critique

2015April30Thursday

5:30am

If you are suffering, at least be gracious about it.

Yesterday's news was all horrible. And it went on and on and on. And you would say this is the fault of idiots, who should all be jailed, forced to do this and that, and so on and so forth. No one is worse than you are. You are the absolute worst. It doesn't matter that you have fantastic style, fantastic ability, acutest intelligence, far above the rest of us, superior morality, unbelievably good manners. None of that matters. You suck.

If it doesn't break for the better, it'll break for the worse. It's possible we're headed for utter chaos. Vast destruction. The blacks might run completely rampant. All those idiots. You know an idiot when you see one! Outright war between the blacks, the Mexicans, and the fucking republicans.

Or maybe the republicans will just win, get the upper hand, lord it over everyone like the assholes they are. Drive us into a complete pit of misery.

You, who are so proud, so great, this is what I predict, will do absolutely nothing about it. Just more complaining.

There's work to do. I have to take a break, run a few errands. Once I get those done, I'll get back to it. Fucking republicans.

notes - Wednesday April 29

On reading

You could call reading a form of non-doing, or doing nothing, particularly since it is unlikely you will be able to select entirely worthwhile material. See, that's wrong. OK, now I myself see. It appears I need to make not a point but a series of points. We shall see.

The first point, then, is that there is no such thing as less than worthwhile material.

But it turns out I can't just make that statement, I need to explore it. It seems to contain within itself a series of hypotheses. One would be that just the act of reading is in some way worthwhile. I'm sure you will instinctively agree that this in some way makes sense. It sounds reminiscent of a meditation technique or discipline. It even sounds more sound than the suggestion that meditation is worthwhile. That's because it is more materialistic, and thus less paradoxical.

Still, while the idea that reading in and of itself is worthwhile sounds in some way probably right, the idea that reading just anything at all would be worthwhile sounds a little off. I notice two possible interpretations of the idea of reading just anything at all. One is reading completely at random, and that appears to have some merit, or even to be a kind of necessity. And then the other is the idea of selecting material, either because of lack of understanding or, as it may be, deliberately, that is in some way egregious, or, as it may be, just mediocre.

I need to clarify my earlier point. The idea that reading is a form of doing nothing is not, perhaps, what it seems to be. It is true that reading is a very quite activity, and that it in that sense resembles doing nothing, and, in fact, it might in that sense in fact be a form of doing nothing, and it is possible that is one of its merits. This is something we can inquire into. However, there is another question - the first being whether or to what extent reading is doing something - and that is whether reading is productive.

thinking, April 28

8:26 am. Light slanting in through branches, screen, across the clean white table top, dappled across the laptop ... my day crawling into existence.

A little earlier, same thing every morning, here I am, supposedly a man, and she kisses me goodbye and heads for work, into battle, the making of the bread, while I, in my pajamas, in the warm kotatsu, read the paper, fretting over the usual questions of fairness, and pettiness, and the mysteries of aesthetics, then screwing up the Sudoku. (Blogger capitalizes Sudoku.) But, there is work to do. The vacuuming, the washing of the filters, the hanging of the laundry, or at least the removing of it from the washer into the basket. But this attempt to escape my fate, this writing, calls, and I set it up, and begin.

10:18. Oh, horrible. An hour and a half has passed and I've accomplished essentially nothing. Well, I shouldn't sell myself short. I don't believe in that. Still, it's hard.

I looked at a bunch of news on line. It's so right, and so wrong at the same time.

I really really want to put my own stamp on this on line world.

It's always the same whiny question: what should the web do? Yes, it's a whiny question, but calling it whiny is also a dodge.

Anyway, what can I do but write? So it's a question of having faith or hope, that just writing will get me somewhere.

I've been able to get this far: purchasing a domain, setting up a web hosting account. With web hosting set up, I can log on to a file manager. My domain, in effect, contains files. I can "open" one of them by surfing to its address in the browser.

Oh, this is so frustrating. Well, anyway, let this be a little primer on how the web works. If I open an html file the browser displays the page that's described in that file. The page is described using the language HTML. The browser knows, or figures, it's an html file if the last characters of the file name are .html (or .htm). If that's the case, the browser looks for HTML in the file. HTML is a syntax. If the browser finds HTML in the file, it displays what the HTML describes. If it doesn't find HTML in the file, it doesn't display anything.

I can open a file with a name that ends with the characters .txt and the browser will display the contents of the file as text. Text isn't a syntax, except in a very fundamental sense. Text is just a way of interpreting data. Files contain data - that's what they contain. Data is sequences of bits: 1s and 0s. Text is a way of interpreting data: it breaks the data into 8 bit pieces. There are only so many possible 8 bit sequences, and each one corresponds to a symbol, such as a letter or number or punctuation mark (as well as some others). To display the contents of a file the browser displays (more or less, according to certain rules) the symbols associated with the eight bit pieces it finds in the file.

I can also open one or another kind of image file, files ending in .bmp, .jpg, .png, .gif, and probably others. The browser will attempt to display the data in such files as an image, perhaps requiring correct syntax in the data to do so.

Using various means I am able to create html files, text files, and image files, in my domain's file system. These, however, are only part of the equation. They also represent the limit of my ability.



We all know that surfing to a typical page on the web displays assorted imagery, including imagery we can interact with in various ways. What's on my mind is the kind of page which allows us to create our own pages - which people can then surf to to view imagery we have specified. How can I create such a page?

"The ignorance we have is causing people to suffer."

Everyone knows there are dozens of such pages around the web, if not hundreds. Why would I want to create my own? Just to make sure, I went back to the search engines to see what I could find that's new. My feeling that none of them offer what I'm looking for was confirmed.

Holy Cow, I finally figured out how to get that file upload dialog box! It just clicked: search on "how to implement a file upload dialog in my web page" (or something of the sort). I have been trying to find this FOREVER. But, no wonder it was so hard ... it's sort of complicated. I mean, getting the file upload dialog is easy - it's just an input element of the type "file" (<input type="file" /> in a form element - but what do you do once the file is uploaded ... that's the hard part. Anyway, what a breakthrough, after all this time. The most useful link I found is here. It seems - even sais it is itself - out of date, but it's still worth reading, for sure.

flyer

I have invented a storage solution that's amazing. It costs about the same as a file folder to make, and functions as a file folder, scrap book, parts bin, and file cabinet all in one. It's better than a file folder, does things a scrap book can't do, and is more flexible than a file cabinet in lots of ways. It's ecological and looks kind of cool.

I would like to launch the product internationally pretty much in one fell swoop. That means I need to find the right people to talk to. From a manufacturing perspective it's a paper product. I am dedicated to creating a green product: no plastic parts or packaging. It's light weight and compact for shipping and retailing. I need help organizing a company, too.

top

Dear Mr. Crow,
My appologies, I carelessly mailed a version of this moments ago without proofreading, and have discovered a parade of errors. Please accept this corrected version.

I have invented a construction system but I'm not an academic or a professional and I'm having the devil of a time figuring out who to describe it to. I thought you might be able to help me, perhaps by referring me to experts at the University in intellectual property, licensing, or industrial development. Actually, my discussion extended into other disciplines. Especially I would be most interested in communicating with people about virtual reality ... I heard a professor is much interested in Second Life!
I have lived near the University for many years and stayed somewhat connected. This is my way of being an ASU student.
My strange plan is to license this product to builders. Architects could specify it. Actually, that's not quite right. I would license manufacturers to build kits which builders can assemble to create, for example, large buildings which are fit or molded around existing structures or bridges which delicately span terrain at a very large scale. The strength of the structural materials employed is utilized to the highest degree - similar to airframes, light and rigid - and yet it's possible to assemble and disassemble extremely voluminous structures at little expense. For temporary applications the components are wholly reusable.
Actually, Mr. Crow, I ought to extend my discussion in a more personal direction. I am a crazed economics scholar, and the trends I am seeing in the data are really astonishing. There is, it seems to me, lots of evidence we are, as a species, headed in the direction of a huge explosion in economic activity. The size of it, according to my measurements, is overwhelming. This evidence I'm looking at is very abstract. It doesn't predict the nature of this bonanza, only its size. Oh, and its duration, which is a short number of years ... perhaps a century. We can also detect some of the likely players. But my sense is those players have only a limited idea of what the actual game is going to be. Rather, they know it's afoot and are investigating possibilities.
At the most esoteric extreme of the evidence is the evidence for a boom in space travel. I was just over at the science programs open house, and would somewhat imagine this will not sound so strange to you. Still, I wonder what you think. To me the evidence predicts a massive human space migration in the offing. It's quite whacky. It's going to be a huge, huge market, like selling cars or jet travel, except bigger.
It is going to require highly economical extremely versatile extremely mobile super strong and ultra light weight structural systems.
Still a bit more context - it is necessary to me to provide this:
Terrestrial infrastructure will play a very large role in creating and supporting this reality. The nice thing is the evidence - some of it - points towards a green and lovely earth acting as, in some sense, a home, or just home, for all those travelers - if this happens - or just for us. We could ask the theologians about that one. In a sense this huge project, a new blossoming of humanity, is an educational project. This blossoming will be achieved via the discipline of design, and millions of people will train in that discipline. For these reasons I'm deeply interested in computing. I'm deeply interested in a lot of things. The new blossoming of terrestrial humanity could be described as urbanism. In each of these areas, space, urbanism, and computing, I think the industries will move in directions that will surprise most people, and at a pace that will continue to surprise us. For example, I think most people, if asked, would say the computer revolution is mostly over, but the evidence I'm presented with suggests it has only begun, and that the dramatic rate at which computing developed in its first wave will continue <I>exponentially</I>.
I think I know where it's going. This is my other major invention. My essay is not complete without description of it. My core thought is that information is not data. Data is the emergent medium, but information is, narrowly speaking, rendered markup, and, broadly speaking, in the emergent nomenclature, virtual experience. This subdivides into a spectrum of applications. Ultraviolet is the classical arts, which convey experiences to us, their patrons. Their markup is things like scores, plays, painterly aesthetics. Then there's the scholastic disciplines, and all our literature, and the technical design disciplines, and all of these have to do with overwhelmingly one thing: visual representation.
This visual representation, this information, is printed words, the actual shapes of the letters, and of the words, and it is diagrammatical imagery and pictorial imagery of every type, and then it is like a tunnel, leading deeper, because we sometimes see paintings of rooms full of paintings. In fact, we often see such pictures, in fact, all our pictures are ultimately of that sort. I predict that that is the evolutionary direction of digital media.
Virtual Reality somehow, today, hovers on the fringes of computing. It's the most esoteric lab work, and the strange world of gaming. Now, inevitably, we will extend it more and more into everybody's real lives: our work. This is how more of us will become designers, planners, and analysts: people who could never have, in the past, afforded or accessed extensive libraries and laboratories of various sorts, and who even still can't, will, in the near future, have access to those facilities. But this will not be lists of files, certainly, or even (just) interlinked "pages", but more, actually, like actual libraries ... where you walk into a room, beautifully furnished, and on the shelves and tables there are books. Select a book and turn the pages. And you can make copies and put them in your folder and then, in another place, you can spread them out and study them, make even more focused notes, assemble them into, say, letters, in envelopes, and send those envelopes to other people, who will find them in their mailboxes, which are in rooms - thinking Second Life.
These applications require an algorithm for describing an infinity of space. That, to me, is the key point, the key principle that actually defines them. Our computers, their physical memories, can handle this, it's our software that needs to develop. We need to take the next step, but that step isn't incremental. Describing limited space, and, by extension, severely limited space, simply won't do. But there is a transitional reality, something between lists of file names and arbitrary renderings of pages and the unattainable, evolutionary ultimate expression of the principle. That transitional methodology is along the lines of wysiwyg web design, multi-layered web pages, browser zoom implementations, and interactive lists.

I know it sounds crazy. I actually am a crazy person. I have no intention of communicating with anyone by any means other than e-mail, and for people to get to know me better, I publish blogs. I have a very settled but very out of the ordinary life that revolves around a beautiful house (that I lucked into) and wild and fairly amazing garden, a kitchen ... a laptop computer and endless web pages. Nothing, really, is going to change that at all, and it's too strange to readily invite people in - I have to do it unreadily ... virtually.

color

  Participating in the celebration for Paolo's 90th (91st?), I noticed that a discussion of Arcosanti's finances was scheduled. I was amazed, and said to myself "I want to attend that!" It has long been my habit to think a great deal about how to move the mission forward - I'm, with some justification, criticized for doing nothing but thinking, but I like to do that - and - I like to take something of a maverick stand in my thinking - I liked to think finance would have a lot to do with it. Mary synopsized Arcosanti's financial plan, suggesting that we attempt to raise $100,000. I thought "just as I thought". I managed to commandeer the microphone - the only time I've spoken into one of those - it was kind of fun - and said something to the effect that we will accomplish what we set out to accomplish, and it was my opinion we should raise not hundreds of thousands of dollars but hundreds of millions of dollars. I am not at all kidding when I say the crowd went wild. People were shouting things out all around the theater. When the hubbub quieted, Paolo, who had his own microphone - very nice - laughed and said "Well, when that kind of money is involved, it requires ruthlessness." He rolled the r melodiously. Making a joke, I shrugged and said "OK." But I was prepared and added that there are other ways to approach it, too, planning, vision. Paolo wasn't expecting a reply. He squeaked "Huh!" Then he told me to keep in touch. (That wasn't going to happen. I spoke with him again on one or two occasions, briefly, about nothing much. That's OK. It was still fun. I am a bit in touch, sending messages to one person or another, occasionally hearing back, occasionally seeing someone, socially.)

 I am not part of the current planning process. I'm thinking about writing a little statement about why, or why not, about my personal shortcomings. But I suspect my maverick tendency has something to do with it, as well. Back in the day, before that event, I attempted to speak with a number of people about my ideas. I learned it was a losing proposition. (After my little speech, a couple of the more professionally established alums approached me, eager to engage. They soon, however, became almost hateful towards me. I'm just so weird, I guess. Plus, I'm talking realistically, and these are not easy challenges we face. I'm pretty sure if I ever succeed in making something happen it will be by dint of extreme persistence ... as much as anything.) I also wrote quite a bit. I gave Paolo two quite extended manifestos. I know the first one made it into the archives, and one person read it, and told Paolo, at a "Minds" session about my neologism, arcologistics, which Paolo did think was interesting. When I gave Paolo the second, which was quite a stack of pages, he said - with a warm smile, which surprised me - "Oh, I can't read all this. I'll give it to Mary." Mary later said she couldn't understand it at all. Perhaps it's in the archives, too. At any rate, I don't have copies of either of those myself, any longer.

No matter. I just keep writing, searching for ways to actually communicate. Some of my recent e-mails have slightly amused Mary and Russell ... they acknowledged a couple of messages. Still, it wasn't like they were outright inviting my thoughts. I rather understand. I told Mary it would be more proper if I were to publish, instead of relying on the board ... i.e., friends. With that said, I don't really know how to proceed. This is obviously why I asked Mary where you were, not seeing you on the listing of board members, now. She gave me your address.

I don't even have much hope that my writing is publishable. My main purpose in writing to you here is, I think, just to share a thought, which is my longstanding feeling that Paolo's efforts as a writer are such a large part of his accomplishment, of his method, and that we (his acolytes) ought to keep that up, writing and publishing. I imagine the board would agree. Unless I really don't know those people, it is part of their plan, and they take it seriously. Perhaps I ought to just wait and see what they come up with. I hope they strive for the same level of excellence that Paolo achieved. One very respectable person commented to me that, in his opinion, Paolo was a very poor writer. It is true, Paolo's writing is extremely difficult - I think that is what he meant - and, also, his logic is irritating, but I don't agree he was a poor writer. The aesthetics of his writing, though not without its flaws, achieves at a very high level, and, also, there's the fact that it is so very theoretical, by which I do not mean that I agree with him on matters of theory, more than some of the time, or that I don't disagree quite vehemently with a good part of it. What I mean is that its utterly theoretical quality is something I greatly admire. Well, there's the possibility I could improve my writing, or my thinking. You probably know. Perhaps you will advise me. Or, maybe I'm underselling myself.

Way back when I was a workshopper, just a kid, with no business thinking I was special - my passion for Paolo's thought burned with, I still think, and even in the context - unusual fierceness - I had the impression I was the only one at Arcosanti, including Paolo, who actually thought arcology was something we could do. Acknowledging that that is a design problem - a tricky thing to talk about - I also thought it was an engineering problem. I approached Paolo with this thought, but he wasn't inclined to discuss it. He said the engineering is in the drawings, which I wholly agree it is, up to a point. I thought it was a good answer, actually, but I wanted to take it further in some way. At the time, I had some vague ideas about how to do that. They weren't very useful. I kept thinking about it, though, and one day I had a real revelation. This is already two decades ago, and since then I have, you could say, continuously struggled to articulate that concept ... and, though, also, in a sense, to not articulate it, because what it comes down to is, it's intellectual property. That's a synopsis of my ongoing circumstances. I'm struggling to say "this is what I want us to be able to do, and if you engage with me, in a business venture, I know how to do it." It has, in fact, just in the last couple of days, occurred to me that one of my long held constructs of purpose is actually the right way to synthesize the idea. Even during my workshop I was thinking: if we can make the building of arcologies (again, an aesthetic problem as well as a technical one, if that distinction can be made) extremely easy and affordable, they'll get built. This system that I suddenly saw in my mind's eye, one hot moment in Tempe, has, I think, very much, that potential. There is another construct that I arrived at - saw, at least saw more fully - a bit later, which is that building arcologies is a political problem. If we propose things which will, as everyone (speaking somewhat metaphorically) will clearly see will rather ruin their day, even if it is saving the world, even if it is quite beautiful, there will be political opposition, on a great scale. But, if our proposal is, on the one hand, clearly quite doable, and, on the other hand, if it in some visible sense does not impose itself on the small worlds in which people live, and which they treasure, then the political barrier towards doing it might melt away. It might be replaced by broad support.

Politics is actually a technology itself. It can be used to get things done. Literature, theory, and aesthetics are technologies. Imagination is a technology. Finance is a technology. I am particularly a student of the latter. I won't tell you that whole story, here, but I wanted to correct Paolo on his views on the subject. Properly understood it is not synonymous with greed, avarice, but is more a manifestation of prudence. True, finance is an aspect of reality, and avarice and ruthlessness are aspects of reality, so they do intersect, but the foundation of finance is, in fact, frugality. Frugality is actually built into the mathematics of finance, and it is why those mathematics can actually work, actually produce something. Even though those mathematics are very, very simple, clearly, only a few people understand them, and most people misunderstand them. I have heard a word or two to indicate that the board (Cosanti Foundation) actually does, or might understand them. They are like a clam that has shut itself up fast, promising to open again in a few years with a report. I wonder if it will reflect my hope that they do understand finance. Still, I am inclined to verbosely beat around the bush, here and there, in essays, not because I am reluctant to discuss the mathematics of finance (except inasmuch as the response when I mention the subject is not interest and further inquiry, but rather the opposite), but, because, as I say, my own plan revolves around intellectual property, and thus a kind of secrecy.

So, this thing I suddenly saw is a technology. It's a product, to be mass produced, which people can buy, and out of which they can build arcologies, or, if they prefer, towers, and bridges, at exceptionally ambitious scale, and, really, a host of other things, in fact, in a sense, anything, with the utmost ease and economy. It has the unique quality of facilitating scale and intricacy, in design and construction. (True, it's untested. In principle it has this quality.) That, then, is my scheme: a licensing scheme, by means of which I hope to make a new, most ambitious kind of construction widely possible, and even real, and to bring to myself and - dreamily - Arcosanti, immense wealth, which I think would be a good thing.

OK. I recently, thrashing about, sent a letter to Michael Crow about my invention, which I want to link you to here. I also sent it to Mary, and she wrote back a bit later asking whether I had heard back from Mr. Crow. I had completely forgotten about it. No, I did not hear back from him. But I heard from Mary! Additionally, I have, over the years, developed some schemes for Arcosanti proper. Those I have not shared with Mary, or the board, fearing they would feel I am intruding, but I did write them up, in one form, on a blog post, so I'll link you to them. I feel I have not heard this kind of thought, or thinking, from Arcosanti.  I mean, it originates, I think, this kind of thinking, in Paolo's thinking, in particular what might be called his early thinking, but I feel he went in one direction from there, and I am going in another direction, very much from there, but another direction, even one he later rejected, for reasons I don't entirely agree with (not that I entirely disagree, though). At any rate, if Arcosanti were already communicating such thoughts, there would be no reason for me to attempt to do so, other than to assert concurrence. But, perhaps, since they are possibly not ... well ... seemingly not ... not communicating such thoughts ... maybe there is a reason for me to do so in that. And, finally, at a certain time I thought the key to getting traction with my thinking was to do drawings, and I did some. They didn't help me gain traction, and the ones I published represent something incomplete, and the essay on Arcosanti proper describes what I attempted to describe in them, but at least they might add a bit of color. Well, I'm almost done, but not quite. It was quite a triumph for me to get a reply or two from Mary. Mind you, Mary is a dear friend, a close friend, but, in the interest of that, I have avoided pestering her with these matters. Still, at a certain point, I had to. Well, she encouraged me a little, then, but I found myself, after that, in a state of almost trauma, and for several weeks I haven't done anything. Then, for whatever reason, this morning I found myself writing again. First (4am) I wrote two short essays (1) (2) ... and now this.

dimensions

Paolo identified, as a problem, the two dimensional city, but, in the end, what he proposed as a solution, is a one dimensional city. He skipped the rails. And it appears as if those in charge of his legacy are wholly focused on the one dimensional paradigm. Where the faulty unevolved city occupies the two dimensions of "out", the Soleri phenomenon seems to be headed in the one direction, up. I am advocating for a three or twenty dimensional effort, up, out, and everything in between.

forward

Paolo didn't know what he created. At an intuitive level he did, when he created it, but when it came time - with time passing - to explain it, he didn't know what it was. He though it was, or suggested it was, the salvation of the world. This is the kind of thought that emerges when people don't know. He may have explained it as a form of destiny. He identified it as having something to do with something like passion. These latter constructs are relevant and not incorrect. Still, they are ways of saying (correctly, usefully) that we don't know. They refer, in effect, to effects. He signed off saying that space is the only reality, which is half true, and only that. Space, too, is an effect. We can say that we are creating various effects, but effects of what. Then we need to speak of architecture, which, in the moment of creation, he did. Architecture, the material origin of effects, that is, matter. Shapes, really, that is, matter. Intuitively Paolo discovered something, a possibility, in matter, but he thought what he had discovered was an effect. It's a human impulse: rejecting the material. "This base stuff cannot be what this sublimity is. We must look elsewhere." But no, the matter is what is sublime. It is where the sublime effect originates. What Paolo discovered was a shape. He called it, half-comprehending, complexity. We must reclaim that discovery from Paolo's wandering, beautiful, lean, mean mind, and move forward.

book

what Buffet suggests we do

what Tim Sykes suggests we do

flat narrow active lines at low prices

list

better file cabinets

everyone programs their own computers

better storage

better appliances

better home services

designing and building our own cars

designing and building our own solar installations

everyone has their own giant library

better battery charger

things an image editor should do

better browser

stock photo map

better dish soap

sodas in returnables

get tc2000 info

I am wholly committed to trading the cheapest stocks on the market, thus pinks, otc, greys. When I did my tc2000 trial, I liked the way there was a list of several thousand stocks that I could click through with a simple next button, but the list did not include pinks/otc/greys. I did find settings that were supposed to add the latter, but I couldn't really figure them out.

Then there was the scanner, and I never figured that out at all. (I never took a class. I'm not so good with classes.)


How would I scan for stocks that are at their one year low and x% below the one year high? By at the one year low I mean the low of the previous day (like, if I'm running the scan on a Tuesday morning it would be Monday's low) is the one year low.

Another scan I might want to run is stocks with previous day's low at or below a certain price and the 1 year low prior to previous day above that price. I never figured out the first thing about setting up custom scans. Is that scan possible?

like

job
folks, i haven't studied the company, but after a brief review, i like it
but keep in mind, even if it's a good company, if you buy it at a high price
the stock is likely to go down. buy good companies at good prices.
this is a watch list, not a buy list. i might comment again.
part of the game is waiting and watching.

acgx
the top at 1 penny is the target

paper trading

This is Alphapoint Technology, and I'm using it in my study of points. appo. it's not a buy yet. 4-7-15

atgn
point after point after point .... definition of a bottom .... and now, an advance .... thinking .... if this comes down now, it becomes very interesting. 4-7-15

mice

While most people are busy inventing better mouse traps, I have invented a better mouse.

Completely precise and consistent operation. Less stress. Better results. Wireless, no batteries, extremely portable. Extremely inexpensive to manufacture and distribute. Hint: it's software.