Internet: The Banquet

thebanquet

I have been thinking about why we pour our heart out onto the web for “nothing”.  The reality is it is not for nothing.  We are all seeking something in exchange for our efforts as as abstract as that something may be.

You are putting something onto the Internet Table in order to take something from the Internet Table.

If you are not working for remuneration, you are advertising.  You are seeking intangibles that–in some way–will lead to a transaction.  You are creating a brand.

All the “OpenSource”.  All the blogs, all the webpages, all the sites, all the comments, all the games–everything–is about building your brand.

It is about “You, Incorporated”.

You want to ultimately acquire the world you want.

You want to rule your world.

There is a word for it: “Anarchy”

You each have no leader, but yourself.  Yet we work together in Synergy.

We are working toward a world of the Independent Global Professional.

If you are not selling something, you are advertising something.

Facebook: Free Speech. Speech Ownership. Web 2.0 Grows Up.

poster-you-cc-fb-so

About a month ago Facebook made nasty little foray into the realm of Total Evil, where they decided to non-announce a change to their Terms of Service declaring all content on the site Facebook property with all rights pertaining thereto.

In response, Facebook members are beginning to seriously discuss the need for Creative Commons content protection as an intrinsic part of the Facebook Principles and the Facebook Terms of Service.

Not only that, there is discussion of introducing an app into Facebook allowing every user to set up a default Creative Commons license as well as the option to modify the Creative Commons licence used for any specific content.

Personally, I think that the entire Web 2.0 should be put on alert for an automated global personal content protection standard using Creative Commons as the foundation.

poster-cc-protect-your-content

The time has come.

Environment: Please, Give Me Better Evidence

I have been following the Global Warming/Climate Change debate for some time and I am frustrated. I am frustrated with the beating that science and free speech are taking.

I watched a TED.com presentation by Al Gore last night and I was deeply disappointed. I saw little science and reason, and a great deal of anecdotal evidence and emotional appeal. Sometimes I wondered what the examples even had to do with global warming.

I regard science as the best philosophy we have. Give me atheism, reason and logic over anything. However, like all philosophies, its adherents are human and subject to all of humanity’s frailties. We have humans who are trying to meet their physiological needs, their safety needs, their belonging needs, their esteem needs, their self-actualization needs and their transcendence needs as scientists. They have to pay their mortgage and 80% will surrender their ideals and objectivity to make that payment. The consequent cost in principle, human life, best practices, material, land and time are enormous.

Because of this human frailty, I am skeptical about every scientific claim. The latest “discovery” that makes the one minute daily news bite does not influence me, because I know there has most likely been an error in the hypothesis, observation, method, data, apparatus or events. I also know that a vested interest was paying for that research.

Another thing I am aware of is naturalist philosophy is as flawed as capitalist philosophy. Naturalists tend to spend their time promoting pastoral myth. Capitalists tend to spend their time promoting progress myth. Both have time and again proven themselves out to lunch. And scientists are in both camps.

In saying all of these things I have been accused of “slander” by both sides. And it has led me to the conclusion that I am attacking the correct problem. The problem isn’t Global Warming or Climate Change, the problem is bad science. Climatology is as complex as artificial intelligence and genetics, and the evidence that the climatologists on both sides provide is far from convincing. The samples are not global and the margin for error is too great.

So as a skeptic I say. “Please, give me better evidence” and less myth.