whatwhat

Nice example. Here's another: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Magicicada

http://www.baltimoresun.com/bal-te.ms.cicada10may10,0,563814...

>You can't do what you suggest in an open, collaborative model. It's too susceptible to malicious actors.

Sure you can. All you need is a suitable counterintelligence and counter-deception wing to crosscheck sources. There's plenty of good open source literature out there on how to set up such a structure (the intelligence scholar Roy Godson's books being one).

>What Anon needs is hackers, not spies.

That's like saying what the military needs is more engineers and less intelligence. Obviously you haven't read your Sun Tzu. To win, you need both. You also need some overarching strategy as well, so far, it looks like Anon is lacking in that department.

What gets me is that what Anonymous is doing isn't terribly sophisticated. Imagine if they had an overarching military-like strategy and intelligence system to back them up, rather than a stand alone complex like "LET'S DDOS STUFF" and obtaining "docs" on people.

Shit. It makes me want to join in.

Also been thinking for awhile, what's needed is an intelligence clearinghouse.

An open revolution wiki that goes beyond dropping docs to one that mimics the world's intelligence systems. Collating information on organizations, people, things. Linking them together. What makes them culturally tick. Their logistical backbone. Their economic makeup. Their command and information gathering apparatus. Their political connections. Their geo and temporal locations.

A target-centric database that people can extract useable tactical information from, so when the times comes ...

Thanks.

Ok, I think I might understand what you are getting at. I seem to be confusing two different forms of knowledge: reasoning and memory (where reasoning can be used to produce other truths).

I'm not saying that problem solving and understanding aren't important (see Bloom's taxonomy).

I'm saying that you still need memory to justify whatever domain your knowledge is in, and that memory seems to be the bedrock of further knowledge (understanding, creativity, problem solving etc.).

Am I missing something here? Do you not need some element of memory to explain things from first principles, and to have an understanding of something?

edit: I've just realized from reading wtallis' comment that I might be confusing two different forms of knowledge: memory and reasoning, insofar as reasoning can produce further truths. Is that what you are getting at?

Thanks. That's a great response.

Can I ask you a question?

Why is rote memorization frowned upon in math?

I'm a second year math student about to enter his third year. I enter a lot of the definitions, theorems, etc. into a flash card software (Anki) for memorization. I combine this with doing tons of proofs and problems from various textbooks depending upon the course I'm studying. I would say from personal experience that rote memorization has definitely helped me: (1) understand the math better; (2) excel in exams, and; (3) able to solve extra and harder problems from books.

So I'm struggling to see why rote memorization is bad. Is not memory useful for justifying knowledge? I'm not saying memorization is the only thing. Just that it seems to build the foundation for everything else, as per Bloom's cognitive taxonomy: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Bloom%27s_Tax...

I'm confused, which manifesto did you read? Half of Kaczynski's manifesto is a rant against modern leftism.

What's your reasoning behind him being a subset of the left, when he clearly has argued against them?

edit: also, from paragraph 18 of his manifesto: "18. Modern leftist philosophers tend to dismiss reason, science, objective reality and to insist that everything is culturally relative."

I think you haven't read the manifesto, and just wanted to drop Rand into a conversation for no good reason.

Also check out the book "The Thinker's Toolkit" by Morgan Jones. He was a former CIA analyst. It contains 14 different analytical tools in the book that were taught to CIA analysts (including an extensive discussion on testing hypotheses).

Ad hominem was originally a rhetorical technique used to undermine a person's ethos (their moral character).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethos#Rhetoric

It was used to undermine a person's character so the audience was less likely to take what they say seriously (the same technique is used in courts when dodgy witnesses are presented, it's also used everywhere in political/religious arguments, even by the supposed "rationalist" crowd).

Something I hate about the internet is how amateurs "rediscover the wheel" in article after article. This is the difference between professional writers and amateurs. Pros at least sometimes do their research.