Twitter Fist

This is what happens when a Twitter user (@stilgherrian) throws down the gauntlet to a few bored geeks on a Saturday afternoon…

And then, in no time at all…

You can grab the full-size image here, my WordPress automatically trims it.

Hoorays! Number 1 at Twitscoop and at Twitter search! The system works people. But fisting works people hard.

The trend looked like this:

Which meant stilgherrian (read his blog here) made a little Twitter history.

Here’s the weirdest/coolest thing – the oldest entry (over a month ago – Jan 23!) when you search Twitter for #fisting…

Is @bluecardigan a psychic?

What are you optimistic about?

I have just finished reading the book of the same title, the third of what has become an annual www.edge.org publication.

Every year, the edge group asks a collection of the world’s leading scientists and thinkers a question and the essays written in response are collated and published.

The first in the series was “What do you believe but cannot prove?” The subsequent question was “What is your dangerous idea?”

Responses this year included a gleeful gaggle of geeks getting a hadron about the collider – and the return to experimental physics it heralds. There were also sociologists, web developers, psychiatrists, inventors, archaeologists…  It’s an absorbing and fascinating read. The essays are at most a few pages in length. Several are only a couple of paragraphs. Despite the sometimes technical subject matter, they’re all easily digestible – perfect for those times when your own digestive system is doing its dirty work.

This is my attempt to answer the edge question;

An overwhelming majority of people will have a global scope of concern within a generation.

Our earliest evolutionary ancestors were biologically programmed to care only for themselves. As these primates began to live in a more recognisable family, the scope of concern of each individual began to expand. The wellbeing of each member of the family was directly affected by the wellbeing of every other family member.

When early humans built the first communities, the benefits of living in a larger group necessitated that due consideration was given to the wellbeing of other individuals quite removed from the immediate family. These communities eventually gave rise to sub-sections of the community, and sub-cultures within them.

As human societies became more complex, an individual’s scope of concern could include people of the same religion, race, gender or other (now seemingly arbitrary) distinction.

Wars have been fought over nations – and later, groups of nations – ostensibly acting to preserve the well-being of the people within their scope of concern. If an individual understands that their own wellbeing is intrinsically tied to that of another, they will act. Whether it’s born from a primal sense of self preservation, or an enlightened benevolence, an individual will respond to the needs of another if they identify with them.

Television allowed unprecedented access to imagery from afar – confronting people in their living rooms with tragedy half a world away, increasing their scope of concern. Yet some detachment, some failure to empathise completely, remained. That sense of mutual benefit – the understanding that making this person’s life better will make my life better too – was not yet evident for many. But our parents still cared more about more people than their parents did.

The first decade of the 21^st century has seen humanity exchange information on a global scale, with startling immediacy and clarity. Communications technologies have allowed victims of oppression in Tibet to relay first-hand the shocking detail of their ordeals, at an intimate and personal level. The days of a nameless, ignorable emaciated child having her pleas for help ignored are rapidly coming to an end.

The personalising of an individual in circumstances vastly different from our own is capturing our attention, increasing our understanding and unstoppably expanding our scope of concern.

And when the current generation of web-savvy, interactivity-craving young people ascend to positions of influence within our society, observing alone will not satisfy them. They will seek to be an active part of the solution, having instantly and instinctively understood the benefit to themselves in doing so.

The enlightenment that comes with information will compel that generation to act. This understanding will lead them to rectify the failings of their predecessors, and will bring to an end the days of less fortunate people being left behind.

I am optimistic that within my lifetime there won’t be anybody beyond the scope of concern of the vast majority, they will demand action, and won’t take no for an answer.

Twitter twitch

It’s instantaneous, merciless, and without fear or favour.

It requires ultra sharp reflexes, cat-like agility and thick skin.

The ABC published a great piece by teh Ludlam today (full text below) on the mandatory ISP level filter.

In this piece, he quite rightly extolls the virtue of Twitter as a campaign tool. The mainstream media has also been avalanched with stories of people using Twitter during the bushfires.

A source of amusement amongst all of the seriousness comes when the Twitter community discovers that somebody prominent, significant or just plain amusing does not have a Twitter identity. Twitter abhors a vacuum.

Not 30 minutes after the article was posted, a discussion about whether Ludlam has a Twitter account (he doesn’t – the Greens Senators all use @GreensMPs collectively) culminated in someone registering @scottludlam and putting on the profile simply “Fake Scott Ludlam”. He joins fake Stephen Conroy, and was shortly thereafter joined by fake Nick Minchin.

I find fake Andrew Bolt particularly entertaining.

Ludlam being well respected in the Twitterverse for his stance on the filter debacle was not reason enough to spare him from assimilation, because nobody is safe.

And it’s better that way – how else would we be treated to such delights as, “Did @stephenconroy even bother to check the timeline of a filtering trial with an Astrologer. What if Pluto is inconjunct with Jupiter?” and “If you want to smoke reefer while masturbating to Star Trek’s Picard and Riker, the Greens not only support you, we salute you.”

No clean feed indeed.

So, if you’re going to speak out about this issue – even if you’re one of the good guys – best be armed with a good sense of humour and a capacity to multi-task. And your own Twitter account – before somebody else claims it.

Net filter plan nurtures ‘open source government’

The campaign to prevent the mandatory internet filter in Australia has been like no other campaign before it. Though the subject matter naturally lends itself to the type of campaign we’re witnessing – and participating in as never before – it also offers a fascinating glimpse into the way more mainstream campaigns will be run in the future. We are witnessing what may come to be seen as the beginnings of open source government in this country.

Twitter – now among the 100 most visited sites on the internet – has been one of the primary conduits for these conversations. Such is the power of this medium that even with mainstream media focus squarely on stimulus packages and savage bushfires, Communications Minister Stephen Conroy’s announcement was met with an immediate response. The interwebs never sleep.

Senator Conroy is trapped by something akin to a virtual hydra – every time he “responds” to one piece of criticism, numerous other more refined, more powerful and more targeted arguments arise from all sides.

Perhaps as a result of this, perhaps just purely by coincidence, the minister recently revealed the first six internet service providers selected to trial the filter.

The three largest ISPs in Australia are conspicuously absent from the list. Of particular interest is iiNet, the company that declared their intent to participate in the trial, “to make sure the public, media and political players are well informed and realise that it is bad policy”.

Surely if the minister has confidence in the system – if he genuinely believes that the technical concerns raised can somehow be addressed – then it stands to reason that he’d welcome such intense scrutiny as an opportunity to silence detractors. Alternatively, if he wishes to improve the system, then the feedback provided by a dedicated and highly tech-literate naysayer would be invaluable.

The ISPs selected are for the most part business providers. This could be taken to suggest that this trial is an opportunistic attempt to salvage some credibility by the Government. They could proclaim ’success’ without ever testing the filter in a scenario remotely typical of the circumstances it is designed for.

Notably, these enterprise-focussed ISPs are very unlikely to be used by many of the more vocal opponents of this scheme, and thus the Government can mask the deficiencies a little while longer. Some critics are attempting to acquire the services of one of the nominated ISPs, to experience first-hand the impacts – such as speed degradation and “false positives” which the system will almost certainly deliver.

The diversity of people campaigning on this issue has meant that every one of the numerous flaws of this proposal has been exposed – from the numerous technical shortcomings highlighted by a range of experts in the field, to the dubious and perennially secret contents of the expanding ACMA blacklist, from the assault on free speech that the filter represents, to the ineffectiveness of such a system in addressing genuine and valid concerns about internet safety.

With one unified voice this campaign polyglot has resoundingly denounced the mandatory internet filter. They have also, universally, condemned Senator Conroy and his few supporters for their attempts to equate critics with advocates of child pornography.

But most encouraging of all is the agreement that concerns about internet safety are absolutely justified, and warrant concerted action. And therein hopefully lies the next stage of the debate. We’re all in vociferous agreement about what won’t work. But what will? Can this enormously empowered campaign speak with one cogent voice about what we’re for?

How do we empower parents to make the best choices for their families, and law enforcement agencies to prosecute the creators and distributors of the worst material trafficked over the internet?

Is there a way to adequately prepare children to understand other threats such as cyber-bullying, without asphyxiating the greatest information sharing tool in history?

Can we directly challenge the epidemic of sexualised violence against women and children in this country and place the online tip of the iceberg into its proper context?

I believe that most people involved in this debate – including, I suspect, many in the Government – would rather see these issues tackled head-on than pursuing the disturbing and expensive distraction of internet censorship.

Posted at abc.net.au

Ride for their life

The scale of the devastation in Victoria is beyond my comprehension.

It seemed almost conceptual, not actually real at first. Some other people felt the same. But we were shaken out of that haze when confronted with a particular image.

The image that did it was different for everyone.

I’d viewed a number of the galleries, watched several videos – everything from exploding trees to dehydrated Koalas, but I think I still somehow felt numb, as though the shock insulated me.

Until I saw this.

A motorbike lays on the Heidelberg-Kinglake Rd in the Arthur's Creek/St Andrews Area. It is believed that the rider of the bike was found deceased near the crash scene. Picture: Darren Tindale

This was the image that shook me out of my detachment. I don’t really know why it was this one, but once that punctured my shield, the enormity of the whole horrific disaster hit me, and left me crying in the corner for I’m not sure how long.

I’ve ridden in some atrocious weather, and I’ve been foolhardy enough to attempt to flee from storms that have littered the roads I’ve been on – roads miles from anywhere – with large branches and huge amounts of debris.

It was utterly terrifying. Stopping and seeking shelter probably wasn’t an option, when the shelter is likely to come crashing down on your skull.

It certainly wouldn’t have been an option for this rider.

And that abject terror, that desperate attempt to escape, as it became ever more difficult, was the last thing this person ever felt, save for this;

For a split second, when you crash a motorcycle, you’re aware. For an awful instant, you know you’re fucked.

And that was how this person left this world.

Cetacean Aviation

In an extraordinary display of benevolence, the Japanese Institute for Cetacean Research has reached out to the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, using the universal language of science, in an effort to overcome years of hostilities.

The tireless field researchers aboard the ICR vessels in the Southern Ocean have been investigating the trajectory, aerodynamic and impact qualities of chunks of freshly slaughtered minke and humpback whale. But unfortunately, these brave crusaders at the cutting edge of science depend upon the untrained recalcitrant crew sailing on the S.S.C.S.’s Steve Irwin to collate their data, casting the reliability of the research into doubt.

My only sister is aboard the Steve Irwin, and she typifies the sort of person at the heart of this problem. Extracted from her bio:

…long time environmental and social justice activist, with a history of working on a range of campaigns…

She’s no scientist. These experiments are clearly compromised. They depend on the S.S.C.S. crew to collate data from their end of the flight path, and those “activist” fuckers are clearly biased. They say no to everything. There’s just no way that those people can give honest untainted feedback. Someone on the Steve Irwin should also be qualified at a tertiary level to co-author such a study, if it’s ever going to be taken seriously by the global scientific community.

For goodness sake Sea Shepherd, next time leave the hollywood startlets at home. Make room for someone who can make a truly useful contribution. The ICR is prepared to put past differences aside, and in the spirit of co-operation and human advancement, collaborate with you on this vital research, yet you continue to treat them with such contempt.

Admittedly, the variability of the conditions does cast some doubt over the accuracy of the results – the pitching seas, the wind, the spray of salt (which may add mass to that sample, rendering it useless) will no doubt taint the data and produce stastical outliers. This will skew the results drastically – something I have no doubt the Norwegians will confirm when the ICR sends the results off for peer review.

Using brass spheres as the control sample certainly makes sense. Deploying a smooth, featureless ball of a very specific mass to establish a baseline for the experiments yields predictable and repeatable results – essential for any study of this nature. I do worry about the assumption that what worked in the lab is relevant to the ocean experiments, however. Field experiments always differ vastly from the safe confines of a climate controlled, hermetically sealed laboratory.

But the biggest stickler of them all is why? Why do they need to understand these characteristics? What do they hope to achieve? Perhaps the ICR believe the best way to ensure the survival of these species is to get them airborne.

If this is their aim, I doubt they’ll be successful. There have been numerous studies conducted on flying animals with no success – the volume of data derived from Roger Waters concerts and police helicopter logs has still brought us no closer to seeing a pig fly.

No, more likely these latest tests will produce unforeseen advancements so astonishing, so world-changing, that the world will once again be in awe at the capacity of this small band of diligent and dedicated researchers to consistently increase the understanding we have of our natural world.

Take comfort in the relentless pursuit of the truth by the ICR. I’m sure all will be revealed in main due course, with or without the assistance of Sea Shepherd.

theparissite is not a scientist either, other than winning a classroom contest in 1992, so he has absolutely no basis for criticising the extraordinary work of the ICR.