Rolandt

One of the research products I find most useful for an academic, short of openly-accessible datasets and code for replication is the annotated bibliography. As I have noted before, I consider the annotated bibliography an intermediate step between a bank of rhetorical precis, a bank of synthetic notes, and a fully-developed literature review.

I consider developing annotated bibliographies an important activity. Thus the annotated bibliography is, for me, an actual scholarly product. It may come from “intermediate” materials, such as a set of rhetorical precis, or a group of synthetic notes, but in the end, the annotated bibliography is a scholarly product in and of itself. It should be readable and provide you with insight that you couldn’t get from the full set of articles or book chapters.

Generally speaking, you can see the annotated bibliography as an organized, systematic dump of all your synthetic notes (or rhetorical precis). Each entry starts with the full article, book or book chapter citation, followed by a short summary of the article. Some authors include the article or book chapter abstract, others don’t. Here are four models for how to create an entry for an annotated bibliography I really liked:

• From the University of New England: Writing an annotated bibliography
• From Douglas College: Creating an Annotated Bibliography.
• From the UCF Writing Center: An Annotated Bibliography
• From Edith Cowan University: A Tips Sheet for Writing Annotated Bibliographies.

And here are two examples of excellent annotated bibliographies. The first one was created by Dr. Kathryn Furlong and Dr. Christina Cook on municipal water governance in Canada. The second, on community-based water governance, was created by Jingsi Jin with Kelly Sharp under Dr. Crystal Tremblay and Dr. Leila Harris’ supervision.

One element that links the rhetorical precis and the annotated bibliography is that in the annotation for each entry, you can make a value judgment as to what aspects you find more valuable or important of the article. When I write those judgments, I copy those notes (my synthetic notes) and insert them into my Conceptual Synthesis Excel Dump for that particular topic.

For example, I am currently writing on timing and sequencing (that is, on how specific events can lead to the creation of specific rules, norms and institutions). I could write an annotated bibliography on the topic (which I am not currently doing as I am writing a full paper, but it would be possible for me to do it as an intermediate step). Previously, I have written on how you can draw several of the most important ideas of a paper by looking at the Abstract, Introduction and Conclusion (the AIC method).

The AIC technique DOES NOT substitute for an actual, in-depth read of a paper. But it does provide some basic ideas for an annotated bibliography. You should also be able to write most of the synthetic summary for a paper out of the AIC summary. The AIC also provides you with the foundations of a detailed memorandum.

Following the timing and sequencing example, I am reading Tulia Falleti’s “A Sequential Theory of Decentralization” APSR paper. In this paper, Professor Falleti proposes that the timing and sequencing of decentralization implementation have an impact on how intergovernmental relations result and what the specific outcome in this process will be. While the entire paper is important, I am mostly interested in the timing and sequencing components.

My annotated bibliography entry could very well just include a summary of the main points of Falleti’s paper:

Falleti, Tulia G. “A sequential theory of decentralization: Latin American cases in comparative perspective.” American Political Science Review 99.03 (2005): 327-346.

In this paper, Falleti proposes a sequential theory of decentralization where she defines decentralization as a process, looks at the sequence of events that decentralization processes follow, defines three types of decentralization and takes into account policy feedback effects and the territorial interests of bargaining actors. Falleti applies her analysis to four Latin American countries. Falleti shows that decentralization doesn’t necessary increase the power of governors and mayors, but instead this power is dependent on the sequence of decentralization reforms and the timing of these.

Normally, for papers I am reading at the overview/meso level, I would write a summary that is based on the results of AIC (Abstract, Introduction, Conclusion). However, since I find this article by Tulia Falleti quite important, I will write a detailed memorandum, and I will drop my highlights and scribbles on the margins into my Excel dump (Conceptual Synthesis).

From the article's conclusions I draw the ones that I'm most interested in (sequencing of decentralization reforms) pic.twitter.com/TSBfwEMH4Y

— Dr Raul Pacheco-Vega (@raulpacheco) April 28, 2017

As I have written before, I triage the full set of readings I plan to do, and I am strategic, focusing in more depth on those articles, books and book chapters that I know could very well provide me with key insights for a literature review. Being this strategic isn’t all that relevant if one is doing a very broad annotated bibliography. That’s why doing a citation tracing process around anchor authors is important. You need to make sure that you do in-depth readings when those are written by the key authors that you need to read for your literature review.

Hopefully sharing my processes will help people write their annotated bibliographies and their literature reviews!

It’s an honor for me to join the Mozilla Board. I’m so inspired by the Foundation’s mission and by the incredibly talented people that lead it. And, I’m looking forward to contributing to Mozilla’s plans to build out a leadership network focused on protecting the open Internet.

Though I’m still too new to the organization to be able to diagnose Mozilla’s biggest challenges, I think this is a really exciting and crucial time for Mozilla to develop products that really put users first. Today’s Internet users have complex needs, so I’ll be excited to see how the Mozilla community works to identify and solve them.

Obviously, this is also a very challenging time to protect the Internet from the national and global trends toward authoritarianism, censorship and surveillance. Mozilla is in a great position to address some of those challenges.

During my career, I’ve had the privilege of working in both the private and public sector, but the consistent theme is focusing on the intersection of emerging technologies, law, and public policy. I have tried to build cultures, policies, and practices that are forward-leaning in the development and defense of a healthy internet. I’m looking forward to doing the same at the Foundation, helping build out the leadership network and focusing on emerging tech policy leaders.

Nicole is an attorney specializing in Internet, media and intellectual property law. She served as President Obama’s deputy chief technology officer (CTO) and has also worked as the vice president and deputy general counsel at Google to arbitrate issues of censorship. She was appointed to the Mozilla Foundation board in April 2017.

The post Why I’m joining the Mozilla Board by Nicole Wong appeared first on The Mozilla Blog.

Mozilla has been at the forefront of shaping internet culture and fighting to keep the Internet open. Being able to join the Board and be of service to that mission is an honor as the open internet played such an important role in my life and my work.

My generation came online to the shrill beeps of our modems connecting to this network that represented endless possibilities. Those beeps of our modems dialing up provided the soundtrack to some of our deepest friendships and community, crossing borders and breaking down barriers. I remember contributing to the SpreadFirefox.com campaign in 2004 to put an advert into the New York Times. That campaign epitomized the best of what we could achieve on the network – thousands coming together to promote the open source project that many thousands worked on that would go on to touch millions of people.

As the next billion come online, there are real questions about what sort of Internet they are coming online to. We know that it is most often through a mobile device (phone or tablet) and often the first contact is through Facebook (including WhatsApp). Navigating the usage (what role does the browser play when most people are using Apps?) and the social implications (will an even greater number of people confuse Facebook with the Internet?) are deeply important in the near term.

At Al Jazeera I was deeply focused on using social technologies to not only distribute news but also discover and amplify the voices of people being most impacted by power. With Creative Commons I worked to launch a repository of broadcast quality video footage under the most permissive license. At Global Voices, bridge building and providing a nuanced understand through a local lens is key to what we do. And at the Media Development Investment Fund (MDIF), we are deeply committed to funding the highest quality journalism in countries where there is a threat to press freedom.

This work has all really been around building bridges, connecting people, and amplifying voices. While our kids may never know the thrill of hearing a modem connection I hope that we can work to ensure that the Internet remains open so they can use it to learn, build, and grow in the same way we did.

Mohamed Nanabhay is the Deputy CEO of the Media Development Investment Fund (MDIF), which invests in independent media around the world providing the news, information and debate that people need to build free, thriving societies. He is also the board chair of GlobalVoices.org and the former head of Al Jazeera English. Mohamed was appointed to the Mozilla Foundation board in April 2017.

Photo credit: Joi Ito

The post Why I’m joining the Mozilla Board by Mohamed Nanabhay appeared first on The Mozilla Blog.

Hey there, SUMO Nation!

As you may have noticed, we are (for the time being) back to the previous engine powering the support site at support.mozilla.org

You can follow the latest updates and participate in the discussion about this here.

mkalus shared this story from TorrentFreak.

Much to the disappointment of studios everywhere, movie and TV shows leak onto the Internet every single week.

However, if what is unfolding today lives up to its billing, we could be looking at the start of one of the most significant piracy leaks of recent times.

Earlier this evening, the first episode of the brand new season of Netflix’s Orange is the New Black was uploaded to The Pirate Bay, months ahead of its official June release date.

So how did this unreleased content fall into the wrong hands?

As seen from the torrent details uploaded to Pirate Bay, the leak is the work of a hacking entity calling itself TheDarkOverlord (TDO). An extraction of the .torrent file’s meta data reveals a 1.1GB file named:

‘Episode1/ORANGEep5001_HDSR_CTM_ProResProxy_8.15.16-H264_SD_16x9.mov’.

In information sent to TF, the group says that sometime during the closing months of 2016, it gained access to the systems of Larson Studios, an ADR (additional dialogue recorded) studio, based in Hollywood. The following screenshot reportedly from the leak indeed suggests a copy that was in production and possibly unfinished in some way.

After obtained its haul, TDO says it entered into “negotiations” with the video services company over the fate of the liberated content.

“After we had a copy of their data safely in our possession, we asked that we be paid a small fee in exchange for non-disclosure. We approached them on the Eve of their Christmas,” a member of the group previously told us over an encrypted channel.

So who are TDO? According to several security reports, TDO is a fairly prolific hacking group (their spokesman says they are more than one) that has claimed responsibility for a number of attacks in recent months.

One, which targeted construction company Pre-Con Products Ltd, involved the leak of contracts and a video which purported to show a fatal accident. Another, concerning polyurethane and epoxy product company GS Polymers, Inc, resulted in a leak of data after the company reportedly showed a “disinterest” in “working” with TDO. The group has also targeted medical organizations and leaked gigabytes of data obtained from Gorilla Glue.

As is clear from its actions, TDO takes its business seriously and when the group allegedly contacted Larson Studios before Christmas, they had extortion (their word) in mind. In a lengthy business-like ‘contract’ shared with TorrentFreak, TDO laid out its terms for cooperation with the California-based company.

“This agreement of accord, assurances, and satisfaction is between Larson Studios (the ‘Client’) and thedarkoverlord, a subsidiary of TheDarkOverlord Solutions, a subsidiary of World Wide Web, LLC [WWW, LLC] (the ‘Proposer’),” the wordy contract begins.

In section 2 of the contract, headed “Description of Services,” TheDarkOverLord offers to “refrain from communicating in any method, design, or otherwise to any individual, corporation, computer, or other entity any knowledge, information, or otherwise,” which appears to be an offer not to leak the content obtained.

Unsurprisingly, there were a number of conditions. The subsequent section 3 reveals that the “services” come at a price – 50 bitcoins – plus potential late payment fees, at TDO’s discretion.

TDO informs TF that Larson Studios agreed to the pay the ransom and even sent back the contract.

“They printed, signed, and scanned the contract back to us,” the group says.

A copy seen by TF does have a signature, but TDO claims that Larson failed to follow through with the all-important bitcoin payment by the deadline of 31st December. That resulted in follow-up contact with the company.

“A late fee was levied and they still didn’t hold up their end of the agreement,” TDO says.

In an earlier discussion with TDO after the group reached out to us, we tried to establish what makes a group like this tick. Needless to say, they gave very little away. We got the impression from news reports that the group is mostly motivated by money, possibly power, but to remove doubt we asked the question.

“Are you familiar with the famous American bank robber, Willie Sutton?” a spokesperson replied.

“In an interview, he was once asked ‘Why do you rob banks?’ To which replied, ‘Because that’s where the money is.’ It’s said that this exchange led to the creation of Sutton’s law which states that when diagnosing, one should consider the obvious. We’ll leave you to interpret what we’re motivated by.”

Later, the group stated that its only motivation is its “greed for internet money.”

TorrentFreak understands that the leak of this single episode could represent just the start of an even bigger drop of pre-release TV series and movies. TDO claims to be sitting on a massive trove of unreleased video material, all of it high-quality.

“The quality is almost publish quality. One will find small audio errors and video errors like lack of color correction, but things are mostly complete with most of the material,” TDO says.

TheDarkOverlord did not explain what it hopes to achieve by leaking this video content now, months after it was obtained. However, when questioned the group told us that the information shared with us thus far represents just “the tip of the iceberg.”

In the past few minutes the group has taken to its Twitter account, posting messages directed at Netflix who are likely to be watching events unfold.

This is a breaking news story, updates will follow

Update: The group has published a statement on Pastebin.

Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.

Today, I’m thrilled to announce that Mohamed Nanabhay and Nicole Wong have joined the Mozilla Foundation Board of Directors.

Over the last few years, we’ve been working to expand the boards for both the Mozilla Foundation and the Mozilla Corporation. Our goals for the Foundation board roles were to grow Mozilla’s capacity to move our mission forward; expand the number and diversity of people on our boards, and; add specific skills in areas related to movement building and organizational excellence. Adding Mohamed and Nicole represents a significant move forward on these goals.

We met Mohamed about seven years ago through former board member and then Creative Commons CEO Joi Ito. Mohamed was at Al Jazeera at the time and hosted one of Mozilla’s first Open News fellows. Mohamed Nanabhay currently serves as the Deputy CEO of the Media Development Investment Fund (MDIF), which invests in independent media around the world providing the news, information and debate that people need to build free, thriving societies.

Nicole is an attorney specializing in Internet, media and intellectual property law. She served as President Obama’s deputy chief technology officer (CTO) and has also worked as the vice president and deputy general counsel at Google to arbitrate issues of censorship. Nicole has already been active in helping Mozilla set up a new fellows program gathering people who have worked in government on progressive tech policy. That program launches in June.

Talented and dedicated people are the key to building an Internet as a global public resource that is open and accessible to all. Nicole and Mohammad bring expertise, dedication and new perspectives to Mozilla. I am honored and proud to have them as our newest Board members.

Please join me in welcoming Mohamed and Nicole to the Board. You can read more about why Mohamed chose to join the Board here, and why Nicole joined us here.

Mitchell

I’m not sure that I want a businessy phone system integrated with Slack, but maybe I do.

SLACK + BRIX

PHONE NUMBERS FOR YOUR SLACK CHANNELS

Slack transformed how your team collaborates, cooperates, and communicates. If you’ve been using it for a while, by now it should be talking nicely with your other systems and software, making your life a whole lot simpler.

But one thing that might not be connected is your phone number. That’s about to change. By connecting Brix to Slack you can give any Slack Channel a UK 0330 phone number using a simple slash command.

0330 numbers are ideal for businesses, as they cost the same to call as a landline, and they’re included in minute bundles with every mobile operator.

Any calls to your Brix numbers will be sent to all the people in the relevant channel with UK or US phone numbers in their Slack profile. The first person to pick up and confirm they want the call by pressing 1 will be connected.

Before I return the S8 to Samsung a few additional observations, in no particular order:

• Battery life is much better than I expected. Even on the 3000 mAh battery of the smaller model. I never ran out of power and quick charge is really quick.
• When I first tried a curved screen on the S6 edge, I loved the screen and I hated how often I would misplace the cursor while typing. The S8 is completely different. Palm rejection is almost perfect.
• When reading or watching videos, I often wished there was more bezel to hold on to. I still find the iPhone much more usable.
• Having three different biometrics looks like an advantage. But I'd rather have only one, but one that works well. Face detection isn't secure, iris recognition does not work well enough and looks awkward, finger print reader on the back is worse than on home button in the front.
• Being able to put the back button on the left side was a major benefit to me.
• I love the always-on screen. It's perfectly designed.
• S8 is as smooth as a glass pebble. And just as slippery. I haven't dropped any other device as often as the S8. Buy a skin!
• The Bixby button is located under your index finger when you turn the phone on with your thumb. Every time I press this button accidentally, I hate Samsung a little but more.

I will wipe the device on Monday and return it to Samsung the day after.

Reflected sunbeam. (at Vancouver Convention Centre)

Yes, I coined another word. 

I am a commonsist.

The term got its start as a tag, and I didn’t use the term in the post tagged with it.

Commonsism mixes together the thinking of Elinor Ostrom and Aldo Leopold, and many others.

Ostrom won the Nobel prize for economics for her work on common-pooled resources (CPRs) or ‘commons’, that was sparked by Garrett Hardin’s 1968 Science article, The Tragedy of the Commons. 

Hardin employed the example of a herder grazing his cattle on pasturage ‘open to all’, and who has an incentive to add cattle to their herd. But so does every other herder, and if nothing halts their collective self-centered actions, the pasture will quickly be reduced to a desert.

One pessimistic interpretation is that absent the intervention of an outside power – a Leviathan like a king or a democratic government, or religious decrees – the unchecked exploitation of the commons is inevitable.

Ostrom,  however, found numerous examples of well-managed CPRs across the world, based on her field work in the management of pasture by locals in Africa and irrigation systems management in villages of western Nepal, and the examination of other systems of commons management.

As noted in a piece in the Economist, Ostrom cataloged the rules that are necessary for managing a commons:

In “Governing the Commons”, which was published in 1990, Elinor Ostrom of Indiana University described the rules needed to keep a commons going. She showed that there are almost always elaborate conventions over who can use resources and when. What you take out of a commons has to be proportional to what you put in. Usage has to be compatible with the commons’ underlying health (ie, you cannot just keep grazing your animals regardless). Everyone has to have some say in the rules. And people usually pay more attention to monitoring abuses and to conflict resolution than to sanctions and punishment.

In her Governing the Commons (1990) she laid out the 8 Principles for Managing a Commons:

1. Define clear group boundaries

2. Match rules governing use of common goods to local needs and conditions.

3. Ensure that those affected by the rules can participate in modifying the rules.

4. Make sure the rule-making rights of community members are respected by outside authorities.

5. Develop a system, carried out by community members, for monitoring members’ behavior.

6. Use graduated sanctions for rule violators.

7. Provide accessible, low-cost means for dispute resolution.

8. Build responsibility for governing the common resource in nested tiers from the lowest level up [better translated into network terms, ‘from the smallest social scale’] to the entire interconnected system [‘network’].

What if we were to consider the Earth as a commons, and at the local level, each watershed and island, each prairie and region, as commons, as well?

The premise that the greatest degree of control for a shared resource – for example the Hudson Valley watershed – should be determined principally by those living within that watershed. Note, however, that resource must be managed by the principles above, along with the zeroth principle: all activities must be based on the foundation of causing the least harm to the commons as possible, so that the commons can continue to be used by its members and by future generations.

This zeroth rule is also equivalent to environmentalist Aldo Leopold’s golden rule:

A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.

Or paraphrased, 

We can judge the morality of political and social actions by the degree to which they harm or help the land, the sea, and the air.

I am reminded of the saying from Marcus Aurelius,

That which is not good for the bee-hive cannot be good for the bees.

So, I am a commonsist: I reject political authority that does not derive from a bottom-up management of our world as a network of commons. 

At every scale, the rules of the commons must shape human activities that impact the commons, most importantly, the views of those closest to a commons should carry the most weight. But just as the watershed of Fishkill Creek (where I live in Beacon NY) drains into the Hudson, the actions that we who live along the creek can impact others in the greater watershed, so polluting the creek has impacts at the greater scale. However, if we manage local fishing in the creek to maintain fish levels, and avoid importing aggressive exotic fish, we are likely to not damage the greater watershed.

By acting as responsible members at the bottommost scale in the watershed, we also are acting in the interests of all, at the greater watershed of the Hudson. And those outside our watershed should not have much of a say in what we do locally, unless we are keeping our own watershed cleaning by trucking pollutants to the Connecticut watershed.

By the opposite logic, however, those that are failing to follow the principles of the commons – for example, companies that spill PCBs into the Hudson, or countries that are spewing CO2 into the atmosphere and warming the earth–are immoral, no matter what their motivations for doing so may be. And those closest to the mess being made have the right and obligation to compel them to stop. 

And here’s where this system demonstrates that the world is upside down: if a political order is organized in such a way that actions based on the principles of the commons can be blocked by those less close to the commons it is flawed, and probably immoral. For example, the State of NY should not be able to compel a municipality to allow fracking, which could damage the land to the detriment of all. On the other hand, if Beacon citizens voted in favor of fracking along Fishkill Creek, they can be overruled by the greater Hudson River watershed citizenship (especially those downstream and nearby), since the possibility of damage to the greater watershed is relatively high.

Consider the XL Pipeline from this perspective, and it’s clear the Feds should not don’t have the moral right to compel Nebraska – or any other region – to accept the XL Pipeline for the benefit of energy companies, or even for ‘energy independence’. It’s patently immoral.

The zeroth rule, Leopold’s golden rule, creates a massive check on activities that threaten the greater good, and do not allow a substitution of money or other compensation in exchange for the possible or actual damage. 

So, join the commonsists, and resist the political order that places anything ahead of the perpetuation of the commons we – and posterity – rely on.

The latest Bike the Blossoms Ride in Vancouver was a great success, with an excellent turnout despite threatening skies. The rain held off for just long enough for most riders to finish the relaxed ride around the blossom-lined lanes of Vancouver. Bike the Blossoms in Vancouver was again organized by Velopalooza and the Vancouver Cherry Blossom Festival.

The post Another Great Bike the Blossoms Ride in Vancouver appeared first on Average Joe Cyclist.

Yes, I coined another word.

I am a commonsist.

The term got its start as a tag, and I didn’t use the term in the post tagged with it.

Commonsism mixes together the thinking of Elinor Ostrom and Aldo Leopold, and many others.

Ostrom won the Nobel prize for economics for her work on common-pooled resources (CPRs) or ‘commons’, that was sparked by Garrett Hardin’s 1968 Science article, The Tragedy of the Commons.

Hardin employed the example of a herder grazing his cattle on pasturage ‘open to all’, and who has an incentive to add cattle to their herd. But so does every other herder, and if nothing halts their collective self-centered actions, the pasture will quickly be reduced to a desert.

I am a commonsist: I reject political authority that does not derive from a bottom-up management of our world as a network of commons.

One pessimistic interpretation is that absent the intervention of an outside power — a Leviathan like a king or a democratic government, or religious decrees — the unchecked exploitation of the commons is inevitable.

Ostrom, however, found numerous examples of well-managed CPRs across the world, based on her field work in the management of pasture by locals in Africa and irrigation systems management in villages of western Nepal, and the examination of other systems of commons management.

As noted in a piece in the Economist, Ostrom cataloged the rules that are necessary for managing a commons:

In “Governing the Commons”, which was published in 1990, Elinor Ostrom of Indiana University described the rules needed to keep a commons going. She showed that there are almost always elaborate conventions over who can use resources and when. What you take out of a commons has to be proportional to what you put in. Usage has to be compatible with the commons’ underlying health (ie, you cannot just keep grazing your animals regardless). Everyone has to have some say in the rules. And people usually pay more attention to monitoring abuses and to conflict resolution than to sanctions and punishment.

In her Governing the Commons (1990) she laid out the 8 Principles for Managing a Commons:

1. Define clear group boundaries

2. Match rules governing use of common goods to local needs and conditions.

3. Ensure that those affected by the rules can participate in modifying the rules.

4. Make sure the rule-making rights of community members are respected by outside authorities.

5. Develop a system, carried out by community members, for monitoring members’ behavior.

6. Use graduated sanctions for rule violators.

7. Provide accessible, low-cost means for dispute resolution.

8. Build responsibility for governing the common resource in nested tiers from the lowest level up [better translated into network terms, ‘from the smallest social scale’] to the entire interconnected system [‘network’].

What if we were to consider the Earth as a commons, and at the local level, each watershed and island, each prairie and region, as commons, as well?

The premise that the greatest degree of control for a shared resource — for example the Hudson Valley watershed — should be determined principally by those living within that watershed. Note, however, that resource must be managed by the principles above, along with the zeroth principle: all activities must be based on the foundation of causing the least harm to the commons as possible, so that the commons can continue to be used by its members and by future generations.

This zeroth rule is also equivalent to environmentalist Aldo Leopold’s golden rule:

A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.

Or paraphrased,

We can judge the morality of political and social actions by the degree to which they harm or help the land, the sea, and the air.

I am reminded of the saying from Marcus Aurelius,

That which is not good for the bee-hive cannot be good for the bees.

So, I am a commonsist: I reject political authority that does not derive from a bottom-up management of our world as a network of commons.

At every scale, the rules of the commons must shape human activities that impact the commons, most importantly, the views of those closest to a commons should carry the most weight. But just as the watershed of Fishkill Creek (where I live in Beacon NY) drains into the Hudson, the actions that we who live along the creek can impact others in the greater watershed, so polluting the creek has impacts at the greater scale. However, if we manage local fishing in the creek to maintain fish levels, and avoid importing aggressive exotic fish, we are likely to not damage the greater watershed.

By acting as responsible members at the bottommost scale in the watershed, we also are acting in the interests of all, at the greater watershed of the Hudson. And those outside our watershed should not have much of a say in what we do locally, unless we are keeping our own watershed cleaning by trucking pollutants to the Connecticut watershed.

By the opposite logic, however, those that are failing to follow the principles of the commons — for example, companies that spill PCBs into the Hudson, or countries that are spewing CO2 into the atmosphere and warming the earth–are immoral, no matter what their motivations for doing so may be. And those closest to the mess being made have the right and obligation to compel them to stop.

And here’s where this system demonstrates that the world is upside down: if a political order is organized in such a way that actions based on the principles of the commons can be blocked by those less close to the commons it is flawed, and probably immoral. For example, the State of NY should not be able to compel a municipality to allow fracking, which could damage the land to the detriment of all. On the other hand, if Beacon citizens voted in favor of fracking along Fishkill Creek, they can be overruled by the greater Hudson River watershed citizenship (especially those downstream and nearby), since the possibility of damage to the greater watershed is relatively high.

The zeroth rule, Leopold’s golden rule, creates a massive check on activities that threaten the greater good, and do not allow a substitution of money or other compensation in exchange for the possible or actual damage.

So, join the commonsists, and resist the political order that places anything ahead of the perpetuation of the commons we — and posterity — rely on.

Originally published at stoweboyd.com.

Two-and-a-half weeks after dragging a passenger off a flight like a rag doll, United Airlines has released a statement about changes to its procedures and emailed all its frequent flyers. Everything they did wrong in the original statements, they’ve now done right. And the two sets of statements give me a unique opportunity to contrast effective … Continued

The post Comparing today’s United Airlines statements (mostly right) to what they said before (really wrong) appeared first on without bullshit.

On today’s show, two sociologists talk about aspects of neoliberal restructuring. First, Nicole Aschoff, sociologist, author of The New Prophets of Capital and until very recently managing editor of Jacobin magazine speaks with me about the auto industry, Trump and why globalization shouldn’t be solely blamed for the destruction of good jobs even while it is nevertheless in crisis. Next, Mike McCarthy, assistant professor of sociology at Marquette University in Milwaukee, discusses his recent book Dismantling Solidarity: Capitalist Politics and American Pensions since the New Deal about how the pensions system has been transformed in ways that leave workers more vulnerable.

As always, remember to subscribe above to get new episodes as they appear, rate the show on iTunes and donate to help keep this good thing going. Thanks!

Over on their Next Track podcast, I chatted with Kirk McElhearn and Doug Adams about the A-B-C’s of home audio streaming. That’s AirPlay, Bluetooth, and (Google) Cast. If you’re interested to get audio streaming throughout your house, give Episode #50 – Streaming Music in your Home a listen. Of course, our home audio streaming app Airfoil app ties in to the discussion.

Socialization theory of T. Parsons a system of theoretical propositions put forward by the American sociologist Talcott Parsons (1902-1979) and reflects the interpretation of the socialization of positions of structural functionalism.

Typically, lighting Parsons outstanding role in the creation of a grand system of structural functionalism obscures his contribution to the development of socialization theory, although it is original and productive youth theories. It is guessed influence of B. Malinowski, who studied at Parsons School of Economics in London; there are parallels with the ideas of Sorokin, a well-known Parsons at Harvard University. It is also important that in 1944, Parsons led the Harvard School of Sociology, in 1946 participated in the creation of the Faculty of social relations, including in addition to sociology and social anthropology and social and clinical psychology (Parsons led this department until 1956). The theory of socialization, so he formed at the crossroads of the sciences, which include socialization in their subject field, each for its part, in its aspect.
Parsons theoretical position the result of the integration of the views of Max Weber, Emile Durkheim, Pareto and many other prominent sociologists. The most important contribution to sociology Parsons recognized the creation of the general theory of social action and structural-functional theory of social systems. “The first great synthesis”, as he called his theoretical concept Parsons (Parsons, 1998: 214), was completed in 1937, the publication of the book “The Structure of Social Action”, which became a major turning point in his professional career. The following general works of Parsons’ Social System “(1951),” Towards a general theory of action “(1951) consolidated the author priority macrosociology development.

However, the desire to create a society of Parsons Theory repeatedly interrupted excitedly private sociological problems, of which, however, are often followed by a new impetus to the broad general sociological generalizations. Therefore, after the appearance of “structures of social action” Parsons turned to empirical research some of the issues of medical practice. Under the influence of the results obtained, as well as the serious study of the works of Freud, and then by E. Erikson, he develops an original theory of socialization, which includes a general theory of social systems.
To understand it’s important to note that, according to Parsons, in any social system is a set of four functions that ensure its viability. According to the first letters of the English terms designating these functions, their system briefly called AGIL. Parsons Letters A indicate the first function (by adaptation). This adaptation function. Its purpose is to adapt the system to the environment. It provides a rational organization and redistribution of resources in order to ensure, because of the achievement of its objectives. Second Parsons Function designated by the letter G (by goal attainment focus). This feature achievement. It is also aimed at the environment, but its purpose is different realize the interests of the system, to achieve the implementation of its plan by acting in their own interests to the environment. The third function is denoted by the letter I (of integration) a feature integration. Its purpose to ensure the cohesion of all elements of the system. This means that it is necessary to ensure that the new items that the system has to include in its membership to replace lost, obsolete and so on. N., Became really his, thus ensuring the continuation of the life of the system in the new generations.

The letter L (from latent pattern maintenance preservation of the hidden structure) designates the fourth function. It is the function of preserving the forms and voltage control. When you select this function, Parsons proceeded from the fact that the social system must have a margin of internal strength and withstand the stresses that are created tensions between the elements (in this case people). The stability of the social systems, according to Parsons, support social institutions. Permanent task of the system is its protection from destruction from within. This is achieved by keeping the samples for which the system is oriented, ie. E. The establishment of a specific identity with this system it elements. Follow noted that in the literature there is another abbreviation Parson Ian model, namely GAIL, as indicated in the preface to the new edition of “Social system “Parsons, written by Bryan S. Turner (Turner, 1991: XIX, XXVIII). Parsons also in 1961 represents their interpretation of this model as follows: “I assume that any basic functional imperatives of the system (and, consequently, the social system) can be reduced to four imperatives that I have called the preservation of the sample, Integration of, achievement of objectives and adaptation. These requirements are listed in order of importance from the point of view of a cybernetic process control actions in this type system (Parsons 2002: 565). Thus, the more accurate the model designation Parsons would LIGA.

The American sociologist comes to analyzing the socialization of the fact that the main character of the individual structure formed in the process of socialization based on the structure of systems of social facilities, with whom she had a relationship during his life, including, of course, the cultural values and norms, institutionalized in these systems at the same time, according to Parsons, socialization does not need to be associated with the processes of structural change in the society in which it takes place). This group of “socialization systems” Parsons Sees as the “reference group” of systems associated with the process of socialization (Parsons, 1965: 58). The thesis of the author is that the “socialization process is a series of stages, defined as preparation for participation in various levels of society; Only some selected minorities are prepared to participate with the consciousness of all responsibility in the higher levels of the organization. Orientation systems, included in the process of socialization, are special kinds of organizations at the respective levels “(ibid: 58-59).

The post SOCIALIZATION THEORY T. Parsons (1st Part) appeared first on BookRiff.

Okay, so this is cool:

Neuroscientists stimulate the brain with brief pulses of energy and then record the echoes that bounce back. Dreamless sleep and general anaesthesia return simple echoes; brains in conscious states produce more complex patterns. Then comes a little inspiration from data compression:

Excitingly, we can now quantify the complexity of these echoes by working out how compressible they are, similar to how simple algorithms compress digital photos into JPEG files. The ability to do this represents a first step towards a "consciousness-meter" that is both practically useful and theoretically motivated.

This made me think of Chris Ford's StrangeLoop 2015 talk about using compression to understand music. Using compressibility as a proxy for complexity gives us a first opportunity to understand all sorts of phenomena about which we are collecting data. Kolmogorov complexity is a fun tool for programmers to wield.

The passage above is from an Aeon article on the study of consciousness. I found it an interesting read from beginning to end.

Phil Barker, Sharing, Learning, May 01, 2017

This is a really interesting conference paper (10 page PDF) on the use of the Learning Resource Metadata Initiative (LRMI) vocabulary through schema.org on the open web. The quality of the metadata is generally poor, with some sites (Expedia, MIT, Stanford, MERLOT) containing tens of thousands of errors. Lesson one: "terms that  have a specific meaning within the learning, education and training field are construed in their more generic meaning." Lesson two: "  the strong inverse relationship between sophisticated data structures and amount of usage." For example, "the  AlignmentObject: potentially very expressive, but either it solves a problem no one has (which I don’ t think is the case) or it is so complex that few people understand it well." 

I have been asked a few times for a blog post on how to conduct a proper literature review. This is hard to do sometimes because a lot of people have different methods to do their reviews of the literature (see examples here, here, here and here). I tweeted a few of the steps I undertake, but I figured the easiest way to do this was to actually write a full blog post with the protocol I follow. I usually teach my students (graduate and undergraduate) and my research assistants how to do each one of the steps, so I will be walking you through my own process, rather than any generally accepted version of a method for reviewing the literature. You can apply much of the research process (citation tracing, concept saturation, finding anchor authors and creating subheadings that are based on questions to be answered) to the process of creating an annotated bibliography.

Right now I am doing a review of the literature on online activism for environmental protection purposes. This isn’t a topic that is entirely new to me, because I do know some of the work and a few of the authors who have studied this particular issue, or at least online activism. Among these I can count Dr. Melissa K. Merry (University of Louisville), Dr. Dave Karpf (George Washington University), Dr. Deen Freelon (American University) and Dr. Meredith Clark (University of North Texas). Melissa’s work is specifically on how environmental advocacy organizations have used Twitter, so citations to her work, and the papers she cites are the backbone of the literature review. Deen, Dave and Meredith have researched online activism, so their publications should be part of the contextual components.

An element of undertaking a literature review that almost nobody tells you about is the serendipitous nature of finding a specific author. For example, while I have tweeted quite a lot, and I knew of the work of Dave Karpf on online activism because I followed him on Twitter, I didn’t know about the work of Melissa until she became my discussant at this year’s Midwest Political Science Association conference and I Googled her work, which is COMPLETELY relevant to what I am studying right now. I knew of Deen and Meredith’s work and their study of #BlackLivesMatter because I had followed it on Twitter. But it took me a citation tracing process based on Dave’s 2010 piece to find Heather Hodges and Galen Stocking’s article on Twitter activism against the Keystone XL Pipeline, which is VERY much specific to what I am researching now. So much of what I come across is actually rather serendipitous. Heather and Galen’s paper then became also part of the list of the anchor authors.

1. Identify the main topic and the anchor authors.

The first stage of undertaking a literature review is identifying the main topic for the review, and a few key authors, what I called in the previous paragraph, the anchor authors. For example, for this review I’m doing on online environmental activism I identified three articles by Melissa, one by Dave, as my foundation ones.

2. Undertake a citation tracing process to check who is citing whom and whether you’ve reached conceptual saturation

As I mentioned in the prevous paragraph, from reading and summarizing Melissa and Dave’s articles, I found other authors who have done relevant and similar work, like Heather Hodges and Galen Stocking. I used citation tracing both in the case of Melissa and in that of Dave, and that’s how I converged on the Hodges and Stocking article (both Melissa and Dave were cited in their piece).

3. Read, summarise, synthesise, WRITE.

Once I found more relevant articles, I started reading and summarizing them, and creating my Conceptual Synthesis Excel Dump. As I have mentioned before, while I create one for each research project I undertake, I don’t believe the Conceptual Synthesis Excel Dump should be submitted as part of a project report, but it IS an important component. That is, your Excel dump should exist, and it should encompass all the literature you have reviewed, but it’s not a product that a funding agency might be interested in publishing or even posting online.

4. Generate the main themes for your Conceptual Synthesis Excel Dump and headings for your literature review, based on specific topics you’re researching.

The Conceptual Synthesis Excel Dump will help you create headings for your literature review, provide you with accurate quotations for your paper, and give you a snapshot, bird’s-eye view of where your paper is situated and the gaps in the literature, but it is NOT an actual scholarly output. Annotated bibliographies, banks of synthetic notes and literature reviews are actual research products.

5. Repeat the process until reaching conceptual saturation.

Depending on how in-depth I want to go, I write rhetorical precis or synthetic summaries of each article, and then dump them into my Conceptual Synthesis Excel Dump for that specific topic. I may also want to create an annotated bibliography. But sometimes I am so busy that I simply go from the Conceptual Synthesis Excel Dump to writing the literature review.

Most people I know write first an annotated bibliography and THEN, based on the results of their annotations, start writing their literature review. Since I am usually reviewing a body of works for a specific paper I am writing, I rarely have the time to write an annotated bibliography. However, something I may do is ask my research assistants to write an annotated bibliography on a broader topic and, based on that one, choose specific citations I may want to use for the literature review section of the paper I am writing.

6. Write the literature review as though you were answering questions about each subheading.

I usually break down the literature review, if it is a research product in and of itself (like the one we generated for the UC MEXUS CONACYT project) in headings and summarize how each one of the papers, book chapters and books I reviewed relates to each other within the literature, within each heading. So for example, if I were doing this literature review as a product itself, I probably would use a list of topics and headings like this:

1. Introduction.
2. The role of activism in policy change.
3. Activist strategies’ repertoire: online and offline.
4. Experiences of online activists’ in influencing domestic policy change.
5. Environmental activists’ repertoires: online and offline.
6. How do environmental activists use online strategies to influence policy change.
7. Gaps in the literature.
8. Conclusions.

Some authors, like Dr. Eduardo Araral, publish their literature reviews as scholarly pieces in international journals. This coauthored piece on Water Governance 2.0 is a really solid literature review with a critical component that provides additional insight than just summarizing the works published so far on the topic.

This paper by Benson et al is another good literature review published as a journal article (on water governance and integrated water resources management).

These pieces (by Miranda et al 2011 and by Batchelor) on water governance are not published as journal articles, but remain solid literature reviews.

This literature review by the Pacific Institute on voluntary standards in environmental regulation is also quite solid.

Overall, the exercise of undertaking a literature review is an important and necessary one for students both at the undergraduate and at the graduate level, and that’s why it is fundamental that we teach our students how to do them properly. Hopefully my post will answer some questions on how to conduct literature reviews!

Google has updated the Nexus and Pixel support pages to provide specific dates for when the company will stop issuing software and security updates for the Pixel, Pixel Xl and recent Nexus devices.

Both of the company’s 2016 smartphones will continue to receive major Android system updates until October 2018. Moreover, Google will continue to update the two devices against security threats until October 2019.

Neither of these dates is strictly new as they conform to Google’s previously announced promise to continue issuing security updates “for at least 3 years from when the device first became available on the Google Store, or at least 18 months from when the Google Store last sold the device, whichever is longer.” Still, it’s good to have those dates down in writing. See the full lists below.

Nexus devices

Pixel and Pixel XL

Source: Google Via: Droid Life

The post Google specifies Pixel and Nexus end of support dates appeared first on MobileSyrup.

Apple has informed Qualcomm it will withhold any royalty payments it owes the company until their ongoing legal battle is resolved.

According to Fortune, Qualcomm depends on royalties for 80 percent of its pre-tax profit. As a result of Apple’s escalation, Qualcomm has been forced to cut its Q2 revenue forecast by $500 million USD. The company has told shareholders it now expects quarterly revenue to land between $4.8 billion and $5.6 billion.

Apple does not pay Qualcomm royalties directly; instead, with licensing agreements related to the iPhone and iPad, Qualcomm charges the company’s manufacturing partners, who then pass the bill to Apple. Qualcomm revealed those manufacturers had started withholding payments earlier this month. However, the company did not provide specific financial guidance at the time.

“Qualcomm’s demands are unreasonable and they have been charging higher rates based on our innovation, not their own.”

Apple says it has spent the past five years unsuccessfully attempting to negotiate a direct licensing agreement with Qualcomm. “They have refused to negotiate fair terms,” the tech giant said in a statement. “Without an agreed-upon rate to determine how much is owed, we have suspended payments until the correct amount can be determined by the court. As we’ve said before, Qualcomm’s demands are unreasonable and they have been charging higher rates based on our innovation, not their own.”

Qualcomm, meanwhile, said, “Apple’s continued interference with Qualcomm’s agreements to which Apple is not a party is wrongful and the latest step in Apple’s global attack on Qualcomm. We will continue vigorously to defend our business model, and pursue our right to protect and receive fair value for our technological contributions to the industry.”

In January, Apple filed a $1-= billion lawsuit against Qualcomm, accusing the company of abusing its position as market leader to force unfair licensing agreements upon its customers. Qualcomm responded with a countersuit in which it argued Apple broke contract and said the company was unwilling to pay fair market value for its patents.

Qualcomm has been the subject of multiple anti-trust investigations involving regulators in the U.S., E.U. and South Korea. Since the start of the year, the company’s stock has shed 20 percent of its value. Qualcomm was recently forced to pay BlackBerry $814 million in overpaid royalties.

Source: Fortune Via: Apple Insider

The post Apple tells Qualcomm it will not pay any royalties until legal dispute is settled appeared first on MobileSyrup.