Oh you naughty, naughty boy. Yes, it's a crosspost. It also publicly
releases bits the original author (that would be me) specifically chose not
to FoRK, although I did consider doing that. My my - these privacy
issues are real. This is actually why I think we have to start conditioning
ourselves for fishbowl existence, since no WoT is ever going to be
sufficient. With all the best encryption technology in the world, and
with strict policies to release access only to known & trusted agents,
once you start to ship bits you can't stop the hemmorage - they'll
spread as far as they like. Time to start considering every private
exchange a public one, for better or worse.
>> Lufthansa, AC and SAS definitely fly into Israel. Don't think United does.
>
>Going to Israel would be cool. Oy! Eve would be proud of me.
So would your Bubby. But frankly it's quite overrated.
>> And once I'm bothering to respond to something with the outrageous
>> subject line this thing bears, let me tackle it as well (that's why I
>> cc:d it to Joe & Tim & Adam).
>
>What do I have to do with this?
Well, (a) you appear to have something to do with just about
everything FoRK related (b) I knew I could count on you to bounce
it to the list, you knave, you (c) You were responsible for the GreenDay
adventure, Rohit coaching notwithstanding (d) Having written the
Infospheres ditty at the end, of course I had to cc it by you.
>> But dragging the worst of Usenet trash into a supposedly 'clueful'
>> forum does FoRK a real disservice, imho.
>
>Naw. It's specifically there to drive people away.
Doesn't work, obviously. It's dragging more of them in.
>
>> Part of cluefulness is tolerance and basic courtesy I think.
>
>Yeah, I think intolerant people should be shot!!!
:-)
>> There's a difference between irrelevant bits and offensive ones.
>> This stuff is clearly the latter.
>
>Well, we always like to stay aware of stuff other people want
>to censor from the Net. Unfortunately, this often means sitting
>through lots of porn and dirty words. It's a tough job, but
>someone's gotta do it.
Which reminds me - my ISP here doesn't carry any heavy-breathing
alt groups. Bunch a prudes...
>> Unless I'm mistaken, this Robert Malone ain't no FoRKer.
>
>Actually, he is. He's a lurker.
Sorry. My mistake. Hi Bob.
>
>> Lesson: be wary of crossposts. They rarely turn out the way you'd expect.
>
>Then again, the unexpected does make life more interesting.
This is true...
>> Anarchic sessions composed of ad hoc process collaborations should
>> carefully select which processes they wish to have join, and set their
>> ACLs accordingly (to use Infospheres-speak).
>
>Anarchic sessions composed of ad hoc processes are my PhD thesis topic:
> http://www.infospheres.caltech.edu/papers/sessions/
>
>Man, am I in trouble...
Indeed, great heaps of it. The technically inclined can check
http://www.infospheres.caltech.edu/mailing_lists/dist-obj/0294.html
for my review of Adam's paper & thesis topic.
Btw Adam, I've been
reading your XML page too. Want another monstrous post showing
you the error in your ways there too? Or perhaps I'll leave that
for Mark; he clearly does better on the 'embedded knowledge' stuff;
I'll stay with what I know on multicasts etc. Let me just say I don't
think a measly <OBJECT> tag is what I have in mind....
Ron.