This is my dynamic, frequently updated homepage. This is a NewsLog, also known as a WebLog or Blog.
Everything is evolving, so don't assume too much.
People to watch:
Adina Levin
Andrius Kulikauskas
Britt Blaser
Catherine Austin Fitts
Chris Corrigan
Clay Shirky
Dan Gillmor
Dave Pollard
David Allen
David Weinberger
Dewayne Mikkelson
Dina Mehta
Doc Searls
Elisabet Sahtouris
Elizabeth Lawley
Euan Semple
Florian Brody
Frank Patrick
Gen Kenai
George Dafermos
George Por
Graham Hancock
Greg Elin
Hazel Henderson
Heiner Benking
Inspector Lohman
Jean Houston
Jerry Michalski
Jim McGee
Jim Moore
John Abbe
John Perry Barlow
John Robb
Joi Ito
Jon Husband
Jon Lebkowsky
Jon Udell
Jonathan Peterson
Judith Meskill
Julian Elvé
Julie Solheim
Kevin Marks
Lawrence Lessig
Leif Smith
Letecia Layson
Lilia Efimova
Lisa Rein
Marc Canter
Mark Oeltjenbruns
Mark Pilgrim
Mark Woods
Martin Dugage
Martin Roell
Mary Forest
Matt Mower
Max Sandor
Michael Fagan
Mike Owens
Mikel Maron
Mitch Kapor
Mitch Ratcliffe
Nathalie dArbeloff
Netron
Noam Chomsky
Paul Hughes
Peter Kaminski
Phil Wolff
Philippe Beaudoin
Ray Ozzie
Raymond Powers
Rebecca Blood
Roger Eaton
Roland Tanglao
Ross Mayfield
Scott Lemon
Sebastian Fiedler
Sebastien Paquet
Skip Lancaster
Spike Hall
Steven Johnson
Stuart Henshall
Thomas Burg
Thomas Madsen-Mygdal
Thomas Nicholls
Timothy Wilken
Todd Suomela
Tom Atlee
Tom Munnecke
Tom Tomorrow
Ton Zijlstra
Lionel Bruel
Loic Le Meur
Nancy White
Mark Frazier
Merlin Silk
Robert Paterson
Colby Stuart
Nova Spivack
Dan Brickley
Ariane Kiss
Vanessa Miemis
Bernd Nurnberger
Sites to watch:
Action without borders
BoingBoing
Co-intelligence Institute
Disclosure Project
Disinfopedia
Disinformation
Edge
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Explorers Foundation
Forbidden Science
Free Expression Network
Friendly Favors
FutureHi
Global Ideas Bank
Greater Democracy
HeadMap
Imaginify
Independent Media
Manufacturing Dissent
MetaFilter
Nanodot
Smart Mobs
ThoughtsOnThinking
WorldChanging
YES Magazine
Absara
Collective Intelligence
Collective Web
Do No Harm
Emergent by Design
Escape Velocity
Junto
NotThisBody
Openworld
Rhizome
Space Collective
Webcamorama
French:
Emmanuelle
Manur
Elanceur
Loeil de Mouche
IokanaaN
Blog d'Or
Le Petit Calepin
GeeBlog
Absara
Guillaume Beuvelot
Ming Chau
Serge Levan
Jean Michel Billaut
C'est pas Mécanique
I live in Toulouse, France where the time now is:
01:02
Unique Readers:
Primarily
Public Domain
Everything I've written here is dedicated to the
Public Domain.
The quotes from other people's writings, and the pictures used might or might not be copyrighted, but are considered fair use. Thus, overall, this weblog could best be described as being:
Primarily Public Domain. |
Syndication:
 
|
Friday, March 9, 2007 | |
|
|
What is Web 2.0? Ideas, technologies and implications for education is a long paper in PDF format, written by Paul Anderson, giving probably the best overview I've seen, of what Web 2.0 is, and the various components that connect into it. The super-condensed executive summary would be that these 6 points are the main traits of Web2.0:1. Individual production and User Generated Content
2. Harnessing the power of the crowd
3. Data on an epic scale
4. Architecture of Participation
5. Network Effects
6. Openness [ Technology | 2007-03-09 23:44 | | PermaLink ] More >
|
|
Wednesday, March 7, 2007 | |
|
|
Sounds like a porn movie. But, no, Dick Hardt is a CEO of Sxip Identity, and the point here is his style of doing a presentation. See a video of his Identity2.0 presentation at OSCon. Lots and lots of slides, with just a few words or a picture each, creating an interesting flow of a presentation, which in many ways work better than a normal powerpoint presentation with bullet points, etc.
Hardt didn't invent this style, but it somehow got associated with his name. Rather, Lawrence Lessig has used it for a while, and I've seen it before in videos of his talks. So, Lessig Style would be as correct.
Interestingly, both of these guys are fairly boring speakers. If they were just standing there talking, they're not exactly great orators. But combined with a dynamic presentation like that, they're great speakers who everybody pays attention to all the time.
Hm, I've got to try that. Most Powerpoint presentations are boring. Time for some innovation.
(Via Cedric) [ Information | 2007-03-07 22:18 | | PermaLink ] More >
|
|
Tuesday, February 27, 2007 | |
|
|
Leverage is an interesting subject. This is what Wikipedia says it is: Leverage is a factor by which lever multiplies a force - it is therefore related to mechanical advantage. The useful work done is the energy applied, which is force times distance. Therefore a small force applied over a long distance is the same amount of work as a large force applied over a small distance. The trick is converting the one into the other. The requisite mathematics was developed in the third century B.C. by Archimedes.
The simplest device for creating leverage is the lever. A lever is a stick which rests on a fulcrum near one end. When you push the long end of the stick down a long ways, the short end moves a small distance up with great force. With this device a man can easily lift several times his own weight.
Other common devices that achieve leverage include the wrench, various pulley arrangements, a jack, and hydraulic brakes. OK, so a mechanical principle for applying a great force, using a smaller force, but multiplied, like by applying it over a longer distance. There's also the financial definition: In finance, leverage (or gearing) is using given resources in such a way that the potential positive or negative outcome is magnified. It generally refers to borrowing.
Financial leverage takes the form of a loan or other borrowings, the proceeds of which are reinvested with the intent to earn a greater rate of return than the cost of interest. If the firm's return on assets (ROA) is higher than the interest on the loan, then its return on equity (ROE) will be higher than if it did not borrow. On the other hand, if the firm's ROA is lower than the interest rate, then its ROE will be lower than if it did not borrow. Leverage allows greater potential return to the investor than otherwise would have been available. The potential for loss is also greater because if the investment becomes worthless, not only is that money lost, but the loan still needs to be repaid. OK, so you have some kind of profit giving activity going, and you borrow other people's money to fuel it, and thus get much higher profits. That's actually a quite different principle from the mechanical leverage, because you don't yourself provide all the energy that goes into it, you get somebody else to provide it.
Doing more with less, that's really what we're talking about. How can you get the biggest possible result with the least possible investment of energy and resources. Ideally, the biggest possible positive result, but not necessarily.
It is obviously a key principle in business and economics. If you've managed to become rich, it is obviously because you've found some mechanism which will give you the biggest possible return while you're putting the most minimal amount of energy into it. There are certainly both positive and negative things to say about that. The greatest success in that regard would be if lots of people pay you enormous amounts of money for nothing. And if there's any work involved, the greatest success is if other people than yourself are doing it. And if there's any risk involved, very best if somebody else than you is taking it.
But the pure principle is a good thing, of course. Why wouldn't we want the most positive result possible, and why wouldn't we want it in the easiest and fastest possible way?
There's nothing particularly noble about doing a lot of hard work that gives very little result. Yet quite possibly most people live their lives like that. You go to school every day for 12 years, and forget most of what you learned. You go to work every day for 45 years, and do what you're expected to do. But what value have you really added to the world? Is it really the best use of your energy? Why not work less hard, but accomplish more, creating more real value? Why not do the very most with what you have?
So, how do you do that?
There's the financial leverage trick there. Borrow other people's money and do something with it that brings in more than it costs to borrow it. And there's the general business owner approach. Hire a bunch of people to do the work, and pay them less than it is worth. All of that of course requires that you have some kind of idea that works, i.e. that somebody pays money for whatever is produced. Although, if you distribute the risk to somebody else than yourself, you might get away with living nicely for some years off of borrowed money, despite producing nothing.
One approach to increased leverage is to develop a more narrow and directed focus. I.e. if you manage to do more precisely what you're aiming at doing, and which is valuable. A lightbulb produces light, but it also produces a lot of heat, so it isn't very efficient. We don't need the heat. So, if you invent a lightbulb that produces more light and less heat, you'll be getting more bang for the buck.
You'd be doing the same if you made a company more efficient. If you produce a certain kinds of widgets, and you have two people making the widgets, and 8 people doing office work, you might of course find how to reorganize things so that you have 8 people doing widgets, and 2 doing office work, and you're producing more with less.
Another way is to find synergies. Synergy is when you put some things together in a way that fits, so that the result is more than the sum of its parts. That could for example be that the waste products of one activity becomes the raw materials for another activity. It could be placing an activity that uses a lot of water in a place where there actually is a lot of water. It would be placing an activity that needs sunlight in a place that has lots of sun. Or, between people, it would be finding out that there are others who do things that fit very nicely with what you do, and you can establish a win-win relationship by cooperating with one another.
You can share information and avoid re-inventing the wheel several times. Lots of problems have already been solved, and if the information about how to solve them isn't secret, or isn't protected by unnecessary intellectual property rules, everybody can do more with less.
Open source software is of course an excellent example. Instead of keeping your solutions secret, you share them with anybody who's interested, and others might both use the same solutions, and they might improve upon them.
And there's the principle of going with the flow, using the existing circumstances and the existing momentum to get where you want to go. If you're in a sailboat and you want to go west, the best time to do so is probably when the wind blows west. If you're a surfer, you'll be going places if you watch for the right wave and you catch it when it is there.
I'm most interested in leverage in a human context. How can one person or a small number of people have the biggest possible positive effect in the world?
They can do so in part with ideas. Ideas are very portable and takes little energy to produce and distribute.
They can do so by being in the right place at the right time, noticing exactly in which direction the wind is blowing, and by catching the wave when it is there.
They can do so by inventing products or systems or memes that are what people want, and what they find exiting, but which they maybe didn't expect. If you come up with something that is cool and useful, which anybody can take away with them right away, you might find millions of people working for your cause very quickly.
Basically it is just very worthwhile to choose one's activities based on how much positive value you can create with them. Very few people do. But most remarkable people you can think of have done just that. Instead of just doing like everybody else, they've somehow come upon ways of creating much larger effects with the same efforts as everybody else. They don't have more hours in the day than you do, and they might even work less than you do. But they've applied their efforts in places where they would get more results, to do things that were more needed or wanted, in ways that were more efficient and productive. And in most cases they've done something that inspired or activated or coordinated the activities of large numbers of people. Even if they seem to do what they do alone. A top tennis player wouldn't be a famous and wealthy top tennis player unless he did something that millions of people would take time to sit and watch. No manufacturer of products would get anywhere unless large numbers of people felt like buying his products. No public leader of any kind would get anywhere unless large numbers of people went along with their program.
The interesting kind of leverage is basically just an idea that manages to find a resonance with great numbers of people. It might be an image or a product or a philosophy or a way of doing things, but it is always something, more or less mysterious, that finds and activates a synchronization or a synergy of some kind, between the originator and many other people, or between the originator and the universe. [ Patterns | 2007-02-27 23:50 | | PermaLink ] More >
|
|
Sunday, February 25, 2007 | |
|
|
This tower always makes it relatively easy to figure out which direction my house is. We live on a set of hills, Les Hauts de Ramonville, and on top of the tallest hill is this impressive-looking 71m tall telecom tower, full of, I suppose, micro-wave antennas. You can see it from pretty far away. OK, we luckily don't live right next to it, but a few hundred meters from it at least. [ Diary | 2007-02-25 15:53 | | PermaLink ] More >
|
|
|
According to this entry from Times, film-maker James Cameron is going to announce that the tomb of Jesus and Mary Magdalene and their son has been identified in Jerusalem.Let's go back 27 years, when Israeli construction workers were gouging out the foundations for a new building in the industrial park in the Talpiyot, a Jerusalem suburb. of Jerusalem. The earth gave way, revealing a 2,000 year old cave with 10 stone caskets. Archologists were summoned, and the stone caskets carted away for examination. It took 20 years for experts to decipher the names on the ten tombs. They were: Jesua, son of Joseph, Mary, Mary, Mathew, Jofa and Judah, son of Jesua.
..Film-makers Cameron and Jacobovici claim to have amassed evidence through DNA tests, archeological evidence and Biblical studies, that the 10 coffins belong to Jesus and his family.
..Cameron is holding a New York press conference on Monday at which he will reveal three coffins, supposedly those of Jesus of Nazareth, his mother Mary and Mary Magdalene. News about the film, which will be shown soon on Discovery Channel, Britain's Channel 4, Canada's Vision, and Israel's Channel 8, has been a hot blog topic in the Middle East That's tomorrow. Of course, what we're talking about is essentially the trailer for a film documentary. But I think it would be great fun if he really has some kind of proof that would stand. [ News | 2007-02-25 15:57 | | PermaLink ] More >
|
|
|
.. are 1 to 1. Some will dispute that, but so far that seems to be how it goes. But the picture shows the odds of dying of different causes. I don't see terrorist attacks there, or war or starvation, but otherwise I suppose it puts things in perspective. [ Information | 2007-02-25 16:03 | | PermaLink ] More >
|
|
Saturday, February 24, 2007 | |
|
|
Wikipatterns is a Wiki collecting patterns of practices for how to launch a successful Wiki. And anti-patterns for how not to do it. Much of which could apply to other kinds of activities or sites than wikis. Here's the Barn Raising pattern: A wiki BarnRaising is a planned event in which a community meets at a designated time to build content on the wiki together. One person alone can't build all the content in a wiki, and a community of people needs to understand how to use the wiki, and feel a sense of buy-in for it to become successful. A BarnRaising achieves this because people come expecting to learn how to use the wiki, and they are able to interact with each other as they work, thus strengthening community bonds and creating a support network that keeps people using the wiki... BarnRaising is a great way to jumpstart a wiki. It gets people used to using the wiki, and gets a critical mass of content on it so people keep coming back.
[ Patterns | 2007-02-24 14:13 | | PermaLink ] More >
|
|
|
MSNBC: People have a harder time coming up with alternative solutions to a problem when they are part of a group, new research suggests.
Scientists exposed study participants to one brand of soft drink then asked them to think of alternative brands. Alone, they came up with significantly more products than when they were grouped with two others....
The researchers speculate that when a group of people receives information, the inclination is to discuss it. The more times one option is said aloud, the harder it is for individuals to recall other options, explained Krishnan, associate professor of marketing at Indiana University. Of course it would greatly depend on how a meeting is run. There are brainstorming formats that certainly would work better in a group than alone. But, I guess, if it is the normal format of a meeting, once something emerges as the theme or focus of the meeting, it would be hard to make it go anywhere else. Which is a good thing, if that's really what you're supposed to work on, but a bad thing if you're trying to generate new or alternative ideas. [ Organization | 2007-02-24 14:15 | | PermaLink ] More >
|
|
|
I've used FireFox for a long time, and generally I've been happy with that. Lots of useful plugins, for one thing. But after version 2.0 somehow worked worse than the previous version, I started considering seeing if there are alternatives. Which there are, of course. Like Opera.
There's a few annoying problems I've always had with FireFox. One is that the file downloading is horrible. You click on a download link, and I'm stuck with a spinning beachball for a number of seconds, no matter how small the file might be. Once the download is running, Firefox can do other things, but it seems to be a really big deal to start it. In the same time it takes, I could open a terminal window and do it with some command-line utility, like wget. I don't understand why nobody's ever fixed that. Downloading a small file should not be a big deal. There are an assortment of download manager plugins, connecting to external programs that are good at downloading, but that's kind of overkill if I just want one little file.
The other really annoying thing is that after I've used the program for a while, and I have a number of windows open, things slow down. With tabs, I can quite easily have 20 or 30 sites open. And it can quite easily happen that one or several of those do something that uses up resources. It might have some Ajax running, or Java, or Flash, all of which might be doing something dumb. It might be in the middle of queueing up a dozen embedded videos for viewing. The point is that when things slow down, it is not always obvious why. If I close all the possibly offending pages, things get a bit better, but the browser remains kind of slow. And the system would often show that it is using, like, 98% of system cycles, and hundreds of megs of memory.
What I really would like would be that the browser could give me an idea of what resources each page is using. It shouldn't be hard for the browser software to show me where the problems are. And then it should of course recover the used resources when that page is closed.
There are other things, but they're minor. Firefox now has a nice feature for restoring the pages you had opened in your last session. Except for that the windows are in a seemingly random order. I normally have around 5 windows open, with a number of tabs in each. The tabs are in the proper order, but the windows never get loaded in the order I had them in in the Window menu.
I tried Opera for a week, and I actually really like it. It is faster, and it downloads files fine, and it restores the last session with everything in the proper order. And it includes a bunch of standard features that I have in plugins in FireFox. Very nicely put together. But after using it normally for a day or two, having a bunch of windows and tabs open, the same thing happens as in FireFox. Things get slow, and I don't know which page is doing it. And there are a few key plugins I use a lot in Firefox, which don't have anything comparable in Opera. Like the Firebug Javascript debugger, and a plugin that shows me the dimensions or paths or pictures in a page.
So, I went back to Firefox. But if anybody knows a browser or a plugin that shows you which pages slow everything down, I'm all ears. [ Diary | 2007-02-24 14:18 | | PermaLink ] More >
|
|
|
Slashdot"Opera CTO Håkon Wium Lie hit back today at Microsoft's push to fast track Office Open XML into an ISO standard, in a
blistering article on CNET. He also took a swipe at Open Document Format: 'I'm no fan of either specification. Both are basically memory dumps with angle brackets around them. If forced to choose one, I'd pick the 700-page specification (ODF) over the 6,000-page specification (OOXML). But I think there is a better way.' The better way being the existing universally understood standards of HTML and CSS. Putting this to the test, Håkon has published a book using HTML and CSS." Just posting this to remember the thing about making books in HTML and CSS, which actually seems to be quite possible, and probably a better idea than those horrendous document formats. [ Programming | 2007-02-24 14:20 | | PermaLink ] More >
|
|
Monday, February 19, 2007 | |
|
|
Slashdot:"The Fermi paradox says that if extraterrestrial civilizations exist, at least one of them should have colonized the entire galaxy by now. But since there is no evidence of this, humankind must be the only intelligent life in the galaxy. The Space Review has an article on how the Fermi paradox can be applied to human civilization. It says that, like the extraterrestrials, humans have three choices: colonize the galaxy, remain on Earth, or become extinct." And the conclusion is pretty much that if nobody else seems to be colonizing the galaxy, we've got to do it. Which is of course fun to think about.
But I wanted to comment on that whole idea that if extraterrestrials existed, they'd inevitably have colonized the galaxy, and we'd have met them, and since we don't see them, they don't exist. It seems to be a pretty prevalent view amongst science-buffs.The Fermi paradox is the apparent contradiction between high estimates of the probability of the existence of extraterrestrial civilizations and the lack of evidence of contact with such civilizations. The problem is that it all assumes that extraterrestrials would be very much like us, and they'd be doing the same kinds of things we could imagine doing right now, and they live in a universe that's based on the theories we've come up with so far.
But this is all very iffy. Sure, if the universe really is as mechanical as we imagine, and if the only thing these guys could do would be to send radio signals, and send up rockets, and then make better rockets, and after a few centuries send out inter-stellar rockets, yeah, then we'd be able to watch their TV shows, and some space probes ought to have passed by.
But if reality really is constructed radically differently, maybe not. Imagine for one thing if we live in a 3 dimensional reality, what if most everybody else live in a 4 or 5 dimensional reality. Would they bother giving us signals we can recognize on our terms? There are plenty of anthills on our planet, but have we ever bothered to send in a representative of our civilization that would talk with one of them on their terms? Maybe a little ant that would walk in, and wave his antennas and try to say that we come in peace, and there's a big world beyond their anthill. We haven't bothered, because it didn't seem worth the trouble, and ants aren't all that smart anyway. What were we gonna talk about? Uhm, there's food over there! And they're probably just going to kill our representative. Who says we don't seem the same to a suitably advanced alien race. Kind of retarded folks living in our own little world.
And we assume that there's sort of limited space that we all share. Even though the galaxy is big, we'd guess that if there's intelligent beings on some planet circling some other star, they'd think of colonizing the galaxy, and its the same galaxy we're in. That's a mechanical view of how reality works, which might not check out.
Imagine that maybe we're living in more like a virtual reality. What we see is stretching billions of light years in all directions, but what if it still is just basically our own virtual reality projection, corresponding with how we look at the world right now. And all these other guys might not have exactly the same virtual reality to operate in, because their world view is different.
Think of the way we can construct virtual worlds right now, on the Internet. There's a server, or a bunch of servers, rather, where World of Warcraft is simulated, and lots of people can go and log in and live in that. And there are some other servers that house Second Life, and one can go live there. The rules are different between them, and they're different spaces. If you walk to the edge of the Warcraft world, you're not going to see the Second Life world. Doesn't matter if you get an extra large telescope or something, because it isn't there. Even if the servers were in the same datacenter, you could not see one from the other, because that's not how the simulation is done. Somebody could very well make an interface, like a phonebooth from which you could teleport from one to the other, but if they don't, there's no way of getting from one to the other, other than logging out altogether, and logging into the other. And say one group in World of Warcraft decided to colonize all of the known universe, they could go and do so without ever running into any aliens. They'd find nothing but other World of Warcraft players, no matter how far they walk in any direction. And if some of these guys had forgotten that they were just humans who logged in from home, and they tried to reason things out from inside the game, they might well conclude that this is all that exists, and there's no other kind of virtual worlds, and no other kinds of people. Which would be all false, of course.
You can't necessarily make sense of a problem when you're inside of the problem. You can't solve a problem with the thinking that created it, as Einstein said. If you live inside a certain illusion, you can't necessarily transcend the illusion, using only pieces of that same illusion.
When some civilization is expanding, even greatly, there's not necessarily any reason they should run into every other civilization. Particularly if we're talking about 3 or 4 dimensional civilizations in a universe with more dimensions. There's plenty of room for everybody.
Say you do want to contact some other world, maybe the way of doing that is something totally different than just travelling far in your own world.
Imagine curved space. 3D space can easily be curved so that when you travel far in one direction, you'll end up where you started. It might be arbitrarily big, but still limited. That's what you see, for example, with a sphere. 2D Flatlanders could live on the surface of a sphere, and if they go far enough in one direction, they come back to where they started, from the opposite direction. Which would seem very puzzling to them, as the world obviously is flat. But for us with a 3D vantage point, it is perfectly obvious, that their plane is curved. No big reason to not think the same applies to us. Even if we can see billions of lightyears away, the space might just curve around, and the whole universe might just be one little bubble of reality. Of which there might be many more.
That you don't see anybody else in your own little bubble says absolutely nothing about whether there is somebody else in other bubbles. But if we wanted to contact them, we'd need to do something more than just walking around in our own sandbox. We'd need to create a bridge of some kind. We'd need to come up with some construct in our reality that can interface with a construct in another reality.
If a reality is a self-contained simulation, with its own objects, rules, players, etc, then it would be natural enough that you can't just violate its rules by throwing in a alien element. Like, again, if I want to meet somebody in Second Life, I have to play by the Second Life rules. I can't walk in there in my physical body, obviously. I couldn't walk in there as a World of Warcraft avatar either. I could probably construct something similar in Second Life, and I could maybe create an interface between the two. Like, I could be wearing some kind of body suit that mapped my movements to those of the Second Life avatar I had constructed. But I have to play by the rules.
Imagine that it works in a similar fashion in our physical reality. An alien can't just walk in and play by totally different rules. If he wanted to get into our reality, he'd have to find out how to log into it, how to choose a suitable representation of himself, and how to play by the rules. And if we follow the video game metaphor, it doesn't matter what kind of absurd powers you have in real life, if you want to play in the game, your only option is to use the tools available to do so, which per definition would follow the rules that create the simulation. It doesn't matter if I'm Donald Trump and I yell at people on the phone, I simply just can't drive my car into Second Life. Oh, I can pay somebody to create a simulation of my car in Second Life, and then I can operate that with the mouse of my computer. But the real car, no.
Makes sense? So, if some extraterrestrials really want to talk to us, what would they appear as? If the rules of our simulation allowed landing spacecraft and alien blob creatures, that could work. But it wouldn't necessarily be the REAL alien creatures in their real spaceships you'll see, just like it isn't the real you I see in Second Life. And if they'd have to pick some avatar anyway, they might as well pick an avatar that we find normal. Like, uhm, regular human beings who drive in cars and eat cheerios and go to work. That seems to be a reality we humans can understand. So, if you wanted to interact with us, you might get further with that than with trying to land a 50 mile long trans-dimensional light-craft on the White House lawn. That would get our attention alright, but it would change our civilization irretrievably at the same time, so it wouldn't be a very gentle way of communicating. So, maybe better being a human, driving a car. Or you might try some more artistic, surreal stuff, like crop circles. Or maybe a few scattered appearances of strange flying craft, to gauge our response, but always making sure they only appear on really fuzzy pictures, and only seen at a distance by groups of not too reliable witnesses.
So, I'm saying that just because aliens exist, it doesn't mean they sort of randomly come by on their way somewhere else. If they come by, it might be because they particularly have decided to interact with us, or to study us, and they particularly need to log in to our reality. And if they do, they'll probably read the user manual first.
What I'm touching on is a view of reality where reality is a simulation created by individual or collective worldviews. We here on this planet obviously share a certain reality, and we can interact with each other within it. But if we want to interact with drastically different realities, or beings in those realities want to interact with us, we might both need to transcend our game rules a bit, and find some common ground.
So, should we go and colonize the galaxy? Yeah, why not. But if we want to meet some other interesting people, we might have to come up with something different than just sending pieces of metal lightyears away. We might have to understand reality a little better first. [ Science | 2007-02-19 18:56 | | PermaLink ] More >
|
|
|
One of these things people send you in e-mails: Did you hear about the horses that were trapped for 3 days on a tiny piece of land in flooding wind and rain in the Netherlands?
Apparently it had the nation mesmerized, watching about 100 horses huddle against the wind and having to watch 18 of them die.
First firemen, then the Dutch army, tried to rescue them - both unsuccessfully. So 4 WOMEN on horseback rode out to the rescue.
Here's a video of it. This is such a wonderful thing to see! Yeah, it is, particularly when somebody sets it to a Vangelis soundtrack. You find it here. [ Inspiration | 2007-02-19 23:45 | | PermaLink ] More >
|
|
Saturday, February 17, 2007 | |
|
|
I have long held the view that one can gauge the sanity of a society by looking at its prevalent attitudes towards sex, and towards women and children. That is, the more repressive and controlling it is about anything that relates to sex, the more violent and perverted the society behaves.
I should note that I don't mean it in the way that crusaders for morals and family values do, but pretty much the opposite. Campaigns for 'protecting the children' are usually exactly the opposite of what they claim to be, and are intended both to take away the rights of children, and to thwart nature into a perverse religious ideal of how things are supposed to be. If the prevalent view is that 'children' are anybody under 18, and that they have no right to an opinion, and that they need to be sheltered from sex and nudity and bad words, and that male children should be circumcised, and parents need to guard the chastity of their children, and sex education should be replaced with chastity pledges, etc. - then I say we're talking about a violent and oppressive society that tends to bring people up to be equally neurotic and violent control freaks. And if the prevalent view is that bare breasts are evil, and that women have no right to choose whether they'll have a baby or not, and they have no rights to freely choose who to have sexual relations with or not, such as when prostitution is illegal, for example, or when certain kinds of sex are illegal - we're again talking about a society that tends towards violence.
In general I would expect people to be most happy and sane, individually and collectively, in countries where sex is a normal and healthy activity, and nobody's trying to stop it. Countries where people are free to say the words they like to say, where the age of consent is low, where they're free to watch porn movies, walk around naked, be sex workers, etc. Which is pretty much how it works out, as you'll find countries like Denmark and the Netherlands at the top of most studies of happiness, and towards the bottom in terms of violence.
But I hadn't seen any official studies that linked these things together. I.e. attitude towards sex related to how violent a society is. So I'm happy to run into the paper Body pleasure and the origins of violence, by James W. Prescott. It appeared in 1975 in The Bulletin of The Atomic Scientists, of all places. Thanks, Erik, for mentioning it. That is a fabulous article, and it is exactly what I'm talking about. "A neuropsychologist contends that the greatest threat to world peace comes from those nations which have the most depriving environments for their children and which are most repressive of sexual affection and female sexuality." Yes, indeed. And, as he says: As a developmental neuropsychologist I have devoted a great deal of study to the peculiar relationship between violence and pleasure. I am now convinced that the deprivation of physical sensory pleasure is the principal root cause of violence. Laboratory experiments with animals show that pleasure and violence have a reciprocal relationship, that is, the presence of one inhibits the other. A raging, violent animal will abruptly calm down when electrodes stimulate the pleasure centers of its brain. Likewise, stimulating the violence centers in the brain can terminate the animal's sensual pleasure and peaceful behavior. When the brain's pleasure circuits are 'on,' the violence circuits are 'off,' and vice versa. Among human beings, a pleasure-prone personality rarely displays violence or aggressive behaviors, and a violent personality has little ability to tolerate, experience, or enjoy sensuously pleasing activities. As either violence or pleasure goes up, the other goes down. It shouldn't be such a big surprise. Seems kind of obvious. Deprive people of pleasure, and violence increases. Because pleasure is an awfully important thing. It is not everything, but to a large degree our lives is a quest for pleasure, in all its senses. Meaning, we're trying to do good, feel good, arrange things in the best possible way, be happy and fulfilled. And pleasure is nature's way of saying you're doing the right thing. And pain it its way of saying that you aren't. And violence is in principle what one might resort to when one is stopped from pursuing one's path of happiness.
Now, as to children:The reciprocal relationship of pleasure and violence is highly significant because certain sensory experiences during the formative periods of development will create a neuropsychological predisposition for either violence-seeking or pleasure-seeking behaviors later in life. I am convinced that various abnormal social and emotional behaviors resulting from what psychologists call 'maternal-social' deprivation, that is, a lack of tender, loving care, are caused by a unique type of sensory deprivation, somatosensory deprivation. Derived from the Greek word for 'body,' the term refers to the sensations of touch and body movement which differ from the senses of light, hearing, smell and taste. I believe that the deprivation of body touch, contact, and movement are the basic causes of a number of emotional disturbances which include depressive and autistic behaviors, hyperactivity, sexual aberration, drug abuse, violence, and aggression. Now think about the many religious people who think that the Bible tells them that they're supposed to beat their children, and it is good for them. I have too many times accidentally turned on the TV in the US on some evangelic channel and seen a mother with tears in her eyes describe how she's doing her Christian duty by spanking her child, even though she thinks it is hard, and the preacher telling her to keep going, as she's doing the right thing. OK, maybe I've only seen that 3 or 4 times, but that was 3 or 4 times too much. There's no excuse for violence against children. And those would be the same parents who now would drag their children to chastity camps, filling their little heads with strange, perverted ideas. Certain variables which reflect physical affection (such as fondling, caressing, and playing with infants) were related to other variables which measure crime and violence (frequency of theft, killing, etc.). The important relationships are displayed in the tables. The percent figures reflect the relationships among the variables, for example, high affection/low violence plus low affection/high violence. This procedure is followed for all tables.
Societies ranking high or low on the Infant Physical Affection Scale were examined for degree of violence. The results (Table 1) clearly indicated that those societies which give their infants the greatest amount of physical affection were characterized by low theft, low infant physical pain, low religious activity, and negligible or absent killing, mutilating, or torturing of the enemy. These data directly confirm that the deprivation of body pleasure during infancy is significantly linked to a high rate of crime and violence.
Some societies physically punish their infants as a matter of discipline, while others do not. We can determine whether this punishment reflects a general concern for the infant's welfare by matching it against child nurturant care. The results (Table 2) indicate that societies which inflict pain and discomfort upon their infants tend to neglect them as well. These data provide no support for the prescription from Proverbs (23: 13-14): "Withhold not chastisement from a boy; if you beat him with the rod, he will not die. Beat him with the rod, and you will save him from the nether world." He follows up with some charts categorizing different societies as to how high or low physical affection towards infants relate to high or low degrees of physical violence amongst adults. Which makes a pretty clear case for the correlation. There are other factors, like, the beneficial effects of high infant physical affection can be negated by the repression of physical pleasure (premarital sex) later in life. And vice versa, low infant physical affection would be counteracted by liberal attitudes towards physical pleasure later in life.
And, as to premarital or extramarital sex: I also examined the influence of extramarital sex taboos upon crime and violence. The data clearly indicates that punitive-repressive attitudes toward extramarital sex are also linked with physical violence, personal crime, and the practice of slavery. Societies which value monogamy emphasize military glory and worship aggressive gods.
These cross-cultural data support the view of psychologists and sociologists who feel that sexual and psychological needs not being fulfilled within a marriage should be met outside of it, without destroying the primacy of the marriage relationship.
Premarital sexual freedom for young people can help reduce violence in a society, and the physical pleasure that youth obtains from sex can offset a lack of physical affection during infancy. Other research also indicates that societies which punish premarital sex are likely to engage in wife purchasing, to worship a high god in human morality, and to practice slavery. Lots of other aspects in this. Like, rape. It is my belief that rape has its origins in the deprivation of physical affection in parent-child relationships and adult sexual relationships; and in a religious value system that considers pain and body deprivation moral and physical pleasure immoral. Rape maintains man's dominance over woman and supports the perpetuation of patriarchal values in our society. And notice the way many young men, in the U.S. particularly, talk about women. You know, "whores" and "bitches". I have certainly done no scientific study, but I find it shocking how many male teenagers have a rape-oriented attitude towards women. That they're just worthless whores who're asking for it. Many men can't talk about attractive women without including a putdown. And this sort of strange dynamic of desiring something that you at the same time are putting down, or that you hate, that's not a healthy thing. That's where, at the ultimately end of the scale, you find serial killers who kill prostitutes, because they're ashamed of themselves, and, almost invariably, because they were mistreated as children by strict, typically religious parents.
So, any positive place this can go? If we accept the theory that the lack of sufficient somatosensory pleasure is a principal cause of violence, we can work toward promoting pleasure and encouraging affectionate interpersonal relationships as a means of combatting aggression. We should give high priority to body pleasure in the context of meaningful human relationships. Such body pleasure is very different from promiscuity, which reflects a basic inability to experience pleasure. If a sexual relationship is not pleasurable, the individual looks for another partner. A continuing failure to find sexual satisfaction leads to a continuing search for new partners, that is, to promiscuous behavior. Affectionately shared physical pleasure, on the other hand, tends to stabilize a relationship and eliminate the search. However, a variety of sexual experiences seems to be normal in cultures which permit its expression, and this may be important for optimizing pleasure and affection in sexual relationships.
Available data clearly indicate that the rigid values of monogamy, chastity, and virginity help produce physical violence. The denial of female sexuality must give way to an acceptance and respect for it, and men must share with women the responsibility for giving affection and care to infants and children. As the father assumes a more equal role with the mother in child-rearing and becomes more affectionate toward his children, certain changes must follow in our socioeconomic system. A corporate structure which tends to separate either parent from the family by travel, extended meetings, or overtime work weakens the parent-child relationship and harms family stability. To develop a peaceful society, we must put more emphasis on human relationships. Yep, but there would be a long way to go for certain societies. Like, well, the United States, and most of the Middle East, the most violent and aggressive countries you can find.
But it's a long way, and there isn't necessarily signs of progress. Just today, this news item. The superior court in Alabama has upheld the ban on sex toys. That is, it is illegal to sell vibrators, becaues it is considered obscene to suggest that people might pleasure themselves. But semi-automatic assault riffles, and plenty of ammo, you can of course find that in plenty of local stores. [ Culture | 2007-02-17 00:30 | | PermaLink ] More >
|
|
Friday, February 16, 2007 | |
|
|
This is the "We are the New Civilization" manifesto translated into Turkish. Thanks Zeyneb!Biz buradayız.
Biz şimdi, daha büyük bir rüyayı düşlemek için, geçmişimizden uyanıyoruz.
Bizler arkadaşız ve eşitiz, bizler çok çeşitliyiz ve özgünüz, ve bizler aramızdaki farklılıklardan çok daha büyük bir şey için birleşiyoruz.
Biz özgürlüğe ve işbirliğine, bolluğa ve uyuma inanıyoruz.
Biz yeni ortaya çıkmakta olan bir kültürüz, insanlığın özünün yeniden doğuşuyuz.
Biz kendi kendimizin rehberleriyiz ve kendi doğrularımızı kendimiz saptarız.
Biz çeşitli yönlerde ilerleriz ama yine de ayrılmayı kabul etmeyiz.
Bizim birçok adımız var, biz birçok dilde konuşuruz.
Biz yöreseliz, biz küreseliz.
Biz dünyanın her bölgesindeyiz, biz havanın her zerresindeyiz.
Biz kendinin farkında olan evreniz, biz evrim dalgasıyız.
Biz her çocuğun gözlerindeyiz, bilinmeyeni hayret ve heyecanla karşılarız.
Biz bugünde yaşayan, geleceğin habercileriyiz.
Biz sessizlikten geliriz ve biz kendi doğrumuzu dile getiririz.
Susturulamayız çünkü bizim sesimiz herkesin içindedir.
Bizim düşmanlarımız yoktur, sınırlar bizleri ayırmaz.
Biz doğanın döngülerine ve kendini ifade edişine saygı duyarız, çünkü biz doğayız
Biz kazanmak için oynamayız, biz yaşamak ve öğrenmek için oynarız.
Bizim davranışlarımızın özünde ilham, sevgi ve kendine karşı dürüst olmak vardır.
Biz araştırırız, biz keşfederiz, biz hissederiz ve biz güleriz.
Biz herkese uyan bir dünya inşa ediyoruz.
Biz hayatı tüm potansiyelimizi ortaya koyacak şekilde yaşamaya gayret ediyoruz.
Biz bağımsızız, kendine yeteniz ve sorumluluk sahibiyiz.
Biz birbirimizle barış içinde, anlayış ve saygı temelinde ilişki kurarız, bir toplum olarak bütünleşiriz.
Biz hepimizin içinde olan ve hepimizi çevreleyen bütünlüğü kutlarız.
Biz yaratılışın ritmi ile dans ederiz.
Biz yeni zamanın ipliklerini dokuruz.
Biz yeni uygarlığız That brings us to, let me see, 16 languages. But there are many more, so anybody who feels like translating it into some of the missing languages would be very welcome.
I also notice that the characters in some of them have gotten messed up a bit along the way. Nowadays one can show all character sets with UTF-8, but originally it was done in different ways and was a lot more dicey. So, if somebody who speaks one of these languages can help me out a bit and catch things that are off, that would be great. Like Croatian. Some of the characters have gotten garbled, and I unfortunately no longer remember who provided it originally. And the Hebrew version is a graphic, because of the difficulty in the past in making that visible. If somebody could type that up a regular Hebrew text, that would be nice.
Oh, and I just coincidentally noticed that the site Humanitas International has "We are the New Civilization" in all the translations scrolling by on their home page. Cool. [ NCN | 2007-02-16 19:45 | | PermaLink ] More >
|
|
|
One of the main sites on my server is the New Civilization Network. NCN is a community site that has existed since 1995. The site itself is sorely in need of a modernisation, and the group dynamics amongst members doesn't always work great. But, nevertheless, in the longterm view, this has been a very important site, and something still works, the site still has a reason to be, and it serves as home for quite a number of people.
In principle I'm very happy to support the existence of a network like that in terms of server space, and not just because I created it. But I sometimes forget that there are costs involved in running a server, and I tend to not get around to asking for contributions, even when they are needed, and when people wouldn't mind giving them.
So, this is basically a reminder that donations for server costs are very welcome. For NCN members, there's a link on the start page in the member area. For others, PayPal donations to ffunch -at- worldtrans.org are always welcome.
Server costs for this one server are around $100 per month. There are other non-profit activities on the same server. There isn't really much else. You'll find sites such as the International Society for the Systems Sciences, Art of Living, Spirit Rising, OneWorld Flag, We need a dream, Inside Universe, and others. Some of them pay me occasionally for providing server space, but it is basically a gift economy. Meaning, I don't really ask for anything, but I welcome donations.
As to NCN, it doesn't really have an enormous amount of traffic. But I think a lot of people would be unhappy if it wasn't there. Including, of course, the couple of hundred people who have blogs here, but also other members, and many visitors. So, feel free to contribute something, if you feel like it, and you're able to. A few people do on a regular basic, but very few, like less than 5.
And, again, I hate asking for donations, and I probably wouldn't do so if a few people hadn't poked at me a little bit. [ NCN | 2007-02-16 21:57 | | PermaLink ] More >
|
|
Thursday, February 15, 2007 | |
|
|
First, a little piece about patterns, which I noticed quite randomly in an article about Ancient Chinese Sex Advice:It is a commonplace that the Han dynasty distinctions between the 100 schools of philosophy are to some extent false divisions forced on a much more complex history. Lewis takes this further and tries to uncover what the categories of thought were in Han and pre-Han China. Part of this, particularly in Writing and Authority, is the importance of patterns. There are patterns that govern the changes in the universe, human affairs and the body, and understanding and adjusting and adjusting to these patterns is what knowledge is all about. (Lewis explains all this a lot better than I do.)
One aspect of this is the sage, the person who has learned to be a master of patterns. There are lots of different aspects of this, one of which is medicine. One’s body is of course governed by the same patterns as everything else and thus being a doctor, preserving one’s health and attaining immortality through alchemy and ruling the empire all involve the same sort of knowledge. Those with a proper knowledge of patterns can avoid all sorts of nasty things and can also draw power from the universe. That sort of spoke to me. In early times, wise people were those who had integrated all kinds of knowledge, who were skilled in reducing it to simple, universal patterns. And just that idea there, that we even can find patterns in the universe that apply equally well in health, politics, physics, or whatever.
Alchemy went out of fashion at some point. Physicists a few hundred years ago, like Newton, were invariably alchemists at the same time. They were kind of inseparable subjects. Da Vinci, he found it quite natural to master art, science and medicine at the same time. If we're looking for the patterns of the universe, it is only logical that we look for the common patterns in all of this. As opposed to separating out one aspect, trying to find the rules for that, and ignoring whether it fits on anything else.
It is the difference between holistic thinking, like we associate with Eastern medicine now, and the archetypical Western approach of cutting everything into little pieces and treating them separately. Where, interestingly, the Eastern approach would tend to deal with the exact, unique individual or situation, but as a whole, and the Western approach dissects the pieces, but then treats them in a generalized abstract way, preferably without variation.
So, how about alchemy. Wikipedia has a nice page on it: In the history of science, alchemy refers to both an early form of the investigation of nature and an early philosophical and spiritual discipline, both combining elements of chemistry, metallurgy, physics, medicine, astrology, semiotics, mysticism, spiritualism, and art all as parts of one greater force. Alchemy has been practiced in Mesopotamia, Ancient Egypt, Persia, India, and China, in Classical Greece and Rome, in Muslim civilization, and then in Europe up to the 19th century—in a complex network of schools and philosophical systems spanning at least 2500 years.
Western alchemy has always been closely connected with Hermeticism, a philosophical and spiritual system that traces its roots to Hermes Trismegistus, a syncretic Egyptian-Greek deity and legendary alchemist. These two disciplines influenced the birth of Rosicrucianism, an important esoteric movement of the seventeenth century. In the course of the early modern period, mainstream alchemy evolved into modern chemistry.
Today the discipline is of interest mainly to historians of science and philosophy, and for its mystic, esoteric, and artistic aspects. Nevertheless, alchemy was one of the main precursors of modern sciences, and many substances and processes of ancient alchemy continue to be the mainstay of modern chemical and metallurgical industries. But it doesn't really leave anything that's very applicable nowadays. Are there any alchemists in any meaningful sense nowadays? I mean people who're polymaths who search for the patterns in the universe in both scientific and metaphysical ways? There was Buckminster Fuller. But it is a bit of rare thing. [ History | 2007-02-15 14:24 | | PermaLink ] More >
|
|
|
A.Sorel pointed me to his new TOE (Theory of Everything), Flucidity. I must admit, I wouldn't mind myself coming up with a simple theory that somehow explains phenomena in a great many fields, but I haven't succeeded. Sorel is not a physicist, but he goes in some detail explaining how his theory covers physics as well as economics, personal success, and just about anything else. Despite a couple of attempts, I just don't get the physics part, but looking around on the net, I notice that he gets a relatively promising welcome in physics forums. But as a life tool, I can certainly evaluate it, and it checks out quite well. It is represented in this little diagram there, with these components:
Representation | examples of representation include: names, symbols, dates, photos, models, souveniers and keepsakes, portfolio assets, people
This element signifies your intent and attracts potential energy. It is the primary expression of potential energy.
Without representation, there is no potential energy. | Potential Energy | examples of potential energy include: trust, emotions, fuel or energy, capital, incentives, or anything used for its capacity or space
This element is a representation without structure and one that does not interact. | Measurement and Structure | examples include: definitions, rules, guidelines, hierarchy, structure, reasoning, framework, linear order, particles
This element clarifies your intent and focuses potential energy. | Interaction and Association | examples include: conversation, sitting, playing, being in a relationship, competing, walking, chaos, waves, gravity, perception & consciousness
This element is the way in which potential energy is expressed. Interaction is caused by more massive energies attracting less massive energies, while less massive energies are repelling the more massive energies. |
This approach brings to mind the Law of Attraction, but this is more structured. Let's say there's something you'd like to happen, like, you want to live in a certain type of house. You'd start by making or finding a representation of it, which could be a drawing of it, or a photo, or a magazine. Then you create some structure around it, like, for example, you set up a game for yourself, of going to the kind of neighborhood you'd like to live in once per week, and you set up some rules, which might be completely arbitrary, like that you'll talk with exactly 3 different people in that neighborhood when you go visiting. That sets the stage for interactions, obviously. And all of that creates potential energy, building up some kind of momentum in the direction of your goal. It might bring you closer, and you end up in a new situation, where you might choose a new (better) representation, and go from there, in the same manner.
That works, and that's a pretty neat way of structuring it. Picking a representation of what one desires is a well-known tool. Putting a picture of your dream house on your refrigerator door, etc. But putting some structure and some rules around it quickly makes it more real. It has the advantage that one can make it arbitrarily easy, so one doesn't have to get lost in the great difficulty in doing what one wants. One does something more simple around the representation, which creates progress, but which also distracts from worrying about obstacles. The representation and the rules set up a potential. Inevitably one will interact with someone or something in carrying them out, which leads to new opportunities, which only can get one closer to one's aim.
So, A+ as a tool for materializing what one wants. Beyond that it makes my head spin if I try to grasp how that applies to physics, or how I can predict anything tangible with it. So, I'll leave it at that for now. [ Patterns | 2007-02-15 14:31 | | PermaLink ] More >
|
|
Wednesday, February 14, 2007 | |
|
|
Interesting question. Article from AlterNet. A Texas utility company called TXU plans on building 11 new coal-fired powerplants in the US, to the tune of 11 billion dollars. That will be the biggest investment in advancing global warming ever. And who's raising the money? Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley and Citigroup are. Dirty money, you could say. [ News | 2007-02-14 23:43 | | PermaLink ] More >
|
|
|
Wall Street Journal: Prizes for Solutions to Problems Play Valuable Role in Innovation. The outfit that gave $10 million in 2004 to the first team to build and fly a spacecraft capable of carrying three people into space twice within two weeks has morphed into the X-Prize Foundation. With the backing of a Canadian diamond-mining magnate, it's now offering $10 million to the first team that can build and demonstrate a device to sequence 100 human genomes within 10 days or less (visit the contest site). The Rockefeller Foundation also is getting into the act to help solve science and technology problems faced by the poor.
"'Prize philanthropy' is useful for breaking a bottleneck where government bureaucracy and markets are stuck," says Thomas Vander Ark, who recently left conventional philanthropy at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to run the X-Prize Foundation. While Gates and similar foundations "push" money on people to solve problems or meet social needs, he says, prizes "pull" people to problems.
Such prizes, newly popular and possible in an age of instant, cheap global communication, have a venerable history. In 1714, Britain offered £20,000 (roughly equivalent to £2.5 million, or $5 million, today) for a way for mariners to determine their longitude. Sir Isaac Newton was convinced the solution lay in astronomy. He was wrong: John Harrison, a working-class joiner with little formal education, built a clock that did the job. In 1919, hotel owner Raymond Orteig offered $25,000 for the first nonstop flight between New York and Paris. Eight years later, Charles Lindbergh won. Interesting that it obviously isn't the actual money that does the trick. It cost more than $10 million to win the X-Price. Rather, it is the game that motivates. Rewards sometimes accomplish much more than investments could. [ Culture | 2007-02-14 23:48 | | PermaLink ] More >
|
|
|
NY Times. The Princeton ESP lab is closing after 28 years. Not because it didn't get any results or because it was discredited. Their experiments have continously shown that people can get better than random results with telepathy and telekinesis. Nothing earth-shattering, just consistently slightly better results than randomness. But they've also consistently been ridiculed by fundamentalist materialist scientists who'd rather sweep that kind of stuff under the carpet.“For 28 years, we’ve done what we wanted to do, and there’s no reason to stay and generate more of the same data,” said the laboratory’s founder, Robert G. Jahn, 76, former dean of Princeton’s engineering school and an emeritus professor. “If people don’t believe us after all the results we’ve produced, then they never will.” Yeah, that's a little sad, of course. But maybe someday science can be released from the clutches of Science-as-a-Religion, and the scientific method can be applied to other domains than what the prevalent group-think dictates. [ Science | 2007-02-14 23:59 | | PermaLink ] More >
|
|
<< Newer stories Page: 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 ... 97 Older stories >> |
|
This is a collage of things that catch my eye, things that need to be said, and stuff I really care about
TRUTH BEAUTY FREEDOM LOVE TECHNOLOGY
|
Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat | Sun |
|
|
|
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
|
|