Archives for category: Uncategorized

Jon Udell, on Ward Cunningham’s new “federated wiki” project:

http://www.infoworld.com/article/2880204/collaboration-software/wiki-creator-reinvents-collaboration-again.html

Mr. Udell, Thank you for sharing this news about the “federated wiki”. This will make the “old” dominant Wikipedia, for example, obsolete pretty quick, because it is a “consensus engine”. If I understand this new thing correctly, it provides for divergence of opinions and perspectives and paradigms.

The currently dominant “Wikipedia” web site is great in general, but only for areas where there is no controversy, and it compels a kind of “forced” consensus because of its dominance on the Internet, being the general go-to site for knowledge. The result is that anyone with a minority view is sidelined. The “neutral point of view” does not exist because the idea of “consensus” has pretty much the same flaws as the majority rule idea of “democracy”.

So there have popped up wiki’s everywhere, a sort of partitioning of the Internet space, isolating groups of opinion somewhat, but with differing collections of facts. Dissent from the “consensus”, which does not mean a truly neutral point of view the way most of us think of it There is no narrative of “facts” in text without a perspective.

That’s why you can’t get the real deal on divergent and dissenting perspectives or paradigms in Wikipedia. Wikipedia’s perspective reflects that of its arbiters who decide how to apply the “neutral point of view” mandate.

Federation is better than centralization. This is why localization of governance is better than centralization.

But with a network of peered nodes, if I understand this vision correctly, will allow for nodes that refer among themselves and may provide a way for readers to compare the different perspectives. It may work out better than a formalized debate would. IF we can keep itchy censoring bureaucrats and political control freaks from interfering, like they’re doing with trying to push a censorship regime in another “neutral” disguise.

Some of them are pretty funny, too:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/lukelewis/28-things-only-developers-will-find-funny

Open source programmed, uses a simple sensor that can attach to a simple pair of glasses or sunglasses, he built it himself while doing his senior year of high school, got accolades in fairs for it, and he’s selling it to support his way through college:

Honduran Teen Invents Cheap, Simple Eye-Tracking Device For Disabled:
http://www.popsci.com/diy/article/2011-11/honduran-teen-invents-cheap-simple-eye-tracking-device-disabled

At gizmag.com:
http://www.gizmag.com/luis-cruz-eyeboard-eye-tracking-computer-interface/20500/

You can invest here:
The Eyeboard – Low cost eye tracking system by Luis Cruz — Kickstarter:
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/lcruz/the-eyeboard

I think this is the Do-It-Yourself kit for just $99.00:
http://www.intelsath.com/

See, scientific peer review is overrated by modern scientific tradition, and amateurs are underrated…

Online gamers crack AIDS enzyme puzzle | Games Blog – Yahoo! Games:
http://games.yahoo.com/blogs/plugged-in/online-gamers-crack-aids-enzyme-puzzle-161920724.html

Time to break scientists FREE from the constraining strictures of so-called “peer review”. Peer review feeds intellectual corruption, meaning any kind of motivations can hide behind the cloak of anonymity. It is a system with built-in constraints on revolutionary ideas in science, or against any ideas that buck currently entrenched ascendency.

“Peer-reviewed journals” and the reviewers that get to pass judgment on others’ ideas certainly have a vested intellectual and powerful monetary interest in keeping the idea alive, but it does not help further science. They may have a place in the on-line world, if they get their act together quick enough, serving as forums for the open discussion of ideas.

They can also, once they are past their fears of the future, IF THEY ARE HONEST, they can also serve as arbiters of who is first with a new idea or theory, although if everything is in the open, and as long as the Internet is relatively free of authoritarian interference, that may even become free of such institutional dependency.

A d’uh! kind of idea, really.

http://gcn.com/Articles/2011/07/19/wozniak-on-creativity-and-innovation.aspx

Good point. Design with people in mind.

Developers tend to do things that make things easier for themselves than the user, but don’t blame them. Consider not just that there are some developers who want to make life easier for users (and other developers).

But don’t blame developers, they just work here.

The fact is the higher ups always ask how much it’s going to cost. There are always to stick to budgets and they want ROI. They want it quick and they want it accurate and they want it now.

Somebody pull these guys out of their misery and give them an IBM i on Power!

“Every OS Sucks” they say:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d85p7JZXNy8&feature=player_detailpage#t=83s

Just read an interesting discussion in one of the blogs at http://www.acm.org.

On the Importance of Replication in HCI and Social Computing Research, by Ed H. Chi:
http://cacm.acm.org/blogs/blog-cacm/109916-on-the-importance-of-replication-in-hci-and-social-computing-research/fulltext

From the blog:
>
> In the second experiment, when restricted to retrieval tasks rather > than including comparison tasks also, Hyperbolic Browser was faster, > and users appears to learn more of the tree structure than Explorer. >
> What’s interesting is the interpretation of the results suggest that > squeezing more information onto the screen does not improve subject > perceptual and search performance. Instead, the experiment show that > there is a very complex interaction between visual attention/search > with density of information of the display. Under high scent > conditions, information seems to ‘pop out’ in the hyperbolic browser, > helping to achieve higher performance.