“We are the .ORG”

I think it was in Plato’s Gorgias paper that he mentioned how rhetoric would give way to truth by being the most obvious choice.  Since truth is easiest to argue then it will stand out strong amidst a sea of arguments.  This makes sense, obviously if something is true then it will stand out because it’s “provable.”  We use this concept in many things.  Our known sciences and textbooks follow a controlled method of this.  Each “truth” is pressed through a series of experiments and trials and the one that’s proven, or at least not disproven, gets published and treated as accurate.

A more open method of this is a community based project.  Any open forum for discussion or repository of knowledge that can be accessed by anyone.  Everyone argues and the strongest argument should end up being the truth.  It’s sort of like Adam Smith’s theory of the “Invisible Hand.”  Smith’s viewpoint was that the market was self driven.  An increase in demand will drive up the supply which will then push the increase back down.  Prices and economic trends flow naturally as they try to attain a balance.  If everyone keeps buying and selling the market will react to the economic changes and, at the same time, force itself towards a medium.  That doesn’t mean a recession or depression is impossible since that’s one way to reach an even level.  Likewise, an open forum can give misinformation along with accurate facts since it’s based on who has the best argument.

The problem with all of these things is solely the responsibility of each person.  If one reads and article from any source, peer reviewed or otherwise, that person should cross check the data with other sources and draw conclusions based on the data.  While one can still get bad information with multiple sources it’s less likely.  For the case of economic means; buy, sell, hoard, and trade based on information and means gathered from multiple sources.  It’s not full proof but you maximize your chances of being correct with every bit of information you compare.

Image from Gene Roddenberry’s Star Trek: The Next Generation

Consulted

Joyce, Helen. “Adam Smith and the invisible hand.” +Plus. N.p., 1 Mar. 2001. Web. 12 Nov. 2010.

Need Input, Stephanie

“Oyez, oyez!” the famous call of a town crier.  The official disseminator of important information.  The man or woman slated as the go-to person for public announcements.  Over time these criers progressed into more readily available means such as television, newspapers, radio, and the internet.  Now we’re not even required to go acquire these means of information.  Instead of checking for releases of information at specified times we can leave a machine in operation to monitor, retrieve, and disseminate the information back to us.  News aggregators such as RSS feeds are delightful tools to constantly remind us of everything from needed information to worthless announcements and economic deals.  These feeds of information maintain a constant vigil for updates from media sources.  When something new arrives it is sent directly to a singular source.  At any point one can examine this source for the latest updates much like checking a mail box (except you don’t have to step out into the elements and you have purposely signed up for the junk mail that comes in).

 Why does this matter?  Well it really doesn’t matter much.  It’s just as easy to scroll through the websites that give out the feeds.  The only difference is time.  Instead of waiting for a series of websites to load there is an instant listing of possible titles.  Find the title you like and click to read.  Instant access as a time saver is great but not a good idea if your goal is to kill time for a while.

Image courtesy of Wiki Media

“Town Crier.” Wikipedia. 16 September, 2010th ed. 2010. Web. 12 Nov. 2010.

Street Surgeon

Dystopias, clockwork societies, and the well greased machines of nightmares are all facets of some very interesting stories and philosophical discussions; arguments beginning and ending with principles of freedom and free expression.  While I can’t give the actual quote or its source I can summarize something I once heard:  leisure is the reason for and time of invention.

We create to make things easier and more efficient.  This can still be ascribed to the saying of “necessity is the mother of invention” but we create to give us more time to create again.  Free expression and the sharing of ideas facilitate a better environment for the spreading of ideas.  While it can be argued that people can be most creative under pressure; people tend to be inventive for personal gains while in a more relaxed setting.  With a goal to strive for and resources (specifically time) available people can be incredibly inventive. 

Now for why I’m saying all this:  A restricted, proprietary, society does not bode well for the advancement of mankind.  While a single mind leading can efficiently run and maintain the status quo, nothing ever remains in the same state.  If it did then there would be no need for advancement in the first place.  On the other hand, forced sharing of ideas and works helps no one.  The communistic idea of forced communal sharing leads more often to corruption.  After all, is it easier to rely upon man’s avarice or his altruism?  Just as freedom shouldn’t be removed it shouldn’t be forced.  Those who wish to rely on the security of their chains shouldn’t be thrust into the open while those who would rather die than to live confined shouldn’t be shackled with the rest.  In essence, open source is a matter of freedom.  If someone wants to share their work or ideas then allow them and vice versa.  History will work itself out and decide which method is stronger.  Those who are trying to achieve something will, more than likely, realize that by sharing their methods with others they can find an improved version.  Improvements lead to more leisure time which leads to more improvements.

As a side note for those worried about mankind reaching the point of the future society shown in H.G. Wells Time Machine¸ it is quite possible that this method works within the same principle of diminishing returns that economics does.  An exponential scale wherein for each improvement we gain less extra leisure time.

image taken from Rintawriteitall // unsure of original author

Hardin, Garret. “The Tragedy of the Commons.” N.p., 1968. Web. 12 Nov. 2010. <http://dieoff.org/page95.htm&gt;.

Möbius Canvas

There’s one concept of media that I particularly enjoy: fiction.  The telling of a story, in general, is best.  Ballads, books, radio dramas, TV serials, graphic novels, and pretty much any method used to convey a tale of either fictitious or non-fictitious relevance is where I find the most value in varying media. 

 In life we find a great social commune of shared creative aspect, the great highway of ideological productivity, that tool known as the Internet.  This commune presented people with an amazing platform; the idea of the “Infinite Canvas.”  The best example for this is that of an image.  To create a painting in real life you need space.  To display an image three metres by 4 metres would require a space of that exact size.  Materials, pigments, and real space are all lessened and limited by a perceptible amount.  The beauty of the infinite canvas is that this same image, placed on the internet, can be viewed on something that’s approximately 12 cm x 6 cm.  Virtual space, while still using an incredibly small yet still finite physical space, opens up infinite size dimensions for all creative aspects.  One major use for this open area is seen heavily in online comics and graphic novels.  Without the constraints of a printed book or newspaper; the artists can use any format, style, or size they wish to present ideas. 

 Would anyone really wish to use non-standard formats to the degree of comic pages the size of a small room?  Not really; however, the free space is used by different people in different ways.  A short search through archives of comic authors shows the open freedom available.  From throwaway jokes of repeated panels, without the pain of sacrificing printing costs and pages in a book, to large panoramas for scenic shots; this open canvas is limited only by a person’s creativity or the viewer’s attention span.

Image courtesy of Wikipedia // creative commons

McCloud, Scott. “The “Infinite Canvas”.” scottmccloud.com. N.p., Feb. 2009. Web. 12 Nov. 2010.

In dolus, Veritas

Rational thought, that single unexplained process which seems independent enough of instinct to differentiate humanity from the common animal.  Arguments run back and forth as to what “thinking” is really.  Is it a function of the brain granted to us by superior mental equipment?  Or perhaps it’s a construct of the elusive “soul;” felt yet unexplained.  Regardless, the ability to reason beyond instinct is what sets us apart or, at the very least, allows us to believe we are different.  Complex thought is one of the most widely used, manipulated, examined, and considered tools in the arsenal of humanity.  Thought it is, very simply, what allows us to both deceive and be deceived.

 Alan Turing once put forth an idea of how to “test” a theoretical computer for the ability to “think.”  To sum up the end result:  we will be reasonably assured that a computer can “think” when it makes us believe it can.  This brings me to what I intended to write about.  the Latin Words “In dolus, veritas” mean “In deceit [there is] truth.”  Mankind has a history of not just deceiving but in wanting to be deceived.  Truth is something we cannot assimilate or something of which we can ever be certain.  In the end we believe in sets of personally held truths based on axioms.  Axioms, self evident truths, are nothing more than belief.  Be it religion or science each side is still based on a set of axioms passed along, evaluated, re-evaluated, forced through power struggles, discovered, and rediscovered.  Mankind finds its truths in a series of carefully handled lies.

 This is not to say that everything in the world is a lie, that’s ridiculous, it is to say, however, that everything is uncertain as to its veracity.  It is impossible to definitively say “this is truth.”  Typically this is where some would grant the demonstration of “the Earth is flat” as proof of man’s fallacies.  A better example is one that has been proven within the past few decades; the difference between a chaotic theory of the universe and the Newtonian universe.  Within the past 50 years, scientists have based our studies on a deterministic universe.  Every thing in the universe moves in a preset path.  If you repeat the same experiment the same way you will retrieve the same result.  Makes sense except for situations where no discernable difference exists and yet the result has changed.  Edward Lorenz, the mathematician who coined the term Butterfly Effect, is credited as the father of the chaos theory ideology of a non-linear universe.  While deterministic events occur as part of life; it’s not the foundation it was previously believed to be.

 Returning to axioms, the basis of beliefs; our thoughts work in an almost, like most things, cyclical pattern.  One way to explain this relates to a fractal known as the Mandelbrot set.  In a less than accurate layman’s definition; fractals can be considered to be shapes or images that repeat themselves in sequential outward or inward magnifications.  The mathematical formula for a Mandelbrot set uses the result as part of the equation itself.  This allows for infinite repetition as the result, and thus the equation, constantly changing.  Truth is like this because to say something is true it must be proven.  However if truth is proven with any method we have then it is proven using something that must itself be proven.  Each concept along the way eventually falls to a separate set of axioms which, when one tries to prove them, cannot be proven and must be accepted.  A “truth” based on general acceptance is possibly erroneous and can’t definitively be called truth. 

 We fall to believing the “lie” that generally accepted truths are incontrovertible.  It makes sense because truth is something that is beyond the comprehension of human understanding.  A real truth is something proven undisputable yet does not rely on concepts that have been observed or theorized as “true.”  It is a sad concept that all of our “truth” might be nothing more than a lie we have failed to see through.  You might say “but science” except science is based on axioms.  Mathematics such as simple addition (unproven yet generally accepted) or sciences such as the theory of gravity are nothing more than cleverly devised axioms.  There is a core truth in existence somewhere but I doubt if mankind will ever divine that truth.  Choose your poison and choose well.

Image borrowed from The PROTOMEN

Consulted:

Bradley, Larry. Chaos & Fractals. N.p., 2010. Web. 12 Nov. 2010.

Not For Resale

Fair use laws, creative commons licenses, and copyright regulations in general seem to dominate a lot of discussions online.  Questions of protecting intellectual property while maintaining freedom of use carry heavy opinions from multiple sides.  Recently there’s been a series of arguments that go beyond just the normal questions of piracy.  Second hand sales are starting to receive special interest from companies.

The economic reason is that, obviously, every time an item is sold second hand the original creator receives no income for that item.  Aside from taxes; all the money from a second hand sale stays with the store.  Institutions such as Gamestop® have found this to be a very lucrative practice.  This is neither a new practice nor a new issue as companies have been placing “not for resale” tags on demo discs and end user license agreements for some time.  These tags have been unsuccessful in preventing end users from reselling or purchasing used equipment.  A court case in early 2009 over the resale of used AutoCAD software was ruled in favor of the defendant, Timothy Vernor.  Nancy Gohring, a journalist for Techworld.com, writes, “The judge also agreed with Vernor’s argument that owners of software have “first sale” rights under copyright law, which entitles them to “sell or dispose of” the copy they bought.”

First sale rights maintain that once an item is given to someone, be that through sale or promotion, all rights belonging to that item are theirs to keep or loose.  While companies can try to control the amount of second hand products on the market they can’t prevent people from doing as they see fit.  Regulations, such as requiring ID and additional store certifications, have been put in place to make it more difficult to sell second hand items but sale continues anyway.  Some game companies have proceeded to place unlock codes within new games to promote purchasing only first hand software.  The game is incomplete without the code and second hand purchases would require purchasing a new code directly from the company for an additional fee.

The issue, like that for copyright infringement, is “who gets the money?”  Technically, second hand sellers receive money legally for work done by someone else.  While it could be argued that it isn’t money the company would have received originally, since the buyer probably would not have purchased the item originally, the physical manifestation of someone’s intellectual property is still being sold by someone else.  Both sides stay completely legal in their attempts to make more money from the sale of the same item.  The question would be who does the end buyer think should be the one to get said money? 

Image taken from GamerAce

Gohring, Nancy. “In Autodesk case, judge rules secondhand sales OK.” TechWorld. N.p., 2 Oct. 2009. Web. 12 Nov. 2010.

Anarchy of the Open World

The goal of media, both technological and ideological, is communication in some form or other.  Transfer of ideas from one person to another has been achieved by many means and is often a topic of discussion or “what if” scenarios.  As technology has grown and advanced it has always brought with it more efficient means of communicating.  Whether it’s the creation of language allowing the Marathon runner to deliver news of victory, the domestication of animals such as horses or birds to carry the message, or the creation of electronic traversal each advance brings new ways to carry the same messages. 

 It’s interesting to note that two major sides, it can be broken down but this is a generalization, can be drawn in regards to communication.  There are people who wish to free communication and make it possible to transmit any idea anywhere at any time.  Across the line exist people who wish to control the flow of communication and limit its potential.  Arguments range back and forth in support of both ideas.  Solomon, king of Israel, writes in the book of Proverbs, “Even a fool is considered wise when he holds his peace.”  He’s not saying don’t let people talk but he is saying that sometimes it’s better not to talk.  For people wanting to control communication the idea is that some ideas don’t need to be transmitted because they are incorrect or waste time.  The other side would maintain that ideas and comments have value inherent only to the speaker.  If someone wants to say something senseless then that person has every right to do so.  At the same time an argument is made that such freedom lends itself to abuse; permitting ideological theft of intellectual property. 

 Good points exist on each side.  The simple answer is to take each situation on a case by case basis.  A great idea except then we must ask the question “who has the right to decide each case?”  How does one choose someone to arbitrate questions of personal control?  Control is going to exist and, likewise, abuse is going to exist.  Unfortunately, there isn’t a clean and direct answer to satisfy everyone.  It is, yet again, a situation where people are left to decide for themselves, act on their decisions, and then struggle to clean up when mistakes are made.

Image taken from Escapist Magazine

New King James Version Bible.  Power BibleCD.  Brandon Staggs, prog.  Bronson, MI:  Online Publishing Inc, 2005.  Disc Record

Immortality

The Infinite Canvas is a concept created to be presented within the virtually limitless confines of digitally represented spaces.  In any presentation there is some form of limitation.  Case in point, the Sistine Chapel only has so much ceiling space.  The ceiling for the Chapel contains many images laid out in sections (as does the rest of the building).  Consider the possibilities if the imagery stretched out in all direction for as far as the artist wanted to the image to go.  Not just excessive distance but consider if the ceiling itself changed based on how you wanted to view it.  Limitless possibilities for expression all visible from a single viewpoint.  It’s similar to setting up a maze of mirrors so that from a single glass you can view all angles and even other rooms without moving. 

This is all well and good but who wants to create a single page website with as much content as wikipedia?  The point is that you have the ability to create something easily navigated with multiple facets of presentation.  Take for example the presentation software Prezi.  It’s a massive whiteboard of data.  Instead of limiting all information to single slides restrained to linear processing you’re given a program able to create miniature slides within slides on a massive surface.  The entire process enables easy delivery of information and can make it much easier to carry a thought through.  An Infinite Canvas is, as Scott McCloud says, “A reader-centered philosophy.”

McCloud, Scott. “The “Infinite Canvas”.” N.p., Feb. 2009. Web. 6 Nov. 2010.

Image is taken courtesy of a Creative Commons Share Alike policy from TTaylor on Wikimedia

Living in the Uncanny Valley

Japanese roboticist Mashiro Mori once charted a concept about the appearance of robots.  An article in popular mechanics by Erik Sofge explains this uncanny valley as a point on Mori’s chart where robots are nearly human in appearance and action but not quite there.  These machines are so life like that the dissimilarities become unbelievably obvious. An article on Gizmodo by Loyd goes further in depth on how the this relates to characters in video games because it’s an issue beyond just appearance.  The overtly lifeless “appearance” of these creations is reflected in actions such as movement and behavior as well.

But really, we see what we want to see.  Games have bordered on “realistic” for a long time.  Ryu from Ninja Gaiden looks so human like.  Now that we have 64-bit graphics technology he’s relegated to cheesy 8-bit art.  Thsi moves forward until we’re using high tech game engines and graphic presentations that border on “realism.”  In reality I think it’s nothing more than a logarithmic curve.  We constantly approach this “uncanny valley” this level of human-like setting without ever really reaching it.  It’s not just games either.  If you look at characters in film and literature we read or watch their actions and say “he sold that line so well!  Such great acting!”  When in reality we see it for what it is: forced emotion keyed to play off empathic sentiment.  “Human-like” is an unattainable state because we don’t even really know what it is.  We can approach this asymptotic ideal without ever truly reaching it.

Take for example animals in games and stories.  We can almost perfectly replicate the way they act and “feel” through writing or even computer graphics.  They are easy to create even though they appear just as distorted as humans.  But we’re not animals, if we were then the species we see on screen would probably be just as lifeless as any of the humans we see in a CG film or game cinematic.  In my opinion, the uncanny valley is not a valley at all but an abyss.  An infinite drop as x approaches y but never reaching x.

Sofge, Erik. “The Truth About Robots and the Uncanny Valley: Analysis.” Popular Mechanics. N.p., 20 Jan. 2010. Web. 6 Nov. 2010.

“The History of the Uncanny Valley.” Gizmodo. N.p., 3 Nov. 2010. Web. 6 Nov. 2010.

Error 404: Content Not Found

So lots of discussion across the internet regarding content.  Issues ranging from ownership of content to the general discussions of net neutrality.  You can charge people for content you can slander the content of others and any number of other content related activities but where does the true power lie?  Content is pretty much useless if no one can find what’s been posted.  Yelling in an empty room doesn’t help a message get delivered.  This is where search engines come into play. Search engines utilize mathematical algorithms to reduce the web down to content reached by terms a user inputs. The benefits of a search engine are seen in how well they return accurate results.  Google is one of the more famous as it’s PageRank system allows the search engine to efficiently retrieve relevant results based on near real time data (a more detailed look into structures of search engines here).  Search engines do a decent job of returning the data we usually look for on the internet (provided it exists).  So what’s the issue? Content.

The comic  I used to start this blog is an often used concept.  Typical dystopian ideas such as Fahrenheit 451 illustrate the power of content control.  Search engines can’t control what content is accessed or made public.  They can influence (strongly) what content is found.  Approved connections lead to “safe” content.  “safe” content leads to content and unsurprised customers while making sure the proper rewards go to the proper parties for providing the proper content.  Everyone is happy and we can all live peacefully.  So what’s the problem here?  The problem is the trading of personal freedoms (ingenuity and expression) for security against abuses.  It’s a balanced issue, trying to decide whether the loss of certain freedoms is worth the added “protection.”

Communication providers have been trying for a long time to assert control over the content placed on the internet.  Governments such as China have succeeded to an extent in doing just that.  In my opinion the greatest threat to personal content is if search engines, the powerful access relays of the internet, should suddenly decide that the money to be made from controlling returned results is too good to pass up.

Evans, John. “Autodesk Vernor Lawsuit.” from Civil to Inventor. N.p., 26 Mar. 2009. Web. 30 Oct. 2010.

Brin, Sergey, and Lawrence Page. “The Anatomy of a Large-Scale Hypertextual Web Search Engine.” . Stanford University Computer Science Department, n.d. Web. 30 Oct. 2010. <http://infolab.stanford.edu/~backrub/google.html&gt;.

Image used from http://xkcd.com under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.5 License