Would it be not more preferable, if all the “hidden” titles of writers (in comment. fields)
and competitors would be to find in one great list, like above, or – it does n`t matter – in a second list,
aligned, on your first side?
because it could be difficult to detect them and pick them up,
and to find and to read them in the commentary field,
thats my suggestion –
good idea .
we can do both .
look at my suggestion above (if our zensor allow you to look)
btw. I really would like to know, who has made this page moderated collaboration (after my last posting) .
as I know our little cowards I bet I will get no answer .
(perhaps the other two can tell us that they didn’t .)
What is cowardice in it?
As long as entries are needed to be entered into the knol by various authors, it is on open collaboration. Once entries date is over it is on moderated collaboration. Any change done to a knol and the person who did it can be found out if it is necessary. So every person making changes in multi author context, knows that every one knows who made the changes.
nobody knews that you did this changes and why . where can we see that you did it ?
I made a suggestion to the moderated knol . you didn’t react .
I asked who made it moderated .
you didn’t react untill it was obvious that you did it . even then you didn’t say that you did it .
that’s cowerdice .
btw. no one said it’s necessary to make entries . we said, any author can take part by giving a comment . so it was possible to make it moderated from the beginning or to make it open till the end .
in open collaboration we can make mistakes (see the argument of MAK) but we generally are learning by making mistakes . even an old man does .
My residence computer was down yesterday night and I am on computer after more than 12 hour break. You need not accuse like that for a straight forward issue. The logic is simple and it was already given. If one sees versions, one can see who all made changes and one can see in which version this change is made unless this is not recorded as a version change.
You are the person who coined the statement “discussion solves all the problems.” So it solves.
“discussion solves all the problems” .
this is true, if you do not stop until all problems are gone.
I didn’t coin it . it’s from Spiros . don’t know if he coined it . it’s not important .
as to the versions, all I can see is that # 65 (SK) is content modification and # 66 (KS) is moderated content modification . that doesn’t answer my question
“Kalle Schwarz has given nine ranks. Which one is first may have a interpretation problem, he may have to give the clarification. ”
that’s incredible .
yes, as you can see I have given nine ranks .
1. what do I do now ? (seeger carbajal)
2. historic sea voyages (seeger carbajal)
3. knol: the democratic revolution of knwledge (alberto aune´)
4. the second axial age (kazuhiko kotani)
5. women geniuses in computer science (manoj ap)
6. honor (kevin gaddis)
7. green reading (pauline c)
8. pom course teamwork (dr mandi)
9. god is visible (andreas j. kampe)
now guess which one is first ?!
btw. why would you always want to tell us what we have to do .
more : if you didn’t understand it and/or if you don’t want to participate, why do you say :
“I hope he (KS) is a role model for KAF members in this context”
that’s not honest .
I didn’t say “the first ranked knol gets 3 points, 2nd ranked knol gets 2 points and the third ranked knol gets one point”
I said, the first ranked knol gets 1 point, 2nd ranked knol gets 1/2 point and the third ranked knol gets 1/3 point and so on . that allows you to make more than three rankings .
Andreas, if that is too complicated for you, simply make your own ranking comment and I will integrate it in the list given on http://knol.google.com/k/kalle-schwarz/contest-a/1m7f8ad2dgh39/330#
” a month of time” : no problem . we only neede a month to manage the ranking question or the prize question
KS @ ALBG
if I want to know where a text comes from, I ask google .
if I want to know where my knols are quoted, I look at [serch for uses f this page ▼] .
it’s a pity that comments are not knols .
as I do not make money with my knols, everyone may copy them without asking me .
ALBG @ KS
Here is a draft, which certainly would need further extensive editing, and that we propose for discussion.
I am here as a collaborator and I thought the article might add some of this. In my opinion you should relax and rest. You shouldn’t say things that I did not say in my contribution. I’m not a boy.
I am here from boom-or-doom.
KS @ ALBG
certainly we differ (as I have just realized) . but should I really only say things that you did say in your contribution ???
my proposal is : if we write things we found by google, we should mark them with f.b.g. (found by google) .
no bad feelings .
ALBG @ KS
Nice to met you.
The next time, you can place an emoticon i.e.[( :-e) Disappointed] and I will can answer to you with an abbreviation [ ( IWKWYM ) I will know what you mean.
See you later
KS @ ALBG
ALBG @ KS
relax…take it easy.
KS @ ALBG
I love people who tell me what I have to do .
ALBG @ KS
Do not worry, I’m your support
Now, get to work seriously. Is the end of relaxation.
KS @ ALBG
I really love people who tell me what I have to do .
science and life
if you can feel (yourself) you have a soul . if you can think symbolic, you have a spirit .
scientists could not tell you, what feeling and thinking is . they masure only the shadows of the reality, because their instruments can not feel and think .
you surely know plato’s cave parable . science only see the shadows . a dog, though it is not human, lives more in reality than a scientist .
this program works
if our instrument is a computer, we can perhaps learn more about science and philosophy .
Why do you say that?
By the way, what happened with your other comment? I regret to have not answered to it yet, but your metaphor was quite iunteresting… Do you care to repost? I agree that a dog is more close to reality than a scientist, if that scientist really thinks that his models of the world are “reality”.
perhaps you have already seen that my other comment is on
here is a refactored part of it :
if you can reproduce yourself you are living .
if you can feel yourself you are a soul .
if you can think yourself, you are a spirit
— computers are better instruments because they work on a symbolic level . other instruments do not .
if “logic cannot look at itself without the danger of antinomies popping out, but the things which refer only to themselfs are the only “real” things”, then we have a problem .
perhaps we can say :
if logic refers to itself, it is nonsense .
if a computer program refers to itself, it works, but it doesn’t come to an end .
if we refer to ourself, then we are the only real thing 🙂
— I refer to myself therefore I am !
SKS (8/27) Interesting way of looking at things. We can indeed refer to ourselfs. And indeed “logic” has problems when refering to itself. Is that something you have read somewhere or have you thought of that on your self? Maybe I think on that and embed it in a future version of the Knol. Would you mind that? I will refer you as source of course.
I was impressed of JG’s and yours will to discuss things to an end .
this is a thing I had not found yet on knol .
again inspired by JG (well-defined concepts) I tried to well-form some ideas .
so I’m surely not the source . perhaps we three are, but only by standing on the shoulders of others .
I would be happy if such discussions could be part of the future of knol .