Friam

speculative Q

Classic

List

Threaded

33 messages Options

Gillian Densmore

speculative Q

Speculative Q:

Anyone care to speculate why Open Source apps not have gotten much traction out side some exceptions?

I ask because it'd seem like a business wouldn't want to use something where they couldn't see the code (for instance).

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Gary Schiltz-4

Re: speculative Q

When you say “app”, I assume you’re talking about mobile; is that correct? Even if you consider all non-server software, even stuff that runs on desktops, I think it’s still pretty miniscule (I don’t have numbers to back it up).

In my opinion, the reason that open source software has made so little inroads into consumer-facing applications generally is that it’s relatively easy (and fun) to get software about 80% “finished” (perhaps in lines of code), and relatively hard (and boring) to get the last 20%. That 20% represents things like a polished, consistent user interface and good end user documentation. Usually, only a profit motive is enough to get developers through that boring, hard part.

As far as mobile apps go, we at least started out with a less sophisticated user base (phone users) than we had with desktop and laptop users, so software and its installation have got to be incredibly easy in order to attract users. For the most part, this means “app stores”, primarily the iTunes Store and Google Play. The iTunes store requires going through the difficult and uncertain process of getting an app approved in order for someone to even be able to use it, even if it is free. The only alternative is “jailbreaking” the phone, which I imagine only a very small percentage of users are interested in. Android’s “sideloading” is an alternative for that OS, but again, most users won’t go to the trouble. So, in order for a company or individual to be willing to go through all the pain of getting an app approved, a profit motive is usually required.

That’s my 2cents worth.

Gary

On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 8:44 PM, Gillian Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:

Speculative Q:
Anyone care to speculate why Open Source apps not have gotten much traction out side some exceptions?

I ask because it'd seem like a business wouldn't want to use something where they couldn't see the code (for instance).

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Russell Standish-2

Re: speculative Q

In reply to this post by Gillian Densmore

On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 07:44:35PM -0600, Gillian Densmore wrote:
> Speculative Q:
> Anyone care to speculate why Open Source apps not have gotten much traction
> out side some exceptions?
>
> I ask because it'd seem like a business wouldn't want to use something
> where they couldn't see the code (for instance).

As a developer working in commercial software houses for the last
decade, I would say the complete opposite has been my
experience. Whilst they may be Windows/Office centric, and in some
cases Visual Studio, open source software plays a big role, whether it
be the Linux server for doing continuous integration, or database
functions, Postgres is used in preference to MSSQL or Oracle, subversion or git
instead of MS Source Safe, and hundreds of other open source libraries
used, such as boost or cairo. What I see is that proprietry software is just
the visible tip of the iceberg, but its largely open source underneath.

And the reason - it's so easy to do - just slop in a library when you
need some functionality, no management approval needed, aside from
being a little bit careful around the use of GPL'ed software.

Cheers

--

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics [hidden email]
University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: speculative Q

In reply to this post by Gillian Densmore

“I ask because it'd seem like a business wouldn't want to use something where they couldn't see the code (for instance).”

Because employers and employees are different people, and the individuals that would want to see the code details (and could interpret and act on them) tend to be employees (i.e. specialists in organization), it is common for those employees or their superiors to look at the issue in terms of risk reduction. Risk can be reduced by buying/licensing a product with a support agreement or buying insurance of some sort. There’s a way to pass the buck. There are situations in which this is terrible behavior, like when lives could be a risk if a failure occurs.

Marcus

glen ep ropella

Re: speculative Q

In reply to this post by Russell Standish-2

On 07/13/2015 07:39 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
> What I see is that proprietry software is just the visible tip of the iceberg, but its largely open source underneath.

Me too. I'd be interested to see some sort of analysis of "software pathways", chains of software packages that were hit when a large sample of use cases were exercised. I'd guess that pretty much any use case that involves the internet relies on open source somewhere in the chain. The only proprietary package I use on a regular basis is Quickbooks. I don't think I need to see the chains invoked when I, say, download a tax table update or submit payroll for a direct deposit. But I would like to see the chain invoked when I, say, "Save to PDF". I'd also like to know which tools they use to make their data files sharable across multiple clients. I can imagine those chains are all proprietary and licensed ... but I have no idea.

On that same front, Gary's right about that last 20%. But user-facing software has a much harder last 20% than what happens behind the scenes _because_ those occult tools are allowed to be very focused, tight, and single purpose, whereas user-facing tools have to handle, ameliorate, shunt, faciliate the myriad things a general intelligence can/will do. User facing tools have to deal with morons and geniuses, whereas internal tools can get away with well-defined contracts.

Another factor, I think is the old saw that we humans only want to pay for things we can see/touch ourselves. This may be more true of Americans than elsewhere (based on how much we bitch about our relatively low taxes). But I think it's fairly natural to object to, say, "hidden" fees at banks or for childless couples funding schools through property taxes. So, it may not be so much that proprietary software pays to do that last 20% of work, so much as that nobody will pay for anything but the user-facing equipment.

--
glen ep ropella -- 971-255-2847

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Owen Densmore

Re: speculative Q

Administrator

For many front end developers, jQuery/jQueryUI is what they mean when they say "I know JavaScript".

And with more "apps" (mobile) moving to web frameworks (React, say) & Node.js/Linux for services, I'd say there's a healthy bunch of OpenWare out there.

Totally agree that the user-facing parts are all in-house.

-- Owen

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: speculative Q

In reply to this post by glen ep ropella

"On that same front, Gary's right about that last 20%. But user-facing software has a much harder last 20% than what happens behind the scenes _because_ those occult tools are allowed to be very focused, tight, and single purpose, whereas user-facing tools have to handle, ameliorate, shunt, faciliate the myriad things a general intelligence can/will do. User facing tools have to deal with morons and geniuses, whereas internal tools can get away with well-defined contracts."

Although there is open source software for office and accounting, I can't imagine wanting to spend my free time on such a thing. It is just boring and depressing to think about. I don't think it has anything to do with it being hard. Hard is New Horizons.. Meanwhile, as Gary points out, the commercial World of Boring circles the wagons around music streaming and participation in mobile app markets, banking, and other such things so that they can control prices. The software is coupled to the protocols and one would have to buy-in (with $$$) to see how the pieces fit together and make free alternatives. What a hassle.

Marcus

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

gepr

Re: speculative Q

This post was updated on .

CONTENTS DELETED

The author has deleted this message.

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Roger Critchlow-2

Re: speculative Q

In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels

I think the issue with that last 20% of user facing software is that it's very expensive to run the marketing campaigns to persuade users that "it's really, really good" when in fact it sucks, especially when your competitors are working very hard at marketing their own brands of sucky user interfaces. Most software is very hard to use, you only get good at it by investing your own time in learning the ins and outs of tons of stuff that doesn't make much sense, and if you take some time off from using it you will lose the hardest earned skills and find yourself making the same noobie mistakes all over again as you rediscover how it "works". All the fanbois are right, all the other fanbois are deluded to think their preferred software is intrinsically better.

That said, it is quite amazing how much of the web is powered by open source. It would be instructive to have a browser plugin that checked for open source javascript inclusions and showed a little scoreboard for each web page visited. Scroll down to the Examples section at backbonejs.org and look at who uses it to build websites, though the list is probably sorely out of date..

-- rec --

On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 11:24 AM, Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:

"On that same front, Gary's right about that last 20%. But user-facing software has a much harder last 20% than what happens behind the scenes _because_ those occult tools are allowed to be very focused, tight, and single purpose, whereas user-facing tools have to handle, ameliorate, shunt, faciliate the myriad things a general intelligence can/will do. User facing tools have to deal with morons and geniuses, whereas internal tools can get away with well-defined contracts."

Although there is open source software for office and accounting, I can't imagine wanting to spend my free time on such a thing. It is just boring and depressing to think about. I don't think it has anything to do with it being hard. Hard is New Horizons.. Meanwhile, as Gary points out, the commercial World of Boring circles the wagons around music streaming and participation in mobile app markets, banking, and other such things so that they can control prices. The software is coupled to the protocols and one would have to buy-in (with $$$) to see how the pieces fit together and make free alternatives. What a hassle.

Marcus

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: speculative Q

In reply to this post by gepr

"Interesting vs. boring is orthogonal. So, there's interesting-hard and boring-hard. I'll accept money for either type of work, though I much prefer interesting-hard ... obviously."

How about engaging, imaginative, educational, or surprising work vs. detail work. Doing detail work may be delayed gratification or it can no purpose other than to respond to extrinsic motivation. Remove the extrinsic motivation (money), and it is boring and depressing.

Ok, if one is tasked with making an app to print checks, it could be educational to learn how to put widgets on a screen or to do page layout. What that discovery process is over, either another naïve person is needed or extrinsic motivation.

Marcus

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Gary Schiltz-4

Re: speculative Q

Motivation is such a subjective thing. Like most people, I like to work on things that are at least a little challenging intellectually, but sometimes, just seeing the end result and knowing that I did it is reward enough to make the tedium bearable. A few years back, I did a bunch of very tedious work that synchronized video of conference speakers with their slide presentations NM INBRE. The idea was to create a Flash presentation that showed the video of the speaker, but displayed static images (taken from the PPT presentation) representing the auditorium's screen. This saved a lot of bandwidth compared to streaming a composite video of both the speaker and the actual screen, and in the 2006 timeframe, really was necessary.

So, I had “capture” video from tape from two sources (speaker and screen); scrub through the two resulting videos, recording slide translation timings; export and trim images for each slide; compress video into appropriate formats; import images and video into Flash, and enter the timings that I recorded; etc etc. All that multiplied by 10 or more speakers, it took me over a month to complete. Kind of like mowing your lawn with a pair of fingernail clippers. I automated as much as I could, but given the number of tools that I had to deal with, I really didn’t have time to automate very much. So, I just became a robot for a month or so. But the end result was very nice for the time, and despite lack of intellectual challenges, was one of my proudest accomplishments that I was able to make myself stick to it. In fact, I even did the same robot work again the next year. I’ve always been meaning to get to automating that type of work...

On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 2:19 PM, Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]> wrote:

"Interesting vs. boring is orthogonal. So, there's interesting-hard and boring-hard. I'll accept money for either type of work, though I much prefer interesting-hard ... obviously."

How about engaging, imaginative, educational, or surprising work vs. detail work. Doing detail work may be delayed gratification or it can no purpose other than to respond to extrinsic motivation. Remove the extrinsic motivation (money), and it is boring and depressing.

Ok, if one is tasked with making an app to print checks, it could be educational to learn how to put widgets on a screen or to do page layout. What that discovery process is over, either another naïve person is needed or extrinsic motivation.

Marcus

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

gepr

Re: speculative Q

This post was updated on .

CONTENTS DELETED

The author has deleted this message.

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Parks, Raymond

Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: speculative Q

Glen,

I have always had a similiar experience, albeit on a different path. Every computer program I've written, maintained, upgraded, or assessed has been intrinsically part of a real-world process. The fun thing for me has been understanding the real-world business, mission, process, or system. Over the course of roughly fourty years, I've learned about a huge variety of industry, military, and business activities. Just in the last 10-15 years I've learned about pipelines, gas, awl bidness, 'lectric utilities, and railroads. What's even more amazing to me is that things I learned 30 years ago keep coming back up - GPS is a neverending resource I keep calling back up for control systems, Smart Grid, mobile phones, radios, ships, and all kinds of other systems.

BTW, the difference is that I've rarely actively looked for something new - it always seems to land in my lap.

Sometimes, my hobbies have rolled over into my work. About 15 years ago, I was gamemastering a group of folks in an apocalyptic cold war game called Twilight 2000 set in post WWIII Poland. Part of the game is set in Oswiecim, long-known for it's chemical industry making insecticides and poison gas. So I read up on poison gasses and branched into biowarfare to make the game as realistic as possible. A few months later, I was asked to assess a bio-agent detection system. Imagine the customer's surprise when I walked in talking their jargon from my reading for an RPG.

Ray Parks
Consilient Heuristician/IDART Old-Timer
V: 505-844-4024 M: 505-238-9359 P: 505-951-6084
NIPR: [hidden email]
SIPR: [hidden email] (send NIPR reminder)
JWICS: [hidden email] (send NIPR reminder)

On Jul 14, 2015, at 2:40 PM, glen wrote:

Both of these comments touch on something that irritates me quite a bit. Because I have a chip on my shoulder and enjoy confrontation, I regularly apply for jobs even when I'm only a tiny bit interested in changing jobs. (Plus, who knows? Maybe someone will make a really good offer.) In doing so, I often apply for jobs for which I'm "over qualified". I don't get paid much for what I _am_ qualified to do. So, it wouldn't be much of a hit to take a job for which I'm over qualified. These jobs almost always have something educational about them. I regard the education as part of the compensation. I'm willing to take a lot less money in exchange for the chance to learn-on-the-job.

The interviewers never seem to understand that point. When it comes down to the practicals of offering me a job, they often get caught by my inadequate answers to the question "Why would you want to do these jobs, for this salary? Why give up what you have already?" I don't know ... YOLO? It happens so often, perhaps I should be less enthusiastic about whatever projects I'm working on at any given time. Maybe if I'm all grumpy about the sh!t I have to do, I'd get less complaints about me being over qualified for some other job ... which obviously I'm not. My incompetence knows no bounds. I've never had a boring job, from selling carpet water proofing door-to-door, to sacking groceries, selling electronic parts at the university store, flowcharting assembly code for obsolete avionics, etc. There are always boring tasks to every job, but the jobs have never been boring in their entirety.

In any case, it seems to me like incentive is always weaker than motivation, regardless of the dimensions involved. But, then again, I'm a white male from a middle-class household in the US. So, surely that biases me.

On 07/14/2015 01:05 PM, Gary Schiltz wrote:
Motivation is such a subjective thing. Like most people, I like to work on
things that are at least a little challenging intellectually, but
sometimes, just seeing the end result and knowing that I did it is reward
enough to make the tedium bearable. A few years back, I did a bunch of very
tedious work that synchronized video of conference speakers with their
slide presentations NM INBRE. The idea was to create a Flash presentation
that showed the video of the speaker, but displayed static images (taken
from the PPT presentation) representing the auditorium's screen. This saved
a lot of bandwidth compared to streaming a composite video of both the
speaker and the actual screen, and in the 2006 timeframe, really was
necessary.

So, I had “capture” video from tape from two sources (speaker and screen);
scrub through the two resulting videos, recording slide translation
timings; export and trim images for each slide; compress video into
appropriate formats; import images and video into Flash, and enter the
timings that I recorded; etc etc. All that multiplied by 10 or more
speakers, it took me over a month to complete. Kind of like mowing your
lawn with a pair of fingernail clippers. I automated as much as I could,
but given the number of tools that I had to deal with, I really didn’t have
time to automate very much. So, I just became a robot for a month or so.
But the end result was very nice for the time, and despite lack of
intellectual challenges, was one of my proudest accomplishments that I was
able to make myself stick to it. In fact, I even did the same robot work
again the next year. I’ve always been meaning to get to automating that
type of work...

On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 2:19 PM, Marcus Daniels <[hidden email]>
wrote:

"Interesting vs. boring is orthogonal. So, there's interesting-hard and
boring-hard. I'll accept money for either type of work, though I much
prefer interesting-hard ... obviously."

How about engaging, imaginative, educational, or surprising work vs.
detail work. Doing detail work may be delayed gratification or it can no
purpose other than to respond to extrinsic motivation. Remove the
extrinsic motivation (money), and it is boring and depressing.

Ok, if one is tasked with making an app to print checks, it could be
educational to learn how to put widgets on a screen or to do page layout.
What that discovery process is over, either another naïve person is needed
or extrinsic motivation.

Marcus

--
⇔ glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

smime.p7s (4K) Download Attachment

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: speculative Q

“ BTW, the difference is that I've rarely actively looked for something new - it always seems to land in my lap.”

Sometimes I think circles such as yours and the people Glen is talking about just must be kept apart from one another, if they don’t avoid each other naturally. That’s about as close I get to advocating community for community’s sake.

Marcus

glen ropella

Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: speculative Q

On 07/14/2015 02:58 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
> Sometimes I think circles such as yours and the people Glen is talking about just must be kept apart from one another, if they don’t avoid each other naturally. That’s about as close I get to advocating community for community’s sake.

http://phys.org/news/2013-11-first-ever-survey-do-it-yourself-biology-myths.html

--
⇔ glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Parks, Raymond

Re: [EXTERNAL] Re: speculative Q

Glen,

So, I'm not getting the relevance of the DIYBio movement to Marcus' comment. Are you suggesting that it is an example of community for community's sake?

Ray Parks
Consilient Heuristician/IDART Old-Timer
V: 505-844-4024 M: 505-238-9359 P: 505-951-6084
NIPR: [hidden email]
SIPR: [hidden email] (send NIPR reminder)

On Jul 14, 2015, at 4:15 PM, glen wrote:

On 07/14/2015 02:58 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
Sometimes I think circles such as yours and the people Glen is talking about just must be kept apart from one another, if they don’t avoid each other naturally. That’s about as close I get to advocating community for community’s sake.

http://phys.org/news/2013-11-first-ever-survey-do-it-yourself-biology-myths.html

--
⇔ glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

smime.p7s (4K) Download Attachment

glen ropella

Re: speculative Q

I'd (probably wrongly) interpreted Marcus' comment to mean something about keeping the corporate drones (who can't imagine doing work for anything other than incentive) away from people who have the knowledge to create weapons of mass destruction, particularly biological weapons ... hence, the article about DIYBio myths. It was a little bit of agreement with a little bit of disagreement combined.

BTW-FWIW, since we're talking about motivation vs. incentive, I just saw this in my inbox:

The Ethics of Whistleblowing with Edward Snowden
http://www.philosophytalk.org/shows/ethics-whistleblowing-edward-snowden

> John: A lot of people see you as a hero. But others, intelligent ones too, have called you a narcissistic traitor ... How do you see yourself at this point?
>
> Snowden: I don't think about myself. I don't think about how I'm going to be perceived, because it's not about me. It's about us.

This is the type of thing that makes me think Snowden is, at least, disingenuous, if not worse. He's clearly not afflicted with any of the major psych disorders that prevent him from reflective thought. Hence, he _does_ think about himself and how he'll be perceived. If he'd just answer the damned question honestly ... like "Hell yeah, I think about myself and how I'm perceived! I think about how my fellow US citizens view me. I think about how/whether they want to know the information I leaked, whether a jury of my peers would convict me if presented with the evidence ... " Etc. If he'd answer that way, I might start to trust him. Instead he answers with this pseudo-altrustic nonsense, public-relations/politician-speak. Ugh.

On 07/14/2015 04:43 PM, Parks, Raymond wrote:
> So, I'm not getting the relevance of the DIYBio movement to Marcus' comment. Are you suggesting that it is an example of community for community's sake?
>
> On Jul 14, 2015, at 4:15 PM, glen wrote:
>
>> On 07/14/2015 02:58 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
>>> Sometimes I think circles such as yours and the people Glen is talking about just must be kept apart from one another, if they don’t avoid each other naturally. That’s about as close I get to advocating community for community’s sake.
>>
>> http://phys.org/news/2013-11-first-ever-survey-do-it-yourself-biology-myths.html

--
⇔ glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

gepr

Re: speculative Q

This post was updated on .

In reply to this post by Parks, Raymond

CONTENTS DELETED

The author has deleted this message.

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Marcus G. Daniels

Re: speculative Q

I was taking a broader swipe at how much of society and the economy is setup to pigeonhole people into being one thing. Find a role, stick with it, don't shoot too high or too low. Stability and identity, as an aim in itself. The need for community is to create a platform for parting with conservative values to explore other values, values a community can just invent. Unfortunately, the people that seek out these communities can become burdens on the community's mission if they seek comfort in the group rather than add momentum to its purpose. No, I don't care about the people who know how to do things finding common ground with corporate drones. It's not about good and evil or safety and danger. It's about the purposeless and ordinary draining the will and attention of the unique and interesting. Universities, labs, DIY biology groups at least protect that to some extent but each have their pluses and minuses.

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of glen
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 6:24 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] speculative Q

I'd (probably wrongly) interpreted Marcus' comment to mean something about keeping the corporate drones (who can't imagine doing work for anything other than incentive) away from people who have the knowledge to create weapons of mass destruction, particularly biological weapons ... hence, the article about DIYBio myths. It was a little bit of agreement with a little bit of disagreement combined.

BTW-FWIW, since we're talking about motivation vs. incentive, I just saw this in my inbox:

The Ethics of Whistleblowing with Edward Snowden
http://www.philosophytalk.org/shows/ethics-whistleblowing-edward-snowden

> John: A lot of people see you as a hero. But others, intelligent ones too, have called you a narcissistic traitor ... How do you see yourself at this point?
>
> Snowden: I don't think about myself. I don't think about how I'm going to be perceived, because it's not about me. It's about us.

This is the type of thing that makes me think Snowden is, at least, disingenuous, if not worse. He's clearly not afflicted with any of the major psych disorders that prevent him from reflective thought. Hence, he _does_ think about himself and how he'll be perceived. If he'd just answer the damned question honestly ... like "Hell yeah, I think about myself and how I'm perceived! I think about how my fellow US citizens view me. I think about how/whether they want to know the information I leaked, whether a jury of my peers would convict me if presented with the evidence ... " Etc. If he'd answer that way, I might start to trust him. Instead he answers with this pseudo-altrustic nonsense, public-relations/politician-speak. Ugh.

On 07/14/2015 04:43 PM, Parks, Raymond wrote:
> So, I'm not getting the relevance of the DIYBio movement to Marcus' comment. Are you suggesting that it is an example of community for community's sake?
>
> On Jul 14, 2015, at 4:15 PM, glen wrote:
>
>> On 07/14/2015 02:58 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
>>> Sometimes I think circles such as yours and the people Glen is talking about just must be kept apart from one another, if they don’t avoid each other naturally. That’s about as close I get to advocating community for community’s sake.
>>
>> http://phys.org/news/2013-11-first-ever-survey-do-it-yourself-biology
>> -myths.html

--
⇔ glen

--
⇔ glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

Vladimyr Burachynsky

Re: speculative Q

In reply to this post by glen ropella

Sometimes I wonder if our society may in fact be a
collaboration of the criminal minded. The fact that it
appears to promote civilization seems a convenient
Cover-Up story.

If money is the only incentive how can we distinguish
corporation execs from drug lords or war lords. Even the courts
seem to be nothing more than an appendage of the system
that defines itself as much as politicians define their labours as
"Hard work, deserving of ample rewards."

Well I am somewhat cheered that a machine is delivering pictures from Pluto.
Civilization thrives beyond the planet but apparently not in our neighborhoods.

Let 's assume civilization and society have less in common than a Hot dog vendor and a bank robber.
Given a choice the people would always vote for the one that appears
to represent what common people aspire to be...
Glamourous Rascals.

vib

-----Original Message-----
From: Friam [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of glen
Sent: July-14-15 7:06 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] speculative Q

I'd (probably wrongly) interpreted Marcus' comment to mean something about keeping the corporate drones (who can't imagine doing work for anything other than incentive) away from people who have the knowledge to create weapons of mass destruction, particularly biological weapons ... hence, the article about DIYBio myths. It was a little bit of agreement with a little bit of disagreement combined.

BTW-FWIW, since we're talking about motivation vs. incentive, I just saw this in my inbox:

The Ethics of Whistleblowing with Edward Snowden
http://www.philosophytalk.org/shows/ethics-whistleblowing-edward-snowden

> John: A lot of people see you as a hero. But others, intelligent ones too, have called you a narcissistic traitor ... How do you see yourself at this point?
>
> Snowden: I don't think about myself. I don't think about how I'm going to be perceived, because it's not about me. It's about us.

This is the type of thing that makes me think Snowden is, at least, disingenuous, if not worse. He's clearly not afflicted with any of the major psych disorders that prevent him from reflective thought. Hence, he _does_ think about himself and how he'll be perceived. If he'd just answer the damned question honestly ... like "Hell yeah, I think about myself and how I'm perceived! I think about how my fellow US citizens view me. I think about how/whether they want to know the information I leaked, whether a jury of my peers would convict me if presented with the evidence ... " Etc. If he'd answer that way, I might start to trust him. Instead he answers with this pseudo-altrustic nonsense, public-relations/politician-speak. Ugh.

On 07/14/2015 04:43 PM, Parks, Raymond wrote:
> So, I'm not getting the relevance of the DIYBio movement to Marcus' comment. Are you suggesting that it is an example of community for community's sake?
>
> On Jul 14, 2015, at 4:15 PM, glen wrote:
>
>> On 07/14/2015 02:58 PM, Marcus Daniels wrote:
>>> Sometimes I think circles such as yours and the people Glen is talking about just must be kept apart from one another, if they don’t avoid each other naturally. That’s about as close I get to advocating community for community’s sake.
>>
>> http://phys.org/news/2013-11-first-ever-survey-do-it-yourself-biology
>> -myths.html

--
⇔ glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com