polyfractal

Oof, Comcast died as soon as I made this post.

I have two major contentions. First, I'm a neuroscientist by training, so hearing anything related to "upload my brain" just makes me weep. The only realistic way to "upload your brain" is to pump your body full of fixatives (paraformaldehyde), section it on a cryostat and then perform electron microscopy across every single slice. Then put it all back together (fixing skewing artifacts, etc) on a computer.

THEN make a simulation out of it, where every atom of your body is replicated with pristine accuracy. Otherwise you are not yourself anymore.

I'm not saying it's impossible. I'm saying it's so far from likely that being near-immortal due to bio-enhancements is almost certainly more practical. Or you can develop some "scanning ray gun" which does the same thing without killing you first, I suppose.

Second, the whole notion of "exponentially increasing intelligence" I find silly. Are we more intelligent than homo sapiens 3000 years ago? Perhaps more scholarly, more literate, more capable of engineering complex systems. But our inherent, base intelligence is not any different. Just applied to different problems and starting at different bases of knowledge.

Edit: Musing on this, I find a "Matrix"-style hostile takeover of highly intelligent AI much more likely than humans "transcending" into some super-computing cloud of blissful hyperintelligence. That's seems much more likely than humans ever fully shucking our meat bag bodies.

Hopefully it will make an entertaining movie, but man, I really hate all things associated with "The Singularity". Nothing fills me with more irrational (impotent) rage than people babbling on about the Singularity.

Because you are not the majority?

Mmmm, maybe for companies/marketers. I can see a tool being useful to customize/personalize your marketing effort across the various networks.

I don't see consumers ever paying for this, however.

Piggybacking on this comment (because I agree with everything he said):

- After scrolling all the way to the bottom, I realized I had no idea how to buy the book. Scroll back up, back down. Where are the buying buttons? Oh, they are hidden as cutesy circles that display the price, that I only noticed when mousing over. Not easy to find. Slap a big "BUY NOW" button under the price.

- Not enough visual separation between packages. Content listings flow into the next package without a clean, obvious break. While quickly skimming it is easy to lose track of what attaches to what.

- Your "Buy a team license" is like a baby footnote and I didn't see it until I had skimmed up/down three times (aka more than someone will do before exiting).

-No big buy button at the bottom. Don't make me scroll back up to the package listing and hunt for the button. Give me an easy way to purchase when I hit the bottom

- IMO, too much text above the fold. I read the headline, one sub-headline then started skimming. The giant "Generic eBook" image doesn't do much for you either.

Not criticizing your book, I'm sure it has wonderful content. And landing page design is a unique beast, which is different from designing general UIs. I meant this criticism only to help :)

Goodluck with your book! I may try the eBook to see how it is.

Yeah, this is very misleading. The icons seem to imply "Facebook used my service/book/advice", when in reality you just mean "Facebook is a web service".

Either make it abundantly clear with a big headline, or scrap the icons. They look waaay too much like social proof logos.

Edit: Looking at it again, you do have an abundantly clear headline that describes what they are. Which I didn't even see because I assumed they are social proof logos. I'd just scrap them entirely.

PG has stated that it is done this way because it was easiest/fastest/most elegant way to do it from a programming point of view. He acknowledges that it is not very efficient or enjoyable from a user's point of view.

It's also been like this for years, so presumably PG doesn't care enough about the usability to change it.

This type of thread comes up every month or two, someone explains how/why it happens and then we go back to having the same, broken interface. I doubt it will ever be fixed.

I originally wanted bi-directional communication, since it would simplify command processing. But you're right, that's just asking for all kinds of problems.

It'll be easier to have the client poll the server to find out updates or new commands.

The agent that sits on the database server is responsible for two things:

- Query the database to identify when various trigger conditions are met

- When a trigger condition is met, extract another piece of data from the database and send to the "Web App" server for processing

Theoretically, the entire agent is unescessary...I could use remote DB access credentials to perform the same task. I assumed most companies don't like giving out remote-access credentials though, and decided a local agent that reports home is a better option.

So a plugin to the database is unnecessary since a local DB connection would be sufficient, but I think the rest of what you said is exactly what I'll end up doing.

> This discussion is all about the agent that sits on the clients premises, correct?

Correct.

> wait, you want the agent to receive requests for data? From what other clients?

I originally had this in mind, but while working through the problem it is both unnecessarily and a potential friction point (firewall issues with outside clients starting connections, etc). I'll just make the client poll the server at intervals for whatever functions need doing.

> First define your server side RESTy JSON API. Then write poll based client agent, extract data, transform, PUT to API. Don't bother with embedded http server or rpc etc. Add a --daemonize option (it's _really_ not too complicated) for customers who don't like crontab. And finally customers who don't want to run your agent can write their own against your published API. Maybe they don't want out bound http directly from their db. They could implement different transport and have a shim to your API service.

Excellent, this sounds simple and robust. I realized last night that if the client initiates all the connections, all it needs to do is create HTTP connections to URLs. Nothing fancy. Should even be pretty easy to BasicAuth over SSL too, which will be important for security.

I know Python has a few libraries for daemonizing scripts, I'll investigate those after the basic crontab functionality is complete.

Thanks again everyone. Glad to see that I was over-thinking things. Simple is good =)

Great, thanks for the advice! HTTP + JSON is exactly what I would love to do. I was just unsure if it was kosher to do (embedding a lightweight web-server and running a daemon on top of it)

This isn't for sharing databases...I just need the info that is in a client's database to perform the required action. Technically, it could be performed all on their end, but I'd prefer this to be a SaaS for a variety of reasons.

So I was probably too vague in my original description. This is supposed to be a server-to-server application. Similar to how New Relic's integration monitors your server and reports home to their servers. So something like this:

  +--------------+    +--------------+                          +--------------+
  |              |    |              |                          |              |
  |   Database   +----+  Client App  +--------+           +-----+  Job Queue   +---+
  |              |    |              |        |           |     |              |   |
  +--------------+    +--------------+        |           |     +--------------+   |
                                              |           |                        |
  +--------------+    +--------------+        |           |                        |
  |              |    |              |        |    +--------------+         +-------+------+
  |              |    |              |        |    |              |        |              |
  |   Database   +----+  Client App  +--------+----+   Web App    |        |Worker Daemons|
  |              |    |              |        |    |              |        |              |
  |              |    |              |        |    +--------------+        +-------+------+
  +--------------+    +--------------+        |                                    |
                                              |           |                        |
                                              |           |                        |
  +--------------+    +--------------+        |           |     +--------------+   |
  |              |    |              |        |           |     |              |   |
  |  Database    +----+  Client App  +--------+           +-----+--Database    +---+
  |              |    |              |                          |              |
  +--------------+    +--------------+                          +--------------+
  

The "adapter" will sit on "Client App" and interface with their database, reporting back to "Web App". I need something that is compact and relatively portable, so that it can be installed on client servers with minimal hassle. It will be provided limited access to various attributes of the client's database.

Edit: Damnit. How'd you get your ascii formatting to stick? Edit2:Got it!

Try this: http://www.asciiflow.com/#3338844714040119796

Ah, thanks for the explanation!

Can someone explain the "OpenERP AGPL + Private Use" license? I don't really understand how that works. How can they selectively make modules private/not under the AGPL?

Rob Walling has a bundle of these little app, all making pretty good money.

[1] http://www.startupsfortherestofus.com/

[2] http://www.softwarebyrob.com/

Well that's the point of a bug, isn't it? Chrome didn't handle malformed input appropriately and crashed because of it.

It wasn't a command that shut down Chrome, it was just poor handling of an edge-case which resulted in unexpected behavior (crash).

It's a sad truth that most programs will explode if you fling garbage at them. When push comes to shove, many development timelines don't have room to bulletproof against everything

> So here’s my concern with the idea of Software Craftsmanship. It’s at risk of letting programmers’ egos run riot. And when that happens… well, the last time they went really nuts we got Web Services, before that J2EE.

I'm pretty sure it wasn't programming craftsman that created J2EE, but rather the programming tradesmen that this guy seems to be glorifying.

> He didn't say "join HN and hang around for a while".

> He said: "Get your page on the top of HN".

Fair enough, I see what you are saying. Sorry for the rant, it's early and the coffee is still settling in. =)

I hate this attitude, and it's prevalent all over HN. What makes you so special? Because you simply found this site before someone else?

I imagine there are plenty of brilliant and interesting people on the internet that are not aware of HN, but could contribute nicely if they became members here.

This "age elitism" issue is wearying. It happens in other places too (SomethingAwful, for example, went through a hilariously horrible period where the year you registered was the most important part of your post).

But this is supposedly an intellectual forum, not a comedy forum. Grow up and stop thinking the number of days since joining makes you better than someone else.

(Yes, I joined after you. I am also diluting this forum. Get off my lawn.)

Probably because of the horrible link-bait title and general inaccuracy of the article. Especially when this link was also on the front-page (a clear, concise description of what happened without the added FUD).

I suppose you could look at it as a parasitic relationship. But it's actually much simpler than that. (Hydra are super cool, so allow me to geek out for a sec)

Basically, every cell in the hydra knows how to become a new hydra. What prevents a single hydra organism from trying to become a thousand hydras is a dual chemical gradient. The head emits one chemical, the tail emits another. Cells respond to this gradient depending on how concentrated it is in one particular direction

At the "head" end, the "head" chemical is very strong. Those cells respond by being the "head". At the other end, the "head" chemical is very weak (and the "tail" very strong). Those cells respond by becoming the appendages.

If you chop a hydra in half, the gradient becomes altered. On one half of the hydra, there is only "head" chemical diffusing. The other half only has "tail" chemical. These changes in chemical gradients signal the cells to start producing the parts of the body that were just lost. Eventually, you end up with two identical, smaller hydra.

Theoretically, you could keep chopping hydra in half and keep getting identical, smaller hydra. Obviously you hit a point where you are just going to kill the poor thing, but in theory it doesn't matter...the hydra will always be capable of regenerating.

Cool, right!

A lot of insects have a fully intact, if immature, nervous system during their adolescence. For example, fruit flies (drosophilla) have brain features called "mushroom bodies". These grow during larval development then hit a state of hibernation until the larva changes into an adult fly, at which point growth continues and the mushroom body fully develops.

I'm not familiar with a lot of other insects, but I believe it is fairly common for the bulk of structures to form, hibernate, and then finish growing during metamorphosis.

Nah, you can consider puberty to be a less extreme form of metamorphasis. Hundreds of genes are switched on and off to accomplish rather drastic sexual and physical changes.

Switching genes is cheap and easy. You have dozens of genes that switch on/off acting as pacemakers and timers. You have other genes that switch on when there is a boost of insulin, and then turn back off once the insulin is gone. There are genes that are only turned on when stressed, hypoxic, over-temperature, under-temperature, over-fed, underfed, growing, not growing, genes that turn on when neurons are excited or inhibited. The list is endless.

If you think of your body as one giant state machine, it makes sense that you need thousands of flags to control the exact state that it is in.

It's actually much more complicated, since genes really aren't binary. Each gene is also a scalar, producing varying quantities of protein, or causing various kinks in the DNA which affects nearby genes (called "enhancers"). So really, you have a bunch of binary states which are then modulated by the amount of protein that is being created.

Then you have different parts of a gene that can be individually turned on/off, producing different isoforms of a single protein. Each isoform has different capabilities, especially when paired with regulatory proteins that modulate it's behavior (which also have their own regulation at the genetic and proteomic level). And each of these proteins in turn effects an numerable array of other proteins and genes, cascading throughout the entire system.

The body is a remarkably vast state machine.

Edit: This is totally ignoring all the microRNA and shRNA which modulates the state between DNA translation and transcription. Basically, add a few more million states to the state machine.

His about page [1] says "strategist, entrepreneur, technologist, avid reader and writer, casual historian, cowboy scientist, and I like doing some adventure and travel type stuff".

His LinkedIn [2] says "Real Estate, Project Management, Technology, Philanthropy, Writing".

His youtube channel [3] is full of lectures about strategy.

Sooo..."life coach" mashed up with "strategy consultant" or something equivalent? Of course, you could ask, "Does it matter what his credentials are?"

[1] http://sebastianmarshall.com/new-start-here

[2] http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=81632430

[3] http://www.youtube.com/user/yousebastianmarshall

That makes sense. I flounder when it comes to money moving across borders, not something that I have a solid grasp on.

This is a fair point. But why would a company spirit the money away if there wasn't corporate tax? Wouldn't it be wiser to let it sit in country that doesn't tax it?

I'm not sure I understand how those two are equivalent. If you want to tax a company for using public infrastructure...tax them for using the infrastructure (property tax, tolls, etc).

Collecting a portion of their profit just because it's another place to add a tax doesn't seem to make sense. Imagine Google compared to a trucking company. Google makes 100x the profit of this particular trucking company. Does Google add 100x the wear and tear on roads that the trucking company does? Why should they be liable for a larger portion of maintenance on said roads simply because they have a larger profit?

> You will experience this as the harder you work the more money you are obligated to give to the government.

This is not really true. There are many ways to make money without expending much effort. Example: capital gains. By simply having a lot of money, I can invest this and make a solid profit...and be taxed in a lower bracket.

It has no bearing on effort expended. In fact, you can easily argue that "More Effort = More Money" has a very definite ceiling which you can't cross. At some point, you have to start leveraging other assets (money, employees, etc).

Taxing based on the amount of income earned is really the only sensible way to tax. You can't tax "effort"

A good example of this is the Mortgage Tax Credit, a much loved tax break for average, middle class families. This is essentially a "tax loophole" for people who buy houses.

It's just more fun to yell about tax loopholes that corporations utilize, because big faceless corporations sound more evil than tax breaks that John and Jane benefit from.

As others have said, many people think that corporate tax should be abolished completely. I'm fairly liberal (socially and fiscally), but I also support this.

Ultimately, I want corporations to be as profitable as possible, because that is good for our economy. Profitable companies buy and sell goods, hire individuals, the usual talking points. If we want to give more money to public education, increase income/capital gains tax (e.g. individuals)...not corporate tax.

Besides, you can make the case that only a small portion of the taxes Google pays actually improves the roads or public education. A large percentage will go towards things like defense research, healthcare, bridges in Alaska, any number of things that have no bearing on Google at all.

(I'm not a Google apologist, this would apply to any company.)