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

Re: Is Privacy Dead ? A helpful hint.

From: Gannon Dick <gannon_dick@yahoo.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2010 15:28:39 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <756951.40970.qm@web112614.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
To: Mike Norton <xsideofparadise@yahoo.com>, Daniel Smith <opened.to@gmail.com>
Cc: W3C Egov IG <public-egov-ig@w3.org>
Don't waste any time, it might be crowded.

State: TX 48
Place: 02272
Name: Alvin
Type: City  
Population: 21413
Housing Units: 8442
land area (m^2): 42566387
water area (m^2): 2345287
latitude: 29.393698
longitude: -95.271588

:o)


--- On Fri, 10/8/10, Daniel Smith <opened.to@gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Daniel Smith <opened.to@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: Is Privacy Dead ? A helpful hint.
> To: "Mike Norton" <xsideofparadise@yahoo.com>
> Cc: "Gannon Dick" <gannon_dick@yahoo.com>, "W3C Egov IG" <public-egov-ig@w3.org>
> Date: Friday, October 8, 2010, 5:11 PM
> 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...
> Dan
> 
> 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 22:29:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 8 October 2010 22:29:56 GMT