January 24 Through February 4—TUCSON, ARIZONA: Annual show
Welcome to the GemologyOnline.com Forum
A non-profit Forum for the exchange of gemological ideas
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 6:45 pm

All times are UTC - 4 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Info Sharing
PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 3:04 pm 
Offline
Valued Contributor

Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2009 2:16 pm
Posts: 331
Wow Winstone, when you jump in you really make a splash. :) Good to see you here.

I wanted to elaborate just a bit on a point Winstone made in the CS section about information sharing. A question to put out there might be, how careful should we be in discussing certain techniques used in detection of treatments?

Certainly when conducting survellience on various operations, the FBI is not going to say exactly how they caught the crooks, otherwise the crooks will say "okay boys, let's set up shop at that location but we'll make it a decoy..."

If advanced gemology detects the glorp in stubbittieite by using a trifeculator and they make this public knowledge, the gem crooks will then simply add pisquaydia to foil the detectors. You get the idea.... :?

We're off tomorrow to do a bit of research in Thailand, maybe get to stop and see Lee Little if we get up to Chiang Rai. Check you later. Bear


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 3:38 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2007 3:42 pm
Posts: 4091
Location: the Netherlands
Quote:
We're off tomorrow to do a bit of research in Thailand


envy!! :evil:

And your point is noted but questioned at the same time:

how are we going to educate gemologists if we can't name detection methods... :smt017

(ps maybe I should go over and read winstone's post first :wink: )


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 3:56 pm 
Offline
Valued Contributor

Joined: Sun Mar 08, 2009 2:16 pm
Posts: 331
Tim wrote:
how are we going to educate gemologists if we can't name detection methods... :smt017


Kind of a catch22 :smt101 Perhaps some way of qualifying the person receiving the information? like what happens within the intelligence community?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 4:49 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2007 3:42 pm
Posts: 4091
Location: the Netherlands
I'm not sure if restricted access to information will produce the desired result... It may start a hole new pile of shit. It gives power to few rather then the possibility of joining brains by many.

I kinda like the idea of full transparency of methods and science.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 5:40 pm 
Offline
Gemology Online Veteran
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2007 2:04 pm
Posts: 623
Location: Southern OK/North TX
Tim wrote:
I'm not sure if restricted access to information will produce the desired result... It may start a hole new pile of shit. It gives power to few rather then the possibility of joining brains by many.

I kinda like the idea of full transparency of methods and science.


I agree wholeheartedly....that method over the years is what got us this pile of poop in the first place...

_________________
LyresaD
Lifetime Gemology Student

Avatar is 'Pepper'


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2009 9:16 pm 
Offline
Valued Contributor

Joined: Tue Mar 11, 2008 9:46 pm
Posts: 142
Location: Freehold, NJ
Please full transparency. Keep to a small qualified group, what would this be 100s, 1000s. How long before some one in that large group leaked information to people you did not want it to go to. My rule is once you tell 2 people it is not a secret any more, because you can not prove who leaked it.

All this would do is keep it from thousands that could make good use of the information.

_________________
John Albright


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Oct 12, 2009 12:13 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 3:53 pm
Posts: 2049
Location: Sweden
I wholeheartedly agree on the transparency line.
Better to get the info out as wide as possible to make the number of "detectors" bigger.

If you wish to join the ranks of qualified persons, it would be a pretty easy task to get accredited.
It is harder to get into the police ranks to get info but as we all know money talks and corruption is widespread even in the western hemisphere.

_________________
_____________
Conny Forsberg


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 4 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
Gemology Style ported to phpBB3 by Christian Bullock