Post by thread:[OT] Experts prove it really is a small world

www.nzherald.co.nz/section/2/story.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10526002 In a world of 6.6 billion people, it does seem hard to believe. The theory of six degrees of separation contends that, because we are all linked by chains of acquaintance, you are just six introductions away from any other person on the planet. But researchers have announced the theory is right _ nearly. By studying billions of electronic messages, they worked out that any two strangers are, on average, distanced by precisely 6.6 degrees of separation In other words, putting fractions to one side, you are linked by a string of seven or fewer acquaintances to Madonna, the Dalai Lama and the Queen The news will come as no surprise to film buffs who for years have been playing the parlour game Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon, in which they link other actors to Bacon in six films or fewer Researchers at Microsoft studied records of 30 billion electronic conversations among 180 million people in various countries, according to the Washington Post

Jinx wrote: > http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/2/story.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10526002 > > In a world of 6.6 billion people, it does seem hard to believe. The theory > of six degrees of separation contends that, because we are all linked by > chains of acquaintance, you are just six introductions away from any > other person on the planet. > <Snip> > Researchers at Microsoft studied records of 30 billion electronic > conversations among 180 million people in various countries, according > to the Washington Post > > I am well aware that privacy on the internet is in most cases, just a pipe dream, but... where does MS get the authorization to study the "private' communications of individuals not employed by them? Maybe Uncle Sam is not "big brother" any more. Instead, it is a large corporation! Or, am I way off base here? -- Regards, Stephen D. Barnes

> > Researchers at Microsoft studied records of 30 billion electronic > > conversations among 180 million people in various countries > > where does MS get the authorization to study the 'private' > communications of individuals not employed by them? > > Or, am I way off base here? Not IMHO. It's a concern, even if "studied" is only superficial linking of e-mail addresses It would be interesting to find out exactly to what depth these "researchers" probed or were allowed to, and by whom, and if any monitoring of their research was done, and by whom *IF* they could indeed read any contents, learning that someone's best friend's cat vomited all over her new scarf today is probably of little interest to a "Microsoft researcher", but there would be much valuable information, private and commercial, up for grabs

:: Not IMHO. It's a concern, even if "studied" is only superficial :: linking :: of e-mail addresses This may not be quite as sinister as it sounds, reading further on down the page, it states that this was arrived at by studying MS Messenger transaction, "Via the lens provided on the world by Messenger, we find that there are about `seven degrees of separation' among people." Now as they haven't revealed what they actually checked, it could have been no more than the message headers or transaction numbers, though how this analysis could be extrapolated from that information I have no idea. Colin -- cdb, spam_OUTcolinTakeThisOuTbtech-online.co.uk on 9/08/2008 Web presence: http://www.btech-online.co.uk Hosted by: http://www.1and1.co.uk/?k_id=7988359

> Now as they haven't revealed what they actually checked, it could have > been no more than the message headers or transaction numbers, though > how this analysis could be extrapolated from that information I have > no idea. > My guess would be they assumed anyone who was on someones buddy list was an aquiantance of thiers.

Take the best and the worst of it: best: anyone on this planet is separated from <insert rich, beautiful & famous name here> by only six links and should in theory be able to chat them up at will ... worst: the FBI, DHS, KGB, etc can now mathematically prove that anyone on this planet may be a suspect of <paedophilia/drug trafficking/terrorism/other/tbd> by virtue of his/her being only six links removed from <insert evil person's name here>. Peter

I've read that each time we inhale we take in something like (IIRC) 10^26 atoms and the same when we exhale. So each one of us is made up of at least a million atoms that was once in the body of Plato, Genghis Kahn, Jesus, etc. I'm not sure if it is plausible, and I'm not sure it if matters how far back in time you have to go. Like would it be the same for Hitler or Einstein? {Original Message removed}

> I've read that each time we inhale we take in something > like (IIRC) > 10^26 atoms and the same when we exhale. Those figures are far too high but the concept is valid. A gram molecule of a substance contains 6.023E23 molecules. Air has a molecular mass of about 29 grams. A litre of air masses ABOUT 1 gram. So a litre of air has ABOUT 6E23 x 1/29 molecules ~= 2E22 molecules. E&OE as ever. > So each one of us is made up > of at least a million atoms that was once in the body of > Plato, Genghis > Kahn, Jesus, etc. Here's my take on it - written in 1995 and last updated in 1998 http://others.servebeer.com/misc/breath7.doc > I'm not sure if it is plausible, It is > and I'm not sure it if matters how far > back in time you have to go. It does. > Like would it be the same for Hitler or > Einstein? How far you go for essentially full mixing depends on various assumptions. The rough feel as that 10's of years is fairly lumpy and a thousand plus is fairly isotropic (to borrow 2 terms from another discipline). Note that various molecular capture system affect the results. So eg really effective world wide CO2 sequestration schemes would have the unintended (probably) side effect of being less close to Jesus. :-). Russell

BCC Iain - interesting psychologically? _________ > >Researchers at Microsoft studied records of 30 billion > >electronic >>conversations among 180 million people in various >>countries, according >>to the Washington Post > > I guess using M$ Windows makes me at most 2 links from > most people on this > list ... If I understand the concept correctly (moot) I think that by their definition you are 1 degree removed from all of us. A local comment on this suggested that due to the internet most NZers have only 2 degrees of separation. That seems too low to me, but 3 to 4 seems plausible for those who use email. In 1979, just under 30 years ago, an Air NZ DC10 crashed into Mt Erebus in Antarctica killing all 257 people on board. It was said than that most people in NZ either knew somebody on board or knew somebody who knew somebody on board. I did. (Close friend of a friend.) I've probably met any number of 2 degree removed people since. Russell

I thought this claim unreasonable but then finally noticed the word "average". I can cope with average. Justin On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 6:46 AM, Jinx <.....joecolquittKILLspam@spam@clear.net.nz> wrote: {Quote hidden}> http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/2/story.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=10526002 > > In a world of 6.6 billion people, it does seem hard to believe. The theory > of six degrees of separation contends that, because we are all linked by > chains of acquaintance, you are just six introductions away from any > other person on the planet. > > But researchers have announced the theory is right _ nearly. > > By studying billions of electronic messages, they worked out that any > two strangers are, on average, distanced by precisely 6.6 degrees of > separation > > In other words, putting fractions to one side, you are linked by a string > of seven or fewer acquaintances to Madonna, the Dalai Lama and the > Queen > > The news will come as no surprise to film buffs who for years have been > playing the parlour game Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon, in which they > link other actors to Bacon in six films or fewer > > Researchers at Microsoft studied records of 30 billion electronic > conversations among 180 million people in various countries, according > to the Washington Post > > -