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 want to go there until after you've designed, implemented,
tested, put into production, and maintained your first software system.

--Doug


On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 11:02 AM, Robert Holmes <[email protected]>wrote:

> 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 <[email protected]>wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>  Here's a discussion of a set of them.
>>      http://goo.gl/q27LJ
>> Don't worry about their being mac oriented, there are web versions and
>> versions for every computer.
>>
>> Another approach would be for us all to stop using mail and instead use
>> something that lends itself to different "views" .. like outliners do.
>>  Using social media like Google+ etc help because they are designed to be
>> "mashed up".
>>
>> Tom may have a handle of several such tools.
>>
>>    -- Owen
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Nicholas Thompson <
>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> 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 main
>>> problems
>>> are (1) headers (2) redundancy and (3) larding (which Steve Does here).
>>> Larding is the practice of distributing ones response in the text.
>>>
>>> I suspect some simple conventions and a word macro would do the trick,
>>> but
>>> believe me, if you try to rescue one of these interchanges, it is VERY
>>> hard
>>> work.
>>>
>>> Nick
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Friam [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Steve Smith
>>> Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2013 12:54 AM
>>> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
>>> Subject: [FRIAM] Cliques, public, private.
>>>
>>> Glen wrote (in response to my recent massive missive) -
>>> > I will briefly match your story with one of my own, then jump to a
>>> > conclusion.  I used to do more tunneling than I do now.  All growing
>>> > up I maintained (almost disjoint) sets of acquaintances.  In high
>>> > school they had names: heads, jocks, brains, etc.  Somehow, I managed
>>> > to float easily between them, controlling information flow so that any
>>> > antipathy one group had for another didn't bleed into an antipathy
>>> > toward me personally.  In elementary school and college, there were
>>> > fewer names but sharper incisions.  In elementary school, they were
>>> very
>>> temporary.
>>> > In college, they were very long-lasting.  E.g. if you "collapsed" into
>>> > a Republican or perhaps a fan of Ayn Rand, you stayed there until long
>>> > after college had ended.
>>> I parallel your experience here.  I grew up isolated from people in
>>> general
>>> and peers in particular.  I had one sister 2 years older, my parents
>>> with a
>>> father who worked long hours.  We mostly lived further
>>> from other people than I could walk easily alone.   When I arrived at
>>> public school (a 2 mile walk, uphill each way, often in the snow) at age
>>> 6 I had very limited social experience with anyone much less children my
>>> age.  I became very good, very quickly at integrating with any group.
>>> There weren't many, it was a small school in a small town.  But I was so
>>> curious about other people and the dynamics of 3 or 5 or 9 boys running
>>> like
>>> a pack of wolves in the playground that I had to join in.  I did not
>>> distinguish gender and was happy to sit and make mudpies with the girls,
>>> and
>>> many of them were as at home "roping" my heels as I ran past (yes, the
>>> school toys included lariats as well as kickballs) as the boys.
>>>
>>> By high school I was in a large town, small city where I could know all
>>> of
>>> my classmates (eventually a graduating class of 300) but not well
>>> like I did with a class of roughly 20.   I knew how to kick shit with
>>> the stompers, I was clever enough to hang with the honor society kids, I
>>> was
>>> "hip" enough to hang with the drama kids, or the dopers if I wanted.  I
>>> was
>>> not a team-sport kindof guy but was physical enough to
>>> hang with the jocks.   But I was never really "in".  I was invited in.
>>> But being fully "in" meant excluding members who were not "in".  So the
>>> Stompers had to pick fights with the Jocks and the Stoners and tease the
>>> Drama and Band and Honor Roll kids.  Similarly the Jocks and Stoners
>>> would
>>> pick on the "good kids" and pick fights with the other "bad kids".  When
>>> I
>>> would stand up for the good kid they were picking on or refuse to join
>>> the
>>> rising rumble amongst bad kids on any side, I was
>>> marked... I must be "one of them".   It never really caused me much
>>> trouble except that it was clear that I wasn't one of them and would
>>> never be even though I shared many of their interests and attitudes.   I
>>> was as tough as most of the jocks or cowboys and the Stoners could be
>>> pretty
>>> mean but well, they were always stoned, so... whatever... but I was also
>>> a
>>> good student and *liked* most of the band/drama/smart kids
>>> even though they could be tweaks.   But I also *liked* and identified
>>> with the cowboys (grew up pretty much as one), and the jocks (liked being
>>> athletic) and even the stoners (had my own outlaw side).  So what was all
>>> the clicquing and intolerance about? Really?  And why was I one
>>> of the few who could cut across those picket lines?   And one of the few
>>> who didn't want to be a member of any one enough to reject the others?
>>>
>>> Later it was politics... I knew I didn't want to hand my body and soul to
>>> the US military under the circumstances of the Vietnam War... I wasn't
>>> sure
>>> it was a bogus war as many of my peers seemed to be, but I
>>> wasn't sure it was righteous as the remaining peers seemed to be.   My
>>> leftie friends were sure I was a rightie and my rightie friends were
>>> sure I
>>> was a leftie and since I'd read too much Ayn Rand and Bob Heinlein
>>> before I
>>> had matured, I should have been a Libertarian but damned if they didn't
>>> all
>>> seem like arrogant, selfish pricks to me.
>>> This holds with me to today.  I voted for Obama twice for reasons which
>>> probably don't fit those of anyone else who voted for him (hyperbole)
>>> and I
>>> would have voted for McCain when he was going up against Bush but not
>>> after
>>> he picked up Palin...  I am a big Gary Johnson fan on many topics, but
>>> couldn't stand to throw my vote this time just to make a point.
>>>
>>> As for public/private, I didn't hide my affinity with these groups in
>>> high
>>> school... but they played "don't ask, don't tell" right up until I had to
>>> confront someone(s) about their exclusive (and abusive) behaviour
>>> of my friends who might not be "inside".   I wasn't afraid the jocks
>>> would find out I got good grades or that the stoners would find out that
>>> I
>>> rode horses, or that the goodie two-shoes would realize that I was
>>> willing
>>> to break school rules or even real laws if it suited me
>>> enough.   But I also had and required a private life.  I spent hours of
>>> my time alone, enjoying the privacy of my own thoughts and actions.   If
>>> anyone had insisted on taking that kind of privacy from me, I would have
>>> been furious.   My parents, my teachers, my bosses, my friends all
>>> managed not to conspire to invade my private spaces, private times.
>>> Yet I had acquaintances who endured close supervision to the point of
>>> parents or teachers or bosses practically expecting to be able to read
>>> their minds.   I watched people trade their privacy of thought and
>>> action for acceptance and approval.
>>>
>>> >    I maintained my cross-group faculties until long after college.  I
>>> > think it's what allowed me to successfully transition to the SFI from
>>> > Lockheed Martin.
>>> It served me well at LANL, even after it became somewhat of a hellhole
>>> (apologies to Marcus and others still there, I'm not saying it is that
>>> for
>>> you, just that it became that for me after 20 something years).
>>> >    Nowadays, however, I have
>>> > grown impatient with entertaining others' stories and ideas.
>>> Then I am honored that you have entertained mine so far with some
>>> superficial level of patience <grin>.
>>> >    When/if I
>>> > deign to argue with someone, my rhetoric is (seemingly) full of non
>>> > sequiturs because I want to skip to the end ... and having made a
>>> > lifetime out of arguing, I believe myself to be capable of predicting
>>> > where an argument will end up.
>>> You don't hold a candle to my wife who is twice as smart as I ever will
>>> be,
>>> but also not particularly linear.  She doesn't just skip steps she makes
>>> 270
>>> degree turns while I'm not looking without deigning to bring me up to
>>> speed.
>>> I take a lot of beatings when I argue with her, but I think I'm a better
>>> listener and thinker for it.
>>> >    That impatience has seriously damaged some of the relationships
>>> > I've had with people who _thought_ they liked me. >8^)  But, in the
>>> > end, I remember the quote from FDR (I think): "I ask you to judge me
>>> > by he enemies I have made."
>>> Well, it is probably auspicious that I started out thinking I *didn't*
>>> like you.   I didn't like Doug when I met him the first time... but
>>> "curmudgeon" grows on me I guess.
>>> > Anyway, because I am a professional simulant
>>> Wow, that sounds like a line right out of Bladerunner... did you say
>>> Simulant or Replicant?
>>> > , I still have to maintain
>>> > an ability to tunnel in and out of gravity wells.  When I engage a new
>>> > client and go through the requirements extraction process, my old
>>> > facility with perspective hopping revives and I end up having fun.
>>> Yup, I know the game, and play it well (enough).
>>> > Conclusion of this silly missive: I'd like to be able to run some
>>> > experiments like the following.  Take all the guns from all the gun
>>> > advocates and hand them to the gun controlists.  Force them to use and
>>> > abuse the guns for a significant amount of time.
>>> I was thinking impregnating every man who was anti-choice and forcing
>>> them to birth and raise the babies.   It might not change their mind
>>> about abortion (I actually hope it wouldn't) but it might make them a lot
>>> more sympathetic and nurturing toward the women who *do* choose abortion.
>>> And it would also keep them off the streets in the meantime.
>>> >   Then compare surveys
>>> > taken before and after the experiment.  A similar experiment with any
>>> > given tool would be interesting.
>>> You'll have to pry my cordless drill and oscilliscope from my cold, dead
>>> fingers!
>>>
>>> >   I know I'd like a few months to play with our army of drones in
>>> > foreign countries, for example.
>>> And I'd like to watch a few third world countries play with our army of
>>> drones in our country for a few months.  Well, not really.  I suppose I'd
>>> rather see what a few dramatic performance and guerilla artists did with
>>> them instead.
>>>
>>> -Steve
>>>
>>> ============================================================
>>> 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
>>
>
>
> ============================================================
> 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
[email protected]
[email protected]*
*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

Reply via email to