Podcast appearances and mentions of Bill Joy

Cold OpenI was not born to be pitied. I was born to raise Hell. Autistic style.IntroYou're listening to AutisticAF Out Loud. One voice. Raw. Real. Fiercely Neurodivergent. Since 1953.Season 5, Episode 4. Breaking mirrors, dancing at the edge of noise, raising autistic hell. Autism, Neurodiversity, 3 Poems... and 3 Rando Manifestos. Just one autistic elder's truth. I'm Johnny Profane.Content Note: trauma, sexual assault, self-harm, rage, transformative therapy moments + experiences & opinions of one autistic voice… 71.[Music]1953.Manifesto #1I was Born Autistic. Not to be Fixed…I'm autistic. Born 1953.I was not a product of a vaccine.I was not a product of a disease. Mental or physical.I was not a mistake. Genetic or epigenetic.I was not born to be fixed by CBT, pill or chip.I was not born to be pitied.I was born to raise Hell. Autistic style.[Music]The static never stops.Poem #1Dancing Close to the Edge of the Noise#AskingAuDHDists…bear with me a minute.I'm autistic+ADHD.71.i feel likea brilliant creative soulas if…trapped in a damaged body& neurologytrying to communicatewith the worldthrough an intermittentlyshort-circuiting transistor radioplaying through static& the distortion& sparking circuits…to just be heard.do you understand at all what I mean?#ActuallyAutistic #ADHD #ReallyAuDHD[Music]Sometimes? The mask slips…Poem #2AFTER THE SECRETI have strengths.Not one is my superpower.I have challenges.Not one is my kryptonite.I'm that kid in third gradeDrop drop DroppingA mysterious blue crystalInto that test tube—Squealing in delightEvery time it explodes…In purple streams.I love cosplay.But I don't have to flyWear a maskOr sport a capeTo be autistic.Still…I get to be the heroor bald evil geniusof my own life.[Music]Neurodivergent life… twists different.Manifesto #2My Autistic Life: Mebbe a Little Zelig. Mebbe a Bit Forest Gump. But All Me.Sharing our Neurodivergent stories is powerful.I was born before autism was invented… More or less. 1953.Been a meditation teacher,cult member,magazine publisher,ad agency owner,non-profit activist,3-time grad student3-time husband,homeless,mental health counselor,substance abuse counselor,cult counselor,homeless,fast-food clerk,Pretend Rock Star,homeless…I've bantered with Bill Gates.Felt stupid in front of Bill Joy.Touched the Maharishi.Stumbled on Keith HaringJumping turnstiles in the subway…But…I met anonymous geniusesin cubicles,bull penstrailer parks,on the street…This is not my idle boast. This is my earnest promise. Ask the neurodivergent in front of you…Have they got stories to tell you. Genius touches every life. Of every 'type. If you can perceive it.So.I have no credentials to offer. At least none that matters to me... anymore.So I offer my life. My autistic life. Hoping better for our kids.Because if nothing changes…Content Note: Discussion of trauma statistics and sexual assaultOver 80% of them will experience trauma in their life. Interpersonal violence, bullying, sensory trauma, emotional abuse, and systemic discrimination. Nearly three times higher than average. And many autistic individuals experience multiple types of trauma concurrently.Just as I did in the 1950s. Bullying by classmates & teachers. Physical attacks on the playgrounds. Sexual attack in the park. And in the home,Trauma not from neurodivergence. Trauma from how modern society treats the neurodivergent.[Music]That clean, polite, clinical phrase… “trauma?” It has a personal face, a personal moment in every neurodivergent life.This is mine.Session #137. When memory breaks.Poem #3The Body Abides"Like I told youNothing really happenedCan't sleep is all…."He repeats his view,"The body watches.The body ALWAYSFucking watches.""Yeah, he kissed meFathers do that.Yeah, it was weird but…."He whispers me,"Your body, your witness.And this witness ALWAYSFucking watches."Then he leans in…"What if he'd kissedyour sister's lips…?""I'd fucking kill him."That's when…i see mein his mirrorwatching myselfwatch my selftransparently autistica son no more,yet the body…abides.ragedark rageScreaming RAGEi'd fucking kill himfucking kill himkill himHim.i rise…soslowlyand fucking smash that mirrori rock, i sway…i rub one red eye.i stand, I stare…I sigh, I say,"My body watchesThe body ALWAYSFucking watches…,"As I close his office door…I abide.[Music]Decades later. Still raising hell.Manifesto #3Now… About That Autistic Hell We Was Talking about Raising…We ask awkward questions. And find new answers.We see different. Make electrifying connections.We feel patterns. To larger truths.We are passionateWe adapt.Survive.Disrupt.Transform…Raising a fat middle fingerTo normal.Now, that's the kinda hell… I'm talking about raising.How's about neurodivergent you?One last thing…be proud.be proud you're autistic.be proud you're alive.despite everything people and nature...life...threw at you...you're still breathing.you're still breathing…no mean feat that. I know firsthand.be proud.be damn proud.#ActuallyAutisticOutroIn coming weeks, we'll challenge the medical model of autism, examining how neurodivergent individuals can build sustainable, authentic lives - with or without professional intervention.AutisticAF Out Loud podcast is supported solely by listeners like you. Know a friend or family member with a sincere interest in neurodiversity? Please consider emailing this episode to them.We believe no one should have to pay to be autistic. Many neurodivergent people can't afford subscription content. Your Ko-Fi tip of any amount helps keep this resource free for them. Or join our paid subscriber community at johnnyprofaneknapp.substack.com for ongoing support. Link in description.Written in rage. Published in hope. December 2024. Greene County, Indiana.To give a one-time tip to support this work: https://ko-fi.com/autisticafTo offer ongoing support for my work, please consider becoming a paid subscriber…#AutisticAF Out Loud Newsletter is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts enjoy a free subscription. To support my work, consider becoming a paid subscriber. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit johnnyprofaneknapp.substack.com/subscribe

How can the lessons learned from a childhood of tinkering and a career influenced by tech visionaries like Bill Joy and Andy Bechtolsheim guide us toward a more sustainable future for technology? We're joined today by Adrian Cockcroft, a trailblazer in cloud architecture at Netflix and a proponent of open source at Amazon Web Services, who is now channeling his expertise into the vital cause of sustainability in cloud computing. Adrian shares his journey from the early days of building computers to his influential roles in shaping the tech industry and how these experiences have informed his current focus on sustainability. Together, we can build a future that is not only technologically advanced but also environmentally responsible.Early Career Experiences and InfluenceAdrian shares the experiences that shaped his professional life, especially his time at Sun Microsystems, and the influence of visionaries like Bill Joy and Andy Bechtolsheim. He discusses the power of thinking into the future and anticipating trends. "It was clear [Bill] lived five years in the future... that was one of those inspiring moments." This experience alone highlighted the significance of forward-thinking and the impact it can have on shaping one's career trajectory. It serves as a reminder to embrace curiosity and explore emerging technologies and trends, as they can lead to groundbreaking opportunities and shape the future of industries.The Power of Putting Ideas Out ThereSharing ideas can be transformational. Adrian and Barry, both authors, discuss the importance of writing and publishing, which goes beyond the unique experience of writing a book or the influence it has on the readers. It also shapes and influences their own organizations. Being open and vulnerable might be difficult, but the rewards are priceless. “Everyone should write a book. It's 10 times harder than you think." Putting your ideas out there helps you overcome self-doubt and fear of judgment and embrace the opportunity to contribute your unique perspectives and insights to the broader discourse.Transitioning to a Focus on SustainabilityAdrian doesn't just preach sustainability; he lives it. In addition to his current work, Adrian was also an early adopter of solar panels and electric cars. Professionally, Adrian shares his experience championing these values within AWS and helping his peers understand the importance of transparency and accountability in addressing environmental impact. Companies need to do more than give lip service to a better future. They must also align their actions to those values and actively seek ways to reduce their environmental footprint. Sustainability is not just a buzzword but a fundamental responsibility that requires commitment and action.Challenges in Achieving Sustainability in the CloudBarry and Adrian delve into the challenges faced by companies in achieving sustainability in their technology infrastructure. It's not enough to have accurate measurements and proper reporting of carbon emissions. Organizations must also ensure their supply chain adheres to the same standards and values. Allocation and attribution of carbon emissions on a global scale can be incredibly complex, so if we hope to address emerging climate risks and create a sustainable future, complying with regulations and being transparent is key.The Need for Measurement, Reporting, and ActionOrganizations need to go beyond measurement and reporting. Instead, the actions a company takes to ensure sustainability should be used as a measure of a company's quality and care. Consumers can take an active role in encouraging companies to be sustainable and holding them accountable when they aren't. The mix of regulations, reporting, market demands, and social pressure will cause companies to think about the future of the environment and take action, not just internally but also in their supply chains.ResourcesAdrian Cockcroft on LinkedIn | X(Twitter)

In this members video I discuss an important article written in April of 2000 by Bill Joy blowing the whistle on the immense dangers of future technology titled Why the Future Doesn't Need Us. If you would like to see the full video please sign up for $5/month at davidpatrickharry.com/register. God bless Superchat Here https://streamlabs.com/churchoftheeternallogos Donochat Me: https://dono.chat/dono/dph Join this channel's YouTube Memberships: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCH8JwgaHCkhdfERVkGbLl2g/join Intro Music Follow Keynan Here! https://linktr.ee/keynanrwils b-dibe's Bandcamp: https://b-dibe.bandcamp.com/ b-dibe's Soundcloud: https://soundcloud.com/b-dibe Superchat Here https://streamlabs.com/churchoftheeternallogos Rokfin: https://rokfin.com/dpharry Website: http://www.davidpatrickharry.com GAB: https://gab.com/dpharry Support COTEL with Crypto! Bitcoin: 3QNWpM2qLGfaZ2nUXNDRnwV21UUiaBKVsy Ethereum: 0x0b87E0494117C0adbC45F9F2c099489079d6F7Da Litecoin: MKATh5kwTdiZnPE5Ehr88Yg4KW99Zf7k8d If you enjoy this production, feel compelled, or appreciate my other videos, please support me through my website memberships (www.davidpatrickharry.com) or donate directly by PayPal or crypto! Any contribution would be greatly appreciated. Thank you Logos Subscription Membership: http://davidpatrickharry.com/register/ Venmo: @cotel - https://account.venmo.com/u/cotel PayPal: https://www.paypal.me/eternallogos Donations: http://www.davidpatrickharry.com/donate/ PayPal: https://www.paypal.me/eternallogos Website: http://www.davidpatrickharry.com Rokfin: https://rokfin.com/dpharry Rumble: https://rumble.com/user/COTEL Odysee: https://odysee.com/@ChurchoftheEternalLogos:d GAB: https://gab.com/dpharry Telegram: https://t.me/eternallogos Minds: https://www.minds.com/Dpharry Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/W10R... DLive: https://dlive.tv/The_Eternal_Logos Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/dpharry/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/_dpharry

This podcast is a commentary and does not contain any copyrighted material of the reference source. We strongly recommend accessing/buying the reference source at the same time. ■Reference Source https://www.ted.com/talks/bill_joy_what_i_m_worried_about_what_i_m_excited_about ■Post on this topic (You can get FREE learning materials!) https://englist.me/237-academic-words-reference-from-bill-joy-what-im-worried-about-what-im-excited-about-ted-talk/ ■Youtube Video https://youtu.be/Q2PmFb-Uz3M (All Words) https://youtu.be/vRXJ_xMt01g (Advanced Words) https://youtu.be/v3Q4pZ_bWUU (Quick Look) ■Top Page for Further Materials https://englist.me/ ■SNS (Please follow!)

欢迎听众打赏支持，您的支持是我不断创作的动力

UNIX is a big deal. It's one of the most influential programs in history. Most operating systems that we use today can trace their lineage back to UNIX. The only notable exception at this point is Windows. But all these new-fangled operating systems aren't blood relatives of UNIX, they are all derivatives. Second cousins, if you will. So how did we get from UNIX into a diverse field of UNIX-like things? It all starts with a little project at UC Berkeley.   Selected Sources:   https://archive.computerhistory.org/resources/access/text/2022/06/102743073-05-01-acc.pdf - Oral History of Bill Joy   https://archive.org/details/aquartercenturyofunixpeterh.salus_201910/page/n157/mode/2up?view=theater - A Quarter Century of UNIX

Producer/Host: Jim Campbell Over 20 years ago, Bill Joy wrote that 21st century technologies posed a danger of the extinction of humans from the earth. Last month, that sentiment arose again from people as diverse as Henry Kissinger and Jaron Lanier. In between, Stephen Hawking, Bill Gates, and other luminaries offered similar cautions. Why? And why should we pay attention to what they have to say? Here are links to web sites mentioned today: ‘Extinction is on the table': Jaron Lanier warns of tech's existential threat to humanity, The Guardian Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us, WIRED National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence, The Final Report How the Enlightenment Ends, Henry A. Kissinger, The Atlantic The Age of AI And Our Human Future About the host: Jim Campbell has a longstanding interest in the intersection of digital technology, law, and public policy and how they affect our daily lives in our increasingly digital world. He has banged around non-commercial radio for decades and, in the little known facts department (that should probably stay that way), he was one of the readers voicing Richard Nixon's words when NPR broadcast the entire transcript of the Watergate tapes. Like several other current WERU volunteers, he was at the station's sign-on party on May 1, 1988 and has been a volunteer ever since doing an early stint as a Morning Maine host, and later producing WERU program series including Northern Lights, Conversations on Science and Society, Sound Portrait of the Artist, Selections from the Camden Conference, others that will probably come to him after this is is posted, and, of course, Notes from the Electronic Cottage. The post Notes from the Electronic Cottage 12/1/22: More Thoughts on AI first appeared on WERU 89.9 FM Blue Hill, Maine Local News and Public Affairs Archives.

Producer/Host: Jim Campbell Over 20 years ago, Bill Joy wrote that 21st century technologies posed a danger of the extinction of humans from the earth. Last month, that sentiment arose again from people as diverse as Henry Kissinger and Jaron Lanier. In between, Stephen Hawking, Bill Gates, and other luminaries offered similar cautions. Why? And why should we pay attention to what they have to say? Here are links to web sites mentioned today: ‘Extinction is on the table': Jaron Lanier warns of tech's existential threat to humanity, The Guardian Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us, WIRED National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence, The Final Report How the Enlightenment Ends, Henry A. Kissinger, The Atlantic The Age of AI And Our Human Future About the host: Jim Campbell has a longstanding interest in the intersection of digital technology, law, and public policy and how they affect our daily lives in our increasingly digital world. He has banged around non-commercial radio for decades and, in the little known facts department (that should probably stay that way), he was one of the readers voicing Richard Nixon's words when NPR broadcast the entire transcript of the Watergate tapes. Like several other current WERU volunteers, he was at the station's sign-on party on May 1, 1988 and has been a volunteer ever since doing an early stint as a Morning Maine host, and later producing WERU program series including Northern Lights, Conversations on Science and Society, Sound Portrait of the Artist, Selections from the Camden Conference, others that will probably come to him after this is is posted, and, of course, Notes from the Electronic Cottage. The post Notes from the Electronic Cottage 12/1/22: More Thoughts on AI first appeared on WERU 89.9 FM Blue Hill, Maine Local News and Public Affairs Archives.

Coming up in this episode 1. Vim stories 2. The quick history of vi and vim 3. A snappy Mozilla watch 4. Gnome can toggle too 5. We take a sip of Cider 0:00 Cold Open 1:48 vim Stories 12:05 vi & vim History 22:13 A Few More Thoughts on vim 39:28 A Snappy Mozilla Watch 42:22 New Features to Gnome 52:19 Feedback 58:23 Community Focus: DistroTube 1:00:32 App Focus: Cider 1:05:33 Next Time: Clear Linux 1:07:35 Stinger Support us on Patreon! (https://www.patreon.com/linuxuserspace) Banter Vim Stories There are many guides/shortcut cheatsheets out there. Here are a few that seem good: https://www.maketecheasier.com/cheatsheet/vim-keyboard-shortcuts/ https://linuxhint.com/vim_shortcuts/ http://vimsheet.com Announcements Give us a sub on YouTube (https://linuxuserspace.show/youtube) You can watch us live on Twitch (https://linuxuserspace.show/twitch) the day after an episode drops. History Series on Text Editors - vi and vim vi (http://ex-vi.sourceforge.net/) (Pronounced V, I) vim (https://www.vim.org/) vi wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vi) Vim wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vim_(text_editor)) George Colouris (http://www.eecs.qmul.ac.uk/~gc/history/) Bill Joy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Joy) ADM-3A Terminal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ADM-3A) and the keyboard layout (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:KB_Terminal_ADM3A.svg) Bill also hacked together a temporary, intermediary editor (https://begriffs.com/pdf/unix-review-bill-joy.pdf) 1987 - A limited vi clone STEVIE, the ST Editor for VI Enthusiasts, was born. (https://timthompson.com/tjt/stevie/) 1988 - Bram Moolenaar took the source for STEVIE and ported it to the Amiga which marked the first release of Vim. It was also known as the "wq text editor" at the time. Most folks take the acronym to mean vi Improved, but originally, it stood for vi Imitation (https://invisible-island.net/vile/vile.faq.html#clone_began). It took on the Improved meaning later in 1993 around version 2. Bram Moolenaar (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bram_Moolenaar) Bram's Web page (https://www.moolenaar.net/index.html) elvis (https://groups.google.com/g/comp.editors/c/rdUYDzANsMw/m/ErR-8j1VCfQJ) nvi was born (https://books.google.com/books?id=Eb8J3BONVxAC&pg=PA307#v=onepage&q&f=false) The original vi source code was released as open source. (http://www.mckusick.com/csrg/calder-lic.pdf) 2020 - Fedora switches from Vim to nano for the default text editor (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/33/ChangeSet#Make_nano_the_default_editor) June 28, 2022 - Vim 9.0 is released! (https://www.vim.org/vim90.php) More Announcements Want to have a topic covered or have some feedback? - send us an email, contact@linuxuserspace.show Mozilla watch Firefox on Ubuntu (https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2022/07/ubuntu-devs-fix-another-frustrating-firefox-snap-flaw) Firefox 104 is released (https://9to5linux.com/mozilla-firefox-104-is-now-available-for-download-this-is-whats-new) Housekeeping Catch these and other great topics as they unfold on our Subreddit or our News channel on Discord. * Linux User Space subreddit (https://linuxuserspace.show/reddit) * Linux User Space Discord Server (https://linuxuserspace.show/discord) * Linux User Space Telegram (https://linuxuserspace.show/telegram) * Linux User Space Matrix (https://linuxuserspace.show/matrix) Gnome Can Now... Toggle Speakers and Mics (https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2022/08/gnome-43-new-features) in 43! Feedback Great feedback on our last episode on YouTube (https://youtu.be/_AIWIfraNt8) lendarker on reddit (https://www.reddit.com/r/EndeavourOS/comments/wr5mql/comment/ikrqf4d/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) Community Focus Distrotube (https://www.youtube.com/distrotube) Distrotube Vim videos (https://www.youtube.com/c/DistroTube/search?query=vim) Including some tutorial videos part 1 (https://youtu.be/ER5JYFKkYDg) and part 2 (https://youtu.be/tExTz7GnpdQ) App Focus Cider (https://github.com/ciderapp/Cider) Next Time We will discuss Clear Linux (https://clearlinux.org/) and the history. Come back in two weeks for more Linux User Space Stay tuned and interact with us on Twitter, Mastodon, Telegram, Matrix, Discord whatever. Give us your suggestions on our subreddit r/LinuxUserSpace Join the conversation. Talk to us, and give us more ideas. All the links in the show notes and on linuxuserspace.show. We would like to acknowledge our top patrons. Thank you for your support! Producer Bruno John Co-Producer Johnny Sravan Tim Contributor Advait CubicleNate Eduardo S. Jill and Steve LiNuXsys666 Nicholas Paul sleepyeyesvince

Few economists think more creatively and also more rigorously about the future than Robin Hanson, my guest on this episode of Faster, Please! — The Podcast. So when he says a future of radical scientific and economic progress is still possible, you should take the claim seriously. Robin is a professor of economics at George Mason University and author of the Overcoming Bias blog. His books include The Age of Em: Work, Love and Life when Robots Rule the Earth and The Elephant in the Brain: Hidden Motives in Everyday Life.In This Episode:* Economic growth over the very long run (1:20)* The signs of an approaching acceleration (7:08)* Global governance and risk aversion (12:19)* Thinking about the future like an economist (17:32)* The stories we tell ourselves about the future (20:57)* Longtermism and innovation (23:20)Next week, I'll feature part two of my conversation with Robin, where we discuss whether we are alone in the universe and what alien life means for humanity's long-term potential.Below is an edited transcript of our conversation.Economic growth over the very long runJames Pethokoukis: Way back in 2000, you wrote a paper called “Long-Term Growth as a Sequence of Exponential Modes.” You wrote, “If one takes seriously the model of economic growth as a series of exponential … [modes], then it seems hard to escape the conclusion that the world economy will likely see a very dramatic change within the next century, to a new economic growth mode with a doubling time perhaps as short as two weeks.” Is that still your expectation for the 21st century?Robin Hanson: It's my expectation for the next couple of centuries. Whether it's the 21st isn't quite so clear.Has anything happened in the intervening two decades to make you think that something might happen sooner rather than later … or rather, just later?Just later, I'm afraid. I mean, we have a lot of people hyping AI at the moment, right?Sure, I may be one of them on occasion.There are a lot of people expecting rapid progress soon. And so, I think I've had a long enough baseline there to think, "No, maybe not.” But let's go with the priors.Is it a technological mechanism that will cause this? Is it AI? Is it that we find the right general-purpose technology, and then that will launch us into very, very rapid growth?That would be my best guess. But just to be clear for our listeners, we just look at history, we seem to see these exponential modes. There are, say, four of them so far (if we go pre-human). And then the modes are relatively steady and then have pretty sharp transitions. That is, the transition to a growth rate of 50 or 200 times faster happens within less than a doubling time.So what was the last mode?We're in industry at the moment: doubles roughly every 15 years, started around 1800 or 1700. The previous mode was farming, doubled every thousand years. And so, in roughly less than a thousand years, we saw this rapid transition to our current thing, less than the doubling time. The previous mode before that was foraging, where humans doubled roughly every quarter million years. And in definitely less than a quarter million years, we saw a transition there. So then the prediction is that we will see another transition, and it will happen in less than 15 years, to a faster growth mode. And then if you look at the previous increases in growth rates, they were, again, a factor of 60 to 200. And so, that's what you'd be looking for in the next mode. Now, obviously, I want to say you're just looking at a low data set here. Four events. You can't be too confident. But, come on, you've got to guess that maybe a next one would happen.If you go back to that late ‘90s period, there was a lot of optimism. If you pick up Wired magazine back then, [there was] plenty of optimism that something was happening, that we were on the verge of something. One of my favorite examples — and a sort of non-technologist example, was a report from Lehman Brothers from December 1999. It was called “Beyond 2000.” And it was full of predictions, maybe not talking about exponential growth, but how we were in for a period of very fast growth, like 1960s-style growth. It was a very bullish prediction for the next two decades. Now Lehman did not make it another decade itself. These predictions don't seem to have panned out — maybe you think I'm being overly pessimistic on what's happened over the past 20 years — but do you think it was because we didn't understand the technology that was supposedly going to drive these changes? Did we do something wrong? Or is it just a lot of people who love tech love the idea of growth, and we all just got too excited?I think it's just a really hard problem. We're in this world. We're living with it. It's growing really fast. Again, doubling every 15 years. And we've long had this sense that it's possible for something much bigger. So automation, the possibility of robots, AI: It sat in the background for a long time. And people have been wondering, “Is that coming? And if it's coming, it looks like a really big deal.” And roughly every 30 years, I'd say, we've seen these bursts of interest in AI and public concern, like media articles, you know…We had the ‘60s. Now we have the ‘90s…The ‘60s, ‘90s, and now again, 2020. Every 30 years, a burst of interest and concern about something that's not crazy. Like, it might well happen. And if it was going to happen, then the kind of precursor you might expect to see is investors realizing it's about to happen and bidding up assets that were going to be important for that to really high levels. And that's what you did see around ‘99. A lot of people thought, “Well, this might be it.”Right. The market test for the singularity seemed to be passing.A test that is not actually being passed quite so much at the moment.Right.So, in some sense, you had a better story then in terms of, look, the investors seem to believe in this.You could also look at harder economic numbers, productivity numbers, and so on.Right. And we've had a steady increase in automation over, you know, centuries. But people keep wondering, “We're about to have a new kind of automation. And if we are, will we see that in new kinds of demos or new kinds of jobs?” And people have been looking out for these signs of, “Are we about to enter a new era?” And that's been the big issue. It's like, “Will this time be different?” And so, I've got to say this time, at the moment, doesn't look different. But eventually, there will be a “this time” that'll be different. And then it'll be really different. So it's not crazy to be watching out for this and maybe taking some chances betting on it.The signs of an approaching accelerationIf we were approaching a kind of acceleration, a leap forward, what would be the signs? Would it just be kind of what we saw in the ‘90s?So the scenario is, within a 15-year period, maybe a five-year period, we go from a current 4 percent growth rate, doubling every 15 years, to maybe doubling every month. A crazy-high doubling rate. And that would have to be on the basis of some new technology, and therefore, investment. So you'd have to see a new promising technology that a lot of people think could potentially be big. And then a lot of investment going into that, a lot of investors saying, “Yeah, there's a pretty big chance this will be it.” And not just financial investors. You would expect to see people — like college students deciding to major in that, people moving to wherever it is. That would be the big sign: investment moving toward anything. And the key thing is, you would see actual big, fast productivity increases. There'd be some companies in cities who were just booming. You were talking about stagnation recently: The ‘60s were faster than now, but that's within a factor of two. Well, we're talking about a factor of 60 to 200.So we don't need to spend a lot of time on the data measurement issues. Like, “Is productivity up 1.7 percent, 2.1?”If you're a greedy investor and you want to be really in on this early so you buy it cheap before everybody else, then you've got to be looking at those early indicators. But if you're like the rest of us wondering, “Do I change my job? Do I change my career?” then you might as well wait and wait till you see something really big. So even at the moment, we've got a lot of exciting demos: DALL-E, GPT-3, things like that. But if you ask for commercial impact and ask them, “How much money are people making?” they shrug their shoulders and they say “Soon, maybe.” But that's what I would be looking for in those things. When people are generating a lot of revenue — so it's a lot of customers making a lot of money — then that's the sort of thing to maybe consider.Something I've written about, probably too often, is the Long Bets website. And two economists, Robert Gordon and Erik Brynjolfsson, have made a long bet. Gordon takes the role of techno-pessimist, Brynjolfsson techno-optimist. Let me just briefly read the bet in case you don't happen to have it memorized: “Private Nonfarm business productivity growth will average over 1.8 percent per year from the first quarter of 2020 to the last quarter of 2029.” Now, if it does that, that's an acceleration. Brynjolfsson says yes. Gordon says no…But you want to pick a bigger cutoff. Productivity growth in the last decade is maybe half that, right? So they're looking at a doubling. And a doubling is news, right? But, honestly, a doubling is within the usual fluctuation. If you look over, say, the last 200 years, and we say sometimes some cities grow faster, some industries grow faster. You know, we have this steady growth rate, but it contains fluctuations. I think the key thing, as always, when you're looking for a regime change, is you're looking at — there's an average and a fluctuation — when is a new fluctuation out of the range of the previous ones? And that's when I would start to really pay attention, when it's not just the typical magnitude. So honestly, that's within the range of the typical magnitudes you might expect if we just had an unusually productive new technology, even if we stay in the same mode for another century.When you look at the enthusiasm we had at the turn of this century, do you think we did the things that would encourage rapid growth? Did we create a better ecosystem of growth over the past 20 years or a worse one?I don't think the past 20 years have been especially a deviation. But I think slowly since around 1970, we have seen a decline in our support for innovation. I think increasing regulations, increasing size of organizations in response to regulation, and just a lot of barriers. And even more disturbingly, I think it's worth noting, we've seen a convergence of regulation around the world. If there were 150 countries, each of which had different independent regulatory regimes, I would be less concerned. Because if one nation messes it up and doesn't allow things, some other nation might pick up the slack. But we've actually seen pretty strong convergence, even in this global pandemic. So, for example, challenge trials were an idea early voiced, but no nation allowed them. Anywhere. And even now, hardly they've been tried. And if you look at nuclear energy, electric magnetic spectrum, organ sales, medical experimentation — just look at a lot of different regulatory areas, even airplanes — you just see an enormous convergence worldwide. And that's a problem because it means we're blocking innovation the same everywhere. And so there's just no place to go to try something new.Global governance and risk aversionThere's always concern in Europe about their own productivity, about their technological growth. And they're always putting out white papers in Europe about what [they] can do. And I remember reading that somebody decided that Europe's comparative advantage was in regulation. Like that was Europe's superpower: regulation.Yeah, sure.And speaking of convergence, a lot of people who want to regulate the tech industry here have been looking to what Europe is doing. But Europe has not shown a lot of tech progress. They don't generate the big technology companies. So that, to me, is unsettling. Not only are we converging, but we're converging sometimes toward the least productive areas of the advanced world.In a lot of people's minds, the key thing is the unsafe dangers that tech might provide. And they look to Europe and they say, “Look how they're providing security there. Look at all the protections they're offering against the various kinds of insecurity we could have. Surely, we want to copy them for that.”I don't want to copy them for that. I'm willing to take a few risks.But many people want that level of security. So I'm actually concerned about this over the coming centuries. I think this trend is actually a trend toward not just stronger global governance, but stronger global community or even mobs, if we call it that. That is the reason why nuclear energy is regulated the same everywhere: the regulators in each place are part of a world community, and they each want to be respected in that community. And in order to be respected, they need to conform to what the rest of the community thinks. And that's going to just keep happening more over the coming centuries, I fear.One of my favorite shows, more realistic science-fiction shows and book series, is The Expanse, which takes place a couple hundred years in the future where there's a global government — which seems to be a democratic global government. I'm not sure how efficient it is. I'm not sure how entrepreneurial it is. Certainly the evidence seems to be that global governance does not lead to a vibrant, trial-and-error, experimenting kind of ecology. But just the opposite: one that focuses on safety and caution and risk aversion.And it's going to get a lot worse. I have a book called The Age of Em: Work, Love, and Life when Robots Rule the Earth, and it's about very radical changes in technology. And most people who read about that, they go, “Oh, that's terrible. We need more regulations to stop that.” I think if you just look toward the longer run of changes, most people, when they start to imagine the large changes that will be possible, they want to stop that and put limits and control it somehow. And that's going to give even more of an impetus to global governance. That is, once you realize how our children might become radically different from us, then that scares people. And they really, then, want global governance to limit that.I fear this is going to be the biggest choice humanity ever makes, which is, in the next few centuries we will probably have stronger global governance, stronger global community, and we will credit it for solving many problems, including war and global warming and inequality and things like that. We will like the sense that we've all come together and we get to decide what changes are allowed and what aren't. And we limit how strange our children can be. And even though we will have given up on some things, we will just enjoy … because that's a very ancient human sense, to want to be part of a community and decide together. And then a few centuries from now, there will come this day when it's possible for a colony ship to leave the solar system to go elsewhere. And we will know by then that if we allow that to happen, that's the end of the era of shared governance. From that point on, competition reaffirms itself, war reaffirms itself. The descendants who come out there will then compete with each other and come back here and impose their will here, probably. And that scares the hell out of people.Indeed, that's the point of [The Expanse]. It's kind of a mixed bag with how successful Earth's been. They didn't kill themselves in nuclear war, at least. But the geopolitics just continues and that doesn't change. We're still human beings, even if we happen to be living on Mars or Europa. All that conflict will just reemerge.Although, I think it gets the scale wrong there. I think as long as we stay in the solar system, a central government will be able to impose its rule on outlying colonies. The solar system is pretty transparent. Anywhere in the solar system you are, if you're doing something somebody doesn't like, they can see you and they can throw something at you and hit you. And so I think a central government will be feasible within the solar system for quite some time. But once you get to other star systems, that ends. It's not feasible to punish colonies 20 light-years away when you don't get the message of what they did [until] 20 years later. That just becomes infeasible then. I would think The Expanse is telling a more human story because it's happening within this solar system. But I think, in fact, this world government becomes a solar system government, and it allows expansion to the solar system on its terms. But it would then be even stronger as a centralized governance community which prevents change.Thinking about the future like an economistIn a recent blog post, you wrote that when you think about the future, you try to think about it as an economist. You use economic analysis “to predict the social consequences of a particular envisioned future technology.” Have futurists not done that? Futurism has changed. I've written a lot about the classic 1960s futurists who were these very big, imaginative thinkers. They tended to be pretty optimistic. And then they tended to get pessimistic. And then futurism became kind of like marketing, like these were brand awareness people, not really big thinkers. When they approached it, did they approach it as technologists? Did they approach it as sociologists? Are economists just not interested in this subject?Good question. So I'd say there are three standard kinds of futurists. One kind of futurist is a short-term marketing consultant who's basically telling you which way the colors will go or the market demand will go in the short term.Is neon green in or lime green in, or something.And that's economically valuable. Those people should definitely exist. Then there's a more aspirational, inspirational kind of futurist. And that's changed over the decades, depending on what people want to be inspired by or afraid of. In the ‘50s, ‘60s, it might be about America going out and becoming powerful. Or later it's about the environment, and then it's about inequality and gender relations. In some sense, science fiction is another kind of futurism. And these two tend to be related in the sense that science fiction mainly focuses on an indirect way to tell metaphorical stories about us. Because we're not so interested in the future, really, we're interested in us. Those are futures serving various kinds of communities, but neither of them are that realistically oriented. They're not focused on what's likely to actually happen. They're focused on what will inspire people or entertain people or make people afraid or tell a morality tale.But if you're interested in what's actually going to happen, then my claim is you want to just take our standard best theories and just straightforwardly apply them in a thoughtful way. So many people, when they talk about the future, they say, “It's just impossible to say anything about the future. No one could possibly know; therefore, science fiction speculations are the best we can possibly do. You might as well go with that.” And I think that's just wrong. My demonstration in The Age of Em is to say, if you take a very specific technology scenario, you can just turn the crank with Econ 101, Sociology 101, Electrical Engineering 101, all the standard things, and just apply it to that scenario. And you can just say a lot. But what you will find out is that it's weird. It's not very inspiring, and it doesn't tell the perfect horror story of what you should avoid. It's just a complicated mess. And that's what you should expect, because that's what we would seem to our ancestors. [For] somebody 200 or 2000 years ago, our world doesn't make a good morality tale for them. First of all, they would just have trouble getting their head around it. Why did that happen? And [what] does that even mean? And then they're not so sure what to like or dislike about it, because it's just too weird. If you're trying to tell a nice morality tale [you have] simple heroes and villains, right? And this is too messy. The real futures you should just predict are going to be too messy to be a simple morality tale. They're going to be weird, and that's going to make them hard to deal with.The stories we tell ourselves about the futureDo you think it matters, the kinds of stories we tell ourselves about what the future could hold? My bias is, I think it does. I think it matters if all we paint for people is a really gloomy one, then not only is it depressing, then it's like, “What are we even doing here?” Because if we're going to move forward, if we're going to take risks with technology, there needs to be some sort of payoff. But yet, it seems like a lot of the culture continues. We mentioned The Expanse, which by the modern standard of a lot of science fiction, I find to be pretty optimistic. Some people say, "Well, it's not optimistic because half the population is on a basic income and there's war.” But, hey, there are people. Global warming didn't kill everybody. Nuclear war didn't kill everybody. We continued. We advanced. Not perfect, but society seems to be progressing. Has that mattered, do you think, the fact that we've been telling ourselves such terrible stories about the future? We used to tell much better ones.The first-order theory about change is that change doesn't really happen because people anticipated or planned for it or voted on it. Mostly this world has been changing as a side effect of lots of local economic interests and technological interests and pursuits. The world is just on this train with nobody driving, and that's scary and should be scary, I guess. So to the first order, it doesn't really matter what stories we tell or how we think about the future, because we haven't actually been planning for the future. We haven't actually been choosing the future.It kind of happens while we're doing something else.The side effect of other things. But that's the first order, that's the zeroth-order effect. The next-order effect might be … look, places in the world will vary in to what extent they win or lose over the long run. And there are things that can radically influence that. So being too cautious and playing it safe too much and being comfortable, predictably, will probably lead you to not win the future. If you're interested in having us — whoever us is — win the future or have a bright, dynamic future, then you'd like “us” to be a little more ambitious about such things. I would think it is a complement: The more we are excited about the future, and the future requires changes, the more we are telling ourselves, “Well, yeah, this change is painful, but that's the kind of thing you have to do if you want to get where we're going.”Long-term thinking and innovationIf you've been reading the New York Times lately or the New Yorker, the average is related to something called “effective altruism,” is the idea that there are big, existential problems facing the world, and we should be thinking a lot harder about them because people in the future matter too, not just us. And we should be spending money on these problems. We should be doing more research on these problems. What do you think about this movement? It sounds logical.Well, if you just compare it to all the other movements out there and their priorities, I've got to give this one credit. Obviously, the future is important.They are thinking directly about it. And they have ideas.They are trying to be conscious about that and proactive and altruistic about that. And that's certainly great compared to the vast majority of other activity. Now, I have some complaints, but overall, I'm happy to praise this sort of thing. The risk is, as with most futurism, that even though we're not conscious of it, what we're really doing is sort of projecting our issues now into the future and sort of arguing about future stuff by talking about our stuff. So you might say people seem to be really concerned about the future of global warming in two centuries, but all the other stuff that might happen in two centuries, they're not at all interested. It's like, what's the difference there? They might say global warming lets them tell this anti-materialist story that they'd want to tell anyway, tell why it's bad to be materialist and so to cut back on material stuff is good. And it's sort of a pro-environment story. I fear that that's also happening to some degree in effective altruism. But that's just what you should expect for humans in general. Effective altruists, in terms of their focus on the future, are overwhelmingly focused as far as I can tell on artificial intelligence risk. And I think that's a bit misdirected. In a big world I don't mind it …My concern is that we'll be super cautious and before we have developed anything that could really create existential risk … we will never get to the point where it's so powerful because, like the Luddites, we'll have quashed it early on out of fear.A friend of mine is Eric Drexler, who years ago was known as talking about nanotechnology. Nanotechnology is still a technology in the future. And he experienced something that made him a little unsure whether he should have said all these things, he said, which is that once you can describe a vivid future, the first thing everybody focuses on is almost all the things that can go wrong. Then they set up policy to try to focus on preventing the things that can go wrong. That's where the whole conversation goes. And then people are distancing themselves from it. He found that many people distanced themselves from nanotechnology until they could take over the word, because in their minds it reflected these terrible risks. So people wanted to not even talk about that. But you could ask, if he had just inspired people to make the technology but not talked about the larger policy risks, maybe that would be better? It might be in fact true that the world today is broken so much that if ordinary people and policymakers don't know about a future risk, the world's better off, because at least they won't mess it up by trying to limit it and control it too early and too crudely.Then the challenge is, maybe you want the technologists who might make it to hear about it and get inspired, but you don't want everybody else to be inspired to control it and correct it and channel it and prepare for it. Because honestly, that seems to go pretty bad. I guess the question is, what technology that people did see well ahead of time, did they not come up with terrible scenarios to worry about? For example, television: People didn't think about television very much ahead of time. And when it came, a lot of people watched it. And a lot of people complained about that. But if you could imagine ahead of time that in 20 years people are going to spend five hours a day watching this thing. If that's an accurate prediction, people would've freaked out.Or cars: As you may know, in the late 1800s, people just did not envision the future of cars. When they envisioned the future of transportation, they saw dirigibles and trains and submarines, even, but not cars. Because cars were these individual things. And if they had envisioned the actual future of cars — automobile accidents, individual people controlling a thing going down the street at 80 miles an hour — they might have thought, “That's terrible. We can't allow that.” And you have to wonder… It was only in the United States, really, that cars took off. There's a sense in which the world had rapid technological progress around 1900 or so because the US was an exception worldwide. A lot of technologies were only really tried in the US, like even radio, and then the rest of the world copied and followed because the US had so much success with them.I think if you want to pick a point where that optimistic ‘90s came to an end, it might have been, speaking of Wired magazine, the Bill Joy article … “Why the Future Doesn't Need Us.” Talking about nanotech and gray goo… Since you brought up nanotech and Eric Drexler, do you know what the state of that technology is? We had this nanotechnology initiative, but I don't think it was working on that kind of nanotech.No, it wasn't.It was more like a materials science. But as far as creating these replicating tiny machines…The federal government had a nanotechnology initiative, where they basically took all the stuff they were doing that was dealing with small stuff and they relabeled it. They didn't really add more money. They just put it under a new initiative. And then they made sure nobody was doing anything like this sort of dangerous stuff that could cause what Eric was talking about.Stuff you'd put in sunscreen…Exactly. So there was still never much funding there. There's a sense in which, in many kinds of technology areas, somebody can envision ahead of time a new technology that was possible if a concentrated effort goes into a certain area in a certain way. And they're trying to inspire that. But absent that focused effort, you might not see it for a long time. That would be the simplest story about nanotech: We haven't seen the focused effort and resources that he had proposed. Now, that doesn't mean had we had those efforts he would've succeeded. He could just be wrong about what was feasible and how soon. But nevertheless, that still seemed to be an exciting, promising technology that would've been worth the investment to try. And still is, I would say.One concern I have about the notion of longtermism, is that it seems to place a lot of emphasis on our ability to rally people, get them thinking long term, taking preparatory steps. And we've just gone through a pandemic which showed that we don't do that very well. And the way we dealt with it was not through preparation, but by being a rich, technologically advanced society that could come up with a vaccine. That's my kind of longtermism, in a way: being rich and technologically capable so you can react to the unexpected.And that's because we allowed an exception in how vaccines were developed in that case. Had we gone with the usual way vaccines had been developed before, it would've taken a lot longer. So the problem is that when we make too many structures that restrain things, then we aren't able to quickly react to new circumstances. You probably know that most companies, they might have a forecasting department, but they don't fund it very much. They don't actually care that much. Almost everything they do is reactive in most organizations. That's just the fact of how most organizations work. Because, in fact, it is hard to prepare. It's hard to anticipate things.I'm not saying we shouldn't try to figure out ways to deflect asteroids. We should. To have this notion of longtermism over a broad scope of issues … that's fine. But I hope we don't forget the other part, which is making sure that we do the right things to create those innovative ecosystems where we do increase wealth, we do increase our technological capabilities to not be totally dependent on our best guesses right now.Here's a scary example of how this thinking can go wrong, in my mind. In the longtermism community, there's this serious proposal that many people like, which is called the Long Reflection.The Long Reflection, which is, we've solved all the problems and then we take a time out.We stop allowing change for a while. And for a good long time, maybe a thousand years or even longer, we're in this period where no change substantially happens. Then we talk a lot about what we could do to deal with things when things are allowed to change again. And we work it all out, and then we turn it back on and allow change. That's giving a lot of credit to this system of talking.Who's talking? Are these post-humans talking? Or is it people like us?It would be before the change, remember. So it would be people like us. I actually think this is this ancient human intuition from the forger world, before the farming era, where in the small band the way we made most important decisions was to sit down around the campfire and discuss it and then decide together and then do something. And that's, in some sense, how everybody wants to make all the big decisions. That's why they like a world government and a world community, because it goes back to that. But I honestly think we have to admit that just doesn't go very well lately. We're not actually very capable of having a discussion together and feeling all the options and making choices and then deciding together to do it. That's how we want to be able to work. And that's how we maybe should, but it's not how we are. I feel, with the Long Reflection, once we institutionalize a world where change isn't allowed, we would get pretty used to that world.It seems very comfortable, and we'd start voting for security.And then we wouldn't really allow the Great Reflection to end, because that would be this risky, into the strange world. We would like the stable world we were in. And that would be the end of that.I should say that I very much like Toby Ord's book, The Precipice. He's also one of my all-time favorite guests. He's really been a fantastic guest. Though, the Long Reflection, I do have concerns about.Come back next Thursday for part two of my conversation with Robin Hanson. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit fasterplease.substack.com/subscribe

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: The History, Epistemology and Strategy of Technological Restraint, and lessons for AI (short essay), published by MMMaas on August 10, 2022 on The Effective Altruism Forum. In short: some expect that we could not meaningfully slow or halt the development of A(G)I even if we expect extreme risks. Yet there is a surprisingly diverse historical track record of technological delay and restraint, even for strategically promising technologies that were seen as 'obvious' and near-inevitable in their time. Epistemic hurdles around studying 'undeployed' technologies make it likely that we underestimate the frequency of restraint decisions, or misinterpret their causes. From an outside view, this should lead us to be slightly more optimistic about the viability of restraint for future technologies. This analysis does not show that restraint for AGI is currently desirable; that it would be easy; that it would be a wise strategy (given its consequences); or that it is an optimal or competitive approach relative to other available AI governance strategies. However, possible conditions for- or pathways towards restraint should be explored in greater detail, as part of a comprehensive toolset that offers strategic clarity regarding all options on the table. Disclaimers: Background: this short essay was published on the legal academic forum Verfassungsblog, as part of a symposium debate sequence on 'Longtermism and the Law' (see summary twitter thread here). As such it approaches the topic from the perspective of 'legal longtermism', but many points apply to longtermist (or AI risk/governance) debates generally. This post has been lightly edited. Epistemic status: this is an initial primer on an in-progress research project, and many of the case studies will need further analysis; My take: it is not yet my view that restraint is warranted as a strategy--nor that it currently compares well to other work. However, I do expect it should be explored amongst other avenues; Feedback & future work: I will cover this in greater detail, including a discussion of advantages and risks of pursuing restraint, in an upcoming profile of the 'Containing' approach, as part of my 'Strategic Perspectives on Long-term AI Governance' sequence. I welcome feedback. Abstract: If the development of certain technologies, such as advanced, unaligned A(G)I, would be as dangerous as some have suggested, a longtermist (legal) perspective might advocate a strategy of technological delay—or even restraint—to avoid a default outcome of catastrophe. To many, restraint–a decision to withhold indefinitely from the development, or at least deployment, of the technology–might look implausible. However, history offers a surprising array of cases where strategically promising technologies were delayed, abandoned, or left unbuilt (see in-progress list), even though many at the time perceived their development as inevitable. They range from radiological- and weather weapons to atomic planes, from dozens of voluntarily cancelled state nuclear weapons programs, to a Soviet internet, and many more. It is easy to miss these cases, or to misinterpret their underlying causes, in ways that lead us to be too pessimistic about future prospects for restraint. That does not mean that restraint for future technologies like advanced AI will be easy, or a wise strategy. Yet investigating when and why restraint might be needed, where it is viable, and how legal interventions could contribute to achieving and maintaining it, should be a key pillar within a long-termist legal research portfolio. The question of restraint around AI development In a famous 2000 essay, entitled ‘Why the Future Doesn't Need Us', computer scientist Bill Joy grimly reflected on the potential range of new technological threats that could await us in the 21st centu...

We cover SO much in this episode! There is so much going on. Here are some of the topics we get into: Alex Jones's new documentary (reaching #2 on Apple TV). Competition in Big Pharma (or lack thereof). Lockdowns coming in the fall and the mainstream media fear mongering COVID, while Biden said he WILL NOT use lockdowns like Trump. The history of censorship (and where 'misinformation' came from). "Why the future doesn't need us." Shocking article from Bill Joy over 20 years ago. Pelosi's owning 20,000 shares in Nvida in recent disclosure and today a bill was passed for $52 billion in favor of buying their semiconductors. Dr. McCullough's new book. The worst thing for the environment: human beings! UK v*ccine numbers. January 6th deception exposed. Food wars: who is the 'bad guy'? Farms or Corporations? 69-year-old woman with breast cancer (with no criminal history) begins her jail sentence for "insurrection". The church of Pfizer opening up 'Faith Clinics'. Google is carbon neutral since 2007...what does that mean? Media failure in rape case. Getting people sick and miraculously ALWAYS coming up with the cure. And much, much more! YouTube - https://youtu.be/RftNYMr23OE Podcast - https://anchor.fm/jsk/episodes/PROOF-Are-conspiracy-theories-just-delayed-facts----39-e1l9h96 References - https://elink.io/p/conspiracy-theories-turned-facts-979fc3e --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/jsk/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/jsk/support ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

We cover SO much in this episode! There is so much going on. Here are some of the topics we get into: Alex Jones's new documentary (reaching #2 on Apple TV). Competition in Big Pharma (or lack thereof). Lockdowns coming in the fall and the mainstream media fear mongering COVID, while Biden said he WILL NOT use lockdowns like Trump. The history of censorship (and where 'misinformation' came from). "Why the future doesn't need us." Shocking article from Bill Joy over 20 years ago. Pelosi's owning 20,000 shares in Nvida in recent disclosure and today a bill was passed for $52 billion in favor of buying their semiconductors. Dr. McCullough's new book. The worst thing for the environment: human beings! UK v*ccine numbers. January 6th deception exposed. Food wars: who is the 'bad guy'? Farms or Corporations? 69-year-old woman with breast cancer (with no criminal history) begins her jail sentence for "insurrection". The church of Pfizer opening up 'Faith Clinics'. Google is carbon neutral since 2007...what does that mean? Media failure in rape case. Getting people sick and miraculously ALWAYS coming up with the cure. And much, much more! YouTube - https://youtu.be/RftNYMr23OE Podcast - https://anchor.fm/jsk/episodes/PROOF-Are-conspiracy-theories-just-delayed-facts----39-e1l9h96 References - https://elink.io/p/conspiracy-theories-turned-facts-979fc3e --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/jsk/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/jsk/support ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

An airhacks.fm conversation with Stuart Marks (@stuartmarks) about: Wang 2200 Laboratories computer with 10 years, David Ahl 101 Basic Computer Games, Basic without "else", GOTO and GOSUB, Pascal Records and Java, conditional evaluation in Pascal, the criticism on Pascal, Bill Joy added the socket interface to BSD 4.2, replacing VMS with BSD, the Bill Joy long weekend, starting at Sun Microsystems, working with James Gosling on the NeWS windows system, Postcript based windows system, NeWS ran on SunOS, SunOS 5 became Solaris, the unpleasant UNIX wars with AT&T, HP and IBM, X-Window vs. NeWS, shared state and NeWS, display postscript became the NeXT system, the X-NeWS merge OS, Open Look and Motif, OSF-opensource foundation, Motif became the dominant OS, creating a eCommerce system with Java at Sun, working with James Gosling at NeWS, project Oak and Project Green, Star Seven, licensing WebLogic and Tengah, personal Java and the Java Ring, Java on Sharp Zaurus and on Palm, working on J2ME, working with JavaFX, Chris Oliver started JavaFX, F3 and Forms Follow Function, Java FX Script was an own language, Richard Bair was the JavaFX architect, Jasper Potts was was the Java FX UI designer, JavaFX is based on final classes, the fragile base class / brittle base class problem, the general subclassing problem, implementing a 2d traversial algorithm for Java FX, Sun was shrinking, Java FX was growing, Brian Goetz worked to improve the Java FX internals, RIAs - Rich Internet Applications, Silverlight, Flash, Flex and JavaFX, JavaFX supported CSS, the compiler bug war story, binding propagates side effects, Robert Field is working on jshell, Stuart Marks on twitter: @stuartmarks, Stuart Marks blog: stuartmarks.wordpress.com

You've likely heard of 10,000 hours—loosely, that means how long it takes for someone to be world-class at a particular skill. So, what are you doing about your next 10,000 hours? And how are those around you—and the Holy Spirit Who is in you—a part of the journey? Join Kevin as he unpacks the story of 10,000 hours and the opportunity each of us has before us in our next 10,000 hours of learning! // Download this episode's Application & Action questions and PDF transcript at whitestone.org.

"So I agree with the anarcho-primitivists that the advent of civilization was a great disaster and that the Industrial Revolution was an even greater one. I further agree that a revolution against modernity, and against civilization in general, is necessary. But you can't build an effective revolutionary movement out of soft-headed dreamers, lazies, and charlatans. You have to have tough-minded, realistic, practical people, and people of that kind don't need the anarcho-primitivists' mushy utopian myth." —T. Kaczynski, "The Truth About Primitive Life: A Critique of Anarcho-Primitivism," 2008. Cabin is a series from The Relentless Picnic. It's one story told over 11 episodes. It's a story about solitude and isolation, community and loss, Henry David Thoreau and Ted Kaczynski—and it's told through audio recorded throughout 2019, 2020, and 2021. Support us at patreon.com/relentlesspicnic for access to a ton of bonus content. Our web site is relentlesspicnic.com SOURCES (Ep. 8): - Pandora's Hope: Essays on the Reality of Science Studies, by Bruno Latour (1999): bit.ly/3qxCaxK ; - The Unabomber In His Own Words (2018), dir. Mick Grogan, on Netflix: bit.ly/2DbHkuh ; - Technological Slavery: The Collected Writings of Theodore J. Kaczynski, a.k.a. “The Unabomber”, ed. and introduction by David Skirbina, 2010: amzn.to/2STTFYH ; - Jacques Ellul, The Technological Society (1954): amzn.to/3o2zdmy ; - "Why the Future Doesn't Need Us" by Bill Joy, Wired (4/1/00): bit.ly/3hw5uQD ; - "Harvard and the Making of the Unabomber" by Alston Chase, Atlantic (June 2000): bit.ly/3mISjzh ; - "Eco-terrorists set fire to Vail Mountain 20 years ago, and the response showed how mutual aid could benefit mountain communities" by Randy Wyrick, Denver Post (10/27/18): dpo.st/3EKRHzF ; - season photo: "Untitled #2214" by Todd Hido, 1998.

Ron Swidler is the Founder of the Hotel Tomorrow and the Chief Innovation Office at the Gettys Group for 33 years. He knows that it takes courage to be innovative and creative. Ron's passion is to strive for the best for his company and clients. He joins host Dan Ryan to talk about his experience with #hospitality and how he views it.  Takeaways:    It takes many hours to become an expert in a certain area, but it also takes a certain amount of luck as well.  Surround yourself with people that you trust that can be advisors or mentors. That way when you start a new project you'll have a supporting cast helping you.  It takes a lot of courage to be vulnerable and admit when you need help. Asking for help isn't a terrible thing to be ashamed of, it's what a good leader does.  Hospitality has evolved into noticing how you make people feel. When we are at our best we are caring for others.  There is a bit of selflessness in hospitality, as it is about giving back to others and making others feel comfortable and welcomed. You need a signature for your company. You need something that when someone thinks of your company, they have an image in mind that fits your brand (i.e. Disney and Mickey Mouse or Cinderella's Castle).  Bringing people's attention to a better way to do projects (i.e. sustainability, community focus, etc.) is important as you can influence someone to have a better impact on a community. Quote of the Show:   10:02 “Most people are familiar with Maya Angelou's quote about forgetting what I've said or what I do, but remembering how I make you feel. And I think ultimately that's what hospitality has evolved into. And I have an interesting theory about how that's going to progress out into the future because we're only at one step of that evolution. But I think when we're at our best, we're caring for others. There's a bit of selflessness in that.” Links:   Twitter: https://twitter.com/ronswidler?lang=en LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ron-swidler-521a848/ Website: https://www.gettys.com Shout Outs:   3:24 “Outliers”by Malcom Gladwell 3:59 Roger Hill 4:00 Andrew Fay 6:17 Marriott 7:49 Phil Cordell 7:53 Hilton 10:04 Maya Angelou 11:52 TripAdvisor 14:12 Disney Castle 18:59 Matt Phillips 21:57 USA Today 24:54 HD Expo 25:05 Howard Wolff 25:08 Starwood 25:13 Christian Strobel 25:38 Parsons School of Design 33:37 “Exponential Organizations” by Salim Ismail 35:56 “The Inevitable” by Kevin Kelly 37:46 Blair Batwani 40:33 Kraig Kalashian 44:46 “Radical Evolution” by Joel Gero  44:46 Bill Joy  45:06 Ray Kurzweil 48:47 Chris Milk Ways to Tune In:  Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/0A2XOJvb6mGqEPYJ5bilPX Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/defining-hospitality-podcast/id1573596386 Google Podcasts: https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZGVmaW5pbmdob3NwaXRhbGl0eS5saXZlL2ZlZWQueG1s Amazon Music: ​​https://music.amazon.com/podcasts/8c904932-90fa-41c3-813e-1cb8f3c42419 Podbean: https://www.defininghospitality.live/ Youtube : https://youtu.be/K17KGIxhzcA

In the previous episodes, we looked at the rise of patents and software and their impact on the nascent computer industry. But a copyright is a right. And that right can be given to others in whole or in part. We have all benefited from software where the right to copy was waved and it's shaped the computing industry as much, if not more, than proprietary software. The term Free and Open Source Software (FOSS for short) is a blanket term to describe software that's free and/or whose source code is distributed for varying degrees of tinkeration. It's a movement and a choice. Programmers can commercialize our software. But we can also distribute it free of copy protections. And there are about as many licenses as there are opinions about what is unique, types of software, underlying components, etc. But given that many choose to commercialize their work products, how did a movement arise that specifically didn't? The early computers were custom-built to perform various tasks. Then computers and software were bought as a bundle and organizations could edit the source code. But as operating systems and languages evolved and businesses wanted their own custom logic, a cottage industry for software started to emerge. We see this in every industry - as an innovation becomes more mainstream, the expectations and needs of customers progress at an accelerated rate. That evolution took about 20 years to happen following World War II and by 1969, the software industry had evolved to the point that IBM faced antitrust charges for bundling software with hardware. And after that, the world of software would never be the same. The knock-on effect was that in the 1970s, Bell Labs pushed away from MULTICS and developed Unix, which AT&T then gave away as compiled code to researchers. And so proprietary software was a growing industry, which AT&T began charging for commercial licenses as the bushy hair and sideburns of the 70s were traded for the yuppy culture of the 80s. In the meantime, software had become copyrightable due to the findings of CONTU and the codifying of the Copyright Act of 1976. Bill Gates sent his infamous “Open Letter to Hobbyists” in 1976 as well, defending the right to charge for software in an exploding hobbyist market. And then Apple v Franklin led to the ability to copyright compiled code in 1983. There was a growing divide between those who'd been accustomed to being able to copy software freely and edit source code and those who in an up-market sense just needed supported software that worked - and were willing to pay for it, seeing the benefits that automation was having on the capabilities to scale an organization. And yet there were plenty who considered copyright software immoral. One of the best remembered is Richard Stallman, or RMS for short. Steven Levy described Stallman as “The Last of the True Hackers” in his epic book “Hackers: Heroes of the Computer Revolution.” In the book, he describes the MIT Stallman joined where there weren't passwords and we didn't yet pay for software and then goes through the emergence of the LISP language and the divide that formed between Richard Greenblatt, who wanted to keep The Hacker Ethic alive and those who wanted to commercialize LISP. The Hacker Ethic was born from the young MIT students who freely shared information and ideas with one another and help push forward computing in an era they thought was purer in a way, as though it hadn't yet been commercialized. The schism saw the death of the hacker culture and two projects came out of Stallman's technical work: emacs, which is a text editor that is still included freely in most modern Unix variants and the GNU project. Here's the thing, MIT was sitting on patents for things like core memory and thrived in part due to the commercialization or weaponization of the technology they were producing. The industry was maturing and since the days when kings granted patents, maturing technology would be commercialized using that system. And so Stallman's nostalgia gave us the GNU project, born from an idea that the industry moved faster in the days when information was freely shared and that knowledge was meant to be set free. For example, he wanted the source code for a printer driver so he could fix it and was told it was protected by an NDAQ and so couldn't have it. A couple of years later he announced GNU, a recursive acronym for GNU's Not Unix. The next year he built a compiler called GCC and the next year released the GNU Manifesto, launching the Free Software Foundation, often considered the charter of the free and open source software movement. Over the next few years as he worked on GNU, he found emacs had a license, GCC had a license, and the rising tide of free software was all distributed with unique licenses. And so the GNU General Public License was born in 1989 - allowing organizations and individuals to copy, distribute, and modify software covered under the license but with a small change, that if someone modified the source, they had to release that with any binaries they distributed as well. The University of California, Berkley had benefited from a lot of research grants over the years and many of their works could be put into the public domain. They had brought Unix in from Bell Labs in the 70s and Sun cofounder and Java author Bill Joy worked under professor Fabry, who brought Unix in. After working on a Pascal compiler that Unix coauthor Ken Thompson left for Berkeley, Joy and others started working on what would become BSD, not exactly a clone of Unix but with interchangeable parts. They bolted on the OSI model to get networking and through the 80s as Joy left for Sun and DEC got ahold of that source code there were variants and derivatives like FreeBSD, NetBSD, Darwin, and others. The licensing was pretty permissive and simple to understand: Copyright (c) . All rights reserved. Redistribution and use in source and binary forms are permitted provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are duplicated in all such forms and that any documentation, advertising materials, and other materials related to such distribution and use acknowledge that the software was developed by the . The name of the may not be used to endorse or promote products derived from this software without specific prior written permission. THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED ``AS IS AND WITHOUT ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. By 1990 the Board of Regents at Berkley accepted a four clause BSD license that spawned a class of licenses. While it's matured into other formats like a 0 clause license it's one of my favorites as it is truest to the FOSS cause. And the 90s gave us the Apache License, from the Apache Group, loosely based on the BSD License and then in 2004 leaning away from that with the release of the Apache License 2 that was more compatible with the GPL license. Given the modding nature of Apache they didn't require derivative works to also be open sourced but did require leaving the license in place for unmodified parts of the original work. GNU never really caught on as an OS in the mainstream, although a collection of tools did. The main reason the OS didn't go far is probably because Linus Torvalds started releasing prototypes of his Linux operating system in 1991. Torvalds used The GNU General Public License v2, or GPLv2 to license his kernel, having been inspired by a talk given by Stallman. GPL 2 had been released in 1991 and something else was happening as we turned into the 1990s: the Internet. Suddenly the software projects being worked on weren't just distributed on paper tape or floppy disks; they could be downloaded. The rise of Linux and Apache coincided and so many a web server and site ran that LAMP stack with MySQL and PHP added in there. All open source in varying flavors of what open source was at the time. And collaboration in the industry was at an all-time high. We got the rise of teams of developers who would edit and contribute to projects. One of these was a tool for another aspect of the Internet, email. It was called popclient, Here Eric S Raymond, or ESR for short, picked it up and renamed it to fetchmail, releasing it as an open source project. Raymond presented on his work at the Linux Congress in 1997, expanded that work into an essay and then the essay into “The Cathedral and the Bazaar” where bazaar is meant to be like an open market. That inspired many to open source their own works, including the Netscape team, which resulted in Mozilla and so Firefox - and another book called “Freeing the Source: The Story of Mozilla” from O'Reilly. By then, Tim O'Reilly was a huge proponent of this free or source code available type of software as it was known. And companies like VA Linux were growing fast. And many wanted to congeal around some common themes. So in 1998, Christine Peterson came up with the term “open source” in a meeting with Raymond, Todd Anderson, Larry Augustin, Sam Ockman, and Jon “Maddog” Hall, author of the first book I read on Linux. Free software it may or may not be but open source as a term quickly proliferated throughout the lands. By 1998 there was this funny little company called Tivo that was doing a public beta of a little box with a Linux kernel running on it that bootstrapped a pretty GUI to record TV shows on a hard drive on the box and play them back. You remember when we had to wait for a TV show, right? Or back when some super-fancy VCRs could record a show at a specific time to VHS (but mostly failed for one reason or another)? Well, Tivo meant to fix that. We did an episode on them a couple of years ago but we skipped the term Tivoization and the impact they had on GPL. As the 90s came to a close, VA Linux and Red Hat went through great IPOs, bringing about an era where open source could mean big business. And true to the cause, they shared enough stock with Linus Torvalds to make him a millionaire as well. And IBM pumped a billion dollars into open source, with Sun moving to open source openoffice.org. Now, what really happened there might be that by then Microsoft had become too big for anyone to effectively compete with and so they all tried to pivot around to find a niche, but it still benefited the world and open source in general. By Y2K there was a rapidly growing number of vendors out there putting Linux kernels onto embedded devices. TiVo happened to be one of the most visible. Some in the Linux community felt like they were being taken advantage of because suddenly you had a vendor making changes to the kernel but their changes only worked on their hardware and they blocked users from modifying the software. So The Free Software Foundation updated GPL, bundling in some other minor changes and we got the GNU General Public License (Version 3) in 2006. There was a lot more in GPL 3, given that so many organizations were involved in open source software by then. Here, the full license text and original copyright notice had to be included along with a statement of significant changes and making source code available with binaries. And commercial Unix variants struggled with SGI going bankrupt in 2006 and use of AIX and HP-UX Many of these open source projects flourished because of version control systems and the web. SourceForge was created by VA Software in 1999 and is a free service that can be used to host open source projects. Concurrent Versions System, or CVS had been written by Dick Grune back in 1986 and quickly became a popular way to have multiple developers work on projects, merging diffs of code repositories. That gave way to git in the hearts of many a programmer after Linus Torvalds wrote a new versioning system called git in 2005. GitHub came along in 2008 and was bought by Microsoft in 2018 for 2018. Seeing a need for people to ask questions about coding, Stack Overflow was created by Jeff Atwood and Joel Spolsky in 2008. Now, we could trade projects on one of the versioning tools, get help with projects or find smaller snippets of sample code on Stack Overflow, or even Google random things (and often find answers on Stack Overflow). And so social coding became a large part of many a programmers day. As did dependency management, given how many tools are used to compile a modern web app or app. I often wonder how much of the code in many of our favorite tools is actually original. Another thought is that in an industry dominated by white males, it's no surprise that we often gloss over previous contributions. It was actually Grace Hopper's A-2 compiler that was the first software that was released freely with source for all the world to adapt. Sure, you needed a UNIVAC to run it, and so it might fall into the mainframe era and with the emergence of minicomputers we got Digital Equipment's DECUS for sharing software, leading in part to the PDP-inspired need for source that Stallman was so adamant about. General Motors developed SHARE Operating System for the IBM 701 and made it available through the IBM user group called SHARE. The ARPAnet was free if you could get to it. TeX from Donald Knuth was free. The BASIC distribution from Dartmouth was academic and yet Microsoft sold it for up to $100,000 a license (see Commodore ). So it's no surprise that people avoided paying upstarts like Microsoft for their software or that it took until the late 70s to get copyright legislation and common law. But Hopper's contributions were kinda' like open source v1, the work from RMS to Linux was kinda' like open source v2, and once the term was coined and we got the rise of a name and more social coding platforms from SourceForge to git, we moved into a third version of the FOSS movement. Today, some tools are free, some are open source, some are free as in beer (as you find in many a gist), some are proprietary. All are valid. Today there are also about as many licenses as there are programmers putting software out there. And here's the thing, they're all valid. You see, every creator has the right to restrict the ability to copy their software. After all, it's their intellectual property. Anyone who chooses to charge for their software is well within their rights. Anyone choosing to eschew commercialization also has that right. And every derivative in between. I wouldn't judge anyone based on any model those choose. Just as those who distribute proprietary software shouldn't be judged for retaining their rights to do so. Why not just post things we want to make free? Patents, copyrights, and trademarks are all a part of intellectual property - but as developers of tools we also need to limit our liability as we're probably not out there buying large errors and omissions insurance policies for every script or project we make freely available. Also, we might want to limit the abuse of our marks. For example, Linus Torvalds monitors the use of the Linux mark through the Linux Mark Institute. Apparently some William Dell Croce Jr tried to register the Linux trademark in 1995 and Torvalds had to sue to get it back. He provides use of the mark using a free and perpetual global sublicense. Given that his wife won the Finnish karate championship six times I wouldn't be messing with his trademarks. Thank you to all the creators out there. Thank you for your contributions. And thank you for tuning in to this episode of the History of Computing Podcast. Have a great day.

About ScottScott first typed ‘docker run' in 2013 and hasn't looked back. He's been with Docker since 2014 in a variety of leadership roles and currently serves as CEO. His experience previous to Docker includes Sun Microsystems, Puppet, Netscape, Cisco, and Loudcloud (parent of Opsware). When not fussing with computers he spends time with his three kids fussing with computers.Links: Docker: https://www.docker.com Twitter: https://twitter.com/scottcjohnston TranscriptAnnouncer: Hello, and welcome to Screaming in the Cloud with your host, Chief Cloud Economist at The Duckbill Group, Corey Quinn. This weekly show features conversations with people doing interesting work in the world of cloud, thoughtful commentary on the state of the technical world, and ridiculous titles for which Corey refuses to apologize. This is Screaming in the Cloud.Corey: This episode is sponsored in part by Liquibase. If you're anything like me, you've screwed up the database part of a deployment so severely that you've been banned from touching every anything that remotely sounds like SQL, at at least three different companies. We've mostly got code deployments solved for, but when it comes to databases we basically rely on desperate hope, with a roll back plan of keeping our resumes up to date. It doesn't have to be that way. Meet Liquibase. It is both an open source project and a commercial offering. Liquibase lets you track, modify, and automate database schema changes across almost any database, with guardrails to ensure you'll still have a company left after you deploy the change. No matter where your database lives, Liquibase can help you solve your database deployment issues. Check them out today at liquibase.com. Offer does not apply to Route 53.Corey: This episode is sponsored in part by something new. Cloud Academy is a training platform built on two primary goals. Having the highest quality content in tech and cloud skills, and building a good community the is rich and full of IT and engineering professionals. You wouldn't think those things go together, but sometimes they do. Its both useful for individuals and large enterprises, but here's what makes it new. I don't use that term lightly. Cloud Academy invites you to showcase just how good your AWS skills are. For the next four weeks you'll have a chance to prove yourself. Compete in four unique lab challenges, where they'll be awarding more than $2000 in cash and prizes. I'm not kidding, first place is a thousand bucks. Pre-register for the first challenge now, one that I picked out myself on Amazon SNS image resizing, by visiting cloudacademy.com/corey. C-O-R-E-Y. That's cloudacademy.com/corey. We're gonna have some fun with this one!Corey: Welcome to Screaming in the Cloud. I'm Corey Quinn. Once upon a time, I started my public speaking career as a traveling contract trainer for Puppet; I've talked about this before. And during that time, I encountered someone who worked there as an exec, Scott Johnston, who sat down, talked to me about how I viewed things, and then almost immediately went to go work at Docker instead. Today's promoted episode brings Scott on to the show. Scott, you fled to get away from me, became the CEO of Docker over the past, oh what is it, seven years now. You're still standing there, and I'm not making fun of Docker quite the way that I used to. First, thanks for joining me.Scott: Great to be here, Corey. Thanks for the invitation. I'm not sure I was fleeing you, but we can recover that one at another time.Corey: Oh, absolutely. In that era, one of my first talks that I started giving that anyone really paid any attention to was called, “Heresy in the Church of Docker,” where I listed about 10 to 13 different things that Docker didn't seem to have answers for, like network separation, security, audit logging, et cetera, et cetera. And it was a fun talk that I used to basically learn how to speak publicly without crying before and after the talk. And in time, it wound up aging out as these problems got addressed, but what surprised me at the time was how receptive the Docker community was to the idea of a talk that wound up effectively criticizing something that for, well, a number of them it felt a lot of the time like it wasn't that far from a religion; it was very hype-driven: “Docker, Docker, Docker” was a recurring joke. Docker has changed a lot. The burning question that I think I want to start this off with is that it's 2021; what is Docker? Is it a technology? Is it a company? Is it a religion? Is it a community? What is Docker?Scott: Yes. I mean that sincerely. Often, the first awareness or the first introduction that newcomers have is in fact the community, before they get their hands on the product, before they learn that there's a company behind the product is they have a colleague who is, either through a Zoom or sitting next to them in some places, or in a coffee shop, and says, “Hey, you got to try this thing called Docker.” And they lean over—either virtually or physically—and look at the laptop of their friend who's promoting Docker, and they see a magical experience. And that is the introduction of so many of our community members, having spoken with them and heard their own kind of journeys.And so that leads to like, “Okay, so why the excitement? Why did the friend lean over to the other friend and introduce?” It's because the tools that Docker provides just helps devs get their app built and shipping faster, more securely, with choice, without being tied into any particular runtime, any particular infrastructure. And that combination has proven to be a breakthrough dopamine hit to developers since the very beginning, since 2013, when Docker is open-source.Corey: It feels like originally, the breakthrough of Docker, that people will say, “Oh, containers aren't new. We've had that going back to LPARs on mainframes.” Yes, I'm aware, but suddenly, it became easy to work with and didn't take tremendous effort to get unified environments. It was cynically observed at the time by lots of folks smarter than I am, that the big breakthrough Docker had was how to make my MacBook look a lot more like a Linux server in production. And we talk about breaking down silos between ops and dev, but in many ways, this just meant that the silo became increasingly irrelevant because, “Works on my machine” was no longer a problem.“Well, you better back up your email because your laptop's about to go into production in that case.” Containers made it easier and that was a big deal. It seems, on some level, like there was a foray where Docker the company was moving into the world of, “Okay, now we're going to run a lot of these containers in production for you, et cetera.” It really feels like recently, the company as a whole and the strategy has turned towards getting back to its roots of solving developer problems and positioning itself as a developer tool. Is that a fair characterization?Scott: A hundred percent. That's very intentional, as well. We certainly had good products, and great customers, and we're solving problems for customers on the ops side, I'll call it, but when we stood back—this is around 2019—and said, “Where's the real… joy?” For lack of a better word, “Where's the real joy from a community standpoint, from a product experience standpoint, from a what do we do different and better and more capable than anyone else in the ecosystem?” It was that developer experience. And so the reset that you're referring to in November 2019, was to give us the freedom to go back and just focus the entire company's efforts on the needs of developers without any other distractions from a revenue, customer, channel, so on and so forth.Corey: So, we knew this was going to come up in the conversation, but as of a couple of weeks ago—as of the time of this recording—you announced a somewhat, well, let's say controversial change in how the pricing and licensing works. Now, as of—taking effect at the end of this year—the end of January, rather, of next year—Docker Desktop is free for folks to use for individual use, and that's fine, and for corporate use, Docker Desktop also remains free until you are a large company defined by ten million in revenue a year and/or 250 employees or more. And that was interesting and I don't think I'd seen that type of requirement placed before on what was largely an open-source project that's now a developer tool. I believe there are closed-source aspects of it as well for the desktop experience, but please don't quote me on that; I'm not here to play internet lawyer engineer. But at that point, the internet was predictably upset about this because it is easy to yell about any change that is coming, regardless.I was less interested in that than I am in what the reception has been from your corporate customers because, let's be clear, users are important, community is important, but goodwill will not put food on the table past a certain point. There has to be a way to make a company sustainable, there has to be a recurring revenue model. I realize that you know this, but I'm sure there are people listening to this who are working in development somewhere who are, “Wait, you mean I need to add more value than I cost?” It was a hard revelation for [laugh] me back when I had been in the industry a few years—Scott: [laugh]. Sure.Corey: —and I'm still struggling with that—Scott: Sure.Corey: Some days.Scott: You and me both. [laugh].Corey: So, what has the reaction been from folks who have better channels of communicating with you folks than angry Twitter threads?Scott: Yeah. Create surface area for a discussion, Corey. Let's back up and talk on a couple points that you hit along the way there. One is, “What is Docker Desktop?” Docker Desktop is not just Docker Engine.Docker Desktop is a way in which we take Docker Engine, Compose, Kubernetes, all important tools for developers building modern apps—Docker Build, so on and so forth—and we provide an integrated engineered product that is engineered for the native environments of Mac and Windows, and soon Linux. And so we make it super easy to get the container runtime, Kubernetes stack, the networking, the CLI, Compose, we make it super easy just to get that up and running and configured with smart defaults, secured, hardened, and importantly updated. So, any vulnerabilities patched and so on and so forth. The point is, it's a product that is based on—to your comments—upstream open-source technologies, but it is an engineered commercial product—Docker Desktop is.Corey: Docker Desktop is a fantastic tool; I use it myself. I could make a bunch of snide comments that on Mac, it's basically there to make sure the fans are still working on the laptop, but again, computers are hard. I get that. It's incredibly handy to have a graphical control panel. It turns out that I don't pretend to understand those people, but some folks apparently believe that there are better user interfaces than text and an 80-character-wide terminal window. I don't pretend to get those people, but not everyone has the joy of being a Linux admin for far too long. So, I get it, making it more accessible, making it easy, is absolutely worth using.Scott: That's right.Corey: It's not a hard requirement to run it on a laptop-style environment or developer workstation, but it makes it really convenient.Scott: Before Docker desktop, one had to install a hypervisor, install a Linux VM, install Docker Engine on that Linux VM, bridge between the VM and the local CLI on the native desktop—like, lots of setup and maintenance and tricky stuff that can go wrong. Trust me how many times I stubbed my own toes on putting that together. And so Docker Desktop is designed to take all of that setup nonsense overhead away and just let the developer focus on the app. That's what the product is, and just talking about where it came from, and how it uses these other upstream technologies. Yes, and so we made a move on August 31, as you noted, and the motivation was the following: one is, we started seeing large organizations using Docker Desktop at scale.When I say ‘at scale,' not one or two or ten developers; like, hundreds and thousands of developers. And they were clamoring for capabilities to help them manage those developer environments at scale. Second is, we saw them getting a lot of benefit in terms of productivity, and choice, and security from using Docker Desktop, and so we stood back and said, “Look, for us to scale our business, we're at 10-plus million monthly active developers today. We know there's 45 million developers coming in this decade; how do we keep scaling while giving a free experience, but still making sure we can fund our engineers and deliver features and additional value?” We looked at other projects, Corey.The first thing we did is we looked outside our four walls, said, “How have other projects with free and open-source components navigated these waters?” And so the thresholds that you just mentioned, the 250 employees and the ten million revenue, were actually thresholds that we saw others put in place to draw lines between what is available completely for free and what is available for those users that now need to purchase subscription if they're using it to create value for their organizations. And we're very explicit about that. You could be using Docker for training, you could be using Docker for eval in those large organizations; we're not going to chase you or be looking to you to step up to a subscription. However, if you're using Docker Desktop in those environments, to build applications that run your business or that are creating value for your customers, then purchasing a subscription is a way for us to continue to invest in a product that the ecosystem clearly loves and is getting a lot of value out of. And so, that was again, the premise of this change. So, now to the root of your question is, so what's the reaction? We're very, very pleased. First off, yes, there were some angry voices out there.Corey: Yeah. And I want to be clear, I'm not trivializing people who feel upset.Scott: No.Corey: When you're suddenly using a thing that is free and discovering that, well, now you have to pay money for it, people are not generally going to be happy about that.Scott: No.Corey: When people are viewed themselves as part of the community, of contributing to what they saw as a technical revolution or a scrappy underdog and suddenly they find themselves not being included in some way, shape or form, it's natural to be upset, I don't want to trivialize—Scott: Not at all.Corey: People's warm feelings toward Docker. It was a big part of a lot of folks' personality, for better or worse, [laugh] for a few years in there. But the company needs to be sustainable, so what I'm really interested in is what has that reaction been from folks who are, for better or worse, “Yes, yes, we love Docker, but I don't get to sign $100,000 deals because I just really like the company I'm paying the money to. There has to be business value attached to that.”Scott: That's right. That's right. And to your point, we're not trivializing either the reaction by the community, it was encouraging to see many community members got right away what we're doing, they saw that still, a majority of them can continue using Docker for free under the Docker Personal subscription, and that was also intentional. And you saw on the internet and on Twitter and other social media, you saw them come and support the company's moves. And despite some angry voices in there, there was overwhelmingly positive.So, to your question, though, since August 31, we've been overwhelmed, actually, by the positive response from businesses that use Docker Desktop to build applications and run their businesses. And when I say overwhelmed, we were tracking—because Docker Desktop has a phone-home capability—we had a rough idea of what the baseline usage of Docker Desktops were out there. Well, it turns out, in some cases, there are ten times as many Docker Desktops inside organizations. And the average seems to be settling in around three times to four times as many. And we are already closing business, Corey.In 12 business days, we have companies come through, say, “Yes, our developers use this product. Yes, it's a valuable product. We're happy to talk to a salesperson and give you over to procurement, and here we go.” So, you and I both been around long enough to know, like 12 working days to have a signed agreement with an enterprise agreement is unheard of.Corey: Yeah, but let's be very clear here, on The Duckbill Group's side of things where I do consulting projects, I sell projects to companies that are, “Great, this project will take, I don't know, four to six weeks, whatever it happens to be, and, yeah, you're going to turn a profit on this project in about the first four hours of the engagement.” It is basically push button and you will receive more money in your budget than you had when you started, and that is probably the easiest possible enterprise sale, and it still takes 60 to 90 days most of the time to close deals.Scott: That's right.Corey: Trying to get a procurement deal for software through enterprise procurement processes is one of those things when people say, “Okay, we're going to have a signature in Q3,” you have to clarify what year they're talking about. So, 12 days is unheard of.Scott: [laugh]. Yep. So, we've been very encouraged by that. And I'll just give you a rough numbers: the overall response is ten times our baseline expectations, which is why—maybe unanticipated question, or you going to ask it soon—we came back within two weeks—because we could see this curve hit right away on the 31st of August—we came back and said, “Great.” Now, that we have the confidence that the community and businesses are willing to support us and invest in our sustainability, invest in the sustainable, scalable Docker, we came and we accelerated—pulled forward—items in our roadmap for developers using Docker Desktop, both for Docker Personal, for free in the community, as well as the subscribers.So, things like Docker Desktop for Linux, right? Docker Desktop for Mac, Docker Desktop for Windows has been out there about five years, as I said. We have heard Docker Desktop for Linux rise in demand over those years because if you're managing a large number of developers, you want a consistent environment across all the developers, whether they're using Linux, Mac, or Windows desktops. So, Docker Desktop for Linux will give them that consistency across their entire development environment. That was the number two most requested feature on our public roadmap in the last year, and again, with the positive response, we're now able to confidently invest in that. We're hiring more engineers than planned, we're pulling that forward in the roadmap to show that yes, we are about growing and growing sustainably, and now that the environment and businesses are supporting us, we're happy to double down and create more value.Corey: My big fear when the change was announced was the uncertainty inherent to it. Because if there's one thing that big companies don't like, it's uncertainty because uncertainty equates to risk in their mind. And a lot of other software out there—and yes, Oracle Databases I am looking at you—have a historical track record of, “Okay, great. We have audit rights to inspect your environment, and then when we wind up coming in, we always find that there have been licensing shortfalls,” because people don't know how far things spread internally, as well as, honestly, it's accounting for this stuff in large, complex organizations is a difficult thing. And then there are massive fines at stake, and then there's this whole debate back and forth.Companies view contracts as if every company behaves like that when it comes down to per-seat licensing and the rest. My fear was that that risk avoidance in large companies would have potentially made installing Docker Desktop in their environment suddenly a non-starter across the board, almost to the point of being something that you would discipline employees for, which is not great. And it seems from your response, that has not been a widespread reaction. Yes of course, there's always going to be some weird company somewhere that does draconian things that we don't see, but the fact that you're not sitting here, telling me that you've been taking a beating from this from your enterprise buyers, tells me you're onto something.Scott: I think that's right, Corey. And as you might expect, the folks that don't reach out are silent, and so we don't see folks who don't reach out to us. But because so many have reached out to us so positively, and basically quickly gone right to a conversation with procurement versus any sort of back-and-forth or questions and such, tells us we are on the right track. The other thing, just to be really clear is, we did work on this before the August 31 announcement as well—this being how do we approach licensing and compliance and such—and we found that 80% of organizations, 80% of businesses want to be in compliance, they have a—not just want to be in compliance, but they have a history of being in compliance, regardless of the enforcement mechanism and whatnot. And so that gave us confidence to say, “Hey, we're going to trust our users. We're going to say, ‘grace period ends on January 31.'”But we're not shutting down functionality, we're not sending in legal [laugh] activity, we're not putting any sort of strictures on the product functionality because we have found most people love the product, love what it does for them, and want to see the company continue to innovate and deliver great features. And so okay, you might say, “Well, doesn't that 20% represent opportunity?” Yeah. You know, it does, but it's a big ecosystem. The 80% is giving us a great boost and we're already starting to plow that into new investment. And let's just start there; let's start there and grow from there.This episode is sponsored by our friends at Oracle Cloud. Counting the pennies, but still dreaming of deploying apps instead of "Hello, World" demos? Allow me to introduce you to Oracle's Always Free tier. It provides over 20 free services and infrastructure, networking databases, observability, management, and security.And - let me be clear here - it's actually free. There's no surprise billing until you intentionally and proactively upgrade your account. This means you can provision a virtual machine instance or spin up an autonomous database that manages itself all while gaining the networking load, balancing and storage resources that somehow never quite make it into most free tiers needed to support the application that you want to build.With Always Free you can do things like run small scale applications, or do proof of concept testing without spending a dime. You know that I always like to put asterisks next to the word free. This is actually free. No asterisk. Start now. Visit https://snark.cloud/oci-free that's https://snark.cloud/oci-free.Corey: I also have a hard time imagining that you and your leadership team would be short-sighted enough to say, “Okay, that”—even 20% of companies that are willing to act dishonestly around stuff like that seems awfully high to me, but assuming it's accurate, would tracking down that missing 20% be worth setting fire to the tremendous amount of goodwill that Docker still very much enjoys? I have a hard time picturing any analysis where that's even a question other than something you set up to make fun of.Scott: [laugh]. No, that's exactly right Corey, it wouldn't be worth it which is why again, we came out of the gate with like, we're going to trust our users. They love the community, they love the product, they want to support us—most of them want to support us—and, you know, when you have most, you're never going to get a hundred percent. So, we got most and we're off to a good start, by all accounts. And look, a lot of folks too sometimes will be right in that gray middle where you let them know that they're getting away with something they're like, “All right, you caught me.”We've seen that behavior before. And so, we can see all this activity out there and we can see if folks have a license or compliance or not, and sometimes just a little tap on the shoulder said, “Hey, did you know that you might be paying for that?” We've seen most folks at the time say, “Ah, okay. You caught me. Happy to talk to procurement.”So, this does not have to be heavy-handed as you said, it does not have to put at risk the goodwill of the 80%. And we don't have to get a hundred percent to have a great successful business and continuing successful community.Corey: Yeah. I'll also point out that, by my reading of your terms and conditions and how you've specified this—I mean, this is not something I've asked you about, so this could turn into a really awkward conversation but I'm going to roll with it anyway, it explicitly states that it is and will remain free for personal development.Scott: That is correct.Corey: When you're looking at employees who work at giant companies and have sloppy ‘bring your own device' controls around these things, all right, they have it installed on their work machine because in their spare time, they're building an app somewhere, they're not going to get a nasty gram, and they're not exposing their company to liability by doing that?Scott: That is exactly correct. And moreover, just keep looking at those use cases, if the company is using it for internal training or if the company is using it to evaluate someone else's technology, someone else's software, all those cases are outside the pay-for subscription. And so we believe it's quite generous in allowing of trials and tests and use cases that make it accessible and easy to try, easy to use, and it's just in the case where if you're a large organization and your developers are using it to build applications for your business and for your customers, thus you're getting a lot of value using the product, we're asking you to share that value with us so we can continue to invest in the product.Corey: And I think that's a reasonable expectation. The challenge that Docker seems to have had for a while has been that the interesting breakthrough, revelatory stuff that you folks did was all open-source. It was a technology that was incredibly inspired in a bunch of different ways. I am, I guess, mature enough to admit that my take that, “Oh, Docker is terrible”—which was never actually my take—was a little short-sighted. I'm very good at getting things wrong across the board, and that is no exception.I also said virtualization was a flash in the pan and look how that worked out. I was very anti-cloud, et cetera, et cetera. Times change, people change, and doubling down on being wrong gains you nothing. But the question that was always afterwards what is the monetization strategy? Because it's not something you can give away for free and make it up in volume?Even VC money doesn't quite work like that forever, so there's a—the question is, what is the monetization strategy that doesn't leave people either resenting you because, “Remember that thing that used to be free isn't anymore? Doesn't it suck to be you?” And is still accessible as broadly as you are, given the sheer breadth and diversity of your community? Like I can make bones about the fact that ten million in revenue and 250 employees are either worlds apart, or the wrong numbers, or whatever it is, but it's not going to be some student somewhere sitting someplace where their ramen budget is at risk because they have to spend $5 a month or whatever it is to have this thing. It doesn't apply to them.And this feels like, unorthodox though it certainly is, it's not something to be upset about in any meaningful sense. The people that I think would actually be upset and have standing to be upset about this are the enterprise buyers, and you're hearing from them in what is certainly—because I will hear it if not—that this is something they're happy about. They are thrilled to work with you going forward. And I think it makes sense. Even when I was doing stuff as an independent consultant, before I formalized the creation of The Duckbill Group and started hiring people, my policy was always to not use the free tier of things, even if I fit into them because I would much rather personally be a paying customer, which elevates the, I guess, how well my complaints are received.Because I'm a free user, I'm just another voice on Twitter; albeit a loud one and incredibly sarcastic one at times. But if I'm a paying customer, suddenly the entire tenor of that conversation changes, and I think there's value to that. I've always had the philosophy of you pay for the things you use to make money. And that—again, that is something that's easy for me to say now. Back when I was in crippling debt in my 20s, I assure you, it was not, but I still made the effort for things that I use to make a living.Scott: Yeah.Corey: And I think that philosophy is directionally correct.Scott: No, I appreciate that. There's a lot of good threads in there. Maybe just going way back, Docker stands on the shoulders of giants. There was a lot of work with container tech in the Linux kernel, and you and I were talking before about it goes back to LPAR on IBMs, and you know, BS—Berkeley's—Corey: BSD jails and chroots on Linux. Yeah.Scott: Chroot, right? I mean, Bill Joy, putting chroot in—Corey: And Tupperware parties, I'm sure. Yeah.Scott: Right. And all credit to Solomon Hykes, Docker's founder, who took a lot of good up and coming tech—largely on the ops side and in Linux kernel—took the primitives from Git and combined that with immutable copy-on-write file system and put those three together into a really magical combination that simplified all this complexity of dependency management and portability of images across different systems. And so in some sense, that was the magic of standing on these giant shoulders but seeing how these three different waves of innovation or three different flows of innovation could come together to a great user experience. So, also then moving forward, I wouldn't say they're happy, just to make sure you don't get inbound, angry emails—the enterprise buyers—but they do recognize the value of the product, they think the economics are fair and straight ahead, and to your point about having a commercial relationship versus free or non-existing relationship, they're seeing that, “Oh, okay, now I have insight into the roadmap. Now, I can prioritize my requirements that my devs have been asking for. Now, I can double-down on the secure supply chain issues, which I've been trying to get in front of for years.”So, it gives them an avenue that now, much different than a free user as you observed, it's a commercial relationship where it's two way street versus, “Okay, we're just going to use this free stuff and we don't have much of a say because it's free, and so on and so forth.” So, I think it's been an eye-opener for both the company but also for the businesses. There is a lot of value in a commercial relationship beyond just okay, we're going to invest in new features and new value for developers.Corey: The challenge has always been how do you turn something that is widely beloved, that is effectively an open-source company, into money? There have been a whole bunch of questions about this, and it seems that the consensus that has emerged is that a number of people for a long time mistook open-source for a business model instead of a strategy, and it's very much not. And a lot of companies are attempting to rectify that with weird license changes where, “Oh, you're not allowed to take our code and build a service out of it if you're a cloud provider.” Amazon's product strategy is, of course, “Yes,” so of course, there's always going to be something coming out of AWS that is poorly documented, has a ridiculous name, and purports to do the same thing for way less money, except magically you pay them by the hour. I digress.Scott: No, it's a great surface area, and you're right I completely didn't answer that question. [laugh]. So—Corey: No, it's fair. It's—Scott: Glad you brought it back up.Corey: —a hard problem. It's easy to sit here and say, “Well, what I think they should do”—but all of those solutions fall apart under ten seconds of scrutiny.Scott: Super, super hard problem which, to be fair, we as a team and a community wrestled with for years. But here's where we landed, Corey. The short version is that you can still have lots of great upstream open-source technologies, and you'll have an early adopter community that loves those, use those, gets a lot of progress running fast and far with those, but we've found that the vast majority of the market doesn't want to spend its time cobbling together bits and bytes of open-source tech, and maintaining it, and patching it, and, and, and. And so what we're offering is an engineered product that takes the upstream but then adds a lot of value—we would say—to make it an engineered, easy to use, easy to configure, upgraded, secure, so on and so forth. And the convenience of that versus having to cobble together your own environment from upstream has proved to be what folks are willing to pay for. So, it's the classic kind of paying for time and convenience versus not.And so that is one dimension. And the other dimension, which you already referenced a little bit with AWS is that we have SaaS; we have a SaaS product in Docker Hub, which is providing a hosted registry with quality content that users know is updated not less than every 30 days, that is patched and maintained by us. And so those are examples of, in some sense, consumption [unintelligible 00:27:53]. So, we're using open-source to build this SaaS service, but the service that users receive, they're willing to pay for because they're not having to patch the Mongo upstream, they're not having to roll the image themselves, they're not having to watch the CVEs and scramble when everything comes out. When there's a CVE out in our upstream, our official images are patched no less than 24 hours later and typically within hours.That's an example of a service, but all based on upstream open-source tech that for the vast majority of uses are free. If you're consuming a lot of that, then there's a subscription that kicks in there as well. But we're giving you value in exchange for you having to spend your time, your engineers, managing all that that I just walked through. So, those are the two avenues that we found that are working well, that seem to be a fair trade and fair balance with the community and the rest of the ecosystem.Corey: I think the hardest part for a lot of folks is embracing change. And I have encountered this my entire career where I started off doing large-scale email systems administration, and hey, turns out that's not really a thing anymore. And I used to be deep in the bowels of Postfix, for example. I'm referenced in the SVN history of Postfix, once upon a time, just for helping with documentation and finding weird corner cases because I'm really good at breaking things by accident. And I viewed it as part of my identity.And times have changed and moved on; I don't run Postfix myself for anything anymore. I haven't touched it in years. Docker is still there and it's still something that people are actively using basically everywhere. And there's a sense of ownership and identity for especially early adopters who glom on to it because it is such a better way of doing some things that it is almost incomprehensible that we used to do it any other way. That's transformation.That's something awesome. But people want to pretend that we're still living in that era where technology has not advanced. The miraculous breakthrough in 2013 is today's de rigueur type of environment where this is just, “Oh, yeah. Of course you're using Docker.” If you're not, people look at you somewhat strangely.It's like, “Oh, I'm using serverless.” “Okay, but you can still build that in Docker containers. Why aren't you doing that?” It's like, “Oh, I don't believe in running anything that doesn't make me pay AWS by the second.” So okay, great. People are going to have opinions on this stuff. But time marches on and whatever we wish the industry would do, it's going to make its own decisions and march forward. There's very little any of us can do to change that.Scott: That's right. Look, it was a single container back in 2013, 2014, right? And now what we're seeing—and you kind of went there—is we're separating the implementation of service from the service. So, the service could be implemented with a container, could be a serverless function, could be a hosted XYZ as a service on some cloud, but what developers want to do is—what they're moving towards is, assemble your application based on services regardless of the how. You know, is that how a local container? To your point, you can roll a local serverless function now in an OCI image, and push it to Amazon.Corey: Oh, yeah. It's one of that now 34 ways I found to run containers on AWS.Scott: [laugh]. You can also, in Compose, abstract all that complexity away. Compose could have three services in it. One of those services is a local container, one of those services might be a local serverless function that you're running to test, and one of those services could be a mock to a Database as a Service on a cloud. And so that's where we are.We've gone beyond the single-container Docker run, which is still incredibly powerful but now we're starting to uplevel to applications that consist of multiple services. And where do those services run? Increasingly, developers do not need to care. And we see that as our mission is continue to give that type of power to developers to abstract out the how, extract out the infrastructure so they can just focus on building their app.Corey: Scott, I want to thank you so much for taking the time to speak with me. If people want to learn more—and that could mean finding out your opinions on things, potentially yelling at you about pricing changes, more interestingly, buying licenses for their large companies to run this stuff, and even theoretically, since you alluded to it a few minutes ago, look into working at Docker—where can they find you?Scott: No, thanks, Corey. And thank you for the time to discuss and look back over both years, but also zoom in on the present day. So, www.docker.com; you can find any and all what we just walked through. They're more than happy to yell at me on Twitters at @scottcjohnston, and we have a public roadmap that is in GitHub. I'm not going to put the URL here, but you can find it very easily. So, we love hearing from our community, we love engaging with them, we love going back and forth. And it's a big community; jump in, the waters warm, very welcoming, love to have you.Corey: And we'll of course, but links to that in the [show notes. 00:32:28] Thank you so much for your time. I really do appreciate it.Scott: Thank you, Corey. Right back at you.Corey: Scott Johnston, CEO of Docker. I'm Cloud Economist Corey Quinn and this is Screaming in the Cloud. If you've enjoyed this podcast, please leave a five-star review on your podcast platform of choice, whereas if you've hated this podcast, please leave a five-star review on your podcast platform of choice, along with a comment telling me that Docker isn't interested in at all because here's how to do exactly what Docker does in LPARs on your mainframe until the AWS/400 comes to [unintelligible 00:33:02].Scott: [laugh].Corey: If your AWS bill keeps rising and your blood pressure is doing the same, then you need The Duckbill Group. We help companies fix their AWS bill by making it smaller and less horrifying. The Duckbill Group works for you, not AWS. We tailor recommendations to your business and we get to the point. Visit duckbillgroup.com to get started.Announcer: This has been a HumblePod production. Stay humble.

Excellence To Infinity And Beyond: 'Creativity, Inc.'

VMS and OpenVMS Welcome to the History of Computing Podcast, where we explore the history of information technology. Because understanding the past prepares us to innovate (and sometimes cope with) the future! Today we're going to talk through the history of VMS. Digital Equipment Corporation gave us many things. Once upon a time, I used a DEC Alpha running OpenVMS. The PDP-11 had changed the world, introducing us to a number of modern concepts in computers such as time sharing. The PDP was a minicomputer, smaller and more modern than mainframes. But by 1977 it was time for the next generation and the VAX ushered in the 32-bit era of computers and through the evolutions evolve into the VaXServer, helping to usher in the modern era of client-server architectures. It supported Branch delay slots and suppressed instructions. The VAX adopted virtual memory, privilege modes, and needed an operating system capable of harnessing all the new innovations packed into the VAX-11 and on. That OS would be Virtual Memory System, or VMS. The PDP had an operating system called RSX-11, which had been released in 1972. The architect was Dan Brevik, who had originally called it DEX as a homonym with DEC. But that was trademarked so he and Bob Decker over in marketing wrote down a bunch of acronyms and then found one that wasn't trademarked. Then they had to reverse engineer a meaning out of the acronym to be Real-Time System Executive, or RSX. But for the VAX they needed more and so Dave Cutler from the RSX team, then in his early 30s, did much of the design work. Dick Hustvedt and Peter Lipman would join him and they would roll up to Roger Gourd, who worked with DECs VP of engineering Gordon Bell to build the environment. The project began as Starlet, named because it was meant to support the Startlet family of processors. A name that still lives on in various files in the operating system. The VMS Operating System would support RISC instructions, support 32-bit virtual address extension, would work with DECnet, would have virtual memory of course, as the name implies. VMS would bring a number of innovations in the world of clustering. VMS would use a modified Julian Day system to keep track of system time, which subtracts the Julian Date from 2,400,000.5. Why? Because it begins on November 17th, 1858. THat's not why, that the day it starts. Why? Because it's not Y10,000 compliant only having 4 slots for dates. Wait, that's not a thing. Anyway, how did VMS come to be? One of the killer apps for the system though, was that DECnet was built on DIGITAL Network Architecture, or DNA. It first showed up in RSX, where you could like two PDPs but you could have 32 nodes by the time VaX showed up and 255 with VMS 2. Suddenly there was a simple way to network these machines, built into the OS. Version 1 was released in 1977 in support of the VAX-11/780. Version 2 would come along in 1980 for the 750 and Version 3 would come in 1982 for the 730. The VAX 8600 would ship in 84 with version 4. And here's where it gets interesting. The advent of what were originally called microcomputers but are now called personal computers had come in the late 70s and early 80s. By 1984, MicroVMS was released as a port for running on the MicroVAX, Digitals attempt to go down-market. Much as IBM had missed minicomputers initially, Digital had missed the advent of microcomputers though and the platform never took off. Bill Gates would adorn the cover of Time that year. Of course, by 84, Apple had AppleTalk and DOS was ready to plug in as well. Bill Joy moved BSD away from VAX in 1986, after having been with the PDP and then VAX for years, before leaving for Sun. At this point the platform was getting a bit long in the tooth. Intel and Microsoft were just starting to emerge as dominant players in computing and DEC was the number two software company in the world, with a dominant sales team and world class research scientists. They released ULTRIX the same year though, as well as the DECStation with a desktop environment called UW for ULTRIX Workstation. Ultrix was based on BSD 4 and given that most Unixes had been written on PDPs, Bill Joy knew many of the group launched by Bill Munson, Jerry Brenner, Fred Canter and Bill Shannon. Cutler from that OpenVMS team hates Unix. Rather than have a unified approach, the strategy was fragmented. You see a number of times in the history of computing where a company begins to fail not because team members are releasing things that don't fit within the strategy but because they release things that compete directly with a core product without informing their customers why. Thus bogging down the sales process and subsequent adoption in confusion. This led to brain drain. Cutler ended up going to the Windows NT team and bringing all of his knowledge about security and his sincere midwestern charm to Microsoft, managing the initial development after relations with IBM in the OS/2 world soured. He helped make NT available for the Alpha but also helping make NT dominate the operating system from his old home. Cutler would end up working on XP, Server operating systems, Azure and getting the Xbox to run as a host for Hyper-V . He's just that rad and his experience goes back to the mid 60s, working on IBM 7044 mainframes. Generational changes in software development, like the move to object oriented programming or micro services, can force a lot of people into new career trajectories. But he was never one of those. That's the kind of talent you just really, really, really hate to watch leave an organization - someone that even Microsoft name drops in developer conference session to get ooohs and aaahs. And there were a lot of them leaving as DEC shifted into more of a sales and marketing company and less into a product and research company as it had founded to be back when Ken Olsen was at MIT. We saw the same thing happen in other areas of DEC - competing chips coming out of different groups. But still they continued on. And the lack of centralizing resources and innovating quickly and new technical debt being created caused the release of 5 to slip from a 2 year horizon to a 4 year horizon, shipping in 1988 with Easynet, so you could connect 2,000 computers together. Version 6 took 5 years to get out the door in 1993. In a sign of the times, 1991 saw VMS become OpenVMS and would make OpenVMS POSIX compliant. 1992 saw the release of the DEC Alpha and OpenVMS would quickly get support for the RISC processor which OpenVMS would support through the transition of Alpha to Itanium when Intel bought the rights for the Alpha architecture. Version 7 of OpenVMS shipped in 1996 but by then the company was in a serious period of decline and corporate infighting and politics killed them. 1998 came along and they practically bankrupted Compaq by being acquired and then HP swooped in and got both for a steal. Enterprise computing has never been the same. HP made some smart decisions though. They inked a deal with Intel and Alpha would become the HP Itanium and made by Intel. Intel then had a RISC processor and all the IP that goes along with that. Version 8 would not be released until 2003. 7 years without an OS update while the companies were merged and remerged had been too long. Market share had all but disappeared. DECnet would go on to live in the Linux kernel until 2010. Use of the protocol was replaced by TCP/IP much the same way most of the other protocols got replaced. OpenVMS development has now been licensed to VSI and is now run by vmssoftware, which supports many former DEC and HP employees. There are a lot of great, innovative, unique features of OpenVMS. There's a common language environment, that allows for calling functions easily and independently of various languages. You can basically mix Fortran, C, BASIC, and other languages. It's kinda' like my grandmas okra. She said I'd like it but I didn't. VMS is built much the same way. They built it one piece at a time. To quote Johnny Cash: “The transmission was a fifty three, And the motor turned out to be a seventy three, And when we tried to put in the bolts all the holes were gone.” You can of course install PHP, Ruby, Java, and other more modern languages if you want. And the System Services, Run Time Libraries, and language support make it easy to use whatever works for a task across them pretty equally and provides a number of helpful debugging tools along the way. And beyond debugging, OpenVMS pretty much supports anything you find required by the National Computer Security Center and the DoD. And after giving the middle finger to Intel for decades… As with most operating systems, VMS is finally being ported to the x86 architecture signaling the end of one of the few holdouts to the dominance of the x86 architecture in some ways. The Itatiums have shipped less and less chips every year, so maybe we're finally at that point. Once OpenVMS has been ported to x86 we may see the final end to the chip line as the last windows versions to support them stopped actually being supported by Microsoft about a month before this recording. The end of an era. I hope Dave Cutler looks back on his time on the VMS project fondly. Sometimes a few decades of crushing an old employer can help heal some old wounds. His contributions to computing are immense, as are those of Digital. And we owe them all a huge thanks for the techniques and lessons learned in the development of VMS in the early days, as with the early days of BSD, the Mac, Windows 1, and others. It all helped build a massive body of knowledge that we continue to iterate off of to this day. I also owe them a thank you for the time I got to spend on my first DEC Alpha. I didn't get to touch another 64 bit machine for over a decade. And I owe them a thanks for everything I learned using OpenVMS on that machine! And to you, wonderful listers. Thank you for listening. And especially Derek, for reaching out to tell me I should move OpenVMS up in the queue. I guess it goes without saying… I did! Hope you all have a great day!

Are mastery, and opportunity to obtain mastery, overlooked in understanding what makes successful people successful (1:56)? Exceptional analytical intelligence does not itself make an outlier, part 1 (9:16). Exceptional analytical intelligence does not itself make an outlier, part 2 (16:28). How can adversity and timing lead to opportunity (36:54)? How do cultural legacies influence our approach to and interaction with the world (48:11)?

Welcome to the History of Computing Podcast, where we explore the history of information technology. Because understanding the past prepares us for the innovations of the future! Today we're going to look at Java. Java is an Indonesian island with over 141 million people. Java man lived there 1.7 million years ago. Wait, wrong java. The infiltration of coffee into the modern world can really trace its roots to ancient coffee forests on the Ethiopian plateau. Sufis in Yemen began importing coffee in the 1400s to make a beverage that would aid in concentration and as a kind of spiritual intoxication. Um, still the wrong java… Although caffeine certainly has a link somewhere, somehow. The history of the Java programming language dates back to early 1991. It all started at Sun Microsystems with the Stealth Project. Patrick Naughton had considered going to NeXT due to limitations in C++ and the C APIs. But he stayed to join Stealth, a secret team of engineers led by a developer Sun picked up from Carnegie Mellon named James Gosling . Stealth was formed to explore new opportunities in the consumer electronics market. This came up when Gosling was writing a program to port software from perf to vax and emulating hardware as many, many, many programers had done before him. I wonder if he realized when he went to build the first Java compiler and the original virtual machine code that would go on to write a dozen books about Java and it would consume most of his professional life. I wonder how much coffee he would have consumed if he had. They soon added Patrick Sheridan to the team. The project was later known as the “Green” project and with the advent of the web, somewhat pivoted into more of a web project. You see, Microsoft and the clones had some runaway success but Apple and other vendors were a factor in the home market. But Sun saw going down market as the future of the company. They added a few more people and rented separate offices in Menlo Park. Lisa Friendly was the first employee in the Java Products Group. Gosling would be lead engineer. John Gage would direct the project. Jonni Kanerva would write Java FAQ1. The team started to build C++ ++ —. Sun founder Bill Joy wanted a language that combined the the best parts of Mesa and C. In 1993, NCSA gave us Mozilla. That Andreessen guy was on the news saying the era of the desktop was over. These brilliant designers knew they needed an embedded application, one that could even be used in a web browser, or an applet. The language was initially called “Oak,” but was later renamed “Java” in 1995, supposedly from a list of random words but really due to massive consumption of coffee imported from the island of Java. By the way, it only aids in concentration up to a point. Then you get jumpy. Like a Halfling. It took the Java team 18 months to develop the first working version. It is unknown how much Java they drank in this time. Between the initial implementation of Oak in the fall of 1992 and the public announcement of Java in the spring of 1995, around 13 people ended up contributing to the design and evolution of the language. They were going to build a language that could sit on top of the operating systems on the market. This would allow them to be platform agnostic. In 1995, the team announced that the evolution of Mosaic, Netscape Navigator, would provide support for Java. Java gave us Write Once, Run Anywhere platform independence. You could run the code on a Mac, on Solaris, or on Windows. Java derives its syntax from C and many of the object oriented features were influenced by C++. Several of Java's defining characteristics come from—or are responses to—its predecessors. Therefore, Java was meant to build on these and become a simple, object-oriented, distributed, interpreted, robust, secure, architectural neutral, portable, high performance, multithreaded, and dynamic language. Before I forget. The "Mocha Java" blend pairs coffee from Yemen and Java to get a thick, syrupy, and highly caffeinated blend that is often found with a hint of cinnamon or clove. Similar to all other computer language, all innovation in the design of the language was driven by the need to solve a fundamental problem that the preceding languages could not solve. To start, the creation of C is considered by many to have marked the beginning of the modern age of computer languages. It successfully synthesized the conflicting attributes that had so troubled earlier languages. The result was a powerful, efficient, structured language that was relatively easy to learn. It also included one other, nearly intangible aspect: it was a programmer's language. Prior to the invention of C, computer languages were generally designed either as academic exercises or by bureaucratic committees. C was designed, implemented, and developed by real, working programmers, reflecting how they wanted to write code. Its features were honed, tested, thought about, and rethought by the people who actually used the language. C quickly attracted many followers who had a near-religious zeal for it. As such, it found wide and rapid acceptance in the programmer community. In short, C is a language designed by and for programmers, as is Java. Throughout the history of programming, the increasing complexity of programs has driven the need for better ways to manage that complexity. C++ is a response to that need in C. To better understand why managing program complexity is fundamental to the creation of C++, consider that in the early days of programming, computer programing was done by manually toggling in the binary machine instructions by use of the front panel or punching cards. As long as programs were just a few hundred instructions long, this worked. Then came Assembly and Fortran and then But as programs grew, assembly language was invented so that a programmer could deal with larger, increasingly complex programs by using symbolic representations of the machine instructions. As programs continued to grow, high-level languages were introduced that gave the programmer more tools with which to handle complexity. This gave birth to the first popular programing language; FORTRAN. Though impressive it had its shortcomings as it didn't encourage clear and easy-to-understand programs. In the 1960s structured programming was born. This is the method of programming championed by languages such as C. The use of structured languages enabled programmers to write, for the first time, moderately complex programs fairly easily. However, even with structured programming methods, once a project reaches a certain size, its complexity exceeds what a programmer can manage. Due to continued growth, projects were exceeding the limits of the structured approach. To overcome this problem, a new way to program had to be invented; it is called object-oriented programming (OOP). Object-oriented programming (OOP) is a programming methodology that helps organize complex programs through the use of inheritance, encapsulation, and polymorphism. In spite of the fact that C is one of the world's great programming languages, there is still a limit to its ability to handle complexity. Once the size of a program exceeds a certain point, it becomes so complex that it is difficult to grasp as a totality. While the precise size at which this occurs differs, depending upon both the nature of the program and the programmer, there is always a threshold at which a program becomes unmanageable. C++ added features that enabled this threshold to be broken, allowing programmers to comprehend and manage larger programs. So if the primary motivation for creating Java was the need for a platform-independent, architecture-neutral language, it was to create software to be embedded in various consumer electronic devices, such as microwave ovens and remote controls. The developers sought to use a different system to develop the language one which did not require a compiler as C and C++ did. A solution which was easier and more cost efficient. But embedded systems took a backseat when the Web took shape at about the same time that Java was being designed. Java was suddenly propelled to the forefront of computer language design. This could be in the form of applets for the web or runtime-only packages known as Java Runtime Environments, or JREs. At the time, developers had fractured into the three competing camps: Intel, Macintosh, and UNIX. Most software engineers stayed in their fortified boundary. But with the advent of the Internet and the Web, the problem that the portability of software between platforms suddenly got important in ways it hadn't been since the forming of ARPANET. Even though many platforms are attached to the Internet, users would like them all to be able to run the same program. What was once an irritating but low-priority problem had become a high-profile necessity. The team realized this pressing need and later made the switch to refocus Java from embedded, consumer electronics to Internet programming. So while the desire for an architecture-neutral programming language provided the initial spark, the Internet ultimately led to Java's large-scale success. So if Java derives much of its character from C and C++, this is by intent. The original designers knew that using familiar syntax would make their new language appealing to legions of experienced C/C++ programmers. Java also shares some of the other attributes that helped make C and C++ successful. Java was designed, tested, and refined by real, working programmers. Not scientists. Java is a programmer's language. Java is also cohesive and logically consistent. If you program well, your programs reflect it. If you program poorly, your programs reflect that, too. Put differently, Java is not a language with training wheels. It is a language for professional programmers. Java 1 would be released in 1996 for Solaris, Windows, Mac, and Linux. It was released as the Java Development Kit, or JDK, and to this day we still refer to the version we're using as JDK 11. Version 2, or 1.2 came in 1998 and with the rising popularity we had a few things that the burgeoning community needed. These included event listeners, Just In Time compilers, and change thread synchronizations. 1.3, code named Kestrel came in 2000, bringing RMI for CORBA compatibility, synthetic proxy classes, the Java Platform Debugger Architecture, Java Naming and Directory Interface in core libraries, the HostSpot JVM, and Java Sound. Merlin, or 1.4 came in 2002 bringing the frustrating regular expressions, native XML processing, logging, Non-Blocking I/O, and SSL. Tiger, or 1.5 came in 2004. This was important. We could autobox, get compile time type safety in generics, static import the static part of a class, annotations for declarative programming, and run time libraries were mapped into memory - a huge improvements to how JVMs work. Java 5 also gave us the version number change. So JDK 1.5 was officially recognized as Java 5. JDK 1.6, or Mustang, came in 2006. This was a big update, bringing monitoring and management tools, compiler access gave us programmatic access to javac and pluggable annotations allowed us to analyze code semantically as a step before javac compiles the code. WebStart got a makeover and SE 6 unified plugins with webstart. Enhanced XML services would be important (at least until he advent of son) and you could mix javascript up with Java. We also got JDBC 4, Character Large Objects, SwingWorker, JTable, better SQL datatypes, native PKI, Kerberos, LDAP, and honestly the most important thing was that it was stable. Although I've never written code stable enough to encounter their stability issues… Not enough coffee I suppose. Sun purchased Oracle in 2009. Wait, no, that's one of my Marvel What If comic book fantasies where the world was a better place. Oracle bought Sun in 2009. After ponying up $5.6 billion dollars, Oracle had a lot of tech based on Sun products and seeing Sun as an increasingly attractive acquisition target by other companies, Oracle couldn't risk someone else swooping in and buying Sun. With all the turmoil created, it took 5 years during a pretty formative time on the web, but we finally got Dolphin, or 1.7, which came in 2011 and gave us compressed, 64-bit pointers, strings in switch statements, the ability to make a binary integer and use underscores in literals, better graphics APIs, more cryptography algorithms, and a new I/O library that gave even better platform compatibilities. Spider, or 1.8, came along in 2014. We got the ability to Launch JavaFX application Jars, statically-linked JNI libraries, a new date an time API, annotation for java types, unsigned integer arithmetic, a JavaScript runtime that allowed us to embed Javascript code in apps - whether this is a good idea or not is still tbd. Lambda functions had been dropped in Java 7 so here we also got lambda expressions. And this kickstarted a pretty interesting time in the development of Java. We got 9 in 2017, 10 and 11 in 2018, 12, 13, and 14 in 2019. Of these, only 8 and 11 are LTS, or commercial Long Term Support releases, basically meaning we got the next major release after 8 in 2018 and according to my trend line should expect the next LTS in 2021 or 2022. JDK 13, when released later in 2019, will give us text blocks, Switch Expressions, improved memory management by returning unused heap memory to the OS, improves application class and data sharing, and brings back the legacy socket API. But it won't likely be an LTS release. Today there are over 45 billion active Java Virtual Machines and java remains arguably the top language for micro service, ci/cd environments, and a number of other use cases. Other languages have come. Other languages have gone. Many are better in their own right. Some are not. Java is not perfect. It was meant to reduce complexity. But as languages evolve they become more complex. A project with a million lines of code is monolithic and probably incorporates plugins or frameworks like spring security as an example, that make code even more complex. But Java is meant to reduce cyclomatic complexity, to allow for a language that is simple enough for a professional to pick up quickly and only be as complex as the quality of the code being compiled. I don't personally love Java. I respect it. And I adore high-quality programmers and their code in any language. But I've had to redo so much work because other languages have come and gone over the years that if I were to be starting a new big monolithic web-app today, I'd probably use Java every time. Which isn't to say that Java isn't useful in micro-service architectures. According to what's required from the contract testing on a service, I might use Java, Go, node, python or even the formerly hipster Ruby. Although I don't love drinking PBR… If I'm writing an Android app, I need to know Java. No matter what the lawyers say. If I'm planning on an enterprise webapp, Java needs to be in the conversation. But usually, I can do the work in a fraction of the time using something like python. But most big companies speak Java. And for good reason. Because of the write once run anywhere approach and the level of permissions a JRE needs, there have been security challenges with running Java on desktop computers. Apple deprecated Java on the Mac in 2010. Users could still instal lications and is the gold standard for those. I'm certainly not advocating going back to the 90s and running Java apps on our desktops any more. No matter what you think of Java, one thing you have to admit, the introduction of the language and the evolution have had a substantial impact on the IT industry and it will continue to do so. A great takeaway here might be that there's always a potential alternative that might be better suited for a given task. But when it comes to choosing a platform that will be there in a decade or 3, getting support, getting a team that can scale, sometimes you might end up using a solution that doesn't immediately seem as well suited to a need. But it can get the job done. As it's been doing since James Gosling and the rest of the team started the project back in the early 90s. So thank you listeners, for sticking with us through this episode of the History of Computing Podcast. We're lucky to have you.

Welcome to the History of Computing Podcast, where we explore the history of information technology. Because by understanding the past prepares us for the innovations of the future! Today we're going to look at the emergence of the cloud. As with everything evil, the origin of the cloud began with McCarthyism. From 1950 to 1954 Joe McCarthy waged a war against communism. Wait, wrong McCarthyism. Crap. After Joe McCarthy was condemned and run out of Washington, **John** McCarthy made the world a better place in 1955 with a somewhat communistic approach to computing. The 1950s were the peak of the military industrial complex. The SAGE air defense system needed to process data coming in from radars and perform actions based on that data. This is when McCarthy stepped in. John, not Joe. He proposed things like allocating memory automatically between programs, quote “Programming techniques can be encouraged which make destruction of other programs unlikely” and modifying FORTRAN to trap programs into specified areas of the storage. When a person loading cards or debugging code, the computer could be doing other things. To use his words: “The only way quick response can be provided at a bearable cost is by time-sharing. That is, the computer must attend to other customers while one customer is reacting to some output.” He posited that this could go from a 3 hour to day and a half turnaround to seconds. Remember, back then these things were huge and expensive. So people worked shifts and ran them continuously. McCarthy had been at MIT and Professor Fernando Corbato from there actually built it between 1961 and 1963. But at about the same time, Professor Jack Dennis from MIT started doing about the same thing with a PDP-1 from DEC - he's actually probably one of the most influential people many I talk to have never heard of. He called this APEX and hooked up multiple terminals on TX-2. Remember John McCarthy? He and some students actually did the same thing in 1962 after moving on to become a professor at Stanford. 1965 saw Alan Kotok sell a similar solution for the PDP-6 and then as the 60s rolled on and people in the Bay Area got really creative and free lovey, Cobato, Jack Dennis of MIT, a team from GE, and another from Bell labs started to work on Multics, or Multiplexed Information and Computing Service for short, for the GE-645 mainframe. Bell Labs pulled out and Multics was finished by MIT and GE, who then sold their computer business to Honeywell so they wouldn't be out there competing with some of their customers. Honeywell sold Multics until 1985 and it included symmetric multiprocessing, paging, a supervisor program, command programs, and a lot of the things we now take for granted in Linux, Unix, and macOS command lines. But we're not done with the 60s yet. ARPAnet gave us a standardized communications platform and distributed computing started in the 60s and then became a branch of computer science later in the late 1970s. This is really a software system that has components stored on different networked computers. Oh, and Telnet came at the tail end of 1969 in RFC 15, allowing us to remotely connect to those teletypes. People wanted Time Sharing Systems. Which led Project Genie at Berkely, TOPS-10 for the PDP-10 and IBM's failed TSS/360 for the System 360. To close out the 70s, Ken Thompson, Dennis Ritchie, Doug McIllroy, Mike Lesk, Joe Assana, and of course Brian Kernighan at Bell Labs hid a project to throw out the fluff from Multics and build a simpler system. This became Unix. Unix was originally developed in Assembly but Ritchie would write C in 72 and the team would eventually refactor Unix in C. Pretty sure management wasn't at all pissed when they found out. Pretty sure the Uniplexed Information and Computing Services, or eunuchs for short wasn't punny enough for the Multics team to notice. BSD would come shortly thereafter. Over the coming years you could create multiple users and design permissions in a way that users couldn't step on each others toes (or more specifically delete each others files). IBM did something interesting in 1972 as well. They invented the Virtual Machine, which allowed them to run an operating system inside an operating system. At this point, time sharing options were becoming common place in mainframes. Enter Moore's Law. Computers got cheaper and smaller. Altair and hobbyists became a thing. Bill Joy ported BSD to Sun workstations in 77. Computers kept getting smaller. CP/M shows up on early microcomputers at about the same time up until 1983. Apple arrives on the scene. Microsoft DOS appears in 1981 and and In 1983, with all this software you have to pay for really starting to harsh his calm, Richard Stallman famously set out to make software free. Maybe this was in response to Gates' 1976 Open Letter to Hobbyists asking pc hobbyists to actually pay for software. Maybe they forgot they wrote most of Microsoft BASIC on DARPA gear. Given that computers were so cheap for a bit, we forgot about multi-user operating systems for awhile. By 1991, Linus Torvalds, who also believed in free software, by then known as open source, developed a Unix-like operating system he called Linux. Computers continued to get cheaper and smaller. Now you could have them on multiple desks in an office. Companies like Novell brought us utility computers we now refer to as servers. You had one computer to just host all the files so users could edit them. CERN gave us the first web server in 1990. The University of Minnesota gave us Gopher in 1991. NTP 3 came in 1992. The 90s also saw the rise of virtual private networks and client-server networks. You might load a Delphi-based app on every computer in your office and connect that fat client with a shared database on a server to, for example, have a shared system to enter accounting information into, or access customer information to do sales activities and report on them. Napster had mainstreamed distributed file sharing. Those same techniques were being used in clusters of servers that were all controlled by a central IT administration team. Remember those virtual machines IBM gave us: you could now cluster and virtualize workloads and have applications that were served from a large number of distributed computing systems. But as workloads grew, the fault tolerance and performance necessary to support them became more and more expensive. By the mid-2000s it was becoming more acceptable to move to a web-client architecture, which meant large companies wouldn't have to bundle up software and automate the delivery of that software and could instead use an intranet to direct users to a series of web pages that allowed them to perform business tasks. Salesforce was started in 1999. They are the poster child for software as a service and founder/CEO Marc Benioff coined the term platform as a service, allowing customers to build their own applications using the Salesforce development environment. But it wasn't until we started breaking web applications up and developed methods to authenticate and authorize parts of them to one another using technologies like SAML, introduced in 2002) and OAuth (2006) that we were able to move into a more micro-service oriented paradigm for programming. Amazon and Google had been experiencing massive growth and in 2006 Amazon created Amazon Web Services and offered virtual machines on demand to customers, using a service called Elastic Compute Cloud. Google launched G Suite in 2006, providing cloud-based mail, calendar, contacts, documents, and spreadsheets. Google then offered a cloud offering to help developers with apps in 2008 with Google App Engine. In both cases, the companies had invested heavily in developing infrastructure to support their own workloads and renting some of that out to customers just… made sense. Microsoft, seeing the emergence of Google as not just a search engine, but a formidable opponent on multiple fronts also joined into the Infrastructure as a Service as offering virtual machines for pennies per minute of compute time also joined the party in 2008. Google, Microsoft, and Amazon still account for a large percentage of cloud services offered to software developers. Over the past 10 years the technologies have evolved. Mostly just by incrementing a number, like OAuth 2.0 or HTML 5. Web applications have gotten broken up in smaller and smaller parts due to mythical programmer months meaning you need smaller teams who have contracts with other teams that their service, or micro-service, can specific tasks. Amazon, Google, and Microsoft see these services and build more workload specific services, like database as a service or putting a REST front-end on a database, or data lakes as a service. Standards like OAuth even allow vendors to provide Identity as a service, linking up all the things. The cloud, as we've come to call hosting services, has been maturing for 55 years, from shared compute time on mainframes to shared file storage space on a server to very small shared services like payment processing using Stripe. Consumers love paying a small monthly fee for access to an online portal or app rather than having to deploy large amounts of capital to bring in an old-school JDS Uniphase style tool to automate tasks in a company. Software developers love importing an SDK or calling a service to get a process for free, allowing developers to go to market much faster and look like magicians in the process. And we don't have teams at startups running around with fire extinguishers to keep gear humming along. This reduces the barrier to build new software and apps and democratizes software development. App stores and search engines then make it easier than ever to put those web apps and apps in front of people to make money. In 1959, John McCarthy had said “The cooperation of IBM is very important but it should be to their advantage to develop this new way of using a computer.” Like many new philosophies, it takes time to set in and evolve. And it takes a combination of advances to make something so truly disruptive possible. The time-sharing philosophy gave us Unix and Linux, which today are the operating systems running on a lot of these cloud servers. But we don't know or care about those because the web provides a layer on top of them that obfuscates the workload. Much as the operating system obfuscated the workload of the components of the system. Today those clouds obfuscate various layers of the stack so you can enter at any part of the stack you want whether it's a virtual computer or a service or just to consume a web app. And this has lead to an explosion of diverse and innovative ideas. Apple famously said “there's an app for that” but without the cloud there certainly wouldn't be. And without you, my dear listeners, there wouldn't be a podcast. So thank you so very much for tuning into another episode of the History of Computing Podcast. We're lucky to have you. Have a great day!

Bill Joy, co-founder of Sun Microsystems welcomes Jurriaan Kamp in NYC and talks about the three innovations he has selected that can solve half the problem of climate change. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/thekampsolutionseries/support

Host Jurriaan Kamp continues to deliver uplifting, inspiring, and impactful conversations to viewers. "The Kamp Solutions Series"​ has become a weekly destination for relevant, real and impactful conversations. Bringing a refreshing solution driven perspective to global problems, Jurriaan's engaging personality and unique take on our world's challenges invite a relaxed and candid environment that allows his guests to engage in entertaining and thoughtful discussions on topical issues. The environment also often leads to having moments of unpredictable discussions, illuminating celebrities "​in the moment,"​ and saying things viewers won't experience anywhere else. First season's guest include: Richard Branson, Bill Joy, Robert F Kennedy Jr, Deepak Chopra, Amory Lovins among others. --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/thekampsolutionseries/support

Bill Joy once said "There are always more smart people outside your company than within it"... So should we be looking at ways to utilise the wisdom of the crowd? Are the many cleverer than the few?

April Wensel on Software Developer’s Journey, Arup Chakrabarti on On Call Nightmares, Alistair Cockburn on Being Human, Brian Balfour on Product To Product, and Kent Beck on Unlearn. I’d love for you to email me with any comments about the show or any suggestions for podcasts I might want to feature. Email podcast@thekguy.com. This episode covers the five podcast episodes I found most interesting and wanted to share links to during the two week period starting May 13, 2019. These podcast episodes may have been released much earlier, but this was the fortnight when I started sharing links to them to my social network followers. APRIL WENSEL ON SOFTWARE DEVELOPER’S JOURNEY The Software Developer’s Journey podcast featured April Wensel with host Tim Bourguignon. April talked about hiring for attitude and mindset over the technical skills of the moment. She distinguished between the fixed and growth mindset and talked about how hearing a statement from an interviewee like, “I’m just not good with people,” is a sign that the person is currently thinking with a fixed mindset. Tim asked her to describe her company, Compassionate Coding. At Compassionate Coding, April teaches workshops on emotional intelligence to technical people. These skills are often called “soft skills,” but she prefers to call them “catalytic skills,” because they help technical people catalyze the application and acquisition of their other skills. Apple Podcasts link: https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/45-april-wensel-encourages-us-to-get-in-touch-our-core/id1079113167?i=1000434465519 Website link: https://www.buzzsprout.com/190346/982475 ARUP CHAKRABARTI ON THE ON CALL NIGHTMARES PODCAST The On Call Nightmares podcast featured Arup Chakrabarti of PagerDuty with host Jay Gordon. Arup talked about starting out in medical research and being exposed to the notion of on call because much of the research involved having access to cadavers that were only available in short time windows that required him, from time to time, to drive to the hospital on a Saturday night. At Amazon, Arup learned what it looks like for not just individuals to go on call, but for whole departments and companies to go on call. At Netflix, he worked with the “father” of Chaos Monkey and managed site reliability as Netflix built out the simian army. He told a story about a NTP time drift that alerted almost every team at PagerDuty. The SRE on call quickly diagnosed the problem as NTP, but their run list was broken, so getting things back took a while. During this time, Arup had to keep the engineers from disabling these constantly-firing alerts because that could have caused them to miss something critical. He says this incident taught him that incident response is a team sport. This led to a discussion about the importance of keeping things light during an incident and taking the issue seriously without taking yourself seriously. Apple Podcasts link: https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/episode-21-arup-chakrabarti-pagerduty/id1447430839?i=1000436439951 Website link: https://www.podomatic.com/podcasts/oncallnightmares/episodes/2019-04-25T04_08_18-07_00 ALISTAIR COCKBURN ON BEING HUMAN The Being Human podcast featured Alistair Cockburn with host Richard Atherton. Alistair talked about doing his Ph.D, being able to put the word “people” in the title of his dissertation (apparently a rare thing in academia), and how his heart sank when he realized that his own mentor’s dissertation on methodologies had already covered everything. Then he realized that if it really had covered everything, you could take it to any business in the world and it would solve their problems, but it doesn’t because businesses are made of people and no single methodology can solve all of the problems. Alistair says instead that methodologies and processes should be like tissues: you use them and throw them away. After two or three months, you have to change. He says there are some good things about process, one being that it provides a checklist, like that which a pilot and copilot run through before an airplane takes off. Often though, he says, processes are like drop boxes. You create them so that people don’t have to talk to each other. Companies that have communication problems often want Alistair to create a process for them to resolve those communication problems, unaware of the contradiction. Alistair often has the same advice regardless of the methodology a client has chosen. If a client says, “We do SAFe,” he says, “That’s fine, increase collaboration!” If a client says, “We refuse to do SAFe,” he says, “That’s fine, increase collaboration!” He also says he doesn’t have to teach collaboration because everyone already knows how. We just don’t want to.  Apple Podcasts link: https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/56-the-heart-of-agile-with-alistair-cockburn/id1369745673?i=1000435504887 Website link: http://media.cdn.shoutengine.com/podcasts/4081235a-554f-4a8f-90c2-77dc3b58051f/audio/afdb129e-9fcb-40e4-9243-b85f56f3e1b5.mp3 BRIAN BALFOUR ON PRODUCT TO PRODUCT The Product To Product podcast featured Brian Balfour with host Eleni Deacon. They talked about north star metrics, that is, having one metric that attempts to capture all of the most important dimensions of your business. Brian doesn’t believe you can capture this in one metric and instead prefers a constellation of metrics that includes: 1) a retention metric such as monthly/weekly active users, 2) an engagement metric that measures the amount of engagement and the trend over time for those active users, and 3) a monetization metric. He particularly doesn’t like revenue metrics because of their lagging nature and how they ignore actual usage. Being on a data engineering team myself in my current role, I liked what Brian had to say about how to approach data. He says companies need to take on the mentality that data is not a project with a start and end date, but a core part of building product that is meant to constantly evolve. Apple Podcasts link: https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/north-stars-are-leading-you-astray-brian-balfour-reforge/id1293415837?i=1000436155421 Website link: https://omny.fm/shows/product-to-product-podcast/north-stars-are-leading-you-astray-brian-balfour-r KENT BECK ON UNLEARN The Unlearn podcast featured Kent Beck with host Barry O’Reilly. Barry asked about the system that Kent uses to help him explore uncertainty. Kent says he has habits that help. The first habit is that of reversing any sentence that begins with the word “obviously.” When somebody says, “Obviously, programmers can’t be trusted to test their own code,” he automatically thinks, “What if that’s not true?” A second habit is whenever somebody introduces Kent to a new model of thinking, he asks himself, “What would happen if I just acted like this model was true?” and he says that he applied that habit when reading Barry’s book Unlearn. Barry asked about what made Kent feel that the Test-Commit-Revert (or TCR) technique was worth exploring, since this required an unlearning of Kent’s own Test-Driven Development (or TDD) method. Kent says that he was disenchanted with asynchronous code reviews and used a third habit of looking further forward. During his tenure at Facebook, he experienced growth in the number of engineers from 700 to 5,000. At the time, people were anticipating the problem of having 10,000 engineers working together, but Kent followed the Bill Joy idea of looking six steps further, and looked into how 100,000 engineers would work together. His solution was Limbo, or asking “How low can you go?” to shrink the size of code that can be safely committed and put immediately in production and the TCR technique came out of that line of thinking. Apple Podcasts link: https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/exploring-uncertainty-with-kent-beck/id1460270044?i=1000436242318 Website link: https://barryoreilly.com/unlearn-podcast/ FEEDBACK Ask questions, make comments, and let your voice be heard by emailing podcast@thekguy.com. Twitter: https://twitter.com/thekguy LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/keithmmcdonald/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/thekguypage Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/the_k_guy/ YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysPayr8nXwJJ8-hqnzMFjw Website:

Internet Big Picture 2 Producer/Host: Jim Campbell What do tech expert Bill Joy and Pope Francis have in common? You may be surprised. Here is the link to the Bill Joy article mentioned today: www.wired.com/2000/04/joy-2 The post Notes from the Electronic Cottage 4/18/19 first appeared on WERU 89.9 FM Blue Hill, Maine Local News and Public Affairs Archives.

Internet Big Picture 2 Producer/Host: Jim Campbell What do tech expert Bill Joy and Pope Francis have in common? You may be surprised. Here is the link to the Bill Joy article mentioned today: www.wired.com/2000/04/joy-2

An airhacks.fm conversation with James Gosling (@errcraft) about: "Hello World" with PDP assembly in 1969, exciting places like universities, the University of Calgary (alumni award), dumpster diving to find usable electronics, software does not consume any resources, James loves building things, The Day the Earth Stood Still, Gort is cool, building Gort from tin foil and cans, there were no answers how to build a brain, working for physics department in the age of 14, measuring the interactions between solar winds and the upper atmosphere, ISIS-2 satellite, PDP-8 assembler, CDC 6400, Fortran, PL-1, spending all the free time with computers, teachers were worried, James enjoyed downhill (skiing), Pascal, Multics, Simula, there was no C before 1976, James wrote emacs at graduate school in C, James's emacs became standard on Unix, Bill Joy kept asking James repeatedly to join Sun, James met Andy Bechtolsheim before joining Sun, James joined Sun in 1984, James was involved with User Interfaces at Sun, Sun was missing out on stuff like telephone headsets, VCRs and IoT was already happening, IoT literally launched Java, re-inventing the wheel and repeating the errors in networking, ideas for the JVM, Three Rivers Computer like Xerox Alto was only interested in hardware and wanted to reuse software, writing software for PERQ with UCSD Pascal, porting from PERQ to VAX, James was too lazy to port and started with transcoding, translation worked surprisingly well and outperformed C, Project Green started in early 1991 and ended in Sep 1992, Java was running at the end of 1991, the implementation of the first Java compiler took a couple of months, the first compiler version was written in Python, the intermediate format was the instruction set itself, Java bytecode follows the polish notation, or execution on a stack machine, OAK was growing outside James's window, OAK was renamed to Java because of legal reasons, James likes coffee ...and tea, Sun was a wonderful place to be, John Gage was cheerleader in chief, Scott (checkout episode #19) didn't like to spend money on marketing, problem with JINIs marketing was lack of marketing, RMI fighted with CORBA (end of first part - to be continued...).

Global Product Management Talk is pleased to bring you the next episode of... The Everyday Innovator with host Chad McAllister, PhD. The podcast is all about helping people involved in innovation and managing products become more successful, grow their careers, and STANDOUT from their peers. About the Episode: Let’s face it, the smartest people don’t all work in your organization. The thought has been shared by many leaders, such as Steve Jobs and Bill Gates, and is originally attributed to Bill Joy, the co-founder of Sun Microsystems and UNIX contributor. He said, “The smartest people in the world don’t all work for us; most of them work for someone else.” To benefit from the creativity of smart people who are external to your organization, you need a way to find and attract them to contribute their brain power. There are time-tested ways to accomplish this, including traditional open innovation, incubators, and startups. Another approach is a partner program. Ford Motor Company has used this approach for decades. By continuously learning and improving, they are a leader in the approach with answers for others considering a partner program. To explain how their system works and tips for implementing a partner program, Ed Krause joins us. He is the Global Manager External Alliances Research and Advanced Engineering at Ford Motor Company. He has global responsibility for developing cutting edge technology and competitive advantage for Ford by developing relationships and collaborative projects involving universities and partner companies. Anyone interested in open innovation or a more formal partner program will find this discussion valuable.

Choose the right university partners to drive research and innovation Let’s face it, the smartest people don’t all work in your organization. The thought has been shared by many leaders, such as Steve Jobs and Bill Gates, and is originally attributed to Bill Joy, the co-founder of Sun Microsystems and UNIX contributor. He said, “The […]

Choose the right university partners to drive research and innovation Let's face it, the smartest people don't all work in your organization. The thought has been shared by many leaders, such as Steve Jobs and Bill Gates, and is originally attributed to Bill Joy, the co-founder of Sun Microsystems and UNIX contributor. He said, “The […]

An airhacks.fm conversation with Scott McNealy (@scottmcnealy), co-founder of Sun Microsystems, about: how Vinod Khosla, Bill Joy, Andy Bechtolsheim and Scott started Stanford University Network (SUN), Onyx Systems and Pizza Boxes for 40k USD, Sun opensourced 80% of its R & D budget, Sun was top 40 R & D spenders, opensource lowers the barrier to exit, IBM buying RedHat, Sun was the first company in 1982 shipping with TCP/IP, Scott was smart and the other founders were brilliant, Bill Joy wanted to open NFS or "what is a phone worth which doesn't connect with other phones", Java Ring was on the cover of Fortune Magazine, Network is the Computer, Java was the greatest marketing efforts ever, missing the router hype was the earliest mistake at Sun, the beginnings of JavaSoft, Bill Joy wanted to work with James Gosling, Java was invented to build a "clicker", Netscape, Java, JavaScript, LiveScript, JavaSoft was loosely coupled and highly aligned business unit, Java went with Netscape viral, being nervous and unprepared as speaker - people would like to hear what do you think as a speaker, "you don't have privacy, get over it", Steve Jobs at JavaOne, Andy Bechtolsheim was the "industrial" Steve Jobs, Sun was having fun without offending somebody, John Gage - the Chief Science "Fiction" officer and the perfect MC for Java, 130 dollars for 3rd grade text book -- the beginnings of curriki, global community of opensourcing education, curriki is a wildly successful startup, Scott is chairman of wayin.com and still spends a lot of time with curriki, corporate capitalism - private charity or Seperation of Concerns, the job of a chairman, Larry Ellison and Scott, Scott met Larry on the airplane in early eighties -- and Larry gave Scott a shaver, behind the scenes of Sun's acquisition, Wayin -- the new project, Scott at twitter: @scottmcnealy.

APOSTLE TALK - Future News Now REVELATION WITH DIRECTION WWW.REALMIRACLES.ORG INTERNATIONAL Geopolitics ~ Intelligence ~ Prophecy WWW.UOFE.ORG THERE'S MORE THAN ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE - PART 5 NANOTECHNOLOGY ~ A MIRACLE PODCAST PRODUCTION ~ LISTEN TO THIS MESSAGE NOW >>> LISTEN HERE PODCAST SHOW NOTES BELOW LISTEN TO PODCAST FOR COMPLETE INFO MUSIC AI NEWS TODAY / NANOTECHNOLOGY The University of Texas announced what it is calling the smallest and best nanomotor ever built. Mechanical engineer Donglei Fan led a group of engineers who built a motor 500 times smaller than a grain of salt.   Measuring 1 micrometer across, the UofT nanomotor above could fit inside a human cell. Note: A “micrometer” (old term, “micron”) is one-millionth of a meter, or one 25-thousandth of an inch.   Nanopesticides designed for better crop production and disease protection could also mean more toxic algae outbreaks for nearby streams, lakes and wetlands, researchers report.   This is NOW >>> Custom order your own "nanomaterials" made from patented and well known greener synthesis methods. Excellent size distribution, emission, brightness, and purity as a result of over a decade of experience producing nanoparticles and a focus on quality.   Nanoparticles give immune cells a boost. Drugs carried in cellular "backpacks" help T cells to destroy tumors.   Tiny particles could help fight brain cancer. Nanoparticles carrying two drugs can cross the blood-brain barrier and shrink glioblastoma tumors. PURPOSE OF THIS TEACHING As with the previous 4 sessions, our attempt is to both present the advantages of Artificial Intelligence, while at the same time presenting the potential EVIL resident in this very science ... especially in the hands of EVIL people with EVIL motives. Computer scientist Bill Joy, and many other writers, have identified cluster groups of technological advances that they esteem critical to the future of humanity. Joy warns that these advances have potential to be used by “elites” for either good or evil.   Elon Musk, who founded PayPal, SpaceX and Tesla Motors, believes without oversight, AI could be an existential threat: "We are summoning the demon." But one of my goals is to help us look forward to the potential risk of AI and its "branches" in the End Times. You say, "Why worry ... we won't be living then." My friend, we are living—right NOW—at the "entrance" to the End Times. And, we should be concerned not only about medical or social decisions we have to make NOW or in the near future—personally or politically—but, also for our progeny. LISTEN TO THE PODCAST FOR FULL INFORMATION. REMEMBER   Last session we discussed Information Technology ... and HOW the Antichrist (the Beast)—the coming Global Governance Leader—will not only control, but also monitor, the global populace through Information Technology accessed and utilized by Artificial Intelligence. But ... wait until you listen to the details of this podcast concerning HOW nanotechnology can—and WILL BE—used in the EndTime by the Evil Empire of Satan and his Beast ... and the Beast's Global Leader of Religion: the False Prophet. INTRO TO THIS SESSION (PART 5) If you survived after Parts 1, 2,3 and 4, I have another challenge for you. Let's see if you're up to it. This session we will discuss “Nanotechnology.” Nanotechnology potentially provides the ability to order and change molecular and atomic structures. Nanotechnology can be—and is already being—used to produce changes inside the host’s body. One nanometer is a billionth of a meter, or  10^-9 of a meter. Example: 10 to the power of minus 9 = 10-9 = 1 / 1000000000. You can now see the mobility of sub-atomic "super small" elements, chemicals, or bio-meds carried through your body cells. In this podcast you will learn HOW nanotechnology—with its precise sub-atomic accuracy and delivery—in conjunction with biotech and artificial intelligence (AI) can be used to enhance the human condition while at the same time approaching—possibly crossing—the point of no return, especially with regard to Singularity, cyber-genetics—and even—robotics. LISTEN TO THE PODCAST FOR DETAILS! DID YOU KNOW Automatic control systems—especially as regards to Artificial Intelligence (AI) via input to the human brain—Brain Machine Interfacing (BMI) and Nanotechnology will result in internal programming that will substitute for Normal Human Nature … which is concomitant with Transhumanism (= beyond human). ETHICAL AND MORAL QUESTIONS We asked some questions in Part 1, Part 2, Part 3 and Part 4 concerning valid bio-ethics and moral questions. Now … think about Artificial Intelligence with its usage of Nanotechnology from a human perspective. Why you need to listen to podcast. Do NOT forget: There's MUCH MORE information covered in the podcast. MUSIC   Baruch haba b'Shem Adonai. Your friend, Prince Handley President / Regent University of Excellence Podcast time: 16 minutes, 04 seconds   ___________________________ Rabbinical & Biblical Studies The Believers’ Intelligentsia Prince Handley Portal (1,000’s of FREE resources) Prince Handley Books DONATE   A TAX DEDUCTIBLE RECEIPT WILL BE SENT TO YOU ___________________________

APOSTLE TALK - Future News Now REVELATION WITH DIRECTION WWW.REALMIRACLES.ORG INTERNATIONAL Geopolitics ~ Intelligence ~ Prophecy WWW.UOFE.ORG THERE'S MORE THAN ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE - PART 1 GRIN AND BEAR IT … FOR “AI” HUMANS ~ A MIRACLE PODCAST PRODUCTION ~ LISTEN TO THIS MESSAGE NOW >>> LISTEN HERE   PODCAST SHOW NOTES BELOW LISTEN TO PODCAST FOR COMPLETE INFO MUSIC INTRO – There's much more than AI. You will learn ALL (almost all anyway) that's out there! The sources of R & D from within. Who is funding this? Know where YOU (and your family) are going … that would include any future earthlings you may have! What about you future earthlings (that would be any kids you have) and their DNA. Oh, oh! Have you planned for extermination? That would be YOUR extermination! LISTEN TO PODCAST FOR FULL INFORMATION Why can't YOU see it … because “It's the money, stupid!” Plus … “other earthlings” may be working overtime. GRIN and Bear It, is just that: it’s too late … it’s already happening. What you are going to learn about is real, it is contemporary and it is catastrophic. You will have to “bear it.” However, how you do so will determine your destiny: in this life … and forever. As for the GRIN, you will learn about: Genetic alteration or modification. Robotics Information technology Nanotechnology These will be discussed separately, but for now let’s take a test ride. See if you’re up to the rest of this book. Warning ‒ you haven’t seen anything yet. We’re just scratching the surface here at the start. Computer scientist Bill Joy, and many other writers, have identified cluster groups of technological advances that they esteem critical to the future of humanity. Joy warns that these advances have potential to be used by “elites” for either good or evil. For example, when super humans become advanced—enhanced—to a stage where the ordinary normal human is no longer relevant other than for “slave” activities, then genocide—mass destruction—of the normal humans will become efficient in terms of Global Governance. (More about this later … hang on!) Joy and other writers feel that such techno-human advances could be used as "good shepherds" for the rest of humanity … OR … decide everyone else—the normal original human—that would be YOU and ME—is superfluous and push for mass extinction of those made unnecessary by technology. The path YOU should take … if you would like to leave Planet Earth in victory! LISTEN TO PODCAST FOR COMPLETE INFO Hang on: "You ain't seen 'nothing yet!"  Wait 'til next time for Part 2. MUSIC Baruch haba b'Shem Adonai. Your friend, Prince Handley Podcast time: 10 minutes, 30 seconds ___________________________ Rabbinical & Biblical Studies The Believers’ Intelligentsia Prince Handley Portal (1,000’s of FREE resources) Prince Handley Books DONATE A TAX DEDUCTIBLE RECEIPT WILL BE SENT TO YOU ___________________________

Today’s guest is a Subject Matter Expert (SME) in Chemical, Pharma, Bio-tech Manufacturing, Finance, Bio-Energy, Nano-Technology, SAP/SCM, Machine learning and Big Data. He provided expert system consulting services to companies like Bechtel, Coca-Cola, URS in the fields of water and wastewater treatment design and engineering. Our Guest SRINIVAS KILAMBI was Chief Technology & Knowledge Officer of companies in the TATA group. This group generates over 100 Billion per year! He is also: • Founder of Sriya Group • Founder and 1st CEO Renmatix, Inc • President & CEO of Reliance Bio-Refinery • Did successful US IPOs with over $100MM raised including “Green Shoe” • Did Successful M&A with over 9X returns. Investors include Bill Gates, John Doer and Bill Joy • 1 Successful Turn-Around business experience • Chief Technology & Knowledge Officer of Tata Chemicals (>$25 billion global corporations) • Expert in prescriptive analytics, predictive analytics, machine learning, math-stat algorithms, modeling, simulation, and optimization • Business Process Innovation, Re-Engineering and Automation Expert • Expert in Supply Chain, ERP, Manufacturing, Financials, BAM, DSS • CXO of Commodore Separations, Inc. (CXOT) • Adviser & team member, Commodore Applied Tech. (CXI) IPO • Clean-Green Industry expert especially in water, bio-refineries, solar, and fuel cells   TEACHING INTERESTS Process Engineering & Design Process Intensification Nano Technology Combustion Synthesis Membrane Technologies and Separations Super Critical Fluids Bio-Refineries and Green Chemistry AI and Machine Learning   Questions: What is Digital Experience Index (DXi)? How is DXi measured, and computed? How is DXi used? How is DXi unique? Which industries/markets does DXi serve most? What is the value proposition of DXi to these businesses/industries/markets; What is the competitive landscape and how is DXi unique? What types of Data can DXi handle and sources? What is its pricing? Why is the management/Founding team of DXi unique and capable?   Please listen to the podcast to get all the replies and to know more   Thanks Quin Amorim

Panel Brendan Eich Joe Eames Aaron Frost AJ ONeal Jamison Dance Tim Caswell Charles Max Wood Discussion 01:57 – Brendan Eich Introduction JavaScript [Wiki] Brendan Eich [Wiki] 02:14 – Origin of JavaScript Java Netscape Jim Clark Marc Andreesen NCSA Mosaic NCSA HTTPd Lynx (Web Browser) Lou Montulli Silicon Graphics Kernel Tom Paquin Kipp Hickman MicroUnity Sun Microsystems Andreas Bechtolsheim Bill Joy Sun-1 Scheme Programming Language Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs – 2nd Edition (MIT Electrical Engineering and Computer Science) by Harold Abelson, Gerald Jay Sussman & Julie Sussman Guy Steele Gerald Sussman SPDY Rob McCool Mike McCool Apache Mocha Peninsula Creamery, Palo Alto, CA Main () and Other Methods (C# vs Java) Static in Java, Static Variables, Static Methods, Static Classes 10:38 – Other Languages for Programmers Visual Basic Chrome Blacklist Firefox 12:38 – Naming JavaScript and Writing VMs Canvas Andrew Myers 16:14 – Envisioning JavaScript’s Platform Web 2.0 AJAX Hidaho Design Opera Mozilla Logo Smalltalk Self HyperTalk Bill Atkinson HyperCard Star Wars Trench Run 2.0 David Ungar Craig Chambers Lars Bak Strongtalk TypeScript HotSpot V8 Dart Jamie Zawinski 24:42 – Working with ECMA Bill Gates Blackbird Spyglass Carl Cargill Jan van den Beld Philips Mike Cowlishaw Borland David M. Gay ECMAScript Lisp Richard Gabriel 31:26 – Naming Mozilla Jamie Zawinski Godzilla 31:57 – Time-Outs 32:53 – Functions Clojure John Rose Oracle Scala Async.io 38:37 – XHR and Microsoft Flash Hadoop Ricardo Jenez Ken Smith Brent Noorda Ray Noorda .NET Shon Katzenberger Anders Hejlsberg NCSA File Formats 45:54 – SpiderMonkey Chris Houck Brendan Eich and Douglas Crockford – TXJS 2010 Douglas Crockford JavaScript: The Good Parts by Douglas Crockford TXJS.com ActionScript Flex Adobe E4X BEA Systems John Schneider Rhino JScript roku Waldemar Horwat Harvard Putnam Math Competition Chris Wilson Silverlight Allen Wirfs-Brock NDC Oslo 2014 JSConf Brendan JSConf Talks 59:58 – JavaScript and Mozilla GIP SSLeay Eric A. Young Tim Hudson Digital Styles Raptor Gecko ICQ and AIM PowerPlant CodeWarrior Camino David Hyatt Lotus Mitch Kapor Ted Leonsis Mitchell Baker David Baren Phoenix Tinderbox Harmony 1:14:37 – Surprises with Evolution of JavaScript Ryan Dahl node.js Haskell Elm Swift Unity Games Angular Ember.js Dojo jQuery react ClojureScript JavaScript Jabber Episode #107: ClojureScript & Om with David Nolen MVC 01:19:43 – Angular’s HTML Customization Sweet.js JavaScript Jabber Episode #039: Sweet.js with Tim Disney TC39 Rick Waldron 01:22:27 – Applications with JavaScript SPA’s Shumway Project IronRuby 01:25:45 – Future of Web and Frameworks LLVM Chris Lattner Blog Epic Games Emscripten Autodesk PortableApps WebGL 01:29:39 – ASM.js Dart.js John McCutchen Monster Madness Anders Hejlsberg, Steve Lucco, Luke Hoban: TypeScript 0.9 – Generics and More (Channel 9, 2013) Legacy 01:32:58 – Brendan’s Future with JavaScript Picks hapi.js (Aaron) JavaScript Disabled: Should I Care? (Aaron) Aaron’s Frontend Masters Course on ES6 (Aaron) Brendan’s “Cool Story Bro” (AJ) [YouTube] Queen – Don't Stop Me Now (AJ) Trending.fm (AJ) WE ARE DOOMED soundtrack EP by Robby Duguay (Jamison) Hohokum Soundtrack (Jamison) Nashville Outlaws: A Tribute to Mötley Crüe (Joe) Audible (Joe) Stripe (Chuck) Guardians of the Galaxy (Brendan)

Panel Brendan Eich Joe Eames Aaron Frost AJ ONeal Jamison Dance Tim Caswell Charles Max Wood Discussion 01:57 – Brendan Eich Introduction JavaScript [Wiki] Brendan Eich [Wiki] 02:14 – Origin of JavaScript Java Netscape Jim Clark Marc Andreesen NCSA Mosaic NCSA HTTPd Lynx (Web Browser) Lou Montulli Silicon Graphics Kernel Tom Paquin Kipp Hickman MicroUnity Sun Microsystems Andreas Bechtolsheim Bill Joy Sun-1 Scheme Programming Language Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs – 2nd Edition (MIT Electrical Engineering and Computer Science) by Harold Abelson, Gerald Jay Sussman & Julie Sussman Guy Steele Gerald Sussman SPDY Rob McCool Mike McCool Apache Mocha Peninsula Creamery, Palo Alto, CA Main () and Other Methods (C# vs Java) Static in Java, Static Variables, Static Methods, Static Classes 10:38 – Other Languages for Programmers Visual Basic Chrome Blacklist Firefox 12:38 – Naming JavaScript and Writing VMs Canvas Andrew Myers 16:14 – Envisioning JavaScript’s Platform Web 2.0 AJAX Hidaho Design Opera Mozilla Logo Smalltalk Self HyperTalk Bill Atkinson HyperCard Star Wars Trench Run 2.0 David Ungar Craig Chambers Lars Bak Strongtalk TypeScript HotSpot V8 Dart Jamie Zawinski 24:42 – Working with ECMA Bill Gates Blackbird Spyglass Carl Cargill Jan van den Beld Philips Mike Cowlishaw Borland David M. Gay ECMAScript Lisp Richard Gabriel 31:26 – Naming Mozilla Jamie Zawinski Godzilla 31:57 – Time-Outs 32:53 – Functions Clojure John Rose Oracle Scala Async.io 38:37 – XHR and Microsoft Flash Hadoop Ricardo Jenez Ken Smith Brent Noorda Ray Noorda .NET Shon Katzenberger Anders Hejlsberg NCSA File Formats 45:54 – SpiderMonkey Chris Houck Brendan Eich and Douglas Crockford – TXJS 2010 Douglas Crockford JavaScript: The Good Parts by Douglas Crockford TXJS.com ActionScript Flex Adobe E4X BEA Systems John Schneider Rhino JScript roku Waldemar Horwat Harvard Putnam Math Competition Chris Wilson Silverlight Allen Wirfs-Brock NDC Oslo 2014 JSConf Brendan JSConf Talks 59:58 – JavaScript and Mozilla GIP SSLeay Eric A. Young Tim Hudson Digital Styles Raptor Gecko ICQ and AIM PowerPlant CodeWarrior Camino David Hyatt Lotus Mitch Kapor Ted Leonsis Mitchell Baker David Baren Phoenix Tinderbox Harmony 1:14:37 – Surprises with Evolution of JavaScript Ryan Dahl node.js Haskell Elm Swift Unity Games Angular Ember.js Dojo jQuery react ClojureScript JavaScript Jabber Episode #107: ClojureScript & Om with David Nolen MVC 01:19:43 – Angular’s HTML Customization Sweet.js JavaScript Jabber Episode #039: Sweet.js with Tim Disney TC39 Rick Waldron 01:22:27 – Applications with JavaScript SPA’s Shumway Project IronRuby 01:25:45 – Future of Web and Frameworks LLVM Chris Lattner Blog Epic Games Emscripten Autodesk PortableApps WebGL 01:29:39 – ASM.js Dart.js John McCutchen Monster Madness Anders Hejlsberg, Steve Lucco, Luke Hoban: TypeScript 0.9 – Generics and More (Channel 9, 2013) Legacy 01:32:58 – Brendan’s Future with JavaScript Picks hapi.js (Aaron) JavaScript Disabled: Should I Care? (Aaron) Aaron’s Frontend Masters Course on ES6 (Aaron) Brendan’s “Cool Story Bro” (AJ) [YouTube] Queen – Don't Stop Me Now (AJ) Trending.fm (AJ) WE ARE DOOMED soundtrack EP by Robby Duguay (Jamison) Hohokum Soundtrack (Jamison) Nashville Outlaws: A Tribute to Mötley Crüe (Joe) Audible (Joe) Stripe (Chuck) Guardians of the Galaxy (Brendan)

Panel Brendan Eich Joe Eames Aaron Frost AJ ONeal Jamison Dance Tim Caswell Charles Max Wood Discussion 01:57 – Brendan Eich Introduction JavaScript [Wiki] Brendan Eich [Wiki] 02:14 – Origin of JavaScript Java Netscape Jim Clark Marc Andreesen NCSA Mosaic NCSA HTTPd Lynx (Web Browser) Lou Montulli Silicon Graphics Kernel Tom Paquin Kipp Hickman MicroUnity Sun Microsystems Andreas Bechtolsheim Bill Joy Sun-1 Scheme Programming Language Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs – 2nd Edition (MIT Electrical Engineering and Computer Science) by Harold Abelson, Gerald Jay Sussman & Julie Sussman Guy Steele Gerald Sussman SPDY Rob McCool Mike McCool Apache Mocha Peninsula Creamery, Palo Alto, CA Main () and Other Methods (C# vs Java) Static in Java, Static Variables, Static Methods, Static Classes 10:38 – Other Languages for Programmers Visual Basic Chrome Blacklist Firefox 12:38 – Naming JavaScript and Writing VMs Canvas Andrew Myers 16:14 – Envisioning JavaScript’s Platform Web 2.0 AJAX Hidaho Design Opera Mozilla Logo Smalltalk Self HyperTalk Bill Atkinson HyperCard Star Wars Trench Run 2.0 David Ungar Craig Chambers Lars Bak Strongtalk TypeScript HotSpot V8 Dart Jamie Zawinski 24:42 – Working with ECMA Bill Gates Blackbird Spyglass Carl Cargill Jan van den Beld Philips Mike Cowlishaw Borland David M. Gay ECMAScript Lisp Richard Gabriel 31:26 – Naming Mozilla Jamie Zawinski Godzilla 31:57 – Time-Outs 32:53 – Functions Clojure John Rose Oracle Scala Async.io 38:37 – XHR and Microsoft Flash Hadoop Ricardo Jenez Ken Smith Brent Noorda Ray Noorda .NET Shon Katzenberger Anders Hejlsberg NCSA File Formats 45:54 – SpiderMonkey Chris Houck Brendan Eich and Douglas Crockford – TXJS 2010 Douglas Crockford JavaScript: The Good Parts by Douglas Crockford TXJS.com ActionScript Flex Adobe E4X BEA Systems John Schneider Rhino JScript roku Waldemar Horwat Harvard Putnam Math Competition Chris Wilson Silverlight Allen Wirfs-Brock NDC Oslo 2014 JSConf Brendan JSConf Talks 59:58 – JavaScript and Mozilla GIP SSLeay Eric A. Young Tim Hudson Digital Styles Raptor Gecko ICQ and AIM PowerPlant CodeWarrior Camino David Hyatt Lotus Mitch Kapor Ted Leonsis Mitchell Baker David Baren Phoenix Tinderbox Harmony 1:14:37 – Surprises with Evolution of JavaScript Ryan Dahl node.js Haskell Elm Swift Unity Games Angular Ember.js Dojo jQuery react ClojureScript JavaScript Jabber Episode #107: ClojureScript & Om with David Nolen MVC 01:19:43 – Angular’s HTML Customization Sweet.js JavaScript Jabber Episode #039: Sweet.js with Tim Disney TC39 Rick Waldron 01:22:27 – Applications with JavaScript SPA’s Shumway Project IronRuby 01:25:45 – Future of Web and Frameworks LLVM Chris Lattner Blog Epic Games Emscripten Autodesk PortableApps WebGL 01:29:39 – ASM.js Dart.js John McCutchen Monster Madness Anders Hejlsberg, Steve Lucco, Luke Hoban: TypeScript 0.9 – Generics and More (Channel 9, 2013) Legacy 01:32:58 – Brendan’s Future with JavaScript Picks hapi.js (Aaron) JavaScript Disabled: Should I Care? (Aaron) Aaron’s Frontend Masters Course on ES6 (Aaron) Brendan’s “Cool Story Bro” (AJ) [YouTube] Queen – Don't Stop Me Now (AJ) Trending.fm (AJ) WE ARE DOOMED soundtrack EP by Robby Duguay (Jamison) Hohokum Soundtrack (Jamison) Nashville Outlaws: A Tribute to Mötley Crüe (Joe) Audible (Joe) Stripe (Chuck) Guardians of the Galaxy (Brendan)

IOT - Internet dos Trem A “Internet das Coisas” (IOT) se refere a uma revolução tecnológica que tem como objetivo conectar os itens usados do dia a dia à rede mundial de computadores. Cada vez mais surgem eletrodomésticos, meios de transporte e até mesmo tênis, roupas e maçanetas conectadas à Internet e a outros dispositivos, como computadores e smartphones. (Techtudo) Como surgiu o termo? A ideia de conectar objetos é discutida desde 1991, quando a conexão TCP/IP e a Internet que conhecemos hoje começou a se popularizar. Bill Joy, cofundador da Sun Microsystems, pensou sobre a conexão de Device para Device (D2D), tipo de ligação que faz parte de um conceito maior, o de “várias webs”. Assuntos abordados no tema Sobre IOT Futuro Internet das Coisas Carros autônomos Ferramentas, linguagens de programação e por onde começar? Mercado de trabalho Como fica a rede e o trabalho pra manter a consistência dos dados e a grande quantidade de “coisas” conectadas à rede? Cidades inteligentes podemos ver no futuro? Casas inteligentes são a solução? Notícias e artigos: https://exame.abril.com.br/noticias-sobre/internet-das-coisas-iot/ https://epoca.globo.com/tecnologia/experiencias-digitais/noticia/2017/10/o-risco-da-internet-das-coisas.html https://g1.globo.com/economia/tecnologia/noticia/internet-das-coisas-ha-mais-maquinas-online-que-celulares-e-elas-tem-ate-rede-propria.ghtml https://epocanegocios.globo.com/colunas/Tecneira/noticia/2018/02/10-iniciativas-brasileiras-de-internet-das-coisas-para-ficar-de-olho.html https://revistapegn.globo.com/Tecnologia/noticia/2018/02/internet-das-coisas-deve-gerar-us-8-bilhoes-no-brasil-em-2018-diz-idc.html Links úteis (Associação Brasileira de Internet das Coisas) http://abinc.org.br/ https://www.alura.com.br/curso-online-iot-com-nodemcu Things Hacker Team: https://www.facebook.com/ThingsHackerTeam Nerdzão: https://www.facebook.com/nerdzao Zero Treze Innovation Space: https://www.facebook.com/013IS Node Red Brasil: https://www.facebook.com/NodeREDBrasil (Smart Cities & Smart People) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5PcREzi4fo (Cidades Inteligentes: cases brasileiros) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OEV38gJhck Participantes Jéssica Nathany (Developer e Host) Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jessica-nathany-carvalho-freitas-38260868/ Austin Felipe (Developer e Co-Host) Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/austinfelipe/ Douglas Pires (Developer e Co-Host) Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/dpiresvilela/ Yunnes Abdul (Co-Host e Editor) Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/yunnes-abdul-ghani-2b848a32/ Fernando Veiga (CEO Zero Treze Innovation Space) Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/pfveiga7/ Sergio Gama (Senior Developer Advocate Leader for Latin America na IBM) Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/sergiogama/ Dúvidas, sugestões ou críticas envie para: debugcafe@gmail.com =)

A conversation with Johan Vos about Sting at Java One, Blackdown Java dream teams, Bill Joy, Java in science, telematics, OSGi, JavaFX, wild pigs, oktoberfest, kaffe.org, social Java, DaliCore, reactive JavaFX, Sun Grid, clouds, Java EE in science, gluon, JavaFX on Mobile, openJDK 9 on ios and Android and Future of JavaFX

In Episode 28 of Hidden Forces, host Demetri Kofinas lays out his vision for a future driven by the emergent forces we have been covering in 2017. He reads passages from Ted Kaczynski’s “Industrial Society and its Future,” as well as from Bill Joy’s “Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us.” He plays clips from interviews with Barack Obama, Tim Cook, and Jamie Dimon, as he considers how power, privacy, and control, all factor into the emerging technological landscape. What is the goal of the machine? What do we seek to accomplish with our technologies? What are the benefits and the costs associated with the technological, political, and economic forces of the modern age?  Producer & Host: Demetri Kofinas Editor: Stylianos Nicolaou Join the conversation on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter at @hiddenforcespod

Doug Menuez is an award-winning photographer whose career over 30 years has ranged from photo journalism to commissioned work, personal book projects and documentary film. The driving concern of all his work is to explore and reflect the realities of the human condition. After launching his career as a photojournalist in 1981 at The Washington Post, he became a regular assignment photographer for Time, Newsweek, LIFE, USA Today, Fortune, and many other publications worldwide. Menuez has photographed at the North Pole, crossed the Sahara and explored the Amazon. His subjects have included the Ethiopian famine, the Olympics, and the AIDS crisis. He covered five Super Bowls, five World Series and the 1984 Olympics. He gained exclusive, unprecedented access to record the rise of Silicon Valley from 1985-2000. documented the private daily lives of its most brilliant innovators, including three years with Steve Jobs, as well as covering Bill Gates, John Warnock, Carol Bartz, Andy Grove, John Sculley, Bill Joy, and John Doerr during an era when more jobs and wealth were created than at any time in human history.   Resources: Download the free Candid Frame app for your favorite smart device. Click here to download for . Click here to download Click here to download for Support the work we do at The Candid Frame with contributing to our Patreon effort.  You can do this by visiting or visiting the website and clicking on the Patreon button. You can also provide a one-time donation via . You can follow Ibarionex on and .

There are many things that will surprise you from a Steve Jobs biography. We all feel that we know the man well. We have read the stories of success, heard the tales of peculiar behavior and used the products that the man left behind. But what you will find when you start researching Steve Jobs, is a man who I don't think anyone will truly understand. A man with so many layers of personality, and distinct characteristics, that we all had the potential to see the type of person that Steve Jobs wanted us to see. So where do we start on the Join Up Dots take, on the Steve Jobs Biography? Well we can clearly see on the Join Up Dots timeline, that Steve Jobs was from the moment he was born looking for identity. Steven Paul Jobs was brought into the world on the 24th February 1955 in San Francisco California, by two students of the University of Wisconsin, who for whatever reason felt that this new born boy, who would grow up to become the king of techonology, was not theirs to keep. Joanne Schieble and Abdulfattah "John" Jandali, played such an amazing part in bringing this child to the world, but would also play such a small part too, and gave the young Steve Jobs up for adoption shortly after birth. And this was one of the dots in the Steve Jobs biography that Steve spoke so candidly about in 2005, when he addressed the graduating students on Stanford in a commencement address that has become a firm favourite to the world. Not least becoming the basis of what became the theme behind the show “Join Up Dots with David Ralph” The Steve Jobs Biography is a fascinating tale of clearly defined dots that shape what he was going to become right from the start, which would make it fascinating if we could ever go back in time and show the young Steve Jobs the steps that he should take. Would he follow them, or would this young child with such a fascination for technology, and understanding of the components that made early electronic devices work, listen? Well probably not, but you can see in the Steve Jobs biography those dots were clearly working in his favour right from the start. His adopted parents lived in Mountain View California, which would fortuitously become what is known as silicon valley in later years, planting the budding entrepreneur in the centre of where he would later go on to rule. His father, Paul Jobs who worked as a Coast Guard veteran and machinist, also had an interest in electronics and would show his young son from the confines of the family garage (the birthplace of Apple) how to take electronic devices a part, and then have the confidence to put them all back together. Paul Jobs could have had fishing as a hobby, but once again the Steve Jobs biography shows that the skills that he would later utilize to such astonishing success were laid before him. Yes of course, he needed the interest and persistence to make these skills work, but Steve Jobs was nothing but tenacious when that interest was in evidence. A completely different Steve Jobs, to the one we would see throughout his career when he was bored, or things didn't quite go his way! And those opposing, and not so dynamic and conscientious personality traits, were more than evident to everyone during his schooling. Steve Jobs was an innovative thinker. He could see things long before most people had started to even consider there was even something to be seen. Which meant that during school, he struggled with the confines of formal schooling, and the structure of his lessons which as we all know, more often than not are anything but innovative. The young Steve Jobs, would attempt to keep himself entertained by playing pranks and creating mischief, even once being bribed by his fourth grade teacher to get his head down and study. But there was no getting away from the fact that being born to two University graduates had provided him with the genes of intelligence. And school tests, even from a boy who had little interest in the work were a breeze. He would sail through the testing with such apparent ease that the school administrators were keen to push him ahead to High School, which his parents were reluctant to sanction. So already at school age, the Steve Jobs biography shows that we have a child who is living smack bang in the middle of the soon to be formed Silicon Valley, had an interest in electronics, possessed an innovative and questioning mind, and was born in 1955. And this last fact is probably one of the most interesting of all, as Malcom Gladwell attested to in his bestselling book the Outliers” in the chapter “Timing Is Everything” Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen was born in 1953, Apple founder Steve Jobs in 1955, Sun Microsystems founders Bill Joy and Scott McNealy in 1954, Bill Gates in 1955. Which made them the prime age when the first do it yourself home computers came to market in 1975. Old enough to see the potential, and risk their futures by working on what someone already established in a career in computers would consider too much a risk to take on. But not old enough to be already settled down with children and responsibilities, frightened to take the leap of faith and risk what they had already gained in life. All of them fascinated with what was in front of them, and on their own paths to becoming household names in computing, making them richer than anyone could hope to be. So we are building quite a list of dots on the Join Up Dots timeline, and of course the Steve Jobs biography. We can now add perfect timing of his birth, to the perfect location, an interest in electronics, questioning mind, and a passion to go against the norm. We can almost see already, the Steve Jobs that we would see a few years later, in the young man huddled over a box of wires and fuses. But no matter how inspired and intellectual a person is, they will need the support of others. And Steve Jobs found this when he was introduced to Steve Wozniak, who became his future business partner. The two hit it off straight away, and as Wozniak spoke about in a 2007 interview, it was obvious from the start that the two had similar outlooks and passions. Passions that back in the early years of the 1970's very few people had. As he says “We both loved electronics and the way we used to hook up digital chips. And very few people, especially back then, had any idea what chips were, how they worked and what they could do. I had designed many computers, so I was way ahead of him in electronics and computer design, but we still had common interests. We both had pretty much sort of an independent attitude about things in the world.” And that was how Steve Jobs life was throughout High School. Limited interest in what was happening within the education system, but along with Wozniack fascinated and consumed by the potential outside its walls. And now in the Steve Jobs biography we arrive at that definitive time in his life. The definitive time in everyone's life. They are now ready to go out into the world as young adults and create their own paths. Would Steve Jobs follow the course that so many people follow and play it safe, getting a job just because it's money in the bank, following in the footsteps of his father, or would he strive boldly into a new future, and create his legacy. Well surprisingly Steve Jobs did neither, and even against a background off disinterest in studying and education, Steve Jobs enrolled in Reed College in Portland Oregon. This appears a decision that was not well thought out, as Steve Jobs quickly realised that he wasn't suited for further education and made the decision to drop out of college and do his own thing. And that thing was to start attending classes that he thought would be interesting. He would choose classes to attend, just because he was intrigued by their content, not because how they would look on his resume. One of those classes, as Steve Jobs recounted once again in the Stanford Commencement address changed his life. The course was in calligraphy, and developed the love of typography that he brought to the world in such a dramatic and successful way with his first foray into the home computer market. As he said to the students hanging on his every word on that day “None of this had even a hope of any practical application in my life. But 10 years later, when we were designing the first Macintosh computer, it all came back to me. And we designed it all into the Mac. It was the first computer with beautiful typography. If I had never dropped in on that single course in college, the Mac would have never had multiple typefaces or proportionally spaced fonts. And since Windows just copied the Mac, it's likely that no personal computer would have them. If I had never dropped out, I would have never dropped in on this calligraphy class, and personal computers might not have the wonderful typography that they do. Of course it was impossible to connect the dots looking forward when I was in college. But it was very, very clear looking backward 10 years later.” In 1974, the Steve Jobs biography shows, what you would think was a great starting point to his career as a computer genius, and the young Jobs accepted a position with the promising and innovative games company Atari, as a video game designer. Atari would go onto to dominate the home games console market in the late seventies and early eighties, with children across the world clambering for one of these wooden boxes that they could plug into their television sets. The demand was astonishing. But Steve Jobs would not play a big part of the success of the company, as just six months later he quit, to go and find himself by traveling the huge continent of India, high on drugs most of the time. When he did return to the United States of America it was now 1976, Steve Jobs was twenty years old and about get serious about what he saw the future of home computing to be. Alongside his friend Steve Wozniak, still spending hours and hours inside the Jobs family garage, they would create what would grow to become the most valuable company on Earth. The two friends set to work experimenting with the knowledge that they had fostered, more often than not unknowingly throughout their lives. The hours spent fiddling with chips, and electronic circuit boards as a hobby, now finding its true importance in their lives. Which is of course one of the truths of every episode of Join Up Dots. Perceived failures, or what seemed like pure time wastage can later on turn out to be the holder of the very thing that you are looking for. And that was certainly the case with young Mr Steve Jobs. However greatness does not appear without a belief and a willingness to take risks. And the Steve Jobs biography is littered with incidents where he seemed to have the desire to go further and quicker than anyone else around him would consider acceptable.. Selling his Volkswagen bus, whilst his friend Wozniak sold his beloved scientific computer they funded their fledgling enterprise, and began to work changing the world. Empowering every home to believe they could posses their own computer, which several years previously would have been thought an impossible dream. With Jobs in charge of marketing— Apple, which they decided to call their untested enterprise, initially marketed the computers for $666.66 each. The Apple I earned the corporation around $774,000. Three years after the release of Apple's second model, the Apple II, the company's sales increased by 700 percent, to $139 million. Not bad for two guys, who just three years before were unsure as to which direction their future would go. However this was simply the beginning of what Apple was to become and in 1980, Apple Computer became a publicly traded company, with a market value of $1.2 billion. By the end of its very first day of trading, and buoyed by its success Jobs looked to find someone with the business acumen and vision to drive the company to even greater heights, and made the decision to bring marketing expert John Sculley of Pepsi-Cola in as the President of Apple. A decision that among all the decisions made in the Steve Jobs biography was as bad for Steve as it could possibly be. A decision that would bring Steve Jobs to one of the lowest points of his life, being told to leave the company he had founded. Steve Jobs was sacked from Apple. As we had already discovered in Part One of the Join Up Dots take on the Steve Jobs story, he was born at the right time, the right place, with the right interests, and the rest as they say is history. He co-founded Apple Computer when he was 21, and by the time he hit 23 was a millionaire. In just two years, Steve Jobs had become a wildly successful, fabulously wealthy global celebrity. Not bad for a man who just a few years before, had travelled the continent of India, unsure of his path in life, seeking spiritual enlightenment, whilst seeking as many mind altering drugs as he could get his hands on. And then, at 30, Jobs had the kind of humiliating defeat that for so many would signal game over, he was made to leave the company that he had helped create. He was in the most harshest of environments hung out to dry in the newspapers, and reports across the world. Total humiliation was forced on a man who had became legendary, and it seemed could do no wrong. But why persist to put yourself out there, and face the world's media and consumers head on, if in all sense and purpose you had already made it, and could quite easily live the dream. But Steve Jobs, was a man unable to seek an easy version of his future and as Alan Deutschman, author of "Change or Die, The Second Coming of Steve Jobs. tells "Steve Jobs persisted, he had this incredible tenacity. He held on and came back with triumph after triumph, driving the company to new heights, creating the greatest corporate success of our time. It's a unique story." So how did it occur? How did everything that Steve Jobs had worked so hard to build, be taken away from him? And looking back was this the key to his later success, or just another obstacle to climb over as he followed his passions and interests within the computer world. Well we need to step back a few years in time, when this fledgling company was tittering on financial collapse to gain a clear understanding of the path that Steve Jobs was unknowingly about to undertake. As amazing as it seems now Apple Computer was a home enterprise, and a bootstrapped company that was prone to the same issues that all new home start ups endure. Cashflow is the killer of so many dreams, and to raise the money they needed to get the Apple II off the ground, Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak knew that they needed to bring in investors. Interested outside parties who had the kind of financial clout they needed to see their visions begin to prosper. Finding these people in a myriad of locations, their much needed investments stabilised the company, and allowed the continued development of the Apple II, which just a few months previously had been in question. However as the two Steve's discovered during this period, most of the investors were not too keen to see their money handed over to the two computer whizzkids without some semblance of control on their part. Why would you simply hand over the money for others to use as they see fit, if you also had business experience, and a background of success in the financial and industrial markets of the world, to help direct the returns from those investments? Why wouldn't you seek a place within the company to really keep things moving in your direction? And that is what occurred, with many of the investors claiming themselves a place on the board. And this is fascinating part to the Steve Jobs biography, to which you can clearly see the first division of the dreamer and activator Steve Jobs, and the board of Apple. Moneymen, believed the way to grow a company was to protect the bottom line, and to hell with the vision of consumer perfection that so intoxicated the budding entrepreneur. Make the products, shift the products and move on. Whilst Steve Jobs wanted to change the world and create a legacy. The skills that Jobs would display in such astonishing fashion upon his return to Apple years later were sorely missing at this time, and the board were of the opinion that Steve Jobs was brilliant, but quite simply too young and temperamental to run the company. He had not yet learned how to balance the desire and (occasional) ability to create insanely great products with the need to also ship them — preferably on time and on budget. The lack of this skill doomed not just Steve's tenure as the head of Apple's Mac division, but also one of his subsequent projects, NeXT. And also as most young men are, he was headstrong, full of his own importance, and of the belief that his products were the key to the success of everything. It was his god driven right to bring his ideals and visions to the world, which would be the saviour of the company. Which in all honesty was probably right, but there is a way to go about bringing this desire for perfection to the world, which Steve Jobs had not mastered. He was petulant, abrasive, and likely to steamroller the weaker members of his teams, even though he loved nothing more than people standing up to him. Even presenting awards to the one who showed this brave trait each year. He would argue, shout, demand and put the most amazing pressure on his teams, with very few thriving, and many falling by the wayside. In a fascinating interview many years later Steve Jobs reminisces about an old man who lived down the street when he was a young boy. The man showed him a rock tumbler, and he and Jobs went out and got a handful of plain old rocks, then put them into the can with liquid and grit powder. They closed up the rock tumbler, turned it on, and then the man told Jobs to "come back tomorrow." The next day, the man opened the can and inside were these "amazingly beautiful polished rocks. The same common stones that had gone in through rubbing against each other like this (clapping his hands), creating a little bit of friction, creating a little bit of noise, had come out these beautiful polished rocks." Jobs goes on to say how that is a "metaphor for a team that is working really hard on something they're passionate about. It's that through the team, through that group of incredibly talented people bumping up against each other, having arguments, having fights sometimes, making some noise, and working together they polish each other and they polish the ideas, and what comes out are these beautiful stones." People can only find their greatest strengths, and polish their inherent talents by being tested and challenged constantly. By being placed into the Steve Jobs tumblr they ultimately would find what they are capable of. Providing Steve Jobs and Apple with the kind of groundbreaking products that the world cannot get enough off. So realising, that at that moment Steve Jobs was not the man the board wanted to run the company, Jobs himself set out to find someone that could demonstrate the skills, characteristics and behaviours that he would want in place of him. And he found that very man, in 1983, when he recruited Pepsi executive John Sculley to run Apple, famously asking him "Do you want to spend the rest of your life selling sugared water, or do you want a chance to change the world?" John Sculley was inspired by these words and accepted this position. Not realising that less than three years later, he would also be changing Steve Jobs life too. Things did not seem doomed for collision when the relationship was first formed, as both considered the other a close friend. Being on the same wavelength, it was a common occurrence for one to finish the sentences of the other. They thrived in each other's company and were seen to many as a dynamic duo that contributed greatly to the amazing press that the company was receiving across the world at that time. They complemented each other personally, but professionally were very different. They had their own responsibilities and demands on their time and energies that neither could possibly understand. Within the walls of Apple there was no getting away from the fact that things were turning for the worse. Jobs was Apple's chief visionary, a role that put him in charge of the team developing Apple's next revolutionary product, the Macintosh computer. John Scully on the other hand, was interested in appeasing the views of the concerned board members who saw Jobs as a loose cannon, and ensuring that the vision of Jobs did not ultimately become the death warrant of Apple. The Mac debuted in 1984 to rave reviews but disappointing sales, putting a financial strain on the company -– and fraying Jobs' relationship with Sculley. Jobs basically had created his own team to create his own product, the Macintosh. His team actually having its own building. He even flew the pirate flag there. As he often would say, 'It is better to be a pirate, than to be in the navy.' What Steve Jobs had done was ultimately created a company-within-a-company, that became pitted against other parts of the company that actually made money. The cracks were growing wider and wider by the day. The downfall came soon, when buoyed by Steve Jobs largely overestimated expectations of the Macintosh sales, they found that their euphoria about the revolutionary Mac, which they thought they would ship 80,000 units by the end of 1984, and had produced anything but euphoria. They had built, developed and stored 80,000 computers ready for the rush, but encountered a return just a quarter of what was expected. And not only was the figure disappointing, but so was the performance of the Macintosh, that Steve Jobs had deemed as perfection in the making. In fact with its 128 KByte RAM it was not simply not powerful enough, and there were hardly any software applications available yet. During the annual board meeting in 1985, it became clear that the work that Steve Jobs deemed as important was not as important to what truly mattered: the financial bottom line. Compared to the continued sales of the Apple II, Steve Jobs new masterpiece only accounted for 30% of the sales of Apple. It was a dead duck, and to many simply not worth pursuing with. Steve Jobs became more and more angry and aggressive because of the continuing drop in Macintosh sales, and made sure that he blamed everyone for its failure, other than himself. So blinkered was he to the world he had created, that he couldn't see what everyone else would consider to be obvious. The failure was not with the product, but was with Steve Jobs belief in the product. The problem was with him. In the end, he blamed even Sculley for the crisis and wanted to lead the company himself. But this seemed impossible to everyone else: "Steve was a big thinker, an inspirational motivator, but not a day-to-day manager. What was sad was that he could not see it." When Sculley was informed that Jobs intended to remove him from the company, he was quite concerned, but then decided to choose the company's welfare over his friendship to its visionary co-founder. Supported by Markkula and the other members of the board, in May 1985, he dismissed Steve from his positions as the vice-president and as the leader of the Macintosh division; Jobs did not have any managerial power anymore. The record books make it clear that Steve Jobs wasn't sacked, but was demoted. But such was his ego, and love for his creation that is a mute point. Steve Jobs could no longer be seen as someone that could make the company fly high. His wings had been severely clipped, and now like the Macintosh was a dead duck. Perhaps not dead, but a shadow of what he had been previously. Jobs, took awhile to decide on his next move, and by and large spent much of 1985 travelling around Europe and the Soviet Union under the orders of Sculley promoting the Apple II. It was during these endless journeys that Steve Jobs lost interest in what he was doing. He lost interest in the company that he had co-founded. He was depressed and lost. The charismatic young man from just a few month previously forgotten. He stopped coming to work and resigned from Apple Jobs said during the speech at Stanford in 1985 that getting fired from Apple was the best thing that ever happened to him. “The heaviness of being successful was replaced by the lightness of being a beginner again, less sure about everything,” he said. “It freed me to enter one of the most creative periods of my life; I'm pretty sure none of this would have happened if I hadn't been fired from Apple,” Jobs said. “It was awful-tasting medicine, but I guess the patient needed it.” And so started the third part of the Steve Jobs biography. The ability for him to assess, refocus, play, and learn from his weaknesses. It was during this period when Steve Jobs, as we see everyday on the Join Up Dots interviews, came back stronger than ever. The darkest periods of his life, showed him the light that would lead him to blaze even more brightly than he had thought possible. He would change from the petulant, abrasive, visionary, to as John Sculley himself says “The Greatest CEO the world has ever known” But how did he do this? How did Steve Jobs pull himself from the dark despair that hung all around him, and start to fight back? A despair so intense that some of his close friends were worried for his safety, and considered his moods suicidal in their depth. Once again, as we need to do time and time again with this tale, we need to step back a few months to review the version of Steve Jobs who hadn't yet decided on his next move. The Steve Jobs that was still struggling to come to terms with his demotion from Apple, but not yet brave enough to walk away. The telling part of the story, is the period when Steve Jobs began failing to turn up for work, and started looking around him. Freed in many ways from the constraints of his responsibilities, he had time to think. “Apple was founded when Steve was just 21 years old. So he never really had time to think about big picture, life issues. He obsessed on the same questions over and over: “What went wrong with Apple. What did I do wrong?” It was an important question to ask, and within its few words would hold the answer to his true world changing legacy, ready to be unleashed on the world twelve years later. After Jobs returned from the Apple II tour, he met with The Graphics Group, a team of 3D computer graphics technicians gathered by Star Wars director George Lucas. Steve Jobs began to believe that the high-end 3D graphics business was going to be huge. “These guys were way ahead of anybody,” he said. “I just knew in my bones that this was going to be very important.” He suggested to the Apple board that it consider buying the company — later called Pixar — from LucasFilm. But the board wasn't paying attention to Steve anymore, and less than graciously decided to pass on the deal. Jobs then floated. He spent more time with his daughter Lisa. He gardened. He mused about running for public office. He applied to fly on the Space Shuttle as a civilian, but that didn't work out. He went to Europe on business, but made time for museums. He spent a lot of time by himself, or with his girlfriend. In Europe Steve Jobs met with heads of state, university presidents, artists. He'd been humbled in California, but was having his ego stroked in Europe, where he was still thought of as a “revolutionary business figure.” Although none of these conversations, and museum visits were on their own important, they were in fact a series of dots, leading to the big dot. The one that would create the inspiration within him, to go again. Ready to return to the U.S. hungry for the next big thing. He began meeting with scientists, who were telling him that they needed a personal computer with enough power for real research and modeling — “a radically new high-end computer ‘workstation.'” Although far way from the Jobs family garage, where Apple was born, the same passion and ability for creative thinking was ready to ignite again. Steve Jobs was on the march, and went straight into the boardroom of Apple, to declare that he was leaving start a new company, and would also be taking some low-level Apple employees with him. And what came next, was NeXT. Steve had arrived at a crossroads in his life. After his spectacular rise to the top with Apple, things had turned sour, and he was looking for something to reignite his passions and of course his fortunes. He was still a very rich man, but for the first time in his life had the stigma of failure hanging over him. This was quite unfair in many regards, but as we see time and time again, the world likes nothing more than pushing a person to the top of the pile, and then delighting as they fall back to earth with the rest of us. As the story goes, Steve Jobs had returned from one of his many business trips to Europe promoting the Apple II and met a very old friend of his, Nobel prize winner Paul Berg From Stanford University. The two old friends discussed Bergs work, and it became clear to Steve Jobs that this could be the thing he was looking for. The reason to build a new company thereby restoring the Apple boards faith in him. His friend told him about his work on DNA, and inquired whether the molecules could be simulated on computers. Steve told him No, but that didn't mean that it wasn't possible. And those possibilities excited him greatly. Instead of focusing in on the home computer market as he had previously, he would instead build a supercomputer for the higher education and scientific markets. He did his research as to the computer capabilities he would need, and became even more excited by what he discovered. Steve Jobs, was reinventing the wheel and giving the world something that no one else could, and as we have already seen he was not short of ego, which is why there is no surprise that the idea appealed so much. However, if Steve Jobs had gone further and researched whether the higher education and scientific markets would actually be interested in buying such a super computer, he might have had a very different reaction to the concept. Hindsight as they say, is a wonderful thing. He was still an employee at Apple, so enthusiastically informed the board of his idea. And on the 13th of September 1985 boldly described the vision he had for the computer, the company, and of course himself. Everything went well at first, and the board sided with his enthusiasm, even willing to invest in the plans that Steve Jobs had presented to them. That enthusiasm however was short lived, when Jobs started detailing who he would take with him to the new company. This is when the board of Apple turned bitter. He advised that he would go away with Bud Tribble, the first Mac programmer; George Crow, a key Mac hardware engineer; Rich Page, who had supervised almost all of Apples' development; Dan'l Lewin, and Susan Barnes, an MBA in finance. Steve Jobs had presented these people as “Low-level”, but it was clear to all that they were anything but. These employees were integral to the future progress of Apple Computers, and the board felt threatened. With no other option and determined to push ahead with his idea, Steve Jobs resigned from Apple. Next Computers was born, and it did not start easily. The minute it was created, the six co-founders found themselves sued by their former employer, Apple. The fruit company was accusing them of stealing their technology. As a result, for its first year or so of existence, the new company could not work on any product in particular, since there was a chance they would lose the trial and give all the technologies they had worked on back to Apple. This didn't phase Jobs at all, and in the meantime he set up to build the perfect company. Building a new company from scratch needed huge investment which Steve Jobs for once had at his disposal. After his departure from Apple, Steve had sold almost all of his stock out of disgust. So by early 1986, he was sitting on more than $100 million. These were very different times from the earlier bootstrapping of Apple. He no longer needed to entice the investment of others to his new venture. This was going to be his baby. He was very much back in control. Steve Jobs knew one thing and he did it better than most: When it came to recruiting he ensured that quality and integrity were at the top of his wishlist. He only recruited those individuals that were classed as extremely bright. Next even used to state that even their receptionist had a PHD, and one thing was certain, there was a buzz around silicon valley about this new start up. The hype was growing by the day, and Steve Jobs added more and more computer whizzkids, and extremely intelligent folk to the list of employees ready to create the next big thing in computing. Next appeared very much the place to be. What made this remarkable was the company couldn't work on anything due to the dispute from Apple, and so were not making any income. The salaries, relocation, logo, equipment costs were all being paid out of Steve Jobs very deep pockets. Not bottomless by any stretch of the imagination, but being emptied at an astonishing rate. Why did Steve Jobs do this? Was it to prove a point to his old employers, or was it to prove a point to the industry? Whatever the reason it got him noticed and the word on the street was “look out he's on his way back!” At the same time as this was all happening, the Star Wars legend George Lucas, came calling to enquire whether Steve's previous interest in his company, working within the motion picture industry was still alive. Steve Jobs had taken a huge interest in the work of the team at Pixar, and had even requested that the Apple board buy the company, but was refused. But now with the value of the company being substantially less than he was once offered, he decided to take matters into his own hands and fork out for the computer animation team. Once again, whether this was a dig at his old work colleagues we don't know, but Steve Jobs paid £10,000,000 of his own money to buy Pixar as nothing more than an expensive hobby. His real passion was for the Next cube,the super computer that would change the industry, not for a group of budding artists trying to make splash in Hollywood. It continued to be a very expensive hobby for many years, with him funding it solely something that he was reluctant to do with his bigger passion Next. He finally started to look for outside investors for that company. Fortunately for Steve Jobs and Next, the Apple dispute fizzled out, and they could actually start getting to work. This occurred mainly by their lack of new creation. Holding back on working on anything new, appeared to be a very good decision NeXT still didn't have a business plan or concrete plans for its first product. Apple's case was based on NeXT's raiding of senior Macintosh executives and conspiring to use the confidential knowledge Jobs and the others had about upcoming Apple projects (like BigMac). And that is where it faltered, Apple couldn't then pinpoint any specific trade secrets that NeXT had violated, because they hadn't. A week later, Apple came back with a list of twenty complaints but failed to demonstrate how NeXT had any plans against Apple. The case proved to be a major embarrassment for Apple and just provided Next and of course Steve Jobs, with a great deal of free publicity: A true win win. When we look back at Steve Jobs time working on The Next cube we can see quite clearly, two major flaws: One was Steve's personal obsession with perfection. Everything from the typeface. to the casing had to be perfect. That perfection only made it a pain to build: from the perfect right angles to its materials to its color, it was extremely complicated — and therefore expensive — to put together. In addition, Steve had made a point on also designing a “beautiful” board for the Cube. All the electronic components, which are usually on several different pieces of plastic, were melded on a single square board that the chairman Steve Jobs considered as beautiful as the case itself. However it was a strenuous problem for engineers to solve. The costs escalated beyond anything that a school or higher education department could afford. Steve Jobs obsession with making it cutting edge and radically ahead of its time was to be its ultimate failure. He had built the technological equivalent of the Ipad thirty years too soon. No matter which way they turned, Next and Steve Jobs hit a brick wall. And through all the twists and turns, delays caused the development of what had been cutting edge two years previously to no longer be seen as such. The competitors had quietly brought their cheaper and user friendly machines to market and had killed any escape route that Next had. Steve Jobs had fallen further from grace, and now was being seen as a liability instead of a maverick and technological genius. Interestingly the forgotten hobby Pixar had started making some progress. Only small steps but enough for the people at Disney to take an interest. In the early 90's times were hard at Pixar, and the company had survived several threats by Steve Jobs to cut his losses and close the whole thing down. But for some reason or another, he still persisted with its vision. Pixar failed nine times over by normal standards, but Steve didn't want another failure to be placed on his resume, so he kept writing the checks. He would have sold the company to anybody in a moment, and in fact tried very very hard to do just that, but the bottom line was he wanted to cover his loss of $50 million. In March 1991, he declared he would continue to keep funding it only if he were given back all of the employees' stock shares. The scheme involved shutting the company down on paper, and creating a “new Pixar” where he was the sole owner. He also fired almost half the staff, keeping only the software programmers as well as Lasseter's animation department — which was, by then, the only part of the company to bring cash in, thanks to its work in TV advertisement. The hardware that the company had developed to enable others to create the same groundbreaking animation was classed as finished. Disney who had an investment in the company could never understand why they should be funding a system to teach others to animate. They controlled animation, and certainly wanted to keep it that way. Nearly twenty odd years after starting the company, the team at Pixar were given a lifeline. After receiving a few awards, and even an Oscar for a short animated film, Disney gave them the greenlight to go for the big one…..a full length computer animated movie. Steve Jobs negotiated a three movie contract with Disney, and arranged to keep 12.5% percent of ticket sales received. Little did he know, as he had limited experience in the movie industry, that he had made a very bad deal. But I suppose a bad deal is better than no deal, and after years of self funding the unit, he was about to see money at last come his way. Or so he thought. Toy Story was put into development, and like all things in Steve's life, at that time, became a lot harder to get the product to the customer than he expected. 1993, was now upon us, and without doubt this was the year when everything that Steve Jobs had dreamt, worked on, and developed crumbled in front of him. A year that many people couldn't have imagined happening ten years previously, when Jobs could do no wrong. Whether Steve Jobs had dwelled on the same dark realisations we can only guess, but it was at an end. He was 38 years old and at his lowest point ever. Next computers crashed around him. It began in January 1992, when Steve Jobs made the decision to allow the advanced operating systems to be used in his competitor's machines. He had taken the view that the uniqueness of what he had created would need to be shared, if he had any chance of saving the company. This was the first sign of the true failure to come for Steve, although many experts had the view that he should have done this from the very beginning. However Jobs was looking to create the system of all systems. The kind of processing speed that would leave all his competitors in the shade. Not to help them in their journeys also. The death warrant had been signed. At the same time in an ironic retelling of a previous dot in Jobs life, things got even worse. COO Van Cuylenburg, who was hired by Steve Jobs, betrayed him in a cruel reminiscence of what had happened at Apple some seven years earlier. Van Cuylenberg had phoned up NeXT's competitor Sun, and asked its CEO Scott McNealy to buy NeXT and install him as manager of the new company getting rid of Jobs. Fortunately, McNealy had some sense of honor and told Steve about the outrage. Van Cuylenburg left, but Steve was completely devastated by everything that was going on around him. How could this have happened? How could all his hard work and investment end up in such a way? How could it be that everyone of the company's co-founders, except George Crow would abandon him. He was Steve Jobs, the genius who had created an industry from nothing. A man who had lit up silicon valley and blazed a path across the world. What had he done to deserve all this at once? Next was finished, and in an even crueler twist of fate, his other venture Pixar was in serious trouble too. The lifeline that had been grabbed at when making the deal with Disney was slipping away from them. Disney's Katzenberg had seen what the company had created, and quite simply hated Woody, Buzz Lightyear and all the other characters which we now see as classics. Together with the majority of Disney's creative staff, he declared that the characters were unappealing jerks and the dialogues inappropriately cynical for a children's movie (while he was the one who pushed for such characteristics early in development). Pixar was back to making TV commercials just so it could survive — but it was obvious it would disappear if the work did not start again. Steve Jobs had reached the bottom of his career. He had lost faith in himself, and disappeared behind the closed doors of his home, spending most of his days at home, playing with his two-year-old son. Was there anyway that Steve Jobs could fight back from such a low point? Could he recoup his investment, his self esteem, and be allowed to create the legacy that he so craved? That part of the story will only come on part four of the Steve Jobs Biography.

Phil and Stephen explore emerging technologies using the 2017 Gartner Hype Cycle as a frame of reference. What’s new? What’s long gone but due for a comeback? And what’s so new it’s not yet even being hyped? Gartner's Hype Cycle for Emerging Technologies, 2017 Adds 5G And Deep Learning For First Time Deep Learning, 5G, and...AGI? Bill Joy’s Jesus Battery Is this new solid, polymer-based rechargeable alkaline battery a game-changer? China small modular pebble beds will be $400 million for 200 MW and $1.2 billion for 600 MW Clean nuclear power on the cheap -- and about to get MUCH cheaper Artificial Intelligence Created Using Human DNA AI meets biotech...sorta.   Photo by Daniel Monteiro on Unsplash   WT 339-648  

Serious CANBUS issue, Cyber as a branch of the service?, iOS 11 Cop Mode, biometric wearables, Bill Joy battery, bitcoin forking again, ideas, discovery, aphorism, and more… Support the show: https://danielmiessler.com/support/ See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Twenty years ago, Bill Joy talked about the eight fallacies of distributed computing–these are things such as “the network is reliable”, and “latency is zero”, and “bandwidth is infinite”, and these fallacies are even more relevant today. With the popularity of Docker containers, the networks of distributed systems that we deal with have become even The post Container Management with Alexis Richardson appeared first on Software Engineering Daily.

This week on the show, we have all the latest news and stories! Plus an interview with BSD developer Alfred Perlstein, that you This episode was brought to you by Headlines The May issus of BSDMag is now out (https://bsdmag.org/download/reusing_openbsd/) GhostBSD Reusing OpenBSD's arc4random in multi-threaded user space programs Securing VPN's with GRE / Strongswan Installing XFCE 4.12 on NetBSD 7 Interview with Fernando Rodriguez, the co-founder of KeepCoding *** A rundown of the FPTW^XEXT.1 security reqiurement for General Purpose Operating Systems by the NSA (http://blog.acumensecurity.net/fpt_wx_ext-1-a-rundown/) NIST/NSA Validation Scheme Report (https://www.commoncriteriaportal.org/files/ppfiles/pp_os_v4.1-vr.pdf) The SFR or Security Functional Requirement requires that; "The OS shall prevent allocation of any memory region with both write and execute permissions except for [assignment: list of exceptions]." While nearly all operating systems currently support the use of the NX bit, or the equivalent on processors such as SPARC and ARM, and will correctly mark the stack as non-executable, the fact remains that this in and of itself is deemed insufficient by NIST and NSA. OpenBSD 5.8, FreeBSD, Solaris, RHEL, and most other Linux distro have failed. HardenedBSD passes all three tests out of the box. NetBSD will do so with a single sysctl tweak. Since they are using the PaX model, anything else using PaX, such as a grsecurity-enabled Linux distribution pass these assurance activities as well. OpenBSD 5.9 does not allow memory mapping due to W^X being enforced by the kernel, however the kernel will panic if there are any attempts to create such mappings. *** DistroWatch reviews new features in FreeBSD 10.3 (https://distrowatch.com/weekly.php?issue=20160516#freebsd) DistroWatch did a review of FreeBSD 10.3 They ran into a few problems, but hopefully those can be fixed An issue with beadm setting the canmount property incorrectly causing the ZFS BE menu to not work as expected should be resolved in the next version, thanks to a patch from kmoore The limitations of the Linux 64 support are what they are, CentOS 6 is still fairly popular with enterprise software, but hopefully some folks are interested in working on bringing the syscall emulation forward In a third issue, the reviewer seemed to have issues SSHing from inside the jail. This likely has to do with how they got a console in the jail. I remember having problems with this in the past, something about a secure console. *** BSD Unix: Power to the people, from the code (https://www.salon.com/2000/05/16/chapter_2_part_one/) Salon.com has a very long article, chronicling much of the history behind BSD UNIX. It starts with detailing the humble origins of BSD, starting with Bill Joy in the mid-70's, and then goes through details on how it rapidly grew, and the influence that the University of Berkeley had on open-source. “But too much focus on Joy, a favorite target for business magazine hagiography, obscures the larger picture. Berkeley's most important contribution was not software; it was the way Berkeley created software. At Berkeley, a small core group — never more than four people at any one time — coordinated the contributions of an ever-growing network of far-flung, mostly volunteer programmers into progressive releases of steadily improving software. In so doing, they codified a template for what is now referred to as the “open-source software development methodology.” Put more simply, the Berkeley hackers set up a system for creating free software.” The article goes on to talk about some of the back and forth between Linux and BSD, and why Linux has captured more of the market in recent years, but BSD is far from throwing in the towel. “BSD patriots argue that the battle is far from over, that BSD is technically superior and will therefore win in the end. That's for the future to determine. What's indisputable is BSD's contribution in the past. Even if, by 1975, Berkeley's Free Speech Movement was a relic belonging to a fast-fading generation, on the fourth floor of Evans Hall, where Joy shared an office, the free-software movement was just beginning.” An excellent article (If a bit long), but well worth your time to understand the origins of what we consider modern day BSD, and how the University of Berkley helped shape it. *** iXsystems (http://ixsystems.com) #ServerEnvy: It's over 10,000 Terabytes! (https://www.ixsystems.com/blog/serverenvy-10000-terabytes/) *** Interview - Alfred Perlstein - alfred@freebsd.org (mailto:alfred@freebsd.org) / @splbio (https://twitter.com/splbio) Using BSD for projects *** News Roundup .NET framework ported to NetBSD (https://github.com/dotnet/coreclr/pull/4504/files) This pull request adds basic support for the .NET framework on NetBSD 7.x amd64 It includes documentation on how to get the .NET framework installed It uses pkgsrc to bootstrap the required tools pkgsrc-wip is used to get the actual .NET framework, as porting is still in progress The .NET Core-CLR is now available for: FreeBSD, Linux, NetBSD, and OS X *** OpenBSD SROP mitigation – call for testing (https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech&m=146281531025185&w=2) A new technique for exploiting flaws in applications and operating systems has been developed, called SROP “we describe Sigreturn Oriented Programming (SROP), a novel technique for exploits and backdoors in UNIX-like systems. Like return-oriented programming (ROP), sigreturn oriented programming constructs what is known as a ‘weird machine' that can be programmed by attackers to change the behavior of a process. To program the machine, attackers set up fake signal frames and initiate returns from signals that the kernel never really delivered. This is possible, because UNIX stores signal frames on the process' stack.” “Sigreturn oriented programming is interesting for attackers, OS developers and academics. For attackers, the technique is very versatile, with pre-conditions that are different from those of existing exploitation techniques like ROP. Moreover, unlike ROP, sigreturn oriented programming programs are portable. For OS developers, the technique presents a problem that has been present in one of the two main operating system families from its inception, while the fixes (which we also present) are non-trivial. From a more academic viewpoint, it is also interesting because we show that sigreturn oriented programming is Turing complete.” Paper describing SROP (http://www.cs.vu.nl/~herbertb/papers/srop_sp14.pdf) OpenBSD has developed a mitigation against SROP “Utilizing a trick from kbind(2), the kernel now only accepts signal returns from the PC address of the sigreturn(2) syscall in the signal trampoline. Since the signal trampoline page is randomized placed per process, it is only known by directly returning from a signal handler.” “As well, the sigcontext provided to sigreturn(2) now contains a magic cookie constructed from a per-process cookie XOR'd against the address of the signal context.” This is just a draft of the patch, not yet considered production quality *** Running Tor in a NetBSD rump unikernel (https://github.com/supradix/rumprun-packages/tree/33d9cc3a65a39e32b4bc8034c151a5d7e0b89f66/tor) We've talked about “rump” kernels before, and also Tor pretty frequently, but this new github project combines the two! Specifically, this set of Makefile and scripts will prep a system to run Tor via the Unikernel through Qemu. The script mainly describes how to do the initial setup on Linux, using iptables, but could easily be adapted to a BSD if somebody wants to do so. (Send them a pull request with the instructions!) All in all, this is a fascinating way to run a Tor node or relay, in the most minimal operating environment possible. *** An update on SSH protocol 1 ("we're most of the way towards fully deprecating SSH protocol 1" (http://lists.mindrot.org/pipermail/openssh-unix-dev/2016-May/035069.html) Damien Miller has given us an update on the status of the “SSH protocol 1”, and the current plans to deprecate it in an upcoming version of openssh. “We've had this old protocol in various stages of deprecation for almost 10 years and it has been compile-time disabled for about a year. Downstream vendors, to their credit, have included this change in recent OS releases by shipping OpenSSH packages that disable protocol 1 by default and/or offering separate, non-default packages to enable it. This seems to have proceeded far more smoothly than even my most optimistic hopes, so this gives us greater confidence that we can complete the removal of protocol 1 soon. We want to do this partly to hasten the demise of this cryptographic trainwreck, but also because doing so removes a lot of legacy code from OpenSSH that inflates our attack surface. Having it gone will make our jobs quite a bit easier as we maintain and refactor.” The current time-line looks like removing server-size protocol 1 support this August after OpenSSH 7.4 is released, leaving client-side disabled. Then a year from now (June 2017) all protocol 1 code will be removed. Beastie Bits Last day to get your BSDNow Shirts! Order now, wear at BSDCan! (https://teespring.com/bsdnow) Move local government (Austin TX) from Microsoft Windows (incl. Office) to Linux and/or PC-BSD (https://github.com/atxhack4change/2016-project-proposals/issues/15) Plan9 boot camp is back... and already at capacity. Another opportunity may come in September (http://lists.nycbug.org/pipermail/talk/2016-May/016642.html) Smaller is better - building an openbsd based router (https://functionallyparanoid.com/2016/04/22/smaller-is-better/) Baby Unix (https://i.redditmedia.com/KAjSscL9XOUdpIEWBQF1qi3QMr7zWgeETzQM6m3B4mY.jpg?w=1024&s=e8c08a7d4c4cea0256adb69b1e7c1887) Security Update for FreeBSD (https://security.freebsd.org/advisories/FreeBSD-SA-16:19.sendmsg.asc) & Another security update for FreeBSD (https://security.freebsd.org/advisories/FreeBSD-SA-16:18.atkbd.asc) Feedback/Questions Eric - The iX experience (http://pastebin.com/ZknTuKGv) Mike - Building Ports (http://pastebin.com/M760ZmHQ) David - ZFS Backups (http://pastebin.com/Pi0AFghV) James - BSD VPS (http://pastebin.com/EQ7envez) Rich - ZFS Followup (http://pastebin.com/p0HPDisH) ***

There are many things that will surprise you from a Steve Jobs biography.   We all feel that we know the man well.    We have read the stories of success, heard the tales of peculiar behavior and used the products that the man left behind.   But what you will find when you start researching Steve Jobs, is a man who I don't think anyone will truly understand.    A man with so many layers of personality, and distinct characteristics, that we all had the potential to see the type of person that Steve Jobs wanted us to see.   So where do we start on the Join Up Dots take, on the Steve Jobs Biography?   Well we can clearly see on the Join Up Dots timeline, that Steve Jobs was from the moment he was born looking for identity.    Steven Paul Jobs was brought into the world on the 24th February 1955 in San Francisco California, by two students of the University of Wisconsin, who for whatever reason felt that this new born boy, who would grow up to become the king of techonology, was not theirs to keep.   Joanne Schieble and Abdulfattah "John" Jandali, played such an amazing part in bringing this child to the world, but would also play such a small part too, and gave the young Steve Jobs up for adoption shortly after birth.   And this was one of the dots in the Steve Jobs biography that Steve spoke so candidly about in 2005, when he addressed the graduating students on Stanford in a commencement address that has become a firm favourite to the world.   Not least becoming the basis of what became the theme behind the show “Join Up Dots with David Ralph”   The Steve Jobs Biography is a fascinating tale of clearly defined dots that shape what he was going to become right from the start, which would make it fascinating if we could ever go back in time and show the young Steve Jobs the steps that he should take.   Would he follow them, or would this young child with such a fascination for technology, and understanding of the components that made early electronic devices work, listen?   Well probably not, but you can see in the Steve Jobs biography those dots were clearly working in his favour right from the start.   His adopted parents lived in Mountain View California, which would fortuitously become what is known as silicon valley in later years, planting the budding entrepreneur in the centre of where he would later go on to rule.   His father, Paul Jobs who worked as a Coast Guard veteran and machinist, also had an interest in electronics and would show his young son from the confines of the family garage (the birthplace of Apple) how to take electronic devices a part, and then have the confidence to put them all back together.   Paul Jobs could have had fishing as a hobby, but once again the Steve Jobs biography shows that the skills that he would later utilize to such astonishing success were laid before him.   Yes of course, he needed the interest and persistence to make these skills work, but Steve Jobs was nothing but tenacious when that interest was in evidence.   A completely different Steve Jobs, to the one we would see throughout his career when he was bored, or things didn't quite go his way!   And those opposing, and not so dynamic and conscientious personality traits, were more than evident to everyone during his schooling. Steve Jobs was an innovative thinker. He could see things long before most people had started to even consider there was even something to be seen.   Which meant that during school, he struggled with the confines of formal schooling, and the structure of his lessons which as we all know, more often than not are anything but innovative.   The young Steve Jobs, would attempt to keep himself entertained by playing pranks and creating mischief, even once being bribed by his fourth grade teacher to get his head down and study.    But there was no getting away from the fact that being born to two University graduates had provided him with the genes of intelligence. And school tests, even from a boy who had little interest in the work were a breeze. He would sail through the testing with such apparent ease that the school administrators were keen to push him ahead to High School, which his parents were reluctant to sanction.   So already at school age, the Steve Jobs biography shows that we have a child who is living smack bang in the middle of the soon to be formed Silicon Valley, had an interest in electronics, possessed an innovative and questioning mind, and was born in 1955.   And this last fact is probably one of the most interesting of all, as Malcom Gladwell attested to in his bestselling book the Outliers” in the chapter “Timing Is Everything”   Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen was born in 1953, Apple founder Steve Jobs in 1955, Sun Microsystems founders Bill Joy and Scott McNealy in 1954, Bill Gates in 1955.   Which made them the prime age when the first do it yourself home computers came to market in 1975.    Old enough to see the potential, and risk their futures by working on what someone already established in a career in computers would consider too much a risk to take on.    But not old enough to be already settled down with children and responsibilities, frightened to take the leap of faith and risk what they had already gained in life.    All of them fascinated with what was in front of them, and on their own paths to becoming household names in computing, making them richer than anyone could hope to be.   So we are building quite a list of dots on the Join Up Dots timeline, and of course the Steve Jobs biography.   We can now add perfect timing of his birth, to the perfect location, an interest in electronics, questioning mind, and a passion to go against the norm.    We can almost see already, the Steve Jobs that we would see a few years later, in the young man huddled over a box of wires and fuses.   But no matter how inspired and intellectual a person is, they will need the support of others.    And Steve Jobs found this when he was introduced to Steve Wozniak, who became his future business partner.   The two hit it off straight away, and as Wozniak spoke about in a 2007 interview, it was obvious from the start that the two had similar outlooks and passions. Passions that back in the early years of the 1970's very few people had.   As he says “We both loved electronics and the way we used to hook up digital chips. And very few people, especially back then, had any idea what chips were, how they worked and what they could do. I had designed many computers, so I was way ahead of him in electronics and computer design, but we still had common interests. We both had pretty much sort of an independent attitude about things in the world.”    And that was how Steve Jobs life was throughout High School. Limited interest in what was happening within the education system, but along with Wozniack fascinated and consumed by the potential outside its walls.   And now in the Steve Jobs biography we arrive at that definitive time in his life.    The definitive time in everyone's life. They are now ready to go out into the world as young adults and create their own paths.   Would Steve Jobs follow the course that so many people follow and play it safe, getting a job just because it's money in the bank, following in the footsteps of his father, or would he strive boldly into a new future, and create his legacy.   Well surprisingly Steve Jobs did neither, and even against a background off disinterest in studying and education, Steve Jobs enrolled in Reed College in Portland Oregon.   This appears a decision that was not well thought out, as Steve Jobs quickly realised that he wasn't suited for further education and made the decision to drop out of college and do his own thing.   And that thing was to start attending classes that he thought would be interesting.    He would choose classes to attend, just because he was intrigued by their content, not because how they would look on his resume.   One of those classes, as Steve Jobs recounted once again in the Stanford Commencement address changed his life. The course was in calligraphy, and developed the love of typography that he brought to the world in such a dramatic and successful way with his first foray into the home computer market.   As he said to the students hanging on his every word on that day “None of this had even a hope of any practical application in my life. But 10 years later, when we were designing the first Macintosh computer, it all came back to me. And we designed it all into the Mac. It was the first computer with beautiful typography. If I had never dropped in on that single course in college, the Mac would have never had multiple typefaces or proportionally spaced fonts. And since Windows just copied the Mac, it's likely that no personal computer would have them. If I had never dropped out, I would have never dropped in on this calligraphy class, and personal computers might not have the wonderful typography that they do. Of course it was impossible to connect the dots looking forward when I was in college. But it was very, very clear looking backward 10 years later.”   In 1974, the Steve Jobs biography shows, what you would think was a great starting point to his career as a computer genius, and the young Jobs accepted a position with the promising and innovative games company Atari, as a video game designer.   Atari would go onto to dominate the home games console market in the late seventies and early eighties, with children across the world clambering for one of these wooden boxes that they could plug into their television sets. The demand was astonishing.   But Steve Jobs would not play a big part of the success of the company, as just six months later he quit, to go and find himself by traveling the huge continent of India, high on drugs most of the time.   When he did return to the United States of America it was now 1976, Steve Jobs was twenty years old and about get serious about what he saw the future of home computing to be.    Alongside his friend Steve Wozniak, still spending hours and hours inside the Jobs family garage, they would create what would grow to become the most valuable company on Earth.   The two friends set to work experimenting with the knowledge that they had fostered, more often than not unknowingly throughout their lives.    The hours spent fiddling with chips, and electronic circuit boards as a hobby, now finding its true importance in their lives.   Which is of course one of the truths of every episode of Join Up Dots.    Perceived failures, or what seemed like pure time wastage can later on turn out to be the holder of the very thing that you are looking for.    And that was certainly the case with young Mr Steve Jobs.   However greatness does not appear without a belief and a willingness to take risks. And the Steve Jobs biography is littered with incidents where he seemed to have the desire to go further and quicker than anyone else around him would consider acceptable..     Selling his Volkswagen bus, whilst his friend Wozniak sold his beloved scientific computer they funded their fledgling enterprise, and began to work changing the world. Empowering every home to believe they could posses their own computer, which several years previously would have been thought an impossible dream.   With Jobs in charge of marketing— Apple, which they decided to call their untested enterprise, initially marketed the computers for $666.66 each. The Apple I earned the corporation around $774,000. Three years after the release of Apple's second model, the Apple II, the company's sales increased by 700 percent, to $139 million.    Not bad for two guys, who just three years before were unsure as to which direction their future would go.   However this was simply the beginning of what Apple was to become and in 1980, Apple Computer became a publicly traded company, with a market value of $1.2 billion.   By the end of its very first day of trading, and buoyed by its success Jobs looked to find someone with the business acumen and vision to drive the company to even greater heights, and made the decision to bring marketing expert John Sculley of Pepsi-Cola in as the President of Apple.   A decision that among all the decisions made in the Steve Jobs biography was as bad for Steve as it could possibly be.    A decision that would bring Steve Jobs to one of the lowest points of his life, being told to leave the company he had founded.    Steve Jobs was sacked from Apple.  

 PODCAST SATELLITETHE VOICE OF ISRAEL6 IYYAR, 5775   Prince HandleyUniversity of ExcellencePresident / Regent   ISRAEL AND HUMAN ENHANCEMENT   ISIS, OBAMA AND JACOB'S TROUBLE   בני אנוש משופרת   ~ A MESSAGE TO BENYAMIN NETANYAHU ~ You can listen to this message NOW. Click on the pod circle at top left. (Allow images to display.)   Or, LISTEN HERE   Email this message to a friend.   Subscribe to this Ezine teaching by Email: princehandley@gmail.com (Type “Subscribe” in the “Subject” line.)   24/7 release of Prince Handley teachings, BLOGS and podcasts > STREAM   Text: “follow princehandley” to 40404 (in USA) Or, Twitter: princehandley  _________________________________ DESCRIPTION OF PODCAST / TEACHING   We are at the threshold of the most cataclysmic—the worst and most evil—change in society that Planet Earth has ever known. I’m talking about something that has its “core association” in age-old Biblical history, but—at this moment—is on the cutting edge of science and technology. But … here is something even more amazing! There is also at this time a hidden geopolitical “behind–the-scenes” amalgamation—a spiritual collusion—both human and other-worldly that is being orchestrated to facilitate control … of YOU and your family ... and of Israel. This podcast / teaching will introduce you to WHO is planning your future … and that of your family ... and of Israel. But, there's more:      How does ISIS fit into this picture? (They have NO idea.)      How does Obama fit into this picture? (He may have an idea.) Suggestion: Mossad and Tsomet need to do better recruiting while at the same time studying the Tanakh.  _________________________________    ISRAEL AND HUMAN ENHANCEMENT   ISIS, OBAMA AND JACOB'S TROUBLE   בני אנוש משופרת   We are at the threshold of the most cataclysmic— the worst and most evil—change in society that Planet Earth has ever known. This change is at the same time malevolent and opaque. You will NOT see through it—unless you read my NEW book. I’m NOT talking about the New World Order—New Global Governance—although that’s a small part of it. I’m talking about something so sinister—and at the same time—so appealing to every thinking person. I’m talking about something that has its “core association” in age-old Biblical history, but—at this moment—is on the cutting edge of science and technology. Don’t be mistaken! Even though the triad of government, military and education is spending millions of dollars in R & D—with the financial support of banks and corporations—there is an unseen, dark force behind the “push” forward. But … here is something even more amazing! There is also at this time a hidden geopolitical “behind–the-scenes” amalgamation—a spiritual collusion—both human and other-worldly that is being orchestrated to facilitate control … of YOU and your family. Don’t worry about being left behind at the appearing of Messiah—that is, IF you KNOW Him. What you need to worry about NOW is: ◙ Being left behind by enhanced humans. ◙ Being tempted to sacrifice your autonomy. ◙ Being “setup” to lose your children’s DNA. ◙ Being handed over to the Global Citizenry. Thinking it’s not possible? Then … you NEED this book. It will show you: ◙ The interconnection of the mystery matrix. ◙ The players and their assignments. ◙ The matrix relates to Israel and End Times. ◙ The defined role of ISIS and Islamic terrorism. ◙ Secret intel and prophecy for YOUR victory. Hang on! You’re about to learn WHAT is really happening, WHO is behind it and HOW to arrive on the other side victorious! While you are reading this BLOG right now … a new species of humans is being developed. A super-human—enhanced human—with super intellect and physical abilities. This book is a real—non-fiction—presentation: true, accurate and contemporary. Current—plus already planned—research associated with real documented “enhanced human” developments are discussed. The section, GRIN and Bear It, is just that: it’s too late … it’s already happening. What you are going to learn about is real, it is contemporary and it is catastrophic. You will have to “bear it.” However, how you do so will determine your destiny: in this life … and forever. But for now let’s take a test ride. See if you’re up to learning more. Warning―you haven’t seen anything yet. We’re just scratching the surface here at the start. Computer scientist Bill Joy,andmany other writers,have identified cluster groups of technological advances that they esteem critical to the future of humanity. Joy warns that these advances have potential to be used by “elites” for either good or evil. For example, when super humans become advanced—enhanced—to a stage where the ordinary normal human is no longer relevant other than for “slave” activities, then genocide—mass destruction—of the normal humans will become efficient in terms of Global Governance. (More about this in my NEW book … hang on!) Joy and other writers feel that such techno-human advances could be used as "good shepherds" for the rest of humanity … OR … decide everyone else—the normal original human—is superfluous and push for mass extinction of those made unnecessary by technology. How would you like to know what are the TWO predominant aggressors that have actuated throughout the history of Planet Earth? You will learn this revealed knowledge in my NEW book, Enhanced Humans: Mystery Matrix. And, what about when technological—artificial—intelligence surpasses human intellectual capacity and control? Elon Musk, the PayPal and Tesla electric car genius, stated that, “with artificial intelligence, we are summoning the demon,” and placing “AI” as more of a potential threat to the annihilation to the human race than nuclear war. But—I am going to share with you much more—things like how ISIS fits into the picture … and more sophistocated technological ramifications of the End Times … PLUS, WHY Israel must know who are the KEY players of the Mystery Matrix. (Israel will only find out in my NEW book … Not even the Mossad knows yet!) You will lean all this … and more … in my NEW book. BONUS Want to learn HOW to combat and WAR against the Mystery Matrix? The SECRET is in the book. ORDER HERE >>> Enhanced Humans: Mystery Matrix. Baruch haba b'Shem Adonai. Your friend, Prince Handley President / Regent University of Excellence Podcast time: 7 minutes, 55 seconds.   Please look at this photo with your BAD eye. Copyright © Prince Handley 2015 Second Edition, 2016 All Rights Reserved. Prince Handley Portal  24/7 Prince Handley BLOGS, teachings, and podcasts  __________________________________________________ Rabbinical & Biblical Studies The Believers’ Intelligentsia Prince Handley Portal (1,000’s of FREE resources) Prince Handley Books __________________________________________________    

 PODCAST SATELLITETHE VOICE OF ISRAEL6 IYYAR, 5775   Prince HandleyUniversity of ExcellencePresident / Regent   ISRAEL AND HUMAN ENHANCEMENT   ISIS, OBAMA AND JACOB'S TROUBLE   בני אנוש משופרת   ~ A MESSAGE TO BENYAMIN NETANYAHU ~ You can listen to this message NOW. Click on the pod circle at top left. (Allow images to display.)   Or, LISTEN HERE   Email this message to a friend.   Subscribe to this Ezine teaching by Email: princehandley@gmail.com (Type “Subscribe” in the “Subject” line.)   24/7 release of Prince Handley teachings, BLOGS and podcasts > STREAM   Text: “follow princehandley” to 40404 (in USA) Or, Twitter: princehandley  _________________________________ DESCRIPTION OF PODCAST / TEACHING   We are at the threshold of the most cataclysmic—the worst and most evil—change in society that Planet Earth has ever known. I’m talking about something that has its “core association” in age-old Biblical history, but—at this moment—is on the cutting edge of science and technology. But … here is something even more amazing! There is also at this time a hidden geopolitical “behind–the-scenes” amalgamation—a spiritual collusion—both human and other-worldly that is being orchestrated to facilitate control … of YOU and your family ... and of Israel. This podcast / teaching will introduce you to WHO is planning your future … and that of your family ... and of Israel. But, there's more:      How does ISIS fit into this picture? (They have NO idea.)      How does Obama fit into this picture? (He may have an idea.) Suggestion: Mossad and Tsomet need to do better recruiting while at the same time studying the Tanakh.  _________________________________    ISRAEL AND HUMAN ENHANCEMENT   ISIS, OBAMA AND JACOB'S TROUBLE   בני אנוש משופרת   We are at the threshold of the most cataclysmic— the worst and most evil—change in society that Planet Earth has ever known. This change is at the same time malevolent and opaque. You will NOT see through it—unless you read my NEW book. I’m NOT talking about the New World Order—New Global Governance—although that’s a small part of it. I’m talking about something so sinister—and at the same time—so appealing to every thinking person. I’m talking about something that has its “core association” in age-old Biblical history, but—at this moment—is on the cutting edge of science and technology. Don’t be mistaken! Even though the triad of government, military and education is spending millions of dollars in R & D—with the financial support of banks and corporations—there is an unseen, dark force behind the “push” forward. But … here is something even more amazing! There is also at this time a hidden geopolitical “behind–the-scenes” amalgamation—a spiritual collusion—both human and other-worldly that is being orchestrated to facilitate control … of YOU and your family. Don’t worry about being left behind at the appearing of Messiah—that is, IF you KNOW Him. What you need to worry about NOW is: ◙ Being left behind by enhanced humans. ◙ Being tempted to sacrifice your autonomy. ◙ Being “setup” to lose your children’s DNA. ◙ Being handed over to the Global Citizenry. Thinking it’s not possible? Then … you NEED this book. It will show you: ◙ The interconnection of the mystery matrix. ◙ The players and their assignments. ◙ The matrix relates to Israel and End Times. ◙ The defined role of ISIS and Islamic terrorism. ◙ Secret intel and prophecy for YOUR victory. Hang on! You’re about to learn WHAT is really happening, WHO is behind it and HOW to arrive on the other side victorious! While you are reading this BLOG right now … a new species of humans is being developed. A super-human—enhanced human—with super intellect and physical abilities. This book is a real—non-fiction—presentation: true, accurate and contemporary. Current—plus already planned—research associated with real documented “enhanced human” developments are discussed. The section, GRIN and Bear It, is just that: it’s too late … it’s already happening. What you are going to learn about is real, it is contemporary and it is catastrophic. You will have to “bear it.” However, how you do so will determine your destiny: in this life … and forever. But for now let’s take a test ride. See if you’re up to learning more. Warning―you haven’t seen anything yet. We’re just scratching the surface here at the start. Computer scientist Bill Joy,andmany other writers,have identified cluster groups of technological advances that they esteem critical to the future of humanity. Joy warns that these advances have potential to be used by “elites” for either good or evil. For example, when super humans become advanced—enhanced—to a stage where the ordinary normal human is no longer relevant other than for “slave” activities, then genocide—mass destruction—of the normal humans will become efficient in terms of Global Governance. (More about this in my NEW book … hang on!) Joy and other writers feel that such techno-human advances could be used as "good shepherds" for the rest of humanity … OR … decide everyone else—the normal original human—is superfluous and push for mass extinction of those made unnecessary by technology. How would you like to know what are the TWO predominant aggressors that have actuated throughout the history of Planet Earth? You will learn this revealed knowledge in my NEW book, Enhanced Humans: Mystery Matrix. And, what about when technological—artificial—intelligence surpasses human intellectual capacity and control? Elon Musk, the PayPal and Tesla electric car genius, stated that, “with artificial intelligence, we are summoning the demon,” and placing “AI” as more of a potential threat to the annihilation to the human race than nuclear war. But—I am going to share with you much more—things like how ISIS fits into the picture … and more sophistocated technological ramifications of the End Times … PLUS, WHY Israel must know who are the KEY players of the Mystery Matrix. (Israel will only find out in my NEW book … Not even the Mossad knows yet!) You will lean all this … and more … in my NEW book. BONUS Want to learn HOW to combat and WAR against the Mystery Matrix? The SECRET is in the book. ORDER HERE >>> Enhanced Humans: Mystery Matrix. Baruch haba b'Shem Adonai. Your friend, Prince Handley President / Regent University of Excellence Podcast time: 7 minutes, 55 seconds.   Please look at this photo with your BAD eye. Copyright © Prince Handley 2015 Second Edition, 2016 All Rights Reserved. Prince Handley Portal  24/7 Prince Handley BLOGS, teachings, and podcasts  __________________________________________________ Rabbinical & Biblical Studies The Believers’ Intelligentsia Prince Handley Portal (1,000’s of FREE resources) Prince Handley Books __________________________________________________    

 UNIVERSITY OF EXCELLENCE WWW.UOFE.ORG  Prince HandleyPresident / RegentHUMAN ENHANCEMENT WHO IS PLANNING YOUR FUTURE?  You can listen to this message NOW. Click on the pod circle at top left. (Allow images to display.) Or, Listen NOW >> LISTEN HEREEmail this message to a friend.  Subscribe to this Ezine teaching by Email: princehandley@gmail.com (Type “Subscribe” in the “Subject” line.)  24/7 release of Prince Handley teachings, BLOGS and podcasts > STREAM  Text: “follow princehandley” to 40404 (in USA) Or, Twitter: princehandley  _________________________________ DESCRIPTION OF PODCAST / TEACHING We are at the threshold of the most cataclysmic—the worst and most evil—change in society that Planet Earth has ever known. I’m talking about something that has its “core association” in age-old Biblical history, but—at this moment—is on the cutting edge of science and technology. But … here is something even more amazing! There is also at this time a hidden geopolitical “behind–the-scenes” amalgamation—a spiritual collusion—both human and other-worldly that is being orchestrated to facilitate control … of YOU and your family. This podcast / teaching will introduce you to WHO is planning your future … and that of your family.  _________________________________  HUMAN ENHANCEMENT WHO IS PLANNING YOUR FUTURE? We are at the threshold of the most cataclysmic— the worst and most evil—change in society that Planet Earth has ever known. This change is at the same time malevolent and opaque. You will NOT see through it—unless you read my NEW book. I’m NOT talking about the New World Order—Global Governance—although that’s a small part of it. I’m talking about something so sinister—and at the same time—so appealing to every thinking person. I’m talking about something that has its “core association” in age-old Biblical history, but—at this moment—is on the cutting edge of science and technology. Don’t be mistaken! Even though the triad of government, military and education is spending millions of dollars in R & D—with the financial support of banks and corporations—there is an unseen, dark force behind the “push” forward. But … here is something even more amazing! There is also at this time a hidden geopolitical “behind–the-scenes” amalgamation—a spiritual collusion—both human and other-worldly that is being orchestrated to facilitate control … of YOU and your family. Don’t worry about being left behind at the appearing of Messiah—that is, IF you KNOW Him. What you need to worry about NOW is: ◙ Being left behind by enhanced humans. ◙ Being tempted to sacrifice your autonomy. ◙ Being “setup” to lose your children’s DNA. ◙ Being handed over to the Global Citizenry. Thinking it’s not possible? Then … you NEED this book. It will show you: ◙ The interconnection of the mystery matrix. ◙ The players and their assignments. ◙ The matrix relates to Israel and End Times. ◙ The defined role of ISIS and Islamic terrorism. ◙ Secret intel and prophecy for YOUR victory. Hang on! You’re about to learn WHAT is really happening, WHO is behind it and HOW to arrive on the other side victorious! While you are reading this BLOG right now … a new species of humans is being developed. A super-human—enhanced human—with super intellect and physical abilities. This book is a real—non-fiction—presentation: true, accurate and contemporary. Current—plus already planned—research associated with real documented “enhanced human” developments are discussed. The section, GRIN and Bear It, is just that: it’s too late … it’s already happening. What you are going to learn about is real, it is contemporary and it is catastrophic. You will have to “bear it.” However, how you do so will determine your destiny: in this life … and forever. But for now let’s take a test ride. See if you’re up to learning more. Warning―you haven’t seen anything yet. We’re just scratching the surface here at the start. Computer scientist Bill Joy,andmany other writers,have identified cluster groups of technological advances that they esteem critical to the future of humanity. Joy warns that these advances have potential to be used by “elites” for either good or evil. For example, when super humans become advanced—enhanced—to a stage where the ordinary normal human is no longer relevant other than for “slave” activities, then genocide—mass destruction—of the normal humans will become efficient in terms of Global Governance. (More about this in my NEW book … hang on!) Joy and other writers feel that such techno-human advances could be used as "good shepherds" for the rest of humanity … OR … decide everyone else—the normal original human—is superfluous and push for mass extinction of those made unnecessary by technology. How would you like to know what arethe TWO predominant aggressors that have actuated throughout the history of Planet Earth? You will learn this revealed knowledge in my NEW book, Enhanced Humans: Mystery Matrix. And, what about when technological—artificial—intelligence surpasses human intellectual capacity and control? Elon Musk, the PayPal and Tesla electric car genius, stated that, “with artificial intelligence, we are summoning the demon,” and placing “AI” as more of a potential threat to the annihilation to the human race than nuclear war. But—I am going to share with you much more—things like how ISIS fits into the picture … and more sophistocated technological ramifications of the End Times … PLUS, WHY Israel must know who are the KEY players of the Mystery Matrix. (Israel will only find out in my NEW book … Not even the Mossad knows yet!) You will lean all this … and more … in my NEW book. BONUS Want to learn HOW to combat and WAR against the Mystery Matrix? The SECRET is in the book. ORDER HERE >>> Enhanced Humans: Mystery Matrix. Baruch haba b'Shem Adonai. Your friend, Prince Handley President / Regent University of Excellence Podcast time: 7 minutes, 55 seconds. Copyright © Prince Handley 2015 All Rights Reserved. Prince Handley Portal  24/7 Prince Handley BLOGS, teachings, and podcasts Click above. _______________ Copyright © Prince Handley 2015All rights reserved. NOTE: Scroll down for ALL previous podcasts last 10 years. ___________________________ Rabbinical & Biblical Studies The Believers’ Intelligentsia Prince Handley Portal(1,000’s of FREE resources) Prince Handley Books DONATE                      A TAX DEDUCTIBLE RECEIPT WILL BE SENT TO YOU___________________________