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 Thursday, 7 October 2010 22:30:00 UTC