Re: media ecologies?
Michel Bauwens
My take:
Any system of production whereby knowledge and designs are shared freely so innovation can flow in the whole system.
This is of course a minimalist defintion, that does not talk about other open aspects such as participatory processes etc ... but it is intentional.
Hi Paola, I'm sure Nathan will tell you how to participate remotely,
Michel
Greetings,
i receive a shared document here
http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0ATsf-IaJ1pQxZGcyanpkZnRfMjc1aGN2YzdnZ2Q&hl=en
Looks an extremely interesting workshop with lots of important topics
I may be able to make a (small) contribution, but probably remotely, (via phone, videolink etc, is it a possiblity?)
i could try to answer some of the questions on the table from my perspective
One minor criticism on the plan so far is that it could have a bit more focus, the open manufacture theme is brilliant but
not sure if the rest of the programme reflects the topic, make sure it does not get too diluted
for example I dont understand how media ecolocies and open manufacturing fit together, I mean I can see the relation but
wonder if the intended focus is clear enough?
on the theme open manufacturing, I am curretnly with DMEM at Strathclyde, and manufacturing is important to the facutly
is there a formal definition of open manufacturing we are sticking to ?
cheers
--
Paola Di Maio
**************************************************
Networked Research Lab, UK
***************************************************
--
Work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhurakij_Pundit_University - Research: http://www.dpu.ac.th/dpuic/info/Research.html - Think thank: http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss: http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens; http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
Nathan Cravens
Thanks for your critique and questions. DMEM looks like it has a great deal to offer in terms of integrating design with engineering. That is a significant challenge to meet in open manufacturing. I look forward to seeing you collaborate with us in some way.
I define open manufacturing as 'full disclosure that assumes adaptive design, manufacturing, materials, distribution and related processes'. That may or may not be the same definition shared with the group as a whole, but thus far it has yet to be challenged. ;)
In regard to bridging the gap between collaborative and manufacturing platforms: I see the two nurturing the other in many ways. Generally speaking, when open manufacturing presents a product to develop, this is where the collaborative aspect of the platform comes in to find the best willing developers for the job as development for a certain production aspect becomes necessary. The collaborative area of the platform then is to keep everyone engaged (social or collaboration; panel 1 in workshop terms) in developing the product (materal or open manufacturing; panel 2).
I recently made some additions with a bit of clean-up at our primary resource document for the workshop:
Primary Workshop Resource
http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0ATsf-IaJ1pQxZGcyanpkZnRfMjc1aGN2YzdnZ2Q&hl=en
Phoebe Moore can describe how the virtual aspect of the conference will work. That area is a work in progress from what I understand, but as soon as we're clear on how that will work, the official page at Salford University is where to access the real time workshops virtually; or at least information on what you'll need to download to collaborate. (http://www.espach.salford.ac.uk/sssi/p2p/)
You may be interested in discussing this more publicly with other presenters and developers at our workshop discussion list? http://groups.google.com/group/media-ecology-workshop-09
If you plan on participating, I encourage you to and answer some of these questions as they relate to your project pre-workshop, so we can better now how to integrate our works before arriving for the face-to-face discussion.
Workshop Q&A and Discussion Process.
http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0ATsf-IaJ1pQxZGcyanpkZnRfMzE4Z2o4dHAyZ3A&hl=en
In Solidarity,
Nathan
rob van kranenburg
I would add
"knowledge and design, tools, resources and money like facilitation" are shared freely...
greetings, Rob
Phoebe
Thanks for your emails.
There will be video conferencing available in one of the rooms at the Innovation Forum in Salford, Manchester. If you'd like to participate in this way, let me know as I am testing our facilities in about a week with another participant (Catarina Mota). This will be a good chance for you to also get yourself organised to participate in this way.
Best wishes,
Phoebe
--
Employment profile: http://www.espach.salford.ac.uk/page/Phoebe_Moore
JCEPS--my recent article: UK Education, Employability and Everyday Life
http://www.jceps.com/index.php?pageID=article&articleID=151
Media Ecologies workshop, Nov 2009, Manchester
http://www.espach.salford.ac.uk/sssi/p2p/
Manchester Film Cooperative: http://www.manchesterfilm.coop/
Patrick Anderson
> Do we have a formal definition of open manufacturing?
>
> My take:
>
> Any system of production whereby knowledge and designs are shared freely so
> innovation can flow in the whole system.
So Open Manufacturing is purely about the design side of things.
Instantiating those designs is ignored and left to the Capitalists.
Open Manufacturing is actually "Made in China"facturing - such as
http://Arduino.cc boards.
Bryan Bishop
> On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 10:27 PM, Michel Bauwens wrote:
>> Do we have a formal definition of open manufacturing?
>>
>> My take:
>>
>> Any system of production whereby knowledge and designs are shared freely so
>> innovation can flow in the whole system.
>
> So Open Manufacturing is purely about the design side of things.
Wrong. Manufacturing is the actual bridge between bits and atoms.
That's why fablabs are run by the Center for Bits and Atoms, for
instance. Ever wonder about that?
> Instantiating those designs is ignored and left to the Capitalists.
I am not a capitalist, and yet I do designs, so what does that make
me? Am I impossible? Oh no, I'm poofing away.
> Open Manufacturing is actually "Made in China"facturing - such as
> http://Arduino.cc boards.
That's only because people are continuously told that they can't do
semiconductor manufacturing.
Patrick Anderson
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 7:43 AM, Patrick Anderson wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 10:27 PM, Michel Bauwens wrote:
>>> Any system of production whereby knowledge and designs are shared freely so
>>> innovation can flow in the whole system.
>>
>> So Open Manufacturing is purely about the design side of things.
>
> Wrong. Manufacturing is the actual bridge between bits and atoms.
> That's why fablabs are run by the Center for Bits and Atoms, for
> instance. Ever wonder about that?
Is the Center for Bits and Atoms not capitalist?
Is the Center for Bits and Atoms trying to help us (the people) to
co-own the expensive tools required for physical instantiation?
>
>> Instantiating those designs is ignored and left to the Capitalists.
>
> I am not a capitalist, and yet I do designs, so what does that make
> me? Am I impossible? Oh no, I'm poofing away.
When I say 'instantiate' I am talking about "creating a physical
instance of some design".
You say "I do designs". But that is NOT the same as instantiation.
You are talking about only the design half.
Would you say the design of a car is the same as a car?
Can you drive a design down the road?
Instantiating a car requires (typically) various metals, plastic,
rubber, grease, many tools, buildings to house those things and land
for those things to reside.
I cannot live inside the blue-prints of a house, it must be
instantiated with physical materials.
>
>> Open Manufacturing is actually "Made in China"facturing - such as
>> http://Arduino.cc boards.
>
> That's only because people are continuously told that they can't do
> semiconductor manufacturing.
Told?
I don't avoid manufacturing because I am 'told'.
I avoid manufacturing because I don't have access to the Land, Tools,
heavy machinery, etc. *required* to manufacture.
But since those things are tremendously expensive, and since - even if
I could afford them, I could never *utilize* them to their full
potential, we (the people) are in need of a way to co-own those
expensive things.
The adherents of Open Manufacturing seem to currently care nothing
about co-ownership, but instead, if local instantiation is attempted
at all, it is through singly-owned and mostly toy-like "desktop
manufacturing" such as reprap, etc.
Co-ownership is difficult, but until we face that trouble we will be
only designers because we will lack "at cost" access to the Physical
Sources required for material instantiation.
Bryan Bishop
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 6:56 AM, Bryan Bishop wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 7:43 AM, Patrick Anderson wrote:
>>> On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 10:27 PM, Michel Bauwens wrote:
>>>> Any system of production whereby knowledge and designs are shared freely so
>>>> innovation can flow in the whole system.
>>>
>>> So Open Manufacturing is purely about the design side of things.
>>
>> Wrong. Manufacturing is the actual bridge between bits and atoms.
>> That's why fablabs are run by the Center for Bits and Atoms, for
>> instance. Ever wonder about that?
>
> Is the Center for Bits and Atoms not capitalist?
I don't know how to answer that.
> Is the Center for Bits and Atoms trying to help us (the people) to
> co-own the expensive tools required for physical instantiation?
I think Neil would say yes, but I am not Neil. His words speak almost
as loud as his actions, and while there are a few different actions I
wish he would take, it's a pretty good start. Many months ago Eric
posted an excellent analysis of Neil's doings and suggestions for
improvements, if you want to read that.
>>> Instantiating those designs is ignored and left to the Capitalists.
>>
>> I am not a capitalist, and yet I do designs, so what does that make
>> me? Am I impossible? Oh no, I'm poofing away.
>
> When I say 'instantiate' I am talking about "creating a physical
> instance of some design".
Yes, I know. I am not a capitalist and yet I both build and design
things, what's so terrible about this situation? Can you go away
please?
> You say "I do designs". But that is NOT the same as instantiation.
> You are talking about only the design half.
No, I am not [despite what my employer might wish :-)].
> Can you drive a design down the road?
Do you want me to? I am sure I could build a way to make a moving
vehicle that has a paper-mache outer coating that has designs printed
all over it.
> Instantiating a car requires (typically) various metals, plastic,
> rubber, grease, many tools, buildings to house those things and land
> for those things to reside.
Great, now if you can formalize those requirements more and get a lot
of the untypical scenarios, you could dump that information into skdb
and get cooking.
> I cannot live inside the blue-prints of a house, it must be
> instantiated with physical materials.
Nobody is telling you otherwise-- nor have they ever argued otherwise
to you here in the past year that I've known you.
>>> Open Manufacturing is actually "Made in China"facturing - such as
>>> http://Arduino.cc boards.
>>
>> That's only because people are continuously told that they can't do
>> semiconductor manufacturing.
>
> Told?
>
> I don't avoid manufacturing because I am 'told'.
Then why aren't you building them yourself? I suspect it is because
you don't know how to do it, otherwise you would be doing it. And if
you don't want to do it, then you would make a machine to do it, but
you probably don't know how. You are not born into a vacuum, you have
some amount of resources. Maybe you live in a tent. The beams in the
tent's structure can be used for other types of rigid supports. The
plastic or nylon can be used as a raincoat and protection from the
elements. Each of us has a different context, and while I agree it is
troubling that we don't all start off with the "same stuff", there
exists a path from tools that you currently have and tools that you
want to have, that is what is so marvelous about humans and our tools.
You avoid manufacturing because you don't know how to use your tools
properly .. some of us can look at a hammer and take 50 years to make
a factory. Others out in our civilization have made factories in less
than five.
> I avoid manufacturing because I don't have access to the Land, Tools,
> heavy machinery, etc. *required* to manufacture.
Then build them. But the problem is that you don't know how. The
bridge between bits and atoms isn't uni-directional, you have to go
back and forth multiple times to build the equivalent infrastructure
of modern civilization. Many, many times.
> But since those things are tremendously expensive, and since - even if
I wouldn't want to pay for them. I don't recommend you pay for them either.
> I could afford them, I could never *utilize* them to their full
> potential,
That sounds very pessimistic. Maybe you just don't know how it could
be made to be possible. Some of us here, do. Let us do our work.
> The adherents of Open Manufacturing seem to currently care nothing
> about co-ownership, but instead, if local instantiation is attempted
> at all, it is through singly-owned and mostly toy-like "desktop
> manufacturing" such as reprap, etc.
We don't care about co-ownership because ownership is totally
bullshit. Haven't we gone over this before? Paul has written many
hundreds of pages of text on this topic to you alone by now.
rob van kranenburg
This might be interesting in this discussion:
We are debating this at Tweak:
http://www.tweak.ie/workshops.html
Open-Ended Design: Future Challenges for Designers and Developers
On new forms of technology design and development that reflect the
increasing role that end-users have in dealing with novel technologies.
(Nora OMurchu)
Three main challenges (RvK):
a) An autonomous trajectory. This is tricky as by definition the
sign of the times, the identifier of a moment can take care of its
autonomous self. However for it not only to become visible through its
material manifestations that we can recognize as desigers and users, we
have to grasp it in the very act of transformation.
b) What happens when web 20 design strategies start not only
networking the peripheral but the critical functions, such as endusers
deciding for themselves how they want to spend their tax money in
participatory budgetting? Can web 20 strategies handle critical functions?
c) If we want to build a generic infrastructure for these new
connectivities, with global protocols for the wireless world as tcp/ip on
energy, communication infrasructure, mobility, on what level do we start?
End user applications such as open source phones, cars, scooter, washing
machines? (see bricolabs.net) On protocol and standard level, meaning dealing with the
industry and standardbodies in long term trajectories? On a policy level
trying to infuence the content of large calls at EU and national level?
There is a global revolution lurking in a perfect aligning of a b and c. A
system down, the loss of faith in politicians and democracy throughout the
western world, the actual agency of internet and mobile phone users
everywhere to take control locally and globally of the services that they
want bypassing a local national system and with that its laws, its
patents, its security paranoia, its jails (full) and its barter systems
(money) leading to a more democratic networked world.
Our task is to design this aligning in such a way that large groups of
endusers (including current policy makers and politicians) realize that
this new alignment is inevitable (ABC, easy as 123) as it is the manifestation of the 21st
century.
greetings, Rob
Nathan Cravens
Bryan's sassy approach will incite at least four reactions from you: silence; a sassy response; or compassion with a balanced response based on practical reasonings; laughter, because there are parts that are damn funny; such as "Can you go away please?," (passive aggressive silliness) made all the more humorous as Bryan continues to communicate with you after making this request. If you are able to suspend your ego (the 'me' that would otherwise become offended) as compassion suggests; you will find Bryan at least had the heart or interest to address your questions.
It sounds as if there is something off-topic troubling you that probably is not appropriate to discuss here. It may be you're looking for something more emotionally or spiritually satisfying. If you like the discussion list format; I suggest you think deeply about what is troubling you mentally and go to a discussion list that would better meet these gifts.
You may need some form of stimulate or depressant; healthy food; clean air and sun light in a peaceful personal space for a time; ect; to keep your physical state in balance. Because I must occupy business establishments (of which I am exceptionally critical and therefore would prefer not) to access the web, I wear headphones and listen to my favorite music tracks, eat as well as I can, drink plenty of water with stimulants, like green tea or coffee; so as not to become distracted by the poverty around and within me. . .
Design & Manufacturing
We have discussed these compatibility issues since the list was established.
Open Manufacturing & Capitalism
Many of us clearly understand that when information, designs, materials, and land are shared (calling it co-ownership is fine, but as Bryan says, its not an issue when you can care for yourself) like the code in open source software, this erodes the dependencies that keep capitalism alive by expanding individual autonomy so everyone may have the ability to better care for themselves.
I outline the political economic productions in light of open manufacturing activities in my working presentation notes at 'Remote Self Assembly and Full Automation - Will Material Abundance End Collaboration?' This addresses the topic Rob mentioned. http://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0ATsf-IaJ1pQxZGcyanpkZnRfMzEyZDNtcHMzZ2o&hl=en
We're the good guys, Patrick. And 'good' or 'bad' will have less significance as well as our humanness is better addressed by what we make of it and the world around us. . .
Nathan