Tuesday, June 13, 2006
Socrates: the epileptic dialectic
“So much of Platonic scholarship is brilliant hallucination of sufficient textual basis for secure inferences about the whole Socrates/Plato thing, to console us for the sheer bummer that is losing all that stuff.” - John Holbo
http://www.thevalve.org/go/valve/article/philosophy_were_people_helping_people_refute_people/
Professional philosophers don't miss the rest, in my experience. They should, but they won't even read Xenophon, very sadly. First because the social context that Socrates had to adapt his teaching to crystal clear there - Xenophon never writes a word that isn't intended to directly contradict one charge or other raised against Socrates. Second, because some bad arguments by Socrates, probably not badly mangled by Xenophon, slip through and tell us a great deal about how Socrates, as opposed to Plato, viewed the world.
But, to be somewhat acerbic about it, pro philosophers nowadays prefer to believe that Socrates was wearing a lab coat not a toga, and reading Xenophon gets in the way of that, rather.
Interesting recent biographical highlight:
We found textual evidence that his daimonion was probably a simple partial seizure (SPS) of temporal lobe origin. It was a brief voice that usually prohibited Socrates from initiating certain actions. It started when he was a child, and it visited Socrates unpredictably. Moreover, we found at least two descriptions of Socrates' unique behavior that are consistent with complex partial seizures (CPSs). The fact that Socrates had been experiencing both SPSs and CPSs periodically since childhood makes the diagnosis of temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE) likely.
Epilepsia. 2006 Mar;47(3):652-4.
Socrates and temporal lobe epilepsy: a pathographic diagnosis 2,400 years later.
Muramoto O, Englert WG.
Department of Neurology, Kaiser Permanente Northwest Division, Portland, Oregon
PMID: (pubmed.com ID) 16529635
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16529635
http://www.thevalve.org/go/valve/article/philosophy_were_people_helping_people_refute_people/
Professional philosophers don't miss the rest, in my experience. They should, but they won't even read Xenophon, very sadly. First because the social context that Socrates had to adapt his teaching to crystal clear there - Xenophon never writes a word that isn't intended to directly contradict one charge or other raised against Socrates. Second, because some bad arguments by Socrates, probably not badly mangled by Xenophon, slip through and tell us a great deal about how Socrates, as opposed to Plato, viewed the world.
But, to be somewhat acerbic about it, pro philosophers nowadays prefer to believe that Socrates was wearing a lab coat not a toga, and reading Xenophon gets in the way of that, rather.
Interesting recent biographical highlight:
We found textual evidence that his daimonion was probably a simple partial seizure (SPS) of temporal lobe origin. It was a brief voice that usually prohibited Socrates from initiating certain actions. It started when he was a child, and it visited Socrates unpredictably. Moreover, we found at least two descriptions of Socrates' unique behavior that are consistent with complex partial seizures (CPSs). The fact that Socrates had been experiencing both SPSs and CPSs periodically since childhood makes the diagnosis of temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE) likely.
Epilepsia. 2006 Mar;47(3):652-4.
Socrates and temporal lobe epilepsy: a pathographic diagnosis 2,400 years later.
Muramoto O, Englert WG.
Department of Neurology, Kaiser Permanente Northwest Division, Portland, Oregon
PMID: (pubmed.com ID) 16529635
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16529635
Monday, June 12, 2006
Google Adsense API - good news for trees
The Adsense API is out in Beta. Few know about it yet, fewer understand its potential at all (maybe not even Google, but then, them guys ain't all dumb.) I'm betting everyone will understand it very well in only a year or two. To put things in a nutshell (pardon the pun), it's very good news for trees.
I think lots of people are entirely missing the point with this API, and I had to bang my head against the idea for a few hours before it started to become clear to me, although I've been thinking along a very similar line. It's not a replacement for the usual Adsense interface for site owners. Far from it. It's aimed at changing the behavior of hundreds of thousands, or even millions who are literate, but who are not computer literate programmers and don't want to be. These people want to write, fiction and non-fiction, and do. They just don't want to wait tables or keep their old jobs forever to do it. They don't want to give away their work forever, or become a site-owner. Just write, and put food on the table.
The goal Google has is simple: Google wants to get more and better quality content onto the web (and whyever not, it certainly helps them in the long run.)
Money can do that. I can't tell you how many talented and knowledgable people (including myself a few months ago) are still thinking about writing books, or trying to find publishers now. Putting anything up on the web doesn't cross their mind. Some are good and talented friends of mine, and I can't persuade them to publish online because they equate that with giving their hard work away and not earning a cent even if it eventually gets noticed. I can't persuade them to become a webmaster either, since they haven't read their DVD manuals yet and are still watching movies with subtitles on, or with distorted screens half the time 'cause they haven't found the right button yet by chance.
They don't know that text ads and a growing internet ad market have changed the economic equation entirely for writers and perhaps other artists, because there's no practical path available to get them that advertising money without them first learning HTML, and the web business, and how search engines work, etc, which they won't.
But, ceteris paribus, those friends of mine and countless others should be thinking web. No publisher can or will pay me what bestpaperairplanes.com now earns from Adsense ads, for example, although periodically writers and publishers gently ask if they can rip my original content off and pay me nothing. Right now however, most writers I know aren't programmers or even business people, so they won't set up their own sites, they'll send out a manuscript to a dozen tree-based publishers first, light candles, and pray.
As of this day, Google now offers, at second-hand, an alternative to non-techie writers. Put up your novel, book or article on someone's publishing site on the net that uses Adsense API, and get fully 85% of the ad revenue your pages generate. Let the publishing site and Google handle everything but the writing, and you the writer can take away most of the ad revenue! That's not chickfeed anymore, and if you squint a little, it looks like a royalty fee of 85%, my friends. For MOST writers (not all) the net will now probably pay them better than any traditional way of getting into print! The net won't be a stepping stone, it can now be the endpoint for writers. Money changes all things, and I think you're about to see a revolution in the quality and quantity of what's available online. Bet that's what Sergey thinks, too.
So this changes EVERYTHING* for writers, and therefore, for everyone else who uses the web. Sell your tree-based publisher stocks, and any amazon stock, these companies are going to be under at least as much pressure as newspapers from this day on. (Remember what the printing press did to the scribe labor market?) The internet is a vastly more economical way of distributing information than squashing trees is even on an industrial scale, if the internet's earning potential can be harnessed to benefit writers who just want to write, not program. That's just what Google hopes it has done with the new API.
The API has already been around for a while, by the way, all but unnoticed - Google owns blogger, and blogger allows you to put in Adsense ads via this API, and has for a while. That's a very small taste of what's possible.
Believe me, this really does have the potential to change everything. It also will probably kill off or stalemate Everything2.com, just as one example. However, it will take at least a few years before most writers understand how websites and web articles gradually and logarithmically grow in popularity and begin to truly appreciate how much ongoing income they can generate over time.
On the other hand I have two large reservations or complaints (can't have the cup getting too much more than half-full, now, can we?)
One personal bleat: ironically you're reading this for free because I can't have adsense ads here, since I already have an adsense account. Weird, but true. That's why they call it Beta.
Much more critically, a fixed 15% take for the publisher simply won't do. A range of values is needed. We need web-based ad-model publishers who are willing to provide editing services, do some of the publicity legwork, add necessary links, provide ranking within their sites, etc., etc. Fifteen percent won't do this. 50% certainly could, and I don't know about you, but I'd prefer to have my work on a great site where it's quality would be recognized, a good editor would be available, and many times as many surfers would find it - even if it meant a smaller slice of the bigger pie for me.
Fifty-fifty after all, is the best tested model in other media, historically. For example, television broadcasting - traditionally the affiliate paid nothing for network shows, and got half the ad time to place their own ads. Maybe that's a bad example, since regulation governed that, but if Google is going to be the de facto government regulator here, and that's effectively where we're starting, it might consider a different percentage or several possible percentages.
Better, let the market decide. Google should insist that content providers always know clearly what percent the publishing site is taking vs what they get, but then let a thousand flowers bloom. Allow a variety of kinds of web publishers to evolve according to need and effectiveness. Writers can then gravitate to the kind of help they need to make their efforts profitable, and freely available to the world. Let's get as much great information and writing onto the web as we can.
I think lots of people are entirely missing the point with this API, and I had to bang my head against the idea for a few hours before it started to become clear to me, although I've been thinking along a very similar line. It's not a replacement for the usual Adsense interface for site owners. Far from it. It's aimed at changing the behavior of hundreds of thousands, or even millions who are literate, but who are not computer literate programmers and don't want to be. These people want to write, fiction and non-fiction, and do. They just don't want to wait tables or keep their old jobs forever to do it. They don't want to give away their work forever, or become a site-owner. Just write, and put food on the table.
The goal Google has is simple: Google wants to get more and better quality content onto the web (and whyever not, it certainly helps them in the long run.)
Money can do that. I can't tell you how many talented and knowledgable people (including myself a few months ago) are still thinking about writing books, or trying to find publishers now. Putting anything up on the web doesn't cross their mind. Some are good and talented friends of mine, and I can't persuade them to publish online because they equate that with giving their hard work away and not earning a cent even if it eventually gets noticed. I can't persuade them to become a webmaster either, since they haven't read their DVD manuals yet and are still watching movies with subtitles on, or with distorted screens half the time 'cause they haven't found the right button yet by chance.
They don't know that text ads and a growing internet ad market have changed the economic equation entirely for writers and perhaps other artists, because there's no practical path available to get them that advertising money without them first learning HTML, and the web business, and how search engines work, etc, which they won't.
But, ceteris paribus, those friends of mine and countless others should be thinking web. No publisher can or will pay me what bestpaperairplanes.com now earns from Adsense ads, for example, although periodically writers and publishers gently ask if they can rip my original content off and pay me nothing. Right now however, most writers I know aren't programmers or even business people, so they won't set up their own sites, they'll send out a manuscript to a dozen tree-based publishers first, light candles, and pray.
As of this day, Google now offers, at second-hand, an alternative to non-techie writers. Put up your novel, book or article on someone's publishing site on the net that uses Adsense API, and get fully 85% of the ad revenue your pages generate. Let the publishing site and Google handle everything but the writing, and you the writer can take away most of the ad revenue! That's not chickfeed anymore, and if you squint a little, it looks like a royalty fee of 85%, my friends. For MOST writers (not all) the net will now probably pay them better than any traditional way of getting into print! The net won't be a stepping stone, it can now be the endpoint for writers. Money changes all things, and I think you're about to see a revolution in the quality and quantity of what's available online. Bet that's what Sergey thinks, too.
So this changes EVERYTHING* for writers, and therefore, for everyone else who uses the web. Sell your tree-based publisher stocks, and any amazon stock, these companies are going to be under at least as much pressure as newspapers from this day on. (Remember what the printing press did to the scribe labor market?) The internet is a vastly more economical way of distributing information than squashing trees is even on an industrial scale, if the internet's earning potential can be harnessed to benefit writers who just want to write, not program. That's just what Google hopes it has done with the new API.
The API has already been around for a while, by the way, all but unnoticed - Google owns blogger, and blogger allows you to put in Adsense ads via this API, and has for a while. That's a very small taste of what's possible.
Believe me, this really does have the potential to change everything. It also will probably kill off or stalemate Everything2.com, just as one example. However, it will take at least a few years before most writers understand how websites and web articles gradually and logarithmically grow in popularity and begin to truly appreciate how much ongoing income they can generate over time.
On the other hand I have two large reservations or complaints (can't have the cup getting too much more than half-full, now, can we?)
One personal bleat: ironically you're reading this for free because I can't have adsense ads here, since I already have an adsense account. Weird, but true. That's why they call it Beta.
Much more critically, a fixed 15% take for the publisher simply won't do. A range of values is needed. We need web-based ad-model publishers who are willing to provide editing services, do some of the publicity legwork, add necessary links, provide ranking within their sites, etc., etc. Fifteen percent won't do this. 50% certainly could, and I don't know about you, but I'd prefer to have my work on a great site where it's quality would be recognized, a good editor would be available, and many times as many surfers would find it - even if it meant a smaller slice of the bigger pie for me.
Fifty-fifty after all, is the best tested model in other media, historically. For example, television broadcasting - traditionally the affiliate paid nothing for network shows, and got half the ad time to place their own ads. Maybe that's a bad example, since regulation governed that, but if Google is going to be the de facto government regulator here, and that's effectively where we're starting, it might consider a different percentage or several possible percentages.
Better, let the market decide. Google should insist that content providers always know clearly what percent the publishing site is taking vs what they get, but then let a thousand flowers bloom. Allow a variety of kinds of web publishers to evolve according to need and effectiveness. Writers can then gravitate to the kind of help they need to make their efforts profitable, and freely available to the world. Let's get as much great information and writing onto the web as we can.
Tuesday, June 06, 2006
Roger Bacon's Health Advice
Roger Bacon (1200s) really was ahead of his time. Since this quote now appears nowhere on the net (not in this translation anyway), I thought I should add it. Here's his health advice, complete with reference to genetics (or rather, inherited charactistics):
“A real remedy against the specific corruption [of the body] might be found if a man from his youth would exercise a complete regulation of his health in all matters pertaining to food and drink, sleep and waking, movement and rest, retention, air, and passions of the soul. For if anyone will observe this regimen from his birth, he will live to the utmost that is permitted by the nature which he has inherited from his parents.”
From Bacon's letter “On Art and Nature”, De Mirabile postestate artis et naturae, c. 1250 quoted on page 148-9 of Clegg
Now that's up to date advice - sleep hygiene is now getting much more attention in the headlines as a way of preventing or limiting diabetes and heart problems, for instance.
And if you survived infancy, longevity wasn't nearly as rare then, as we often suppose - although Bacon must be overestimating it in another quote:
“Many of us are well aware in our own times that farmers living without the advice of medical men frequently attain the age of a hundred and sixty or thereabouts.”
From Bacon's letter “On Art and Nature”, De Mirabile postestate artis et naturae, c. 1250 quoted on p 148 of Clegg
I'm using as a reference (and recommend),
The First Scientist; A Life of Roger Bacon
by Brian Clegg
Constable & Robinson Ltd., London, 2003
