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 14, 2004 | |
|
|
So, I spent a couple of days in London, having some productive meetings and going to a blogger evening initiated by Loic Le Meur. Many good people there. Not a particularly good venue, as it was very noisy with so many people in a small bar and hard to hear what everybody was saying. And difficult to get to know fifty people, even if they all have blogs. But a good thing, nevertheless, and good to meet some new or old friends. See some pictures here or here. [ Diary | 2004-05-14 16:28 | | PermaLink ] More >
|
|
|
Today the Danish Crown Prince Frederik got married to Australian Mary Donaldson. Or, rather, from now on she is Crown Princess Mary.
Of course, nowadays monarchy is sort of old fashioned, royalty has no real power, and it is in danger of being completely irrelevant. But Denmark is not only the oldest kingdom in continous existence, the royals also happen to be unusually popular and well fitting their jobs. Queen Margrethe II is smart, articulate and artistic. She paints and designs stamps and costumes for theatre performances. She can sometimes be found walking around town like an almost normal person, even while much of her life is occupied with stiff public ceremonies.
Little of the kind of dirt and scandals that plague royalty elsewhere is found in Denmark. They're just a mostly positive and harmless focal point. The two sons of Queen Margrethe and Prince Henrik (who's French), Frederik and Joachim, are extremely well educated and enthusiastic representatives for their country. Joachim is married to Princess Alexandra who's from Hong Kong. And now Frederik finally got around to finding the right person. Which is no easy task when all the interests of the country and the monarchy need to be weighed against each other. Some royals decide to just go their own way, whatever public opinion thinks about it. But in Denmark they take it very seriously. Meaning that even though they no longer have to marry only members of the aristocracy, they still have to choose well. So, even know it has been known for a long time that Frederik and Mary were an item, nothing was officially admitted before everything checked out all around. And before Mary already could speak Danish.
We were glued to the screen all day. Luckily the Danish TV2 had a splendid video feed of 225kbits/s, which was almost as good as seeing it on TV. It was an elaborate fairy tale arrangement, of course, with much pomp and circumstance, carriage rides, parades, fancy dinner, wedding waltz, etc. And they just finished the fireworks [ Information | 2004-05-14 17:12 | | PermaLink ] More >
|
|
Tuesday, May 11, 2004 | |
|
|
Seb made a list of some of his favorite visionaries. I'm honored to be on the list too, of course. But I wanted to mention Lion Kimbro. Who's kind of a crazy guy, in the good way. See this interview. One of Lion's projects was a note keeping project, where, for some months, he kept track of all his thoughts on paper. Which apparently was a huge, but useful project. Albeit not one he'd recommend doing too often."The system described in "How to Make a Complete Map..." started about a year ago, and lasted 3-6 months. It's hard to say when it started, exactly, because it just kept evolving, and it evolved out of the previous systems. So, there's no real "starting point." For about 3 months, I was tracking thoughts pretty much all the time. The last month was the most concentrated period- it was more or less constant.
What inspired it was... Well, a lot of things. The book "Getting Things Done," by David Allen. "Wiki" was in the air, though I wasn't thinking of it consciously. The whole notion of "Intelligence," - in the CIA sense- not the IQ sense- was fresh in my mind. Remember, I was running medical records for a while- it makes you think differently about information, when someone's going to die if you can't find their chart. So it's a collection of things.
Anyways: I wanted to see if I could make myself smarter, by strategically placing notes to myself.
"Intelligence, as I define it, is: Getting the right information at the right time at the right place, towards whatever end you are going for.
So, to use the "Getting Things Done" analogy: You're at home, and you realize you need to get a Philip's screwdriver. If, the next day, you're walking down the street, and you walk by a hardware store- if you don't think to get the screwdriver, that's an "Intelligence Failure." You're not getting the right information, at the right time, at the right place.
There's deeper concepts to that map- "Intelligence Process," and "Intelligence Database," and things like that. You can get into the nitty-gritty of it.
But, basically, I wanted to see if I could make myself smarter, by strategically placing notes to myself. Adopting an Intelligence Process, and carrying around an Intelligence Database." Interests me because I also really like "Getting Things Done", and I'm always looking for how to be better organized, and I might possibly also be crazy enough to come up with some kind of pervasive system like that. Anyway, Lion has a lot of energetic and smart things to say about notes and wikis. [ Knowledge | 2004-05-11 16:35 | | PermaLink ] More >
|
|
Monday, May 10, 2004 | |
|
|
From FutureHi, abstract of paper, "What is Natural Selection? A Plea for Clarification", by Neil Broom:I argue in this paper that any evolutionary theory of life that excludes from the living world a primary non-material or transcendent dimension or guiding presence, is no theory at all. The materialist's claim that natural selection supplies this evolutionary 'arrow' but is entirely material in its action, is a fundamentally dishonest claim. If there is no real purposive agenda that natural selection is pursuing then the expression "natural selection" is blatantly misleading and should be deleted from the evolutionary vocabulary. The paper is very readable and absolutely brilliantly argued, I think. He's right. Materialist neo-darwinism is a bunch of superstituous crap. Well, those are my words. It mostly consists of skipping over the evidence and bending over backwards to try to prove with mere words that life is based on a completely blind and unconscious and random process, and there's no purpose to anything. But that gets a little silly when you try to explain how things that do have a purpose come about. There are no half-eyes or half-flying animals or birds that are half laying eggs that sort of half have unborn chicks inside. Explaining how amazingly complex organs like eyes come about, or how animals end up flying through the air, all by miniscule and completely random accidents, requires arguing in circles for quite a while, until the reader sort or gives up, or decides he agrees with you. It is pretty much the same approach as in Creationism, just with the use of a sort of Anti-God, called Unconscious Randomness. Becomes just as silly as trying to explain that a God decided to create humans out of mud. Or that it is turtles all the way down. Anyway, I'm ranting. Neil Broom argues much more soberly and provides plenty of reference material.
And here, via Frank Patrick's Focused Performance Blog, is a quote from Agent(s) Smith in Matrix Reloaded: "Without purpose, we would not exist. It is purpose that created us, purpose that connects us, purpose that pulls us, that guides, that drives us. It is purpose that defines us, purpose that binds us." [ Science | 2004-05-10 15:56 | | PermaLink ] More >
|
|
|
From Adina Levin:I've wondered idly whether the naming game between adults and infants was universal, or culturally-specific. It turns out that Western children learn nouns faster than verbs "that's a ball. see, ball" and East Asian children learn verbs just as fast.
Richard Nisbett's "The Geography of Thought" includes a variety of experimental evidence showing how East Asians and Westerners think differently.
When shown pictures of a cow, a chicken, and some grass westerners are more likely to group the cow and the chicken, while East Asians are more likely to group the cow and the grass. Westerners are more likely to organize things in categories, while Asians are more likely to organize by relationship (the cow eats grass).
Westerners perceive things as objects (a bowl), easterners as substances (wood). Westerners will group a wooden bowl and a silver bowl; easterners will group a wooden bowl and a wooden spoon. Westerners more likely to group items by rule, Easterners by similarity. Westerners are more likely to attribute human behavior to essential traits, Easterners to social context.
Some of the differences covered in the book are well-known -- the individualism of the west, compared to eastern group identity. Western culture -- particularly US culture -- thrives on debate, while East Asian cultures value harmony.
The book seems naive at times -- ancient Chinese images of bucolic scenes are taken as typical of Chinese life, rather than as conventional subjects of art, produced (I don't know, but guessing) for the wealthy. The book makes broad-brush assumptions about how East Asians are content with the hierarchical structures of their societies, an assumption that's falsifiable with the barest minimal familiarity with literature.
The most compelling evidence in the book was about low-level thought constructs that one might think are universal but aren't. I've myself noticed many differences in how people focus on different things depending on what culture they come from. Like how one makes "mistakes" in other languages than one's own. The Korean yoga teacher who'll say "Touch your left shoulders". Maybe because he sees a whole bunch of shoulders in the room, whereas a westerner might expect that he'll talk to me personally. Or my Chinese co-worker who said he'd bring "noodle" to the company potluck. More than one noodle, I'm sure, but he focuses on the substance, I suppose, rather than the separate items. [ Culture | 2004-05-10 16:01 | | PermaLink ] More >
|
|
Sunday, May 9, 2004 | |
|
|
In a comment on FutureHi, Michael Anissimov mentioned a number of pervasive errors in reasoning that are common to practically all human beings. Well, I know about that kind of thinking fallacies, but I didn't know all the "official" terms. In psychological research, a number of these fallacies have been given names, and been studied in some depth.
Availability Bias
Situations in which people assess the frequency of a class or the probability of an event by the ease with which instances or occurrences can be brought to mind.
People inadvertently assume that readily-available instances, examples or images represent unbiased estimates of statistical probabilities.
E.g. if you've mainly been around a certain type of people, you easily get to believe they represent a typical cross-section of the population. At least, your estimates of various characteristics and beliefs will be biased towards the profile of the people you know. "To a hammer, everything is a nail".
Conjunction Fallacy
When two events can occur separately or together, the conjunction, where they overlap, cannot be more likely than the likelihood of either of the two individual events. However, people forget this and ascribe a higher likelihood to combination events, erroneously associating quantity of events with quantity of probability.
Here's an example:
Bill is 34 years old. He is intelligent, but unimaginative, compulsive and generally lifeless. In school, he was strong in mathematics but weak in social studies and humanities.
Which statement is more probable:
A. Bill is an accountant that plays jazz for a hobby, or
B. Bill plays jazz for a hobby?
92% of people in a survey answered A. Which is completely wrong. See answer
Wason selection task
Research has shown that people find it very difficult to decide what information is necessary in order to test the truth of an abstract logical reasoning problem. The Wason Selection Task is often used to examine this issue.
A typical experiment using the Wason Selection Task will present some rule, and ask subjects to see if the rule is being violated. Consider the rule: If a card has a D on one side, it has a 3 on the other side. Subjects are aware that on the particular set of cards, each one has a letter on one side and a number on the other side. Four cards are shown, such as those below:
Very few people can correctly pick the two cards to turn over to verify the rule. The correct cards are D and 7; most likely, you picked D and 3. Seeing what is on the reverse of the 7 card can lead to falsifying the rule if a D shows up. Seeing what is on the reverse of the 3 card cannot falsify the rule. It can confirm the rule, but not falsify it.
Support Theory
Various theories based on Amos Tversky's research, also related to availability bias, representativeness bias and anchoring.
Support Theory has an empirical base of results showing that different descriptions of the same event often produce different subjective probability estimates. It explains these results in terms of subjective evaluations of supporting evidence. [...]
According to the ‘framing effect’ peoples’ understanding of a problem is profoundly influenced by how the problem is presented.
For example, support for an option seems to increases the more that the option is broken down into smaller components. And naturally, if an option is particularly highlighted (anchored), people would tend to choose that over others, whether it is logical or probable or not.
Another interesting tidbit:
"This framework questioned the assumption of "homo oeconomicus", that is, of human beings motivated by self interest and capable of rational decision making behavior."
Masses of people are so easy to mislead (advertising, politics, media) that there's certainly no guarantee that they'll make rational decisions, which assumption is the basis for our economic system.
Representativeness Heuristic
People tend to judge the probability of an event by finding a ‘comparable known’ event and assuming that the probabilities will be similar.
As a part of creating meaning from what we experience, we need to classify things. If something does not fit exactly into a known category, we will approximate with the nearest class available.
Overall, the primary fallacy is in assuming that similarity in one aspect leads to similarity in other aspects.
The gambler’s fallacy, the belief in runs of good and bad luck can be explained by the representativeness heuristic.
People will also ‘force’ statistical arrangements to represent their beliefs about them, for example a set of random numbers will be carefully mixed up so no similar numbers are near one another.
Examples:
If I meet someone with a laid back attitude and long hair, I might assume they are Californian, whereas someone who is very polite but rigid may be assumed to be English.
People will often assume that a random sequence in a lottery is more likely than a arithmetic sequence of numbers.
If I meet three people from a company and they are all aggressive, I will assume that the company has an aggressive culture and that most other people from that firm will also be aggressive.
There are a lot more theories and terms and models, of course. See, for example, this list of psychological theories, explained in simple terms.
Obviously, the human mind isn't overly suited for making logical decisions, or for correctly estimating the probability of events. It might seem a bit surprising that we even manage to keep ourselves alive and accomplish complicated technological feats. It explains at least why we often make decisions that don't serve us, and why we easily elect the wrong people to lead us. Of course it helps greatly if we can stay conscious of the various ways we are likely to fool ourselves, so we can avoid them, as much as possible, when we're trying to make important decisions. [ Knowledge | 2004-05-09 10:22 | | PermaLink ] More >
|
|
|
Via Seb Paquet, Goldilock Pricing by Narasimha Chari: The traditional product segmentation is to offer two versions: a high-end version and a low-end version. However, in some circumstances, it is preferable to offer three versions: low-end, mid-range and high-end. The rationale is that people tend to exhibit 'extremeness aversion' and will tend to choose the mid-range offering. Consider the following experiment (from Hal Varian's paper on Versioning Information Goods):Simonson and Tversky [1992] describe a marketing experiment in which two groups of consumers were asked to choose microwave ovens. One group was offered a choice between two ovens, an Emerson priced at $109.99 and a Panasonic priced at $179.99. The second group was offered these ovens plus a high-end Panasonic priced at $199.99.
By offering the high-end oven, Panasonic increased its market share from 43% to 73%. More remarkably, the sales of the mid-priced Panasonic oven increased from 43% to 60% apparently because it was now the 'compromise' choice. According to Smith and Nagle [1995], "Adding a premium product to the product line may not necessarily result in overwhelming sales of the premium product itself. It does, however, enhance buyers' perceptions of lower-priced products in the product line and influences low-end buyers to trade up to higher-priced models." In other words, adding a 'premium' version to the product line actually boosts the sales of the mid-priced version. The newly-introduced premium version steals market share from the mid-range version, but this is more than offset by the market share that the mid-range version gains at the expense of the low-end version - this is the Goldilocks effect. Note that this is purely the result of a cognitive bias - there is no objective rationale for such trading-up.
This may explain the tall/grande/venti segmentation: even though few will order the venti, its mere presence on the menu will induce some buyers to trade up from the tall to a grande. Similarly, it makes sense to add expensive wines to the wine-list that realistically no one is going order. Seems to be another example of a Support Theory style of human thinking fallacy. By having a set of choices presented in a certain way, we make different choices than if they were presented in a different way. The grande cup of coffee remains the same size, but we feel differently about it if it is the middle choice than if it is the top choice. [ Culture | 2004-05-09 13:23 | | PermaLink ] More >
|
|
Friday, May 7, 2004 | |
|
|
Gilles Vidal is a photographer who makes panoramic 360 degree images. I saw him at work today at an event here. He has, amongst other things, made some wonderful Quicktime panoramas of Toulouse and surroundings. And they're, well, just like being there. Here are some:
Toulouse, dans le quartier Saint-Georges, sur le Quai Saint-Pierre, Place Saint-Etienne et Place du Capitole
La Canal du Midi en Lauragais ; de Toulouse à Agde, le Canal aux couleurs automnales traverse la région du Lauragais
Toulouse: Cathédrale Saint-Etienne
Toulouse : la Basilique Saint-Sernin
la Fête de la Musique, Place St-Georges, Toulouse
Manifestation générale du 13 mai contre la politique gouvernementale, Toulouse
Château de Montségur : tous les 21 juin, plusieurs dizaines de personnes se retrouvent pour admirer les premières lueurs du soleil le jour le plus long de l'année.
You need to have installed the free Quicktime, of course. [ Culture | 2004-05-07 15:03 | | PermaLink ] More >
|
|
|
I'll be in London the 12th and 13th. In part going to the blogger event here. I have some time for meetings if you can't make that one. [ Diary | 2004-05-07 15:21 | | PermaLink ] More >
|
|
Thursday, May 6, 2004 | |
|
|
From Empowerment Illustrated, a mention of Action Inquiry and William Torbert's nine "developmental frames": A system for understanding people and their roles in life is explained at Martin Leith's Resources site. William Torbert analysed autobiographies and found 9 developmental frames that represent a 'journey of life'. They are:
1. Impulsive (Conception)
2. Opportunist (Investments)
3. Diplomat (Incorporation)
4. Technician (Experiments)
5. Achiever (Systemic Productivity)
6. Strategist (Collaborative Enquiry)
7. Magician / Witch / Clown (Foundational Community)
8. Ironist (Liberating Disciplines)
9. Sage / Cron Those levels or frames are described in detail in Martin Leith's site. It is quite intriguing. I like the progression of archetypes getting more and more mystical. I'm not sure I really buy the exact progression. Some of it seems a little arbitrary to me, or a little off. I'm not sure they're even a sequence. But interesting and useful, nevertheless. In part for recognizing what roles people are playing within an organization. Like, a Magician at level 7 is somebody who's likely to create transformation around them, changing paradigms, but without anybody recognizing they're doing it. Anyway, if I had to find myself on the list, it would probably be the Strategist, although I recognized myself also in Technician, and in Magician. [ Patterns | 2004-05-06 08:22 | | PermaLink ] More >
|
|
|
Interesting article by Gerald Gleason.In trying to think about the success factors for Open Source (OS) projects, and evaluate their character and structure, as well as thinking about extending this idea to other areas, I had the insight that the essential character of OS project organization is anarchy. As a political/intellectual movement, Anarchy is probably the most pure form of Libertarianism. Forget any associations you may have with the idea of creating anarchy in communities or societies by throwing bombs and other disruptive acts, since these are both factually incorrect, and have nothing to do with what Anarchy advocates. The correct association is of anarchy with "a state of nature", the Garden of Eden, if you will.
Humans, being highly social animals with highly advanced systems for communication of symbolic knowledge, have the ability to impose rules of all sorts on this original state. In principle, there is nothing wrong with this, but history shows many examples where "the rules" become highly oppressive. In tribal societies, the social unit is a small group where social "norms" can operate effectively, and it can be argued that the "norms" are essential for the survival of the tribe, but human development did not stop there. With the development of agriculture, the stage was set for creating hierarchical structures, monetary systems and large scale warfare (i.e. beyond inter-tribal conflicts for territory).
It is well know that Libertarian thought is pervasive in the highly technical software development community, and it is easy to see the attraction of these ideas to a class of highly intelligent, somewhat individualistic people. Add youth to that, and you get a lot of contempt for conventional systems of power and authority. In the beginnings of the software industry, there wasn't much of a market for additional copies of specific programs, and a lot of development happened in academic and other research labs, so there wasn't much thought or attention from the capitalists. Programmers freely shared their code with anyone who asked, and nobody thought about cashing in by selling millions of copies of a program. Richard Stallman created the GPL in reaction to the way code sharing was being closed down by the potential to cash in by selling code over and over. [...]
All of this is the essence of an anarchistic organizational system. Yes, formal structures are developed and put in place, but only with the tacit support of the community. It only works because everyone is free to participate or not, according to their desires and interests. There would be no debate about any of this if we weren't embedded in a system of market capitalism where value is equated with money, and money is necessary for each of us to be able to live and make choices. [...]
The bottom line is that while monetary systems and markets work well to efficiently distribute scarce commodities, they also tend to simplify complex systems of values into a single dimension, and they are particularly bad at promoting the efficient development of IP resources that gain their greatest value the more widely they are shared. It should be clear to most of us by now that this one-dimensional value system becomes non-functional in an information economy, as well as undervaluing the diversity and quality of the natural environment necessary for our long-term survival. The way forward will involve the emergence of new value systems based on sharing of information. To get there from here, we need to operate in the context of market capitalism, and actually exploit it to fund the transformation. This will involve convincing those who control the money to fund the rapid development of the IP Commons for the benefit of everyone. Indeed. A one-dimensional value system no longer works, as our collective relationships become more complex and multi-dimensional. The purpose of an economy is to facilitate the valuation, distribution and coordination of items we need for living, and which we don't already possess. An economy and an organizational system that is based on centralized control and valuation by only one parameter is no longer adequate. Effective coordination among free people, who basically can do what they feel like, is certainly a harder problem. But not unsolvable, if we recognize that a new paradigm is required. The payoff can be enormous. [ Organization | 2004-05-06 10:07 | | PermaLink ] More >
|
|
|
Via Puzzle Pieces: Who Owns What from Columbia Journalism Review. An overview of what major media companies own. And, yes, we need ways of visualizing it. [ Information | 2004-05-06 10:14 | 0 comments | PermaLink ]
|
|
Wednesday, May 5, 2004 | |
|
|
There's one discipline I'd like to be an expert in. Well, there are many subjects and disciplines I'd like to explore, but that I don't get around to.
I'm, however, very intrigued about techniques for figuring things out without direct access to conclusive source data.
Everything leads traces. Everything that happens leaves some kind of signs in the environment. Nothing real is completely isolated from its surroundings. Every event interacts with its circumstances, and will influence them in ways that can be noticed. Even if you don't have the thing itself, you will always have access to something that was in contact with it. If you're skilled enough, you can find things out indirectly that aren't available directly.
A good example of the principle is the rumor that whenever the Pentagon is planning a big operation, the number of pizzas ordered at night from Washington D.C. pizzarias to be delivered to the Pentagon, will increase. Obviously because a bunch of people are working long nights there, and they're hungry. It is kind of obvious. If you can find out where they order their pizzas, and you watch the graph of how many pizzas are ordered at which times, it can tell you that something is going on.
That also brings up the obvious objection to such an intelligence method. It doesn't really prove anything. It doesn't at first tell you *what* is going on. Maybe they're just doing the yearly audit in accounting. Maybe they just changed pizzarias. Maybe their own kitchen is out of order.
A lot of activities can stay very hidden exactly because such approaches generally aren't officially given much credence, and there are few organized techniques available to the general public for applying them. Which is in part because those people who're doing big things and have big things to hide would prefer that nobody can figure them out easily. And because they use such techniques themselves.
Pattern matching and profiling is one angle of it. If you find the data that sticks out, that doesn't match the normal profile of how something behaves, or that matches a profile of particular kinds of unusual behavor - you know something is going on. Again, you might not know exactly what, but you know where to look. Like how your bank might freeze your credit card because you did something they considered unusual, like buying jewelry in Hong Kong, when normally you only buy groceries in Wisconsin. But they're rather bad at this science, so they make mistakes half the time.
The folks who control large amounts of centralized data have a leg up on everybody else, of course. If one has access to your bank records, your telephone records, your travel records, etc, one could say a whole lot about you.
I suspect the FBI and CIA folks are not very good at it, though, and they're probably just drowning in data that they don't know what to do with. However, I also suspect that there are some groups that are experts at analyzing patterns in such data, but they probably aren't talking about it.
Anyway, the working theory is that any kind of incidental data can lead you to figure out big things that are hidden. Maybe not maliciously hidden, maybe just obscured from view and not yet discovered.
If I stood down on the corner and catalogued all cars that drove by, and I did that for a while, I'd learn something from the patterns. Duh, yeah, how many cars drive by, of course, which is useful for traffic planning. But if I look a little broader, I might see surprising data. Why are there an unsual number of red cars driving by every day around 3 o'clock? That might not provide the answer, but it might tell me what to look for next. Doesn't have to be anything exciting. I might just learn that they're company cars, and that the sales people for a certain company meet for donuts in a certain place at that time. But there's something to find out.
We're generally being sold a picture of the world as being very confusing and disjointed. A lot of discrete events that you can't all keep track of, and the only way of making sense of it is to listen to somebody's two minute summary on the news, or by adopting some ideology that summarizes the world in simple ways I can just believe in without examining it too closely. But I don't buy it. I think there are better ways of making much better sense of even a world represented by huge amounts of data.
Obvious techniques are to count things, and to categorize and catalogue them. And cross-relate different kinds of data. And then to look for certain patterns of things being "wrong" or "right" or "off" or "on" about them. E.g. things being out of sequence, misplaced, misnamed, or things fitting unusually well together, or working unusually well. If a hundred carpenters seem to produce a certain typical number of chairs and tables, and one of them produces twice as many, it tells us something. We might discover that he just works twice as long, or we might discover that he has an approach that works better. If a certain news agency produces considerably more erroneous news stories than the other news agencies, there's a story there somewhere.
Incidental data usually isn't random, even if it looks like it at first. Really, most things in the world are connected with each other, so things usually are the way they are because of the way other things are, and there's a bigger picture there.
That also opens the door for apparently non-sensical ways of divining what is going on. If Uncle Joe's left knee hurts before it is going to rain, and that is reliable, we don't really have to know exactly how that comes about. An analysis of his success rate is all we'd need. Likewise, if somebody has a system of divination based on tea leaves, and it happens to work, that is valid data as well. Even if somebody else would like you to believe that you can't say anything useful about things you can't explain as a direct cause-effect relationships.
There's a certain centralized power structure that exists in terms of information. Those who appear to hold the centralized stores of the "proper" data, like governments, the police, banks, credit bureaus, media companies, scientists and educational institutions, pretend that they have a monopoly on telling you what is going on. Where I postulate that we've gotten to a point where grassroot networks of regular folks easily could be as informed as any of those. But not just by passing vague rumors and opinions around. Some tools and proven disciplines would help.
Nothing happens in a vacuum. Life leaves tracks. Almost any kind of incidental data source, if analyzed a bit, can tell you where there are tracks. By combining a sufficient number of dimensions of data, you can probably see where the tracks lead, and you can make out the silhouette of what is there. [ Patterns | 2004-05-05 07:13 | | PermaLink ] More >
|
|
|
Doc Searls mentions e164, which seems to be a scheme for storing phone numbers in the DNS system, to facilitate that you can do VOIP free phone calls, without involving any centralized provider. And a posting from Jim Thompson: "Waiting for the other shoe to drop". From e164: "ENUM 164" (also know as enum and e164) is a method that stores telephone numbers within the Internet's DNS. E164.org allows Voice over IP systems, such as Asterisk and SER (SIP Express Router), to place and receive telephone calls over the Internet, without using your local telephone line.
This allows businesses and people to make and receive telephone calls over the Internet and Internet style networks. Unlike other systems, your calls can be switched directly to the person you are calling instead of passing all of your calls through a single service provider. This means that congestion from busy services is reduced, providing a more reliable voice connection.
This system only requires a hostname to route phone numbers to, you can move around by simply updating a dynamic DNS service!
E164.org provides both "real" telephone and "free" number mapping to any Voice over IP address of your choosing. Presently we support multiple entries and multiple types, including IAX2, SIP, H323, TEL, HTTP, FTP, MAILTO, LDAP, ICQ, IRC, YAHOO, AIM and MSN! So if you applications can implement a DNS lookup on phone numbers you can effectively send faxes by email, email by phone number, find your friends on ICQ by their phone number, the possibilities are endless!" Sounds very promising. [ Technology | 2004-05-05 10:25 | 0 comments | PermaLink ]
|
|
|
A reminder from Dina. The Sounds of Silence:"And in the naked light I saw
ten thousand people, maybe more.
People talking without speaking,
people hearing without listening.
People writing songs
that voices never shared,
no one dared disturb
the sound of silence.
Fools, said I, you do not know,
silence like a cancer grows.
Hear my words that I might teach you,
take my arms that I might reach you.
But my words like silent raindrops fell
and echoed in the wells of silence"
Listen. Instead of falling prey
to our neon Gods. [ Inspiration | 2004-05-05 17:38 | | PermaLink ] More >
|
|
Tuesday, May 4, 2004 | |
|
|
It needs to be said once in a while, so that it doesn't stay swept under the carpet. The 9-11 WTC catastrophe wasn't properly investigated, and the reasons given for what happened do not particularly match the given facts, or for that matter, the laws of physics. A telling title of one of the many exposées on the net is "Muslims Suspend Laws of Physics!", which pretty much says it. - Burning jet fuel can not melt the kind of steel the WTC was made of. It isn't remotely hot enough, even if there's a lot of it. Nobody's been able to demonstrate anything different.
- More than a month after the incident, while the debris was being removed, pools of molten steel were found in the basement of the two towers, where they connected with the bedrock. As well as under the collapsed WTC7 building. Again, burning jet fluid and office papers and collapsing buildings can not have caused that. At least not according to any currently known natural law.
- Certain high-powered military incendiaries can do that. Thermite, it is called. It would have to have been placed in those basements, though.
- Three buildings collapsed, despite that the two of them got hit in very different ways by planes, and the last one wasn't hit. Doesn't match anything that is known about the structure and stability of such buildings. For that matter, the two buildings hit did what they were expected to do, without structural damage. Until they suddenly collapsed.
- Various engineers and demolition experts stated that it had all the signs of being controlled demolitions. Most of them withdrew their statements later, without much explanation for their change of mind.
- Ironically, a company called "Controlled Demolition, Inc." was given the contract ...of cleaning up, presumably. They were the same people contracted for the Oklahoma federal building.
- The recovered steel was shipped to China, very quickly, before any analysis was completed, of how the buildings might have collapsed.
- The owner of the buildings prepared to cash in on his six weeks old insurance policy. (Although he just realized that he can only cash in the $3.5 billion policy once, rather than the twice he expected)
- Somebody made a killing in the stock market on predicting the whole event, and you're asked to believe that it wasn't possible to find out who.
Just a bunch of wacky conspiracy theories? Who would benefit from such an incident? Who has the means? Osama bin Laden? Quite the planner he must be. To inspire the U.S. to turn itself into a paranoid police state that is making a mess out of the middle east and destabilizing the world? Doesn't add up. [ Politics | 2004-05-04 17:00 | | PermaLink ] More >
|
|
Sunday, May 2, 2004 | |
|
|
Via Joi Ito, an article in The Guardian: "Mutiny is the only way out of Iraq's inferno":The UN betrayed Iraq by becoming the political arm of US occupation. Now it must redeem itself
Can we please stop calling it a quagmire? The United States isn't mired in a bog in Iraq, or a marsh; it is free-falling off a cliff. The only question now is: who will follow the Bush clan off this precipice, and who will refuse to jump?
More and more are, thankfully, choosing the second option. The last month of US aggression in Iraq has inspired what can only be described as a mutiny: waves of soldiers, workers and politicians under the command of the US occupation authority suddenly refusing to follow orders and abandoning their posts. First Spain announced that it would withdraw its troops, then Honduras, Dominican Republic, Nicaragua and Kazakhstan. South Korean and Bulgarian troops were pulled back to their bases, while New Zealand is withdrawing its engineers. El Salvador, Norway, the Netherlands and Thailand will likely be next.
[...]
There is a way that the UN can redeem itself in Iraq: it could choose to join the mutiny, further isolating the United States. This would help to force Washington to hand over real power - ultimately to Iraqis, but first to a multilateral coalition that did not participate in the invasion and occupation and would have the credibility to oversee direct elections. This could work, but only through a process that fiercely protects Iraq's sovereignty. Yes, it is George Bush's war, or the people who run him. There was no good reason for the war, and Iraqis are generally worse off than they were before. It doesn't get any better by shooting more at them. Stop playing along. [ Politics | 2004-05-02 20:42 | | PermaLink ] More >
|
|
Saturday, May 1, 2004 | |
|
|
Ten new countries joined the European Union today.Poland
Czech Republic
Slovakia
Slovenia
Hungary
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Malta
Cyprus 75 million more people. 455 million now.
The new people seemed to be very happy with it, with big celebrations and fireworks in all the new countries. People in the old countries probably didn't think of feeling the same about it. But watching the celebrations on TV was sort of contageous. I think it is a good thing. [ News | 2004-05-01 17:55 | | PermaLink ] More >
|
|
|
Le Danois:"An example of the differences between the French and the Danish social norms is the fact that in France you act much more politely with your colleagues than you would in Denmark. French people might not see themselves as being very polite, but as a Dane I see it that way. Let's take an example: When I get to the office in the morning I go from office to office and kiss the girls on the cheeks and shake the hands of the guys. I also have a short chit chat with most of them. Now this might not seem like odd behavior for a French person, but for a Dane it's quite different from what we're used to. First of all in Denmark I would rarely shake the hands of the colleagues I see everyday, actually it can sometimes be a way of showing distance, in the sense that you approach them in a more official way. One thing's for sure, you definitely shouldn't try to kiss the women at the office, at least not if you don't know them very very well. In Denmark we also have a strong tendency to not hide which persons we like and which ones we dislike. It's not weird to ignore people at an office in Denmark. It's actually very weird for a Dane to be very polite with someone you don't necessarily like or respect." It takes a little getting used to. Not the being polite part itself. But I'm not totally into the French rhythm yet. One shakes hands with the men and kisses the cheeks of the women. But what when one first is briefly introduced to them? The same mostly, and shaking hands with women isn't really what one does. [Correction: See the comments] But it can be hard to develop the right reflex. When we first got here, I thought I had figured out what cheek one kisses first, but really there's no rule for that. Anyway, it is a pleasant ritual, actually. Although I miss hugging, which the French interestingly tend to find a little too intimate compared with kissing on the cheek. [ Culture | 2004-05-01 18:42 | | PermaLink ] More >
|
|
<< Newer stories Page: 1 ... 35 36 37 38 39 ... 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 |
|
|