Participation (version 2)

I didn't particularly want to write in the style of "What I learned in this class is" so I used Participation to really recap and cover what we learned in the class about interactivity. As it appears that was a bit too abstract. Here's an explicit summary. In class I learned that in a class bout participation it is possible, nay easy to participate too much. I learned that one voice often overshadows many in the case of Charlie Sheen and the democratizable idea of universal participation still has a lot of bugs. I learned that the difficulty in any system where we have a great deal of signal is not finding information but in sorting it form noise. I learned that the people in the Library are very helpful and understanding about the use of the media rooms. I'm not sure what else to say that wasn't in my previous (and I thought last) blog post. so I leave you this parting thought.

http://www.calamitiesofnature.com/archive/?c=526

Wiki Govt: Participation

Image via WikipediaSorry to post all of these at once they were created much earlier in Google docs and I thought they would automatically post to my blog the way the rules update posts did. turns out no.

Anyway, the book seems to take axiomatically that increased participation is a worthy goal. By and large it is correct, to enough eyes all bugs are transparent. But there is the problem of self selecting social networks the book mentioned in that often the people who gain the social capital are neither the wisest nor the most skilled bu the loudest, and volume is no substitute for being right. Now this is not to say that this is not the case currently but often with a smaller volume of information teasing out what is propaganda vs what is useful credential is at least possible. An incrfease in volume of data does make organizing the entire endeavor much more difficult. Some things cannot afford to be measured by reddit-like thumbs up and down as sometimes esoteric ideas are quite unpopular. That having been said any suggestions made by such a body would presumably go through less time in lobbying and other craziness because everyone already agrees with whatever the decision is. Efficiency is a worthy thing and not to be disparaged.

Wiki Governance :East Coast Code

Image via WikipediaWhy shouldn't policymakers design the computer code and device parameters to more closely hew to the desired legal outcome? Because the desired legal outcome is created by committee and the law is not obliged to work only to make people feel like they've done something. Bad laws are passed constantly and by and large if the law is too ludicrous or unrealistic people merely won't enforce it or will enforce it selectively and pretty much forget over time. Bad design is eternal, the physical world does not simply ignore foolish or impossible design decisions consequence happens and usually in a devastating manner. An engine or device that clings to what is legal will often not do what is practical, especially as what is legal can be fluid throughout the design process. We currently have cars that will not start until a breathalyzer is used on the steering column and that is all well and good. What if a similar device was made slightly earlier, say when in some counties women were not allowed to drive without a man present, or devices that keep a car from exceeding the speed limit under any circumstance. These may be silly but are unjust and unsafe. One of the founding ideals of the law is the idea that sometimes the law is wrong and human judgment should be used. Technology cannot apply such judgment. nor in many cases should it try. In the Time of Gilbert and Sullivan some unscrupulous people transmitted their works by telephone and telegraph across the Atlantic to America so that actors could perform bootleg operettas. If the policy makers of the time decided that such illegalities were important and had a hand in designing the phones, would we even have he clear signals we take for granted today? Think of what a printing press that values the local ordinance for obscenity or property over clarity of copy. Would we even have modern faith as we understand it if the Church policy makers chained the press to their requirements instead of those of the people? Technological growth is unfortunately amoral, sometimes our reach exceeds our grasp and the capacities science gives us are ones we are not mature enough to use well, but far more often this increase in capacity is the spark that topples existing injustice simply by making control of the new capacities too expensive to police. I don't want my equipment designed by people who care about what's legal I want it designed by people who care about making good equipment. I have my own moral faculties.

Wiki Government: Patent Leader

Image via WikipediaFundamental problem of current patent law, too many things are patented and people have been offering mutually exclusive patents to multiple people for the same device or concept. The suggestion of the book is that some sort of automagic search system compares patents to see who has what. Sounds like a good idea and steps in this direction are being taken so perhaps all is well. There is a problem, natural language processing. In order for patents to be acessible to the common man and indeed comprehensible at all patents in regular everyday lanuage must eb considered allowable. However, language is fluid and can describe a phenomenon or device in hundred's of ways. A Binary Metallic Decision Making Device is just a complicated way of saying, flip a coin. The taxonomy of ideas that must be involved for a truly comprehensive and comprehensible patent system may well be impossible. Not to say it isn't worth trying but any time parsing a truly stupendous amount (terabytes if you include pictures, text etc.) of data in next to no time is the easy part of your task you have quite the difficult task. I am not certain the optimism of the book is warranted nor am I sure that technology is the appropriate solution. Perhaps a more precise measure of language in encoding the patents in the first place would be worthwhile. Natural language patents could be accepted but then a summary or abstract version would be encoded by a patent worker and then entered into the system. Unfortunately this solution would be wickedly expensive and time consuming but it is hard to imagine a system which isn't.

The Zero-eth useful site on the internet

Image via WikipediaThat's not a crap filter THIS is a crapfilter

User Interface

If you have Ice Cream I will give it to you,
If you have no Ice Cream I will take it from you,
This is an Ice cream Koan.

What is the difference between a Walke Talkie and a Radio? Some say the Radio is crippled since the same hardware could be used to send as receive, just as any speaker can be used as a microphone and every microphone a speaker, but no one does that. The Radio is no more a crippled Walkie Talkie than a Walkie Talkie is an insufficiently broad band radio. Each of them are used differently and each of them uses things differently. The Walkie Talkie uses the airwaves, sends things upon the waves and out into the world. Shakes the aether and makes invisible marks in the sky. The Walkie Talkie Uses the airwaves, and in turn the airwaves shake the speaker and command the listening part of the Walkie Talkie. It uses and is used in return. The Radio does NOT use the airwaves, it is used BY the airwaves. The Radio does not, even in a small way shake the sky, the sky shakes the radio and the electronics turn the waves into sound. Similarly I rarely use twitter. I often read twitter and twitter informs my interactions and tells me what my friends are doing. The aether is folded into brilliant packet origami and sent to me, shakes the computer and moves my eyes, my mind my hands. in this twitter is using me. Sometimes, rarely, I will use twitter. I want to tell the world what I am doing or where a meeting will occur or promote something and my mind fires my hands type and the aether flows from me into the world. Aggregate sites, Filters, Readers, etc. you use the agregator, and twitter also uses the aggregator but you are not using the Twitter, you are listening actively and atttentively to be sure, filtering your perceptions. Like the FM radio you filter out which waves you wish to shake your speakers but you are not using the airwaves. I have a plug in called Zemanta it helps me use blogger. Me using Blogger not blogger using me. It seeks out pictures, links and content so that when I wish to speak to the world it will be a little bit shiner, a little brighter and a little better connected. I have another plug in, it is called DDN. DDN uses my blog. It uses my blog, I have no way of programming it, of telling it anything or anything other than relaying its choice of news. It uses my blog and I am glad to give it the space to use my blog as it is cute and doesn't take up much space. Remember the words of Joss Whedon "I wear the cheese, the cheese does not wear me."

Hello UAPPeople

Image via WikipediaWell this is my own collection of political musings, stale jokes, crackpot theories, writing, necromancy and music. Also game theory. I started this blog because it was mandatory for a Convergence Journalism project. Kept it because it was useful for game development. Resurrected it to contact family and Its still here because the web forgets nothing. So now its here for an I.T. Class. Hello IT Class! you get to read my stories about rpgs and strippers, yay! or you can just keep it to che clean class topics. please watch the camptown ticker on your top right to get news of the day stuck in your head to a catchy tune. The Diagram above is of the Prisoner's Dilemma. This has nothing to do with how I may feel about a three hour lecture, nothing at all, really. I know I'm supposed to be careful what I write but I've already written this and had it posted, commented on, re-blogged, viewed, reviewed and sometimes even gotten a penny or two of ad revenue so I'm not sure what sort of tone I'm supposed to project. I think that's the biggest 'challenge' besides remembering the password to this old thing. given the various samples I was told that one was called the SUAPP underground while others are comment-less government mouthpieces. I insist there is a difference in tone between Hunter S. Thompson and a BBC newsreader. The trouble is I have no idea where in that continuum to stake my claim.