Subject: RE: [hackers-il] Ways to do it - Take 2

From: "Arik Baratz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 11:30:51 +0200

hear hear.

-----Original Message-----
From: guy keren [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 10:01 AM
To: Hackers-IL
Subject: Re: [hackers-il] Ways to do it - Take 2

On Mon, 13 May 2002, Shlomi Fish wrote:

> I am posting this message here again, because I received only one
> (positive) reply. If you have an opinion about this article or some smart
> comment to make, or something to add - please post it here or send it to
> me in private E-mail. But I'd like to hear something.

sometimes, the lack of replies, is a reaction on its own merits...

-- 
guy

"For world domination - press 1,
 or dial 0, and please hold, for the creator." -- nob o. dy

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email-masked]

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

*
 *******************************************************
This email has been scanned by Port Authority.

********************************************************

---

From: Shlomi Fish <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 08:05:35 +0300 (IDT)

I fail to understand the two of you. First Guy gives me a cryptic message
about "lack of replies". I cannot deduce from it his opinion or what he
thinks the opinions of the list are. Then, Arik says "hear hear". And
again, I cannot deduce his opinion about Guy's opinion, his opinion about
Guy's opinion about the list's opinions, or his opinion about the original
posting.

Can you please be a bit more direct and clear? Also, please aboid
collectivism and speak only for yourself. Whatever, I'll try to post this
piece somewhere else like rec.humor.funny or use Perl (or Advogato ?).

Regards,

	Shlomi Fish

On Mon, 13 May 2002, Arik Baratz wrote:

> Subject: Re: Ways to do it - Take 2
>
>
>

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Shlomi Fish        [email-masked]
Home Page:         http://t2.technion.ac.il/~shlomif/
Home E-mail:       [email-masked]

"Let's suppose you have a table with 2^n cups..."
"Wait a second - is n a natural number?"

---

From: Muli Ben-Yehuda <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 08:46:21 +0300

> about "lack of replies". I cannot deduce from it his opinion or what

What's cryptic about it?

Let us assume that each message sent to the list, N people read. Past
experience shows that a certain percent of those N people, which we
shall denote by n, reply to the message. We can postulate that if a
message is interesting, n will be relatively large. We can also
postulate that if the message is irrelevant to the list (and the list
members behave!), n will be relatively small. 

You posted a message twice. That means that N people have, with a high
probability, seen it twice. Yet n, for those two message --> 0. 

guy says "sometimes, the lack of replies, is a reaction on its own
merits". Translated into plain english, that means "sometime, the lack
of replies, is a reaction on its own merits". Translated into even
plainer english, that means "consider that if no one replies, maybe no
one considered the post worthy of replying to?"

Hope this helps, 
Muli. 
-- 
The ill-formed Orange
Fails to satisfy the eye:       http://vipe.technion.ac.il/~mulix/
Segmentation fault.             http://syscalltrack.sf.net/

---

From: Gilad Ben-Yossef <[email-masked]>
Date: 15 May 2002 09:00:36 +0300

> Guy's opinion about the list's opinions, or his opinion about the original

Shlomi,

Have you ever considered taking a Turing test? ;-)

Gilad
-- 
Gilad Ben-Yossef <[email-masked]>
http://benyossef.com
"Hail Eris! All Hail Discordia!"

---

From: Adi Stav <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 11:20:30 +0300

> > about "lack of replies". I cannot deduce from it his opinion or what

Muli answered, but since we're deep in meta-land I thought I'd represent
an alternative view.

> message is interesting, n will be relatively large. 

For me, this was not the case. The original message was not 
un-interesting -- on the contrary, I found it mildly amusing (which 
is good - it's better than most of the supposedly amusing stuff I read 
on the internet). Other people might have a different taste. But I found
in the post nothing of interest to REPLY to. There was nothing for me to 
say anything about, and if I am to judge by the reactions, neither did 
anyone else.

Now, this is a discussion group. I don't find anything inherently wrong
with standalone presentations of wit, but in the end of the day something
had better contribute towards good old fashioned discussion threads, at 
least on hackers-il.

Your SECOND post, on the other hand, was quite annoying, because 
essentially it placed the blame of not finding discussion interest in 
your post on US. You should look in yourself instead, and try to estimate
possible reactions. If you use the list as body of critics for your work
then you chose the wrong place, because you will need to be more and 
more aggressive just to actually get this criticism, and this criticism
will therefore tend to be more and more artificially negative. Sounds 
familiar?

---

From: Shlomi Fish <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 09:44:43 +0300 (IDT)

> Have you ever considered taking a Turing test? ;-)

<sarcasm>
Sure I did. I sat at one point of an IRC channel, and someone
tested me. Eventually it was discovered that I am a computer, but it
turned out the other side was an Eliza program. Strangely enough, I could
not detect that the latter fact was true.
</sarcasm>

Does this answer your question? Do you qualify naive or
common-sense-deprived as computer-like? Is the human mind not
a Turing-complete computer? Aren't humans equivalent to computers
according to Church's Thesis? Would it be possible for a human to make it
look like he is a computer? (say, by replying "yes" all the time)

Regards,

	Shlomi Fish

There is no IGLU Cabal! None of them could pass the Turing test. But
stranegely enough a computer program they coded, could.

---

From: Shlomi Fish <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 10:05:37 +0300 (IDT)

> say anything about, and if I am to judge by the reactions, neither did

OK. But a "nice" or "very nice" or "not bad" could go a long way. It's
like giving a lecture, and nobody asks any questions. One cannot tell if
they understand it or not.

> had better contribute towards good old fashioned discussion threads, at

I don't see it solely as a discussion group. It's also a place for
announcements, URLs, (like you said) hacks, and whatever else is
considered on-topic here. I believe this thread could have started a
discussion. Obviously I don't know many languages enough to parody them
the way I intended (pardon the pun), so people could have added more, or
added more entries to the list.

> possible reactions.

I did not try to put the blame on you. I was simply afraid that the
meta-thread of all those "wanna-be hackers" people shadowed my original
post as people were too involved in it. I was just trying to get some
discussion (or expression of opinions) going. Sorry if you were offended
in the process.

> If you use the list as body of critics for your work

Understood. Do you know any computer forum where I can post such jokes and
get some reactions and commentary instead?

Regards,

	Shlomi Fish

---

From: Gilad Ben-Yossef <[email-masked]>
Date: 15 May 2002 10:39:39 +0300

On Wed, 2002-05-15 at 09:44, Shlomi Fish wrote:
> common-sense-deprived as computer-like? 

No. I qualify "having trouble parsing communication because unawarness
to implicit cues delivering social context" as computer like. Sometimes
what humans *don't* say or how they say it is much more important then
what they do say. 

Hackers are nutorious for  missing out these sublte cues and getting 
confused when they fail to parse the explicit communication because of
lack of the underlying context.

I am not trying to be flame you or some such all, you've asked for a
striaght out explenation and that's what I've supplied. As a matter of
fact I had the very same problem for a long time and sometiems still do.
The good news is you CAN learn this skill. 

The even better news is that once you do you'll discover tha because
you've learned in an explicit aware manner what most people absorve with
their mother's milk you are much aware of these social cues and
sub-contexts then most people are. This can enable you to 'read' someone
you're communicating with and learn more then he or she wanted to reveal
about their motives and reasons for behaviour. Sometimes you can even
manipulate this hidden channel of  communication to help you pursade
people by 'speaking' in the right way that will work with your
counterpart; sort of modern days 'speaking with tounges' from the bible.
note that I am NOT talking about saying somthing else to please the
lsitener - I am talking about saying it in a different way to please the
listener (presentation, not content). Don't be confused. 

This is a very big aqnd interesting field that deals with the
dissmenation of ideas, memes, thought viruses and meta viruses. If
you're really interested, go read 'Snow Crash' and search for Neuro
Lingual Programing (Warning: there are a lot of bullshitters in this
field, just like anything else. Don't take anything for granted).

> stranegely enough a computer program they coded, could.

LOL
 
-- 
Gilad Ben-Yossef <[email-masked]>
Code mangler, senior coffee drinker and VP SIGSEGV
Qlusters ltd.

"To err is human. To realy fsck up you need a computer. For
 those really large scale disastears, an SSI cluster is a must."

---

From: Shlomi Fish <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 13:09:17 +0300 (IDT)

> what humans *don't* say or how they say it is much more important then

OK.

> The good news is you CAN learn this skill.

Ack.

In any case, I like explicit and direct communication. I don't believe in
cues, subtle hints, etc. because they can be misleading, and like you
said, requires training and an _explicit_ cognitive process of
interpreting them. If you want to convey a clear message, don't rely on
any of them. Say what you want to convey, and if you don't - don't wonder
that people don't understand you or misinterpret you.

> [ Snipped ... ]

Actually, it sounds paradoxical but I'm not sure it is. Somehow, humans
bootstrap their intelligence and consciousness from the time they are
babies, in which they are neither. Also, humans developed (or evolved)
various important cognitive skills, starting at a point that they were far
less capable. And now we have a hard time instructing a computer to do the
same.

Regards,

	Shlomi Fish

---

From: Arik Baratz <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 13:48:14 +0200

Shlomi Fish wrote:

[snip]

> that people don't understand you or misinterpret you.
I'm afraid that your beliefs in the matter means nothing to the people 
you interact with, at least in the first stages where they don't know 
you and have to create their first impression of you.

Although some people will appreciate your straightforward, direct and 
unambiguous communications, others (the majority of people on the 
planet, it seems) would not.

And by *purposely* ignoring the subliminal channel of your 
communications, you not only open the door for misinterpretation, you 
perpetuate the misinterpretation. You are transmitting something on that 
channel, like it or not. By just ignoring it you may be more sincere. By 
purposefully transmitting a stream of zeroes on that channel you deliver 
a stong message of reluctance to adhere to the conventions of society, 
and that message is received VERY badly by a high precentage of the 
people around you. Subliminally, but strong enough for them not to like 
you, or have a bad impression of you.

Maybe less so in the Technion, but the people who find themselves in the 
Technion care much less about social conventions, by definition :-)

Gilad has stated the best solution IMHO - go learn NLP. I know it has 
changed the way I look at life. I think NLP can be classified as actual 
hacking. It's a skill for maniplating a system - for fun and/or profit. 
Much like social engineering, it deals with wetware.

I still got a lot to learn myself, since I make a lot of mistakes daily. 
At least I know when I do.

Take care.

-- Arik