-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Glen E. P. Ropella wrote:
what you'll say next? Can dialog occur asynchronously? Real, dirty,
concrete, human dialog where it's clear when you've offended someone or
it's clear that they're body chemistry is off that day?
The above is a
I suspect that Reed's law does not apply to legislative bodies, particularly
the NM legislature and perhaps to the US Congress. In my rather limited
experience, I find that groups of 3-9 people are the most effective when
trying
to accomplish a real task. But then again perhaps these are
Glen E. P. Ropella wrote:
Even worse, we've all become a bunch of bean counters (or at least
lawyers), reading what people _write_ rather than listening to what they
_mean_.
I reckon that what many `real-life' individuals or groups often _mean_
is a subconscious impulse: to impose their
During this conversation and a few others I've been involved with
recently, I *am* becoming more aware of just how many groups I'm
involved in and how they impact the web. And yes, the full power set
is a long way from happening, Reed merely is pointing out a term in
the equation, one with
Owen Densmore wrote:
During this conversation and a few others I've been involved with
recently, I *am* becoming more aware of just how many groups I'm
involved in and how they impact the web. And yes, the full power set
is a long way from happening, Reed merely is pointing out a term in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Marcus G. Daniels wrote:
I reckon that what many `real-life' individuals or groups often _mean_
is a subconscious impulse: to impose their personal set of issues on
others and get people to go their way, so as to make their life
better. They
Glen E. P. Ropella wrote:
I'm not so sure. When you hang out with think-tank types (or, in
general, people who are smarter than they _need_ to be), then this may
be true. But, I don't think it's not true for the general population.
Examples I was thinking of: churches, community watch
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf
Of Marcus G. Daniels
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2007 1:59 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Reed's law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Glen E. P. Ropella wrote:
I'm not so
Michael Orshan wrote:
Now just because some content is out there doesn't mean people will flock to
it. That requires advertising and traffic.
One thing that makes me a little cranky is that, from the perspective of
the web, social networking sites seem to be hosted by commercial
entities.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Marcus G. Daniels wrote:
Examples I was thinking of: churches, community watch groups, school
boards, that sort of thing. People that want those in their peer group
to present themselves in a low risk, low dimensionality, low variability
Glen E. P. Ropella wrote:
You're saying that the members of churches,
neighborhood watch groups, schools, etc. purposefully engage in the
attempt to encourage (impose, coax, coerce, etc.) others around them to
act and think like them. This social engineering is perfectly akin to
an
Glen E. P. Ropella wrote:
Option 1 is that a recipient can't understand a concern or is unable to
act on a request for change from a signaler
Option 2 is that a recipient understands the concern but has a different
value system from the signaler that renders it moot
If the effect of their
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Note, of course, that he directly defines the possible number of sub-groups
in a network as its 'utility' or as in the first line of the link defining
that, the 'hapiness' of the net!
If you assume that the same participants behave in different interesting
ways
Owen wrote:
Its all about beyond Metcalf's value of the network being n^2,
bringing in the power set of subgroups networks can form, thus
valuing the network as 2^n.
For years I have been (falsely) asserting that groups of N have N!
subgroups...
I even started to assert that here but
Interesting to see that David Reed's Law is now in Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reed's_law
Its all about beyond Metcalf's value of the network being n^2,
bringing in the power set of subgroups networks can form, thus
valuing the network as 2^n.
Stephen has the insight that
15 matches
Mail list logo
