I don't think so; My understanding is that it's the force of gravity.
Here is the picture I have heard:
The universe basically, from any point, stretches out in all directions. Gravity pulls a given lump in all directions at a given time. But local things are more powerful by the law of gravity, than far things. So things start lumping with their neighbors.
Some lumpings occur earlier than other lumpings, which cause then to exert a stronger pull. These become the super-clusters (joining points between filament; such as the Virgo Cluster.)
So masses are basically pulled towards the closest super-cluster. But, ah-hah, some are pulled strongly by *two* super-clusters. These become the filament ("bubble walls.")
Well, first, I got called to work as a programmer, after 3 years of dot-com slumber crash. That made an enormous difference in my life. They already knew that I could code because they were sifting through my online questions and scripts and programs and so on. And they already knew that I was deeply committed to the Open Source ethic. They also knew that I was available. It was all out there. So they called me up and I was a software developer again.
But more importantly, I regularly get to meet very interesting people in my field of "work," (the things I deeply care about, and work on, for the public, but don't get paid for,) because they know who I am, what I work on and think about, and so on.
While I have been in plenty of "online fist-fights" and have said plenty of embarrassing things, it just doesn't seem to have mattered much.
If you look at this from an economic perspective: "You know what you're getting." Whereas if someone comes to me plain slate, I have to wonder, "What's this person's history? Why are they hiding?"
Einstein was very clear: Religion is necessarily social, and in service of humanity. He wrote a lot about religion, directly for society -- hardly a "private" matter.
Ah! Your neo-atheist friends have been lying to you! (Or at least, omitting essential truth.)
Einstein was something like a deist, but his thoughts on religion were sincere. The source of his quote was writing for the New York Times Magazine on the nature of science and religion, and you'll find many quotes there that you might think "mean nothing," or that you might think are "mere fancy words and puffery," or might just not be able to understand.
But if you read them and really get what he's saying, you'll find yourself in a place where it will be hard to keep with the Atheist flock. Einsteins concept goes beyond musings, into deep religious feeling and an opening of the heart to all of humanity, all of life, even.
Religion has been misunderstood by both scientists and religious alike.
It's question is not "How does the world work?", but "What opens the heart?"
Albert Einstein wrote, "How can cosmic religious feeling be communicated from one person to another, if it can give rise to no definite notion of a God and no theology? In my view, it is the most important function of art and science to awaken this feeling and keep it alive in those who are receptive to it."
I would propose that it is for the same reason that lovers don't intentionally try to destroy their love for each other.
The nature of the thing is just plain different.
Spirituality isn't about being "wrong" or being "right," any more than painting a picture is about being wrong or being right. It's about making a creative contribution.
I'm not sure they "couldn't get an audience" is true, either.
I'm sure that in small towns all over, before radio, before these things, there were people sharing ideas, distributing leaflets, preaching from pulpits, and saying, "Well, I don't trust this theory..."
Religion didn't begin with YouTube, after all. There have always been ways of sharing ideas.
Perhaps we should be rejoicing right now: Finally, the medical community can become fully aware of just how widespread doubts and skepticism are, and have an easy way of measuring whether their outreach efforts are persuasive or not. This can begin a feedback loop, a conversation.
My understanding is that serious scientists and futurists actually did see these things coming.
The "flying car," the "underwater hotel," and so on-- that was largely corporate imagery. "The future" was the Zeitgeist, and each company talked about the future they were going to bring. So the car companies rolled out ads of flying cars, the hotel companies rolled out ads of underwater hotels, and so on. Hardly the work of serious futurists. Most corporations practice serious future analysis on the order of 6 months to 2 years out.
Meanwhile, Vannevar Bush is writing "As We May Think," and Russian Cyberneticists are trying to figure out how to connect their computers together remotely. Somehow, it didn't make it to the posters.
Delphi analysis has had some very powerful results; I'm sorry, I don't have the link right now. One was a survey in the 1970's, that predicted that there would be some limited tele-commuting via 2-way TV's whereabouts 1995, and that fiber optics would be used whereabouts 2000, because of the enormous efficiencies over copper. This was a Japanese government issued study conducted in the early 1970's, for the purpose of determining future directions and support for industry. Overall, my subjective sense of the report was that it was basically accurate, and very useful.
I don't think there's any way to predict the future. But I do think that if you get smart people together, who are serious, let them talk with each other, and ask them what they think, that you can get some good ideas about trends and opportunities.
Sakura calls these people her "sisters inside." I am happy with this. Amber and I call her our "Ai no mizutamari," (because she is more than just a single drop,) and "our little cherry blossom, who ain't so little anymore."
What's all this talk about "what you'd never say face-to-face," when we hardly ever leave our houses and apartments?
Room-mates can easily make anything on the Internet look like a Japanese tea ceremony.
People have these very idealized, abstract, and romantic notions of what a "face-to-face" gathering entails. What they really mean is, "At work, we don't get into heated disagreements," or, "When I go to parties, we don't get into heated disagreements,..."...But those settings are hardly representative of the whole body of face-to-face gatherings; Those are very superficial, highly controlled settings.
Almost all parents I know are like that, because even if they personally would give their kids more leash, they know that if something happened, everyone (including the police) would consider them to be horrible people.
1. Amber & I love anime and Japanese, and always wanted to name a daughter Sakura.
2. It's a temporary name; When she's 13, Sakura gets to decide what she wants her name to be, and we'll go to the courts.
3. Presently, Sakura really likes her name.
Funny story: A family friend told her Japanese friend that we named our daughter Sakura. She started crying: She had really wanted to name her daughter Sakura, but reasoned, "I'm in America, so I will give her an American name." She had gone with Lisa, or something like that.
My own daughter, 6, while having a computer in her room and playing video games, still wants to play outside.
I want to let her. Her mom and aunt, however, go into convulsions whenever she's outside. Where does this society of convulsions come from?
When I was 6, just 24 years ago, I could go down to the end of the street and back, without anyone freaking out. When I was 8, I could go for miles.
What happened?
How is it that my daughter's mom and her aunt, both who grew up not in the US, but in Colombia, freak out whenever Sakura goes outside? (Sakura basically doesn't even consider it these days, "she knows the rules.") And it's not just them, but practically everyone?
I thank God her school lets the kids go outdoors, and to the creek. (They even have chickens and a peacock; It's really cool. I'm very fortunate.)
Parents on the right are just as restrictive as the parents on the left. My friend was raised conservative Christian, and his parents wouldn't let him read or see science fiction or fantasy. I don't see any kids playing in the streets, ever, republican or otherwise.
What are the causes behind this? Is it a sue-happy society? Is it that we're just all just perfectly content to use the Internet? Or, did we somehow just become afraid of other people, and don't know how to act around them? Is it some motion that happened in psychology, that led people to think a certain thing? Is it a media effect, where a problem in one place is broadcast everywhere, and then we go into lockdown everywhere? Is it risk-aversion, no matter how small (erroring "slightly" in favor of too much caution, as repeated policy)..?
If an adult speaks a second language poorly, people go, "Oh, what an idiot... Will you please just speak in your native tongue?!"
But if a child learning a language speak it poorly, people go, "Wow! You're learning so quickly! You're really doing a great job!" They'll smother the child with attention.
Kids also find other kids who are basically forced to learn to speak a language, and are learning at the same skill level, and so on.
Our evolutionary history leaves us with exactly the unreasoning hate that you describe. The story of civilization is to cut off unreasoned hates, and replace them with reasoned loves. Civilization then is a work in progress, and one that the entire public is invited to contribute to.
Those homosexuals who left the closets, and worked to persuade the public to accept them, at great personal risk -- they did significant good. Without them, I would probably be one of those unreasoned haters today, and I owe a debt of gratitude to them. I am proud to be connected with them; I am proud to be connected with myriad social and technical struggles of the past -- this is "humanity."
Meaning is a signal, a signifier, a switch, within a larger system. We cannot construct meaning out of cloud castles that we keep only in our heads, changing nothing.
And we can't do good, without some personal risk.
As it is, we're just talking about people sharing their day to day lives. The risk is minimal, but collectively, if undertaken, will add up to a tremendous good: a golden age of empathy.
It's hard to blackmail me, since everything's already out in the open.
"Trust No One" is exactly what you tell people that you want to keep imprisoned. It's something that corporations say to employees who are considering what the union organizer is saying. It's what the government says to a population it wants to keep in fear. It's where we tell people, "Get back in the closet-- it's good for you." It's the language of isolation, weakness, and disconnection.
Transparency, forgiveness, mercy, and sharing is the language of strength.
The impression I got from Clay Shirky here was, "OMG! The Internet!"
My personal believe is that every person should work and live as openly as practically possible. This is how Open Source has developed, and if we are to have a free society, this is how we should live. It's when you can't see people as people, that you are okay with treating them as trash.
When you're talking with people, I wouldn't just start with, "Your attitude is best summarized as oblivious." And if you're going to do that anyways, don't follow it later with, (paraphrasing:) "You don't talk right, so obviously you're not smart enough to talk with me." Is that how you wrote, when you worked to get an officer disciplined?
The method of conversation that is appropriate when "convincing the politicians in power to promulgate reasonable policies about this" is not the same method of conversation when talking with people person-to-person. I know that when I sit down with friends and talk about ideas, it's a very different sort of talking, than when "convincing the politicians," which is a far less authentic way of talking, anyways.
The idea that people can't or shouldn't voice frustration, anger, passion, or even idolization, veneration, or praise in their arguments person-to-person, is clearly wrong.
Anyways, our points are made. I still disagree with you, re: whether people should be confident or suspicious.
I'd like to continue the conversation in some other venue, if you are open to it. Private email can work as well, though I prefer some visibility. Mine is the same as my slashdot user name, just with "at gmail.com" at the end.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think so; My understanding is that it's the force of gravity.
Here is the picture I have heard:
The universe basically, from any point, stretches out in all directions. Gravity pulls a given lump in all directions at a given time. But local things are more powerful by the law of gravity, than far things. So things start lumping with their neighbors.
Some lumpings occur earlier than other lumpings, which cause then to exert a stronger pull. These become the super-clusters (joining points between filament; such as the Virgo Cluster.)
So masses are basically pulled towards the closest super-cluster. But, ah-hah, some are pulled strongly by *two* super-clusters. These become the filament ("bubble walls.")
If you download Mitaka, you can see a lot of these things first hand, with data directly from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey.
Well, first, I got called to work as a programmer, after 3 years of dot-com slumber crash. That made an enormous difference in my life. They already knew that I could code because they were sifting through my online questions and scripts and programs and so on. And they already knew that I was deeply committed to the Open Source ethic. They also knew that I was available. It was all out there. So they called me up and I was a software developer again.
But more importantly, I regularly get to meet very interesting people in my field of "work," (the things I deeply care about, and work on, for the public, but don't get paid for,) because they know who I am, what I work on and think about, and so on.
While I have been in plenty of "online fist-fights" and have said plenty of embarrassing things, it just doesn't seem to have mattered much.
If you look at this from an economic perspective: "You know what you're getting." Whereas if someone comes to me plain slate, I have to wonder, "What's this person's history? Why are they hiding?"
Einstein was very clear: Religion is necessarily social, and in service of humanity. He wrote a lot about religion, directly for society -- hardly a "private" matter.
Ah! Your neo-atheist friends have been lying to you! (Or at least, omitting essential truth.)
Einstein was something like a deist, but his thoughts on religion were sincere. The source of his quote was writing for the New York Times Magazine on the nature of science and religion, and you'll find many quotes there that you might think "mean nothing," or that you might think are "mere fancy words and puffery," or might just not be able to understand.
But if you read them and really get what he's saying, you'll find yourself in a place where it will be hard to keep with the Atheist flock. Einsteins concept goes beyond musings, into deep religious feeling and an opening of the heart to all of humanity, all of life, even.
Religion has been misunderstood by both scientists and religious alike.
It's question is not "How does the world work?", but "What opens the heart?"
Albert Einstein wrote, "How can cosmic religious feeling be communicated from one person to another, if it can give rise to no definite notion of a God and no theology? In my view, it is the most important function of art and science to awaken this feeling and keep it alive in those who are receptive to it."
See also: Spiritual Atheism, Evolutionary Spirituality, and maybe Happy Feet as well.
Interesting: Science tries to prove itself wrong.
Why doesn't spirituality?
I would propose that it is for the same reason that lovers don't intentionally try to destroy their love for each other.
The nature of the thing is just plain different.
Spirituality isn't about being "wrong" or being "right," any more than painting a picture is about being wrong or being right. It's about making a creative contribution.
I'm not sure they "couldn't get an audience" is true, either.
I'm sure that in small towns all over, before radio, before these things, there were people sharing ideas, distributing leaflets, preaching from pulpits, and saying, "Well, I don't trust this theory..."
Religion didn't begin with YouTube, after all. There have always been ways of sharing ideas.
Perhaps we should be rejoicing right now: Finally, the medical community can become fully aware of just how widespread doubts and skepticism are, and have an easy way of measuring whether their outreach efforts are persuasive or not. This can begin a feedback loop, a conversation.
Actually, technically, what you've described actually is voice recognition.
Speech recognition is the recognition of words and sentences. Voice recognition is the recognition of who's voice it is.
What do we need- absolute global peace everywhere before you're willing to put down your damn sword?!?
It's socially awkward to refuse to add someone to your friends list -- but removing someone from your friend-list is practically a declaration of war.
So, these services should just automatically de-list people after a year or two, unless you consciously refresh them.
Done.
Today's world is every bit as dangerous and violent as the ancient one, and it is rather sad that only the military are given "survival skills".
Are you sure? Have any data to back that claim?
It's not clear to me from the article, whether this prohibits kids from making web pages through their ISP's website hosting, or not.
My understanding is that serious scientists and futurists actually did see these things coming.
The "flying car," the "underwater hotel," and so on-- that was largely corporate imagery. "The future" was the Zeitgeist, and each company talked about the future they were going to bring. So the car companies rolled out ads of flying cars, the hotel companies rolled out ads of underwater hotels, and so on. Hardly the work of serious futurists. Most corporations practice serious future analysis on the order of 6 months to 2 years out.
Meanwhile, Vannevar Bush is writing "As We May Think," and Russian Cyberneticists are trying to figure out how to connect their computers together remotely. Somehow, it didn't make it to the posters.
Delphi analysis has had some very powerful results; I'm sorry, I don't have the link right now. One was a survey in the 1970's, that predicted that there would be some limited tele-commuting via 2-way TV's whereabouts 1995, and that fiber optics would be used whereabouts 2000, because of the enormous efficiencies over copper. This was a Japanese government issued study conducted in the early 1970's, for the purpose of determining future directions and support for industry. Overall, my subjective sense of the report was that it was basically accurate, and very useful.
I don't think there's any way to predict the future. But I do think that if you get smart people together, who are serious, let them talk with each other, and ask them what they think, that you can get some good ideas about trends and opportunities.
Sakura ran to me one day, and brought me over to her computer.
:)
"Daddy! It's me!" she shouted, pointing at a Cartoon Network website for Naruto, pointing at a female character. "It's me! They put me in there!"
I smiled and said, "Yah! That's awesome! They really do think of everything, don't they!"
When I made the decision to name her Sakura, the only anime character in my mind was the niece of Cherry, a miko. Then she was a Card Captor, and now it seems a Naruto character.
Sakura calls these people her "sisters inside." I am happy with this. Amber and I call her our "Ai no mizutamari," (because she is more than just a single drop,) and "our little cherry blossom, who ain't so little anymore."
How's that for saccharine?
Who meets face to face?
..." ...But those settings are hardly representative of the whole body of face-to-face gatherings; Those are very superficial, highly controlled settings.
What's all this talk about "what you'd never say face-to-face," when we hardly ever leave our houses and apartments?
Room-mates can easily make anything on the Internet look like a Japanese tea ceremony.
People have these very idealized, abstract, and romantic notions of what a "face-to-face" gathering entails. What they really mean is, "At work, we don't get into heated disagreements," or, "When I go to parties, we don't get into heated disagreements,
Almost all parents I know are like that, because even if they personally would give their kids more leash, they know that if something happened, everyone (including the police) would consider them to be horrible people.
I agree, but why or how is this the case?
What was so different just two decades ago?
1. Amber & I love anime and Japanese, and always wanted to name a daughter Sakura.
2. It's a temporary name; When she's 13, Sakura gets to decide what she wants her name to be, and we'll go to the courts.
3. Presently, Sakura really likes her name.
Funny story: A family friend told her Japanese friend that we named our daughter Sakura. She started crying: She had really wanted to name her daughter Sakura, but reasoned, "I'm in America, so I will give her an American name." She had gone with Lisa, or something like that.
I think there's some truth to that, but--
My own daughter, 6, while having a computer in her room and playing video games, still wants to play outside.
I want to let her. Her mom and aunt, however, go into convulsions whenever she's outside. Where does this society of convulsions come from?
When I was 6, just 24 years ago, I could go down to the end of the street and back, without anyone freaking out. When I was 8, I could go for miles.
What happened?
How is it that my daughter's mom and her aunt, both who grew up not in the US, but in Colombia, freak out whenever Sakura goes outside? (Sakura basically doesn't even consider it these days, "she knows the rules.") And it's not just them, but practically everyone?
I thank God her school lets the kids go outdoors, and to the creek. (They even have chickens and a peacock; It's really cool. I'm very fortunate.)
I'm skeptical that this is a left-right issue.
..?
Parents on the right are just as restrictive as the parents on the left. My friend was raised conservative Christian, and his parents wouldn't let him read or see science fiction or fantasy. I don't see any kids playing in the streets, ever, republican or otherwise.
What are the causes behind this? Is it a sue-happy society? Is it that we're just all just perfectly content to use the Internet? Or, did we somehow just become afraid of other people, and don't know how to act around them? Is it some motion that happened in psychology, that led people to think a certain thing? Is it a media effect, where a problem in one place is broadcast everywhere, and then we go into lockdown everywhere? Is it risk-aversion, no matter how small (erroring "slightly" in favor of too much caution, as repeated policy)
What?
Somehow, "checking my email" is conflated with "stealing." I don't see it.
Let me add: "reward systems."
If an adult speaks a second language poorly, people go, "Oh, what an idiot... Will you please just speak in your native tongue?!"
But if a child learning a language speak it poorly, people go, "Wow! You're learning so quickly! You're really doing a great job!" They'll smother the child with attention.
Kids also find other kids who are basically forced to learn to speak a language, and are learning at the same skill level, and so on.
Our evolutionary history leaves us with exactly the unreasoning hate that you describe. The story of civilization is to cut off unreasoned hates, and replace them with reasoned loves. Civilization then is a work in progress, and one that the entire public is invited to contribute to.
Those homosexuals who left the closets, and worked to persuade the public to accept them, at great personal risk -- they did significant good. Without them, I would probably be one of those unreasoned haters today, and I owe a debt of gratitude to them. I am proud to be connected with them; I am proud to be connected with myriad social and technical struggles of the past -- this is "humanity."
Meaning is a signal, a signifier, a switch, within a larger system. We cannot construct meaning out of cloud castles that we keep only in our heads, changing nothing.
And we can't do good, without some personal risk.
As it is, we're just talking about people sharing their day to day lives. The risk is minimal, but collectively, if undertaken, will add up to a tremendous good: a golden age of empathy.
It's hard to blackmail me, since everything's already out in the open.
"Trust No One" is exactly what you tell people that you want to keep imprisoned. It's something that corporations say to employees who are considering what the union organizer is saying. It's what the government says to a population it wants to keep in fear. It's where we tell people, "Get back in the closet-- it's good for you." It's the language of isolation, weakness, and disconnection.
Transparency, forgiveness, mercy, and sharing is the language of strength.
The impression I got from Clay Shirky here was, "OMG! The Internet!"
My personal believe is that every person should work and live as openly as practically possible. This is how Open Source has developed, and if we are to have a free society, this is how we should live. It's when you can't see people as people, that you are okay with treating them as trash.
You sound like the decent sort.
Keep the axe sharp; Don't let it dull.
When you're talking with people, I wouldn't just start with, "Your attitude is best summarized as oblivious." And if you're going to do that anyways, don't follow it later with, (paraphrasing:) "You don't talk right, so obviously you're not smart enough to talk with me." Is that how you wrote, when you worked to get an officer disciplined?
The method of conversation that is appropriate when "convincing the politicians in power to promulgate reasonable policies about this" is not the same method of conversation when talking with people person-to-person. I know that when I sit down with friends and talk about ideas, it's a very different sort of talking, than when "convincing the politicians," which is a far less authentic way of talking, anyways.
The idea that people can't or shouldn't voice frustration, anger, passion, or even idolization, veneration, or praise in their arguments person-to-person, is clearly wrong.
Anyways, our points are made. I still disagree with you, re: whether people should be confident or suspicious.
I'd like to continue the conversation in some other venue, if you are open to it. Private email can work as well, though I prefer some visibility. Mine is the same as my slashdot user name, just with "at gmail.com" at the end.