Steve Smith wrote at 01/18/2013 08:27 PM:
My presence at the bar was public data and I didn't do anything in
particular to keep it private. Fortunately neither of my parents were
drinkers (except at home in small quantities) and only a couple of times
did it seem like I was close to getting
On 1/17/13 11:19 AM, glen wrote:
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
Marcus G. Daniels wrote at 01/18/2013 08:47 AM:
Politics tends to make cliques fragile because individual powerful
people defect and one slightly weaker clique can quickly become a
powerful clique. The rules they make to lend legitimacy to their
endless conflicts can help the little guy!
On 1/18/13 10:14 AM, glen wrote:
And that means polite behavior _must_ change because of the
Information Age, etc.
Yes, I see I overstated that for no good reason. Thanks.
Still, I think it is important to try to push any enduring group toward
polite behavior, however short-lived.
Tyranny
Marcus G. Daniels wrote at 01/18/2013 09:19 AM:
Still, I think it is important to try to push any enduring group toward
polite behavior, however short-lived.
OK. But the deeper problem is the definition of politeness, especially
as a vanishing point ideal. To stress the point, I could argue
On 1/18/13 10:32 AM, glen wrote:
To stress the point, I could argue that, if the clique endures, then
whatever behavior they engage in already defines politeness,
regardless of how impolite their behavior may seem to an outsider.
I think there is a distinction. Organizations that seek to
Marcus G. Daniels wrote at 01/18/2013 10:12 AM:
I think there is a distinction. Organizations that seek to endure need
to prevent bully cliques if for no other reason than so that their
officials maintain their authority, e.g. The President needs to tell the
Generals what to do, not the
On 1/18/13 11:33 AM, glen wrote:
I submit that they must have at least 2 definitions of [im]polite, one
for members and one for non-members. And they'll likely have a 3rd for
the boss
No argument really. Just that the definitions probably at least have
some constraints -- and that if they
Marcus G. Daniels wrote at 01/18/2013 10:47 AM:
No argument really. Just that the definitions probably at least have
some constraints -- and that if they aren't somehow reconcilable with
the definitions of those in the out-group and the boss, then there may
be trouble that damages the
OK... so as an example of insider/outsider behaviour, my cartoons
starring Doug are a form of ribbing that has the same quality as
practical jokes. I feel I know Doug well enough on and off list to
know what he would find rude or hurtful and what he would not, so I am
comfortable poking a
The interesting thing about making fun of people is the amount of
peripheral or contextual information that's necessary. I'm not really a
fan of Louis C.K. But if you watch his stand-up, you can see him say
the nastiest things without it seeming so nasty. He says these things
while smiling or
Well, (he said with a twinkle in his, yet hoping for a friendly riposte in
return), that explains a lot.
:)
--Doug
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 3:30 PM, glen g...@ropella.name wrote:
The interesting thing about making fun of people is the amount of
peripheral or contextual information that's
EYE! TWINKEL IN HIS FUCKING EYE!
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 3:34 PM, Douglas Roberts d...@parrot-farm.netwrote:
Well, (he said with a twinkle in his, yet hoping for a friendly riposte in
return), that explains a lot.
:)
--Doug
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 3:30 PM, glen g...@ropella.name wrote:
i'VE BEEN CODING ALL DAY. cAN'T SEE STRAIGHT. nOR FIND THE caps KEY.
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 3:34 PM, Douglas Roberts d...@parrot-farm.netwrote:
EYE! TWINKEL IN HIS FUCKING EYE!
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 3:34 PM, Douglas Roberts d...@parrot-farm.netwrote:
Well, (he said with a twinkle in
Douglas Roberts wrote at 01/18/2013 02:34 PM:
Well, (he said with a twinkle in his, yet hoping for a friendly riposte in
return), that explains a lot.
Ha! Were we in close proximity, I'd stick you in the chest with my
rapier and call it a day. Alas, all I have are my ham-handed,
context-free
Glen -
Thanks for sharing the personal anecdote. It provides context and
fodder for later ribbing if it comes to that.
[*] I was practically reared in a bar called Lloyd's. Lloyd was a
one-armed bartender who taught me how to open a beer with one hand at
the age of about 8. Oh,
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
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
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 -
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
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
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
On 1/15/13 10:54 PM, Steve Smith wrote:
Who do we become when we do not respect the boundaries of others? Who
are we as a society when we allow or encourage others to transgress? I
understand the arguments for Law Enforcement and Intelligence and
Security *wanting* to spy on people freely...
-
From: Marcus G. Daniels mar...@snoutfarm.com
To: friam@redfish.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 3:36:08 AM
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Privacy vs Open Public Data
On 1/15/13 10:54 PM, Steve Smith wrote:
Who do we become when we do not respect the boundaries of others? Who are we
Is the graph search limited to facebook data? Or does it include the rest
of other search engine data? If just FB then it may have the problem the
author discusses .. needing a constant stream of new activity from which to
infer the graph.
At a guess, I'd say twitter is a better source and much
Eric: one of the difficulties of the free society approach, to which I
agree btw, is that we migrate between countries so easily nowadays, so that
privacy is global, not national. Certainly laws cannot be easily crafted
to handle national differences.
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 9:40 PM, Eric
Re: satellites: they have very high resolution but I'm not sure they have a
high frame rate .. ie could track an individual.
-- Owen
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to
On 1/16/13 9:19 AM, Owen Densmore wrote:
Re: satellites: they have very high resolution but I'm not sure they
have a high frame rate .. ie could track an individual.
Main limitation is the sun-synchronous orbit -- limited time to see a
target as it comes in and out of view.
Of Eric Charles
Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 9:40 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Privacy vs Open Public Data
Nick,
I have struggled with parts of this quite a bit. As you know, I am a
somewhat-crazy Libertarian, and so get stuck in conversations like
all very VERY hard.
Nick
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Marcus G.
Daniels
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 1:36 AM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Privacy vs Open Public Data
On 1/15/13 10:54 PM, Steve Smith wrote:
Who do we become when we do
. It is the luxury of liberalism to be
ambivalent.
** **
It’s all very VERY hard.
** **
Nick
** **
*From:* Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Marcus G.
Daniels
*Sent:* Wednesday, January 16, 2013 1:36 AM
*To:* friam@redfish.com
*Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] Privacy vs
: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 10:37 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Privacy vs Open Public Data
I recently accidentally discovered that a musician friend of mine was a
registered sex offender of little girls. I discovered this while using
Google to find
Doug wrote:
I recently accidentally discovered that a musician friend of mine was
a registered sex offender of little girls.
On 1/16/13 10:58 AM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
This is exactly the problem. Am I to become an agency of
punishment? Am I to become a vector of Evil?
Choose One.
Marcus,
I had to look up the Blue Velvet reference, and I still only get the gist.
However, I've grown to love practically anything that David Lynch had a
hand it, so I've now added Blue Velvet to my reading list.
--Doug
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Marcus G. Daniels
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Privacy vs Open Public Data
Marcus,
I had to look up the Blue Velvet reference, and I still only get the gist.
However, I've grown to love practically anything that David Lynch had a hand
it, so I've now added Blue
On 1/16/13 3:56 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
Makes me grumpy.
Poor you. It is not surprising that criminals, deviants, and unstable
humiliated people populate every community. There is inequity in the
world.If people can't find a purpose or acceptable identity in their
lives, then
Ah, a breath of fresh air. I'm afraid we're going to ask you to leave,
Marcus.
irritating smirky face
--Doug
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 4:51 PM, Marcus G. Daniels mar...@snoutfarm.comwrote:
On 1/16/13 3:56 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
Makes me grumpy.
Poor you. It is not surprising that
-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Marcus G.
Daniels
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 4:52 PM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Privacy vs Open Public Data
On 1/16/13 3:56 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
Makes me grumpy.
Poor you. It is not surprising that criminals, deviants
: [FRIAM] Privacy vs Open Public Data
** **
On 1/16/13 3:56 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
Makes me grumpy.
Poor you. It is not surprising that criminals, deviants, and unstable
humiliated people populate every community. There is inequity in the
world.If people can't find
.
What do you do?
N
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Douglas Roberts
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 5:49 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Privacy vs Open Public Data
Hey, no one ever claimed that life was fair
16, 2013 5:49 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Privacy vs Open Public Data
Hey, no one ever claimed that life was fair.
--Doug
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 5:47 PM, Nicholas Thompson
nickthomp...@earthlink.net wrote:
So, you see no problem
On 1/16/13 5:47 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
So, you see no problem there? There are good people and bad people.
You can tell from the B tattooed on their wrist? So, lets us good
people screw the bad people and get on with it. What if one of the
bad people is a heluva musician? Or a
, Altoona
- Original Message -
From: Nicholas Thompson nickthomp...@earthlink.net
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group friam@redfish.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 12:27:13 PM
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Privacy vs Open Public Data
Dear Eric,
I am deeply suspicious
Professor of Psychology
Penn State, Altoona
- Original Message -
From: Nicholas Thompson nickthomp...@earthlink.net
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group friam@redfish.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 12:27:13 PM
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Privacy vs Open Public Data
On 1/16/13 7:18 PM, Eric Charles wrote:
I am, again, quite unsure how the law would distinguish between
someone doing that as a stalker and someone doing that as your friend.
From Wikipedia:
According to a 2002 report by the National Center for Victims of
Crime, Virtually
any unwanted
On 1/16/13 8:00 PM, Eric Charles wrote:
For me, at least, the ability to keep my age private was important for
regulating how others treated me. And I think I should have the right
to that. (Of course, you will probably point out, my birth record is
public... but now we are back to the two
, January 16, 2013 7:03 PM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Privacy vs Open Public Data
On 1/16/13 5:47 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
So, you see no problem there? There are good people and bad people. You
can tell from the B tattooed on their wrist? So, lets us good people screw
: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 7:18 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Privacy vs Open Public Data
Breaking the reply into two parts... first, about the crime:
The notion of public and private has certainly changed over the years. In this
context, I think
Of Marcus G.
Daniels
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 8:06 PM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Privacy vs Open Public Data
On 1/16/13 7:18 PM, Eric Charles wrote:
I am, again, quite unsure how the law would distinguish between someone
doing that as a stalker and someone doing that as your
On 1/16/13 9:45 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
join clubs that you join so I can sit next to you on the next rowing
machine, drink at the next table at the bar that you frequent, etc., etc.,
Those specific behaviors are potentially stalking and they have nothing
to do with my argument.
Nick -
I acknowledge your grumpiness at feeling your serious quest on this
topic was derailed by what you took to be fun-poking. I read the Blue
Velvet reference as a slight tangent (me, a prince of tangents), but
still relevant, and only a little appropriate mirth on Marcus' part.
As one
On 1/16/13 9:59 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
Where is it you said you live?
A form of public information known as the phone book..
Also in the household is my pit bull. Shadow _her_ and you'll be in
for a vicious demand for a belly rub.
Marcus
On 1/16/13 11:05 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
Wait a minute, Marcus. Why would those behaviors be stalking, absent
any intent to communicate a threat!?
At the gym and I see a particular person from work over and over. I go
for a walk and I see them at St. Johns. He is following me! Or am
on the lounger.
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Marcus G.
Daniels
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 10:46 PM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Privacy vs Open Public Data
On 1/16/13 9:59 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
Where is it you said you live
It has the best opening chapter of any book I have ever read.
N
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Marcus G.
Daniels
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 11:37 PM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Privacy vs Open Public Data
On 1/16/13 11:05 PM
Nicholas Thompson wrote at 01/15/2013 11:45 AM:
We then wondered what justified any kind of privacy law. If everybody were
honest, the cameras would reveal nothing that everybody would not be happy
to have known? Were not privacy concerns proof of guilt? No, we concluded:
they might be proof
On 1/15/13 12:45 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
In the end I concluded that, as more and more public data is put on
line and more and more sophisticated data mining techniques are
deployed, there will come a time when a category of cyber-stalking
might have to be identified which involves using
Per Nick's fine invitation, see:
http://battellemedia.com/archives/2013/01/facebook-is-no-longer-flat.php
-tom johnson
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 12:45 PM, Nicholas Thompson
nickthomp...@earthlink.net wrote:
Dear all,
** **
We had a discussion last Friday at Friam that I would like to
Nick,
I have struggled with parts of this quite a bit. As you know, I am a
somewhat-crazy Libertarian, and so get stuck in conversations like this on a
fairly regular basis. In particular, I reject the idea that privacy is
primarily about protecting people from shame or guilt. I believe that
Nick -
Shame and Guilt are definitely implicated in the loss of Privacy, but
not the whole story. And the *legal* aspects come *after* the social
and the human aspects of the topic.
Eric -
Privacy is a fundamental *need* of humans. I'm not sure where it comes
from or what other animals
60 matches
Mail list logo
