested.

I actually saw a black squirrel; I’ve not seen one of that coloration before. I don’t have my books to check to see if this is a natural variation, or a protective adaption based on New York city smog. (I know, meow, meow — but Boston is a whole lot greener.)

I walked through some bushes at one point and found a group of people silently standing around a mosaic embedded in the cement. All the mosaic had on it was the single word “imagine” — I was in Strawberry Fields, the John Lennon memorial.

One word, and I stopped dead in my tracks. One moment, with a lifetime of memories, flooding in, all because of that one word.

Back from the Park

I was getting tired at this point, so back to the hotel.

Towards the end of my walk, I stood out in front of St. Patrick’s Cathedral, an incredible edifice of which New Yorkers take considerable pride. If you’ve been to New York, you know what it’s like to come upon the Cathedral after blocks and blocks of modern glass and steel.

I have to admit that when I first looked at St. Patrick’s, I thought of how much further we would be as a people if only we expended as much energy and resources on education as we did and still do on religion.

We could have cured cancer by now, eliminated all smog and pollution, perhaps be walking on some distant planet around some distant sun.

Then I walked into St. Patrick’s. I literally stopped in the middle of the Vestibule, overwhelmed by the absolute rightness of the interior of the church. The vaulted ceilings, the stained glass windows, the slight smoky air from thousands of votive candles lit by the faithful.

It then came to me that without faith — or perhaps human spirit — we wouldn’t even try to cure cancer, or walk on the moon, much less planets surrounding distant stars. And we wouldn’t have beauty such as that.

Maybe we didn’t do so bad with our time and our resources in the past, after all.

New York, New York

My last stop on my walk was Rockerfeller Center, located a couple of blocks from the hotel. As I approached the Center, I could hear the strains of the Sinatra song, “New York, New York” filling the air. I kid you not — there had just been an ice show at the center, which finished by playing New York’s anthem song.

I couldn’t end my walking tour of New York on a better note than that.

Categories
Technology

O’Reilly P2P Presentation Proposal

Title: Smoke: An Infrastructure supporting Distributed Peer Services

Length: 60 minutes

Focus of Talk: Technical/Tutorial

Subject Matter: Infrastructure/Distributed Computation

Abstract

The sale of large scale control systems — such as those used with mass transit systems or to control multi-national pipelines — often requires a marketing and engineering effort that demands the input of several different people, many of whom live in different countries and speak different languages. To assist in this effort, a project is underway to create an automatic configuration tool that allows these team members to work in a collaborative manner, regardless of each member’s locale.

Because of a lack of infrastructure for applications of this nature, the developers designed one that is based entirely within P2P-based concepts and technologies.

This infrastructure, named Smoke, is unique in that it’s based on the concept of shared distributed peer services — services that are lightweight, discrete, and transient — existing within a framework that is both open-application and cross-platform compatible.

At the presentation, the speaker will provide an overview of Smoke, as well as demonstrate a working prototype of the automatic configuration tool. To display Smoke’s open-application and cross-platform support, three variations of the configuration tool prototype will be demonstrated: one with an interface created with Mozilla’s XUL and hosted on MacOS; one accessed through Enterprise Java Beans (EJB) hosted through an Apache WebServer and WebLogic on Unix; and one accessed through Groove, another P2P infrastructure product, hosted in Windows 2000.

Smoke is an open source infrastructure, which means it can be used by any developer interested in working within a P2P distributed peer services environment.

Description:

Shelley Powers will present an open source P2P infrastructure that supports the concept of distributed peer services: services that are lightweight, discrete, and transient. A prototype large scale control system configuration tool is used to demonstrate the infrastructure. Three different variations of the prototype will be shown, to demonstrate both the open-application and cross-platform capability of the infrastructure and the tool.

Speaker: Shelley Powers

Speaker Biography:

Shelley Powers is a consultant/author with her own company, the Burning Bird Corporation, currently located in Boston, Massachusetts.

In the last several years, Shelley has worked on several distributed and Web-based applications on a variety of platforms. In addition, she has also authored or co-authored books on Dynamic HTML, JavaScript, Java, CGI, Perl, P2P, and other technologies, as well as writing for several publications including Webtechniques, MSDN Journal, Netscapeworld, and O’Reilly Network. She’s the author of O’Reilly’s Developing ASP Components, second edition. Shelley can be reached at shelleyp@yasd.com.

Categories
Semantics Specs

Opinion: Australian Censorship Bill Could Impact P2P

Recovered from Wayback Machine.

Australia’s been in the news before about Net censorship legislation, but the South Australian Parliament may have gone a little extreme even for this Net-conservative country.

A bill introduced in November would make it illegal for content providers to post material that is considered “objectionable viewing material” for children. What’s objectionable viewing material? Anything that the police — the police, mind you — would consider as falling within the R, NC, or X ratings categories of the film industry. Ostensibly this would cover material such as child pornography or content advocating breaking the law. However, the bill is general enough that it could also cover material on topics such as abortion, suicide, drug use, sexual behavior and other sensitive topics that could be termed “adult topics” and therefore R-rated.

Even more alarmingly, under this bill posting this material is illegal even if access to the material is restricted or password-protected. Compounding the problem, content providers would have no way of knowing whether their material would fall under one of the prohibited classifications before posting it; if the material is judged by the police to be within the parameters of this bill, you’d be charged. No warning and no second chance. And the fines aren’t cheap: as much as 10,000 (Australian) dollars per offense.

According to an alert issued by Electronic Frontiers Australia, this bill would actually make material that’s legal offline, illegal once posted online.

Related Articles:

Lessig: Fight For Your Right to Innovate

Free Radical: Ian Clarke Has Big Plans for the Internet

Code + Law: An Interview with Lawrence Lessig

Lessig: Fight For Your Right to Innovate

Search for “censorship” on O’Reilly Network

More on P2P Law


More from the OpenP2P.com

The impact of this bill on Web-based businesses is obvious — the level of censorship implied would give even the most conservative businesses pause when it comes to posting content on their Australian-based Web sites. What may not be so noticable, though, is the impact of this bill on peer-to-peer applications and services. You see, the wording of the bill doesn’t focus on Web-based content; it concerns content distributed via the Internet.

Consider the following scenario: You’re a subscriber to a file-sharing P2P service such as Napster. You make a request for material that could be considered “objectionable” because of the language used — for instance one of the more explicit songs from Alanis Morissette’s album “Jagged Little Pill,” or practically anything from Guns N’ Roses or Eminem. Once you’ve downloaded an “objectionable” song, it’s now on your machine for your personal use. However, in this process, you’ve also “posted” this content for access by other clients through the Internet: P2P is based on the fact that any node within the network can be both a client and server. According to this bill, you would be in violation of the law.

If you’re a subscriber to a decentralized service such as Freenet or Gnutella, the potential problems with this type of bill are even more extreme. With these types of P2P networks, if a file request is made from node A to node B, and then from node B to node C, that file is returned to node B as the intermediary first, and finally to node A. Now, not only is the peer located at C in violation of the law, so are A, who originally requested the file, and B, who did nothing more than subscribe to the conditions of the P2P service that states files may be stored on the client’s machine as a method of disseminating popular files throughout the network.

By its very nature, Freenet hides the identity of nodes supplying or requesting files, making it difficult to ascertain who was the originator of the material or the request. Because of this, it becomes difficult to ascertain who is legally responsible for “posting” the file if it is deemed to fall within the parameters of this censhorship bill. So, what could happen is that the intermediary node containing the file is the one charged with violating the law, rather than the originator, regardless of the technical and legal semantics that form the basis of anonymity within a Freenet network.

At the very least, applying this censorship law to the Freenet or Gnutella network would become a legal nightmare to the South Australian court system. All it would take to demonstrate the unfeasibility of the law is to introduce one highly popular but objectionable file to Freenet, potentially turning all or most South Australian Freenet users into criminals. This issue goes beyond considerations of copyright law.

According to the UK-based Register the South Australian’s politicians must have gone “barking mad” — in other words, the bill’s sponsors may want to reconsider the bill on its own merits.

Read the pertinent sections of the censorship bill at Electronic Frontiers and then join discussions at Slashdot and South Australia’s Talking Point

Categories
Technology

Australian Censorship bill could impact on P2P

Originally published at O’Reilly

Australia’s been in the news before about Net censorship legislation, but the South Australian Parliament may have gone a little extreme even for this Net-conservative country.

A bill introduced in November would make it illegal for content providers to post material that is considered “objectionable viewing material” for children. What’s objectionable viewing material? Anything that the police — the police, mind you — would consider as falling within the R, NC, or X ratings categories of the film industry. Ostensibly this would cover material such as child pornography or content advocating breaking the law. However, the bill is general enough that it could also cover material on topics such as abortion, suicide, drug use, sexual behavior and other sensitive topics that could be termed “adult topics” and therefore R-rated.

Even more alarmingly, under this bill posting this material is illegal even if access to the material is restricted or password-protected. Compounding the problem, content providers would have no way of knowing whether their material would fall under one of the prohibited classifications before posting it; if the material is judged by the police to be within the parameters of this bill, you’d be charged. No warning and no second chance. And the fines aren’t cheap: as much as 10,000 (Australian) dollars per offense.

According to an alert issued by Electronic Frontiers Australia, this bill would actually make material that’s legal offline, illegal once posted online.

The impact of this bill on Web-based businesses is obvious — the level of censorship implied would give even the most conservative businesses pause when it comes to posting content on their Australian-based Web sites. What may not be so noticable, though, is the impact of this bill on peer-to-peer applications and services. You see, the wording of the bill doesn’t focus on Web-based content; it concerns content distributed via the Internet.

Consider the following scenario: You’re a subscriber to a file-sharing P2P service such as Napster. You make a request for material that could be considered “objectionable” because of the language used — for instance one of the more explicit songs from Alanis Morissette’s album “Jagged Little Pill,” or practically anything from Guns N’ Roses or Eminem. Once you’ve downloaded an “objectionable” song, it’s now on your machine for your personal use. However, in this process, you’ve also “posted” this content for access by other clients through the Internet: P2P is based on the fact that any node within the network can be both a client and server. According to this bill, you would be in violation of the law.

If you’re a subscriber to a decentralized service such as Freenet or Gnutella, the potential problems with this type of bill are even more extreme. With these types of P2P networks, if a file request is made from node A to node B, and then from node B to node C, that file is returned to node B as the intermediary first, and finally to node A. Now, not only is the peer located at C in violation of the law, so are A, who originally requested the file, and B, who did nothing more than subscribe to the conditions of the P2P service that states files may be stored on the client’s machine as a method of disseminating popular files throughout the network.

By its very nature, Freenet hides the identity of nodes supplying or requesting files, making it difficult to ascertain who was the originator of the material or the request. Because of this, it becomes difficult to ascertain who is legally responsible for “posting” the file if it is deemed to fall within the parameters of this censhorship bill. So, what could happen is that the intermediary node containing the file is the one charged with violating the law, rather than the originator, regardless of the technical and legal semantics that form the basis of anonymity within a Freenet network.

At the very least, applying this censorship law to the Freenet or Gnutella network would become a legal nightmare to the South Australian court system. All it would take to demonstrate the unfeasibility of the law is to introduce one highly popular but objectionable file to Freenet, potentially turning all or most South Australian Freenet users into criminals. This issue goes beyond considerations of copyright law.

According to the UK-based Register the South Australian’s politicians must have gone “barking mad” — in other words, the bill’s sponsors may want to reconsider the bill on its own merits.

Read the pertinent sections of the censorship bill at Electronic Frontiers and then join discussions at Slashdot and South Australia’s Talking Point

Categories
Technology

Speaking at the P2P Conference

Recovered from the Wayback Machine. In some ways, what we described was the origins of a pseudo-blockchain functionality. But Michael went back to Sydney, and I went on to other things.

I’ll be speaking at the first P2P conference, presented by O’Reilly and being held in San Francisco in February.

I’m co-speaking with Michael Hitz, from Skyfish The focus of the presentation will be:

Managing power grids (such as Florida Light and Power’s) and mass transit systems (such as the new light rail system to the airport in Hong Kong) each require sophisticated control systems. The sale of these large scale complex systems often requires an international marketing and engineering effort that demands the input of many different people, many of whom live in different countries and speak different languages. Such a sales process is fraught with an engineering challenge of its own that demands accurate price estimates, bills of material, forecast manufacturing orders and communication across sales, engineering and manufacturing teams in multiple time-zones.

 

This talk focuses on a development effort currently underway to create an automated configuration tool for such systems; one which will allow a number of distributed participants to collaborate on the description of a complex system of distributed parts. Output are various stages of quotation, requests for approval, and an automatically generated bill of materials (BOM).

 

In order to facilitate the geographical separation of people using the tool, the creators will be using P2P technologies to locate and access distributed services based on the needs of both configuration and user, at each stage of the configuration cycle. Streaming data will be used to dynamically generate the user interface, based on work in progress by one or more active participants and each engineer’s locale.

Peer-to-Peer is more than just another buzz word or a technology such as Napster. Ray Ozzie, the creator of Lotus Notes, has started a company and a technical framework called Groove that encompasses P2P technologies and concepts, and no one can say that he doesn’t understand either technology or the current market or how to merge the two.

P2P technologies such as distributed computing, collaboration, and shared services and resources will change the way we access functionality and use the Internet in the next few years. To be blunt, the last time I was this excited about technology was when I first used this new thing called the “web”, years ago.

Here’s your chance to get in at the start of a new way of doing things — attend the P2P conference in February, and attend our presentation Friday, the 16th of February in the afternoon.