Posted via web from George’s posterous

Point: No matter how many servers Google or RackSpace etc install, the amount of available storage will never "approach infinity". No matter how much you have, there could always be infinitely more (in this thought-experimental world where there are still infinitely more possible servers). A gazillion servers with peta peta peta bytes of memory each would still just be a big number of bytes of storage that was still infinitely removed from infinite storage.

Qestion: if a language is composed of a finite number of elements, and a sentence, by definition has to end (full stop), can there be an infinite number of sentences in that language?

Corollary: meaningful sentences?

Posted via email from George’s posterous

Posted via web from George’s posterous

Posted via web from George’s posterous

I just followed Posterous' instructions, here for linking Posterous Posts to Buzz.

Posted via email from George’s posterous

I am trying Google Reader and/or Posterous as social media broadcast hubs.

In order to manage the network noise I might cause, I do not want to repost everything everywhere. This is emerging as a strong social networking faux-pas. But sometimes I might want to broadcast some items beyond the bounds of one network. TweetDeck could do this for Twitter, Facebook, MySpace and LinkedIn (still don't know if I care about LinkedIn). But, not for Buzz or FriendFeed, which are where the people I am currently interested in following are posting and commenting on the posts of others (note to TweetDeck: catch up).

There are two kinds of items I might want to share across the boundaries:

• Things I read and comment on
• Things I think and try to work out in writing

I accept that these categories are blurred. The main difference is that the first will definitely have a link and the second might not have a link.

Items with links can be handled by GoogleReader's "Send To" settings (thanks to David Andrews for pointing this out) but not perfectly

If I select Posterous as the Send-To target and also have Posterous' "autopost" turned on, the item goes to Posterous, Twitter, FriendFeed and (if it is a picture) Flickr. Does it also go to Buzz? This is not clear. So, I tried using a current item from The Next Web, The Social Media Cheat Sheet (http://thenextweb.com/shareables/2010/03/07/the-social-media-cheat-sheet/) and the answer appears to be no. "Sending To" does not appear to send to Buzz. Although, commenting on an item, sharing an item and sharing with a note all do send the item and comments to Buzz. But, not to anywhere else. Another issue that arises via this route is that "Sending-To" Posterous strips out most of the attributional metadata from the post. Worse, if the item is originally discovered via a feed proxy you will have no idea who originated it by following the link to my Posterous. (Note to self, remember this when posting via Posterous.) However this vector does have the advantage of posting to  several places at once.

Alternatively I could choose to send to FriendFeed and allow FriendFeed to do the dirty work of spamming. Or, Twitter and consume Twitter in my FriendFeed. Then we are back into the high-noise scenario, but at least people who use FriendFeed could turn off my Twitter feed.

If you simply use Send-To from inside Google Reader you have to send to several services separately, and then, if you want it in your Buzz, you have to comment on the item again.

This could go on and on.

For now, I think I will share my Posterous to Twitter, and Friend Feed for thoughts like this. And, I will selectively repost interesting items to Buzz and elsewhere via Google Reader.

Posted via email from George’s posterous

Posted via web from George’s posterous

Prompted by discussions on GoogleBuzz, a foray into ALT's CMALT CrowdVine (http://cmalt-net.alt.ac.uk/), I've been looking at some FriendFeed profiles trying to see if I miss anything by not being there, or there. CMALT is 95% (ish) noise while FF profiles that I have seen dip down to, oh, like 90% noise (i.e. items reposted from other networks on which I already follow those people).

I think we need to distinguish between large general social networks and small, function/task/topic-specific networks. For the smaller networks (public or private) consensus among the individuals can determine which one platform to use for conversations pertinent to that function/task/topic. The small network functions like a break-out room in the big conference of life: go there, talk about the function/task/topic with like-minded (or otherwise!) people; then, come back to the more general network.

But, for the larger more general networks, I want a "personal friend aggregator" (pace @DaveCormier for using the p-word):

• so that I can follow people on multiple networks and filter out duplicates posted/reposted to the multiple networks thereby getting just one of any message
• TweetDeck is sort of starting to enable this; if only I could create mixed-network groups: I'll see that person on Twitter, that person on Buzz, them on LinkedIn and all in the same column
• Maybe FriendFeed can do this already (for some, but not all networks)
• that knows how my friends follow me so that I can target my posts/status updates at friends/followers preferred network so they do not get multiple identical posts from me
• Possibly using my wish-ware version of TweetDeck mixed-network groups (above)
• that will allow friends/followers to choose how/where to follow me
• i.e. friends have a say in which of their friends' mixed-network groups they appear in (should they care)
• or, they run their own mixed-network aggregator 
• that allows comments so that I can have threaded conversations (like Buzz) but across networks

Not sure that is the spec, exactly, but heading in that direction. Any thoughts?

Posted via email from George’s posterous

I had the pleasure recently to run a module workshop on "The Philosophy of Higher Education" in the Postgraduate Certificate course in Learning, Teaching and Assessment in Higher Education (PGCLTAHE) for recently appointed lecturers in Cranfield University's Defence and Security Department at the Defence Staff College at Shrivenham. Most of the participants could be described as late career entrants to the academic profession.

The slides are here:
http://www.slideshare.net/georgeroberts/philosophy-of-higher-education

And a topic map is here:
http://www.xmind.net/share/georgeroberts/xmind-768070/ (click on outline view to see all topics unfolded)

Having run this workshop twice back-to-back, I can see many improvements I would make were I to do it again.

At Shrivenham, the quality of the knowledge, argument and experience of the participants certainly made it a challenge. As Brookfield (2001) said, learners have the right to expect authenticity, credibility and reciprocity; to set ground rules, provide alternatives, exemplify models and give access to experience. This was a high-ability group: well read with many years of professional, commercial and military experience (one was a General). I don't know if I met their expectations in these regards, but they did engage forcefully and critically with the idea of a University as an instance of one of the great institutions of society with an important function of cultural reproduction. Universities are a part of - or provide a part of -  the answer to the question of the purpose of society. In response to an early question on what is "Philosophy of Higher Education", one participant cut the Gordian Knot: "what is it and how do we do it?" University is one of the places where the question of what the purpose (or function) of society (or our society) is addressed.

Reference

Posted via email from George’s posterous

Check out:

Whitchurch, C. (2008). Shifting Identities and Blurring Boundaries:
the Emergence of Third Space Professionals in UK Higher Education.
Higher Education Quarterly, 62(4), 377-396.

Higher Education Quarterly, 0951–5224
DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2273.2008.00387.x
Volume 62, No. 4, October 2008, pp 377–396

“… describes a further category of blended professionals, who have
mixed backgrounds and portfolios, comprising elements of both
professional and academic activity. The paper goes on to introduce the
concept of third space as an emergent territory between academic and
professional domains, which is colonised primarily by less bounded
forms of professional.”

Although not written as a dystopian vision, it can certainly be read
as one. For some freelance is freedom. For others it is bloody hard
work. It is interesting seeing the “B” word entering other discourses
than learning technology, and to see Third Space theory, too,
collocated with blended learning (which I had never thought of as a
theory - what does it explain?).

Posted via email from George’s posterous