Skip to main content

Home/ Sensorica Knowledge/ Group items tagged publishing

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
Tiberius Brastaviceanu

Google Apps Script - introduction - 0 views

code.google.com/...guide_user_interfaces.html

google script apps Programming javascript tool tools infrastructure

shared by Tiberius Brastaviceanu on 03 May 11 - No Cached
  • Google Apps Script provides you with the ability to build a user interface for displaying or capturing information.
  • Viewing the Available User Interface Elements
  • Your scripts can display the user interface in two ways:
  • ...48 more annotations...
  • from a Spreadsheet
  • from a Site
  • As a stand-alone servlet
  • Deciding Whether to Run a Script from a Spreadsheet or as a Service
  • The built-in code autocomplete functionality in the editor requires you to type the trailing period that follows app.
  • Plan the script. What tasks should the script accomplish?
  • Write down the specific information you want to display to or collect from your users.
  • Draw the user interface
  • Determine what the script and interface should do in response to any user input.
  • Determine the conditions for exiting the script.
  • you need a UiApp application object to contain the user interface elements. After you create the UiApp application object, you can add buttons, dialog boxes, panels, and other elements to the UiApp application object.
  • The general syntax for these operations is as follows:
  • To create a UiApp application object, use the syntax var your_application_object_name = UiApp.createApplication();
  • To create a user interface element and associate it with your UiApp application object, use the syntax var your_ui_element_name= your_application_object_name.createElement_Name();.
  • To add one user interface element to another
  • use the syntax your_ui_element_name1.add(your_ui_element_name2);
  • a button with the text Press Me on it:
  • creates a vertical panel.
  • other kinds of panels
  • pop-up panels, stack panels, focus panels, form panels, and so on.
  • code for displaying your button on the panel:
  • add the panel to the application:
  • nstruct Google Apps Script to display the interface elements:
  • You can create the user interface elements in any order.
  • the display order
  • Creating the elements and adding them to your application are separate steps requiring separate instructions.
  • a short script that does nothing but display a panel with a button on it.
  • You can chain together setter methods
  • sets its title
  • set the size of the object:
  • how to use Grid objects and the setWidget method to create a more complex layout and also how to create text boxes and label them.
  • To make a user interface useful, you need the ability to update a Spreadsheet with information a user enters from the interface.
  • a short script that responds to an action in the interface by updating the Spreadsheet.
  • looping structure in the script to keep the panel displayed and active
  • Server-side means that the actions are performed by a server
  • same script, with functions added that enable the form to be used multiple times before a user chooses to exit.
  • script collects some information from text fields on a panel and writes that information into the Spreadsheet.
  • You can make a script's user interface available to users from inside a Spreadsheet or Site or by running it separately as a service.
  • how to make the user interface as a service.
  • A script that provides a stand-alone user interface must invoke the doGet(e) function or the doPost(e) function for an HTML form submit.
  • A script that provides the user interface from the Spreadsheet invokes doc.show(app).
  • The doGet(e) function takes the argument e, passing in the arguments for the user interface, including the user name of the person invoking the script.
  • After you write the script, you publish it as a service. During the publishing process, you define who has access to the script.
  • In a Google Apps domain, you can publish the script so that only you have access or so that everyone in the domain has access.
  • In a Google consumer account, you can publish the script so that only you have access or so that everyone in the world has access.
  • Updating a Spreadsheet from the User Interface, the user interface is displayed from the Spreadsheet where the script is stored. The following code defines how the user interface is displayed:
  • Here's the skeleton code for displaying a user interface as a stand-alone service:
  • some aspects of the two ways to display a user interface.
Kurt Laitner

UK Indymedia - WOS4: The Creative Anti-Commons and the Poverty of Networks - 0 views

www.indymedia.org.uk/...350884.html

@ukindymedia commons free material vs immaterial exchange value use value rival goods non-rival goods

shared by Kurt Laitner on 31 Jan 14 - Cached
  • Something with no reproduction costs can have no exchange-value in a context of free exchange.
  • Further, unless it can be converted into exchange-value, how can the peer producers be able to acquire the material needs for their own subsistence?
  • For Social Production to have any effect on general material wealth it has to operate within the context of a total system of goods and services, where the physical means of production and the virtual means of production are both available in the commons for peer production.
  • ...26 more annotations...
  • "All texts published in Situationist International may be freely reproduced, translated and edited, even without crediting the original source."
  • The website of the creative commons makes the following statement about it's purpose: "Creative Commons defines the spectrum of possibilities between full copyright -- all rights reserved -- and the public domain -- no rights reserved. Our licenses help you keep your copyright while inviting certain uses of your work -- a 'some rights reserved' copyright."
  • The website of the creative commons makes the following statement about it's purpose: "Creative Commons defines the spectrum of possibilities between full copyright -- all rights reserved -- and the public domain -- no rights reserved. Our licenses help you keep your copyright while inviting certain uses of your work -- a 'some rights reserved' copyright."
  • Or more specifically, who is a position to convert the use-value available in the "commons" into the exchange-value needed to acquire essential subsistence or accumulate wealth?
  • All texts published in Situationist International may be freely reproduced, translated and edited, even without crediting the original source
  • The point of the above is clear, the Creative Commons, is to help "you" (the "Producer") to keep control of "your" work. The right of the "consumer" is not mentioned, neither is the division of "producer" and "consumer" disputed.
  • Creative "Commons" is thus really an Anti-Commons, serving to legitimise, rather than deny, Producer-control and serving to enforce, rather than do away with, the distinction between producer and consumer
  • specifically providing a framework then, for "producers" to deny "consumers" the right to either create use-value or material exchange-value of the "common" stock of value in the Creative "Commons" in their own cultural production
  • Thus, the very problem presented by Lawrence Lessig, the problem of Producer-control, is not in anyway solved by the presented solution, the Creative Commons, so long as the producer has the exclusive right to chose the level of freedom to grant the consumer, a right which Lessig has always maintained support for
  • The Free Software foundation, publishers of the GPL, take a very different approach in their definition of "free," insisting on the "four freedoms:" The Freedom to use, the freedom to study, the freedom to share, and the freedom to modify.
  • The website of the creative commons makes the following statement about it's purpose: "Creative Commons defines the spectrum of possibilities between full copyright -- all rights reserved -- and the public domain -- no rights reserved. Our licenses help you keep your copyright while inviting certain uses of your work -- a 'some rights reserved' copyright
  • In all these cases what is evident is that the freedom being insisted upon is the freedom of the consumer to use and produce, not the "freedom" of the producer to control.
  • Moreover, proponents of free cultural must be firm in denying the right of Producer-control and denying the enforcement of distinction between producer and consumer
  • where a class-less community of workers ("peers") produce collaboratively within a property-less ("commons-based") society
  • Clearly, even Marx would agree that the ideal of Communism was commons-based peer production
  • the property in the commons is entirely non-rivalrous property
  • The use-value of this information commons is fantastic
  • However, if commons-based peer-production is limited exclusively to a commons made of digital property with virtual no reproduction costs then how can the use-value produced be translated into exchange-value?
  • Further, unless it can be converted into exchange-value, how can the peer producers be able to acquire the material needs for their own subsistence
  • The root of the problem of poverty does not lay in a lack of culture or information
  • but of direct exploitation of the producing class by the property owning classes
  • The source of poverty is not reproduction costs, but rather extracted economic rents, forcing the producers to accept less than the full product of their labour as their wage by denying them independent access to the means of production
  • So long as commons-based peer-production is applied narrowly to only an information commons, while the capitalist mode of production still dominates the production of material wealth, owners of material property, namely land and capital, will continue to capture the marginal wealth created as a result of the productivity of the information commons.
  • Whatever exchange value is derived from the information commons will always be captured by owners of real property, which lays outside the commons.
  • For Social Production to have any effect on general material wealth it has to operate within the context of a total system of goods and services, where the physical means of production and the virtual means of production are both available in the commons for peer production
  • For free cultural to create a valuable common stock it must destroy the privilege of the producer to control the common stock, and for this common stock to increase the real material wealth of peer producers, the commons must include real property, not just information
  • Kurt Laitner on 31 Jan 14
     
    Strong grasp of the issues, not entirely in agreement on the thesis that the solution is the removal of producer control as this does not support the initiation of an economy, only its ongoing function once established, and the economy is continuously intiating itself, so it is not a one time problem. I do support the notion that producers are in fact none other than consumers of prior art but also that effort is required to remix as much as the magical creation out of nothing. In order to incent this behavior then (or even merely to allow it) the basic scarce needs of the individual must be taken care of. This may be done by ensuring beneficial ownership, but even that suffers from the initiation problem, which the requires us to have a pool of wealth to kickstart the thing by supporting every last person on earth with a basic income - that wealth is in fact available...
Tiberius Brastaviceanu

Technology - 0 views

www.reddit.com/technology

Social media socialmedia

shared by Tiberius Brastaviceanu on 06 Aug 13 - Cached
  • Tiberius Brastaviceanu on 06 Aug 13
     
    Use it to publish project updates from SENSORICA
Kurt Laitner

Buddhist Economics: How to Stop Prioritizing Goods Over People and Consumption Over Cre... - 0 views

www.brainpickings.org/...buddhist-economics-schumacher

buddhist economics wealth enough small is beautiful

shared by Kurt Laitner on 08 Jul 14 - No Cached
  • Kurt Laitner on 08 Jul 14
     
    Review of EF Schumacher's book "Small is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered" published in 1973, very relevant today
Tiberius Brastaviceanu

Collaborations: The rise of research networks : Nature : Nature Publishing Group - 0 views

www.nature.com/...490335a.html

open science

shared by Tiberius Brastaviceanu on 05 Aug 14 - No Cached
  • Co-authorship has been increasing inexorably3, 4. Recently it has exploded.
  • Collaboration is normally a good thing from a wider public perspective. Knowledge is better transferred and combined by collaboration, and co-authored papers tend to be cited more frequently
  • The first paper with 1,000 authors was published in 2004
  • ...33 more annotations...
  • a paper with 3,000 authors came in 2008
  • By last year, a total of 120 physics papers had more than 1,000 authors and 44 had more than 3,000
  • independent contributions to joint efforts, usually in the form of data, that involve only weak intellectual interaction
  • Papers with hundreds of co-authors contribute to the apparent pervasiveness of collaboration between countries.
  • Consequently, distinguishing Malta's own science performance is already impossible. This blurring of national distinctiveness could be a growing issue.
  • The rapid growth of each nation's research base and regional links, driven by relatively strong economies investing in innovation, will undoubtedly produce a regional research labour force to be reckoned with by 2020
  • China's rapid growth since 2000 is leading to closer research collaboration with Japan
  • Taiwan
  • South Korea
  • Australia
  • Asia-Pacific region
  • India has a growing research network with Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, although it is not as frequent a collaborator with China as one might expect
  • Middle East, Egypt and Saudi Arabia have a strong research partnership that is drawing in neighbours including Tunisia and Algeria.
  • Latin America has an emerging research network focused around Brazil,
  • has doubled its collaboration with Argentina, Chile and Mexico in the past five years
  • Africa has three distinct networks: in southern Africa, in French-speaking countries in West Africa and in English-speaking nations in East Africa.
  • proximity is just one of several factors in networks
  • use paths of least resistance to partnership, rather than routes that might provide other strategic gains
  • Commonwealth countries
  • have adopted similar research structures
  • Students
  • proximity
  • lower cost of living
  • generous government scholarships
  • Job opportunities
  • countries in science's old guard must drop their patrician tendencies, open up clear communication channels and join in with new alliances as equal participants before they find themselves the supplicants.
  • Collaboration between the public and private sectors has become more apparent because of government interest in exploiting research for economic competitiveness. Some data show that industrial investment in research seems to be dropping โ€” perhaps a reaction to the recession, but the trend seems to be long term, at least in the United Kingdom9
  • Incentives for collaborative innovation investment that draws directly on the science base would be a good start.
  • So what are the costs and benefits of collaboration? It provides access to resources, including funding, facilities and ideas. It will be essential for grand challenges in physics, environment and health to have large, international teams supported by major facilities and rich data, which encourage the rapid spread of knowledge.
  • Research networks are a tool of international diplomacy.
  • As for costs, collaboration takes time and travel and means a shared agenda
  • The risk is that international, national and institutional agendas may become driven by the same bland establishment consensus.
  • The iconoclastic, the maverick and the marginal may find a highly collaborative world a difficult place to flourish
  • Tiberius Brastaviceanu on 05 Aug 14
     
    "Co-authorship has been increasing inexorably3, 4. Recently it has exploded."
Francois Bergeron

All's Not Fair in Science and Publishing | The Scientist Magazineยฎ - 0 views

www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/32287/title/All-s-Not-Fair-in-Science-and-Publishing/

open science paper

shared by Francois Bergeron on 02 Jan 13 - No Cached
  • My takeaway lesson was that the safest strategy was to divulge my results only after they were accepted for publication. And Iโ€™m sure Iโ€™m not the only one who feels this way. Science is too often a cutthroat venture, with publications as the currency for measuring oneโ€™s success. But with everyone keeping their findings secret until they have been approved by the peer-review process, arenโ€™t we slowing the course of scientific discovery?
  • Scientists have failed to establish clear mores for crediting discoveries
  • Many believe that false attribution is actually increasing in frequency, likely motivated by the steady decrease in grant-funding rates.
  • ...2 more annotations...
  • Open Network
  • If scientific administrators aspire to accelerate innovation by encouraging team science, they must address this issue. Our university system should reward scientists who are honest and fair in their dealings with fellow investigators.  Specific protocols for guiding research and managing disagreements must be designed. Accurate laboratory records should reflect appropriate credit, and websites sponsored by international scientific organizations should be similarly designed to display accurate attribution of preliminary scientific discoveries. In addition, journals could post final drafts of papers before publication, allowing anonymous comments during a probationary period. If a substantive objection arises, the journal should require revisions or even reject the paper.
Tiberius Brastaviceanu

About - Safecast - 0 views

safecast.org/about

GoodLabs_mapping

shared by Tiberius Brastaviceanu on 31 Oct 20 - No Cached
  • Tiberius Brastaviceanu on 31 Oct 20
     
    "create useful, accessible, and granular environmental data. All Safecast data is published, free of charge, into the public domain under a CC0 designation"
Kurt Laitner

Graphene supercapacitors: Small, cheap, energy-dense replacements for batteries. - Slat... - 0 views

www.slate.com/...eplacements_for_batteries.html

graphene nanotube supercapacitor phd student dvd player

shared by Kurt Laitner on 28 Mar 13 - No Cached
  • Then something unexpectedly amazing happened. Maher El-Kady, a graduate student in chemist Richard Kanerโ€™s lab at UCLA, wondered what would happen if he placed a sheet of graphite oxideโ€”an abundant carbon compoundโ€”under a laser. And not just any laser, but a really inexpensive one, something that millions of people around the world already haveโ€”a DVD burner containing a technology called LightScribe, which is used for etching labels and designs on your mixtapes. As El-Kady, Kaner, and their colleagues described in a paper published last year in Science, the simple trick produced very high-quality sheets of graphene, very quickly, and at low cost.
  • Kurt Laitner on 28 Mar 13
     
    old article I thought I had shared, anybody care to try this out? LOL
Francois Bergeron

Death of evidence : Nature : Nature Publishing Group - 1 views

www.nature.com/...487271b.html

financing science canada

shared by Francois Bergeron on 25 Jul 12 - No Cached
  • Of paramount concern for basic scientists is the elimination of the Can$25-million (US$24.6-million) RTI, administered by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), which funds equipment purchases of Can$7,000โ€“150,000.
  • Francois Bergeron on 25 Jul 12
     
    canadian researcher may not have access anymore to 7000$ -150k$ scientific equipment grants
Tiberius Brastaviceanu

Google Apps Script - introduction - 0 views

code.google.com/...guide_writing_scripts.html

google script apps Programming javascript tool tools infrastructure

shared by Tiberius Brastaviceanu on 03 May 11 - No Cached
  • Use the Script Editor to write and run scripts, to set triggers, and to perform other actions such as sharing scripts.
  • start the Script Editor from a Google Site
  • declares a function called myFunction()
  • ...69 more annotations...
  • You can perform the following tasks from the Script Editor.
  • pening, deleting, renaming, and saving scripts
  • Cutting, copying, and pasting text
  • Find and replace
  • Setting a time zone
  • scripts with time-based triggers
  • Running functions
  • Viewing log messages
  • revision history
  • write pseudocode first
  • When you're planning a script
  • narrative version of what the script needs to do.
  • A particular script is associated with one and only one Google Spreadsheet.
  • If you make a copy of the Spreadsheet, the script is also copied.
  • A particular Spreadsheet can have multiple scripts associated with it.
  • use the onOpen event handler in more than one script associated with a particular Spreadsheet, all scripts begin to execute when you open the Spreadsheet and the order in which the scripts are executed is indeterminate.
  • event handler is a function executed when a particular event takes place.
  • see Running Scripts in Response to an Event.
  • A script cannot currently call or create another script and cannot call functions in another script.
  • If you want to store the results of a function, you must copy them into a spreadsheet cell.
  • You can trigger Apps Script events from links that are embedded in a Google Site. For information about how to do this, see Using Apps Scrip in Your Ssite.
  • You can insert a script into a Site as a gadget.
  • you must grant permission for the script to run as a service.
  • You also designate whether only you can invoke the service or whether all members of your domain can invoke the service.
  • you can assign functions within the script any arbitrary name.
  • The instructions in a function must be enclosed within curly braces.
  • event handler
  • when a spreadsheet is opened,
  • when a script is installed
  • when a spreadsheet is edited
  • at times you choose
  • menu item
  • Using a drawing or button embedded in a Spreadsheet
  • Using a custom function that is referenced as a Spreadsheet function
  • Clicking the Run button
  • object-oriented programming languages
  • Google Apps Script uses the JavaScript language.
  • Operations
  • are performed using the objects and methods described in the API documentation.
  • An API provides pre-packaged code for standard tasks you need to accomplish in scripts or programs.
  • API includes objects that you use to accomplish tasks such as sending email, creating calendar entries
  • A method describes the behavior of an object and is a function attached to an object.
  • MailApp
  • use to create and send email
  • To send email, you invoke the sendEmail method and provide values for the method arguments.
  • Google Apps Script can access or retrieve data in different formats in different ways.
  • A custom function
  • is called directly from a cell in a Spreadsheet using the syntax =myFunctionName()
  • they cannot set values outside the cells
  • have some restrictions not shared by other functions
  • cannot send email
  • cannot operate on a Google Site
  • cannot perform any operations that require user authorization
  • cannot perform any operations that require knowledge of who the user
  • onInstall function
  • onOpen function
  • Other functions run when you run them manually or when they are triggered by clicking
  • Custom functions and formulas in the spreadsheet execute any time the entire Spreadsheet is evaluated or when the data changes in the function or formula's cell.
  • share the Spreadsheet
  • publish the script to the Script Gallery
  • spreadsheet template
  • the color coding for that line will not be correct
  • A script with incorrect syntax or other errors does not run.
  • The Script Editor includes a debugger.
  • view the current state of variables and objects created by a script while that script runs.
  • step through the code line by line as it executes or set breakpoints
  • The debugger does not work with custom functions, onEdit functions, event triggers, or scripts running as a service.
  • use the debugger to find errors in scripts that are syntactically correct but still do not function correctly.
  • Functions ending in an underscore (_), for example, internalStuff_(), are treated differently from other functions. You do not see these function in the Run field in the Script Editor and they do not appear in the Script Manager in the Spreadsheet. You can use the underscore to indicate that users should not attempt to run the function and the function is available only to other functions.
Tiberius Brastaviceanu

Is Shame Necessary? | Conversation | Edge - 0 views

www.edge.org/...is-shame-necessary

shame collaboration cooperation paper theory

shared by Tiberius Brastaviceanu on 28 Oct 11 - No Cached
  • What is shame's purpose? Is shame still necessary?
  • Shame is what is supposed to occur after an individual fails to cooperate with the group.
  • Whereas guilt is evoked by an individual's standards, shame is the result of group standards. Therefore, shame, unlike guilt, is felt only in the context of other people.
  • ...53 more annotations...
  • Many animals use visual observations to decide whether to work with others.
  • humans are more cooperative when they sense they're being watched.
  • The feeling of being watched enhances cooperation, and so does the ability to watch others. To try to know what others are doing is a fundamental part of being human
  • Shame serves as a warning to adhere to group standards or be prepared for peer punishment. Many individualistic societies, however, have migrated away from peer punishment toward a third-party penal system
  • Shame has become less relevant in societies where taking the law into one's own hands is viewed as a breach of civility.
  • Many problems, like most concerning the environment, are group problems. Perhaps to solve these problems we need a group emotion. Maybe we need shame.
  • Guilt prevails in many social dilemmas
  • It is perhaps unsurprising that a set of tools has emerged to assuage this guilt
  • Guilt abounds in many situations where conservation is an issue.
  • The problem is that environmental guilt, though it may well lead to conspicuous ecoproducts, does not seem to elicit conspicuous results.
  • The positive effect of idealistic consumers does exist, but it is masked by the rising demand and numbers of other consumers.
  • Guilt is a valuable emotion, but it is felt by individuals and therefore motivates only individuals. Another drawback is that guilt is triggered by an existing value within an individual. If the value does not exist, there is no guilt and hence no action
  • Getting rid of shaming seems like a pretty good thing, especially in regulating individual behavior that does no harm to others. In eschewing public shaming, society has begun to rely more heavily on individual feelings of guilt to enhance cooperation.
  • five thousand years ago, there arose another tool: writing
  • Judges in various states issue shaming punishments,
  • shaming by the state conflicts with the law's obligation to protect citizens from insults to their dignity.
  • What if government is not involved in the shaming?
  • Is this a fair use of shaming? Is it effective?
  • Shaming might work to change behavior in these cases, but in a world of urgent, large-scale problems, changing individual behavior is insignificant
  • vertical agitation
  • Guilt cannot work at the institutional level, since it is evoked by individual scruples, which vary widely
  • But shame is not evoked by scruples alone; since it's a public sentiment, it also affects reputation, which is important to an institution.
  • corporate brand reputation outranked financial performance as the most important measure of success
  • shame and reputation interact
  • in our early evolution we could gauge cooperation only firsthand
  • Shaming, as noted, is unwelcome in regulating personal conduct that doesn't harm others. But what about shaming conduct that does harm others?
  • why we learned to speak.1
  • Language
  • The need to accommodate the increasing number of social connections and monitor one another could be
  • allowed for gossip, a vector of social information.
  • in cooperation games that allowed players to gossip about one another's performance, positive gossip resulted in higher cooperation.
  • Of even greater interest, gossip affected the players' perceptions of others even when they had access to firsthand information.
  • Human society today is so big that its dimensions have outgrown our brains.
  • What tool could help us gossip in a group this size?
  • We can use computers to simulate some of the intimacy of tribal life, but we need humans to evoke the shame that leads to cooperation. The emergence of new toolsโ€” language, writing, the Internetโ€”cannot completely replace the eyes. Face-to-face interactions, such as those outside Trader Joe's stores, are still the most impressive form of dissent.
  • what is stopping shame from catalyzing social change? I see three main drawbacks:
  • Today's world is rife with ephemeral, or "one-off," interactions.
  • Research shows, however, that if people know they will interact again, cooperation improves
  • Shame works better if the potential for future interaction is high
  • In a world of one-off interactions, we can try to compensate for anonymity with an image score,
  • which sends a signal to the group about an individual's or institution's degree of cooperation.
  • Today's world allows for amorphous identities
  • It's hard to keep track of who cooperates and who doesn't, especially if it's institutions you're monitoring
  • Shaming's biggest drawback is its insufficiency.
  • Some people have no shame
  • shame does not always encourage cooperation from players who are least cooperative
  • a certain fraction of a given population will always behave shamelessly
  • if the payoff is high enough
  • There was even speculation that publishing individual bankers' bonuses would lead to banker jealousy, not shame
  • shame is not enough to catalyze major social change
  • This is why punishment remains imperative.
  • Even if shaming were enough to bring the behavior of most people into line, governments need a system of punishment to protect the group from the least cooperative players.
  • Today we are faced with the additional challenge of balancing human interests and the interests of nonhuman life.
  • Tiberius Brastaviceanu on 28 Oct 11
     
    The role of non-rational mechanisms in convergence - social emotions like shame and guiltย 
Tiberius Brastaviceanu

The New Normal in Funding University Science | Issues in Science and Technology - 1 views

issues.org/...-in-funding-university-science

open science paper

shared by Tiberius Brastaviceanu on 07 Aug 14 - No Cached
  • Government funding for academic research will remain limited, and competition for grants will remain high. Broad adjustments will be needed
  • he sequester simply makes acute a chronic condition that has been getting worse for years.
  • the federal budget sequester
  • ...72 more annotations...
  • systemic problems that arise from the R&D funding system and incentive structure that the federal government put in place after World War II
  • Researchers across the country encounter increasingly fierce competition for money.
  • unding rates in many National Institutes of Health (NIH) and National Science Foundation (NSF) programs are now at historical lows, declining from more than 30% before 2001 to 20% or even less in 2011
  • even the most prominent scientists will find it difficult to maintain funding for their laboratories, and young scientists seeking their first grant may become so overwhelmed that individuals of great promise will be driven from the field
  • anxiety and frustration
  • The growth of the scientific enterprise on university campuses during the past 60 years is not sustainable and has now reached a tipping point at which old models no longer work
  • Origins of the crisis
  • ederal funding agencies must work with universities to ensure that new models of funding do not stymie the progress of science in the United States
  • The demand for research money greatly exceeds the supply
  • the demand for research funding has gone up
  • The deeper sources of the problem lie in the incentive structure of the modern research university, the aspirations of scientists trained by those universities, and the aspirations of less research-intensive universities and colleges across the nation
  • competitive grants system
  • if a university wants to attract a significant amount of sponsored research money, it needs doctoral programs in the relevant fields and faculty members who are dedicated to both winning grants and training students
  • The production of science and engineering doctorates has grown apace
  • Even though not all doctorate recipients become university faculty, the size of the science and engineering faculty at U.S. universities has grown substantially
  • proposal pressure goes up
  • These strategies make sense for any individual university, but will fail collectively unless federal funding for R&D grows robustly enough to keep up with demand.
  • At the very time that universities were enjoying rapidly growing budgets, and creating modes of operation that assumed such largess was the new normal, Price warned that it would all soon come to a halt
  • the human and financial resources invested in science had been increasing much faster than the populations and economies of those regions
  • growth in the scientific enterprise would have to slow down at some point, growing no more than the population or the economy.
  • Dead-end solutions
  • studies sounded an alarm about the potential decline in U.S. global leadership in science and technology and the grave implications of that decline for economic growth and national security
  • Although we are not opposed to increasing federal funding for research, we are not optimistic that it will happen at anywhere near the rate the Academies seek, nor do we think it will have a large impact on funding rates
  • universities should not expect any radical increases in domestic R&D budgets, and most likely not in defense R&D budgets either, unless the discretionary budgets themselves grow rapidly. Those budgets are under pressure from political groups that want to shrink government spending and from the growth of spending in mandatory programs
  • The basic point is that the growth of the economy will drive increases in federal R&D spending, and any attempt to provide rapid or sustained increases beyond that growth will require taking money from other programs.
  • The demand for research money cannot grow faster than the economy forever and the growth curve for research money flattened out long ago.
  • Path out of crisis
  • The goal cannot be to convince the government to invest a higher proportion of its discretionary spending in research
  • Getting more is not in the cards, and some observers think the scientific community will be lucky to keep what it has
  • The potential to take advantage of the infrastructure and talent on university campuses may be a win-win situation for businesses and institutions of higher education.
  • Why should universities and colleges continue to support scientific research, knowing that the financial benefits are diminishing?
  • esearch culture
  • attract good students and faculty as well as raise their prestige
  • mission to expand the boundaries of human knowledge
  • faculty members are committed to their scholarship and will press on with their research programs even when external dollars are scarce
  • training
  • take place in
  • research laboratories
  • it is critical to have active research laboratories, not only in elite public and private research institutions, but in non-flagship public universities, a diverse set of private universities, and four-year colleges
  • How then do increasingly beleaguered institutions of higher education support the research efforts of the faculty, given the reality that federal grants are going to be few and far between for the majority of faculty members? What are the practical steps institutions can take?
  • change the current model of providing large startup packages when a faculty member is hired and then leaving it up to the faculty member to obtain funding for the remainder of his or her career
  • universities invest less in new faculty members and spread their internal research dollars across faculty members at all stages of their careers, from early to late.
    • Tiberius Brastaviceanu
      Tiberius Brastaviceanu on 07 Aug 14
       
      Sharing of resources, see SENSORICA's NRP
  • national conversation about changes in startup packages and by careful consultations with prospective faculty hires about long-term support of their research efforts
  • Many prospective hires may find smaller startup packages palatable, if they can be convinced that the smaller packages are coupled with an institutional commitment to ongoing research support and more reasonable expectations about winning grants.
  • Smaller startup packages mean that in many situations, new faculty members will not be able to establish a functioning stand-alone laboratory. Thus, space and equipment will need to be shared to a greater extent than has been true in the past.
  • construction of open laboratory spaces and the strategic development of well-equipped research centers capable of efficiently servicing the needs of an array of researchers
  • phaseout of the individual laboratory
  • enhanced opportunities for communication and networking among faculty members and their students
  • Collaborative proposals and the assembly of research teams that focus on more complex problems can arise relatively naturally as interactions among researchers are facilitated by proximity and the absence of walls between laboratories.
  • An increased emphasis on team research
  • investments in the research enterprise
  • can be directed at projects that have good buy-in from the faculty
  • learn how to work both as part of a team and independently
  • Involvement in multiple projects should be encouraged
  • The more likely trajectory of a junior faculty member will evolve from contributing team member to increasing leadership responsibilities to team leader
  • nternal evaluations of contributions and potential will become more important in tenure and promotion decisions.
    • Tiberius Brastaviceanu
      Tiberius Brastaviceanu on 07 Aug 14
       
      Need value accounting system
  • relationships with foundations, donors, state agencies, and private business will become increasingly important in the funding game
  • The opportunities to form partnerships with business are especially intriguing
    • Tiberius Brastaviceanu
      Tiberius Brastaviceanu on 07 Aug 14
       
      The problem is to change the model and go open source, because IP stifles other processes that might benefit Universities!!!
  • Further complicating university collaborations with business is that past examples of such partnerships have not always been easy or free of controversy.
  • some faculty members worried about firms dictating the research priorities of the university, pulling graduate students into proprietary research (which could limit what they could publish), and generally tugging the relevant faculty in multiple directions.
  • developed rules and guidelines to control them
  • University faculty and businesspeople often do not understand each otherโ€™s cultures, needs, and constraints, and such gaps can lead to more mundane problems in university/industry relations, not least of which are organizational demands and institutional cultures
    • Tiberius Brastaviceanu
      Tiberius Brastaviceanu on 07 Aug 14
       
      Needs for mechanisms to govern, coordinate, structure an ecosystem -See SENSORICA's Open Alliance model
  • n addition to funding for research, universities can receive indirect benefits from such relationships. High-profile partnerships with businesses will underline the important role that universities can play in the economic development of a region.
  • Universities have to see firms as more than just deep pockets, and firms need to see universities as more than sources of cheap skilled labor.
  • foundations or other philanthropy
  • We do not believe that research proposed and supervised by individual principal investigators will disappear anytime soon. It is a research model that has proven to be remarkably successful and enduring
  • However, we believe that the most vibrant scientific communities on university and college campuses, and the ones most likely to thrive in the new reality of funding for the sciences, will be those that encourage the formation of research teams and are nimble with regard to funding sources, even as they leave room for traditional avenues of funding and research.
Tiberius Brastaviceanu

The Baffler - 0 views

thebaffler.com/...the_meme_hustler

O'Reilly paper

shared by Tiberius Brastaviceanu on 06 Apr 13 - No Cached
  • This tendency to view questions of freedom primarily through the lens of economic competition, to focus on the producer and the entrepreneur at the expense of everyone else, shaped Oโ€™Reillyโ€™s thinking about technology.
  • the Oโ€™Reilly brand essence is ultimately a story about the hacker as hero, the kid who is playing with technology because he loves it, but one day falls into a situation where he or she is called on to go forth and change the world,
  • His true hero is the hacker-cum-entrepreneur, someone who overcomes the insurmountable obstacles erected by giant corporations and lazy bureaucrats in order to fulfill the American Dream 2.0: start a company, disrupt an industry, coin a buzzword.
  • ...139 more annotations...
  • gospel of individualism, small government, and market fundamentalism
  • innovation is the new selfishness
  • mastery of public relations
  • making it seem as if the language of economics was, in fact, the only reasonable way to talk about the subject
  • memes are for losers; the real money is in epistemes.
  • โ€œOpen source softwareโ€ was also the first major rebranding exercise overseen by Team Oโ€™Reill
  • Itโ€™s easy to forget this today, but there was no such idea as open source software before 1998; the conceptโ€™s seeming contemporary coherence is the result of clever manipulation and marketing.
  • ideological cleavage between two groups
  • Richard Stallman
  • Free Software Foundation, preoccupied with ensuring that users had rights with respect to their computer programs. Those rights werenโ€™t manyโ€”users should be able to run the program for any purpose, to study how it works, to redistribute copies of it, and to release their improved version (if there was one) to the public
  • โ€œfree software.โ€
  • association with โ€œfreedomโ€ rather than โ€œfree beerโ€
  • copyleft
  • profound critique of the role that patent law had come to play in stifling innovation and creativity.
  • Plenty of developers contributed to โ€œfree softwareโ€ projects for reasons that had nothing to do with politics. Some, like Linus Torvalds, the Finnish creator of the much-celebrated Linux operating system, did so for fun; some because they wanted to build more convenient software; some because they wanted to learn new and much-demanded skills.
  • Stallmanโ€™s rights-talk, however, risked alienating the corporate types
  • he was trying to launch a radical social movement, not a complacent business association
  • By early 1998 several business-minded members of the free software community were ready to split from Stallman, so they masterminded a coup, formed their own advocacy outletโ€”the Open Source Initiativeโ€”and brought in Oโ€™Reilly to help them rebrand.
  • โ€œopen sourceโ€
  • The label โ€œopen sourceโ€ may have been new, but the ideas behind it had been in the air for some time.
  • In those early days, the messaging around open source occasionally bordered on propaganda
  • This budding movement prided itself on not wanting to talk about the ends it was pursuing; except for improving efficiency and decreasing costs, those were left very much undefined.
  • extremely decentralized manner, using Internet platforms, with little central coordination.
  • In contrast to free software, then, open source had no obvious moral component.
  • โ€œopen source is not particularly a moral or a legal issue. Itโ€™s an engineering issue. I advocate open source, because . . . it leads to better engineering results and better economic results
  • While free software was meant to force developers to lose sleep over ethical dilemmas, open source software was meant to end their insomnia.
  • Stallman the social reformer could wait for decades until his ethical argument for free software prevailed in the public debate
  • Oโ€™Reilly the savvy businessman had a much shorter timeline: a quick embrace of open source software by the business community guaranteed steady demand for Oโ€™Reilly books and events
  • The coup succeeded. Stallmanโ€™s project was marginalized. But Oโ€™Reilly and his acolytes didnโ€™t win with better arguments; they won with better PR.
  • A decade after producing a singular vision of the Internet to justify his ideas about the supremacy of the open source paradigm, Oโ€™Reilly is close to pulling a similar trick on how we talk about government reform.
  • much of Stallmanโ€™s efforts centered on software licenses
  • Oโ€™Reillyโ€™s bet wa
  • the โ€œcloudโ€
  • licenses would cease to matter
  • Since no code changed hands
  • So what did matter about open source? Not โ€œfreedomโ€
  • Oโ€™Reilly cared for only one type of freedom: the freedom of developers to distribute software on whatever terms they fancied.
  • the freedom of the producer
  • who must be left to innovate, undisturbed by laws and ethics.
  • The most important freedom,
  • is that which protects โ€œmy choice as a creator to give, or not to give, the fruits of my work to you, as a โ€˜userโ€™ of that work, and for you, as a user, to accept or reject the terms I place on that gift.โ€
  • Oโ€™Reilly opposed this agenda: โ€œI completely support the right of Richard [Stallman] or any individual author to make his or her work available under the terms of the GPL; I balk when they say that others who do not do so are doing something wrong.โ€
  • The right thing to do, according to Oโ€™Reilly, was to leave developers alone.
  • According to this Randian interpretation of open source, the goal of regulation and public advocacy should be to ensure that absolutely nothingโ€”no laws or petty moral considerationsโ€”stood in the way of the open source revolution
  • Any move to subject the fruits of developersโ€™ labor to public regulation
  • must be opposed, since it would taint the reputation of open source as technologically and economically superior to proprietary software
  • the advent of the Internet made Stallmanโ€™s obsession with licenses obsolete
  • Many developers did stop thinking about licenses, and, having stopped thinking about licenses, they also stopped thinking about broader moral issues that would have remained central to the debates had โ€œopen sourceโ€ not displaced โ€œfree softwareโ€ as the paradigm du jour.
  • Profiting from the termโ€™s ambiguity, Oโ€™Reilly and his collaborators likened the โ€œopennessโ€ of open source software to the โ€œopennessโ€ of the academic enterprise, markets, and free speech.
  • โ€œopen to intellectual exchangeโ€
  • โ€œopen to competitionโ€
  • โ€œFor me, โ€˜open sourceโ€™ in the broader sense means any system in which open access to code lowers the barriers to entry into the marketโ€).
  • โ€œOpenโ€ allowed Oโ€™Reilly to build the largest possible tent for the movement.
  • The language of economics was less alienating than Stallmanโ€™s language of ethics; โ€œopennessโ€ was the kind of multipurpose term that allowed one to look political while advancing an agenda that had very little to do with politics
  • highlight the competitive advantages of openness.
  • the availability of source code for universal examination soon became the one and only benchmark of openness
  • What the code did was of little importanceโ€”the market knows best!โ€”as long as anyone could check it for bugs.
  • The new paradigm was presented as something that went beyond ideology and could attract corporate executives without losing its appeal to the hacker crowd.
  • What Raymond and Oโ€™Reilly failed to grasp, or decided to overlook, is that their effort to present open source as non-ideological was underpinned by a powerful ideology of its ownโ€”an ideology that worshiped innovation and efficiency at the expense of everything else.
  • What they had in common was disdain for Stallmanโ€™s moralizingโ€”barely enough to justify their revolutionary agenda, especially among the hacker crowds who were traditionally suspicious of anyone eager to suck up to the big corporations that aspired to dominate the open source scene.
  • linking this new movement to both the history of the Internet and its future
  • As long as everyone believed that โ€œopen sourceโ€ implied โ€œthe Internetโ€ and that โ€œthe Internetโ€ implied โ€œopen source,โ€ it would be very hard to resist the new paradigm
  • Telling a coherent story about open source required finding some inner logic to the history of the Internet
  • โ€œIf you believe me that open source is about Internet-enabled collaboration, rather than just about a particular style of software license,โ€
  • everything on the Internet was connected to everything elseโ€”via open source.
  • The way Oโ€™Reilly saw it, many of the key developments of Internet culture were already driven by what he called โ€œopen source behavior,โ€ even if such behavior was not codified in licenses.
  • No moralizing (let alone legislation) was needed; the Internet already lived and breathed open source
  • apps might be displacing the browser
  • the openness once taken for granted is no more
  • Openness as a happenstance of market conditions is a very different beast from openness as a guaranteed product of laws.
  • One of the key consequences of linking the Internet to the world of open source was to establish the primacy of the Internet as the new, reinvented desktop
  • This is where the now-forgotten language of โ€œfreedomโ€ made a comeback, since it was important to ensure that Oโ€™Reillyโ€™s heroic Randian hacker-entrepreneurs were allowed to roam freely.
  • Soon this โ€œfreedom to innovateโ€ morphed into โ€œInternet freedom,โ€ so that what we are trying to preserve is the innovative potential of the platform, regardless of the effects on individual users.
  • Lumping everything under the label of โ€œInternet freedomโ€ did have some advantages for those genuinely interested in promoting rights such as freedom of expression
  • Forced to choose between preserving the freedom of the Internet or that of its users, we were supposed to choose the formerโ€”because โ€œthe Internetโ€ stood for progress and enlightenment.
  • infoware
  • Yahoo
  • their value proposition lay in the information they delivered, not in the software function they executed.
  • The โ€œinfowareโ€ buzzword didnโ€™t catch on, so Oโ€™Reilly turned to the work of Douglas Engelbart
  • to argue that the Internet could help humanity augment its โ€œcollective intelligenceโ€ and that, once again, open source software was crucial to this endeavor.
  • Now it was all about Amazon learning from its customers and Google learning from the sites in its index.
  • The idea of the Internet as both a repository and incubator of โ€œcollective intelligenceโ€
  • in 2004, Oโ€™Reilly and his business partner Dale Dougherty hit on the idea of โ€œWeb 2.0.โ€ What did โ€œ2.0โ€ mean, exactly?
  • he primary goal was to show that the 2001 market crash did not mean the end of the web and that it was time to put the crash behind us and start learning from those who survived.
  • Tactically, โ€œWeb 2.0โ€ could also be much bigger than โ€œopen sourceโ€; it was the kind of sexy umbrella term that could allow Oโ€™Reilly to branch out from boring and highly technical subjects to pulse-quickening futurology
  • Oโ€™Reilly couldnโ€™t improve on a concept as sexy as โ€œcollective intelligence,โ€ so he kept it as the defining feature of this new phenomenon.
  • What set Web 2.0 apart from Web 1.0, Oโ€™Reilly claimed, was the simple fact that those firms that didnโ€™t embrace it went bust
  • find a way to harness collective intelligence and make it part of their business model.
  • By 2007, Oโ€™Reilly readily admitted that โ€œWeb 2.0 was a pretty crappy name for whatโ€™s happening.โ€
  • Oโ€™Reilly eventually stuck a 2.0 label on anything that suited his business plan, running events with titles like โ€œGov 2.0โ€ and โ€œWhere 2.0.โ€ Today, as everyone buys into the 2.0 paradigm, Oโ€™Reilly is quietly dropping it
  • assumption that, thanks to the coming of Web 2.0, we are living through unique historical circumstances
  • Take Oโ€™Reillyโ€™s musings on โ€œEnterprise 2.0.โ€ What is it, exactly? Well, itโ€™s the same old enterpriseโ€”for all we know, it might be making widgetsโ€”but now it has learned something from Google and Amazon and found a way to harness โ€œcollective intelligence.โ€
  • tendency to redescribe reality in terms of Internet culture, regardless of how spurious and tenuous the connection might be, is a fine example of what I call โ€œInternet-centrism.โ€
  • โ€œOpen sourceโ€ gave us the โ€œthe Internet,โ€ โ€œthe Internetโ€ gave us โ€œWeb 2.0,โ€ โ€œWeb 2.0โ€ gave us โ€œEnterprise 2.0โ€: in this version of history, Tim Oโ€™Reilly is more important than the European Union
  • For Postman, each human activityโ€”religion, law, marriage, commerceโ€”represents a distinct โ€œsemantic environmentโ€ with its own tone, purpose, and structure. Stupid talk is relatively harmless; it presents no threat to its semantic environment and doesnโ€™t cross into other ones.
  • Since it mostly consists of falsehoods and opinions
  • it can be easily corrected with facts
  • to say that Tehran is the capital of Iraq is stupid talk
  • Crazy talk, in contrast, challenges a semantic environment, as it โ€œestablishes different purposes and assumptions from those we normally accept.โ€ To argue, as some Nazis did, that the German soldiers ended up far more traumatized than their victims is crazy talk.
  • For Postman, one of the main tasks of language is to codify and preserve distinctions among different semantic environments.
  • As he put it, โ€œWhen language becomes undifferentiated, human situations disintegrate: Science becomes indistinguishable from religion, which becomes indistinguishable from commerce, which becomes indistinguishable from law, and so on.
  • pollution
  • Some wordsโ€”like โ€œlawโ€โ€”are particularly susceptible to crazy talk, as they mean so many different things: from scientific โ€œlawsโ€ to moral โ€œlawsโ€ to โ€œlawsโ€ of the market to administrative โ€œlaws,โ€ the same word captures many different social relations. โ€œOpen,โ€ โ€œnetworks,โ€ and โ€œinformationโ€ function much like โ€œlawโ€ in our own Internet discourse today.
  • For Korzybski, the world has a relational structure that is always in flux; like Heraclitus, who argued that everything flows, Korzybski believed that an object A at time x1 is not the same object as object A at time x2
  • Our language could never properly account for the highly fluid and relational structure of our realityโ€”or as he put it in his most famous aphorism, โ€œthe map is not the territory.โ€
  • Korzybski argued that we relate to our environments through the process of โ€œabstracting,โ€ whereby our neurological limitations always produce an incomplete and very selective summary of the world around us.
  • nothing harmful in this per seโ€”Korzybski simply wanted to make people aware of the highly selective nature of abstracting and give us the tools to detect it in our everyday conversations.
  • Korzybski developed a number of mental tools meant to reveal all the abstracting around us
  • He also encouraged his followers to start using โ€œetc.โ€ at the end of their statements as a way of making them aware of their inherent inability to say everything about a given subject and to promote what he called the โ€œconsciousness of abstraction.โ€
  • There was way too much craziness and bad science in Korzybskiโ€™s theories
  • but his basic question
  • โ€œWhat are the characteristics of language which lead people into making false evaluations of the world around them?โ€
  • Tim Oโ€™Reilly is, perhaps, the most high-profile follower of Korzybskiโ€™s theories today.
  • Oโ€™Reilly openly acknowledges his debt to Korzybski, listing Science and Sanity among his favorite books
  • It would be a mistake to think that Oโ€™Reillyโ€™s linguistic interventionsโ€”from โ€œopen sourceโ€ to โ€œWeb 2.0โ€โ€”are random or spontaneous.
  • There is a philosophy to them: a philosophy of knowledge and language inspired by Korzybski. However, Oโ€™Reilly deploys Korzybski in much the same way that the advertising industry deploys the latest findings in neuroscience: the goal is not to increase awareness, but to manipulate.
  • Oโ€™Reilly, of course, sees his role differently, claiming that all he wants is to make us aware of what earlier commentators may have overlooked. โ€œA metaphor is just that: a way of framing the issues such that people can see something they might otherwise miss,
  • But Korzybskiโ€™s point, if fully absorbed, is that a metaphor is primarily a way of framing issues such that we donโ€™t see something we might otherwise see.
  • In public, Oโ€™Reilly modestly presents himself as someone who just happens to excel at detecting the โ€œfaint signalsโ€ of emerging trends. He does so by monitoring a group of รผberinnovators that he dubs the โ€œalpha geeks.โ€ โ€œThe โ€˜alpha geeksโ€™ show us where technology wants to go. Smart companies follow and support their ingenuity rather than trying to suppress it,
  • His own function is that of an intermediaryโ€”someone who ensures that the alpha geeks are heard by the right executives: โ€œThe alpha geeks are often a few years ahead of their time. . . . What we do at Oโ€™Reilly is watch these folks, learn from them, and try to spread the word by writing down (
  • The name of his companyโ€™s blogโ€”Oโ€™Reilly Radarโ€”is meant to position him as an independent intellectual who is simply ahead of his peers in grasping the obvious.
  • โ€œthe skill of writing is to create a context in which other people can thinkโ€
  • As Web 2.0 becomes central to everything, Oโ€™Reillyโ€”the worldโ€™s biggest exporter of crazy talkโ€”is on a mission to provide the appropriate โ€œcontextโ€ to every field.
  • In a fascinating essay published in 2000, Oโ€™Reilly sheds some light on his modus operandi.
  • The thinker who emerges there is very much at odds with the spirit of objectivity that Oโ€™Reilly seeks to cultivate in public
  • meme-engineering lets us organize and shape ideas so that they can be transmitted more effectively, and have the desired effect once they are transmitted
  • Oโ€™Reilly meme-engineers a nice euphemismโ€”โ€œmeme-engineeringโ€โ€”to describe what has previously been known as โ€œpropaganda.โ€
  • how one can meme-engineer a new meaning for โ€œpeer-to-peerโ€ technologiesโ€”traditionally associated with piracyโ€”and make them appear friendly and not at all threatening to the entertainment industry.
  • Oโ€™Reilly and his acolytes โ€œchanged the canonical list of projects that we wanted to hold up as exemplars of the movement,โ€ while also articulating what broader goals the projects on the new list served. He then proceeds to rehash the already familiar narrative: Oโ€™Reilly put the Internet at the center of everything, linking some โ€œfree softwareโ€ projects like Apache or Perl to successful Internet start-ups and services. As a result, the movementโ€™s goal was no longer to produce a completely free, independent, and fully functional operating system but to worship at the altar of the Internet gods.
  • Could it be that Oโ€™Reilly is right in claiming that โ€œopen sourceโ€ has a history that predates 1998?
  • Seen through the prism of meme-engineering, Oโ€™Reillyโ€™s activities look far more sinister.
  • His โ€œcorrespondentsโ€ at Oโ€™Reilly Radar donโ€™t work beats; they work memes and epistemes, constantly reframing important public issues in accordance with the templates prophesied by Oโ€™Reilly.
  • Or take Oโ€™Reillyโ€™s meme-engineering efforts around cyberwarfare.
  • Now, who stands to benefit from โ€œcyberwarfareโ€ being defined more broadly? Could it be those who, like Oโ€™Reilly, canโ€™t currently grab a share of the giant pie that is cybersecurity funding?
  • Frank Luntz lists ten rules of effective communication: simplicity, brevity, credibility, consistency, novelty, sound, aspiration, visualization, questioning, and context.
  • Thus, Oโ€™Reillyโ€™s meme-engineering efforts usually result in โ€œmeme maps,โ€ where the meme to be definedโ€”whether itโ€™s โ€œopen sourceโ€ or โ€œWeb 2.0โ€โ€”is put at the center, while other blob-like terms are drawn as connected to it.
  • The exact nature of these connections is rarely explained in full, but this is all for the better, as the reader might eventually interpret connections with their own agendas in mind. This is why the name of the meme must be as inclusive as possible: you never know who your eventual allies might be. โ€œA big part of meme engineering is giving a name that creates a big tent that a lot of people want to be under, a train that takes a lot of people where they want to go,โ€
  • News April 4 mail date March 29, 2013 Baffler party March 6, 2013 ลฝiลพek on seduction February 13, 2013 More Recent Press Iโ€™ve Seen the Worst Memes of My Generation Destroyed by Madness io9, April 02, 2013 The Bafflerโ€™s New Colors Imprint, March 21, 2013
  • There is considerable continuity across Oโ€™Reillyโ€™s memesโ€”over time, they tend to morph into one another.
Kurt Laitner

The Link Economy and Creditright - Geeks Bearing Gifts - Medium - 3 views

medium.com/...y-and-creditright-95f938b503be

contributory value accounting dimVal *jeffjarvis creditright

shared by Kurt Laitner on 07 May 15 - No Cached
  • Online, content with no links has no value because it has no audience
  • News Commons used Repost as the basis of a content- and audience-sharing network among dozens of sites big and small in the stateโ€™s new ecosystem
  • Huffington Post and Twitter can get thousands of writersโ€Šโ€”โ€Šincluding meโ€Šโ€”โ€Što make content for free because it brings us audience and attention.
  • ...25 more annotations...
  • Consider an alternative to syndication. Iโ€™ll call it reverse syndication. Instead of selling my content to you, what say I give it to you for free? Better yet, I pay you to publish it on your site. The condition: I get to put my ad on the content. I will pay you a share of what I earn from that ad based on how much audience you bring me.
  • That model values the creation of the audience
  • If content could travel with its business model attached, we could set it free to travel across the web, gathering recommendations and audience and value as it goes
  • She searched Google for โ€œembeddable articleโ€ and up came Repost.us, already created by entrepreneur and technologist John Pettitt. Repost very cleverly allowed embeddable articles to travel with the creatorโ€™s own brand, advertising, analytics, and links.
  • First, he found that the overlap in audience between a creatorโ€™s and an embedderโ€™s sites generally ran between 2 and 5 percent. That is to say, the embedders brought a mostly new audience to the creatorโ€™s content.
  • Instead, Pettitt found that click-through ran amazingly high: 5 to 7 percentโ€Šโ€”โ€Šand these were highly qualified clicks of people who knew what they were going to get on the other side of a link
  • I call this creditright. We need a means to attach credit to content for those who contribute value to it so that each constituent has the opportunity to negotiate and extract value along the chain, so that each can gain permission to take part in the chain, and so that behaviors that benefit others in the chain can be rewarded and encouraged
    • Kurt Laitner
      Kurt Laitner on 07 May 15
       
      so *net basically, or OVN contributory value accounting
  • Each creatorโ€™s ads traveled with its contentโ€Šโ€”โ€Šthough that wasnโ€™t necessarily optimal, because an ad for a North Jersey hairdresser wouldnโ€™t perform terribly well with South Jersey readers brought in through embedding.
  • key factor in its failure: Repost could find many sites willing and eager to make their content embeddable. It didnโ€™t find enough sites to embed the content.
  • But the embedders got nothing aside from the free use of contentโ€Šโ€”โ€Šcontent that was just a link away anyway
  • Our ultimate problem in media is that we do not have sufficient technical and legal frameworks for alternate business models.
  • That formula was the key insight behind Google: that links to content are a signal of its value; thus, the more links to a page from sites that themselves have more links, the more useful, relevant, or valuable that content is likely to be
  • Silicon Valleyโ€™s: Those people are your fans who are bringing value to you by sending you audiences and by contributing their creativity, and youโ€™d be wise to build your businesses around making it easier, not harder, for them to get and share your content when and how they want it.
  • And so, we came to agree that we need new technological and legal frameworks flexible enough to enable multiple models to support creativity.
  • Hollywoodโ€™s side: People who download our content without buying it or who remix it without our permissionโ€Šโ€”โ€Šand the platforms that facilitate these behaviorsโ€Šโ€”โ€Šare stealing from us and must be stopped and punished.
  • Imagine you are a songwriter. You hear a street poet and her words inspire you to write a song about her, quoting her in the piece. You go to a crowdfunding platformโ€Šโ€”โ€ŠKickstarter, Indiegogo, or Patreonโ€Šโ€”โ€Što raise money for you to go into the studio and perform and distribute your song. Another songwriter comes along and remixes it, making a new version and also sampling from othersโ€™ songs. Both end up on YouTube and Soundcloud, on iTunes and Google Play. Audience members discover and share the songs. A particularly popular artist shares the remixed version on Twitter and Facebook and it explodes. A label has one of its stars record it. The star appears on TV performing it. A movie studio includes that song in a soundtrack. There are many constituents in that process: the subject, the songwriter, the patrons, the fans, the remixer, the distributor, the label, the star, the show, the studio, and the platforms. Each contributed value.
  • Each may want to recognize valueโ€Šโ€”โ€Šbut not all will want cash. There are other currencies in play: The poet may want credit and fame; the songwriter may want to sell concert tickets; the patrons may want social capital for discovering and supporting a new artist; the remixer may want permission to remix; the platforms may want a cut of sales or of subscription revenue; the show may want audience and advertising; the studio will want a return on its investment and risk.
  • Iโ€™ve suggested they would be wiser to seek another currency from Google: data about the users, helping build better services for readers and advertisers and thus better businesses
  • We will need a way to attach metadata to content, recording and revealing its source and the contributions of others in the chain of continuing creation and distribution.
  • We need a marketplace to measure and value their contributions and a means to negotiate rewards and permissions
  • We need payment structures to handle multiple currencies: data as well as money
  • And we need a legal framework to allow the flexible exploration of new models, some of which we cannot yet imagine.
  • It took many more years for society to develop principles of free speech to balance the economic and political interests of those who would attempt to control a new tool of speech.
  • We must reimagine the business of media and news from the first penny, asking where value is created, who contributes to it, where it resides, and how to extract it
  • Thus, we need new measures of value
mayssamd

Open Contracting Partnership: open, fair & efficient public contracting - 2 views

www.open-contracting.org

IoPA public contracting standard level collaboration organization platform

shared by mayssamd on 21 Dec 22 - No Cached
  • mayssamd on 21 Dec 22
     
    Open contracting is about publishing and using open, accessible and timely information on public contracting to engage citizens and businesses to fix problems and deliver results.
1 - 20 of 31 Next ›
Showing 20▼ items per page