New format...

[atreides]

Yes, but we don't die after stinging :)

Anyway, the wasp was more convenient and stark :)

j

 

[Charles]

Well I don't know about all that, but I do consider the Bee or Wasp to be indicative of something somewhat STO for lack of a better word. Bees, Wasps and Hornets all fall into a similar category of matriarchal insects that has a certain personality profile that I identify with. For me, the Bee or Wasp is the ultimate warrior, peaceful when left alone, but attacks when disturbed.

Wasps tend to make many small nests, so I saw this as a species type of a non centralized network, they are social and hard working.

There is also the story once told to my by my Aikido sensei about bees. He always said that a good martial artist must be like a bee. He used the example of the bee to explain fearless commitment and how it affects others. A grown man, many many times the size of a bee or wasp, will flail and run in fear from this tiny insect, even knowing that though it's sting is painful, it is not fatal, for most. He will do this because he knows that the bee will sting him. He knows subconsciously that the bee or wasp knows that it will die to sting him, and that is terrifying. Anything that does not fear death frightens those who do.

Furthermore, there is the old Ali saying, Float like a butterfly, sting like a bee.

Then there is the saying that "The flapping of the wings of a butterfly in south america can cause a tornado in kansas" or some such.

Only today I learned about this thread.
Congrats to the new lay-out people. And thank you once again.

What stood out to me though and above all was the butterfly like thing for which the allusion to the butterfly effect is all too evident. Once in a while, it also passed my mind that it has the appearance of an ant that is flying out, or a wasp, or something like that. To me this made it all the better. I like it !!
It also allows some interpretation, so that we can fill in the void with something meaningful, something that is not chewed before, or even predigested, that becomes a command from above.

Why do I like it ?

I remembered that I wrote something in our forum close to a year ago. It was about "hive-mentality" or to be more precise, how a reference towards colonies of bees, ants, wasps, and so on, is usually being used in a very pejorative way, when it is being transposed ( as a metaphor) unto our human society. Back then, I didn’t feel like such was justifiable. Because, all too often it is done in a way that results in evoking a pattern of human organization that comes with connotations such as "mindless" , or being, or becoming a "cog in a machine" , or even some kind of "Borg organizational" pattern.

What appears in my minds eye is quite the opposite. And it still does to this day; that is if I look at it a little closer, and a little more honest. If one does such transposition in a meaningful way, then it is not "mindless" at all. Then it could lie at the very basis of creativity.

What makes them strong as a species (bees/ants/termites/wasps) is the fact that they, as 2D creatures, have learned to work together. They (each and every individual) excel in morphing, what appears to be a super-organism. Although they evidently are still 2-D creatures, it is this peculiar thing that is that makes them so special. It is called "self-organization" , and it results in a "super-organism".

But here is the crux of the matter: we are not ants/bees/wasps. They are 2-D, while we are 3-D. Or at least, we could be. We could be using, or at least trying to use, our minds to its fullest.

I have lifted the relevant part from the short discussion thread that I wrote almost one year ago. I only added minor changes, mainly because of typos.
Sorry to those who have a certain preference for bees or wasps. I used a specific colony of ants to set the example of what a "super-organism" and "self-organisation" is about.

Contemplate a colony of ants as a classic example for instance. Now and then, all ants small and big will leave their nest, to find new hunting and gathering territory. The entire colony can sometimes travel for maybe kilometers, before settling down to build a new nest. During this transfer, all goods are carried as well. The queen is carried, the winged males are carried, the eggs, and other larval stages are carried. All food, fungi, plant material, sugar, is carried, and what is found along the path during the travel is eaten, from smaller insects to bigger beetles and lizards, or carried to the yet to be found new nest. The soldiers protect the edges of the traveling colony. They cling into each other’s bodies, thus forming life bridges to pass obstacles, or railings and banisters to prevent the ants from falling off small cliffs. When you look at the traveling colony from a distance, it actually seems as if one giant stretched out animal, has left its nest to find new territory while devouring all along its trajectory. We do know where the sexual organ of the super-organism is to be situated. But where are the eyes, and ears, of such super-organism? And how does each separate individual know what it is supposed to do? There is no centralized neural network, nor is there such a thing as a yoke on each separate individual ant connected to some sort of giant bridle rein and controlled by a central king or queen driver or coach ant. The thing is, that the super-organism becomes what it is because of a phenomenon called "self-organization". And it is mainly directed by … yup, the workers ants which by means of placing a chemical pheromone and sensing the already placed pheromones by others, and the local concentrations and such, will determine the direction of the ant super-organism.

So if we want to transpose this image unto our modern-day human society, we have to look for "self-organization" , from the bottom up. Human beings of course are no ants, which were genetically programmed to ‘COMMUNicate’ by placing chemicals, and detecting those of others. Still, COMMUNication will be tantamount for any form of self-organization, also when transposed unto a human society. But we would not only depend on tasting or "sniffing" chemicals. Most importantly, we can think, or we at least have the ability to. Each single individual would be able to think, process the information, and share it with the other individuals. So communication would become vastly more complex than the one used by ants, and I surmise that it will enable to piece together an exponentially increased perception of our real reality, and the ways with which we’d interact with that reality. Actually it would be a society that I’d love to explore.

Our current society is very different. Self-organization is a big no no in pathocracy. Such bottom up organisation is way to scary for the pathocrats at the top of our human heap. And indeed, it should be scary for pathocrats, because it is indeed entirely contrary to the persistent top down commandeering that these psychopathic few happen to strive for.

And thus, if we were to do the reverse, and transpose the pattern of our modern human society unto the organization of a colony of ants, we’d be seeing that most ants would carry a yoke. And each yoke would be connected with a rein, and that one queen, or king, would decide which ways each individual element of that super-organism was going to be steered. Just imagine the hundreds of thousands of reins that such "central command system" should try to hold so as to control each separate ant. It’s a grotesque picture I know, but so it is. And that one queen or king with the pair of eyes it has, would be missing an immense amount of crucial, life-saving information. What a hulking and clumsy super-organism such would be.

Yet, this seems to be our current situation. Needles to say, that such organism will not live for long, let alone have any further possibility to explore its full potential.

I do admit that I have a personal preference for bees. But that might be very personal, and even temporary.

Of course it could also result in discussions that are closer to the domain of poetry. You see, I do like the buzz of bees :)

 

[Z...]

I do admit that I have a personal preference for bees. But that might be very personal, and even temporary.

Of course it could also result in discussions that are closer to the domain of poetry. You see, I do like the buzz of bees :)

Same here Charles, not sure if its because I never got stung by the bee while I was many times stung by wasps or because wasps are carnivorous and carion eaters or because bees are fuzzy and sort of cuddly comparing to mean and menacing appearance of the bees
or maybe because I like honey so much

nevertheless wasps are misunderstood creatures, my encounters with them were always painful but they also taught me some valuable lessons :)

 

[Vulcan59]

Just to keep you updated, Scott, the pages seem to load much faster now since I first reported it a few days ago.

Rgds.

 

[Niall]

Rite, this new voting system:

it's a simple 1-up/1-down vote per article. Now I imagine the intention behind having this system is to leave it open to the user how or why s/he should vote one way or another for any given article, or even whether to flag an article at all. But perhaps the mods can provide sum guidance on how one should treat the voting system? I mean, what should I have uppermost in my mind when casting a vote (up/down/not-at-all)?

"Ooh, this is news: everyone needs to read this!"

OR

"Well-written article, very informative: I learned alot from it!"

OR

"Good God, are they serious? How can anyone actually think this?!"

...these are just sum varieties of voting 'criteria' that come to mind. I suppose whatever way one votes, the aggregate net effect works out in a similar way to Shoutwire's system, where the most-voted articles gain pride-of-place over the least-voted. Except that SOTT also has a vote-down option... are we being asked whether we think an article is generally good (up) or bad (down)? All news collected by SOTT have sum value to them. But invariably the best written/researched and most informative articles are produced by SOTT themselves, so they will feature high in the 'list' on a regular basis.

Hmm... thinking through this, what I can see happening is that SOTT-produced articles will become a sort of standard-bearer with respect to other articles [not that I didn't already see that:)]. This again begs the question tho, of what it is one is considering when issuing a vote. If 'up' or 'down' simply denotes 'good' or 'bad', what criteria would aid my decision one way or the other?

Anyone see me quandary here? Or am I a confused over-thinker up way past his bedtime?!:/

Och, I guess it's early days yet :) How have others approached the new voting system?

 

[anart]

Anyone see me quandary here? Or am I a confused over-thinker up way past his bedtime?!

Well, judging from the number of voted articles versus the number of site visitors, I'm thinking others are also a bit confused over the voting system, although I could be wrong - (not to say that you aren't over-thinking it ;) )

But - from my understanding at least - the idea is that if you find an article informative and worth reading, you vote + (arrow up) - and if you find an article despicable or less than worth your time reading, you vote - (arrow down). A personal example of an article that would get a (down arrow) vote would be Little Bush explaining why he doesn't have to listen to Congress - sick - and wrong - so a (down arrow).

However, I do see the confusion, since, really, this article is actually pointing out his deviancy, so, perhaps it should get a + arrow for that?

Dear god, now I'm over thinking it - it's contagious!!

Perhaps, we need one of the designers of the site to step in here on this topic - or we just need anart to stop pondering it and confusing the issue?

;)

 

[Vulcan59]

I tried an "arrow down" on one of the articles and what happened was that it reduced the total votes displayed, ie total for the article was showing 9 and when I click on the arrow down, the total then showed 8. So therefore, I presume that the total can be voted down to zero or does/will it show a minus if more people click on the down arrow?

 

[ArdVan]

First I wanted to say that I like the new design. But now I have seen that our butterfly/wasp/bee has to many legs, unless you say that it's freedom of artistic design :P

Well if it is a butterfly/wasp/bee then it is of the class of insects and they have only three pair of legs. But as I see four legs it must be of the class of spiders who have four pair of legs like also the scorpions and the mites and ticks too.

 

[Charles]

First I wanted to say that I like the new design. But now I have seen that our butterfly/wasp/bee has to many legs, unless you say that it's freedom of artistic design :P

Well if it is a butterfly/wasp/bee then it is of the class of insects and they have only three pair of legs. But as I see four legs it must be of the class of spiders who have four pair of legs like also the scorpions and the mites and ticks too.

It must bee a buttered scorwaspionfly. :|

Gosh ArdVan, do you have an analytical mind.

And now I have this problem. Let me explain. It is easily recognized. It happens with completely random patterns, shadows, clouds, and so on. When other people then succeed to point out a certain figure within this random pattern, you will see it too. And what is more, once you've seen it you will keep on seeing it.

You are right of course. I do count 4 legs. In a sense it is the reverse as what is happening with random patterns. Usually one "counts" the random patterns, and then all of a sudden, the figure appears in 3-D. But now, with the butterfly/wasp/bee, it is exactly the reverse that has happened to me. I first did not count them. I sort of saw the insect in 3D, with a certain depth to it. And one of the legs on the right side, the last one, is still visible, and gives a certain depth to the picture. One could also picture the other legs of the right side of course, but that would complicate the picture so much that the effect of depth to it would disappear. It would also lose its stylized character. Ok, back to the picture...

See, it happened again, I did count four.

 

[ArdVan]

Gosh ArdVan, do you have an analytical mind

Yeah, you're probably right. LOL, but it's the only thing I learned last year about insects, that why I remember it... :)

 

[Scottie]

Rite, this new voting system:

it's a simple 1-up/1-down vote per article. Now I imagine the intention behind having this system is to leave it open to the user how or why s/he should vote one way or another for any given article, or even whether to flag an article at all. But perhaps the mods can provide sum guidance on how one should treat the voting system? I mean, what should I have uppermost in my mind when casting a vote (up/down/not-at-all)?

I just posted a guide to the new SOTT:

How to Use the New Signs Page

 

[Alana]

A problem i encountered: When i try to cut parts of sott articles and paste them on the forum or other places, it is not doable. Everything on the page gets blackened when i try to select, not just the part i want to copy. Is there a way to adjust this? Or is it because of my server? But i use mozila 2 at home and IE at work and it's the same.

 

[atreides]

A problem i encountered: When i try to cut parts of sott articles and paste them on the forum or other places, it is not doable. Everything on the page gets blackened when i try to select, not just the part i want to copy. Is there a way to adjust this? Or is it because of my server? But i use mozila 2 at home and IE at work and it's the same.

Ahhh HA! This time I am way ahead of you. You didn't check out the enyaml button :) at the bottom of the article. I am considering making and entext and enxml buttons too...just haven't done it yet. All part of helping out harvesters of info.

Cheers

 

[Alana]

Thanx for pointing it out! I would have never "discovered" it otherwise.

 

[dant]

Hi, my $0.02...

1) I could not tell if I am reading a current version or yesterday's version... where's the publish date?
Previous design was loud and clear - right there next to the top title. I now have to rescan every item
on SOTT page(s) to determine if I had already read/visited each item. Hmm.

2) Subjects/titles/items are more spread out because of larger fonts, columnized headers - it not as
condensed as previous design making it a bit harder or takes a bit longer to scan/read read each subject/title/item
of potential interest. I like the (pretty) design but the format/layout for ease of scanning is leaves much to be
desired, osit.