Slashdot Mirror

You don't say (pdf warning). 11 pages (to be fair, the actual manual is only 6 of those).

see http://dek.spc.org/hybridarts/bubble.html

After giving the New York Times article a little bit more time to settle there are three points that I wanted to review further. The first was how the article came to use the term extreme communities. I did read over the Vaughan Bell article was a reference is made to such communities. http://arginine.spc.org/vaughan/Bell_2007_JMH_Preprint.pdf According to what Dr Bell wrote in the article it was views considered extreme or unacceptable by the mainstream. Using this definition I wondered if things such as the 9/11 truth movement would be an extreme community? Their views are not considered mainstream. I also wondered who else might fall into this list based on Dr Bell's definition? Websites that cover conspiracy topics might well meet his definition of extreme communities. Many of the subject matters covered on websites such as http://www.abovetopsecret.com/ would fall into this category. They would be a website of mini patches of extreme communities. Another factor that I thought should be calculated in when defining a community as an extreme community is the obvious, is the community helpful vs harmful? What kind of purpose do they serve? If I go to a website that has what by some is considered an extreme view that encourages me to kill myself, then that should be considered different than going to a website that expounds none traditional views, but steers the website viewer away from inflicting harm to themselves? There are lot's of websites that conform to traditional or more traditional mainstream views that in my opinion are probably fairly harmful to some aspects of society, but we turn a blind eye, because it does pass mainstream muster. The definition as is, in my opinion is fairly broad, and the references to the term were limited except for references to Dr Bell's work and the New York Times article. The other point that I am wondering about is who or what now defines what is mainstream or normal? In today's society we have so many different variables to consider. At one time spending all your time online might have been considered the actions of lonely desperate people. Now with websites such as Facebook, and much of web 2.0 culture, being online is considered normal, and spending many hours online as long as it's spent socialising is considered a fairly normal and healthy activity. According to a report from Mediamark Research in a 30 day period 2.5 million adults participated in online dating. I am sure they find this to be completely normal and mainstream, but I am sure there are patches of society that do not agree with this. http://www.mediamark.com/PDF/Nearly%202.5%20Million%20Adults%20Participated%20in%20Online%20Dating%20in%20Last%2030%20Days.pdf World of WarCraft reached 11 Million monthly Subscribers. Many of them sane individuals who go online to take part in these roleplaying games. For that community, I am sure they consider themselves normal and mainstream, just by their sheer numbers. I am sure there are still many in society who would not however consider going online to roleplay normal, mainstream or even healthy. http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3170971 Thus what would be considered as abnormal or extreme view offline is often a normal and accepted view online, in many different circles. Eg. 9/11 conspiracy offline, might still be considered anti-government or none traditional, but online they are a fairly regular part of web culture and discussions. When defining mainstream and referencing the Internet, we might have to start finding different ways to do so. Eg. I just read an article today, that talks about a real life couple getting divorced because he is cheating online with a virtual girlfriend. Traditional definitions are having to be adapted and redef

After giving the New York Times article a little bit more time to settle there are three points that I wanted to review further.

The first was how the article came to use the term extreme communities. I did read over the Vaughan Bell article was a reference is made to such communities.

http://arginine.spc.org/vaughan/Bell_2007_JMH_Preprint.pdf

According to what Dr Bell wrote in the article it was views considered extreme or unacceptable by the mainstream. Using this definition I wondered if things such as the 9/11 truth movement would be an extreme community? Their views are not considered mainstream. I also wondered who else might fall into this list based on Dr Bell's definition?

Websites that cover conspiracy topics might well meet his definition of extreme communities. Many of the subject matters covered on websites such as http://www.abovetopsecret.com/ would fall into this category. They would be a website of mini patches of extreme communities.

Another factor that I thought should be calculated in when defining a community as an extreme community is the obvious, is the community helpful vs harmful? What kind of purpose do they serve? If I go to a website that has what by some is considered an extreme view that encourages me to kill myself, then that should be considered different than going to a website that expounds none traditional views, but steers the website viewer away from inflicting harm to themselves?

There are lot's of websites that conform to traditional or more traditional mainstream views that in my opinion are probably fairly harmful to some aspects of society, but we turn a blind eye, because it does pass mainstream muster.

The definition as is, in my opinion is fairly broad, and the references to the term were limited except for references to Dr Bell's work and the New York Times article.

The other point that I am wondering about is who or what now defines what is mainstream or normal? In today's society we have so many different variables to consider. At one time spending all your time online might have been considered the actions of lonely desperate people. Now with websites such as Facebook, and much of web 2.0 culture, being online is considered normal, and spending many hours online as long as it's spent socialising is considered a fairly normal and healthy activity.

According to a report from Mediamark Research in a 30 day period 2.5 million adults participated in online dating. I am sure they find this to be completely normal and mainstream, but I am sure there are patches of society that do not agree with this.
http://www.mediamark.com/PDF/Nearly%202.5%20Million%20Adults%20Participated%20in%20Online%20Dating%20in%20Last%2030%20Days.pdf

World of WarCraft reached 11 Million monthly Subscribers. Many of them sane individuals who go online to take part in these roleplaying games. For that community, I am sure they consider themselves normal and mainstream, just by their sheer numbers. I am sure there are still many in society who would not however consider going online to roleplay normal, mainstream or even healthy.

http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3170971

Thus what would be considered as abnormal or extreme view offline is often a normal and accepted view online, in many different circles. Eg. 9/11 conspiracy offline, might still be considered anti-government or none traditional, but online they are a fairly regular part of web culture and discussions. When defining mainstream and referencing the Internet, we might have to start finding different ways to do so.

Eg. I just read an article today, that talks about a real life couple getting divorced because he is cheating online with a virtual girlfr

Why not check this out. I just now found this windows version of a beautiful browser that even now is quite nice to use and far more satisfying than the others out there (well lynx I like too).

Also it seems to limit the amount of information you can absorb at a time which is a good thing! And 99.999% of the ads are gone too!

Of course this is 5-6 years ago..

There is plenty of room for rethinking applications, especially in the area of semantic content and broadband access. SGI's Onyx had a neat little demo where you go through 3D aimated hyperspace portals to get to different 3D worlds or applications, I remember one that was a flyover of the Matterhorn and ended up with a Nintendo chip deep inside it (on their Infinite Reality). Most people are finding and publishing content in a 2D, static format for now, but nobody has set anything in stone. If you have cheap connectivity something completely different for audio and video may be useful to people.

At the moment Asia seems to be a bit ahead of the U.S. in connectivity, Yahoo BB (broadband) has been stalking people in front of your local train station and attempting to give free IP phones to everyone in site. As I hold back they have kept getting cheaper, the last one I saw somehow got Snoopy on it. These people also need a good networked application.

Another possibility is the Cavern system from U Indiana. A Cave is a room with 2d/3d video on the walls/floors etc., a Cavern built on the open library can connect two or more caves together. These have also been around for some years now, but there is no reason why there cannot be more creative thinking going on, the only reason I see for Mr. Andreesen's perception is that a lot of the people who could do something about it also have to make a living and it is harder to do both these days. A collaboration space to do this might be a good test bed for the applications themselves. The current Web is plenty fertile for people who want to develop new software, but new hardware makes it easier to get the software into people's hands and get funding to build it.

Anyway Mr. Andreesen is not just a whiner, he's also mega-rich. He could make a foundation which would select and sponsor research projects in this area, specifically to fund groups or producers who can coordinate media artists and engineers. The dotcom investment bubble is over, but nobody has died and fallen off the earth. If he doesn't know anyone I'd be glad to help.

Ok, heres some supporting evidence. You can follow my sources of research.

Source1

source3
source4
source5
source6 Warning Warnings

"Methylphenidate should not be used in children under 6 years of age, since safety and efficacy in this age group have not been established.

Although a causal relationship has not been established, suppression of growth (i.e. weight gain and/or height) has been reported with the long-term use of stimulants in children. Therefore, patients requiring long-term therapy should be carefully monitored. In addition, the use of "Drug Holidays" is recommended, that is, withholding the drug on weekends and during school holidays in as much as the clinical situation permits.

Methylphenidate should not be used for severe depression of either exogenous or endogenous origin. Clinical experience suggests that in psychotic children, administration of methylphenidate may exacerbate symptoms of behavior disturbance and thought disorder.

Methylphenidate should not be used for the prevention or treatment of normal fatigue states.
There is some clinical evidence that methylphenidate may lower the convulsive threshold in patients with prior history of seizures, with prior EEG abnormalities in absence of seizures and, very rarely, in patients with no prior EEG evidence nor history of seizures. Safe concomitant use of anticonvulsants and methylphenidate has not been established. In the presence of seizures, the drug should be discontinued. Use cautiously in patients with hypertension. Blood pressure should be monitored at appropriate intervals in all patients taking methylphenidate, especially those with hypertension."
source7a
source7b
source8

source9 Yet, "since the late 1990s, a spate of scientific research has begun to establish that adults do generate new brain cells in some regions of the brain, well into old age.

And now, for the first time, scientists have seen that new neurons become functional members of the brain, forging new connections and firing "action potentials" like any other neuron.

Although this latest discovery has only been observed in the brains of mice, the analogy to humans suggests that the rules of the card game have indeed changed. It also points toward new directions in potential therapies for neurological disorders or brain injuries."

Source10
"biologists at Princeton University have found that thousands of freshly born neurons arrive each day in the cerebral cortex, the outer rind of the brain where higher intellectual functions and personality are centered."

Here is a link to Google's cached copy of a previous Wired article on Web Stalker, the software used to make the black-and-white Spirograph-esque image in the Wired article above. The Web Stalker software itself can be found here, but for Windows and MacOS only, alas.

Check here for some collections of press (mis)information. Disclaimer: These aren't the original articles, I couldn't track them down on the net, but the TV version used the same content as they are describing.