As to the crypto relevance: context Arranged signals can be anything at all. If you don't share the context of the communicators, you have no idea what they convey in their conversation about the "whether".
That's a stretch. Soon you'll say that Post-modernist literary theory is Cypherpunkish content because it deals with 'context'.
I suggest you take up your theories with Mr Choate and the Dallas Cypherpunk(s). In that 'context' your posts will appear lucid.
-TD
From: "R.W. (Bob) Erickson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Roy M. Silvernail" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> CC: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: tangled context probe Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 11:29:21 -0500
Roy M. Silvernail wrote:
R.W. (Bob) Erickson wrote:
(curious thing about this spew, it keeps disappearing into the bit bucket,
Yawn. Roboposting this babble doesn't really increase its chances of getting read. I work through JY because I know there's uranium in that ore. But I'm about 2 posts away from ensconcing RW"B"E in my procmail file next to TM, choate and proffr.
OK, it was just an unknown context for me..
My sincere apologies for subjecting you to a decrease in signal to noise.
I know that I have to work on my presentation.
Without sufficient introduction anything new is indistinguishable from cracked pottery.
The synthetic perspective I am toying with is built upon some premises from cogsci
In my opinion there are real strategic implications in the modern scientific perception of the individual as a tangle of competing interests.
Self interest is one of given principles.
In so far as the "self" is a personal mythology,
and the irrationality of sheep hood is built in,
I think three could be policy implications.
As to the crypto relevance: context Arranged signals can be anything at all. If you don't share the context of the communicators, you have no idea what they convey in their conversation about the "whether".
Once again, I plead stupidity for the duplicates I will do penance
--bob
