Re: [FRIAM] Privacy vs Open Public Data
Nick speaks for himself: We are, by immigration, probably a nation of former thieves, cutpurses, embezzlers, for whom the choice was the docks or the stocks. You, sir, I believe, are from a sub-nation of former religious fanatics. I am partly that, but mostly from the (large!) sub-nation of former German-dialect-speaking peasants for whom the choice was starvation, with an admixture of the sub-nation of former draft-dodgers for whom the choice was death in some interminable intra-tribal war promoted by German-dialect- speaking aristocrats and largely suffered and fought by German-dialect-speaking peasants. And so forth and so on. Are you sure you haven't confused the U-S-of-God-fearin'-A with Australia? FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] [EXTERNAL] Re: Privacy vs Open Public Data
Nick avers: I guess I am a behaviorist about shame. If my behavior makes me blush than it was shameful. Alternatively, someone has slipped you a large dose of niacin, which has made you blush, which you have felt as shame. I suggested this several times to Jim Laird as a worthwhile experiment in his framework, but he never got off his butt to (have his undergradutes) do it. Now *there's* a crying shame. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] Dropbox big-time
A bit OT but ... Hmm.. Just got thinking about about Amazon being used by Dropbox and their relative pricing. Amazon charges $.095/GB/Month for its storage. That's $9.50/Mo or $114.00/Year for 100GB. http://aws.amazon.com/s3/pricing/ 100GB is the first tier of paid Dropbox which goes for $9.99/Mo or $99.00/year (17% discount). https://www.dropbox.com/upgrade That's surprising: the same storage is actually cheaper on Dropbox! Why? - Az only charges for what you actually use, while DB charges for the 100GB even tho you only use a fraction of it. My guess is that for most folks (say 50% utility) Az is cheaper. - DB probably gets a volume discount but provides additional services for the user. - Arq is just an app but the same could be said for DB http://www.haystacksoftware.com/arq/ But then Google gets into the act: Google Drive costs less, only $4.99/100GB/Mo. That's considerably less, but then GD is new to the game and it isn't clear just how easily it is used. Possibly Arq, DB and others could offer their services on GD for less? But boy, this shows that there is considerable competition in the storage world! -- Owen On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 3:04 PM, Owen Densmore o...@backspaces.net wrote: Arq sounds great, thanks for the pointer. Looks like a winner. Kinda interesting dropbox uses amazon too. -- Owen On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Barry MacKichan barry.mackic...@mackichan.com wrote: I'll put in my two cents. All the files I care about are on a Mac, so I use Arq, which backs up to Amazon's S3 and Glacier services. There are two levels of S3 service which vary in their redundancy. The higher level (S3 standard storage) claims: Designed for 99.9% durability and 99.99% availability of objects over a given year. Designed to sustain the concurrent loss of data in two facilities. The price is now $.095 per gigabyte per month. I have watched it go down from $.15 to $.095, but it may not be going down as fast as hard drive prices. Amazon's Glacier storage is $.01 per gigabyte per month, but it has a time delay on recovery (about 4 hours, enough time for the gerbils to mount a tape). It can get expensive to move a lot of data in and out of Glacier, but it is fine for long time storage. So now I have my home folder tree on Time Machine and Amazon S3. I have a music and old data (carried forth from PC to PC since the late 80's) on Glacier, so for most of my data (but not bought applications) I have copies 1) on my Mac, 2) on my Time Machine, and 3) on S3 and Glacier offsite. The next problem is if (when) I have to reduce the amount of data on my Mac (when going to SSD, possibly) I will need a place for the data moved off my Mac and my Tiime Machine. I probably will go with a Drobo, which has a good bit of redundancy and which would require only a Glacier backup ($10.00 per terabyte per month) . I am putting some faith in Amazon, but their record is so far quite good, and a disk in a safety deposit box, at least in my case, would be updated rarely if at all. --Barry On Jan 16, 2013, at 9:30 AM, Owen Densmore wrote: I figured out the google drive vs g+ plan. It turns out they are integrated, a good thing I think. I was concerned it was yet another half baked stunt but this seems pretty well managed. -- Owen torage plan pricing Learn about your options for purchasing more storage for Google Drive, Google+ Photos, and Gmail. Store up to 5 GB between Google Drive and Google+ Photos, then pay for additional storage as your account grows. Here's how it works: - Tap into your free storage as soon as you start using Google Drive and G+ Photos. - Purchase additional storage that can be shared across Google Drive and G+ Photos. When you purchase additional storage, your Gmail storage limit will automatically be increased to 25 GB. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] here we go
I applaud your attempt to expand out to the forest layer! But I still think you're being overly specific about our disagreement. My summary about dissimilarity as the common cause for the communication illusion and tool abuse failed to capture the core disagreement, I suppose. So, I'll try again, as brief as I'm capable of: Inter-individual variation causes everything we've talked about in this thread. Your acceptance of the singularity rhetoric places you in one bin (axiom of choice) whereas I'm in another bin. The same is true of gun control, 3D printers, and the eschatological thinking behind our fear of climate change (on the left) and the New World Order (in the whackjob bin). The same variation causes varying bins surrounding free will and which tools/traits each of us expresses. It all boils down to the history dependent, context controlled ontogeny of each individual. That's how it's been for the history of life on the planet and won't change any time soon. But what has changed is our density. We are flat out more likely to have most of our context controlled by others with the same physiology and morphology as our self. And that implies that we (all of us) are much much more alike today than we have ever been in our entire history. Our inter-individual variation is disappearing at an ever increasing rate. That means we're all much more likely to fall into some (illusory) gravity well, nearby in thought space. No matter how skeptical you might think you are, it's inevitable. You'll succumb to some cult-like group think. As I age, I like to think that old people, with longer hysterical processes, can better resist their local gravity wells. But the more one's _self_ is defined by thought and culture, the more likely they are to cross the event horizon and stop being capable of thinking differently. Only the lone wolves hiding in the forests have a chance of preserving our biological diversity. Steve Smith wrote at 01/16/2013 10:16 PM: Glen - I'll save you and the rest of the list my long-winded point by point response (written but ready for delete) and try to summarize instead: I understand now your connection between communication and tool (mis)use. I think we disagree on a couple of things but I am sympathetic with what I think you are reacting to here. I react to it with others myself: I honestly don't agree that we *are* our extended phenotype, but accept that you do. It is an important difference and may explain much of our other disagreements. I accept that we *might not* have as much choice as I suggest about the development and use of our tools, but I think our choice is maximized by seeking to exercise it, even if it is limited. We do disagree about the relative rates of change. Biological evolution (scaled at thousands of years) of humans may have kept pace with technological evolution right up to the neolithic. Sociological evolution (scaled at tens or hundreds of years) might have kept pace with technological evolution until the industrial or perhaps the computer revolution. I honestly believe that significant technological change is happening on the scale of years or less. I agree that our perception of both technological change and it's effects is *amplified* by how the very same technology has shrunk the world (through communication and transportation). I agree that we have fetishised tool acquisition and possession and that this does not equal facility much less mastery with the tools. But I claim this aggravates the situation, not alleviates it. I am sympathetic with the feeling that there are many Chicken Little's about shrieking the end of the world with the thinnest of evidence sometimes. I may sound like that to you. I'm trying to pitch my voice an octave below that, but I may be failing. I honestly believe that we have reached a scale of technology that risks self-extermination and that this is exacerbated by the introduction of new technology faster than we can come to sociological grips with it (much less biological adaptation). The stakes are high enough that I would prefer to err on the conservative side. I accept that you do not agree with me on this general point. I share your experience that many people who _think_ they are competent at handling dangerous things (such as guns) are not. Fixing that (acknowledging the incompetence and acting on it by forgoing the privilege or by becoming competent) is the only answer. Attempts at gun control seem to aggravate the problem. I believe Australia's success in this matter might be a reflection of their readiness as a culture to embrace the first solution. We seem to be some distance from that. -- glen FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] Dropbox big-time
Aq looks great, esp. the retention of metadata (file dates). If only it supported Windows. On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 8:36 AM, Owen Densmore o...@backspaces.net wrote: A bit OT but ... Hmm.. Just got thinking about about Amazon being used by Dropbox and their relative pricing. Amazon charges $.095/GB/Month for its storage. That's $9.50/Mo or $114.00/Year for 100GB. http://aws.amazon.com/s3/pricing/ 100GB is the first tier of paid Dropbox which goes for $9.99/Mo or $99.00/year (17% discount). https://www.dropbox.com/upgrade That's surprising: the same storage is actually cheaper on Dropbox! Why? - Az only charges for what you actually use, while DB charges for the 100GB even tho you only use a fraction of it. My guess is that for most folks (say 50% utility) Az is cheaper. - DB probably gets a volume discount but provides additional services for the user. - Arq is just an app but the same could be said for DB http://www.haystacksoftware.com/arq/ But then Google gets into the act: Google Drive costs less, only $4.99/100GB/Mo. That's considerably less, but then GD is new to the game and it isn't clear just how easily it is used. Possibly Arq, DB and others could offer their services on GD for less? But boy, this shows that there is considerable competition in the storage world! -- Owen On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 3:04 PM, Owen Densmore o...@backspaces.netwrote: Arq sounds great, thanks for the pointer. Looks like a winner. Kinda interesting dropbox uses amazon too. -- Owen On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 12:50 PM, Barry MacKichan barry.mackic...@mackichan.com wrote: I'll put in my two cents. All the files I care about are on a Mac, so I use Arq, which backs up to Amazon's S3 and Glacier services. There are two levels of S3 service which vary in their redundancy. The higher level (S3 standard storage) claims: Designed for 99.9% durability and 99.99% availability of objects over a given year. Designed to sustain the concurrent loss of data in two facilities. The price is now $.095 per gigabyte per month. I have watched it go down from $.15 to $.095, but it may not be going down as fast as hard drive prices. Amazon's Glacier storage is $.01 per gigabyte per month, but it has a time delay on recovery (about 4 hours, enough time for the gerbils to mount a tape). It can get expensive to move a lot of data in and out of Glacier, but it is fine for long time storage. So now I have my home folder tree on Time Machine and Amazon S3. I have a music and old data (carried forth from PC to PC since the late 80's) on Glacier, so for most of my data (but not bought applications) I have copies 1) on my Mac, 2) on my Time Machine, and 3) on S3 and Glacier offsite. The next problem is if (when) I have to reduce the amount of data on my Mac (when going to SSD, possibly) I will need a place for the data moved off my Mac and my Tiime Machine. I probably will go with a Drobo, which has a good bit of redundancy and which would require only a Glacier backup ($10.00 per terabyte per month) . I am putting some faith in Amazon, but their record is so far quite good, and a disk in a safety deposit box, at least in my case, would be updated rarely if at all. --Barry On Jan 16, 2013, at 9:30 AM, Owen Densmore wrote: I figured out the google drive vs g+ plan. It turns out they are integrated, a good thing I think. I was concerned it was yet another half baked stunt but this seems pretty well managed. -- Owen torage plan pricing Learn about your options for purchasing more storage for Google Drive, Google+ Photos, and Gmail. Store up to 5 GB between Google Drive and Google+ Photos, then pay for additional storage as your account grows. Here's how it works: - Tap into your free storage as soon as you start using Google Drive and G+ Photos. - Purchase additional storage that can be shared across Google Drive and G+ Photos. When you purchase additional storage, your Gmail storage limit will automatically be increased to 25 GB. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com -- Ron Newman MyIdeatree.com http://www.Ideatree.us The World Happiness Meter http://worldhappinessmeter.com YourSongCode.com http://www.yourSongCode.com
Re: [FRIAM] [EXTERNAL] Re: Privacy vs Open Public Data
I prefer embarrassed to shamed - perhaps there's a spectrum from proud to embarrassed to shamed to guilty. Perhaps white lies do not grease your part of the wheels of society - but I'm reasonably sure, based on my experience, that they are in use in many societies including ours. There's the blatant pretense of privacy that Marcus mentioned exists in Japan. There's the white lies mentioned in books of etiquette. There's the common jokes about answering one's SO's question of whether they look good (in particular clothing or after getting their hair styled or ….). These are all proof that we lie frequently in order to grease the wheels of society. Ray Parks Consilient Heuristician/IDART Program Manager V: 505-844-4024 M: 505-238-9359 P: 505-951-6084 NIPR: rcpa...@sandia.govmailto:rcpa...@sandia.gov SIPR: rcpar...@sandia.doe.sgov.govmailto:rcpar...@sandia.doe.sgov.gov (send NIPR reminder) JWICS: dopa...@doe.ic.govmailto:dopa...@doe.ic.gov (send NIPR reminder) On Jan 16, 2013, at 3:01 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote: Raymond, I guess I am a behaviorist about shame. If my behavior makes me blush than it was shameful. Guilt, on the other hand is something the law determines. Just my way of talking, I guess. But why do petty lies grease the wheels of society. What lies behind that confident assertion? FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] Privacy vs Open Public Data
Marcus G. Daniels wrote at 01/16/2013 07:17 PM: It should be public. But it is rude to press a person for personal facts they don't volunteer. If someone uses a source, whether it is convenient or inconvenient, public or something else, they they then have no business making you feel uncomfortable about information they acquired out-of-band. It's polite behavior. Nothing must change because of the Information Age, etc. The problem with this part of the discussion is that because of the Information Age, etc. (aka population density ;-), the composition of polite behavior changes rapidly within an individual's lifetime. Add to that the mobility of individuals, and there are multiple, perhaps competing understandings of what polite behavior is. -- glen FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] [EXTERNAL] Re: Privacy vs Open Public Data
Parks, Raymond wrote at 01/17/2013 10:19 AM: These are all proof that we lie frequently in order to grease the wheels of society. Isn't it something like a false distinction to call all this lying? After all, we have von Neumann's extrapolation of Tarski's (or perhaps Goedel's) work claiming that it's impossible to tell the whole truth. And we have non-well-founded set theory to tell us that it's problematic to tell nothing but the truth. Hence, if we follow your setup to its logical conclusion, then everyone is always lying. -- glen FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] [EXTERNAL] Re: Privacy vs Open Public Data
Yes, we lie frequently. Yes, it is lying - we are either stating a falsehood or omitting the truth (the atheist example upthread). Human beings are social animals - we constantly try to manipulate our social situation for our personal optimum - it's built into us. Some of us are better at it than others. Some (Aspergers?) are downright incapable. Ray Parks Consilient Heuristician/IDART Program Manager V: 505-844-4024 M: 505-238-9359 P: 505-951-6084 NIPR: rcpa...@sandia.govmailto:rcpa...@sandia.gov SIPR: rcpar...@sandia.doe.sgov.govmailto:rcpar...@sandia.doe.sgov.gov (send NIPR reminder) JWICS: dopa...@doe.ic.govmailto:dopa...@doe.ic.gov (send NIPR reminder) On Jan 17, 2013, at 11:29 AM, glen wrote: Parks, Raymond wrote at 01/17/2013 10:19 AM: These are all proof that we lie frequently in order to grease the wheels of society. Isn't it something like a false distinction to call all this lying? After all, we have von Neumann's extrapolation of Tarski's (or perhaps Goedel's) work claiming that it's impossible to tell the whole truth. And we have non-well-founded set theory to tell us that it's problematic to tell nothing but the truth. Hence, if we follow your setup to its logical conclusion, then everyone is always lying. -- glen FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] Privacy vs Open Public Data
Parks, Raymond wrote at 01/17/2013 10:34 AM: Yes, we lie frequently. Yes, it is lying - we are either stating a falsehood or omitting the truth (the atheist example upthread). Human beings are social animals - we constantly try to manipulate our social situation for our personal optimum - it's built into us. Some of us are better at it than others. Some (Aspergers?) are downright incapable. OK. Well, if we're all always lying, then it seems like lying is a useless term. In order to make progress in the discussion, we'll have to come up with a taxonomy of qualifiers. We've covered white. It's ubiquitous, and hence also useless. What other types of lying are there? Specifically, which lies are indicators of legally relevant internal states like shame versus which lies are merely facilitators of the type of information control advocated by Eric and my lurker's use case? -- glen FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] Privacy vs Open Public Data
Even I can detect a willful argumentative bent here. Ray said, and I quote: Yes, we lie frequently. You said, OK. Well, if we're all always lying, [...] Now now, you know better... --Doug On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 11:42 AM, glen g...@ropella.name wrote: Parks, Raymond wrote at 01/17/2013 10:34 AM: Yes, we lie frequently. Yes, it is lying - we are either stating a falsehood or omitting the truth (the atheist example upthread). Human beings are social animals - we constantly try to manipulate our social situation for our personal optimum - it's built into us. Some of us are better at it than others. Some (Aspergers?) are downright incapable. OK. Well, if we're all always lying, then it seems like lying is a useless term. In order to make progress in the discussion, we'll have to come up with a taxonomy of qualifiers. We've covered white. It's ubiquitous, and hence also useless. What other types of lying are there? Specifically, which lies are indicators of legally relevant internal states like shame versus which lies are merely facilitators of the type of information control advocated by Eric and my lurker's use case? -- glen FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com -- *Doug Roberts drobe...@rti.org d...@parrot-farm.net* *http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins*http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins * http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins 505-455-7333 - Office 505-672-8213 - Mobile* FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] [EXTERNAL] Re: Privacy vs Open Public Data
On 1/17/13 11:19 AM, Parks, Raymond wrote: There's the blatant pretense of privacy that Marcus mentioned exists in Japan. It was Bruce that made this point. This article elaborates.. http://biblioteca.clacso.edu.ar/ar/libros/raec/ethicomp5/docs/htm_papers/52Orito,%20Yohko.htm Within the context of these socio-cultural and linguistic circumstances, insistence on the right to privacy as the right to be let alone indicates a lack of cooperativeness as well as an inability to communicate with others. The right to privacy, understood as the individual's right to control the circulation of information concerning him or her, is considered a shameful excess of mistrust in relation both to a cooperative society and to those who collect, store, share, and use personal data. Consequently, the sense of a right to privacy is foreign and less important to Japanese society than it is in Western societies. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] Privacy vs Open Public Data
No, I asserted that if we follow Ray's claim to its logical conclusion, it means we are always lying. He responded Yes, but then went on to ignore the flaw in his argument. So, I'm reinforcing my point that his argument is flawed and he hasn't refuted it. That's not argumentative. It's good argumentation. ;-) Douglas Roberts wrote at 01/17/2013 10:46 AM: Even I can detect a willful argumentative bent here. Ray said, and I quote: Yes, we lie frequently. You said, OK. Well, if we're all always lying, [...] Now now, you know better... -- glen FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] Privacy vs Open Public Data
Clever. Objection overruled. (We watched the Lincoln Lawyer last night). On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 11:59 AM, glen g...@ropella.name wrote: No, I asserted that if we follow Ray's claim to its logical conclusion, it means we are always lying. He responded Yes, but then went on to ignore the flaw in his argument. So, I'm reinforcing my point that his argument is flawed and he hasn't refuted it. That's not argumentative. It's good argumentation. ;-) Douglas Roberts wrote at 01/17/2013 10:46 AM: Even I can detect a willful argumentative bent here. Ray said, and I quote: Yes, we lie frequently. You said, OK. Well, if we're all always lying, [...] Now now, you know better... -- glen FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com -- *Doug Roberts drobe...@rti.org d...@parrot-farm.net* *http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins*http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins * http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins 505-455-7333 - Office 505-672-8213 - Mobile* FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
[FRIAM] It looks like this will be a daily event for a while
Maybe Linux Today will pick up another one, that's worth about 2,000 hits. http://things-linux.blogspot.com/2013/01/interesting-priorities.html -- *Doug Roberts drobe...@rti.org d...@parrot-farm.net* *http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins*http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins * http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins 505-455-7333 - Office 505-672-8213 - Mobile* FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] [EXTERNAL] Re: Privacy vs Open Public Data
Sorry. I wasn't asking whether we lie or not. Or even whether it eases some social situations. I was asking for a theory of why lying greases social situations. Why is the NET effect of small lies positive? I can think of some reasons. Like chimpanzees, we live in a fision-fusion situation. The size of the lie that one can honestly tell probably depends in many cases on the frequency with which one sees the person one is lying to. And then there is the distinction between speech as stroking and speech as conveying of information. I get that wrong, a lot. I am having a hard time thinking how this is related to my original question about whether there should be a law against using public data to track individual behavior. I know that I opened up the subthread about shame and guilt, so I stipulate that it is my fault that we are talking about it. And I actually think it is related. I just can't state the relation. I am thinking we might be moving toward a belief that truth is like arousal . life goes best when one has a moderate level of it. There was a wonderful study done some years ago about he relation between truth and the best marriages. Married folk were asked to play The Dating Game together .. i.e., guess what spouses answers to personal questions would be, preferences, what have you. Three categories of respondents were identified: spouse pairs that had an unrealistical enhanced view of one another, spouse pairs that had an unrealistically jaundiced view of one another, and spouse pairs that had a realistic view of one another. As you might expect, the first group maintained the most enduring marriages. But this just brings me back to the need for a theory of why a society is better is there is just a bit less truth in it. A pragmatic notion, but not, I fear, a Pragmatic one. Nick From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Parks, Raymond Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 11:19 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] [EXTERNAL] Re: Privacy vs Open Public Data I prefer embarrassed to shamed - perhaps there's a spectrum from proud to embarrassed to shamed to guilty. Perhaps white lies do not grease your part of the wheels of society - but I'm reasonably sure, based on my experience, that they are in use in many societies including ours. There's the blatant pretense of privacy that Marcus mentioned exists in Japan. There's the white lies mentioned in books of etiquette. There's the common jokes about answering one's SO's question of whether they look good (in particular clothing or after getting their hair styled or ..). These are all proof that we lie frequently in order to grease the wheels of society. Ray Parks Consilient Heuristician/IDART Program Manager V: 505-844-4024 M: 505-238-9359 P: 505-951-6084 NIPR: rcpa...@sandia.gov SIPR: rcpar...@sandia.doe.sgov.gov (send NIPR reminder) JWICS: dopa...@doe.ic.gov (send NIPR reminder) On Jan 16, 2013, at 3:01 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote: Raymond, I guess I am a behaviorist about shame. If my behavior makes me blush than it was shameful. Guilt, on the other hand is something the law determines. Just my way of talking, I guess. But why do petty lies grease the wheels of society. What lies behind that confident assertion? FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] Dropbox big-time
I love google drive for somestuff- It's great if you can use it from the same computer or have one that does java quickly when uploading at school though for some reason it was dog slow-same for downloading-and that stuff was-illustrator files- or pictures--with those short comings acounted for google drive is slick--and more than once was how I turned in homework-by pointing the prof to a URL linked in some fation to the file. On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 10:00 AM, Owen Densmore o...@backspaces.net wrote: On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 9:21 AM, Douglas Roberts d...@parrot-farm.netwrote: Google+ has free unlimited storage of images but only at 2048 px. You can pay for 5GB of images at greater resolution. Android g+ has an automatic picture upload feature. --Doug While looking into dropbox alternatives, I looked into Google Drive .. but hadn't heard about G+ for images. Some of the commentary on Google services was that they somehow use the data you keep with them .. possibly for face recognition searching and so on. Couple of questions: - How well is Google Drive working for folks? It apparently is great for android but some said still in beta so to speak. It seems to have integrated with Google Docs .. so that might make it great for all documentation backup. - Is G+ photo storage public? Separate from GD? Photo sharing may be the mention of Google use of user data. Does it do the conversion to 2Mpx during the upload? I suspect most of my iPhone images are too big due to the 8Mpx camera. I did read an article on moving iPhoto libraries to either DB or GD. Both were identical so apparently GD has the same functionality as DB. -- Owen FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] It looks like this will be a daily event for a while
Doug, My experience with Google is that because so much of their stuff is given away, their Do No Evil has metamorphosed into How could we possibly do evil? we're such nice people! I don't get the feeling they are embarrassed when one of their apps turns out to be crap. But I am not a Beta person. Free or not, I want my software stable and not subject to the next bright idea from the next summer intern. But as somebody will quickly point out: I really don't know what I am talking about here. Nick From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Douglas Roberts Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 12:11 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: [FRIAM] It looks like this will be a daily event for a while Maybe Linux Today will pick up another one, that's worth about 2,000 hits. http://things-linux.blogspot.com/2013/01/interesting-priorities.html -- Doug Roberts drobe...@rti.org d...@parrot-farm.net http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins 505-455-7333 - Office 505-672-8213 - Mobile FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] It looks like this will be a daily event for a while
Nick, Re: free stuff being crap, well, that's one thing I guess. However I paid $349 for my pretty Gorilla Glass brick with a blinking blue led. And the fact that you don't know what you're talking about really does set you apart from the rest of this list. /sarcasm --Doug On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 12:37 PM, Nicholas Thompson nickthomp...@earthlink.net wrote: Doug, ** ** My experience with Google is that because so much of their stuff is given away, their Do No Evil has metamorphosed into “How could we possibly do evil? we’re such nice people!” I don’t get the feeling they are embarrassed when one of their apps turns out to be crap. But I am not a Beta person. Free or not, I want my software stable and not subject to the next bright idea from the next summer intern. ** ** But as somebody will quickly point out: I really don’t know what I am talking about here. ** ** Nick ** ** *From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Douglas Roberts *Sent:* Thursday, January 17, 2013 12:11 PM *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group *Subject:* [FRIAM] It looks like this will be a daily event for a while*** * ** ** Maybe Linux Today will pick up another one, that's worth about 2,000 hits. ** ** http://things-linux.blogspot.com/2013/01/interesting-priorities.html ** ** -- *Doug Roberts drobe...@rti.org d...@parrot-farm.net* *http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins*http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins * 505-455-7333 - Office 505-672-8213 - Mobile* FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com -- *Doug Roberts drobe...@rti.org d...@parrot-farm.net* *http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins*http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins * http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins 505-455-7333 - Office 505-672-8213 - Mobile* FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] here we go
Glen - Thanks for the continued engagement. We may not be converging on any agreement but we might be approaching a common language. Here is an outline of the issues in our discussion as I see them: 1. Is concept space discrete or continuous (Axiom of Choice vs Landscape)? 2. What is the relationship between humanity and technology? 3. What are the implications of co-mmunication within a system on this discussion? 4. What is the extent of self-will/identity/choice in this context? 1. Is concept space discrete or continuous (Axiom of Choice vs Landscape)? While you refer to ideas as fitting in discrete bins (Axiom of Choice), you also use the metaphors of potential fields (gravity well) and dynamical systems (basins of attraction). I think we can possibly safely (between the two of us anyway) slip from one abstraction to the other to make our points. I may also want to add a bit of quantum tunneling into the potential field but I'll try not to go too far with that ;) 2. What is the relationship between humanity and technology? We both agree to the abstraction of humans having our phenotype extended via technology. You might say that we *are* this extended phenotype, I'm softer on that idea than you are I think, but not unsympathetic (see 4 below). I think of technology in the same terms as a metabolic network. I claim that since Habilis, we have co-evolved with an ever growing, evolving network of artifacts and blueprints for said artifacts which we call technology collectively. technology has not yet become life itself but as a network with near autocatalytic subnetworks within it, it has enough features of life that I will suggest that humans and technology are symbiotes. Singularians seem to believe that technology already has or very soon will become fully alive and run off and leave us (except for Ray Kurzwiel and an astute other few who might manage to hitch a ride on it's tail like fleas on a runaway dog). My understanding of our contemporary situation is that the complex network we are co-evolving with called technology has been growing qualitatively and quantitatively in a super-linear (not necessarily geometric or exponential as postulated by singularians) since it emerged. This is problematic for us as a self-determining species and as self-determining individuals. If the first human immigrants to north america brought their modern lithic weapons and hunting techniques and managed to exterminate many species of megafauna not prepared for this virile of a predator, then this might be an early example. Surely there was a population boom followed by a bust? The technology of agriculture that allowed humans to become sedentary and citified also caused us to have a diet and daily exercise regime much less diverse than we were evolved for. Similarly, the technologies of urban living allowed us to experience population densities contraindicated in avoiding epidemics and internecine violence. 3. What are the implications of co-mmunication within a system (e.g. biome, animal group, human population) on this discussion? From hymenoptera to homo, individuals of various species aggregate through multi-channel feedback loops of communication. Hives, swarms, flocks, schools, herds, pods, packs, tribes all extend the individual's survival through extended perceptions, buffering of resources, specialization, etc. Yet within this spectrum there are often examples of rogue individuals or family subgroups who manage to exist outside this complex milieu, at least for brief periods of time. I am in strong agreement with your sentiment that our population densities and the logical proximity created (aggravated?) by modern communication and transportation technology is a threat to us. In fact, I have argued that these factors are leading us from our organizational instincts inspired by our tribal primate anscestors, our packing familiars (canines) and our herding familiars (ungulates) toward organizational patterns of hives in particular. I hope it is not racist to observe that the solutions to crowding in Japan have lead them as a culture closer to this than say, the herdsmen of the stans and the steppes in central eurasia. Our own (USA) urban dwellers, especially at densities such as Manhattan or San Francisco or Chicago are at the same risk, despite being coupled to a slightly different monoculture spread across Urban, suburban and rural coupled by the common grid of popular mass media (formerly newspaper, radio, tv). 4. What is the extent of self-will/identity/choice in this context? Nick and others have reminded us how much our choice and self-determinism may be an illusion. I don't like it, but I accept that there is a strong element of this even in my own life, and in the
Re: [FRIAM] [EXTERNAL] Re: Privacy vs Open Public Data
Nick - Sorry. I wasn't asking whether we lie or not. Or even whether it eases some social situations. I was asking for a theory of why lying greases social situations. Why is the NET effect of small lies positive? I can think of some reasons. Like chimpanzees, we live in a fision-fusion situation. The size of the lie that one can honestly tell probably depends in many cases on the frequency with which one sees the person one is lying to. And then there is the distinction between speech as stroking and speech as conveying of information. I get that wrong, a lot. To expand the argumentation without being (hopefully) argumentative, I defer to Glen's aphorism: The problem with communication is the illusion that it exists. and also offer the analogy to tolerancing in mechanical systems. To the extent that communication (as we idealize it) is an illusion, then everything we say (or hear?) is inaccurate in the way that all models are wrong, some are useful. Since what we say (and hear) is intrinsically inaccurate, everything is, in that sense a *lie*. We bias and expand these inaccuracies to our convenience and they become lies in the traditional sense of the term. These *lies* are useful to more than optimizing our personal situation in the way that two parts fit together with a deliberate *tolerance* work better over the long run than those fit as precisely as possible and then allowed to wear in. Among other things, a broken part cannot simply be replaced by another one identical to the original, it must be custom fit to match the wear on the broken part. The wear patterns on the part have become part of the system. By introducing some well-controlled and deliberate error (aka tolerance) into the parts of the system, they do not need to wear as much to break in and as a result replacing a broken part with a new unworn one is more effective. More formally trained engineers here may correct me of course. The effectivity of interchangeable parts in mass production was heavily dependent on this kind of tolerancing. I submit that in human exchange, proper tolerancing is like the use of white lies. There are limits to the accuracy of our communication (fit of our parts) so we might as well bias the (mis) fit toward leaving room for the social machine to continue to function. A hand-fit machine can have higher performance and efficiency than one designed with suitable tolerances to not require careful break-in and to optimize replacement of parts down the line. Or to extend the metaphor of social engagement as mechanical system, humans are like gears with teeth that engage. If gears were not designed with lash (a specific form of tolerance), they would bind. If humans are not allowed a little bit of error in their communication (biased to their own needs) then they will bind. Tolerancing also helps to manage degrees of freedom. Gears must be co-linear (or orthogonal in some case) to work properly. A gear which wobbles too much on it's axis can bind, but a little bit of that wobble can also prevent binding in an otherwise overly closely toleranced system. In human discourse, it might be the equivalent of changing the subject or giving evasive answers. Q: Do you like my new hat honey? A: It is really unique! I am having a hard time thinking how this is related to my original question about whether there should be a law against using public data to track individual behavior. I know that I opened up the subthread about shame and guilt, so I stipulate that it is my fault that we are talking about it. And I actually think it is related. I just can't state the relation. I am thinking we might be moving toward a belief that truth is like arousal ... life goes best when one has a moderate level of it. There was a wonderful study done some years ago about he relation between truth and the best marriages. Married folk were asked to play The Dating Game together i.e., guess what spouses answers to personal questions would be, preferences, what have you. Three categories of respondents were identified: spouse pairs that had an unrealistical enhanced view of one another, spouse pairs that had an unrealistically jaundiced view of one another, and spouse pairs that had a realistic view of one another. As you might expect, the first group maintained the most enduring marriages. But this just brings me back to the need for a theory of why a society is better is there is just a bit less truth in it. A pragmatic notion, but not, I fear, a Pragmatic one. Nick *From:*Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Parks, Raymond *Sent:* Thursday, January 17, 2013 11:19 AM *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] [EXTERNAL] Re: Privacy vs Open Public Data I prefer embarrassed to shamed - perhaps there's a spectrum from proud to embarrassed to shamed to guilty.
Re: [FRIAM] [EXTERNAL] Re: Privacy vs Open Public Data
Humans lie but not everything a human says is a lie. If your sample size is conversation rather than word, then you can safely say humans always lie. Otherwise, you're straying into politician lying joke territory. Ray Parks Consilient Heuristician/IDART Program Manager V: 505-844-4024 M: 505-238-9359 P: 505-951-6084 NIPR: rcpa...@sandia.govmailto:rcpa...@sandia.gov SIPR: rcpar...@sandia.doe.sgov.govmailto:rcpar...@sandia.doe.sgov.gov (send NIPR reminder) JWICS: dopa...@doe.ic.govmailto:dopa...@doe.ic.gov (send NIPR reminder) On Jan 17, 2013, at 11:42 AM, glen wrote: Parks, Raymond wrote at 01/17/2013 10:34 AM: Yes, we lie frequently. Yes, it is lying - we are either stating a falsehood or omitting the truth (the atheist example upthread). Human beings are social animals - we constantly try to manipulate our social situation for our personal optimum - it's built into us. Some of us are better at it than others. Some (Aspergers?) are downright incapable. OK. Well, if we're all always lying, then it seems like lying is a useless term. In order to make progress in the discussion, we'll have to come up with a taxonomy of qualifiers. We've covered white. It's ubiquitous, and hence also useless. What other types of lying are there? Specifically, which lies are indicators of legally relevant internal states like shame versus which lies are merely facilitators of the type of information control advocated by Eric and my lurker's use case? -- glen FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] here we go
Nice! You wax poetic in the latter part, which I'm incapable of paralleling. But I'll try to mimic the spirit. Steve Smith wrote at 01/17/2013 12:40 PM: 1. Is concept space discrete or continuous (Axiom of Choice vs Landscape)? 2. What is the relationship between humanity and technology? 3. What are the implications of co-mmunication within a system on this discussion? 4. What is the extent of self-will/identity/choice in this context? Excellent outline. 1. Is concept space discrete or continuous (Axiom of Choice vs Landscape)? While you refer to ideas as fitting in discrete bins (Axiom of Choice), you also use the metaphors of potential fields (gravity well) and dynamical systems (basins of attraction). I think we can possibly safely (between the two of us anyway) slip from one abstraction to the other to make our points. I may also want to add a bit of quantum tunneling into the potential field but I'll try not to go too far with that ;) I agree that we can safely slip from discrete to continuous (including tunneling). But I disagree that they're abstractions (either of them). Instead, I think they're either two parts of a paradox or duals of one another. I prefer to consider them duals and I posit that discrete paradigm is otherwise known as things, objects, or states whereas the continuum paradigm is aka actions, behaviors, or processes. It's a classic Necker Cube type problem, nodes vs. edges, boxes vs. arrows. They're not different abstractions of the same thing. They _are_ the same thing. But because any time our attention focuses on some subset (things) or slice (processes), we have to choose which frame to assume. Are we speaking/thinking from the perspective that reality is a bunch of objects? Or are we speaking/thinking from the frame that reality is a smoothly dynamic goo? 2. What is the relationship between humanity and technology? We both agree to the abstraction of humans having our phenotype extended via technology. You might say that we *are* this extended phenotype, I'm softer on that idea than you are I think, but not unsympathetic (see 4 below). I think of technology in the same terms as a metabolic network. I claim that since Habilis, we have co-evolved with an ever growing, evolving network of artifacts and blueprints for said artifacts which we call technology collectively. technology has not yet become life itself but as a network with near autocatalytic subnetworks within it, it has enough features of life that I will suggest that humans and technology are symbiotes. The problem I have with this is the extent to which you're using metaphor. Treat me as if I were autistically literal in my thinking. (I may actually be that way... I don't know and I'm not going to pay some pipe-smoking couch potato to tell me whether I am. ;-) I don't know whether you literally think our surrounding artifacts actually have inherent _properties_ of life, or whether we can merely focus our attention so that we perceive _attributes_ of life. I am fully in the latter bin, as much as I may play at liking the sci-fi stories where those artifacts come to life. I've spent too much time with the Rosenites. I believe that life defines itself through impredicativity and technology does not. So, if I take you literally, then you are not being metaphorical. You truly believe that there exists a way to _slice_ off technology and consider a technology-free organism. And similarly, you believe there exists a way to slice off life and consider a life-free technology. If so, I fundamentally disagree. My usual example is life in space. In order to send a human to space, we have to build a closure around the human. That closure is a kind of simulation harness where we plug functional equivalents into every orifice of the organism so that they can continue to live out there in the vacuum. We have to do that because there is no _actual_ separation between humans and their technology. There does not exist a way to separate them. Hence, co-evolution is an inaccurate or metaphorical term. Singularians seem to believe that technology already has or very soon will become fully alive and run off and leave us (except for Ray Kurzwiel and an astute other few who might manage to hitch a ride on it's tail like fleas on a runaway dog). My understanding of our contemporary situation is that the complex network we are co-evolving with called technology has been growing qualitatively and quantitatively in a super-linear (not necessarily geometric or exponential as postulated by singularians) since it emerged. This is problematic for us as a self-determining species and as self-determining individuals. Here in the discussion, I face a dilemma. I can either tunnel over to the perspective you framed (i.e. adopt that one can _actually_ separate organisms from their
Re: [FRIAM] [EXTERNAL] Re: Privacy vs Open Public Data
Nick, My point is that there are things we do not want to be public that are not illegal nor shameful. An example of such a thing is a behavior or statement that seems to contradict one's relationship with another human. It's perfectly reasonable, but that other human can and frequently does feel emotional pain if they find out about it. Another example was brought up in the thread of how humans manipulate their social environment to prevent social pressure or improve their social situation. BTW, I find it interesting if not ironic that the very systems that allow for ubiquitous surveillance are the same systems that allow for indiscriminate self-exposure - computers. Here's a prediction - someday there will be an app that will turn off surveillance cameras as one passes by them. That may be a black-market app - but it will exist. It's harder but not impossible to do the same for UAVs/RPAs/regular aircraft. The hardest type of surveillance to turn off is satellite - but it's also the easiest to predict. Ray Parks Consilient Heuristician/IDART Program Manager V: 505-844-4024 M: 505-238-9359 P: 505-951-6084 NIPR: rcpa...@sandia.govmailto:rcpa...@sandia.gov SIPR: rcpar...@sandia.doe.sgov.govmailto:rcpar...@sandia.doe.sgov.gov (send NIPR reminder) JWICS: dopa...@doe.ic.govmailto:dopa...@doe.ic.gov (send NIPR reminder) On Jan 17, 2013, at 12:12 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote: Sorry. I wasn’t asking whether we lie or not. Or even whether it eases some social situations. I was asking for a theory of why lying greases social situations. Why is the NET effect of small lies positive? I can think of some reasons. Like chimpanzees, we live in a fision-fusion situation. The size of the lie that one can “honestly” tell probably depends in many cases on the frequency with which one sees the person one is lying to. And then there is the distinction between speech as stroking and speech as conveying of information. I get that wrong, a lot. I am having a hard time thinking how this is related to my original question about whether there should be a law against using public data to track individual behavior. I know that I opened up the subthread about shame and guilt, so I stipulate that it is my fault that we are talking about it. And I actually think it is related. I just can’t state the relation. I am thinking we might be moving toward a belief that truth is like arousal … life goes best when one has a moderate level of it. There was a wonderful study done some years ago about he relation between truth and the best marriages. Married folk were asked to play The Dating Game together …. i.e., guess what spouses answers to personal questions would be, preferences, what have you. Three categories of respondents were identified: spouse pairs that had an unrealistical enhanced view of one another, spouse pairs that had an unrealistically jaundiced view of one another, and spouse pairs that had a realistic view of one another. As you might expect, the first group maintained the most enduring marriages. But this just brings me back to the need for a theory of why a society is better is there is just a bit less truth in it. A pragmatic notion, but not, I fear, a Pragmatic one. Nick FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] [EXTERNAL] Re: Privacy vs Open Public Data
Ah. The equivalent of the bank Robbers mask. Jam the camera. N From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Parks, Raymond Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 3:26 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] [EXTERNAL] Re: Privacy vs Open Public Data Nick, My point is that there are things we do not want to be public that are not illegal nor shameful. An example of such a thing is a behavior or statement that seems to contradict one's relationship with another human. It's perfectly reasonable, but that other human can and frequently does feel emotional pain if they find out about it. Another example was brought up in the thread of how humans manipulate their social environment to prevent social pressure or improve their social situation. BTW, I find it interesting if not ironic that the very systems that allow for ubiquitous surveillance are the same systems that allow for indiscriminate self-exposure - computers. Here's a prediction - someday there will be an app that will turn off surveillance cameras as one passes by them. That may be a black-market app - but it will exist. It's harder but not impossible to do the same for UAVs/RPAs/regular aircraft. The hardest type of surveillance to turn off is satellite - but it's also the easiest to predict. Ray Parks Consilient Heuristician/IDART Program Manager V: 505-844-4024 M: 505-238-9359 P: 505-951-6084 NIPR: rcpa...@sandia.gov SIPR: rcpar...@sandia.doe.sgov.gov (send NIPR reminder) JWICS: dopa...@doe.ic.gov (send NIPR reminder) On Jan 17, 2013, at 12:12 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote: Sorry. I wasn't asking whether we lie or not. Or even whether it eases some social situations. I was asking for a theory of why lying greases social situations. Why is the NET effect of small lies positive? I can think of some reasons. Like chimpanzees, we live in a fision-fusion situation. The size of the lie that one can honestly tell probably depends in many cases on the frequency with which one sees the person one is lying to. And then there is the distinction between speech as stroking and speech as conveying of information. I get that wrong, a lot. I am having a hard time thinking how this is related to my original question about whether there should be a law against using public data to track individual behavior. I know that I opened up the subthread about shame and guilt, so I stipulate that it is my fault that we are talking about it. And I actually think it is related. I just can't state the relation. I am thinking we might be moving toward a belief that truth is like arousal . life goes best when one has a moderate level of it. There was a wonderful study done some years ago about he relation between truth and the best marriages. Married folk were asked to play The Dating Game together .. i.e., guess what spouses answers to personal questions would be, preferences, what have you. Three categories of respondents were identified: spouse pairs that had an unrealistical enhanced view of one another, spouse pairs that had an unrealistically jaundiced view of one another, and spouse pairs that had a realistic view of one another. As you might expect, the first group maintained the most enduring marriages. But this just brings me back to the need for a theory of why a society is better is there is just a bit less truth in it. A pragmatic notion, but not, I fear, a Pragmatic one. Nick FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] [EXTERNAL] Re: Privacy vs Open Public Data
Why stop at jam the camera? *Spoof* the camera (feed it false but plausible data, perhaps inculpating someone else, or perhaps just showing an uppity empty Naugahyde `:chair): a real- time, animated analogue of the photoshopped stills we now have learned to expect everywhere. Ah. The equivalent of the bank Robbers mask. Jam the camera. N From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Parks, Raymond Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 3:26 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] [EXTERNAL] Re: Privacy vs Open Public Data Nick, My point is that there are things we do not want to be public that are not illegal nor shameful. An example of such a thing is a behavior or statement that seems to contradict one's relationship with another human. It's perfectly reasonable, but that other human can and frequently does feel emotional pain if they find out about it. Another example was brought up in the thread of how humans manipulate their social environment to prevent social pressure or improve their social situation. BTW, I find it interesting if not ironic that the very systems that allow for ubiquitous surveillance are the same systems that allow for indiscriminate self-exposure - computers. Here's a prediction - someday there will be an app that will turn off surveillance cameras as one passes by them. That may be a black-market app - but it will exist. It's harder but not impossible to do the same for UAVs/RPAs/regular aircraft. The hardest type of surveillance to turn off is satellite - but it's also the easiest to predict. Ray Parks Consilient Heuristician/IDART Program Manager V: 505-844-4024 M: 505-238-9359 P: 505-951-6084 NIPR: rcpa...@sandia.gov SIPR: rcpar...@sandia.doe.sgov.gov (send NIPR reminder) JWICS: dopa...@doe.ic.gov (send NIPR reminder) On Jan 17, 2013, at 12:12 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote: Sorry. I wasn't asking whether we lie or not. Or even whether it eases some social situations. I was asking for a theory of why lying greases social situations. Why is the NET effect of small lies positive? I can think of some reasons. Like chimpanzees, we live in a fision-fusion situation. The size of the lie that one can honestly tell probably depends in many cases on the frequency with which one sees the person one is lying to. And then there is the distinction between speech as stroking and speech as conveying of information. I get that wrong, a lot. I am having a hard time thinking how this is related to my original question about whether there should be a law against using public data to track individual behavior. I know that I opened up the subthread about shame and guilt, so I stipulate that it is my fault that we are talking about it. And I actually think it is related. I just can't state the relation. I am thinking we might be moving toward a belief that truth is like arousal . life goes best when one has a moderate level of it. There was a wonderful study done some years ago about he relation between truth and the best marriages. Married folk were asked to play The Dating Game together .. i.e., guess what spouses answers to personal questions would be, preferences, what have you. Three categories of respondents were identified: spouse pairs that had an unrealistical enhanced view of one another, spouse pairs that had an unrealistically jaundiced view of one another, and spouse pairs that had a realistic view of one another. As you might expect, the first group maintained the most enduring marriages. But this just brings me back to the need for a theory of why a society is better is there is just a bit less truth in it. A pragmatic notion, but not, I fear, a Pragmatic one. Nick FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
Re: [FRIAM] [EXTERNAL] Re: Privacy vs Open Public Data
I don't have any real information nor the inclination to do the research, but odds are that huge surveillance camera rollouts (as in city-wide) are IP not analog cameras. Since running cables is so expensive, they probably use either wireless (GSM) to the monitoring center or at least wireless to a collection point with fiber or ISP connection back to the monitoring center. Sooner or later, someone will steal one of the cameras, RE it, and find some sort of common password, backdoor, or other vulnerability. Most IP cameras use H.263 for the video - not all H.263 stacks are secure against fuzzing. Since most smart phones have GPS, wifi, and bluetooth, an app could be written that takes advantage of the vulnerability to point the camera away (if it's PTZ) or simply turn it off temporarily (no monitoring center can look at all cameras all the time). Sure, evidence of the turn-off would be evident in the Network Video Recorder (NVR) but there would be no evidence of why. Replacement of video is not as easy as it seems - simple lack of video is just as good for privacy. The point is that as more and more of our information is managed by computers, more and more opportunity exists to change that information to suit our purposes. Paper records require physical access - virtual records require virtual access which can be much easier. Here's another example - a while back some ID thieves discovered that all they had to do to get access to a credit rating agency like TransUnion, Experian, or Equifax is be a business and pay some money. They used that access to steal identify information and were caught when their volume rose to the wholesale level. If, instead, they used their privileged access to those company's networks, they might have escalated their access and changed the information in those networks. Maybe they could have made as much money offering a credit rating relief service as they did through ID theft. Ray Parks Consilient Heuristician/IDART Program Manager V: 505-844-4024 M: 505-238-9359 P: 505-951-6084 NIPR: rcpa...@sandia.govmailto:rcpa...@sandia.gov SIPR: rcpar...@sandia.doe.sgov.govmailto:rcpar...@sandia.doe.sgov.gov (send NIPR reminder) JWICS: dopa...@doe.ic.govmailto:dopa...@doe.ic.gov (send NIPR reminder) On Jan 17, 2013, at 6:09 PM, lrudo...@meganet.netmailto:lrudo...@meganet.net wrote: Why stop at jam the camera? *Spoof* the camera (feed it false but plausible data, perhaps inculpating someone else, or perhaps just showing an uppity empty Naugahyde `:chair): a real- time, animated analogue of the photoshopped stills we now have learned to expect everywhere. Ah. The equivalent of the bank Robbers mask. Jam the camera. N From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Parks, Raymond Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 3:26 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] [EXTERNAL] Re: Privacy vs Open Public Data Nick, My point is that there are things we do not want to be public that are not illegal nor shameful. An example of such a thing is a behavior or statement that seems to contradict one's relationship with another human. It's perfectly reasonable, but that other human can and frequently does feel emotional pain if they find out about it. Another example was brought up in the thread of how humans manipulate their social environment to prevent social pressure or improve their social situation. BTW, I find it interesting if not ironic that the very systems that allow for ubiquitous surveillance are the same systems that allow for indiscriminate self-exposure - computers. Here's a prediction - someday there will be an app that will turn off surveillance cameras as one passes by them. That may be a black-market app - but it will exist. It's harder but not impossible to do the same for UAVs/RPAs/regular aircraft. The hardest type of surveillance to turn off is satellite - but it's also the easiest to predict. Ray Parks Consilient Heuristician/IDART Program Manager V: 505-844-4024 M: 505-238-9359 P: 505-951-6084 NIPR: rcpa...@sandia.govmailto:rcpa...@sandia.gov SIPR: rcpar...@sandia.doe.sgov.govmailto:rcpar...@sandia.doe.sgov.gov (send NIPR reminder) JWICS: dopa...@doe.ic.govmailto:dopa...@doe.ic.gov (send NIPR reminder) On Jan 17, 2013, at 12:12 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote: Sorry. I wasn't asking whether we lie or not. Or even whether it eases some social situations. I was asking for a theory of why lying greases social situations. Why is the NET effect of small lies positive? I can think of some reasons. Like chimpanzees, we live in a fision-fusion situation. The size of the lie that one can honestly tell probably depends in many cases on the frequency with which one sees the person one is lying to. And then there is the distinction between speech as stroking and speech as conveying of information. I get that wrong, a lot. I am having a hard
