Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [decentralization] Generalizing Peer Production into the Physical World

Expand Messages
  • Clay Shirky
    ... ...or, as a third thesis, will the physical world increasingly take on the features of the digital world? An increasing number of physical activities are
    Message 1 of 28 , Nov 5, 2007
      > Can peer production really extend into the physical world, or does it
      > rely on special features of the digital world?

      ...or, as a third thesis, will the physical world increasingly take on
      the features of the digital world?

      An increasing number of physical activities are becoming so
      data-centric that the physical aspects are simply executional steps at
      the end of a chain of digital manipulation. Cemex and Zara, the cement
      and fashion companies, both re-tooled their working methods around
      rapid handling of data. ZeroPrestige design kites with CAD, and has
      them built overseas after perfecting a design. Gold Corp in Canada let
      users figure out where they should dig next, using the geologic data
      they exposed. Nokia increasingly ship phones with user-accesible APIs,
      making them one of a growing class of object-oriented objects.

      And so on.

      I think peer production, at least as Yochai has described it, requires
      the flexibility and economics of the digital, but an increasing number
      of physical processes have significantly digital components.

      -clay

      >
      > Is peer production really an exception to the rules, or is it a new name
      > for an old thing?
      >
      > -Lucas
      >
      > (BTW, Christian worked for me a little ways back. He was a stellar
      > developer and overall very sharp guy, so I'm inclined to give the
      > benefit of the doubt to this project).
      >
      > Alen Peacock wrote:
      > > Centrally planned economies
      > > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_economy) form a simple analog to
      > > centralized system architectures. In that regard, truly decentralized
      > > (p2p) systems share much more in common with the free market than do
      > > their conterparts.
      > >
      > > But AFAIK, central control isn't limited to communism: cartel/monopoly
      > > power is similarly centralized, or at least "highly concentrated."
      > >
      > > I should disclaim "IANAE," where E=economist, so feel free to correct
      > > my broad generalizing (or forgive if I'm just stating the obvious).
      > >
      > > Alen
      > >
      > >
      > > On Nov 4, 2007 3:57 PM, Scott Feamster <sf@...> wrote:
      > >> Dear all,
      > >>
      > >> In his book Christian Siefkes argues that peer economies (sharing and
      > >> cooperation) are better than market economies (property and competition).
      > >> Siefkes also asserts that capitalism is drudgery whereas peer production is
      > >> fun.
      > >>
      > >> However, history has already proven that market/capitalist economies are
      > >> better than peer/communist economies, except for communist party bosses.
      > >> Were communist gulags fun?
      > >>
      > >> Additionally, market economies allow for voluntary peer economies within
      > >> them. Communist economies are command and control.
      > >>
      > >> I think Siefkes arguments support market/capitalist economies despite his
      > >> protests. What do you think?
      > >>
      > >> In pursuit of wisdom,
      > >> Scott
      >
      >
      > Announce or discover P2P conferences on the P2P Conference Wiki at
      > http://www.neurogrid.net/twiki/bin/view/Main/PeerToPeerConferences
      > Yahoo! Groups Links
      >
      >
      >
      >
    • Miles Fidelman
      ... Which completely leaves out: - non-profit (or non-governmental organization) - governed by either its membership or a board of trustees - cooperative
      Message 2 of 28 , Nov 5, 2007
        cjenscook wrote:
        > The conventional view remains that the choice is EITHER:
        >
        > (a) Public = State owned; OR
        >
        > (b) Private = "owned by a "Joint Stock Limited Liability Company"
        > aka "Corporation".
        >
        Which completely leaves out:

        - non-profit (or non-governmental organization) - governed by either its
        membership or a board of trustees

        - cooperative corporation - again, governed by its members (and if you
        think coops can't be effective businesses, check out the financials on
        Ocean Spray, or True Value Hardware)
      • cjenscook
        ... Miles Fidelman replied ... either its membership or a board of trustees ... you think coops can t be effective businesses, check out the financials on
        Message 3 of 28 , Nov 8, 2007
          > cjenscook wrote:
          > > The conventional view remains that the choice is EITHER:
          > > (a) Public = State owned; OR
          > >
          > > (b) Private = "owned by a "Joint Stock Limited Liability Company"
          > > aka "Corporation".
          > >

          Miles Fidelman replied
          > Which completely leaves out:
          >
          > - non-profit (or non-governmental organization) - governed by
          either its membership or a board of trustees

          > - cooperative corporation - again, governed by its members (and if
          you think coops can't be effective businesses, check out the
          financials on Ocean Spray, or True Value Hardware)

          Agreed. And others besides. But I think that you will agree that the
          principal assumption and primary discourse seems to be that "Private"
          = Corporate = Wealth Creator and "Public" = State = Wealth Consumer.

          I'm well aware of the effectiveness of some Cooperatives as
          businesses and I advocate a networked enterprise model that is
          essentially a "Cooperative of Cooperatives" or "Partnership of
          Partnerships". The problem has been that until recently no legal
          entity existed that permitted such a possibility.

          In the UK we have long had (the very name is Victorian)
          a "genetically modified" Corporate form - the "Industrial and
          Provident Society" which is often used by Coops - and there are also
          examples of what are effectively worker-owned Coops such as the John
          Lewis Partnership, Baxi Partnership and so on which put conventional
          shares into employee trusts.

          My point is that these are "Organisations", with the same Principal/
          Agent conflict of interest as any other Organisation as between
          the "owners" on the one hand, and the "management" on the other,
          albeit worker Coops are the least conflicted.

          See

          http://www.telekommunisten.net/venture-communism#

          for an interesting, but radical, software business enterprise model.

          I believe that using partnership protocols/ Semantic Web it is
          possible to transcend "Organisations" in terms of managing
          stakeholder relationships, and to create a legal framework with cross-
          border application within which individuals "self organise" to the
          agreed Common Purpose set out in the framework agreement.

          The relevant "Property" would be held in trust by a "Custodian",
          while stakeholders simply agree between themselves as to how the
          value created from the use of that "Property" should be shared - in
          whatever form that "value" takes.

          Chris
        • Scott Feamster
          Hi, guys, There are multiple ownership alternatives, not just two. If we want to group ownership into two groups, the following two might be more appropriate.
          Message 4 of 28 , Nov 8, 2007
            Hi, guys,

            There are multiple ownership alternatives, not just two. If we want to
            group ownership into two groups, the following two might be more
            appropriate.
            * State ownership held in the name of the people: communism, socialism,...
            * Ownership actually held by the people: public companies, private
            companies,...

            Ownership by the people might also be grouped into two groups.
            * For profit: sole proprietorships, partnerships, corporations,...
            * Not for profit: churches, charities, cooperatives,...

            Although profit motives assure competition for the best ideas and solutions,
            passion is also a powerful motivator. Startup ventures present multiple
            forms of self-organizing entities. Legalities help to formalize working
            relationships.

            Globalizing networks were founded with the earliest worldwide traders. The
            difference now is that we deploy silicon and software rather than caravel's
            and camels.

            Open societies assure open software competition, both for and not for
            profit. What do you think?

            For freedom and software,
            Scott

            -----Original Message-----
            From: decentralization@yahoogroups.com
            [mailto:decentralization@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of cjenscook
            Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 7:20 AM
            To: decentralization@yahoogroups.com
            Subject: [decentralization] Re: Generalizing Peer Production into the
            Physical World

            > cjenscook wrote:
            > > The conventional view remains that the choice is EITHER:
            > > (a) Public = State owned; OR
            > >
            > > (b) Private = "owned by a "Joint Stock Limited Liability Company"
            > > aka "Corporation".
            > >

            Miles Fidelman replied
            > Which completely leaves out:
            >
            > - non-profit (or non-governmental organization) - governed by
            either its membership or a board of trustees

            > - cooperative corporation - again, governed by its members (and if
            you think coops can't be effective businesses, check out the
            financials on Ocean Spray, or True Value Hardware)

            Agreed. And others besides. But I think that you will agree that the
            principal assumption and primary discourse seems to be that "Private"
            = Corporate = Wealth Creator and "Public" = State = Wealth Consumer.

            I'm well aware of the effectiveness of some Cooperatives as
            businesses and I advocate a networked enterprise model that is
            essentially a "Cooperative of Cooperatives" or "Partnership of
            Partnerships". The problem has been that until recently no legal
            entity existed that permitted such a possibility.

            In the UK we have long had (the very name is Victorian)
            a "genetically modified" Corporate form - the "Industrial and
            Provident Society" which is often used by Coops - and there are also
            examples of what are effectively worker-owned Coops such as the John
            Lewis Partnership, Baxi Partnership and so on which put conventional
            shares into employee trusts.

            My point is that these are "Organisations", with the same Principal/
            Agent conflict of interest as any other Organisation as between
            the "owners" on the one hand, and the "management" on the other,
            albeit worker Coops are the least conflicted.

            See

            http://www.telekommunisten.net/venture-communism#

            for an interesting, but radical, software business enterprise model.

            I believe that using partnership protocols/ Semantic Web it is
            possible to transcend "Organisations" in terms of managing
            stakeholder relationships, and to create a legal framework with cross-
            border application within which individuals "self organise" to the
            agreed Common Purpose set out in the framework agreement.

            The relevant "Property" would be held in trust by a "Custodian",
            while stakeholders simply agree between themselves as to how the
            value created from the use of that "Property" should be shared - in
            whatever form that "value" takes.

            Chris

            Announce or discover P2P conferences on the P2P Conference Wiki at
            http://www.neurogrid.net/twiki/bin/view/Main/PeerToPeerConferences
            Yahoo! Groups Links
          • Miles Fidelman
            ... Well, yes, but... that s a somewhat fallacious point of view that s been pushed by vested interests and a cooperative media. It wasn t that long ago when
            Message 5 of 28 , Nov 8, 2007
              cjenscook wrote:
              >> cjenscook wrote:
              >>
              >>> The conventional view remains that the choice is EITHER:
              >>> (a) Public = State owned; OR
              >>>
              >>> (b) Private = "owned by a "Joint Stock Limited Liability Company"
              >>> aka "Corporation".
              >>>
              >
              > Miles Fidelman replied
              >
              >> Which completely leaves out:
              >>
              >> - non-profit (or non-governmental organization) - governed by
              >> - cooperative corporation - again, governed by its members
              > Agreed. And others besides. But I think that you will agree that the
              > principal assumption and primary discourse seems to be that "Private"
              > = Corporate = Wealth Creator and "Public" = State = Wealth Consumer.
              >
              Well, yes, but... that's a somewhat fallacious point of view that's been
              pushed by vested interests and a cooperative media.

              It wasn't that long ago when people talked about public investment in
              infrastructure, education, basic research, and so forth as critical
              precursors to private wealth - be it investments in highways, airports,
              packet switching networks, or what have you.

              Patterns of thinking and discourse cycle, and this one will as well.
              > I'm well aware of the effectiveness of some Cooperatives as
              > businesses and I advocate a networked enterprise model that is
              > essentially a "Cooperative of Cooperatives" or "Partnership of
              > Partnerships". The problem has been that until recently no legal
              > entity existed that permitted such a possibility.
              >
              <snip>
              > My point is that these are "Organisations", with the same Principal/
              > Agent conflict of interest as any other Organisation as between
              > the "owners" on the one hand, and the "management" on the other,
              > albeit worker Coops are the least conflicted.
              >
              > See
              >
              > http://www.telekommunisten.net/venture-communism#
              >
              > for an interesting, but radical, software business enterprise model.
              >
              > I believe that using partnership protocols/ Semantic Web it is
              > possible to transcend "Organisations" in terms of managing
              > stakeholder relationships, and to create a legal framework with cross-
              > border application within which individuals "self organise" to the
              > agreed Common Purpose set out in the framework agreement.
              >
              I'm not sure that we need radical new enterprise models. There are all
              kinds of ways to structure things within current law (at least in the
              US) - be it foundations owning private companies, cooperatives,
              employee-owned companies, municipal utilities, etc. A lot of things can
              be accomplished by charter, by-laws, and in the case of stock
              corporations, who owns the stock and how it's managed. And there are
              lots of examples of creative arrangements.

              It's more a matter of the values, goals, and will of the individuals and
              groups involved in an enterprise.

              Miles
            • Miles Fidelman
              good points which leads to a question: other than academic discourse, is this topic leading anywhere, or have we talked it to death? :-)
              Message 6 of 28 , Nov 8, 2007
                good points

                which leads to a question: other than academic discourse, is this topic
                leading anywhere, or have we talked it to death? :-)

                Scott Feamster wrote:
                > Hi, guys,
                >
                > There are multiple ownership alternatives, not just two. If we want to
                > group ownership into two groups, the following two might be more
                > appropriate.
                > * State ownership held in the name of the people: communism, socialism,...
                > * Ownership actually held by the people: public companies, private
                > companies,...
                >
                > Ownership by the people might also be grouped into two groups.
                > * For profit: sole proprietorships, partnerships, corporations,...
                > * Not for profit: churches, charities, cooperatives,...
                >
                > Although profit motives assure competition for the best ideas and solutions,
                > passion is also a powerful motivator. Startup ventures present multiple
                > forms of self-organizing entities. Legalities help to formalize working
                > relationships.
                >
                > Globalizing networks were founded with the earliest worldwide traders. The
                > difference now is that we deploy silicon and software rather than caravel's
                > and camels.
                >
                > Open societies assure open software competition, both for and not for
                > profit. What do you think?
                >
                > For freedom and software,
                > Scott
                >
                > -----Original Message-----
                > From: decentralization@yahoogroups.com
                > [mailto:decentralization@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of cjenscook
                > Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 7:20 AM
                > To: decentralization@yahoogroups.com
                > Subject: [decentralization] Re: Generalizing Peer Production into the
                > Physical World
                >
                >
                >> cjenscook wrote:
                >>
                >>> The conventional view remains that the choice is EITHER:
                >>> (a) Public = State owned; OR
                >>>
                >>> (b) Private = "owned by a "Joint Stock Limited Liability Company"
                >>> aka "Corporation".
                >>>
                >>>
                >
                > Miles Fidelman replied
                >
                >> Which completely leaves out:
                >>
                >> - non-profit (or non-governmental organization) - governed by
                >>
                > either its membership or a board of trustees
                >
                >
                >> - cooperative corporation - again, governed by its members (and if
                >>
                > you think coops can't be effective businesses, check out the
                > financials on Ocean Spray, or True Value Hardware)
                >
                > Agreed. And others besides. But I think that you will agree that the
                > principal assumption and primary discourse seems to be that "Private"
                > = Corporate = Wealth Creator and "Public" = State = Wealth Consumer.
                >
                > I'm well aware of the effectiveness of some Cooperatives as
                > businesses and I advocate a networked enterprise model that is
                > essentially a "Cooperative of Cooperatives" or "Partnership of
                > Partnerships". The problem has been that until recently no legal
                > entity existed that permitted such a possibility.
                >
                > In the UK we have long had (the very name is Victorian)
                > a "genetically modified" Corporate form - the "Industrial and
                > Provident Society" which is often used by Coops - and there are also
                > examples of what are effectively worker-owned Coops such as the John
                > Lewis Partnership, Baxi Partnership and so on which put conventional
                > shares into employee trusts.
                >
                > My point is that these are "Organisations", with the same Principal/
                > Agent conflict of interest as any other Organisation as between
                > the "owners" on the one hand, and the "management" on the other,
                > albeit worker Coops are the least conflicted.
                >
                > See
                >
                > http://www.telekommunisten.net/venture-communism#
                >
                > for an interesting, but radical, software business enterprise model.
                >
                > I believe that using partnership protocols/ Semantic Web it is
                > possible to transcend "Organisations" in terms of managing
                > stakeholder relationships, and to create a legal framework with cross-
                > border application within which individuals "self organise" to the
                > agreed Common Purpose set out in the framework agreement.
                >
                > The relevant "Property" would be held in trust by a "Custodian",
                > while stakeholders simply agree between themselves as to how the
                > value created from the use of that "Property" should be shared - in
                > whatever form that "value" takes.
                >
                > Chris
                >
                > Announce or discover P2P conferences on the P2P Conference Wiki at
                > http://www.neurogrid.net/twiki/bin/view/Main/PeerToPeerConferences
                > Yahoo! Groups Links
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                >
                > Announce or discover P2P conferences on the P2P Conference Wiki at
                > http://www.neurogrid.net/twiki/bin/view/Main/PeerToPeerConferences
                > Yahoo! Groups Links
                >
                >
                >
                >
              • cjenscook
                ... topic ... Now that s the spirit! I ve only ever been interested in outcomes, and in problem solving. I observe a new Capital Partnership financing
                Message 7 of 28 , Nov 8, 2007
                  > good points
                  >
                  > which leads to a question: other than academic discourse, is this
                  topic
                  > leading anywhere, or have we talked it to death? :-)


                  Now that's the spirit!

                  I've only ever been interested in outcomes, and in problem solving.

                  I observe a new "Capital Partnership" financing mechanism emerging
                  using LLP's in the UK and LLC's in the US.

                  I've used if for a film, and for a chateau in France (not mine!), but
                  it's been used in the UK on a commercial deal >£1bn and being taken
                  very seriously at top level here in Scotland because it means that
                  the "Public" Sector" can raise money without borrowing.

                  Simply form an LLP or LLC with a "Capital User" member (which could
                  be an an enterprise of any type or form) and a "Capital Provider"
                  Member, who puts in money or "money's worth" in time, goods, IP,
                  land, whatever.

                  Share the production, or the revenues from the sale of production. If
                  there are any.

                  This enables the creation and issue of a simple new "quasi Equity"
                  asset class - quite close in effect to units in a Canadian "Income
                  Trust" - of proportional "units" or "Equity Shares".

                  Shares (n'ths if you like) but not as we know them, Jim.

                  For the Investor it's a piece of the gross revenues before the
                  managers get their hands on it: for the people needing investment
                  it's a form of Equity, but not a form that means giving away any
                  control.

                  Both investor, and user of investment, are "on the same side" and not
                  conflicted, as now.

                  I did this with a film - it could equally well be done with software
                  or anything else. All the actors took "n'ths" (but we could have
                  raised more money and paid them part or all in cash), as did the
                  producer, as did I (5%).

                  We needed £10k to pay lights, cameras, pizzas etc and the deal with
                  the investors was that they get 20% (we would have given them 50% but
                  the producer's a great negotiator and salesman!) of the revenues -
                  if there are any. In the meantime they've lost £10k which can be
                  offset quite legitimately against taxable income.

                  It's an inherently co-operative model as well, hence all the academic
                  stuff up-thread. But it has nothing whatever to do with Companies,
                  which essentially became redundant when the UK were blackmailed into
                  the UK LLP by the accountancy profession 7 years ago.

                  It's not "my" model: I've simply been watching what people have been
                  doing with these simple new partnership-based forms.

                  Debt and equity (as we know it) are obsolete.

                  And we see an entirely new enterprise model (legal and financial
                  structure) emerging.

                  Chris
                • Lucas Gonze
                  ... Fantastic point. The real world is becoming a bunch of I/O devices with computers in between. Pretty much everything can be conceived of as one or the
                  Message 8 of 28 , Nov 8, 2007
                    On Mon, 5 Nov 2007, Clay Shirky wrote:
                    > ...or, as a third thesis, will the physical world increasingly take on
                    > the features of the digital world?

                    Fantastic point.

                    The real world is becoming a bunch of I/O devices with computers in
                    between. Pretty much everything can be conceived of as one or the other.
                  • Scott Feamster
                    Isn t the digital world part of the physical world? The world can also be categorized into two groups. * Tangible: software, hardware, nature,... * Intangible:
                    Message 9 of 28 , Nov 8, 2007
                      Isn't the digital world part of the physical world?

                      The world can also be categorized into two groups.
                      * Tangible: software, hardware, nature,...
                      * Intangible: truth, beauty, love,...

                      The intangible is the most important.

                      For the intangibles,
                      Scott

                      -----Original Message-----
                      From: decentralization@yahoogroups.com
                      [mailto:decentralization@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Lucas Gonze
                      Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 5:35 PM
                      To: decentralization@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: Re: [decentralization] Generalizing Peer Production into the
                      Physical World

                      On Mon, 5 Nov 2007, Clay Shirky wrote:
                      > ...or, as a third thesis, will the physical world increasingly take on
                      > the features of the digital world?

                      Fantastic point.

                      The real world is becoming a bunch of I/O devices with computers in
                      between. Pretty much everything can be conceived of as one or the other.

                      Announce or discover P2P conferences on the P2P Conference Wiki at
                      http://www.neurogrid.net/twiki/bin/view/Main/PeerToPeerConferences
                      Yahoo! Groups Links
                    • Scott Feamster
                      Hi, Chris and all, What Chris describes is equity capital that we call friends and family, angel, or venture capital investment in the U.S. Equity will
                      Message 10 of 28 , Nov 8, 2007
                        Hi, Chris and all,

                        What Chris describes is equity capital that we call friends and family,
                        angel, or venture capital investment in the U.S. Equity will continue to
                        provide the costliest investment dollars; debt will continue to provide the
                        cheapest investment dollars.

                        With respect to Mile Fidelman's question about where this is leading:
                        * Does anyone have relationship and/or governance code?
                        * If so, how can we and the world profit from it?
                        * Then what relationship should we form?

                        Chris, I'm MacGregor ancestry living near Greer Road in Palo Alto,
                        California. What's your clan and where do you live? What was your film?

                        "Royal is our race."
                        Scott

                        -----Original Message-----
                        From: decentralization@yahoogroups.com
                        [mailto:decentralization@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of cjenscook
                        Sent: Thursday, November 08, 2007 3:44 PM
                        To: decentralization@yahoogroups.com
                        Subject: [decentralization] Re: Generalizing Peer Production into the
                        Physical World

                        > good points
                        >
                        > which leads to a question: other than academic discourse, is this
                        topic
                        > leading anywhere, or have we talked it to death? :-)

                        Now that's the spirit!

                        I've only ever been interested in outcomes, and in problem solving.

                        I observe a new "Capital Partnership" financing mechanism emerging
                        using LLP's in the UK and LLC's in the US.

                        I've used if for a film, and for a chateau in France (not mine!), but
                        it's been used in the UK on a commercial deal >£1bn and being taken
                        very seriously at top level here in Scotland because it means that
                        the "Public" Sector" can raise money without borrowing.

                        Simply form an LLP or LLC with a "Capital User" member (which could
                        be an an enterprise of any type or form) and a "Capital Provider"
                        Member, who puts in money or "money's worth" in time, goods, IP,
                        land, whatever.

                        Share the production, or the revenues from the sale of production. If
                        there are any.

                        This enables the creation and issue of a simple new "quasi Equity"
                        asset class - quite close in effect to units in a Canadian "Income
                        Trust" - of proportional "units" or "Equity Shares".

                        Shares (n'ths if you like) but not as we know them, Jim.

                        For the Investor it's a piece of the gross revenues before the
                        managers get their hands on it: for the people needing investment
                        it's a form of Equity, but not a form that means giving away any
                        control.

                        Both investor, and user of investment, are "on the same side" and not
                        conflicted, as now.

                        I did this with a film - it could equally well be done with software
                        or anything else. All the actors took "n'ths" (but we could have
                        raised more money and paid them part or all in cash), as did the
                        producer, as did I (5%).

                        We needed £10k to pay lights, cameras, pizzas etc and the deal with
                        the investors was that they get 20% (we would have given them 50% but
                        the producer's a great negotiator and salesman!) of the revenues -
                        if there are any. In the meantime they've lost £10k which can be
                        offset quite legitimately against taxable income.

                        It's an inherently co-operative model as well, hence all the academic
                        stuff up-thread. But it has nothing whatever to do with Companies,
                        which essentially became redundant when the UK were blackmailed into
                        the UK LLP by the accountancy profession 7 years ago.

                        It's not "my" model: I've simply been watching what people have been
                        doing with these simple new partnership-based forms.

                        Debt and equity (as we know it) are obsolete.

                        And we see an entirely new enterprise model (legal and financial
                        structure) emerging.

                        Chris

                        Announce or discover P2P conferences on the P2P Conference Wiki at
                        http://www.neurogrid.net/twiki/bin/view/Main/PeerToPeerConferences
                        Yahoo! Groups Links
                      • Julian Bond
                        Scott Feamster Thu, 8 Nov 2007 18:48:01 ... When datacentres are sucking up a significant chunk of available power, yes, definitely. It s
                        Message 11 of 28 , Nov 9, 2007
                          Scott Feamster <sf@...> Thu, 8 Nov 2007 18:48:01
                          >Isn't the digital world part of the physical world?

                          When datacentres are sucking up a significant chunk of available power,
                          yes, definitely. It's turning into some kind of Charles Stross or Ian
                          McDonald future where our entire resources become devoted to servicing
                          the computronium. Or where we're all living in a simulation powered by
                          the last remaining energy (spinning black holes) before the heat death
                          of the universe.

                          Ooops, wandered off topic there. more seriously though Teilhard de
                          Chardin's Noosphere (the world of ideas) is increasingly
                          indistinguishable from the world of things.

                          --
                          Julian Bond E&MSN: julian_bond at voidstar.com M: +44 (0)77 5907 2173
                          Webmaster: http://www.ecademy.com/ T: +44 (0)192 0412 433
                          Personal WebLog: http://www.voidstar.com/ skype:julian.bond?chat
                          *** Just Say No To DRM ***
                        • Lucas Gonze
                          ... Dude, it is pure naked hubris to think it s possible to wander off topic in a conversation that contains sustained lapses into silence going on for more
                          Message 12 of 28 , Nov 9, 2007
                            Julian Bond wrote:
                            > Ooops, wandered off topic there.

                            Dude, it is pure naked hubris to think it's possible to wander off topic
                            in a conversation that contains sustained lapses into silence going on
                            for more than a year at a time and still manages to pick up the thread.

                            > more seriously though Teilhard de
                            > Chardin's Noosphere (the world of ideas) is increasingly
                            > indistinguishable from the world of things.

                            So what's out there which is hooked up to the internet but is not a
                            formal communications device like a PC or phone? Chumby is the only
                            thing I can think of.

                            Any chance you know of any other interesting work? Are there any blogs
                            or community centers for internet-of-things hacks?
                          • Serguei Osokine
                            ... I believe it was Vernadsky s Noosphere: http://www.metafilter.com/56565/History-of-a-meme - unless, of course, you are specifically referring to the parts
                            Message 13 of 28 , Nov 9, 2007
                              On Friday, November 09, 2007 Julian Bond wrote:
                              > ...Teilhard de Chardin's Noosphere (the world of ideas) is
                              > increasingly indistinguishable from the world of things.

                              I believe it was Vernadsky's Noosphere:

                              http://www.metafilter.com/56565/History-of-a-meme

                              - unless, of course, you are specifically referring to the parts of
                              this concept that are different in its Chardin's interpretation.

                              Best wishes -
                              S.Osokine.
                              9 Nov 2007.


                              -----Original Message-----
                              From: decentralization@yahoogroups.com
                              [mailto:decentralization@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Julian Bond
                              Sent: Friday, November 09, 2007 3:47 AM
                              To: decentralization@yahoogroups.com
                              Subject: Re: [decentralization] Generalizing Peer Production into the
                              Physical World


                              Scott Feamster <sf@...> Thu, 8 Nov 2007 18:48:01
                              >Isn't the digital world part of the physical world?

                              When datacentres are sucking up a significant chunk of available power,
                              yes, definitely. It's turning into some kind of Charles Stross or Ian
                              McDonald future where our entire resources become devoted to servicing
                              the computronium. Or where we're all living in a simulation powered by
                              the last remaining energy (spinning black holes) before the heat death
                              of the universe.

                              Ooops, wandered off topic there. more seriously though Teilhard de
                              Chardin's Noosphere (the world of ideas) is increasingly
                              indistinguishable from the world of things.

                              --
                              Julian Bond E&MSN: julian_bond at voidstar.com M: +44 (0)77 5907 2173
                              Webmaster: http://www.ecademy.com/ T: +44 (0)192 0412 433
                              Personal WebLog: http://www.voidstar.com/ skype:julian.bond?chat
                              *** Just Say No To DRM ***


                              Announce or discover P2P conferences on the P2P Conference Wiki at
                              http://www.neurogrid.net/twiki/bin/view/Main/PeerToPeerConferences
                              Yahoo! Groups Links
                            • Hugh Pyle
                              I feel safe in predicting that pretty much everything with a retail price over $25 will be connected to the internet some day soon. Here s one I m finding
                              Message 14 of 28 , Nov 9, 2007
                                I feel safe in predicting that pretty much everything with a retail
                                price over $25 will be connected to the internet some day soon.

                                Here's one I'm finding quite interesting right now.
                                http://wiki.slimdevices.com/index.cgi?JiveUI


                                On Nov 9, 2007 10:59 AM, Lucas Gonze <lucas@...> wrote:
                                >
                                > So what's out there which is hooked up to the internet but is not a
                                > formal communications device like a PC or phone? Chumby is the only
                                > thing I can think of.
                              • Mike Dierken
                                ... Sure, other than that the world of things exists and the world of ideas doesn t.
                                Message 15 of 28 , Nov 9, 2007
                                  > more seriously though Teilhard de Chardin's Noosphere (the world of ideas)

                                  > is increasingly indistinguishable from the world of things.
                                  Sure, other than that the world of things exists and the world of ideas
                                  doesn't.
                                • Julian Bond
                                  Mike Dierken Fri, 9 Nov 2007 22:39:40 ... Err, what? The World of Ideas certainly does exist. But I m twisting the original ideas. The
                                  Message 16 of 28 , Nov 10, 2007
                                    Mike Dierken <dierken@...> Fri, 9 Nov 2007 22:39:40
                                    >
                                    >> more seriously though Teilhard de Chardin's Noosphere (the world of ideas)
                                    >
                                    >> is increasingly indistinguishable from the world of things.

                                    >Sure, other than that the world of things exists and the world of ideas
                                    >doesn't.

                                    Err, what? The World of Ideas certainly does exist. But I'm twisting the
                                    original ideas. The point being that the virtual world of the internet
                                    keeps seeping out into the real world.

                                    Where's my augmented reality head up display. That's what I want to
                                    know. (and my one piece spandex jump suit, meals in pill form, personal
                                    hoverboard, cure for this disease, etc, etc)

                                    --
                                    Julian Bond E&MSN: julian_bond at voidstar.com M: +44 (0)77 5907 2173
                                    Webmaster: http://www.ecademy.com/ T: +44 (0)192 0412 433
                                    Personal WebLog: http://www.voidstar.com/ skype:julian.bond?chat
                                    *** Just Say No To DRM ***
                                  • Lucas Gonze
                                    ... EG, pi is implicit in every circular object. That makes it even more durable than the objects. ... Here is an example of seeping -- I have been playing
                                    Message 17 of 28 , Nov 10, 2007
                                      Julian Bond wrote:
                                      > Err, what? The World of Ideas certainly does exist.

                                      EG, pi is implicit in every circular object. That makes it even more
                                      durable than the objects.


                                      > But I'm twisting the
                                      > original ideas. The point being that the virtual world of the internet
                                      > keeps seeping out into the real world.


                                      Here is an example of seeping --

                                      I have been playing historical American music on guitar*. I learn it
                                      from scans of sheet music in historical archives at sites like the
                                      Library of Congress' and Duke University's. These archives contain
                                      primary sources intended for professional historians of music. They
                                      aren't for musicians to use in an everyday context, they are for the
                                      same people who also travel to go to specialized music libraries. I'm
                                      not one of those people. I'm using these resources to make music in
                                      places like bars and coffeehouses.

                                      I wouldn't go to a specialized music library to find stuff to play. I
                                      did try a couple times, but both times the work was way out of line with
                                      the goal. You need a series of appointments in-person, plus permission
                                      and equipment to make copies.

                                      There's nothing about my playing which is digital. It's as analog as I
                                      can make it. But this real world activity is only possible because of
                                      the internet. The compositions were long forgotten, usually lost to
                                      non-historians for at least a hundred years, and they showed few signs
                                      of life. And even if the sheet music were still in circulation in book
                                      stores, the practice of reading music is not very common.

                                      It only becomes possible for this music to be reanimated when the
                                      internet makes the archives available to enough eyeballs that they meet
                                      up with ordinary musicians who are able to read music and willing to
                                      play hopelessly obscure material. It's an internet solution to a
                                      physical problem. The stuff on either end is physical; there's
                                      historical sheet music on one side, and guitar players at open mic
                                      nights on the other side. But in the middle is the internet.

                                      And it's not an internet solution in the sense in which email is an
                                      incremental improvement on snail mail. The internet created the
                                      critical mass to enable peer production.

                                      -Lucas

                                      * see http://blog.gonze.com/category/mymusic/ for examples
                                    • Mike Dierken
                                      ... But the Internet is physical (electrons, silicon, copper, glass fiber, etc) ideas are not. That s the exists I was referring to. The statement that
                                      Message 18 of 28 , Nov 10, 2007
                                        > It's an internet solution to a
                                        > physical problem. The stuff on either end is physical; there's
                                        > historical sheet music on one side, and guitar players at open mic
                                        > nights on the other side. But in the middle is the internet.
                                        >
                                        But the Internet is physical (electrons, silicon, copper, glass fiber, etc)
                                        ideas are not. That's the "exists" I was referring to.
                                        The statement that "[...] (the world of ideas) is increasingly
                                        indistinguishable from the world of things." seems ridiculous. Ideas
                                        actually are distinguishable from things. Sure, ideas can affect people and
                                        change their behavior and mass digital media has increased that rate of
                                        change, so it's extremely important. But saying they are indistinguishable
                                        sounds like intellectual puffery.
                                      • Julian Bond
                                        Mike Dierken Sat, 10 Nov 2007 21:32:52 ... You re right of course. It s one of those trolls that sounds deep but doesn t actually say very
                                        Message 19 of 28 , Nov 11, 2007
                                          Mike Dierken <dierken@...> Sat, 10 Nov 2007 21:32:52
                                          >But the Internet is physical (electrons, silicon, copper, glass fiber, etc)
                                          >ideas are not. That's the "exists" I was referring to.
                                          >The statement that "[...] (the world of ideas) is increasingly
                                          >indistinguishable from the world of things." seems ridiculous. Ideas
                                          >actually are distinguishable from things. Sure, ideas can affect people and
                                          >change their behavior and mass digital media has increased that rate of
                                          >change, so it's extremely important. But saying they are indistinguishable
                                          >sounds like intellectual puffery.

                                          You're right of course. It's one of those trolls that sounds deep but
                                          doesn't actually say very much. We've been having this debate at least
                                          since Negroponte's atoms vs bits and the philosophical underpinnings go
                                          back much further than that. But there does seem to be a qualitative
                                          change when so many of us make a living from manipulating symbols in the
                                          virtual world which then allows us to buy shiny toys in the real world.

                                          When an SUV driver blindly follows their GPS into a river and gets
                                          stuck, apart from being stupid, isn't that a failure to distinguish
                                          between the world of ideas and the world of things? Or is it just the
                                          same thing we've been doing for centuries in mistaking lines of ink on a
                                          map for real divisions between humans. Or a classic example of a 21st
                                          century behaviour; placing blind faith in technology before the evidence
                                          of our own senses and intelligence.[1]

                                          [1]Easy Travel To Other Planets. Ted Mooney. Two new emotions appeared
                                          in the 20th century. The feeling of being entirely alone in a crowd. The
                                          feeling of running as fast as possible without going anywhere.

                                          --
                                          Julian Bond E&MSN: julian_bond at voidstar.com M: +44 (0)77 5907 2173
                                          Webmaster: http://www.ecademy.com/ T: +44 (0)192 0412 433
                                          Personal WebLog: http://www.voidstar.com/ skype:julian.bond?chat
                                          *** Just Say No To DRM ***
                                        • Miles Fidelman
                                          ... More to play devil s advocate on a Sunday morning, than anything else... Are ideas indistinguishable from things, or vice versa? Ideas are often
                                          Message 20 of 28 , Nov 11, 2007
                                            Mike Dierken wrote:
                                            >> It's an internet solution to a
                                            >> physical problem. The stuff on either end is physical; there's
                                            >> historical sheet music on one side, and guitar players at open mic
                                            >> nights on the other side. But in the middle is the internet.
                                            >>
                                            >>
                                            > But the Internet is physical (electrons, silicon, copper, glass fiber, etc)
                                            > ideas are not. That's the "exists" I was referring to.
                                            > The statement that "[...] (the world of ideas) is increasingly
                                            > indistinguishable from the world of things." seems ridiculous. Ideas
                                            > actually are distinguishable from things. Sure, ideas can affect people and
                                            > change their behavior and mass digital media has increased that rate of
                                            > change, so it's extremely important. But saying they are indistinguishable
                                            > sounds like intellectual puffery.
                                            >
                                            More to play devil's advocate on a Sunday morning, than anything else...

                                            Are ideas indistinguishable from things, or vice versa?

                                            Ideas are often stored/represented as states of matter, or systems
                                            behavior. Consider:

                                            - the difference between two books: they may weigh the same, but what's
                                            printed on the pages makes all the difference, or,

                                            - a computer running a specific program behaves very differently than
                                            one running a different program, or one that's halted (and that can
                                            effect very physical things like energy used by that machine, or,

                                            - the physical states of our bodies are very much interdependent with
                                            what we are thinking, the activities of our autonomic nervous systems,
                                            and the state of various chemicals (natural and otherwise) in our
                                            bloodstreams.

                                            Is an endorphin "high" an idea or a physical state or both? What about
                                            being agitated?

                                            And then you can always look toward basic physics: energy and matter are
                                            interchangeable, as are energy and information content (entropy).
                                          • Scott Feamster
                                            In the middle, it s people among tangibles (sheet music and mics) and intangibles (thoughts and emotions). In the end, it s the intangibles that give our lives
                                            Message 21 of 28 , Nov 11, 2007
                                              In the middle, it's people among tangibles (sheet music and mics) and
                                              intangibles (thoughts and emotions).

                                              In the end, it's the intangibles that give our lives meaning; e.g., love.

                                              Love is energy created by matter.

                                              -----Original Message-----
                                              From: decentralization@yahoogroups.com
                                              [mailto:decentralization@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Miles Fidelman
                                              Sent: Sunday, November 11, 2007 7:36 AM
                                              To: decentralization@yahoogroups.com
                                              Subject: Re: [decentralization] Generalizing Peer Production into the
                                              Physical World


                                              Mike Dierken wrote:
                                              >> It's an internet solution to a
                                              >> physical problem. The stuff on either end is physical; there's
                                              >> historical sheet music on one side, and guitar players at open mic
                                              >> nights on the other side. But in the middle is the internet.
                                              >>
                                              >>
                                              > But the Internet is physical (electrons, silicon, copper, glass fiber,
                                              > etc) ideas are not. That's the "exists" I was referring to. The
                                              > statement that "[...] (the world of ideas) is increasingly
                                              > indistinguishable from the world of things." seems ridiculous. Ideas
                                              > actually are distinguishable from things. Sure, ideas can affect
                                              > people and change their behavior and mass digital media has increased
                                              > that rate of change, so it's extremely important. But saying they are
                                              > indistinguishable sounds like intellectual puffery.
                                              >
                                              More to play devil's advocate on a Sunday morning, than anything else...

                                              Are ideas indistinguishable from things, or vice versa?

                                              Ideas are often stored/represented as states of matter, or systems
                                              behavior. Consider:

                                              - the difference between two books: they may weigh the same, but what's
                                              printed on the pages makes all the difference, or,

                                              - a computer running a specific program behaves very differently than
                                              one running a different program, or one that's halted (and that can
                                              effect very physical things like energy used by that machine, or,

                                              - the physical states of our bodies are very much interdependent with
                                              what we are thinking, the activities of our autonomic nervous systems,
                                              and the state of various chemicals (natural and otherwise) in our
                                              bloodstreams.

                                              Is an endorphin "high" an idea or a physical state or both? What about
                                              being agitated?

                                              And then you can always look toward basic physics: energy and matter are
                                              interchangeable, as are energy and information content (entropy).


                                              Announce or discover P2P conferences on the P2P Conference Wiki at
                                              http://www.neurogrid.net/twiki/bin/view/Main/PeerToPeerConferences
                                              Yahoo! Groups Links
                                            • cjenscook
                                              Hi Scott Although I m based in Linlithgow, Scotland (birthplace of Mary, Queen of Scots) I m not Scottish myself, just a mongrel. ... family, angel, or venture
                                              Message 22 of 28 , Nov 11, 2007
                                                Hi Scott

                                                Although I'm based in Linlithgow, Scotland (birthplace of Mary, Queen
                                                of Scots) I'm not Scottish myself, just a mongrel.

                                                --- In decentralization@yahoogroups.com, "Scott Feamster" <sf@...>
                                                wrote:
                                                >
                                                > What Chris describes is equity capital that we call friends and
                                                family, angel, or venture capital investment in the U.S. Equity will
                                                continue to provide the costliest investment dollars; debt will
                                                continue to provide the cheapest investment dollars.
                                                >

                                                The "who" is immaterial.

                                                It's the "how" of this new form of Equity that is entirely novel
                                                (although, as I said, Canadian "Income Trusts" come close).

                                                This is not "Equity" as in a Limited Company, and is a lot less
                                                risky, albeit the returns MAY be less than those from Equity in a
                                                Corporation, so are the risks.

                                                Investors receive a proportional share of the revenues from the
                                                property financed (whether Real property or IP) BEFORE the
                                                management gets its hands on them.

                                                If there are any revenues, of course.

                                                In other words, in this model Labour works WITH Capital not FOR it,
                                                and you don't get the "Principal/Agent" problem which
                                                all "Corporations" have, and which is why there is a huge body of
                                                Company law, and that famous oxymoron, "Corporate Social
                                                Responsibility".

                                                This "Open" form of Capital is an entirely new and simple
                                                (unlike "mezzanine", convertibles, warrants etc etc) middle ground
                                                between conventional "Debt" and "Equity", and in my experience comes
                                                in a lot less expensive than conventional "Equity", but more
                                                expensive than "Debt" wwith potential of a much greater return.

                                                There cannot be a default, because it is not a "cost" or
                                                an "overhead", but rather a "pre-distribution".

                                                This is something entirely new, and it does take a bit of getting
                                                your head around, for sure.

                                                Best Regards

                                                Chris
                                              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.