Re: [OT] Social Network Privacy
On Fri, May 27, Shane Hathaway wrote: > > Personally, I suspect my brain actually does have all my memories, but > that as my thinking patterns have shifted, my ability to understand my > own former thoughts has diminished. It's as if all the old files are in > an old format that the new software isn't very compatible with. I also > suspect that if I had enough time in life, I could gain enough mental > stability to comprehend both my current thoughts and my former thoughts, > and thus remember much more. I wish I could believe that. Unfortunately, I've learned that the brain actually prunes less-active connections, particularly around age 6. In fact, failing to do so leads to a certain type of mental disorder. On the other hand, I'm not entirely certain how the brain manages to store memories in the first place. Playing around with artificial neural nets makes its pattern-recognition abilities understandable, but the ability to store a single event, including time, is kind of mind-blowing. - Eric /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: [OT] Social Network Privacy
On 05/26/2011 11:21 PM, Alan Young wrote: >>> Is that 'Master of Asininity' or 'Master of Shanker'? >> >> Looks like we need to take your PLUG card until you've had a few courses in >> Doctor Who and Star Wars. Then you may participate again. ;) > > Sorry ... I'm died in the wool Trekkie. :> This post is just begging for the "Dead Ringers" video clip that explains why Christopher Eccleston quit Doctor Who after just one season. "Doctor bloody Who?" "Son, after all this time, raising you to be a proper trekkie, how could you do this to us?" Sadly I can't find the clip anywhere; it's not on youtube anymore. sigh. /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: [OT] Social Network Privacy
On 27 May 2011, at 05:57, Shane Hathaway wrote: > Personally, I suspect my brain actually does have all my memories, but > that as my thinking patterns have shifted, my ability to understand my > own former thoughts has diminished. It's as if all the old files are in > an old format that the new software isn't very compatible with. I also > suspect that if I had enough time in life, I could gain enough mental > stability to comprehend both my current thoughts and my former thoughts, > and thus remember much more. > Whoa, deep, I like that one. /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: [OT] Social Network Privacy
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 10:54 PM, Jacob Albretsen wrote: >> Is that 'Master of Asininity' or 'Master of Shanker'? > > Looks like we need to take your PLUG card until you've had a few courses in > Doctor Who and Star Wars. Then you may participate again. ;) Where do we surrender it? You know... I'm asking for a friend. Gabe /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: [OT] Social Network Privacy
On 5/27/11 10:07 AM, Stuart Jansen wrote: On Fri, 2011-05-27 at 09:11 -0600, John D Jones III wrote: Did somebody say 'KITTIES!!'?? I considered a Terry Pratchett referenced, but how can I resist the chance for a cat macro? http://icanhascheezburger.com/2011/05/26/funny-pictures-this-is-wut-i-get/ wow, that's 10 seconds of my life that I will never get back. smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: [OT] Social Network Privacy
On Fri, 2011-05-27 at 09:11 -0600, John D Jones III wrote: > Did somebody say 'KITTIES!!'?? I considered a Terry Pratchett referenced, but how can I resist the chance for a cat macro? http://icanhascheezburger.com/2011/05/26/funny-pictures-this-is-wut-i-get/ /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: [OT] Social Network Privacy
On 05/26/2011 04:31 PM, Daniel C. wrote: > Unicorn. Actually. Sorry for top post, phone. This email client blows. > On May 26, 2011 4:23 PM, "Alan Young" wrote: >> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 16:15, Daniel C. wrote: >>> island in a shifting sea of chaos before time began. Therefore our > universe >>> is not a closed system, but is a small part of a larger cosmos, all of > which >>> interacts in ways we can't see. >> >> Our world doesn't rest on the back of giant turtle ... it rests on the >> head of a giant lemming ... >> -- >> Alan Young >> >> /* >> PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net >> Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug >> Don't fear the penguin. >> */ > > /* > PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net > Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug > Don't fear the penguin. > */ Did somebody say 'KITTIES!!'?? /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: [OT] Social Network Privacy
On 05/26/2011 07:32 PM, Michael Torrie wrote: > On 05/26/2011 02:56 PM, Jonathan Duncan wrote: >> While we are contemplating deep questions... do you think it is >> possible to use regressive hypnosis to "remember" what your >> experience was like in the womb? > > I have memories of when I was very young (say 2 or 3 years old). But I > now believe that they are not real memories. They are either memories > of memories, or memories that were created based on what others who > observed me at that age have said. And to me, being an abstract person, > memories are simply mental fabrications of events as I observed them > anyway. Personally, I suspect my brain actually does have all my memories, but that as my thinking patterns have shifted, my ability to understand my own former thoughts has diminished. It's as if all the old files are in an old format that the new software isn't very compatible with. I also suspect that if I had enough time in life, I could gain enough mental stability to comprehend both my current thoughts and my former thoughts, and thus remember much more. Shane /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: [OT] Social Network Privacy
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 4:48 PM, Jason Van Patten wrote: > If the fear of being wrong deters us from searching for truth then it > probably not the truth we are seeking, but the acceptance of our peers > we value most. I like to look under improbable rocks for fun. All the > same it is good to know that there are several centuries of documented > failures searching for what may not and probably is not a valid > assumption on my part. It's good to not be too afraid of being wrong, but it's not so good to just randomly grasp at ideas without much regard to investigating whether they're likely to be wrong. Especially when dealing with a well-established field like physics, you really need to become an expert at the current status quo before you start challenging it. There are usually pretty good reasons for the experts to hold the views that they do, even if they are ultimately wrong about some things. What would you think of some physicist who had never used or studied Linux in-depth before who suddenly started spouting off about they way the kernel scheduler worked? Or, despite having never written a program, started telling you how some other way of writing your program that he came up with would be far superior to the way you're doing it? The willingness of some people on the list to make bold pronouncements about how the universe works and what's wrong with current theories while apparently not even understanding those theories very well is mind-boggling to me. --Levi /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: [OT] Social Network Privacy
>> Is that 'Master of Asininity' or 'Master of Shanker'? > > Looks like we need to take your PLUG card until you've had a few courses in > Doctor Who and Star Wars. Then you may participate again. ;) Sorry ... I'm died in the wool Trekkie. :> -- Alan Young /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: [OT] Social Network Privacy
On Thursday 26 May 2011, Alan Young wrote: > On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 16:25, Jacob Albretsen wrote: > > I do have a Master's degree however, so all are free to refer to me as: > > "Master Jake" or if you prefer, just "The Master". > > Is that 'Master of Asininity' or 'Master of Shanker'? Looks like we need to take your PLUG card until you've had a few courses in Doctor Who and Star Wars. Then you may participate again. ;) /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: [OT] Social Network Privacy
On Thursday 26 May 2011, Nicholas Leippe wrote: > On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 3:58 PM, Jason Van Patten > wrote: [snip] > > > However on point two would i be correct to assume you disavow > > the Theory of Relativity in all of its incarnations? > > I don't claim there is nothing of merit in it at all. I don't deny > that some of the predicted effects have been observed, but I do take > serious issue with it, and am not convinced that it explains the > observed effects. >From my readings, General Relativity has never made an incorrect prediction (at least one we can test anyway). Two have been confirmed just recently: http://www.space.com/11570-nasa-gravity-probe-einstein-theory-relativity.html /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: [OT] Social Network Privacy
On 5/26/2011 4:33 PM, Levi Pearson wrote: > Thanks for the clarification. I think my overall point was still > correct, though: there's no "center point" to the universe that > everything moves away from. The entirety of space once *was* the > center point, and the universe itself is expanding. I realize the > universe is probably also not a spherical geometry, that was just an > illustration of the idea of an expanding geometry rather than a > conventional explosion. When one gets far enough into physics, any > discussion in lay English about it becomes hopelessly vague and > inaccurate, unfortunately. As the Doctor says, "It's not like that at > all, but if it helps" > > --Levi http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/teaching_physics.png /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: [OT] Social Network Privacy
On 05/26/2011 02:56 PM, Jonathan Duncan wrote: > While we are contemplating deep questions... do you think it is > possible to use regressive hypnosis to "remember" what your > experience was like in the womb? I have memories of when I was very young (say 2 or 3 years old). But I now believe that they are not real memories. They are either memories of memories, or memories that were created based on what others who observed me at that age have said. And to me, being an abstract person, memories are simply mental fabrications of events as I observed them anyway. So I'm dubious of any memories brought back using hypnosis or other techniques. I heard once of a man who plead guilty to a murder, and even claimed to remember doing it. It was later shown that he was innocent. Yet somehow memories of this crime were created during the interrogation, incarceration, and trial process. Was a very interesting story. I wish I could find the details on that one again. /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: [OT] Social Network Privacy
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 3:39 PM, Nicholas Leippe wrote: > 1) If there was one big bang, who's to say there haven't been many? > (What would constrain the phenomenon to only ever occur once? And by > extension, if multiple have occurred, how do you choose which one to > use to define the geometric "center"?) As I explained before, the concept of a geometric center at which the big bang occurred is faulty, but the idea of multiple big bangs is either faulty as well or not something that falls within the realm of physics. If you mean that our universe may have contained multiple big bangs, that's faulty for the same reason the idea of a geometric center is. The big bang filled the entire universe. If you mean another big bang that preceded the one that we refer to as 'the big bang', then such could have possibly been the result of a previous universe that was sufficiently different from ours that it collapsed upon itself again, but there's not really any way I'm aware of that physics could tell you anything about that. > 2) Your constraint on uniformity assumes there is such a thing as > "space-time" to worry about. I am of the inclination to believe that > time does not exist but instead is merely a gauge by which to measure > relative motion/change, and that "space" is just that--pure, empty, > void-filled nothingness--to which no properties or extension can be > ascribed (eg, "folding"). With these ideas at foundation expansion > uniformity becomes largely determined by the symmetry of the original > event--assuming a closed system. (There's always the caveat that it's > not a closed system--that stuff from wherever the initial stuff came > from can still interact with the stuff we see now with or without more > "bang" events at some scale.) You can believe whatever you want about what actually exists or not, but the concept of spacetime makes for very accurate predictions of how things behave. A lot of modern technology depends on relativistic and quantum effects, and your beliefs about how things "really are" fortunately don't make those gadgets any less effective. You're talking metaphysics now, though, not physics. I'm not convinced that you have a sufficient understanding of current physics to offer a credible rejection for any of its models. --Levi /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: [OT] Social Network Privacy
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 16:48, Jason Van Patten wrote: > same it is good to know that there are several centuries of documented > failures searching for what may not and probably is not a valid > assumption on my part. Just because something has been declared, and widely believed, to be invalid does not mean that it is invalid. How many of those "documented failures" are some administrator fudging the report because he didn't like the experimenter, or what the experiment proved? So keep on making wild assumptions ... it makes things that much more fun! -- Alan Young /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: [OT] Social Network Privacy
>>> And every time we've made that assumption, it's been wrong wrong wrong. >> For those that haven't met Jake: you should know that he's an Astronomy >> PhD in all but sheepskin. (It's my fault he's not Doctor Jake, but >> that's a story for another day.) When he tosses out a statement like >> this, it carries more weight than you think. > In my academic group of friends, this is lovely referred to as "ABD". > > All But Dissertation. > > I do have a Master's degree however, so all are free to refer to me as: > "Master Jake" or if you prefer, just "The Master". > > /* > PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net > Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug > Don't fear the penguin. > */ > If the fear of being wrong deters us from searching for truth then it probably not the truth we are seeking, but the acceptance of our peers we value most. I like to look under improbable rocks for fun. All the same it is good to know that there are several centuries of documented failures searching for what may not and probably is not a valid assumption on my part. /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: [OT] Social Network Privacy
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 4:33 PM, Levi Pearson wrote: > On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Jacob Albretsen wrote: >> On Thursday 26 May 2011, Levi Pearson wrote: >>> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Jason Van Patten >> wrote: >>> > However it is theoretically possible to establish a context from the >>> > center of existence if you assume that such a point exists. >>> >>> You might think so, but by calculating the doppler shift in the light >>> coming from stars in any direction from the Earth, we know that they >>> are all red-shifted roughly the same amount. >> >> No, this is not true. >> >> The further away astronomers look into space (time), the more red-shifted >> objects appear to be. However, in the local area, you can have objects which >> appear blue-shifted (example: Andromeda Galaxy). This is because in the >> local area, Doppler shifts of light due to relative motion are dominate over >> the cosmological redshift due to the expansion of the universe. However once >> you get much further away, there is a larger cosmological redshift and >> Doppler >> shifts of light due to relative motion are negligible. > > Thanks for the clarification. I think my overall point was still > correct, though: there's no "center point" to the universe that > everything moves away from. The entirety of space once *was* the > center point, and the universe itself is expanding. I realize the > universe is probably also not a spherical geometry, that was just an > illustration of the idea of an expanding geometry rather than a > conventional explosion. When one gets far enough into physics, any > discussion in lay English about it becomes hopelessly vague and > inaccurate, unfortunately. As the Doctor says, "It's not like that at > all, but if it helps" > > --Levi > > /* > PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net > Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug > Don't fear the penguin. > */ > I love how this thread is still titled "Re: [OT] Social Network Privacy"-Joh Not complaining, mind you. I just think it's funny that somehow shifted from privacy to this. -John /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: [OT] Social Network Privacy
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 3:26 PM, Jason Van Patten wrote: > On 5/26/2011 3:09 PM, Jacob Albretsen wrote: >> The further away astronomers look into space (time), the more red-shifted >> objects appear to be. However, in the local area, you can have objects which >> appear blue-shifted (example: Andromeda Galaxy). This is because in the >> local area, Doppler shifts of light due to relative motion are dominate over >> the cosmological redshift due to the expansion of the universe. However once >> you get much further away, there is a larger cosmological redshift and >> Doppler >> shifts of light due to relative motion are negligible. > If there was a big bang then the point and time when and where it > occurred would be the center of the universe. However what is still in > question is if the expansion of the universe is uniform to some > mathematical formula (dubious in my opinion even if i did accept the big > bang) and if there hasn't' been any significant gravitational (or other) > folds to the space time fabric. Your misunderstanding is in your suggestion that there was a unique point in the universe in which the big bang took place. In fact, the entire universe was a point, and the big bang occurred throughout the entire thing as it expanded. We're not talking about an explosion that occurred in a preexisting space, but the expansion of space from a single point. If you point a microwave radio telescope in any direction, you'll find the 'cosmic background radiation' that fills space nearly uniformly. If all matter in the universe originated at a single point in a preexisting space, you'd expect to be able to find that "center point" with a radio telescope, but instead the evidence actually points towards a big bang as I described above, which leads to the nearly uniform distribution throughout space. --Levi /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: [OT] Social Network Privacy
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 16:25, Jacob Albretsen wrote: > I do have a Master's degree however, so all are free to refer to me as: > "Master Jake" or if you prefer, just "The Master". Is that 'Master of Asininity' or 'Master of Shanker'? -- Alan Young /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: [OT] Social Network Privacy
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Jacob Albretsen wrote: > On Thursday 26 May 2011, Levi Pearson wrote: >> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Jason Van Patten > wrote: >> > However it is theoretically possible to establish a context from the >> > center of existence if you assume that such a point exists. >> >> You might think so, but by calculating the doppler shift in the light >> coming from stars in any direction from the Earth, we know that they >> are all red-shifted roughly the same amount. > > No, this is not true. > > The further away astronomers look into space (time), the more red-shifted > objects appear to be. However, in the local area, you can have objects which > appear blue-shifted (example: Andromeda Galaxy). This is because in the > local area, Doppler shifts of light due to relative motion are dominate over > the cosmological redshift due to the expansion of the universe. However once > you get much further away, there is a larger cosmological redshift and Doppler > shifts of light due to relative motion are negligible. Thanks for the clarification. I think my overall point was still correct, though: there's no "center point" to the universe that everything moves away from. The entirety of space once *was* the center point, and the universe itself is expanding. I realize the universe is probably also not a spherical geometry, that was just an illustration of the idea of an expanding geometry rather than a conventional explosion. When one gets far enough into physics, any discussion in lay English about it becomes hopelessly vague and inaccurate, unfortunately. As the Doctor says, "It's not like that at all, but if it helps" --Levi /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: [OT] Social Network Privacy
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 3:58 PM, Jason Van Patten wrote: [snip] > However on point two would i be correct to assume you disavow > the Theory of Relativity in all of its incarnations? I don't claim there is nothing of merit in it at all. I don't deny that some of the predicted effects have been observed, but I do take serious issue with it, and am not convinced that it explains the observed effects. I take issue with anything requiring forces of attraction/action-at-a-distance in a mechanical (as opposed to magical) universe. I am holding out for a solution that is as elegant in it's simplicity as well as it's comprehensiveness in explaining everything we've observed so far. All theories are suspect anyways--and they should remain as such and not be promoted to religious status--even when they do prove useful. After all, a false premise may predict valid outcomes for entirely wrong reasons, and thus may disappoint surprisingly yielding unfortunate outcomes if wrong at precisely the worst possible timing (Murphy was an optimist). /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: [OT] Social Network Privacy
Unicorn. Actually. Sorry for top post, phone. This email client blows. On May 26, 2011 4:23 PM, "Alan Young" wrote: > On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 16:15, Daniel C. wrote: >> island in a shifting sea of chaos before time began. Therefore our universe >> is not a closed system, but is a small part of a larger cosmos, all of which >> interacts in ways we can't see. > > Our world doesn't rest on the back of giant turtle ... it rests on the > head of a giant lemming ... > -- > Alan Young > > /* > PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net > Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug > Don't fear the penguin. > */ /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: [OT] Social Network Privacy
On Thursday 26 May 2011, Stuart Jansen wrote: > On Thu, 2011-05-26 at 14:52 -0600, Jacob Albretsen wrote: > > > However it is theoretically possible to establish a context from the > > > center of existence if you assume that such a point exists. > > > > And every time we've made that assumption, it's been wrong wrong wrong. > > For those that haven't met Jake: you should know that he's an Astronomy > PhD in all but sheepskin. (It's my fault he's not Doctor Jake, but > that's a story for another day.) When he tosses out a statement like > this, it carries more weight than you think. In my academic group of friends, this is lovely referred to as "ABD". All But Dissertation. I do have a Master's degree however, so all are free to refer to me as: "Master Jake" or if you prefer, just "The Master". /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: [OT] Social Network Privacy
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 16:15, Daniel C. wrote: > island in a shifting sea of chaos before time began. Therefore our universe > is not a closed system, but is a small part of a larger cosmos, all of which > interacts in ways we can't see. Our world doesn't rest on the back of giant turtle ... it rests on the head of a giant lemming ... -- Alan Young /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: [OT] Social Network Privacy
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 2:47 PM, Jonathan Duncan < jonat...@bluesunhosting.com> wrote: > 777 also gives everyone perfect access to your files. > Yeah, it's hell being able to read and write but not execute. -Eric /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: [OT] Social Network Privacy
On May 26, 2011 3:39 PM, "Nicholas Leippe" wrote > (There's always the caveat that it's > not a closed system--that stuff from wherever the initial stuff came > from can still interact with the stuff we see now with or without more > "bang" events at some scale.) I subscribe to the Zelaznian school - this universe is but one of many, each of which is a shadow cast by the True Pattern, which Dworkin inscribed on an island in a shifting sea of chaos before time began. Therefore our universe is not a closed system, but is a small part of a larger cosmos, all of which interacts in ways we can't see. /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: [OT] Social Network Privacy
> Perhaps, but two counterpoints: > 1) If there was one big bang, who's to say there haven't been many? > (What would constrain the phenomenon to only ever occur once? And by > extension, if multiple have occurred, how do you choose which one to > use to define the geometric "center"?) > > 2) Your constraint on uniformity assumes there is such a thing as > "space-time" to worry about. I am of the inclination to believe that > time does not exist but instead is merely a gauge by which to measure > relative motion/change, and that "space" is just that--pure, empty, > void-filled nothingness--to which no properties or extension can be > ascribed (eg, "folding"). With these ideas at foundation expansion > uniformity becomes largely determined by the symmetry of the original > event--assuming a closed system. (There's always the caveat that it's > not a closed system--that stuff from wherever the initial stuff came > from can still interact with the stuff we see now with or without more > "bang" events at some scale.) > > /* > PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net > Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug > Don't fear the penguin. > */ > So i think we can both agree that with the information at hand the only really mathematically relevant central orientation point in the universe is currently objects with in out own solar system and possibly our galaxy. However on point two would i be correct to assume you disavow the Theory of Relativity in all of its incarnations? /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: [OT] Social Network Privacy
On Thu, 2011-05-26 at 14:52 -0600, Jacob Albretsen wrote: > > However it is theoretically possible to establish a context from the > > center of existence if you assume that such a point exists. > > And every time we've made that assumption, it's been wrong wrong wrong. For those that haven't met Jake: you should know that he's an Astronomy PhD in all but sheepskin. (It's my fault he's not Doctor Jake, but that's a story for another day.) When he tosses out a statement like this, it carries more weight than you think. /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: [OT] Social Network Privacy
On 26 May 2011, at 15:31, Alan Young wrote: > On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 15:11, Jonathan Duncan > wrote: >> Which brings up another great tangential question: Are there really only >> seven hells? > > I find the idea that there are seven hells very funny. The number 7 > is a perfect number in some mythologies, Jewish being the one I'm > thinking of at the moment. It being a perfect number it is God's > number. > > Tidbit--you knew that the number of the beast is 666 right?. Did you > know that the number of God is 777? Yeah, yeah, I know, some people > claim 333, 20 and others. Personally, I think God's number is > blocked, otherwise he'd be swamped with telemarketers. > 777 also gives everyone perfect access to your files. /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: [OT] Social Network Privacy
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 3:26 PM, Jason Van Patten wrote: > If there was a big bang then the point and time when and where it > occurred would be the center of the universe. However what is still in > question is if the expansion of the universe is uniform to some > mathematical formula (dubious in my opinion even if i did accept the big > bang) and if there hasn't' been any significant gravitational (or other) > folds to the space time fabric. Perhaps, but two counterpoints: 1) If there was one big bang, who's to say there haven't been many? (What would constrain the phenomenon to only ever occur once? And by extension, if multiple have occurred, how do you choose which one to use to define the geometric "center"?) 2) Your constraint on uniformity assumes there is such a thing as "space-time" to worry about. I am of the inclination to believe that time does not exist but instead is merely a gauge by which to measure relative motion/change, and that "space" is just that--pure, empty, void-filled nothingness--to which no properties or extension can be ascribed (eg, "folding"). With these ideas at foundation expansion uniformity becomes largely determined by the symmetry of the original event--assuming a closed system. (There's always the caveat that it's not a closed system--that stuff from wherever the initial stuff came from can still interact with the stuff we see now with or without more "bang" events at some scale.) /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: [OT] Social Network Privacy
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 15:09, Joshua Marsh wrote: >> Would you *really* want to remember the moments leading up to the egg >> being fertilized? > > It would be like your own personal big bang. The math is probably the same > too, so the memories required to get back to that moment are probably > infinite. Hmmm ... so this universe we're in is really the result of someone's personal Big Bang ... an interesting twist on the universe in a thumbnail theory ... -- Alan Young /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: [OT] Social Network Privacy
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 15:11, Jonathan Duncan wrote: > Which brings up another great tangential question: Are there really only > seven hells? I find the idea that there are seven hells very funny. The number 7 is a perfect number in some mythologies, Jewish being the one I'm thinking of at the moment. It being a perfect number it is God's number. Tidbit--you knew that the number of the beast is 666 right?. Did you know that the number of God is 777? Yeah, yeah, I know, some people claim 333, 20 and others. Personally, I think God's number is blocked, otherwise he'd be swamped with telemarketers. So, seven hells would be the perfect hell ... I know. I have a subtil sense of humour. > Perhaps if my mother died in childbirth I could finally remember her voice > and perhaps some of the things the said to me while I was still in the womb. I'm sorry, but when she said "Oh my God" and "Yes! YES!" she wasn't talking to you ... > I would probably skip that, but I just did a Google and some "crazy" > hypnotherapist is suggesting that they can regress you to even before that > and back into some spiritual existence you might have had before your > existence here came about. I think deliberately piercing the veil--assuming you were Mormon--would be a problem. -- Alan Young /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: [OT] Social Network Privacy
On 5/26/2011 3:09 PM, Jacob Albretsen wrote: > On Thursday 26 May 2011, Levi Pearson wrote: >> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Jason Van Patten > wrote: >>> However it is theoretically possible to establish a context from the >>> center of existence if you assume that such a point exists. >> You might think so, but by calculating the doppler shift in the light >> coming from stars in any direction from the Earth, we know that they >> are all red-shifted roughly the same amount. > No, this is not true. > > The further away astronomers look into space (time), the more red-shifted > objects appear to be. However, in the local area, you can have objects which > appear blue-shifted (example: Andromeda Galaxy). This is because in the > local area, Doppler shifts of light due to relative motion are dominate over > the cosmological redshift due to the expansion of the universe. However once > you get much further away, there is a larger cosmological redshift and Doppler > shifts of light due to relative motion are negligible. > > > > /* > PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net > Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug > Don't fear the penguin. > */ > If there was a big bang then the point and time when and where it occurred would be the center of the universe. However what is still in question is if the expansion of the universe is uniform to some mathematical formula (dubious in my opinion even if i did accept the big bang) and if there hasn't' been any significant gravitational (or other) folds to the space time fabric. /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: [OT] Social Network Privacy
On 26 May 2011, at 15:01, Alan Young wrote: > On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 14:56, Jonathan Duncan > wrote: >> While we are contemplating deep questions... do you think it is possible to >> use regressive hypnosis to "remember" what your experience was like in the >> womb? > > An even more important question is why in the seven hells would you want to? Which brings up another great tangential question: Are there really only seven hells? > But assuming that you could, how far back would your memories go? Perhaps if my mother died in childbirth I could finally remember her voice and perhaps some of the things the said to me while I was still in the womb. > Would you *really* want to remember the moments leading up to the egg > being fertilized? I would probably skip that, but I just did a Google and some "crazy" hypnotherapist is suggesting that they can regress you to even before that and back into some spiritual existence you might have had before your existence here came about. /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: [OT] Social Network Privacy
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 15:01, Alan Young wrote: > > But assuming that you could, how far back would your memories go? > Would you *really* want to remember the moments leading up to the egg > being fertilized? > It would be like your own personal big bang. The math is probably the same too, so the memories required to get back to that moment are probably infinite. /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: [OT] Social Network Privacy
On Thursday 26 May 2011, Levi Pearson wrote: > On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Jason Van Patten wrote: > > However it is theoretically possible to establish a context from the > > center of existence if you assume that such a point exists. > > You might think so, but by calculating the doppler shift in the light > coming from stars in any direction from the Earth, we know that they > are all red-shifted roughly the same amount. No, this is not true. The further away astronomers look into space (time), the more red-shifted objects appear to be. However, in the local area, you can have objects which appear blue-shifted (example: Andromeda Galaxy). This is because in the local area, Doppler shifts of light due to relative motion are dominate over the cosmological redshift due to the expansion of the universe. However once you get much further away, there is a larger cosmological redshift and Doppler shifts of light due to relative motion are negligible. /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: [OT] Social Network Privacy
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 14:56, Jonathan Duncan wrote: > While we are contemplating deep questions... do you think it is possible to > use regressive hypnosis to "remember" what your experience was like in the > womb? An even more important question is why in the seven hells would you want to? But assuming that you could, how far back would your memories go? Would you *really* want to remember the moments leading up to the egg being fertilized? -- Alan Young /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: [OT] Social Network Privacy
On Thursday 26 May 2011, Levi Pearson wrote: > On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Daniel C. wrote: > > So if I lived in Greece in the 4th century BC, then the Sun I saw > > rising each day was stationary and the Earth revolved around it; > > unless I was a Pythagorean, in which case the Earth revolved around > > the Sun; but if I left Greece and moved to Egypt, it goes back to the > > Earth being stationary (in Egypt, at least), until I can convince > > everyone that they're wrong and I'm right and once that happens the > > Sun stops moving and the Earth starts up again. > > > > All of this is of course perfectly sensible and could not under any > > circumstances be challenged except by the most intellectually obtuse, > > but I'm still confused about something. Hopefully you can enlighten > > me. We know that in Egypt in the 4th century BC the Sun revolved > > around the Earth, since that's what everyone believed. But when half > > of the people in Egypt believe that the Earth is stationary, and half > > of the people in Egypt believe that the Sun is stationary, which one > > is moving and which one is holding still? The answer is probably > > obvious, but I'm just too dumb to see it. Can you help me out, Alan? > > It is indeed true that the sun moves around the Earth, even today. > It's just that when you consider solar and planetary motion from an > Earth-centric frame of reference, it's much more difficult to model > and predict the paths of bodies, and it doesn't reflect the actual > forces that constrain the paths. If I recall the history correctly, Copernicus made the mistake of assuming the orbit of the planets had to be circles instead of ellipses, thus necessitating the need to add epicycles to his heliocentric model, similar to the geocentric model. This made the heliocentric model just as complicated as the geocentric model, so there was really no big push to go to to a new model when the old one was just as good. Although, the heliocentric model did explain observations such as the phases of Venus. /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: [OT] Social Network Privacy
On 26 May 2011, at 14:52, Jacob Albretsen wrote: > On Thursday 26 May 2011, Jason Van Patten wrote: >>> It is indeed true that the sun moves around the Earth, even today. >>> It's just that when you consider solar and planetary motion from an >>> Earth-centric frame of reference, it's much more difficult to model >>> and predict the paths of bodies, and it doesn't reflect the actual >>> forces that constrain the paths. It would also be easy to choose a >>> frame of reference in which neither the Earth nor Sun were stationary, >>> such as using the moon as the static point. This frame of reference >>> is less useful from the perspective of trying to model the motion, but >>> it would be a useful frame of reference to translate the paths into in >>> order to aim solar collectors or antennas on a future moon base. >>> >>> Motion is all relative, and choosing the frame of reference from which >>> to analyze things is one of the first steps in any physics problem. >>> The frame of reference might change depending on what kind of analysis >>> you're trying to do! >> >> However it is theoretically possible to establish a context from the >> center of existence if you assume that such a point exists. > > And every time we've made that assumption, it's been wrong wrong wrong. > While we are contemplating deep questions... do you think it is possible to use regressive hypnosis to "remember" what your experience was like in the womb? /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: [OT] Social Network Privacy
On Thursday 26 May 2011, Jason Van Patten wrote: > > It is indeed true that the sun moves around the Earth, even today. > > It's just that when you consider solar and planetary motion from an > > Earth-centric frame of reference, it's much more difficult to model > > and predict the paths of bodies, and it doesn't reflect the actual > > forces that constrain the paths. It would also be easy to choose a > > frame of reference in which neither the Earth nor Sun were stationary, > > such as using the moon as the static point. This frame of reference > > is less useful from the perspective of trying to model the motion, but > > it would be a useful frame of reference to translate the paths into in > > order to aim solar collectors or antennas on a future moon base. > > > > Motion is all relative, and choosing the frame of reference from which > > to analyze things is one of the first steps in any physics problem. > > The frame of reference might change depending on what kind of analysis > > you're trying to do! > > However it is theoretically possible to establish a context from the > center of existence if you assume that such a point exists. And every time we've made that assumption, it's been wrong wrong wrong. /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: [OT] Social Network Privacy
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Jason Van Patten wrote: > However it is theoretically possible to establish a context from the > center of existence if you assume that such a point exists. > You might think so, but by calculating the doppler shift in the light coming from stars in any direction from the Earth, we know that they are all red-shifted roughly the same amount. This suggests that the universe is expanding, meaning that all stars are becoming more distant from one another at roughly the same rate. Think of it like a 3-d version of the 2-d surface of an expanding spherical balloon. If you draw a bunch of dots on the balloon when it is only barely filled and then inflate it further, the dots will all get further apart without there being any "center point" on the surface that they're moving from. --Levi /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: [OT] Social Network Privacy
> It is indeed true that the sun moves around the Earth, even today. > It's just that when you consider solar and planetary motion from an > Earth-centric frame of reference, it's much more difficult to model > and predict the paths of bodies, and it doesn't reflect the actual > forces that constrain the paths. It would also be easy to choose a > frame of reference in which neither the Earth nor Sun were stationary, > such as using the moon as the static point. This frame of reference > is less useful from the perspective of trying to model the motion, but > it would be a useful frame of reference to translate the paths into in > order to aim solar collectors or antennas on a future moon base. > > Motion is all relative, and choosing the frame of reference from which > to analyze things is one of the first steps in any physics problem. > The frame of reference might change depending on what kind of analysis > you're trying to do! > > --Levi > > /* > PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net > Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug > Don't fear the penguin. > */ > > \ However it is theoretically possible to establish a context from the center of existence if you assume that such a point exists. /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: [OT] Social Network Privacy
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 12:06 PM, Daniel C. wrote: > So if I lived in Greece in the 4th century BC, then the Sun I saw > rising each day was stationary and the Earth revolved around it; > unless I was a Pythagorean, in which case the Earth revolved around > the Sun; but if I left Greece and moved to Egypt, it goes back to the > Earth being stationary (in Egypt, at least), until I can convince > everyone that they're wrong and I'm right and once that happens the > Sun stops moving and the Earth starts up again. > > All of this is of course perfectly sensible and could not under any > circumstances be challenged except by the most intellectually obtuse, > but I'm still confused about something. Hopefully you can enlighten > me. We know that in Egypt in the 4th century BC the Sun revolved > around the Earth, since that's what everyone believed. But when half > of the people in Egypt believe that the Earth is stationary, and half > of the people in Egypt believe that the Sun is stationary, which one > is moving and which one is holding still? The answer is probably > obvious, but I'm just too dumb to see it. Can you help me out, Alan? It is indeed true that the sun moves around the Earth, even today. It's just that when you consider solar and planetary motion from an Earth-centric frame of reference, it's much more difficult to model and predict the paths of bodies, and it doesn't reflect the actual forces that constrain the paths. It would also be easy to choose a frame of reference in which neither the Earth nor Sun were stationary, such as using the moon as the static point. This frame of reference is less useful from the perspective of trying to model the motion, but it would be a useful frame of reference to translate the paths into in order to aim solar collectors or antennas on a future moon base. Motion is all relative, and choosing the frame of reference from which to analyze things is one of the first steps in any physics problem. The frame of reference might change depending on what kind of analysis you're trying to do! --Levi /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: [OT] Social Network Privacy
On Thursday 26 May 2011, Alan Young wrote: > On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 12:15, Joshua Marsh wrote: > > This might be a good question for Schrödinger's cat although I hear he's > > hard to get a hold of. > > Heisenberg's cat would probably give a wishy washy answer. Unless you had Heisenberg compensators. /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: [OT] Social Network Privacy
On 5/26/2011 12:06 PM, Daniel C. wrote: > On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 11:33 AM, Alan Young wrote: >> My assertion is that whatever we *collectively* decide is the truth >> becomes the truth. The "discoveries" we have made over the millennia >> have not been discoveries but alterations of the universe around us as >> theories and ideas have become popularly accepted. > So if I lived in Greece in the 4th century BC, then the Sun I saw > rising each day was stationary and the Earth revolved around it; > unless I was a Pythagorean, in which case the Earth revolved around > the Sun; but if I left Greece and moved to Egypt, it goes back to the > Earth being stationary (in Egypt, at least), until I can convince > everyone that they're wrong and I'm right and once that happens the > Sun stops moving and the Earth starts up again. > > All of this is of course perfectly sensible and could not under any > circumstances be challenged except by the most intellectually obtuse, > but I'm still confused about something. Hopefully you can enlighten > me. We know that in Egypt in the 4th century BC the Sun revolved > around the Earth, since that's what everyone believed. But when half > of the people in Egypt believe that the Earth is stationary, and half > of the people in Egypt believe that the Sun is stationary, which one > is moving and which one is holding still? The answer is probably > obvious, but I'm just too dumb to see it. Can you help me out, Alan? > > /* > PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net > Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug > Don't fear the penguin. > */ > I think there might be a solution in the theories of Bishop Barkley, but in said event we would really be in trouble given the eventuality of a catholic afterlife. /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: [OT] Social Network Privacy
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 12:18, Daniel C. wrote: >> > > I have been trained to resist all methods of interrogation, to include > waterboarding. Do your worst, knave! While there *will* be an interrogative in the statement at the end of the holding of the head under the water, the intent of the statement itself is not to gain but to impart information. -- Alan Young /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: [OT] Social Network Privacy
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 12:15 PM, Alan Young wrote: > On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 12:12, Daniel C. wrote: >> Oh, good! I cannot tell you how excited I am to learn from you. > > I have been trained to resist all methods of interrogation, to include waterboarding. Do your worst, knave! /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: [OT] Social Network Privacy
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 12:15, Joshua Marsh wrote: > This might be a good question for Schrödinger's cat although I hear he's > hard to get a hold of. Heisenberg's cat would probably give a wishy washy answer. -- Alan Young /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: [OT] Social Network Privacy
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 12:06, Daniel C. wrote: > On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 11:33 AM, Alan Young > wrote: > We know that in Egypt in the 4th century BC the Sun revolved > around the Earth, since that's what everyone believed. But when half > of the people in Egypt believe that the Earth is stationary, and half > of the people in Egypt believe that the Sun is stationary, which one > is moving and which one is holding still? The answer is probably > obvious, but I'm just too dumb to see it. Can you help me out, Alan? This might be a good question for Schrödinger's cat although I hear he's hard to get a hold of. /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: [OT] Social Network Privacy
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 12:12, Daniel C. wrote: > Oh, good! I cannot tell you how excited I am to learn from you. -- Alan Young /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: [OT] Social Network Privacy
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Alan Young wrote: > On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 12:06, Daniel C. wrote: >> obvious, but I'm just too dumb to see it. Can you help me out, Alan? > > Yes. Oh, good! I cannot tell you how excited I am to learn from you. /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: [OT] Social Network Privacy
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 12:06, Daniel C. wrote: > obvious, but I'm just too dumb to see it. Can you help me out, Alan? Yes. -- Alan Young /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: [OT] Social Network Privacy
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 11:33 AM, Alan Young wrote: > My assertion is that whatever we *collectively* decide is the truth > becomes the truth. The "discoveries" we have made over the millennia > have not been discoveries but alterations of the universe around us as > theories and ideas have become popularly accepted. So if I lived in Greece in the 4th century BC, then the Sun I saw rising each day was stationary and the Earth revolved around it; unless I was a Pythagorean, in which case the Earth revolved around the Sun; but if I left Greece and moved to Egypt, it goes back to the Earth being stationary (in Egypt, at least), until I can convince everyone that they're wrong and I'm right and once that happens the Sun stops moving and the Earth starts up again. All of this is of course perfectly sensible and could not under any circumstances be challenged except by the most intellectually obtuse, but I'm still confused about something. Hopefully you can enlighten me. We know that in Egypt in the 4th century BC the Sun revolved around the Earth, since that's what everyone believed. But when half of the people in Egypt believe that the Earth is stationary, and half of the people in Egypt believe that the Sun is stationary, which one is moving and which one is holding still? The answer is probably obvious, but I'm just too dumb to see it. Can you help me out, Alan? /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: [OT] Social Network Privacy
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 11:46 AM, Joshua Lutes wrote: > On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 10:35 AM, Alan Young wrote: > >> They would be *really* awesome if they could go sideways, and >> slantways, and longways, and backways ... >> > > Oh man, if we build one on a mobile sea platform it TOTALLY CAN. My favorite space elevator, does time too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TARDIS /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: [OT] Social Network Privacy
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 10:35 AM, Alan Young wrote: > They would be *really* awesome if they could go sideways, and > slantways, and longways, and backways ... > Oh man, if we build one on a mobile sea platform it TOTALLY CAN. /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: [OT] Social Network Privacy
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 10:24, Joshua Lutes wrote: > ... let's talk about how awesome space elevators will be! They would be *really* awesome if they could go sideways, and slantways, and longways, and backways ... -- Alan Young /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: [OT] Social Network Privacy
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 10:23, Jason Van Patten wrote: > On 5/26/2011 10:15 AM, Alan Young wrote: >> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 10:03, Jason Van Patten wrote: >>> Truth does not take sides >> Not only does take sides, it plays favorites. And it's fickle. > I think my disagreement there is that i consider truth to be irrelevant > to side. I look at it as both sides can be right and both sides can be > wrong, and their affiliation to the truth is hap stance in most cases > and coincidental irony in the rest. My assertion is that whatever we *collectively* decide is the truth becomes the truth. The "discoveries" we have made over the millennia have not been discoveries but alterations of the universe around us as theories and ideas have become popularly accepted. -- Alan Young /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: [OT] Social Network Privacy
On Thu, 2011-05-26 at 09:24 -0700, Joshua Lutes wrote: > Social networks with the privacy and the hidden agendas all over Zuckerburgs > ... let's talk about how awesome space elevators will be! Me press the button! No you press the button! Me press the button! Elelator go up. Elelator go dooown. Elelator go up. Elelator go dwn. Elelator go down the hooole. /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: [OT] Social Network Privacy
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 9:10 AM, Jonathan Duncan < jonat...@bluesunhosting.com> wrote: > You do know this is the Plug list, correct? ;) Tangential flame wars and > childish playground antics are what we do for entertainment here while we > wait for the next thread of relevant content. You know what they say, all > work and no play. > > Social networks with the privacy and the hidden agendas all over Zuckerburgs ... let's talk about how awesome space elevators will be! /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: [OT] Social Network Privacy
On 5/26/2011 10:15 AM, Alan Young wrote: > On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 10:03, Jason Van Patten wrote: >> Truth does not take sides > Not only does take sides, it plays favorites. And it's fickle. I think my disagreement there is that i consider truth to be irrelevant to side. I look at it as both sides can be right and both sides can be wrong, and their affiliation to the truth is hap stance in most cases and coincidental irony in the rest. /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: [OT] Social Network Privacy
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 10:03, Jason Van Patten wrote: > Truth does not take sides Not only does take sides, it plays favorites. And it's fickle. -- Alan Young /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: [OT] Social Network Privacy
On 5/26/2011 10:10 AM, Jonathan Duncan wrote: > On 26 May 2011, at 10:03, Jason Van Patten wrote: >> *snip* >> here. Truth does not take sides, and i would hope that in the future >> people would spend a little more time discussing something of relevance >> instead of letting a thread get trolled like i did to this one. I value >> what i learn here in this forum. So if you wish to discuss something >> great, but evaluate the thoughts for their potential merit and not as a >> candidate for amusement. I set myself up as a target to draw out the >> flies. I'm somewhat disappointed that they swarmed. I had higher >> expectations. >> > You do know this is the Plug list, correct? ;) Tangential flame wars and > childish playground antics are what we do for entertainment here while we > wait for the next thread of relevant content. You know what they say, all > work and no play. > > > /* > PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net > Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug > Don't fear the penguin. > */ > I guess that makes me Jack.. Flame on. /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: [OT] Social Network Privacy
On 26 May 2011, at 10:03, Jason Van Patten wrote: > > *snip* > here. Truth does not take sides, and i would hope that in the future > people would spend a little more time discussing something of relevance > instead of letting a thread get trolled like i did to this one. I value > what i learn here in this forum. So if you wish to discuss something > great, but evaluate the thoughts for their potential merit and not as a > candidate for amusement. I set myself up as a target to draw out the > flies. I'm somewhat disappointed that they swarmed. I had higher > expectations. > You do know this is the Plug list, correct? ;) Tangential flame wars and childish playground antics are what we do for entertainment here while we wait for the next thread of relevant content. You know what they say, all work and no play. /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: [OT] Social Network Privacy
On 5/26/2011 9:30 AM, Michael Torrie wrote: > On 05/26/2011 08:50 AM, Jason Van Patten wrote: >> My thinking is that the value of a thought is not in its presentation >> but in its perception. Stuart doesn't want to see any side but his own >> and so he limits his perceptional capacity to that singular vantage >> point. > Given this exchange, I'd more characterize your point of view this way > than Stuart's. I guess e-mail limits your perception somewhat, but > Stuart's world view, and willingness to accept other points of view, is > much broader than most people. He will, however, never let you have a > free pass. He will challenge you on your views, as well as the > relevancy of your comments. In this case your comments were > non-sequitur, or at least a logical fallacy, and he called you on it. > >> While that is his choice i see no point in changing it against >> his will. When he wants to learn the truth he will listen in the mean >> time i'm sure everyone have fun watching him pursue his aspirations of >> megalomania at the expense of anyone he feels like targeting. > Oh wow. That's almost funny. That's like saying, "I know you are but > what am I" on the school playground. > > /* > PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net > Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug > Don't fear the penguin. > */ > You assume that i care what people think of me. Since i don't megalomania would be an impossible ambition. My reasons are not to prove my self right or even validate my perspective. Not every tool is sharp or needs to be. My opening comment on this thread was more of a parody than anything else. None the less people like Stuart and apparently you have chosen to see this as a declaration of my inferiority, which in any comparison is absolutely bound to be true based on perspective, but instead of patting me on the head and seeing my trolling as trolling i get character assassinations comparing me to a collective of monkeys. My concern there is not the target but the action. I think at the end of the day everyone can agree that this whole thread from before my entry up till now has been nothing more than name calling. At which point i come to my real intention for what i have said and done here. Truth does not take sides, and i would hope that in the future people would spend a little more time discussing something of relevance instead of letting a thread get trolled like i did to this one. I value what i learn here in this forum. So if you wish to discuss something great, but evaluate the thoughts for their potential merit and not as a candidate for amusement. I set myself up as a target to draw out the flies. I'm somewhat disappointed that they swarmed. I had higher expectations. /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: [OT] Social Network Privacy
On 05/26/2011 08:50 AM, Jason Van Patten wrote: > My thinking is that the value of a thought is not in its presentation > but in its perception. Stuart doesn't want to see any side but his own > and so he limits his perceptional capacity to that singular vantage > point. Given this exchange, I'd more characterize your point of view this way than Stuart's. I guess e-mail limits your perception somewhat, but Stuart's world view, and willingness to accept other points of view, is much broader than most people. He will, however, never let you have a free pass. He will challenge you on your views, as well as the relevancy of your comments. In this case your comments were non-sequitur, or at least a logical fallacy, and he called you on it. > While that is his choice i see no point in changing it against > his will. When he wants to learn the truth he will listen in the mean > time i'm sure everyone have fun watching him pursue his aspirations of > megalomania at the expense of anyone he feels like targeting. Oh wow. That's almost funny. That's like saying, "I know you are but what am I" on the school playground. /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: [OT] Social Network Privacy
On 5/26/2011 2:07 AM, Levi Pearson wrote: > On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 11:32 PM, Jason wrote: >> Well lets see. I could make a vain attempt to justify what i said or i >> could apologize and chalk it up to people make mistakes. Nah i'll blame >> it on the nazi party like any good libertarian would, but i'm not a >> libertarian. Looks like i'm stuck with mental illness of the undiagnosed >> variety. Then again i could flip off my sarcasm switch... >> >> None of this is my story and i,m sticking to it. > > Man, that's no fun. I was hoping you'd retrench and start quoting > Mises or Hayek and put up a few links to lewrockwell.com or something, > along with some lofty comments about the logical superiority of > libertarian thought and a laundry list of Stuart's disagreements with > the Truth, a.k.a. libertarian philosophical tenets. Oh well, maybe > someone who actually is a libertarian will take up that role? > > --Levi > > /* > PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net > Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug > Don't fear the penguin. > */ > My thinking is that the value of a thought is not in its presentation but in its perception. Stuart doesn't want to see any side but his own and so he limits his perceptional capacity to that singular vantage point. While that is his choice i see no point in changing it against his will. When he wants to learn the truth he will listen in the mean time i'm sure everyone have fun watching him pursue his aspirations of megalomania at the expense of anyone he feels like targeting. /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: [OT] Social Network Privacy
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 11:32 PM, Jason wrote: > Well lets see. I could make a vain attempt to justify what i said or i > could apologize and chalk it up to people make mistakes. Nah i'll blame > it on the nazi party like any good libertarian would, but i'm not a > libertarian. Looks like i'm stuck with mental illness of the undiagnosed > variety. Then again i could flip off my sarcasm switch... > > None of this is my story and i,m sticking to it. Man, that's no fun. I was hoping you'd retrench and start quoting Mises or Hayek and put up a few links to lewrockwell.com or something, along with some lofty comments about the logical superiority of libertarian thought and a laundry list of Stuart's disagreements with the Truth, a.k.a. libertarian philosophical tenets. Oh well, maybe someone who actually is a libertarian will take up that role? --Levi /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: [OT] Social Network Privacy
Well lets see. I could make a vain attempt to justify what i said or i could apologize and chalk it up to people make mistakes. Nah i'll blame it on the nazi party like any good libertarian would, but i'm not a libertarian. Looks like i'm stuck with mental illness of the undiagnosed variety. Then again i could flip off my sarcasm switch... None of this is my story and i,m sticking to it. On 5/25/2011 5:20 PM, Jonathan Duncan wrote: > On 25 May 2011, at 15:27, Stuart Jansen wrote: > >> On Wed, 2011-05-25 at 14:21 -0600, Jason Van Patten wrote: >>> Actually i only rant on the evils of socialism when someone actually >>> thinks that one political system should be maintained in spite of all >>> others . I personally favor a changeable political environment so that >>> no one political mentality becomes entrenched and therby oppressing >>> future generations. >> Uhm... so how do you explain your unprovoked rant earlier in the thread? >> >> Were you just throwing random words together without trying to form a >> coherent thought? Was it an accident when, although it had nothing to do >> with the thread, you said: >> >> On Tue, 2011-05-24 at 15:28 -0600, Jason Van Patten wrote: >>> so you think that people should be saved from their own stupidity? >> ? >> >> In that case, I apologize to all libertarians. >> >> When you said: >> >> On Tue, 2011-05-24 at 15:28 -0600, Jason Van Patten wrote: >>> Personally on this one i have to favor the libertarian view >> I thought that meant your were yet another kook trying to hide behind >> the libertarian banner. Now I see that you're actually a sufficiently >> large collection of monkeys with Internet access. >> > /me refills his popcorn as the Stuart Wars continue, good match up so far... > > /* > PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net > Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug > Don't fear the penguin. > */ > /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: [OT] Social Network Privacy
On Wed, 2011-05-25 at 17:20 -0600, Jonathan Duncan wrote: > /me refills his popcorn as the Stuart Wars continue, good match up so far... Thanks you! Thank you! You're all so kind. I'll be here all week. Don't forget to tip your waitress. /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: [OT] Social Network Privacy
On 25 May 2011, at 15:27, Stuart Jansen wrote: > On Wed, 2011-05-25 at 14:21 -0600, Jason Van Patten wrote: >> Actually i only rant on the evils of socialism when someone actually >> thinks that one political system should be maintained in spite of all >> others . I personally favor a changeable political environment so that >> no one political mentality becomes entrenched and therby oppressing >> future generations. > > Uhm... so how do you explain your unprovoked rant earlier in the thread? > > Were you just throwing random words together without trying to form a > coherent thought? Was it an accident when, although it had nothing to do > with the thread, you said: > > On Tue, 2011-05-24 at 15:28 -0600, Jason Van Patten wrote: >> so you think that people should be saved from their own stupidity? > > ? > > In that case, I apologize to all libertarians. > > When you said: > > On Tue, 2011-05-24 at 15:28 -0600, Jason Van Patten wrote: >> Personally on this one i have to favor the libertarian view > > I thought that meant your were yet another kook trying to hide behind > the libertarian banner. Now I see that you're actually a sufficiently > large collection of monkeys with Internet access. > /me refills his popcorn as the Stuart Wars continue, good match up so far... /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: [OT] Social Network Privacy
On Wed, 2011-05-25 at 14:21 -0600, Jason Van Patten wrote: > Actually i only rant on the evils of socialism when someone actually > thinks that one political system should be maintained in spite of all > others . I personally favor a changeable political environment so that > no one political mentality becomes entrenched and therby oppressing > future generations. Uhm... so how do you explain your unprovoked rant earlier in the thread? Were you just throwing random words together without trying to form a coherent thought? Was it an accident when, although it had nothing to do with the thread, you said: On Tue, 2011-05-24 at 15:28 -0600, Jason Van Patten wrote: > so you think that people should be saved from their own stupidity? ? In that case, I apologize to all libertarians. When you said: On Tue, 2011-05-24 at 15:28 -0600, Jason Van Patten wrote: > Personally on this one i have to favor the libertarian view I thought that meant your were yet another kook trying to hide behind the libertarian banner. Now I see that you're actually a sufficiently large collection of monkeys with Internet access. /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: [OT] Social Network Privacy
Only if it prevents the individual right to peaceably leave a nation. Jason P. Van Patten Website Development ja...@infogenix.com Infogenix: www.infogenix.com On 5/25/2011 2:33 PM, John Shaver wrote: > On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 2:21 PM, Jason Van Patten wrote: >> Actually i only rant on the evils of socialism when someone actually >> thinks that one political system should be maintained in spite of all >> others . > Does that include political systems put in place to insure there is a > changeable political environment so that no one political mentality > becomes entrenched and therby oppresses future generations? > > /* > PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net > Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug > Don't fear the penguin. > */ > /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: [OT] Social Network Privacy
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 2:21 PM, Jason Van Patten wrote: > Actually i only rant on the evils of socialism when someone actually > thinks that one political system should be maintained in spite of all > others . Does that include political systems put in place to insure there is a changeable political environment so that no one political mentality becomes entrenched and therby oppresses future generations? /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: [OT] Social Network Privacy
Actually i only rant on the evils of socialism when someone actually thinks that one political system should be maintained in spite of all others . I personally favor a changeable political environment so that no one political mentality becomes entrenched and therby oppressing future generations. Jason P. Van Patten Website Development ja...@infogenix.com Infogenix: www.infogenix.com On 5/25/2011 1:11 PM, Bryan Sant wrote: > On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 6:40 PM, Stuart Jansen wrote: >> You're a libertarian. During checkups the doctor hits your knee and you >> spout an essay on the evils of socialism. We get it. > Ah, that explains a lot. When my doctor tapped my knee, I punched him > in the mouth and called him a Commie. > > /* > PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net > Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug > Don't fear the penguin. > */ > /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: [OT] Social Network Privacy
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 6:40 PM, Stuart Jansen wrote: > You're a libertarian. During checkups the doctor hits your knee and you > spout an essay on the evils of socialism. We get it. Ah, that explains a lot. When my doctor tapped my knee, I punched him in the mouth and called him a Commie. /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: [OT] Social Network Privacy
On Wed, 2011-05-25 at 12:57 -0500, Stuart Jansen wrote:
> I've been calling myself a neo-Luddite since the mid-90's, but I don't
> expect most people know that since they only know me through email.
Wow, according to Wikipedia I'm now a Reform Luddite instead of a
neo-Luddite. Well, as the saying goes, {{Citation needed}}
/*
PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net
Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug
Don't fear the penguin.
*/
Re: [OT] Social Network Privacy
On Wed, 2011-05-25 at 11:48 -0600, Doran L. Barton wrote: > On Wednesday, May 25, 2011 11:22:54 AM Stuart Jansen wrote: > > When "reconnecting" with an old friend becomes nothing more than a > > couple clicks, it cheapens the gesture. When posting on fifteen > > different walls replaces having lunch with a couple friends, you've been > > sucked in by the illusion. When friendship is reduced to a graph > > problem, that's just sad. > > "This fancy telly-phone thang is just an excuse so's you don't hafta talk > face-to-face with folks!" > *shrug* I've been calling myself a neo-Luddite since the mid-90's, but I don't expect most people know that since they only know me through email. /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: [OT] Social Network Privacy
On Wed, 25 May 2011 11:48:06 -0600 "Doran L. Barton" wrote: > "This fancy telly-phone thang is just an excuse so's you don't hafta > talk face-to-face with folks!" "An it don work so gud, neither. You eveah try sharing a bheer ovah one?" -- Charles Curley /"\ASCII Ribbon Campaign Looking for fine software \ /Respect for open standards and/or writing? X No HTML/RTF in email http://www.charlescurley.com/ \No M$ Word docs in email Key fingerprint = CE5C 6645 A45A 64E4 94C0 809C FFF6 4C48 4ECD DFDB /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: [OT] Social Network Privacy
> "This fancy telly-phone thang is just an excuse so's you don't hafta talk > face-to-face with folks!" +1 agree For the record I hate voice mail too. I shut mine off years ago and never looked back. /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: [OT] Social Network Privacy
On Wednesday, May 25, 2011 11:22:54 AM Stuart Jansen wrote: > When "reconnecting" with an old friend becomes nothing more than a > couple clicks, it cheapens the gesture. When posting on fifteen > different walls replaces having lunch with a couple friends, you've been > sucked in by the illusion. When friendship is reduced to a graph > problem, that's just sad. "This fancy telly-phone thang is just an excuse so's you don't hafta talk face-to-face with folks!" -- Doran L. Barton - Hypermoo Inc. - - 801-520-9875 Open source consulting, custom development, systems/network administration "For those of you who have children, and don't know it, we have a nursery downstairs." -- Seen in a church bulletin /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: [OT] Social Network Privacy
On Wed, 2011-05-25 at 10:09 -0600, John Shaver wrote: > Just because you can't make friends doesn't mean other people have the > same problem. Gee, thanks. If you'd bother to think about what I was saying maybe you would have understood my point instead of wasting so many words on the rather obvious observation that "FB is just a tool". I didn't think it would be necessary to explain that using FB as a fancy form of email is different than using FB as another version of TV, but I guess I will. Just like many TV shows create a false sense of friendship, voyeuristic browsing of someone's FB content is not the same as real friendship. (But don't tell your brain, it releases the same chemicals anyway.) When "reconnecting" with an old friend becomes nothing more than a couple clicks, it cheapens the gesture. When posting on fifteen different walls replaces having lunch with a couple friends, you've been sucked in by the illusion. When friendship is reduced to a graph problem, that's just sad. /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: [OT] Social Network Privacy
On 25 May 2011, at 10:09, John Shaver wrote: > On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 7:14 PM, Stuart Jansen wrote: >> Electronic friends are not the same as real friends. The illusion >> created by lists is less powerful and less treacherous than the illusion >> created by FB. > > Just because you can't make friends doesn't mean other people have the > same problem. Facebook is just another method of communication. That > doesn't mean your facebook friends aren't really friends. It depends > on how you communicate and interact with them. If my friend posts on > facebook that he is having a get together at his house, I go over to > his house we watch a movie, chat a bit and what not. Or if a friend > posts on facebook that they need some help with something, I'll help > them and guess what. We're friends! > > We communicate and share ideas it's just easier to do sometimes > through something like facebook, (and easier to filter sometimes). > > I'll admit that there are some people on my facebook that aren't > exactly friends, or that I'm not as good friend with as I should be. > Largely though, it has assisted me in having better friendships. > >> I could add things like FB's constantly changing privacy policy, but for >> me the illusion of intimacy is the most important difference. > > I also know some people that I've never met in person that live 1000 > miles away, yet I consider them to be friends. People were making > friends with people they didn't know long before the interwebs. Back > then they were called pen pals. > +1 /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: [OT] Social Network Privacy
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 7:14 PM, Stuart Jansen wrote: > Electronic friends are not the same as real friends. The illusion > created by lists is less powerful and less treacherous than the illusion > created by FB. Just because you can't make friends doesn't mean other people have the same problem. Facebook is just another method of communication. That doesn't mean your facebook friends aren't really friends. It depends on how you communicate and interact with them. If my friend posts on facebook that he is having a get together at his house, I go over to his house we watch a movie, chat a bit and what not. Or if a friend posts on facebook that they need some help with something, I'll help them and guess what. We're friends! We communicate and share ideas it's just easier to do sometimes through something like facebook, (and easier to filter sometimes). I'll admit that there are some people on my facebook that aren't exactly friends, or that I'm not as good friend with as I should be. Largely though, it has assisted me in having better friendships. > I could add things like FB's constantly changing privacy policy, but for > me the illusion of intimacy is the most important difference. I also know some people that I've never met in person that live 1000 miles away, yet I consider them to be friends. People were making friends with people they didn't know long before the interwebs. Back then they were called pen pals. -John /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: [OT] Social Network Privacy
On Tue, 2011-05-24 at 15:08 -0600, Shane Hathaway wrote: > OTOH, you are willing to share your words on a 100% public mailing list. >What, in your opinion, is the difference between participation on a > public mailing list and having a semi-public Facebook account? (I could > answer that myself, but I'd rather hear from you since you probably have > better ideas.) Electronic friends are not the same as real friends. The illusion created by lists is less powerful and less treacherous than the illusion created by FB. I could add things like FB's constantly changing privacy policy, but for me the illusion of intimacy is the most important difference. /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: [OT] Social Network Privacy
On Tue, 2011-05-24 at 15:58 -0700, Joshua Lutes wrote: > Right, I have all of my settings set to their most restricting. Until Zuckerberg decides that he can raise the stock price 3% by changing your privacy options again. /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: [OT] Social Network Privacy
On Tue, 2011-05-24 at 15:28 -0600, Jason Van Patten wrote: > so you think that people should be saved from their own stupidity?.. > Personally on this one i have to favor the libertarian view that it's > not my place to dictate to others how to think or act with respect to > their own safety or well being. Dude, what are you talking about? Go re-read the message. Your reply has nothing to do with that message or any other message in this thread. You're a libertarian. During checkups the doctor hits your knee and you spout an essay on the evils of socialism. We get it. But... In the future... Could you limit the axe grinding to a threads where it's actually related to the topic? KTHXBYE! /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: [OT] Social Network Privacy
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 5:20 PM, Joshua Lutes wrote: > > Actually if the recipient of your email is not you, you can't depend on the > correspondence being private. Actually, if you merely send an email w/o TLS and/or you don't control the email server host and network you can consider it is not private. GPG FTW. /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: [OT] Social Network Privacy
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 4:16 PM, Alan Young wrote: > Actually, if the recipient of you're email is using google or yahoo or > even an isp you can't depend on you're correspondence being private. > Actually if the recipient of your email is not you, you can't depend on the correspondence being private. /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: [OT] Social Network Privacy
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 16:58, Joshua Lutes wrote: > it. Email or (gasp) face to face conversation is for private > correspondence. Actually, if the recipient of you're email is using google or yahoo or even an isp you can't depend on you're correspondence being private. -- Alan Young /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: [OT] Social Network Privacy
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 2:53 PM, Shane Hathaway wrote: > It sounds like you're saying people behave differently on social > networks due to the illusion of privacy. In that case, aren't the > *people* at fault, not the social networks? Personally, I post on > Facebook only because that's where my friends go, but I regard anything > I post there as public and act accordingly. Most of my friends do the > same. > > Right, I have all of my settings set to their most restricting. You have to be my friend to see anything posted on my wall or any of my photographs and you only get to be my friend if you really are my friend. Still, I don't post things to my friends with the idea that only the intended recipients will view it. On the internet equals everyone can see it. Email or (gasp) face to face conversation is for private correspondence. Joshua. /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: [OT] Social Network Privacy
On 05/24/2011 03:19 PM, S. Dale Morrey wrote: > On the other hand, some folks seem convinced that their facebook > accounts are wonderful places to discuss the upcoming vacation where > they won't be home for two weeks. Oh and uncle Otto! Lets not forget > him, uncle Otto Beoutajob, he's such a hoot! > > Did you know he called in sick the other day just so he could catch > the game? OMG his boss is SUCH an idiot! Here's some pics of Otto at > the game, check out the size of the fatty he's smokin! You think he > rolled it himself or did Jimmy roll it for him? Heck with that beer > and that joint, no one would ever guess he works for letter agency here>. > > No you're right I don't see the difference. It sounds like you're saying people behave differently on social networks due to the illusion of privacy. In that case, aren't the *people* at fault, not the social networks? Personally, I post on Facebook only because that's where my friends go, but I regard anything I post there as public and act accordingly. Most of my friends do the same. Shane /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: [OT] Social Network Privacy
so you think that people should be saved from their own stupidity?.. Personally on this one i have to favor the libertarian view that it's not my place to dictate to others how to think or act with respect to their own safety or well being. Jason P. Van Patten Website Development ja...@infogenix.com Infogenix: www.infogenix.com On 5/24/2011 3:19 PM, S. Dale Morrey wrote: >> OTOH, you are willing to share your words on a 100% public mailing list. >> What, in your opinion, is the difference between participation on a public >> mailing list and having a semi-public Facebook account? (I could answer >> that myself, but I'd rather hear from you since you probably have better >> ideas.) >> >> Shane >> > This list is public? > The real difference is I don't try to imagine that what I post here > are my own private thoughts. > While we're all "friendly", I don't believe anyone here believes that > there is any privacy at all on this list and so we conduct ourselves > accordingly. > > On the other hand, some folks seem convinced that their facebook > accounts are wonderful places to discuss the upcoming vacation where > they won't be home for two weeks. Oh and uncle Otto! Lets not forget > him, uncle Otto Beoutajob, he's such a hoot! > > Did you know he called in sick the other day just so he could catch > the game? OMG his boss is SUCH an idiot! Here's some pics of Otto at > the game, check out the size of the fatty he's smokin! You think he > rolled it himself or did Jimmy roll it for him? Heck with that beer > and that joint, no one would ever guess he works for letter agency here>. > > No you're right I don't see the difference. > > /* > PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net > Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug > Don't fear the penguin. > */ > /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: [OT] Social Network Privacy
> OTOH, you are willing to share your words on a 100% public mailing list. > What, in your opinion, is the difference between participation on a public > mailing list and having a semi-public Facebook account? (I could answer > that myself, but I'd rather hear from you since you probably have better > ideas.) > > Shane > This list is public? The real difference is I don't try to imagine that what I post here are my own private thoughts. While we're all "friendly", I don't believe anyone here believes that there is any privacy at all on this list and so we conduct ourselves accordingly. On the other hand, some folks seem convinced that their facebook accounts are wonderful places to discuss the upcoming vacation where they won't be home for two weeks. Oh and uncle Otto! Lets not forget him, uncle Otto Beoutajob, he's such a hoot! Did you know he called in sick the other day just so he could catch the game? OMG his boss is SUCH an idiot! Here's some pics of Otto at the game, check out the size of the fatty he's smokin! You think he rolled it himself or did Jimmy roll it for him? Heck with that beer and that joint, no one would ever guess he works for . No you're right I don't see the difference. /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
Re: [OT] Social Network Privacy
[Re-sent with a better subject and more trimming] On 05/24/2011 02:08 PM, S. Dale Morrey wrote: > My advice to everyone is to stay the heck away from social media period. > For those of you who don't there are social media "erasers" but they > are run by lawyers and cost accordingly. OTOH, you are willing to share your words on a 100% public mailing list. What, in your opinion, is the difference between participation on a public mailing list and having a semi-public Facebook account? (I could answer that myself, but I'd rather hear from you since you probably have better ideas.) Shane /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
