That's one perspective. Another perspective sees dams and water drainage systems as protection against nature's constant attempt to get back what man has stolen. Or so. ;)
Am Montag, 16. Februar 2015 schrieb : > 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] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> > To: "[email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>" < > [email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[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]> >> To: [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/ >>>>>>>> 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 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]. >> 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.
