?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

PyccKo!

  • Jun. 8th, 2005 at 3:52 AM
Evil Chuckle
Of all the strangest things I've come across, this has gotta be the coolest!!

Click the following links to check out my Info page!

English:   info here!
Russian:  info here!

Now I wonder how long LJ has had this mirror, and I also wonder why I found out only now!! :o)

What a pleasant surprise!! :)

Kaydeeyoh!

//update: There's a nice little site called ljgate. You can use it to access LJ if you're unable to access LJ directly. For all you Palm OS browsers, try this service, it's certainly a lot more fun to carry around than importing it format-by-format. :o) -kdo

Comments

kalyancreddy wrote:
Jun. 8th, 2005 02:13 pm (UTC)
Whenever I access LJ here in my Univ apart from this very system, I get the Swedish Mirror and on this one its English, probably due to my settings.
angiasaa wrote:
Jun. 8th, 2005 06:10 pm (UTC)
Hmmm.... Interesting point to ponder, just how many mirrors does LJ maintain/have?

As far as logic is concerned, it seems too tedious a process to go ahead and manage a mirror for something as tentacular as LJ is.... It would seem more economical and practical to have a local backup for the servers and have external pipes coming in from different servers. Perhaps caching called-for data temporarily. More like having a local 'LJ gateway' for certain regions....?

Hmmm.... While making the post, the implication of the word 'mirror' never really struck me. A mirror seems too impracticable. :o)
cyberdivalive wrote:
Jun. 8th, 2005 11:52 pm (UTC)
I would like to know too -
do we have Indian language mirrors do you think?

below I have an link you might be interested in seeing regarding russian livejournal usage - there are apparently many..

http://www.zhurnal.ru/staff/gorny/english/rlj_aoir5_abstract.html


angiasaa wrote:
Jun. 9th, 2005 02:10 pm (UTC)
Wow! You've done your research, it's interesting to see how LJ has affected the Russian angle on socio-cyber communities.

Read the article, and I've bookmarked it. I might find further insights on my own random factor theories from its contents....

Thankyou!
cyberdivalive wrote:
Jun. 9th, 2005 02:18 pm (UTC)
You know I will be very interested to hear you angles and so-called "random factors":)

r
angiasaa wrote:
Jun. 9th, 2005 04:13 pm (UTC)
There are many tiny factors that influence our lives. There are major factors, and those are what sociologists and psychologists concentrate their efforts on, but there are smaller factors that have so little to contribute in themselves that it becomes too much nitty-gritty and too little use. The professionals naturally skip it altogether since the contribution from these factors, to the actual impact is very little.

I've found that people are affected by everything that they are exposed to(in any case, their minds are!). No matter how big or small the factor, there will be an effect. Sometimes, the effects emerge later on in time, sometimes, they are overpowered by other effects or nullifying or reversing factors occurring later in an individuals life.

Similarly, people apply nudges and individual forces to society. Apart from population movements and graded power struggles, every individual applies their own bit of force to the equation. Sociologists ignore this. They prefer to think in terms of masses of people. Obviously, their predictions are largely correct and by avoiding the individual aspect, they are avoiding an explanation of the exact case at hand.

I live in a world where every little thing counts. So does everybody, only, they don't count every little thing. They prefer to see everything in black and white rather than as a world that's in shades of gray as well as full of gradient colors!

We have to allow for random factors. What are random factors? I talk about them so much, yet there are so few people who've actually asked me what they are. :o)

Well, when there are small factors that I cannot account for, I call them random. The reason for my inability to account for a factor is due to incomplete information. There's always something that has not been accounted for. The best reflection of this theory is Heisenberg's Uncertainity Principle
Δx of the position measurements and the standard deviation Δp of the momentum measurements.  Then we will find that where Ћ is Planck's constant (h) divided by 2π
(move your mouse over the formula to see the alternate text.)

Often, the observer fails to take note of his/her own affect on the situation being observed. Most observers fail to notice the effect altogether, let alone drawing up a self-observance schedule for their observation. Observers tend to carelessly forget the 'I'm the center of the world' factor and that says a lot about their competency.

NEways, some factors remain un-calculated, and those are what I refer to as random factors. They can of course be noticed and duly inserted into future calculations, but often, it's too late by then and previous calculation (upon which future calculations are built upon) tend to turn out incorrect.
cyberdivalive wrote:
Jun. 9th, 2005 04:56 pm (UTC)
I've found that people are affected by everything that they are exposed to(in any case, their minds are!). No matter how big or small the factor, there will be an effect. Sometimes, the effects emerge later on in time, sometimes, they are overpowered by other effects or nullifying or reversing factors occurring later in an individuals life.


I agree
cyberdivalive wrote:
Jun. 9th, 2005 04:57 pm (UTC)

(move your mouse over the formula to see the alternate text.)

didnt work...
angiasaa wrote:
Jun. 9th, 2005 07:47 pm (UTC)
When you move your mouse over the Formula and leave it there for about two or three seconds, a little box should drop down with the following text in it:

Δx of the position measurements and the standard deviation Δp of the momentum measurements. Then we will find that where Ћ is Planck's constant (h) divided by 2П"
cyberdivalive wrote:
Jun. 9th, 2005 08:43 pm (UTC)
aargh -math;-)

will try again later.

r
angiasaa wrote:
Jun. 9th, 2005 10:09 pm (UTC)
lol! I share your sentiments on math....

I studied advanced math for a bit, almost did'nt scrape through the exams, but made it NEway. :o)
cyberdivalive wrote:
Jun. 9th, 2005 10:31 pm (UTC)
at least you studied advanced math, saar!
angiasaa wrote:
Jun. 9th, 2005 10:37 pm (UTC)
Yes, I did, but I'm no better off now than I was before I studied it. I am not scared of math like I once used to be, but it's a treacherous ride over numbers that I prefer to avoid than rush headlong into. :)
cyberdivalive wrote:
Jun. 9th, 2005 05:02 pm (UTC)
you write:

"Often, the observer fails to take note of his/her own affect on the situation being observed. Most observers fail to notice the effect altogether, let alone drawing up a self-observance schedule for their observation. Observers tend to carelessly forget the 'I'm the center of the world' factor and that says a lot about their competency"

Well - certain cultural studies and feminist theory frameworks for doing social research insist on the researcher situating herself/himself -in relation to the "object" of study - the way we might say it is "location matters"

r
angiasaa wrote:
Jun. 9th, 2005 07:55 pm (UTC)
Yes, they do. But location is not the only factor. It's (as I've mentioned in the comment 1-up in the thread, just a major factor. Eye contact, body posture, the observers shadow, the fact that the observer has his or her back to the sunlight and thus projecting a sober silhouette, or the other way round, thus cheering the target of observation.....

Thousands of factors matter. They all make a difference as a collective bunch of factors. Individually, the chances of the observer being aware of all the influencing factors is minute. Even more minute is the chances of the observer understanding the impact of these small factors. These random factors.

The observer in such a case, would never know what went wrong.... And he or she would rarely ever try to find out what those factors were. instead, s/he'll try to formulate a theory to explain these random factors. Not realizing that they're totally missing the point. :o)

Kaydeeyoh!
cyberdivalive wrote:
Jun. 9th, 2005 08:44 pm (UTC)
but arent we formulating theories everytime we talk and act?

It is based on some assumption...

(and then we set off another ton of those little randomnesses;-))

are you talking chaos theory sorta?
angiasaa wrote:
Jun. 9th, 2005 10:19 pm (UTC)
Yes, we are. Don't we all?

Everything is based upon assumptions. Sadly, even when eminent professors and scientists say 'Ceteris Paribus' everytime they dictate their theories, often, they assume they don't exist and that they are not changing the facts by the mere presence of their own selves affecting the situation as it stands.

They postulate their theories Ceteris Paribus whilst not realizing that they themselves are forming a part of the equation.

As to the 'chaos theory', the system as a whole is guided by it, but when you look at individualistic samples, chaos does not (cannot) apply. That's the whole point, when you're talking of huge masses of people, yu have variances in both directions and thus, a simple mean characteristic might be derived. But when it's just one individual, drawing out a mean is basically impossible, you get a final value that is singular in nature and balancing it on any scale becomes impossible.

Balance is something that exists in all complex systems. No matter how dense, there's a reasoning in each system. Individualistic systems tend to exhibit too irrational a behavior and are therefore either ignored or merely quantified by taking note of the sum-total of all smaller factors and extending a mean from those.

When taking the smallest parts and taking the mean tendency from the sample, we do not gain a better understanding of the individual parts.... That is what I'm interested in....
cyberdivalive wrote:
Jun. 9th, 2005 10:30 pm (UTC)
you write:

"When taking the smallest parts and taking the mean tendency from the sample, we do not gain a better understanding of the individual parts.... That is what I'm interested in...."

you are interested in the specifics and contextual understandings then - not in sweeping generalizations.

there are several academics who would agree (even if they say it in different languages - words) with the spirit of what you are saying.

as for
"even when eminent professors and scientists say 'Ceteris Paribus' everytime they dictate their theories, often, they assume they don't exist and that they are not changing the facts by the mere presence of their own selves affecting the situation as it stands."

this is an epistemological issue - and also an issue of who has power in defining any situation/context. You should read the work of Bruno Latour's "Laboratory Life"

r


angiasaa wrote:
Jun. 9th, 2005 10:35 pm (UTC)
yes, a few others have also stated the fact of 'ignorance by belief' where their peers tend to assumue they don't exist not because they don't realise the facts, but because they fail (forget?) to notice their own effect on the whole.

I shall try to get my hands on 'Laboratory Life', though it might be a lot of searching away in a country as sweet as India. :o)

But I've noted it down in my database, I'll see if I can grab a copy from somewhere.... :o)
cyberdivalive wrote:
Jun. 9th, 2005 10:47 pm (UTC)
you dont have to read all of it - there might be related essays online - google bruno latour and see if he has essays online.
angiasaa wrote:
Jun. 9th, 2005 10:54 pm (UTC)
Will do. :o)
cyberdivalive wrote:
Jun. 9th, 2005 10:22 pm (UTC)
It's (as I've mentioned in the comment 1-up in the thread, just a major factor. Eye contact, body posture, the observers shadow, the fact that the observer has his or her back to the sunlight and thus projecting a sober silhouette, or the other way round, thus cheering the target of observation.....

perspective?
angiasaa wrote:
Jun. 9th, 2005 10:32 pm (UTC)
lol! Perspective would make a diffenence in every case, but then, we'll end up brooding over metaphysical theories that (literally) drive you in circles. :o)

Perspective is'nt the only participant playing the game, it's effect. The sum total of small things. Observers looking at the sum total don't see all the factors effecting the object in question, they merely accept it as an observation without realizing the extent of the effect that they are having on their object.
cyberdivalive wrote:
Jun. 9th, 2005 10:38 pm (UTC)
examining the particle and the wave then
angiasaa wrote:
Jun. 9th, 2005 10:39 pm (UTC)
Yes, sorta, only here, it's the little things that cause humans to change behavioral aspects of themselves....
cyberdivalive wrote:
Jun. 9th, 2005 10:48 pm (UTC)
I agree.

which is why one has to live in a space and watch every small detail over a long period of time to understand any part of it (never the whole ..)
angiasaa wrote:
Jun. 9th, 2005 10:53 pm (UTC)
It's only from the parts that we get a true understanding of something.

Never imagine the parts by looking at teh whole.

It's like trying to understand the working of a computer by looking at it from outside rather than by opening it up, taking it apart, and looking at the bits that make it up.

:o)
cyberdivalive wrote:
Jun. 9th, 2005 11:20 pm (UTC)
yup

but also keep in mind that just knowing the details of the parts without understanding how they work together is not enough either
angiasaa wrote:
Jun. 9th, 2005 11:35 pm (UTC)
That's obvious I should say. It's not the whole that needs concentration, if you can't figure out what's really happening inside.

You should read "Paradigms Lost" by 'John L Casti'. He talks at length of the logic box question. It's an interesting read and gives you a pretty good idea at an oblique angle of what I'm referring to here.

I say _everything_ needs to be understood. So I start with the tiny bits and parts. I don't say we should not wonder how the parts go together or how the whole functions.

My mind craves an understanding. All I'm saying is that others don't seem to have (or want) understanding. They just wanna be able to predict (roughly) a future state (however inaccurate) of a system. And those who _do_ want complete understanding simply ignore their own influence on the system being observer/analyzed/understood.
cyberdivalive wrote:
Jun. 9th, 2005 11:39 pm (UTC)
will look for Casti's work .

r
kalyancreddy wrote:
Jun. 9th, 2005 08:46 am (UTC)
A mirror seems too impracticable Indeed
cyberdivalive wrote:
Jun. 9th, 2005 04:57 pm (UTC)
why too impracticable?
kalyancreddy wrote:
Jun. 10th, 2005 02:17 pm (UTC)
Sorry for the late reply! but this comment was supposed to be UNscreeneed by angiasaa and only then could I reply.
For the answer to your question, see this, I completely agree with him.
angiasaa wrote:
Jun. 10th, 2005 07:38 pm (UTC)
Yeah, my mistake, I would have unscreened it, but I was'nt online for a while....
kalyancreddy wrote:
Jun. 11th, 2005 09:34 am (UTC)
Hey, I am not complaining, was an explanation for the late reply!
angiasaa wrote:
Jun. 12th, 2005 01:13 pm (UTC)
Still, my appologies remain. :)
cyberdivalive wrote:
Jun. 11th, 2005 03:42 pm (UTC)
thankyou - am on the road until tuesday - will catch up then.

r
(no subject) - alexli - Jun. 18th, 2005 08:40 am (UTC)
angiasaa wrote:
Jun. 18th, 2005 07:14 pm (UTC)
I have added you to my list..

My Id is the same as it's always been, "angiasaa" :o)