Yes! Another project makes it off the back-burner.
After a recent discussion on Meatball wiki, I dug out an old half-finished project : Typed Threaded Discussion, and knocked out a basic working sketch.
Typed Threaded Discussion allows a community who want to argue in a productive way, to do a minimal amount of mark-up that captures some genuinely valuable structural information. The forum is just a basic threaded discussion group with the twist that users categorize their posts according to the relationship to the parent; whether it's a counter-argument, offers supporting evidence, asks for clarification etc. The tree of threads is then presented sorted by type. And the result is a navigable map of the relationships between the points made in the discussion.
That's the idea anyway. Now I need to test it, to see whether the results are interestingly different from normal threaded discussion. Volunteer testers welcome.
Try it out here.
Sunday, September 07, 2003
Saturday, September 06, 2003
Satire which sends shivers down the spine : TALLAHASSEE, FL—The country formerly known as the United Republic of Tanzania has lost the use of its name to Tampa-based Tanzania Tanning Salons, the Florida Supreme Court ruled Monday.
Compare the real fight over Rooibos Tea
Compare the real fight over Rooibos Tea
Thursday, September 04, 2003
More Kuro5hin discussion on alternative money.
kuro5hin.org || The future of money: private complementary currencies
kuro5hin.org || The future of money: private complementary currencies
Notice I'm playing with a new style ... and lost my enetations connection. Doh!
The other was looking very cramped. But I'll see whether I approve of this one. Lots of things to consider about my blog.
Blahsploitation ...
The other was looking very cramped. But I'll see whether I approve of this one. Lots of things to consider about my blog.
- I need RSS feeds.
- For some reason my blogrolls script has stopped working since I moved Synaesmedia to my new domain.
- Do want to pay Blogger to upgrade or simply host my own?
Blahsploitation ...
Some people are weird :
Here
Even though Ruby claims to be have uniform access, there are still some quirks about it. For example, if I want to print a string to stdout, in Ruby I have to do:
print "hello world!"
What I would have really liked to do was
"hello world!".print
or even
out.print "hello world!" (out is the output stream)
Here
Wednesday, September 03, 2003
Good article by Tom Coates. plasticbag.org | weblog | (Weblogs and) The Mass Amateurisation of (Nearly) Everything...
NakedWiki: "shows the reliance wiki members place on the wiki wrapper functions for home page, recent changes, and search functions."
Do you ever get that experience where you hear about something (or someone) and you have a hazy idea of who they are. And you hear about something (or someone else) and have a similarly hazy idea.
And you conflate those two things together? Often because of some superficial similarity.
I was always doing this when I was a kid. I know because I remember the sense of surprise to realize two things were different. For example, when I was three or four I definitely used to get mixed up between France, India and America. All of them had a similar synaesthetic feel. They were all foreign countries, indians lived there, and so did the Eiffel Tower.
I distinctly remember the day I looked in a book and suddenly thought "France is a different country from America/India." (America and India themselves took a bit longer because of the obvious "indian" issue) I had a similar conflation of "Romans" and "Germans" two warlike tribes of bad guys rampaging across Europe.
Then later on, I did the same with George Bernard Shaw and Bertrand Russel (CategoryEarlyTwentiethCentury, CategoryIntellectualGenius, CategorySocialist, CategoryNameBeginsWith_Ber_Sound) and was again astounde (at around the age of 14) to realize that there were two different people.
Today I just found out that I've been doing it again. So congratulations to Bill de hOra and Bill Seitz for finally becoming separated in my mind into two distinct entities.
And you conflate those two things together? Often because of some superficial similarity.
I was always doing this when I was a kid. I know because I remember the sense of surprise to realize two things were different. For example, when I was three or four I definitely used to get mixed up between France, India and America. All of them had a similar synaesthetic feel. They were all foreign countries, indians lived there, and so did the Eiffel Tower.
I distinctly remember the day I looked in a book and suddenly thought "France is a different country from America/India." (America and India themselves took a bit longer because of the obvious "indian" issue) I had a similar conflation of "Romans" and "Germans" two warlike tribes of bad guys rampaging across Europe.
Then later on, I did the same with George Bernard Shaw and Bertrand Russel (CategoryEarlyTwentiethCentury, CategoryIntellectualGenius, CategorySocialist, CategoryNameBeginsWith_Ber_Sound) and was again astounde (at around the age of 14) to realize that there were two different people.
Today I just found out that I've been doing it again. So congratulations to Bill de hOra and Bill Seitz for finally becoming separated in my mind into two distinct entities.
Seen on my Debian Linux command line :
Happy 10th birthday to Debian
phil@Cabral:~$ apropos microsoft
microsoft: nothing appropriate.
Happy 10th birthday to Debian
Tuesday, September 02, 2003
Adrian Howard on companies :
They also provide a sense of community, a common environment and a location for shared knowledge. I wonder how many of those ad-hoc networks will quickly evolve into a group of people who nearly always work together.
ThoughtStorms: AlternativesToCompanies
They also provide a sense of community, a common environment and a location for shared knowledge. I wonder how many of those ad-hoc networks will quickly evolve into a group of people who nearly always work together.
ThoughtStorms: AlternativesToCompanies
Sunday, August 31, 2003
Been reading Meatball Wiki: BusManagement and trying to get my head around the wiki tour bus thing.
I'm starting to get the idea, but it's still very confusing. I wonder about automating the process more. Is there a use for Rss feeds somewhere here? For example, the TourBusMap could make each route available as an RSS feed. In fact, maybe any wiki who wanted to joing a tour could send a TrackBack ping to the BusServer?. The BusServer? would then make routes available as feeds. And wikis which want to be on the tour could simply take the route description with themselves slotted in, and use it to generate the next stop.
Guess I'm just freestyling now ... :-)
I'm starting to get the idea, but it's still very confusing. I wonder about automating the process more. Is there a use for Rss feeds somewhere here? For example, the TourBusMap could make each route available as an RSS feed. In fact, maybe any wiki who wanted to joing a tour could send a TrackBack ping to the BusServer?. The BusServer? would then make routes available as feeds. And wikis which want to be on the tour could simply take the route description with themselves slotted in, and use it to generate the next stop.
Guess I'm just freestyling now ... :-)
Monday, August 25, 2003
I don't often use the word bullshit. But it seems oddly appropriate.
Oh yeah, BTW, I'm biased on this one.
Oh yeah, BTW, I'm biased on this one.
Wednesday, August 20, 2003
There's a certain amount of wishful spinning in this article
Internet uptake is slowing, but that's OK, because probably the people who don't have the internet, don't want it. This is a "less pernicious" digital divide than one where people are excluded because they can't afford the technology.
Actually if people are disempowered because of their culture and education it's more pernicious. People who don't know they want the technology because they can't understand what it could do for them, are doubly damned. At least the guy who knows the internet would be useful but can't afford a regular connection may pop into a cybercafe occasionally.
Internet uptake is slowing, but that's OK, because probably the people who don't have the internet, don't want it. This is a "less pernicious" digital divide than one where people are excluded because they can't afford the technology.
Actually if people are disempowered because of their culture and education it's more pernicious. People who don't know they want the technology because they can't understand what it could do for them, are doubly damned. At least the guy who knows the internet would be useful but can't afford a regular connection may pop into a cybercafe occasionally.
Aaargh!
Richard Stallman is in town and I missed him!
Still, it's good to see the government here have a conference on using free software.
Richard Stallman is in town and I missed him!
Still, it's good to see the government here have a conference on using free software.
Tuesday, August 19, 2003
Monday, August 11, 2003
I'm in UK, and not logging in much at the moment.
Big news is Kuro5hin discussed Optimaes :-)
Some hostile criticism to begin with. And I thought I'd screwed up my reputation by promoting my own project. But then some people found it interesting and started defending me, And lots of the criticism was useful.
I was surprised by how many "if it's not academia it's rubbish" comments I got though.
Big news is Kuro5hin discussed Optimaes :-)
Some hostile criticism to begin with. And I thought I'd screwed up my reputation by promoting my own project. But then some people found it interesting and started defending me, And lots of the criticism was useful.
I was surprised by how many "if it's not academia it's rubbish" comments I got though.
Tuesday, July 29, 2003
Pentagon's attrocity casino is an interesting idea. Test the oracle affect. Does a large number of people know more than it thinks?
"Research indicates that markets are extremely efficient, effective and timely aggregators of dispersed and even hidden information," it said in a statement."
It's at Future Map
Questions
I'd be interested in seeing the blogosphere's reaction. For example, a Technorati style search might be able to agregate opinions and make better predictions.
What about market irrationalities such as booms and busts. Won't we see a lot of me-too followers?
What if people start hiring gangsters to make terrorist events happen?
"Research indicates that markets are extremely efficient, effective and timely aggregators of dispersed and even hidden information," it said in a statement."
It's at Future Map
Questions
I'd be interested in seeing the blogosphere's reaction. For example, a Technorati style search might be able to agregate opinions and make better predictions.
What about market irrationalities such as booms and busts. Won't we see a lot of me-too followers?
What if people start hiring gangsters to make terrorist events happen?
Microsoft believes Web search can be done much better than any Web search engine does it today. "Our research indicates that only 30% to 40% of the Web is indexed and that people's questions (to search engines) go unanswered half the time," Gurry said.
Here
This is classic FUD. It's true of course, but Microsoft pronouncing this as though it's an oversight of current web-search technology, and implying they knolw how to do better, is barefaced cheek. But the fact is, Google has demonstrated that search engines are still hot, and Microsoft want to contest that space.
But Google is great because of it's web ethics, and you'll only beat them if you can improve on them in that space. Microsoft is smart and adaptable. I'd like to see them try.
Here
This is classic FUD. It's true of course, but Microsoft pronouncing this as though it's an oversight of current web-search technology, and implying they knolw how to do better, is barefaced cheek. But the fact is, Google has demonstrated that search engines are still hot, and Microsoft want to contest that space.
But Google is great because of it's web ethics, and you'll only beat them if you can improve on them in that space. Microsoft is smart and adaptable. I'd like to see them try.
Monday, July 28, 2003
Y'all know about Optimaes, right?
Well despite being into gift economies, now that I'm gloriously unemployed, I still need to eat. So, I was casually looking into the Amazon Honor System tip-jar thing but they only support US card holders.
So here's a suggestion for Amazon. Why not allow tip-jars to count towards books. Any dollars that are given to me turn up as discounts when I make my next order?
Well despite being into gift economies, now that I'm gloriously unemployed, I still need to eat. So, I was casually looking into the Amazon Honor System tip-jar thing but they only support US card holders.
So here's a suggestion for Amazon. Why not allow tip-jars to count towards books. Any dollars that are given to me turn up as discounts when I make my next order?
Sunday, July 27, 2003
Martin Wolf in yesterday's Financial Times pulled out some frightening statistics.
The OECD countries -- essentially the world's 30 richest nations -- spent $311 billion on domestic agricultural subsidies in 2001. They spent $52 billion on aid to all countries. The 2001 GDP of sub-Saharan Africa was $301 billion.
Worse, the annual dairy subsidy in the European Union in 2000 was $913 per cow. The average income in sub-Saharan Africa was $490 per capita. The EU's annual aid to sub-Saharan Africa was $8 per person.
These are truly shaming figures.
Davos Newbies
The OECD countries -- essentially the world's 30 richest nations -- spent $311 billion on domestic agricultural subsidies in 2001. They spent $52 billion on aid to all countries. The 2001 GDP of sub-Saharan Africa was $301 billion.
Worse, the annual dairy subsidy in the European Union in 2000 was $913 per cow. The average income in sub-Saharan Africa was $490 per capita. The EU's annual aid to sub-Saharan Africa was $8 per person.
These are truly shaming figures.
Davos Newbies
Friday, July 25, 2003
I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Having rampaged around the world inflicting unfair "free" trade on other countries, the US is quick to revert to protectionism when it feels it's economy threatened.
Is it good that the US legislators learn there are some advantages of restricting trade? Or another lousy example of "hypocrisy pays"?
Is it good that the US legislators learn there are some advantages of restricting trade? Or another lousy example of "hypocrisy pays"?
Saturday, July 19, 2003
Hugo Young analyses the David Kelly suicide.
I think that Blair is in real trouble. The fact that he's now admitting the possibility that the war was launched because of an error (or wishful thinking on the part of the hawks), suggests he believes that the WMD story has basically lost any credibility and is indefensible. As Young points out, the main aim now is to shift attention onto trivia. Surely it can't really work? I'm never voting for Blair again, and I'm pretty sure that's a wide-spread feeling in the UK now. Time for the Labour Party to realize his repution is damaged beyond repair.
As for Kelly, I'm a bit suspicious. It's hard to imagine someone like him being driven to suicide after a couple of grillings and a bit of publicity? This is a guy who worked for the MoD at Porton Down, was head of micro-biology. (Doesn't that make him pretty much the British Rihab Taha al-Azawi al-Tikriti?) Don't they have some kind of profiling and screening for people to work in a job like that? Aren't these people made of sterner stuff? Or at least given some training in managing pressure? What if the Russians had tried to blackmail him?
So I wonder if there's something more. Was he, in fact, the mole? And more terrified of discovery after he'd lied to and convinced the select commities? Was he being blackmailed? Were other threats being made against him? Did he know something about the wrath of the secret services that we don't?
All good conspiracy theory stuff, of course.
I think that Blair is in real trouble. The fact that he's now admitting the possibility that the war was launched because of an error (or wishful thinking on the part of the hawks), suggests he believes that the WMD story has basically lost any credibility and is indefensible. As Young points out, the main aim now is to shift attention onto trivia. Surely it can't really work? I'm never voting for Blair again, and I'm pretty sure that's a wide-spread feeling in the UK now. Time for the Labour Party to realize his repution is damaged beyond repair.
As for Kelly, I'm a bit suspicious. It's hard to imagine someone like him being driven to suicide after a couple of grillings and a bit of publicity? This is a guy who worked for the MoD at Porton Down, was head of micro-biology. (Doesn't that make him pretty much the British Rihab Taha al-Azawi al-Tikriti?) Don't they have some kind of profiling and screening for people to work in a job like that? Aren't these people made of sterner stuff? Or at least given some training in managing pressure? What if the Russians had tried to blackmail him?
So I wonder if there's something more. Was he, in fact, the mole? And more terrified of discovery after he'd lied to and convinced the select commities? Was he being blackmailed? Were other threats being made against him? Did he know something about the wrath of the secret services that we don't?
All good conspiracy theory stuff, of course.
Thursday, July 17, 2003
I find this disturbing. Not because the US gov. is trying to play the same trick of escalating scare stories against Syria. Surely the "crying wolf" effect is gonna set in, and claims are going to be disregarded.
No, it's this : A CIA report submitted to Congress in April contained more cautionary language. Noting that Syria and Russia have reached preliminary agreement on civilian nuclear cooperation, the CIA report said only, "In principal, broader access to Russian expertise provides opportunities for Syria to expand its indigenous capabilities, should it decide to pursue nuclear weapons."
Syria is suspect for even trying to increase it's access to civilian nuclear knowledge. Almost anything may have a security implication. Are the US now determined to prevent other countries acquiring knowledge and expertise in general, in case there are military applications? Is all genetic research suspect because it may lead to biological weapons? Would the US like to prevent the study of physics and chemistry in the rest of the world? IT is probably out as well.
Does a paranoid US security service now want to make war on foreign science?
(Or maybe they always thought like that and I didn't notice?)
No, it's this : A CIA report submitted to Congress in April contained more cautionary language. Noting that Syria and Russia have reached preliminary agreement on civilian nuclear cooperation, the CIA report said only, "In principal, broader access to Russian expertise provides opportunities for Syria to expand its indigenous capabilities, should it decide to pursue nuclear weapons."
Syria is suspect for even trying to increase it's access to civilian nuclear knowledge. Almost anything may have a security implication. Are the US now determined to prevent other countries acquiring knowledge and expertise in general, in case there are military applications? Is all genetic research suspect because it may lead to biological weapons? Would the US like to prevent the study of physics and chemistry in the rest of the world? IT is probably out as well.
Does a paranoid US security service now want to make war on foreign science?
(Or maybe they always thought like that and I didn't notice?)
Wednesday, July 16, 2003
I wonder if RageBoy is a Bright?
This is great : Let's do a little gedanken experiment here, shall we? OK, so you've gone into some x-random Starbucks and ordered a quad espresso and a piece of carrot cake, which looks pretty good because you're fucking starving. When the coffee's up, you bring your stuff over to a table, sit down and take a sip. Ah! The old drug-of-choice never fails to hit the spot. You pick up your fork and are about to dig in, when suddenly you realize the error of your ways. Sure, you have your cake. But now you want to eat it too. What is WRONG with you?
This is great : Let's do a little gedanken experiment here, shall we? OK, so you've gone into some x-random Starbucks and ordered a quad espresso and a piece of carrot cake, which looks pretty good because you're fucking starving. When the coffee's up, you bring your stuff over to a table, sit down and take a sip. Ah! The old drug-of-choice never fails to hit the spot. You pick up your fork and are about to dig in, when suddenly you realize the error of your ways. Sure, you have your cake. But now you want to eat it too. What is WRONG with you?
Tuesday, July 15, 2003
Moving in together, or weblog consolidation is clearly the next big thing, as people discover that single-handedly maintaining a weblog is too much work. D-squared has joined Crooked Timber. Clay Shirkey and the SocialText people formed something at Corante.
I'm not sure whether this is a good thing. At first glance CT looks less compelling than D-squared Digest. Less voice. Though maybe it takes getting into. And I can't see Corante at all because aparently their server is under a DDOS attack.
But maybe this is just jealousy. In an earlier post I realized I was a good candidate for assimulation - but no-one's made me any offers yet :-(
I'm not sure whether this is a good thing. At first glance CT looks less compelling than D-squared Digest. Less voice. Though maybe it takes getting into. And I can't see Corante at all because aparently their server is under a DDOS attack.
But maybe this is just jealousy. In an earlier post I realized I was a good candidate for assimulation - but no-one's made me any offers yet :-(
I have more interesting things to do than track the WMD thing, but here's a useful roundup from the BBC The only really interesting question left is whether Bush and Blair will decide the danger of loss of face will outweigh the risk of faking the evidence.
Wednesday, July 09, 2003
Thursday, July 03, 2003
Wednesday, July 02, 2003
You know what? I'm impressed by the way Google is exploiting Blogger. The ads at the top of my blogs are becoming far more relevant. Today I noticed BeatBlog is accompanied by adverts for sample CDs and samplers. How did they work that out? From the contents of the page?
To a human it's obvious, but most of the words are rather colourful descriptions of my beats, not actually much talking about "samples" and the like. And there's now a big chunk of stuff about pornography, which clearly hasn't triggered XXX site ads.
I wonder if Google do some kind of second order relevance analysis. Just as PageRank works on pages linked to and from, does their ad-relevance analysis use the subject of pages linked from and to my blog?
To a human it's obvious, but most of the words are rather colourful descriptions of my beats, not actually much talking about "samples" and the like. And there's now a big chunk of stuff about pornography, which clearly hasn't triggered XXX site ads.
I wonder if Google do some kind of second order relevance analysis. Just as PageRank works on pages linked to and from, does their ad-relevance analysis use the subject of pages linked from and to my blog?
Monday, June 30, 2003
I'm also adding Julian Dibbell to my blogroll. He writes about virtual economics, fantasy worlds and claims to have lived in Brazil.
See also his Interview with Jorn Barger (Robot Wisdom)
See also his Interview with Jorn Barger (Robot Wisdom)
Hey! My friend Steve has got his new blog up and running. With an interesting post about emergent democracy and political networks. Steve's a historian turned computer scientist who thinks about trust and virtual countries. So worth reading.
Tuesday, June 24, 2003
Rio de Janiero, friendliest city in the world. Makes me proud to be Britzilian. Friendly and polite :-)
Saturday, June 21, 2003
I discover I'm now officially too old to be a computer programmer
Somehow this comes as a great relief. Maybe I don't need to try anymore ;-)
Somehow this comes as a great relief. Maybe I don't need to try anymore ;-)
Wednesday, June 18, 2003
Sad day. The EU approve software patents.
This is so fucked. How can thay have fallen for this? The patent industry must just keep lobbying, lobbying, lobbying the whole time.
This is so fucked. How can thay have fallen for this? The patent industry must just keep lobbying, lobbying, lobbying the whole time.
Friday, June 13, 2003
I've been feeling swamped by all the blogs I need to read. So I've started using an aggregator : Amphetadesk. I'll report how it goes.
Wednesday, June 11, 2003
Electric Venom inspires an interesting question. Why do I blog? Personally, I realize my blog sucks. Most of the time, when I have something to say I prefer to put it in my wiki.
Why?
Because the hypertext nature captures the interconnection between my thoughts better, and requires less scene setting. I can throw an idea in a couple of lines, link to it from related ideas, link to other similar things. Done! Blogs are too much work! ;-)
When I do write something significant on my blog it's normally in reaction to a current / news event (often political) that's incensed me. But this doesn't happen on a regular basis. Not frequently enough to hook dedicated readers. So probably even these don't get read. It's a hard question. As a blog reader I value regularly updated, contentful blogs. As a writer, I want to blog, but not frequently enough to justify an audience :-(
One solution might be to join a small blogging goup. A good example of a group I read is SATN. But even though I do have friends (yeah, really!) I don't know if we share a cohesive enough set of interests to make a valid blog. So I guess I'm stuck with posting comments on other people's blogs for the moment, and trying to keep this one better.
On a brighter note ... I think BeatBlog has some value. I'm regularly producing beats, and it's more a problem of access that's stopped me putting them up. Now I think that problem's solved. So read this blog less frequently, and listen to BeatBlog more frequently for the moment. And check the wiki for the real evolving core of my thinking. Still, all that may change now I'm unemployed :-)
Why?
Because the hypertext nature captures the interconnection between my thoughts better, and requires less scene setting. I can throw an idea in a couple of lines, link to it from related ideas, link to other similar things. Done! Blogs are too much work! ;-)
When I do write something significant on my blog it's normally in reaction to a current / news event (often political) that's incensed me. But this doesn't happen on a regular basis. Not frequently enough to hook dedicated readers. So probably even these don't get read. It's a hard question. As a blog reader I value regularly updated, contentful blogs. As a writer, I want to blog, but not frequently enough to justify an audience :-(
One solution might be to join a small blogging goup. A good example of a group I read is SATN. But even though I do have friends (yeah, really!) I don't know if we share a cohesive enough set of interests to make a valid blog. So I guess I'm stuck with posting comments on other people's blogs for the moment, and trying to keep this one better.
On a brighter note ... I think BeatBlog has some value. I'm regularly producing beats, and it's more a problem of access that's stopped me putting them up. Now I think that problem's solved. So read this blog less frequently, and listen to BeatBlog more frequently for the moment. And check the wiki for the real evolving core of my thinking. Still, all that may change now I'm unemployed :-)
Tuesday, June 10, 2003
Monday, June 09, 2003
The latest Clay Shirky piece on inequality and FCC regulation seems to be missing several points.
Sure, blogs demonstrate that freedom of media association leads to power law distributions. But the implication doesn't work the other way to imply all unequal distributions are therefore evidence of nothing but freedom of media association.
Unlike weblogs on the net, traditional media which have expensive requirements like wood pulp, printing presses, auctioned spectrum etc. are NOT examples of this pattern. They are first and foremost businesses, and primarily responding to the incentive of economies of scale, to pressure to consolidate. FCC regulations on media ownership are not there to stop particular media channels from making hugely popular programmes which win large shares of the audience. AFAIK there is no fine if you broadcast a show which gets 100%. So, they are not trying to preserve equality of audience. They are trying to preserve diversity of ownership in the belief that this guarantees diversity of content. (Why does diversity of ownership ensure diversity of content? Because without diversity of ownership, economies of scale always tempt these companies to try to use less content to attract more audience, narrowing the diversity.)
I'm also a bit concerned that Shirky is so convinced of his muddled analysis that he's resorted to scaremongering like this : can expect at least some members of the "diverse and equal" camp to advocate regulation of weblogs, on the grounds that the imbalance between Glenn Reynolds of InstaPundit.com and J. Random Blogger is no different than the imbalance between Clear Channel and WFMU to criticise opponents of deregulation.
Sure, blogs demonstrate that freedom of media association leads to power law distributions. But the implication doesn't work the other way to imply all unequal distributions are therefore evidence of nothing but freedom of media association.
Unlike weblogs on the net, traditional media which have expensive requirements like wood pulp, printing presses, auctioned spectrum etc. are NOT examples of this pattern. They are first and foremost businesses, and primarily responding to the incentive of economies of scale, to pressure to consolidate. FCC regulations on media ownership are not there to stop particular media channels from making hugely popular programmes which win large shares of the audience. AFAIK there is no fine if you broadcast a show which gets 100%. So, they are not trying to preserve equality of audience. They are trying to preserve diversity of ownership in the belief that this guarantees diversity of content. (Why does diversity of ownership ensure diversity of content? Because without diversity of ownership, economies of scale always tempt these companies to try to use less content to attract more audience, narrowing the diversity.)
I'm also a bit concerned that Shirky is so convinced of his muddled analysis that he's resorted to scaremongering like this : can expect at least some members of the "diverse and equal" camp to advocate regulation of weblogs, on the grounds that the imbalance between Glenn Reynolds of InstaPundit.com and J. Random Blogger is no different than the imbalance between Clear Channel and WFMU to criticise opponents of deregulation.
Friday, May 09, 2003
If this is true, then it's time to get off Blogspot. I don't want my voice relegated to a blogger gheto.
And as for all the other blogs, how will they tell? Put some token in Blogger blogs? What if I use a different piece of software?
The only way they could really do this is if they give extra incentives to label your site a blog. What could that be?
In a sense it raise interesting questions. What's the difference between blogs and any other pages? Should blogs have either an unfair advantage or disadvantage? The piece supposes they do, but for what reason other than they get updated frequently and have a lot of cross-talk. What of non-blogs that are also frequently updated with a lot of crosstalk? Are wiki's unfairly disadvantaged because page content is always in flux and being refactored?
But probably this article is just Orlowski spraying FUD around.
And as for all the other blogs, how will they tell? Put some token in Blogger blogs? What if I use a different piece of software?
The only way they could really do this is if they give extra incentives to label your site a blog. What could that be?
In a sense it raise interesting questions. What's the difference between blogs and any other pages? Should blogs have either an unfair advantage or disadvantage? The piece supposes they do, but for what reason other than they get updated frequently and have a lot of cross-talk. What of non-blogs that are also frequently updated with a lot of crosstalk? Are wiki's unfairly disadvantaged because page content is always in flux and being refactored?
But probably this article is just Orlowski spraying FUD around.
Wednesday, May 07, 2003
Tuesday, May 06, 2003
Alan Kay (allegedly) said that the best way to predict the future was to invent it. Just looking at Microdoc news (nee Google Village) I'm starting to think of a similar principle. In the microcontent field there may not be room for two players. Maybe there's room for Microdoc as Microcontent News seems to be on vacation ... but in general the best way to own a micropublishing niche is to invent it.
Actually, that's a glib phrase with no empirical research behind it whatsoever. But if you know better, comment me.
Actually, that's a glib phrase with no empirical research behind it whatsoever. But if you know better, comment me.
Monday, May 05, 2003
But more and more people are no longer living straightforward linear lives. What makes the difference is in part our communication technologies. We carry cell phones and beepers. We have e-mail, instant messengers. But it is also what we do mentally and emotionally. We increasingly live abstractly or virtually, interacting with stuff that isn't physically here.
Flemming Funch
Flemming Funch
Am I just too prejudiced against anything Java or does Headfirst Java look the most horrible publishing concept I've seen for a long time? What are O'Reilly thinking of? A book on Java full of irrelevant and desperately unfunny "light" relief that's neither educational nor entertaining?
I must confess I would have expected more from O'Reilly - a visual-oriented book with designs by Edward Tufte, maybe. Or wit and irreverant writing of the quality of Phil Greenspun.
But who is this book for? Anyone who needs educational resources diluted in this way is hardly likely to have the patience and concentration to cut it as a Java programmer. Hell! I don't have the patience and concentration to cut it as a Java programmer, even though I'm smart enough to read one of O'Reilly's normal books on the subject. So, if the form is appropriate for you, the content probably isn't. And vice versa.
The suspicion is that O'Reilly don't care. They know there's a market for wannabes : people who like the idea that they could learn this stuff, and feel encouraged that this format makes it easier than ever. Once they buy the book, does it matter that they get little out of it? Maybe not.
I must confess I would have expected more from O'Reilly - a visual-oriented book with designs by Edward Tufte, maybe. Or wit and irreverant writing of the quality of Phil Greenspun.
But who is this book for? Anyone who needs educational resources diluted in this way is hardly likely to have the patience and concentration to cut it as a Java programmer. Hell! I don't have the patience and concentration to cut it as a Java programmer, even though I'm smart enough to read one of O'Reilly's normal books on the subject. So, if the form is appropriate for you, the content probably isn't. And vice versa.
The suspicion is that O'Reilly don't care. They know there's a market for wannabes : people who like the idea that they could learn this stuff, and feel encouraged that this format makes it easier than ever. Once they buy the book, does it matter that they get little out of it? Maybe not.
Sunday, May 04, 2003
This is a record of a Public Domain Dedication.
On May 1, 2003, phil jones dedicated to the public domain the
work "BeatBlog Beats." Before making the dedication, phil jones
represented that phil jones owned all copyrights in the
work. By making the dedication, phil jones made an overt act
of relinquishment in perpetuity of all present and future rights under
copyright law, whether vested or contingent, in "BeatBlog Beats."
phil jones understands that such relinquishment of all rights
includes the relinquishment of all rights to enforce (by lawsuit or
otherwise) those copyrights in the Work.
phil jones recognizes that, once placed in the public domain,
"BeatBlog Beats" may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, used,
modified, built upon, or otherwise exploited by anyone for any
purpose, commercial or non-commercial, and in any way, including by
methods that have not yet been invented or conceived.
For more information, please see http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain
BeatBlog
On May 1, 2003, phil jones dedicated to the public domain the
work "BeatBlog Beats." Before making the dedication, phil jones
represented that phil jones owned all copyrights in the
work. By making the dedication, phil jones made an overt act
of relinquishment in perpetuity of all present and future rights under
copyright law, whether vested or contingent, in "BeatBlog Beats."
phil jones understands that such relinquishment of all rights
includes the relinquishment of all rights to enforce (by lawsuit or
otherwise) those copyrights in the Work.
phil jones recognizes that, once placed in the public domain,
"BeatBlog Beats" may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, used,
modified, built upon, or otherwise exploited by anyone for any
purpose, commercial or non-commercial, and in any way, including by
methods that have not yet been invented or conceived.
For more information, please see http://creativecommons.org/licenses/publicdomain
BeatBlog
Thursday, May 01, 2003
The telling thing about these cards is that Bush is only the four of clubs.
Oh, and doesn't Rumsfeld look like Norman Tebbit these days?
Oh, and doesn't Rumsfeld look like Norman Tebbit these days?
Wednesday, April 30, 2003
Nick Denton has an interesting question for neocon imperialists. Why can't they leave well alone and let the world sort itself out? Wouldn't that actually be the right "laissez fair" response?
But a cynic might think that the failure of the US political class to come to the same compelling conclusion is suggestive that the premises are wrong. Nick trusts "in the inexorable advance of liberal capitalism, [and holds] the United States to be the foremost force for good"
But suppose this isn't true. Suppose that the US is just a big country (with a big economy) that got lucky. It was the first big country to get the benefit of the explosive economic growth of industrialization. And the winner-takes-all effect of power laws in scale-free networks (like the capitalist economy), means once it was there, it retained the advantage.
Perhaps it's this mere first mover advantage, and nothing to do with liberal economics, the political system, constitution or entrepreneurial spirit that keeps the US afloat. Why isn't this outrageously heavily indebted nation a basket case like Argentina? Because foreign investors trust it's currency. But that trust doesn't need to reflect a deep faith in America and it's values by the rest of the world. What other currency could you keep your money in?
The dollar only has to be safer than the next most stable currency by an
infinitessimal margin to make investing in theUS the sensible strategy. And from then on, positive feedback kicks. Each investment link of trust makes the currency seem more attractive to the next potential investor.
We know that positive feedback plays a significant role in investment in stocks. It's why we get bubbles and spectactular collapses. We have no real reason to suppose that dealers in currencies are wiser than investors in companies. Both are making short term bets that the
thing they invest in will increase, or at least hold, long enough for their purpose. But they seldom look deep into the black box. Relability is guaged, instead, by observing what everyone else does. In this situation trust in the US system could be as baseless as trust in Enron.
You : Right, yeah! That's why the US economy has been the most dynamic and productive for the last century. Any reason to think that would-be rivals like Japan, Europe with consistently lower growth rates and longer, deeper recessions, have any kind of genuinely better economic system which would prevail if only the US didn't have first mover advantage?
Me : None whatsoever. But how this works, see, is like this. I've just dreamed up a fairly wild alternative conjecture to explain the
success of the US. I don't know if it's true or not, but it might be. Just in case anyone lacked the imagination to see that there could be an alternative explanation.
So now things get messy. The only way to decide between these two rival hypotheses is to start looking for some kind of more detailed descriptions of the claims being made; what kind of empirical evidence is available, and how we should weigh it up etc. I hope you'll debate this by adding comments, suggesting evidence etc.
But a cynic might think that the failure of the US political class to come to the same compelling conclusion is suggestive that the premises are wrong. Nick trusts "in the inexorable advance of liberal capitalism, [and holds] the United States to be the foremost force for good"
But suppose this isn't true. Suppose that the US is just a big country (with a big economy) that got lucky. It was the first big country to get the benefit of the explosive economic growth of industrialization. And the winner-takes-all effect of power laws in scale-free networks (like the capitalist economy), means once it was there, it retained the advantage.
Perhaps it's this mere first mover advantage, and nothing to do with liberal economics, the political system, constitution or entrepreneurial spirit that keeps the US afloat. Why isn't this outrageously heavily indebted nation a basket case like Argentina? Because foreign investors trust it's currency. But that trust doesn't need to reflect a deep faith in America and it's values by the rest of the world. What other currency could you keep your money in?
The dollar only has to be safer than the next most stable currency by an
infinitessimal margin to make investing in theUS the sensible strategy. And from then on, positive feedback kicks. Each investment link of trust makes the currency seem more attractive to the next potential investor.
We know that positive feedback plays a significant role in investment in stocks. It's why we get bubbles and spectactular collapses. We have no real reason to suppose that dealers in currencies are wiser than investors in companies. Both are making short term bets that the
thing they invest in will increase, or at least hold, long enough for their purpose. But they seldom look deep into the black box. Relability is guaged, instead, by observing what everyone else does. In this situation trust in the US system could be as baseless as trust in Enron.
You : Right, yeah! That's why the US economy has been the most dynamic and productive for the last century. Any reason to think that would-be rivals like Japan, Europe with consistently lower growth rates and longer, deeper recessions, have any kind of genuinely better economic system which would prevail if only the US didn't have first mover advantage?
Me : None whatsoever. But how this works, see, is like this. I've just dreamed up a fairly wild alternative conjecture to explain the
success of the US. I don't know if it's true or not, but it might be. Just in case anyone lacked the imagination to see that there could be an alternative explanation.
So now things get messy. The only way to decide between these two rival hypotheses is to start looking for some kind of more detailed descriptions of the claims being made; what kind of empirical evidence is available, and how we should weigh it up etc. I hope you'll debate this by adding comments, suggesting evidence etc.
Ross Mayfield on the culture at Google
Very distributed, small scale teams, co-ordination through light weight social software.
Very distributed, small scale teams, co-ordination through light weight social software.
Monday, April 28, 2003
What did the original “Washington consensus” really mean? Not what is often claimed by its critics, for whom it quickly became a synonym for the “neo-liberal” (more accurately, neo-conservative) agenda of the governments of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. Mr Williamson points out that his original article was “a reporting job” rather than a manifesto, in which he tried to sum up ... in a 10-point list a reform agenda that was emerging among Latin American policymakers.
His list did not include monetarism, supply-side economics, or a minimal state. What it did comprise, in summary, was fiscal and monetary discipline, opening up to foreign trade and investment, and large-scale privatisation and deregulation.
Economist via Brad DeLong
His list did not include monetarism, supply-side economics, or a minimal state. What it did comprise, in summary, was fiscal and monetary discipline, opening up to foreign trade and investment, and large-scale privatisation and deregulation.
Economist via Brad DeLong
Interesting discussion on possibility of US planting evidence of WMD in Iraq. I still think they won't. It isn't necessary. But this article has some interesting past cases where the US did fake evidence to justify it's actions against foreign countries.
Saturday, April 26, 2003
Friday, April 25, 2003
Chavez tries to turn Venezuelan oil industry into a vehicle for redistribution of wealth.
A semi-sympathetic article
This may be a disaster. A killing of the goose which lays the golden eggs as the government mismanages the company to death by slashing investment and talent. Or it may achieve some valuable redistribution and worthwhile reforms.
Worth keeping an eye on to see how this progresses.
A semi-sympathetic article
This may be a disaster. A killing of the goose which lays the golden eggs as the government mismanages the company to death by slashing investment and talent. Or it may achieve some valuable redistribution and worthwhile reforms.
Worth keeping an eye on to see how this progresses.
Wednesday, April 23, 2003
Wednesday, April 16, 2003
Essential Greg Palast
Q: What does it take for a complete blackout of like the one we're getting on, say, the U.S. spying on the United Nations delegates?
A: Official denial. American newspaper reporters and outlets will not run a story which has undercover information which is officially stone-blank denied. Now that story, for example, of spying on the U.N., that's my newspaper by the way, The Observer, and those are my friends -- who are now, by the way, facing jail time for that story, under the Official Secrets Act ...
If I printed everything I wanted, if I printed the American edition in Britain, I would be jailed. One of my sources has already spent six months in jail. It's just horrendous without a First Amendment. I mean, unfortunately we in the U.S. don't use our First Amendment. Like I say, if Britain needs a First Amendment they can use ours because we're not. It's a nightmare in both countries. There, the nightmare is the law. There, editors are afraid, justly afraid, of the law. Here, editors are afraid of their shadows. As I say, Bob Woodward, editor of the Washington Post, would never run the Watergate story today. It was an unnamable source versus an official denial. He would not run it now. No way. And that's why I'm "in exile."
And where is Norman anyway?
... the other is Norman Schwarzkopf. You have to understand that after Gulf War One, the Bush family cashed in like crazy, and Schwarzkopf said we didn't send half a million kids into the desert so the Bush family could cash in. And you hear how much he's been out front now, right? You'd think they would wheel out their big hero.
Q: What does it take for a complete blackout of like the one we're getting on, say, the U.S. spying on the United Nations delegates?
A: Official denial. American newspaper reporters and outlets will not run a story which has undercover information which is officially stone-blank denied. Now that story, for example, of spying on the U.N., that's my newspaper by the way, The Observer, and those are my friends -- who are now, by the way, facing jail time for that story, under the Official Secrets Act ...
If I printed everything I wanted, if I printed the American edition in Britain, I would be jailed. One of my sources has already spent six months in jail. It's just horrendous without a First Amendment. I mean, unfortunately we in the U.S. don't use our First Amendment. Like I say, if Britain needs a First Amendment they can use ours because we're not. It's a nightmare in both countries. There, the nightmare is the law. There, editors are afraid, justly afraid, of the law. Here, editors are afraid of their shadows. As I say, Bob Woodward, editor of the Washington Post, would never run the Watergate story today. It was an unnamable source versus an official denial. He would not run it now. No way. And that's why I'm "in exile."
And where is Norman anyway?
... the other is Norman Schwarzkopf. You have to understand that after Gulf War One, the Bush family cashed in like crazy, and Schwarzkopf said we didn't send half a million kids into the desert so the Bush family could cash in. And you hear how much he's been out front now, right? You'd think they would wheel out their big hero.
Tuesday, April 15, 2003
Nick Denton is in Brazil
He says Baghdad ... all seems very far away.
But actually, here's how it's going down in South America.
The Israel of South America is Columbia. A state which the US pumps large amounts of money and military aid into. Ostensibly this is part of the War on Drugs (Columbia's coke == Iraq's chemical weapons, dealers == terrorist delivery system.)
The Palestinians / "bad guy terrorists" are FARC, the old style leftist guerrilla movement who still control territory (where of course, all the coke is allegedly grown)
The oil is next door in Venezuela. Currently under control of Hugo Chavez. Chavez is no Saddam Hussain but he has had the audacity to inspire militancy in Opec and nationalize the oil company. That was enough for the US to try a regime change when the CIA backed an attempted coup.
The US probably thinks it can wait for Chavez to lose in the next elections, but is hedging it's bets by building up a military presence on the border in Columbia and building military bases in Brazil. These are very unpopular with the population here (in Brazil) , but the new government hasn't decided what to do about them. Lula is torn between Blairism : slick, media-friendly presentation, some minor reforms and big symbolic campaigns like his war against hunger (Fome); and a more traditional latin American inspiration from Chavez and Castro. At the moment he's steering a course between the two.
He brought in the US as a "friend of Venezuela" to help negotiations between Chavez and the strikers, but on the other hand he refused to declare FARC a terrorist organization banned from Brazil. He allows the Americans to have their base here (so far); but refused to support the war in Iraq.
Latin America is far more sensitive to US imperialism than the anglosphere or Europe. Chile, Argentina and Brazil have all had US backed rightwing military dictatorships within the last 30 years. (Remember that the US even tried to stop Britain going to war against the Argentinian Junta) So anti US feeling and cynicism is high. And Lula, a veteran of the anti-dictatorship movement is likely to be wary of US influence. On the other hand, the country is in hock to the IMF, and most believe that keeping the US sweet is essential to keeping the IMF credit line open. And if they don't ... well Argentina is a good lesson in not pissing off the IMF.
Brazil also has a growing oil industry in Rio and will allegedly be self-sufficent in oil within about 5 years. But it has an exploding drug trafficking problem in Rio too. The organized gangs have brought a large number of weapons into the city, which now has a mortality rate higher than Palestine! And they are increasingly coming into violent conflict with the police and authorities. Roughly once a month, as a show of strength, they shut down the city by threatening to kill any shopkeeper who opens shop, and taking out public transport with rockets. The Brazilian government responds with martial control, and the army on the streets.
How does this play out? South America is very different from the middle east and asia but some similar forces are at work. The war on drugs is as vacuous as the war on terrorism, and leads to the same category mistake of trying to use war against the governments of states rather than police work against networks of criminals within states.
Furthermore, the war on drugs has been spectacularly unsuccessful in anything other than moving weapons into the war zone and the hands of wealthy drug gangs. It's so unsuccessful that it raises the suspicion that that's actually what suits the US. In the short term it gives the US an excuse to extend it's power in the area : by selling miltary support to friendly governments, and making war against unfriendly ones.
In the long term, as with Afghanistan, countries are torn apart by civil war, they become candidates for invasion and reconstruction with pro-US governments. It also doesn't hurt the imperialists' aims that most of the population of the countries experiencing this, are so pissed off with the US, that they have long since become anti-American and therefore (incomprehensibly to the wide-eyed American public) hostile "potential dangers" to the US; and must therefore be repressed in the name of self defence.
He says Baghdad ... all seems very far away.
But actually, here's how it's going down in South America.
The Israel of South America is Columbia. A state which the US pumps large amounts of money and military aid into. Ostensibly this is part of the War on Drugs (Columbia's coke == Iraq's chemical weapons, dealers == terrorist delivery system.)
The Palestinians / "bad guy terrorists" are FARC, the old style leftist guerrilla movement who still control territory (where of course, all the coke is allegedly grown)
The oil is next door in Venezuela. Currently under control of Hugo Chavez. Chavez is no Saddam Hussain but he has had the audacity to inspire militancy in Opec and nationalize the oil company. That was enough for the US to try a regime change when the CIA backed an attempted coup.
The US probably thinks it can wait for Chavez to lose in the next elections, but is hedging it's bets by building up a military presence on the border in Columbia and building military bases in Brazil. These are very unpopular with the population here (in Brazil) , but the new government hasn't decided what to do about them. Lula is torn between Blairism : slick, media-friendly presentation, some minor reforms and big symbolic campaigns like his war against hunger (Fome); and a more traditional latin American inspiration from Chavez and Castro. At the moment he's steering a course between the two.
He brought in the US as a "friend of Venezuela" to help negotiations between Chavez and the strikers, but on the other hand he refused to declare FARC a terrorist organization banned from Brazil. He allows the Americans to have their base here (so far); but refused to support the war in Iraq.
Latin America is far more sensitive to US imperialism than the anglosphere or Europe. Chile, Argentina and Brazil have all had US backed rightwing military dictatorships within the last 30 years. (Remember that the US even tried to stop Britain going to war against the Argentinian Junta) So anti US feeling and cynicism is high. And Lula, a veteran of the anti-dictatorship movement is likely to be wary of US influence. On the other hand, the country is in hock to the IMF, and most believe that keeping the US sweet is essential to keeping the IMF credit line open. And if they don't ... well Argentina is a good lesson in not pissing off the IMF.
Brazil also has a growing oil industry in Rio and will allegedly be self-sufficent in oil within about 5 years. But it has an exploding drug trafficking problem in Rio too. The organized gangs have brought a large number of weapons into the city, which now has a mortality rate higher than Palestine! And they are increasingly coming into violent conflict with the police and authorities. Roughly once a month, as a show of strength, they shut down the city by threatening to kill any shopkeeper who opens shop, and taking out public transport with rockets. The Brazilian government responds with martial control, and the army on the streets.
How does this play out? South America is very different from the middle east and asia but some similar forces are at work. The war on drugs is as vacuous as the war on terrorism, and leads to the same category mistake of trying to use war against the governments of states rather than police work against networks of criminals within states.
Furthermore, the war on drugs has been spectacularly unsuccessful in anything other than moving weapons into the war zone and the hands of wealthy drug gangs. It's so unsuccessful that it raises the suspicion that that's actually what suits the US. In the short term it gives the US an excuse to extend it's power in the area : by selling miltary support to friendly governments, and making war against unfriendly ones.
In the long term, as with Afghanistan, countries are torn apart by civil war, they become candidates for invasion and reconstruction with pro-US governments. It also doesn't hurt the imperialists' aims that most of the population of the countries experiencing this, are so pissed off with the US, that they have long since become anti-American and therefore (incomprehensibly to the wide-eyed American public) hostile "potential dangers" to the US; and must therefore be repressed in the name of self defence.
Monday, April 14, 2003
Many on the left will say this is the wrong time for leftists who oppose the embargo and even worse military invasion as a wrong-headed approach to dealing with Castro's regime. I disagree. I think this is exactly the right time for the Left to act in solidarity with the Cuban people in defense of both democracy and social justice in that country. We should not force dissidents to choose between Bush's rightwing capitalist militarism and Castro's authoritarian repressive social justice policies. This is a call for leftist activists to standup for both social justice and human rights against militarists and authoritarians of all persuasions.
Nathan Newman :
Nathan Newman :
Saturday, April 12, 2003
Signed up for BlogWise.
Another blog directory. But maybe it's good to get into a network early if winner-takes-all power laws are the rule around here.
Another blog directory. But maybe it's good to get into a network early if winner-takes-all power laws are the rule around here.
Friday, April 11, 2003
Apple may buy Universal Music
Interesting. To make it's catalogue available online? Don't think they'd give it away for nothing. So either they have a strategy for selling it with some kind of DRM or they think it can stimulate hardware sales. Some proprietory file format which can only be played on iPod?
Surely Apple are too smart to do the really dumb things. So what have they got up their sleeves?
More wondering here
Interesting. To make it's catalogue available online? Don't think they'd give it away for nothing. So either they have a strategy for selling it with some kind of DRM or they think it can stimulate hardware sales. Some proprietory file format which can only be played on iPod?
Surely Apple are too smart to do the really dumb things. So what have they got up their sleeves?
More wondering here
I notice that the Iraq Civilian death count is almost up to 1400 since I last checked. As the war seems to be over I hope this increase is news trickling in, or is it more people being killed in ongoing fighting?
Thursday, April 10, 2003
Qualifying "neocon bastards" below.
Q : Hey Phil, that's a bit strong isn't it?
A : Well, I'm very happy the Iraqis are free of Saddam. In particular, I'm happy it didn't turn into the bloodbath it could have.
But I don't for a moment believe that the neocons went to war against Saddam to save the Iraqis from torture. Sure, it helps them feel good about themselves. Sure it's great media. But that's just a bonus. It wasn't the motive.
Q : C'mon, on what evidence?
A : Well, I reckon these are pretty much the same people who under Raegan sponsored the Contra terrorists in Niceragua who often used barabaric torture methods. I never heard a neocon hawk renounce that. They're still supporting right wing thugs in Columbia.
Q : That's just the "why Iraq, not somewhere else?" argument.
A : No. I accept somewhere has to be first if you are on a crusade against evil dictators. (And maybe Blair, for example, is.)
No, this is about those people who are still supporting torturers, when it's in the interest of the American empire.
Q : Hey Phil, that's a bit strong isn't it?
A : Well, I'm very happy the Iraqis are free of Saddam. In particular, I'm happy it didn't turn into the bloodbath it could have.
But I don't for a moment believe that the neocons went to war against Saddam to save the Iraqis from torture. Sure, it helps them feel good about themselves. Sure it's great media. But that's just a bonus. It wasn't the motive.
Q : C'mon, on what evidence?
A : Well, I reckon these are pretty much the same people who under Raegan sponsored the Contra terrorists in Niceragua who often used barabaric torture methods. I never heard a neocon hawk renounce that. They're still supporting right wing thugs in Columbia.
Q : That's just the "why Iraq, not somewhere else?" argument.
A : No. I accept somewhere has to be first if you are on a crusade against evil dictators. (And maybe Blair, for example, is.)
No, this is about those people who are still supporting torturers, when it's in the interest of the American empire.
Iraq teaches everyone that having nukes is the only thing that deters the US. What should be done about N. Korea?
The obvious thing is that this is for China and S. Korea to sort out between them. Western powers should be encouraging China and S. Korea to work together on this. China is the only country with any influence over the N. Korean government. And, re-unification with the south is the most attractive option for most Northerners. Between them they can probably encourage a diplomatic opening.
China can show the north how to incorporate quite a lot of a capitalist economy without losing political control. A more open, capitalist north would want to re-unify with, and learn from the south, the way China wanted Hong Kong. And the south, without excessive US pressure, would be tempted.
But the prospect is deeply scary to the US imperialists. Suppose North and South Korea come to an agreement to unify, but keep the nukes? A unified Korea with the economic strength of the south and the military strength of the north would be a serious contender on the international stage. It could play the same role of attendant to China's growing superpower status, as the UK or Europe does to the US. Japan would fall further within this sphere of influence. (The equivalent of Germany in Europe?)
And it's likely that a revitalized East would want the US out ... of Japan, of Taiwan, of S. Korea.
So my bet is that the imperialists don't want this solution to the North Korea problem.
Testable Predictions :
Expect to see US pressure on the south Koreans not to build too many diplomatic bridges to the north. Expect more military "investment" by the US in south Korea. Expect not much to be done about the north. A divided Korea is the key to preventing an Asian block.
The obvious thing is that this is for China and S. Korea to sort out between them. Western powers should be encouraging China and S. Korea to work together on this. China is the only country with any influence over the N. Korean government. And, re-unification with the south is the most attractive option for most Northerners. Between them they can probably encourage a diplomatic opening.
China can show the north how to incorporate quite a lot of a capitalist economy without losing political control. A more open, capitalist north would want to re-unify with, and learn from the south, the way China wanted Hong Kong. And the south, without excessive US pressure, would be tempted.
But the prospect is deeply scary to the US imperialists. Suppose North and South Korea come to an agreement to unify, but keep the nukes? A unified Korea with the economic strength of the south and the military strength of the north would be a serious contender on the international stage. It could play the same role of attendant to China's growing superpower status, as the UK or Europe does to the US. Japan would fall further within this sphere of influence. (The equivalent of Germany in Europe?)
And it's likely that a revitalized East would want the US out ... of Japan, of Taiwan, of S. Korea.
So my bet is that the imperialists don't want this solution to the North Korea problem.
Testable Predictions :
Expect to see US pressure on the south Koreans not to build too many diplomatic bridges to the north. Expect more military "investment" by the US in south Korea. Expect not much to be done about the north. A divided Korea is the key to preventing an Asian block.
Wednesday, April 09, 2003
I notice Diesel Sweeties is evolving into Doonesbury
Other suggestions?
- Indie Rock Pete == Mike
- Metal Steve == Zonker
- Maura == Boopsie
Other suggestions?
So, maybe ... maybe it's been a relatively easily won war after all.
And of course, armed resistance has collapsed. Military analysts will be studying for years the non-appearance of the Republican Guard, the vanishing Iraqi army, the lack of organised urban guerrilla warfare. Perhaps shock and awe had their effect after all.
Historian John Keegan, Defence Editor of the Daily Telegraph, concluded that there had not been a war at all as Iraq had not put up a fight.
BBC
And with only around a thousand civilians killed. Perhaps fewer than the regime would torture to death in a good year.
So am I switching to thinking that the war was a good thing all along? I'm going to remain open minded on that. We'll see how this plays out.
A new picture is emerging of Saddam. Not a dangerous monster, not someone on the verge of unleashing weapons of mass destruction, not an evil tactical genius with the skill or ability to turn Baghdad into a Beirut style death trap for the US army. Just a puffed up, nasty, and very stupid dictator. A fall guy for the US, too vain and dumb not to play that role. Then idly swatted, wiped out without the army even noticing.
I stand by the prediction that on the WMD front, it's likely the US / UK will find nothing more than some attempts to build fairly inneffective chemical and biological weapons. Nothing which posed a significant danger. And no nuclear weapons programme worth speaking of.
Some of my friends think that the US and UK will just fake the evidence. I don't think so. I think there'll be enough feel-good factor from happy Iraqis that they'll just run the bits of evidence they do find, and make a big noise about how significant it is. The supporters and media will accept that. Some radical anti-war and anti-american journalists will complain, but the details are too subtle for the news media to convey significantly. If they hear the word "anthrax", people will nod and accept that WMD have been found. I hope the blogosphere can track and fact check this.
Building a civil society in Iraq will be difficult. The idea of dividing it into Kurd, Suni and Shi'ite zones is relatively smart. The Kurds can be given elections early to demonstrate the good intentions of the occupiers; while the military government assesses whether the Shi'ites can be allowed democracy without voting in a pro-Iranian government.
If terrorism haunts the new Iraq, the US will blame it on Iran and Syria rather than disaffection of the Iraqis themselves. The more terror there is, the more it re-enforces the view that the problem resides in the rest of the Islamicist world; and that this needs to be dealt with too.
In other words, for all the hot air generated, the neocon bastards in the US government look like they might get away with it.
And of course, armed resistance has collapsed. Military analysts will be studying for years the non-appearance of the Republican Guard, the vanishing Iraqi army, the lack of organised urban guerrilla warfare. Perhaps shock and awe had their effect after all.
Historian John Keegan, Defence Editor of the Daily Telegraph, concluded that there had not been a war at all as Iraq had not put up a fight.
BBC
And with only around a thousand civilians killed. Perhaps fewer than the regime would torture to death in a good year.
So am I switching to thinking that the war was a good thing all along? I'm going to remain open minded on that. We'll see how this plays out.
A new picture is emerging of Saddam. Not a dangerous monster, not someone on the verge of unleashing weapons of mass destruction, not an evil tactical genius with the skill or ability to turn Baghdad into a Beirut style death trap for the US army. Just a puffed up, nasty, and very stupid dictator. A fall guy for the US, too vain and dumb not to play that role. Then idly swatted, wiped out without the army even noticing.
I stand by the prediction that on the WMD front, it's likely the US / UK will find nothing more than some attempts to build fairly inneffective chemical and biological weapons. Nothing which posed a significant danger. And no nuclear weapons programme worth speaking of.
Some of my friends think that the US and UK will just fake the evidence. I don't think so. I think there'll be enough feel-good factor from happy Iraqis that they'll just run the bits of evidence they do find, and make a big noise about how significant it is. The supporters and media will accept that. Some radical anti-war and anti-american journalists will complain, but the details are too subtle for the news media to convey significantly. If they hear the word "anthrax", people will nod and accept that WMD have been found. I hope the blogosphere can track and fact check this.
Building a civil society in Iraq will be difficult. The idea of dividing it into Kurd, Suni and Shi'ite zones is relatively smart. The Kurds can be given elections early to demonstrate the good intentions of the occupiers; while the military government assesses whether the Shi'ites can be allowed democracy without voting in a pro-Iranian government.
If terrorism haunts the new Iraq, the US will blame it on Iran and Syria rather than disaffection of the Iraqis themselves. The more terror there is, the more it re-enforces the view that the problem resides in the rest of the Islamicist world; and that this needs to be dealt with too.
In other words, for all the hot air generated, the neocon bastards in the US government look like they might get away with it.
Tuesday, April 08, 2003
Seb Paquet asks for ideas for swarms tackling real problems
Here's one I thought of a few weeks ago. As the war was gearing up in Iraq I started thinking about the following problem. Was it possible to solve the controversial question : is US agression towards Iraq motivated by oil?
I wondered whether some kind of smart mob could solve this through swarm statistics. Perhaps by collecting data about US military focus (either aggression or "friendly" military presence like US bases) on countries, and the estimated oil reserves of the country at the time.
Then to do some stats to see whether one is a significant predictor of the other. The smart mobbing would come in because the swarm would pool data, ideas as to what statistics to collect, actual number crunching, and would (constructively) criticise each model. Ideally it should include both those who believe that oil is and those who believe oil isn't, a factor.
My brother-in-law works in the oil industry and promised me some figures for the oil reserves of different countries, but I'm stumped for measures of US aggressivity / military presence. Any ideas? If I get a good one, I'll be tempted to start this.
Here's one I thought of a few weeks ago. As the war was gearing up in Iraq I started thinking about the following problem. Was it possible to solve the controversial question : is US agression towards Iraq motivated by oil?
I wondered whether some kind of smart mob could solve this through swarm statistics. Perhaps by collecting data about US military focus (either aggression or "friendly" military presence like US bases) on countries, and the estimated oil reserves of the country at the time.
Then to do some stats to see whether one is a significant predictor of the other. The smart mobbing would come in because the swarm would pool data, ideas as to what statistics to collect, actual number crunching, and would (constructively) criticise each model. Ideally it should include both those who believe that oil is and those who believe oil isn't, a factor.
My brother-in-law works in the oil industry and promised me some figures for the oil reserves of different countries, but I'm stumped for measures of US aggressivity / military presence. Any ideas? If I get a good one, I'll be tempted to start this.
Monday, April 07, 2003
Thursday, April 03, 2003
I'm taking part in today's Cyberhippie DDOS sit-in by trying to download the Uk prime-minister and US government's site thousands of times.
Cyber Hippies
Is this a good thing? Well, as I'm not in the UK at the moment I can't get to a UK demonstration against Blair. I could fax my MP but apparently, and weirdly, my hardcore Tory MP (Ainsworth) was againstthe war. Not sure what more I could ask of him.
It's distributed action, and it would be interesting to see how much affect it has. Of course, actually changing minds against the war, not much.
Had some more interesting correspondance with anonymous civil servant. Unfortunately I think I'm going to take until the weekend to organize an answer. Could be an essay in it though.
Cyber Hippies
Is this a good thing? Well, as I'm not in the UK at the moment I can't get to a UK demonstration against Blair. I could fax my MP but apparently, and weirdly, my hardcore Tory MP (Ainsworth) was againstthe war. Not sure what more I could ask of him.
It's distributed action, and it would be interesting to see how much affect it has. Of course, actually changing minds against the war, not much.
Had some more interesting correspondance with anonymous civil servant. Unfortunately I think I'm going to take until the weekend to organize an answer. Could be an essay in it though.
Wednesday, April 02, 2003
Trying to get the Second Superpower to put up a candidate in elections is so crazy it just might work
Jim Moore
But I have some suspicions. The second superpower has a lot of people. But currently elections are fought over geographically defined areas. The SS (hmmm. don't know if I entirely like that term) may be a minority within each. Does geography (community) based voting make sense now we're all network individualists?
Of course, we aren't really, yet. A short term solution might be for everyone who cares about an issue to virtually move into one place. And get their guy selected there.
Hey, if the UK anti-war movement all moved to Sedgefield we could vote out you know who.
Jim Moore
But I have some suspicions. The second superpower has a lot of people. But currently elections are fought over geographically defined areas. The SS (hmmm. don't know if I entirely like that term) may be a minority within each. Does geography (community) based voting make sense now we're all network individualists?
Of course, we aren't really, yet. A short term solution might be for everyone who cares about an issue to virtually move into one place. And get their guy selected there.
Hey, if the UK anti-war movement all moved to Sedgefield we could vote out you know who.
Tuesday, April 01, 2003
But at least Blair's motives are not compromised. Like Kennedy he sees the role of power as being to work, sometimes, for nationally disinterested purposes. He's an internationalist visionary, albeit a naive one. He believes he was put on earth to make it a better place, in ways that have little to do with the power or riches of his own country.
This, however, makes him look the more forlorn. It marks one more divide between him and the mighty ally whose armed fig leaf he has allowed this country to become. He is tainted, much as he might dislike it, by American political strategies. Around the world, he is seen the way Bush's neocons are seen, even though many people, especially in Europe, are mystified about how and why he allowed this to happen. He has been sucked into their power games, their world view, and their grotesque insensitivity to the interests and judgments of other nations.
He has, maybe, one final chance to break free of this fealty. The next test is over who does construct the political authority in postwar Iraq. Blair believes, allegedly with passion, that it has to be the UN. Looking at the scale of the problem, most people would agree that internationalisation is the only way. Does our leader have the nerve to speak and vote with Kennedy, not Bush?
The Guardian
This, however, makes him look the more forlorn. It marks one more divide between him and the mighty ally whose armed fig leaf he has allowed this country to become. He is tainted, much as he might dislike it, by American political strategies. Around the world, he is seen the way Bush's neocons are seen, even though many people, especially in Europe, are mystified about how and why he allowed this to happen. He has been sucked into their power games, their world view, and their grotesque insensitivity to the interests and judgments of other nations.
He has, maybe, one final chance to break free of this fealty. The next test is over who does construct the political authority in postwar Iraq. Blair believes, allegedly with passion, that it has to be the UN. Looking at the scale of the problem, most people would agree that internationalisation is the only way. Does our leader have the nerve to speak and vote with Kennedy, not Bush?
The Guardian
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)