This is more about meth/meth derivatives than any work on some replacement for antibiotics or whatever. Research chemicals are bad fucking news and for every one discovery of something like LSD there are hundreds of newly-discovered chemicals that will happily get you high or keep you awake, while scrambling your brain and turning you into a literal crazy person who: thinks the government is poisoning his dogs; blacks out and kills his neighbor.
The official definition from Knight's seminal paper "A Descriptive Model of the Intra-Firm Innovation Process" [1]:
"Bootlegging: In some instances the innovator may be able
to implement a new idea by keeping the development under
cover from the disapproving power in the organization
until it is introduced. At that time it may be impossible
for the organization to reverse itself."
It's reasonable to consider the authority of a Wikipedia entry, but in this case I believe the maintainers simply modernized "under cover" and "disapproving power".
From what I can gather it's some kind of dodgy Shareware thing. Although I can only guess since they really have made little effort to make it any more clear.
Neither the "purchase" site [1] nor anything inside the app itself [2] clearly explains the terms of the free download, or why one should even consider purchasing a licence.
I understand this is a fresh product and everything but it's expected one makes an effort to make these terms far clearer before asking for people's money.
Is this a simply a case of neglect or an example of a dark pattern [3] in the wild?
What part about "occupy" - an occupation - don't you understand?
You will forever struggle to pigeon-hole occupy into something that fits inside our tiny monkey brains because there was never an agenda to begin with.
It is a celebration of life on this planet.
A stance in solidarity with those far less fortunate.
An admission of our insignificance in the grand design of the cosmos.
> What part about "occupy" - an occupation - don't you understand?
I'm the sort of person, probably just like untog, whose knowledge of occupy mostly comes from the mainstream media. I've tried to read some of your guys' materials online or watch videos for an alternate viewpoint, but nothing's been particularly helpful or clear. As far as I've been led to understand from the media, OWS is a "political movement" that basically failed to accomplish any meaningful political change because of a lack of coherent agenda. There's clearly more to you guys than that, and I'm sure that portrayal is inaccurate to the point of severe insult.
So my challenge to you is to explain it better. Or point me to someone who can. Assume I don't "get" occupy, because I don't. But I want to. Telling me that it's "an admission of our insignificance in the grand design of the cosmos" is a fantastically beautiful sentiment, but that gets me no closer to actually understanding what you're doing, why you're doing it, or why I should care.
One voice (of many) who's been involved in Occupy:
One thing that's super important to keep in mind: "political" doesn't have to be electoral politics. Many would argue that electoral politics are really much closer to rooting for a sports team than anything truly political.
Politics is fundamentally about power. You shift power relations, and elections reconfigure themselves around the new state of power relations. Obama beating Romney just means one segment of the empowered has dominated another segment of the empowered. Maybe a segment of the empowered whose base of power comes from liberal cosmopolitanism and a rationalized Rawlsian State, but the empowered nonetheless.
One hope of many Occupiers is the entrance of relatively marginalized and excluded people into the political sphere, by community organizing and other types of organizing, to create new and alternative structures of power. Obama and Romney don't give a shit about elderly monolingual Russian immigrants on Coney island (or, being more clinical, they have no political incentive to cater to them, because there's no payoff). And it's hard, too: there has never been a FEMA which is able to anticipate all the possible disasters (Katrina in NYC???) or know all the secret hidden knowledge that hasn't been made knowable to the almighty state (wait, there's a large population of elderly Russian immigrants in Coney island that we need a staff of translators on-hand for?). Certainly you can figure out solutions post-facto or figure out ways they could have known post-facto, but post-facto people are already dead. And if those solutions were obvious before the problems initially arose, why didn't FEMA build them? Indeed: why didn't you contact FEMA to tell them "Oh, you should have Russian translators in case a big hurricane hits NYC"?
But local communities inherently have all this hidden knowledge bound up in them, and they're able to use it. And many Occupiers, to the extent they have an ideology, believe in the practice of community organizing and interaction not only as the means to leverage this knowledge but also as a way to further it and have communities self-organize into even stronger and more interconnected power structures. A person who gets some much-needed potable water from a volunteer associated with Occupy has a decent probability of volunteering with Occupy themselves, and identifying with it (to some extent) in the future.
Compare to entrepreneurship: entrepreneurship is exploring a market landscape to find a scalable business model that meets some business need that can't be computed before it has actually succeeded. Occupy, by analogy, is an organic, leaderless movement that asks individuals to explore the landscape of social networks to find opportunities to build new decentralized networks, self-sustaining and self-repairing, to fulfill needs that have previously been unsatisfied, such as providing power or, in this case, disaster relief. Ultimately the hope of many is to scale out discovered solutions to all disempowered communities, by building the knowledge and tools--technical, but even more so political and social--to succeed via practice.
Believe it or not, it was relentlessly pruned before publishing. Made me sad that I had remove the explicit Hayek-isms and a Mandelbrot reference, of all things...
You develop apps, design tangible UIs (which I love BTW, Reactable FTW) and write libraries.
Did you get good / better at these endeavours merely by pure observation? Sure you may have acquired the jargon and general idea of process by observation alone. But it was by consistant, relentless practical experimentation within a feedback loop of your peers and clients which actually got you to where you are today.
The same goes for Occupy. You more or less are approaching the asymptote of occupational knowledge by mere observation. And, thankfully, you're still interested. You can imagine the practical applications. You just need to see it for yourself first.
So go ahead and type "occupy [your nearest city]" into your favourite search engine and see what they're up to.
Natural disasters are a blessing in disguise; at least for those who survive.
Gaia often reminds us here in Australia that no matter how much we plan, how safe we feel, despite how high we build our dams, we're ultimately at her mercy.
The sense of community recent events seemed to extract from what is otherwise a reasonably un-spirited populace was nothing short of phenomenal. Humanity indeed possesses great redeeming qualities.
I wish all the best to anyone effected by the recent events. And my heart goes out to the friends and families of those less fortunate.
Please. Try to see it for what it is. An opportunity to rekindle your relationship with nature. To reflect on what's truly important. To fill the voids with something even greater than before.
I'm not sure if this is not some incredible satire that is too subtle for me to recognise, but I suspect if you were to repeat this message on parts of the Jerser Shore they might quite literally shoot the messenger.
I don't consider it a nanny state law. Its not you I want saved from you, its me.
Even with insurance, most people are not prepared (or often required) to bear the full cost of the damage they can cause with their cars. Because they cannot shoulder the responsibility, they should not be allowed to take the risk. They are risking other peoples' property (and lives) for their own stupid behavior. We don't let people drive as fast as they want or ignore stop signs for the same reason.
Sometimes the law covers something, but only thinly. The law in most states in the USA(1) surely states that any damage you cause should be paid in recompense. So technically "distracted driving" is "covered by existing law". In practice this does not work out. Its easy to be in an accident that causes more damage than an individual's net worth and insurance coverage combined. If the only people allowed to drive cars were the ones able to afford enough insurance to guarantee recompense(2) in any situation, there would be very few cars on the road indeed. So sometimes existing laws need "helping", as imperfect as that may be. Society subsidizes the risk in exchange for a little cooperation to reduce that risk.
(1) Excepting all of that "no fault" nonsense that a few try to monkey-patch into working.
(2) It gets even more complicated when people die.
So sometimes existing laws need "helping", as imperfect as that may be.
Sounds like you've been indoctrinated good and proper. I'll write this one off as job creation.
If the only people who were allowed to drive cars were the ones able to afford enough insurance to guarantee recompense(2) in any situation, there would be very few cars on the road indeed.
Nevertheless, the "helping" you refer to isn't helping in reality. The first layer making it illegal doesn't work. Neither do the others layered over that.
http://quorumex.com/content/about-us
Perhaps he got a little too close to The Truth?