> I'm not afraid of people challenging mainstream opinions (this is Plan9,
> isn't it? :-D), I'm afraid of people doubting about evident facts or simply
> ignoring them: climatic changes? unsustainable distribution of wealth?
> parents negating their kids misbehavior? inadequate legal systems for t
2016-04-03 6:42 GMT+02:00 :
> > We are already trained to be suspicious about the truth even when it's
> > clearly evident, now we can even start to ignore the information from the
> > physical world, while accepting the virtual information that someone else
> > feed us.
>
> For an Italian inherit
> We are already trained to be suspicious about the truth even when it's
> clearly evident, now we can even start to ignore the information from the
> physical world, while accepting the virtual information that someone else
> feed us.
For an Italian inheriting the legacy of Galileo Galilei, you s
> I'm not sure if we will become entirely virtual. That would require us
> to give up sex. :) I don't think we humans will give up such things so
> easily.
I'm sure that in a society of information bubbles, the very concept of
sexual gratification will be nothing more than an atavistic idea :-)
> When you get near your favorite Chinese restaurant, a balloon could
> appear in your view, giving you access to information about it. When
> GPS magic detects that a friend of yours is nearby, an friendly-looking
> arrow appears, indicating the general direction and approximate distance
> to him
i don't use acme.
> It's not social to send HTML mails to this mailing list.
> I don't like your typesetting.
If you read it with acme mail, you don't see any typesetting ☺
It's not social to send HTML mails to this mailing list.
I don't like your typesetting.
On 4/1/16, Giacomo Tesio wrote:
> While funny in it's visionary shape, I'm seriously scared about this
> matter.
>
> Take for example Google's material design: any software that successfully
> mimic the physic
Staven writes:
> It's not worth it.
>
> You'll probably think I'm just being flippant, but I'm not.
>
> It's just not worth it.
That's another interesting & novel way to re-think social networking:
just don't have anything to do with it! Indeed, that's pretty much the
approach that I've ended u
While funny in it's visionary shape, I'm seriously scared about this matter.
Take for example Google's material design: any software that successfully
mimic the physical world (paper layers in particular) is going to bland our
perception of its "virtuality". Our mind is going to accept it as a
phy
On 04/01/2016 04:00 PM, cigar562hfsp952f...@icebubble.org wrote:
lu...@proxima.alt.za writes:
For that is what social media provide: a world-wide stage on which you
perform selections from your real life and any fantasy life you choose
Very interesting. I was envisioning a system which woul
lu...@proxima.alt.za writes:
> I don't even remember the name of the feature, but I used a tool way
> back in the very early days of a public Internet (it was called a MOO,
> Given a browser-style interface with 3D capabilities, it would address
> social networking considerably better than Facebo
Winston Kodogo writes:
> That's an awfully long troll.
Or "epic-length". :) Perhaps your smartphone didn't display to you item
#9 in TOP. What you (incorrectly) call a "troll" I call "prebuttle".
It makes discussion much more efficient if all the obvious issues/
questions/answers are gotten ou
Kurt H Maier writes:
> Your post advocates a
>
> (x) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante
>
> approach to social networking. Your idea will not work. Here is why it
> won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular
> idea, and it may have other flaws w
You had me at cigar.
Ian
😀
> On 31 Mar 2016, at 03:09, Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
>
>
> > cd /n/facebook
>
> cd /
> unmount /n/facebook
> rm -fr /sys/src/cmd/facebook* /*/bin/facebookfs
On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 11:17:30AM +0100, David Pick wrote:
> On 31/03/16 10:03, hiro wrote:
>
> > people would probably not talk with me if they had to 2-factor first.
> > they just ring and that's it.
>
> But that *is* two-factor: they're using something you have (the
> telephone number) and a
i'd pay you... to think of an answer.
On 31 March 2016 at 21:17, David Pick wrote:
> On 31/03/16 10:03, hiro wrote:
>
> > people would probably not talk with me if they had to 2-factor first.
> > they just ring and that's it.
>
> But that *is* two-factor: they're using something you have (the
>
On 31/03/16 10:03, hiro wrote:
> people would probably not talk with me if they had to 2-factor first.
> they just ring and that's it.
But that *is* two-factor: they're using something you have (the
telephone number) and a biometric (your voice).
--
David Pick
Network Security Manager, IT Servi
people would probably not talk with me if they had to 2-factor first.
they just ring and that's it.
Nice job, if a touch taxing :-)
> A social network has to be stupid-compatible if it's going to be
> successful. But it also has to be smart-compatible, i.e., done the
> "right" way, if we are to keep from going insane. ;)
I don't even remember the name of the feature, but I used a tool way
bac
> > cd /n/facebook
>
> cd /
> unmount /n/facebook
> rm -fr /sys/src/cmd/facebook* /*/bin/facebookfs
Agree. FB is so last decade!
> cd /n/facebook
cd /
unmount /n/facebook
rm -fr /sys/src/cmd/facebook* /*/bin/facebookfs
It's not worth it.
You'll probably think I'm just being flippant, but I'm not.
It's just not worth it.
On Wed, 30 Mar 2016 23:40:03 - cigar562hfsp952f...@icebubble.org wrote:
> The Plan 9 Way
> ==
>
> So, if social networking were to be re-designed from scratch, all over
> again, "the Plan 9 way", how would it be done?
>
> Obviously, the network would present itself as a file syste
Well, that takes me back. I haven't seen a variant of that response in over
10 years. Although "Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business
with Yahoo" in the last one I saw is probably fair comment in the case of
what's left of the company formerly known as NZ Telecom.
On 31 March 201
On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 11:40:03PM +, cigar562hfsp952f...@icebubble.org
wrote:
> Greetings, 9fans!
>
Your post advocates a
(x) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante
approach to social networking. Your idea will not work. Here is why it
won't work. (One or more of the fo
That's an awfully long troll. Some people have a lot of time on their
hands. And it's not yet April Fool's day, even in New Zealand.
On 31 March 2016 at 12:40, wrote:
> Greetings, 9fans!
>
> We all know that Plan 9 started as a retrospective "re-take" on UNIX,
> occasionally referred to as "UNIX
Greetings, 9fans!
We all know that Plan 9 started as a retrospective "re-take" on UNIX,
occasionally referred to as "UNIX done right". This has led to
differences between "the Plan 9 way" of doing something vs. "the UNIX
way" of doing it, such as those highlighted by the infamous "Unix to
Plan 9
29 matches
Mail list logo
