RE: Stash Burn?
Congratulations, you just turned your vehicle into drug paraphenalia What? You claim it is Not for drugs? Tell this to the judge. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tyler Durden Sent: May 2, 2005 10:14 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Stash Burn? yes, this reminded me of another brilliant idea. Why don't some cars have a little tiny furnace for stash destruction? If you've got an on-board stash and some Alabama hillbilly with a badge pulls you over, you just hit the button and have you're little stashed incinerated. Who cares if the badge knows you USED TO have something on board? Too late now if any trace of evidence is gone. What's wrong with this idea? -TD From: Eugen Leitl [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Secure erasing Info (fwd from [EMAIL PROTECTED]) Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 19:49:56 +0200 - Forwarded message from Richard Glaser [EMAIL PROTECTED] - From: Richard Glaser [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 12:17:43 -0600 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Secure erasing Info Reply-To: Mac OS X enterprise deployment project [EMAIL PROTECTED] FYI: Rendering Drives Completely Unreadable Can be Difficult --- The National Association for Information Destruction has said it cannot endorse the use of wiping applications alone for ensuring that data have been effectively removed from hard drives. NAID executive director Bob Johnson said the only way to ensure that the data will be unreadable is to physically destroy the drives, and even that has to be done in certain ways to ensure its efficacy. Most major PC makers offer a drive destruction service for $20 or $30. Some hardware engineers say they understand why the drives have been created in a way that makes it hard to completely erase the data: customers demanded it because they were afraid of losing information they had stored on their drives. http://news.com.com/2102-1029_3-5676995.html?tag=st.util.print [Editor's Note (Pescatore): Cool, I want a National Association for Information Destruction tee shirt. How hard could it be to have an interlock feature - you can really, really clear the drive if you open the case, hold this button down while you delete? (Ranum): Peter Guttman, from New Zealand, did a terrific talk in 1997 at USENIX in which he showed electromicrographs of hard disk surfaces that had been wiped - you could still clearly see the 1s and 0s where the heads failed to line up perfectly on the track during the write/erase sequence. He also pointed out that you can tell more recently written data from less recently written data by the field strength in the area, which would actually make it much easier to tell what had been wiped versus what was persistent long-term store. The paper, minus the cool photos may be found at: http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/secure_del.html Hard disks, I've found, make satisfying small arms targets.] Here is Mac OS X software called SPX that uses the Guttman method of securely deleting data off a hard disk. If you want to donate old HD's this might be the best method for protecting your data that was on the HD other than physically destroying the HD's. http://rixstep.com/4/0/spx/ -- Thanks: Richard Glaser University of Utah - Student Computing Labs [EMAIL PROTECTED] 801-585-8016 _ Subscription Options and Archives http://listserv.cuny.edu/archives/macenterprise.html - End forwarded message - -- Eugen* Leitl a href=http://leitl.org;leitl/a __ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]
Re: Gait advances in emerging biometrics
Sunder wrote: Original URL: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/12/14/alt_biometrics/ Gait advances in emerging biometrics Timing is everything. The coherence of timing patterns is a proxy for identity Measure their timing and you can glimpse their mind Mess with their timing and you can disrupt their intentions Mask your own timing and you can stay outside their track --bob
Re: Steve Thompson
Tyler Durden wrote: Something occurred to me...it probably occurred to others already but I am a stoopid Cypherpunk, don't forget. Anyone think it a TINY bit odd that someone with a fairly mundane complaint about bad computer gear would know to come in on an anonymous remailer? My first thought was that they had gotten burned by a Steve Thompson (maybe the same, maybe not) did a google search and came across Cypherpunks and then tossed in a couple of stinky posts. But it seems a little farfetched to me that such a person would also have bothered (by accident) reading about the anonymous remailers and then use one. So...the complainer must have already been aware of remailers and Mr Thompson's contribution to Cypherpunks. Kind of interesting. -TD Somebody has been experimenting with reputation cracking --bob
Half baked troll
The need for a coherent framework to hang our speculations on is obvious. The impossibility of any consensus based prototype is pure politics. We need a way out, and that way is to take a lesson from the theory of evolution. The lucky semantic construction is tested in practice by a virtual swarm of users. If a given notion doesnt hold together the pieces of it still populate the thoughtscape with a free radical chemistry. Agreeing to disagree is insufficient, Critical thought can reveal common folding lines if we accept the notion that whats seperates people are their individual stances, we are on the edge of something interesting. Its my premiss that people are extrodinarily clever at making things fit. We do see that individual pairs of people can find a bridge to understanding, even between radically different world view. We just have never found a way to generalise such mutual understandings. I posit the existence of a net path whereby all people could come to know their commonality. Not saying the path is accessable, but as long as we are unable to free ourselves from ideology, whats wrong with one that builds on our best?
Re: Blinky Rides Again: RCMP suspect al-Qaida messages
J.A. Terranson wrote: On Thu, 9 Dec 2004, Tyler Durden wrote: Those cops you taught...do you think they were stupid enough to assume that, because this was their first time hearing about Stego, that Al Qaeda was only starting to use it right then? Thats an interesting question on several different levels: (1) There is (both within LEAs and the rest of us) a wide range of opinions as to the feasability of stego being used in the field for anything useful. Remember that USA professional spies (who spent over a year learning tradcraft IIRC) had continuous problems with very simple encryptions/decryptions in the real world. (2) The folks in the Al Qaeda is Satan camp generally believe that not only is stego in wide use, but that AlQ has somehow managed to turn it into a high bandwidth channel which is being used every day to Subvert The American Way Of Life and infect Our Precious Bodily Fluids. No amount of education seems to dissuade these people from their misbeliefs. (3) The other camp believes that stego is a lab-only toy, unsuitable for much of anything besides scaring the shit out of the people in the Satan camp. (4) I have yet to meet a full dozen people who share my belief that while stego *may* be in use, if it is, that use is for one way messages of semaphore-class messages only. I really do not understand why this view is poopoo'd by all sides, so I must be pretty dense? It only makes sense that transmitted stego payloads be simple codewords or signals. For hand carried chunks of data, simple disguise is sufficient The bulk transport of dangerous data is a threat model that doesnt fit the situation. Perhaps LEA confuse themselves thinking al-q is inciting a cultural revolution?
tangled contexts
Process and perception This capacity for making high order discriminations about relationships between objects in our world, can be taken as the proper function of our cognitive competency. The attribute of intentionality, to this way of thinking, is best understood as work product of a discrete sub-module of our brain. We infer agency from our observations. What is agency? Well first and foremost, it is that which is recognizable to the competencies in process, that form these judgments. Does this sound circular? Surely it is circular in a crucial sense. All that we know comes to our attention as the work product of process in various competencies. Ultimately the authority of these high order discriminations comes not from a judgment about the correlation between our perceptions and the state of the objective world, but instead from their immediacy. This is to say that we do not perceive and then make judgments, our first awareness of every thing is located in the moment that the competent module forms some thing out of the possibilities. These awareness's are not in the semantic domain. Our knowing of particular attributes precedes the semantic transform that tags and packages up insights, for storage and shipping. We know what we know and we apologize for not being able to convey this knowing more effectively. That we are able to communicate at all, is a testament to the power of trial and error and the phenomenal similarity of our minds. This similarity is not accidental. Even as each person is an absolutely unique instance of humanity, what we are, is the embodiment of a phenomenally complex tangle of historical accomplishments that is fundamentally common to us all. Creativity emerges via the capacity/ability to merge contexts Biological instrumentality: The complex objects of our knowings come to our awareness as circumstances demand, literally selected by their features. Apprehension of the world via a sophisticatedly evolved biological instrumentality is an entropy hack. Life is the opportunistic bloom of a viral exploitation of regularity in the universe. In the beginning there was sequence, and it begat pattern and context space. Within every context space there is a tree of combinatorial consequences some leaves of which are potentially lucky. Blind evolution isn't trial and error testing of mistakes (mutations), it is the random testing of legal combinations So who set up the game, where did the rules come from, and the design language? The dynamic core of our consciousness consists of transient alignments of Feature Value - Action loops that compete for selection in a flicker-dance-sort of associations and sensory stimuli. Perception is a physics hack. Timing is everything. Three dimensionality is accessible to us via a cross mapping within the temporal manifold. Propagation of coherent correlations between map-mapped sheets of neurons act as a massively parallel delay line with multiple taps. Because both spatial and temporal coherence is preserved, the network sorts up the objects of perception and tracks them real time. Reality is best fit. Misperceptions happen, but its better than being blind. Our competency at this is not postulated, it is stipulated that the high order discriminations we perceive as qualia are exactly as amazing as the incredible complexity of the neurological stack that gives us them. Intentionality is an emergent design goal in secondary consciousness. (before getting upset about intentional language, remember that it works because reality fits.) Phenomenal transform is a semantic label for a context shift. If you insist on thinking of it as a happening, what's happening is that we find ourselves switching lexicons when we discuss certain things. Its not a description of a change of state in the object, it is a handle for referring to a pragmatic feature of discourse about it. The important thing to realize is that this sorting out of the features of the objects of our perception usually is done before we are aware of the process, but this does not mean that the process is different for hard discriminations, just that they are taking longer than the ~400ms self context loop, that feeds a product of the net's immediate state back into itself. Think convolving and converging. Discrimination occurs opportunistically, our competencies do not require conscious attention. In the formation of PV Action loops each project become one of the factions in our interior parliament. We have lots of timing to tap. Response times, flicker fusion times, saccades, pulse, peristalsis, menstruation. The royal road to cognitive illumination is the path of chronus. --bob me, I'm just a lawn mower
tangled contexts
Process and perception This capacity for making high order discriminations about relationships between objects in our world, can be taken as the proper function of our cognitive competency. The attribute of intentionality, to this way of thinking, is best understood as work product of a discrete sub-module of our brain. We infer agency from our observations. What is agency? Well first and foremost, it is that which is recognizable to the competencies in process, that form these judgments. Does this sound circular? Surely it is circular in a crucial sense. All that we know comes to our attention as the work product of process in various competencies. Ultimately the authority of these high order discriminations comes not from a judgment about the correlation between our perceptions and the state of the objective world, but instead from their immediacy. This is to say that we do not perceive and then make judgments, our first awareness of every thing is located in the moment that the competent module forms some thing out of the possibilities. These awareness's are not in the semantic domain. Our knowing of particular attributes precedes the semantic transform that tags and packages up insights, for storage and shipping. We know what we know and we apologize for not being able to convey this knowing more effectively. That we are able to communicate at all, is a testament to the power of trial and error and the phenomenal similarity of our minds. This similarity is not accidental. Even as each person is an absolutely unique instance of humanity, what we are, is the embodiment of a phenomenally complex tangle of historical accomplishments that is fundamentally common to us all. Creativity emerges via the capacity/ability to merge contexts Biological instrumentality: The complex objects of our knowings come to our awareness as circumstances demand, literally selected by their features. Apprehension of the world via a sophisticatedly evolved biological instrumentality is an entropy hack. Life is the opportunistic bloom of a viral exploitation of regularity in the universe. In the beginning there was sequence, and it begat pattern and context space. Within every context space there is a tree of combinatorial consequences some leaves of which are potentially lucky. Blind evolution isn't trial and error testing of mistakes (mutations), it is the random testing of legal combinations So who set up the game, where did the rules come from, and the design language? The dynamic core of our consciousness consists of transient alignments of Feature Value - Action loops that compete for selection in a flicker-dance-sort of associations and sensory stimuli. Perception is a physics hack. Timing is everything. Three dimensionality is accessible to us via a cross mapping within the temporal manifold. Propagation of coherent correlations between map-mapped sheets of neurons act as a massively parallel delay line with multiple taps. Because both spatial and temporal coherence is preserved, the network sorts up the objects of perception and tracks them real time. Reality is best fit. Misperceptions happen, but its better than being blind. Our competency at this is not postulated, it is stipulated that the high order discriminations we perceive as qualia are exactly as amazing as the incredible complexity of the neurological stack that gives us them. Intentionality is an emergent design goal in secondary consciousness. (before getting upset about intentional language, remember that it works because reality fits.) Phenomenal transform is a semantic label for a context shift. If you insist on thinking of it as a happening, what's happening is that we find ourselves switching lexicons when we discuss certain things. Its not a description of a change of state in the object, it is a handle for referring to a pragmatic feature of discourse about it. The important thing to realize is that this sorting out of the features of the objects of our perception usually is done before we are aware of the process, but this does not mean that the process is different for hard discriminations, just that they are taking longer than the ~400ms self context loop, that feeds a product of the net's immediate state back into itself. Think convolving and converging. Discrimination occurs opportunistically, our competencies do not require conscious attention. In the formation of PV Action loops each project become one of the factions in our interior parliament. We have lots of timing to tap. Response times, flicker fusion times, saccades, pulse, peristalsis, menstruation. The royal road to cognitive illumination is the path of chronus. --bob me, I'm just a lawn mower
Re: tangled context probe
R.A. Hettinga wrote: At 10:56 AM -0500 12/10/04, Roy M. Silvernail wrote: But I'm about 2 posts away from ensconcing RWBE in my procmail file What's taking you so long? :-) Cheers, RAH cf: various imprecations against feeding trolls cet... Aww, come on guys i only eat little sheep and i hide from the wolves under cover of a bridge --bob
Sheep Herding
The secular bible: Our project First let me speak to my Christian brothers and sisters. I mean you no disrespect by using the term bible in an unholy attack on your faith. The project of this secular bible honors the sanctity of holy documents. A secular bible could only be true to itself is it stood for tolerance and cooperation. We all know of the worldwide spread of dissatisfaction and unhappiness. We acknowledge the existence of what we can only call evil in the world. We have less agreement on what we call good or godlike We have not found enough agreement on what to do about evil. There are those among us who hold to the principle no agreement is required. The proper agents in the war against chaos are the free and independent thinkers of the mythical open society. The radical edge of this stance is the notion that cooperation always entails disaster in the form of unintended consequences. There are those among us who are afraid of the unknown. Many of us prefer to keep to the familiar. We find ourselves in circles of friends and relatives and find comfort or at least solace in the company of these others. We become us. There is a subtle danger in this. The formation of community is also the formation of them There are those among us who fear them so much that the very thought of cooperation is scary. To them the idea that there could be a science of cooperation is absurd. They will cite economics and rational self interest to avoid gambling on trust. The run-away paranoia that can ensue will tax their freedom as surely as the state must. The project of the science of understanding, this secular bible giving people an understanding of their part in the universe, and the tools they need to get along with all manner of thinkers. (tbc) Of course this is all meant sarcastically. The Lord knows, nobody wants to just get along.
Re: tangled context probe
Tyler Durden wrote: Well, when you put it that way, that changes everything. All is now clear. Please continue downloading the syntactic mappings of random neural firing...I'm using your output to seed a random number generator. Oh, and don't forget to cc Choate. -TD You could do worse, my entropy is real. Whatever your take on memes I predict that certain messages play better than others. Analysis of the opposition's frame of minds are key. The immediate tool is that of insinuation. You dismiss some things as chaff or fluff put you cannot avoid the priming effect that well crafted misdirection employs. We protect our selves from disruptive knowledge We artistically wield our ignorance like a shield Our creativity hides our blind spots. Security through certainty is surely vunerable --bob
Obligatory Comprehension
Say what you mean, mean what you say Speaking in metaphor is anti-social If I cant understand you, I cannot trust you. Encrypted, encoded, or implied Secrets are a threat to the homeland
Insurrectionist covers
Steve Thompson wrote: --- R.W. (Bob) Erickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Steve Thompson wrote: [assholes] You tell them, Steve I believe I just did. Insanity is a great cover for an insurectionist! I suppose it could be, although I am give to belive that residents of the White Room Hotel may only carry out insurection in the program room, and even then only while under direct adult supervision. I have been told that this makes the task somewhat more difficult, what with the sometimes necessity of colouring outside the lines on the page (so to speak). Regards, Steve __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca Yes, you have a point there.I guess a better cover would be as local coordinator of Neighborhood Watch --bob
Re: Blinky Rides Again: RCMP suspect al-Qaida messages
Steve Thompson wrote: --- R.A. Hettinga [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Lions and Tigers and Steganography, Nell... For those of you without a program, here is the new, official, Horsemen of the Infocalypse Scorecard: At 3:14 PM -0400 10/3/04, R. A. Hettinga wrote: Horseman Color Character Nickname 1 TerrorismRedShadow Blinky 2 NarcoticsPink Speedy Pinky 3 Money Laundering Aqua Bashful Inky 4 Paedophilia Yellow Pokey Clyde Cheers, RAH --- http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2004/12/08/pf-773871.html December 8, 2004 RCMP suspect al-Qaida messages By JIM BRONSKILL snort The RCMP couldn't find a hidden terrorist message even if someone shoved half of it up the ass of Commissioner Giuliano Zaccardelli, and the other half up the ass of Deputy Commissioner Paul Gauvin, and then sent them a map with clear directions written on it leading directly to the location of both assholes. No, I don't like them at all. Regards, Steve __ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca You tell them, Steve Insanity is a great cover for an insurectionist!
re: tangled context probe
(curious thing about this spew, it keeps disappearing into the bit bucket, I know its raw verbiage, but is it so incoherent it self-destructs? -bob) Process and perception This capacity for making high order discriminations about relationships between objects in our world, can be taken as the proper function of our cognitive competency. The attribute of intentionality, to this way of thinking, is best understood as work product of a discrete sub-module of our brain. We infer agency from our observations. What is agency? Well first and foremost, it is that which is recognizable to the competencies in process, that form these judgments. Does this sound circular? Surely it is circular in a crucial sense. All that we know comes to our attention as the work product of process in various competencies. Ultimately the authority of these high order discriminations comes not from a judgment about the correlation between our perceptions and the state of the objective world, but instead from their immediacy. This is to say that we do not perceive and then make judgments, our first awareness of every thing is located in the moment that the competent module forms some thing out of the possibilities. These awareness's are not in the semantic domain. Our knowing of particular attributes precedes the semantic transform that tags and packages up insights, for storage and shipping. We know what we know and we apologize for not being able to convey this knowing more effectively. That we are able to communicate at all, is a testament to the power of trial and error and the phenomenal similarity of our minds. This similarity is not accidental. Even as each person is an absolutely unique instance of humanity, what we are, is the embodiment of a phenomenally complex tangle of historical accomplishments that is fundamentally common to us all. Creativity emerges via the capacity/ability to merge contexts Biological instrumentality: The complex objects of our knowings come to our awareness as circumstances demand, literally selected by their features. Apprehension of the world via a sophisticatedly evolved biological instrumentality is an entropy hack. Life is the opportunistic bloom of a viral exploitation of regularity in the universe. In the beginning there was sequence, and it begat pattern and context space. Within every context space there is a tree of combinatorial consequences some leaves of which are potentially lucky. Blind evolution isn't trial and error testing of mistakes (mutations), it is the random testing of legal combinations So who set up the game, where did the rules come from, and the design language? The dynamic core of our consciousness consists of transient alignments of Feature Value - Action loops that compete for selection in a flicker-dance-sort of associations and sensory stimuli. Perception is a physics hack. Timing is everything. Three dimensionality is accessible to us via a cross mapping within the temporal manifold. Propagation of coherent correlations between map-mapped sheets of neurons act as a massively parallel delay line with multiple taps. Because both spatial and temporal coherence is preserved, the network sorts up the objects of perception and tracks them real time. Reality is best fit. Misperceptions happen, but its better than being blind. Our competency at this is not postulated, it is stipulated that the high order discriminations we perceive as qualia are exactly as amazing as the incredible complexity of the neurological stack that gives us them. Intentionality is an emergent design goal in secondary consciousness. (before getting upset about intentional language, remember that it works because reality fits.) Phenomenal transform is a semantic label for a context shift. If you insist on thinking of it as a happening, what's happening is that we find ourselves switching lexicons when we discuss certain things. Its not a description of a change of state in the object, it is a handle for referring to a pragmatic feature of discourse about it. The important thing to realize is that this sorting out of the features of the objects of our perception usually is done before we are aware of the process, but this does not mean that the process is different for hard discriminations, just that they are taking longer than the ~400ms self context loop, that feeds a product of the net's immediate state back into itself. Think convolving and converging. Discrimination occurs opportunistically, our competencies do not require conscious attention. In the formation of PV Action loops each project become one of the factions in our interior parliament. We have lots of timing to tap. Response times, flicker fusion times, saccades, pulse, peristalsis, menstruation. The royal road to cognitive illumination is the path of chronus. --bob me, I'm just a lawn mower
Nul Context
Communication is about context Sometimes the context is so obvious that the frame is nearly invisible, sometimes the context is so subtle that indications of obvious significance can only be detected after much study. Language and meaning involve sharing of contexts. This is obvious, what is less obvious is the way that communication implicates a context one might call, A Theory of Mind What does this mean? Well a lot of it is hidden in what we call common sense, or folk psychology. You know what I mean because I'm behaving conventionally in my choice of words, and saying stuff that makes sense. When we use language conventionally, we talk about things that are happening and what people are thinking. When we talk about things that matter we wonder what others think. We think about what other people are thinking, all the time. Its a common enough usage of language, and quite comprehensible. Which makes it all the more peculiar that for a long time science had a weird rule that said that unempirical terms like intention and purpose, not to mention perception and comprehension were metaphysical nonsense. Science has come a long way since the logical positivists held sway. Its not that they were wrong, the problem was they couldnt be right. The original proof that they were wrong was at hand for most of the 20th century, in the interference pattern between the works of Wittgenstein and Gdel, As recently as the middle of the last century, back when Chomsky was doing his seminal work in deep structures, psychology was firmly stuck with Pavlovian Reflexes and Skinner Boxes and vigorously opposed adopting any working theory of mind. Stimulus Response Theory just cant handle task of explaining what an artist does. Into this context, Modern Linguistics was born.
Re: tangled context probe
Tyler Durden wrote: 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 No, all that european bs is only relevent because it adds to the piling evidence of irrationality. Whats the connect between irrationality an C-punks? Well aside from colorful characters its also key to any understanding of the minimum mass mind. There are policy implications inherent in innate incomplitence and compliance. There are also important ecconomic understandings that hinge upon understanding irrational choices c.f hyperbolic discounting, aka matching theory. There are also techie implications: The human semantic competency is hackable --bob
Re: Timing Paranoia
Roy M. Silvernail wrote: Steve Thompson wrote: --- R.W. (Bob) Erickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Imagine a paranoia involving mysterious e-mail delays and the length of time it takes to catagorize Imagine hordes of otherwise unemployable psychologists and cognitive psychologists deployed on mailing lists and Usenet, harassing the fuck out of `persons of interest'. Imagine using observed timing to conclude that your agent provocateur operates from geostationary orbit. R. W. may be annoying, but at least he's derivative. Total novelty is a fiction. If its not familiar, you wouldnt recognize it We all work with the same handicaps but some of us have agenda's and others have excuses. I am a collection of projects, mine is the semantic path, if anything of significance is missed, I'll send back reports from the other side --bob maker of absurtities no tangle too complex to fit through the I of my needle
Re: tangled context probe
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 RWBE 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
Timing Paranoia
One of the tools currently being used in the cognitive sciences is the measurement of reaction time to stimulus. It turns out that the length of time it takes to given situations is a credible proxy for how difficult the discrimination is to make. Imagine a paranoia involving mysterious e-mail delays and the length of time it takes to catagorize
Re: Word Of the Subgenius...
Eugen Leitl wrote: On Wed, Dec 08, 2004 at 09:17:30AM -0500, John Kelsey wrote: Maybe, maybe not. The thing I always find interesting and annoying about Tim May's posts is that he's sometimes making really clearly thought out, intelligent points, and other times spewing out nonsense so crazy you can't believe it's coming from the same person. It's also clear he's often yanking peoples' chains, often by saying the most offensive thing he can think of. But once in awhile, even amidst the crazy rantings about useless eaters and ovens, he'll toss out something that shows some deep, coherent thought about some issue in a new and fascinating direction. There was no doubt he was trolling. I never figured out the precise reason, though. Attempted suicide by cop? Free speech illustration? You tell me. Neither is sufficient interesting. the Zen Master's stick: irrationality is not to be overcome its value recognizes you as you become undone
Word play bobs the literal minded
John Kelsey wrote: From: Tyler Durden [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Dec 4, 2004 8:33 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Word Of the Subgenius... I thought JR Bob Dobbs got beamed up to that comet with those LA Koolaid kooks... No, but I do believe the comet kooks engaged in bobbitization (or perhaps, merely bobbing). -TD --John Word Play is disrespectful to the literal minded who dont appreciate having their self-bobbing exposed. Unauthorized decryption of motives and intentions must be outlawed. The right to privacy and ignorance is paramount.
Re: Word Of the Subgenius...
R.A. Hettinga wrote: At 8:06 AM -0600 12/5/04, Neil Johnson wrote: Where is Tim May when when you need him? :-) Nah, this is mere Younglish wierdness. You have to talk about useless eaters to be totally mayified... Cheers, RAH John would warn you about the organ cuts Tim would rave about the sizzle stake I'm just scoping out the meat-eye view through the grinder. --bob of mad cow metephors
Re: Immediate Exception
R.A. Hettinga wrote: At 5:07 PM -0500 12/4/04, R.W. (Bob) Erickson wrote: Be kind to yourself, but never forget you're kind You're a fluke of the universe, and while your standing there looking stupid, the universe is laughing behind your back... Or something. Cheers, R.A. (Bob) Hettinga Slack Paranoia is our biological endowment, but rationality sounds like a good idea. I''d dismiss the possibility that the universe exists for the express purpose of confounding me. The practical logistics for faking the coherrent correlations that inform me would entail a workload that exceedes my concidered threat model -- bob.
Re: Word Of the Subgenius...
Bobhood is never a light burden, as I'm sure RAH can attest --bob Tyler Durden wrote: I thought JR Bob Dobbs got beamed up to that comet with those LA Koolaid kooks... -TD From: R.W. (Bob) Erickson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Word Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2004 18:42:01 -0500 word You want me to say what I mean. You expect me to not waste your time, but you dont know why I am here yet. So I tell you that I am here to show you something interesting in words. You can be sure that I'm only talking about words and not about things that matter. You know the difference, between words and things that matter, just like I do. Sometimes when people get to using fancy words, they forget the difference. Between you and me - we'll speak plainly - the country needs more clarity, 'cause we cant afford to forget what matters. We may not agree on much, but I'm certain that you really do see how there's stuff that matters. I respect you for this. No doubt we can agree that it's frustrating at times, to talk with smart asses who lack this common sense. Maybe you haven't felt like knocking some sense into this sort of fool, but I bet you know what I mean. Like the saying goes, you can lead a horse to water, but you cant make him talk plain. So I've been thinking that maybe I can take a crack at translating their alien thinking, some of their expert science and philosophy mumbo jumbo to real talk. The Lord knows, we cant hope to make sense of all the babble. If you can give me a bit more of your time, I do believe that I can hook you up with a practical explanation for why those brainy idiots keep going on and on. They get themselves all worked up to a dizzy, trying to talk sense. Maybe we can do better. Wish me luck! --bob
Re: Word Of the Subgenius...
Neil Johnson wrote: On Sun, 2004-12-05 at 08:46 -0500, R.W. (Bob) Erickson wrote: To be bobbed is never the goal, but bobless fear steers the undifferentiated bob along conventional paths, to the abattoir Where is Tim May when when you need him? :-) Probably busy in his hilltop bunker fiddling with prion generators .cpunks write code
Re: Word Of the Subgenius...
Steve Furlong wrote: On Sat, 2004-12-04 at 20:42, R.W. (Bob) Erickson wrote: Bobhood is never a light burden, as I'm sure RAH can attest Bobbittization would make the burden lighter. To be bobbed is never the goal, but bobless fear steers the undifferentiated bob along conventional paths, to the abattoir
