Re: Insurrectionist covers
--- Justin Guyett <justin@soze.net> wrote:
[snip] This is what happens when one picks up ideas from people who present
On 2004-12-11T08:10:27-0500, Steve Thompson wrote: them
second-hand (or at even greater distances from their origin) and who do not make proper footnotes.
That's just a symptom of the problem that there's no clear line past which ideas must be cited. How infrequently do you have to see an idea in print, and how novel must it be, before a citation is appropriate?
Depends, I suppose, on a number of factors.
Ideas are a continuum. Plagiarism is an artificial notion constructed as a result of the need to measure individuals' progress in higher education, as well as to protect intellectual property (which didn't really exist before the invention of the printing press). People used to have scribes copy books. They were treated as tomes of knowledge, not as property. Now that they are property, people have more books than ever before, and are reading them less carefully than ever before.
Well, previously there was more importance put towards knowledge, and less on making money with same. Today the emphasis is somewhat different.
Even Dawkins and Hobbes picked up ideas and used them without explicit citation. Hobbes didn't arrive at his conception of the State of Nature in a void. He got those ideas in reaction against Greek history, Descartes, and several other people.
Everybody does that, or at least those who create knowledge either as a process of study and synthesis, or as a result of original research. Some ideas are prevalent to the extent that it is obvious as to their origin. Ideally, someone who presents an idea as his or her own will take some pains to indicate the fact, and will distinguish their sources by way of appropriate references.
Which brings up an interesting thought relating to entropy. Does it matter whether a prior author breaks up a subject into N pieces, proving N-1 pieces unworkable but leaving the "last" unaddressed? Someone who
Now you're talking about SLAC.
takes those ideas and writes a defense of the "last" piece might be copying the prior author's ideas, even though they were not written anywhere. Intellectual property and ideas are often traceable directly, but sometimes they are not. Requiring citations for ideas often results in incorrect citations or citations to secondary or tertiary (or worse) sources.
Theft of IP is a complicated endeavour these days.
Hijacking that thought a bit, lack of citations is one of my pet peeves.
Me too.
Nobody makes proper footnotes or citations these days; it's particularly noticeable in quote collections. There are fake quotes from the founders floating around, as well as fake quotes from Marcus Aurelius ("Times are bad; children no longer obey their parents, and everyone is writing a book.") as well as from all sorts of other historical figures.
Opinion: It seems there is a new trend towards guild-like protection of scientific and scientific-like diciplines. People who like the idea of guilds are working towards making participation contingent upon membership. Membership may eventually only be granted to individuals who submit to arbitrary rules. And note that I am not referring to ethical restrictions in this instance. Ethics -- good ones that dicate a minimum of racism and like discrimination, for instance -- are becoming somehwat rare. Regards, Steve ______________________________________________________________________ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Something occurred to me...it probably occurred to others already but I am a stoopid Cypherpunk, don't forget. Anyone think it a TINY bit odd that someone with a fairly mundane complaint about bad computer gear would know to come in on an anonymous remailer? My first thought was that they had gotten burned by a Steve Thompson (maybe the same, maybe not) did a google search and came across Cypherpunks and then tossed in a couple of stinky posts. But it seems a little farfetched to me that such a person would also have bothered (by accident) reading about the anonymous remailers and then use one. So...the complainer must have already been aware of remailers and Mr Thompson's contribution to Cypherpunks. Kind of interesting. -TD
Tyler Durden wrote:
Something occurred to me...it probably occurred to others already but I am a stoopid Cypherpunk, don't forget.
Anyone think it a TINY bit odd that someone with a fairly mundane complaint about bad computer gear would know to come in on an anonymous remailer?
My first thought was that they had gotten burned by a Steve Thompson (maybe the same, maybe not) did a google search and came across Cypherpunks and then tossed in a couple of stinky posts.
But it seems a little farfetched to me that such a person would also have bothered (by accident) reading about the anonymous remailers and then use one.
So...the complainer must have already been aware of remailers and Mr Thompson's contribution to Cypherpunks.
Kind of interesting.
-TD
Somebody has been experimenting with reputation cracking --bob
Alright. Time for a little 'fun'. --- "R.W. (Bob) Erickson" <roberte@ripnet.com> wrote:
Tyler Durden wrote:
Something occurred to me...it probably occurred to others already but I am a stoopid Cypherpunk, don't forget.
I like the nomenclature of AI: it makes for an interesting tool in the analysis of day-to-day interpersonal relations. Here, for instance, I am in the habit of making a mental note of the above as a frame axiom, one which is intended to influence the state of the fluents that might be said to accompany this message, or which are intended to be assumed by it. So, Mr. Erickson here wishes to assert and emphasise that he is a "stupid cypherpunk", a proposition that may or may not conflict with extant fluents held by readers of Cypherpunks. Or, put another way, it might conflict (or be designed to conflict) with frame axioms that Mr. Erickson knows or suspects to be held by his audience. Without knowing the internal mental state of Cypherpunks' subscription base, and without knowing the frame within which Mr. Erickson is operatiing (either his 'global' frame, or the 'local' frame of convenience that he may have adopted), it is nearly impossible to infer what he or she is intending by writing a statement like "I am a stoopid Cypherpunk" when its banality might suggest to some that it is blatantly insincere. There's really nowhere to take this digression, what with the limited information that is available in context, and so we can only speculate as to what relation Mr. Erickson's possible stoopidity has to the topic at hand, which is (if we are to take the message at face value), that he is concerned with a complaint about a bad eBay sale, which is the responsibility of someone using the name "Steve Thompson", and which was made to Cypherpunks (a known spook-haven[1]), via an anonymous message that appears to have been sent through a cypherpunks remailer.
Anyone think it a TINY bit odd that someone with a fairly mundane complaint about bad computer gear would know to come in on an anonymous remailer?
Yes, it is quite odd.
My first thought was that they had gotten burned by a Steve Thompson (maybe the same, maybe not) did a google search and came across Cypherpunks and then tossed in a couple of stinky posts.
That condition may satisfy the principle of least hypothesis, which has much to recommend it, but is it really the likely scenario?
But it seems a little farfetched to me that such a person would also have bothered (by accident) reading about the anonymous remailers and then use one.
Without a detailed psychological workup on the person who sent the message, the question is largely indeterminate. Perhaps the person making the complaint was coincidentally familiar with anonymous remailers prior to their interaction with eBay.
So...the complainer must have already been aware of remailers and Mr Thompson's contribution to Cypherpunks.
I am not sure whether that conclusion is supported by the data available at this time.
Kind of interesting.
To someone who is genuinely 'stoopid', perhaps.
-TD
Somebody has been experimenting with reputation cracking
Did you just happen to notice? I have informally noted a number of messages in which the authors purport to present information that seeks to damage or modify another's reputation, using a variety of subtle language- and psychology-oriented special effects. Whether one puts stock in the veracity of each instance is probably a matter of personal preference; expediency and convenience in such a busy environment dictates that for practical reasons one simply cannot chase down every half-assed assertion merely to verify its accuracy. In the print and televised media, the flood of information shovelled at the reader (or watcher) is such that distortions, omissions, and outright falsehoods are expected to lodge in the public mind as they accompany a wealth of otherwise useful information that is of some accuracy. The repetition of like falsehoods is carried out over time with the expectation that it will be reinforced. A favoirite example of mine is to be found in one of the two local entertainment weeklies. Recently it was asserted that `reincarnation is the new black' in reference to the intended memetic propogation of the associated frame axioms, and their intended effect on the readers' fluents vulnerable to modification by the memes in question. My tentative analysis of the PR intent prompted me to stop reading the weekly in question as I have no interest in wasting my time with such unimportant drivel. In my case, I feel there are much better things to spend time on -- as interesting as watching the PR spin might be as viewed from a cultural-anthropological perspective. Regards, Steve [1] Choate, et al. ______________________________________________________________________ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
One of the earliest lessons learned on cypherpunks is to post pseudonymously in several disguises, saving one nym for really trustworthy comments. The credibility of that No. 1 nym is slowly built by attacking it yourself and either mounting impressive defenses, bribing others to defend it, making a fool of yourself when you get your nyms confused and use the wrong grammar and syntax and forwardings and remailings and backtrackings and oops sorry I sent that private mail to the list, and coca-cola noseblowing, and indignant unsubbing, resubbing to send nastygrams to those who pilloried and ridiculed you while you covertly lurked to see if anybody gave a damn about your worthless existence and superficial, apish ideas. Getting soundly trashed is an honor among net trash haulers, so pay your dues and shit on yourself from multitudes of personas, it's what the founders did and do. Nobody leaves cypherpunks, nobody gets in. You claim an identity you a lying ignorant sumbitch addicted to dingleberries. None of this applies to real people out there, lost in impersonation.
No, it was I who laid claim to stoopidity. However, as for...
My tentative analysis of the PR intent prompted me to stop reading the weekly in question as I have no interest in wasting my time with such unimportant drivel. In my case, I feel there are much better things to spend time on -- as interesting as watching the PR spin might be as viewed from a cultural-anthropological perspective.
When the intent of the PR is obviously banal (eg, sell movie tickets) then I agree that analysis is a waste of time. When there's a suspicious pattern of misinformation, the (ultimate) intent of which is unknown, than analysis equals consciously understanding that something shifty is afoot. Otherwise, one's opinions about the slandered change every so slightly, no matter how much we may dismiss such slander on the verbal/conscious level. I consider it no coincidence too that we had that recent little Jew-hater-baiting post from the same remailer. Someone is poking Cypherpunks for the fun of it, or as part of their job description. Remember, tiny impulses at a system's natural frequencies (ie, eigenvalues) will eventually cause that system to dis-integrate. Then again, as none of you are hot chicks I won't necessarily binge-purge if Cypherpunks collapses in a fit of Twilight Zone-ish infighting. -TD
From: Steve Thompson <steve49152@yahoo.ca> To: cypherpunks@al-qaeda.net Subject: Re: Steve Thompson Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 20:43:26 -0500 (EST)
Alright. Time for a little 'fun'.
--- "R.W. (Bob) Erickson" <roberte@ripnet.com> wrote:
Tyler Durden wrote:
Something occurred to me...it probably occurred to others already but I am a stoopid Cypherpunk, don't forget.
I like the nomenclature of AI: it makes for an interesting tool in the analysis of day-to-day interpersonal relations. Here, for instance, I am in the habit of making a mental note of the above as a frame axiom, one which is intended to influence the state of the fluents that might be said to accompany this message, or which are intended to be assumed by it.
So, Mr. Erickson here wishes to assert and emphasise that he is a "stupid cypherpunk", a proposition that may or may not conflict with extant fluents held by readers of Cypherpunks. Or, put another way, it might conflict (or be designed to conflict) with frame axioms that Mr. Erickson knows or suspects to be held by his audience. Without knowing the internal mental state of Cypherpunks' subscription base, and without knowing the frame within which Mr. Erickson is operatiing (either his 'global' frame, or the 'local' frame of convenience that he may have adopted), it is nearly impossible to infer what he or she is intending by writing a statement like "I am a stoopid Cypherpunk" when its banality might suggest to some that it is blatantly insincere.
There's really nowhere to take this digression, what with the limited information that is available in context, and so we can only speculate as to what relation Mr. Erickson's possible stoopidity has to the topic at hand, which is (if we are to take the message at face value), that he is concerned with a complaint about a bad eBay sale, which is the responsibility of someone using the name "Steve Thompson", and which was made to Cypherpunks (a known spook-haven[1]), via an anonymous message that appears to have been sent through a cypherpunks remailer.
Anyone think it a TINY bit odd that someone with a fairly mundane complaint about bad computer gear would know to come in on an anonymous remailer?
Yes, it is quite odd.
My first thought was that they had gotten burned by a Steve Thompson (maybe the same, maybe not) did a google search and came across Cypherpunks and then tossed in a couple of stinky posts.
That condition may satisfy the principle of least hypothesis, which has much to recommend it, but is it really the likely scenario?
But it seems a little farfetched to me that such a person would also have bothered (by accident) reading about the anonymous remailers and then use one.
Without a detailed psychological workup on the person who sent the message, the question is largely indeterminate. Perhaps the person making the complaint was coincidentally familiar with anonymous remailers prior to their interaction with eBay.
So...the complainer must have already been aware of remailers and Mr Thompson's contribution to Cypherpunks.
I am not sure whether that conclusion is supported by the data available at this time.
Kind of interesting.
To someone who is genuinely 'stoopid', perhaps.
-TD
Somebody has been experimenting with reputation cracking
Did you just happen to notice?
I have informally noted a number of messages in which the authors purport to present information that seeks to damage or modify another's reputation, using a variety of subtle language- and psychology-oriented special effects. Whether one puts stock in the veracity of each instance is probably a matter of personal preference; expediency and convenience in such a busy environment dictates that for practical reasons one simply cannot chase down every half-assed assertion merely to verify its accuracy.
In the print and televised media, the flood of information shovelled at the reader (or watcher) is such that distortions, omissions, and outright falsehoods are expected to lodge in the public mind as they accompany a wealth of otherwise useful information that is of some accuracy. The repetition of like falsehoods is carried out over time with the expectation that it will be reinforced.
A favoirite example of mine is to be found in one of the two local entertainment weeklies. Recently it was asserted that `reincarnation is the new black' in reference to the intended memetic propogation of the associated frame axioms, and their intended effect on the readers' fluents vulnerable to modification by the memes in question. My tentative analysis of the PR intent prompted me to stop reading the weekly in question as I have no interest in wasting my time with such unimportant drivel. In my case, I feel there are much better things to spend time on -- as interesting as watching the PR spin might be as viewed from a cultural-anthropological perspective.
Regards,
Steve
[1] Choate, et al.
______________________________________________________________________ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
participants (4)
-
John Young -
R.W. (Bob) Erickson -
Steve Thompson -
Tyler Durden