Date: Thu, 02 Jan 2003 13:19:03 -0800 From: Dave Hayes <dave@jetcafe.org> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Bystander shot by a spam filter. Message-ID: <200301022119.h02LJ8100473@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> writes:
> Dave Hayes wrote:
>> Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> writes:
>> >> > I thought that would be patently obvious: to permit us to design
>> >> > minimally intrusive systems with the emergent properties we are
>> >> > interested in obtaining.
>> >>
>> >> The proof is in the pudding, as they say (for some arbitrary
>> >> value of 'they'). Go do this. If it works, use it.
>> >
>> > We do. You're in a very small minority; the rest of us are not
>> > complaining. 8-).
>>
>> Who's us, and why are relative numbers important to the proof?
>
> Us := The members of this mailing list
>
> The relative numbers are important because of majority rule.
Why is a larger group of people given the task of ruling what a single
person has trouble with?
>> >> > By understanding the probabalistic behaviour of the group, we can
>> >> > design a system which will have the least overall conflict with the
>> >> > desires of the group.
>> >>
>> >> Still an unfounded assertion, according to scientific worldview.
>> >
>> > That's an incorrect and unsupportable statement of opinion,
>> > given that we have working models of the results of such planning
>> > (as opposed to non-working models).
>>
>> Perhaps in some specific case where a small sample space is
>> representative of the particular audience(s) you are working
>> with, I'd buy this. Over the entire space of humanity? Hardly.
>
> Please compare and contrast the number of people subscribed to
> this mailing list with the number of humans on the planet. 8-).
When you say "I can predict group behavior", you never really do
specify which group you are talking about. Have we been arguing
the general case or your specific all this time?
>> > That's not correct. The "observer effect" you are referring to
>> > in a side-wise way here is derived from the Heisenberg uncertainty
>> > principle's first statement of "observer effect", which is only
>> > applicable at the quantum level (the position and momentum of an
>> > electron can not be simultaneously known to an acuracy greater than
>> > h-bar over 2).
>>
>> It also works with people. People's responses and actions change based
>> on whether they know they are being observed or not. If you doubt
>> this, consider the anonymous posting group, where no identites are
>> revealed. It's historic that such a group brings out a different tone
>> in people; you don't see the same tone when they know they are being
>> watched.
>
> That what people who don't understand observer effect always say,
> after they've misapplied the idea to some macro phenomenon, and
> are trying very hard to justify their statements. 8-).
Well. This shows that you are unable to understand the real truth. ;)
> As someone concerned with the idea that action should not be
> taken, and that everyone should be forced to spend hours and
> hours downloading SPAM over their 300 Baud Internet link in
> Kinshasa, so that they can "filter it in their email client
> after the damage has been done", I'm sure you're prepared to
> speak on what actions have been taken in the last three incidents,
> right?
No. People with 300 baud modems should not be subscribing to high
traffic mailing lists.
>> >> What you are suggesting will have the predictable and ultimate end
>> >> of legislation which will punish citizens for not being "normal"
>> >> enough or "predictable" enough.
>> >
>> > Yes. So what? I suppose you find the idea objectionable, but it's
>> > well enough known and accepted that we've named it: "California".
>>
>> Um, lol. If you are calling California a land of normal people, you
>> obviously don't live here. ;)
>
> California punishes citizens for a wide variety of "infractions",
> when their behaviour differs from what their legislature defines
> as "normal".
Like?
>> >> It also means we lose most of our artists and free thinkers.
>> >
>> > That, also, does not necessarily follow, unless you are a strict
>> > structuralist, and believe in genetic predestiny.
>>
>> Labels. Nothing but labels.
>
> Exactly. Your labels are meaningless.
No, -your- labels are meaningless. Nyahh. ;)
>> >> I don't think you want that.
>> >
>> > That's irrelevent to the discussion, I think.
>>
>> But true regardless, I'd say.
>
> Still irrelevant.
And yet, true.
> It's about what the group wants.
Prove it.
>> >> >> Grim. I don't buy this, of course, but it paints a grim picture.
>> >> >
>> >> > Human societies have always been, in the limit, willing to turn
>> >> > to the use of force in order to achieve their ends. It is the
>> >> > nature of humans to do this.
>> >>
>> >> This is exactly why humans, as a race, have not evolved past the level
>> >> they are at.
>> >
>> > Spilt milk. If you feel strongly enough about it, then sell out
>> > for a short period of time (play by the rules as they are, rather
>> > than as you would prefer them to be), get rich, buy land, and
>> > establish your own little "Helstrom's Hive".
>>
>> I don't suppose you'll ever understand why I consider this irrelevant
>> and useless.
>
> I understand perfectly: you'd rather be reactive about how things
> are, than to do something proactive to change things.
You aren't even close.
>> >> > And your point in stating that is supposed to be what?
>> >>
>> >> There's two. Your definitions can't possibly be useful. You
>> >> ultimately believe in an objective reality.
>> >
>> > I'm not a nihilist, if that's what you're getting at...
>>
>> Again the labels. The point was, you still have a belief there.
>> You cannot verify objective reality, any methods you use are based
>> in the same thing you are trying to verify.
>
> Consensus reality. In the limit, your boundaries are defined
> by your beliefs. If you believe the word is flat, then for all
> practical purposes, the world is, in fact, flat. But I don't
> have to personally agree to be bound by your beliefs, and I won't,
I don't care if you are or not. As I feel, you can believe how you
choose, and that's sacred. My initial foray into this was a reaction
to someone attempting to inflict their beliefs on me and others (e.g.
SPEWS).
As far as I'm concerned, you can believe in the tooth fairy.
> and I think that's what gets your goat. 8-).
None of what you are saying really gets my goat, I've never even owned
a goat. ;)
>> >> > Anytime someone uses "true" as an adjective, you know they are
>> >> > redefining something...
>> >>
>> >> Well...duh. ;)
>> >
>> > I suppose you've met Richard Stallman and Joy Beech, then?
>>
>> I've met and admire the former, I've no clue on the latter.
>> Your redirection aside, our arguments really are futile. Your
>> a <label you'll agree to having> and I'm a <label I'll agree
>> to having> and we can't see eye to eye. *shrug*
>>
>> Why either of us continue is another matter.
>
> You continue because you want to change the rules of the community
> to permit SPAM to occur without a reaction from the community.
No. I continue because I don't want my communication fettered with
people's agendas. I don't like spam any more than you do, but it
doesn't get my panties in a bunch quite like it does you and others.
My filters remove it just fine.
I am not pro-spam. I am anti-(anti-spam). There is no axiom that says
two antis cancel into a pro.
> I continue because I don't want you to change those rules, because I
> believe to do so would damage one of the fundamental cohesive forces
> which has been responsible for the community being self-sustaining,
> and thus you are, in effect, attempting to destroy the community.
I believe the community is already damaged by the growing restrictions
on free exchange, and will eventually be destroyed by the assumptions
of certain people who think they are trying to preserve it.
------
Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org
>>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<<
"It's freedom of speech, as long as you don't say too much."
-Aaron Neville
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200301022119.h02LJ8100473>