Evan Martin ([info]evan) wrote,
@ 2006-02-08 19:43:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
gathering
Lately I've been reading Neal Stephenson's Quicksilver. I'll write down some opinions it once I'm done, but part of I have read has really stuck in my mind.

(At least part of) the story is set in the time of Newton, Hooke, and other "Natural Philosophers" (read: "scientist", before there was such a term). These exceptionally bright people seem to just wander around aimlessly discovering the nature of, well, nature: imagine what an inquisitive mind could have done before the development of optics, or chemistry, or even plain old mechanics. Then they'd get together in clubs like the Royal Society, compare notes and debate ideas, making history without really considering it happening.

I see a real parallel between what was going on then in science and what is happening now with computers. It's still relatively easy for amateurs to break new ground and topple the establishment (I always think of [info]brad hacking away in a dorm room), especially because the field is relatively young and is changing rapidly.

So I keep thinking about how what is happening now will be looked back upon. Aside from the obvious things -- I'm of the youngest people who still remember what the world was like before the internet -- I wonder if this churning vat* of dotcoms will be remembered just like the bustling trade center of Amsterdam, and how I am analogously one of those nameless merchants who, in his own small way, contributed to the great mass of technological shift that is happening.

And what I also think about is how we don't really have a Royal Society. The internet has pretty much replaced a local community for hackers, for better or for worse. So when, for example, Jim Gettys today mentions "Tridge" being interested in something I know he's referring to a dude in Australia whose face I'd never seen before I just looked up his webpage now.

What we do have instead are the occasional conventions. It makes sense that gatherings like Foo Camp, despite the hangers-on, prompts real bursts of motivation and creativity: hundreds of years ago, getting together was a much more central aspect of discovery.

So all of that was in my mind this week when we had our weekly gathering -- which Eric had originally intended to be very much like the coffeehouses of long ago -- and I got to introduce Graydon to Josh and see him thanked for xdelta. I think the bay area is good for this sort of thing.


* You could say it produces "bubbles".


(Post a new comment)


[info]xaosenkosmos
2006-02-09 04:12 am UTC (link)
Dude, you'd never heard of Tridge before? If you haven't read about the design of the rsync protocol, you should. It's pretty hot stuff. His junkcode repository makes for some interesting browsing when you're stuck without anything else to do. Or if you ever happen to need a webserver that runs embedded bash scripts.

He also started that Samba project you hear about occasionally, but i have a hunch he'll be better remembered for rsync. It's definitely the cooler hack.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]whitaker
2006-02-09 04:23 am UTC (link)
Thanks for the link. I never read the details of rsync before -- I guess I never figured it'd be interesting? Anyway, definitely a cool hack...

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]evan
2006-02-09 05:13 am UTC (link)
"... when, for example, Jim Gettys today mentions "Tridge" being interested in something I know he's referring to ..."

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]xaosenkosmos
2006-02-09 05:27 am UTC (link)
From the rest of the sentence, i assumed you'd googled it or something. Also, tonight is a decompress evening, involving a fair whap of alcohol, so i didn't notice the ambiguity/incorrect parse.

(LJ should totally let me use userpics like tags for comments.)

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]haran
2006-02-09 04:34 am UTC (link)
Thats a good analogy. Its tempting to discount what's happening now by saying the few people doing the work back then were vastly more talented than those involved in technology today (and they might be right) but I think the acceleration rates for innovation are somewhat comparable.

The internet has pretty much replaced a local community for hackers, for better or for worse
Definitely better.
You had to be in England (or at a major academic establishment, atleast, in the case of Leibniz) to be any kind of contributer to Natural Philosophy.
The internet means a hacker in Brazil can contribute code to a project being run by some guy in Korea. There were probably loads of talented people back then who might have contributed greatly to the Royal Society if they had the right exposure.


So how's Quicksilver coming along?
I started the book last June... and am still working on it on and off.
Do you find it inherently interesting or are you forcing your way through it, hoping it gets better?

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]evan
2006-02-09 05:15 am UTC (link)
I had been scared off by all the so-so reviews, but I'm really enjoying it. It's a bit on the chubby side but that's part of the personality.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]haran
2006-02-09 06:17 am UTC (link)
I heard someone say that 'The Confusion' is a lot better and his way of congratulating us for getting through the first book. I really liked Cryptonomicon a lot and I guess I was expecting something similiar here...

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]tommusic
2006-02-09 06:23 am UTC (link)
I just recently finished the whole cycle (a year and a half in the process), and feel like I have lived an entire life during that time. There are things from the first book that I remember as a forgetful adult remembers childhood.

Wacky. And at the same time, wonderful. Minor details are forgotten, but the core stays the same.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]meenk
2006-02-09 03:25 pm UTC (link)
I loved it. I can't wait to get the other two. Of course, I read it right after Zodiac, so I was very much in a Neal Stephenson mood when I started it, and didn't find myself struggling to get through it, at all.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]optic
2006-02-09 05:37 am UTC (link)
I just finished the third book, and while it was all a bit much at times, I basically enjoyed all 3000-odd pages. Though I did find myself wondering from time to time how much of what was in the book was literally true, how much was pretty reasonably conjectured, and how much was utter fiction. It's hard to tell. Like, is that really how natural scientists behaved, more or less? And did they really coin all the ideas and phrases he credits to that era? I don't know. not until I've done some historical digging anyway.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]evan
2006-02-09 05:51 am UTC (link)
I find myself worrying about the exact same thing.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]bostonsteamer
2006-02-09 05:53 am UTC (link)
Stephenon's metaweb may help.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]bostonsteamer
2006-02-09 05:54 am UTC (link)
"Stephenson's", rather

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]zanfur
2006-02-10 09:50 pm UTC (link)
While I can't account for the natural philosophers' impact on society, the thing I like the most about Stephenson is that whenever I do know enough to confirm or deny a random factiod, I can confidently confirm it. His book Cryptonomicon, with the exception of replacing the word "Linux" with "Finux", had it all right. Not just the crypto, but the lives of the scientists as well. Alan Turing actually was gay, and actually was working against us in the war, etc.

Contrast this with Dan Brown's "Digital Fortress", where he didn't get ANYTHING right. I searched, looking for some random factoid, anywhere, that was actually correct. I didn't find one. He got all the crypto wrong, he got the math wrong, he got the networking concepts wrong, he got some of the very basic computation theory wrong, and even claimed that a single bit specified an ascii character. I don't mean "almost right but not quite", I mean "dead wrong". It was complete, pure, and utter fiction. I actually posted a huge rant about it, back when I read it.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

mixer
[info]toastednut
2006-02-09 08:08 am UTC (link)
the music equivalent of what you speak of is pretty fantastic, too, although it involves travel (for me at least). not about an hour ago my colleague and i were talking about the bay area in such context for the technology side of things -- i think i win for longest job title in the my company after all the permutations of start-up biz dev. it's rather ridiculous.

sorry i missed you at tea!

(Reply to this)


[info]mcfnord
2006-02-09 08:39 am UTC (link)
sometimes i want to start an internet business where all work occurs in a space enclosed in desktop video. everything you do is visual and public within the group. this seems like a technique to capitalize on collaboration and synergy. i don't know if i'd hate it or love it over time. this article is about national balance sheets, but it mentions some interesting techniques for leveraging information and human capital.
    In December, Intel Corp. announced plans to build a new wafer-fabrication plant in Israel. To the statisticians, the value of that foreign investment is the book value of the plant -- that is, the cost of erecting the building and installing the chipmaking machinery.

    Not counted is the systematic export of knowhow to Israel that enables that factory to operate profitably. At the core is a program called Copy Exactly!, which requires that a new fab duplicate an existing one that is working well, down to how often the plant's pumps are serviced. All of this critical information is documented and transferred from the U.S. to the new plant, but it is not picked up by the trade statistics.

(Reply to this)


[info]jarel
2006-02-09 03:56 pm UTC (link)
On a vaguely related note, Hooke manuscript found in a cupboard:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/4696484.stm

(Reply to this)


[info]trochee
2006-02-09 07:38 pm UTC (link)
I want to be part of a gathering. Can I be Hooke?

Augh, it's conversations like this one that make me wish I lived in the Bay Area.

(Reply to this)


[info]c_a_s_e
2006-02-22 06:08 am UTC (link)
Neal Stephenson quickly became one of my favorite authors after I picked up Cryptonomicon. You've gotta read it! I've read the first two of the Baroque cycle but not the third yet.

(Reply to this)


Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…