From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Sep 9 13:18:12 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.FreeBSD.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3884537B400 for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 13:18:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org [64.239.180.8]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6238543E3B for ; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 13:18:07 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@jetcafe.org) Received: from hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g89KI5134038; Mon, 9 Sep 2002 13:18:06 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dave@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org) Message-Id: <200209092018.g89KI5134038@hokkshideh2.jetcafe.org> X-Mailer: exmh version 2.5 07/13/2001 with nmh-1.0.4 To: Terry Lambert Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Mon, 09 Sep 2002 13:18:00 -0700 From: Dave Hayes Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Terry Lambert writes: > Dave Hayes wrote: >> > Because it's not the same thing as a Schelling point. If I had >> > meant "community", I would have used the word "community". What >> > I meant was "Schelling point", so I said "Schelling point". >> > [...examples...] >> > As you can see, a Schelling point is a place that "everybody knows", >> > but which was not arrived at by explicit agreement, but rather on a >> > cutural basis of lowest mutal entropy. >> >> Hmm, I prefer to call these "localized consensual realities". > > Of course you do... it avoids you having to accept a consensual > definition. 8-). Exactly. ;) Besides, there is no such thing. >> Thing is, they are still arbitrary. ;) > > Perhaps individually. On average, though, they are not, and > that's really the only useful place to measure them, since > measuring them elsewhere would be... arbitrary. The average of an arbitrary measure is still arbitrary. ;) >> >> This won't work for your case. >> > >> > Thanks! I'm glad my behaviour isn't ARBITRARY... 8-). >> >> It is. > > How is that possible, if you were able to predict it? Because everything is arbitrary. QED. >> >> Thus, the correct way to behave to you is to be irrational, in a >> >> rational way. =) >> > That's the way you are trying to behave, I'd agree, but it's not >> > the correct way to behave, if you are to make a convincing argument, >> >> You presume I want to convince you. > > You're still talking, aren't you? Actually I'm typing and I'm still not trying to convince you. >> > Exactly. You solution is the same as a childs, and works about as >> > well, overall, which is to say "not at all, as a long term approach". >> >> I thought the simplest solution to a problem was the best? ;) > > Childish and Simple is not an identity relationship. You are actually going to argue that "ignoring trolls" isn't the simplest answer? ------ Dave Hayes - Consultant - Altadena CA, USA - dave@jetcafe.org >>> The opinions expressed above are entirely my own <<< For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled. -Richard P. Feynman To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message