[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Steal RAM -- Question

mdj wrote:

Michael J. Mahon wrote:



It's nice to see an optimist.  ;-)



Said the pessimist posing as a pragmatist ;-)


I have always fancied myself an optimist, since I have
always considered the future much more interesting than
the past.  But, it is true, accumulated experience has
disillusioned me somewhat about the pace of enlightenment.

I now fear for the future of all large organizations, since
none appear to have the "DNA" to adapt rapidly enough to
escape the crush of history.

Put another way, success breeds overconfidence, which breeds
apathy, which breeds unconsciousness, which breeds incompetence,
which results in failure.

If the suffering produced by failure is intense enough to "wake"
the organization into consciousness, and tolerable enough that
the organization can survive it while learning, then it may adapt
successfully--ironically, restarting the cycle.

If the unconsciousness of the organization is so deep or the
suffering so tolerable that the organization does not awake,
then it is eliminated.

So, in this regard at least, I suppose I have become a pessimist.


It is clear that the "sufficiently large timeline" for such
convergence is considerably longer than my lifetime, so perhaps
my desire for faster convergence can be excused.



I agree with you, but also point out that faster convergence can be
achieved by greater participation. Of course this problem exists with
all democratic processes.


Hear, hear!  That's that apathy and unconsciousness I was talking
about...


Put another way, belief can prevent a fact from being appreciated
for many lifetimes--such is the power of memes.



They who discover the ability to dispell false beliefs amongst an
appreciable proportion of a populace will have truly achieved
something.


Amen!  ;-)


I presume you are aware of the numerous cases of biographical
distortions and outright plagiarism in Wikipedia?  And of the
editorial resistance to correction of these errors?



Absolutely. There are also numerous counterpoints of corruption where
biographical information was censored by those who would seek to
misrepresent their own public images. At times perhaps these are the
same articles :-) Since these cases tend to come to the fore, I would
argue that this is a benefit of the system rather than a fault.


But it does certainly raise the issue of "due process"--and of
harm inflicted during the long resolution interval.


Idealism must always be tempered by pragmatism, and the Wiki
ideal is no different.  The truth is that some people have better
knowledge than others, and some have better intentions than others.



Indeed, but surely the pragmatic approach is to weigh the benefits of
something against its disadvantages?


With this I have no quarrel.  And on balance, the Wiki notion has
considerable utility.  The problem arises when it becomes the arbiter
of truth as opposed to a handy secondary source.


Only when right knowledge and right intention combine does right
action ensue.



I won't argue with that!



This discussion is actually an interesting case in point - 30 years on
we have a good clarification of the behaviour of the Apple II speaker
for those who are interested. Interpretations of supposedly
"authoritive" sources have been, well, mixed :-)


I hope you note my *correction* to my earlier explanation of the cause
of asymmetry in the speaker output.  ;-)  Going back to the actual
circuit and analyzing its behavior led to a more accurate result.  I had
done that over a year ago, but misremembered the details in my first
explanation.  ;-)



Oh! I was merely referrering to the contention at large, not your own
self correction :-) Sorry if that was interpreted as a dig, I was
referring to the supposedly authoritive documentation that
misrepresents the actual machine behavior.


No, I was just pointing out that the best check on knowledge is
independent verification.  Even when it is correct, authority
is a disempowering crutch--and when it's incorrect, it's a crock!


This analysis was always available to anyone who looked at the circuit,
having noticed the "strange" response to slow toggles.  Apparently,
those who did so just didn't publish the result of their analysis.



This is the beauty of open discussion though! Contention arises,
discussion ensues. Eventually, somebody goes to the effort of actually
examining the issue empirically and determines the actual facts. If
only this worked as well for sociopolitical issues as it does for the
scientific ;-)


The missing ingredient in sociopolitical issues is discipline, and
agreement on the criteria for establishing facts.

It is, of course, in the interests of those playing with power to
prevent the establishment of such a discipline and its criteria, so that
they can continue to "create facts" as it serves their purposes.


In all but the most deterministic of cases, an explanation/description
is at worst outright wrong, at best an approximation. The most damaging
meme of all is that there is such as thing as an authoritive source of
truth. There is of course, no substitute for critical thinking, and the
informed believing that they can protect the naive from disinformation
through regulation is (IMHO) a dangerous form of idealism.


I agree.  Education and experience are the best safeguards.
Authority is disabling!

-michael

NadaNet networking for Apple II computers!
Home page:  http://members.aol.com/MJMahon/

"The wastebasket is our most important design
tool--and it's seriously underused."