[mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Jochen Fromm
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2013 12:50 PM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] WAS:: Cliques, public, private. IS: Preserving email
correspondence
Nick,
There is no need to reinvent the wheel, there are already many existing
systems which
EVERYBODY,
This material is way too good to be packed down into the midden of old
email. SO! Once again, I am going to ask this group a question I have asked
before: how can we develop conventions (or write a software program) that
will turn email correspondence into readable text. The three
I doubt if it could be automated without one of
1 - Serious obeying of an agreed upon structure of the emails
2 - Serious machine learning algorithms
Instead, there are lots of tools that make it easier for you to do it by
hand. An example is the class of productivity tools called outliners.
Or pay an editor to do it. Is the dollar value of Nick's desire to see this
properly recorded and archived greater or less than an editor's fee?
Let's watch the free market in action.
—R
On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 10:46 AM, Owen Densmore o...@backspaces.net wrote:
I doubt if it could be
Guarantee that it would cost less to have an editor do it than it would
take in developers time to implement a software system to do even part of
it. There are no existing language processing systems that could do it
all.
And Nick, I can hear you thinking, Why can't you just...
Probably don't
On 1/19/13 10:35 AM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
This material is way too good to be packed down into the midden of old email.
I know someone who is a good programmer. He's generally better than the
people around him and among other things he has been accused of being
purposely uncommunicative.
Nick/All -
I'm happy with some conventions. As for larding (inlining text point
by point), I use it because it works for me, both as a writer and a
reader, but I know it carries hazards as well, especially when done
sloppily (which I may well be guilty of).
I agree with Owen that this is
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] WAS:: Cliques, public, private. IS: Preserving email
correspondence
Or pay an editor to do it. Is the dollar value of Nick's desire to see this
properly recorded and archived greater or less than an editor's fee?
Let's
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] WAS:: Cliques, public, private. IS: Preserving email
correspondence
On 1/19/13 10:35 AM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
This material is way too good to be packed down into the midden of old
email.
I know someone who is a good programmer. He's generally better
friam@redfish.com
Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2013 1:10:15 PM
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] WAS:: Cliques, public, private. IS: Preserving email
correspondence
Guarantee that it would cost less to have an editor do it than it would take in
developers time to implement a software system to do even part
: Saturday, January 19, 2013 2:34:10 PM
Subject: Re: [ FRIAM ] WAS:: Cliques, public, private. IS: Preserving email
correspondence
Despite protestations of others, and being only a mediocre programmer myself...
I don't imagine it would be too hard to write something that would make a
master
I'm pretty solidly in the same came as Marcus' programmer acquaintance.
The working philosophy in my case being, Shit: if I can do it, how hard
could it be? You must want someone to spoon feed you.
I've got relatives who fall squarely into the polar opposite camp, that of
studied naivete. They
Doug said:
To be fair to Nick, however, once you realize that he uses his big,
bold naivete as the vehicle to get others to expound on why whatever
is the current topic of interest, then it's all ok again.
I c(w)ouldn't have said it more succinctly myself!
On 1/19/13 12:29 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
Two of
those conversations have metamorphosed into publications. So I think I have
passed the criterion of being at least slightly motivated.
Who is the audience for such a publication? I think there is no
audience except the crowd that has
No, he's saying we're exactly as fascinating as we are, and not a jot more.
-- rec --
On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Douglas Roberts d...@parrot-farm.netwrote:
Marcus, are you trying to suggest that we are not as fascinating as we
think we are?
On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 2:21 PM, Marcus G.
I see your point.
On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 2:36 PM, Roger Critchlow r...@elf.org wrote:
No, he's saying we're exactly as fascinating as we are, and not a jot more.
-- rec --
On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Douglas Roberts d...@parrot-farm.netwrote:
Marcus, are you trying to suggest that
-
From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Marcus G.
Daniels
Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2013 2:22 PM
To: friam@redfish.com
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] WAS:: Cliques, public, private. IS: Preserving email
correspondence
On 1/19/13 12:29 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
Two
Nick writes:
Larding is the
practice of distributing ones response in the text.
Larding is not a problem, it is best practice (in my highly considered
opinion): it simulates
(somewhat) a naturally structured conversation, between or among a group of
people, on one
topic or several related
Doug-
Marcus, are you trying to suggest that we are not as fascinating as we
think we are?
I find that endlessly fascinating!
Let me expound on the myriad ways that fascinates me, should fascinate
you, and let me provide an endless list of personal anecdotes about why
I find that
I feel strangely self-important. I wonder why?
On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 5:53 PM, Steve Smith sasm...@swcp.com wrote:
Doug-
Marcus, are you trying to suggest that we are not as fascinating as we
think we are?
I find that endlessly fascinating!
Let me expound on the myriad ways that
:)
I can take it, but can you dish it out?
On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 6:04 PM, Steve Smith sasm...@swcp.com wrote:
Doug -
I feel strangely self-important. I wonder why?
Don't make me open up a big can of Comic Art on you!
==**==
On 1/19/13 2:24 PM, Douglas Roberts wrote:
Marcus, are you trying to suggest that we are not as fascinating as we
think we are?
I suspect some academic folk are so indoctrinated that they can't see
value in anything other than than creating papers and proceedings
volumes. And like this
22 matches
Mail list logo
