[Open Manufacturing] Re: == Currency Based on CPU and Man Hours (for Digital Goods) == - Open Manufacturing

The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Message from discussion [Open Manufacturing] Re: == Currency Based on CPU and Man Hours (for Digital Goods) ==
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of kanz...@gmail.com designates 209.85.217.224 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.217.224;
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=kJBPun9ha6iMF+WsrLMerDSAkrqkGMy/Hn/kJifWYWJuzrPO0bOv1je8U0qDuRwA2L
         sdbeDcX0DQAgWbdOoV6vPhWutfyuXUJRh+meUAutmoSzSqb9P9LADOUGjF3bioSOfGDP
         5i4rcwXWl22h54ADTeKQhgyy9nCsh4C2N1+3E=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <875f4a530902171221w7c8081fbvb9736ff9103f793@mail.gmail.com>
References: <875f4a530902161744n242f879ag324d7e1b3a76bbb9@mail.gmail.com>
	 <875f4a530902162134h31b0947fg136d5e7101f36...@mail.gmail.com>
	 <55ad6af70902162145g61d4ed8au7186674b55cb6...@mail.gmail.com>
	 <875f4a530902162201u19c0f63ct3465120317574...@mail.gmail.com>
	 <87EBF05A-4550-4A2E-A174-E21B20A78...@gmail.com>
	 <875f4a530902171036h42f6cf0av7562cf5282793...@mail.gmail.com>
	 <32E9AA3F-D39C-4FC4-BF83-816F1B531...@gmail.com>
	 <875f4a530902171119l1f4493e7q7878c146f1a55...@mail.gmail.com>
	 <dcb5c5e50902171132x51cc3252oe4ada67a2c421...@mail.gmail.com>
	 <875f4a530902171221w7c8081fbvb9736ff9103f...@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 14:43:05 -0600
Message-ID: <55ad6af70902171243k76d0295nd7b3bfbd49ed...@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Abundance] Re: [Open Manufacturing] Re: == Currency Based on CPU 
	and Man Hours (for Digital Goods) ==
From: Bryan Bishop <kanz...@gmail.com>
To: openmanufacturing <openmanufacturing@googlegroups.com>, kanz...@gmail.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Feb 9, 3:19 pm, ben lipkowitz wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Feb 2009, Bryan Bishop wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 9:15 PM, marc fawzi wrote:
> >> The two biggest dogmas present in current social theories are:
>
> >Marc, could you please move this on to another mailing list now, maybe
> > the postscarcity mailing list, or even better, Michel's p2presearch
> > list? Since we've discussed these topics, and your P2P model, forever
> > now-- without progress-- I suggest that those other forums would be a
> > better medium.
>
> I am also tired of reading these deliberately misleading arguments and
> self promotion. I have neglected to respond to them in the hope that he
> would lose interest and go away. Unfortunately he hasn't, and it has
> affected outsiders' perception of this list and the general spread of
> topics that we discuss. I for one am not interested in economic theories
> or any of marc fawzi's "analysis" which is actually just him creating ammo
> for later arguments in support of his economic agenda. Are we powerless to
> do anything about this?

On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 1:57 PM, marc fawzi wrote:
> Being on the same side does not mean that we can't have vigorous
> debate about the various ideas, philosophical and technical.

Yep, theoretically a noble ideal, but remember we've pointed out to
you on multiple occasions that you're not actually participating in
that sort of vigorous debate- ignoring many messages, points, etc.,
twisting arguments and so on and so forth. Lest we forget:

http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing/msg/140c05fe5947a976
http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing/msg/c8ad0cd1f7bf12a7
.. among many others.

> incentives (or in Bryan's case, labeling the message as spam and
> bullshit and then punishing/banning the messenger, which, IMO, is
> consistent with running an IRC channel)

If you were banned, you wouldn't be posting. Please don't lie about
whether or not that has occured yet. By the way, I've not been taking
issue with the message, but rather calling *you* bullshit. You're the
one spewing the bullshit, the topic was thoroughly discussed
previously, and denying that is just destructive to the continuing
growth of this *manufacturing* community.

On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 12:36 PM, marc fawzi wrote:
> Can you add numbers? If you have 6 dollars and you give them away, you
> have 0 dollars. You need to recoup 6 dollars.

See:

On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 10:15 AM, Paul D. Fernhout wrote:
> again, I don't want to prejudge where Marc's work will end up). I think one
> exchange in this thread (showing how wanting to earn currency from a product
> in order to use that currency to make new things assumes a currency system
> in the first place, and so reflects an assumption) was interesting.

So "you need to recoup 6 dollars" is not necessarily correct (why
bother with currency in the first place) etc.

On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 12:52 PM, marc fawzi wrote:
> I was not sure if anyone here besides Eric and yourself has the
> capacity to work with the agile process, and I am still not sure.

Just because it's the agile process doesn't mean you're automagically
pure signal.

> I find that a few people here act like bullying IRC admins (throwing
> out words like "spam" and "bullshit") and lack the ability to reason,
> and like Wikipedia admins if they don't like what they hear regardless
> of the rationality behind it they resort to cursing which invites

What rationality behind it? I've clearly demonstrated by pointing to
historical examples in our discussions how you continue to ignore
fundamental points that have served as the basis for much of the
shared thinking behind list subscribers, etc. So, twisting and turning
arguments and discussions, that's not a lot of rationality, sorry.

> cursing. I admit I have a tit for tat angle when it comes to
> interacting with people who resort to lowest common denominator
> behavior, so if someone comes and says that this is spam (referring to
> the agile process of release often, release early and high bandwidth
> communication that starts out raw in quality and gets better over
> time) then I think they have no business running a mailing list about
> anything "open" and especially not something as elevated in vision as
> "open production"

Again, it doesn't matter whether it's agile or not, just because you
use that label to describe sending out messages, has no bearing on
whether or not you're actually following through on responding to the
ideas that you are presented with.

> The fact is that almost 99.999% of people I met on these lists in the
> last 3 months or so have no true understanding of the agile process.

Hahahah. So if you truly believe that, why are you still here?

> Agile communication, as you explain below, is not spam, and I differ

"Agile communication"- or rapidly sending messages out without
integrating responses or revising the snowball effect- is effectively
spam.

> have lost nothing and my message continues to flow so I can continue
> to receive thoughtful feedback and thoughtful arguments and continue
> the process.

You might say that, but you haven't demonstrated that at all, and in
the process have dug yourself into a rather deep hole on this list.

On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 2:21 PM, marc fawzi wrote:
> I'm looking at the economy as a programmer working with a model made
> up of several algorithms, running at various times, concurrently, for
> each participant, and in this view of the economy complexity at the
> level of the whole economy arises from a starting set of basic rules.

But again you're starting from assumptions about an 'economy'-thingy,
this 'currency' thingy and 'money' things and such, the problems of
bringing it up as a topic- from you in particular- being that we've
gone over this so many times with you, but no progress has been made
on your front (even though you might claim it progress to send another
email that continues to ignore the points). Anyway, see above and
such.

"tired of marc fawzi's crap"
http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing/msg/b2906ba50b94b7eb

On Feb 9, 3:19 pm, ben lipkowitz wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Feb 2009, Bryan Bishop wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 9:15 PM,marcfawziwrote:
> >> The two biggest dogmas present in current social theories are:
>
> >Marc, could you please move this on to another mailing list now, maybe
> > the postscarcity mailing list, or even better, Michel's p2presearch
> > list? Since we've discussed these topics, and your P2P model, forever
> > now-- without progress-- I suggest that those other forums would be a
> > better medium.
>
> I am alsotiredof reading these deliberately misleading arguments and
> self promotion. I have neglected to respond to them in the hope that he
> would lose interest and go away. Unfortunately he hasn't, and it has
> affected outsiders' perception of this list and the general spread of
> topics that we discuss. I for one am not interested in economic theories
> or any ofmarcfawzi's"analysis" which is actually just him creating ammo
> for later arguments in support of his economic agenda. Are we powerless to
> do anything about this?

I guess one of us needs to step up.

On Feb 10, 7:56 am, Paul D. Fernhout wrote:
> I realize we all have limited time, but here's one example of a point from a
> recent post ofMarc'sthat is provocative but still perhaps a step to
> enlightenment: "Getting and giving things for free unconditionally (as in a
> gift economy) is unsustainable because of the following reasons: 1. If a
> given good or service can be obtained for free then some people may want an
> infinite supply of it."
>
> Ursula K. Le Guin touched on that in the novel "The Dispossessed" with a
> society that saw hording as mental illness. One could probably have a long
> discussion on that point (even in complete or limited disagreement). But,
> what's most important isMarchas brought up a point and stated it boldly.
> But most people here (including myself at this point) are too busy with
> other things based on other assumptions to want to spend much time
> discussing that right now. But, in general, it's an important issue to work
> through, human motivation when presented with abundance (including, if
> people do hoard, how long do they hoard? -- James P. Hogan's book "Voyage
>  From Yesteryear" has some funny scenes about that :-).
>
> But a big question, is, are we having this discussion because we don't want
> to work through that point, or are we having this discussion because we feel
> we have worked through that point and the conclusions are being ignored and
> we want to focus on other things? :-) The two situations have different
> possible resolutions and would say different things about this group.

We've gone through the point already many times, Paul.

More recently, we've seen-
http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing/msg/c9739841266f292a

As Nathan puts it, there needs to be a "heart to heart", and in light
of ben's post asking if we are powerless to do anything, some action
is going to have to be taken. But by who?

- Bryan
http://heybryan.org/
1 512 203 0507
Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
Account Options
