Yes, the idea is for flood protection more than anything. But the same idea would work.. You have to be extremely careful of the environment.
تجنب. القتل والاغتصاب واستعباد الآخرين Avoid; murder, rape and enslavement of others -----Original Message----- From: gabbydott <[email protected]> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Sent: Mon, 16 Feb 2015 12:14 AM Subject: Re: Mind's Eye Re: What could the internet be? You have water house communities in holland. Am Sonntag, 15. Februar 2015 schrieb : > Utopia,, strange thought.. The future is not bright.. But there is hope > in small communities.. Verses standing valiantly alone against the odds.. > Ocean community barges are looking good.. > تجنب. القتل والاغتصاب واستعباد الآخرين > Avoid; murder, rape and enslavement of others > > -----Original Message----- > From: archytas <[email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> > To: [email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');> > Sent: Sun, 15 Feb 2015 9:18 PM > Subject: Re: Mind's Eye Re: What could the internet be? > > More;s Utopia is pretty grim. No astrology for Gabby and no tavern for me > - indeed privacy was no concern at all - rather activity was supposed to be > under public scrutiny. Atheists were tolerated, but had to take > instruction from priests. We would have to get Facil to build a full size > raft to commemorate our arrival on the place, close to somewhere to launch > it. > > On Sunday, February 15, 2015 at 5:41:59 PM UTC, archytas wrote: >> >> One of the fantasies of academics who want a free internet is that this >> will somehow remove bias. This rather like the fantasy that markets are >> free and unregulated (like in the unregulated times of the robber barons on >> the Rhine?). Astrology is based on fictions, yet what of such as >> personality psychology in search of the ungroundable personality, or any of >> the 'bag of words' my lot use that rely on words? I'm Taurus and might get >> on with half of you. Solomon's sword comes to mind! >> >> On Sunday, February 15, 2015 at 5:16:01 PM UTC, archytas wrote: >>> >>> Utopia is a book that, like More (who preached religious tolerance and >>> persecuted Protestants), attempted to navigate a course through the ideal >>> and the real, between a desire to create perfection and the pragmatic >>> understanding that perfection, given the fallibility of mankind, is >>> impossible. Your social romantic might be interesting. I must have spotted >>> your sense of humour to invite you down the rabbit hole. There remains the >>> question we might just be ostrich and sticking our heads into the ground to >>> evade an already unromantic world. Gemini is a long way away. We must be >>> flouting relativity, but then, what are rules? >>> >>> >>> On Sunday, February 15, 2015 at 3:17:25 PM UTC, Gabby wrote: >>>> >>>> Yes, I understood your title question. I have decided to not argue >>>> along the your-question-is-wrong line but to take it a step further, >>>> to take better care of my energy balance and to see where I am a social >>>> romantic myself. I find it relatively easy yo laugh at myself, maybe a side >>>> effect of my Gemini nature. But I don't want to bore you with my trivia. >>>> >>>> Am Sonntag, 15. Februar 2015 schrieb archytas : >>>> >>>>> I was thinking more of a shift from hurt and pain from authority >>>>> claiming expertise and some radically different ways to live. Surfacing >>>>> the deep iconography which humans invent manners to avoid is obviously >>>>> hurtful. >>>>> >>>>> On Sunday, February 15, 2015 at 11:38:02 AM UTC, Gabby wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I prefer the social romantic quote from Facil to this quote here. New >>>>>> times demand new imagery to hurt and to ridicule. >>>>>> >>>>>> Am Sonntag, 15. Februar 2015 schrieb Molly : >>>>>> >>>>>>> http://youtu.be/sZrgxHvNNUc >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Saturday, February 14, 2015 at 6:20:05 PM UTC-5, archytas wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That's true Molly. I'm only Oliver asking for more. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Saturday, February 14, 2015 at 8:45:34 PM UTC, Molly wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> No doubt the current event stuff is conCOCKted and restricted. Net >>>>>>>>> neutrality in the US is presented as not allowing broadband vendors >>>>>>>>> doing >>>>>>>>> what the government already does. Though all that crap, we can still >>>>>>>>> manage >>>>>>>>> to extend our reach and ourselves in ways that raise consciousness >>>>>>>>> (McLuhan) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Saturday, February 14, 2015 at 12:13:03 PM UTC-5, archytas >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Foucault (1979) put forward some ideas on what would happen as >>>>>>>>>> information technology took hold (The Postmodern Condition: a report >>>>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>>>> knowledge). Essentially, the professor would be less a repository >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> facts as we got free access to these. Much of this literature would >>>>>>>>>> glow >>>>>>>>>> bright from Gabby's red pen. Quite a few have taken Fuller's view >>>>>>>>>> on how >>>>>>>>>> to get more material into public scrutiny. These should include the >>>>>>>>>> distribution and circulation of knowledge claims. The task of social >>>>>>>>>> epistemology of science, according to Fuller, should be regulation >>>>>>>>>> of the >>>>>>>>>> production of knowledge by regulating the rhetorical, technological, >>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>> administrative means of its communication. While there has not been >>>>>>>>>> much >>>>>>>>>> uptake of Fuller's proposals as articulated, Lee's work begins to >>>>>>>>>> make >>>>>>>>>> detailed recommendations that take into account the current >>>>>>>>>> structures of >>>>>>>>>> funding and communication. Fuller encounter between individual-based >>>>>>>>>> social epistemology with its focus on testimony and disagreement as >>>>>>>>>> transactions among individuals and the more fully social >>>>>>>>>> epistemologies >>>>>>>>>> that take social relations or interaction as partially constitutive >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> empirical knowledge, is the goal. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Whatever this mouthful says, much is not on the internet because >>>>>>>>>> existing power interests have prevented it. A new business model >>>>>>>>>> with >>>>>>>>>> countervailing structures is not really emerging. The lack of >>>>>>>>>> progress is >>>>>>>>>> not surprising, but I suspect most of us don't know how much has been >>>>>>>>>> blocked. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Fuller, Steve, 1988. Social Epistemology, Bloomington, IN: >>>>>>>>>> Indiana University Press. >>>>>>>>>> Lee, Carole J., 2012. “A Kuhnian Critique of Psychometric >>>>>>>>>> Research on Peer Review,” Philosophy of Science, 79(5): 859–870. >>>>>>>>>> –––, Cassidy R. Sugimoto, Guo Zhang, and Blaise Cronin, 2013, >>>>>>>>>> “Bias in Peer Review,” Journal of the American Society for >>>>>>>>>> Information >>>>>>>>>> Science and Technology, 64(1): 2–17. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, February 14, 2015 at 3:14:39 PM UTC, archytas wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Welcome Twirly - you sound remarkably like someone else. We'll >>>>>>>>>>> be playing our cards right soon. I'm glad you bought a pair of >>>>>>>>>>> Facil's >>>>>>>>>>> boots. Allan seems to have been filling his. The question probably >>>>>>>>>>> concerns what expert knowledge is. There is now a long history of >>>>>>>>>>> what it >>>>>>>>>>> wasn't. Think clerks trying to smash Babbage's counting machine or >>>>>>>>>>> Luddites on machinery generally. The shipyards I worked in were >>>>>>>>>>> full of >>>>>>>>>>> expert skills not actually needed in building ships. We have >>>>>>>>>>> embedded a >>>>>>>>>>> lot of work skill in technology. The resistance of the allocation >>>>>>>>>>> class >>>>>>>>>>> has been aggressive. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Do??? - there must be some German distinction between knowing >>>>>>>>>>> that and knowing how - wohl wissend, dass and zu wissen, wie? >>>>>>>>>>> Finding the >>>>>>>>>>> root metaphors is quite difficult. People are reluctant to show >>>>>>>>>>> you what >>>>>>>>>>> they actually do; perhaps beyond your category error and being left >>>>>>>>>>> trying >>>>>>>>>>> to model a non-slip process with grease. We have plenty of >>>>>>>>>>> examples of TPM >>>>>>>>>>> (total production maintenance) as you say. Teachers, lawyers, >>>>>>>>>>> accountants, >>>>>>>>>>> managers and politicians all claim expert knowledge. The expertise >>>>>>>>>>> may be >>>>>>>>>>> keeping up the delusion of expertise, rather than rule following and >>>>>>>>>>> ability to break the rules of actual practice, a bit like a >>>>>>>>>>> secretive form >>>>>>>>>>> of a soccer player allowed to carry a machine gun - think big >>>>>>>>>>> company >>>>>>>>>>> tax-dodging and stuff like high frequency trading, front-running >>>>>>>>>>> and other >>>>>>>>>>> investment tricks since telescopes were used to spot ships on the >>>>>>>>>>> horizon >>>>>>>>>>> by commodities traders. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Big issues, of course, concerning who controls the technology. >>>>>>>>>>> Currently, ownership is very restricted, to niche markets like >>>>>>>>>>> Molly's and >>>>>>>>>>> those behind the smiling pussy internet and government and >>>>>>>>>>> commercial >>>>>>>>>>> spying. Many still have no access. And we have no challenge to >>>>>>>>>>> really big >>>>>>>>>>> news-entertainment corporations - other than Democracy No, Real >>>>>>>>>>> News and >>>>>>>>>>> illegal streams of the same old content. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Saturday, February 14, 2015 at 1:46:35 PM UTC, Gabby wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Okay. Next round. Twirly-girly at your service or at your >>>>>>>>>>>> command, whatever you prefer. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> In a different context I pulled my red pen on the sentence >>>>>>>>>>>> before the one that Facil marked. (Excellent video translation >>>>>>>>>>>> btw, Facil!) >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> My main point was that you cannot do(???) expert knowledge on a >>>>>>>>>>>> root metaphor with a categorical break at the wrong place - if not >>>>>>>>>>>> to say >>>>>>>>>>>> on the wrong metaphor, because the same car driving training one >>>>>>>>>>>> was used. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Meaning in speed and business terms, the earlier in the process >>>>>>>>>>>> you identify the error, the cheaper the error eradication process. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I took down a different different keyword from my eternal >>>>>>>>>>>> savior's doings in the delusion thread, but I will take better >>>>>>>>>>>> care this >>>>>>>>>>>> time as to not have it overwritten again this time. It will be one >>>>>>>>>>>> brick of >>>>>>>>>>>> a solid square. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Am Freitag, 13. Februar 2015 15:41:22 UTC+1 schrieb archytas: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Most of my use of the internet concerns researching pretty >>>>>>>>>>>>> dire academic papers and books through still largely restricted >>>>>>>>>>>>> access. >>>>>>>>>>>>> It's much cheaper than buying the stuff directly, particularly as >>>>>>>>>>>>> 99% of >>>>>>>>>>>>> what shows up is dross. I've played with the rest to find out >>>>>>>>>>>>> what is >>>>>>>>>>>>> there. Search is a big plus compared with rooting through stuff >>>>>>>>>>>>> in a >>>>>>>>>>>>> university library. Now, much google search just turns up dross >>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't >>>>>>>>>>>>> want. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> In an academic project we are interested in what is on the net >>>>>>>>>>>>> generally - in terms of how much of general consciousness this >>>>>>>>>>>>> represents. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Rational discussion is a tiny part of what is on the net. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Techies spend a >>>>>>>>>>>>> lot of time looking for cut and paste code and ways we might >>>>>>>>>>>>> automate this >>>>>>>>>>>>> sweep. There is a background idea that we are looking for new >>>>>>>>>>>>> ways to do >>>>>>>>>>>>> 'expert knowledge' on the metaphor of people not being able to >>>>>>>>>>>>> build cars >>>>>>>>>>>>> but able to drive them with a bit of training. My own bad is >>>>>>>>>>>>> 'big data' as >>>>>>>>>>>>> a new language that would bring a different speed to human >>>>>>>>>>>>> discourse and >>>>>>>>>>>>> potentially control of the means of production. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Lately, I'm interested in the lack of a business model for >>>>>>>>>>>>> anything except trash. I can join a site where a couple of young >>>>>>>>>>>>> women >>>>>>>>>>>>> will send me off-the-peg clothes on approval to ensure my >>>>>>>>>>>>> sartorial >>>>>>>>>>>>> elegance, though don't. There are plenty of interesting Moochs, >>>>>>>>>>>>> but I >>>>>>>>>>>>> don't have time. I bank n line and have the joy of never seeing >>>>>>>>>>>>> a bank >>>>>>>>>>>>> clerk. Shopping can be done in the same manner as shops don't >>>>>>>>>>>>> interest me >>>>>>>>>>>>> at all. My insurance renewals are always 30% higher than I can >>>>>>>>>>>>> get the >>>>>>>>>>>>> same cover for via one of the broker sites on the day. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I do electronic teaching. So I'm no longer racked by whatever >>>>>>>>>>>>> diseases undergraduate classes try to kill me with. And I never >>>>>>>>>>>>> see a boss >>>>>>>>>>>>> or have to attend a useless staff meeting, or have my classes >>>>>>>>>>>>> flooded as >>>>>>>>>>>>> the students discover I'm an easier touch and tell jokes. The >>>>>>>>>>>>> work is more >>>>>>>>>>>>> or less pre-prepared and my timetable is not changed at >>>>>>>>>>>>> ridiculous short >>>>>>>>>>>>> notice and I don't have to take time to teach kids from other >>>>>>>>>>>>> classes, at >>>>>>>>>>>>> my door because they can't get anywhere with the guy supposed to >>>>>>>>>>>>> help. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I can watch television and films through illegal sites, but >>>>>>>>>>>>> would really prefer to pay for channels where I could select from >>>>>>>>>>>>> much >>>>>>>>>>>>> wider material without packaging. The current business model >>>>>>>>>>>>> encourages >>>>>>>>>>>>> loads of channels with the same (usually old) dross, or stuff >>>>>>>>>>>>> like Netflix >>>>>>>>>>>>> with only 1% I'd want to see and don't want to pay to support. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sports >>>>>>>>>>>>> channels require me to pay for soccer I don't want. Tony has >>>>>>>>>>>>> done more for >>>>>>>>>>>>> me in a few minutes (neglecting his production time) than Sky >>>>>>>>>>>>> Arts bores >>>>>>>>>>>>> ever could. We lack a business model of actual choice. With one, >>>>>>>>>>>>> insanestream news and other entertainment, the crap science >>>>>>>>>>>>> pornography of >>>>>>>>>>>>> the BBC, Discovery and so on, would be things of my past. In >>>>>>>>>>>>> chronic >>>>>>>>>>>>> business terms, I wonder how they do market segmentation at all. >>>>>>>>>>>>> I am sick >>>>>>>>>>>>> of Blue Peter (kids programme here) presentation. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> One can imagine plenty of people like the best through this >>>>>>>>>>>>> group wanting something very different and something large enough >>>>>>>>>>>>> not to be >>>>>>>>>>>>> a part of when time presses and so on. Uber, properly supervised >>>>>>>>>>>>> against >>>>>>>>>>>>> racist drivers, could bring very radical change - I meet few who >>>>>>>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>>>>>> explain why - though we have not yet worked out that technology >>>>>>>>>>>>> could >>>>>>>>>>>>> massively reduce what we currently call work and planet burning. >>>>>>>>>>>>> In the >>>>>>>>>>>>> meantime we can't even set up a discussion group without Gabby >>>>>>>>>>>>> (and >>>>>>>>>>>>> everyone really) worrying on the curtain shades. Give us a twirl >>>>>>>>>>>>> then >>>>>>>>>>>>> girl, like one of those doxies Bruce Forsythe used to encourage. >>>>>>>>>>>>> I can see >>>>>>>>>>>>> something of a business model, starting with Chris' 'attractors'. >>>>>>>>>>>>> The >>>>>>>>>>>>> eventual key is content for a sophisticated audience - >>>>>>>>>>>>> remembering very few >>>>>>>>>>>>> people do education without any kind of accreditation pay-off and >>>>>>>>>>>>> the means >>>>>>>>>>>>> to pay for organisation does not move easily from free. Current >>>>>>>>>>>>> strategies >>>>>>>>>>>>> are advertising and the begging bowl. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> --- >>>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in >>>>>>> the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. >>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/to >>>>>>> pic/minds-eye/JQ9a6NzpVYU/unsubscribe. >>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to >>>>>>> [email protected]. >>>>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> --- >>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the >>>>> Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. >>>>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/ >>>>> topic/minds-eye/JQ9a6NzpVYU/unsubscribe. >>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to >>>>> [email protected]. >>>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>>>> >>>> -- > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > ""Minds Eye"" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','minds-eye%[email protected]');> > . > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > -- > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the > Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. > To unsubscribe from this topic, visit > https://groups.google.com/d/topic/minds-eye/JQ9a6NzpVYU/unsubscribe. > To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to > [email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','minds-eye%[email protected]');> > . > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
