From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Mon Jul 1 09:32:31 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 8D46456FF8; Mon, 1 Jul 2002 09:32:30 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from rwcrmhc52.attbi.com (rwcrmhc52.attbi.com [216.148.227.88]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 46DDC56FF7 for ; Mon, 1 Jul 2002 09:32:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sony ([12.234.214.35]) by rwcrmhc52.attbi.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP id <20020701164924.XSLQ8262.rwcrmhc52.attbi.com@sony> for ; Mon, 1 Jul 2002 16:49:24 +0000 Message-Id: <4.2.2.20020701094619.02122cc0@thinkalong.com> X-Sender: jackpark@thinkalong.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2002 09:46:53 -0700 To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org From: Jack Park Subject: [ba-unrev-talk] Fwd: The Teoma Search engine Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org fyi... >To: gbrain@listserv.vub.ac.be (Global Brain Discussion) >From: Francis Heylighen > >Yet one more little step closer to the Global Brain: Teoma implements >Kleinberg's HITS method, the counterpart to Google's PageRank, with pretty >impressive results. > >The following discussion comes from >http://www.searchenginewatch.com/searchday/02/sd0402-teoma.html > > >------------------------------ >+ Teoma vs. Google, Round Two > >Search engine upstart Teoma has officially launched, and the media is once >again touting it as a Google killer. Here's a look behind the hype, and >the real reasons you'll want to add Teoma to your web search toolkit. > >Labeling Teoma a Google killer makes for a great headline, but is really >rather silly. Teoma is a very good search engine, but at this point it >poses very little threat to Google's dominance of the web search world. > >We'll save the face off comparison for later, after Teoma has had a chance >to prove itself. Meanwhile, let's look at some of the nifty things that >makes Teoma unique, and an excellent choice for many types of search queries. > >Teoma offers three kinds of results for each query. On the left of the >result page are "relevant web pages" that are similar to what other >engines produce. On the right are two other kinds of results: "Refine," a >list of "suggestions to narrow your search," and "Resources," which are >"link collections from experts and enthusiasts." > >Each set of results is useful, for different reasons. And all three types >of results are generated using proprietary technology that makes them >somewhat unique compared to other engines. > >Teoma's underlying technology is an extension of the HITS algorithm >developed by researchers at IBM several years ago. In a nutshell, the >search engine goes beyond traditional keyword and text analysis and seeks >out "hubs" and "authorities" related to your query terms -- a "social >network" of related content that forms a "community" about the topic. > >The cool thing about Teoma is that its community-seeking behavior is both >query-specific, and happens in real time. "Whenever you type in a query, >we're actually looking for the communities after you type the query," said >Paul Gardi, Teoma's Vice President of Search. "We're using a method called >dynamic rank, because there's a lot of information you can learn about >that page by its friends." > >Teoma's approach differs from Google's, which uses a similar, but more >static ranking system. It's also unlike the approach taken by Northern >Light and other engines that classify web pages based on pre-defined >categories. > >"We're going into the communities, finding the link structure of the >community using text structure as well," said Gardi. > >What does this mean in practice? How can this approach improve your search >results? > >First of all, by relying on the "authorities" within a community, Teoma >"relevant web pages" are generally quite useful, even for obscure topics. >Second, "Resources" are often link-rich pages -- pathfinders or >directories -- that are excellent starting points for further research on >a particular topic. > >But it's the "refine" results that are perhaps Teoma's most unique >feature. These links are automatically generated labels that "define" a >community for the query words you're using. > >So even if your initial query doesn't provide spot-on results, the >"refine" links allow you to "drill down" into a community, potentially >revealing information you can't easily find with traditional approaches to >information processing. > >"It's extremely valuable for the user to have something to refine. It's a >very different kind of refine because it's actually pulling you down >through the actual communities that exist," said Teoma's Gardi. >"Communities are getting stronger or weaker based on how the web is growing." > >This dynamic approach to surfacing content means that Teoma can discover >beginnings of a new community even for new or obscure pages. This makes it >an excellent companion or alternative to other search engines, including >Google, that tend to rely on lots of links pointing to pages to infer >authority. > >But Teoma is not a wholesale replacement for Google, nor is it an engine >you'll want to use exclusively. Teoma's index of 200 million pages is tiny >compared to most of the other major search engines. And the company >doesn't intend to compete on size, but rather on providing "authoritative" >results. "We're adding a little bit every day -- we're about halfway to >getting to where we need to be," said Gardi. > >Think of Teoma as a new type of hybrid between a search engine and a >directory, incorporating the best features of both. Like most search >engines, Teoma's scope is large enough to satisfy even the most obscure >information need, but without overwhelming you with millions of >near-matches or false drops. And like a good directory, Teoma structures >information in a way that facilitates browsing based on context and meaning. > >Bottom line: Teoma isn't a Google killer now, and likely never will be, >but it's still an excellent search engine for many types of queries. >Definitely worth adding to your web search toolkit. > >Teoma http://www.teoma.com > >Ask Jeeves Acquires Teoma The Search Engine Report, Oct. 2, 2001 >http://searchenginewatch.com/sereport/01/10-ask.html Ask Jeeves has >purchased the Teoma search engine, which has attracted interest over >recent months as a potential relevancy challenger to Google. > >Teoma Tackles the Web SearchDay, Jun. 11, 2001 >http://searchenginewatch.com/searchday/01/sd0611-teoma.html Teoma is a new >search engine born in the computer labs at Rutgers University that looks >like a serious contender for joining the major leagues. > >How Teoma Works >http://static.wc.teoma.com/docs/teoma/about/searchWithAuthority.html A >brief overview of the Teoma technology. > >Hypersearching the Web >http://www.sciam.com/1999/0699issue/0699raghavan.html An excellent >overview of the original HITS project and "social network" theory, and how >it can improve the overall quality of web search results. From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Mon Jul 1 11:03:19 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 7A20B56FF9; Mon, 1 Jul 2002 11:03:18 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from maynard.mail.mindspring.net (maynard.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.243]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id CC6E756FF8 for ; Mon, 1 Jul 2002 11:03:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from user-1121f2q.dsl.mindspring.com ([66.32.188.90] helo=D9KP0711) by maynard.mail.mindspring.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17P5mQ-0007WY-00 for ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org; Mon, 01 Jul 2002 14:20:07 -0400 From: "Mei Lin Fung" To: Subject: RE: [ba-unrev-talk] Back to School Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002 03:42:58 -0700 Organization: MLF Associates Inc. Message-ID: <002201c220ec$14133910$2002a8c0@D9KP0711> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <000001c22070$2b7f8a80$180ec53f@home> Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Impelled to share this quote that I saw in Arthur Schelesinger Jr 's Feb 1999 foreword to the re-issue of his 1986 book: "Cycles of American History" "The shape of things to come, becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe." HG Wells Then since I went to the book to get the quote right, here's the relevant final sentence of Schelesinger's 1999 foreword: "As we more into the nysterious twenty first century, we need to know how to run computers. We need even more to know how to run ourselves." -----Original Message----- From: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org [mailto:owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org] On Behalf Of John Maloney Sent: Sunday, June 30, 2002 12:56 PM To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: [ba-unrev-talk] Back to School Greetings, Here is noteworthy lecture that all you experts have probably seen before. http://www.kmcluster.com/kes/The_1994_Godkin_Lecture_by_Peter_Drucker-Ma y_4_1994.htm [excerpt] "The first implication of this is that education will become the center of the knowledge society and schooling its key institution." (snip) From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Mon Jul 1 12:20:09 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 3BDF156FFA; Mon, 1 Jul 2002 12:20:09 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from rwcrmhc52.attbi.com (rwcrmhc52.attbi.com [216.148.227.88]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E378C56FF9 for ; Mon, 1 Jul 2002 12:20:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sony ([12.234.214.35]) by rwcrmhc52.attbi.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP id <20020701193707.CSJX8262.rwcrmhc52.attbi.com@sony> for ; Mon, 1 Jul 2002 19:37:07 +0000 Message-Id: <4.2.2.20020701123154.0212c460@thinkalong.com> X-Sender: jackpark@thinkalong.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2002 12:34:31 -0700 To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org From: Jack Park Subject: RE: [ba-unrev-talk] Back to School In-Reply-To: <002201c220ec$14133910$2002a8c0@D9KP0711> References: <000001c22070$2b7f8a80$180ec53f@home> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org At 03:42 AM 7/1/2002 -0700, you wrote: >"The shape of things to come, becomes more and more a race between >education and catastrophe." HG Wells That is such a cool quote, I googled it. Here's a page http://www.ciberjob.org/suple/cine/wells.htm where I found a slightly different version (and some obnoxious music) "Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe." H. G. Wells, 1937 On the same page is this quote: "There is no practical obstacle whatsoever now to the creation of an efficient index to all human knowledge, ideas and achievements, to the creation, that is, of a complete planetary memory for all mankind. It foreshadows a real intellectual unification of our race. The whole human memory can be, and probably in a short time will be, made accessible to every individual. In what is also of very great importance in this uncertain world where destruction becomes continually more frequent and unpredictable, is this, that...it need not be concentrated in a one single place. It need not be vulnerable as a human head or a human heart is vulnerable. It can be reproduced exactly and fully, in Peru, China, Iceland, Central Africa, or wherever else.... It can have at once, the concentration of a craniate animal and the diffused vitality of an amoeba." H. G. Wells, 1937 And, now I can close the browser and shut of the music! Cheers Jack From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Mon Jul 1 12:29:01 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id CA9DC56FFB; Mon, 1 Jul 2002 12:29:00 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from rwcrmhc51.attbi.com (rwcrmhc51.attbi.com [204.127.198.38]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 883A556FFA for ; Mon, 1 Jul 2002 12:28:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sony ([12.234.214.35]) by rwcrmhc51.attbi.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP id <20020701194558.UBMW9178.rwcrmhc51.attbi.com@sony> for ; Mon, 1 Jul 2002 19:45:58 +0000 Message-Id: <4.2.2.20020701124241.021276c0@thinkalong.com> X-Sender: jackpark@thinkalong.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2002 12:43:24 -0700 To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org From: Jack Park Subject: [ba-unrev-talk] Drawing system for the blind Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org http://arstechnica.infopop.net/OpenTopic/page?a=tpc&s=50009562&f=174096756&m =4700923005 "Using graphics programs may be a daunting task for many people, and for the blind it is even tougher. While most graphics programs use a mouse or stylus for input, it is difficult for the blind to draw when they have no frame of reference to work with. Enter Hesham Kamel. Kamel is a blind engineering student at U. California at Berkeley and after having a project go past due because his illustrator was on vacation, he decided to develop a graphics program for the blind. His program IC2D (Integrated Communication 2 Draw) has allowed Kamel and others visually impaired draw themselves instead of relying on others to produce their illustrations. Taking advantage of the universal familiarity with the layout of a telephone keypad, the program divides the screen into nine squares, each labeled with the corresponding numbers "1" through "9." Moving from square to square is just like dialing a telephone number. Each time a user enters a square, he or she has the option of subdividing it into another three-by-three grid, zooming in on increasingly finer details in the drawing. The program is capable of repeating the progression 81 times for a total of 729 possible squares." --------------------------------------------------------------------------- XML Topic Maps: Creating and Using Topic Maps for the Web. Addison-Wesley, ISBN 0-201-74960-2. From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Tue Jul 2 07:59:15 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id E2CF556FFC; Tue, 2 Jul 2002 07:59:14 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from m5.andara.com (m5-real.eastlink.ca [24.222.0.25]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3CF8156FFB for ; Tue, 2 Jul 2002 07:59:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (u116n213.hfx.eastlink.ca [24.222.116.213]) by m5.andara.com (8.12.1/8.12.1) with ESMTP id g62FGNNC002394 for ; Tue, 2 Jul 2002 12:16:23 -0300 (ADT) Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 12:16:06 -0300 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v481) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Subject: [ba-unrev-talk] The Strange Case of the Disappearing Open Source Vendors From: Mark Szpakowski To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.481) Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org The Strange Case of the Disappearing Open Source Vendors: interesting article (by Tim O'Reilly) and discussion at http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/network/2002/06/28/vendor.html. The basic point he makes is that the ecology of the open-source marketplace is much larger than just that of open source vendors -- it is largely made up of _users_ of open source (with many many corporations and government agencies included), who also contribute to that open source. Ie, the _use-value_ of the software is much more significant than its resale value. It is still a question as to how vendors of open source can support themselves other than by customization and support (ie, how that smaller part of the ecology can be healthy). I think a lot of the de-facto way that has worked is that large organizations and institutions have supported some of their people in working on open-source projects. Or, to generalize, if I/my company has a use for open source software, it pays me to support and enhance that software. However, there does not seem to be a specific model for how I am to be paid if I want to make a living from developing that software generically. I am in that specific situation, where I am developing fairly generic collaboration software, but so far the best way to have this supported is to work on a fairly specific application of it, where there is some money available to support that development. If I can arrange to open source that software, such that open-sourcing is not perceived as a threat, but rather as a benefit, to the company supporting the particular application, then both that company, and its specific use, and other specific users of that software who adapt it to their use, benefit. Two of the more interesting responses (have not read them all) to the article: http://www.oreillynet.com/cs/user/view/cs_msg/7963 http://www.oreillynet.com/cs/user/view/cs_msg/7969 Cheers, Mark From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Tue Jul 2 08:46:05 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 7924B56FFD; Tue, 2 Jul 2002 08:46:04 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from mta5.snfc21.pbi.net (mta5.snfc21.pbi.net [206.13.28.241]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1649356FFC for ; Tue, 2 Jul 2002 08:46:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from home ([63.197.14.24]) by mta5.snfc21.pbi.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built May 7 2001)) with ESMTP id <0GYM00LL8PWXJG@mta5.snfc21.pbi.net> for ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org; Tue, 02 Jul 2002 09:02:58 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2002 09:03:03 -0700 From: John Maloney Subject: RE: [ba-unrev-talk] The Strange Case of the Disappearing Open Source Vendors In-reply-to: To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Message-id: <000c01c221e1$f23fc960$180ec53f@home> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Mark, Thanks for the message. There is a legion of generic collaborative software roadkill. Most of the offerings were innovative and substantial technical achievements. They all seem to go through the same 2-4 year lifecycle in the following order: We are: 1.) Collaborative infrastructure, e.g., dial tone 2.) Consumer centered, e.g., B2C or C2C 3.) Business centered, e.g., value chain focus, B2B 4.) Enterprise focus, e.g., teamware, collaborative project management By this time, these start-ups/entrepreneurs have used-up their capital, are burnt out and suffering from product management fatigue. Some fail their way through 'enterprise focus' and settle in on a particular vertical. (5.) The path to success here is to win over some domain experts and integrate deep vertical logic into the collaborative offering. This is still very risky and capital intensive, but really the only way to have a go in this space. IMO, this lifecycle is a perfect reflection of what it should be; it's backwards. It is critical to *master* a vertical, before moving up and out. Therefore, the wealth creation concerning open-source collaborative softwares must surround exploiting the vertical domain expertise and logic. This approach creates/sustains the virtuous cycle that is elemental to open source success. It also creates the multiples and scale that would attract capital. Broad-based, universal, open source collaborative information technologies sans specific vertical logic and focused application are a pipe dream mostly. Cheers, -jtm -----Original Message----- From: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org [mailto:owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org] On Behalf Of Mark Szpakowski Sent: Tuesday, July 02, 2002 8:16 AM To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: [ba-unrev-talk] The Strange Case of the Disappearing Open Source Vendors The Strange Case of the Disappearing Open Source Vendors: interesting article (by Tim O'Reilly) and discussion at http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/network/2002/06/28/vendor.html. From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Tue Jul 2 10:15:48 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 3467D56FFE; Tue, 2 Jul 2002 10:15:48 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from mail8.svr.pol.co.uk (mail8.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.193.213]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3186956FFD for ; Tue, 2 Jul 2002 10:15:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from modem-572.gacked.dialup.pol.co.uk ([62.25.242.60] helo=vaio) by mail8.svr.pol.co.uk with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17PRW3-0003kq-00 for ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org; Tue, 02 Jul 2002 18:32:40 +0100 Message-ID: <000401c221ee$31679440$3cf2193e@vaio> From: "Peter Jones" To: References: <002201c220ec$14133910$2002a8c0@D9KP0711> Subject: Re: [ba-unrev-talk] Back to School Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 15:45:15 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Mei Lin Fung quoted: >"...We need even more to know how to run ourselves." In the bookshop again, I came across a small tome by W. Edwards Deming called "The New Economics". The late Dr. W.E. Deming was best known for being hailed as the father of the Japanese post-war economic miracle with his ideas about production systems and quality control. Judging from the book he was also a master of getting to the point quickly. Scanning the text, I came across a chapter on people management that spoke volumes, and spoke directly to that quote above. -- Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: "Mei Lin Fung" To: Sent: Monday, July 01, 2002 11:42 AM Subject: RE: [ba-unrev-talk] Back to School > Impelled to share this quote that I saw in Arthur Schelesinger Jr 's Feb > 1999 foreword to the re-issue of his 1986 book: "Cycles of American > History" > > > "The shape of things to come, becomes more and more a race between > education and catastrophe." HG Wells > > > Then since I went to the book to get the quote right, here's the > relevant final sentence of Schelesinger's 1999 foreword: > > "As we more into the nysterious twenty first century, we need to know > how to run computers. We need even more to know how to run ourselves." > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org > [mailto:owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org] On Behalf Of John Maloney > Sent: Sunday, June 30, 2002 12:56 PM > To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org > Subject: [ba-unrev-talk] Back to School > > Greetings, > > Here is noteworthy lecture that all you experts have probably seen > before. > > http://www.kmcluster.com/kes/The_1994_Godkin_Lecture_by_Peter_Drucker-Ma > y_4_1994.htm > > [excerpt] > > "The first implication of this is that education will become the center > of the knowledge society and schooling its key institution." > > (snip) > > > > From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Fri Jul 5 08:17:16 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 024E956FF3; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 08:17:15 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from rwcrmhc52.attbi.com (rwcrmhc52.attbi.com [216.148.227.88]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A1FE156FF2 for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 08:17:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sony ([12.234.214.35]) by rwcrmhc52.attbi.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP id <20020705153410.MYXW8262.rwcrmhc52.attbi.com@sony> for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 15:34:10 +0000 Message-Id: <4.2.2.20020705081813.025daa60@thinkalong.com> X-Sender: jackpark@thinkalong.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Fri, 05 Jul 2002 08:31:36 -0700 To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org From: Jack Park Subject: [ba-unrev-talk] Fwd: [issues] Re: [ACC] The Warfield Program Part "A" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org This post to the isss.org list set off a floury of surfing this morning,=20 not that I have that much time... For instance: http://www.theworldcafe.com/ "World Caf=E9 Conversations are an intentional way to create a living= network=20 of conversation around questions that matter. A Caf=E9 Conversation is a=20 creative process for leading collaborative dialogue, sharing knowledge and= =20 creating possibilities for action in groups of all sizes. The challenges of life in the 21st Century require us to find new ways to=20 access the wisdom and intelligence inherent in groups both small and large.= =20 The need for collaboration, insight and coordinated action has never been=20 greater. Caf=E9 Conversations are one way that communities, businesses,=20 governments, and people from all walks of life are using to create a common= =20 purpose, share knowledge, make more intelligent decisions, and create=20 life-affirming futures." Sound familiar? And then there is http://www.swaraj.org/shikshantar/resources_marshall.html ""We need to create learning and teaching communities that enable learners= =20 to direct their own learning toward greater rigor, coherence, and=20 complexity; to increase their intellectual, social, and emotional=20 engagement with others; and to foster collaborative and dynamic approaches= =20 to learning that enable them to develop thoughtful and integrative ways of= =20 knowing. We must create a learning culture that provides a forum for risk,= =20 novelty, experimentation, and challenge and that redirects and personalizes= =20 learning. We must create learning communities for learners of all ages that= =20 can give power, time, and voice to their inquiry and their creativity. Such a community is governed by the principles of learning, not schooling,= =20 and is: =B7 Personalized, flexible, and coherent (learning is connected to real-life= =20 issues) =B7 Internally and externally networked and not bounded by physical,=20 geographic, or temporal space =B7 Invitational, with students engaged in meaningful research and serious= =20 inquiry =B7 Accountable to the learner to provide adaptive instructional= environments =B7 Rich in information and learning experiences for all learners =B7 Open to emergent and generative knowledge =B7 Self-organized around core principles, beliefs, and a shared and= mutually=20 created purpose =B7 Intergenerational in the configuration of learning experience =B7 Flexible, diverse, and innovative =B7 Interconnected and collaborative, fostering interorganizational linkages =B7 Engaged in authentic dialogue with members of the internal and external= =20 community =B7 Focused on inquiry, complex cognition, problem finding, and problem=20 resolution =B7 Committed to increasing what David Perkins, in Outsmarting IQ, calls the= =20 "learnable intelligences" of every individual =B7 Comfortable with ambiguity and paradox =B7 Playful =B7 Trusting =B7 Responsible =B7 Lovable If we are truly going to create learning communities for the twenty-first=20 century, we must view our schools as dynamic, adaptive, self-organizing=20 systems, not only capable but inherently designed to renew themselves and=20 to grow and change." The author, Stephanie Pace Marshal, calls for a new covenant in learning,=20 one that sheds the machine-based paradigm of the past and which embraces a= =20 holistic paradigm, and a new pattern language (ala Christopher Alexander)=20 for the future." Well, that sounds like my favorite rant... Moving right along, there is the notion of strategic questioning: http://www.context.org/ICLIB/IC40/Peavey.htm "I'm from Idaho. I don't know if you know what that means, but it's very=20 hard for a person from Idaho to think of cleaning up the Ganges River. When= =20 a friend from India asked me to help him clean up the river, I knew I had=20 no experience cleaning up rivers. What I did know about was how to build a= =20 strategy for social change. When I first went to India I used strategic questioning. I began by=20 building a series of questions, starting with how the people saw the=20 problem themselves. What do you see when you look at the river? How do you= =20 explain the situation with the river to your children? How do you feel=20 about the condition of the river? I listened very carefully to how they=20 explained to themselves what they saw. Essentially I was looking at their=20 logic as well as their words. I was looking for the cultural wiring around= =20 the river. I couldn't say, "Oh, I see the river's polluted." That would be= =20 like my saying in a Western context, "Your mother is a whore." It would be= =20 a cultural insult. I had to find out how they explained the pollution to=20 themselves." I conducted this surfing exercise in light of my own views that the present Newtonian, mechanical approach to problem solving will= =20 not serve us in the 21st century the present Newtonian, mechanical approach to "teaching" will not= =20 serve us in the 21st century a new pattern language is needed strategic questioning is liable to be a crucial aspect of that new= =20 pattern language IBIS or some evolutionary outgrowth of that brand of inquiry,=20 coupled with strategic questioning will be a part of the new pattern language be a part of the new learning system I hold these views very important to my own explorations in and around the= =20 OHS paradigm. Jack >From: Thommandel@aol.com >Sender: owner-issues@isss.org > >In a message dated 07/04/02 10:33:55 PM Central Daylight Time,=20 >bvogl@cruzio.com writes: > >>Hi all, Tom expresses an interesting development in online=20 >>conversation. For the first time I see more clearly how important the=20 >>Spoken word is. I think this ACC discussion indicates how much we each=20 >>need to be listened to. And I'm wondering if that can occur with the=20 >>written word? > > >OK, Barb, let's fast forward and do something about it. >If we are going to be serious about communication, >about doing something pragmatic, let's do it! >So, who has the best system to get it done? >And is there even a system to look at? >Is there something the systemic community has to offer anyone? >I think there is. >The one I am most familair with right now is Warfield's Work Program of=20 >Complexity. (This is not to ignore Banathy's Angoran home) >Complexity is a product of the not-understanding mind, Warfield, et al,=20 >says. And it's resolution is to understand and then the complexity=20 >evaporates, leaving even more interesting questions and answers. Warfield= =20 >differentiates the Program into two ontological catagories he calls=20 >Discovery and Resolution. And these further differentiate -- Discovery=20 >into Description and Diagnosis while Resolution is differentiated into=20 >Planning and Implementation. When Warfield talks about Discovery, he means= =20 >it. The idea is to get all the significant "cards on the table." This is a= =20 >brainstorming or what he calls ideaforming. Everyone is asked to put his=20 >ideas down on paper, Warfield has many subtleties in his book. There are=20 >many different kinds of idea forming schemes he elaborates on. Warfield=20 >elaborates on a lot of things, seems there are many pitfalls in group=20 >work. Citing key logicians such as Peirce, and de Morgan. he points out=20 >how we look so hard at the elements and ignore or take for granted the=20 >relationships. We give lip service to the relation, to be sure, but we=20 >still hold the element supreme. What Warfield wants us to do is to collect= =20 >all these suppusitions and presuppositions, all the significant ideas of=20 >the "problem situation" and then catagorize them creating the first=20 >product called the "Problematique." > >And this is the significant contribution that Warfield has to offer us I=20 >think. The Probematique. Warfield says that in order to understand=20 >complexity we need to go beyond prose. We need to adopt a prose/modeling=20 >approach that can transcend both. He mentions sophisticated models made of= =20 >simple premises and simple models made of sophisticated premises, or=20 >something like that. Warfield uses a relationship modeling and thus the=20 >Problematique is a grapical and prose interrelation model. It is a=20 >presentation of the contributing factors, their relationships, >as a whole. Only then, when we can see the whole story, so to speak, Only= =20 >then can we begin to grasp the myriad movements within the problem=20 >situation. Only then can we begin to understand where before there was=20 >only perplexity. > >Now, there is more to it. Warfield requires that the INFRASTRUCTURE=20 >required to accomplish this group process is the first step. Not only is a= =20 >special situation room with tables, paper pencils available, the=20 >Probematique deserves a model of the Lourve, >and indeed >Aleco informs me that the has done something like that at Ohio State or... >We are NOT talking dreams here >They call this hall of knowledge the Observatorium. Here all the ideas,=20 >the Problematique, are presented by means of large, very large, well,=20 >posters, I guess, or whatever is appropriate. Warfield says that if a=20 >corporation is going to spend One hundred million on a complexty, what's=20 >one million for an Observatorium? The hall of Knowledge, presented with=20 >the respect it calls for. The idea is to get all the ideas together so=20 >that they may be presented to a larger supersystem. Because after they are= =20 >gathered and their relationships determined, then the expert diagnosis=20 >people come in and figure out what is wrong. Once this is determined, then= =20 >the group takes over again and determines a plan and Implements it. > >So to continue this dialogue, I would like to ask Aleco exactly what the=20 >Problamatique and Observatorium are. Or maybe it would be better to ask=20 >how did you DO IT Aleco? > >I would like to add something. There is a lot of talk about diversity.=20 >There are some systemists who would have diversity first. BUT let me=20 >remind you that diversity, if we are talking about the diversity nature=20 >has produced, is NOT arbitrary. On the contrary, true diversity is=20 >grounded in order. The Universe is not an accident. Like it or not, the=20 >Universe does have a system. Warfield talks a lot about the requirement to= =20 >know, tp understand, and to acknowledge the Formal Principles. This is not= =20 >being done in the systemic community. Somehow we all asume that we have it= =20 >all down pat an it isn't necessary to revisit these simple ontological=20 >principles. But like Warfield says, if we don't know what our=20 >presuppositions are, then we end up NOT with an ordered evaluation of the= =20 >situation, but a restatement in terms that are only spelled differently.=20 >Ken Wilber calls this "insidious" because, he says, we are the ones=20 >supposedly showing everyone else and we don't practice what we preach.=20 >Incidently, Wilber has a four quadrant model too, knowledge in the=20 >literature, he says, emerges in one of four perspectives. First there is=20 >the Internal, then the External, then the Other and finally the=20 >Interother. And while I am at it, let's not forget Bela Banathy's model of= =20 >Philodophy, Theory, Methodology and Practice. Warfield's Program not only= =20 >takes this into account but displays the knowledge in a respectful way. > >When my father was dying, I had a chance to ask him how to build a house,= =20 >which is what he did for a living. I asked him to say it in one sentence=20 >because I was worried that he would overexert himself. He looked at me,=20 >and in his eyes I saw the whole lifetime of the man I loved, he said >"start straight." >(Paul Mandel 1900-1976) >That's how the Bohemians do it. > >Thanks for the opportunity to express myself. My contributions to the=20 >Problem Situation, the Problematique are at the end of this letter.=20 >Finding out the real problems, the diagnosis, is the hardest part. When=20 >this is done, then we can plan and implement in a more sane way. > >Tom > >Please see Part (B) next letter From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Fri Jul 5 23:24:23 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 5E42B56FF3; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 23:24:23 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from hot.burningchrome.com (cust-216-9-146-10.bton.kiva.net [216.9.146.10]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 77CF456FF2 for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2002 23:24:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (cdent@localhost) by hot.burningchrome.com (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id g666fJj30092 for ; Sat, 6 Jul 2002 01:41:19 -0500 Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2002 01:41:19 -0500 (EST) From: To: Subject: [ba-unrev-talk] one handed chord keyboards Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org I'm sure this has come up on here before but I have an itch I'd like to scratch: one handed, chorded keyboards. Where can I buy one or try one to see if I like it. It seems ideal for me. I found Paul Fernhout's posting on the original unrev-ii list about the Twiddler. I have one of those and after the first couple of weeks of "oh, this is neato" set it down in frustration: it's not well designed for the task I wanted: fast one-handed data entry. It's pretty good for, as Paul says, petting the dog while you type. I was able to get up to a reasonable rate of typing, but my goal here is to go _faster_ than I touch type (and I type quickly) and have one hand for typing and one for mousing, never leaving devices. I intend to use it at a desk, not in a wearable situation. The most noted one handed chord system on the web appears to be the Bat, but it looks a bit clunky. CyKey is another. Anyone have experience with either of these? I've seen pictures of the chord keyset made at SRI. Simple, to the point. I can't seem to find anything like that. Thanks for any suggestions or comments. -- Chris Dent http://www.burningchrome.com/~cdent/ "Mediocrities everywhere--now and to come--I absolve you all! Amen!" -Salieri, in Peter Shaffer's Amadeus From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Sat Jul 6 04:16:38 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id DD3C956FF3; Sat, 6 Jul 2002 04:16:37 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from tomts5-srv.bellnexxia.net (tomts5.bellnexxia.net [209.226.175.25]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3F8D456FF2 for ; Sat, 6 Jul 2002 04:16:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sympatico.ca ([64.228.165.116]) by tomts5-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.5.01.04.19 201-253-122-122-119-20020516) with ESMTP id <20020706113322.VPQK1514.tomts5-srv.bellnexxia.net@sympatico.ca> for ; Sat, 6 Jul 2002 07:33:22 -0400 Message-ID: <3D26D66F.8B68F015@sympatico.ca> Date: Sat, 06 Jul 2002 07:37:19 -0400 From: Henry K van Eyken X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.78 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.7-10 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: Re: [ba-unrev-talk] one handed chord keyboards References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org cdent@burningchrome.com wrote: > I'm sure this has come up on here before but I have an itch I'd > like to scratch: one handed, chorded keyboards. Where can I buy > one or try one to see if I like it. It seems ideal for me. > > I found Paul Fernhout's posting on the original unrev-ii list > about the Twiddler. I have one of those and after the first > couple of weeks of "oh, this is neato" set it down in > frustration: it's not well designed for the task I wanted: fast > one-handed data entry. It's pretty good for, as Paul says, > petting the dog while you type. I was able to get up to a > reasonable rate of typing, but my goal here is to go _faster_ > than I touch type (and I type quickly) and have one hand for > typing and one for mousing, never leaving devices. I intend to > use it at a desk, not in a wearable situation. > > The most noted one handed chord system on the web appears to be > the Bat, but it looks a bit clunky. CyKey is another. Anyone have > experience with either of these? > > I've seen pictures of the chord keyset made at SRI. Simple, to > the point. I can't seem to find anything like that. > > Thanks for any suggestions or comments. > > -- > Chris Dent http://www.burningchrome.com/~cdent/ > "Mediocrities everywhere--now and to come--I absolve you all! Amen!" > -Salieri, in Peter Shaffer's Amadeus Chris. Interesting you brought this up. It is something badly needed - reference: http://www.fleabyte.org/eic-1.html#2BE - and I have talked and corresponded about it with various people. I may be wrong, but I understand that you will not get faster with it than with two-handed touch-typing, but in terms of overall efficiency by having one hand free to do other important things it ought be a winner. I understand from someone thoroughly familiar with manufacturing that there must me assurance of returns. Cheap as these devices ought to be, one must be assured of being able to sell a very large number of units before a profit is made. I wrote the people at TT Tech, mentioned in the article referred to, suggesting they consider making a five-key derivative of their snap-on keyboard for handhelds. Frankly, I tend to believe that if, for example, the Blackberry came with a free snap-on chord, users would tend to experiment with it and eventually may well go for it. Having seen Doug work the chord,and having struggled with tiny keys on handhelds myself, the snap-on chord ought be a winner. And I am alone in this belief. I understand that Grant Bowman got one of the last surviving chords from Doug and that he repaired it. He may be able to tell how one could put one together (there is electronics involved, of course - maybe the Bootstrap Institute can put it hands on schematics, etc.). Nice volunteer project, or may be an academic project. Henry From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Sat Jul 6 11:25:15 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id D00A756FF3; Sat, 6 Jul 2002 11:25:14 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from woody.grantbow.com (12-233-20-180.client.attbi.com [12.233.20.180]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7F72C56FF2 for ; Sat, 6 Jul 2002 11:25:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grantbow by woody.grantbow.com with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17QuVX-0002DH-00 for ; Sat, 06 Jul 2002 11:42:11 -0700 Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2002 11:42:10 -0700 From: Grant Bowman To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: Re: [ba-unrev-talk] one handed chord keyboards Message-ID: <20020706184210.GB8409@grantbow.com> Mail-Followup-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org References: <3D26D66F.8B68F015@sympatico.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3D26D66F.8B68F015@sympatico.ca> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org * Henry van Eyken [020706 04:38]: > I understand that Grant Bowman got one of the last surviving chords from Doug > and that he repaired it. He may be able to tell how one could put one together > (there is electronics involved, of course - maybe the Bootstrap Institute can > put it hands on schematics, etc.). Nice volunteer project, or may be an > academic project. There are others that can be quickly repaired with a few parts. I would be happy to help any effort in this direction. Cheers, -- -- Grant Bowman From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Sat Jul 6 11:36:13 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 51E6356FF4; Sat, 6 Jul 2002 11:36:13 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from web9402.mail.yahoo.com (web9402.mail.yahoo.com [216.136.129.108]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 139BF56FF3 for ; Sat, 6 Jul 2002 11:36:12 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <20020706185316.62468.qmail@web9402.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [128.32.78.187] by web9402.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sat, 06 Jul 2002 11:53:16 PDT Date: Sat, 6 Jul 2002 11:53:16 -0700 (PDT) From: larens imanyuel Subject: Re: [ba-unrev-talk] one handed chord keyboards To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org In-Reply-To: <3D26D66F.8B68F015@sympatico.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Chris, Henry is correct. Two-handed touch typing on an ergonomic keyboard is about twice as fast as chording, because serial stroking is pipelined by the nerves. Even one-handed serial stroking is faster than chording. To the extent that typing consists of phoenetic alphabetic characters, it is also easier to learn, because it plugs into our constant use of natural language. These advantages insure that the current keyboard/mouse system will dominate through economies of scale, until an alternative system is scientifically designed to beat it. This will have to include all or most of the following: 1)having machine abbreviation, as with stenography, 2)allowing analog geometric motions to be performed simultaneously with keying on the same limb in an ergonomic fashion, 3)having lots of degrees-of-freedom of chording to increase its information bandwidth, 4)allowing instantaneous switching between one-handed and two-handed modes, 5)having error correcting and detecting feedback to facilitate learning of chording, 6)having a serial keying mode to utilize people's natural language channel skills, 7)having software support that allows people to type symbols onto overlays of multidimensional images (photos, cartoons, virtual realities) and to conveniently edit and highlight them, 8)packaging the above in a cultural framework that generates the social consensus that motivates people to learn and efficiently utilize the system. Such a system will then become the dominant form of professional communication, because it will be faster and more reliable than either keyboard/mouse, oral/whiteboard, or telephone/fax systems. Spoken natural language and simpler, more specialized systems will, of course, still be widely used. Food for thought, larens --- Henry K van Eyken wrote: > cdent@burningchrome.com wrote: > > > I'm sure this has come up on here before but I > have an itch I'd > > like to scratch: one handed, chorded keyboards. > Where can I buy > > one or try one to see if I like it. It seems ideal > for me. > > > > I found Paul Fernhout's posting on the original > unrev-ii list > > about the Twiddler. I have one of those and after > the first > > couple of weeks of "oh, this is neato" set it down > in > > frustration: it's not well designed for the task I > wanted: fast > > one-handed data entry. It's pretty good for, as > Paul says, > > petting the dog while you type. I was able to get > up to a > > reasonable rate of typing, but my goal here is to > go _faster_ > > than I touch type (and I type quickly) and have > one hand for > > typing and one for mousing, never leaving devices. > I intend to > > use it at a desk, not in a wearable situation. > > > > The most noted one handed chord system on the web > appears to be > > the Bat, but it looks a bit clunky. CyKey is > another. Anyone have > > experience with either of these? > > > > I've seen pictures of the chord keyset made at > SRI. Simple, to > > the point. I can't seem to find anything like > that. > > > > Thanks for any suggestions or comments. > > > > -- > > Chris Dent > http://www.burningchrome.com/~cdent/ > > "Mediocrities everywhere--now and to come--I > absolve you all! Amen!" > > -Salieri, in Peter Shaffer's Amadeus > > Chris. > > Interesting you brought this up. It is something > badly needed - reference: > http://www.fleabyte.org/eic-1.html#2BE - and I have > talked and corresponded > about it with various people. I may be wrong, but I > understand that you will > not get faster with it than with two-handed > touch-typing, but in terms of > overall efficiency by having one hand free to do > other important things it > ought be a winner. > > I understand from someone thoroughly familiar with > manufacturing that there > must me assurance of returns. Cheap as these devices > ought to be, one must be > assured of being able to sell a very large number of > units before a profit is > made. > > I wrote the people at TT Tech, mentioned in the > article referred to, > suggesting they consider making a five-key > derivative of their snap-on > keyboard for handhelds. Frankly, I tend to believe > that if, for example, the > Blackberry came with a free snap-on chord, users > would tend to experiment with > it and eventually may well go for it. Having seen > Doug work the chord,and > having struggled with tiny keys on handhelds myself, > the snap-on chord ought > be a winner. And I am alone in this belief. > > I understand that Grant Bowman got one of the last > surviving chords from Doug > and that he repaired it. He may be able to tell how > one could put one together > (there is electronics involved, of course - maybe > the Bootstrap Institute can > put it hands on schematics, etc.). Nice volunteer > project, or may be an > academic project. > > Henry > ===== larens imanyuel University for the Earth Berkeley, California, U.S.A. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free http://sbc.yahoo.com From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Sat Jul 6 12:01:35 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 3547356FF3; Sat, 6 Jul 2002 12:01:35 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from tomts10-srv.bellnexxia.net (tomts10.bellnexxia.net [209.226.175.54]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7971356FF2 for ; Sat, 6 Jul 2002 12:01:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sympatico.ca ([64.228.165.181]) by tomts10-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.5.01.04.19 201-253-122-122-119-20020516) with ESMTP id <20020706191831.XNQZ18503.tomts10-srv.bellnexxia.net@sympatico.ca> for ; Sat, 6 Jul 2002 15:18:31 -0400 Message-ID: <3D27436B.53117267@sympatico.ca> Date: Sat, 06 Jul 2002 15:22:19 -0400 From: Henry K van Eyken X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.78 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.7-10 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: Re: [ba-unrev-talk] one handed chord keyboards References: <3D26D66F.8B68F015@sympatico.ca> <20020706184210.GB8409@grantbow.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Grant. Great offer. I imagine that Doug will be pleased to have some put back in working order. Henry Grant Bowman wrote: > * Henry van Eyken [020706 04:38]: > > I understand that Grant Bowman got one of the last surviving chords from Doug > > and that he repaired it. He may be able to tell how one could put one together > > (there is electronics involved, of course - maybe the Bootstrap Institute can > > put it hands on schematics, etc.). Nice volunteer project, or may be an > > academic project. > > There are others that can be quickly repaired with a few parts. I would > be happy to help any effort in this direction. > > Cheers, > > -- > -- Grant Bowman From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Sun Jul 7 07:43:19 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id DC9B556FF3; Sun, 7 Jul 2002 07:43:18 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from mta6.snfc21.pbi.net (mta6.snfc21.pbi.net [206.13.28.240]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8C06856FF2 for ; Sun, 7 Jul 2002 07:43:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from home ([63.197.14.24]) by mta6.snfc21.pbi.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built May 7 2001)) with ESMTP id <0GYV00IASWCGVC@mta6.snfc21.pbi.net> for ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org; Sun, 07 Jul 2002 08:00:17 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sun, 07 Jul 2002 08:00:17 -0700 From: John Maloney Subject: RE: [ba-unrev-talk] Fwd: [issues] Re: [ACC] The Warfield Program Part "A" In-reply-to: <4.2.2.20020705081813.025daa60@thinkalong.com> To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Message-id: <000101c225c7$01698f50$180ec53f@home> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Jack, Thanks for the excellent article -- "Creating Sustainable Learning Communities for the Twenty-First Century" http://www.swaraj.org/shikshantar/resources_marshall.html [excerpt] "The reason our society must create a new language for learning communities that transcends school and classroom walls is that the dominance, attraction, and power of the current machine-based language of schooling is not capable of generating the organic patterns of the global learning community we now require." Here is an example of the dominance language: Class: A social stratum whose members share certain economic, social, or cultural characteristics Room: An area separated by walls or partitions Classroom: artifact of Newtonian, mechanical approach to "teaching" The monstrous "teachers" unions and the bureaucratic monolith of the NEA ("a 145-year old labor union") are the main purveyors of the dominance language. They are the specific, direct reason and cause for the current (and past) learning crisis in the USA. The NEA is a giant labor union. Their specific mission to advance the mission of its due-paying members. The have congress and the Dems & Reps in their pocket. Learners aren't even on the radar of this hyper-political juggernaut. Parents, taxpayers and learners, and bright new teachers, are its hostage. That is why it is critical to force the realities of economic ecosystems for learning onto the national agenda. It is particularly important not to require parents to pay TWICE simply to opt-out of this failed labor empire. Indeed, choice and vouchers are a step in the right direction to create, - [excerpt] "...learning culture that provides a forum for risk, novelty, experimentation, and challenge and that redirects and personalizes learning. We must create learning communities for learners of all ages that can give power, time, and voice to their inquiry and their creativity." This is a grave threat to the NEA's monopoly, bureaucracy and political clout. Efforts in the past have been erased and swept up in to the belly of the monopoly. Novel ideas are routinely crushed by the corrupt NEA and its syndicate in favor of the mechanistic, linear model that serves bureaucracy far better. Within these rigid, near fascist NEA/union models, administrators outnumber teachers and those involved with learning by 2 to 1. Administrators get far more pay and rewards than teachers. This makes sense when its singular mission is to perpetuate the union through suppression, dominance, fear and censorship. Meanwhile, here is a site that may interest you and unrev. http://www.learnativity.com Cordially, -jtm -----Original Message----- From: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org [mailto:owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org] On Behalf Of Jack Park Sent: Friday, July 05, 2002 8:32 AM To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: [ba-unrev-talk] Fwd: [issues] Re: [ACC] The Warfield Program Part "A" From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Sun Jul 7 12:05:19 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id B823156FF3; Sun, 7 Jul 2002 12:05:18 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from sccrmhc02.attbi.com (sccrmhc02.attbi.com [204.127.202.62]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 32C9B56FF2 for ; Sun, 7 Jul 2002 12:05:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sony ([12.234.214.35]) by sccrmhc02.attbi.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP id <20020707192219.RTTI6023.sccrmhc02.attbi.com@sony> for ; Sun, 7 Jul 2002 19:22:19 +0000 Message-Id: <4.2.2.20020707121825.02692970@thinkalong.com> X-Sender: jackpark@thinkalong.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Sun, 07 Jul 2002 12:19:46 -0700 To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org From: Jack Park Subject: [ba-unrev-talk] Digital Rights Patent Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org http://jya.com/ms-drm-os.htm "This invention relates generally to computer operating systems, and more particularly to booting and identifying an operating system that enforces digital rights" "The unusual property of digital content is that the publisher (or reseller) gives or sells the content to a client, but continues to restrict rights to use the content even after the content is under the sole physical control of the client. For instance, a publisher will typically retain copyright to a work so that the client cannot reproduce or publish the work without permission. A publisher could also adjust pricing according to whether the client is allowed to make a persistent copy, or is just allowed to view the content online as it is delivered. These scenarios reveal a peculiar arrangement. The user that possesses the digital bits often does not have full rights to their use; instead, the provider retains at least some of the rights. In a very real sense, the legitimate user of a computer can be an adversary of the data or content provider. "Digital rights management" is therefore fast becoming a central requirement if online commerce is to continue its rapid growth. Content providers and the computer industry must quickly provide technologies and protocols for ensuring that digital content is properly handled in accordance with the rights granted by the publisher. If measures are not taken, traditional content providers may be put out of business by widespread theft, or, more likely, will refuse altogether to deliver content online. Traditional security systems ill serve this problem. There are highly secure schemes for encrypting data on networks, authenticating users, revoking certificates, and storing data securely. Unfortunately, none of these systems address the assurance of content security after it has been delivered to a client's machine. Traditional uses of smart cards offer little help. Smart cards merely provide authentication, storage, and encryption capabilities. Ultimately, useful content must be assembled within the host machine for display, and again, at this point the bits are subject to theft. Cryptographic coprocessors provide higher-performance cryptographic operations, and are usually programmable but again, fundamentally, any operating system or sufficiently privileged application, trusted or not, can use the services of the cryptographic processor. There appear to be three solutions to this problem. One solution is to do away with general-purpose computing devices and use special-purpose tamper-resistant boxes for delivery, storage, and display of secure content. This is the approach adopted by the cable industry and their set-top boxes, and looks set to be the model for DVD-video presentation. The second solution is to use secret, proprietary data formats and applications software, or to use tamper-resistant software containers, in the hope that the resulting complexity will substantially impede piracy. The third solution is to modify the general-purpose computer to support a general model of client-side content security and digital rights management. This invention is directed to a system and methodology that falls generally into the third category of solutions. " From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Mon Jul 8 06:54:54 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id F184B56FF3; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 06:54:53 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from mta7.pltn13.pbi.net (mta7.pltn13.pbi.net [64.164.98.8]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id AFA4256FF2; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 06:54:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from home ([63.197.14.24]) by mta7.pltn13.pbi.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built May 7 2001)) with ESMTP id <0GYX00H71ORRMW@mta7.pltn13.pbi.net>; Mon, 08 Jul 2002 07:11:52 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2002 07:11:53 -0700 From: John Maloney Subject: [ba-unrev-talk] Manhattan Project to establish the Knowledge Sciences To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org, ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org Message-id: <000d01c22689$68eddfb0$180ec53f@home> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_Q9aXKcpv+x06sCEWVXwszQ)" Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_Q9aXKcpv+x06sCEWVXwszQ) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Greetings, The Behavioral Computational Neuroscience Group and The OntologyStream are proposing a Manhattan Project to establish the Knowledge Sciences: http://www.bcngroup.org/area3/manhattan/sindex.htm. The BCNGroup Founding Committee asks that we forward information about this Project to a wide audience! The link at: http://www.bcngroup.org/area3/manhattan/sindex.htm. has a button and Java script to automate the sending of e-mail about the Manhattan project to e-mail addresses that you enter. Cheers, -jtm --Boundary_(ID_Q9aXKcpv+x06sCEWVXwszQ) Content-type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Message

Greetings,

The Behavioral Computational Neuroscience Group and The OntologyStream are proposing a Manhattan Project to establish the Knowledge Sciences:

 http://www.bcngroup.org/area3/manhattan/sindex.htm.

 The BCNGroup Founding Committee asks that we forward information about this Project to a wide audience!

The link at: http://www.bcngroup.org/area3/manhattan/sindex.htm. has a button and Java script to automate the sending of e-mail about the Manhattan project to e-mail addresses that you enter. 

 

Cheers,

 

-jtm

--Boundary_(ID_Q9aXKcpv+x06sCEWVXwszQ)-- From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Mon Jul 8 12:45:02 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 33B2556FF3; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 12:45:02 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from imailg2.svr.pol.co.uk (imailg2.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.195.180]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7872C56FF2 for ; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 12:44:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from modem-16.charmeleon.dialup.pol.co.uk ([217.135.79.16] helo=vaio) by imailg2.svr.pol.co.uk with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17Reho-0000RP-00 for ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org; Mon, 08 Jul 2002 21:01:56 +0100 Message-ID: <002301c226ba$088fa780$104f87d9@vaio> From: "Peter Jones" To: Subject: [ba-unrev-talk] Communications for a Sustainable Future Centre at Colorado Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 20:59:55 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org An interesting set of mailing lists at: http://csf.colorado.edu/cgi-bin/mj_wwwusr?user=x195.92.168.173%40example .com&passw=&func=lists-long casenet Active Learning in International Affairs cool Campus Outreach Opportunity League homeless Homelessness and Housing isafp ISA Foreign Policy labor-rap Labor Research and Action Project peace Peace Studies ppn Progressive Population Network revs Racial-Religious-Ethnonationalist Violence Studies service-learning Service-Learning Discussion Group txseedsavers Seed-saving information exchange list. waib Women in the Academy of International Business wealth-fairsharing Fair sharing of benefits from common-heritage natural wealth wsn World Systems Network Category: Colorado bcwatershed Boulder Creek Watershed discussion puma Preserve Unique Magnolia Association Category: economics clim-econ Economics of Climate Variability and Global Change debt The Economics of Debt friends-of-pkt Post Keynesian Thought Announcements ipe International Political Economy itcp International Trade and Commercial Policy longwaves Kondratiev Waves and market cycles pen PEN is a reflector of the PEN-L mailing list, which is managed by Michael Perelman and based at California State University at Chico. Archives are available at http://csf.colorado.edu/forums/pen-l/ pkt Post Keynesian Thought pkt-seminars Post Keynesian Thought Seminars seminars Economics Seminar Announcements Category: environment bioregional Natural regions and human habitation ecofem ECOFEM is an international electronic mail forum through which a variety of viewpoints concerning women and the environment may be discussed. ecol-econ Ecological Economics ecopath Ecopath merges sustainable philosophy and daily life elan Environment in Latin America Network envtecsoc Environment, Technology, and Society essa Earth-friendly and Self-sufficient Architecture ncse National Council for Science and the Environment Category: feminism femisa Feminist Theory and Gender Studies m-fem A place for marxist-feminists to hang out matfem Materialist Feminism Category: psychology friends-of-cgjung Jung Seminar Announcements Category: sociology medsoc Medical Sociology psn Progressive Sociology Network socgrad Sociology Graduate Students -- International Category: software mj2-dev Majordomo 2 Developer Discussions -- Peter From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Mon Jul 8 12:47:55 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id A5FCB56FF4; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 12:47:54 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from imailg2.svr.pol.co.uk (imailg2.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.195.180]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id DC02056FF3 for ; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 12:47:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from modem-16.charmeleon.dialup.pol.co.uk ([217.135.79.16] helo=vaio) by imailg2.svr.pol.co.uk with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17Rekd-0000qr-00 for ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org; Mon, 08 Jul 2002 21:04:51 +0100 Message-ID: <002b01c226ba$7130eec0$104f87d9@vaio> From: "Peter Jones" To: Subject: [ba-unrev-talk] The Participatory Economics Project Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 21:02:51 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org At http://www.parecon.org/ "Participatory economics (or parecon for short) is a type of economy proposed as an alternative to contemporary capitalism. The underlying values parecon seeks to implement are equity, solidarity, diversity, and participatory self management. The main institutions to attain these ends are council democracy, balanced job complexes, remuneration according to effort and sacrifice, and participatory planning. " -- Peter From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Mon Jul 8 13:27:45 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 2039D56FF4; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 13:27:45 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from imailg2.svr.pol.co.uk (imailg2.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.195.180]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2B8CB56FF2 for ; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 13:27:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from modem-16.charmeleon.dialup.pol.co.uk ([217.135.79.16] helo=vaio) by imailg2.svr.pol.co.uk with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17RfNB-00000V-00 for ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org; Mon, 08 Jul 2002 21:44:42 +0100 Message-ID: <004101c226c0$01ebc480$104f87d9@vaio> From: "Peter Jones" To: Subject: [ba-unrev-talk] The World-Systems Electronic Conferencing Network Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 21:42:41 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org http://csf.colorado.edu/wsystems/index.html "WSN is an electronic conferencing network and information source for scholars and researchers who are studying world-systems. The purpose of WSN is to facilitate the sharing of information about research, data, publications, announcements, meetings, syllabi, commentary, book reviews, scuttlebut and etc. WSN is part of CSF, Communications for a Sustainable Future, a collection of progressive electronic networks and archives at the University of Colorado-Boulder. WSN is linked with the World-Systems Archive. The World-Systems Archive contains valuable information for scholars engaged in research on world-systems. Working papers, bibliographies, announcements and many other kinds of information are available. In addition all the conversations and announcements that are posted on WSN are saved in the Mail Archive. " Which led to: http://www.asanet.org/sections/polecon.html "Political Economy of the World-System The purpose of the Section on Political Economy of the World-System (PEWS) is to pursue the study of world systems over long periods of time. PEWS seeks to foster the understanding of difference and offers an integrated analysis of the political economy and its social bases." With some listservs at http://acad.depauw.edu/~thall/pewslistshp.htm -- Peter From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Mon Jul 8 13:53:38 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 5CC4A56FF3; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 13:53:38 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from woody.grantbow.com (12-233-20-180.client.attbi.com [12.233.20.180]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id F41DF56FF2 for ; Mon, 8 Jul 2002 13:53:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grantbow by woody.grantbow.com with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17RfmD-0001nX-00 for ; Mon, 08 Jul 2002 14:10:33 -0700 Date: Mon, 8 Jul 2002 14:10:32 -0700 From: Grant Bowman To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: [ba-unrev-talk] Edge: Message-ID: <20020708211031.GB5598@grantbow.com> Mail-Followup-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org I just was browsing http://www.edge.org and found this item on the front page that I thought others would be interested in. Sounds like Kurzweil's talking about a DKR at the end there. Regards, -- -- Grant Bowman THE SINGULARITY: A TALK WITH RAY KURZWEIL [3.25.02] Ray Kurzweil: EdgeVideo (8:37 min.) DSL+ | Modem Requires Real Player plug-in (Free Download) We are entering a new era. I call it "the Singularity." It's a merger between human intelligence and machine intelligence that is going to create something bigger than itself. It's the cutting edge of evolution on our planet. One can make a strong case that it's actually the cutting edge of the evolution of intelligence in general, because there's no indication that it's occurred anywhere else. To me that is what human civilization is all about. It is part of our destiny and part of the destiny of evolution to continue to progress ever faster, and to grow the power of intelligence exponentially.To contemplate stopping that -- to think human beings are fine the way they are -- is a misplaced fond remembrance of what human beings used to be. What human beings are is a species that has undergone a cultural and technological evolution, and it's the nature of evolution that it accelerates, and that its powers grow exponentially, and that's what we're talking about. The next stage of this will be to amplify our own intellectual powers with the results of our technology. From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Tue Jul 9 15:18:43 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 112A656FF3; Tue, 9 Jul 2002 15:18:42 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from cmailg5.svr.pol.co.uk (cmailg5.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.195.175]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0E3FA56FF2 for ; Tue, 9 Jul 2002 15:18:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from modem-583.narley.dialup.pol.co.uk ([62.25.182.71] helo=vaio) by cmailg5.svr.pol.co.uk with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17S3a7-00012x-00 for ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org; Tue, 09 Jul 2002 23:35:39 +0100 Message-ID: <000901c22798$ac1a1d20$47b6193e@vaio> From: "Peter Jones" To: Subject: [ba-unrev-talk] BA Archive Phrase Index Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 23:33:37 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Hi, Just out of curiosity I've put together a little phrase index of the ba-ohs-talk and ba-unrev-talk archives. I was going to put it up live on my website but some of the individual HTML files are pretty big and would probably not upload very well without major bandwidth. So I've provided it in a zip for download and local use. http://www.concept67.fsnet.co.uk/bootstrap/ One of the things I've learnt from this is that maybe Infoglut Rules, OK. -- Peter From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Wed Jul 10 16:59:17 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 998FF56FF8; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 16:59:16 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from sccrmhc01.attbi.com (sccrmhc01.attbi.com [204.127.202.61]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 246CC56FF7 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 16:59:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sony ([12.234.214.35]) by sccrmhc01.attbi.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP id <20020711001621.XKSJ29588.sccrmhc01.attbi.com@sony> for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 00:16:21 +0000 Message-Id: <4.2.2.20020710170900.0259b580@thinkalong.com> X-Sender: jackpark@thinkalong.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 17:13:41 -0700 To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org From: Jack Park Subject: [ba-unrev-talk] Internet Law on Blogs Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Start here, Dan Gilmore's blog http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/business/columnists/dan_gillm or/ejournal/3580048.htm "I'm at Harvard Law School this week for an incredible education -- five days of lectures and seminars on Internet law There are people here from 23 countries -- an amazing turnout. Only 38 percent of the people here are lawyers. Others are from technology companies, government and other fields including journalism. One of the points of this, says William Fisher, a law professor here, is to build a global community of people who are thinking about all this in a serious way." http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/business/columnists/dan_gillm or/ejournal/3586324.htm http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/business/columnists/dan_gillm or/ejournal/3593653.htm http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/business/columnists/dan_gillm or/ejournal/3600823.htm http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/business/columnists/dan_gillm or/ejournal/3605977.htm http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/business/columnists/dan_gillm or/ejournal/3606881.htm From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Wed Jul 10 17:11:10 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 6A69456FF9; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 17:11:10 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from sccrmhc01.attbi.com (sccrmhc01.attbi.com [204.127.202.61]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0177556FF8 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 17:11:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sony ([12.234.214.35]) by sccrmhc01.attbi.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP id <20020711002815.XZOY29588.sccrmhc01.attbi.com@sony> for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 00:28:15 +0000 Message-Id: <4.2.2.20020710172345.025fd7c0@thinkalong.com> X-Sender: jackpark@thinkalong.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 17:25:35 -0700 To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org From: Jack Park Subject: [ba-unrev-talk] May the source be with you -- open source Biology Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/0207.thompson.html "The whole corporatized system, however, rests on the ability to hoard information. The information and its dissemination has to be owned through government-granted patents and licenses, if the discoverer is to make big money on it. In one way, that's fine. The prospect of profits inspires research and our increasingly corporatized system has produced some notable medical breakthroughs and innovations--drugs to treat high cholesterol and depression, for example. Perhaps most famously, it was a private company hunting for gold, Celera, which figured out a new way to decode genetic data and spurred the mad race to mapping the human genome. But hoarding information clashes directly with another imperative of scientific progress: that information be shared as quickly and widely as possible to maximize the chance that other scientists can see it, improve on it, or use it in ways the original discoverer didn't foresee. "The right to search for truth implies also a duty; one must not conceal any part of what one has recognized to be true," reads the Albert Einstein quote inscribed on a memorial outside the National Academy of Sciences offices in Washington. The great physicist, then, might be disappointed if he learned that in 2002 he'd need approval from 34 different patent holders before buying a new kind of rice genetically engineered in Costa Rica to resist a tropical virus. Or that, according to a recent Journal of the American Medical Association survey, three times as many academic geneticists believe that sharing has decreased in their field over the past decade as believe it has increased--despite the ease with which one can now transfer information online. Indeed, nearly three-fourths of the geneticists surveyed said that a lack of sharing had slowed progress in the their field. Info-hoarding may help explain at least part of the decline in pharmaceutical innovation. According to a recent study by the nonprofit National Institute for Health Care Management, a rapidly increasing percentage of new drugs approved by the FDA have the same active ingredients as other drugs on the market. In other words, the industry may not be innovating as much as learning how to market and package old drugs in new ways. Fortunately, a potentially revolutionary counter-trend is developing. A small but growing number of scientists, most of them funded by the National Institutes of Health, are conducting cutting-edge research into the most complex problems of biology not in highly secure labs but on the Internet, for all the world to see. Called "open-source biology," this work is the complete antithesis of corporatized research. It's a movement worth watching--and rooting for. " From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Wed Jul 10 17:41:36 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 8EA7256FF9; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 17:41:35 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from sccrmhc01.attbi.com (sccrmhc01.attbi.com [204.127.202.61]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1574F56FF7 for ; Wed, 10 Jul 2002 17:41:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sony ([12.234.214.35]) by sccrmhc01.attbi.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP id <20020711005840.ZJVH29588.sccrmhc01.attbi.com@sony> for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 00:58:40 +0000 Message-Id: <4.2.2.20020710175511.0261c100@thinkalong.com> X-Sender: jackpark@thinkalong.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 17:55:57 -0700 To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org From: Jack Park Subject: [ba-unrev-talk] Tree of Life -- a DKR? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org http://tolweb.org/tree/ "The Tree of Life is a collaborative web project, produced by biologists from around the world. On more than 2000 World Wide Web pages, the Tree of Life provides information about the diversity of organisms on Earth, their history, and characteristics. Each page contains information about one group of organisms (for example, the Coleoptera page gives information about all beetles, the Salticidae page about jumping spiders, the Cephalopoda page about squids, octopi, and related molluscs, and the Fungi page about fungi). Individual Tree of Life pages are linked one to another in the form of the evolutionary tree that connects all organisms, with the pages branching off from a group's page being about subgroups. For example, the links from the page on frogs leads one to pages on individual families of frogs, and eventually up to some individual species of frogs:" From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Thu Jul 11 09:55:25 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 5DC9256FFD; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 09:55:25 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from sccrmhc01.attbi.com (sccrmhc01.attbi.com [204.127.202.61]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E6F3A56FFC for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 09:55:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sony ([12.234.214.35]) by sccrmhc01.attbi.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP id <20020711171231.BDYI29588.sccrmhc01.attbi.com@sony> for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 17:12:31 +0000 Message-Id: <4.2.2.20020711100931.025e0370@thinkalong.com> X-Sender: jackpark@thinkalong.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 10:09:55 -0700 To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org From: Jack Park Subject: [ba-unrev-talk] Fwd: Public Software Fund Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org >From: Russell Nelson >To: fsb@crynwr.com > >There's an announcement on Slashdot, of the Public Software Fund's >first project. The Public Software Fund's raisin d'entre is simple: >to reward individuals who are currently funding the development of >public software, and to encourage individuals who are funding >proprietary software or not software at all, to fund public software. >By funding only public software, we serve a public purpose, and have >filed for a 501(c)(3) exemption with the Internal Revenue Service. > >Donors choose the projects to be funded. If there's a worthy project >that you wish to fund (even in a small way), please get in touch with >me. You can use nelson@pubsoft.org, or nelson@crynwr.com. Our >website is at: > > http://www.pubsoft.org > >-- >-russ nelson http://russnelson.com | New Internet Acronym: >Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | >521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | IANAE >Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | I Am Not An Economist From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Thu Jul 11 10:17:01 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 6CA1B56FFD; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 10:17:01 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from sccrmhc02.attbi.com (sccrmhc02.attbi.com [204.127.202.62]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B2CF856FFC for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 10:16:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sony ([12.234.214.35]) by sccrmhc02.attbi.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP id <20020711173405.WQVT6023.sccrmhc02.attbi.com@sony> for ; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 17:34:05 +0000 Message-Id: <4.2.2.20020711103040.026dde60@thinkalong.com> X-Sender: jackpark@thinkalong.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 10:31:29 -0700 To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org From: Jack Park Subject: [ba-unrev-talk] Fwd: Re: [issues] Re: [ACC] Framing the triggering questions Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Towards a humane DKR... >From: "Dr. Ely A. Dorsey" >Organization: Technology Studies for Peace and Justice Project > >All war is a form of fanaticism. God is the first being drafted by all sides. >There are no good bullets or bombs. They are made to kill people. The >purpose >of a soldier or a cop is to protect the infrastructure of power that prevails. >There are no good soldiers or cops. If armies were good, then after the evil >for which the army was created was defeated there would be no need for an >army. >Have you seen any armies disbanded lately? Obviously armies or cops are not >created to fight evil, they are part of an ongoing evil that powers do not >want >to defeat. > >9/11 was horrible and ugly and mean and sad. BUT so was 9/10. On 9/10 the UN >Conference on Racism ended with every ethnic group in the world just as >mistrustful of each other as before 9/10. The US unfortunately did not >participate because it was afraid that it would be held accountable for its >history of slavery. So 9/10 happened and then 9/11. 9/11 has brought tens of >billions of dollars and cops and armies and bombs and all kinds of privacy >violations and human rights compromises and alarmist fantasies. 9/10 has been >ignored except that 65 million people are predicted to have HIV/Aids in >the near >future. { If this forecast holds, it will have more of an impact on the >sustainability of capitalism than all the money on Wall Street. And this is >just AIDS One, think of the sequels.} More people in Africa have died in the >last week to problems associated with poverty, racism and western >indifference, >than in 9/11, Afghanistan, Pakistan and wherever else the US is fighting its >pseudo war on terrorism. > >What is going on now in the US and elsewhere is very stupid. We do not >want to >think differently. Violence is an easier way to solve problems. And >stupidity >is not limited to the US, there are leaders and coalitions of idiots in every >country of every faith of every persuasion. Someone needs to say: Stop! >Enough! Take a Deep Breath, Breathe! Relax! Calm Down! Walk Away From >It For >a Minute! Easy! > >Where are those voices???? > >John Collier wrote: > > > At 07:27 AM 11/07/02, Thommandel@aol.com wrote: > > It occurred to me that framing the triggering question is not easy... > > > > A. What are the contributing factors/actions/events that led to the 911 > > explosions? > > > > 1. American arrogance clashed with the arrogance of Islamic fundamentalism. > > This set the stage. Given the difference in power, it is the US > arrogance in > > its unilateralism (except when multilateralism is convenient) that made it > > a specific > > target. The Islamic fundamentalists are also unilateralists. There was a > > certain > > sociopathy on both sides that was increasingly intransigent (and shows > > no signs of having diminished -- the causes are still there). > > > > 2. Someone in al Qaeda got a brilliant but sinister idea. > > > > 3. There were enough devotees well place to carry it off. > > > > I think that 3 is the most variable part, and is closest to a 'trigger". > > > > B What are the contributing factors/actions/events that led to wide > > disagreement about God? > > > > I think the main contributing factor is the idea that God cares for our > > aspirations, and not > > for us. It comes from the false identification of ourselves with our > > aspirations. This is the > > root of fanaticism. I doubt that there are any events or actions of any > > significance in this case, > > in that all would lead to the same end within this framework. > > > > John > > > > ---------- > > Dr John Collier john.collier@kla.univie.ac.at > > Konrad Lorenz Institute for Evolution and Cognition Research > > Adolf Lorenz Gasse 2 +432-242-32390-19 > > A-3422 Altenberg Austria Fax: 242-32390-4 > > http://www.kli.ac.at/research.html?personal/collier From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Fri Jul 12 08:51:39 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 3896956FF3; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 08:51:39 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from sccrmhc02.attbi.com (sccrmhc02.attbi.com [204.127.202.62]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D1BE356FF2 for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 08:51:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sony ([12.234.214.35]) by sccrmhc02.attbi.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP id <20020712160842.OPHJ6023.sccrmhc02.attbi.com@sony> for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 16:08:42 +0000 Message-Id: <4.2.2.20020712090532.025f4d20@thinkalong.com> X-Sender: jackpark@thinkalong.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 09:06:07 -0700 To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org From: Jack Park Subject: [ba-unrev-talk] Synthetic virus created Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_2122000/2122619.stm "Scientists have assembled the first synthetic virus. The US researchers built the infectious agent from scratch using the genome sequence for polio. " From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Fri Jul 12 13:38:33 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 2DBC256FF3; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 13:38:33 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from tisch.mail.mindspring.net (tisch.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.157]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id ACC1856FF2 for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 13:38:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from user-119a903.biz.mindspring.com ([66.149.36.3] helo=gmob) by tisch.mail.mindspring.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17T7Rs-0007J6-00 for ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 16:55:32 -0400 From: "Graham Stalker-Wilde" To: Subject: RE: [ba-unrev-talk] Synthetic virus created Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 16:55:15 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <4.2.2.20020712090532.025f4d20@thinkalong.com> Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org I saw, and, as Im sure so many others, thought: "Polio seemed like a good demo?" -----Original Message----- From: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org [mailto:owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org]On Behalf Of Jack Park Sent: Friday, July 12, 2002 12:06 PM To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: [ba-unrev-talk] Synthetic virus created http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_2122000/2122619.stm "Scientists have assembled the first synthetic virus. The US researchers built the infectious agent from scratch using the genome sequence for polio. " From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Fri Jul 12 20:44:20 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 7E05656FF3; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 20:44:19 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from mta5.snfc21.pbi.net (mta5.snfc21.pbi.net [206.13.28.241]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1B2C656FF2 for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 20:44:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from home ([63.197.14.24]) by mta5.snfc21.pbi.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built May 7 2001)) with ESMTP id <0GZ6006GZ5U9XH@mta5.snfc21.pbi.net> for ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 21:01:22 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 21:01:22 -0700 From: John Maloney Subject: [ba-unrev-talk] Really, It's That Simple. To: UNREV Message-id: <002d01c22a21$f34a85f0$180ec53f@home> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_mJ0ilqPCHe62Tx2yJSGvKg)" Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_mJ0ilqPCHe62Tx2yJSGvKg) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Recently, Vice President Cheney and Secretary Rumsfeld warned that more terror attacks are a certainty and may involve the detonation of an atomic weapon on American soil. They have concentrated the mind wonderfully. Even a small, crude nuclear device, exploded in a U.S. port or city, could kill many thousands more than died on Sept. 11. Rightly, the U.S. government is focused on how to anticipate such an attack, prevent it, prepare for it. But there has been no debate over the most critical question. Why? Why do these Islamic radicals so hate us they are willing to commit suicide, if they can take hundreds or thousands of us with them? They don't know us. They cannot defeat or destroy the United States, even with an atom bomb. What can they hope to accomplish? Are they simply madmen? In our focus on improved intelligence, preemptive strikes, color-coded alerts and evacuation plans, have we overlooked a course of action that could end the threat of cataclysmic terror? Like Poe's "Purloined Letter," is a way out right there on the mantelpiece in front of us? Consider: While no Western nation has endured an act of terror on the scale of 9-11, all have known terror. Brits were ambushed by the Irish in the war of independence from 1919 to 1921. British civilians were blown up by Zionists in the King David Hotel in 1946. Settlers were murdered by Mau Mau in Kenya. French were massacred in movie theaters and cafes by the Algerian FLN until 1962. U.S. Marines were blown up in Beirut in 1983. From Netanya to Jerusalem to Tel Aviv, Israelis today die in terror attacks and suicide bombings. In all these atrocities, terror was a weapon of the weak and stateless against Western powers they could not defeat with arms. In each case, terror was used to expel an imperial power or drive out foreign troops. In each case but one, terror ended when the Western power went home. The dynamiting of the King David Hotel convinced the British to accelerate their departure from Palestine. Zionist terror ended. Mau Mau terror ended when the Brits left Kenya. When De Gaulle cut Algeria loose, FLN terror ended. When Reagan withdrew his Marines from Beirut, anti-American terror ended in Lebanon. Lesson? The price of empire is terror. The price of occupation is terror. The price of interventionism is terror. As Barry Goldwater used to say, it is as simple as that. When Israel departed Lebanon, Hezbollah's attacks fell off almost to nothing. But as long as Israelis occupy the West Bank, which Prime Minister Barak conceded belongs at least 95 percent to the Palestinians, Israel will be hit by terror attacks. Either Israel gets out, or it pays the price of staying in: terrorism. But this is not about Israel -- it is about us. It is about why we are being told by our leaders, in tones of resignation and fatalism, that it is not a question of whether, but of when, the next act of cataclysmic terror occurs here, and why we must accept the possibility that a nuclear weapon will be exploded here. But when Americans ask, "Why do they hate us?" and "Why do these Islamic radicals on the other side of the earth want to come over here and commit hara-kari killing us?" we get responses that ought not to satisfy a second-grader. They hate us, we are told, because we are democratic and free and good, and we have low tax rates. Well that is no longer enough. Before, not after, the next terror attack on this country, America's leaders should start telling the truth: Evil though they may be, Islamic killers are over here because we are over there. They are not trying to kill us because they dislike our domestic politics, but because they detest our foreign policy. Fifteen of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia. They did not fly into those twin towers to protest universal suffrage or to advance self-determination for the Palestinian people. As Osama bin Laden said, they want us to stop propping up the Saudi regime they hate, and to get off the sacred Saudi soil on which sit the holiest shrines of Islam. They want our troops out of Saudi Arabia - and if we don't get out, they are coming over here to kill us any way they can. That is reality. Now while America should use every weapon in her arsenal, from intelligence to diplomacy to war, to prevent terror and to punish terror, we must address the central issue: Terror on American soil, and eventual cataclysmic and atomic terror on American soil, is the price of American empire. Is the empire worth it? French, Brits, even Soviets said no. They went home. And nothing over there - not oil, not bases in Saudi Arabia, not global hegemony - is worth risking nuclear terror over here. ### --Boundary_(ID_mJ0ilqPCHe62Tx2yJSGvKg) Content-type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Message

Recently, Vice President Cheney and Secretary Rumsfeld warned that more terror attacks are a certainty and may involve the detonation of an atomic weapon on American soil. They have concentrated the mind wonderfully. Even a small, crude nuclear device, exploded in a U.S. port or city, could kill many thousands more than died on Sept. 11.

Rightly, the U.S. government is focused on how to anticipate such an attack, prevent it, prepare for it.

But there has been no debate over the most critical question. Why? Why do these Islamic radicals so hate us they are willing to commit suicide, if they can take hundreds or thousands of us with them?

They don't know us. They cannot defeat or destroy the United States, even with an atom bomb. What can they hope to accomplish? Are they simply madmen?

In our focus on improved intelligence, preemptive strikes, color-coded alerts and evacuation plans, have we overlooked a course of action that could end the threat of cataclysmic terror? Like Poe's "Purloined Letter," is a way out right there on the mantelpiece in front of us?

Consider: While no Western nation has endured an act of terror on the scale of 9-11, all have known terror.

Brits were ambushed by the Irish in the war of independence from 1919 to 1921. British civilians were blown up by Zionists in the King David Hotel in 1946. Settlers were murdered by Mau Mau in Kenya. French were massacred in movie theaters and cafes by the Algerian FLN until 1962. U.S. Marines were blown up in Beirut in 1983. From Netanya to Jerusalem to Tel Aviv, Israelis today die in terror attacks and suicide bombings.

In all these atrocities, terror was a weapon of the weak and stateless against Western powers they could not defeat with arms. In each case, terror was used to expel an imperial power or drive out foreign troops. In each case but one, terror ended when the Western power went home.

The dynamiting of the King David Hotel convinced the British to accelerate their departure from Palestine. Zionist terror ended. Mau Mau terror ended when the Brits left Kenya. When De Gaulle cut Algeria loose, FLN terror ended. When Reagan withdrew his Marines from Beirut, anti-American terror ended in Lebanon.

Lesson? The price of empire is terror. The price of occupation is terror. The price of interventionism is terror. As Barry Goldwater used to say, it is as simple as that. When Israel departed Lebanon, Hezbollah's attacks fell off almost to nothing. But as long as Israelis occupy the West Bank, which Prime Minister Barak conceded belongs at least 95 percent to the Palestinians, Israel will be hit by terror attacks.

Either Israel gets out, or it pays the price of staying in: terrorism.

But this is not about Israel -- it is about us. It is about why we are being told by our leaders, in tones of resignation and fatalism, that it is not a question of whether, but of when, the next act of cataclysmic terror occurs here, and why we must accept the possibility that a nuclear weapon will be exploded here.

But when Americans ask, "Why do they hate us?" and "Why do these Islamic radicals on the other side of the earth want to come over here and commit hara-kari killing us?" we get responses that ought not to satisfy a second-grader. They hate us, we are told, because we are democratic and free and good, and we have low tax rates.

Well that is no longer enough. Before, not after, the next terror attack on this country, America's leaders should start telling the truth: Evil though they may be, Islamic killers are over here because we are over there. They are not trying to kill us because they dislike our domestic politics, but because they detest our foreign policy.

Fifteen of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia. They did not fly into those twin towers to protest universal suffrage or to advance self-determination for the Palestinian people. As Osama bin Laden said, they want us to stop propping up the Saudi regime they hate, and to get off the sacred Saudi soil on which sit the holiest shrines of Islam. They want our troops out of Saudi Arabia – and if we don't get out, they are coming over here to kill us any way they can.

That is reality. Now while America should use every weapon in her arsenal, from intelligence to diplomacy to war, to prevent terror and to punish terror, we must address the central issue: Terror on American soil, and eventual cataclysmic and atomic terror on American soil, is the price of American empire.

Is the empire worth it? French, Brits, even Soviets said no. They went home. And nothing over there – not oil, not bases in Saudi Arabia, not global hegemony – is worth risking nuclear terror over here. 
 

###

 
--Boundary_(ID_mJ0ilqPCHe62Tx2yJSGvKg)-- From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Fri Jul 12 21:25:30 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id E514756FF3; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 21:25:29 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from patan.sun.com (patan.Sun.COM [192.18.98.43]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 579B356FF2 for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 21:25:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM ([129.145.155.51]) by patan.sun.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA09241 for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 22:42:32 -0600 (MDT) Received: from sun.com (d-usca14-129-126 [129.145.129.126]) by ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM (8.11.6+Sun/8.10.2/ENSMAIL,v2.1p1) with ESMTP id g6D4gWC07936 for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2002 21:42:32 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3D2FAFB7.E2DF7E58@sun.com> Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 21:42:31 -0700 From: Eric Armstrong X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: [ba-unrev-talk] NOT: Really, It's That Simple References: <002d01c22a21$f34a85f0$180ec53f@home> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org John, I respect your opinions and the reasoning behind them, but on this on I have to disagree. It is in the nature of a bully to use force to achieve their goals. It is in the nature of the truly brave (Ghandi, for example) to achieve their ends peaceably. In Ghandi's case, too, occupation was ended, but by far less brutal, despicable means. What holds back Western nations is *conscience*. Massive retaliation of the kind never before experienced on this planet would else end the atrocities. But Western nations are held in check by their own conscience. They do want the slaughter of innocents on their hands. Fantatics, on the other hand, know no such restrictions. That puts even a large power at a disadvantage. A lack of conscience allows a foreign leader to cry out against the injustices done to him, while inciting equal and greater injustices at the very same time. The question is, at what point can a nation afford to *stop* standing for fair play and honor?? It is lost in the dim recesses of history that the Palestinian state was formed on the very same day as the Israeli state, by the very same decree. Immediately, the Israeli state was declared unacceptable by the Palestinians, and war ensued. Once vanguished, the Palestinians immediately set about hollering about how their land was unjustly taken from them. Yet, once given back, the wars resumed -- time and again, in one form or another. Each time, promises were made: "Give us back our land, and there will be peace". But there never has been peace. This is the way of things when you deal with people who have no honor. They will say anything. They will promise anything. But they will do nothing. Unfortunately, Arafat is as totally without honor as anyone who has ever existed on this planet. His words mean exactly nothing. To accept any representation he makes is simply to play into his hands, and to gain nothing in return. For years now, the argument has been "We own it all. The Isreali's have no right here. Israel has no right to exist." Although there has been some softening of that position recently, it has only come about as a result of the realization that force will not rule the day. To retreat in the face of that force is to give the bully everything he wants. And after a stake has been driven far enough into the heart of Isreal's borders, Isreal, too, will fall -- if the religious fanatics have their way. Maybe the Israeli state should have been founded on some unoccupied islands in the South Pacific. I don't know. It sure would have solved some problems -- not that anyone would have gone there. Personally, I see religious movements as the cause of the greatest human suffering and the greatest travesties against mankind. To be so totally enamored of some rock in the middle of a dessert that one cannot even think of living elsewhere -- well, that defies sensibility, in my book. After religious fervor comes national fervor, and after that comes free market excesses, in their capacity to do harm in the name of good. But, like it or not, people do have those religious beliefs, and they do hunger after the same piece of barren rock. So, what is there to do? The options are: 1) Pick up the Isreali state and move it somewhere else. 2) Get out, stay out, and don't care what happens to Israel. 3) Keep working, by a combination of means, to fix the situation with carrots (concessions) and sticks (force) even if it takes 40 years, as with the cold war, or a few hundred years. 4) Get really nasty and start hurting people so badly that they either quit, or there aren't enough left to make a difference. I've no doubt left out some valid alternatives, but of that list, I think #3 makes the most sense. It combines a sense of honor and decency with the gumption not to get pushed around. On the other hand, when we start thinking about the problem of nuclear waste, it occurs to me that I can think of a few places I wouldn't mind dumping it.... From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Sat Jul 13 04:27:12 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 62CEB56FF3; Sat, 13 Jul 2002 04:27:12 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from tomts12-srv.bellnexxia.net (tomts12.bellnexxia.net [209.226.175.56]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B527B56FF2 for ; Sat, 13 Jul 2002 04:27:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sympatico.ca ([64.228.165.114]) by tomts12-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.5.01.04.19 201-253-122-122-119-20020516) with ESMTP id <20020713114425.KHBW1307.tomts12-srv.bellnexxia.net@sympatico.ca> for ; Sat, 13 Jul 2002 07:44:25 -0400 Message-ID: <3D301382.109CFB96@sympatico.ca> Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2002 07:48:18 -0400 From: Henry K van Eyken X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.78 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.7-10 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: Re: [ba-unrev-talk] Really, It's That Simple. References: <002d01c22a21$f34a85f0$180ec53f@home> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org John. One cannot but agree with your argument, if considered in isolation. But it begs some questions, such as why are Americans active in Saudi Arabia, in Afghanistan, in the Philippines, etc.? Why are Americans supporting Israel? Then there are some further questions such as how come Americans (and other peoples) do what they are doing? I know, there are such replies as: protecting oil interests, the Jewish vote, what have you. And underneath these responses there are all sorts of sentiments that are taken for granted by entire segments of the world population, layers of society, etc. And then there are those widely different perceptions of what are the *right things* to do - all the way from being prepared to die for one's country to exploiting fellow citizens to the max, damaging the country as a whole. What makes Americans decide on their actions? How well do Americans participate in the making of American decisions? How well are Americans informed about the ramifications of their *collective*decisions? How well CAN Americans participate in the decision-making process? How well are Americans informed about the decisions they make - and the alternatives to those decisions? (B.T.W., it is fair to substitute for the word "Americans" the inhabitants of any other country.) Are peoples the world over supposed to mind their "own" (i.e. within their national borders) business? Even though all live on the same Spaceship Earth? Ought people break a lance for the underdog? Etc., etc. Isn't this what such efforts as Doug's are about? To help human organizations (corporations, governmental, NGOs, institutions, individuals) make better decisions? (And, no, I am not suggesting that the realization of Doug's vision is going to solve all of the world's problems, but it might make a step in the right direction.) Illuminating here, for those who have access to Howard Bloom's "Global Brain," are the chapters called "Reality is a shared hallucination, " "The conformity police," and "Diversity generators." The chapter named "The conformity police" is especially interesting in the context of what we call "The Unfinished Revolution"; it is all about imposing paradigms. John, the short answer is that we need to find better ways of collectively examining and deciding on where we collectively are going - not just within national borders, but throughout the world. It's a toughie ... Henry John Maloney wrote: > Recently, Vice President Cheney and Secretary Rumsfeld warned that > more terror attacks are a certainty and may involve the detonation of > an atomic weapon on American soil. They have concentrated the mind > wonderfully. Even a small, crude nuclear device, exploded in a U.S. > port or city, could kill many thousands more than died on Sept. 11. > > Rightly, the U.S. government is focused on how to anticipate such an > attack, prevent it, prepare for it. > > But there has been no debate over the most critical question. Why? Why > do these Islamic radicals so hate us they are willing to commit > suicide, if they can take hundreds or thousands of us with them? > > They don't know us. They cannot defeat or destroy the United States, > even with an atom bomb. What can they hope to accomplish? Are they > simply madmen? > > In our focus on improved intelligence, preemptive strikes, color-coded > alerts and evacuation plans, have we overlooked a course of action > that could end the threat of cataclysmic terror? Like Poe's "Purloined > Letter," is a way out right there on the mantelpiece in front of us? > > Consider: While no Western nation has endured an act of terror on the > scale of 9-11, all have known terror. > > Brits were ambushed by the Irish in the war of independence from 1919 > to 1921. British civilians were blown up by Zionists in the King David > Hotel in 1946. Settlers were murdered by Mau Mau in Kenya. French were > massacred in movie theaters and cafes by the Algerian FLN until 1962. > U.S. Marines were blown up in Beirut in 1983. From Netanya to > Jerusalem to Tel Aviv, Israelis today die in terror attacks and > suicide bombings. > > In all these atrocities, terror was a weapon of the weak and stateless > against Western powers they could not defeat with arms. In each case, > terror was used to expel an imperial power or drive out foreign > troops. In each case but one, terror ended when the Western power went > home. > > The dynamiting of the King David Hotel convinced the British to > accelerate their departure from Palestine. Zionist terror ended. Mau > Mau terror ended when the Brits left Kenya. When De Gaulle cut Algeria > loose, FLN terror ended. When Reagan withdrew his Marines from Beirut, > anti-American terror ended in Lebanon. > > Lesson? The price of empire is terror. The price of occupation is > terror. The price of interventionism is terror. As Barry Goldwater > used to say, it is as simple as that. When Israel departed Lebanon, > Hezbollah's attacks fell off almost to nothing. But as long as > Israelis occupy the West Bank, which Prime Minister Barak conceded > belongs at least 95 percent to the Palestinians, Israel will be hit by > terror attacks. > > Either Israel gets out, or it pays the price of staying in: terrorism. > > But this is not about Israel -- it is about us. It is about why we are > being told by our leaders, in tones of resignation and fatalism, that > it is not a question of whether, but of when, the next act of > cataclysmic terror occurs here, and why we must accept the possibility > that a nuclear weapon will be exploded here. > > But when Americans ask, "Why do they hate us?" and "Why do these > Islamic radicals on the other side of the earth want to come over here > and commit hara-kari killing us?" we get responses that ought not to > satisfy a second-grader. They hate us, we are told, because we are > democratic and free and good, and we have low tax rates. > > Well that is no longer enough. Before, not after, the next terror > attack on this country, America's leaders should start telling the > truth: Evil though they may be, Islamic killers are over here because > we are over there. They are not trying to kill us because they dislike > our domestic politics, but because they detest our foreign policy. > > Fifteen of the 19 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia. They did not fly > into those twin towers to protest universal suffrage or to advance > self-determination for the Palestinian people. As Osama bin Laden > said, they want us to stop propping up the Saudi regime they hate, and > to get off the sacred Saudi soil on which sit the holiest shrines of > Islam. They want our troops out of Saudi Arabia - and if we don't get > out, they are coming over here to kill us any way they can. > > That is reality. Now while America should use every weapon in her > arsenal, from intelligence to diplomacy to war, to prevent terror and > to punish terror, we must address the central issue: Terror on > American soil, and eventual cataclysmic and atomic terror on American > soil, is the price of American empire. > > Is the empire worth it? French, Brits, even Soviets said no. They went > home. And nothing over there - not oil, not bases in Saudi Arabia, not > global hegemony - is worth risking nuclear terror over here. > > ### > > From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Sat Jul 13 04:49:31 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 26B2956FF4; Sat, 13 Jul 2002 04:49:31 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from cmailg7.svr.pol.co.uk (cmailg7.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.195.177]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3E3AE56FF3 for ; Sat, 13 Jul 2002 04:49:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from modem-618.stoked.dialup.pol.co.uk ([62.25.190.106] helo=vaio) by cmailg7.svr.pol.co.uk with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17TLfR-0000Qp-00 for ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org; Sat, 13 Jul 2002 13:06:29 +0100 Message-ID: <001d01c22a65$70016bc0$8d3587d9@vaio> From: "Peter Jones" To: References: <002d01c22a21$f34a85f0$180ec53f@home> <3D2FAFB7.E2DF7E58@sun.com> Subject: Re: [ba-unrev-talk] NOT++: Really, It's That Simple Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2002 13:03:40 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org > The options are: > 1) Pick up the Isreali state and move it somewhere else. > 2) Get out, stay out, and don't care what happens to > Israel. Neither deemed politically expedient for the West at present, I suspect. Major oil supply nearby. > 3) Keep working, by a combination of means, to fix the > situation with carrots (concessions) and sticks (force) > even if it takes 40 years, as with the cold war, or > a few hundred years. > 4) Get really nasty and start hurting people so badly that > they either quit, or there aren't enough left to make a > difference. Israel appears to be going for a (4) followed by a (3) at present. What is rarely stated in discussions about the West Bank etc. is that underneath are some of the biggest aquifers of pure water for 1000's of miles around. I.e. it's barren rock that could be _very_ profitably fertile. -- Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Armstrong" To: Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2002 5:42 AM Subject: [ba-unrev-talk] NOT: Really, It's That Simple > John, I respect your opinions and the reasoning behind them, but > on this on I have to disagree. > > It is in the nature of a bully to use force to achieve their goals. > It is in the nature of the truly brave (Ghandi, for example) to > achieve their ends peaceably. > > In Ghandi's case, too, occupation was ended, but by far less > brutal, despicable means. > > What holds back Western nations is *conscience*. Massive > retaliation of the kind never before experienced on this planet > would else end the atrocities. But Western nations are held in > check by their own conscience. They do want the slaughter > of innocents on their hands. > > Fantatics, on the other hand, know no such restrictions. That > puts even a large power at a disadvantage. > > A lack of conscience allows a foreign leader to cry out against > the injustices done to him, while inciting equal and greater injustices > at the very same time. > > The question is, at what point can a nation afford to *stop* > standing for fair play and honor?? > > It is lost in the dim recesses of history that the Palestinian state > was formed on the very same day as the Israeli state, by the > very same decree. > > Immediately, the Israeli state was declared unacceptable by > the Palestinians, and war ensued. > > Once vanguished, the Palestinians immediately set about hollering > about how their land was unjustly taken from them. Yet, once > given back, the wars resumed -- time and again, in one form or > another. > > Each time, promises were made: "Give us back our land, and > there will be peace". But there never has been peace. This is > the way of things when you deal with people who have no honor. > They will say anything. They will promise anything. But they will > do nothing. > > Unfortunately, Arafat is as totally without honor as anyone who > has ever existed on this planet. His words mean exactly nothing. > To accept any representation he makes is simply to play into his > hands, and to gain nothing in return. > > For years now, the argument has been "We own it all. The Isreali's > have no right here. Israel has no right to exist." > > Although there has been some softening of that position recently, > it has only come about as a result of the realization that force will > not rule the day. > > To retreat in the face of that force is to give the bully everything > he wants. And after a stake has been driven far enough into the > heart of Isreal's borders, Isreal, too, will fall -- if the religious > fanatics have their way. > > Maybe the Israeli state should have been founded on some > unoccupied islands in the South Pacific. I don't know. It sure > would have solved some problems -- not that anyone would > have gone there. > > Personally, I see religious movements as the cause of the greatest > human suffering and the greatest travesties against mankind. To > be so totally enamored of some rock in the middle of a dessert > that one cannot even think of living elsewhere -- well, that defies > sensibility, in my book. > > After religious fervor comes national fervor, and after that comes > free market excesses, in their capacity to do harm in the name of > good. But, like it or not, people do have those religious beliefs, > and they do hunger after the same piece of barren rock. > > So, what is there to do? > > The options are: > 1) Pick up the Isreali state and move it somewhere else. > 2) Get out, stay out, and don't care what happens to > Israel. > 3) Keep working, by a combination of means, to fix the > situation with carrots (concessions) and sticks (force) > even if it takes 40 years, as with the cold war, or > a few hundred years. > 4) Get really nasty and start hurting people so badly that > they either quit, or there aren't enough left to make a > difference. > > I've no doubt left out some valid alternatives, but of that > list, I think #3 makes the most sense. It combines a sense > of honor and decency with the gumption not to get pushed > around. > > On the other hand, when we start thinking about the problem > of nuclear waste, it occurs to me that I can think of a few > places I wouldn't mind dumping it.... > > > > > > > From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Sat Jul 13 05:01:45 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 3DC4B56FF4; Sat, 13 Jul 2002 05:01:45 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from tomts23-srv.bellnexxia.net (tomts23.bellnexxia.net [209.226.175.185]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A46F656FF3 for ; Sat, 13 Jul 2002 05:01:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sympatico.ca ([64.228.165.114]) by tomts23-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.5.01.04.19 201-253-122-122-119-20020516) with ESMTP id <20020713121817.PGQX13064.tomts23-srv.bellnexxia.net@sympatico.ca> for ; Sat, 13 Jul 2002 08:18:17 -0400 Message-ID: <3D301B9B.163098D1@sympatico.ca> Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2002 08:22:51 -0400 From: Henry K van Eyken X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.78 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.7-10 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: Re: [ba-unrev-talk] NOT: Really, It's That Simple References: <002d01c22a21$f34a85f0$180ec53f@home> <3D2FAFB7.E2DF7E58@sun.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org John, Eric, Peter. I Found Eric's e-mail after responding to John. Interesting the difference between our responses; the different foundations on which they are based. Our "global brain" is still not functioning in unison as that label kind of implies. Henry Eric Armstrong wrote: > John, I respect your opinions and the reasoning behind them, but > on this on I have to disagree. > > It is in the nature of a bully to use force to achieve their goals. > It is in the nature of the truly brave (Ghandi, for example) to > achieve their ends peaceably. > > In Ghandi's case, too, occupation was ended, but by far less > brutal, despicable means. > > What holds back Western nations is *conscience*. Massive > retaliation of the kind never before experienced on this planet > would else end the atrocities. But Western nations are held in > check by their own conscience. They do want the slaughter > of innocents on their hands. > > Fantatics, on the other hand, know no such restrictions. That > puts even a large power at a disadvantage. > > A lack of conscience allows a foreign leader to cry out against > the injustices done to him, while inciting equal and greater injustices > at the very same time. > > The question is, at what point can a nation afford to *stop* > standing for fair play and honor?? > > It is lost in the dim recesses of history that the Palestinian state > was formed on the very same day as the Israeli state, by the > very same decree. > > Immediately, the Israeli state was declared unacceptable by > the Palestinians, and war ensued. > > Once vanguished, the Palestinians immediately set about hollering > about how their land was unjustly taken from them. Yet, once > given back, the wars resumed -- time and again, in one form or > another. > > Each time, promises were made: "Give us back our land, and > there will be peace". But there never has been peace. This is > the way of things when you deal with people who have no honor. > They will say anything. They will promise anything. But they will > do nothing. > > Unfortunately, Arafat is as totally without honor as anyone who > has ever existed on this planet. His words mean exactly nothing. > To accept any representation he makes is simply to play into his > hands, and to gain nothing in return. > > For years now, the argument has been "We own it all. The Isreali's > have no right here. Israel has no right to exist." > > Although there has been some softening of that position recently, > it has only come about as a result of the realization that force will > not rule the day. > > To retreat in the face of that force is to give the bully everything > he wants. And after a stake has been driven far enough into the > heart of Isreal's borders, Isreal, too, will fall -- if the religious > fanatics have their way. > > Maybe the Israeli state should have been founded on some > unoccupied islands in the South Pacific. I don't know. It sure > would have solved some problems -- not that anyone would > have gone there. > > Personally, I see religious movements as the cause of the greatest > human suffering and the greatest travesties against mankind. To > be so totally enamored of some rock in the middle of a dessert > that one cannot even think of living elsewhere -- well, that defies > sensibility, in my book. > > After religious fervor comes national fervor, and after that comes > free market excesses, in their capacity to do harm in the name of > good. But, like it or not, people do have those religious beliefs, > and they do hunger after the same piece of barren rock. > > So, what is there to do? > > The options are: > 1) Pick up the Isreali state and move it somewhere else. > 2) Get out, stay out, and don't care what happens to > Israel. > 3) Keep working, by a combination of means, to fix the > situation with carrots (concessions) and sticks (force) > even if it takes 40 years, as with the cold war, or > a few hundred years. > 4) Get really nasty and start hurting people so badly that > they either quit, or there aren't enough left to make a > difference. > > I've no doubt left out some valid alternatives, but of that > list, I think #3 makes the most sense. It combines a sense > of honor and decency with the gumption not to get pushed > around. > > On the other hand, when we start thinking about the problem > of nuclear waste, it occurs to me that I can think of a few > places I wouldn't mind dumping it.... From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Sat Jul 13 06:34:55 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 15F6D56FF3; Sat, 13 Jul 2002 06:34:55 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from mta7.pltn13.pbi.net (mta7.pltn13.pbi.net [64.164.98.8]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id BD95456FF2 for ; Sat, 13 Jul 2002 06:34:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from home ([63.197.14.24]) by mta7.pltn13.pbi.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built May 7 2001)) with ESMTP id <0GZ6007D9X6MM2@mta7.pltn13.pbi.net> for ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org; Sat, 13 Jul 2002 06:51:58 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2002 06:52:00 -0700 From: John Maloney Subject: [ba-unrev-talk] Development Gateway To: UNREV Message-id: <001401c22a74$75de48b0$180ec53f@home> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org This is a noteworthy effort. http://www.developmentgateway.org/node/130667/ Cordially, -jtm These are areas where the Development Gateway currently concentrates its knowledge-sharing efforts. Here you can browse the contents of topics that are of interest to you, read the contributions of others, contribute resources, and become a member of a topic community. The free membership allows you to receive updates, and to participate fully in this part of the Gateway. We welcome your comments at any time! Aid Effectiveness Business Environment Culture and Development E-Government E-Learning Environmental Law Food Security Foreign Direct Investment Gender and Development HIV/AIDS ICT for Development Indigenous Knowledge Indigenous Peoples Indigenous Rights Judicial and Legal Reform Knowledge Economy Microfinance Non-Governmental Organizations Population and Reproductive Health Poverty Privatization Trade and Development Urban Managers Water Resources Management Youth for Development Development Focuses This section intends to explore issues of more immediate and urgent interest. The list below can change frequently, depending on the events and trends that take center stage in the development community. Each focus area, however, offers the same type of content and functions that you will find in the topic pages. We welcome suggestions on other focus areas that we might launch, as well as your reactions to the ones that appear below. Afghanistan Reconstruction Argentine Crisis E-Commerce for Arts & Crafts Glocalization World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) ### From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Sat Jul 13 07:47:05 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id B301356FF3; Sat, 13 Jul 2002 07:47:04 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from mta7.pltn13.pbi.net (mta7.pltn13.pbi.net [64.164.98.8]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6268D56FF2 for ; Sat, 13 Jul 2002 07:47:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from home ([63.197.14.24]) by mta7.pltn13.pbi.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built May 7 2001)) with ESMTP id <0GZ7007YH0IVI3@mta7.pltn13.pbi.net> for ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org; Sat, 13 Jul 2002 08:04:08 -0700 (PDT) Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2002 08:04:09 -0700 From: John Maloney Subject: RE: [ba-unrev-talk] NOT: Really, It's That Simple In-reply-to: <3D2FAFB7.E2DF7E58@sun.com> To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Message-id: <001701c22a7e$8a7da090$180ec53f@home> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org EA, et al -- Thanks for your messages. First, this morsel was about the USA. Israeli, like Ireland, Kenya, France, etc., was used as an example. Hegemonic leaders always have a name for their adversaries. It's often 'fanatic.' (E.g. for unrev, open source fanatics.) It is probably safe to say that King George III of Great Britain felt the colonies were full of 'fanatics.' How is possible to say the Western Nations have conscience, after leading the most violent century in human history? That is ethnocentric and foolish. Isn't it clear that mankind is poorly served by empire? We are not talking retreat; we're talking common sense. Proximate domain, e.g., neighborhood, town, canton, is innate to humans. Technology helps transcend the geographic and physical barriers. Technology can recreate constructive dominion in a flash. Ironically, the tendency is to repeat the demented building of empire, in spite of all the advantages of technology. Look at all the ridiculous globalization efforts. Right before our eyes, we are witnessing an unprecedented power grab by unelected dilettantes under the guise of some unctuous global fellowship. Boy, what a farce. It is extremely dangerous, too. In fact, We Aren't The World. Despite Madame Allbright's outrageous, hegemonic and disturbing claim, "Nous sommes la nation indispensable," (?)country after country are scrambling to distance themselves from the USA. Here is another one that is beyond the pale. The U.N. Security Council voted unanimously to exempt U.S. peacekeepers from the International Criminal Court for 1 year. (?) "It offers us a degree of protection for the coming year," said U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., John Negroponte. Huh? Whaat? Come again? I beg your pardon. Now our Ambassadors want "protection" from the U.N.? Share the wealth! Give every country protection from the U.N. Not for a year, but forever. Meta-government, aka, empire, colonialism, interventionism, etc., doesn't work, never has, never will. Sadly, the tuition for this lesson is terrorism. Cheers, -jtm -----Original Message----- From: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org [mailto:owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org] On Behalf Of Eric Armstrong Sent: Friday, July 12, 2002 9:43 PM To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: [ba-unrev-talk] NOT: Really, It's That Simple John, I respect your opinions and the reasoning behind them, but on this on I have to disagree. From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Sat Jul 13 12:53:47 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id CB22756FF3; Sat, 13 Jul 2002 12:53:46 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from tomts6-srv.bellnexxia.net (tomts6.bellnexxia.net [209.226.175.26]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2D6E756FF2 for ; Sat, 13 Jul 2002 12:53:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sympatico.ca ([64.228.165.164]) by tomts6-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.5.01.04.19 201-253-122-122-119-20020516) with ESMTP id <20020713201034.LBVG8251.tomts6-srv.bellnexxia.net@sympatico.ca> for ; Sat, 13 Jul 2002 16:10:34 -0400 Message-ID: <3D308A3D.824EBA@sympatico.ca> Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2002 16:14:53 -0400 From: Henry K van Eyken X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: [ba-unrev-talk] Re: NOT: Really, It's That Simple References: <002d01c22a21$f34a85f0$180ec53f@home> <3D2FAFB7.E2DF7E58@sun.com> <3D301B9B.163098D1@sympatico.ca> <001801c22a86$d72e1160$d1e0193e@vaio> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org The follwoing is in response to a private query about my response to John Malone. Henry The point I was trying to make was that we should look for better ways of arriving at opinions. Nothing wrong with having opinions and expressing them, and doing so having some impact, etc. But whatever opinions we, as individuals, offer are more or less in isolation, i.e. partly footed on solid ground, partly in thin air. Doug's approach is not to offer solutions to world problems, but instead to offer a way of doing a better job of arriving at solutions. The last couple of days, I have have here, lying among papers around my desk, The Economist of June 6, turned to page 3 of its special section, "A survey of the global environment." It points to the contrast between the opinions of economists and those of environmentalists, and how finally those begin to converge - sort of. Had those people and their advisors been working on the same document all along, instead of working on separate documents, they could have come up with a consensus ("the same songbook") much sooner - i.e. do a better job of arriving at a potential solution to complex, urgent problems. That is Doug's theme, and one appropriate to this list. Henry From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Sat Jul 13 21:46:38 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id D906C56FF3; Sat, 13 Jul 2002 21:46:37 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from snipe.mail.pas.earthlink.net (snipe.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.62]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A0CA256FF2 for ; Sat, 13 Jul 2002 21:46:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 209-239-197-229.oak.jps.net ([209.239.197.229] helo=netzero.net) by snipe.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17TbXp-0001xQ-00 for ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org; Sat, 13 Jul 2002 22:03:42 -0700 Message-ID: <3D310659.4C39760@netzero.net> Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2002 22:04:25 -0700 From: "John J. Deneen" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en]C-{C-UDP; EBM-SONY1} (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: Re: [ba-unrev-talk] one handed chord keyboards References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org [Sensor] Thumb Typing ... product available by year-end? July/August 2002 - MIT Technology Review "As computers blend into our environment and even our clothing, entering data into them gets tricky. Carsten Mehring < http://www.eng.uci.edu/~cmehring/index.html >, a mechanical engineer at the University of California, Irvine, has come up with a device that turns your hands into a qwerty-style keyboard. Mehring’s device uses six conductive contacts on each thumb—three on the front and three on the back—to represent a keyboard’s three lettered rows. Contacts on the tips of the remaining eight fingers represent its columns. Touching the right index finger to the middle contact on the front of the rightthumb, for instance, generates a j. The top contact on the thumb yields a u, while the middle contact on the back of the thumb would produce an h. Mehring says the similarity to typing makes his input device easier to master than others that require an entirely different set of motions. He has applied for a patent and hopes to market a product by year-end." See javascript demo < http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/prototype0702.asp?p=8 > cdent@burningchrome.com wrote: > I'm sure this has come up on here before but I have an itch I'd > like to scratch: one handed, chorded keyboards. Where can I buy > one or try one to see if I like it. It seems ideal for me. > > I found Paul Fernhout's posting on the original unrev-ii list > about the Twiddler. I have one of those and after the first > couple of weeks of "oh, this is neato" set it down in > frustration: it's not well designed for the task I wanted: fast > one-handed data entry. It's pretty good for, as Paul says, > petting the dog while you type. I was able to get up to a > reasonable rate of typing, but my goal here is to go _faster_ > than I touch type (and I type quickly) and have one hand for > typing and one for mousing, never leaving devices. I intend to > use it at a desk, not in a wearable situation. > > The most noted one handed chord system on the web appears to be > the Bat, but it looks a bit clunky. CyKey is another. Anyone have > experience with either of these? > > I've seen pictures of the chord keyset made at SRI. Simple, to > the point. I can't seem to find anything like that. > > Thanks for any suggestions or comments. > > -- > Chris Dent http://www.burningchrome.com/~cdent/ > "Mediocrities everywhere--now and to come--I absolve you all! Amen!" > -Salieri, in Peter Shaffer's Amadeus From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Sat Jul 13 22:06:00 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id E445A56FF3; Sat, 13 Jul 2002 22:05:59 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from woody.grantbow.com (12-233-20-180.client.attbi.com [12.233.20.180]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8DA7C56FF2 for ; Sat, 13 Jul 2002 22:05:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grantbow by woody.grantbow.com with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17TbqW-0003D8-00 for ; Sat, 13 Jul 2002 22:23:00 -0700 Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2002 22:23:00 -0700 From: Grant Bowman To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: Re: [ba-unrev-talk] one handed chord keyboards Message-ID: <20020714052300.GB11574@grantbow.com> Mail-Followup-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org References: <3D310659.4C39760@netzero.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <3D310659.4C39760@netzero.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Nice animation. I would like to try one out. I wonder what kind of hardware interface they will use... -- -- Grant Bowman * John J. Deneen [020713 22:10]: > [Sensor] Thumb Typing ... product available by year-end? > > July/August 2002 - MIT Technology Review > "As computers blend into our environment and even our clothing, entering data > into them gets tricky. Carsten Mehring < > http://www.eng.uci.edu/~cmehring/index.html >, a mechanical engineer at the > University of California, Irvine, has come up with a device that turns your > hands into a qwerty-style keyboard. Mehring’s device uses six conductive > contacts on each thumb—three on the front and three on the back—to represent a > keyboard’s three lettered rows. Contacts on the tips of the remaining eight > fingers represent its columns. Touching the right index finger to the middle > contact on the front of the rightthumb, for instance, generates a j. The top > contact on the thumb yields a u, while the middle contact on the back of the > thumb would produce an h. Mehring says the similarity to typing makes his input > device easier to master than others that require an entirely different set of > motions. He has applied for a patent and hopes to market a product by > year-end." > > See javascript demo > < http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/prototype0702.asp?p=8 > From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Mon Jul 15 09:22:40 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 30FAA56FF3; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 09:22:40 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from sccrmhc01.attbi.com (sccrmhc01.attbi.com [204.127.202.61]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4087856FF2 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 09:22:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sony ([12.234.214.35]) by sccrmhc01.attbi.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP id <20020715163944.KWBH29588.sccrmhc01.attbi.com@sony> for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 16:39:44 +0000 Message-Id: <4.2.2.20020715093019.0260a810@thinkalong.com> X-Sender: jackpark@thinkalong.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 09:37:07 -0700 To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org From: Jack Park Subject: [ba-unrev-talk] augmented medical diagnosis Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org http://www.boston.com/globe/magazine/2002/0714/coverstory.htm "A computer program that provides vast amounts of information for diagnosing and treating patients could revolutionize the practice of medicine. So why won't physicians use it? " For me, seeing an article on Dr. Lawrence Weed is of great interest. That's because, in 1985, I formed a partnership with Dr. John Rose and we build a medical expert system (first built on an Apple II in Forth, later migrated to IBM PC in Forth and to Mac, under StaxPert written by our new partner Dan Wood (StaxPert being an inference engine for HyperCard). While doing our "competitive benchmarking", we discovered Dr. Weed's PKC -- Problem Knowledge Coupler. Our product was first named "First Opinion" and later recast to a more generalized "DOC" Decisions On Computers. Here's more from the page about Weed's PKC: "Cross has a trick, an unusual tool he sometimes pulls out of his virtual black bag. The tool is not a stethoscope, which amplifies his ability to hear a heartbeat, or an MRI, which makes up for his inability to see through flesh. Instead, it is a piece of computer software that makes up for the limits of the human brain. The software, called the Problem Knowledge Coupler (PKC), was conceived by an old Vermont friend of his, Dr. Lawrence L. Weed. Instead of listing the symptoms of a disease and asking a doctor to choose the closest fit, as some medical Web sites do, Weed's program asks a doctor to first answer a long list of questions about the patient's troubles. Then, up comes the most likely diagnoses and ways to test them out. The program helps doctors match (or "couple") the patterns of a patient's problems with the relevant knowledge that exists, perhaps buried deep in a textbook or journal article, to recognize and treat those problems." Now, is that an augmentation system, or what? Jack From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Mon Jul 15 10:53:48 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 976EA56FF4; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 10:53:47 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from sccrmhc01.attbi.com (sccrmhc01.attbi.com [204.127.202.61]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0DF0556FF3 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 10:53:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sony ([12.234.214.35]) by sccrmhc01.attbi.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP id <20020715181054.PLBR29588.sccrmhc01.attbi.com@sony> for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 18:10:54 +0000 Message-Id: <4.2.2.20020715110159.025efb50@thinkalong.com> X-Sender: jackpark@thinkalong.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 11:08:18 -0700 To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org From: Jack Park Subject: Re: [ba-unrev-talk] augmented medical diagnosis In-Reply-To: <4.2.2.20020715093019.0260a810@thinkalong.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org On this page: http://www.boston.com/globe/magazine/2002/0714/coverstory3.htm we find: "Some physicians and patients may be uncomfortable with the direction in which Weed would have us go. Ten years ago, if we wanted to trade a stock, we had to go to a broker. Today, we have E*Trade. Could Weed's program be disrupting medicine in the same way, bringing us closer to the days of E-Diagnose? In some ways, that will never happen. Patients will always need trained medical professionals to perform physical examinations, order lab tests, write prescriptions, and perform surgeries. Some patients will be too sick (or uninterested) to fill out the couplers. And few patients will be willing to throw their health completely into the virtual hands of a computer program. When we are sick, we need to feel as though our suffering is understood, and computers are poorly designed to show such compassion. But when the PKC software makes it onto the Web, ordinary people who never labored through medical school will be able to record their own ailments and link those problems with a vast store of medical knowledge that is, in many ways, superior to the physician's memory. Although the software has the potential to become a hypochondriac's dream (or worst nightmare), it could cause the doctor-patient relationship to shift dramatically: The doctor will have to prove to patients that he followed the procedures called for by science. As patients know more, they can collaborate better with the doctor in both diagnosis and treatment planning. Of course, patients who come into the doctor's office with reams of computer printouts and a newfound sense of understanding might be terribly annoying to physicians who are used to making unilateral decisions. But once their bruised egos heal, doctors may discover that they can leave work each day having cured more patients. Berwick, the Harvard professor, has considered Weed a hero and "a giant of American medicine" ever since he devised the problem-oriented medical record. Berwick sat as chairman of the Institute of Medicine committee that produced the report that Weed criticized. He has seen the Knowledge Couplers demonstrated several times and has heard Weed's claims that they are ready for widespread use, but Berwick is not yet convinced. Nevertheless, he contends that Weed's basic concept, that physicians need computers to make up for their brains' limits, is right on. "He's got to be right that it's computer-based," Berwick says of Weed. "Whether it's his [program] or not, I don't know. But my guess is, 30 years from now, we're going to look back on this and say, `How could we ever have thought we should do it the other way?' " " As I read those, the closing paragraphs of the article, I am reminded of Rod Welch's argument that knowledge management is hard work. As there are medical practitioners 'out there' who are, at once threatened, and unsure of the notion of augmenting human capabilities, so will there be chiefs of all sorts, (technology, information, finance, etc) 'out there' who will be, at once threatened, and unsure. Mainstreaming the OHS paradigm is not going to be easy. Jack At 09:37 AM 7/15/2002 -0700, you wrote: >http://www.boston.com/globe/magazine/2002/0714/coverstory.htm > >"A computer program that provides vast amounts of information for >diagnosing and treating patients could revolutionize the practice of >medicine. So why won't physicians use it? " > >For me, seeing an article on Dr. Lawrence Weed is of great >interest. That's because, in 1985, I formed a partnership with Dr. John >Rose and we build a medical expert system (first built on an Apple II in >Forth, later migrated to IBM PC in Forth and to Mac, under StaxPert >written by our new partner Dan Wood (StaxPert being an inference engine >for HyperCard). While doing our "competitive benchmarking", we discovered >Dr. Weed's PKC -- Problem Knowledge Coupler. > >Our product was first named "First Opinion" and later recast to a more >generalized "DOC" Decisions On Computers. > >Here's more from the page about Weed's PKC: > >"Cross has a trick, an unusual tool he sometimes pulls out of his virtual >black bag. The tool is not a stethoscope, which amplifies his ability to >hear a heartbeat, or an MRI, which makes up for his inability to see >through flesh. Instead, it is a piece of computer software that makes up >for the limits of the human brain. The software, called the Problem >Knowledge Coupler (PKC), was conceived by an old Vermont friend of his, >Dr. Lawrence L. Weed. Instead of listing the symptoms of a disease and >asking a doctor to choose the closest fit, as some medical Web sites do, >Weed's program asks a doctor to first answer a long list of questions >about the patient's troubles. Then, up comes the most likely diagnoses and >ways to test them out. The program helps doctors match (or "couple") the >patterns of a patient's problems with the relevant knowledge that exists, >perhaps buried deep in a textbook or journal article, to recognize and >treat those problems." > >Now, is that an augmentation system, or what? > >Jack From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Mon Jul 15 12:59:43 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id E230156FF3; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 12:59:42 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from cmailg3.svr.pol.co.uk (cmailg3.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.195.173]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 595A756FF2 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 12:59:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from modem-369.gacked.dialup.pol.co.uk ([62.25.241.113] helo=vaio) by cmailg3.svr.pol.co.uk with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17UCGq-00067F-00 for ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 21:16:37 +0100 Message-ID: <002f01c22c3c$3c58aee0$53f1193e@vaio> From: "Peter Jones" To: References: <002d01c22a21$f34a85f0$180ec53f@home> <3D2FAFB7.E2DF7E58@sun.com> <3D301B9B.163098D1@sympatico.ca> <001801c22a86$d72e1160$d1e0193e@vaio> <3D308947.421BA1B7@sympatico.ca> <000701c22b64$d7af2960$09f8193e@vaio> <3D31FEAF.E6B684BA@sympatico.ca> Subject: [ba-unrev-talk] Systems and goals WAS: Re: Offlist: Re: [ba-unrev-talk] NOT: Really, It's That Simple Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 21:14:29 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org (Henry, I'm moving this back on to the list as I think we're hitting some interesting territory that perhaps needs discussion in the wider arena.) OK, but that would bring me to another point. In the ABC model, A = productive process, B = improvement process, C = improving improvement process. However, I would have thought that one way to ensure improvements all the way was to assert a 'short-circuit' between C and A and suggest that one could improve from C by making A highly flexible from the outset. If A is highly flexible then surely B must be even more inventively flexible but easier because of that. And from that it follows that C must itself be even more highly flexible in its provision of recommendations for flexibility back down the line or via the short-circuit but is easier because of that. So in introducing flexibility we've introduced what looks like an extra efficiency into the whole. But what happens is that that flexibility in essence flattens the hierarchy more into a huge system of interdependent variables without order of control. And this implies that variable control in the system might not be possible - the domains of factors might be too big (chaos theory). And these systems are so rarely properly closed. So it seems that there is a limit to the extent to which the ABC model is applicable and it is perhaps lower than one might like. Therefore, one might argue that the ABC model only applies in system where the production goals are very clearly defined, and where fundamental flexibility is known not to introduce a direct improvement in the whole. Now those thoughts can be spread across the dimension of time, not just production systems. The long haul goals aren't known. Some short haul goals are. So if we fix the short term ones that gets us to...? Another set of short term problems caused by fixing the last lot? How do we prevent that? By suggesting an ideal end state perhaps - the Heaven on Earth scenario. Does anyone agree what the HoE scenario should be? No, we've just said that no-one knows what that should be. So in the absence of defined end goals it looks as if we aren't dealing with a production system here. In which case, is the ABC model applicable to the whole at present? Doubtful, I think. Does it make sense to apply it in part to particular activities and not others? Doubtful too, because you can't track the influences. Doug is a holist (I hope I'm correct in asserting that - he seems to be to me) and so am I and, I think, many others on the BA lists. In which case, maybe we (unrevvers unite!) need to fire up some serious debate and research into what long term system goals humankind should have on the table now? -- Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: "Henry K van Eyken" To: "Peter Jones" Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2002 11:43 PM Subject: Re: Offlist: Re: [ba-unrev-talk] NOT: Really, It's That Simple > Peter. > > I agree that in the long haul humankind hasn't got the foggiest of where it > is going. But degree of certainty is higher the nearer the future. Life > insurance rests on this. And going to school, getting married, buying a > computer, etc. > > Doug's idea IS to control things, but not just from the outset. His idea is > to have people - academics, presumably - manning outpost into the future, to > assess things and to feed back a stream of information to help us, sluggers > to optimize preparations for the future. > > Henry > > Peter Jones wrote: > > > Ah, then we get into a real debate about whether consensus is > > healthy. For example, take > > A) The Dilbert Principle: People are idiots. > > B) Mob rule & Demagogic persuasion. > > C) The fact that basically humankind hasn't got a clue where it's going. > > > > Isn't the consensus approach just swapping one madness (pluralist > > cacophony) > > for another that's got no brakes (the runaway train to hell phenomenon)? > > > > I've read some books about innovation that talk a lot about how the > > truly great innovations come from someone spotting something in what > > had previously been considered non-signal (noise) as opposed to > > changing the signal. > > > > Doug's ideas make a lot of sense in processes that should be controlled > > from the outset. > > But to say that people should aways start from the same point and > > collaborate from the outset misses the point about creativity in > > many cases. > > > > -- > > Peter > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Henry K van Eyken" > > To: "Peter Jones" > > Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2002 9:10 PM > > Subject: Re: Offlist: Re: [ba-unrev-talk] NOT: Really, It's That Simple > > > > > Peter. > > > > > > The point I was trying to make was that we should look for better ways > > of > > > arriving at opinions. Nothing wrong with having opinions and > > expressing them > > > and doing so having some impact, etc. But whatever opinions we, as > > > individuals, offer are more or less in isolation, i.e. partly footed > > on > > > solid ground, partly in thin air. > > > > > > Doug's approach is not to offer solutions to world problems, but > > instead to > > > offer a way of doing a better job of arriving at solutions. > > > > > > The last couple of days, I have have here, lying among papers around > > my > > > desk, The Economist of June 6, turned to page 3 of its special > > section, "A > > > survey of the global environment." It points to the contrast between > > the > > > opinions of economists and those of environmentalists, and how finally > > those > > > begin to converge - sort of. Had those people and their advisors been > > > working on the same document all along, instead of working on separate > > > documents, they could have come up with a consensus ("the same > > songbook") > > > much sooner - i.e. do a better job of arriving at a potential solution > > to > > > complex, urgent problems. That is Doug's theme, and one appropriate to > > this > > > list. > > > > > > Henry > > > > > > Peter Jones wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Henry, > > > > > > > > I'm not sure I understand you. > > > > Surely the point of dialogue is to get all the views on > > > > the table, then discuss in the _hopes_ of reaching an > > > > agreement. To enforce agreement would be > > > > tyranny. > > > > > > > > Peace in plurality is surely better; mutual recognition of > > > > difference without antagonism. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Peter > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: "Henry K van Eyken" > > > > To: > > > > Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2002 1:22 PM > > > > Subject: Re: [ba-unrev-talk] NOT: Really, It's That Simple > > > > > > > > > John, Eric, Peter. > > > > > > > > > > I Found Eric's e-mail after responding to John. > > > > > > > > > > Interesting the difference between our responses; the different > > > > > foundations on which they are based. Our "global brain" is still > > not > > > > > functioning in unison as that label kind of implies. > > > > > > > > > > Henry > > > > > > > > > > Eric Armstrong wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > John, I respect your opinions and the reasoning behind them, but > > > > > > on this on I have to disagree. > > > > > > > > > > > > It is in the nature of a bully to use force to achieve their > > goals. > > > > > > It is in the nature of the truly brave (Ghandi, for example) to > > > > > > achieve their ends peaceably. > > > > > > > > > > > > In Ghandi's case, too, occupation was ended, but by far less > > > > > > brutal, despicable means. > > > > > > > > > > > > What holds back Western nations is *conscience*. Massive > > > > > > retaliation of the kind never before experienced on this planet > > > > > > would else end the atrocities. But Western nations are held in > > > > > > check by their own conscience. They do want the slaughter > > > > > > of innocents on their hands. > > > > > > > > > > > > Fantatics, on the other hand, know no such restrictions. That > > > > > > puts even a large power at a disadvantage. > > > > > > > > > > > > A lack of conscience allows a foreign leader to cry out against > > > > > > the injustices done to him, while inciting equal and greater > > > > injustices > > > > > > at the very same time. > > > > > > > > > > > > The question is, at what point can a nation afford to *stop* > > > > > > standing for fair play and honor?? > > > > > > > > > > > > It is lost in the dim recesses of history that the Palestinian > > state > > > > > > was formed on the very same day as the Israeli state, by the > > > > > > very same decree. > > > > > > > > > > > > Immediately, the Israeli state was declared unacceptable by > > > > > > the Palestinians, and war ensued. > > > > > > > > > > > > Once vanguished, the Palestinians immediately set about > > hollering > > > > > > about how their land was unjustly taken from them. Yet, once > > > > > > given back, the wars resumed -- time and again, in one form or > > > > > > another. > > > > > > > > > > > > Each time, promises were made: "Give us back our land, and > > > > > > there will be peace". But there never has been peace. This is > > > > > > the way of things when you deal with people who have no honor. > > > > > > They will say anything. They will promise anything. But they > > will > > > > > > do nothing. > > > > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately, Arafat is as totally without honor as anyone who > > > > > > has ever existed on this planet. His words mean exactly nothing. > > > > > > To accept any representation he makes is simply to play into his > > > > > > hands, and to gain nothing in return. > > > > > > > > > > > > For years now, the argument has been "We own it all. The > > Isreali's > > > > > > have no right here. Israel has no right to exist." > > > > > > > > > > > > Although there has been some softening of that position > > recently, > > > > > > it has only come about as a result of the realization that force > > > > will > > > > > > not rule the day. > > > > > > > > > > > > To retreat in the face of that force is to give the bully > > everything > > > > > > he wants. And after a stake has been driven far enough into the > > > > > > heart of Isreal's borders, Isreal, too, will fall -- if the > > > > religious > > > > > > fanatics have their way. > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe the Israeli state should have been founded on some > > > > > > unoccupied islands in the South Pacific. I don't know. It sure > > > > > > would have solved some problems -- not that anyone would > > > > > > have gone there. > > > > > > > > > > > > Personally, I see religious movements as the cause of the > > greatest > > > > > > human suffering and the greatest travesties against mankind. To > > > > > > be so totally enamored of some rock in the middle of a dessert > > > > > > that one cannot even think of living elsewhere -- well, that > > defies > > > > > > sensibility, in my book. > > > > > > > > > > > > After religious fervor comes national fervor, and after that > > comes > > > > > > free market excesses, in their capacity to do harm in the name > > of > > > > > > good. But, like it or not, people do have those religious > > beliefs, > > > > > > and they do hunger after the same piece of barren rock. > > > > > > > > > > > > So, what is there to do? > > > > > > > > > > > > The options are: > > > > > > 1) Pick up the Isreali state and move it somewhere else. > > > > > > 2) Get out, stay out, and don't care what happens to > > > > > > Israel. > > > > > > 3) Keep working, by a combination of means, to fix the > > > > > > situation with carrots (concessions) and sticks (force) > > > > > > even if it takes 40 years, as with the cold war, or > > > > > > a few hundred years. > > > > > > 4) Get really nasty and start hurting people so badly that > > > > > > they either quit, or there aren't enough left to make a > > > > > > difference. > > > > > > > > > > > > I've no doubt left out some valid alternatives, but of that > > > > > > list, I think #3 makes the most sense. It combines a sense > > > > > > of honor and decency with the gumption not to get pushed > > > > > > around. > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand, when we start thinking about the problem > > > > > > of nuclear waste, it occurs to me that I can think of a few > > > > > > places I wouldn't mind dumping it.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Mon Jul 15 13:01:50 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 48AE956FF4; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 13:01:50 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from patan.sun.com (patan.Sun.COM [192.18.98.43]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C3A1956FF3 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 13:01:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM ([129.145.155.51]) by patan.sun.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA01705 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 14:18:54 -0600 (MDT) Received: from sun.com (d-usca14-129-126 [129.145.129.126]) by ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM (8.11.6+Sun/8.10.2/ENSMAIL,v2.1p1) with ESMTP id g6FKIrC27572 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 13:18:53 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3D332E2E.68853894@sun.com> Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 13:18:54 -0700 From: Eric Armstrong X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: Re: [ba-unrev-talk] NOT: Really, It's That Simple References: <001701c22a7e$8a7da090$180ec53f@home> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Interesting. Some of your observations I totally agree with. Other parts, I find myself at odds with. You're absolutely right that it is always "the other side" that are the fanatics. And the U.S. *was* a colony full of fantatics, at that. On the other hand, the most violent century in the human history was at least as much a matter of *having* conscience as of having none. Were it not for conscience, atrocities of various kinds would have been carried out more quietly, with less opposition. Despite that, I find myself wondering what would be an acceptable solution.Would it be easier if the U.S. simply walked away? Would oil flow more freely? Would we sleep better? Would Israel survive? Is that the solution you propose? If so, what would you predict with respect to the outcome? Personally, I think it is useful to recall the blustering that preceded the U.S. presence in Afghanistan. There are, unfortunately, people in this world to whom any form of concession is seen as a weakness to take advantage of, and to whom force is the only viable argument. There are other people who are open to reason and who are tolerant of other viewpoints. The trick is in knowing who you are dealing with, and dealing with them appropriately. Or do you see isolationism as a better policy for the U.S.? (It's been tried before. With various degrees of success, and it too, as garnered it's share of criticism...) John Maloney wrote: > EA, et al -- > > Thanks for your messages. > > First, this morsel was about the USA. Israeli, like Ireland, Kenya, > France, etc., was used as an example. > > Hegemonic leaders always have a name for their adversaries. It's often > 'fanatic.' (E.g. for unrev, open source fanatics.) > > It is probably safe to say that King George III of Great Britain felt > the colonies were full of 'fanatics.' > > How is possible to say the Western Nations have conscience, after > leading the most violent century in human history? That is ethnocentric > and foolish. > > Isn't it clear that mankind is poorly served by empire? > > We are not talking retreat; we're talking common sense. > > Proximate domain, e.g., neighborhood, town, canton, is innate to humans. > Technology helps transcend the geographic and physical barriers. > Technology can recreate constructive dominion in a flash. > > Ironically, the tendency is to repeat the demented building of empire, > in spite of all the advantages of technology. > > Look at all the ridiculous globalization efforts. Right before our eyes, > we are witnessing an unprecedented power grab by unelected dilettantes > under the guise of some unctuous global fellowship. Boy, what a farce. > It is extremely dangerous, too. > > In fact, We Aren't The World. Despite Madame Allbright's outrageous, > hegemonic and disturbing claim, "Nous sommes la nation indispensable," > (?)country after country are scrambling to distance themselves from the > USA. > > Here is another one that is beyond the pale. > > The U.N. Security Council voted unanimously to exempt U.S. peacekeepers > from the International Criminal Court for 1 year. (?) > > "It offers us a degree of protection for the coming year," said U.S. > Ambassador to the U.N., John Negroponte. > > Huh? Whaat? Come again? I beg your pardon. > > Now our Ambassadors want "protection" from the U.N.? > > Share the wealth! Give every country protection from the U.N. Not for a > year, but forever. > > Meta-government, aka, empire, colonialism, interventionism, etc., > doesn't work, never has, never will. Sadly, the tuition for this lesson > is terrorism. > > Cheers, > > -jtm > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org > [mailto:owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org] On Behalf Of Eric Armstrong > Sent: Friday, July 12, 2002 9:43 PM > To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org > Subject: [ba-unrev-talk] NOT: Really, It's That Simple > > John, I respect your opinions and the reasoning behind them, but on this > on I have to disagree. From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Mon Jul 15 13:04:54 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id BEC8156FF5; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 13:04:53 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from tomts24-srv.bellnexxia.net (tomts24.bellnexxia.net [209.226.175.187]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1B11856FF4 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 13:04:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sympatico.ca ([64.228.165.166]) by tomts24-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.5.01.04.19 201-253-122-122-119-20020516) with ESMTP id <20020715202210.BHMT2648.tomts24-srv.bellnexxia.net@sympatico.ca> for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 16:22:10 -0400 Message-ID: <3D332FDE.EC97D149@sympatico.ca> Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 16:26:06 -0400 From: Henry K van Eyken X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: Re: [ba-unrev-talk] augmented medical diagnosis References: <4.2.2.20020715093019.0260a810@thinkalong.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Facinating, Jack! Truly fascinating. Many long years ago, I had a simple program called, I believe, "Doctor" that ran on my Atari. It did ask questions - as I recall (in fact, I may still have it somewhere). Maybe somene got the idea from the Rose/Park effort, who knows. But the really fascinating thing, aside from its medical value, is the coupler that links directly to the literature. This makes the entire available literature the DKR, and I presume, the entire WWW a DKR. Or another way of looking at it, Weed's Problem Knowledge Coupler is an "applied search engine." What and how long will it take to see the PKC applied to all knowledge? For example, when might citizens use PKC to readily arrive at sound decisions as to what policies and causes and adocacy groups and which "leaders" to support, etc. It seems to me that here is a tremendous enhancement of democracy in the offing. Henry Jack Park wrote: > http://www.boston.com/globe/magazine/2002/0714/coverstory.htm > > "A computer program that provides vast amounts of information for > diagnosing and treating patients could revolutionize the practice of > medicine. So why won't physicians use it? " > > For me, seeing an article on Dr. Lawrence Weed is of great > interest. That's because, in 1985, I formed a partnership with Dr. John > Rose and we build a medical expert system (first built on an Apple II in > Forth, later migrated to IBM PC in Forth and to Mac, under StaxPert written > by our new partner Dan Wood (StaxPert being an inference engine for > HyperCard). While doing our "competitive benchmarking", we discovered Dr. > Weed's PKC -- Problem Knowledge Coupler. > > Our product was first named "First Opinion" and later recast to a more > generalized "DOC" Decisions On Computers. > > Here's more from the page about Weed's PKC: > > "Cross has a trick, an unusual tool he sometimes pulls out of his virtual > black bag. The tool is not a stethoscope, which amplifies his ability to > hear a heartbeat, or an MRI, which makes up for his inability to see > through flesh. Instead, it is a piece of computer software that makes up > for the limits of the human brain. The software, called the Problem > Knowledge Coupler (PKC), was conceived by an old Vermont friend of his, Dr. > Lawrence L. Weed. Instead of listing the symptoms of a disease and asking a > doctor to choose the closest fit, as some medical Web sites do, Weed's > program asks a doctor to first answer a long list of questions about the > patient's troubles. Then, up comes the most likely diagnoses and ways to > test them out. The program helps doctors match (or "couple") the patterns > of a patient's problems with the relevant knowledge that exists, perhaps > buried deep in a textbook or journal article, to recognize and treat those > problems." > > Now, is that an augmentation system, or what? > > Jack From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Mon Jul 15 13:44:41 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 2BEFD56FF7; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 13:44:41 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from rwcrmhc51.attbi.com (rwcrmhc51.attbi.com [204.127.198.38]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8A87A56FF5 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 13:44:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sony ([12.234.214.35]) by rwcrmhc51.attbi.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP id <20020715210138.YRRV24728.rwcrmhc51.attbi.com@sony> for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 21:01:38 +0000 Message-Id: <4.2.2.20020715133021.025f8ef0@thinkalong.com> X-Sender: jackpark@thinkalong.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 13:59:03 -0700 To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org From: Jack Park Subject: Re: [ba-unrev-talk] Systems and goals In-Reply-To: <002f01c22c3c$3c58aee0$53f1193e@vaio> References: <002d01c22a21$f34a85f0$180ec53f@home> <3D2FAFB7.E2DF7E58@sun.com> <3D301B9B.163098D1@sympatico.ca> <001801c22a86$d72e1160$d1e0193e@vaio> <3D308947.421BA1B7@sympatico.ca> <000701c22b64$d7af2960$09f8193e@vaio> <3D31FEAF.E6B684BA@sympatico.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Interesting. I have a somewhat different take on the A.B.C.s, perhaps one= =20 invented out of my own mad way of looking at the universe. I got a bit=20 more support for my ideas whilst re-reading a paper entitled "The Hume=20 Machine" on the web. One of the authors of that paper is Bruno Latour=20 (http://www.ensmp.fr/~latour/) and, while roaming his site, I found this, a= =20 bibliographic entry of his that is not yet available in whole document form: ""War of the Worlds -What about Peace?" to be published as a separate=20 pamphlet byPrickly Press, edited by Marshall Sahlins, Chicago, University=20 of Chicago Press (2002) (traduction anglaise d'une version remani=E9e de=20 English translation in a separate pamphlet of a revised and expanded=20 version of (81) traduite par translated by Charlotte Brigg] If one takes seriously the notion of cosmopolitics developped by Isabelle=20 Stengers and the diplomatic work it entails, one is engaged in a rethinking= =20 of the link between cultures and natures =ADnow in the plural- ; it is= argued=20 here that the extension of nature can no longer count as the diplomatic way= =20 of creating a common world ; alternatives are explored including the notion= =20 of constructivisme, an unlikely candidate at first, but a good possibility= =20 in the end." I don't see the A.B.C.s as a control trip at all. Never have, even though=20 Doug's slides seem to reflect production as the output of A work. I first= =20 recognized A.B.C.s as yet another opportunity for applied constructivist=20 thinking. I'm personally leaning in the direction of assigning a "lot of blame"=20 (whatever that means) (e.g. causality with respect to the complex, urgent=20 problems of our time and our future) on humanity's abuses of its tribal=20 nature, religious thinking being just one candidate abuser among=20 many. Peter's calls (below) for dialog on *goals* is the right call to=20 make; otoh, Doug laid out some extremely important goals (I think) during=20 Unrev II already: clean water, food, climate, etc being attractor basins=20 for a plethora of valuable goals. What's needed, in my view, is to get humankind started on a constructivist= =20 course, not, indeed, a trivial goal in itself. My view holds that we likely= =20 will not make much progress in that direction so long as we focus on=20 specific issues; as a card-carrying member of the tribe whose mantra is=20 "Get The Big Picture First," I do have some ideas that I think could be the= =20 seeds for finding a voice rooted in the Big Picture. My ideas reflect Doug's call (expressed here as my interpretation) for the= =20 evolution of an OHS-driven paradigm shift in the way we work. My view is=20 that humankind, for whatever reason (Darwinian?) is rather *instructivist*= =20 when a move to *constructivist* behaviors is (well, at least, may be)=20 called for. Now, it would be *instructivist* of me to state in plain words= =20 right here just how to do that. I choose, instead, to make an attempt to=20 *facilitate* the start of a constructivist approach by building some=20 software that may (or may not -- I'm still roaming about in hypothesis=20 space) kick start the evolution of better software that might, just might=20 provoke the evolution in human behaviors that are the A.B.C.s about which,= =20 I think, Doug speaks. Discourse in this forum, in my view, could easily seed the move towards a=20 better understanding of the differences between instructivist and=20 constructivist behaviors. My 0.02 EUROs for the day. Jack At 09:14 PM 7/15/2002 +0100, you wrote: >(Henry, I'm moving this back on to the list as I think we're >hitting some interesting territory that perhaps needs discussion in >the wider arena.) > >OK, but that would bring me to another point. > >In the ABC model, A =3D productive process, B =3D improvement >process, C =3D improving improvement process. >However, I would have thought that one way to ensure >improvements all the way was to assert a 'short-circuit' between >C and A and sugg"est that one could improve from C by making >A highly flexible from the outset. If A is highly flexible then >surely B must be even more inventively flexible but easier because of >that. And from that >it follows that C must itself be even more highly flexible in its >provision >of recommendations for flexibility back down the line or via >the short-circuit but is easier because of that. So in introducing >flexibility we've introduced what looks like an extra efficiency into >the whole. >But what happens is that that flexibility in essence flattens the >hierarchy >more into a huge system of interdependent variables without order of >control. >And this implies that variable control in the system might not be >possible - the domains of factors might be too big (chaos theory). And >these >systems are so rarely properly closed. >So it seems that there is a limit to the extent to which the >ABC model is applicable and it is perhaps lower than one >might like. >Therefore, one might argue that the ABC model only applies in system >where the production goals >are very clearly defined, and where fundamental flexibility is known >not to introduce a direct improvement in the whole. > >Now those thoughts can be spread across the dimension of time, not just >production systems. The long haul goals aren't known. Some short haul >goals are. So if we fix the short term ones that gets us to...? Another >set of >short term problems caused by fixing the last lot? How do we prevent >that? >By suggesting an ideal end state perhaps - the Heaven on Earth scenario. >Does anyone agree what the HoE scenario should be? No, we've just >said that no-one knows what that should be. >So in the absence of defined end goals it looks as if we aren't dealing >with a production system here. >In which case, is the ABC model applicable to the whole at present? >Doubtful, I think. >Does it make sense to apply it in part to particular activities and not >others? >Doubtful too, because you can't track the influences. > >Doug is a holist (I hope I'm correct in asserting that - he seems to be >to me) and >so am I and, I think, many others on the BA lists. >In which case, maybe we (unrevvers unite!) need to fire up >some serious debate and research into what long term system goals >humankind should >have on the table now? > >-- >Peter > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Henry K van Eyken" >To: "Peter Jones" >Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2002 11:43 PM >Subject: Re: Offlist: Re: [ba-unrev-talk] NOT: Really, It's That Simple > > > > Peter. > > > > I agree that in the long haul humankind hasn't got the foggiest of >where it > > is going. But degree of certainty is higher the nearer the future. >Life > > insurance rests on this. And going to school, getting married, buying >a > > computer, etc. > > > > Doug's idea IS to control things, but not just from the outset. His >idea is > > to have people - academics, presumably - manning outpost into the >future, to > > assess things and to feed back a stream of information to help us, >sluggers > > to optimize preparations for the future. > > > > Henry > > > > Peter Jones wrote: > > > > > Ah, then we get into a real debate about whether consensus is > > > healthy. For example, take > > > A) The Dilbert Principle: People are idiots. > > > B) Mob rule & Demagogic persuasion. > > > C) The fact that basically humankind hasn't got a clue where it's >going. > > > > > > Isn't the consensus approach just swapping one madness (pluralist > > > cacophony) > > > for another that's got no brakes (the runaway train to hell >phenomenon)? > > > > > > I've read some books about innovation that talk a lot about how the > > > truly great innovations come from someone spotting something in what > > > had previously been considered non-signal (noise) as opposed to > > > changing the signal. > > > > > > Doug's ideas make a lot of sense in processes that should be >controlled > > > from the outset. > > > But to say that people should aways start from the same point and > > > collaborate from the outset misses the point about creativity in > > > many cases. > > > > > > -- > > > Peter > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Henry K van Eyken" > > > To: "Peter Jones" > > > Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2002 9:10 PM > > > Subject: Re: Offlist: Re: [ba-unrev-talk] NOT: Really, It's That >Simple > > > > > > > Peter. > > > > > > > > The point I was trying to make was that we should look for better >ways > > > of > > > > arriving at opinions. Nothing wrong with having opinions and > > > expressing them > > > > and doing so having some impact, etc. But whatever opinions we, as > > > > individuals, offer are more or less in isolation, i.e. partly >footed > > > on > > > > solid ground, partly in thin air. > > > > > > > > Doug's approach is not to offer solutions to world problems, but > > > instead to > > > > offer a way of doing a better job of arriving at solutions. > > > > > > > > The last couple of days, I have have here, lying among papers >around > > > my > > > > desk, The Economist of June 6, turned to page 3 of its special > > > section, "A > > > > survey of the global environment." It points to the contrast >between > > > the > > > > opinions of economists and those of environmentalists, and how >finally > > > those > > > > begin to converge - sort of. Had those people and their advisors >been > > > > working on the same document all along, instead of working on >separate > > > > documents, they could have come up with a consensus ("the same > > > songbook") > > > > much sooner - i.e. do a better job of arriving at a potential >solution > > > to > > > > complex, urgent problems. That is Doug's theme, and one >appropriate to > > > this > > > > list. > > > > > > > > Henry > > > > > > > > Peter Jones wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi Henry, > > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure I understand you. > > > > > Surely the point of dialogue is to get all the views on > > > > > the table, then discuss in the _hopes_ of reaching an > > > > > agreement. To enforce agreement would be > > > > > tyranny. > > > > > > > > > > Peace in plurality is surely better; mutual recognition of > > > > > difference without antagonism. > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Peter > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > From: "Henry K van Eyken" > > > > > To: > > > > > Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2002 1:22 PM > > > > > Subject: Re: [ba-unrev-talk] NOT: Really, It's That Simple > > > > > > > > > > > John, Eric, Peter. > > > > > > > > > > > > I Found Eric's e-mail after responding to John. > > > > > > > > > > > > Interesting the difference between our responses; the >different > > > > > > foundations on which they are based. Our "global brain" is >still > > > not > > > > > > functioning in unison as that label kind of implies. > > > > > > > > > > > > Henry > > > > > > > > > > > > Eric Armstrong wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > John, I respect your opinions and the reasoning behind them, >but > > > > > > > on this on I have to disagree. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is in the nature of a bully to use force to achieve their > > > goals. > > > > > > > It is in the nature of the truly brave (Ghandi, for example) >to > > > > > > > achieve their ends peaceably. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In Ghandi's case, too, occupation was ended, but by far less > > > > > > > brutal, despicable means. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What holds back Western nations is *conscience*. Massive > > > > > > > retaliation of the kind never before experienced on this >planet > > > > > > > would else end the atrocities. But Western nations are held >in > > > > > > > check by their own conscience. They do want the slaughter > > > > > > > of innocents on their hands. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Fantatics, on the other hand, know no such restrictions. >That > > > > > > > puts even a large power at a disadvantage. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A lack of conscience allows a foreign leader to cry out >against > > > > > > > the injustices done to him, while inciting equal and greater > > > > > injustices > > > > > > > at the very same time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The question is, at what point can a nation afford to *stop* > > > > > > > standing for fair play and honor?? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is lost in the dim recesses of history that the >Palestinian > > > state > > > > > > > was formed on the very same day as the Israeli state, by the > > > > > > > very same decree. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Immediately, the Israeli state was declared unacceptable by > > > > > > > the Palestinians, and war ensued. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Once vanguished, the Palestinians immediately set about > > > hollering > > > > > > > about how their land was unjustly taken from them. Yet, once > > > > > > > given back, the wars resumed -- time and again, in one form >or > > > > > > > another. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Each time, promises were made: "Give us back our land, and > > > > > > > there will be peace". But there never has been peace. This >is > > > > > > > the way of things when you deal with people who have no >honor. > > > > > > > They will say anything. They will promise anything. But they > > > will > > > > > > > do nothing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately, Arafat is as totally without honor as anyone >who > > > > > > > has ever existed on this planet. His words mean exactly >nothing. > > > > > > > To accept any representation he makes is simply to play into >his > > > > > > > hands, and to gain nothing in return. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For years now, the argument has been "We own it all. The > > > Isreali's > > > > > > > have no right here. Israel has no right to exist." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Although there has been some softening of that position > > > recently, > > > > > > > it has only come about as a result of the realization that >force > > > > > will > > > > > > > not rule the day. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To retreat in the face of that force is to give the bully > > > everything > > > > > > > he wants. And after a stake has been driven far enough into >the > > > > > > > heart of Isreal's borders, Isreal, too, will fall -- if the > > > > > religious > > > > > > > fanatics have their way. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe the Israeli state should have been founded on some > > > > > > > unoccupied islands in the South Pacific. I don't know. It >sure > > > > > > > would have solved some problems -- not that anyone would > > > > > > > have gone there. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Personally, I see religious movements as the cause of the > > > greatest > > > > > > > human suffering and the greatest travesties against mankind. >To > > > > > > > be so totally enamored of some rock in the middle of a >dessert > > > > > > > that one cannot even think of living elsewhere -- well, that > > > defies > > > > > > > sensibility, in my book. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > After religious fervor comes national fervor, and after that > > > comes > > > > > > > free market excesses, in their capacity to do harm in the >name > > > of > > > > > > > good. But, like it or not, people do have those religious > > > beliefs, > > > > > > > and they do hunger after the same piece of barren rock. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, what is there to do? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The options are: > > > > > > > 1) Pick up the Isreali state and move it somewhere else. > > > > > > > 2) Get out, stay out, and don't care what happens to > > > > > > > Israel. > > > > > > > 3) Keep working, by a combination of means, to fix the > > > > > > > situation with carrots (concessions) and sticks >(force) > > > > > > > even if it takes 40 years, as with the cold war, or > > > > > > > a few hundred years. > > > > > > > 4) Get really nasty and start hurting people so badly >that > > > > > > > they either quit, or there aren't enough left to >make a > > > > > > > difference. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've no doubt left out some valid alternatives, but of that > > > > > > > list, I think #3 makes the most sense. It combines a sense > > > > > > > of honor and decency with the gumption not to get pushed > > > > > > > around. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand, when we start thinking about the problem > > > > > > > of nuclear waste, it occurs to me that I can think of a few > > > > > > > places I wouldn't mind dumping it.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Mon Jul 15 13:56:01 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id F339956FF8; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 13:56:00 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from tomts16-srv.bellnexxia.net (tomts16.bellnexxia.net [209.226.175.4]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3505A56FF7 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 13:55:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sympatico.ca ([64.228.165.166]) by tomts16-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.5.01.04.19 201-253-122-122-119-20020516) with ESMTP id <20020715211310.SIBH8571.tomts16-srv.bellnexxia.net@sympatico.ca> for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 17:13:10 -0400 Message-ID: <3D333BD7.44696257@sympatico.ca> Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 17:17:11 -0400 From: Henry K van Eyken X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: Re: [ba-unrev-talk] Systems and goals WAS: Re: Offlist: Re: [ba-unrev-talk] NOT: Really, It's That Simple References: <002d01c22a21$f34a85f0$180ec53f@home> <3D2FAFB7.E2DF7E58@sun.com> <3D301B9B.163098D1@sympatico.ca> <001801c22a86$d72e1160$d1e0193e@vaio> <3D308947.421BA1B7@sympatico.ca> <000701c22b64$d7af2960$09f8193e@vaio> <3D31FEAF.E6B684BA@sympatico.ca> <002f01c22c3c$3c58aee0$53f1193e@vaio> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Peter. This conversation is taking place at a time that I am working with Doug to try to convert his colloquium talks into text, which requires a fair amount of attention. Interestingly, you are hitting on points I just happen to be dealing with in this work. I am looking at "frontier outposts" now, will touch on A-B-C later. Hence, I like to delay my reaction. But in the meantime, I am all excited about Lawrence Weed's Problem Knowledge Solver, brought to our attention by Jack Park (Topic: Augmented medical diagnosis). Fleabyte stuff here. Henry Peter Jones wrote: > (Henry, I'm moving this back on to the list as I think we're > hitting some interesting territory that perhaps needs discussion in > the wider arena.) > > OK, but that would bring me to another point. > > In the ABC model, A = productive process, B = improvement > process, C = improving improvement process. > However, I would have thought that one way to ensure > improvements all the way was to assert a 'short-circuit' between > C and A and suggest that one could improve from C by making > A highly flexible from the outset. If A is highly flexible then > surely B must be even more inventively flexible but easier because of > that. And from that > it follows that C must itself be even more highly flexible in its > provision > of recommendations for flexibility back down the line or via > the short-circuit but is easier because of that. So in introducing > flexibility we've introduced what looks like an extra efficiency into > the whole. > But what happens is that that flexibility in essence flattens the > hierarchy > more into a huge system of interdependent variables without order of > control. > And this implies that variable control in the system might not be > possible - the domains of factors might be too big (chaos theory). And > these > systems are so rarely properly closed. > So it seems that there is a limit to the extent to which the > ABC model is applicable and it is perhaps lower than one > might like. > Therefore, one might argue that the ABC model only applies in system > where the production goals > are very clearly defined, and where fundamental flexibility is known > not to introduce a direct improvement in the whole. > > Now those thoughts can be spread across the dimension of time, not just > production systems. The long haul goals aren't known. Some short haul > goals are. So if we fix the short term ones that gets us to...? Another > set of > short term problems caused by fixing the last lot? How do we prevent > that? > By suggesting an ideal end state perhaps - the Heaven on Earth scenario. > Does anyone agree what the HoE scenario should be? No, we've just > said that no-one knows what that should be. > So in the absence of defined end goals it looks as if we aren't dealing > with a production system here. > In which case, is the ABC model applicable to the whole at present? > Doubtful, I think. > Does it make sense to apply it in part to particular activities and not > others? > Doubtful too, because you can't track the influences. > > Doug is a holist (I hope I'm correct in asserting that - he seems to be > to me) and > so am I and, I think, many others on the BA lists. > In which case, maybe we (unrevvers unite!) need to fire up > some serious debate and research into what long term system goals > humankind should > have on the table now? > > -- > Peter > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Henry K van Eyken" > To: "Peter Jones" > Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2002 11:43 PM > Subject: Re: Offlist: Re: [ba-unrev-talk] NOT: Really, It's That Simple > > > Peter. > > > > I agree that in the long haul humankind hasn't got the foggiest of > where it > > is going. But degree of certainty is higher the nearer the future. > Life > > insurance rests on this. And going to school, getting married, buying > a > > computer, etc. > > > > Doug's idea IS to control things, but not just from the outset. His > idea is > > to have people - academics, presumably - manning outpost into the > future, to > > assess things and to feed back a stream of information to help us, > sluggers > > to optimize preparations for the future. > > > > Henry > > > > Peter Jones wrote: > > > > > Ah, then we get into a real debate about whether consensus is > > > healthy. For example, take > > > A) The Dilbert Principle: People are idiots. > > > B) Mob rule & Demagogic persuasion. > > > C) The fact that basically humankind hasn't got a clue where it's > going. > > > > > > Isn't the consensus approach just swapping one madness (pluralist > > > cacophony) > > > for another that's got no brakes (the runaway train to hell > phenomenon)? > > > > > > I've read some books about innovation that talk a lot about how the > > > truly great innovations come from someone spotting something in what > > > had previously been considered non-signal (noise) as opposed to > > > changing the signal. > > > > > > Doug's ideas make a lot of sense in processes that should be > controlled > > > from the outset. > > > But to say that people should aways start from the same point and > > > collaborate from the outset misses the point about creativity in > > > many cases. > > > > > > -- > > > Peter > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Henry K van Eyken" > > > To: "Peter Jones" > > > Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2002 9:10 PM > > > Subject: Re: Offlist: Re: [ba-unrev-talk] NOT: Really, It's That > Simple > > > > > > > Peter. > > > > > > > > The point I was trying to make was that we should look for better > ways > > > of > > > > arriving at opinions. Nothing wrong with having opinions and > > > expressing them > > > > and doing so having some impact, etc. But whatever opinions we, as > > > > individuals, offer are more or less in isolation, i.e. partly > footed > > > on > > > > solid ground, partly in thin air. > > > > > > > > Doug's approach is not to offer solutions to world problems, but > > > instead to > > > > offer a way of doing a better job of arriving at solutions. > > > > > > > > The last couple of days, I have have here, lying among papers > around > > > my > > > > desk, The Economist of June 6, turned to page 3 of its special > > > section, "A > > > > survey of the global environment." It points to the contrast > between > > > the > > > > opinions of economists and those of environmentalists, and how > finally > > > those > > > > begin to converge - sort of. Had those people and their advisors > been > > > > working on the same document all along, instead of working on > separate > > > > documents, they could have come up with a consensus ("the same > > > songbook") > > > > much sooner - i.e. do a better job of arriving at a potential > solution > > > to > > > > complex, urgent problems. That is Doug's theme, and one > appropriate to > > > this > > > > list. > > > > > > > > Henry > > > > > > > > Peter Jones wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi Henry, > > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure I understand you. > > > > > Surely the point of dialogue is to get all the views on > > > > > the table, then discuss in the _hopes_ of reaching an > > > > > agreement. To enforce agreement would be > > > > > tyranny. > > > > > > > > > > Peace in plurality is surely better; mutual recognition of > > > > > difference without antagonism. > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Peter > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > From: "Henry K van Eyken" > > > > > To: > > > > > Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2002 1:22 PM > > > > > Subject: Re: [ba-unrev-talk] NOT: Really, It's That Simple > > > > > > > > > > > John, Eric, Peter. > > > > > > > > > > > > I Found Eric's e-mail after responding to John. > > > > > > > > > > > > Interesting the difference between our responses; the > different > > > > > > foundations on which they are based. Our "global brain" is > still > > > not > > > > > > functioning in unison as that label kind of implies. > > > > > > > > > > > > Henry > > > > > > > > > > > > Eric Armstrong wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > John, I respect your opinions and the reasoning behind them, > but > > > > > > > on this on I have to disagree. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is in the nature of a bully to use force to achieve their > > > goals. > > > > > > > It is in the nature of the truly brave (Ghandi, for example) > to > > > > > > > achieve their ends peaceably. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In Ghandi's case, too, occupation was ended, but by far less > > > > > > > brutal, despicable means. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What holds back Western nations is *conscience*. Massive > > > > > > > retaliation of the kind never before experienced on this > planet > > > > > > > would else end the atrocities. But Western nations are held > in > > > > > > > check by their own conscience. They do want the slaughter > > > > > > > of innocents on their hands. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Fantatics, on the other hand, know no such restrictions. > That > > > > > > > puts even a large power at a disadvantage. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A lack of conscience allows a foreign leader to cry out > against > > > > > > > the injustices done to him, while inciting equal and greater > > > > > injustices > > > > > > > at the very same time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The question is, at what point can a nation afford to *stop* > > > > > > > standing for fair play and honor?? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is lost in the dim recesses of history that the > Palestinian > > > state > > > > > > > was formed on the very same day as the Israeli state, by the > > > > > > > very same decree. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Immediately, the Israeli state was declared unacceptable by > > > > > > > the Palestinians, and war ensued. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Once vanguished, the Palestinians immediately set about > > > hollering > > > > > > > about how their land was unjustly taken from them. Yet, once > > > > > > > given back, the wars resumed -- time and again, in one form > or > > > > > > > another. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Each time, promises were made: "Give us back our land, and > > > > > > > there will be peace". But there never has been peace. This > is > > > > > > > the way of things when you deal with people who have no > honor. > > > > > > > They will say anything. They will promise anything. But they > > > will > > > > > > > do nothing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately, Arafat is as totally without honor as anyone > who > > > > > > > has ever existed on this planet. His words mean exactly > nothing. > > > > > > > To accept any representation he makes is simply to play into > his > > > > > > > hands, and to gain nothing in return. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For years now, the argument has been "We own it all. The > > > Isreali's > > > > > > > have no right here. Israel has no right to exist." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Although there has been some softening of that position > > > recently, > > > > > > > it has only come about as a result of the realization that > force > > > > > will > > > > > > > not rule the day. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To retreat in the face of that force is to give the bully > > > everything > > > > > > > he wants. And after a stake has been driven far enough into > the > > > > > > > heart of Isreal's borders, Isreal, too, will fall -- if the > > > > > religious > > > > > > > fanatics have their way. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe the Israeli state should have been founded on some > > > > > > > unoccupied islands in the South Pacific. I don't know. It > sure > > > > > > > would have solved some problems -- not that anyone would > > > > > > > have gone there. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Personally, I see religious movements as the cause of the > > > greatest > > > > > > > human suffering and the greatest travesties against mankind. > To > > > > > > > be so totally enamored of some rock in the middle of a > dessert > > > > > > > that one cannot even think of living elsewhere -- well, that > > > defies > > > > > > > sensibility, in my book. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > After religious fervor comes national fervor, and after that > > > comes > > > > > > > free market excesses, in their capacity to do harm in the > name > > > of > > > > > > > good. But, like it or not, people do have those religious > > > beliefs, > > > > > > > and they do hunger after the same piece of barren rock. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, what is there to do? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The options are: > > > > > > > 1) Pick up the Isreali state and move it somewhere else. > > > > > > > 2) Get out, stay out, and don't care what happens to > > > > > > > Israel. > > > > > > > 3) Keep working, by a combination of means, to fix the > > > > > > > situation with carrots (concessions) and sticks > (force) > > > > > > > even if it takes 40 years, as with the cold war, or > > > > > > > a few hundred years. > > > > > > > 4) Get really nasty and start hurting people so badly > that > > > > > > > they either quit, or there aren't enough left to > make a > > > > > > > difference. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've no doubt left out some valid alternatives, but of that > > > > > > > list, I think #3 makes the most sense. It combines a sense > > > > > > > of honor and decency with the gumption not to get pushed > > > > > > > around. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand, when we start thinking about the problem > > > > > > > of nuclear waste, it occurs to me that I can think of a few > > > > > > > places I wouldn't mind dumping it.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Mon Jul 15 14:55:18 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 0B36E56FF9; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 14:55:17 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from cmailg4.svr.pol.co.uk (cmailg4.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.195.174]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 80AB456FF8 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 14:55:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from modem-380.pounder.dialup.pol.co.uk ([62.25.213.124] helo=vaio) by cmailg4.svr.pol.co.uk with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17UE4n-00071M-00 for ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 23:12:18 +0100 Message-ID: <002a01c22c4c$65b9b080$7cd5193e@vaio> From: "Peter Jones" To: References: <002d01c22a21$f34a85f0$180ec53f@home> <3D2FAFB7.E2DF7E58@sun.com> <3D301B9B.163098D1@sympatico.ca> <001801c22a86$d72e1160$d1e0193e@vaio> <3D308947.421BA1B7@sympatico.ca> <000701c22b64$d7af2960$09f8193e@vaio> <3D31FEAF.E6B684BA@sympatico.ca> <4.2.2.20020715133021.025f8ef0@thinkalong.com> Subject: Offlist: Re: [ba-unrev-talk] Systems and goals Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 23:10:13 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Isn't applied constructivism controlling in some sense? "Constructivism emphasizes the careful study of the processes by which children create and develop their ideas. Its educational applications lie in creating curricula that match (but also challenge) children's understanding, fostering further growth and development of the mind. " >From http://www.ic.polyu.edu.hk/posh97/Student/Learn/Learning_theories.html#c onstructivism -- Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jack Park" To: Sent: Monday, July 15, 2002 9:59 PM Subject: Re: [ba-unrev-talk] Systems and goals Interesting. I have a somewhat different take on the A.B.C.s, perhaps one invented out of my own mad way of looking at the universe. I got a bit more support for my ideas whilst re-reading a paper entitled "The Hume Machine" on the web. One of the authors of that paper is Bruno Latour (http://www.ensmp.fr/~latour/) and, while roaming his site, I found this, a bibliographic entry of his that is not yet available in whole document form: ""War of the Worlds -What about Peace?" to be published as a separate pamphlet byPrickly Press, edited by Marshall Sahlins, Chicago, University of Chicago Press (2002) (traduction anglaise d'une version remaniée de English translation in a separate pamphlet of a revised and expanded version of (81) traduite par translated by Charlotte Brigg] If one takes seriously the notion of cosmopolitics developped by Isabelle Stengers and the diplomatic work it entails, one is engaged in a rethinking of the link between cultures and natures ­now in the plural- ; it is argued here that the extension of nature can no longer count as the diplomatic way of creating a common world ; alternatives are explored including the notion of constructivisme, an unlikely candidate at first, but a good possibility in the end." I don't see the A.B.C.s as a control trip at all. Never have, even though Doug's slides seem to reflect production as the output of A work. I first recognized A.B.C.s as yet another opportunity for applied constructivist thinking. I'm personally leaning in the direction of assigning a "lot of blame" (whatever that means) (e.g. causality with respect to the complex, urgent problems of our time and our future) on humanity's abuses of its tribal nature, religious thinking being just one candidate abuser among many. Peter's calls (below) for dialog on *goals* is the right call to make; otoh, Doug laid out some extremely important goals (I think) during Unrev II already: clean water, food, climate, etc being attractor basins for a plethora of valuable goals. What's needed, in my view, is to get humankind started on a constructivist course, not, indeed, a trivial goal in itself. My view holds that we likely will not make much progress in that direction so long as we focus on specific issues; as a card-carrying member of the tribe whose mantra is "Get The Big Picture First," I do have some ideas that I think could be the seeds for finding a voice rooted in the Big Picture. My ideas reflect Doug's call (expressed here as my interpretation) for the evolution of an OHS-driven paradigm shift in the way we work. My view is that humankind, for whatever reason (Darwinian?) is rather *instructivist* when a move to *constructivist* behaviors is (well, at least, may be) called for. Now, it would be *instructivist* of me to state in plain words right here just how to do that. I choose, instead, to make an attempt to *facilitate* the start of a constructivist approach by building some software that may (or may not -- I'm still roaming about in hypothesis space) kick start the evolution of better software that might, just might provoke the evolution in human behaviors that are the A.B.C.s about which, I think, Doug speaks. Discourse in this forum, in my view, could easily seed the move towards a better understanding of the differences between instructivist and constructivist behaviors. My 0.02 EUROs for the day. Jack At 09:14 PM 7/15/2002 +0100, you wrote: >(Henry, I'm moving this back on to the list as I think we're >hitting some interesting territory that perhaps needs discussion in >the wider arena.) > >OK, but that would bring me to another point. > >In the ABC model, A = productive process, B = improvement >process, C = improving improvement process. >However, I would have thought that one way to ensure >improvements all the way was to assert a 'short-circuit' between >C and A and sugg"est that one could improve from C by making >A highly flexible from the outset. If A is highly flexible then >surely B must be even more inventively flexible but easier because of >that. And from that >it follows that C must itself be even more highly flexible in its >provision >of recommendations for flexibility back down the line or via >the short-circuit but is easier because of that. So in introducing >flexibility we've introduced what looks like an extra efficiency into >the whole. >But what happens is that that flexibility in essence flattens the >hierarchy >more into a huge system of interdependent variables without order of >control. >And this implies that variable control in the system might not be >possible - the domains of factors might be too big (chaos theory). And >these >systems are so rarely properly closed. >So it seems that there is a limit to the extent to which the >ABC model is applicable and it is perhaps lower than one >might like. >Therefore, one might argue that the ABC model only applies in system >where the production goals >are very clearly defined, and where fundamental flexibility is known >not to introduce a direct improvement in the whole. > >Now those thoughts can be spread across the dimension of time, not just >production systems. The long haul goals aren't known. Some short haul >goals are. So if we fix the short term ones that gets us to...? Another >set of >short term problems caused by fixing the last lot? How do we prevent >that? >By suggesting an ideal end state perhaps - the Heaven on Earth scenario. >Does anyone agree what the HoE scenario should be? No, we've just >said that no-one knows what that should be. >So in the absence of defined end goals it looks as if we aren't dealing >with a production system here. >In which case, is the ABC model applicable to the whole at present? >Doubtful, I think. >Does it make sense to apply it in part to particular activities and not >others? >Doubtful too, because you can't track the influences. > >Doug is a holist (I hope I'm correct in asserting that - he seems to be >to me) and >so am I and, I think, many others on the BA lists. >In which case, maybe we (unrevvers unite!) need to fire up >some serious debate and research into what long term system goals >humankind should >have on the table now? > >-- >Peter > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Henry K van Eyken" >To: "Peter Jones" >Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2002 11:43 PM >Subject: Re: Offlist: Re: [ba-unrev-talk] NOT: Really, It's That Simple > > > > Peter. > > > > I agree that in the long haul humankind hasn't got the foggiest of >where it > > is going. But degree of certainty is higher the nearer the future. >Life > > insurance rests on this. And going to school, getting married, buying >a > > computer, etc. > > > > Doug's idea IS to control things, but not just from the outset. His >idea is > > to have people - academics, presumably - manning outpost into the >future, to > > assess things and to feed back a stream of information to help us, >sluggers > > to optimize preparations for the future. > > > > Henry > > > > Peter Jones wrote: > > > > > Ah, then we get into a real debate about whether consensus is > > > healthy. For example, take > > > A) The Dilbert Principle: People are idiots. > > > B) Mob rule & Demagogic persuasion. > > > C) The fact that basically humankind hasn't got a clue where it's >going. > > > > > > Isn't the consensus approach just swapping one madness (pluralist > > > cacophony) > > > for another that's got no brakes (the runaway train to hell >phenomenon)? > > > > > > I've read some books about innovation that talk a lot about how the > > > truly great innovations come from someone spotting something in what > > > had previously been considered non-signal (noise) as opposed to > > > changing the signal. > > > > > > Doug's ideas make a lot of sense in processes that should be >controlled > > > from the outset. > > > But to say that people should aways start from the same point and > > > collaborate from the outset misses the point about creativity in > > > many cases. > > > > > > -- > > > Peter > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Henry K van Eyken" > > > To: "Peter Jones" > > > Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2002 9:10 PM > > > Subject: Re: Offlist: Re: [ba-unrev-talk] NOT: Really, It's That >Simple > > > > > > > Peter. > > > > > > > > The point I was trying to make was that we should look for better >ways > > > of > > > > arriving at opinions. Nothing wrong with having opinions and > > > expressing them > > > > and doing so having some impact, etc. But whatever opinions we, as > > > > individuals, offer are more or less in isolation, i.e. partly >footed > > > on > > > > solid ground, partly in thin air. > > > > > > > > Doug's approach is not to offer solutions to world problems, but > > > instead to > > > > offer a way of doing a better job of arriving at solutions. > > > > > > > > The last couple of days, I have have here, lying among papers >around > > > my > > > > desk, The Economist of June 6, turned to page 3 of its special > > > section, "A > > > > survey of the global environment." It points to the contrast >between > > > the > > > > opinions of economists and those of environmentalists, and how >finally > > > those > > > > begin to converge - sort of. Had those people and their advisors >been > > > > working on the same document all along, instead of working on >separate > > > > documents, they could have come up with a consensus ("the same > > > songbook") > > > > much sooner - i.e. do a better job of arriving at a potential >solution > > > to > > > > complex, urgent problems. That is Doug's theme, and one >appropriate to > > > this > > > > list. > > > > > > > > Henry > > > > > > > > Peter Jones wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi Henry, > > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure I understand you. > > > > > Surely the point of dialogue is to get all the views on > > > > > the table, then discuss in the _hopes_ of reaching an > > > > > agreement. To enforce agreement would be > > > > > tyranny. > > > > > > > > > > Peace in plurality is surely better; mutual recognition of > > > > > difference without antagonism. > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Peter > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > From: "Henry K van Eyken" > > > > > To: > > > > > Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2002 1:22 PM > > > > > Subject: Re: [ba-unrev-talk] NOT: Really, It's That Simple > > > > > > > > > > > John, Eric, Peter. > > > > > > > > > > > > I Found Eric's e-mail after responding to John. > > > > > > > > > > > > Interesting the difference between our responses; the >different > > > > > > foundations on which they are based. Our "global brain" is >still > > > not > > > > > > functioning in unison as that label kind of implies. > > > > > > > > > > > > Henry > > > > > > > > > > > > Eric Armstrong wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > John, I respect your opinions and the reasoning behind them, >but > > > > > > > on this on I have to disagree. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is in the nature of a bully to use force to achieve their > > > goals. > > > > > > > It is in the nature of the truly brave (Ghandi, for example) >to > > > > > > > achieve their ends peaceably. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In Ghandi's case, too, occupation was ended, but by far less > > > > > > > brutal, despicable means. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What holds back Western nations is *conscience*. Massive > > > > > > > retaliation of the kind never before experienced on this >planet > > > > > > > would else end the atrocities. But Western nations are held >in > > > > > > > check by their own conscience. They do want the slaughter > > > > > > > of innocents on their hands. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Fantatics, on the other hand, know no such restrictions. >That > > > > > > > puts even a large power at a disadvantage. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A lack of conscience allows a foreign leader to cry out >against > > > > > > > the injustices done to him, while inciting equal and greater > > > > > injustices > > > > > > > at the very same time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The question is, at what point can a nation afford to *stop* > > > > > > > standing for fair play and honor?? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is lost in the dim recesses of history that the >Palestinian > > > state > > > > > > > was formed on the very same day as the Israeli state, by the > > > > > > > very same decree. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Immediately, the Israeli state was declared unacceptable by > > > > > > > the Palestinians, and war ensued. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Once vanguished, the Palestinians immediately set about > > > hollering > > > > > > > about how their land was unjustly taken from them. Yet, once > > > > > > > given back, the wars resumed -- time and again, in one form >or > > > > > > > another. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Each time, promises were made: "Give us back our land, and > > > > > > > there will be peace". But there never has been peace. This >is > > > > > > > the way of things when you deal with people who have no >honor. > > > > > > > They will say anything. They will promise anything. But they > > > will > > > > > > > do nothing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately, Arafat is as totally without honor as anyone >who > > > > > > > has ever existed on this planet. His words mean exactly >nothing. > > > > > > > To accept any representation he makes is simply to play into >his > > > > > > > hands, and to gain nothing in return. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For years now, the argument has been "We own it all. The > > > Isreali's > > > > > > > have no right here. Israel has no right to exist." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Although there has been some softening of that position > > > recently, > > > > > > > it has only come about as a result of the realization that >force > > > > > will > > > > > > > not rule the day. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To retreat in the face of that force is to give the bully > > > everything > > > > > > > he wants. And after a stake has been driven far enough into >the > > > > > > > heart of Isreal's borders, Isreal, too, will fall -- if the > > > > > religious > > > > > > > fanatics have their way. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe the Israeli state should have been founded on some > > > > > > > unoccupied islands in the South Pacific. I don't know. It >sure > > > > > > > would have solved some problems -- not that anyone would > > > > > > > have gone there. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Personally, I see religious movements as the cause of the > > > greatest > > > > > > > human suffering and the greatest travesties against mankind. >To > > > > > > > be so totally enamored of some rock in the middle of a >dessert > > > > > > > that one cannot even think of living elsewhere -- well, that > > > defies > > > > > > > sensibility, in my book. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > After religious fervor comes national fervor, and after that > > > comes > > > > > > > free market excesses, in their capacity to do harm in the >name > > > of > > > > > > > good. But, like it or not, people do have those religious > > > beliefs, > > > > > > > and they do hunger after the same piece of barren rock. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, what is there to do? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The options are: > > > > > > > 1) Pick up the Isreali state and move it somewhere else. > > > > > > > 2) Get out, stay out, and don't care what happens to > > > > > > > Israel. > > > > > > > 3) Keep working, by a combination of means, to fix the > > > > > > > situation with carrots (concessions) and sticks >(force) > > > > > > > even if it takes 40 years, as with the cold war, or > > > > > > > a few hundred years. > > > > > > > 4) Get really nasty and start hurting people so badly >that > > > > > > > they either quit, or there aren't enough left to >make a > > > > > > > difference. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've no doubt left out some valid alternatives, but of that > > > > > > > list, I think #3 makes the most sense. It combines a sense > > > > > > > of honor and decency with the gumption not to get pushed > > > > > > > around. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand, when we start thinking about the problem > > > > > > > of nuclear waste, it occurs to me that I can think of a few > > > > > > > places I wouldn't mind dumping it.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Mon Jul 15 14:59:21 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 7A73E56FFA; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 14:59:20 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from cmailg4.svr.pol.co.uk (cmailg4.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.195.174]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6755F56FF9 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 14:59:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from modem-380.pounder.dialup.pol.co.uk ([62.25.213.124] helo=vaio) by cmailg4.svr.pol.co.uk with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17UE8l-0007Z0-00 for ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 23:16:23 +0100 Message-ID: <003a01c22c4c$f8297b80$7cd5193e@vaio> From: "Peter Jones" To: Subject: [ba-unrev-talk] Fw: Announcing: The Computer Science Preprint Server Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 23:14:20 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Thought this might be of interest to folks... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Computer Science" To: Sent: Monday, July 15, 2002 3:43 PM Subject: Announcing: The Computer Science Preprint Server Dear computer scientist, It is our great pleasure to announce the launch of a new rapid distribution medium for research articles in the field of computer science, covering the whole panorama of current research topics: The Computer Science Preprint Server http://www.compscipreprints.com We would also like to invite you to be among the first users to post an article on The Computer Science Preprint Server and join the community. You can actually also already enjoy reading over 200 articles already posted. Welcoming final-version articles as well as reports on work in progress, The Computer Science Preprint Server affords you a unique opportunity to ensure your article receives maximum visibility. We appreciate your time is valuable and have designed the online submission process to be as streamlined as possible. Also, as an author you have total freedom to remove your article at any time, and/or to submit it for publication to the journal of your choice. Additional features of The Computer Science Preprint Server include: "Discussions" - encouraging online discussion of your article "Recommend This Article" - ensuring wider distribution of your article "Alerting Service" - informing you regularly of new articles as they are uploaded to the Server. We look forward to receiving your preprint and welcome any comments and/or suggestions you may care to make. Ir. Olivier Simonnot, MBA The Computer Science Preprint Server http://www.compscipreprints.com ================================================================ If you would prefer not to receive marketing information via e-mail from Elsevier Science and associated Group Companies, please send a blank email to: mailto:exclusionlist-sub@lyris.elsevier.nl Elsevier Science does not disclose or sell e-mail addresses to third parties. Our full privacy policy statement is available at http://www.elsevier.com From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Mon Jul 15 15:32:43 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 3E68156FFB; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 15:32:43 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from rwcrmhc52.attbi.com (rwcrmhc52.attbi.com [216.148.227.88]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B753856FFA for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 15:32:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sony ([12.234.214.35]) by rwcrmhc52.attbi.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP id <20020715224947.LTTR8262.rwcrmhc52.attbi.com@sony> for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 22:49:47 +0000 Message-Id: <4.2.2.20020715154249.00bba990@thinkalong.com> X-Sender: jackpark@thinkalong.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 15:47:10 -0700 To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org From: Jack Park Subject: Re: [ba-unrev-talk] Systems and goals In-Reply-To: <002a01c22c4c$65b9b080$7cd5193e@vaio> References: <002d01c22a21$f34a85f0$180ec53f@home> <3D2FAFB7.E2DF7E58@sun.com> <3D301B9B.163098D1@sympatico.ca> <001801c22a86$d72e1160$d1e0193e@vaio> <3D308947.421BA1B7@sympatico.ca> <000701c22b64$d7af2960$09f8193e@vaio> <3D31FEAF.E6B684BA@sympatico.ca> <4.2.2.20020715133021.025f8ef0@thinkalong.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Offlist or not, there certainly is an element of control. In a=20 constructivist environment, the "teacher" is really a facilitator of=20 learning, and there has to be some aspect of control going on between=20 facilitator and learner, as well as within and between learners. I agree=20 with your suspicion, and like the quote, Peter. Problem is, most=20 constructivist pundits tend to forget that the learning facilitator is=20 always a learner as well. Jack At 11:10 PM 7/15/2002 +0100, you wrote: >Isn't applied constructivism controlling in some sense? > >"Constructivism emphasizes the careful study of the processes by which >children create and develop their ideas. Its educational applications >lie in creating curricula that match (but also challenge) children's >understanding, fostering further growth and development of the mind. " >From >http://www.ic.polyu.edu.hk/posh97/Student/Learn/Learning_theories.html#c >onstructivism > >-- >Peter > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Jack Park" >To: >Sent: Monday, July 15, 2002 9:59 PM >Subject: Re: [ba-unrev-talk] Systems and goals > > >Interesting. I have a somewhat different take on the A.B.C.s, perhaps >one >invented out of my own mad way of looking at the universe. I got a bit >more support for my ideas whilst re-reading a paper entitled "The Hume >Machine" on the web. One of the authors of that paper is Bruno Latour >(http://www.ensmp.fr/~latour/) and, while roaming his site, I found >this, a >bibliographic entry of his that is not yet available in whole document >form: > >""War of the Worlds -What about Peace?" to be published as a separate >pamphlet byPrickly Press, edited by Marshall Sahlins, Chicago, >University >of Chicago Press (2002) (traduction anglaise d'une version remani=E9e de >English translation in a separate pamphlet of a revised and expanded >version of (81) traduite par translated by Charlotte Brigg] >If one takes seriously the notion of cosmopolitics developped by >Isabelle >Stengers and the diplomatic work it entails, one is engaged in a >rethinking >of the link between cultures and natures =ADnow in the plural- ; it is >argued >here that the extension of nature can no longer count as the diplomatic >way >of creating a common world ; alternatives are explored including the >notion >of constructivisme, an unlikely candidate at first, but a good >possibility >in the end." > >I don't see the A.B.C.s as a control trip at all. Never have, even >though >Doug's slides seem to reflect production as the output of A work. I >first >recognized A.B.C.s as yet another opportunity for applied constructivist >thinking. > >I'm personally leaning in the direction of assigning a "lot of blame" >(whatever that means) (e.g. causality with respect to the complex, >urgent >problems of our time and our future) on humanity's abuses of its tribal >nature, religious thinking being just one candidate abuser among >many. Peter's calls (below) for dialog on *goals* is the right call to >make; otoh, Doug laid out some extremely important goals (I think) >during >Unrev II already: clean water, food, climate, etc being attractor basins >for a plethora of valuable goals. > >What's needed, in my view, is to get humankind started on a >constructivist >course, not, indeed, a trivial goal in itself. My view holds that we >likely >will not make much progress in that direction so long as we focus on >specific issues; as a card-carrying member of the tribe whose mantra is >"Get The Big Picture First," I do have some ideas that I think could be >the >seeds for finding a voice rooted in the Big Picture. > >My ideas reflect Doug's call (expressed here as my interpretation) for >the >evolution of an OHS-driven paradigm shift in the way we work. My view >is >that humankind, for whatever reason (Darwinian?) is rather >*instructivist* >when a move to *constructivist* behaviors is (well, at least, may be) >called for. Now, it would be *instructivist* of me to state in plain >words >right here just how to do that. I choose, instead, to make an attempt >to >*facilitate* the start of a constructivist approach by building some >software that may (or may not -- I'm still roaming about in hypothesis >space) kick start the evolution of better software that might, just >might >provoke the evolution in human behaviors that are the A.B.C.s about >which, >I think, Doug speaks. > >Discourse in this forum, in my view, could easily seed the move towards >a >better understanding of the differences between instructivist and >constructivist behaviors. > >My 0.02 EUROs for the day. >Jack > >At 09:14 PM 7/15/2002 +0100, you wrote: > >(Henry, I'm moving this back on to the list as I think we're > >hitting some interesting territory that perhaps needs discussion in > >the wider arena.) > > > >OK, but that would bring me to another point. > > > >In the ABC model, A =3D productive process, B =3D improvement > >process, C =3D improving improvement process. > >However, I would have thought that one way to ensure > >improvements all the way was to assert a 'short-circuit' between > >C and A and sugg"est that one could improve from C by making > >A highly flexible from the outset. If A is highly flexible then > >surely B must be even more inventively flexible but easier because of > >that. And from that > >it follows that C must itself be even more highly flexible in its > >provision > >of recommendations for flexibility back down the line or via > >the short-circuit but is easier because of that. So in introducing > >flexibility we've introduced what looks like an extra efficiency into > >the whole. > >But what happens is that that flexibility in essence flattens the > >hierarchy > >more into a huge system of interdependent variables without order of > >control. > >And this implies that variable control in the system might not be > >possible - the domains of factors might be too big (chaos theory). And > >these > >systems are so rarely properly closed. > >So it seems that there is a limit to the extent to which the > >ABC model is applicable and it is perhaps lower than one > >might like. > >Therefore, one might argue that the ABC model only applies in system > >where the production goals > >are very clearly defined, and where fundamental flexibility is known > >not to introduce a direct improvement in the whole. > > > >Now those thoughts can be spread across the dimension of time, not just > >production systems. The long haul goals aren't known. Some short haul > >goals are. So if we fix the short term ones that gets us to...? Another > >set of > >short term problems caused by fixing the last lot? How do we prevent > >that? > >By suggesting an ideal end state perhaps - the Heaven on Earth >scenario. > >Does anyone agree what the HoE scenario should be? No, we've just > >said that no-one knows what that should be. > >So in the absence of defined end goals it looks as if we aren't dealing > >with a production system here. > >In which case, is the ABC model applicable to the whole at present? > >Doubtful, I think. > >Does it make sense to apply it in part to particular activities and not > >others? > >Doubtful too, because you can't track the influences. > > > >Doug is a holist (I hope I'm correct in asserting that - he seems to >be > >to me) and > >so am I and, I think, many others on the BA lists. > >In which case, maybe we (unrevvers unite!) need to fire up > >some serious debate and research into what long term system goals > >humankind should > >have on the table now? > > > >-- > >Peter > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Henry K van Eyken" > >To: "Peter Jones" > >Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2002 11:43 PM > >Subject: Re: Offlist: Re: [ba-unrev-talk] NOT: Really, It's That Simple > > > > > > > Peter. > > > > > > I agree that in the long haul humankind hasn't got the foggiest of > >where it > > > is going. But degree of certainty is higher the nearer the future. > >Life > > > insurance rests on this. And going to school, getting married, >buying > >a > > > computer, etc. > > > > > > Doug's idea IS to control things, but not just from the outset. His > >idea is > > > to have people - academics, presumably - manning outpost into the > >future, to > > > assess things and to feed back a stream of information to help us, > >sluggers > > > to optimize preparations for the future. > > > > > > Henry > > > > > > Peter Jones wrote: > > > > > > > Ah, then we get into a real debate about whether consensus is > > > > healthy. For example, take > > > > A) The Dilbert Principle: People are idiots. > > > > B) Mob rule & Demagogic persuasion. > > > > C) The fact that basically humankind hasn't got a clue where it's > >going. > > > > > > > > Isn't the consensus approach just swapping one madness (pluralist > > > > cacophony) > > > > for another that's got no brakes (the runaway train to hell > >phenomenon)? > > > > > > > > I've read some books about innovation that talk a lot about how >the > > > > truly great innovations come from someone spotting something in >what > > > > had previously been considered non-signal (noise) as opposed to > > > > changing the signal. > > > > > > > > Doug's ideas make a lot of sense in processes that should be > >controlled > > > > from the outset. > > > > But to say that people should aways start from the same point and > > > > collaborate from the outset misses the point about creativity in > > > > many cases. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Peter > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: "Henry K van Eyken" > > > > To: "Peter Jones" > > > > Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2002 9:10 PM > > > > Subject: Re: Offlist: Re: [ba-unrev-talk] NOT: Really, It's That > >Simple > > > > > > > > > Peter. > > > > > > > > > > The point I was trying to make was that we should look for >better > >ways > > > > of > > > > > arriving at opinions. Nothing wrong with having opinions and > > > > expressing them > > > > > and doing so having some impact, etc. But whatever opinions we, >as > > > > > individuals, offer are more or less in isolation, i.e. partly > >footed > > > > on > > > > > solid ground, partly in thin air. > > > > > > > > > > Doug's approach is not to offer solutions to world problems, but > > > > instead to > > > > > offer a way of doing a better job of arriving at solutions. > > > > > > > > > > The last couple of days, I have have here, lying among papers > >around > > > > my > > > > > desk, The Economist of June 6, turned to page 3 of its special > > > > section, "A > > > > > survey of the global environment." It points to the contrast > >between > > > > the > > > > > opinions of economists and those of environmentalists, and how > >finally > > > > those > > > > > begin to converge - sort of. Had those people and their advisors > >been > > > > > working on the same document all along, instead of working on > >separate > > > > > documents, they could have come up with a consensus ("the same > > > > songbook") > > > > > much sooner - i.e. do a better job of arriving at a potential > >solution > > > > to > > > > > complex, urgent problems. That is Doug's theme, and one > >appropriate to > > > > this > > > > > list. > > > > > > > > > > Henry > > > > > > > > > > Peter Jones wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Henry, > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure I understand you. > > > > > > Surely the point of dialogue is to get all the views on > > > > > > the table, then discuss in the _hopes_ of reaching an > > > > > > agreement. To enforce agreement would be > > > > > > tyranny. > > > > > > > > > > > > Peace in plurality is surely better; mutual recognition of > > > > > > difference without antagonism. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Peter > > > > > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > > From: "Henry K van Eyken" > > > > > > To: > > > > > > Sent: Saturday, July 13, 2002 1:22 PM > > > > > > Subject: Re: [ba-unrev-talk] NOT: Really, It's That Simple > > > > > > > > > > > > > John, Eric, Peter. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I Found Eric's e-mail after responding to John. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Interesting the difference between our responses; the > >different > > > > > > > foundations on which they are based. Our "global brain" is > >still > > > > not > > > > > > > functioning in unison as that label kind of implies. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Henry > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Eric Armstrong wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > John, I respect your opinions and the reasoning behind >them, > >but > > > > > > > > on this on I have to disagree. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is in the nature of a bully to use force to achieve >their > > > > goals. > > > > > > > > It is in the nature of the truly brave (Ghandi, for >example) > >to > > > > > > > > achieve their ends peaceably. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In Ghandi's case, too, occupation was ended, but by far >less > > > > > > > > brutal, despicable means. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What holds back Western nations is *conscience*. Massive > > > > > > > > retaliation of the kind never before experienced on this > >planet > > > > > > > > would else end the atrocities. But Western nations are >held > >in > > > > > > > > check by their own conscience. They do want the slaughter > > > > > > > > of innocents on their hands. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Fantatics, on the other hand, know no such restrictions. > >That > > > > > > > > puts even a large power at a disadvantage. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A lack of conscience allows a foreign leader to cry out > >against > > > > > > > > the injustices done to him, while inciting equal and >greater > > > > > > injustices > > > > > > > > at the very same time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The question is, at what point can a nation afford to >*stop* > > > > > > > > standing for fair play and honor?? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is lost in the dim recesses of history that the > >Palestinian > > > > state > > > > > > > > was formed on the very same day as the Israeli state, by >the > > > > > > > > very same decree. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Immediately, the Israeli state was declared unacceptable >by > > > > > > > > the Palestinians, and war ensued. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Once vanguished, the Palestinians immediately set about > > > > hollering > > > > > > > > about how their land was unjustly taken from them. Yet, >once > > > > > > > > given back, the wars resumed -- time and again, in one >form > >or > > > > > > > > another. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Each time, promises were made: "Give us back our land, and > > > > > > > > there will be peace". But there never has been peace. This > >is > > > > > > > > the way of things when you deal with people who have no > >honor. > > > > > > > > They will say anything. They will promise anything. But >they > > > > will > > > > > > > > do nothing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Unfortunately, Arafat is as totally without honor as >anyone > >who > > > > > > > > has ever existed on this planet. His words mean exactly > >nothing. > > > > > > > > To accept any representation he makes is simply to play >into > >his > > > > > > > > hands, and to gain nothing in return. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For years now, the argument has been "We own it all. The > > > > Isreali's > > > > > > > > have no right here. Israel has no right to exist." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Although there has been some softening of that position > > > > recently, > > > > > > > > it has only come about as a result of the realization that > >force > > > > > > will > > > > > > > > not rule the day. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To retreat in the face of that force is to give the bully > > > > everything > > > > > > > > he wants. And after a stake has been driven far enough >into > >the > > > > > > > > heart of Isreal's borders, Isreal, too, will fall -- if >the > > > > > > religious > > > > > > > > fanatics have their way. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe the Israeli state should have been founded on some > > > > > > > > unoccupied islands in the South Pacific. I don't know. It > >sure > > > > > > > > would have solved some problems -- not that anyone would > > > > > > > > have gone there. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Personally, I see religious movements as the cause of the > > > > greatest > > > > > > > > human suffering and the greatest travesties against >mankind. > >To > > > > > > > > be so totally enamored of some rock in the middle of a > >dessert > > > > > > > > that one cannot even think of living elsewhere -- well, >that > > > > defies > > > > > > > > sensibility, in my book. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > After religious fervor comes national fervor, and after >that > > > > comes > > > > > > > > free market excesses, in their capacity to do harm in the > >name > > > > of > > > > > > > > good. But, like it or not, people do have those religious > > > > beliefs, > > > > > > > > and they do hunger after the same piece of barren rock. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, what is there to do? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The options are: > > > > > > > > 1) Pick up the Isreali state and move it somewhere >else. > > > > > > > > 2) Get out, stay out, and don't care what happens to > > > > > > > > Israel. > > > > > > > > 3) Keep working, by a combination of means, to fix the > > > > > > > > situation with carrots (concessions) and sticks > >(force) > > > > > > > > even if it takes 40 years, as with the cold war, or > > > > > > > > a few hundred years. > > > > > > > > 4) Get really nasty and start hurting people so badly > >that > > > > > > > > they either quit, or there aren't enough left to > >make a > > > > > > > > difference. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've no doubt left out some valid alternatives, but of >that > > > > > > > > list, I think #3 makes the most sense. It combines a sense > > > > > > > > of honor and decency with the gumption not to get pushed > > > > > > > > around. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On the other hand, when we start thinking about the >problem > > > > > > > > of nuclear waste, it occurs to me that I can think of a >few > > > > > > > > places I wouldn't mind dumping it.... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Mon Jul 15 16:49:32 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id DCDAD56FF5; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 16:49:31 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from mta5.snfc21.pbi.net (mta5.snfc21.pbi.net [206.13.28.241]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7C04A56FF4 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 16:49:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from home ([63.197.14.24]) by mta5.snfc21.pbi.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built May 7 2001)) with ESMTP id <0GZB004FUEZ0PK@mta5.snfc21.pbi.net> for ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 17:06:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 17:06:42 -0700 From: John Maloney Subject: RE: [ba-unrev-talk] NOT: Really, It's That Simple In-reply-to: <3D332E2E.68853894@sun.com> To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Message-id: <001701c22c5c$aa53d7b0$180ec53f@home> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Eric, Every president on Mt. Rushmore was severely derided and painfully ridiculed for being 'isolationist.' However, by putting Americas interests first, they earned their place in South Dakota and contributed to creation of the 'the last great hope of mankind' as well as the world's largest economy. Today, whenever it is suggested to consider America's interests first, every bedwetting progressive whines, "Isolationist, isolationist!" while cowering behind the apron strings of the UN and other phony elements and false prophets of world govt. At present, the USA maintains 250,000 U.S. military personnel on six continents in 141 nations - foreign commitments no country in history has ever sustained. This is wrong. "The value of the dollar dropped below the euro for the first time today." This should break the heart of every American. This is wrong. "Dow Jones industrials falling nearly 440 points." A lot of this capital flight is international investors fleeing from an America too beholden to asymmetric support in the Middle East and counterfeit international 'trade' organizations. This is wrong. Global trade leads directly to economic colonialism, interventionism, global government, war and terrorism. Sadly, it is linear and predictable. America imported $91 billion in oil last year, half of all the oil consumed in the country. Oil dependency has forced the USA to give war guarantees to criminal states in the Gulf and forced the country into power politics in Central Asia and the Caspian. Greed, free trade, globalism and oil politics created Osama Bin Laden, plain and simple. This is wrong. When America is strong and INDEPENDENT the whole world benefits. It is textbook leadership-by-example. This is what Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, and Theodore Roosevelt understood and implemented. They were patriots, not isolationists. Teddy Roosevelt warned of the "pernicious disease" of free trade. It is easy to see his globalism forecast leading directly to international terrorism. For you scholars, free trade traces its roots to 'liberalism,' a doctrine that demolished the traditional concept of the nation-state as a thriving collective organism, a flourishing community, in favor of the economic theory of laissez-faire, or the free market. This is wrong. We know it's wrong. It never worked, and it never will. It runs counter to 5 million years of evolution and human brain physiology. It is time to wake up and speak out. -- To the elites on 1st Ave and in Brussels and Geneva, trade pragmatist and USA patriots are the New Fanatics. Cordially, -jtm -----Original Message----- From: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org [mailto:owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org] On Behalf Of Eric Armstrong Sent: Monday, July 15, 2002 1:19 PM To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: Re: [ba-unrev-talk] NOT: Really, It's That Simple Interesting. Some of your observations I totally agree with. Other parts, I find myself at odds with. You're absolutely right that it is always "the other side" that are the fanatics. And the U.S. *was* a colony full of fanatics, at that. On the other hand, the most violent century in the human history was at least as much a matter of *having* conscience as of having none. Were it not for conscience, atrocities of various kinds would have been carried out more quietly, with less opposition. Despite that, I find myself wondering what would be an acceptable solution. Would it be easier if the U.S. simply walked away? Would oil flow more freely? Would we sleep better? Would Israel survive? Is that the solution you propose? If so, what would you predict with respect to the outcome? Personally, I think it is useful to recall the blustering that preceded the U.S. presence in Afghanistan. There are, unfortunately, people in this world to whom any form of concession is seen as a weakness to take advantage of, and to whom force is the only viable argument. There are other people who are open to reason and who are tolerant of other viewpoints. The trick is in knowing who you are dealing with, and dealing with them appropriately. Or do you see isolationism as a better policy for the U.S.? (It's been tried before. With various degrees of success, and it too, as garnered it's share of criticism...) John Maloney wrote: From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Mon Jul 15 17:20:03 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id DF61456FF3; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 17:20:02 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from cpimssmtpu11.email.msn.com (cpimssmtpu11.email.msn.com [207.46.181.86]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8AB6956FF2 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 17:20:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from centro ([63.231.39.78]) by cpimssmtpu11.email.msn.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.4617); Mon, 15 Jul 2002 17:36:16 -0700 From: "Dennis E. Hamilton" To: Subject: RE: [ba-unrev-talk] Fw: Announcing: The Computer Science Preprint Server Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 17:37:06 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <003a01c22c4c$f8297b80$7cd5193e@vaio> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Jul 2002 00:36:16.0846 (UTC) FILETIME=[CBDBD6E0:01C22C60] Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org It would be useful if the content was about computer science. -----Original Message----- From: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org [mailto:owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org]On Behalf Of Peter Jones Sent: Monday, July 15, 2002 15:14 To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: [ba-unrev-talk] Fw: Announcing: The Computer Science Preprint Server Thought this might be of interest to folks... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Computer Science" To: Sent: Monday, July 15, 2002 3:43 PM Subject: Announcing: The Computer Science Preprint Server Dear computer scientist, It is our great pleasure to announce the launch of a new rapid distribution medium for research articles in the field of computer science, covering the whole panorama of current research topics: The Computer Science Preprint Server http://www.compscipreprints.com We would also like to invite you to be among the first users to post an article on The Computer Science Preprint Server and join the community. You can actually also already enjoy reading over 200 articles already posted. Welcoming final-version articles as well as reports on work in progress, The Computer Science Preprint Server affords you a unique opportunity to ensure your article receives maximum visibility. We appreciate your time is valuable and have designed the online submission process to be as streamlined as possible. Also, as an author you have total freedom to remove your article at any time, and/or to submit it for publication to the journal of your choice. Additional features of The Computer Science Preprint Server include: "Discussions" - encouraging online discussion of your article "Recommend This Article" - ensuring wider distribution of your article "Alerting Service" - informing you regularly of new articles as they are uploaded to the Server. We look forward to receiving your preprint and welcome any comments and/or suggestions you may care to make. Ir. Olivier Simonnot, MBA The Computer Science Preprint Server http://www.compscipreprints.com ================================================================ If you would prefer not to receive marketing information via e-mail from Elsevier Science and associated Group Companies, please send a blank email to: mailto:exclusionlist-sub@lyris.elsevier.nl Elsevier Science does not disclose or sell e-mail addresses to third parties. Our full privacy policy statement is available at http://www.elsevier.com From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Mon Jul 15 18:44:11 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 5353556FF3; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 18:44:11 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from hot.burningchrome.com (cust-216-9-146-10.bton.kiva.net [216.9.146.10]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 72F5656FF2 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 18:44:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (cdent@localhost) by hot.burningchrome.com (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id g6G21Fd06855 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 21:01:16 -0500 Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 21:01:15 -0500 (EST) From: To: Subject: [ba-unrev-talk] further research and thinking related to unrev-ii archive Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Back in April Kathryn La Barre and I announced, on this list, some work we were doing with computational methods for generating faceted access structures to the archive of the unrev-ii (the list that is the precursor to this one) email list. Since then a paper describing the work and its relevance to the PORT project was written for the Pragmatic Web Workshop at the 10th International Conference on Conceptual Structures. Much of the workshop was held over email. For Kathryn and I the email collaboration led to an extensive revision of the paper. We had something of a revelation about the nature of knowledge representation and discourse that may be of interest. The final version of the paper: http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~klabarre/iccs2002_concept.doc The first version of the paper: http://www.burningchrome.com/~cdent/uviz/port4.doc The project homepage: http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~klabarre/unrev_firstpage.html The workshop homepage: http://lml.bas.bg/iccs2002/PORT_abstract.htm The original announcement of some of the research on this list: http://www.bootstrap.org/lists/ba-unrev-talk/0204/msg00023.html A followup message describing more recent developments (prototype searchable interface): http://www.bootstrap.org/lists/ba-unrev-talk/0206/msg00014.html The promised facet access structure has not been created, but we are working on it. -- Chris Dent http://www.burningchrome.com/~cdent/ "If you assume that there is an instinct for freedom, that there are opportunities to change things, that hope is possible, then hope may be justified, and a better world may be built. That's your choice.'' N.Chomsky From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Mon Jul 15 19:11:49 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 8FB2D56FF3; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 19:11:48 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from hot.burningchrome.com (cust-216-9-146-10.bton.kiva.net [216.9.146.10]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5A17156FF2 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 19:11:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (cdent@localhost) by hot.burningchrome.com (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id g6G2SrG06931 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 21:28:53 -0500 Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 21:28:53 -0500 (EST) From: To: Subject: RE: [ba-unrev-talk] NOT: Really, It's That Simple In-Reply-To: <001701c22c5c$aa53d7b0$180ec53f@home> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org On Mon, 15 Jul 2002, John Maloney wrote: > Every president on Mt. Rushmore was severely derided and painfully > ridiculed for being 'isolationist.' However, by putting Americas > interests first, they earned their place in South Dakota and contributed > to creation of the 'the last great hope of mankind' as well as the > world's largest economy. I'm interested in participating in this conversation but I first need to know, John, with which of the following tones you wrote the above: a. ironic b. earnest c. religious d. righteous e. other _______________ Based on comments you have made in the past, that I only vaguely recall, I can't be sure you aren't pulling our collective leg. -- Chris Dent http://www.burningchrome.com/~cdent/ "If you assume that there is an instinct for freedom, that there are opportunities to change things, that hope is possible, then hope may be justified, and a better world may be built. That's your choice.'' N.Chomsky From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Mon Jul 15 19:43:58 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 0585056FF3; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 19:43:57 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from mta6.snfc21.pbi.net (mta6.snfc21.pbi.net [206.13.28.240]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id AD1FE56FF2 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 19:43:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from home ([63.197.14.24]) by mta6.snfc21.pbi.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built May 7 2001)) with ESMTP id <0GZB009B7N1SZJ@mta6.snfc21.pbi.net> for ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 20:01:04 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 20:01:10 -0700 From: John Maloney Subject: RE: [ba-unrev-talk] NOT: Really, It's That Simple In-reply-to: To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Message-id: <000301c22c75$09a131f0$180ec53f@home> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Answer 'e.' Cheers, -jtm On Mon, 15 Jul 2002, John Maloney wrote: > Every president on Mt. Rushmore was severely derided and painfully > ridiculed for being 'isolationist.' However, by putting Americas > interests first, they earned their place in South Dakota and > contributed to creation of the 'the last great hope of mankind' as > well as the world's largest economy. I'm interested in participating in this conversation but I first need to know, John, with which of the following tones you wrote the above: a. ironic b. earnest c. religious d. righteous e. other _historical fact_ Based on comments you have made in the past, that I only vaguely recall, I can't be sure you aren't pulling our collective leg. -- Chris Dent http://www.burningchrome.com/~cdent/ "If you assume that there is an instinct for freedom, that there are opportunities to change things, that hope is possible, then hope may be justified, and a better world may be built. That's your choice.'' N.Chomsky From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Mon Jul 15 19:54:16 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 9932256FF3; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 19:54:15 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from kathmandu.sun.com (kathmandu.sun.com [192.18.98.36]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 11CE956FF2 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 19:54:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM ([129.145.155.51]) by kathmandu.sun.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA09521 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 21:11:21 -0600 (MDT) Received: from sun.com (d-usca14-129-126 [129.145.129.126]) by ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM (8.11.6+Sun/8.10.2/ENSMAIL,v2.1p1) with ESMTP id g6G3BKC27637 for ; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 20:11:20 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3D338ED8.424D2481@sun.com> Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 20:11:20 -0700 From: Eric Armstrong X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: Re: [ba-unrev-talk] NOT: Really, It's That Simple References: <001701c22c5c$aa53d7b0$180ec53f@home> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org John Maloney wrote: > "Dow Jones industrials falling nearly 440 points." > > A lot of this capital flight is international investors fleeing from an > America too beholden to asymmetric support in the Middle East and > counterfeit international 'trade' organizations. This is wrong. Really? I thought I lot of it was reductions in the huge dollar volume that were going into the market in the form of retirement accounts, some of which are being withdrawn in the wake of the dot comm fallout. Perhaps you have better numbers? (I have no feel whatever for the pulse of foreign investors, but I've got a pretty good insight into the mindset of domestic investors.) > Global trade leads directly to economic colonialism, interventionism, > global government, war and terrorism. Sadly, it is linear and > predictable. Interesting assertion. I've not observed or read anything that leads me to agree, off hand. I don't disagree, necessarily, but it would help if there were some way to connect the dots. > America imported $91 billion in oil last year, half of all the oil > consumed in the country. Oil dependency has forced the USA to give war > guarantees to criminal states in the Gulf and forced the country into > power politics in Central Asia and the Caspian. Greed, free trade, > globalism and oil politics created Osama Bin Laden, plain and simple. > This is wrong. If I get this right, we're wrong because we're the lackeys of the oil exporters, and we're wrong because we defy the oil exporters. And we're wrong because we import so much oil in the first place. (I agree with that one, btw.) However, the issue wrt to oil import is cultural, not political. I am indebted to the Calif. energy crisis for showing me just how fast the culture can shift, but of course like the crisis in the 70's, as soon as the problem abates, we go right back to our old ways. It seems to me that oil importers act very much like pushers, in this regard -- keeping prices low enough that demand will stay high. Why aren't they watching out for global world interests by keeping the prices at the painfully high levels that would encourge, or even force, conservation. After all, they have a whole cartel -- a roomful of people who can make a decision in an afternoon that will benefit the world. We meanwhile, have to persuade hundreds of millions. Where does the control lie, and therefore the bottom-line responsibilityh? > When America is strong and INDEPENDENT the whole world benefits. It is > textbook leadership-by-example. This is what Washington, Jefferson, > Lincoln, and Theodore Roosevelt understood and implemented. They were > patriots, not isolationists. Ok. I didn't mean to make isolationism a perjorative term, but rather a descriptive term. I don't think the solution is greater "patriotism", after all. But if you think isolationism is a real solution, it is probably worth bearing in mind that our "free society" represents the epitome of evil to those wishing us harm. To those who are so inclined, heaven on earth follows the destruction of that society. The difficulty with isolation is that it gives such forces all the time they need to develop bigger and better weaponry. If we stay totally out of the way and don't step on anyone's toes, will they fail to act for lack of an excuse. I fear not. Our very culture is a religous enemy -- anathema to those who oppose it. > Teddy Roosevelt warned of the "pernicious disease" of free trade. It is > easy to see his globalism forecast leading directly to international > terrorism. Hmmm. An historical reference I was unaware of. There is a chain of causality you are seeing here that I have not been exposed to. > For you scholars, free trade traces its roots to 'liberalism,' a > doctrine that demolished the traditional concept of the nation-state as > a thriving collective organism, a flourishing community, in favor of the > economic theory of laissez-faire, or the free market. This is wrong. We > know it's wrong. It never worked, and it never will. It runs counter to > 5 million years of evolution and human brain physiology. Fascinating. I'd like to know more about this. From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Tue Jul 16 08:41:30 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 6381156FF3; Tue, 16 Jul 2002 08:41:30 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from mta6.snfc21.pbi.net (mta6.snfc21.pbi.net [206.13.28.240]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 02A9C56FF2 for ; Tue, 16 Jul 2002 08:41:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from home ([63.197.14.24]) by mta6.snfc21.pbi.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built May 7 2001)) with ESMTP id <0GZC00AV5N1OOP@mta6.snfc21.pbi.net> for ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org; Tue, 16 Jul 2002 08:58:36 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 08:58:43 -0700 From: John Maloney Subject: [ba-unrev-talk] CoPs Report To: UNREV Message-id: <000001c22ce1$a935e320$180ec53f@home> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org http://www.ewenger.com/tech/ This report is intended as a guide for selecting and assembling a technological platform to support communities of practice across a large organization. To this end, the report addresses four questions: What makes communities of practice different from garden-variety online communities? Every group that shares interest on a website is called a community today, but communities of practice are a specific kind of community. They are focused on a domain of knowledge and over time accumulate expertise in this domain. They develop their shared practice by interacting around problems, solutions, and insights, and building a common store of knowledge. What categories of community-oriented products exist and what are they trying to accomplish? The ideal system at the right price does not exist yet, though a few come really close. But there are eight neighboring categories of products that have something to contribute and include good candidates to start with. Analyzing these categories of products yields not only a scan of products, but also a way of understanding the various aspects of a knowledge strategy based on communities of practice. What are the characteristics of communities of practice that lend themselves to support by technology? Technology platform are often described in terms of features, but in order to really evaluate candidates for a technology platform, it is useful to start with the success factors of communities of practice that can be affected by technology. The third section of this report provides a table of thirteen such factors with examples of how a technology platform can affect the success of a community in each area. How to use the answer to these questions to develop a strategy for building a platform for communities of practice? Most of the product categories can be a starting point for building a general platform. In fact, this analysis of the field suggests a strategy for approach the task. Decide what kinds of activities are most important for your communities. Select a product in that area, and expand it with elements from the other categories. Cordially, -jtm From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Tue Jul 16 10:15:02 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 5FEB056FF7; Tue, 16 Jul 2002 10:15:02 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from cmailm2.svr.pol.co.uk (cmailm2.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.193.210]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A2A0956FF2 for ; Tue, 16 Jul 2002 10:14:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from modem-1150.clefairy.dialup.pol.co.uk ([217.135.93.126] helo=vaio) by cmailm2.svr.pol.co.uk with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17UWB9-0003Nz-00 for ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org; Tue, 16 Jul 2002 18:32:04 +0100 Message-ID: <000901c22cee$69ea5a40$7e5d87d9@vaio> From: "Peter Jones" To: References: Subject: Re: [ba-unrev-talk] Fw: Announcing: The Computer Science Preprint Server Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 18:29:58 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Well, this lot looks pretty on-topic to me http://www.compscipreprints.com/comp/Preprint/show/.global/Classification/?Order =date E.g. Toni Granollers Vilars. A new dialogue model applying Augmented Reality. Lorés, J, Raimat, G. and Junyent, E., 16 July 2002, CSPS: Computational intelligence/0207011 or Daniel Allsopp A database architecture for reusable CommonKADS agent specification components Alan Harrison and Colin Sheppard, 15 July 2002, CSPS: Data/0207001 I admit that the first page I hit looked like neuroscience. -- Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dennis E. Hamilton" To: Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 1:37 AM Subject: RE: [ba-unrev-talk] Fw: Announcing: The Computer Science Preprint Server > It would be useful if the content was about computer science. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org > [mailto:owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org]On Behalf Of Peter Jones > Sent: Monday, July 15, 2002 15:14 > To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org > Subject: [ba-unrev-talk] Fw: Announcing: The Computer Science Preprint > Server > > > Thought this might be of interest to folks... > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Computer Science" > To: > Sent: Monday, July 15, 2002 3:43 PM > Subject: Announcing: The Computer Science Preprint Server > > > Dear computer scientist, > > It is our great pleasure to announce the launch of a new rapid > distribution medium for research articles in the field of > computer science, covering the whole panorama of current research > topics: > > The Computer Science Preprint Server > http://www.compscipreprints.com > > We would also like to invite you to be among the first users to > post an article on The Computer Science Preprint Server and join > the community. You can actually also already enjoy reading over > 200 articles already posted. > > Welcoming final-version articles as well as reports on work in > progress, The Computer Science Preprint Server affords you a > unique opportunity to ensure your article receives maximum > visibility. > > We appreciate your time is valuable and have designed the online > submission process to be as streamlined as possible. Also, as an > author you have total freedom to remove your article at any time, > and/or to submit it for publication to the journal of your > choice. > > Additional features of The Computer Science Preprint Server > include: "Discussions" - encouraging online discussion of your > article "Recommend This Article" - ensuring wider distribution of > your article "Alerting Service" - informing you regularly of new > articles as they are uploaded to the Server. > > We look forward to receiving your preprint and welcome any > comments and/or suggestions you may care to make. > > > Ir. Olivier Simonnot, MBA > The Computer Science Preprint Server > http://www.compscipreprints.com > > > > ================================================================ > If you would prefer not to receive marketing information via > e-mail from Elsevier Science and associated Group Companies, > please send a blank email to: > mailto:exclusionlist-sub@lyris.elsevier.nl > > Elsevier Science does not disclose or sell e-mail addresses to > third parties. Our full privacy policy statement is available at > http://www.elsevier.com > > > > > > > > From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Tue Jul 16 10:34:01 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 7D84656FF8; Tue, 16 Jul 2002 10:34:00 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from cmailm2.svr.pol.co.uk (cmailm2.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.193.210]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5C30056FF2 for ; Tue, 16 Jul 2002 10:33:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from modem-1150.clefairy.dialup.pol.co.uk ([217.135.93.126] helo=vaio) by cmailm2.svr.pol.co.uk with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17UWTW-0003oS-00 for ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org; Tue, 16 Jul 2002 18:51:02 +0100 Message-ID: <002301c22cf1$1069b9e0$7e5d87d9@vaio> From: "Peter Jones" To: References: <002d01c22a21$f34a85f0$180ec53f@home> <3D2FAFB7.E2DF7E58@sun.com> <3D301B9B.163098D1@sympatico.ca> <001801c22a86$d72e1160$d1e0193e@vaio> <3D308947.421BA1B7@sympatico.ca> <000701c22b64$d7af2960$09f8193e@vaio> <3D31FEAF.E6B684BA@sympatico.ca> <002f01c22c3c$3c58aee0$53f1193e@vaio> Subject: Fertile Utopian Fallacies WAS: Re: [ba-unrev-talk] Systems and goals Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 18:48:58 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org PJ wrote: > In which case, maybe we (unrevvers unite!) need to fire up > some serious debate and research into what long term system goals > humankind should > have on the table now? Thankfully, I'm not naive enough to believe that even if we can cook up a utopian vision that it should constitute anything more than what George Soros describes as a fertile fallacy. Here is an instructive excerpt from the beginning of (the arch-libertarian) Ludwig von Mises' "Human Action" (1949, & 4th ed. 1996): "Philosophers had long since been eager to ascertain the ends which God or Nature was trying to realize in the course of human history. They searched for the law of mankind's destiny and evolution. But even those thinkers whose inquiry was free from any theological tendency failed utterly in these endeavors because they were committed to a faulty method. They dealt with humanity as a whole or with other holistic concepts like nation, race, or church. They set up quite arbitrarily the ends to which the behavior of such wholes is bound to lead. But they could not satisfactorily answer the question regarding what factors compelled the various acting individuals to behave in such a way that the goal aimed at by the whole's inexorable evolution was attained. They had recourse to desperate shifts: miraculous interference of the Deity either by revelation or by the delegation of God-sent prophets and consecrated leaders, preestablished harmony, predestination, or the opera-tion of a mystic and fabulous "world soul" or "national soul." Others spoke of a "cunning of nature" which implanted in man impulses driving him unwittingly along precisely the path Nature wanted him to take. "Other philosophers were more realistic. They did not try to guess the designs of Nature or God. They looked at human things from the view-point of government. They were intent upon establishing rules of political action, a technique, as it were, of government and statesmanship. Spec-ulative minds drew ambitious plans for a thorough reform and recon-struction of society. The more modest were satisfied with a collection and systematization of the data of historical experience. But all were fully convinced that there was in the course of social events no such regularity and invariance of phenomena as had already been found in the operation of human reasoning and in the sequence of natural phenomena. They did not search for the laws of social cooperation because they thought that man could organize society as he pleased. If social conditions did not fulfill the wishes of the reformers, if their utopias proved unrealizable, the fault was seen in the moral failure of man. Social problems were considered ethical problems. What was needed in order to construct the ideal society, they thought, were good princes and virtuous citizens. With righteous men any utopia might be realized. "The discovery of the inescapable interdependence of market phenomena overthrew this opinion. Bewildered, people had to face a new view of society. They learned with stupefaction that there is another aspect from which human action might be viewed than that of good and bad, of fair and unfair, of just and unjust. In the course of social events there prevails a regularity of phenomena to which man must adjust his actions if he wishes to succeed. It is futile to approach social facts with the attitude of a censor who approves or disapproves from the point of view of quite arbitrary standards and subjective judgments of value. One must study the laws of human action and social cooperation as the physicist studies the laws of nature. Human action and social cooperation seen as the object of a science of given relations, no longer as a normative discipline of things that ought to be-this was a revolution of tremendous consequences for knowledge and philosophy as well as for social action." "For more than a hundred years, however, the effects of this radical change in the methods of reasoning were greatly restricted because people believed that they referred only to a narrow segment of the total field of human action, namely, to market phenomena. The classical economists met in the pursuit of their investigations an obstacle which they failed to remove, the apparent antinomy of value. Their theory of value was defective, and forced them to restrict the scope of their science. Until the late nineteenth century political economy remained a science of the "economic" aspects of human action, a theory of wealth and selfishness. It dealt with human action only to the extent that it is actuated by what was -very unsatisfactorily-described as the profit motive, and it asserted that there is in addition other human action whose treatment is the task of other disciplines. The transformation of thought which the classical economists had initiated was brought to its consummation only by modern subjectivist economics, which converted the theory of market prices into a general theory of human choice." [...] "It is true that economics is a theoretical science and as such abstains from any judgment of value. It is not its task to tell people what ends they should aim at. It is a science of the means to be applied for the attainment of ends chosen, not, to be sure, a science of the choosing of ends. Ultimate decisions, the valuations and the choosing of ends, are beyond the scope of any science. Science never tells a man how he should act; it merely shows how a man must act if he wants to attain definite ends. It seems to many people that this is very little indeed and that a science limited to the investigation of the 'is' and unable to express a judgment value about the highest and ultimate ends is of no importance for life and action. This too is a mistake...." Von Mises was writing in 1949, the 'father' of Austrian Economics, as it came to be known. F.A. Hayek is one of his best known students. I hope economic theory is even better these days than it was in 1949. So it would seem to me that if the choices for mankind can be put clearly on the table, then the tools to attain the ends chosen (even if healthily considered only as fertile fallacies) either already exist, or can be readily cultivated. -- Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Jones" To: Sent: Monday, July 15, 2002 9:14 PM Subject: [ba-unrev-talk] Systems and goals WAS: Re: Offlist: Re: [ba-unrev-talk] NOT: Really, It's That Simple > (Henry, I'm moving this back on to the list as I think we're > hitting some interesting territory that perhaps needs discussion in > the wider arena.) > > OK, but that would bring me to another point. > > In the ABC model, A = productive process, B = improvement > process, C = improving improvement process. > However, I would have thought that one way to ensure > improvements all the way was to assert a 'short-circuit' between > C and A and suggest that one could improve from C by making > A highly flexible from the outset. If A is highly flexible then > surely B must be even more inventively flexible but easier because of > that. And from that > it follows that C must itself be even more highly flexible in its > provision > of recommendations for flexibility back down the line or via > the short-circuit but is easier because of that. So in introducing > flexibility we've introduced what looks like an extra efficiency into > the whole. > But what happens is that that flexibility in essence flattens the > hierarchy > more into a huge system of interdependent variables without order of > control. > And this implies that variable control in the system might not be > possible - the domains of factors might be too big (chaos theory). And > these > systems are so rarely properly closed. > So it seems that there is a limit to the extent to which the > ABC model is applicable and it is perhaps lower than one > might like. > Therefore, one might argue that the ABC model only applies in system > where the production goals > are very clearly defined, and where fundamental flexibility is known > not to introduce a direct improvement in the whole. > > Now those thoughts can be spread across the dimension of time, not just > production systems. The long haul goals aren't known. Some short haul > goals are. So if we fix the short term ones that gets us to...? Another > set of > short term problems caused by fixing the last lot? How do we prevent > that? > By suggesting an ideal end state perhaps - the Heaven on Earth scenario. > Does anyone agree what the HoE scenario should be? No, we've just > said that no-one knows what that should be. > So in the absence of defined end goals it looks as if we aren't dealing > with a production system here. > In which case, is the ABC model applicable to the whole at present? > Doubtful, I think. > Does it make sense to apply it in part to particular activities and not > others? > Doubtful too, because you can't track the influences. > > Doug is a holist (I hope I'm correct in asserting that - he seems to be > to me) and > so am I and, I think, many others on the BA lists. > In which case, maybe we (unrevvers unite!) need to fire up > some serious debate and research into what long term system goals > humankind should > have on the table now? > > -- > Peter > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Henry K van Eyken" > To: "Peter Jones" > Sent: Sunday, July 14, 2002 11:43 PM > Subject: Re: Offlist: Re: [ba-unrev-talk] NOT: Really, It's That Simple > > [snipped] From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Tue Jul 16 11:04:45 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id B350E56FF8; Tue, 16 Jul 2002 11:04:44 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from cpimssmtpu04.email.msn.com (cpimssmtpu04.email.msn.com [207.46.181.80]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4033356FF2 for ; Tue, 16 Jul 2002 11:04:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from centro ([63.231.39.78]) by cpimssmtpu04.email.msn.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.4905); Tue, 16 Jul 2002 11:20:57 -0700 From: "Dennis E. Hamilton" To: Subject: RE: [ba-unrev-talk] Fw: Announcing: The Computer Science Preprint Server Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 11:21:47 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 In-Reply-To: <000901c22cee$69ea5a40$7e5d87d9@vaio> Importance: Normal X-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Jul 2002 18:20:57.0664 (UTC) FILETIME=[87CB1C00:01C22CF5] Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org OK, they are getting there. The materials I found (especially by using the rankings of readers) were *all* in neuroscience, with just a smattering of anything else, and computation theory even had a neuroscience article. However, the categories look just fine, once I found them. This site is an effort of Elsevier Science, according to the privacy statement, disclaimer, and "About Us..." page. Elsevier Science does not consider posting to CSPS as "prior publication" or publication in the way that they consider important -- peer-reviwed, recognized journal publication. And there is no transfer of rights. I think arXiv does a good job here too, and is already well-established. We will see how it all fits together. When CSPS has completed what it needs to do for access under the Open Archive Initiative, I think it won't matter. As I said, the topic categories look promising: Artificial Intelligence Automated Reasoning Cognitive Science Computational Intelligence (General) Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition Computer-Human Interaction Decision Support Systems Evolutionary Computation, Genetic Algorithms / Programming Expert Systems Fuzzy Logic Fuzzy Sets Heuristic methods Intelligent agents Knowledge Representation Knowledge-Based Systems Learning and Adaptive Systems Machine Learning Multi Agent systems Natural Language and Computational Linguistics Natural Language Understanding and Generation Neural Networks Planning and Scheduling Robotics and Autonomous Systems Softcomputing DNA Computing Evolutionary Computing Genetic Programming Neural Networks Administrative Data Processing Arts and Humanities CAD,CAM,CAE Computer Applications (General) Life and Medical Sciences Physical Sciences and Engineering Social and Behavioral Sciences Computer Communication Networks Computer System Implementation Computer Systems Organization (General) Performance of Systems Processor Architectures Special-Purpose and Application-Based Systems Standardization and Verification Image Processing Computer Graphics Computing Methodologies (General) Document and Text Processing Simulation and Modeling Symbolic and Algebraic Manipulation Computing Milieux (General) Coding and Information Theory Data (General) Data Encryption Data Storage Representations Data Structures Database Management Information Interfaces and Presentation Information Storage and Retrieval Information Systems (General) Information Systems Applications Models and Principles Arithmetic and Logic Structures Control Structures and Microprogramming Hardware (General) Input/Output and Data Communications Integrated Circuits Logic Design Memory Structures Performance and Reliability Register-Transfer-Level Implementation Operating Systems Programming Languages Programming Techniques Software (General) Software Engineering Analysis of Algorithms and Problem Complexity Computation by Abstract Devices Logics and Meanings of Programs Mathematical Logic and Formal Languages Quantum Computing Theory of Computation (General) -----Original Message----- From: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org [mailto:owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org]On Behalf Of Peter Jones Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 10:30 To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: Re: [ba-unrev-talk] Fw: Announcing: The Computer Science Preprint Server Well, this lot looks pretty on-topic to me http://www.compscipreprints.com/comp/Preprint/show/.global/Classification/?O rder=date E.g. Toni Granollers Vilars. A new dialogue model applying Augmented Reality. Lorés, J, Raimat, G. and Junyent, E., 16 July 2002, CSPS: Computational intelligence/0207011 or Daniel Allsopp A database architecture for reusable CommonKADS agent specification components Alan Harrison and Colin Sheppard, 15 July 2002, CSPS: Data/0207001 I admit that the first page I hit looked like neuroscience. -- Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dennis E. Hamilton" To: Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 1:37 AM Subject: RE: [ba-unrev-talk] Fw: Announcing: The Computer Science Preprint Server > It would be useful if the content was about computer science. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org > [mailto:owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org]On Behalf Of Peter Jones > Sent: Monday, July 15, 2002 15:14 > To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org > Subject: [ba-unrev-talk] Fw: Announcing: The Computer Science Preprint > Server > > > Thought this might be of interest to folks... > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Computer Science" > To: > Sent: Monday, July 15, 2002 3:43 PM > Subject: Announcing: The Computer Science Preprint Server > > > Dear computer scientist, > > It is our great pleasure to announce the launch of a new rapid > distribution medium for research articles in the field of > computer science, covering the whole panorama of current research > topics: > > The Computer Science Preprint Server > http://www.compscipreprints.com > > We would also like to invite you to be among the first users to > post an article on The Computer Science Preprint Server and join > the community. You can actually also already enjoy reading over > 200 articles already posted. > > Welcoming final-version articles as well as reports on work in > progress, The Computer Science Preprint Server affords you a > unique opportunity to ensure your article receives maximum > visibility. > > We appreciate your time is valuable and have designed the online > submission process to be as streamlined as possible. Also, as an > author you have total freedom to remove your article at any time, > and/or to submit it for publication to the journal of your > choice. > > Additional features of The Computer Science Preprint Server > include: "Discussions" - encouraging online discussion of your > article "Recommend This Article" - ensuring wider distribution of > your article "Alerting Service" - informing you regularly of new > articles as they are uploaded to the Server. > > We look forward to receiving your preprint and welcome any > comments and/or suggestions you may care to make. > > > Ir. Olivier Simonnot, MBA > The Computer Science Preprint Server > http://www.compscipreprints.com > > > > ================================================================ > If you would prefer not to receive marketing information via > e-mail from Elsevier Science and associated Group Companies, > please send a blank email to: > mailto:exclusionlist-sub@lyris.elsevier.nl > > Elsevier Science does not disclose or sell e-mail addresses to > third parties. Our full privacy policy statement is available at > http://www.elsevier.com > > > > > > > > From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Tue Jul 16 11:28:09 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 04C0056FF8; Tue, 16 Jul 2002 11:28:05 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from cmailm2.svr.pol.co.uk (cmailm2.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.193.210]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id DA73656FF2 for ; Tue, 16 Jul 2002 11:28:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from modem-1150.clefairy.dialup.pol.co.uk ([217.135.93.126] helo=vaio) by cmailm2.svr.pol.co.uk with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17UXJr-0006Xx-00 for ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org; Tue, 16 Jul 2002 19:45:08 +0100 Message-ID: <005301c22cf8$9f128da0$7e5d87d9@vaio> From: "Peter Jones" To: References: Subject: O.A.I. WAS Re: [ba-unrev-talk] Fw: Announcing: The Computer Science Preprint Server Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 19:43:03 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org I went looking for the Open Archive Initiative, so I typed www.oai.org into my address bar on the offchance it would hit. What I got was the webpages for a non-profit: "About OAI Innovation Through Alliances OAI creates "virtual companies" by teaming collaborators from industry, universities, and federal laboratories who work together to develop solutions for market-driven needs. Such partnerships have led to advances in aerospace components, developed new technologies in medical science, created improved design/manufacturing and measurement systems, and provided educational enrichment and support for thousands of faculty and students." I suggest hitting this page and checking out the buttons top-left: http://www.oai.org/pages/Overview.html Collaborative Research Networking Workforce Enhancement Education For the latter: "As a nation we have made a commitment to adequately prepare tomorrow's workforce for tomorrow's jobs-jobs that will be based heavily on math and science, analytical skills, and communication/interpersonal skills. OAI manages a number of consortia and programs that involve public/private partnerships among teachers, students, academia, industry, government, and the community at large." -- Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dennis E. Hamilton" To: Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 7:21 PM Subject: RE: [ba-unrev-talk] Fw: Announcing: The Computer Science Preprint Server > OK, they are getting there. The materials I found (especially by using the > rankings of readers) were *all* in neuroscience, with just a smattering of > anything else, and computation theory even had a neuroscience article. > > However, the categories look just fine, once I found them. This site is an > effort of Elsevier Science, according to the privacy statement, disclaimer, > and "About Us..." page. Elsevier Science does not consider posting to CSPS > as "prior publication" or publication in the way that they consider > important -- peer-reviwed, recognized journal publication. And there is no > transfer of rights. > > I think arXiv does a good job here too, and is already well-established. We > will see how it all fits together. > > When CSPS has completed what it needs to do for access under the Open > Archive Initiative, I think it won't matter. As I said, the topic > categories look promising: > > Artificial Intelligence > Automated Reasoning > Cognitive Science > Computational Intelligence (General) > Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition > Computer-Human Interaction > Decision Support Systems > Evolutionary Computation, Genetic Algorithms / Programming > Expert Systems > Fuzzy Logic > Fuzzy Sets > Heuristic methods > Intelligent agents > Knowledge Representation > Knowledge-Based Systems > Learning and Adaptive Systems > Machine Learning > Multi Agent systems > Natural Language and Computational Linguistics > Natural Language Understanding and Generation > Neural Networks > Planning and Scheduling > Robotics and Autonomous Systems > Softcomputing > > DNA Computing > Evolutionary Computing > Genetic Programming > Neural Networks > > Administrative Data Processing > Arts and Humanities > CAD,CAM,CAE > Computer Applications (General) > Life and Medical Sciences > Physical Sciences and Engineering > Social and Behavioral Sciences > > Computer Communication Networks > Computer System Implementation > Computer Systems Organization (General) > Performance of Systems > Processor Architectures > Special-Purpose and Application-Based Systems > Standardization and Verification > > Image Processing > > Computer Graphics > Computing Methodologies (General) > Document and Text Processing > Simulation and Modeling > Symbolic and Algebraic Manipulation > > Computing Milieux (General) > > Coding and Information Theory > Data (General) > Data Encryption > Data Storage Representations > Data Structures > > Database Management > Information Interfaces and Presentation > Information Storage and Retrieval > Information Systems (General) > Information Systems Applications > Models and Principles > > Arithmetic and Logic Structures > Control Structures and Microprogramming > Hardware (General) > Input/Output and Data Communications > Integrated Circuits > Logic Design > Memory Structures > Performance and Reliability > Register-Transfer-Level Implementation > > Operating Systems > Programming Languages > Programming Techniques > Software (General) > Software Engineering > > Analysis of Algorithms and Problem Complexity > Computation by Abstract Devices > Logics and Meanings of Programs > Mathematical Logic and Formal Languages > Quantum Computing > Theory of Computation (General) > > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org > [mailto:owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org]On Behalf Of Peter Jones > Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 10:30 > To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org > Subject: Re: [ba-unrev-talk] Fw: Announcing: The Computer Science > Preprint Server > > > Well, this lot looks pretty on-topic to me > http://www.compscipreprints.com/comp/Preprint/show/.global/Classification/?O > rder=date > > E.g. > Toni Granollers > Vilars. A new dialogue model applying Augmented Reality. > Lorés, J, Raimat, G. and Junyent, E., 16 July 2002, CSPS: Computational > intelligence/0207011 > or > Daniel Allsopp > A database architecture for reusable CommonKADS agent specification > components > Alan Harrison and Colin Sheppard, 15 July 2002, CSPS: Data/0207001 > > I admit that the first page I hit looked like neuroscience. > > -- > Peter > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dennis E. Hamilton" > To: > Sent: Tuesday, July 16, 2002 1:37 AM > Subject: RE: [ba-unrev-talk] Fw: Announcing: The Computer Science Preprint > Server > > > > It would be useful if the content was about computer science. > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org > > [mailto:owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org]On Behalf Of Peter Jones > > Sent: Monday, July 15, 2002 15:14 > > To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org > > Subject: [ba-unrev-talk] Fw: Announcing: The Computer Science Preprint > > Server > > > > > > Thought this might be of interest to folks... > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Computer Science" > > To: > > Sent: Monday, July 15, 2002 3:43 PM > > Subject: Announcing: The Computer Science Preprint Server > > > > > > Dear computer scientist, > > > > It is our great pleasure to announce the launch of a new rapid > > distribution medium for research articles in the field of > > computer science, covering the whole panorama of current research > > topics: > > > > The Computer Science Preprint Server > > http://www.compscipreprints.com > > > > We would also like to invite you to be among the first users to > > post an article on The Computer Science Preprint Server and join > > the community. You can actually also already enjoy reading over > > 200 articles already posted. > > > > Welcoming final-version articles as well as reports on work in > > progress, The Computer Science Preprint Server affords you a > > unique opportunity to ensure your article receives maximum > > visibility. > > > > We appreciate your time is valuable and have designed the online > > submission process to be as streamlined as possible. Also, as an > > author you have total freedom to remove your article at any time, > > and/or to submit it for publication to the journal of your > > choice. > > > > Additional features of The Computer Science Preprint Server > > include: "Discussions" - encouraging online discussion of your > > article "Recommend This Article" - ensuring wider distribution of > > your article "Alerting Service" - informing you regularly of new > > articles as they are uploaded to the Server. > > > > We look forward to receiving your preprint and welcome any > > comments and/or suggestions you may care to make. > > > > > > Ir. Olivier Simonnot, MBA > > The Computer Science Preprint Server > > http://www.compscipreprints.com > > > > > > > > ================================================================ > > If you would prefer not to receive marketing information via > > e-mail from Elsevier Science and associated Group Companies, > > please send a blank email to: > > mailto:exclusionlist-sub@lyris.elsevier.nl > > > > Elsevier Science does not disclose or sell e-mail addresses to > > third parties. Our full privacy policy statement is available at > > http://www.elsevier.com > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Tue Jul 16 15:03:48 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 00D2656FF3; Tue, 16 Jul 2002 15:03:47 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from pheriche.sun.com (pheriche.sun.com [192.18.98.34]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4B0E756FF2 for ; Tue, 16 Jul 2002 15:03:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM ([129.145.155.51]) by pheriche.sun.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA28391 for ; Tue, 16 Jul 2002 16:20:52 -0600 (MDT) Received: from sun.com (d-usca14-129-126 [129.145.129.126]) by ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM (8.11.6+Sun/8.10.2/ENSMAIL,v2.1p1) with ESMTP id g6GMKmC29700 for ; Tue, 16 Jul 2002 15:20:52 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3D349C40.BDD7F459@sun.com> Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 15:20:48 -0700 From: Eric Armstrong X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: Re: Fertile Utopian Fallacies WAS: Re: [ba-unrev-talk] Systems and goals References: <002d01c22a21$f34a85f0$180ec53f@home> <3D2FAFB7.E2DF7E58@sun.com> <3D301B9B.163098D1@sympatico.ca> <001801c22a86$d72e1160$d1e0193e@vaio> <3D308947.421BA1B7@sympatico.ca> <000701c22b64$d7af2960$09f8193e@vaio> <3D31FEAF.E6B684BA@sympatico.ca> <002f01c22c3c$3c58aee0$53f1193e@vaio> <002301c22cf1$1069b9e0$7e5d87d9@vaio> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Peter Jones wrote: > A whole bunch of interesting stuff, leading to two observations: 1. I just started reading the book Nexus. Highly interesing. Main theme appears to be that networks have some regularity that stem from individual choces. One of the interesting conclusions was that many of disparities we see (and often descry) are a natural consequence of networks. Have yet to see the reasoning, but the proposition is fascinating. (The theory of networks appears to be a subset of complexity theory, but I don't know enough about either to tell how they relate in any more detail than that.) 2. In the movie, "A Beautiful Mind", Nash wins a nobel prize for his "Equilibrium" theory, which seems to prove that individual utility is maximized when people act to achieve the best result for themselves AND for the group. (The scene which leads to the brilliant insight is not to be missed.) Those are two fairly radical conceptual structures that would seem to have some relevance here... From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Wed Jul 17 16:19:20 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 3C6E256FF3; Wed, 17 Jul 2002 16:19:20 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from relay01.roc.frontiernet.net (relay01.roc.frontiernet.net [66.133.131.34]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7469C56FF2 for ; Wed, 17 Jul 2002 16:19:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 6658 invoked from network); 17 Jul 2002 23:36:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kurtz-fernhout.com) ([170.215.217.188]) (envelope-sender ) by relay01.roc.frontiernet.net (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 17 Jul 2002 23:36:24 -0000 Message-ID: <3D36005D.4DC3EA90@kurtz-fernhout.com> Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 19:40:13 -0400 From: Paul Fernhout Organization: Kurtz-Fernhout Software X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.61 [en] (WinNT; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: Re: [ba-unrev-talk] further research and thinking related to unrev-ii archive References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Chris- Interesting paper -- especially coming from a practical experienced based analysis of various issues (like mentioning the lack of a standard way to reference a reply in email and the impact on analysis). I like the idea of tools that provide ways for some work to be automated and other to be done or refined by people. By the way, didn't see any reference to license issues as another practical problem. :-) Thanks for sharing the paper. It displayed fine in OpenOffice, although you might consider RTF, HTML, or a non-proprietary format to maximize long term readership. While it was all interesting, I didn't see one point that screamed "revelation about the nature of knowledge representation and discourse...". Which part was that? Did you mean your paper's insight: "In other words, each document reflects at least one concept, and the clusters potentially represent not only conceptually related documents, but also a category or set of categories for which the concepts have not yet been identified. " Or did you mean it more in your writing: "The existence of the associative connections is the locus of discovery, not the definition of these connections"? I found it interesting that on a practical basis messages without a MIME Content-Type of text/plain content were tossed. Always kind of suspected such messages were trouble (and avoid them)... Still, this shows how hard it is to try anything that defines a new standard beyond plain text (like making links more embedded somehow). I'm not on line much these days, but thought your great contribution deserved further applause. All the best. -Paul Fernhout == Grant us the tools to enhance our lives, == and the inspiration to use them with enthusiasm, love, and joy. cdent@burningchrome.com wrote: > > Back in April Kathryn La Barre and I announced, on this list, > some work we were doing with computational methods for generating > faceted access structures to the archive of the unrev-ii (the > list that is the precursor to this one) email list. > > Since then a paper describing the work and its relevance to the > PORT project was written for the Pragmatic Web Workshop at the > 10th International Conference on Conceptual Structures. Much of > the workshop was held over email. For Kathryn and I the email > collaboration led to an extensive revision of the paper. We had > something of a revelation about the nature of knowledge > representation and discourse that may be of interest. > > The final version of the paper: > > http://ella.slis.indiana.edu/~klabarre/iccs2002_concept.doc > > [snip] From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Thu Jul 18 01:23:47 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id B209456FF3; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 01:23:46 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from hot.burningchrome.com (cust-216-9-146-10.bton.kiva.net [216.9.146.10]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id AB24B56FF2 for ; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 01:23:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (cdent@localhost) by hot.burningchrome.com (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id g6I8eqe17729 for ; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 03:40:52 -0500 Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 03:40:52 -0500 (EST) From: To: Subject: Re: [ba-unrev-talk] further research and thinking related to unrev-ii archive In-Reply-To: <3D36005D.4DC3EA90@kurtz-fernhout.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org On Wed, 17 Jul 2002, Paul Fernhout wrote: > Interesting paper -- especially coming from a practical experienced > based analysis of various issues (like mentioning the lack of a standard > way to reference a reply in email and the impact on analysis). I like > the idea of tools that provide ways for some work to be automated and > other to be done or refined by people. By the way, didn't see any > reference to license issues as another practical problem. :-) One can only grind so many axes at once...we chose a particular one in this paper. > Thanks for sharing the paper. It displayed fine in OpenOffice, although > you might consider RTF, HTML, or a non-proprietary format to maximize > long term readership. That's in progress. There's a home base for the papers as well as the archives of the online discussion that led to the revision. It's not clear if that stuff is public so I did not post the URLs. That issue will be clarified soon. > While it was all interesting, I didn't see one point that screamed > "revelation about the nature of knowledge representation and > discourse...". Which part was that? Did you mean your paper's insight: > "In other words, each document reflects at least one concept, and the > clusters potentially represent not only conceptually related documents, > but also a category or set of categories for which the concepts have not > yet been identified. " Or did you mean it more in your writing: "The > existence of the associative connections is the locus of discovery, not > the definition of these connections"? That's where the archive of the discussion may make some of that clear. But, in the meantime, if you compare the older version of the paper with the newer version of the paper, you'll see that we changed our strategy. The first version simply explains what we were doing, the second version explains why. The why is articulated somewhat in: http://www.bootstrap.org/lists/ba-unrev-talk/0206/msg00097.html but really comes down to a fundamental disagreement with the PORT position that knowledge must be (and can be) represented in formal structures. We disagree with that. Human discourse is not formal and the associative connections you can make by having, talking about and thinking about discourse are, as you point out, the locus of discovery. The place where learning happens. Formal representations, in a sense, are big classification systems. Classificatory structures model closed worlds. They can be extremely complex and thus can model an extremely complex world, but they are, when all is said and done, closed. Thus _new_ discovery is limited. Rehashing is the mode. Human discourse is more like categories: the intension and extension is flexible. New discoveries can be made because groups can grow, shrink, or be created. > I found it interesting that on a practical basis messages without a MIME > Content-Type of text/plain content were tossed. Always kind of suspected > such messages were trouble (and avoid them)... Still, this shows how > hard it is to try anything that defines a new standard beyond plain text > (like making links more embedded somehow). Indeed. > I'm not on line much these days, but thought your great contribution > deserved further applause. Thank you very much. It's very nice to have your comments. -- Chris Dent http://www.burningchrome.com/~cdent/ "If you assume that there is an instinct for freedom, that there are opportunities to change things, that hope is possible, then hope may be justified, and a better world may be built. That's your choice.'' N.Chomsky From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Thu Jul 18 11:58:38 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id A4CC456FF3; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 11:58:37 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from mail6.svr.pol.co.uk (mail6.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.193.212]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3A67156FF2 for ; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 11:58:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from modem-1127.kowabunga.dialup.pol.co.uk ([62.25.222.103] helo=vaio) by mail6.svr.pol.co.uk with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17VGkW-0003us-00 for ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 20:15:40 +0100 Message-ID: <003001c22e8f$371f62c0$19c0193e@vaio> From: "Peter Jones" To: Subject: [ba-unrev-talk] Fwd: Socioeconomic Democracy Book Now Available Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 19:23:22 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Just passing this one along... -- Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Cc: ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 5:51 AM Subject: Socioeconomic Democracy Book Now Available > Friends: > > The purpose of this communication is to announce the publication and present > availability of the new book entitled Socioeconomic Democracy: An Advanced > Socioeconomic System. > > Socioeconomic Democracy (SeD) is a theoretical model socioeconomic system > wherein there exist both some form of Universal Guaranteed Personal Income > (UGI) and some form of Maximum Allowable Personal Wealth (MAW), with both the > lower bound on personal material poverty and the upper bound on personal > material wealth set and adjusted democratically by all participants of > society. > > The Table of Contents is as follows: > PREFACE > INTRODUCTION > 1 SOCIOECONOMIC DEMOCRACY: THE THEORETICAL MODEL > 2 UNIVERSAL GUARANTEED PERSONAL INCOME > 3 MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE PERSONAL WEALTH > 4 DEMOCRACY > 5 SOCIETAL VARIATIONS > 6 JUSTIFICATIONS > 7 SOCIOECONOMIC DEMOCRACY AND ISLAM > 8 INCENTIVE AND SELF-INTEREST > 9 PRACTICAL APPROXIMATIONS > 10 FINANCIAL BENEFITS AND COSTS > 11 PHYSICAL REALIZABILITY, FEASIBILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION > 12 RAMIFICATIONS > APPENDIX > BIBLIOGRAPHY > INDEX > > It is (or at least should be) clear that this planet desperately needs a new, > improved and fundamentally democratized socioeconomic system. The book will > be of interest to (among others) all those who are seriously concerned about > the multidimensional harm (to individuals, societies, cultures and the planet > at large) caused by the extreme systemic maldistribution of material wealth > intra- and internationally and who are convinced that this problem should and > can only be resolved democratically and peacefully by an informed, thoughtful > citizenry. The book will be found appropriate for courses in economics, > political science, sociology, political philosophy, utopian studies, futures > studies, psychology and, perhaps most importantly, democratic socioeconomic > systems engineering. The book is extensively described on our website. > > The book is published by and available from Praeger/Greenwood, as well as > from e-Amazon and e-Barnes & Noble, and certainly should be available in your > friendly local bookstore and library. The Praeger/Greenwood coordinates are: > Praeger Publishers > Greenwood Publishing Group > 88 Post Road West > PO Box 5007 > Westport, CT 06881-5007 > > > Enjoy, > > Robley E. George, Director > Center for the Study of Democratic Societies > > From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Thu Jul 18 12:24:55 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 8C73256FF3; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 12:24:54 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from cpimssmtpu09.email.msn.com (cpimssmtpu09.email.msn.com [207.46.181.84]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2B9C256FF2 for ; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 12:24:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from centro ([63.231.39.78]) by cpimssmtpu09.email.msn.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.4905); Thu, 18 Jul 2002 12:41:08 -0700 From: "Dennis E. Hamilton" To: Cc: Subject: RE: [ba-unrev-talk] further research and thinking related to unrev-ii archive Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 12:41:59 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-OriginalArrivalTime: 18 Jul 2002 19:41:08.0524 (UTC) FILETIME=[101D96C0:01C22E93] Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Chris, Thanks for this, and explaining the insight. I didn't catch it when skimming the paper. I find myself conflicted on your main point. First, I think you are spot on. The approach to formal ontologies, taxonomies, and related classification/nomenclature schemes seem to involve straight-jacketing into fixed conceptual frameworks. I think it shows up dramatically in cross-cultural as well as cross-language matters. I do not know how the semantic web will reconcile this. We get to find out in one of the grandest information systems experiments going. At the same time, based on my experience in computation theory, I am aware of schemes that do not require this kind of commitment. And it is not clear how that can help. There is something more powerful, but it may not make sense or be practicable to expect to exercise it at the textual analysis level. Especially if markup is required. It is as if we are going to make a commitment based on the assumption that if we identify informational elements properly it will be usable as a kind of legacy when a more-powerful system for working across nomenclatures and languages arrives. Meanwhile, I bet we'll have to revise ontologies sooner than that. So even being able to version an ontology is a critical requirement. Let alone transcend one! So it looks like we will bull along until exhausted or some deeper understanding arrives. Whichever comes first. Maybe the 80-20 rule will prevail and we get enough for now without trying to solve it all. Has your work given you a view on a pro-active approach? I notice I am mostly resigned about it. -- Dennis -----Original Message----- From: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org [mailto:owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org]On Behalf Of cdent@burningchrome.com Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 01:41 To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: Re: [ba-unrev-talk] further research and thinking related to unrev-ii archive [ ... ] That's where the archive of the discussion may make some of that clear. But, in the meantime, if you compare the older version of the paper with the newer version of the paper, you'll see that we changed our strategy. The first version simply explains what we were doing, the second version explains why. The why is articulated somewhat in: http://www.bootstrap.org/lists/ba-unrev-talk/0206/msg00097.html but really comes down to a fundamental disagreement with the PORT position that knowledge must be (and can be) represented in formal structures. We disagree with that. Human discourse is not formal and the associative connections you can make by having, talking about and thinking about discourse are, as you point out, the locus of discovery. The place where learning happens. Formal representations, in a sense, are big classification systems. Classificatory structures model closed worlds. They can be extremely complex and thus can model an extremely complex world, but they are, when all is said and done, closed. Thus _new_ discovery is limited. Rehashing is the mode. Human discourse is more like categories: the intension and extension is flexible. New discoveries can be made because groups can grow, shrink, or be created. > I found it interesting that on a practical basis messages without a MIME > Content-Type of text/plain content were tossed. Always kind of suspected > such messages were trouble (and avoid them)... Still, this shows how > hard it is to try anything that defines a new standard beyond plain text > (like making links more embedded somehow). Indeed. > I'm not on line much these days, but thought your great contribution > deserved further applause. Thank you very much. It's very nice to have your comments. -- Chris Dent http://www.burningchrome.com/~cdent/ "If you assume that there is an instinct for freedom, that there are opportunities to change things, that hope is possible, then hope may be justified, and a better world may be built. That's your choice.'' N.Chomsky From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Thu Jul 18 12:51:10 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id CA8DC56FF3; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 12:51:09 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from pheriche.sun.com (pheriche.sun.com [192.18.98.34]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id EC32756FF2 for ; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 12:51:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM ([129.145.155.51]) by pheriche.sun.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA28883 for ; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 14:08:15 -0600 (MDT) Received: from sun.com (d-usca14-129-126 [129.145.129.126]) by ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM (8.11.6+Sun/8.10.2/ENSMAIL,v2.1p1) with ESMTP id g6IK8EC20144 for ; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 13:08:14 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3D37202E.DB240A78@sun.com> Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 13:08:14 -0700 From: Eric Armstrong X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: [ba-unrev-talk] Alternative categorization scheme References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org "Dennis E. Hamilton" wrote: > Chris, .... I think you are spot on. The approach to formal ontologies, > taxonomies, and related classification/nomenclature schemes seem to involve > straight-jacketing into fixed conceptual frameworks. I think it shows up > dramatically in cross-cultural as well as cross-language matters. I do not > know how the semantic web will reconcile this. We get to find out in one of > the grandest information systems experiments going. > > At the same time, based on my experience in computation theory, I am aware > of schemes that do not require this kind of commitment. And it is not clear > how that can help. There is something more powerful, but it may not make > sense or be practicable to expect to exercise it at the textual analysis > level. Especially if markup is required. Rich Persaud wrote: > See also current search engine work from NEC Research: > > http://www.nature.com/nsu/020304/020304-8.html > http://webselforganization.com/example.html > http://webselforganization.com Sychronicity! I've just been reading Nexus -- a fascinating non-mathematical discussion of the properties of networks. The first paper shows they are taking advantage of their cardinal property -- the fact that they group themselves into multiple dense clusters. That inspection algorithm could be the key to finding the right context for a search. For example, if I search on "shoe installation", the search might yield multiple clusters, centered around: * automobile brake shoes * motorcycle brake shoes * bicycle brake shoes * "shoes" in mechanical devices * shoe stores * Hanging large wooden signs Suddenly, "more like this" takes on an entirely new meaning. At Google's site, "more like this" means "more pages from the same server". But if a single representative page for each of the above groups were delivered (say, the most frequently linked page in each group), then "more like this" would mean, "expand this subgroup and show me all the pages in it". What's fascinating about that is that network properties can be exploited to identify categories, *without* having to label them or add metadata to the web. From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Thu Jul 18 14:10:21 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id C91A956FF3; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 14:10:20 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from mail13.svr.pol.co.uk (mail13.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.193.24]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E6B3D56FF2 for ; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 14:10:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from modem-755.charizard.dialup.pol.co.uk ([217.135.71.243] helo=vaio) by mail13.svr.pol.co.uk with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17VIo2-0006Io-00 for ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 22:27:26 +0100 Message-ID: <005401c22ea1$9f5bc880$f34787d9@vaio> From: "Peter Jones" To: References: <3D37202E.DB240A78@sun.com> Subject: Re: [ba-unrev-talk] Alternative categorization scheme Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 22:25:19 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Sounds a bit like Teoma as posted by Jack earlier http://www.bootstrap.org/lists/ba-unrev-talk/0207/msg00000.html -- Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eric Armstrong" To: Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 9:08 PM Subject: [ba-unrev-talk] Alternative categorization scheme > "Dennis E. Hamilton" wrote: > > > Chris, .... I think you are spot on. The approach to formal ontologies, > > taxonomies, and related classification/nomenclature schemes seem to involve > > straight-jacketing into fixed conceptual frameworks. I think it shows up > > dramatically in cross-cultural as well as cross-language matters. I do not > > know how the semantic web will reconcile this. We get to find out in one of > > the grandest information systems experiments going. > > > > At the same time, based on my experience in computation theory, I am aware > > of schemes that do not require this kind of commitment. And it is not clear > > how that can help. There is something more powerful, but it may not make > > sense or be practicable to expect to exercise it at the textual analysis > > level. Especially if markup is required. > > Rich Persaud wrote: > > > See also current search engine work from NEC Research: > > > > http://www.nature.com/nsu/020304/020304-8.html > > http://webselforganization.com/example.html > > http://webselforganization.com > > Sychronicity! I've just been reading Nexus -- a fascinating non-mathematical > discussion of the properties of networks. The first paper shows they are > taking advantage of their cardinal property -- the fact that they group > themselves into multiple dense clusters. > > That inspection algorithm could be the key to finding the right context for > a search. For example, if I search on "shoe installation", the search might > yield multiple clusters, centered around: > * automobile brake shoes > * motorcycle brake shoes > * bicycle brake shoes > * "shoes" in mechanical devices > * shoe stores > * Hanging large wooden signs > > Suddenly, "more like this" takes on an entirely new meaning. At Google's > site, "more like this" means "more pages from the same server". But if a > single representative page for each of the above groups were delivered > (say, the most frequently linked page in each group), then "more like this" > would mean, "expand this subgroup and show me all the pages in it". > > What's fascinating about that is that network properties can be exploited > to identify categories, *without* having to label them or add metadata to > the web. > > > > > From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Thu Jul 18 14:42:09 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 04ADF56FF3; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 14:42:05 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from kathmandu.sun.com (kathmandu.sun.com [192.18.98.36]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7AEFA56FF2 for ; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 14:42:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM ([129.145.155.51]) by kathmandu.sun.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA04933 for ; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 15:59:13 -0600 (MDT) Received: from sun.com (d-usca14-129-126 [129.145.129.126]) by ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM (8.11.6+Sun/8.10.2/ENSMAIL,v2.1p1) with ESMTP id g6ILxCC19794 for ; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 14:59:12 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3D373A30.9DB494F6@sun.com> Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 14:59:12 -0700 From: Eric Armstrong X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-unrev-talk Subject: [ba-unrev-talk] MetaData -- Not! Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org A hilarious, and seemingly dead-on accurate contrarian view that just arrived in my inbox, courtesy of Rich Persaud. http://www.well.com/~doctorow/metacrap.htm From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Thu Jul 18 16:03:18 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id D7AC556FF3; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 16:03:17 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from nwkea-mail-1.sun.com (nwkea-mail-1.sun.com [192.18.42.13]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5863556FF2 for ; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 16:03:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM ([129.145.155.51]) by nwkea-mail-1.sun.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA23261 for ; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 16:20:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sun.com (d-usca14-129-126 [129.145.129.126]) by ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM (8.11.6+Sun/8.10.2/ENSMAIL,v2.1p1) with ESMTP id g6INKOC08717 for ; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 16:20:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3D374D38.B6023959@sun.com> Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 16:20:24 -0700 From: Eric Armstrong X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: Re: [ba-unrev-talk] The Strange Case of the Disappearing Open SourceVendors References: <000c01c221e1$f23fc960$180ec53f@home> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org John Maloney wrote: > The path to success here is to win over some domain experts and > integrate deep vertical logic into the collaborative offering. This is > still very risky and capital intensive, but really the only way to have > a go in this space....It is critical to *master* a vertical, before > moving > up and out. Well said! From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Thu Jul 18 19:56:00 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 80FCA56FF3; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 19:55:59 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from mta6.snfc21.pbi.net (mta6.snfc21.pbi.net [206.13.28.240]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 180CA56FF2 for ; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 19:55:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from home ([63.197.14.24]) by mta6.snfc21.pbi.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built May 7 2001)) with ESMTP id <0GZH00F0G7LVLD@mta6.snfc21.pbi.net> for ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org; Thu, 18 Jul 2002 20:13:08 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 20:13:08 -0700 From: John Maloney Subject: [ba-unrev-talk] xrefer To: UNREV Message-id: <000e01c22ed2$34c0dde0$180ec53f@home> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_CciFK17wrwSUg9GCeXl0ig)" Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_CciFK17wrwSUg9GCeXl0ig) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT http://www.xrefer.com/ Xrefer aims to be "the Web's reference engine." The site contains free access to 450,000 entries covering such areas as business, law, art, health, and more. This information comes from encyclopedias, thesauri, dictionaries, and books of quotations from the world's leading publishers with all entries having been cross referenced. Xrefer's databases of facts, people, words, concepts, and quotations provides users with a single source for reliable factual information. BASEX:SITE-OF-THE-WEEK - REVIEWED BY CASSANDRA MAYS Cordially, -jtm --Boundary_(ID_CciFK17wrwSUg9GCeXl0ig) Content-type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Message

http://www.xrefer.com/

Xrefer aims to be "the Web's reference engine." The site contains free access to 450,000 entries covering such areas as business, law, art, health, and more. This information comes from encyclopedias, thesauri, dictionaries, and books of quotations from the world's leading publishers with all entries having been cross referenced. Xrefer's databases of facts, people, words, concepts, and quotations provides users with a single source for reliable factual information.

BASEX:SITE-OF-THE-WEEK - REVIEWED BY CASSANDRA MAYS
 
Cordially,
 
-jtm
--Boundary_(ID_CciFK17wrwSUg9GCeXl0ig)-- From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Fri Jul 19 07:44:19 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id D2B9756FF3; Fri, 19 Jul 2002 07:44:18 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from rwcrmhc53.attbi.com (rwcrmhc53.attbi.com [204.127.198.39]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 77BEB56FF2 for ; Fri, 19 Jul 2002 07:44:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sony ([12.234.214.35]) by rwcrmhc53.attbi.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP id <20020719150121.IDHV26053.rwcrmhc53.attbi.com@sony> for ; Fri, 19 Jul 2002 15:01:21 +0000 Message-Id: <4.2.2.20020719075756.02608d10@thinkalong.com> X-Sender: jackpark@thinkalong.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 07:58:39 -0700 To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org From: Jack Park Subject: [ba-unrev-talk] Fwd: [issues] What is civilization? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=====================_19441903==_.ALT" Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org --=====================_19441903==_.ALT Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed >To: issues@isss.org >From: elohimjl > >"THE TRIGGERING QUESTION >What events or situations contributed to the event known as 911?" > >The event 911 is only a minor manifestation of one of the symptoms of the >serious illness that humankind has been suffering during millennia. > >"Man makes himself" (Gordon Childe) may help to grasp how some of our >ancestors developed their humaneness while others chose to develop their >in-humaneness. The account of the trajectory of the whole civilization is >still dramatically waiting a scientific explanation of the controversial >history of every society constituted. > >...a minor manifestation that is leading to terrorize millions of innocent >people for the sake of fighting against terrorism. > >After only few millennia of civilizing experiences, it is urgently necessary: > >1) To comprehend what led Michael de Montaigne to say: "Let man make >me understand by the force of his reason, upon what foundations he has >built those great advantages he has over other creatures. Who has made him >believe that this admirable motion of the celestial arch, the eternal >light of those luminaries that roll so high over his head, the wondrous >and fearful motions of that infinite ocean, should be established and >continue so many ages for his service and convenience. Can anything be >imagined so ridiculous, that this miserable and wretched creature, who is >not so much as master of himself, but subject to the injuries of all >things, should call himself master and emperor of the world of which he >has not power to know the least part much less to command the whole? >(Quoted by Ernst Cassirer, 1944) > >2) To reflect on the answer given by Mahatma Ghandi when asked what >he thought of Western Civilization: "I think it would be a good idea" he said. > >3) To notice that nobody can forecast when exactly our wonderful >civilized way of life could collapse, but to recognize that there are >plenty of reasons which oblige to believe that it might inexorably happen >because many researchers, scholars and experts keep trying to get funding >for maintaining the fascinated trends of the prevalent civilization. Lewis >Mumford pointed out more than 50 years ago "What happened to Greece, Rome, >China, or India has no parallel in the world today: when those >civilizations collapsed, they were surrounded by neighbors that had >reached nearly equal levels of culture, whereas if Western civilization >should continue its downward course, it will spread ruin to every part of >the planet; and its going will consume the very forces and ideas within >its own tradition that might have given a start to its successor". >(Mumford 1944) >4) To guess what motivated Stafford Beer to express: "At the top is >the spectacular advance of human misery. I estimate that more humans are >enduring agony today than ever before.. I speak of starvation and >epidemic; war and terrorism; deprivation, exploitation, and physical >torture... Second is the collapse of the civilization which we have known >in our lifetime. ..no one talks about the exploitation of either nature or >indigenous people any more. They talk instead about 'sustainable >development' --but there is not such thing. Not only can development not >be sustained; even the existing fabric cannot be sustained any longer. >...we are governed by an oligarchy --by the few; it is an oligarchy of >power greed, and terror. ...we are blind to this. ...none of the phenomena >mentioned would be observed in its current and virulent form, if there >were no powerful modern armaments... But no serious political platform >anywhere has proposed to make the manufacture of armaments illegal. >...this manufacture is essential to the conduct of the existing world >economy. Without jumping to conspiracy theories, or citing the illegal >activities which now constitute the world's biggest industry, we can at >the least say that humankind now manages its own affairs with breathtaking >incompetence" (Stafford Beer Presidential Address WOCS Congress, New >Delhi, 1993) > >5) To ponder optimistically facts and events because "... this has >been a pretty horrible century (the 20th one), one of the worst centuries >of human history in terms of humanly created disasters and catastrophes, >...some of the worst come from the peaks of western civilization. But in >many other respects...if you look realistically over time, things are >improving. Lots of things that were considered perfectly normal and >natural say a century ago would be considered outlandishly outrageous >today; nobody could even conceive of them... Things have really changed a >lot. And we know how they've changed -not by sitting around and talking >about it" [Noam Chomsky, Whose World Order. Speech September 1998)] > >6) To contribute explicitly to develop the scientific ideology >proposed by Ludwig von Bertalanffy "...the overall fate of the world >depends on the adoption by humanity of a new set of values, based on a >general systems Weltanschauung. "We are seeking another basic outlook: the >world as organization. This [outlook] would profoundly change the >categories of our thinking and influence our practical attitudes. We must >envision the biosphere as a whole ... with mutually reinforcing or >mutually destructive interdependencies. [We need] a global system of >mutually symbiotic societies, mapping new conditions into a flexible >institutional structure and dealing with change through constructive >reorganization." (quoted by Mark Davidson in Uncommon Sense 1983)] >-- >elohimjl --=====================_19441903==_.ALT Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
To: issues@isss.org
From: elohimjl <elohimjl@mail.zserv.tuwien.ac.at>

"THE TRIGGERING QUESTION
What events or situations contributed to the event known as 911?"

The event 911 is only a minor manifestation of one of the symptoms of the serious illness that humankind has been suffering during millennia.

"Man makes himself" (Gordon Childe) may help to grasp how some of our ancestors developed their humaneness while others chose to develop their in-humaneness. The account of the trajectory of the whole civilization is still dramatically waiting a scientific explanation of the controversial history of every society constituted.

...a minor manifestation that is leading to terrorize millions of innocent people for the sake of fighting against terrorism.

After only few millennia of civilizing experiences, it is urgently necessary:

1)      To comprehend what led Michael de Montaigne to say: "Let man make me understand by the force of his reason, upon what foundations he has built those great advantages he has over other creatures. Who has made him believe that this admirable motion of the celestial arch, the eternal light of those luminaries that roll so high over his head, the wondrous and fearful motions of that infinite ocean, should be established and continue so many ages for his service and convenience. Can anything be imagined so ridiculous, that this miserable and wretched creature, who is not so much as master of himself, but subject to the injuries of all things, should call himself master and emperor of the world of which he has not power to know the least part much less to command the whole? (Quoted by Ernst Cassirer, 1944)

2)      To reflect on the answer given by Mahatma Ghandi when asked what he thought of Western Civilization: "I think it would be a good idea" he said.

3)      To notice that nobody can forecast when exactly our wonderful civilized way of life could collapse, but to recognize that there are plenty of reasons which oblige to believe that it might inexorably happen because many researchers, scholars and experts keep trying to get funding for maintaining the fascinated trends of the prevalent civilization. Lewis Mumford pointed out more than 50 years ago "What happened to Greece, Rome, China, or India has no parallel in the world today: when those civilizations collapsed, they were surrounded by neighbors that had reached nearly equal levels of culture, whereas if Western civilization should continue its downward course, it will spread ruin to every part of the planet; and its going will consume the very forces and ideas within its own tradition that might have given a start to its successor". (Mumford 1944)
4)      To guess what motivated Stafford Beer to express: "At the top is the spectacular advance of human misery. I estimate that more humans are enduring agony today than ever before.. I speak of starvation and epidemic; war and terrorism; deprivation, exploitation, and physical torture... Second is the collapse of the civilization which we have known in our lifetime. ..no one talks about the exploitation of either nature or indigenous people any more. They talk instead about 'sustainable development' --but there is not such thing. Not only can development not be sustained; even the existing fabric cannot be sustained any longer. ...we are governed by an oligarchy --by the few; it is an oligarchy of power greed, and terror. ...we are blind to this. ...none of the phenomena mentioned would be observed in its current and virulent form, if there were no powerful modern armaments... But no serious political platform anywhere has proposed to make the manufacture of armaments illegal. ...this manufacture is essential to the conduct of the existing world economy.   Without jumping to conspiracy theories, or citing the illegal activities which now constitute the world's biggest industry, we can at the least say that humankind now manages its own affairs with breathtaking incompetence"    (Stafford Beer Presidential Address WOCS Congress, New Delhi, 1993)

5)      To ponder optimistically facts and events because "... this has been a pretty horrible century (the 20th one), one of the worst centuries of human history in terms of humanly created disasters and catastrophes, ...some of the worst come from the peaks of western civilization. But in many other respects...if you look realistically over time, things are improving. Lots of things that were considered perfectly normal and natural say a century ago would be considered outlandishly outrageous today; nobody could even conceive of them... Things have really changed a lot. And we know how they've changed -not by sitting around and talking about it" [Noam Chomsky, Whose World Order. Speech September 1998)]

6)      To contribute explicitly to develop the scientific ideology proposed by Ludwig von Bertalanffy "...the overall fate of the world depends on the adoption by humanity of a new set of values, based on a general systems Weltanschauung. "We are seeking another basic outlook: the world as organization. This [outlook] would profoundly change the categories of our thinking and influence our practical attitudes. We must envision the biosphere as a whole ... with mutually reinforcing or mutually destructive interdependencies. [We need] a global system of mutually symbiotic societies, mapping new conditions into a flexible institutional structure and dealing with change through constructive reorganization." (quoted by Mark Davidson in Uncommon Sense 1983)]
--
elohimjl
--=====================_19441903==_.ALT-- From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Fri Jul 19 11:09:43 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 404BC56FF4; Fri, 19 Jul 2002 11:09:43 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from mta5.snfc21.pbi.net (mta5.snfc21.pbi.net [206.13.28.241]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B731C56FF3 for ; Fri, 19 Jul 2002 11:09:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from home ([63.197.14.24]) by mta5.snfc21.pbi.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built May 7 2001)) with ESMTP id <0GZI005LWDWQ4O@mta5.snfc21.pbi.net> for ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org; Fri, 19 Jul 2002 11:26:50 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 11:26:52 -0700 From: John Maloney Subject: [ba-unrev-talk] Managerial Knowledge Economics To: UNREV Message-id: <000501c22f51$daa86280$180ec53f@home> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 Content-type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Boundary_(ID_P+rWD3byz9NbHssEdLHpXg)" Importance: Normal X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-priority: Normal Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --Boundary_(ID_P+rWD3byz9NbHssEdLHpXg) Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT What is Managerial Knowledge Economics? Managerial Knowledge Economics is the next generation approach to managing knowledge for individuals, organizations, countries, and economies. It is a specialty field within managerial economics which combines microeconomic theory and tools with those of other fields to provide practical interventions to knowledge production systems. * Learning curve analysis, forecast, and intervention * Diffusion curve analysis, forecast, and intervention * Innovation rate analysis, forecast, and intervention * Metainnovation theory and practical applications * Knowledge production possibilities frontier * Agent-based economic computer modeling (Adam Smith in a Box) * Complex adaptive systems theory and application * Evolutionary economics and -- http://www.kmcluster.com/kes/ Cordially, -jtm --Boundary_(ID_P+rWD3byz9NbHssEdLHpXg) Content-type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Message
What is Managerial Knowledge Economics? Managerial Knowledge Economics is the next generation approach to managing knowledge for individuals, organizations, countries, and economies. It is a specialty field within managerial economics which combines microeconomic theory and tools with those of other fields to provide practical interventions to knowledge production systems.
  • Learning curve analysis, forecast, and intervention
  • Diffusion curve analysis, forecast, and intervention
  • Innovation rate analysis, forecast, and intervention
  • Metainnovation theory and practical applications
  • Knowledge production possibilities frontier
  • Agent-based economic computer modeling (Adam Smith in a Box)
  • Complex adaptive systems theory and application
  • Evolutionary economics
 
and --
 
 
 
Cordially,
 
-jtm


 

 
--Boundary_(ID_P+rWD3byz9NbHssEdLHpXg)-- From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Sat Jul 20 10:27:24 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 374D356FF3; Sat, 20 Jul 2002 10:27:24 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from rwcrmhc51.attbi.com (rwcrmhc51.attbi.com [204.127.198.38]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id F12C056FF2 for ; Sat, 20 Jul 2002 10:27:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sony ([12.234.214.35]) by rwcrmhc51.attbi.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP id <20020720174436.DCUM24728.rwcrmhc51.attbi.com@sony> for ; Sat, 20 Jul 2002 17:44:36 +0000 Message-Id: <4.2.2.20020720103452.02642100@thinkalong.com> X-Sender: jackpark@thinkalong.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2002 10:41:52 -0700 To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org From: Jack Park Subject: [ba-unrev-talk] An important interview Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Well, I think it's important to unrev-think http://www.linuxandmain.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=141 "There are a few genuine legends in the Linux community, and among them is an Aussie named Carsten Haitzler. Who? That's right -- the name probably means nothing to you. but his nom de code inspires awe in many. He is The Rasterman, and for many years he has been the symbol of innovative, uncompromising excellence in pushing the potential of the Linux desktop to and past its limits. He is the founder, though "inventor" would not be too strong a word, of the Enlightenment project, an infinitely configurable window manager that is working its way toward becoming a desktop, even though he thinks the desktop battle is lost. In an email interview, he talks about what he's doing, his view of the future of desktop Linux, the nature of development projects -- commercial, community-based, and genius-based -- and much more." "When projects get too big people spend more time in politics (talking on mailing lists and waiting for others) than actually doing something useful. Generally, splitting something up, not autonomous units, and have them work on their own and just end up working in unison ends up more efficient, imho. This still means people have to agree how they interface, but again, imho, the "benevolent dictator" method when one or a very small number decide the important bits (the glue between the parts) and then let the rest roll. I also don't see "the more the better" as better. Too many cooks spoil the broth. Sometimes one or two really good people will easily beat 10 or 20 average ones only working on something in their spare time. I personally prefer the "crack troops" style. Get five or six really good people and they can do a lot. Hundreds of part-timers, imho, don't work as well." From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Sat Jul 20 13:05:29 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id CA5B856FF4; Sat, 20 Jul 2002 13:05:28 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from rwcrmhc53.attbi.com (rwcrmhc53.attbi.com [204.127.198.39]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8A01556FF3 for ; Sat, 20 Jul 2002 13:05:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sony ([12.234.214.35]) by rwcrmhc53.attbi.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP id <20020720202241.HZFY26053.rwcrmhc53.attbi.com@sony> for ; Sat, 20 Jul 2002 20:22:41 +0000 Message-Id: <4.2.2.20020720131116.02644d20@thinkalong.com> X-Sender: jackpark@thinkalong.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2002 13:14:16 -0700 To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org From: Jack Park Subject: [ba-unrev-talk] New Semantic Networks Product Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org http://www.semanticresearch.com "Semantic Research is focused on a key problem facing most organizations=20 with multi-faceted informational resources and systems: the capture,=20 organization, management and visualization of knowledge. Chief among these= =20 organizations are the military, the intelligence community, major=20 corporations, government agencies, and bio sciences. Over the last 25 years, two significant issues related to the management of= =20 knowledge have emerged: Information Overload and Tacit Knowledge." "We apply semantic networking theory to a new breed of sophisticated=20 knowledge capture, management and transfer products. Our goal is to create= =20 value for our customers by increasing revenue, lowering costs, and=20 producing benefits of knowledge capitalization through the use of our=20 Semantica=99 products. Semantica provides an intuitive, graphical environment for quickly and=20 easily capturing unstructured knowledge from knowledge workers and experts,= =20 integrating it into an accessible knowledge management framework." "A semantic network is fundamentally a system for capturing, storing and=20 transferring information that works much the same as (and is, in fact,=20 modeled after) the human brain. It is robust, efficient and flexible. It is= =20 also the basis for many efforts to produce artificial intelligence.=20 Semantic networks can grow to extraordinary complexity, necessitating a=20 sophisticated approach to visual display, balancing the need for simplicity= =20 with the full expressive power of the network. Semantic networks may be=20 traversed via concept list views, via their relations, or by retracing the= =20 user's history." From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Sat Jul 20 15:59:10 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 65F8D56FF5; Sat, 20 Jul 2002 15:59:10 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from mail.101freeway.net (mail.101freeway.net [12.44.112.15]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id DAD9956FF4 for ; Sat, 20 Jul 2002 15:59:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 45937 invoked from network); 20 Jul 2002 23:16:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO minerva) (10.1.17.76) by mail.101freeway.com with SMTP; 20 Jul 2002 23:16:09 -0000 From: "Garold (Gary) L. Johnson" To: Subject: RE: [ba-unrev-talk] An important interview Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2002 16:17:25 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <4.2.2.20020720103452.02642100@thinkalong.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org This is long, but I think it all needs to be said (or at least I feel a need to say it). Jack Park quoted: http://www.linuxandmain.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=141 "There are a few genuine legends in the Linux community, and among them is an Aussie named Carsten Haitzler. Who? [snip] "When projects get too big people spend more time in politics (talking on mailing lists and waiting for others) than actually doing something useful. Generally, splitting something up, not autonomous units, and have them work on their own and just end up working in unison ends up more efficient, imho. This still means people have to agree how they interface, but again, imho, the "benevolent dictator" method when one or a very small number decide the important bits (the glue between the parts) and then let the rest roll. I also don't see "the more the better" as better. Too many cooks spoil the broth. Sometimes one or two really good people will easily beat 10 or 20 average ones only working on something in their spare time. I personally prefer the "crack troops" style. Get five or six really good people and they can do a lot. Hundreds of part-timers, imho, don't work as well." I completely agree on the superiority of small, capable, committed groups over sheer numbers. This is why I keep pushing for tools that support personal organization and collaboration within small groups as an essential starting point for any augmentation effort. Ideas and solutions originate in individual brains. Environments that support collaboration of comparably capable people can foster and support the generation of ideas, but ideas are still individual. In the current state of the art for technical development, we are still not sure of all the elements that allow a "skunk works" to achieve the phenomenal results that it does, but it appears to be the case that no other form of organization is as efficient at problem solving. Gather talented people with experience in the problem domain and necessary technical skills, explain the problem to be solved well enough so that what you hear back is consistent with what you thought you said, and then get out of their way. Management of such a group then involves removing any barriers to production and checking from time to time to see that the problem(s) they are addressing are still the ones that need solving. This method works, and hardly anything else does. We can complain that "it shouldn't be that way", but complaining won't change the facts. Given the facts, I submit that tools should focus on providing the support that will allow talented individuals and small groups to collaborate in a more productive fashion. Some of those groups will tackle larger problems with a base of how to foster productive cooperation, and the larger problems will get better approaches if not solutions. The problems pointed out in the site that Eric Armstrong referenced, http://www.well.com/~doctorow/metacrap.htm which deals with metadata, impacts every activity of a large group. Expecting to solve problems by simply having tens of thousands of people chime in with opinions will not work except that it may allow individuals to find others with whom they can form a working group that can actually produce something. I reviewed a partial list of what have been classified as the "complex problems" facing society that the tools we are discussing are to help solve, and I think we are going about this in the wrong way. Question: What elements do these problems have in common that qualifies them as "complex problems" in the sense that we discuss them? What are the elements of tools that would assist people in attempting to solve these problems? I submit that one of the main elements that all of these problems have in common is that they all have large social or sociological components to them - a major part of the problem is getting all of the stakeholders involved to agree on whatever solution is proposed. These problems have technical components, but for the most part the technical aspects are solvable with sound (possibly large scale) engineering practices if it were possible to get any sort of effective agreement as to what would constitute a solution to the problem that all stakeholders could live with. In many instances all current efforts are opposed by some power group or other, and until that changes, no solution to the problem will be *permitted*. The fact that some power group or other has a vested interest in maintaining the problem, or is unwilling to take the actions required for a solution to be implemented is a sociological problem, and without a resolution of the sociological component of the "complex problem", no technical solution can possibly succeed. Utopian ideas are always predicated on the idea that "if everyone only acted thus and so, there wouldn't be a problem". The statement is often perfectly true but not relevant because the reality is that "you can't get there from here". Approaches that try to contradict reality will not work no matter how wonderful the intentions, nor how great the idea sounds, nor how wonderful things would be if only things were different. One would have thought that we would have figured that out by now, but that is apparently a utopian idea. On the other hand, when the workings of reality are correctly understood and actions taken in accord with those understandings, we get workable solutions that can be implemented. We are just now finding out that organic farming, once we understand and use enough elements of the system together, is far and away superior to the techniques we have been using. The technique of agroforestry that Eric Armstrong reported appears to do just this. The issue for solving complex problems then, is largely one of finding approaches that we haven't yet found to issues of getting people to cooperate in the discovery and implementation of solutions to the difficulties that we face, and then developing technical solutions that are rooted in reality rather than wishful thinking, and do not require the solution of even larger sociological problems. When a solution is such that it can be implemented by a small group or even a single individual whether the masses support it or not, then those that can learn and are more willing to adopt a new way than to continue to have the problem, then large problems can have local solutions which it is more difficult for the opposing or neutral majority to obstruct. Home schooling is one example. It is possible to bypass the disaster that is public education entirely rather than trying to get the people who are responsible for the problem to solve it. "There is nothing more difficult to carry out, nor more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to handle, than to initiate a new order of things. For the reformer has enemies in all who profit by the old order, and only luke-warm defenders in all those who would profit by the new order. This luke-warmness arises partly from fear of their adversaries, who have the law in their favor; and partly from the incredulity of mankind, who do not truly believe in anything new until they have had actual experience of it." -- Machiavelli in The Prince (1513) Notice the date - I see nothing to convince me that this problem has changed. Assertion: Any proposed solution to any problem that requires all people involved to agree on a single solution at the same time just because it is technically sound is doomed to fail. By contrast, there are examples of working solutions that were never designed but emerged from the actions of numerous individuals whose personal interests overlapped in at least that one area. Adam Smith wrote about "the invisible hand" in "The Wealth of Nations" and so this idea has been discussed mostly in terms of markets and economics. However, such things as language develop because all of the people involved find it to their benefit to be able to communicate. Common law is a result of the actions of individuals with a common desire for ways of conducting their affairs peacefully, dealing with those that are not peaceful, and resolving disputes by means other than violence. Conventions for use in email, netiquette, and newsgroup protocols evolve and are (loosely) enforced due to the actions of numerous individuals who have a shared interest in communicating over the internet. This is an aspect of sociological reality. It isn't necessary to like it, but disagreeing won't change the fact that it is true. So, rather than concoct all manner of grandiose schemes or fanciful philosophies that require reality to be different in order to work, I suggest that, if we are serious about developing tools to augment human intelligence in resolving "complex problems", that we concentrate on aspects of reality that can be validated and develop tools that allow individuals with common personal interests to solve their problems with respect to collaboration and productivity. Language and law evolved slowly because the experiments took a long time. Even after most of the principles were agreed upon, it took longer for them to be captured in any sort of "standard reference" so that anyone who wished could learn what was known about the common agreements. If we develop tools that allow the same sort of evolution to proceed at speed within groups that are interested in resolving *some* problem, working out the compromises and best approaches, and capturing both the results of the effort and the nature of the process in a form that is then accessible to all others interested in the solution, we will have contributed to mankind's ability to solve "complex problems" where there is a will to do so (where there is no will, no solution is possible). Since we are talking about augmentation of individuals and small groups, we are not necessarily talking about huge amounts of resources. This effort doesn't require the approval of the planet, only enough agreement amongst those interested in solving the problem of creating tools that are useful in this context. The initial solutions do not have to scale to millions of people because millions of people aren't going to use them at once and get anything done. Question: What are the elements (features) of a software tool that will support this sort of activity well enough to allow individuals and other groups to get on with the problem of solving "complex problems"? Some of these we know, and some can be extracted from the problem statement. * An individual must be able to use the tool on his own machine(s) to capture, organize, and manipulate information, turning it into a useful repository of personal knowledge. * An individual must be able to publish some or all of the results of his thinking to a wide (public) audience. * An individual must be able to join with other individuals with interests in the same problem domain to manage and evolve their shared information and knowledge jointly using the same sort of organization that works for him as an individual. * Any individual may belong to multiple groups. The individual must have complete, simple control over what he shares and with whom. * Groups must have joint control over who is a part of the group. The group must be able to remove anyone who "doesn't play nice with others". * The tools must stay out of the way as much as possible - provide maximum benefit for minimum extra energy. The benefits should arise while doing the work that needs to be done rather than because of doing extra work. * The tool must provide retrieval of the information and its relationships is as many ways as can be done easily enough to justify the work. I had started to develop design elements, but decided that this is far too early in the cycle to be doing that. Summary: I assert that: * Any proposed solution to any problem that is not based in reality will not work, no matter how many other supposed merits it may have. * "Solutions" are produced by individuals with common personal interests working in small groups with an intention to produce a workable result. * To be effective, any tool to augment human intelligence must support the individual and the groups that he chooses to join because of his own personal interests. * The OHS group presumably constitutes or contains at least one such group. * We need to start by building tools that will support the concepts given above for ourselves, if only because "you must operate where you are, you cannot operate where you are not". * If we who have an intense interest in such tools cannot agree on what should be built *for ourselves* and get it done, there is no point at all in lamenting the "complex problems" that remain in the world and the fact that we don't know how to build tools to solve them. * If we do build a set of tools that aids us in collaborating on the "complex problem" of building a set of tools with which we are (mostly) satisfied for ourselves, we will have made a significant, and perhaps the only possible, step toward tools that help in solving the "complex problems" of the world. Thanks, Garold (Gary) L. Johnson From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Sun Jul 21 02:45:01 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 82F4256FF7; Sun, 21 Jul 2002 02:45:00 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from mail.chariot.net.au (mail.chariot.net.au [203.87.95.38]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3F8FE56FF5 for ; Sun, 21 Jul 2002 02:44:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (ppp-015.cust203-87-114.ghr.chariot.net.au [203.87.114.15]) by mail.chariot.net.au (Postfix) with ESMTP id E5021180463 for ; Sun, 21 Jul 2002 19:32:07 +0930 (CST) Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 19:32:07 +0930 Subject: Re: [ba-unrev-talk] New Semantic Networks Product Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v482) From: stephen white To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <4.2.2.20020720131116.02644d20@thinkalong.com> Message-Id: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.482) Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org On Sunday, July 21, 2002, at 05:44 AM, Jack Park wrote: > http://www.semanticresearch.com > "A semantic network is fundamentally a system for capturing, storing > and transferring information that works much the same as (and is, in > fact, modeled after) the human brain. It is robust, efficient and > flexible. It is also the basis for many efforts to produce artificial > intelligence. I've tried to download this software but the web site seems flaky. What is missing from this that it doesn't qualify as the breakthrough software? -- spwhite@chariot.net.au From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Sun Jul 21 07:18:52 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 2F8AD56FF8; Sun, 21 Jul 2002 07:18:52 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from mail.101freeway.net (mail.101freeway.net [12.44.112.15]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id AC88756FF7 for ; Sun, 21 Jul 2002 07:18:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 22548 invoked from network); 21 Jul 2002 14:35:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO minerva) (10.1.17.76) by mail.101freeway.com with SMTP; 21 Jul 2002 14:35:50 -0000 From: "Garold (Gary) L. Johnson" To: "Ba-Unrev-Talk" , Subject: RE: [ba-unrev-talk] An important interview Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 07:37:15 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Dennis, > Not too long at all. > > Thank you. > > I'm not all that sanguine that skunk-works projects always work > and I am not > sure that it is always the effective model. There is *nothing* that *always* works. Having said that, I can say that to get really good solutions, there must not be anyone in the group whose ideas must be accepted because of *who* they are rather than the value of the idea in terms of addressing the problem to be solved, and that "skunk works" level projects seem to be most capable of doing this. As with Extreme Programming, it is by no means certain that this scales up, partly because we have yet to learn to create effective groups intentionally and repeatably an on any scale. > At the same time, I get that managing lines of communication and operating > inside of a shared commitment are very important. It is possible to have groups without good communication or commitment, but I don't think it is possible to have a *team* without them > > Most of all, I think it is about people being masters of their > own destinies > and empowering themselves to make a difference. Individual empowerment is one of the most important aspects of a truly effective team. Contributions have to be supported and valued > > So, having expressed my few reservations, I say discussions like yours are > indispensable. Thank you for being moved to write it out. Thank you for responding. I hope it helps a bit. Garold (Gary) Johnson From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Sun Jul 21 10:13:23 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id CED7856FF9; Sun, 21 Jul 2002 10:13:22 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from cmailg4.svr.pol.co.uk (cmailg4.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.195.174]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9121456FF8 for ; Sun, 21 Jul 2002 10:13:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from modem-364.sponger.dialup.pol.co.uk ([62.25.217.108] helo=vaio) by cmailg4.svr.pol.co.uk with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17WKXL-0008O7-00 for ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org; Sun, 21 Jul 2002 18:30:28 +0100 Message-ID: <005301c230dc$03791340$6cd9193e@vaio> From: "Peter Jones" To: References: Subject: Re: [ba-unrev-talk] An important interview Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 18:24:40 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Garold's essay is superlative in the main. But there was one piece that chilled my blood a little: > * Groups must have joint control over who is a part of the group. The group > must be able to remove anyone who "doesn't play nice with others". That's a tricky one. A means of restoring order is simultaneously one of denying representation. Unfortunately, that is one of the persistent uglinesses in the history of humankind. Perhaps all groups should be open and if a call for removal is made, another three groups should be chosen at random to assess the call? -- Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: "Garold (Gary) L. Johnson" To: Sent: Sunday, July 21, 2002 12:17 AM Subject: RE: [ba-unrev-talk] An important interview > This is long, but I think it all needs to be said (or at least I feel a need > to say it). > > Jack Park quoted: > http://www.linuxandmain.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=141 > "There are a few genuine legends in the Linux community, and among them is > an Aussie named Carsten Haitzler. Who? [snip] > > "When projects get too big people spend more time in politics (talking on > mailing lists and waiting for others) than actually doing something useful. > Generally, splitting something up, not autonomous units, and have them work > on their own and just end up working in unison ends up more efficient, > imho. This still means people have to agree how they interface, but again, > imho, the "benevolent dictator" method when one or a very small number > decide the important bits (the glue between the parts) and then let the > rest roll. I also don't see "the more the better" as better. Too many cooks > spoil the broth. Sometimes one or two really good people will easily beat > 10 or 20 average ones only working on something in their spare time. I > personally prefer the "crack troops" style. Get five or six really good > people and they can do a lot. Hundreds of part-timers, imho, don't work as > well." > I completely agree on the superiority of small, capable, committed groups > over sheer numbers. This is why I keep pushing for tools that support > personal organization and collaboration within small groups as an essential > starting point for any augmentation effort. > Ideas and solutions originate in individual brains. Environments that > support collaboration of comparably capable people can foster and support > the generation of ideas, but ideas are still individual. > In the current state of the art for technical development, we are still not > sure of all the elements that allow a "skunk works" to achieve the > phenomenal results that it does, but it appears to be the case that no other > form of organization is as efficient at problem solving. Gather talented > people with experience in the problem domain and necessary technical skills, > explain the problem to be solved well enough so that what you hear back is > consistent with what you thought you said, and then get out of their way. > Management of such a group then involves removing any barriers to production > and checking from time to time to see that the problem(s) they are > addressing are still the ones that need solving. > This method works, and hardly anything else does. We can complain that "it > shouldn't be that way", but complaining won't change the facts. Given the > facts, I submit that tools should focus on providing the support that will > allow talented individuals and small groups to collaborate in a more > productive fashion. Some of those groups will tackle larger problems with a > base of how to foster productive cooperation, and the larger problems will > get better approaches if not solutions. > The problems pointed out in the site that Eric Armstrong referenced, > http://www.well.com/~doctorow/metacrap.htm which deals with metadata, > impacts every activity of a large group. Expecting to solve problems by > simply having tens of thousands of people chime in with opinions will not > work except that it may allow individuals to find others with whom they can > form a working group that can actually produce something. > > I reviewed a partial list of what have been classified as the "complex > problems" facing society that the tools we are discussing are to help solve, > and I think we are going about this in the wrong way. > > Question: What elements do these problems have in common that qualifies them > as "complex problems" in the sense that we discuss them? What are the > elements of tools that would assist people in attempting to solve these > problems? > > I submit that one of the main elements that all of these problems have in > common is that they all have large social or sociological components to > them - a major part of the problem is getting all of the stakeholders > involved to agree on whatever solution is proposed. These problems have > technical components, but for the most part the technical aspects are > solvable with sound (possibly large scale) engineering practices if it were > possible to get any sort of effective agreement as to what would constitute > a solution to the problem that all stakeholders could live with. > > In many instances all current efforts are opposed by some power group or > other, and until that changes, no solution to the problem will be > *permitted*. The fact that some power group or other has a vested interest > in maintaining the problem, or is unwilling to take the actions required for > a solution to be implemented is a sociological problem, and without a > resolution of the sociological component of the "complex problem", no > technical solution can possibly succeed. > > Utopian ideas are always predicated on the idea that "if everyone only acted > thus and so, there wouldn't be a problem". The statement is often perfectly > true but not relevant because the reality is that "you can't get there from > here". Approaches that try to contradict reality will not work no matter how > wonderful the intentions, nor how great the idea sounds, nor how wonderful > things would be if only things were different. One would have thought that > we would have figured that out by now, but that is apparently a utopian > idea. > > On the other hand, when the workings of reality are correctly understood and > actions taken in accord with those understandings, we get workable solutions > that can be implemented. We are just now finding out that organic farming, > once we understand and use enough elements of the system together, is far > and away superior to the techniques we have been using. The technique of > agroforestry that Eric Armstrong reported appears to do just this. > > The issue for solving complex problems then, is largely one of finding > approaches that we haven't yet found to issues of getting people to > cooperate in the discovery and implementation of solutions to the > difficulties that we face, and then developing technical solutions that are > rooted in reality rather than wishful thinking, and do not require the > solution of even larger sociological problems. > > When a solution is such that it can be implemented by a small group or even > a single individual whether the masses support it or not, then those that > can learn and are more willing to adopt a new way than to continue to have > the problem, then large problems can have local solutions which it is more > difficult for the opposing or neutral majority to obstruct. Home schooling > is one example. It is possible to bypass the disaster that is public > education entirely rather than trying to get the people who are responsible > for the problem to solve it. > > "There is nothing more difficult to carry out, nor more doubtful of success, > nor more dangerous to handle, than to initiate a new order of things. For > the reformer has enemies in all who profit by the old order, and only > luke-warm defenders in all those who would profit by the new order. This > luke-warmness arises partly from fear of their adversaries, who have the law > in their favor; and partly from the incredulity of mankind, who do not truly > believe in anything new until they have had actual experience of it." > -- Machiavelli in The Prince (1513) > Notice the date - I see nothing to convince me that this problem has > changed. > Assertion: Any proposed solution to any problem that requires all people > involved to agree on a single solution at the same time just because it is > technically sound is doomed to fail. > By contrast, there are examples of working solutions that were never > designed but emerged from the actions of numerous individuals whose personal > interests overlapped in at least that one area. Adam Smith wrote about "the > invisible hand" in "The Wealth of Nations" and so this idea has been > discussed mostly in terms of markets and economics. However, such things as > language develop because all of the people involved find it to their benefit > to be able to communicate. Common law is a result of the actions of > individuals with a common desire for ways of conducting their affairs > peacefully, dealing with those that are not peaceful, and resolving disputes > by means other than violence. Conventions for use in email, netiquette, and > newsgroup protocols evolve and are (loosely) enforced due to the actions of > numerous individuals who have a shared interest in communicating over the > internet. > This is an aspect of sociological reality. It isn't necessary to like it, > but disagreeing won't change the fact that it is true. > So, rather than concoct all manner of grandiose schemes or fanciful > philosophies that require reality to be different in order to work, I > suggest that, if we are serious about developing tools to augment human > intelligence in resolving "complex problems", that we concentrate on aspects > of reality that can be validated and develop tools that allow individuals > with common personal interests to solve their problems with respect to > collaboration and productivity. > Language and law evolved slowly because the experiments took a long time. > Even after most of the principles were agreed upon, it took longer for them > to be captured in any sort of "standard reference" so that anyone who wished > could learn what was known about the common agreements. If we develop tools > that allow the same sort of evolution to proceed at speed within groups that > are interested in resolving *some* problem, working out the compromises and > best approaches, and capturing both the results of the effort and the nature > of the process in a form that is then accessible to all others interested in > the solution, we will have contributed to mankind's ability to solve > "complex problems" where there is a will to do so (where there is no will, > no solution is possible). > > Since we are talking about augmentation of individuals and small groups, we > are not necessarily talking about huge amounts of resources. This effort > doesn't require the approval of the planet, only enough agreement amongst > those interested in solving the problem of creating tools that are useful in > this context. The initial solutions do not have to scale to millions of > people because millions of people aren't going to use them at once and get > anything done. > Question: What are the elements (features) of a software tool that will > support this sort of activity well enough to allow individuals and other > groups to get on with the problem of solving "complex problems"? > Some of these we know, and some can be extracted from the problem statement. > * An individual must be able to use the tool on his own machine(s) to > capture, organize, and manipulate information, turning it into a useful > repository of personal knowledge. > * An individual must be able to publish some or all of the results of his > thinking to a wide (public) audience. > * An individual must be able to join with other individuals with interests > in the same problem domain to manage and evolve their shared information and > knowledge jointly using the same sort of organization that works for him as > an individual. > * Any individual may belong to multiple groups. The individual must have > complete, simple control over what he shares and with whom. > * Groups must have joint control over who is a part of the group. The group > must be able to remove anyone who "doesn't play nice with others". > * The tools must stay out of the way as much as possible - provide maximum > benefit for minimum extra energy. The benefits should arise while doing the > work that needs to be done rather than because of doing extra work. > * The tool must provide retrieval of the information and its relationships > is as many ways as can be done easily enough to justify the work. > > I had started to develop design elements, but decided that this is far too > early in the cycle to be doing that. > Summary: > I assert that: > * Any proposed solution to any problem that is not based in reality will not > work, no matter how many other supposed merits it may have. > * "Solutions" are produced by individuals with common personal interests > working in small groups with an intention to produce a workable result. > * To be effective, any tool to augment human intelligence must support the > individual and the groups that he chooses to join because of his own > personal interests. > * The OHS group presumably constitutes or contains at least one such group. > * We need to start by building tools that will support the concepts given > above for ourselves, if only because "you must operate where you are, you > cannot operate where you are not". > * If we who have an intense interest in such tools cannot agree on what > should be built *for ourselves* and get it done, there is no point at all in > lamenting the "complex problems" that remain in the world and the fact that > we don't know how to build tools to solve them. > * If we do build a set of tools that aids us in collaborating on the > "complex problem" of building a set of tools with which we are (mostly) > satisfied for ourselves, we will have made a significant, and perhaps the > only possible, step toward tools that help in solving the "complex problems" > of the world. > > Thanks, > > Garold (Gary) L. Johnson > > From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Sun Jul 21 10:55:40 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 93A6956FFA; Sun, 21 Jul 2002 10:55:39 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from cream.kiva.net (cust-216-9-146-10.bton.kiva.net [216.9.146.10]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D7D3B56FF9 for ; Sun, 21 Jul 2002 10:55:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (cdent@localhost) by cream.kiva.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g6LI8aO10159 for ; Sun, 21 Jul 2002 13:08:36 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: cream.kiva.net: cdent owned process doing -bs Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 13:08:36 -0500 (EST) From: X-X-Sender: Cc: Subject: RE: [ba-unrev-talk] further research and thinking related to unrev-ii archive In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org On Thu, 18 Jul 2002, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > Thanks for this, and explaining the insight. I didn't catch it when > skimming the paper. Thank you very much for the further comments. > So it looks like we will bull along until exhausted or some deeper > understanding arrives. Whichever comes first. Maybe the 80-20 rule will > prevail and we get enough for now without trying to solve it all. This is what we (people, everyone) do, in some way. We muddle along, and at least some of the time we are inspired to try and do our best. Understanding comes in trickles, dribbles and sometimes torrents. This is part of the reason why I think inquiry needs, at least in part, to eschew overly constraining formal structures. Of course we need the constraint and support of formal methods to confirm "science" but we also need structures that support the loose noodling that brings about mutation. > Has your work given you a view on a pro-active approach? I notice I am > mostly resigned about it. >From a technology standpoint I'm completely resigned (at the moment). I think we can build tools which help us to manage and use information, but human factors (individual, social, economic) are the main issues. Simply put, people have to want to be better and do more in order to be better and do more. To believe in improvement and training. The work that Kathryn and I have done has been most productive in the discovery we experienced after sharing the first draft with other people. It took us off on a road that we did not expect, on a long trip, and back around to where we had been in the first place, newly confident. What we learned on that long trip we could milk as our research focus for the rest of our academic careers. Those sorts of long trips are not well supported by the "harsh realities" of much of modern research and development. Focus is supported by the "harsh realities", and I find that a little hard to bear. -- Chris Dent http://www.burningchrome.com/~cdent/ "If you assume that there is an instinct for freedom, that there are opportunities to change things, that hope is possible, then hope may be justified, and a better world may be built. That's your choice.'' N.Chomsky From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Sun Jul 21 13:53:21 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 6254456FF3; Sun, 21 Jul 2002 13:53:21 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from mail8.svr.pol.co.uk (mail8.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.193.213]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6795B56FF2 for ; Sun, 21 Jul 2002 13:53:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from modem-378.pounder.dialup.pol.co.uk ([62.25.213.122] helo=vaio) by mail8.svr.pol.co.uk with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17WNyF-0002ht-00 for ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org; Sun, 21 Jul 2002 22:10:27 +0100 Message-ID: <000901c230fa$be8464a0$7ad5193e@vaio> From: "Peter Jones" To: Subject: [ba-unrev-talk] ActForChange.com Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 22:08:19 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org An interesting website: http://www.workingforchange.com/help/act4c_faq.cfm "What is ActforChange? WorkingforChange links up opportunities for progressive activism, philanthropy and volunteerism with daily news stories. ActforChange works in tandem with WorkingforChange by making it easy for progressive people to become online activists. Here's how it works: ActforChange provides you with summaries of the most cutting-edge, political issues of the day and identifies a political decision-maker that can do something about the problem. We make it easy for you to weigh-in on the issue by providing a sample e-mail that can be sent directly from the site. " -- Peter From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Sun Jul 21 14:39:28 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 1268956FF3; Sun, 21 Jul 2002 14:39:27 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from mail.101freeway.net (mail.101freeway.net [12.44.112.15]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7B1B356FF2 for ; Sun, 21 Jul 2002 14:39:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 67189 invoked from network); 21 Jul 2002 21:56:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO minerva) (10.1.17.76) by mail.101freeway.com with SMTP; 21 Jul 2002 21:56:26 -0000 From: "Garold (Gary) L. Johnson" To: Subject: RE: [ba-unrev-talk] An important interview Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 14:57:54 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) In-Reply-To: <005301c230dc$03791340$6cd9193e@vaio> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org It is indeed a tricky one, but I have seen group after group subverted and destroyed because the members believed that everybody was nice and loving and valued the same things that they did. The collaborating groups I am discussing are *voluntary* associations, and if there is no way of handling disruptive members the only alternative is for everyone else to leave. Egroup members are removed for violation of the rules, individuals are fired from companies for cause, friends can cease to be friends when their behavior is too destructive, even relationships with relatives can cease - if a group loses the ability to modify its membership it is in trouble. In any case I am speaking of a technical issue rather than a social one - the membership of a peer-to-peer networked group must be controllable. What use people choose to make of that feature is up to the sociology of the group. It was not my intent to imply that this be the only means of restoring order, only that the technical ability exits. Thanks, Garold (Gary) L. Johnson -----Original Message----- From: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org [mailto:owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org]On Behalf Of Peter Jones Sent: Sunday, July 21, 2002 10:25 AM To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: Re: [ba-unrev-talk] An important interview Garold's essay is superlative in the main. But there was one piece that chilled my blood a little: > * Groups must have joint control over who is a part of the group. The group > must be able to remove anyone who "doesn't play nice with others". That's a tricky one. A means of restoring order is simultaneously one of denying representation. Unfortunately, that is one of the persistent uglinesses in the history of humankind. Perhaps all groups should be open and if a call for removal is made, another three groups should be chosen at random to assess the call? -- Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: "Garold (Gary) L. Johnson" To: Sent: Sunday, July 21, 2002 12:17 AM Subject: RE: [ba-unrev-talk] An important interview > This is long, but I think it all needs to be said (or at least I feel a need > to say it). > > Jack Park quoted: > http://www.linuxandmain.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=141 > "There are a few genuine legends in the Linux community, and among them is > an Aussie named Carsten Haitzler. Who? [snip] > > "When projects get too big people spend more time in politics (talking on > mailing lists and waiting for others) than actually doing something useful. > Generally, splitting something up, not autonomous units, and have them work > on their own and just end up working in unison ends up more efficient, > imho. This still means people have to agree how they interface, but again, > imho, the "benevolent dictator" method when one or a very small number > decide the important bits (the glue between the parts) and then let the > rest roll. I also don't see "the more the better" as better. Too many cooks > spoil the broth. Sometimes one or two really good people will easily beat > 10 or 20 average ones only working on something in their spare time. I > personally prefer the "crack troops" style. Get five or six really good > people and they can do a lot. Hundreds of part-timers, imho, don't work as > well." > I completely agree on the superiority of small, capable, committed groups > over sheer numbers. This is why I keep pushing for tools that support > personal organization and collaboration within small groups as an essential > starting point for any augmentation effort. > Ideas and solutions originate in individual brains. Environments that > support collaboration of comparably capable people can foster and support > the generation of ideas, but ideas are still individual. > In the current state of the art for technical development, we are still not > sure of all the elements that allow a "skunk works" to achieve the > phenomenal results that it does, but it appears to be the case that no other > form of organization is as efficient at problem solving. Gather talented > people with experience in the problem domain and necessary technical skills, > explain the problem to be solved well enough so that what you hear back is > consistent with what you thought you said, and then get out of their way. > Management of such a group then involves removing any barriers to production > and checking from time to time to see that the problem(s) they are > addressing are still the ones that need solving. > This method works, and hardly anything else does. We can complain that "it > shouldn't be that way", but complaining won't change the facts. Given the > facts, I submit that tools should focus on providing the support that will > allow talented individuals and small groups to collaborate in a more > productive fashion. Some of those groups will tackle larger problems with a > base of how to foster productive cooperation, and the larger problems will > get better approaches if not solutions. > The problems pointed out in the site that Eric Armstrong referenced, > http://www.well.com/~doctorow/metacrap.htm which deals with metadata, > impacts every activity of a large group. Expecting to solve problems by > simply having tens of thousands of people chime in with opinions will not > work except that it may allow individuals to find others with whom they can > form a working group that can actually produce something. > > I reviewed a partial list of what have been classified as the "complex > problems" facing society that the tools we are discussing are to help solve, > and I think we are going about this in the wrong way. > > Question: What elements do these problems have in common that qualifies them > as "complex problems" in the sense that we discuss them? What are the > elements of tools that would assist people in attempting to solve these > problems? > > I submit that one of the main elements that all of these problems have in > common is that they all have large social or sociological components to > them - a major part of the problem is getting all of the stakeholders > involved to agree on whatever solution is proposed. These problems have > technical components, but for the most part the technical aspects are > solvable with sound (possibly large scale) engineering practices if it were > possible to get any sort of effective agreement as to what would constitute > a solution to the problem that all stakeholders could live with. > > In many instances all current efforts are opposed by some power group or > other, and until that changes, no solution to the problem will be > *permitted*. The fact that some power group or other has a vested interest > in maintaining the problem, or is unwilling to take the actions required for > a solution to be implemented is a sociological problem, and without a > resolution of the sociological component of the "complex problem", no > technical solution can possibly succeed. > > Utopian ideas are always predicated on the idea that "if everyone only acted > thus and so, there wouldn't be a problem". The statement is often perfectly > true but not relevant because the reality is that "you can't get there from > here". Approaches that try to contradict reality will not work no matter how > wonderful the intentions, nor how great the idea sounds, nor how wonderful > things would be if only things were different. One would have thought that > we would have figured that out by now, but that is apparently a utopian > idea. > > On the other hand, when the workings of reality are correctly understood and > actions taken in accord with those understandings, we get workable solutions > that can be implemented. We are just now finding out that organic farming, > once we understand and use enough elements of the system together, is far > and away superior to the techniques we have been using. The technique of > agroforestry that Eric Armstrong reported appears to do just this. > > The issue for solving complex problems then, is largely one of finding > approaches that we haven't yet found to issues of getting people to > cooperate in the discovery and implementation of solutions to the > difficulties that we face, and then developing technical solutions that are > rooted in reality rather than wishful thinking, and do not require the > solution of even larger sociological problems. > > When a solution is such that it can be implemented by a small group or even > a single individual whether the masses support it or not, then those that > can learn and are more willing to adopt a new way than to continue to have > the problem, then large problems can have local solutions which it is more > difficult for the opposing or neutral majority to obstruct. Home schooling > is one example. It is possible to bypass the disaster that is public > education entirely rather than trying to get the people who are responsible > for the problem to solve it. > > "There is nothing more difficult to carry out, nor more doubtful of success, > nor more dangerous to handle, than to initiate a new order of things. For > the reformer has enemies in all who profit by the old order, and only > luke-warm defenders in all those who would profit by the new order. This > luke-warmness arises partly from fear of their adversaries, who have the law > in their favor; and partly from the incredulity of mankind, who do not truly > believe in anything new until they have had actual experience of it." > -- Machiavelli in The Prince (1513) > Notice the date - I see nothing to convince me that this problem has > changed. > Assertion: Any proposed solution to any problem that requires all people > involved to agree on a single solution at the same time just because it is > technically sound is doomed to fail. > By contrast, there are examples of working solutions that were never > designed but emerged from the actions of numerous individuals whose personal > interests overlapped in at least that one area. Adam Smith wrote about "the > invisible hand" in "The Wealth of Nations" and so this idea has been > discussed mostly in terms of markets and economics. However, such things as > language develop because all of the people involved find it to their benefit > to be able to communicate. Common law is a result of the actions of > individuals with a common desire for ways of conducting their affairs > peacefully, dealing with those that are not peaceful, and resolving disputes > by means other than violence. Conventions for use in email, netiquette, and > newsgroup protocols evolve and are (loosely) enforced due to the actions of > numerous individuals who have a shared interest in communicating over the > internet. > This is an aspect of sociological reality. It isn't necessary to like it, > but disagreeing won't change the fact that it is true. > So, rather than concoct all manner of grandiose schemes or fanciful > philosophies that require reality to be different in order to work, I > suggest that, if we are serious about developing tools to augment human > intelligence in resolving "complex problems", that we concentrate on aspects > of reality that can be validated and develop tools that allow individuals > with common personal interests to solve their problems with respect to > collaboration and productivity. > Language and law evolved slowly because the experiments took a long time. > Even after most of the principles were agreed upon, it took longer for them > to be captured in any sort of "standard reference" so that anyone who wished > could learn what was known about the common agreements. If we develop tools > that allow the same sort of evolution to proceed at speed within groups that > are interested in resolving *some* problem, working out the compromises and > best approaches, and capturing both the results of the effort and the nature > of the process in a form that is then accessible to all others interested in > the solution, we will have contributed to mankind's ability to solve > "complex problems" where there is a will to do so (where there is no will, > no solution is possible). > > Since we are talking about augmentation of individuals and small groups, we > are not necessarily talking about huge amounts of resources. This effort > doesn't require the approval of the planet, only enough agreement amongst > those interested in solving the problem of creating tools that are useful in > this context. The initial solutions do not have to scale to millions of > people because millions of people aren't going to use them at once and get > anything done. > Question: What are the elements (features) of a software tool that will > support this sort of activity well enough to allow individuals and other > groups to get on with the problem of solving "complex problems"? > Some of these we know, and some can be extracted from the problem statement. > * An individual must be able to use the tool on his own machine(s) to > capture, organize, and manipulate information, turning it into a useful > repository of personal knowledge. > * An individual must be able to publish some or all of the results of his > thinking to a wide (public) audience. > * An individual must be able to join with other individuals with interests > in the same problem domain to manage and evolve their shared information and > knowledge jointly using the same sort of organization that works for him as > an individual. > * Any individual may belong to multiple groups. The individual must have > complete, simple control over what he shares and with whom. > * Groups must have joint control over who is a part of the group. The group > must be able to remove anyone who "doesn't play nice with others". > * The tools must stay out of the way as much as possible - provide maximum > benefit for minimum extra energy. The benefits should arise while doing the > work that needs to be done rather than because of doing extra work. > * The tool must provide retrieval of the information and its relationships > is as many ways as can be done easily enough to justify the work. > > I had started to develop design elements, but decided that this is far too > early in the cycle to be doing that. > Summary: > I assert that: > * Any proposed solution to any problem that is not based in reality will not > work, no matter how many other supposed merits it may have. > * "Solutions" are produced by individuals with common personal interests > working in small groups with an intention to produce a workable result. > * To be effective, any tool to augment human intelligence must support the > individual and the groups that he chooses to join because of his own > personal interests. > * The OHS group presumably constitutes or contains at least one such group. > * We need to start by building tools that will support the concepts given > above for ourselves, if only because "you must operate where you are, you > cannot operate where you are not". > * If we who have an intense interest in such tools cannot agree on what > should be built *for ourselves* and get it done, there is no point at all in > lamenting the "complex problems" that remain in the world and the fact that > we don't know how to build tools to solve them. > * If we do build a set of tools that aids us in collaborating on the > "complex problem" of building a set of tools with which we are (mostly) > satisfied for ourselves, we will have made a significant, and perhaps the > only possible, step toward tools that help in solving the "complex problems" > of the world. > > Thanks, > > Garold (Gary) L. Johnson > > From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Sun Jul 21 23:10:20 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 4DBC956FF3; Sun, 21 Jul 2002 23:10:20 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from woody.grantbow.com (12-233-20-180.client.attbi.com [12.233.20.180]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 033C256FF2 for ; Sun, 21 Jul 2002 23:10:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grantbow by woody.grantbow.com with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17WWfF-00005j-00 for ; Sun, 21 Jul 2002 23:27:25 -0700 Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2002 23:27:24 -0700 From: Grant Bowman To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: [ba-unrev-talk] Edge: Howard Rheingold on Smart Mobs Message-ID: <20020722062724.GA341@grantbow.com> Mail-Followup-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Here's another item that describes the core ideas behind Howard Rheingold's new book. His book is shipping yet, but it should be soon. He also has a thriving online community. http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/rheingold/rheingold_print.html http://www.rheingold.com/community.html -- -- Grant Bowman From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Mon Jul 22 11:43:55 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 7B99656FF3; Mon, 22 Jul 2002 11:43:54 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from mail.101freeway.net (mail.101freeway.net [12.44.112.15]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0470356FF2 for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2002 11:43:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 31987 invoked from network); 22 Jul 2002 15:50:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO minerva) (10.1.17.76) by mail.101freeway.com with SMTP; 22 Jul 2002 15:50:54 -0000 From: "Garold (Gary) L. Johnson" To: Subject: RE: [ba-unrev-talk] Edge: Howard Rheingold on Smart Mobs Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 08:52:31 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <20020722062724.GA341@grantbow.com> Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org One paragraph caught my attention as being particularly relevant to our efforts: On the other hand, when cooperation breaks out, civilizations advance and the lives of citizens improve. This is the big opportunity of smart mobs. Language, the alphabet, cities, the printing press did not eliminate poverty or injustice, but they did make it possible for groups of people to create cooperative enterprises such as science and democracy that increased the health, welfare, and liberty of many. He is talking about tools that enable cooperation - they don't, themselves, solve the world's problems, but they do empower those who are willing to try. Thanks, Garold (Gary) L. Johnson -----Original Message----- From: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org [mailto:owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org]On Behalf Of Grant Bowman Sent: Sunday, July 21, 2002 11:27 PM To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: [ba-unrev-talk] Edge: Howard Rheingold on Smart Mobs Here's another item that describes the core ideas behind Howard Rheingold's new book. His book is shipping yet, but it should be soon. He also has a thriving online community. http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/rheingold/rheingold_print.html http://www.rheingold.com/community.html -- -- Grant Bowman From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Mon Jul 22 11:49:33 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 4F83456FF4; Mon, 22 Jul 2002 11:49:33 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from mail.101freeway.net (mail.101freeway.net [12.44.112.15]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id CC79756FF3 for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2002 11:49:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 95296 invoked from network); 22 Jul 2002 17:21:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO minerva) (10.1.17.76) by mail.101freeway.com with SMTP; 22 Jul 2002 17:21:11 -0000 From: "Garold (Gary) L. Johnson" To: Subject: RE: [ba-unrev-talk] Edge: Howard Rheingold on Smart Mobs Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 10:22:49 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <20020722062724.GA341@grantbow.com> Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Possibly only peripherally related but still fascinating is this article on the use of agents in simulation to try to understand how societies operate. http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/04/rauch.htm A summarizing quote: "To me, the early results of this work suggest that social engineering can never be as effective as liberals hope, but also that it need not be as clumsy as conservatives insist." This article references the work of the Santa Fe Institute on mechanisms of order evolving out of chaos. While agent simulations cannot predict societal behavior, the elements used do give some insights. When agents are endowed with plausible differences and their knowledge is limited to what they can see and what their local networks can tell them, macro behavior occurs which would lead one to believe that the "motivation" of the agents is dramatically different than that which was programmed. The simulations that show that a preference for neighbors of the same color that is only 1 out of 4 leads to segregated clusters that, on casual inspection, appear to be the result of rampant racism. Combined with some of the ideas from Smart Mobs which are clearly instances of independent agents in cooperative interact, there is definite food for thought. One implication for our efforts is that it is very unlikely that we can determine any global feat of social engineering that will solve any of the "complex problems" that are of interest; we cannot even determine with any degree of certainty what impact any augmentation tool or tools will have on those who use it. Given that, we can expect that the best we can do is to take our best shot at creating useful tools, make them available to people who will use them to cooperate with other individuals and groups, which will produce results over which we have no control and which we cannot predict. In the simulations, global knowledge and predictive capability on the part of the agents dramatically affects the way the simulations evolve - still in unpredictable ways. Even so, the experiments on artificial genocides, the difference in the actions of peacekeepers makes definite differences in outcomes - passive reactivity proves uniformly ineffective in preventing the "tipping" phenomenon while proactive agents can prevent the "tipping". This doesn't imply that everything should be "action before the fact" but that, perhaps, the "one size fits all" approach is less workable than treating the areas that are really problems. I hope you find as much food for thought in the combination of this article and the one on mart mobs as I did. Thanks, Garold (Gary) L. Johnson -----Original Message----- From: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org [mailto:owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org]On Behalf Of Grant Bowman Sent: Sunday, July 21, 2002 11:27 PM To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: [ba-unrev-talk] Edge: Howard Rheingold on Smart Mobs Here's another item that describes the core ideas behind Howard Rheingold's new book. His book is shipping yet, but it should be soon. He also has a thriving online community. http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/rheingold/rheingold_print.html http://www.rheingold.com/community.html -- -- Grant Bowman From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Mon Jul 22 12:29:40 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id B106556FF7; Mon, 22 Jul 2002 12:29:39 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from pheriche.sun.com (pheriche.sun.com [192.18.98.34]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1B2E156FF4 for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2002 12:29:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM ([129.145.155.51]) by pheriche.sun.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id NAA12703 for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2002 13:46:46 -0600 (MDT) Received: from sun.com (d-usca14-129-126 [129.145.129.126]) by ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM (8.11.6+Sun/8.10.2/ENSMAIL,v2.1p1) with ESMTP id g6MJkjC08963 for ; Mon, 22 Jul 2002 12:46:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3D3C6124.DB40A17@sun.com> Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002 12:46:45 -0700 From: Eric Armstrong X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: Re: [ba-unrev-talk] An important interview References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org EXCELLENT post. Just a few tidbits by way of comment: a) Skunkworks do indeed work better than any known alternative, as you suggest. See previous post wrt "Manhattan Project". A skunkworks project is, in effect, a mini-Manhattan. b) Your design goals are superb. To encapsulate a bit: 1) Make it possible for collaborators to find each other. 2) Make it possible for them to collaborate and share info. 3) Give them control over who can collaborate with them. 4) Make it possible to publish the results. c) As for "getting everyone to agree", I think the kind of system we have been envisioning holds an answer: Ratings. Further notes on that topics: 1) It recently dawned on me that any ratings system needs *dimensions*. Ratings are relative on a given dimension, and it must be possible to change one's rating as new alternatives are encountered, but it should be possible to rate something high on performance, but low on use of use, for example. A single global rating is of very little practical use. 2) Although "collaboration" is a small-group process, "knowledge-sharing" is a large-group process. Hence your astute observation that the ability to publish results is a key aspect of a usable system. 3) Given multiple collabGroups posting results (as on sourceforge, for example, the existence of ratings lets the cream rise to the top. 4) The "chicken and egg" effect, where the first item in a list is the most popular because it is seen most often, is *desirable*. It gives an advantage to those who share useful stuff early. 5) On the other hand, a sufficiently better idea or implementation can still wind up with a higher rating, overtaking the early leader. 6) The "tipping effect", where people gravitate towards a solution that eventually becomes the standard, can take the place of a requirement that everyone agree beforehand. "Garold (Gary) L. Johnson" wrote: > This is long, but I think it all needs to be said (or at least I feel a need > to say it). > > Jack Park quoted: > http://www.linuxandmain.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=141 > "There are a few genuine legends in the Linux community, and among them is > an Aussie named Carsten Haitzler. Who? [snip] > > "When projects get too big people spend more time in politics (talking on > mailing lists and waiting for others) than actually doing something useful. > Generally, splitting something up, not autonomous units, and have them work > on their own and just end up working in unison ends up more efficient, > imho. This still means people have to agree how they interface, but again, > imho, the "benevolent dictator" method when one or a very small number > decide the important bits (the glue between the parts) and then let the > rest roll. I also don't see "the more the better" as better. Too many cooks > spoil the broth. Sometimes one or two really good people will easily beat > 10 or 20 average ones only working on something in their spare time. I > personally prefer the "crack troops" style. Get five or six really good > people and they can do a lot. Hundreds of part-timers, imho, don't work as > well." > I completely agree on the superiority of small, capable, committed groups > over sheer numbers. This is why I keep pushing for tools that support > personal organization and collaboration within small groups as an essential > starting point for any augmentation effort. > Ideas and solutions originate in individual brains. Environments that > support collaboration of comparably capable people can foster and support > the generation of ideas, but ideas are still individual. > In the current state of the art for technical development, we are still not > sure of all the elements that allow a "skunk works" to achieve the > phenomenal results that it does, but it appears to be the case that no other > form of organization is as efficient at problem solving. Gather talented > people with experience in the problem domain and necessary technical skills, > explain the problem to be solved well enough so that what you hear back is > consistent with what you thought you said, and then get out of their way. > Management of such a group then involves removing any barriers to production > and checking from time to time to see that the problem(s) they are > addressing are still the ones that need solving. > This method works, and hardly anything else does. We can complain that "it > shouldn't be that way", but complaining won't change the facts. Given the > facts, I submit that tools should focus on providing the support that will > allow talented individuals and small groups to collaborate in a more > productive fashion. Some of those groups will tackle larger problems with a > base of how to foster productive cooperation, and the larger problems will > get better approaches if not solutions. > The problems pointed out in the site that Eric Armstrong referenced, > http://www.well.com/~doctorow/metacrap.htm which deals with metadata, > impacts every activity of a large group. Expecting to solve problems by > simply having tens of thousands of people chime in with opinions will not > work except that it may allow individuals to find others with whom they can > form a working group that can actually produce something. > > I reviewed a partial list of what have been classified as the "complex > problems" facing society that the tools we are discussing are to help solve, > and I think we are going about this in the wrong way. > > Question: What elements do these problems have in common that qualifies them > as "complex problems" in the sense that we discuss them? What are the > elements of tools that would assist people in attempting to solve these > problems? > > I submit that one of the main elements that all of these problems have in > common is that they all have large social or sociological components to > them - a major part of the problem is getting all of the stakeholders > involved to agree on whatever solution is proposed. These problems have > technical components, but for the most part the technical aspects are > solvable with sound (possibly large scale) engineering practices if it were > possible to get any sort of effective agreement as to what would constitute > a solution to the problem that all stakeholders could live with. > > In many instances all current efforts are opposed by some power group or > other, and until that changes, no solution to the problem will be > *permitted*. The fact that some power group or other has a vested interest > in maintaining the problem, or is unwilling to take the actions required for > a solution to be implemented is a sociological problem, and without a > resolution of the sociological component of the "complex problem", no > technical solution can possibly succeed. > > Utopian ideas are always predicated on the idea that "if everyone only acted > thus and so, there wouldn't be a problem". The statement is often perfectly > true but not relevant because the reality is that "you can't get there from > here". Approaches that try to contradict reality will not work no matter how > wonderful the intentions, nor how great the idea sounds, nor how wonderful > things would be if only things were different. One would have thought that > we would have figured that out by now, but that is apparently a utopian > idea. > > On the other hand, when the workings of reality are correctly understood and > actions taken in accord with those understandings, we get workable solutions > that can be implemented. We are just now finding out that organic farming, > once we understand and use enough elements of the system together, is far > and away superior to the techniques we have been using. The technique of > agroforestry that Eric Armstrong reported appears to do just this. > > The issue for solving complex problems then, is largely one of finding > approaches that we haven't yet found to issues of getting people to > cooperate in the discovery and implementation of solutions to the > difficulties that we face, and then developing technical solutions that are > rooted in reality rather than wishful thinking, and do not require the > solution of even larger sociological problems. > > When a solution is such that it can be implemented by a small group or even > a single individual whether the masses support it or not, then those that > can learn and are more willing to adopt a new way than to continue to have > the problem, then large problems can have local solutions which it is more > difficult for the opposing or neutral majority to obstruct. Home schooling > is one example. It is possible to bypass the disaster that is public > education entirely rather than trying to get the people who are responsible > for the problem to solve it. > > "There is nothing more difficult to carry out, nor more doubtful of success, > nor more dangerous to handle, than to initiate a new order of things. For > the reformer has enemies in all who profit by the old order, and only > luke-warm defenders in all those who would profit by the new order. This > luke-warmness arises partly from fear of their adversaries, who have the law > in their favor; and partly from the incredulity of mankind, who do not truly > believe in anything new until they have had actual experience of it." > -- Machiavelli in The Prince (1513) > Notice the date - I see nothing to convince me that this problem has > changed. > Assertion: Any proposed solution to any problem that requires all people > involved to agree on a single solution at the same time just because it is > technically sound is doomed to fail. > By contrast, there are examples of working solutions that were never > designed but emerged from the actions of numerous individuals whose personal > interests overlapped in at least that one area. Adam Smith wrote about "the > invisible hand" in "The Wealth of Nations" and so this idea has been > discussed mostly in terms of markets and economics. However, such things as > language develop because all of the people involved find it to their benefit > to be able to communicate. Common law is a result of the actions of > individuals with a common desire for ways of conducting their affairs > peacefully, dealing with those that are not peaceful, and resolving disputes > by means other than violence. Conventions for use in email, netiquette, and > newsgroup protocols evolve and are (loosely) enforced due to the actions of > numerous individuals who have a shared interest in communicating over the > internet. > This is an aspect of sociological reality. It isn't necessary to like it, > but disagreeing won't change the fact that it is true. > So, rather than concoct all manner of grandiose schemes or fanciful > philosophies that require reality to be different in order to work, I > suggest that, if we are serious about developing tools to augment human > intelligence in resolving "complex problems", that we concentrate on aspects > of reality that can be validated and develop tools that allow individuals > with common personal interests to solve their problems with respect to > collaboration and productivity. > Language and law evolved slowly because the experiments took a long time. > Even after most of the principles were agreed upon, it took longer for them > to be captured in any sort of "standard reference" so that anyone who wished > could learn what was known about the common agreements. If we develop tools > that allow the same sort of evolution to proceed at speed within groups that > are interested in resolving *some* problem, working out the compromises and > best approaches, and capturing both the results of the effort and the nature > of the process in a form that is then accessible to all others interested in > the solution, we will have contributed to mankind's ability to solve > "complex problems" where there is a will to do so (where there is no will, > no solution is possible). > > Since we are talking about augmentation of individuals and small groups, we > are not necessarily talking about huge amounts of resources. This effort > doesn't require the approval of the planet, only enough agreement amongst > those interested in solving the problem of creating tools that are useful in > this context. The initial solutions do not have to scale to millions of > people because millions of people aren't going to use them at once and get > anything done. > Question: What are the elements (features) of a software tool that will > support this sort of activity well enough to allow individuals and other > groups to get on with the problem of solving "complex problems"? > Some of these we know, and some can be extracted from the problem statement. > * An individual must be able to use the tool on his own machine(s) to > capture, organize, and manipulate information, turning it into a useful > repository of personal knowledge. > * An individual must be able to publish some or all of the results of his > thinking to a wide (public) audience. > * An individual must be able to join with other individuals with interests > in the same problem domain to manage and evolve their shared information and > knowledge jointly using the same sort of organization that works for him as > an individual. > * Any individual may belong to multiple groups. The individual must have > complete, simple control over what he shares and with whom. > * Groups must have joint control over who is a part of the group. The group > must be able to remove anyone who "doesn't play nice with others". > * The tools must stay out of the way as much as possible - provide maximum > benefit for minimum extra energy. The benefits should arise while doing the > work that needs to be done rather than because of doing extra work. > * The tool must provide retrieval of the information and its relationships > is as many ways as can be done easily enough to justify the work. > > I had started to develop design elements, but decided that this is far too > early in the cycle to be doing that. > Summary: > I assert that: > * Any proposed solution to any problem that is not based in reality will not > work, no matter how many other supposed merits it may have. > * "Solutions" are produced by individuals with common personal interests > working in small groups with an intention to produce a workable result. > * To be effective, any tool to augment human intelligence must support the > individual and the groups that he chooses to join because of his own > personal interests. > * The OHS group presumably constitutes or contains at least one such group. > * We need to start by building tools that will support the concepts given > above for ourselves, if only because "you must operate where you are, you > cannot operate where you are not". > * If we who have an intense interest in such tools cannot agree on what > should be built *for ourselves* and get it done, there is no point at all in > lamenting the "complex problems" that remain in the world and the fact that > we don't know how to build tools to solve them. > * If we do build a set of tools that aids us in collaborating on the > "complex problem" of building a set of tools with which we are (mostly) > satisfied for ourselves, we will have made a significant, and perhaps the > only possible, step toward tools that help in solving the "complex problems" > of the world. > > Thanks, > > Garold (Gary) L. Johnson From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Tue Jul 23 11:19:19 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 7A50956FF3; Tue, 23 Jul 2002 11:19:18 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from mail12.svr.pol.co.uk (mail12.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.193.215]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B864556FF2 for ; Tue, 23 Jul 2002 11:19:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from modem-823.clefairy.dialup.pol.co.uk ([217.135.92.55] helo=vaio) by mail12.svr.pol.co.uk with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17X4WD-0001ZT-00 for ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org; Tue, 23 Jul 2002 19:36:21 +0100 Message-ID: <007b01c23277$8c0aa4c0$375c87d9@vaio> From: "Peter Jones" To: Subject: [ba-unrev-talk] Virtual Keyboard Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 19:34:13 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org An highly interesting play on the keyboard from IBM alphaworks http://www.alphaworks.ibm.com/tech/atomik -- Peter From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Tue Jul 23 12:04:01 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 5BA2F56FF3; Tue, 23 Jul 2002 12:04:00 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from sccrmhc02.attbi.com (sccrmhc02.attbi.com [204.127.202.62]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9DC2C56FF2 for ; Tue, 23 Jul 2002 12:03:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sony ([12.234.214.35]) by sccrmhc02.attbi.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP id <20020723192112.OESB19639.sccrmhc02.attbi.com@sony> for ; Tue, 23 Jul 2002 19:21:12 +0000 Message-Id: <4.2.2.20020723121503.026af750@thinkalong.com> X-Sender: jackpark@thinkalong.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 12:18:28 -0700 To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org From: Jack Park Subject: [ba-unrev-talk] Minimally Invasive Education Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org The famous "hole in the wall" kiosk experiment http://www.niitholeinthewall.com/ "On the morning of 26th January 1999, passersby outside the NIIT headquarters in New Delhi were treated to an unusual sight. A computer peeped out of a hole that had been carved out in the wall that separated the NIIT premises from the adjoining slum. As the day wore on, the curious onlookers, mostly children living in the slum, approached the computer. The TV-like device seemed inviting. First with hesitation and later with more assurance, they began to explore. It took the children a few minutes to work out the use of the touchpad embedded in the wall. After that, it was a series of "hits-and-misses" as they fooled around with the computer. This went on for the whole day...and the next...and the next... " "Minimally Invasive Education (MIE) is a pedagogic method, and derives its name partly from the medical term minimally invasive surgery. The idea of MIE crystallized over a period of time based on observations and educational experiments conducted at NIIT. It was observed that, even in the absence of any direct input, mere curiosity led groups of children to explore, which resulted in learning. This, coupled with minimal input from peers, or from someone familiar with the situation, helped the children learn more. This led us to believe that any learning environment that provides an adequate level of curiosity can cause learning among groups of children. The children's desire to learn, along with their curiosity and peer interaction, drives them to explore the environment in order to satisfy their inquisitiveness. As the children explore their environment, they relate their new experience with their previous experience and thereby new learning takes place. Hence, MIE is defined as, a pedagogic method that uses the learning environment to generate an adequate level of motivation to induce learning in groups of children, with minimal, or no, intervention by a teacher. In MIE, the role of a teacher is limited to providing, or guiding learners to, environments that generate adequate levels of interest. A known example of MIE is the type of learning that takes place when an appropriate puzzle is given to children with little or no input from others. Similarly, the Internet has a great deal of material that can stimulate curiosity and learning among various age groups of children. " "Based on the above assumptions, it is hypothesized that even in totally unfamiliar situations, children in groups will learn on their own with little or no input from others, provided the learning environment induces an adequate level of curiosity. The above hypothesis has been proved in experiments conducted at NIIT. In these experiments, free Internet street kiosks were provided to a group of slum children who were unfamiliar with computers and the Internet. The children learnt to use computers and browse the Internet with no formal inputs from anyone. After a careful analysis of the experiment and the group dynamics involved, the learning process was termed "Minimally Invasive Education". Why call it Minimally Invasive Education? Unlike conventional pedagogic methods, there is no formal instruction by a teacher or by anyone else. In fact, there is little or no intervention in the group learning process. " "The results of the experiment have been quite exciting. Within three months of opening up of the Internet kiosk, it was found that the children, mostly from the slum, had achieved a certain level of computer skills without any planned instructional intervention. They were able to browse the Internet, download songs, go to cartoon sites, work on MS Paint. They even invented their own vocabulary to define terms on the computer, for example, "sui" (needle) for the cursor, "channels" for websites and "damru" (Shiva's drum) for the hourglass (busy) symbol. By the fourth month, the children were able to discover and accomplish tasks like creating folders, cutting and pasting, creating shortcuts, moving/resizing windows and using MS Word to create short messages that too in the absence of keyboard. When the issue of whether the kiosk should be removed from the boundary wall arose, the children strongly opposed to the idea. The parents also felt that the computer was good for their children. The kiosk continues to be operational till today with approximately eighty children are using it per day. " From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Tue Jul 23 16:05:25 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 6EFF156FF3; Tue, 23 Jul 2002 16:05:24 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from pheriche.sun.com (pheriche.sun.com [192.18.98.34]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E9F3756FF2 for ; Tue, 23 Jul 2002 16:05:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM ([129.145.155.51]) by pheriche.sun.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA00663 for ; Tue, 23 Jul 2002 17:22:35 -0600 (MDT) Received: from sun.com (d-usca14-129-126 [129.145.129.126]) by ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM (8.11.6+Sun/8.10.2/ENSMAIL,v2.1p1) with ESMTP id g6NNMYC06269; Tue, 23 Jul 2002 16:22:34 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3D3DE53D.A74524E8@sun.com> Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 16:22:37 -0700 From: Eric Armstrong X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-unrev-talk , me Subject: [ba-unrev-talk] Aspirin or, Why do they lie? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org from http://www.chiroweb.com/archives/19/18/11.html "Just averaging two aspirin a day from the age of 25 to 64 increases your chances of kidney disease by 900 percent! The bottom line is that each year, 20,000 die and tens of thousands more are hospitalized because of these medications." Of course, all you hear about in the TV ads is how it reduces your chance of heart disease. It's a lie of omission. From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Tue Jul 23 16:33:22 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id D924256FF3; Tue, 23 Jul 2002 16:33:21 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from cpimssmtpu12.email.msn.com (cpimssmtpu12.email.msn.com [207.46.181.87]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8275B56FF2 for ; Tue, 23 Jul 2002 16:33:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from centro ([63.231.39.78]) by cpimssmtpu12.email.msn.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.4905); Tue, 23 Jul 2002 16:49:34 -0700 From: "Dennis E. Hamilton" To: Subject: RE: [ba-unrev-talk] Aspirin or, Why do they lie? Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 16:50:26 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: <3D3DE53D.A74524E8@sun.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal X-OriginalArrivalTime: 23 Jul 2002 23:49:34.0853 (UTC) FILETIME=[990BA350:01C232A3] Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Eric, In the article, I couldn't find any reference or other substantiation for that claim, rather amazing since there are names and citation in other parts of the article. What evidence do you have for this claim? -- Dennis -----Original Message----- From: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org [mailto:owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org]On Behalf Of Eric Armstrong Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2002 16:23 To: ba-unrev-talk; me Subject: [ba-unrev-talk] Aspirin or, Why do they lie? from http://www.chiroweb.com/archives/19/18/11.html "Just averaging two aspirin a day from the age of 25 to 64 increases your chances of kidney disease by 900 percent! The bottom line is that each year, 20,000 die and tens of thousands more are hospitalized because of these medications." Of course, all you hear about in the TV ads is how it reduces your chance of heart disease. It's a lie of omission. From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Tue Jul 23 18:42:26 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id DA93E56FF3; Tue, 23 Jul 2002 18:42:25 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from patan.sun.com (patan.Sun.COM [192.18.98.43]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5D57556FF2 for ; Tue, 23 Jul 2002 18:42:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM ([129.145.155.51]) by patan.sun.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id TAA13297 for ; Tue, 23 Jul 2002 19:59:36 -0600 (MDT) Received: from sun.com (d-usca14-129-126 [129.145.129.126]) by ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM (8.11.6+Sun/8.10.2/ENSMAIL,v2.1p1) with ESMTP id g6O1xZC09259 for ; Tue, 23 Jul 2002 18:59:35 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3D3E0A0A.9F9B288@sun.com> Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 18:59:38 -0700 From: Eric Armstrong X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: Re: [ba-unrev-talk] Aspirin or, Why do they lie? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org "Dennis E. Hamilton" wrote: > Eric, > > In the article, I couldn't find any reference or other substantiation for > that claim, rather amazing since there are names and citation in other parts > of the article. > > What evidence do they have for this claim? Good question. I wasn't inclined to doubt it, so I didn't think to verify accuracy. It was just something I chanced across while researching the latest development in cartilage regeration/replacement protocols. From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Tue Jul 23 19:43:12 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 9B5E656FF4; Tue, 23 Jul 2002 19:43:11 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net (avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.50]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6320B56FF3 for ; Tue, 23 Jul 2002 19:43:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 209-239-207-142.oak.jps.net ([209.239.207.142] helo=netzero.net) by avocet.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17XCNu-0007Ra-00 for ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org; Tue, 23 Jul 2002 20:00:18 -0700 Message-ID: <3D3E1879.88EB49C2@netzero.net> Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 20:01:13 -0700 From: "John J. Deneen" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en]C-{C-UDP; EBM-SONY1} (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: [ba-unrev-talk] Any Bootstrap Alliance Interest with Community LAN Revolutionaries? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org "Although it started among friends, community LANs are a revolutionary concept. Grass roots, neighborhood networks, using standardized, 802.11b equipment, are forming in Seattle, San Francisco, Boston, London and elsewhere. BayArea Wireless already has 21 access nodes. SeattleWireless and Portland's Personal Telco may each have a dozen or so. They may threaten multi-billion dollar investments made by cellular, cable and telephone companies. Public-access LANs that share a 1.5-megabit-per-second link are faster and cheaper than 2.5G cellular. Range is limited to 1000 feet but inter-connected community LANs may soon provide a viable alternative. Cheap broadband isn't coming from DSL or Cable Modem providers. " Community LAN Revolutionaries wishes for license exempt UWB radios "Ultra Wide Band (UWB) may provide the cheapest, easiest wireless connectivity in the home. Ultra Wide Band penetrates walls at 400Mbps and promises " wireless Firewire or USB 2.0" although range is short. UWB may provide stiff competition for home powerline networks or wireless LANs if home connectivity products are available for $50, but equipment is unproven and won't be available for a year or two." < http://sdots.com/wireless/ > Then, on July 16, 2002 - XtremeSpectrum Demonstrates Industry’s First Ultra-wideband Product "With an aggregate data rate of 100 Mbps, the Trinity chipset is easily capable of transmitting multiple streams of digital video and audio within the typical North American residential environment. With each MPEG-2 stream running at up to 12 Mbps, the Trinity chipset clearly demonstrates adequate payload capacity for multiple streams of digital video along with wire-like viewing quality. ... [As} early as Christmas 2003. Pricing for the Trinity (UWB) chipset is $19.95 each in quantities of 100,000+." < http://www.xtremespectrum.com/press/pressJuly162002.html > More info: < http://www.xtremespectrum.com/xsi_trinity_brief.pdf > From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Wed Jul 24 06:46:22 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 5E5CA56FF3; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 06:46:22 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from mclean.mail.mindspring.net (mclean.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.57]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C915556FF2 for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 06:46:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from user-119a903.biz.mindspring.com ([66.149.36.3] helo=gmob) by mclean.mail.mindspring.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17XMjk-0004oN-00 for ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 10:03:32 -0400 From: "Graham Stalker-Wilde" To: Subject: RE: [ba-unrev-talk] Any Bootstrap Alliance Interest with Community LAN Revolutionaries? Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 10:03:28 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <3D3E1879.88EB49C2@netzero.net> Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org This is one of the most entertaining examples of practical anarchism I've came across in a while. Wireless Access Points in tupperware boxes sitting on rooftops beating billions of Baby Bell dollars to the punch. It is very satisfying. The NY link is http://nycwireless.net -graham -----Original Message----- From: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org [mailto:owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org]On Behalf Of John J. Deneen Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2002 11:01 PM To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: [ba-unrev-talk] Any Bootstrap Alliance Interest with Community LAN Revolutionaries? "Although it started among friends, community LANs are a revolutionary concept. Grass roots, neighborhood networks, using standardized, 802.11b equipment, are forming in Seattle, San Francisco, Boston, London and elsewhere. BayArea Wireless already has 21 access nodes. SeattleWireless and Portland's Personal Telco may each have a dozen or so. They may threaten multi-billion dollar investments made by cellular, cable and telephone companies. Public-access LANs that share a 1.5-megabit-per-second link are faster and cheaper than 2.5G cellular. Range is limited to 1000 feet but inter-connected community LANs may soon provide a viable alternative. Cheap broadband isn't coming from DSL or Cable Modem providers. " Community LAN Revolutionaries wishes for license exempt UWB radios "Ultra Wide Band (UWB) may provide the cheapest, easiest wireless connectivity in the home. Ultra Wide Band penetrates walls at 400Mbps and promises " wireless Firewire or USB 2.0" although range is short. UWB may provide stiff competition for home powerline networks or wireless LANs if home connectivity products are available for $50, but equipment is unproven and won't be available for a year or two." < http://sdots.com/wireless/ > Then, on July 16, 2002 - XtremeSpectrum Demonstrates Industry’s First Ultra-wideband Product "With an aggregate data rate of 100 Mbps, the Trinity chipset is easily capable of transmitting multiple streams of digital video and audio within the typical North American residential environment. With each MPEG-2 stream running at up to 12 Mbps, the Trinity chipset clearly demonstrates adequate payload capacity for multiple streams of digital video along with wire-like viewing quality. ... [As} early as Christmas 2003. Pricing for the Trinity (UWB) chipset is $19.95 each in quantities of 100,000+." < http://www.xtremespectrum.com/press/pressJuly162002.html > More info: < http://www.xtremespectrum.com/xsi_trinity_brief.pdf > From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Wed Jul 24 07:36:33 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 3BB0C56FF3; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 07:36:33 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from woody.grantbow.com (12-233-20-180.client.attbi.com [12.233.20.180]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id CEFD956FF2 for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 07:36:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grantbow by woody.grantbow.com with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17XNWI-0007E0-00 for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 07:53:42 -0700 Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 07:53:41 -0700 From: Grant Bowman To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: Re: [ba-unrev-talk] Any Bootstrap Alliance Interest with Community LAN Revolutionaries? Message-ID: <20020724145340.GE25739@grantbow.com> Mail-Followup-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org References: <3D3E1879.88EB49C2@netzero.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org * Graham Stalker-Wilde [020724 07:09]: > This is one of the most entertaining examples of practical anarchism I've > came across in a while. Wireless Access Points in tupperware boxes sitting > on rooftops beating billions of Baby Bell dollars to the punch. It is very > satisfying. > > The NY link is http://nycwireless.net Heh, yeah, very nice. There's also some different efforts in SF. http://www.bawug.org/ http://www.boingboing.net/ http://www.sflan.com/ http://www.nocat.net/ And here's a recent article from the Bay Guardian. http://www.sfbg.com/36/37/cover_wireless.html Cheers, -- -- Grant Bowman From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Wed Jul 24 08:01:55 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 81F3C56FF3; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 08:01:54 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from woody.grantbow.com (12-233-20-180.client.attbi.com [12.233.20.180]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 315B256FF2 for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 08:01:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from grantbow by woody.grantbow.com with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17XNuq-0007OR-00 for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 08:19:04 -0700 Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 08:19:03 -0700 From: Grant Bowman To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: Re: [ba-unrev-talk] Any Bootstrap Alliance Interest with Community LAN Revolutionaries? Message-ID: <20020724151903.GA28402@grantbow.com> Mail-Followup-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org References: <3D3E1879.88EB49C2@netzero.net> <20020724145340.GE25739@grantbow.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20020724145340.GE25739@grantbow.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org * Grant Bowman [020724 07:58]: > http://www.boingboing.net/ Oops, I meant to link http://www.sputnik.com/ instead of boingboing. -- -- Grant Bowman From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Wed Jul 24 09:53:29 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 7656B56FF3; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 09:53:28 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from tomts24-srv.bellnexxia.net (tomts24-srv.bellnexxia.net [209.226.175.187]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C6ABD56FF2 for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 09:53:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sympatico.ca ([64.228.165.182]) by tomts24-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.5.01.04.19 201-253-122-122-119-20020516) with ESMTP id <20020724171055.CCMP2648.tomts24-srv.bellnexxia.net@sympatico.ca> for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 13:10:55 -0400 Message-ID: <3D3EDED0.BFEC6A8A@sympatico.ca> Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 13:07:28 -0400 From: Henry K van Eyken X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.78 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.7-10 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: [ba-unrev-talk] MimerDesk: a groupware under development Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org http://www.mimerdesk.org/community/engine.html?page=2 MimerDesk is a web-based groupware environment designed for a wide variety of uses such as personal management, computer-supported collaborative learning, carrying out projects, and setting up communities. Its main strengths include a very customizable group system which allows many groups to work simultaneously on a shared database with tools like Calendar, Tasks, Forums, Links, Chat, Reviews, Voting, Files, nstant Messages, Profiles, and many more. We are the MimerDesk.org staff and our mission is to coordinate the development and testing of MimerDesk by providing the back-end for all the tasks involved in this project. This includes the complete MimerDesk.org site, its contents, community environment and the processing of bug reports and feature suggestions. We make sure that the project is developed following the project's own guidelines and according to standards. From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Wed Jul 24 15:33:44 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 1AD5056FF3; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 15:33:44 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from blount.mail.mindspring.net (blount.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.226]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8384E56FF2 for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 15:33:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from user-vcausej.dsl.mindspring.com ([216.175.113.211] helo=D9KP0711) by blount.mail.mindspring.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17XUy4-0003nL-00 for ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 18:50:52 -0400 From: "Mei Lin Fung" To: Subject: [ba-unrev-talk] Bootstrap Alliance update Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 08:10:58 -0700 Organization: MLF Associates Inc. Message-ID: <003301c23324$53ca20b0$2002a8c0@D9KP0711> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 In-Reply-To: <3D3E1879.88EB49C2@netzero.net> Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org I was prompted to do so by John Deneen's subject in his post: Any Bootstrap Alliance Interest with Community LAN Revolutionaries? So in response to the post: Looks like there is supportive common feeling amongst the unrev community for the Lan revolutionaries. Bootstrap Alliance is very tightly focused right now on what it looks like the existing hardcore volunteers can get our arms around, so we are not taking on new projects at the current time, without knowing how they can be supported or resourced. On the Bootstrap Alliance front, it seems timely to provide a quick update We're looking at what we have and where we need to go, and decided it was time to be realistic and marshall our resources, in particular to be very circumspect with respect to our call on Doug's personal time. The Core Planning Committee has called a summer hiatus. Doug is concentrating on developing a gameplan for the Hyperscope. I am transcribing these sessions, which are being conducted with the assistance of Evan Putnam, Doug's grandson, and Dorai Thodla (www.imorph.com) who has been helping with the Bootstrap website for the past few months. We have had 2 sessions so far. We are planning on doing some minimal updates to the website to incorporate more news on awards Doug has received and other updates. I'll be attending John Maloney's Knowledge Management Clusters Workshop on July 30, from lunch on. The area of Knowledge Economics is very pertinent and important in my view and I'm coming along to get educated. If you are curious to know more, or have ideas or suggestions, please email me and I'll be happy to respond directly to you. Mei Lin -----Original Message----- From: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org [mailto:owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org] On Behalf Of John J. Deneen Sent: Tuesday, July 23, 2002 8:01 PM To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: [ba-unrev-talk] Any Bootstrap Alliance Interest with Community LAN Revolutionaries? "Although it started among friends, community LANs are a revolutionary concept. Grass roots, neighborhood networks, using standardized, 802.11b equipment, are forming in Seattle, San Francisco, Boston, London and elsewhere. BayArea Wireless already has 21 access nodes. SeattleWireless and Portland's Personal Telco may each have a dozen or so. They may threaten multi-billion dollar investments made by cellular, cable and telephone companies. Public-access LANs that share a 1.5-megabit-per-second link are faster and cheaper than 2.5G cellular. Range is limited to 1000 feet but inter-connected community LANs may soon provide a viable alternative. Cheap broadband isn't coming from DSL or Cable Modem providers. " Community LAN Revolutionaries wishes for license exempt UWB radios "Ultra Wide Band (UWB) may provide the cheapest, easiest wireless connectivity in the home. Ultra Wide Band penetrates walls at 400Mbps and promises " wireless Firewire or USB 2.0" although range is short. UWB may provide stiff competition for home powerline networks or wireless LANs if home connectivity products are available for $50, but equipment is unproven and won't be available for a year or two." < http://sdots.com/wireless/ > Then, on July 16, 2002 - XtremeSpectrum Demonstrates Industry's First Ultra-wideband Product "With an aggregate data rate of 100 Mbps, the Trinity chipset is easily capable of transmitting multiple streams of digital video and audio within the typical North American residential environment. With each MPEG-2 stream running at up to 12 Mbps, the Trinity chipset clearly demonstrates adequate payload capacity for multiple streams of digital video along with wire-like viewing quality. ... [As} early as Christmas 2003. Pricing for the Trinity (UWB) chipset is $19.95 each in quantities of 100,000+." < http://www.xtremespectrum.com/press/pressJuly162002.html > More info: < http://www.xtremespectrum.com/xsi_trinity_brief.pdf > From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Wed Jul 24 16:03:48 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 635CE56FF4; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 16:03:48 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from pheriche.sun.com (pheriche.sun.com [192.18.98.34]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id DA3F456FF3 for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 16:03:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM ([129.145.155.51]) by pheriche.sun.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id RAA18749 for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 17:21:01 -0600 (MDT) Received: from sun.com (d-usca14-129-126 [129.145.129.126]) by ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM (8.11.6+Sun/8.10.2/ENSMAIL,v2.1p1) with ESMTP id g6ONL0C05852 for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 16:21:00 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3D3F3662.523C0A77@sun.com> Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 16:21:06 -0700 From: Eric Armstrong X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-unrev-talk Subject: [ba-unrev-talk] Book on Topic Maps Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Delightful! At last, a book has become available which explains the XTM (XML Topic Maps) standard -- and one which was written by our very own Jack Park! Topic Maps: Creating and Using Topic Maps for the Web, by Jack Park. ISBN #0201749602 My copy is on the way. Background -------------- XTM is an ontology-definition mechansim which is intuitively more appealing and easier to visualize than RDF. Like HTML or XML, it can be reasonably read and edited in plain-text form. (You can edit RDF, too, but understanding what you have in plain text form is nearly impossible for any non-trivial ontology.) Theren lies the promise of XTM. However, my early attempts to guage its usefulness ran into problems. Directing a series of "how would you do this?" questions to a collection of experts invariably led to a range of responses: * That's impossible. * That's trivial. * That's possible, but difficult. Lacking the background to deciper the responses and formulate my own conclusions, I decided that perhaps Topic Maps were not yet really ready for prime time. This book may well herald the arrival of Topic Maps on the "prime time" stage. At the very least, it should generate enough understanding to make it possible to follow arguments about how it can be used. From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Wed Jul 24 16:33:56 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 7BCA456FF3; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 16:33:55 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from sccrmhc02.attbi.com (sccrmhc02.attbi.com [204.127.202.62]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id F0A7E56FF2 for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 16:33:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sony ([12.234.214.35]) by sccrmhc02.attbi.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP id <20020724235111.YJKQ1451.sccrmhc02.attbi.com@sony> for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 23:51:11 +0000 Message-Id: <4.2.2.20020724164409.0262c230@thinkalong.com> X-Sender: jackpark@thinkalong.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 16:48:31 -0700 To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org From: Jack Park Subject: Re: [ba-unrev-talk] Book on Topic Maps In-Reply-To: <3D3F3662.523C0A77@sun.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Thanks Eric! But... I didn't write it. I wrote a couple of chapters, edited, and created the book. Some other really smart people wrote chapters (17 in all) including one by my two snappers, Nefer and John. I'll be talking about that book and more, mostly about Douglas Engelbart's work in the keynote address to Extreme Markup Languages in Montreal, end of next week. The title of my talk is "Douglas Engelbart, Open Hyperdocument Systems, XML, and Everything." Here is the abstract: "We look at markup languages in the context of complex, urgent problems facing humanity. The talk intends to develop a context in which the evolution of markup languages is seen as crucial to the evolution of tools capable of supporting and augmenting what Douglas Engelbart calls the Capabilities Infrastructure of Networked Improvement Communities. If time permits, a demonstration of an engineering prototype of a system aimed in that direction will take place." Jack At 04:21 PM 7/24/2002 -0700, you wrote: >Delightful! At last, a book has become available which explains >the XTM (XML Topic Maps) standard -- and one which was written >by our very own Jack Park! > > Topic Maps: Creating and Using Topic Maps for the Web, > by Jack Park. ISBN #0201749602 > >My copy is on the way. > >Background >-------------- >XTM is an ontology-definition mechansim which is intuitively >more appealing and easier to visualize than RDF. Like HTML >or XML, it can be reasonably read and edited in plain-text form. >(You can edit RDF, too, but understanding what you have in >plain text form is nearly impossible for any non-trivial ontology.) > >Theren lies the promise of XTM. However, my early attempts >to guage its usefulness ran into problems. Directing a series of >"how would you do this?" questions to a collection of experts >invariably led to a range of responses: > * That's impossible. > * That's trivial. > * That's possible, but difficult. > >Lacking the background to deciper the responses and formulate >my own conclusions, I decided that perhaps Topic Maps were >not yet really ready for prime time. > >This book may well herald the arrival of Topic Maps on the >"prime time" stage. At the very least, it should generate enough >understanding to make it possible to follow arguments about >how it can be used. From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Wed Jul 24 17:12:01 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 8E49B56FF3; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 17:12:00 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from patan.sun.com (patan.Sun.COM [192.18.98.43]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2146F56FF2 for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 17:11:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM ([129.145.155.51]) by patan.sun.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA25970 for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 18:29:13 -0600 (MDT) Received: from sun.com (d-usca14-129-126 [129.145.129.126]) by ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM (8.11.6+Sun/8.10.2/ENSMAIL,v2.1p1) with ESMTP id g6P0TDC23751 for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 17:29:13 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3D3F465E.5E271F9E@sun.com> Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 17:29:18 -0700 From: Eric Armstrong X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: Re: [ba-unrev-talk] Book on Topic Maps References: <4.2.2.20020724164409.0262c230@thinkalong.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Aha! So work *has* been going on. Glad to hear it!! :_) I am SO looking forward to that book. Thanks for putting it together. Jack Park wrote: > Thanks Eric! > > But... > > I didn't write it. I wrote a couple of chapters, edited, and created the book. > Some other really smart people wrote chapters (17 in all) including one by > my two snappers, Nefer and John. > > I'll be talking about that book and more, mostly about Douglas Engelbart's > work in the keynote address to > Extreme Markup Languages in Montreal, end of next week. The title of my > talk is "Douglas Engelbart, Open Hyperdocument Systems, XML, and Everything." > > Here is the abstract: > "We look at markup languages in the context of complex, urgent problems > facing humanity. The talk intends to develop a context in which the > evolution of markup languages is seen as crucial to the evolution of tools > capable of supporting and augmenting what Douglas Engelbart calls the > Capabilities Infrastructure of Networked Improvement Communities. If time > permits, a demonstration of an engineering prototype of a system aimed in > that direction will take place." > > Jack > > At 04:21 PM 7/24/2002 -0700, you wrote: > >Delightful! At last, a book has become available which explains > >the XTM (XML Topic Maps) standard -- and one which was written > >by our very own Jack Park! > > > > Topic Maps: Creating and Using Topic Maps for the Web, > > by Jack Park. ISBN #0201749602 > > > >My copy is on the way. > > > >Background > >-------------- > >XTM is an ontology-definition mechansim which is intuitively > >more appealing and easier to visualize than RDF. Like HTML > >or XML, it can be reasonably read and edited in plain-text form. > >(You can edit RDF, too, but understanding what you have in > >plain text form is nearly impossible for any non-trivial ontology.) > > > >Theren lies the promise of XTM. However, my early attempts > >to guage its usefulness ran into problems. Directing a series of > >"how would you do this?" questions to a collection of experts > >invariably led to a range of responses: > > * That's impossible. > > * That's trivial. > > * That's possible, but difficult. > > > >Lacking the background to deciper the responses and formulate > >my own conclusions, I decided that perhaps Topic Maps were > >not yet really ready for prime time. > > > >This book may well herald the arrival of Topic Maps on the > >"prime time" stage. At the very least, it should generate enough > >understanding to make it possible to follow arguments about > >how it can be used. From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Wed Jul 24 21:05:28 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 579F456FF4; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 21:05:28 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net (swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.123]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1B55756FF3 for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 21:05:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 209-239-207-162.oak.jps.net ([209.239.207.162] helo=netzero.net) by swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17Xa99-0002YR-00 for ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 21:22:40 -0700 Message-ID: <3D3F7D44.F0BEDBDF@netzero.net> Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 21:23:32 -0700 From: "John J. Deneen" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en]C-{C-UDP; EBM-SONY1} (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: [ba-unrev-talk] CITRIS collaboration in Learning Science & Tools Roadmap Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org CITRIS Director, Ruzena Bajcsy joins the steering committee < http://www.wiadlcolab.org/partners/docs/Learning%20Federation.ppt > The Learning Federation.org " The research we propose will increase the quality of human performance and the quantity of human competence by developing enabling learning systems capable of delivering training, education, decision support and performance-aiding anytime, anywhere, on any device, to any user." < http://www.learningfederation.org/mission.htm > "In September 2001, the Federation of American Scientists was named the Executive Secretariat for the Learning Federation, a Steering Committee was formed, and the initial draft of the technology research roadmap was developed. The first task of the Steering Committee is development of a research plan, or technology roadmap. When the plan is finalized, the Federation will seek support from industry, foundations and government to provide large-scale, sustained funding necessary to carry out the research defined by the roadmap." < http://www.learningfederation.org/history.htm > Sept. 2002 - Establish the Learning Federation with stable funding "The Learning Federation anticipates funding pre-competitive basic and applied research by national and international interdisciplinary teams of learning science and information technology experts. " Work Plan: < http://www.learningfederation.org/general/overview.pdf > Learning Science and Technology (LS&T) Research Roadmap Workshops (starting Aug. 2002) Background The Learning Federation plans a series of focused workshops on LS&T R&D and two Steering Committee workshops/meetings as part of its efforts to develop the research roadmap. Approximately 8 of these workshops will be organized by working groups established by the LS&T Research Roadmap Steering Committee. It is anticipated that there will be 4 working groups, organized around the research focus areas identified in the draft research roadmap: 1) Learning Science 2) Tools: Content Tools and Environments 3) Tools: Interactivity Design 4) Assessment < http://www.learningfederation.org/general/workshops.pdf > Must reads < http://www.learningfederation.org/read.htm >, including February 2001 - Road Map for National Security: Imperative for Change" "The report of the United States Commission on National Security/21st Century (aka the Hart-Rudman Report) emphasized the importance of education to national security and states that "education in science, mathematics, and engineering has special relevance for the future of U.S. national security, for America's ability to lead depends particularly on the depth and breadth of its scientific and technical communities". < http:// http://www.nssg.gov/PhaseIIIFR.pdf > Contact Us Henry Kelly 1717 K St., NW Suite 209 Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (202) 546-3300 Fax: (202) 675-1010 Email: hkelly@fas.org From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Wed Jul 24 21:19:16 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id CC22356FF7; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 21:19:15 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net (swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.123]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 9E0C956FF4 for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 21:19:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 209-239-207-162.oak.jps.net ([209.239.207.162] helo=netzero.net) by swan.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17XaMU-0000mw-00 for ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 21:36:28 -0700 Message-ID: <3D3F807F.3815D179@netzero.net> Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 21:37:19 -0700 From: "John J. Deneen" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en]C-{C-UDP; EBM-SONY1} (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: [ba-unrev-talk] OceanStore/CITRIS to protect data from power blackouts Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org "For those who worry that California's rolling blackouts will wipe out their bank statements and other computerized records, a computer scientist at the University of California, Berkeley, is designing a solution: A data storage system so vast and powerful it will encompass the entire Earth. OceanStore is a data storage system tough enough to withstand a fire, a hacker attack or even a botched electricity deregulation attempt. By chopping data into encrypted pieces and storing them on computers scattered throughout the Internet, OceanStore expands storage capacity and makes data disaster-proof and available any time, anywhere. "The goal is to make data storage not only secure and available, but downright impervious to disaster," said OceanStore's inventor, John Kubiatowicz. The professor is part of UC Berkeley's proposed Center for Information Technology Research in the Interest of Society (CITRIS), a joint program with UC Davis and UC Santa Cruz that will create innovations to improve people's lives. " < http://www.globaltechnoscan.com/31stJan-6thFeb01/data.htm > From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Wed Jul 24 22:09:58 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 3883156FF7; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 22:09:58 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from scaup.mail.pas.earthlink.net (scaup.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.49]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0048256FF5 for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 22:09:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 209-239-207-162.oak.jps.net ([209.239.207.162] helo=netzero.net) by scaup.mail.pas.earthlink.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17Xb9W-0005XN-00 for ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 22:27:10 -0700 Message-ID: <3D3F8C5D.D67BA7A@netzero.net> Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 22:27:57 -0700 From: "John J. Deneen" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en]C-{C-UDP; EBM-SONY1} (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: [ba-unrev-talk] HP Labs SHOCK - a system for social harvesting of community knowledge Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org "An important problem facing large, distributed organizations is the efficient management and distribution of information, knowledge, and expertise. Shock is designed as low-cost, extensible, flexible, and dynamic peer-to-peer knowledge network that helps address this problem. The system is designed to protect the privacy of user's personal information, such as email, web browsing habits, etc., while making that information available for knowledge management applications. It reduces participation costs for such applications as expert-finding, allows highly targeted messaging, and enables novel kinds of ad hoc conversation and anonymous messaging. The system is tightly integrated with users' email clients, taking advantage of email as habitat. " < http://www.hpl.hp.com/shl/projects/shock/index.html > Ref. May 8th, 2002 agenda - HP Labs is a founding member at CITRIS collaborative research center < http://www.hpl.hp.com/citris/agenda_may08.html > From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Wed Jul 24 22:44:22 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id C4D4856FF8; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 22:44:21 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from blount.mail.mindspring.net (blount.mail.mindspring.net [207.69.200.226]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3F79156FF7 for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2002 22:44:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from user-vcausej.dsl.mindspring.com ([216.175.113.211] helo=D9KP0711) by blount.mail.mindspring.net with esmtp (Exim 3.33 #1) id 17Xbgo-0005ZY-00 for ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 02:01:30 -0400 From: "Mei Lin Fung" To: Subject: [ba-unrev-talk] FW: ICADL call for short papers - July 25 deadline Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2002 15:21:36 -0700 Organization: MLF Associates Inc. Message-ID: <005601c23360$7c5cf8e0$2002a8c0@D9KP0711> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.2627 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Hello all, As part of our Digital Library focus, we'll be submitting a short paper on what we're up to at the Bootstrap Alliance at the December 2002 conference in Singapore. In case others are interested, I've put the details of the conference below, including the call for papers. (the call was sent out to the US Digital Library initiative people http://www.dli2.nsf.gov/ Mei Lin > >Hi! As one of the program co-chairs for ICADL 2002, the International >Conference on Asian Digital Libraries, >http://www.cais.ntu.edu.sg:8000/icadl02 >I invite you to submit a short paper proposal by 25 July. There will be >poster proposals accepted even after that, but a short paper seems to be >the right way to express the latest results of Digital Library Initiative projects > >The conf. is just before the middle of Dec. in Singapore. > >Please let Ee Peng or me know if there are any questions. > >Thank you for your time and interest, regards, Ed > >Professor Edward A. Fox, Dept. of CS, 660 McBryde Hall >Virginia Tech, M/C 0106, Blacksburg, VA 24061 USA fox@vt.edu; http://fox.cs.vt.edu From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Thu Jul 25 08:39:12 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 28FEB56FF9; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 08:39:12 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from sccrmhc01.attbi.com (sccrmhc01.attbi.com [204.127.202.61]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B83B856FF8 for ; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 08:39:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sony ([12.234.214.35]) by sccrmhc01.attbi.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP id <20020725155629.ZNGN8192.sccrmhc01.attbi.com@sony> for ; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 15:56:29 +0000 Message-Id: <4.2.2.20020725085314.026219d0@thinkalong.com> X-Sender: jackpark@thinkalong.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 08:53:52 -0700 To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org From: Jack Park Subject: [ba-unrev-talk] Fwd: [xml-dev] OFFTOPIC: the dangers of shortsightedness Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org >From: John Cowan >To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org > >Warning: only philosophically on topic, no ObXML content inside. > >The naming of stars is a difficult matter, not one of your everyday >holiday games. The sky is divided into 88 arbitrary areas of varying >size called constellations, and ordinary stars are named in order of >brightness by a Greek letter followed by the name of the constellation >(in Latin, traditionally in the genitive case). Thus Alpha Centauri is >the brightest star in the constellation of the Centaur, and Tau Ceti is >the 19th brightest star in the constellation of the Whale. > > >From the 25th brightest star on, numbers are used. This system is fairly >simple and rational, since stars are naturally going to be discovered >in order from brightest to dimmest, as telescopes become more powerful. > >Stars which are, for any reason, of variable brightness don't fit neatly >into the rank order. If the star already had an ordinary name before >its variability was noticed, it keeps it. Otherwise, variable stars are >given Latin-letter names in order of discovery, followed again by the >name of the constellation, thus: R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z. S Doradus, >for example, one of the most luminous (and bizarre) stars known, is the >second variable star discovered in the constellation of the Dolphin. >(The reason for beginning with R seems to be forgotten.) All was well. > >But some constellations were found to contain more than nine variable >stars. > >No problem: astronomers went to two Latin letters for the 10th star >onwards, thus: RR, RS, ... RZ, SR, SS, ..., SZ, TR, ... ZZ. All was >well. > >But some constellations were found to contain more than 90 variable stars. > >No problem: astronomers wrapped around the Latin alphabet, thus: >AA, AB, ... AZ, ..., BA, ... QZ, omitting the letter J (most of this >system was invented in Germany, which was still on Fraktur at the time). >All was well. > >But some constellations were found to contain more than 334 variable >stars. > >Two-letter sequences beginning with R-Z had already been been used at >an earlier stage, so RA, ... RQ, SA, ..., SQ, ... ZQ were rejected. >Instead the final stage of nomenclature became (at very long last) >V335, V336, .... Which could and should have been done in the first >place instead of the fourth place. > >Caveat nomenclator. > >-- >John Cowan >http://www.reutershealth.com http://www.ccil.org/~cowan >Yakka foob mog. Grug pubbawup zink wattoom gazork. Chumble spuzz. > -- Calvin, giving Newton's First Law "in his own words" From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Thu Jul 25 09:12:39 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 00EDC56FFA; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 09:12:38 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from mail.101freeway.net (mail.101freeway.net [12.44.112.15]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 73C5956FF9 for ; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 09:12:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 77722 invoked from network); 25 Jul 2002 16:29:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO minerva) (10.1.17.76) by mail.101freeway.com with SMTP; 25 Jul 2002 16:29:33 -0000 From: "Garold (Gary) L. Johnson" To: Subject: RE: [ba-unrev-talk] Fwd: [xml-dev] OFFTOPIC: the dangers of shortsightedness Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 09:30:16 -0700 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <4.2.2.20020725085314.026219d0@thinkalong.com> Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Jack, Interesting article. Makes a definite point about the trade-offs between "good enough for now" and "what is really needed". Also interesting when taken in conjunction with the Extreme Programming viewpoint of "do the simplest thing that could possibly work". Clearly sometimes there is merit in getting it right the first time, or, at least, prior to releasing it to the public. Consider this in regard to the entire design process -- what elements of the design are likely to persist or change over time and warrant a "do it right" versus a "simplest workable" approach? Thanks, Garold (Gary) L. Johnson >From: John Cowan >To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org > >Warning: only philosophically on topic, no ObXML content inside. > >The naming of stars is a difficult matter, not one of your everyday >holiday games. The sky is divided into 88 arbitrary areas of varying >size called constellations, and ordinary stars are named in order of >brightness by a Greek letter followed by the name of the constellation >(in Latin, traditionally in the genitive case). Thus Alpha Centauri is >the brightest star in the constellation of the Centaur, and Tau Ceti is >the 19th brightest star in the constellation of the Whale. > > >From the 25th brightest star on, numbers are used. This system is fairly >simple and rational, since stars are naturally going to be discovered >in order from brightest to dimmest, as telescopes become more powerful. > >Stars which are, for any reason, of variable brightness don't fit neatly >into the rank order. If the star already had an ordinary name before >its variability was noticed, it keeps it. Otherwise, variable stars are >given Latin-letter names in order of discovery, followed again by the >name of the constellation, thus: R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z. S Doradus, >for example, one of the most luminous (and bizarre) stars known, is the >second variable star discovered in the constellation of the Dolphin. >(The reason for beginning with R seems to be forgotten.) All was well. > >But some constellations were found to contain more than nine variable >stars. > >No problem: astronomers went to two Latin letters for the 10th star >onwards, thus: RR, RS, ... RZ, SR, SS, ..., SZ, TR, ... ZZ. All was >well. > >But some constellations were found to contain more than 90 variable stars. > >No problem: astronomers wrapped around the Latin alphabet, thus: >AA, AB, ... AZ, ..., BA, ... QZ, omitting the letter J (most of this >system was invented in Germany, which was still on Fraktur at the time). >All was well. > >But some constellations were found to contain more than 334 variable >stars. > >Two-letter sequences beginning with R-Z had already been been used at >an earlier stage, so RA, ... RQ, SA, ..., SQ, ... ZQ were rejected. >Instead the final stage of nomenclature became (at very long last) >V335, V336, .... Which could and should have been done in the first >place instead of the fourth place. > >Caveat nomenclator. > >-- >John Cowan >http://www.reutershealth.com http://www.ccil.org/~cowan From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Thu Jul 25 10:00:28 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id CB3FC56FFB; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 10:00:27 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from twinlark.arctic.org (twinlark.arctic.org [208.44.199.239]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 5621C56FFA for ; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 10:00:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 4127 invoked by uid 611); 25 Jul 2002 17:17:39 -0000 Received: from localhost (sendmail-bs@127.0.0.1) by localhost with SMTP; 25 Jul 2002 17:17:39 -0000 Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 10:17:39 -0700 (PDT) From: da - dan ancona X-X-Sender: da - dan ancona To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: [ba-unrev-talk] introduction (was Re: ICADL call for short papers) In-Reply-To: <005601c23360$7c5cf8e0$2002a8c0@D9KP0711> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Speaking of DLI-II, now seems to be a good time to introduce myself. I can't remember what I was looking for when I stumbled across the list the other day, but I've been inspired by Dr. Engelbart's work for a long time now and I'm happy to see if there's some way I might participate. I'm currently on research staff with the Alexandria Digital Library at UC Santa Barbara, in the digital earth group specifically. My professional interests include advanced (and/or wacky :)) interfaces, knowledge organization, information visualization and hypertext systems. My occasionally up to date homepage here at the project is http://www.alexandria.ucsb.edu/~ancona/ There are links there to the paper and slides I recently presented at the JCDL (Portland) workshop on information visualization; the slides may not make much sense, but the paper is a decent enough overview of some of the recent thinking of the group here. Before joining this project about a year ago, I worked at a couple of different startups in the bay area, including (briefly) one of my own. See vizbang.com for a few more details on this. Vizbang was headed towards eventually being a general visualization based front end for a hypertext system (ergo the Ted Nelson quote on the front page there); it ended up being a bit more of an engineering challenge than I thought it'd be, but I still think it's got potential. I'm on an only slightly divergent track with what I'm working on here and will probably end up implementing some of the ideas I had there eventually. Nice to be here, and I'm looking forward to an interesting collaboration with you all. dan On Wed, 24 Jul 2002, Mei Lin Fung wrote: > Hello all, > > As part of our Digital Library focus, we'll be submitting a short paper > on what we're up to at the Bootstrap Alliance at the December 2002 > conference in Singapore. > > In case others are interested, I've put the details of the conference > below, including the call for papers. (the call was sent out to the US > Digital Library initiative people http://www.dli2.nsf.gov/ > > Mei Lin > > > > > > >Hi! As one of the program co-chairs for ICADL 2002, the International > >Conference on Asian Digital Libraries, > >http://www.cais.ntu.edu.sg:8000/icadl02 > >I invite you to submit a short paper proposal by 25 July. There will > be > >poster proposals accepted even after that, but a short paper seems to > be > >the right way to express the latest results of Digital Library > Initiative projects > > > >The conf. is just before the middle of Dec. in Singapore. > > > >Please let Ee Peng or me know if there are any questions. > > > >Thank you for your time and interest, regards, Ed > > > >Professor Edward A. Fox, Dept. of CS, 660 McBryde Hall > >Virginia Tech, M/C 0106, Blacksburg, VA 24061 USA > fox@vt.edu; http://fox.cs.vt.edu > > > From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Thu Jul 25 10:07:52 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 3A6BD56FFE; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 10:07:52 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from imailg1.svr.pol.co.uk (imailg1.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.195.179]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3586456FFB for ; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 10:07:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from modem-1088.stoked.dialup.pol.co.uk ([62.25.197.64] helo=vaio) by imailg1.svr.pol.co.uk with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17XmMI-0002Ar-00 for ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 18:25:03 +0100 Message-ID: <000f01c233ff$e9f1a500$40c5193e@vaio> From: "Peter Jones" To: Subject: [ba-unrev-talk] Fw: 'Perverse agricultural subsidies' submission to mailing list Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 18:22:53 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org I'm forwarding this, not merely because the cause is good, but also because I'm wondering whether the earthsummit site came out of KMi work. Simon - care to plug open.ac's tech efforts better than me? -- Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim Holt-Wilson" To: Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2002 4:23 PM Subject: 'Perverse agricultural subsidies' submission to mailing list Dear All, Perverse Agricultural Subsidies (with apologies for any cross posting) You are invited to join a discussion about perverse agricultural subsidies led by Claire Rhodes of Stakeholder Forum for Our Common Future. In 2000 rich countries subsidised their farmers with the equivalent of US$245 billion. However the total value of OECD agricultural subsidies was five times greater than the annual flow of overseas development aid. What can be done to drive a a high-profile global campaign on this issue? How can we collaborate to tackle this problem? Join the discussion on 'Earth Summit for All' at http://earthsummit.open.ac.uk . The outcomes of this discussion will feed into the Implementation Conference in Johannesburg being held just before the WSSD and into the WSSD itself. Regards, Dr Gary Alexander (Director) Tim Holt-Wilson (Information Co-ordinator) 'Earth Summit for All' Project c/o Faculty of Technology The Open University Milton Keynes MK7 6BT United Kingdom email: admin@earthsummit.open.ac.uk ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 'Earth Summit for All' is an on-line discussion forum developed by The Open University for organisations involved in the World Summit on Sustainable Development. Go to http://earthsummit.open.ac.uk ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- "A rising tide may float all boats, but not if yours has a hole in it, or you do not have one". - Michael Meacher, Environment Minister, UK From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Thu Jul 25 10:14:42 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 1DEDD56FFD; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 10:14:42 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from imailg1.svr.pol.co.uk (imailg1.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.195.179]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 30E8356FFC for ; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 10:14:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from modem-1088.stoked.dialup.pol.co.uk ([62.25.197.64] helo=vaio) by imailg1.svr.pol.co.uk with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17XmSv-0003MP-00 for ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 18:31:53 +0100 Message-ID: <001501c23400$deb148c0$40c5193e@vaio> From: "Peter Jones" To: References: <000f01c233ff$e9f1a500$40c5193e@vaio> Subject: Re: [ba-unrev-talk] Fw: 'Perverse agricultural subsidies' submission to mailing list Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 18:29:44 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-Mimeole: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org And I'd like to follow that up with a visit to Dr. Gary Alexander's website. Partly because of this: http://sustainability.open.ac.uk/gary/pages/egaia.htm But also because Gary is an online collaborative learning man http://sustainability.open.ac.uk/gary/pages/oclearn.htm Some interesting papers. -- Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Jones" To: Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 6:22 PM Subject: [ba-unrev-talk] Fw: 'Perverse agricultural subsidies' submission to mailing list > I'm forwarding this, not merely because the cause is good, > but also because I'm wondering whether the earthsummit > site came out of KMi work. > Simon - care to plug open.ac's tech efforts better than me? > > -- > Peter > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Tim Holt-Wilson" > To: > Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2002 4:23 PM > Subject: 'Perverse agricultural subsidies' submission to mailing list > > > Dear All, > > Perverse Agricultural Subsidies > (with apologies for any cross posting) > You are invited to join a discussion about perverse agricultural subsidies led > by Claire Rhodes of Stakeholder Forum for Our Common Future. In 2000 rich > countries subsidised their farmers with the equivalent of US$245 billion. > However the total value of OECD agricultural subsidies was five times greater > than the annual flow of overseas development aid. What can be done to drive a a > high-profile global campaign on this issue? How can we collaborate to tackle > this problem? > > Join the discussion on 'Earth Summit for All' at http://earthsummit.open.ac.uk . > The outcomes of this discussion will feed into the Implementation Conference in > Johannesburg being held just before the WSSD and into the WSSD itself. > > Regards, > > Dr Gary Alexander (Director) > Tim Holt-Wilson (Information Co-ordinator) > 'Earth Summit for All' Project > c/o Faculty of Technology > The Open University > Milton Keynes MK7 6BT > United Kingdom > > email: admin@earthsummit.open.ac.uk > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 'Earth Summit for All' is an on-line discussion forum > developed by The Open University for organisations > involved in the World Summit on Sustainable Development. > > Go to http://earthsummit.open.ac.uk > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > "A rising tide may float all boats, but not if yours has > a hole in it, or you do not have one". > - Michael Meacher, Environment Minister, UK > > > > > > > > > > > > From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Thu Jul 25 11:41:12 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 67B5056FFE; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 11:41:12 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from sccrmhc02.attbi.com (sccrmhc02.attbi.com [204.127.202.62]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D26BD56FFD for ; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 11:41:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sony ([12.234.214.35]) by sccrmhc02.attbi.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP id <20020725185829.WAIZ1451.sccrmhc02.attbi.com@sony> for ; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 18:58:29 +0000 Message-Id: <4.2.2.20020725115514.026175f0@thinkalong.com> X-Sender: jackpark@thinkalong.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 11:55:51 -0700 To: Ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org From: Jack Park Subject: [ba-unrev-talk] Fwd: [GP] THE DESIGN OF INNOVATION is Here! Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org >To: >From: "David E. Goldberg" > >GP Colleagues, > >A few weeks ago, I announced the pre-publication of my new book "THE DESIGN >OF INNOVATION: Lessons from and for Competent Genetic Algorithms" from >Kluwer Academic Publishers. The purpose of this note is to let you know >that the book is now available and shipping. Moreover, for a limited time >only, Kluwer is making the book available at a 25% discount. > >More information about the book is available at the book web site >http://www-doi.ge.uiuc.edu/. The web site contains a book summary, a table >of contents, and full text of advance praise for DOI from such notables as >John Holland, John Koza, and Lotfi Zadeh. The web site also announces an >8-lecture on-line short course to be available for registration after August >1, 2002. Short course information is also available at >http://online.engr.uiuc.edu/shortcourses. > >Those individuals seeking an autographed copy of the book can obtain one by >making a contribution to the Illinois Genetic Algorithms Laboratory web site >(http://www-illigal.ge.uiuc.edu/) using the on-line secure Friends of >IlliGAL page (http://www-illigal.ge.uiuc.edu/illigal_friend.php3). > >More information about my book and the other books in the Kluwer Series on >Genetic Algorithms and Evolutionary Computation is also available at the >series web site (http://www.wkap.nl/prod/s/GENA). > >I hope you will consider joining the growing group of colleagues who are >reading and enjoying "The Design of Innovation" today. Moreover, if you act >before September 1, 2002, you will save 25% off the list price. > >Dave Goldberg > _______________________________________________________________ > > David E. Goldberg, Professor > Director, Illinois Genetic Algorithms Laboratory (IlliGAL) > Affiliate, Technology Enterpreneurship Center (TEC) > Department of General Engineering > Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign > 117 Transportation Building > 104 S. Mathews Avenue > Urbana, IL 61801 > deg@uiuc.edu > http://www-illigal.ge.uiuc.edu/ (GA Lab) > http://online.cen.uiuc.edu/webcourses/ge485/(GA Course) > http://www-advancedgec.ge.uiuc.edu/ (Advanced GEC Course) > http://www.ge.uiuc.edu/tec/ (Technology Entrepreneur Ctr) > http://www-bplan.ge.uiuc.edu/ (Business Plan Wrkshp Course) > http://www.davidegoldberg.com/ (Consulting) > phone: 217/333-0897; fax: 217/244-5705 > _______________________________________________________________ > > 2003 Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, > GECCO-2003, will be held in Chicago, IL, > July 12-16, 2003 (Saturday-Wednesday). > For further information, http://www.isgec.org/GECCO-2003/. > Chair: James A. Foster (foster@cs.uidaho.edu) > _______________________________________________________________ > > A New Book by Dave Goldberg, THE DESIGN OF INNOVATION, > is now available in the Kluwer Series on GAs and EC. > For further information go to http://www-doi.ge.uiuc.edu/ > _______________________________________________________________ From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Thu Jul 25 11:53:08 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id E988B56FFF; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 11:53:07 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from sccrmhc01.attbi.com (sccrmhc01.attbi.com [204.127.202.61]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4FE0B56FFE for ; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 11:53:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sony ([12.234.214.35]) by sccrmhc01.attbi.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP id <20020725191019.EMPB8192.sccrmhc01.attbi.com@sony> for ; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 19:10:19 +0000 Message-Id: <4.2.2.20020725120259.02616750@thinkalong.com> X-Sender: jackpark@thinkalong.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 12:07:42 -0700 To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org From: Jack Park Subject: [ba-unrev-talk] Linux and the nature of the firm Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org http://www.benkler.org/CoasesPenguin.html full paper is a pdf from that page. Dan Gillmore of the San Jose Mercury News has a discussion of the paper at http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/3723325.htm in which he says: "Open source may, in fact, be a model for a radical shift in the way we do things. Yochai Benkler, professor of law at New York University and a longtime observer of information technology's relationship to our lives, says open source signals ``a broad and deep emergence of a new, third mode of production in the digitally networked environment.'' Here's the paper's abstract: For decades our understanding of economic production has been that individuals order their productive activities in one of two ways: either as employees in firms, following the directions of managers, or as individuals in markets, following price signals. This dichotomy was first identified in the early work of Nobel laureate Ronald Coase, and was developed most explicitly in the work of neo-institutional economist Oliver Williamson. In the past three or four years, public attention has focused on a fifteen-year-old social-economic phenomenon in the software development world. This phenomenon, called free software or open source software, involves thousands or even tens of thousands of programmers contributing to large and small scale project, where the central organizing principle is that the software remains free of most constraints on copying and use common to proprietary materials. No one "owns" the software in the traditional sense of being able to command how it is used or developed, or to control its disposition. The result is the emergence of a vibrant, innovative and productive collaboration, whose participants are not organized in firms and do not choose their projects in response to price signals. In this paper I explain that while free software is highly visible, it is in fact only one example of a much broader social-economic phenomenon. I suggest that we are seeing is the broad and deep emergence of a new, third mode of production in the digitally networked environment. I call this mode "commons-based peer-production," to distinguish it from the property- and contract-based models of firms and markets. Its central characteristic is that groups of individuals successfully collaborate on large-scale projects following a diverse cluster of motivational drives and social signals, rather than either market prices or managerial commands. The paper also explains why this mode has systematic advantages over markets and managerial hierarchies when the object of production is information or culture, and where the capital investment necessary for production-computers and communications capabilities-is widely distributed instead of concentrated. In particular, this mode of production is better than firms and markets for two reasons. First, it is better at identifying and assigning human capital to information and cultural production processes. In this regard, peer-production has an advantage in what I call "information opportunity cost." That is, it loses less information about who the best person for a given job might be than do either of the other two organizational modes. Second, there are substantial increasing returns to allow very larger clusters of potential contributors to interact with very large clusters of information resources in search of new projects and collaboration enterprises. Removing property and contract as the organizing principles of collaboration substantially reduces transaction costs involved in allowing these large clusters of potential contributors to review and select which resources to work on, for which projects, and with which collaborators. This results in allocation gains, that increase more than proportionately with the increase in the number of individuals and resources that are part of the system. The article concludes with an overview of how these models use a variety of technological and social strategies to overcome the collective action problems usually solved in managerial and market-based systems by property and contract. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- XML Topic Maps: Creating and Using Topic Maps for the Web. Addison-Wesley, ISBN 0-201-74960-2. From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Thu Jul 25 14:42:16 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 79E2457000; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 14:42:15 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from sccrmhc01.attbi.com (sccrmhc01.attbi.com [204.127.202.61]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 00B6E56FFF for ; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 14:42:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sony ([12.234.214.35]) by sccrmhc01.attbi.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP id <20020725215933.JLIK8192.sccrmhc01.attbi.com@sony> for ; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 21:59:33 +0000 Message-Id: <4.2.2.20020725145516.02636e80@thinkalong.com> X-Sender: jackpark@thinkalong.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 14:56:51 -0700 To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org From: Jack Park Subject: [ba-unrev-talk] Fwd:Some Issues of Trust (was RE: [xml-dev] URI indigestion) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Snippet of a dialog going on at XML-DEV... >From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" > >Sure, but TimBL didn't invent that. It shows >up all over Demming et al. It is the fundamental >problem of sustaining an organization and of >keeping it efficient by not overloading it with >tracking software that the humans quickly >learn to outwit. If you have to track them >in that detail to get them to work, you are >in the wrong business or they are. > >No, the problem of trust has to rely on >being able to assert tests. That is the >ontological commitment thing that came >up last year. And to agree to the tests. >A lot of government work based on contract >deliverables is determined by creating, >documenting, and authoritatively signing >the tests. That works for procurement. > >Is it a general approach to the semantic >web? Maybe for some kinds of ontologies, >but I think we will end up with recognized >authoritative assertions; eg, the scholastic >method of establishing credentials, and even >then, it will only work insofar as a body >of corroborating work exists. For some >ontolologies, we will have to classify them >as speculative, merely opinion, possibly >misinformed and so on. Trust metrics will >be a mixed bag based on other metrics: criticality, >knowledge stability, and so on. > >There is no substitute for an admin module >to vette intel. > >len > >-----Original Message----- >From: Danny Ayers [mailto:danny666@virgilio.it] > > >The semantic web cannot escape the problem of > >identifying the "preferred reading". Humans > >can't either. > >Nope, but the web can already help a bit, and a bit more metadata and agents >that can use it should help enhance that. > >Old TimBL note, mentions trust : >http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Semantic.html > >----------------------------------------------------------------- >The xml-dev list is sponsored by XML.org , an >initiative of OASIS > >The list archives are at http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/ From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Thu Jul 25 16:37:34 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 7925557001; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 16:37:33 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from sccrmhc02.attbi.com (sccrmhc02.attbi.com [204.127.202.62]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0E29B57000 for ; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 16:37:31 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sony ([12.234.214.35]) by sccrmhc02.attbi.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP id <20020725235451.MKZE1451.sccrmhc02.attbi.com@sony> for ; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 23:54:51 +0000 Message-Id: <4.2.2.20020725162243.02636c60@thinkalong.com> X-Sender: jackpark@thinkalong.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 16:52:06 -0700 To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org From: Jack Park Subject: Re: [ba-unrev-talk] introduction (was Re: ICADL call for short papers) In-Reply-To: References: <005601c23360$7c5cf8e0$2002a8c0@D9KP0711> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Dan, Motoring around your site, I landed on: http://vizbang.com/iaml/ "IAML is an XML syntax designed to be a very simple way of placing a few kinds of media objects (images, 3D shapes, chunks of text and audio clips) in a 3D space and to allow navigation between them with links." That work appears to have ended when you moved to Santa Barbara. Anything happening with it since the move? Jack At 10:17 AM 7/25/2002 -0700, you wrote: >Speaking of DLI-II, now seems to be a good time to introduce myself. I >can't remember what I was looking for when I stumbled across the list the >other day, but I've been inspired by Dr. Engelbart's work for a long time >now and I'm happy to see if there's some way I might participate. > >I'm currently on research staff with the Alexandria Digital Library at UC >Santa Barbara, in the digital earth group specifically. My professional >interests include advanced (and/or wacky :)) interfaces, knowledge >organization, information visualization and hypertext systems. My >occasionally up to date homepage here at the project is > >http://www.alexandria.ucsb.edu/~ancona/ > >There are links there to the paper and slides I recently presented at the >JCDL (Portland) workshop on information visualization; the slides may not >make much sense, but the paper is a decent enough overview of some of the >recent thinking of the group here. > >Before joining this project about a year ago, I worked at a couple of >different startups in the bay area, including (briefly) one of my own. >See vizbang.com for a few more details on this. Vizbang was headed >towards eventually being a general visualization based front end for a >hypertext system (ergo the Ted Nelson quote on the front page there); it >ended up being a bit more of an engineering challenge than I thought it'd >be, but I still think it's got potential. I'm on an only slightly >divergent track with what I'm working on here and will probably end up >implementing some of the ideas I had there eventually. > >Nice to be here, and I'm looking forward to an interesting collaboration >with you all. > >dan From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Thu Jul 25 16:54:54 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 9B20557002; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 16:54:53 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from sccrmhc02.attbi.com (sccrmhc02.attbi.com [204.127.202.62]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4060C57001 for ; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 16:54:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sony ([12.234.214.35]) by sccrmhc02.attbi.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP id <20020726001211.NJDV1451.sccrmhc02.attbi.com@sony> for ; Fri, 26 Jul 2002 00:12:11 +0000 Message-Id: <4.2.2.20020725170758.0262f900@thinkalong.com> X-Sender: jackpark@thinkalong.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 17:09:21 -0700 To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org From: Jack Park Subject: [ba-unrev-talk] MPAA, immunity, cyber crimes Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Read the responses to this one... http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/02/07/25/190235.shtml?tid=123 "The news has been buzzing around for the last couple of days that Representative Berman, whose palm has been crossed with silver by the entertainment industry, would introduce a bill permitting copyright holders to hack or DoS people allegedly distributing their works without permission. Well, the bill has been introduced - read it and weep. Although the bill wouldn't allow copyright owners to alter or delete files on your machine, they would be allowed to DoS you in essentially any other way. Let me restate that: the MPAA and RIAA are asking that they be allowed to perform what would otherwise be federal and state criminal acts and civil torts, and you will have essentially no remedy against them under any laws of the United States. " From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Thu Jul 25 18:52:25 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 7F55D57003; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 18:52:24 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from patan.sun.com (patan.Sun.COM [192.18.98.43]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id EE1CE57002 for ; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 18:52:22 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM ([129.145.155.51]) by patan.sun.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA19629 for ; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 20:09:36 -0600 (MDT) Received: from sun.com (d-usca14-129-126 [129.145.129.126]) by ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM (8.11.6+Sun/8.10.2/ENSMAIL,v2.1p1) with ESMTP id g6Q29aC09285 for ; Thu, 25 Jul 2002 19:09:36 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3D40AF68.F9031998@sun.com> Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 19:09:44 -0700 From: Eric Armstrong X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: Re: [ba-unrev-talk] Fwd: [xml-dev] OFFTOPIC: the dangers of shortsightedness References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Actually, there's a fairly simple razor that has served me pretty well over the years: Build the simplest program you want, but get the stored data structures right. When the data formats are good, you can change and evolve the manipulating program(s) practically forever. But data structures that don't give you the flexibility you need can be murder. The naming problem Jack posted is essentially a data structure problem (what format for name data). The limits give you fits, and programs tend to depend on those limits in ways that create a long ripples. In today's world, I would add "interchange structures" as an important element in the data design. "Garold (Gary) L. Johnson" wrote: > Jack, > > Interesting article. Makes a definite point about the trade-offs between > "good enough for now" and "what is really needed". > Also interesting when taken in conjunction with the Extreme Programming > viewpoint of "do the simplest thing that could possibly work". Clearly > sometimes there is merit in getting it right the first time, or, at least, > prior to releasing it to the public. > > Consider this in regard to the entire design process -- what elements of the > design are likely to persist or change over time and warrant a "do it right" > versus a "simplest workable" approach? > > Thanks, > > Garold (Gary) L. Johnson > > >From: John Cowan > >To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org > > > >Warning: only philosophically on topic, no ObXML content inside. > > > >The naming of stars is a difficult matter, not one of your everyday > >holiday games. The sky is divided into 88 arbitrary areas of varying > >size called constellations, and ordinary stars are named in order of > >brightness by a Greek letter followed by the name of the constellation > >(in Latin, traditionally in the genitive case). Thus Alpha Centauri is > >the brightest star in the constellation of the Centaur, and Tau Ceti is > >the 19th brightest star in the constellation of the Whale. > > > > >From the 25th brightest star on, numbers are used. This system is fairly > >simple and rational, since stars are naturally going to be discovered > >in order from brightest to dimmest, as telescopes become more powerful. > > > >Stars which are, for any reason, of variable brightness don't fit neatly > >into the rank order. If the star already had an ordinary name before > >its variability was noticed, it keeps it. Otherwise, variable stars are > >given Latin-letter names in order of discovery, followed again by the > >name of the constellation, thus: R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z. S Doradus, > >for example, one of the most luminous (and bizarre) stars known, is the > >second variable star discovered in the constellation of the Dolphin. > >(The reason for beginning with R seems to be forgotten.) All was well. > > > >But some constellations were found to contain more than nine variable > >stars. > > > >No problem: astronomers went to two Latin letters for the 10th star > >onwards, thus: RR, RS, ... RZ, SR, SS, ..., SZ, TR, ... ZZ. All was > >well. > > > >But some constellations were found to contain more than 90 variable stars. > > > >No problem: astronomers wrapped around the Latin alphabet, thus: > >AA, AB, ... AZ, ..., BA, ... QZ, omitting the letter J (most of this > >system was invented in Germany, which was still on Fraktur at the time). > >All was well. > > > >But some constellations were found to contain more than 334 variable > >stars. > > > >Two-letter sequences beginning with R-Z had already been been used at > >an earlier stage, so RA, ... RQ, SA, ..., SQ, ... ZQ were rejected. > >Instead the final stage of nomenclature became (at very long last) > >V335, V336, .... Which could and should have been done in the first > >place instead of the fourth place. > > > >Caveat nomenclator. > > > >-- > >John Cowan > >http://www.reutershealth.com http://www.ccil.org/~cowan From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Fri Jul 26 04:27:27 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 601CF57004; Fri, 26 Jul 2002 04:27:27 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from tomts7-srv.bellnexxia.net (tomts7.bellnexxia.net [209.226.175.40]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 940E657003 for ; Fri, 26 Jul 2002 04:27:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sympatico.ca ([64.228.165.134]) by tomts7-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.5.01.04.19 201-253-122-122-119-20020516) with ESMTP id <20020726114412.EUO1568.tomts7-srv.bellnexxia.net@sympatico.ca> for ; Fri, 26 Jul 2002 07:44:12 -0400 Message-ID: <3D413567.66000216@sympatico.ca> Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 07:41:27 -0400 From: Henry K van Eyken X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.78 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.7-10 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: Re: [ba-unrev-talk] Fwd: [xml-dev] OFFTOPIC: the dangers of shortsightedness References: <4.2.2.20020725085314.026219d0@thinkalong.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Jack. I am confident that, because your post is billed as "off topic," it could not possibly apply to location numbers as modifications to document modifications continue to be modified, ad infinitum. Henry Jack Park wrote: > >From: John Cowan > >To: xml-dev@lists.xml.org > > > >Warning: only philosophically on topic, no ObXML content inside. > > > >The naming of stars is a difficult matter, not one of your everyday > >holiday games. The sky is divided into 88 arbitrary areas of varying > >size called constellations, and ordinary stars are named in order of > >brightness by a Greek letter followed by the name of the constellation > >(in Latin, traditionally in the genitive case). Thus Alpha Centauri is > >the brightest star in the constellation of the Centaur, and Tau Ceti is > >the 19th brightest star in the constellation of the Whale. > > > > >From the 25th brightest star on, numbers are used. This system is fairly > >simple and rational, since stars are naturally going to be discovered > >in order from brightest to dimmest, as telescopes become more powerful. > > > >Stars which are, for any reason, of variable brightness don't fit neatly > >into the rank order. If the star already had an ordinary name before > >its variability was noticed, it keeps it. Otherwise, variable stars are > >given Latin-letter names in order of discovery, followed again by the > >name of the constellation, thus: R, S, T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z. S Doradus, > >for example, one of the most luminous (and bizarre) stars known, is the > >second variable star discovered in the constellation of the Dolphin. > >(The reason for beginning with R seems to be forgotten.) All was well. > > > >But some constellations were found to contain more than nine variable > >stars. > > > >No problem: astronomers went to two Latin letters for the 10th star > >onwards, thus: RR, RS, ... RZ, SR, SS, ..., SZ, TR, ... ZZ. All was > >well. > > > >But some constellations were found to contain more than 90 variable stars. > > > >No problem: astronomers wrapped around the Latin alphabet, thus: > >AA, AB, ... AZ, ..., BA, ... QZ, omitting the letter J (most of this > >system was invented in Germany, which was still on Fraktur at the time). > >All was well. > > > >But some constellations were found to contain more than 334 variable > >stars. > > > >Two-letter sequences beginning with R-Z had already been been used at > >an earlier stage, so RA, ... RQ, SA, ..., SQ, ... ZQ were rejected. > >Instead the final stage of nomenclature became (at very long last) > >V335, V336, .... Which could and should have been done in the first > >place instead of the fourth place. > > > >Caveat nomenclator. > > > >-- > >John Cowan > >http://www.reutershealth.com http://www.ccil.org/~cowan > >Yakka foob mog. Grug pubbawup zink wattoom gazork. Chumble spuzz. > > -- Calvin, giving Newton's First Law "in his own words" From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Fri Jul 26 05:07:55 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id D7B8A57005; Fri, 26 Jul 2002 05:07:54 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from tomts12-srv.bellnexxia.net (tomts12.bellnexxia.net [209.226.175.56]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4837D57004 for ; Fri, 26 Jul 2002 05:07:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sympatico.ca ([64.228.165.134]) by tomts12-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.5.01.04.19 201-253-122-122-119-20020516) with ESMTP id <20020726122527.ORXW8119.tomts12-srv.bellnexxia.net@sympatico.ca> for ; Fri, 26 Jul 2002 08:25:27 -0400 Message-ID: <3D413EE4.E73B5786@sympatico.ca> Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 08:21:56 -0400 From: Henry K van Eyken X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.78 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.7-10 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: [ba-unrev-talk] Linux vs Windows Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=1251254 Business view of open-source. Concluding paragraph: Having shown that there is, in many cases, a better way to develop code is undoubtedly the open-source movement's biggest achievement so far. And if Linux does one day become the standard for operating systems, as some enthusiasts predict, it will have taught the computer industry that it is more efficient to maintain its software infrastructure collectively. This would be bad news for Microsoft and Sun, but it would benefit customers-through greater competition, lower prices and, not least, better software. From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Fri Jul 26 08:30:13 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 1D5FE57006; Fri, 26 Jul 2002 08:30:13 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from mercury.open.ac.uk (mercury.open.ac.uk [137.108.128.150]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6792A57005 for ; Fri, 26 Jul 2002 08:30:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from morse.open.ac.uk by mercury.open.ac.uk via SMTP Local (Mailer 3.1) with ESMTP; Fri, 26 Jul 2002 16:47:19 +0100 Received: by morse.open.ac.uk with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <3H9ZKPN5>; Fri, 26 Jul 2002 16:47:19 +0100 Message-ID: From: V.S.Uren@open.ac.uk To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: RE: [ba-unrev-talk] Aspirin or, Why do they lie? Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 16:47:10 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org This is not "evidence" but I do recall attending a lecture on kidney transplants in which the speaker (a surgeon as I recall) said that one of the few things you could do to avoid kidney damage was to minimise consumption of pain killers - whether he meant both aspirin as well as paracetemol I don't know (death from overdose of parcetemol is caused by liver/kidney failure). Lets face it, all drugs are toxic. Then again there is a chemistry students' urban myth that there are 30 known carcinogens in oregano. I personally don't intend to give up eating pizza. > -----Original Message----- > From: Eric Armstrong [SMTP:eric.armstrong@sun.com] > Sent: Wednesday, July 24, 2002 3:00 AM > To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org > Subject: Re: [ba-unrev-talk] Aspirin or, Why do they lie? > > "Dennis E. Hamilton" wrote: > > > Eric, > > > > In the article, I couldn't find any reference or other substantiation > for > > that claim, rather amazing since there are names and citation in other > parts > > of the article. > > > > What evidence do they have for this claim? > > Good question. I wasn't inclined to doubt it, so I didn't think to verify > accuracy. It was just something I chanced across while researching > the latest development in cartilage regeration/replacement protocols. > From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Sat Jul 27 03:56:50 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 5D1145700F; Sat, 27 Jul 2002 03:56:50 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from spam.joinnet.com.jo (unknown [212.33.192.89]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 173E257006 for ; Sat, 27 Jul 2002 03:56:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by SPAM with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id ; Sat, 27 Jul 2002 14:16:22 +0200 Received: from a5k0b7 (212.33.198.151 [212.33.198.151]) by spam.joinnet.com.jo with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2653.13) id PX4ZRZSQ; Sat, 27 Jul 2002 14:16:20 +0200 From: Ihsan Ali Al Darhi To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Message-ID: <000401c3528f$ecd3a480$97c621d4@a5k0b7> References: Subject: Re: [ba-unrev-talk] Aspirin or, Why do they lie? Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2003 12:15:59 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1256" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2615.200 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org > liver/kidney failure). Lets face it, all drugs are toxic. Then This is not true. the medicine we have here in Jordan has no side effects at all. It can cure all the diseases u have even those u don't know. It healed many diseases like cancer, diabetes, etc. For the case of diabetes, the organ that is responsible for controling the blood sugar level returns to work normaly. Mohammed From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Sat Jul 27 12:00:57 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 06ECA5700C; Sat, 27 Jul 2002 12:00:56 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from rwcrmhc52.attbi.com (rwcrmhc52.attbi.com [216.148.227.88]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C05A057008 for ; Sat, 27 Jul 2002 12:00:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sony ([12.234.214.35]) by rwcrmhc52.attbi.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP id <20020727191816.PRLQ14958.rwcrmhc52.attbi.com@sony> for ; Sat, 27 Jul 2002 19:18:16 +0000 Message-Id: <4.2.2.20020727121419.02645c10@thinkalong.com> X-Sender: jackpark@thinkalong.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 12:15:36 -0700 To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org From: Jack Park Subject: [ba-unrev-talk] Books online Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/ I think this is a hoot! One of the great things to do when we get a bunch of Web-based OHS engines running would be to mine (index, cluster, etc) this enormous body of historical and recent literature. From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Sun Jul 28 00:31:40 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id CAFDD57022; Sun, 28 Jul 2002 00:31:39 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from hot.burningchrome.com (cust-216-9-146-10.bton.kiva.net [216.9.146.10]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E07BF5700C for ; Sun, 28 Jul 2002 00:31:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (cdent@localhost) by hot.burningchrome.com (8.11.2/8.11.2) with ESMTP id g6S7msH29585 for ; Sun, 28 Jul 2002 02:48:54 -0500 Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2002 02:48:53 -0500 (EST) From: To: Subject: Re: [ba-unrev-talk] further research and thinking related to unrev-ii archive In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Kathryn and I have done a bit more work with the unrev-ii list archive. Nothing major, but since this is something I requested from the Bootstrap Alliance on the existing forums, I figured I ought to report that I've done it on the old list. Our work has involved processing messages from the unrev-ii archive that we have parsed into a database. We have a few interfaces to that data, including a CGI which will eventually allow community members to code the messages for value and aboutness. We'll use that information to help create a faceted access structure for the archive. That CGI has been updated to fix a bug. In the past when a set of message were retrieved individual messages from that set would be displayed with a "prev" and "next" link. Those links led to the previous and next messages in the entire dataset, not the selected set. That has been fixed. It wasn't so much a bug as me being lazy in my coding. Now, if you feel so inclined, you can retrieve the entire collection of messages from Eric Armstrong (he is the single most frequent contributor by number of messages) and easily read them in chronological order, jumping out into the threads for context, if desired. A few months ago I asked about getting a free text search interface to the forums hosted on bootstrap.org. Since I had it from the database parsing, I parsed the unrev-ii archive into mhonarc and indexed it with ffw. FFW pays attention to name tags in HTML to the index is down to the purple number. This may or may not be effective. If people try it, I would appreciate hearing comments. The CGI interface for the search system is very crude compared to modern stuff, I'm just using the sample code provide with the (old) system. If people are interested I can create similar search interfaces to the ba-unrev-talk and ba-ohs-talk lists. These various things are linked to the following page: http://www.burningchrome.com/~cdent/uviz/ Please let me know if you have any comments. On Mon, 15 Jul 2002 cdent@burningchrome.com wrote: > Back in April Kathryn La Barre and I announced, on this list, > some work we were doing with computational methods for generating > faceted access structures to the archive of the unrev-ii (the > list that is the precursor to this one) email list. > > Since then a paper describing the work and its relevance to the > PORT project was written for the Pragmatic Web Workshop at the > 10th International Conference on Conceptual Structures. Much of > the workshop was held over email. For Kathryn and I the email > collaboration led to an extensive revision of the paper. We had > something of a revelation about the nature of knowledge > representation and discourse that may be of interest. -- Chris Dent http://www.burningchrome.com/~cdent/ "If you assume that there is an instinct for freedom, that there are opportunities to change things, that hope is possible, then hope may be justified, and a better world may be built. That's your choice.'' N.Chomsky From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Sun Jul 28 14:05:29 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 1DC6D57034; Sun, 28 Jul 2002 14:05:29 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from cmailg1.svr.pol.co.uk (cmailg1.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.195.171]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 16DC957022 for ; Sun, 28 Jul 2002 14:05:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from modem-1195.cloyster.dialup.pol.co.uk ([217.135.98.171] helo=vaio) by cmailg1.svr.pol.co.uk with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1) id 17YvUw-0001yt-00 for ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org; Sun, 28 Jul 2002 22:22:42 +0100 Message-ID: <004101c2367c$9be02d80$dea3193e@vaio> From: "Peter Jones" To: References: Subject: Re: [ba-unrev-talk] further research and thinking related to unrev-ii archive Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2002 22:19:35 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Great work! The second interface in the search is interesting indeed. -- Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2002 8:48 AM Subject: Re: [ba-unrev-talk] further research and thinking related to unrev-ii archive > > Kathryn and I have done a bit more work with the unrev-ii list > archive. Nothing major, but since this is something I requested > from the Bootstrap Alliance on the existing forums, I figured I > ought to report that I've done it on the old list. > > Our work has involved processing messages from the unrev-ii > archive that we have parsed into a database. We have a few > interfaces to that data, including a CGI which will eventually > allow community members to code the messages for value and > aboutness. We'll use that information to help create a faceted > access structure for the archive. > > That CGI has been updated to fix a bug. In the past when a set of > message were retrieved individual messages from that set would be > displayed with a "prev" and "next" link. Those links led to the > previous and next messages in the entire dataset, not the > selected set. That has been fixed. It wasn't so much a bug as me > being lazy in my coding. Now, if you feel so inclined, you can > retrieve the entire collection of messages from Eric Armstrong > (he is the single most frequent contributor by number of > messages) and easily read them in chronological order, jumping > out into the threads for context, if desired. > > A few months ago I asked about getting a free text search > interface to the forums hosted on bootstrap.org. Since I had it > from the database parsing, I parsed the unrev-ii archive into > mhonarc and indexed it with ffw. FFW pays attention to name tags > in HTML to the index is down to the purple number. This may or > may not be effective. If people try it, I would appreciate > hearing comments. The CGI interface for the search system is very > crude compared to modern stuff, I'm just using the sample code > provide with the (old) system. > > If people are interested I can create similar search interfaces > to the ba-unrev-talk and ba-ohs-talk lists. > > These various things are linked to the following page: > > http://www.burningchrome.com/~cdent/uviz/ > > Please let me know if you have any comments. > > On Mon, 15 Jul 2002 cdent@burningchrome.com wrote: > > > Back in April Kathryn La Barre and I announced, on this list, > > some work we were doing with computational methods for generating > > faceted access structures to the archive of the unrev-ii (the > > list that is the precursor to this one) email list. > > > > Since then a paper describing the work and its relevance to the > > PORT project was written for the Pragmatic Web Workshop at the > > 10th International Conference on Conceptual Structures. Much of > > the workshop was held over email. For Kathryn and I the email > > collaboration led to an extensive revision of the paper. We had > > something of a revelation about the nature of knowledge > > representation and discourse that may be of interest. > > -- > Chris Dent http://www.burningchrome.com/~cdent/ > "If you assume that there is an instinct for freedom, that there are > opportunities to change things, that hope is possible, then hope may be > justified, and a better world may be built. That's your choice.'' N.Chomsky > > > > > > From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Tue Jul 30 09:46:08 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 11F3156FF3; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 09:46:07 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from sccrmhc01.attbi.com (sccrmhc01.attbi.com [204.127.202.61]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 8AE4156FF2 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 09:46:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sony ([12.234.214.35]) by sccrmhc01.attbi.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP id <20020730170328.GXUA23732.sccrmhc01.attbi.com@sony> for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 17:03:28 +0000 Message-Id: <4.2.2.20020730095510.0265eae0@thinkalong.com> X-Sender: jackpark@thinkalong.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 10:00:49 -0700 To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org From: Jack Park Subject: [ba-unrev-talk] Information Physics Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org It just never fails to amaze me the things I can discover by surfing http://www.memes.net. Consider this URL: http://www.memes.net/index.php3?request=displaypage&NodeID=815 a note on "ObjectWiki knowledge synthesis" -- of course I'm going to jump to that page! From there: http://www.wikiworld.com/wiki/ which has a link to: http://www.informationphysics.com/wiki/index.php/InformationPhysics "[]Information Physics is a multidisiplanary field, based on []Information Theory. It is the science of the nature of information and the information of nature. See []InfoPhysics course outline for some topics, links and references. In information theory, bits of information are defined as conditional probabilities, you can have any degree of maybe and maybe is infinitely divisable. This uncertainty turns out to be the result of incomplete knowledge and the impossibility of the ideal information decoder. When observed in nature, however, bits assume definate values of either true or false, up or down or, yin or yang." Whether or not this link turns out to be valuable (whatever that means), no matter how you stack things up in OHS-speak, we are dealing with information, its accumulation, organization, and interpretation; accordingly, most all links need to be examined carefully. From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Tue Jul 30 12:07:05 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 0D59856FF4; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 12:07:04 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from sccrmhc02.attbi.com (sccrmhc02.attbi.com [204.127.202.62]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 884D856FF3 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 12:07:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sony ([12.234.214.35]) by sccrmhc02.attbi.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP id <20020730192425.LNVK221.sccrmhc02.attbi.com@sony> for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 19:24:25 +0000 Message-Id: <4.2.2.20020730122015.0263f6b0@thinkalong.com> X-Sender: jackpark@thinkalong.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 12:21:43 -0700 To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org From: Jack Park Subject: [ba-unrev-talk] August 2009: How Google beat Amazon and Ebay to the Semantic Web Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org http://ftrain.com/google_takes_all.html 26 Jul 2002. A work of fiction. A Semantic Web scenario. A short feature from a business magazine published in 2009. "It's hard to believe Google - which is now the world's largest single online marketplace - came on the scene only a little more than 8 years ago, back in the days when Amazon and Ebay reigned supreme. So how did Google become the world's single largest marketplace?" From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Tue Jul 30 12:48:08 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 27F2D56FF5; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 12:48:08 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from tomts20-srv.bellnexxia.net (tomts20-srv.bellnexxia.net [209.226.175.74]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 59D8656FF4 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 12:48:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sympatico.ca ([64.228.165.187]) by tomts20-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.5.01.04.19 201-253-122-122-119-20020516) with ESMTP id <20020730200531.PICI11295.tomts20-srv.bellnexxia.net@sympatico.ca> for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 16:05:31 -0400 Message-ID: <3D46F0BE.D51E75EE@sympatico.ca> Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 16:02:06 -0400 From: Henry K van Eyken X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.7-10 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: Re: [ba-unrev-talk] Information Physics References: <4.2.2.20020730095510.0265eae0@thinkalong.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Jack Park quoted: > When observed in nature, > however, bits assume definate values of either true or false, up or down > or, yin or yang." > > Whether or not this link turns out to be valuable (whatever that means), no > matter how you stack things up in OHS-speak, we are dealing with > information, its accumulation, organization, and interpretation; > accordingly, most all links need to be examined carefully. For better or for worse, look at third line in second illustration on page http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0007A735-759A-1CDD-B4A8809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=3&catID=2 "Quantum bits, or cubits, can also exist in superpositions of 0 and 1, in effect being both numbers at once. Eight cubits can represent every number from 0 to 255 simultaneously." And, of course, a huge number of combinations of 0, 1, and both. It is the quest for the quanytum computer to make good use of this. From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Tue Jul 30 14:00:32 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id 820BB56FF7; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 14:00:31 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from sccrmhc01.attbi.com (sccrmhc01.attbi.com [204.127.202.61]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E09AD56FF5 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 14:00:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sony ([12.234.214.35]) by sccrmhc01.attbi.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.27 201-229-121-127-20010626) with ESMTP id <20020730211752.SFXK23732.sccrmhc01.attbi.com@sony> for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 21:17:52 +0000 Message-Id: <4.2.2.20020730141241.02670ce0@thinkalong.com> X-Sender: jackpark@thinkalong.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 4.2.2 Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 14:15:10 -0700 To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org From: Jack Park Subject: [ba-unrev-talk] Open Space World Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org http://www.openspaceworld.org/english/intro.html by Harrison Owen, in the Introduction to the first Open Space Technology: A= =20 User's Guide, Copyright =A9 1992 by Harrison Owen "In 1983, I had occasion to organize an international conference for 250=20 participants. It took me a full year of labor. By the time I had finished=20 with all the details, frustrations and egos (mine and others'), that go=20 with such an event, I resolved never to do such a thing again. This=20 resolution was confirmed at the conclusion of the conference, when it was=20 agreed by one and all (including myself) that although the total event had= =20 been outstanding, the truly useful part had been the coffee breaks. So much= =20 for one year's effort arranging papers, participants, and presenters. The=20 only thing that everybody liked was the one thing I had nothing to do with:= =20 the coffee breaks. There had to be a message here. My question was a simple one. Was it possible to combine the level of=20 synergy and excitement present in a good coffee break, with the substantive= =20 activity and results characteristic of a good meeting? And most of all,=20 could the whole thing be done in less than a year? The line of inquiry I=20 choose to follow took some interesting turns, but essentially it started=20 with the notion that if I could identify certain basic mechanisms of=20 meeting, or human gathering, it might be possible to build them into an=20 approach that would be so simple that it could not fail and so elemental=20 that it might possess the natural power of a good coffee break." From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Tue Jul 30 16:53:21 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id CD2AB56FF3; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 16:53:20 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from patan.sun.com (patan.Sun.COM [192.18.98.43]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id CE51956FF2 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 16:53:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM ([129.145.155.51]) by patan.sun.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id SAA16438 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 18:10:36 -0600 (MDT) Received: from sun.com (d-usca14-129-126 [129.145.129.126]) by ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM (8.11.6+Sun/8.10.2/ENSMAIL,v2.1p1) with ESMTP id g6V0AZC11823 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 17:10:35 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3D472B05.A90D06C4@sun.com> Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 17:10:45 -0700 From: Eric Armstrong X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: Re: [ba-unrev-talk] Open Space World References: <4.2.2.20020730141241.02670ce0@thinkalong.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by patan.sun.com id SAA16438 Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Jack Park wrote: > http://www.openspaceworld.org/english/intro.html > by Harrison Owen, in the Introduction to the first Open Space Technolog= y: A > User's Guide, Copyright =A9 1992 by Harrison Owen Intriguing and engaging write-ups. Does one of the papers at their site actually describe the process?? I looked around a bit, but couldn't seem to find a description that went beyond a summary of the benefits. I'd sure like to try, it though. It sounds like exactly what we've needed -- IBIS raised to the level of organizing principle! From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Tue Jul 30 20:19:58 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id C5FAE56FF3; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 20:19:57 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from tomts6-srv.bellnexxia.net (tomts6.bellnexxia.net [209.226.175.26]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 263B056FF2 for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 20:19:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sympatico.ca ([64.228.165.123]) by tomts6-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.5.01.04.19 201-253-122-122-119-20020516) with ESMTP id <20020731033650.WJZ1568.tomts6-srv.bellnexxia.net@sympatico.ca> for ; Tue, 30 Jul 2002 23:36:50 -0400 Message-ID: <3D475AA1.51E6F55F@sympatico.ca> Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2002 23:33:53 -0400 From: Henry K van Eyken X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.7-10 i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Subject: [ba-unrev-talk] Limits to editorial competence Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org There are a few people on this list I really should have attended to sooner, but found it still difficult to do so properly. Please, bear with me; I am coming around to do so. One of the challenges faced in running Fleabyte is to try to remain critical, not only of the motes in other people's eyes ... From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Wed Jul 31 12:08:10 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id A087F56FF3; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 12:08:09 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from nwkea-mail-2.sun.com (nwkea-mail-2.sun.com [192.18.42.14]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2757456FF2 for ; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 12:08:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM ([129.145.155.51]) by nwkea-mail-2.sun.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA18672 for ; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 12:25:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sun.com (d-usca14-129-126 [129.145.129.126]) by ha1sca-mail1.SFBay.Sun.COM (8.11.6+Sun/8.10.2/ENSMAIL,v2.1p1) with ESMTP id g6VJPSC23445 for ; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 12:25:28 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3D4839B4.C4EE842B@sun.com> Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 12:25:40 -0700 From: Eric Armstrong X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ba-unrev-talk Subject: [ba-unrev-talk] Foreword by D.E.! Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Turns out the XML Topic Maps book has a nice little foreword by none other than DR. Douglas Engelbart!! From owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Wed Jul 31 15:17:39 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk-list@bi0.bootstrap.org Received: by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix, from userid 2001) id C3F1156FF3; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 15:17:35 -0700 (PDT) Delivered-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Received: from cream.kiva.net (cust-216-9-146-10.bton.kiva.net [216.9.146.10]) by bi0.bootstrap.org (Postfix) with SMTP id EBB0256FF2 for ; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 15:17:33 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (cdent@localhost) by cream.kiva.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g6VMUUO05245 for ; Wed, 31 Jul 2002 17:30:30 -0500 X-Authentication-Warning: cream.kiva.net: cdent owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 17:30:29 -0500 (EST) From: Chris Dent X-X-Sender: To: Subject: [ba-unrev-talk] testing requested of unrev-ii archive database interface Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: ba-unrev-talk@bootstrap.org Related to the database based archive of the unrev-ii mailing list described in various messages on this mailing list, including the most recent: http://www.bootstrap.org/lists/ba-unrev-talk/0207/msg00118.html New features have been added to the CGI interface to the database that require testing. These features support the following: - Searches of the message collection by body keyword, subject keyword, or from address can now be limited by the averaged score of evaluations of the messages. Evaluations are provided by users of the archvie. In a couple of weeks Kathryn and I will be announcing the official opening of the archive for real evaluations from members of this community, but before we do that the system needs to tested for bugs and confusion in the interface. There should be plenty of both. I'm passing around a lot state between instances of the CGI, and interface design has never been a strong point for me. Suggestions, comments, bug reports, questions are all very welcome. To help out point your browser at http://www.burningchrome.com/~cdent/uviz/cgi/index.cgi (for some context see http://www.burningchrome.com/~cdent/uviz/ ) and perform some searches. If you find messages that are especially valuable, score them up using the provided tools. At this time any message without a score has a score of zero. (This may prove to be a problem in the future, as it makes it difficult to downgrade a message in relation to messages not yet read. It may be better to give all messages a base score of 5 or have a range of -5 to 5. We'll see.) When we have things working well, all scores will be wiped and we'll start over from scratch. The overall goal for this project is to generate a multi-faceted interface to the content of the archive using community evaluation and annotation, faceted classification, semantic analysis techniques and simple indexing. Your participation is appreciated. -- Chris Dent http://www.burningchrome.com/~cdent/ "If you assume that there is an instinct for freedom, that there are opportunities to change things, that hope is possible, then hope may be justified, and a better world may be built. That's your choice.'' N.Chomsky