Why no-one talks about the Wayback Machine any more

Well, to be totally frank, I’m not sure very many people ever did talk about the Wayback Machine (also known as ‘The Internet Archive’).

In fact, I can’t recall ever having talked about it myself. Which is kind of odd, really, because over the years I’ve resorted to it on a number of occasions.

Linkrot really ought to be a dirty word.

It’s one of the ironies of the information age that so little attention is given to ensuring the longevity of a web address. You’d think that those who post information onto this world wide web thingy would value their words more, and try to give them some longevity. But no: given the choice of leaving existing, useful content where it is or sprucing it up a bit, they’ll all too often choose the latter, and in the process, they might even give it a brand spanking new domain name, too (and without even bothering to leave a forwarding address).

Could it be that folk don’t fully understand the underlying technology? (Surely not! I’m told it’s not rocket science.) Maybe they just don’t value their own content?

Perhaps it’s simply another symptom of our throwaway society.

Anyway, I digress… I had reason to refer back to an earlier wibblette (to wit, Marcus Brigstocke’s excellent rant against climate change deniers), and I noticed that some images were missing. Yes, you guessed it: linkrot had begun to set in. So I spent a little time with the Wayback Machine to repair some of the damage. And, having done so, I thought I’d talk a little about the trusty ol’ Internet Archive.

Since nobody else seems to.

And now, having done that*, I’ll toddle off and donate a few of my hard-earned pennies to this non-profit organization as a ‘thank you’ for their years of unfailing service (and cross my fingers and hope that it’ll still be around long into the future).

* Wait, what do you mean, “I didn’t”? Well, good grief, I’ve given you links — what more do you need? ;)

(Headline courtesy of Portent’s Content Idea Generator. Thanks!)

MODERNISING MONEY

Here’s an unsung scandal of global proportions — together with a fix for it. The big problem is that those who hold the wealth will probably fight it tooth and nail…

MODERN TIMES IN MUDSHIRES

Money creation should only be used in the public interest

The same banks that caused the financial crisis currently have the power to create 97% of the UK’s money. They’ve used this power recklessly, putting most of the money they create into property bubbles and financial markets. And now they’re back to their old ways.

We need a change. The power to create money should only be used in the public interest, in a democratic, transparent and accountable way. The 1844 law that makes it illegal for anyone other than the Bank of England to create paper money should be updated to apply to the electronic money currently created by banks.

Banks create new money, in the form of the numbers (deposits) that appear in bank accounts, through the accounting process used when they make loans. In the words of the Bank of England:

“When a bank makes a loan…

View original post 775 more words

Fooled by familiarity

I’ve long had a fascination with illusion. The subject of change blindness excites me; it impacts upon many aspects of existence.

A thread on Learning from Dogs the other day reminded me again of this phenomenon. An understanding of how reluctantly our senses acknowledge incremental alteration might help explain many things, such as: how we continue to believe that although advertising may affect others, it doesn’t affect us (even though billions are spent introducing such intrusive brainwashing crap into our ‘choice’ of goggle-box watching — why would they do that if it didn’t work?); or how we continue to accept the argument that ‘economic growth’ is a worthy pursuit when all the evidence shows that all it does is destroy the world in which we live; or how we welcome the arrival of new technologies even as they further accentuate the divide between us and nature; or… how we came to be facing a crisis-laden future without noticing it sneaking up on us in plain sight.

AKA:

Yo, dudes!!111 My mate blogged some great photos that got me thinking about just how easy it is to frack things up even with the bestest intentions.

The big question is, given that we’re physiologically incapable of recognising small incremental change, is an understanding of this fact in any way helpful? To amend our behaviour, we would need know exactly what changes have occurred: Catch 22.

[To continue the descent into lunacy, check out ‘change blindness blindness‘ (PDF).]

Poles apart

May I please have five minutes (and 31 seconds)* of your time?

With many thanks to Peter Sinclair, I offer two video clips he’s recently presented on his blog Climate Denial Crock of the Week that reveal what’s unfolding on our world.

First, watch as old Arctic ice silently pours through the Fram Strait, like a hunted animal bleeding to death (97,134 views to date):

Now, listen as NASA glaciologist Eric Rignot describes how the speed of the retreat of Antarctican glaciers is faster than any models can predict (a mere 6,292 views to date):

* Plus however long it takes you to read my words and click the links.

What goes around, comes around

Who controls the money supply?

This is a fascinating subject. Incredibly, while people believe that they understand how money works, the vast majority don’t appreciate the reality. The documentary ‘97% Owned‘ (below) highlights the fact that if we continue as we are, another global financial meltdown is inevitable. The film labours the point, and is short on solutions, given that these lie in the hands of those who govern (who are either just as clueless as the rest of us or are in collusion with the private banks — take your pick). To my mind, too, the background music soundtrack is annoying; a minor point, perhaps, but then if you’re trying to get a difficult message across to the incredulous then you need as few distractions as possible.

If you’re in the UK and want to know more, please visit positivemoney.org — and sign their petition calling for a future Prime Minister who will ensure that money creation will only be used in the public interest.

(Anyone living near Cambridge in the UK may be interested in a Cambridge Positive Money group meeting being held on Tuesday 27 January 2015.)

Believing In a Better World..

The ‘Uplift’ video (don’t not watch it, it’s only five minutes) at the end of Sue’s marvellous post reminded me about this classic Marcus Brigstocke rant.

Dreamwalker's Sanctuary

I am sure that many of us wonder just where we are heading in our world which on the surface may appear to be more violent and aggressive every day.. Despite all the horrors I still believe in Miracles..

For those who are regular readers will know, I speak often upon the Earth Changes and how best we can help bring in positive change into the world.

So instead of surrendering to the Fear and joining in the judgements of others. I remind myself of my own story and focus upon my own creations. We need to stay centred within our own Peace, and stand in our own Truth.

It is up to us who believe in Love and miracles that Change for the positive is possible. It’s up to us to spread love and not get embroiled in the Fear Games we are seeing being played out by the…

View original post 304 more words

Could do better: why we must set young minds free

Here is further proof (if any is needed), eloquently expounded, that our species ought to be renamed: homo fatuus brutus. If we’re so smart, why are we running around in this endless, fruitless, maze?

VIVID

In the same week that my 16 year old son began assessing his options for subjects and sixth form colleges for next year, his 11 year old brother made a bold but flawed attempt to bunk off school, managing to duck away from the school bus and secrete himself in the local churchyard with his packed lunch and a plan to sit out the day under a bush.

The closeness of the school community and his older brother’s vigilance meant that his absence was spotted and reported within an hour; to his chagrin he was back in school for second lesson. But there were insights to be taken from this traumatic, if brief experience.

View original post 2,346 more words

Are we ready for 2015?

Graph (hand-drawn in 2008) showing that carbon emissions must peak by 2015 to keep global warming to the internationally agreed upper limit of 2°C (the point beyond which we risk runaway climate change).

I’m not sorry for sounding somewhat melodramatic, here: what we face is nothing less than the archetypical existential threat. You may well dismiss me as ‘alarmist’: but if you were in a crowded theatre and you were to hear me shout “FIRE!” — what would you do then?

When, in late 2009, I first saw The Age of Stupid, I was struck by one scene in which ‘a man in a shed’ stated, quite categorically, that humanity’s carbon emissions had to peak by around 2015 in order for us to avoid the risks of passing beyond 2°C above the average pre-industrial global temperature. Almost everyone agrees that two degrees centigrade of warming is the threshold beyond which we will face serious risk of uncontrollable planet-wide climate change effects of potentially catastrophic proportions. And I do mean ‘civilisation-ending’.

This is not histrionics; it’s based upon very solid science. The ‘man in the shed’ is Mark Lynas, whose book ‘Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet’ won the Royal Society’s science book of the year award in 2008. In the short video clip below he speaks from that same year, and his message is blunt: he says we have “seven years” to stabilise global carbon emissions to avoid the risk of climate change accelerating beyond our ability to control it.

The problem is that 2008 + 7 = 2015. Those seven years are up: we’ve squandered them.

Now, I don’t know if you’ve been paying attention — perhaps you’re more focused upon the fortunes of your favourite football team, or the latest antics on ‘Strictly’ or Eastenders; maybe your mind is firmly on your house or job move, or where your children are going to school next year, or any one of the myriad of (relative) trivia such as the ‘immigrant problem’, or the ‘war on terror’ — so in case you’re not familiar with the current situation:

Global carbon emissions are not slowing towards a peak in this coming year. On the contrary, emissions are soaring beyond anything humans have ever previously managed. I’m talking BIG numbers. Yay, us: we’re beating all records.

So… What are your new year resolutions?

A very minion Christmas!

(Hat tip to Star Guy!)

Skeptics: Stop Calling Deniers “Skeptics”

This call by (real) sceptics to stop conflating ‘skeptic’ and ‘denier’ deserves to be better publicised. Denial of scientific fact is not scepticism!

For clarification, I’ll steal the words of one of the commenters, lesliegraham1:

The word denier dates from the 15th century and simply means ‘one who denies’.

“…Denialism is the employment of rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none. These false arguments are used when one has few or no facts to support one’s viewpoint against a scientific consensus or against overwhelming evidence to the contrary. They are effective in distracting from actual useful debate using emotionally appealing, but ultimately empty and illogical assertions….”

That definition fits climate change deniers to an absolute ‘T’.
There is simply no other word in the English language that is more apt.

The comment thread (in the original) makes for some entertaining reading, as the resident troll on climatecrocks flaps around wittering about ‘the pause’.

Climate Denial Crock of the Week

As climate denial goes the way of snake oil and table tipping, real Skeptics would like the media to please stop sullying their good name.

Skeptical Inquirer:

Prominent scientists, science communicators, and skeptic activists, including Bill Nye “the Science Guy,” physicist Lawrence Krauss, Cosmos co-creator Ann Druyan, and many others are calling on the news media to stop using the word “skeptic” when referring to those who refuse to accept the reality of climate change, and instead refer to them by what they really are: science deniers.

The statement, signed by 48 Fellows of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI), comes as a response to a New York Times article from Nov 10, 2014, “Republicans Vow to Fight EPA and Approve Keystone Pipeline,” which referred to Sen. James Inhofe, who believes climate change to be an elaborate hoax, as “a prominent skeptic of climate change.”

“As scientific…

View original post 968 more words