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 17:11:52 -0500
Message-ID: <AANLkTimS47TAToj4fohMEZ0tn2S15Wv2fw+v0GgOqbYG@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mike Norton <xsideofparadise@yahoo.com>
Cc: Gannon Dick <gannon_dick@yahoo.com>, W3C Egov IG <public-egov-ig@w3.org>
Ooops, sorry all.
Didn't see Michael's previous.
Will read and have more.
Good weekend, all. Freebase, etc.
Gotta go get some of that dynamite green and red sauce I've had my eye
on from the tamale lady in Alvin, TX...

On 10/8/10, Daniel Smith <opened.to@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
> Dan
> 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 22:12:22 UTC

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