Cassiopaean timeline

[vinny]

This is really nice, Nomad, and I think the format would lend itself quite well to what we are talking about with the timeline if this is the direction we go in. The other subjects are nicely done so far as well -- exciting reference tool in the making!

great, thanks for the feedback! I think it would be a really useful reference and presentation tool, not only for timelines, but for all kinds of visual representations of data and patterns and relationships, and may be could be linked in with, for example, Burma Jones' map presentation, where 'data nodes' are tagged to a location.

So, for those who are interested: in its current experimental state, it is a series of xml files containing the pages with some simple wiki-ish markup, that is then expanded out into fully functional html/javascript with pictures / popups / crosslinks /CSS etc by a simple C++ pre-processor which dumps the whole thing out as a set of static html files that I upload.

The plan is to convert this into a content management system using mySQL, with the preprocessor formatting engine built in (using PHP) - this would be the important part, because pages contain popups of data which are from other pages, and this is actually recursive to some extent. So when a page is updated, the popups that reference it from other pages may also change. Sounds complcated, but actually it's not too bad - as new data is entered, the way I see it is that all the changes are stored and the formatted html should be generated at store time, I think. This reduces complexity and server load when viewing the pages, and puts all the load on the 'save' side, which is the right way round.

I really like the Ruby on Rails framework structure, but, I think the pragmatic solution (for all sorts of reasons - faster, easier hosting, more people know PHP etc etc) would be to use a PHP framework which emulates this - there is a PHP framework called Akelos which is basically a port of Ruby on Rails, and so I'm about to start doing something with this. I'm actually a PHP newbie but it shouldn't be a problem to pickup quite quickly. It will take a lot of work to get it online as a proper CMS, but at that point there is a real big payoff, because it becomes available for multiple users to input all the data. Using this partiicular framework makes the job a LOT easier, because of it's amazingly useful structure, use of templates, great data modelling etc.

I have a very clear idea of where I'm going with this project, and I'm open to the possibility of collaborating, if it would make things easier. At the moment I'm trying to gather info so that I construct it in the right way, so if the discussion gets too technical then we can move it to another thread. So, for now, any suggestions are welcome. Oh, and if anyone has experience of other PHP frameworks which they think are really excellent and might be more suitable, please let me know.

 

[vinny]

It is interesting that it takes some thoughts
juggling around the images/text (data) in order
to get the best presentation as possible.[...]

thanks for the feedback, Dant. I agree that text-hyperlinks are needed as well as the picture links, and pictures maybe aren't necessarily the prime-requirement in a timeline.
The underlying idea for this site is that some people (such as myself) work in a 'visual' way, and that the use of images keys into the brain's mechanism of memory / organisation by 'association', "seeing the bigger picture" etc, and visual keys can be very powerful. So, I think the trick is to work it in so that there is a lot of visual information, in the form of key pictures and linking-structure, backed up by textual information that provides more details to flesh out the visual-associations - se we've got two different types of information which are interleaved, in a way that can be condusive to greater understanding / recall, and lead to the ability to see and infer new connections.

As for the juggling of images needing some human input to get the best representation, well, yes, this is interesting. It seems that a fully automated generator just wouldn't work. So, we have a machine that definitely needs the spark of human input / intuition to get the best result, so my aim is to try to build a tool that allows us to do this as easily as possible.

 

[vinny]

So, given that we have a lot of people wanting to contribute and the first thing we need is data to work with, why don't we start off with setting up a quick database that we can collect the data with? We just need to solidify exactly what is going to be in this database. Here is a first shot to get the ball rolling:
[...]

If the timeline data can be intrinsically part of the wider relational-wiki-style data so much the better. I'm working on it, stay tuned.

 

[foofighter]

Nomad, have you looked at the Simile Exhibit/Timeline project for visuals? I think it would be really nice if we could use them for the visualization, as they have already done much of the hard work to visualize the data using timelines, faceted browsing, Google Maps overlays, and so on.

As for editing data, it would be nice to be able to work locally on collecting data, and then submitting it to a server. One way to do that, which I have tried before, is to put the data in an Excel spreadsheet that follows some structure. The server then parses it and puts the data in the database. This way it is easy to upload lots of data in one go instead of having to do form-entry through the browser, which can be quite timeconsuming.

 

[vinny]

Nomad, have you looked at the Simile Exhibit/Timeline project for visuals? I think it would be really nice if we could use them for the visualization, as they have already done much of the hard work to visualize the data using timelines, faceted browsing, Google Maps overlays, and so on.

yeah! Timeline is very nice, and I think I may use it, but not exclusively, it performs a specific limited role - The one important thing it cannot do, is the 'human designed' interlink patterns with pics, in order to express the connections exactly as you want them in order to effectively/visually 'tell a story', as brought up by Dant and my response to him - difficult for me to describe exactly what I mean (the proof will be in the pudding, I guess), but the Timeline machine-generated output is just not expressive enough for this. Other than that, it is a good tool, especially for mapping large numbers of data points.

I agree, Exhibit also looks good, and seems to provide a useful way, in particular, of pinning stuff onto a nice interactive google-map board.

I need to get the basics done first :)

 

[GRiM]

Nomad, have you seen this web-app http://timeglider.com/ ? The problem, if the program even works for this type of data, is that the timeline-collaboration feature cost money. The one user version is free though.

 

[JEEP]

Kudos in regards to the visual-wiki project. It's clear that a lot of time and effort has gone into it. I do have one concern. In clicking on the pic of FDR, the alleged quote, "In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens you can bet it was planned that way. " appears. From footnote 369 on page 516 of The Secret History of the World:

I've never been able to confirm this attribution, but the idea, as a hypothesis, seems to be quite useful in predicting.

I was more than a little shocked to read this disclaimer in the book having also come across the quote previously somewhere in the Cass/Wave/Sott material - don't remember exactly where. I did decide to investigate at that time to see if I could discover anything credible. I found the following on Answerbag.com:

Question posed by Friendo on 10/4/08:

Did FDR really say, "In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens you can bet it was planned that way. " ? I can't find source documentation of this. A little help?

Reply from Schonberg:

I have surfed for an answer and this is all I can find. Attributed: In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens you can bet it was planned that way. There are no records of Roosevelt having made such a statement, and this is most likely a misquotation of the widely reported comment he made in a speech at the Citadel (23 October 1935): Yes. we are on the way back — not by mere chance, not by a turn of the cycle. We are coming back more soundly than ever before because we planned it that way, and don't let anybody tell you differently.

Response from Friendo:

Yep. Got the same thing. It's one of my favorite quotes. I'm gonna have to dump it if I can't get a source. Thanks for the assist, schonberg.

It seems to me to be not only disingenuous but downright wrong to actively promote the belief that FDR said those exact words when there is no factual proof of it. Yes, it certainly does give weight to the whole conspiricy agenda to think that FDR actually said this, but since he really didn't, I don't believe it's right to keep inferring that he did. It's not like there aren't plenty of other facts available for supporting the contention of a web of lies that have been woven from past to present. Just because FDR was more appropriately reticent than either of the President Bushes is just too bad in the quest to illuminate wrong doing. You can't make stuff up! If Cassiopea/Sott.net stands for objective truth, then objective truth it must be, IMHO.

 

[GRiM]

Furthermore, from the War Diaries of Secretary Stimson recorded by Charles A Beard, in his book - PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT & THE COMING OF THE WAR 1941. A Study In Appearances And Realities. Yale University Press. We find confirmation of Copeland's astonishing assertion, by Secretary Stimson in the following passage from his diary. Beard describes Stimson as;

"A leading and pertinacious actor in the affairs of the time, (who wrote) in his Diary for November 25th, 1941: 'Then at 12 o'clock we (viz. General Marshall and I) went to the White House, where we were until nearly half past one. At the meeting were Hull, Knox, Stark, and myself. The President, instead of bringing up the Victory Parade - This was an office nickname for the General Staff strategic plan of national action in case of war in Europe - brought up the event that we were likely to be attacked perhaps - as soon as next Monday, for the Japanese are notorious for making an attack without warning, and the question was what we should do. The question was how we should manoeuvre them into firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves..." Chapter XVII p.517. The actual attack took place on December 7th 1941. On Roosevelt's desk was a plaque which read: "NOTHING HAPPENS BY ACCIDENT".

I don't think he said it in a official speech, rather it was overheard by someone. When I searched myself, first via google I got 2090000 hits for the phrase "In politics, nothing happens by accident".

 

[JEEP]

In clicking on the pic of FDR, the alleged quote, "In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens you can bet it was planned that way. " appears. From footnote 369 on page 516 of The Secret History of the World:

I've never been able to confirm this attribution, but the idea, as a hypothesis, seems to be quite useful in predicting.

Furthermore, from the War Diaries of Secretary Stimson recorded by Charles A Beard, in his book - PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT & THE COMING OF THE WAR 1941. A Study In Appearances And Realities. Yale University Press. We find confirmation of Copeland's astonishing assertion, by Secretary Stimson in the following passage from his diary. Beard describes Stimson as;

"A leading and pertinacious actor in the affairs of the time, (who wrote) in his Diary for November 25th, 1941: 'Then at 12 o'clock we (viz. General Marshall and I) went to the White House, where we were until nearly half past one. At the meeting were Hull, Knox, Stark, and myself. The President, instead of bringing up the Victory Parade - This was an office nickname for the General Staff strategic plan of national action in case of war in Europe - brought up the event that we were likely to be attacked perhaps - as soon as next Monday, for the Japanese are notorious for making an attack without warning, and the question was what we should do. The question was how we should manoeuvre them into firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves..." Chapter XVII p.517. The actual attack took place on December 7th 1941. On Roosevelt's desk was a plaque which read: "NOTHING HAPPENS BY ACCIDENT".


I don't think he said it in a official speech, rather it was overheard by someone. When I searched myself, first via google I got 2090000 hits for the phrase "In politics, nothing happens by accident".

Based on the above, clicking on the pic of FDR should produce the following:

According to the book, PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT & THE COMING OF THE WAR 1941 - A Study In Appearances And Realities by Charles A Beard, on Roosevelt's desk was a plaque which read: "NOTHING HAPPENS BY ACCIDENT".

Hmm, kinda loses something, doesn't it? But at least it's factual! Of course, it could also be noted that as far as FDR actually saying, "In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens you can bet it was planned that way.", it can be stated that we're pretty darn sure that someone overheard it.

 

[vinny]

Based on the above, clicking on the pic of FDR should produce the following:

According to the book, PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT & THE COMING OF THE WAR 1941 - A Study In Appearances And Realities by Charles A Beard, on Roosevelt's desk was a plaque which read: "NOTHING HAPPENS BY ACCIDENT".

Hmm, kinda loses something, doesn't it? But at least it's factual! Of course, it could also be noted that as far as FDR actually saying, "In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens you can bet it was planned that way.", it can be stated that we're pretty darn sure that someone overheard it.

thanks for the info, JEEP and Grim. I'll make a note to update the page.

This illustrates the power of having an interactive online wiki - once I get it to that state, it'll be able to be edited by a team, and be subject to far more rigorous quality control on the data it contains, and so make use of "the power of networking".

 

[anart]

Yes, it certainly does give weight to the whole conspiracy agenda to think that FDR actually said this, but since he really didn't, I don't believe it's right to keep inferring that he did.

Apologies for the grammatical nitpicking, but in case it helps if you use the words elsewhere - the word inferring is incorrectly used here. You mean to say 'to keep implying that he did'. The reader or listener infers, the writer or speaker implies - just a fwiw...

 

[JEEP]

Apologies for the grammatical nitpicking, but in case it helps if you use the words elsewhere - the word inferring is incorrectly used here. You mean to say 'to keep implying that he did'. The reader or listener infers, the writer or speaker implies - just a fwiw...

From Dictionary.com:

in⋅fer /ɪnˈfɜr/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [in-fur] Show IPA verb, -ferred, -fer⋅ring.
–verb (used with object)
1. to derive by reasoning; conclude or judge from premises or evidence: They inferred his displeasure from his cool tone of voice.
2. (of facts, circumstances, statements, etc.) to indicate or involve as a conclusion; lead to.
3. to guess; speculate; surmise.
4. to hint; imply; suggest.

Usage note:
Infer has been used to mean “to hint or suggest” since the 16th century by speakers and writers of unquestioned ability and eminence: The next speaker criticized the proposal, inferring that it was made solely to embarrass the government. Despite its long history, many 20th-century usage guides condemn the use, maintaining that the proper word for the intended sense is imply and that to use infer is to lose a valuable distinction between the two words.
Although the claimed distinction has probably existed chiefly in the pronouncements of usage guides, and although the use of infer to mean “to suggest” usually produces no ambiguity, the distinction too has a long history and is widely observed by many speakers and writers.

Interesting. Are you implying that my thinking is 16th century or inferring that I need to get with the 20th (21st) century?

Also from Dictionary.com:

Word Origin & History

imply
c.1374, "to enfold, enwrap, entangle" (the classical L. sense), from O.Fr. emplier, from L. implicare "involve" (see implicate). Meaning "to involve something unstated as a logical consequence" first recorded 1529. The distinction between imply and infer is in "What do you imply by that remark?" But, "What am I to infer from that remark?"

Legal Dictionary

Main Entry: im·ply
Pronunciation: im-'plI
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Forms: im·plied; im·ply·ing
1 : to recognize as existing by inference or necessary consequence esp. on legal or equitable grounds imply that it was the duty of the hospital to use due care —Haase v. Starnes, 915 South Western Reporter, Second Series 675 (1996)>
2 : to make known indirectly

OK, rather confusing, maybe splitting hairs, maybe imply wins on a technicality? Maybe I'll avoid using infer anytime in the foreseeable future!

 

[anart]

From Dictionary.com:

in⋅fer /ɪnˈfɜr/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [in-fur] Show IPA verb, -ferred, -fer⋅ring.
–verb (used with object)
1. to derive by reasoning; conclude or judge from premises or evidence: They inferred his displeasure from his cool tone of voice.
2. (of facts, circumstances, statements, etc.) to indicate or involve as a conclusion; lead to.
3. to guess; speculate; surmise.
4. to hint; imply; suggest.

Usage note:
Infer has been used to mean “to hint or suggest” since the 16th century by speakers and writers of unquestioned ability and eminence: The next speaker criticized the proposal, inferring that it was made solely to embarrass the government. Despite its long history, many 20th-century usage guides condemn the use, maintaining that the proper word for the intended sense is imply and that to use infer is to lose a valuable distinction between the two words.
Although the claimed distinction has probably existed chiefly in the pronouncements of usage guides, and although the use of infer to mean “to suggest” usually produces no ambiguity, the distinction too has a long history and is widely observed by many speakers and writers.

Interesting. Are you implying that my thinking is 16th century or inferring that I need to get with the 20th (21st) century?

I'm simply pointing out the correct current grammatical usage. The reader or listener infers - the writer or speaker implies. Current usage is often first level of definition in such sources, but if you'd prefer to go with 16th century usage, feel free. As I stated earlier, I only pointed it out to help you avoid incorrect usage in the future.

Also from Dictionary.com:

Word Origin & History

imply
c.1374, "to enfold, enwrap, entangle" (the classical L. sense), from O.Fr. emplier, from L. implicare "involve" (see implicate). Meaning "to involve something unstated as a logical consequence" first recorded 1529. The distinction between imply and infer is in "What do you imply by that remark?" But, "What am I to infer from that remark?"

Legal Dictionary

Main Entry: im·ply
Pronunciation: im-'plI
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Forms: im·plied; im·ply·ing
1 : to recognize as existing by inference or necessary consequence esp. on legal or equitable grounds imply that it was the duty of the hospital to use due care —Haase v. Starnes, 915 South Western Reporter, Second Series 675 (1996)>
2 : to make known indirectly

OK, rather confusing, maybe splitting hairs, maybe imply wins on a technicality? Maybe I'll avoid using infer anytime in the foreseeable future!

It's very simple - the reader or listener infers, the writer or speaker implies. Apologies if I've offended you by pointing that out, it was not at all my intention, I was actually just looking out for you.

 

[JEEP]

I'm simply pointing out the correct current grammatical usage. The reader or listener infers - the writer or speaker implies. Current usage is often first level of definition in such sources, but if you'd prefer to go with 16th century usage, feel free. As I stated earlier, I only pointed it out to help you avoid incorrect usage in the future.

Yes, Anart, I understand that was your intention. My 16th century vs 20th century reply was meant to be humorous as indicated by , as in I'm using 16th century usage as opposed to 20th century usage - ha ha! I mean I'm old, but I'm not that old! (more humor) :)

Sorry if my sense of humor obscured that I got what you were saying. I'm definitely not offended and appreciate your bringing me up to date!

 

[allen]

Another bit of development in the works. We took a look at Simile Timeline, an opensource javascript timeline out of MIT. Turns out it is very, very sweet. You can take a look at it implemented atr http://cassproj.com/timeline/index.php.

Most of the data that is showing is from the sample data that comes with the code. I just moved it from the XML form that it came with to a database, then started adding some bells and whistles like the select to jump to points of interest. An admin is just about ready so that folks can start entering data, if anyone would like to volunteer.