Posts tagged ‘Data’

April 22, 2011

The Meme is My Theme

by C. Michael Eliasz-Solomon

The May 2011 Smithsonian arrived recently. In it was an article by  James Gleick on Memes. This is the same Gleick who in 1987 wrote:  Chaos: Making a New Science, and who has a new book this year called: The Information: A History, a Theory, a Flood. In fact, the Smithsonian article is adapted from that book. The word, meme was coined by Richard Dawkins, in his 1976 book,  The Selfish Gene (see page 192) . So this article is a meme upon the venerable meme, a kind of meta-meme, which I will coin as: meme-meme.

Dawkins defined a meme as, ” … a name for the new kind of  replicator, a noun that conveys the idea of a unit of cultural transmission.” Dawkins said the analogy was:  Cultural Transmission = Genetic Transmission. And so by Dawkins’ utterance, a meme was born (created). He said it sounded vaguely like gene, rhymes with cream, and might even conjure to mind the word memory. So we have gene, cream, memory as the Mnemonic device for remembering the word meme. He originally wanted to use ‘Mimeme’, but then decided upon a monosyllabic word (how atomic) meme. However, this jester thinks, Dawkins writings and ideas are all about, ME, not my me, but his (Dawkins’) me. Notice how meme is a self-replicated version of the word ‘me’. Hence, my meta-meme is meme-meme; So it naturally follows that it is all about me and he (my me first, then his me). Well it was defined in the Selfish Gene (uh Meme), so perhaps, me-me-me-me should be an understood pun? Stanczyk does not know, having never met Dr. Dawkins and thus unable to pose the question.

Why is the CHAOS guy writing about the MEME (uh Gene) guy? After reading the adaption of Gleick’s book in the Smithsonian article I am not certain. It was very interesting. But I am not certain I even agree with Gleick’s article. Gleick said that  Hula Hoop ® (an object) is not a meme. Although I suppose his article and mine writing about the Hula Hoop are a meme. Why can’t an object be a meme? One could suppose a Hula Hoop is a cultural unit and perhaps our parent’s purchase, was the cultural transmission. Obviously the Hula Hoop was the latest evolution of the hoop as a toy, when in 1958 Whamo waxed Alliterative and tying the hoop to the Hawaiian dance (soon to be a state in 1959) and we had a fad whose meme is legendary. So let’s wax philosophical…

If a Hula Hoop is in the woods (without anyone around to hear it) is it still a meme? What if there is also a child in that woods? How about we add an Ad-Man? But still with only a child and Ad-Man to witness it perhaps there is no cultural transmission. Perhaps we need to add another child to watch the first child play with the Hula Hoop — are we getting anywhere near a meme yet? If so what is the meme: Hula Hoop, child (1st), Ad-Man, child(2nd), watching a child play ? Is the dark matter between the two children the meme — some kind of quantum cultural transmission? Perhaps we need a TV to broadcast the the two children in the woods to other children (elsewhere) to have a meme. Is the TV  or the broadcaster the meme; perhaps it is the commercial being broadcast that is the meme? And who was meme creator? What if the other children did not want to play with the Hula Hoop;  Would the concept of a Hula Hoop have been a meme, would these articles still be meme(s)? When are two memes sufficiently alike to be considered the same meme?

Why did the Journal of Memetics become extinct and yet the venerable meme (not to be confused with my meme about the meme) continue to live on?

Please keep the  meme alive and also my meta-meme (aka meme-meme) alive  and tweet and re-tweet this article. Share it on Facebook with your friends. Write about it in science Journals. Send it in emails. In order for me to ensure its survival I am including the hash tag: #Viral.

For God’s sake save the meme (and the meme-meme), just like the Whale, snail-darters, and Yellowstone Wolves. A Meme is a terrible thing to waste — Pass it on. Thank you for reading my theme (uh meme, uh meme-meme). I am hopeful that some other blogger or writer or researcher will write about my meta-meme (aka the meme-meme) and create his/her meta-meta-meme. I replicate therefore I meme.

March 11, 2011

Portable Genealogy … Ancestry.com’s iPad/iPhone App … An Update

by C. Michael Eliasz-Solomon

In the last week Ancestry.com has updated their iPad/iPhone App. In the prior release, I could never get the edits to work (i.e. to edit on the portable device) or to have the edits synch without error. I am happy to report that you can now edit on the portable device or you can edit on the Internet at the Ancestry web site. In both cases, it works and it synchs.

I did find that editing on the portable device resulted in immediate or nearly immediate synch with the web site. Edits on the web site were slower to be synched back to the portable device.

I am rather fond of the UI and find it is very usable even on the iPhone’s small screen. Now I may even leave the laptop at home when I go researching as I can bring prior research with me and even collect and edit the new research into my family tree. So now like  Jack’s beanstalk, my family tree is in the cloud.  This gives me easy access everywhere and a nice offsite disaster backup in addition to my portable freedom of bringing all my ancestors with me all of the time.

Nice job Ancestry. I next hope I can try out the Mac software, Reunion, and get their Reunion iOS device App (when I get some discretionary income) to review. After that I will compare the two products side-by-side.

Prior Review -> here .

January 8, 2011

Biechow – Births in 1753 & 1754

by C. Michael Eliasz-Solomon

The Biechow parish Stanczyk keeps writing about was shuffled amongst many administration units that changed as the borders changed, which in Europe was often.  After the partitions started in 1772, my ancestors were briefly in the Austrian partition. In the Napoleonic era, they were a part of the Duchy of Warsaw and were in the Departmente of Krakow. Post Napoleon, they were in the Kielce wojewodztwo of  the Congress Kingdom of Poland.  My ancestral villages pretty much stayed put after that point and were in Kielce wojewwodztwo or gubernia depending on the whims of the czar until about 1918. Today, they are in wojewodztwo of SwietyKrzyskie.

The records were originally kept in Latin. The earliest Latin records were scant/terse, let me call them blurbs, like little Power-Point bullets scrawled upon the pages of the church books. Eventually they became more formulaic and I’d see what I call the Latin paragraph form (really a few sentences). Copies would be made and shipped to the Archdiocese Archives and these were often recorded in the Latin Box form that was prevalent in the Austrian partition. Napoleon while he was briefly in charge, instituted a format according to the Napoleonic code, that was written in the lingua franca of each locale. So about 1805, we see the church records being kept in a Polish paragraph form (quite long) as specified by the Napoleonic Codex. In 1868, the Czar decreed a change from Polish to Russian, but the Napoleonic format stayed, so the records switched from Polish paragraphs to Russian/Cyrillic paragraphs. So this jester since he was forced to, has acquired the ability to read enough Latin to read the genealogical blurbs of Catholic priests and is quite skilled in reading the Polish paragraphs and is still increasing his knowledge of Russian paragraphs, but has long since been able to pick out the salient facts of the vital records even in Russian with Cyrillic character set (as opposed to Polish language written in the Latin alphabet).

Now let me hasten to add, that this was true of Catholic church records. Obviously if your ancestors were Jewish, then you have additional burdens in your research, including reading Hebrew.  The format of recording vital records also differed amongst the three partitioning / occupying Empires. Stanczyk writes from a Russian-Poland partition experience.

Having said that, in a very long preamble, today’s post is about the pre-partitioned, Polish vital records. In 1753 & 1754 these were Latin paragraph form (very terse still, but better than those of the 17th century). I want to examine a couple of these records for today’s discourse and ask for some help.  Here is what we are dealing with …

Stanczyk’s eyes weary fast when trying to read these early Latin blurbs. Handwriting had not been perfected in those days. Also I find a good many misspellings on the family names or sometimes even the village names. This is still better than what was present in the 17th century. Each line starts with a day (month, year are usually assumed). These are really baptismal record (as opposed to birth), so it records the baptism, the parents and the God Parents of the baby and the villages of the people involved.

Now here is where Stanczyk is looking for help. Please take a look at the next image (click on it to see a full size copy) and help this jester understand the concept of ‘alias’. In this record we will see a surname of  Michałek as an alias for Materna. Is this some kind of case of name “evolution”. The Michałek family name disappears and the Materna family name becomes a common village surname. Why would a surname become aliased? In these early Latin records, it happens a few times and Stanczyk is trying to understand what is happening and why?

January 4, 2011

Biechow Parish 1814 Marriages

by C. Michael Eliasz-Solomon

1814 Groom Age Bride Age Rec#’s Notes Widowed Galician Village ~Birth Yr, Groom ~Birth Yr, Bride
1 Wincenty Sardela 24 Maryanna Zarazionka 25 115,116,117 1790 1789
2 Wincenty Rayczowski 19 Maryanna Kaminszczonka 19 112,113,114 1795 1795
3 Ignacy Maychra 25 Franciszka Sobonka 24 109,110,111 bride was a widow 1 1789 1790
4 Piotr Orlowski 23 Katarzyna Kotanska 22 106,107,108 1791 1792
5 Marcin Grzywacz 23 Maryanna Zmyslowna 24 103,104,105 1791 1790
6 Michal Watroba 22 Franciszka Czaplonka 16 100,101,102 1792 1798
7 Jan Luszcz 18 Katarzyna Mrzyglodowna 15 98,99 no marriage record 1 1796 1799
8 Jakob Bayka 24 Anjela Maychrowna 20 96,97 groom was a widower; no marriage record 1 1790 1794
9 Gabrych skladzien 28 Elzbieta Jurkowska 17 93,94,95 1786 1797
10 Jan Fosara 25 Giertruda Stefanie 18 90,91,92 1789 1796
11 Piotr Prukop 23 Magdalena Zmyslowna 36 87,88,89 bride is a widow (maiden name Fortuna) 1 1791 1778
12 Maciej Wrobel 23 Malgorzata Domin 20 86 only marriage record (no banns) 1791 1794
13 Jan Kanty Woycika 40 Elzbieta Cepilka 34 83,84,85 both were widowed. 1 Szczucin 1774 1780
14 Jozef Obara 32 Malgorzata Wieczorkowa 30 80,81,82 bride was a widow 1 1782 1784
15 Marcin Piopzona 27 Maryanna Stracka 29 77,78,79 1787 1785
16 Maciej Wrobel 23 Malgorzata Domin 20 75,76 see marriage record #86 1791 1794
17 Jakob Dydysia 40 Franciszka Czaplonka 24 72,73,74 groom was a widower 1 1774 1790
18 Lukasz Wodziak 19 Maryanna Poniewierczonka 21 69,70,71 1795 1793
19 Grzegorz Smydra 41 Dorota Kaminszczonka 20 66,67,68 groom was a widower 1 1773 1794
20 Jan Szydla 19 Marta Goleniowna 18 63,64,65 1795 1796
21 Jacenty Fortuna 26 Maryanna Pawelkowna 16 60,61,62 1788 1798
22 Grzegorz Ziemba 34 Maryanna Maychrowa 43 57,58,59 bride was a widow 1 1780 1771
23 Stanislaw Materna 23 Agnieszka Pekaciczka 34 54,55,56 bride was a widow (maiden name Lutego) 1 1791 1780
24 Benedykt Blayda 22 Agnieszka Zielinszczonka 17 51,52,53 1792 1797
25 Jan Zdrala 34 Helena Stoykowa 30 49,50 bride was a widow; no marriage record 1 1780 1784
26 Jakob Maychra 44 Teresia Karamanaczyna 46 46,47,48 both were widowed. 1 1770 1768
27 Maciej Bebel 21 Maryanna Pireczka 21 43,44,45 1793 1793
28 Franciszek Garstka 30 Malgorzata Zaraszczonka 25 40,41,42 groom was widower 1 1784 1789
29 Marcin Juda 41 Maryanna Salaszyna 30 37,38,39 both were widowed. 1 1773 1784
30 Jakob Domin 40 Agata Wroblowna 25 34,35,36 1774 1789
31 Piotr Ragana 29 Kunegunda Blaydowna 24 31,32,33 1785 1790
32 Kazimierz Walaska 54 Malgorzata Maychrowa 35 28,29,30 both were widowed. 1 1760 1779
33 Maciej Luszcz 41 Barbara Leykowna 22 25,26,27 groom was a widower 1 1773 1792
34 Woyciech Omyla 30 Helena Zarazionka 16 22,23,24 groom was a widower 1 1784 1798
35 Woyciech Zdybia 33 Jadwiga Cyskowa 25 19,20,21 both were widowed. 1 1781 1789
36 Jozef Kosiolka 53 Maryanna Gorszczonka 27 16,17,18 groom was a widower 1 1761 1787
37 Stanislaw Dalackowski 60 Helena Goleniewska 44 13,14,15 both were widowed. 1 1754 1770
38 Kazimierz Kordos 56 Maryanna Stokarzka 38 10,11,12 both were widowed. 1 1758 1776
39 Jan Kaminski 56 Elzbieta Nowakowna 29 7,8,9 groom was a widower 1 1758 1785
40 Grzegorz Kopcia 46 Helena Nowakowa 24 4,5,6 both were widowed. 1 1768 1790
41 Bartlomiej Obara 45 Maryanna Wroblowna 20 1,2,3 groom was a widower 1 1769 1794
Counts: 24
Avg Male Age 32.59 Avg Female Age 25.44 Percentage of 2nd Marriages: 58.54
December 16, 2010

Swinary Parish – A Survey of Births 1826-1852

by C. Michael Eliasz-Solomon

Once again, I have reviewed the images of the indexes to compile a brief survey of the births in the Swinary parish.  As I posted before this Swinary is in southern Poland:

Świniary – 409 osób(people) woj.:  świętokrzyskie,   powiat: buski,  gmina: Solec-Zdrój,    Polish Postal Code: 28-131
[Source: mapa.szukacz.pl]
Year Count Of Births
1826 124
1827 111
1828 99
1829 95
1830 96
1831 53
1832 95
1833 92
1834 99
1835 112
1836 94
1837 91
1838 99
1839 111
1840 98
1841 92
1842 114
1843 97
1844 109
1845 86
1846 N/A
1847 N/A
1848 N/A
1849 N/A
1850 80
1851 N/A
1852 86

I do not know what to make of the data. There are years missing and the first year was the highest birth registration. 1831 seems to be an outlier with only 53 births. From reading in books, works in newsletters (like by Dr. Paul Valasek), and in my own grandmother’s parish of Biechow which is very nearby, I know 1831 to be a year of the Cholera epidemic. So perhaps an epidemic limited births (or at least their registration).

From birth records (so this may not be a complete/exhaustive list), we see the following villages make up the Swiniary parish:

Ludwinow, Oblekon, Parchocin, Swiniary, Trzebica, Wlosnowice, and Zielonki .

One final note, this parish was in the old wojewodztwo, Kielce in this era (1826-1852).

Other Surveys of Nearby Parishes, I have previously done:

Biechow 1810 http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~meliasz/biechow/Biechow_Births1810.htm
Biechow 1811 http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~meliasz/biechow/1811_BiechowChurchRecords_Births%20.htm
Biechow 1812-1831 http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~meliasz/biechow/BiechowVillageHouses.htm
Pacanow 1883 10 sample births Out Of 203 Births
Pacanow 1884 15 sample
December 11, 2010

Information, Free Speech, and Journalism

by C. Michael Eliasz-Solomon

Stanczyk want to weigh in on WikiLeaks and the many tangents that a WikiLeaks article can take.

I do not think Julian Paul Assange is correct;  In fact I think he is breaking many laws and violating many standards of ethics. So US Supreme Court and US Attorney General Eric Holder listen up, so to speak.

First off, making threats like, ‘Do this or else I will do this” is an act of extortion. When I listen to NPR or read the New York Times or Philadelphia Inquirer, or even when I watch Fox News, I do not get threatened that act against their news/journalistic articles, I will have to bear the brunt of some kind of blackmail. Not even Rush Limibaugh gives voice to such as that. So if WikiLeaks is journalism, why does it make extortionate and/blackmail threats?

WikiLeaks and its supporters cannot espouse Free Speech and then attempt to deny the voices of other organizations via Denial-Of-Service attacks. That is thuggery to claim you deserve Free Speech rights, but then turn right around and deny others, their right to free speech on their web sites or in other endeavors. An awful hypocrisy. It also demonstrates a lack of understanding of Free Speech.

American has had the right of Free Speech longer than any other nation. As such, it has had to deal with many nuances related to Free Speech. It has long been acceptable to outlaw, yelling “Fire” in a movie theater or even to remove people from said theater for creating a disturbance. Free Speech does not allow such irresponsible or reprehensible actions. Free Speech also does not extend to people who make Hate Speeches or to people who incite violence. Those are not examples of Free Speech. Do you not see the principle that “Free Speech” cannot deprive others of their rights/liberties and be considered Free Speech.

Stanczyk has long been an IT worker. As such, data and information and the communication of such is governed by laws. These laws extend beyond national boundaries sometimes.  Stanczyk saw how the latest “Cables” spanned such a breadth of data, that it covered many aspects of the human condition. For example, it was covered in sport news pages, because there instances of how Iran used sports to deal with internal political strife. Who would have thought that WikiLeaks would impact Sports? So too must there be data dealing with:  HIPAA laws (privacy related to medical conditions), PI (privacy information and data) would seem to have been heavily violated. What about identity theft from  WikiLeaks releases? Stanczyk likes his genealogy but also sees that Census data must be on ice for 72 years before being released to the public. So Free Speech and Freedom of Information has long had a defined context of limits.

Finally, the last concept is IP (Intellectual Property). WikiLeaks received stolen property from soldier Manning (whose legal/ethic problems are even worse than WikiLeaks). Assange might not have realized that when he received IP from Manning and that Manning stole this “valuable property” from the US Government, he not only violated receipt of stolen property, and violations of espionage, but also clearly violated many aspects of the Digital Millennium Act (both civil and criminal). By failing to return said information when the property owner demanded it,  it made the WikiLeaks organization as a whole (including distributed agents) subject to confiscation of computer and other technology. This is best understood by comparing this to what happened in the matter of  Apple Computer and Gizmodo on the iPhone prototype. IP is valuable and cannot be willfully stolen or received and cannot be denied from its rightful owner. There are many corporate espionage cases of late that also demonstrate the severity of IP theft and the civil/criminal aspects that accrue from those actions taken.

The many civil cases against Assange and WikiLeaks that come out of the distribution of data in violation of HIPAA, PI, or other identity theft matters and resulted in damage or losses of property or loss of life will keep lawyers around the world gainfully employed for a decade or more.

Assange is learning too late, that Journalists have editors and legal teams to vet stories against laws and customs and matters of ethics. Journalists do not make threats.

As Stanczyk sees it, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) and Russian Premier Putin have come down on the wrong side of this issue. Putin seems out of place for sure, when one considers how many Russian journalists have been killed. This jester has appreciated Mr Putin’s work with respect to Poland of late and has even written a note of consolation to Mr Putin when his nation has come under attack by terrorists, so it pains this jester’s Slavic soul to call Mr Putin out on this issue — just because Putin sought to lash out against the US in order to make points for Russia on the backs of this difficult issue.

Time will tell on this matter.

 

%d bloggers like this: