http://unmaskd.com/2011/07/25/open-letter-to-larry-page/

The hype was that their killer feature was better privacy, but this is clearly not the case.  They’re even worse in that regard.

The whole point of the internet is to say things.  Maybe I want to say things without my mom or boss or police state overhearing.  “So just shut your mouth” isn’t a solution.

The whole point of the internet is to say things.  Maybe I want to say things without my mom or boss or police state overhearing.  “So just shut your mouth” isn’t a solution.

It’d be just a matter of time until google realize that this is a bad move. Not only this will draw the attention of stalkers, it will also reduce the level of privacy to a certain point. The first step of respecting one’s privacy is to respect anonymity. I’m not saying that everybody must use pseudonym to identify themselves on the net in the name of privacy but I prefer it to be optional. Remember this is internet and people should be able to online aliases (not necessarily fake profiles) because we’d never know who is at the other end of the network. We are the one who should be able to control who can know our real profiles and who shouldn’t. Forcing everybody to reveal their real self by making it compulsory is EVIL. What’s next? Forcing us to use real picture for our profiles? Google+, I’m disappointed.

If they wanted you to be able to choose who can and can’t find you on their network, then they wouldn’t make disclosure of your real name mandatory. Think about it.

(100% imo, 100% what i think.  tons of valid views on how the online world should be not being properly amplified?  do old powers have a right to your online identies?)

trying to figure out how brain works.  Circles doesn’t work imo at gut check because it tries to make static the ephemerality of form a group, a continuum etc. have. 

To me they only have a shape of a circle when you take a picture of them or consider them over long time like a circuit, seem more like streams.  merging circles and waves?

personally i like twitter right now – there is so much information to process now that im happy to trust some people to provide micro digests of so i can decide ‘yes, read that link’ / ‘not atm’.  I want to dip my hand in a stream, maybe swim for a bit, then put my other hand in another one.  Or maybe  im trying to merge very different streams.  I’m trying to find out how water flows through me and what I can do to direct that flow so that the outcome I desire occurs.  If I need privacy, I’m certainly not going to cluster myself into a single ID to be smacked.

What if I don’t want to bundle up all the things a man does and call it a man, or cast that to a ‘group’ of man.  A type of man, a sub type – so many adjectives to deal with another human in the context of a single mind.  It makes it more easy to categorize I guess, but it feels like binding (and my primary data loops got busted some years ago).

I got turned right off at the ‘bragging rights’ section.  Ill not go into a world with badges of authority on my chest unless the need arises.  but thats just me.

The dogma, the training becomes our likely truth.  The process of examination leads to conclusions that are more likely to follow paths through the mind that have been used before- at least this is how it personally feels.

We build structures of knowledge, object chains to the infinitesimal.  Then we group them into things that don’t exist so that we can use them.

If I tell you ‘it is raining’ – what is exactly?  The droplets of water, the movement of it, the detection of the movement by the systems of the mind, the stuff getting wet…for each of those elements your mind can easily construct object chains to the infinitesimal including ‘hows that feel’ based on how you organize information within it.  Your chains have different elements than do another persons.

How you organize the information within you mind is likely due in part to what you spend a lot of your time doing.  If you are thinking about particular algorithms in business, a way of drawing that becomes a ‘style’, or you think a lot about how you feel things then the way in which you perceive new information or foreign information may clash with these filters, scurrying spider webs.  The process by which something is learned can make the learning of another thing more difficult to allow.  It is a path of lower resistance for thoughts to flow in expected ways, thus we feel inclined to deny non matching input.  It doesn’t sound right to the very fabric of our being, or sounds like a perversion of OUR truth.  We suffer when we change our minds because of an attachment to me – we keep trying to solo the world.

You may see another problem here.  Typically people are not willing to hold all relevant structures in the mind simultaneously.

I’m hoping social media really lets the general public come out of their skin – to help us see other perspectives.

What the scientist ‘see’s in the drop of rain follows a flow so different than that of spiritualist that rarely do they intersect while so discordant.   However, if both are so insistent in their genuine insight, are there aspects from one, the other or both we’re not letting ourselves see?  Are we erecting structural blockade to our insight, protecting precious jewels scrumbled up in our head?  By denying spiritual insight have we gained so much FAITH in science, by rejecting science on faith have we abandoned the meticulous methods of faith and mind training – a SCIENCE of its own.

I think that’s for security purposes.