You arrogant, gullible idiots!

Hai guyz, YOU are breaking the planet!
Screw that. Global warming is the biggest myth of our lifetime.
Science has pooped out countless articles in the past 10 years to say this! Here are a few snips.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 10 reasons why humans are not to blame 1] CO2 has not driven climate in the past and there is no reason to believe it is now 2] Temperature drives CO2 concentrations3] CO2 is absorbed by the oceans and the carbon is deposited in carbonate rocks at rates arguably exceeding human emissions. 4] CO2, being a greenhouse gas, should moderate temperatures by warming the coldest night and winter temperatures and should lessen severity of storms. 5] Humans also emit aerosols and sulphur compounds that tend to cool offsetting at least some warming that might result from human emissions 6] Climates naturally vary due to a number of cycles 7] It cooled over 300 years ago in the LIttle Ice Age that was not caused by humans and it is silly to think the warming since then is necessarily from humans 8] All theories of warming are based on models that are based on wild assumptions that are probably incorrect and simplistic explanations are simply not credible. 9] Climate science is in its infancy and we are just beginning to learn about it. 10] The earth has been cooling recently 10A] Oh yeah, I forgot. Alarmists are a bunch of political leftists that are more interested in pushing government control than they are in pushing science. WHy do I suspect Dana is in the the house. Multiple down arrows is a clue.

Note that word, alarmist. Alarmists are the crux of the matter. Their agenda is to be reviewed later.
Alarmists are either idiots, sheep or frauds!

Quote:

Originally Posted by ROBERT H. ESSENHIGH E.G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conversion Department of Mechanical Engineering Ohio State University Columbus Last Saturday’s “Heating up” editorial on global warming covers quite a lot of territory but still misses the principal point: that man’s addition to the carbon-dioxide flux in the atmosphere, by fossil-fuel combustion, is essentially irrelevant……And from man? That’s about 5 or 6 or possibly 7 gigatons per year, which is about the size of the noise in the nature data and is essentially trivial by comparison. And, of the two gases in the atmosphere that do most of the warming, carbon dioxide, as noted, is secondary. Water is responsible for roughly 80 percent to 85 percent of the absorption and re-radiation, and carbon dioxide is responsible for (most of) the balance of 15 percent to 20 percent. The radiation, by the way, isn’t “trapped.” It is coming and going: It’s known as Radiative Exchange (governed by what is known as the Schuster-Schwartzchild or S-S Integral Equation of Radiative Transfer). But, next, when it comes to atmospheric heating, we need the heat anyway. If the atmosphere wasn’t warmed, the Earth would be too cold to live on, and we wouldn’t be here. So what’s the big problem? What has the correlation between rising temperature and rising carbon dioxide got to do with anything? In fact, quite a lot. First, it is real. Second, if we reverse the drivers as suggested, we then see that it is most probably the rising temperature that is driving up the carbon dioxide, not the other way around. The quantity of carbon dioxide that water — in the sea or lakes or rivers and so on — can absorb will drop as the temperature rises.. …We can certainly go for carbondioxide control and sequestration, but this is likely to be somewhere between highly and catastrophically expensive. And to what end, if that isn’t the problem? I’m not alone in this position. Merely one of a large minority. But those with the power evidently don’t want to listen. So is this science or just politics?

Don’t be so arrogant, damn. You think humans are capable of ****ing up the planet completely? The Sun and the Earth are bigger than 7 billion people. Don’t fool yourselves!

Here’s a nice video-debate blog for ya’ll to sift for yer own interest

Like many things on this planet, you have been told a story.

1] The ‘1998′ argument (allegedly the hottest year of the last century) is one of the strongest evidential entities in the global warming argument. It is a lie. The figures have been corrected by the scientific community and protocols properly calibrated, for which NASA and alarmist idiots have quietly conceded as incorrect. 1934 was in fact the hottest year of the last century. ****ING OOPS.

2] There was an article posted about … a year ago (?) to show that the projected calculations for global warming were wrong, corrected for appending a clause to the formula to account for an ‘infinite’, greatly resolving the original diabolical formulae.

3] Al Gore doesn’t just save the world with his Powerpoint presentations, he makes money from it too. So do many other ‘green organisations’.
Al Gore initiated the carbon tax bull****, remember? OH. This last quote sums it ALL up.

Originally Posted by November 2007 Idaho Observer

The carbon tax concept is a ridiculously complex scheme based on scientific fraud, cultural tunnel vision and political naivete.

If you’re happy, I’m…

I went on the internet last week, and found THIS!

No. Actually I’ve been keeping an eye on our friendly looking, sincere ruler of the world and so did a bit of scratching.

Has he lived up to his promises?

Example.
He promised that when elected he would bring the boys back home from the East cos they clearly had no right or reason to be there…yet the pull-out story changes as time goes on from calling the pull out in less than a week –> considation of plans exceeding a year. There’s a link below to some forum banter for consideration.

Quote:
Despite his plans to send tens of thousands more troops to Afghanistan to boost stability, the Obama administration seems to be heeding expert advice that no military solution is possible over the long term.

Ok. So Obama then sends more troops in instead of taking them out and decides on a LONG TERM Eastern operation! The time period multiplies by the flipping week.

Quote:
President Barack Obama is considering a plan to pull out U.S. troops from Iraq in 19 months, not the 16 months he promised on the campaign trail. The other twist in the reported plan is that it would leave 50,000 troops behind, which begs the question: Is that really a full drawdown of U.S. forces in that war-torn country?

Quote:
The plan would split the difference between Obama’s campaign pledge to withdraw most forces in 16 months and the U.S. obligation under a security agreement with Iraq to pull out altogether by the end of 2011, an unnamed official told Bloomberg. The official said the president hasn’t made a final decision about an Iraq drawdown.
About 142,000 U.S. troops are now in Iraq, according to the Defense Department.

Wat? Watch that 2011 number grow too.
It doesn’t all add up. It seems thus far he has ratified very few promises made in them original speeches! There are other examples of false promises, if you care to scratch. MANY campaign promises broken.

Is there a good reason for this that I didn’t stumble on?

AFP: Obama looks for regional allies to stabilize Afghanistan
Obama Likely to Announce Iraq Pullout This Week, Official Says – Political Radar
News Cycle: Obama Weighs 19-Month Iraqi Pullout Timetable That Leaves 50,000 Troops Behind
Obama Favors 19-Month Withdrawal from Iraq | Drudge Retort
Obama Likely to Announce Iraq Pullout This Week, Official Says – Political Radar

“I do not have any money…”

HIstorical wonders, today.

Desmond Tutu on Ubuntu

Not a functional post, but a coffee table-like tribute to share for us open source idealogists our there

After hearing Marlon Parker’s use of social media rehabilitation mediums (mentioning Facebook, MXit and Blogspot) at a Nomadic Marketting evening on Wednesday night, to more effectively help (specifically) Cape Flats gangsters – a truly inspiring job well done.

I discussed this wonderful ptoject with friends the next day that maintained the idea of each-for-his own and not having to look out for our extended community in the same humane and sensible ”rising tides float all ships” sense of global ”Ubuntu”. I’m a proud and educated open source fan, in all senses

Here is wonderful man. A clever man and a truthful man. Please also note his depthful statements in the past few months regarding South African politics. Here is a clip that I was found honoured to witness in my lifetime, for you. There are a bunch more to sink your teeth into, so have a nice scratch.

Dumbing Down the Presidency

An old Washington Post piece by David S. Broder that popped to mind again
Try to read it in a broader sense than the scope projected below

People campaign for the presidency by talking their heads off. By the time the winner reaches the White House, the habit is so ingrained that it is impossible to shake.

The result has been what professor Jeffrey Tulis of the University of Texas 21 years ago labeled “the rhetorical presidency,” his term for an office in which the principal goal is to mobilize public opinion successfully enough to dominate dealings with Congress and even foreign powers. Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton were, for most of their tenures, masters of the art. George W. Bush had early success but has lost most of his audience and, with it, his sway.

Now, another scholar, Elvin T. Lim of Wesleyan University, has offered a revision of the Tulis theory that sheds fascinating and disturbing light on the torrent of communications that are unleashed by the “communicator in chief.” In a slim book titled “The Anti-Intellectual Presidency,” he argues that the real problem is not the increased quantity of words coming out of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. but the sharp decline in content — especially of logical argument.

Peggy Noonan, the former Reagan speechwriter who was one of 42 people interviewed by Lim, said that the result of this decline is that “the only organ to which no appeal is made these days — you might call it America’s only understimulated organ — is the brain.”

Complaints about vacuous official rhetoric and the “dumbing-down” of presidential speeches, news conferences and interviews are standard fare. Lim found strong evidence to support those complaints, not just in his interviews with retired speechwriters but in the presidential texts themselves.

In what must have been a heroic effort, he applied standard techniques of content analysis to state papers of every president from Washington to the second Bush. His tool is something called the Flesch readability score — a measure of the average number of words per sentence and the average number of syllables per word. The higher the Flesch score, the simpler to get the meaning.

Applied to the annual State of the Union addresses, the average score has doubled from the first few presidents to the last few. Those “messages were pitched at a college level through most of the 18th and 19th centuries,” Lim says. “They have now come down to an eighth-grade reading level.” The same trend, but more pronounced, is found in inaugural addresses. Their average sentence length has dropped from 60 words to 20.

Simplification has its advantages, if it serves to increase public comprehension. But it comes with a huge risk: The complexity of real-world choices can be, and often is, lost.

I remember my shock 50 years ago when I came to Washington from Bloomington, Ill., where I had been hearing a lot about the debate over federal aid to education. When I got here, I learned for the first time that the federal government had been subsidizing education for a century. The real debate was: How much subsidy, distributed how and under what regulations? All of that substance was missing in the speeches I had heard in Bloomington; much the same thing is happening now, when it comes to the No Child Left Behind program.

But the problem Lim sees is more than dumbing down. “As presidents have taken the rhetorical path of least resistance by serving up simplistic sentences to citizens, they have correspondingly offered an easily digestible substantive menu devoid of argument and infused with inspirational platitudes, partisan punch lines and emotional and human-interest appeals.”

These trends, too, are charted by Lim. Basically what has happened, he shows, is that rather than seeking to persuade voters by arguing for their policies, presidents increasingly have sought to build trust by identifying themselves with those voters and their “common sense” view of the world. “Whereas all of the presidents through Woodrow Wilson appealed to ‘common sense’ just 11 times in their recorded papers, presidents since Wilson have done so more than 1,600 times,” he writes.

Lim knows that the forces feeding the trends he describes will not easily be reversed. But he calls on politicians to think about their role as educators of the public and on the public to demand straight talk from those who would be president.

——————————————————————————————————————————————————-

Also, I have for you an extract from one of JFK’s great speeches, thought to be speaking about secret American societies (The Illuminati?). Excuse the tin-hatted Shane for a second to see the wonderful prose behind what is said. One can’t deny how good the speech writer was – a truly beautiful piece that I hold close to my aspiring writers heart.

Today no war has been declared–and however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe. The survival of our friends is in danger. And yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching troops, no missiles have been fired.

If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of “clear and present danger,” then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent.

It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions–by the government, by the people, by every businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence–on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.

Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.

Nevertheless, every democracy recognizes the necessary restraints of national security–and the question remains whether those restraints need to be more strictly observed if we are to oppose this kind of attack as well as outright invasion.

The definitive value of seeking definition

Not so much a masterpiece of reason and intellect, but a method that I wish to share with you all A method that I fear is often neglected or taken for granted.

Definition

I sat listening to Dan Gillmor talking at the GSB on Friday, briefly illustrating trends and prophecies about our changing world in his book We the Media (published under Creative Commons and available online). We came upon a problem that I’ve been facing for a long time in my own writing – modern day popularity vs veracity. To this, he added a term that I hadn’t put much focus on before – reputation.

These terms were brought up with regards to open-sourced journalism, as such, and designing a system of improving the veracity of accepted published media. On the surface these two words, popularity and reputation, have rather similar definitions.

These ideas being published under Creative Commons, I thought I would run with the obligation to initiate a thought process for solving. For this, I consulted good ol’ Google definitions and read up a chunky selection of definitions for these words. I have always believed strongly in undertstanding the term completely before attempting to tackle it (a method that I have upheld for many years) and find that simply strengthening my understanding of each word helps my brain to blossom nice long chains of thoughts very quickly. An essay or thesis instantly pops into my mind with all accompanied intricacies.

It always impresses me when somebody states their definition or understanding of a word within the given implications or context that they are discussing. Choosing a specific implication of any word over another helps one to drive their point harder, which I find is uber-useful to good thinking.

On a similar note, I was debating with Max about the ways in which the modern sms/technology age has dumbed down language and subsequently dumbed down understanding and good thinking. Shortening, digesting, redigesting and simplifying, communication is taking a risky walk in the dark. Not to go into boring details, but many argue that this new age has only transformed thinking and not sabotaged itself. Your conclusion is your own, but I do implore you to review definitions and general understanding as I have above. Nobody likes to be labelled illiterate (with the connotation of ’stupid’, perhaps), but some intelligences and thought processes are surely incomplete without having a good arsenal of vocabulary and meaning?

As I do like to say
”prose before hos”

A second look at Second Life

This program truly is quite fascinating. In 2006 and 2007, the signup figures for SL shot exponentially for the sky as users spread the word of’t with the novelty of evolving into the semantic web. Dave and Max threw mention of this SNS megalith a few months ago – though I only recently decided to have another look-see for myself. To note that it’s been around since the end of 2003! It seems to have a shaky copyright protection on it, though it boasts open-source principles and dynamic user-generated work about it.

And so I give you : Second Life

Second Life^® is a 3-D virtual world created by its Residents. Since opening to the public in 2003, it has grown explosively and today is inhabited by millions of Residents from around the globe.

From the moment you enter the World you’ll discover a vast digital continent, teeming with people, entertainment, experiences and opportunity. Once you’ve explored a bit, perhaps you’ll find a perfect parcel of land to build your house or business.

You’ll also be surrounded by the Creations of your fellow Residents. Because Residents retain intellectual property rights in their digital creations, they can buy, sell and trade with other Residents.

The Marketplace currently supports millions of US dollars in monthly transactions. This commerce is handled with the inworld unit of trade, the Linden™ dollar, which can be converted to US dollars at several thriving online Linden dollar exchanges.

As a social network tool, the success of SL can be easily measured by its popularity. Before its users lies an amazing user-generated world where the intellectual property of each user (and literally, the virtual property that one can create in SL) is worth its weight in real US Dollars. One can make a fulltime living on their interaction and contribution to this virtual world as they go about performing tasks in different environments (of which are host to real-time advertising by sponsoring corporates). While by late 2008 standards, the interface looks a little bit rubbish out-dated, the fundamental interactive qualities seem to suffice.
As I bumptiously stumbled about the land a bit (stumbling being a good word for’t, as the controls are quite rubbish disorienting and awkward. Function and form are not well weighted thus far. There was a kind helper-character chatting away (a SL volunteer to show the newbies around) and a few people walking into walls. After figuring out how to walk a little better, I abandoned my awkward sitting position next to the wall in the corner to explore. Characters of all shapes and sizes popped up around me as I looked about – the size of the SL arena quite overwhelming. I task-switched after a while to see that the bandwidth usage was rather overwhelming too

Then I began to ponder…this all seems quite familiar. Has anyone ever seen Habbo? A similar concept to SL: Habbo is also a user-generated world where each person can customise their own appearance to infinite ends, buy and sell virtual objects and properties and ”throw parties” (to which I didn’t jump for joy as much as others might).

Having two samples of this branding of SNS, I can draw a few biased conclusions!
—> They are no more than glorified chatrooms of olde with a pleasant user interface.
—> The users strangely buy into the idea that sentiment for virtual objects is rebatable in real-life money.
—> You can buy (with real money) your own private regions. Wait. We have a tool that is designed for interacting with other people, yet money buys you an exclusive virtual domain?
—> Logs show that little user interface update activity has taken place over the years of their existence.
—> The developers are, however, constantly moving about the worlds // fixing bugs and constantly noting functionality issues

If it is to be seen as a glorified chat room, however, the global networking prospect shone some healthy light back onto SL. The website boasts that one is able to meet ”like minds” in this world that you can obviously base your activities and discussions around. If millions of dollars are exchanged on this tool (and apparently business agreements parallel to our real life also take place), I should naturally be quite intrigued. Then I began to think about the ”like minds” I would encounter on SL. I then evaluated and flattered myself simultaneuosly. Throwing a few high-horsed stereotypes at the user demographic, I pondered :
Can you picture Dave Duarte sititng in front of his Mac, playing SL and preaching about Nomadic Marketing?
Can you picture Al Gore chanting about the environment and politics?
Can you picture Ken Robinson sitting on a park bench, typing away about modern education?
Can you picture anyone interesting at all, besides a few eccentric hippies and lonely geeks? The content veracity then took a joy ride into the distance.

The range of appearances was quite daunting to my anthropocentric side. The virtual appearance vs physical appearance paradox holds a rather interesting study on the personalities of different individuals and how they might try to buffer a superficial look to their peers to evoke different perceptions as to who they really are. Of course, anonymity dynamics on the internet has baffled us for years. This could indirectly serve the purpose of meeting non-like minded individuals in the world as you randomly stumble across them – for which can be a good thing.

When evaluating the intention of the SL program to its users (other than for profits) and thinking more about the user demographics, I found that the world was host to a large number of digital immigrants. For those scratching heads: these are people that are not native to the socio-technological ways of this generation, but have learned and adopted the ways in the course of their lifetime. We all know how one generation often has a conflictual understanding of the next – simply because they are conditioned differently. It feels as if these virtual worlds are forced innovations of an ”obsolete” generation for the digital natives. How about an alternative intention : with a bit of work, these worlds have a Second Chance at becoming far more popular than previously anticipated. Though the worlds are so large and complex already, the developers could implement their open source principals more directly to achieve a larger demographic scope by improving the functionality a whole lot more. The words ”imagine a world” can be clubbed aside for virtual worlds that are a simple pleasure to explore on a daily basis. Imagine real communites and real virtual-projections of yourself interacting in less superficial events and forums. Imagine attending lectures and conferences in this world.
I dunno. A line needs to be drawn between the purpose of escapism and more serious possibilities.
The infrastructure is already there.

Amazon Kindle

Excuse my manners for shouting out, but why have I not seen or heard of this amazing device? This is a slightly geekier scope than for what Huddlemind sets its eyes on, but I really think this is the ‘first’ of its kind to making big steps in good directions – especially so in retrospective light of a previous post of mine. We’ve had readers, but none quite as featurable and easy-going as this one. Introducing :

The Amazon Kindle

Product Overview

• Revolutionary electronic-paper display provides a sharp, high-resolution screen that looks and reads like real paper.
• Simple to use: no computer, no cables, no syncing.
• Wireless connectivity enables you to shop the Kindle Store directly from your Kindle—whether you’re in the back of a taxi, at the airport, or in bed.
• Buy a book and it is auto-delivered wirelessly in less than one minute.
• More than 160,000 books available, including more than 98 of 112 current New York Times® Best Sellers.
• New York Times® Best Sellers and New Releases $9.99, unless marked otherwise.
• Free book samples. Download and read first chapters for free before you decide to buy.
• Top U.S. newspapers including The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and Washington Post; top magazines including TIME, Atlantic Monthly, and Forbes—all auto-delivered wirelessly.
• Top international newspapers from France, Germany, and Ireland; Le Monde, Frankfurter Allgemeine, and The Irish Times—all auto-delivered wirelessly.
• More than 350 top blogs from the worlds of business, technology, sports, entertainment, and politics, including BoingBoing, Slashdot, TechCrunch, ESPN’s Bill Simmons, The Onion, Michelle Malkin, and The Huffington Post—all updated wirelessly throughout the day.
• Lighter and thinner than a typical paperback; weighs only 10.3 ounces.
• Holds over 200 titles.
• Long battery life. Leave wireless on and recharge approximately every other day. Turn wireless off and read for a week or more before recharging. Fully recharges in 2 hours.
• Unlike WiFi, Kindle utilizes the same high-speed data network (EVDO) as advanced cell phones—so you never have to locate a hotspot.
• No monthly wireless bills, service plans, or commitments—we take care of the wireless delivery so you can simply click, buy, and read.
• Includes free wireless access to the planet’s most exhaustive and up-to-date encyclopedia—Wikipedia.org.
• Email your Word documents and pictures (.JPG, .GIF, .BMP, .PNG) to Kindle for easy on-the-go viewing.
• Included in the box: Kindle wireless reader, Book cover, Power adapter, USB 2.0 cable

This device is packed with awesome features and could see a huge demand in South Africa. Problem is – you can’t find them here. They are simply not sold in South Africa at all.

Of course we do have one small problem (for those that haven’t been paying attention to the news lately) in that South Africa find themselves alone on the Amazon blacklist. Yes, that’s right – you may as well forget they ever existed unless you don’t mind paying extra to have your items privately couriered down.

The price for one of these is $359. Before you start converting that figure into Rands and cents, spare a thought to how much easier it is to justify one of these in your inventory over an Apple iPod of any kind.

I give to you the future of eBooks, Creative Commons and information-technology hybridisation in a sugar cone. What will you do with it?

Creative Commons Should Not be a Moral Issue – Dave Duarte

Creative Commons licenses are built on traditional copyright. They may be free, but they are proper legal documents and are enforced using the same proceedures as traditional copyright law. They are simply a way to allow creators to easily communicate which rights they reserve, and which rights they waive for the benefit of other creators.

There are some basic clauses that enable this:

Attribution. You let others copy, distribute, display, and perform your copyrighted work — and derivative works based upon it — but only if they give credit the way you request.

Noncommercial. You let others copy, distribute, display, and perform your work — and derivative works based upon it — but for noncommercial purposes only.

No Derivative Works. You let others copy, distribute, display, and perform only verbatim copies of your work, not derivative works based upon it.

Share Alike. You allow others to distribute derivative works only under a license identical to the license that governs your work.

Interestingly, when these licenses are applied to online works, they contain meta-data that describes them and allows the works to easily be found online. This is why the CC search functionality built into Firefox is so useful – it helps  people easily find works (e.g. pictures) to re-use legally.This can enhance the pass-along (aka viral) effect of some creative works.

Lastly, the fact that these licenses are free should not be overlooked. Hiring a lawyer to license a work appropriately can be expensive and complicated. When you apply a CC license to your work, you’re bringing to bear some of the most outstanding legal minds in the world today. These licenses were designed to work in today’s hyperconnected world.

South African Watchdog Group Wants Violent Games & Music Taken Off Shelves

Hot off this newspress today, we had an interesting distribution snub in the entertainment industry!

The IO reports that Cape Town-based watchdog group the Family Policy Institute has petitioned South Africa’s government to recall all music containing violent lyrics and all video games with violent content. FPI spokesman Errol Naidoo made the request, expressing the group’s concerns over potential negative influences on young people. The move comes in the wake of the samurai sword killing of a 16-year-old by a schoolmate who allegedly dressed himself like Slipknot drummer Joey Jordison. (See image below)

Preferring not to wait for any type of inquiry, Naidoo requested the recall of the games and CDs ”pending the outcome of the investigation”. Naidoo cited the case of two US teens who were convicted of murder in 2003 after stabbing a friend 20 times and slitting his throat after listening to Slipknot’s song “Disasterpiece”. He also cited the case of Bangkok teenager Polwat Chinno who had killed a taxi driver by punching and stabbing him after playing the computer game Grand Theft Auto. “Police believe he was acting out a scene in the violent video game,” Naidoo said.

There was no guarantee that removing violent music and games would prevent violent behavior, but that it would “provide added peace of mind for families”.

I need not take the fun away by showing everyone how much of a stuff up marring this is for many parties involved. Some may agree that these rash decisions are good moves for the industry – those that are in a settled space in life or that have families? Whatever it be – it seems Naidoo has taken a conservative (or paranoid) step by ensuring that an expensive scapegoat was quickly found as to hush the SAWG knocking on his door? This probably won’t affect me much (or anyone on Huddlemind?), as his isn’t even the kind of music I listen to often (as a classical guitarist). Though even I know to throw stereotypes at these micro-cultures as to cynically disrespect and boycott them. Naturally, the problem is perception. And ignorance? We all know the cognitive and attitude differences between age gaps make for many misunderstandings and misinterpretations of trend and tact, hmmm? This dribbles my mind a bit on a SL article I’m compiling in the background – stay tuned, as these generation disjointments present themselves elsewhere too.

Now there’s gaming (and music) politics for you
{ Insert moral discussion here }

Libraries step into the age of iPod

Libraries step into the age of iPod (Reuters)

Exciting new developments, I see!
Library 2.0 and technology-information hybridisation is here.
The transformation between the old and new information system types over the years has been a shaky one, to say the least. Many have feared the coming of absolute erosion of old media from the face of the earth. I, myself, have dug in heels while watching the conventional academic hierarchy and information overhauls take place with resounding connotations. My mother, who manages the at Knowledge Commons Research Lab at UCT, sometimes finds herself on the receiving end of snide commentary from the academic purists around her. Though this Lab incorporates online peer-reviewed resource databases with everyday online research and makes it available to the undergraduates at UCT, the stigma surrounding the ease of technology blindly prevails. Its hybrid functionality is the logical progression of technology and academia, but doesn’t receive great support from all. The emotional climate around it is much like the way that some architects frown down on draftsmen (not that the KC lab is an underdog in this situation, in light of its successes), even though the functions are maintained through and through. From this, the receptiveness to this electronic library resource may have mixed welcomes. The success of this installment will depend on how its managed and presented (and of course the participation of the libraries/authors/publishers…Creative Commons! Dave, this is where you step in)

Depending on the library and title, the item remains on your computer for one to three weeks before disappearing, meaning you don’t have to bother with returning a book, CD or DVD to the actual library.

Already, I’m not sure how this can be a good way of kicking off a great idea. Why incorporate online academia with open-source style interactive technology by limiting an unlimited resource? The idea behind returning books was to let other people also have the opportunity of renting out the books (as it was a limited resource) and to keep tabs on the library’s assets. In the same way that some users would use the library more often that others, is the above quoted a good idea? The rental on the information alone is logical enough. The rest is just copy-pasted anyway? Hmmm.

I have a feeling that the innovators behind this idea have medium-sized $$ pictures drawn on their eyes, from the forward way they promote this idea. I fear the tool would be a device for skimming profits from educational institutions rather than penetrate the masses of ”illiterates” around the world. This is, of course, wild speculation at this point; I think the idea can completely revolutionise the way we work with information for the better, but is liable to a self-collapse.

Newsflash

Netcom, PCCW networks are go for Olympics bandwidth

The secret Games

For those pondering about the Games, I have two see-saw contrasting articles for you. The Chinese are throwing large sums of money at infrastructure and propaganda, for which doesn’t seem to fully permeate to the public.

Is this a marketing error or just a softened trend of an apathetic crowd? By strict definition, I guess it is in fact a marketing error (as they failed to follow trend and adjust accordingly?).

No matter – my point lies elsewhere. From reading up on the intricacies of the Olympics, I was reminded of something much closer to home – which is of course the whole soccer saga. We all have an idea of how much money is being thrown at the event to make it happen, for which many speculate that it’s going to be major flop. We already have the ever-dull-and-humour-lacking Panarrotis adverts (with other food joints too), shoe companies, radios and good ol’ Coke fetching the idea already…it’s much like Christmas advertisements creeping onto our tubes in September, but on a far more extreme level. I think the marketers are to blame for raping the event by catching the wave too early; lack of tact has never been so vulgar.

Hype.
Who defines hype? What is its key input function? Where are the parameters for’t and how large is its domain? If advertisers aren’t asking themselves these questions every time they dream up something, I sure hope they’d learn to quite soon. Is it possible that Panarrotis (attack number two, muhahaha. I’m really sorry Panarrotis, but you’re the only ones that come to mind at the time of writing this) actually think that they churn out good adverts to the same high advertising standard that we’re used to in South Africa? Maybe I’m the wrong person to ask, as I’m sure these have a prevenient success attached to it amongst other target audiences.
About to push the Olympic Games and the World Cup aside (and all peripheries), I think that there are many lessons to be learned. Is the amount of money you throw at something always proportional to the results? How many of you become discouraged by a bad advertising effort (be it marginal/singular or spam-flood) rather than maintain neutrality? Do all advertisers help with the overall success of an event?

I think we need a revolution of sorts, more companies dishing out awesome adverts per quantity to raise the bar.
The inputs are abundant and my attention (and patience) is scarce – surprise me!

Hypocrisy

Here’s my chance to introduce myself more properer then

I tread softly into this blogging world. Blogging goes against my core values as an ‘academic’ with the slightest hint of intelligence, for which the I must point out that the co-creation (and subsequent participation) of scratchmytummy is a backwards shunt from this caustic article I wrote a little over a year ago as part of a chapter of the book. The book is still wishywashy-like in form and structure. Hmph. I’m stuck on a section at the moment that’s just too tricky to work through, as every point cross references with every other >> damn variables! It deals mainly with the newfound changes in social anthropology and ‘consumer’ psychology in light of the developing attention economy, as well as touching on some conspiracy and religious material. Cool.

This is pretty neat/convenient really, as I unexpectedly discovered that one of my courses (EBM) at UCT was…really cool! I completely immersed myself into this infamous course and participated beyond the call of duty – constantly helping peers with tricky concepts (probably helping a few fistfuls to pass). I redesigned logical reasoning models and spun the community, until we moved onto the attention economy/globalisation section of the course. Suddenly my eyes widened, as I hadn’t bothered reading the course outline/readings to see it coming! Stoked. Here I met Dave and Max of Huddlemind Labs – guest lecturers of sorts for the course. Dave stumbled across my large ego/vula preachings and we got chatting in one of the lectures. He offered his help with the publication of my book, and today we met for lunch where we discussed a position for a writing gig for huddlemind/creative commons – even more stoked! I have clumps of ideas and ramblings I think he’d find quite handy (from an anthropologists perspective) and I hope we hit it off nicely from the start.

// This blogging feels so dirty. It’s a dirty floor for idiots to boast and endlessly advertise. I won’t repeat myself, you already know how I feel I might still go and wash my hands though. It’s actually not so much the fields we play on, but the shameless/idiotic amateurs that play on it. And that’s where the hypocrite continues //

I’ve probably highlighted the core nature of my future postings above sufficiently. I will never post anything regarding the taste of my breakfast or the colour of my dump (as the bore of the common blog would). We structure posts with trend and topic – This shall be an awesome blog, and Kirsten shall be my co-awesome-er!

Thoughts and commentaries on social interaction on the internerd

Seriousbidness

The advances of social computing in a modern world of exponential technology growth has had a most profound effect on the way people live their lives today. I don’t think that these concepts are far-off intangibles that only concern field speculators and anthropologists; but rather a surging phenomenon that affects everyone around it. Our social behavior and heuristic processes are radically influenced by modern interaction mediums and social climates brought on by new technologies. I like to think that the human brain has evolved slightly in recent years to adapt to the radical changes faced.The modern computer is now smarter and faster than ever before; and so is its average user. The refinement of the personal computer and the fiery birth of the internet have opened up the common mortal to engage and complete a wide and varied set of tasks never before thought possible. One can now simultaneously edit photographs, do their own accounting and banking, draft letters and correspond with just about anyone in the world : all while sitting in front of their personal computer. In the business world, a huge power shift has subsequently occurred from corporation-style megaliths on to a decentralized trend of empowered entrepreneurs. The broader concept of the newfound power of application plays an important key in understanding the ways in which things are done today in contrast with previous times. The individual does not have to rely on obsolete corporation structures as he/she can now thrive in the free market of the internet as we know it today. One could say that our potential as individuals is now being unleashed as tasks are easier to complete because the necessary tools are easier to use and obtain.

In parallel with the aforementioned technology advancements comes the evolution in interaction convention and medium. The freedom of expression and growth of internet communities and social networks is prompting the average user to interact and contribute more and more. While this can be regarded as a good thing, it is important to review the social implications that are associated with it. I am strongly against the principals and endorsement of the various online collectivisms available on the internet today. The “Cult of the Amateur” (Keen, 2007) is being enabled to increasingly exponential degrees by the newly found freedoms allowed by Web 2.0 and its various innovations. The freedom of expression that the new online mediums generate blatantly undermines the foundations of academia and peer-review. The problem, as I express through the insights of “The Cult of the Amateur”, comes from a host of negative entities that spout from this new everyday user freedom.

Huxley’s theory says that if you provide infinite monkeys with infinite typewriters, some monkey somewhere will eventually create a masterpiece – a play by Shakespeare or perhaps a Platonic dialogue. The problem lies in that there are infinite ‘monkeys’ with access to personal computers that have been given the freedom of expression and the power to shamelessly contribute to knowledge. With this power and the guise of anonymity, the words of a qualified professional speak with as much authority as the common fool in front of his personal computer. On the internet: the person with the largest ego, loudest voice or the most eloquent presentation of thought wins the argument and therefore has the control of the information. This is proven over and over again in various online forums and communities (like Wikipedia itself) in that individuals have the power to recklessly detract from the foundations of academia. What is left from this unconscious spam of data input is watered-down version of what academics and elitists once proudly called ‘knowledge’.

To fully realise the tangibility of this insight, I contrast it with how things were done in the past. In the past we sought information in libraries, books, newspapers and peer-reviewed journals. Knowledge and information was handed down to the public pool by means of an academically-reckoned hierarchy authority of industry experts in a sacred ritual of trust and authority. There was defined reputation and structure behind the words of all knowledge where only the words of the wise had a place in academic realms. In an environment like the internet where the anonymous user may manipulate and speak with freedom and without verification: the truth is – the common mortals are now the gatekeepers of truth and logic. the veracity of general interaction on the internet in the new Web 2.0 formatting has taken a sharp, downward dive. While the advances of the internet and paper-free world were once seen to be fascinating and most profound, I don’t think that many foresaw the aforementioned problems appearing. Let it be known that these shameless ramblings of unverified knowledge do not take place only in coffee table style forums and exclusive environments, but everywhere. Peer to peer collaboration in blogging, wiki’s and forums alike are subject to this, as well as any environment (in the context of electronic communication) that one person is able to correspond with another. People are writing more and more, from which more and more amateur knowledge has to be sifted through to get to peer-reviewed data. This has left the user with a sense of empowerment and security behind their anonymity, for which is not conducive to secure and verifiable data.

The topic of user confidence on the internet is quite interesting, too. In this new age of internet (as some refer to as Web 2.0), blogging enables the infinite monkeys to endlessly advertise themselves. It is plainly obvious to see that many are willing to share details about their lives through electronic mediums than in real life. In this convention where so much ‘output’ is being given, it is likely that far less input is being received. In other words – there is lots of outgoing advertisement, but not much listening. In this new age, we are so used to periodic updates on our acquaintances various ‘lives’ that we actually take far less notice than for which we would personally hope for in our own rants. With data being thrusted so crassly onto us, we’ve thickened heuristics for dealing with this data.

It’s also interesting to see how users limit their inputs from the world wide web of vast information by subscribing to RSS feeds and limiting the incoming data to their screens by sifting and bookmarking. We stumble across an amusing irony here as people form exclusive groupings of races, cultures, ethical views and interests in their social networks rather than expanding the mind and exploring the internet. This is probably because user, sadly, has been conditioned so much to protect themselves from the aggressive marketing schemes and tactics employed to cash in on the increasing field of attention with the growing popularity of the internet.

To conclude, I think that the new attention economy workings of the Web 2.0 concept provide interesting impacts on the individual. We are now so obsessively reliant on technology for business and social interaction that we, perhaps, lose track of reality. Through the awesome new power of modern electronics and the widespread penetration of the internet, the users potential has been unleashed somewhat to do more than previously imagined. Communication barriers have been broken all around the world, and users can now share and learn from each other as they wish. Innovators and advertisers have reacted well to the growth of social networking around the world, but have at the same time contributed towards the problems that it faces. I think that an individual’s general quality of work and knowledge is not as pure as it once was. A computer-literate person, in relative terms, is now a ‘jack of all trades’ – and possesses the tools, networks and confidence to comment and contribute in their many fields of interest. We now have a society of conditioned amateurs and anonymities that we rely on and trust with information of the many aspects of our lives. For this lack of veracity, integrity and quality, I think that the new age detracts somewhat from the effectiveness. I comment on this in a broad sense, for one often undermines the degree to which this affects us. This age of information abundance is not being utilised as optimally as one might hope for and the subsequent effects of filtering and attention scarcity leave the user in an awkward position of questioning their own veracity and inputs in light of the threats that face this new system.

The First/Second Post

GRAND CANYON:

As you’ve noticed, my blogging partner in crime (impressively) called shotgun on the first post. No hard feelings – and all that jazz - I’ll merely compliment his post by claiming the first…  second post. So if he’s reading this: Hi Shay,  psych!

 

As for the recommended ”first date” Information: My name is Kirst, I am a thriving young Jew and have downed a Castle draft.

And not to mention absolutely amped to start this awesome blog! Its funny how I can always rely on that adrenaline-pumping burst of excitement when beginning something new . Shane unselfishly willingly gratefully gave me the task of designing this first… second post (such generosity) and Im always pleased to implement some of my female perspective into our perpetual blogging debates. I have my hands resting in typing position 3 and ogling this magnificently sleek and sexy virginal page that is undoubtedly lusting for my contextually stimulating ink blots. There’s an rainbow of words waiting in the colourful wonders of google ready to paint one of the most beautiful pieces of literature ever made. A creative labyrinth of pure knowledge and entertainment.

So naturally,

my creative flow dwindles and I sit here…   twiddling my thumbs…

…

 

fuck!

He Asked the Way

I watch from my second story apartment window towards the main road. The newly darkened sky is the universal signal for the local scum to come out of hiding. My front door is locked. I see him – a long brown trench coat and a matching gardener’s hat. The way he walked was the sign that first attracted me to his presence. Slow and cautious, as if the dirty pavement was about to give in from beneath at any second. He stops to ask an old man on a park bench to show him the way. The old man is concise with his directions, using exaggerated hand signals to direct the Stranger. The Stranger moves without profile across the street, this silent element operates in a seemingly separate society.

Police sirens tear up the corrupt tar with their ravishing howls, and their lights briefly give a new power to the face brick walls of the surrounding buildings as if it were an amusement park – the sad reality then hitting me in the face that this part of town is too dark to relate to innocent entertainment. I step away from the window for a brief second to turn off the flickering TV. Now I can see the street more clearly without the annoying glare from the glass.

Clown suit or not, his passive presence is now blinding to the eye. He sticks out like a sheep in a wolf den, but any dealings of his are unfound, untraced. Now I remember that he had asked the way, what is he waiting for? The real comedy is when this arcane persona causes the inconsiderate community to infect each other’s minds with false guesses about who he really is. As they say, sometimes it should be better to know nothing than to know something. By his rights he fails to disclose a name, which is acceptable practice in the new world. But what hidden pasts have brought him here anyway? He searches the empty street with his eyes, as if taking a newfound liking to the dull suburban architecture.

As he turns around, he notices one of the local tramps we all know as “Barney” sitting on the pavement. The Stranger looks back to the street and takes out a small scruffy notepad. He scribbles just a few words on it, crumples up the paper, and gently drops it to the ground. The angry sirens now make a second pass, and the Stranger rounds the corner into an adjacent street.

[ A descriptive piece that I wrote in grade 8 (for the most part) in doodle-form on the back of a book when really borededed ]