Skip to main content

Home/ Collective Intelligence theory research/ Group items tagged landing

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Gonzalo San Gil, PhD.

Fedora 24 Alpha Lands March 29 with GNOME 3.20, Beta & Final Builds Not Affected - 0 views

  •  
    "Fedora 24 Linux launches this summer, on June 7 Mar 24, 2016 01:15 GMT · By Marius Nestor Earlier today, March 23, 2016, Fedora's Program Manager Jan Kurik announced that the Alpha build of the upcoming Fedora 24 Linux operating system has been approved for landing and will arrive next Tuesday, March 29."
Gonzalo San Gil, PhD.

WikiLeaks Documents Reveal Apollo Program Was A Fraud, Moon Landings Never Happened - W... - 1 views

  •  
    "New documents scheduled to be released this week by Julian Assange, founder of WikiLeaks, could reveal damaging information about NASA's Apollo program, believe experts."
Gonzalo San Gil, PhD.

Institute for Responsible Technology - GMO Myths and Truths report - 0 views

  •  
    "Executive Summary GMO Myths and Truths report Genetically modified (GM) crops are promoted on the basis of a range of far-reaching claims from the GM crop industry and its supporters. They say that GM crops: Are an extension of natural breeding and do not pose different risks from naturally bred crops Are safe to eat and can be more nutritious than naturally bred crops Are strictly regulated for safety Increase crop yields Reduce pesticide use Benefit farmers and make their lives easier Bring economic benefits Benefit the environment Can help solve problems caused by climate change Reduce energy use Will help feed the world. However, a large and growing body of scientific and other authoritative evidence shows that these claims are not true. On the contrary, evidence presented in this report indicates that GM crops: Are laboratory-made, using technology that is totally different from natural breeding methods, and pose different risks from non-GM crops Can be toxic, allergenic or less nutritious than their natural counterparts Are not adequately regulated to ensure safety Do not increase yield potential Do not reduce pesticide use but increase it Create serious problems for farmers, including herbicide-tolerant "superweeds", compromised soil quality, and increased disease susceptibility in crops Have mixed economic effects Harm soil quality, disrupt ecosystems, and reduce biodiversity Do not offer effective solutions to climate change Are as energy-hungry as any other chemically-farmed crops Cannot solve the problem of world hunger but distract from its real causes - poverty, lack of access to food and, increasingly, lack of access to land to grow it on. Based on the evidence presented in this report, there is no need to take risks with GM crops when effective, readily available, and sustainable solutions to the problems that GM technology is claimed to address already
Wildcat2030 wildcat

Democracy & Difference- Contesting the boundaries of difference | AAAARG.ORG - 2 views

  •  
    "The global trend toward democratization of the last two decades has been accompanied by the resurgence of various politics of "identity/difference." From nationalist and ethnic revivals in the countries of east and central Europe to the former Soviet Union, to the politics of cultural separatism in Canada, and to social movement politics in liberal western-democracies, the negotiation of identity/difference has become a challenge to democracies everywhere. This volume brings together a group of distinguished thinkers who rearticulate and reconsider the foundations of democratic theory and practice in the light of the politics of identity/difference.\nIn Part One Jürgen Habermas, Sheldon S. Wolin, Jane Mansbridge, Seyla Benhabib, Joshua Cohen, and Iris Marion Young write on democratic theory. Part Two--on equality, difference, and public representation--contains essays by Anne Phillips, Will Kymlicka, Carol C. Gould, Jean L. Cohen, and Nancy Fraser; and Part Three--on culture, identity, and democracy--by Chantal Mouffe, Bonnie Honig, Fred Dallmayr, Joan B. Landes, and Carlos A. Forment. In the last section Richard Rorty, Robert A. Dahl, Amy Gutmann, and Benjamin R. Barber write on whether democracy needs philosophical foundations.\nThis is an excellent yext for someone interested in models of the public sphere. While all the authors are proponents of the deliberative model of democracy (as opposed to, for instance, the liberal, interest-based, technocratic, communitarian, or civic-republican) many of them place their arguments in the context of other models. So, the book reads like a symposium of like-minded people, rather than like a rally of true believers.\nAlmost all of the essays are accessible to a generalist, but several really stand out (especially those by Benhabib, Fraser, and Young)."
Wildcat2030 wildcat

Are You An Internet Optimist or Pessimist? The Great Debate over Technology's Impact on... - 11 views

  •  
    "The impact of technological change on culture, learning, and morality has long been the subject of intense debate, and every technological revolution brings out a fresh crop of both pessimists and pollyannas. Indeed, a familiar cycle has repeat itself throughout history whenever new modes of production (from mechanized agriculture to assembly-line production), means of transportation (water, rail, road, or air), energy production processes (steam, electric, nuclear), medical breakthroughs (vaccination, surgery, cloning), or communications techniques (telegraph, telephone, radio, television) have appeared on the scene. The cycle goes something like this. A new technology appears. Those who fear the sweeping changes brought about by this technology see a sky that is about to fall. These "techno-pessimists" predict the death of the old order (which, ironically, is often a previous generation's hotly-debated technology that others wanted slowed or stopped). Embracing this new technology, they fear, will result in the overthrow of traditions, beliefs, values, institutions, business models, and much else they hold sacred. The pollyannas, by contrast, look out at the unfolding landscape and see mostly rainbows in the air. Theirs is a rose-colored world in which the technological revolution du jour is seen as improving the general lot of mankind and bringing about a better order. If something has to give, then the old ways be damned! For such "techno-optimists," progress means some norms and institutions must adapt-perhaps even disappear-for society to continue its march forward. Our current Information Revolution is no different. It too has its share of techno-pessimists and techno-optimists. Indeed, before most of us had even heard of the Internet, people were already fighting about it-or at least debating what the rise of the Information Age meant for our culture, society, and economy."
  • ...5 more comments...
  •  
    I'm definitely an optimist...
  •  
    yes, so am I, but somehow lately I feel it is not enough..
  •  
    I think I fall into his category of 'pragmatic optimism-- "...The sensible middle ground position is "pragmatic optimism": We should embrace the amazing technological changes at work in today's Information Age but do so with a healthy dose of humility and appreciation for the disruptive impact pace and impact of that change.'" There's enough cool new stuff out there to warrant concepting a bright future, but that has to be tempered with the knowledge that nothing is perfect, and humans have a tendency to make good things bad all the time. I always refer back to the shining happy images that were concocted back in the 40's and 50's that predicted a wondrous new future with cars, and highways, and air travel, yet failed to foresee congestion, pollution, and urban sprawl. Yin and Yang in everything, right?
  •  
    I don't believe in dichotomies, thus I am both at the same time. I prepare for both digital nirvana and the end of civilization and collapse of techology at the same time. I am here discussing the future of work with all of you, but I have a disaster kit in the basement and a plan with friends and family where to meet at a fertile plot of land with lots of water (I call it Kurtopia). I would recommend all of you do the same. Of course you must also carry on based on the status quo (don't quit work and cash the retirement funds and buy gold coins), as well as react to any variation in between. Crystal balls are a waste of attention. Consider all scenarios, make plans, then throw them away and react to circumstances as they are presented. Understand that plans are merely insurance policies and come with a cost to attention on the present. They are robust but not optimized. Considering the spectrum from optimistic to pessimistic, if we assume a bell curve distribution of probability (with the stops across the bottom being discrete and independent), I would say these days, for me the bell is flattening, it is less and less likely that the status quo will survive. I would go so far as to say perhaps the bell is inverted. This could be interpreted as a polarization - one of the pessimists positions - except that I don't believe that the person experiencing the optimistic paradigm will necessarily be a different person than the one experiencing the negative, thus don't subscribe to the position that technology will result in a new classism.
  •  
    nice collection of articles listed in this article, I've missed some of them so will go remedy that situation now
  •  
    does Kurtopia need someone to mow the lawn?
  •  
    no, but we do need someone to take our throm-dib-u-lator apart though
1 - 5 of 5
Showing 20 items per page