W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-egov-ig@w3.org > October 2010

Re: Is Privacy Dead ? A helpful hint.

From: Daniel Smith <opened.to@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2010 17:05:53 -0500
Message-ID: <AANLkTimCc+nq8uGw-zbkXtvDSBiBd01i0fxG++WXOxcy@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mike Norton <xsideofparadise@yahoo.com>
Cc: Gannon Dick <gannon_dick@yahoo.com>, W3C Egov IG <public-egov-ig@w3.org>
Well, Michael, then waiting with bated breath.
I will try to write more about said invention,
but that's the thing about it of course is I should
check into patenting the idea first as to tell the truth I'm
really not thinking about money from the idea,
but since it has to do with openness I am really
interested in preserving the "unlegality" (if that's a word, if not,
then I just made it up), of the force of the concept.
I know, I sound like a complete know nothing, but then I have
thought about this idea for probably 15 years.
Recent financial events have made me realize the power of it,
where for a long time I thought I was just a dreamer.
Thanks again for the "openness" of this forum.

On 10/7/10, Mike Norton <xsideofparadise@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I'd love to respond to this, Daniel, this weekend, and to all in that it may
> generate a conversation about the patent process in context, and I would
> love to
> hear more about your invention!   More to come soon!
> Michael A. Norton
> ________________________________
> From: Daniel Smith <opened.to@gmail.com>
> To: Mike Norton <xsideofparadise@yahoo.com>
> Cc: Gannon Dick <gannon_dick@yahoo.com>; W3C Egov IG <public-egov-ig@w3.org>
> Sent: Thu, October 7, 2010 3:29:29 PM
> Subject: Re: Is Privacy Dead ? A helpful hint.
> It's just my (unknowing) sense, but isn't this coordination of
> metadata the exact thing that inventions like Freebase are trying to
> overcome?
> To Mike particularly, Wow, thanks for the excellent, informing
> response. I didn't realize it was for something patented or in search
> of...
> So this is (UD-DNS) is something that you were working on for your own self?
> Just wondering.
> I have (what I feel to be, though I am probably way out of my league),
> an invention that I have been considering for a long while now, along
> somewhat similar lines, though different. I think it might be
> transcending in the financial realm. (Like we need it...)
> I was going to write to you off list, but in retrospect I thought
> perhaps it would flesh out the conversation if I asked it here. If you
> could, perhaps you could talk about the parameters or concerns for
> going through such a "patent search/application," etc. for such a
> device, I'd be most interested.
> If you'd like to respond off-list, that'd be fine, too.
> Great weekend, all.
> Daniel Smith
> On 10/7/10, Mike Norton <xsideofparadise@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I digress, and quote Wikipedia:  "When interfering, two waves can add
>> together
>> to create a larger wave (constructive interference) or subtract from each
>> other
>> to create a smaller wave (destructive interference), depending on their
>> relative
>> phase."  Since Meta Data propogate as waves as well as particles, how does
>> one
>> determine the phase of any streaming or rolling set of Meta Data along the
>> e-world pipeline?  How much constructive interference of Meta Data would
>> be
>> required to tilt the coherence of waves propogated amidst physical space?
>> Michael A. Norton
>> ________________________________
>> From: Gannon Dick <gannon_dick@yahoo.com>
>> To: W3C Egov IG <public-egov-ig@w3.org>
>> Sent: Thu, October 7, 2010 2:08:22 PM
>> Subject: Re: Is Privacy Dead ? A helpful hint.
>> I'll try again.
>> Meta Data (e.g. facts) propagate as a wave as well as a particle.  A
>> report
>> released at a "Coordinated Time" does not reflect the habits of human
>> communities trying to reach a consensus. Until everyone has seen a "fact",
>> it's
>> News.  While information travels at the speed of light, *consensus* has a
>> fixed
>> path exactly 24 Hours + 1 Second long.  That means, if you issue a report
>> at
>> time T, exactly 24 Hours + 1 Seconds later the whole world has seen it and
>> a
>> consensus can form.  Meta Data does not travel "through the grapevine",
>> although
>> "normal data" does - when a report is issued in Washington, London sees it
>> as
>> News 4 hours later and sees it as Meta Data 24 Hours + 1 Second after
>> arrival.
>> It's just arithmetic.  Each Country and each Subdivision has a
>> characteristic
>> "Arrival Time".  This is a constant, and unique, for each individual
>> Entity
>> - so
>> the pair (Country Arrival Time, Subdivision Arrival Time) is also unique,
>> even
>> if it does not have any "deeper" meaning itself.  And it does *not* have
>> any
>> deeper meaning after exactly 24 Hours + 1 Second from when the Statistic
>> was
>> issued.  In terms of a Physics, There are a bunch of standing waves, with
>> varying frequencies which all collapse at T + (24 Hours + 1) Second, but
>> since
>> you knew the frequencies you can use them to sort the Entity Names.
>> For Communities, and Meta Data I think "Consensus Moment" is a good way to
>> put
>> it, but in exactly 24 Hours + 1 Second, I should probably take a poll ;o)
>> As a practical example of how this might be used, a csv of the group of
>> Entities
>> which comprise NAFTA (US+Canada+Mexico, technically I should exclude some
>> of
>> the
>> Entities or add subdivisions, Palau etc.) is at
>> http://www.rustprivacy.org/sun/spookville/nafta.txt
>> If you were going to release NAFTA statics, then you would need to have a
>> static
>> (or a null) for every entity.
>> I also made a javascript calculator to compute the apparent arrival times,
>> one
>> at a time.  I'll post it in a few days.
>> --Gannon
Received on Friday, 8 October 2010 22:06:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:00:44 UTC