Wednesday, July 31, 2002
Tuesday, July 30, 2002
Monday, July 29, 2002
Sunday, July 28, 2002
Saturday, July 27, 2002
Friday, July 26, 2002
IRAQ: PHASE ONE UNDER WAYPravda.Ru sources in the Gulf have confirmed that the military build-up by the US Forces has begun, with �tent cities� being built in Qatar, Bahrain and Kuwait, while in Washington military sources have confirmed that operations have started. The new French Foreign Minister, Dominique Villepin, told French diplomats that she expected the military action from the USA against Iraq to come �soon� after a meeting with US National Security Advisor, Condoleeza Rice. Military strategists in Washington have leaked to the press reports that the first strike would be with special forces, possibly Delta Force and CIA operationals, together with British SAS and SBS, setting up blockades along Iraq�s road arteries, while aircraft carried out punitive missions and advanced bases were set up in Mosul, in the north and Basra in the south. This, according to Major Charles Heyman, spokesperson for Jane�s Information Group, could take place �much sooner than expected�, in August or September. These bases would be used in a second phase next Spring with a large invading force of some 250,000 troops liaising with Kurdish and Shi�ite guerrillas. A legitimate basis for such an attack has not yet been declared. John ASHTEAD PRAVDA.Ru LONDON UNITED KINGDOM Pravda
Still feeling tender and now my boss is playing silly buggers(tm). He's messing with my wages and has delayed payment to my account which will cause my DD's to bounce, incurring bank charges. They isn't the first time this has happened. I'm due back on monday but I'm not exactly inspired to go back. Seeing him could possibly make me turn violent.
Think happy thoughts....Think happy thoughts....
Thursday, July 25, 2002
Isn't there something in Disclosure Project about this? Asteroids as a reason to militarize space.
They don't scare me! And if I get hit, I will only break into small sticks...
On Macs: We had the intro to OSX yesterday, I will have a new Mac under my desk by September 1. Plus 1: I will have local admin rights. However they could give that to me now, and I could actually install Quicktime player and watch the Mac ads posted. Plus 2: I can boot onto any machine, and my desktop settings will follow. Well, you can do this with a shared network for PC's, but that would be work for the IS guy (read supported laziness). Plus 3: When I start up an app, it will swoop into the screen, Genie action. Okay, this is cool, but do I want to tax my operating system with simple tasks? Plus 4: It is pretty. Cannot deny it is easy on my eyes. Much like Miss Ellen, cutie. Plus 5: It will streamline our production and the pre-press house will like us more. But we will be staying with a pdf work flow. Huh? All this wingeing about fonts and compatibility, and we are staying with the same work flow? Don't get me started... Plus 6: Shared folders. I can view others' folders, and make my own little webpage for my co-workers to look at. Okay, a definate plus! Built-in f**king around time at work. And I will never have to speak to a co-worker again. I can just stuff a screenshot into their folder and it will pop up on their screen. Oh yeah! Plus 7: Quark will run smoother. There are some weird annoying bugs with my windoze app, but if I had admin rights, I could try and work them out. Oh! But Quark doesn't run in OSX... I am sure there are more pluses, and perhaps it is a better working environment. We will see when I'm actually driving the thing. And for the record, if someone gave me a Mac for Christmas, I'd be pretty happy. But I'd rather have a trip to the spa...
Wednesday, July 24, 2002
Tuesday, July 23, 2002
I only briefly looked at the Freedomship website and it does look a bit 'Poseidon adventure'. In the current state of paranioa about terrorism, do they have a plan for an amarda of warships protecting it or something?
My song of the day is Goldfrapp - 'lovely head'.
Monday, July 22, 2002
Robert K. Merton's famous norms of science-communism, universalism, disinterestedness, and organized skepticism (CUDOS)are the locus classicus for most understandings of the inimical and unnatural relation of science and secrecy. Drawing upon his pioneering study of Puritanism and the rise of the new science of the 17th century, Merton extracted what he identified as the guiding norms of the scientific community. In an influential 1942 article, Science and Technology in a Democratic Order, Merton articulated his famous norms as a direct defense of the necessary relation of progress in science with democratic politics. 7 As David Hollinger has observed, Merton made it clear that science could only flourish under a democratic regime, not the fascist regime of Nazi Germany. 8 Merton clearly stated that secrecy was the antithesis of his norm of communism, the belief that scientific knowledge was the common property of all people. My point here is not to claim that Merton invented the idea that science and secrecy are anathema. After all, his claim was that he had identified this practice through his study of the history of science. Central figures in the so-called Scientific Revolution distinguished themselves from other knowledge producers because of their emphasis on the public, and published, character of their knowledge claims. He was merely making clear to social scientists what natural scientists took as a self-evident truth, one that was visible from the emergence of the Royal Society in 17th century England.
For Merton the problem with secrecy in science was two-fold. First, secret science could not provide the researcher with the appropriate credit for their discoveries. Given that the only recognition in Merton's universe came to those who established their priority in making discoveries or breakthroughs, secrecy was clearly not in a researcher's self-interest. While working on a particular problem, researchers might choose not to communicate with others about their work, but when the work was completed they would race to publish their findings. Priority was the means to a reputation, to greater credibility, and to the rewards of science-prizes, grants, and status. 9 Second, secret knowledge was not open to the scrutiny of others who might point out errors and problems related to both the production and interpretation of the knowledge claims. If, as Merton and others believed, science -worked- through the rigorous self-policing of knowledge claims, then secrecy or restricting the dissemination of information might lead to the production of false knowledge. Finally, note that Merton's norms also created an autonomous social space for science, since only other scientists could credibly discuss the veracity of specific technical knowledge claims. Those untrained in the ways of science were incapable of adjudicating intellectual matters.
If Merton and his students, especially Bernard Barber, 10 were among the prime intellectual sources for the post World War II understanding of the relationship between science and secrecy, then we must look to the war itself and the subsequent militarization of American science for the institutional context in which such discussions began. Here we must make a historical point. We may think of the war, especially the Manhattan Project, as the modern occasion for our discussions of science and secrecy, but that would be a profound mistake. Discussions about secrecy were endemic with the establishment of the first industrial research laboratories in early twentieth century America and the great expansion of such laboratories in the post World War I context, what one observer called a fever of commercial science. 11 Similarly, the fear that corporate monopolies might control the production of scientific and technological knowledge, as presented in the Temporary National Economic Condition (TNEC) Hearings of 1939, was an early analogue of postwar fears of the military control of science. 12 To an extent we are largely unaware of, wartime discussions of secrecy drew upon these earlier debates as well as the recognition that for many industry had not affected science in a negative manner. On the contrary, many began to conceive of industrial research laboratories as universities in exile, a view that had little relation to corporate reality. With this caveat, let us turn to the war.Google!
Sunday, July 21, 2002
Saturday, July 20, 2002
Friday, July 19, 2002
Pictures from the radio