Live Q&A with Edward Snowden: Thursday 23rd January, 8pm GMT, 3pm EST

[glen ropella]

http://www.freesnowden.is/asksnowden/

--
⇒⇐ glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[Marcus G. Daniels]

Pay no attention to the content of the message in the URL below, but the
preamble may be amusing to
some.

http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-01/msg00208.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------
myhosting.com - Premium Microsoft® Windows® and Linux web and application
hosting - http://link.myhosting.com/myhosting



============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[glen ropella]

On 01/23/2014 01:09 PM, [hidden email] wrote:
> Pay no attention to the content of the message in the URL below, but the
> preamble may be amusing to
> some.
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-01/msg00208.html

We need to update spook.
http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git/log/etc/spook.lines?h=trunk

--
⇒⇐ glen
LF Gulf Cartel Dock Security Council Sick H5N1 Barrio Azteca NIMA
Echelon Hazardous material incident ANDVT Phishing underground Comirex
csystems

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[Marcus G. Daniels]

I wrote:

> Pay no attention to the content of the message in the URL below, but the
> preamble may be amusing to
> some.
>
> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2014-01/msg00208.html

[a wait-for-the-compile rant!]

Well, if you were to read the content of the thread, it reminds me of an
occasional theme that also
occurs here.  It's the notion that conversations about philosophy are
stupid and technical topics are
substantive.   I'd also tie it into Steve's remarks about the distinction
between education and training.  
I'm not sure I agree that there is a difference [1], but `the big picture'
-- an education -- might be
argued to be different and more foundational than `skills'.   Similarly,
the lack of interest in philosophy
and singleminded interest in `technical talk' I'd map to the folks in the
LLVM camp (the URL), and the
GCC camp being the time-wasting philosophers and politicians (which is
completely untrue for GCC
hackers).  I have a different take, as a person comfortable with his
skills:  It's that the "only do it for
technical reasons" folks lack a big picture.   So they talk about their
code projects, methods
development, and intermediate results and don't even try to put their work
in a larger context.   Is a
discussion `open' to more people if it is nihilistic -- sure it is.   But
people aren't really nihilists in
general (that takes vigilance), they just deny and obscure the values they
have or the ones thrust upon
them, and then complain when values are discussed as a first-class thing.  
Maybe they just like their
pen.  
 
Marcus

[1]  It seems to me most worthwhile things come from curiosity, skepticism,
and hard work.  That's an
individual-level property.   At the end of the day, an education can't put
it in you, but it can show you
people that do have these properties.  

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web.com - Microsoft® Exchange solutions from a leading provider -
http://link.mail2web.com/Business/Exchange



============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[glen ropella]

On 01/24/2014 01:01 PM, [hidden email] wrote:
> [a wait-for-the-compile rant!]

[a wait-for-my-subconscious-to-churn-something-else response]

> I'm not sure I agree that there is a difference [1] ...
>
> [1]  It seems to me most worthwhile things come from curiosity,
> skepticism, and hard work.  That's an individual-level property.   At
> the end of the day, an education can't put it in you, but it can show
> you people that do have these properties.

Can you commit to the idea that being placed in one context can take you
down entirely different paths than you would have taken in some other
context?

If so, can you also accept the speculation that the large majority of
people are [would be] curious and hard-working as long as they're
provided with an adequate safety net?

If so, then perhaps we can conclude that the _salient_ factor is the
skepticism.  I.e. the thing that distinguishes an "educated" person from
a "trained" person is solely that the former are skeptical.

If not... well, I tried. ;-)

--
⇒⇐ glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[Marcus G. Daniels]

Glen writes:

"Can you commit to the idea that being placed in one context can take you
down entirely different paths than you would have taken in some other
context?"

Ok.  Is education path-limiting or path-creating?   It might appear to be
path-creating but really just
enumerate a bunch of paths as blessed ones, and thus be a gravity well.
Like how movie studios opt for
proven series over excellent scripts.  

"If so, can you also accept the speculation that the large majority of
people are [would be] curious and hard-working as long as they're
provided with an adequate safety net?"

I really don't know.  I think it is an experiment that needs to be done.
Ok, one might argue that universities are part of that safety net.  A
social context where it is ok to dork
around with abstract things.  

"If so, then perhaps we can conclude that the _salient_ factor is the
skepticism.  I.e. the thing that distinguishes an "educated" person from
a "trained" person is solely that the former are skeptical.

If not... well, I tried. ;-)"

Admirable attempt.

Marcus

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://link.mail2web.com/mail2web



============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[Marcus G. Daniels]

Glen wrote:

"If so, then perhaps we can conclude that the _salient_ factor is the
skepticism.  I.e. the thing that distinguishes an "educated" person from
a "trained" person is solely that the former are skeptical."

I'm reminded of the Orwell remark about Gregarious Animals.  
Skeptics are not the popular kids in school..

Marcus

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://link.mail2web.com/mail2web



============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[glen ropella]

On 01/24/2014 02:08 PM, [hidden email] wrote:
> Glen wrote:
>
> "If so, then perhaps we can conclude that the _salient_ factor is the
> skepticism.  I.e. the thing that distinguishes an "educated" person from
> a "trained" person is solely that the former are skeptical."
>
> I'm reminded of the Orwell remark about Gregarious Animals.  
> Skeptics are not the popular kids in school..

Hm.  I always wonder about those kids in school who were both popular
and ... erudite, for a lack of a better term.  Some of them did seem
merely well trained.  They were like encyclopedias, knew a lot of stuff
and could make associations, but never really seemed _there_ ... the
lights were on but there wasn't really anyone there.  They were like
brilliantly trained, super intelligent automata.

But then some of them did show that extra spark.  I remember one girl
who almost never talked at all.  But when she did, to whomever it was,
she seemed to always talk directly about the core of the topic ...
without clouding it with other, arbitrary, garbage she might happen to
know.  I never could come up with a satisfying classifier for the two types.

--
⇒⇐ glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[Marcus G. Daniels]

Glen writes:

"But then some of them did show that extra spark.  I remember one girl
who almost never talked at all.  But when she did, to whomever it was,
she seemed to always talk directly about the core of the topic ...
without clouding it with other, arbitrary, garbage she might happen to
know.  I never could come up with a satisfying classifier for the two
types."

My hypothesis is that, as they mature, the gregarious ones like to
accumulate and use arbitrary garbage
and use it to advance socially and professionally.  In the latter case,
some do so in higher education, or
administration of higher education.   This, in turn, contributes their host
universities acting as a gravity
wells, indoctrinating rather than discovering and falsifying.  

And it is amplified at lesser universities where assistant profs can't find
funding for research and end-
up teaching, forever, even though they'd rather not.   As they become more
and more stuck, teaching to
their customers that just want a stamp of employability, authoritarian
incentives and instincts are the
ones that make these young professional's lives `better' day-to-day, and
that also further reinforces the
gravity well.   At such an organization, would you expect skeptics to be
welcome?  No, they just make
people mad, or sad.  So conform.

Marcus

--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web.com - Microsoft® Exchange solutions from a leading provider -
http://link.mail2web.com/Business/Exchange



============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[Owen Densmore]

Well, if you were to read the content of the thread, it reminds me of an occasional theme that also occurs here.  It's the notion that conversations about philosophy are stupid and technical topics are substantive.

As a possible target of having that sentiment, I'd like to be clear that I don't hold it.

What I do object to are the traps of:

- Deadly Embrace: The idea that if we only go at it long enough, we'll agree somehow.  In math, convergence.  Judging from the length of this type of thread, I think they are divergent.

- Semantic Arguments: Endless fine points on the meaning of the words and goal of the conversation.

- Ill Defined: This actually is less a problem as we tend to notice the ill defined discussions and correct.  But it is annoying.  As I am :)

- TL;DR: I'd prefer long posts to be in two parts, as is becoming standard on the web: summarize in a paragraph or two the core of the discussion, followed by "TL;DR" (Too Long; Didn't Read), followed by the detail, especially when difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff.

There, that's not so bad is it?

   -- Owen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[Gary Schiltz-4]

You obviously have no future in politics, my friend (nor do most of us here, I’m proud to say).

:-)

On Jan 26, 2014, at 6:16 PM, Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Well, if you were to read the content of the thread, it reminds me of an occasional theme that also occurs here.  It's the notion that conversations about philosophy are stupid and technical topics are substantive.
>
> As a possible target of having that sentiment, I'd like to be clear that I don't hold it.
>
> What I do object to are the traps of:
> - Deadly Embrace: The idea that if we only go at it long enough, we'll agree somehow.  In math, convergence.  Judging from the length of this type of thread, I think they are divergent.
> - Semantic Arguments: Endless fine points on the meaning of the words and goal of the conversation.
> - Ill Defined: This actually is less a problem as we tend to notice the ill defined discussions and correct.  But it is annoying.  As I am :)
> - TL;DR: I'd prefer long posts to be in two parts, as is becoming standard on the web: summarize in a paragraph or two the core of the discussion, followed by "TL;DR" (Too Long; Didn't Read), followed by the detail, especially when difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff.
>
> There, that's not so bad is it?
>
>    -- Owen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[Owen Densmore]

By the way, I *do* object to the implicit idea that technical (and possibly "scientific" or "math" too?) discussions are likely to lack substance,

I had a lovely discussion with a bright engineer recently about a very explicit code project, Angular.  Certainly a detailed discussion of its "code" and "architecture" would be boring to all but those interested in Angular.

But then a lovely distinction was made: that Angular was different from other code bases by being a framework for building "Domain Specific Languages".

Again, I don't expect folks to grasp the down and dirty here, but suffice it to say the DSL comment raised the tech talk to a much more subtle level, pulled me out of the bits, and we did have a conversation about it later.

So lets try to not have too many assumptions here about content.  I can delete conversations easily if I find them annoying.

   -- Owen

On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 4:16 PM, Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:

Well, if you were to read the content of the thread, it reminds me of an occasional theme that also occurs here.  It's the notion that conversations about philosophy are stupid and technical topics are substantive.

As a possible target of having that sentiment, I'd like to be clear that I don't hold it.

What I do object to are the traps of:

- Deadly Embrace: The idea that if we only go at it long enough, we'll agree somehow.  In math, convergence.  Judging from the length of this type of thread, I think they are divergent.

- Semantic Arguments: Endless fine points on the meaning of the words and goal of the conversation.

- Ill Defined: This actually is less a problem as we tend to notice the ill defined discussions and correct.  But it is annoying.  As I am :)

- TL;DR: I'd prefer long posts to be in two parts, as is becoming standard on the web: summarize in a paragraph or two the core of the discussion, followed by "TL;DR" (Too Long; Didn't Read), followed by the detail, especially when difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff.

There, that's not so bad is it?

   -- Owen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[Marcus G. Daniels]

On 1/26/14 4:16 PM, Owen Densmore wrote:
> - TL;DR: I'd prefer long posts to be in two parts, as is becoming
> standard on the web: summarize in a paragraph or two the core of the
> discussion, followed by "TL;DR" (Too Long; Didn't Read), followed by
> the detail, especially when difficult to separate the wheat from the
> chaff.
It doesn't apply here (at least to me), but have you ever found yourself
writing long technical and/or background e-mails because of some random
person Doesn't Feel Comfortable?  Then after it becomes clear 10 or even
50 pages of text later that they aren't even paying attention they then
(amazingly enough) feel entitled to have someone construct them summary
version?  Yeah I'll do that for the person who pays me, but that's about
it.   I guess there are people that like to do this kind of journalism,
or even find a way to make a living off of it.   I am even glad this
kind of activity exists. (And it does exist even for other
semi-technical conversational mailing lists.)  However, I think its
clear that once a story lands on arstechnica or slashdot (or even
Nature) that the readers aren't really participants any more than people
that watch Nova are scientists (just for watching).

Marcus

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[Marcus G. Daniels]

On 1/26/14 4:16 PM, Owen Densmore wrote:

- Deadly Embrace: The idea that if we only go at it long enough, we'll agree somehow.  In math, convergence.  Judging from the length of this type of thread, I think they are divergent.

Divergent is ok, even a goal of conversation.   Note that this thread was a tangent.  The connection was RMS's suggestion that NSA and FBI employees consider their obligations w.r.t. to domestic threats to the U.S. Constitution.   I'm pretty sure RMS's boilerplate header is not intended as humor.   Now, take it back to Snowden and the merit of technical vs. philosophical discussion.   Here again is someone with technical competence (in his domain) and a apparently a philosophical axe to grind.  (Ok, Mike Rogers, et. al.  try as hard as they can to convince us that he has no such technical competence and no philosophical axe to grind; that he is merely a spy.  Whatever.)   Contrast that person against the nameless NSA employee that has a technically enriching job doing encryption or data mining or quantum computing and doesn't want to be bothered with the Why of their job.   That they keep their head down does not imply they have more a professional focus or competence.  It could make them _more_ dangerous because they have no set of values or ethics that drive their decisions.  Too much mercenary. 

The objection I have is to people that optimize only on dimensions that are given to them.   "Tool" is the word that comes to mind.

- Semantic Arguments: Endless fine points on the meaning of the words and goal of the conversation.

Especially when there is no interpolation or memory or direct dissection of evident contradiction or ambiguity.

Marcus

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[glen ropella]

On 01/26/2014 04:32 PM, Marcus G. Daniels wrote:
> I guess there are people that like to do this kind of journalism,
> or even find a way to make a living off of it.   I am even glad this
> kind of activity exists. (And it does exist even for other
> semi-technical conversational mailing lists.)  However, I think its
> clear that once a story lands on arstechnica or slashdot (or even
> Nature) that the readers aren't really participants any more than people
> that watch Nova are scientists (just for watching).

The topic deserves attention.  The (alleged) decline of facebook in
favor of instagram and the like, the (alleged) failure of Google+, the
shift from personal blogging to corporate/issue blogging, etc. are all
direct consequences of the (filosofickle) differences you're talking
about here.

Renee' made the comment to me last night that she can't even imagine
what "the future" means to current high school students.  I suggested we
should probably listen to more rap or popular music just to help keep
tabs on it.  But both of us have such a severely negative reaction to
that music that we can't bring ourselves to do it.  I've _forced_ myself
to wade into lots of things I initially had bad reactions to, though.
And each time I do it, I'm rewarded.  In fact, the harder I try, the
more rewarding it becomes.

I accidentally spent some of my morning reading this:

http://lesswrong.com/lw/jhs/dark_arts_of_rationality/

> Today, we're going to talk about Dark rationalist techniques: productivity tools which seem incoherent, mad, and downright irrational. These techniques include:
>
> 1.  Willful Inconsistency
> 2.  Intentional Compartmentalization
> 3.  Modifying Terminal Goals

--
glen ep ropella -- 971-255-2847

--
⇒⇐ glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com