Friam [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
Nick,
There is no need to reinvent the wheel, there are already
many existing systems which "turn email into readable text".
These systems have been around as long as the Internet exists.
The come in the form of mailing lists, newsgroups, forums,
and or as a hybrid between email and web forum.
T
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 activit
:)
I can take it, but can you dish it out?
On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 6:04 PM, Steve Smith wrote:
> Doug -
>
> I feel strangely self-important. I wonder why?
>>
> Don't make me open up a big can of Comic Art on you!
>
>
>
> ==**==
> FRIAM
Doug -
I feel strangely self-important. I wonder why?
Don't make me open up a big can of Comic Art on you!
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.co
I feel strangely self-important. I wonder why?
On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 5:53 PM, Steve Smith 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 fascinate
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 fascinatin
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 relate
riginal Message-
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 w
I see your point.
On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 2:36 PM, Roger Critchlow 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 wrote:
>
>> Marcus, are you trying to suggest that we are not as fascinati
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 wrote:
> 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. Daniels
> wrot
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. Daniels wrote:
> On 1/19/13 12:29 PM, Nicholas Thompson wrote:
>
>> Two of
>> those conversations have metamorphosed into publications. So I think I
>> have
>> passed
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 alrea
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 is the current topic of interest>, then it's all ok again.
I c(w)ouldn't have said it more succinctly myself!
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
@ redfish
.com>
Sent: 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 someth
ied Complexity Coffee Group"
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 sy
3 11:40 AM
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'
AM
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
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
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.
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
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 wrote:
> I doubt if it could be automated without one of
>
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.
He
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 mai
25 matches
Mail list logo