Inventing the Internet


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
What goes around goes around.

What goes around goes around.I attended a fascinating conference last week in DC, the 20th anniversary celebration of the National Information Technology Research and Development program (NITRD), a 15-agency cooperative mission launched in 1992 to coordinate federal R&D around information technology.  Funded as a consequence of the 1991 High-Performance Computing Act (a/k/a the “Gore Bill”), this was the funding that created the backbones of the internet, and persuaded the admins of ARPAnet and NSFnet and the other smaller networks to join in creating the single internet that we know today.

There were a bunch of interesting points passed along by the various speakers, too many to cover, but here are some highlights:

  • From Tom Lange, the director of Modeling and Simulation R&D at Proctor and Gamble, we learned about the challenges of creating computer models of the flow and absorption of non-newtonian fluids on a porous substrate, and why that’s important to the design of Pampers.  P&G apparently funds research at Los Alamos and Argonne national labs, among others.
  • From Sebastian Thrun, a scientist at Stanford and Google, we saw videos of automated cars negotiating Lombard Street in San Francisco and one-and-a-half-lane mountain roads with oncoming trucks.  He says that in 250,000 miles logged on California roads, they have had only one accident, when the car was rear-ended as it stopped at a red light.
  • From Kevin Knight, a researcher at USC, we heard about the limits of machine translation and how statistical language analysis can make increasingly good translations of text from one language to another even if it still can’t tell you what the text was about.

These were all fun, but there were two big points made that have to be passed along, too.  One is the phenomenal return we’ve seen on government investment in this science (and many others, but the conference wasn’t about them).  Samuel Morse’s development of the telegraph was supported by government funding, and so was virtually every aspect of the internet, computers, mobile devices, and communication technologies that have changed all of our lives over the past 20 years.

We take the internet for granted, but there is no sensible reason to do so.  The people who made the decisions to make it possible were not corporate buccaneers or rich investors.  The necessary investments to make it possible were too risky and too large for the private sector to take on.  So the government did.  They managed to find private partners to manage important parts of the result, but to imagine it would have happened without government is to live in a fantasy world.  Fortunately, your government hadn’t yet been so defanged in 1991 that it couldn’t envision something ambitious (and equally fortunately, George Bush Sr. was persuaded to support it).  One speaker said, after accounting for the economic impact of NITRD, “not bad for a bunch of faceless government bureaucrats,” and everyone laughed.

There’s a train station opening up near my house soon.  Driving by it recently, I thought about how much I am looking forward to its opening and how seldom I get a chance to express some pride in the workings of our government.  The people who imagine that government can do no good have had the upper hand in our politics for the past 30 years.  Even when Democrats hold office, discussions of what government can do is dominated by the limitations in resources imposed by the starvation resulting from decades of tax cuts to rich people.  Our ambition to use government to improve our lives has been squeezed out of public discussion.  But here it is in 2012, you are reading this text electronically.  While you thank one of those faceless government bureaucrats for that improvement in your life, you might also wonder what equally astonishing innovations have been squeezed out of your future by the fashionable austerity that rules our days in 2012.


What’s the other important point to make?  Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn were at the conference, too.  Together, they invented TCP/IP, the communication protocol that makes all this internetworking possible, and not a few other communication innovations along the way.  Cerf introduced Al Gore, who gave the keynote address after lunch, and pointed out three or four different ways the internet might not have happened at all without intervention, support, and initiative from the geeky Congressman and then Senator from Tennessee.  Aside from the Gore Bill itself, Cerf recounted a hearing in 1986 about the national supercomputing centers, then a half-dozen or so universities and research institutions around the country with supercomputing facilities.  At the hearing Senator Gore asked, “Would it be a good idea to link the supercomputing facilities with a fiber-optic network?”  According to Cerf, the question took everyone by surprise, but it resulted in a three-day meeting in California six months later where they decided the answer was “yes.”  So that’s the other point: the next time you hear an Al Gore joke about the internet, know that you’re listening to someone who was taken in by press malfeasance in 2000.

How did that joke really happen?  It sounds ridiculous, but this is how: Gore made a completely accurate claim in an interview with Wolf Blitzer on CNN and a few days later, Michelle Mittelstadt of the Associated Press restated it for him, exaggerating his meaning.  The restatement was restated again by Lou Dobbs on CNN, with some flourishes stolen from a press release by Jim Nicholson, the Republican National Committee chair.  That was repeated and further embroidered by the press many zillion times, sometimes mindlessly and sometimes maliciously, and the result was that Al Gore lost that election — the imagination reels — and I have a joke that can make you click on this post.  Isn’t history fascinating?

Nine years; it seems like yesterday – The Station Fire

Before I even start writing, I want to apologize in advance for anyone I may offend or hurt. This is a deeply personal issue for many of us and of the thousands, maybe tens of thousands, of people who have a direct connection, no two of us may see it the same way. Therefore, the qualification before I go any further.

The night of February 20th, 2003 ended at 11:05 pm for me, just before the fire took place, after a trying day of enduring a surgical procedure that included preparation the day before that was humiliating and exhausting. Although, if not for having scheduled that colonoscopy weeks in advance, I too would have been in The Station that night as well. When asked to attend three weeks prior, my initial reaction was an immediate and enthusiastic, “Yes.” However, when I realized a few minutes later that I probably wouldn’t be feeling up to it that night, I begged off.

“No problem buddy, next time,” was the reply from my best friend, Mike Gonsalves. Most knew him as “Doc,” “The Doctor,” “Doctor Metal,” “Gonz.” or “Gonzo.” I’d known Mike pretty much my whole life though, played Little League with him, attended rival high schools but met up again at Rhode Island College, joined the same fraternity, lived together senior year and he was the best man at my wedding and the godfather of my oldest son. Therefore, I was one of the few who got to call him Mike. From the time when we lived together, he started calling me, “Dad,” and some our mutual friends continue to call me that in homage to Mike to this day.

The horror of The Station fire started for me at 5:15 am the next morning when I got a call telling me to, “Turn on the TV.” From there it only got worse, much worse. I won’t go into what transpired immediately thereafter, its too painful for too many people who knew Mike, especially his family members; not to mention all the others who were injured or lost loved ones.

Whereas Mike got to share in some of the most momentous times of my life, I got to write his obituary, deliver his eulogy and help administer a scholarship fund in his name. Not exactly what I thought I’d be doing for my 40-year old best friend at that point in my life. Neither did I think I would be helping to establish a foundation to erect a memorial at a site where 100 people died unnecessarily.

That’s exactly where I found myself though. Depressed, angry, wanting revenge is the best way to describe my emotions at the time; as well as ill-equipped to start a 501 (c)(3) non-profit. However, I was surrounded by good people; all in their own stage of grief but we tried to hold it together.

Trying to establish a lasting and meaningful memorial, there were several glaring truths that soon became apparent. The entire state was hurting, even months after the fire. There was no way a memorial was being built any time soon, the politicians and lawyers would see to that. There were two separate classes of those affected, survivors and those connected to the victims who died. And there was plenty of blame to go around, the facts that developed after the fire proved that.

From my position as president of the Station Fire Memorial Foundation, we were focused on the needs of the families and friends of those who died. We held public meetings to try and gauge the intentions of the constituency but the level of anger that came through colored everything we did. Even some of our board members couldn’t keep personalities out of the equation, myself included.

There was an us versus them mentality developing between the two camps and much of it had to do with the blame game. Many of the family members of the deceased laid the blame squarely at the feet of the band and the owners of the nightclub. However, it seemed like the bulk of the survivors were willing to overlook any culpability on the part of the band and were focused on the fire inspectors.

While I’m not going to get into that debate here, I know how it played with the families of the deceased. When the Station Family Fund continually defended the band and ended up agreeing to accept funds from a charity concert performed by Great White, it created a whole new wave of anger. My constituency saw SFF members flying out to meet the band for a show, as survivors wanting to live the “rock star” life, while their loved ones would never return.

Finally, it became too much for me. I helped host the first year memorial, something I now wish I hadn’t done. We continued to meet with families and we even had a few meetings with statewide political leaders. But again, it was obvious there was too much division on the part of all parties and just shy of a year after our first meeting to start the Station Fire Memorial Foundation, I took my leave of the group in favor of giving myself time to heal. Time that I wasn’t going to get if I continued on in that position.

Since then, there have been criminal prosecutions (not to my satisfaction), civil restitution (I can’t imagine anyone is satisfied with mere money and would rather have their lives back as they were); yet there is still no memorial to the victims. Here it is, nine years later and the site of the fire looks much the same as it did only months after the fire. How can that be?

I offer no solution, I only ask the question.

Again, I apologize if I offended or hurt anyone; that was not my intention. I was only trying to relive a time in my life that was extremely difficult, and give a somewhat objective view of what happened during that difficult time. I consciously took myself out of The Station fire community those many years ago to concentrate on raising funds and awarding them to students in the name of my best friend. I’m not looking to re-insert myself into any debates, I was just hoping to try and give a view through the prism of what happened at the time and how it affected so many of us.

Surprising Occupy Surprises Even Cynical Me

From the very beginning, the Occupy movement has been one surprise after another. The scale of the turnout in lower Manhattan is said to have stunned the AdBusters crew. The scale of peripheral support that came to the major protests surprised the activist core. The scale of the police response surprised the major media that wanted to ignore the story. And the speed with which the movement swept across the country surprised everyone.

But more than anything, the biggest surprise has been the movement’s staying power. Despite virtually all the US encampments being raided or voluntarily abandoned, the movement continues to offer up – you guessed it – surprises.

Occupy the SEC

Last weeks’ 325-page letter to the SEC et al from an Occupy Wall Street working group that supports the Volcker Rule portion of Dodd-Frank, came as a shock to the financial community. This was no rambling left wing polemic (such as you might be reading now), but a carefully considered expression of the broad ranging benefits of controls on the largest institutions. It was the kind of thing that could only be constructed by people who come from inside those large financial institutions.

To decode, this was Wall Street occupying Wall Street. Well and truly the 5th Column.

Surely, it is dawning on even the most strident radical capitalist that it is in their own self-interest to come to grips with the basics of this movement. It’s one thing when left wing radicals are talking about income inequality. It’s something else altogether different when it’s a major topic at the World Economic Forum in Davos!

This doesn’t need to make sense; only fiction needs to make sense. It is what it is, and I am very pleasantly surprised.

Reestablishing Solidarity

As the winter weather kept many people indoors and away from Occupy actions, I’ve become a bit concerned that the potentially fractious nature of hardcore activist collaborations would create an atmosphere that might discourage or alienate the large mass of peripheral supporters like me. While it’s true that I haven’t seen much evidence of this, I also haven’t seen much evidence of the opposite.

For this reason, I’ve suggested to every Occupier I know that it would be helpful to us on the periphery if Occupy created a series of regular, low-risk protests scheduled at such a time and constructed in such a way that so-called “regular people” could feel safe in coming out and showing solidarity with the core of the movement. The model that I keep pointing to is the regular Monday night protests held in 1989 in Berlin on both sides of the Berlin Wall.

Don’t Screw This Up

I’ve heard from many in and around the core of the movement their concern about some issues and ideas taking precedent over others. If that line of thinking becomes  prevalent, this movement will fail.

To be sure, it is crucial that the movement remain open to and aware of ALL the various viewpoints, issues, communities, etc. that make up this remarkable collection. But it is equally crucial that ALL these communities recognize that is the solidarity among themselves that attracts the large mass of peripheral supporters. And it is that large mass on the periphery that will force the change – NOT the hardcore at the center. The relationship is symbiotic; the periphery needs the center and vice versa.

To succeed – that means radically altering the dialog, awakening the apathetic and driving for real change – this movement can’t let itself get ripped apart. Everything needs to be focused on maintaining solidarity and attracting supporters.

Solidarity is the Goal

I’ve spent the last 30 years wondering what the hell was wrong with people in the US. Didn’t they see where this country was heading? Didn’t they understand that we couldn’t just keep growing on leverage without it eventually biting us in the ass? Didn’t they see that we were becoming an empire with our military spread far and wide? Didn’t they see that this nation was rapidly driving itself deep into the “bad guys of history” category?

Surprisingly, Occupy has shown that many more people than I had thought do seem to understand.

So don’t let us down, Occupy. We don’t want to go down on the wrong side of history. You are our last, best chance to pull the US back from the brink of catastrophe.

If we blow it now, we won’t get another opportunity like this in our lifetime.

A Different Tax Exemption for Brown

It was Saturday night, I was reading through Providence’s 2012 fiscal year budget, and I came across an expenditure that caught my attention.

We’re all pretty familiar by now with the gist of this table, even if the numbers are dizzying:

Between the variations of public property, the “meds and eds,” and other tax-exempt properties, Providence is not collecting property taxes on $6.7 billion of assessed value [cue any criticisms you may have about the assessment process]. All this is determined by statute.

But just up the page are the tax exemptions determined by personal qualities, such as being a veteran, a widow, blind, or “Brown Professor.” I can only assume the latter refers to individuals who are employed at Brown University as professors and are then eligible for exemptions on the taxes on both their real property and their motor vehicles.

The total assessed value that comes out of this is only $68,362, which means its impact on the city budget is no more than $3,000. But still, what is going on with this exemption? Does anyone know the back story?