What, Why & How do we Know ?
So it’s true – Google Buys Blogger. Dan Gillmor reporting at SiliconValley.com [via Jorn][via Slashdot]. As Jorn asks, why Blogger – the pioneers – as opposed to RadioUserland or MoveableType, the more sophisticated. Still, can’t complain – Google’s fine by me.
No coincidence ? Evhead goes offline [via Robb]
Rudyard Kipling – The White Man’s Burden. Interesting to see the final part of Empire by Niall Ferguson on UK’s Channel 4 and its characterisation of US dominance arising out of the fall of the British Empire. Britain “doing the right thing” in opposing two other evil empires at the cost of its own and a huge debt and reliance on the US, foreseen by Kipling. The Mahdi uprising in Iraq in 1880’s and parallels with Al Qaeda. US global brand domination, speed of light comms and speed of sound gunships – US Empire by any other name. Some thought provoking stuff to follow-up.
The 80/20 Rule in Blogging Communities. This piece from Clay Shirky has been bouncing around the blogosphere for some days – but I hadn’t spotted its significance until today. Most people are referring to “Power Law” from its title Power Law, Weblogs and Community. Part of the thesis, from my original manifesto is that Power Law distribtions (80/20 Rule) are in some way a natural part of all human endeavours. This paper includes statistical evidence and other research demonstrating this behaviour in clustering of hits around given sites in particular blogging communities, and concluding that it is natural and predictable, and further more the wider and freer the choice / access the more pronounced is the effect. Democracy creates inequality if you will – it’s natural, it’s human nature.
Sifry’s blog on this subject is interesting in suggesting that it is possible to hold this conclusion as both true and false, depending on the “scale” at which you view the situation, since there are levels of clustering within the overall statistical average view. Fractality at play here.
Quantum Mind 2003 – Blogged earlier references to this conference in Arizona 15 to 19 March, [here] and [here]. Notice that both Henry Stapp and Brian Josephson are in attendance. Also this “disenchanted” QuBit link via Seb.
Talking of Wolfram’s ANKOS as we were in “Give him enough rope” two blogs ago …
(and many occasions before that) … [via Kurzweil][non-flash]
Coming Soon [via Rivets], and in slightly beter taste try [schedule] or [melanoma]
From a bookclub party conversation with Dave Weinberger [Quote] … asked Minsky if he had read Wolfram’s book. “Of course not.” Why not? Because Wolfram is merely repeating what has been known for twenty years. Further, said Minsky, the book only finds three types of cellular automata: simple ones, looping ones, and complex ones. For a theory to be interesting, said Minsky, it needs to have at least five categories, not three. Minsky was being cocktail-party witty, but I believe his serious point was that Wolfram needs to present a theory that further analyzes the single class of complex and seemingly random cellular automata.[Unquote] I’m in good company then ?
[Am I the only person who confuses Dave Winer, Dave Weinberger and Steve Weinberg ? Sorry guys.]
Is there anywhere where this stuff is not currently being debated ? Browsing the BBC “Word of Mouth” message board – where typically, “Disgusted of Dorchester deplores the demise of the English language” – I find a thread debating the political motives of words used to describe Richard Reid’s cemtex-filled shoes. [Quote] Weapons of Mass Destruction came into popular usage to mean chemical/biological/nuclear weapons at just the same time as the US was re-writing its anti-terrorism laws, and its administration was trying to convince the populace of a conspiracy between America’s disparate enemies. [Unquote]
How can anyone contemplate unravelling words, from meaning, from intent, from reasoning – from conspiracy and paranoia ?
The fact that a perfectly tight, reasoned defintion could easily be arrived at – something along the lines of a weapon whose existence could not be justified based on its intended use against a bounded target – is irrelevant to the fact that this is a political debate, not an etymological one – and it always is. Every utterance has intent.
I think that’s the correct title of Dawkins latest offerring. By coincidence, given the previous blog, he was on Start the Week this morning with Andrew Marr on BBC Radio 4. Another member of the panel said he could not believe that there were enough “creationists” left in the world for Dawkins to feel the need to spell it all out again – we all believe you already. Surely the whole world understands the Blind Watchmaker. Apparently not says Dawkins – then proceeded to rattle off a litany of US statistics – followed by a debate that kept returning to fears about misguided US power, and mis-guided world-views – becoming very political very quickly and hitting on the main news item of the day – the split between Europe and US over Iraq, and several doomsday scenarios around the beginning of the end of NATO and UN no less. Terrifying.
(Notice also that next week Daniel Dennett is one of the guests, and that this week’s guest, Janet Radcliffe-Richards, is taking part in a British Academy debate entitled Does Philosophy Matter? on Tuesday 18 February.)
There is definitely something happening here. There is too much clamour for the need to re-think simple “rational” values we take for granted, and to question underlying philosophies and science – before it’s too late.