DgtizeD

To think that people actually get paid to make relationship webs: Sex in High School Involves Long Chains of Relations

Of course actually knowing exactly how intimate the connections on the web were was the subject of heated discussion. Bringing facts into the matter, or even attempting to bring them in might have resulted in problems.

I am curious why the “A girl is loath to date her old boyfriend’s new girlfriend’s old boyfriend” rule seems to end after high school. Or at least according to the researchers data. Perhaps it appears necessary when the scene or pool of people is too small? It makes sense, but I am curious what makes it trigger, and what removes it.

Reminds me of research I once saw into the resiliency of graphs. The paper was discussing how many random nodes from a graph would need be removed before the graph “shattered.” It was interesting because the researcher was actually from the physics department and had some neat experiment about that that he wanted to model in physics and as a side jaunt decided to test the resiliency of the internet. If I remember correctly he created a metric to describe how interconnected a graph was, and then tested how easy it was to shatter a graph at each degree of interconnectivity. He determined that while the ARPA design for the internet was supposed to include the potential for nuclear strike, the resulting resiliency was not so much due to the design, but that it was simply a property of graphs of that type. Amusingly, the strongest graph that he had data for was a graph of sexual contact in a group of ~1000 adults.

Given the propensity for humanity to boast, hide, and gossip about sexual relations, I am very curious how accurate those datasets are. I suppose that is a different study for a different day.

… and they are driving like drunks.

The science fiction novel Snow Crash by Neal Stephenson has an interesting commentary about wearable computing. The story suggests that people who have an excess use of computers as a fashion statement are called gargoyles. It also describes the concept of their being a resulting cultural stigma for people who choose that path.

I think blue tooth cellphone headsets are first wave gargoylers, without any social stigma. Except I don’t understand why it doesn’t have a stigma. Let me explain why. The idea of the headset for the purpose of talking is a useful and good invention. Using it as a hands free system while driving a car does not reduce the level of distraction people face¹, but at least it’s unlikely to drop the phone. What really bothers me of late, is where it has become a fashion statement. Is anyone really so interconnected with the rest of the world with constant phone calls that it is necessary for them to wear a headset continuously as they walk down the street? No, they just want it for the implied social status of a) owning a headset, and b) implying they are that socially connected. So there are now a set of people wandering down the street with a glowing electronic communication device which is being used as an earing.

Now perhaps I have not researched this, and what is happening is that everyone is listening to mono music using a hands free headset that pauses the music for incoming calls. Which could actually be useful, provided you could deal without stereo. Somehow I think this is unlikely, however.

The nice side effect of wearable headsets is the pleasant manner in which it has reduced the stigma of people talking to themselves. I am curious as to what the long term effects of accepting people who actually talk to themselves will be as a result of the cell phone revolution.

¹ Cell phones as dangerous as drunk driving. Thankfully MADD doesn’t care though: Using a Cell Phone while Driving vs. Intoxicated Driving. Finally a link to one of the papers involved: A Comparison of the Cell Phone Driver and the Drunk Driver

After an extended argument about the potential for anarchy to exist as a system of government, I changed my view of what anarchy is. The way I generally thought of Anarchy was of the total lack of government. Which I believe can exist — however it quickly evolves (or devolves depending on point of view) into some form of state. It does this because at some point some sort of conflict occurs, which requires mediation, which results in the formation of a system of government.

The new perspective I developed last night is that anarchy always exists in society. In fact, it is the continuous state of all societies. However, at some point some form of mediation is required, and the existing state is called in. Or, the situation which is perhaps more troublesome are the cases where the existing state decides to preempt control by negating the state of anarchy that is present in day to day interactions.

So essentially we always live in anarchy, and we never live in anarchy. Meaning we always live in anarchy to the degree that people are capable of living together without governmental control structures. Yet since mediation is frequently required a state always exists, and depending on the state it forces itself more or less frequently on it’s people.

Governments are full of rules — but the idea of the “level of anarchy” is the degree to which the people choose to follow these rules. The existence of rules has little effect on if they are followed. Nor does the enforcement of laws, that only has effect insomuch as people believe in the enforcement. Really, the power of the state exists only to the extent that people believe in it. In times of calm, this requires little effort, in times of chaos, the effort of the state(s) involved must be stronger. Therefor, anarchy exists only as much as people believe in it. If they believe they live in a state, they live in a state. If they believe they do not, then so long as their belief does not result in a conflict with the beliefs of others, they live in a state of anarchy.

So in retrospect the kid I was arguing with was right — he lives in a state of anarchy. He lives in anarchy as much as he believes he lives in anarchy. At the same time, he does not live in anarchy as much as the rest of society does not believe he lives in anarchy.

Last evening while returning home from a party very early in the morning, a friend of mine and I found a purse lying next to a statue on the street. We searched through it finding a camera, some petty cash, credit card, and California state id. My friend suggested that we give it to the police officer who was sitting in his squad car snoozing across the street. He woke up as we approached the car. We explained that we had found the purse across the street and that it appeared to have id in it.

Whereupon, he requested my id to take down some contact information. This is where it got a bit odd. My id is still a Maine id despite living here for a while now, but given that I don’t drive I haven’t bothered to update it. He then asked for my local address and phone number, and finally asked me to verify my birth date. At this point I asked him as to why my birth date was of importance to him, and he responded it was just for gathering reference info for filling out the paperwork or something. I had been out drinking so I didn’t really feel my verbal capacity for discussing the reasons why I thought that was odd were up to the task. Then we walked off, but I really don’t understand why they needed that much information for turning in a lost item.

Can anyone shed any light on why he legitimately would need my birth date or why he might ask for it at all?

Somewhere between many the process of voting and many PBR’s I have come to liken the strange custom of “I voted” stickers to similar adhesive products furnished by doctors, and dentists and various other incentives to induce children to be proud of health related activities.

I am not amused.

However, I am greatly amused that a friend of mine who did not get a chance to vote somehow acquired an entire roll of “I voted” stickers and plans to distribute them in some sort of self-promoting party atmosphere. Would that a similar gratification bypass existed in lieu of a dentist appointment.

This does amuse me.

I am happy that my team won. However, I somehow feel disheartened by the sensation that this was once again the election that was “too critical to vote for a third party” for the nth time. I dislike teams, I dislike games that pretend so hard towards realism that they are, and I am highly critical of the fashion in which politics are little changed from those hard fought political battles enacted on early grade-school playground recess.

People are people, and often continue to be people despite the advancing tide of adult delusions of maturity.

For those few that might understand: I wanna go to the fire station.