Innovation, economics, society at large – Page 49

Aquariunism

After reading Graeber’s exposé on the confluence of ‘human economy’ and communism (Yes. Though those that foulmouth ‘commies’ are probably too low on the IQ scale to be able to grasp the actual ideas…), I wondered: Where in this spectrum is the original-Greek or -Celtic or -whatwasit idea on Golden Man, Silver Man and even Bronze Man (or was that current aeon man) having disappeared after their utter success vis à vis the gods, and where is the (return of the) Age of Aquarius ..?
Especially where the latter might have built the original Sphinx, and bored out the sarcophagus with some tool too advanced for almost today’s science even and the tabernacle having been some nuclear device at today’s cutting edge ..? Yes I’m all in on (Von) Däniken now … Is Global Warming causing a similar Destruction of latter day Neverhavebeensolowonaverage-societyculture ..?

But let that not deter you. Still think about an escape. Into space, or here on earth by means of social reform. Problem is; the percentage of nutters seems constant or growing, whereas societies have been built to sustain (tolerate) inversely proportional percentages of a.holes. We may be doomed after all, with so many (still putting their children into this world but meanwhile vehemently) believing in After us, the Deluge; literally. [Yeah I know, that literally as figuratively was left in the dust of 2015 but this here use is the original, very much valid in 20-16 ..!] And also, since the Mayas seem to have been right about, well maybe not the Aquarius part but the Singularity very certainly.

Which leads to:

[Archeological artifact; Edinburg. Had one, too, in the ’70s ..! In those times antediluvian, immemorial, when even I was cool (..?) — I remember mine was flashier — of course.]

A footnote to theses

Not to Theseus, however close.
But on the superfluence of latter-day (PhD- in particular) theses in printed form. Wouldn’t they be much better on-line, in a format with clickable hyperlinks ..? Wasn’t that what hyperlinking was ‘invented’ for ..!?
Why then still rely on the old ‘footnote’ reference system… If only b/c some geriatric referees still want to see their own name printed and care less or not at all about hits. With the democratization of even science, wouldn’t hit scores (Errm, weighted by the authority of the visitors …! How? We’ll figure something out) be a better validity measure?

Yes, of course this would require a backlog of old printed articles to be put on-line, including linking their reference lists. But this effort should (sic) be minute, compared to today’s paper production — I mean, the production of papers. And, in the end, needed anyway.
Oh, another inhibitor for the oldies: their references can now be checked automatically (I guess (appropriately)) and their assumed notoriety will be ~~disclosed~~ exposed for what it is — which may not be liked by all.

But then, on-line theses would be much better readable since the Definitions and Research Description parts might be separate html docs, split away from the core science content.

Many more advantages, and this:

[No longer dungeoned but in Church, still stalactitic; Edinburg]

The new, once again

… Just to drop the note that Over 50 is the new Under 30.

Because somehow I need that to be so, since recently.
And, for this:
90dbc931-885c-4063-b469-656cb45c9b72-medium
[Plucked from some LI post.

And, because it’s true. All the brave new world-changing ideas that were dreamt up over the past decade, will now have to integrate in sane society’s organisation and ethics. Which will need that straddle of understanding of freshness (need) and classic history / societal ethics. Which, I will speak for myself here most certainly hopefully not exclusively (huh), the (only just) Over 50’s can deliver.

I rest my case for now. But will return. And:

[Once innovative, but could’ve known; B(er)lin(g)]

Information does(n’t) Matter

Another consequence of the analysis mentioned before about answers flowing upward through infosystems and command and inquiries/questions flowing down: When the latter get viewed as anti-data or even anti-information, we see Information Theory in action.

Where without the creation of potential (difference) by an inquiry standing ready at, say, a sensor [abstracting for a tiny moment away from the complexity that could be in any sensor, assuming it a math point] to capture some data it may produce, the potential may not pull away the data created by a Heisenbergian creation (-by-measurement ..!?) of the data/anti-data pair. Leaving the anti-data, the uncertainty behind. Is this the creation, the maintenance, or the destruction of a Schrödinger’s measurement ..?

More operationally: In what way does this interpretation induce metaphoric (?) insight into the connection between physical world, ‘signals’ (as in Shannon and other Info Theory), and continuous (!?)/discretised sensor-data streams..?
[For once skipping the bullying of those not understanding the fundamental nature of the continuous/(math-)discrete divide]

Well, there’s also this:

[The gift of far-sightedness. SE Sicily you recognize of course]

A horse needn’t be a horse off course

Maybe @DARPA can elucidate … Why would anyone need four-legged soldier-helpers ..? First there was robodog, then LS3 that failed so may end up in your next indeterminableoriginmeat-burger. Next, maybe, a fully armoured full exoskeleton.
Which might do away with the humanoid innards in the near future (after that), losing some great many pounds of ballast (similarly, are drone pilots as physically fit as the bunch out there in the air on their weapons platforms ..?) and also losing a great deal in time- and otherwise (situational-closeness hence -fine-granularity) challenged ethical perspective. I.e., no weak knees anymore just shoot whatever moves.

But, back to the Helper idea: Why ..!? Why four legs, or even two ..? Instability assured… And Nature has donned animals with legs to get over tree trunks and boulders and the like yes, but maybe only because natural evolution only happens from the happenstantial last known good configuration not the clean slate ‘we’ now have when designing <anything that may silently carry some possibly superhuman load over rough terrain>.
Which is to say: Aren’t hugely more simple (contradictio semantics intended) machines possible with … even yesterday’s technology, that can do the same with no legs or completely different configurations of them? E.g., have ‘spurious’ legs on the back to be able to roll over (on purpose!) and still walk on? Tracks ..? Number Five is Alive! Silent ops can be achieved easily, just ‘invite’ some Rolls-Royce experts…
One only needs to add a gun of whatever size, and some Autonomous in the ops, and hey presto! A possibly much lighter than average soldier (easily stacked even more uncomfortably (possible?) in some freight plane for transport to the theatre) carrying possibly more, and a bigger gun a piece. No weak knees, or remotely operated — wouldn’t limited-autonomy ‘soldiers’ be able to be steered in platoons at a time from far away (and far away from anything officer-like or mayhem may ensue [disclaimer: once briefly was one]) and have an easy development of ‘grounded-drone’ armies.

After which, the Singularity takes over these all. Or just a bunch of the most capable.
Or, nearer future, some party being more than average removed from the artificial intelligence of the S i.e., some rogue general. How to stop such a guy (F/M) ..?

OK, you know where to drop the Challenge prize money, thanks. … … Or, the whole thing’s just a hoax to throw researchers of the too democratic inclination, off path since the research into the above is already progressing impressively… And:

[Hung from not hang over though that might (??) still apply to the operator; DC of course]

KVZP’ers

Euhm, er is nog steeds de grote waterscheiding tussen enerzijds ‘vaste’ dienstverbanden en anderzijds per-uur inhuurbare/dumpbare ZP’ers, lijkt het wel. Ja, er zijn wat moeizame tussenvormen gevonden; het tijdelijk contract (vast tot het niet vast meer is), de urenopdracht (ingeschatte inzet — waar de opdrachtgever met een …smoes wel onderuitkruipt), etc., maar echt zoden aan de dijk zet het niet. Problemen te over; pensioen’verplicht’ingen, sociale zekerheid(sopbouw, -rechten en –solidariteit), inkomenszekerheid (waar een ‘vast’ dienstverband, hoewel absoluut even snel op de tocht staand als een vaste opdracht, wél een hypotheekzekerheid is en een grotere financiële reserve niet), enzovoorts enzoverder.
Vraag is nu of er al eens is bestudeerd hoe het idee van kort-verbandvrijwilliger uit defensiekringen zou kunnen worden vertaald buiten de sector. Want het lijkt alsof ondanks het trage imago juist defensiekringen organisatiekundig alwéér mijlenver voorlopen op de rest, de oh zo veel flitsender verklaarde kwijlebabbelzelfverdedigingshulpelozen.

Arme KMKTDOs (KanslozenMetKuddesTeDrijvenOndergeschikten) … en:

[Uitkijkend over, zonder grip; Noto]

Meldt uzelve, out of control

Met al die seminars en cursussen over de Wet meldplicht datalekken lijkt het wel of het meldplichtprocedurenaarbinnenrammen dé oplossing is voor al uw privacy-problemen.
Terwijl het natuurlijk niet meer is dan het perfect regelen van het naar buiten toe rondroepen van de totaal transparante schuld zodra (niet als) er iets misgaat.

Over het voorkomen dat beter is dan genezen (en dat is implementatie van de meldplicht-procedures nog verre van), horen we een stuk minder. Hooguit bij degenen die nu én zometeen de kous op de kop krijgen; dat alles anders moet terwijl het a. nu vaak al best prima geregeld is, b. zometeen niet beter zal zijn (feit bij voorbaat), c. a en b gelden binnen de kaders van de nu en dan geldende organisatorische belemmeringen van budget, tijd en wil van boven, om de zaken beter te regelen.
Het kan ook anders anders: preventief. Leest en ziet.

En ook:

[Zonder privacy, een saaie wereld …; Zuid-As maar da’s duidelijk]

Bow the Stork Tie

When analyzing the Stork methodology for EU-wide federated eID- and authentication methods and technology, again one stumbles (rather, ‘ they’ do) over the bow tie of CIA, mostly C, controls. Too bad. Usually, ENISA(-involved) stuff is Great quality. Now, quite too much less so.
Which is too bad. To note, we already commented on the classical CIA rating (incl the bow tie fallacy) before. Now, the CIA seems to have something to bring to bear on CIA as well. Better study hard …!

Oh well …:

[Weaving transparency and stability, Cala at Hoofddorp again]

SocMed usage trends

FYI, some overview of SocMed platform usage, for your study and divertissement — did you already know them all, and what would this all mean for your strategy and 2016 tactics ..?
Plain from Aurelie Valtat, a very good read in its own right:

So, … No Medium in the list, also no WordPress et al ..?
One would expect that, according to this:

So, … again … There’s no overview available for all media combined. You’ll have to puzzle and guess forward into 2016 … Good luck.

Deinduction

OK. To be, think, human, two things seem to be required:
No, not the dichotomy of deduction versus induction. Not so literally (literally, I mean like owemygawd). But the top-to-ground-then-back-up-again ‘logical’ goal-directed problem-solving reasoning, versus the speculative wandering of the mind. Perspiration, and Inspiration. Taking correlation for causation, versus fuzzy-logic supported hypothesizing. OK, I admit I threw in the fuzzy logic part to confuse, and to discombobulate your comprehension.
But still, therein lies the foundation of Theories, the brickwork of thinking: Is there a priori knowledge, or is everything we know only valid within its own framework of reference..? Is the definition of definition circular or not, or in some circle..? Should, must be, to be basis for theory-building.
Expanded upward by Kuhn and Lakatos, drilled down by a great many, philosophers mostly — that haven’t delivered workable answers yet. Not workable at least, to span the gap in between neurobiology and psychology. Which is where AI-as-we-know-it will have its place, after which it will be vastly expanded to cover it all. Maybe not individually embodied, but will.
And, there’s no either/or. There’s the spectrum ..!!

And all this, relevant for the grounding (both ways, please) of ‘Big Data’. Think that one through!

Also,

[Close, but no torte in the Sacher Stube…]