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:
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Co-intelligence Institute
Free Expression Network
Collective Intelligence
Action without borders
Manufacturing Dissent
Explorers Foundation
Disclosure Project
ThoughtsOnThinking
Forbidden Science
Emergent by Design
Greater Democracy
Global Ideas Bank
Independent Media
Space Collective
Friendly Favors
Escape Velocity
Disinformation
Collective Web
WorldChanging
YES Magazine
Disinfopedia
NotThisBody
MetaFilter
Webcamorama
BoingBoing
Smart Mobs
Do No Harm
Imaginify
FutureHi
Openworld
Nanodot
HeadMap
Rhizome
Absara
Edge
Junto
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:
01:04
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, May 6, 2005 | |
|
|
Reboot 7, June 10-11 in Copenhagen. I'll have to be there, of course. A conference for techie visionaries, and there will be some big ones there. Doc Searls, David Weinberger, Cory Doctorow, Robert Scoble - that kind of people. reboot is the european meetup for the practical visionaries who are building tomorrow one little step at a time, using new models for creation and organization—in a world where the only entry barrier is passion. reboot is two days in june filled with inspiration, perspective, good conversations and interesting people. [ News | 2005-05-06 20:06 | 0 comments | PermaLink ]
|
|
Wednesday, April 27, 2005 | |
|
|
Damn, I missed that it was today. The maiden flight of the Airbus A380. It took off from Toulouse Blagnac airport at 10:29 this morning. And apparently landed again. And I was asleep and didn't notice a thing. I could just have walked outside and seen it, I'm sure, as we live not far away and most planes into Blagnac fly over here. Anyway, this one weighed 421 tonnes at takeoff, the biggest and heaviest civilian plane that has ever flown. [ Diary | 2005-04-27 16:15 | | PermaLink ] More >
|
|
Monday, April 25, 2005 | |
|
|
This is about as inspiring as it gets. It is a famous story, but I hadn't read it before. About a quiet man who spent his days planting trees in the mountains, ending up revitalizing a whole region. Having arrived at the place he had been heading for, he begin to pound his iron rod into the ground. This made a hole in which he placed an acorn, whereupon he covered over the hole again. He was planting oak trees. I asked him if the land belonged to him. He answered no. Did he know whose land it was? He did not know. He supposed that it was communal land, or perhaps it belonged to someone who did not care about it. He himself did not care to know who the owners were. In this way he planted his one hundred acorns with great care.
After the noon meal, he began once more to pick over his acorns. I must have put enough insistence into my questions, because he answered them. For three years now he had been planting trees in this solitary way. He had planted one hundred thousand. Of these one hundred thousand, twenty thousand had come up. He counted on losing another half of them to rodents and to everything else that is unpredictable in the designs of Providence. That left ten thousand oaks that would grow in this place where before there was nothing. The full text is below in the More link, or you can find it here. It is translated from French, and you find the French version here. It is in the public domain, so you can copy it as much as you want. [ Inspiration | 2005-04-25 13:47 | | PermaLink ] More >
|
|
Tuesday, April 19, 2005 | |
|
|
In 1985 Bob Black wrote a brilliant essay called "The Abolition of Work". A monumentally brilliant manifesto, in my opinion. Suggesting, as it says, that we abolish work all together, and instead live playful lives. He outlines in colorful ways the tyranny of work, and the insanities we're putting up with in the name of work. And he outlines the faulty foundation the whole scheme is based on. I will include the whole essay in the "More" link as it isn't copyrighted. So just one quote here:Work makes a mockery of freedom. The official line is that we all have rights and live in a democracy. Other unfortunates who aren't free like we are have to live in police states. These victims obey orders or-else, no matter how arbitrary. The authorities keep them under regular surveillance. State bureaucrats control even the smaller details of everyday life. The officials who push them around are answerable only to higher-ups, public or private. Either way, dissent and disobedience are punished. Informers report regularly to the authorities. All this is supposed to be a very bad thing.
And so it is, although it is nothing but a description of the modern workplace. The liberals and conservatives and libertarians who lament totalitarianism are phonies and hypocrites. There is more freedom in any moderately deStalinized dictatorship than there is in the ordinary American workplace. You find the same sort of hierarchy and discipline in an office or factory as you do in a prison or monastery. In fact, as Foucault and others have shown, prisons and factories came in at about the same time, and their operators consciously borrowed from each other's control techniques. A worker is a part time slave. The boss says when to show up, when to leave, and what to do in the meantime. He tells you how much work to do and how fast. He is free to carry his control to humiliating extremes, regulating, if he feels like it, the clothes you wear or how often you go to the bathroom. With a few exceptions he can fire you for any reason, or no reason. He has you spied on by snitches and supervisors, he amasses a dossier on every employee. Talking back is called "insubordination," just as if a worker is a naughty child, and it not only gets you fired, it disqualifies you for unemployment compensation. Without necessarily endorsing it for them either, it is noteworthy that children at home and in school receive much the same treatment, justified in their case by their supposed immaturity. What does this say about their parents and teachers who work?
The demeaning system of domination I've described rules over half the waking hours of a majority of women and the vast majority of men for decades, for most of their lifespans. For certain purposes it's not too misleading to call our system democracy or capitalism or -- better still -- industrialism, but its real names are factory fascism and office oligarchy. Anybody who says these people are "free" is lying or stupid. You are what you do. If you do boring, stupid monotonous work, chances are you'll end up boring, stupid and monotonous. Work is a much better explanation for the creeping cretinization all around us than even such significant moronizing mechanisms as television and education. People who are regimented all their lives, handed off to work from school and bracketed by the family in the beginning and the nursing home at the end, are habituated to heirarchy and psychologically enslaved. Their aptitude for autonomy is so atrophied that their fear of freedom is among their few rationally grounded phobias. Their obedience training at work carries over into the families they start, thus reproducing the system in more ways than one, and into politics, culture and everything else. Once you drain the vitality from people at work, they'll likely submit to hierarchy and expertise in everything. They're used to it. He's right. However, what he is saying is ironically also so radical that few people will be able to understand it. Most people will come up with a lot of "but... but... but..."s, trying to justify why they're wasting their lives. Well, it mostly adds up to "because we have to", which is exactly what makes work be work. Because the cards are stacked in such a way that we apparently have to work in order to eat, unless we're very lucky, or very smart, so we can manage to arrange things so we don't.
As he points out, most work is useless, non-sensical, wasted. But the people who do it have a lot invested in claiming otherwise. All the stuff we need could be produced by probably less than 5% of the effort we expend at work. And that is not even getting to the cool, new, interesting, different things we could do if we actually had fun and acted playfully instead of as slaves. And how much more productive we could be, ironically.
It probably isn't going to change before somebody demonstrates that clearly enough and often enough. And it might ironically be quite likely that it will be businesses who figure out how to produce much more by being playful rather than work oriented, and who therefore will gain an advantage. [ Culture | 2005-04-19 16:06 | | PermaLink ] More >
|
|
|
The inside scoop, in case you didn't know. From a... poem, I guess, by James Tate.After a poodle dies
all the cardinals flock to the nearest 7-Eleven.
They drink Slurpies until one of them throws up
and then he's the new Pope.
He is then fully armed and rides through the wilderness alone,
day and night in all kinds of weather.
The new Pope chooses the name he will use as Pope,
like "Wild Bill" or "Buffalo Bill."
He wears red shoes with a cross embroidered on the front. [ Stories | 2005-04-19 17:31 | 0 comments | PermaLink ]
|
|
Monday, April 18, 2005 | |
|
|
CBS has a feature on the status of flying cars. I only knew about the Moller Skycar, which they mistakenly thought is a new entry. He's probably the veteran in that arena. But there are several other promising projects, apparently. Like the Air Scooter, which is vertical take-off ultralight thing. Not exactly as comfy as the Skycar, but it might happen sooner. And the CarterCopter, which is a little plane/helicopter combination, which already flies. And there's Skyblazer, but that doesn't seem to be much more than a concept. Alright, the Moller Skycar still seems to be what looks most like a flying car that actually, sort of, can fly at this point. And what we really need is anti-gravity. That would make it much easier. [ Technology | 2005-04-18 18:57 | | PermaLink ] More >
|
|
|
Participatory Culture Foundation: Announcing a new platform for internet television and video. Anyone can broadcast full-screen video to thousands of people at virtually no cost, using BitTorrent technology. Viewers get intuitive, elegant software to subscribe to channels, watch video, and organize their video library. The project is non-profit, open source, and built on open standards. Today we're announcing the project and releasing our current sourcecode. The software is launching in June. Super! [ Information | 2005-04-18 19:15 | 0 comments | PermaLink ]
|
|
|
Yahoo News: Inmates in U.S. using intermediaries to escape into Internet, about how some prison inmates succeed in getting a voice on the net, by passing messages on to others who post them on websites.
I right away get to think of my friend Bruce Lisker. And it is sad that he isn't mentioned there. Bruce is in prison for life for the murder of his mother. A very brutal murder. She was beaten with a steel bar, strangled and stabbed. In upscale Sherman Oaks, close to where I used to live. He didn't do it, though. His Dad didn't think he did it. Nobody in his family believes he did it. I don't think he did it. But he was the first person on the scene, and her blood got all over his clothes as he tried in vain to revive her, while he was waiting for the ambulance. And at the time he was a doped out 17 year old loser who indeed was hanging out with the type of people who would do such a thing. It was easy to believe he would be the guy, and a crooked cop did a sloppy investigation and covered it up. It shortly became very clear to Bruce and his Dad who actually did it, but that person has since committed suicide. And Bruce is having trouble getting his case opened up again. He's been in prison for 22 years now. He's today a decent, polite person, who writes poetry and has learned computer programming and studied the law.
I helped him put up that site. It was since taken over by somebody else and I'm no longer hosting it, and it seems to look exactly like I left it. I don't even know how to get hold of Bruce. I haven't spoken with him for several years. The inmate e-mail address, which normally would print out e-mails and send them to him, is no longer working. But I'm pretty sure he didn't go anywhere.
At the time the main way he could contact me was to make a 15 minute collect call once per week or so. Which would be interrupted every minute by a recording announcing that one is speaking with a prison inmate. Anyway, that's how he orchestrated his website, and by having documents sent to me.
It was fairly odd. In part because he had never ever been on the Internet. He studied Cobol programming in jail, but they're not allowed near anything that's on the net. So he hadn't actually seen a webpage in real life. He had read about all of it in magazines. But it is a little difficult to have a sense of it when you've never seen it. Nevertheless, it was an example of what the articles talks about. Getting some kind of voice on the net, having a website, translated from phone calls and letters and legal documents.
The fact that he isn't one of the people mentioned in an article like that, and that 60 Minutes never got around to doing a feature on him, and the fact that he's still rotting in jail, is an indication that it doesn't necessarily go anywhere, even if one gets one's place on the web. Nobody's linking to that site. Other than me, by having mentioned it here previously. The only other existence Bruce has on the net is a contact ad from inmate.com, with an e-mail address that isn't working.
It can be hard to prove one's innocence if nobody's listening. [ Information | 2005-04-18 19:50 | | PermaLink ] More >
|
|
Saturday, April 16, 2005 | |
|
|
... [ Inspiration | 2005-04-16 22:58 | | PermaLink ] More >
|
|
Friday, April 15, 2005 | |
|
|
ZabaSearch is a people search engine which is, well, a little scary. If you live in the U.S., try to put in your own name. I put in mine, and it gave most of the addresses I've lived at or used, back to 15 years ago, and phone numbers. Seems like this comes from credit records. This kind of stuff has been available all along, but usually required a fee. Stalkers really have it much too easy.
Read about the people behind it here. The journalist makes a point of digging up some dirt on them, which just serves them well. A couple of guys with a criminal record, hiding behind a mailbox center, and who used to employ a bunch of the members of Heaven's Gate. [ Information | 2005-04-15 22:17 | | PermaLink ] More >
|
|
|
National Geographic has a program where you can submit a DNA sample and be told your genetic history, where your ancestors came from and how they have migrated. That would be fun to see.
10 years ago I worked as a computer programmer for a company that did testing for organ transplants. That wasn't primarily DNA testing, but serological testing. I.e. one tests reactions between different drops of blood, and one measures against HLA, Human Leukocyte Antigens, on a section of chromosome 6, which has characteristic markings, which happen to be useful for testing tissue compatibility. Anyway, they also showed me charts like that, where the different types had been tracked over time in different parts of the world, and migratory patterns revealed. And I got a kick out of that they frequently wanted my blood, because it apparently was tricky to type, so they would use it for verifying the correctness of some of their tests. It is nice to be special. [ Science | 2005-04-15 22:17 | | PermaLink ] More >
|
|
|
Google has a new video search. Which has a lot of potential, I'm sure. But it is also a bit strange, as a lot of the videos aren't available. You can search on the closed captioning (subtitles) within a lot of programs that have been broadcast, and it will show you excerpts and snapshots along the way. But then you can't see the actual video. You'd have to go and find it and download it yourself from some file sharing network. The broadcasters really need to get smarter. Anyway, you can also upload your own videos. Apparently they'll take just about anything, of any length, and host it on their servers and index it. And that should have potential. [ Information | 2005-04-15 22:26 | 0 comments | PermaLink ]
|
|
Thursday, April 14, 2005 | |
|
|
Antony Judge writes a paper about Liberating Provocations. You know, the "rational" approach, if you want somebody to do something that is good for them, has usually been considered to be to positively promote constructive behavior. I.e. tell them why it is good for them, outline all the advantages, provide useful information, encourage them. It is just that a lot of the time that doesn't work at all. Lots of people do the opposite of what they're supposed to. So, one could go a different way altogether and do the opposite. Promote the negative behaviors. Act surreal and start a campaign for doing all the wrong things. Get the government to support them loudly.This is a two-pronged strategy. By advocating a "negative" approach, those resistant to being told how to behave would reactively consider a "positive" approach. Those scandalised by the "negative" approach, would invest their energy in "positive" campaigns -- where previously they would not have been engaged.
We are all familiar, from earliest childhood, with the response to exhortation from those occupying the moral high ground. We either ignore them or consider interesting ways of doing the opposite. If we are told not to do something, then we consider doing it. If we are encouraged to do something, we consider doing the opposite. The point is made by Zoe Williams (Cannabis Comedown, The Guardian, 29 March 2005):
"Thus, if you tell them things are dangerous, they will do them, and if you shrug and say "actually, it doesn't seem to do too much harm", they will do something else. Whole swaths of aberrant behaviour could be addressed with this in mind. Obesity, smoking, drinking, fighting, snowboarding and joyriding would all become terribly passé if the government were to become their advocates, particularly if prominent members of the government were to lead by example and take up dangerous activities in a high-profile way."
This provocative approach is designed to communicate more effectively with those already acting inappropriately or those who are passive in the face of inappropriate action. Now, I'm not even sure if I want to buy the idea that we collectively want to make people do a certain list of good things and not do a certain list of others. Although a society of course needs some kind of list of things one ought not to do. I'd want it to be very, very small, though.
What I'm more interested in, which Tony also brought up, is the angle of infinite game playing. In a finite game there's a set of rules and you're supposed to follow those rules to win, against some kind of opposition. In an infinite game, however, you play with the boundaries and you change the rules, in order to keep playing. A very different thing.
Fixed rules about what you're supposed to do and not do will create a finite game. Obviously. It constrains people. And for it to be a game, different people will tend to take different sides. If some people make a finite game with the goal of making you not smoke, not use bad words, not watch porn on your computer, or whatever, well, that's a pretty dull game. The only way of making it half interesting is to play the opposing part. I don't know about you, but negative campaigns trying to tell me what to do or not to do gives me an instant compulsion to disobey. I don't always bother to follow it, but such a campaign obviously is doing the exact opposite of what it tries to do.
OK, so a fixed game of compulsion or repression will quite naturally and automatically motivate a lot of people to do their best to do something else. It suddenly becomes important, and somewhat interesting. The opposite-game is limited too, but not quite as limited as doing what you're told.
Limited games tend to make people do things they wouldn't do otherwise. Maybe do what you're supposed to, maybe follow the rules, or maybe what you're not supposed to do, specifically disobeying the rules. Which you might not bother to do that way if those particular rules weren't there.
Unnecessarily limited rules can be harmful. I'd say that anti-smoking campaigns is probably one of the biggest killers is our society, probably responsible for millions of unnecessary deaths and many more millions living miserable neurotic lives. Because they present a very limited game. Either you do what we say or you die. Not much fun in it either way. There's hardly even two factions in it.
Having a choice is fun. And if you feel free to make your own choices, changing the rules as you go along, you're probably playing an infinite game. The playing of infinite games defuse the power of a finite game. Which was an illusion in the first place, but one might not notice before one changes the rules.
Carrying out unexpected paradoxical strategies might work, not just because people will do the opposite of what they're told, but because they give a hint of the joys of freedom of choice. It shows you that you don't have to do what you're told. You're free to not smoke, regardless of whether the government unwittingly spends a lot of effort on compelling you to do so, or not to do so. Which is roughly the same thing.
The thing is that most people are quite capable at choosing the best option that is available, or a new option that previously wasn't available, IF they're not being held stuck in some kind of fixed for or against situation. Not surprisingly, most people will choose what they feel good about, if they have the choice. Or, rather, if they have ALL the choices. Because there are a lot more choices then two in life.
That all seems very paradoxical to people who try to rule other people and condition them to do the right thing. That people are more likely to do the right thing if you don't force them, but rather allow them to move the rules around. And, for that matter, you have no business thinking you know what the right thing is for everybody. What people want is to have fun playing the game of life, and playing it as long and as well as possible, and they probably don't really want your stupid little game of following a rule that's known in advance.
Oh, I probably went off on a tangent. Tony's article is superb and gives lots of good examples of provocative and surreal and perverse strategies and pranks that have worked well. Some very amusing ones, like the Cannibal Flesh Donor program, pornocracy, horses running for public office, etc. Humor is great, because it breaks the rules, at least a little bit. It makes people pause and see things a little differently. And that is what is needed. Not being for or against. Life is too short and too big to only use it for playing two-bit games. We need to keep evolving, in millions of different directions at the same time, if we at all are to have a chance. Good paradoxes have much more generative power than clearly stated goals that are handed to you. [ Knowledge | 2005-04-14 23:59 | | PermaLink ] More >
|
|
Wednesday, April 13, 2005 | |
|
|
Various experiments have been done to try to figure out how people value things and make decisions. Psychologist Max Bazerman says that during the past ten years he has earned more than $17,000 by auctioning $20 bills to his MBA students at Northwestern University. In the course of almost two hundred of his actions, the top two bids never totaled less than $39, and in one instance totaled $407.
Now, that's when it is very clear what you get for your money. A 20 dollar bill. Logic should dictate that no reasonable person would bid more than $20 for what obviously is a $20 value. But all sorts of other factors might enter into the calculation. The fun and excitement of the bidding, the prestige of being the winner, the expectation that there might be some kind of valuable hidden bonus, etc.
A similar, but somewhat more complex type of auction would be if you're not entirely sure of the value you're betting on. If, say, it is a glass jar full of coins, which you aren't allowed to count. If people make blind bids written down on paper, the average bid will tend to be less than the actual value, as most people are trying to avoid the obvious risk. But some people will over-estimate the actual value, so the winner of the auction would typically be somebody who ends up paying more than the actual value.
And then there's the particularly sneaky variant, the Entrapment Gam. Let's say that everybody who bids in an auction must pay the amount of their bid, whether they win or not, but you're allowed to continue over-bidding each other. People will start really low, like 0.50, as most people feel they can waste that. Bidding continues up to around $10 and pauses. Then the people who've bid $8 or $9 must decide whether they'll lose that or they'll continue. It will continue up to $20 when again there's reason for pause. One might realize that one now is likely to lose quite a bit. So maybe if one throws in a few extra dollars and wins, one will lose less, so it might be worth it. And it might go on quite a bit like that, as at each step one must evaluate whether one might avoid a loss by paying a bit more. Even if one ends up paying a lot more for the 20 dollar bill than it was worth. This was apparently the game Mr.Bazerman played with his students.
There might be surprisingly many situations in life that are similar to that scenario. Competitive sports, the making of business deals, buying a house, etc. You might have invested a certain amount of time and effort and money, and even if you know you won't get back the equivalent, you might think that just a little more would get you what you're going for and minimize the losses.
More here or here. [ Patterns | 2005-04-13 23:06 | | PermaLink ] More >
|
|
|
My DSL connection was down all day. Which is always a time where I panic about how dependent I am on being connected, and I regret that I haven't prepared any backup solutions. I could very well have things arranged so I could do a good deal of my work while I'm online, but I don't. Suddenly I realize all the stuff I'm missing. Not just that I can't communicate with people, but most of what I need isn't on my computer. And say I wanted to arrange an alternative way of getting on the net, I can't, because I'm not on the net. Like, how would I quickly find a dial-up provider if that's what I decided I needed? I'd, duh, search on the net. I'm blind.
When France Telecom finally answered the phone, after disconnecting me dozens of times, I got a dose of the bureaucratic madness I've tasted before. The lady told me they were working on the lines, so of course I was down. They're be doing that until the 29th. I needed her to repeat it several times, but she insisted, my line would be down for the next 2 and a half weeks. And, besides, I'm not even supposed to have DSL, because I'm too far from the central. That's an old story, which was a big deal when I got the line. You know, DSL providers usually have a website where you can put in your phone number and it tells you whether DSL is available to you, and at what speed. If you put in the numbers of either of my neighbors, it says, sure, you can have a high speed DSL line. If you put in my number it says, sorry, DSL is not available in your area. It took an enormous amount of hassles to get the line originally, only because I managed to find an ally who could see the crazyness in that and help me insist that of course I could have a line too. But now that's the kind of thing the service people can bring up when it suits them. You're not really supposed to have that line, you're putting too many bits through it, so if it doesn't work, it is your own fault. So, now, if you don't have DSL the next couple of weeks, tough luck, good bye.
I decided not to believe her, to keep my sanity, so instead I played with my router settings. And, somehow, switching it from "PPP over Ethernet", which it normally is set at, to "PPP over ATM" made the difference, and I got my connection again.
But it doesn't take more than 10 minutes to forget about the pain of not having the connection, and go right back to normal. Otherwise, my wife had been looking forward to that I'd clean up my desk and help her in the garden and go to sleep at normal hours for the next couple of weeks. [ Diary | 2005-04-13 23:59 | | PermaLink ] More >
|
|
|
Some clever grad students have used an automatic computer science paper generator to create a gibberish paper, which they've gotten submitted to a conference. They now plan on randomly generating a gibberish speech which they can go and deliver there.
Now, I generally think such pranks are hilarious, and very useful in blowing the cover of people who take themselves too damned seriously, but who accept things that look and sound right, but which aren't. I remember examples like a comedian succeeding in passing himself off as a doctor and giving a speech at a medical conference, saying nothing but gibberish, and nobody noticed. And there are those guys who made a fake WTO website and managed to be invited to conferences where they created quite a havoc.
And, hey, that paper is pretty damn good. I don't understand a word of it, even though I understand most of the words. But it kind of sounds like it is saying something, and it is kind of a lively read. There are a few akward sentences that might give it away, but they're well hidden. I don't know what kind of expert one has to be to catch that this isn't real, as it isn't entirely clear what it is talking about in the first place. And that is probably one of the factors that let's things like that slip through. Lots of people are experts in a particular field, but not in many others, and they have no time to check everybody's references. So if you hear something that isn't exactly in your field, and it sounds like that kind of things should sound, you think it is real.
But now I notice that their agenda actually is to put down a certain type of conference which they regard as fake, because they accept papers that aren't reviewed. Which, for that matter, it says clearly on their website, so it isn't really that big a caper to succeed in submitting a paper. Anyway now I notice, somewhat to my horror, that the conference they would like to embarrass is the Multi-Conference on Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics. Which I don't know, so I can't make any statement about whether it really just is fake conference for money making purposes as they say, but I notice that I know some of the affiliated organizations and a number of the people listed as advisory board members, so I would guess it is what it says it is.
Systems thinking is probably a field that some hardcore scientific types would love to debunk. And they might feel they have an easy time at it in a multi-disciplinary setting where organizers are trying to be open to different types of views, and where it isn't a criterion that everything you say has to be proven years ago. For that matter, systems thinking doesn't necessarily go well with the approach of taking things apart into their components and analyzing them and proving them and peer reviewing them. And it is full of angles and possibilities that easily can be ridiculed by materialist folks who'd like such things to not exist. The Gaia Theory, morphogenetic fields, implicate order, synergetics - there'd be plenty of folks who'd find all of that to be utter nonsense. Evolution would be in the same category if it didn't happen to be juxtaposed with creationism.
One of the items listed from the hoaxers' site is the wellknown "Sokal Hoax". Which was a physicist who wrote a paper he meant to be utter nonsense, and got submitted to some prestigious scientific journal, based on his own considerable reputation, in order to then embarrass them. Except for that his article is pretty good, and not as utterly nonsensical as he pretends. But it refers to a bunch of these things that the author considers new age nonsense, like morphogenetic fields. So he considered that anybody who'd accept that he'd write about such things and not be up in arms about it would be a complete idiot and worthless academic.
Which reminds me of a caper that "Amazing" Randi did once. He's a stage magician who's a wellknown materialist "sceptic" who tries hard to disprove that anything supernatural exists. Often by the approach that if he can make some kind of magic trick or hoax that does the same thing as what somebody says they can do, they were obviously frauds too. Anyway, he had gotten an ally to pose as a channeler at some kind of new age expo. The guy put on a show of going into a trance and delivering some very general mumbo jumbo about the world changing and spiritual influences. And the audience seemed quite happy with it all, which was taken as a success by Randi, in showing that they're all gullible idiots. Anyway, the joke about it is that after Randi's ally triumphantly announced on the stage a little later that it was a hoax and he was just faking it, nobody really minded. The audience thought it was fun too, and they thought the channeling had been pretty good, whether he thought he faked it or not. Because it really didn't matter at all, unless you had some kind of point to prove. The result mattered.
So, in case that conference there is really for people who're into systems thinking and informatics, I think they might actually enjoy and appreciate the joke of somebody delivering a randomly generated paper and a speech. It certainly is a good comment on how human systems work. The ways in which false information often is accepted provides some insights into how systems work.
Better targets might be the types of folks who really take themselves too seriously, and who would freak out and be greatly embarrassed by being hoaxed like that. [ Information | 2005-04-13 23:59 | | PermaLink ] More >
|
|
Thursday, April 7, 2005 | |
|
|
The formerly very isolated kingdom of Bhutan is working on a new constitution. The draft is rather beautiful. It starts out like this:WE, the people of Bhutan:
BLESSED with the luminous benedictions of the Triple Gem, the protection of our guardian deities, the wisdom of our leaders, the everlasting fortunes of the Pelden Drukpa and the command of His Majesty the Druk Gyalpo, Jigme Singye Wangchuck;
SOLEMNLY pledging ourselves to strengthen the sovereignty of Bhutan, to secure the blessings of Liberty, to ensure Justice and Tranquility and to enhance the unity, happiness and well-being of the people for all time; And it goes on to outline a society with freedom of speech and movement, and democracy, equality, peace, social security, free healthcare and education, free access to information, etc. Quite unique, I'm sure, is the repeated reference to happiness. Like:The State shall strive to promote those circumstances that will enable the successful pursuit of Gross National Happiness. I'd vote for that.
The only strange thing about he site, other than that it uses language like "luminous benedictions of the Triple Gem", which I'm not sure what exactly means, is how the people who wrote it seem very worried about copyrights. The draft constitution is copyrighted and all rights reserved by the drafting committee. And they've gone to some length to make it difficult to examine the source of the webpages or to copy the text or the pictures. Which doesn't seem to quite go together with the spirit of that constitution. [ Inspiration | 2005-04-07 12:49 | | PermaLink ] More >
|
|
|
Very nice set of notes at WorldChanging about a speech Bruce Sterling and Alex Steffen gave at the SXSW conference a few weeks ago, where they ran through a bunch of big global problems and possible sustainable and technological solutions to them. A few of the concepts discussed:
- Protocrats: Who will be creating a sustainable future, and what will we call them? "There's an electronic conjulation of smaller groups that are living in one another's laps, trading info across institutional boundaries, move things fast and punting developments into mass consumption," Bruce said. He calls these people "protocrats" - green designer/instantiators ahead of the curve on developing new technologies, pushing them beyond labs and into mass development.
- Alex introduced a range of concepts that will be familiar to WC readers, but were new to much of the SXSW audience, including ecological footprinting; urban design and green megacities; and the sharing of objects and resources, known as product- service systems.
- Bruce looked at three approaches to making objects sustainable:
1. Neobiology and biomimetics: when you lose it, it rots.
2. Build monuments for the ages. Abandon fashion. It'll be artsy and craftsy, roughhewn and honest - but you don't get to change your mind about it.
3. Label everything in the environment and digitally track it. Give everything a unique identity, and make the bar code searchable. Track it throughout its lifetime, from manufacture to disassembly and material recovery. When it breaks, push a button and somebody picks it up. This is the Internet of Things. It would require plenty of bandwidth, tracking, extensive databases, and (of course) a remake of the entire social, legal, and economic system, "which happens all the time". - Leapfrogging: Under certain conditions, people who are technologically underdeveloped might skip a stage and jump to the next, newer technology (see Jamais' "Leapfrogging 101").
- Treefrogging: The emergence of bright green solutions for personal use, as outlined by WC allies Metaefficient and Treehugger. Distinct from LOHAS-type alternatives (Lifestyles of Health and Sustainability, as typified by Whole Foods, or Natural Home Magazine), this is the creation and distribution of new design concepts. As with the Solar Backpack concept that Bruce test-drove for Treehugger, good ideas can now be picked up and produced on demand. "Throw it over the side to the piranhas of bloggerland!"
- Monitoring: In cities: for checking emissions, controlling traffic on highways. Don't expect drivers to do all the navigation. In the human body: monitoring bioaccumulation of lead, or jet fuel, in your cells. "What if the shower told you that you've got a suspiciously large amount of jet fuel in your body today? You'd wonder who the hell spilled the jet fuel." Of objects: material composition, location, off-gassing, pollution; the double-edged sword of RFID tagging and tracking of objects.
[ Information | 2005-04-07 13:17 | | PermaLink ] More >
|
|
|
"The World" is a group of 300 artificial islands constructed off the coast of Dubai, shaped to look like a map of the world when seen from above. The development covers an area 9km by 6km and there's 50-100 meters between islands. Connected with water taxis, patrolled by a Beverly Hills type police force. The islands are for sale for private estate homes, resorts, golf courses, or whatever you might have in mind. Your imagination is the limit. Well, that's what so bizarre. It seems so very virtual. Just like buying an island in some online virtual world. You want a fairy tale castle, a rain forest - go ahead. The main difference is that the cheapest island here is around $7 million, and that's without the cost of whatever it is you might imagine. [ Culture | 2005-04-07 13:44 | | PermaLink ] More >
|
|
<< Newer stories Page: 1 ... 21 22 23 24 25 ... 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 |
|
|