Re: [FRIAM] [EXTERNAL] Re: Privacy vs Open Public Data

[Marcus G. Daniels]

On 1/17/13 6:32 PM, Parks, Raymond wrote:
Sooner or later, someone will steal one of the cameras, RE it, and 
find some sort of common password, backdoor, or other vulnerability.


With a firmware update, Linksys boxes that can do 1000mw (about a 35 
fold increase in power).   Seems like jamming would be easier (put it in 
a briefcase, tape it to a out-of-sight post, wall, etc.)


Marcus


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]

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 multiple, 
perhaps competing understandings of what polite behavior is. 
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!  The more competing 
understandings there are, the less important it is for to conform to any 
one of them.


Marcus


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

[glen]

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!  The more competing
> understandings there are, the less important it is for to conform to any
> one of them.

Right.  And that decrease in importance of conforming to any single
concept of polite behavior, erodes the concept of polite behavior
altogether.  And that means polite behavior _must_ change because of the
Information Age, etc.

-- 
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

[Marcus G. Daniels]

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 of the majority and all that.

Marcus


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

[glen]

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 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.

A personal example is all the touching, hugging, and pressing the flesh
people seem to love.  I had a boss for awhile that seemed to think it
positive to pat his male employees on the back on a regular (like ...
high frequency regular) basis.  He's a good guy and I kinda like him
otherwise.  But that incessant touching was seriously irritating. Ugh.

-- 
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

[Marcus G. Daniels]

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 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 reverse.  I think it's a scale-free thing.


That means holding individual and emergent group behavior to some 
standard.  People at all levels in the organization need to be able to 
agree that so-and-so went wacko and behaved inappropriately, that they 
don't need to tolerate it.  Individuals can help this to happen just by 
acting consistently with the implicit standard, especially when it is in 
their interest to do so.


Marcus


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

[glen]

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 reverse.  I think it's a scale-free thing.
> 
> That means holding individual and emergent group behavior to some
> standard.  People at all levels in the organization need to be able to
> agree that so-and-so went wacko and behaved inappropriately, that they
> don't need to tolerate it.  Individuals can help this to happen just by
> acting consistently with the implicit standard, especially when it is in
> their interest to do so.

Hm.  So can we use practical jokes as an example?  That domain should
bring us back to Nick's original issue.

Practical jokers are on the cusp between [im]polite behavior.  If you're
established as part of the clique (say in a cubicle dominated office),
then it's considered polite to, say, smear another clique member's phone
with vaseline.  But it's considered impolite to do that to someone who's
not in the clique, even _if_ that outsider might want to be in the clique.

The practical joker clique can easily turn into a bully clique by
recognizing the wants of the outsider and as they test her to see if she
fits the predicate, if they determine she does not, they may play
exceptionally cruel jokes on her in order to clarify her out-group
status.  But they will maintain that, had someone played those jokes on
them, they would have taken it in stride because that's what they do to
each other "all the time".

In an office setting, the boss has an obligation to set the standards
for the practical joke boundaries.  But by their very nature, the
in-group practical jokers purposefully push those boundaries because
that's what the clique is defined as ... that _is_ the predicate.  The
boss also has a competing constraint to encourage camaraderie.

How do the in-group practical jokers define [im]polite?

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.

-- 
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

[Marcus G. Daniels]

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 aren't somehow reconcilable with 
the definitions of those in the out-group and the boss, then there may 
be trouble that damages the organization's productivity.


Marcus



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

[glen]

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 organization's productivity.

Interesting.  So, going back to embarrassing or implicating a victim by
aggregating public data, the guide for when it's [not] OK to do that,
might be related to this external set of constraints.  By external, I
mean external to members (open data advocates) and non-members (privacy
advocates) of the clique, as well as an authority figure (prosecutors).

While we often assume the prosecutors, or more generally the whole
justice dept, are slaves of the law, they're actually not.  LEOs bias
the law by paying closer attention to various attributes.  Hence, the
law could be the external constraints you're proposing, right?  But we'd
need non-LEOs ... perhaps "watchdogs" ... to bridge the gap between the
LEO bias and the constraints.  If we went in this direction, it would
provide an argument for placing legal restrictions on the aggregation of
public data.

I.e. it's not the vague notion of politeness that does it.  It's the
implicit status as "watchdog", enforcer of the unenforced-due-to-bias
parts of the standard, that does what we need.

-- 
-- 
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] I simply don't understand why people call me "tenacious".

[Douglas Roberts]

http://things-linux.blogspot.com/2013/01/time-frame-of-nexus-4-wifi-bug-issues.html

-- 
*Doug Roberts
drobe...@rti.org
d...@parrot-farm.net*
*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] Privacy vs Open Public Data

[Steve Smith]

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 little fun at him.   For example, I know that 
Doug's self identity includes that of being a Skeptic (Zhiangzi 
reference) and of being tenacious (as stated).


I also know Stephen well enough to do this, but he wisely (or out of 
boredom with us!) stays out of the fray here, so he is relatively 
safe.   I'm getting to know others well enough that I think I could 
parody some of you with impunity and possibly with appreciation by the 
recipients as well as the audience.


Glen and I have not finished our back-n-forth about technology, but deep 
in that conversation is another subconversation about insider/outsider 
and language...


- Steve

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 reverse.  I think it's a scale-free thing.

That means holding individual and emergent group behavior to some
standard.  People at all levels in the organization need to be able to
agree that so-and-so went wacko and behaved inappropriately, that they
don't need to tolerate it.  Individuals can help this to happen just by
acting consistently with the implicit standard, especially when it is in
their interest to do so.

Hm.  So can we use practical jokes as an example?  That domain should
bring us back to Nick's original issue.

Practical jokers are on the cusp between [im]polite behavior.  If you're
established as part of the clique (say in a cubicle dominated office),
then it's considered polite to, say, smear another clique member's phone
with vaseline.  But it's considered impolite to do that to someone who's
not in the clique, even _if_ that outsider might want to be in the clique.

The practical joker clique can easily turn into a bully clique by
recognizing the wants of the outsider and as they test her to see if she
fits the predicate, if they determine she does not, they may play
exceptionally cruel jokes on her in order to clarify her out-group
status.  But they will maintain that, had someone played those jokes on
them, they would have taken it in stride because that's what they do to
each other "all the time".

In an office setting, the boss has an obligation to set the standards
for the practical joke boundaries.  But by their very nature, the
in-group practical jokers purposefully push those boundaries because
that's what the clique is defined as ... that _is_ the predicate.  The
boss also has a competing constraint to encourage camaraderie.

How do the in-group practical jokers define [im]polite?

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.





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] I simply don't understand why people call me "tenacious".

[Steve Smith]

Miss the blogging days, Dr. S ... um ...?

STEVE!  I was going to say Dr. Steve...

Hell yes (obviously), and I think you should be very askeered. Imagine 
if Ivan the Terrible had used a lampoon instead of a harpoon?




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] I simply don't understand why people call me "tenacious".

[Douglas Roberts]

It's still fun, but it's different these days.  Back then, in the bad old
days, we had in essence cornered the market.  Blogs were still brand new in
2004, and there had never ever been a widely available publicly available
source of news about the real goings on inside a National Nuke Lab. Voila,
we had a captive audience.

Nowadays, you really have to have some unique, sought-after content to get
anybody but your direct family to read.


On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 12:44 PM, Steve Smith  wrote:

>
>  Miss the blogging days, Dr. S ... um ...?
>>
>> STEVE!  I was going to say Dr. Steve...
>>
>>  Hell yes (obviously), and I think you should be very askeered. Imagine
> if Ivan the Terrible had used a lampoon instead of a harpoon?
>
>
>
> ==**==
> 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*
* 
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] I simply don't understand why people call metenacious.

[mar...@snoutfarm.com]

Is it possible to build the software stack on this thing from scratch?  
For example, to fix the ARP offload thing by hacking its kernel?  If you
really want to make them look bad, point out their coding errors one by
one! *That* would be tenacious.  And they'd probably seek to hire you.  

Marcus


mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://link.mail2web.com/mail2web




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] I simply don't understand why people call metenacious.

[Douglas Roberts]

The Google already offered to hire me, but that was a few months ago, and
before I became tenacious on them.

I believe there probably are not any user-space Android, nor kernel hacks
that can completely fix the ARP dropout bug that the Qualcomm driver
introduces.  There are some hacks that will keep the phone from completely
dropping its wifi connection when the phone goes into deep sleep, but
packet loss is still an issue.


On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 1:27 PM, mar...@snoutfarm.com
wrote:

> Is it possible to build the software stack on this thing from scratch?
> For example, to fix the ARP offload thing by hacking its kernel?  If you
> really want to make them look bad, point out their coding errors one by
> one! *That* would be tenacious.  And they'd probably seek to hire you.
>
> Marcus
>
> 
> mail2web - Check your email from the web at
> http://link.mail2web.com/mail2web
>
>
>
> 
> 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*
* 
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] I simply don't understand why people call metenacious.

[mar...@snoutfarm.com]

"I believe there probably are not any user-space Android, nor kernel hacks
that can completely fix the ARP dropout bug that the Qualcomm driver
introduces."

The Qualcomm driver is not in an Google public source Linux kernel tree?
Is there proprietary firmware or something?   If that's so, yes, burn baby
burn.

Marcus


mail2web LIVE – Free email based on Microsoft® Exchange technology -
http://link.mail2web.com/LIVE




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] I simply don't understand why people call metenacious.

[Douglas Roberts]

Feeling the heat over here.


On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 1:39 PM, mar...@snoutfarm.com
wrote:

> "I believe there probably are not any user-space Android, nor kernel hacks
> that can completely fix the ARP dropout bug that the Qualcomm driver
> introduces."
>
> The Qualcomm driver is not in an Google public source Linux kernel tree?
> Is there proprietary firmware or something?   If that's so, yes, burn baby
> burn.
>
> Marcus
>
> 
> mail2web LIVE – Free email based on Microsoft® Exchange technology -
> http://link.mail2web.com/LIVE
>
>
>
> 
> 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*
* 
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] Privacy vs Open Public Data

[glen]

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 laughing.  Of course, he's not a wild-type subject
because you know he's a comedian tuned to his audience.

But I can also confess that my dad was a master at deadpan cruelty.  Not
only were we (his family, but mostly my mom) his victims, but I would
watch him, in bars [*] and at the Wurstfest, shred someone completely
without them having any clue what was happening.  The smarter ones would
notice that, while he was "ribbing" them, he would watch them extra
closely.  So, they learned to recognize when they were the butt of the
joke by watching him as he told his "story".  At his funeral, they would
wax poetic about the "twinkle in his eye" when he was telling a joke.
Of course, this behavior tended to slough off the people who were just
smart enough, yet just insecure enough to recognize when they were the
butt of a joke, but not able to recognize it as a joke.

That said, my dad was a bully of the first order.  If you were too
insecure to _take_ the joke, then you were a wimp and a coward.  He used
his abilities to engineer swaths of people so that they behaved as he
wanted them to behave.  And the ones that didn't play along were
ridiculed and pushed out of the clique.  Luckily, he couldn't do that to
me. ;-)

[*] 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, and Lloyd had also had a laryngectomy and while
not opening beers with his one arm, had to hold a wand to his throat in
order to speak.

Steve Smith wrote at 01/18/2013 11:43 AM:
> 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 little fun at him.   For example, I know that
> Doug's self identity includes that of being a Skeptic (Zhiangzi
> reference) and of being tenacious (as stated).
> 
> I also know Stephen well enough to do this, but he wisely (or out of
> boredom with us!) stays out of the fray here, so he is relatively
> safe.   I'm getting to know others well enough that I think I could
> parody some of you with impunity and possibly with appreciation by the
> recipients as well as the audience.
> 
> Glen and I have not finished our back-n-forth about technology, but deep
> in that conversation is another subconversation about insider/outsider
> and language...


-- 
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

[Douglas Roberts]

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  wrote:

>
> 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 laughing.  Of course, he's not a wild-type subject
> because you know he's a comedian tuned to his audience.
>
> But I can also confess that my dad was a master at deadpan cruelty.  Not
> only were we (his family, but mostly my mom) his victims, but I would
> watch him, in bars [*] and at the Wurstfest, shred someone completely
> without them having any clue what was happening.  The smarter ones would
> notice that, while he was "ribbing" them, he would watch them extra
> closely.  So, they learned to recognize when they were the butt of the
> joke by watching him as he told his "story".  At his funeral, they would
> wax poetic about the "twinkle in his eye" when he was telling a joke.
> Of course, this behavior tended to slough off the people who were just
> smart enough, yet just insecure enough to recognize when they were the
> butt of a joke, but not able to recognize it as a joke.
>
> That said, my dad was a bully of the first order.  If you were too
> insecure to _take_ the joke, then you were a wimp and a coward.  He used
> his abilities to engineer swaths of people so that they behaved as he
> wanted them to behave.  And the ones that didn't play along were
> ridiculed and pushed out of the clique.  Luckily, he couldn't do that to
> me. ;-)
>
> [*] 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, and Lloyd had also had a laryngectomy and while
> not opening beers with his one arm, had to hold a wand to his throat in
> order to speak.
>
> Steve Smith wrote at 01/18/2013 11:43 AM:
> > 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 little fun at him.   For example, I know that
> > Doug's self identity includes that of being a Skeptic (Zhiangzi
> > reference) and of being tenacious (as stated).
> >
> > I also know Stephen well enough to do this, but he wisely (or out of
> > boredom with us!) stays out of the fray here, so he is relatively
> > safe.   I'm getting to know others well enough that I think I could
> > parody some of you with impunity and possibly with appreciation by the
> > recipients as well as the audience.
> >
> > Glen and I have not finished our back-n-forth about technology, but deep
> > in that conversation is another subconversation about insider/outsider
> > and language...
>
>
> --
> 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*
* 
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] Privacy vs Open Public Data

[Douglas Roberts]

EYE! TWINKEL IN HIS FUCKING EYE!


On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 3:34 PM, Douglas Roberts wrote:

> 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  wrote:
>
>>
>> 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 laughing.  Of course, he's not a wild-type subject
>> because you know he's a comedian tuned to his audience.
>>
>> But I can also confess that my dad was a master at deadpan cruelty.  Not
>> only were we (his family, but mostly my mom) his victims, but I would
>> watch him, in bars [*] and at the Wurstfest, shred someone completely
>> without them having any clue what was happening.  The smarter ones would
>> notice that, while he was "ribbing" them, he would watch them extra
>> closely.  So, they learned to recognize when they were the butt of the
>> joke by watching him as he told his "story".  At his funeral, they would
>> wax poetic about the "twinkle in his eye" when he was telling a joke.
>> Of course, this behavior tended to slough off the people who were just
>> smart enough, yet just insecure enough to recognize when they were the
>> butt of a joke, but not able to recognize it as a joke.
>>
>> That said, my dad was a bully of the first order.  If you were too
>> insecure to _take_ the joke, then you were a wimp and a coward.  He used
>> his abilities to engineer swaths of people so that they behaved as he
>> wanted them to behave.  And the ones that didn't play along were
>> ridiculed and pushed out of the clique.  Luckily, he couldn't do that to
>> me. ;-)
>>
>> [*] 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, and Lloyd had also had a laryngectomy and while
>> not opening beers with his one arm, had to hold a wand to his throat in
>> order to speak.
>>
>> Steve Smith wrote at 01/18/2013 11:43 AM:
>> > 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 little fun at him.   For example, I know that
>> > Doug's self identity includes that of being a Skeptic (Zhiangzi
>> > reference) and of being tenacious (as stated).
>> >
>> > I also know Stephen well enough to do this, but he wisely (or out of
>> > boredom with us!) stays out of the fray here, so he is relatively
>> > safe.   I'm getting to know others well enough that I think I could
>> > parody some of you with impunity and possibly with appreciation by the
>> > recipients as well as the audience.
>> >
>> > Glen and I have not finished our back-n-forth about technology, but deep
>> > in that conversation is another subconversation about insider/outsider
>> > and language...
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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*
> * 
> 505-455-7333 - Office
> 505-672-8213 - Mobile*
>



-- 
*Doug Roberts
drobe...@rti.org
d...@parrot-farm.net*
*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] Privacy vs Open Public Data

[Douglas Roberts]

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 wrote:

> EYE! TWINKEL IN HIS FUCKING EYE!
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 3:34 PM, Douglas Roberts wrote:
>
>> 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  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> 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 laughing.  Of course, he's not a wild-type subject
>>> because you know he's a comedian tuned to his audience.
>>>
>>> But I can also confess that my dad was a master at deadpan cruelty.  Not
>>> only were we (his family, but mostly my mom) his victims, but I would
>>> watch him, in bars [*] and at the Wurstfest, shred someone completely
>>> without them having any clue what was happening.  The smarter ones would
>>> notice that, while he was "ribbing" them, he would watch them extra
>>> closely.  So, they learned to recognize when they were the butt of the
>>> joke by watching him as he told his "story".  At his funeral, they would
>>> wax poetic about the "twinkle in his eye" when he was telling a joke.
>>> Of course, this behavior tended to slough off the people who were just
>>> smart enough, yet just insecure enough to recognize when they were the
>>> butt of a joke, but not able to recognize it as a joke.
>>>
>>> That said, my dad was a bully of the first order.  If you were too
>>> insecure to _take_ the joke, then you were a wimp and a coward.  He used
>>> his abilities to engineer swaths of people so that they behaved as he
>>> wanted them to behave.  And the ones that didn't play along were
>>> ridiculed and pushed out of the clique.  Luckily, he couldn't do that to
>>> me. ;-)
>>>
>>> [*] 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, and Lloyd had also had a laryngectomy and while
>>> not opening beers with his one arm, had to hold a wand to his throat in
>>> order to speak.
>>>
>>> Steve Smith wrote at 01/18/2013 11:43 AM:
>>> > 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 little fun at him.   For example, I know that
>>> > Doug's self identity includes that of being a Skeptic (Zhiangzi
>>> > reference) and of being tenacious (as stated).
>>> >
>>> > I also know Stephen well enough to do this, but he wisely (or out of
>>> > boredom with us!) stays out of the fray here, so he is relatively
>>> > safe.   I'm getting to know others well enough that I think I could
>>> > parody some of you with impunity and possibly with appreciation by the
>>> > recipients as well as the audience.
>>> >
>>> > Glen and I have not finished our back-n-forth about technology, but
>>> deep
>>> > in that conversation is another subconversation about insider/outsider
>>> > and language...
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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*
>> * 
>> 505-455-7333 - Office
>> 505-672-8213 - Mobile*
>>
>
>
>
> --
> *Doug Roberts
> drobe...@rti.org
> d...@parrot-farm.net*
> *http://parrot-farm.net/Second-Cousins*
> * 
> 505-455-7333 - Office
> 505-672-8213 - Mobile*
>



-- 
*Doug Roberts
drobe...@rti.org
d...@parrot-farm.net*
*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] Privacy vs Open Public Data

[glen]

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 words.

-- 
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

[Steve Smith]

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, and Lloyd had also had a laryngectomy and while
   not opening beers with his one arm, had to hold a wand to his throat in
   order to speak.

I just finished reading J.R. Moehringer's autobiography "The Tender Bar" 
describing his own raising/coming-of-age in a local tavern where all of 
his male relatives drank, excepting his father who had left the family 
and was a radio personality in the big city so that the son could *hear* 
his father but never really got to know him.  Raised firstly by his 
mother, he was raised also by the male relatives and other denezins of 
the tavern.  There was a lot of insider/outsider understanding in that 
story as well.


I myself learned to drink and shark pool (well, I wasn't good enough to 
shark but I made a good prop for my boss at the time who was excellent 
at it)  in a country tavern (a block from where my friend killed his 
parents!) just at the edge of town.   I towered over most grown men and 
had a reasonable beard at 16, and accompanied by either my 40 year old 
boss or my 23 year old sometimes (when it was convenient for her) 
girlfriend, Nobody questioned me ... It also helped that drinking age 
was 19 at that time.


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 busted. It was a large enough 
town or small enough city that such a thing could happen...  and a good 
lesson in the issues of public/private.


- 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

Re: [FRIAM] here we go

[Steve Smith]

Glen -

Nice!  You wax poetic in the latter part, which I'm incapable of
paralleling.  But I'll try to mimic the spirit.

Well, I definitely tend to wax, I'm not quite sure how poetic it is :^)

1. Is concept space discrete or continuous (Axiom of Choice vs Landscape)?

I agree that we can safely slip from discrete to continuous (including 
tunneling).  But I disagree that they're abstractions (either of them).
Sorting this might require pushing the stack of meta-discussion one 
deeper which I'm game for but might just blow a fuse on the group as a 
whole!


 Instead, I think they're either two parts of a paradox or duals of one
another.

I think I can work with "dual" if you mean it roughly in the 
mathematical sense.

   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.
I'm willing to say that the Axiom of Choice view is a degenerate form of 
the continuous ones... steep (but not quite vertical) walls on the basins.

   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?
I believe that inside my head, when apprehending things with logic and 
language that reality is a bunch of objects.  Reality itself (whatever 
that means, "what is Really Real?" as Bertrand Russell asked) is a bit 
more gooey as you suggest.  It might be discrete down at some level like 
Fredkins "digital physics" but at the scale we apprehend it it is 
continuous and messy.   A tree is not a tree is not a tree, even in an 
orchard where everything is from the same genome/rootstock and carefully 
planted and trimmed to the same scale, trees are names we give these 
relatively distinct, roughly separated, generally similar things.  
"Dirt" or "Ocean" is a little harder to discrete up in a meaningful way, 
yet we do.



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 contend that all language is fundamentally metaphorical in nature.  I 
admit that my own metaphors can be rather dramatic and complex... so if 
you *are* autistic you might be unable (unwilling) to apprehend the ones 
that are above a certain level of complexity (number of levels of 
indirection?).

(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. ;-)
Today's psychs are all fitness nuts who don't smoke and bicycle or run 
hundreds of miles a week.

   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 not speaking as an animist, though I have been known to adopt that 
view for various purposes.  I am saying that *literally* by some measure 
( I was part of the ALife crowd from inception into the early 90's... 
one of my last published papers was in Alife 2002 I think), the 
artifacts (or collections of artifacts) will exhibit the *properties* of 
life... such as robust coherence over time (crystals, smoke rings and 
soliton waves have this), self-coding for one's own reproduction 
(viruses, computer programs of a certain type, and robots carrying their 
own blueprints in their hatches), perception and interaction with their 
environment (nervous net robots, etc..).I don't claim to have the 
formulae for which of these properties and how many we need to call 
something life... but it might not be that hard to exceed the properties 
of a virus or even a rotifer or tardigrade.  For the sake of arguement 
here I'd be happy to have demonstrated which collections of technology 
might form an autocatalytic set.

I am fully in the latter bin, as much as I may play at lik

[FRIAM] Cliques, public, private.

[Steve Smith]

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