Jump to navigation
Last post gave a link to the Leap Manifesto text with my 6 point text highlight system applied. I asked anyone interested to hold off commenting because I want individuals to teach the system, rather than vice versa.
It occurs to me I should point out a couple of things about apps in general before going in to that, though, because that goes directly in to political application.
I've mentioned there are different potential apps, but haven't explained exactly what I mean by that yet. For an information system, political application may be the giant in the crowd, but although application to something like recipe development is a great deal easier, it's because of context, not structure.
Say I want an info system to develop and keep recipes. I want people to interact easily, so have posted a list of recipe titles and a click on a title brings up a single interactive page for each.
At the top of the page is the name, "Jello Surprise", or whatever. Below it there's a column of numbers and beside that another column with associated specific ingredients. Below those is cooking instructions as block text across the whole bottom.
I doubt there's a single person that couldn't look at that and understand the meaning and specific relationships for each point detail. The instructions is a single point detail (ie. irreducable in the given context) that contains is own linked single point details, and the others are single point details themselves, but that doesn't ever matter.
Instead of just reading, a person wants to interact in order to create the "best" recipe, and that's what I want too. There are only so many ways a person can interact that are relevant for the concept. All require something specific to be identified first, ie. a specific point detail, and that's the same for all app's.
If a person disagreed with the amount of white sugar, using 2/3 cup instead of 1/2, they could indicate by highlighting the 1/2 in plain red. If the change had significant potential impact on the desired outcome, meaning a "good" dish, they could bold it. I think all 6 text highlights are general enough to be relevant for all apps.
An assumption is that the "1/2" the person highlights red refers to white sugar, and that's based purely on physical relationship of the text on the page. All apps are the same that way.
When I see the red 1/2, I know someone disagrees but not why, and would click on it. If it's bold I know it's important to someone, and are more motivated to check, etc. A click on the red 1/2 brings an interaction screen where you can see the information someone added. All apps are the same that way.
Now there's one subtlety to distinguish different apps, standard prompts for info. Every app has the same technical format for the interaction screen, but the initial open text displays are going to differ. "1/2" (or 1/2 cup) is a number, and when it's highlighted red it means someone disagrees somehow. When you think about how someone could disagree with a number in this context (app), whatever the reason why, it must be associated with a suggested new number, regardless whether they input it at the time.
Also, there has to be a reason for the change, so a comment of some kind. The standard display would show the original number, 1/2, an arrow and an empty open text box with the label "New Measure" or something, and beside that an empty text box with the label "Comments" which would be for how that person thinks that change affects the dish, why they're suggesting it.
There'd always be the 1/2, but none or all of the open boxes could be filled. If a cook clicked on a red 1/2, but saw none of the open input boxes were filled, they'd probably click off right away without a second thought, or add the details themselves. When blank, experience tells them the extra info they need to evaluate the interaction isn't there.
But if someone not so sure checks, they still see that those pieces (categories) of info are particularly relevant, even with no values, and it may help them in further analysis. So application is basically finding good prompts, and every app w(c)ould have a unique default info display in both what's initially open and how they're arranged, but all are just rearrangements of the universal format, and so can be fully correlated anytime, internally and externally. It's all the same market.(cont'd next)
(cont'd from previous)Another aspect of all apps relates to details like, "1/2 cup white sugar." That's a single point detail in the context of recipe, but it's also made up of 4 independent single point details in the context of ingredient, and one of those details is 3 details in the context of fraction. That technically never matters (in a given context a point detail is a point detail regardless of internal structure), but potentially could significantly affect user interaction in at least one way for more complex applications, like political.
For political, putting point details together is virtually certainly going to be the norm, not exception, and they aren't usually going to be single words or characters. For recipes, I can look at each "sub" detail and understand what it means, and especially how changing one would affect the others in the given context.
Say I want to develop the recipe, I have to define why, so I say it's to make it sweeter. To accomplish that I have to look at the details, and decide to look at the cooking instructions first. I look at each and decide none have an effect on sweetness. Then I look at the ingredients.
In order to evaluate, I first have to understand what each ingredient does in that context (ie. it's purpose, why it's there), meaning as an ingredient in this specific recipe (adding sweetness, masking other flavours, etc.), as well as general info, when relevant.
Once I understand the ingredient as subordinate, meaning having a superior reference to give it unique relevance in the global context (as part of this recipe related to sweetness), I can look at the ingredient itself, within it's own technically independent context (as something that affects taste of a recipe, as opposed to as something granular, for eg.), as to what of it's details relate to sweetness, for eg., or calorie count, etc.
When a single user looks at the amount of sugar, they could look at the fact it's sugar, and if the goal is to decrease calories, might suggest using an artificial sweetener instead of sugar. They tell a friend to use sweetener instead of sugar, and they go and use 1/2 cup of white sweetener.
Of course, the vast majority of us would know not to do that, but it's only because of our specific experience. Each detail has a unique relevance, which for that ingredient is dependent on 6 other details. Changing only one of the 6 details has an effect related to it's global context, to add a flavour to a dish, and may or may not affect local context, meaning having an effect on other details in the group.
Changing sugar to sweetener obviates all the 5 other details, but changing 1 to 1.1 has no effect on any others, if the goal is increased sweetness. If the goal is to decrease calories, increasing to 1.1 would require a change in at least one other detail in order to satisfy it. If I changed cup to tbsp, I'd have to change at least one detail in the set of 3 for the number.
Another thing about recipes is that "taste" is always relevant, literally always. Not only that, it's always as a theoretical component of decision, regardless whether it's relevant in the individual info discovery process (whether it matters to a specific person).
Taste (and #calories, texture, etc.) is a universal decision detail for recipes, and even a detail like "Bake" could affect it, so every interaction screen could have a prompt for how it changes taste, and it would always be relevant. The constitution when talking about laws is one like that too.
There are several other things, and recipe development is an excellent example where subtleties in info management are very easily seen, but I'll go in to those when relevant later. One of the most important things to keep in mind is that the relationships and interactions between those details are reflected in all apps similarly, regardless whether single numbers or books worth of info for each detail.
Sorry for the mass of text, but when I start in to the political application, I'd rather refer back to this if necessary. It's important to see what differs one app from another, but also how they're similar.
If there's anyone reading this who are with the NDP, and specifically interested in progressing the discussions related to the Leap Manifesto (LM), after the general discussion about the 6 point text highlight system, which was bumped for the apps difference thing earlier, I'm going to look at how they handle the info exchange aspect for the LM. This is purely from the perspective of idea development, not judgement, and is obviously only my opinion, but there's at least a chance it may ultimately help you.
Since it's political application, one thing to get out of the way right away is that this isn't a "non-partisan" discussion process, which isn't possible, desirable, or even relevant. That would be like saying the rules of grammar is a commie.
Next post I'd like to look briefly at the 6 point text highlight system in this context, and then start details related to the application to political.
Assume there's already a system where we can personally find and vote on literally every single decision necessary to run our country, and are technically successful doing it. Now, after the reality sets in about what it means to have to do that, we're desperately looking for ways so we don't have to do that.
Easily the most difficult aspect of large scale discussions (ie. decision making) is individual influence. Any discussion system that doesn't allow for individual reaction/direction is doomed to fail. The problem is how to generalize the interaction enough so it's relevant for literally everyone under all conditions, but above all, still have it meaningful. The 6 point text highlight system is one step in achieving that.
"Discussion" can have as many subjects as there are ideas, but the process of discussion has relatively few (very specifically definable) details. The first and most important is that in order to consider any info, we have to be made aware of it. In that context, there are 2 general ways to look at how we're going to need to discuss things as a country; direction and reaction, and each could have different mechanisms.
Direction refers to creating laws, treaties, policies and other things that would be longer term with higher detail volumes and range, etc. That's where experts and our hired managers would come in handy, if they could be trusted. Not (necessarily) to make our decisions, but to help properly construct the info grid, point out the most relevant decision points, and ensure we're properly aware of other info.
That's also where exact wording can be relevant, so a formal vote mechanism is needed, and simple red/green can be used. Leading up to the end-point, all 6 text highlights (etc.) could be useful in developing the text block and ensuring suitable expression of public will through relevant general moral, ethical, etc. interactive question and info streams.
That would have a standard interaction page, as well as directed interactions when necessary, and could be managed (including notifications) by a trusted few for the benefit of everyone. This is where we would have stopped the despicable perversion of C-51 (a vile, traitorous, covert poison pill), among many others, while still being able to retain the "legitimate" elements, before it was established. That's the kind of thing the senate was supposed to do, but that's another issue that has to be discussed later.
Reaction refers to shorter term and would likely be the usual mindset for interaction. It would probably be through reactive media, especially news, discussion groups, etc., but also could use managed posts of individual interest, etc. Since the vast majority of people are already being made aware through those means, the only thing needed are computer and phone apps to apply the 6 highlights.
The 6 point text highlight system can be used as a running poll (assuming the highlighted text can be stored and changed) linked to relevant current events, and for several other handy things.
Through reaction we could have demanded and controlled real investigation in to the stupidly blatant criminal corruption of the police and judicial processes related to the duffy bribe (blatant, and even with the actual document, bribery of a public official in order to sabotage a current judicial process). What happened there was yet another assault on the integrity of our country, but at least it's only criminality and not treason like C-51. Would that be a whole or half a blessing...if we were keeping count.
There's more to the highlight thing, but it's better developed through application.
Next post I want to make a few general comments about idea development and problem solving in this context (ie. large scale discussions, esp. related to political), and then next one look at and expand one detail in the Leap Manifesto, as an example. Again, this is purely my opinion, and I claim no "authority" as to why anyone should listen.
Idea development, in the context of political control for very large numbers of people, is a mind-boggling undertaking. I have limited time and just the internet for research, but haven't seen any system anywhere near suitable to do it decently. That doesn't mean there aren't many many very good things being done in a lot of places around the world, but nothing near what's necessary to run a country.
It's quite apparent that those who created the Leap Manifesto had no idea how to proceed. I don't fault them for that, since no one does (yet), but do for how they introduced it. There was no need to vote on anything. If the vote was no, would people talking about it be arrested? All they had to do was distribute it by computer and anyone interested could have worked on it.
I only mention that because what's coming from now on may help the NDP, and that's a bit disturbing. Don't take that to mean I hate the NDP or anything like that, I couldn't care less. But right now all political parties are nothing more than little mafias that lie and steal whenever it suits them. All of them quite frankly disgust me.
It's purely because the subject matter could materially help my country that I'd ever consider interacting with any political party's agenda, and it's purely for we, the people, who are this country, that I continue.
Idea development is primarily about information discovery and problem solving. Since we have to interact and take input from many people, it helps to have a way to visualize how to accomplish that.
Try this:All knowledge can be considered to exist as an infinite network of pools and streams, and every detail is a puddle. Information discovery is filling those, and problem solving is navigating them.
Whenever a relevant detail is thought up by anyone anywhere, a puddle is created. When people get together they bring them out and discuss by arranging them in to pools, rivulets and streams. Specific puddles are going to be decisions (visualize as red instead of blue), where outcome of a vote would control subsequent direction for navigation of the stream.
I could go on with that analogy, but you probably get the idea. Now add to that the "single point detail" truism, which means it doesn't matter how a person arranges their own details (which is very important also), each one can be added, or not, to the common network independently.
Logical connection is universal, regardless whether the detail is even relevant. If you want trivial proof of that, for any detail I can add a new linked subordinate detail, "New detail created specifically to make what I just said true." How can that be linked to any detail? In the category, Irrelevant (IR). That's as valid a detail as any other, it just isn't useful.
Another thing to keep in mind is that the information network is going to have a purely technical element, meaning agreed upon individual and common standard detail grids, but also one or more sets of personal lines of reasoning, which are a bit of a different animal.
Another thing is when looking at diverse groups of details, a first simplification should always be to look at it in terms of equivalence and subordinance. This is particularly relevant for political. In a nutshell, one detail is equivalent to another when it doesn't depend on it for relevance, and is subordinate when it does. Initially it matters quite a bit to keep the subordinate details strictly associated with their superior reference, because those are the building blocks of lines of reasoning. When you move one, move all that are linked with it.
The info network seeks conceptual equivalence, not agreement, which means everyone understands the info in exactly the same way, and are satisfied the info they think is relevant is properly presented.
My approach requires no standard input format, and can literally take any info from anyone, anywhere, from any time, under any conditions, and incorporate it in to the same standard detail network in exactly the same way.
One point I want to make perfectly clear. I'm not in any way, shape or form saying it's the best thing to have large scale public input on any/every issue. What I want to do at this point is just have a way to do it when we want to, and start thinking about how it might work.
Next post I want to start looking at the "universal basic annual income" detail from the Leap Manifesto. They call for "vigorous debate" , but as far as I've seen don't have any kind of an info network to be able to make that have meaning. It's got to be more than just getting together to agree with each other, especially for that subject, which also correlates to various, very important current social programs and fundamentally to our way of life.
I'm not going to judge the info, and it isn't a discussion about it (per se), my purpose is to evolve an information network, from square 1, starting with that single detail. I think the basic income issue is a good example for a few reasons I'll outline quickly first thing next post.
"Universal basic annual income"........oh happy days.
This is an example of one of the biggest problems we have as a country, there's a truckload of details, we don't know (or trust) the vast majority of them, and even the ones we do are like a fart in a tempest, so how could anyone possibly make rational decisions or predictions. Pretty much everything is like that right now.
It's a good example because it's not a pressing issue, fairly small (cough, cough), and has important characteristics that are common for most, if not all, (major) issues we'll have to tackle as a country. That's why during the creation of this particular network, I want to keep an eye out for universal details related to gov't function, etc.
One of the goals is to see if consistent standard categories (eg. Cost Analysis(CA) for sure) can be automatically correlated across issues, and that could give a method to have a dynamic effect analysis when various changes are proposed. That's obviously well in to the future, but now's the time to start, from square 1. That could be extremely useful for the climate change set of issues especially, and at least relevant for all.
So, since I want to look at it as a potential template as well, a few more general points might be particularly relevant before getting in to the meat of it.
Up to now it might seem like I'm trying to save us from the bad, and that's true, but this kind of thing can develop the good in the same way.
You may think I'm saying it's going to be easy to create an info grid for any issue. It's not, and there are a few hard realities, but there are also many significant simplifications.
There's a very, very large pool of details already listed in many places and ways for virtually every issue. We're not just going to throw ours in, we're going to create our own ecosystem and expand it with those drops and puddles. The information is there for us to use, and we'll integrate it in to our process, not vice versa.
Ultimately, when relevant it has to be possible to come down to majority vote about a single detail, which is 50%+1. The hardest thing to accept about real democracy might be...real democracy.
I very much believe in getting maximum value whenever anything is done. That's why during the development I'm going to continuously look for "secondary" elements, in order to enhance the information and interaction power, as well as have an eye toward building global predictive and diagnostic modules. That means a lot more text, obviously. Such is the price of research, and I don't apologize.
There's no one right info grid. A person's own info grid and lines of reasoning show the points they consider important. When we put the info together, the common grid shows the technical details as well as individual lines of reasoning, with missing and other details added. The essential thing is that logical connection is maintained. From those, decisions are made.
My work isn't the only info organization procedure, and fish-bone diagrams in particular could be very useful in the right situations. All other procedures are just as valuable as they ever were, and possibly moreso now. If it makes it easier to see something, use it. I can easily incorporate any systems that exist now, and any others that could be created in future, so look at things however you want.
There's a big difference to how we discuss and the look of the info grid. The info grid is factual relevance and discussion is lines of reasoning, but the individual interaction is 2 or more people talking, and that's all we have to keep doing.
A hard truth is that it won't matter how much info is available, or how good it is, for many people. Information isn't going to make people agree with you, unless information is a part of their decision process. You tell me how often that's true.
The conditions to stimulate creativity are unique and elusive, but the result is always the same, expansion of the detail network.
This is very hard-core idea and process development. It may not be easy to provide feedback, but if there's something "crazy", or for some other reason a problem, I hope someone will at least point it out. As with everything, the only way things can be dealt with is after they've been identified.
I never know when to stop, so I'll end with a few points, and next post expand the basic income detail, right from 2 people talking on the street for the first time.
Relevant one-liners:We're going to have to attend to every detail at least once.No system is going to turn 1000 details in to 1.Having your say doesn't mean having your way.Everything you demand for yourself has to be given to everyone else equally.Poison idea for humanity: It doesn't matter what it is, it only matters how it looks.
2 people talking anywhere in canada:
""Hey, did you hear, the NDP want to give everyone money for nothing. "Universal basic annual income" they call it, or something like that. Are they ever going to stop spending our money like a drunken sailor."
"Yeah, but it's not so crazy an idea. Imagine you didn't have to worry about food or rent, you could go to university, do more volunteering, spend more time with the kids and encourage them to pursue higher learning. I'm not sure how it'd be paid for, but we already have a lot of social programs, and some of them wouldn't be needed, so that's some money there."
"But, who's going to want to work when you're just given money, if there was a problem with productivity before, it would go through the roof with that. Then, it's going to be more foreign workers to do the work, who take more money out of our country. And, like you say, we already have programs, why not just make sure they work properly.""+++++++++++++
It's not that we don't talk about things, it's of course that what we say is less than irrelevant to the hired managers. Fortunately, we don't need them in order to develop our info system and make decisions. We need some kind of transcript to make sure the details are exact, and to provide original references when relevant. If verbal can be remembered, fine, but sooner or later it has to be written down somewhere, so it can be shared.
I guess another half blessing could be because of the filthy, traitorous perversion of C-51, the listening device our own secret police planted on one of them (because they had attended a meeting to oppose the destruction of a local historic natural monument for the benefit of a foreign corporation) mistakenly sent a recording of the whole conversation to all active computers in the area.
That evening, horrified and disgusted to find it on the computer, they realized what an utterly hideous state our country is in. And, pretty boy's photo ops and "generosity" (ie. spending money we don't have trying to buy friends) don't change anything. But to do that, we have to be able to talk as a country, and that's a lot harder than it sounds.
"The "universal basic annual income" thing will be good practice. Then we can look at that traitor perversion of C-51, money in politics, our election process, start on the constitution (yes, we can write it), real ethics laws for the parasites, climate change, and many, many more. Let's make a transcript (top) of what we said this afternoon and start. Easy peasy.
I'll only list the steps since there's limited room here: 1) talk; 2) transcript; 3) using only "enter", put one sentence on each line (maintaining linearity); 4) using only "enter", separate each sentence in to details, one (which could include more than one detail) on each line (maintaining linearity); 5) group linked details (as lines) and use indent to show subordinance; 6) remove irrelevant words if desired (makes it cleaner but not required); 7) label each detail (ultimately, but not necessarily right away unless you want to). This is the "listing" phase, not discussion per se, we're just collecting the puddles and making some rivulets.
+++++++++++++(from transcript)1)Hey, did you hear, the NDP want to give everyone money for nothing. 2)"Universal basic annual income" they call it, or something like that. 3)Are they ever going to stop spending our money like a drunken sailor.4)Yeah, but it's not so crazy an idea. 5)Imagine you -didn't have to worry -about food -or rent, -you could go to university, -do more volunteering, -spend more time with the kids -and encourage them -to pursue higher learning. 6)I'm not sure how it'd be paid for, but 7)we already have a lot of social programs, and -some of them wouldn't be needed, -so that's some money there.8)But, who's going to want to work when you're just given money, -if there was a problem with productivity before, -it would go through the roof with that. 9)Then, it's going to be more foreign workers to do the work, -who take more money out of our country. 10)And, like you say, we already have programs, -why not just make sure they work properly.++++After this initial quick organization, the next step is to expand the details. They decide to talk to friends tomorrow and scan the internet, then look at the new detail network, next post.
If you can't pitch it this fast you have lost.
Thank you for your comment and the link, Pondering.
I've already established many new essential details in building the conceptual and structural foundation for meaningful and dynamic large scale public discussion (information development and exchange) suitable for real political control; and now am going to build an info network ultimately suitable to support large scale public input and direction, idea development, investigation, technical and conceptual evaluation, and decision-making for a relatively representative but non-pressing issue related to the kinds of things we'll have to deal with in running our country; and which is based on public discussion, not gov't decree.
If that doesn't help, you'll have to be more specific about what you don't understand.
Our 2 citizens talked to friends and scanned the internet, and accumulated the following lists of Positives(P) and Negatives(N), with theirs shown in square brackets. Each line is a link to it's own page and this list serves as the initial gateway. There are no reference links since I'm looking only at data structure, but each detail could have refs. right now, if desired.+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Universal Basic Annual Income [C1]:Positives [P(29)]: P1) [gain more access to higher education] P2) escape route from oppressive jobs and relationships P3) more time for artistic and other nonpaying endeavors P4) [greater opportunity to invest in children's] -[well being] -[education] P5) societal ties now rooted in work might be replaced by new ones -cultural revolution around the meaning of life P6) given to everyone makes it more fair P7) local economic growth P8) individuals can invest in their own training P9) reduce crime P10) [can spend more time with kids] -save on babysitting costs -decreases jobs -[help encourage them] -[to pursue higher learning] P11) [increase volunteerism] P12) alleviate poverty -increase dignity of the poor P13) help in building vibrant rural communities P14) don't have to be workaholic P15) more people might take part-time to spread out the workload P16) wages climb P17) more time for -innovation -entrepreneurship P18) generally increase quality of life -higher happiness -[don't have to worry] -[about food] -[or rent] P19) shrink gov't beaurocracy -[replace current welfare, etc. systems] -[reduce administrative] -complexity and [costs] P20) greater economic equality P21) improving health P22) will promote adult education P23) increase viability of co-operatives P24) liberate people struggling to find suitable work -no requirement to take -low pay, no benefits, poor conditions -time to find -higher pay, benefits, better working conditions -more meaningful work -even if lower or non-paying P25) have to prepare for when robots take over more jobs -better AI could accelerate that -no where near to running out of jobs -advances changing types of tasks and skills in demand -displacing many workers from jobs -that have become obsolete -creating jobs in new areas P26) better chance of learning to manage money more wisely (D1) not having enough money can cause people to make poor financial decisions P27) better than welfare -gives everyone the freedom to work if they wish -welfare takes money away from people who work -encourages people to do nothing P28) decrease inter-regional economic inequalities P29) increase flexibility of the labour market
(cont'd next post)
(cont'd from previous post)
Negatives [N(12)]: N1) very costly -have to fund with real wealth -payout levels, etc. -loss in tax revenue N2) disconnect people from the positive aspects of working for a living N3) easier to avoid developing directed programs -to alleviate income inequality -reverse wage stagnation -wide access to good jobs -an essential element of a healthy society N4) easier to avoid developing services -education -training N5) children would grow to adults who don't respect -value of work -providing for yourself and family N6) poor people can’t handle money -could ultimately feed negative and destructive habits N7) many may move to different countries so they can live better -do citizens living outside our country get the money N8) [people will lose the incentive to work] -payout likely to be far from generous -most would probably supplement with work -significant decrease in skill pools -[more foreign workers] -[more money taken out of our country] N9) people will just be lazy -[productivity] -[will decrease significantly] -of a few might outweigh the inactivity of everyone else -how much does one person have to make in order to pay for how many -creativity won't change N10) unnecessary -[can work through existing programs] -compare to what people currently get under welfare, etc. -expand -[ensure and improve efficiency] -cheaper and as good -means can continue focus on job -creation -incentives N11) risky -based on murky test data -test data and interpretation isn't broad enough to determine potential success N12) can't allow response to extraordinary circumstances when everyone relies on gov't for money+++++++++++++++++++++++++++The "NDP" should have produced and distributed something like this before they called for a national discussion on it (perhaps they did, but I didn't see it, and if so I apologize for how hard I've been on you; otherwise, shame shame on you again). Please look at each point and consider if what you would say is included somewhere, and if not, what would you add and where (point form or transcript). You can't take any points off unless you can clearly show it to not be relevant, but even then it would only be moved to an indendent category, Irrelevant (IR), attached to the superior reference. Once details are put in, they can't be removed, only moved. There are more subtle details to that to expand on later because it's a very important aspect of trust in the system.
Note that in each P# or N# detail, only the main point is in the category, the subordinates are in independent categories associated strictly with their superior reference. While subordinates may be important in the decisions for many people, that doesn't change the strict logical connection. Personal decisions, etc. would be shown by highlight and/or specific graphic re-arrangement on personal pages (then compared independently), not distortion of logical relationships in the common grid. That's required for universality, and very very useful for analysis.
I only labelled one subordinate detail, D1-P26-C1, because this is still right at the start. Each subordinate has a unique acronym, and note that D1 refers specifically to P26, not C1.
This is only an initial orientation/gateway page, not discussion, and next post I'll make a few comments about how to integrate large scale input, etc., and then continue with the information discovery and development process for this issue, including starting to set up a standard frame to correlate cost analyses across issues.
Just have a look at the lists of P (post#60) and N (post#61) , for the "Universal Basic Annual Income" issue. I'm not sure how far I need to go to convince people of the value of this kind of gateway.
Note that if there was a different, higher main issue page (a superior reference), both lists collapse to one line: [[Universal Basic Annual Income(C1)]] [N(12)] [P(29)]. Double square brackets show a text block (ie. a Fig2), and single shows a standard icon links attached to it.
This provides an initial pool of 41 details, and some of those have subordinates integrated in to rivulets and streams. There are no decision points yet, but opinion is shown for any of the lines using the 6 point text highlight system.
Different points are going to matter differently to each person. My gateway page shows how I look at it, and that's all it needs to do at first. When we start talking, the only thing that has to be agreed at first is that the topic is "universal basic annual income," that I have a list of P/N's.
That first step is just to establish conceptual equivalence, which is nothing more or less than making sure we all understand the info in the same way, particularly using the same start point. Once we understand both the start point and the nature of the info, the details can be developed more secure in the fact that we're at least all talking about the same thing.
For one like the "basic income" issue, it's relatively easy, P/N's are virtually the natural start point. Even if a person doesn't catch on right away, a few seconds explanation would likely bring them in to the idea fairly easy, at least to the point they can interact decently. Pos/neg is a fairly ubiquitous pair, but regardless that anyway, all a person has to do is talk about it normally and details can be extracted from transcript. No one has to categorize unless they want to.
For one like the "election reform" issue, the gateway page isn't so easy. So let's say I want to make a gateway page for that idiotic "election reform" survey.
On the gateway page I'd put these points, labelled as [["First details related to election reform survey(ID#)(C1)]]"
1)most of the questions asked can't be translated in to choice for election system
2)questions regarding the "vote" are subordinate to the superior discussion of how much can we tolerate our vote being manipulated, taking lessons from what the traitor harper did
3)questions regarding how we want the hired managers to "represent" us aren't relevant to the choice of election system, since those are functions of the laws governing the hired managers (which we don't have), not how they're chosen
4)how much did this cost, and all other technical details
5)interpretation of data isn't relevant to real task of choosing election system
6)there's no chance the survey could achieve the actionable objective, so how was it authorized, especially as a solution to anything
While being virtually useless for the appointed task, there were some questions in the survey that are very relevant. We can make use of those at least.
I know I'm not the only one seeing these things. And that's the whole thing, to compare what each of us sees right away. That's a gateway. Notice that for the "election reform" initial set of details, there may not necessarily be a category we can easily see to put the points in. All details could be labelled right away, but labelling is like all the other techniques, it can be done whenever and however we want. If it's in any way a burden, don't do it and it won't matter, it ultimately will be.
So, I don't label, and just put these out there. I can manage my own page, regardless how many, if any, people interact. If it was just mine, sitting on my computer, it wouldn't matter. If I don't manage a gateway, there has to be other mechanisms so I can look at others and compare to my own. That's part of the duty of gateway managers, as well as regular news, etc., and is continued next post.
PS I hope everyone realizes that when the boy refused to honor changing the election system, he shot the finger at all of us. And, that rationalization was utterly despicable. The emperor now decrees who's "allowed" to speak.
A gateway page:
1)is a notepad, and possibly the most important concept related to large scale information discovery/development methods. The idea itself extends the individual discussion process upstream to potentially initial conception, and also ensures individual participation is relevant, in that info can always ultimately be added to the right "higher" grid, and not just disregarded.
2)doesn't have to have any standard structure for private, and for most people it would initially be just a list of probably relatively few points. The initial list is just to remember, so any kind of point form or anything is fine, as long as it can ultimately be understood.
3)needs discovery first, of course, but after that it needs to be correlated. Correlation means comparing details to expand, eliminate (meaning move to proper category) repetition and irrelevance, identify as many decision points as possible, identify areas requiring more details, fact check, etc., etc.
4)isn't just one that has links. You can see that the info network is ultimately a series of linear flowcharts (hierarchies), where one detail leads to another. For each "line of reasoning" there has to be an "end-point" detail/page, an end to the specific line (notwithstanding whether it contains reference links, etc.). So a line of reasoning is a set number of details that can be shown as a linear flowchart, and all but the end detail is a gateway, technically, in that the higher ones provide a link to at least one relevant subordinate detail.
5)is meant to provide an initial set of details. That's very very important in idea development because it's a lot easier to evaluate something existing than to come up with something new. That's what brainstorming is meant to deal with, and creating and correlating initial gateway pages is equivalent to that.
6)evolves, but under 2 main conditions for a "public" page; no details are removed, only moved; and there's a timestamped change record. That's minimum I'd require of any managed page that I would even start considering to trust as a central resource. No one has to respect those, though, but that means I just wouldn't interact with theirs.
7)depends on respect for conceptual hierarchy. That means when 2 pages are compared, once we find equivalence through superior references, any subordinates can be moved directly between pages.
8)is a singular thing, but in large scale public discussion it serves as both a way to start from uniqueness and equivalence. It reflects uniqueness because it's what an individual thinks; and it's the mechanism to start from equivalence because I can say I'm talking about "Universal Basic Income" and am developing a list of positives and negatives. Starting from uniqueness facilitates correlation to (and, theoretically, respect for) the public will, and starting from equivalence very greatly facilitates directed idea investigation and development.
9)needs a manager. Individual users are manager for their own pages, obviously, but the reality is that virtually no one would regularly do their own gateway pages. The essential thing is that anyone can do it whenever they want, and understand what it is when looking at someone else's.
10)greatly facilitates information development for large groups by providing a consistent reference, which is a way to much more effectively correlate what different groups and individuals are saying.
There are more general points related to gateway pages and their role in large scale public discussion, but they'll show through use. I'm making a big deal out of it because the idea of a gateway page is a critical aspect. If the "NDP" want to have even a shred of credibility they'll have to deal with that idea, regardless how it's named, because it deals with how info is input and integrated in to any main info network (eg. "discussions" about Leap Manifesto individual details). By "have to deal with" I mean respect the nature of it, and especially potential utility.
While the fact there could theoretically be millions of gateway pages might seem a negative, it's actually quite a significant positive. I'll expand on that next post, and start to outline what the "NDP" should do in order to actually manage and develop a proper info network using "universal basic income" as the example.
A "proper info network" is a matter of opinion, but not as much as you might think. For this, let's assume the opinion is respect for everyone regarding information, whatever that turns out to be.
The "NDP" started with the "Leap Manifesto" (LM), and the most relevant gateway for it would be that document itself. Ultimately I assume they'd create a web-site, but initially that's not necessary, since there's a great deal of background info and organization to do before the need to open to large scale input.
The "NDP" can start with a small group within their organization, say 20-50 people, it doesn't matter individual location. One or a few can take the role of manager, and although the original format LM would be the public interface, for the initial work the original would have the text blocks broken up in to single sentences (by the manager), while maintaining linearity.
Each line (sentence) would be a single link, or there could be several links in a sentence. After the manager makes the initial separation of details, they'd put it out to their small group. Each of those people would apply the 6 pt. text highlight system and upload back to the manager, and decide if they want to help expand the info for one or more specific points.
When the group upload their highlighted sheets, that gives an idea of opinions, and a set of initial stats showing cumulative totals for each highlight. Visualize by cutting down to just red/green highlight, how would the pages look in comparison. As info is developed, correlating changes in these stats provides a very valuable dynamic poll.
Once the manager finds out which details are of interest to each member of the group, they can be separated and assigned; and, of course, each person can do what they want at any time as well.
So the manager assigns (in co-operation with each person) one or a few single points details to as many people who want to do it. Ideally, each person would respect what they're doing and forget about their personal bias for the issue. Fortunately, even though that' would probably rarely be true, the info system isn't compromised.
This is where the "potentially millions of gateway pages" thing becomes important. There would never be millions of pages in practice, virtually certainly, but the fact there are other pages means any gateway page (managers) will be judged on content, since structure would be the same.
Say I'm one of them (-shhhuddderrr-) and have chosen compiling a list of pos/neg for "universal annual basic income". I speak to people and ask generally what their first opinions are, and scan the internet for any relevant details, as I've already done.
Another person chose that too, and we compare pages in person or over the internet, whichever is more convenient. There's no real need for "discussion" at this point, except purely related to conceptual relevance for each detail.
That idea of "conceptual relevance" is one that some people will have difficulty with at first, I think. Not because it's a difficult concept, but it, and not personal opinion, is what defines what's to be included in "higher" pages of the info matrix. "Higher" page just means one that has correlated at least one more info source to add at least one new detail (timestamped when added); it doesn't necessarily mean better, since any page level could be corrupted (but that would be readily evident, as well as indicative).
Say we're past the first step, which is partitioning and "assigning" line items to help create the first set of details. The second step is to correlate the details. We have a set group of people working on this, so we can correlate by either interacting directly with individuals working on the same details or put it in to the main page.
Naturally, interacting in smaller groups before going to the gateway manager is better, to relieve pressure on the manager, but it can be done either way. Since I know there are 2 others in the group that are doing the same thing as I am, I contact them through the managers main web-page for this issue, without the need to involve the manager yet.
Greets - Can it be 15yrs since I was last here?! how time flies.
I was coming by for exactly this subject. Planned to post something along the lines of this project needs a team.
For the moment, I'll recommend that folk follow hashtags #ParticipatoryDeliberation (something I came up with mid-1970s, working on social justice issues) and #DeliberativePolitics (much more recent, in common usage with academics who are working in this field).
p.s. FWIW https://groundplane.wordpress.com/2008/03/31/hello-world/ ... something I wrote 9yrs ago.
Also FWIW: http://gnodal.protension.com ... a snapshot of where my project was in May of 2004.
Something from EMail. The sort of stuff I've been aggregating for ohhh so many years.
From: firstname.lastname@example.orgFake Newsletter 2APRIL2017
“Instead of funding yet more fact-checking efforts and creating a cottage industry of debunkers competing with each other for funding and attention, we should empower citizens to navigate the confusing 21st-century media market.”
“Instead of funding yet more fact-checking efforts and creating a cottage industry of debunkers competing with each other for funding and attention, we should empower citizens to navigate the confusing 21st-century media market.”
That’s from "Our biggest mistake in the fight against fake news", an opinion piece in The Washington Post by Nina Jankowicz, a Fulbright-Clinton public policy fellow in Ukraine.
The idea of empowering citizens to take verification and fact checking into their own hands is also at the heart of International Fact-Checking Day (FactCheckingDay.com/). It's a new initiative that took place today, April 2. One of the many resources available on the event's site is a lesson plan for high school teachers to teach the basics of fact-checking. It's available in 11 languages.
My Worth Reading roundup below has two more stories that show how these skills are being taught in different American schools. For an additional example, take a look at the Checkology program from the News Literacy Project.
thanks for your interest and the links. One of the inside links from your post #65 (http://gnodal.protension.com/selections.html#hillel-text) is good to compare what others have said, but none of the material really helps for the technical development. Interestingly, numerous problems pointed out in that link related to internet public discussion are "solved" with my work.
I'll ask you, though, to refrain from posting "secondary" aspects, like the fake news related post #66, since that breaks the linearity. Even though most may have problems following my reasoning/details up to now, what I want to do at this point is just have a coherent series (in my mind) of relevant points down as text that are strictly related to the core technical info structure, as reference for later.
"Fake news" is certainly a critical issue, and that's part of the "fact check" system (which I have many details for), but that's like the voting system, website security, etc., and can be developed outside the core detail network. Fake news, or more generally, truth vs lies, is a universal element, but no one seems to understand that when and how someone lies and/or tells the truth is also an important diagnostic element, once you realize how to deal with it. And, that when you globally label, you greatly limit your analytical ability, which could greatly help nefarious actors in many ways on all sides, including ours. There's evil (ie. deception) everywhere in the world, but above all we have to make sure that when it's here, we can also see it, and aren't manipulated in to blindness due to false rightiousness and/or indignance.
If you like, I could start another thread to develop details related to those aspects and provide direction, but this thread takes a lot for me (since I agonize over every word), so I'm not sure how much I could interact in that right now.
As far as the "team" thing, I want and value feedback, and I'll try to interact with others' work if they desire, but there's no way I'm going to give up control of my work. My work could literally change the world, but there's a good bit more to describe; such as the role of info in real change; investigation, problem solving and idea development in large scale discourse and how the info structure can facilitate those (ie. make possible), etc., etc.
I don't mean to (and don't) disrespect your interest, but I'm very protective, especially about the core work, which will provide the bedrock upon which real democracy can be built. I've been told many times that I don't look at things the way others do, and as far as I can see, no one in the world (based on internet search) comes anywhere near to what I'm doing. No one's even on the same planet, although there are many, many very good things being currently done in many places that can help immensely and be easily incorporated in to the standard info grid without corruption.
(cont'd from post #64)
I think most people will see the process for creating the initial gateway pages and then coming together to add points from different pages on to a single one.
We don't have to combine info from different pages in order to work on the details, and it can all be correlated in the end, but if you don't, it decreases breadth and increases potential repetition for each person, and makes it much harder to correlate the different points, both in the same categories and across categories; ie. comparing pos-pos, neg-neg and pos-neg, etc., to see if there are common elements, etc. (for the example here). There's more to that process, but it's to the point it can be applied, and other details can be explained as it's being done, so there's no need to dwell on it now.
The accumulation of "gateway details," I guess you could call it, addresses a big problem with using the internet to advantage. The info system known as the internet is far too vast, diverse and untrustworthy to be able to use it for the creation of ideas in a consistently realistic way. But, information itself can't solve anything anyway, it can only support the solutions.
Solutions have to come from individuals, and although individuals use the internet to post ideas, we have to frame the utility of ideas within our own opinions. Literally every single person can respond to things that affect them. A person who is hungry would say, I need a way to get food; a person suffering during war would say, I need a way to stop the war. I fear this, I like that, etc. Those opinions aren't trivial, but rather profound, and even life and death. We first have to understand what we need, which can only arise out of us, not information networks (or special interests). The recognition of that as a truism is an important step to using information for real change.
That may be more philosophical than structural, but philosophy, like all others including all science, is a reflection, an interpretation; it isn't the thing, it's only an attempt to understand the thing. So, that's my attempt to understand the thing.
Back to the purely structural, though, we have to create text, which is the only way to communicate sufficiently for the task. If we pick a pos. or neg., let's say [N10] - unnecessary, a click on it brings up it's own page.
At the top of the new page has to be a standard set of info to identify the superior reference linearity. A person coming directly to that page should be able to see where they are, without having to search higher. The first line can have the whole line, for eg., [[Universal Basic Annual Income]]: [P(29)] [N(12)] [AN(8)] [CA(3)] [H(6)] [L(5)]. The next line shows the current reference for this page, ie. [N10] - unnecessary. If more text is necessary for orientation, it can be included.
Below the top section is the set of points for that subordinate detail.
(D1)-can work through existing programs
-compare to what people currently get under welfare, etc. (D2)-expand
-ensure and improve efficiency
-cheaper and as good
-means can continue focus on job
I haven't labelled them in the higher pages because I was pressed for time or wasn't sure or didn't care, but the most important thing at this point is just that they're transferred intact from the higher page. When I bring them to the subordinate page, it's better to at least label the highest points, even if just a general label.
A data point (D) is a general label that means a supporting detail that's a direct subordinate to what it supports. This term is borrowed from Toulmin's work (post#10?), out of respect. I could also label it as Opinion (OP), but that one doesn't really mean it supports anything, it could, but it also could be general, and something like Comment (CMT) is also general but could be used in a pinch. It can always be changed to another category as long as there's a time stamped change record for public pages.
"this thread takes a lot for me (since I agonize over every word), so I'm not sure how much I could interact in that right now." I see.
(cont'd from post#68)
Keep in mind that for each detail, the 6 point text highlight system could be applied, so each line would at least show as plain, red, or green, as applied by the individual's personal opinions, as a quick reminder. I think that will be very important when a person is following/involved in many issues.
Ultimately there has to be something more substantial than just a point in a line, and a perfect example is something like Cost Analysis (CA), which for basic income, and climate change, is a universal detail.
"Universal basic annual income" is one that needs several different types of CA. But, since that idea, in my opinion, is ridiculous for the current and near future conditions, it's not going to be pressing for quite a time, and climate change correlations are a far more pressing issue that can be used as a template for other issues. Real measures related to climate change are already being implemented, so if there's any way to potentially improve discussion there, that's the goal.
So I'm switching to climate change details related to energy production and use, and want to build a comparative dynamic real Cost Analysis (CA) regime. If there's a single central element for virtually all discussion related to changes in how we do things now, it's real CA, and it's a good example of detailed idea development.
Remember that this is a complex thing and this is a first effort. Also, keep in mind that this is investigating the issue, not solving it. Investigation is accumulating data and trying to see relevant correlations, details, and decisions points, which might require the definition of new terms, but mainly the organization of existing ones. It's building an info grid, regardless of personal opinion, so theoretically anyone can do this part, but they'll be judged by how they do it.
For that issue, as for all others, we have to figure out what we need in order to figure things out. This is where an array of "experts" comes in handy. I put experts in quotes because really it should be "interested parties", of which those describing themselves as technical experts is only one. The role of experts, etc. isn't to make the decisions, but to show us the most relevant info and make sure sufficient details and decision points are presented properly.
A list of personal top of the mind thoughts is the first step, though. Things I want to know about, regardless where they fit in the overall info grid. This is like the advice to carry a pad and pencil with you to jot down those brilliant thoughts, ideas and epiphanies that would otherwise be lost in minutes or seconds.
This is a first gateway that I can change in any way at any time, it's personal reference so I remember what I thought. I can use it to interact as well, or can follow and interact with someone else's of my choosing, which is probably what the vast majority of people would do, as mentioned before.
Climate change details I'm initially interested in:
1) is there currently a dynamic cost correlation system
2) current discussions in categories, relevant org's and entities of interest
3) jobs analysis, etc.
4) where is money to pay for all this, incl. financing costs, etc.
5) relevant numbers, categories, etc. for cost analysis, glossary
The fact there will be many gateway and other pages is a very powerful element once you realize how it can be used to advantage. When looking at another gateway page, I expect to see these points, and if not there, I can add whatever's missing.
(cont'd from post#70)
There are volumes of details available on the internet, but I don't care about that right now. That information is to support our opinions, not define them, as is all other information. Framing discussions in our terms means starting from our terms.
Correlating gateway pages has already been mentioned, so just consider one new detail I added to a central main gateway page;
1) is there currently a dynamic cost correlation system.
The answer, of course, is no. I decide to investigate/develop/expand this part first.
There are a lot of numbers, etc. already available, but nothing correlated to a single dynamic resource yet. One simple list starts the work, all of the different methods of energy generation, in as high an organization pattern as possible.
[Applications List (AL)]: [[Energy generation methods]]:
1) nuclear: fission, fusion
7) solar: photovoltaic, thermal
9) ocean: wave, tidal, other
10) bio: mass, gas, fuel
12) chemical: battery
That list collapses to a single line, [[Energy generation methods]] [AL(16)]. The whole thing is about access, so a gateway manager should at least have that list on a page that's high in the hierarchy. lf there are more that should be on the list, please point them out, since it's only the completeness of that list that's important at this point. There's nothing to agree or disagree with except that an item should be on this list.
So I'm the gateway manager for the climate change/energy issue, and part of my role is to prod for relevant info in order to advance the discussion. Idea development is mainly a matter of question and answer; ask yourself the right questions and the answers will lead to a solution. Although that's an individual thing, much of it can be standardized as a series of questions relevant for a broad array of issues.
Starting with the full list of energy generation methods themselves, the first question when comparing anything is:
1)"how can these be compared" (what are (all) the relevant standards for comparison between categories, what new standards are necessary for specific discussions, Glossary(GL), etc.). It may sound unlikely, but you can get a long way by asking very obvious, very simple questions, recording the answers, and using those as the basis for the next set of questions.
In the end I want a hierarchical list of the questions asked, and then for the next issue there'll be a different set of questions, which can be correlated, etc., etc. This is one of the techniques for idea development that I believe is naturally adaptable to large scale.
Also, when discussing with others, one universal active goal is to find the set of superior questions/answers where there's agreement, then following the detail network downstream to the point(s) of disagreement. So understand what you agree on before tackling what you don't.
(cont'd next post)
1)"how can these be compared", refers to energy generation methods, and answering this question, like all others, requires respecting context. Again, as with all discussion topics, there are specifically classifiable details virtually everyone wants to know.
What details are of interest? "Cost analysis" is a universal one for many discussions, and even if there are 20 other details I don't know, I can work on just that. The next question following that is, "are there any standards for comparison."
All types of energy generation have a common set of potential cost areas [Cost categories for energy generation methods (19)]:
1)energy generation unit itself
2)energy generation unit physical infrastructure
6)integration with existing systems
11)personnel, short and long term
13)unique local factors
15)environmental impact analyses, etc.
18)planning, surveying, etc.
19)production cost vs retail
Some categories may be combined or separated, and all may not be relevant for all energy generation methods, but each is valid on it's own. The goal is first to create a complete list, not decide on any point. Conceptual relevance only, is it valid (incl. true and correct) to be on the list, and is the list complete. Again, this is where "experts" come in handy, to help ensure proper scope and accuracy, not make the decisions.
Although I've split costs in to 19(+) categories, normal general discussions would use summary numbers, even a single one for everything. Just because a list exists doesn't mean people have to go to it, but if people want to go to it, it has to exist.
And, any higher, summary numbers, etc. must contain only the full or a sub-set of the above list of costs. If, upon evaluation and discussion, a true and valid summary number contains a cost category not on this list, it must be added.
Each of the above details can have subordinate details, like for taxes there's federal, provincial, municipal, etc., but for this level the list is apparently complete and useful, and I'd use it as a universal reference list for my site.
Once I have the list of energy generation methods, have asked how they can be compared, determined cost analysis is a universal detail, and created a list of cost areas relevant for all; it's time to put in numbers. Once there's a framework, ie. the 2 linked lists, comparison tables can be created and the details rearranged to highlight different elements, keeping the unique acronym.
The lists are the data record, but that doesn't mean they have to be used as is in discussion. There's the data, and then there's the discussion; the data is used in the discussion but doesn't define it. No information defines our discussions, our opinions do, but it's through structure it's done.
Large scale discussion requires a number of different things to be successful for developing ideas, and an important element is the separation of details to facilitate individual research. What's the difference if I just put out there, "what are the costs associated with each type of energy generation", vs providing the above lists and asking first, "is this list complete and correct" and then, "what are the numbers associated with each category, for each type of energy generation."
Once we have the numbers, we'll be able to do dynamic analyses and evaluations. And the linked list format is perfect for automation and web friendly.
(cont'd next post)
The previous example of energy generation methods and cost categories illustrates a primary concept in public discussion, that the discussion and the technical info are distinct aspects. And that's why I say large scale public decision-making can be advanced a great deal before differences of opinion even become relevant. You don't have to care about climate change to be able to fill in the numbers for the relevant categories. But, it's not enough to just fill in static numbers, since all numbers are technically dynamic.
Those 2 linked lists are relevant to the vast majority of discussions related to climate change. If the numbers are static, though, utility tanks. So, for eg., if the "NDP" wants to have some kind of relevance, one of many things they'd have to do is add the numbers in a dynamic format.
A dynamic format is just listing, under each category, the specific details that go in to that categories' costs, and defining clearly how the numbers in each part were determined. An Excel type spreadsheet should easily provide the dynamic interface.
A dynamic cost analysis is essential for this kind of subject, and when created honestly could be used by everyone. Some of the cost categories are time dependent, such as tear-down and reclamation, so the discussion has to respect that, of course.
For "green energy", there are a number of other details essential to the evaluation, such as effects of location, population, geography, etc. on the viability of green energy projects. This is another list that can be created independently and will always be relevant. The 2 lists above would be dependent on these as well, but there still has to be a baseline to facilitate comparison.
I'm not going to do that list here, I think the concept is illustrated. I hope you see that the new list can also be made universal.
I just got back to this after not having my computer, and looking at it again I see that many ot the main points of the technical discussion/detail network have been presented, albeit possibly not coherently. There are a number more details, but the main idea is there is common structure in large scale info exchange, and it's what will give universality and extraordinary utility.
It's now time to start the next stage(s). Ultimately, this work will form the basis for a political party, but that's still a ways in the future. Working up to that means starting to establish a permanent background info network, as well as the graphic structures necessary to facilitate specific detail development, such as law analysis, control of our money, dynamic interface, etc.
I'm thinking that a Wordpress (or something like it) site will serve as an initial blunt info gathering tool, but given the unique nature of the thing, highly detailed custom pages are necessary, so a dedicated web-site is the ultimate goal. Fortunately, for the custom structure, the general "block in block" format of internet display is ideal for this as well, and, Drupal 7 looks like it has everything necessary.
That's going to take a while, but hopefully I'll have a Wordpress site going by spring at the latest, and the Drupal site as soon as possible after that, but likely not until fall, since I can't work much on it in summer.
The task ahead is monumental, but will never be done if it's not started. When I get things going I'll put a link here, in case anyone is interested. If anyone has comments, or are interested in that development process, please indicate below. Thank you very much for the space and your interest.