The Fourth Place

I needed to access chainsaw’s library from a project, and determined that this is best done from source rather than downloading the JARs. What if something happens to the chainsaw project?

So I got HEAD from the SVN location below:

http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/logging/chainsaw/trunk

This returned revision 789818, fwiw.

HOWTOBUILD in that project contained these other source dependencies:

log4j-component - http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/logging/log4j/companions/component/trunk/
log4j-pattern-layout - http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/logging/log4j/companions/pattern-layout/trunk/
log4j-receivers - http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/logging/log4j/companions/receivers/trunk/
log4j-filters - http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/logging/log4j/companions/filters/trunk/
log4j-zeroconf - http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/logging/log4j/companions/zeroconf/trunk/

-component, -receivers and -zeroconf were found, there was no evidence of -pattern-layout
or -filters in the public SVN. Therefore the following were downloaded using the commands
Import->Check out Maven projects from SCM feature in Eclipse

JMX was downloaded from here:

http://java.sun.com/javase/technologies/core/mntr-mgmt/javamanagement/download.jsp

and unpacked to here:
/home/simon/Desktop/jmx-1_2_1-bin/

and installed with:

mvn install:install-file -DgroupId=com.sun.jdmk -DartifactId=jmxtools -Dversion=1.2.1 -Dpackaging=jar -Dfile=/home/simon/Desktop/jmx-1_2_1-bin/lib/jmxtools.jar
mvn install:install-file -DgroupId=com.sun.jmx -DartifactId=jmxri -Dversion=1.2.1 -Dpackaging=jar -Dfile=/home/simon/Desktop/jmx-1_2_1-bin/lib/jmxri.jar

log4j-component built immediately with mvn install. Both of the others had direct
dependencies on artifact “log4j:log4j:jar:1.2.16-SNAPSHOT”

Downloading logj was done the same way. (I had some errors with folders that could not
be renamed , I cleared some guff from the target folder to fix) I downloaded from

https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/logging/log4j/trunk

and got revision 790113

Building started in the Eclipse IDE and caused issues for mvn install. mvn clean install worked fine for log4j.

Building chainsaw requires a clean build of receivers and chainsaw. Build chainsaw with:

mvn -Dmaven.test.skip=true clean package
mvn -Dmaven.test.skip=true install

or similar, otherwise the tests will fail on you (mildly alarming).

Notes about my set up:

I have Eclipse 3.4.2 with

- Sonatypes Maven Integration for Eclipse 0.9.7.
- Subclipse (from update site  http://subclipse.tigris.org/update_1.4.x)

Once I got going I realised the project need not be included in my Eclipse workspace.

I just read a thread started by Michael Zeltner on the London Hack Space group and assimilated the linked monochrom article.

Interesting points raised and I can’t dispute the history, but it seems to me that Monochrom (and I think also Zeltner)  sees hackspaces as a blank canvas onto which the (mostly left-wing) politics of the age are creatively drawn, and from which information is read by those nasty exploitative capitalists. Such an enterprise does need to agree on its purpose and destination in the way advocated by Monochrom, because otherwise the content of the canvas will be a complete mess, leading (in the real rather than the analogous world) to an unpleasant and fractious cultural space.

I thought I was helping to create a paint brush or a set of tools, capable of being used in a neutral and open way by any one friendly enough to turn up and get on with it without being an ass hole. I believed people would work on different canvases chosen by those individuals and any project groups they form as they socialise together in the space.  Some might work on their own web sites, perhaps even commercially while at the hack space as certainly happened at meetings #4 and #5. I contributed for selfish commercial reasons to an open project run by a major media company, but was friendy and sociable to the point of distraction while in “the space”. Others are working on kit to use in their own homes.  I’m sure others will get together and work on grander visions involving more people, even all of society, though I think that will take time to start happening. This latter model does not need a political direction or even a shared belief system, in relies on people with shared interests getting together and being sociable while using the facilities of the space.

Zeltner and Monocrom both approach the culture of hackspaces from what I would call (noting that my post 9/11 political awakening is still relatively recent) a collectivist meta-context and end-up ascribing collectivist features to it. Zelter reveals this when he calls setting up a space a political act and Monochrom likewise in his references to capitalists and capitalism as if they are something “other” than whatever it is he labels himself*. I wonder whether, if the factual history and consequent semantic baggage of the phrase “hacker space” is somehow unavoidably collectivist and whether I will find myself accidentally supporting a de facto left-wing political group of which I cannot approve. The rumours of funding from a certain assuredly left-wing media organisation does nothing to counter this impression.

I realise of course, that I have also ascribed features of the libertarian meta-context I was born with to the culture I expected to see formed at the London Hack Space. The description I gave above of a group of individuals united socially by accident of the facilities they enjoy and voluntarily uniting ad-hoc is basically the way I’d like my nation to be run, writ small. I would argue though, that this model of running a space - be it a country or a communal workshop - is superior exactly because it doesn’t matter if groups within the whole want to work on commercial, personal or communal projects as long as they respect the needs of every other individual sufficiently. The country, or the hackspace is a political entity in this model to exactly the same extent that a shop or a pub is political - not very political at all, but rather cultural or just social.

That all sounds very grand, but what it amounts to is turning up, getting on with whatever it is you want to get on with for whatever reason it is you want to do that, and getting on nicely with the others - exactly what has happened at every gathering so far.

Long may it continue.

* I realise I am anthropomorphising the group, but whatever…

at the time of the 1988 Budget the top 1 percent paid 14 percent of all income tax – by 1997 this rose to 21 percent. And why? Because the top rate was cut from 60 percent to 40 percent.

Interesting.

By this time tomorrow this petition will have 500,000 signatories or more.

UPDATE: last time I make a prediction like that, top spot today though at 29 thousand, woot!

This webinar is interesting, not because it explains RDF exactly(though it touches on that), but because it shows the main differences between querying RDF and querying relational data in a way that won’t scare anyone away.

It should be stressed that his is one vendor’s vision and one vendor’s tool, but the speaker does lay down the boundaries between standard and vendor behaviours quite well, though its worth picking up “LET” as a non-standard keyword. Anyway, its quite a nice tool!

What novices should look for:

• A neat explanation of RDF triples in visual terms.
• On-the-fly invention of new properties for a type without planning ahead or doing any prep work.
• WHERE clauses without a FROM clause - i.e. querying completely unstructured data.

If you are already sold on this RDF thing, then there is also a nice demonstration of using SPARQL for ETL functionality about half way through, which is more than cool. In addition, the RDF visualisation style where the graph is incrementally revealed on-demand is a nice paradigm for viewing graph data.

This letter deserves wider circulation.

More links (maybe I need delicious or somthing)

• http://rdfweb.org/foaf/corp/foafcorp-svg-1.jpg
• http://jibbering.com/2002/10/foaf-codepiction-paths.svg 

via a swig chat log describing theses as coming from experimental work with FOAF.

A blog post in the traditional mould, links for my own reference:

• Bluetooth
• OBEX
• Piconets and Scatternets
• Java API standards
• Java bluetooth lovvies.
• A higher level framework for bluetooth hacking called Marge.

(I have some ideas for a bluetooth app to get going with at the hackspace)

Update - more links:

• Motorola JSR-82 impl under apache
• BlueCove and its maven details
• Haggle on SF and their own homepage
• An interview about BlueCove and MicroEmulator 
• A hello bluetooth world example
• Delay tolerant networking

SNOSoft and DanBri write about social engineering hacks involving Facebook. Someone who isn’t a hot chick working in your company joins your firms Facebook group, and of course, on the internet nobody knows you’re a dog. If you saw a photo like this one, would you check or just let her in your group?

Of course, if your company sets up an Open ID provider coupled to the corporate directory and some other nice person (maybe facebook themselves) designs a widget to force group members to authenticate against particular OpenID providers then the fake employee would stick out by not being in the group.

While the recognition of the internet as an important facilitator of economic growth is accurate and in some senses laudable, I find issue with the Government’s recent announcement of a universal service obligation for internet infrastructure companies.

A universal service obligation can only increase costs on the companies involved and must involve a large Government subsidy, a new tax or the involvement of the BBC - a dominant player in the TV and on-line industry who also benefits exclusively from a special tax. Such options involve a direct use of tax payer money, an explicit redistribution of wealth that will be harmful to economic growth in the short term, a slackening of competition in the telecommunications market, and potential bias introduced by a determinedly left-wing state media company. These side effects are I feel they might make a the measure an overall negative for the economy, broadband service quality and media independence.

An alternative free-market solution exists, but at a time when the Prime Minister is repeatedly criticising other parties for doing nothing, this option requires the Government to sell the idea of doing less than it does already. It is a laissez-fair option.

Wireless internet services allow for the widening of broadband coverage without necessitating the laying of cables along every street, or if there are tall buildings or other high spots in an area, without even requiring the raising of antenna masts. For example, I work at a building in central London that is signed up to a service run from the top of the Centre Point building.

Unfortunately these services traditionally operate using a small band of electromagnetic spectrum which has been left unregulated. An expensive licence is required to expand into other areas of spectrum and licensees are unlikely to share spectrum as readily as they do in the unregulated section. Simply put, more available spectrum means a better wireless broadband service but the Government is selling this monopoly access to this resource to rich corporations at the expense of normal people.

The solution is very simple indeed, and this is to reserve additional blocks of spectrum for unregulated use - that is, to stop regulating parts of the electromagnetic spectrum. The spectrum previously allocated to analogue television provides a spectrum gap and an immediate opportunity for decisive action.

This idea and the deregulated spectrum are called “Open Spectrum”, because access to the spectrum is open to the entire market of providers from individuals, to small grass roots charitable or hobbyist operators (for an example see SPC’s Open Wireless Network), and commercial operators of all sizes - not just large corporations. This free-market access has the potential to fuel an immediate growth in coverage combined with a gradual increase in service quality as device manufacturers improve the technology. Interestingly, it may even drive a shift in infrastructure ownership away from Government and corporations and literally into the ownership of the people, with individuals voluntarily co-operating to mesh their own devices together to further improve services.

A Frequently Asked Questions document is available which covers this from a historical and technical perspective, and is quite accessible to laypersons.

Derived from a letter sent to my MP.