irc
33 views
Skip to first unread message
echarp
Jun 11, 2006, 1:13:57 PM6/11/06
to top-politics
Logs of the #parlement channel on server irc.freenode.net
You can use this "applet":http://virtualmeetup.our-constitution.org (it
requires you to have java) or a tool like "gaim":http://gaim.sf.net
You are all welcome to join!
echarp
Jun 11, 2006, 2:44:49 PM6/11/06
to top-politics
--- Log opened sam jun 10 00:00:00 2006
--- Day changed sam jun 10 2006
00:00 < urgen> fiatlex: accept 3
00:00 < fiatlex> urgen: Rule #3 accepted.
00:00 < echarp> as for current rules, we can certainly add a few rules rapidly and then consider them as starting points
00:00 < urgen> fiatlex: accept 4
00:00 < fiatlex> urgen: Rule #4 accepted.
00:00 < illegale> I suppose it is about staying as the last player
00:00 < illegale> not realisation of any mission
00:00 < urgen> http://iconocla.st/nomic/hashbots.html is the example of the last time the bot was used to play
00:01 < echarp> illegale: it can be, does not *have* to be
00:01 < illegale> thank you urgen
00:01 < illegale> ok, e
00:01 < urgen> it is about learning why keeping your promises significantly contributes to one's health and welfare
00:02 < illegale> so, if I understand the context, nomic accepts the context of reality if we set so?
00:02 < echarp> illegale: of course
00:02 < echarp> but it can get difficult :)
00:02 < illegale> yet, reality is about power
00:02 < urgen> power is gleaned from agreement
00:02 < echarp> it can certainly be used to ascertain or define power
00:03 < echarp> I feel weird over rule #4
00:03 < echarp> seems to enact a sky limit kind of goal
00:03 < urgen> propose some more rules
00:03 < illegale> and it is acknowledged everywhere.
00:03 < illegale> is nomic in position to deal with it?
00:03 < illegale> to become sort of a power?
00:03 < illegale> if you mess with nomic, mess with the people stuff
00:03 < urgen> create better context from which to understand any other rule
00:03 < urgen> it is a science
00:03 < echarp> I think the nomic players could actually enforce any sort of thing, even a mafia or a government organ
00:04 < echarp> if you mess with the accepted rules, then, well, whatever the rules say! :)
00:04 < urgen> at nomic.net there are examples of other variations of this game.. some were played for keeps
00:04 < urgen> ie they attempted to be real
00:04 < echarp> of course a rule infraction mechanism should also be designed :)
00:04 < echarp> legislation, possibly execution, judiciary :)
00:05 < urgen> I think encorporating ops into this example would be constructive
00:05 < illegale> huh, this stuff is too smart for me
00:05 < urgen> with ops we have 'power'
00:06 < urgen> introduce an imbalance from which to generate leverage by
00:06 < illegale> Any persons wishing to leave the game must have the consent of 2/3 or greater of all the players.
00:06 < echarp> ops?
00:06 < illegale> lol
00:06 < urgen> channel operator status
00:06 < urgen> this channel currently has none
00:06 < echarp> illegale: that could be allowed, yet it will be difficult to enforce won't it? :)
00:06 < urgen> we are all powerless :-)
00:07 < illegale> so, that is the point
00:07 < urgen> what if you formalized the rule base enough to make the hosting service pay for itself?
00:07 < illegale> fuck legislation if there is no power behind it
00:07 < urgen> that would be 'real' enough and show 'power'
00:07 -!- mode/#parlement [+o echarp] by ChanServ
00:07 < illegale> many people talk many things
00:07 -!- mode/#parlement [+o urgen] by echarp
00:07 -!- mode/#parlement [+o illegale] by echarp
00:07 <@urgen> you make your own power illegale
00:07 <@urgen> utoh.. now power :-)
00:08 <@echarp> yeap! :)
00:08 <@illegale> so, why should i accept legislation from those who are powerless/
00:08 * urgen demonstrates...
00:08 <@illegale> how can they make me do it?
00:08 -!- illegale was kicked from #parlement by urgen [urgen]
00:08 <@echarp> rooo
00:08 <@echarp> bad! :)
00:08 <@urgen> hee
00:08 -!- illegale (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung289.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
00:08 <@urgen> like so...
00:08 < illegale> OK. It is about power :)
00:08 <@echarp> bad bad bad urgen !
00:08 <@urgen> now if I did not have authority for such removal of participation
00:08 <@echarp> lol
00:08 < illegale> We agree abot that :)
00:08 <@urgen> are then now consequences?
00:09 < illegale> No
00:09 <@echarp> there are "in-game" consequences
00:09 < illegale> I acknowledged you deed
00:09 <@echarp> because the game does not reach "outside" as it is now
00:09 <@urgen> but it could
00:09 <@echarp> definitely!
00:09 <@echarp> but to reach "outside", it would need more
00:09 <@urgen> a form of organization can ask for donations
00:09 <@echarp> more participants for example
00:10 <@urgen> the funding of which can be used to sponsor more chat channels or something
00:10 <@echarp> money could *reach* outside and have real world consequences
00:10 <@echarp> yeap, maybe a cell like organisation, to spread over the world! :)
00:10 <@echarp> one channel with a nomic bot, the goal of the game being to enroll more players :)
00:10 < illegale> get a money and youll get sort of gem collection
00:10 <@echarp> it could become a religion all by itself :)
00:11 < illegale> I suppose BSC should help you out in this stuff
00:11 <@urgen> I really like the idea of those $100 laptops that charge by turning a crank
00:11 <@urgen> getting technology out to more people will help this 'cause'
00:11 <@echarp> urgen: I don't believe they will *really* come into use, particularly that crank thing
00:11 < illegale> you need vision
00:11 <@urgen> I do believe they will...
00:11 < illegale> the reason we gather
00:12 <@echarp> so, do we start a religion? a party? an enterprise? a mix?
00:12 <@urgen> we've almost eclipsed that price without even relying on the scale of market they asked for
00:12 < illegale> Whatever
00:12 <@urgen> now 'normal' computers are already under $200
00:12 < illegale> whats normal?>
00:12 < illegale> I have 666
00:12 <@echarp> yeap, and no such fabulous crank which will hugely difficult to design and produce
00:13 <@echarp> 666?
00:13 <@urgen> normal, meaning not their custom laptop
00:13 <@urgen> just a thing you can order from the local store
00:13 <@urgen> 666 mhz, perhaps
00:13 < illegale> yes
00:13 <@echarp> ok
00:13 <@echarp> I'm thinking about religion and cults
00:14 <@echarp> what about a rule that encourages enrollment?
00:14 <@urgen> yes, lots of ways to organize
00:14 < illegale> to organise, we need to find common goal
00:14 <@echarp> I don't know if it can be a basic rule
00:14 <@urgen> a dollar per vote
00:14 <@urgen> earn a living by playing the game
00:14 <@echarp> common goal is lacking right now yes
00:14 < illegale> goal that worths to be realised
00:15 < illegale> so, that is the first step to be done
00:15 <@echarp> illegale: but then we are stepping outside of the sandbox of a game straight away?
00:15 < illegale> urgen, you are money oriented :(
00:15 < illegale> :)
00:15 < illegale> sandbox?
00:15 <@urgen> I just think it drives the point home the qickest
00:15 <@urgen> I am actually very poor
00:15 <@urgen> sandbox = safe play
00:16 <@urgen> no harm can be done
00:16 < illegale> ok
00:16 <@echarp> while dollars are real things
00:16 <@urgen> and cost a lot :-)
00:16 < illegale> you mean money involvemnt is risky?
00:16 < illegale> heh
00:17 <@urgen> well, I'd love to be able to start a foundation for the game but lack resources
00:17 <@urgen> so if the game were to do that on its own..
00:17 <@urgen> that would surely prove the point about its worthiness
00:17 < illegale> Urgen, I suppose you should make it more playish, 3d stuff and so to comercialize it
00:17 <@echarp> putting your money where your mouth is sorts of things
00:17 <@echarp> lol
00:18 <@echarp> we still lack a goal!
00:18 <@echarp> this is bad
00:18 <@echarp> in the original nomic there are two goals
00:18 <@urgen> goal = to make more rules
00:18 < illegale> I propose TOP
00:18 <@urgen> play to discover play
00:18 <@urgen> that's the only current goal
00:18 <@echarp> win by points, you gain points when you get rules, win by contradiction
00:18 < illegale> It is actually democracy
00:19 <@echarp> illegale: designing a democratic and workable system?
00:19 < illegale> yes
00:19 <@urgen> I thought that's what play was...
00:19 <@echarp> it can be such a goal yes!!!
00:19 <@urgen> it is already
00:19 <@urgen> just try it and see
00:19 < illegale> E: what do you need for points?
00:19 <@urgen> no more cart before the horse
00:19 <@echarp> (it's like we are flying by, almost touching, something :)
00:20 <@echarp> illegale: there might not be a need for points, but points, winning by points can be a goal
00:20 <@urgen> learning is its own compensation
00:20 < illegale> if you do not find comntradicion
00:20 <@urgen> if the reward does not show without contrivance then we stop
00:20 < illegale> learning s compensation for loosers :)
00:20 <@echarp> lol
00:21 <@urgen> um. I'd think losers never learn
00:21 * echarp can be competition orientated, watch out! ;)
00:21 <@urgen> or without learning you are assured to become a loser
00:21 < illegale> ok
00:21 < illegale> yet you need some aproval, i suppose
00:22 <@urgen> for what?
00:22 <@echarp> if it works democratically, yes
00:22 <@echarp> for rules
00:22 <@urgen> oh
00:22 <@echarp> there are still implicit concepts in a nomic game
00:22 <@urgen> like typing: accept 4
00:22 < illegale> I thought of being a non looser :)
00:22 <@echarp> "rule", "accept", "reject", "abstain", "enroll", "enacted"
00:23 <@echarp> urgen: I'm not sure, you are setting a huge goal there
00:23 <@echarp> a non-goal sort of thing
00:23 <@urgen> :-)
00:23 <@urgen> I see no other goal, tho
00:23 <@urgen> so I must at least try
00:23 <@echarp> like all those games which can stop if you lose
00:23 < illegale> fiatlex: rule 4
00:23 < fiatlex> illegale: 4. To Participate as mentioned in Rule #2 means the ongoing refinement of Participation by proposing and enacting further rules and starts when Rule #2 is enacted. (proposed by urgen at 21:36 Jun 09; accepted by urgen)
00:23 <@echarp> "ongoing refinement"
00:24 <@urgen> all rules define the process
00:24 <@echarp> I could accept such a thing, "if" we were to add some other constraint
00:24 <@urgen> we start with broad strokes and end up with fine ones
00:24 <@urgen> a wonderfully beautiful picture forms
00:24 <@echarp> for example, a rule that says there can only be less than 100 rules
00:24 <@urgen> hehe
00:25 <@echarp> which means we would definitely refine existing rules
00:25 <@urgen> as a sandbox game an exit rule may easily be welcome
00:25 <@echarp> plus it would be easier on new participants
00:25 <@urgen> you should add it, might gain support
00:25 <@echarp> exit rule for individuals or for the game?
00:25 <@urgen> now you have two new rules
00:25 <@echarp> me it's my first game, I'd rather not start something lasting weeks
00:25 <@urgen> if someone hogs the table and proposes 100 rules in a row they are removed from play
00:26 <@urgen> :-)
00:26 <@echarp> lol
00:26 <@echarp> easy one :)
00:26 <@echarp> there is one other matter I find of huge importance
00:26 <@urgen> there is no un-enroll command
00:26 <@echarp> how to allow easy participation?
00:27 <@echarp> rule #2 acts as an enrollment list
00:27 <@urgen> ok
00:27 <@echarp> anybody can just reject it and then automatically leave the game
00:27 < illegale> the rule might be that the game can last 4 days at most
00:27 <@echarp> well, I thought about it that way
00:27 <@echarp> illegale: that's interesting
00:27 <@echarp> time based or numbers based or both
00:28 < illegale> and we might involve some pageranking in matter of creating winner or so :)
00:28 <@urgen> my form of games go something like: rule #1 there are no rules. rule #2 you can only make rules.
00:28 * echarp dies
00:29 <@urgen> if there were more participants something like pageranking would be possible
00:29 * echarp looks under the bed for a bad magician
00:29 <@urgen> to show support of authority by means of subscription to ascribed value
00:30 < illegale> how do we gain points?
00:30 <@echarp> voting process then
00:30 < illegale> by rule acknowledgment/
00:30 <@urgen> ( there are no points unless you define them )
00:30 < illegale> how do we get out?
00:30 <@echarp> illegale: don't know yet, original game says you gain 10 points for any of your rule enacted
00:30 < illegale> What was the situtopn last time?
00:30 <@urgen> ( the game can support points if they should become enacted )
00:30 < illegale> What about decision making?
00:31 < illegale> For an example, I propose e and I can make decisions and beeli supports us?
00:31 <@echarp> decision making needs to be explicited!
00:31 <@echarp> lol
00:31 < illegale> What do you mean?
00:31 <@echarp> illegale: we need to define what decision making we want
00:31 <@urgen> an open system is very generous
00:32 <@echarp> right now decision making is consensus, with an implicit assumption which is that when you propose you also accept it
00:32 <@urgen> unless you otherwise say different
00:32 <@urgen> but for the sake of ease of record keeping maybe accept anyway
00:33 <@echarp> (téléphone)
00:33 < illegale> Urgen, you showed me the link
00:33 < illegale> What happened at the end of the game?
00:33 <@urgen> lost interest
00:33 <@urgen> died by the weight of its own lack of coherency
00:34 < illegale> did you intend to some game where it did not happened?
00:34 <@urgen> at nomic.net there are examples of some old games, some still in progress
00:34 <@urgen> I have not played in those
00:34 < illegale> not promising
00:34 <@urgen> they are not a closely meshed to something 'real' the way I prefer
00:34 <@urgen> more just games
00:35 <@urgen> not promising is the same promise that any governing system is challenged with
00:35 <@urgen> this is very very tough work
00:35 <@urgen> and a way to explore and learn without forcing people through twists they later regret is good
00:35 < illegale> this is not our only way, you know
00:36 < illegale> you mean incohernce stuff?
00:36 <@urgen> way is always by agreement
00:36 < illegale> yes
00:37 <@urgen> I mean when amateurs play at being politicians they suffer more than was necessary
00:37 <@urgen> sometimes they learn the lesson and come back stronger, more often not
00:37 < illegale> You think this helps?
00:37 <@urgen> lets make the lessons easier to learn
00:37 <@urgen> yes this helps a lot
00:37 < illegale> a lot?
00:37 < illegale> How is that?
00:38 <@urgen> without experience you only have real loss
00:38 <@urgen> that's painful
00:38 < illegale> I mean, when i got hurt it was not due to legislation process
00:38 <@urgen> lets make it so you can try without really having to buy
00:38 <@urgen> the hurt comes from the emotional investment
00:38 < illegale> but politics is not about legislation
00:38 < illegale> lawyesr stuff, yes
00:38 <@urgen> no I can't blame the process but the investment is by having accepted something that later turns out to not be true
00:39 < illegale> politics/ nasty thing/ much wider
00:39 <@urgen> wouldn't you rather have known that already?
00:39 <@urgen> it is available
00:39 < illegale> you are talking about exact policies. right?
00:39 <@urgen> positions
00:39 <@urgen> not necessarily the wording
00:39 < illegale> my position is not based on legislatives
00:40 < illegale> but on my political power
00:40 <@urgen> it is why we call elections 'contests'
00:40 < illegale> elevtion, not muc with politics in common :)
00:40 <@urgen> it is a way to test your view against the populace
00:40 <@urgen> sometimes
00:40 < illegale> What I use are forums,a ctually
00:41 < illegale> getting it thourgh as many people as I can get
00:41 < illegale> checking its consisteny by their eyes
00:41 < illegale> give me enough eyyballs and all problems will shallow
00:41 < illegale> stuff
00:41 <@urgen> there are ppl that read email, ppl that read blogs, ppl that only irc, ppl that read forums...
00:41 < illegale> yes
00:41 < illegale> people who play nomic :)
00:42 <@urgen> I don't think you have eyeballs by default
00:42 < illegale> by default I do not
00:42 < illegale> Yet, it is about reality
00:42 < illegale> how much can you gain and how much does it pay?
00:42 <@urgen> or someone's reality
00:43 < illegale> yes
00:44 <@urgen> informed decisions are more valuable
00:45 <@urgen> just guessing a punch on a voting card...
00:45 <@urgen> a two year old can attempt
00:45 <@urgen> to assist toward informed preference -- I place higher than any 'power'
00:46 < illegale> brb
00:47 <@urgen> but education over military... hmn does not seem to be the way, still
00:48 <@urgen> reality does not play an honest game
00:58 <@urgen> fiatlex: grant 1 Golden Key to illegale
00:58 < fiatlex> urgen: 1 golden key granted to illegale.
00:59 <@urgen> fiatlex: grant 1 Golden Key to echarp
00:59 < fiatlex> urgen: 1 golden key granted to echarp.
00:59 <@urgen> fiatlex: grant 1 Golden Key to urgen
00:59 < fiatlex> urgen: 1 golden key granted to urgen.
00:59 < illegale> what is that?
00:59 < illegale> :)
00:59 <@urgen> inventory
00:59 < illegale> btw, it is about political culture
00:59 <@urgen> inventory Golden Key
00:59 < illegale> thank you
00:59 <@urgen> oh.
00:59 <@urgen> fiatlex: inventory
01:00 <@urgen> fiatlex: inventory Golden Key
01:00 < fiatlex> urgen: urgen (1), echarp (1), illegale (1)
01:00 <@urgen> ah
01:00 <@urgen> a Golden Key is like your passport, represents membership
01:00 < illegale> I am a member of Golden Key
01:00 < illegale> Cool
01:01 <@urgen> I am also creating an example of how you introduce 'points' or 'property'
01:02 < illegale> Urgen, are you interested in exact political action?
01:02 <@urgen> in my very own way
01:02 < illegale> what is that way?
01:02 < illegale> defining concepts/
01:02 < illegale> ?
01:03 < illegale> articulating thoughts?
01:03 <@urgen> I did write my representative about the recent attempt to allow telephone companies to change the threshhold of participation regarding the internet
01:03 < illegale> playing nomic?
01:03 < illegale> :)
01:03 <@urgen> the so called net neutrality bills
01:04 <@urgen> ease of participation is important to me because I'd rather move away from a party system
01:04 < illegale> so what stops you?
01:04 <@urgen> there could be representation but on a much much more micro-change sensitive scale
01:05 <@urgen> stops me when?
01:05 < illegale> to make it so?
01:05 < illegale> to remove part system
01:05 <@urgen> this kind of change happens on a one to one basis
01:05 <@urgen> that takes a while, but it is not stopping
01:06 < illegale> what basis?
01:06 <@urgen> and even one person changed is a success
01:06 <@urgen> one on one
01:06 <@urgen> person to person
01:06 < illegale> what about person to person?
01:06 <@urgen> promises kept
01:06 < illegale> do not follow you
01:06 < illegale> what is the cath for moving on
01:07 < illegale> ?
01:07 <@urgen> we work together for a while and eventually come to appreciate each others view and promise to take care and respect in a way that does not create unecessary problems for each other
01:07 < illegale> what has to be done to move on?
01:08 <@urgen> understanding
01:08 < illegale> trust network you are talking about/
01:08 <@urgen> yes trust earned not forced
01:08 < illegale> of course
01:08 <@urgen> mutual appreciation
01:08 < illegale> is it possible to force trust anyway?
01:09 <@urgen> I can trust someone who doesn't understand to force a situation to get their way
01:09 <@urgen> they are predictable
01:10 <@urgen> and it would be silly of me to expect otherwise without effort toward mutual appreciation
01:10 < illegale> you need to hack somebody to strat trusting?
01:10 <@urgen> what is revealed in honesty does not come from any other way
01:10 < illegale> ok
01:11 < illegale> yet, when you get trust, what is the next step?
01:11 <@urgen> find more with the next person
01:11 <@urgen> that one is now working on finding more as well
01:12 < illegale> and than?
01:12 < illegale> I mean, there is no political work, yet
01:12 < illegale> this is infomring part, right
01:12 < illegale> informing to do what
01:12 < illegale> ?
01:12 < illegale> to see?
01:12 <@urgen> you mean the sticky stuff I scrape off the bottom of my shoes?
01:12 <@urgen> that seems to be everywhere?
01:12 <@urgen> hmn politics
01:13 < illegale> what do you mean by this?
01:13 < illegale> I am rather non briliant about interpreting vivid images
01:13 <@urgen> since I can not go anywhere without touching this stuff I am forced to accept it
01:13 <@urgen> but there's not a lot of respect in politics
01:14 < illegale> it does not need to be so
01:17 < illegale> machiavliesm is due to alopoietical political principles
01:18 < illegale> based on leeching of the people backed up by non transaprent system
01:24 <@urgen> hidden agendas
01:28 < illegale> what about it?
01:37 <@echarp> re
01:39 <@echarp> it's getting late
01:39 <@echarp> so, you managed to invent golden keys? :)
01:40 < illegale> you have one
01:40 < illegale> BTW, did you read the conv?
01:40 <@echarp> I see, still fun :)
01:40 <@echarp> I read parts
01:40 < illegale> lol
01:41 < illegale> this game sometimes finishes by lack of interest :)
01:41 <@echarp> of course
01:41 <@echarp> as many games do :)
01:41 <@echarp> just like a conversation with mark! >:-)
01:42 < illegale> you lost it?
01:43 <@echarp> lost?
01:43 <@echarp> as in a *lost* game?
01:43 <@echarp> oh, ok (it's getting late) => I lost interest yes
01:44 <@echarp> his reasonings are wreakages
01:44 < illegale> i gota go
01:45 < illegale> late for me too
01:45 <@echarp> good night illegale
01:45 < illegale> see you tommorow
01:45 < illegale> night
01:45 <@echarp> urgen: it's probably not so late for you
01:45 -!- illegale [n=ille...@cmung289.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit []
01:45 <@urgen> sorry, I got a phone call too
01:45 <@urgen> :-)
01:45 <@echarp> I understand
01:45 <@echarp> social life, all that "outside" game :)
01:45 <@urgen> this was work related
01:46 <@echarp> are you supposed to work?
01:46 <@urgen> hehe
01:46 <@urgen> I am mostly a contractor
01:46 <@urgen> so I do job to job type work
01:46 <@echarp> good wages?
01:47 <@urgen> this was regarding some new work.. a non profit foundation needing a web based grant applicant review system
01:47 <@urgen> and estimate of size of the job
01:48 <@echarp> oh, the not so interesting parts, previsions
01:48 <@echarp> estimates
01:48 <@echarp> what kind of rates can you charge over that side of the pond?
01:49 <@urgen> ya, the tough part without enough information
01:49 <@urgen> I'm cheap here. $56/hr
01:49 <@echarp> by the hour, woaw
01:49 <@echarp> here it's usually per day
01:49 <@urgen> I allow bulk rates if it needs to be funded as a project
01:50 <@echarp> the longer the cheaper per day yes
01:50 <@urgen> but mostly I'm still just barely surviving month to month
01:50 <@echarp> how old are you?
01:50 <@urgen> 46
01:51 <@echarp> me 33
01:51 <@echarp> that's probably along 400¤/day, not that bad
01:51 <@echarp> 400euros
01:52 <@urgen> 'k
01:52 <@urgen> so I hope they allow me to pick the hosting company so I get the access I need
01:52 <@echarp> gnu/linux?
01:53 <@urgen> linux mostly, quite a bit of microsoft, and some mac/ other 'nix
01:53 <@echarp> yes, we don't always choose :(
01:54 <@urgen> :-) not allowed
01:54 <@urgen> things change too fast
01:54 <@echarp> me I'm a programmer, much easier, I actually use my own laptop computer (debian)
01:54 <@urgen> in school they taught me snobol
01:54 <@urgen> no one uses that any more
01:54 <@urgen> :P
01:55 <@urgen> I have to go do some chores
01:57 <@echarp> ok
01:57 <@echarp> I'm going to bed myself
01:57 <@echarp> cu tomorrow
01:57 <@echarp> we'll see about those golden keys! :)
04:11 -!- urgen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit []
06:02 -!- charles8851 [n=cha...@pool-71-111-30-136.ptldor.dsl-w.verizon.net] has quit ["Download Gaim: http://gaim.sourceforge.net/"]
06:23 -!- urgen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
12:49 -!- illegale (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung4228.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
13:25 -!- beeli (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung2631.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
13:38 < beeli> Hey E!
13:40 < beeli> Are you there?
13:48 -!- illegale [n=ille...@cmung4228.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
14:05 <@echarp> hello beeli
14:05 * echarp just goes oout of the shower
14:07 <@echarp> I don't understand your two last emails *at all*
14:07 <@echarp> don't I nod toward TOP???
14:07 <@echarp> don't I agree to participate?
14:08 < beeli> I suppose there should be some pretty clear notice for such thing
14:08 < beeli> In tiaktiv there is actuallno no such thing
14:08 <@echarp> no such thing as?
14:08 < beeli> we mentioned that in our discusion list, yet no formalisation up there at all
14:09 < beeli> TOP is interinitiative list Tiaktiv joined
14:09 < beeli> as
14:09 <@echarp> and I do not join it?
14:09 < beeli> It might be that Markus and I joined TOP as personals, not as institution
14:10 < beeli> No, I want to say:
14:10 < beeli> "TOP is interinitiative list Tiaktiv joined"
14:10 < beeli> There is no such stragiht saying anywhere
14:10 < beeli> I suppose we shold articualate this part and see what does it actually mean?
14:11 <@echarp> "TOP is interinitiative list I (echarp) have joined"
14:11 <@echarp> you want something else?
14:11 < beeli> What I am looking for are simmilar interinitiative nods that might link members through all world in several easy to follow steps
14:11 < beeli> Is it you, or is it eparlament
14:11 < beeli> ?
14:11 <@echarp> what is parlement if not me?
14:11 < beeli> I know eparlament is yours,
14:11 < beeli> yet
14:12 < beeli> that is an idea object, pretty open i suppose
14:12 < beeli> and this is you
14:12 <@echarp> I do not know, should one talk "for" a piece of software?
14:12 < beeli> that might be part of political you
14:12 < beeli> that project
14:12 < beeli> not of some private you or stuff
14:12 <@echarp> there is no "parlement" community you know, just me
14:12 < beeli> i know that
14:13 < beeli> yet, it is easier to me to put this category in this way
14:13 < beeli> of initiatives
14:13 < beeli> tiaktiv, aktivdemocrati and so on
14:13 < beeli> as long as these sites have links, public, work and so on
14:13 < beeli> some capital
14:13 < beeli> which is important stuff
14:13 <@echarp> so, what do you want as a "nod"?
14:13 < beeli> we profit through it, indirectly
14:14 < beeli> what do you mean?
14:14 <@echarp> I believe there is already a big link to TOP on parlement front page
14:14 < beeli> from nod
14:14 < beeli> ?
14:14 <@echarp> what kind of nod do you want?
14:14 < beeli> ah...
14:15 < beeli> when somebody wants to aproach to you, can use top in political context
14:15 <@echarp> ???
14:15 < beeli> when somebody wants to aproach me, can use top in political ocntext either
14:15 < beeli> i want grqavity to be set
14:15 <@echarp> you want the top principles to be used?
14:15 <@echarp> or the top community?
14:15 < beeli> this is being done if we all put it as a place from where we go on to the world
14:15 < beeli> yes
14:16 < beeli> princples
14:16 < beeli> what about community?
14:16 <@echarp> I don't know about the community
14:16 <@echarp> I'm trying to understand what you want
14:16 < beeli> community can not be direct part of this nod stuff imo
14:17 < beeli> gravity and exact relationship among tiaktiv and top and parlement
14:17 < beeli> ok, let me try once more
14:17 < beeli> i want to formalise relationship between tiatkvi and top meaning
14:18 < beeli> i put link on top and say, hey this is interinitiave world list tiaktiv participates
14:18 < beeli> you can go there, tiaktiv will listen and be there
14:18 < beeli> and not only tiaktiv, but parlement to
14:18 < beeli> and several others
14:18 < beeli> in this way we have more capital to become relevant nod that migt not die away
14:18 <@echarp> "I put link on top"? top principles?
14:19 < beeli> top groups
14:19 < beeli> top groups
14:19 < beeli> top grou
14:19 < beeli> top group
14:19 <@echarp> what means the word "nod" that you are using?
14:20 < beeli> node?
14:20 <@echarp> oooh, node!!!
14:20 < beeli> yes!
14:20 < beeli> ops
14:20 <@echarp> because nod is *totally* different
14:20 < beeli> shit
14:20 < beeli> my stupid english :)
14:21 < beeli> ok. do you understand me better?
14:21 <@echarp> I consider myself as joining the TOP group
14:21 < beeli> i supposed so, yes
14:21 < beeli> yet, this needs to be loud and clear to everybody
14:21 <@echarp> and believe I will use top principles as far as they apply to parlement
14:22 < beeli> if this is done, then we know who is the owned of this group.
14:22 < beeli> this is important part i suppose
14:22 < beeli> this is becoming umbrella and those who are part of it own it
14:22 < beeli> principle is only one and that is top
14:23 < beeli> other stuff needs to get acknowledged by other members
14:24 <@echarp> I believe groups usually go through this participation thing differently
14:24 < beeli> i see what did you write
14:24 < beeli> yes?
14:25 <@echarp> the group exists and presents itself, it asks people to enter it, or people ask to be accepted in it
14:26 < beeli> i suppose the first thing is fine
14:26 < beeli> yet, there are obligations we need to take if we want to benefit more from it
14:26 < beeli> not big ones, of course
14:27 < beeli> such as straight and clear linking to group from our sites
14:27 <@echarp> well, had to do better on that one than http://leparlement.org/top-politics
14:27 < beeli> yes
14:27 < beeli> the link has to be same
14:27 < beeli> or?
14:28 < beeli> yes, the same
14:28 < beeli> yet, there no proble by putting link next to it
14:28 < beeli> did you participate in some other groups before?
14:29 <@echarp> no, but I'm part of an association
14:30 <@echarp> APRIL in france, Association Pour la Recherche en Informatique Libre
14:30 <@echarp> it's a branch of the FSF
14:30 < beeli> fsf?
14:30 < beeli> oh yes
14:30 <@echarp> and I'm a close friend to the association's founder who is also the president of FSF france
14:31 <@echarp> FSF is the Free Software Foundation
14:31 < beeli> that is nice. know stalman?
14:31 <@echarp> I've met him yes
14:31 < beeli> what do you think abouthim
14:31 <@echarp> I bought him a flute for his birthday
14:31 < beeli> socialist?
14:31 < beeli> lol
14:31 <@echarp> I appreciate him, great great thinker, huge impact on the world
14:31 <@echarp> what is socialist?
14:31 < beeli> yes
14:32 < beeli> i mean, he is a little bit commie oriented imo
14:32 <@echarp> where have you seen that?
14:32 < beeli> have a feeling of that
14:32 <@echarp> where do you get that feeling from?
14:32 < beeli> putting some great feeling as must
14:33 < beeli> people have to act that way stufff
14:33 < beeli> sort of opinion
14:33 < beeli> might be wrong
14:33 < beeli> it was long time when i contected him
14:33 <@echarp> well, having an opinion does not make one a socialist
14:33 < beeli> yes
14:33 <@echarp> I don't think he is
14:33 < beeli> yet, my opinion is no place to push great feelings
14:33 < beeli> becausse they can not be pushed
14:33 <@echarp> he just has given thought on computers, copyrights, drm
14:34 < beeli> ok
14:34 < beeli> i might be wrong
14:34 < beeli> from another part, he is only big head person who respond to me when i was lunatic par excelance
14:34 < beeli> appreaciate it a lot
14:34 <@echarp> :)
14:34 <@echarp> he is a visionary sort of guys
14:34 < beeli> yes
14:34 < beeli> that is for sure
14:34 < beeli> met eban too
14:35 < beeli> him in person
14:35 <@echarp> the only trouble is his lack of intersocial interests
14:35 < beeli> probably yes
14:35 <@echarp> eban? eben moglen?
14:35 < beeli> yes
14:35 < beeli> when he was in cro
14:35 <@echarp> cool, interesting guy too
14:35 < beeli> hed some shitty conversation
14:35 < beeli> i think he has no good opinion of me
14:35 < beeli> got into trap
14:35 <@echarp> conversation on what kind of thing?
14:35 < beeli> of talking about truth
14:36 < beeli> i asked him to talk about some things
14:36 < beeli> and he invited me to dinner
14:36 <@echarp> cool
14:36 < beeli> we talked about 3 hours about very abstraciotns
14:36 <@echarp> that's a good start
14:37 < beeli> yes, he helped me a lot
14:37 <@echarp> what happened then?
14:37 < beeli> yet, i am not sure he would like to meet me again :)
14:37 < beeli> vivarto
14:37 < beeli> do you know for it/
14:37 < beeli> that is a project for software decision making
14:38 < beeli> leader of it has good contacts
14:38 <@echarp> vivarto I do not know no
14:38 <@echarp> political?
14:38 < beeli> yes
14:38 <@echarp> and why did it end up as a trap?
14:38 < beeli> so, that was the part eban found out i might now what i am talking about
14:38 < beeli> there was no clear focus, no clear finish of talk
14:39 < beeli> no satisfactory elemetns that make you wish meet somebody again
14:39 < beeli> just great pain
14:39 <@echarp> oh, not cool I guess
14:39 <@echarp> yet that happens
14:39 < beeli> what i wanted to do was thing i did not show it clearly
14:39 <@echarp> ok, 5 minutes, I'll be back
14:40 < beeli> and that was about opensource as paradigme that goes far farther than it is software producsiton
14:40 < beeli> andf that changes the world though very politics
14:52 <@echarp> which position were you holding?
14:52 < beeli> many of them
14:52 < beeli> i got into spread
14:53 < beeli> the point was that we should promote opensource paradigm in political process
14:53 <@echarp> that means loss of focus
14:53 < beeli> yes
14:53 < beeli> yet, i was in promotion start
14:53 < beeli> learning from the best :)
14:53 < beeli> i talken about networking, about creating sites and so on
14:54 < beeli> to many stuff
14:54 < beeli> that is bad
14:54 < beeli> and we finished in philosophy
14:54 < beeli> articulation of the word truth and stuff
14:54 < beeli> Eban, as democratci person did stand all of that crap,
14:55 <@echarp> did or did *not?
14:55 < beeli> yet, i did not succeed in my mission
14:55 < beeli> did
14:55 < beeli> he did
14:55 <@echarp> and at the end, is free software important in politics?
14:55 < beeli> imo not too importend
14:55 < beeli> it is part of the process,
14:55 < beeli> yet, not its very base
14:56 < beeli> i wanted to explain my opinion to eban as long as he envisionared its strenght
14:56 < beeli> yet, had some gaps i though i could fill him up
14:56 < beeli> though job
14:57 < beeli> this open politics stuff becomes popular in last tme, yet people seldomly know what to do with ti
14:57 < beeli> it just sounds cool
14:57 < beeli> and that is where it all remains
14:57 < beeli> so, we have open goverment by uk
14:57 <@echarp> in uk??
14:57 < beeli> i suppose transparent lost its potentional
14:57 < beeli> yes, marketing crapo
14:57 <@echarp> how open is it?
14:57 < beeli> n top
14:58 < beeli> by word
14:58 < beeli> BBS reports what uk government does sort of thing
14:58 < beeli> so, they are open, :)
14:58 < beeli> you can send them mail, you know
14:59 < beeli> ops
14:59 < beeli> i have to finish one thing
14:59 < beeli> and i need you for it
14:59 < beeli> list of initiatives
14:59 < beeli> stuff
15:00 < beeli> you agree that we should standardise this part of participation acknowledgment?
15:00 <@echarp> that everybody should state they are part of the top group?
15:01 < beeli> yes and put it on their site
15:01 < beeli> in manner of promotion of a node
15:02 < beeli> banner, words, meta tags or something
15:03 < beeli> you dont :)
15:03 <@echarp> maybe you should just ask "who wants to be part of the top group?"
15:03 < beeli> you seem some problem with publc acknowledgment on our sites?
15:04 <@echarp> seem?
15:04 < beeli> see?
15:04 <@echarp> just ask people to add something on their own page
15:04 < beeli> it would help rating and all
15:04 <@echarp> a logo
15:04 <@echarp> like the w3c does
15:04 < beeli> yet, this should be standardised, should not it be/
15:04 < beeli> w3c?
15:05 <@echarp> the world wide web consortium
15:05 <@echarp> they propose logos to show your site is conformant
15:05 < beeli> ok, something likethat being public formal acknowldgmend stuff
15:05 <@echarp> for example yes
15:05 < beeli> you think it would be right
15:05 < beeli> ?
15:05 <@echarp> a ring of sorts
15:05 <@echarp> it would probably the easiest first step
15:06 <@echarp> "be" the easiest first step
15:06 < beeli> By putting this stuff on your site you are becming formall yada yada yada stuff?
15:07 < beeli> so, we should see what to put on site :)
15:08 <@echarp> yeap, any designer on board? :)
15:08 < beeli> i know i am far from being one :)
15:08 < beeli> so, you think this is fine proposal to be done?
15:09 < beeli> back me up with it?
15:09 <@echarp> have a look at what logos can be used, go on http://leparlement.org, bottom up of page, hover your mouse over the version number, you will see some logos
15:09 <@echarp> I'll back you up
15:09 < beeli> thenks :)
15:09 < beeli> this is politics :)
15:09 < beeli> http://www3.xfreehosting.com/lesbian/danni/tabatha/tabatha11.jpg
15:09 <@echarp> on the web you exist if you are linked to
15:09 < beeli> in small size?
15:10 <@echarp> very very small
15:10 < beeli> ok
15:11 <@echarp> with such an image, we won't attract many babes, that would be a shame :)
15:11 < beeli> find some guy than?
15:13 <@echarp> ?
15:13 -!- illegale (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung2631.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
15:13 <@echarp> then?
15:13 < beeli> ops
15:13 < beeli> yes
15:14 -!- illegale [n=ille...@cmung2631.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Client Quit]
15:14 <@echarp> :)
15:15 <@echarp> ok, weather is incredibly beautiful, I'm going out for a coffe
15:15 <@echarp> want some?
15:15 <@echarp> many babes around here too ;)
15:15 < beeli> yes :)
15:15 < beeli> gonna eat now me :)
15:15 <@echarp> bon appétit
15:15 < beeli> cu later
15:15 <@echarp> I'll be back in 1 hour or 2
15:16 < beeli> i hope i will menage it
15:16 -!- beeli [n=ille...@cmung2631.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit []
16:33 < urgen> I'm going to be away for the weekend
16:35 * urgen applies for a personal leave pass to avoid punitive measures that may show up re nomic and not being around to vote
16:39 <@echarp> urgen: that's fine, you can :)
16:39 <@echarp> by me anyway
16:39 < urgen> tnx
16:39 <@echarp> urgen: how are you? going out? a week end in family? friends?
16:39 < urgen> buddhist studies
16:40 < urgen> leaving right now. bye
16:40 <@echarp> woaw
16:40 <@echarp> bye bye
--- Log closed dim jun 11 00:00:17 2006
--- Day changed sam jun 10 2006
00:00 < urgen> fiatlex: accept 3
00:00 < fiatlex> urgen: Rule #3 accepted.
00:00 < echarp> as for current rules, we can certainly add a few rules rapidly and then consider them as starting points
00:00 < urgen> fiatlex: accept 4
00:00 < fiatlex> urgen: Rule #4 accepted.
00:00 < illegale> I suppose it is about staying as the last player
00:00 < illegale> not realisation of any mission
00:00 < urgen> http://iconocla.st/nomic/hashbots.html is the example of the last time the bot was used to play
00:01 < echarp> illegale: it can be, does not *have* to be
00:01 < illegale> thank you urgen
00:01 < illegale> ok, e
00:01 < urgen> it is about learning why keeping your promises significantly contributes to one's health and welfare
00:02 < illegale> so, if I understand the context, nomic accepts the context of reality if we set so?
00:02 < echarp> illegale: of course
00:02 < echarp> but it can get difficult :)
00:02 < illegale> yet, reality is about power
00:02 < urgen> power is gleaned from agreement
00:02 < echarp> it can certainly be used to ascertain or define power
00:03 < echarp> I feel weird over rule #4
00:03 < echarp> seems to enact a sky limit kind of goal
00:03 < urgen> propose some more rules
00:03 < illegale> and it is acknowledged everywhere.
00:03 < illegale> is nomic in position to deal with it?
00:03 < illegale> to become sort of a power?
00:03 < illegale> if you mess with nomic, mess with the people stuff
00:03 < urgen> create better context from which to understand any other rule
00:03 < urgen> it is a science
00:03 < echarp> I think the nomic players could actually enforce any sort of thing, even a mafia or a government organ
00:04 < echarp> if you mess with the accepted rules, then, well, whatever the rules say! :)
00:04 < urgen> at nomic.net there are examples of other variations of this game.. some were played for keeps
00:04 < urgen> ie they attempted to be real
00:04 < echarp> of course a rule infraction mechanism should also be designed :)
00:04 < echarp> legislation, possibly execution, judiciary :)
00:05 < urgen> I think encorporating ops into this example would be constructive
00:05 < illegale> huh, this stuff is too smart for me
00:05 < urgen> with ops we have 'power'
00:06 < urgen> introduce an imbalance from which to generate leverage by
00:06 < illegale> Any persons wishing to leave the game must have the consent of 2/3 or greater of all the players.
00:06 < echarp> ops?
00:06 < illegale> lol
00:06 < urgen> channel operator status
00:06 < urgen> this channel currently has none
00:06 < echarp> illegale: that could be allowed, yet it will be difficult to enforce won't it? :)
00:06 < urgen> we are all powerless :-)
00:07 < illegale> so, that is the point
00:07 < urgen> what if you formalized the rule base enough to make the hosting service pay for itself?
00:07 < illegale> fuck legislation if there is no power behind it
00:07 < urgen> that would be 'real' enough and show 'power'
00:07 -!- mode/#parlement [+o echarp] by ChanServ
00:07 < illegale> many people talk many things
00:07 -!- mode/#parlement [+o urgen] by echarp
00:07 -!- mode/#parlement [+o illegale] by echarp
00:07 <@urgen> you make your own power illegale
00:07 <@urgen> utoh.. now power :-)
00:08 <@echarp> yeap! :)
00:08 <@illegale> so, why should i accept legislation from those who are powerless/
00:08 * urgen demonstrates...
00:08 <@illegale> how can they make me do it?
00:08 -!- illegale was kicked from #parlement by urgen [urgen]
00:08 <@echarp> rooo
00:08 <@echarp> bad! :)
00:08 <@urgen> hee
00:08 -!- illegale (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung289.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
00:08 <@urgen> like so...
00:08 < illegale> OK. It is about power :)
00:08 <@echarp> bad bad bad urgen !
00:08 <@urgen> now if I did not have authority for such removal of participation
00:08 <@echarp> lol
00:08 < illegale> We agree abot that :)
00:08 <@urgen> are then now consequences?
00:09 < illegale> No
00:09 <@echarp> there are "in-game" consequences
00:09 < illegale> I acknowledged you deed
00:09 <@echarp> because the game does not reach "outside" as it is now
00:09 <@urgen> but it could
00:09 <@echarp> definitely!
00:09 <@echarp> but to reach "outside", it would need more
00:09 <@urgen> a form of organization can ask for donations
00:09 <@echarp> more participants for example
00:10 <@urgen> the funding of which can be used to sponsor more chat channels or something
00:10 <@echarp> money could *reach* outside and have real world consequences
00:10 <@echarp> yeap, maybe a cell like organisation, to spread over the world! :)
00:10 <@echarp> one channel with a nomic bot, the goal of the game being to enroll more players :)
00:10 < illegale> get a money and youll get sort of gem collection
00:10 <@echarp> it could become a religion all by itself :)
00:11 < illegale> I suppose BSC should help you out in this stuff
00:11 <@urgen> I really like the idea of those $100 laptops that charge by turning a crank
00:11 <@urgen> getting technology out to more people will help this 'cause'
00:11 <@echarp> urgen: I don't believe they will *really* come into use, particularly that crank thing
00:11 < illegale> you need vision
00:11 <@urgen> I do believe they will...
00:11 < illegale> the reason we gather
00:12 <@echarp> so, do we start a religion? a party? an enterprise? a mix?
00:12 <@urgen> we've almost eclipsed that price without even relying on the scale of market they asked for
00:12 < illegale> Whatever
00:12 <@urgen> now 'normal' computers are already under $200
00:12 < illegale> whats normal?>
00:12 < illegale> I have 666
00:12 <@echarp> yeap, and no such fabulous crank which will hugely difficult to design and produce
00:13 <@echarp> 666?
00:13 <@urgen> normal, meaning not their custom laptop
00:13 <@urgen> just a thing you can order from the local store
00:13 <@urgen> 666 mhz, perhaps
00:13 < illegale> yes
00:13 <@echarp> ok
00:13 <@echarp> I'm thinking about religion and cults
00:14 <@echarp> what about a rule that encourages enrollment?
00:14 <@urgen> yes, lots of ways to organize
00:14 < illegale> to organise, we need to find common goal
00:14 <@echarp> I don't know if it can be a basic rule
00:14 <@urgen> a dollar per vote
00:14 <@urgen> earn a living by playing the game
00:14 <@echarp> common goal is lacking right now yes
00:14 < illegale> goal that worths to be realised
00:15 < illegale> so, that is the first step to be done
00:15 <@echarp> illegale: but then we are stepping outside of the sandbox of a game straight away?
00:15 < illegale> urgen, you are money oriented :(
00:15 < illegale> :)
00:15 < illegale> sandbox?
00:15 <@urgen> I just think it drives the point home the qickest
00:15 <@urgen> I am actually very poor
00:15 <@urgen> sandbox = safe play
00:16 <@urgen> no harm can be done
00:16 < illegale> ok
00:16 <@echarp> while dollars are real things
00:16 <@urgen> and cost a lot :-)
00:16 < illegale> you mean money involvemnt is risky?
00:16 < illegale> heh
00:17 <@urgen> well, I'd love to be able to start a foundation for the game but lack resources
00:17 <@urgen> so if the game were to do that on its own..
00:17 <@urgen> that would surely prove the point about its worthiness
00:17 < illegale> Urgen, I suppose you should make it more playish, 3d stuff and so to comercialize it
00:17 <@echarp> putting your money where your mouth is sorts of things
00:17 <@echarp> lol
00:18 <@echarp> we still lack a goal!
00:18 <@echarp> this is bad
00:18 <@echarp> in the original nomic there are two goals
00:18 <@urgen> goal = to make more rules
00:18 < illegale> I propose TOP
00:18 <@urgen> play to discover play
00:18 <@urgen> that's the only current goal
00:18 <@echarp> win by points, you gain points when you get rules, win by contradiction
00:18 < illegale> It is actually democracy
00:19 <@echarp> illegale: designing a democratic and workable system?
00:19 < illegale> yes
00:19 <@urgen> I thought that's what play was...
00:19 <@echarp> it can be such a goal yes!!!
00:19 <@urgen> it is already
00:19 <@urgen> just try it and see
00:19 < illegale> E: what do you need for points?
00:19 <@urgen> no more cart before the horse
00:19 <@echarp> (it's like we are flying by, almost touching, something :)
00:20 <@echarp> illegale: there might not be a need for points, but points, winning by points can be a goal
00:20 <@urgen> learning is its own compensation
00:20 < illegale> if you do not find comntradicion
00:20 <@urgen> if the reward does not show without contrivance then we stop
00:20 < illegale> learning s compensation for loosers :)
00:20 <@echarp> lol
00:21 <@urgen> um. I'd think losers never learn
00:21 * echarp can be competition orientated, watch out! ;)
00:21 <@urgen> or without learning you are assured to become a loser
00:21 < illegale> ok
00:21 < illegale> yet you need some aproval, i suppose
00:22 <@urgen> for what?
00:22 <@echarp> if it works democratically, yes
00:22 <@echarp> for rules
00:22 <@urgen> oh
00:22 <@echarp> there are still implicit concepts in a nomic game
00:22 <@urgen> like typing: accept 4
00:22 < illegale> I thought of being a non looser :)
00:22 <@echarp> "rule", "accept", "reject", "abstain", "enroll", "enacted"
00:23 <@echarp> urgen: I'm not sure, you are setting a huge goal there
00:23 <@echarp> a non-goal sort of thing
00:23 <@urgen> :-)
00:23 <@urgen> I see no other goal, tho
00:23 <@urgen> so I must at least try
00:23 <@echarp> like all those games which can stop if you lose
00:23 < illegale> fiatlex: rule 4
00:23 < fiatlex> illegale: 4. To Participate as mentioned in Rule #2 means the ongoing refinement of Participation by proposing and enacting further rules and starts when Rule #2 is enacted. (proposed by urgen at 21:36 Jun 09; accepted by urgen)
00:23 <@echarp> "ongoing refinement"
00:24 <@urgen> all rules define the process
00:24 <@echarp> I could accept such a thing, "if" we were to add some other constraint
00:24 <@urgen> we start with broad strokes and end up with fine ones
00:24 <@urgen> a wonderfully beautiful picture forms
00:24 <@echarp> for example, a rule that says there can only be less than 100 rules
00:24 <@urgen> hehe
00:25 <@echarp> which means we would definitely refine existing rules
00:25 <@urgen> as a sandbox game an exit rule may easily be welcome
00:25 <@echarp> plus it would be easier on new participants
00:25 <@urgen> you should add it, might gain support
00:25 <@echarp> exit rule for individuals or for the game?
00:25 <@urgen> now you have two new rules
00:25 <@echarp> me it's my first game, I'd rather not start something lasting weeks
00:25 <@urgen> if someone hogs the table and proposes 100 rules in a row they are removed from play
00:26 <@urgen> :-)
00:26 <@echarp> lol
00:26 <@echarp> easy one :)
00:26 <@echarp> there is one other matter I find of huge importance
00:26 <@urgen> there is no un-enroll command
00:26 <@echarp> how to allow easy participation?
00:27 <@echarp> rule #2 acts as an enrollment list
00:27 <@urgen> ok
00:27 <@echarp> anybody can just reject it and then automatically leave the game
00:27 < illegale> the rule might be that the game can last 4 days at most
00:27 <@echarp> well, I thought about it that way
00:27 <@echarp> illegale: that's interesting
00:27 <@echarp> time based or numbers based or both
00:28 < illegale> and we might involve some pageranking in matter of creating winner or so :)
00:28 <@urgen> my form of games go something like: rule #1 there are no rules. rule #2 you can only make rules.
00:28 * echarp dies
00:29 <@urgen> if there were more participants something like pageranking would be possible
00:29 * echarp looks under the bed for a bad magician
00:29 <@urgen> to show support of authority by means of subscription to ascribed value
00:30 < illegale> how do we gain points?
00:30 <@echarp> voting process then
00:30 < illegale> by rule acknowledgment/
00:30 <@urgen> ( there are no points unless you define them )
00:30 < illegale> how do we get out?
00:30 <@echarp> illegale: don't know yet, original game says you gain 10 points for any of your rule enacted
00:30 < illegale> What was the situtopn last time?
00:30 <@urgen> ( the game can support points if they should become enacted )
00:30 < illegale> What about decision making?
00:31 < illegale> For an example, I propose e and I can make decisions and beeli supports us?
00:31 <@echarp> decision making needs to be explicited!
00:31 <@echarp> lol
00:31 < illegale> What do you mean?
00:31 <@echarp> illegale: we need to define what decision making we want
00:31 <@urgen> an open system is very generous
00:32 <@echarp> right now decision making is consensus, with an implicit assumption which is that when you propose you also accept it
00:32 <@urgen> unless you otherwise say different
00:32 <@urgen> but for the sake of ease of record keeping maybe accept anyway
00:33 <@echarp> (téléphone)
00:33 < illegale> Urgen, you showed me the link
00:33 < illegale> What happened at the end of the game?
00:33 <@urgen> lost interest
00:33 <@urgen> died by the weight of its own lack of coherency
00:34 < illegale> did you intend to some game where it did not happened?
00:34 <@urgen> at nomic.net there are examples of some old games, some still in progress
00:34 <@urgen> I have not played in those
00:34 < illegale> not promising
00:34 <@urgen> they are not a closely meshed to something 'real' the way I prefer
00:34 <@urgen> more just games
00:35 <@urgen> not promising is the same promise that any governing system is challenged with
00:35 <@urgen> this is very very tough work
00:35 <@urgen> and a way to explore and learn without forcing people through twists they later regret is good
00:35 < illegale> this is not our only way, you know
00:36 < illegale> you mean incohernce stuff?
00:36 <@urgen> way is always by agreement
00:36 < illegale> yes
00:37 <@urgen> I mean when amateurs play at being politicians they suffer more than was necessary
00:37 <@urgen> sometimes they learn the lesson and come back stronger, more often not
00:37 < illegale> You think this helps?
00:37 <@urgen> lets make the lessons easier to learn
00:37 <@urgen> yes this helps a lot
00:37 < illegale> a lot?
00:37 < illegale> How is that?
00:38 <@urgen> without experience you only have real loss
00:38 <@urgen> that's painful
00:38 < illegale> I mean, when i got hurt it was not due to legislation process
00:38 <@urgen> lets make it so you can try without really having to buy
00:38 <@urgen> the hurt comes from the emotional investment
00:38 < illegale> but politics is not about legislation
00:38 < illegale> lawyesr stuff, yes
00:38 <@urgen> no I can't blame the process but the investment is by having accepted something that later turns out to not be true
00:39 < illegale> politics/ nasty thing/ much wider
00:39 <@urgen> wouldn't you rather have known that already?
00:39 <@urgen> it is available
00:39 < illegale> you are talking about exact policies. right?
00:39 <@urgen> positions
00:39 <@urgen> not necessarily the wording
00:39 < illegale> my position is not based on legislatives
00:40 < illegale> but on my political power
00:40 <@urgen> it is why we call elections 'contests'
00:40 < illegale> elevtion, not muc with politics in common :)
00:40 <@urgen> it is a way to test your view against the populace
00:40 <@urgen> sometimes
00:40 < illegale> What I use are forums,a ctually
00:41 < illegale> getting it thourgh as many people as I can get
00:41 < illegale> checking its consisteny by their eyes
00:41 < illegale> give me enough eyyballs and all problems will shallow
00:41 < illegale> stuff
00:41 <@urgen> there are ppl that read email, ppl that read blogs, ppl that only irc, ppl that read forums...
00:41 < illegale> yes
00:41 < illegale> people who play nomic :)
00:42 <@urgen> I don't think you have eyeballs by default
00:42 < illegale> by default I do not
00:42 < illegale> Yet, it is about reality
00:42 < illegale> how much can you gain and how much does it pay?
00:42 <@urgen> or someone's reality
00:43 < illegale> yes
00:44 <@urgen> informed decisions are more valuable
00:45 <@urgen> just guessing a punch on a voting card...
00:45 <@urgen> a two year old can attempt
00:45 <@urgen> to assist toward informed preference -- I place higher than any 'power'
00:46 < illegale> brb
00:47 <@urgen> but education over military... hmn does not seem to be the way, still
00:48 <@urgen> reality does not play an honest game
00:58 <@urgen> fiatlex: grant 1 Golden Key to illegale
00:58 < fiatlex> urgen: 1 golden key granted to illegale.
00:59 <@urgen> fiatlex: grant 1 Golden Key to echarp
00:59 < fiatlex> urgen: 1 golden key granted to echarp.
00:59 <@urgen> fiatlex: grant 1 Golden Key to urgen
00:59 < fiatlex> urgen: 1 golden key granted to urgen.
00:59 < illegale> what is that?
00:59 < illegale> :)
00:59 <@urgen> inventory
00:59 < illegale> btw, it is about political culture
00:59 <@urgen> inventory Golden Key
00:59 < illegale> thank you
00:59 <@urgen> oh.
00:59 <@urgen> fiatlex: inventory
01:00 <@urgen> fiatlex: inventory Golden Key
01:00 < fiatlex> urgen: urgen (1), echarp (1), illegale (1)
01:00 <@urgen> ah
01:00 <@urgen> a Golden Key is like your passport, represents membership
01:00 < illegale> I am a member of Golden Key
01:00 < illegale> Cool
01:01 <@urgen> I am also creating an example of how you introduce 'points' or 'property'
01:02 < illegale> Urgen, are you interested in exact political action?
01:02 <@urgen> in my very own way
01:02 < illegale> what is that way?
01:02 < illegale> defining concepts/
01:02 < illegale> ?
01:03 < illegale> articulating thoughts?
01:03 <@urgen> I did write my representative about the recent attempt to allow telephone companies to change the threshhold of participation regarding the internet
01:03 < illegale> playing nomic?
01:03 < illegale> :)
01:03 <@urgen> the so called net neutrality bills
01:04 <@urgen> ease of participation is important to me because I'd rather move away from a party system
01:04 < illegale> so what stops you?
01:04 <@urgen> there could be representation but on a much much more micro-change sensitive scale
01:05 <@urgen> stops me when?
01:05 < illegale> to make it so?
01:05 < illegale> to remove part system
01:05 <@urgen> this kind of change happens on a one to one basis
01:05 <@urgen> that takes a while, but it is not stopping
01:06 < illegale> what basis?
01:06 <@urgen> and even one person changed is a success
01:06 <@urgen> one on one
01:06 <@urgen> person to person
01:06 < illegale> what about person to person?
01:06 <@urgen> promises kept
01:06 < illegale> do not follow you
01:06 < illegale> what is the cath for moving on
01:07 < illegale> ?
01:07 <@urgen> we work together for a while and eventually come to appreciate each others view and promise to take care and respect in a way that does not create unecessary problems for each other
01:07 < illegale> what has to be done to move on?
01:08 <@urgen> understanding
01:08 < illegale> trust network you are talking about/
01:08 <@urgen> yes trust earned not forced
01:08 < illegale> of course
01:08 <@urgen> mutual appreciation
01:08 < illegale> is it possible to force trust anyway?
01:09 <@urgen> I can trust someone who doesn't understand to force a situation to get their way
01:09 <@urgen> they are predictable
01:10 <@urgen> and it would be silly of me to expect otherwise without effort toward mutual appreciation
01:10 < illegale> you need to hack somebody to strat trusting?
01:10 <@urgen> what is revealed in honesty does not come from any other way
01:10 < illegale> ok
01:11 < illegale> yet, when you get trust, what is the next step?
01:11 <@urgen> find more with the next person
01:11 <@urgen> that one is now working on finding more as well
01:12 < illegale> and than?
01:12 < illegale> I mean, there is no political work, yet
01:12 < illegale> this is infomring part, right
01:12 < illegale> informing to do what
01:12 < illegale> ?
01:12 < illegale> to see?
01:12 <@urgen> you mean the sticky stuff I scrape off the bottom of my shoes?
01:12 <@urgen> that seems to be everywhere?
01:12 <@urgen> hmn politics
01:13 < illegale> what do you mean by this?
01:13 < illegale> I am rather non briliant about interpreting vivid images
01:13 <@urgen> since I can not go anywhere without touching this stuff I am forced to accept it
01:13 <@urgen> but there's not a lot of respect in politics
01:14 < illegale> it does not need to be so
01:17 < illegale> machiavliesm is due to alopoietical political principles
01:18 < illegale> based on leeching of the people backed up by non transaprent system
01:24 <@urgen> hidden agendas
01:28 < illegale> what about it?
01:37 <@echarp> re
01:39 <@echarp> it's getting late
01:39 <@echarp> so, you managed to invent golden keys? :)
01:40 < illegale> you have one
01:40 < illegale> BTW, did you read the conv?
01:40 <@echarp> I see, still fun :)
01:40 <@echarp> I read parts
01:40 < illegale> lol
01:41 < illegale> this game sometimes finishes by lack of interest :)
01:41 <@echarp> of course
01:41 <@echarp> as many games do :)
01:41 <@echarp> just like a conversation with mark! >:-)
01:42 < illegale> you lost it?
01:43 <@echarp> lost?
01:43 <@echarp> as in a *lost* game?
01:43 <@echarp> oh, ok (it's getting late) => I lost interest yes
01:44 <@echarp> his reasonings are wreakages
01:44 < illegale> i gota go
01:45 < illegale> late for me too
01:45 <@echarp> good night illegale
01:45 < illegale> see you tommorow
01:45 < illegale> night
01:45 <@echarp> urgen: it's probably not so late for you
01:45 -!- illegale [n=ille...@cmung289.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit []
01:45 <@urgen> sorry, I got a phone call too
01:45 <@urgen> :-)
01:45 <@echarp> I understand
01:45 <@echarp> social life, all that "outside" game :)
01:45 <@urgen> this was work related
01:46 <@echarp> are you supposed to work?
01:46 <@urgen> hehe
01:46 <@urgen> I am mostly a contractor
01:46 <@urgen> so I do job to job type work
01:46 <@echarp> good wages?
01:47 <@urgen> this was regarding some new work.. a non profit foundation needing a web based grant applicant review system
01:47 <@urgen> and estimate of size of the job
01:48 <@echarp> oh, the not so interesting parts, previsions
01:48 <@echarp> estimates
01:48 <@echarp> what kind of rates can you charge over that side of the pond?
01:49 <@urgen> ya, the tough part without enough information
01:49 <@urgen> I'm cheap here. $56/hr
01:49 <@echarp> by the hour, woaw
01:49 <@echarp> here it's usually per day
01:49 <@urgen> I allow bulk rates if it needs to be funded as a project
01:50 <@echarp> the longer the cheaper per day yes
01:50 <@urgen> but mostly I'm still just barely surviving month to month
01:50 <@echarp> how old are you?
01:50 <@urgen> 46
01:51 <@echarp> me 33
01:51 <@echarp> that's probably along 400¤/day, not that bad
01:51 <@echarp> 400euros
01:52 <@urgen> 'k
01:52 <@urgen> so I hope they allow me to pick the hosting company so I get the access I need
01:52 <@echarp> gnu/linux?
01:53 <@urgen> linux mostly, quite a bit of microsoft, and some mac/ other 'nix
01:53 <@echarp> yes, we don't always choose :(
01:54 <@urgen> :-) not allowed
01:54 <@urgen> things change too fast
01:54 <@echarp> me I'm a programmer, much easier, I actually use my own laptop computer (debian)
01:54 <@urgen> in school they taught me snobol
01:54 <@urgen> no one uses that any more
01:54 <@urgen> :P
01:55 <@urgen> I have to go do some chores
01:57 <@echarp> ok
01:57 <@echarp> I'm going to bed myself
01:57 <@echarp> cu tomorrow
01:57 <@echarp> we'll see about those golden keys! :)
04:11 -!- urgen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit []
06:02 -!- charles8851 [n=cha...@pool-71-111-30-136.ptldor.dsl-w.verizon.net] has quit ["Download Gaim: http://gaim.sourceforge.net/"]
06:23 -!- urgen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
12:49 -!- illegale (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung4228.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
13:25 -!- beeli (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung2631.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
13:38 < beeli> Hey E!
13:40 < beeli> Are you there?
13:48 -!- illegale [n=ille...@cmung4228.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
14:05 <@echarp> hello beeli
14:05 * echarp just goes oout of the shower
14:07 <@echarp> I don't understand your two last emails *at all*
14:07 <@echarp> don't I nod toward TOP???
14:07 <@echarp> don't I agree to participate?
14:08 < beeli> I suppose there should be some pretty clear notice for such thing
14:08 < beeli> In tiaktiv there is actuallno no such thing
14:08 <@echarp> no such thing as?
14:08 < beeli> we mentioned that in our discusion list, yet no formalisation up there at all
14:09 < beeli> TOP is interinitiative list Tiaktiv joined
14:09 < beeli> as
14:09 <@echarp> and I do not join it?
14:09 < beeli> It might be that Markus and I joined TOP as personals, not as institution
14:10 < beeli> No, I want to say:
14:10 < beeli> "TOP is interinitiative list Tiaktiv joined"
14:10 < beeli> There is no such stragiht saying anywhere
14:10 < beeli> I suppose we shold articualate this part and see what does it actually mean?
14:11 <@echarp> "TOP is interinitiative list I (echarp) have joined"
14:11 <@echarp> you want something else?
14:11 < beeli> What I am looking for are simmilar interinitiative nods that might link members through all world in several easy to follow steps
14:11 < beeli> Is it you, or is it eparlament
14:11 < beeli> ?
14:11 <@echarp> what is parlement if not me?
14:11 < beeli> I know eparlament is yours,
14:11 < beeli> yet
14:12 < beeli> that is an idea object, pretty open i suppose
14:12 < beeli> and this is you
14:12 <@echarp> I do not know, should one talk "for" a piece of software?
14:12 < beeli> that might be part of political you
14:12 < beeli> that project
14:12 < beeli> not of some private you or stuff
14:12 <@echarp> there is no "parlement" community you know, just me
14:12 < beeli> i know that
14:13 < beeli> yet, it is easier to me to put this category in this way
14:13 < beeli> of initiatives
14:13 < beeli> tiaktiv, aktivdemocrati and so on
14:13 < beeli> as long as these sites have links, public, work and so on
14:13 < beeli> some capital
14:13 < beeli> which is important stuff
14:13 <@echarp> so, what do you want as a "nod"?
14:13 < beeli> we profit through it, indirectly
14:14 < beeli> what do you mean?
14:14 <@echarp> I believe there is already a big link to TOP on parlement front page
14:14 < beeli> from nod
14:14 < beeli> ?
14:14 <@echarp> what kind of nod do you want?
14:14 < beeli> ah...
14:15 < beeli> when somebody wants to aproach to you, can use top in political context
14:15 <@echarp> ???
14:15 < beeli> when somebody wants to aproach me, can use top in political ocntext either
14:15 < beeli> i want grqavity to be set
14:15 <@echarp> you want the top principles to be used?
14:15 <@echarp> or the top community?
14:15 < beeli> this is being done if we all put it as a place from where we go on to the world
14:15 < beeli> yes
14:16 < beeli> princples
14:16 < beeli> what about community?
14:16 <@echarp> I don't know about the community
14:16 <@echarp> I'm trying to understand what you want
14:16 < beeli> community can not be direct part of this nod stuff imo
14:17 < beeli> gravity and exact relationship among tiaktiv and top and parlement
14:17 < beeli> ok, let me try once more
14:17 < beeli> i want to formalise relationship between tiatkvi and top meaning
14:18 < beeli> i put link on top and say, hey this is interinitiave world list tiaktiv participates
14:18 < beeli> you can go there, tiaktiv will listen and be there
14:18 < beeli> and not only tiaktiv, but parlement to
14:18 < beeli> and several others
14:18 < beeli> in this way we have more capital to become relevant nod that migt not die away
14:18 <@echarp> "I put link on top"? top principles?
14:19 < beeli> top groups
14:19 < beeli> top groups
14:19 < beeli> top grou
14:19 < beeli> top group
14:19 <@echarp> what means the word "nod" that you are using?
14:20 < beeli> node?
14:20 <@echarp> oooh, node!!!
14:20 < beeli> yes!
14:20 < beeli> ops
14:20 <@echarp> because nod is *totally* different
14:20 < beeli> shit
14:20 < beeli> my stupid english :)
14:21 < beeli> ok. do you understand me better?
14:21 <@echarp> I consider myself as joining the TOP group
14:21 < beeli> i supposed so, yes
14:21 < beeli> yet, this needs to be loud and clear to everybody
14:21 <@echarp> and believe I will use top principles as far as they apply to parlement
14:22 < beeli> if this is done, then we know who is the owned of this group.
14:22 < beeli> this is important part i suppose
14:22 < beeli> this is becoming umbrella and those who are part of it own it
14:22 < beeli> principle is only one and that is top
14:23 < beeli> other stuff needs to get acknowledged by other members
14:24 <@echarp> I believe groups usually go through this participation thing differently
14:24 < beeli> i see what did you write
14:24 < beeli> yes?
14:25 <@echarp> the group exists and presents itself, it asks people to enter it, or people ask to be accepted in it
14:26 < beeli> i suppose the first thing is fine
14:26 < beeli> yet, there are obligations we need to take if we want to benefit more from it
14:26 < beeli> not big ones, of course
14:27 < beeli> such as straight and clear linking to group from our sites
14:27 <@echarp> well, had to do better on that one than http://leparlement.org/top-politics
14:27 < beeli> yes
14:27 < beeli> the link has to be same
14:27 < beeli> or?
14:28 < beeli> yes, the same
14:28 < beeli> yet, there no proble by putting link next to it
14:28 < beeli> did you participate in some other groups before?
14:29 <@echarp> no, but I'm part of an association
14:30 <@echarp> APRIL in france, Association Pour la Recherche en Informatique Libre
14:30 <@echarp> it's a branch of the FSF
14:30 < beeli> fsf?
14:30 < beeli> oh yes
14:30 <@echarp> and I'm a close friend to the association's founder who is also the president of FSF france
14:31 <@echarp> FSF is the Free Software Foundation
14:31 < beeli> that is nice. know stalman?
14:31 <@echarp> I've met him yes
14:31 < beeli> what do you think abouthim
14:31 <@echarp> I bought him a flute for his birthday
14:31 < beeli> socialist?
14:31 < beeli> lol
14:31 <@echarp> I appreciate him, great great thinker, huge impact on the world
14:31 <@echarp> what is socialist?
14:31 < beeli> yes
14:32 < beeli> i mean, he is a little bit commie oriented imo
14:32 <@echarp> where have you seen that?
14:32 < beeli> have a feeling of that
14:32 <@echarp> where do you get that feeling from?
14:32 < beeli> putting some great feeling as must
14:33 < beeli> people have to act that way stufff
14:33 < beeli> sort of opinion
14:33 < beeli> might be wrong
14:33 < beeli> it was long time when i contected him
14:33 <@echarp> well, having an opinion does not make one a socialist
14:33 < beeli> yes
14:33 <@echarp> I don't think he is
14:33 < beeli> yet, my opinion is no place to push great feelings
14:33 < beeli> becausse they can not be pushed
14:33 <@echarp> he just has given thought on computers, copyrights, drm
14:34 < beeli> ok
14:34 < beeli> i might be wrong
14:34 < beeli> from another part, he is only big head person who respond to me when i was lunatic par excelance
14:34 < beeli> appreaciate it a lot
14:34 <@echarp> :)
14:34 <@echarp> he is a visionary sort of guys
14:34 < beeli> yes
14:34 < beeli> that is for sure
14:34 < beeli> met eban too
14:35 < beeli> him in person
14:35 <@echarp> the only trouble is his lack of intersocial interests
14:35 < beeli> probably yes
14:35 <@echarp> eban? eben moglen?
14:35 < beeli> yes
14:35 < beeli> when he was in cro
14:35 <@echarp> cool, interesting guy too
14:35 < beeli> hed some shitty conversation
14:35 < beeli> i think he has no good opinion of me
14:35 < beeli> got into trap
14:35 <@echarp> conversation on what kind of thing?
14:35 < beeli> of talking about truth
14:36 < beeli> i asked him to talk about some things
14:36 < beeli> and he invited me to dinner
14:36 <@echarp> cool
14:36 < beeli> we talked about 3 hours about very abstraciotns
14:36 <@echarp> that's a good start
14:37 < beeli> yes, he helped me a lot
14:37 <@echarp> what happened then?
14:37 < beeli> yet, i am not sure he would like to meet me again :)
14:37 < beeli> vivarto
14:37 < beeli> do you know for it/
14:37 < beeli> that is a project for software decision making
14:38 < beeli> leader of it has good contacts
14:38 <@echarp> vivarto I do not know no
14:38 <@echarp> political?
14:38 < beeli> yes
14:38 <@echarp> and why did it end up as a trap?
14:38 < beeli> so, that was the part eban found out i might now what i am talking about
14:38 < beeli> there was no clear focus, no clear finish of talk
14:39 < beeli> no satisfactory elemetns that make you wish meet somebody again
14:39 < beeli> just great pain
14:39 <@echarp> oh, not cool I guess
14:39 <@echarp> yet that happens
14:39 < beeli> what i wanted to do was thing i did not show it clearly
14:39 <@echarp> ok, 5 minutes, I'll be back
14:40 < beeli> and that was about opensource as paradigme that goes far farther than it is software producsiton
14:40 < beeli> andf that changes the world though very politics
14:52 <@echarp> which position were you holding?
14:52 < beeli> many of them
14:52 < beeli> i got into spread
14:53 < beeli> the point was that we should promote opensource paradigm in political process
14:53 <@echarp> that means loss of focus
14:53 < beeli> yes
14:53 < beeli> yet, i was in promotion start
14:53 < beeli> learning from the best :)
14:53 < beeli> i talken about networking, about creating sites and so on
14:54 < beeli> to many stuff
14:54 < beeli> that is bad
14:54 < beeli> and we finished in philosophy
14:54 < beeli> articulation of the word truth and stuff
14:54 < beeli> Eban, as democratci person did stand all of that crap,
14:55 <@echarp> did or did *not?
14:55 < beeli> yet, i did not succeed in my mission
14:55 < beeli> did
14:55 < beeli> he did
14:55 <@echarp> and at the end, is free software important in politics?
14:55 < beeli> imo not too importend
14:55 < beeli> it is part of the process,
14:55 < beeli> yet, not its very base
14:56 < beeli> i wanted to explain my opinion to eban as long as he envisionared its strenght
14:56 < beeli> yet, had some gaps i though i could fill him up
14:56 < beeli> though job
14:57 < beeli> this open politics stuff becomes popular in last tme, yet people seldomly know what to do with ti
14:57 < beeli> it just sounds cool
14:57 < beeli> and that is where it all remains
14:57 < beeli> so, we have open goverment by uk
14:57 <@echarp> in uk??
14:57 < beeli> i suppose transparent lost its potentional
14:57 < beeli> yes, marketing crapo
14:57 <@echarp> how open is it?
14:57 < beeli> n top
14:58 < beeli> by word
14:58 < beeli> BBS reports what uk government does sort of thing
14:58 < beeli> so, they are open, :)
14:58 < beeli> you can send them mail, you know
14:59 < beeli> ops
14:59 < beeli> i have to finish one thing
14:59 < beeli> and i need you for it
14:59 < beeli> list of initiatives
14:59 < beeli> stuff
15:00 < beeli> you agree that we should standardise this part of participation acknowledgment?
15:00 <@echarp> that everybody should state they are part of the top group?
15:01 < beeli> yes and put it on their site
15:01 < beeli> in manner of promotion of a node
15:02 < beeli> banner, words, meta tags or something
15:03 < beeli> you dont :)
15:03 <@echarp> maybe you should just ask "who wants to be part of the top group?"
15:03 < beeli> you seem some problem with publc acknowledgment on our sites?
15:04 <@echarp> seem?
15:04 < beeli> see?
15:04 <@echarp> just ask people to add something on their own page
15:04 < beeli> it would help rating and all
15:04 <@echarp> a logo
15:04 <@echarp> like the w3c does
15:04 < beeli> yet, this should be standardised, should not it be/
15:04 < beeli> w3c?
15:05 <@echarp> the world wide web consortium
15:05 <@echarp> they propose logos to show your site is conformant
15:05 < beeli> ok, something likethat being public formal acknowldgmend stuff
15:05 <@echarp> for example yes
15:05 < beeli> you think it would be right
15:05 < beeli> ?
15:05 <@echarp> a ring of sorts
15:05 <@echarp> it would probably the easiest first step
15:06 <@echarp> "be" the easiest first step
15:06 < beeli> By putting this stuff on your site you are becming formall yada yada yada stuff?
15:07 < beeli> so, we should see what to put on site :)
15:08 <@echarp> yeap, any designer on board? :)
15:08 < beeli> i know i am far from being one :)
15:08 < beeli> so, you think this is fine proposal to be done?
15:09 < beeli> back me up with it?
15:09 <@echarp> have a look at what logos can be used, go on http://leparlement.org, bottom up of page, hover your mouse over the version number, you will see some logos
15:09 <@echarp> I'll back you up
15:09 < beeli> thenks :)
15:09 < beeli> this is politics :)
15:09 < beeli> http://www3.xfreehosting.com/lesbian/danni/tabatha/tabatha11.jpg
15:09 <@echarp> on the web you exist if you are linked to
15:09 < beeli> in small size?
15:10 <@echarp> very very small
15:10 < beeli> ok
15:11 <@echarp> with such an image, we won't attract many babes, that would be a shame :)
15:11 < beeli> find some guy than?
15:13 <@echarp> ?
15:13 -!- illegale (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung2631.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
15:13 <@echarp> then?
15:13 < beeli> ops
15:13 < beeli> yes
15:14 -!- illegale [n=ille...@cmung2631.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Client Quit]
15:14 <@echarp> :)
15:15 <@echarp> ok, weather is incredibly beautiful, I'm going out for a coffe
15:15 <@echarp> want some?
15:15 <@echarp> many babes around here too ;)
15:15 < beeli> yes :)
15:15 < beeli> gonna eat now me :)
15:15 <@echarp> bon appétit
15:15 < beeli> cu later
15:15 <@echarp> I'll be back in 1 hour or 2
15:16 < beeli> i hope i will menage it
15:16 -!- beeli [n=ille...@cmung2631.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit []
16:33 < urgen> I'm going to be away for the weekend
16:35 * urgen applies for a personal leave pass to avoid punitive measures that may show up re nomic and not being around to vote
16:39 <@echarp> urgen: that's fine, you can :)
16:39 <@echarp> by me anyway
16:39 < urgen> tnx
16:39 <@echarp> urgen: how are you? going out? a week end in family? friends?
16:39 < urgen> buddhist studies
16:40 < urgen> leaving right now. bye
16:40 <@echarp> woaw
16:40 <@echarp> bye bye
--- Log closed dim jun 11 00:00:17 2006
Message has been deleted
echarp
Jun 12, 2006, 1:44:56 AM6/12/06
to top-politics
--- Log opened dim jun 11 00:00:17 2006
11:27 -!- illegale (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung565.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
11:31 -!- cbs8854 (gaim) [n=cha...@pool-71-111-30-136.ptldor.dsl-w.verizon.net] has joined #parlement
12:41 <@echarp> hello hello
12:41 < illegale> hey :)
12:43 <@echarp> how are you?
13:02 < cbs8854> charles here, emmanuel
13:03 <@echarp> cbs8854: very late or early for you? :)
13:05 < cbs8854> very late
13:06 < cbs8854> my charles8851 handle was wrong for me, & we could not modify it, so we changed it
13:07 <@echarp> charles is probably rather common
13:07 <@echarp> what is the 885(1|4) number for?
13:07 < cbs8854> in is history.
13:07 < cbs8854> birthday, 8th month, 8th day, 1954
13:08 <@echarp> I hope it's not also your password ;)
13:08 <@echarp> (because many use their birthday for that too)
13:09 < cbs8854> no, password is different
13:10 <@echarp> cbs8854: btw, what do you think about the transparency and openness principles? :)
13:11 < cbs8854> i support them 100 %
13:12 < cbs8854> was there reason you thought different?
13:13 <@echarp> openness concerns open source too
13:13 <@echarp> you know, opening up the code
13:13 <@echarp> publicly
13:13 < illegale> back :)
13:14 < illegale> this is problamatic stuff
13:14 < illegale> no win win situation
13:14 < illegale> strategy principe
13:14 < illegale> buridan is at joi ito :)
13:15 < cbs8854> why is openness a problem?
13:15 <@echarp> win/win and problematic?
13:15 <@echarp> what is problematic?
13:15 < illegale> no win win
13:15 < cbs8854> who looses?
13:15 < illegale> you have to let your weak parts be obvious to those who do not support you
13:15 <@echarp> illegale: what are you speaking about?
13:15 < illegale> that is something people do not lke
13:15 < illegale> about working top
13:16 < illegale> such as code
13:16 < illegale> in programimng
13:16 <@echarp> opening up code?
13:16 < illegale> nah
13:16 <@echarp> many don't like showing their code?
13:16 < illegale> talking about organisation principle
13:16 <@echarp> illegale: please, restate context, I'm lost
13:16 < illegale> when you work opensource, your code is transaprent
13:16 < illegale> hackers can easily find the flaw
13:17 <@echarp> supposedly
13:17 < illegale> yet, there is more of thsoe who will solve the problem
13:17 < illegale> and this is becoming paradox
13:17 < illegale> having it top in programimng prinicples
13:17 < illegale> and yet having prettty safe stuff
13:17 < illegale> maybe even very very safe
13:17 < illegale> when yo do your political actions top
13:18 < illegale> you do not have a curtain, no shelter to hide your weak parts
13:18 < illegale> these weak parts are transparent to them
13:18 <@echarp> ok
13:18 < illegale> and that is something peoplea are pretty afraid of
13:18 < illegale> not knowing the second part of it
13:19 < illegale> enough eyeballs are problems shallow
13:19 < illegale> all problems
13:19 < cbs8854> some people are afraid of transparent code. Other people are not afraid of it.
13:19 < illegale> yet, this comes up to level of political organisatins
13:19 < illegale> where big interests are playing game
13:20 < illegale> in this not so perfect world
13:20 < illegale> people being scary of such
13:21 < illegale> yet, i suppose there are different levels of transparency, not sure are those in sort of collision or not
13:21 < illegale> having problem of defining what is private and what is politica
13:21 < illegale> what can you hold for yourslef and what you can not
13:21 < illegale> at least what can be expected and so
13:21 < illegale> on solidarity basis
13:28 <@echarp> there are levels yes
13:29 <@echarp> needs to be defined what is appropriate or not
13:29 < illegale> yes
13:29 < illegale> holding the basic principle
13:29 < illegale> informed base stuff
13:31 <@echarp> what about a leader talking with his staff?
13:31 < illegale> decision making, desicion realisation stuff?
13:32 < illegale> for decision making funds of top are necessary
13:32 < illegale> imo of corse
13:32 < illegale> in other part, there is a problem can somebody be in several relationships?
13:32 < illegale> or only one?
13:33 <@echarp> can a leader talk privately, with his staff for example, of strategic decisions he may take?
13:34 < illegale> i believe not
13:34 < illegale> i mean, when you choose a leader, what do you choose actually?
13:35 < illegale> though stuff
13:35 <@echarp> tough yes
13:35 <@echarp> yet, political decisions are sometimes a chess game
13:35 < illegale> i am affraid that we can not play this stuff in opensource
13:35 <@echarp> one you don't have to play against your opponents, but also against ennemies
13:36 <@echarp> chess games? what about kde and gnome for example? was is not chess?
13:36 < illegale> tell me more about it
13:36 <@echarp> QT was a great library, which kde used
13:36 <@echarp> QT was not free software
13:37 <@echarp> many considered it pretty bad, and in fact illegal
13:37 <@echarp> so they decided to create counter projects, which were free and based on free libraries
13:37 <@echarp> first there was harmony
13:37 <@echarp> then the gtk library, coming from gimp, and used as the foundatin of gnome
13:37 <@echarp> gnome and the gtk are LGPL
13:38 <@echarp> many companies put their weight behind it
13:38 <@echarp> pressuring kde and QT, and the company behind QT, trolltek
13:38 <@echarp> eventually the gnome project grew and was useable
13:38 <@echarp> trolltek decided to turn the tables, and released their project as GPL
13:39 <@echarp> now it's all cool, but this was an incredible "battle"
13:39 <@echarp> many public relations
13:39 <@echarp> many discussions in private to change the tables
13:39 <@echarp> to push agenda
13:39 <@echarp> to motivate and convince
13:40 <@echarp> I'm not sure you can hold all those discussions in public, if only because there is not much point in publicising all the failures you go through
13:40 < illegale> yes, this is somethng differnet imo
13:40 <@echarp> well, I'm wondering about that kind of thing and transparency!!!
13:41 < illegale> doing transparently stuff, i make people do trust me
13:41 < illegale> al new info they gain set into the patern they already have about me
13:41 < illegale> no way to dissapoint
13:41 < illegale> yet, im am far from perfect
13:42 < illegale> in the other hand, oponents are
13:42 < illegale> from their behind the curtain platy
13:42 < illegale> so, this is my political base and political principle
13:42 < illegale> when i aproach to workers (for an example)
13:42 < illegale> i do not say, everything is gonna be alright
13:42 < illegale> as other politicians
13:43 < illegale> what i say is what i do and what i can do for them
13:43 <@echarp> and that's good
13:43 < illegale> i say what i do expect from them and what they have to take care of
13:43 < illegale> if they want of course
13:43 < illegale> they do not like me as much as those poliicians
13:44 < illegale> yet, i gain much more thrust after all than all of them together
13:44 < illegale> and this is very very important part in politics
13:44 < illegale> brb
13:45 < illegale> and this is in private part as long as i did not record the stuff
13:46 < illegale> in those private talks
13:46 < illegale> if they are ready to go in public, they will get all of mine support
13:46 < illegale> and i am public player
13:46 < illegale> blb, sorry
13:47 -!- illegale [n=ille...@cmung565.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit []
17:07 -!- illegale (illegale) [i=ille...@cmung906.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
17:07 < illegale> back ..
17:07 < illegale> took me some tme, had to go out
17:08 <@echarp> that happens :)
17:09 < illegale> yes :)
17:09 < illegale> E. Lets talk about nodes
17:09 < illegale> OK?
17:09 <@echarp> ok
17:09 < illegale> or lets keep discussion we started :)
17:10 <@echarp> did you read my proposition about a web ring?
17:10 < illegale> yes
17:10 < illegale> that is not the bestes thing, imo
17:10 < illegale> not bad, yet not the bestest
17:10 < illegale> same thing as we used different channels on irc
17:10 <@echarp> ?
17:10 < illegale> but ringed
17:10 <@echarp> same as different channels???
17:10 < illegale> each other
17:11 <@echarp> I don't get the relation or analogy
17:11 < illegale> Ring is cool thing, we shouldstart it
17:11 < illegale> yet, that is no what i am looking for in htis very moment
17:11 < illegale> you understand it?
17:11 < illegale> I am looking for gravity forming
17:11 <@echarp> I don't know, what are you searching for?
17:12 < illegale> about simmilar issues
17:12 < illegale> web ring does not enable it by itself, right?
17:12 < illegale> if you go to your channel and if i go to my channel and mark goes to his channel
17:12 <@echarp> sorry, what doesn't a web ring enable??
17:12 < illegale> not good thing
17:12 <@echarp> unity?
17:12 < illegale> one place for conversaion legitiimated by alls
17:12 < illegale> such as top politics is
17:13 <@echarp> then why speak of nodes?
17:14 < illegale> top politics is node between tiatkiv and parlement
17:14 <@echarp> maybe you should send or resend a mail explaining it all
17:14 < illegale> top politics is node between aktivdemokrati and structural deep democracy
17:14 < illegale> that is example of course
17:15 < illegale> this stuff we are talking about does not have too many interested parts
17:15 <@echarp> interested or interesting?
17:15 < illegale> interested
17:15 <@echarp> parts = people then?
17:15 < illegale> yes
17:15 < illegale> parties
17:16 < illegale> initiatives, organisations, people
17:16 <@echarp> so what you want is that everybody use top-politics to talk?
17:16 < illegale> i would litke if that was chaged
17:16 < illegale> yes
17:16 <@echarp> ok
17:16 < illegale> of course, it is imposible
17:17 < illegale> yet, tendency is legitimated
17:17 <@echarp> as usual, it's difficult, everybody pulling the blanket toward themselves
17:17 < illegale> i am willing to drop off from top politics if it is the problemativ aprt
17:17 < illegale> what i am not willing to drop off is setting such a place
17:17 <@echarp> "drop off"? what do you mean?
17:18 < illegale> drop
17:18 <@echarp> not be on top-politics anymore?
17:18 < illegale> i do not mind if we find some other node
17:18 < illegale> if there is problem about legitimation for this purpose
17:18 <@echarp> you, illegale, are willing to not use top-politics but let everybody else use it???
17:19 < illegale> no, if there is any problem about setting top politics as such channel i wont objectivise it at all
17:19 <@echarp> "object"
17:19 < illegale> have problems with it
17:19 < illegale> btw, i am sick, please have htis in mind :)
17:19 <@echarp> same with me
17:19 < illegale> cool
17:19 <@echarp> (I'm not sick, just I don't care about the "place" we use)
17:20 <@echarp> (as long as that place is accessible by mail...)
17:20 < illegale> OK. Yet, when we get agreement, we will have to keep to is
17:20 < illegale> to it
17:20 < illegale> to enable this gravity stuff
17:20 <@echarp> what do you mean with this "gravity"???
17:20 < illegale> and this gravity stuff is about progresive political ideas basd on interent, i suppose
17:21 < illegale> having enough members to enable node prosperity
17:21 < illegale> not loosing it
17:21 <@echarp> "interent"?
17:21 < illegale> i suppose
17:21 < illegale> internet
17:21 <@echarp> gravity = larger group
17:21 < illegale> yes
17:21 < illegale> group storng enough to attach other lurkers
17:22 < illegale> making prosperous node.
17:22 < illegale> I am talking about nodes, not sites, you can notice, btw )
17:22 < illegale> :)
17:22 <@echarp> to attract people
17:22 < illegale> yes
17:22 <@echarp> I'm also interested into attracting people
17:23 < illegale> i know :)
17:23 < illegale> ive seen many top sites died in several years i follow this
17:23 < illegale> none of these sites succeeded in its mission
17:24 < illegale> i am said to notice that and i think we might try to change this habitt
17:24 <@echarp> there is a need to formalise "goals", "agenda"
17:24 < illegale> absolutely
17:24 < illegale> nice and easy stuff
17:25 < illegale> i mean goind nice and easy
17:25 < illegale> not to be easy :)
17:25 <@echarp> I believe I've seen other inititiatives who tried to rate opennes of free software projects
17:26 < illegale> and what happened ?
17:26 <@echarp> I don't really know, I didn't follow it
17:26 <@echarp> they add a batch of criteria
17:27 < illegale> k
17:27 <@echarp> going from access to source code to open community
17:27 <@echarp> very interesting
17:27 < illegale> you know somebody of them?
17:28 <@echarp> no
17:28 < illegale> btw, ive seen plenty of initiatives in croatia that needed grouping to succeed, who died out after a while
17:28 <@echarp> that was probably like 3 or 4 years ago
17:29 < illegale> instead of finding common languega they divided
17:29 < illegale> till there was no interet any more
17:29 < illegale> ok
17:29 < illegale> any site?
17:29 < illegale> to lurk?
17:29 <@echarp> no url I can remember
17:30 < illegale> not hgelping on this issue :)
17:31 < illegale> open source monitoring
17:31 <@echarp> ok, I've just updated parlement with v0.6
17:32 < illegale> what did you menaged ?
17:32 <@echarp> voting on the web page
17:32 <@echarp> of course I'm sure there will be bugs :(
17:32 <@echarp> you can try it on http://leparlement.org/test
17:32 <@echarp> don't hesitate to vote as much as you want
17:33 <@echarp> your login is still available of course
17:33 <@echarp> (and each vote will generate a mail)
17:34 < illegale> it is tranlinked to google groups?
17:35 <@echarp> not that part no
17:35 <@echarp> and http://leparlement.org/top-politics acts as a replication slave with the google groups
17:35 < illegale> what are red and green Vs?
17:35 <@echarp> data can only go from the google groups *to* http://leparlement.org/top-politics
17:35 <@echarp> try hovering your mouse over it
17:36 < illegale> yes?
17:36 <@echarp> I'm sure you understand it, you have already voted ;)
17:37 < illegale> hmh, do you have public logo for how did others voted?
17:38 < illegale> logo log
17:38 <@echarp> you can see all other votes
17:38 <@echarp> I'm going to put a page with them all in a simple place
17:39 < illegale> where?
17:39 < illegale> can you see other votes?
17:39 < illegale> I am not following this to good
17:39 <@echarp> bellow any element, there are all votes cast on it
17:40 < illegale> where excatly?
17:40 <@echarp> just dig under the element
17:40 < illegale> http://leparlement.org/aKdEHs-nir2PKJabcNg4Tc
17:41 <@echarp> I can see you vote +1, thx :)
17:41 <@echarp> yet you voted +1 *for* mark
17:41 < illegale> testing!
17:41 <@echarp> hopefully just a test :)
17:41 <@echarp> can you see your vote on that page?
17:41 < illegale> now i am interested to see who votes +1 also
17:41 < illegale> ?
17:42 < illegale> see +2
17:42 <@echarp> there is an automatic +1 on any post
17:42 < illegale> see not illegale
17:42 <@echarp> illegale: you need to close and reopen sub elements
17:42 <@echarp> new elements are not yet displayed automatically
17:43 <@echarp> me I can see your vote plain and clear
17:44 <@echarp> you see it too?
17:45 < illegale> Our constitution
17:45 < illegale> i voted +1 for it
17:45 < illegale> now i refreshed the page
17:45 <@echarp> I've seen that yes :)
17:45 < illegale> where i can see my name?
17:45 <@echarp> under it
17:45 <@echarp> as a new element
17:45 <@echarp> just click on the "7 more" link
17:46 < illegale> ok
17:46 < illegale> i found it
17:46 < illegale> :)
17:46 <@echarp> and you voted +1 for your own vote! :)
17:47 < illegale> yes
17:47 < illegale> cheating
17:47 <@echarp> that's fine
17:47 < illegale> you need time stuff
17:47 <@echarp> you should test in the testing part ;)
17:47 <@echarp> time stuff?
17:47 < illegale> sorry
17:48 < illegale> though, it is not legitimated anyway :)
17:48 <@echarp> it's all right, just now all elements are displayed, even those in negative votes
17:48 <@echarp> legitimated?
17:48 < illegale> neverming
17:48 < illegale> anon spam me again
17:49 <@echarp> lol :)
17:49 <@echarp> you need to setup a mail filter!!!
17:49 <@echarp> or you will quickly get submerged
17:49 <@echarp> any body voting will generate a mail!
17:50 <@echarp> me right now any new element generates a bell sound, it might be too much soon, well, hopefully :)
17:50 < illegale> brb
17:50 <@echarp> ok
17:51 <@echarp> what do you think of the javascript effects when you vote?
17:56 <@echarp> small application error :(
18:00 <@echarp> my server is old old old :(
18:00 <@echarp> 900MHz, that's rather bad
18:03 < illegale> E, does it need to send me email? any possibility to turn off that option?
18:03 < illegale> i prefer web browsing
18:04 < illegale> weird sort of guy
18:04 < illegale> windows idiot
18:04 < illegale> http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/links.php
18:04 < illegale> Mirek linked us on his project.
18:04 < illegale> Nice guy, persistnt in his work
18:05 <@echarp> well, you have subscribed on the root element, you receive mails of all created sub elements
18:05 <@echarp> just unsubscribe
18:05 <@echarp> one can also use rss feed to follow what is going on
18:08 < illegale> ok, did I?
18:08 <@echarp> yes you did
18:08 <@echarp> no more mails :)
18:08 < illegale> starting to follow you
18:09 < illegale> :)
18:09 <@echarp> you can of course just subscribe on the top-politics element
18:09 <@echarp> and receive mails for all created sub elements
18:09 < illegale> ill have that in mind :)
18:09 < illegale> yet, when i come to internet i go to groups
18:09 <@echarp> fine by me
18:10 <@echarp> you have the choice to
18:10 <@echarp> there are different ways to access the same content :)
18:10 < illegale> did you see this mirek kolar guy?
18:10 < illegale> yes
18:11 <@echarp> I don't know that guy
18:18 < illegale> nadal won
18:18 < illegale> he is from cicdd
18:18 < illegale> worker kind of guy
18:18 < illegale> not philosopher
18:18 < illegale> kind of guy :)
18:18 < illegale> one of the couple i appreciate at that list
18:19 < illegale> though, did you look at the link?
18:19 <@echarp> no
18:20 < illegale> the point is there is top politics and there is tdcomunity
18:20 < illegale> on the list of forums
18:20 < illegale> i wish to avoid that
18:21 < illegale> btw, are you planning to set new design for your page, i mean about putting info in distinct corners and so?
18:21 < illegale> or therads only?
18:21 <@echarp> info in distinct corners?
18:22 < illegale> yes, about voting and stuff
18:22 <@echarp> tell me more
18:22 <@echarp> what kind of info do you have in mind?
18:22 < illegale> not distinct corners, i have problems about saying my mind
18:23 < illegale> i come to your site, see what are the raised issues, who votd how and stuf
18:23 < illegale> see what are desicions and so on
18:23 <@echarp> sorry again, what information do you want to see? and where?
18:23 <@echarp> votes?
18:24 <@echarp> individual votes?
18:24 < illegale> i suppose this needs voting procedures to be set
18:24 < illegale> yes
18:24 < illegale> every mail is not call for voting i suppose
18:24 < illegale> right?
18:24 < illegale> :)
18:24 <@echarp> it is!
18:24 < illegale> hmh
18:24 <@echarp> every mail is an issue!!!
18:24 <@echarp> it's the very foundation of it all :)
18:25 < illegale> you make me itches in head :)
18:25 <@echarp> I believe it is *VERY* simple, yet there is a paradigm shift that need to occur
18:25 < illegale> can every line of this chat be issue?
18:26 <@echarp> well, this chat is only logged in as one big post, thus it is one big issue
18:26 <@echarp> every line is not an issue :(
18:26 <@echarp> (it might be in the future)
18:26 < illegale> i suppose this needs some form of writing, right?
18:26 <@echarp> form of writing??
18:26 < illegale> E is lemming
18:26 <@echarp> ??
18:26 < illegale> is that constatation something we need to vote for ?
18:27 < illegale> lol
18:27 <@echarp> sorry, what is your point?
18:27 < illegale> kidding about marks issues :)
18:27 <@echarp> well, he runs in circles, no need to further that stupidity
18:27 < illegale> what we have today is not too compatible with this
18:28 < illegale> or you suppose that those that are not proper do not get high with vvotes?
18:28 <@echarp> those not proper? are you speaking of issues or people?
18:28 < illegale> posts
18:28 < illegale> issues
18:28 <@echarp> well, consider the google group, can you or can you not vote on each post???
18:28 <@echarp> same here
18:29 < illegale> yes you can, yet i do not use it actually :)
18:29 <@echarp> just the voting method is slightly different
18:29 <@echarp> well, you don't have to use it either
18:29 <@echarp> well, you don't have to use it "here" either
18:29 < illegale> yes, i dont :)
18:29 <@echarp> just use it on those elements you deem are worthy of a vote
18:29 < illegale> i get it
18:29 < illegale> cool
18:29 <@echarp> then the elements most interesting will rise
18:30 < illegale> principle of autopoiesis there i can see
18:30 <@echarp> :)
18:30 <@echarp> COOL!
18:30 <@echarp> we would need a proper place for issues
18:30 < illegale> i suppose it will need some filters and stuff
18:30 <@echarp> I'm probably going to copy cbs8854 issues into a parlement sub-issue
18:31 <@echarp> yeap
18:31 < illegale> yet, this base suports it all
18:31 <@echarp> :)
18:31 <@echarp> you understand ;)
18:31 <@echarp> filters will be *very* important!!!
18:31 < illegale> we are simmilar thinkers, indeed :)
18:31 <@echarp> and filters would be managed with an electoral list
18:32 < illegale> yet, i have to go now. my back hurts again
18:32 <@echarp> of course a filter would also be individual
18:32 < illegale> had some complications (
18:32 <@echarp> ok :)
18:32 < illegale> see you later!
18:32 <@echarp> I feel sorry for you
18:32 <@echarp> cu!
18:32 -!- illegale [i=ille...@cmung906.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit []
20:43 -!- illegale (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung2748.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
20:48 < illegale> hello, hello echarp :)
20:49 <@echarp> hello back
20:49 < illegale> yes
20:49 -!- echarp changed the topic of #parlement to: http://leparlement.org/irc
20:49 <@echarp> see, a new page
20:49 < illegale> lets see
20:50 < illegale> ..
20:50 < illegale> .
20:51 <@echarp> slow?
20:51 < illegale> i got it
20:51 <@echarp> yet it rendered in 1.6sec
20:51 <@echarp> which is not that bad
20:52 < illegale> what are its characteristic?
20:52 < illegale> w
20:52 < illegale> s?
20:52 <@echarp> characteristics?
20:52 < illegale> is it on line loging?
20:52 < illegale> logging
20:52 <@echarp> on-line?
20:52 <@echarp> what do you mean by on-line?
20:52 <@echarp> it is everything we say here
20:53 < illegale> is it automated ?
20:53 <@echarp> not yet
20:54 < illegale> you can not take what espians have and impement it?
20:54 <@echarp> there are many ways to automate it
20:55 < illegale> how hard are they to be done
20:55 < illegale> ?
20:55 <@echarp> I have a simple one in mind which should be more than enough
20:55 <@echarp> something like one hour of work to automate it
20:55 < illegale> when shall you have it working?
20:55 <@echarp> is it urgent?
20:56 < illegale> not to me, just couripous
20:56 <@echarp> it can be done and this is a certitude
20:56 <@echarp> easily
20:56 < illegale> what you can do today, do it, it rises your reputation :)
20:56 < illegale> and expectaions
20:56 < illegale> lol
20:57 <@echarp> I'm having other things to do, urgently
20:57 <@echarp> like bugs that appear here and there
20:57 < illegale> bugs for?
20:57 < illegale> voting?
20:58 <@echarp> yeap
20:58 < illegale> ok
20:58 <@echarp> my regexp was using a \s* where it should have been a \s+
20:59 < illegale> means not too much for me
20:59 < illegale> i think, i got about transparency the principle
20:59 <@echarp> ?you got about?
20:59 < illegale> how transparent stuff
20:59 < illegale> what is the line
20:59 < illegale> and so on
21:00 <@echarp> ?"the line"?
21:00 < illegale> of what can be protected and what can not be protected
21:00 <@echarp> what did you got about? this is not a verb I recognise
21:00 < illegale> what info can be transparent and what info can not be transaprent
21:00 <@echarp> ok I get it
21:01 <@echarp> can be "not" transparent would sound better :)
21:01 <@echarp> or can be "opac"
21:01 < illegale> hmh
21:01 <@echarp> nah, opac is not an english word or so says my dict :(
21:01 < illegale> i am public and i am part of any open organisation
21:01 <@echarp> opaque
21:02 <@echarp> you are public???
21:02 < illegale> this means i have all info that can help me focus my energy on exact problems of organsiation i find relevant
21:02 < illegale> stating as public stuff
21:02 < illegale> so, do you have a mistress?
21:03 < illegale> this is the question that might not be of mine bussiness
21:03 <@echarp> I see
21:03 < illegale> so, if you say, mind your own bussiness, it is legitimate
21:03 < illegale> yet, it sdtays written and done
21:03 < illegale> you asked, i said fuck off
21:03 < illegale> or vice vers\
21:04 < illegale> so, there is a bssines culture already existing about this stuff, i suppose
21:04 < illegale> what is propriate, and what is not apropriate
21:04 < illegale> but, from the position, no hierchy about info aproach
21:05 < illegale> unless we talk about stuff we can get concensus like agreement
21:05 < illegale> such as military points, or other stuff that might be interesting for acknowledgment
21:05 <@echarp> ok, personal stuff can be kept private
21:05 < illegale> i think so, yes
21:06 <@echarp> what do you mean with "no hierarchy about info approach"?
21:06 < illegale> that you do not gain right to access info by hightning your rang stuff
21:07 < illegale> umless there are some stuff i can not imagine in this moment.
21:07 <@echarp> ?hightning?
21:07 < illegale> rising
21:07 < illegale> so, is there any stuff we should keep as private?
21:08 <@echarp> I'm wondering about stuff
21:08 < illegale> there is imo just stuff that can enable mass murders by hand of one
21:08 < illegale> for an example, build atomic bomb in twenty seconds stuff
21:08 <@echarp> what about a leader hesitance, can he hide it?
21:09 < illegale> yet, there is common sense and autocensorship about thiese things
21:09 < illegale> hesitance?
21:10 < illegale> so, these principles enable public be true partner, not a consumer which differs us from everybodie else
21:10 < illegale> this is participatory democracy
21:10 < illegale> true democracy sdtuff
21:10 < illegale> stuff other can not claim
21:10 <@echarp> a leader can be hesitant
21:10 <@echarp> and he might speak about it with hist staff
21:11 <@echarp> and he might speak about it with his staff
21:11 <@echarp> yet this hesitancy can incredibly detrimental to him and his followers outside of this small group
21:11 <@echarp> should it be made public?
21:11 < illegale> why not?
21:11 < illegale> it is legitimate to ask before you gather info for decision
21:11 <@echarp> because learders hide their hesitancy
21:12 <@echarp> otherwise they just don't get followed
21:12 <@echarp> this is human nature
21:12 < illegale> leaders who are based on todays closed politics system
21:12 <@echarp> any human leader
21:12 < illegale> this is another type of organisation, leaders get another type of followers
21:12 <@echarp> not just today's
21:12 < illegale> socrates was a leader in some manner
21:12 <@echarp> in any group, a hesitant leader is not a good leader
21:12 < illegale> yet that was not appropriate for politics
21:12 < illegale> today it is
21:13 < illegale> lets say so as an expresion
21:13 <@echarp> let's say what?
21:13 < illegale> socrates could be political leader :)
21:13 < illegale> just a picture
21:14 < illegale> those who know and claim with no gathering info before their decision makings, pretty soon become redicules in today info era
21:14 <@echarp> this is not the matter
21:14 < illegale> yet, what is important about leading is consistency and moving forward
21:14 <@echarp> those who seem hesitant will not be followed
21:15 <@echarp> this is human nature
21:15 < illegale> we are all hesitant sometimes
21:15 <@echarp> you can sure that churchill hesitated on many decisions, yet he did not show it
21:15 < illegale> if somebofy is hesitatn all the time, he is not such a leader
21:15 <@echarp> of course we are, but a leader should not show it
21:15 < illegale> i have no problems with it
21:15 <@echarp> it's not a matter of actually being hesitant, it is one of "looking" hesitant
21:15 < illegale> I am not sure in this moment is legitimate thing imo
21:16 < illegale> i appreciate it
21:16 <@echarp> what would be legitimate or not?
21:16 <@echarp> that a leader is actually hesitant?
21:16 < illegale> if somebody is a leader, there is a reason he is a leader
21:16 < illegale> no need for myths
21:17 < illegale> to accept that fact
21:17 <@echarp> come on, there are huge myths on our old time leaders, same with napoleon for example
21:18 <@echarp> same with rommel or monty
21:18 < illegale> of course, hesitating too much decreased someonew power as long as main charactieristic of leader has nothing to hesitation
21:18 < illegale> yes, there are
21:18 < illegale> this is age of myth we are comming from
21:18 <@echarp> a military leader, for example, needs to show over confidence or no one would follow him to their death
21:18 < illegale> yet, myths can not last too long in the era of inteernet
21:18 < illegale> new values are formed
21:19 < illegale> follow me leader
21:19 < illegale> no space for do it leader
21:19 <@echarp> space for them too
21:19 < illegale> for stalins and hitler
21:20 < illegale> ok, yet he is goingmuch harder to ber listened than follow me leader
21:20 < illegale> leader/menager
21:21 < illegale> brb
21:21 <@echarp> ok
21:30 < illegale> back
21:33 <@echarp> great documentary on arte, about napoleon and his military organisation
21:34 < illegale> k
21:34 < illegale> great posts in Croatian forum :)
21:35 <@echarp> what is it about?
21:35 < illegale> politics
21:37 <@echarp> any particular opinion?
21:37 <@echarp> montenegro for example? :)
21:41 < illegale> no
21:41 < illegale> party politics
21:47 <@echarp> sometimes painful
21:50 < illegale> not to me, i am a little bit nerd
22:42 -!- illegale [n=ille...@cmung2748.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)]
22:55 -!- illegale (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung3240.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
22:57 <@echarp> hello back
22:58 < illegale> gonna go 8)
22:58 < illegale> gotta go
22:58 < illegale> 8)
22:58 <@echarp> night night?
22:58 < illegale> probably
22:58 < illegale> did you watch footbal these days?
22:59 <@echarp> ok, I'm going to go too, and I'm rather happy of my v0.6 :)
22:59 <@echarp> I watched 5minutes
22:59 < illegale> cool :)
22:59 <@echarp> and you?
22:59 < illegale> 200 minutes
22:59 < illegale> or more
22:59 < illegale> :)
22:59 < illegale> tomorrow is my day :)
22:59 < illegale> cu
22:59 -!- illegale [n=ille...@cmung3240.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit []
--- Log closed lun jun 12 00:00:18 2006
11:27 -!- illegale (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung565.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
11:31 -!- cbs8854 (gaim) [n=cha...@pool-71-111-30-136.ptldor.dsl-w.verizon.net] has joined #parlement
12:41 <@echarp> hello hello
12:41 < illegale> hey :)
12:43 <@echarp> how are you?
13:02 < cbs8854> charles here, emmanuel
13:03 <@echarp> cbs8854: very late or early for you? :)
13:05 < cbs8854> very late
13:06 < cbs8854> my charles8851 handle was wrong for me, & we could not modify it, so we changed it
13:07 <@echarp> charles is probably rather common
13:07 <@echarp> what is the 885(1|4) number for?
13:07 < cbs8854> in is history.
13:07 < cbs8854> birthday, 8th month, 8th day, 1954
13:08 <@echarp> I hope it's not also your password ;)
13:08 <@echarp> (because many use their birthday for that too)
13:09 < cbs8854> no, password is different
13:10 <@echarp> cbs8854: btw, what do you think about the transparency and openness principles? :)
13:11 < cbs8854> i support them 100 %
13:12 < cbs8854> was there reason you thought different?
13:13 <@echarp> openness concerns open source too
13:13 <@echarp> you know, opening up the code
13:13 <@echarp> publicly
13:13 < illegale> back :)
13:14 < illegale> this is problamatic stuff
13:14 < illegale> no win win situation
13:14 < illegale> strategy principe
13:14 < illegale> buridan is at joi ito :)
13:15 < cbs8854> why is openness a problem?
13:15 <@echarp> win/win and problematic?
13:15 <@echarp> what is problematic?
13:15 < illegale> no win win
13:15 < cbs8854> who looses?
13:15 < illegale> you have to let your weak parts be obvious to those who do not support you
13:15 <@echarp> illegale: what are you speaking about?
13:15 < illegale> that is something people do not lke
13:15 < illegale> about working top
13:16 < illegale> such as code
13:16 < illegale> in programimng
13:16 <@echarp> opening up code?
13:16 < illegale> nah
13:16 <@echarp> many don't like showing their code?
13:16 < illegale> talking about organisation principle
13:16 <@echarp> illegale: please, restate context, I'm lost
13:16 < illegale> when you work opensource, your code is transaprent
13:16 < illegale> hackers can easily find the flaw
13:17 <@echarp> supposedly
13:17 < illegale> yet, there is more of thsoe who will solve the problem
13:17 < illegale> and this is becoming paradox
13:17 < illegale> having it top in programimng prinicples
13:17 < illegale> and yet having prettty safe stuff
13:17 < illegale> maybe even very very safe
13:17 < illegale> when yo do your political actions top
13:18 < illegale> you do not have a curtain, no shelter to hide your weak parts
13:18 < illegale> these weak parts are transparent to them
13:18 <@echarp> ok
13:18 < illegale> and that is something peoplea are pretty afraid of
13:18 < illegale> not knowing the second part of it
13:19 < illegale> enough eyeballs are problems shallow
13:19 < illegale> all problems
13:19 < cbs8854> some people are afraid of transparent code. Other people are not afraid of it.
13:19 < illegale> yet, this comes up to level of political organisatins
13:19 < illegale> where big interests are playing game
13:20 < illegale> in this not so perfect world
13:20 < illegale> people being scary of such
13:21 < illegale> yet, i suppose there are different levels of transparency, not sure are those in sort of collision or not
13:21 < illegale> having problem of defining what is private and what is politica
13:21 < illegale> what can you hold for yourslef and what you can not
13:21 < illegale> at least what can be expected and so
13:21 < illegale> on solidarity basis
13:28 <@echarp> there are levels yes
13:29 <@echarp> needs to be defined what is appropriate or not
13:29 < illegale> yes
13:29 < illegale> holding the basic principle
13:29 < illegale> informed base stuff
13:31 <@echarp> what about a leader talking with his staff?
13:31 < illegale> decision making, desicion realisation stuff?
13:32 < illegale> for decision making funds of top are necessary
13:32 < illegale> imo of corse
13:32 < illegale> in other part, there is a problem can somebody be in several relationships?
13:32 < illegale> or only one?
13:33 <@echarp> can a leader talk privately, with his staff for example, of strategic decisions he may take?
13:34 < illegale> i believe not
13:34 < illegale> i mean, when you choose a leader, what do you choose actually?
13:35 < illegale> though stuff
13:35 <@echarp> tough yes
13:35 <@echarp> yet, political decisions are sometimes a chess game
13:35 < illegale> i am affraid that we can not play this stuff in opensource
13:35 <@echarp> one you don't have to play against your opponents, but also against ennemies
13:36 <@echarp> chess games? what about kde and gnome for example? was is not chess?
13:36 < illegale> tell me more about it
13:36 <@echarp> QT was a great library, which kde used
13:36 <@echarp> QT was not free software
13:37 <@echarp> many considered it pretty bad, and in fact illegal
13:37 <@echarp> so they decided to create counter projects, which were free and based on free libraries
13:37 <@echarp> first there was harmony
13:37 <@echarp> then the gtk library, coming from gimp, and used as the foundatin of gnome
13:37 <@echarp> gnome and the gtk are LGPL
13:38 <@echarp> many companies put their weight behind it
13:38 <@echarp> pressuring kde and QT, and the company behind QT, trolltek
13:38 <@echarp> eventually the gnome project grew and was useable
13:38 <@echarp> trolltek decided to turn the tables, and released their project as GPL
13:39 <@echarp> now it's all cool, but this was an incredible "battle"
13:39 <@echarp> many public relations
13:39 <@echarp> many discussions in private to change the tables
13:39 <@echarp> to push agenda
13:39 <@echarp> to motivate and convince
13:40 <@echarp> I'm not sure you can hold all those discussions in public, if only because there is not much point in publicising all the failures you go through
13:40 < illegale> yes, this is somethng differnet imo
13:40 <@echarp> well, I'm wondering about that kind of thing and transparency!!!
13:41 < illegale> doing transparently stuff, i make people do trust me
13:41 < illegale> al new info they gain set into the patern they already have about me
13:41 < illegale> no way to dissapoint
13:41 < illegale> yet, im am far from perfect
13:42 < illegale> in the other hand, oponents are
13:42 < illegale> from their behind the curtain platy
13:42 < illegale> so, this is my political base and political principle
13:42 < illegale> when i aproach to workers (for an example)
13:42 < illegale> i do not say, everything is gonna be alright
13:42 < illegale> as other politicians
13:43 < illegale> what i say is what i do and what i can do for them
13:43 <@echarp> and that's good
13:43 < illegale> i say what i do expect from them and what they have to take care of
13:43 < illegale> if they want of course
13:43 < illegale> they do not like me as much as those poliicians
13:44 < illegale> yet, i gain much more thrust after all than all of them together
13:44 < illegale> and this is very very important part in politics
13:44 < illegale> brb
13:45 < illegale> and this is in private part as long as i did not record the stuff
13:46 < illegale> in those private talks
13:46 < illegale> if they are ready to go in public, they will get all of mine support
13:46 < illegale> and i am public player
13:46 < illegale> blb, sorry
13:47 -!- illegale [n=ille...@cmung565.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit []
17:07 -!- illegale (illegale) [i=ille...@cmung906.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
17:07 < illegale> back ..
17:07 < illegale> took me some tme, had to go out
17:08 <@echarp> that happens :)
17:09 < illegale> yes :)
17:09 < illegale> E. Lets talk about nodes
17:09 < illegale> OK?
17:09 <@echarp> ok
17:09 < illegale> or lets keep discussion we started :)
17:10 <@echarp> did you read my proposition about a web ring?
17:10 < illegale> yes
17:10 < illegale> that is not the bestes thing, imo
17:10 < illegale> not bad, yet not the bestest
17:10 < illegale> same thing as we used different channels on irc
17:10 <@echarp> ?
17:10 < illegale> but ringed
17:10 <@echarp> same as different channels???
17:10 < illegale> each other
17:11 <@echarp> I don't get the relation or analogy
17:11 < illegale> Ring is cool thing, we shouldstart it
17:11 < illegale> yet, that is no what i am looking for in htis very moment
17:11 < illegale> you understand it?
17:11 < illegale> I am looking for gravity forming
17:11 <@echarp> I don't know, what are you searching for?
17:12 < illegale> about simmilar issues
17:12 < illegale> web ring does not enable it by itself, right?
17:12 < illegale> if you go to your channel and if i go to my channel and mark goes to his channel
17:12 <@echarp> sorry, what doesn't a web ring enable??
17:12 < illegale> not good thing
17:12 <@echarp> unity?
17:12 < illegale> one place for conversaion legitiimated by alls
17:12 < illegale> such as top politics is
17:13 <@echarp> then why speak of nodes?
17:14 < illegale> top politics is node between tiatkiv and parlement
17:14 <@echarp> maybe you should send or resend a mail explaining it all
17:14 < illegale> top politics is node between aktivdemokrati and structural deep democracy
17:14 < illegale> that is example of course
17:15 < illegale> this stuff we are talking about does not have too many interested parts
17:15 <@echarp> interested or interesting?
17:15 < illegale> interested
17:15 <@echarp> parts = people then?
17:15 < illegale> yes
17:15 < illegale> parties
17:16 < illegale> initiatives, organisations, people
17:16 <@echarp> so what you want is that everybody use top-politics to talk?
17:16 < illegale> i would litke if that was chaged
17:16 < illegale> yes
17:16 <@echarp> ok
17:16 < illegale> of course, it is imposible
17:17 < illegale> yet, tendency is legitimated
17:17 <@echarp> as usual, it's difficult, everybody pulling the blanket toward themselves
17:17 < illegale> i am willing to drop off from top politics if it is the problemativ aprt
17:17 < illegale> what i am not willing to drop off is setting such a place
17:17 <@echarp> "drop off"? what do you mean?
17:18 < illegale> drop
17:18 <@echarp> not be on top-politics anymore?
17:18 < illegale> i do not mind if we find some other node
17:18 < illegale> if there is problem about legitimation for this purpose
17:18 <@echarp> you, illegale, are willing to not use top-politics but let everybody else use it???
17:19 < illegale> no, if there is any problem about setting top politics as such channel i wont objectivise it at all
17:19 <@echarp> "object"
17:19 < illegale> have problems with it
17:19 < illegale> btw, i am sick, please have htis in mind :)
17:19 <@echarp> same with me
17:19 < illegale> cool
17:19 <@echarp> (I'm not sick, just I don't care about the "place" we use)
17:20 <@echarp> (as long as that place is accessible by mail...)
17:20 < illegale> OK. Yet, when we get agreement, we will have to keep to is
17:20 < illegale> to it
17:20 < illegale> to enable this gravity stuff
17:20 <@echarp> what do you mean with this "gravity"???
17:20 < illegale> and this gravity stuff is about progresive political ideas basd on interent, i suppose
17:21 < illegale> having enough members to enable node prosperity
17:21 < illegale> not loosing it
17:21 <@echarp> "interent"?
17:21 < illegale> i suppose
17:21 < illegale> internet
17:21 <@echarp> gravity = larger group
17:21 < illegale> yes
17:21 < illegale> group storng enough to attach other lurkers
17:22 < illegale> making prosperous node.
17:22 < illegale> I am talking about nodes, not sites, you can notice, btw )
17:22 < illegale> :)
17:22 <@echarp> to attract people
17:22 < illegale> yes
17:22 <@echarp> I'm also interested into attracting people
17:23 < illegale> i know :)
17:23 < illegale> ive seen many top sites died in several years i follow this
17:23 < illegale> none of these sites succeeded in its mission
17:24 < illegale> i am said to notice that and i think we might try to change this habitt
17:24 <@echarp> there is a need to formalise "goals", "agenda"
17:24 < illegale> absolutely
17:24 < illegale> nice and easy stuff
17:25 < illegale> i mean goind nice and easy
17:25 < illegale> not to be easy :)
17:25 <@echarp> I believe I've seen other inititiatives who tried to rate opennes of free software projects
17:26 < illegale> and what happened ?
17:26 <@echarp> I don't really know, I didn't follow it
17:26 <@echarp> they add a batch of criteria
17:27 < illegale> k
17:27 <@echarp> going from access to source code to open community
17:27 <@echarp> very interesting
17:27 < illegale> you know somebody of them?
17:28 <@echarp> no
17:28 < illegale> btw, ive seen plenty of initiatives in croatia that needed grouping to succeed, who died out after a while
17:28 <@echarp> that was probably like 3 or 4 years ago
17:29 < illegale> instead of finding common languega they divided
17:29 < illegale> till there was no interet any more
17:29 < illegale> ok
17:29 < illegale> any site?
17:29 < illegale> to lurk?
17:29 <@echarp> no url I can remember
17:30 < illegale> not hgelping on this issue :)
17:31 < illegale> open source monitoring
17:31 <@echarp> ok, I've just updated parlement with v0.6
17:32 < illegale> what did you menaged ?
17:32 <@echarp> voting on the web page
17:32 <@echarp> of course I'm sure there will be bugs :(
17:32 <@echarp> you can try it on http://leparlement.org/test
17:32 <@echarp> don't hesitate to vote as much as you want
17:33 <@echarp> your login is still available of course
17:33 <@echarp> (and each vote will generate a mail)
17:34 < illegale> it is tranlinked to google groups?
17:35 <@echarp> not that part no
17:35 <@echarp> and http://leparlement.org/top-politics acts as a replication slave with the google groups
17:35 < illegale> what are red and green Vs?
17:35 <@echarp> data can only go from the google groups *to* http://leparlement.org/top-politics
17:35 <@echarp> try hovering your mouse over it
17:36 < illegale> yes?
17:36 <@echarp> I'm sure you understand it, you have already voted ;)
17:37 < illegale> hmh, do you have public logo for how did others voted?
17:38 < illegale> logo log
17:38 <@echarp> you can see all other votes
17:38 <@echarp> I'm going to put a page with them all in a simple place
17:39 < illegale> where?
17:39 < illegale> can you see other votes?
17:39 < illegale> I am not following this to good
17:39 <@echarp> bellow any element, there are all votes cast on it
17:40 < illegale> where excatly?
17:40 <@echarp> just dig under the element
17:40 < illegale> http://leparlement.org/aKdEHs-nir2PKJabcNg4Tc
17:41 <@echarp> I can see you vote +1, thx :)
17:41 <@echarp> yet you voted +1 *for* mark
17:41 < illegale> testing!
17:41 <@echarp> hopefully just a test :)
17:41 <@echarp> can you see your vote on that page?
17:41 < illegale> now i am interested to see who votes +1 also
17:41 < illegale> ?
17:42 < illegale> see +2
17:42 <@echarp> there is an automatic +1 on any post
17:42 < illegale> see not illegale
17:42 <@echarp> illegale: you need to close and reopen sub elements
17:42 <@echarp> new elements are not yet displayed automatically
17:43 <@echarp> me I can see your vote plain and clear
17:44 <@echarp> you see it too?
17:45 < illegale> Our constitution
17:45 < illegale> i voted +1 for it
17:45 < illegale> now i refreshed the page
17:45 <@echarp> I've seen that yes :)
17:45 < illegale> where i can see my name?
17:45 <@echarp> under it
17:45 <@echarp> as a new element
17:45 <@echarp> just click on the "7 more" link
17:46 < illegale> ok
17:46 < illegale> i found it
17:46 < illegale> :)
17:46 <@echarp> and you voted +1 for your own vote! :)
17:47 < illegale> yes
17:47 < illegale> cheating
17:47 <@echarp> that's fine
17:47 < illegale> you need time stuff
17:47 <@echarp> you should test in the testing part ;)
17:47 <@echarp> time stuff?
17:47 < illegale> sorry
17:48 < illegale> though, it is not legitimated anyway :)
17:48 <@echarp> it's all right, just now all elements are displayed, even those in negative votes
17:48 <@echarp> legitimated?
17:48 < illegale> neverming
17:48 < illegale> anon spam me again
17:49 <@echarp> lol :)
17:49 <@echarp> you need to setup a mail filter!!!
17:49 <@echarp> or you will quickly get submerged
17:49 <@echarp> any body voting will generate a mail!
17:50 <@echarp> me right now any new element generates a bell sound, it might be too much soon, well, hopefully :)
17:50 < illegale> brb
17:50 <@echarp> ok
17:51 <@echarp> what do you think of the javascript effects when you vote?
17:56 <@echarp> small application error :(
18:00 <@echarp> my server is old old old :(
18:00 <@echarp> 900MHz, that's rather bad
18:03 < illegale> E, does it need to send me email? any possibility to turn off that option?
18:03 < illegale> i prefer web browsing
18:04 < illegale> weird sort of guy
18:04 < illegale> windows idiot
18:04 < illegale> http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/links.php
18:04 < illegale> Mirek linked us on his project.
18:04 < illegale> Nice guy, persistnt in his work
18:05 <@echarp> well, you have subscribed on the root element, you receive mails of all created sub elements
18:05 <@echarp> just unsubscribe
18:05 <@echarp> one can also use rss feed to follow what is going on
18:08 < illegale> ok, did I?
18:08 <@echarp> yes you did
18:08 <@echarp> no more mails :)
18:08 < illegale> starting to follow you
18:09 < illegale> :)
18:09 <@echarp> you can of course just subscribe on the top-politics element
18:09 <@echarp> and receive mails for all created sub elements
18:09 < illegale> ill have that in mind :)
18:09 < illegale> yet, when i come to internet i go to groups
18:09 <@echarp> fine by me
18:10 <@echarp> you have the choice to
18:10 <@echarp> there are different ways to access the same content :)
18:10 < illegale> did you see this mirek kolar guy?
18:10 < illegale> yes
18:11 <@echarp> I don't know that guy
18:18 < illegale> nadal won
18:18 < illegale> he is from cicdd
18:18 < illegale> worker kind of guy
18:18 < illegale> not philosopher
18:18 < illegale> kind of guy :)
18:18 < illegale> one of the couple i appreciate at that list
18:19 < illegale> though, did you look at the link?
18:19 <@echarp> no
18:20 < illegale> the point is there is top politics and there is tdcomunity
18:20 < illegale> on the list of forums
18:20 < illegale> i wish to avoid that
18:21 < illegale> btw, are you planning to set new design for your page, i mean about putting info in distinct corners and so?
18:21 < illegale> or therads only?
18:21 <@echarp> info in distinct corners?
18:22 < illegale> yes, about voting and stuff
18:22 <@echarp> tell me more
18:22 <@echarp> what kind of info do you have in mind?
18:22 < illegale> not distinct corners, i have problems about saying my mind
18:23 < illegale> i come to your site, see what are the raised issues, who votd how and stuf
18:23 < illegale> see what are desicions and so on
18:23 <@echarp> sorry again, what information do you want to see? and where?
18:23 <@echarp> votes?
18:24 <@echarp> individual votes?
18:24 < illegale> i suppose this needs voting procedures to be set
18:24 < illegale> yes
18:24 < illegale> every mail is not call for voting i suppose
18:24 < illegale> right?
18:24 < illegale> :)
18:24 <@echarp> it is!
18:24 < illegale> hmh
18:24 <@echarp> every mail is an issue!!!
18:24 <@echarp> it's the very foundation of it all :)
18:25 < illegale> you make me itches in head :)
18:25 <@echarp> I believe it is *VERY* simple, yet there is a paradigm shift that need to occur
18:25 < illegale> can every line of this chat be issue?
18:26 <@echarp> well, this chat is only logged in as one big post, thus it is one big issue
18:26 <@echarp> every line is not an issue :(
18:26 <@echarp> (it might be in the future)
18:26 < illegale> i suppose this needs some form of writing, right?
18:26 <@echarp> form of writing??
18:26 < illegale> E is lemming
18:26 <@echarp> ??
18:26 < illegale> is that constatation something we need to vote for ?
18:27 < illegale> lol
18:27 <@echarp> sorry, what is your point?
18:27 < illegale> kidding about marks issues :)
18:27 <@echarp> well, he runs in circles, no need to further that stupidity
18:27 < illegale> what we have today is not too compatible with this
18:28 < illegale> or you suppose that those that are not proper do not get high with vvotes?
18:28 <@echarp> those not proper? are you speaking of issues or people?
18:28 < illegale> posts
18:28 < illegale> issues
18:28 <@echarp> well, consider the google group, can you or can you not vote on each post???
18:28 <@echarp> same here
18:29 < illegale> yes you can, yet i do not use it actually :)
18:29 <@echarp> just the voting method is slightly different
18:29 <@echarp> well, you don't have to use it either
18:29 <@echarp> well, you don't have to use it "here" either
18:29 < illegale> yes, i dont :)
18:29 <@echarp> just use it on those elements you deem are worthy of a vote
18:29 < illegale> i get it
18:29 < illegale> cool
18:29 <@echarp> then the elements most interesting will rise
18:30 < illegale> principle of autopoiesis there i can see
18:30 <@echarp> :)
18:30 <@echarp> COOL!
18:30 <@echarp> we would need a proper place for issues
18:30 < illegale> i suppose it will need some filters and stuff
18:30 <@echarp> I'm probably going to copy cbs8854 issues into a parlement sub-issue
18:31 <@echarp> yeap
18:31 < illegale> yet, this base suports it all
18:31 <@echarp> :)
18:31 <@echarp> you understand ;)
18:31 <@echarp> filters will be *very* important!!!
18:31 < illegale> we are simmilar thinkers, indeed :)
18:31 <@echarp> and filters would be managed with an electoral list
18:32 < illegale> yet, i have to go now. my back hurts again
18:32 <@echarp> of course a filter would also be individual
18:32 < illegale> had some complications (
18:32 <@echarp> ok :)
18:32 < illegale> see you later!
18:32 <@echarp> I feel sorry for you
18:32 <@echarp> cu!
18:32 -!- illegale [i=ille...@cmung906.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit []
20:43 -!- illegale (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung2748.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
20:48 < illegale> hello, hello echarp :)
20:49 <@echarp> hello back
20:49 < illegale> yes
20:49 -!- echarp changed the topic of #parlement to: http://leparlement.org/irc
20:49 <@echarp> see, a new page
20:49 < illegale> lets see
20:50 < illegale> ..
20:50 < illegale> .
20:51 <@echarp> slow?
20:51 < illegale> i got it
20:51 <@echarp> yet it rendered in 1.6sec
20:51 <@echarp> which is not that bad
20:52 < illegale> what are its characteristic?
20:52 < illegale> w
20:52 < illegale> s?
20:52 <@echarp> characteristics?
20:52 < illegale> is it on line loging?
20:52 < illegale> logging
20:52 <@echarp> on-line?
20:52 <@echarp> what do you mean by on-line?
20:52 <@echarp> it is everything we say here
20:53 < illegale> is it automated ?
20:53 <@echarp> not yet
20:54 < illegale> you can not take what espians have and impement it?
20:54 <@echarp> there are many ways to automate it
20:55 < illegale> how hard are they to be done
20:55 < illegale> ?
20:55 <@echarp> I have a simple one in mind which should be more than enough
20:55 <@echarp> something like one hour of work to automate it
20:55 < illegale> when shall you have it working?
20:55 <@echarp> is it urgent?
20:56 < illegale> not to me, just couripous
20:56 <@echarp> it can be done and this is a certitude
20:56 <@echarp> easily
20:56 < illegale> what you can do today, do it, it rises your reputation :)
20:56 < illegale> and expectaions
20:56 < illegale> lol
20:57 <@echarp> I'm having other things to do, urgently
20:57 <@echarp> like bugs that appear here and there
20:57 < illegale> bugs for?
20:57 < illegale> voting?
20:58 <@echarp> yeap
20:58 < illegale> ok
20:58 <@echarp> my regexp was using a \s* where it should have been a \s+
20:59 < illegale> means not too much for me
20:59 < illegale> i think, i got about transparency the principle
20:59 <@echarp> ?you got about?
20:59 < illegale> how transparent stuff
20:59 < illegale> what is the line
20:59 < illegale> and so on
21:00 <@echarp> ?"the line"?
21:00 < illegale> of what can be protected and what can not be protected
21:00 <@echarp> what did you got about? this is not a verb I recognise
21:00 < illegale> what info can be transparent and what info can not be transaprent
21:00 <@echarp> ok I get it
21:01 <@echarp> can be "not" transparent would sound better :)
21:01 <@echarp> or can be "opac"
21:01 < illegale> hmh
21:01 <@echarp> nah, opac is not an english word or so says my dict :(
21:01 < illegale> i am public and i am part of any open organisation
21:01 <@echarp> opaque
21:02 <@echarp> you are public???
21:02 < illegale> this means i have all info that can help me focus my energy on exact problems of organsiation i find relevant
21:02 < illegale> stating as public stuff
21:02 < illegale> so, do you have a mistress?
21:03 < illegale> this is the question that might not be of mine bussiness
21:03 <@echarp> I see
21:03 < illegale> so, if you say, mind your own bussiness, it is legitimate
21:03 < illegale> yet, it sdtays written and done
21:03 < illegale> you asked, i said fuck off
21:03 < illegale> or vice vers\
21:04 < illegale> so, there is a bssines culture already existing about this stuff, i suppose
21:04 < illegale> what is propriate, and what is not apropriate
21:04 < illegale> but, from the position, no hierchy about info aproach
21:05 < illegale> unless we talk about stuff we can get concensus like agreement
21:05 < illegale> such as military points, or other stuff that might be interesting for acknowledgment
21:05 <@echarp> ok, personal stuff can be kept private
21:05 < illegale> i think so, yes
21:06 <@echarp> what do you mean with "no hierarchy about info approach"?
21:06 < illegale> that you do not gain right to access info by hightning your rang stuff
21:07 < illegale> umless there are some stuff i can not imagine in this moment.
21:07 <@echarp> ?hightning?
21:07 < illegale> rising
21:07 < illegale> so, is there any stuff we should keep as private?
21:08 <@echarp> I'm wondering about stuff
21:08 < illegale> there is imo just stuff that can enable mass murders by hand of one
21:08 < illegale> for an example, build atomic bomb in twenty seconds stuff
21:08 <@echarp> what about a leader hesitance, can he hide it?
21:09 < illegale> yet, there is common sense and autocensorship about thiese things
21:09 < illegale> hesitance?
21:10 < illegale> so, these principles enable public be true partner, not a consumer which differs us from everybodie else
21:10 < illegale> this is participatory democracy
21:10 < illegale> true democracy sdtuff
21:10 < illegale> stuff other can not claim
21:10 <@echarp> a leader can be hesitant
21:10 <@echarp> and he might speak about it with hist staff
21:11 <@echarp> and he might speak about it with his staff
21:11 <@echarp> yet this hesitancy can incredibly detrimental to him and his followers outside of this small group
21:11 <@echarp> should it be made public?
21:11 < illegale> why not?
21:11 < illegale> it is legitimate to ask before you gather info for decision
21:11 <@echarp> because learders hide their hesitancy
21:12 <@echarp> otherwise they just don't get followed
21:12 <@echarp> this is human nature
21:12 < illegale> leaders who are based on todays closed politics system
21:12 <@echarp> any human leader
21:12 < illegale> this is another type of organisation, leaders get another type of followers
21:12 <@echarp> not just today's
21:12 < illegale> socrates was a leader in some manner
21:12 <@echarp> in any group, a hesitant leader is not a good leader
21:12 < illegale> yet that was not appropriate for politics
21:12 < illegale> today it is
21:13 < illegale> lets say so as an expresion
21:13 <@echarp> let's say what?
21:13 < illegale> socrates could be political leader :)
21:13 < illegale> just a picture
21:14 < illegale> those who know and claim with no gathering info before their decision makings, pretty soon become redicules in today info era
21:14 <@echarp> this is not the matter
21:14 < illegale> yet, what is important about leading is consistency and moving forward
21:14 <@echarp> those who seem hesitant will not be followed
21:15 <@echarp> this is human nature
21:15 < illegale> we are all hesitant sometimes
21:15 <@echarp> you can sure that churchill hesitated on many decisions, yet he did not show it
21:15 < illegale> if somebofy is hesitatn all the time, he is not such a leader
21:15 <@echarp> of course we are, but a leader should not show it
21:15 < illegale> i have no problems with it
21:15 <@echarp> it's not a matter of actually being hesitant, it is one of "looking" hesitant
21:15 < illegale> I am not sure in this moment is legitimate thing imo
21:16 < illegale> i appreciate it
21:16 <@echarp> what would be legitimate or not?
21:16 <@echarp> that a leader is actually hesitant?
21:16 < illegale> if somebody is a leader, there is a reason he is a leader
21:16 < illegale> no need for myths
21:17 < illegale> to accept that fact
21:17 <@echarp> come on, there are huge myths on our old time leaders, same with napoleon for example
21:18 <@echarp> same with rommel or monty
21:18 < illegale> of course, hesitating too much decreased someonew power as long as main charactieristic of leader has nothing to hesitation
21:18 < illegale> yes, there are
21:18 < illegale> this is age of myth we are comming from
21:18 <@echarp> a military leader, for example, needs to show over confidence or no one would follow him to their death
21:18 < illegale> yet, myths can not last too long in the era of inteernet
21:18 < illegale> new values are formed
21:19 < illegale> follow me leader
21:19 < illegale> no space for do it leader
21:19 <@echarp> space for them too
21:19 < illegale> for stalins and hitler
21:20 < illegale> ok, yet he is goingmuch harder to ber listened than follow me leader
21:20 < illegale> leader/menager
21:21 < illegale> brb
21:21 <@echarp> ok
21:30 < illegale> back
21:33 <@echarp> great documentary on arte, about napoleon and his military organisation
21:34 < illegale> k
21:34 < illegale> great posts in Croatian forum :)
21:35 <@echarp> what is it about?
21:35 < illegale> politics
21:37 <@echarp> any particular opinion?
21:37 <@echarp> montenegro for example? :)
21:41 < illegale> no
21:41 < illegale> party politics
21:47 <@echarp> sometimes painful
21:50 < illegale> not to me, i am a little bit nerd
22:42 -!- illegale [n=ille...@cmung2748.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)]
22:55 -!- illegale (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung3240.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
22:57 <@echarp> hello back
22:58 < illegale> gonna go 8)
22:58 < illegale> gotta go
22:58 < illegale> 8)
22:58 <@echarp> night night?
22:58 < illegale> probably
22:58 < illegale> did you watch footbal these days?
22:59 <@echarp> ok, I'm going to go too, and I'm rather happy of my v0.6 :)
22:59 <@echarp> I watched 5minutes
22:59 < illegale> cool :)
22:59 <@echarp> and you?
22:59 < illegale> 200 minutes
22:59 < illegale> or more
22:59 < illegale> :)
22:59 < illegale> tomorrow is my day :)
22:59 < illegale> cu
22:59 -!- illegale [n=ille...@cmung3240.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit []
--- Log closed lun jun 12 00:00:18 2006
echarp
Jun 13, 2006, 3:14:24 AM6/13/06
to top-politics
--- Log opened lun jun 12 00:00:18 2006
02:03 -!- illegale (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung163.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
02:47 -!- illegale [n=ille...@cmung163.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
10:58 -!- illegale (illegale) [i=ille...@cmung2579.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
11:10 -!- beeli (illegale) [i=ille...@cmung2579.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
11:19 -!- illegale [i=ille...@cmung2579.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
12:09 -!- beeli [i=ille...@cmung2579.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
16:52 < urgen> back
17:06 <@echarp> hello hello urgen
17:06 <@echarp> how was the week end?
17:07 < urgen> fast, vow of silence type thing
17:07 < urgen> went well
17:09 <@echarp> you have faith and all that?
17:11 < urgen> I can answer with a question.
17:11 < urgen> do you have faith in gravity?
17:12 < urgen> maybe not he pre-unified-theory version...
17:12 < urgen> but at least when you let go of a spoon it will fall to the ground
17:12 <@echarp> euh, it's not faith, it's a belief
17:12 < urgen> happens every time, right?
17:12 <@echarp> happens every time yes, until now
17:13 < urgen> ah, well I do not create a line between those two
17:13 <@echarp> I'm a rational, materialist, atheist, agnostic, monist :)
17:13 < urgen> you still 'trust' something
17:13 <@echarp> nope
17:13 <@echarp> not a trust that has anything related to faith
17:13 < urgen> then you don't build theory at all?
17:13 < urgen> wow
17:13 <@echarp> of course I do
17:13 <@echarp> it's all built on sand
17:13 < urgen> that's what I just said
17:13 < urgen> <<-- does not separate
17:14 <@echarp> I have a belief system based on a bayesian graph
17:14 < urgen> the other thing you think you are calling faith is a fantasy
17:14 <@echarp> everything is a matter of level
17:14 < urgen> so why would I refer to a fantasy?
17:14 < urgen> it complicates thing unnecessarily
17:14 <@echarp> a fantasy?
17:14 < urgen> well you don't recognize it, right?
17:14 <@echarp> I don't recognise religions?
17:15 < urgen> faith as a non-experience based method to arrive at understanding
17:15 <@echarp> or the beliefs they are built upon?
17:15 < urgen> just faith for now
17:15 < urgen> we can get into the institutions later
17:15 <@echarp> sorry, but something not based on experience would just be silly
17:15 <@echarp> but there might "personal" experience
17:15 < urgen> I think you are creating an unnecessary division in your definition
17:15 <@echarp> I don't know
17:16 < urgen> I do completely understand what you are suggesting but I think the delivery does nothing to support what you are saying
17:16 <@echarp> I consider humans can not reach absolutes
17:16 < urgen> you are making a contradiction you are unaware of
17:16 <@echarp> which is?
17:16 < urgen> this is sloppy thinking
17:16 < urgen> that faith has nothing to do with experience
17:16 <@echarp> you said that faith is non-experiences based
17:16 < urgen> you were told, once, that there was this thing, called faith, and that it requires the suspension of question
17:16 < urgen> right?
17:17 <@echarp> nope
17:17 < urgen> no I said faith was only experience based
17:17 <@echarp> I was educated and indoctrinated in the catholic faith
17:17 < urgen> unless my keyboard is sticking again
17:17 <@echarp> "< urgen> faith as a non-experience based method to arrive at understanding"
17:17 < urgen> catholic faith requires a suspension of question, right?
17:17 <@echarp> I believe it does yes
17:17 < urgen> yes that is the position I was stating as the negative
17:17 < urgen> so we agree
17:17 <@echarp> oh, I didn't read that then
17:18 <@echarp> sorry
17:18 < urgen> no?
17:18 <@echarp> I'm fine with you considering that faith is experienced based
17:18 < urgen> ok, then I can answer you with a yes "I have faith"
17:18 <@echarp> yet I also know that humans are frail, and will make *incredible* mistakes
17:18 < urgen> get it?
17:19 < urgen> silly simple worthless word that is
17:19 < urgen> but causes wars
17:19 <@echarp> I do
17:19 < urgen> that's just wrong
17:19 <@echarp> worthless I do not know
17:19 <@echarp> just a word of course, yet one which can encompass many concepts
17:19 < urgen> sure. at root
17:19 <@echarp> suspension of disbelief generally being one
17:19 < urgen> 99% of the people that use it use it as a club over someone elses head, tho
17:20 < urgen> that's why it is getting such a bad reputation
17:20 <@echarp> but I don't know very well budhism, yet I know it is based on a divinity
17:20 < urgen> it is not based on a divinity
17:20 <@echarp> I give faith a bad reputation because it's generally based on lies
17:20 < urgen> that wouldn't be very productive
17:20 < urgen> oh.. wait.. I suppose there are some communist based doctrines that defined it that way
17:21 <@echarp> well, I've read about budhism, and I understand there is a divinity "at heart", but we can not know it
17:21 <@echarp> communists???
17:21 < urgen> ok, so what source are you pointing to that suggests a divinity is involved?
17:21 <@echarp> what about philosophers?
17:21 < urgen> philosophers can handle it. :-)
17:21 < urgen> they know, at least, to explore
17:21 <@echarp> just things I read, which spoke about the universe we are seing being a lie, but that there was a divinity which appeared in many facets
17:22 < urgen> weird
17:22 <@echarp> well, my views on religion will mostly align with many philosophers, epicure for example
17:22 <@echarp> I also know that budhism is very often considered a god less religion
17:23 <@echarp> or even a philosophy
17:23 < urgen> well, at least from my experience, there is no divinity 'at heart' in the school I study
17:23 < urgen> that's pretty much the inverse
17:23 <@echarp> god less?
17:23 < urgen> completely
17:24 < urgen> only not in the sense of having a ring through its nose as in a-theism
17:24 < urgen> more like non-theism
17:24 < urgen> no big deal, nothing to fight windmills about
17:24 < urgen> (like don quixote)
17:24 < urgen> a non-affirming negation
17:25 < urgen> we do not need to posit the negation then to just tear it down so we can feel superior
17:25 < urgen> appreciation of logic is like learning to enjoy new foods.. taste matures
17:25 <@echarp> a- and non-?
17:25 <@echarp> a-theism just means one does not believe in god
17:26 <@echarp> it does not imply an affirmation of it non existence
17:26 < urgen> ok, so maybe that's just my bias.. I see a lot of atheists set their whole life on battling the theists
17:26 <@echarp> I am a-theist and a-gnostic you know
17:26 < urgen> they would not exist were there no theists to battle
17:26 <@echarp> or so you think
17:26 < urgen> a non-theist does not see any theists to battle because it does not exist
17:26 < urgen> an atheist has a grudge
17:27 <@echarp> I consider religions to be lies and tools of powers, I love talking poitics and history, I love talking about lies and power
17:27 <@echarp> I have a grudge about the way religions have shaped our current world
17:27 <@echarp> and I want to fight those lies
17:27 < urgen> sure, and I'm saying atheist is an equal lie to divinity at heart
17:27 <@echarp> sorry, a-theist and a-gnostic does not ring a bell?
17:28 < urgen> a meaning not
17:28 <@echarp> it does not mean that I don't have faith yet also that I don't have certitudes?
17:29 <@echarp> well, I have relative certitudes :)
17:29 < urgen> theism is a top down system based on pre-existing rule base -- agnostic is just a whimp isn't it??? someoone that's going to play the safe side just in case
17:29 <@echarp> those are things I'm pretty confident about
17:29 <@echarp> wimp is just a weak accusation
17:29 < urgen> :-)
17:29 < urgen> well I was leaving the door open there for more conversation
17:30 <@echarp> a-gnostic is just a word which carries a meaning
17:30 < urgen> but used only in battles
17:30 <@echarp> that meaning is that there are no absolutes that humans can reach
17:30 <@echarp> which battles?
17:30 < urgen> religious?
17:31 < urgen> battles relate to power?
17:31 <@echarp> I guess yes
17:31 < urgen> power has to be exerted?
17:32 <@echarp> "has to"???
17:32 <@echarp> you sure?
17:32 <@echarp> power also "has to" exist?
17:32 < urgen> that was a question
17:32 <@echarp> nothing "has to"
17:32 < urgen> power doesn't exist
17:32 <@echarp> nothing human
17:33 <@echarp> power is just a domination in a fluid state
17:33 < urgen> I am trying to outline the position of a case that posits a power
17:33 <@echarp> like a cult dominating its members?
17:33 < urgen> power is always a bully?
17:34 < urgen> oh any top down system is a power then
17:34 < urgen> any time a demand requires enforcement to be adopted
17:35 <@echarp> I think it's a way to see it yes
17:35 < urgen> whether that be by physical, or psychological
17:35 <@echarp> power also exists if I put a gun on one's head
17:36 < urgen> that would be physical
17:36 <@echarp> yeap
17:36 <@echarp> physical violence is an easy to see type of power
17:36 < urgen> ok, so. now you were saying about this power.
17:36 < urgen> that it is a lie?
17:36 <@echarp> that religions are based on lies
17:36 < urgen> or that is exists only when lies are used?
17:36 < urgen> that's beside the point
17:36 <@echarp> and use those lies as foundation to their power
17:36 < urgen> we were talking about power
17:37 <@echarp> I was talking about lies and power :)
17:37 < urgen> I lumped all power into the same bucket
17:37 < urgen> whether governmental, religious, street bully, or whatever
17:37 < urgen> lies and power, yes
17:38 <@echarp> well, I talk about religion because it has shaped europe
17:38 < urgen> pull the rug of lies and power out and all those things topple
17:38 <@echarp> since the roman empire, the catholic church has held most power, and abused it
17:38 < urgen> it has nothing particularly special to do with religions except that they depend on the same condition
17:38 <@echarp> yeap
17:38 <@echarp> well, the catholic church is based on lies, do you agree with that?
17:39 < urgen> and this is in contrast to.. -- and we don't really have a term for -horizontal- agreement
17:39 < urgen> easy agree
17:39 < urgen> I can even get into the structure of a lie to show the case if required
17:39 <@echarp> they even managed to have a fake "will" of constantine who supposedly gave them the empire
17:40 <@echarp> the roman church mostly built its power on the fact that the pope supposedly managed to push away attila
17:40 <@echarp> (he gave him gold)
17:40 < urgen> well constantine wouldn't really be seen as any particularly special flavor of religious by the religious,,,,
17:40 < urgen> constantine was already a power even without the christian clothing
17:40 <@echarp> ahem, constantine officialised the christian faith as *the* official faith!
17:41 < urgen> if already a power (user of lies) then who cares after that?
17:41 <@echarp> he was losing power at that time
17:41 <@echarp> at a battle he even managed to convert to appolo
17:41 < urgen> one power for another :-)
17:41 <@echarp> at the next battle he converted to christianity
17:41 <@echarp> and he gave his power to christianity
17:41 < urgen> as if it needed it, but then, maybe it did
17:42 <@echarp> which destroyed the old world, burnt libraries, and move europe right into the obscurantist middle ages
17:42 < urgen> more evidence of forced adoption
17:42 <@echarp> it did need it, or christianity would just have been another cult amon many others
17:42 <@echarp> forced adoption, yeap, of course
17:42 < urgen> so maybe cults are not religions?
17:42 <@echarp> they killed all pagans you know
17:42 <@echarp> to me cults are religions and vice versa
17:43 < urgen> ok
17:43 <@echarp> no inherent difference
17:43 < urgen> cult as religion transplanted from source
17:43 <@echarp> just that religions are older institutions
17:43 <@echarp> source?
17:43 < urgen> where they were born
17:44 < urgen> christianity did not start in europe so that would just be a cult
17:44 <@echarp> what do you mean?
17:45 <@echarp> anyway, are you defending christianity? :)
17:45 < urgen> from what I learned in religious studies in the university
17:45 < urgen> I can not either defend or attack something that has no logical basis
17:46 < urgen> if there are a bunch of humans out there that have surgically removed questions from their toolbox not a lot I can do
17:46 < urgen> charisma is the only hope by then
17:46 < urgen> I am not especially charismatic
17:47 <@echarp> well come on, considering that it has no logical basis iss already quite a start!
17:47 < urgen> so you say there is a way to attack bullies without it being an attack and just turning yourself into another bully?
17:47 <@echarp> charisma could change things yes
17:47 <@echarp> because it becomes all a matter of emotions
17:47 <@echarp> of course, attacking a bully is just that, attacking a bully
17:48 < urgen> attacking is just attacking
17:48 <@echarp> just as attacking a racist does not make you automatically a racist you know
17:48 < urgen> it makes me a bully
17:48 <@echarp> attacking someone makes you a bully?
17:48 <@echarp> ???
17:48 <@echarp> bully = attacking?
17:48 < urgen> it is trying to force something isn't it?
17:49 <@echarp> I believe that you can attack only with words, strong words yes, but mere words still
17:49 <@echarp> to me it is completely acceptable
17:49 <@echarp> I can write a book and attack a political party for example
17:50 < urgen> ah, I guess attacks are inefficient
17:50 < urgen> it would be foolish to expect rational discourse when question is not allowed
17:50 < urgen> bigger shovel syndrome
17:51 < urgen> that sounds like I am saying discourse is not an attack
17:52 < urgen> if rationality is present, and disagreement is allowed
17:52 <@echarp> it looks like, yes
17:52 < urgen> there is lots of room to 'influence trust'
17:52 < urgen> without either becoming a bully
17:52 <@echarp> yet when *I* speak of attacking an institution or a belief system, I just mean disputing their claims
17:52 < urgen> I just haven't found a bully proof democracy yet
17:53 <@echarp> I'm rather non violent you know
17:53 <@echarp> there will always be bullies, it's a constant fight!
17:53 <@echarp> you can not remove humanity from humans :)
17:53 < urgen> but it seems like some system to regulate that to minimize the influence could be devised
17:54 < urgen> sandboxes that expand immediately so the sand doesn't get in the other children's hair
17:54 <@echarp> :)
17:54 < urgen> just a matter of technolgy, right?
17:55 <@echarp> not to me, a matter of vigilance
17:55 < urgen> so you clear a lot of spam on the wiki, eh?
17:55 < urgen> :-)
17:55 <@echarp> yeap :)
17:56 <@echarp> already some hundred of them on http://leparlement.org :(
17:56 < urgen> then someone makes auto-vigilant IDS cleaners
17:56 < urgen> yes
17:56 <@echarp> yeap
17:56 <@echarp> and that's all good
17:56 <@echarp> better mouse trap all that
17:56 < urgen> still technology, following vigilance, yes, but still technology
17:56 <@echarp> shield and gun
17:56 <@echarp> I disagree, vigilance is first and foremost
17:56 <@echarp> critical mind
17:57 <@echarp> the will to be free
17:57 < urgen> agreement is first
17:57 < urgen> :-)
17:57 <@echarp> agreement comes when you want a communicty
17:57 <@echarp> vigilance starts at one :)
17:57 < urgen> ah so that's an interesting difference
17:57 < urgen> my system does not allow one
17:57 <@echarp> I think so :)
17:57 < urgen> nor two
17:58 < urgen> nor three
17:58 <@echarp> not 3, I'm befudled :)
17:58 < urgen> relative truth is not a single unit basis
17:58 < urgen> and therefor also not a multiple
17:58 < urgen> if not one, then ppl thing ok, then two
17:58 < urgen> but not that either
17:58 < urgen> but not three either..
17:59 <@echarp> I don't get it
17:59 < urgen> if not single pointed
17:59 <@echarp> what do you mean?
17:59 < urgen> and not dualistic pointed
17:59 < urgen> then we are required to move in a direction where the question of basis becomes primary
17:59 < urgen> 'agreement'
17:59 < urgen> happens even before 'one'
17:59 <@echarp> sorry, I'm lost
17:59 <@echarp> totally
17:59 < urgen> sec
18:00 <@echarp> start back on relative truth please :)
18:00 < urgen> trying to find a gateway to wikipedia
18:00 < urgen> lemma
18:00 < urgen> di-lemma
18:00 < urgen> I say the two horns of a lemma are a lie
18:00 < urgen> not one nor two
18:01 <@echarp> what do you mean with respect to relative truths?
18:01 < urgen> with two there is an allusion to relation
18:02 < urgen> but relation's existence is not limited by those two
18:02 <@echarp> sorry, I dont see why you need at least two persons to acknowledge the existence of relative truths
18:02 <@echarp> to me relative truths is not a social matter, it is philosophical!
18:02 <@echarp> I consider that all knowledge is relative, relative to us humans
18:03 < urgen> no philosophers are human?
18:03 <@echarp> we see the universe from our viewpoint
18:03 < urgen> wow
18:03 <@echarp> sorry, relative truth is a concept
18:03 <@echarp> not a social artifact
18:03 < urgen> hmn
18:03 < urgen> it is a principle
18:03 <@echarp> yeap!
18:03 < urgen> a product
18:04 < urgen> requiring someone to encounter it
18:04 <@echarp> a prodcut yes, a concept, an idea, a meme
18:04 < urgen> it is dependent as the rest of us
18:04 <@echarp> "as"?
18:04 < urgen> it is as dependent as the rest of us
18:05 < urgen> relative truth is all there is here
18:05 <@echarp> yeap
18:05 <@echarp> we elements of this universe, can not reach "beyond the universe"
18:05 < urgen> by definition
18:06 <@echarp> we can not know all of it, we can never be sure that we are not in a sandbox kind of universe merely functioning according to "some" rules
18:06 <@echarp> matrix all that! :)
18:06 < urgen> consistency
18:06 <@echarp> plato and descartes had the intuition of this
18:07 < urgen> so the relation is not limited to just a subset
18:07 < urgen> not even just you
18:07 < urgen> you are also a composite
18:07 <@echarp> relation between? relativity?
18:07 < urgen> so when I say agreement I do not limit it to 'between people'
18:07 <@echarp> I am a composite of elements and a composant of the universe
18:08 <@echarp> arg, not limiting agreement to "between people" sounds like a trick on words you know :)
18:08 < urgen> lots of tricky words to wade through
18:08 < urgen> vigilence does come in handy
18:08 <@echarp> agreement is a word we commonly use between animals
18:08 <@echarp> vigilance is required :)
18:09 <@echarp> to consider that the elements constituting us need "agreement" seems beyond the point
18:09 < urgen> and faith is a word we commonly use between religions
18:09 < urgen> but that doesn't limit the use
18:09 < urgen> common sux
18:09 <@echarp> faith is a word commonly used "in" religions
18:09 <@echarp> supposedly it is the stone they build everything on
18:10 <@echarp> to me it looks more like faith is a abuse of our vigilance, that it tends to transform its victim into sheep :)
18:10 < urgen> I don't see it, but whithout question, I suppose anything is allowed
18:10 <@echarp> the sheep of "god" (and its priests)
18:10 < urgen> so that's only a second or third stage disease
18:10 < urgen> I'm sure the symptoms look differently before that
18:10 < urgen> at some point question is still present
18:11 < urgen> and that question is still looking for the nature of truth
18:11 < urgen> we either panic and opt for big daddy in the sky or begin to see some naturally complex landscapes
18:11 < urgen> I can't really say this was a plot, tho the ppl that feed on that indecision are definately plotting
18:12 <@echarp> i don't know if it was always a plot, but I'm sure some do plot to use and transform it all in tools of power
18:12 <@echarp> that suspended disbelief is a great tool of power
18:12 < urgen> with the bruises to prove it, no doubt
18:13 < urgen> I wasn't brought up in a religious environment
18:13 <@echarp> hof, I'm an adult and responsible man, I've outgrown my child hood :)
18:13 < urgen> so I don't have the grudge to nurse
18:14 <@echarp> I don't believe it is a grudge
18:14 < urgen> ok, I apologize
18:14 <@echarp> just a reading of history and present times
18:14 <@echarp> no need to
18:14 < urgen> I don't have to step far to be clobbered by some big black book
18:15 <@echarp> I appreciate history, and there are nowadays great documentaries to depict a lot of all of it
18:15 <@echarp> big black book is?
18:15 < urgen> so I can totally appreciate *still* having to be careful
18:15 <@echarp> mormon bible?
18:15 < urgen> bible
18:15 < urgen> any bible
18:15 <@echarp> :)
18:15 < urgen> they all look the same
18:15 < urgen> big and black
18:15 <@echarp> yeap, heavy heavy book
18:15 < urgen> and whap
18:15 <@echarp> I'm sure some can be leathered in brown :)
18:15 < urgen> ok
18:15 < urgen> :-))
18:16 < urgen> so basis.. it is still important
18:16 < urgen> there's not a lot of traction available in a non-experience based system
18:17 <@echarp> yeap
18:17 <@echarp> it's all "in the air" kind of thing
18:17 <@echarp> charisma is a good way to consider the cure :)
18:17 <@echarp> well, it can be one cure (but is it that good, I'm not sure)
18:17 < urgen> that's what they use
18:18 <@echarp> yeap
18:18 <@echarp> vigilance is key, yet so difficult and requiring so much energy
18:18 < urgen> yes
18:18 <@echarp> living in a forest would require one to be vigilant of its fauna
18:19 <@echarp> living in our culture we should be vigilant of all belief systems
18:19 <@echarp> never allow one to encroach on your mind totally! :)
18:19 < urgen> so I still can't define vigilance
18:19 <@echarp> tolerance tolerance tolerance
18:19 <@echarp> vigilance, to me anyway, is just spending energy to watch out
18:20 <@echarp> allowing ideas to "come in", but to make sure they don't destroy all others
18:20 < urgen> well.. so it is independent of immunity?
18:20 <@echarp> I'm sure we could consider as a kind of immunity yes
18:20 <@echarp> it's a good way to consider it :)
18:21 < urgen> vigilance allows immunity, ok
18:21 <@echarp> i guess yes
18:21 < urgen> ah, so the qestion is allowing vigilance
18:22 <@echarp> of course it should still be open to new ideas, or it would also just become intolerant
18:22 <@echarp> fine line
18:22 < urgen> if one were in a system that did not allow vigilance...
18:22 <@echarp> I believe budhists encourage vigilance! :)
18:22 < urgen> that's kind of sad
18:22 <@echarp> yeap
18:22 < urgen> buddhism demands it, yes
18:22 < urgen> don't believe anyting without testing
18:23 <@echarp> yeap
18:23 <@echarp> well, if it's testable anyway :)
18:23 < urgen> some would say that means no faith
18:23 < urgen> there is nothing that is not testable
18:23 < urgen> experience is primary
18:23 < urgen> at least for someone who is honest
18:23 < urgen> otherwise... you can believe just about anything you want to try
18:24 <@echarp> yeap
18:24 <@echarp> and the human mind is very malleable, and can believe "anything"
18:24 <@echarp> even highly detrimental to him and its continued excistance
18:24 < urgen> I call that truth by intensity
18:24 < urgen> the loudest politician usually wins
18:25 < urgen> believable based on degree of vividness
18:25 <@echarp> yeap
18:25 <@echarp> I can see that rather often
18:25 <@echarp> pathetic
18:25 <@echarp> many ways to fool humans
18:26 < urgen> so there has to be middle ground here somewhere
18:26 <@echarp> between vigilance and tolerance?
18:26 < urgen> maybe that is just my own weakness talking
18:26 <@echarp> well, no excess in anything is a good starting point :)
18:26 < urgen> people should be allowed to have 'theaters of the mind'
18:26 <@echarp> just live and be happy
18:26 < urgen> the freedom to test should also include the ability to be duped by fantasy
18:26 <@echarp> in the occident we are allowed to that
18:26 <@echarp> freedom of thought and speech
18:27 < urgen> some people really do have to learn the stove is hot by touching it
18:27 <@echarp> :)
18:27 <@echarp> definitely
18:27 < urgen> so I still don't have a good bully management system
18:27 <@echarp> rather that they be burned early rather than live in a world of lies, well, my conception anyway (but I'll admit that some will want to live in a world of fantasy)
18:28 < urgen> they tend to wreck almost every experiment
18:28 <@echarp> ok, I'm going home, here it's getting much too hot
18:28 < urgen> ok
18:28 <@echarp> the clim is dead, or so it seems :(
18:28 <@echarp> cu later, half an hour possibly
18:29 < urgen> ok
21:20 <@echarp> re
21:20 <@echarp> it's hot hot hot here!
21:21 < urgen> bummer
21:21 <@echarp> 32°C, let's petition for the clouds to come back!
21:21 < urgen> I don't have air conditioning here. I just set pans of water on the floor and a large fan blows over them
21:21 < urgen> and also mist water into the air stream
21:21 <@echarp> that's intelligent!
21:21 <@echarp> mist I have
21:21 < urgen> the evaporation lowers the temperature
21:21 <@echarp> but water in a pan, I'm going to try that!
21:22 <@echarp> usually I also pour cold water on my hands and wrist, makes wonder for the blood
21:23 < urgen> sometimes the water can splash out if you have a strong fan so a towel underneath might be a good idea
21:24 < urgen> I was just wading through wikipedia, noting the limits of my education :-)
21:24 < urgen> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemma
21:24 < urgen> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedantic
21:25 < urgen> lemma branches into linguistic use and mathematical use
21:25 < urgen> pedant introduces the idea of minutiae and detail and its relation to becoming rule bound
21:26 < urgen> are all programmers pedantic? :-)
21:26 < urgen> without being able to break down what we do without thought software could never be built
21:27 <@echarp> ok, pan set
21:27 <@echarp> if I happen to insult you in the middle of the night, it's because I tripped on it! :)
21:28 < urgen> I've done that too :-)
21:28 <@echarp> your fault ;)
21:29 <@echarp> well, I always thought pedantism was taking pleasure in showing off one's knowledge
21:29 <@echarp> displaying one's knowledge of fine points of details or unknown great thinkers of their time
21:29 < urgen> oh
21:30 <@echarp> minutiae yes
21:30 < urgen> soooo...
21:30 <@echarp> but programmers are not pedantic per se, just many programmers are also asperger or autists! :)
21:31 < urgen> I wonder if wikipedia would find it objective where it to suddenly become the 'definitions' section of a new global governance?
21:31 <@echarp> objective?
21:32 <@echarp> not wanting to be a pedant, but you sure you use that word correctly? :)
21:32 < urgen> ok, you remember the http://www.nist.gov/dads/HTML/fordFulkerson.html
21:33 <@echarp> yeap
21:33 < urgen> Dictionary of Algorithms and Data Structures entry
21:33 < urgen> US NIST
21:33 < urgen> so all rules have room for interpretation
21:34 < urgen> and an arbitration system needs to be defined
21:34 < urgen> I was thinking that it would be interesting if wikipedia started to be used as the standard of interpretation
21:35 <@echarp> I don't understand the relation between ford-fulkerson, wikipedia and a global gov
21:35 < urgen> both are dictionaries / enclyclopedia
21:35 <@echarp> ford-fulkerson is what?
21:35 < urgen> only the nist one is not an open wiki though you can write to the author to request changes
21:36 < urgen> FF is an entry in the Dictionary of Algorithms and Data Structures
21:36 < urgen> is it in wikipedia too?
21:37 < urgen> yes
21:37 <@echarp> I don't know, me was looking at the definition, not the wiki behind it!
21:37 < urgen> ok, the way I weave F-Fulkerson algorithm into the story comes when you also address privacy
21:38 * echarp still lost
21:38 < urgen> as flow is a degree of open or closed we can devise a method to limit access to information
21:38 < urgen> like routing is 1 or 0
21:38 <@echarp> lost lost lost
21:39 < urgen> but we can control access to information by opening or closing the 'valves' of an IP
21:39 < urgen> four octets
21:39 <@echarp> sorry, can you go back at the beginning?
21:39 <@echarp> you know global gov, wikipedia
21:40 < urgen> ya, it isn't the right time to introduce methods of privacy yet
21:40 < urgen> so let me see if vote is in wikipedia
21:40 <@echarp> sorry, you introduced 3 elements which are linked?
21:41 <@echarp> global gov, wikipedia, ford-fulkerson
21:41 < urgen> I had a potentially useful thought...
21:41 < urgen> so we see. 'vote' is in wikipedia
21:42 < urgen> should, somehow, that term be allowed for use in the nomic like game we see there is some flexibility in its use
21:42 < urgen> vote can be an opinion guage or it can be an element in consensus making
21:43 < urgen> those are working definitions that can be changed if you click on the Discuss tab, right?
21:43 <@echarp> they can be changed any time by any body
21:43 <@echarp> ever changing definitions
21:43 < urgen> but some agreement is usually reached
21:44 < urgen> or robots that change win and the site administrator resets to a prior non-volitile entry
21:44 < urgen> (the way spam is handled)
21:44 < urgen> wikipedia does have some conventions
21:45 < urgen> or the site would not be there
21:45 <@echarp> wikipedia is far from a democracy
21:45 <@echarp> far far far
21:45 < urgen> and so I wasn't suggesting such
21:45 <@echarp> it's a *very* good starting point when looking up a word
21:46 <@echarp> and you can point to a non changing wikipedia page
21:47 <@echarp> but it probably slightly defeats the purpose
21:48 < urgen> ok, so. Definitions.
21:48 < urgen> for example
21:49 < urgen> in the nomic game as it is at the moment. thngs like quorum is not defined
21:49 < urgen> and whether or not that is going to be used when deciding what is enacted or not
21:49 <@echarp> wikipedia *is* a good starting point ;)
21:50 < urgen> or ratification
21:50 < urgen> and I really don't want to use very old stale print dictionaries because a lot of the controversy has been steamed out of them
21:51 < urgen> wikipedia keeps it spicy
21:51 < urgen> you can see dissent
21:51 <@echarp> yeap
21:51 < urgen> so I am more comortable with that
21:51 <@echarp> terms evolving right now
21:51 <@echarp> it's a good starting point, but wikipedia is not the end all be all
21:52 < urgen> so far it seems endall beall is by means of measured particpation
21:52 < urgen> participation
21:52 < urgen> you in or out?
21:53 <@echarp> in
21:53 < urgen> so if wiki was disagreeable then something different would show up or the game ends
21:54 <@echarp> another wikipedia to agree on definitions?
21:54 < urgen> eventually the game would probably get its own, but that's what pedantic means to me
21:54 < urgen> too slow, too plodding
21:55 < urgen> too much detail not enough motion
21:55 < urgen> as opposed to all motion and no detail :-) ( sounds like a religion )
21:57 <@echarp> explaining all words in details would just be awful :(
21:57 < urgen> so, there are lots of politically technical terms that had to come into play when governments form
21:57 <@echarp> I believe it can evolve more easily
21:57 <@echarp> only define words which are not agreed upon by everybody
21:58 < urgen> it is impossible to see what everyone agrees on or not if they aren't already written down
21:58 < urgen> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initiative
22:00 < urgen> and so, also, during the life of various efforts there has been discovered many Rules of Order
22:00 < urgen> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_of_order
22:01 <@echarp> I disagree, I believe we can also speak and understand one another using implicit definitions
22:01 < urgen> rules of order, here, are like "only define words which are not agreed upon by everybody"
22:01 < urgen> I watch my own words get shredded -- maybe by my mis-use of them -- and so can not agree that any sort of implicit exists ever
22:02 < urgen> or I will just set an eternal challenge ticket to green
22:02 < urgen> until I get more comfortable
22:02 <@echarp> come on, we are right now not redefining *every* word we use!!!
22:03 < urgen> so there has been a 'digital' version of Robert's Rules of Order authored because digital play requires addressing new circumstances
22:04 < urgen> :-) I am not forcing the issue on every word, yes. but I am trying to generate the groundwork for the inclusion of means to monitor marginalization
22:05 < urgen> I really am not a proponent of majority rule at all
22:05 <@echarp> then you also know that agreement can be implicit
22:05 < urgen> I use to think agreement was implicit until I started to see how many people have never even thought about it.
22:06 < urgen> the other side of this discussion shows up when things can be implicit because of a shared education
22:06 < urgen> without education none of this works
22:06 < urgen> so part of the reduction of marginalization requires that I install a means for new people to catch up quickly to the current focus
22:07 < urgen> that's what I've been calling the automation of consensus
22:07 < urgen> it teaches
22:07 < urgen> it is an assistive device
22:08 < urgen> I need a way for new voices to get fair play
22:09 < urgen> if those new voices are not up to speed with current play they get dismissed or told rtfm
22:10 < urgen> a system which can support the quietest player will last the longest
22:10 <@echarp> durability again :)
22:11 < urgen> irc logs or audio recordings are nice but they take almost as much time as they took the first time to review
22:12 < urgen> I have tons or records we battled out during ICANN attempts to arrive at an internet governance
22:12 < urgen> useful stuff but would take a long time to submit for review here
22:13 < urgen> s/or records/of records
22:13 < urgen> some reoccuring components seem to be classic landmarks
22:13 <@echarp> I believe they can best be exploited with abstracts
22:13 < urgen> 'legitimacy'
22:13 * urgen checks wikipedia
22:14 <@echarp> being legitimate
22:14 <@echarp> lawful
22:14 <@echarp> which is different to being moral
22:15 <@echarp> yet the two things are "supposedly" in sync
22:15 <@echarp> or so goes many a judicial theory
22:15 < urgen> "when the citizens of said country authorize and submit themselves to the law in return for protections from the state"
22:15 < urgen> citizen authorization
22:15 < urgen> hmn.
22:16 < urgen> the extension of authority by means of ratification?
22:16 < urgen> enough agreeing (submit?) and the thing flies?
22:18 <@echarp> generally using super majority
22:18 <@echarp> a simple majority is merely for daily affairs
22:19 < urgen> so according to the wikipedia entry.. the 'moral' aspect is a member of the 'normative' set
22:19 <@echarp> montenegro separation required > 55%
22:19 <@echarp> normative would also seem like a restrictive part of what morality is
22:19 <@echarp> norm != moral
22:20 <@echarp> but moral can be used to enforce a norm
22:20 <@echarp> then it is used normatively
22:20 <@echarp> (or so I believe)
22:20 < urgen> "Issues of legitimacy are linked to those of consent, both explicit and tacit"
22:22 < urgen> where buridan was suggesting consent was not usually what a vote indicates
22:22 < urgen> so consent ( agreement as I've been using the term ) would be something we need to have defined
22:22 <@echarp> a vote can indicate many other things
22:23 <@echarp> yet generally it is *much* simpler to accept it as consent
22:23 <@echarp> even if it is a "less evil" consent type of thing
22:23 < urgen> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consent
22:24 < urgen> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informed_consent
22:25 < urgen> without education there is no 'consent"
22:25 <@echarp> sorry, where do you see it requires education???
22:26 < urgen> 'informed'
22:26 < urgen> how can I agree if I do not know the terms?
22:27 <@echarp> because you are responsible
22:27 <@echarp> that's what I read in wp
22:27 < urgen> how can I be held liable if I was not given the chance to learn the terms?
22:28 < urgen> where is the definition of responsible?
22:28 < urgen> 'of sound mind?'
22:29 < urgen> one having a history of reasonability?
22:29 <@echarp> because you are responsible!!!
22:30 <@echarp> nope, an adult not considered mentally ill or under the control of some drug
22:30 <@echarp> it's all written in that last article
22:30 < urgen> which article?
22:30 < urgen> I see competency
22:31 < urgen> where does it say responsible?
22:31 <@echarp> informed_consent
22:31 < urgen> hmn my find didn't see the word responsible
22:31 * urgen tries again
22:32 <@echarp> did I read too fast?
22:32 < urgen> here: appreciation and understanding of the facts and implications
22:32 < urgen> that one is the definition of responsible?
22:33 < urgen> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsible
22:33 <@echarp> "In common law jurisdictions adults are presumed competent to consent"
22:33 <@echarp> "This
22:33 <@echarp> presumption can be rebutted, for instance in circumstances of mental illness"
22:33 < urgen> competancy
22:34 < urgen> under responsibility I see "obligation"
22:34 < urgen> that gets back to why I was saying that playing the game is a promise
22:35 <@echarp> and I see "answer for one's actions"
22:35 < urgen> "I promise to abide in agreement for the duration of the game"
22:36 <@echarp> and if you are held responsible of that promise, then you have to follow up or face consequences
22:36 < urgen> but 'agreement' is too harsh because it doesn't seem to allow for some minor non-fatal questioning
22:36 <@echarp> "By contrast, 'minors' (which may be defined differently in different jurisdictions) are
22:36 <@echarp> generally presumed incompetent to consent"
22:36 < urgen> prone to bad decisions
22:37 <@echarp> so for all practical considerations but those where an expert knows best ("and I would even discuss that situation"), an adult is responsible and can give consent and informed consent
22:38 < urgen> so you only objected to 'education' because you felt that suggested only classic or institutional education?
22:38 <@echarp> because it suggested a much much higher level of required information in order to give consent
22:38 < urgen> satisfactorally informed
22:38 <@echarp> a huge barrier to entry
22:39 < urgen> well entry is definately what I was exploring
22:39 < urgen> the 'new people' rule
22:39 < urgen> to be fair they have to have a way to 'get informed'
22:39 <@echarp> of course
22:39 < urgen> education may, indeed, be the wrong word
22:39 <@echarp> but it is their responsability
22:39 <@echarp> if they don't they face the consequences
22:40 <@echarp> because you can not be held responsible for them
22:40 < urgen> ok, opportunity to get informed
22:40 < urgen> that's what I was calling 'the record'
22:41 < urgen> ppl can read the rules that have been passed to date
22:41 < urgen> probably part of what 'transparent' means
22:42 < urgen> so it takes quite a bit of effort between just two people here to arrive at enough understanding to know whether they agree or not :-)
22:42 < urgen> there's no implicit
22:42 < urgen> and that's what a 'vote' means?
22:43 <@echarp> there is implicit
22:43 < urgen> expression of informed appreciation
22:43 <@echarp> there is lot and lot and lot of implicit
22:43 <@echarp> or we couldn't talk!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
22:43 < urgen> :-) humans can do it without thinking but machines can't
22:43 <@echarp> there is an implicit of responsability
22:43 <@echarp> (humans could also be machines of course)
22:43 < urgen> I like that idea but it hasn't sunk in yet
22:43 <@echarp> who talk about machines and consent or responsibility?
22:44 < urgen> well the machines have to facilitate the informability
22:44 < urgen> we can do obscure and make this even more difficult or we can try to improve and transparnecy becomes something like drinking water in its ease
22:45 < urgen> a web page is a machine
22:45 <@echarp> anyway, responsibility is *not* important as long as it does not imply consequences
22:45 < urgen> irc is a machine
22:45 <@echarp> if there are no consequences to one's consent, then no one cares
22:46 < urgen> but one does not always know the consequences ahead of time :-)
22:46 < urgen> and that may be a lot of where caring comes in
22:46 < urgen> without appreciation for the scope
22:46 < urgen> I do not see scope as the same as responsibility
22:47 < urgen> like the number of US people driving SUVs
22:47 < urgen> you may call them responsible...
22:48 < urgen> and maybe they are currently being responsible for global warming
22:48 <@echarp> they are, for their own part
22:49 <@echarp> and they will face consequences
22:49 < urgen> so shouldn't the cost of the vehicle also include the cost to the environment?
22:49 <@echarp> or their children (but it's the rule in that game, parents take responsibility for their children and vice versa when time comes)
22:50 < urgen> there is a break down in responsibility somewhere..
22:52 <@echarp> hum hum, you do a thing, you will face the consequences
22:53 <@echarp> if your actions enfreign the free will of others, then justice should be brought in to equalise it all
22:54 <@echarp> but ecology does have troubles there
22:54 <@echarp> it's easy to manage when you are directly polluting something, you should be held responsible for it
22:55 <@echarp> it's more difficult when a country contributes for one quarter of a global warming which will have "possible" consequences in the coming decades
22:55 < urgen> yes
22:55 < urgen> still seems like an issue of education :-)
22:56 < urgen> if I really knew what I was doing was going to create problems would I still do it?
22:56 < urgen> some people would, some wouldn't
22:56 <@echarp> you don't "know"
22:56 < urgen> if I have my own 'leader' telling me it is nonsense
22:56 < urgen> is that really education?
22:56 <@echarp> it's been commonly accepted for what, the last 10 or 20 years
22:56 < urgen> shouldn't there be more money sent to educate?
22:56 < urgen> but that would mean a slide in power
22:56 <@echarp> i don't care how you form your consent, *you* should care about *your* consent
22:56 < urgen> so they don't do that
22:57 < urgen> yes
22:57 <@echarp> there should *always* be more money!!!
22:57 <@echarp> it's constant
22:57 <@echarp> I believe it's not done right and is not a matter of money, but of participants
22:57 <@echarp> well, rather difficult
22:58 < urgen> you should care about your consent -- seems to be a good rule
22:58 < urgen> or something that leads up to a rule
23:00 <@echarp> yeap, not others
23:00 <@echarp> or you are turning it all around
23:00 <@echarp> on its head
23:00 <@echarp> but in a nomic, what are the consequences of one's consent?
23:01 < urgen> the consequences are that you play by yourself
23:01 < urgen> friends are the goal
23:01 < urgen> if you work with people then greater goals are possible
23:02 < urgen> if you don't then you lose the advantage of society
23:02 <@echarp> I don't see much consequences but the status quo
23:07 <@echarp> so consent is not very important but as an implication that the person is willing to spend time
23:07 <@echarp> and energy
23:09 < urgen> seems like that changes eventually
23:09 < urgen> logic matures.. the short fat glass does not hold more milk than the tall thin one
23:09 < urgen> for a while one will think they are getting the better
23:10 < urgen> responsibility is a moving target
23:11 < urgen> even when adult
23:11 <@echarp> I hope it is
23:11 <@echarp> nothing is fixed, "future" consequences are impossible to know "for sure" :)
23:11 <@echarp> same with global warming
23:12 <@echarp> it's a guess, a bet, a projection
23:12 < urgen> so, seems like I am basing my thoughts on an idea of the seriousness it takes to learn how one's own epistemology effects their perceptions
23:13 <@echarp> epistomology, there you are getting pedantic! :)
23:13 < urgen> and I do not see many people stepping up to that degree of responsibility
23:13 <@echarp> there are no absolutes, then you can not now everything, just you do as well as you can
23:13 < urgen> but I would love to not have that seriousness removed from play
23:14 < urgen> which it usually is.
23:16 <@echarp> games can be very serious, you should see me playing against my brothers for example, we take it very seriously! :)
23:22 < urgen> so I thought of the golden key was a way to indicate whether someone was in the game or not
23:22 < urgen> shows membership
23:22 < urgen> maybe allows parties
23:22 < urgen> fiatlex, inventory
23:23 < urgen> fiatlex, inventory golden key
23:23 < fiatlex> urgen: urgen (1), echarp (1), illegale (1)
23:27 <@echarp> voting yes on rule #2 could have played the same purpose
23:28 <@echarp> indicating participation and agreement to participation through... you guess it, participation
23:28 < urgen> yes, but I wanted to try out "Thing"
23:28 <@echarp> it's fine
23:28 -!- Topic for #parlement: http://leparlement.org/irc
23:28 -!- Topic set by echarp [n=33M0...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] [Sun Jun 11 20:49:42 2006]
23:29 <@echarp> it's getting late and still hot, it will take me a while to fall asleep
23:29 < urgen> np
23:29 < urgen> have some great dreams
23:30 <@echarp> I'll try! :)
23:30 < urgen> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology ( for reference to previous statement )
23:30 <@echarp> the science of knowledge yes
23:31 <@echarp> you are going to end up a deconstructivist!
23:31 <@echarp> watch out, slippery slope to nothinghood and/or revering an urinoir
23:32 < urgen> I am so way past deconstructionism or nihilism...
23:32 <@echarp> :)
23:32 < urgen> don't worry I'm immune
23:32 <@echarp> come on, you seem very much into it!
23:32 <@echarp> seeking the root of words
23:32 < urgen> that's only due to a certain lack of familiarity I am slowly edging toward addressing
23:33 < urgen> :-)
23:33 <@echarp> :)
23:33 <@echarp> be careful, deconstructivism is a lot of wanking
23:33 <@echarp> it's those guys who managed to fool prestigious scientific papers into accepting stupid articles
23:33 < urgen> I don't have to be careful because I really don't have that proclivity
23:33 < urgen> but thanks for caring
23:36 <@echarp> I prefer nietsche, the guy was a genius
23:37 <@echarp> but it's interesting to also pick appart meaning, sometimes :)
23:37 <@echarp> there is a term to call us
23:37 <@echarp> damn, I forgot it
23:37 < urgen> :-)
23:38 <@echarp> considering that everything is relative, no more true ideals
23:38 <@echarp> all those things
23:38 <@echarp> cynicism
23:38 < urgen> I haven't read any nietsche in over twenty years now
23:40 <@echarp> arg, I can't remember the bloody term!
23:40 < urgen> "never work when it is hot and late"
23:41 <@echarp> lol
23:41 <@echarp> yeap, ok I'm going
23:41 <@echarp> hopefully I'll have it by tomorrow! :)
23:41 <@echarp> good night!
--- Log closed mar jun 13 00:00:18 2006
02:03 -!- illegale (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung163.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
02:47 -!- illegale [n=ille...@cmung163.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
10:58 -!- illegale (illegale) [i=ille...@cmung2579.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
11:10 -!- beeli (illegale) [i=ille...@cmung2579.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
11:19 -!- illegale [i=ille...@cmung2579.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
12:09 -!- beeli [i=ille...@cmung2579.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
16:52 < urgen> back
17:06 <@echarp> hello hello urgen
17:06 <@echarp> how was the week end?
17:07 < urgen> fast, vow of silence type thing
17:07 < urgen> went well
17:09 <@echarp> you have faith and all that?
17:11 < urgen> I can answer with a question.
17:11 < urgen> do you have faith in gravity?
17:12 < urgen> maybe not he pre-unified-theory version...
17:12 < urgen> but at least when you let go of a spoon it will fall to the ground
17:12 <@echarp> euh, it's not faith, it's a belief
17:12 < urgen> happens every time, right?
17:12 <@echarp> happens every time yes, until now
17:13 < urgen> ah, well I do not create a line between those two
17:13 <@echarp> I'm a rational, materialist, atheist, agnostic, monist :)
17:13 < urgen> you still 'trust' something
17:13 <@echarp> nope
17:13 <@echarp> not a trust that has anything related to faith
17:13 < urgen> then you don't build theory at all?
17:13 < urgen> wow
17:13 <@echarp> of course I do
17:13 <@echarp> it's all built on sand
17:13 < urgen> that's what I just said
17:13 < urgen> <<-- does not separate
17:14 <@echarp> I have a belief system based on a bayesian graph
17:14 < urgen> the other thing you think you are calling faith is a fantasy
17:14 <@echarp> everything is a matter of level
17:14 < urgen> so why would I refer to a fantasy?
17:14 < urgen> it complicates thing unnecessarily
17:14 <@echarp> a fantasy?
17:14 < urgen> well you don't recognize it, right?
17:14 <@echarp> I don't recognise religions?
17:15 < urgen> faith as a non-experience based method to arrive at understanding
17:15 <@echarp> or the beliefs they are built upon?
17:15 < urgen> just faith for now
17:15 < urgen> we can get into the institutions later
17:15 <@echarp> sorry, but something not based on experience would just be silly
17:15 <@echarp> but there might "personal" experience
17:15 < urgen> I think you are creating an unnecessary division in your definition
17:15 <@echarp> I don't know
17:16 < urgen> I do completely understand what you are suggesting but I think the delivery does nothing to support what you are saying
17:16 <@echarp> I consider humans can not reach absolutes
17:16 < urgen> you are making a contradiction you are unaware of
17:16 <@echarp> which is?
17:16 < urgen> this is sloppy thinking
17:16 < urgen> that faith has nothing to do with experience
17:16 <@echarp> you said that faith is non-experiences based
17:16 < urgen> you were told, once, that there was this thing, called faith, and that it requires the suspension of question
17:16 < urgen> right?
17:17 <@echarp> nope
17:17 < urgen> no I said faith was only experience based
17:17 <@echarp> I was educated and indoctrinated in the catholic faith
17:17 < urgen> unless my keyboard is sticking again
17:17 <@echarp> "< urgen> faith as a non-experience based method to arrive at understanding"
17:17 < urgen> catholic faith requires a suspension of question, right?
17:17 <@echarp> I believe it does yes
17:17 < urgen> yes that is the position I was stating as the negative
17:17 < urgen> so we agree
17:17 <@echarp> oh, I didn't read that then
17:18 <@echarp> sorry
17:18 < urgen> no?
17:18 <@echarp> I'm fine with you considering that faith is experienced based
17:18 < urgen> ok, then I can answer you with a yes "I have faith"
17:18 <@echarp> yet I also know that humans are frail, and will make *incredible* mistakes
17:18 < urgen> get it?
17:19 < urgen> silly simple worthless word that is
17:19 < urgen> but causes wars
17:19 <@echarp> I do
17:19 < urgen> that's just wrong
17:19 <@echarp> worthless I do not know
17:19 <@echarp> just a word of course, yet one which can encompass many concepts
17:19 < urgen> sure. at root
17:19 <@echarp> suspension of disbelief generally being one
17:19 < urgen> 99% of the people that use it use it as a club over someone elses head, tho
17:20 < urgen> that's why it is getting such a bad reputation
17:20 <@echarp> but I don't know very well budhism, yet I know it is based on a divinity
17:20 < urgen> it is not based on a divinity
17:20 <@echarp> I give faith a bad reputation because it's generally based on lies
17:20 < urgen> that wouldn't be very productive
17:20 < urgen> oh.. wait.. I suppose there are some communist based doctrines that defined it that way
17:21 <@echarp> well, I've read about budhism, and I understand there is a divinity "at heart", but we can not know it
17:21 <@echarp> communists???
17:21 < urgen> ok, so what source are you pointing to that suggests a divinity is involved?
17:21 <@echarp> what about philosophers?
17:21 < urgen> philosophers can handle it. :-)
17:21 < urgen> they know, at least, to explore
17:21 <@echarp> just things I read, which spoke about the universe we are seing being a lie, but that there was a divinity which appeared in many facets
17:22 < urgen> weird
17:22 <@echarp> well, my views on religion will mostly align with many philosophers, epicure for example
17:22 <@echarp> I also know that budhism is very often considered a god less religion
17:23 <@echarp> or even a philosophy
17:23 < urgen> well, at least from my experience, there is no divinity 'at heart' in the school I study
17:23 < urgen> that's pretty much the inverse
17:23 <@echarp> god less?
17:23 < urgen> completely
17:24 < urgen> only not in the sense of having a ring through its nose as in a-theism
17:24 < urgen> more like non-theism
17:24 < urgen> no big deal, nothing to fight windmills about
17:24 < urgen> (like don quixote)
17:24 < urgen> a non-affirming negation
17:25 < urgen> we do not need to posit the negation then to just tear it down so we can feel superior
17:25 < urgen> appreciation of logic is like learning to enjoy new foods.. taste matures
17:25 <@echarp> a- and non-?
17:25 <@echarp> a-theism just means one does not believe in god
17:26 <@echarp> it does not imply an affirmation of it non existence
17:26 < urgen> ok, so maybe that's just my bias.. I see a lot of atheists set their whole life on battling the theists
17:26 <@echarp> I am a-theist and a-gnostic you know
17:26 < urgen> they would not exist were there no theists to battle
17:26 <@echarp> or so you think
17:26 < urgen> a non-theist does not see any theists to battle because it does not exist
17:26 < urgen> an atheist has a grudge
17:27 <@echarp> I consider religions to be lies and tools of powers, I love talking poitics and history, I love talking about lies and power
17:27 <@echarp> I have a grudge about the way religions have shaped our current world
17:27 <@echarp> and I want to fight those lies
17:27 < urgen> sure, and I'm saying atheist is an equal lie to divinity at heart
17:27 <@echarp> sorry, a-theist and a-gnostic does not ring a bell?
17:28 < urgen> a meaning not
17:28 <@echarp> it does not mean that I don't have faith yet also that I don't have certitudes?
17:29 <@echarp> well, I have relative certitudes :)
17:29 < urgen> theism is a top down system based on pre-existing rule base -- agnostic is just a whimp isn't it??? someoone that's going to play the safe side just in case
17:29 <@echarp> those are things I'm pretty confident about
17:29 <@echarp> wimp is just a weak accusation
17:29 < urgen> :-)
17:29 < urgen> well I was leaving the door open there for more conversation
17:30 <@echarp> a-gnostic is just a word which carries a meaning
17:30 < urgen> but used only in battles
17:30 <@echarp> that meaning is that there are no absolutes that humans can reach
17:30 <@echarp> which battles?
17:30 < urgen> religious?
17:31 < urgen> battles relate to power?
17:31 <@echarp> I guess yes
17:31 < urgen> power has to be exerted?
17:32 <@echarp> "has to"???
17:32 <@echarp> you sure?
17:32 <@echarp> power also "has to" exist?
17:32 < urgen> that was a question
17:32 <@echarp> nothing "has to"
17:32 < urgen> power doesn't exist
17:32 <@echarp> nothing human
17:33 <@echarp> power is just a domination in a fluid state
17:33 < urgen> I am trying to outline the position of a case that posits a power
17:33 <@echarp> like a cult dominating its members?
17:33 < urgen> power is always a bully?
17:34 < urgen> oh any top down system is a power then
17:34 < urgen> any time a demand requires enforcement to be adopted
17:35 <@echarp> I think it's a way to see it yes
17:35 < urgen> whether that be by physical, or psychological
17:35 <@echarp> power also exists if I put a gun on one's head
17:36 < urgen> that would be physical
17:36 <@echarp> yeap
17:36 <@echarp> physical violence is an easy to see type of power
17:36 < urgen> ok, so. now you were saying about this power.
17:36 < urgen> that it is a lie?
17:36 <@echarp> that religions are based on lies
17:36 < urgen> or that is exists only when lies are used?
17:36 < urgen> that's beside the point
17:36 <@echarp> and use those lies as foundation to their power
17:36 < urgen> we were talking about power
17:37 <@echarp> I was talking about lies and power :)
17:37 < urgen> I lumped all power into the same bucket
17:37 < urgen> whether governmental, religious, street bully, or whatever
17:37 < urgen> lies and power, yes
17:38 <@echarp> well, I talk about religion because it has shaped europe
17:38 < urgen> pull the rug of lies and power out and all those things topple
17:38 <@echarp> since the roman empire, the catholic church has held most power, and abused it
17:38 < urgen> it has nothing particularly special to do with religions except that they depend on the same condition
17:38 <@echarp> yeap
17:38 <@echarp> well, the catholic church is based on lies, do you agree with that?
17:39 < urgen> and this is in contrast to.. -- and we don't really have a term for -horizontal- agreement
17:39 < urgen> easy agree
17:39 < urgen> I can even get into the structure of a lie to show the case if required
17:39 <@echarp> they even managed to have a fake "will" of constantine who supposedly gave them the empire
17:40 <@echarp> the roman church mostly built its power on the fact that the pope supposedly managed to push away attila
17:40 <@echarp> (he gave him gold)
17:40 < urgen> well constantine wouldn't really be seen as any particularly special flavor of religious by the religious,,,,
17:40 < urgen> constantine was already a power even without the christian clothing
17:40 <@echarp> ahem, constantine officialised the christian faith as *the* official faith!
17:41 < urgen> if already a power (user of lies) then who cares after that?
17:41 <@echarp> he was losing power at that time
17:41 <@echarp> at a battle he even managed to convert to appolo
17:41 < urgen> one power for another :-)
17:41 <@echarp> at the next battle he converted to christianity
17:41 <@echarp> and he gave his power to christianity
17:41 < urgen> as if it needed it, but then, maybe it did
17:42 <@echarp> which destroyed the old world, burnt libraries, and move europe right into the obscurantist middle ages
17:42 < urgen> more evidence of forced adoption
17:42 <@echarp> it did need it, or christianity would just have been another cult amon many others
17:42 <@echarp> forced adoption, yeap, of course
17:42 < urgen> so maybe cults are not religions?
17:42 <@echarp> they killed all pagans you know
17:42 <@echarp> to me cults are religions and vice versa
17:43 < urgen> ok
17:43 <@echarp> no inherent difference
17:43 < urgen> cult as religion transplanted from source
17:43 <@echarp> just that religions are older institutions
17:43 <@echarp> source?
17:43 < urgen> where they were born
17:44 < urgen> christianity did not start in europe so that would just be a cult
17:44 <@echarp> what do you mean?
17:45 <@echarp> anyway, are you defending christianity? :)
17:45 < urgen> from what I learned in religious studies in the university
17:45 < urgen> I can not either defend or attack something that has no logical basis
17:46 < urgen> if there are a bunch of humans out there that have surgically removed questions from their toolbox not a lot I can do
17:46 < urgen> charisma is the only hope by then
17:46 < urgen> I am not especially charismatic
17:47 <@echarp> well come on, considering that it has no logical basis iss already quite a start!
17:47 < urgen> so you say there is a way to attack bullies without it being an attack and just turning yourself into another bully?
17:47 <@echarp> charisma could change things yes
17:47 <@echarp> because it becomes all a matter of emotions
17:47 <@echarp> of course, attacking a bully is just that, attacking a bully
17:48 < urgen> attacking is just attacking
17:48 <@echarp> just as attacking a racist does not make you automatically a racist you know
17:48 < urgen> it makes me a bully
17:48 <@echarp> attacking someone makes you a bully?
17:48 <@echarp> ???
17:48 <@echarp> bully = attacking?
17:48 < urgen> it is trying to force something isn't it?
17:49 <@echarp> I believe that you can attack only with words, strong words yes, but mere words still
17:49 <@echarp> to me it is completely acceptable
17:49 <@echarp> I can write a book and attack a political party for example
17:50 < urgen> ah, I guess attacks are inefficient
17:50 < urgen> it would be foolish to expect rational discourse when question is not allowed
17:50 < urgen> bigger shovel syndrome
17:51 < urgen> that sounds like I am saying discourse is not an attack
17:52 < urgen> if rationality is present, and disagreement is allowed
17:52 <@echarp> it looks like, yes
17:52 < urgen> there is lots of room to 'influence trust'
17:52 < urgen> without either becoming a bully
17:52 <@echarp> yet when *I* speak of attacking an institution or a belief system, I just mean disputing their claims
17:52 < urgen> I just haven't found a bully proof democracy yet
17:53 <@echarp> I'm rather non violent you know
17:53 <@echarp> there will always be bullies, it's a constant fight!
17:53 <@echarp> you can not remove humanity from humans :)
17:53 < urgen> but it seems like some system to regulate that to minimize the influence could be devised
17:54 < urgen> sandboxes that expand immediately so the sand doesn't get in the other children's hair
17:54 <@echarp> :)
17:54 < urgen> just a matter of technolgy, right?
17:55 <@echarp> not to me, a matter of vigilance
17:55 < urgen> so you clear a lot of spam on the wiki, eh?
17:55 < urgen> :-)
17:55 <@echarp> yeap :)
17:56 <@echarp> already some hundred of them on http://leparlement.org :(
17:56 < urgen> then someone makes auto-vigilant IDS cleaners
17:56 < urgen> yes
17:56 <@echarp> yeap
17:56 <@echarp> and that's all good
17:56 <@echarp> better mouse trap all that
17:56 < urgen> still technology, following vigilance, yes, but still technology
17:56 <@echarp> shield and gun
17:56 <@echarp> I disagree, vigilance is first and foremost
17:56 <@echarp> critical mind
17:57 <@echarp> the will to be free
17:57 < urgen> agreement is first
17:57 < urgen> :-)
17:57 <@echarp> agreement comes when you want a communicty
17:57 <@echarp> vigilance starts at one :)
17:57 < urgen> ah so that's an interesting difference
17:57 < urgen> my system does not allow one
17:57 <@echarp> I think so :)
17:57 < urgen> nor two
17:58 < urgen> nor three
17:58 <@echarp> not 3, I'm befudled :)
17:58 < urgen> relative truth is not a single unit basis
17:58 < urgen> and therefor also not a multiple
17:58 < urgen> if not one, then ppl thing ok, then two
17:58 < urgen> but not that either
17:58 < urgen> but not three either..
17:59 <@echarp> I don't get it
17:59 < urgen> if not single pointed
17:59 <@echarp> what do you mean?
17:59 < urgen> and not dualistic pointed
17:59 < urgen> then we are required to move in a direction where the question of basis becomes primary
17:59 < urgen> 'agreement'
17:59 < urgen> happens even before 'one'
17:59 <@echarp> sorry, I'm lost
17:59 <@echarp> totally
17:59 < urgen> sec
18:00 <@echarp> start back on relative truth please :)
18:00 < urgen> trying to find a gateway to wikipedia
18:00 < urgen> lemma
18:00 < urgen> di-lemma
18:00 < urgen> I say the two horns of a lemma are a lie
18:00 < urgen> not one nor two
18:01 <@echarp> what do you mean with respect to relative truths?
18:01 < urgen> with two there is an allusion to relation
18:02 < urgen> but relation's existence is not limited by those two
18:02 <@echarp> sorry, I dont see why you need at least two persons to acknowledge the existence of relative truths
18:02 <@echarp> to me relative truths is not a social matter, it is philosophical!
18:02 <@echarp> I consider that all knowledge is relative, relative to us humans
18:03 < urgen> no philosophers are human?
18:03 <@echarp> we see the universe from our viewpoint
18:03 < urgen> wow
18:03 <@echarp> sorry, relative truth is a concept
18:03 <@echarp> not a social artifact
18:03 < urgen> hmn
18:03 < urgen> it is a principle
18:03 <@echarp> yeap!
18:03 < urgen> a product
18:04 < urgen> requiring someone to encounter it
18:04 <@echarp> a prodcut yes, a concept, an idea, a meme
18:04 < urgen> it is dependent as the rest of us
18:04 <@echarp> "as"?
18:04 < urgen> it is as dependent as the rest of us
18:05 < urgen> relative truth is all there is here
18:05 <@echarp> yeap
18:05 <@echarp> we elements of this universe, can not reach "beyond the universe"
18:05 < urgen> by definition
18:06 <@echarp> we can not know all of it, we can never be sure that we are not in a sandbox kind of universe merely functioning according to "some" rules
18:06 <@echarp> matrix all that! :)
18:06 < urgen> consistency
18:06 <@echarp> plato and descartes had the intuition of this
18:07 < urgen> so the relation is not limited to just a subset
18:07 < urgen> not even just you
18:07 < urgen> you are also a composite
18:07 <@echarp> relation between? relativity?
18:07 < urgen> so when I say agreement I do not limit it to 'between people'
18:07 <@echarp> I am a composite of elements and a composant of the universe
18:08 <@echarp> arg, not limiting agreement to "between people" sounds like a trick on words you know :)
18:08 < urgen> lots of tricky words to wade through
18:08 < urgen> vigilence does come in handy
18:08 <@echarp> agreement is a word we commonly use between animals
18:08 <@echarp> vigilance is required :)
18:09 <@echarp> to consider that the elements constituting us need "agreement" seems beyond the point
18:09 < urgen> and faith is a word we commonly use between religions
18:09 < urgen> but that doesn't limit the use
18:09 < urgen> common sux
18:09 <@echarp> faith is a word commonly used "in" religions
18:09 <@echarp> supposedly it is the stone they build everything on
18:10 <@echarp> to me it looks more like faith is a abuse of our vigilance, that it tends to transform its victim into sheep :)
18:10 < urgen> I don't see it, but whithout question, I suppose anything is allowed
18:10 <@echarp> the sheep of "god" (and its priests)
18:10 < urgen> so that's only a second or third stage disease
18:10 < urgen> I'm sure the symptoms look differently before that
18:10 < urgen> at some point question is still present
18:11 < urgen> and that question is still looking for the nature of truth
18:11 < urgen> we either panic and opt for big daddy in the sky or begin to see some naturally complex landscapes
18:11 < urgen> I can't really say this was a plot, tho the ppl that feed on that indecision are definately plotting
18:12 <@echarp> i don't know if it was always a plot, but I'm sure some do plot to use and transform it all in tools of power
18:12 <@echarp> that suspended disbelief is a great tool of power
18:12 < urgen> with the bruises to prove it, no doubt
18:13 < urgen> I wasn't brought up in a religious environment
18:13 <@echarp> hof, I'm an adult and responsible man, I've outgrown my child hood :)
18:13 < urgen> so I don't have the grudge to nurse
18:14 <@echarp> I don't believe it is a grudge
18:14 < urgen> ok, I apologize
18:14 <@echarp> just a reading of history and present times
18:14 <@echarp> no need to
18:14 < urgen> I don't have to step far to be clobbered by some big black book
18:15 <@echarp> I appreciate history, and there are nowadays great documentaries to depict a lot of all of it
18:15 <@echarp> big black book is?
18:15 < urgen> so I can totally appreciate *still* having to be careful
18:15 <@echarp> mormon bible?
18:15 < urgen> bible
18:15 < urgen> any bible
18:15 <@echarp> :)
18:15 < urgen> they all look the same
18:15 < urgen> big and black
18:15 <@echarp> yeap, heavy heavy book
18:15 < urgen> and whap
18:15 <@echarp> I'm sure some can be leathered in brown :)
18:15 < urgen> ok
18:15 < urgen> :-))
18:16 < urgen> so basis.. it is still important
18:16 < urgen> there's not a lot of traction available in a non-experience based system
18:17 <@echarp> yeap
18:17 <@echarp> it's all "in the air" kind of thing
18:17 <@echarp> charisma is a good way to consider the cure :)
18:17 <@echarp> well, it can be one cure (but is it that good, I'm not sure)
18:17 < urgen> that's what they use
18:18 <@echarp> yeap
18:18 <@echarp> vigilance is key, yet so difficult and requiring so much energy
18:18 < urgen> yes
18:18 <@echarp> living in a forest would require one to be vigilant of its fauna
18:19 <@echarp> living in our culture we should be vigilant of all belief systems
18:19 <@echarp> never allow one to encroach on your mind totally! :)
18:19 < urgen> so I still can't define vigilance
18:19 <@echarp> tolerance tolerance tolerance
18:19 <@echarp> vigilance, to me anyway, is just spending energy to watch out
18:20 <@echarp> allowing ideas to "come in", but to make sure they don't destroy all others
18:20 < urgen> well.. so it is independent of immunity?
18:20 <@echarp> I'm sure we could consider as a kind of immunity yes
18:20 <@echarp> it's a good way to consider it :)
18:21 < urgen> vigilance allows immunity, ok
18:21 <@echarp> i guess yes
18:21 < urgen> ah, so the qestion is allowing vigilance
18:22 <@echarp> of course it should still be open to new ideas, or it would also just become intolerant
18:22 <@echarp> fine line
18:22 < urgen> if one were in a system that did not allow vigilance...
18:22 <@echarp> I believe budhists encourage vigilance! :)
18:22 < urgen> that's kind of sad
18:22 <@echarp> yeap
18:22 < urgen> buddhism demands it, yes
18:22 < urgen> don't believe anyting without testing
18:23 <@echarp> yeap
18:23 <@echarp> well, if it's testable anyway :)
18:23 < urgen> some would say that means no faith
18:23 < urgen> there is nothing that is not testable
18:23 < urgen> experience is primary
18:23 < urgen> at least for someone who is honest
18:23 < urgen> otherwise... you can believe just about anything you want to try
18:24 <@echarp> yeap
18:24 <@echarp> and the human mind is very malleable, and can believe "anything"
18:24 <@echarp> even highly detrimental to him and its continued excistance
18:24 < urgen> I call that truth by intensity
18:24 < urgen> the loudest politician usually wins
18:25 < urgen> believable based on degree of vividness
18:25 <@echarp> yeap
18:25 <@echarp> I can see that rather often
18:25 <@echarp> pathetic
18:25 <@echarp> many ways to fool humans
18:26 < urgen> so there has to be middle ground here somewhere
18:26 <@echarp> between vigilance and tolerance?
18:26 < urgen> maybe that is just my own weakness talking
18:26 <@echarp> well, no excess in anything is a good starting point :)
18:26 < urgen> people should be allowed to have 'theaters of the mind'
18:26 <@echarp> just live and be happy
18:26 < urgen> the freedom to test should also include the ability to be duped by fantasy
18:26 <@echarp> in the occident we are allowed to that
18:26 <@echarp> freedom of thought and speech
18:27 < urgen> some people really do have to learn the stove is hot by touching it
18:27 <@echarp> :)
18:27 <@echarp> definitely
18:27 < urgen> so I still don't have a good bully management system
18:27 <@echarp> rather that they be burned early rather than live in a world of lies, well, my conception anyway (but I'll admit that some will want to live in a world of fantasy)
18:28 < urgen> they tend to wreck almost every experiment
18:28 <@echarp> ok, I'm going home, here it's getting much too hot
18:28 < urgen> ok
18:28 <@echarp> the clim is dead, or so it seems :(
18:28 <@echarp> cu later, half an hour possibly
18:29 < urgen> ok
21:20 <@echarp> re
21:20 <@echarp> it's hot hot hot here!
21:21 < urgen> bummer
21:21 <@echarp> 32°C, let's petition for the clouds to come back!
21:21 < urgen> I don't have air conditioning here. I just set pans of water on the floor and a large fan blows over them
21:21 < urgen> and also mist water into the air stream
21:21 <@echarp> that's intelligent!
21:21 <@echarp> mist I have
21:21 < urgen> the evaporation lowers the temperature
21:21 <@echarp> but water in a pan, I'm going to try that!
21:22 <@echarp> usually I also pour cold water on my hands and wrist, makes wonder for the blood
21:23 < urgen> sometimes the water can splash out if you have a strong fan so a towel underneath might be a good idea
21:24 < urgen> I was just wading through wikipedia, noting the limits of my education :-)
21:24 < urgen> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemma
21:24 < urgen> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedantic
21:25 < urgen> lemma branches into linguistic use and mathematical use
21:25 < urgen> pedant introduces the idea of minutiae and detail and its relation to becoming rule bound
21:26 < urgen> are all programmers pedantic? :-)
21:26 < urgen> without being able to break down what we do without thought software could never be built
21:27 <@echarp> ok, pan set
21:27 <@echarp> if I happen to insult you in the middle of the night, it's because I tripped on it! :)
21:28 < urgen> I've done that too :-)
21:28 <@echarp> your fault ;)
21:29 <@echarp> well, I always thought pedantism was taking pleasure in showing off one's knowledge
21:29 <@echarp> displaying one's knowledge of fine points of details or unknown great thinkers of their time
21:29 < urgen> oh
21:30 <@echarp> minutiae yes
21:30 < urgen> soooo...
21:30 <@echarp> but programmers are not pedantic per se, just many programmers are also asperger or autists! :)
21:31 < urgen> I wonder if wikipedia would find it objective where it to suddenly become the 'definitions' section of a new global governance?
21:31 <@echarp> objective?
21:32 <@echarp> not wanting to be a pedant, but you sure you use that word correctly? :)
21:32 < urgen> ok, you remember the http://www.nist.gov/dads/HTML/fordFulkerson.html
21:33 <@echarp> yeap
21:33 < urgen> Dictionary of Algorithms and Data Structures entry
21:33 < urgen> US NIST
21:33 < urgen> so all rules have room for interpretation
21:34 < urgen> and an arbitration system needs to be defined
21:34 < urgen> I was thinking that it would be interesting if wikipedia started to be used as the standard of interpretation
21:35 <@echarp> I don't understand the relation between ford-fulkerson, wikipedia and a global gov
21:35 < urgen> both are dictionaries / enclyclopedia
21:35 <@echarp> ford-fulkerson is what?
21:35 < urgen> only the nist one is not an open wiki though you can write to the author to request changes
21:36 < urgen> FF is an entry in the Dictionary of Algorithms and Data Structures
21:36 < urgen> is it in wikipedia too?
21:37 < urgen> yes
21:37 <@echarp> I don't know, me was looking at the definition, not the wiki behind it!
21:37 < urgen> ok, the way I weave F-Fulkerson algorithm into the story comes when you also address privacy
21:38 * echarp still lost
21:38 < urgen> as flow is a degree of open or closed we can devise a method to limit access to information
21:38 < urgen> like routing is 1 or 0
21:38 <@echarp> lost lost lost
21:39 < urgen> but we can control access to information by opening or closing the 'valves' of an IP
21:39 < urgen> four octets
21:39 <@echarp> sorry, can you go back at the beginning?
21:39 <@echarp> you know global gov, wikipedia
21:40 < urgen> ya, it isn't the right time to introduce methods of privacy yet
21:40 < urgen> so let me see if vote is in wikipedia
21:40 <@echarp> sorry, you introduced 3 elements which are linked?
21:41 <@echarp> global gov, wikipedia, ford-fulkerson
21:41 < urgen> I had a potentially useful thought...
21:41 < urgen> so we see. 'vote' is in wikipedia
21:42 < urgen> should, somehow, that term be allowed for use in the nomic like game we see there is some flexibility in its use
21:42 < urgen> vote can be an opinion guage or it can be an element in consensus making
21:43 < urgen> those are working definitions that can be changed if you click on the Discuss tab, right?
21:43 <@echarp> they can be changed any time by any body
21:43 <@echarp> ever changing definitions
21:43 < urgen> but some agreement is usually reached
21:44 < urgen> or robots that change win and the site administrator resets to a prior non-volitile entry
21:44 < urgen> (the way spam is handled)
21:44 < urgen> wikipedia does have some conventions
21:45 < urgen> or the site would not be there
21:45 <@echarp> wikipedia is far from a democracy
21:45 <@echarp> far far far
21:45 < urgen> and so I wasn't suggesting such
21:45 <@echarp> it's a *very* good starting point when looking up a word
21:46 <@echarp> and you can point to a non changing wikipedia page
21:47 <@echarp> but it probably slightly defeats the purpose
21:48 < urgen> ok, so. Definitions.
21:48 < urgen> for example
21:49 < urgen> in the nomic game as it is at the moment. thngs like quorum is not defined
21:49 < urgen> and whether or not that is going to be used when deciding what is enacted or not
21:49 <@echarp> wikipedia *is* a good starting point ;)
21:50 < urgen> or ratification
21:50 < urgen> and I really don't want to use very old stale print dictionaries because a lot of the controversy has been steamed out of them
21:51 < urgen> wikipedia keeps it spicy
21:51 < urgen> you can see dissent
21:51 <@echarp> yeap
21:51 < urgen> so I am more comortable with that
21:51 <@echarp> terms evolving right now
21:51 <@echarp> it's a good starting point, but wikipedia is not the end all be all
21:52 < urgen> so far it seems endall beall is by means of measured particpation
21:52 < urgen> participation
21:52 < urgen> you in or out?
21:53 <@echarp> in
21:53 < urgen> so if wiki was disagreeable then something different would show up or the game ends
21:54 <@echarp> another wikipedia to agree on definitions?
21:54 < urgen> eventually the game would probably get its own, but that's what pedantic means to me
21:54 < urgen> too slow, too plodding
21:55 < urgen> too much detail not enough motion
21:55 < urgen> as opposed to all motion and no detail :-) ( sounds like a religion )
21:57 <@echarp> explaining all words in details would just be awful :(
21:57 < urgen> so, there are lots of politically technical terms that had to come into play when governments form
21:57 <@echarp> I believe it can evolve more easily
21:57 <@echarp> only define words which are not agreed upon by everybody
21:58 < urgen> it is impossible to see what everyone agrees on or not if they aren't already written down
21:58 < urgen> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initiative
22:00 < urgen> and so, also, during the life of various efforts there has been discovered many Rules of Order
22:00 < urgen> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_of_order
22:01 <@echarp> I disagree, I believe we can also speak and understand one another using implicit definitions
22:01 < urgen> rules of order, here, are like "only define words which are not agreed upon by everybody"
22:01 < urgen> I watch my own words get shredded -- maybe by my mis-use of them -- and so can not agree that any sort of implicit exists ever
22:02 < urgen> or I will just set an eternal challenge ticket to green
22:02 < urgen> until I get more comfortable
22:02 <@echarp> come on, we are right now not redefining *every* word we use!!!
22:03 < urgen> so there has been a 'digital' version of Robert's Rules of Order authored because digital play requires addressing new circumstances
22:04 < urgen> :-) I am not forcing the issue on every word, yes. but I am trying to generate the groundwork for the inclusion of means to monitor marginalization
22:05 < urgen> I really am not a proponent of majority rule at all
22:05 <@echarp> then you also know that agreement can be implicit
22:05 < urgen> I use to think agreement was implicit until I started to see how many people have never even thought about it.
22:06 < urgen> the other side of this discussion shows up when things can be implicit because of a shared education
22:06 < urgen> without education none of this works
22:06 < urgen> so part of the reduction of marginalization requires that I install a means for new people to catch up quickly to the current focus
22:07 < urgen> that's what I've been calling the automation of consensus
22:07 < urgen> it teaches
22:07 < urgen> it is an assistive device
22:08 < urgen> I need a way for new voices to get fair play
22:09 < urgen> if those new voices are not up to speed with current play they get dismissed or told rtfm
22:10 < urgen> a system which can support the quietest player will last the longest
22:10 <@echarp> durability again :)
22:11 < urgen> irc logs or audio recordings are nice but they take almost as much time as they took the first time to review
22:12 < urgen> I have tons or records we battled out during ICANN attempts to arrive at an internet governance
22:12 < urgen> useful stuff but would take a long time to submit for review here
22:13 < urgen> s/or records/of records
22:13 < urgen> some reoccuring components seem to be classic landmarks
22:13 <@echarp> I believe they can best be exploited with abstracts
22:13 < urgen> 'legitimacy'
22:13 * urgen checks wikipedia
22:14 <@echarp> being legitimate
22:14 <@echarp> lawful
22:14 <@echarp> which is different to being moral
22:15 <@echarp> yet the two things are "supposedly" in sync
22:15 <@echarp> or so goes many a judicial theory
22:15 < urgen> "when the citizens of said country authorize and submit themselves to the law in return for protections from the state"
22:15 < urgen> citizen authorization
22:15 < urgen> hmn.
22:16 < urgen> the extension of authority by means of ratification?
22:16 < urgen> enough agreeing (submit?) and the thing flies?
22:18 <@echarp> generally using super majority
22:18 <@echarp> a simple majority is merely for daily affairs
22:19 < urgen> so according to the wikipedia entry.. the 'moral' aspect is a member of the 'normative' set
22:19 <@echarp> montenegro separation required > 55%
22:19 <@echarp> normative would also seem like a restrictive part of what morality is
22:19 <@echarp> norm != moral
22:20 <@echarp> but moral can be used to enforce a norm
22:20 <@echarp> then it is used normatively
22:20 <@echarp> (or so I believe)
22:20 < urgen> "Issues of legitimacy are linked to those of consent, both explicit and tacit"
22:22 < urgen> where buridan was suggesting consent was not usually what a vote indicates
22:22 < urgen> so consent ( agreement as I've been using the term ) would be something we need to have defined
22:22 <@echarp> a vote can indicate many other things
22:23 <@echarp> yet generally it is *much* simpler to accept it as consent
22:23 <@echarp> even if it is a "less evil" consent type of thing
22:23 < urgen> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consent
22:24 < urgen> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informed_consent
22:25 < urgen> without education there is no 'consent"
22:25 <@echarp> sorry, where do you see it requires education???
22:26 < urgen> 'informed'
22:26 < urgen> how can I agree if I do not know the terms?
22:27 <@echarp> because you are responsible
22:27 <@echarp> that's what I read in wp
22:27 < urgen> how can I be held liable if I was not given the chance to learn the terms?
22:28 < urgen> where is the definition of responsible?
22:28 < urgen> 'of sound mind?'
22:29 < urgen> one having a history of reasonability?
22:29 <@echarp> because you are responsible!!!
22:30 <@echarp> nope, an adult not considered mentally ill or under the control of some drug
22:30 <@echarp> it's all written in that last article
22:30 < urgen> which article?
22:30 < urgen> I see competency
22:31 < urgen> where does it say responsible?
22:31 <@echarp> informed_consent
22:31 < urgen> hmn my find didn't see the word responsible
22:31 * urgen tries again
22:32 <@echarp> did I read too fast?
22:32 < urgen> here: appreciation and understanding of the facts and implications
22:32 < urgen> that one is the definition of responsible?
22:33 < urgen> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsible
22:33 <@echarp> "In common law jurisdictions adults are presumed competent to consent"
22:33 <@echarp> "This
22:33 <@echarp> presumption can be rebutted, for instance in circumstances of mental illness"
22:33 < urgen> competancy
22:34 < urgen> under responsibility I see "obligation"
22:34 < urgen> that gets back to why I was saying that playing the game is a promise
22:35 <@echarp> and I see "answer for one's actions"
22:35 < urgen> "I promise to abide in agreement for the duration of the game"
22:36 <@echarp> and if you are held responsible of that promise, then you have to follow up or face consequences
22:36 < urgen> but 'agreement' is too harsh because it doesn't seem to allow for some minor non-fatal questioning
22:36 <@echarp> "By contrast, 'minors' (which may be defined differently in different jurisdictions) are
22:36 <@echarp> generally presumed incompetent to consent"
22:36 < urgen> prone to bad decisions
22:37 <@echarp> so for all practical considerations but those where an expert knows best ("and I would even discuss that situation"), an adult is responsible and can give consent and informed consent
22:38 < urgen> so you only objected to 'education' because you felt that suggested only classic or institutional education?
22:38 <@echarp> because it suggested a much much higher level of required information in order to give consent
22:38 < urgen> satisfactorally informed
22:38 <@echarp> a huge barrier to entry
22:39 < urgen> well entry is definately what I was exploring
22:39 < urgen> the 'new people' rule
22:39 < urgen> to be fair they have to have a way to 'get informed'
22:39 <@echarp> of course
22:39 < urgen> education may, indeed, be the wrong word
22:39 <@echarp> but it is their responsability
22:39 <@echarp> if they don't they face the consequences
22:40 <@echarp> because you can not be held responsible for them
22:40 < urgen> ok, opportunity to get informed
22:40 < urgen> that's what I was calling 'the record'
22:41 < urgen> ppl can read the rules that have been passed to date
22:41 < urgen> probably part of what 'transparent' means
22:42 < urgen> so it takes quite a bit of effort between just two people here to arrive at enough understanding to know whether they agree or not :-)
22:42 < urgen> there's no implicit
22:42 < urgen> and that's what a 'vote' means?
22:43 <@echarp> there is implicit
22:43 < urgen> expression of informed appreciation
22:43 <@echarp> there is lot and lot and lot of implicit
22:43 <@echarp> or we couldn't talk!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
22:43 < urgen> :-) humans can do it without thinking but machines can't
22:43 <@echarp> there is an implicit of responsability
22:43 <@echarp> (humans could also be machines of course)
22:43 < urgen> I like that idea but it hasn't sunk in yet
22:43 <@echarp> who talk about machines and consent or responsibility?
22:44 < urgen> well the machines have to facilitate the informability
22:44 < urgen> we can do obscure and make this even more difficult or we can try to improve and transparnecy becomes something like drinking water in its ease
22:45 < urgen> a web page is a machine
22:45 <@echarp> anyway, responsibility is *not* important as long as it does not imply consequences
22:45 < urgen> irc is a machine
22:45 <@echarp> if there are no consequences to one's consent, then no one cares
22:46 < urgen> but one does not always know the consequences ahead of time :-)
22:46 < urgen> and that may be a lot of where caring comes in
22:46 < urgen> without appreciation for the scope
22:46 < urgen> I do not see scope as the same as responsibility
22:47 < urgen> like the number of US people driving SUVs
22:47 < urgen> you may call them responsible...
22:48 < urgen> and maybe they are currently being responsible for global warming
22:48 <@echarp> they are, for their own part
22:49 <@echarp> and they will face consequences
22:49 < urgen> so shouldn't the cost of the vehicle also include the cost to the environment?
22:49 <@echarp> or their children (but it's the rule in that game, parents take responsibility for their children and vice versa when time comes)
22:50 < urgen> there is a break down in responsibility somewhere..
22:52 <@echarp> hum hum, you do a thing, you will face the consequences
22:53 <@echarp> if your actions enfreign the free will of others, then justice should be brought in to equalise it all
22:54 <@echarp> but ecology does have troubles there
22:54 <@echarp> it's easy to manage when you are directly polluting something, you should be held responsible for it
22:55 <@echarp> it's more difficult when a country contributes for one quarter of a global warming which will have "possible" consequences in the coming decades
22:55 < urgen> yes
22:55 < urgen> still seems like an issue of education :-)
22:56 < urgen> if I really knew what I was doing was going to create problems would I still do it?
22:56 < urgen> some people would, some wouldn't
22:56 <@echarp> you don't "know"
22:56 < urgen> if I have my own 'leader' telling me it is nonsense
22:56 < urgen> is that really education?
22:56 <@echarp> it's been commonly accepted for what, the last 10 or 20 years
22:56 < urgen> shouldn't there be more money sent to educate?
22:56 < urgen> but that would mean a slide in power
22:56 <@echarp> i don't care how you form your consent, *you* should care about *your* consent
22:56 < urgen> so they don't do that
22:57 < urgen> yes
22:57 <@echarp> there should *always* be more money!!!
22:57 <@echarp> it's constant
22:57 <@echarp> I believe it's not done right and is not a matter of money, but of participants
22:57 <@echarp> well, rather difficult
22:58 < urgen> you should care about your consent -- seems to be a good rule
22:58 < urgen> or something that leads up to a rule
23:00 <@echarp> yeap, not others
23:00 <@echarp> or you are turning it all around
23:00 <@echarp> on its head
23:00 <@echarp> but in a nomic, what are the consequences of one's consent?
23:01 < urgen> the consequences are that you play by yourself
23:01 < urgen> friends are the goal
23:01 < urgen> if you work with people then greater goals are possible
23:02 < urgen> if you don't then you lose the advantage of society
23:02 <@echarp> I don't see much consequences but the status quo
23:07 <@echarp> so consent is not very important but as an implication that the person is willing to spend time
23:07 <@echarp> and energy
23:09 < urgen> seems like that changes eventually
23:09 < urgen> logic matures.. the short fat glass does not hold more milk than the tall thin one
23:09 < urgen> for a while one will think they are getting the better
23:10 < urgen> responsibility is a moving target
23:11 < urgen> even when adult
23:11 <@echarp> I hope it is
23:11 <@echarp> nothing is fixed, "future" consequences are impossible to know "for sure" :)
23:11 <@echarp> same with global warming
23:12 <@echarp> it's a guess, a bet, a projection
23:12 < urgen> so, seems like I am basing my thoughts on an idea of the seriousness it takes to learn how one's own epistemology effects their perceptions
23:13 <@echarp> epistomology, there you are getting pedantic! :)
23:13 < urgen> and I do not see many people stepping up to that degree of responsibility
23:13 <@echarp> there are no absolutes, then you can not now everything, just you do as well as you can
23:13 < urgen> but I would love to not have that seriousness removed from play
23:14 < urgen> which it usually is.
23:16 <@echarp> games can be very serious, you should see me playing against my brothers for example, we take it very seriously! :)
23:22 < urgen> so I thought of the golden key was a way to indicate whether someone was in the game or not
23:22 < urgen> shows membership
23:22 < urgen> maybe allows parties
23:22 < urgen> fiatlex, inventory
23:23 < urgen> fiatlex, inventory golden key
23:23 < fiatlex> urgen: urgen (1), echarp (1), illegale (1)
23:27 <@echarp> voting yes on rule #2 could have played the same purpose
23:28 <@echarp> indicating participation and agreement to participation through... you guess it, participation
23:28 < urgen> yes, but I wanted to try out "Thing"
23:28 <@echarp> it's fine
23:28 -!- Topic for #parlement: http://leparlement.org/irc
23:28 -!- Topic set by echarp [n=33M0...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] [Sun Jun 11 20:49:42 2006]
23:29 <@echarp> it's getting late and still hot, it will take me a while to fall asleep
23:29 < urgen> np
23:29 < urgen> have some great dreams
23:30 <@echarp> I'll try! :)
23:30 < urgen> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology ( for reference to previous statement )
23:30 <@echarp> the science of knowledge yes
23:31 <@echarp> you are going to end up a deconstructivist!
23:31 <@echarp> watch out, slippery slope to nothinghood and/or revering an urinoir
23:32 < urgen> I am so way past deconstructionism or nihilism...
23:32 <@echarp> :)
23:32 < urgen> don't worry I'm immune
23:32 <@echarp> come on, you seem very much into it!
23:32 <@echarp> seeking the root of words
23:32 < urgen> that's only due to a certain lack of familiarity I am slowly edging toward addressing
23:33 < urgen> :-)
23:33 <@echarp> :)
23:33 <@echarp> be careful, deconstructivism is a lot of wanking
23:33 <@echarp> it's those guys who managed to fool prestigious scientific papers into accepting stupid articles
23:33 < urgen> I don't have to be careful because I really don't have that proclivity
23:33 < urgen> but thanks for caring
23:36 <@echarp> I prefer nietsche, the guy was a genius
23:37 <@echarp> but it's interesting to also pick appart meaning, sometimes :)
23:37 <@echarp> there is a term to call us
23:37 <@echarp> damn, I forgot it
23:37 < urgen> :-)
23:38 <@echarp> considering that everything is relative, no more true ideals
23:38 <@echarp> all those things
23:38 <@echarp> cynicism
23:38 < urgen> I haven't read any nietsche in over twenty years now
23:40 <@echarp> arg, I can't remember the bloody term!
23:40 < urgen> "never work when it is hot and late"
23:41 <@echarp> lol
23:41 <@echarp> yeap, ok I'm going
23:41 <@echarp> hopefully I'll have it by tomorrow! :)
23:41 <@echarp> good night!
--- Log closed mar jun 13 00:00:18 2006
echarp
Jun 14, 2006, 1:56:08 AM6/14/06
to top-politics
--- Log opened mar jun 13 00:00:18 2006
00:14 -!- illegale (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung883.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
00:15 < illegale> hello
00:15 < illegale> cbs=charles?
00:37 < urgen> hi
00:40 < urgen> <cbs8854> my charles8851 handle was wrong for me, & we could not modify it, so we changed it
00:40 < urgen> yes, charles
00:47 < urgen> not late enough here to be early there.. you up at odd hours illegale?
00:50 < cbs8854> gale?
00:50 < urgen> yes
00:50 < urgen> and me
00:50 < urgen> :-)
00:50 < cbs8854> of course
00:51 < urgen> did you see my note after our last talk?
00:51 < cbs8854> no
00:51 < urgen> I'm looking for it on the bboard
00:51 < urgen> got lost in an -M jab
00:56 < urgen> wow, tough site to navigate
00:57 < illegale> sorry palls
00:57 < illegale> i was writing some letter :0
00:57 < illegale> misses talk
00:57 < illegale> missed
00:57 < illegale> it is 1am in Croatia
00:58 < urgen> anyway.. I did see where I didn't read what you were saying and only found that error after I read the logs on leparlement
00:58 < urgen> ok
00:59 < urgen> but now I can't even find the logs
00:59 < urgen> :P
00:59 < illegale> I did read you comment I do undesratnd what you are talking about
00:59 < illegale> this about concensous, right?
01:00 < illegale> hey charles!
01:00 < urgen> yes I commented on an irc log when charles and I were talking and seemed to appreiciate the same thing but couldn't find how to share that
01:00 < illegale> I have to admit something
01:00 < illegale> I can hardly folow you sometimes
01:01 < urgen> :-) good enough for me
01:01 < urgen> I'm too passionate about clear and solid foundations on which to build, it seems
01:01 < illegale> that is very good
01:01 < illegale> and important
01:01 < urgen> I've seen too many good projects fall apart
01:02 < illegale> yet, there is a moment when it is usefull and whan it is not so usefull
01:02 < urgen> and unfortuneately that lesson seems to be the only way to see why it is important
01:02 < illegale> did not good have founds?
01:02 < urgen> a lot of good people get burned out
01:02 < illegale> becuaste they where naive
01:03 < illegale> imo of course
01:03 < illegale> changing world stuff is pretty complicated stuff
01:03 < urgen> it shouldn't *have* to happen but eventually things will work out
01:03 < illegale> needs a whole bunch of knowlege to swim
01:04 < illegale> urgen, could you help us in articualteing transparency at top politics?
01:04 < urgen> I'm best working down here in the irc forge
01:05 < urgen> the chat this evening with echarp touched on transparency a couple times
01:05 < urgen> but didn't become the main focus
01:05 < illegale> how do you imagine to set this concept be clear through irc?
01:05 < illegale> clear to all participants
01:05 < illegale> and those who are not participating?
01:06 < illegale> i mean, lets talk about rl
01:10 < urgen> I'd probably start with someone watching a blade of grass
01:11 < urgen> and instructing them to keep their attention on that blade of grass
01:11 < urgen> now, does this person notice when their mind wanders or not?
01:11 < urgen> will they be honest enough to notice that it had wandered the minute their attention returns to that blade of grass?
01:11 < urgen> honest is how transparency starts
01:11 < illegale> can i watch something else? no grass in my house
01:12 < urgen> anything that's just a little bit boring :-)
01:12 < illegale> ok, that is your interpretation
01:12 < illegale> yet, we are here to set common one, rght?
01:12 < urgen> common has to start with ourselves
01:13 < illegale> ok
01:13 < illegale> so, when could we try a little experiment with grass?
01:13 < illegale> i would like to participate
01:14 < illegale> i need this part to start doing smart things doing
01:14 < urgen> well if you watch and later find that you were distracted but stay with it
01:15 < urgen> and watch more and more longer and longer, you begin to see the number of distractions reduce and the ability to notice them increase
01:15 < urgen> this suggests the capacity for honesty can be cultivated
01:15 < urgen> it isn't something automatic
01:15 < urgen> it has to be workedat
01:16 < illegale> ok, so what does it have with definitions/
01:16 < illegale> ?
01:16 < urgen> one can accidentally believe something that isn't true
01:16 < urgen> maybe hold the wrong definition
01:16 < urgen> or a different one, at least
01:17 < urgen> same word two different meanings
01:17 < urgen> without honesty neither will be able to find the other
01:17 < illegale> i understand that
01:17 < illegale> so, what do you suggest?
01:17 < illegale> look at edge of grass for how long?
01:17 < illegale> blade, i mean
01:17 < urgen> years
01:18 < illegale> before that, do nothing?
01:18 < illegale> no politics
01:18 < illegale> ?
01:18 < illegale> no definitions?
01:18 < urgen> echarp was talking about vigilence earlier
01:19 < urgen> taking care and knowing that one's own honesty may be suspect might be a good idea
01:19 < urgen> we humans are so very gullible
01:19 < urgen> we love to believe in things that will last, but they don't
01:19 < illegale> vigilence?
01:19 < urgen> taking care
01:19 < illegale> what does it mean?
01:19 < illegale> ok
01:19 < urgen> watch how trust is extended
01:20 < urgen> not accepting without testing
01:20 < illegale> whats the problem with that?
01:20 < urgen> no problem, the difference is just whether one works from no base or a solid base
01:20 < urgen> the solid base method is much more efficient
01:20 < urgen> gets to the end of the road more quickly
01:21 < illegale> so, i suppose you have a little bit more solid base than i do
01:21 < urgen> you can take a long time to muddle through or you can pick a sound path
01:21 < urgen> no
01:21 < illegale> so, where are you right now in your political life/
01:21 < urgen> I only see the difference
01:21 < illegale> ?
01:21 < illegale> how long do you watch for blade of grass?
01:21 < illegale> at
01:22 < urgen> right now.. I see: it is silly to admit a lack of capacity and hand over one's decisions to a body of government
01:22 < illegale> ok
01:22 < urgen> the government doesn't have the capacity to determine my own
01:22 < urgen> unless I let go, first
01:22 < urgen> and then. that's still no special guarantee
01:23 < urgen> or it is a guarantee of foolishness, perhaps
01:23 < urgen> why would I let go?
01:23 < illegale> cmon, you do not need too much grass too see tht
01:24 < illegale> i suppose it is not all, right?
01:24 < urgen> the story is meant to continue, yes
01:25 < urgen> but it is still an issue of capacity
01:25 < urgen> right?
01:25 < urgen> some theory about the combined effort of the many outweighs the effort of the individual
01:25 < urgen> capacity for [blank]
01:25 < illegale> i do agree about it
01:26 < urgen> but these capacities have limits
01:26 < urgen> these combined capacities
01:26 < illegale> do you know something about these limitis/
01:26 < urgen> for a long time 'science' was going to save the world -- or substitue your favorite world saving body
01:26 < illegale> or you suspect this?
01:28 < illegale> panta rei
01:28 < urgen> how long does the test have to continue before it shows up one way or another/
01:29 < illegale> urgen, do you have any idea of what to do excatly?
01:29 < illegale> but grass stuff
01:29 < illegale> ?
01:29 < illegale> or you are in questioning part?
01:29 < illegale> looking for answers part>
01:29 < illegale> ?
01:31 < urgen> the question is always more valuable than the answer
01:31 < urgen> it is easy to find answers, really hard to find good questions
01:31 < illegale> so you are finding for questions?
01:31 < urgen> so don't waste them right away with an easy answer ;-)
01:32 < illegale> is there any action plan stuff?
01:32 < illegale> search google stuff?
01:32 < illegale> i mean, i had one question. WTF?
01:32 < illegale> i suppose that is the one i looked for
01:33 < illegale> took me some time to find an answer :)
01:33 < illegale> you?
01:33 < illegale> have some good questions?
01:33 < urgen> :-)
01:34 < urgen> is it always necessary to burn one's fingers to learn the stove is hot?
01:34 < urgen> I think maybe yes.
01:34 < illegale> sometimes fingers had to be burned
01:34 < illegale> to start apreciating knowledge
01:34 < urgen> but I see sometimes people can infer
01:35 < urgen> but they only know to try that because they burned their own fingers somewhere else earlier
01:35 < urgen> or deduct..
01:35 < urgen> whichever that is..
01:35 < illegale> yes
01:35 < urgen> so sometimes is seems like it is a good idea to jump faster
01:35 < urgen> sometimes you don't even have a choice
01:35 < illegale> who works, makes mistakes
01:36 < urgen> :-) that's nice
01:36 < illegale> who does not makes the greatest one
01:36 < illegale> we are doomed
01:36 < illegale> to make mistakes
01:36 < urgen> so a CEO relies on having good advice nearby to not have to go out and learn
01:36 < urgen> a President has the cabinent
01:36 < urgen> etc
01:37 < illegale> yes?
01:37 < urgen> how efficient is that?
01:37 < urgen> good enough?
01:37 < illegale> not
01:37 < urgen> I don't think it works so well either
01:37 < urgen> so this advice thing..
01:37 < illegale> and...
01:37 < urgen> it has to happen on a smaller scale
01:37 < urgen> scale is always the problem
01:37 < illegale> yes
01:38 < urgen> between us we can discover some common ground
01:38 < urgen> even maybe up to 14 people on channel
01:38 < urgen> maybe a little more
01:38 < urgen> and then, you better find another channel
01:38 < illegale> you mean media?
01:38 < urgen> well those groups of 14 or so.. they have to find a way to talk also
01:38 < urgen> irc
01:38 < urgen> if we had a voice conference not even 14
01:39 < urgen> it is too hard to talk
01:39 < illegale> irc is good?
01:39 < urgen> irc is pretty good
01:39 < illegale> groups, forums, wikies and stuff?
01:39 < illegale> for more than 14?
01:39 < urgen> email is really slow
01:39 < urgen> voice is really fast but it only supports smaller grouups
01:39 < illegale> you mean brainstorm?
01:40 < urgen> unless you regulate and start some rules of order or something
01:40 < urgen> find common ground
01:40 < illegale> i suppose it is about rules if we want to get larger scale
01:40 < illegale> organise and legitimate info flow
01:40 < urgen> rules slow things down a bit
01:40 < urgen> but maybe not too much
01:41 < urgen> like 14 people on a conference line could take turns
01:41 < urgen> it is harder to review what anyone said unless it was also transcribed
01:41 < illegale> yes, and there is a lot of stuff to be read
01:41 < illegale> so, some resumes
01:41 < illegale> and stuff
01:42 < urgen> so with our own best attempts to be honest
01:42 < urgen> what other transparency is there?
01:42 < urgen> we get work done
01:42 < illegale> groups and stuff
01:42 < illegale> hard to read it all
01:42 < illegale> if there is no will
01:42 < illegale> and need
01:42 < illegale> that causes it
01:43 < urgen> so maybe for mistakes then?
01:43 < urgen> in case a member of the group did not know they had no talent in being honest
01:43 < illegale> what is the product? some document signed by all?
01:44 < urgen> mostly what happens is that people begin to see how each other uses terms
01:44 < urgen> noting differences and similarities
01:44 < urgen> and working together to find a new vocabulary
01:44 < illegale> should we invent new words?
01:44 < urgen> then. maybe -transparency- requires that someone new can easily catch up
01:44 < urgen> no secret language
01:44 < illegale> new words
01:44 < illegale> ?
01:45 < illegale> visual ones?
01:45 < urgen> no words that have meanings not apparent
01:45 < illegale> ok
01:45 < urgen> echarp and I seem to see many things similar, but when we get down to compare we find many things not the same
01:45 < illegale> no need for grass lectures before that?
01:45 < urgen> but we were using the very same words
01:45 < urgen> how is that?
01:45 < illegale> different networks :)
01:46 < urgen> grass might be one of those differences.. we'd have talk to find out
01:46 < illegale> yet, what is the point we can go further?
01:46 < urgen> I work for myself right now. but I don't really mind working for larger companies
01:46 < illegale> i suppose we will always differ, more or less
01:46 < urgen> the projects that can be accomplished by many smart people are way more fun than the ones I can do only by myself
01:47 < urgen> goal is working together to make things better
01:47 < illegale> yet, much mroe problems there is
01:47 < urgen> companies also get dishonesty and the better swings toward one instead of everyone?
01:47 < urgen> :-)
01:47 < illegale> did you read tht article about transprency?
01:48 < urgen> no
01:48 < illegale> that ws written by my comapnion, markus
01:48 < illegale> pretty different to my view
01:48 < illegale> yet, i had no major complaints
01:48 < illegale> and we could go on
01:48 < illegale> is it ok attitude?
01:48 < urgen> only thing I was noticing is how easy it is to mix pageranking up
01:48 < illegale> lol
01:48 < urgen> google has to fight it all the time
01:49 < urgen> where is the honesty?
01:49 < urgen> where is the clarity?
01:49 < illegale> who needs it?
01:49 < illegale> ask him :)
01:49 < urgen> well as an idea to mediate by means of technology I appreciate it
01:50 < urgen> so I get just a little bit invested in an idea like that
01:50 < urgen> scale is still an issue
01:50 < illegale> which idea?
01:50 < urgen> pagerank idea
01:50 < urgen> or did you mean who needs honesty?
01:50 < illegale> what do you want to do with ti?
01:50 < illegale> no
01:51 < illegale> integrate it into social network quantifications?
01:52 < illegale> or?
01:52 < urgen> my problem starts when I try to define a vote
01:52 < illegale> ohhh
01:52 < urgen> a vote has quite a few components
01:52 < illegale> i think that is a wrong aproach
01:52 < illegale> yes?
01:52 < urgen> wrong from some perspective, but perhaps I am already redefining it
01:54 < urgen> I can't tell until we also define the process
01:54 < urgen> defining the process seems to be a large part of 'the goal'
01:54 < urgen> :-)
01:59 < illegale> what do you mean by that?
01:59 < urgen> the art of participaton to further opportunity
02:00 < illegale> so, you agree to start from smal relations towards big ones?
02:01 < urgen> the only real change that happens, happens one on one
02:01 < illegale> as long as description of big model with no small efficiency had some realisaion flaw
02:01 < illegale> one can be organisation
02:01 < urgen> those will fail, yes
02:02 < urgen> (big organizations without appreciation for small efforts first)
02:04 < urgen> do you know: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latent_Semantic_Indexing
02:04 < urgen> ?
02:04 < illegale> no
02:04 < urgen> a way to measure relevance of content
02:05 < urgen> how google knows what pages to pick when you ask for certain key phrases
02:05 < urgen> a possible way to detect context
02:05 < urgen> same word different use
02:06 < urgen> but google does not have very good focus
02:06 < urgen> so you don't always get what you are looking for just words that look the same
02:06 < urgen> but google is beginning to be able to see some larger clusters of use
02:06 < urgen> you should get Mark here
02:07 -!- beeli (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung3204.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
02:07 < urgen> hi
02:07 < urgen> :-)
02:07 < beeli> ops
02:07 < urgen> I need to get a bot here soon, eh?
02:07 < beeli> yes
02:08 < urgen> what was the last sentence you saw?
02:08 < beeli> lsa mentioning
02:08 < beeli> i put ?
02:08 < beeli> or no
02:08 < beeli> now looking at it
02:09 < beeli> is it working and is it usefull?
02:09 < urgen> so you didn't see any of the stuff I typed after you said no?
02:10 < beeli> no
02:10 < urgen> <urgen> a way to measure relevance of content
02:10 < urgen> <urgen> how google knows what pages to pick when you ask for certain key phrases
02:10 < urgen> <urgen> a possible way to detect context
02:10 < urgen> <urgen> same word different use
02:10 < urgen> <urgen> but google does not have very good focus
02:10 < urgen> <urgen> so you don't always get what you are looking for just words that look the same
02:10 < beeli> i was out for minute at most
02:10 < urgen> <urgen> but google is beginning to be able to see some larger clusters of use
02:10 < urgen> <urgen> you should get Mark here
02:10 < urgen> Latent semantic indexing works very well
02:11 < beeli> looking for context?
02:11 < beeli> how is that going on?
02:11 < urgen> so within the clusters you begin to be able to identify authoritative use cases
02:11 < urgen> the math for this?
02:11 < beeli> author...mena dominant?
02:11 < beeli> yes
02:12 < beeli> are the problems solved to find context?
02:12 < urgen> if you want to find what you are looking for.. lets say a soft stuffed toy jaguar
02:12 < urgen> and so you type jaguar, you get cars and animals and mac operating systems
02:12 < urgen> along with the toy ones...
02:13 < urgen> so shouldn't google file the different uses of jaguar under different indexes?
02:13 < urgen> LSA allows for a page to suggest the alternative index
02:13 < urgen> so they get files under a mathematical relationship derived by using linear algebra
02:14 < urgen> s/files/filed
02:14 < urgen> but within even that there are different uses again
02:14 < beeli> a moment
02:14 < beeli> it uses these words
02:14 < beeli> toy and yaguar
02:14 < urgen> and eventually you get down to expert level or specialist level information where there is only one or two authorities in a field
02:15 < beeli> narrowing focus?
02:15 < urgen> ok, so, how about I seel plastic boats, but put toy jaguar in the meta tag
02:15 < beeli> jaguar, toy, car, stuffed...
02:16 < urgen> you think google will deliver that page when someone asks for boats or toys?
02:16 < beeli> yes
02:16 < urgen> s/seel/sell
02:17 < urgen> so google is smart enough to know the page is about boats and not toy jaguars even though those words may appear somewhere on the page
02:17 < urgen> through latent semantic indexing
02:17 < beeli> by sorting relevance?
02:17 < beeli> ok
02:17 < urgen> by seeing similar words used on other similar pages
02:17 < beeli> ok
02:17 < urgen> pages that sell plastic boats tend to have *this* fingerprint
02:17 < urgen> so they get filed under plastic boats
02:18 < urgen> or actually under that fingerprint
02:18 < beeli> yet, there are diffent ways of sorting stuff
02:18 < urgen> when you type in plastic boat you only get that indexed file contents
02:18 < urgen> there are lots of ways to sort stuff
02:18 < beeli> what do they choose?
02:18 < urgen> and they have to pick the one that is not easily compromised
02:18 < beeli> cut?
02:18 < urgen> because their product is letting you find what you want.
02:19 < urgen> other people are interested in being found so they try to hide under popular searches
02:19 < beeli> cross section of clusters stuff?
02:19 < beeli> ok
02:20 < urgen> hope that their page shows up when someone types in britney spears when all they sell is plastic boats
02:20 < beeli> i get it
02:20 < urgen> so ppl try to abuse the index
02:20 < beeli> money cool
02:20 < urgen> and google has to constantly make it more abuse proof
02:20 < urgen> google tries to reward honesty and clarity
02:21 < beeli> tries to aproach to reality :)
02:21 < beeli> i offer this you want the same thing google wants to link us
02:21 < beeli> his bussines interest of being a good seach engine
02:21 < beeli> so, what are you up to?
02:22 < beeli> helping google, or using google?
02:22 < urgen> I did not understand, sry
02:22 < beeli> do you want to get use of its flaws, or to improve it?
02:22 < urgen> flaws have only temporary value
02:23 < urgen> I want efficient results
02:23 < beeli> improvement is temporary too
02:23 < urgen> long lasting efficient results
02:23 < urgen> bad improvement is temporary :-)
02:23 < urgen> there is a way to index that is more genuine.. but even google has its limits
02:23 < beeli> i suppose everything can be missues
02:23 < urgen> wants money too
02:23 -!- illegale [n=ille...@cmung883.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
02:23 < beeli> yet, there is a way tha can solve that
02:24 < beeli> yet, it is based not on algortihms
02:24 < beeli> but on trust clusters
02:24 < urgen> which doesn't earn them any money
02:24 < urgen> but does do a better job
02:24 < beeli> who?
02:25 < beeli> google, or clusters?
02:25 < urgen> trust clusters doesn't allow google the same corner on their market
02:25 < urgen> but!
02:25 < beeli> yet, it solves the problem
02:25 < urgen> there is a new thing called google co-op
02:25 < beeli> oh..
02:25 < beeli> :)
02:25 < beeli> di not check it out
02:25 < beeli> can you send me it again?
02:26 < urgen> http://www.google.com/coop
02:26 < urgen> google co-op allows the independent forming of trust clusters
02:26 < beeli> cool :)
02:26 < beeli> autopoiesis itself
02:27 < beeli> have to gooooo
02:27 < urgen> to these new folksonomies you can subscribe
02:27 < beeli> pretty late
02:27 < urgen> ok
02:27 < urgen> ya
02:27 < urgen> tnx
02:27 < urgen> bye
02:27 < beeli> yet, this is what highly interests me
02:28 < beeli> and i get it a little bit morecleart than the last time :)
02:28 < beeli> now i read it and understand it :)
02:28 < beeli> lo
02:28 < beeli> l
02:28 < beeli> night
02:28 -!- beeli [n=ille...@cmung3204.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit []
04:26 -!- urgen is now known as omen
04:26 -!- omen is now known as urgen
09:12 <@echarp> hello hello
--- Log closed mar jun 13 12:28:43 2006
--- Log opened mar jun 13 12:29:20 2006
12:29 -!- echarp [n=33M0...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has joined #parlement
12:29 -!- Topic for #parlement: http://leparlement.org/irc
12:29 -!- Topic set by echarp [] [Sun Jun 11 20:50:53 2006]
12:29 [Users #parlement]
12:29 [ cbs8854] [ echarp] [ fiatlex] [ nsh] [ Schuyler] [ urgen]
12:29 -!- Irssi: #parlement: Total of 6 nicks [0 ops, 0 halfops, 0 voices, 6 normal]
12:29 -!- Channel #parlement created Thu Apr 27 09:48:29 2006
12:29 -!- Irssi: Join to #parlement was synced in 42 secs
12:41 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
12:41 -!- Topic for #parlement: http://leparlement.org/irc
12:41 -!- Topic set by echarp [] [Sun Jun 11 20:50:53 2006]
14:11 -!- illegale (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung611.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
15:56 -!- illegale [n=ille...@cmung611.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit []
17:10 < urgen> east pacific coast awake now
17:11 < urgen> maybe some parts of hawaii and alaska still asleep :-)
17:11 < echarp> helo
17:11 < echarp> I'm sure they are
17:11 < echarp> here end of the afternoon, and hot!!!
17:14 < urgen> the weekend was nicely cool here, warming today but soon everyday hot
17:14 < urgen> it gets hot here when a hurricane hits west atlantic coast
17:14 < echarp> me I just didn't manage to sleep, too hot!
17:14 < urgen> pushes the air backwards and stops for a while
17:14 < urgen> ya sad when it is that uncomfortable
17:15 < urgen> jeffarch showed illegale this link: http://www.ms.lt/
17:15 < urgen> I haven't read it yet
17:15 < urgen> I have a full work day today
17:15 < urgen> be leaving shortly
17:16 < urgen> I think a great goal would be to gather funds enough to hire a political advisor like buridan
17:16 < urgen> I think money is the only way to keep their attention
17:16 < echarp> he does get paid?
17:16 < urgen> he is a teacher
17:17 < urgen> for a university
17:17 < urgen> he already knows all the vocabulary that I still have to invent
17:18 < urgen> but an academic likes to stay removed and observe the process instead of jumping in. He may know someone that could help too
17:18 < echarp> he's got experience
17:26 < urgen> so funding means finding a bank. I suppose paypal is not in croatia
17:26 < echarp> no idea about that
17:26 < echarp> and how do you first get money?
17:26 < echarp> good will?
17:27 < urgen> yes
17:27 < urgen> donation
17:28 < urgen> it would be nice to find an international digital banking service that can allow three signatures before releasing funds
17:28 < urgen> that's almost a foot into someone elses political legitimacy
17:28 < echarp> but.... what for?
17:28 < urgen> :-)
17:29 < urgen> currency is even more difficult to bootstrap than a governance
17:29 < urgen> often to get a bank account you have to have some type of formal documentaion
17:29 < urgen> that usually is rooted in some national system
17:30 < urgen> not pure bootstrap but it does give a leg up and can be remedied later
17:30 < urgen> so often international organizations have to choose a hosting governance to temporarily establish legitimacy while they are working on completing their stance
17:31 < urgen> evaluating things like tax and tarrif help decide where to start
17:31 < urgen> until you can gain integrity enough that you have a voice in the world stage
17:31 < urgen> it is just a game :-)
17:31 < echarp> there might already exist organisations designed to "host"
17:32 < urgen> that is an interesting idea
17:32 < urgen> ngo incubators
17:32 < urgen> from what I've observed it seems people borrow 'organization in a box' templates
17:32 < urgen> and just copy paste it into their by laws
17:32 < echarp> yeap
17:32 < urgen> without understanding the idea or the process
17:33 < urgen> I always follow a get your hands dirty method but I am not opposed to learning when it makes things easier or faster
17:34 < echarp> I believe law are absurd
17:34 < urgen> so I suppose it would also be a good start to query integrity
17:34 < echarp> thus to contourn them using others' work
17:34 < echarp> templates
17:42 < urgen> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealand
17:42 < urgen> note "micronation"
17:44 < echarp> I know that one :)
17:45 < echarp> but they are always on the brink of invasion
17:45 < urgen> yes, I'm just offering it as a way to project questions
17:46 < urgen> the principle of unified agreement will always be from within a larger environment of pre-existing agreement
17:46 < urgen> chosing whether to recognize or be recognized or determine a means of exchange is an open question
17:53 < urgen> so- I suppose when you say goal, or product then you are trying to find a way to balance 'land' or 'currency'
17:54 < urgen> a basis for means to power?
17:54 < urgen> without fuel this engine doesn't go very far
17:55 < urgen> in the early days of technology they thought 'steam power' was going to completely replace 'legal power'
17:56 < urgen> what 'power' supports this channel?
17:59 < echarp> sharing
17:59 < echarp> I'm not sure there is to be power to hold something together
18:03 < urgen> but there does to generate interaction
18:03 < urgen> even goods is a power
18:04 < urgen> it creates the motion of reason to trade
18:04 < urgen> that's still a power
18:04 < echarp> you are using a hugely large definition of what power is
18:04 < urgen> the electricity for the computers and modem that allow me to connect are paid by dollars
18:04 < echarp> maybe you should restrict to power in "political" or "social" context
18:05 < urgen> without the infrastructure we could not be here either
18:05 < urgen> if it wasn't here I'd have to build a way for it to happen, not sure I could
18:05 < echarp> the ability to do something is of course power, but in a very relax sort of way
18:06 < urgen> so with the internet came an entity that is allowed to exist by means of multiple independent contribution
18:06 < urgen> all those contributions are fueled within their own immediate spheres of influence
18:09 < echarp> hop hop, I'm out
18:09 < echarp> too hot, home is better :)
18:10 < urgen> <-- to work
18:10 < urgen> out too
18:33 < urgen> so when I see 6 million user on skype... that would be an interesting scale to have to work with :-)
18:52 < echarp> definitely!
18:52 < echarp> 6 millions is huge
19:52 * nsh smiles
19:52 < nsh> hrmm
19:53 < echarp> hello hello nsh
19:54 < echarp> 6millions would be enough for many things isn't it? :)
19:54 < nsh> i'm sure
19:55 < echarp> nsh: you have any project for them? :)
19:56 < nsh> a project for 6 million people?
19:56 < nsh> interesting question
19:57 < echarp> what kind of thing could you do? money?
19:58 < nsh> no point worrying about oil until you've designed the clockwork
19:58 < nsh> money is just oil, to a certain extent
19:58 < nsh> what's important is that the cogs align
19:59 < echarp> the cogs? the lies? the lied to?
20:00 < nsh> i don't follow the association
20:02 < echarp> just I don't know what cogs are
20:02 < echarp> hinges?
20:04 < nsh> mmm
20:04 < nsh> processes
20:05 < nsh> the teeth being consensus or affinity between such processes
20:05 < nsh> such that things mesh
20:06 < echarp> oh, I don't look far enough in my dict entry
20:06 < echarp> and cog is referenced as a lie, sorry
20:06 < nsh> hrmm
20:06 < echarp> so, what to do with a large political force?
20:06 < nsh> that's interesting
20:08 < nsh> what's a political force?
20:09 < echarp> people who trust you somehow
20:09 -!- illegale (illegale) [i=ille...@cmung4301.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
20:10 * nsh will ponder, while he eats
20:10 < nsh> back soon
20:10 < illegale> did not know you here :)
20:11 < echarp> bon appétit
20:11 < illegale> hey charp :)
20:11 < echarp> I'm going to get some food me too!
20:11 < illegale> watch france?
20:13 < echarp> nope
20:13 < echarp> I'm not fond of all that craziness
20:13 < echarp> plus they did not win, crappy french men
20:15 < illegale> hehe
20:15 < illegale> irc is not so right for transparency issue
20:15 < illegale> too many chat :)
20:17 < illegale> Cro is now playing
20:17 < illegale> cool stuff for me
20:17 < illegale> we are all happy nothing happens
20:17 < illegale> no worries
20:17 < illegale> just football
20:17 < illegale> as we are vaccined for a month
20:17 < illegale> relax
20:17 < illegale> cool phenomenoen
20:17 < illegale> so, i am going to be a part of it
20:18 < illegale> whish us luck with those bustrards
20:18 < illegale> :)
20:18 < illegale> cu
20:18 -!- illegale [i=ille...@cmung4301.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit []
20:53 < echarp> hello back
21:02 -!- nsh_ (No Such Human) [n=n...@84-43-90-233.ppp.onetel.net.uk] has joined #parlement
21:02 < echarp> re nsh_
21:03 < echarp> nsh_: troubles with your connection? or just pleasure to have a ghost? :)
21:16 -!- nsh [n=nsh@wikipedia/nsh] has quit [Read error: 113 (No route to host)]
22:07 -!- EarleMartin (nobody) [n=nob...@mythix.realprogrammers.com] has joined #parlement
22:17 < echarp> hello hello EarleMartin
22:18 < echarp> english or french man?
22:41 < EarleMartin> bonjour! je suis un rosbif; j'haba londres en le royaume-uni
22:41 < EarleMartin> erm? my typing sucks
22:41 < EarleMartin> habite :)
22:41 < EarleMartin> ...and that's the limit of my french
22:42 * EarleMartin waves to Schuyler, urgen
22:42 < EarleMartin> fiatlex, I've missed you!
22:42 < echarp> :)
22:42 < echarp> fiatlex: are you asleep oh dear bot? :)
22:43 < echarp> EarleMartin: I've got some friends up in london too, nice place it seems
22:43 < echarp> and hot too
22:47 < EarleMartin> no kidding - about 32C yesterday
22:47 < echarp> same same, my ventilator is in full speed, it might just take off!
22:48 < echarp> I put a pan of water under it, as recommanded by urgen :)
22:48 < echarp> under it = in its flow
22:51 < echarp> EarleMartin: you've tried nomic before?
22:54 < EarleMartin> yup, I was around for the original game with fiatlex
22:54 < echarp> cool
22:54 < echarp> and what do you think of it?
22:56 < EarleMartin> entertaining!
22:56 < EarleMartin> at the time we had one dude who really caused havoc by voting against almost everything
22:56 < echarp> even starting with no rule at all?
22:56 < echarp> arg, painful then
22:56 < EarleMartin> our initial ruleset was a little shaky
22:56 < EarleMartin> it was kind of funny, though
22:57 < echarp> nomic is interesting as a social construction game
22:57 < EarleMartin> indeed
22:57 < echarp> a game :)
22:57 < EarleMartin> aren't there some games that are like, ten years old and still going?
22:57 < EarleMartin> i seem to recall, from the web...
22:57 < echarp> probaby
22:57 < echarp> l
22:57 < EarleMartin> 'tis madness
22:57 < echarp> I just hope they don't have too many rules!!!
22:58 < echarp> 10th rule (or so) => there shall not be more than 42 rules! :)
22:59 < EarleMartin> have you played fluxx?
23:01 < echarp> neither
23:01 < echarp> same family of games?
23:04 -!- illegale (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung4101.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
23:04 < echarp> hello back illegale
23:04 < illegale> hey :)
23:04 < illegale> what a game
23:05 < echarp> illegale: you know fluxx?
23:05 < echarp> card game it seems (so wikipedia says)
23:05 < illegale> no
23:05 < illegale> why?
23:05 < illegale> good for politics? :)
23:06 < echarp> same line of thought as nomic, so it seems
23:06 < echarp> but the card game gives a much narrow focus
23:07 < illegale> huh
23:07 < illegale> it seems i lost interest in this stuff
23:07 < illegale> i mean, why play when we can work?
23:07 < echarp> illegale: btw, I'm looking into a "vote recapitulation page" on parlement
23:07 < echarp> illegale: I sort of agree
23:07 < illegale> yes?
23:07 < echarp> yet nomic is also interesting as it highlights any rule set
23:08 < illegale> yes it doe
23:08 < illegale> s
23:08 < echarp> plus not many people wanting to start a game, so it seems
23:08 < illegale> and those who start, loose interest after a whil
23:08 < illegale> e
23:08 < illegale> here in cro, there is some depresion about politics
23:09 < illegale> seems we need to consolidate our power
23:09 < illegale> we youngings
23:09 < illegale> :)
23:09 < echarp> consolidation yes
23:09 < echarp> plus the possibility to join the EU
23:09 < illegale> same thing everyewhere
23:09 < illegale> it is such a weather, i guess
23:10 < illegale> i am not into eu stuff
23:10 < echarp> and futebal :)
23:10 < illegale> yes
23:10 < illegale> there was a nice play we had today
23:10 < illegale> with brasil
23:10 < illegale> we lost, yet we are satisfied :)
23:10 < echarp> which score?
23:10 < illegale> 1:0
23:11 < illegale> did you watch co-op?
23:11 < illegale> somethng urgen and i chated yesterday
23:11 < echarp> co-op?
23:11 < illegale> google.com/co-op
23:11 < echarp> I didn't re-read all you said, didn't take the time
23:12 < echarp> I remember yes
23:12 < echarp> what about it?
23:12 < illegale> this stuff is not for re reading, that is why i find groups, post thing better
23:12 < illegale> http://www.google.com/coop
23:12 < illegale> the way how google deals with spam in search engines
23:12 < illegale> using trust networks
23:13 < illegale> new project
23:13 < illegale> something we could use pretty good for networking on the global level
23:13 < echarp> trust networks are a good to weed the good from the bad yes
23:13 < echarp> "good way"
23:13 < illegale> yes, to seperate quality of info
23:14 < echarp> noise/signal
23:14 < echarp> and what did you say about it?
23:14 < illegale> http://www.google.com/coop/docs/guide_topics.html
23:15 < illegale> i am not sure how is google going to do this, yet there is a good concept
23:15 < illegale> if this is public, whola. if not, separate one should be used to realise such thing
23:16 < echarp> dmoz would something slightly alike?
23:16 < illegale> ?
23:17 < echarp> you don't know dmoz
23:17 < echarp> well, it's not targeted at expertise
23:18 < echarp> just a human categorised internet
23:18 < illegale> link?
23:18 < echarp> http://dmoz.org
23:18 < echarp> it's volunter based
23:18 < echarp> and Free content I believe
23:19 < illegale> how popular it is?
23:20 < echarp> I don't know, but I've know it for a long time
23:20 < echarp> know/known
23:20 < illegale> use it?
23:20 < echarp> not really, but I should!
23:21 < illegale> why you should?
23:21 < illegale> is it that good?
23:21 < echarp> because it's Free and community based
23:21 < illegale> no tiaktiv mentiones
23:22 < illegale> think google is gona eat them
23:22 < echarp> google is another beast :)
23:22 < illegale> yet i do not like it
23:22 < illegale> too big im
23:22 < illegale> o
23:22 < illegale> it corrupts
23:22 < illegale> too big interests get involved
23:23 < echarp> it corrupts I don't know, but for sure I am not confortable with hugely powerful entities
23:23 < illegale> me neither
23:24 < illegale> hard to mantain it
23:24 < illegale> there is some plato saying
23:24 < echarp> I don't really like the multinations which our governements cajole and encourage
23:24 < echarp> arg, not platoooo! :)
23:24 < illegale> democracy is where the first is not too sure and last not discouraged
23:24 < illegale> something like that
23:24 < illegale> i do not like him too
23:24 < illegale> yet, there are some fine sayings
23:24 < illegale> that is the one
23:25 < illegale> the only i know :)
23:25 < echarp> I'm not sure he would have talked fondly of democracy
23:25 < echarp> well, but the guy was quite something even if I really dislike how his philosophy was the foundation of christianity
23:25 < illegale> he missed it
23:26 < illegale> i like sun tzu and muhhamed
23:26 -!- cbs8854 [n=cha...@pool-71-111-30-136.ptldor.dsl-w.verizon.net] has left #parlement []
23:26 < illegale> they have some thought :)
23:26 < echarp> sun tzu rocks!
23:26 < echarp> muhhamed I don't really know
23:26 < illegale> pretty by the ground man
23:26 < illegale> imo
23:27 < illegale> knowing human psychology wery well
23:27 < illegale> obviously
23:27 < illegale> and organsiational concpets
23:27 < echarp> he was sort of cartesian a long time before descartes!
23:27 < illegale> hey Charles
23:27 < echarp> organisation yes
23:27 < echarp> we've lost charles it seems
23:28 < illegale> hmh
23:28 < illegale> yes
23:28 < illegale> EarleMartin?
23:28 < echarp> ok, getting late here, and still rather hot
23:28 < EarleMartin> sorry, hello
23:28 < illegale> hey, never seen you before :)
23:28 < illegale> e going out?
23:28 < EarleMartin> echarp: yeah, Fluxx is like a short, sharp Nomic in a box.
23:29 < EarleMartin> nice to meet you :)
23:29 < illegale> Earle, you French?
23:29 < echarp> EarleMartin: how did you discover this channel? (if I may ask)
23:29 < echarp> illegale: no need to insult him right away like that! ;)
23:29 < illegale> E, who sends you ):-)
23:29 < EarleMartin> urgen mentioned it; also I was in an earlier IRC-nomic with Schuyler and fiatlex, a couple of years ago
23:30 < EarleMartin> illegale: non :P
23:30 < EarleMartin> <-- Brit
23:30 < illegale> lol
23:30 < echarp> :)
23:30 < EarleMartin> although in my office "who will win the world cup" competition I got both England /and/ France.
23:30 < EarleMartin> I can't lose!!1!
23:30 < echarp> oh, france will have a tought time, I'm betting on braziiiil (ok, easy one)
23:31 < illegale> did you watch Cro?
23:34 < echarp> we should start some on-lines and monetary bets, urgen, interested? :)
23:34 < echarp> a brit would/could be the bookmaker! ;)
23:35 < illegale> i do not bet >:
23:36 < illegale> unless i am certain
23:38 < echarp> even for cro? :)
23:38 < echarp> an act of faith!
23:38 < illegale> if you gonna bet on France, maybe :)
23:42 < echarp> arg
23:42 < echarp> I won't bet, but if we win I will party on the champs élysées! :)
23:42 < illegale> France was world champion, cmon
23:43 < echarp> I know, and they are among the well positioned
23:43 < echarp> but we frenchies suffer of a syndrom: we lose when everybody expects us to win! :)
23:43 < echarp> we also lose when we were expected to lose :)
23:44 < echarp> ok, I'm dead, hopefully temperature will slightly drop tonight
23:45 < illegale> gonna go?
23:45 < echarp> think so yes
23:46 < illegale> get a good sleep :)
23:46 < echarp> thx
23:46 < echarp> I'm updating parlement, now elements are listed according to their vote
23:48 < illegale> need some rewiev?
23:48 < echarp> and tomorrow, I'll add a "who voted on what" page
23:48 < echarp> or a page fragment
23:49 < echarp> good night!
23:50 < echarp> not too many dreams of any particular country winning the cup, there shall only remain one! :)
23:50 < illegale> good night you too
23:50 < echarp> EarleMartin: do stay around if you want, you are welcome!
23:50 < echarp> we'll see with that nomic game!
23:50 < echarp> night night
--- Log closed mer jun 14 00:00:18 2006
00:14 -!- illegale (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung883.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
00:15 < illegale> hello
00:15 < illegale> cbs=charles?
00:37 < urgen> hi
00:40 < urgen> <cbs8854> my charles8851 handle was wrong for me, & we could not modify it, so we changed it
00:40 < urgen> yes, charles
00:47 < urgen> not late enough here to be early there.. you up at odd hours illegale?
00:50 < cbs8854> gale?
00:50 < urgen> yes
00:50 < urgen> and me
00:50 < urgen> :-)
00:50 < cbs8854> of course
00:51 < urgen> did you see my note after our last talk?
00:51 < cbs8854> no
00:51 < urgen> I'm looking for it on the bboard
00:51 < urgen> got lost in an -M jab
00:56 < urgen> wow, tough site to navigate
00:57 < illegale> sorry palls
00:57 < illegale> i was writing some letter :0
00:57 < illegale> misses talk
00:57 < illegale> missed
00:57 < illegale> it is 1am in Croatia
00:58 < urgen> anyway.. I did see where I didn't read what you were saying and only found that error after I read the logs on leparlement
00:58 < urgen> ok
00:59 < urgen> but now I can't even find the logs
00:59 < urgen> :P
00:59 < illegale> I did read you comment I do undesratnd what you are talking about
00:59 < illegale> this about concensous, right?
01:00 < illegale> hey charles!
01:00 < urgen> yes I commented on an irc log when charles and I were talking and seemed to appreiciate the same thing but couldn't find how to share that
01:00 < illegale> I have to admit something
01:00 < illegale> I can hardly folow you sometimes
01:01 < urgen> :-) good enough for me
01:01 < urgen> I'm too passionate about clear and solid foundations on which to build, it seems
01:01 < illegale> that is very good
01:01 < illegale> and important
01:01 < urgen> I've seen too many good projects fall apart
01:02 < illegale> yet, there is a moment when it is usefull and whan it is not so usefull
01:02 < urgen> and unfortuneately that lesson seems to be the only way to see why it is important
01:02 < illegale> did not good have founds?
01:02 < urgen> a lot of good people get burned out
01:02 < illegale> becuaste they where naive
01:03 < illegale> imo of course
01:03 < illegale> changing world stuff is pretty complicated stuff
01:03 < urgen> it shouldn't *have* to happen but eventually things will work out
01:03 < illegale> needs a whole bunch of knowlege to swim
01:04 < illegale> urgen, could you help us in articualteing transparency at top politics?
01:04 < urgen> I'm best working down here in the irc forge
01:05 < urgen> the chat this evening with echarp touched on transparency a couple times
01:05 < urgen> but didn't become the main focus
01:05 < illegale> how do you imagine to set this concept be clear through irc?
01:05 < illegale> clear to all participants
01:05 < illegale> and those who are not participating?
01:06 < illegale> i mean, lets talk about rl
01:10 < urgen> I'd probably start with someone watching a blade of grass
01:11 < urgen> and instructing them to keep their attention on that blade of grass
01:11 < urgen> now, does this person notice when their mind wanders or not?
01:11 < urgen> will they be honest enough to notice that it had wandered the minute their attention returns to that blade of grass?
01:11 < urgen> honest is how transparency starts
01:11 < illegale> can i watch something else? no grass in my house
01:12 < urgen> anything that's just a little bit boring :-)
01:12 < illegale> ok, that is your interpretation
01:12 < illegale> yet, we are here to set common one, rght?
01:12 < urgen> common has to start with ourselves
01:13 < illegale> ok
01:13 < illegale> so, when could we try a little experiment with grass?
01:13 < illegale> i would like to participate
01:14 < illegale> i need this part to start doing smart things doing
01:14 < urgen> well if you watch and later find that you were distracted but stay with it
01:15 < urgen> and watch more and more longer and longer, you begin to see the number of distractions reduce and the ability to notice them increase
01:15 < urgen> this suggests the capacity for honesty can be cultivated
01:15 < urgen> it isn't something automatic
01:15 < urgen> it has to be workedat
01:16 < illegale> ok, so what does it have with definitions/
01:16 < illegale> ?
01:16 < urgen> one can accidentally believe something that isn't true
01:16 < urgen> maybe hold the wrong definition
01:16 < urgen> or a different one, at least
01:17 < urgen> same word two different meanings
01:17 < urgen> without honesty neither will be able to find the other
01:17 < illegale> i understand that
01:17 < illegale> so, what do you suggest?
01:17 < illegale> look at edge of grass for how long?
01:17 < illegale> blade, i mean
01:17 < urgen> years
01:18 < illegale> before that, do nothing?
01:18 < illegale> no politics
01:18 < illegale> ?
01:18 < illegale> no definitions?
01:18 < urgen> echarp was talking about vigilence earlier
01:19 < urgen> taking care and knowing that one's own honesty may be suspect might be a good idea
01:19 < urgen> we humans are so very gullible
01:19 < urgen> we love to believe in things that will last, but they don't
01:19 < illegale> vigilence?
01:19 < urgen> taking care
01:19 < illegale> what does it mean?
01:19 < illegale> ok
01:19 < urgen> watch how trust is extended
01:20 < urgen> not accepting without testing
01:20 < illegale> whats the problem with that?
01:20 < urgen> no problem, the difference is just whether one works from no base or a solid base
01:20 < urgen> the solid base method is much more efficient
01:20 < urgen> gets to the end of the road more quickly
01:21 < illegale> so, i suppose you have a little bit more solid base than i do
01:21 < urgen> you can take a long time to muddle through or you can pick a sound path
01:21 < urgen> no
01:21 < illegale> so, where are you right now in your political life/
01:21 < urgen> I only see the difference
01:21 < illegale> ?
01:21 < illegale> how long do you watch for blade of grass?
01:21 < illegale> at
01:22 < urgen> right now.. I see: it is silly to admit a lack of capacity and hand over one's decisions to a body of government
01:22 < illegale> ok
01:22 < urgen> the government doesn't have the capacity to determine my own
01:22 < urgen> unless I let go, first
01:22 < urgen> and then. that's still no special guarantee
01:23 < urgen> or it is a guarantee of foolishness, perhaps
01:23 < urgen> why would I let go?
01:23 < illegale> cmon, you do not need too much grass too see tht
01:24 < illegale> i suppose it is not all, right?
01:24 < urgen> the story is meant to continue, yes
01:25 < urgen> but it is still an issue of capacity
01:25 < urgen> right?
01:25 < urgen> some theory about the combined effort of the many outweighs the effort of the individual
01:25 < urgen> capacity for [blank]
01:25 < illegale> i do agree about it
01:26 < urgen> but these capacities have limits
01:26 < urgen> these combined capacities
01:26 < illegale> do you know something about these limitis/
01:26 < urgen> for a long time 'science' was going to save the world -- or substitue your favorite world saving body
01:26 < illegale> or you suspect this?
01:28 < illegale> panta rei
01:28 < urgen> how long does the test have to continue before it shows up one way or another/
01:29 < illegale> urgen, do you have any idea of what to do excatly?
01:29 < illegale> but grass stuff
01:29 < illegale> ?
01:29 < illegale> or you are in questioning part?
01:29 < illegale> looking for answers part>
01:29 < illegale> ?
01:31 < urgen> the question is always more valuable than the answer
01:31 < urgen> it is easy to find answers, really hard to find good questions
01:31 < illegale> so you are finding for questions?
01:31 < urgen> so don't waste them right away with an easy answer ;-)
01:32 < illegale> is there any action plan stuff?
01:32 < illegale> search google stuff?
01:32 < illegale> i mean, i had one question. WTF?
01:32 < illegale> i suppose that is the one i looked for
01:33 < illegale> took me some time to find an answer :)
01:33 < illegale> you?
01:33 < illegale> have some good questions?
01:33 < urgen> :-)
01:34 < urgen> is it always necessary to burn one's fingers to learn the stove is hot?
01:34 < urgen> I think maybe yes.
01:34 < illegale> sometimes fingers had to be burned
01:34 < illegale> to start apreciating knowledge
01:34 < urgen> but I see sometimes people can infer
01:35 < urgen> but they only know to try that because they burned their own fingers somewhere else earlier
01:35 < urgen> or deduct..
01:35 < urgen> whichever that is..
01:35 < illegale> yes
01:35 < urgen> so sometimes is seems like it is a good idea to jump faster
01:35 < urgen> sometimes you don't even have a choice
01:35 < illegale> who works, makes mistakes
01:36 < urgen> :-) that's nice
01:36 < illegale> who does not makes the greatest one
01:36 < illegale> we are doomed
01:36 < illegale> to make mistakes
01:36 < urgen> so a CEO relies on having good advice nearby to not have to go out and learn
01:36 < urgen> a President has the cabinent
01:36 < urgen> etc
01:37 < illegale> yes?
01:37 < urgen> how efficient is that?
01:37 < urgen> good enough?
01:37 < illegale> not
01:37 < urgen> I don't think it works so well either
01:37 < urgen> so this advice thing..
01:37 < illegale> and...
01:37 < urgen> it has to happen on a smaller scale
01:37 < urgen> scale is always the problem
01:37 < illegale> yes
01:38 < urgen> between us we can discover some common ground
01:38 < urgen> even maybe up to 14 people on channel
01:38 < urgen> maybe a little more
01:38 < urgen> and then, you better find another channel
01:38 < illegale> you mean media?
01:38 < urgen> well those groups of 14 or so.. they have to find a way to talk also
01:38 < urgen> irc
01:38 < urgen> if we had a voice conference not even 14
01:39 < urgen> it is too hard to talk
01:39 < illegale> irc is good?
01:39 < urgen> irc is pretty good
01:39 < illegale> groups, forums, wikies and stuff?
01:39 < illegale> for more than 14?
01:39 < urgen> email is really slow
01:39 < urgen> voice is really fast but it only supports smaller grouups
01:39 < illegale> you mean brainstorm?
01:40 < urgen> unless you regulate and start some rules of order or something
01:40 < urgen> find common ground
01:40 < illegale> i suppose it is about rules if we want to get larger scale
01:40 < illegale> organise and legitimate info flow
01:40 < urgen> rules slow things down a bit
01:40 < urgen> but maybe not too much
01:41 < urgen> like 14 people on a conference line could take turns
01:41 < urgen> it is harder to review what anyone said unless it was also transcribed
01:41 < illegale> yes, and there is a lot of stuff to be read
01:41 < illegale> so, some resumes
01:41 < illegale> and stuff
01:42 < urgen> so with our own best attempts to be honest
01:42 < urgen> what other transparency is there?
01:42 < urgen> we get work done
01:42 < illegale> groups and stuff
01:42 < illegale> hard to read it all
01:42 < illegale> if there is no will
01:42 < illegale> and need
01:42 < illegale> that causes it
01:43 < urgen> so maybe for mistakes then?
01:43 < urgen> in case a member of the group did not know they had no talent in being honest
01:43 < illegale> what is the product? some document signed by all?
01:44 < urgen> mostly what happens is that people begin to see how each other uses terms
01:44 < urgen> noting differences and similarities
01:44 < urgen> and working together to find a new vocabulary
01:44 < illegale> should we invent new words?
01:44 < urgen> then. maybe -transparency- requires that someone new can easily catch up
01:44 < urgen> no secret language
01:44 < illegale> new words
01:44 < illegale> ?
01:45 < illegale> visual ones?
01:45 < urgen> no words that have meanings not apparent
01:45 < illegale> ok
01:45 < urgen> echarp and I seem to see many things similar, but when we get down to compare we find many things not the same
01:45 < illegale> no need for grass lectures before that?
01:45 < urgen> but we were using the very same words
01:45 < urgen> how is that?
01:45 < illegale> different networks :)
01:46 < urgen> grass might be one of those differences.. we'd have talk to find out
01:46 < illegale> yet, what is the point we can go further?
01:46 < urgen> I work for myself right now. but I don't really mind working for larger companies
01:46 < illegale> i suppose we will always differ, more or less
01:46 < urgen> the projects that can be accomplished by many smart people are way more fun than the ones I can do only by myself
01:47 < urgen> goal is working together to make things better
01:47 < illegale> yet, much mroe problems there is
01:47 < urgen> companies also get dishonesty and the better swings toward one instead of everyone?
01:47 < urgen> :-)
01:47 < illegale> did you read tht article about transprency?
01:48 < urgen> no
01:48 < illegale> that ws written by my comapnion, markus
01:48 < illegale> pretty different to my view
01:48 < illegale> yet, i had no major complaints
01:48 < illegale> and we could go on
01:48 < illegale> is it ok attitude?
01:48 < urgen> only thing I was noticing is how easy it is to mix pageranking up
01:48 < illegale> lol
01:48 < urgen> google has to fight it all the time
01:49 < urgen> where is the honesty?
01:49 < urgen> where is the clarity?
01:49 < illegale> who needs it?
01:49 < illegale> ask him :)
01:49 < urgen> well as an idea to mediate by means of technology I appreciate it
01:50 < urgen> so I get just a little bit invested in an idea like that
01:50 < urgen> scale is still an issue
01:50 < illegale> which idea?
01:50 < urgen> pagerank idea
01:50 < urgen> or did you mean who needs honesty?
01:50 < illegale> what do you want to do with ti?
01:50 < illegale> no
01:51 < illegale> integrate it into social network quantifications?
01:52 < illegale> or?
01:52 < urgen> my problem starts when I try to define a vote
01:52 < illegale> ohhh
01:52 < urgen> a vote has quite a few components
01:52 < illegale> i think that is a wrong aproach
01:52 < illegale> yes?
01:52 < urgen> wrong from some perspective, but perhaps I am already redefining it
01:54 < urgen> I can't tell until we also define the process
01:54 < urgen> defining the process seems to be a large part of 'the goal'
01:54 < urgen> :-)
01:59 < illegale> what do you mean by that?
01:59 < urgen> the art of participaton to further opportunity
02:00 < illegale> so, you agree to start from smal relations towards big ones?
02:01 < urgen> the only real change that happens, happens one on one
02:01 < illegale> as long as description of big model with no small efficiency had some realisaion flaw
02:01 < illegale> one can be organisation
02:01 < urgen> those will fail, yes
02:02 < urgen> (big organizations without appreciation for small efforts first)
02:04 < urgen> do you know: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latent_Semantic_Indexing
02:04 < urgen> ?
02:04 < illegale> no
02:04 < urgen> a way to measure relevance of content
02:05 < urgen> how google knows what pages to pick when you ask for certain key phrases
02:05 < urgen> a possible way to detect context
02:05 < urgen> same word different use
02:06 < urgen> but google does not have very good focus
02:06 < urgen> so you don't always get what you are looking for just words that look the same
02:06 < urgen> but google is beginning to be able to see some larger clusters of use
02:06 < urgen> you should get Mark here
02:07 -!- beeli (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung3204.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
02:07 < urgen> hi
02:07 < urgen> :-)
02:07 < beeli> ops
02:07 < urgen> I need to get a bot here soon, eh?
02:07 < beeli> yes
02:08 < urgen> what was the last sentence you saw?
02:08 < beeli> lsa mentioning
02:08 < beeli> i put ?
02:08 < beeli> or no
02:08 < beeli> now looking at it
02:09 < beeli> is it working and is it usefull?
02:09 < urgen> so you didn't see any of the stuff I typed after you said no?
02:10 < beeli> no
02:10 < urgen> <urgen> a way to measure relevance of content
02:10 < urgen> <urgen> how google knows what pages to pick when you ask for certain key phrases
02:10 < urgen> <urgen> a possible way to detect context
02:10 < urgen> <urgen> same word different use
02:10 < urgen> <urgen> but google does not have very good focus
02:10 < urgen> <urgen> so you don't always get what you are looking for just words that look the same
02:10 < beeli> i was out for minute at most
02:10 < urgen> <urgen> but google is beginning to be able to see some larger clusters of use
02:10 < urgen> <urgen> you should get Mark here
02:10 < urgen> Latent semantic indexing works very well
02:11 < beeli> looking for context?
02:11 < beeli> how is that going on?
02:11 < urgen> so within the clusters you begin to be able to identify authoritative use cases
02:11 < urgen> the math for this?
02:11 < beeli> author...mena dominant?
02:11 < beeli> yes
02:12 < beeli> are the problems solved to find context?
02:12 < urgen> if you want to find what you are looking for.. lets say a soft stuffed toy jaguar
02:12 < urgen> and so you type jaguar, you get cars and animals and mac operating systems
02:12 < urgen> along with the toy ones...
02:13 < urgen> so shouldn't google file the different uses of jaguar under different indexes?
02:13 < urgen> LSA allows for a page to suggest the alternative index
02:13 < urgen> so they get files under a mathematical relationship derived by using linear algebra
02:14 < urgen> s/files/filed
02:14 < urgen> but within even that there are different uses again
02:14 < beeli> a moment
02:14 < beeli> it uses these words
02:14 < beeli> toy and yaguar
02:14 < urgen> and eventually you get down to expert level or specialist level information where there is only one or two authorities in a field
02:15 < beeli> narrowing focus?
02:15 < urgen> ok, so, how about I seel plastic boats, but put toy jaguar in the meta tag
02:15 < beeli> jaguar, toy, car, stuffed...
02:16 < urgen> you think google will deliver that page when someone asks for boats or toys?
02:16 < beeli> yes
02:16 < urgen> s/seel/sell
02:17 < urgen> so google is smart enough to know the page is about boats and not toy jaguars even though those words may appear somewhere on the page
02:17 < urgen> through latent semantic indexing
02:17 < beeli> by sorting relevance?
02:17 < beeli> ok
02:17 < urgen> by seeing similar words used on other similar pages
02:17 < beeli> ok
02:17 < urgen> pages that sell plastic boats tend to have *this* fingerprint
02:17 < urgen> so they get filed under plastic boats
02:18 < urgen> or actually under that fingerprint
02:18 < beeli> yet, there are diffent ways of sorting stuff
02:18 < urgen> when you type in plastic boat you only get that indexed file contents
02:18 < urgen> there are lots of ways to sort stuff
02:18 < beeli> what do they choose?
02:18 < urgen> and they have to pick the one that is not easily compromised
02:18 < beeli> cut?
02:18 < urgen> because their product is letting you find what you want.
02:19 < urgen> other people are interested in being found so they try to hide under popular searches
02:19 < beeli> cross section of clusters stuff?
02:19 < beeli> ok
02:20 < urgen> hope that their page shows up when someone types in britney spears when all they sell is plastic boats
02:20 < beeli> i get it
02:20 < urgen> so ppl try to abuse the index
02:20 < beeli> money cool
02:20 < urgen> and google has to constantly make it more abuse proof
02:20 < urgen> google tries to reward honesty and clarity
02:21 < beeli> tries to aproach to reality :)
02:21 < beeli> i offer this you want the same thing google wants to link us
02:21 < beeli> his bussines interest of being a good seach engine
02:21 < beeli> so, what are you up to?
02:22 < beeli> helping google, or using google?
02:22 < urgen> I did not understand, sry
02:22 < beeli> do you want to get use of its flaws, or to improve it?
02:22 < urgen> flaws have only temporary value
02:23 < urgen> I want efficient results
02:23 < beeli> improvement is temporary too
02:23 < urgen> long lasting efficient results
02:23 < urgen> bad improvement is temporary :-)
02:23 < urgen> there is a way to index that is more genuine.. but even google has its limits
02:23 < beeli> i suppose everything can be missues
02:23 < urgen> wants money too
02:23 -!- illegale [n=ille...@cmung883.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
02:23 < beeli> yet, there is a way tha can solve that
02:24 < beeli> yet, it is based not on algortihms
02:24 < beeli> but on trust clusters
02:24 < urgen> which doesn't earn them any money
02:24 < urgen> but does do a better job
02:24 < beeli> who?
02:25 < beeli> google, or clusters?
02:25 < urgen> trust clusters doesn't allow google the same corner on their market
02:25 < urgen> but!
02:25 < beeli> yet, it solves the problem
02:25 < urgen> there is a new thing called google co-op
02:25 < beeli> oh..
02:25 < beeli> :)
02:25 < beeli> di not check it out
02:25 < beeli> can you send me it again?
02:26 < urgen> http://www.google.com/coop
02:26 < urgen> google co-op allows the independent forming of trust clusters
02:26 < beeli> cool :)
02:26 < beeli> autopoiesis itself
02:27 < beeli> have to gooooo
02:27 < urgen> to these new folksonomies you can subscribe
02:27 < beeli> pretty late
02:27 < urgen> ok
02:27 < urgen> ya
02:27 < urgen> tnx
02:27 < urgen> bye
02:27 < beeli> yet, this is what highly interests me
02:28 < beeli> and i get it a little bit morecleart than the last time :)
02:28 < beeli> now i read it and understand it :)
02:28 < beeli> lo
02:28 < beeli> l
02:28 < beeli> night
02:28 -!- beeli [n=ille...@cmung3204.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit []
04:26 -!- urgen is now known as omen
04:26 -!- omen is now known as urgen
09:12 <@echarp> hello hello
--- Log closed mar jun 13 12:28:43 2006
--- Log opened mar jun 13 12:29:20 2006
12:29 -!- echarp [n=33M0...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has joined #parlement
12:29 -!- Topic for #parlement: http://leparlement.org/irc
12:29 -!- Topic set by echarp [] [Sun Jun 11 20:50:53 2006]
12:29 [Users #parlement]
12:29 [ cbs8854] [ echarp] [ fiatlex] [ nsh] [ Schuyler] [ urgen]
12:29 -!- Irssi: #parlement: Total of 6 nicks [0 ops, 0 halfops, 0 voices, 6 normal]
12:29 -!- Channel #parlement created Thu Apr 27 09:48:29 2006
12:29 -!- Irssi: Join to #parlement was synced in 42 secs
12:41 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
12:41 -!- Topic for #parlement: http://leparlement.org/irc
12:41 -!- Topic set by echarp [] [Sun Jun 11 20:50:53 2006]
14:11 -!- illegale (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung611.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
15:56 -!- illegale [n=ille...@cmung611.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit []
17:10 < urgen> east pacific coast awake now
17:11 < urgen> maybe some parts of hawaii and alaska still asleep :-)
17:11 < echarp> helo
17:11 < echarp> I'm sure they are
17:11 < echarp> here end of the afternoon, and hot!!!
17:14 < urgen> the weekend was nicely cool here, warming today but soon everyday hot
17:14 < urgen> it gets hot here when a hurricane hits west atlantic coast
17:14 < echarp> me I just didn't manage to sleep, too hot!
17:14 < urgen> pushes the air backwards and stops for a while
17:14 < urgen> ya sad when it is that uncomfortable
17:15 < urgen> jeffarch showed illegale this link: http://www.ms.lt/
17:15 < urgen> I haven't read it yet
17:15 < urgen> I have a full work day today
17:15 < urgen> be leaving shortly
17:16 < urgen> I think a great goal would be to gather funds enough to hire a political advisor like buridan
17:16 < urgen> I think money is the only way to keep their attention
17:16 < echarp> he does get paid?
17:16 < urgen> he is a teacher
17:17 < urgen> for a university
17:17 < urgen> he already knows all the vocabulary that I still have to invent
17:18 < urgen> but an academic likes to stay removed and observe the process instead of jumping in. He may know someone that could help too
17:18 < echarp> he's got experience
17:26 < urgen> so funding means finding a bank. I suppose paypal is not in croatia
17:26 < echarp> no idea about that
17:26 < echarp> and how do you first get money?
17:26 < echarp> good will?
17:27 < urgen> yes
17:27 < urgen> donation
17:28 < urgen> it would be nice to find an international digital banking service that can allow three signatures before releasing funds
17:28 < urgen> that's almost a foot into someone elses political legitimacy
17:28 < echarp> but.... what for?
17:28 < urgen> :-)
17:29 < urgen> currency is even more difficult to bootstrap than a governance
17:29 < urgen> often to get a bank account you have to have some type of formal documentaion
17:29 < urgen> that usually is rooted in some national system
17:30 < urgen> not pure bootstrap but it does give a leg up and can be remedied later
17:30 < urgen> so often international organizations have to choose a hosting governance to temporarily establish legitimacy while they are working on completing their stance
17:31 < urgen> evaluating things like tax and tarrif help decide where to start
17:31 < urgen> until you can gain integrity enough that you have a voice in the world stage
17:31 < urgen> it is just a game :-)
17:31 < echarp> there might already exist organisations designed to "host"
17:32 < urgen> that is an interesting idea
17:32 < urgen> ngo incubators
17:32 < urgen> from what I've observed it seems people borrow 'organization in a box' templates
17:32 < urgen> and just copy paste it into their by laws
17:32 < echarp> yeap
17:32 < urgen> without understanding the idea or the process
17:33 < urgen> I always follow a get your hands dirty method but I am not opposed to learning when it makes things easier or faster
17:34 < echarp> I believe law are absurd
17:34 < urgen> so I suppose it would also be a good start to query integrity
17:34 < echarp> thus to contourn them using others' work
17:34 < echarp> templates
17:42 < urgen> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealand
17:42 < urgen> note "micronation"
17:44 < echarp> I know that one :)
17:45 < echarp> but they are always on the brink of invasion
17:45 < urgen> yes, I'm just offering it as a way to project questions
17:46 < urgen> the principle of unified agreement will always be from within a larger environment of pre-existing agreement
17:46 < urgen> chosing whether to recognize or be recognized or determine a means of exchange is an open question
17:53 < urgen> so- I suppose when you say goal, or product then you are trying to find a way to balance 'land' or 'currency'
17:54 < urgen> a basis for means to power?
17:54 < urgen> without fuel this engine doesn't go very far
17:55 < urgen> in the early days of technology they thought 'steam power' was going to completely replace 'legal power'
17:56 < urgen> what 'power' supports this channel?
17:59 < echarp> sharing
17:59 < echarp> I'm not sure there is to be power to hold something together
18:03 < urgen> but there does to generate interaction
18:03 < urgen> even goods is a power
18:04 < urgen> it creates the motion of reason to trade
18:04 < urgen> that's still a power
18:04 < echarp> you are using a hugely large definition of what power is
18:04 < urgen> the electricity for the computers and modem that allow me to connect are paid by dollars
18:04 < echarp> maybe you should restrict to power in "political" or "social" context
18:05 < urgen> without the infrastructure we could not be here either
18:05 < urgen> if it wasn't here I'd have to build a way for it to happen, not sure I could
18:05 < echarp> the ability to do something is of course power, but in a very relax sort of way
18:06 < urgen> so with the internet came an entity that is allowed to exist by means of multiple independent contribution
18:06 < urgen> all those contributions are fueled within their own immediate spheres of influence
18:09 < echarp> hop hop, I'm out
18:09 < echarp> too hot, home is better :)
18:10 < urgen> <-- to work
18:10 < urgen> out too
18:33 < urgen> so when I see 6 million user on skype... that would be an interesting scale to have to work with :-)
18:52 < echarp> definitely!
18:52 < echarp> 6 millions is huge
19:52 * nsh smiles
19:52 < nsh> hrmm
19:53 < echarp> hello hello nsh
19:54 < echarp> 6millions would be enough for many things isn't it? :)
19:54 < nsh> i'm sure
19:55 < echarp> nsh: you have any project for them? :)
19:56 < nsh> a project for 6 million people?
19:56 < nsh> interesting question
19:57 < echarp> what kind of thing could you do? money?
19:58 < nsh> no point worrying about oil until you've designed the clockwork
19:58 < nsh> money is just oil, to a certain extent
19:58 < nsh> what's important is that the cogs align
19:59 < echarp> the cogs? the lies? the lied to?
20:00 < nsh> i don't follow the association
20:02 < echarp> just I don't know what cogs are
20:02 < echarp> hinges?
20:04 < nsh> mmm
20:04 < nsh> processes
20:05 < nsh> the teeth being consensus or affinity between such processes
20:05 < nsh> such that things mesh
20:06 < echarp> oh, I don't look far enough in my dict entry
20:06 < echarp> and cog is referenced as a lie, sorry
20:06 < nsh> hrmm
20:06 < echarp> so, what to do with a large political force?
20:06 < nsh> that's interesting
20:08 < nsh> what's a political force?
20:09 < echarp> people who trust you somehow
20:09 -!- illegale (illegale) [i=ille...@cmung4301.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
20:10 * nsh will ponder, while he eats
20:10 < nsh> back soon
20:10 < illegale> did not know you here :)
20:11 < echarp> bon appétit
20:11 < illegale> hey charp :)
20:11 < echarp> I'm going to get some food me too!
20:11 < illegale> watch france?
20:13 < echarp> nope
20:13 < echarp> I'm not fond of all that craziness
20:13 < echarp> plus they did not win, crappy french men
20:15 < illegale> hehe
20:15 < illegale> irc is not so right for transparency issue
20:15 < illegale> too many chat :)
20:17 < illegale> Cro is now playing
20:17 < illegale> cool stuff for me
20:17 < illegale> we are all happy nothing happens
20:17 < illegale> no worries
20:17 < illegale> just football
20:17 < illegale> as we are vaccined for a month
20:17 < illegale> relax
20:17 < illegale> cool phenomenoen
20:17 < illegale> so, i am going to be a part of it
20:18 < illegale> whish us luck with those bustrards
20:18 < illegale> :)
20:18 < illegale> cu
20:18 -!- illegale [i=ille...@cmung4301.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit []
20:53 < echarp> hello back
21:02 -!- nsh_ (No Such Human) [n=n...@84-43-90-233.ppp.onetel.net.uk] has joined #parlement
21:02 < echarp> re nsh_
21:03 < echarp> nsh_: troubles with your connection? or just pleasure to have a ghost? :)
21:16 -!- nsh [n=nsh@wikipedia/nsh] has quit [Read error: 113 (No route to host)]
22:07 -!- EarleMartin (nobody) [n=nob...@mythix.realprogrammers.com] has joined #parlement
22:17 < echarp> hello hello EarleMartin
22:18 < echarp> english or french man?
22:41 < EarleMartin> bonjour! je suis un rosbif; j'haba londres en le royaume-uni
22:41 < EarleMartin> erm? my typing sucks
22:41 < EarleMartin> habite :)
22:41 < EarleMartin> ...and that's the limit of my french
22:42 * EarleMartin waves to Schuyler, urgen
22:42 < EarleMartin> fiatlex, I've missed you!
22:42 < echarp> :)
22:42 < echarp> fiatlex: are you asleep oh dear bot? :)
22:43 < echarp> EarleMartin: I've got some friends up in london too, nice place it seems
22:43 < echarp> and hot too
22:47 < EarleMartin> no kidding - about 32C yesterday
22:47 < echarp> same same, my ventilator is in full speed, it might just take off!
22:48 < echarp> I put a pan of water under it, as recommanded by urgen :)
22:48 < echarp> under it = in its flow
22:51 < echarp> EarleMartin: you've tried nomic before?
22:54 < EarleMartin> yup, I was around for the original game with fiatlex
22:54 < echarp> cool
22:54 < echarp> and what do you think of it?
22:56 < EarleMartin> entertaining!
22:56 < EarleMartin> at the time we had one dude who really caused havoc by voting against almost everything
22:56 < echarp> even starting with no rule at all?
22:56 < echarp> arg, painful then
22:56 < EarleMartin> our initial ruleset was a little shaky
22:56 < EarleMartin> it was kind of funny, though
22:57 < echarp> nomic is interesting as a social construction game
22:57 < EarleMartin> indeed
22:57 < echarp> a game :)
22:57 < EarleMartin> aren't there some games that are like, ten years old and still going?
22:57 < EarleMartin> i seem to recall, from the web...
22:57 < echarp> probaby
22:57 < echarp> l
22:57 < EarleMartin> 'tis madness
22:57 < echarp> I just hope they don't have too many rules!!!
22:58 < echarp> 10th rule (or so) => there shall not be more than 42 rules! :)
22:59 < EarleMartin> have you played fluxx?
23:01 < echarp> neither
23:01 < echarp> same family of games?
23:04 -!- illegale (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung4101.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
23:04 < echarp> hello back illegale
23:04 < illegale> hey :)
23:04 < illegale> what a game
23:05 < echarp> illegale: you know fluxx?
23:05 < echarp> card game it seems (so wikipedia says)
23:05 < illegale> no
23:05 < illegale> why?
23:05 < illegale> good for politics? :)
23:06 < echarp> same line of thought as nomic, so it seems
23:06 < echarp> but the card game gives a much narrow focus
23:07 < illegale> huh
23:07 < illegale> it seems i lost interest in this stuff
23:07 < illegale> i mean, why play when we can work?
23:07 < echarp> illegale: btw, I'm looking into a "vote recapitulation page" on parlement
23:07 < echarp> illegale: I sort of agree
23:07 < illegale> yes?
23:07 < echarp> yet nomic is also interesting as it highlights any rule set
23:08 < illegale> yes it doe
23:08 < illegale> s
23:08 < echarp> plus not many people wanting to start a game, so it seems
23:08 < illegale> and those who start, loose interest after a whil
23:08 < illegale> e
23:08 < illegale> here in cro, there is some depresion about politics
23:09 < illegale> seems we need to consolidate our power
23:09 < illegale> we youngings
23:09 < illegale> :)
23:09 < echarp> consolidation yes
23:09 < echarp> plus the possibility to join the EU
23:09 < illegale> same thing everyewhere
23:09 < illegale> it is such a weather, i guess
23:10 < illegale> i am not into eu stuff
23:10 < echarp> and futebal :)
23:10 < illegale> yes
23:10 < illegale> there was a nice play we had today
23:10 < illegale> with brasil
23:10 < illegale> we lost, yet we are satisfied :)
23:10 < echarp> which score?
23:10 < illegale> 1:0
23:11 < illegale> did you watch co-op?
23:11 < illegale> somethng urgen and i chated yesterday
23:11 < echarp> co-op?
23:11 < illegale> google.com/co-op
23:11 < echarp> I didn't re-read all you said, didn't take the time
23:12 < echarp> I remember yes
23:12 < echarp> what about it?
23:12 < illegale> this stuff is not for re reading, that is why i find groups, post thing better
23:12 < illegale> http://www.google.com/coop
23:12 < illegale> the way how google deals with spam in search engines
23:12 < illegale> using trust networks
23:13 < illegale> new project
23:13 < illegale> something we could use pretty good for networking on the global level
23:13 < echarp> trust networks are a good to weed the good from the bad yes
23:13 < echarp> "good way"
23:13 < illegale> yes, to seperate quality of info
23:14 < echarp> noise/signal
23:14 < echarp> and what did you say about it?
23:14 < illegale> http://www.google.com/coop/docs/guide_topics.html
23:15 < illegale> i am not sure how is google going to do this, yet there is a good concept
23:15 < illegale> if this is public, whola. if not, separate one should be used to realise such thing
23:16 < echarp> dmoz would something slightly alike?
23:16 < illegale> ?
23:17 < echarp> you don't know dmoz
23:17 < echarp> well, it's not targeted at expertise
23:18 < echarp> just a human categorised internet
23:18 < illegale> link?
23:18 < echarp> http://dmoz.org
23:18 < echarp> it's volunter based
23:18 < echarp> and Free content I believe
23:19 < illegale> how popular it is?
23:20 < echarp> I don't know, but I've know it for a long time
23:20 < echarp> know/known
23:20 < illegale> use it?
23:20 < echarp> not really, but I should!
23:21 < illegale> why you should?
23:21 < illegale> is it that good?
23:21 < echarp> because it's Free and community based
23:21 < illegale> no tiaktiv mentiones
23:22 < illegale> think google is gona eat them
23:22 < echarp> google is another beast :)
23:22 < illegale> yet i do not like it
23:22 < illegale> too big im
23:22 < illegale> o
23:22 < illegale> it corrupts
23:22 < illegale> too big interests get involved
23:23 < echarp> it corrupts I don't know, but for sure I am not confortable with hugely powerful entities
23:23 < illegale> me neither
23:24 < illegale> hard to mantain it
23:24 < illegale> there is some plato saying
23:24 < echarp> I don't really like the multinations which our governements cajole and encourage
23:24 < echarp> arg, not platoooo! :)
23:24 < illegale> democracy is where the first is not too sure and last not discouraged
23:24 < illegale> something like that
23:24 < illegale> i do not like him too
23:24 < illegale> yet, there are some fine sayings
23:24 < illegale> that is the one
23:25 < illegale> the only i know :)
23:25 < echarp> I'm not sure he would have talked fondly of democracy
23:25 < echarp> well, but the guy was quite something even if I really dislike how his philosophy was the foundation of christianity
23:25 < illegale> he missed it
23:26 < illegale> i like sun tzu and muhhamed
23:26 -!- cbs8854 [n=cha...@pool-71-111-30-136.ptldor.dsl-w.verizon.net] has left #parlement []
23:26 < illegale> they have some thought :)
23:26 < echarp> sun tzu rocks!
23:26 < echarp> muhhamed I don't really know
23:26 < illegale> pretty by the ground man
23:26 < illegale> imo
23:27 < illegale> knowing human psychology wery well
23:27 < illegale> obviously
23:27 < illegale> and organsiational concpets
23:27 < echarp> he was sort of cartesian a long time before descartes!
23:27 < illegale> hey Charles
23:27 < echarp> organisation yes
23:27 < echarp> we've lost charles it seems
23:28 < illegale> hmh
23:28 < illegale> yes
23:28 < illegale> EarleMartin?
23:28 < echarp> ok, getting late here, and still rather hot
23:28 < EarleMartin> sorry, hello
23:28 < illegale> hey, never seen you before :)
23:28 < illegale> e going out?
23:28 < EarleMartin> echarp: yeah, Fluxx is like a short, sharp Nomic in a box.
23:29 < EarleMartin> nice to meet you :)
23:29 < illegale> Earle, you French?
23:29 < echarp> EarleMartin: how did you discover this channel? (if I may ask)
23:29 < echarp> illegale: no need to insult him right away like that! ;)
23:29 < illegale> E, who sends you ):-)
23:29 < EarleMartin> urgen mentioned it; also I was in an earlier IRC-nomic with Schuyler and fiatlex, a couple of years ago
23:30 < EarleMartin> illegale: non :P
23:30 < EarleMartin> <-- Brit
23:30 < illegale> lol
23:30 < echarp> :)
23:30 < EarleMartin> although in my office "who will win the world cup" competition I got both England /and/ France.
23:30 < EarleMartin> I can't lose!!1!
23:30 < echarp> oh, france will have a tought time, I'm betting on braziiiil (ok, easy one)
23:31 < illegale> did you watch Cro?
23:34 < echarp> we should start some on-lines and monetary bets, urgen, interested? :)
23:34 < echarp> a brit would/could be the bookmaker! ;)
23:35 < illegale> i do not bet >:
23:36 < illegale> unless i am certain
23:38 < echarp> even for cro? :)
23:38 < echarp> an act of faith!
23:38 < illegale> if you gonna bet on France, maybe :)
23:42 < echarp> arg
23:42 < echarp> I won't bet, but if we win I will party on the champs élysées! :)
23:42 < illegale> France was world champion, cmon
23:43 < echarp> I know, and they are among the well positioned
23:43 < echarp> but we frenchies suffer of a syndrom: we lose when everybody expects us to win! :)
23:43 < echarp> we also lose when we were expected to lose :)
23:44 < echarp> ok, I'm dead, hopefully temperature will slightly drop tonight
23:45 < illegale> gonna go?
23:45 < echarp> think so yes
23:46 < illegale> get a good sleep :)
23:46 < echarp> thx
23:46 < echarp> I'm updating parlement, now elements are listed according to their vote
23:48 < illegale> need some rewiev?
23:48 < echarp> and tomorrow, I'll add a "who voted on what" page
23:48 < echarp> or a page fragment
23:49 < echarp> good night!
23:50 < echarp> not too many dreams of any particular country winning the cup, there shall only remain one! :)
23:50 < illegale> good night you too
23:50 < echarp> EarleMartin: do stay around if you want, you are welcome!
23:50 < echarp> we'll see with that nomic game!
23:50 < echarp> night night
--- Log closed mer jun 14 00:00:18 2006
echarp
Jun 15, 2006, 2:12:08 AM6/15/06
to top-politics
--- Log opened mer jun 14 00:00:18 2006
00:42 -!- illegale [n=ille...@cmung4101.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)]
02:01 -!- illegale (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung2638.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
03:11 -!- Schuyler [n=sde...@tridity.org] has quit ["Lost terminal"]
03:46 -!- illegale [n=ille...@cmung2638.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
03:47 -!- illegale (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung171.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
03:48 -!- illegale [n=ille...@cmung171.cmu.carnet.hr] has left #parlement []
09:03 < urgen> brazil would have a chance if they just give them back their little dance
09:04 < urgen> <<-- put in long hours today., nite
09:23 < echarp> hello hello
10:06 -!- urgen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)]
15:41 -!- illegale (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung3233.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
15:42 < echarp> hello illegale
15:42 < echarp> some life back on the group it seems
15:42 < illegale> het :)
15:42 < illegale> hey
15:42 < illegale> i mean :)
15:42 < illegale> what do you think of Erics idea?
15:42 < illegale> Choosing leader stuff?
15:43 < echarp> implement a voting method?
15:43 < illegale> no, choosing leader stuff as first
15:43 < illegale> before that, seeing who wants to participate?
15:43 < echarp> illegale: I've voter for you already
15:43 < echarp> voter/voted
15:43 < illegale> thank you :)
15:43 < echarp> just ask all those willing to participate to vote, much faster
15:44 < illegale> but, we have to get some tail and head it seems
15:44 < echarp> and if someone votes but everybody thinks he is not worthwhile, then let's not count his vote
15:44 < echarp> ask people to vote on anybody they want
15:44 < illegale> Magnus talkes about procedures,
15:44 < echarp> the person with the most votes win
15:44 < illegale> again,
15:44 < echarp> *simple*
15:44 < illegale> ok
15:44 < illegale> i am pro simplicity
15:45 < illegale> when smething starts stucking, move on
15:45 < illegale> solve the problem
15:45 < illegale> dynamcis of on lne menages it
15:45 < echarp> yeap, so just ask people to vote, -1/0/+1 could do the trick quick and easy
15:45 < echarp> anybody can be nominated for leadership
15:45 < illegale> Eric is a little bi upset imo
15:45 < illegale> stuck with it
15:46 < echarp> upset about not having some sort of formal hierarchyhttp://rss.slashdot.org/Slashdot/slashdot?m=5987
15:46 < echarp> oups sorry
15:46 < illegale> go again?
15:46 < echarp> upset about not having some sort of formal hierarchy?
15:46 < echarp> go?
15:46 < illegale> no tail nor head
15:46 < illegale> this link for me?
15:46 < EarleMartin> bonjour à tout le monde
15:46 < echarp> hello hello EarleMartin
15:46 < illegale> hey british
15:46 < EarleMartin> erm, I mean, hello
15:46 < echarp> illegale: this link was just in my copy buffer
15:47 < illegale> ok
15:47 < illegale> it seems we have to many issues
15:47 < illegale> not focus, no solving
15:47 < echarp> issues??
15:47 < illegale> things we are oriented to
15:47 < echarp> what issues are you speaking about? voting methods?
15:47 < illegale> yes, than logo, vision, mission and so on
15:48 < illegale> wiki
15:48 < echarp> logo I'm sure you just need to ask anyone for a logo
15:48 < illegale> though, this formalisation stuff could help us a lot
15:48 < illegale> to know where to look
15:49 < illegale> if we want to solve something
15:49 < illegale> this is far from effectine in this moment
15:50 < illegale> so, i am going to start from this leader stuff
15:50 < echarp> I've proposed a simple scheme to decide on issues (which can be changed anytime)
15:50 < illegale> after we set ecxact base
15:50 < illegale> +1/0/-1?
15:50 < echarp> yeap
15:50 < illegale> so, what is up to leader than?
15:51 < echarp> and it should be handled properly on http://leparlement.org
15:51 < illegale> I am pro leader
15:51 < echarp> I've already voted for you!!!
15:51 < illegale> this enables grouping
15:51 < illegale> i know
15:51 < illegale> yet there are the differences
15:51 < echarp> differences?
15:51 < illegale> if i am leader i am not going for 50%+1
15:51 < illegale> but for my personal belief in a way of group prosperity
15:52 < illegale> i expect from any leader to do such thing
15:52 < illegale> actually
15:52 < echarp> -1/0/+1 is not a matter of 50%+1
15:52 < illegale> ok
15:52 < illegale> i am glad we agree again :)
15:52 < echarp> :)
15:53 < illegale> ok
15:53 < illegale> so, i am going to ask Eric what is up with us who choosed to participate in group stuff
15:53 < illegale> shall we start this process?
15:54 < illegale> i need his aproval, as long as this is his initiative
15:54 < echarp> you can right away ask for people to nominate leaders and vote for them
15:54 < echarp> carry on in the former thread, the one where votes already started
15:54 < illegale> ok
15:54 < echarp> or start a blank on, I'll vote in it
15:55 < illegale> ill use erics thread just to gain his attention first
15:55 < illegale> after that we can make a part two with sections that are important about further discussion
15:56 < echarp> that's cool
15:56 < illegale> ok, this is solved :)
15:58 < echarp> if you want to make it nice, put something flagrant in the subject line
15:58 < echarp> not something between [], just something bug
15:58 < illegale> flagrant
15:58 < illegale> ?
15:59 < echarp> ie: VOTE: leader for the top-politics group
15:59 < illegale> ok
15:59 < echarp> the "VOTE: " is the flagrant thing I spoke about
16:01 < echarp> inside the post you write the issue itself
16:01 < echarp> no need for a deadline, I think it's easier to just take into account the last vote if one votes more than once
16:02 < illegale> ok
16:09 < illegale> where is urgen?
16:10 < echarp> disconnected
16:10 < echarp> probably just waking up :)
16:59 -!- urgyen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
16:59 < urgyen> oops guess I don't have this channel on auto-rejoin
17:00 < echarp> that happens :)
17:00 < echarp> so? just woken up? :)
17:01 < urgyen> all showered and shiny but no food yet
17:02 < EarleMartin> bonjour urgyen
17:02 < EarleMartin> ça va?
17:02 < urgyen> allo le'dude
17:02 < urgyen> cva
17:03 < EarleMartin> très bien
17:03 < echarp> :)
17:03 < illegale> hey, just talking about you :)
17:03 * urgyen sneezes
17:03 < urgyen> darn allergies
17:03 < urgyen> so much rain this year means too many flowers
17:04 < echarp> they are so lovely to scent
17:04 < echarp> shame they can produce so many bad effects
17:04 < urgyen> so what is the opposite of boredom with regard to participation?
17:05 < urgyen> apathy is a stalwart opposition to success
17:05 < echarp> yeap
17:05 < urgyen> result?
17:06 < EarleMartin> apathy <---- ----> productivity
17:06 < urgyen> any old result? sometimes just simple interference seems enough to spark participation
17:06 < echarp> this might be why trolls can be useful
17:07 < urgyen> change measurely productive
17:07 < EarleMartin> boredom can be overcome with an itch that needs scratching
17:07 < illegale> why do you need trols?
17:07 < illegale> it is not good energy
17:07 < illegale> hard to make it producitve
17:07 < urgyen> if things are bad ppl have a revolution = trolls
17:07 < illegale> maybe even imposib,e
17:07 < EarleMartin> http://grault.net/adjunct/?DefiningIrritant
17:08 < echarp> illegale: is mark a troll then? :)
17:08 < urgyen> illegale was mentioning status quo
17:08 < urgyen> if the boredom is constant enough someone will upset it
17:08 < echarp> or the group might just die
17:08 < illegale> i do not see him as a person who wants to destroy
17:09 < illegale> though, who is productive among us anyway?
17:09 < illegale> maybe you
17:09 < echarp> you mean, on my own project?
17:10 < illegale> yes
17:10 < illegale> maybe mark and magnus learn about communication principles
17:10 < illegale> yet their hit the wall too much often
17:10 < illegale> this leads to apathy
17:10 < illegale> hitting the wall stuff
17:11 < echarp> but it is true that no one speaks but to promote his system
17:11 < EarleMartin> urgyen: I am reminded of the way sky was playing in the first IRC nomic game
17:11 < illegale> i do not, at least i hope i dony
17:11 < illegale> whatever succeeds out of these models it is success to me
17:12 < echarp> EarleMartin: he was sort of destructive?
17:12 < illegale> as long as i am oriented in the field you all need
17:12 < illegale> legitimation part
17:12 < echarp> legitimation = marketing ?
17:12 < illegale> acknowledgemtn
17:12 < illegale> it is a process
17:12 < illegale> from its beggining
17:13 < illegale> i see marketing as after you develop something
17:13 < echarp> after developing a group dynamic?
17:13 < illegale> ?
17:14 < illegale> a product
17:14 < illegale> software, rules, whatever
17:14 < illegale> it does not worth if people did not fully accepted it
17:14 < echarp> I didn't think top would generate a product
17:14 < illegale> not top, but every single initiative
17:14 < illegale> for the world level
17:15 < illegale> though, top might generayte product too
17:15 < illegale> node
17:15 < illegale> not a little thing
17:15 < illegale> actually
17:15 < illegale> it seems we mix some stuff
17:16 < echarp> lot's of mixing yes
17:17 < illegale> so, we talked about legitimation process
17:17 < illegale> there is a problem of getting gravity, big, huge one
17:17 < illegale> everybody wants to be such place
17:17 < illegale> and you do not create it
17:17 < illegale> so, you have status quo
17:17 < illegale> seen many times in politics
17:18 < illegale> and in politics you need strong gravity if you want to succeed
17:18 < illegale> this is a part i am oriented in practicall manner
17:18 < echarp> gravity = followers ?
17:18 < illegale> does not need to be followers
17:18 < illegale> you might create site.
17:18 < illegale> are those who participate followers
17:18 < illegale> ?
17:18 < echarp> sort of yes
17:19 < illegale> then yes
17:19 < echarp> if there is a leader there are followers, well, it's one way to consider it
17:19 < illegale> in cro, we have several points of gravitation among youth
17:19 < illegale> and none of these parts is strong enough to become gravity center, becoming politically relevatn
17:20 < illegale> so, me personally am working on this part
17:20 < illegale> how to create this part
17:20 < illegale> tough work
17:20 < echarp> definitely yes
17:21 < echarp> to become relevant is hugely difficult, requires energy and intelligence
17:21 < illegale> knowledge too
17:21 < illegale> and some authority
17:22 < illegale> yet, us workers in this part, there is no lot of us
17:22 < illegale> actually to few
17:22 < illegale> and that is actually a politics
17:22 < illegale> creating synergism
17:22 < EarleMartin> echarp: yes, he played to destroy the game by playing the game
17:22 < EarleMartin> which I suppose is one way of "winning" even if it is not formally defined
17:23 < echarp> it all depends on the way others accept or reject it
17:23 < echarp> I'm sure urgyen didn't like that :)
17:23 < illegale> http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/
17:24 < illegale> this is an organisation, Eric is a part of ti
17:24 < illegale> it
17:24 < illegale> Earle, you play nomic often?
17:24 < echarp> I've seen it yes
17:24 < echarp> is it still active?
17:25 < illegale> yes, yet have some problems.
17:25 < EarleMartin> illegale: not since the last game, actually
17:25 < echarp> what kind of troubles?
17:25 < illegale> oriented towards procudures, instead of goals
17:25 < illegale> having no products, loosing motivation
17:25 < illegale> regular stuf, id say :)
17:25 < echarp> could I bring "parlement" on the table...? ;)
17:25 < illegale> Earle, whem was that?
17:26 < illegale> in wddm?
17:26 < echarp> yeap
17:26 < illegale> join them and propose :)
17:26 < echarp> it's not just procedure anymore, it's an actual tool
17:26 < illegale> i know
17:26 < urgyen> there, had a nice apple spice muffin
17:27 < illegale> yet, Mirek is programer in wddm
17:27 < illegale> did plenty of work
17:27 < illegale> do not know how shall he integrate it
17:28 < illegale> i suppose he wont let his tools to easily
17:28 * echarp kicks urgyen for such blatant lack of courtesy => you should offer everyone a part of it! :)
17:28 < illegale> i am hungry. gonna go eat
17:28 < echarp> illegale: ok, never mind then
17:28 < echarp> bon app
17:29 < illegale> no, i think you should propose tool
17:29 < illegale> to see what happens :)
17:29 < illegale> i suppose there is going plenty of such things in front od us, so should be prepared for such
17:29 < echarp> cool, I'll do that then
17:30 < illegale> what i can notice, they need fresh blood
17:30 < illegale> and fresh aproaches
17:31 < illegale> you can give them both things, at least in a manner of opening chakras :)
17:32 < illegale> me personaly gave up us long as they do not follow top :)
17:32 < illegale> principles
17:32 < illegale> public can no participate stuff
17:32 < illegale> eventhough everybody can ber a member :)
17:33 < echarp> arg, is it a phpBB thing?
17:34 < illegale> dont know, seems he did it all
17:34 < illegale> phorum
17:34 < illegale> its name
17:34 < urgyen> ok, caught up on conversation I missed while eating
17:34 < echarp> :)
17:36 < urgyen> so I still feel with ALL of this globalizaton of democracy stuff.. only harm can result without everyone understanding by what means they are expressing their affiliation
17:36 < urgyen> democracy is a blind cold steam roller
17:37 < urgyen> until it runs over your foot you'd think otherwise
17:37 < urgyen> I'm not just picking on democracy only, of course
17:37 < urgyen> maybe ppl are saying democracy is the lesser of evils
17:37 < echarp> affiliation = consent and accept to bear responsibility on the possible consequences?
17:38 < urgyen> affiliation, maybe finding association to/with or affinity
17:38 < urgyen> commonality
17:38 < urgyen> maybe sometimes membership by default
17:38 < urgyen> sometimes membership elective
17:38 < illegale> what do you mean by democracy urgyen?
17:39 < urgyen> democracy is commonly anything with majority rule
17:39 < illegale> when you say this
17:39 < illegale> i do not find it such thing
17:39 < urgyen> I mean the way most simple ppl think it to be
17:39 < illegale> majority is just one of the legitmation procedures
17:39 < urgyen> since that is the majority
17:39 < urgyen> I know, just one, but I want everyone to know
17:39 < illegale> people in general do not thingk, but follow media phrames
17:40 < illegale> people are passive
17:40 < urgyen> I think they were trained to be so
17:40 < urgyen> not inherently passive
17:40 < illegale> and this is not what i am thinking of when talk about democracy or democratisation
17:40 < illegale> yet they are
17:40 < illegale> trained
17:40 < illegale> oportunistic mode
17:40 < illegale> why bother if you do not have to
17:40 < illegale> stuff
17:40 < illegale> responsiiblity is not something populer
17:41 < urgyen> yes
17:41 < illegale> yet, what i am looking for is give chance to those who matter
17:41 < illegale> that is what i find be my mision
17:41 < urgyen> and then trying to find the short version of a long story so that they can access appreciation <-- my form of democracy
17:42 < illegale> access apreciations?
17:42 < illegale> you mean status stuff?
17:42 < urgyen> appreciation means I understand
17:42 < illegale> ok
17:43 < urgyen> I can appreciate the subtle qualities of a work of art, as an example
17:43 < urgyen> because I was introduced to it in a way that showed me the history of the work
17:43 < urgyen> to gain access to the greater context
17:44 < urgyen> without that access, there is no democracy
17:44 < urgyen> no matter how many times you vote
17:44 < illegale> it is about top, right?
17:44 < urgyen> top might be blind :-)
17:44 < urgyen> I will give it some time for testing
17:44 < illegale> how do you mean?
17:44 < urgyen> steam rollers running over ppls toes
17:45 < urgyen> umm. cheer driven instead of substance
17:46 < urgyen> prone to endless bickering :-)
17:47 < illegale> enough eyeballs, all problems are shallow
17:47 < illegale> that is the point
17:47 < urgyen> I can't believe that
17:47 < urgyen> ever
17:47 < illegale> what i can notice is political reality in croatia
17:47 < illegale> we always had some enemies""
17:47 < illegale> Serbs, Bosnisans,
17:47 < illegale> and so on
17:47 < illegale> and there was some problem with slovenia about adriati see
17:48 < illegale> adriatic see
17:48 < illegale> all media was pretty oriented
17:48 < illegale> parties had big speaches and stuff
17:48 < illegale> whole diplomatic scandal
17:48 < illegale> slovenians got angry at as
17:48 < illegale> clasicall stuff
17:48 < illegale> and the whole problem is solved by arbitration
17:48 < illegale> and we do not have problem with that
17:49 < illegale> yet, it was no mentioning such an easy solution
17:49 < illegale> parties, political power do not need solution
17:49 < illegale> they need problem only
17:49 < illegale> and on the internet this :rumor: spread pretty fast
17:49 < urgyen> that is true with any organization
17:49 < illegale> till journalist themsleves did not have to admit the fact this is all big hoax actually
17:49 < urgyen> a virtual entity will put self preservation first
17:50 < illegale> and after that i spoke to some slovenians avbout it
17:50 < illegale> they did not solved it
17:50 < illegale> yet, after giving brief answer and fighting theri several arguments, they accepted it
17:50 < illegale> this scandal lasted for 4 weaks or so
17:50 < urgyen> solving = appreciation
17:50 < illegale> and i can say internet made it solved
17:51 < illegale> the same stuff with any other problem
17:51 < illegale> such as war against terrorism
17:51 < illegale> give them a good question and people start to wonder
17:52 < illegale> this grouping thing become irrelevant when you score it
17:52 < urgyen> internet has allowed a few changes to happen -- just recently the US patent office set up a web page to allow people to report prior art
17:52 < urgyen> before people were posting objection via forums
17:52 < illegale> internet is alowing democracy finnaly happen as superior political system
17:52 < illegale> by the means of power
17:52 < urgyen> not always a guaranteed way to catch the governing bodies attention but there were no other venues
17:52 < echarp> internet is a revolution
17:53 < illegale> ok, in this moment government and internet are not on the same line
17:53 < urgyen> so, I think if one used a different word than 'democracy' there would be quite a bit more lmileage
17:53 < illegale> and what i am looking for is the same line
17:54 < urgyen> democracy is garnering unquestioning faith
17:54 < urgyen> :-)
17:54 < urgyen> politics as a religion
17:54 < echarp> then you just lump everything as religion :)
17:54 < illegale> you think democracty is ruined concept?
17:54 < urgyen> science as a religion
17:55 < urgyen> democracy is not ruined, but when you use any word too often it loses its significance
17:55 < echarp> urgyen: you of course can
17:55 < illegale> yes
17:55 < illegale> what do you mean by religion?
17:55 < illegale> dogmas
17:55 < urgyen> I see democracy here there on this and that and only because they want to be popular in the media
17:55 < illegale> faith?
17:56 < urgyen> religion as a set of rules that do not allow question
17:56 < illegale> yes, as long as you do not have distinctive terms, everybofdy can use them
17:56 < illegale> dogmas
17:56 < illegale> ok
17:56 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
17:57 < illegale> is the world with no dogma possible?
17:57 < urgyen> easily
17:57 < illegale> i mean, mind frame?
17:57 < echarp> but I disagree about the fact that a word lose its significance because others use it
17:57 < urgyen> not just any use..
17:57 < urgyen> but careless use
17:57 < echarp> a word has the meaning one defines it with
17:57 < illegale> ok, yet it is up to others to decide when we are talking about its power
17:57 < echarp> of course it can be connotated
17:58 < urgyen> if I say very very very very hot
17:58 < illegale> it does not matter too much what is about you, but about common acceptance
17:58 < urgyen> is the extra 'very' helpful?
17:58 < echarp> words can be redefined any number of times, they are merely symbols
17:58 < echarp> urgyen: sort of yes
17:59 < illegale> yes
17:59 < urgyen> because the first one lost its meaning?
17:59 < urgyen> :-)
17:59 < illegale> yet, we need commonly accepted symbols
17:59 < urgyen> very already means very
17:59 < illegale> and this is though part as long as good things are intnatioulssly ruined
17:59 < illegale> by those who do not like their menining
17:59 < illegale> such as democracy and stuff
17:59 < urgyen> so that's all i am asking for
18:00 < urgyen> seems to be a variation on echarp's vigilance
18:00 < illegale> ruin common language, common meaning you loose articualation, let chaos lead you
18:00 < urgyen> please take care
18:00 < illegale> and in chaos, masters of chaos rule
18:00 < urgyen> care doesn't mean democracy
18:01 < urgyen> vigilance doesn't mean democracy
18:01 < echarp> vigilance is just vigilance
18:01 < urgyen> democracy is a second or third order product
18:01 < urgyen> we need appreciation of the foundation.. there is no easy work here, yet
18:01 < echarp> well, everything is a construction based on other things
18:02 < urgyen> but this is needed
18:02 < urgyen> not from media
18:02 < urgyen> not from existing party interest
18:02 < urgyen> not from without question
18:02 < illegale> ok, what is foundation and what is set of it?
18:03 < illegale> howdo you differ it
18:03 < illegale> ?
18:03 < urgyen> conversaton seems to be really good
18:03 < urgyen> we work hard to find what each other is trying to say
18:03 < urgyen> but sometimes the story gets too long to share
18:03 < urgyen> is there a way to record an abreviated statement during these discussions?
18:04 < illegale> have to go, will read the whole dialouge :)
18:04 < illegale> cu later
18:04 < urgyen> a quick handle or reference
18:04 < urgyen> ok
18:04 < urgyen> with no resolution the endlessness continues
18:04 < echarp> I don't believe we have or can have that that easily
18:04 < echarp> fiatlex maybe?
18:05 < urgyen> do you think it is important?
18:05 < echarp> he's supposed to just do that
18:05 < echarp> I'm not sure it is
18:05 < echarp> generally a dict or wp will do
18:05 < echarp> (dict is a gnu/linux command)
18:05 < urgyen> and the test is whether productive means can be shared?
18:06 < urgyen> dictionaries are not meant to be tyrrany
18:06 < urgyen> but they are often used that way
18:07 < echarp> they should not
18:07 < echarp> they are just a reference
18:07 < urgyen> I am addressing hitting the wall, right?
18:07 < echarp> and they give leeway about the things they hold
18:08 < urgyen> good idea, good idea, good idea, then, wham
18:08 < urgyen> lack of foresight
18:08 < urgyen> lack of 'appreciation'
18:08 < urgyen> maybe learn maybe not
18:08 < echarp> again, what is it all for? this is the one thing lackin "in *my* point of view"
18:08 < echarp> durability is not, to me, a goal
18:08 < urgyen> ok
18:08 < urgyen> then I move on
18:09 < urgyen> so much effort, so little result -- that's a painful way to grow
18:09 < urgyen> how many crashes until one changes their mind?
18:09 < urgyen> this looks like rule by stubbornness
18:09 -!- nsh_ is now known as nsh
18:10 < echarp> but what is the goal?
18:11 * nsh smiles
18:11 < urgyen> I do not wish to dampen the euphoria
18:11 < urgyen> I am completely willing to step away if I am causing problems
18:11 < echarp> who says you do?
18:11 < urgyen> doesn't everyone?
18:11 < echarp> seen anybody who wants to stop you here? :)
18:12 < urgyen> lots and lots and lots of pov's
18:12 < echarp> everyone says that you should step away???
18:12 < urgyen> no everyone is a problem
18:12 < urgyen> :-)
18:12 * nsh smiles
18:12 < urgyen> I cause problems because my view is different
18:13 < urgyen> if the 'system' can not handle differing view without hesitation it is worthless
18:13 < urgyen> you say.. maybe not completely worthless
18:13 < nsh> in renaissance paintings, there was a subtle incongruity caused by both the foreground and background being in sharp focus
18:13 < urgyen> well.. ok, but that's not what I am currently working on
18:13 < echarp> urgyen: who says you are causing problems??????
18:14 < urgyen> hmn
18:14 < echarp> I enjoy talking about all that
18:14 < echarp> yet we don't have the same pov
18:14 < echarp> and I'm reminiscing about goals
18:14 < urgyen> sorry, my own investment talking, then
18:14 * nsh smiles
18:14 < urgyen> my own paranoia
18:14 < echarp> :)
18:14 < echarp> that happens
18:14 < echarp> online we don't see each other as easily as irl
18:15 < urgyen> I do have some passion
18:15 < echarp> nsh: and that incongruity was known and used? or just an artifact? :)
18:15 < echarp> passion is cool
18:15 -!- illegale [n=ille...@cmung3233.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Connection reset by peer]
18:16 < nsh> i like how walking is actually controlled falling...
18:16 < nsh> like a pendulum
18:16 < echarp> yeap
18:16 < urgyen> so purist and idealist an pragmaticist, etc
18:17 < nsh> there is a back and forth between potential energy and kinetic energy
18:17 * nsh smiles
18:17 < urgyen> if flexibility is the measure of participation yet that is nearly hopeless...
18:17 < urgyen> it should still be a goal anyway
18:17 < echarp> and how an orbit is merely the part between falling and flying away :)
18:17 * nsh smiles
18:17 < echarp> some chinese mathematician supposedly solved the poincare conjecture
18:17 < nsh> back and forth between flexibility and participation, urgy?
18:17 < echarp> we might soon be able to calculate orbits :)
18:18 < echarp> and durability! :)
18:18 * nsh smiles
18:18 < urgyen> illegale's 'gravity' as a metaphoric way to describe participation had some workability
18:19 < nsh> i was seeing passion as the potential energy
18:19 < nsh> which corressponds to this gravity, at least in my understanding
18:19 < nsh> *sp
18:19 < urgyen> :-)
18:20 * nsh returns shortly
18:20 < urgyen> are my :-) the same thing as a nod?
18:20 < urgyen> I did not understand the use of nod earlier
18:20 < urgyen> expression of potential continuity
18:21 < urgyen> brb, me too
18:24 * nsh nods
18:25 < urgyen> so it seems I am exploring the difference between as and is
18:25 < urgyen> and sometimes getting them mixed up
18:25 < nsh> espression of potential continuity, understanding crossed with acceptance, not improving on silence, etc.
18:25 < nsh> yeah
18:25 < urgyen> mistaking my need for something I can't let go of
18:25 < nsh> the "as" operator seems to have more flexibility
18:25 < nsh> but there might be an overlap of use
18:25 < nsh> hrm
18:26 < urgyen> sometimes we really can't let go
18:26 * nsh is a breathing addict
18:26 < urgyen> :-)
18:26 < nsh> but you can investigate
18:26 < nsh> i thought i was a seeing addict
18:26 < nsh> but i can survive with one reverse-blink every ~4 seconds
18:27 < nsh> depending on where i'm walking
18:27 < urgyen> right
18:27 < nsh> "honing tools" springs to mind
18:27 < urgyen> so a way to regulate this dichotomy -- temporary tag -- flexibility vs participation
18:27 < nsh> mm
18:27 < urgyen> so that special case use is allowed
18:28 * nsh nods
18:28 < urgyen> but given a 'special space' as well
18:28 < nsh> hrmm
18:28 < urgyen> well, something.. :-)
18:28 < nsh> yeah
18:28 < nsh> well, i was touching that earlier
18:28 < nsh> when i said "back and forth between..."
18:29 * urgyen getting back to google co-op idea
18:29 < nsh> i thought of the progression between oscillating on a line and moving in two axes
18:29 < urgyen> hmn
18:29 < nsh> so eventually, it's an orbit around flexibility and participation
18:29 < urgyen> yes, wave forms don't really interfere until they do
18:29 * nsh nods
18:30 < urgyen> that's really nice
18:30 < nsh> a damped pendulum will describe a spiral on the axes of potential and kinetic energy
18:30 < nsh> so there's a progression
18:30 < nsh> smaller circles until you reach one-point
18:31 < urgyen> but I don't understand how these types of conversations are not seen as productive
18:31 * nsh pictures the beads on the spiders web
18:31 < urgyen> they seem directly relevant to me
18:31 < nsh> hmm
18:31 < nsh> tourniquet beliefs
18:31 < urgyen> hehehe
18:32 < nsh> no point discussing wheels to someone who doesn't think rolling is possible
18:32 < urgyen> so you dig at fiatlex yet?
18:32 * nsh investigates
18:33 < urgyen> we have: http://iconocla.st/nomic/rules.html
18:33 < urgyen> and last case use: http://iconocla.st/nomic/hashbots.html
18:33 < urgyen> and if you copy paste this into something more organized:
18:33 < urgyen> fiatlex, help
18:33 < fiatlex> urgyen: Ask me for help about: nomic (say 'help <modulename>')
18:33 < urgyen> fiatlex, help nomic
18:33 < fiatlex> urgyen: Ask me about rule <n>, or ask me to accept <Rule> [with <Note>], amend <Rule> with <Rule>, annotate <Rule> with <Text>, collect <Number> <Thing> from <Player>, defeat <Rule> [with <Note>], details of <Rule>, enact <Rule> [with <Note>], enroll, grant <Number> <Thing> to <Player>, inventory
18:33 < fiatlex> ..<Thing>, notes on <Rule>, pending, propose <Text>, reject <Rule> [with <Note>], spend <Number> <Thing> or text of <Rule>.
18:34 < urgyen> so we have been discussing 'participation' in a round-a-bout way
18:34 < urgyen> and somehow it is linked to a voluntary 'enroll' command
18:34 < nsh> right
18:35 < nsh> but the word "provisional" is shouting to be included
18:35 < nsh> as participation is based upon understanding
18:35 < nsh> which is necessarily provisional
18:35 < nsh> as by the nature of the game...
18:35 < urgyen> :-))
18:35 < urgyen> and I'd like this stuff documented
18:35 < nsh> right
18:35 < urgyen> so, for me, a good game would do that
18:35 < nsh> but not in a dreary way
18:35 < nsh> living documentation
18:35 < urgyen> so, later, others can catch up quickly
18:35 < nsh> in the same way the ruleset is living
18:35 < nsh> right
18:36 < nsh> continuous compression, rehashing
18:36 < urgyen> yes
18:36 < urgyen> but that hasn't even gotten on the table yet
18:36 < urgyen> :(
18:36 < nsh> mmm
18:36 < nsh> people are maybe still definining table
18:37 < nsh> like workspace, working rulespace
18:37 < urgyen> I think they got blind-sided, myself
18:37 < nsh> how?
18:37 < urgyen> oh democracy is this cute small wading pond
18:37 < urgyen> and blammo a tsunami shows up
18:37 < nsh> ah ok
18:37 < nsh> yeah
18:37 < nsh> like discovering you have sensitive teeth
18:37 < nsh> and suddenly ice-cream isn't so innocent
18:37 < urgyen> hehe
18:38 < nsh> but it's a ciristunity
18:38 < nsh> *crisitunity
18:38 < nsh> i see difficulties like that as pivots
18:38 < nsh> turning point around which the system and participants and re-allign
18:39 < nsh> *can
18:39 < nsh> why are some rules in green and others red?
18:39 * nsh just scanning
18:39 < urgyen> enact changed the rule color
18:40 < urgyen> we don't have any definition of what enact means tho :-)
18:40 * nsh smiles
18:40 < urgyen> suggestive of something similar to stop lights I suppose.. green go, stop red
18:40 < nsh> mmm
18:41 < urgyen> we also found that most of the switches are toggles
18:41 < nsh> how do you mean?
18:41 < urgyen> things on can be set to off and visa versa
18:42 < urgyen> and that everything is single point of control driven
18:42 < urgyen> anyone can make any change at any time
18:42 < urgyen> except you can't change the 'accept, reject, abstain' of another registered participant
18:43 * nsh nods
18:43 < urgyen> so the enacts aren't tied mechanically
18:43 < nsh> but can you change the options?
18:43 < urgyen> what options?
18:43 < nsh> maybe Ac, R, Ab is constrictive...
18:44 < nsh> someone might want partial accepts
18:44 < nsh> or accepts with caveats
18:44 < urgyen> just offhand, I'd think that, since the code is 'tranparent' changes can be proposed
18:44 < urgyen> and some means defined to be implemented
18:44 * nsh nods
18:45 < urgyen> but maybe the code doesn't really need to be changed
18:45 < urgyen> maybe almost all flow can be handled via wetware
18:45 < nsh> likely
18:45 < echarp> almost certainly
18:45 < urgyen> depends on how much enforcement is needed?
18:45 < echarp> the bot is merely a book keeper who understand a few concepts
18:46 < nsh> right
18:46 < nsh> there will be scaling issues
18:46 < urgyen> so eventually delegation of things like access to server is significant
18:46 < nsh> certain valid presumptions won't scale up
18:46 < nsh> for example, that people want to participate, and have an interest in the game/system's smooth operation
18:47 < urgyen> and.. :-) how do you make the code 'report itself'
18:47 < echarp> scale up to a large number of participants?
18:47 < nsh> or large number of rules
18:47 < urgyen> I see the source, but that doesn't have to be what's running
18:47 < urgyen> so some trusted visual inspection starts to show up
18:47 < echarp> I'm proposing to limit rules and participants to a fixed 42 number! :)
18:47 < urgyen> officers
18:47 < echarp> much easier to manage then :)
18:47 * nsh goes to eat
18:48 < urgyen> I don't see any problem with proposing lots of things echarp
18:48 < urgyen> a full spectrum should indicate much more fair play
18:48 < echarp> urgyen: scaling up
18:48 < echarp> this is a potential problem
18:48 < urgyen> you mean like a proposal swarm attack?
18:49 < echarp> swarm attack is just an extrem example
18:49 < echarp> but thousands of rules and participants is another example of this problem
18:49 < urgyen> with the cost of having to review that many line items
18:49 < echarp> yeap
18:49 < urgyen> scale is significant, even within cyberspace
18:50 < echarp> exactly
18:50 < echarp> ok, I'm going home, will read what you write
18:50 < urgyen> ok
18:50 < echarp> à tout de suite
18:50 < urgyen> I have to go to work
18:50 < urgyen> nice chat, thanks
18:50 < echarp> ok, cu later then
18:57 < urgyen> http://www.informationweek.com/shared/printableArticle.jhtml?articleID=188500520
18:57 < urgyen> "...To Predict What Happens Next"
18:58 < urgyen> the 'probable' of latent semantic analysis
18:59 < urgyen> a means to limit the scope of candidates for original intent
19:00 < urgyen> limiting the scope may also, then, suggest a means to moderate scale issues
19:00 < urgyen> s/scale/scaling
19:02 < urgyen> so, when someone says-
19:02 < urgyen> fiatlex: pending
19:02 < fiatlex> urgyen: 2. I agree to participate (enacted at 21:39 Jun 09; proposed by echarp at 18:20 Jun 09; accepted by illegale, urgen)
19:03 < urgyen> you'd also get a 'relevancy' percent
19:03 < urgyen> issues that you are interested in
19:06 < urgyen> eventually, perhaps, allowing for a delegation of issues to other 'authorities' you trust to make decisions on your behalf
19:33 < echarp> re
19:34 < urgyen> that was quick
19:34 < echarp> job is not very far from home :)
19:34 < urgyen> still getting my shoes on
19:34 < echarp> :)
19:35 < echarp> lazy you! :)
19:35 < urgyen> so many distractions so little time
19:36 < echarp> I understand and agree
19:39 < echarp> I still wonder about goals you know, what are the goals? which goals to attract what kind of energies?
19:40 < urgyen> :-) should be full spectrum
19:40 < urgyen> that distraction thing is guaranteed
19:41 < urgyen> so, I once had an idea of a cone with horizontal cross sections
19:41 < urgyen> it was a model of 'budget'
19:42 < urgyen> at the base of the cone was no funding but the greatest inclusion of 'goals'
19:42 < echarp> then a plethora of cones and goals
19:42 < urgyen> and the top was one goal with completely unspent spending
19:43 < urgyen> and if one was in debt the there were living beyond the tip of the cone with more cones
19:44 < urgyen> future cones
19:44 < urgyen> so some moderating seems due tho maybe some goals (education) required some living beyond one's means
19:45 < urgyen> so goals seem tempered by means
19:46 < urgyen> I do not have the means available to stop breathing and live
19:47 < urgyen> anyway.. shoes on now. gotta go. cu
19:47 < echarp> :)
19:47 < echarp> cu, good day!
21:01 -!- illegale (illegale) [i=ille...@cmung3074.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
21:10 < illegale> http://www.open-organizations.org/view/Main/IntroToOpenOrg
21:47 -!- illegale [i=ille...@cmung3074.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
22:08 -!- nsh_ (No Such Human) [n=n...@88.144.29.133] has joined #parlement
22:12 -!- nsh [n=nsh@wikipedia/nsh] has quit [Nick collision from services.]
22:12 -!- nsh_ is now known as nsh
22:57 -!- illegale (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung874.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
23:02 < echarp> re illegale and nsh
23:05 < echarp> illegale: I've implemented something to easily see who voted what (not yet on my production server)
23:21 < illegale> yes?
23:21 < illegale> nice
23:21 < illegale> btw, when i hide vote sectrion, how can i unhide it?
23:21 < illegale> is there some option to dothat?
23:21 < echarp> normally it all should come back
23:22 < echarp> without any page reload
23:22 < echarp> but there are bugs :(
23:23 < illegale> k
23:23 < echarp> ok, I'm going to put into production right away
23:23 < echarp> it might/will break! :)
23:27 < echarp> illegale: it works, until it will breaks of course :)
23:27 < illegale> let see
23:31 < illegale> cool :)
23:32 < illegale> what is this about sub?
23:32 < echarp> sub?
23:32 < echarp> sub what?
23:33 < illegale> +1 26/05 04:23 [top-politics] Re: Just a little idear to improve democracy (0 sub)
23:33 < illegale> this o sub
23:33 < illegale> what does it mean?
23:34 < echarp> no sub element
23:34 < echarp> I'll have to improve the personal pages :)
23:34 < illegale> you mean coversation after that proposal?
23:34 < illegale> does it tak through google, or through eparlament directly?
23:35 < echarp> conversation yes
23:35 < echarp> both ways will work
23:35 < illegale> now?
23:35 < echarp> yeap now
23:35 < illegale> if i vote on your eparlament is mail created for that?
23:35 < illegale> going to google?
23:35 < echarp> it won't go to google no :(
23:36 < illegale> hmh
23:36 < echarp> it only goes from google to parlement
23:36 < illegale> ok
23:36 < echarp> master / slave relationship
23:36 < illegale> i suppose voting should go trhough google thatn
23:36 < illegale> to have same data
23:36 < echarp> but I have two parlement nodes and they actually *are* synchronised by mail!
23:36 < echarp> voting can go through google yes
23:37 < echarp> so actually my setting is (all by mail):
23:37 < echarp> google => parlement (production server) => parlement (dev laptop)
23:37 < echarp> I'm rather happy about it, it is decentralised already!
23:38 < illegale> cool
23:38 < illegale> i am glad to see these data grouping going on :)
23:38 < echarp> and now you can even click on the result in the "List by vote" box
23:38 < echarp> cool
23:38 < echarp> ok, I'm going to bed
23:39 < echarp> illegale: don't hesitate to test and ask me if there are other kind of data, or even presentation, you would want
23:40 < illegale> no problem, have good sleep :)
23:40 < echarp> thx
23:40 < echarp> night night everybody, same for you dear fiatlex ;)
23:41 -!- illegale [n=ille...@cmung874.cmu.carnet.hr] has left #parlement []
23:51 -!- illegale (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung874.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
--- Log closed jeu jun 15 00:00:19 2006
00:42 -!- illegale [n=ille...@cmung4101.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)]
02:01 -!- illegale (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung2638.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
03:11 -!- Schuyler [n=sde...@tridity.org] has quit ["Lost terminal"]
03:46 -!- illegale [n=ille...@cmung2638.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
03:47 -!- illegale (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung171.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
03:48 -!- illegale [n=ille...@cmung171.cmu.carnet.hr] has left #parlement []
09:03 < urgen> brazil would have a chance if they just give them back their little dance
09:04 < urgen> <<-- put in long hours today., nite
09:23 < echarp> hello hello
10:06 -!- urgen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)]
15:41 -!- illegale (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung3233.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
15:42 < echarp> hello illegale
15:42 < echarp> some life back on the group it seems
15:42 < illegale> het :)
15:42 < illegale> hey
15:42 < illegale> i mean :)
15:42 < illegale> what do you think of Erics idea?
15:42 < illegale> Choosing leader stuff?
15:43 < echarp> implement a voting method?
15:43 < illegale> no, choosing leader stuff as first
15:43 < illegale> before that, seeing who wants to participate?
15:43 < echarp> illegale: I've voter for you already
15:43 < echarp> voter/voted
15:43 < illegale> thank you :)
15:43 < echarp> just ask all those willing to participate to vote, much faster
15:44 < illegale> but, we have to get some tail and head it seems
15:44 < echarp> and if someone votes but everybody thinks he is not worthwhile, then let's not count his vote
15:44 < echarp> ask people to vote on anybody they want
15:44 < illegale> Magnus talkes about procedures,
15:44 < echarp> the person with the most votes win
15:44 < illegale> again,
15:44 < echarp> *simple*
15:44 < illegale> ok
15:44 < illegale> i am pro simplicity
15:45 < illegale> when smething starts stucking, move on
15:45 < illegale> solve the problem
15:45 < illegale> dynamcis of on lne menages it
15:45 < echarp> yeap, so just ask people to vote, -1/0/+1 could do the trick quick and easy
15:45 < echarp> anybody can be nominated for leadership
15:45 < illegale> Eric is a little bi upset imo
15:45 < illegale> stuck with it
15:46 < echarp> upset about not having some sort of formal hierarchyhttp://rss.slashdot.org/Slashdot/slashdot?m=5987
15:46 < echarp> oups sorry
15:46 < illegale> go again?
15:46 < echarp> upset about not having some sort of formal hierarchy?
15:46 < echarp> go?
15:46 < illegale> no tail nor head
15:46 < illegale> this link for me?
15:46 < EarleMartin> bonjour à tout le monde
15:46 < echarp> hello hello EarleMartin
15:46 < illegale> hey british
15:46 < EarleMartin> erm, I mean, hello
15:46 < echarp> illegale: this link was just in my copy buffer
15:47 < illegale> ok
15:47 < illegale> it seems we have to many issues
15:47 < illegale> not focus, no solving
15:47 < echarp> issues??
15:47 < illegale> things we are oriented to
15:47 < echarp> what issues are you speaking about? voting methods?
15:47 < illegale> yes, than logo, vision, mission and so on
15:48 < illegale> wiki
15:48 < echarp> logo I'm sure you just need to ask anyone for a logo
15:48 < illegale> though, this formalisation stuff could help us a lot
15:48 < illegale> to know where to look
15:49 < illegale> if we want to solve something
15:49 < illegale> this is far from effectine in this moment
15:50 < illegale> so, i am going to start from this leader stuff
15:50 < echarp> I've proposed a simple scheme to decide on issues (which can be changed anytime)
15:50 < illegale> after we set ecxact base
15:50 < illegale> +1/0/-1?
15:50 < echarp> yeap
15:50 < illegale> so, what is up to leader than?
15:51 < echarp> and it should be handled properly on http://leparlement.org
15:51 < illegale> I am pro leader
15:51 < echarp> I've already voted for you!!!
15:51 < illegale> this enables grouping
15:51 < illegale> i know
15:51 < illegale> yet there are the differences
15:51 < echarp> differences?
15:51 < illegale> if i am leader i am not going for 50%+1
15:51 < illegale> but for my personal belief in a way of group prosperity
15:52 < illegale> i expect from any leader to do such thing
15:52 < illegale> actually
15:52 < echarp> -1/0/+1 is not a matter of 50%+1
15:52 < illegale> ok
15:52 < illegale> i am glad we agree again :)
15:52 < echarp> :)
15:53 < illegale> ok
15:53 < illegale> so, i am going to ask Eric what is up with us who choosed to participate in group stuff
15:53 < illegale> shall we start this process?
15:54 < illegale> i need his aproval, as long as this is his initiative
15:54 < echarp> you can right away ask for people to nominate leaders and vote for them
15:54 < echarp> carry on in the former thread, the one where votes already started
15:54 < illegale> ok
15:54 < echarp> or start a blank on, I'll vote in it
15:55 < illegale> ill use erics thread just to gain his attention first
15:55 < illegale> after that we can make a part two with sections that are important about further discussion
15:56 < echarp> that's cool
15:56 < illegale> ok, this is solved :)
15:58 < echarp> if you want to make it nice, put something flagrant in the subject line
15:58 < echarp> not something between [], just something bug
15:58 < illegale> flagrant
15:58 < illegale> ?
15:59 < echarp> ie: VOTE: leader for the top-politics group
15:59 < illegale> ok
15:59 < echarp> the "VOTE: " is the flagrant thing I spoke about
16:01 < echarp> inside the post you write the issue itself
16:01 < echarp> no need for a deadline, I think it's easier to just take into account the last vote if one votes more than once
16:02 < illegale> ok
16:09 < illegale> where is urgen?
16:10 < echarp> disconnected
16:10 < echarp> probably just waking up :)
16:59 -!- urgyen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
16:59 < urgyen> oops guess I don't have this channel on auto-rejoin
17:00 < echarp> that happens :)
17:00 < echarp> so? just woken up? :)
17:01 < urgyen> all showered and shiny but no food yet
17:02 < EarleMartin> bonjour urgyen
17:02 < EarleMartin> ça va?
17:02 < urgyen> allo le'dude
17:02 < urgyen> cva
17:03 < EarleMartin> très bien
17:03 < echarp> :)
17:03 < illegale> hey, just talking about you :)
17:03 * urgyen sneezes
17:03 < urgyen> darn allergies
17:03 < urgyen> so much rain this year means too many flowers
17:04 < echarp> they are so lovely to scent
17:04 < echarp> shame they can produce so many bad effects
17:04 < urgyen> so what is the opposite of boredom with regard to participation?
17:05 < urgyen> apathy is a stalwart opposition to success
17:05 < echarp> yeap
17:05 < urgyen> result?
17:06 < EarleMartin> apathy <---- ----> productivity
17:06 < urgyen> any old result? sometimes just simple interference seems enough to spark participation
17:06 < echarp> this might be why trolls can be useful
17:07 < urgyen> change measurely productive
17:07 < EarleMartin> boredom can be overcome with an itch that needs scratching
17:07 < illegale> why do you need trols?
17:07 < illegale> it is not good energy
17:07 < illegale> hard to make it producitve
17:07 < urgyen> if things are bad ppl have a revolution = trolls
17:07 < illegale> maybe even imposib,e
17:07 < EarleMartin> http://grault.net/adjunct/?DefiningIrritant
17:08 < echarp> illegale: is mark a troll then? :)
17:08 < urgyen> illegale was mentioning status quo
17:08 < urgyen> if the boredom is constant enough someone will upset it
17:08 < echarp> or the group might just die
17:08 < illegale> i do not see him as a person who wants to destroy
17:09 < illegale> though, who is productive among us anyway?
17:09 < illegale> maybe you
17:09 < echarp> you mean, on my own project?
17:10 < illegale> yes
17:10 < illegale> maybe mark and magnus learn about communication principles
17:10 < illegale> yet their hit the wall too much often
17:10 < illegale> this leads to apathy
17:10 < illegale> hitting the wall stuff
17:11 < echarp> but it is true that no one speaks but to promote his system
17:11 < EarleMartin> urgyen: I am reminded of the way sky was playing in the first IRC nomic game
17:11 < illegale> i do not, at least i hope i dony
17:11 < illegale> whatever succeeds out of these models it is success to me
17:12 < echarp> EarleMartin: he was sort of destructive?
17:12 < illegale> as long as i am oriented in the field you all need
17:12 < illegale> legitimation part
17:12 < echarp> legitimation = marketing ?
17:12 < illegale> acknowledgemtn
17:12 < illegale> it is a process
17:12 < illegale> from its beggining
17:13 < illegale> i see marketing as after you develop something
17:13 < echarp> after developing a group dynamic?
17:13 < illegale> ?
17:14 < illegale> a product
17:14 < illegale> software, rules, whatever
17:14 < illegale> it does not worth if people did not fully accepted it
17:14 < echarp> I didn't think top would generate a product
17:14 < illegale> not top, but every single initiative
17:14 < illegale> for the world level
17:15 < illegale> though, top might generayte product too
17:15 < illegale> node
17:15 < illegale> not a little thing
17:15 < illegale> actually
17:15 < illegale> it seems we mix some stuff
17:16 < echarp> lot's of mixing yes
17:17 < illegale> so, we talked about legitimation process
17:17 < illegale> there is a problem of getting gravity, big, huge one
17:17 < illegale> everybody wants to be such place
17:17 < illegale> and you do not create it
17:17 < illegale> so, you have status quo
17:17 < illegale> seen many times in politics
17:18 < illegale> and in politics you need strong gravity if you want to succeed
17:18 < illegale> this is a part i am oriented in practicall manner
17:18 < echarp> gravity = followers ?
17:18 < illegale> does not need to be followers
17:18 < illegale> you might create site.
17:18 < illegale> are those who participate followers
17:18 < illegale> ?
17:18 < echarp> sort of yes
17:19 < illegale> then yes
17:19 < echarp> if there is a leader there are followers, well, it's one way to consider it
17:19 < illegale> in cro, we have several points of gravitation among youth
17:19 < illegale> and none of these parts is strong enough to become gravity center, becoming politically relevatn
17:20 < illegale> so, me personally am working on this part
17:20 < illegale> how to create this part
17:20 < illegale> tough work
17:20 < echarp> definitely yes
17:21 < echarp> to become relevant is hugely difficult, requires energy and intelligence
17:21 < illegale> knowledge too
17:21 < illegale> and some authority
17:22 < illegale> yet, us workers in this part, there is no lot of us
17:22 < illegale> actually to few
17:22 < illegale> and that is actually a politics
17:22 < illegale> creating synergism
17:22 < EarleMartin> echarp: yes, he played to destroy the game by playing the game
17:22 < EarleMartin> which I suppose is one way of "winning" even if it is not formally defined
17:23 < echarp> it all depends on the way others accept or reject it
17:23 < echarp> I'm sure urgyen didn't like that :)
17:23 < illegale> http://www.world-wide-democracy.net/
17:24 < illegale> this is an organisation, Eric is a part of ti
17:24 < illegale> it
17:24 < illegale> Earle, you play nomic often?
17:24 < echarp> I've seen it yes
17:24 < echarp> is it still active?
17:25 < illegale> yes, yet have some problems.
17:25 < EarleMartin> illegale: not since the last game, actually
17:25 < echarp> what kind of troubles?
17:25 < illegale> oriented towards procudures, instead of goals
17:25 < illegale> having no products, loosing motivation
17:25 < illegale> regular stuf, id say :)
17:25 < echarp> could I bring "parlement" on the table...? ;)
17:25 < illegale> Earle, whem was that?
17:26 < illegale> in wddm?
17:26 < echarp> yeap
17:26 < illegale> join them and propose :)
17:26 < echarp> it's not just procedure anymore, it's an actual tool
17:26 < illegale> i know
17:26 < urgyen> there, had a nice apple spice muffin
17:27 < illegale> yet, Mirek is programer in wddm
17:27 < illegale> did plenty of work
17:27 < illegale> do not know how shall he integrate it
17:28 < illegale> i suppose he wont let his tools to easily
17:28 * echarp kicks urgyen for such blatant lack of courtesy => you should offer everyone a part of it! :)
17:28 < illegale> i am hungry. gonna go eat
17:28 < echarp> illegale: ok, never mind then
17:28 < echarp> bon app
17:29 < illegale> no, i think you should propose tool
17:29 < illegale> to see what happens :)
17:29 < illegale> i suppose there is going plenty of such things in front od us, so should be prepared for such
17:29 < echarp> cool, I'll do that then
17:30 < illegale> what i can notice, they need fresh blood
17:30 < illegale> and fresh aproaches
17:31 < illegale> you can give them both things, at least in a manner of opening chakras :)
17:32 < illegale> me personaly gave up us long as they do not follow top :)
17:32 < illegale> principles
17:32 < illegale> public can no participate stuff
17:32 < illegale> eventhough everybody can ber a member :)
17:33 < echarp> arg, is it a phpBB thing?
17:34 < illegale> dont know, seems he did it all
17:34 < illegale> phorum
17:34 < illegale> its name
17:34 < urgyen> ok, caught up on conversation I missed while eating
17:34 < echarp> :)
17:36 < urgyen> so I still feel with ALL of this globalizaton of democracy stuff.. only harm can result without everyone understanding by what means they are expressing their affiliation
17:36 < urgyen> democracy is a blind cold steam roller
17:37 < urgyen> until it runs over your foot you'd think otherwise
17:37 < urgyen> I'm not just picking on democracy only, of course
17:37 < urgyen> maybe ppl are saying democracy is the lesser of evils
17:37 < echarp> affiliation = consent and accept to bear responsibility on the possible consequences?
17:38 < urgyen> affiliation, maybe finding association to/with or affinity
17:38 < urgyen> commonality
17:38 < urgyen> maybe sometimes membership by default
17:38 < urgyen> sometimes membership elective
17:38 < illegale> what do you mean by democracy urgyen?
17:39 < urgyen> democracy is commonly anything with majority rule
17:39 < illegale> when you say this
17:39 < illegale> i do not find it such thing
17:39 < urgyen> I mean the way most simple ppl think it to be
17:39 < illegale> majority is just one of the legitmation procedures
17:39 < urgyen> since that is the majority
17:39 < urgyen> I know, just one, but I want everyone to know
17:39 < illegale> people in general do not thingk, but follow media phrames
17:40 < illegale> people are passive
17:40 < urgyen> I think they were trained to be so
17:40 < urgyen> not inherently passive
17:40 < illegale> and this is not what i am thinking of when talk about democracy or democratisation
17:40 < illegale> yet they are
17:40 < illegale> trained
17:40 < illegale> oportunistic mode
17:40 < illegale> why bother if you do not have to
17:40 < illegale> stuff
17:40 < illegale> responsiiblity is not something populer
17:41 < urgyen> yes
17:41 < illegale> yet, what i am looking for is give chance to those who matter
17:41 < illegale> that is what i find be my mision
17:41 < urgyen> and then trying to find the short version of a long story so that they can access appreciation <-- my form of democracy
17:42 < illegale> access apreciations?
17:42 < illegale> you mean status stuff?
17:42 < urgyen> appreciation means I understand
17:42 < illegale> ok
17:43 < urgyen> I can appreciate the subtle qualities of a work of art, as an example
17:43 < urgyen> because I was introduced to it in a way that showed me the history of the work
17:43 < urgyen> to gain access to the greater context
17:44 < urgyen> without that access, there is no democracy
17:44 < urgyen> no matter how many times you vote
17:44 < illegale> it is about top, right?
17:44 < urgyen> top might be blind :-)
17:44 < urgyen> I will give it some time for testing
17:44 < illegale> how do you mean?
17:44 < urgyen> steam rollers running over ppls toes
17:45 < urgyen> umm. cheer driven instead of substance
17:46 < urgyen> prone to endless bickering :-)
17:47 < illegale> enough eyeballs, all problems are shallow
17:47 < illegale> that is the point
17:47 < urgyen> I can't believe that
17:47 < urgyen> ever
17:47 < illegale> what i can notice is political reality in croatia
17:47 < illegale> we always had some enemies""
17:47 < illegale> Serbs, Bosnisans,
17:47 < illegale> and so on
17:47 < illegale> and there was some problem with slovenia about adriati see
17:48 < illegale> adriatic see
17:48 < illegale> all media was pretty oriented
17:48 < illegale> parties had big speaches and stuff
17:48 < illegale> whole diplomatic scandal
17:48 < illegale> slovenians got angry at as
17:48 < illegale> clasicall stuff
17:48 < illegale> and the whole problem is solved by arbitration
17:48 < illegale> and we do not have problem with that
17:49 < illegale> yet, it was no mentioning such an easy solution
17:49 < illegale> parties, political power do not need solution
17:49 < illegale> they need problem only
17:49 < illegale> and on the internet this :rumor: spread pretty fast
17:49 < urgyen> that is true with any organization
17:49 < illegale> till journalist themsleves did not have to admit the fact this is all big hoax actually
17:49 < urgyen> a virtual entity will put self preservation first
17:50 < illegale> and after that i spoke to some slovenians avbout it
17:50 < illegale> they did not solved it
17:50 < illegale> yet, after giving brief answer and fighting theri several arguments, they accepted it
17:50 < illegale> this scandal lasted for 4 weaks or so
17:50 < urgyen> solving = appreciation
17:50 < illegale> and i can say internet made it solved
17:51 < illegale> the same stuff with any other problem
17:51 < illegale> such as war against terrorism
17:51 < illegale> give them a good question and people start to wonder
17:52 < illegale> this grouping thing become irrelevant when you score it
17:52 < urgyen> internet has allowed a few changes to happen -- just recently the US patent office set up a web page to allow people to report prior art
17:52 < urgyen> before people were posting objection via forums
17:52 < illegale> internet is alowing democracy finnaly happen as superior political system
17:52 < illegale> by the means of power
17:52 < urgyen> not always a guaranteed way to catch the governing bodies attention but there were no other venues
17:52 < echarp> internet is a revolution
17:53 < illegale> ok, in this moment government and internet are not on the same line
17:53 < urgyen> so, I think if one used a different word than 'democracy' there would be quite a bit more lmileage
17:53 < illegale> and what i am looking for is the same line
17:54 < urgyen> democracy is garnering unquestioning faith
17:54 < urgyen> :-)
17:54 < urgyen> politics as a religion
17:54 < echarp> then you just lump everything as religion :)
17:54 < illegale> you think democracty is ruined concept?
17:54 < urgyen> science as a religion
17:55 < urgyen> democracy is not ruined, but when you use any word too often it loses its significance
17:55 < echarp> urgyen: you of course can
17:55 < illegale> yes
17:55 < illegale> what do you mean by religion?
17:55 < illegale> dogmas
17:55 < urgyen> I see democracy here there on this and that and only because they want to be popular in the media
17:55 < illegale> faith?
17:56 < urgyen> religion as a set of rules that do not allow question
17:56 < illegale> yes, as long as you do not have distinctive terms, everybofdy can use them
17:56 < illegale> dogmas
17:56 < illegale> ok
17:56 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
17:57 < illegale> is the world with no dogma possible?
17:57 < urgyen> easily
17:57 < illegale> i mean, mind frame?
17:57 < echarp> but I disagree about the fact that a word lose its significance because others use it
17:57 < urgyen> not just any use..
17:57 < urgyen> but careless use
17:57 < echarp> a word has the meaning one defines it with
17:57 < illegale> ok, yet it is up to others to decide when we are talking about its power
17:57 < echarp> of course it can be connotated
17:58 < urgyen> if I say very very very very hot
17:58 < illegale> it does not matter too much what is about you, but about common acceptance
17:58 < urgyen> is the extra 'very' helpful?
17:58 < echarp> words can be redefined any number of times, they are merely symbols
17:58 < echarp> urgyen: sort of yes
17:59 < illegale> yes
17:59 < urgyen> because the first one lost its meaning?
17:59 < urgyen> :-)
17:59 < illegale> yet, we need commonly accepted symbols
17:59 < urgyen> very already means very
17:59 < illegale> and this is though part as long as good things are intnatioulssly ruined
17:59 < illegale> by those who do not like their menining
17:59 < illegale> such as democracy and stuff
17:59 < urgyen> so that's all i am asking for
18:00 < urgyen> seems to be a variation on echarp's vigilance
18:00 < illegale> ruin common language, common meaning you loose articualation, let chaos lead you
18:00 < urgyen> please take care
18:00 < illegale> and in chaos, masters of chaos rule
18:00 < urgyen> care doesn't mean democracy
18:01 < urgyen> vigilance doesn't mean democracy
18:01 < echarp> vigilance is just vigilance
18:01 < urgyen> democracy is a second or third order product
18:01 < urgyen> we need appreciation of the foundation.. there is no easy work here, yet
18:01 < echarp> well, everything is a construction based on other things
18:02 < urgyen> but this is needed
18:02 < urgyen> not from media
18:02 < urgyen> not from existing party interest
18:02 < urgyen> not from without question
18:02 < illegale> ok, what is foundation and what is set of it?
18:03 < illegale> howdo you differ it
18:03 < illegale> ?
18:03 < urgyen> conversaton seems to be really good
18:03 < urgyen> we work hard to find what each other is trying to say
18:03 < urgyen> but sometimes the story gets too long to share
18:03 < urgyen> is there a way to record an abreviated statement during these discussions?
18:04 < illegale> have to go, will read the whole dialouge :)
18:04 < illegale> cu later
18:04 < urgyen> a quick handle or reference
18:04 < urgyen> ok
18:04 < urgyen> with no resolution the endlessness continues
18:04 < echarp> I don't believe we have or can have that that easily
18:04 < echarp> fiatlex maybe?
18:05 < urgyen> do you think it is important?
18:05 < echarp> he's supposed to just do that
18:05 < echarp> I'm not sure it is
18:05 < echarp> generally a dict or wp will do
18:05 < echarp> (dict is a gnu/linux command)
18:05 < urgyen> and the test is whether productive means can be shared?
18:06 < urgyen> dictionaries are not meant to be tyrrany
18:06 < urgyen> but they are often used that way
18:07 < echarp> they should not
18:07 < echarp> they are just a reference
18:07 < urgyen> I am addressing hitting the wall, right?
18:07 < echarp> and they give leeway about the things they hold
18:08 < urgyen> good idea, good idea, good idea, then, wham
18:08 < urgyen> lack of foresight
18:08 < urgyen> lack of 'appreciation'
18:08 < urgyen> maybe learn maybe not
18:08 < echarp> again, what is it all for? this is the one thing lackin "in *my* point of view"
18:08 < echarp> durability is not, to me, a goal
18:08 < urgyen> ok
18:08 < urgyen> then I move on
18:09 < urgyen> so much effort, so little result -- that's a painful way to grow
18:09 < urgyen> how many crashes until one changes their mind?
18:09 < urgyen> this looks like rule by stubbornness
18:09 -!- nsh_ is now known as nsh
18:10 < echarp> but what is the goal?
18:11 * nsh smiles
18:11 < urgyen> I do not wish to dampen the euphoria
18:11 < urgyen> I am completely willing to step away if I am causing problems
18:11 < echarp> who says you do?
18:11 < urgyen> doesn't everyone?
18:11 < echarp> seen anybody who wants to stop you here? :)
18:12 < urgyen> lots and lots and lots of pov's
18:12 < echarp> everyone says that you should step away???
18:12 < urgyen> no everyone is a problem
18:12 < urgyen> :-)
18:12 * nsh smiles
18:12 < urgyen> I cause problems because my view is different
18:13 < urgyen> if the 'system' can not handle differing view without hesitation it is worthless
18:13 < urgyen> you say.. maybe not completely worthless
18:13 < nsh> in renaissance paintings, there was a subtle incongruity caused by both the foreground and background being in sharp focus
18:13 < urgyen> well.. ok, but that's not what I am currently working on
18:13 < echarp> urgyen: who says you are causing problems??????
18:14 < urgyen> hmn
18:14 < echarp> I enjoy talking about all that
18:14 < echarp> yet we don't have the same pov
18:14 < echarp> and I'm reminiscing about goals
18:14 < urgyen> sorry, my own investment talking, then
18:14 * nsh smiles
18:14 < urgyen> my own paranoia
18:14 < echarp> :)
18:14 < echarp> that happens
18:14 < echarp> online we don't see each other as easily as irl
18:15 < urgyen> I do have some passion
18:15 < echarp> nsh: and that incongruity was known and used? or just an artifact? :)
18:15 < echarp> passion is cool
18:15 -!- illegale [n=ille...@cmung3233.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Connection reset by peer]
18:16 < nsh> i like how walking is actually controlled falling...
18:16 < nsh> like a pendulum
18:16 < echarp> yeap
18:16 < urgyen> so purist and idealist an pragmaticist, etc
18:17 < nsh> there is a back and forth between potential energy and kinetic energy
18:17 * nsh smiles
18:17 < urgyen> if flexibility is the measure of participation yet that is nearly hopeless...
18:17 < urgyen> it should still be a goal anyway
18:17 < echarp> and how an orbit is merely the part between falling and flying away :)
18:17 * nsh smiles
18:17 < echarp> some chinese mathematician supposedly solved the poincare conjecture
18:17 < nsh> back and forth between flexibility and participation, urgy?
18:17 < echarp> we might soon be able to calculate orbits :)
18:18 < echarp> and durability! :)
18:18 * nsh smiles
18:18 < urgyen> illegale's 'gravity' as a metaphoric way to describe participation had some workability
18:19 < nsh> i was seeing passion as the potential energy
18:19 < nsh> which corressponds to this gravity, at least in my understanding
18:19 < nsh> *sp
18:19 < urgyen> :-)
18:20 * nsh returns shortly
18:20 < urgyen> are my :-) the same thing as a nod?
18:20 < urgyen> I did not understand the use of nod earlier
18:20 < urgyen> expression of potential continuity
18:21 < urgyen> brb, me too
18:24 * nsh nods
18:25 < urgyen> so it seems I am exploring the difference between as and is
18:25 < urgyen> and sometimes getting them mixed up
18:25 < nsh> espression of potential continuity, understanding crossed with acceptance, not improving on silence, etc.
18:25 < nsh> yeah
18:25 < urgyen> mistaking my need for something I can't let go of
18:25 < nsh> the "as" operator seems to have more flexibility
18:25 < nsh> but there might be an overlap of use
18:25 < nsh> hrm
18:26 < urgyen> sometimes we really can't let go
18:26 * nsh is a breathing addict
18:26 < urgyen> :-)
18:26 < nsh> but you can investigate
18:26 < nsh> i thought i was a seeing addict
18:26 < nsh> but i can survive with one reverse-blink every ~4 seconds
18:27 < nsh> depending on where i'm walking
18:27 < urgyen> right
18:27 < nsh> "honing tools" springs to mind
18:27 < urgyen> so a way to regulate this dichotomy -- temporary tag -- flexibility vs participation
18:27 < nsh> mm
18:27 < urgyen> so that special case use is allowed
18:28 * nsh nods
18:28 < urgyen> but given a 'special space' as well
18:28 < nsh> hrmm
18:28 < urgyen> well, something.. :-)
18:28 < nsh> yeah
18:28 < nsh> well, i was touching that earlier
18:28 < nsh> when i said "back and forth between..."
18:29 * urgyen getting back to google co-op idea
18:29 < nsh> i thought of the progression between oscillating on a line and moving in two axes
18:29 < urgyen> hmn
18:29 < nsh> so eventually, it's an orbit around flexibility and participation
18:29 < urgyen> yes, wave forms don't really interfere until they do
18:29 * nsh nods
18:30 < urgyen> that's really nice
18:30 < nsh> a damped pendulum will describe a spiral on the axes of potential and kinetic energy
18:30 < nsh> so there's a progression
18:30 < nsh> smaller circles until you reach one-point
18:31 < urgyen> but I don't understand how these types of conversations are not seen as productive
18:31 * nsh pictures the beads on the spiders web
18:31 < urgyen> they seem directly relevant to me
18:31 < nsh> hmm
18:31 < nsh> tourniquet beliefs
18:31 < urgyen> hehehe
18:32 < nsh> no point discussing wheels to someone who doesn't think rolling is possible
18:32 < urgyen> so you dig at fiatlex yet?
18:32 * nsh investigates
18:33 < urgyen> we have: http://iconocla.st/nomic/rules.html
18:33 < urgyen> and last case use: http://iconocla.st/nomic/hashbots.html
18:33 < urgyen> and if you copy paste this into something more organized:
18:33 < urgyen> fiatlex, help
18:33 < fiatlex> urgyen: Ask me for help about: nomic (say 'help <modulename>')
18:33 < urgyen> fiatlex, help nomic
18:33 < fiatlex> urgyen: Ask me about rule <n>, or ask me to accept <Rule> [with <Note>], amend <Rule> with <Rule>, annotate <Rule> with <Text>, collect <Number> <Thing> from <Player>, defeat <Rule> [with <Note>], details of <Rule>, enact <Rule> [with <Note>], enroll, grant <Number> <Thing> to <Player>, inventory
18:33 < fiatlex> ..<Thing>, notes on <Rule>, pending, propose <Text>, reject <Rule> [with <Note>], spend <Number> <Thing> or text of <Rule>.
18:34 < urgyen> so we have been discussing 'participation' in a round-a-bout way
18:34 < urgyen> and somehow it is linked to a voluntary 'enroll' command
18:34 < nsh> right
18:35 < nsh> but the word "provisional" is shouting to be included
18:35 < nsh> as participation is based upon understanding
18:35 < nsh> which is necessarily provisional
18:35 < nsh> as by the nature of the game...
18:35 < urgyen> :-))
18:35 < urgyen> and I'd like this stuff documented
18:35 < nsh> right
18:35 < urgyen> so, for me, a good game would do that
18:35 < nsh> but not in a dreary way
18:35 < nsh> living documentation
18:35 < urgyen> so, later, others can catch up quickly
18:35 < nsh> in the same way the ruleset is living
18:35 < nsh> right
18:36 < nsh> continuous compression, rehashing
18:36 < urgyen> yes
18:36 < urgyen> but that hasn't even gotten on the table yet
18:36 < urgyen> :(
18:36 < nsh> mmm
18:36 < nsh> people are maybe still definining table
18:37 < nsh> like workspace, working rulespace
18:37 < urgyen> I think they got blind-sided, myself
18:37 < nsh> how?
18:37 < urgyen> oh democracy is this cute small wading pond
18:37 < urgyen> and blammo a tsunami shows up
18:37 < nsh> ah ok
18:37 < nsh> yeah
18:37 < nsh> like discovering you have sensitive teeth
18:37 < nsh> and suddenly ice-cream isn't so innocent
18:37 < urgyen> hehe
18:38 < nsh> but it's a ciristunity
18:38 < nsh> *crisitunity
18:38 < nsh> i see difficulties like that as pivots
18:38 < nsh> turning point around which the system and participants and re-allign
18:39 < nsh> *can
18:39 < nsh> why are some rules in green and others red?
18:39 * nsh just scanning
18:39 < urgyen> enact changed the rule color
18:40 < urgyen> we don't have any definition of what enact means tho :-)
18:40 * nsh smiles
18:40 < urgyen> suggestive of something similar to stop lights I suppose.. green go, stop red
18:40 < nsh> mmm
18:41 < urgyen> we also found that most of the switches are toggles
18:41 < nsh> how do you mean?
18:41 < urgyen> things on can be set to off and visa versa
18:42 < urgyen> and that everything is single point of control driven
18:42 < urgyen> anyone can make any change at any time
18:42 < urgyen> except you can't change the 'accept, reject, abstain' of another registered participant
18:43 * nsh nods
18:43 < urgyen> so the enacts aren't tied mechanically
18:43 < nsh> but can you change the options?
18:43 < urgyen> what options?
18:43 < nsh> maybe Ac, R, Ab is constrictive...
18:44 < nsh> someone might want partial accepts
18:44 < nsh> or accepts with caveats
18:44 < urgyen> just offhand, I'd think that, since the code is 'tranparent' changes can be proposed
18:44 < urgyen> and some means defined to be implemented
18:44 * nsh nods
18:45 < urgyen> but maybe the code doesn't really need to be changed
18:45 < urgyen> maybe almost all flow can be handled via wetware
18:45 < nsh> likely
18:45 < echarp> almost certainly
18:45 < urgyen> depends on how much enforcement is needed?
18:45 < echarp> the bot is merely a book keeper who understand a few concepts
18:46 < nsh> right
18:46 < nsh> there will be scaling issues
18:46 < urgyen> so eventually delegation of things like access to server is significant
18:46 < nsh> certain valid presumptions won't scale up
18:46 < nsh> for example, that people want to participate, and have an interest in the game/system's smooth operation
18:47 < urgyen> and.. :-) how do you make the code 'report itself'
18:47 < echarp> scale up to a large number of participants?
18:47 < nsh> or large number of rules
18:47 < urgyen> I see the source, but that doesn't have to be what's running
18:47 < urgyen> so some trusted visual inspection starts to show up
18:47 < echarp> I'm proposing to limit rules and participants to a fixed 42 number! :)
18:47 < urgyen> officers
18:47 < echarp> much easier to manage then :)
18:47 * nsh goes to eat
18:48 < urgyen> I don't see any problem with proposing lots of things echarp
18:48 < urgyen> a full spectrum should indicate much more fair play
18:48 < echarp> urgyen: scaling up
18:48 < echarp> this is a potential problem
18:48 < urgyen> you mean like a proposal swarm attack?
18:49 < echarp> swarm attack is just an extrem example
18:49 < echarp> but thousands of rules and participants is another example of this problem
18:49 < urgyen> with the cost of having to review that many line items
18:49 < echarp> yeap
18:49 < urgyen> scale is significant, even within cyberspace
18:50 < echarp> exactly
18:50 < echarp> ok, I'm going home, will read what you write
18:50 < urgyen> ok
18:50 < echarp> à tout de suite
18:50 < urgyen> I have to go to work
18:50 < urgyen> nice chat, thanks
18:50 < echarp> ok, cu later then
18:57 < urgyen> http://www.informationweek.com/shared/printableArticle.jhtml?articleID=188500520
18:57 < urgyen> "...To Predict What Happens Next"
18:58 < urgyen> the 'probable' of latent semantic analysis
18:59 < urgyen> a means to limit the scope of candidates for original intent
19:00 < urgyen> limiting the scope may also, then, suggest a means to moderate scale issues
19:00 < urgyen> s/scale/scaling
19:02 < urgyen> so, when someone says-
19:02 < urgyen> fiatlex: pending
19:02 < fiatlex> urgyen: 2. I agree to participate (enacted at 21:39 Jun 09; proposed by echarp at 18:20 Jun 09; accepted by illegale, urgen)
19:03 < urgyen> you'd also get a 'relevancy' percent
19:03 < urgyen> issues that you are interested in
19:06 < urgyen> eventually, perhaps, allowing for a delegation of issues to other 'authorities' you trust to make decisions on your behalf
19:33 < echarp> re
19:34 < urgyen> that was quick
19:34 < echarp> job is not very far from home :)
19:34 < urgyen> still getting my shoes on
19:34 < echarp> :)
19:35 < echarp> lazy you! :)
19:35 < urgyen> so many distractions so little time
19:36 < echarp> I understand and agree
19:39 < echarp> I still wonder about goals you know, what are the goals? which goals to attract what kind of energies?
19:40 < urgyen> :-) should be full spectrum
19:40 < urgyen> that distraction thing is guaranteed
19:41 < urgyen> so, I once had an idea of a cone with horizontal cross sections
19:41 < urgyen> it was a model of 'budget'
19:42 < urgyen> at the base of the cone was no funding but the greatest inclusion of 'goals'
19:42 < echarp> then a plethora of cones and goals
19:42 < urgyen> and the top was one goal with completely unspent spending
19:43 < urgyen> and if one was in debt the there were living beyond the tip of the cone with more cones
19:44 < urgyen> future cones
19:44 < urgyen> so some moderating seems due tho maybe some goals (education) required some living beyond one's means
19:45 < urgyen> so goals seem tempered by means
19:46 < urgyen> I do not have the means available to stop breathing and live
19:47 < urgyen> anyway.. shoes on now. gotta go. cu
19:47 < echarp> :)
19:47 < echarp> cu, good day!
21:01 -!- illegale (illegale) [i=ille...@cmung3074.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
21:10 < illegale> http://www.open-organizations.org/view/Main/IntroToOpenOrg
21:47 -!- illegale [i=ille...@cmung3074.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
22:08 -!- nsh_ (No Such Human) [n=n...@88.144.29.133] has joined #parlement
22:12 -!- nsh [n=nsh@wikipedia/nsh] has quit [Nick collision from services.]
22:12 -!- nsh_ is now known as nsh
22:57 -!- illegale (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung874.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
23:02 < echarp> re illegale and nsh
23:05 < echarp> illegale: I've implemented something to easily see who voted what (not yet on my production server)
23:21 < illegale> yes?
23:21 < illegale> nice
23:21 < illegale> btw, when i hide vote sectrion, how can i unhide it?
23:21 < illegale> is there some option to dothat?
23:21 < echarp> normally it all should come back
23:22 < echarp> without any page reload
23:22 < echarp> but there are bugs :(
23:23 < illegale> k
23:23 < echarp> ok, I'm going to put into production right away
23:23 < echarp> it might/will break! :)
23:27 < echarp> illegale: it works, until it will breaks of course :)
23:27 < illegale> let see
23:31 < illegale> cool :)
23:32 < illegale> what is this about sub?
23:32 < echarp> sub?
23:32 < echarp> sub what?
23:33 < illegale> +1 26/05 04:23 [top-politics] Re: Just a little idear to improve democracy (0 sub)
23:33 < illegale> this o sub
23:33 < illegale> what does it mean?
23:34 < echarp> no sub element
23:34 < echarp> I'll have to improve the personal pages :)
23:34 < illegale> you mean coversation after that proposal?
23:34 < illegale> does it tak through google, or through eparlament directly?
23:35 < echarp> conversation yes
23:35 < echarp> both ways will work
23:35 < illegale> now?
23:35 < echarp> yeap now
23:35 < illegale> if i vote on your eparlament is mail created for that?
23:35 < illegale> going to google?
23:35 < echarp> it won't go to google no :(
23:36 < illegale> hmh
23:36 < echarp> it only goes from google to parlement
23:36 < illegale> ok
23:36 < echarp> master / slave relationship
23:36 < illegale> i suppose voting should go trhough google thatn
23:36 < illegale> to have same data
23:36 < echarp> but I have two parlement nodes and they actually *are* synchronised by mail!
23:36 < echarp> voting can go through google yes
23:37 < echarp> so actually my setting is (all by mail):
23:37 < echarp> google => parlement (production server) => parlement (dev laptop)
23:37 < echarp> I'm rather happy about it, it is decentralised already!
23:38 < illegale> cool
23:38 < illegale> i am glad to see these data grouping going on :)
23:38 < echarp> and now you can even click on the result in the "List by vote" box
23:38 < echarp> cool
23:38 < echarp> ok, I'm going to bed
23:39 < echarp> illegale: don't hesitate to test and ask me if there are other kind of data, or even presentation, you would want
23:40 < illegale> no problem, have good sleep :)
23:40 < echarp> thx
23:40 < echarp> night night everybody, same for you dear fiatlex ;)
23:41 -!- illegale [n=ille...@cmung874.cmu.carnet.hr] has left #parlement []
23:51 -!- illegale (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung874.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
--- Log closed jeu jun 15 00:00:19 2006
echarp
Jun 16, 2006, 3:36:25 AM6/16/06
to top-politics
--- Log opened jeu jun 15 00:00:19 2006
00:07 < illegale> i like your parlement
00:07 < illegale> really :)
00:59 < urgyen> gotta reboot
00:59 < urgyen> bbiab
01:00 -!- urgyen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit []
01:05 -!- urgen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
01:09 < urgen> wow, it is raining
01:18 < nsh> waiting for thunderstorm here
01:18 < nsh> been crazy hot for a week
01:18 < nsh> air needs clearing
01:30 < nsh> watching cartoons
01:30 < nsh> i find them interesting because they utilise reduction to the bare minimum
02:12 < nsh> fiatlex, help nomic
02:12 < fiatlex> nsh: Ask me about rule <n>, or ask me to accept <Rule> [with <Note>], amend <Rule> with <Rule>, annotate <Rule> with <Text>, collect <Number> <Thing> from <Player>, defeat <Rule> [with <Note>], details of <Rule>, enact <Rule> [with <Note>], enroll, grant <Number> <Thing> to <Player>, inventory
02:12 < fiatlex> ..<Thing>, notes on <Rule>, pending, propose <Text>, reject <Rule> [with <Note>], spend <Number> <Thing> or text of <Rule>.
02:12 < nsh> fiatlex, accept 2
02:12 < fiatlex> nsh: You are not playing.
02:12 < nsh> fiatlex, enroll
02:12 < fiatlex> nsh: Welcome to the game. Ask me about 'pending' rules, or 'help Nomic'.
02:12 -!- beeli (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung176.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
02:12 < nsh> fiatlex, accept 2
02:12 < fiatlex> nsh: Rule #2 accepted.
02:14 < nsh> fiatlex, accept 3
02:14 < fiatlex> nsh: Rule #3 accepted.
02:16 < nsh> fiatlex, help nomic
02:16 < fiatlex> nsh: Ask me about rule <n>, or ask me to accept <Rule> [with <Note>], amend <Rule> with <Rule>, annotate <Rule> with <Text>, collect <Number> <Thing> from <Player>, defeat <Rule> [with <Note>], details of <Rule>, enact <Rule> [with <Note>], enroll, grant <Number> <Thing> to <Player>, inventory
02:16 < fiatlex> ..<Thing>, notes on <Rule>, pending, propose <Text>, reject <Rule> [with <Note>], spend <Number> <Thing> or text of <Rule>.
02:16 -!- illegale [n=ille...@cmung874.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
02:16 < nsh> so it's interesting which commands were built in
02:17 < nsh> assuming you haven't contributed to those commands, urgen
02:17 < beeli> l
02:17 < urgen> the code is available for review
02:17 < urgen> but we don't have a way to test what is currently in process
02:17 < urgen> we have to trust schuyler
02:18 * nsh nods
02:18 < urgen> so far we've been using science to determine the rules
02:18 < urgen> test to find out
02:18 < urgen> :-)
02:18 < urgen> not a lot of documentation available
02:18 < nsh> mm
02:18 < urgen> but that seems to be life :-)
02:19 < nsh> indeed
02:19 < nsh> fiatlex, defeat 4
02:19 < fiatlex> nsh: Rule #4 is now defeated.
02:19 < nsh> oh, so defeat turns it red
02:20 < urgen> there is nothing to rule against anyone doing that, so far
02:20 < nsh> mm
02:20 < urgen> it should be something included in the initial set
02:20 < urgen> so, ratification of an initial set should be one of the rules.
02:20 < nsh> bootstrap protocol
02:21 < urgen> bootstrap is the most fun for me but since I classify it as definition by demostration
02:21 < urgen> it only happens during 'the game'
02:21 * nsh smiles
02:21 < urgen> and since hardly anyone else likes bootstrap no one wants to play :-)
02:21 < urgen> catch 22
02:21 < nsh> right
02:22 < nsh> but Yossarian lives!
02:22 * nsh ponders why
02:23 < urgen> I think a feature to set a rule back to 'undecided' is needed
02:23 < urgen> does that somehow break the no breaking the facade rule?
02:23 < nsh> fiatlex, reject 3
02:23 < fiatlex> nsh: Rule #3 rejected.
02:23 * nsh wonders if he'll still be under accep
02:23 < nsh> nope
02:24 < nsh> fiatlex, accept 3
02:24 < fiatlex> nsh: Rule #3 accepted.
02:24 < urgen> there is no secretary of the bot rule
02:24 < nsh> how do you mean?
02:24 < urgen> in rule 3 is says that rule 2 will be set to enacted when...
02:24 < urgen> but doesn't say who
02:25 < urgen> and it doesn't happen by itself
02:25 < nsh> right
02:25 < nsh> i see
02:25 < urgen> I'd really like the rule set to be reflected in the code base
02:25 < nsh> eeeek :-)
02:26 < nsh> this is where it gets crazyfun
02:26 < urgen> but then the game increases in complexity quite a bit and I lose the couple ppl playing that there is
02:26 < nsh> mm
02:26 < urgen> yes, crazy fun is way better than fun,,, I agree
02:26 < urgen> but still...
02:26 < urgen> it is no fun if you can't share it
02:26 < nsh> the problem yeah
02:26 < nsh> disenfranchisement
02:26 < nsh> but again, you can't cling to an impossible ideal
02:26 < nsh> though you can always attempt to move closer to it
02:27 < urgen> unless it becomes aparently essential
02:27 < nsh> so if you have to include some exempting complexity only to allow its removal later
02:27 < nsh> mmm
02:27 < urgen> which is where the goal of access or generation of means comes in
02:28 < urgen> infrastructure is a means
02:28 < nsh> delegation of interpretive judiciary
02:28 * nsh nods
02:28 < nsh> agency devolution
02:28 < nsh> or
02:28 < nsh> better still
02:28 < nsh> agency investment
02:28 < urgen> yes
02:28 < nsh> so i can invest some of my individual agency to a body
02:28 < urgen> goal as agency
02:28 < nsh> that i _provisionally_ trust
02:28 < nsh> right
02:29 < nsh> i was reading today about the slime mould...
02:29 < nsh> usually, just simple amobea
02:29 < nsh> but when they run out of food
02:29 < beeli> co op is more interesting stuff :)
02:29 < nsh> they collect together into a crazy slime worm
02:29 < nsh> and crawl about as one organism
02:29 < nsh> until a better spot is found
02:29 < nsh> and they disperse into individuality again
02:30 < urgen> tension is important
02:30 < nsh> like how a country will demand unity in times of crises
02:30 < nsh> right
02:30 < urgen> ( we also need a change audit other than on channel for the game )
02:31 < nsh> mmm
02:31 < nsh> beeli, how do you mean?
02:31 < urgen> I think maybe the bot records last requestor?
02:31 < urgen> but not the change trail
02:31 < nsh> ah
02:31 < urgen> fiatlex, rule 3
02:31 < fiatlex> urgen: 3. Rule #2 will be set to 'enacted' when three or more 'accepted' votes are recieved (enacted at 21:41 Jun 09; proposed by urgen at 21:32 Jun 09; accepted by echarp, illegale, nsh, urgen)
02:31 < beeli> nevermind, it seems i am not huge fun of nomic
02:31 < urgen> nope that's not a status
02:31 < beeli> yet, stuff about co op on google is what i find more interesting
02:32 < urgen> I see
02:32 < nsh> co op?
02:32 < urgen> but I'm not so sure you've really comprehended the google enterprise
02:32 < beeli> yet, i wont interupt you as long as i can notice you pretty enjoy yourselves :)
02:32 < urgen> it requires strict definitions
02:32 * nsh smiles
02:32 < urgen> quite a bit of work
02:32 < beeli> google.com/coop
02:32 < nsh> oh...
02:32 < urgen> for, of course, I would eventually get back to google co-op
02:33 < nsh> right
02:33 < nsh> so this is the practice pool
02:33 < urgen> since it introduces ways to subscribe to folksonomies
02:33 < nsh> before we go swimming at sea
02:33 < nsh> or at least, as i see it
02:33 < urgen> but defining 'index terms' is no simple skate in the park
02:34 < urgen> that's part of what appreciation I'm trying to generate by means of nomic
02:34 < nsh> no ride in a jaguar either
02:34 < nsh> or on a jaguar
02:34 < beeli> what do you mean by index terms?
02:34 < beeli> can we use any term actually?
02:34 < urgen> you get to describe your corner of the ultraverse in a way that you know others interested in similar ultraverses would be looking for it
02:35 < beeli> or any phrase to get fullfilled one after another one
02:35 < urgen> and if successful ppl subscribe
02:35 < urgen> if enough subscribe it gets included in the formal 'public' set of key phrase indices
02:35 < urgen> you can use any term, of course
02:35 < urgen> but will that term contain value?
02:36 < urgen> or is it only serving self fulfilling ends?
02:36 < urgen> spam vs signal
02:36 < beeli> in the same tame as this stuff does
02:36 < beeli> yet it eliminate spambots and so on as i suppose it has no value to end users
02:36 < beeli> nor to thsoe who set their index
02:36 < urgen> no value to other than the originators
02:37 < urgen> it does have *some* value to someone
02:37 < urgen> it is allowed, just not to dominate where it isn't welcome
02:37 < beeli> it is up to brain network simmilarities
02:37 < beeli> find your tutors
02:37 < urgen> similarities is a good measure
02:37 < beeli> same thing as searching for music by p2p
02:38 * nsh still here, in background
02:38 < beeli> see that you like some music, look for other music you do not know by those who like the same music
02:38 < beeli> this same music sort of calibration
02:38 < beeli> see the same thing happens in other non exact fields based on emotions
02:39 < urgen> I've been calling it 'topic sensitive routing'
02:39 < beeli> suppose calibration can work fine by todays alghoritms
02:39 < beeli> ok
02:40 < beeli> though, what part are you into urgen, about co op?
02:40 < beeli> you mentioned you are interested, as user or developer?
02:40 < urgen> I am troubled when I try to find similar intent around how I use the word 'spirit'
02:41 < urgen> I only get people like echarp who think it has something to do with disembodied souls
02:41 < beeli> why ?
02:41 < beeli> how is that?
02:41 < urgen> I can understand, given cultural heritage.. but that is about as far as you can get away from what my own intent for the terms use is
02:41 < beeli> i mean, do not know anybody fromthose spheres?
02:41 < urgen> yet, echarp thinks I mean it in the same way
02:42 < urgen> so that isn't fair. so I will probably start a google co-op based on my intended meaning
02:42 < urgen> and maybe over time I will slowly collect similar interest
02:42 < beeli> hehe
02:43 < beeli> though, there is no groups/forums of simmilarthinkers around?
02:43 < urgen> without the option to define my own use. I'd never have a chance with any search engine
02:43 < beeli> to get in touch with such/
02:43 < beeli> ?
02:43 < urgen> non at this time
02:43 < urgen> or none that I can find <-- which is the whole point, right?
02:43 < beeli> in order to get higher rankings stuff
02:43 < urgen> to be able to find similar interest
02:44 < urgen> it isn't so much the vapid words as much as it is the living context in which they are held, no?
02:44 < urgen> that's a misunderstanding of 'ranking'
02:44 < beeli> yes
02:44 < urgen> ranking.. has to do with how well you try to clarify what you mean / intend
02:44 < beeli> i mean this is the way to find cross paths to other simmilarthinker
02:44 < beeli> yes
02:44 < urgen> if you do a good job, you get a good rank
02:45 < urgen> it is never a popularity contest
02:45 < beeli> hmh
02:45 < beeli> are you sure?
02:45 < urgen> never ever
02:45 < urgen> ever
02:45 < beeli> maybe i miss the point of ranking
02:45 < urgen> :-)
02:45 < urgen> honesty and clarity are rewarded
02:45 < beeli> thought stuff that is popular gets higher due to links and stuf
02:45 < beeli> right?
02:45 < urgen> those who try to trick and fool are punished
02:46 < urgen> those who want 'better position' are being silly because the best position is to be where people look
02:46 < beeli> at the top
02:46 < urgen> to be where people look is to be clear and get filed in the right place
02:46 < urgen> so when someone asks for that they get it
02:46 < urgen> top is middle
02:46 < urgen> top is accuracy
02:46 < urgen> never popularity
02:46 < beeli> ok
02:46 < urgen> once upon a time a long long long time ago popularity was a metric
02:47 < beeli> unless we talk about global issues
02:47 < urgen> but it was so completely easy to fool
02:47 < beeli> non articualted ones by global populacy
02:47 < urgen> ppl just built robots to click pages over and over
02:47 < beeli> which is not so seldom thing
02:47 < urgen> popularity sky rocketed so rank sky rocketed
02:47 < beeli> such as progressive politics
02:47 < urgen> now they penalize for that
02:47 < beeli> open politics
02:47 < beeli> or other stuff i care about
02:47 < beeli> what do you mean?
02:47 < beeli> by penalising
02:48 < beeli> why?
02:48 < urgen> that means you are removed from the index
02:48 < urgen> your page is not even available in a search
02:48 < urgen> deleted from the database
02:48 < urgen> to trick is to lose
02:48 < beeli> if they see you where manipulating by bots and stuff?
02:48 < urgen> to attempt to gain popularity is to lose
02:48 < urgen> to attempt to be honest and clear is to win
02:49 < urgen> if they catch you, yes
02:49 < beeli> good is long range investment
02:49 < urgen> but the catching is also run by bots :-)
02:49 < urgen> so there is a grievance systems available
02:49 < urgen> fair is fair
02:49 < urgen> bot make mistakes
02:50 < beeli> cool
02:50 < beeli> are you afraid of google power?
02:50 < beeli> they are dealing sort of monoply
02:50 < urgen> everyone should have their own google power
02:50 < urgen> it isn't that hard, it is just google is about the only one that sees value in honesty and clarity for some reason
02:50 < urgen> why are people so invested in corruption?
02:51 < urgen> it is such a silly worthless painful game
02:51 < beeli> i agree with you, yet not completely
02:51 < beeli> it is up to info flow
02:51 < urgen> :-))
02:51 < urgen> info starts with oneself
02:51 < beeli> if it is rappid it does not worth it as long as investment is easily to be lost
02:52 < urgen> I am willing to work hard and give it away for free
02:52 < beeli> in the era of pre bible stuff, lie could be found much harder, having that path be much more interesting
02:52 < urgen> so I will try to make the cost affordable for those that have no time
02:52 < beeli> urgen, in what way?
02:53 < urgen> in the way of an economy of patience
02:53 < beeli> concretely?
02:53 < urgen> ppl with no time
02:53 < urgen> no willingness unless it is easy
02:53 < beeli> what are you going to do excatly?
02:53 < urgen> make it easy they go for it without a second thought
02:53 < beeli> working on base on coop?
02:54 < urgen> working through the process
02:54 < urgen> working within meaning
02:55 < urgen> working toward reducing the threshhold to honesty and clarity for everyone
02:55 < beeli> how excatly?
02:55 < beeli> i wish to help you
02:55 < beeli> sortof
02:55 < urgen> ;-)
02:56 < urgen> helpfulness is matched by taking the time to understand before attempting to apply
02:56 < urgen> so you are already helping just by asking questions
02:56 < urgen> that's very considerate
02:57 < beeli> urgen, what is the moment you can start atempting to apply
02:57 < beeli> does it happen ever?
02:57 < urgen> when it causes no harm
02:57 < urgen> happens quite a bit
02:57 < urgen> even better happens too :-)
02:57 < urgen> sometimes things really work
02:57 < beeli> what harm?
02:58 < urgen> the harm of not allowing participation
02:59 < beeli> you mean harm is not part of any action?
02:59 < urgen> that's an action
02:59 < beeli> harm to something
02:59 < urgen> something might be a figment of someone's imagination
02:59 < urgen> or maybe not
02:59 < beeli> you fight for truth?
02:59 < urgen> truth might be a figment of someone's imagination or maybe not
02:59 < urgen> :-)
03:00 < urgen> my googl co-op for 'spirit' will include the idea of attempting to find the nature of truth
03:00 < beeli> so, what about it/
03:00 < urgen> I can't dictate that
03:00 < beeli> about imagination
03:01 < beeli> what is relation between imagination and harm?
03:01 < urgen> I don't have a definition of imagination
03:01 < beeli> do not ask you for it
03:01 < urgen> I am asking you for one
03:01 < beeli> do not have it
03:01 < beeli> do not need it
03:01 < urgen> then something that doesn't exist can't harm
03:01 < beeli> yet, you mentiponed imagination when i mentioned harm
03:02 < beeli> i do not understand what is realtionship
03:02 < urgen> ok
03:02 < urgen> so...
03:02 < urgen> figment of imagination... as a phrase used to suggest fantasy
03:03 < urgen> an idea with no shared basis
03:03 < urgen> like... tortoise hair
03:03 < urgen> I've never seen a hairy turtle.. but maybe one exists?
03:04 < urgen> it wouldn't be harmful to think so
03:04 < urgen> but if I forced you to believe in the existence of hairy turtles...
03:04 < urgen> well...
03:04 < urgen> I can't really force that
03:04 < urgen> but...
03:04 < urgen> I'd begin to tresspass
03:05 < urgen> I'd be in your face and overly vigilant about whether your actions were one who believed in hairy turtles
03:05 < beeli> there is a slight problem
03:05 < beeli> we do not know what is the truth
03:05 < beeli> we are doomed to our beliefed
03:05 < urgen> that's my point
03:05 < urgen> no way
03:05 < beeli> and we are doomed to do action
03:06 < urgen> no way
03:06 < beeli> we can eliminate parts,
03:06 < urgen> doom has no liberty at all
03:06 < beeli> move towards the truth by getting higher knowledge
03:06 < beeli> but that is the path
03:06 < urgen> not even slightly repairable
03:06 < beeli> based on mistakes
03:06 < beeli> guesess
03:06 < urgen> discovering the nature of truth is completely available
03:06 < beeli> harm
03:06 < beeli> good deeds
03:06 < beeli> and all that stuff
03:07 < beeli> if we set to do nothing before we get enlighten, we will do the biggest harm we can image
03:07 < beeli> imagine
03:07 < urgen> but no one suggested so
03:07 < beeli> we will waste our lifes
03:07 < beeli> and out possibioites
03:07 < beeli> and our human needs
03:07 < beeli> and reasons
03:07 < beeli> so, we are doomed to do mistakes and move on
03:08 < urgen> why would non action be the obvious result of discover of the nature of truth?
03:08 < beeli> to harm and move on
03:08 < urgen> that's a weird conclusion
03:08 < urgen> what is the basis of your thought?
03:08 < beeli> towards less harm more benefit
03:08 < beeli> can you say it more simply?
03:09 < urgen> not sure there are enough fingers in the universe of past present and future to burn enough times to learn from action or non action
03:09 < beeli> so?
03:10 < urgen> there is still an other means
03:10 < urgen> another
03:10 < urgen> discovered when one participates in inquiry
03:10 < urgen> there is no putting inquiry 'in front' of solution
03:10 < urgen> there is no wasting of time
03:11 < urgen> there is no loss of action
03:11 < beeli> so, it does not matter
03:11 < beeli> whatever you do is ok?
03:11 < beeli> is there any way to distinct what is right and what is not right then?
03:11 < urgen> it matters greatly... but only if you take stock in dissatisfaction
03:12 < urgen> the process that brings one to understand the nature of truth is defineable, yes
03:12 < urgen> but not by me
03:12 < urgen> not by you
03:12 < beeli> but
03:12 < beeli> by whom?
03:12 < urgen> but together we can see
03:12 < beeli> you wanna define The Path?
03:13 < beeli> cool
03:13 < urgen> I can't do it by myself
03:14 < beeli> though, why should you define it actually?
03:14 < urgen> the means is in the demonstration
03:14 < urgen> a demonstration is an action
03:14 < beeli> there is a plenty of spiritual teachoers who iddi
03:14 < beeli> it
03:14 < urgen> single people?
03:14 < beeli> do not know
03:14 < urgen> wow, sounds like more top down system
03:14 < beeli> probably
03:14 < beeli> yes,
03:14 < beeli> though, if they aproach to the people by acknowledgment, not force
03:15 < beeli> that is fine by me
03:15 < beeli> if they help why not
03:15 < urgen> it may be by me as well
03:15 < urgen> but I'd have to see
03:15 < urgen> :-)
03:15 < urgen> it would have to be demonstrated
03:15 < beeli> it is all the time
03:15 < urgen> :-)
03:16 < urgen> so it can't be *that* far away, no?
03:16 < beeli> what?
03:16 < urgen> demonstrated nature
03:16 < beeli> demonstration of the path?
03:16 < urgen> I don't know what 'a path' is but I'm allowing that use of terms
03:17 < urgen> a path seems to be the same as means?
03:17 < beeli> what is the logic of it
03:17 < beeli> i mean, see is somebody is happy
03:17 < beeli> if yes, he demonstrates it
03:17 < beeli> path of truth
03:17 < beeli> the way of moving
03:17 < beeli> sort of rules, visions and stuff that make us directions and help in our spiritual way
03:18 < beeli> towards the knowledge, wisdom, truth stuf
03:18 < beeli> f
03:19 < urgen> oh, demonstration of truth does seem to be related to demonstration of happiness, but not every time
03:19 < urgen> sometime happiness' go away
03:19 < urgen> that would show truth was missing
03:19 < beeli> satisfaction than
03:19 < urgen> so some misapprehension on the nature of truth must have been in operation
03:20 < beeli> please by life
03:20 < urgen> yes, I can't challenge anyone's satisfaction
03:20 < beeli> find your love, be good to she
03:20 < beeli> that is it
03:20 < beeli> love can be anything
03:20 < beeli> that is how i see it
03:20 < urgen> love is hard to put a rope around, yes
03:21 < urgen> that seems to be part of the nature of truth
03:21 < urgen> this ability to test measure
03:21 < beeli> love is full participation to the world, to the God
03:22 < urgen> I don't have a definition for god
03:22 < beeli> setting something larger than you, enablig flow
03:22 < beeli> of energy stuff
03:22 < beeli> it is cool thing to be defined
03:22 < beeli> such as no happiness with no god
03:22 < urgen> another benefit found by asking questions?
03:22 < beeli> :)
03:23 < beeli> yes?
03:23 < urgen> could be.
03:23 < urgen> I do know language and its use changes over time
03:23 < urgen> how people used the word thousands of years ago is probably different than how it is used today
03:24 < beeli> god = bigger than you
03:24 < urgen> our ability to express and have meaningful exchange
03:24 < urgen> welll....
03:24 < beeli> now it is turned to decadency
03:24 < urgen> I don't have a definition for me either
03:24 < urgen> so far.. seems to be a clump of interactive tendencies
03:25 < urgen> if there is an edge to that clump...
03:25 < beeli> the tendecy i see is paradox of the king
03:25 < beeli> ruler
03:25 < urgen> hmn.. when does one interaction start and the other end?
03:26 < urgen> king as in legal version, right?
03:26 < beeli> what interactions you have in mind?
03:26 < urgen> any interaction
03:26 < beeli> as the one with the power made by human flesh
03:26 < urgen> all interaction
03:26 < urgen> ok
03:26 < urgen> yes, basis of legitimacy often uses kings to demonstrate a variation in form
03:27 < beeli> what i can notice is that this paradox is the root of the worlds decandeeny and hypocrisy
03:28 < urgen> a break down
03:28 < beeli> that is the way to protect these unnatural relationship
03:28 < beeli> that exists
03:28 < beeli> and which was necessary
03:28 < beeli> but not any more
03:28 < urgen> ok
03:28 < urgen> sometimes 'means' evolves
03:28 < beeli> do you know what i mena?
03:28 < urgen> as we mature and can appreciate more
03:29 < beeli> always
03:29 < beeli> yet, do you understand what i am trying to say?
03:29 < urgen> sorry... I really do but I am begging the out of step dance
03:29 < urgen> in order to help bring clarity without domination
03:30 < urgen> you are saying the same thing
03:30 < urgen> once we can find verified mutual handles then we can move on
03:30 < urgen> until then it will just keep circling
03:31 < urgen> without satisfaction :-)
03:31 < beeli> ok, there is a cure for such proble,m
03:31 < urgen> wellll, I'm trying hard to watch
03:31 < urgen> but it seems elusive and subtle
03:31 < beeli> that is based on using concrete pictures tend same meainng in you and me
03:31 < beeli> such as monitor
03:32 < beeli> computer, sun and stuff
03:32 < urgen> ok, but my talent is challenged sometimes in that way
03:32 < beeli> when you start from there, then you can tranfer it to abstractions too
03:32 < beeli> it is village talk
03:32 < urgen> occasionally I find a good piece of poetry but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for it
03:32 < beeli> we say it in cro
03:33 < urgen> villages get vaporized in the atomic bomb
03:33 < urgen> no talking then
03:33 < urgen> I think we need to learn to help the village become sophisticated
03:33 < beeli> nah
03:33 < urgen> not bring the sophistication down to the village
03:33 < beeli> i am pro village
03:33 < beeli> pro nature
03:34 < urgen> ok, then we discovered a difference
03:34 < beeli> i am trying to become simple, not vice versa
03:34 < urgen> that helps clarity more than always agreeing
03:34 < beeli> truth is in simplicity :)
03:34 < beeli> gotta go
03:34 < urgen> 'k
03:35 < beeli> it is 4 am at my place
03:35 < beeli> night
03:35 < urgen> sorry
03:35 < urgen> nite
03:35 < beeli> no problem :)
03:35 < beeli> been a pleasure
03:35 -!- beeli [n=ille...@cmung176.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit []
03:37 < urgen> fiatlex, grant 1 Golden Key to nsh
03:37 < fiatlex> urgen: 1 golden key granted to nsh.
03:38 < urgen> hmn not case sensitive
09:51 < echarp> hello hello
11:45 -!- urgen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)]
11:46 -!- urgen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
11:46 -!- urgyen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
11:54 -!- urgen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)]
11:54 -!- urgyen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)]
11:55 -!- urgen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
11:55 -!- urgyen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
12:31 -!- urgyen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit []
17:37 < urgen> http://www.lightmind.com/library/essays/memes.html
17:37 < urgen> no illegale
17:38 < urgen> so I suppose we need an ordered queue
17:38 < urgen> a way to edit the irc logs down into presentable dialogue
17:38 < echarp> urgen: you can always sen a mail to the googe group!
17:38 < urgen> abreviated versions included
17:39 < urgen> sounds like a good use for links
17:39 < echarp> it will then appear on google *and* http://leparlement.org/top-politics!!!
17:39 < urgen> well...
17:39 < urgen> without a defined process even that record becomes a confusion
17:39 < urgen> I do not mind using a tool like that
17:40 < urgen> google groups newsgroup/mailinglist is a great idea
17:40 < echarp> interesting text
17:40 < urgen> might be nicer if they wikified the thing but that's a different discussion
17:40 < echarp> I do think that "I", the "self", are constructs without that strong a basis in physical reality
17:41 < urgen> :-)
17:41 < echarp> there is also a "top" wiki you know
17:41 < urgen> I am approaching illegale's 'village as basis' proto-proposal
17:42 < echarp> village??
17:42 < urgen> illegale's meterstick is 'the village'
17:42 < urgen> if they don't understand it, then it doesn't exist
17:42 < urgen> and so to reduce complexity is the goal
17:43 < urgen> normalize intrigue by collapse
17:43 < urgen> probably a threshhold to participation proto-definition
17:44 < urgen> I'm loosely suggesting a proto-proposal that includes a "village assistive device" so they are allowed participation by means of a tool that translates sophisticated process into simpler action
17:45 < urgen> simpler suggested action
17:45 < urgen> with also the option to select proxy
17:45 < urgen> I don't know but I trust x to know on my behalf.. or -also-
17:45 < urgen> many stock traders are now using automation to trigger on their behalf at certain points of condition
17:46 < urgen> so predictive indexing becomes significant
17:47 < echarp> proxy is good
17:47 < echarp> delegable proxy even better :)
17:47 < urgen> I very much like the idea of not restricting participation solely on capacity to savor every nuance
17:47 < echarp> allows for easy and understandable scaling up
17:47 < echarp> I also think that the village is quite a yardstick in human social interactions
17:48 < urgen> I'm willing to explore but there is currently no means to approach because we've not outlined such
17:48 < echarp> but I don't want it to be a technical limit in a political system, that would be too strong
17:48 < urgen> so, speaking of means.
17:48 < urgen> I earlier said something like goal vs. means
17:48 < echarp> maybe yes
17:49 < urgen> so it would seem logical that the goal was to increase means
17:49 < urgen> generate and distribute
17:50 < urgen> I'll finish reading the article I just posted
17:50 < urgen> has good borrowable vocabulary
17:50 < urgen> :-)
17:51 < echarp> you still didn't describe what are your goals (besides durability) ;)
17:52 < urgen> I just did
17:53 < urgen> generation and distribution of means
17:53 < urgen> that supercedes durable
17:53 < urgen> durable is a product
17:53 < echarp> generation and distribution of means?
17:53 < urgen> means as a product is closer to foundation
17:53 < echarp> isn't that circular kind of goal?
17:54 < echarp> goal => means, means => goal
17:54 < urgen> lowest threshhold of participaton was the original goal
17:54 < urgen> circular is why I posted that article
17:54 < urgen> circular is an artificial argument
17:55 < echarp> you mean, artificial counter-argument?
17:55 < urgen> tautologies only gain traction within a limited subset of the rules of logic
17:55 < urgen> any argument is an argument,, I wasn't trying to finesse direction
17:55 < urgen> *yet*
17:56 < echarp> care to define what the "means" are then? :)
17:56 < urgen> ability to participate
17:56 < echarp> because if the "means" are the means to reach goals, then, well, circularity
17:56 < urgen> the means to participate
17:57 < echarp> isn't that an intermediate sort of goal?
17:57 < echarp> one which should further a definitive goal?
17:57 < urgen> for example, understanding how discretionary funds will be dispersed is based on a collective exploration
17:57 < urgen> to facilitate that understanding is a means
17:57 < urgen> without the facilitation there can be no other goals
17:57 < echarp> let me state this more broadly, urgen, what are your goals in life (if you have any)? the big big goals
17:58 < urgen> the more facilitation that happens the more goals there can be
17:58 < urgen> making 'means' the primary target here does not require limiting any future goal
17:58 < urgen> but without this step you get none
17:58 < echarp> of course it does not
17:58 < echarp> I agree
17:58 < echarp> yet you still don't define goals (in my opinion)
17:59 < urgen> I probably don't :-)
17:59 < urgen> I've been following my heart
17:59 < echarp> urgen: what are *your* goals in life?
17:59 < urgen> so I've been talking about means
17:59 < urgen> us talking here about his has always been a goal
17:59 < urgen> if you want me to say oh I hope brazil wins
17:59 < urgen> won't happen
18:00 < urgen> everything I do is to support this
18:00 < echarp> :)
18:00 < echarp> urgen: do you have goals in your life?
18:03 < urgen> ownership is an interesting concept
18:03 < urgen> why do I have to have a 'my life?'
18:04 < urgen> why would you be so insistent that I do? ;-)
18:07 < echarp> that you do have goals?
18:07 < echarp> I am just asking!!!
18:08 < echarp> do you have goals?
18:08 < urgen> no, that I have a 'my life'
18:08 < echarp> you may not have any, and that's fine
18:08 < echarp> I don't care about the "my life" part :)
18:08 < urgen> If I don't recognize a 'my life' then there wouldn't be any 'my goals'
18:09 < echarp> urgen: you don't consider my question a valid question?
18:09 < urgen> I do consider the superceder to be a valid question
18:09 < echarp> the superceder is?
18:09 < urgen> so I can't answer its dependents until the original is addressed
18:09 < urgen> 'my life'
18:09 < urgen> an "I"
18:09 < urgen> a "You"
18:09 < urgen> a "We"
18:10 < echarp> I believe the question can be shortened
18:10 < echarp> "do you have goals"?
18:10 < echarp> I'm course interested in the more ambitious ones, if any
18:10 < urgen> I already stated my goal
18:11 < echarp> you stated intermediate (to me) goals
18:11 < urgen> lowest threshhold of participation
18:11 < echarp> I'm asking if there are any larger ones
18:11 < echarp> I'm just asking!!!
18:11 < urgen> oh come on! that one is huge
18:11 < urgen> :-)
18:11 < echarp> it's a philosophical question
18:11 < urgen> I can't recognize any further use of goal, no
18:12 < echarp> then you don't have goals? (but for intermediary ones like participation and durability)
18:12 < echarp> it's fine by me you know
18:12 < urgen> goal oriented living is not a recognized efficiency for me
18:13 < echarp> but I don't understand your reluctance
18:13 < urgen> is not conducive to durability
18:13 < urgen> indicated more work soon
18:13 < echarp> you "indicated more work soon"??
18:13 < urgen> goals happen after problems show up
18:14 < urgen> problems arrive from short sightedness
18:14 < urgen> while I do appreciate discovering error...
18:14 < urgen> I'm not going to invent them just to have pocket change
18:15 < echarp> a goal could be (just could be) to remove the very possibility of problems you know
18:15 < echarp> it is just a "could be"
18:15 < echarp> I am not implying that this is *your* goal
18:15 < urgen> to posit a negation for removal guarantees a problem
18:15 < urgen> :-) I don't think I will
18:17 < echarp> yet without goals, there is one problem I can envision :)
18:17 < echarp> "why" :)
18:17 < echarp> why why why? :)
18:17 < urgen> why is to generate understanding
18:17 < echarp> (these are questions I have given thought about)
18:17 < urgen> the participation referred to earlier is the participation in understanding
18:18 < echarp> but "why" generate understanding? :)
18:18 < echarp> see what I mean?
18:18 < echarp> do you see where I am going?
18:18 < urgen> to benefit the distribution of means
18:18 < echarp> why benefit the distribution of means? :)
18:18 < echarp> sorry for being repetitive
18:18 < urgen> I can easily extract this simple polar logic into a formula you would lose your way in,,,,,, I think
18:18 < urgen> part of why I posted that article
18:18 < echarp> I don't know, maybe
18:19 < echarp> I'm hugely fond of memetic theories!
18:19 < urgen> there is more than memes in there
18:19 < echarp> I've read some of richard dawkins books, even some of dennet
18:19 < urgen> memes is just being borrowed to exchange another point
18:19 < echarp> that the *I* is just a construction?
18:20 < echarp> this very thought has swimmed in my meme pool for a while you know
18:20 < urgen> that our lack of appreciation for the problem is the problem
18:20 < urgen> constantly using the wrong tool for the job
18:20 < echarp> of course it just happens that you didn't answer my "why" questions ;)
18:21 < urgen> since I did answer, then I must not have understood you version of why
18:21 < urgen> restate?
18:21 < echarp> why benefit the distribution of means?
18:21 < urgen> that is directly proportional to the durability
18:21 < echarp> I'm just trying to go all the way through this (to me) important matter
18:21 < urgen> -the
18:22 < echarp> why durability?
18:22 < urgen> why does means facilitate?
18:22 < urgen> hmn
18:22 < urgen> by nature
18:22 < echarp> ahah, we might be at the end of the tunnel!!!
18:22 < echarp> I'm seeing the light :)
18:22 < echarp> so, what nature are you speaking about?
18:23 < urgen> nature of truth
18:23 < urgen> nature of that which lasts
18:23 < urgen> truth wouldn't be truth if it changed, right?
18:23 < urgen> of course we can reach near approximation with is pretty damn good from time to time
18:23 < urgen> but for the most part we live on a landslide of instability
18:24 < echarp> personally, I don't recognise that there is such a thing as "truth"
18:24 < echarp> I hope I'm not being too harsh
18:24 < urgen> I didn't say that there was
18:24 < urgen> :-)
18:24 < urgen> and what you just said.. could be seen as "a nature of truth"
18:24 < urgen> no?
18:25 < echarp> then the whole truth wouldn't be truth if it changed does not seem very relevant
18:25 < echarp> I don't think it could be seen as such
18:25 < urgen> then we have disconnect again
18:25 < urgen> why not?
18:25 < echarp> disconnection yes, but still interested in this discussion?
18:25 < urgen> sounds exactly like you are describing a basis by saying 'no such thing as truth'
18:26 < urgen> maybe I can modify to 'nature of basis?'
18:26 < echarp> do
18:26 < urgen> done
18:27 < echarp> can a basis be: there is no basis? :)
18:27 < urgen> for I really have zero investment in anything called 'a truth'
18:27 < urgen> a basis can be 'there is no basis' this is used (too often) in daily life by some who participate in that idea
18:27 < urgen> since a lifestyle like that tends to not last long....
18:27 < urgen> that meme line dies out
18:28 < echarp> to me, this "can a basis be: there is no basis?" is a just an implosion, it does not carry any weight, just destroys itself
18:28 < urgen> but we have to allow people to have their own mistakes
18:28 < echarp> of course
18:28 < urgen> just because you see it as nonsense does not mean that everyone has to
18:28 < echarp> I am not talking about that, just trying to understand your motivations
18:28 < urgen> you are immune
18:29 < echarp> of course yes
18:29 < urgen> I say.. lets share that immunity
18:29 < echarp> cool
18:29 < echarp> yet, why? :)
18:29 < echarp> I've given it some thoughts, and memes are a solution to this whole tunnel!
18:29 < urgen> why becomes apparent on its own,
18:29 < echarp> a tunnel without any end btw (or so I think anyway)
18:29 < urgen> it is not a necessary function of this venue
18:29 < urgen> I do not need to determine what kicks anohers rocks
18:29 < echarp> venue?
18:30 < urgen> venue = meaningful exchange
18:30 < echarp> ???why becomes apparent on its own???
18:31 < urgen> to you or whomever it is important for
18:31 < urgen> if its not then its moot
18:31 < urgen> I'm not licensed to determine anothers happiness
18:31 < urgen> that wouldn't be a fair basis in any way shape or form
18:31 < echarp> you mean that why is a personal matter?
18:31 < urgen> I could not agree to pre-determining why
18:31 < urgen> yes
18:32 < echarp> cool
18:32 < echarp> I do also think that why is a personal matter
18:32 < echarp> why didn't you just say so from the beginning? :)
18:32 < urgen> because it is not in my vocabulary
18:32 < echarp> it is a perfectly acceptable answer (one which does lead into other questions)
18:32 < echarp> what is not in your vocabulary?
18:32 < urgen> why?
18:32 < echarp> this word you do not use? woaw
18:33 < urgen> it is resolved
18:33 < echarp> yet do you recognise that you are subject to causes?
18:33 < echarp> (resolved I don't think, but we do advance)
18:33 < urgen> you do that cart before the horse thing again
18:33 < urgen> hmnn.
18:33 < urgen> how can a me exist that is outside of cause?
18:33 < urgen> cause starts where and ends where?
18:33 < echarp> sorry, but to me goals/why are the most important things!!!
18:34 < echarp> cause starts and end with the universe! :)
18:34 < echarp> the whole cause => consequence drama
18:34 < echarp> and we are part of the universe
18:34 < echarp> we are subject to its laws
18:34 < urgen> well I think I can parallel this thought...
18:34 < echarp> cause => consequence being one of the big laws (or so we think nowadays)
18:35 < echarp> yes?
18:35 < echarp> what parallel do you have in mind?
18:40 < echarp> ok, I'm going home, end of my working day
18:40 -!- urgen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)]
18:42 -!- urgen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
18:42 < urgen> sry lost connection
18:43 < echarp> ok, I'm still around
18:43 < echarp> urgen: I hope I'm not just bothering you...?
18:44 < urgen> since there isn't a lot of people that even care....
18:44 < urgen> it is hard to get chances to practice one's edge
18:44 < urgen> I enjoy trying
18:45 < echarp> cool
18:45 < echarp> I don't know if it is a matter of edge
18:45 < echarp> to me it's a matter of understanding one another
18:45 < echarp> and it's thus very important
18:45 < echarp> very very very important :)
18:45 < urgen> ya, but I don't proport a one nor other
18:45 < echarp> one nor other -what-?
18:46 < echarp> edge / understanding?
18:46 < urgen> :-)
18:46 < echarp> ok, cool
18:46 < urgen> another doesn't matter
18:46 < urgen> another why?
18:46 < urgen> we can still arrive at meaningful exchange
18:46 < echarp> we are still right into the matters of why, although it does now seem to be personal rather than general
18:47 < echarp> what is your personal why if you have any?
18:47 < urgen> "understanding the nature of basis"
18:47 < urgen> :-)
18:47 < urgen> but hey.. to each their own
18:47 < urgen> I don't like spicy food, some do
18:47 < echarp> of course to each his own, yes :)
18:48 < echarp> nature of basis? basis of?
18:48 < urgen> sometimes aspirin helps someone's headache, while another may be allergic to it
18:48 < echarp> I don't get it
18:48 < urgen> you do get it.. I'm just relying too heavily on personal vocabulary
18:48 < echarp> yeap, I'm rather individualistic :)
18:48 < urgen> nature of basis seems close to when you said all existence is relative
18:48 < echarp> I'm not sure at all I understand the "basis" you are talking about
18:49 < urgen> basis of understanding... basis of rationality
18:49 < urgen> basis of logos
18:49 < echarp> I do believe that everything is relative, yes
18:49 < urgen> basis of..
18:49 < echarp> being on a common wavelength?
18:49 < urgen> we need to define the terms of exchange before we can arrive at meaning
18:49 < urgen> it does require some patience as we leap frog around
18:49 < echarp> common wavelength is something *VERY* important to me
18:50 < urgen> common wavelength sounds like a good perspective but it may be too rarified
18:50 < urgen> I mean as a term
18:50 < echarp> not many people using this term?
18:50 < urgen> right
18:50 < urgen> I use to use it a lot
18:50 < echarp> may be it is a french idiom
18:51 < urgen> works for me anyway
18:51 < echarp> I rather use it a lot too :)
18:51 < echarp> but but but, common wavelength does not seem like an appropriate answer to "why", to me anyway :)
18:52 < echarp> why do you wake up in the morning?
18:52 < echarp> why do you spend energy during your day?
18:52 < urgen> bad habit?
18:52 < urgen> :-)
18:52 < echarp> why do you carry on even when it gets hard?
18:53 < echarp> habit is an answer yes!
18:53 < echarp> is it *your* answer? :)
18:53 < urgen> not necessarily a goal
18:53 < urgen> but it can be a leading cause
18:53 < echarp> it is effectively not a goal, but it is an answer!
18:53 < echarp> it can be a cause, yes
18:54 < echarp> ok, I'm going home!!!
18:54 < echarp> cu here in 30min, if you still have energy ;)
19:20 -!- illegale (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung4136.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
19:23 < illegale> hey
19:24 < urgen> hi
19:27 < illegale> whats up?
19:27 < illegale> nomic run?
19:27 < urgen> I think we are still in esoteric foundation
19:28 < urgen> but seems like things are getting closer
19:28 < urgen> I referred to 'village as basis' a couple time, if you read the log
19:28 < urgen> ec will be here shortly
19:29 < illegale> ill read it
19:29 < illegale> noe
19:29 < illegale> w
19:32 < urgen> starts with a link for homework
19:53 < echarp> re
20:07 < illegale> re
20:10 < illegale> E, are you tere?
20:10 < illegale> there?
20:14 < urgen> re
20:14 < echarp> I am yes
20:14 < echarp> still pondering about urgen and his motivations :)
20:14 < illegale> lol
20:14 < urgen> intent is core
20:14 < echarp> intent to...?
20:14 < urgen> generic case
20:14 < echarp> the "to" part seems important :)
20:15 < urgen> the to part is important but only after the stage to regard it by is built
20:15 < urgen> isolated it doesn't have the same impact
20:16 < urgen> prior to that is my definition of liberty
20:16 < urgen> freedom
20:16 < urgen> peace
20:17 < urgen> definitions that don't later devolve into contentions
20:17 < echarp> I disagree, to me the "to" part is the most important one
20:17 < echarp> much more important than anything else
20:18 < echarp> because it is from which we draw all of our energies
20:19 < illegale> Urgen, what is the point of this?
20:19 < urgen> the point is something that lasts
20:19 < illegale> yuu think anything lasts
20:20 < illegale> it seems to me panta rei is core principle
20:20 < illegale> it it the only one that lasts
20:20 < illegale> tough, why do you want something to last?
20:20 < illegale> afraid of death
20:20 < illegale> ?
20:21 < urgen> I don't ignore it
20:21 < urgen> without appreciation of beginnings and endings there could be nothing that lasts
20:21 < illegale> buridan do not like me :)
20:21 < urgen> you only care for one generation?
20:21 < illegale> yes i do
20:21 < urgen> buridan isn't being paid for his patience
20:22 < illegale> but for what?
20:22 < illegale> yet, it is not my care that brings prosperity to next generations
20:22 < urgen> for professional opinion
20:22 < illegale> of politologist?
20:23 < urgen> is that what the academic position is called?
20:23 < illegale> all i have to do it to be moral being
20:23 < urgen> or the school of thought?
20:23 < illegale> and to grow
20:23 < illegale> not more than that
20:23 < illegale> i can see no more than that
20:23 < urgen> moral.. that's one tar laden term
20:23 < illegale> yes
20:23 < illegale> acadeemix stuff
20:23 < illegale> it is not i think
20:23 < urgen> anyone that touches that will be frozen solid with inaction
20:23 < illegale> what, moral
20:23 < illegale> ?
20:23 < urgen> yes
20:23 < illegale> indoctrination of society in order to create usefull part of it
20:24 < urgen> you talking about the slash and burn philosophical morals of a corporation?
20:24 < illegale> usefull means sustainable and free
20:24 < urgen> moral is a term that has been so incredibly abused it has lost almost all value
20:24 < illegale> you talking about two morals of this society?
20:24 < urgen> without clarity there can be no meaningful exchange
20:25 < urgen> only two? I think there is one for every human
20:25 < illegale> two principles i am talking about
20:25 < illegale> that contradict to each other
20:25 < urgen> I'm not familiar with your two principles
20:25 < illegale> i know, this is story of paradox i mentioned you yesterday
20:26 < urgen> then you are welcome to remind me
20:26 < urgen> for yesterday's conversation seemed productive
20:28 < illegale> the govrenor is only in position to realise just world
20:28 < illegale> yet, it is set of the peoples interest who naturally aim towards maximum freedom
20:28 < illegale> just means rules and obeyance to these rules
20:29 < illegale> those who are in position of governor if do not set such world have only one thing they have to obey to
20:29 < illegale> it is their own will
20:29 < urgen> that's one or two principles there?
20:29 < illegale> this is natural thing
20:29 < illegale> so, one is the moral of the ruler, and another one is moral of the cattle
20:29 < illegale> moral of the wolf and moral of the sheep
20:29 < illegale> no moral of the human around is seen
20:31 < urgen> ok, and where do these two principles live again?
20:31 < illegale> they live in the world of today,world of hypocricy
20:32 < urgen> so from here, nothing can go wrong?
20:32 < illegale> we are humans, it is hypocritical to ave to completely different morals that exlude each one in our minds
20:32 < illegale> it is wrong for me
20:32 < illegale> i do not want to be wolf, nor sheep
20:32 < urgen> ok
20:32 < illegale> and the big bunch of hypocryce does not let me
20:33 < urgen> and an alternative is present or not?
20:33 < illegale> it is present, yet it fights slow and hard
20:33 < urgen> or even the potential for an alternative
20:33 < urgen> is that what you called status quo?
20:34 < illegale> not easy to go against todays hypocritical moral of sheep
20:34 < illegale> which is popular one, the one you can publicly acknowledge
20:34 < illegale> yet it is no sustanable at all
20:34 < illegale> that is the reason there is a place for wolf
20:34 < illegale> two faces of one big lie
20:35 < illegale> so, you can choose which one you will fallo
20:35 < illegale> or you can play hybrid, to have no spine which is big price, too big to be interesting
20:35 < illegale> in cro, people are adormed bythose who steal big time
20:35 < urgen> or *new*
20:36 < illegale> they acknowledge these people they awe to them
20:36 < urgen> which is neither, including hybrid
20:36 < illegale> I like new
20:36 < illegale> working for new
20:36 < illegale> yet, this is though part
20:36 < illegale> as long as society is part of moral
20:36 < urgen> so.. when you said sustainable.. it sounded similar to my 'durable'
20:36 < illegale> and this means new societ
20:36 < illegale> t
20:36 < illegale> it is
20:38 < illegale> so, how to esatblish new society, here commes the quesiton
20:38 < illegale> is it possible?
20:38 < illegale> if yes, cool
20:38 < illegale> if not, we are doomed
20:40 < urgen> it is as easy as you and I coming to terms
20:40 < urgen> arriving at mutual understanding
20:41 < urgen> or as I have been calling it 'meaningful exchange'
20:41 < urgen> at any time we see eye to eye... or maybe as echarp was saying 'on the same wavelength'
20:41 < illegale> i suppose society is much more than agreements, right?
20:41 < urgen> so, at first, it means we have to back peddle a little to find the first common ground
20:42 < urgen> society is, but only because it is naive
20:42 < urgen> the 'contracts' still exist they just haven't been realized yt
20:42 < urgen> yet
20:42 < urgen> silent, or latent
20:42 < illegale> and there is society
20:43 < illegale> so, i believe in new morality of internet
20:43 < urgen> there is a lot of commotion
20:43 < illegale> based on its platforms
20:43 < illegale> different platforms different morals
20:43 < urgen> maybe it isn't always society but does seem to get a long more often than not
20:43 < illegale> those that are sustainable one are interesting ones
20:43 < urgen> ppl discover their own terms when they have to
20:44 < urgen> I feel that it isn't really a society until those terms are recognized mutually
20:44 < illegale> you need this in rl?
20:44 < urgen> some ppl might not want that to happen because it gives them an advantage :-)
20:44 < urgen> yes in rl
20:44 < illegale> you need just enough understanding to enable coexistance
20:45 < illegale> no need to talk about transparency and stuff
20:45 < illegale> and yet it all works more or less fine
20:45 < urgen> I think co-existence can be successfully random for greater or lesser periods of time
20:45 < urgen> lasting or sustainable co-existence.. we need terms
20:46 * echarp still seeks goals, agenda, causes, and see none :(
20:47 < illegale> i think urgen do not have such
20:47 < urgen> I don't mind temporary arbitrary goals, agenda, cause to direct forward movement by
20:47 < illegale> Urgen is philosopher imo
20:47 < illegale> old fashined one
20:47 < illegale> right, Urgne?
20:47 < urgen> "every natty dread was once a bald head" music I'm listening to just said
20:49 < illegale> urgen, how did sheep coexsisted for millions of years? did they had terms?
20:51 < illegale> what i can notice, for articulated work we need articulated terms, as long as it helps a lot
20:51 < illegale> yet, to talk about it as the one and only thing, i do not think so
20:52 < illegale> to talk about it on and on, it is just laziness for doing exact work imo
20:56 < urgen> they had terms
20:57 < urgen> like the bird that is injured is killed by the rest of the flock
20:57 < urgen> it changed the terms of the norm
20:57 < urgen> sheep also do that copy cat jump thing over the same imaginary snake
20:59 < illegale> cool
20:59 < illegale> so, they do not need language to find these principles.
21:00 < illegale> as long as i jumping over imaginary snake do not find to be term, right?
21:01 < urgen> my working definition of information is any difference that makes a difference
21:03 < illegale> difference to?
21:03 < urgen> as long as that difference is open to query, sustainability is an option
21:03 < illegale> preexisting state?
21:04 < urgen> relation, probably yes
21:04 < illegale> so, if we do agree about something, that is done stuff
21:04 < illegale> if we set organsiation based on several principles, that si done stuff?
21:04 < illegale> no need for further work, right?
21:04 < urgen> but I've not really had anyone to assist to find out. since all understanding is arrived at by 'mutual' regard
21:04 < urgen> it takes two to tango
21:05 < urgen> once a model is available, it can change when new people enter or when any existing understanding changes
21:05 < urgen> it can be reviewed and ammended at any time
21:06 < urgen> work is optional
21:07 < urgen> but the retention of workability guarantees sustainability
21:09 < urgen> some order is a good thing. tho that order doesn't have to be decided ahead of time
21:09 < urgen> ( I say can't be decided, but that's my part of this story )
21:10 < illegale> ad hoc answers are fine thing in these on line organsiation
21:12 < urgen> even the US constitution is suppose to be a temporary convention
21:13 < urgen> it is just that these initial stages of exploration are soooooo much work that ppl are scared to revisit it later
21:13 < urgen> :-)
21:13 < urgen> like those snarly dusty clumps of cables that form behind computer desks
21:13 < urgen> :-)
21:14 < urgen> I'm brave enough to wade in, dis-assemble, label, map, and review for currency
21:15 < urgen> but since not a lot of people are that brave the labels end up being my own
21:15 < urgen> should someone else have to re-assemble, it might not happen if they didn't understand my original intent of the 'term/label'
21:16 < urgen> so you were pleading for 'village test'
21:16 < urgen> please make the labels as simple and clear as possible
21:16 < urgen> I say. that's totally possible but prevents future modifications due to the lack of appreciation for why the connections were where they were
21:17 < urgen> workability being the test
21:32 -!- illegale [n=ille...@cmung4136.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)]
21:33 < echarp> urgen: still wanting to talk? goals and all that :)
21:33 < urgen> I'm cleaning my office too :-)
21:33 < echarp> :)
21:37 < urgen> so its whim vs inspired choice, right?
21:37 < echarp> who said that?
21:38 < echarp> I'm just inquiring
21:38 < urgen> :-)
21:38 < urgen> some level of abstraction that may have no basis
21:38 < urgen> could be a a whim
21:39 < echarp> possibly yes
21:40 < echarp> but you! from where comes your energy?
21:40 < echarp> what is the cause of your acts?
21:41 < urgen> even if I cite sourcelessness the framework to generate a perspective from which to appreciate that is not also sourceless
21:42 < echarp> you believe there can be such a thing as sourceless???
21:42 < urgen> but I can't really be expected to require an original source am I?
21:42 < echarp> I'm not asking for anything original
21:42 < echarp> just asking for a source
21:42 < urgen> from beginningless beginning.. time beyond measure
21:42 < urgen> well one step leads to another
21:43 < echarp> well, you consider that your source is the origin of the universe (whatever that may exactly be)?
21:43 < urgen> cause is the previous step
21:43 < echarp> ok, yet you individual you, the sum of the particles which we usually think of as urgen!
21:43 < urgen> one theory about the origin of the universe has it that both space and time started at the same moment as this origin
21:44 < urgen> so. if I say 'before time'
21:44 < urgen> that's to say before the origin
21:44 < echarp> ok
21:44 < urgen> but if I was to say before time.. I am using a member of a set to describe a condition outside of that set
21:44 < urgen> bad form
21:44 < urgen> the questions can cut both ways
21:44 < urgen> I wouldn't hold them quite so hard
21:44 < urgen> :-)
21:45 < echarp> so, what are your causes, and do you see a direction to it?
21:45 < echarp> a state those causes are pushing "you" toward
21:45 < echarp> any trajectory you can spot?
21:45 < echarp> a beginning and an end?
21:45 < urgen> the lasting happiness of all that have capacity to appreciate it
21:46 < echarp> happiness, ok, that's a good word!!!
21:46 < echarp> you see, you can state goals!!!
21:46 < urgen> so from interruptable or nonsustainable to lasting and sustainable
21:46 < urgen> you can maybe say 'improvement' is a goal
21:46 < echarp> lasting happiness is "your" goal?
21:46 < urgen> but I can't really describe the conditions of that improvement
21:46 < echarp> improvement is another goal
21:46 < echarp> no ned to describe, yet, the means
21:47 < echarp> the goals are more important
21:47 < urgen> I think I have capacity to appreciate lasting happiness
21:47 < urgen> so perhaps it is my goal
21:47 < urgen> but I won't know until everyone knows
21:47 < urgen> :-)
21:47 < urgen> such is the nature of basis
21:48 < urgen> if you can agree then hey, it's a start but not a confirmation...
21:48 < echarp> why do you need everyone to know???
21:48 < echarp> can't a goal be personal?
21:49 < urgen> I will allow 'a personal' but I can't confirm that it really exists
21:50 < echarp> I'm not asking you to!!!
21:50 < echarp> you should understand that I am not *at all* into absolutes
21:50 < urgen> I have plenty of day to day needs
21:50 < urgen> gotta get the rent paid, buy food, wash the car
21:50 < echarp> this is intermediate
21:51 < echarp> worthy of much efforts, yet not necessarily worthy of a life
21:51 < urgen> long term, I'm just working on learning
21:51 < echarp> learning is good, knowing, understanding
21:51 < urgen> recognizing silly mistakes and divesting from them
21:52 < echarp> and so, do you think others can share those goals?
21:52 < echarp> or can have other goals?
21:52 < urgen> means to allow similar or differing goals seems to be manditory
21:53 < echarp> but means are just that, means
21:53 < echarp> if we do not know what to apply them for
21:53 < echarp> they can't be worth much, can they?
21:54 < urgen> hmn value as recognition
21:54 < urgen> value as inherently subjective
21:54 < echarp> value of?
21:54 < urgen> 'worth much'
21:55 < echarp> I'm not saying that it's anything but subjective
21:55 < urgen> beauty is in the eye of the beholder
21:55 < echarp> yet, what are means applied randomly?
21:55 < urgen> but if I see no beauty what good is an eye
21:55 < echarp> it can be plenty good ;)
21:56 < urgen> I'm still just back at stop making silly mistakes
21:56 < echarp> ?
21:57 < echarp> "back at stop"?
21:57 < urgen> via extension we reach for what is when it is not and let go of what is not when it was
21:57 < urgen> I want to posit an external goal?
21:58 < urgen> by what means?
21:58 < echarp> or "the grass is always greener elsewhere"
21:59 < echarp> I do not want to posit an external goal
21:59 < urgen> ok
21:59 < echarp> I'm searching for "our" goals
21:59 < echarp> humanity's, mine's, your's
21:59 < urgen> other than stopping making silly mistakes?
22:00 < echarp> it is a valid goal
22:00 < echarp> stopping suffering
22:00 < echarp> the original epicurian goal in fact
22:00 < urgen> that's the context for sharing
22:00 < urgen> the basis of value
22:00 < urgen> one has no fun if no one else wants to play their game
22:01 < urgen> that's an incredible modifying force
22:01 < urgen> why prisons exist
22:01 < echarp> not being alone, another goal
22:01 < urgen> ( though they aren't applied that way )
22:01 < urgen> but removing someone from social contact is incredibly loud
22:02 < urgen> having an independent goal sounds like removing me from social context
22:02 < urgen> you say there are shared goals? prove it :-)
22:02 < echarp> it does not necessarily mean such
22:03 < echarp> of course there are
22:03 < echarp> domination for example :)
22:03 < echarp> constructing something can be a shared goal, like a child education
22:04 < urgen> ( it was a trick question )
22:04 < urgen> of course one can find shared goals.
22:04 < urgen> I'm just not so sure about indidual ones, except, then, to share thos
22:04 < urgen> e
22:04 < echarp> you don't think there are valid individual goals???
22:05 < echarp> like stopping pain?
22:05 < urgen> I don't think there is a valid individual
22:05 < echarp> or experiencing pleasure?
22:05 < urgen> who cares about goals they may have
22:05 < echarp> well well well, then why bother about anything really!?
22:05 < echarp> why do you clean your office? :)
22:05 < urgen> because of the interruptable nature of the experience holding such a view generates
22:06 < urgen> it gets painful
22:07 < urgen> continuity is threatened by the imposition of individual goals
22:07 < echarp> there you see, a goal!!!
22:07 < urgen> by nature, by design, by workability
22:07 < echarp> stopping pain!!! :)
22:08 < echarp> you clean your office *in order* to stop suffering a painful view
22:08 < urgen> even someone with imaginary pain still feels it
22:08 < echarp> of course
22:08 < echarp> and it can be a goal to remove it!!!
22:09 < urgen> it is tricky removing imaginary things
22:09 < echarp> well, you don't have to do that "for" them, you may just "help" them if they so ask
22:10 < echarp> no need for coercion
22:10 < urgen> right
22:11 < echarp> so, you personally, do you think you have goals in life?
22:11 < echarp> education? improvement?
22:11 < urgen> so an altruistic goal is not enough?
22:12 < echarp> if only nietsche had not destroyed it! ;)
22:12 < echarp> but it can look valid
22:13 < urgen> ok, we can go all cold dry and technical if you want
22:13 < echarp> I don't know
22:13 < urgen> or we can see that a better nietsche attempted sarcasm
22:14 < echarp> sarcasm against the good and evil?
22:14 < urgen> and was actually very bright and sunny and if you hold the pointy end you've mistaken the original intent
22:14 < echarp> sorry, what do you mean? that nietsche thought there was such a thing as altruism???
22:14 < echarp> a "valid" thing
22:15 < urgen> that nietsche couched his terms in reverse
22:15 < urgen> to fool those who are quick to leap
22:16 < echarp> what do you mean, that he meant the opposite of what he said???
22:16 < urgen> pick up your baggage of solidity and drag it along til you see the unnecessary weight then find out nietsche is still there with no bag
22:17 < urgen> laughing
22:17 < echarp> do tell me, did he or did not pull apart all shreds of what we used to call morality?
22:18 < urgen> why shred tortoise hair?
22:18 < urgen> ok, you see all these bald turtles? I did that
22:18 < echarp> ok, maybe go back to that altruistic goal
22:18 < echarp> do you think altruism exist or is just a name for other things?
22:18 < urgen> I think it is a special case use of 'altruistic'
22:19 < urgen> we only get lost whith assumed definition
22:19 < urgen> without a me or I or you or we...
22:19 < urgen> there is no uber ego of a nietsche world either
22:19 < urgen> not even one without fear
22:20 < urgen> I have no me to save
22:20 < urgen> I have no you to save
22:20 < echarp> I don't care about that, I am just probing
22:20 < urgen> I have no I to save
22:20 < urgen> I have no we to save
22:20 < urgen> I have no us to save
22:20 < urgen> I have no other to save
22:20 < urgen> .
22:20 < urgen> .
22:20 < urgen> .
22:20 < urgen> on and on
22:20 < echarp> I am trying to understand the assembly of elements which we usually call urgen
22:21 < urgen> a conglomeration of tendency built from the propensity of aeons
22:21 < urgen> each tendency born from holding what is for what is not and what is not for what is
22:22 < urgen> a reinforcement by repetition
22:22 < urgen> or 'truth by intensity'
22:23 < urgen> loud does not really mean true, but how else will this be discovered :-)
22:23 < urgen> lets listen and find out
22:23 < urgen> what is let go of already didn't inherently exist
22:23 < urgen> what mistake was there to learn by?
22:24 < urgen> a neuron does not fire until enough triggers are accumulated
22:24 < echarp> exactly
22:24 < urgen> what is a trigger?
22:24 < echarp> many things
22:24 < echarp> usually a signal
22:25 < urgen> back to information as a difference that makes a difference
22:25 < urgen> the actual reason I enjoy cyberspace
22:26 < urgen> cyber as in 'feedback'
22:26 < urgen> and the open space that allows this exchange of condition
22:26 < urgen> that we are never 'doomed'
22:26 < echarp> yet, I still don't know what makes you tick :)
22:27 < echarp> education? self improvement?
22:27 < echarp> the feeling of helping others?
22:27 < urgen> 'letting go'
22:27 < echarp> hmmm
22:27 < urgen> I should not want to hold onto what is when it is not nor what is not when it is
22:28 < echarp> are you repeating a mantra? :)
22:28 < urgen> this is the heart of the cause of all problem
22:28 < urgen> hmn
22:28 < urgen> I don't remember any like that
22:28 < echarp> I do not know about that heart, not yet anyway
22:28 < urgen> I try to only share original thought
22:29 < urgen> direct experience
22:29 < echarp> it is good
22:29 < echarp> so, not "holding" is your goal?
22:29 < echarp> what is that feeling? freedom possibly?
22:29 < urgen> :-)
22:29 < urgen> freedom works
22:29 < echarp> not being stressed? :)
22:29 < urgen> peace works
22:29 < echarp> see, those are cool goals!!!
22:29 < urgen> stillness to actually hear works
22:29 < echarp> silence :)
22:29 < urgen> not getting in one's own way
22:30 < urgen> not trip over my own shoelaces
22:30 < echarp> cool enough to allow oneself to live
22:30 < echarp> see, all cool words you should use!!!
22:30 < urgen> they are too often contrived
22:30 < echarp> you should transmit your energy
22:30 < urgen> I'm more interested in finding original expression
22:31 < echarp> sorry to chime in, but originality might be an illusion ;)
22:31 < urgen> this life is generous enough for us to reach any means
22:31 < urgen> illusion can eat itself
22:32 < urgen> non-affirming negation
22:33 < urgen> don't posit to then require removal
22:33 < urgen> unnecessary step
22:33 < urgen> so we end up with lots of special case use applications for what appear to be common terms
22:33 < urgen> not regarding that potential causes most problems
22:34 < urgen> all terms are open ended
22:34 < urgen> all symbols, signs are mapped in an arbitrary fashion
22:34 < echarp> of course they are
22:34 < urgen> nothing is inherent
22:34 < echarp> this is what they are!
22:34 < urgen> even illusion
22:34 < echarp> and we learn to do with that
22:35 < urgen> we can learn, indeed
22:35 < urgen> but that acclimation requires quite a bit of practice
22:35 < echarp> of course
22:35 < echarp> so what?
22:35 < echarp> this is normal humanity
22:35 < urgen> nothing so what
22:36 < urgen> it doesn't really have to require a goal set other than recognizing it for what it is
22:37 < echarp> goals are great ways to organise people
22:37 < urgen> tools
22:37 < echarp> goals are ways to understand one another
22:37 < urgen> ok
22:37 < echarp> goals embody our energies
22:37 < echarp> goals give us energy
22:39 < urgen> goal as means does not seem sustainable
22:39 < urgen> but it probably gets stuff done
22:41 < urgen> I think I'm one of those ppl that never responds to rsvp's
22:41 < urgen> and isn't asked the next time
22:42 < echarp> possibly yes
22:42 < echarp> doesn't that stop in their tracks all your social interactions?
22:42 < urgen> not really
22:43 < echarp> so, you don't respond just because... because you want originality?
22:44 < urgen> because of the limit of that social convention
22:44 < urgen> why generate such a rude limit?
22:44 < urgen> force me to respond? did they ask permission first?
22:44 < urgen> just because I'm human?
22:44 < echarp> I don't think they are forcing, they are just asking
22:44 < echarp> you know, asking does not require responding
22:45 < echarp> it is just that, asking
22:45 < urgen> rsvp means please respond
22:45 < urgen> but the please is extra
22:45 < urgen> if you don't then the 'rude' is worn by oneself
22:45 < echarp> I don't know, I try not to do that myself
22:46 < echarp> if someone does not respond, then it just means that they don't respond
22:46 < urgen> ya
22:46 < echarp> if I think that an answer is required, I don't know, to carry on, then I might ask again
22:46 < echarp> but I won't "judge" if the other does not respond
22:46 < echarp> just it's a lost opportunity of common understanding
22:47 < urgen> I can see if the rsvp needs the information to provision an event, for example
22:47 < echarp> so, did I happen to rsvp all over the day today? :(
22:47 < urgen> but why not just say we need to provision this event and appreciate communication of your intent to participate
22:48 < echarp> well, I'm sorry, but to me "intent to participate" is *muuuch* less interesting than shared goals
22:48 < urgen> no I'm not talking about you
22:48 < echarp> cool
22:48 < urgen> I'm seeing the 'conventions of society'
22:48 < echarp> shared goals is a yardstick I personally love
22:48 < echarp> I think that I'm also seeing the conventions of society, well, in parts at least
22:51 < urgen> being in error without good cause -- due to convention of society
22:51 < echarp> yeap
22:51 < echarp> stereotypes
22:51 < urgen> by popular whim
22:52 < urgen> so somehow goals tripped that response
22:52 < urgen> sorry
22:52 < echarp> no problem
22:52 < echarp> why do you live? why do you wake in the morning and go at your job?
22:53 < urgen> you already asked
22:53 < urgen> the 'propensity' was the answer
22:54 < urgen> I am unhesitantly propentious
22:54 < urgen> to be other would be spontaneous?
22:54 < urgen> no prior relation
22:55 < urgen> independent of the burden of responiveness
22:55 < echarp> and do you know why you are being altruistic?
22:56 < urgen> that form of 'altruistic' is by default
22:56 < echarp> btw, my dict command says that propensity is just a disposition to do something
22:56 < urgen> without measure of concern for burden
22:56 < echarp> = natural inclination
22:56 < urgen> disposition, inclination
22:57 < urgen> I call it bio bias sometimes
22:57 < echarp> ok, propensity to do what you do, I get it (I replaced it wrongly with altruism)
22:57 < echarp> you do what you do because the universe wants you to
22:57 < echarp> it is cool
22:57 < echarp> "want" is just a term of course :)
22:57 < urgen> universe would be an 'other'
22:57 < urgen> I hold no inherent self or other
22:58 < echarp> universe might relieve the need of any "other" :)
22:58 < urgen> with the mere use of I as a convention... a metaphor
22:58 < echarp> universe, as its name implies, is "everything"
22:58 < urgen> :-) language doesn't help
22:58 < echarp> of course "I" is just a convention!!!
22:59 < urgen> the unified propensity is not separate from this 'original intent' called I
23:00 < urgen> there can be no separation in 'relative'
23:00 < urgen> by default
23:01 < urgen> but I'm not sure I would find it important to label it as an 'everything'
23:01 < urgen> it works in mean time anyway with that provision
23:03 < echarp> btw, do you think you know your goals?
23:04 < echarp> maybe you are just being original and don't want to communicate them, to communicate them easily anyway :)
23:04 < urgen> I'm still working on honesty
23:04 < urgen> on the ability to be aware in a way that does not support un-needed obstacle or obscuration
23:05 < urgen> attentiveness
23:05 < urgen> then maybe I can know 'my own goals'
23:06 < echarp> so, you don't think you currently know your goals? (if they may even exist of course)
23:06 < urgen> I am in review, checking inventory
23:06 < urgen> I am aware of some things
23:07 < urgen> goal,,, I'd have thought I dismissed quite a few years ago as non-prouctive... but I'm willing to reconsider
23:08 < echarp> I'm not saying that there *are* goals, there may well just be intermediary one
23:08 < echarp> yet they would all the more be worth communicating!
23:08 < echarp> for example a goal could be: "feed the world" :)
23:08 < urgen> indicators
23:09 < urgen> mile posts
23:09 < echarp> or it could be: "build something that will last forever, a pyramid or anything"
23:09 < urgen> landmarks
23:09 < echarp> yeap
23:09 < echarp> hugely important landmarks!!!
23:09 < urgen> ok
23:09 < echarp> incredibly important!!!
23:09 < urgen> I have been polishing my understanding for a few years now
23:09 < echarp> it is good
23:10 < echarp> I believe I have done the same
23:10 < echarp> "know yourself"
23:10 < urgen> yes
23:10 < echarp> "try to become yourself" (this is a good one, although very fatalistic)
23:11 < echarp> all coming from the greeks, and back possibly also coming from egypt and/or the indians
23:11 < urgen> I like: As the distance between wish and actualization approaches zero
23:11 < echarp> yeap
23:12 < echarp> very stoīc thought :)
23:12 < urgen> that's a goal
23:12 < echarp> it is
23:12 < echarp> very worthy one
23:12 < echarp> one which can bring happiness
23:12 < echarp> or so I think anyway
23:12 < urgen> or as a definition for happiness
23:13 < echarp> but stoīsm is also rather difficult on the individual :)
23:13 < echarp> I don't think it necessarily means happiness no
23:13 < urgen> :-)
23:13 < echarp> I think happiness is a great symbol, one we *have* to define for one self :)
23:13 < echarp> individual happiness then
23:16 < urgen> so what music do you like?
23:17 < echarp> rock mostly, pop rock, ben harper, pink floyd
23:17 < echarp> I listen to http://radioparadise.com
23:17 < urgen> I listen to online audio streams -- trip hop, ambient
23:17 < echarp> great great radio
23:17 < urgen> ya radioparadise does a good job
23:17 < echarp> very good one yes
23:17 < echarp> I have to send them some money sometimes :)
23:18 < echarp> I quite like everything that rocks, but with time I'm learning to appreciate jazz
23:19 < echarp> and I love some of the good french singers, those with well written "texts"
23:19 < echarp> it's such a pleasure to listen to, poetic or funny, angry or sad
23:19 < echarp> alanis morisette like :)
23:20 < urgen> so TOP should start a stream show
23:20 < urgen> but that would mean funding for bandwidth
23:21 < urgen> surely there are some audio/video programs that can be educational/informative
23:24 < echarp> plus organising the stream might get hugely difficult
23:24 < echarp> matters of taste 'n choice
23:24 < echarp> there surely can be informative ones yes
23:24 * echarp loves to watch documentaries!
23:25 < urgen> well, it might become a nice labratory
23:25 < echarp> could
23:26 < echarp> I believe some people are tinkering with Free music (Free as in "libre")
23:26 < urgen> laboratory
23:37 < echarp> getting late
23:38 < echarp> urgen: we carry on tomorrow?
23:39 < urgen> np
23:48 < echarp> good night!
--- Log closed ven jun 16 00:00:19 2006
00:07 < illegale> i like your parlement
00:07 < illegale> really :)
00:59 < urgyen> gotta reboot
00:59 < urgyen> bbiab
01:00 -!- urgyen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit []
01:05 -!- urgen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
01:09 < urgen> wow, it is raining
01:18 < nsh> waiting for thunderstorm here
01:18 < nsh> been crazy hot for a week
01:18 < nsh> air needs clearing
01:30 < nsh> watching cartoons
01:30 < nsh> i find them interesting because they utilise reduction to the bare minimum
02:12 < nsh> fiatlex, help nomic
02:12 < fiatlex> nsh: Ask me about rule <n>, or ask me to accept <Rule> [with <Note>], amend <Rule> with <Rule>, annotate <Rule> with <Text>, collect <Number> <Thing> from <Player>, defeat <Rule> [with <Note>], details of <Rule>, enact <Rule> [with <Note>], enroll, grant <Number> <Thing> to <Player>, inventory
02:12 < fiatlex> ..<Thing>, notes on <Rule>, pending, propose <Text>, reject <Rule> [with <Note>], spend <Number> <Thing> or text of <Rule>.
02:12 < nsh> fiatlex, accept 2
02:12 < fiatlex> nsh: You are not playing.
02:12 < nsh> fiatlex, enroll
02:12 < fiatlex> nsh: Welcome to the game. Ask me about 'pending' rules, or 'help Nomic'.
02:12 -!- beeli (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung176.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
02:12 < nsh> fiatlex, accept 2
02:12 < fiatlex> nsh: Rule #2 accepted.
02:14 < nsh> fiatlex, accept 3
02:14 < fiatlex> nsh: Rule #3 accepted.
02:16 < nsh> fiatlex, help nomic
02:16 < fiatlex> nsh: Ask me about rule <n>, or ask me to accept <Rule> [with <Note>], amend <Rule> with <Rule>, annotate <Rule> with <Text>, collect <Number> <Thing> from <Player>, defeat <Rule> [with <Note>], details of <Rule>, enact <Rule> [with <Note>], enroll, grant <Number> <Thing> to <Player>, inventory
02:16 < fiatlex> ..<Thing>, notes on <Rule>, pending, propose <Text>, reject <Rule> [with <Note>], spend <Number> <Thing> or text of <Rule>.
02:16 -!- illegale [n=ille...@cmung874.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
02:16 < nsh> so it's interesting which commands were built in
02:17 < nsh> assuming you haven't contributed to those commands, urgen
02:17 < beeli> l
02:17 < urgen> the code is available for review
02:17 < urgen> but we don't have a way to test what is currently in process
02:17 < urgen> we have to trust schuyler
02:18 * nsh nods
02:18 < urgen> so far we've been using science to determine the rules
02:18 < urgen> test to find out
02:18 < urgen> :-)
02:18 < urgen> not a lot of documentation available
02:18 < nsh> mm
02:18 < urgen> but that seems to be life :-)
02:19 < nsh> indeed
02:19 < nsh> fiatlex, defeat 4
02:19 < fiatlex> nsh: Rule #4 is now defeated.
02:19 < nsh> oh, so defeat turns it red
02:20 < urgen> there is nothing to rule against anyone doing that, so far
02:20 < nsh> mm
02:20 < urgen> it should be something included in the initial set
02:20 < urgen> so, ratification of an initial set should be one of the rules.
02:20 < nsh> bootstrap protocol
02:21 < urgen> bootstrap is the most fun for me but since I classify it as definition by demostration
02:21 < urgen> it only happens during 'the game'
02:21 * nsh smiles
02:21 < urgen> and since hardly anyone else likes bootstrap no one wants to play :-)
02:21 < urgen> catch 22
02:21 < nsh> right
02:22 < nsh> but Yossarian lives!
02:22 * nsh ponders why
02:23 < urgen> I think a feature to set a rule back to 'undecided' is needed
02:23 < urgen> does that somehow break the no breaking the facade rule?
02:23 < nsh> fiatlex, reject 3
02:23 < fiatlex> nsh: Rule #3 rejected.
02:23 * nsh wonders if he'll still be under accep
02:23 < nsh> nope
02:24 < nsh> fiatlex, accept 3
02:24 < fiatlex> nsh: Rule #3 accepted.
02:24 < urgen> there is no secretary of the bot rule
02:24 < nsh> how do you mean?
02:24 < urgen> in rule 3 is says that rule 2 will be set to enacted when...
02:24 < urgen> but doesn't say who
02:25 < urgen> and it doesn't happen by itself
02:25 < nsh> right
02:25 < nsh> i see
02:25 < urgen> I'd really like the rule set to be reflected in the code base
02:25 < nsh> eeeek :-)
02:26 < nsh> this is where it gets crazyfun
02:26 < urgen> but then the game increases in complexity quite a bit and I lose the couple ppl playing that there is
02:26 < nsh> mm
02:26 < urgen> yes, crazy fun is way better than fun,,, I agree
02:26 < urgen> but still...
02:26 < urgen> it is no fun if you can't share it
02:26 < nsh> the problem yeah
02:26 < nsh> disenfranchisement
02:26 < nsh> but again, you can't cling to an impossible ideal
02:26 < nsh> though you can always attempt to move closer to it
02:27 < urgen> unless it becomes aparently essential
02:27 < nsh> so if you have to include some exempting complexity only to allow its removal later
02:27 < nsh> mmm
02:27 < urgen> which is where the goal of access or generation of means comes in
02:28 < urgen> infrastructure is a means
02:28 < nsh> delegation of interpretive judiciary
02:28 * nsh nods
02:28 < nsh> agency devolution
02:28 < nsh> or
02:28 < nsh> better still
02:28 < nsh> agency investment
02:28 < urgen> yes
02:28 < nsh> so i can invest some of my individual agency to a body
02:28 < urgen> goal as agency
02:28 < nsh> that i _provisionally_ trust
02:28 < nsh> right
02:29 < nsh> i was reading today about the slime mould...
02:29 < nsh> usually, just simple amobea
02:29 < nsh> but when they run out of food
02:29 < beeli> co op is more interesting stuff :)
02:29 < nsh> they collect together into a crazy slime worm
02:29 < nsh> and crawl about as one organism
02:29 < nsh> until a better spot is found
02:29 < nsh> and they disperse into individuality again
02:30 < urgen> tension is important
02:30 < nsh> like how a country will demand unity in times of crises
02:30 < nsh> right
02:30 < urgen> ( we also need a change audit other than on channel for the game )
02:31 < nsh> mmm
02:31 < nsh> beeli, how do you mean?
02:31 < urgen> I think maybe the bot records last requestor?
02:31 < urgen> but not the change trail
02:31 < nsh> ah
02:31 < urgen> fiatlex, rule 3
02:31 < fiatlex> urgen: 3. Rule #2 will be set to 'enacted' when three or more 'accepted' votes are recieved (enacted at 21:41 Jun 09; proposed by urgen at 21:32 Jun 09; accepted by echarp, illegale, nsh, urgen)
02:31 < beeli> nevermind, it seems i am not huge fun of nomic
02:31 < urgen> nope that's not a status
02:31 < beeli> yet, stuff about co op on google is what i find more interesting
02:32 < urgen> I see
02:32 < nsh> co op?
02:32 < urgen> but I'm not so sure you've really comprehended the google enterprise
02:32 < beeli> yet, i wont interupt you as long as i can notice you pretty enjoy yourselves :)
02:32 < urgen> it requires strict definitions
02:32 * nsh smiles
02:32 < urgen> quite a bit of work
02:32 < beeli> google.com/coop
02:32 < nsh> oh...
02:32 < urgen> for, of course, I would eventually get back to google co-op
02:33 < nsh> right
02:33 < nsh> so this is the practice pool
02:33 < urgen> since it introduces ways to subscribe to folksonomies
02:33 < nsh> before we go swimming at sea
02:33 < nsh> or at least, as i see it
02:33 < urgen> but defining 'index terms' is no simple skate in the park
02:34 < urgen> that's part of what appreciation I'm trying to generate by means of nomic
02:34 < nsh> no ride in a jaguar either
02:34 < nsh> or on a jaguar
02:34 < beeli> what do you mean by index terms?
02:34 < beeli> can we use any term actually?
02:34 < urgen> you get to describe your corner of the ultraverse in a way that you know others interested in similar ultraverses would be looking for it
02:35 < beeli> or any phrase to get fullfilled one after another one
02:35 < urgen> and if successful ppl subscribe
02:35 < urgen> if enough subscribe it gets included in the formal 'public' set of key phrase indices
02:35 < urgen> you can use any term, of course
02:35 < urgen> but will that term contain value?
02:36 < urgen> or is it only serving self fulfilling ends?
02:36 < urgen> spam vs signal
02:36 < beeli> in the same tame as this stuff does
02:36 < beeli> yet it eliminate spambots and so on as i suppose it has no value to end users
02:36 < beeli> nor to thsoe who set their index
02:36 < urgen> no value to other than the originators
02:37 < urgen> it does have *some* value to someone
02:37 < urgen> it is allowed, just not to dominate where it isn't welcome
02:37 < beeli> it is up to brain network simmilarities
02:37 < beeli> find your tutors
02:37 < urgen> similarities is a good measure
02:37 < beeli> same thing as searching for music by p2p
02:38 * nsh still here, in background
02:38 < beeli> see that you like some music, look for other music you do not know by those who like the same music
02:38 < beeli> this same music sort of calibration
02:38 < beeli> see the same thing happens in other non exact fields based on emotions
02:39 < urgen> I've been calling it 'topic sensitive routing'
02:39 < beeli> suppose calibration can work fine by todays alghoritms
02:39 < beeli> ok
02:40 < beeli> though, what part are you into urgen, about co op?
02:40 < beeli> you mentioned you are interested, as user or developer?
02:40 < urgen> I am troubled when I try to find similar intent around how I use the word 'spirit'
02:41 < urgen> I only get people like echarp who think it has something to do with disembodied souls
02:41 < beeli> why ?
02:41 < beeli> how is that?
02:41 < urgen> I can understand, given cultural heritage.. but that is about as far as you can get away from what my own intent for the terms use is
02:41 < beeli> i mean, do not know anybody fromthose spheres?
02:41 < urgen> yet, echarp thinks I mean it in the same way
02:42 < urgen> so that isn't fair. so I will probably start a google co-op based on my intended meaning
02:42 < urgen> and maybe over time I will slowly collect similar interest
02:42 < beeli> hehe
02:43 < beeli> though, there is no groups/forums of simmilarthinkers around?
02:43 < urgen> without the option to define my own use. I'd never have a chance with any search engine
02:43 < beeli> to get in touch with such/
02:43 < beeli> ?
02:43 < urgen> non at this time
02:43 < urgen> or none that I can find <-- which is the whole point, right?
02:43 < beeli> in order to get higher rankings stuff
02:43 < urgen> to be able to find similar interest
02:44 < urgen> it isn't so much the vapid words as much as it is the living context in which they are held, no?
02:44 < urgen> that's a misunderstanding of 'ranking'
02:44 < beeli> yes
02:44 < urgen> ranking.. has to do with how well you try to clarify what you mean / intend
02:44 < beeli> i mean this is the way to find cross paths to other simmilarthinker
02:44 < beeli> yes
02:44 < urgen> if you do a good job, you get a good rank
02:45 < urgen> it is never a popularity contest
02:45 < beeli> hmh
02:45 < beeli> are you sure?
02:45 < urgen> never ever
02:45 < urgen> ever
02:45 < beeli> maybe i miss the point of ranking
02:45 < urgen> :-)
02:45 < urgen> honesty and clarity are rewarded
02:45 < beeli> thought stuff that is popular gets higher due to links and stuf
02:45 < beeli> right?
02:45 < urgen> those who try to trick and fool are punished
02:46 < urgen> those who want 'better position' are being silly because the best position is to be where people look
02:46 < beeli> at the top
02:46 < urgen> to be where people look is to be clear and get filed in the right place
02:46 < urgen> so when someone asks for that they get it
02:46 < urgen> top is middle
02:46 < urgen> top is accuracy
02:46 < urgen> never popularity
02:46 < beeli> ok
02:46 < urgen> once upon a time a long long long time ago popularity was a metric
02:47 < beeli> unless we talk about global issues
02:47 < urgen> but it was so completely easy to fool
02:47 < beeli> non articualted ones by global populacy
02:47 < urgen> ppl just built robots to click pages over and over
02:47 < beeli> which is not so seldom thing
02:47 < urgen> popularity sky rocketed so rank sky rocketed
02:47 < beeli> such as progressive politics
02:47 < urgen> now they penalize for that
02:47 < beeli> open politics
02:47 < beeli> or other stuff i care about
02:47 < beeli> what do you mean?
02:47 < beeli> by penalising
02:48 < beeli> why?
02:48 < urgen> that means you are removed from the index
02:48 < urgen> your page is not even available in a search
02:48 < urgen> deleted from the database
02:48 < urgen> to trick is to lose
02:48 < beeli> if they see you where manipulating by bots and stuff?
02:48 < urgen> to attempt to gain popularity is to lose
02:48 < urgen> to attempt to be honest and clear is to win
02:49 < urgen> if they catch you, yes
02:49 < beeli> good is long range investment
02:49 < urgen> but the catching is also run by bots :-)
02:49 < urgen> so there is a grievance systems available
02:49 < urgen> fair is fair
02:49 < urgen> bot make mistakes
02:50 < beeli> cool
02:50 < beeli> are you afraid of google power?
02:50 < beeli> they are dealing sort of monoply
02:50 < urgen> everyone should have their own google power
02:50 < urgen> it isn't that hard, it is just google is about the only one that sees value in honesty and clarity for some reason
02:50 < urgen> why are people so invested in corruption?
02:51 < urgen> it is such a silly worthless painful game
02:51 < beeli> i agree with you, yet not completely
02:51 < beeli> it is up to info flow
02:51 < urgen> :-))
02:51 < urgen> info starts with oneself
02:51 < beeli> if it is rappid it does not worth it as long as investment is easily to be lost
02:52 < urgen> I am willing to work hard and give it away for free
02:52 < beeli> in the era of pre bible stuff, lie could be found much harder, having that path be much more interesting
02:52 < urgen> so I will try to make the cost affordable for those that have no time
02:52 < beeli> urgen, in what way?
02:53 < urgen> in the way of an economy of patience
02:53 < beeli> concretely?
02:53 < urgen> ppl with no time
02:53 < urgen> no willingness unless it is easy
02:53 < beeli> what are you going to do excatly?
02:53 < urgen> make it easy they go for it without a second thought
02:53 < beeli> working on base on coop?
02:54 < urgen> working through the process
02:54 < urgen> working within meaning
02:55 < urgen> working toward reducing the threshhold to honesty and clarity for everyone
02:55 < beeli> how excatly?
02:55 < beeli> i wish to help you
02:55 < beeli> sortof
02:55 < urgen> ;-)
02:56 < urgen> helpfulness is matched by taking the time to understand before attempting to apply
02:56 < urgen> so you are already helping just by asking questions
02:56 < urgen> that's very considerate
02:57 < beeli> urgen, what is the moment you can start atempting to apply
02:57 < beeli> does it happen ever?
02:57 < urgen> when it causes no harm
02:57 < urgen> happens quite a bit
02:57 < urgen> even better happens too :-)
02:57 < urgen> sometimes things really work
02:57 < beeli> what harm?
02:58 < urgen> the harm of not allowing participation
02:59 < beeli> you mean harm is not part of any action?
02:59 < urgen> that's an action
02:59 < beeli> harm to something
02:59 < urgen> something might be a figment of someone's imagination
02:59 < urgen> or maybe not
02:59 < beeli> you fight for truth?
02:59 < urgen> truth might be a figment of someone's imagination or maybe not
02:59 < urgen> :-)
03:00 < urgen> my googl co-op for 'spirit' will include the idea of attempting to find the nature of truth
03:00 < beeli> so, what about it/
03:00 < urgen> I can't dictate that
03:00 < beeli> about imagination
03:01 < beeli> what is relation between imagination and harm?
03:01 < urgen> I don't have a definition of imagination
03:01 < beeli> do not ask you for it
03:01 < urgen> I am asking you for one
03:01 < beeli> do not have it
03:01 < beeli> do not need it
03:01 < urgen> then something that doesn't exist can't harm
03:01 < beeli> yet, you mentiponed imagination when i mentioned harm
03:02 < beeli> i do not understand what is realtionship
03:02 < urgen> ok
03:02 < urgen> so...
03:02 < urgen> figment of imagination... as a phrase used to suggest fantasy
03:03 < urgen> an idea with no shared basis
03:03 < urgen> like... tortoise hair
03:03 < urgen> I've never seen a hairy turtle.. but maybe one exists?
03:04 < urgen> it wouldn't be harmful to think so
03:04 < urgen> but if I forced you to believe in the existence of hairy turtles...
03:04 < urgen> well...
03:04 < urgen> I can't really force that
03:04 < urgen> but...
03:04 < urgen> I'd begin to tresspass
03:05 < urgen> I'd be in your face and overly vigilant about whether your actions were one who believed in hairy turtles
03:05 < beeli> there is a slight problem
03:05 < beeli> we do not know what is the truth
03:05 < beeli> we are doomed to our beliefed
03:05 < urgen> that's my point
03:05 < urgen> no way
03:05 < beeli> and we are doomed to do action
03:06 < urgen> no way
03:06 < beeli> we can eliminate parts,
03:06 < urgen> doom has no liberty at all
03:06 < beeli> move towards the truth by getting higher knowledge
03:06 < beeli> but that is the path
03:06 < urgen> not even slightly repairable
03:06 < beeli> based on mistakes
03:06 < beeli> guesess
03:06 < urgen> discovering the nature of truth is completely available
03:06 < beeli> harm
03:06 < beeli> good deeds
03:06 < beeli> and all that stuff
03:07 < beeli> if we set to do nothing before we get enlighten, we will do the biggest harm we can image
03:07 < beeli> imagine
03:07 < urgen> but no one suggested so
03:07 < beeli> we will waste our lifes
03:07 < beeli> and out possibioites
03:07 < beeli> and our human needs
03:07 < beeli> and reasons
03:07 < beeli> so, we are doomed to do mistakes and move on
03:08 < urgen> why would non action be the obvious result of discover of the nature of truth?
03:08 < beeli> to harm and move on
03:08 < urgen> that's a weird conclusion
03:08 < urgen> what is the basis of your thought?
03:08 < beeli> towards less harm more benefit
03:08 < beeli> can you say it more simply?
03:09 < urgen> not sure there are enough fingers in the universe of past present and future to burn enough times to learn from action or non action
03:09 < beeli> so?
03:10 < urgen> there is still an other means
03:10 < urgen> another
03:10 < urgen> discovered when one participates in inquiry
03:10 < urgen> there is no putting inquiry 'in front' of solution
03:10 < urgen> there is no wasting of time
03:11 < urgen> there is no loss of action
03:11 < beeli> so, it does not matter
03:11 < beeli> whatever you do is ok?
03:11 < beeli> is there any way to distinct what is right and what is not right then?
03:11 < urgen> it matters greatly... but only if you take stock in dissatisfaction
03:12 < urgen> the process that brings one to understand the nature of truth is defineable, yes
03:12 < urgen> but not by me
03:12 < urgen> not by you
03:12 < beeli> but
03:12 < beeli> by whom?
03:12 < urgen> but together we can see
03:12 < beeli> you wanna define The Path?
03:13 < beeli> cool
03:13 < urgen> I can't do it by myself
03:14 < beeli> though, why should you define it actually?
03:14 < urgen> the means is in the demonstration
03:14 < urgen> a demonstration is an action
03:14 < beeli> there is a plenty of spiritual teachoers who iddi
03:14 < beeli> it
03:14 < urgen> single people?
03:14 < beeli> do not know
03:14 < urgen> wow, sounds like more top down system
03:14 < beeli> probably
03:14 < beeli> yes,
03:14 < beeli> though, if they aproach to the people by acknowledgment, not force
03:15 < beeli> that is fine by me
03:15 < beeli> if they help why not
03:15 < urgen> it may be by me as well
03:15 < urgen> but I'd have to see
03:15 < urgen> :-)
03:15 < urgen> it would have to be demonstrated
03:15 < beeli> it is all the time
03:15 < urgen> :-)
03:16 < urgen> so it can't be *that* far away, no?
03:16 < beeli> what?
03:16 < urgen> demonstrated nature
03:16 < beeli> demonstration of the path?
03:16 < urgen> I don't know what 'a path' is but I'm allowing that use of terms
03:17 < urgen> a path seems to be the same as means?
03:17 < beeli> what is the logic of it
03:17 < beeli> i mean, see is somebody is happy
03:17 < beeli> if yes, he demonstrates it
03:17 < beeli> path of truth
03:17 < beeli> the way of moving
03:17 < beeli> sort of rules, visions and stuff that make us directions and help in our spiritual way
03:18 < beeli> towards the knowledge, wisdom, truth stuf
03:18 < beeli> f
03:19 < urgen> oh, demonstration of truth does seem to be related to demonstration of happiness, but not every time
03:19 < urgen> sometime happiness' go away
03:19 < urgen> that would show truth was missing
03:19 < beeli> satisfaction than
03:19 < urgen> so some misapprehension on the nature of truth must have been in operation
03:20 < beeli> please by life
03:20 < urgen> yes, I can't challenge anyone's satisfaction
03:20 < beeli> find your love, be good to she
03:20 < beeli> that is it
03:20 < beeli> love can be anything
03:20 < beeli> that is how i see it
03:20 < urgen> love is hard to put a rope around, yes
03:21 < urgen> that seems to be part of the nature of truth
03:21 < urgen> this ability to test measure
03:21 < beeli> love is full participation to the world, to the God
03:22 < urgen> I don't have a definition for god
03:22 < beeli> setting something larger than you, enablig flow
03:22 < beeli> of energy stuff
03:22 < beeli> it is cool thing to be defined
03:22 < beeli> such as no happiness with no god
03:22 < urgen> another benefit found by asking questions?
03:22 < beeli> :)
03:23 < beeli> yes?
03:23 < urgen> could be.
03:23 < urgen> I do know language and its use changes over time
03:23 < urgen> how people used the word thousands of years ago is probably different than how it is used today
03:24 < beeli> god = bigger than you
03:24 < urgen> our ability to express and have meaningful exchange
03:24 < urgen> welll....
03:24 < beeli> now it is turned to decadency
03:24 < urgen> I don't have a definition for me either
03:24 < urgen> so far.. seems to be a clump of interactive tendencies
03:25 < urgen> if there is an edge to that clump...
03:25 < beeli> the tendecy i see is paradox of the king
03:25 < beeli> ruler
03:25 < urgen> hmn.. when does one interaction start and the other end?
03:26 < urgen> king as in legal version, right?
03:26 < beeli> what interactions you have in mind?
03:26 < urgen> any interaction
03:26 < beeli> as the one with the power made by human flesh
03:26 < urgen> all interaction
03:26 < urgen> ok
03:26 < urgen> yes, basis of legitimacy often uses kings to demonstrate a variation in form
03:27 < beeli> what i can notice is that this paradox is the root of the worlds decandeeny and hypocrisy
03:28 < urgen> a break down
03:28 < beeli> that is the way to protect these unnatural relationship
03:28 < beeli> that exists
03:28 < beeli> and which was necessary
03:28 < beeli> but not any more
03:28 < urgen> ok
03:28 < urgen> sometimes 'means' evolves
03:28 < beeli> do you know what i mena?
03:28 < urgen> as we mature and can appreciate more
03:29 < beeli> always
03:29 < beeli> yet, do you understand what i am trying to say?
03:29 < urgen> sorry... I really do but I am begging the out of step dance
03:29 < urgen> in order to help bring clarity without domination
03:30 < urgen> you are saying the same thing
03:30 < urgen> once we can find verified mutual handles then we can move on
03:30 < urgen> until then it will just keep circling
03:31 < urgen> without satisfaction :-)
03:31 < beeli> ok, there is a cure for such proble,m
03:31 < urgen> wellll, I'm trying hard to watch
03:31 < urgen> but it seems elusive and subtle
03:31 < beeli> that is based on using concrete pictures tend same meainng in you and me
03:31 < beeli> such as monitor
03:32 < beeli> computer, sun and stuff
03:32 < urgen> ok, but my talent is challenged sometimes in that way
03:32 < beeli> when you start from there, then you can tranfer it to abstractions too
03:32 < beeli> it is village talk
03:32 < urgen> occasionally I find a good piece of poetry but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for it
03:32 < beeli> we say it in cro
03:33 < urgen> villages get vaporized in the atomic bomb
03:33 < urgen> no talking then
03:33 < urgen> I think we need to learn to help the village become sophisticated
03:33 < beeli> nah
03:33 < urgen> not bring the sophistication down to the village
03:33 < beeli> i am pro village
03:33 < beeli> pro nature
03:34 < urgen> ok, then we discovered a difference
03:34 < beeli> i am trying to become simple, not vice versa
03:34 < urgen> that helps clarity more than always agreeing
03:34 < beeli> truth is in simplicity :)
03:34 < beeli> gotta go
03:34 < urgen> 'k
03:35 < beeli> it is 4 am at my place
03:35 < beeli> night
03:35 < urgen> sorry
03:35 < urgen> nite
03:35 < beeli> no problem :)
03:35 < beeli> been a pleasure
03:35 -!- beeli [n=ille...@cmung176.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit []
03:37 < urgen> fiatlex, grant 1 Golden Key to nsh
03:37 < fiatlex> urgen: 1 golden key granted to nsh.
03:38 < urgen> hmn not case sensitive
09:51 < echarp> hello hello
11:45 -!- urgen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)]
11:46 -!- urgen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
11:46 -!- urgyen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
11:54 -!- urgen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)]
11:54 -!- urgyen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)]
11:55 -!- urgen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
11:55 -!- urgyen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
12:31 -!- urgyen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit []
17:37 < urgen> http://www.lightmind.com/library/essays/memes.html
17:37 < urgen> no illegale
17:38 < urgen> so I suppose we need an ordered queue
17:38 < urgen> a way to edit the irc logs down into presentable dialogue
17:38 < echarp> urgen: you can always sen a mail to the googe group!
17:38 < urgen> abreviated versions included
17:39 < urgen> sounds like a good use for links
17:39 < echarp> it will then appear on google *and* http://leparlement.org/top-politics!!!
17:39 < urgen> well...
17:39 < urgen> without a defined process even that record becomes a confusion
17:39 < urgen> I do not mind using a tool like that
17:40 < urgen> google groups newsgroup/mailinglist is a great idea
17:40 < echarp> interesting text
17:40 < urgen> might be nicer if they wikified the thing but that's a different discussion
17:40 < echarp> I do think that "I", the "self", are constructs without that strong a basis in physical reality
17:41 < urgen> :-)
17:41 < echarp> there is also a "top" wiki you know
17:41 < urgen> I am approaching illegale's 'village as basis' proto-proposal
17:42 < echarp> village??
17:42 < urgen> illegale's meterstick is 'the village'
17:42 < urgen> if they don't understand it, then it doesn't exist
17:42 < urgen> and so to reduce complexity is the goal
17:43 < urgen> normalize intrigue by collapse
17:43 < urgen> probably a threshhold to participation proto-definition
17:44 < urgen> I'm loosely suggesting a proto-proposal that includes a "village assistive device" so they are allowed participation by means of a tool that translates sophisticated process into simpler action
17:45 < urgen> simpler suggested action
17:45 < urgen> with also the option to select proxy
17:45 < urgen> I don't know but I trust x to know on my behalf.. or -also-
17:45 < urgen> many stock traders are now using automation to trigger on their behalf at certain points of condition
17:46 < urgen> so predictive indexing becomes significant
17:47 < echarp> proxy is good
17:47 < echarp> delegable proxy even better :)
17:47 < urgen> I very much like the idea of not restricting participation solely on capacity to savor every nuance
17:47 < echarp> allows for easy and understandable scaling up
17:47 < echarp> I also think that the village is quite a yardstick in human social interactions
17:48 < urgen> I'm willing to explore but there is currently no means to approach because we've not outlined such
17:48 < echarp> but I don't want it to be a technical limit in a political system, that would be too strong
17:48 < urgen> so, speaking of means.
17:48 < urgen> I earlier said something like goal vs. means
17:48 < echarp> maybe yes
17:49 < urgen> so it would seem logical that the goal was to increase means
17:49 < urgen> generate and distribute
17:50 < urgen> I'll finish reading the article I just posted
17:50 < urgen> has good borrowable vocabulary
17:50 < urgen> :-)
17:51 < echarp> you still didn't describe what are your goals (besides durability) ;)
17:52 < urgen> I just did
17:53 < urgen> generation and distribution of means
17:53 < urgen> that supercedes durable
17:53 < urgen> durable is a product
17:53 < echarp> generation and distribution of means?
17:53 < urgen> means as a product is closer to foundation
17:53 < echarp> isn't that circular kind of goal?
17:54 < echarp> goal => means, means => goal
17:54 < urgen> lowest threshhold of participaton was the original goal
17:54 < urgen> circular is why I posted that article
17:54 < urgen> circular is an artificial argument
17:55 < echarp> you mean, artificial counter-argument?
17:55 < urgen> tautologies only gain traction within a limited subset of the rules of logic
17:55 < urgen> any argument is an argument,, I wasn't trying to finesse direction
17:55 < urgen> *yet*
17:56 < echarp> care to define what the "means" are then? :)
17:56 < urgen> ability to participate
17:56 < echarp> because if the "means" are the means to reach goals, then, well, circularity
17:56 < urgen> the means to participate
17:57 < echarp> isn't that an intermediate sort of goal?
17:57 < echarp> one which should further a definitive goal?
17:57 < urgen> for example, understanding how discretionary funds will be dispersed is based on a collective exploration
17:57 < urgen> to facilitate that understanding is a means
17:57 < urgen> without the facilitation there can be no other goals
17:57 < echarp> let me state this more broadly, urgen, what are your goals in life (if you have any)? the big big goals
17:58 < urgen> the more facilitation that happens the more goals there can be
17:58 < urgen> making 'means' the primary target here does not require limiting any future goal
17:58 < urgen> but without this step you get none
17:58 < echarp> of course it does not
17:58 < echarp> I agree
17:58 < echarp> yet you still don't define goals (in my opinion)
17:59 < urgen> I probably don't :-)
17:59 < urgen> I've been following my heart
17:59 < echarp> urgen: what are *your* goals in life?
17:59 < urgen> so I've been talking about means
17:59 < urgen> us talking here about his has always been a goal
17:59 < urgen> if you want me to say oh I hope brazil wins
17:59 < urgen> won't happen
18:00 < urgen> everything I do is to support this
18:00 < echarp> :)
18:00 < echarp> urgen: do you have goals in your life?
18:03 < urgen> ownership is an interesting concept
18:03 < urgen> why do I have to have a 'my life?'
18:04 < urgen> why would you be so insistent that I do? ;-)
18:07 < echarp> that you do have goals?
18:07 < echarp> I am just asking!!!
18:08 < echarp> do you have goals?
18:08 < urgen> no, that I have a 'my life'
18:08 < echarp> you may not have any, and that's fine
18:08 < echarp> I don't care about the "my life" part :)
18:08 < urgen> If I don't recognize a 'my life' then there wouldn't be any 'my goals'
18:09 < echarp> urgen: you don't consider my question a valid question?
18:09 < urgen> I do consider the superceder to be a valid question
18:09 < echarp> the superceder is?
18:09 < urgen> so I can't answer its dependents until the original is addressed
18:09 < urgen> 'my life'
18:09 < urgen> an "I"
18:09 < urgen> a "You"
18:09 < urgen> a "We"
18:10 < echarp> I believe the question can be shortened
18:10 < echarp> "do you have goals"?
18:10 < echarp> I'm course interested in the more ambitious ones, if any
18:10 < urgen> I already stated my goal
18:11 < echarp> you stated intermediate (to me) goals
18:11 < urgen> lowest threshhold of participation
18:11 < echarp> I'm asking if there are any larger ones
18:11 < echarp> I'm just asking!!!
18:11 < urgen> oh come on! that one is huge
18:11 < urgen> :-)
18:11 < echarp> it's a philosophical question
18:11 < urgen> I can't recognize any further use of goal, no
18:12 < echarp> then you don't have goals? (but for intermediary ones like participation and durability)
18:12 < echarp> it's fine by me you know
18:12 < urgen> goal oriented living is not a recognized efficiency for me
18:13 < echarp> but I don't understand your reluctance
18:13 < urgen> is not conducive to durability
18:13 < urgen> indicated more work soon
18:13 < echarp> you "indicated more work soon"??
18:13 < urgen> goals happen after problems show up
18:14 < urgen> problems arrive from short sightedness
18:14 < urgen> while I do appreciate discovering error...
18:14 < urgen> I'm not going to invent them just to have pocket change
18:15 < echarp> a goal could be (just could be) to remove the very possibility of problems you know
18:15 < echarp> it is just a "could be"
18:15 < echarp> I am not implying that this is *your* goal
18:15 < urgen> to posit a negation for removal guarantees a problem
18:15 < urgen> :-) I don't think I will
18:17 < echarp> yet without goals, there is one problem I can envision :)
18:17 < echarp> "why" :)
18:17 < echarp> why why why? :)
18:17 < urgen> why is to generate understanding
18:17 < echarp> (these are questions I have given thought about)
18:17 < urgen> the participation referred to earlier is the participation in understanding
18:18 < echarp> but "why" generate understanding? :)
18:18 < echarp> see what I mean?
18:18 < echarp> do you see where I am going?
18:18 < urgen> to benefit the distribution of means
18:18 < echarp> why benefit the distribution of means? :)
18:18 < echarp> sorry for being repetitive
18:18 < urgen> I can easily extract this simple polar logic into a formula you would lose your way in,,,,,, I think
18:18 < urgen> part of why I posted that article
18:18 < echarp> I don't know, maybe
18:19 < echarp> I'm hugely fond of memetic theories!
18:19 < urgen> there is more than memes in there
18:19 < echarp> I've read some of richard dawkins books, even some of dennet
18:19 < urgen> memes is just being borrowed to exchange another point
18:19 < echarp> that the *I* is just a construction?
18:20 < echarp> this very thought has swimmed in my meme pool for a while you know
18:20 < urgen> that our lack of appreciation for the problem is the problem
18:20 < urgen> constantly using the wrong tool for the job
18:20 < echarp> of course it just happens that you didn't answer my "why" questions ;)
18:21 < urgen> since I did answer, then I must not have understood you version of why
18:21 < urgen> restate?
18:21 < echarp> why benefit the distribution of means?
18:21 < urgen> that is directly proportional to the durability
18:21 < echarp> I'm just trying to go all the way through this (to me) important matter
18:21 < urgen> -the
18:22 < echarp> why durability?
18:22 < urgen> why does means facilitate?
18:22 < urgen> hmn
18:22 < urgen> by nature
18:22 < echarp> ahah, we might be at the end of the tunnel!!!
18:22 < echarp> I'm seeing the light :)
18:22 < echarp> so, what nature are you speaking about?
18:23 < urgen> nature of truth
18:23 < urgen> nature of that which lasts
18:23 < urgen> truth wouldn't be truth if it changed, right?
18:23 < urgen> of course we can reach near approximation with is pretty damn good from time to time
18:23 < urgen> but for the most part we live on a landslide of instability
18:24 < echarp> personally, I don't recognise that there is such a thing as "truth"
18:24 < echarp> I hope I'm not being too harsh
18:24 < urgen> I didn't say that there was
18:24 < urgen> :-)
18:24 < urgen> and what you just said.. could be seen as "a nature of truth"
18:24 < urgen> no?
18:25 < echarp> then the whole truth wouldn't be truth if it changed does not seem very relevant
18:25 < echarp> I don't think it could be seen as such
18:25 < urgen> then we have disconnect again
18:25 < urgen> why not?
18:25 < echarp> disconnection yes, but still interested in this discussion?
18:25 < urgen> sounds exactly like you are describing a basis by saying 'no such thing as truth'
18:26 < urgen> maybe I can modify to 'nature of basis?'
18:26 < echarp> do
18:26 < urgen> done
18:27 < echarp> can a basis be: there is no basis? :)
18:27 < urgen> for I really have zero investment in anything called 'a truth'
18:27 < urgen> a basis can be 'there is no basis' this is used (too often) in daily life by some who participate in that idea
18:27 < urgen> since a lifestyle like that tends to not last long....
18:27 < urgen> that meme line dies out
18:28 < echarp> to me, this "can a basis be: there is no basis?" is a just an implosion, it does not carry any weight, just destroys itself
18:28 < urgen> but we have to allow people to have their own mistakes
18:28 < echarp> of course
18:28 < urgen> just because you see it as nonsense does not mean that everyone has to
18:28 < echarp> I am not talking about that, just trying to understand your motivations
18:28 < urgen> you are immune
18:29 < echarp> of course yes
18:29 < urgen> I say.. lets share that immunity
18:29 < echarp> cool
18:29 < echarp> yet, why? :)
18:29 < echarp> I've given it some thoughts, and memes are a solution to this whole tunnel!
18:29 < urgen> why becomes apparent on its own,
18:29 < echarp> a tunnel without any end btw (or so I think anyway)
18:29 < urgen> it is not a necessary function of this venue
18:29 < urgen> I do not need to determine what kicks anohers rocks
18:29 < echarp> venue?
18:30 < urgen> venue = meaningful exchange
18:30 < echarp> ???why becomes apparent on its own???
18:31 < urgen> to you or whomever it is important for
18:31 < urgen> if its not then its moot
18:31 < urgen> I'm not licensed to determine anothers happiness
18:31 < urgen> that wouldn't be a fair basis in any way shape or form
18:31 < echarp> you mean that why is a personal matter?
18:31 < urgen> I could not agree to pre-determining why
18:31 < urgen> yes
18:32 < echarp> cool
18:32 < echarp> I do also think that why is a personal matter
18:32 < echarp> why didn't you just say so from the beginning? :)
18:32 < urgen> because it is not in my vocabulary
18:32 < echarp> it is a perfectly acceptable answer (one which does lead into other questions)
18:32 < echarp> what is not in your vocabulary?
18:32 < urgen> why?
18:32 < echarp> this word you do not use? woaw
18:33 < urgen> it is resolved
18:33 < echarp> yet do you recognise that you are subject to causes?
18:33 < echarp> (resolved I don't think, but we do advance)
18:33 < urgen> you do that cart before the horse thing again
18:33 < urgen> hmnn.
18:33 < urgen> how can a me exist that is outside of cause?
18:33 < urgen> cause starts where and ends where?
18:33 < echarp> sorry, but to me goals/why are the most important things!!!
18:34 < echarp> cause starts and end with the universe! :)
18:34 < echarp> the whole cause => consequence drama
18:34 < echarp> and we are part of the universe
18:34 < echarp> we are subject to its laws
18:34 < urgen> well I think I can parallel this thought...
18:34 < echarp> cause => consequence being one of the big laws (or so we think nowadays)
18:35 < echarp> yes?
18:35 < echarp> what parallel do you have in mind?
18:40 < echarp> ok, I'm going home, end of my working day
18:40 -!- urgen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)]
18:42 -!- urgen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
18:42 < urgen> sry lost connection
18:43 < echarp> ok, I'm still around
18:43 < echarp> urgen: I hope I'm not just bothering you...?
18:44 < urgen> since there isn't a lot of people that even care....
18:44 < urgen> it is hard to get chances to practice one's edge
18:44 < urgen> I enjoy trying
18:45 < echarp> cool
18:45 < echarp> I don't know if it is a matter of edge
18:45 < echarp> to me it's a matter of understanding one another
18:45 < echarp> and it's thus very important
18:45 < echarp> very very very important :)
18:45 < urgen> ya, but I don't proport a one nor other
18:45 < echarp> one nor other -what-?
18:46 < echarp> edge / understanding?
18:46 < urgen> :-)
18:46 < echarp> ok, cool
18:46 < urgen> another doesn't matter
18:46 < urgen> another why?
18:46 < urgen> we can still arrive at meaningful exchange
18:46 < echarp> we are still right into the matters of why, although it does now seem to be personal rather than general
18:47 < echarp> what is your personal why if you have any?
18:47 < urgen> "understanding the nature of basis"
18:47 < urgen> :-)
18:47 < urgen> but hey.. to each their own
18:47 < urgen> I don't like spicy food, some do
18:47 < echarp> of course to each his own, yes :)
18:48 < echarp> nature of basis? basis of?
18:48 < urgen> sometimes aspirin helps someone's headache, while another may be allergic to it
18:48 < echarp> I don't get it
18:48 < urgen> you do get it.. I'm just relying too heavily on personal vocabulary
18:48 < echarp> yeap, I'm rather individualistic :)
18:48 < urgen> nature of basis seems close to when you said all existence is relative
18:48 < echarp> I'm not sure at all I understand the "basis" you are talking about
18:49 < urgen> basis of understanding... basis of rationality
18:49 < urgen> basis of logos
18:49 < echarp> I do believe that everything is relative, yes
18:49 < urgen> basis of..
18:49 < echarp> being on a common wavelength?
18:49 < urgen> we need to define the terms of exchange before we can arrive at meaning
18:49 < urgen> it does require some patience as we leap frog around
18:49 < echarp> common wavelength is something *VERY* important to me
18:50 < urgen> common wavelength sounds like a good perspective but it may be too rarified
18:50 < urgen> I mean as a term
18:50 < echarp> not many people using this term?
18:50 < urgen> right
18:50 < urgen> I use to use it a lot
18:50 < echarp> may be it is a french idiom
18:51 < urgen> works for me anyway
18:51 < echarp> I rather use it a lot too :)
18:51 < echarp> but but but, common wavelength does not seem like an appropriate answer to "why", to me anyway :)
18:52 < echarp> why do you wake up in the morning?
18:52 < echarp> why do you spend energy during your day?
18:52 < urgen> bad habit?
18:52 < urgen> :-)
18:52 < echarp> why do you carry on even when it gets hard?
18:53 < echarp> habit is an answer yes!
18:53 < echarp> is it *your* answer? :)
18:53 < urgen> not necessarily a goal
18:53 < urgen> but it can be a leading cause
18:53 < echarp> it is effectively not a goal, but it is an answer!
18:53 < echarp> it can be a cause, yes
18:54 < echarp> ok, I'm going home!!!
18:54 < echarp> cu here in 30min, if you still have energy ;)
19:20 -!- illegale (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung4136.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
19:23 < illegale> hey
19:24 < urgen> hi
19:27 < illegale> whats up?
19:27 < illegale> nomic run?
19:27 < urgen> I think we are still in esoteric foundation
19:28 < urgen> but seems like things are getting closer
19:28 < urgen> I referred to 'village as basis' a couple time, if you read the log
19:28 < urgen> ec will be here shortly
19:29 < illegale> ill read it
19:29 < illegale> noe
19:29 < illegale> w
19:32 < urgen> starts with a link for homework
19:53 < echarp> re
20:07 < illegale> re
20:10 < illegale> E, are you tere?
20:10 < illegale> there?
20:14 < urgen> re
20:14 < echarp> I am yes
20:14 < echarp> still pondering about urgen and his motivations :)
20:14 < illegale> lol
20:14 < urgen> intent is core
20:14 < echarp> intent to...?
20:14 < urgen> generic case
20:14 < echarp> the "to" part seems important :)
20:15 < urgen> the to part is important but only after the stage to regard it by is built
20:15 < urgen> isolated it doesn't have the same impact
20:16 < urgen> prior to that is my definition of liberty
20:16 < urgen> freedom
20:16 < urgen> peace
20:17 < urgen> definitions that don't later devolve into contentions
20:17 < echarp> I disagree, to me the "to" part is the most important one
20:17 < echarp> much more important than anything else
20:18 < echarp> because it is from which we draw all of our energies
20:19 < illegale> Urgen, what is the point of this?
20:19 < urgen> the point is something that lasts
20:19 < illegale> yuu think anything lasts
20:20 < illegale> it seems to me panta rei is core principle
20:20 < illegale> it it the only one that lasts
20:20 < illegale> tough, why do you want something to last?
20:20 < illegale> afraid of death
20:20 < illegale> ?
20:21 < urgen> I don't ignore it
20:21 < urgen> without appreciation of beginnings and endings there could be nothing that lasts
20:21 < illegale> buridan do not like me :)
20:21 < urgen> you only care for one generation?
20:21 < illegale> yes i do
20:21 < urgen> buridan isn't being paid for his patience
20:22 < illegale> but for what?
20:22 < illegale> yet, it is not my care that brings prosperity to next generations
20:22 < urgen> for professional opinion
20:22 < illegale> of politologist?
20:23 < urgen> is that what the academic position is called?
20:23 < illegale> all i have to do it to be moral being
20:23 < urgen> or the school of thought?
20:23 < illegale> and to grow
20:23 < illegale> not more than that
20:23 < illegale> i can see no more than that
20:23 < urgen> moral.. that's one tar laden term
20:23 < illegale> yes
20:23 < illegale> acadeemix stuff
20:23 < illegale> it is not i think
20:23 < urgen> anyone that touches that will be frozen solid with inaction
20:23 < illegale> what, moral
20:23 < illegale> ?
20:23 < urgen> yes
20:23 < illegale> indoctrination of society in order to create usefull part of it
20:24 < urgen> you talking about the slash and burn philosophical morals of a corporation?
20:24 < illegale> usefull means sustainable and free
20:24 < urgen> moral is a term that has been so incredibly abused it has lost almost all value
20:24 < illegale> you talking about two morals of this society?
20:24 < urgen> without clarity there can be no meaningful exchange
20:25 < urgen> only two? I think there is one for every human
20:25 < illegale> two principles i am talking about
20:25 < illegale> that contradict to each other
20:25 < urgen> I'm not familiar with your two principles
20:25 < illegale> i know, this is story of paradox i mentioned you yesterday
20:26 < urgen> then you are welcome to remind me
20:26 < urgen> for yesterday's conversation seemed productive
20:28 < illegale> the govrenor is only in position to realise just world
20:28 < illegale> yet, it is set of the peoples interest who naturally aim towards maximum freedom
20:28 < illegale> just means rules and obeyance to these rules
20:29 < illegale> those who are in position of governor if do not set such world have only one thing they have to obey to
20:29 < illegale> it is their own will
20:29 < urgen> that's one or two principles there?
20:29 < illegale> this is natural thing
20:29 < illegale> so, one is the moral of the ruler, and another one is moral of the cattle
20:29 < illegale> moral of the wolf and moral of the sheep
20:29 < illegale> no moral of the human around is seen
20:31 < urgen> ok, and where do these two principles live again?
20:31 < illegale> they live in the world of today,world of hypocricy
20:32 < urgen> so from here, nothing can go wrong?
20:32 < illegale> we are humans, it is hypocritical to ave to completely different morals that exlude each one in our minds
20:32 < illegale> it is wrong for me
20:32 < illegale> i do not want to be wolf, nor sheep
20:32 < urgen> ok
20:32 < illegale> and the big bunch of hypocryce does not let me
20:33 < urgen> and an alternative is present or not?
20:33 < illegale> it is present, yet it fights slow and hard
20:33 < urgen> or even the potential for an alternative
20:33 < urgen> is that what you called status quo?
20:34 < illegale> not easy to go against todays hypocritical moral of sheep
20:34 < illegale> which is popular one, the one you can publicly acknowledge
20:34 < illegale> yet it is no sustanable at all
20:34 < illegale> that is the reason there is a place for wolf
20:34 < illegale> two faces of one big lie
20:35 < illegale> so, you can choose which one you will fallo
20:35 < illegale> or you can play hybrid, to have no spine which is big price, too big to be interesting
20:35 < illegale> in cro, people are adormed bythose who steal big time
20:35 < urgen> or *new*
20:36 < illegale> they acknowledge these people they awe to them
20:36 < urgen> which is neither, including hybrid
20:36 < illegale> I like new
20:36 < illegale> working for new
20:36 < illegale> yet, this is though part
20:36 < illegale> as long as society is part of moral
20:36 < urgen> so.. when you said sustainable.. it sounded similar to my 'durable'
20:36 < illegale> and this means new societ
20:36 < illegale> t
20:36 < illegale> it is
20:38 < illegale> so, how to esatblish new society, here commes the quesiton
20:38 < illegale> is it possible?
20:38 < illegale> if yes, cool
20:38 < illegale> if not, we are doomed
20:40 < urgen> it is as easy as you and I coming to terms
20:40 < urgen> arriving at mutual understanding
20:41 < urgen> or as I have been calling it 'meaningful exchange'
20:41 < urgen> at any time we see eye to eye... or maybe as echarp was saying 'on the same wavelength'
20:41 < illegale> i suppose society is much more than agreements, right?
20:41 < urgen> so, at first, it means we have to back peddle a little to find the first common ground
20:42 < urgen> society is, but only because it is naive
20:42 < urgen> the 'contracts' still exist they just haven't been realized yt
20:42 < urgen> yet
20:42 < urgen> silent, or latent
20:42 < illegale> and there is society
20:43 < illegale> so, i believe in new morality of internet
20:43 < urgen> there is a lot of commotion
20:43 < illegale> based on its platforms
20:43 < illegale> different platforms different morals
20:43 < urgen> maybe it isn't always society but does seem to get a long more often than not
20:43 < illegale> those that are sustainable one are interesting ones
20:43 < urgen> ppl discover their own terms when they have to
20:44 < urgen> I feel that it isn't really a society until those terms are recognized mutually
20:44 < illegale> you need this in rl?
20:44 < urgen> some ppl might not want that to happen because it gives them an advantage :-)
20:44 < urgen> yes in rl
20:44 < illegale> you need just enough understanding to enable coexistance
20:45 < illegale> no need to talk about transparency and stuff
20:45 < illegale> and yet it all works more or less fine
20:45 < urgen> I think co-existence can be successfully random for greater or lesser periods of time
20:45 < urgen> lasting or sustainable co-existence.. we need terms
20:46 * echarp still seeks goals, agenda, causes, and see none :(
20:47 < illegale> i think urgen do not have such
20:47 < urgen> I don't mind temporary arbitrary goals, agenda, cause to direct forward movement by
20:47 < illegale> Urgen is philosopher imo
20:47 < illegale> old fashined one
20:47 < illegale> right, Urgne?
20:47 < urgen> "every natty dread was once a bald head" music I'm listening to just said
20:49 < illegale> urgen, how did sheep coexsisted for millions of years? did they had terms?
20:51 < illegale> what i can notice, for articulated work we need articulated terms, as long as it helps a lot
20:51 < illegale> yet, to talk about it as the one and only thing, i do not think so
20:52 < illegale> to talk about it on and on, it is just laziness for doing exact work imo
20:56 < urgen> they had terms
20:57 < urgen> like the bird that is injured is killed by the rest of the flock
20:57 < urgen> it changed the terms of the norm
20:57 < urgen> sheep also do that copy cat jump thing over the same imaginary snake
20:59 < illegale> cool
20:59 < illegale> so, they do not need language to find these principles.
21:00 < illegale> as long as i jumping over imaginary snake do not find to be term, right?
21:01 < urgen> my working definition of information is any difference that makes a difference
21:03 < illegale> difference to?
21:03 < urgen> as long as that difference is open to query, sustainability is an option
21:03 < illegale> preexisting state?
21:04 < urgen> relation, probably yes
21:04 < illegale> so, if we do agree about something, that is done stuff
21:04 < illegale> if we set organsiation based on several principles, that si done stuff?
21:04 < illegale> no need for further work, right?
21:04 < urgen> but I've not really had anyone to assist to find out. since all understanding is arrived at by 'mutual' regard
21:04 < urgen> it takes two to tango
21:05 < urgen> once a model is available, it can change when new people enter or when any existing understanding changes
21:05 < urgen> it can be reviewed and ammended at any time
21:06 < urgen> work is optional
21:07 < urgen> but the retention of workability guarantees sustainability
21:09 < urgen> some order is a good thing. tho that order doesn't have to be decided ahead of time
21:09 < urgen> ( I say can't be decided, but that's my part of this story )
21:10 < illegale> ad hoc answers are fine thing in these on line organsiation
21:12 < urgen> even the US constitution is suppose to be a temporary convention
21:13 < urgen> it is just that these initial stages of exploration are soooooo much work that ppl are scared to revisit it later
21:13 < urgen> :-)
21:13 < urgen> like those snarly dusty clumps of cables that form behind computer desks
21:13 < urgen> :-)
21:14 < urgen> I'm brave enough to wade in, dis-assemble, label, map, and review for currency
21:15 < urgen> but since not a lot of people are that brave the labels end up being my own
21:15 < urgen> should someone else have to re-assemble, it might not happen if they didn't understand my original intent of the 'term/label'
21:16 < urgen> so you were pleading for 'village test'
21:16 < urgen> please make the labels as simple and clear as possible
21:16 < urgen> I say. that's totally possible but prevents future modifications due to the lack of appreciation for why the connections were where they were
21:17 < urgen> workability being the test
21:32 -!- illegale [n=ille...@cmung4136.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)]
21:33 < echarp> urgen: still wanting to talk? goals and all that :)
21:33 < urgen> I'm cleaning my office too :-)
21:33 < echarp> :)
21:37 < urgen> so its whim vs inspired choice, right?
21:37 < echarp> who said that?
21:38 < echarp> I'm just inquiring
21:38 < urgen> :-)
21:38 < urgen> some level of abstraction that may have no basis
21:38 < urgen> could be a a whim
21:39 < echarp> possibly yes
21:40 < echarp> but you! from where comes your energy?
21:40 < echarp> what is the cause of your acts?
21:41 < urgen> even if I cite sourcelessness the framework to generate a perspective from which to appreciate that is not also sourceless
21:42 < echarp> you believe there can be such a thing as sourceless???
21:42 < urgen> but I can't really be expected to require an original source am I?
21:42 < echarp> I'm not asking for anything original
21:42 < echarp> just asking for a source
21:42 < urgen> from beginningless beginning.. time beyond measure
21:42 < urgen> well one step leads to another
21:43 < echarp> well, you consider that your source is the origin of the universe (whatever that may exactly be)?
21:43 < urgen> cause is the previous step
21:43 < echarp> ok, yet you individual you, the sum of the particles which we usually think of as urgen!
21:43 < urgen> one theory about the origin of the universe has it that both space and time started at the same moment as this origin
21:44 < urgen> so. if I say 'before time'
21:44 < urgen> that's to say before the origin
21:44 < echarp> ok
21:44 < urgen> but if I was to say before time.. I am using a member of a set to describe a condition outside of that set
21:44 < urgen> bad form
21:44 < urgen> the questions can cut both ways
21:44 < urgen> I wouldn't hold them quite so hard
21:44 < urgen> :-)
21:45 < echarp> so, what are your causes, and do you see a direction to it?
21:45 < echarp> a state those causes are pushing "you" toward
21:45 < echarp> any trajectory you can spot?
21:45 < echarp> a beginning and an end?
21:45 < urgen> the lasting happiness of all that have capacity to appreciate it
21:46 < echarp> happiness, ok, that's a good word!!!
21:46 < echarp> you see, you can state goals!!!
21:46 < urgen> so from interruptable or nonsustainable to lasting and sustainable
21:46 < urgen> you can maybe say 'improvement' is a goal
21:46 < echarp> lasting happiness is "your" goal?
21:46 < urgen> but I can't really describe the conditions of that improvement
21:46 < echarp> improvement is another goal
21:46 < echarp> no ned to describe, yet, the means
21:47 < echarp> the goals are more important
21:47 < urgen> I think I have capacity to appreciate lasting happiness
21:47 < urgen> so perhaps it is my goal
21:47 < urgen> but I won't know until everyone knows
21:47 < urgen> :-)
21:47 < urgen> such is the nature of basis
21:48 < urgen> if you can agree then hey, it's a start but not a confirmation...
21:48 < echarp> why do you need everyone to know???
21:48 < echarp> can't a goal be personal?
21:49 < urgen> I will allow 'a personal' but I can't confirm that it really exists
21:50 < echarp> I'm not asking you to!!!
21:50 < echarp> you should understand that I am not *at all* into absolutes
21:50 < urgen> I have plenty of day to day needs
21:50 < urgen> gotta get the rent paid, buy food, wash the car
21:50 < echarp> this is intermediate
21:51 < echarp> worthy of much efforts, yet not necessarily worthy of a life
21:51 < urgen> long term, I'm just working on learning
21:51 < echarp> learning is good, knowing, understanding
21:51 < urgen> recognizing silly mistakes and divesting from them
21:52 < echarp> and so, do you think others can share those goals?
21:52 < echarp> or can have other goals?
21:52 < urgen> means to allow similar or differing goals seems to be manditory
21:53 < echarp> but means are just that, means
21:53 < echarp> if we do not know what to apply them for
21:53 < echarp> they can't be worth much, can they?
21:54 < urgen> hmn value as recognition
21:54 < urgen> value as inherently subjective
21:54 < echarp> value of?
21:54 < urgen> 'worth much'
21:55 < echarp> I'm not saying that it's anything but subjective
21:55 < urgen> beauty is in the eye of the beholder
21:55 < echarp> yet, what are means applied randomly?
21:55 < urgen> but if I see no beauty what good is an eye
21:55 < echarp> it can be plenty good ;)
21:56 < urgen> I'm still just back at stop making silly mistakes
21:56 < echarp> ?
21:57 < echarp> "back at stop"?
21:57 < urgen> via extension we reach for what is when it is not and let go of what is not when it was
21:57 < urgen> I want to posit an external goal?
21:58 < urgen> by what means?
21:58 < echarp> or "the grass is always greener elsewhere"
21:59 < echarp> I do not want to posit an external goal
21:59 < urgen> ok
21:59 < echarp> I'm searching for "our" goals
21:59 < echarp> humanity's, mine's, your's
21:59 < urgen> other than stopping making silly mistakes?
22:00 < echarp> it is a valid goal
22:00 < echarp> stopping suffering
22:00 < echarp> the original epicurian goal in fact
22:00 < urgen> that's the context for sharing
22:00 < urgen> the basis of value
22:00 < urgen> one has no fun if no one else wants to play their game
22:01 < urgen> that's an incredible modifying force
22:01 < urgen> why prisons exist
22:01 < echarp> not being alone, another goal
22:01 < urgen> ( though they aren't applied that way )
22:01 < urgen> but removing someone from social contact is incredibly loud
22:02 < urgen> having an independent goal sounds like removing me from social context
22:02 < urgen> you say there are shared goals? prove it :-)
22:02 < echarp> it does not necessarily mean such
22:03 < echarp> of course there are
22:03 < echarp> domination for example :)
22:03 < echarp> constructing something can be a shared goal, like a child education
22:04 < urgen> ( it was a trick question )
22:04 < urgen> of course one can find shared goals.
22:04 < urgen> I'm just not so sure about indidual ones, except, then, to share thos
22:04 < urgen> e
22:04 < echarp> you don't think there are valid individual goals???
22:05 < echarp> like stopping pain?
22:05 < urgen> I don't think there is a valid individual
22:05 < echarp> or experiencing pleasure?
22:05 < urgen> who cares about goals they may have
22:05 < echarp> well well well, then why bother about anything really!?
22:05 < echarp> why do you clean your office? :)
22:05 < urgen> because of the interruptable nature of the experience holding such a view generates
22:06 < urgen> it gets painful
22:07 < urgen> continuity is threatened by the imposition of individual goals
22:07 < echarp> there you see, a goal!!!
22:07 < urgen> by nature, by design, by workability
22:07 < echarp> stopping pain!!! :)
22:08 < echarp> you clean your office *in order* to stop suffering a painful view
22:08 < urgen> even someone with imaginary pain still feels it
22:08 < echarp> of course
22:08 < echarp> and it can be a goal to remove it!!!
22:09 < urgen> it is tricky removing imaginary things
22:09 < echarp> well, you don't have to do that "for" them, you may just "help" them if they so ask
22:10 < echarp> no need for coercion
22:10 < urgen> right
22:11 < echarp> so, you personally, do you think you have goals in life?
22:11 < echarp> education? improvement?
22:11 < urgen> so an altruistic goal is not enough?
22:12 < echarp> if only nietsche had not destroyed it! ;)
22:12 < echarp> but it can look valid
22:13 < urgen> ok, we can go all cold dry and technical if you want
22:13 < echarp> I don't know
22:13 < urgen> or we can see that a better nietsche attempted sarcasm
22:14 < echarp> sarcasm against the good and evil?
22:14 < urgen> and was actually very bright and sunny and if you hold the pointy end you've mistaken the original intent
22:14 < echarp> sorry, what do you mean? that nietsche thought there was such a thing as altruism???
22:14 < echarp> a "valid" thing
22:15 < urgen> that nietsche couched his terms in reverse
22:15 < urgen> to fool those who are quick to leap
22:16 < echarp> what do you mean, that he meant the opposite of what he said???
22:16 < urgen> pick up your baggage of solidity and drag it along til you see the unnecessary weight then find out nietsche is still there with no bag
22:17 < urgen> laughing
22:17 < echarp> do tell me, did he or did not pull apart all shreds of what we used to call morality?
22:18 < urgen> why shred tortoise hair?
22:18 < urgen> ok, you see all these bald turtles? I did that
22:18 < echarp> ok, maybe go back to that altruistic goal
22:18 < echarp> do you think altruism exist or is just a name for other things?
22:18 < urgen> I think it is a special case use of 'altruistic'
22:19 < urgen> we only get lost whith assumed definition
22:19 < urgen> without a me or I or you or we...
22:19 < urgen> there is no uber ego of a nietsche world either
22:19 < urgen> not even one without fear
22:20 < urgen> I have no me to save
22:20 < urgen> I have no you to save
22:20 < echarp> I don't care about that, I am just probing
22:20 < urgen> I have no I to save
22:20 < urgen> I have no we to save
22:20 < urgen> I have no us to save
22:20 < urgen> I have no other to save
22:20 < urgen> .
22:20 < urgen> .
22:20 < urgen> .
22:20 < urgen> on and on
22:20 < echarp> I am trying to understand the assembly of elements which we usually call urgen
22:21 < urgen> a conglomeration of tendency built from the propensity of aeons
22:21 < urgen> each tendency born from holding what is for what is not and what is not for what is
22:22 < urgen> a reinforcement by repetition
22:22 < urgen> or 'truth by intensity'
22:23 < urgen> loud does not really mean true, but how else will this be discovered :-)
22:23 < urgen> lets listen and find out
22:23 < urgen> what is let go of already didn't inherently exist
22:23 < urgen> what mistake was there to learn by?
22:24 < urgen> a neuron does not fire until enough triggers are accumulated
22:24 < echarp> exactly
22:24 < urgen> what is a trigger?
22:24 < echarp> many things
22:24 < echarp> usually a signal
22:25 < urgen> back to information as a difference that makes a difference
22:25 < urgen> the actual reason I enjoy cyberspace
22:26 < urgen> cyber as in 'feedback'
22:26 < urgen> and the open space that allows this exchange of condition
22:26 < urgen> that we are never 'doomed'
22:26 < echarp> yet, I still don't know what makes you tick :)
22:27 < echarp> education? self improvement?
22:27 < echarp> the feeling of helping others?
22:27 < urgen> 'letting go'
22:27 < echarp> hmmm
22:27 < urgen> I should not want to hold onto what is when it is not nor what is not when it is
22:28 < echarp> are you repeating a mantra? :)
22:28 < urgen> this is the heart of the cause of all problem
22:28 < urgen> hmn
22:28 < urgen> I don't remember any like that
22:28 < echarp> I do not know about that heart, not yet anyway
22:28 < urgen> I try to only share original thought
22:29 < urgen> direct experience
22:29 < echarp> it is good
22:29 < echarp> so, not "holding" is your goal?
22:29 < echarp> what is that feeling? freedom possibly?
22:29 < urgen> :-)
22:29 < urgen> freedom works
22:29 < echarp> not being stressed? :)
22:29 < urgen> peace works
22:29 < echarp> see, those are cool goals!!!
22:29 < urgen> stillness to actually hear works
22:29 < echarp> silence :)
22:29 < urgen> not getting in one's own way
22:30 < urgen> not trip over my own shoelaces
22:30 < echarp> cool enough to allow oneself to live
22:30 < echarp> see, all cool words you should use!!!
22:30 < urgen> they are too often contrived
22:30 < echarp> you should transmit your energy
22:30 < urgen> I'm more interested in finding original expression
22:31 < echarp> sorry to chime in, but originality might be an illusion ;)
22:31 < urgen> this life is generous enough for us to reach any means
22:31 < urgen> illusion can eat itself
22:32 < urgen> non-affirming negation
22:33 < urgen> don't posit to then require removal
22:33 < urgen> unnecessary step
22:33 < urgen> so we end up with lots of special case use applications for what appear to be common terms
22:33 < urgen> not regarding that potential causes most problems
22:34 < urgen> all terms are open ended
22:34 < urgen> all symbols, signs are mapped in an arbitrary fashion
22:34 < echarp> of course they are
22:34 < urgen> nothing is inherent
22:34 < echarp> this is what they are!
22:34 < urgen> even illusion
22:34 < echarp> and we learn to do with that
22:35 < urgen> we can learn, indeed
22:35 < urgen> but that acclimation requires quite a bit of practice
22:35 < echarp> of course
22:35 < echarp> so what?
22:35 < echarp> this is normal humanity
22:35 < urgen> nothing so what
22:36 < urgen> it doesn't really have to require a goal set other than recognizing it for what it is
22:37 < echarp> goals are great ways to organise people
22:37 < urgen> tools
22:37 < echarp> goals are ways to understand one another
22:37 < urgen> ok
22:37 < echarp> goals embody our energies
22:37 < echarp> goals give us energy
22:39 < urgen> goal as means does not seem sustainable
22:39 < urgen> but it probably gets stuff done
22:41 < urgen> I think I'm one of those ppl that never responds to rsvp's
22:41 < urgen> and isn't asked the next time
22:42 < echarp> possibly yes
22:42 < echarp> doesn't that stop in their tracks all your social interactions?
22:42 < urgen> not really
22:43 < echarp> so, you don't respond just because... because you want originality?
22:44 < urgen> because of the limit of that social convention
22:44 < urgen> why generate such a rude limit?
22:44 < urgen> force me to respond? did they ask permission first?
22:44 < urgen> just because I'm human?
22:44 < echarp> I don't think they are forcing, they are just asking
22:44 < echarp> you know, asking does not require responding
22:45 < echarp> it is just that, asking
22:45 < urgen> rsvp means please respond
22:45 < urgen> but the please is extra
22:45 < urgen> if you don't then the 'rude' is worn by oneself
22:45 < echarp> I don't know, I try not to do that myself
22:46 < echarp> if someone does not respond, then it just means that they don't respond
22:46 < urgen> ya
22:46 < echarp> if I think that an answer is required, I don't know, to carry on, then I might ask again
22:46 < echarp> but I won't "judge" if the other does not respond
22:46 < echarp> just it's a lost opportunity of common understanding
22:47 < urgen> I can see if the rsvp needs the information to provision an event, for example
22:47 < echarp> so, did I happen to rsvp all over the day today? :(
22:47 < urgen> but why not just say we need to provision this event and appreciate communication of your intent to participate
22:48 < echarp> well, I'm sorry, but to me "intent to participate" is *muuuch* less interesting than shared goals
22:48 < urgen> no I'm not talking about you
22:48 < echarp> cool
22:48 < urgen> I'm seeing the 'conventions of society'
22:48 < echarp> shared goals is a yardstick I personally love
22:48 < echarp> I think that I'm also seeing the conventions of society, well, in parts at least
22:51 < urgen> being in error without good cause -- due to convention of society
22:51 < echarp> yeap
22:51 < echarp> stereotypes
22:51 < urgen> by popular whim
22:52 < urgen> so somehow goals tripped that response
22:52 < urgen> sorry
22:52 < echarp> no problem
22:52 < echarp> why do you live? why do you wake in the morning and go at your job?
22:53 < urgen> you already asked
22:53 < urgen> the 'propensity' was the answer
22:54 < urgen> I am unhesitantly propentious
22:54 < urgen> to be other would be spontaneous?
22:54 < urgen> no prior relation
22:55 < urgen> independent of the burden of responiveness
22:55 < echarp> and do you know why you are being altruistic?
22:56 < urgen> that form of 'altruistic' is by default
22:56 < echarp> btw, my dict command says that propensity is just a disposition to do something
22:56 < urgen> without measure of concern for burden
22:56 < echarp> = natural inclination
22:56 < urgen> disposition, inclination
22:57 < urgen> I call it bio bias sometimes
22:57 < echarp> ok, propensity to do what you do, I get it (I replaced it wrongly with altruism)
22:57 < echarp> you do what you do because the universe wants you to
22:57 < echarp> it is cool
22:57 < echarp> "want" is just a term of course :)
22:57 < urgen> universe would be an 'other'
22:57 < urgen> I hold no inherent self or other
22:58 < echarp> universe might relieve the need of any "other" :)
22:58 < urgen> with the mere use of I as a convention... a metaphor
22:58 < echarp> universe, as its name implies, is "everything"
22:58 < urgen> :-) language doesn't help
22:58 < echarp> of course "I" is just a convention!!!
22:59 < urgen> the unified propensity is not separate from this 'original intent' called I
23:00 < urgen> there can be no separation in 'relative'
23:00 < urgen> by default
23:01 < urgen> but I'm not sure I would find it important to label it as an 'everything'
23:01 < urgen> it works in mean time anyway with that provision
23:03 < echarp> btw, do you think you know your goals?
23:04 < echarp> maybe you are just being original and don't want to communicate them, to communicate them easily anyway :)
23:04 < urgen> I'm still working on honesty
23:04 < urgen> on the ability to be aware in a way that does not support un-needed obstacle or obscuration
23:05 < urgen> attentiveness
23:05 < urgen> then maybe I can know 'my own goals'
23:06 < echarp> so, you don't think you currently know your goals? (if they may even exist of course)
23:06 < urgen> I am in review, checking inventory
23:06 < urgen> I am aware of some things
23:07 < urgen> goal,,, I'd have thought I dismissed quite a few years ago as non-prouctive... but I'm willing to reconsider
23:08 < echarp> I'm not saying that there *are* goals, there may well just be intermediary one
23:08 < echarp> yet they would all the more be worth communicating!
23:08 < echarp> for example a goal could be: "feed the world" :)
23:08 < urgen> indicators
23:09 < urgen> mile posts
23:09 < echarp> or it could be: "build something that will last forever, a pyramid or anything"
23:09 < urgen> landmarks
23:09 < echarp> yeap
23:09 < echarp> hugely important landmarks!!!
23:09 < urgen> ok
23:09 < echarp> incredibly important!!!
23:09 < urgen> I have been polishing my understanding for a few years now
23:09 < echarp> it is good
23:10 < echarp> I believe I have done the same
23:10 < echarp> "know yourself"
23:10 < urgen> yes
23:10 < echarp> "try to become yourself" (this is a good one, although very fatalistic)
23:11 < echarp> all coming from the greeks, and back possibly also coming from egypt and/or the indians
23:11 < urgen> I like: As the distance between wish and actualization approaches zero
23:11 < echarp> yeap
23:12 < echarp> very stoīc thought :)
23:12 < urgen> that's a goal
23:12 < echarp> it is
23:12 < echarp> very worthy one
23:12 < echarp> one which can bring happiness
23:12 < echarp> or so I think anyway
23:12 < urgen> or as a definition for happiness
23:13 < echarp> but stoīsm is also rather difficult on the individual :)
23:13 < echarp> I don't think it necessarily means happiness no
23:13 < urgen> :-)
23:13 < echarp> I think happiness is a great symbol, one we *have* to define for one self :)
23:13 < echarp> individual happiness then
23:16 < urgen> so what music do you like?
23:17 < echarp> rock mostly, pop rock, ben harper, pink floyd
23:17 < echarp> I listen to http://radioparadise.com
23:17 < urgen> I listen to online audio streams -- trip hop, ambient
23:17 < echarp> great great radio
23:17 < urgen> ya radioparadise does a good job
23:17 < echarp> very good one yes
23:17 < echarp> I have to send them some money sometimes :)
23:18 < echarp> I quite like everything that rocks, but with time I'm learning to appreciate jazz
23:19 < echarp> and I love some of the good french singers, those with well written "texts"
23:19 < echarp> it's such a pleasure to listen to, poetic or funny, angry or sad
23:19 < echarp> alanis morisette like :)
23:20 < urgen> so TOP should start a stream show
23:20 < urgen> but that would mean funding for bandwidth
23:21 < urgen> surely there are some audio/video programs that can be educational/informative
23:24 < echarp> plus organising the stream might get hugely difficult
23:24 < echarp> matters of taste 'n choice
23:24 < echarp> there surely can be informative ones yes
23:24 * echarp loves to watch documentaries!
23:25 < urgen> well, it might become a nice labratory
23:25 < echarp> could
23:26 < echarp> I believe some people are tinkering with Free music (Free as in "libre")
23:26 < urgen> laboratory
23:37 < echarp> getting late
23:38 < echarp> urgen: we carry on tomorrow?
23:39 < urgen> np
23:48 < echarp> good night!
--- Log closed ven jun 16 00:00:19 2006
echarp
Jun 16, 2006, 8:59:29 PM6/16/06
to top-politics
--- Log opened ven jun 16 00:00:19 2006
09:31 < echarp> hello
09:39 -!- urgyen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
09:39 < echarp> hello again urgen and urgyen :)
09:39 -!- urgen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)]
09:40 -!- urgen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
10:36 -!- oneab (gaim) [n=G...@l192-115-56-22.broadband.actcom.net.il] has joined #parlement
10:41 -!- oneab [n=G...@l192-115-56-22.broadband.actcom.net.il] has left #parlement []
18:11 -!- urgyen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit []
--- Log closed sam jun 17 00:00:20 2006
09:31 < echarp> hello
09:39 -!- urgyen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
09:39 < echarp> hello again urgen and urgyen :)
09:39 -!- urgen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)]
09:40 -!- urgen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
10:36 -!- oneab (gaim) [n=G...@l192-115-56-22.broadband.actcom.net.il] has joined #parlement
10:41 -!- oneab [n=G...@l192-115-56-22.broadband.actcom.net.il] has left #parlement []
18:11 -!- urgyen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit []
--- Log closed sam jun 17 00:00:20 2006
echarp
Jun 18, 2006, 10:57:24 AM6/18/06
to top-politics
--- Log opened sam jun 17 00:00:20 2006
01:18 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
03:26 -!- urgen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)]
04:15 -!- urgen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
04:46 -!- urgen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
04:59 -!- urgen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
05:41 -!- urgen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)]
07:01 -!- urgen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
07:26 < urgen> nsh?
--- Log closed sam jun 17 10:38:12 2006
--- Log opened sam jun 17 10:38:51 2006
10:38 -!- echarp [n=33M0...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has joined #parlement
10:38 -!- Topic for #parlement: http://leparlement.org/irc
10:38 -!- Topic set by echarp [] [Sun Jun 11 20:50:53 2006]
10:38 [Users #parlement]
10:38 [ EarleMartin] [ echarp] [ fiatlex] [ nsh] [ urgen]
10:38 -!- Irssi: #parlement: Total of 5 nicks [0 ops, 0 halfops, 0 voices, 5 normal]
10:38 -!- Channel #parlement created Thu Apr 27 09:48:29 2006
10:39 -!- Irssi: Join to #parlement was synced in 44 secs
15:14 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
18:43 < nsh:#parlement> urgy
18:50 < urgen:#parlement> ah
18:51 < urgen:#parlement> you remember when we crossed harmonic resonance as a political force?
18:51 < urgen:#parlement> something like -- only the interference patterns are detectable
18:52 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
18:52 < echarp> hello hello
18:52 < urgen> well it might have gone further than *just* governance but synonymous to me none the less ;-)
18:53 < urgen> this demonstration of sound waves vs form is really interesting: http://forums.eternallytransient.com/index.php/topic,347.msg623.html#msg623
18:53 < urgen> its a youtube video
18:56 < urgen> and then I found a bunch of math that looked like it might support an idea of context sensitive plotting but I don't have that link handy at the moment
19:00 < urgen> and I found another group that is parallelling efforts of the digital commonwealth from a different tack -- they call it the Integrated Commons
19:02 < urgen> oops typo'd that
19:02 < urgen> Integral Commons
19:02 < urgen> and. hi echarp
19:03 < urgen> I've been busy cleaning my office ( a couple years worth of accumulation ) and didn't see you say anything so was figuring you weren't around
19:04 < urgen> I can't function without accumulation
19:04 < urgen> but there is still a limit before it begins to impact in a negative way and has to be sorted through
19:06 < echarp> is it a mess? an organised mess? just an orderly accumulation? :)
19:06 < urgen> always orderly
19:08 < echarp> digital commonwealth?
19:09 < echarp> what is that? what are their goals?
19:09 < urgen> I think I just made that up
19:09 < echarp> ok :)
19:09 < urgen> it has probably been used before but I wasn't attaching any formal definition
19:10 < echarp> dinner is ready, want some salmon and brocolis? :)
19:10 < urgen> sounds nice but i just ate breakfast ;-)
19:10 * nsh back
19:11 < nsh> reading,,
19:11 < nsh> yah, i remember the resonnance thing
19:12 < urgen> re my method of organization: http://www.structuredprocrastination.com/light/organization.html
19:13 < nsh> hrmm
19:13 < nsh> interesting
19:14 < urgen> you watch that video?
19:14 < echarp> urgen: lovely planet, one on dinner while the other on breakfast, nsh? :)
19:17 * nsh smiles
19:17 < nsh> about dinner time
19:17 < nsh> i'm 1/2 hours to the left of you
19:17 < nsh> or counter-spinwise
19:29 < echarp> :)
19:30 < urgen> so last night I started to explore the StumbleUpon firefox extension
19:30 < urgen> do you know pandora? the music suggest system?
19:30 < nsh> /me nods
19:31 < urgen> if you like this music then you might also enjoy:
19:31 * nsh smiles
19:31 < urgen> so stumbleupon is the same for websites
19:31 < nsh> mm
19:32 < nsh> except at pandora they made sorta family tree of music
19:32 < urgen> the anatomy of a nugget is an interesting idea
19:32 < urgen> I see pandora as being myopic
19:32 < urgen> it only gives me more of the last couple clicks I've indicated that I enjoy
19:33 < urgen> if I want five different flavors in some certain proportion it can't handle determining the selection
19:33 < urgen> too bad
19:33 * nsh nods
19:33 < nsh> it's a start
19:34 < urgen> so weighted agreement sounds like an essential component of digital commons
19:35 * nsh agrees
19:35 < urgen> anatomy of a nugget or extraction of a metric
19:35 < urgen> guess that's not an or
19:36 < nsh> mmm
19:36 < nsh> what do you mean by nugget?
19:36 < urgen> lump of value
19:36 < nsh> ah
19:37 < urgen> phenny's ety suggests value by means of historic use
19:37 < urgen> it carries greater weighting than fringe use
19:37 < urgen> so is opted for continuation
19:37 < urgen> ecology/economy
19:38 < urgen> the websites that get voted for in stumbleupon determines nugget value
19:38 < urgen> some ppl see value some don't
19:39 < nsh> mmmm
19:39 < urgen> looks like more harmonics :-)
19:40 < urgen> value by resonance
19:40 < nsh> sympathy, affinity
19:40 < nsh> like
19:40 < nsh> ever go to an exploratory
19:41 < nsh> and they have the big parabolic dishes on opposite sides of the room
19:41 < nsh> and you can talk into one and hear it in the other
19:41 < nsh> because they are "tuned"
19:41 < nsh> - facing each other
19:42 < urgen> tuned seems like a useful term
19:42 < urgen> echarp forwarded 'on the same wavelength' the other day
19:42 < echarp> :)
19:42 < urgen> it is metaphorical but seems like it 'has some legs' too
19:42 * nsh smiles
19:42 < echarp> it might just be a french idiom kind of thing
19:43 < urgen> I think it is a hippy idiom
19:43 < nsh> wavelength?
19:43 < nsh> mmm
19:43 < nsh> probably predates but popularised by
19:43 < urgen> 'groove' is similar
19:43 < nsh> groove is nice
19:44 < nsh> indicates a path
19:44 < urgen> groovy mon
19:44 < echarp> oooh, groove then :)
19:44 < nsh> so
19:44 < nsh> could something like pandora be a suitable experiment for agreement engine?
19:44 < urgen> and illegale used 'gravity' to suggest attraction of attention
19:45 < nsh> mmm
19:45 < urgen> I think it has to be a component, I don't think it is close to being an engine
19:46 < nsh> how do you mean?
19:46 < urgen> the full road map of agreement also includes grievance loops
19:47 < nsh> antigravity
19:47 < urgen> you can vote do thumbs down... but what is needed is rehash
19:47 < urgen> redress
19:48 < urgen> we need a #proto-parlement
19:48 < echarp> there is thumb up and thumb down on parlement already :)
19:48 < nsh> egg-stage turned out to be very useful in biological systems
19:49 < urgen> so.. sounds like we are getting close to a new rule
19:50 < urgen> proto-proposal: there is a process to the discovery, development, and implementation of rules
19:50 < nsh> hmmm
19:50 * nsh proto-accepts
19:51 < echarp> very low level
19:51 < urgen> this is to get the idea of 'process' accepted and included in game play
19:51 < echarp> = stating the obvious kind of thing
19:51 < urgen> echarp keeps saying that it is obvious
19:51 < urgen> yet I can't find a single document that describes this process
19:51 < urgen> we are actually pioneering
19:52 < urgen> no obvious about it
19:52 < urgen> it is very well engendered, I agree
19:53 < urgen> but to extract the automatic process with conscious regard...
19:53 < urgen> not very easy
19:53 * nsh eating pie
19:53 < echarp> nsh: :-p
19:53 < nsh> still "listening"
19:53 < echarp> obvious because there is "obviously" a process to play nomic, to accept rules
19:54 < urgen> obviously a process to play music but that doesn't mean I can :-)
19:54 < echarp> it's like saying "there are players and a bot", yes there are
19:55 < urgen> it took someone that could play music taking the time to extract the process before it could be shared
19:55 < echarp> what could be of interest, is a "limited" number of players
19:55 < echarp> well, describe the process, no need to say it exists :)
19:55 < echarp> "there are words in this sentence..."
19:56 < urgen> do first say it is to then say do it
19:56 < echarp> "this sentence is a sentence" :)
19:56 < urgen> to say do it without saying what we are doing is more difficult
19:56 < urgen> to know that we are describing a process means that it might be good to toss in some systems research
19:56 < echarp> "there are words on the screen we are reading" :)
19:57 < urgen> and we can abstract this to math instead of political party representative
19:57 < urgen> there are words on the screen we are reading, yes
19:57 < urgen> etymology and historical use as a weighting factor
19:57 < urgen> I was already trying to define that as well
19:57 < urgen> :-)
19:58 < urgen> without this system being airtight reflexive it will just fall apart
19:58 < urgen> 'tuned'
19:58 < echarp> I don't understand where you are going with with the weighting factor and etymology/history
19:58 < urgen> etymology works like a judge
19:59 < urgen> I say no no no the term blue means mountain
19:59 < urgen> we explore prior use
19:59 < urgen> prior art
19:59 < urgen> questions of authority and ownership
19:59 < echarp> I do understand that you want to build on stone and not on sand
20:00 < urgen> questions of authority and ownership are synonymous with the process
20:01 < urgen> we refine a step, extract even more unconscious, automatic, social reflex
20:01 < urgen> but not limit it by culture or creed
20:02 < echarp> you are digging deep
20:02 < urgen> otherwise it is just another faction
20:02 < urgen> and will find itself smashed on the windshield of world politics
20:02 < echarp> faction? group of people?
20:02 < urgen> party
20:02 < urgen> front
20:03 < echarp> well, humanity do know how to do politics
20:04 < urgen> the complete spectrum of general case to special interest has to be allowed easy access
20:04 < urgen> to answer who gets to participate you wouldn't automatically think was already a biased question
20:04 < urgen> but it is
20:04 < echarp> do you think you/we can design something so revolutionary that it will not be just another party?
20:04 < urgen> of course
20:05 < echarp> of course "who gets to participate" is biased and laden with strong meaning
20:05 < urgen> I think new species are possible
20:06 < urgen> it doesn't happen in a vacuum
20:06 < echarp> a specie, nothing less? :)
20:06 < urgen> and it doesn't happen instantaneously
20:07 < urgen> it does depend on condition and circumstance
20:07 < echarp> so the building you envision aims to be a building for a new specie?
20:07 < urgen> I just want to be able to conserve the option
20:08 < urgen> without that. whatever is built will not be 'fair' 'open' 'free'
20:08 < echarp> conserver the option of creating a new specie?
20:08 < urgen> the option to allow
20:08 < urgen> conserve potential
20:08 < urgen> not limit
20:09 < urgen> humans seem to have gotten the favoritism reflex/habit down very well now
20:09 < urgen> lets practice something different for a change
20:10 < echarp> did you study sociology? psychology?
20:10 < echarp> because I believe those are the true foundations of humanity
20:10 < urgen> my major was social psychology for a couple years...
20:10 < echarp> language and etymology just being the top of the iceberg
20:11 < urgen> but I also studied engineering
20:11 < echarp> then do you understand that our animal nature does carry weight in our culture?
20:11 < echarp> that we are not different in kind to the rest of the animal kingdom
20:11 < echarp> but in quantity => more "intelligence"
20:13 < urgen> I can formulate a frame of reference from which to consider such an idea :-)
20:13 < echarp> frame of reference? words?
20:15 < urgen> on which a theory is hung
20:16 < urgen> everything depends on the approach
20:16 < urgen> an art student sees something different in a gallery than a physicist sees
20:17 < urgen> each may be capable of fully supporting their own perspective
20:17 < urgen> context determines meaning
20:17 < echarp> yet, do you understand the pov that humans are mere animals?
20:17 < urgen> the experience comes before the expression of it
20:18 < urgen> as opposed to mere biological?
20:18 < urgen> as opposed to mere material?
20:18 < urgen> as opposed to mere conditional?
20:18 < urgen> like.. we have to have food shelter, etc.
20:18 < urgen> mazlovs hierarchy of needs
20:19 < echarp> mazlovs is great
20:19 < echarp> (his hierarchy)
20:20 < urgen> I also appreciate a scope that suggests capacity is a function of lasting happiness
20:20 < echarp> but it's not just our needs which are animal, I believe it goes deeper
20:20 < urgen> intelligence and the time to do something with it
20:20 < urgen> leisure to contemplate
20:20 < echarp> sorry, you seem to have leaped far away
20:21 < urgen> so you are exploring an ideas to sponsor a 'nature of basis?'
20:21 < urgen> and it needed some reference to animal kingdom to be properly introduced..
20:21 < urgen> I'll be back now and you can continue
20:22 < echarp> nature of basis elludes me
20:22 < urgen> that's what we stopped on last time
20:22 < urgen> since a nature of truth was distasteful
20:22 < echarp> last time when you said that you didn't want to use common words because they lacker originality? :)
20:23 < echarp> "lacked"
20:23 < urgen> nature of basis would be something like: has to be logical and rational
20:23 < echarp> uh?
20:23 < urgen> which maybe is why you are suggesting 'intelligence'
20:23 < echarp> "who" has to?
20:23 < urgen> the point of agreement has to
20:23 < echarp> I'm merely studying your ambition to create a new specie!
20:23 < urgen> the understanding has to
20:24 < urgen> I'm probably using the term metaphorically
20:24 < urgen> common words unchallenged
20:24 < urgen> if they have been reviewed and accepted then fine.
20:25 < urgen> common carries quite a bit of baggage
20:25 < echarp> I still disagree with you *strongly* about that
20:25 < urgen> that baggage shouldn't be allowed to slip in, would be a lack of vigilance
20:25 < urgen> :-)
20:26 < echarp> it is a dream to consider that one can remove all connotations
20:26 < urgen> so you want me to shut my eyes so you can slip baggage in?
20:26 < echarp> our whole humanity is a matter of connotations
20:26 < echarp> our brain is a huge network of connotations
20:26 < urgen> dream. that is in close proximity to lie, right?
20:26 < echarp> no chance you can remove them
20:26 < echarp> nope
20:27 < urgen> it is for me
20:27 < echarp> a dream is something one thinks of but which does not exist
20:27 < echarp> it exists only in one's mind
20:27 < echarp> a dream
20:27 < echarp> a lie is, you know, something falsly communicated
20:29 < urgen> I do not think a lie requires conscious intention
20:29 < urgen> I think we lie to ourselves all the time
20:29 < echarp> a dream does not imply a lie, a lie does not imply a dream
20:29 < echarp> no causation
20:30 < urgen> a thought is a causation
20:31 < echarp> causation of?
20:31 < urgen> the dream
20:31 < echarp> a dream is a thought :)
20:36 < urgen> ok, so, there is no 'dream' outside of what translates through the perceptual matrix?
20:37 < urgen> but sometimes people use the word 'dream' indicate 'illusion' as a temporary mistaken identification
20:37 < urgen> insubstantial
20:38 < echarp> insubstantial, definitely
20:38 < echarp> illusion seem way too strong
20:38 < echarp> too connotated :)
20:39 < urgen> I'm just saying that mistaken identification is a lie, too
20:40 < urgen> we accidentally lie to ourself
20:40 < urgen> we are accidentally dishonest
20:40 < echarp> well, you want *me* to accuse *you* of /lie/?
20:40 < urgen> it's just a silly mistake
20:40 < echarp> that would not be very nice, me thinks
20:40 < echarp> I'd rather just say that you are mistaken
20:41 < echarp> no need to add accusations on top of it
20:41 < urgen> since any meaning's value depends on the frame of reference
20:42 < urgen> I am saying it is all equally insubstantial
20:42 < urgen> so since we start with a lie.. I don't think you can compound it by saying we have yet lied again
20:42 < echarp> I know there are connotations, we have to play with that
20:42 < urgen> a mistake on a mistake is still a mistake
20:42 < echarp> "have to" as in "we don't have a choice"
20:42 < urgen> I want a choice
20:42 < urgen> I want the majority of mistakes to back off
20:42 < echarp> you do not have "real" choice
20:43 < urgen> forcing an mistaken issue doesn't make it right or legal
20:43 < urgen> I don't have immediate choice in the face of a bully, correct
20:43 < urgen> doesn't change the issue
20:43 < urgen> just requires a change in short term goals
20:43 < urgen> enough interruptions and lasting happiness can never be even hoped for
20:44 < urgen> I'm not interested in status quo
20:45 < urgen> there is plenty of leisure, stil, in this time, do do something
20:45 < echarp> what do you think of determinism?
20:46 < urgen> a monkey in a room with a bananna hanging and some boxes will determine that it can reconfigure the room to stack the boxes, climb them, and get the bananna
20:46 < urgen> as opposed to a 'freedom of will' where at one instance I can will my hand onto the moom...
20:47 < urgen> there's a hybrid stance in there somewhere
20:49 < echarp> do you know what determinism is?
20:49 < echarp> is supposed to be anyway
20:50 < urgen> yes that is why I avoided it
20:50 < urgen> trap
20:51 < echarp> a trap?
20:51 < echarp> to me it's a description
20:51 < urgen> dead end thought
20:51 < urgen> starts from nowhere, leads to nowhere
20:51 < echarp> and a huge concept that is very dear to my meme pool
20:51 < urgen> fatalistic
20:51 < echarp> fatalistic?
20:51 < urgen> it is a bit different than 'cause and effect'
20:52 < urgen> a quantum core defeats the idea of deterministic models
20:52 < urgen> simultaneous and instantaneous
20:52 < urgen> parallell
20:52 < urgen> all things a determinisitic model fails at
20:52 < echarp> the trouble with quantums is that they are relatively new in our understanding
20:53 < echarp> and local to small conditions
20:53 < echarp> there is no knowledge about their interaction with the larger world
20:53 < echarp> they might just "cancel out"
20:54 < echarp> and it does not change one thing: humans do not have free will
20:54 < echarp> our choices are just dreams
20:58 < urgen> the cancelling out pre-determines determination
20:58 < urgen> point is moot
20:58 < echarp> it might be moot
20:58 < echarp> so you know what determinism is, do you think it applies on humanity full force or not?
20:59 < urgen> decentralized authority models should be able to allow deterministic frames of reference without requiring interference patterns on other frames of reference
21:00 < echarp> sorry, determinism is rather simpler than that
21:00 < urgen> it can't apply unless we refuse to acknowledge the capacity to learn.
21:00 < urgen> ya, but I'm not simple :-)
21:00 < echarp> but the concept is
21:00 < echarp> I'm asking you about the concept!!!
21:00 < urgen> so it can easily be contained in complexity
21:00 < echarp> are you going to play "catch" around it?
21:04 < urgen> even simple structuralism trumps determinism
21:05 < echarp> how?
21:06 < urgen> relative suggests that determine is a human concept
21:07 < echarp> everything is...
21:07 < echarp> and?
21:07 < urgen> and therefore prone to biased perceptions
21:07 < urgen> from which people design frames of refrence to evaluate by
21:08 < echarp> and?
21:08 < echarp> determinism is a concept biased to perceptions in what way?
21:08 < urgen> it is perceptual
21:08 < urgen> it is a thought
21:08 < urgen> it is a concept
21:09 < echarp> of course it is
21:09 < echarp> and?
21:09 < echarp> is that concept valid according to you or is it not?
21:09 < echarp> do you think it applies or do you think it does not?
21:10 < urgen> concepts are not valid
21:10 < urgen> conceptuality is not valid
21:11 < urgen> a frame of reference is dependent upon the nature of its basis
21:11 < urgen> you set the stage all things proceed from there
21:11 < urgen> you establish the basis from which determinism is always true and it will be so
21:11 < echarp> sorry, if everything is relative, what kind of basis do you plan?
21:11 < urgen> from that frame of reference only
21:12 < urgen> is that not a neutral, fair and open basis?
21:12 < urgen> relative
21:13 < urgen> we can allow someone who believes in ufo's, bigfoots, global controversy.. whatever
21:13 < urgen> unicorns...
21:13 < urgen> viking spirit guides...
21:13 < urgen> whatever
21:13 < urgen> and determinism too
21:14 < urgen> but I shouldn't want to allow determinism to determine who is right and who is wrong
21:14 < urgen> that's just impossible
21:14 < echarp> I'm not saying that *at all*
21:14 < echarp> I'm probing into your belief system
21:14 < urgen> I can not chase trains of cause and effect in reverse
21:14 < urgen> it is too complex
21:14 < echarp> I'm asking you a question, that's all :)
21:14 < urgen> I can not chase trains of cause and effect forward
21:14 < urgen> it is too complex
21:15 < echarp> I think you do and we all do
21:15 < echarp> and it is very complex
21:15 < echarp> probably part of the reasons why we have such big brains
21:15 < urgen> so. by means of relative. all potential pasts and all potential futures exist already
21:15 < urgen> that doesn't break 'deterministic' thought
21:16 < urgen> to be capable of meeting with the present in a way that allows one lateral motion...
21:16 < urgen> determinism doesn't even have a way to evaluatio that
21:16 < echarp> it does not have to evaluate anything
21:16 < echarp> determinism in our discussion just says one thing: we do not have free will
21:18 < urgen> I already found that out without requiring formal definition of determinism
21:18 < urgen> I say. hand, go sit on the moon
21:18 < urgen> it doesn't happen
21:18 < urgen> no free will
21:18 < echarp> there, no free will :)
21:18 < echarp> just what I said
21:19 < urgen> doesn't prove determinism
21:19 < echarp> it does not
21:19 < urgen> only suggests complexity
21:19 < echarp> it just says that you agree with it
21:19 < echarp> you know, we can also just be speaking
21:19 < urgen> I already said that I agreed with it
21:19 < echarp> well, I didn't catch it
21:19 < urgen> oh
21:19 < echarp> I had the feeling you were just looking for contradictions
21:20 < echarp> the hand on the moon like just one agreement in a large pool of disagreement
21:20 < urgen> to me the concept of free will and the concept of determinism are equally naive
21:20 < echarp> plus the hand is not the mind :)
21:20 < echarp> I don't think they are naive, I think they are constitutive
21:20 < echarp> a basis of our thought
21:21 < urgen> ok, if accepted as gospel, then, naive
21:21 < urgen> as a component., fine, great
21:21 < urgen> the more tools the more work that can get done
21:22 < echarp> you should understand that I don't think in terms of gospel or other axioms
21:22 < urgen> ya
21:22 < echarp> I am a relativist
21:22 < echarp> meme, determinism, rationality
21:22 < urgen> and maybe slightly a realist like me
21:22 < echarp> hopefully a realist, as much as I can try anyway :)
21:23 < urgen> ya, that's what I mean.. I'm 'slightly' a realist
21:23 < urgen> to degree of capacity
21:24 < echarp> see, same wave length :)
21:24 < urgen> so far, so good
21:24 < echarp> and of course, I also envision a society where those thoughts can be refused by its members
21:24 < echarp> I do not claim to know an absolute
21:24 < urgen> and even then.. it is way good enough already
21:25 < echarp> I just claim to know something fairly important and with rather strong basis in reality
21:26 < urgen> workability, operability
21:26 < urgen> function
21:26 < echarp> tolerance
21:27 < echarp> because tolerance is stronger, more encompassing, than intolerance
21:27 < urgen> tolerance has taken on a few enrichments since I started to track that term
21:27 < echarp> because a system of system where every one is allowed to build his own happiness, carries more potentials
21:27 < echarp> connotations, always and of course
21:27 < urgen> it still has a place of acceptance but its value has increased in ways that are not on 'common wavelengths'
21:28 < urgen> so tolerance has special reserved use for me now
21:29 < urgen> which kind of demonstrates tolerance
21:29 < urgen> ;-)
21:30 < echarp> well, you should not allow others to redefine and to forbid your use of *your* words
21:31 < urgen> harmonic layers of definition do not conflict
21:31 < echarp> tss tss, conflict will always happen in many ways
21:31 < urgen> enrich but do not limit
21:32 < urgen> without tension learning is impossible
21:32 < echarp> there is no way to totally remove inconsistencies
21:32 < echarp> I do not know if inconsistency = tension, but I agree that some kind of energy is useful in order to learn
21:33 < urgen> sure, I may be taking liberties there...
21:33 < urgen> :-)
21:33 < urgen> artistic license
21:33 < echarp> what is nice, is that this energy to learn seem like ingrained in humans
21:33 < echarp> we just have to watch babies and kids
21:34 < echarp> they have to go through years of school in order to remove those from them ;)
21:34 < urgen> ;-)
21:34 < urgen> good ol' school
21:35 < echarp> yeap, the industry of learning
21:36 < urgen> ok, I'm going to get back to cleaning my horizontally organized office
21:37 < echarp> lol
21:37 < echarp> there is stargate on tv :)
21:37 * echarp loves science fiction, even semi crappy one
21:40 < urgen> stargate is great
21:41 < urgen> I haven't gotten to watch much sg atlantis tho
21:41 < urgen> oh you meant the movie and not the series?
21:41 < echarp> to me it is good, and I like following it, but I soooo much prefered Babylo 5
21:41 < echarp> babylon
21:42 < urgen> I never got into that one
21:42 < echarp> the best ever
21:42 < echarp> yet not on the level of some of the best books
21:43 < echarp> jose farmer, david brin, greg bear
--- Log closed dim jun 18 00:00:20 2006
01:18 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
03:26 -!- urgen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)]
04:15 -!- urgen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
04:46 -!- urgen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
04:59 -!- urgen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
05:41 -!- urgen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)]
07:01 -!- urgen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
07:26 < urgen> nsh?
--- Log closed sam jun 17 10:38:12 2006
--- Log opened sam jun 17 10:38:51 2006
10:38 -!- echarp [n=33M0...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has joined #parlement
10:38 -!- Topic for #parlement: http://leparlement.org/irc
10:38 -!- Topic set by echarp [] [Sun Jun 11 20:50:53 2006]
10:38 [Users #parlement]
10:38 [ EarleMartin] [ echarp] [ fiatlex] [ nsh] [ urgen]
10:38 -!- Irssi: #parlement: Total of 5 nicks [0 ops, 0 halfops, 0 voices, 5 normal]
10:38 -!- Channel #parlement created Thu Apr 27 09:48:29 2006
10:39 -!- Irssi: Join to #parlement was synced in 44 secs
15:14 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
18:43 < nsh:#parlement> urgy
18:50 < urgen:#parlement> ah
18:51 < urgen:#parlement> you remember when we crossed harmonic resonance as a political force?
18:51 < urgen:#parlement> something like -- only the interference patterns are detectable
18:52 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
18:52 < echarp> hello hello
18:52 < urgen> well it might have gone further than *just* governance but synonymous to me none the less ;-)
18:53 < urgen> this demonstration of sound waves vs form is really interesting: http://forums.eternallytransient.com/index.php/topic,347.msg623.html#msg623
18:53 < urgen> its a youtube video
18:56 < urgen> and then I found a bunch of math that looked like it might support an idea of context sensitive plotting but I don't have that link handy at the moment
19:00 < urgen> and I found another group that is parallelling efforts of the digital commonwealth from a different tack -- they call it the Integrated Commons
19:02 < urgen> oops typo'd that
19:02 < urgen> Integral Commons
19:02 < urgen> and. hi echarp
19:03 < urgen> I've been busy cleaning my office ( a couple years worth of accumulation ) and didn't see you say anything so was figuring you weren't around
19:04 < urgen> I can't function without accumulation
19:04 < urgen> but there is still a limit before it begins to impact in a negative way and has to be sorted through
19:06 < echarp> is it a mess? an organised mess? just an orderly accumulation? :)
19:06 < urgen> always orderly
19:08 < echarp> digital commonwealth?
19:09 < echarp> what is that? what are their goals?
19:09 < urgen> I think I just made that up
19:09 < echarp> ok :)
19:09 < urgen> it has probably been used before but I wasn't attaching any formal definition
19:10 < echarp> dinner is ready, want some salmon and brocolis? :)
19:10 < urgen> sounds nice but i just ate breakfast ;-)
19:10 * nsh back
19:11 < nsh> reading,,
19:11 < nsh> yah, i remember the resonnance thing
19:12 < urgen> re my method of organization: http://www.structuredprocrastination.com/light/organization.html
19:13 < nsh> hrmm
19:13 < nsh> interesting
19:14 < urgen> you watch that video?
19:14 < echarp> urgen: lovely planet, one on dinner while the other on breakfast, nsh? :)
19:17 * nsh smiles
19:17 < nsh> about dinner time
19:17 < nsh> i'm 1/2 hours to the left of you
19:17 < nsh> or counter-spinwise
19:29 < echarp> :)
19:30 < urgen> so last night I started to explore the StumbleUpon firefox extension
19:30 < urgen> do you know pandora? the music suggest system?
19:30 < nsh> /me nods
19:31 < urgen> if you like this music then you might also enjoy:
19:31 * nsh smiles
19:31 < urgen> so stumbleupon is the same for websites
19:31 < nsh> mm
19:32 < nsh> except at pandora they made sorta family tree of music
19:32 < urgen> the anatomy of a nugget is an interesting idea
19:32 < urgen> I see pandora as being myopic
19:32 < urgen> it only gives me more of the last couple clicks I've indicated that I enjoy
19:33 < urgen> if I want five different flavors in some certain proportion it can't handle determining the selection
19:33 < urgen> too bad
19:33 * nsh nods
19:33 < nsh> it's a start
19:34 < urgen> so weighted agreement sounds like an essential component of digital commons
19:35 * nsh agrees
19:35 < urgen> anatomy of a nugget or extraction of a metric
19:35 < urgen> guess that's not an or
19:36 < nsh> mmm
19:36 < nsh> what do you mean by nugget?
19:36 < urgen> lump of value
19:36 < nsh> ah
19:37 < urgen> phenny's ety suggests value by means of historic use
19:37 < urgen> it carries greater weighting than fringe use
19:37 < urgen> so is opted for continuation
19:37 < urgen> ecology/economy
19:38 < urgen> the websites that get voted for in stumbleupon determines nugget value
19:38 < urgen> some ppl see value some don't
19:39 < nsh> mmmm
19:39 < urgen> looks like more harmonics :-)
19:40 < urgen> value by resonance
19:40 < nsh> sympathy, affinity
19:40 < nsh> like
19:40 < nsh> ever go to an exploratory
19:41 < nsh> and they have the big parabolic dishes on opposite sides of the room
19:41 < nsh> and you can talk into one and hear it in the other
19:41 < nsh> because they are "tuned"
19:41 < nsh> - facing each other
19:42 < urgen> tuned seems like a useful term
19:42 < urgen> echarp forwarded 'on the same wavelength' the other day
19:42 < echarp> :)
19:42 < urgen> it is metaphorical but seems like it 'has some legs' too
19:42 * nsh smiles
19:42 < echarp> it might just be a french idiom kind of thing
19:43 < urgen> I think it is a hippy idiom
19:43 < nsh> wavelength?
19:43 < nsh> mmm
19:43 < nsh> probably predates but popularised by
19:43 < urgen> 'groove' is similar
19:43 < nsh> groove is nice
19:44 < nsh> indicates a path
19:44 < urgen> groovy mon
19:44 < echarp> oooh, groove then :)
19:44 < nsh> so
19:44 < nsh> could something like pandora be a suitable experiment for agreement engine?
19:44 < urgen> and illegale used 'gravity' to suggest attraction of attention
19:45 < nsh> mmm
19:45 < urgen> I think it has to be a component, I don't think it is close to being an engine
19:46 < nsh> how do you mean?
19:46 < urgen> the full road map of agreement also includes grievance loops
19:47 < nsh> antigravity
19:47 < urgen> you can vote do thumbs down... but what is needed is rehash
19:47 < urgen> redress
19:48 < urgen> we need a #proto-parlement
19:48 < echarp> there is thumb up and thumb down on parlement already :)
19:48 < nsh> egg-stage turned out to be very useful in biological systems
19:49 < urgen> so.. sounds like we are getting close to a new rule
19:50 < urgen> proto-proposal: there is a process to the discovery, development, and implementation of rules
19:50 < nsh> hmmm
19:50 * nsh proto-accepts
19:51 < echarp> very low level
19:51 < urgen> this is to get the idea of 'process' accepted and included in game play
19:51 < echarp> = stating the obvious kind of thing
19:51 < urgen> echarp keeps saying that it is obvious
19:51 < urgen> yet I can't find a single document that describes this process
19:51 < urgen> we are actually pioneering
19:52 < urgen> no obvious about it
19:52 < urgen> it is very well engendered, I agree
19:53 < urgen> but to extract the automatic process with conscious regard...
19:53 < urgen> not very easy
19:53 * nsh eating pie
19:53 < echarp> nsh: :-p
19:53 < nsh> still "listening"
19:53 < echarp> obvious because there is "obviously" a process to play nomic, to accept rules
19:54 < urgen> obviously a process to play music but that doesn't mean I can :-)
19:54 < echarp> it's like saying "there are players and a bot", yes there are
19:55 < urgen> it took someone that could play music taking the time to extract the process before it could be shared
19:55 < echarp> what could be of interest, is a "limited" number of players
19:55 < echarp> well, describe the process, no need to say it exists :)
19:55 < echarp> "there are words in this sentence..."
19:56 < urgen> do first say it is to then say do it
19:56 < echarp> "this sentence is a sentence" :)
19:56 < urgen> to say do it without saying what we are doing is more difficult
19:56 < urgen> to know that we are describing a process means that it might be good to toss in some systems research
19:56 < echarp> "there are words on the screen we are reading" :)
19:57 < urgen> and we can abstract this to math instead of political party representative
19:57 < urgen> there are words on the screen we are reading, yes
19:57 < urgen> etymology and historical use as a weighting factor
19:57 < urgen> I was already trying to define that as well
19:57 < urgen> :-)
19:58 < urgen> without this system being airtight reflexive it will just fall apart
19:58 < urgen> 'tuned'
19:58 < echarp> I don't understand where you are going with with the weighting factor and etymology/history
19:58 < urgen> etymology works like a judge
19:59 < urgen> I say no no no the term blue means mountain
19:59 < urgen> we explore prior use
19:59 < urgen> prior art
19:59 < urgen> questions of authority and ownership
19:59 < echarp> I do understand that you want to build on stone and not on sand
20:00 < urgen> questions of authority and ownership are synonymous with the process
20:01 < urgen> we refine a step, extract even more unconscious, automatic, social reflex
20:01 < urgen> but not limit it by culture or creed
20:02 < echarp> you are digging deep
20:02 < urgen> otherwise it is just another faction
20:02 < urgen> and will find itself smashed on the windshield of world politics
20:02 < echarp> faction? group of people?
20:02 < urgen> party
20:02 < urgen> front
20:03 < echarp> well, humanity do know how to do politics
20:04 < urgen> the complete spectrum of general case to special interest has to be allowed easy access
20:04 < urgen> to answer who gets to participate you wouldn't automatically think was already a biased question
20:04 < urgen> but it is
20:04 < echarp> do you think you/we can design something so revolutionary that it will not be just another party?
20:04 < urgen> of course
20:05 < echarp> of course "who gets to participate" is biased and laden with strong meaning
20:05 < urgen> I think new species are possible
20:06 < urgen> it doesn't happen in a vacuum
20:06 < echarp> a specie, nothing less? :)
20:06 < urgen> and it doesn't happen instantaneously
20:07 < urgen> it does depend on condition and circumstance
20:07 < echarp> so the building you envision aims to be a building for a new specie?
20:07 < urgen> I just want to be able to conserve the option
20:08 < urgen> without that. whatever is built will not be 'fair' 'open' 'free'
20:08 < echarp> conserver the option of creating a new specie?
20:08 < urgen> the option to allow
20:08 < urgen> conserve potential
20:08 < urgen> not limit
20:09 < urgen> humans seem to have gotten the favoritism reflex/habit down very well now
20:09 < urgen> lets practice something different for a change
20:10 < echarp> did you study sociology? psychology?
20:10 < echarp> because I believe those are the true foundations of humanity
20:10 < urgen> my major was social psychology for a couple years...
20:10 < echarp> language and etymology just being the top of the iceberg
20:11 < urgen> but I also studied engineering
20:11 < echarp> then do you understand that our animal nature does carry weight in our culture?
20:11 < echarp> that we are not different in kind to the rest of the animal kingdom
20:11 < echarp> but in quantity => more "intelligence"
20:13 < urgen> I can formulate a frame of reference from which to consider such an idea :-)
20:13 < echarp> frame of reference? words?
20:15 < urgen> on which a theory is hung
20:16 < urgen> everything depends on the approach
20:16 < urgen> an art student sees something different in a gallery than a physicist sees
20:17 < urgen> each may be capable of fully supporting their own perspective
20:17 < urgen> context determines meaning
20:17 < echarp> yet, do you understand the pov that humans are mere animals?
20:17 < urgen> the experience comes before the expression of it
20:18 < urgen> as opposed to mere biological?
20:18 < urgen> as opposed to mere material?
20:18 < urgen> as opposed to mere conditional?
20:18 < urgen> like.. we have to have food shelter, etc.
20:18 < urgen> mazlovs hierarchy of needs
20:19 < echarp> mazlovs is great
20:19 < echarp> (his hierarchy)
20:20 < urgen> I also appreciate a scope that suggests capacity is a function of lasting happiness
20:20 < echarp> but it's not just our needs which are animal, I believe it goes deeper
20:20 < urgen> intelligence and the time to do something with it
20:20 < urgen> leisure to contemplate
20:20 < echarp> sorry, you seem to have leaped far away
20:21 < urgen> so you are exploring an ideas to sponsor a 'nature of basis?'
20:21 < urgen> and it needed some reference to animal kingdom to be properly introduced..
20:21 < urgen> I'll be back now and you can continue
20:22 < echarp> nature of basis elludes me
20:22 < urgen> that's what we stopped on last time
20:22 < urgen> since a nature of truth was distasteful
20:22 < echarp> last time when you said that you didn't want to use common words because they lacker originality? :)
20:23 < echarp> "lacked"
20:23 < urgen> nature of basis would be something like: has to be logical and rational
20:23 < echarp> uh?
20:23 < urgen> which maybe is why you are suggesting 'intelligence'
20:23 < echarp> "who" has to?
20:23 < urgen> the point of agreement has to
20:23 < echarp> I'm merely studying your ambition to create a new specie!
20:23 < urgen> the understanding has to
20:24 < urgen> I'm probably using the term metaphorically
20:24 < urgen> common words unchallenged
20:24 < urgen> if they have been reviewed and accepted then fine.
20:25 < urgen> common carries quite a bit of baggage
20:25 < echarp> I still disagree with you *strongly* about that
20:25 < urgen> that baggage shouldn't be allowed to slip in, would be a lack of vigilance
20:25 < urgen> :-)
20:26 < echarp> it is a dream to consider that one can remove all connotations
20:26 < urgen> so you want me to shut my eyes so you can slip baggage in?
20:26 < echarp> our whole humanity is a matter of connotations
20:26 < echarp> our brain is a huge network of connotations
20:26 < urgen> dream. that is in close proximity to lie, right?
20:26 < echarp> no chance you can remove them
20:26 < echarp> nope
20:27 < urgen> it is for me
20:27 < echarp> a dream is something one thinks of but which does not exist
20:27 < echarp> it exists only in one's mind
20:27 < echarp> a dream
20:27 < echarp> a lie is, you know, something falsly communicated
20:29 < urgen> I do not think a lie requires conscious intention
20:29 < urgen> I think we lie to ourselves all the time
20:29 < echarp> a dream does not imply a lie, a lie does not imply a dream
20:29 < echarp> no causation
20:30 < urgen> a thought is a causation
20:31 < echarp> causation of?
20:31 < urgen> the dream
20:31 < echarp> a dream is a thought :)
20:36 < urgen> ok, so, there is no 'dream' outside of what translates through the perceptual matrix?
20:37 < urgen> but sometimes people use the word 'dream' indicate 'illusion' as a temporary mistaken identification
20:37 < urgen> insubstantial
20:38 < echarp> insubstantial, definitely
20:38 < echarp> illusion seem way too strong
20:38 < echarp> too connotated :)
20:39 < urgen> I'm just saying that mistaken identification is a lie, too
20:40 < urgen> we accidentally lie to ourself
20:40 < urgen> we are accidentally dishonest
20:40 < echarp> well, you want *me* to accuse *you* of /lie/?
20:40 < urgen> it's just a silly mistake
20:40 < echarp> that would not be very nice, me thinks
20:40 < echarp> I'd rather just say that you are mistaken
20:41 < echarp> no need to add accusations on top of it
20:41 < urgen> since any meaning's value depends on the frame of reference
20:42 < urgen> I am saying it is all equally insubstantial
20:42 < urgen> so since we start with a lie.. I don't think you can compound it by saying we have yet lied again
20:42 < echarp> I know there are connotations, we have to play with that
20:42 < urgen> a mistake on a mistake is still a mistake
20:42 < echarp> "have to" as in "we don't have a choice"
20:42 < urgen> I want a choice
20:42 < urgen> I want the majority of mistakes to back off
20:42 < echarp> you do not have "real" choice
20:43 < urgen> forcing an mistaken issue doesn't make it right or legal
20:43 < urgen> I don't have immediate choice in the face of a bully, correct
20:43 < urgen> doesn't change the issue
20:43 < urgen> just requires a change in short term goals
20:43 < urgen> enough interruptions and lasting happiness can never be even hoped for
20:44 < urgen> I'm not interested in status quo
20:45 < urgen> there is plenty of leisure, stil, in this time, do do something
20:45 < echarp> what do you think of determinism?
20:46 < urgen> a monkey in a room with a bananna hanging and some boxes will determine that it can reconfigure the room to stack the boxes, climb them, and get the bananna
20:46 < urgen> as opposed to a 'freedom of will' where at one instance I can will my hand onto the moom...
20:47 < urgen> there's a hybrid stance in there somewhere
20:49 < echarp> do you know what determinism is?
20:49 < echarp> is supposed to be anyway
20:50 < urgen> yes that is why I avoided it
20:50 < urgen> trap
20:51 < echarp> a trap?
20:51 < echarp> to me it's a description
20:51 < urgen> dead end thought
20:51 < urgen> starts from nowhere, leads to nowhere
20:51 < echarp> and a huge concept that is very dear to my meme pool
20:51 < urgen> fatalistic
20:51 < echarp> fatalistic?
20:51 < urgen> it is a bit different than 'cause and effect'
20:52 < urgen> a quantum core defeats the idea of deterministic models
20:52 < urgen> simultaneous and instantaneous
20:52 < urgen> parallell
20:52 < urgen> all things a determinisitic model fails at
20:52 < echarp> the trouble with quantums is that they are relatively new in our understanding
20:53 < echarp> and local to small conditions
20:53 < echarp> there is no knowledge about their interaction with the larger world
20:53 < echarp> they might just "cancel out"
20:54 < echarp> and it does not change one thing: humans do not have free will
20:54 < echarp> our choices are just dreams
20:58 < urgen> the cancelling out pre-determines determination
20:58 < urgen> point is moot
20:58 < echarp> it might be moot
20:58 < echarp> so you know what determinism is, do you think it applies on humanity full force or not?
20:59 < urgen> decentralized authority models should be able to allow deterministic frames of reference without requiring interference patterns on other frames of reference
21:00 < echarp> sorry, determinism is rather simpler than that
21:00 < urgen> it can't apply unless we refuse to acknowledge the capacity to learn.
21:00 < urgen> ya, but I'm not simple :-)
21:00 < echarp> but the concept is
21:00 < echarp> I'm asking you about the concept!!!
21:00 < urgen> so it can easily be contained in complexity
21:00 < echarp> are you going to play "catch" around it?
21:04 < urgen> even simple structuralism trumps determinism
21:05 < echarp> how?
21:06 < urgen> relative suggests that determine is a human concept
21:07 < echarp> everything is...
21:07 < echarp> and?
21:07 < urgen> and therefore prone to biased perceptions
21:07 < urgen> from which people design frames of refrence to evaluate by
21:08 < echarp> and?
21:08 < echarp> determinism is a concept biased to perceptions in what way?
21:08 < urgen> it is perceptual
21:08 < urgen> it is a thought
21:08 < urgen> it is a concept
21:09 < echarp> of course it is
21:09 < echarp> and?
21:09 < echarp> is that concept valid according to you or is it not?
21:09 < echarp> do you think it applies or do you think it does not?
21:10 < urgen> concepts are not valid
21:10 < urgen> conceptuality is not valid
21:11 < urgen> a frame of reference is dependent upon the nature of its basis
21:11 < urgen> you set the stage all things proceed from there
21:11 < urgen> you establish the basis from which determinism is always true and it will be so
21:11 < echarp> sorry, if everything is relative, what kind of basis do you plan?
21:11 < urgen> from that frame of reference only
21:12 < urgen> is that not a neutral, fair and open basis?
21:12 < urgen> relative
21:13 < urgen> we can allow someone who believes in ufo's, bigfoots, global controversy.. whatever
21:13 < urgen> unicorns...
21:13 < urgen> viking spirit guides...
21:13 < urgen> whatever
21:13 < urgen> and determinism too
21:14 < urgen> but I shouldn't want to allow determinism to determine who is right and who is wrong
21:14 < urgen> that's just impossible
21:14 < echarp> I'm not saying that *at all*
21:14 < echarp> I'm probing into your belief system
21:14 < urgen> I can not chase trains of cause and effect in reverse
21:14 < urgen> it is too complex
21:14 < echarp> I'm asking you a question, that's all :)
21:14 < urgen> I can not chase trains of cause and effect forward
21:14 < urgen> it is too complex
21:15 < echarp> I think you do and we all do
21:15 < echarp> and it is very complex
21:15 < echarp> probably part of the reasons why we have such big brains
21:15 < urgen> so. by means of relative. all potential pasts and all potential futures exist already
21:15 < urgen> that doesn't break 'deterministic' thought
21:16 < urgen> to be capable of meeting with the present in a way that allows one lateral motion...
21:16 < urgen> determinism doesn't even have a way to evaluatio that
21:16 < echarp> it does not have to evaluate anything
21:16 < echarp> determinism in our discussion just says one thing: we do not have free will
21:18 < urgen> I already found that out without requiring formal definition of determinism
21:18 < urgen> I say. hand, go sit on the moon
21:18 < urgen> it doesn't happen
21:18 < urgen> no free will
21:18 < echarp> there, no free will :)
21:18 < echarp> just what I said
21:19 < urgen> doesn't prove determinism
21:19 < echarp> it does not
21:19 < urgen> only suggests complexity
21:19 < echarp> it just says that you agree with it
21:19 < echarp> you know, we can also just be speaking
21:19 < urgen> I already said that I agreed with it
21:19 < echarp> well, I didn't catch it
21:19 < urgen> oh
21:19 < echarp> I had the feeling you were just looking for contradictions
21:20 < echarp> the hand on the moon like just one agreement in a large pool of disagreement
21:20 < urgen> to me the concept of free will and the concept of determinism are equally naive
21:20 < echarp> plus the hand is not the mind :)
21:20 < echarp> I don't think they are naive, I think they are constitutive
21:20 < echarp> a basis of our thought
21:21 < urgen> ok, if accepted as gospel, then, naive
21:21 < urgen> as a component., fine, great
21:21 < urgen> the more tools the more work that can get done
21:22 < echarp> you should understand that I don't think in terms of gospel or other axioms
21:22 < urgen> ya
21:22 < echarp> I am a relativist
21:22 < echarp> meme, determinism, rationality
21:22 < urgen> and maybe slightly a realist like me
21:22 < echarp> hopefully a realist, as much as I can try anyway :)
21:23 < urgen> ya, that's what I mean.. I'm 'slightly' a realist
21:23 < urgen> to degree of capacity
21:24 < echarp> see, same wave length :)
21:24 < urgen> so far, so good
21:24 < echarp> and of course, I also envision a society where those thoughts can be refused by its members
21:24 < echarp> I do not claim to know an absolute
21:24 < urgen> and even then.. it is way good enough already
21:25 < echarp> I just claim to know something fairly important and with rather strong basis in reality
21:26 < urgen> workability, operability
21:26 < urgen> function
21:26 < echarp> tolerance
21:27 < echarp> because tolerance is stronger, more encompassing, than intolerance
21:27 < urgen> tolerance has taken on a few enrichments since I started to track that term
21:27 < echarp> because a system of system where every one is allowed to build his own happiness, carries more potentials
21:27 < echarp> connotations, always and of course
21:27 < urgen> it still has a place of acceptance but its value has increased in ways that are not on 'common wavelengths'
21:28 < urgen> so tolerance has special reserved use for me now
21:29 < urgen> which kind of demonstrates tolerance
21:29 < urgen> ;-)
21:30 < echarp> well, you should not allow others to redefine and to forbid your use of *your* words
21:31 < urgen> harmonic layers of definition do not conflict
21:31 < echarp> tss tss, conflict will always happen in many ways
21:31 < urgen> enrich but do not limit
21:32 < urgen> without tension learning is impossible
21:32 < echarp> there is no way to totally remove inconsistencies
21:32 < echarp> I do not know if inconsistency = tension, but I agree that some kind of energy is useful in order to learn
21:33 < urgen> sure, I may be taking liberties there...
21:33 < urgen> :-)
21:33 < urgen> artistic license
21:33 < echarp> what is nice, is that this energy to learn seem like ingrained in humans
21:33 < echarp> we just have to watch babies and kids
21:34 < echarp> they have to go through years of school in order to remove those from them ;)
21:34 < urgen> ;-)
21:34 < urgen> good ol' school
21:35 < echarp> yeap, the industry of learning
21:36 < urgen> ok, I'm going to get back to cleaning my horizontally organized office
21:37 < echarp> lol
21:37 < echarp> there is stargate on tv :)
21:37 * echarp loves science fiction, even semi crappy one
21:40 < urgen> stargate is great
21:41 < urgen> I haven't gotten to watch much sg atlantis tho
21:41 < urgen> oh you meant the movie and not the series?
21:41 < echarp> to me it is good, and I like following it, but I soooo much prefered Babylo 5
21:41 < echarp> babylon
21:42 < urgen> I never got into that one
21:42 < echarp> the best ever
21:42 < echarp> yet not on the level of some of the best books
21:43 < echarp> jose farmer, david brin, greg bear
--- Log closed dim jun 18 00:00:20 2006
echarp
Jun 19, 2006, 3:25:47 AM6/19/06
to top-politics
--- Log opened dim jun 18 00:00:20 2006
01:01 -!- cnloyd (New Now Know How) [n=chat...@206.180.135.66.txl-dial-ip.hal-pc.org] has joined #parlement
01:01 < urgen> half the channel is in euro time
01:01 < urgen> so late or early US time activity
01:02 < cnloyd> Hello!
01:03 < echarp> hello hello cnloyd
01:03 < echarp> urgen: it *is* getting late very late here!
01:03 < cnloyd> Got here on the recommendation of urgen
01:03 < echarp> european or american time cnloyd ? ;)
01:04 < cnloyd> It's 0100 GMT, no? I'm in CDT
01:04 < cnloyd> USAer timezone
01:04 < cnloyd> Same as Chicago, Houston, other great cities.
01:04 < echarp> it *is* yes!
01:05 < cnloyd> 0100...or that Chicago and Houston are great cities?
01:06 < echarp> I suppose they are, but never been there
01:06 < cnloyd> Partially sarcastic on the "great" part.
01:06 < echarp> and I don't know if I ever will, due to those so painful restrictions there seem to be nowadays
01:06 < echarp> I'd rather go see the grand canyon :)
01:06 < cnloyd> Dinner's done over here in this segment of the planet! I'll see you guys in 30 - 45m
01:06 < cnloyd> minutes, not metres
01:07 < echarp> :)
01:07 < echarp> bon appétit!
01:07 < echarp> I'll be in bed, but do hang around, I'll read what you say later on
01:07 < urgen> tnx, nite echarp
01:09 < echarp> good night!
01:10 < echarp> cu tomorrow
01:10 < urgen> 'k
01:41 < cnloyd> Back
01:44 < cnloyd> Where is echarp from?
01:51 < urgen> um
01:51 < urgen> I forget
01:51 < urgen> seems I've heard sweden croatia and france tossed around
01:52 < urgen> I wasn't really paying much attention
01:53 < cnloyd> OK
03:14 < cnloyd> Wow. Quiet place.
04:47 -!- cnloyd [n=chat...@206.180.135.66.txl-dial-ip.hal-pc.org] has quit ["ChatZilla 0.9.52B [Mozilla rv:1.6/20040113]"]
21:13 -!- darix (tote sterben nicht.) [i=darix@irssi/staff/darix] has joined #parlement
21:14 < darix> moin, i just did an rpm of parlement... and i wonder if it would generally work with mysql too? if not i would put a hardrequires on the ruby postgresql bindings
21:15 < echarp> it should!
21:15 < echarp> hello darix
21:15 < echarp> but there is probably some work to do
21:16 < echarp> and I believe there is a gem requirement on the psql bindings
21:16 < echarp> darix: the rpm installs all right??
21:16 < darix> echarp: there isnt
21:16 < echarp> I don't believe my documentation is enough to install it all easily :(
21:16 < darix> you only require rails and RedCloth in the gem metadata
21:16 < echarp> do I...
21:17 < darix> echarp: the rpm basically does "gem install gemfile"
21:17 < darix> nothing beyond that so far. i just look into your docs. :)
21:17 < darix> (for testing)
21:17 < echarp> true, I removed most of my dependencies trying to remove some bug (and probably didn't put it back)
21:18 < echarp> you will have to generate the db and populate it using the lib/data_import.rb thingy
21:18 < darix> btw: i wonder.... you dont require a specific rails version? so 1.0 and 1.1 are fine?
21:18 < echarp> I didn't try them
21:19 < echarp> it might require the very last rails, due to my use of the :through syntax
21:19 < darix> what version do you use for production atm?
21:19 < darix> hm
21:19 < darix> so i will do at least rubygem-rails >= 1.1
21:19 < echarp> darix: 1.1.0
21:19 < darix> =)
21:19 < echarp> you probably should yes
21:19 < darix> echarp: all the work is for http://en.opensuse.org/Ruby
21:20 < echarp> openuss, woaw!
21:20 < echarp> oups no, opensuse, mistake on my part :)
21:20 < echarp> but most cool none the less (openuss in for universities, and I produced another project for education)
21:20 < darix> so soon you can do yast2 -i rubygem-parlement. config it ... and are ready to go
21:21 < echarp> darix: you are an administrator?
21:21 < darix> administrator in what way?
21:21 < echarp> you manage computers, yet don't really program?
21:22 < darix> developer,admin and coder
21:22 < echarp> any home page or blog? ;)
21:22 < darix> err
21:22 < darix> http://pixel.global-banlist.de/
21:23 < echarp> collegesexadvice! :)
21:24 < echarp> lol
21:25 < echarp> lovely tux
21:26 < echarp> darix: interested in democracy? or forums and mailing list?
21:27 < darix> interested in testing it. see what it can do. than judging what i will use. :)
21:27 < echarp> I've used it for a while, if you so wish it can be setup as P2P servers
21:28 < echarp> just have to subscribe on one server, and push all incoming mails toward the other
21:29 < echarp> me it's already used in a googleGroups => parlement production server => parlement dev laptop
22:27 -!- illegale (illegale) [i=ille...@cmung3240.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
22:27 < illegale> io
22:35 < echarp> hello illegale
22:41 < echarp> how are you?
22:55 -!- illegale [i=ille...@cmung3240.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
23:38 -!- Anon6474 (anonymous our-constitute.org site user) [i=anon...@82.79.75.47] has joined #parlement
23:38 -!- Anon6474 [i=anon...@82.79.75.47] has quit [Client Quit]
--- Log closed lun jun 19 00:00:21 2006
01:01 -!- cnloyd (New Now Know How) [n=chat...@206.180.135.66.txl-dial-ip.hal-pc.org] has joined #parlement
01:01 < urgen> half the channel is in euro time
01:01 < urgen> so late or early US time activity
01:02 < cnloyd> Hello!
01:03 < echarp> hello hello cnloyd
01:03 < echarp> urgen: it *is* getting late very late here!
01:03 < cnloyd> Got here on the recommendation of urgen
01:03 < echarp> european or american time cnloyd ? ;)
01:04 < cnloyd> It's 0100 GMT, no? I'm in CDT
01:04 < cnloyd> USAer timezone
01:04 < cnloyd> Same as Chicago, Houston, other great cities.
01:04 < echarp> it *is* yes!
01:05 < cnloyd> 0100...or that Chicago and Houston are great cities?
01:06 < echarp> I suppose they are, but never been there
01:06 < cnloyd> Partially sarcastic on the "great" part.
01:06 < echarp> and I don't know if I ever will, due to those so painful restrictions there seem to be nowadays
01:06 < echarp> I'd rather go see the grand canyon :)
01:06 < cnloyd> Dinner's done over here in this segment of the planet! I'll see you guys in 30 - 45m
01:06 < cnloyd> minutes, not metres
01:07 < echarp> :)
01:07 < echarp> bon appétit!
01:07 < echarp> I'll be in bed, but do hang around, I'll read what you say later on
01:07 < urgen> tnx, nite echarp
01:09 < echarp> good night!
01:10 < echarp> cu tomorrow
01:10 < urgen> 'k
01:41 < cnloyd> Back
01:44 < cnloyd> Where is echarp from?
01:51 < urgen> um
01:51 < urgen> I forget
01:51 < urgen> seems I've heard sweden croatia and france tossed around
01:52 < urgen> I wasn't really paying much attention
01:53 < cnloyd> OK
03:14 < cnloyd> Wow. Quiet place.
04:47 -!- cnloyd [n=chat...@206.180.135.66.txl-dial-ip.hal-pc.org] has quit ["ChatZilla 0.9.52B [Mozilla rv:1.6/20040113]"]
21:13 -!- darix (tote sterben nicht.) [i=darix@irssi/staff/darix] has joined #parlement
21:14 < darix> moin, i just did an rpm of parlement... and i wonder if it would generally work with mysql too? if not i would put a hardrequires on the ruby postgresql bindings
21:15 < echarp> it should!
21:15 < echarp> hello darix
21:15 < echarp> but there is probably some work to do
21:16 < echarp> and I believe there is a gem requirement on the psql bindings
21:16 < echarp> darix: the rpm installs all right??
21:16 < darix> echarp: there isnt
21:16 < echarp> I don't believe my documentation is enough to install it all easily :(
21:16 < darix> you only require rails and RedCloth in the gem metadata
21:16 < echarp> do I...
21:17 < darix> echarp: the rpm basically does "gem install gemfile"
21:17 < darix> nothing beyond that so far. i just look into your docs. :)
21:17 < darix> (for testing)
21:17 < echarp> true, I removed most of my dependencies trying to remove some bug (and probably didn't put it back)
21:18 < echarp> you will have to generate the db and populate it using the lib/data_import.rb thingy
21:18 < darix> btw: i wonder.... you dont require a specific rails version? so 1.0 and 1.1 are fine?
21:18 < echarp> I didn't try them
21:19 < echarp> it might require the very last rails, due to my use of the :through syntax
21:19 < darix> what version do you use for production atm?
21:19 < darix> hm
21:19 < darix> so i will do at least rubygem-rails >= 1.1
21:19 < echarp> darix: 1.1.0
21:19 < darix> =)
21:19 < echarp> you probably should yes
21:19 < darix> echarp: all the work is for http://en.opensuse.org/Ruby
21:20 < echarp> openuss, woaw!
21:20 < echarp> oups no, opensuse, mistake on my part :)
21:20 < echarp> but most cool none the less (openuss in for universities, and I produced another project for education)
21:20 < darix> so soon you can do yast2 -i rubygem-parlement. config it ... and are ready to go
21:21 < echarp> darix: you are an administrator?
21:21 < darix> administrator in what way?
21:21 < echarp> you manage computers, yet don't really program?
21:22 < darix> developer,admin and coder
21:22 < echarp> any home page or blog? ;)
21:22 < darix> err
21:22 < darix> http://pixel.global-banlist.de/
21:23 < echarp> collegesexadvice! :)
21:24 < echarp> lol
21:25 < echarp> lovely tux
21:26 < echarp> darix: interested in democracy? or forums and mailing list?
21:27 < darix> interested in testing it. see what it can do. than judging what i will use. :)
21:27 < echarp> I've used it for a while, if you so wish it can be setup as P2P servers
21:28 < echarp> just have to subscribe on one server, and push all incoming mails toward the other
21:29 < echarp> me it's already used in a googleGroups => parlement production server => parlement dev laptop
22:27 -!- illegale (illegale) [i=ille...@cmung3240.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
22:27 < illegale> io
22:35 < echarp> hello illegale
22:41 < echarp> how are you?
22:55 -!- illegale [i=ille...@cmung3240.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
23:38 -!- Anon6474 (anonymous our-constitute.org site user) [i=anon...@82.79.75.47] has joined #parlement
23:38 -!- Anon6474 [i=anon...@82.79.75.47] has quit [Client Quit]
--- Log closed lun jun 19 00:00:21 2006
echarp
Jun 20, 2006, 3:17:34 AM6/20/06
to top-politics
--- Log opened lun jun 19 00:00:21 2006
00:14 < echarp> good night
00:14 < echarp> darix: see you tomorrow!
00:14 < darix> cya
00:23 -!- darix [i=darix@irssi/staff/darix] has left #parlement ["All rights reversed"]
00:59 -!- cnloyd (Chris) [n=cnl...@adsl-69-151-39-47.dsl.hstntx.swbell.net] has joined #parlement
00:59 < cnloyd> Hello?
01:33 < cnloyd> Sooo...no one's here.
03:22 -!- cnloyd [n=cnl...@adsl-69-151-39-47.dsl.hstntx.swbell.net] has quit ["Leaving"]
04:29 < urgen> home
09:23 < echarp> hello hello urgen !
11:19 -!- Netsplit niven.freenode.net <-> irc.freenode.net quits: nsh
11:23 -!- nsh (No Such Human) [n=n...@88.144.29.133] has joined #parlement
18:03 < urgen> wow I slept in a bit
18:04 < urgen> having to take allergy medicine for hay fever / pollens puts a lot of stress on my body
19:06 < echarp> hello hello urgen
19:07 < echarp> urgen: just out of bed?!
19:07 < urgen> had a bowl of oatmeal, need to go get my tea, I think it is ready
19:08 < echarp> me I'm just back out of the office
19:08 < echarp> about to have my dinner :)
19:13 < urgen> http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:HXzRBjUwCToJ:www.via-visioninaction.org/Alignment_Beyond_Agreement.pdf+&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=firefox-a
19:14 < urgen> I've been using the term agreement... probably in a very unique way although I hadn't thought I was
19:14 < urgen> this article suggests alignment because it is saying agreement only involves opinion
19:15 < urgen> I made google extract an html version because I don't like pdf's
19:16 * echarp doesn't like much pdf either
19:16 < urgen> but, alignment vs agreement might be a helpful exploration
19:16 < echarp> effectively
19:17 < echarp> there seem to be quite some difference between the 2
19:18 < echarp> alignment is much stronger
19:18 < urgen> I, of course, didn't intend agreement to mean opinion only but it seemed buridan was also saying that a vote did not indicate consent
19:18 < urgen> so, looks like there is something to talk about
19:18 < echarp> yeap
19:19 < echarp> to agree is just opinion, to align with is action
19:21 < urgen> so using a harmonic wave as an example, where the waves combine is alignment and not agreement and where they cross is not disagreement
19:24 < urgen> there seems to be QOS element in 'alignment'
19:24 < urgen> but quality of service still sounds like an agreement
19:25 < urgen> I suppose there is nothing wrong with having a model that supports multi-order productivity
19:26 < urgen> in that article, "Aligned intention creates
19:26 < urgen> a synergetic field of spiritual coherence
19:26 < urgen> "
19:27 < urgen> you'll probably have a problem with that quote because it uses 'spiritual'
19:27 < urgen> but I see that it is trying to qualify the term with, "that works as a
19:27 < urgen> conduit for enhanced intelligence and empowered
19:27 < urgen> action beyond the usual limitation of the individual.
19:27 < urgen> "
19:28 < urgen> still sounds a little problematic
19:28 < urgen> and, again, starting to lean on agreement
19:30 < urgen> the following sentence seems to suggest disagreement as the driving force of the QOS metric
19:32 < urgen> so though the words of choice may still contain some personal agenda they still seem to be hanging together in a coherent argument
19:47 < echarp> re
19:50 < echarp> spiritual coherence does sound funny yes :)
19:55 < echarp> it's like opening shakras, merely useful as an analogy :)
19:56 < urgen> part of why I try to avoid problematic language
19:56 < echarp> there will always be connotations!
19:56 < urgen> but I can allow in special case use provided enough time it spent on arriving at mutual understanding
19:57 < echarp> not using common words?
19:57 < urgen> otherwise my vigilence would be telling me a bomb may have just slipped in
19:57 < urgen> common is not broad enough to allow opportunity
19:58 < urgen> it is a closed loop system
19:58 < echarp> what, you just want to invent words then?
19:58 < urgen> hybrid is fine
19:58 < urgen> I'm just not willing to limit to common use only
19:58 < echarp> so, you want to remove all connotations?
19:58 < echarp> (but the want you want obviously)
19:59 < urgen> any connotation can be presented and argued for
19:59 < urgen> present, state the case, allow modification if required and then put in motion
19:59 < echarp> you think connotations are even visible and conscious?
20:00 < urgen> the unintentional bombs we have to worry about as they are discovered
20:00 < urgen> a process can be defined for such
20:00 < echarp> connotations can be removed when they are found?
20:01 < urgen> not removed but acknowledged
20:01 < echarp> even conflicting ones? :)
20:01 < urgen> and handled, whether removed or not after they are defined
20:02 < urgen> never automatic rejection
20:02 < echarp> what of connotations that are present but not conscious?
20:03 < urgen> I thought that was what we were talking about
20:03 < urgen> unintentional, unaware
20:03 < echarp> hmmmm, possibly yes
20:03 < urgen> old unexamined habit thoughts
20:03 < echarp> yeap
20:03 < echarp> language
20:03 < urgen> address as necessary
20:05 < echarp> I agree
20:05 < urgen> http://www.google.com/search?q=%22loophole%20surfing%22
20:05 < echarp> yet, I don't know if it requires a thorough process
20:06 < urgen> that almost sounds like you have a mode option other than empirical
20:06 < echarp> mode option?
20:06 < urgen> my level of trust requires demonstration
20:06 < echarp> empirical is great
20:06 < echarp> ad hoc is also cool :)
20:07 < echarp> so, what is a mode option?
20:07 < urgen> ad hoc can be afforded after some levels of demonstration are in play
20:07 < urgen> modus operandi
20:08 < urgen> maybe it doesn't matter except that my personal agenda is rather invested in continuity
20:09 < urgen> one large ad hoc can bring down the entire system
20:09 < urgen> a system that is flexible enough to allow risk is superior
20:09 < echarp> you mean that only strong rules can solidify the system?
20:09 < urgen> continuity and flexibility go hand in hand
20:10 < urgen> flexibility as strength
20:10 < echarp> ad hoc is not flexibility?
20:10 < urgen> strength as flexibility..
20:10 < urgen> ad hoc is 100% open ended
20:10 < urgen> we already have that
20:10 < urgen> this is what you get
20:11 < echarp> I disagree
20:11 < echarp> an ad hoc can exist and be usefull, if it has goals :)
20:11 < urgen> some structure brings greater significance.. or, like in that article, congruence of intention
20:11 < echarp> you want to build a pyramid? then alignement is rather easier than if you don't know what you want
20:12 < urgen> yes architecture is a good example
20:12 < echarp> yeap
20:12 < urgen> ad hoc you get stick houses
20:12 < echarp> to build something
20:12 < echarp> I disagree
20:12 < urgen> pyramids.. you have to have a plan first
20:12 < echarp> ad hoc you get liquid processes
20:12 < urgen> really large structures.. hey if it isn't sound it will crash fast
20:12 < echarp> of course
20:12 < urgen> they discovered that with pyramids
20:12 < echarp> you have architecture
20:13 < echarp> concepts
20:13 < urgen> the ones with the round edges vs the ones with straight edges
20:13 < echarp> I know
20:13 < urgen> hybrid is great
20:13 < urgen> adhoc within defined arena works wonderfully
20:13 < echarp> middle path yes
20:14 < echarp> I don't want rigid processes
20:14 < echarp> rigid roles
20:14 < urgen> sometimes you just don't know
20:14 < echarp> often you can have large plans, which you will refine as time comes
20:14 < urgen> at some level we may never know anything
20:14 < urgen> between that we can do our best
20:14 < echarp> like in a battle, you plan, yet it will most certainly change
20:15 < echarp> you allow for that change
20:15 < echarp> you wellcome it
20:15 < urgen> I like agile methods
20:15 < urgen> a lot
20:16 < echarp> exactly
20:16 < echarp> don't write documentation for the sake of documentation
20:16 < echarp> allow refactoring
20:17 < echarp> no fixed hierarchy of people
20:17 < echarp> but I do believe in herding the cats through a shared agenda! :)
20:17 < echarp> herding the artists
20:18 < urgen> where I hope it was not sounding like I supported that either...
20:19 < echarp> supported (or not) what part?
20:19 < urgen> my way or the highway
20:20 < urgen> I do not see the connection between ad hoc and connotation so I've been making one up
20:20 < urgen> maybe we need to talk about that
20:21 < echarp> oh, I thought we had been through the matter of connotations, that we had gone to the part of "processes"
20:21 < urgen> so not un-addressed intentions as somehow being essential for *any* process?
20:22 < urgen> but at least to acknowledge their proximity
20:22 < echarp> ??"so addressed intentions as somehow being essential for *any* process"??
20:22 < echarp> addressed intentions are acknowledged intentions?
20:22 < echarp> shared goals?
20:22 < urgen> connotation as un-addressed intention
20:22 < urgen> where the goal would be to address when necessary
20:22 < echarp> connotation is the way our brain works
20:22 < urgen> maybe
20:23 < urgen> that's a bit of a leap, but I think I can understand what you are saying
20:23 < echarp> they are at the foundation of our language
20:23 < echarp> we can not remove them, at best we can push them aside
20:23 < urgen> brains like pretty pictures and will convert noise into a pretty picture
20:23 < echarp> yeap
20:24 < urgen> pattern bias
20:24 < echarp> constituted of patterns
20:24 < echarp> networks
20:24 < echarp> associations of everything with everything
20:25 < echarp> personal neural network, but we share some of their elements among us, language creatures
20:27 < echarp> imperfect sharing of course
20:27 < echarp> laden with associations that each one has formed over time
20:28 < urgen> so it would be insane to require anything that did not allow for that level of flexibility
20:28 < echarp> yet we can approach common understanding, with time and efforts, with speech and emotions, logic and a good dictionary :)
20:28 < echarp> yeap
20:28 < urgen> this is sounding like the why the internet is 'intelligence on the outside'
20:28 < echarp> :)
20:29 < echarp> a big big brain
20:29 < echarp> full of interconnected shit
20:29 < echarp> yet it *can* make sense
20:29 < urgen> and future proof / scalable as long as unaware legislators are not duped into requiring limits
20:29 < urgen> (which did pass the house) :-(
20:30 < echarp> requiring limits? the sunrise clauses?
20:30 < urgen> neutral internet failed
20:31 < echarp> oh, that one yes
20:32 < urgen> long term, may not be important, but short term.. life could get bumpy again for a while
20:32 < urgen> there has always been rough moments in the history of the internet
20:32 < urgen> and always around 'control' issues
20:33 < echarp> today it's control of the pipes
20:33 < echarp> tomorrow of the indexes
20:33 < echarp> and sometimes again, of content
20:34 < urgen> "intelligence on the outside" seems to be a noble accident
20:34 < echarp> a huge revolution in the making!!!
20:34 < echarp> internet plus cell phones might reach to unknown consequences!
20:35 < echarp> trans humanism :)
20:36 < echarp> I'm quite interested into that movement
20:37 < urgen> I enjoy the ideas as well
20:38 < urgen> did you read the Bill Joy article a while back?
20:39 < urgen> it might be a good idea to test the brakes of this new car, but maybe we don't have to be alarmist about it.
20:39 < echarp> some of them
20:39 < echarp> but I'm not scared
20:39 < urgen> me neither.
20:39 < echarp> I think there *will* be evolution, cyborgs! :)
20:39 < echarp> there might be some strange evolutions as far as the limits between private and public spheres are concerned
20:41 < echarp> the david brin evolutions
20:42 < urgen> this whole project I'm putting effort into describing here, is basically an assistive device
20:43 < echarp> the limits between human's liberty? (this is the device *I* am exploring)
20:43 < urgen> a way for 'common' to appreciate 'rarified' in a way that allows for non-clumsy participation and influence
20:44 < urgen> extension of voice
20:45 < echarp> expression?
20:45 < echarp> communication?
20:45 < urgen> the representative system of governance has other people as extensions of your voice ( at least in theory )
20:46 < echarp> yeap
20:46 < echarp> it is a part of the theory
20:46 < urgen> representative is also the same thing we see with symbols being used to suggest meaning
20:46 < echarp> hum, I'm not sure, because representatives also have huge leeway in their actions
20:46 < urgen> theory as representing an understanding
20:47 < urgen> a function of extension
20:47 < urgen> a means of access
20:47 < echarp> you like RP?
20:47 < echarp> or do you prefer DD?
20:47 < urgen> what is RP?
20:47 < urgen> and DD?
20:48 < echarp> representative
20:48 < echarp> direct
20:48 < echarp> Democracy :)
20:49 < echarp> it's a long debate
20:49 < urgen> I think I already described democracy as being a large clumsy heavy piece of equipment like a steam roller
20:49 < echarp> yeap
20:49 < urgen> it is not very sensitive whether representative or direct
20:50 < urgen> change is slow
20:50 < urgen> maybe toes are run over while that change is introduced
20:51 < echarp> most certainly
20:51 < echarp> the internet again, could be the chance for many changes
20:54 < echarp> I believe it is the first time since athene that some can organise themselves directly on a large scale
21:02 < echarp> Free Software groups
21:02 < echarp> Free association
21:07 < urgen> we need a collaborative whiteboard
21:07 < urgen> you know one?
21:07 < echarp> :)
21:07 < urgen> I seem to remember a couple but don't remember where I saw them
21:07 < echarp> http://leparlement.org
21:07 < echarp> :)
21:08 < echarp> I've just released v0.6
21:08 < urgen> has a whiteboard?
21:08 < urgen> a place to visually define classes, etc
21:09 < echarp> it is a place where a group can share
21:09 < echarp> in fact were many groups can share
21:09 < urgen> I am graphically oriented
21:09 < urgen> I draw pictures
21:09 < echarp> you prefer "mind maps"
21:09 < echarp> taxonomies?
21:09 < urgen> no
21:10 < urgen> PCB = Programmable Condition Block
21:10 < urgen> so I draw a box. then define the elements and their relation and conditions
21:10 < urgen> etc
21:10 < echarp> visual programming?
21:10 < urgen> it doesn't have to translate instantly to code
21:11 < echarp> a communication tool then?
21:11 < urgen> but it is a good way to get further toward a goal
21:11 < urgen> like UML
21:11 < urgen> a modelling language
21:12 < urgen> but not limited to a predefined standard... so just a way to draw on screen and let others draw
21:12 < echarp> I know and appreciate uml
21:12 < urgen> I see people, arrows, choose, propose, delegate, arrows, elts
21:13 < urgen> but there is no way for use to break those down easily in IRC
21:13 < urgen> visual is much faster
21:13 < echarp> visual is another kind of communication
21:13 < echarp> does not have to be exclusive
21:13 < urgen> can't be exclusive
21:14 < urgen> but I work better if I can sketch
21:14 < urgen> maybe have voice too
21:14 < echarp> drawings are great
21:14 < echarp> I have to create some more to explain what "parlement" is
21:15 < urgen> sometimes mailinglist / newsgroup / forum is fast.. but this IRC is faster
21:15 < urgen> more 'responsive'
21:15 < urgen> so best use of bandwidth breaks down to depend on scheduling time to use highest bandwidth to get tough jobs done more quickly
21:15 < urgen> then time can be spent on the slower processes with the slower mediums
21:16 < urgen> somethings have to take slow no matter what
21:16 < echarp> possibly yes
21:17 < urgen> global participation will require a turn base style participation
21:17 < urgen> that's not instant irc now kind of thing
21:17 < echarp> turn based?
21:17 < echarp> can not be continuous?
21:17 < urgen> like RPG,
21:17 < echarp> like some games yes
21:17 < urgen> you do all your moves. click next, the next person does all their moves, clicks next
21:18 < urgen> global is time regional
21:18 < echarp> well, I believe some games can be in real time too :)
21:18 < urgen> we almost overlap here
21:18 < urgen> I can stay up late sometimes, you can stay up late sometimes
21:18 < urgen> I don't think demand should require us to tho
21:18 < urgen> voluntary for sake of special projects maybe
21:20 < echarp> voluntary of course yes
21:20 < echarp> shared understanding
21:29 < echarp> so, what is the goal of the game? :)
21:31 < urgen> from that article link: Aligned intention creates
21:31 < urgen> a synergetic field of spiritual coherence that works as a
21:31 < urgen> conduit for enhanced intelligence and empowered
21:31 < urgen> action beyond the usual limitation of the individual.
21:31 < echarp> yeap
21:31 < echarp> great text
21:34 < urgen> aligned intention to produce greater means
21:34 < urgen> means and distribution
21:35 < urgen> goal is to harvest aligned intention
21:36 < echarp> don't you obtain aligned intentions through goals?
21:36 < echarp> shared goals
21:36 < urgen> maybe
21:36 < urgen> demonstration is proof
21:37 < urgen> so. if I take example of programming vcr/dvr or microwave oven
21:37 < urgen> appliances have to be easy to use to be used
21:37 < urgen> so many ppl's vcr's just blink, they can't even figure out how to set the time
21:38 < urgen> or microwave oven. it is smart enough to defrost and cook but ppl just hit cook because defrost is too complicated
21:38 < urgen> now we have Web 2.0
21:38 < urgen> a way to try to use the advantage of the internet to mediate in complexity
21:39 < urgen> so if a web app were to be able to run my microwave oven...
21:39 < urgen> I've seen barcodes used in conjunction with the internet
21:39 < echarp> ease of use, ergonomy
21:39 < urgen> maybe I scan the barcode and it identifies the product then sets the oven
21:39 < urgen> blip, done
21:40 < urgen> not much learning not much thought
21:40 < echarp> it's always been a matter of complexification then simplification
21:40 < urgen> now if internet assistive governance makes decisions blip easy...
21:40 < urgen> and not much thought is required, not much learning
21:40 < urgen> is that really a good idea?
21:40 < urgen> :-)
21:41 < echarp> there will be other things to learn
21:41 < echarp> I'm not worried ;)
21:41 < urgen> I wasn't expressing a concern
21:41 < echarp> simplification and complexification are a dance
21:41 < echarp> go and come
21:41 < urgen> but did feel the question should be addressed
21:41 < echarp> hand in hand
21:42 < echarp> it is questions I shared with another online friend, german and living in hong kong
21:42 < echarp> to him ergonomy is one of the great force of the coming world
21:42 < echarp> to include everybody
21:42 < echarp> to let everyone be elevated if they want to
21:46 < urgen> so, if suddenly I have to use all my time to pay attention to everything and click an indication of my preferred influence...
21:46 < urgen> maybe this wouldn't still be 'erg'
21:46 < urgen> ergo
21:47 < urgen> I don't see much problem allowing a digital secretary to note common patterns of intention and 'represent'
21:47 < urgen> or conditionally represent
21:47 < echarp> I agree
21:47 < echarp> will be very useful
21:47 < echarp> we become cyborgs, with extensions of ourselves
21:47 < urgen> they use automation in the stock exchange
21:51 < urgen> so a near goal is to define digital power of attorney
21:51 < urgen> these automations are making legally binding decisions on behalf of humans
21:51 < echarp> yeap
21:51 < urgen> they are making transactions
21:51 < echarp> automatons
21:52 < urgen> uddi
21:52 < urgen> a way to look up availability, terms of negotiation, negotiate, contract, exchange
21:53 < echarp> I've studied a bit of it
21:53 < urgen> of course uddi has all but died
21:53 < echarp> has it?
21:53 < urgen> as well as most other attempts at similar efforts
21:53 < urgen> rdf
21:53 < urgen> but parts of these efforts survive and evolve
21:54 < urgen> humans don't know what we do every day unconsciously
21:54 < urgen> so we get it wrong when we try to formalize it
21:55 < echarp> there was and still are other elements beyond uddi
21:55 < urgen> http://www.windley.com/archives/2006/06/identity_broker.shtml
21:55 < echarp> rose, edi
21:55 < urgen> and now uddi-lite
21:55 < echarp> yeap
21:55 < echarp> it will evolve
21:55 < echarp> the un are behind it
21:55 < echarp> (or something along those lines)
21:56 < urgen> identity is core to the process of digital attorney
21:57 < echarp> a foundation
21:57 < urgen> a foundation seems like about six or twelve or so, parallel cores
21:58 < urgen> we have to define each core one by one then instantiate the set to arrive at a foundation
21:58 < urgen> then review again
21:58 < urgen> because of the synergy thing
21:58 < urgen> the foundation brings in a greater tool
21:59 < echarp> identity is hugely important, yet it may not be "required" in the same kind of way as our traditional physical ID
21:59 < urgen> and that tool can then refine itself
21:59 < urgen> well, required depends on things like one participant one vote
21:59 < urgen> those definitions are still not tied down
21:59 < urgen> maybe this is a euro a vote thing.. ppl with more euros get more votes
22:00 < urgen> maybe it isn't
22:00 < urgen> maybe there can be credit depending on how much time is spent volunteering to build the system ;-)
22:00 < echarp> yeap, one man one voice
22:01 < echarp> time can be another measure
22:01 < echarp> I believe it is something else
22:01 < urgen> sure
22:01 < echarp> participation and integration
22:01 < urgen> I'm just showing that other cores have to explored still
22:01 < urgen> I don't even have a list of cores
22:01 < echarp> if you are in a group and trusted as a personality, the group will care about your vote
22:01 < echarp> identity is important yes
22:02 < urgen> so an increasing number of people are arriving at similar thought
22:03 < urgen> some have made progress with some cores some are still getting started
22:03 < urgen> most, if not all, still have no clue
22:03 < urgen> lots of hype, lots of hope of gaining control of the next killer app, so they can corner the market
22:04 < urgen> since this is real, it starts to get fun
22:04 < urgen> that's a goal
22:04 < echarp> money, eye balls, power :)
22:04 < echarp> babes!!! :)
22:04 < urgen> hehehe
22:06 < echarp> goals again!!! :)
22:06 < urgen> so identifying and beginning development of open components of this process
22:06 < urgen> dig in, produce
22:07 < urgen> the bits and pieces have an interlocking depency model to define launch
22:07 < echarp> produce... agreement? participation?
22:07 < urgen> they all think they are still silos
22:08 < urgen> s/depency/dependency
22:08 < echarp> I believe in small and low :)
22:08 < echarp> legos
22:08 < urgen> so that they have yet to notice negotiation has to happen at every step shows me there is still room to work with in this 'economy'
22:08 < echarp> start with Free association
22:09 < echarp> it is things I'he had some thoughts about already
22:09 < urgen> identity will not work without negotiation, negotiation will not work without identity
22:09 < echarp> in a global village, what is the ultimate unit of participation? of group?
22:09 < echarp> yeap, identity <=> group
22:09 < echarp> group <=> identity
22:10 < urgen> I think the foundation if something around a dozen interlocking / interdependent 'cores'
22:10 < echarp> they work hand in hand
22:10 < urgen> s/if/is
22:10 < echarp> I don't know yet for the other cores
22:10 < urgen> the interdependency component is missing in nearly every model I've reviewed
22:10 < urgen> they all think they can corner the market with their tool
22:11 < urgen> is interdependeny the same as aligned intent?
22:13 < urgen> 'identity broker' is an index of
22:13 < urgen> does interdependency also have an index?
22:13 < urgen> it seems to be an index but not a linear order
22:14 < urgen> the difference between use and abuse
22:15 < echarp> I don't have an image of this interdependency
22:15 < echarp> yet anyway
22:15 < urgen> that's why I started nomic
22:16 < urgen> the two tier approach of nomic, original flavor, with mutuable and immutable
22:16 < urgen> to arrive where you have immutable you need to have a set of proto-rules to implement
22:16 < echarp> mutable and inmutable can not be that important, can they?
22:17 < urgen> when I compile a compiler...
22:17 < urgen> I have to already have a compiler to compile with
22:17 < urgen> that's a set of 'interdependent' rules
22:17 < urgen> they don't work unless you toss all of them into play at the same time
22:17 < urgen> then they do their job
22:18 < urgen> apart from each other they have nearly no value
22:18 < echarp> ok
22:18 < urgen> identity, by itself, is *mostly* worthless
22:18 < echarp> but each component can have a life on its own?
22:18 < urgen> it has to
22:18 < echarp> mostly, ok
22:18 < urgen> we have to have some way to get to it
22:19 < urgen> that means we have to have a special set of conditions defined that allow a collection of proto-rules to be discovered
22:19 < urgen> with just a little advanced appreciation we see that the 'goal' is the simultaneous launching of all the rules (cores)
22:20 < urgen> so we work ahead of time to make sure they integrate well
22:20 < echarp> I don't know
22:20 < urgen> interop
22:20 < urgen> without interop internet dies
22:20 < echarp> there must be ways so that each component can be setup independantly, and worth it
22:20 < urgen> I can set up ethernet independent of internet
22:20 < urgen> no problem
22:21 < urgen> but it has to also work across whatever other protocols I want to define
22:22 < echarp> it can be useful on a small scale
22:22 < echarp> for small groups
22:22 < urgen> sure
22:22 < echarp> and from there it can be "launched" :)
22:22 < urgen> each independent core has to have a certain synergy of its own
22:22 < urgen> to be core
22:23 < echarp> ok, getting late
22:23 < urgen> but we can't force the internet to use, say, just ethernet
22:23 < echarp> we'll have to study those "cores"
22:23 < urgen> :-)
22:23 < echarp> and I'll have to do some coding
22:24 < urgen> I'll look for a whiteboard
22:24 < echarp> I'd like to implement some sort of avatar, to make parlement more attractive, fun
22:24 < echarp> inkscape can be a whiteboard
22:24 < urgen> you have a beefy enough connection to log into there.com or 2nd life?
22:25 < urgen> 3d worlds do well to give ppl a sense of extension into virtual economies
22:26 < echarp> with firefox?
22:26 < urgen> they have their own client
22:26 < urgen> it breaks the lowest threshhold of participation rule but it is a good demonstration of potential
22:27 < echarp> proprietary?
22:27 < urgen> partially proprietary
22:27 < echarp> partially???
22:28 < echarp> can that duck exist and quack?
22:28 < urgen> there are some open source 3d protocols but I don't think they are ready for prime time
22:28 < urgen> partially means that they have used some opensource components openly
22:28 < urgen> you can make some changes to the client
22:29 < echarp> it's good
22:29 < echarp> but then, is it not possible to just share images? :)
22:30 < echarp> on parlement, if you send a mail the attachement images are displayed alongside it
22:30 < urgen> immersive environments have a unique charm
22:30 < urgen> a picture isn't very immersive
22:30 < echarp> I'm a debian user on an old laptop
22:30 < echarp> will it work?
22:30 < urgen> when you log in and experience vertigo because you have a fear of heights...
22:30 < echarp> and I'm also a console guy :)
22:30 < urgen> that proves the point
22:31 < urgen> I'm sitting in my chair at home and holding on because I feel like I'm about to fall
22:31 < urgen> interesting sensation
22:31 < urgen> shows something about synergy
22:32 < echarp> vertigo over there.com
22:32 < urgen> both systems have a fee to play
22:32 < urgen> there.com is microsoft only, I think
22:33 < urgen> second life has a mac client also, don't know about linux too
22:33 < echarp> then it's a dead end for me :(
22:33 < urgen> 'k
22:35 < echarp> there is inkscape
22:35 < echarp> vector drawing
22:35 < echarp> can be shared over a jabber server
22:35 < urgen> ah yes svg is in firefox
22:37 < echarp> well, it can be consultated in firefox yes
22:37 < echarp> can be drawn using inkscape or sodipodi
22:38 < urgen> I'll study it
22:38 < urgen> you have a jabber server?
22:38 < urgen> I think I have one but don't remember what state it is in
22:39 < echarp> nope
22:39 < echarp> I wonder if it could work or not over google talk
22:39 < urgen> :-) I don't know how open google is
22:40 < echarp> they often use open tech
22:40 < urgen> gtalk works with gaim clients but you don't get the other features googltalk has built in
22:40 < urgen> so they add some proprietary too
22:41 < urgen> gtalk voice, as an example
22:43 < echarp> I believe it is open protocol too
23:01 < urgen> http://googleresearch.blogspot.com/2006/06/extra-extra-read-all-about-it-nearly.html -- "...and remain ever vigilant."
23:08 < echarp> bitten by an overflow!!! :)
23:09 < echarp> it will all break at one time or another!
23:10 < echarp> let's hope we can put it back quickly :)
23:12 < echarp> ok, I'm going to bed!
23:12 < echarp> good night urgen
23:13 < urgen> nite
23:13 < echarp> same for you nsh, EarleMartin and of course fidel fiatlex ! :)
23:13 < echarp> nite nite
--- Log closed mar jun 20 00:00:21 2006
00:14 < echarp> good night
00:14 < echarp> darix: see you tomorrow!
00:14 < darix> cya
00:23 -!- darix [i=darix@irssi/staff/darix] has left #parlement ["All rights reversed"]
00:59 -!- cnloyd (Chris) [n=cnl...@adsl-69-151-39-47.dsl.hstntx.swbell.net] has joined #parlement
00:59 < cnloyd> Hello?
01:33 < cnloyd> Sooo...no one's here.
03:22 -!- cnloyd [n=cnl...@adsl-69-151-39-47.dsl.hstntx.swbell.net] has quit ["Leaving"]
04:29 < urgen> home
09:23 < echarp> hello hello urgen !
11:19 -!- Netsplit niven.freenode.net <-> irc.freenode.net quits: nsh
11:23 -!- nsh (No Such Human) [n=n...@88.144.29.133] has joined #parlement
18:03 < urgen> wow I slept in a bit
18:04 < urgen> having to take allergy medicine for hay fever / pollens puts a lot of stress on my body
19:06 < echarp> hello hello urgen
19:07 < echarp> urgen: just out of bed?!
19:07 < urgen> had a bowl of oatmeal, need to go get my tea, I think it is ready
19:08 < echarp> me I'm just back out of the office
19:08 < echarp> about to have my dinner :)
19:13 < urgen> http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:HXzRBjUwCToJ:www.via-visioninaction.org/Alignment_Beyond_Agreement.pdf+&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=firefox-a
19:14 < urgen> I've been using the term agreement... probably in a very unique way although I hadn't thought I was
19:14 < urgen> this article suggests alignment because it is saying agreement only involves opinion
19:15 < urgen> I made google extract an html version because I don't like pdf's
19:16 * echarp doesn't like much pdf either
19:16 < urgen> but, alignment vs agreement might be a helpful exploration
19:16 < echarp> effectively
19:17 < echarp> there seem to be quite some difference between the 2
19:18 < echarp> alignment is much stronger
19:18 < urgen> I, of course, didn't intend agreement to mean opinion only but it seemed buridan was also saying that a vote did not indicate consent
19:18 < urgen> so, looks like there is something to talk about
19:18 < echarp> yeap
19:19 < echarp> to agree is just opinion, to align with is action
19:21 < urgen> so using a harmonic wave as an example, where the waves combine is alignment and not agreement and where they cross is not disagreement
19:24 < urgen> there seems to be QOS element in 'alignment'
19:24 < urgen> but quality of service still sounds like an agreement
19:25 < urgen> I suppose there is nothing wrong with having a model that supports multi-order productivity
19:26 < urgen> in that article, "Aligned intention creates
19:26 < urgen> a synergetic field of spiritual coherence
19:26 < urgen> "
19:27 < urgen> you'll probably have a problem with that quote because it uses 'spiritual'
19:27 < urgen> but I see that it is trying to qualify the term with, "that works as a
19:27 < urgen> conduit for enhanced intelligence and empowered
19:27 < urgen> action beyond the usual limitation of the individual.
19:27 < urgen> "
19:28 < urgen> still sounds a little problematic
19:28 < urgen> and, again, starting to lean on agreement
19:30 < urgen> the following sentence seems to suggest disagreement as the driving force of the QOS metric
19:32 < urgen> so though the words of choice may still contain some personal agenda they still seem to be hanging together in a coherent argument
19:47 < echarp> re
19:50 < echarp> spiritual coherence does sound funny yes :)
19:55 < echarp> it's like opening shakras, merely useful as an analogy :)
19:56 < urgen> part of why I try to avoid problematic language
19:56 < echarp> there will always be connotations!
19:56 < urgen> but I can allow in special case use provided enough time it spent on arriving at mutual understanding
19:57 < echarp> not using common words?
19:57 < urgen> otherwise my vigilence would be telling me a bomb may have just slipped in
19:57 < urgen> common is not broad enough to allow opportunity
19:58 < urgen> it is a closed loop system
19:58 < echarp> what, you just want to invent words then?
19:58 < urgen> hybrid is fine
19:58 < urgen> I'm just not willing to limit to common use only
19:58 < echarp> so, you want to remove all connotations?
19:58 < echarp> (but the want you want obviously)
19:59 < urgen> any connotation can be presented and argued for
19:59 < urgen> present, state the case, allow modification if required and then put in motion
19:59 < echarp> you think connotations are even visible and conscious?
20:00 < urgen> the unintentional bombs we have to worry about as they are discovered
20:00 < urgen> a process can be defined for such
20:00 < echarp> connotations can be removed when they are found?
20:01 < urgen> not removed but acknowledged
20:01 < echarp> even conflicting ones? :)
20:01 < urgen> and handled, whether removed or not after they are defined
20:02 < urgen> never automatic rejection
20:02 < echarp> what of connotations that are present but not conscious?
20:03 < urgen> I thought that was what we were talking about
20:03 < urgen> unintentional, unaware
20:03 < echarp> hmmmm, possibly yes
20:03 < urgen> old unexamined habit thoughts
20:03 < echarp> yeap
20:03 < echarp> language
20:03 < urgen> address as necessary
20:05 < echarp> I agree
20:05 < urgen> http://www.google.com/search?q=%22loophole%20surfing%22
20:05 < echarp> yet, I don't know if it requires a thorough process
20:06 < urgen> that almost sounds like you have a mode option other than empirical
20:06 < echarp> mode option?
20:06 < urgen> my level of trust requires demonstration
20:06 < echarp> empirical is great
20:06 < echarp> ad hoc is also cool :)
20:07 < echarp> so, what is a mode option?
20:07 < urgen> ad hoc can be afforded after some levels of demonstration are in play
20:07 < urgen> modus operandi
20:08 < urgen> maybe it doesn't matter except that my personal agenda is rather invested in continuity
20:09 < urgen> one large ad hoc can bring down the entire system
20:09 < urgen> a system that is flexible enough to allow risk is superior
20:09 < echarp> you mean that only strong rules can solidify the system?
20:09 < urgen> continuity and flexibility go hand in hand
20:10 < urgen> flexibility as strength
20:10 < echarp> ad hoc is not flexibility?
20:10 < urgen> strength as flexibility..
20:10 < urgen> ad hoc is 100% open ended
20:10 < urgen> we already have that
20:10 < urgen> this is what you get
20:11 < echarp> I disagree
20:11 < echarp> an ad hoc can exist and be usefull, if it has goals :)
20:11 < urgen> some structure brings greater significance.. or, like in that article, congruence of intention
20:11 < echarp> you want to build a pyramid? then alignement is rather easier than if you don't know what you want
20:12 < urgen> yes architecture is a good example
20:12 < echarp> yeap
20:12 < urgen> ad hoc you get stick houses
20:12 < echarp> to build something
20:12 < echarp> I disagree
20:12 < urgen> pyramids.. you have to have a plan first
20:12 < echarp> ad hoc you get liquid processes
20:12 < urgen> really large structures.. hey if it isn't sound it will crash fast
20:12 < echarp> of course
20:12 < urgen> they discovered that with pyramids
20:12 < echarp> you have architecture
20:13 < echarp> concepts
20:13 < urgen> the ones with the round edges vs the ones with straight edges
20:13 < echarp> I know
20:13 < urgen> hybrid is great
20:13 < urgen> adhoc within defined arena works wonderfully
20:13 < echarp> middle path yes
20:14 < echarp> I don't want rigid processes
20:14 < echarp> rigid roles
20:14 < urgen> sometimes you just don't know
20:14 < echarp> often you can have large plans, which you will refine as time comes
20:14 < urgen> at some level we may never know anything
20:14 < urgen> between that we can do our best
20:14 < echarp> like in a battle, you plan, yet it will most certainly change
20:15 < echarp> you allow for that change
20:15 < echarp> you wellcome it
20:15 < urgen> I like agile methods
20:15 < urgen> a lot
20:16 < echarp> exactly
20:16 < echarp> don't write documentation for the sake of documentation
20:16 < echarp> allow refactoring
20:17 < echarp> no fixed hierarchy of people
20:17 < echarp> but I do believe in herding the cats through a shared agenda! :)
20:17 < echarp> herding the artists
20:18 < urgen> where I hope it was not sounding like I supported that either...
20:19 < echarp> supported (or not) what part?
20:19 < urgen> my way or the highway
20:20 < urgen> I do not see the connection between ad hoc and connotation so I've been making one up
20:20 < urgen> maybe we need to talk about that
20:21 < echarp> oh, I thought we had been through the matter of connotations, that we had gone to the part of "processes"
20:21 < urgen> so not un-addressed intentions as somehow being essential for *any* process?
20:22 < urgen> but at least to acknowledge their proximity
20:22 < echarp> ??"so addressed intentions as somehow being essential for *any* process"??
20:22 < echarp> addressed intentions are acknowledged intentions?
20:22 < echarp> shared goals?
20:22 < urgen> connotation as un-addressed intention
20:22 < urgen> where the goal would be to address when necessary
20:22 < echarp> connotation is the way our brain works
20:22 < urgen> maybe
20:23 < urgen> that's a bit of a leap, but I think I can understand what you are saying
20:23 < echarp> they are at the foundation of our language
20:23 < echarp> we can not remove them, at best we can push them aside
20:23 < urgen> brains like pretty pictures and will convert noise into a pretty picture
20:23 < echarp> yeap
20:24 < urgen> pattern bias
20:24 < echarp> constituted of patterns
20:24 < echarp> networks
20:24 < echarp> associations of everything with everything
20:25 < echarp> personal neural network, but we share some of their elements among us, language creatures
20:27 < echarp> imperfect sharing of course
20:27 < echarp> laden with associations that each one has formed over time
20:28 < urgen> so it would be insane to require anything that did not allow for that level of flexibility
20:28 < echarp> yet we can approach common understanding, with time and efforts, with speech and emotions, logic and a good dictionary :)
20:28 < echarp> yeap
20:28 < urgen> this is sounding like the why the internet is 'intelligence on the outside'
20:28 < echarp> :)
20:29 < echarp> a big big brain
20:29 < echarp> full of interconnected shit
20:29 < echarp> yet it *can* make sense
20:29 < urgen> and future proof / scalable as long as unaware legislators are not duped into requiring limits
20:29 < urgen> (which did pass the house) :-(
20:30 < echarp> requiring limits? the sunrise clauses?
20:30 < urgen> neutral internet failed
20:31 < echarp> oh, that one yes
20:32 < urgen> long term, may not be important, but short term.. life could get bumpy again for a while
20:32 < urgen> there has always been rough moments in the history of the internet
20:32 < urgen> and always around 'control' issues
20:33 < echarp> today it's control of the pipes
20:33 < echarp> tomorrow of the indexes
20:33 < echarp> and sometimes again, of content
20:34 < urgen> "intelligence on the outside" seems to be a noble accident
20:34 < echarp> a huge revolution in the making!!!
20:34 < echarp> internet plus cell phones might reach to unknown consequences!
20:35 < echarp> trans humanism :)
20:36 < echarp> I'm quite interested into that movement
20:37 < urgen> I enjoy the ideas as well
20:38 < urgen> did you read the Bill Joy article a while back?
20:39 < urgen> it might be a good idea to test the brakes of this new car, but maybe we don't have to be alarmist about it.
20:39 < echarp> some of them
20:39 < echarp> but I'm not scared
20:39 < urgen> me neither.
20:39 < echarp> I think there *will* be evolution, cyborgs! :)
20:39 < echarp> there might be some strange evolutions as far as the limits between private and public spheres are concerned
20:41 < echarp> the david brin evolutions
20:42 < urgen> this whole project I'm putting effort into describing here, is basically an assistive device
20:43 < echarp> the limits between human's liberty? (this is the device *I* am exploring)
20:43 < urgen> a way for 'common' to appreciate 'rarified' in a way that allows for non-clumsy participation and influence
20:44 < urgen> extension of voice
20:45 < echarp> expression?
20:45 < echarp> communication?
20:45 < urgen> the representative system of governance has other people as extensions of your voice ( at least in theory )
20:46 < echarp> yeap
20:46 < echarp> it is a part of the theory
20:46 < urgen> representative is also the same thing we see with symbols being used to suggest meaning
20:46 < echarp> hum, I'm not sure, because representatives also have huge leeway in their actions
20:46 < urgen> theory as representing an understanding
20:47 < urgen> a function of extension
20:47 < urgen> a means of access
20:47 < echarp> you like RP?
20:47 < echarp> or do you prefer DD?
20:47 < urgen> what is RP?
20:47 < urgen> and DD?
20:48 < echarp> representative
20:48 < echarp> direct
20:48 < echarp> Democracy :)
20:49 < echarp> it's a long debate
20:49 < urgen> I think I already described democracy as being a large clumsy heavy piece of equipment like a steam roller
20:49 < echarp> yeap
20:49 < urgen> it is not very sensitive whether representative or direct
20:50 < urgen> change is slow
20:50 < urgen> maybe toes are run over while that change is introduced
20:51 < echarp> most certainly
20:51 < echarp> the internet again, could be the chance for many changes
20:54 < echarp> I believe it is the first time since athene that some can organise themselves directly on a large scale
21:02 < echarp> Free Software groups
21:02 < echarp> Free association
21:07 < urgen> we need a collaborative whiteboard
21:07 < urgen> you know one?
21:07 < echarp> :)
21:07 < urgen> I seem to remember a couple but don't remember where I saw them
21:07 < echarp> http://leparlement.org
21:07 < echarp> :)
21:08 < echarp> I've just released v0.6
21:08 < urgen> has a whiteboard?
21:08 < urgen> a place to visually define classes, etc
21:09 < echarp> it is a place where a group can share
21:09 < echarp> in fact were many groups can share
21:09 < urgen> I am graphically oriented
21:09 < urgen> I draw pictures
21:09 < echarp> you prefer "mind maps"
21:09 < echarp> taxonomies?
21:09 < urgen> no
21:10 < urgen> PCB = Programmable Condition Block
21:10 < urgen> so I draw a box. then define the elements and their relation and conditions
21:10 < urgen> etc
21:10 < echarp> visual programming?
21:10 < urgen> it doesn't have to translate instantly to code
21:11 < echarp> a communication tool then?
21:11 < urgen> but it is a good way to get further toward a goal
21:11 < urgen> like UML
21:11 < urgen> a modelling language
21:12 < urgen> but not limited to a predefined standard... so just a way to draw on screen and let others draw
21:12 < echarp> I know and appreciate uml
21:12 < urgen> I see people, arrows, choose, propose, delegate, arrows, elts
21:13 < urgen> but there is no way for use to break those down easily in IRC
21:13 < urgen> visual is much faster
21:13 < echarp> visual is another kind of communication
21:13 < echarp> does not have to be exclusive
21:13 < urgen> can't be exclusive
21:14 < urgen> but I work better if I can sketch
21:14 < urgen> maybe have voice too
21:14 < echarp> drawings are great
21:14 < echarp> I have to create some more to explain what "parlement" is
21:15 < urgen> sometimes mailinglist / newsgroup / forum is fast.. but this IRC is faster
21:15 < urgen> more 'responsive'
21:15 < urgen> so best use of bandwidth breaks down to depend on scheduling time to use highest bandwidth to get tough jobs done more quickly
21:15 < urgen> then time can be spent on the slower processes with the slower mediums
21:16 < urgen> somethings have to take slow no matter what
21:16 < echarp> possibly yes
21:17 < urgen> global participation will require a turn base style participation
21:17 < urgen> that's not instant irc now kind of thing
21:17 < echarp> turn based?
21:17 < echarp> can not be continuous?
21:17 < urgen> like RPG,
21:17 < echarp> like some games yes
21:17 < urgen> you do all your moves. click next, the next person does all their moves, clicks next
21:18 < urgen> global is time regional
21:18 < echarp> well, I believe some games can be in real time too :)
21:18 < urgen> we almost overlap here
21:18 < urgen> I can stay up late sometimes, you can stay up late sometimes
21:18 < urgen> I don't think demand should require us to tho
21:18 < urgen> voluntary for sake of special projects maybe
21:20 < echarp> voluntary of course yes
21:20 < echarp> shared understanding
21:29 < echarp> so, what is the goal of the game? :)
21:31 < urgen> from that article link: Aligned intention creates
21:31 < urgen> a synergetic field of spiritual coherence that works as a
21:31 < urgen> conduit for enhanced intelligence and empowered
21:31 < urgen> action beyond the usual limitation of the individual.
21:31 < echarp> yeap
21:31 < echarp> great text
21:34 < urgen> aligned intention to produce greater means
21:34 < urgen> means and distribution
21:35 < urgen> goal is to harvest aligned intention
21:36 < echarp> don't you obtain aligned intentions through goals?
21:36 < echarp> shared goals
21:36 < urgen> maybe
21:36 < urgen> demonstration is proof
21:37 < urgen> so. if I take example of programming vcr/dvr or microwave oven
21:37 < urgen> appliances have to be easy to use to be used
21:37 < urgen> so many ppl's vcr's just blink, they can't even figure out how to set the time
21:38 < urgen> or microwave oven. it is smart enough to defrost and cook but ppl just hit cook because defrost is too complicated
21:38 < urgen> now we have Web 2.0
21:38 < urgen> a way to try to use the advantage of the internet to mediate in complexity
21:39 < urgen> so if a web app were to be able to run my microwave oven...
21:39 < urgen> I've seen barcodes used in conjunction with the internet
21:39 < echarp> ease of use, ergonomy
21:39 < urgen> maybe I scan the barcode and it identifies the product then sets the oven
21:39 < urgen> blip, done
21:40 < urgen> not much learning not much thought
21:40 < echarp> it's always been a matter of complexification then simplification
21:40 < urgen> now if internet assistive governance makes decisions blip easy...
21:40 < urgen> and not much thought is required, not much learning
21:40 < urgen> is that really a good idea?
21:40 < urgen> :-)
21:41 < echarp> there will be other things to learn
21:41 < echarp> I'm not worried ;)
21:41 < urgen> I wasn't expressing a concern
21:41 < echarp> simplification and complexification are a dance
21:41 < echarp> go and come
21:41 < urgen> but did feel the question should be addressed
21:41 < echarp> hand in hand
21:42 < echarp> it is questions I shared with another online friend, german and living in hong kong
21:42 < echarp> to him ergonomy is one of the great force of the coming world
21:42 < echarp> to include everybody
21:42 < echarp> to let everyone be elevated if they want to
21:46 < urgen> so, if suddenly I have to use all my time to pay attention to everything and click an indication of my preferred influence...
21:46 < urgen> maybe this wouldn't still be 'erg'
21:46 < urgen> ergo
21:47 < urgen> I don't see much problem allowing a digital secretary to note common patterns of intention and 'represent'
21:47 < urgen> or conditionally represent
21:47 < echarp> I agree
21:47 < echarp> will be very useful
21:47 < echarp> we become cyborgs, with extensions of ourselves
21:47 < urgen> they use automation in the stock exchange
21:51 < urgen> so a near goal is to define digital power of attorney
21:51 < urgen> these automations are making legally binding decisions on behalf of humans
21:51 < echarp> yeap
21:51 < urgen> they are making transactions
21:51 < echarp> automatons
21:52 < urgen> uddi
21:52 < urgen> a way to look up availability, terms of negotiation, negotiate, contract, exchange
21:53 < echarp> I've studied a bit of it
21:53 < urgen> of course uddi has all but died
21:53 < echarp> has it?
21:53 < urgen> as well as most other attempts at similar efforts
21:53 < urgen> rdf
21:53 < urgen> but parts of these efforts survive and evolve
21:54 < urgen> humans don't know what we do every day unconsciously
21:54 < urgen> so we get it wrong when we try to formalize it
21:55 < echarp> there was and still are other elements beyond uddi
21:55 < urgen> http://www.windley.com/archives/2006/06/identity_broker.shtml
21:55 < echarp> rose, edi
21:55 < urgen> and now uddi-lite
21:55 < echarp> yeap
21:55 < echarp> it will evolve
21:55 < echarp> the un are behind it
21:55 < echarp> (or something along those lines)
21:56 < urgen> identity is core to the process of digital attorney
21:57 < echarp> a foundation
21:57 < urgen> a foundation seems like about six or twelve or so, parallel cores
21:58 < urgen> we have to define each core one by one then instantiate the set to arrive at a foundation
21:58 < urgen> then review again
21:58 < urgen> because of the synergy thing
21:58 < urgen> the foundation brings in a greater tool
21:59 < echarp> identity is hugely important, yet it may not be "required" in the same kind of way as our traditional physical ID
21:59 < urgen> and that tool can then refine itself
21:59 < urgen> well, required depends on things like one participant one vote
21:59 < urgen> those definitions are still not tied down
21:59 < urgen> maybe this is a euro a vote thing.. ppl with more euros get more votes
22:00 < urgen> maybe it isn't
22:00 < urgen> maybe there can be credit depending on how much time is spent volunteering to build the system ;-)
22:00 < echarp> yeap, one man one voice
22:01 < echarp> time can be another measure
22:01 < echarp> I believe it is something else
22:01 < urgen> sure
22:01 < echarp> participation and integration
22:01 < urgen> I'm just showing that other cores have to explored still
22:01 < urgen> I don't even have a list of cores
22:01 < echarp> if you are in a group and trusted as a personality, the group will care about your vote
22:01 < echarp> identity is important yes
22:02 < urgen> so an increasing number of people are arriving at similar thought
22:03 < urgen> some have made progress with some cores some are still getting started
22:03 < urgen> most, if not all, still have no clue
22:03 < urgen> lots of hype, lots of hope of gaining control of the next killer app, so they can corner the market
22:04 < urgen> since this is real, it starts to get fun
22:04 < urgen> that's a goal
22:04 < echarp> money, eye balls, power :)
22:04 < echarp> babes!!! :)
22:04 < urgen> hehehe
22:06 < echarp> goals again!!! :)
22:06 < urgen> so identifying and beginning development of open components of this process
22:06 < urgen> dig in, produce
22:07 < urgen> the bits and pieces have an interlocking depency model to define launch
22:07 < echarp> produce... agreement? participation?
22:07 < urgen> they all think they are still silos
22:08 < urgen> s/depency/dependency
22:08 < echarp> I believe in small and low :)
22:08 < echarp> legos
22:08 < urgen> so that they have yet to notice negotiation has to happen at every step shows me there is still room to work with in this 'economy'
22:08 < echarp> start with Free association
22:09 < echarp> it is things I'he had some thoughts about already
22:09 < urgen> identity will not work without negotiation, negotiation will not work without identity
22:09 < echarp> in a global village, what is the ultimate unit of participation? of group?
22:09 < echarp> yeap, identity <=> group
22:09 < echarp> group <=> identity
22:10 < urgen> I think the foundation if something around a dozen interlocking / interdependent 'cores'
22:10 < echarp> they work hand in hand
22:10 < urgen> s/if/is
22:10 < echarp> I don't know yet for the other cores
22:10 < urgen> the interdependency component is missing in nearly every model I've reviewed
22:10 < urgen> they all think they can corner the market with their tool
22:11 < urgen> is interdependeny the same as aligned intent?
22:13 < urgen> 'identity broker' is an index of
22:13 < urgen> does interdependency also have an index?
22:13 < urgen> it seems to be an index but not a linear order
22:14 < urgen> the difference between use and abuse
22:15 < echarp> I don't have an image of this interdependency
22:15 < echarp> yet anyway
22:15 < urgen> that's why I started nomic
22:16 < urgen> the two tier approach of nomic, original flavor, with mutuable and immutable
22:16 < urgen> to arrive where you have immutable you need to have a set of proto-rules to implement
22:16 < echarp> mutable and inmutable can not be that important, can they?
22:17 < urgen> when I compile a compiler...
22:17 < urgen> I have to already have a compiler to compile with
22:17 < urgen> that's a set of 'interdependent' rules
22:17 < urgen> they don't work unless you toss all of them into play at the same time
22:17 < urgen> then they do their job
22:18 < urgen> apart from each other they have nearly no value
22:18 < echarp> ok
22:18 < urgen> identity, by itself, is *mostly* worthless
22:18 < echarp> but each component can have a life on its own?
22:18 < urgen> it has to
22:18 < echarp> mostly, ok
22:18 < urgen> we have to have some way to get to it
22:19 < urgen> that means we have to have a special set of conditions defined that allow a collection of proto-rules to be discovered
22:19 < urgen> with just a little advanced appreciation we see that the 'goal' is the simultaneous launching of all the rules (cores)
22:20 < urgen> so we work ahead of time to make sure they integrate well
22:20 < echarp> I don't know
22:20 < urgen> interop
22:20 < urgen> without interop internet dies
22:20 < echarp> there must be ways so that each component can be setup independantly, and worth it
22:20 < urgen> I can set up ethernet independent of internet
22:20 < urgen> no problem
22:21 < urgen> but it has to also work across whatever other protocols I want to define
22:22 < echarp> it can be useful on a small scale
22:22 < echarp> for small groups
22:22 < urgen> sure
22:22 < echarp> and from there it can be "launched" :)
22:22 < urgen> each independent core has to have a certain synergy of its own
22:22 < urgen> to be core
22:23 < echarp> ok, getting late
22:23 < urgen> but we can't force the internet to use, say, just ethernet
22:23 < echarp> we'll have to study those "cores"
22:23 < urgen> :-)
22:23 < echarp> and I'll have to do some coding
22:24 < urgen> I'll look for a whiteboard
22:24 < echarp> I'd like to implement some sort of avatar, to make parlement more attractive, fun
22:24 < echarp> inkscape can be a whiteboard
22:24 < urgen> you have a beefy enough connection to log into there.com or 2nd life?
22:25 < urgen> 3d worlds do well to give ppl a sense of extension into virtual economies
22:26 < echarp> with firefox?
22:26 < urgen> they have their own client
22:26 < urgen> it breaks the lowest threshhold of participation rule but it is a good demonstration of potential
22:27 < echarp> proprietary?
22:27 < urgen> partially proprietary
22:27 < echarp> partially???
22:28 < echarp> can that duck exist and quack?
22:28 < urgen> there are some open source 3d protocols but I don't think they are ready for prime time
22:28 < urgen> partially means that they have used some opensource components openly
22:28 < urgen> you can make some changes to the client
22:29 < echarp> it's good
22:29 < echarp> but then, is it not possible to just share images? :)
22:30 < echarp> on parlement, if you send a mail the attachement images are displayed alongside it
22:30 < urgen> immersive environments have a unique charm
22:30 < urgen> a picture isn't very immersive
22:30 < echarp> I'm a debian user on an old laptop
22:30 < echarp> will it work?
22:30 < urgen> when you log in and experience vertigo because you have a fear of heights...
22:30 < echarp> and I'm also a console guy :)
22:30 < urgen> that proves the point
22:31 < urgen> I'm sitting in my chair at home and holding on because I feel like I'm about to fall
22:31 < urgen> interesting sensation
22:31 < urgen> shows something about synergy
22:32 < echarp> vertigo over there.com
22:32 < urgen> both systems have a fee to play
22:32 < urgen> there.com is microsoft only, I think
22:33 < urgen> second life has a mac client also, don't know about linux too
22:33 < echarp> then it's a dead end for me :(
22:33 < urgen> 'k
22:35 < echarp> there is inkscape
22:35 < echarp> vector drawing
22:35 < echarp> can be shared over a jabber server
22:35 < urgen> ah yes svg is in firefox
22:37 < echarp> well, it can be consultated in firefox yes
22:37 < echarp> can be drawn using inkscape or sodipodi
22:38 < urgen> I'll study it
22:38 < urgen> you have a jabber server?
22:38 < urgen> I think I have one but don't remember what state it is in
22:39 < echarp> nope
22:39 < echarp> I wonder if it could work or not over google talk
22:39 < urgen> :-) I don't know how open google is
22:40 < echarp> they often use open tech
22:40 < urgen> gtalk works with gaim clients but you don't get the other features googltalk has built in
22:40 < urgen> so they add some proprietary too
22:41 < urgen> gtalk voice, as an example
22:43 < echarp> I believe it is open protocol too
23:01 < urgen> http://googleresearch.blogspot.com/2006/06/extra-extra-read-all-about-it-nearly.html -- "...and remain ever vigilant."
23:08 < echarp> bitten by an overflow!!! :)
23:09 < echarp> it will all break at one time or another!
23:10 < echarp> let's hope we can put it back quickly :)
23:12 < echarp> ok, I'm going to bed!
23:12 < echarp> good night urgen
23:13 < urgen> nite
23:13 < echarp> same for you nsh, EarleMartin and of course fidel fiatlex ! :)
23:13 < echarp> nite nite
--- Log closed mar jun 20 00:00:21 2006
illegale
Jun 20, 2006, 6:40:44 AM6/20/06
to top-politics
Io. Just one notice.
Last days I am connected to internet through my college computer which
does not allow me irc usage.
That is the reason I am not participating your channel last days. Hope
that will change soon.
ATB.
Gale
echarp
Jun 21, 2006, 1:59:58 PM6/21/06
to top-politics
--- Log opened mar jun 20 00:00:21 2006
00:09 < urgen> http://ai-depot.com/Features/Essays.html
01:01 < urgen> There's a five percent chance I live in a "future" computer simulation as I write this.
02:27 -!- urgen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
05:14 -!- urgen (urgy) [n=sp...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
09:17 < echarp> hello hello
17:30 < urgen> morning
17:31 < echarp> good afternoon urgen !
17:32 < urgen> so do you know any software that can land on index.html and crawl the site to come up with a list of active files?
17:32 < urgen> graphic + web
17:32 < urgen> not just a sitemap that only sees a tags
17:33 < echarp> wget does just that
17:33 < urgen> it can crawl?
17:33 < urgen> I thought wget just gets everything
17:34 < echarp> it *is* a crawler
17:34 < urgen> I don't have a list of the files to get what are the command line options?
17:34 < urgen> it can see img tags?
17:34 < echarp> -r for recursive
17:34 < echarp> it can yes
17:34 < echarp> it gets everything
17:34 < echarp> do use also the -np flag, so that it does not go in any parent site
17:35 < urgen> I only want it to get the files that are in use based on index.html
17:35 < echarp> then it should be something like -r 1
17:35 < echarp> or something like that
17:35 < urgen> i'll man it
17:35 < echarp> :)
17:36 < urgen> I've only ever used wget to grap files through http if I knew the filename
17:50 * nsh smiles
17:51 < echarp> btw, are you fetching p0rn? ;)
17:52 < urgen> a customer wants their site cleaned up
17:52 < urgen> old non-used files deleted
17:52 < nsh> yeah wget can crawl quite easily
17:52 < urgen> I'm using --spider to not dl files
17:52 < urgen> I only need filenames
17:52 * nsh nods
17:52 < urgen> and currently.. it is saying no such directory or file
17:52 < nsh> hmm?
17:53 < urgen> so, I'm guess the host has disabled wget and I'll need to use some other id
17:53 < nsh> This feature needs much more work for Wget to get close to the
17:53 < nsh> functionality of real web spiders.
17:53 < nsh> --Man page
17:53 < nsh> probably some better software for this
17:53 < urgen> nice wikipedia article too
17:54 < nsh> oo, there's a gwget
17:54 < nsh> but not on my system apparantly
17:54 < urgen> :-) ya but I'm using command line
17:55 * nsh smiles
17:55 < echarp> command line is for elite :)
17:55 < nsh> i remember a t-shirt in the 90s with:
17:55 < nsh> Linux - the operating system with a CLUE: command line user environment
17:55 < echarp> :)
17:55 < nsh> dems was d'days
17:56 < echarp> good old days man
17:56 < nsh> phenny "1774, 'publisher's inscription at the end of a book,' from L. colophon, from Gk. kolophon 'summit, final touch' (see hill)." - http://etymonline.com/?term=colophon
17:56 < nsh> nsh .ety cultivate
17:58 < nsh> mispaste
17:58 * nsh goes to work
17:58 < echarp> :)
17:58 < echarp> I was wondering!
17:58 < nsh> interesting etymology though
17:58 < nsh> :-)
17:58 < echarp> nsh: what kind of work?
17:58 < nsh> tonight, bookmakers
17:59 * nsh has three entry-level jobs :-)
17:59 < nsh> skilled work and where i live are to a large degree incompatable
17:59 < echarp> rooo
17:59 < echarp> you are *truely* accounting bets??
18:00 * nsh nods
18:00 < echarp> 3 to 1 on that or this horse?
18:00 < nsh> yah
18:00 < echarp> woaw
18:00 < echarp> nsh: another job is security in a strip tease club? :)
18:00 < echarp> (I'd love to participate in that one)
18:00 * nsh smiles
18:01 < nsh> no, other jobs are: little cafe, and market research company
18:01 < echarp> computers and geek attitude is a mere hobby then
18:02 < echarp> which place is it that you live and they can't use a computer geek?
18:02 < echarp> (or you might just be a culture geek, colophon and all that :)
18:15 < urgen> oh I see, I wasn't defining a depth so it didn't find any files
18:15 < urgen> :P
18:15 < urgen> seems to be doing the job, thanks
18:16 < urgen> <-- getting some food
18:30 < echarp> :)
18:30 < echarp> bon appétit
18:30 < urgen> I like simple oatmeal in the morning
18:30 < echarp> I'm more into cereal biscuits
18:31 < urgen> I don't know what a cereal biscuit is
18:31 < urgen> like a scone?
18:31 < echarp> not that much
19:55 < echarp> re
19:55 < echarp> urgen: breakfast was nice? :)
23:15 -!- illegale (illegale) [i=ille...@cmung50.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
23:15 < illegale> io
23:19 < echarp> hello hello illegale
23:19 < echarp> back on the web? :)
23:23 < illegale> a little
23:23 < illegale> just
23:23 < echarp> difficult connection?
23:23 < echarp> ok, getting late for me, cu tomorrow around?
23:23 < illegale> probalby not :(
23:24 < echarp> we'll have to discuss about what can 4 of us do
23:24 < illegale> i know.
23:24 < illegale> yet, i am not comming to irc for a while
23:24 < illegale> as long as i can not on my college :/
23:25 < echarp> not cool at all!
23:25 < echarp> do you at least have web access?
23:25 < illegale> i know
23:25 < illegale> yes
23:25 < echarp> if that's the case, you can use the applet
23:25 < illegale> not in this moment
23:25 < illegale> at least not applet i used
23:26 < illegale> spam abuse is reported
23:26 < echarp> http://virtualmeetup.our-constitution.org/
23:26 < echarp> it does work for me
23:26 < echarp> and you can use the full range of irc commands, like /nick
23:26 < illegale> ill try it
23:27 < echarp> ok, late for me
23:27 < echarp> cu around, may the web force be with you! :)
23:29 < illegale> cu
23:29 < illegale> !
23:29 < illegale> lol
23:31 < echarp> nite nite!
23:34 -!- illegale [i=ille...@cmung50.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit []
--- Log closed mer jun 21 00:00:21 2006
00:09 < urgen> http://ai-depot.com/Features/Essays.html
01:01 < urgen> There's a five percent chance I live in a "future" computer simulation as I write this.
02:27 -!- urgen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
05:14 -!- urgen (urgy) [n=sp...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
09:17 < echarp> hello hello
17:30 < urgen> morning
17:31 < echarp> good afternoon urgen !
17:32 < urgen> so do you know any software that can land on index.html and crawl the site to come up with a list of active files?
17:32 < urgen> graphic + web
17:32 < urgen> not just a sitemap that only sees a tags
17:33 < echarp> wget does just that
17:33 < urgen> it can crawl?
17:33 < urgen> I thought wget just gets everything
17:34 < echarp> it *is* a crawler
17:34 < urgen> I don't have a list of the files to get what are the command line options?
17:34 < urgen> it can see img tags?
17:34 < echarp> -r for recursive
17:34 < echarp> it can yes
17:34 < echarp> it gets everything
17:34 < echarp> do use also the -np flag, so that it does not go in any parent site
17:35 < urgen> I only want it to get the files that are in use based on index.html
17:35 < echarp> then it should be something like -r 1
17:35 < echarp> or something like that
17:35 < urgen> i'll man it
17:35 < echarp> :)
17:36 < urgen> I've only ever used wget to grap files through http if I knew the filename
17:50 * nsh smiles
17:51 < echarp> btw, are you fetching p0rn? ;)
17:52 < urgen> a customer wants their site cleaned up
17:52 < urgen> old non-used files deleted
17:52 < nsh> yeah wget can crawl quite easily
17:52 < urgen> I'm using --spider to not dl files
17:52 < urgen> I only need filenames
17:52 * nsh nods
17:52 < urgen> and currently.. it is saying no such directory or file
17:52 < nsh> hmm?
17:53 < urgen> so, I'm guess the host has disabled wget and I'll need to use some other id
17:53 < nsh> This feature needs much more work for Wget to get close to the
17:53 < nsh> functionality of real web spiders.
17:53 < nsh> --Man page
17:53 < nsh> probably some better software for this
17:53 < urgen> nice wikipedia article too
17:54 < nsh> oo, there's a gwget
17:54 < nsh> but not on my system apparantly
17:54 < urgen> :-) ya but I'm using command line
17:55 * nsh smiles
17:55 < nsh> i remember a t-shirt in the 90s with:
17:55 < nsh> Linux - the operating system with a CLUE: command line user environment
17:55 < echarp> :)
17:55 < nsh> dems was d'days
17:56 < echarp> good old days man
17:56 < nsh> phenny "1774, 'publisher's inscription at the end of a book,' from L. colophon, from Gk. kolophon 'summit, final touch' (see hill)." - http://etymonline.com/?term=colophon
17:56 < nsh> nsh .ety cultivate
17:58 < nsh> mispaste
17:58 * nsh goes to work
17:58 < echarp> :)
17:58 < echarp> I was wondering!
17:58 < nsh> interesting etymology though
17:58 < nsh> :-)
17:58 < echarp> nsh: what kind of work?
17:58 < nsh> tonight, bookmakers
17:59 * nsh has three entry-level jobs :-)
17:59 < nsh> skilled work and where i live are to a large degree incompatable
17:59 < echarp> rooo
17:59 < echarp> you are *truely* accounting bets??
18:00 * nsh nods
18:00 < echarp> 3 to 1 on that or this horse?
18:00 < nsh> yah
18:00 < echarp> woaw
18:00 < echarp> nsh: another job is security in a strip tease club? :)
18:00 < echarp> (I'd love to participate in that one)
18:00 * nsh smiles
18:01 < nsh> no, other jobs are: little cafe, and market research company
18:01 < echarp> computers and geek attitude is a mere hobby then
18:02 < echarp> which place is it that you live and they can't use a computer geek?
18:02 < echarp> (or you might just be a culture geek, colophon and all that :)
18:15 < urgen> oh I see, I wasn't defining a depth so it didn't find any files
18:15 < urgen> :P
18:15 < urgen> seems to be doing the job, thanks
18:16 < urgen> <-- getting some food
18:30 < echarp> :)
18:30 < echarp> bon appétit
18:30 < urgen> I like simple oatmeal in the morning
18:30 < echarp> I'm more into cereal biscuits
18:31 < urgen> I don't know what a cereal biscuit is
18:31 < urgen> like a scone?
18:31 < echarp> not that much
19:55 < echarp> re
19:55 < echarp> urgen: breakfast was nice? :)
23:15 -!- illegale (illegale) [i=ille...@cmung50.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
23:15 < illegale> io
23:19 < echarp> hello hello illegale
23:19 < echarp> back on the web? :)
23:23 < illegale> a little
23:23 < illegale> just
23:23 < echarp> difficult connection?
23:23 < echarp> ok, getting late for me, cu tomorrow around?
23:23 < illegale> probalby not :(
23:24 < echarp> we'll have to discuss about what can 4 of us do
23:24 < illegale> i know.
23:24 < illegale> yet, i am not comming to irc for a while
23:24 < illegale> as long as i can not on my college :/
23:25 < echarp> not cool at all!
23:25 < echarp> do you at least have web access?
23:25 < illegale> i know
23:25 < illegale> yes
23:25 < echarp> if that's the case, you can use the applet
23:25 < illegale> not in this moment
23:25 < illegale> at least not applet i used
23:26 < illegale> spam abuse is reported
23:26 < echarp> http://virtualmeetup.our-constitution.org/
23:26 < echarp> it does work for me
23:26 < echarp> and you can use the full range of irc commands, like /nick
23:26 < illegale> ill try it
23:27 < echarp> ok, late for me
23:27 < echarp> cu around, may the web force be with you! :)
23:29 < illegale> cu
23:29 < illegale> !
23:29 < illegale> lol
23:31 < echarp> nite nite!
23:34 -!- illegale [i=ille...@cmung50.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit []
--- Log closed mer jun 21 00:00:21 2006
echarp
Jun 23, 2006, 9:00:52 AM6/23/06
to top-politics
--- Log opened jeu jun 22 00:00:22 2006
06:34 < urgen> nsh: http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/courses/logsys/nonstbib.htm
09:39 < echarp> hello hello
17:40 < urgen> hi
17:41 < urgen> illegale still offline?
17:41 < urgen> the network there has a no port 6667 rule?
17:41 < echarp> he's got troubles
17:41 < echarp> I don't know, I think he's using an university computer
17:42 < urgen> sounded like it
17:42 < echarp> he could also go through the java applet at virtualmeetup, yet his trouble must be something else
17:45 < urgen> sounded like there was more than one thing going on, yes
17:46 < echarp> urgen: and you, how are you going?
17:46 < urgen> my favorite answer is propentiously
17:46 < urgen> I think maybe things will brighten up soon
17:47 < urgen> one of my clients is interested in hearing more about what I can offer their business by way of more than just a consulting position
17:49 < echarp> maybe a permanent job then?
17:50 < echarp> something with better money?
17:57 < urgen> they mentioned better money
17:58 < urgen> I'm not sure I want *permanent* because of my lifestyle and because it prevents me from being able to pay attention to other things and because the world turns one color
17:58 < urgen> I've learned a lot being forced to work with lots of people with small jobs
17:59 < urgen> so I have to figure out what I need to pay bills and compare that with what they are willing to offer compared to the amount of time I need for my own projects
17:59 < urgen> ( trying to work that time thing in )
17:59 < urgen> permanent usually means no time.
18:00 < urgen> owning your own company means even less time but has some flexibility
18:14 < echarp> yeap
18:14 < echarp> I'm sure owning is stressful, grey back gorilla thing
18:14 < echarp> but permanent is never *that* permanent
18:14 < echarp> it's just that there is an agreement in the middle term
18:15 < urgen> and when I can't even pay bills I lose the option to decide
18:15 < urgen> or change lifestyles again to being homeless :-)
18:16 < echarp> yeap
18:16 < echarp> homeless that's a tough choice too
18:16 < echarp> the other end of the scale I guess
18:17 < urgen> not much option for something half way
18:17 < urgen> and I guess that's what I'm trying to create
18:18 < echarp> you have a gf? children? a car or a house?
18:18 < echarp> (all things expensive :)
18:20 < urgen> the kids have all moved out on their own
18:21 < urgen> we each have a car, one still being paid on, and rent
18:21 < echarp> children, that's a burden one can't dismiss
18:21 < echarp> :)
18:21 < urgen> we moved to be closer to cultural interest so that was a little expensive, it got put on credit cards
18:21 < urgen> with no work once I got here the credit cards are growing :-)
18:22 < echarp> I've heard many a USian is hooked on credit cards, is that true?
18:23 < urgen> for convenience makes paying things easier
18:23 < urgen> debt is a way of life in the US
18:25 < echarp> I've heard that its debt which is at the foundation of US growth
18:28 < urgen> as a theory of economy...
18:35 < echarp> I guess
18:35 < echarp> ok, I'm going home
18:35 * echarp is happy, he's managed to hook a debian machine to an Active Directory system :)
23:21 * nsh smiles
--- Log closed ven jun 23 00:00:22 2006
06:34 < urgen> nsh: http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/courses/logsys/nonstbib.htm
09:39 < echarp> hello hello
17:40 < urgen> hi
17:41 < urgen> illegale still offline?
17:41 < urgen> the network there has a no port 6667 rule?
17:41 < echarp> he's got troubles
17:41 < echarp> I don't know, I think he's using an university computer
17:42 < urgen> sounded like it
17:42 < echarp> he could also go through the java applet at virtualmeetup, yet his trouble must be something else
17:45 < urgen> sounded like there was more than one thing going on, yes
17:46 < echarp> urgen: and you, how are you going?
17:46 < urgen> my favorite answer is propentiously
17:46 < urgen> I think maybe things will brighten up soon
17:47 < urgen> one of my clients is interested in hearing more about what I can offer their business by way of more than just a consulting position
17:49 < echarp> maybe a permanent job then?
17:50 < echarp> something with better money?
17:57 < urgen> they mentioned better money
17:58 < urgen> I'm not sure I want *permanent* because of my lifestyle and because it prevents me from being able to pay attention to other things and because the world turns one color
17:58 < urgen> I've learned a lot being forced to work with lots of people with small jobs
17:59 < urgen> so I have to figure out what I need to pay bills and compare that with what they are willing to offer compared to the amount of time I need for my own projects
17:59 < urgen> ( trying to work that time thing in )
17:59 < urgen> permanent usually means no time.
18:00 < urgen> owning your own company means even less time but has some flexibility
18:14 < echarp> yeap
18:14 < echarp> I'm sure owning is stressful, grey back gorilla thing
18:14 < echarp> but permanent is never *that* permanent
18:14 < echarp> it's just that there is an agreement in the middle term
18:15 < urgen> and when I can't even pay bills I lose the option to decide
18:15 < urgen> or change lifestyles again to being homeless :-)
18:16 < echarp> yeap
18:16 < echarp> homeless that's a tough choice too
18:16 < echarp> the other end of the scale I guess
18:17 < urgen> not much option for something half way
18:17 < urgen> and I guess that's what I'm trying to create
18:18 < echarp> you have a gf? children? a car or a house?
18:18 < echarp> (all things expensive :)
18:20 < urgen> the kids have all moved out on their own
18:21 < urgen> we each have a car, one still being paid on, and rent
18:21 < echarp> children, that's a burden one can't dismiss
18:21 < echarp> :)
18:21 < urgen> we moved to be closer to cultural interest so that was a little expensive, it got put on credit cards
18:21 < urgen> with no work once I got here the credit cards are growing :-)
18:22 < echarp> I've heard many a USian is hooked on credit cards, is that true?
18:23 < urgen> for convenience makes paying things easier
18:23 < urgen> debt is a way of life in the US
18:25 < echarp> I've heard that its debt which is at the foundation of US growth
18:28 < urgen> as a theory of economy...
18:35 < echarp> I guess
18:35 < echarp> ok, I'm going home
18:35 * echarp is happy, he's managed to hook a debian machine to an Active Directory system :)
23:21 * nsh smiles
--- Log closed ven jun 23 00:00:22 2006
echarp
Jun 24, 2006, 12:56:44 PM6/24/06
to top-politics
--- Log opened ven jun 23 00:00:22 2006
02:25 -!- nsh_ (No Such Human) [n=n...@88.144.47.54] has joined #parlement
02:33 -!- nsh [n=nsh@wikipedia/nsh] has quit [Read error: 60 (Operation timed out)]
03:58 < urgen> re
07:15 -!- Netsplit niven.freenode.net <-> irc.freenode.net quits: nsh_
07:16 -!- Netsplit over, joins: nsh_
09:19 -!- nsh_ is now known as nsh
11:50 -!- illegale (illegale) [i=ille...@161.53.121.88] has joined #parlement
11:50 < illegale> io
11:54 < illegale> echarp, ar you there?
11:57 < echarp> chalut chalut illegale !
11:57 < illegale> hey
11:57 < illegale> !
11:57 < illegale> whassup?
11:57 < echarp> how are you things illegale ?
11:57 < illegale> not good
11:57 < echarp> everything is going all right
11:57 < illegale> about irc
11:58 < illegale> can see it when i use special powers only
11:58 < echarp> oh, closed port?
11:58 < illegale> suppose
11:58 < illegale> tried your suggestion
11:58 < illegale> did not work
11:58 < illegale> unalbe to connect stuff
11:58 < echarp> the applet does not launch?
11:58 < illegale> it can not conect to server
11:58 < echarp> they probably closed outgoing traffic
11:58 < illegale> the same thing on any java applet
11:58 < illegale> web based
11:58 < echarp> it's ratherrr weird
11:59 < illegale> now i use irc on some computer i have rarely acces too
11:59 < illegale> though, let me ask you some tinhg
11:59 < illegale> does it make any sense to work on top?
11:59 < illegale> seems no interest
12:00 < illegale> join to opencoop
12:01 < echarp> I do not know
12:02 < echarp> it does seem that transparency does not attract that much energy :(
12:02 < illegale> and what does?
12:02 < echarp> every thing the group has done is generate talks on voting methods, which is a slightly different matter
12:03 < echarp> maybe transpareny is like security or ergonomy => it's only important when it's *not* here :(
12:03 < illegale> do you have any suggestion of what to do?
12:03 < illegale> is there anything you want to do?
12:03 < echarp> maybe it would require focusing points
12:03 < echarp> to focus on intermediate goals
12:04 < illegale> go on
12:04 < illegale> what goals?
12:05 < echarp> I don't really know
12:06 < illegale> what about my proposal*?
12:06 < illegale> globas publictrust network
12:06 < illegale> no sense?
12:06 < echarp> it does make sense
12:06 < illegale> so*?
12:06 < echarp> a group who can audit
12:06 < illegale> audit?
12:07 < echarp> audit and make sure one follows principles, am I wrong?
12:07 < illegale> http://www.baach.de/content/projects
12:08 < illegale> join opencoop
12:08 < illegale> might be some interesting communication
12:08 < illegale> need to transaplete audit..
12:09 < illegale> you have a nice vocabulyry
12:09 < echarp> transaplete?
12:09 < illegale> translate
12:10 < echarp> "to examine and adjust"
12:10 < illegale> understand
12:10 < echarp> opencoop does seem interesting
12:10 < illegale> yet, what about audit, top?
12:11 < illegale> or global public trust network
12:11 < illegale> ?
12:11 < echarp> a top organism could audit others and say if they follow principles or not
12:12 < illegale> join opencoop
12:12 < illegale> #opencoop
12:14 < illegale> ok, i agree about this top stuff
12:14 < illegale> creating something as iso
12:15 < echarp> but this is a *huge* undertaking
12:16 < illegale> get it
12:16 < illegale> i find it we too weak for it
12:16 < echarp> I'm afraid this is true
12:16 < illegale> i want to see some project about interlinking people on the global scale
12:16 < illegale> seen wddm?
12:16 < illegale> seen esp?
12:16 < illegale> seen this opencoop
12:17 < illegale> many of them indeed
12:17 < illegale> every day new one
12:17 < illegale> i can notice
12:17 < echarp> yeap
12:17 < echarp> lot of energy
12:17 < echarp> I wonder how much stems from simple will to be the leader of each initiative?
12:18 < illegale> stems?
12:18 < illegale> your english too good for me
12:20 < echarp> to stem = to grow out from
12:21 < illegale> can you use differnt words to explain the mening?
12:22 < echarp> many initiatives are probably created just because many people want to be "leaders"
12:22 < illegale> yes, i do agree with this part very much
12:23 < illegale> yet, those who do not lead and who do, whats up with them?
12:24 < illegale> where I do see chance is to work on support of these initiatives enabling recognision and networking among them
12:24 < illegale> this top is cool to me because people could see some different aproaches
12:25 < illegale> i suppose magnus did not think too much about concept of trust networks and so on
12:25 < illegale> mark i suppose did not look for wider context of some decision making machanism
12:25 < illegale> yet, it seems to me now they wonder
12:26 < echarp> only interest seems to draw attention
12:27 < illegale> is there any than?
12:27 < echarp> ok, I'm going to lunch
12:27 < illegale> are you interested enough to enter a group?
12:27 < echarp> cu in a short while!
12:27 < illegale> ok
12:47 < illegale> i am banned at esp
12:47 < illegale> :)
12:54 -!- tav (tav) [n=t...@dsl-217-155-23-206.zen.co.uk] has joined #parlement
12:55 < tav> wow
12:55 < illegale> hey tav, nice to see you :)
12:55 < illegale> itchy?
12:55 < illegale> :)
12:55 < tav> sorry for having to ban you -- i gave you full opportunity to leave on your own accord
12:56 < illegale> no problem, good to know how you work
12:56 < tav> cool -- glad that's sorted
12:56 -!- tav [n=t...@dsl-217-155-23-206.zen.co.uk] has left #parlement []
12:56 < illegale> yet, if you ever get tired of censourship, know where to find open channels
13:27 < illegale> just a sec
13:54 < echarp> re
13:55 < echarp> illegale: what did you do at #esp???
13:56 < illegale> ask them for log
13:56 < illegale> i forgot its adress
13:56 < illegale> do you have it somewhere'
13:59 < echarp> I'm on it, I'm reading what happened
13:59 < echarp> unbelievable tav
13:59 < echarp> he did unban you once you were out
14:02 < illegale> whatever
14:02 < echarp> yeap
14:02 < illegale> can you send me a log
14:02 < illegale> of esp?
14:02 < echarp> I don't think I'm going to hang out on #esp anymore
14:03 < echarp> I believe it's all on a website, isn't it?
14:03 < illegale> interested in reactions
14:03 < illegale> yes. what adress?
14:03 < echarp> http://www.frappr.com/espians ?
14:03 < illegale> nah, there is some openideaproject.org and soem / ++++++++++*/ stuff
14:06 < echarp> illegale: I can also just send it to you
14:06 < echarp> what adress?
14:07 < illegale> geoer...@yahoo.com
14:08 < echarp> I can't believe how they just ban so easily :(
14:08 < illegale> not they :)
14:08 < illegale> yet, they seem to be cattlish :
14:10 < echarp> log sent
14:10 < echarp> and he does it again
14:10 < echarp> you know illegale, #esp might just be tav's
14:17 < illegale> might be, probably is, yet are other members aware of that?
14:18 < echarp> probably, he is marked as an operator
14:18 < echarp> there, he's the owner
14:23 < illegale> ok
14:23 < illegale> what i have to admit is that he is pretty famous :)
14:23 < echarp> is he???
14:23 < illegale> how can he do what he does if not?
14:24 < illegale> logilogi, opencoop, parlement
14:24 < illegale> several channels
14:24 < illegale> have much less peeopl e gatheres
14:24 < illegale> gathered
14:24 < echarp> because number of people = famous?
14:24 < echarp> I don't think so
14:24 < illegale> ok, wrong word
14:24 < illegale> though, hw did he menaged it
14:25 < illegale> to make esp have that many members?
14:25 < illegale> id like to have such channel too
14:25 < echarp> it might just be that #esp was not his, but constructed out of a previous community
14:25 < illegale> or joi ito
14:25 < echarp> there seem to only be 3 persons really active on esp projects you know
14:25 < illegale> ok
14:26 < illegale> E, why are you in democracy stuff?
14:26 < illegale> what drives you?
14:26 < illegale> ever thought of that?
14:26 < echarp> yeap I have
14:26 < echarp> very much so
14:26 < illegale> what is it?
14:26 < echarp> it's a constructed thought which I have since 1997
14:26 < echarp> I'm a science fiction guy, a *huge* SF guy
14:27 < illegale> you want to make something non imaginable?
14:27 < echarp> so much so that I have read all the classics, and nowadays I don't read anymore because there are not that many truely *great* books
14:27 < echarp> but I have imagined how a future society *could* become
14:27 < illegale> yeS*
14:27 < illegale> ?
14:28 < echarp> democracy is the only kind of tool I consider agreable
14:28 < illegale> talk about this dream?
14:28 < illegale> ? - .
14:28 < echarp> *this* dream?
14:28 < illegale> about imagination
14:28 < illegale> what do you imagine
14:28 < illegale> ?
14:28 < illegale> any emotions in that?
14:29 < echarp> I imagine some sort of panarchy
14:29 < echarp> where all system accepting the existence of other systems can coexist
14:30 < illegale> go on
14:30 < echarp> you could have a theocracy living alongside, in the same place, as a monarchy
14:31 < illegale> ok, you are atakling about world of telerance and peacefull coexistance?
14:31 < echarp> I'm sure there will be wars
14:31 < echarp> yet a panarchy should be able to manage that
14:32 < illegale> thgough, why all of that?
14:32 < echarp> I don't know how it would actually be, but I do imagine a tool to allow that kind of choice
14:32 < illegale> why do you want it?
14:32 < echarp> all of that to let every one construct his own happiness
14:32 < illegale> and yours be?
14:32 < echarp> it's the US constitution, the search for happiness
14:32 < illegale> need new system to enable it?
14:33 < echarp> I'm already rather happy, I'd like to spread it around and have it come back on me :)
14:33 < echarp> to get girls too of course ;)
14:33 < illegale> you want to be notorious e :)
14:33 < echarp> an evolution to the current system
14:33 < echarp> I'd like of course yes :)
14:33 < illegale> so, this is all becasue of girls, many of them?
14:33 < illegale> :)
14:34 < echarp> well, I'm not sure it would be enough
14:34 < illegale> enough girls?
14:34 < echarp> getting them is not *that* hard
14:34 < illegale> what is hard?
14:34 < echarp> I'm also a lego player *at hard*
14:34 < echarp> and I actually love to construct things!!!
14:35 < echarp> it's my passion
14:35 < illegale> cool
14:35 < illegale> me too
14:35 < illegale> at least in ficiotn part
14:35 < illegale> :)
14:35 < echarp> fiction?
14:35 < illegale> as long as real part is ot working good :)
14:35 < illegale> E, how strong is that wish in your mind?
14:36 < illegale> what are you ready to do to make it true?
14:37 < echarp> illegale: I have been programming to that end since 1998
14:37 < echarp> http://vvv.sf.net
14:37 < echarp> http://leparlement.org
14:37 < echarp> like I spend most of my time on it
14:37 < echarp> <+sbp> well, I think illegale had a totally good point about the transparency of esp and I agreed with him
14:37 < echarp> < echarp> I didn't know this channel was tav's
14:37 < echarp> < echarp> sbp: same
14:37 < illegale> you are hard worked?
14:38 < echarp> <<+sbp> and then he just kept going on and on and on and on and ON AND ON AND ON AND AAAAAAH STAB IN THE FACE
14:38 < echarp> < echarp> yeap :)
14:38 < echarp> hard worked?
14:38 < illegale> worker?
14:38 < echarp> <+tav> i agree with his point sbp -- just not going on and on about it
14:38 < echarp> <+sbp> right
14:38 < echarp> < also> echarp, i am not sure that calling it tav's is correct
14:38 < echarp> I work hard yes
14:38 < illegale> do you need me for your mission?
14:39 < echarp> to spread the word most certainly! ;)
14:39 < illegale> what word?
14:39 < echarp> I've left #esp, the channel is not fun anymore
14:39 < illegale> word of what?
14:40 < echarp> the existence of parlement
14:40 < illegale> i do not give a *****
14:40 < echarp> (the tool not the channel)
14:40 < illegale> typical NGO crew
14:40 < echarp> NGO?
14:40 < illegale> Non governmetn organsation
14:40 < echarp> possibly yes
14:40 < echarp> but I've never seen them kick off someone before
14:41 < illegale> parlement?
14:41 < illegale> what can i say for it
14:41 < illegale> you need a good story to sell it
14:41 < echarp> I'm sure I do yes
14:41 < illegale> and big interest
14:41 < echarp> to make it intereseting and useful
14:41 < echarp> already it's been as a top forum of sorts
14:41 < illegale> does it need to be parlement?
14:41 < illegale> can it be Tiaktiv?'
14:42 < echarp> what do you mean?
14:42 < illegale> do you mind about the name?
14:42 < echarp> parlement or Tiaktiv?
14:42 < echarp> what means Tiaktiv?
14:42 < illegale> what is the actuall thing you promote here?
14:42 < echarp> I don't care that much about the name
14:42 < illegale> transparent interaktiv
14:42 < illegale> i ask you this as long as it can be big burdai
14:42 < illegale> n
14:42 < echarp> parlement is the name of a place where people discuss and vote
14:43 < illegale> you promote the place?
14:43 < echarp> I think it's rather appropriate
14:43 < illegale> want me to promote it?
14:43 < echarp> I'd love you to promote it ;)
14:43 < illegale> what does it have what otehr places do not?
14:43 < illegale> +1/0/-1
14:43 < illegale> *?
14:43 < echarp> you can propose, choose and sometimes in the future, delegate
14:44 < illegale> for what?
14:44 < echarp> today the choice are made through -1/0/+1
14:44 < echarp> for groups who want to communicate, to express themselves
14:44 < echarp> to write any sort of structured text
14:44 < illegale> why should people accept negative consequences if they do not have to?
14:44 < illegale> there is plenty of such tools, right?
14:44 < echarp> you can use parlement to collaboratively write a text, any text
14:45 < echarp> nope, no such tool at all no
14:45 < illegale> ?
14:45 < illegale> wiki ?
14:45 < echarp> a wiki is definitely not democratic
14:45 < illegale> because of admins?
14:45 < echarp> because there is not one man one vote
14:46 < illegale> one man one vote = democracY?
14:46 < echarp> it's not =
14:46 < illegale> but?
14:46 < echarp> democracy requires one man one vote
14:46 < illegale> sure?
14:46 < echarp> there can be variations of course
14:46 < illegale> can it be one man ten votes?:O)
14:46 < echarp> ten votes is just the same :)
14:47 < echarp> equality between participants
14:47 < illegale> it seems to me top is eliminating it in a while
14:47 < echarp> I don't see that in top
14:47 < illegale> it is hard to legitimate equality among those who care and those who dont
14:47 < illegale> those who work hard and those who let it go
14:47 < echarp> and?
14:48 < echarp> democracy does not differentiate and does not have to
14:48 < illegale> so how can one man one vote funcion than?
14:48 < illegale> ok
14:48 < illegale> so, what does omov mean than?
14:48 < echarp> equality is just a basic principle
14:48 < illegale> that everybofy has right to join the process?
14:48 < illegale> and to work the best of it?
14:48 < echarp> that no one is intrinsically above the others, like it was in an aristocracy or monarchy
14:49 < illegale> intrinsically?
14:49 < echarp> there is not *one* process
14:49 < illegale> by default?
14:49 < echarp> by essence
14:49 < echarp> democracy is a tool that any group can use
14:49 < echarp> they can use for whatever reason they want
14:49 < illegale> what are carracteristics of that tool*?
14:49 < echarp> you can democratically write any text
14:50 < echarp> a constitution
14:50 < illegale> how do you do that?
14:50 < echarp> a forum
14:50 < echarp> a news site
14:50 < echarp> anybody can propose elements
14:50 < echarp> everybody can vote on those elements
14:50 < illegale> and?
14:50 < echarp> when you consult the elements, you can hide those below a given threshold that *you* choose (still to be done)
14:51 < echarp> it's an auto filtrated kind of thing
14:51 < illegale> there is a problem of sanction
14:51 < illegale> why should peope accept it if they do not have to do it
14:51 < echarp> they don't have to
14:51 < illegale> this is about power
14:51 < echarp> there are matters of power of course
14:52 < echarp> but here you just write, like you do in a parliament
14:52 < illegale> i mean, when we have 10 people working together
14:52 < illegale> every single one of them has to give up from something in such organisation
14:52 < illegale> interested in empowerment of these words?
14:52 < illegale> i am
14:53 < illegale> there is a big hole between words and deeds
14:54 < illegale> we have to pass
14:54 < echarp> well, the tool does not care about that
14:54 < echarp> it's up to the participants
14:55 < illegale> yet, you need oter participiants if you want to succeed, right?
14:55 < echarp> it's only a process to write democratically
14:55 < echarp> of course
14:55 < illegale> so, how shall you menage it?
14:56 < illegale> can we do it?
14:56 < echarp> but I can also just program for the fun of it you know, I've done that for years
14:56 < illegale> is it enough?
14:56 < echarp> I'd love to make it useful to others
14:56 < echarp> to spread the word
14:56 < illegale> common dream of you programers :)
14:57 < echarp> to improve the tool with others' iput
14:57 < illegale> you mean no obligations?
14:57 < echarp> yeap, programmers can just program without any outside incentive
14:57 < echarp> obligations?
14:57 < illegale> me to you, you to me
14:57 < illegale> contracts
14:57 < illegale> deals
14:57 < illegale> organisation
14:58 < echarp> do you mean that there should be such deals in the tool or between us?
14:58 < illegale> us
14:58 < echarp> what kind of deal do you have in mind?
14:58 < illegale> do not know
14:58 < illegale> yet
14:59 < illegale> the principle of trust to other part completely this is
14:59 < illegale> in order to let some part aside knowing it works fine
14:59 < illegale> in order it has to be done
14:59 < echarp> I'm rather lost
15:00 < echarp> can you rephrase?
15:00 < illegale> in this moment, the only capital we have involved are words and agreement about prinhcipels
15:00 < echarp> time and efforts too
15:00 < illegale> it is not a little thing, yet it is not enough
15:00 < echarp> but mostly yes
15:00 < illegale> more capital we involve. larger trust we can gain
15:01 < illegale> because if we go wrong we will loose it aving strong commonly accepted motives
15:01 < illegale> enabling trust
15:01 < illegale> that i wont go left when i was suppose to go right and vice versa
15:02 < illegale> stuff
15:02 < illegale> for an example, there is 4 of us initiative
15:02 < illegale> dead as death
15:02 < illegale> seems no trust, no interest to take it
15:02 < illegale> following me
15:02 < illegale> ?
15:03 < echarp> I don't think it's a matter of trust
15:03 < illegale> yet=?ž
15:03 < echarp> I think of it as a matter of goal
15:03 < illegale> we do not share it?
15:03 < echarp> what do we want and what are we ready to do to obtain it
15:03 < illegale> no common ground?ž
15:04 < echarp> but what for?
15:04 < illegale> ?
15:05 < echarp> what is the goal of that common ground?
15:05 < illegale> for me?
15:05 < echarp> for all participants
15:05 < illegale> of 4 of us?
15:06 < echarp> yeap
15:06 < echarp> for a start
15:06 < illegale> there was my proposal
15:06 < illegale> no other in this moment
15:06 < illegale> yet, we should talk about it maybe
15:07 < illegale> if you want to promote parlement, ok
15:07 < echarp> agreed
15:07 < illegale> yet, have to say it to open discussion
15:08 < echarp> what do you mean?
15:08 < illegale> you have to propose what you think
15:09 < illegale> right?
15:09 < echarp> I don't understand
15:09 < echarp> to propose what one thinks?
15:09 < echarp> to expose?
15:10 < illegale> you have to say how do you imagine our collaboration
15:10 < illegale> on what, for what and so on
15:10 < echarp> yeap
15:10 < illegale> in this moment there is only will of joining forces as long as i suppose we all understand that alone we can not do too much
15:12 < echarp> well, even this joining forces seem strange at times
15:12 < echarp> because there is not such a clear goal to that
15:12 < echarp> the goal seemed to be "to spread TOP principles"
15:12 < illegale> ok
15:12 < echarp> but only 4 people, it seems like such an impossible task :(
15:12 < illegale> you are for it?
15:13 < echarp> I am for spreading the word yes, but I spend my energy on programming
15:13 < illegale> ok.
15:14 < illegale> yet, you are into mind process too
15:14 < illegale> :)
15:14 < echarp> yeap
15:14 < illegale> this top principles promotion
15:14 < illegale> we can actually start it
15:15 < illegale> yet, not in a manner, lets preach it
15:16 < echarp> not in a manner, let's preach???
15:16 < echarp> I don't get it
15:18 < illegale> how can we get to the position to spread top principles?
15:18 < illegale> if we can not do it right now?
15:18 < illegale> this might be task for 4 of us?
15:18 < echarp> this does seem very difficult
15:19 < illegale> yet, there is some knowledge we have in order to move towards it
15:19 < illegale> nevertheless
15:20 < illegale> it seems you are right about it
15:20 < illegale> as long as we gathered about top, not GPTN
15:20 < echarp> gptn?
15:21 < illegale> global public trust network
15:21 < echarp> you talked about it before, but I didn't record it in long term memory :)
15:22 < illegale> no problem
15:25 < illegale> E, would you send your opinion about what should we put as our goal on top politics?
15:25 < illegale> when you find soem time, of course
15:26 < echarp> I'll try to do that this evening yes
15:27 < illegale> thank you
15:27 < illegale> i see no other way if we want to move forward
15:28 < echarp> but I don't really know what should be that goal
15:28 < echarp> in top I'm a follower
15:32 < echarp> I'm into a french association called april, association pour la recherche en informatique libre
15:32 < echarp> well, it's more like a social place, I have friends there, and sometimes they ask the members to do something
15:36 < illegale> though, top needs infratstructure for project menagmend
15:36 < illegale> t
15:37 < echarp> for discussion? to exchange documents?
15:38 < illegale> for everytihing
15:38 < illegale> part where peeople can discusss, shar documents and so on
15:38 < echarp> need to list that
15:38 < illegale> yes
15:38 < illegale> i see that many organisation wont accept top due to spam and stuff
15:39 < illegale> that is legitimated in eyes of meny
15:39 < illegale> many
15:39 < echarp> yeap, they don't want to waste energy
15:40 < illegale> so, for an example, tav got lousy legitiamtion to ban be
15:40 < illegale> me
15:41 < illegale> if we have software that enables transparent discussions and yet to be open to whole public, there is no way for such reasons to be adopted
15:41 < echarp> some others came to his rescue
15:41 < illegale> see this as step froward
15:42 < illegale> i know
15:42 < illegale> he has defenders
15:43 < echarp> group management, it's rather normal
15:43 < illegale> ye
15:43 < illegale> s
15:44 < illegale> so, e
15:44 < illegale> i suppose we can be the best promotors of top if we use it successfully
15:44 < echarp> definitely
15:45 < illegale> ok, do you find this could be our goal?
15:46 < echarp> definitely
15:46 < echarp> yet it's almost too simple
15:46 < echarp> :)
15:46 < illegale> :)
15:46 < echarp> I consider that I'm already on that track
15:47 < illegale> i suppose it wont be that simple for all time, yet as long as it is it is good
15:48 * echarp definitely concurs
15:53 < illegale> ill have to go soon
15:53 < illegale> glad we had a nice talk :)
15:54 < echarp> that was cool :)
15:54 < echarp> I still can't believe you were banned!
15:54 < illegale> lol
15:54 < echarp> illegale: you have a history of that don't you? :)
15:54 < illegale> of course
15:54 < illegale> many many times and many many friends after all
15:54 < illegale> :)
15:56 < echarp> cool
15:56 < illegale> you know, not glad we did not have flame war.
15:56 < illegale> that is good for deeper introspective stuff :)ž
15:57 < echarp> lol
15:58 < illegale> talking about it, where is Marks?
15:58 < echarp> we are discussing privately by mail
15:58 < echarp> on elitism :)
15:58 < illegale> really?
15:58 < echarp> yeap
15:58 < illegale> why did you leave toop?
15:58 < echarp> at least in private it's not just a matter of silly games
15:59 < illegale> ok
15:59 < illegale> so, do you progress?
15:59 < echarp> it goes ping pong like, almost one sentence at a time
15:59 < echarp> I think I'm cornering him slowly ;)
15:59 < illegale> lol
16:00 < echarp> he already admitted that his interpretation is not a matter of definition, but of "logical extension" :)
16:00 < echarp> I'm trying to have him express that invisible extension that only him see :)
16:02 < illegale> I did not know it will go that far
16:02 < illegale> Maybe i would join your debates :)
16:02 < echarp> it's slow and almost respectful :)
16:02 < echarp> two or three emails every day
16:03 < illegale> i feel terrible
16:03 < illegale> yet i understand
16:04 < echarp> terrible for?
16:05 < illegale> i mean, top is dead and you two still havign a good time :)
16:05 < echarp> lol
16:05 < illegale> it took me some time to loose my flame mode
16:05 < illegale> and now i feel itchy
16:06 < illegale> E, gonna go now
16:06 < illegale> Not sure I will be able to go to irc till monday
16:06 < echarp> ok, cu later then!
16:06 < echarp> no problem, I'll stay around ;)
16:07 < echarp> maybe devise some rules with urgen :)
16:07 < illegale> Send some cool text to group!
16:07 < illegale> :-)
16:07 < illegale> CU!
16:07 -!- illegale [i=ille...@161.53.121.88] has left #parlement []
17:44 < urgen> illegale can ssh to a shell and do text base irc from there
17:44 < urgen> just like the good ol' days
17:47 < echarp> it's actually what I do using ssh+mlterm+screen+irssi
17:47 < echarp> works wonders
17:47 < urgen> ya
17:47 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
17:47 < urgen> I don't know mlterm
17:47 * urgen looks it up
17:47 < echarp> it's yet another terminal
17:47 < echarp> transparent, text fading, client-server, utf8
17:48 < urgen> right font controls
17:48 < echarp> yeap
17:48 < echarp> aterm is also quite nice
17:49 < echarp> before that I was on urxvt, but lately on my debian box, I can't focus on it
17:49 < echarp> it was at first rather unsetling because I was *only* using urxvt, had to go back on my tty terminal for a short while :)
17:52 < urgen> so you can see why illegale is interpretted as having a hidden agenda while accusing others of having a hidden agenda, right?
17:53 < echarp> is it hidden?
17:53 < urgen> the hidden-ness of it stick out like a sore thumb
17:53 < echarp> I believe that it is his constant reminding of his agenda which resulted in his exclusion
17:53 < urgen> so maybe not so hidden
17:54 < echarp> plus he probably touched on a hidden sore :)
17:54 < urgen> but that it is unintentional, it is hidden
17:54 < urgen> I mean illegale's own lack of awareness
17:55 < urgen> if one is going to go around with a pointy stick then sore spots will be found
17:55 < urgen> but pointy sticks harbor equally as many hidden agendas
17:57 < echarp> pointy sticks do generate pain
17:57 < echarp> but I don't know about hidden agendas
17:57 < urgen> they are composed of them
17:58 < urgen> the essence of a pointy stick is a hidden agenda
17:58 < echarp> you sure, does he not simply have a goal and try to pursue it?
17:58 < urgen> or there would be no poking going on at all
17:58 < urgen> bad goal, dude
18:00 < urgen> so freeshell.org has an irc client
18:01 < echarp> I don't think the goal is bad
18:01 < echarp> just he likes to poke at things :)
18:01 < urgen> :-) I know the goal is bad or at least the expression of the goal in the form it is being executed in
18:02 < urgen> it might be innocent but it will change in time
18:02 < urgen> maybe beyond my own limits to generate the gravity field required to capture understanding...
18:02 < urgen> but that dynamic will eventually happen
18:03 < echarp> his poking is probably not innocent you know
18:03 < urgen> no I think it is very innocent
18:03 < urgen> extremely naive even
18:04 < echarp> you think, even considering his appreciation of flame wars and other belligerences?
18:04 < urgen> yes
18:08 < echarp> I'm not sure
18:08 < echarp> but I agree to one thing, what happened on #esp was rather abrupt none the lesse
18:09 < echarp> a generally cool channel accepting much OT subjects
18:09 < urgen> and that is also why I jumped in so quickly to lead illegale off of joiito
18:09 < echarp> off of joiito?
18:09 < urgen> why I mentioned esp
18:09 < urgen> I was trying to create gravity vectors to capture that lost satellite
18:09 < echarp> what do you mean between joiito and esp?
18:10 < echarp> you wanted illegale to be on one of those 2 channels?
18:10 < urgen> I was the one that suggested #esp and #ud and other 'democracy online' type efforts
18:10 < echarp> ah, ok
18:10 < urgen> #joiito was definately not one
18:10 < urgen> so the talk was very off topic
18:11 < urgen> it *maybe* could have fit in on some of the other channels but not if you walk in with an attack
18:11 < urgen> that's just nuts
18:11 < urgen> especially with a nonstarter like 'transparency'
18:11 < urgen> maybe that word needs a tune up
18:12 < echarp> possibly too yes
18:12 < echarp> #joiito does not appreciate that kind of topic? (transparency)
18:12 < urgen> so I've been trying to show how 'lies' start with oneself
18:12 < urgen> #joiito is a party
18:12 < urgen> does anyone at a party want to talk shop?
18:13 < urgen> hardly ever
19:00 * nsh smiles
19:00 < urgen> nsh you see illegale get banned?
19:00 < nsh> aqui?
19:00 < urgen> on #esp
19:00 < nsh> oh, no - don't think so
19:00 < nsh> buffer may have it
19:00 < urgen> we're next you know...
19:00 < urgen> tho probably not really
19:00 < urgen> the amount of non affinity with non concrete discussion is expressing itself
19:00 * nsh smiles
19:00 < nsh> glue is attractive
19:00 < nsh> immersion is all-consuming
19:00 < nsh> so i guess it's understandable
19:00 < urgen> sure
19:00 < nsh> so what would a river do?
19:00 < nsh> rivers always find a way
19:00 < urgen> so. I see #logilogi #ud #opencoop #parlement
19:00 < urgen> all some open system community equivalency proponents
19:00 < urgen> but they do not inter-translate
19:00 < urgen> lots more similar interest than there has ever been but ppl are still squaring off in their own corners
19:02 < urgen> generically, 'sustainable' and 'green' are getting picked up as banners
19:02 < urgen> but it doesn't take long for the banners to become clubs
19:02 < urgen> that's the one I want to address
19:04 < urgen> there are probably some other irc channels
19:07 * nsh back
19:07 < nsh> phone call - british red cross
19:07 < nsh> right
19:07 < nsh> so there are two problems
19:07 < nsh> though i'm sure each partakes of the other
19:08 < nsh> the differentiating process - people forming camps based upon slightly different understandings of either the problem or method of solution
19:09 < nsh> and the institutionalisation process: banners -> clubs, with the associated drifting of actions from initial motivating mission to association maintainance
19:26 < urgen> so, to use fiatlex as the lab
19:26 < urgen> like any one person can enact a rule
19:26 < urgen> and any one person can..
19:26 < urgen> forgot the command
19:26 < urgen> fiatlex, help nomic
19:26 < fiatlex> urgen: Ask me about rule <n>, or ask me to accept <Rule> [with <Note>], amend <Rule> with <Rule>, annotate <Rule> with <Text>, collect <Number> <Thing> from <Player>, defeat <Rule> [with <Note>], details of <Rule>, enact <Rule> [with <Note>], enroll, grant <Number> <Thing> to <Player>, inventory
19:26 < fiatlex> ..<Thing>, notes on <Rule>, pending, propose <Text>, reject <Rule> [with <Note>], spend <Number> <Thing> or text of <Rule>.
19:27 < urgen> and any one person can defeat a rule
19:27 < urgen> there is nothing to indicate a rule that has been enacted then toggled to defeat or visaversa
19:28 < urgen> to enact a rule is the same or different than to accept a rule?
19:29 < urgen> wouldn't enact also be a record of individual acceptance?
19:30 < urgen> if the system were 100% consensus only.. then ppl can just toggle enact or not, right?
19:30 < urgen> since any dissent is total dissent
19:32 < urgen> then, what happens when it shifts to one no vote is allowed for enacting? and that one no vote, then, toggles the rule back to defeat?
19:33 < urgen> (the person that voted no, even though they must have already have voted to allow one rejection doesn't mandate defeat
19:33 < urgen> )
--- Log closed sam jun 24 00:00:51 2006
02:25 -!- nsh_ (No Such Human) [n=n...@88.144.47.54] has joined #parlement
02:33 -!- nsh [n=nsh@wikipedia/nsh] has quit [Read error: 60 (Operation timed out)]
03:58 < urgen> re
07:15 -!- Netsplit niven.freenode.net <-> irc.freenode.net quits: nsh_
07:16 -!- Netsplit over, joins: nsh_
09:19 -!- nsh_ is now known as nsh
11:50 -!- illegale (illegale) [i=ille...@161.53.121.88] has joined #parlement
11:50 < illegale> io
11:54 < illegale> echarp, ar you there?
11:57 < echarp> chalut chalut illegale !
11:57 < illegale> hey
11:57 < illegale> !
11:57 < illegale> whassup?
11:57 < echarp> how are you things illegale ?
11:57 < illegale> not good
11:57 < echarp> everything is going all right
11:57 < illegale> about irc
11:58 < illegale> can see it when i use special powers only
11:58 < echarp> oh, closed port?
11:58 < illegale> suppose
11:58 < illegale> tried your suggestion
11:58 < illegale> did not work
11:58 < illegale> unalbe to connect stuff
11:58 < echarp> the applet does not launch?
11:58 < illegale> it can not conect to server
11:58 < echarp> they probably closed outgoing traffic
11:58 < illegale> the same thing on any java applet
11:58 < illegale> web based
11:58 < echarp> it's ratherrr weird
11:59 < illegale> now i use irc on some computer i have rarely acces too
11:59 < illegale> though, let me ask you some tinhg
11:59 < illegale> does it make any sense to work on top?
11:59 < illegale> seems no interest
12:00 < illegale> join to opencoop
12:01 < echarp> I do not know
12:02 < echarp> it does seem that transparency does not attract that much energy :(
12:02 < illegale> and what does?
12:02 < echarp> every thing the group has done is generate talks on voting methods, which is a slightly different matter
12:03 < echarp> maybe transpareny is like security or ergonomy => it's only important when it's *not* here :(
12:03 < illegale> do you have any suggestion of what to do?
12:03 < illegale> is there anything you want to do?
12:03 < echarp> maybe it would require focusing points
12:03 < echarp> to focus on intermediate goals
12:04 < illegale> go on
12:04 < illegale> what goals?
12:05 < echarp> I don't really know
12:06 < illegale> what about my proposal*?
12:06 < illegale> globas publictrust network
12:06 < illegale> no sense?
12:06 < echarp> it does make sense
12:06 < illegale> so*?
12:06 < echarp> a group who can audit
12:06 < illegale> audit?
12:07 < echarp> audit and make sure one follows principles, am I wrong?
12:07 < illegale> http://www.baach.de/content/projects
12:08 < illegale> join opencoop
12:08 < illegale> might be some interesting communication
12:08 < illegale> need to transaplete audit..
12:09 < illegale> you have a nice vocabulyry
12:09 < echarp> transaplete?
12:09 < illegale> translate
12:10 < echarp> "to examine and adjust"
12:10 < illegale> understand
12:10 < echarp> opencoop does seem interesting
12:10 < illegale> yet, what about audit, top?
12:11 < illegale> or global public trust network
12:11 < illegale> ?
12:11 < echarp> a top organism could audit others and say if they follow principles or not
12:12 < illegale> join opencoop
12:12 < illegale> #opencoop
12:14 < illegale> ok, i agree about this top stuff
12:14 < illegale> creating something as iso
12:15 < echarp> but this is a *huge* undertaking
12:16 < illegale> get it
12:16 < illegale> i find it we too weak for it
12:16 < echarp> I'm afraid this is true
12:16 < illegale> i want to see some project about interlinking people on the global scale
12:16 < illegale> seen wddm?
12:16 < illegale> seen esp?
12:16 < illegale> seen this opencoop
12:17 < illegale> many of them indeed
12:17 < illegale> every day new one
12:17 < illegale> i can notice
12:17 < echarp> yeap
12:17 < echarp> lot of energy
12:17 < echarp> I wonder how much stems from simple will to be the leader of each initiative?
12:18 < illegale> stems?
12:18 < illegale> your english too good for me
12:20 < echarp> to stem = to grow out from
12:21 < illegale> can you use differnt words to explain the mening?
12:22 < echarp> many initiatives are probably created just because many people want to be "leaders"
12:22 < illegale> yes, i do agree with this part very much
12:23 < illegale> yet, those who do not lead and who do, whats up with them?
12:24 < illegale> where I do see chance is to work on support of these initiatives enabling recognision and networking among them
12:24 < illegale> this top is cool to me because people could see some different aproaches
12:25 < illegale> i suppose magnus did not think too much about concept of trust networks and so on
12:25 < illegale> mark i suppose did not look for wider context of some decision making machanism
12:25 < illegale> yet, it seems to me now they wonder
12:26 < echarp> only interest seems to draw attention
12:27 < illegale> is there any than?
12:27 < echarp> ok, I'm going to lunch
12:27 < illegale> are you interested enough to enter a group?
12:27 < echarp> cu in a short while!
12:27 < illegale> ok
12:47 < illegale> i am banned at esp
12:47 < illegale> :)
12:54 -!- tav (tav) [n=t...@dsl-217-155-23-206.zen.co.uk] has joined #parlement
12:55 < tav> wow
12:55 < illegale> hey tav, nice to see you :)
12:55 < illegale> itchy?
12:55 < illegale> :)
12:55 < tav> sorry for having to ban you -- i gave you full opportunity to leave on your own accord
12:56 < illegale> no problem, good to know how you work
12:56 < tav> cool -- glad that's sorted
12:56 -!- tav [n=t...@dsl-217-155-23-206.zen.co.uk] has left #parlement []
12:56 < illegale> yet, if you ever get tired of censourship, know where to find open channels
13:27 < illegale> just a sec
13:54 < echarp> re
13:55 < echarp> illegale: what did you do at #esp???
13:56 < illegale> ask them for log
13:56 < illegale> i forgot its adress
13:56 < illegale> do you have it somewhere'
13:59 < echarp> I'm on it, I'm reading what happened
13:59 < echarp> unbelievable tav
13:59 < echarp> he did unban you once you were out
14:02 < illegale> whatever
14:02 < echarp> yeap
14:02 < illegale> can you send me a log
14:02 < illegale> of esp?
14:02 < echarp> I don't think I'm going to hang out on #esp anymore
14:03 < echarp> I believe it's all on a website, isn't it?
14:03 < illegale> interested in reactions
14:03 < illegale> yes. what adress?
14:03 < echarp> http://www.frappr.com/espians ?
14:03 < illegale> nah, there is some openideaproject.org and soem / ++++++++++*/ stuff
14:06 < echarp> illegale: I can also just send it to you
14:06 < echarp> what adress?
14:07 < illegale> geoer...@yahoo.com
14:08 < echarp> I can't believe how they just ban so easily :(
14:08 < illegale> not they :)
14:08 < illegale> yet, they seem to be cattlish :
14:10 < echarp> log sent
14:10 < echarp> and he does it again
14:10 < echarp> you know illegale, #esp might just be tav's
14:17 < illegale> might be, probably is, yet are other members aware of that?
14:18 < echarp> probably, he is marked as an operator
14:18 < echarp> there, he's the owner
14:23 < illegale> ok
14:23 < illegale> what i have to admit is that he is pretty famous :)
14:23 < echarp> is he???
14:23 < illegale> how can he do what he does if not?
14:24 < illegale> logilogi, opencoop, parlement
14:24 < illegale> several channels
14:24 < illegale> have much less peeopl e gatheres
14:24 < illegale> gathered
14:24 < echarp> because number of people = famous?
14:24 < echarp> I don't think so
14:24 < illegale> ok, wrong word
14:24 < illegale> though, hw did he menaged it
14:25 < illegale> to make esp have that many members?
14:25 < illegale> id like to have such channel too
14:25 < echarp> it might just be that #esp was not his, but constructed out of a previous community
14:25 < illegale> or joi ito
14:25 < echarp> there seem to only be 3 persons really active on esp projects you know
14:25 < illegale> ok
14:26 < illegale> E, why are you in democracy stuff?
14:26 < illegale> what drives you?
14:26 < illegale> ever thought of that?
14:26 < echarp> yeap I have
14:26 < echarp> very much so
14:26 < illegale> what is it?
14:26 < echarp> it's a constructed thought which I have since 1997
14:26 < echarp> I'm a science fiction guy, a *huge* SF guy
14:27 < illegale> you want to make something non imaginable?
14:27 < echarp> so much so that I have read all the classics, and nowadays I don't read anymore because there are not that many truely *great* books
14:27 < echarp> but I have imagined how a future society *could* become
14:27 < illegale> yeS*
14:27 < illegale> ?
14:28 < echarp> democracy is the only kind of tool I consider agreable
14:28 < illegale> talk about this dream?
14:28 < illegale> ? - .
14:28 < echarp> *this* dream?
14:28 < illegale> about imagination
14:28 < illegale> what do you imagine
14:28 < illegale> ?
14:28 < illegale> any emotions in that?
14:29 < echarp> I imagine some sort of panarchy
14:29 < echarp> where all system accepting the existence of other systems can coexist
14:30 < illegale> go on
14:30 < echarp> you could have a theocracy living alongside, in the same place, as a monarchy
14:31 < illegale> ok, you are atakling about world of telerance and peacefull coexistance?
14:31 < echarp> I'm sure there will be wars
14:31 < echarp> yet a panarchy should be able to manage that
14:32 < illegale> thgough, why all of that?
14:32 < echarp> I don't know how it would actually be, but I do imagine a tool to allow that kind of choice
14:32 < illegale> why do you want it?
14:32 < echarp> all of that to let every one construct his own happiness
14:32 < illegale> and yours be?
14:32 < echarp> it's the US constitution, the search for happiness
14:32 < illegale> need new system to enable it?
14:33 < echarp> I'm already rather happy, I'd like to spread it around and have it come back on me :)
14:33 < echarp> to get girls too of course ;)
14:33 < illegale> you want to be notorious e :)
14:33 < echarp> an evolution to the current system
14:33 < echarp> I'd like of course yes :)
14:33 < illegale> so, this is all becasue of girls, many of them?
14:33 < illegale> :)
14:34 < echarp> well, I'm not sure it would be enough
14:34 < illegale> enough girls?
14:34 < echarp> getting them is not *that* hard
14:34 < illegale> what is hard?
14:34 < echarp> I'm also a lego player *at hard*
14:34 < echarp> and I actually love to construct things!!!
14:35 < echarp> it's my passion
14:35 < illegale> cool
14:35 < illegale> me too
14:35 < illegale> at least in ficiotn part
14:35 < illegale> :)
14:35 < echarp> fiction?
14:35 < illegale> as long as real part is ot working good :)
14:35 < illegale> E, how strong is that wish in your mind?
14:36 < illegale> what are you ready to do to make it true?
14:37 < echarp> illegale: I have been programming to that end since 1998
14:37 < echarp> http://vvv.sf.net
14:37 < echarp> http://leparlement.org
14:37 < echarp> like I spend most of my time on it
14:37 < echarp> <+sbp> well, I think illegale had a totally good point about the transparency of esp and I agreed with him
14:37 < echarp> < echarp> I didn't know this channel was tav's
14:37 < echarp> < echarp> sbp: same
14:37 < illegale> you are hard worked?
14:38 < echarp> <<+sbp> and then he just kept going on and on and on and on and ON AND ON AND ON AND AAAAAAH STAB IN THE FACE
14:38 < echarp> < echarp> yeap :)
14:38 < echarp> hard worked?
14:38 < illegale> worker?
14:38 < echarp> <+tav> i agree with his point sbp -- just not going on and on about it
14:38 < echarp> <+sbp> right
14:38 < echarp> < also> echarp, i am not sure that calling it tav's is correct
14:38 < echarp> I work hard yes
14:38 < illegale> do you need me for your mission?
14:39 < echarp> to spread the word most certainly! ;)
14:39 < illegale> what word?
14:39 < echarp> I've left #esp, the channel is not fun anymore
14:39 < illegale> word of what?
14:40 < echarp> the existence of parlement
14:40 < illegale> i do not give a *****
14:40 < echarp> (the tool not the channel)
14:40 < illegale> typical NGO crew
14:40 < echarp> NGO?
14:40 < illegale> Non governmetn organsation
14:40 < echarp> possibly yes
14:40 < echarp> but I've never seen them kick off someone before
14:41 < illegale> parlement?
14:41 < illegale> what can i say for it
14:41 < illegale> you need a good story to sell it
14:41 < echarp> I'm sure I do yes
14:41 < illegale> and big interest
14:41 < echarp> to make it intereseting and useful
14:41 < echarp> already it's been as a top forum of sorts
14:41 < illegale> does it need to be parlement?
14:41 < illegale> can it be Tiaktiv?'
14:42 < echarp> what do you mean?
14:42 < illegale> do you mind about the name?
14:42 < echarp> parlement or Tiaktiv?
14:42 < echarp> what means Tiaktiv?
14:42 < illegale> what is the actuall thing you promote here?
14:42 < echarp> I don't care that much about the name
14:42 < illegale> transparent interaktiv
14:42 < illegale> i ask you this as long as it can be big burdai
14:42 < illegale> n
14:42 < echarp> parlement is the name of a place where people discuss and vote
14:43 < illegale> you promote the place?
14:43 < echarp> I think it's rather appropriate
14:43 < illegale> want me to promote it?
14:43 < echarp> I'd love you to promote it ;)
14:43 < illegale> what does it have what otehr places do not?
14:43 < illegale> +1/0/-1
14:43 < illegale> *?
14:43 < echarp> you can propose, choose and sometimes in the future, delegate
14:44 < illegale> for what?
14:44 < echarp> today the choice are made through -1/0/+1
14:44 < echarp> for groups who want to communicate, to express themselves
14:44 < echarp> to write any sort of structured text
14:44 < illegale> why should people accept negative consequences if they do not have to?
14:44 < illegale> there is plenty of such tools, right?
14:44 < echarp> you can use parlement to collaboratively write a text, any text
14:45 < echarp> nope, no such tool at all no
14:45 < illegale> ?
14:45 < illegale> wiki ?
14:45 < echarp> a wiki is definitely not democratic
14:45 < illegale> because of admins?
14:45 < echarp> because there is not one man one vote
14:46 < illegale> one man one vote = democracY?
14:46 < echarp> it's not =
14:46 < illegale> but?
14:46 < echarp> democracy requires one man one vote
14:46 < illegale> sure?
14:46 < echarp> there can be variations of course
14:46 < illegale> can it be one man ten votes?:O)
14:46 < echarp> ten votes is just the same :)
14:47 < echarp> equality between participants
14:47 < illegale> it seems to me top is eliminating it in a while
14:47 < echarp> I don't see that in top
14:47 < illegale> it is hard to legitimate equality among those who care and those who dont
14:47 < illegale> those who work hard and those who let it go
14:47 < echarp> and?
14:48 < echarp> democracy does not differentiate and does not have to
14:48 < illegale> so how can one man one vote funcion than?
14:48 < illegale> ok
14:48 < illegale> so, what does omov mean than?
14:48 < echarp> equality is just a basic principle
14:48 < illegale> that everybofy has right to join the process?
14:48 < illegale> and to work the best of it?
14:48 < echarp> that no one is intrinsically above the others, like it was in an aristocracy or monarchy
14:49 < illegale> intrinsically?
14:49 < echarp> there is not *one* process
14:49 < illegale> by default?
14:49 < echarp> by essence
14:49 < echarp> democracy is a tool that any group can use
14:49 < echarp> they can use for whatever reason they want
14:49 < illegale> what are carracteristics of that tool*?
14:49 < echarp> you can democratically write any text
14:50 < echarp> a constitution
14:50 < illegale> how do you do that?
14:50 < echarp> a forum
14:50 < echarp> a news site
14:50 < echarp> anybody can propose elements
14:50 < echarp> everybody can vote on those elements
14:50 < illegale> and?
14:50 < echarp> when you consult the elements, you can hide those below a given threshold that *you* choose (still to be done)
14:51 < echarp> it's an auto filtrated kind of thing
14:51 < illegale> there is a problem of sanction
14:51 < illegale> why should peope accept it if they do not have to do it
14:51 < echarp> they don't have to
14:51 < illegale> this is about power
14:51 < echarp> there are matters of power of course
14:52 < echarp> but here you just write, like you do in a parliament
14:52 < illegale> i mean, when we have 10 people working together
14:52 < illegale> every single one of them has to give up from something in such organisation
14:52 < illegale> interested in empowerment of these words?
14:52 < illegale> i am
14:53 < illegale> there is a big hole between words and deeds
14:54 < illegale> we have to pass
14:54 < echarp> well, the tool does not care about that
14:54 < echarp> it's up to the participants
14:55 < illegale> yet, you need oter participiants if you want to succeed, right?
14:55 < echarp> it's only a process to write democratically
14:55 < echarp> of course
14:55 < illegale> so, how shall you menage it?
14:56 < illegale> can we do it?
14:56 < echarp> but I can also just program for the fun of it you know, I've done that for years
14:56 < illegale> is it enough?
14:56 < echarp> I'd love to make it useful to others
14:56 < echarp> to spread the word
14:56 < illegale> common dream of you programers :)
14:57 < echarp> to improve the tool with others' iput
14:57 < illegale> you mean no obligations?
14:57 < echarp> yeap, programmers can just program without any outside incentive
14:57 < echarp> obligations?
14:57 < illegale> me to you, you to me
14:57 < illegale> contracts
14:57 < illegale> deals
14:57 < illegale> organisation
14:58 < echarp> do you mean that there should be such deals in the tool or between us?
14:58 < illegale> us
14:58 < echarp> what kind of deal do you have in mind?
14:58 < illegale> do not know
14:58 < illegale> yet
14:59 < illegale> the principle of trust to other part completely this is
14:59 < illegale> in order to let some part aside knowing it works fine
14:59 < illegale> in order it has to be done
14:59 < echarp> I'm rather lost
15:00 < echarp> can you rephrase?
15:00 < illegale> in this moment, the only capital we have involved are words and agreement about prinhcipels
15:00 < echarp> time and efforts too
15:00 < illegale> it is not a little thing, yet it is not enough
15:00 < echarp> but mostly yes
15:00 < illegale> more capital we involve. larger trust we can gain
15:01 < illegale> because if we go wrong we will loose it aving strong commonly accepted motives
15:01 < illegale> enabling trust
15:01 < illegale> that i wont go left when i was suppose to go right and vice versa
15:02 < illegale> stuff
15:02 < illegale> for an example, there is 4 of us initiative
15:02 < illegale> dead as death
15:02 < illegale> seems no trust, no interest to take it
15:02 < illegale> following me
15:02 < illegale> ?
15:03 < echarp> I don't think it's a matter of trust
15:03 < illegale> yet=?ž
15:03 < echarp> I think of it as a matter of goal
15:03 < illegale> we do not share it?
15:03 < echarp> what do we want and what are we ready to do to obtain it
15:03 < illegale> no common ground?ž
15:04 < echarp> but what for?
15:04 < illegale> ?
15:05 < echarp> what is the goal of that common ground?
15:05 < illegale> for me?
15:05 < echarp> for all participants
15:05 < illegale> of 4 of us?
15:06 < echarp> yeap
15:06 < echarp> for a start
15:06 < illegale> there was my proposal
15:06 < illegale> no other in this moment
15:06 < illegale> yet, we should talk about it maybe
15:07 < illegale> if you want to promote parlement, ok
15:07 < echarp> agreed
15:07 < illegale> yet, have to say it to open discussion
15:08 < echarp> what do you mean?
15:08 < illegale> you have to propose what you think
15:09 < illegale> right?
15:09 < echarp> I don't understand
15:09 < echarp> to propose what one thinks?
15:09 < echarp> to expose?
15:10 < illegale> you have to say how do you imagine our collaboration
15:10 < illegale> on what, for what and so on
15:10 < echarp> yeap
15:10 < illegale> in this moment there is only will of joining forces as long as i suppose we all understand that alone we can not do too much
15:12 < echarp> well, even this joining forces seem strange at times
15:12 < echarp> because there is not such a clear goal to that
15:12 < echarp> the goal seemed to be "to spread TOP principles"
15:12 < illegale> ok
15:12 < echarp> but only 4 people, it seems like such an impossible task :(
15:12 < illegale> you are for it?
15:13 < echarp> I am for spreading the word yes, but I spend my energy on programming
15:13 < illegale> ok.
15:14 < illegale> yet, you are into mind process too
15:14 < illegale> :)
15:14 < echarp> yeap
15:14 < illegale> this top principles promotion
15:14 < illegale> we can actually start it
15:15 < illegale> yet, not in a manner, lets preach it
15:16 < echarp> not in a manner, let's preach???
15:16 < echarp> I don't get it
15:18 < illegale> how can we get to the position to spread top principles?
15:18 < illegale> if we can not do it right now?
15:18 < illegale> this might be task for 4 of us?
15:18 < echarp> this does seem very difficult
15:19 < illegale> yet, there is some knowledge we have in order to move towards it
15:19 < illegale> nevertheless
15:20 < illegale> it seems you are right about it
15:20 < illegale> as long as we gathered about top, not GPTN
15:20 < echarp> gptn?
15:21 < illegale> global public trust network
15:21 < echarp> you talked about it before, but I didn't record it in long term memory :)
15:22 < illegale> no problem
15:25 < illegale> E, would you send your opinion about what should we put as our goal on top politics?
15:25 < illegale> when you find soem time, of course
15:26 < echarp> I'll try to do that this evening yes
15:27 < illegale> thank you
15:27 < illegale> i see no other way if we want to move forward
15:28 < echarp> but I don't really know what should be that goal
15:28 < echarp> in top I'm a follower
15:32 < echarp> I'm into a french association called april, association pour la recherche en informatique libre
15:32 < echarp> well, it's more like a social place, I have friends there, and sometimes they ask the members to do something
15:36 < illegale> though, top needs infratstructure for project menagmend
15:36 < illegale> t
15:37 < echarp> for discussion? to exchange documents?
15:38 < illegale> for everytihing
15:38 < illegale> part where peeople can discusss, shar documents and so on
15:38 < echarp> need to list that
15:38 < illegale> yes
15:38 < illegale> i see that many organisation wont accept top due to spam and stuff
15:39 < illegale> that is legitimated in eyes of meny
15:39 < illegale> many
15:39 < echarp> yeap, they don't want to waste energy
15:40 < illegale> so, for an example, tav got lousy legitiamtion to ban be
15:40 < illegale> me
15:41 < illegale> if we have software that enables transparent discussions and yet to be open to whole public, there is no way for such reasons to be adopted
15:41 < echarp> some others came to his rescue
15:41 < illegale> see this as step froward
15:42 < illegale> i know
15:42 < illegale> he has defenders
15:43 < echarp> group management, it's rather normal
15:43 < illegale> ye
15:43 < illegale> s
15:44 < illegale> so, e
15:44 < illegale> i suppose we can be the best promotors of top if we use it successfully
15:44 < echarp> definitely
15:45 < illegale> ok, do you find this could be our goal?
15:46 < echarp> definitely
15:46 < echarp> yet it's almost too simple
15:46 < echarp> :)
15:46 < illegale> :)
15:46 < echarp> I consider that I'm already on that track
15:47 < illegale> i suppose it wont be that simple for all time, yet as long as it is it is good
15:48 * echarp definitely concurs
15:53 < illegale> ill have to go soon
15:53 < illegale> glad we had a nice talk :)
15:54 < echarp> that was cool :)
15:54 < echarp> I still can't believe you were banned!
15:54 < illegale> lol
15:54 < echarp> illegale: you have a history of that don't you? :)
15:54 < illegale> of course
15:54 < illegale> many many times and many many friends after all
15:54 < illegale> :)
15:56 < echarp> cool
15:56 < illegale> you know, not glad we did not have flame war.
15:56 < illegale> that is good for deeper introspective stuff :)ž
15:57 < echarp> lol
15:58 < illegale> talking about it, where is Marks?
15:58 < echarp> we are discussing privately by mail
15:58 < echarp> on elitism :)
15:58 < illegale> really?
15:58 < echarp> yeap
15:58 < illegale> why did you leave toop?
15:58 < echarp> at least in private it's not just a matter of silly games
15:59 < illegale> ok
15:59 < illegale> so, do you progress?
15:59 < echarp> it goes ping pong like, almost one sentence at a time
15:59 < echarp> I think I'm cornering him slowly ;)
15:59 < illegale> lol
16:00 < echarp> he already admitted that his interpretation is not a matter of definition, but of "logical extension" :)
16:00 < echarp> I'm trying to have him express that invisible extension that only him see :)
16:02 < illegale> I did not know it will go that far
16:02 < illegale> Maybe i would join your debates :)
16:02 < echarp> it's slow and almost respectful :)
16:02 < echarp> two or three emails every day
16:03 < illegale> i feel terrible
16:03 < illegale> yet i understand
16:04 < echarp> terrible for?
16:05 < illegale> i mean, top is dead and you two still havign a good time :)
16:05 < echarp> lol
16:05 < illegale> it took me some time to loose my flame mode
16:05 < illegale> and now i feel itchy
16:06 < illegale> E, gonna go now
16:06 < illegale> Not sure I will be able to go to irc till monday
16:06 < echarp> ok, cu later then!
16:06 < echarp> no problem, I'll stay around ;)
16:07 < echarp> maybe devise some rules with urgen :)
16:07 < illegale> Send some cool text to group!
16:07 < illegale> :-)
16:07 < illegale> CU!
16:07 -!- illegale [i=ille...@161.53.121.88] has left #parlement []
17:44 < urgen> illegale can ssh to a shell and do text base irc from there
17:44 < urgen> just like the good ol' days
17:47 < echarp> it's actually what I do using ssh+mlterm+screen+irssi
17:47 < echarp> works wonders
17:47 < urgen> ya
17:47 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
17:47 < urgen> I don't know mlterm
17:47 * urgen looks it up
17:47 < echarp> it's yet another terminal
17:47 < echarp> transparent, text fading, client-server, utf8
17:48 < urgen> right font controls
17:48 < echarp> yeap
17:48 < echarp> aterm is also quite nice
17:49 < echarp> before that I was on urxvt, but lately on my debian box, I can't focus on it
17:49 < echarp> it was at first rather unsetling because I was *only* using urxvt, had to go back on my tty terminal for a short while :)
17:52 < urgen> so you can see why illegale is interpretted as having a hidden agenda while accusing others of having a hidden agenda, right?
17:53 < echarp> is it hidden?
17:53 < urgen> the hidden-ness of it stick out like a sore thumb
17:53 < echarp> I believe that it is his constant reminding of his agenda which resulted in his exclusion
17:53 < urgen> so maybe not so hidden
17:54 < echarp> plus he probably touched on a hidden sore :)
17:54 < urgen> but that it is unintentional, it is hidden
17:54 < urgen> I mean illegale's own lack of awareness
17:55 < urgen> if one is going to go around with a pointy stick then sore spots will be found
17:55 < urgen> but pointy sticks harbor equally as many hidden agendas
17:57 < echarp> pointy sticks do generate pain
17:57 < echarp> but I don't know about hidden agendas
17:57 < urgen> they are composed of them
17:58 < urgen> the essence of a pointy stick is a hidden agenda
17:58 < echarp> you sure, does he not simply have a goal and try to pursue it?
17:58 < urgen> or there would be no poking going on at all
17:58 < urgen> bad goal, dude
18:00 < urgen> so freeshell.org has an irc client
18:01 < echarp> I don't think the goal is bad
18:01 < echarp> just he likes to poke at things :)
18:01 < urgen> :-) I know the goal is bad or at least the expression of the goal in the form it is being executed in
18:02 < urgen> it might be innocent but it will change in time
18:02 < urgen> maybe beyond my own limits to generate the gravity field required to capture understanding...
18:02 < urgen> but that dynamic will eventually happen
18:03 < echarp> his poking is probably not innocent you know
18:03 < urgen> no I think it is very innocent
18:03 < urgen> extremely naive even
18:04 < echarp> you think, even considering his appreciation of flame wars and other belligerences?
18:04 < urgen> yes
18:08 < echarp> I'm not sure
18:08 < echarp> but I agree to one thing, what happened on #esp was rather abrupt none the lesse
18:09 < echarp> a generally cool channel accepting much OT subjects
18:09 < urgen> and that is also why I jumped in so quickly to lead illegale off of joiito
18:09 < echarp> off of joiito?
18:09 < urgen> why I mentioned esp
18:09 < urgen> I was trying to create gravity vectors to capture that lost satellite
18:09 < echarp> what do you mean between joiito and esp?
18:10 < echarp> you wanted illegale to be on one of those 2 channels?
18:10 < urgen> I was the one that suggested #esp and #ud and other 'democracy online' type efforts
18:10 < echarp> ah, ok
18:10 < urgen> #joiito was definately not one
18:10 < urgen> so the talk was very off topic
18:11 < urgen> it *maybe* could have fit in on some of the other channels but not if you walk in with an attack
18:11 < urgen> that's just nuts
18:11 < urgen> especially with a nonstarter like 'transparency'
18:11 < urgen> maybe that word needs a tune up
18:12 < echarp> possibly too yes
18:12 < echarp> #joiito does not appreciate that kind of topic? (transparency)
18:12 < urgen> so I've been trying to show how 'lies' start with oneself
18:12 < urgen> #joiito is a party
18:12 < urgen> does anyone at a party want to talk shop?
18:13 < urgen> hardly ever
19:00 * nsh smiles
19:00 < urgen> nsh you see illegale get banned?
19:00 < nsh> aqui?
19:00 < urgen> on #esp
19:00 < nsh> oh, no - don't think so
19:00 < nsh> buffer may have it
19:00 < urgen> we're next you know...
19:00 < urgen> tho probably not really
19:00 < urgen> the amount of non affinity with non concrete discussion is expressing itself
19:00 * nsh smiles
19:00 < nsh> glue is attractive
19:00 < nsh> immersion is all-consuming
19:00 < nsh> so i guess it's understandable
19:00 < urgen> sure
19:00 < nsh> so what would a river do?
19:00 < nsh> rivers always find a way
19:00 < urgen> so. I see #logilogi #ud #opencoop #parlement
19:00 < urgen> all some open system community equivalency proponents
19:00 < urgen> but they do not inter-translate
19:00 < urgen> lots more similar interest than there has ever been but ppl are still squaring off in their own corners
19:02 < urgen> generically, 'sustainable' and 'green' are getting picked up as banners
19:02 < urgen> but it doesn't take long for the banners to become clubs
19:02 < urgen> that's the one I want to address
19:04 < urgen> there are probably some other irc channels
19:07 * nsh back
19:07 < nsh> phone call - british red cross
19:07 < nsh> right
19:07 < nsh> so there are two problems
19:07 < nsh> though i'm sure each partakes of the other
19:08 < nsh> the differentiating process - people forming camps based upon slightly different understandings of either the problem or method of solution
19:09 < nsh> and the institutionalisation process: banners -> clubs, with the associated drifting of actions from initial motivating mission to association maintainance
19:26 < urgen> so, to use fiatlex as the lab
19:26 < urgen> like any one person can enact a rule
19:26 < urgen> and any one person can..
19:26 < urgen> forgot the command
19:26 < urgen> fiatlex, help nomic
19:26 < fiatlex> urgen: Ask me about rule <n>, or ask me to accept <Rule> [with <Note>], amend <Rule> with <Rule>, annotate <Rule> with <Text>, collect <Number> <Thing> from <Player>, defeat <Rule> [with <Note>], details of <Rule>, enact <Rule> [with <Note>], enroll, grant <Number> <Thing> to <Player>, inventory
19:26 < fiatlex> ..<Thing>, notes on <Rule>, pending, propose <Text>, reject <Rule> [with <Note>], spend <Number> <Thing> or text of <Rule>.
19:27 < urgen> and any one person can defeat a rule
19:27 < urgen> there is nothing to indicate a rule that has been enacted then toggled to defeat or visaversa
19:28 < urgen> to enact a rule is the same or different than to accept a rule?
19:29 < urgen> wouldn't enact also be a record of individual acceptance?
19:30 < urgen> if the system were 100% consensus only.. then ppl can just toggle enact or not, right?
19:30 < urgen> since any dissent is total dissent
19:32 < urgen> then, what happens when it shifts to one no vote is allowed for enacting? and that one no vote, then, toggles the rule back to defeat?
19:33 < urgen> (the person that voted no, even though they must have already have voted to allow one rejection doesn't mandate defeat
19:33 < urgen> )
--- Log closed sam jun 24 00:00:51 2006
echarp
Jun 25, 2006, 2:28:41 PM6/25/06
to top-politics
--- Log opened sam jun 24 00:00:51 2006
00:51 < echarp> good night
03:02 < urgen> home
08:39 -!- urgen [n=sp...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit []
08:43 -!- urgen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
09:36 -!- urgen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
10:29 -!- Topic for #parlement: http://leparlement.org/irc
10:29 -!- Topic set by echarp [] [Sun Jun 11 20:50:53 2006]
18:40 -!- urgen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
19:04 < echarp> hello hello urgen
19:04 < echarp> how are you?
19:04 < urgen> doing well thanks, it is a little cooler here today, how about there?
19:05 < urgen> I was just exploring freeconference.com
19:06 < echarp> rather hot and heavy here
19:07 < echarp> I hope it's going to stay the same for the evening
19:09 < echarp> cu tomorrow urgen, same for you nsh :)
19:10 < urgen> ok
19:10 < echarp> hopefully illegale will be back monday
19:10 < echarp> maybe we can lay some ground rules
19:14 < urgen> and get illegale on a shell account for backup
19:48 -!- urgyen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
19:50 -!- urgyen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Client Quit]
--- Log closed dim jun 25 00:00:51 2006
00:51 < echarp> good night
03:02 < urgen> home
08:39 -!- urgen [n=sp...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit []
08:43 -!- urgen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
09:36 -!- urgen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
10:29 -!- Topic for #parlement: http://leparlement.org/irc
10:29 -!- Topic set by echarp [] [Sun Jun 11 20:50:53 2006]
18:40 -!- urgen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
19:04 < echarp> hello hello urgen
19:04 < echarp> how are you?
19:04 < urgen> doing well thanks, it is a little cooler here today, how about there?
19:05 < urgen> I was just exploring freeconference.com
19:06 < echarp> rather hot and heavy here
19:07 < echarp> I hope it's going to stay the same for the evening
19:09 < echarp> cu tomorrow urgen, same for you nsh :)
19:10 < urgen> ok
19:10 < echarp> hopefully illegale will be back monday
19:10 < echarp> maybe we can lay some ground rules
19:14 < urgen> and get illegale on a shell account for backup
19:48 -!- urgyen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
19:50 -!- urgyen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Client Quit]
--- Log closed dim jun 25 00:00:51 2006
echarp
Jun 26, 2006, 11:15:54 AM6/26/06
to top-politics
--- Log opened dim jun 25 00:00:51 2006
00:23 < nsh> jmmm
00:24 < nsh> fiatlex help
00:24 < nsh> fiatlex, help
00:24 < nsh> fiatlex, help nomic
00:27 < urgen> hey
00:27 < urgen> yer there
00:28 -!- fiatlex [n=b...@tridity.org] has quit []
00:28 -!- fiatlex (fiatlex bot) [n=b...@tridity.org] has joined #parlement
00:28 < fiatlex> ..<Thing>, notes on <Rule>, pending, propose <Text>, reject <Rule> [with <Note>], spend <Number> <Thing> or text of <Rule>.
00:28 < urgen> hehehe
00:28 < urgen> funny
01:38 < urgen> so 'transparency' as a dimension of credibility
01:42 < urgen> or 'transparency' as mutual understanding
05:51 -!- Netsplit niven.freenode.net <-> irc.freenode.net quits: fiatlex, urgen, nsh
--- Log closed dim jun 25 05:51:27 2006
--- Log opened dim jun 25 06:12:14 2006
06:12 -!- echarp [n=33M0...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has joined #parlement
06:12 [Users #parlement]
06:12 [ echarp] [ nsh]
06:12 -!- Irssi: #parlement: Total of 2 nicks [0 ops, 0 halfops, 0 voices, 2 normal]
06:12 -!- Channel #parlement created Sun Jun 25 06:12:19 2006
06:12 -!- Irssi: Join to #parlement was synced in 51 secs
06:16 -!- fiatlex (fiatlex bot) [n=b...@tridity.org] has joined #parlement
06:33 -!- urgen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
06:34 -!- urgen is now known as urgy
06:34 -!- urgy [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has left #parlement []
07:02 !niven.freenode.net *** Notice -- TS for #parlement changed from 1151208739 to 1146124109
07:02 -!- irc.freenode.net changed the topic of #parlement to: http://leparlement.org/irc
07:02 -!- urgen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
07:46 -!- Netsplit niven.freenode.net <-> irc.freenode.net quits: urgen
07:46 -!- urgen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
10:16 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
10:16 -!- Topic for #parlement: http://leparlement.org/irc
10:16 -!- Topic set by irc.freenode.net [] [Sun Jun 25 07:02:07 2006]
19:19 -!- illegale (illegale) [i=ille...@cmung3056.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
19:23 < illegale> hey
19:25 < illegale> hey urgen
19:25 < urgen> hi
19:26 < urgen> was getting some coffee
19:26 < illegale> can you help me with one little thing?
19:26 < urgen> I should try to help you with more
19:26 < illegale> please, can you join #illegale
19:57 * nsh smiles
19:59 < echarp> hello hello
19:59 < illegale> hey :)
19:59 < nsh> how are you?
20:00 < echarp> fine thank you
20:00 < echarp> nice sunday, although rainy
20:03 < illegale> e, miss some thread :-|
20:04 < echarp> what threads?
20:04 < illegale> 4 of us one
20:04 < echarp> yeap, I have to answer to it
20:05 < illegale> do not take it too long
20:05 < echarp> I've been out, even had some friends home today, their kid running all around my flat! :)
20:06 < illegale> take caere of it .)
20:06 < illegale> can be dangerous
20:07 < echarp> I wanted to tie somewhere, but his parents refused, how inconsiderate :)
20:12 < illegale> where are his parents, e?
20:12 < illegale> run away?
20:12 < echarp> they were here too
20:12 < echarp> but a kid can not be controlled that easily
20:19 < illegale> how old is kid?
20:20 < echarp> 2 and a half
20:20 < echarp> charming kid, smiles when he does something bad :)
20:22 < illegale> that is good
20:22 < illegale> i like smiling kids
20:22 < echarp> they use this to manipulate adults! :)
20:22 < illegale> kids need attention
20:23 < illegale> to the moment we outsmart them by giving them something interesting to play all day
20:23 < illegale> destrucuve stuff works best
20:25 < illegale> give him something with many parts to destroy
20:25 < illegale> that is the best stugg
20:25 < echarp> :)
20:28 < illegale> E, i think i know what is the lkey for the new era
20:28 < illegale> basic principle of all
20:33 < illegale> brb
20:35 -!- illegale [i=ille...@cmung3056.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit []
20:38 < urgen> oh
20:38 < urgen> sorry wasn't paying attention over here
20:40 < urgen> I am trying to get illegale going on a free shell account
20:40 < urgen> so irc can be available at the university
20:40 < urgen> college
20:41 < echarp> irssi or bitchx can do wonders
20:41 < echarp> rather easy
20:41 < echarp> I can even host him through ssh
20:41 < urgen> oh
20:42 < urgen> I just sent over an ssh client
20:42 < urgen> but it crashed while attempting to connect to the freeshell account
20:42 < urgen> ( why the reboot )
20:42 < urgen> but I think that is because ssh is not enabled until the account is validated
20:42 < urgen> maybe you can make an ssh option to test it with
20:43 < urgen> just for education sake or for long term
20:43 < urgen> illegale's system at home seems to be locked down
20:43 < urgen> lots of strange errors
20:44 -!- illegale (illegale) [i=ille...@cmung3246.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
20:44 < urgen> re
20:44 < illegale> back
20:45 < urgen> Nepal 0.513 | 0.457
20:45 < urgen> that's sill pretty expensive for a phone call
20:49 < echarp> hello back
20:49 < illegale> urgen teaches me how to use ssh
20:49 < urgen> and shell
20:49 < urgen> illegale got into the freeshell account ( I think )
20:50 < urgen> I thought they had a euro side service but maybe not
20:50 < urgen> they use to
20:50 * urgen checks again
20:53 < echarp> what is that freeshell?
20:53 < echarp> a free service on the net?
20:53 < urgen> ya
20:53 < urgen> it is dedicated to teaching ppl about unix command line
20:53 < urgen> an educational service
20:53 < echarp> oh
20:53 < urgen> freeshell.org
20:54 < echarp> then my own server does that too
20:54 < urgen> is it yours?
20:56 < echarp> yeap
20:56 < echarp> http://leparlement.org
20:56 < echarp> it's my own server, and I use it for mail and irc
20:56 < urgen> can you make illegale an account?
20:57 < echarp> I have another machine, serving http://ecolecolier.dyndns.org
20:57 < urgen> how much does it cost a month?
20:57 < echarp> I can yes
20:57 < urgen> I have a dedicated for $30/month
20:57 < illegale> is it a long time stuff?
20:58 < urgen> we are wasting precious illegale time with tech foo
20:58 < urgen> ;-)
20:58 < illegale> lol
20:58 < illegale> have 3 more hours :)
20:58 < echarp> illegale: what kind of account can you handle?
20:58 < urgen> illegale needs something that can be accessed from college for times when internet is not at home
20:59 < echarp> I can do that
20:59 < echarp> what is the tool to access it?
20:59 < urgen> we used the java ssh client at: http://sdf.lonestar.org/index.cgi?ssh
20:59 < urgen> it seems to work ok, but illegale will have to edit the default connect to address when that pops up
20:59 < illegale> i do not know
21:00 < urgen> otherwise, there may be other options available, depending on what is at the college
21:00 < illegale> do not know is there any default stuff such as telnet or ssh ?
21:00 < illegale> at college
21:00 < urgen> right
21:02 < illegale> so, what should e do?
21:02 < urgen> it only takes about 5 minutes to make an account
21:02 < urgen> just a sec
21:03 < echarp> I can create you an account if you want to try it
21:03 < illegale> ok
21:03 < urgen> oh I thought you were already...
21:03 < urgen> ;-)
21:05 < urgen> oops
21:05 < urgen> I found the euro freeshell one
21:06 < urgen> http://sdf-eu.org/
21:06 < urgen> you'd get much better performance that way
21:07 < illegale> should i follow procedure?
21:07 < urgen> you can keep that as a back-up plan
21:08 < illegale> ok
21:08 < urgen> might want to log in to the lonestar account and cancel it first
21:09 < urgen> so you can get your username back
21:09 < urgen> I think the systems may be connected
21:11 < illegale> what should i write?
21:11 < urgen> I don't remember the commands
21:11 < urgen> try help?
21:13 < illegale> what am i looking for?
21:13 < urgen> cancel my account
21:15 < urgen> I see: delme
21:15 < urgen> to remove your account, type 'delme'
21:16 < urgen> after you get back to the /udd/illegale line
21:16 < urgen> q to quit help
21:18 < illegale> can not go to that line
21:19 < illegale> does not recognise me
21:19 < urgen> what does it say when you type q?
21:19 < illegale> before that
21:19 < illegale> i have to login as new
21:19 < illegale> not as illegale
21:19 < illegale> that is normal?
21:19 < urgen> no no, you can't
21:19 < urgen> or are you trying to log into the eu server?
21:20 < illegale> yes
21:20 < urgen> oh
21:20 < urgen> you should log back into the sdf.lonestar.org
21:21 < urgen> then type: delme
21:21 < urgen> it is too slow for you to have to log into Texas
21:21 < urgen> http://sdf.lonestar.org/index.cgi?telnet
21:22 < urgen> I apologize for confusing the world
21:24 < illegale> asks me would i want to validate account now?
21:24 < illegale> no?
21:24 < urgen> say no
21:25 < urgen> you can validate the euro account later
21:25 < illegale> now delme?
21:26 < urgen> you see /udd/illegale now?
21:26 < illegale> yes
21:26 < urgen> ok, try delme
21:26 < illegale> his mad
21:26 < illegale> :)
21:27 < urgen> only a validated account can delete itself?
21:27 < urgen> hmn
21:28 < urgen> must be some other option then
21:28 < illegale> no, no
21:28 < illegale> he deleted me
21:28 < urgen> ok
21:28 < urgen> cool
21:28 < illegale> yet he says some funy stuff :)
21:28 < urgen> ya
21:28 < illegale> where where you 1987 and so on :)
21:29 < urgen> the sysadmin there is a really nice guy
21:30 < illegale> ok, are we done with this part?
21:35 < urgen> lost echarp
21:36 < illegale> hmh
21:36 < echarp> I'm here
21:36 < echarp> flirting on other servers in fact :)
21:37 < urgen> oh
21:37 < urgen> you got login infos for illegale?
21:43 < illegale> Have to go in 10 minutes
21:43 < illegale> Urgen, what should i do tomorow when i go to college?
21:43 < urgen> :-) email me?
21:43 < illegale> btw, mail is ur...@comcast.net
21:43 < illegale> right?
21:43 < urgen> yes
21:44 < illegale> my writing is horrible
21:44 < illegale> i had to check it out :)
21:44 < urgen> ok
21:44 < illegale> whats time at your place right now?
21:44 < urgen> 1pm -ish
21:44 < urgen> today is sunday
21:44 < urgen> what is your time?
21:45 < illegale> 10 pm
21:45 < urgen> -9
21:45 < illegale> so 9 hours
21:45 < urgen> college is when?
21:45 < illegale> when you up?
21:45 < urgen> 7am?
21:46 < illegale> when i choose to
21:46 < urgen> I have work tomorrow
21:46 < illegale> about 11 am suppose
21:46 < illegale> 2 am your time :)
21:46 < urgen> :-)
21:46 < urgen> ya
21:46 < urgen> well...
21:46 < illegale> ok, ill mail to you when i find out what?
21:46 < illegale> is telent working?
21:47 < urgen> ask admins about ssh clients?
21:47 < urgen> I don't know where echarp is
21:47 < illegale> ok, ill send you mail when i find it out
21:47 < illegale> some problems with kids?
21:47 < illegale> :=)
21:47 < echarp> I'm here (too)!
21:47 < urgen> I think it is called love... ;-)
21:48 < echarp> love love, sex is a rather nice word too ;)
21:48 < urgen> echarp. illegale has to go, is there ssh login infos?
21:48 < illegale> hehe
21:48 < echarp> ssh login to?
21:48 < urgen> to your system...
21:49 < urgen> was going to try to use college ssh to get to shell to type irc or whatever client is there
21:49 < urgen> irssi
21:49 < urgen> then use: /server irc.freenode.net and /join #parlement
21:50 < illegale> so, what do i do excatly?
21:50 < illegale> open ssh client
21:50 < urgen> there are no instructions yet
21:50 < illegale> write /server stuf and group stuf?
21:50 < illegale> ok
21:51 < illegale> E should instruct me?
21:51 < urgen> eventually
21:51 < illegale> french man
21:51 < illegale> :(
21:51 < illegale> :)
21:51 < urgen> you can chase that http://sdf-eu.org/
21:51 < urgen> maybe backup plan will happen first?
21:51 < illegale> think should work?ž
21:52 < urgen> if you can send them 5 euro
21:52 < illegale> bah
21:52 < illegale> no pay pal in cro
21:52 < urgen> :-))
21:52 < urgen> I mean hard currency
21:52 < illegale> lk
21:52 < illegale> k
21:52 < urgen> they have instructions available on that webpage
21:53 < urgen> http://sdf-eu.org/index.cgi?access
21:53 < illegale> echarp, if you find anything about this stuff, please mail me at geoer...@yahoo.com
21:53 < urgen> http://sdf-eu.org/index.cgi?why
21:53 < illegale> Urgen, thank you very much for your effort :)
21:53 < illegale> CU tommorow i supose
21:53 < urgen> ok
21:53 < illegale> bye
21:53 -!- illegale [i=ille...@cmung3246.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit []
21:54 < echarp> didn't he want me to open an account for him on my server???
21:54 < urgen> yes, but no time left
21:54 < echarp> I asked him for his login/password info on a private channel
21:54 < urgen> oh
21:54 < urgen> probably missed that
21:54 < urgen> or didn't understand
21:55 < urgen> you can just make a temp password
21:55 < urgen> use: illegale for login
21:58 < echarp> I need a password
21:58 < echarp> and to communicate it to hime privately, temp or not
21:58 < urgen> he said send via email
21:58 < urgen> and will be back tomorrow
21:59 < urgen> it is ok if this project has to be completed in steps
21:59 < urgen> shell accounts are big steps for ppl not familiar with them
22:00 < urgen> how is your box funded?
22:00 < echarp> it's not funded at all
22:00 < echarp> it's *my* server in *my* flat
22:00 < urgen> oh
22:00 < echarp> on *my* home internet line
22:00 < urgen> I see
22:00 < echarp> I have two such servers
22:00 < echarp> and one laptop
22:01 < echarp> on one of them I also watch tv
22:01 < urgen> what kind of upload bandwidth do you have?
22:03 < urgen> wow, I just noticed that I've been bumped up to 6mbps down
22:03 < urgen> ~ :-)
22:03 < echarp> not that much in fact
22:03 < urgen> Your download speed : 6076 kbps or 759.5 KB/sec.
22:03 < echarp> that's the problem
22:03 < urgen> Your upload speed : 355 kbps or 44.3 KB/sec.
22:04 < echarp> download is more like theoretical 8Mb/s
22:04 < echarp> upload might be like 1M
22:04 < echarp> theoretical at least
22:04 < echarp> try http://leparlement.org
22:04 < echarp> plus it's ruby on rails, which is not a fast technology
22:05 < urgen> 7 second response to website
22:05 < echarp> see :(
22:05 < urgen> ping reply from 81.66.133.96: bytes=32 time=173ms
22:06 < urgen> which is pretty good
22:06 < echarp> :)
22:06 < echarp> it's cable
22:06 < echarp> not adsl
22:07 < echarp> still, rather expensive and upload is not *that* good
22:07 < echarp> it's appropriate for common usage
22:07 < urgen> I have cable here, too
22:08 < urgen> ping to wikipedia is 92ms
22:09 < echarp> www.wikipedia.org ?
22:09 < urgen> ya
22:09 < echarp> they seem to no allow ping :(
22:09 < urgen> oh
22:09 < urgen> I left off the www
22:09 < echarp> 145.97.39.155
22:10 < echarp> I also tried 207.142.131.248
22:10 < echarp> all packets are lost :(
22:10 < urgen> 207.142.131.210
22:11 < echarp> same same, all lost!
22:11 < echarp> strange
22:11 < urgen> ya
22:11 < urgen> some filter there
22:11 < echarp> you may have overflowed them already! ;)
22:11 < urgen> ;-)
22:38 < echarp> ok, getting late for me already
22:38 < echarp> plus I went out yesterday night, riverside walking with a girl is incredibly pleasant!
22:38 < echarp> urgen: it's something to do if you visit paris ;)
22:39 < urgen> paris is very nice
22:40 < echarp> an incredible number of babes around! shame I hate breaking the ice with strangers
22:59 -!- illegale (illegale) [i=ille...@cmung4226.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
23:00 < echarp> hello back illegale
23:00 < illegale> hello hello
23:00 < echarp> so, do you want an account on my server?
23:00 < illegale> yes
23:00 < echarp> (I tried asking you privately earlier)
23:01 < echarp> do you read me in the private channel I just created with you?
23:01 < illegale> i do
23:01 < illegale> you me*?
23:01 < echarp> yeap!!
23:01 < echarp> a private channel where you can give me a temp password
23:01 < echarp> you don't see it?
23:01 < illegale> i read you
23:02 < illegale> yet, i am not registrated user
23:02 < illegale> so you do not see me
23:02 < echarp> illegale: answer in the private channel
23:02 < echarp> well, I see
23:02 < illegale> you do not get it
23:02 < echarp> I see you
23:02 < illegale> ok
23:02 < echarp> you can not speak in private?
23:02 < illegale> i can
23:03 < illegale> yet i am blocked to answer you
23:03 < echarp> ok
23:03 < echarp> then do answer here in public please
23:04 < echarp> you will have to change your password right away please
23:05 < echarp> illegale: did you read me in private?
23:05 < illegale> yes
23:05 < illegale> i get the pass
23:05 < echarp> ok, cool then
23:05 < echarp> you try it right away?
23:07 < illegale> whgere do i login?
23:08 < echarp> on the server I gave you
23:08 < echarp> or do you mean login in the tool you use to connect?
23:08 < echarp> what tool do you use?
23:09 < illegale> ssh secure shell?
23:09 < echarp> it's the recommanded think to use
23:10 < echarp> think/thing
23:11 < echarp> illegale: does it work?
23:11 < illegale> wait...
23:12 < illegale> i do not see prompt
23:13 < illegale> where should i write this illegale@ stuff?
23:14 < echarp> in your console
23:14 < echarp> on the computer where your ssh is installed
23:14 < echarp> are you on an unix box? or on windows?
23:15 < echarp> on windows you can use "putty" which is rather fine
23:16 < illegale> winbdows
23:17 < echarp> did you install any console tool and a ssh client?
23:17 < illegale> it says it is not reachable
23:18 < illegale> i will give it up for a while
23:18 < echarp> ok
23:23 < echarp> I'm off to bed guys
23:24 < echarp> see you here tomorrow
23:25 < echarp> hopefully you will manage this ssh stuff illegale
23:25 < echarp> don't hesitate to ask questions by mail if you wish
23:29 < urgen> oh yer back
--- Log closed lun jun 26 00:00:51 2006
00:23 < nsh> jmmm
00:24 < nsh> fiatlex help
00:24 < nsh> fiatlex, help
00:24 < nsh> fiatlex, help nomic
00:27 < urgen> hey
00:27 < urgen> yer there
00:28 -!- fiatlex [n=b...@tridity.org] has quit []
00:28 -!- fiatlex (fiatlex bot) [n=b...@tridity.org] has joined #parlement
00:28 < fiatlex> ..<Thing>, notes on <Rule>, pending, propose <Text>, reject <Rule> [with <Note>], spend <Number> <Thing> or text of <Rule>.
00:28 < urgen> hehehe
00:28 < urgen> funny
01:38 < urgen> so 'transparency' as a dimension of credibility
01:42 < urgen> or 'transparency' as mutual understanding
05:51 -!- Netsplit niven.freenode.net <-> irc.freenode.net quits: fiatlex, urgen, nsh
--- Log closed dim jun 25 05:51:27 2006
--- Log opened dim jun 25 06:12:14 2006
06:12 -!- echarp [n=33M0...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has joined #parlement
06:12 [Users #parlement]
06:12 [ echarp] [ nsh]
06:12 -!- Irssi: #parlement: Total of 2 nicks [0 ops, 0 halfops, 0 voices, 2 normal]
06:12 -!- Channel #parlement created Sun Jun 25 06:12:19 2006
06:12 -!- Irssi: Join to #parlement was synced in 51 secs
06:16 -!- fiatlex (fiatlex bot) [n=b...@tridity.org] has joined #parlement
06:33 -!- urgen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
06:34 -!- urgen is now known as urgy
06:34 -!- urgy [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has left #parlement []
07:02 !niven.freenode.net *** Notice -- TS for #parlement changed from 1151208739 to 1146124109
07:02 -!- irc.freenode.net changed the topic of #parlement to: http://leparlement.org/irc
07:02 -!- urgen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
07:46 -!- Netsplit niven.freenode.net <-> irc.freenode.net quits: urgen
07:46 -!- urgen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
10:16 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
10:16 -!- Topic for #parlement: http://leparlement.org/irc
10:16 -!- Topic set by irc.freenode.net [] [Sun Jun 25 07:02:07 2006]
19:19 -!- illegale (illegale) [i=ille...@cmung3056.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
19:23 < illegale> hey
19:25 < illegale> hey urgen
19:25 < urgen> hi
19:26 < urgen> was getting some coffee
19:26 < illegale> can you help me with one little thing?
19:26 < urgen> I should try to help you with more
19:26 < illegale> please, can you join #illegale
19:57 * nsh smiles
19:59 < echarp> hello hello
19:59 < illegale> hey :)
19:59 < nsh> how are you?
20:00 < echarp> fine thank you
20:00 < echarp> nice sunday, although rainy
20:03 < illegale> e, miss some thread :-|
20:04 < echarp> what threads?
20:04 < illegale> 4 of us one
20:04 < echarp> yeap, I have to answer to it
20:05 < illegale> do not take it too long
20:05 < echarp> I've been out, even had some friends home today, their kid running all around my flat! :)
20:06 < illegale> take caere of it .)
20:06 < illegale> can be dangerous
20:07 < echarp> I wanted to tie somewhere, but his parents refused, how inconsiderate :)
20:12 < illegale> where are his parents, e?
20:12 < illegale> run away?
20:12 < echarp> they were here too
20:12 < echarp> but a kid can not be controlled that easily
20:19 < illegale> how old is kid?
20:20 < echarp> 2 and a half
20:20 < echarp> charming kid, smiles when he does something bad :)
20:22 < illegale> that is good
20:22 < illegale> i like smiling kids
20:22 < echarp> they use this to manipulate adults! :)
20:22 < illegale> kids need attention
20:23 < illegale> to the moment we outsmart them by giving them something interesting to play all day
20:23 < illegale> destrucuve stuff works best
20:25 < illegale> give him something with many parts to destroy
20:25 < illegale> that is the best stugg
20:25 < echarp> :)
20:28 < illegale> E, i think i know what is the lkey for the new era
20:28 < illegale> basic principle of all
20:33 < illegale> brb
20:35 -!- illegale [i=ille...@cmung3056.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit []
20:38 < urgen> oh
20:38 < urgen> sorry wasn't paying attention over here
20:40 < urgen> I am trying to get illegale going on a free shell account
20:40 < urgen> so irc can be available at the university
20:40 < urgen> college
20:41 < echarp> irssi or bitchx can do wonders
20:41 < echarp> rather easy
20:41 < echarp> I can even host him through ssh
20:41 < urgen> oh
20:42 < urgen> I just sent over an ssh client
20:42 < urgen> but it crashed while attempting to connect to the freeshell account
20:42 < urgen> ( why the reboot )
20:42 < urgen> but I think that is because ssh is not enabled until the account is validated
20:42 < urgen> maybe you can make an ssh option to test it with
20:43 < urgen> just for education sake or for long term
20:43 < urgen> illegale's system at home seems to be locked down
20:43 < urgen> lots of strange errors
20:44 -!- illegale (illegale) [i=ille...@cmung3246.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
20:44 < urgen> re
20:44 < illegale> back
20:45 < urgen> Nepal 0.513 | 0.457
20:45 < urgen> that's sill pretty expensive for a phone call
20:49 < echarp> hello back
20:49 < illegale> urgen teaches me how to use ssh
20:49 < urgen> and shell
20:49 < urgen> illegale got into the freeshell account ( I think )
20:50 < urgen> I thought they had a euro side service but maybe not
20:50 < urgen> they use to
20:50 * urgen checks again
20:53 < echarp> what is that freeshell?
20:53 < echarp> a free service on the net?
20:53 < urgen> ya
20:53 < urgen> it is dedicated to teaching ppl about unix command line
20:53 < urgen> an educational service
20:53 < echarp> oh
20:53 < urgen> freeshell.org
20:54 < echarp> then my own server does that too
20:54 < urgen> is it yours?
20:56 < echarp> yeap
20:56 < echarp> http://leparlement.org
20:56 < echarp> it's my own server, and I use it for mail and irc
20:56 < urgen> can you make illegale an account?
20:57 < echarp> I have another machine, serving http://ecolecolier.dyndns.org
20:57 < urgen> how much does it cost a month?
20:57 < echarp> I can yes
20:57 < urgen> I have a dedicated for $30/month
20:57 < illegale> is it a long time stuff?
20:58 < urgen> we are wasting precious illegale time with tech foo
20:58 < urgen> ;-)
20:58 < illegale> lol
20:58 < illegale> have 3 more hours :)
20:58 < echarp> illegale: what kind of account can you handle?
20:58 < urgen> illegale needs something that can be accessed from college for times when internet is not at home
20:59 < echarp> I can do that
20:59 < echarp> what is the tool to access it?
20:59 < urgen> we used the java ssh client at: http://sdf.lonestar.org/index.cgi?ssh
20:59 < urgen> it seems to work ok, but illegale will have to edit the default connect to address when that pops up
20:59 < illegale> i do not know
21:00 < urgen> otherwise, there may be other options available, depending on what is at the college
21:00 < illegale> do not know is there any default stuff such as telnet or ssh ?
21:00 < illegale> at college
21:00 < urgen> right
21:02 < illegale> so, what should e do?
21:02 < urgen> it only takes about 5 minutes to make an account
21:02 < urgen> just a sec
21:03 < echarp> I can create you an account if you want to try it
21:03 < illegale> ok
21:03 < urgen> oh I thought you were already...
21:03 < urgen> ;-)
21:05 < urgen> oops
21:05 < urgen> I found the euro freeshell one
21:06 < urgen> http://sdf-eu.org/
21:06 < urgen> you'd get much better performance that way
21:07 < illegale> should i follow procedure?
21:07 < urgen> you can keep that as a back-up plan
21:08 < illegale> ok
21:08 < urgen> might want to log in to the lonestar account and cancel it first
21:09 < urgen> so you can get your username back
21:09 < urgen> I think the systems may be connected
21:11 < illegale> what should i write?
21:11 < urgen> I don't remember the commands
21:11 < urgen> try help?
21:13 < illegale> what am i looking for?
21:13 < urgen> cancel my account
21:15 < urgen> I see: delme
21:15 < urgen> to remove your account, type 'delme'
21:16 < urgen> after you get back to the /udd/illegale line
21:16 < urgen> q to quit help
21:18 < illegale> can not go to that line
21:19 < illegale> does not recognise me
21:19 < urgen> what does it say when you type q?
21:19 < illegale> before that
21:19 < illegale> i have to login as new
21:19 < illegale> not as illegale
21:19 < illegale> that is normal?
21:19 < urgen> no no, you can't
21:19 < urgen> or are you trying to log into the eu server?
21:20 < illegale> yes
21:20 < urgen> oh
21:20 < urgen> you should log back into the sdf.lonestar.org
21:21 < urgen> then type: delme
21:21 < urgen> it is too slow for you to have to log into Texas
21:21 < urgen> http://sdf.lonestar.org/index.cgi?telnet
21:22 < urgen> I apologize for confusing the world
21:24 < illegale> asks me would i want to validate account now?
21:24 < illegale> no?
21:24 < urgen> say no
21:25 < urgen> you can validate the euro account later
21:25 < illegale> now delme?
21:26 < urgen> you see /udd/illegale now?
21:26 < illegale> yes
21:26 < urgen> ok, try delme
21:26 < illegale> his mad
21:26 < illegale> :)
21:27 < urgen> only a validated account can delete itself?
21:27 < urgen> hmn
21:28 < urgen> must be some other option then
21:28 < illegale> no, no
21:28 < illegale> he deleted me
21:28 < urgen> ok
21:28 < urgen> cool
21:28 < illegale> yet he says some funy stuff :)
21:28 < urgen> ya
21:28 < illegale> where where you 1987 and so on :)
21:29 < urgen> the sysadmin there is a really nice guy
21:30 < illegale> ok, are we done with this part?
21:35 < urgen> lost echarp
21:36 < illegale> hmh
21:36 < echarp> I'm here
21:36 < echarp> flirting on other servers in fact :)
21:37 < urgen> oh
21:37 < urgen> you got login infos for illegale?
21:43 < illegale> Have to go in 10 minutes
21:43 < illegale> Urgen, what should i do tomorow when i go to college?
21:43 < urgen> :-) email me?
21:43 < illegale> btw, mail is ur...@comcast.net
21:43 < illegale> right?
21:43 < urgen> yes
21:44 < illegale> my writing is horrible
21:44 < illegale> i had to check it out :)
21:44 < urgen> ok
21:44 < illegale> whats time at your place right now?
21:44 < urgen> 1pm -ish
21:44 < urgen> today is sunday
21:44 < urgen> what is your time?
21:45 < illegale> 10 pm
21:45 < urgen> -9
21:45 < illegale> so 9 hours
21:45 < urgen> college is when?
21:45 < illegale> when you up?
21:45 < urgen> 7am?
21:46 < illegale> when i choose to
21:46 < urgen> I have work tomorrow
21:46 < illegale> about 11 am suppose
21:46 < illegale> 2 am your time :)
21:46 < urgen> :-)
21:46 < urgen> ya
21:46 < urgen> well...
21:46 < illegale> ok, ill mail to you when i find out what?
21:46 < illegale> is telent working?
21:47 < urgen> ask admins about ssh clients?
21:47 < urgen> I don't know where echarp is
21:47 < illegale> ok, ill send you mail when i find it out
21:47 < illegale> some problems with kids?
21:47 < illegale> :=)
21:47 < echarp> I'm here (too)!
21:47 < urgen> I think it is called love... ;-)
21:48 < echarp> love love, sex is a rather nice word too ;)
21:48 < urgen> echarp. illegale has to go, is there ssh login infos?
21:48 < illegale> hehe
21:48 < echarp> ssh login to?
21:48 < urgen> to your system...
21:49 < urgen> was going to try to use college ssh to get to shell to type irc or whatever client is there
21:49 < urgen> irssi
21:49 < urgen> then use: /server irc.freenode.net and /join #parlement
21:50 < illegale> so, what do i do excatly?
21:50 < illegale> open ssh client
21:50 < urgen> there are no instructions yet
21:50 < illegale> write /server stuf and group stuf?
21:50 < illegale> ok
21:51 < illegale> E should instruct me?
21:51 < urgen> eventually
21:51 < illegale> french man
21:51 < illegale> :(
21:51 < illegale> :)
21:51 < urgen> you can chase that http://sdf-eu.org/
21:51 < urgen> maybe backup plan will happen first?
21:51 < illegale> think should work?ž
21:52 < urgen> if you can send them 5 euro
21:52 < illegale> bah
21:52 < illegale> no pay pal in cro
21:52 < urgen> :-))
21:52 < urgen> I mean hard currency
21:52 < illegale> lk
21:52 < illegale> k
21:52 < urgen> they have instructions available on that webpage
21:53 < urgen> http://sdf-eu.org/index.cgi?access
21:53 < illegale> echarp, if you find anything about this stuff, please mail me at geoer...@yahoo.com
21:53 < urgen> http://sdf-eu.org/index.cgi?why
21:53 < illegale> Urgen, thank you very much for your effort :)
21:53 < illegale> CU tommorow i supose
21:53 < urgen> ok
21:53 < illegale> bye
21:53 -!- illegale [i=ille...@cmung3246.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit []
21:54 < echarp> didn't he want me to open an account for him on my server???
21:54 < urgen> yes, but no time left
21:54 < echarp> I asked him for his login/password info on a private channel
21:54 < urgen> oh
21:54 < urgen> probably missed that
21:54 < urgen> or didn't understand
21:55 < urgen> you can just make a temp password
21:55 < urgen> use: illegale for login
21:58 < echarp> I need a password
21:58 < echarp> and to communicate it to hime privately, temp or not
21:58 < urgen> he said send via email
21:58 < urgen> and will be back tomorrow
21:59 < urgen> it is ok if this project has to be completed in steps
21:59 < urgen> shell accounts are big steps for ppl not familiar with them
22:00 < urgen> how is your box funded?
22:00 < echarp> it's not funded at all
22:00 < echarp> it's *my* server in *my* flat
22:00 < urgen> oh
22:00 < echarp> on *my* home internet line
22:00 < urgen> I see
22:00 < echarp> I have two such servers
22:00 < echarp> and one laptop
22:01 < echarp> on one of them I also watch tv
22:01 < urgen> what kind of upload bandwidth do you have?
22:03 < urgen> wow, I just noticed that I've been bumped up to 6mbps down
22:03 < urgen> ~ :-)
22:03 < echarp> not that much in fact
22:03 < urgen> Your download speed : 6076 kbps or 759.5 KB/sec.
22:03 < echarp> that's the problem
22:03 < urgen> Your upload speed : 355 kbps or 44.3 KB/sec.
22:04 < echarp> download is more like theoretical 8Mb/s
22:04 < echarp> upload might be like 1M
22:04 < echarp> theoretical at least
22:04 < echarp> try http://leparlement.org
22:04 < echarp> plus it's ruby on rails, which is not a fast technology
22:05 < urgen> 7 second response to website
22:05 < echarp> see :(
22:05 < urgen> ping reply from 81.66.133.96: bytes=32 time=173ms
22:06 < urgen> which is pretty good
22:06 < echarp> :)
22:06 < echarp> it's cable
22:06 < echarp> not adsl
22:07 < echarp> still, rather expensive and upload is not *that* good
22:07 < echarp> it's appropriate for common usage
22:07 < urgen> I have cable here, too
22:08 < urgen> ping to wikipedia is 92ms
22:09 < echarp> www.wikipedia.org ?
22:09 < urgen> ya
22:09 < echarp> they seem to no allow ping :(
22:09 < urgen> oh
22:09 < urgen> I left off the www
22:09 < echarp> 145.97.39.155
22:10 < echarp> I also tried 207.142.131.248
22:10 < echarp> all packets are lost :(
22:10 < urgen> 207.142.131.210
22:11 < echarp> same same, all lost!
22:11 < echarp> strange
22:11 < urgen> ya
22:11 < urgen> some filter there
22:11 < echarp> you may have overflowed them already! ;)
22:11 < urgen> ;-)
22:38 < echarp> ok, getting late for me already
22:38 < echarp> plus I went out yesterday night, riverside walking with a girl is incredibly pleasant!
22:38 < echarp> urgen: it's something to do if you visit paris ;)
22:39 < urgen> paris is very nice
22:40 < echarp> an incredible number of babes around! shame I hate breaking the ice with strangers
22:59 -!- illegale (illegale) [i=ille...@cmung4226.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
23:00 < echarp> hello back illegale
23:00 < illegale> hello hello
23:00 < echarp> so, do you want an account on my server?
23:00 < illegale> yes
23:00 < echarp> (I tried asking you privately earlier)
23:01 < echarp> do you read me in the private channel I just created with you?
23:01 < illegale> i do
23:01 < illegale> you me*?
23:01 < echarp> yeap!!
23:01 < echarp> a private channel where you can give me a temp password
23:01 < echarp> you don't see it?
23:01 < illegale> i read you
23:02 < illegale> yet, i am not registrated user
23:02 < illegale> so you do not see me
23:02 < echarp> illegale: answer in the private channel
23:02 < echarp> well, I see
23:02 < illegale> you do not get it
23:02 < echarp> I see you
23:02 < illegale> ok
23:02 < echarp> you can not speak in private?
23:02 < illegale> i can
23:03 < illegale> yet i am blocked to answer you
23:03 < echarp> ok
23:03 < echarp> then do answer here in public please
23:04 < echarp> you will have to change your password right away please
23:05 < echarp> illegale: did you read me in private?
23:05 < illegale> yes
23:05 < illegale> i get the pass
23:05 < echarp> ok, cool then
23:05 < echarp> you try it right away?
23:07 < illegale> whgere do i login?
23:08 < echarp> on the server I gave you
23:08 < echarp> or do you mean login in the tool you use to connect?
23:08 < echarp> what tool do you use?
23:09 < illegale> ssh secure shell?
23:09 < echarp> it's the recommanded think to use
23:10 < echarp> think/thing
23:11 < echarp> illegale: does it work?
23:11 < illegale> wait...
23:12 < illegale> i do not see prompt
23:13 < illegale> where should i write this illegale@ stuff?
23:14 < echarp> in your console
23:14 < echarp> on the computer where your ssh is installed
23:14 < echarp> are you on an unix box? or on windows?
23:15 < echarp> on windows you can use "putty" which is rather fine
23:16 < illegale> winbdows
23:17 < echarp> did you install any console tool and a ssh client?
23:17 < illegale> it says it is not reachable
23:18 < illegale> i will give it up for a while
23:18 < echarp> ok
23:23 < echarp> I'm off to bed guys
23:24 < echarp> see you here tomorrow
23:25 < echarp> hopefully you will manage this ssh stuff illegale
23:25 < echarp> don't hesitate to ask questions by mail if you wish
23:29 < urgen> oh yer back
--- Log closed lun jun 26 00:00:51 2006
echarp
Jun 27, 2006, 1:40:10 AM6/27/06
to top-politics
--- Log opened lun jun 26 00:00:51 2006
00:04 -!- illegale [i=ille...@cmung4226.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
01:05 -!- illegale (illegale) [i=ille...@cmung613.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
01:05 < illegale> hey urgen, had to leave immidiatelly
01:05 * nsh smiles
01:05 < illegale> hey nsh:)
01:06 < nsh> how are we?
01:06 < illegale> fine we are :)
01:07 < nsh> phenny "c.1300, from O.Fr. fin 'perfected, of highest quality,' from L. finis 'end, limit,' hence 'acme, peak, height,' as in finis boni 'the highest good.' In Fr., the main meaning remains 'delicate, intricately skillful;' in Eng. since c.1440 fine is also a general [...]" - http://etymonline.com/?term=fine
01:07 < nsh> what are we the limit of?
01:09 < illegale> huh, i not so language oriented :)
01:12 < illegale> nsh, what you do?
01:12 < nsh> how do you mean?
01:14 < illegale> i see you are at wikipedia, physick, esp, swack, joiito, uncyclopedia and stuff
01:14 < illegale> many interests you hae :)
01:15 < nsh> interest pays
01:16 < illegale> pays?
01:16 < nsh> like at the bank
01:17 < illegale> can you trell me some more about it?
01:17 < illegale> might lear sometnigh usefull?
01:18 < nsh> the word interest had a financial meaning before it was used to signify curiousity
01:20 < illegale> you very curious?
01:21 * nsh doesn't know
01:21 < nsh> but would like to find out :-)
01:22 < illegale> you programming?
01:22 < nsh> not for a while
01:22 < nsh> yourself?
01:23 < illegale> no,
01:23 < illegale> not into it
01:23 < illegale> not into abstractions
01:23 < illegale> on mathematical level
01:23 < illegale> prefer deduction :)
01:24 < nsh> explain the difference
01:25 < illegale> induciton and deduction
01:25 < illegale> mathematics and biology
01:25 < illegale> seeing and articualtiin
01:25 < illegale> articulating than seening
01:25 < nsh> interesting juxtapositions
01:26 < illegale> i am in combinatorics relatively good
01:26 < illegale> my gift lets say
01:26 < illegale> the other part not so good
01:26 < illegale> so, use advantage of what i am good into
01:27 < illegale> you+'
01:27 < illegale> ?
01:27 * nsh is somewhere between plastic and elastic
01:28 < illegale> elaborate :)
01:30 * nsh smiles
01:30 < nsh> plastic is useful because it retains form
01:30 < nsh> can be "taught"
01:30 < nsh> elastic however has more flexibility and can thus have a more dynamic function
01:31 < nsh> the key, i guess, would be the amalgamation of the two
01:32 < illegale> have some plastic?
01:32 < illegale> that came out fro melastic?
01:32 * nsh smiles
01:32 < nsh> seems to be the way it usually works
01:33 < illegale> we call it openstanding principle
01:33 < illegale> as long as opennes is elastic itself in some manner
01:33 * nsh smiles
01:33 < illegale> yet plastic that comes out of it is autopoiesis itself
01:33 < illegale> me looking for these parts
01:34 < illegale> though, what plastic you have right now?
01:34 < illegale> can you show it to me?
01:35 < nsh> i can't show you anything that doesn't already exist in your mind, in some unassembled form
01:35 < nsh> we sometimes make the mistake of identifying the signifier with the signified
01:35 < illegale> you can help me seeing it better
01:35 < nsh> so our prior experiences colour the things we see by casting them in the light of our epistemology
01:35 < nsh> right
01:35 < nsh> binocular vision
01:35 < illegale> yes
01:36 < nsh> by collating enough individual perspectives, you can model in a higher dimension
01:36 < illegale> do you have some picture to share?
01:36 < nsh> fo anything in particular?
01:36 < illegale> you like
01:37 < nsh> i like resolution
01:37 < nsh> but there can only be resolution as a result of incongruity
01:37 < illegale> yes?
01:38 < nsh> just as there can only be intergration as a result of differentiation
01:38 < nsh> so i find it more useful to investigate the process than to inspect individual examples
01:38 < illegale> nice
01:38 < illegale> do you have something exact right now?
01:39 < illegale> something distinctive?
01:39 < nsh> not particularly
01:39 < illegale> (me think this is the new mental paradigm based on opennes, when we become based on processes, not elements)
01:39 * nsh smiles
01:40 < nsh> so there seems to be the process in most fields of investigation
01:40 < illegale> this stuff eliminates the pain
01:40 < nsh> right
01:40 < nsh> but why?
01:40 < illegale> what why?
01:40 < nsh> does this stuff eliminate the pain
01:40 < illegale> yes
01:40 < illegale> enables harmony
01:41 < illegale> harmony is joy and love
01:41 < illegale> disharmony is pain
01:41 < illegale> anxiety
01:41 < illegale> everything we do not like
01:41 < illegale> stuff on the earth do not last
01:41 < illegale> principles maybe do
01:42 < illegale> if that is true, we can calibrte on them
01:42 < illegale> enabling hsarmony
01:42 < illegale> not being afraid that we will have to loose them
01:42 * nsh smiles
01:42 < nsh> sound right
01:43 < illegale> you into philosophy?
01:44 < illegale> regular one
01:44 < nsh> i have a love of sophia
01:44 < nsh> but that's an in-joke
01:45 < nsh> but i sometimes see philosophy advertised
01:45 < nsh> but only history solf
01:45 < nsh> *sold
01:45 < nsh> so i consider it a little like life; once it's frozen, it loses its essential element
01:46 < illegale> yes
01:46 < illegale> time element is something philosophers regularly can not comprehend
01:46 < illegale> when articualteing concpets
01:46 < illegale> so, i find them invaldi
01:46 < nsh> the concepts?
01:46 < illegale> true, lie, liberty and stuff
01:47 < illegale> god and stuff
01:47 < illegale> good and evil
01:47 < illegale> and so on
01:47 < nsh> i was recently introduced to a novel term: "ontological inadequacy"
01:47 < nsh> that is
01:47 < illegale> yes?
01:48 < nsh> what may be original employed as a provisional signifier used to exchange some set of concepts fixed in the context of a particular time, set of participants, school of thought
01:49 < nsh> often falls victim to a reification process
01:49 < nsh> and so we end up seeing the envelopes as the message
01:49 < nsh> existing independently
01:50 < illegale> yes
01:50 < nsh> rather than resulting from an abritrary series of oppositional definitions
01:50 < illegale> birocratisation of mind
01:50 * nsh smiles
01:51 < illegale> philosophy we have today is mokery
01:51 < nsh> mockery sits on a tripod
01:51 < illegale> tripod?
01:51 < nsh> three supports
01:51 < illegale> yes?
01:52 < nsh> the agent mocking, the thing mocked, and the process that lead to the mockery
01:52 < illegale> you know something abour the process?
01:53 < nsh> possibly
01:53 < illegale> say
01:53 < nsh> did you ever play chinese whispers?
01:53 < illegale> no
01:53 < illegale> but did play chess :)
01:54 * nsh smiles
01:54 < nsh> it's a workable analogy
01:54 < nsh> when we play chess, we have a working hypothesis
01:54 < nsh> a model of how the subsequent moves are going to unfold
01:54 < nsh> but that is based upon various unconscious assumptions
01:54 < nsh> such as the reactions of the other player
01:55 < nsh> as the moves progress, an incongruity developes between our working simulation and the actual unfolding
01:55 < nsh> and as such we must constantly revise our models
01:56 < illegale> ok?
01:56 < nsh> during this process, there is a kind of introspection in which certain components of a modified or discarded model are seen in retrospect to be subject to our mockey
01:56 < nsh> *mockery
01:56 < illegale> delusions?
01:57 < nsh> mmm
01:57 < nsh> kinda how a sculpture is made
01:57 < nsh> after just a few chips, the block certainly resembles a very deluded image of the desired form
01:57 < illegale> i do not link that to philosohpy of today
01:57 * nsh smiles
01:58 < illegale> you think dogma is destroying philosophy?
01:58 < nsh> philosophy is like a river
01:59 < illegale> not a box of choclate?
01:59 < illegale> :=)
01:59 < nsh> and dogma are like the pockets of vortices that happen as a result of the turbulence
01:59 * nsh smiles
01:59 < nsh> in these little pockets
01:59 < nsh> the water is stuck in circles, and not progressing with the rest of the river
01:59 < illegale> think no need for dogma?
01:59 < nsh> but their existence is always ephemeral, and after time they come undone, and the normal direction of progress is resumed
02:00 < nsh> why does the river need turbulence?
02:00 < illegale> maybe bad analogy
02:00 < illegale> ?
02:00 < nsh> because the landscape over which it flows is not uniform
02:00 < nsh> so there are certain little flows that have too much momentum
02:00 < nsh> and others that have too little
02:00 < nsh> just as ideas in philosophy or any field of investigation have concepts and theories in vogue
02:00 < nsh> at any particular time
02:00 < illegale> where are human beings?
02:01 < illegale> at the coast=
02:01 < nsh> some have entered the stream :-)
02:01 < illegale> where does it go?
02:01 < illegale> that river?
02:02 < nsh> back to the sea, usually
02:02 < nsh> but that's not the end of the journey
02:02 < illegale> why shuld anybody jump to the river?
02:02 < nsh> cycles within cycles
02:02 * nsh smiles
02:02 < nsh> there's less friction there, or they want to get to the other bank
02:03 < illegale> i am making river ship, you know :)
02:03 * nsh smiles
02:03 < illegale> drawing scethes
02:03 < nsh> back in a few minutes, illegale
02:03 < nsh> keep building
02:05 < illegale> i see more fruits down the stream
02:05 < illegale> yet, my personal interest is shiping
02:05 < illegale> we move together, farther we can go
02:06 < illegale> why going? to fight pain
02:07 < illegale> see this world in clasical psychological picture
02:07 < illegale> material base, spiritual upgrade
02:08 < illegale> 7 levels in a way of satisfied person
02:08 < illegale> yet, i suppose there is many more other levels people are not aware of as long as we find 7th far enough to set it as idal
02:08 < illegale> so, there is the same picture to the land full of mines.
02:09 < illegale> people get used to it, find crossing that field great adventure
02:09 < illegale> if we remove mines, people might thingk they loose their prime occupation
02:10 < illegale> and they are not aware of it that we can run across that field
02:10 < illegale> play soccer
02:10 < illegale> chase dragons
02:10 < illegale> many things
02:10 < illegale> and these landmines are actually lies we got used to
02:11 < illegale> taking much of our energyto keep them on, being afraid that if we loose them, that we will become more vulnerable, less satisfied and stuf
02:11 < illegale> f
02:11 < illegale> and this part of ship building is actually top politics
02:11 < illegale> transparent open public
02:11 < illegale> enabling facts and reality hit interested targets
02:12 < illegale> and people do not like reality
02:12 < illegale> it ruines non reasonlabe dreams
02:12 < illegale> and people are not aware what they can do if there where no mines
02:12 < illegale> even Jesus said that Truth deliberates
02:18 < illegale> gonna go
02:18 < illegale> night
02:18 -!- illegale [i=ille...@cmung613.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit []
03:47 * urgen wakes from nap
11:19 < echarp> hello hello
13:43 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
15:03 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
15:03 -!- Topic for #parlement: http://leparlement.org/irc
15:03 -!- Topic set by irc.freenode.net [] [Sun Jun 25 07:02:07 2006]
15:05 -!- illegale (illegale) [i=ille...@161.53.121.88] has joined #parlement
15:06 < illegale> io
15:06 < echarp> hello hello
15:06 < echarp> illegale: so, still did not manage to connect to your ssh account?
15:06 < illegale> nah :(ž
15:06 < illegale> use the same connection as in friday
15:06 < echarp> shame on you ;)
15:06 < echarp> ssh is really cool and simple
15:06 < illegale> now, i can check out what do i need
15:06 < illegale> yes
15:07 < echarp> you need a ssh client
15:07 < illegale> ok, what do i have to do to check is it working on college computers?
15:07 < echarp> you have one?
15:07 < illegale> let me check out
15:07 < echarp> it's the starting point
15:08 < illegale> how do i check it out acutally?
15:08 < illegale> :)
15:09 < echarp> what is on your computer? what is you operating system?
15:09 < echarp> what is on your computer? what is your operating system?
15:09 < illegale> windows prof
15:09 < echarp> prof???
15:09 < echarp> professional?
15:09 < illegale> yes
15:09 < echarp> you need to find and download "putty" then
15:09 < echarp> very very very easy to install!!!
15:10 < illegale> any suggestion?
15:10 < echarp> suggestion for?
15:11 < echarp> putty is a software
15:11 < illegale> at google what i write?
15:11 < illegale> putty ssh?
15:11 < echarp> http://the.earth.li/~sgtatham/putty/latest/x86/putty.exe
15:11 < echarp> just type it in your browser
15:11 < echarp> download and save it some where on your hard drive (anywhere)
15:11 < echarp> then run it
15:12 < echarp> you download it?
15:13 < illegale> sec
15:13 < illegale> admin came
15:13 < illegale> says has some restricions?
15:13 < illegale> ? < .
15:14 < illegale> secure crt
15:14 < illegale> fammiliar?
15:14 < echarp> does it propose a "host name"?
15:14 < echarp> (or IP address)
15:15 < illegale> yes
15:15 < illegale> my college one
15:15 < illegale> good?
15:15 < echarp> what college one????
15:15 < echarp> not goooood!!!!
15:15 < illegale> hmh
15:15 < illegale> wait to see what is happening with admin
15:16 < echarp> you need to fill in the ssh server
15:16 < echarp> sorry, what admin are you speaking of?
15:16 < illegale> person at my college
15:16 < illegale> who puts these restrixctions
15:16 < echarp> what restrictions are you speaking about?
15:16 < illegale> i can not download what i want
15:16 < illegale> i mean, run what i want
15:16 < echarp> so you did not download putty?
15:17 < illegale> its not problem with downolading
15:17 < illegale> but eunning
15:17 < echarp> you can not run putty?
15:17 < echarp> you can not run programs you want to run???
15:17 < illegale> wait, i am stupid
15:17 < echarp> how weird that would be
15:18 < illegale> i went to computer
15:18 < echarp> ahem ahem
15:18 < illegale> though,. let me explauin the situatuion
15:18 < echarp> illegale, please, just "run" putty
15:18 < illegale> there are two computers 10 meters awa from eachj other
15:18 < echarp> a window will appear
15:18 < illegale> this one is special
15:18 < illegale> and i use whatevee i want to
15:18 < illegale> and the econd one is regular one
15:18 < echarp> ok, can you actually "run" putty?
15:18 < illegale> so, i have to check out what is happening out there
15:18 < illegale> i think yes
15:18 < illegale> what should i do now?
15:19 < echarp> illegale: can you "run" it???
15:19 < illegale> yes
15:19 < echarp> illegale: please follow my instructions, "run" putty
15:19 < illegale> thee is some window going on
15:19 < echarp> launch it
15:19 < illegale> yes
15:19 < echarp> ok, there is a window with some boxe
15:19 < illegale> what now
15:19 < echarp> illegale: follow what I'm writing
15:19 < echarp> click in the "Host name (or IP address)" box
15:19 < echarp> click with your mouse
15:19 < illegale> ok
15:20 < echarp> then fill it with
15:20 < illegale> yes i do
15:21 < echarp> now, click on the "Port" box
15:21 < echarp> did you click?
15:21 < illegale> ok
15:22 < illegale> ok
15:22 < echarp> and now just click on the "Open" button in bottom right of that window
15:22 < echarp> a window will open
15:22 < echarp> probably a black window
15:22 < illegale> host does not exist
15:22 < illegale> :(
15:23 < echarp> ok, then try with another host
15:23 < illegale> say one
15:24 < illegale> same port?
15:24 < illegale> if yes not good
15:24 < illegale> same answer
15:24 < illegale> not exist
15:24 < illegale> maybe i have to check for my admin first?
15:25 < echarp> ok, I'm trying too on my side
15:26 < echarp> seems to be some thing else to do with putty
15:26 < echarp> but it all works with normal terminal ssh client
15:27 < illegale> i do not have it right now
15:27 < illegale> need to wait for the moment
15:28 < echarp> it's also possible that the required ports are not opened
15:28 < illegale> if i succeed great
15:28 < echarp> windows admin can be rather nasty on their users :(
15:28 < illegale> yes
15:29 < illegale> though, let it go for now
15:29 < illegale> if admin says yes
15:29 < illegale> lets go on
15:29 < illegale> if not, lets see
15:29 < echarp> ask them if the ssh port is open from the inside to the outside or not
15:29 < illegale> though, i read what you wrote at top politics
15:29 < illegale> i think it is not
15:29 < illegale> for me as an user
15:29 < illegale> with my login
15:30 < illegale> so, i have to wait till he let me use it
15:30 < illegale> now he is in some work
15:30 < echarp> arg
15:30 < echarp> it's possible that the virtual meetup also failed for the same reason
15:31 < echarp> the virtual meetup applet set by klaus
15:37 < illegale> ok
15:37 < illegale> here i am
15:37 < illegale> now i can use ssh
15:37 < illegale> suppose so at least
15:37 < illegale> at some weir cleint
15:37 < illegale> :)
15:37 < illegale> i have my name and stuff
15:37 < illegale> on prompt line it works
15:43 < illegale> so, can not use echarp?
15:47 < illegale> e, are you there?
15:48 < echarp> I am here yes
15:48 < echarp> ok, then just "run" putty
15:51 < illegale> does not exist
15:51 < illegale> can i go withoput putty there
15:51 < echarp> of course
15:51 < echarp> what ssh client can you use?
15:51 < illegale> trough that client where i login
15:51 < illegale> ?
15:51 < echarp> sorry, what client are you speaking about?
15:52 < echarp> illegale: to your knowledge, what tool do you have available to connect through ssh?
15:52 < illegale> secure crt
15:53 < echarp> what is CRT???
15:53 < illegale> it has window terminal with host and stuff
15:53 < illegale> moment
15:53 < echarp> can you type "ssh" in it?
15:53 < echarp> just type "ssh" then enter to see if ssh is here
15:53 < illegale> yes
15:53 < echarp> what does it say?
15:53 < illegale> it lists many options
15:54 < echarp> ok, then type what I dictate, because it seems that you have ssh available
15:55 < illegale> ok
15:55 < echarp> illegale: did you read what I told you in the private channel?
15:56 < illegale> i read yiou
15:56 < echarp> good
15:56 < echarp> did you type it?
15:56 < illegale> now it waaits
15:56 < illegale> yes
15:56 < echarp> I tried that same command here, and it works (in a gnu/linux command prompt)
15:57 < echarp> illegale: what is CRT ?
15:57 < illegale> huh
15:57 < echarp> ?huh?
15:58 < illegale> http://www.vandyke.com/
15:58 < illegale> seems it wont work
15:58 < illegale> :(
15:59 < echarp> are you sure that typing ssh actually gave something out which was not a simple error?
15:59 < echarp> is ssh really present?
15:59 < illegale> let me say something about it
15:59 < illegale> it allows me to choose host
15:59 < illegale> my default host is one at college
15:59 < illegale> whe i put those lines you gave to me it says it can not treach it or something
15:59 < illegale> :(
15:59 < echarp> sorry, your host is my server
16:00 < illegale> what protocl to choose?
16:00 < echarp> ssh
16:00 < illegale> huh ssh2 is only available
16:00 < echarp> ssh2 *is* ssh
16:00 < echarp> it's *perfectly* all right
16:01 < illegale> ok
16:01 < illegale> it mentiones firewal
16:01 < illegale> to connect it or ot?
16:01 < echarp> you probably don't care about that
16:01 < illegale> i read you and use it
16:01 < illegale> the port number
16:01 < illegale> host not found
16:02 < echarp> go in a normal internet browser, and try http://leparlement.org just to see if you can actually connect to it
16:02 < illegale> i can
16:03 < echarp> then it might be that the ssh ports I gave you are closed :(
16:04 < illegale> i was wrong
16:05 < echarp> how wrong?
16:05 < illegale> i misspeled parlement
16:06 < illegale> n ow i did it right and again nada
16:06 < echarp> bad bad
16:06 < echarp> leparlement.org
16:06 < echarp> or
16:06 < echarp> echarp.org
16:06 < echarp> (both are the same server)
16:07 < illegale> tried everything
16:07 < illegale> does not exist
16:07 < illegale> it seems it wont work
16:08 < illegale> anys other solution to the problem?
16:08 < echarp> not that I know of
16:08 < echarp> what does it say when you simply type ssh ?
16:08 < illegale> so, have to work on mirc when i am available to
16:09 < illegale> when i am logged or not?
16:09 < illegale> i have to be logged to have terminal
16:09 < illegale> and i can be looged on my college
16:09 < echarp> you are not on a terminal?
16:09 < illegale> than it lists many optinos with - and stuff
16:09 < echarp> what options? can you list them quickly here?
16:09 < illegale> ops, i am tlaking about window
16:10 < echarp> illegale: please be careful and list your environment and tools
16:10 < echarp> start from the beginning
16:11 < illegale> it works!
16:11 < echarp> yeap, I can see you
16:11 < echarp> what did you change?
16:12 < illegale> port name on ssh kline
16:12 < illegale> loogged in first
16:12 < illegale> than did the rest
16:12 < echarp> very important
16:12 < illegale> not directly thourgh the client
16:13 < echarp> illegale: please, change your password right away with the command "passwd"
16:13 < illegale> yet, last time i used different port and it did not work
16:13 < illegale> how do i exit irrs
16:14 < echarp> sorry, what are you saying illegale?
16:14 < echarp> what is "irrs" ?
16:14 < illegale> irssi
16:14 < illegale> i wrote that first
16:14 < echarp> type: /quit
16:15 < echarp> now in the shell, type "passwd"
16:16 < illegale> ok, done
16:16 < echarp> now type "irssi"
16:16 < echarp> then type "/connect opn"
16:16 < echarp> and tell me what it does
16:17 < illegale> it says something
16:17 < illegale> -bash some stuff in french
16:18 < echarp> you seem to have exited
16:18 < echarp> what did you do?
16:19 < illegale> exited
16:19 < illegale> now i am back
16:19 < illegale> checking did i kear this part corerctly
16:19 < illegale> now it says the same stuff
16:19 < echarp> what part are you checking?
16:19 < illegale> aucun fichier ou rapetoaire de ce ty<pe
16:20 < echarp> illegale: please, state the context you are in!
16:20 < illegale> i am in
16:20 < echarp> what did you type?
16:20 < illegale> "/connect opn
16:20 < illegale> stupi i am
16:20 < echarp> before that, did you *actually* type "irssi" ???
16:20 < echarp> illegale: type "irssi"
16:21 < echarp> illegale: *then* type "/connect OPN"
16:21 < illegale> yes
16:21 < illegale> sorry
16:21 < illegale> looking for opn
16:21 < echarp> does it connect straight away?
16:21 < illegale> unable toconnecgt to server iopnm port 6667
16:21 < echarp> it might not work
16:21 < echarp> ok, then, type this:
16:21 < echarp> /connect FN
16:22 < illegale> same stuff differentr players
16:22 < echarp> ok, then type this:
16:22 < echarp> /connect irc.freenode.net
16:22 < illegale> xhecking me out
16:23 < echarp> it's good
16:23 < echarp> tell me when it's ready
16:23 < illegale> stilll
16:23 < illegale> error clopsed lin
16:23 < illegale> k
16:23 < illegale> time outr
16:23 < illegale> no identity responde
16:23 < illegale> se
16:23 < echarp> /connect irc.freenode.net:6667
16:23 < echarp> oh, it might because you don't have yet any nick name
16:24 < echarp> type: "/nick illegale2"
16:24 < illegale> not connected to server
16:25 < echarp> type /connect irc.free.fr:6667
16:25 < echarp> it might be more lenient on your identity
16:26 < echarp> what does it say?
16:26 -!- illegale_ (illegale) [n=ille...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has joined #parlement
16:26 < illegale_> thats me
16:26 < illegale> hehehe
16:26 < illegale> :)
16:26 < echarp> aaaah
16:26 < illegale> do not knwo what did i do
16:26 < echarp> took you a while for almost nothing!
16:27 < illegale_> heh
16:27 < illegale_> i will exit to try it again
16:27 < echarp> ok
16:27 < illegale_> how do i exit actually?
16:27 < echarp> the commands to use all start with /
16:27 < echarp> like /quit
16:27 -!- illegale_ [n=ille...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has quit [Client Quit]
16:29 -!- illegale_ (illegale) [n=ille...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has joined #parlement
16:29 < illegale_> cool
16:29 < illegale_> now i am free :)
16:31 < illegale> how do i change channel=?
16:31 < illegale_> do i have to write /join stuff when i do it or some other way we have?
16:32 < illegale_> nevermind
16:32 < illegale_> it works
16:32 < illegale_> that part is implrtan
16:32 < illegale_> so, char
16:32 < illegale_> we can go on
16:32 -!- illegale [i=ille...@161.53.121.88] has quit []
16:34 < echarp> illegale_: you join as many channels as you want
16:34 < echarp> just type: /join #channel_name
16:34 < echarp> like: /join #joiito
16:34 < echarp> to qui a channel, type: /part #channel_name
16:34 < echarp> to quit a channel, type: /part #channel_name
16:35 < illegale_> ok
16:35 < illegale_> i get it
16:35 < echarp> you can save your channel layout
16:35 < illegale_> now i use regular computer
16:35 < illegale_> how?
16:35 < echarp> set it up so that it auto logs you in your present channels
16:35 < echarp> type: /help join
16:35 < illegale_> i did
16:36 < illegale_> i do not see anything
16:36 < illegale_> have to see that channel
16:36 < illegale_> how?
16:36 < echarp> see what channel?
16:36 < illegale_> when i write /help join
16:36 < illegale_> i stay on this channel
16:36 < illegale_> i suppose i should go to the one of server right
16:37 < echarp> do: Ctlr-n or Ctrl-p
16:37 < echarp> (next / previous)
16:37 < illegale_> yes
16:37 < illegale_> :)
16:37 < illegale_> this is part i missed :)
16:42 < echarp> does it work illegale_ ?
16:42 < illegale_> logging?
16:42 < illegale_> no,
16:43 < echarp> moving from channel to channel
16:43 < illegale_> do not know what do i have to write and how to see log
16:43 < illegale_> it works fine
16:43 < echarp> what log are you speaking about illegale_ ?
16:44 < illegale_> nevermind
16:44 < illegale_> it is enough for me today :)
16:44 < echarp> illegale_: do you manage to go from channel to channel?
16:44 < illegale_> yes
16:44 < echarp> I don't see you on #joiito
16:44 < illegale_> join Ž#joiito
16:44 < illegale_> now?
16:45 < illegale_> yes
16:45 < echarp> illegale_: type this now => /nick illegale
16:45 < illegale_> :)
16:45 < illegale_> nick illegale
16:45 -!- illegale_ is now known as illegale
16:45 < illegale> ok
16:45 < echarp> illegale_: be careful, there is a /
16:45 < echarp> ok, cool then
16:45 < illegale> so, we can talk about the reason we did all of this :)
16:46 < echarp> illegale: now you would have to reserve your nick name with the bot nickserv
16:46 < illegale> how t odo that?
16:46 < echarp> so that you can talk here!
16:46 < echarp> illegale: type this => /msg nickserv help
16:46 < echarp> then follow instructions
16:48 < illegale> hmh
16:48 < illegale> now i can not use mirc with this channel?
16:48 < illegale> nick i mean?
16:50 < illegale> neverminf
16:50 < illegale> d
16:50 < illegale> this is enough, really is
16:50 < illegale> for today
16:52 < echarp> cool
16:52 < echarp> you can use the same nick with different tools
16:52 < echarp> just you can't use them both at the same time
16:54 < illegale> ok
16:55 < echarp> illegale: with irssi there are also a plethora of scripts available
16:55 < echarp> but first things first of course :)
16:56 < illegale> i am satisfued with this stuff adn will be for i while i suppsoe
16:56 < illegale> i mean, what else do i need?
16:56 < illegale> loggin, right
16:57 < illegale> nothing else commes upto my mind in this moment
16:57 < echarp> you can also use a nick list
16:57 < echarp> to see who is online and if they are away or not
16:57 < illegale> yes
16:57 < illegale> ?
16:57 < echarp> a beep when someone talks to you, like here => illegale
16:57 < echarp> something to color nicely the nicks
16:57 < illegale> this is sort of aert
16:58 < illegale> i see
16:58 < echarp> there are an incredible number of scripts
16:58 < echarp> you can even use irssi to talk on msn, google talk or yahoo messenger (I do that)
16:58 < urgen> I'm going to log in so I can remember what irssi looks like
16:58 < echarp> :)
16:59 < urgen> it has /window new and stuff like that doesn't it?
16:59 < echarp> irssi is the best irc client
16:59 < echarp> urgen: yeap
16:59 < urgen> I use to bind my tab key so I could hop channels
16:59 < echarp> I prefer to use Ctrl-a to go on the channel where I'm talked to
16:59 < echarp> Ctrl-n or p to go to next or previous channel
16:59 < urgen> well I was an epic guy
17:00 < illegale> what do you mean?
17:00 < urgen> EPIC was one of the first clients
17:00 < urgen> way before irssi
17:01 < illegale> i se
17:01 < echarp> that must have been antideluvian :)
17:01 < urgen> :-)
17:01 < urgen> so I built scripts to manage things more easily
17:02 < echarp> irssi is really slick now adays
17:02 < echarp> but it needs some efforts to configure it
17:03 < illegale> i am mirc guy you know
17:03 < illegale> has everything i need
17:03 < illegale> you can use even mouse
17:03 < illegale> you can move windows and stuff
17:03 < illegale> suppose i will go hard core soon
17:03 -!- urgy (root) [i=ro...@65.111.164.97] has joined #parlement
17:03 < urgy> me on irssi
17:04 < urgy> wow I have a german address
17:04 < illegale> needing these shortcuts
17:04 < illegale> so, what do you say?
17:04 < echarp> :)
17:04 < urgy> I guess that's where my server farm lives
17:04 < echarp> shortcuts are way more powerful
17:04 < illegale> do nto know
17:04 < illegale> still in mouse mode
17:04 < illegale> not fammiliar with ctrl
17:04 < illegale> do not know how to put my hends on
17:05 < echarp> you'll have to learn
17:05 < urgy> what is a shortcut to split the screen into two windows?
17:05 < echarp> typing and all that
17:05 < illegale> as long as i am teached to write on tastatture
17:05 < echarp> urgen: /help window
17:05 < urgy> hmn nothing
17:05 < urgy> so how do I hop to the help screen now?
17:06 < urgy> something automatic happened
17:06 < urgen> ah cntrl-n
17:06 < illegale> i thing you need to be prettty inteligent to use all these shortcuts
17:07 < illegale> i am just fine with ctrl-n
17:07 < illegale> maybe will adopt one more in some time
17:07 < urgen> well,, you only need a basic set of commands
17:07 < urgen> then you can settle
17:07 < echarp> yeap
17:07 < urgen> it really helps a lot to have the split screen and be able to carry on conversation in two windows
17:08 < echarp> Ctrl-a to go to an active channel
17:08 < urgen> don't you do that with mirc already?
17:08 < illegale> no
17:08 < illegale> use mouse
17:08 < echarp> mouse is bad
17:08 < illegale> i am mousie
17:08 < illegale> i suppose it is
17:08 < illegale> yet you guys are geekis
17:08 < illegale> h
17:08 < echarp> the mouse is slow, incredibly slow
17:08 < illegale> whats wronjg with mouse anyway
17:08 < echarp> you waste time using it
17:09 < illegale> you use it at all?
17:09 < echarp> shortcuts are *fast*
17:09 < illegale> echarp use irrssi?
17:09 < echarp> I don't use it at all, except sometimes on the web or in an occasional new application
17:09 < urgen> computers waste a lot of geek time so they all learn how to do things faster
17:09 < echarp> illegale: I use *only* irssi
17:09 < echarp> I'm a terminal guy :)
17:09 < illegale> i knew it :)
17:09 < urgen> unix doesn't know mouse this way yet
17:09 < illegale> thats why you against phpbb :
17:09 < illegale> )
17:09 < urgen> someday they will add it
17:10 < illegale> isnt mouse good in a training modE?
17:10 < echarp> I use mlterm+ssh+screen+irssi+spamassassin+mutt+w3m great great great tools
17:10 < echarp> yeap, phpbb is crappy
17:10 < illegale> why?
17:10 < illegale> no terminal mode?
17:10 < urgen> it has a long history of getting hacked
17:10 < echarp> terminal mode for?
17:10 < illegale> i bs
17:11 < illegale> using words i know no meaning of
17:11 < illegale> i mean, phpbb is fully mousie stuff
17:11 < echarp> it's only mouse stuff
17:11 < illegale> urgen: what is good forum in your opinon?
17:11 < echarp> and you have to go on it, it can't come to you like mails do
17:11 < urgen> be careful illegale we will show you text mode email and newsgroups.... ;-)
17:11 < echarp> mailing lists are good forums
17:11 < illegale> e:_ i think that is the reason you do not like i
17:11 < echarp> illegale: use the tab key to complete nicks
17:12 < echarp> illegale: when you use my full nick, it's highilighted and my attention is drawn to it!
17:12 < urgen> I'm having problems learning how to bind a channel to a new window
17:12 < echarp> considering I'm also talking on other channels, it's better
17:12 < illegale> tab key?
17:12 < echarp> illegale: tab key yes, on you keyboard
17:12 < illegale> echarp: tab key?
17:12 < illegale> what odes it mean?
17:13 < echarp> illegale: just above the keycap key
17:13 < echarp> it' a keyboard key!
17:13 < urgen> try type: ur then hit Tab
17:13 < echarp> urgen:
17:13 < illegale> Urgen, you think it can become popular as forums and other full tools are?
17:13 < urgen> do I think irssi can? or irc?
17:15 < illegale> ah, ok
17:15 < illegale> cool stuff it is
17:15 < illegale> echarp:
17:15 < illegale> echarp: thank you
17:15 < illegale> now i get it why this is cool stuff
17:16 < illegale> never used tab befroe but for big space in word
17:16 < urgen> it is very powerful but takes a little while to get use to
17:16 < illegale> and stuff like that
17:17 < echarp> illegale: it's so powerful compared to the mouse
17:17 < illegale> echarp: do you have a minute to talk about top politics?
17:17 < echarp> illegale: yeap
17:17 < echarp> but not much more than that
17:17 < echarp> I'm still at work :)
17:17 < illegale> echarp: oh, my girfriedn came to me
17:17 < echarp> :)
17:17 < illegale> have to leave you now
17:17 < echarp> that happens to :)
17:17 < echarp> for a good reason ;)
17:17 < echarp> illegale: cu later then!
17:17 < illegale> see you later, maybe tomorow
17:17 < illegale> urgen: echarp illegale su
17:18 < illegale> :)
17:18 < echarp> illegale: later you will learn how you can get away while still being here (like I do)
17:18 < illegale> nsh: se you too
17:18 < urgen> ya
17:18 -!- illegale [n=ille...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has quit ["Lost terminal"]
17:19 < urgen> and we'll work on polite way to exit :-)
17:20 < echarp> lol
17:20 < echarp> so many things to teach! :)
17:20 < echarp> he may come to good side of the force, in time :)
17:20 < urgen> I'm going to have to read an intro to irssi
17:20 < echarp> irssi.org I think
17:20 < echarp> once you have the basic keys, it gets much much easier
17:21 < echarp> I've used it for a few years now, and still discover some stuff occasionally
17:21 < urgen> like learning vim
17:22 < echarp> yeap! :)
17:22 < echarp> I forgot about it, I only use vim for editing
17:22 < echarp> vim+ctags do wonders
17:23 < urgen> -!- Irssi: Window scroll mode is now DEFAULT
17:23 < urgen> how do I make it scroll back?
17:24 < urgen> I've forgotten so many things :-)
17:28 < echarp> Alt-p
17:28 < echarp> and Alt-n
17:28 < echarp> page up and down should also do the trick
17:28 < urgen> ok
17:28 < echarp> alt+shift+number to go to a given window
17:29 < echarp> http://echarp.org/lesOutilsQueJAime
17:29 < urgen> shuttle launches july
17:29 < echarp> that's my screen
17:29 < urgen> you watch the space walks?
17:30 < urgen> I love them
17:30 < echarp> not really no
17:30 < echarp> but I have the real time earth on my background
17:30 < echarp> :)
17:30 < urgen> :-) you should nasaTV is wonderful
17:30 < echarp> I generally love documentaries
17:30 < urgen> nasaTV is live
17:30 < echarp> is it on the web?
17:30 < urgen> the astronauts have cams on their helmets
17:31 < echarp> cool
17:31 < urgen> you get first person view
17:31 < urgen> it's fantastic
17:31 < urgen> I'll sync you up as we get closer to launch
17:31 < echarp> ok
17:31 < echarp> but I've read about the nasa and the shuttle, I feel it's a gigantic waste of efforts
17:31 < urgen> can you do a windows media stream?
17:32 < urgen> they also usually do a real media
17:32 < echarp> the shuttle was designed for military use, and that's so bad it still bites the nasa in the ass decades later
17:32 < urgen> but the windows one has better resolution
17:32 < echarp> windows media stream I'm not sure no
17:32 < echarp> I'm on debian
17:32 < urgen> ya well I think you can.. I'll ask kyle
17:32 < echarp> ok
17:32 < urgen> he wrote linux media hacks
17:33 < echarp> woaw
17:33 < urgen> he's in our local linux users group
17:33 < urgen> he also wrote knoppix hacks
17:35 < urgen> I'm so bummed Sealand burnt
17:35 < urgen> but I guess that's a good lesson
17:35 < echarp> sealand burnt? what did that happen? :(
17:35 < urgen> http://www.eveningstar.co.uk/content/eveningstar/news/story.aspx?brand=ESTOnline&category=News&tBrand=ESTOnline&tCategory=znews&itemid=IPED23%20Jun%202006%2017%3A01%3A43%3A230
17:36 < urgen> dang that's a long url :-)
17:37 < echarp> that happens
17:38 -!- urgy [i=ro...@65.111.164.97] has left #parlement []
17:38 -!- urgy (root) [i=ro...@65.111.164.97] has joined #parlement
17:39 < urgy> couldn't find a way to bind a channel to a window without parting and joining
17:39 < echarp> usually you can move windows around using /window move number
17:40 < urgy> hmn
17:41 < urgy> I wanted to move a channel not a window
17:41 < echarp> /window item move number
17:41 < echarp> or
17:41 < echarp> /window item move left
17:45 -!- urgy [i=ro...@65.111.164.97] has quit ["leaving"]
17:46 < urgen> that account is debian
17:47 < echarp> nice :)
17:48 < urgen> so I guess serverpronto's server farm is in germany
17:48 < urgen> they are $30/month for dedicated
17:48 < urgen> which is about the lowest I've found for something that is decent
17:48 < echarp> still rather expensive
17:49 < urgen> virtual servers are still slow and have constraints ( no irc )
17:49 < urgen> but you can find them for $7 or so a month
17:51 < echarp> I much much prefer my own server
17:51 < urgen> I don't mind here but cable doesn't want me running services
17:51 < urgen> so I had to get something offsite
17:52 < echarp> they don't want or they actually block?
17:52 < urgen> some ports are blocked
17:52 < urgen> 80 and 25
17:53 < urgen> and remote desktop port
17:53 < echarp> that's bad
17:55 < urgen> I wish they'd bump up my upstream tho
17:55 < urgen> 384 is not much
17:55 < echarp> bits or bytes?
17:56 < urgen> bits
17:56 < echarp> that's rather bad then yes
17:56 < urgen> like a 44 KBps
--- Log closed lun jun 26 20:47:42 2006
--- Log opened lun jun 26 20:48:20 2006
20:48 -!- echarp [n=33M0...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has joined #parlement
20:48 -!- Topic for #parlement: http://leparlement.org/irc
20:48 -!- Topic set by echarp [] [Sun Jun 11 20:50:53 2006]
20:48 [Users #parlement]
20:48 [ echarp] [ fiatlex] [ nsh] [ urgen]
20:48 -!- Irssi: #parlement: Total of 4 nicks [0 ops, 0 halfops, 0 voices, 4 normal]
20:48 -!- Channel #parlement created Thu Apr 27 09:48:29 2006
20:49 -!- Irssi: Join to #parlement was synced in 45 secs
21:11 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
--- Log closed mar jun 27 00:00:52 2006
00:04 -!- illegale [i=ille...@cmung4226.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
01:05 -!- illegale (illegale) [i=ille...@cmung613.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
01:05 < illegale> hey urgen, had to leave immidiatelly
01:05 * nsh smiles
01:05 < illegale> hey nsh:)
01:06 < nsh> how are we?
01:06 < illegale> fine we are :)
01:07 < nsh> phenny "c.1300, from O.Fr. fin 'perfected, of highest quality,' from L. finis 'end, limit,' hence 'acme, peak, height,' as in finis boni 'the highest good.' In Fr., the main meaning remains 'delicate, intricately skillful;' in Eng. since c.1440 fine is also a general [...]" - http://etymonline.com/?term=fine
01:07 < nsh> what are we the limit of?
01:09 < illegale> huh, i not so language oriented :)
01:12 < illegale> nsh, what you do?
01:12 < nsh> how do you mean?
01:14 < illegale> i see you are at wikipedia, physick, esp, swack, joiito, uncyclopedia and stuff
01:14 < illegale> many interests you hae :)
01:15 < nsh> interest pays
01:16 < illegale> pays?
01:16 < nsh> like at the bank
01:17 < illegale> can you trell me some more about it?
01:17 < illegale> might lear sometnigh usefull?
01:18 < nsh> the word interest had a financial meaning before it was used to signify curiousity
01:20 < illegale> you very curious?
01:21 * nsh doesn't know
01:21 < nsh> but would like to find out :-)
01:22 < illegale> you programming?
01:22 < nsh> not for a while
01:22 < nsh> yourself?
01:23 < illegale> no,
01:23 < illegale> not into it
01:23 < illegale> not into abstractions
01:23 < illegale> on mathematical level
01:23 < illegale> prefer deduction :)
01:24 < nsh> explain the difference
01:25 < illegale> induciton and deduction
01:25 < illegale> mathematics and biology
01:25 < illegale> seeing and articualtiin
01:25 < illegale> articulating than seening
01:25 < nsh> interesting juxtapositions
01:26 < illegale> i am in combinatorics relatively good
01:26 < illegale> my gift lets say
01:26 < illegale> the other part not so good
01:26 < illegale> so, use advantage of what i am good into
01:27 < illegale> you+'
01:27 < illegale> ?
01:27 * nsh is somewhere between plastic and elastic
01:28 < illegale> elaborate :)
01:30 * nsh smiles
01:30 < nsh> plastic is useful because it retains form
01:30 < nsh> can be "taught"
01:30 < nsh> elastic however has more flexibility and can thus have a more dynamic function
01:31 < nsh> the key, i guess, would be the amalgamation of the two
01:32 < illegale> have some plastic?
01:32 < illegale> that came out fro melastic?
01:32 * nsh smiles
01:32 < nsh> seems to be the way it usually works
01:33 < illegale> we call it openstanding principle
01:33 < illegale> as long as opennes is elastic itself in some manner
01:33 * nsh smiles
01:33 < illegale> yet plastic that comes out of it is autopoiesis itself
01:33 < illegale> me looking for these parts
01:34 < illegale> though, what plastic you have right now?
01:34 < illegale> can you show it to me?
01:35 < nsh> i can't show you anything that doesn't already exist in your mind, in some unassembled form
01:35 < nsh> we sometimes make the mistake of identifying the signifier with the signified
01:35 < illegale> you can help me seeing it better
01:35 < nsh> so our prior experiences colour the things we see by casting them in the light of our epistemology
01:35 < nsh> right
01:35 < nsh> binocular vision
01:35 < illegale> yes
01:36 < nsh> by collating enough individual perspectives, you can model in a higher dimension
01:36 < illegale> do you have some picture to share?
01:36 < nsh> fo anything in particular?
01:36 < illegale> you like
01:37 < nsh> i like resolution
01:37 < nsh> but there can only be resolution as a result of incongruity
01:37 < illegale> yes?
01:38 < nsh> just as there can only be intergration as a result of differentiation
01:38 < nsh> so i find it more useful to investigate the process than to inspect individual examples
01:38 < illegale> nice
01:38 < illegale> do you have something exact right now?
01:39 < illegale> something distinctive?
01:39 < nsh> not particularly
01:39 < illegale> (me think this is the new mental paradigm based on opennes, when we become based on processes, not elements)
01:39 * nsh smiles
01:40 < nsh> so there seems to be the process in most fields of investigation
01:40 < illegale> this stuff eliminates the pain
01:40 < nsh> right
01:40 < nsh> but why?
01:40 < illegale> what why?
01:40 < nsh> does this stuff eliminate the pain
01:40 < illegale> yes
01:40 < illegale> enables harmony
01:41 < illegale> harmony is joy and love
01:41 < illegale> disharmony is pain
01:41 < illegale> anxiety
01:41 < illegale> everything we do not like
01:41 < illegale> stuff on the earth do not last
01:41 < illegale> principles maybe do
01:42 < illegale> if that is true, we can calibrte on them
01:42 < illegale> enabling hsarmony
01:42 < illegale> not being afraid that we will have to loose them
01:42 * nsh smiles
01:42 < nsh> sound right
01:43 < illegale> you into philosophy?
01:44 < illegale> regular one
01:44 < nsh> i have a love of sophia
01:44 < nsh> but that's an in-joke
01:45 < nsh> but i sometimes see philosophy advertised
01:45 < nsh> but only history solf
01:45 < nsh> *sold
01:45 < nsh> so i consider it a little like life; once it's frozen, it loses its essential element
01:46 < illegale> yes
01:46 < illegale> time element is something philosophers regularly can not comprehend
01:46 < illegale> when articualteing concpets
01:46 < illegale> so, i find them invaldi
01:46 < nsh> the concepts?
01:46 < illegale> true, lie, liberty and stuff
01:47 < illegale> god and stuff
01:47 < illegale> good and evil
01:47 < illegale> and so on
01:47 < nsh> i was recently introduced to a novel term: "ontological inadequacy"
01:47 < nsh> that is
01:47 < illegale> yes?
01:48 < nsh> what may be original employed as a provisional signifier used to exchange some set of concepts fixed in the context of a particular time, set of participants, school of thought
01:49 < nsh> often falls victim to a reification process
01:49 < nsh> and so we end up seeing the envelopes as the message
01:49 < nsh> existing independently
01:50 < illegale> yes
01:50 < nsh> rather than resulting from an abritrary series of oppositional definitions
01:50 < illegale> birocratisation of mind
01:50 * nsh smiles
01:51 < illegale> philosophy we have today is mokery
01:51 < nsh> mockery sits on a tripod
01:51 < illegale> tripod?
01:51 < nsh> three supports
01:51 < illegale> yes?
01:52 < nsh> the agent mocking, the thing mocked, and the process that lead to the mockery
01:52 < illegale> you know something abour the process?
01:53 < nsh> possibly
01:53 < illegale> say
01:53 < nsh> did you ever play chinese whispers?
01:53 < illegale> no
01:53 < illegale> but did play chess :)
01:54 * nsh smiles
01:54 < nsh> it's a workable analogy
01:54 < nsh> when we play chess, we have a working hypothesis
01:54 < nsh> a model of how the subsequent moves are going to unfold
01:54 < nsh> but that is based upon various unconscious assumptions
01:54 < nsh> such as the reactions of the other player
01:55 < nsh> as the moves progress, an incongruity developes between our working simulation and the actual unfolding
01:55 < nsh> and as such we must constantly revise our models
01:56 < illegale> ok?
01:56 < nsh> during this process, there is a kind of introspection in which certain components of a modified or discarded model are seen in retrospect to be subject to our mockey
01:56 < nsh> *mockery
01:56 < illegale> delusions?
01:57 < nsh> mmm
01:57 < nsh> kinda how a sculpture is made
01:57 < nsh> after just a few chips, the block certainly resembles a very deluded image of the desired form
01:57 < illegale> i do not link that to philosohpy of today
01:57 * nsh smiles
01:58 < illegale> you think dogma is destroying philosophy?
01:58 < nsh> philosophy is like a river
01:59 < illegale> not a box of choclate?
01:59 < illegale> :=)
01:59 < nsh> and dogma are like the pockets of vortices that happen as a result of the turbulence
01:59 * nsh smiles
01:59 < nsh> in these little pockets
01:59 < nsh> the water is stuck in circles, and not progressing with the rest of the river
01:59 < illegale> think no need for dogma?
01:59 < nsh> but their existence is always ephemeral, and after time they come undone, and the normal direction of progress is resumed
02:00 < nsh> why does the river need turbulence?
02:00 < illegale> maybe bad analogy
02:00 < illegale> ?
02:00 < nsh> because the landscape over which it flows is not uniform
02:00 < nsh> so there are certain little flows that have too much momentum
02:00 < nsh> and others that have too little
02:00 < nsh> just as ideas in philosophy or any field of investigation have concepts and theories in vogue
02:00 < nsh> at any particular time
02:00 < illegale> where are human beings?
02:01 < illegale> at the coast=
02:01 < nsh> some have entered the stream :-)
02:01 < illegale> where does it go?
02:01 < illegale> that river?
02:02 < nsh> back to the sea, usually
02:02 < nsh> but that's not the end of the journey
02:02 < illegale> why shuld anybody jump to the river?
02:02 < nsh> cycles within cycles
02:02 * nsh smiles
02:02 < nsh> there's less friction there, or they want to get to the other bank
02:03 < illegale> i am making river ship, you know :)
02:03 * nsh smiles
02:03 < illegale> drawing scethes
02:03 < nsh> back in a few minutes, illegale
02:03 < nsh> keep building
02:05 < illegale> i see more fruits down the stream
02:05 < illegale> yet, my personal interest is shiping
02:05 < illegale> we move together, farther we can go
02:06 < illegale> why going? to fight pain
02:07 < illegale> see this world in clasical psychological picture
02:07 < illegale> material base, spiritual upgrade
02:08 < illegale> 7 levels in a way of satisfied person
02:08 < illegale> yet, i suppose there is many more other levels people are not aware of as long as we find 7th far enough to set it as idal
02:08 < illegale> so, there is the same picture to the land full of mines.
02:09 < illegale> people get used to it, find crossing that field great adventure
02:09 < illegale> if we remove mines, people might thingk they loose their prime occupation
02:10 < illegale> and they are not aware of it that we can run across that field
02:10 < illegale> play soccer
02:10 < illegale> chase dragons
02:10 < illegale> many things
02:10 < illegale> and these landmines are actually lies we got used to
02:11 < illegale> taking much of our energyto keep them on, being afraid that if we loose them, that we will become more vulnerable, less satisfied and stuf
02:11 < illegale> f
02:11 < illegale> and this part of ship building is actually top politics
02:11 < illegale> transparent open public
02:11 < illegale> enabling facts and reality hit interested targets
02:12 < illegale> and people do not like reality
02:12 < illegale> it ruines non reasonlabe dreams
02:12 < illegale> and people are not aware what they can do if there where no mines
02:12 < illegale> even Jesus said that Truth deliberates
02:18 < illegale> gonna go
02:18 < illegale> night
02:18 -!- illegale [i=ille...@cmung613.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit []
03:47 * urgen wakes from nap
11:19 < echarp> hello hello
13:43 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
15:03 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
15:03 -!- Topic for #parlement: http://leparlement.org/irc
15:03 -!- Topic set by irc.freenode.net [] [Sun Jun 25 07:02:07 2006]
15:05 -!- illegale (illegale) [i=ille...@161.53.121.88] has joined #parlement
15:06 < illegale> io
15:06 < echarp> hello hello
15:06 < echarp> illegale: so, still did not manage to connect to your ssh account?
15:06 < illegale> nah :(ž
15:06 < illegale> use the same connection as in friday
15:06 < echarp> shame on you ;)
15:06 < echarp> ssh is really cool and simple
15:06 < illegale> now, i can check out what do i need
15:06 < illegale> yes
15:07 < echarp> you need a ssh client
15:07 < illegale> ok, what do i have to do to check is it working on college computers?
15:07 < echarp> you have one?
15:07 < illegale> let me check out
15:07 < echarp> it's the starting point
15:08 < illegale> how do i check it out acutally?
15:08 < illegale> :)
15:09 < echarp> what is on your computer? what is you operating system?
15:09 < echarp> what is on your computer? what is your operating system?
15:09 < illegale> windows prof
15:09 < echarp> prof???
15:09 < echarp> professional?
15:09 < illegale> yes
15:09 < echarp> you need to find and download "putty" then
15:09 < echarp> very very very easy to install!!!
15:10 < illegale> any suggestion?
15:10 < echarp> suggestion for?
15:11 < echarp> putty is a software
15:11 < illegale> at google what i write?
15:11 < illegale> putty ssh?
15:11 < echarp> http://the.earth.li/~sgtatham/putty/latest/x86/putty.exe
15:11 < echarp> just type it in your browser
15:11 < echarp> download and save it some where on your hard drive (anywhere)
15:11 < echarp> then run it
15:12 < echarp> you download it?
15:13 < illegale> sec
15:13 < illegale> admin came
15:13 < illegale> says has some restricions?
15:13 < illegale> ? < .
15:14 < illegale> secure crt
15:14 < illegale> fammiliar?
15:14 < echarp> does it propose a "host name"?
15:14 < echarp> (or IP address)
15:15 < illegale> yes
15:15 < illegale> my college one
15:15 < illegale> good?
15:15 < echarp> what college one????
15:15 < echarp> not goooood!!!!
15:15 < illegale> hmh
15:15 < illegale> wait to see what is happening with admin
15:16 < echarp> you need to fill in the ssh server
15:16 < echarp> sorry, what admin are you speaking of?
15:16 < illegale> person at my college
15:16 < illegale> who puts these restrixctions
15:16 < echarp> what restrictions are you speaking about?
15:16 < illegale> i can not download what i want
15:16 < illegale> i mean, run what i want
15:16 < echarp> so you did not download putty?
15:17 < illegale> its not problem with downolading
15:17 < illegale> but eunning
15:17 < echarp> you can not run putty?
15:17 < echarp> you can not run programs you want to run???
15:17 < illegale> wait, i am stupid
15:17 < echarp> how weird that would be
15:18 < illegale> i went to computer
15:18 < echarp> ahem ahem
15:18 < illegale> though,. let me explauin the situatuion
15:18 < echarp> illegale, please, just "run" putty
15:18 < illegale> there are two computers 10 meters awa from eachj other
15:18 < echarp> a window will appear
15:18 < illegale> this one is special
15:18 < illegale> and i use whatevee i want to
15:18 < illegale> and the econd one is regular one
15:18 < echarp> ok, can you actually "run" putty?
15:18 < illegale> so, i have to check out what is happening out there
15:18 < illegale> i think yes
15:18 < illegale> what should i do now?
15:19 < echarp> illegale: can you "run" it???
15:19 < illegale> yes
15:19 < echarp> illegale: please follow my instructions, "run" putty
15:19 < illegale> thee is some window going on
15:19 < echarp> launch it
15:19 < illegale> yes
15:19 < echarp> ok, there is a window with some boxe
15:19 < illegale> what now
15:19 < echarp> illegale: follow what I'm writing
15:19 < echarp> click in the "Host name (or IP address)" box
15:19 < echarp> click with your mouse
15:19 < illegale> ok
15:20 < echarp> then fill it with
15:20 < illegale> yes i do
15:21 < echarp> now, click on the "Port" box
15:21 < echarp> did you click?
15:21 < illegale> ok
15:22 < illegale> ok
15:22 < echarp> and now just click on the "Open" button in bottom right of that window
15:22 < echarp> a window will open
15:22 < echarp> probably a black window
15:22 < illegale> host does not exist
15:22 < illegale> :(
15:23 < echarp> ok, then try with another host
15:23 < illegale> say one
15:24 < illegale> same port?
15:24 < illegale> if yes not good
15:24 < illegale> same answer
15:24 < illegale> not exist
15:24 < illegale> maybe i have to check for my admin first?
15:25 < echarp> ok, I'm trying too on my side
15:26 < echarp> seems to be some thing else to do with putty
15:26 < echarp> but it all works with normal terminal ssh client
15:27 < illegale> i do not have it right now
15:27 < illegale> need to wait for the moment
15:28 < echarp> it's also possible that the required ports are not opened
15:28 < illegale> if i succeed great
15:28 < echarp> windows admin can be rather nasty on their users :(
15:28 < illegale> yes
15:29 < illegale> though, let it go for now
15:29 < illegale> if admin says yes
15:29 < illegale> lets go on
15:29 < illegale> if not, lets see
15:29 < echarp> ask them if the ssh port is open from the inside to the outside or not
15:29 < illegale> though, i read what you wrote at top politics
15:29 < illegale> i think it is not
15:29 < illegale> for me as an user
15:29 < illegale> with my login
15:30 < illegale> so, i have to wait till he let me use it
15:30 < illegale> now he is in some work
15:30 < echarp> arg
15:30 < echarp> it's possible that the virtual meetup also failed for the same reason
15:31 < echarp> the virtual meetup applet set by klaus
15:37 < illegale> ok
15:37 < illegale> here i am
15:37 < illegale> now i can use ssh
15:37 < illegale> suppose so at least
15:37 < illegale> at some weir cleint
15:37 < illegale> :)
15:37 < illegale> i have my name and stuff
15:37 < illegale> on prompt line it works
15:43 < illegale> so, can not use echarp?
15:47 < illegale> e, are you there?
15:48 < echarp> I am here yes
15:48 < echarp> ok, then just "run" putty
15:51 < illegale> does not exist
15:51 < illegale> can i go withoput putty there
15:51 < echarp> of course
15:51 < echarp> what ssh client can you use?
15:51 < illegale> trough that client where i login
15:51 < illegale> ?
15:51 < echarp> sorry, what client are you speaking about?
15:52 < echarp> illegale: to your knowledge, what tool do you have available to connect through ssh?
15:52 < illegale> secure crt
15:53 < echarp> what is CRT???
15:53 < illegale> it has window terminal with host and stuff
15:53 < illegale> moment
15:53 < echarp> can you type "ssh" in it?
15:53 < echarp> just type "ssh" then enter to see if ssh is here
15:53 < illegale> yes
15:53 < echarp> what does it say?
15:53 < illegale> it lists many options
15:54 < echarp> ok, then type what I dictate, because it seems that you have ssh available
15:55 < illegale> ok
15:55 < echarp> illegale: did you read what I told you in the private channel?
15:56 < illegale> i read yiou
15:56 < echarp> good
15:56 < echarp> did you type it?
15:56 < illegale> now it waaits
15:56 < illegale> yes
15:56 < echarp> I tried that same command here, and it works (in a gnu/linux command prompt)
15:57 < echarp> illegale: what is CRT ?
15:57 < illegale> huh
15:57 < echarp> ?huh?
15:58 < illegale> http://www.vandyke.com/
15:58 < illegale> seems it wont work
15:58 < illegale> :(
15:59 < echarp> are you sure that typing ssh actually gave something out which was not a simple error?
15:59 < echarp> is ssh really present?
15:59 < illegale> let me say something about it
15:59 < illegale> it allows me to choose host
15:59 < illegale> my default host is one at college
15:59 < illegale> whe i put those lines you gave to me it says it can not treach it or something
15:59 < illegale> :(
15:59 < echarp> sorry, your host is my server
16:00 < illegale> what protocl to choose?
16:00 < echarp> ssh
16:00 < illegale> huh ssh2 is only available
16:00 < echarp> ssh2 *is* ssh
16:00 < echarp> it's *perfectly* all right
16:01 < illegale> ok
16:01 < illegale> it mentiones firewal
16:01 < illegale> to connect it or ot?
16:01 < echarp> you probably don't care about that
16:01 < illegale> i read you and use it
16:01 < illegale> the port number
16:01 < illegale> host not found
16:02 < echarp> go in a normal internet browser, and try http://leparlement.org just to see if you can actually connect to it
16:02 < illegale> i can
16:03 < echarp> then it might be that the ssh ports I gave you are closed :(
16:04 < illegale> i was wrong
16:05 < echarp> how wrong?
16:05 < illegale> i misspeled parlement
16:06 < illegale> n ow i did it right and again nada
16:06 < echarp> bad bad
16:06 < echarp> leparlement.org
16:06 < echarp> or
16:06 < echarp> echarp.org
16:06 < echarp> (both are the same server)
16:07 < illegale> tried everything
16:07 < illegale> does not exist
16:07 < illegale> it seems it wont work
16:08 < illegale> anys other solution to the problem?
16:08 < echarp> not that I know of
16:08 < echarp> what does it say when you simply type ssh ?
16:08 < illegale> so, have to work on mirc when i am available to
16:09 < illegale> when i am logged or not?
16:09 < illegale> i have to be logged to have terminal
16:09 < illegale> and i can be looged on my college
16:09 < echarp> you are not on a terminal?
16:09 < illegale> than it lists many optinos with - and stuff
16:09 < echarp> what options? can you list them quickly here?
16:09 < illegale> ops, i am tlaking about window
16:10 < echarp> illegale: please be careful and list your environment and tools
16:10 < echarp> start from the beginning
16:11 < illegale> it works!
16:11 < echarp> yeap, I can see you
16:11 < echarp> what did you change?
16:12 < illegale> port name on ssh kline
16:12 < illegale> loogged in first
16:12 < illegale> than did the rest
16:12 < echarp> very important
16:12 < illegale> not directly thourgh the client
16:13 < echarp> illegale: please, change your password right away with the command "passwd"
16:13 < illegale> yet, last time i used different port and it did not work
16:13 < illegale> how do i exit irrs
16:14 < echarp> sorry, what are you saying illegale?
16:14 < echarp> what is "irrs" ?
16:14 < illegale> irssi
16:14 < illegale> i wrote that first
16:14 < echarp> type: /quit
16:15 < echarp> now in the shell, type "passwd"
16:16 < illegale> ok, done
16:16 < echarp> now type "irssi"
16:16 < echarp> then type "/connect opn"
16:16 < echarp> and tell me what it does
16:17 < illegale> it says something
16:17 < illegale> -bash some stuff in french
16:18 < echarp> you seem to have exited
16:18 < echarp> what did you do?
16:19 < illegale> exited
16:19 < illegale> now i am back
16:19 < illegale> checking did i kear this part corerctly
16:19 < illegale> now it says the same stuff
16:19 < echarp> what part are you checking?
16:19 < illegale> aucun fichier ou rapetoaire de ce ty<pe
16:20 < echarp> illegale: please, state the context you are in!
16:20 < illegale> i am in
16:20 < echarp> what did you type?
16:20 < illegale> "/connect opn
16:20 < illegale> stupi i am
16:20 < echarp> before that, did you *actually* type "irssi" ???
16:20 < echarp> illegale: type "irssi"
16:21 < echarp> illegale: *then* type "/connect OPN"
16:21 < illegale> yes
16:21 < illegale> sorry
16:21 < illegale> looking for opn
16:21 < echarp> does it connect straight away?
16:21 < illegale> unable toconnecgt to server iopnm port 6667
16:21 < echarp> it might not work
16:21 < echarp> ok, then, type this:
16:21 < echarp> /connect FN
16:22 < illegale> same stuff differentr players
16:22 < echarp> ok, then type this:
16:22 < echarp> /connect irc.freenode.net
16:22 < illegale> xhecking me out
16:23 < echarp> it's good
16:23 < echarp> tell me when it's ready
16:23 < illegale> stilll
16:23 < illegale> error clopsed lin
16:23 < illegale> k
16:23 < illegale> time outr
16:23 < illegale> no identity responde
16:23 < illegale> se
16:23 < echarp> /connect irc.freenode.net:6667
16:23 < echarp> oh, it might because you don't have yet any nick name
16:24 < echarp> type: "/nick illegale2"
16:24 < illegale> not connected to server
16:25 < echarp> type /connect irc.free.fr:6667
16:25 < echarp> it might be more lenient on your identity
16:26 < echarp> what does it say?
16:26 -!- illegale_ (illegale) [n=ille...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has joined #parlement
16:26 < illegale_> thats me
16:26 < illegale> hehehe
16:26 < illegale> :)
16:26 < echarp> aaaah
16:26 < illegale> do not knwo what did i do
16:26 < echarp> took you a while for almost nothing!
16:27 < illegale_> heh
16:27 < illegale_> i will exit to try it again
16:27 < echarp> ok
16:27 < illegale_> how do i exit actually?
16:27 < echarp> the commands to use all start with /
16:27 < echarp> like /quit
16:27 -!- illegale_ [n=ille...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has quit [Client Quit]
16:29 -!- illegale_ (illegale) [n=ille...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has joined #parlement
16:29 < illegale_> cool
16:29 < illegale_> now i am free :)
16:31 < illegale> how do i change channel=?
16:31 < illegale_> do i have to write /join stuff when i do it or some other way we have?
16:32 < illegale_> nevermind
16:32 < illegale_> it works
16:32 < illegale_> that part is implrtan
16:32 < illegale_> so, char
16:32 < illegale_> we can go on
16:32 -!- illegale [i=ille...@161.53.121.88] has quit []
16:34 < echarp> illegale_: you join as many channels as you want
16:34 < echarp> just type: /join #channel_name
16:34 < echarp> like: /join #joiito
16:34 < echarp> to qui a channel, type: /part #channel_name
16:34 < echarp> to quit a channel, type: /part #channel_name
16:35 < illegale_> ok
16:35 < illegale_> i get it
16:35 < echarp> you can save your channel layout
16:35 < illegale_> now i use regular computer
16:35 < illegale_> how?
16:35 < echarp> set it up so that it auto logs you in your present channels
16:35 < echarp> type: /help join
16:35 < illegale_> i did
16:36 < illegale_> i do not see anything
16:36 < illegale_> have to see that channel
16:36 < illegale_> how?
16:36 < echarp> see what channel?
16:36 < illegale_> when i write /help join
16:36 < illegale_> i stay on this channel
16:36 < illegale_> i suppose i should go to the one of server right
16:37 < echarp> do: Ctlr-n or Ctrl-p
16:37 < echarp> (next / previous)
16:37 < illegale_> yes
16:37 < illegale_> :)
16:37 < illegale_> this is part i missed :)
16:42 < echarp> does it work illegale_ ?
16:42 < illegale_> logging?
16:42 < illegale_> no,
16:43 < echarp> moving from channel to channel
16:43 < illegale_> do not know what do i have to write and how to see log
16:43 < illegale_> it works fine
16:43 < echarp> what log are you speaking about illegale_ ?
16:44 < illegale_> nevermind
16:44 < illegale_> it is enough for me today :)
16:44 < echarp> illegale_: do you manage to go from channel to channel?
16:44 < illegale_> yes
16:44 < echarp> I don't see you on #joiito
16:44 < illegale_> join Ž#joiito
16:44 < illegale_> now?
16:45 < illegale_> yes
16:45 < echarp> illegale_: type this now => /nick illegale
16:45 < illegale_> :)
16:45 < illegale_> nick illegale
16:45 -!- illegale_ is now known as illegale
16:45 < illegale> ok
16:45 < echarp> illegale_: be careful, there is a /
16:45 < echarp> ok, cool then
16:45 < illegale> so, we can talk about the reason we did all of this :)
16:46 < echarp> illegale: now you would have to reserve your nick name with the bot nickserv
16:46 < illegale> how t odo that?
16:46 < echarp> so that you can talk here!
16:46 < echarp> illegale: type this => /msg nickserv help
16:46 < echarp> then follow instructions
16:48 < illegale> hmh
16:48 < illegale> now i can not use mirc with this channel?
16:48 < illegale> nick i mean?
16:50 < illegale> neverminf
16:50 < illegale> d
16:50 < illegale> this is enough, really is
16:50 < illegale> for today
16:52 < echarp> cool
16:52 < echarp> you can use the same nick with different tools
16:52 < echarp> just you can't use them both at the same time
16:54 < illegale> ok
16:55 < echarp> illegale: with irssi there are also a plethora of scripts available
16:55 < echarp> but first things first of course :)
16:56 < illegale> i am satisfued with this stuff adn will be for i while i suppsoe
16:56 < illegale> i mean, what else do i need?
16:56 < illegale> loggin, right
16:57 < illegale> nothing else commes upto my mind in this moment
16:57 < echarp> you can also use a nick list
16:57 < echarp> to see who is online and if they are away or not
16:57 < illegale> yes
16:57 < illegale> ?
16:57 < echarp> a beep when someone talks to you, like here => illegale
16:57 < echarp> something to color nicely the nicks
16:57 < illegale> this is sort of aert
16:58 < illegale> i see
16:58 < echarp> there are an incredible number of scripts
16:58 < echarp> you can even use irssi to talk on msn, google talk or yahoo messenger (I do that)
16:58 < urgen> I'm going to log in so I can remember what irssi looks like
16:58 < echarp> :)
16:59 < urgen> it has /window new and stuff like that doesn't it?
16:59 < echarp> irssi is the best irc client
16:59 < echarp> urgen: yeap
16:59 < urgen> I use to bind my tab key so I could hop channels
16:59 < echarp> I prefer to use Ctrl-a to go on the channel where I'm talked to
16:59 < echarp> Ctrl-n or p to go to next or previous channel
16:59 < urgen> well I was an epic guy
17:00 < illegale> what do you mean?
17:00 < urgen> EPIC was one of the first clients
17:00 < urgen> way before irssi
17:01 < illegale> i se
17:01 < echarp> that must have been antideluvian :)
17:01 < urgen> :-)
17:01 < urgen> so I built scripts to manage things more easily
17:02 < echarp> irssi is really slick now adays
17:02 < echarp> but it needs some efforts to configure it
17:03 < illegale> i am mirc guy you know
17:03 < illegale> has everything i need
17:03 < illegale> you can use even mouse
17:03 < illegale> you can move windows and stuff
17:03 < illegale> suppose i will go hard core soon
17:03 -!- urgy (root) [i=ro...@65.111.164.97] has joined #parlement
17:03 < urgy> me on irssi
17:04 < urgy> wow I have a german address
17:04 < illegale> needing these shortcuts
17:04 < illegale> so, what do you say?
17:04 < echarp> :)
17:04 < urgy> I guess that's where my server farm lives
17:04 < echarp> shortcuts are way more powerful
17:04 < illegale> do nto know
17:04 < illegale> still in mouse mode
17:04 < illegale> not fammiliar with ctrl
17:04 < illegale> do not know how to put my hends on
17:05 < echarp> you'll have to learn
17:05 < urgy> what is a shortcut to split the screen into two windows?
17:05 < echarp> typing and all that
17:05 < illegale> as long as i am teached to write on tastatture
17:05 < echarp> urgen: /help window
17:05 < urgy> hmn nothing
17:05 < urgy> so how do I hop to the help screen now?
17:06 < urgy> something automatic happened
17:06 < urgen> ah cntrl-n
17:06 < illegale> i thing you need to be prettty inteligent to use all these shortcuts
17:07 < illegale> i am just fine with ctrl-n
17:07 < illegale> maybe will adopt one more in some time
17:07 < urgen> well,, you only need a basic set of commands
17:07 < urgen> then you can settle
17:07 < echarp> yeap
17:07 < urgen> it really helps a lot to have the split screen and be able to carry on conversation in two windows
17:08 < echarp> Ctrl-a to go to an active channel
17:08 < urgen> don't you do that with mirc already?
17:08 < illegale> no
17:08 < illegale> use mouse
17:08 < echarp> mouse is bad
17:08 < illegale> i am mousie
17:08 < illegale> i suppose it is
17:08 < illegale> yet you guys are geekis
17:08 < illegale> h
17:08 < echarp> the mouse is slow, incredibly slow
17:08 < illegale> whats wronjg with mouse anyway
17:08 < echarp> you waste time using it
17:09 < illegale> you use it at all?
17:09 < echarp> shortcuts are *fast*
17:09 < illegale> echarp use irrssi?
17:09 < echarp> I don't use it at all, except sometimes on the web or in an occasional new application
17:09 < urgen> computers waste a lot of geek time so they all learn how to do things faster
17:09 < echarp> illegale: I use *only* irssi
17:09 < echarp> I'm a terminal guy :)
17:09 < illegale> i knew it :)
17:09 < urgen> unix doesn't know mouse this way yet
17:09 < illegale> thats why you against phpbb :
17:09 < illegale> )
17:09 < urgen> someday they will add it
17:10 < illegale> isnt mouse good in a training modE?
17:10 < echarp> I use mlterm+ssh+screen+irssi+spamassassin+mutt+w3m great great great tools
17:10 < echarp> yeap, phpbb is crappy
17:10 < illegale> why?
17:10 < illegale> no terminal mode?
17:10 < urgen> it has a long history of getting hacked
17:10 < echarp> terminal mode for?
17:10 < illegale> i bs
17:11 < illegale> using words i know no meaning of
17:11 < illegale> i mean, phpbb is fully mousie stuff
17:11 < echarp> it's only mouse stuff
17:11 < illegale> urgen: what is good forum in your opinon?
17:11 < echarp> and you have to go on it, it can't come to you like mails do
17:11 < urgen> be careful illegale we will show you text mode email and newsgroups.... ;-)
17:11 < echarp> mailing lists are good forums
17:11 < illegale> e:_ i think that is the reason you do not like i
17:11 < echarp> illegale: use the tab key to complete nicks
17:12 < echarp> illegale: when you use my full nick, it's highilighted and my attention is drawn to it!
17:12 < urgen> I'm having problems learning how to bind a channel to a new window
17:12 < echarp> considering I'm also talking on other channels, it's better
17:12 < illegale> tab key?
17:12 < echarp> illegale: tab key yes, on you keyboard
17:12 < illegale> echarp: tab key?
17:12 < illegale> what odes it mean?
17:13 < echarp> illegale: just above the keycap key
17:13 < echarp> it' a keyboard key!
17:13 < urgen> try type: ur then hit Tab
17:13 < echarp> urgen:
17:13 < illegale> Urgen, you think it can become popular as forums and other full tools are?
17:13 < urgen> do I think irssi can? or irc?
17:15 < illegale> ah, ok
17:15 < illegale> cool stuff it is
17:15 < illegale> echarp:
17:15 < illegale> echarp: thank you
17:15 < illegale> now i get it why this is cool stuff
17:16 < illegale> never used tab befroe but for big space in word
17:16 < urgen> it is very powerful but takes a little while to get use to
17:16 < illegale> and stuff like that
17:17 < echarp> illegale: it's so powerful compared to the mouse
17:17 < illegale> echarp: do you have a minute to talk about top politics?
17:17 < echarp> illegale: yeap
17:17 < echarp> but not much more than that
17:17 < echarp> I'm still at work :)
17:17 < illegale> echarp: oh, my girfriedn came to me
17:17 < echarp> :)
17:17 < illegale> have to leave you now
17:17 < echarp> that happens to :)
17:17 < echarp> for a good reason ;)
17:17 < echarp> illegale: cu later then!
17:17 < illegale> see you later, maybe tomorow
17:17 < illegale> urgen: echarp illegale su
17:18 < illegale> :)
17:18 < echarp> illegale: later you will learn how you can get away while still being here (like I do)
17:18 < illegale> nsh: se you too
17:18 < urgen> ya
17:18 -!- illegale [n=ille...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has quit ["Lost terminal"]
17:19 < urgen> and we'll work on polite way to exit :-)
17:20 < echarp> lol
17:20 < echarp> so many things to teach! :)
17:20 < echarp> he may come to good side of the force, in time :)
17:20 < urgen> I'm going to have to read an intro to irssi
17:20 < echarp> irssi.org I think
17:20 < echarp> once you have the basic keys, it gets much much easier
17:21 < echarp> I've used it for a few years now, and still discover some stuff occasionally
17:21 < urgen> like learning vim
17:22 < echarp> yeap! :)
17:22 < echarp> I forgot about it, I only use vim for editing
17:22 < echarp> vim+ctags do wonders
17:23 < urgen> -!- Irssi: Window scroll mode is now DEFAULT
17:23 < urgen> how do I make it scroll back?
17:24 < urgen> I've forgotten so many things :-)
17:28 < echarp> Alt-p
17:28 < echarp> and Alt-n
17:28 < echarp> page up and down should also do the trick
17:28 < urgen> ok
17:28 < echarp> alt+shift+number to go to a given window
17:29 < echarp> http://echarp.org/lesOutilsQueJAime
17:29 < urgen> shuttle launches july
17:29 < echarp> that's my screen
17:29 < urgen> you watch the space walks?
17:30 < urgen> I love them
17:30 < echarp> not really no
17:30 < echarp> but I have the real time earth on my background
17:30 < echarp> :)
17:30 < urgen> :-) you should nasaTV is wonderful
17:30 < echarp> I generally love documentaries
17:30 < urgen> nasaTV is live
17:30 < echarp> is it on the web?
17:30 < urgen> the astronauts have cams on their helmets
17:31 < echarp> cool
17:31 < urgen> you get first person view
17:31 < urgen> it's fantastic
17:31 < urgen> I'll sync you up as we get closer to launch
17:31 < echarp> ok
17:31 < echarp> but I've read about the nasa and the shuttle, I feel it's a gigantic waste of efforts
17:31 < urgen> can you do a windows media stream?
17:32 < urgen> they also usually do a real media
17:32 < echarp> the shuttle was designed for military use, and that's so bad it still bites the nasa in the ass decades later
17:32 < urgen> but the windows one has better resolution
17:32 < echarp> windows media stream I'm not sure no
17:32 < echarp> I'm on debian
17:32 < urgen> ya well I think you can.. I'll ask kyle
17:32 < echarp> ok
17:32 < urgen> he wrote linux media hacks
17:33 < echarp> woaw
17:33 < urgen> he's in our local linux users group
17:33 < urgen> he also wrote knoppix hacks
17:35 < urgen> I'm so bummed Sealand burnt
17:35 < urgen> but I guess that's a good lesson
17:35 < echarp> sealand burnt? what did that happen? :(
17:35 < urgen> http://www.eveningstar.co.uk/content/eveningstar/news/story.aspx?brand=ESTOnline&category=News&tBrand=ESTOnline&tCategory=znews&itemid=IPED23%20Jun%202006%2017%3A01%3A43%3A230
17:36 < urgen> dang that's a long url :-)
17:37 < echarp> that happens
17:38 -!- urgy [i=ro...@65.111.164.97] has left #parlement []
17:38 -!- urgy (root) [i=ro...@65.111.164.97] has joined #parlement
17:39 < urgy> couldn't find a way to bind a channel to a window without parting and joining
17:39 < echarp> usually you can move windows around using /window move number
17:40 < urgy> hmn
17:41 < urgy> I wanted to move a channel not a window
17:41 < echarp> /window item move number
17:41 < echarp> or
17:41 < echarp> /window item move left
17:45 -!- urgy [i=ro...@65.111.164.97] has quit ["leaving"]
17:46 < urgen> that account is debian
17:47 < echarp> nice :)
17:48 < urgen> so I guess serverpronto's server farm is in germany
17:48 < urgen> they are $30/month for dedicated
17:48 < urgen> which is about the lowest I've found for something that is decent
17:48 < echarp> still rather expensive
17:49 < urgen> virtual servers are still slow and have constraints ( no irc )
17:49 < urgen> but you can find them for $7 or so a month
17:51 < echarp> I much much prefer my own server
17:51 < urgen> I don't mind here but cable doesn't want me running services
17:51 < urgen> so I had to get something offsite
17:52 < echarp> they don't want or they actually block?
17:52 < urgen> some ports are blocked
17:52 < urgen> 80 and 25
17:53 < urgen> and remote desktop port
17:53 < echarp> that's bad
17:55 < urgen> I wish they'd bump up my upstream tho
17:55 < urgen> 384 is not much
17:55 < echarp> bits or bytes?
17:56 < urgen> bits
17:56 < echarp> that's rather bad then yes
17:56 < urgen> like a 44 KBps
--- Log closed lun jun 26 20:47:42 2006
--- Log opened lun jun 26 20:48:20 2006
20:48 -!- echarp [n=33M0...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has joined #parlement
20:48 -!- Topic for #parlement: http://leparlement.org/irc
20:48 -!- Topic set by echarp [] [Sun Jun 11 20:50:53 2006]
20:48 [Users #parlement]
20:48 [ echarp] [ fiatlex] [ nsh] [ urgen]
20:48 -!- Irssi: #parlement: Total of 4 nicks [0 ops, 0 halfops, 0 voices, 4 normal]
20:48 -!- Channel #parlement created Thu Apr 27 09:48:29 2006
20:49 -!- Irssi: Join to #parlement was synced in 45 secs
21:11 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
--- Log closed mar jun 27 00:00:52 2006
echarp
Jun 28, 2006, 12:28:23 AM6/28/06
to top-politics
--- Log opened mar jun 27 00:00:52 2006
04:26 -!- urgen is now known as urghost
04:27 -!- urghost is now known as urgen
09:12 < echarp> hello hello
12:07 -!- urgen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)]
12:07 -!- urgyen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
12:46 -!- urgyen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)]
12:47 -!- urgen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
15:08 -!- illegale (illegale) [n=ille...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has joined #parlement
15:08 < illegale:#parlement> il
15:08 < illegale:#parlement> io
15:10 < urgen:#parlement> hi
15:11 < illegale:#parlement> irrsi i use .)
15:11 < urgen:#parlement> are you exploring documentation?
15:12 < illegale:#parlement> notð
15:12 < illegale:#parlement> really
15:12 < illegale:#parlement> how do i use it?
15:12 < urgen:#parlement> echarp gave me a link
15:12 < urgen:#parlement> I need to learn it too
15:13 < illegale:#parlement> about irssi?
15:13 < urgen:#parlement> yes, just a sec, I'll look for it
15:14 < illegale:#parlement> ok
15:14 < illegale:#parlement> i gonna be advanced user, yay
15:14 < urgen:#parlement> http://irssi.org/documentation
15:16 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
15:16 < echarp> hello hello
15:17 < illegale> hey echarp
15:17 < illegale> this was tab i used
15:17 < echarp> lol illegale
15:17 < illegale> we can go back to top if you are all right with tit
15:18 < echarp> illegale: btw, I've setup an automatic mail to send this channel's log every day
15:18 < illegale> that is nice, not perffect though :-)
15:18 < echarp> what is missing?
15:18 < illegale> turn one per day is less than turn one per sec
15:19 < illegale> on line logging stuff
15:19 < urgen> echarp, I can still work on getting a perma-logbot
15:19 < echarp> I'm envisionning that for parlement itself
15:19 < urgen> the one I wanted seems to have been put on hold
15:19 < illegale> urgen, when you do it, i will put it at illegale
15:19 < illegale> suppose parlement should use it to
15:20 < illegale> will it be eventually available to move that bot with some pass or something?
15:20 < echarp> parlement would use its own mechanism I think, because it's not just a web page
15:20 < illegale> where is the problem?
15:20 < illegale> one post one vote?
15:20 < illegale> or some techncal part?
15:22 < echarp> one line, one post, one possibility to vote
15:23 < echarp> but that would destroy the server
15:23 < illegale> so, this is the part
15:23 < echarp> so it's probably going to be another mechanism
15:23 < illegale> i guess
15:24 < illegale> e, i have nee channel
15:24 < illegale> illegale its name :)
15:24 < echarp> :)
15:24 < illegale> on line personification of irc me
15:24 < illegale> maybe not perfect
15:25 < illegale> but that is part we have legimacy in this very moment
15:26 < illegale> so, i need a peram logiging bot for thaqt place
15:26 < echarp> illegale: don't forget to reserve your nick name with chanserv
15:26 < illegale> i think i did it
15:26 < illegale> can we chack it out
15:26 < illegale> ?
15:27 < echarp> illegale: you are not marked as authentified
15:27 < echarp> illegale: try this command => /whois echarp
15:27 < echarp> /whois illegale
15:28 < illegale> hmh
15:28 < illegale> i did some stuff yesterday
15:28 < illegale> mybe i have to login?
15:28 < echarp> generally you do yes
15:28 < urgen> whois is assigned to status
15:28 < echarp> well, it's not very important
15:29 < urgen> do the control-n and it will cycle through
15:31 < illegale> i am reguistered now
15:32 < illegale> echarp: ahve you look at worl wide democracy last days what is going on?
15:32 < echarp> they are quite active
15:33 < illegale> what do you think of themæ0'
15:33 < illegale> to me they are bunch of bvirocrats
15:33 < illegale> g thot when it is time for biroctratisation only
15:33 < illegale> .)=
15:34 < echarp> g thot??
15:35 < illegale> get hot
15:43 < illegale> in cro every news oriented site has to be registered in media comity, sick they are
15:52 * nsh smiles
16:13 < illegale> hey nsh
16:21 * parlebot is logging
16:21 -!- parlebot (Chat Logger) [i=ur...@65.111.164.97] has joined #parlement
16:22 < illegale> what is that urgen?
16:22 < urgen> oops
16:22 < urgen> looks like I forgot something
16:22 -!- parlebot [i=ur...@65.111.164.97] has quit [Remote closed the connection]
16:24 < illegale> echarp vanished?
16:24 < urgen> oh
16:25 < echarp> still here illegale
16:25 < echarp> always here!
16:25 < echarp> but also working
16:25 < illegale> you worker guy :(
16:25 < illegale> jsut work, work work
16:25 < illegale> not fun atr all
16:25 < echarp> it's money :)
16:25 < illegale> urgen, how is logging bot working?
16:26 < urgen> it's not yet
16:26 < illegale> echarp: lets get some money in demcoracy devolepment
16:26 < echarp> why not, you start!
16:28 < illegale> send me 100$
16:28 < illegale> and you can become a member
16:29 < illegale> when you become member. you can invite 5 new members too
16:30 * parlebot is logging
16:30 -!- parlebot (Chat Logger) [i=ur...@65.111.164.97] has joined #parlement
16:31 < echarp> parlebot: hello hello :)
16:31 * parlebot is already logging
16:32 < urgen> hmn I'm seeing some errors
16:33 < illegale> hello hello
16:34 < illegale> common saying among french men
16:34 < urgen> it isn't a talkitive bot
16:34 < urgen> and looks like there are some problems I'm going to have to clean up
16:34 < urgen> or move to a different bot
16:35 < urgen> but, you can see a little bit at: http://bridgeheart.net/parlement/irc.freenode.net:6667/parlement/2006-06-27.html
16:35 < urgen> I think maybe this bot has been abandoned since the last time I used it
16:35 < urgen> there is probably a new version somewhere
16:37 < illegale> blb
16:37 < illegale> urgen, sounds promising this stuff :)
16:38 < illegale> cu
16:38 -!- illegale [n=ille...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has left #parlement []
16:38 < urgen> ok
16:50 < urgen> but this java jibble bot seems to make purtier output
16:52 < echarp> purtier???
16:52 < echarp> what is that word?
16:52 < urgen> cowboy accent
16:52 < echarp> for?
16:52 < urgen> prettier
16:52 < urgen> pretty
16:52 < echarp> arf :)
16:53 < urgen> guess it would look almost outrageous in french
16:53 < urgen> example java logbot: http://rbach.priv.at/Microformats-IRC/2006-05-29
16:53 < echarp> nah, I just wondered
19:51 -!- illegale (illegale) [n=gale...@161.53.121.88] has joined #paRLEMENT
19:52 < illegale> io, how is parlebot doing?
19:52 < illegale> Urgen, when you do it working, can you send it to #illegale too?
19:52 < illegale> Have to go now. See u tommorow probably
19:52 -!- illegale [n=gale...@161.53.121.88] has quit [Client Quit]
--- Log closed mer jun 28 00:00:22 2006
04:26 -!- urgen is now known as urghost
04:27 -!- urghost is now known as urgen
09:12 < echarp> hello hello
12:07 -!- urgen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)]
12:07 -!- urgyen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
12:46 -!- urgyen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)]
12:47 -!- urgen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
15:08 -!- illegale (illegale) [n=ille...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has joined #parlement
15:08 < illegale:#parlement> il
15:08 < illegale:#parlement> io
15:10 < urgen:#parlement> hi
15:11 < illegale:#parlement> irrsi i use .)
15:11 < urgen:#parlement> are you exploring documentation?
15:12 < illegale:#parlement> notð
15:12 < illegale:#parlement> really
15:12 < illegale:#parlement> how do i use it?
15:12 < urgen:#parlement> echarp gave me a link
15:12 < urgen:#parlement> I need to learn it too
15:13 < illegale:#parlement> about irssi?
15:13 < urgen:#parlement> yes, just a sec, I'll look for it
15:14 < illegale:#parlement> ok
15:14 < illegale:#parlement> i gonna be advanced user, yay
15:14 < urgen:#parlement> http://irssi.org/documentation
15:16 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
15:16 < echarp> hello hello
15:17 < illegale> hey echarp
15:17 < illegale> this was tab i used
15:17 < echarp> lol illegale
15:17 < illegale> we can go back to top if you are all right with tit
15:18 < echarp> illegale: btw, I've setup an automatic mail to send this channel's log every day
15:18 < illegale> that is nice, not perffect though :-)
15:18 < echarp> what is missing?
15:18 < illegale> turn one per day is less than turn one per sec
15:19 < illegale> on line logging stuff
15:19 < urgen> echarp, I can still work on getting a perma-logbot
15:19 < echarp> I'm envisionning that for parlement itself
15:19 < urgen> the one I wanted seems to have been put on hold
15:19 < illegale> urgen, when you do it, i will put it at illegale
15:19 < illegale> suppose parlement should use it to
15:20 < illegale> will it be eventually available to move that bot with some pass or something?
15:20 < echarp> parlement would use its own mechanism I think, because it's not just a web page
15:20 < illegale> where is the problem?
15:20 < illegale> one post one vote?
15:20 < illegale> or some techncal part?
15:22 < echarp> one line, one post, one possibility to vote
15:23 < echarp> but that would destroy the server
15:23 < illegale> so, this is the part
15:23 < echarp> so it's probably going to be another mechanism
15:23 < illegale> i guess
15:24 < illegale> e, i have nee channel
15:24 < illegale> illegale its name :)
15:24 < echarp> :)
15:24 < illegale> on line personification of irc me
15:24 < illegale> maybe not perfect
15:25 < illegale> but that is part we have legimacy in this very moment
15:26 < illegale> so, i need a peram logiging bot for thaqt place
15:26 < echarp> illegale: don't forget to reserve your nick name with chanserv
15:26 < illegale> i think i did it
15:26 < illegale> can we chack it out
15:26 < illegale> ?
15:27 < echarp> illegale: you are not marked as authentified
15:27 < echarp> illegale: try this command => /whois echarp
15:27 < echarp> /whois illegale
15:28 < illegale> hmh
15:28 < illegale> i did some stuff yesterday
15:28 < illegale> mybe i have to login?
15:28 < echarp> generally you do yes
15:28 < urgen> whois is assigned to status
15:28 < echarp> well, it's not very important
15:29 < urgen> do the control-n and it will cycle through
15:31 < illegale> i am reguistered now
15:32 < illegale> echarp: ahve you look at worl wide democracy last days what is going on?
15:32 < echarp> they are quite active
15:33 < illegale> what do you think of themæ0'
15:33 < illegale> to me they are bunch of bvirocrats
15:33 < illegale> g thot when it is time for biroctratisation only
15:33 < illegale> .)=
15:34 < echarp> g thot??
15:35 < illegale> get hot
15:43 < illegale> in cro every news oriented site has to be registered in media comity, sick they are
15:52 * nsh smiles
16:13 < illegale> hey nsh
16:21 * parlebot is logging
16:21 -!- parlebot (Chat Logger) [i=ur...@65.111.164.97] has joined #parlement
16:22 < illegale> what is that urgen?
16:22 < urgen> oops
16:22 < urgen> looks like I forgot something
16:22 -!- parlebot [i=ur...@65.111.164.97] has quit [Remote closed the connection]
16:24 < illegale> echarp vanished?
16:24 < urgen> oh
16:25 < echarp> still here illegale
16:25 < echarp> always here!
16:25 < echarp> but also working
16:25 < illegale> you worker guy :(
16:25 < illegale> jsut work, work work
16:25 < illegale> not fun atr all
16:25 < echarp> it's money :)
16:25 < illegale> urgen, how is logging bot working?
16:26 < urgen> it's not yet
16:26 < illegale> echarp: lets get some money in demcoracy devolepment
16:26 < echarp> why not, you start!
16:28 < illegale> send me 100$
16:28 < illegale> and you can become a member
16:29 < illegale> when you become member. you can invite 5 new members too
16:30 * parlebot is logging
16:30 -!- parlebot (Chat Logger) [i=ur...@65.111.164.97] has joined #parlement
16:31 < echarp> parlebot: hello hello :)
16:31 * parlebot is already logging
16:32 < urgen> hmn I'm seeing some errors
16:33 < illegale> hello hello
16:34 < illegale> common saying among french men
16:34 < urgen> it isn't a talkitive bot
16:34 < urgen> and looks like there are some problems I'm going to have to clean up
16:34 < urgen> or move to a different bot
16:35 < urgen> but, you can see a little bit at: http://bridgeheart.net/parlement/irc.freenode.net:6667/parlement/2006-06-27.html
16:35 < urgen> I think maybe this bot has been abandoned since the last time I used it
16:35 < urgen> there is probably a new version somewhere
16:37 < illegale> blb
16:37 < illegale> urgen, sounds promising this stuff :)
16:38 < illegale> cu
16:38 -!- illegale [n=ille...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has left #parlement []
16:38 < urgen> ok
16:50 < urgen> but this java jibble bot seems to make purtier output
16:52 < echarp> purtier???
16:52 < echarp> what is that word?
16:52 < urgen> cowboy accent
16:52 < echarp> for?
16:52 < urgen> prettier
16:52 < urgen> pretty
16:52 < echarp> arf :)
16:53 < urgen> guess it would look almost outrageous in french
16:53 < urgen> example java logbot: http://rbach.priv.at/Microformats-IRC/2006-05-29
16:53 < echarp> nah, I just wondered
19:51 -!- illegale (illegale) [n=gale...@161.53.121.88] has joined #paRLEMENT
19:52 < illegale> io, how is parlebot doing?
19:52 < illegale> Urgen, when you do it working, can you send it to #illegale too?
19:52 < illegale> Have to go now. See u tommorow probably
19:52 -!- illegale [n=gale...@161.53.121.88] has quit [Client Quit]
--- Log closed mer jun 28 00:00:22 2006
echarp
Jun 29, 2006, 12:29:28 AM6/29/06
to top-politics
--- Log opened mer jun 28 00:00:22 2006
07:58 < urgen> home
09:18 < echarp> hello hello
12:50 -!- illegale (illegale) [n=ille...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has joined #parlement
12:50 < illegale:#parlement> io
12:50 < illegale:#parlement> whassaap
13:01 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
13:01 < echarp> hello hello illegale
13:01 < echarp> how are you?
13:03 < illegale> hey!
13:03 < illegale> good i am
13:03 < illegale> had some good time with my mentor today
13:03 < illegale> at college
13:03 < illegale> you?
13:04 < echarp> here france is going wild, we love brazil-france matches
13:04 < illegale> oh ye
13:04 < illegale> i watched game
13:04 < illegale> nice one it was
13:04 < illegale> ziddane
13:04 < illegale> good
13:04 < illegale> r good to
13:04 < illegale> though, brazil is dangerous :)
13:05 < echarp> yeap
13:05 < echarp> VERY dangerous
13:05 < illegale> whats the name of that r guy=?
13:05 < illegale> they even win over us, man
13:05 < illegale> :)
13:06 < illegale> yesterday i was with some military guy talking about politics
13:06 < illegale> we came to some interesting conclusions about situation 9in croatia
13:06 < illegale> what to do stuff
13:06 < illegale> and that stuff is pretty same to the global movement problems
13:07 < echarp> what 9in?
13:07 < illegale> ?
13:07 < illegale> in not 9in
13:07 < illegale> misspel
13:07 < illegale> l
13:08 < illegale> btw, this irrsi stuff is fine stuf
13:08 < illegale> i get used to is
13:08 < illegale> even i still hold mouse with my hand
13:08 < echarp> it's awesome :)
13:09 < echarp> but the mouse has to be repelled, no use :)
13:09 < illegale> i use it to swithcg proglrams
13:10 < echarp> you should use Ctrl+tab
13:10 < echarp> or alt+tab
13:10 < illegale> http://www.goodknight.org/codeandcharter.htm
13:10 < illegale> i am into code stuff right now
13:10 < illegale> seems heterarchy desperatelly needs it to suceed
13:12 < echarp> what is that page?
13:12 < echarp> good knights?
13:12 < illegale> do nto know
13:13 < illegale> wrote code of honour
13:13 < illegale> now seing psychological explanations and stuff
13:13 < illegale> i talked about this code
13:14 < echarp> is it in that page?
13:14 < illegale> to taht guy who says in the same time that Word is eesential part in west point
13:14 < illegale> nah, that page is just an eexample how they try to do it
13:14 < illegale> showing some aproaches
13:15 < illegale> i am looking for operative one
13:15 < illegale> such as west point might have
13:15 < illegale> the guy says they take Word pretty seriously
13:15 < illegale> honour stuff
13:15 < illegale> no need for signing anything
13:15 < illegale> big trust is base
13:15 < echarp> trust is cool yes
13:16 < illegale> if that was not so, i suppose you could never coordinate thousands of people in the combatr
13:16 < illegale> have to learn something from them
13:16 < illegale> and us it
13:16 < illegale> use
13:16 < echarp> there are other things that can enter into conducting people to battle, money, fear, anger
13:16 < illegale> so, any heterarchy can not work actually with no scuh thing
13:16 < echarp> love of course
13:17 < illegale> yet, this is about profesional army
13:17 < illegale> not raged people
13:17 < illegale> heard of Gotovina?
13:17 < illegale> Ante Gotovina?
13:18 < illegale> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_honour
13:18 < echarp> nope, who is she?
13:18 < illegale> seems thomas jeffersopn runed first code og hounour before he was presiednet
13:18 < illegale> cool
13:18 < illegale> gotovina is general from croatia
13:18 < illegale> from legion of foreingers
13:19 < illegale> how do you call that french legion
13:19 < illegale> he is pretty adomred by military people in cro
13:19 < illegale> as long as he is pretty honourable they regularly say
13:19 < echarp> foreign legion
13:19 < echarp> légion étrangère
13:20 < illegale> though, i asked you this as long a he has french citisenship and he was haage fugitive
13:20 < echarp> haage?
13:20 < illegale> hauge
13:20 < illegale> you know stuff in netherland
13:20 < illegale> court
13:20 < echarp> I get it yes
13:20 < illegale> Jefferson later envisioned a similar honor system for his University of Virginia; it was at first based on strict laws limiting student behavior, but later based on student self-government.
13:23 < illegale> what you think about codes?
13:23 < illegale> and brends they car
13:24 < illegale> I see no point of creating heteratrchical organsiation with no such thinh accepted
13:25 < echarp> I don't know
13:25 < echarp> I think there are all sort of organisation
13:25 < echarp> each will devise its own rules
13:25 < illegale> i am talking about organsiation i am interested to participate
13:26 < illegale> this is the way how top can be used for self promotion pretty easily
13:26 < illegale> of course you need something to promote
13:26 < illegale> if no scuh thing, stuff do nto work
13:26 < illegale> in this way you can really put into structures of such a party people who really respect code of hounur
13:27 < illegale> or better to say code of organisation as long as honour is just an emotion
13:27 < illegale> and i am talking about principles that enable empowerment
13:27 < echarp> I can propose a goal then, european constitution, the one klaus aim to construct
13:28 < echarp> it's large and ambitious
13:28 < echarp> and can be used in many contexts
13:28 < illegale> how excatly?
13:29 < illegale> btw, we are not humans by the birth
13:29 < illegale> there is no such thing that is worty and get with no effort
13:29 < illegale> stuffthat worth is based on effort only
13:30 < echarp> everything has to be gained, not given
13:31 < illegale> yes
13:31 < echarp> I mostly agree with that yes
13:31 < echarp> although it gets difficult with kids
13:31 < echarp> but they do have to prove themselves!
13:32 < illegale> yes
13:33 < illegale> though, this is the part we in Tiatkiv really lack
13:33 < illegale> having no such code
13:33 < illegale> in this way the worst moments become our weak spot and we can nto prgoress
13:34 < illegale> if this is solved "politically" by code, meaning that whole organsiation must accept it, than no weak spot any more
13:34 < illegale> but something to be respected
13:34 < illegale> this part very important if you want to grow
13:34 < illegale> and be interesting
13:35 < illegale> though, how to call that stuff=?
13:35 < illegale> code of what?
13:35 < illegale> Code of 4 for an example?
13:35 < illegale> :)
13:36 < echarp> lol
13:36 < illegale> you think top organsiation does not need it?
13:37 < echarp> that code of 4 is funny
13:37 < illegale> lol
13:37 < illegale> i like i
13:37 < illegale> t
13:37 < illegale> 4 is cool number
13:37 < illegale> 2 exp 2
13:37 < illegale> 2 , 2
13:37 < echarp> yeap :)
13:37 < illegale> 2x2
13:37 < illegale> all the same
13:37 < illegale> singulartiy struff
13:38 < illegale> i liked 3 also a while before
13:40 < illegale> it is clasical number of group for diversions
13:40 < illegale> it aims towards consenuss stuff
13:40 < illegale> and so on
13:40 < illegale> 2 i do not like
13:40 < illegale> 2 needs a birth
13:41 < echarp> there are theories on that
13:41 < illegale> yes?
13:41 < illegale> i was into that stuff a while ago
13:41 < echarp> one for a start, 2 pointing toward the sky but place on the earth, 3 as an equilibrium
13:41 < echarp> 4 a cross point
13:42 < echarp> 5 based on the sky, pointing toward the soil
13:42 < echarp> 6 finally reaching
13:42 < illegale> what means cross point?
13:42 < echarp> bifurcation
13:43 < illegale> ok
13:43 < illegale> 7 is cool to
13:43 < illegale> in tarot
13:43 < illegale> what says for it?
13:43 < echarp> another cross point, but reaching higher
13:43 < illegale> so this is the small cross point
13:43 < illegale> that is cool
13:44 < illegale> though, there is some stuff in this stuf for sure
13:44 < illegale> in politics especially
13:44 < illegale> for an example
13:44 < illegale> when you have two divisions
13:44 < illegale> they tend to fight
13:44 < illegale> when you haver 3 division
13:44 < illegale> they tend to colaborat
13:44 < illegale> e
13:44 < echarp> 8 is infinite, reaching for the sky and the floor
13:45 < illegale> 8 not like
13:45 < echarp> 9 is perfection
13:45 < illegale> do not know why
13:45 < illegale> 9 is good too
13:45 < echarp> 8 is the chinesse fetish number
13:45 < illegale> so, we are looking for group of 9 :)
13:45 < echarp> thus the A380
13:45 < illegale> what?
13:45 < illegale> what do you mean by that?
13:46 < echarp> they choosed the 8 in the A3x0 airbus name due to chinese fetichism
13:46 < echarp> (among other reasons too)
13:46 < illegale> 8 is strange
13:46 < illegale> scared of 8
13:46 < echarp> 8 is infinity
13:46 < illegale> thought so
13:47 < illegale> it not works good with other numbers as it makes them obsloete
13:47 < illegale> pointless
13:47 < illegale> in infinity they are
13:47 < illegale> what chinese say too?
13:48 < illegale> you know sitaution in Bosnisa?
13:48 < illegale> 3 nations separated in two entiteis
13:48 < illegale> and one entity separated in two more
13:48 < illegale> thay made a great shit out of it
13:49 < illegale> having competeing each other all the time and stubing at each others back all the time
13:49 < illegale> no space for progress
13:49 < illegale> if there was 3 groups, the one that would show good fait could profit out of the second one that would find it cool thing
13:50 < echarp> yougoslavia is quite a mess yes
13:50 < echarp> what a shame
13:51 < illegale> suppose we where to stupid to deal with big interests
13:51 < illegale> so we all suffer out of it
13:51 < illegale> and no interest in solving this problem as long as world oligarchy needs this situation
13:52 < illegale> to control everything
13:52 < illegale> you see ww3 before us?
13:52 < illegale> 1984 stuff?
13:52 < illegale> happening already
13:54 < illegale> the Honor System has its roots both in ethical considerations and in practical military necessity.
13:54 < illegale> same stuff with us
13:55 < echarp> I don't see ww3 no
13:56 < echarp> and I'm not sure there is such a thing as a world oligarchy
13:56 < illegale> what about muslims
13:56 < echarp> what about them yes?
13:56 < illegale> i see them as a new commies
13:56 < illegale> new nazies
13:56 < illegale> those wo rule need enemy
13:56 < illegale> they create it
13:56 < illegale> all the tame
13:56 < illegale> and people follow as long as hate is easy to follow
13:56 < illegale> no space for dignity
13:56 < echarp> I don't see them as such
13:56 < illegale> in such space
13:57 < illegale> them, whom?
13:57 < echarp> they are no different to the christians wackos, like the ku klux klan for example
13:57 < illegale> maybe to you
13:57 < illegale> yet, tehere is much space in media, creating new etiquetes aattaching to emotions of fear going on
13:58 < illegale> this is fammilar to mee
13:58 < illegale> seen that before during last war in cro and bosnia
13:58 < illegale> in one hand no space for hate talking, in the other hand much more destructive hate talking is going on
13:59 < illegale> read some book from some keneddy
13:59 < illegale> he promoted this collision of covilisations a while ago
13:59 < echarp> I know yes
13:59 < illegale> this stuff is špuped up vigorously
13:59 < echarp> the guy's theories are rather famous around here
13:59 < illegale> you see
14:00 < echarp> they are mostly notoriously know :)
14:00 < illegale> taking tham as granted
14:00 < illegale> not recognising they are actually creating them
14:00 < echarp> the guy creates a theory onto which the world could be mapped, yes, yet it is definitely not so black and white
14:00 < illegale> promoting big collisionj
14:00 < illegale> it does not worth anythign about black white stuff
14:00 < echarp> I don't think we *have* to have a big collision
14:00 < illegale> when you get to open war
14:01 < echarp> some muslims are just struggling with what is offered to them
14:01 < illegale> this system tends toweards it
14:01 < illegale> as long as this is cool stuff by them
14:01 < illegale> in that way thay have feared people
14:01 < illegale> in that way they are necessity
14:01 < illegale> in that way they might be over the people
14:01 < illegale> in that way no democracy possible
14:02 < illegale> patriot act and stuf
14:02 < illegale> in cro i already said you can not publish at net what you want if it is poitical
14:02 < illegale> free speach ndangeours
14:02 < echarp> you are way too negative from my point of view
14:02 < illegale> due to war over terrorism bs
14:02 < echarp> yeap, it is bs
14:02 < echarp> and bush and the us are quite in some shit
14:03 < echarp> but it is not a matter of religion, but of petrol!
14:03 < illegale> france is aside of ti?
14:03 < echarp> there is gold in those countries, black gold
14:03 < echarp> aside of what? bs?
14:03 < illegale> of bush and stuff
14:03 < illegale> american oligarchy
14:03 < echarp> france has been a police state of sorts for a long long time
14:04 < illegale> feel good about it?
14:04 < echarp> it is not an oligarchy, but elitism through some administration schools, ENA and such (polytechnique)
14:04 < echarp> I feel rather bad about it
14:04 < illegale> i see it be that thing
14:04 < echarp> I feel bad, but it does not mean the end of the world, far from it
14:05 < illegale> the gay said you can not aproach to any of that stuff unless you are married and with childern
14:05 < illegale> in that way thay know you wont do sht
14:05 < illegale> that is freeedom we are talking about, freedom that has to prevent bush doing more bs in the world
14:05 < illegale> and who can stop it*
14:05 < illegale> ?
14:05 < echarp> everybody can
14:06 < illegale> yes
14:06 < illegale> how?
14:06 < echarp> read la boetie and his treaty on voluntary servitude
14:06 < illegale> spontanioulsy?
14:06 < echarp> enlightening thing
14:06 < illegale> what he says
14:06 < illegale> *
14:06 < echarp> power can only exist if it is accepted
14:06 < illegale> ?
14:06 < echarp> it is those dominated who create their ruler
14:06 < illegale> you do nto have to accept it to hit you in te face
14:07 < illegale> this happens all the time
14:07 < illegale> all the way
14:07 < echarp> http://www.constitution.org/la_boetie/serv_vol.htm
14:07 < illegale> you can not run away, or act as it does not exist
14:07 < echarp> this is a HUGE text!
14:07 < echarp> most most interesting
14:07 < echarp> the non violent movement, ghandi and luther king, are in direct line to that kind of thought
14:08 < echarp> la boetie wrote that text in the 16th century, he was 18
14:08 < echarp> the text has been used since by all those who want to change the way we do politics
14:08 < illegale> i do not turst to such thing
14:09 < illegale> of course, i will ead it
14:09 < echarp> you have to, it's almost mandatory ;)
14:10 < illegale> is it jesus sort of fight?
14:10 < illegale> what is the principle it uses?
14:11 < illegale> Is it possible to use it in media created reality of ignorant people?
14:11 < illegale> or in some perfect workd?
14:11 < illegale> Luthegot assassined
14:11 < echarp> not at all a jesus thing
14:11 < illegale> and people say Ghandy was just in the right time
14:11 < illegale> though, how?
14:12 < illegale> turn another cheek?
14:12 < illegale> or?
14:12 < illegale> hit nme back?
14:12 < echarp> Most scholars are agreed that the Servitude volontaire is not to be considered a transitory political document written to fit some particular emergency. It seems to be instead a serious contemplation of man's relation to government, which fact makes it indeed the living document it is today and ever will be. Just as Machiavelli's system may be termed autocratic, and Calvin's theocratic, La Boétie's is obviously one of the earliest Christian demonstrations of a new ideal in government, the democratic, for the author clearly states that men are born free and equal.
14:13 < echarp> The title he chose for his tract, Voluntary Servitude, proves that he considers the people responsible for their enslavement to a despot. He feels scorn for the tyrant but also contempt for the nation submitting to him. La Boétie's genius consists in realizing and stating succinctly to his times the idea of the inalienable rights of the people, the very rights claimed for us in the Preamble to our American Constitution. The entire discourse breathes with this sentiment of the dignity and intrinsic independence of the individual.
14:13 < echarp> It would be a mistake, however, to consider La Boétie a firebrand intentionally inciting to revolt against oppression. He has taken every precaution to prevent the application of his thinking to the government of France. His terms of deference are too sincere to permit any notion of hypocritical subservience. The truth is he was not a rebel. We know not only from his words but also from his judicial record that he was the declared enemy of violence. His method of redress against dictators is much more subtle and effective than violence, and might be substantially described as "passive resistance." He sought political reform not by overt deeds involving bloodshed, but by a refusal of obedience to the orders of tyrants. Pastor Niemöller of Germany would be the perfect modern exponent of the doctrine of the discourse, which teaches essentially a peaceful method of obtaining liberty by the use of a moral weapon against which no dictator can prevail. La Boétie p
aints in lurid and clownish colors the complexion of tyranny, explains its unstable and contemptible basis, and then shows serenely the way to its overthrow by patience, passive resistance, and faith in God.
14:14 < echarp> It is not too much to assert that, if this four hundred-year-old essay could be placed in the hands of the oppressed peoples of our day, they would find a sure way to a rebirth of freedom, a manifestation of a new spirit that would almost automatically obliterate the obscurantist strutters who today throttle their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
14:17 < illegale> philosophical crap to me it seems
14:17 < illegale> such as sartr
14:17 < illegale> sartres
14:17 < illegale> or what
14:17 < echarp> more likely such as machiavel
14:17 < echarp> is machiavel crap?
14:18 < illegale> he is prgamtaical very
14:18 < illegale> making him be no philosophical crape
14:18 < illegale> r
14:18 < echarp> so is la boetie
14:18 < echarp> la boetie thought is at the heard of the non violent movements, are they crap?
14:18 < illegale> so, he gives exact solutions
14:18 < illegale> wich are'
14:19 < illegale> depends on the contexgt
14:19 < illegale> you can not remove hitler by such a moevemtn
14:19 < illegale> nor any true tyrant
14:19 < illegale> anand there are such mn
14:19 < echarp> they removed the english domination, the very same who invented concentration camps!
14:20 < illegale> who they?
14:20 < echarp> the english were incredibly fierce and brutal
14:20 < illegale> idins?
14:20 < echarp> the indians
14:20 < illegale> bs it might be
14:20 < illegale> need wider context to se is that working
14:20 < illegale> and we can notice it does not work anywwhere eklse
14:20 < illegale> even Ghnady made presedn
14:20 < echarp> well, la boetie is of interest if only because *many* know what he says and that his saying is at the foundation of democracy
14:20 < illegale> ow is that possible'
14:21 < echarp> made ???presend???
14:21 < illegale> presedane
14:21 < illegale> or something
14:21 < echarp> ???
14:21 < echarp> ???presedane???
14:21 < illegale> so, indinas knew what that man said?ž
14:22 < echarp> most probably yes
14:22 < echarp> la boetie is very important, just as is montaigne or montaigne
14:22 < echarp> oups, pascal
14:22 < illegale> you think germans could remove hitler by this?
14:22 < echarp> of course the germans could have, but they didn't want to!
14:22 < echarp> thus all the troubles
14:22 < illegale> they wanted to suffeR?
14:23 < illegale> What about French?
14:23 < echarp> of course not
14:23 < illegale> who where occupied?
14:23 < echarp> they wanted hitler in power, and they had him
14:23 < illegale> french?
14:23 < echarp> the french largely accepted the occupation
14:23 < echarp> we were broken
14:23 < illegale> and what with thoe who read that man?
14:23 < illegale> peacefull prtest stuff?
14:24 < illegale> i see them burning, actually
14:24 < illegale> not wining the war
14:24 < illegale> youž
14:24 < illegale> ?
14:24 < echarp> it's not a matter of war
14:24 < echarp> do read, then you might understand what is his point
14:24 < echarp> it's not very long
14:24 < echarp> and it's a text many know
14:25 < illegale> thoughm, this movement need s a leadeer, right
14:25 < illegale> such as ghandy
14:26 < illegale> or martin luther
14:26 < illegale> who was assasined
14:26 < echarp> no
14:26 < illegale> succeedssng actualyl nothing
14:26 < illegale> what is the pointout of ti
14:26 < illegale> can you explain it to mee?
14:26 < illegale> that american will rise when they start to suffer?
14:26 < echarp> that a system can only work if it is accepted by those it rules
14:27 < illegale> having no problem with whole controle based on new technologies
14:27 < echarp> that the slave-master relationship is one of "both" acceptance
14:27 < illegale> all of those systems where scuh
14:27 < illegale> and people tend to accept it
14:27 < echarp> that any group of people can be free if they choose it
14:27 < illegale> thos e who sdo not ang around
14:27 < echarp> that it is acceptation which produces tyrans
14:27 < illegale> hang arouin
14:27 < illegale> this irssi is very slow
14:28 < echarp> the machine/server can be slow at times
14:28 < echarp> that's another matter :)
14:28 < illegale> so, you do nto accept it, and you will be shotrter for a head
14:28 < echarp> bandwidth is limited
14:28 < illegale> coll isnti ti?
14:28 < illegale> ok
14:28 < echarp> you might have to risk your head if you want to be free, yes
14:29 < echarp> but freedom is stolen from you because *you* accept it
14:29 < echarp> it's the whole point of la boétie, and it's *huge*
14:30 < illegale> how many great people will give the head till the last one gets stuck?
14:30 < illegale> no many bold ones, you knwo?
14:31 < illegale> and it is funny to me that t the price is captdecaitaion
14:31 < illegale> not very promissing princiiple
14:31 < echarp> illegale: you don't want to read it?
14:31 < illegale> what is promising is that you benefit by beign good
14:31 < illegale> that is the way how you lead others
14:31 < illegale> not by being the one that suffers
14:31 < illegale> i am rading it
14:31 < illegale> rightnow
14:31 < echarp> machiavel, sun tzu or nietsche would probably disagree
14:32 < illegale> with what?
14:32 < echarp> being good has no relation with being a leader
14:32 < illegale> thatt is the only way if you want to make workdbe good
14:32 < echarp> good and evil are just arbitrary categories conveniently set up by the winner
14:32 < illegale> to lead them by example
14:32 < illegale> good is what you think is right
14:33 < illegale> and i have seen many people have problems when going to dark side
14:33 < illegale> so, it is not that arbitary
14:33 < illegale> this is very strong feeling inhearts of many, even in hearth that did not recognise it previsously
14:35 < illegale> i know a hero, at least i see him that way
14:35 < illegale> he is my example
14:35 < illegale> my idol
14:35 < illegale> sort of at leas
14:35 < illegale> and i do follow his deeds
14:36 < echarp> it's nice to have such a point of reference
14:36 < illegale> yet these deeds have to be acknowledged by all
14:36 < illegale> as astuff that worths trying it
14:36 < illegale> if you get decapitated. not many will follow you by an example
14:36 < illegale> oportunistic principle of human
14:36 < illegale> thatmade us survive actually
14:36 < illegale> not obeying to bizzare principles
14:37 < illegale> however they sound good
14:37 < illegale> and this is actualyl possible, at least i see that wa
14:37 < illegale> y
14:37 < echarp> you don't have to be decapitated, you just have not to help the tyran
14:37 < echarp> it's the *not* helping that is important
14:38 < echarp> if the population accepts its situation, then you can't do much
14:38 < illegale> you get decaptiated for that stuff also
14:38 < echarp> not helping is not refusing a direct order that can lead to beheading
14:38 < illegale> tyran sets the rulest that enable hinm survival
14:38 < echarp> still reading?
14:38 < illegale> the texts, yes
14:39 < echarp> good
14:39 < illegale> you know these old ladies forom the first raw in churces
14:39 < illegale> r those who lost their dreams
14:39 < illegale> those like to boey to the tyran
14:40 < illegale> he is their own certinty
14:40 < illegale> and they csuppoert him no matter how
14:40 < illegale> when, or where
14:40 < echarp> yes
14:40 < illegale> and there are always such men
14:40 < illegale> and you can playfool , but you are irrelevatn
14:41 < illegale> i want to be relevatn
14:41 < illegale> if everybody is principle that does not work
14:41 < illegale> due to principle od oproutnism
14:41 < echarp> well, did it or did it not work in india?
14:41 < illegale> i am not very jesus like person
14:41 < illegale> who says it was that actually?
14:42 < echarp> I believe many do
14:42 < echarp> of course it's a matter of philosophy
14:42 < illegale> you believe becasue you want to belive
14:42 < echarp> the 20th century non violent movement has its roots in la boétie, among others of course
14:42 < illegale> philosophy is not grounded stuff
14:42 < illegale> regulatrly
14:42 < echarp> sorry, montaigne had huge effects for example
14:42 < illegale> i am interested in grounded stuff
14:42 < echarp> yet it is philosophy
14:43 < illegale> who is montaigne
14:43 < illegale> ?
14:43 < echarp> montesquieu is another huge one
14:43 < echarp> he designed what are our current institution
14:43 < echarp> legislative, executive, judiciary
14:43 < echarp> montesquieu saw that
14:43 < echarp> the US system originates directly from this philosophic vision
14:44 < illegale> that is the reason it so soo cool?
14:44 < echarp> I'm just showing you that philosophy has effects
14:44 < echarp> huge effects
14:44 < echarp> thus it's relevant
14:45 < illegale> philosophy is good as long as it removes influence of mind biding authopriteis
14:45 < illegale> of today
14:45 < illegale> you need ot eliminate thir infulence and you can use new dogmas
14:46 < illegale> that people will excuce in doing revolutionary stuff
14:46 < illegale> this part of selfindctrinaction is coll as long as it creates strong groups and stuff
14:46 < echarp> sorry, philosophy is also at the root of many things
14:46 < echarp> separation of the church and the state for example
14:46 < illegale> ok
14:47 < illegale> i am turned towards political philosophy the mosest
14:47 < echarp> well then, you should definitely read some of those works
14:47 < echarp> montesquieu again, for his vision of our modern institutions
14:47 < echarp> institutions
14:47 < illegale> though, the whole poin is interest of those who are politically active
14:48 < illegale> if they need to eliminate power of the church they need to set good arguments that will give more not so sure persons around them
14:48 < illegale> becoming more politically irelevant
14:48 < illegale> that is ti
14:48 < echarp> that's what philosophers can start
14:48 < illegale> if there is no ground, no idea can nto change anything
14:48 < echarp> it's a process
14:48 < echarp> long term and tedious
14:49 < illegale> see marx
14:49 < illegale> he just helped people suck big time
14:49 < illegale> nohitting the essence he was misused
14:49 < illegale> this is regular stuff among philosopers
14:49 < illegale> going to gfar especially if they want to create closed ideologiy
14:50 < illegale> or that sartr and 1968
14:50 < echarp> marx most certainly did not want what happened, and he was in a larger movement
14:50 < echarp> the communists would probably have occured even without him
14:50 < illegale> yet, they all mised the point
14:50 < echarp> which is?
14:51 < illegale> i am for very lousie phiosophies, actuall reduction of them
14:51 < illegale> same as liberalism goes against the staeiteslef
14:51 < illegale> i am going against philosophy iteslf
14:51 < echarp> well, are la boetie or montesquieu lousy?
14:51 < illegale> depends
14:51 < echarp> what of descartes or epicure?
14:51 < illegale> what you mean by that
14:51 < illegale> do not about epicure too much
14:52 < echarp> they gave ideas to our world, onto which we are building our future
14:52 < illegale> i like mathematicians
14:52 < illegale> more
14:52 < illegale> what ideas?
14:52 < illegale> ideals?
14:52 < illegale> you think they do not exist with no articultions?
14:53 < echarp> ideas, political ideas
14:54 < illegale> seem i gonna find this in croatia
14:54 < illegale> n
14:54 < illegale> in that case i wont miss anything
14:54 < echarp> find what? ideas?
14:54 < illegale> no, this work in english
14:54 < echarp> possibly yes
14:54 < echarp> it's probably been translated in many languages
14:55 < illegale> what i see is this is the process goes pretty spontaniously
14:55 < illegale> tending towards spreadoing of knowledge which is the power in its essencve
14:55 < illegale> moknowledge can nto be erased
14:55 < illegale> power can not be decreased
14:55 < illegale> at least its potential
14:55 < illegale> so, this all goes on
14:56 < illegale> though, there are sustainable and non sustanable systems and knowledge that supportthenm
14:56 < illegale> all these movements
14:56 < illegale> where did they happened
14:56 < illegale> when people got hungra
14:56 < illegale> y
14:56 < illegale> and power of emperor not big
14:56 < illegale> any system you llok that is the way
14:57 < illegale> and you can just help this process go more or less directly
14:57 < illegale> by focusing energy
14:57 < illegale> to stuff that optimies everyones action
14:57 < illegale> yet, tehre is operative mode much more important thn "philosohpcal" one
14:57 < illegale> philosophical one is only the cannon imo
14:58 < illegale> to find thing we will adorm
14:58 < illegale> helping us move faster, having not that much fear in losing what we had and what we find for that way be a burden
15:00 < illegale> btw, in ex yu there where 10% of the people conected to secret agency
15:01 < illegale> so, this guy could not promote his work if it would be endangeround to system
15:01 < illegale> every single political activity was eliminated
15:01 < echarp> the guy wrote and published this text in a time of religious war...
15:01 < illegale> and no political activity, no political effect
15:02 < echarp> his best friend, montaigne, a catholic, had promised to include la boetie's writings in his own, and finally he backed off and just included some poems
15:02 < echarp> but he kepts repeating that he would include the entire text
15:03 < illegale> lol
15:03 < echarp> so nowadays many publishers actually do just that
15:03 < illegale> You into zen?
15:03 < echarp> they include the traité sur la servitue volontaire in les éssais
15:03 < echarp> I don't really know zen no
15:03 < illegale> me neither
15:03 < illegale> sounds good though
15:03 < illegale> :)=
15:03 < echarp> yeap
15:03 < illegale> what i mean, living the moment
15:04 < illegale> not ideals
15:04 < illegale> that link i postedto you
15:04 < illegale> how big is that knight stuff
15:04 < illegale> is the measore of his next act
15:04 < illegale> cool it sounds
15:04 < illegale> and than you need no dream, but living it right now
15:05 < illegale> by obeying the rules that make you happy
15:05 < illegale> and satisfied
15:05 < illegale> this is what i like
15:05 < illegale> and that does not need ideology actually
15:05 < illegale> not at all i thing
15:05 < echarp> I disagree
15:06 < echarp> it is not a matter of "ideology", just ideas
15:06 < illegale> say
15:06 < illegale> what ideas?
15:06 < echarp> there are ideas that you encouter and make yours
15:06 < illegale> why not living themÐ?
15:06 < echarp> of course
15:06 < illegale> nsted of lookign for them?
15:06 < illegale> ideas is in your deed stuff
15:06 < illegale> what si the problem than?
15:07 < echarp> because you need wisdom and to act wisely
15:07 < echarp> to act wisely you need wisdom
15:07 < illegale> i think it is the world that gives you the wisdon
15:07 < illegale> not other mans contemplation
15:07 < echarp> there are many ways to obtain wisdom
15:07 < illegale> as long as you ned strong grounds if you want to underand it
15:07 < illegale> this is zen suff also i think=
15:07 < illegale> what are the oes you prefer?
15:07 < echarp> I think that zen masters actually are philosophers
15:08 < illegale> and whatare the ones actualyl exist
15:08 < illegale> ?
15:08 < illegale> i think that yes,
15:08 < echarp> which one are you speaking about?
15:08 < illegale> yet whe you say philospher, it reminds me at those with titles
15:08 < illegale> i have no respect to
15:08 < echarp> I'm not using titles, just description
15:08 < illegale> ok
15:08 < illegale> what is philosopher than?
15:09 < illegale> the one who lives his ideas?
15:09 < echarp> that's the greek definition of philosopher yes
15:09 < echarp> one of the original vision
15:09 < illegale> this about philosophy in its name is not so cool, it is gfetishistincimo
15:09 < echarp> 2000 years ago you had to live by your ideas
15:09 < illegale> ok, i agree twiththat
15:10 < echarp> it changed with the christian obscurantism
15:10 < echarp> you then had to separate ideas and comportments
15:10 < echarp> and behaviours
15:10 < illegale> crazy stuff
15:10 < echarp> and nowadays we are more able to live our ideas again
15:10 < illegale> i like that
15:10 < echarp> took us ages, but here we are
15:11 < illegale> and that is the part that gibve s big hit to wester tradition of philosophy imo
15:11 < echarp> wisdom, philosophy (the search for wisdom)
15:11 < echarp> big hit?
15:11 < illegale> this is budhistic i thinkl
15:11 < illegale> big slap
15:11 < echarp> what slap???
15:11 < echarp> what are you speaking about???
15:12 < illegale> this concept of division of ideas and living
15:12 < illegale> which is in core ofwestern philosophers who took tradition
15:12 < echarp> so, what is the part that gave a big slap?
15:12 < illegale> reality imo
15:12 < illegale> and the fact we do not care about ideas that are not for living
15:12 < echarp> ok, I'm lost, can you rephrase using simple words and grammar?
15:13 < illegale> it is me
15:13 < echarp> what is your position?
15:13 < illegale> i have astrong opinion that western tradiction of philosophy based on separation of the ideas and world itself is actually bs
15:13 < illegale> bad ground fro nay cool stuff
15:14 < illegale> and this is what changes thanks to this era of info freedom
15:14 < illegale> where we can see that it does not work actuaklly
15:14 < illegale> they took away ideas from us
15:14 < illegale> they looked at them as somehing that is completely sepearete from us as very beings
15:14 < echarp> it's been changing since the renaissance
15:14 < illegale> whch lost any info value to us
15:14 < echarp> but many clinge on it
15:15 < illegale> ok
15:15 < illegale> you see that fukuyama guy
15:15 < echarp> separation of ideas and reality is just one branch of philosophy you know, the platonist one
15:15 < echarp> fukuyama???
15:15 < illegale> yes
15:15 < echarp> who is he?
15:16 < illegale> http://www.opendemocracy.net/democracy-fukuyama/issue.jsp
15:16 < illegale> niot such a great link
15:16 < illegale> nevetheless
15:16 < illegale> and he is a big shot
15:16 < illegale> yet he claimed oximorons
15:17 < illegale> this is philosophy tradition nowdays
15:17 < illegale> i see no academic one that i could respet at all
15:17 < illegale> but one in cro
15:17 < illegale> tough, he amused me by his attitued
15:18 < echarp> you should read michel onfray then
15:18 < illegale> what he is talking about?
15:18 < echarp> he's given a course (available as mp3, in french), retracing all of philosophy's history from an epicurian view point
15:18 < illegale> hmh
15:18 < echarp> he's a materialist
15:19 < echarp> does not make any separation between ideas and reality
15:19 < illegale> like that
15:19 < echarp> monist, hedonist, rather anarchist too
15:19 < illegale> utilitiatism
15:19 < illegale> and stuff
15:19 < echarp> yeap
15:19 < illegale> see the same way
15:19 < echarp> see, there are worthy element in contemporary philosophy
15:19 < illegale> though, afraid of using hedonism due to its sustanability component
15:20 < echarp> sustainability???
15:20 < illegale> sustainabiity
15:20 < illegale> of concept hedonism
15:20 < illegale> of course, it matters how yxou define it
15:20 < echarp> hedonists are people who calculate
15:20 < echarp> they constantly calculate in order to maximise pleasure
15:21 < illegale> what about time part
15:21 < illegale> more pleaseu soon as possible?
15:21 < illegale> get some crack
15:21 < echarp> of course *not*
15:21 < illegale> but
15:21 < echarp> they maximise it, not just now, but for the future nows
15:21 < illegale> and now comes tha hard part
15:21 < illegale> how to gain ti?
15:22 < illegale> is it available thorhg asketism?
15:22 < echarp> it would be stupid to only think of the actual present and forget about the future
15:22 < illegale> yes
15:22 < echarp> epicure was an ascete
15:22 < echarp> he only ate and drank what was required, no more
15:22 < illegale> can he be hedonist too?
15:22 < echarp> and this was his pleasure
15:22 < echarp> epicure was the start of hedonism!!!
15:22 < illegale> col
15:22 < echarp> of course cool
15:22 < illegale> i though it was some guy called hgedo or stuff
15:23 < echarp> but platon and christianity changed the way history has framed epicure
15:23 < illegale> does the guy you mentioned ascet?
15:23 < echarp> they invented the concept of epicurian pigs
15:23 < echarp> michel onfray?
15:23 < illegale> yeS*?
15:23 < illegale> yes
15:23 < echarp> he is rather stern
15:23 < illegale> stern?
15:23 < echarp> he was a simple teacher in a technical high school
15:24 < echarp> austere
15:24 < illegale> ok
15:24 < echarp> he is the most published of contemporary philosophers, yet he is personally rather not famous
15:25 < illegale> not much result on him in cro
15:25 < illegale> have to look in english :=
15:25 < echarp> he created a populary university opened to everybody
15:25 < illegale> living?
15:25 < echarp> free
15:25 < echarp> living in normandy
15:25 < illegale> your guy
15:25 < illegale> know him=?ž
15:25 < illegale> :)=
15:25 < echarp> I've only seen him on tv
15:26 < illegale> is he afraid of poweR?
15:27 < illegale> he is farmer :0
15:27 < illegale> cool
15:27 < illegale> that is what i respect
15:27 < illegale> no spaxce for indoctriantin
15:27 < echarp> I don't know if he fears power
15:28 < echarp> he has written an "anti" treaty of philosophy, you might appreciate that :)
15:28 < illegale> :)
15:28 < illegale> see he is in politics
15:28 < illegale> yet in some communist party:(
15:28 < illegale> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Communist_League_%28France%29
15:29 < illegale> libertanin socialsim he is for
15:29 < illegale> cool
15:30 < illegale> now i se this is the guy we should contaft :O)
15:30 < echarp> oh yes, I forgot about the libertan part :)
15:30 < echarp> libertan and libertarian
15:30 < illegale> wghat is the difference?
15:30 < echarp> libertin date from the renaissance
15:30 < echarp> they are heavily sexually connotated :)
15:31 < echarp> libertarian are modern liberals
15:31 < illegale> not so strange as long as it is french stuff
15:31 < illegale> :)=
15:32 < illegale> i think he might be interested in this stuff we do
15:32 < echarp> well, he's a *big* guy, I won't bother him today
15:32 < illegale> sure
15:33 < illegale> it is all up to how open he is for little people
15:33 < illegale> this needs nose
15:33 < echarp> when we reach 400 :)
15:33 < illegale> for that stuff
15:33 < illegale> :)
15:33 < illegale> than we wont needhim :(
15:33 < illegale> maybe 7?
15:34 < illegale> nevertheless
15:34 < illegale> lets get beck to top politics
15:34 < illegale> if you are fine with that
15:35 < illegale> run run run run run
15:35 < illegale> :=
15:35 < illegale> like veleveT?
15:35 < echarp> ?
15:35 < illegale> velvet undrground
15:35 < echarp> I don't remember much about it
15:35 < illegale> nevermind
15:36 < illegale> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Velvet_Underground
15:38 < illegale> so, this stuff about goals
15:38 < illegale> when you get time we should talk about how you see it
15:38 < echarp> I still have to write something about my personal goals
15:39 < illegale> so, wait till then?
15:39 < echarp> possibly yes
15:39 < echarp> what about your personal goals?
15:40 < illegale> in private or in political live?
15:40 < illegale> :)=
15:41 < illegale> though, there are three directions among which i have to choose
15:41 < illegale> this means leaving others besie as long as there is no point of runigng three things at all
15:41 < illegale> no focus no good
15:42 < echarp> both
15:42 < illegale> private, finish colleg and go to big trip
15:43 < illegale> political, three options are:
15:43 < illegale> philosophy :-)=
15:43 < illegale> loca
15:43 < illegale> l
15:43 < illegale> globa
15:43 < illegale> l
15:43 < illegale> philosophy is finisihng set of thought about this issue
15:43 < illegale> answering some stuff that is taken as grounded
15:43 < illegale> spreading views and stuff
15:43 < illegale> cultural work it actually is
15:44 < illegale> local, creating trust network in croatia, and supportingkeading political option based on top
15:44 < illegale> global, same stuff, different auditoriun
15:45 < illegale> seems to me the easist part gonna be finishing some wrtiings about this stuff and going locval
15:45 < illegale> trying to brand myself
15:45 < illegale> and highen influence
15:46 < illegale> yo?
15:47 < illegale> btw, toop needs more articulation indeed
15:47 < illegale> this might be parrt of writings
15:47 < illegale> part
15:48 < illegale> echarp: are you therE?
15:48 < illegale> i have to go in several minutes
15:48 < illegale> hungry
15:50 < echarp> I'm here
15:50 < echarp> but also at work
15:50 < echarp> so not available all the time
15:51 < illegale> ok
15:54 < echarp> me I'm not very good at self promotion
15:54 < echarp> I'm an engineer and I love to build things
15:54 < echarp> this is my goal, to build things
15:55 < illegale> build tings in what manner?
15:55 < illegale> just software, or nay?
15:55 < illegale> any?
15:56 < illegale> huh, when it gets intererested, you vanish :)=
15:57 < illegale> ok, that means software only
15:58 < echarp> build objects, concepts, ideas, software
15:58 < echarp> stories or novels would also be a construction
15:59 -!- illegale [n=ille...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has quit ["Lost terminal"]
16:29 -!- illegale (illegale) [n=ille...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has joined #parlement
16:29 < illegale:#parlement> back
16:29 < illegale:#parlement> system collapsed
16:32 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
16:32 < echarp> illegale: you should now use "screen" before launching irssi
16:32 < illegale> how*
16:32 < illegale> ?
16:32 < echarp> so that your irc session still works even when you are absent
16:32 < illegale> no matter am i looged?
16:33 < illegale> what to do'
16:33 < illegale> =?
16:33 < illegale> ?
16:33 < echarp> in your terminal (not in irssi), type "info screen"
16:33 < illegale> do i have to quiet irssi for that?
16:33 < echarp> yes, no matter if you are physically connected or not
16:33 < echarp> no, you should start another terminal
16:33 < illegale> how?
16:33 < echarp> screen is also great in order to have more than one command prompt
16:34 < echarp> I love and always use screen for everything I do (except graphical web browsing and pdf)
16:34 < echarp> you can also use some commands in order to go back to the terminal
16:34 < echarp> illegale: you want to try those 2 commands? (one to go back to the terminal), one to come back to irssi
16:37 < illegale> how to go back to the terminal?
16:37 < echarp> yes
16:37 < echarp> illegale: here you are in a terminal *and* in irssi
16:37 < echarp> but irssi blocks the use of the command line
16:37 < illegale> so what to do?
16:38 < echarp> ok, there are two things to do
16:38 < illegale> join 3illegale
16:38 < echarp> be careful with the second one
16:38 < illegale> yes
16:38 < echarp> do not try the first command before you have learned the second!!!
16:38 < echarp> illegale: you follow me on that?
16:38 < echarp> or you will lose irssi
16:39 < illegale> just say what to do
16:39 < echarp> first => Ctrl+Z
16:39 < echarp> second => fg
16:39 < echarp> Ctrl+Z is a keyboard combination
16:39 < echarp> fg is just a command you type normally in the terminal
16:39 < echarp> (fg = foreground)
16:40 < echarp> I see you are using "info"
16:41 -!- illegale_ (illegale) [n=ille...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has joined #parlement
16:42 < illegale_> this was too strong for me
16:42 < echarp> I see that :(
16:42 < illegale_> i got lost after you put ctrl z
16:42 < illegale_> did not know how to get bec
16:42 < illegale_> so i quited
16:42 < echarp> :(
16:42 < illegale_> suppose i need cure before i do it again :)
16:42 < echarp> to come back, you should have typed "fg"
16:42 < echarp> fg = foreground
16:42 < echarp> quit this current irssi, and then type "fg"!
16:43 < echarp> thus you will come back at your first irssi
16:43 < echarp> quit with /quit
16:43 -!- illegale_ [n=ille...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has quit [Client Quit]
16:43 < illegale> lol
16:44 < illegale> i am fine with this
16:44 < echarp> re
16:44 < echarp> yet I did warn you about learning the second command before using the first!
16:44 < illegale> to fastr i am
16:44 < illegale> to think
16:44 < echarp> you must have caused troubled in your courses as a kid :)
16:44 < illegale> faster than mind
16:45 < illegale> still do
16:45 < illegale> ok, so...am i logged now for all the time?
16:45 < echarp> no
16:45 < echarp> because you didn't start irssi in the context of screen
16:45 < illegale> what i have to do?
16:45 < echarp> but before using screen, maybe you should learn to customize irssi
16:46 < illegale> yes?
16:46 < echarp> illegale: type this in irssi => "/script load /usr/share/irssi/scripts/nickcolor.pl"
16:46 < echarp> /script load /usr/share/irssi/scripts/nickcolor.pl
16:47 < illegale> i did
16:47 < echarp> /script load /usr/share/irssi/scripts/nicklist.pl
16:47 < illegale> ok
16:48 < echarp> do you see the nicklist in the top right corner?
16:48 < echarp> are nicks now colored?
16:48 < illegale> no
16:49 < echarp> this nick coloration is particularly useful in big channels with many people
16:49 < echarp> your terminal might not allow colors :(
16:49 < illegale> dd
16:49 < echarp> ???dd???
16:49 < illegale> you blue
16:50 < illegale> what about list?
16:50 < echarp> I suppose that's good
16:50 < echarp> /script load /usr/share/irssi/scripts/nicklist.pl
16:50 < echarp> that will display in the top right corner a list of all those in the channel
16:51 < illegale> dd
16:51 < echarp> doesn't work?
16:51 < illegale> no
16:52 < echarp> what is "dd" for??????
16:52 < illegale> nothing
16:52 < illegale> it does not work
16:52 < illegale> yet you are blue
16:52 < illegale> nickcolor works
16:52 < echarp> that's nice
16:52 < echarp> but nicklist does not
16:53 < illegale> how can i check out what is the problem?
16:53 < echarp> /set nicklist_automode = SCREEN
16:53 < illegale> might be syntax?
16:53 < illegale> i did it
16:53 < illegale> what now?
16:53 < illegale> feel no change :)
16:54 < echarp> it should work right away
16:54 < echarp> did it says anything special in your status window?
16:54 < echarp> ( Ctrl+1 for the status window)
16:55 < illegale> crel , 1 do not work
16:55 < echarp> Ctrl+1
16:56 < echarp> or Ctrl+p
16:56 < illegale> ok
16:56 < illegale> not found
16:57 < echarp> what did you not find?
16:57 < echarp> the irssi status window?
16:57 < illegale> file not founded
16:58 < illegale> about nicklist
16:59 < illegale> have to go now
16:59 < illegale> thank you for getting blue :)
16:59 < illegale> glad to see this stuff works
16:59 < illegale> this with being on line for a whil
16:59 < illegale> ee
16:59 < illegale> cu
17:00 -!- illegale [n=ille...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has quit ["Lost terminal"]
17:52 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
18:05 < urgen:#parlement> oh
18:06 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
18:06 < echarp> hello urgen
18:06 < echarp> you missed illegale and his learning of irssi :)
18:06 < urgen> ya I have to get going to a job
18:06 < urgen> but I'll catch up later
18:07 < echarp> ok
18:07 < urgen> ( I need to learn all the same things )
18:07 < echarp> cu later then, I'm off to home :)
18:07 < urgen> ok
18:07 < echarp> urgen: you ask, I'm getting quite good at irssi nowadays :)
18:07 < urgen> it is a tool I'd rather know
18:07 < urgen> shell comes in handy too often
18:08 < echarp> yeap
18:08 < echarp> and using ssh+screen+irssi+scripts makes it incredibly powerful
18:09 < echarp> urgen: what script do you already use?
18:09 < urgen> I don't know. whatever comes stock
18:09 < urgen> I only did apt-get the other day
18:09 < echarp> :)
18:09 < urgen> long ago I'd write my own scripts
18:09 < echarp> then, you also need to apt-get install irssi-scripts
18:10 < urgen> oh
18:10 < urgen> cool
19:18 -!- illegale (illegale) [n=gale...@161.53.121.88] has joined #parlement
19:22 < echarp> hello back illegale
19:25 < illegale> io
19:25 < illegale> :)
19:25 < illegale> at home?
19:25 < illegale> me drunk some fine american beer
19:25 < illegale> texas beer
19:26 < illegale> Eric wrotewhat he looks for
19:43 < illegale> seems there is only think we should talk about as long as the time goes and debts are getting wilder
19:43 < illegale> cu
19:44 -!- illegale [n=gale...@161.53.121.88] has quit []
--- Log closed jeu jun 29 00:00:22 2006
07:58 < urgen> home
09:18 < echarp> hello hello
12:50 -!- illegale (illegale) [n=ille...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has joined #parlement
12:50 < illegale:#parlement> io
12:50 < illegale:#parlement> whassaap
13:01 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
13:01 < echarp> hello hello illegale
13:01 < echarp> how are you?
13:03 < illegale> hey!
13:03 < illegale> good i am
13:03 < illegale> had some good time with my mentor today
13:03 < illegale> at college
13:03 < illegale> you?
13:04 < echarp> here france is going wild, we love brazil-france matches
13:04 < illegale> oh ye
13:04 < illegale> i watched game
13:04 < illegale> nice one it was
13:04 < illegale> ziddane
13:04 < illegale> good
13:04 < illegale> r good to
13:04 < illegale> though, brazil is dangerous :)
13:05 < echarp> yeap
13:05 < echarp> VERY dangerous
13:05 < illegale> whats the name of that r guy=?
13:05 < illegale> they even win over us, man
13:05 < illegale> :)
13:06 < illegale> yesterday i was with some military guy talking about politics
13:06 < illegale> we came to some interesting conclusions about situation 9in croatia
13:06 < illegale> what to do stuff
13:06 < illegale> and that stuff is pretty same to the global movement problems
13:07 < echarp> what 9in?
13:07 < illegale> ?
13:07 < illegale> in not 9in
13:07 < illegale> misspel
13:07 < illegale> l
13:08 < illegale> btw, this irrsi stuff is fine stuf
13:08 < illegale> i get used to is
13:08 < illegale> even i still hold mouse with my hand
13:08 < echarp> it's awesome :)
13:09 < echarp> but the mouse has to be repelled, no use :)
13:09 < illegale> i use it to swithcg proglrams
13:10 < echarp> you should use Ctrl+tab
13:10 < echarp> or alt+tab
13:10 < illegale> http://www.goodknight.org/codeandcharter.htm
13:10 < illegale> i am into code stuff right now
13:10 < illegale> seems heterarchy desperatelly needs it to suceed
13:12 < echarp> what is that page?
13:12 < echarp> good knights?
13:12 < illegale> do nto know
13:13 < illegale> wrote code of honour
13:13 < illegale> now seing psychological explanations and stuff
13:13 < illegale> i talked about this code
13:14 < echarp> is it in that page?
13:14 < illegale> to taht guy who says in the same time that Word is eesential part in west point
13:14 < illegale> nah, that page is just an eexample how they try to do it
13:14 < illegale> showing some aproaches
13:15 < illegale> i am looking for operative one
13:15 < illegale> such as west point might have
13:15 < illegale> the guy says they take Word pretty seriously
13:15 < illegale> honour stuff
13:15 < illegale> no need for signing anything
13:15 < illegale> big trust is base
13:15 < echarp> trust is cool yes
13:16 < illegale> if that was not so, i suppose you could never coordinate thousands of people in the combatr
13:16 < illegale> have to learn something from them
13:16 < illegale> and us it
13:16 < illegale> use
13:16 < echarp> there are other things that can enter into conducting people to battle, money, fear, anger
13:16 < illegale> so, any heterarchy can not work actually with no scuh thing
13:16 < echarp> love of course
13:17 < illegale> yet, this is about profesional army
13:17 < illegale> not raged people
13:17 < illegale> heard of Gotovina?
13:17 < illegale> Ante Gotovina?
13:18 < illegale> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_honour
13:18 < echarp> nope, who is she?
13:18 < illegale> seems thomas jeffersopn runed first code og hounour before he was presiednet
13:18 < illegale> cool
13:18 < illegale> gotovina is general from croatia
13:18 < illegale> from legion of foreingers
13:19 < illegale> how do you call that french legion
13:19 < illegale> he is pretty adomred by military people in cro
13:19 < illegale> as long as he is pretty honourable they regularly say
13:19 < echarp> foreign legion
13:19 < echarp> légion étrangère
13:20 < illegale> though, i asked you this as long a he has french citisenship and he was haage fugitive
13:20 < echarp> haage?
13:20 < illegale> hauge
13:20 < illegale> you know stuff in netherland
13:20 < illegale> court
13:20 < echarp> I get it yes
13:20 < illegale> Jefferson later envisioned a similar honor system for his University of Virginia; it was at first based on strict laws limiting student behavior, but later based on student self-government.
13:23 < illegale> what you think about codes?
13:23 < illegale> and brends they car
13:24 < illegale> I see no point of creating heteratrchical organsiation with no such thinh accepted
13:25 < echarp> I don't know
13:25 < echarp> I think there are all sort of organisation
13:25 < echarp> each will devise its own rules
13:25 < illegale> i am talking about organsiation i am interested to participate
13:26 < illegale> this is the way how top can be used for self promotion pretty easily
13:26 < illegale> of course you need something to promote
13:26 < illegale> if no scuh thing, stuff do nto work
13:26 < illegale> in this way you can really put into structures of such a party people who really respect code of hounur
13:27 < illegale> or better to say code of organisation as long as honour is just an emotion
13:27 < illegale> and i am talking about principles that enable empowerment
13:27 < echarp> I can propose a goal then, european constitution, the one klaus aim to construct
13:28 < echarp> it's large and ambitious
13:28 < echarp> and can be used in many contexts
13:28 < illegale> how excatly?
13:29 < illegale> btw, we are not humans by the birth
13:29 < illegale> there is no such thing that is worty and get with no effort
13:29 < illegale> stuffthat worth is based on effort only
13:30 < echarp> everything has to be gained, not given
13:31 < illegale> yes
13:31 < echarp> I mostly agree with that yes
13:31 < echarp> although it gets difficult with kids
13:31 < echarp> but they do have to prove themselves!
13:32 < illegale> yes
13:33 < illegale> though, this is the part we in Tiatkiv really lack
13:33 < illegale> having no such code
13:33 < illegale> in this way the worst moments become our weak spot and we can nto prgoress
13:34 < illegale> if this is solved "politically" by code, meaning that whole organsiation must accept it, than no weak spot any more
13:34 < illegale> but something to be respected
13:34 < illegale> this part very important if you want to grow
13:34 < illegale> and be interesting
13:35 < illegale> though, how to call that stuff=?
13:35 < illegale> code of what?
13:35 < illegale> Code of 4 for an example?
13:35 < illegale> :)
13:36 < echarp> lol
13:36 < illegale> you think top organsiation does not need it?
13:37 < echarp> that code of 4 is funny
13:37 < illegale> lol
13:37 < illegale> i like i
13:37 < illegale> t
13:37 < illegale> 4 is cool number
13:37 < illegale> 2 exp 2
13:37 < illegale> 2 , 2
13:37 < echarp> yeap :)
13:37 < illegale> 2x2
13:37 < illegale> all the same
13:37 < illegale> singulartiy struff
13:38 < illegale> i liked 3 also a while before
13:40 < illegale> it is clasical number of group for diversions
13:40 < illegale> it aims towards consenuss stuff
13:40 < illegale> and so on
13:40 < illegale> 2 i do not like
13:40 < illegale> 2 needs a birth
13:41 < echarp> there are theories on that
13:41 < illegale> yes?
13:41 < illegale> i was into that stuff a while ago
13:41 < echarp> one for a start, 2 pointing toward the sky but place on the earth, 3 as an equilibrium
13:41 < echarp> 4 a cross point
13:42 < echarp> 5 based on the sky, pointing toward the soil
13:42 < echarp> 6 finally reaching
13:42 < illegale> what means cross point?
13:42 < echarp> bifurcation
13:43 < illegale> ok
13:43 < illegale> 7 is cool to
13:43 < illegale> in tarot
13:43 < illegale> what says for it?
13:43 < echarp> another cross point, but reaching higher
13:43 < illegale> so this is the small cross point
13:43 < illegale> that is cool
13:44 < illegale> though, there is some stuff in this stuf for sure
13:44 < illegale> in politics especially
13:44 < illegale> for an example
13:44 < illegale> when you have two divisions
13:44 < illegale> they tend to fight
13:44 < illegale> when you haver 3 division
13:44 < illegale> they tend to colaborat
13:44 < illegale> e
13:44 < echarp> 8 is infinite, reaching for the sky and the floor
13:45 < illegale> 8 not like
13:45 < echarp> 9 is perfection
13:45 < illegale> do not know why
13:45 < illegale> 9 is good too
13:45 < echarp> 8 is the chinesse fetish number
13:45 < illegale> so, we are looking for group of 9 :)
13:45 < echarp> thus the A380
13:45 < illegale> what?
13:45 < illegale> what do you mean by that?
13:46 < echarp> they choosed the 8 in the A3x0 airbus name due to chinese fetichism
13:46 < echarp> (among other reasons too)
13:46 < illegale> 8 is strange
13:46 < illegale> scared of 8
13:46 < echarp> 8 is infinity
13:46 < illegale> thought so
13:47 < illegale> it not works good with other numbers as it makes them obsloete
13:47 < illegale> pointless
13:47 < illegale> in infinity they are
13:47 < illegale> what chinese say too?
13:48 < illegale> you know sitaution in Bosnisa?
13:48 < illegale> 3 nations separated in two entiteis
13:48 < illegale> and one entity separated in two more
13:48 < illegale> thay made a great shit out of it
13:49 < illegale> having competeing each other all the time and stubing at each others back all the time
13:49 < illegale> no space for progress
13:49 < illegale> if there was 3 groups, the one that would show good fait could profit out of the second one that would find it cool thing
13:50 < echarp> yougoslavia is quite a mess yes
13:50 < echarp> what a shame
13:51 < illegale> suppose we where to stupid to deal with big interests
13:51 < illegale> so we all suffer out of it
13:51 < illegale> and no interest in solving this problem as long as world oligarchy needs this situation
13:52 < illegale> to control everything
13:52 < illegale> you see ww3 before us?
13:52 < illegale> 1984 stuff?
13:52 < illegale> happening already
13:54 < illegale> the Honor System has its roots both in ethical considerations and in practical military necessity.
13:54 < illegale> same stuff with us
13:55 < echarp> I don't see ww3 no
13:56 < echarp> and I'm not sure there is such a thing as a world oligarchy
13:56 < illegale> what about muslims
13:56 < echarp> what about them yes?
13:56 < illegale> i see them as a new commies
13:56 < illegale> new nazies
13:56 < illegale> those wo rule need enemy
13:56 < illegale> they create it
13:56 < illegale> all the tame
13:56 < illegale> and people follow as long as hate is easy to follow
13:56 < illegale> no space for dignity
13:56 < echarp> I don't see them as such
13:56 < illegale> in such space
13:57 < illegale> them, whom?
13:57 < echarp> they are no different to the christians wackos, like the ku klux klan for example
13:57 < illegale> maybe to you
13:57 < illegale> yet, tehere is much space in media, creating new etiquetes aattaching to emotions of fear going on
13:58 < illegale> this is fammilar to mee
13:58 < illegale> seen that before during last war in cro and bosnia
13:58 < illegale> in one hand no space for hate talking, in the other hand much more destructive hate talking is going on
13:59 < illegale> read some book from some keneddy
13:59 < illegale> he promoted this collision of covilisations a while ago
13:59 < echarp> I know yes
13:59 < illegale> this stuff is špuped up vigorously
13:59 < echarp> the guy's theories are rather famous around here
13:59 < illegale> you see
14:00 < echarp> they are mostly notoriously know :)
14:00 < illegale> taking tham as granted
14:00 < illegale> not recognising they are actually creating them
14:00 < echarp> the guy creates a theory onto which the world could be mapped, yes, yet it is definitely not so black and white
14:00 < illegale> promoting big collisionj
14:00 < illegale> it does not worth anythign about black white stuff
14:00 < echarp> I don't think we *have* to have a big collision
14:00 < illegale> when you get to open war
14:01 < echarp> some muslims are just struggling with what is offered to them
14:01 < illegale> this system tends toweards it
14:01 < illegale> as long as this is cool stuff by them
14:01 < illegale> in that way thay have feared people
14:01 < illegale> in that way they are necessity
14:01 < illegale> in that way they might be over the people
14:01 < illegale> in that way no democracy possible
14:02 < illegale> patriot act and stuf
14:02 < illegale> in cro i already said you can not publish at net what you want if it is poitical
14:02 < illegale> free speach ndangeours
14:02 < echarp> you are way too negative from my point of view
14:02 < illegale> due to war over terrorism bs
14:02 < echarp> yeap, it is bs
14:02 < echarp> and bush and the us are quite in some shit
14:03 < echarp> but it is not a matter of religion, but of petrol!
14:03 < illegale> france is aside of ti?
14:03 < echarp> there is gold in those countries, black gold
14:03 < echarp> aside of what? bs?
14:03 < illegale> of bush and stuff
14:03 < illegale> american oligarchy
14:03 < echarp> france has been a police state of sorts for a long long time
14:04 < illegale> feel good about it?
14:04 < echarp> it is not an oligarchy, but elitism through some administration schools, ENA and such (polytechnique)
14:04 < echarp> I feel rather bad about it
14:04 < illegale> i see it be that thing
14:04 < echarp> I feel bad, but it does not mean the end of the world, far from it
14:05 < illegale> the gay said you can not aproach to any of that stuff unless you are married and with childern
14:05 < illegale> in that way thay know you wont do sht
14:05 < illegale> that is freeedom we are talking about, freedom that has to prevent bush doing more bs in the world
14:05 < illegale> and who can stop it*
14:05 < illegale> ?
14:05 < echarp> everybody can
14:06 < illegale> yes
14:06 < illegale> how?
14:06 < echarp> read la boetie and his treaty on voluntary servitude
14:06 < illegale> spontanioulsy?
14:06 < echarp> enlightening thing
14:06 < illegale> what he says
14:06 < illegale> *
14:06 < echarp> power can only exist if it is accepted
14:06 < illegale> ?
14:06 < echarp> it is those dominated who create their ruler
14:06 < illegale> you do nto have to accept it to hit you in te face
14:07 < illegale> this happens all the time
14:07 < illegale> all the way
14:07 < echarp> http://www.constitution.org/la_boetie/serv_vol.htm
14:07 < illegale> you can not run away, or act as it does not exist
14:07 < echarp> this is a HUGE text!
14:07 < echarp> most most interesting
14:07 < echarp> the non violent movement, ghandi and luther king, are in direct line to that kind of thought
14:08 < echarp> la boetie wrote that text in the 16th century, he was 18
14:08 < echarp> the text has been used since by all those who want to change the way we do politics
14:08 < illegale> i do not turst to such thing
14:09 < illegale> of course, i will ead it
14:09 < echarp> you have to, it's almost mandatory ;)
14:10 < illegale> is it jesus sort of fight?
14:10 < illegale> what is the principle it uses?
14:11 < illegale> Is it possible to use it in media created reality of ignorant people?
14:11 < illegale> or in some perfect workd?
14:11 < illegale> Luthegot assassined
14:11 < echarp> not at all a jesus thing
14:11 < illegale> and people say Ghandy was just in the right time
14:11 < illegale> though, how?
14:12 < illegale> turn another cheek?
14:12 < illegale> or?
14:12 < illegale> hit nme back?
14:12 < echarp> Most scholars are agreed that the Servitude volontaire is not to be considered a transitory political document written to fit some particular emergency. It seems to be instead a serious contemplation of man's relation to government, which fact makes it indeed the living document it is today and ever will be. Just as Machiavelli's system may be termed autocratic, and Calvin's theocratic, La Boétie's is obviously one of the earliest Christian demonstrations of a new ideal in government, the democratic, for the author clearly states that men are born free and equal.
14:13 < echarp> The title he chose for his tract, Voluntary Servitude, proves that he considers the people responsible for their enslavement to a despot. He feels scorn for the tyrant but also contempt for the nation submitting to him. La Boétie's genius consists in realizing and stating succinctly to his times the idea of the inalienable rights of the people, the very rights claimed for us in the Preamble to our American Constitution. The entire discourse breathes with this sentiment of the dignity and intrinsic independence of the individual.
14:13 < echarp> It would be a mistake, however, to consider La Boétie a firebrand intentionally inciting to revolt against oppression. He has taken every precaution to prevent the application of his thinking to the government of France. His terms of deference are too sincere to permit any notion of hypocritical subservience. The truth is he was not a rebel. We know not only from his words but also from his judicial record that he was the declared enemy of violence. His method of redress against dictators is much more subtle and effective than violence, and might be substantially described as "passive resistance." He sought political reform not by overt deeds involving bloodshed, but by a refusal of obedience to the orders of tyrants. Pastor Niemöller of Germany would be the perfect modern exponent of the doctrine of the discourse, which teaches essentially a peaceful method of obtaining liberty by the use of a moral weapon against which no dictator can prevail. La Boétie p
aints in lurid and clownish colors the complexion of tyranny, explains its unstable and contemptible basis, and then shows serenely the way to its overthrow by patience, passive resistance, and faith in God.
14:14 < echarp> It is not too much to assert that, if this four hundred-year-old essay could be placed in the hands of the oppressed peoples of our day, they would find a sure way to a rebirth of freedom, a manifestation of a new spirit that would almost automatically obliterate the obscurantist strutters who today throttle their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
14:17 < illegale> philosophical crap to me it seems
14:17 < illegale> such as sartr
14:17 < illegale> sartres
14:17 < illegale> or what
14:17 < echarp> more likely such as machiavel
14:17 < echarp> is machiavel crap?
14:18 < illegale> he is prgamtaical very
14:18 < illegale> making him be no philosophical crape
14:18 < illegale> r
14:18 < echarp> so is la boetie
14:18 < echarp> la boetie thought is at the heard of the non violent movements, are they crap?
14:18 < illegale> so, he gives exact solutions
14:18 < illegale> wich are'
14:19 < illegale> depends on the contexgt
14:19 < illegale> you can not remove hitler by such a moevemtn
14:19 < illegale> nor any true tyrant
14:19 < illegale> anand there are such mn
14:19 < echarp> they removed the english domination, the very same who invented concentration camps!
14:20 < illegale> who they?
14:20 < echarp> the english were incredibly fierce and brutal
14:20 < illegale> idins?
14:20 < echarp> the indians
14:20 < illegale> bs it might be
14:20 < illegale> need wider context to se is that working
14:20 < illegale> and we can notice it does not work anywwhere eklse
14:20 < illegale> even Ghnady made presedn
14:20 < echarp> well, la boetie is of interest if only because *many* know what he says and that his saying is at the foundation of democracy
14:20 < illegale> ow is that possible'
14:21 < echarp> made ???presend???
14:21 < illegale> presedane
14:21 < illegale> or something
14:21 < echarp> ???
14:21 < echarp> ???presedane???
14:21 < illegale> so, indinas knew what that man said?ž
14:22 < echarp> most probably yes
14:22 < echarp> la boetie is very important, just as is montaigne or montaigne
14:22 < echarp> oups, pascal
14:22 < illegale> you think germans could remove hitler by this?
14:22 < echarp> of course the germans could have, but they didn't want to!
14:22 < echarp> thus all the troubles
14:22 < illegale> they wanted to suffeR?
14:23 < illegale> What about French?
14:23 < echarp> of course not
14:23 < illegale> who where occupied?
14:23 < echarp> they wanted hitler in power, and they had him
14:23 < illegale> french?
14:23 < echarp> the french largely accepted the occupation
14:23 < echarp> we were broken
14:23 < illegale> and what with thoe who read that man?
14:23 < illegale> peacefull prtest stuff?
14:24 < illegale> i see them burning, actually
14:24 < illegale> not wining the war
14:24 < illegale> youž
14:24 < illegale> ?
14:24 < echarp> it's not a matter of war
14:24 < echarp> do read, then you might understand what is his point
14:24 < echarp> it's not very long
14:24 < echarp> and it's a text many know
14:25 < illegale> thoughm, this movement need s a leadeer, right
14:25 < illegale> such as ghandy
14:26 < illegale> or martin luther
14:26 < illegale> who was assasined
14:26 < echarp> no
14:26 < illegale> succeedssng actualyl nothing
14:26 < illegale> what is the pointout of ti
14:26 < illegale> can you explain it to mee?
14:26 < illegale> that american will rise when they start to suffer?
14:26 < echarp> that a system can only work if it is accepted by those it rules
14:27 < illegale> having no problem with whole controle based on new technologies
14:27 < echarp> that the slave-master relationship is one of "both" acceptance
14:27 < illegale> all of those systems where scuh
14:27 < illegale> and people tend to accept it
14:27 < echarp> that any group of people can be free if they choose it
14:27 < illegale> thos e who sdo not ang around
14:27 < echarp> that it is acceptation which produces tyrans
14:27 < illegale> hang arouin
14:27 < illegale> this irssi is very slow
14:28 < echarp> the machine/server can be slow at times
14:28 < echarp> that's another matter :)
14:28 < illegale> so, you do nto accept it, and you will be shotrter for a head
14:28 < echarp> bandwidth is limited
14:28 < illegale> coll isnti ti?
14:28 < illegale> ok
14:28 < echarp> you might have to risk your head if you want to be free, yes
14:29 < echarp> but freedom is stolen from you because *you* accept it
14:29 < echarp> it's the whole point of la boétie, and it's *huge*
14:30 < illegale> how many great people will give the head till the last one gets stuck?
14:30 < illegale> no many bold ones, you knwo?
14:31 < illegale> and it is funny to me that t the price is captdecaitaion
14:31 < illegale> not very promissing princiiple
14:31 < echarp> illegale: you don't want to read it?
14:31 < illegale> what is promising is that you benefit by beign good
14:31 < illegale> that is the way how you lead others
14:31 < illegale> not by being the one that suffers
14:31 < illegale> i am rading it
14:31 < illegale> rightnow
14:31 < echarp> machiavel, sun tzu or nietsche would probably disagree
14:32 < illegale> with what?
14:32 < echarp> being good has no relation with being a leader
14:32 < illegale> thatt is the only way if you want to make workdbe good
14:32 < echarp> good and evil are just arbitrary categories conveniently set up by the winner
14:32 < illegale> to lead them by example
14:32 < illegale> good is what you think is right
14:33 < illegale> and i have seen many people have problems when going to dark side
14:33 < illegale> so, it is not that arbitary
14:33 < illegale> this is very strong feeling inhearts of many, even in hearth that did not recognise it previsously
14:35 < illegale> i know a hero, at least i see him that way
14:35 < illegale> he is my example
14:35 < illegale> my idol
14:35 < illegale> sort of at leas
14:35 < illegale> and i do follow his deeds
14:36 < echarp> it's nice to have such a point of reference
14:36 < illegale> yet these deeds have to be acknowledged by all
14:36 < illegale> as astuff that worths trying it
14:36 < illegale> if you get decapitated. not many will follow you by an example
14:36 < illegale> oportunistic principle of human
14:36 < illegale> thatmade us survive actually
14:36 < illegale> not obeying to bizzare principles
14:37 < illegale> however they sound good
14:37 < illegale> and this is actualyl possible, at least i see that wa
14:37 < illegale> y
14:37 < echarp> you don't have to be decapitated, you just have not to help the tyran
14:37 < echarp> it's the *not* helping that is important
14:38 < echarp> if the population accepts its situation, then you can't do much
14:38 < illegale> you get decaptiated for that stuff also
14:38 < echarp> not helping is not refusing a direct order that can lead to beheading
14:38 < illegale> tyran sets the rulest that enable hinm survival
14:38 < echarp> still reading?
14:38 < illegale> the texts, yes
14:39 < echarp> good
14:39 < illegale> you know these old ladies forom the first raw in churces
14:39 < illegale> r those who lost their dreams
14:39 < illegale> those like to boey to the tyran
14:40 < illegale> he is their own certinty
14:40 < illegale> and they csuppoert him no matter how
14:40 < illegale> when, or where
14:40 < echarp> yes
14:40 < illegale> and there are always such men
14:40 < illegale> and you can playfool , but you are irrelevatn
14:41 < illegale> i want to be relevatn
14:41 < illegale> if everybody is principle that does not work
14:41 < illegale> due to principle od oproutnism
14:41 < echarp> well, did it or did it not work in india?
14:41 < illegale> i am not very jesus like person
14:41 < illegale> who says it was that actually?
14:42 < echarp> I believe many do
14:42 < echarp> of course it's a matter of philosophy
14:42 < illegale> you believe becasue you want to belive
14:42 < echarp> the 20th century non violent movement has its roots in la boétie, among others of course
14:42 < illegale> philosophy is not grounded stuff
14:42 < illegale> regulatrly
14:42 < echarp> sorry, montaigne had huge effects for example
14:42 < illegale> i am interested in grounded stuff
14:42 < echarp> yet it is philosophy
14:43 < illegale> who is montaigne
14:43 < illegale> ?
14:43 < echarp> montesquieu is another huge one
14:43 < echarp> he designed what are our current institution
14:43 < echarp> legislative, executive, judiciary
14:43 < echarp> montesquieu saw that
14:43 < echarp> the US system originates directly from this philosophic vision
14:44 < illegale> that is the reason it so soo cool?
14:44 < echarp> I'm just showing you that philosophy has effects
14:44 < echarp> huge effects
14:44 < echarp> thus it's relevant
14:45 < illegale> philosophy is good as long as it removes influence of mind biding authopriteis
14:45 < illegale> of today
14:45 < illegale> you need ot eliminate thir infulence and you can use new dogmas
14:46 < illegale> that people will excuce in doing revolutionary stuff
14:46 < illegale> this part of selfindctrinaction is coll as long as it creates strong groups and stuff
14:46 < echarp> sorry, philosophy is also at the root of many things
14:46 < echarp> separation of the church and the state for example
14:46 < illegale> ok
14:47 < illegale> i am turned towards political philosophy the mosest
14:47 < echarp> well then, you should definitely read some of those works
14:47 < echarp> montesquieu again, for his vision of our modern institutions
14:47 < echarp> institutions
14:47 < illegale> though, the whole poin is interest of those who are politically active
14:48 < illegale> if they need to eliminate power of the church they need to set good arguments that will give more not so sure persons around them
14:48 < illegale> becoming more politically irelevant
14:48 < illegale> that is ti
14:48 < echarp> that's what philosophers can start
14:48 < illegale> if there is no ground, no idea can nto change anything
14:48 < echarp> it's a process
14:48 < echarp> long term and tedious
14:49 < illegale> see marx
14:49 < illegale> he just helped people suck big time
14:49 < illegale> nohitting the essence he was misused
14:49 < illegale> this is regular stuff among philosopers
14:49 < illegale> going to gfar especially if they want to create closed ideologiy
14:50 < illegale> or that sartr and 1968
14:50 < echarp> marx most certainly did not want what happened, and he was in a larger movement
14:50 < echarp> the communists would probably have occured even without him
14:50 < illegale> yet, they all mised the point
14:50 < echarp> which is?
14:51 < illegale> i am for very lousie phiosophies, actuall reduction of them
14:51 < illegale> same as liberalism goes against the staeiteslef
14:51 < illegale> i am going against philosophy iteslf
14:51 < echarp> well, are la boetie or montesquieu lousy?
14:51 < illegale> depends
14:51 < echarp> what of descartes or epicure?
14:51 < illegale> what you mean by that
14:51 < illegale> do not about epicure too much
14:52 < echarp> they gave ideas to our world, onto which we are building our future
14:52 < illegale> i like mathematicians
14:52 < illegale> more
14:52 < illegale> what ideas?
14:52 < illegale> ideals?
14:52 < illegale> you think they do not exist with no articultions?
14:53 < echarp> ideas, political ideas
14:54 < illegale> seem i gonna find this in croatia
14:54 < illegale> n
14:54 < illegale> in that case i wont miss anything
14:54 < echarp> find what? ideas?
14:54 < illegale> no, this work in english
14:54 < echarp> possibly yes
14:54 < echarp> it's probably been translated in many languages
14:55 < illegale> what i see is this is the process goes pretty spontaniously
14:55 < illegale> tending towards spreadoing of knowledge which is the power in its essencve
14:55 < illegale> moknowledge can nto be erased
14:55 < illegale> power can not be decreased
14:55 < illegale> at least its potential
14:55 < illegale> so, this all goes on
14:56 < illegale> though, there are sustainable and non sustanable systems and knowledge that supportthenm
14:56 < illegale> all these movements
14:56 < illegale> where did they happened
14:56 < illegale> when people got hungra
14:56 < illegale> y
14:56 < illegale> and power of emperor not big
14:56 < illegale> any system you llok that is the way
14:57 < illegale> and you can just help this process go more or less directly
14:57 < illegale> by focusing energy
14:57 < illegale> to stuff that optimies everyones action
14:57 < illegale> yet, tehre is operative mode much more important thn "philosohpcal" one
14:57 < illegale> philosophical one is only the cannon imo
14:58 < illegale> to find thing we will adorm
14:58 < illegale> helping us move faster, having not that much fear in losing what we had and what we find for that way be a burden
15:00 < illegale> btw, in ex yu there where 10% of the people conected to secret agency
15:01 < illegale> so, this guy could not promote his work if it would be endangeround to system
15:01 < illegale> every single political activity was eliminated
15:01 < echarp> the guy wrote and published this text in a time of religious war...
15:01 < illegale> and no political activity, no political effect
15:02 < echarp> his best friend, montaigne, a catholic, had promised to include la boetie's writings in his own, and finally he backed off and just included some poems
15:02 < echarp> but he kepts repeating that he would include the entire text
15:03 < illegale> lol
15:03 < echarp> so nowadays many publishers actually do just that
15:03 < illegale> You into zen?
15:03 < echarp> they include the traité sur la servitue volontaire in les éssais
15:03 < echarp> I don't really know zen no
15:03 < illegale> me neither
15:03 < illegale> sounds good though
15:03 < illegale> :)=
15:03 < echarp> yeap
15:03 < illegale> what i mean, living the moment
15:04 < illegale> not ideals
15:04 < illegale> that link i postedto you
15:04 < illegale> how big is that knight stuff
15:04 < illegale> is the measore of his next act
15:04 < illegale> cool it sounds
15:04 < illegale> and than you need no dream, but living it right now
15:05 < illegale> by obeying the rules that make you happy
15:05 < illegale> and satisfied
15:05 < illegale> this is what i like
15:05 < illegale> and that does not need ideology actually
15:05 < illegale> not at all i thing
15:05 < echarp> I disagree
15:06 < echarp> it is not a matter of "ideology", just ideas
15:06 < illegale> say
15:06 < illegale> what ideas?
15:06 < echarp> there are ideas that you encouter and make yours
15:06 < illegale> why not living themÐ?
15:06 < echarp> of course
15:06 < illegale> nsted of lookign for them?
15:06 < illegale> ideas is in your deed stuff
15:06 < illegale> what si the problem than?
15:07 < echarp> because you need wisdom and to act wisely
15:07 < echarp> to act wisely you need wisdom
15:07 < illegale> i think it is the world that gives you the wisdon
15:07 < illegale> not other mans contemplation
15:07 < echarp> there are many ways to obtain wisdom
15:07 < illegale> as long as you ned strong grounds if you want to underand it
15:07 < illegale> this is zen suff also i think=
15:07 < illegale> what are the oes you prefer?
15:07 < echarp> I think that zen masters actually are philosophers
15:08 < illegale> and whatare the ones actualyl exist
15:08 < illegale> ?
15:08 < illegale> i think that yes,
15:08 < echarp> which one are you speaking about?
15:08 < illegale> yet whe you say philospher, it reminds me at those with titles
15:08 < illegale> i have no respect to
15:08 < echarp> I'm not using titles, just description
15:08 < illegale> ok
15:08 < illegale> what is philosopher than?
15:09 < illegale> the one who lives his ideas?
15:09 < echarp> that's the greek definition of philosopher yes
15:09 < echarp> one of the original vision
15:09 < illegale> this about philosophy in its name is not so cool, it is gfetishistincimo
15:09 < echarp> 2000 years ago you had to live by your ideas
15:09 < illegale> ok, i agree twiththat
15:10 < echarp> it changed with the christian obscurantism
15:10 < echarp> you then had to separate ideas and comportments
15:10 < echarp> and behaviours
15:10 < illegale> crazy stuff
15:10 < echarp> and nowadays we are more able to live our ideas again
15:10 < illegale> i like that
15:10 < echarp> took us ages, but here we are
15:11 < illegale> and that is the part that gibve s big hit to wester tradition of philosophy imo
15:11 < echarp> wisdom, philosophy (the search for wisdom)
15:11 < echarp> big hit?
15:11 < illegale> this is budhistic i thinkl
15:11 < illegale> big slap
15:11 < echarp> what slap???
15:11 < echarp> what are you speaking about???
15:12 < illegale> this concept of division of ideas and living
15:12 < illegale> which is in core ofwestern philosophers who took tradition
15:12 < echarp> so, what is the part that gave a big slap?
15:12 < illegale> reality imo
15:12 < illegale> and the fact we do not care about ideas that are not for living
15:12 < echarp> ok, I'm lost, can you rephrase using simple words and grammar?
15:13 < illegale> it is me
15:13 < echarp> what is your position?
15:13 < illegale> i have astrong opinion that western tradiction of philosophy based on separation of the ideas and world itself is actually bs
15:13 < illegale> bad ground fro nay cool stuff
15:14 < illegale> and this is what changes thanks to this era of info freedom
15:14 < illegale> where we can see that it does not work actuaklly
15:14 < illegale> they took away ideas from us
15:14 < illegale> they looked at them as somehing that is completely sepearete from us as very beings
15:14 < echarp> it's been changing since the renaissance
15:14 < illegale> whch lost any info value to us
15:14 < echarp> but many clinge on it
15:15 < illegale> ok
15:15 < illegale> you see that fukuyama guy
15:15 < echarp> separation of ideas and reality is just one branch of philosophy you know, the platonist one
15:15 < echarp> fukuyama???
15:15 < illegale> yes
15:15 < echarp> who is he?
15:16 < illegale> http://www.opendemocracy.net/democracy-fukuyama/issue.jsp
15:16 < illegale> niot such a great link
15:16 < illegale> nevetheless
15:16 < illegale> and he is a big shot
15:16 < illegale> yet he claimed oximorons
15:17 < illegale> this is philosophy tradition nowdays
15:17 < illegale> i see no academic one that i could respet at all
15:17 < illegale> but one in cro
15:17 < illegale> tough, he amused me by his attitued
15:18 < echarp> you should read michel onfray then
15:18 < illegale> what he is talking about?
15:18 < echarp> he's given a course (available as mp3, in french), retracing all of philosophy's history from an epicurian view point
15:18 < illegale> hmh
15:18 < echarp> he's a materialist
15:19 < echarp> does not make any separation between ideas and reality
15:19 < illegale> like that
15:19 < echarp> monist, hedonist, rather anarchist too
15:19 < illegale> utilitiatism
15:19 < illegale> and stuff
15:19 < echarp> yeap
15:19 < illegale> see the same way
15:19 < echarp> see, there are worthy element in contemporary philosophy
15:19 < illegale> though, afraid of using hedonism due to its sustanability component
15:20 < echarp> sustainability???
15:20 < illegale> sustainabiity
15:20 < illegale> of concept hedonism
15:20 < illegale> of course, it matters how yxou define it
15:20 < echarp> hedonists are people who calculate
15:20 < echarp> they constantly calculate in order to maximise pleasure
15:21 < illegale> what about time part
15:21 < illegale> more pleaseu soon as possible?
15:21 < illegale> get some crack
15:21 < echarp> of course *not*
15:21 < illegale> but
15:21 < echarp> they maximise it, not just now, but for the future nows
15:21 < illegale> and now comes tha hard part
15:21 < illegale> how to gain ti?
15:22 < illegale> is it available thorhg asketism?
15:22 < echarp> it would be stupid to only think of the actual present and forget about the future
15:22 < illegale> yes
15:22 < echarp> epicure was an ascete
15:22 < echarp> he only ate and drank what was required, no more
15:22 < illegale> can he be hedonist too?
15:22 < echarp> and this was his pleasure
15:22 < echarp> epicure was the start of hedonism!!!
15:22 < illegale> col
15:22 < echarp> of course cool
15:22 < illegale> i though it was some guy called hgedo or stuff
15:23 < echarp> but platon and christianity changed the way history has framed epicure
15:23 < illegale> does the guy you mentioned ascet?
15:23 < echarp> they invented the concept of epicurian pigs
15:23 < echarp> michel onfray?
15:23 < illegale> yeS*?
15:23 < illegale> yes
15:23 < echarp> he is rather stern
15:23 < illegale> stern?
15:23 < echarp> he was a simple teacher in a technical high school
15:24 < echarp> austere
15:24 < illegale> ok
15:24 < echarp> he is the most published of contemporary philosophers, yet he is personally rather not famous
15:25 < illegale> not much result on him in cro
15:25 < illegale> have to look in english :=
15:25 < echarp> he created a populary university opened to everybody
15:25 < illegale> living?
15:25 < echarp> free
15:25 < echarp> living in normandy
15:25 < illegale> your guy
15:25 < illegale> know him=?ž
15:25 < illegale> :)=
15:25 < echarp> I've only seen him on tv
15:26 < illegale> is he afraid of poweR?
15:27 < illegale> he is farmer :0
15:27 < illegale> cool
15:27 < illegale> that is what i respect
15:27 < illegale> no spaxce for indoctriantin
15:27 < echarp> I don't know if he fears power
15:28 < echarp> he has written an "anti" treaty of philosophy, you might appreciate that :)
15:28 < illegale> :)
15:28 < illegale> see he is in politics
15:28 < illegale> yet in some communist party:(
15:28 < illegale> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_Communist_League_%28France%29
15:29 < illegale> libertanin socialsim he is for
15:29 < illegale> cool
15:30 < illegale> now i se this is the guy we should contaft :O)
15:30 < echarp> oh yes, I forgot about the libertan part :)
15:30 < echarp> libertan and libertarian
15:30 < illegale> wghat is the difference?
15:30 < echarp> libertin date from the renaissance
15:30 < echarp> they are heavily sexually connotated :)
15:31 < echarp> libertarian are modern liberals
15:31 < illegale> not so strange as long as it is french stuff
15:31 < illegale> :)=
15:32 < illegale> i think he might be interested in this stuff we do
15:32 < echarp> well, he's a *big* guy, I won't bother him today
15:32 < illegale> sure
15:33 < illegale> it is all up to how open he is for little people
15:33 < illegale> this needs nose
15:33 < echarp> when we reach 400 :)
15:33 < illegale> for that stuff
15:33 < illegale> :)
15:33 < illegale> than we wont needhim :(
15:33 < illegale> maybe 7?
15:34 < illegale> nevertheless
15:34 < illegale> lets get beck to top politics
15:34 < illegale> if you are fine with that
15:35 < illegale> run run run run run
15:35 < illegale> :=
15:35 < illegale> like veleveT?
15:35 < echarp> ?
15:35 < illegale> velvet undrground
15:35 < echarp> I don't remember much about it
15:35 < illegale> nevermind
15:36 < illegale> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Velvet_Underground
15:38 < illegale> so, this stuff about goals
15:38 < illegale> when you get time we should talk about how you see it
15:38 < echarp> I still have to write something about my personal goals
15:39 < illegale> so, wait till then?
15:39 < echarp> possibly yes
15:39 < echarp> what about your personal goals?
15:40 < illegale> in private or in political live?
15:40 < illegale> :)=
15:41 < illegale> though, there are three directions among which i have to choose
15:41 < illegale> this means leaving others besie as long as there is no point of runigng three things at all
15:41 < illegale> no focus no good
15:42 < echarp> both
15:42 < illegale> private, finish colleg and go to big trip
15:43 < illegale> political, three options are:
15:43 < illegale> philosophy :-)=
15:43 < illegale> loca
15:43 < illegale> l
15:43 < illegale> globa
15:43 < illegale> l
15:43 < illegale> philosophy is finisihng set of thought about this issue
15:43 < illegale> answering some stuff that is taken as grounded
15:43 < illegale> spreading views and stuff
15:43 < illegale> cultural work it actually is
15:44 < illegale> local, creating trust network in croatia, and supportingkeading political option based on top
15:44 < illegale> global, same stuff, different auditoriun
15:45 < illegale> seems to me the easist part gonna be finishing some wrtiings about this stuff and going locval
15:45 < illegale> trying to brand myself
15:45 < illegale> and highen influence
15:46 < illegale> yo?
15:47 < illegale> btw, toop needs more articulation indeed
15:47 < illegale> this might be parrt of writings
15:47 < illegale> part
15:48 < illegale> echarp: are you therE?
15:48 < illegale> i have to go in several minutes
15:48 < illegale> hungry
15:50 < echarp> I'm here
15:50 < echarp> but also at work
15:50 < echarp> so not available all the time
15:51 < illegale> ok
15:54 < echarp> me I'm not very good at self promotion
15:54 < echarp> I'm an engineer and I love to build things
15:54 < echarp> this is my goal, to build things
15:55 < illegale> build tings in what manner?
15:55 < illegale> just software, or nay?
15:55 < illegale> any?
15:56 < illegale> huh, when it gets intererested, you vanish :)=
15:57 < illegale> ok, that means software only
15:58 < echarp> build objects, concepts, ideas, software
15:58 < echarp> stories or novels would also be a construction
15:59 -!- illegale [n=ille...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has quit ["Lost terminal"]
16:29 -!- illegale (illegale) [n=ille...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has joined #parlement
16:29 < illegale:#parlement> back
16:29 < illegale:#parlement> system collapsed
16:32 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
16:32 < echarp> illegale: you should now use "screen" before launching irssi
16:32 < illegale> how*
16:32 < illegale> ?
16:32 < echarp> so that your irc session still works even when you are absent
16:32 < illegale> no matter am i looged?
16:33 < illegale> what to do'
16:33 < illegale> =?
16:33 < illegale> ?
16:33 < echarp> in your terminal (not in irssi), type "info screen"
16:33 < illegale> do i have to quiet irssi for that?
16:33 < echarp> yes, no matter if you are physically connected or not
16:33 < echarp> no, you should start another terminal
16:33 < illegale> how?
16:33 < echarp> screen is also great in order to have more than one command prompt
16:34 < echarp> I love and always use screen for everything I do (except graphical web browsing and pdf)
16:34 < echarp> you can also use some commands in order to go back to the terminal
16:34 < echarp> illegale: you want to try those 2 commands? (one to go back to the terminal), one to come back to irssi
16:37 < illegale> how to go back to the terminal?
16:37 < echarp> yes
16:37 < echarp> illegale: here you are in a terminal *and* in irssi
16:37 < echarp> but irssi blocks the use of the command line
16:37 < illegale> so what to do?
16:38 < echarp> ok, there are two things to do
16:38 < illegale> join 3illegale
16:38 < echarp> be careful with the second one
16:38 < illegale> yes
16:38 < echarp> do not try the first command before you have learned the second!!!
16:38 < echarp> illegale: you follow me on that?
16:38 < echarp> or you will lose irssi
16:39 < illegale> just say what to do
16:39 < echarp> first => Ctrl+Z
16:39 < echarp> second => fg
16:39 < echarp> Ctrl+Z is a keyboard combination
16:39 < echarp> fg is just a command you type normally in the terminal
16:39 < echarp> (fg = foreground)
16:40 < echarp> I see you are using "info"
16:41 -!- illegale_ (illegale) [n=ille...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has joined #parlement
16:42 < illegale_> this was too strong for me
16:42 < echarp> I see that :(
16:42 < illegale_> i got lost after you put ctrl z
16:42 < illegale_> did not know how to get bec
16:42 < illegale_> so i quited
16:42 < echarp> :(
16:42 < illegale_> suppose i need cure before i do it again :)
16:42 < echarp> to come back, you should have typed "fg"
16:42 < echarp> fg = foreground
16:42 < echarp> quit this current irssi, and then type "fg"!
16:43 < echarp> thus you will come back at your first irssi
16:43 < echarp> quit with /quit
16:43 -!- illegale_ [n=ille...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has quit [Client Quit]
16:43 < illegale> lol
16:44 < illegale> i am fine with this
16:44 < echarp> re
16:44 < echarp> yet I did warn you about learning the second command before using the first!
16:44 < illegale> to fastr i am
16:44 < illegale> to think
16:44 < echarp> you must have caused troubled in your courses as a kid :)
16:44 < illegale> faster than mind
16:45 < illegale> still do
16:45 < illegale> ok, so...am i logged now for all the time?
16:45 < echarp> no
16:45 < echarp> because you didn't start irssi in the context of screen
16:45 < illegale> what i have to do?
16:45 < echarp> but before using screen, maybe you should learn to customize irssi
16:46 < illegale> yes?
16:46 < echarp> illegale: type this in irssi => "/script load /usr/share/irssi/scripts/nickcolor.pl"
16:46 < echarp> /script load /usr/share/irssi/scripts/nickcolor.pl
16:47 < illegale> i did
16:47 < echarp> /script load /usr/share/irssi/scripts/nicklist.pl
16:47 < illegale> ok
16:48 < echarp> do you see the nicklist in the top right corner?
16:48 < echarp> are nicks now colored?
16:48 < illegale> no
16:49 < echarp> this nick coloration is particularly useful in big channels with many people
16:49 < echarp> your terminal might not allow colors :(
16:49 < illegale> dd
16:49 < echarp> ???dd???
16:49 < illegale> you blue
16:50 < illegale> what about list?
16:50 < echarp> I suppose that's good
16:50 < echarp> /script load /usr/share/irssi/scripts/nicklist.pl
16:50 < echarp> that will display in the top right corner a list of all those in the channel
16:51 < illegale> dd
16:51 < echarp> doesn't work?
16:51 < illegale> no
16:52 < echarp> what is "dd" for??????
16:52 < illegale> nothing
16:52 < illegale> it does not work
16:52 < illegale> yet you are blue
16:52 < illegale> nickcolor works
16:52 < echarp> that's nice
16:52 < echarp> but nicklist does not
16:53 < illegale> how can i check out what is the problem?
16:53 < echarp> /set nicklist_automode = SCREEN
16:53 < illegale> might be syntax?
16:53 < illegale> i did it
16:53 < illegale> what now?
16:53 < illegale> feel no change :)
16:54 < echarp> it should work right away
16:54 < echarp> did it says anything special in your status window?
16:54 < echarp> ( Ctrl+1 for the status window)
16:55 < illegale> crel , 1 do not work
16:55 < echarp> Ctrl+1
16:56 < echarp> or Ctrl+p
16:56 < illegale> ok
16:56 < illegale> not found
16:57 < echarp> what did you not find?
16:57 < echarp> the irssi status window?
16:57 < illegale> file not founded
16:58 < illegale> about nicklist
16:59 < illegale> have to go now
16:59 < illegale> thank you for getting blue :)
16:59 < illegale> glad to see this stuff works
16:59 < illegale> this with being on line for a whil
16:59 < illegale> ee
16:59 < illegale> cu
17:00 -!- illegale [n=ille...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has quit ["Lost terminal"]
17:52 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
18:05 < urgen:#parlement> oh
18:06 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
18:06 < echarp> hello urgen
18:06 < echarp> you missed illegale and his learning of irssi :)
18:06 < urgen> ya I have to get going to a job
18:06 < urgen> but I'll catch up later
18:07 < echarp> ok
18:07 < urgen> ( I need to learn all the same things )
18:07 < echarp> cu later then, I'm off to home :)
18:07 < urgen> ok
18:07 < echarp> urgen: you ask, I'm getting quite good at irssi nowadays :)
18:07 < urgen> it is a tool I'd rather know
18:07 < urgen> shell comes in handy too often
18:08 < echarp> yeap
18:08 < echarp> and using ssh+screen+irssi+scripts makes it incredibly powerful
18:09 < echarp> urgen: what script do you already use?
18:09 < urgen> I don't know. whatever comes stock
18:09 < urgen> I only did apt-get the other day
18:09 < echarp> :)
18:09 < urgen> long ago I'd write my own scripts
18:09 < echarp> then, you also need to apt-get install irssi-scripts
18:10 < urgen> oh
18:10 < urgen> cool
19:18 -!- illegale (illegale) [n=gale...@161.53.121.88] has joined #parlement
19:22 < echarp> hello back illegale
19:25 < illegale> io
19:25 < illegale> :)
19:25 < illegale> at home?
19:25 < illegale> me drunk some fine american beer
19:25 < illegale> texas beer
19:26 < illegale> Eric wrotewhat he looks for
19:43 < illegale> seems there is only think we should talk about as long as the time goes and debts are getting wilder
19:43 < illegale> cu
19:44 -!- illegale [n=gale...@161.53.121.88] has quit []
--- Log closed jeu jun 29 00:00:22 2006
echarp
Jun 30, 2006, 12:29:02 AM6/30/06
to top-politics
--- Log opened jeu jun 29 00:00:22 2006
09:12 < echarp> hello hello
10:59 -!- Anon0559 (anonymous our-constitute.org site user) [n=Anon...@mailhost.comidoc.fr] has joined #parlement
11:00 -!- Anon0559 is now known as testingthat
11:00 -!- testingthat [n=Anon...@mailhost.comidoc.fr] has quit [Client Quit]
11:32 -!- illegale (illegale) [n=ille...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has joined #parlement
11:32 < illegale:#parlement> io
11:33 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
11:33 < echarp> chalut chalut illegale
11:33 < echarp> how are you?
11:33 < illegale> cool
11:33 < illegale> you?
11:34 < echarp> fine, weather is nice
11:34 < illegale> chilli?
11:35 < echarp> ?
11:36 < illegale> cold?
11:36 < echarp> no, great blue sky!
11:36 < illegale> hehe
11:36 < illegale> i like it this cold way in cro
11:36 < echarp> I'm goig to go take my lunch on the outside!
11:36 < illegale> it was 40 these days
11:36 < echarp> woaw!!!
11:37 < illegale> i read what you write at top
11:37 < illegale> wanna discuss?
11:38 < illegale> run run run run run
11:38 < echarp> until 12:00 then
11:38 < illegale> ok
11:38 < illegale> you think we should network to simmilar initativesthat measure top in some manners
11:39 < illegale> and to learn something from them in order to create good principles
11:39 < echarp> wddm maybe?
11:39 < illegale> demands and stuff
11:39 < illegale> ?
11:39 < illegale> nah, stuff you wrote about in 4 of us
11:39 < illegale> free freench foundation and stuff
11:39 < echarp> the crystal prize?
11:39 < echarp> yeap
11:39 < illegale> yes
11:39 < illegale> is that your thought?
11:40 < echarp> to network with them?
11:40 < echarp> or to look them up?
11:40 < illegale> no, to learn from them in order to set good rules
11:40 < illegale> i am asking you
11:40 < illegale> :)ž
11:40 < echarp> yeap
11:40 < echarp> I think this is the good thing to do
11:40 < illegale> something else you have in mind also?
11:41 < echarp> it's the most important one
11:42 < illegale> so, 4 of us should set these goals of creating licence/ruels/code of top initatives?
11:42 < echarp> 4 of us are probably not meaningful enough, but we can start
11:42 < illegale> ok
11:42 < illegale> What about Erics thought?
11:43 < illegale> should we articulate this stuff first?
11:43 < echarp> yes!
11:43 < echarp> definitely
11:43 < echarp> agree on concepts
11:43 < illegale> I am into top more than democracy
11:43 < illegale> democracy meas everything and nothing
11:43 < echarp> I am into democratic code more than top...
11:43 < illegale> how do you see it?
11:44 < illegale> i see it as set of principles that enable empowerment of the people
11:44 < illegale> or further decentralsiation of the power
11:44 < illegale> you?
11:44 < echarp> you should dismiss democracy because, in your mind, the word has been over used
11:44 < echarp> oups,
11:44 < echarp> you should *not*
11:44 < illegale> ok
11:44 < illegale> understand that
11:45 < illegale> yet, i want to aproach to democracy from operative mode
11:45 < illegale> in that way it has info value
11:45 < illegale> what are your thought about iÐ?
11:45 < echarp> iD???
11:45 < illegale> it
11:45 < illegale> sorry write faster than think :=
11:45 < illegale> )
11:46 < echarp> me I approach democracy first
11:46 < echarp> because to me it is the path to empowerment
11:46 < echarp> transparency is simply a requirement
11:46 < illegale> what do you mean?
11:46 < echarp> a foundation
11:46 < illegale> aproach demcoracy
11:46 < illegale> ?
11:46 < echarp> democracy is my first goal
11:46 < echarp> direct of course
11:47 < illegale> what does it mean to you?
11:47 < illegale> can you articulate it yoursefl?
11:47 < illegale> what is so hot about i?
11:47 < illegale> t?
11:47 < echarp> democracy?
11:47 < illegale> about what you see
11:47 < illegale> whern you say demcoracy is your frist goal
11:47 < echarp> I see tools that everybody can use to express themselves democratically
11:47 < illegale> it says not much to me
11:47 < echarp> in a panarchist way
11:47 < illegale> what means express democratically?
11:47 < echarp> not a centralised democracy
11:48 < illegale> so, we have many forms of demcoracY?
11:48 < echarp> just a democratic expression of ad hoc groups
11:48 < echarp> of course of course
11:48 < illegale> what is expression?
11:48 < echarp> there is no set form
11:48 < illegale> what it measn
11:48 < illegale> cultural freedom
11:48 < echarp> expression is speaking collectively and everyone agreeing to abide by this expression
11:48 < illegale> free speach?
11:48 < illegale> abide=
11:48 < echarp> free speech is beside the point
11:49 < echarp> abide is "to submit to"
11:49 < illegale> seems to me this is far from articualted?
11:49 < echarp> to adhere
11:49 < illegale> can you put it in one page what you are lookign for?
11:49 < echarp> to me it is very articulated
11:49 < echarp> I can probably put it in one sentence
11:50 < illegale> in a way is disolve parts of it and see is it all right to me
11:50 < illegale> shoot
11:51 < illegale> hard stuff, right :=
11:51 < illegale> )
11:51 < echarp> my vision: to create democratic tools that any group of individuals can freely use to democratically express themselves, like a newspaper or a constitution (enforcement of what is thus expressed is to also be expressed by the group)
11:52 < illegale> you do not define democracy ba that
11:52 < echarp> something like the nomic bot
11:52 < illegale> just use it
11:52 < illegale> you are looking for pluralistitcis autopoietic too?
11:52 < illegale> l
11:52 < echarp> probably
11:53 < illegale> what this misses ?
11:53 < echarp> democratic is simple that all participants are equal and can express themselves in some kind of vote, that's all
11:53 < illegale> what about reutation?
11:53 < illegale> is it in contradiction of equality?
11:56 < echarp> reputation?
11:56 < echarp> reputation is human, not a matter of tools
11:57 < illegale> ok
11:57 < illegale> so, we agree than
11:57 < echarp> yes
11:57 < echarp> I'm targetting basic architectural matters
11:57 < illegale> is it enough to you?
11:57 < illegale> understand it agree to it
11:57 < echarp> I don't want to enforce any sort of policy
11:57 < illegale> you know that
11:57 < echarp> understand what and agree to what?
11:58 < illegale> with your thought about principles of tool
11:58 < illegale> s
11:59 < echarp> cool
11:59 < illegale> this xwiki is shiot
11:59 < illegale> shit
11:59 < illegale> does not work regularly
11:59 < illegale> wanted to link you to our requieremnets
11:59 < illegale> we agree to
11:59 < illegale> though, you think this is Eric has in mind when want to talk about democry?
12:00 < echarp> tools?
12:01 < illegale> 12:04
12:01 < echarp> basic tools and no policy?
12:01 < illegale> to me it is
12:01 < illegale> yet, does it satisfy Erics interestr?
12:01 < echarp> I don't know
12:01 < echarp> we'll have to ask him
12:01 < echarp> he wanted to start discussing about delegates I believe
12:01 < illegale> btw, little objection i have to you
12:02 < echarp> yes?
12:08 < echarp> illegale: still here?
12:08 < illegale> sorry
12:08 < illegale> had a call
12:09 < illegale> echarp: on the topic of 4 of us you spread dialogue to other themes disabling clear focus
12:09 < illegale> echarp: step by step is the way
12:09 < illegale> echarp: lets make first step first and than see what with other stuff
12:10 < echarp> ok
12:10 < illegale> in contrary we have claiscal magnus, emmanuel, mark lemmingism .-=
12:10 < illegale> thanks
12:10 < echarp> what are the first steps?
12:11 < echarp> I just don't see them
12:11 < illegale> too see what are visions of every single member about 4 of us
12:11 < illegale> and to see are they able to be joined
12:12 < illegale> sorry for not being clear about that
12:12 < echarp> able to be joined?
12:12 < illegale> mixed
12:12 < illegale> for an example, Erics thought and your though in this momentt work fine i understand
12:12 < illegale> yes?
12:13 < echarp> I don't get it, mixed???
12:13 < illegale> we just put erics though before the rest of the process as long as it is basic
12:13 < illegale> joined
12:13 * echarp is lost
12:13 < illegale> affiliated, amalgamate, associate, associated, jointed, mingy,
12:14 < illegale> goals
12:14 < illegale> can we accept common goal working fine with all of us?ž
12:15 < echarp> of course
12:15 < illegale> if not, no space for workking together
12:15 < illegale> on long term manner
12:15 < illegale> as organisation
12:15 < echarp> that depends on the goals!
12:15 < illegale> what do you mean?
12:16 < echarp> if the goals align with mine, then I will work with the group
12:16 < illegale> there is an important part
12:17 < illegale> meaning you work for the group and in tha way you profit as long as your goal are complementary
12:17 < echarp> that seemed rather obvious to me
12:17 < illegale> ok
12:17 < echarp> common interests are what make free association work
12:17 < illegale> i am not into working for group in a manner i do not actually care about it at all but eventually it is the same thing in that moment as if i work alone stuff
12:18 < illegale> that is not organisation but bs
12:19 < illegale> so, i am not into big, big, big goals, at least not in this very moment till we do not know each other enouigh
12:19 < illegale> we have to earn each others respect in order of working big stuff i think
12:19 < echarp> I also think that we should start small
12:20 < illegale> cool
12:20 < illegale> sometimes think we do not have to discuss at all
12:20 < illegale> :-)
12:20 < echarp> I'm a simple man
12:20 < illegale> :-)
12:21 < illegale> btw, you have to work?
12:21 < illegale> now
12:21 < echarp> to go to lunch
12:21 < echarp> I'm waiting for a friend, she's late (how weird :)
12:21 < illegale> cool
12:22 < illegale> you will be here for a little bit longer than::9
12:22 < illegale> The thing about Eric.
12:22 < illegale> his thought
12:22 < illegale> This stuff about delagation
12:23 < illegale> what is a problem out there, have somethingin mind?
12:24 < echarp> I do not know
12:24 < echarp> I think he has something in mind
12:24 < echarp> he might not like the idea of delegation
12:25 < illegale> you find that part important in this moment?
12:25 < illegale> though, i am not sure he is not fine with it
12:25 < echarp> it is as far as parlement is concerned
12:25 < illegale> you mean program tools?
12:26 < echarp> yes
12:26 < illegale> ok
12:26 < echarp> and the procedure we can use amon ourselves too
12:26 < illegale> stuff about nodes/persons needed or not needed promoted or not existing
12:26 < illegale> I suppose it is my right to trust someone
12:27 < illegale> that he knows more than me about some stuff
12:27 < echarp> for example I think we can do without a leader, but that a leader (or a college) would naturally emerge if we could delegate our voice
12:27 < illegale> hmh
12:27 < illegale> i am pro leader
12:27 < illegale> it exist in every concept of group
12:27 < illegale> with a reason
12:28 < echarp> which is?
12:28 < illegale> to lead
12:28 < illegale> somewhere
12:28 < illegale> that is a funcion
12:28 < echarp> well, if a leader is seen as required will it not emerge naturally?
12:28 < echarp> do there need to be a special function and a title?
12:29 < illegale> thought is natural stuff too
12:29 < echarp> ???
12:29 < illegale> it removes doubt
12:29 < echarp> what is the relation with thought?
12:29 < illegale> enables clear focus
12:29 < echarp> what enables clear focus?
12:29 < illegale> i get your point now
12:29 < illegale> formality stuff you aim at
12:30 < illegale> i am pro formality now
12:30 < echarp> I don't think any formality is required
12:30 < illegale> was not before
12:30 < illegale> it clears the focus
12:30 < echarp> I think there can be basic very very basic rules
12:30 < illegale> and focus is important
12:30 < echarp> and from there any shape can emerge, or not
12:30 < illegale> maybe you are right
12:30 < illegale> yet, we do nto know them yet
12:30 < echarp> of course
12:30 < echarp> it's the whole point, to let them evolve
12:30 < illegale> i think code stuff is going in that way
12:31 < illegale> open code
12:31 < illegale> of action
12:31 < illegale> stuff
12:31 < illegale> you anarchistic mind
12:31 < illegale> had some simmilar visions
12:31 < echarp> :)
12:31 < echarp> panarchist :)
12:32 < illegale> now i am in operative mode as basic
12:32 < illegale> when someting usefull i use it
12:32 < illegale> basic thought is empowerment of the people
12:32 < illegale> what helps it i am fine with it
12:33 < illegale> formal leader is empowering too in some situations as this one is in this very moment
12:33 < illegale> and now i am one 8-)
12:33 < echarp> :)
12:34 < illegale> this is same stuff to liberlism
12:34 < illegale> dicreasment of the state
12:35 < illegale> you can not just eliminate it if there is no cultural ground
12:35 < illegale> yet, you can set it
12:35 < illegale> cultural ground, i see as code stuf
12:35 < illegale> f
12:36 < illegale> does panarchy has constitution?
12:36 < illegale> have
12:36 < echarp> of course not
12:36 < echarp> panarchy is a system of system
12:36 < illegale> means some rules?
12:36 < echarp> the only requirement is for systems to accept the existence of other systems
12:36 < echarp> that's all
12:37 < echarp> from there everything can be set up
12:37 < echarp> there can be war
12:37 < illegale> i think it is empty
12:37 < echarp> systems can share common geography
12:37 < illegale> politics is about solving conflicts
12:37 < illegale> this does nto solve them
12:37 < echarp> some individuals can be part of more than one system at a time
12:38 < echarp> sorry, to me politics are the tool we try to use to define our future
12:38 < illegale> so, how do you solve conflicts by that tool?
12:39 < illegale> i mean if there was no conflicts of interests, there would be no politics at all but people would do whatever they wished to do
12:39 < echarp> the tool does not solve conflicts
12:39 < illegale> yet, conflict is existing
12:39 < illegale> what does?
12:39 < echarp> humans
12:40 < echarp> if two systems want to enter into a war, then they will
12:40 < illegale> politicians?
12:40 < echarp> but eventually the members of warring system could leave them
12:40 < illegale> who fixes bad teeth?
12:40 < echarp> because, well, how many individuals actually want war?
12:40 < echarp> dental surgeons
12:41 < illegale> and even than, waar happens
12:41 < illegale> fascinating, huh?:-)
12:41 < echarp> war will happen if individuals want them
12:41 < echarp> yes
12:41 < illegale> who solves legal problems?
12:41 < illegale> lawyers
12:41 < illegale> nat laws
12:41 < illegale> right?
12:41 < echarp> individuals
12:41 < illegale> it is the same stuff with politics
12:42 < illegale> you might say that
12:42 < illegale> yet, you loose info by that generalisation
12:42 < echarp> you are into a system with rules, in case of conflict with those rules, the system shouls have defined a resolution mechanism
12:42 < echarp> justice, penal courts, police
12:42 < illegale> system?
12:42 < echarp> or whatever the system choose
12:42 < illegale> what is it?
12:42 < illegale> what is a ground of it?
12:42 < echarp> a system is simply any group of individuals
12:43 < echarp> an enterprise is a system
12:43 < illegale> just a grouo?
12:43 < echarp> same with a family or a church
12:43 < echarp> yeap, just a group
12:43 < illegale> i see decision making process there too
12:43 < illegale> inputs outputs and stuff
12:43 < echarp> of course
12:43 < illegale> when we talk about system, i do not see funds, but abstract
12:44 < illegale> such as car and car system
12:44 < echarp> ok, time for lunch
12:44 < echarp> see you later illegale
12:44 < illegale> system does not talk about material and stuff
12:44 < illegale> bon apetite
12:44 < illegale> :)=
12:44 < echarp> merci
13:43 < echarp> re
14:15 < illegale> hey
14:15 < illegale> at opencoop
14:29 < illegale> howwas at date?
14:32 < echarp> sorry?
14:32 < illegale> i mean you had agood time outsie?
14:32 < illegale> chilling?
14:33 < echarp> not chilling at all
14:33 < echarp> rather warm
14:41 -!- salfield (tom) [n=t...@host-212-158-235-38.bulldogdsl.com] has joined #parlement
14:41 < salfield> hello parlement people :)
14:42 < echarp> hello hello salfield!
14:42 < echarp> welcome
14:42 < salfield> thanks
14:42 < echarp> salfield: there also is nomic bot, fiatlex, used for some experimentation on rules making
14:42 < echarp> fiatlex: help nomic
14:42 < fiatlex> echarp: Ask me about rule <n>, or ask me to accept <Rule> [with <Note>], amend <Rule> with <Rule>, annotate <Rule> with <Text>, collect <Number> <Thing> from <Player>, defeat <Rule> [with <Note>], details of <Rule>, enact <Rule> [with <Note>], enroll, grant <Number> <Thing> to <Player>, inventory
14:42 < fiatlex> ..<Thing>, notes on <Rule>, pending, propose <Text>, reject <Rule> [with <Note>], spend <Number> <Thing> or text of <Rule>.
14:43 < salfield> aha you are into nomic
14:43 < salfield> cool
14:43 < echarp> urgen is the guy to talk about that ;)
14:44 < echarp> fiatlex: pending
14:44 < fiatlex> echarp: 2. I agree to participate (enacted at 21:39 Jun 09; proposed by echarp at 18:20 Jun 09; accepted by illegale, nsh, urgen)
14:46 < salfield> echarp, very nice stuff
14:46 < echarp> thanks!
14:46 < echarp> still got much to do
14:46 < echarp> there also are rss feeds
14:47 < echarp> sometimes in the future it could become a new digg
14:49 < illegale> oh, you nomicians :-P
14:50 < echarp> illegale: it's all about rule making, you should love it!
14:50 < illegale> the only thing it misses is merit
14:52 < echarp> you get it as reputation
14:53 < illegale> what reputation, for doing stuff taht does not matter?
14:53 < echarp> the rules can apply anywhere people accept them
14:54 < illegale> lets say what is basic problem in short
14:54 < illegale> nomics basic are other rules
14:54 < illegale> my basic is reality
14:54 < illegale> that is it
14:54 < illegale> amen
14:55 < echarp> reality and virtuality are so different?
14:56 < salfield> echarp: is there any realtime aspect to parlement, besides irc?
14:56 < echarp> salfield: not yet, but I expect to code it
14:56 < echarp> so that when you write something, all readers can see it appear in real time
14:57 < echarp> it's almost easy to do with ruby on rails and ajax
14:59 < salfield> hmm we must discuss how
14:59 < salfield> but right now I have a vistor
15:00 < echarp> ok
15:00 < echarp> salfield: what is your job?
15:01 < illegale> sevret agent
15:01 < illegale> join #joiito
15:02 < echarp> :)
15:02 < illegale> ops
15:02 < echarp> illegale: there are ways to autojoin channels
15:02 < illegale> yes?
15:03 < echarp> I never remember the command because I don't do it much
15:03 < illegale> once in time
15:03 < illegale> :)=
15:03 < echarp> by the way, illegale, try this =>
15:03 < echarp> /script load /usr/share/irssi/scripts/nicklist.pl
15:03 < echarp> it should work I believe
15:04 < illegale> hmh, maybe it works
15:04 < illegale> i just do not see how it manifests?
15:04 < illegale> :)
15:04 < echarp> you should see a list of all those present in the channel?
15:04 < illegale> nada
15:05 < echarp> what did it say in the status window?
15:05 < echarp> (user Ctrl+n to go to the status window)
15:05 < illegale> nothing
15:05 < echarp> nothing appears?
15:05 < illegale> nothing
15:06 < echarp> type this to see what is loaded =>
15:07 < echarp> /NICKLIST SCREEN
15:07 < echarp> oups, do try it, but here is the command to see what scripts are loaded =>
15:07 < echarp> /script
15:07 < illegale> it says loaded scripts
15:08 < illegale> È: nicklist
15:08 < echarp> try also this =>
15:08 < echarp> /nicklist fifo
15:08 < illegale> created
15:08 < illegale> what it does?
15:09 < echarp> it should display all those present in the top right corner
15:09 < illegale> argh
15:09 < echarp> no?
15:09 < illegale> how do i copy paste text frm status window?
15:10 < echarp> mouse in your case :)
15:11 < illegale> ickServ(NickServ@services.)- If this is your nickname, type /msg NickServ IDENTIFY <password>
15:11 < illegale> 11:32 -!- Mode change [+i] for user illegale
15:11 < illegale> 11:32 -!- Irssi: Unknown command: joins
15:11 < illegale> 15:07 Loaded scripts:
15:11 < illegale> 15:07 nicklist /usr/share/irssi/scripts/nicklist.pl
15:11 < illegale> 15:07 -!- Irssi: screen not detected, screen mode only works inside screen
15:11 < illegale> 15:08 -!- Irssi: Fifo created. Start reading it ("cat /home/illegale/.irssi/nicklistfifo") and try again. [15:10] [illegale(+i)] [1:freenode (change with ^X)]
15:11 < illegale> [(status)]
15:11 < illegale> this is what happened
15:11 < illegale> do i have to load color stuff every time i join?
15:12 < echarp> :(
15:12 < echarp> to load it automatically you have to copy the script in a special folder
15:13 < echarp> all scripts in that folder are automatically loaded upon entry
15:13 < illegale> ok
15:14 < echarp> the folder is .irssi/scripts/autorun
15:15 < illegale> what does ti mean to me
15:15 < echarp> it's something to do in command line
15:15 < illegale> how to put stuff in that folder?
15:16 < echarp> mkdir ~/.irssi/scripts/autorun
15:17 < echarp> ln -s /usr/share/irssi/scripts/nickcolor.pl ~/.irssi/scripts/autorun/
15:17 < illegale> i do it when i do ctrl-z
15:17 < illegale> ?
15:17 < echarp> yeap
15:17 < echarp> and come back with fg
15:17 < illegale> all right
15:18 < illegale> dos stuff, lines and all, i never liked it
15:19 < illegale> too industrial for my taste
15:19 < illegale> :)
15:19 * echarp loves it
15:19 < echarp> ok, let's try again with nicklist
15:20 < illegale> k
15:20 < echarp> /script load ~/.irssi/scripts/autorun/nicklist_colored.pl
15:20 < echarp> /nicklist screen
15:21 < illegale> : Unknown command: joins
15:21 < illegale> 15:07 Loaded scripts:
15:21 < illegale> 15:07 nicklist /usr/share/irssi/scripts/nicklist.pl
15:21 < illegale> 15:07 -!- Irssi: screen not detected, screen mode only works inside screen
15:21 < illegale> 15:08 -!- Irssi: Fifo created. Start reading it ("cat /home/illegale/.irssi/nicklistfifo") and try again.
15:21 < illegale> 15:20 -!- Irssi: Error in script nicklist_colored:
15:21 < illegale> 15:20 File not found: /home/illegale/.irssi/scripts/autorun/nicklist_colored.pl at (eval 9) line 43.
15:21 < illegale> 15:20
15:21 < illegale> 15:20 -!- Irssi: screen not detected, screen mode only works inside screen
15:22 < echarp> try this then =>
15:22 < echarp> /nicklist FIFO
15:22 < echarp> (I'm in screen, so it works better I guess)
15:24 < echarp> illegale: there are ways to share the same screen, you want to try that? :)
15:24 < illegale> it is enough for me for today,
15:24 < illegale> thank you though
15:24 < echarp> it's easier and we would share the exact same displya
15:24 < illegale> in this very moment i can use it fine
15:25 < echarp> you would then see what I type and vice versa
15:25 < echarp> ok then
15:25 < illegale> if it is not problem, say
15:25 < echarp> it's fine by me! :)
15:25 < echarp> I'm sorry about the nicklist thing
15:25 < illegale> lol
15:25 < echarp> I didn't remember it as so complex, probably a library required to load it
15:25 < echarp> (me it's always loaded...)
15:47 < salfield> echarp: I am building a content management system, with not dissimilar goals to yours
15:47 < salfield> and doing contracts for small organisations to bootstrap
15:47 < salfield> python-based
15:47 < echarp> where are you based? europe?
15:48 < salfield> I have been looking recently at kamaelia
15:48 < salfield> london
15:48 < salfield> and you?
15:48 < echarp> paris :)
15:48 < echarp> camelia, the java one?
15:48 < salfield> not so far away :)
15:48 < echarp> yeap
15:49 < salfield> no kamaelia the python one
15:49 < echarp> you base your cms on plone?
15:49 < echarp> I don't know kamaelia
15:49 < salfield> http://kamaelia.sourceforge.net/Home
15:50 < salfield> no I base my cms on zodb, cherrypy, kid
15:50 < salfield> building more from scratch
15:50 < salfield> a guy on the summer of code, at kamaelia
15:51 < salfield> has written the beginnings of a webserver
15:51 < echarp> ever tried ruby on rails?
15:51 < salfield> which would allow scalable real-time in the browser
15:51 < salfield> echarp: no
15:51 < echarp> it's not so much scalable and real time, but it's a joy to program with!
15:51 < salfield> but I think about it sometimes
15:52 < salfield> echarp: so I hear
15:52 < echarp> I'm a seasoned J2EE guy, and RoR is a marvel and a joy
15:52 < salfield> echarp: how would you do realtime in the browser using ROR
15:52 < salfield> polling?
15:52 < salfield> or is there a better way?
15:53 < echarp> what do you in mind with real time and a browser?
15:53 < echarp> pushing content?
15:53 * salfield guesses that anything is a joy to program with after java
15:53 < echarp> :)
15:53 < echarp> java was a joy after using C++ :)
15:53 < salfield> e.g. IM, real-time collaborative text
15:54 * salfield prefers C++ !!
15:54 < echarp> I don't think a browser can ever be "real" real time
15:54 < echarp> but RoR can do polling quite well
15:54 < salfield> ehm why not?
15:55 < salfield> have you seen livepage/twisted
15:55 < salfield> ever heard of comet
15:55 < salfield> its another cleaning product like ajax :)
15:56 < echarp> how else can you do "real time" but through polling and ajax?
15:56 < echarp> twisted I've heard yes
15:56 < salfield> basically, when the first request is made to the page send a response but keep the connection open
15:57 < salfield> now if you were a threaded java programmer your reaction would be a few hundred open connections and your memory is all used
15:57 < salfield> but a connection needn't correspond to a thread
15:58 < salfield> e.g. twisted has only a single thread/process
15:58 < salfield> at least most of the time
15:59 < echarp> basically you never close the response and you keep sending content?
15:59 < salfield> yep
15:59 < echarp> never really thought about that
15:59 < echarp> doesn't the browser time out?
15:59 < salfield> kamaelia is a different concurrency model to twisted but has similar advantages
16:00 < salfield> the connection might time out
16:00 < salfield> but you write js, to keep opening it again
16:00 < echarp> that js is ajax I guess
16:00 < echarp> xmlhttprequest
16:00 < salfield> yeah
16:00 < echarp> RoR might in fact do just that, I don't know yet
16:00 * salfield doesn't know lots about this
16:01 < echarp> same :)
16:01 < salfield> but it makes sense
16:01 < salfield> isnt RoR thread based?
16:01 < echarp> no idea
16:01 < salfield> you really need a non-thread based server infrastructure to make it viable
16:02 * salfield thinks RoR is thread based
16:02 < echarp> I'm so used to J2EE, I don't think in terms of concurrency or threads
16:02 < illegale> salfield: have you look at
16:02 < illegale> Requirements Definition of the Forum Information System
16:02 < echarp> salfield: RoR can work behind apache, fastCGI, or its own
16:03 < echarp> so those are most probably multi threaded, no?
16:05 < salfield> echarp: yes
16:05 < salfield> apache are working on an event based model too
16:06 < echarp> salfield: and using your cms, how many requests can you respond to in a second?
16:06 < illegale> salfield: it is important to me, please answer
16:06 < echarp> on a basic server
16:08 < salfield> illegale you refer to: http://top.xwiki.com/xwiki/bin/view/Main/Requirements ?
16:09 < illegale> salfield: yes
16:09 < echarp> "hardware issues" :-(
16:09 < illegale> salfield: xwiki does not work, so i found the original message:
16:09 < illegale> salfield: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/top-politics/message/95
16:10 < illegale> salfield: supopse that is it
16:22 < salfield> do you guys know lionkimbro http://www.communitywiki.org/en/LionKimbro
16:22 < salfield> seems to be thinking along some similar lines too
16:23 < salfield> echarp: don't know about requests per second
16:23 < salfield> havent benchmarked
16:23 < echarp> salfield: how long to generate just *one* page?
16:24 < salfield> but, I am not using the type of concurrency system that I am talking about
16:24 < salfield> echarp: how to measure?
16:24 < salfield> how big a page?
16:24 < illegale> salfield:
16:24 < echarp> salfield: just look at the logs
16:24 < echarp> salfield: your most advanced/complex page? ;)
16:25 < salfield> echarp: will look into it
16:25 < salfield> but not right now
16:25 < salfield> speak later
16:25 < echarp> ok
16:25 < echarp> and welcome again here!
16:26 < illegale> echarp: did i do something wrong?
16:26 < echarp> illegale: what do you mean?
16:26 < illegale> salfield ignored the question i asked him several times
16:26 < illegale> was it up to me?
16:26 < echarp> about the requirements?
16:27 < illegale> yes
16:27 < echarp> maybe we were just too many speaking
16:27 < echarp> illegale: btw, I'm responding to it
16:27 < echarp> late soooo late
16:27 < illegale> responding to what?
16:27 < illegale> requieremnet stuff?
16:28 < salfield> illegale: what is the question?
16:28 < echarp> yeap
16:29 < illegale> salfield: here you are
16:29 < illegale> salfield: did you check it out?
16:29 < illegale> echarp: i thought you where fine with that?
16:29 < illegale> echarp: whant to change something, maybe?
16:30 < echarp> I am
16:30 < echarp> there is one I would propose
16:30 < illegale> shooot
16:32 < salfield> illegale: you ask if I like the requirements?
16:32 < illegale> do you agree to them?
16:32 < illegale> i actually do not agree with one of requerments from the yahoo groups
16:32 < illegale> changed it at xwiki
16:34 < echarp> which is?
16:35 < illegale> this about identify request
16:36 < illegale> i am for option, hav nothing against virtual identities if they are pleased to exist
16:37 < echarp> #3? I also have doubts about it
16:37 < illegale> Markus has not problem with change
16:38 < illegale> so , that one is official of tiatkvi
16:38 < salfield> illegale: first, the english could do with some correction
16:38 < echarp> I'm correcting it in some parts :)
16:38 < illegale> cool
16:39 < salfield> second, I think most of the requirements are good
16:39 < illegale> salfield: form doesn not matter too much for me in this very moment
16:39 < salfield> I am not sure that all private communication is bad
16:39 < illegale> salfield: me neither
16:40 < illegale> yet, the point is that this would be requerments for a public tool
16:40 < salfield> irc is a public tool
16:40 < illegale> if someones wants privat conversation, there are plenty of such tools already existing
16:40 < illegale> i mean, for public dialogue
16:40 < illegale> sorry for misinterpration
16:40 < salfield> but my ability to privmsg you is important to the social dynamoc
16:40 < salfield> but my ability to privmsg you is important to the social dynamic
16:41 < illegale> i had a big fight with markus about this issue
16:41 < illegale> he was for full transaprency i was not
16:41 < illegale> he won
16:41 < salfield> I think that there is a difference between privacy and secrecy
16:42 < illegale> i might exlpain several views that put the balast on side of full transparency if you wish
16:42 < salfield> privacy is when two people have a private communication
16:42 < illegale> i undersdtand that
16:42 < salfield> secrecy is when they are not at liberty to share that
16:42 < illegale> yet, we might promote tools such as icq or some other stuff to be used as private messging systems, righht'
16:42 < salfield> the point is to create a virtual space
16:43 < salfield> so the dynamics of communication within that space are important
16:43 < illegale> you think icq can not change taht?
16:44 < salfield> if you have to join another tool to have a new kind of communication then that has an impact on the dynamics of the space
16:45 < salfield> on irc 7 people sit in a room
16:45 < salfield> sorry 6 and a bot
16:46 < salfield> if i am a dominant personality, I could convince you all that we should go a certain root
16:46 < salfield> even if 6 of you disagree with me
16:46 < illegale> if i do not like your dominance,e i filter you and you do not exist
16:46 < salfield> because no one wants to speak out
16:46 < illegale> right?
16:46 < salfield> being able to privmsg changes that
16:46 < illegale> how?
16:47 < salfield> because you message echarp to check what he thinks and maybe others before attacking my point
16:47 < illegale> why not check it out publicly'
16:48 < illegale> suppose needs ome inmtegrity to do such thing, right?
16:48 < salfield> because in public debate it is easy for a group to arrive at conclusions that most of the participants disagree with
16:48 < salfield> c ya
16:48 < illegale> cu
16:49 < illegale> echarp: reading this*
16:49 < illegale> ?
16:51 < illegale> oh yes one very important rason for not having private channel is security of information
16:52 < illegale> if you use decentralised mechanisms for private channels there is no big supremacy which exist if you enabvle everything going through one site
16:52 < illegale> this part much more easily legitimates admins and other stuff as long as not too big stake is at lpay
16:55 < echarp> re
16:56 < echarp> I don't really understand the point about public debate which conclusions goes against the wish of its participants
16:58 * urgen takes a deeper breath
17:01 < illegale> m,e neither
17:02 < illegale> urgen here you are :ž
17:02 < urgen> for a brief moment or two before I dash off to work
17:02 < illegale> suppose that is up to those who are afraid of going for their beliefes
17:02 < echarp> hello urgen
17:02 < urgen> I was out late last night helping a friend whose car broke down
17:02 < echarp> oh
17:02 < echarp> that's nice of you
17:03 < illegale> what happened?
17:05 < echarp> was it a "girl" friend? :)
17:05 < echarp> (ok ok, some subjects interest me more than others ;)
17:06 < illegale> french
17:06 < illegale> sp earthy
17:06 < echarp> and bachelor
17:06 < illegale> need dictionary again :)
17:06 < illegale> you will teach me english pretty fine echarp :)
17:07 < echarp> illegale: in the terminal window, you can use a dictionary!!!
17:07 < echarp> VERY easy
17:07 < echarp> just go in the terminal (Ctrl+z), type "dict france", read, type "q" to quit the dictionary, type "fg" to come back on irssi
17:13 < illegale> oh i need english to croatian
17:13 < echarp> dict only is a dictionary
17:14 < echarp> I use it all the time
17:19 < illegale> cool
17:19 < illegale> thank you
17:19 < illegale> i use web clasic stuff
17:20 < illegale> what do you mean echarp excatly with
17:20 < illegale> > There is one requirement I would add (for now): all data should be
17:20 < illegale> > offered to everybody on the outside, so that it can be *replicated* in
17:20 < illegale> > real time. The key word here is replication
17:20 < illegale> ?
17:20 < illegale> I wanted to ask you throught group, but this is faster
17:21 < echarp> that all data held by the forum
17:21 < echarp> should be so transparent
17:21 < echarp> that it can be replicated on another server in real time
17:21 < echarp> (a mailing list does that)
17:21 < illegale> if there is no such thing (that line you want to propose)
17:21 < echarp> (you can easily replicate a mailing list on any number of server)
17:21 < illegale> what could happened?
17:22 < echarp> if there was no replication?
17:22 < illegale> yes
17:22 < echarp> then some data could be hidden and/or some malversations on the data could occur
17:22 < echarp> if it is replicated in real time, then it's impossible
17:23 < urgen> echarp: http://www.psyc.eu/
17:23 < illegale> supopse this is technical part ?
17:23 < urgen> PROTOCOL FOR SYNCHRONOUS CONFERENCING
17:23 < echarp> illegale: what do you mean?
17:23 < illegale> i am user
17:23 < illegale> what makes the difference to me if that is replication or not
17:23 < illegale> ?
17:23 < urgen> in my world I can afford no users
17:24 < echarp> if there has been replication of your data, then you can more easily verify that no one changed it
17:24 < urgen> all users are required to understand their own impact to the system
17:24 < echarp> urgen: no users?
17:24 < urgen> all users are participants
17:24 < illegale> ok
17:24 < urgen> co-creators
17:25 < echarp> illegale: replication means that you don't have to rely anymore on one server, one technology, one administrator, one setup
17:25 < illegale> i wont veto it
17:25 < illegale> :)
17:25 < echarp> illegale: it opens up everything
17:25 < illegale> this line states that?
17:25 < illegale> if that is so, i sign it too
17:25 < echarp> replication has this consequence
17:25 < illegale> urgen: what you think about it?
17:26 < echarp> plus replication allow scaling up to an unlimited number of users :)
17:26 < illegale> any problem could happen with this?
17:26 < echarp> each user can actually be an administrator, P2P network and all that :)
17:26 < illegale> not scaling up but this in base
17:26 < illegale> ?
17:27 < illegale> harder to realise it
17:27 < illegale> ?
17:27 < echarp> illegale: no problem that I've thought of "yet", but for the technical difficulty in replication itself
17:27 < urgen> I think this supports my other common rule: no grab for power by attempting to eliminate the possibility of a single point of control
17:27 < echarp> yeap, no single point of control, that's it!!! :)
17:27 < urgen> s/power/power,
17:27 < illegale> this means no single point of control?
17:27 < illegale> that is important i agree
17:28 < echarp> not technically anyway, of course some nodes could still be more popular than others
17:28 < illegale> does it matter to what node you belong?
17:28 < illegale> to you as en user?
17:28 < urgen> you look at that psyc.eu address echarp?
17:28 < illegale> urgen: user means the person who will just communicate, not chabge the processig system
17:28 < echarp> urgen: yeap
17:29 < echarp> illegale: it's important that users check that their data is actually being replicated
17:29 < urgen> illegale, in aikido you are not allowed to watch, no spectators, you have to join in
17:29 < echarp> so they should use an entry node, and just a bit later verify that their data has reached another node somewhere
17:29 < urgen> you have to learn
17:29 < illegale> ok
17:29 < illegale> this is good base for global public trust networdk
17:30 < echarp> if they don't check this replication, then it is possible that his data gets lost
17:30 < echarp> it's the only thing that administrators can actually do: block the passage of data through their node
17:31 < echarp> for example they could try blocking all votes for a given proposition
17:31 < echarp> or just let pass by the positive votes
17:31 < echarp> but the server graph can be organised as a graph, data going through different paths simultaneously
17:32 < echarp> (the protocol I currently use is mail)
17:32 < illegale> ok
17:33 < illegale> find this thing be very important looking at gloval scale
17:34 < illegale> echarp: as long as i am not that fammiliar to protocols and that stuff, i wont go strongly for your proposal, but an easy support
17:34 < illegale> think that is ok with you
17:34 < echarp> it is yes
17:34 < illegale> supopse Markus wont have with it peobles too
17:35 < echarp> as far as protocol is concerned, just think that everything is a mailing list
17:35 < echarp> nodes can subscribe to all of them
17:35 < echarp> the subscription chain then being a graph
17:35 < echarp> peobles?
17:37 < echarp> "problems" I guest
17:37 < illegale> brb
17:38 < illegale> i get the idea
17:39 < illegale> guest?
17:39 < echarp> guess :)
17:39 < illegale> better
17:40 < illegale> though, is problem with combiantion of wiki and e-mail the reason you do not like it, huh?
17:41 < echarp> also yes
17:41 < echarp> but not only
17:42 < echarp> to me a wiki can hardly ever be made democratic
17:42 < echarp> democratic as in equal voice and possibility to vote on every proposition
17:43 < illegale> hmh
17:43 < illegale> you vote by direct acgtion
17:43 < illegale> actually
17:43 < illegale> :-)
17:43 < echarp> I disagree, how can that ever be a vote?
17:44 < echarp> wiki evolve, you can only act on its last state
17:44 < echarp> if a page goes through states A => B => C => D, where or which do you vote?
17:44 < echarp> how?
17:44 < illegale> it is aboslutley dynamic voting process
17:44 < illegale> in a single moment wherre yo are aboslute
17:44 < illegale> more simmlar thought you are longer absolute
17:45 < echarp> sorry, can you rephrase? I don't get it
17:45 < illegale> you vote does matter
17:45 < illegale> when there is 10 of us using wiki
17:45 < echarp> vote on what?
17:45 < echarp> how and on what do you vote?
17:45 < illegale> vote on context
17:46 < illegale> words there are
17:46 < echarp> the evolving context?
17:46 < illegale> for an example, there is Requirements definition
17:46 < illegale> yes
17:46 < echarp> a context so volatile that your vote will change it?
17:46 < illegale> it is set up at wiki
17:46 < illegale> and being shaped easily
17:46 < illegale> youi first shape , than you vote :)
17:46 < illegale> dynamci stuff
17:47 < illegale> not vote, vote , vote and thatn evetually shape
17:47 < illegale> so, we have dynamic version of document and know what is the last one that si not too controversal
17:47 < illegale> i see it cool thing
17:48 < illegale> i changed that rule
17:48 < illegale> about posting anonyme
17:48 < illegale> and asked markus,he said fin
17:48 < illegale> and it is changed
17:48 < illegale> no need to elaborate all and all and check out what is current version or stuff
17:48 < illegale> of course if there is some basic trust and confidence into a group that is shaing such documents
17:49 < illegale> if tehre is no such thing, hard stuff really happens
17:49 < echarp> what happens if the document changes?
17:49 < echarp> if someone add a paragraph for example?
17:49 < echarp> are all votes reset?
17:49 < illegale> and then i do agree with you about absolute cntext where posts are much more demcoracit and rfree adn good for communication stuff
17:49 < echarp> cool
17:50 < illegale> this means different aproach post ateriror or stuf
17:50 < echarp> wiki is good for quick and easy organisation, but it can hardly be made democratic (in my view)
17:50 < illegale> moving back stuff and so on
17:50 < illegale> ok
17:50 < illegale> in this very moment i find it be probalby usefull for documentation proces and stuff
17:50 < illegale> easy to change
17:50 < illegale> from averyone
17:51 < echarp> very easy, yes
17:52 < illegale> i can comment charles propostion in option
17:52 < illegale> opotion
17:52 < illegale> where admin does everythign
17:52 < illegale> so, you have one place whcih is good to know where too look at and yet pretty open one
17:52 < echarp> sorry, what can you do in option?
17:52 < illegale> oposition
17:52 < illegale> sorry
17:53 < echarp> ok
17:53 < echarp> I'm also rather afraid of having a single administrator with huge powers
17:54 < illegale> i see is as part of non necssary conflicts
17:54 < illegale> good to avoid stuff
17:55 < illegale> no bottom up process of delegation which creates opression of bottom up and the one above
17:55 < illegale> problems with legitimacy and stuff
17:57 < urgen> well.. my view suggests that there is a bottom under that bottom
17:57 < echarp> :)
17:57 < urgen> the problems with legitimacy come from not understanding the process by which it is generated
17:58 < echarp> if only it was the only problem! :)
17:58 < urgen> which, of course, sometimes looks like people coming from here or there unsuccessfully, but it there are even more ways to make mistakes than that
17:59 < urgen> s/but it/but
18:00 < urgen> I support echarp's efforts to get the politicians out of politics
18:00 < illegale> it is oximoron, uregn
18:00 < urgen> there are definate mappable dynamics available
18:00 < illegale> you eant to take lawyers out of law and stuff?
18:00 < urgen> there re rules outside of opinion
18:01 < urgen> of course
18:01 < illegale> doctors out of clinics too?
18:01 < echarp> urgen: it's going to be difficult to remove them all, let's just remove the rules that make them entrenched
18:01 < urgen> doctors are already out of clinics
18:01 < illegale> and who is in clinics than?
18:01 < urgen> doctors follow rules
18:02 < urgen> there are not many research fellows around
18:02 < urgen> and none in clinics
18:02 < urgen> those are technicians
18:02 < illegale> you find nthem not needed?
18:02 < urgen> they do not think
18:02 < illegale> surgenous out of clinics too?
18:02 < urgen> they copy cat orders from the pharmacy
18:02 < illegale> who will make operation than?
18:03 < urgen> a surgeon is also a technician
18:03 < illegale> you find them not needed?
18:03 < urgen> just because someone is good with their hands and can remember lots of things doesn't make them unique or special
18:03 < illegale> nor needeD?
18:03 < urgen> specialists are needed everywhere, why select out just medicine?
18:04 < urgen> you think the economy would survive a day if a satellite fell from the sky?
18:04 < illegale> its same thing to politicans, lawyers and other stuff too
18:04 < illegale> even the same thing with birocrats
18:04 < illegale> urgen: use specialist in medicine to make my state obcvious
18:05 < urgen> maybe, we can have a special beureau technician, but they need lots more training first
18:05 < urgen> it's not obvious it is foolish
18:05 < illegale> for every single thing you need training if you want to do it properly
18:05 < urgen> which is why I pointed to an even deeper requirement of understanding
18:06 < illegale> ok my statement is this: doctors - technicians who do doctor job are needed
18:06 < urgen> bureau
18:06 < illegale> lawyers are needed too
18:06 < illegale> and politicians alos
18:06 < urgen> why?
18:06 < illegale> we might not like them, but they exist
18:06 < illegale> what why?
18:06 < urgen> I think you lump someone with zero skills in with those that have many skills
18:06 < illegale> you might not notice their skills, but they do exist
18:07 < urgen> a politician is voting on something they don't have any understanding about
18:07 < urgen> that's dangerous
18:07 < illegale> we might not like them, but they do their job also
18:07 < urgen> very dangerous
18:07 < urgen> incredibly stupidly dangerous
18:07 < illegale> i agree about that
18:07 < urgen> I don't need that
18:07 < illegale> the only question is what is alternative
18:07 < urgen> the process is broken
18:07 < urgen> their expertise is in serious question
18:08 < urgen> the alternative shows up when you remove opinion as an option
18:08 < urgen> stop making politics a religion
18:08 < illegale> how do i do that?
18:09 < illegale> by stating stuff that is not popular?
18:09 < urgen> that's all I ever talk about
18:09 < urgen> you think popular has some kind of golden intelligence?
18:09 < urgen> wow
18:09 < illegale> make politicans obsolete and the probles is solved
18:09 < illegale> how are you going to do that?
18:09 < illegale> popular to you
18:09 < urgen> my popular removes politicians
18:10 < illegale> how*
18:10 < illegale> ?
18:10 < urgen> there are many ways to demonstrate
18:10 < urgen> if demonstration is not allowed then I can ignore the interest
18:10 < illegale> demonstration is allowed
18:10 < illegale> so, how is that that politicans still exist
18:10 < illegale> ?
18:11 < illegale> missing link somewhere'
18:11 < urgen> politicians are playing a different game
18:11 < urgen> one that requires the successful propogation of politicians
18:12 < urgen> medicine is also beginning to look like this
18:12 < urgen> instead of focussing on immune systems and other natural health systems we get cancer causing drugs to eat
18:12 < urgen> you think that's health?
18:13 < urgen> this is big business talking
18:13 < illegale> i do not agree with many many things as none of us does
18:13 < illegale> yet, we accepted it all
18:13 < illegale> how?
18:13 < urgen> I didn't accept it
18:13 < illegale> try to play different game and you will see
18:13 < urgen> I'm doing fine
18:13 < urgen> :-)
18:13 < illegale> what you did not accept?
18:13 < illegale> system?
18:13 < illegale> you play taxes
18:13 < urgen> information
18:13 < illegale> play pay
18:14 < illegale> what information?
18:14 < urgen> the information that establishes legitimacy
18:14 < illegale> i see you be no problem to sytem
18:14 < illegale> so you are eased
18:15 < illegale> that is important to system, not what you think
18:15 < illegale> you are good part of the process
18:15 < illegale> that is only important
18:15 < illegale> to system
18:15 < illegale> right?
18:15 < urgen> so this system you describe, that I am calling illness
18:16 < urgen> where you seem to have noticed some characteristics, patterns, habits
18:16 < urgen> that support the continuation of the illness
18:16 < urgen> you claim that by the existence of these patterns I prove my support for it?
18:16 < urgen> hmn
18:16 < illegale> i can notice you did not explain how to remove politicasn
18:17 < urgen> I can notice you have only a half of a molecule of patience
18:17 < illegale> :)
18:17 < urgen> maybe we need patience to solve this
18:17 < urgen> maybe we are all doomed because of no patience
18:17 < illegale> what i have to say is that i have no problem with profesion, but with way that profesion is done
18:17 < urgen> maybe not
18:17 < urgen> I couldn't care less about a definition of a hat to wear
18:18 < urgen> that is inconsequential to me
18:18 < illegale> doctors use bad medications, politians make bad decsions, lawyers do the same stuff
18:18 < illegale> yet i have no problem with none of these profesions
18:18 < illegale> njot even with philosophy which is being done wrong too
18:18 < urgen> we can make a job called 'one who catches falling jet engines from the sky'
18:19 < urgen> of course we have a large turn over with this position
18:19 < illegale> yet i am not against doctors, lawyers, philosophers as long as that is negation
18:19 < urgen> every time they do a good job, they die
18:19 < illegale> lol
18:19 < illegale> though it is the problem of politics not politicans
18:20 < illegale> amchievlism not autopoiteci moral pricnipels
18:20 < urgen> I think politics loses its skin if you dig deep enough
18:20 < illegale> and this is solved in top
18:20 < urgen> you want to keep the disease, keep that skin
18:20 < illegale> hmh
18:20 < illegale> public skin it looses for sure
18:20 < urgen> you want to get better, start digging
18:20 * echarp going home
18:20 * illegale salutes echarp
18:20 < urgen> and I need to get to work
18:21 < urgen> they already have an emergency and called me on my phone
18:21 < urgen> bbl
18:21 < illegale> cu all
18:21 < illegale> gonna go me too
18:21 < illegale> :)=
18:21 < urgen> "digging is the answer"
18:46 -!- nsh- (nsh) [n=nsh@wikipedia/nsh] has joined #parlement
19:14 < echarp> re
19:28 -!- nsh- [n=nsh@wikipedia/nsh] has quit [Read error: 145 (Connection timed out)]
19:45 < echarp> nsh: you are playing with your irc client? :)
19:52 -!- illegale [n=ille...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has left #parlement []
--- Log closed ven jun 30 00:00:22 2006
09:12 < echarp> hello hello
11:00 -!- Anon0559 is now known as testingthat
11:00 -!- testingthat [n=Anon...@mailhost.comidoc.fr] has quit [Client Quit]
11:32 -!- illegale (illegale) [n=ille...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has joined #parlement
11:32 < illegale:#parlement> io
11:33 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
11:33 < echarp> chalut chalut illegale
11:33 < echarp> how are you?
11:33 < illegale> cool
11:33 < illegale> you?
11:34 < echarp> fine, weather is nice
11:34 < illegale> chilli?
11:35 < echarp> ?
11:36 < illegale> cold?
11:36 < echarp> no, great blue sky!
11:36 < illegale> hehe
11:36 < illegale> i like it this cold way in cro
11:36 < echarp> I'm goig to go take my lunch on the outside!
11:36 < illegale> it was 40 these days
11:36 < echarp> woaw!!!
11:37 < illegale> i read what you write at top
11:37 < illegale> wanna discuss?
11:38 < illegale> run run run run run
11:38 < echarp> until 12:00 then
11:38 < illegale> ok
11:38 < illegale> you think we should network to simmilar initativesthat measure top in some manners
11:39 < illegale> and to learn something from them in order to create good principles
11:39 < echarp> wddm maybe?
11:39 < illegale> demands and stuff
11:39 < illegale> ?
11:39 < illegale> nah, stuff you wrote about in 4 of us
11:39 < illegale> free freench foundation and stuff
11:39 < echarp> the crystal prize?
11:39 < echarp> yeap
11:39 < illegale> yes
11:39 < illegale> is that your thought?
11:40 < echarp> to network with them?
11:40 < echarp> or to look them up?
11:40 < illegale> no, to learn from them in order to set good rules
11:40 < illegale> i am asking you
11:40 < illegale> :)ž
11:40 < echarp> yeap
11:40 < echarp> I think this is the good thing to do
11:40 < illegale> something else you have in mind also?
11:41 < echarp> it's the most important one
11:42 < illegale> so, 4 of us should set these goals of creating licence/ruels/code of top initatives?
11:42 < echarp> 4 of us are probably not meaningful enough, but we can start
11:42 < illegale> ok
11:42 < illegale> What about Erics thought?
11:43 < illegale> should we articulate this stuff first?
11:43 < echarp> yes!
11:43 < echarp> definitely
11:43 < echarp> agree on concepts
11:43 < illegale> I am into top more than democracy
11:43 < illegale> democracy meas everything and nothing
11:43 < echarp> I am into democratic code more than top...
11:43 < illegale> how do you see it?
11:44 < illegale> i see it as set of principles that enable empowerment of the people
11:44 < illegale> or further decentralsiation of the power
11:44 < illegale> you?
11:44 < echarp> you should dismiss democracy because, in your mind, the word has been over used
11:44 < echarp> oups,
11:44 < echarp> you should *not*
11:44 < illegale> ok
11:44 < illegale> understand that
11:45 < illegale> yet, i want to aproach to democracy from operative mode
11:45 < illegale> in that way it has info value
11:45 < illegale> what are your thought about iÐ?
11:45 < echarp> iD???
11:45 < illegale> it
11:45 < illegale> sorry write faster than think :=
11:45 < illegale> )
11:46 < echarp> me I approach democracy first
11:46 < echarp> because to me it is the path to empowerment
11:46 < echarp> transparency is simply a requirement
11:46 < illegale> what do you mean?
11:46 < echarp> a foundation
11:46 < illegale> aproach demcoracy
11:46 < illegale> ?
11:46 < echarp> democracy is my first goal
11:46 < echarp> direct of course
11:47 < illegale> what does it mean to you?
11:47 < illegale> can you articulate it yoursefl?
11:47 < illegale> what is so hot about i?
11:47 < illegale> t?
11:47 < echarp> democracy?
11:47 < illegale> about what you see
11:47 < illegale> whern you say demcoracy is your frist goal
11:47 < echarp> I see tools that everybody can use to express themselves democratically
11:47 < illegale> it says not much to me
11:47 < echarp> in a panarchist way
11:47 < illegale> what means express democratically?
11:47 < echarp> not a centralised democracy
11:48 < illegale> so, we have many forms of demcoracY?
11:48 < echarp> just a democratic expression of ad hoc groups
11:48 < echarp> of course of course
11:48 < illegale> what is expression?
11:48 < echarp> there is no set form
11:48 < illegale> what it measn
11:48 < illegale> cultural freedom
11:48 < echarp> expression is speaking collectively and everyone agreeing to abide by this expression
11:48 < illegale> free speach?
11:48 < illegale> abide=
11:48 < echarp> free speech is beside the point
11:49 < echarp> abide is "to submit to"
11:49 < illegale> seems to me this is far from articualted?
11:49 < echarp> to adhere
11:49 < illegale> can you put it in one page what you are lookign for?
11:49 < echarp> to me it is very articulated
11:49 < echarp> I can probably put it in one sentence
11:50 < illegale> in a way is disolve parts of it and see is it all right to me
11:50 < illegale> shoot
11:51 < illegale> hard stuff, right :=
11:51 < illegale> )
11:51 < echarp> my vision: to create democratic tools that any group of individuals can freely use to democratically express themselves, like a newspaper or a constitution (enforcement of what is thus expressed is to also be expressed by the group)
11:52 < illegale> you do not define democracy ba that
11:52 < echarp> something like the nomic bot
11:52 < illegale> just use it
11:52 < illegale> you are looking for pluralistitcis autopoietic too?
11:52 < illegale> l
11:52 < echarp> probably
11:53 < illegale> what this misses ?
11:53 < echarp> democratic is simple that all participants are equal and can express themselves in some kind of vote, that's all
11:53 < illegale> what about reutation?
11:53 < illegale> is it in contradiction of equality?
11:56 < echarp> reputation?
11:56 < echarp> reputation is human, not a matter of tools
11:57 < illegale> ok
11:57 < illegale> so, we agree than
11:57 < echarp> yes
11:57 < echarp> I'm targetting basic architectural matters
11:57 < illegale> is it enough to you?
11:57 < illegale> understand it agree to it
11:57 < echarp> I don't want to enforce any sort of policy
11:57 < illegale> you know that
11:57 < echarp> understand what and agree to what?
11:58 < illegale> with your thought about principles of tool
11:58 < illegale> s
11:59 < echarp> cool
11:59 < illegale> this xwiki is shiot
11:59 < illegale> shit
11:59 < illegale> does not work regularly
11:59 < illegale> wanted to link you to our requieremnets
11:59 < illegale> we agree to
11:59 < illegale> though, you think this is Eric has in mind when want to talk about democry?
12:00 < echarp> tools?
12:01 < illegale> 12:04
12:01 < echarp> basic tools and no policy?
12:01 < illegale> to me it is
12:01 < illegale> yet, does it satisfy Erics interestr?
12:01 < echarp> I don't know
12:01 < echarp> we'll have to ask him
12:01 < echarp> he wanted to start discussing about delegates I believe
12:01 < illegale> btw, little objection i have to you
12:02 < echarp> yes?
12:08 < echarp> illegale: still here?
12:08 < illegale> sorry
12:08 < illegale> had a call
12:09 < illegale> echarp: on the topic of 4 of us you spread dialogue to other themes disabling clear focus
12:09 < illegale> echarp: step by step is the way
12:09 < illegale> echarp: lets make first step first and than see what with other stuff
12:10 < echarp> ok
12:10 < illegale> in contrary we have claiscal magnus, emmanuel, mark lemmingism .-=
12:10 < illegale> thanks
12:10 < echarp> what are the first steps?
12:11 < echarp> I just don't see them
12:11 < illegale> too see what are visions of every single member about 4 of us
12:11 < illegale> and to see are they able to be joined
12:12 < illegale> sorry for not being clear about that
12:12 < echarp> able to be joined?
12:12 < illegale> mixed
12:12 < illegale> for an example, Erics thought and your though in this momentt work fine i understand
12:12 < illegale> yes?
12:13 < echarp> I don't get it, mixed???
12:13 < illegale> we just put erics though before the rest of the process as long as it is basic
12:13 < illegale> joined
12:13 * echarp is lost
12:13 < illegale> affiliated, amalgamate, associate, associated, jointed, mingy,
12:14 < illegale> goals
12:14 < illegale> can we accept common goal working fine with all of us?ž
12:15 < echarp> of course
12:15 < illegale> if not, no space for workking together
12:15 < illegale> on long term manner
12:15 < illegale> as organisation
12:15 < echarp> that depends on the goals!
12:15 < illegale> what do you mean?
12:16 < echarp> if the goals align with mine, then I will work with the group
12:16 < illegale> there is an important part
12:17 < illegale> meaning you work for the group and in tha way you profit as long as your goal are complementary
12:17 < echarp> that seemed rather obvious to me
12:17 < illegale> ok
12:17 < echarp> common interests are what make free association work
12:17 < illegale> i am not into working for group in a manner i do not actually care about it at all but eventually it is the same thing in that moment as if i work alone stuff
12:18 < illegale> that is not organisation but bs
12:19 < illegale> so, i am not into big, big, big goals, at least not in this very moment till we do not know each other enouigh
12:19 < illegale> we have to earn each others respect in order of working big stuff i think
12:19 < echarp> I also think that we should start small
12:20 < illegale> cool
12:20 < illegale> sometimes think we do not have to discuss at all
12:20 < illegale> :-)
12:20 < echarp> I'm a simple man
12:20 < illegale> :-)
12:21 < illegale> btw, you have to work?
12:21 < illegale> now
12:21 < echarp> to go to lunch
12:21 < echarp> I'm waiting for a friend, she's late (how weird :)
12:21 < illegale> cool
12:22 < illegale> you will be here for a little bit longer than::9
12:22 < illegale> The thing about Eric.
12:22 < illegale> his thought
12:22 < illegale> This stuff about delagation
12:23 < illegale> what is a problem out there, have somethingin mind?
12:24 < echarp> I do not know
12:24 < echarp> I think he has something in mind
12:24 < echarp> he might not like the idea of delegation
12:25 < illegale> you find that part important in this moment?
12:25 < illegale> though, i am not sure he is not fine with it
12:25 < echarp> it is as far as parlement is concerned
12:25 < illegale> you mean program tools?
12:26 < echarp> yes
12:26 < illegale> ok
12:26 < echarp> and the procedure we can use amon ourselves too
12:26 < illegale> stuff about nodes/persons needed or not needed promoted or not existing
12:26 < illegale> I suppose it is my right to trust someone
12:27 < illegale> that he knows more than me about some stuff
12:27 < echarp> for example I think we can do without a leader, but that a leader (or a college) would naturally emerge if we could delegate our voice
12:27 < illegale> hmh
12:27 < illegale> i am pro leader
12:27 < illegale> it exist in every concept of group
12:27 < illegale> with a reason
12:28 < echarp> which is?
12:28 < illegale> to lead
12:28 < illegale> somewhere
12:28 < illegale> that is a funcion
12:28 < echarp> well, if a leader is seen as required will it not emerge naturally?
12:28 < echarp> do there need to be a special function and a title?
12:29 < illegale> thought is natural stuff too
12:29 < echarp> ???
12:29 < illegale> it removes doubt
12:29 < echarp> what is the relation with thought?
12:29 < illegale> enables clear focus
12:29 < echarp> what enables clear focus?
12:29 < illegale> i get your point now
12:29 < illegale> formality stuff you aim at
12:30 < illegale> i am pro formality now
12:30 < echarp> I don't think any formality is required
12:30 < illegale> was not before
12:30 < illegale> it clears the focus
12:30 < echarp> I think there can be basic very very basic rules
12:30 < illegale> and focus is important
12:30 < echarp> and from there any shape can emerge, or not
12:30 < illegale> maybe you are right
12:30 < illegale> yet, we do nto know them yet
12:30 < echarp> of course
12:30 < echarp> it's the whole point, to let them evolve
12:30 < illegale> i think code stuff is going in that way
12:31 < illegale> open code
12:31 < illegale> of action
12:31 < illegale> stuff
12:31 < illegale> you anarchistic mind
12:31 < illegale> had some simmilar visions
12:31 < echarp> :)
12:31 < echarp> panarchist :)
12:32 < illegale> now i am in operative mode as basic
12:32 < illegale> when someting usefull i use it
12:32 < illegale> basic thought is empowerment of the people
12:32 < illegale> what helps it i am fine with it
12:33 < illegale> formal leader is empowering too in some situations as this one is in this very moment
12:33 < illegale> and now i am one 8-)
12:33 < echarp> :)
12:34 < illegale> this is same stuff to liberlism
12:34 < illegale> dicreasment of the state
12:35 < illegale> you can not just eliminate it if there is no cultural ground
12:35 < illegale> yet, you can set it
12:35 < illegale> cultural ground, i see as code stuf
12:35 < illegale> f
12:36 < illegale> does panarchy has constitution?
12:36 < illegale> have
12:36 < echarp> of course not
12:36 < echarp> panarchy is a system of system
12:36 < illegale> means some rules?
12:36 < echarp> the only requirement is for systems to accept the existence of other systems
12:36 < echarp> that's all
12:37 < echarp> from there everything can be set up
12:37 < echarp> there can be war
12:37 < illegale> i think it is empty
12:37 < echarp> systems can share common geography
12:37 < illegale> politics is about solving conflicts
12:37 < illegale> this does nto solve them
12:37 < echarp> some individuals can be part of more than one system at a time
12:38 < echarp> sorry, to me politics are the tool we try to use to define our future
12:38 < illegale> so, how do you solve conflicts by that tool?
12:39 < illegale> i mean if there was no conflicts of interests, there would be no politics at all but people would do whatever they wished to do
12:39 < echarp> the tool does not solve conflicts
12:39 < illegale> yet, conflict is existing
12:39 < illegale> what does?
12:39 < echarp> humans
12:40 < echarp> if two systems want to enter into a war, then they will
12:40 < illegale> politicians?
12:40 < echarp> but eventually the members of warring system could leave them
12:40 < illegale> who fixes bad teeth?
12:40 < echarp> because, well, how many individuals actually want war?
12:40 < echarp> dental surgeons
12:41 < illegale> and even than, waar happens
12:41 < illegale> fascinating, huh?:-)
12:41 < echarp> war will happen if individuals want them
12:41 < echarp> yes
12:41 < illegale> who solves legal problems?
12:41 < illegale> lawyers
12:41 < illegale> nat laws
12:41 < illegale> right?
12:41 < echarp> individuals
12:41 < illegale> it is the same stuff with politics
12:42 < illegale> you might say that
12:42 < illegale> yet, you loose info by that generalisation
12:42 < echarp> you are into a system with rules, in case of conflict with those rules, the system shouls have defined a resolution mechanism
12:42 < echarp> justice, penal courts, police
12:42 < illegale> system?
12:42 < echarp> or whatever the system choose
12:42 < illegale> what is it?
12:42 < illegale> what is a ground of it?
12:42 < echarp> a system is simply any group of individuals
12:43 < echarp> an enterprise is a system
12:43 < illegale> just a grouo?
12:43 < echarp> same with a family or a church
12:43 < echarp> yeap, just a group
12:43 < illegale> i see decision making process there too
12:43 < illegale> inputs outputs and stuff
12:43 < echarp> of course
12:43 < illegale> when we talk about system, i do not see funds, but abstract
12:44 < illegale> such as car and car system
12:44 < echarp> ok, time for lunch
12:44 < echarp> see you later illegale
12:44 < illegale> system does not talk about material and stuff
12:44 < illegale> bon apetite
12:44 < illegale> :)=
12:44 < echarp> merci
13:43 < echarp> re
14:15 < illegale> hey
14:15 < illegale> at opencoop
14:29 < illegale> howwas at date?
14:32 < echarp> sorry?
14:32 < illegale> i mean you had agood time outsie?
14:32 < illegale> chilling?
14:33 < echarp> not chilling at all
14:33 < echarp> rather warm
14:41 -!- salfield (tom) [n=t...@host-212-158-235-38.bulldogdsl.com] has joined #parlement
14:41 < salfield> hello parlement people :)
14:42 < echarp> hello hello salfield!
14:42 < echarp> welcome
14:42 < salfield> thanks
14:42 < echarp> salfield: there also is nomic bot, fiatlex, used for some experimentation on rules making
14:42 < echarp> fiatlex: help nomic
14:42 < fiatlex> echarp: Ask me about rule <n>, or ask me to accept <Rule> [with <Note>], amend <Rule> with <Rule>, annotate <Rule> with <Text>, collect <Number> <Thing> from <Player>, defeat <Rule> [with <Note>], details of <Rule>, enact <Rule> [with <Note>], enroll, grant <Number> <Thing> to <Player>, inventory
14:42 < fiatlex> ..<Thing>, notes on <Rule>, pending, propose <Text>, reject <Rule> [with <Note>], spend <Number> <Thing> or text of <Rule>.
14:43 < salfield> aha you are into nomic
14:43 < salfield> cool
14:43 < echarp> urgen is the guy to talk about that ;)
14:44 < echarp> fiatlex: pending
14:44 < fiatlex> echarp: 2. I agree to participate (enacted at 21:39 Jun 09; proposed by echarp at 18:20 Jun 09; accepted by illegale, nsh, urgen)
14:46 < salfield> echarp, very nice stuff
14:46 < echarp> thanks!
14:46 < echarp> still got much to do
14:46 < echarp> there also are rss feeds
14:47 < echarp> sometimes in the future it could become a new digg
14:49 < illegale> oh, you nomicians :-P
14:50 < echarp> illegale: it's all about rule making, you should love it!
14:50 < illegale> the only thing it misses is merit
14:52 < echarp> you get it as reputation
14:53 < illegale> what reputation, for doing stuff taht does not matter?
14:53 < echarp> the rules can apply anywhere people accept them
14:54 < illegale> lets say what is basic problem in short
14:54 < illegale> nomics basic are other rules
14:54 < illegale> my basic is reality
14:54 < illegale> that is it
14:54 < illegale> amen
14:55 < echarp> reality and virtuality are so different?
14:56 < salfield> echarp: is there any realtime aspect to parlement, besides irc?
14:56 < echarp> salfield: not yet, but I expect to code it
14:56 < echarp> so that when you write something, all readers can see it appear in real time
14:57 < echarp> it's almost easy to do with ruby on rails and ajax
14:59 < salfield> hmm we must discuss how
14:59 < salfield> but right now I have a vistor
15:00 < echarp> ok
15:00 < echarp> salfield: what is your job?
15:01 < illegale> sevret agent
15:01 < illegale> join #joiito
15:02 < echarp> :)
15:02 < illegale> ops
15:02 < echarp> illegale: there are ways to autojoin channels
15:02 < illegale> yes?
15:03 < echarp> I never remember the command because I don't do it much
15:03 < illegale> once in time
15:03 < illegale> :)=
15:03 < echarp> by the way, illegale, try this =>
15:03 < echarp> /script load /usr/share/irssi/scripts/nicklist.pl
15:03 < echarp> it should work I believe
15:04 < illegale> hmh, maybe it works
15:04 < illegale> i just do not see how it manifests?
15:04 < illegale> :)
15:04 < echarp> you should see a list of all those present in the channel?
15:04 < illegale> nada
15:05 < echarp> what did it say in the status window?
15:05 < echarp> (user Ctrl+n to go to the status window)
15:05 < illegale> nothing
15:05 < echarp> nothing appears?
15:05 < illegale> nothing
15:06 < echarp> type this to see what is loaded =>
15:07 < echarp> /NICKLIST SCREEN
15:07 < echarp> oups, do try it, but here is the command to see what scripts are loaded =>
15:07 < echarp> /script
15:07 < illegale> it says loaded scripts
15:08 < illegale> È: nicklist
15:08 < echarp> try also this =>
15:08 < echarp> /nicklist fifo
15:08 < illegale> created
15:08 < illegale> what it does?
15:09 < echarp> it should display all those present in the top right corner
15:09 < illegale> argh
15:09 < echarp> no?
15:09 < illegale> how do i copy paste text frm status window?
15:10 < echarp> mouse in your case :)
15:11 < illegale> ickServ(NickServ@services.)- If this is your nickname, type /msg NickServ IDENTIFY <password>
15:11 < illegale> 11:32 -!- Mode change [+i] for user illegale
15:11 < illegale> 11:32 -!- Irssi: Unknown command: joins
15:11 < illegale> 15:07 Loaded scripts:
15:11 < illegale> 15:07 nicklist /usr/share/irssi/scripts/nicklist.pl
15:11 < illegale> 15:07 -!- Irssi: screen not detected, screen mode only works inside screen
15:11 < illegale> 15:08 -!- Irssi: Fifo created. Start reading it ("cat /home/illegale/.irssi/nicklistfifo") and try again. [15:10] [illegale(+i)] [1:freenode (change with ^X)]
15:11 < illegale> [(status)]
15:11 < illegale> this is what happened
15:11 < illegale> do i have to load color stuff every time i join?
15:12 < echarp> :(
15:12 < echarp> to load it automatically you have to copy the script in a special folder
15:13 < echarp> all scripts in that folder are automatically loaded upon entry
15:13 < illegale> ok
15:14 < echarp> the folder is .irssi/scripts/autorun
15:15 < illegale> what does ti mean to me
15:15 < echarp> it's something to do in command line
15:15 < illegale> how to put stuff in that folder?
15:16 < echarp> mkdir ~/.irssi/scripts/autorun
15:17 < echarp> ln -s /usr/share/irssi/scripts/nickcolor.pl ~/.irssi/scripts/autorun/
15:17 < illegale> i do it when i do ctrl-z
15:17 < illegale> ?
15:17 < echarp> yeap
15:17 < echarp> and come back with fg
15:17 < illegale> all right
15:18 < illegale> dos stuff, lines and all, i never liked it
15:19 < illegale> too industrial for my taste
15:19 < illegale> :)
15:19 * echarp loves it
15:19 < echarp> ok, let's try again with nicklist
15:20 < illegale> k
15:20 < echarp> /script load ~/.irssi/scripts/autorun/nicklist_colored.pl
15:20 < echarp> /nicklist screen
15:21 < illegale> : Unknown command: joins
15:21 < illegale> 15:07 Loaded scripts:
15:21 < illegale> 15:07 nicklist /usr/share/irssi/scripts/nicklist.pl
15:21 < illegale> 15:07 -!- Irssi: screen not detected, screen mode only works inside screen
15:21 < illegale> 15:08 -!- Irssi: Fifo created. Start reading it ("cat /home/illegale/.irssi/nicklistfifo") and try again.
15:21 < illegale> 15:20 -!- Irssi: Error in script nicklist_colored:
15:21 < illegale> 15:20 File not found: /home/illegale/.irssi/scripts/autorun/nicklist_colored.pl at (eval 9) line 43.
15:21 < illegale> 15:20
15:21 < illegale> 15:20 -!- Irssi: screen not detected, screen mode only works inside screen
15:22 < echarp> try this then =>
15:22 < echarp> /nicklist FIFO
15:22 < echarp> (I'm in screen, so it works better I guess)
15:24 < echarp> illegale: there are ways to share the same screen, you want to try that? :)
15:24 < illegale> it is enough for me for today,
15:24 < illegale> thank you though
15:24 < echarp> it's easier and we would share the exact same displya
15:24 < illegale> in this very moment i can use it fine
15:25 < echarp> you would then see what I type and vice versa
15:25 < echarp> ok then
15:25 < illegale> if it is not problem, say
15:25 < echarp> it's fine by me! :)
15:25 < echarp> I'm sorry about the nicklist thing
15:25 < illegale> lol
15:25 < echarp> I didn't remember it as so complex, probably a library required to load it
15:25 < echarp> (me it's always loaded...)
15:47 < salfield> echarp: I am building a content management system, with not dissimilar goals to yours
15:47 < salfield> and doing contracts for small organisations to bootstrap
15:47 < salfield> python-based
15:47 < echarp> where are you based? europe?
15:48 < salfield> I have been looking recently at kamaelia
15:48 < salfield> london
15:48 < salfield> and you?
15:48 < echarp> paris :)
15:48 < echarp> camelia, the java one?
15:48 < salfield> not so far away :)
15:48 < echarp> yeap
15:49 < salfield> no kamaelia the python one
15:49 < echarp> you base your cms on plone?
15:49 < echarp> I don't know kamaelia
15:49 < salfield> http://kamaelia.sourceforge.net/Home
15:50 < salfield> no I base my cms on zodb, cherrypy, kid
15:50 < salfield> building more from scratch
15:50 < salfield> a guy on the summer of code, at kamaelia
15:51 < salfield> has written the beginnings of a webserver
15:51 < echarp> ever tried ruby on rails?
15:51 < salfield> which would allow scalable real-time in the browser
15:51 < salfield> echarp: no
15:51 < echarp> it's not so much scalable and real time, but it's a joy to program with!
15:51 < salfield> but I think about it sometimes
15:52 < salfield> echarp: so I hear
15:52 < echarp> I'm a seasoned J2EE guy, and RoR is a marvel and a joy
15:52 < salfield> echarp: how would you do realtime in the browser using ROR
15:52 < salfield> polling?
15:52 < salfield> or is there a better way?
15:53 < echarp> what do you in mind with real time and a browser?
15:53 < echarp> pushing content?
15:53 * salfield guesses that anything is a joy to program with after java
15:53 < echarp> :)
15:53 < echarp> java was a joy after using C++ :)
15:53 < salfield> e.g. IM, real-time collaborative text
15:54 * salfield prefers C++ !!
15:54 < echarp> I don't think a browser can ever be "real" real time
15:54 < echarp> but RoR can do polling quite well
15:54 < salfield> ehm why not?
15:55 < salfield> have you seen livepage/twisted
15:55 < salfield> ever heard of comet
15:55 < salfield> its another cleaning product like ajax :)
15:56 < echarp> how else can you do "real time" but through polling and ajax?
15:56 < echarp> twisted I've heard yes
15:56 < salfield> basically, when the first request is made to the page send a response but keep the connection open
15:57 < salfield> now if you were a threaded java programmer your reaction would be a few hundred open connections and your memory is all used
15:57 < salfield> but a connection needn't correspond to a thread
15:58 < salfield> e.g. twisted has only a single thread/process
15:58 < salfield> at least most of the time
15:59 < echarp> basically you never close the response and you keep sending content?
15:59 < salfield> yep
15:59 < echarp> never really thought about that
15:59 < echarp> doesn't the browser time out?
15:59 < salfield> kamaelia is a different concurrency model to twisted but has similar advantages
16:00 < salfield> the connection might time out
16:00 < salfield> but you write js, to keep opening it again
16:00 < echarp> that js is ajax I guess
16:00 < echarp> xmlhttprequest
16:00 < salfield> yeah
16:00 < echarp> RoR might in fact do just that, I don't know yet
16:00 * salfield doesn't know lots about this
16:01 < echarp> same :)
16:01 < salfield> but it makes sense
16:01 < salfield> isnt RoR thread based?
16:01 < echarp> no idea
16:01 < salfield> you really need a non-thread based server infrastructure to make it viable
16:02 * salfield thinks RoR is thread based
16:02 < echarp> I'm so used to J2EE, I don't think in terms of concurrency or threads
16:02 < illegale> salfield: have you look at
16:02 < illegale> Requirements Definition of the Forum Information System
16:02 < echarp> salfield: RoR can work behind apache, fastCGI, or its own
16:03 < echarp> so those are most probably multi threaded, no?
16:05 < salfield> echarp: yes
16:05 < salfield> apache are working on an event based model too
16:06 < echarp> salfield: and using your cms, how many requests can you respond to in a second?
16:06 < illegale> salfield: it is important to me, please answer
16:06 < echarp> on a basic server
16:08 < salfield> illegale you refer to: http://top.xwiki.com/xwiki/bin/view/Main/Requirements ?
16:09 < illegale> salfield: yes
16:09 < echarp> "hardware issues" :-(
16:09 < illegale> salfield: xwiki does not work, so i found the original message:
16:09 < illegale> salfield: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/top-politics/message/95
16:10 < illegale> salfield: supopse that is it
16:22 < salfield> do you guys know lionkimbro http://www.communitywiki.org/en/LionKimbro
16:22 < salfield> seems to be thinking along some similar lines too
16:23 < salfield> echarp: don't know about requests per second
16:23 < salfield> havent benchmarked
16:23 < echarp> salfield: how long to generate just *one* page?
16:24 < salfield> but, I am not using the type of concurrency system that I am talking about
16:24 < salfield> echarp: how to measure?
16:24 < salfield> how big a page?
16:24 < illegale> salfield:
16:24 < echarp> salfield: just look at the logs
16:24 < echarp> salfield: your most advanced/complex page? ;)
16:25 < salfield> echarp: will look into it
16:25 < salfield> but not right now
16:25 < salfield> speak later
16:25 < echarp> ok
16:25 < echarp> and welcome again here!
16:26 < illegale> echarp: did i do something wrong?
16:26 < echarp> illegale: what do you mean?
16:26 < illegale> salfield ignored the question i asked him several times
16:26 < illegale> was it up to me?
16:26 < echarp> about the requirements?
16:27 < illegale> yes
16:27 < echarp> maybe we were just too many speaking
16:27 < echarp> illegale: btw, I'm responding to it
16:27 < echarp> late soooo late
16:27 < illegale> responding to what?
16:27 < illegale> requieremnet stuff?
16:28 < salfield> illegale: what is the question?
16:28 < echarp> yeap
16:29 < illegale> salfield: here you are
16:29 < illegale> salfield: did you check it out?
16:29 < illegale> echarp: i thought you where fine with that?
16:29 < illegale> echarp: whant to change something, maybe?
16:30 < echarp> I am
16:30 < echarp> there is one I would propose
16:30 < illegale> shooot
16:32 < salfield> illegale: you ask if I like the requirements?
16:32 < illegale> do you agree to them?
16:32 < illegale> i actually do not agree with one of requerments from the yahoo groups
16:32 < illegale> changed it at xwiki
16:34 < echarp> which is?
16:35 < illegale> this about identify request
16:36 < illegale> i am for option, hav nothing against virtual identities if they are pleased to exist
16:37 < echarp> #3? I also have doubts about it
16:37 < illegale> Markus has not problem with change
16:38 < illegale> so , that one is official of tiatkvi
16:38 < salfield> illegale: first, the english could do with some correction
16:38 < echarp> I'm correcting it in some parts :)
16:38 < illegale> cool
16:39 < salfield> second, I think most of the requirements are good
16:39 < illegale> salfield: form doesn not matter too much for me in this very moment
16:39 < salfield> I am not sure that all private communication is bad
16:39 < illegale> salfield: me neither
16:40 < illegale> yet, the point is that this would be requerments for a public tool
16:40 < salfield> irc is a public tool
16:40 < illegale> if someones wants privat conversation, there are plenty of such tools already existing
16:40 < illegale> i mean, for public dialogue
16:40 < illegale> sorry for misinterpration
16:40 < salfield> but my ability to privmsg you is important to the social dynamoc
16:40 < salfield> but my ability to privmsg you is important to the social dynamic
16:41 < illegale> i had a big fight with markus about this issue
16:41 < illegale> he was for full transaprency i was not
16:41 < illegale> he won
16:41 < salfield> I think that there is a difference between privacy and secrecy
16:42 < illegale> i might exlpain several views that put the balast on side of full transparency if you wish
16:42 < salfield> privacy is when two people have a private communication
16:42 < illegale> i undersdtand that
16:42 < salfield> secrecy is when they are not at liberty to share that
16:42 < illegale> yet, we might promote tools such as icq or some other stuff to be used as private messging systems, righht'
16:42 < salfield> the point is to create a virtual space
16:43 < salfield> so the dynamics of communication within that space are important
16:43 < illegale> you think icq can not change taht?
16:44 < salfield> if you have to join another tool to have a new kind of communication then that has an impact on the dynamics of the space
16:45 < salfield> on irc 7 people sit in a room
16:45 < salfield> sorry 6 and a bot
16:46 < salfield> if i am a dominant personality, I could convince you all that we should go a certain root
16:46 < salfield> even if 6 of you disagree with me
16:46 < illegale> if i do not like your dominance,e i filter you and you do not exist
16:46 < salfield> because no one wants to speak out
16:46 < illegale> right?
16:46 < salfield> being able to privmsg changes that
16:46 < illegale> how?
16:47 < salfield> because you message echarp to check what he thinks and maybe others before attacking my point
16:47 < illegale> why not check it out publicly'
16:48 < illegale> suppose needs ome inmtegrity to do such thing, right?
16:48 < salfield> because in public debate it is easy for a group to arrive at conclusions that most of the participants disagree with
16:48 < salfield> c ya
16:48 < illegale> cu
16:49 < illegale> echarp: reading this*
16:49 < illegale> ?
16:51 < illegale> oh yes one very important rason for not having private channel is security of information
16:52 < illegale> if you use decentralised mechanisms for private channels there is no big supremacy which exist if you enabvle everything going through one site
16:52 < illegale> this part much more easily legitimates admins and other stuff as long as not too big stake is at lpay
16:55 < echarp> re
16:56 < echarp> I don't really understand the point about public debate which conclusions goes against the wish of its participants
16:58 * urgen takes a deeper breath
17:01 < illegale> m,e neither
17:02 < illegale> urgen here you are :ž
17:02 < urgen> for a brief moment or two before I dash off to work
17:02 < illegale> suppose that is up to those who are afraid of going for their beliefes
17:02 < echarp> hello urgen
17:02 < urgen> I was out late last night helping a friend whose car broke down
17:02 < echarp> oh
17:02 < echarp> that's nice of you
17:03 < illegale> what happened?
17:05 < echarp> was it a "girl" friend? :)
17:05 < echarp> (ok ok, some subjects interest me more than others ;)
17:06 < illegale> french
17:06 < illegale> sp earthy
17:06 < echarp> and bachelor
17:06 < illegale> need dictionary again :)
17:06 < illegale> you will teach me english pretty fine echarp :)
17:07 < echarp> illegale: in the terminal window, you can use a dictionary!!!
17:07 < echarp> VERY easy
17:07 < echarp> just go in the terminal (Ctrl+z), type "dict france", read, type "q" to quit the dictionary, type "fg" to come back on irssi
17:13 < illegale> oh i need english to croatian
17:13 < echarp> dict only is a dictionary
17:14 < echarp> I use it all the time
17:19 < illegale> cool
17:19 < illegale> thank you
17:19 < illegale> i use web clasic stuff
17:20 < illegale> what do you mean echarp excatly with
17:20 < illegale> > There is one requirement I would add (for now): all data should be
17:20 < illegale> > offered to everybody on the outside, so that it can be *replicated* in
17:20 < illegale> > real time. The key word here is replication
17:20 < illegale> ?
17:20 < illegale> I wanted to ask you throught group, but this is faster
17:21 < echarp> that all data held by the forum
17:21 < echarp> should be so transparent
17:21 < echarp> that it can be replicated on another server in real time
17:21 < echarp> (a mailing list does that)
17:21 < illegale> if there is no such thing (that line you want to propose)
17:21 < echarp> (you can easily replicate a mailing list on any number of server)
17:21 < illegale> what could happened?
17:22 < echarp> if there was no replication?
17:22 < illegale> yes
17:22 < echarp> then some data could be hidden and/or some malversations on the data could occur
17:22 < echarp> if it is replicated in real time, then it's impossible
17:23 < urgen> echarp: http://www.psyc.eu/
17:23 < illegale> supopse this is technical part ?
17:23 < urgen> PROTOCOL FOR SYNCHRONOUS CONFERENCING
17:23 < echarp> illegale: what do you mean?
17:23 < illegale> i am user
17:23 < illegale> what makes the difference to me if that is replication or not
17:23 < illegale> ?
17:23 < urgen> in my world I can afford no users
17:24 < echarp> if there has been replication of your data, then you can more easily verify that no one changed it
17:24 < urgen> all users are required to understand their own impact to the system
17:24 < echarp> urgen: no users?
17:24 < urgen> all users are participants
17:24 < illegale> ok
17:24 < urgen> co-creators
17:25 < echarp> illegale: replication means that you don't have to rely anymore on one server, one technology, one administrator, one setup
17:25 < illegale> i wont veto it
17:25 < illegale> :)
17:25 < echarp> illegale: it opens up everything
17:25 < illegale> this line states that?
17:25 < illegale> if that is so, i sign it too
17:25 < echarp> replication has this consequence
17:25 < illegale> urgen: what you think about it?
17:26 < echarp> plus replication allow scaling up to an unlimited number of users :)
17:26 < illegale> any problem could happen with this?
17:26 < echarp> each user can actually be an administrator, P2P network and all that :)
17:26 < illegale> not scaling up but this in base
17:26 < illegale> ?
17:27 < illegale> harder to realise it
17:27 < illegale> ?
17:27 < echarp> illegale: no problem that I've thought of "yet", but for the technical difficulty in replication itself
17:27 < urgen> I think this supports my other common rule: no grab for power by attempting to eliminate the possibility of a single point of control
17:27 < echarp> yeap, no single point of control, that's it!!! :)
17:27 < urgen> s/power/power,
17:27 < illegale> this means no single point of control?
17:27 < illegale> that is important i agree
17:28 < echarp> not technically anyway, of course some nodes could still be more popular than others
17:28 < illegale> does it matter to what node you belong?
17:28 < illegale> to you as en user?
17:28 < urgen> you look at that psyc.eu address echarp?
17:28 < illegale> urgen: user means the person who will just communicate, not chabge the processig system
17:28 < echarp> urgen: yeap
17:29 < echarp> illegale: it's important that users check that their data is actually being replicated
17:29 < urgen> illegale, in aikido you are not allowed to watch, no spectators, you have to join in
17:29 < echarp> so they should use an entry node, and just a bit later verify that their data has reached another node somewhere
17:29 < urgen> you have to learn
17:29 < illegale> ok
17:29 < illegale> this is good base for global public trust networdk
17:30 < echarp> if they don't check this replication, then it is possible that his data gets lost
17:30 < echarp> it's the only thing that administrators can actually do: block the passage of data through their node
17:31 < echarp> for example they could try blocking all votes for a given proposition
17:31 < echarp> or just let pass by the positive votes
17:31 < echarp> but the server graph can be organised as a graph, data going through different paths simultaneously
17:32 < echarp> (the protocol I currently use is mail)
17:32 < illegale> ok
17:33 < illegale> find this thing be very important looking at gloval scale
17:34 < illegale> echarp: as long as i am not that fammiliar to protocols and that stuff, i wont go strongly for your proposal, but an easy support
17:34 < illegale> think that is ok with you
17:34 < echarp> it is yes
17:34 < illegale> supopse Markus wont have with it peobles too
17:35 < echarp> as far as protocol is concerned, just think that everything is a mailing list
17:35 < echarp> nodes can subscribe to all of them
17:35 < echarp> the subscription chain then being a graph
17:35 < echarp> peobles?
17:37 < echarp> "problems" I guest
17:37 < illegale> brb
17:38 < illegale> i get the idea
17:39 < illegale> guest?
17:39 < echarp> guess :)
17:39 < illegale> better
17:40 < illegale> though, is problem with combiantion of wiki and e-mail the reason you do not like it, huh?
17:41 < echarp> also yes
17:41 < echarp> but not only
17:42 < echarp> to me a wiki can hardly ever be made democratic
17:42 < echarp> democratic as in equal voice and possibility to vote on every proposition
17:43 < illegale> hmh
17:43 < illegale> you vote by direct acgtion
17:43 < illegale> actually
17:43 < illegale> :-)
17:43 < echarp> I disagree, how can that ever be a vote?
17:44 < echarp> wiki evolve, you can only act on its last state
17:44 < echarp> if a page goes through states A => B => C => D, where or which do you vote?
17:44 < echarp> how?
17:44 < illegale> it is aboslutley dynamic voting process
17:44 < illegale> in a single moment wherre yo are aboslute
17:44 < illegale> more simmlar thought you are longer absolute
17:45 < echarp> sorry, can you rephrase? I don't get it
17:45 < illegale> you vote does matter
17:45 < illegale> when there is 10 of us using wiki
17:45 < echarp> vote on what?
17:45 < echarp> how and on what do you vote?
17:45 < illegale> vote on context
17:46 < illegale> words there are
17:46 < echarp> the evolving context?
17:46 < illegale> for an example, there is Requirements definition
17:46 < illegale> yes
17:46 < echarp> a context so volatile that your vote will change it?
17:46 < illegale> it is set up at wiki
17:46 < illegale> and being shaped easily
17:46 < illegale> youi first shape , than you vote :)
17:46 < illegale> dynamci stuff
17:47 < illegale> not vote, vote , vote and thatn evetually shape
17:47 < illegale> so, we have dynamic version of document and know what is the last one that si not too controversal
17:47 < illegale> i see it cool thing
17:48 < illegale> i changed that rule
17:48 < illegale> about posting anonyme
17:48 < illegale> and asked markus,he said fin
17:48 < illegale> and it is changed
17:48 < illegale> no need to elaborate all and all and check out what is current version or stuff
17:48 < illegale> of course if there is some basic trust and confidence into a group that is shaing such documents
17:49 < illegale> if tehre is no such thing, hard stuff really happens
17:49 < echarp> what happens if the document changes?
17:49 < echarp> if someone add a paragraph for example?
17:49 < echarp> are all votes reset?
17:49 < illegale> and then i do agree with you about absolute cntext where posts are much more demcoracit and rfree adn good for communication stuff
17:49 < echarp> cool
17:50 < illegale> this means different aproach post ateriror or stuf
17:50 < echarp> wiki is good for quick and easy organisation, but it can hardly be made democratic (in my view)
17:50 < illegale> moving back stuff and so on
17:50 < illegale> ok
17:50 < illegale> in this very moment i find it be probalby usefull for documentation proces and stuff
17:50 < illegale> easy to change
17:50 < illegale> from averyone
17:51 < echarp> very easy, yes
17:52 < illegale> i can comment charles propostion in option
17:52 < illegale> opotion
17:52 < illegale> where admin does everythign
17:52 < illegale> so, you have one place whcih is good to know where too look at and yet pretty open one
17:52 < echarp> sorry, what can you do in option?
17:52 < illegale> oposition
17:52 < illegale> sorry
17:53 < echarp> ok
17:53 < echarp> I'm also rather afraid of having a single administrator with huge powers
17:54 < illegale> i see is as part of non necssary conflicts
17:54 < illegale> good to avoid stuff
17:55 < illegale> no bottom up process of delegation which creates opression of bottom up and the one above
17:55 < illegale> problems with legitimacy and stuff
17:57 < urgen> well.. my view suggests that there is a bottom under that bottom
17:57 < echarp> :)
17:57 < urgen> the problems with legitimacy come from not understanding the process by which it is generated
17:58 < echarp> if only it was the only problem! :)
17:58 < urgen> which, of course, sometimes looks like people coming from here or there unsuccessfully, but it there are even more ways to make mistakes than that
17:59 < urgen> s/but it/but
18:00 < urgen> I support echarp's efforts to get the politicians out of politics
18:00 < illegale> it is oximoron, uregn
18:00 < urgen> there are definate mappable dynamics available
18:00 < illegale> you eant to take lawyers out of law and stuff?
18:00 < urgen> there re rules outside of opinion
18:01 < urgen> of course
18:01 < illegale> doctors out of clinics too?
18:01 < echarp> urgen: it's going to be difficult to remove them all, let's just remove the rules that make them entrenched
18:01 < urgen> doctors are already out of clinics
18:01 < illegale> and who is in clinics than?
18:01 < urgen> doctors follow rules
18:02 < urgen> there are not many research fellows around
18:02 < urgen> and none in clinics
18:02 < urgen> those are technicians
18:02 < illegale> you find nthem not needed?
18:02 < urgen> they do not think
18:02 < illegale> surgenous out of clinics too?
18:02 < urgen> they copy cat orders from the pharmacy
18:02 < illegale> who will make operation than?
18:03 < urgen> a surgeon is also a technician
18:03 < illegale> you find them not needed?
18:03 < urgen> just because someone is good with their hands and can remember lots of things doesn't make them unique or special
18:03 < illegale> nor needeD?
18:03 < urgen> specialists are needed everywhere, why select out just medicine?
18:04 < urgen> you think the economy would survive a day if a satellite fell from the sky?
18:04 < illegale> its same thing to politicans, lawyers and other stuff too
18:04 < illegale> even the same thing with birocrats
18:04 < illegale> urgen: use specialist in medicine to make my state obcvious
18:05 < urgen> maybe, we can have a special beureau technician, but they need lots more training first
18:05 < urgen> it's not obvious it is foolish
18:05 < illegale> for every single thing you need training if you want to do it properly
18:05 < urgen> which is why I pointed to an even deeper requirement of understanding
18:06 < illegale> ok my statement is this: doctors - technicians who do doctor job are needed
18:06 < urgen> bureau
18:06 < illegale> lawyers are needed too
18:06 < illegale> and politicians alos
18:06 < urgen> why?
18:06 < illegale> we might not like them, but they exist
18:06 < illegale> what why?
18:06 < urgen> I think you lump someone with zero skills in with those that have many skills
18:06 < illegale> you might not notice their skills, but they do exist
18:07 < urgen> a politician is voting on something they don't have any understanding about
18:07 < urgen> that's dangerous
18:07 < illegale> we might not like them, but they do their job also
18:07 < urgen> very dangerous
18:07 < urgen> incredibly stupidly dangerous
18:07 < illegale> i agree about that
18:07 < urgen> I don't need that
18:07 < illegale> the only question is what is alternative
18:07 < urgen> the process is broken
18:07 < urgen> their expertise is in serious question
18:08 < urgen> the alternative shows up when you remove opinion as an option
18:08 < urgen> stop making politics a religion
18:08 < illegale> how do i do that?
18:09 < illegale> by stating stuff that is not popular?
18:09 < urgen> that's all I ever talk about
18:09 < urgen> you think popular has some kind of golden intelligence?
18:09 < urgen> wow
18:09 < illegale> make politicans obsolete and the probles is solved
18:09 < illegale> how are you going to do that?
18:09 < illegale> popular to you
18:09 < urgen> my popular removes politicians
18:10 < illegale> how*
18:10 < illegale> ?
18:10 < urgen> there are many ways to demonstrate
18:10 < urgen> if demonstration is not allowed then I can ignore the interest
18:10 < illegale> demonstration is allowed
18:10 < illegale> so, how is that that politicans still exist
18:10 < illegale> ?
18:11 < illegale> missing link somewhere'
18:11 < urgen> politicians are playing a different game
18:11 < urgen> one that requires the successful propogation of politicians
18:12 < urgen> medicine is also beginning to look like this
18:12 < urgen> instead of focussing on immune systems and other natural health systems we get cancer causing drugs to eat
18:12 < urgen> you think that's health?
18:13 < urgen> this is big business talking
18:13 < illegale> i do not agree with many many things as none of us does
18:13 < illegale> yet, we accepted it all
18:13 < illegale> how?
18:13 < urgen> I didn't accept it
18:13 < illegale> try to play different game and you will see
18:13 < urgen> I'm doing fine
18:13 < urgen> :-)
18:13 < illegale> what you did not accept?
18:13 < illegale> system?
18:13 < illegale> you play taxes
18:13 < urgen> information
18:13 < illegale> play pay
18:14 < illegale> what information?
18:14 < urgen> the information that establishes legitimacy
18:14 < illegale> i see you be no problem to sytem
18:14 < illegale> so you are eased
18:15 < illegale> that is important to system, not what you think
18:15 < illegale> you are good part of the process
18:15 < illegale> that is only important
18:15 < illegale> to system
18:15 < illegale> right?
18:15 < urgen> so this system you describe, that I am calling illness
18:16 < urgen> where you seem to have noticed some characteristics, patterns, habits
18:16 < urgen> that support the continuation of the illness
18:16 < urgen> you claim that by the existence of these patterns I prove my support for it?
18:16 < urgen> hmn
18:16 < illegale> i can notice you did not explain how to remove politicasn
18:17 < urgen> I can notice you have only a half of a molecule of patience
18:17 < illegale> :)
18:17 < urgen> maybe we need patience to solve this
18:17 < urgen> maybe we are all doomed because of no patience
18:17 < illegale> what i have to say is that i have no problem with profesion, but with way that profesion is done
18:17 < urgen> maybe not
18:17 < urgen> I couldn't care less about a definition of a hat to wear
18:18 < urgen> that is inconsequential to me
18:18 < illegale> doctors use bad medications, politians make bad decsions, lawyers do the same stuff
18:18 < illegale> yet i have no problem with none of these profesions
18:18 < illegale> njot even with philosophy which is being done wrong too
18:18 < urgen> we can make a job called 'one who catches falling jet engines from the sky'
18:19 < urgen> of course we have a large turn over with this position
18:19 < illegale> yet i am not against doctors, lawyers, philosophers as long as that is negation
18:19 < urgen> every time they do a good job, they die
18:19 < illegale> lol
18:19 < illegale> though it is the problem of politics not politicans
18:20 < illegale> amchievlism not autopoiteci moral pricnipels
18:20 < urgen> I think politics loses its skin if you dig deep enough
18:20 < illegale> and this is solved in top
18:20 < urgen> you want to keep the disease, keep that skin
18:20 < illegale> hmh
18:20 < illegale> public skin it looses for sure
18:20 < urgen> you want to get better, start digging
18:20 * echarp going home
18:20 * illegale salutes echarp
18:20 < urgen> and I need to get to work
18:21 < urgen> they already have an emergency and called me on my phone
18:21 < urgen> bbl
18:21 < illegale> cu all
18:21 < illegale> gonna go me too
18:21 < illegale> :)=
18:21 < urgen> "digging is the answer"
18:46 -!- nsh- (nsh) [n=nsh@wikipedia/nsh] has joined #parlement
19:14 < echarp> re
19:28 -!- nsh- [n=nsh@wikipedia/nsh] has quit [Read error: 145 (Connection timed out)]
19:45 < echarp> nsh: you are playing with your irc client? :)
19:52 -!- illegale [n=ille...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has left #parlement []
--- Log closed ven jun 30 00:00:22 2006
Message has been deleted
echarp
Jun 30, 2006, 12:48:52 PM6/30/06
to top-po...@googlegroups.com
On Fri, Jun 30, 2006 at 09:21:22AM -0700, Mark Rosst wrote:
> Can you please not send this to me?
> Can you please not send this to me?
Of course I can.
It's a matter of group decision I guess. Illegale asked for it or
something "like" it.
What do you all think?
Vote +1 if you want to keep it as is now, -1 if you want it only
archived on the parlement website.
I will change it as this proposal gets a negative result.
echarp - http://leparlement.org/irc
lpc1998
Jun 30, 2006, 1:16:59 PM6/30/06
to top-po...@googlegroups.com
+
These are just messages sent regularly by a member to the group, unless the majority of the group members do not want it.
Is there a way to stop sending it to Mark only?
Best Regards
Eric Lim
Message has been deleted
echarp
Jun 30, 2006, 1:59:25 PM6/30/06
to top-po...@googlegroups.com
On Fri, Jun 30, 2006 at 10:16:59AM -0700, lpc1998 wrote:
> +
> +
This can not be accounted on http://leparlement.org/irc ;)
But we, humans, of course can.
> These are just messages sent regularly by a member to the group,
> unless the majority of the group members do not want it.
>
> Is there a way to stop sending it to Mark only?
Not that I know of, but there are *many* ways for him to filter it out.
Message has been deleted
echarp
Jun 30, 2006, 2:28:02 PM6/30/06
to top-po...@googlegroups.com
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> > Can you please not send this to me?
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
I can stop sending the feed... To the group and thus to everybody.
Thus I'm asking the group for his opinion.
> Please stop sending me the feed.
You can also filter it out *easily*...
gmail offers filters, rather easy to use...
Message has been deleted
echarp
Jun 30, 2006, 3:54:12 PM6/30/06
to top-po...@googlegroups.com
On Fri, Jun 30, 2006 at 12:41:30PM -0700, Mark wrote:
> Then remove me from the group feed.
> Then remove me from the group feed.
You alone can remove yourself from the TOP group to which is sent the
daily irc log.
> > > Please stop sending me the feed.
If I stop sending the feed to the google group, then all of the group
stops receiving it. I really don't mind both situations, I'm just asking
for the group's opinion.
Eric seems for keeping the daily irc log on the google group. Anybody
else?
> > You can also filter it out *easily*...gmail offers filters, rather easy to use...
>
> Yes, I see the 'spam' button, but I haven't pressed it.
Spam is not really a filter.
Filters are accessible in the "settings" part of gmail, link to that
"settings" panel is on the top right part of the main gmail page.
> Wouldn't this give your account a spam dismerit?
Probably not. Plus it probably would not stop following mails.
echarp
Jul 1, 2006, 12:28:57 AM7/1/06
to top-politics
--- Log opened ven jun 30 00:00:22 2006
01:10 < nsh:#parlement> was logged in from another location :-)
03:24 -!- nsh [n=nsh@wikipedia/nsh] has quit ["Leaving"]
--- Log closed ven jun 30 04:44:09 2006
--- Log opened ven jun 30 04:44:47 2006
04:44 -!- echarp [n=33M0...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has joined #parlement
04:44 -!- Topic for #parlement: http://leparlement.org/irc
04:44 -!- Topic set by echarp [] [Sun Jun 11 20:50:53 2006]
04:44 [Users #parlement]
04:44 [ echarp] [ fiatlex] [ parlebot] [ salfield] [ urgen]
04:44 -!- Irssi: #parlement: Total of 5 nicks [0 ops, 0 halfops, 0 voices, 5 normal]
04:44 -!- Channel #parlement created Thu Apr 27 09:48:29 2006
04:45 -!- Irssi: Join to #parlement was synced in 44 secs
04:56 -!- urgen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit []
05:01 -!- urgen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
05:17 < urgen:#parlement> I haven't had a chance to get instructions on launching a media player stream in linux
05:43 -!- Netsplit clarke.freenode.net <-> irc.freenode.net quits: salfield, fiatlex, urgen
05:44 -!- Netsplit over, joins: fiatlex
05:44 -!- urgen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
05:44 -!- salfield [n=t...@host-212-158-235-38.bulldogdsl.com] has joined #parlement
05:45 -!- salfield is tom
07:49 -!- urgen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit []
07:55 -!- urgen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
09:38 -!- salfield [n=t...@host-212-158-235-38.bulldogdsl.com] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
09:46 -!- urgen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)]
09:46 -!- urgyen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
09:58 -!- salfield (tom) [n=t...@host-84-9-129-43.bulldogdsl.com] has joined #parlement
09:59 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
09:59 < echarp> hello hello
10:29 -!- test (illegale) [n=ille...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has joined #parlement
10:29 < echarp> hello test
10:30 < echarp> hello test
11:48 < echarp> salfield: at work? :)
12:08 -!- illegale (illegale) [n=ille...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has joined #parlement
12:08 < illegale> hey
13:12 < echarp> hello hello illegale
13:12 < echarp> illegale: I modified slightly your irssi config
13:12 < echarp> so that you are automatically on the freenode server and some scripts are automatically loaded
13:12 < echarp> I hope you don't mind
13:14 < illegale> thank you i noticed :)
13:14 < illegale> http://stakeventures.com/pages/whoami
13:15 < echarp> who is that?
13:16 < illegale> do not know :)=
13:16 < illegale> found at google using joi ito
13:16 < illegale> has some simmilarities
13:17 < illegale> libertanian, open org, transaprence and stuff
13:22 < echarp> interesting
13:22 < echarp> and an entrepreneur!
13:22 < illegale> how do i use dictionary, can you say again?
13:23 < echarp> Ctrl+z, dict word, q, fg
13:23 < illegale> thanks :=
13:23 < illegale> )
13:23 < illegale> seems to might be cool
13:24 < illegale> like his attitude in posts
13:24 < illegale> i mean texts
13:25 < illegale> how are you doin e?
13:26 < echarp> fine thx
13:27 < echarp> I'm almost done with the avatar coding in parlement! :)
13:27 < illegale> nice:)
13:28 < echarp> I'm quite proud of how easy it is to upload an avatar
13:28 < echarp> but it's a bitch to display it along your posts in IE :(
13:28 < echarp> well, to display it "properly"
13:29 < illegale> echarp: have you noticed how many people work in simmilar direction around here?
13:32 < echarp> like salfield ?
13:32 < illegale> yes
13:32 < illegale> esp is doing simmilar stuff too and so on
13:33 < echarp> esp is not, from what I understand of it
13:33 < illegale> it is about public nodes, not?
13:33 < echarp> yes, but this is the web
13:34 < illegale> i see
13:34 < illegale> you are tech oriented
13:34 < illegale> e mail being gthe fund, right?
13:35 < echarp> the fund? the foundation?
13:35 < illegale> i believe i missed the point
13:35 < illegale> what do you mean by this is the web?
13:35 < echarp> on the web many will develop public node stuff
13:35 < echarp> like esp
13:36 < illegale> you are doing the same thing, though you use optional clients, right?
13:36 < illegale> clinets> e mail srevice and stuff
13:37 < echarp> I'm not sure about esp, I think they go toward P2P nodes
13:37 < echarp> the protocol being probably their own
13:37 < echarp> me I go for a mix of P2P servers and classic html clients
13:37 < echarp> the protocol being, as of now, mail
13:37 < illegale> see
13:37 < illegale> i see
13:38 < illegale> me as non knower like your idea
13:38 < echarp> that's nice :)
13:38 < echarp> klaus has just registered on rubyforge to do some development, you want to join? ;)
13:38 < illegale> not mean too much as long as i rely on those i have trust too
13:39 < illegale> how can i help*
13:39 < echarp> that's understandable
13:39 < illegale> delegation struff
13:39 < illegale> :=)
13:39 < echarp> well, you want to code the PGP public/private signatures? (it's going to be a TOUGH thing to do properly)? :)
13:40 < echarp> delegations will also be *VERY* difficult to do properly (difficulties with performance)
13:40 < illegale> what you mean about perforemacne?
13:40 < echarp> there also is the need for an installer
13:41 < echarp> delegations are a way to say that you give your voice on one issue and its sub issues to someone else
13:41 < echarp> that someone else can also do the same
13:41 < echarp> this lead to a tree of delegations applied on a tree of issues
13:41 < echarp> each vote on one issue corresponding to a given number of voices
13:41 < echarp> that number of voices is difficult to obtain in real time :(
13:42 < echarp> two perpendicular trees, choices that link one to the other
13:44 < illegale> hmh
13:45 < illegale> i do not understand this
13:48 < illegale> why dont you add values to members on some fix rate
13:48 < illegale> having some delay in loosign rank, suchh as an hour or so
13:48 < illegale> not problem imo
13:50 < illegale> or i am bs?:)=
13:51 < echarp> you are not at all!
13:51 < echarp> it could be one way to do it
13:51 < echarp> but there is one other parameter to manage, electoral list
13:52 < echarp> vote results are tabulated against an electoral list
13:52 < echarp> thus a delegation and a choice are only tabulated in that context
13:52 < echarp> but I have way to generate intermediate delegations to help the calculations
13:53 < salfield> Hi guys,
13:53 < echarp> just I'd like to find a very basic and simple algorithm to manage the 2 perpendicular trees
13:53 < echarp> hello salfield
13:53 < salfield> only have 5 minutes right now
13:53 < illegale> time is money :)
13:53 < echarp> salfield: working hard?
13:53 < salfield> thinking hard
13:54 < echarp> illegale: my hardest problem is in fact that postgresql (and mysql for that matter) don't do recursive requests :(
13:54 < salfield> but just wanted to say that I think that vote delegation causes concentration of power
13:54 < echarp> thus a delegation tree is hard to go through
13:54 < salfield> as compared with vote recommendation
13:54 < echarp> salfield: it can yes
13:54 < echarp> what is vote recommandation?
13:55 < salfield> I am looking for but failing to find right now an article by the founder of liquid democracy
13:55 < echarp> salfield: the delegations we have in mind are not permanent at all, they can be changed or overriden anytime, isn't it better?
13:56 < salfield> imo delegation is better than normal representative democracy because of that
13:56 < salfield> but still it is a form of represenation rather than direct
13:56 < salfield> vote recommendation is where rather than giving you my vote
13:57 < salfield> on an issue
13:57 < salfield> I automate my voting to follow yours
13:57 < salfield> you are unaware how I vote
13:57 < salfield> you are unaware how I choose to vote
13:57 < salfield> and are therefore unaware of the power of your recommendation
13:58 < echarp> salfield: in a transparent system everything would be known...
13:58 < echarp> but I understand the difference
13:58 < echarp> just I can't implement it in a P2P system of replicating nodes
13:58 < salfield> I might also then decide to vote in an automated way, based on a weighting from various people I choose as experts on an issue
13:59 < salfield> this keeps power at the edges of the network
13:59 < echarp> weighting would be nice yes, but even harder to implement
13:59 < echarp> it's not fixed
14:00 < echarp> the delegations I have in mind are just here to alleviate the burden of voting on every thing
14:00 < echarp> they are not required
14:00 < salfield> its a question of keeping the voting with a semi-intelligent agent representing the user
14:01 < echarp> that could occur yes
14:01 < salfield> I believe it is actually easier to implement in a secure way
14:01 < echarp> semi-intelligent agent?
14:01 < echarp> I'm open to that kind of thing
14:01 < salfield> since if I delegate I will have to create a new private key for use on my behalf
14:02 < echarp> I don't get it, two PGP keys for one person?
14:02 < salfield> assuming you are using private key encrypted messages to be matched against a public key list
14:02 < illegale> salfield: why vote secretly?
14:03 < illegale> power is not stuff of secret, especially if you want to tech people how it works
14:03 < salfield> illegale: its not a secret vote
14:03 < illegale> transparence anbles this, excatly
14:03 < echarp> they won't encrypted, they will be signed
14:03 < illegale> frees the knowledge they need
14:03 < echarp> and encrypted vote will be almost impossible to repliate among a graph of servers :(
14:04 < salfield> echarp: why, I dont get it
14:05 < echarp> salfield: how do you replicate and tabulate encrypted votes?
14:05 < illegale> salfield: you joined top politics?
14:05 < echarp> where/who decrypt them? using which key?
14:05 < salfield> illegale: not yet
14:05 < illegale> ok, there is new member, though it was maybe you
14:06 < echarp> cool
14:06 < salfield> echarp: dht ??
14:06 < echarp> ok, I didn't read it properly I guess, you actually proposed encryption using the "private" key
14:06 < echarp> that's equivalent to signing then
14:07 < salfield> yes
14:07 < echarp> which is what I also have in mind :)
14:07 < salfield> but if i delegate
14:07 < echarp> what then?
14:07 < salfield> how do I allow you to sign for me?
14:07 < salfield> in your scheme
14:08 < salfield> my solution is that I have an algorithm which is informed when you vote
14:08 < salfield> and then I auto-vote too
14:08 < salfield> signing the message myself
14:08 < echarp> with delegation you don't actually "vote" for someone
14:08 < salfield> okay
14:08 < echarp> the system calculate who's voices you represent, and can calculate a result based on that
14:09 < salfield> see
14:09 < echarp> thus it's dynamic
14:09 < echarp> if someone new delegate to you, you don't have to do a new vote
14:09 < salfield> sure, but imho more complex than necessary
14:09 < illegale> hmh, seems to me you need list of delegating persons in somoenes profile
14:10 < salfield> not if people vote for themselves
14:10 < illegale> in that way voting mechanisms can change with no problem
14:10 < salfield> in direct democracy style
14:10 < echarp> illegale: you need that yes
14:10 < echarp> salfield: delegations are effectively more complex than direct votes
14:11 < salfield> yes, and do you agree that vote recommendation is preferrable
14:11 < illegale> salfield: what od oyu mean by that?
14:12 < echarp> illegale: if vote recommandation imply secret votes, then it's out of topic for that kind of system
14:12 < salfield> there are no secret votes
14:13 < salfield> only the way I decide how to vote is my business
14:13 < echarp> of course it is
14:13 < salfield> normally I decide this in my head
14:13 < illegale> mean issue or person?
14:13 < salfield> in auto vote recommentation I have it automated
14:13 < echarp> a delegation is only meant as a way to "not bother" voting on everything
14:14 < echarp> a delegation is a sort of automatic vote recommendation
14:14 < salfield> I am still not obligated to tell you, and your ego, that you control my vote
14:14 < illegale> why not?
14:14 < salfield> yes they both deal with problem of not being able to vote on everything
14:14 < salfield> illegale: agglomeration of power
14:14 < illegale> if someone can not stand the power, let him not be partof it
14:15 < illegale> if i see some guy goes bad i wont delegate him anymore
14:15 < salfield> well, must run and catch a train now
14:15 < salfield> but give it some thought
14:15 < echarp> I don't understand the difference between public recommandation and delegation
14:15 < salfield> please
14:16 < illegale> cu
14:16 < echarp> ok, cu later salfield!
14:16 < illegale> :)
14:16 < echarp> I'm open to all those things
14:16 -!- salfield [n=t...@host-84-9-129-43.bulldogdsl.com] has quit ["Leaving"]
14:16 < echarp> the point is just to diminish the burden of voting
14:16 < illegale> what do you mean?
14:22 < echarp> delegations are just a mean
14:22 < echarp> they are not a goal
14:22 < echarp> the goal is the votes themselves
14:23 < illegale> or decisions :)
14:23 < echarp> yeap
14:24 < echarp> thus there can any number of ways to transmit individual voices to corresponding choices
14:25 < echarp> the direct way must always be present of course :)
14:25 < illegale> yes
14:27 < illegale> talked to markus today
14:27 < illegale> have some problems with comp
14:28 < echarp> oh :(
14:28 < echarp> does he need a ssh account? :)
14:29 < illegale> lol
14:31 < echarp> I'm becoming an admin, with the power that goes with it!!! :)
14:31 < illegale> no problem with that
14:32 < illegale> though, i look for an altrnative :)
14:32 < illegale> just in case
14:32 < echarp> :)
14:32 < echarp> I understand, I also have alternatives to my own server! :)
14:33 < illegale> recommend it?
14:33 -!- echarp2 (33M002Paris; manu) [n=33M0...@81.93.4.93] has joined #parlement
14:33 < echarp> nah, server space given by friends :)
14:33 < illegale> fast iti s
14:33 < echarp> :)
14:33 < illegale> might offer alternative where he is secret admin also 8))
14:33 < echarp2> can always be improved!
14:34 < echarp> illegale: on my server, there also are ways to connect to msn, google talk, icq, messenger, etc. all in irssi
14:35 < illegale> makes you proud?
14:35 < illegale> :)=
14:35 < echarp> makes it very practical!
14:35 < illegale> no proud?
14:36 < illegale> id be proud
14:36 < echarp> not really proud no
14:37 < illegale> you r cool
14:37 < illegale> me like to enjoy in stuff when i solve it
14:37 < echarp> thx
14:37 < illegale> look at it and tuf
14:37 < illegale> feel good and so on
14:37 < illegale> proud
14:38 < echarp> lately I've been happy to finally manage streaming sound to my bluetooth headset
14:38 < echarp> very practical!
14:38 < echarp> and in stereo!
14:38 < illegale> what is it for?
14:38 < illegale> connected to ssh?
14:38 < illegale> :)
14:39 < illegale> illegale is here it says and stuff?
14:39 < echarp> nah, to listen to music without any wire
14:39 < illegale> blah
14:39 < illegale> imagine voice lead of mouse
14:39 < echarp> :)
14:39 < illegale> up, up up up, left, down, left ,
14:39 < echarp> wouldn't be very practical!
14:40 < illegale> cold cold cold cold hot got
14:40 < echarp> :)
14:40 < echarp> that's what you say in bed with a babe :)
14:40 < illegale> think so
14:40 < illegale> hehe
14:40 < illegale> leading a mouse
14:41 < echarp> :)
14:41 < illegale> we in cro do not do that
14:41 < illegale> we are simple people
14:41 < illegale> balkaniean
14:41 < illegale> s
14:42 < illegale> opa cupa we say
14:42 < echarp> opa cupa???
14:42 < echarp> what does it mean?
14:42 < echarp> "jump in bed"? :)
14:42 < illegale> it is sound stuff
14:42 < illegale> yes
14:42 < illegale> mean nothing in dictionary
14:43 < illegale> it is pronounced as oprah (with no r at all)
14:43 < illegale> and cupe is complcated
14:43 < illegale> c is like ts
14:43 < illegale> does not exist in english
14:44 < illegale> whatever :)
14:44 < illegale> huh, my energy leaks, have to do something constructe
14:45 < echarp> :)
14:51 < illegale> Markus replied
14:53 < echarp> cool
14:56 < illegale> seems to me he and you have same stuff in mind
14:57 < echarp> but is he not in his forge mind set?
14:58 < illegale> sourceforge?
14:58 < echarp> assembling parts and not creating parts?
14:59 < illegale> hmh, i am not sure in that
14:59 < illegale> i suppose we could agree about development of the tools top initiatve needs to use
15:00 < echarp> does he program the forum following the recommandations?
15:00 < illegale> he is slow
15:00 < echarp> :)
15:00 < illegale> has several things in hiw rather busy life to do first
15:00 < illegale> going to be assistent and stuff
15:00 < illegale> has to fight for position
15:00 < echarp> that's probably quite difficult
15:02 < illegale> so,seems to me there are two things to create right now
15:02 < illegale> one is ad hoc, second is strategic
15:02 < illegale> one
15:02 < illegale> brb
15:03 < echarp> ok
15:05 < illegale> bacvk
15:12 < illegale> so, we all agree about articualtion of top
15:12 < echarp> I guess
15:12 < illegale> you, markus and i agree to promotion of top too
15:12 < illegale> goal stuff
15:18 < illegale> creating tool that enables top initiative promotes top initiatives
15:18 < illegale> before that, defining it, getting clear non f******* concepts
15:30 < illegale> we have to define top before anything else, right?
15:30 < illegale> is that conclusion of this topic?
15:30 < illegale> echarp:
15:30 < echarp> illegale: I do think that we have to agree on goals and what is top
15:31 < illegale> if the goal is promotion of top, we first have to define it
15:31 < illegale> right?
15:32 < echarp> yeap
15:32 < echarp> definitely
15:32 < illegale> as long as we 7three of us/ agree about promotion in this very moment and eric not stated about that
15:32 < illegale> common interest is definition of top as frist thing
15:32 < illegale> ok?
15:32 < echarp> ok
15:33 < illegale> then we can recheck our goals and state them
15:33 < illegale> i mean new goals as long as this is goal itself
15:33 < illegale> :)=
15:45 < illegale> What does TOP mean to you?;
15:45 < illegale> first isssue to be done
15:47 < echarp> TOP means that the information used in a democratic process is public
15:47 < echarp> that this process is open to any body
15:47 < illegale> ok, ok
15:47 < echarp> anything else?
15:48 < illegale> Thank you all for making suggestions for the question above.
15:48 < illegale> Seems to me we all share interest in commonly accepted definition of TOP at first.
15:48 < illegale> My proposal of supporting creation of global public trust network among IT related initiatives is definitelly apropriate in the moment we do not share even basic thoughts about what this all actually mean to us.
15:48 < illegale> Emmanuels proposal for promotion of TOP (I hope I underood it correct) needs TOP defined also.
15:48 < illegale> Erics proposal was not just definition, but also what TOP means to us which is in my opinion very important as long as in that way we might define TOP in a way we can use it properly for our goals.
15:48 < illegale> Markus proposal of promotion of TOP and creation of adeqaute software for implementation of TOP, again needs fine definition.
15:48 < illegale> All in all, it seems to me that we all agree about
15:48 < illegale> "Erics says:" What does TOP mean to you?;
15:48 < illegale> to be our first step in going forward.
15:48 < illegale> Erics already voted for it (man before his time :-)), on Irc chat Emmanuel and I agreed about definition of TOP, Markus and I had phone conversation where Markus gave his vote to it also.
15:48 < illegale> not aprpopriate
15:49 < echarp> what is not appropriate?
15:49 < illegale> i wrote in my proposal apropriate and it was ment not apropriate
15:50 < illegale> it was just a correction
15:50 < illegale> i gonna louns this mail, adding a hint about defining other goals after we define this one
16:05 < echarp> "not" is more proper yes
16:05 < echarp> because we just don't have that kind of reach
16:06 < echarp> we can merely work on ourselves as of now
16:06 < echarp> define the principles that *we* wish to follow
16:08 < illegale> Thanks to all participants for making suggestions for the question above.
16:08 < illegale> It seems we all share interest in commonly accepted definition of TOP at first.
16:08 < illegale> My proposal of supporting creation of global public trust network among IT related initiatives might be not apropriate in the moment we do not share even basic thoughts about what this all actually mean to us.
16:08 < illegale> Emmanuels proposal for promotion of TOP (I hope I underood it correct) needs TOP defined also.
16:08 < illegale> Erics proposal was not just definition, but also sugestion of how to aproach to to, by what TOP means to us which is in my opinion very important as long as in that way we might define TOP in a way we can use it properly for our goals.
16:08 < illegale> Markus proposal of promotion of TOP and creation of adeqaute software for implementation of TOP, again needs fine definition.
16:08 < illegale> All in all, it seems that we all agree about
16:08 < illegale> "Erics says:" What does TOP mean to you?;
16:09 < illegale> to be our first step in going forward.
16:09 < illegale> Erics already voted for it (man before his time :-)), on Irc chat Emmanuel and I agreed about definition of TOP, Markus and I had phone conversation where Markus gave his vote for TOP also.
16:09 < illegale> So, the first goal for this group is set.
16:09 < illegale> The goal is clear definition of TOP.
16:09 < illegale> *Important*
16:09 < illegale> As long as there was no voting procedure cared on some formal way (I did not find it be needed in this very situation), if you see some problem with idea of defining TOP to be our first goal, please state in this topic to cancel decision that is done. In the meantime, we can get oriented to ways of how to create definition of TOP good as possible, satisfying our needs for it.
16:09 < illegale> this is stating post i gonna send in 5 minutes if you are fine with it
16:10 < illegale> there is a goal and first question, i see here
16:10 < echarp> you need to rephrase some bits
16:11 < echarp> "on" the question above
16:11 < illegale> can you be more specific?
16:11 < echarp> First, it seems we all share a commonly accepted definition of TOP
16:13 < echarp> "My 'Global Public Trust Network' proposal for IT related initiatives might be inapropriate because as of this moment we don't..."
16:13 < echarp> "also needs TOP defined"
16:14 < echarp> "was not just a definition"
16:14 < echarp> "but also a suggestion on how to approach it"
16:14 < illegale> you mean, we atre not dfinint top but reseaching it ?
16:14 < echarp> I'm just rephrasing
16:15 < echarp> eric propose a process to research it
16:16 < illegale> i do not understand this part
16:16 < illegale> you want to say we share dfinition in this very moment?
16:16 < echarp> "markus proposal, promoting TOP and creating an adequate software implementing it, again needs a definition"
16:17 < echarp> illegale: I'm just rephrasing what you wrote, but I might have misunderstood the meaning
16:17 < illegale> i get the point
16:18 < illegale> thank you
16:18 < illegale> will send completely new letter
16:18 < illegale> :)=
16:18 < echarp> no need to
16:18 < echarp> just need tweaking on the phrasing
16:19 < illegale> you said we share commonly accepted definition
16:19 < illegale> is that what you thinh?
16:19 < illegale> k?
16:19 < echarp> where do I say that?
16:19 < illegale> First, it seems we all share a commonly accepted definition of TOP
16:19 < illegale> misspelling?
16:20 < echarp> I stated what is, I believe, a simple definition of TOP
16:20 < echarp> and yes, we probably share it
16:20 < illegale> ok, we need to spread our thought about TOP i suppose
16:21 < echarp> the sentence "First, it seems we all share a commonly accepted definition of TOP" was just an attempt at rephrasing your sentence It seems we all share interest in commonly accepted definition of TOP at first"
16:21 < illegale> every single one of us sees some advantages/missandvatneages
16:21 < illegale> First, it seems we all share interest to define TOP more clearly.
16:23 < echarp> :)
16:26 < illegale> Erics proposal was not just a definition of TOP, but also proposal of such process.
16:26 < illegale> i did not dig you in Eric part
16:26 < echarp> dig me?
16:26 < illegale> folow you
16:26 < illegale> undesratnd what to write
16:27 < echarp> you didn't follow my attempt at rephrasing?
16:28 < illegale> yes
16:28 < echarp> which part exactly?
16:28 < illegale> was not just a definition"
16:28 < illegale> 16:14 < echarp> "but also a suggestion on how to approach it"
16:28 < illegale> 16:14 < illegale> you mean, we atre not dfinint top but reseaching it ?
16:28 < illegale> 16:14 < echarp> I'm just rephrasing
16:28 < illegale> 16:15 < echarp> eric propose a process to research it
16:29 < echarp> I'm looking at that sentence => "< illegale> Erics proposal was not just definition, but also sugestion of how to to, by what TOP means to us which is in my opinion very importa as in that way we might define TOP in a way we can use it properly goals.
16:29 < echarp> "
16:29 < echarp> that sentence I don't understand
16:29 < illegale> me neiter
16:29 < echarp> so I tried to rephrase it
16:29 < echarp> where did you get that sentence from?
16:29 < illegale> what i understand what TOP means to yuo is not same thing as lets define to
16:29 < illegale> p
16:29 < illegale> but proposal of how to articualte this concept too
16:29 < echarp> didn't you write that sentence?
16:31 < illegale> what i meant is that WHAT TOP MEANS TO YOU is way of defining TOP
16:31 < illegale> in a manner tobe commonly accepted and usefull to us
16:31 < echarp> sorry, I'm looking at the sentence from you, the sentence about Eric's proposal
16:34 < illegale> Erics proposal was what does TOP mean to you in order to define TOP more properly.
16:34 < illegale> thats it
16:35 < illegale> Thanks to all participants for making suggestions for the question above.
16:35 < illegale> First, it seems we all share interest to define TOP more clearly.
16:35 < illegale> My 'Global Public Trust Network' proposal for IT related initiatives might be inapropriate because as of this moment we don'tshare even basic thoughts about what this all actually mean to us.
16:35 < illegale> Emmanuels proposal for promotion of TOP also needs TOP defined.
16:35 < illegale> Erics proposal was "What does TOP mean to you " in order to define TOP more properly.
16:35 < illegale> Markus proposal, promoting TOP and creating an adequate software implementing it, again needs a definition.
16:35 < illegale> All in all, it seems that we all agree about
16:35 < illegale> "Erics says:" What does TOP mean to you?;
16:35 < illegale> to be our first step in going forward.
16:35 < illegale> Erics already voted for it (man before his time :-)), on Irc chat Emmanuel and I agreed about it, Markus and I had phone conversation where Markus gave his vote for TOP also.
16:35 < illegale> So, the first goal for this group is set.
16:35 < illegale> The goal is clear definition of TOP.
16:35 < illegale> *Important*
16:35 < illegale> As long as there was no voting procedure cared on some formal way (I did not find it be needed in this very situation), if you see some problem with idea of defining TOP to be our first goal, please state in this topic to cancel decision that is done. In the meantime, we can get oriented to ways of how to create definition of TOP good as possible, satisfying our needs for it.
16:35 < illegale> ok, that is it
16:37 < illegale> done
16:37 < illegale> thank you
16:51 < illegale> gotta go
16:52 < illegale> cu later, suppoe tomorrow
16:52 < illegale> night
16:52 -!- illegale [n=ille...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has quit ["leaving"]
17:01 < urgyen> I'm with salfield on also not liking vote delegation, of course
17:02 < echarp> urgyen: you only want direct vote?
17:02 < urgyen> and still feel your 'transparency' banner is an albatross around your neck
17:02 < urgyen> I do not believe vote direct is your only other alternative
17:03 < echarp> indirect through what means then?
17:03 < urgyen> so far I'm giving your system about 25% chance of success
17:03 < echarp> urgyen: are you speaking of parlement or TOP? 2 different things
17:03 < urgyen> neither are anything *yet*
17:03 < urgyen> both are sandboxes still
17:04 < echarp> parlement is code and a server
17:04 < urgyen> so I'm just talking about what actually becomes something
17:06 < echarp> something as in something "real"?
17:06 < urgyen> :-) which we can go into the definition of some time
17:06 < urgyen> http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/
17:07 < urgyen> nasatv online, there is probably other places to find feeds too but this usually has the best bandwidth
17:07 < echarp> nah, not tv at the work place no
17:07 < urgyen> launch is not today anyway
17:07 < urgyen> I just promised to remind you
17:07 < echarp> ok
17:08 < urgyen> and even after launch which is not too boring, you'd want to wait a couple days for the spacewalks
17:08 < urgyen> space does not follow time zones
17:09 < urgyen> so I've been trying to catch sayke's attention
17:10 < echarp> sayke is?
17:10 < urgyen> inventor of liquid democracy
17:10 < urgyen> have him drop by for a consult
17:10 < echarp> cool guy then
17:11 < urgyen> he can explain vote recommendation
17:11 < echarp> I think I understand most of it
17:12 < echarp> but in a transparent system where all data is to be replicated among servers, I don't see much difference with vote delegation
17:12 < urgyen> he had code
17:12 < urgyen> they used usenet as protocol
17:12 < urgyen> you still haven't proven transparent is significant
17:12 < urgyen> this is only just a whim
17:12 < echarp> it is not
17:12 < urgyen> your definition of transparent is not formal
17:13 < echarp> as far as I'm concerned, the transparency I speak about is *VERY* formal
17:13 < urgyen> transparent is like a buzzword "new" "fresh" "exciting"
17:13 < echarp> "all data need to be so transparent that it can be replicated in real time"
17:13 < urgyen> show me the other words and I will listen
17:13 < urgyen> the other words being the formal definition
17:13 < echarp> because I envision a graph of servers, P2P servers
17:14 < echarp> there are three elements distinct and interconnected elements in my view of online voting trust:
17:14 < echarp> * P2P servers
17:14 < echarp> * PGP signatures
17:14 < echarp> * electoral lists
17:14 < echarp> with those three elements, I believe we can attain actual and workable trust in online voting
17:15 < urgyen> what is the purpose of replication in real time?
17:15 < echarp> and of course it *requires* that all data be so transparent that it can be replicted in real time
17:15 < urgyen> you are weighting regional interest?
17:15 < echarp> replication is to make sure that there is no point of control in the global system
17:15 < echarp> no central administration
17:15 < echarp> I'm not weighting anything no
17:16 < urgyen> well then its not fair
17:16 < echarp> hu???
17:16 < echarp> fair to what or who?
17:16 < urgyen> I am asleep and real time power changes on the other side of the world
17:16 < urgyen> why?
17:16 < echarp> then it is not fair
17:16 < echarp> I'm fine with that
17:16 < urgyen> that is inherent weighting
17:17 < echarp> I don't care at all about that, the participants will have to manage it the way they want it
17:17 < echarp> I don't have much policy enforced by the system you know
17:17 < urgyen> it also breaks the single point of control rule, then
17:17 < echarp> it's very much free flow
17:17 < echarp> how does it break that???
17:17 < urgyen> by allowing a concentration of power
17:17 < urgyen> place where the most ppl live wins
17:18 < echarp> electoral lists shoud manage that all right I gues
17:18 < urgyen> but maybe that's ok
17:18 < echarp> shoud/should
17:18 < urgyen> maybe you really want a representative system
17:18 < urgyen> maybe you want to do a stepping stone transition
17:18 < echarp> parlement is not a global government system, it's a tool that any group can use to democratically express itself
17:18 < urgyen> right
17:19 < echarp> anybody can propose, vote on propositions or delegate their voice
17:19 < echarp> the results are tabulated using PGP signatures and electoral lists
17:19 < echarp> there can be any number of result
17:19 < urgyen> so as long as it is defined as such then it can be evaluated well enough
17:19 < echarp> parlement does not manage enforcement
17:19 < urgyen> another box on the shelf of option
17:19 < urgyen> s
17:19 < echarp> I guess yes
17:20 < echarp> another tool
17:20 < urgyen> maybe someday that will be something I need, but not for years probably
17:20 < echarp> and just a tool
17:21 < echarp> it's a web forum, a mailing list, and eventually a real time chat system
17:21 < urgyen> I still can't even get a single sentence shared between people :-)
17:21 < echarp> that's another thing entirely :)
17:21 < urgyen> yes
17:22 < urgyen> so much action without understanding ... scares me
17:22 < echarp> understanding? action?
17:22 < urgyen> with no mutual sentences ppl are voting
17:22 < urgyen> this is dangerous
17:22 < urgyen> silly
17:22 < urgyen> but that's currently life
17:22 < echarp> this is their choice
17:23 < urgyen> sometimes they get lucky sometimes it means struggle
17:23 < urgyen> ha no choice
17:23 < urgyen> no information
17:23 < urgyen> luck luck luck
17:23 < echarp> evolution, behaviour, sociology
17:23 < urgyen> sustainable dies to quickly
17:23 < urgyen> to engender is not a simple task
17:24 < urgyen> and what sticks is not always healthy
17:24 < echarp> I disagree, to engender is a basic task :)
17:24 < urgyen> so soon babies will be born knowing how to brush their teeth?
17:24 < echarp> of course not
17:24 < echarp> but they will exist!
17:24 < urgyen> what will exist?
17:27 < echarp> babies
17:27 < echarp> engendered humans
17:27 < urgyen> :-)
17:28 < echarp> we are champions in reproduction
17:28 < echarp> we are the descendants of millions of generations who managed this one thing for sure! :)
17:28 < urgyen> so many similar to netocracy type questions will begin to show up around genetic engineering
17:28 < urgyen> they will be tearing through things they don't understand
17:29 < urgyen> without an appreciation for the scale of time required to develop a sane means of expression
17:29 < urgyen> since this relative existence allows for *anything* even the very most right, neutral, or wrong
17:30 < urgyen> without a principle of regulation one is not acting with attentiveness
17:30 < echarp> and?
17:30 < echarp> attention is just one possibility to develop or not to develop
17:31 < urgyen> the sustainable side becomes the example
17:31 < urgyen> because, since it is more aware, it lasts longer
17:32 < urgyen> but it can be wiped out via the all allowing relative existence too
17:32 < urgyen> other non-aware can intervene
17:33 < urgyen> sharing understanding is the only defense
17:33 < echarp> I'm not convinced that it necessarily lasts longer
17:33 < urgyen> or systems can be built to harvest and manage unaware (like the governments we have today)
17:34 < urgyen> excellent to be skeptical
17:34 < echarp> I'm sure you could be highly aware yet enjoy taking extrem risks!
17:34 < urgyen> maybe my definition of aware is different
17:35 < echarp> aware of...?
17:35 < urgyen> aware of the scope of appreciation
17:36 < echarp> woaw, lost me there
17:36 < echarp> you sure you don't envision the grandest of things while concrete things would work just as well?
17:36 < urgyen> like salfield mentioned, liquid democracy retains an intelligence on the outside model
17:36 < urgyen> power is intelligence on the inside., what you are calling the opposite of transparency
17:37 < urgyen> to attempt to construct a medium of exchange that is not based on intelligence on the outside model means you are generating potential for single points of failure
17:38 < urgyen> maybe hybrid is ok,.. maybe not
17:39 < urgyen> but I don't want one of the goals to be determined from one of the points of failure
17:40 < echarp> sorry, I don't get it *at all*
17:40 < echarp> inside? outside?
17:40 < urgyen> I will try to find some sources
17:41 < echarp> point of failure?
17:41 < echarp> power, intelligence, inside??? you lost me deep
17:41 < urgyen> in french even
17:41 < echarp> ok
17:42 < urgyen> digging through my ICANN General Assembly archive
17:43 < echarp> to me it looks simple, there is direct democracy where every one can participate directly
17:43 < urgyen> it always looks simple until you dig in
17:43 < echarp> and there is the possibility to participate indirectly, for whatever reason each individual consider worthy
17:43 < echarp> I *dig* it!!!
17:43 < echarp> I'm into that stuff since 1998
17:43 < echarp> I already wrote one system from the bottom up
17:44 < echarp> I'm in the middle of a second one more general
17:45 < echarp> it's very low level, no policy, no goal like removing corruption or ensuring high level of intelligence or whatever
17:45 < echarp> almost nomic like :)
17:45 < urgyen> it's super noble, true
17:45 < echarp> noble I don't know
17:45 < echarp> it's fun
17:46 < echarp> I love constructing it
17:46 < urgyen> I can't criticize something when there is so little effort being made in this direction
17:46 < echarp> effort of who?
17:46 < urgyen> but I'm a fussy detailist
17:46 < echarp> in what direction?
17:46 < urgyen> effort by human population
17:46 < urgyen> direction toward common ground
17:46 < echarp> it's a tool made by one human as of now
17:47 < echarp> it's designed for a group of people, any group really
17:47 < urgyen> the guy I am trying to find reference to started in 1968
17:47 < urgyen> he's as much older than I as I to you
17:47 < urgyen> and French
17:47 < echarp> ok
17:47 < echarp> doesn't mean he is not a nutcase :)
17:47 < echarp> I'm waiting for his writing ;)
17:48 < echarp> time to go home
17:48 < urgyen> hmn I'll find deeper details later
17:49 < urgyen> his name: JFC Morfin
17:49 < urgyen> you can google and find a zillion references
17:49 < urgyen> he's been heavy into forwarding what we have been talking about but at legislative levels
17:49 < urgyen> euro standards bodies, etc
17:50 < echarp> ok
17:50 < echarp> cu in half an hour if you stay around
17:50 < urgyen> I have to get to work
18:07 -!- nsh (No Such Human) [n=nsh@wikipedia/nsh] has joined #parlement
18:07 < urgyen> hi
18:15 < nsh> ' soir
18:15 < nsh> how goes?
18:15 < urgyen> fair
18:15 < urgyen> maybe picking up
18:16 < nsh> in which respect?
18:16 < urgyen> day to day getting by
18:16 < nsh> ah
18:16 * nsh found rare book today
18:16 < nsh> 1890 edition of Light of Asia, by Sir. Edwin Arnold
18:17 < urgyen> I'm looking for a project affiliated with Jean-François C. MORFIN, aka JFC, aka, Jefsey
18:17 < nsh> there's a copy in the same edition selling on ebay with a reserve of $2,000
18:17 < nsh> hmm
18:17 < nsh> JFC maybe rings a bell
18:18 < urgyen> he was about the only other person that got me when I was trying to do netocracy ideas with ICANN General Assemby, DNSO, ICANN at Large, etc.
18:18 < nsh> yeah
18:18 < nsh> seems to have an open gestalt
18:18 < urgyen> he has many fingers in many pies
18:18 < nsh> "The deployment of the international digital ecosystem is granular. It results from two seemingly opposing logics. One is the concatenation into a single homogenous continuity. The other is the constantly renewed partition of this continuity into various national, cultural, lingual, local, economical, professional, community, private, etc. etc. elements."
18:18 < nsh> - http://jefsey.com/involv.htm
18:18 < urgyen> engineer
18:19 < urgyen> ya, for some reason I'm having trouble finding all the little nuggets I use to know about
18:20 < urgyen> we should start a wikipedia on him
18:20 < nsh> mm
18:21 < urgyen> wonder how old jefsey.com is
18:22 < nsh> http headers might tell
18:22 < urgyen> I tried to get him to irc once before :-)
18:22 < urgyen> he showed up but prefers email
18:22 < urgyen> I'm not that static of a guy
18:23 < nsh> yeah, lacking a median way there
18:23 < urgyen> right
18:23 < nsh> though the divides are narrowing
18:24 < nsh> things like googletalk archived conversations
18:24 < nsh> integrating with gmail
18:24 < urgyen> http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/
18:24 < urgyen> don't miss the shuttle mission
18:24 < urgyen> wonderful views from helmet cams, etc
18:24 < urgyen> launch is tomorrow I think
18:24 < nsh> ah, cool
18:26 < nsh> hmm
18:26 < nsh> seems active in the dns beurocracy and other naming authorities
18:26 < nsh> or was active
18:26 < nsh> i tend to shy from the monolithic..
18:26 < urgyen> I think still heavily
18:27 < nsh> http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:bvWAf1ycekwJ:jefsey.com/netvalue.pdf+site:jefsey.com&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=3&client=firefox-a
18:27 < urgyen> he is an internet for the people not business kind of guy
18:27 < nsh> hopefully :-)
18:27 < urgyen> so he stands to remove the monoliths
18:27 < nsh> sometimes integrity has to be invested...
18:28 < nsh> but i'm being cynical
18:28 < nsh> :-)
18:28 < urgyen> and he comes from the experience of having had to design the engineering that makes the net work
18:28 < nsh> yeah
18:28 < urgyen> must be horrible to see politicians attempt to destroy your life's work
18:28 < urgyen> (he's getting pretty old)
18:28 < nsh> 40 years older than i
18:28 < nsh> 61
18:29 < nsh> but it must be difficult, yes
18:29 < nsh> and things appear to be coming to a head
18:29 < nsh> with the current bills in the houses
18:29 < nsh> but i can't decide whether to apply medicine or paliative care
18:29 < nsh> there is a certain pheonix element to these things
18:30 < nsh> perhaps it might be better for decentralisation to emerge from the ashes of monolithic control
18:30 < nsh> or is that millenialism? :-)
18:30 < urgyen> even that can only happen if *someone* understands
18:31 < urgyen> route around has been a solid plan B for quite a while
18:31 * nsh nods
18:31 < urgyen> just look at pirate bay
18:31 < nsh> right
18:32 < nsh> so i guess important might be:
18:32 < nsh> making the connections necessary for a possible route b, and attempting to nudge for a hopeful cure
18:33 < nsh> and also, creating an awareness of the need for integrative technologies and ideologies to attenuate this banding-together phenomenon
18:33 < echarp> re
18:33 < urgyen> peek at channel logs right before you got here
18:33 < nsh> preventing partial cures
18:33 * nsh checks
18:34 < echarp> hello nsh !
18:34 < nsh> hey echarp :-)
18:35 < urgyen> 15:38:21 [urgyen]
18:35 < urgyen> like salfield
18:36 < urgyen> intelligence on the outside
18:36 < urgyen> it is what makes the net work
18:36 < nsh> can't find logs on website for just before i came
18:36 < urgyen> http://bridgeheart.net/parlement/irc.freenode.net:6667/parlement/
18:37 < urgyen> I see I should change the first directory name parlement to irclogs
18:37 < nsh> brb
18:37 < urgyen> echarp, nsh found a couple good jfc documents
18:38 < echarp> http://leparlement.org/irc ?
18:38 < urgyen> http://jefsey.com/netvalue.pdf
18:38 < urgyen> http://jefsey.com/involv.htm
18:39 < echarp> urgyen: do that relate to parlement?
18:39 < urgyen> does parlement relate to life?
18:40 < echarp> it relates to groups, thus to life yes
18:40 * nsh smiles
18:44 < nsh> zippers are annoying when they get off-thread
18:47 < urgyen> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Postel
18:48 < urgyen> he didn't have what happened to ICANN in mind when he tried to get a participation driven governance founded
18:49 < urgyen> using US legitimacy to jump start it didn't seem to produce the effect intended
18:50 < echarp> "be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you receive", I love that one :)
18:50 < urgyen> that is another way to say 'intelligence on the outside'
18:50 < urgyen> network routers are dumb
18:51 < urgyen> the intelligence is on the outside
18:51 < urgyen> break that rule and you break the internet
18:51 < urgyen> I'm, of course, greatly reducing the story
18:51 < urgyen> :-)
18:52 < echarp> "intelligence on the outside" still does not speak to me :(
18:52 < urgyen> it will grow on you
18:52 < echarp> I understand that internet is what it is because it is based on dumb plumbing
18:52 < echarp> and that it is its connected nodes which give value to it
18:52 < urgyen> the principle is not limited to just the internet
18:53 < urgyen> when you tell me 'vigilence' I am thinking intelligence on the outside
18:53 < urgyen> when you tell me 'transparency' I am thinking intelligence on the outside
18:55 < echarp> :(
18:55 < urgyen> echarp you read that "THE VALUE OF A NETWORK - THE µ FACTOR" article?
18:55 < echarp> "strict on what you send, lax on what you accept", that I get and like
18:56 < echarp> urgyen: it's opened
19:03 < echarp> that document is about the signal/noise ratio?
19:03 < echarp> as it gets to 1, the system is dead
19:04 < urgyen> well..
19:05 < urgyen> I also posted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford-Fulkerson_algorithm
19:05 < echarp> the one about the strict/lax
19:05 < urgyen> http://www.nist.gov/dads/HTML/fordFulkerson.html
19:06 < urgyen> and if you think about binary level routing.. 0 is open as in 0.0.0.0 is everywhere
19:06 < echarp> it's not the first time you give me that page on algorithm
19:06 < urgyen> and 1 is closed as in 255.255.255.255 is here only
19:06 < echarp> what is the point you are making?
19:07 < urgyen> that the scope is much larger than it appears you are allowing
19:07 < echarp> I am allowing a scope?
19:07 < echarp> I'm lost
19:07 < urgyen> to be in a game that proposes 'no single point of control'
19:07 < echarp> I'm removing points of control, I don't consider this as a matter of "scope"
19:08 < urgyen> means that you will have to adopt a layer of abstraction outside of what it appears you have accepted so far
19:08 < echarp> buzzwords?
19:08 < echarp> :)
19:08 < urgyen> you have a blind spot
19:08 < echarp> which is?
19:08 < urgyen> I am trying to find a way to address it
19:08 < urgyen> I'm having to resort to infinite detail level
19:08 < echarp> you spoke about the signal/noise ratio, that I understand
19:09 < echarp> strict/lax I also understand
19:09 < urgyen> which means I am trying to break things down into something you are willing to consider
19:09 < echarp> try to use geek classical concepts, that should do you know :)
19:09 < urgyen> so first pass is attempting to find the gravity ( as illegale puts it )
19:09 < echarp> sorry, are you speaking of the tool itself?
19:10 < urgyen> classic greek does not contain this idea
19:10 < urgyen> this blind spot
19:10 < urgyen> but network science does
19:10 < urgyen> topology
19:10 < echarp> did you express that blind post in what you wrote already?
19:10 < urgyen> no
19:11 < echarp> that explains I don't see it then :)
19:11 < urgyen> for it to communicate to you it will be something that is sparked from your own understanding
19:11 < urgyen> I am frantically moving through a wide range of signals in an attempt to trigger one event
19:11 < echarp> just name it for a start, if it has a name
19:11 < urgyen> on each failure I expand
19:12 < echarp> try to use a commonly used name
19:12 < echarp> names are great handles
19:12 < urgyen> so I tried to show you some jefsey things
19:13 < urgyen> maybe you should write to jefsey, he could touch it in french very quickly
19:13 < urgyen> to the point. the problem is that quite a few people have already attempted what you are trying and it didn't work
19:14 < urgyen> they've all revised their positions over and over and over and now have a different stance
19:14 < urgyen> I think you should adopt these other stances and avoid the suffering and misery of making known mistakes
19:14 < echarp> I've been into that since 1998 you know
19:14 < urgyen> and others have, for even longer
19:14 < echarp> have already developed one full scale one
19:15 < urgyen> and attempted in real world labs
19:15 < echarp> I know what is failure, first hand
19:15 < urgyen> everyone starts out an island until they bump up into others that have done similar work
19:15 < urgyen> sometimes that never happens
19:16 < urgyen> in this arena is is, happily, happening quite a bit
19:16 < urgyen> s/is/it
19:16 < urgyen> so you have established working groups to solve protocol problems?
19:17 < echarp> protocol problems?
19:17 < echarp> what are you speaking about?
19:17 < echarp> I'm using mail as my protocol!
19:18 < urgyen> so it hasn't grown up enough to have any problems
19:18 < urgyen> mail doesn't have a decision structure
19:18 < echarp> it's a mere protocol...
19:18 < urgyen> protocol is everywhere
19:19 < echarp> I don't see the relation between protocol and decision structure
19:19 < echarp> parlement is low level
19:19 < urgyen> then that's my point
19:19 < echarp> it doesn't enforce much policy
19:19 < urgyen> parlement shouldn't be low level
19:19 < urgyen> parlement doesn't sound low level
19:19 < echarp> it aims to be
19:20 < echarp> it does not even enforce, *at all*, the fact that you should only have one identity
19:20 < echarp> it's up to the electoral list manager
19:20 < urgyen> so it needs a new name then
19:21 < echarp> I don't think so
19:21 < urgyen> ok
19:21 < echarp> parlement is a place where people discuss
19:21 < echarp> they can propose things, they can vote on things
19:21 < echarp> there is no inherent difference among participants
19:22 < echarp> any number of electoral list can be setup by any body, results are tabulated against them
19:22 < echarp> all propositions, all votes, are in fact mails
19:22 < echarp> I believe it is very basic, yet with potential, hopefully
19:23 < echarp> anyway, I do because it's fun :)
19:23 < echarp> anyway, I do it because it's fun :)
19:24 < echarp> you think there is a blind spot I missed?
19:25 < urgyen> probably just my own wishes clouding things
19:25 < urgyen> there is a dream jon postel had it, jefsey has it...
19:26 < echarp> what kind of dream? network thing?
19:26 < urgyen> that we as the users of the internet can have a governance from which to express our interests
19:26 < urgyen> many groups have stepped up and many groups have failed
19:26 < urgyen> you aren't even stepping up
19:26 < urgyen> that was my mistake
19:26 < urgyen> sorry
19:27 < echarp> I'm trying to propose my tool to help things
19:27 < echarp> just one tool, shame it might just end up as a non used tool :(
19:28 < urgyen> so my mistake was thinking it was a group and not a tool
19:28 < urgyen> it sounds very much like a group
19:28 < urgyen> it has a philosophy and principles
19:30 < echarp> I hope they are few
19:30 < echarp> but strong :)
19:33 * nsh back from dinner
19:33 < nsh> repentant
19:33 < nsh> make anew promise to feverantly avoid subject of middle east at dinner table
19:33 < nsh> :-/
19:33 < echarp> lol
19:33 * nsh smiles
19:33 < echarp> yet it's a great subject!
19:34 < nsh> it's a great subject if you wish to investigate the rapid deteriotation of reasoned argument :-)
19:35 < echarp> :)
19:35 < echarp> I love a good troll, makes for nice conversation
19:36 < echarp> but all participants must recognise that it's just a conversation
19:39 < urgyen> I can't accept that
19:40 < urgyen> http://www.circleid.com/backgrounders/view/Internet%20Governance/
19:41 < echarp> accept what? few principles and a small and tight philosophy?
19:41 < urgyen> that trolls are good and conversations mean nothing
19:43 < echarp> trolls can be useful, well, so I believe
19:44 < urgyen> so, if these so called internet governances, break the internet because they are not familiar with how it works...
19:44 < urgyen> you'd think that the governance that survives would be the one that respects the core values
19:45 < echarp> it could happen I guess, evolutionnary thing yes, but no certitude
19:45 < urgyen> but the governances that have the mightiest buck are the ones that seem to move first and question later
19:45 < urgyen> now there are lots of interest groups flying the flag called internet governance
19:45 < urgyen> not because they want to protect access but because they want to control it
19:46 < urgyen> I think the tool has to have the components that it tries to protect
19:46 < urgyen> or the protecton is guaranteed to be lost
19:47 < echarp> try to protect?
19:47 < echarp> can a tool do that? or is the participants who do that?
19:48 < urgyen> :-) you like the question?
19:48 < urgyen> I'm not being a troll
19:49 < echarp> you are speaking in term of goals and internet wide groups, I'm not
19:49 < echarp> if I'm not mistaken :)
19:49 < echarp> I'm just speaking of groups using internet
19:50 < urgyen> well the internet wide groups are looking for a tool as well
19:50 < urgyen> often they ask, what format will we use?
19:50 < urgyen> wiki? forums? mailing list?
19:50 < urgyen> you think, hey we can improve those
19:50 < echarp> I'd love to help them!!! :)
19:51 < urgyen> well, I have many scars and bruises from being in the governance trenches
19:51 < urgyen> I am not going to let that hard work be abused by a tool that doesn't get far enough
19:52 < urgyen> I only have a that list of scars
19:52 < echarp> well, do you think a mailing list is interesting and can be useful?
19:52 < urgyen> if the tool allows bullies to control, it is basically worthless
19:53 < echarp> I believe parlement is democratic and highly bully proof
19:53 < echarp> but there can be charisma and leaders
19:53 < echarp> reputation and all other human things
19:55 < echarp> it starts as a mailing list, then you add votes, electoral list to tabulate results, personal filters to hide all elements below a given result
19:57 < urgyen> so I have something like 8000 emails here from my participation with early attempts toward internet governance
19:57 < urgyen> we were primarily mailing list with some web support and a web voting booth
19:58 < urgyen> it was hell
19:58 < urgyen> these efforts are ongoing -- I just stopped helping
19:59 < echarp> parlement does that, but groups vote on elements, and each participant can easily filter things using those votes
19:59 < echarp> I think it's group/personal moderation
19:59 < echarp> if you don't want to be bothered, just filter most elements but those highly thought of
20:00 < echarp> on the contrary if you want you can see everything, including spam and other noise
20:00 < echarp> there can be many groups, each group being a kind of filter
20:02 < echarp> a group of one can thus be a moderator all by himself, but users have to choose him
20:03 < echarp> (of course those filters are not implemented yet)
20:16 < urgyen> have you looked at roundup issue tracker?
20:16 < echarp> roundup?
20:16 < echarp> one of the links you pasted here?
20:16 < urgyen> hmn
20:16 < urgyen> maybe, not today
20:16 < echarp> I don't know
20:17 < urgyen> http://roundup.sourceforge.net/
20:17 < urgyen> the model they use does very similar to what it sounds like you might be saying
20:17 < urgyen> every issue becomes a thread, every thread can become a mailing list
20:17 < urgyen> all responses are archived on the web and everything can be cross threaded by use of tags and other sort elements
20:18 < urgyen> so I can ask only for issues related to 'Voting'
20:18 < urgyen> you can retag anything
20:18 < echarp> it's mostly what I have in mind yes
20:18 < echarp> every mais is an issue, every issue is in a thread of issues
20:19 < echarp> votes are also mails, thus they are themselves threads
20:19 < urgyen> I can opt to subscribe or not to any thread
20:19 < echarp> yeap
20:19 < echarp> there are rss feeds
20:19 < echarp> each element as a rss feed based on arrival, and a rss feed based on voting result
20:19 < urgyen> I'm pretty sure roundup has rss/wiki convertors
20:20 < urgyen> you can participate in the medium of your choice that way
20:20 < echarp> you can also subscribe as a mailing list subscriber
20:20 < urgyen> it also has a xapian plugin so you can search my semantic value
20:20 < echarp> you can respond by mail
20:20 < echarp> I have to set up a search tool
20:21 < urgyen> http://www.xapian.org/
20:21 < urgyen> extensible you can probably make it work for you
20:22 < echarp> use it on top of Ruby on Rails?
20:22 < urgyen> you use mysql?
20:22 < echarp> there are packaged plugins for RoR too, easier ;)
20:22 < echarp> no, postgresql, but I hope to have it evolved toward database agnostism
20:23 < urgyen> ok
20:25 < echarp> in the best of worlds I would embark a db
20:25 < echarp> so that it can be deployed without outside dependancy
20:25 < urgyen> hmn
20:28 < urgyen> wow this is new.. issue management for IETF working groups
20:28 < urgyen> well maybe not new but newly advertised :-)
20:29 < echarp> Free?
20:29 < urgyen> roundup?
20:30 < urgyen> of course
20:30 < urgyen> python based
20:36 < echarp> there are features which are very much like parlement, the fact it's highly mail useable for a start
20:37 < echarp> but they center on other concepts, issue-tracking, roles, client-server
20:37 < echarp> I'm into mail as a protocol between P2P servers, no role (but for a node administrator), trust through PGP signatures and electoral lists
20:38 < echarp> trust is critical
20:43 < urgyen> identity is critical
20:43 < echarp> it is so critical that the tool does not really manage it
20:43 < urgyen> and yes, the reason I am not participating in existing on-going efforts was due to the lack of proper tools
20:43 < echarp> because a tool can not really enforce identity
20:43 < urgyen> it was hard to believe, after all these were all internet professionals, they should know how to code!
20:44 < urgyen> but I sure know the shoe when it fits right
20:44 < echarp> it's easy to code too complex and not useful things
20:44 < urgyen> as that article on circleid suggests there is an extra twist to 'internet' governance
20:45 < urgyen> due mostly to the fact that the conditions that allow internet have not been extensively communicated
20:45 < urgyen> so the conditions that would capsize them are the majority
20:45 < echarp> majority of?
20:45 < urgyen> corporations are using that to their advantage by saying things like 'democracy of the users'
20:46 < urgyen> just to hope that the majority will vote their personal interest at the expense of open systems
20:46 < urgyen> most ppl do not have a clue
20:46 < urgyen> the system has to be able to represent ideas, not people
20:46 < echarp> I concur
20:47 < urgyen> ideas can't delegate :-)
20:47 < echarp> no information can be removed from the system
20:47 < echarp> it can only be filtered by the moderators each user choose
20:50 < echarp> the most highly appreciated elements by a group, can be marked as rules or something alike
20:50 < echarp> but this is not managed by the tool itself, it's not in its reach
20:51 < urgyen> at least at the moment
20:51 < urgyen> I'm all for practical increments
20:51 < echarp> same same
20:53 < echarp> I'm for elegance
20:53 < echarp> take everything away, until you can't :)
--- Log closed sam jui 01 00:00:23 2006
01:10 < nsh:#parlement> was logged in from another location :-)
03:24 -!- nsh [n=nsh@wikipedia/nsh] has quit ["Leaving"]
--- Log closed ven jun 30 04:44:09 2006
--- Log opened ven jun 30 04:44:47 2006
04:44 -!- echarp [n=33M0...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has joined #parlement
04:44 -!- Topic for #parlement: http://leparlement.org/irc
04:44 -!- Topic set by echarp [] [Sun Jun 11 20:50:53 2006]
04:44 [Users #parlement]
04:44 [ echarp] [ fiatlex] [ parlebot] [ salfield] [ urgen]
04:44 -!- Irssi: #parlement: Total of 5 nicks [0 ops, 0 halfops, 0 voices, 5 normal]
04:44 -!- Channel #parlement created Thu Apr 27 09:48:29 2006
04:45 -!- Irssi: Join to #parlement was synced in 44 secs
04:56 -!- urgen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit []
05:01 -!- urgen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
05:17 < urgen:#parlement> I haven't had a chance to get instructions on launching a media player stream in linux
05:43 -!- Netsplit clarke.freenode.net <-> irc.freenode.net quits: salfield, fiatlex, urgen
05:44 -!- Netsplit over, joins: fiatlex
05:44 -!- urgen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
05:44 -!- salfield [n=t...@host-212-158-235-38.bulldogdsl.com] has joined #parlement
05:45 -!- salfield is tom
07:49 -!- urgen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit []
07:55 -!- urgen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
09:38 -!- salfield [n=t...@host-212-158-235-38.bulldogdsl.com] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
09:46 -!- urgen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)]
09:46 -!- urgyen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
09:58 -!- salfield (tom) [n=t...@host-84-9-129-43.bulldogdsl.com] has joined #parlement
09:59 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
09:59 < echarp> hello hello
10:29 -!- test (illegale) [n=ille...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has joined #parlement
10:29 < echarp> hello test
10:30 < echarp> hello test
11:48 < echarp> salfield: at work? :)
12:08 -!- illegale (illegale) [n=ille...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has joined #parlement
12:08 < illegale> hey
13:12 < echarp> hello hello illegale
13:12 < echarp> illegale: I modified slightly your irssi config
13:12 < echarp> so that you are automatically on the freenode server and some scripts are automatically loaded
13:12 < echarp> I hope you don't mind
13:14 < illegale> thank you i noticed :)
13:14 < illegale> http://stakeventures.com/pages/whoami
13:15 < echarp> who is that?
13:16 < illegale> do not know :)=
13:16 < illegale> found at google using joi ito
13:16 < illegale> has some simmilarities
13:17 < illegale> libertanian, open org, transaprence and stuff
13:22 < echarp> interesting
13:22 < echarp> and an entrepreneur!
13:22 < illegale> how do i use dictionary, can you say again?
13:23 < echarp> Ctrl+z, dict word, q, fg
13:23 < illegale> thanks :=
13:23 < illegale> )
13:23 < illegale> seems to might be cool
13:24 < illegale> like his attitude in posts
13:24 < illegale> i mean texts
13:25 < illegale> how are you doin e?
13:26 < echarp> fine thx
13:27 < echarp> I'm almost done with the avatar coding in parlement! :)
13:27 < illegale> nice:)
13:28 < echarp> I'm quite proud of how easy it is to upload an avatar
13:28 < echarp> but it's a bitch to display it along your posts in IE :(
13:28 < echarp> well, to display it "properly"
13:29 < illegale> echarp: have you noticed how many people work in simmilar direction around here?
13:32 < echarp> like salfield ?
13:32 < illegale> yes
13:32 < illegale> esp is doing simmilar stuff too and so on
13:33 < echarp> esp is not, from what I understand of it
13:33 < illegale> it is about public nodes, not?
13:33 < echarp> yes, but this is the web
13:34 < illegale> i see
13:34 < illegale> you are tech oriented
13:34 < illegale> e mail being gthe fund, right?
13:35 < echarp> the fund? the foundation?
13:35 < illegale> i believe i missed the point
13:35 < illegale> what do you mean by this is the web?
13:35 < echarp> on the web many will develop public node stuff
13:35 < echarp> like esp
13:36 < illegale> you are doing the same thing, though you use optional clients, right?
13:36 < illegale> clinets> e mail srevice and stuff
13:37 < echarp> I'm not sure about esp, I think they go toward P2P nodes
13:37 < echarp> the protocol being probably their own
13:37 < echarp> me I go for a mix of P2P servers and classic html clients
13:37 < echarp> the protocol being, as of now, mail
13:37 < illegale> see
13:37 < illegale> i see
13:38 < illegale> me as non knower like your idea
13:38 < echarp> that's nice :)
13:38 < echarp> klaus has just registered on rubyforge to do some development, you want to join? ;)
13:38 < illegale> not mean too much as long as i rely on those i have trust too
13:39 < illegale> how can i help*
13:39 < echarp> that's understandable
13:39 < illegale> delegation struff
13:39 < illegale> :=)
13:39 < echarp> well, you want to code the PGP public/private signatures? (it's going to be a TOUGH thing to do properly)? :)
13:40 < echarp> delegations will also be *VERY* difficult to do properly (difficulties with performance)
13:40 < illegale> what you mean about perforemacne?
13:40 < echarp> there also is the need for an installer
13:41 < echarp> delegations are a way to say that you give your voice on one issue and its sub issues to someone else
13:41 < echarp> that someone else can also do the same
13:41 < echarp> this lead to a tree of delegations applied on a tree of issues
13:41 < echarp> each vote on one issue corresponding to a given number of voices
13:41 < echarp> that number of voices is difficult to obtain in real time :(
13:42 < echarp> two perpendicular trees, choices that link one to the other
13:44 < illegale> hmh
13:45 < illegale> i do not understand this
13:48 < illegale> why dont you add values to members on some fix rate
13:48 < illegale> having some delay in loosign rank, suchh as an hour or so
13:48 < illegale> not problem imo
13:50 < illegale> or i am bs?:)=
13:51 < echarp> you are not at all!
13:51 < echarp> it could be one way to do it
13:51 < echarp> but there is one other parameter to manage, electoral list
13:52 < echarp> vote results are tabulated against an electoral list
13:52 < echarp> thus a delegation and a choice are only tabulated in that context
13:52 < echarp> but I have way to generate intermediate delegations to help the calculations
13:53 < salfield> Hi guys,
13:53 < echarp> just I'd like to find a very basic and simple algorithm to manage the 2 perpendicular trees
13:53 < echarp> hello salfield
13:53 < salfield> only have 5 minutes right now
13:53 < illegale> time is money :)
13:53 < echarp> salfield: working hard?
13:53 < salfield> thinking hard
13:54 < echarp> illegale: my hardest problem is in fact that postgresql (and mysql for that matter) don't do recursive requests :(
13:54 < salfield> but just wanted to say that I think that vote delegation causes concentration of power
13:54 < echarp> thus a delegation tree is hard to go through
13:54 < salfield> as compared with vote recommendation
13:54 < echarp> salfield: it can yes
13:54 < echarp> what is vote recommandation?
13:55 < salfield> I am looking for but failing to find right now an article by the founder of liquid democracy
13:55 < echarp> salfield: the delegations we have in mind are not permanent at all, they can be changed or overriden anytime, isn't it better?
13:56 < salfield> imo delegation is better than normal representative democracy because of that
13:56 < salfield> but still it is a form of represenation rather than direct
13:56 < salfield> vote recommendation is where rather than giving you my vote
13:57 < salfield> on an issue
13:57 < salfield> I automate my voting to follow yours
13:57 < salfield> you are unaware how I vote
13:57 < salfield> you are unaware how I choose to vote
13:57 < salfield> and are therefore unaware of the power of your recommendation
13:58 < echarp> salfield: in a transparent system everything would be known...
13:58 < echarp> but I understand the difference
13:58 < echarp> just I can't implement it in a P2P system of replicating nodes
13:58 < salfield> I might also then decide to vote in an automated way, based on a weighting from various people I choose as experts on an issue
13:59 < salfield> this keeps power at the edges of the network
13:59 < echarp> weighting would be nice yes, but even harder to implement
13:59 < echarp> it's not fixed
14:00 < echarp> the delegations I have in mind are just here to alleviate the burden of voting on every thing
14:00 < echarp> they are not required
14:00 < salfield> its a question of keeping the voting with a semi-intelligent agent representing the user
14:01 < echarp> that could occur yes
14:01 < salfield> I believe it is actually easier to implement in a secure way
14:01 < echarp> semi-intelligent agent?
14:01 < echarp> I'm open to that kind of thing
14:01 < salfield> since if I delegate I will have to create a new private key for use on my behalf
14:02 < echarp> I don't get it, two PGP keys for one person?
14:02 < salfield> assuming you are using private key encrypted messages to be matched against a public key list
14:02 < illegale> salfield: why vote secretly?
14:03 < illegale> power is not stuff of secret, especially if you want to tech people how it works
14:03 < salfield> illegale: its not a secret vote
14:03 < illegale> transparence anbles this, excatly
14:03 < echarp> they won't encrypted, they will be signed
14:03 < illegale> frees the knowledge they need
14:03 < echarp> and encrypted vote will be almost impossible to repliate among a graph of servers :(
14:04 < salfield> echarp: why, I dont get it
14:05 < echarp> salfield: how do you replicate and tabulate encrypted votes?
14:05 < illegale> salfield: you joined top politics?
14:05 < echarp> where/who decrypt them? using which key?
14:05 < salfield> illegale: not yet
14:05 < illegale> ok, there is new member, though it was maybe you
14:06 < echarp> cool
14:06 < salfield> echarp: dht ??
14:06 < echarp> ok, I didn't read it properly I guess, you actually proposed encryption using the "private" key
14:06 < echarp> that's equivalent to signing then
14:07 < salfield> yes
14:07 < echarp> which is what I also have in mind :)
14:07 < salfield> but if i delegate
14:07 < echarp> what then?
14:07 < salfield> how do I allow you to sign for me?
14:07 < salfield> in your scheme
14:08 < salfield> my solution is that I have an algorithm which is informed when you vote
14:08 < salfield> and then I auto-vote too
14:08 < salfield> signing the message myself
14:08 < echarp> with delegation you don't actually "vote" for someone
14:08 < salfield> okay
14:08 < echarp> the system calculate who's voices you represent, and can calculate a result based on that
14:09 < salfield> see
14:09 < echarp> thus it's dynamic
14:09 < echarp> if someone new delegate to you, you don't have to do a new vote
14:09 < salfield> sure, but imho more complex than necessary
14:09 < illegale> hmh, seems to me you need list of delegating persons in somoenes profile
14:10 < salfield> not if people vote for themselves
14:10 < illegale> in that way voting mechanisms can change with no problem
14:10 < salfield> in direct democracy style
14:10 < echarp> illegale: you need that yes
14:10 < echarp> salfield: delegations are effectively more complex than direct votes
14:11 < salfield> yes, and do you agree that vote recommendation is preferrable
14:11 < illegale> salfield: what od oyu mean by that?
14:12 < echarp> illegale: if vote recommandation imply secret votes, then it's out of topic for that kind of system
14:12 < salfield> there are no secret votes
14:13 < salfield> only the way I decide how to vote is my business
14:13 < echarp> of course it is
14:13 < salfield> normally I decide this in my head
14:13 < illegale> mean issue or person?
14:13 < salfield> in auto vote recommentation I have it automated
14:13 < echarp> a delegation is only meant as a way to "not bother" voting on everything
14:14 < echarp> a delegation is a sort of automatic vote recommendation
14:14 < salfield> I am still not obligated to tell you, and your ego, that you control my vote
14:14 < illegale> why not?
14:14 < salfield> yes they both deal with problem of not being able to vote on everything
14:14 < salfield> illegale: agglomeration of power
14:14 < illegale> if someone can not stand the power, let him not be partof it
14:15 < illegale> if i see some guy goes bad i wont delegate him anymore
14:15 < salfield> well, must run and catch a train now
14:15 < salfield> but give it some thought
14:15 < echarp> I don't understand the difference between public recommandation and delegation
14:15 < salfield> please
14:16 < illegale> cu
14:16 < echarp> ok, cu later salfield!
14:16 < illegale> :)
14:16 < echarp> I'm open to all those things
14:16 -!- salfield [n=t...@host-84-9-129-43.bulldogdsl.com] has quit ["Leaving"]
14:16 < echarp> the point is just to diminish the burden of voting
14:16 < illegale> what do you mean?
14:22 < echarp> delegations are just a mean
14:22 < echarp> they are not a goal
14:22 < echarp> the goal is the votes themselves
14:23 < illegale> or decisions :)
14:23 < echarp> yeap
14:24 < echarp> thus there can any number of ways to transmit individual voices to corresponding choices
14:25 < echarp> the direct way must always be present of course :)
14:25 < illegale> yes
14:27 < illegale> talked to markus today
14:27 < illegale> have some problems with comp
14:28 < echarp> oh :(
14:28 < echarp> does he need a ssh account? :)
14:29 < illegale> lol
14:31 < echarp> I'm becoming an admin, with the power that goes with it!!! :)
14:31 < illegale> no problem with that
14:32 < illegale> though, i look for an altrnative :)
14:32 < illegale> just in case
14:32 < echarp> :)
14:32 < echarp> I understand, I also have alternatives to my own server! :)
14:33 < illegale> recommend it?
14:33 -!- echarp2 (33M002Paris; manu) [n=33M0...@81.93.4.93] has joined #parlement
14:33 < echarp> nah, server space given by friends :)
14:33 < illegale> fast iti s
14:33 < echarp> :)
14:33 < illegale> might offer alternative where he is secret admin also 8))
14:33 < echarp2> can always be improved!
14:34 < echarp> illegale: on my server, there also are ways to connect to msn, google talk, icq, messenger, etc. all in irssi
14:35 < illegale> makes you proud?
14:35 < illegale> :)=
14:35 < echarp> makes it very practical!
14:35 < illegale> no proud?
14:36 < illegale> id be proud
14:36 < echarp> not really proud no
14:37 < illegale> you r cool
14:37 < illegale> me like to enjoy in stuff when i solve it
14:37 < echarp> thx
14:37 < illegale> look at it and tuf
14:37 < illegale> feel good and so on
14:37 < illegale> proud
14:38 < echarp> lately I've been happy to finally manage streaming sound to my bluetooth headset
14:38 < echarp> very practical!
14:38 < echarp> and in stereo!
14:38 < illegale> what is it for?
14:38 < illegale> connected to ssh?
14:38 < illegale> :)
14:39 < illegale> illegale is here it says and stuff?
14:39 < echarp> nah, to listen to music without any wire
14:39 < illegale> blah
14:39 < illegale> imagine voice lead of mouse
14:39 < echarp> :)
14:39 < illegale> up, up up up, left, down, left ,
14:39 < echarp> wouldn't be very practical!
14:40 < illegale> cold cold cold cold hot got
14:40 < echarp> :)
14:40 < echarp> that's what you say in bed with a babe :)
14:40 < illegale> think so
14:40 < illegale> hehe
14:40 < illegale> leading a mouse
14:41 < echarp> :)
14:41 < illegale> we in cro do not do that
14:41 < illegale> we are simple people
14:41 < illegale> balkaniean
14:41 < illegale> s
14:42 < illegale> opa cupa we say
14:42 < echarp> opa cupa???
14:42 < echarp> what does it mean?
14:42 < echarp> "jump in bed"? :)
14:42 < illegale> it is sound stuff
14:42 < illegale> yes
14:42 < illegale> mean nothing in dictionary
14:43 < illegale> it is pronounced as oprah (with no r at all)
14:43 < illegale> and cupe is complcated
14:43 < illegale> c is like ts
14:43 < illegale> does not exist in english
14:44 < illegale> whatever :)
14:44 < illegale> huh, my energy leaks, have to do something constructe
14:45 < echarp> :)
14:51 < illegale> Markus replied
14:53 < echarp> cool
14:56 < illegale> seems to me he and you have same stuff in mind
14:57 < echarp> but is he not in his forge mind set?
14:58 < illegale> sourceforge?
14:58 < echarp> assembling parts and not creating parts?
14:59 < illegale> hmh, i am not sure in that
14:59 < illegale> i suppose we could agree about development of the tools top initiatve needs to use
15:00 < echarp> does he program the forum following the recommandations?
15:00 < illegale> he is slow
15:00 < echarp> :)
15:00 < illegale> has several things in hiw rather busy life to do first
15:00 < illegale> going to be assistent and stuff
15:00 < illegale> has to fight for position
15:00 < echarp> that's probably quite difficult
15:02 < illegale> so,seems to me there are two things to create right now
15:02 < illegale> one is ad hoc, second is strategic
15:02 < illegale> one
15:02 < illegale> brb
15:03 < echarp> ok
15:05 < illegale> bacvk
15:12 < illegale> so, we all agree about articualtion of top
15:12 < echarp> I guess
15:12 < illegale> you, markus and i agree to promotion of top too
15:12 < illegale> goal stuff
15:18 < illegale> creating tool that enables top initiative promotes top initiatives
15:18 < illegale> before that, defining it, getting clear non f******* concepts
15:30 < illegale> we have to define top before anything else, right?
15:30 < illegale> is that conclusion of this topic?
15:30 < illegale> echarp:
15:30 < echarp> illegale: I do think that we have to agree on goals and what is top
15:31 < illegale> if the goal is promotion of top, we first have to define it
15:31 < illegale> right?
15:32 < echarp> yeap
15:32 < echarp> definitely
15:32 < illegale> as long as we 7three of us/ agree about promotion in this very moment and eric not stated about that
15:32 < illegale> common interest is definition of top as frist thing
15:32 < illegale> ok?
15:32 < echarp> ok
15:33 < illegale> then we can recheck our goals and state them
15:33 < illegale> i mean new goals as long as this is goal itself
15:33 < illegale> :)=
15:45 < illegale> What does TOP mean to you?;
15:45 < illegale> first isssue to be done
15:47 < echarp> TOP means that the information used in a democratic process is public
15:47 < echarp> that this process is open to any body
15:47 < illegale> ok, ok
15:47 < echarp> anything else?
15:48 < illegale> Thank you all for making suggestions for the question above.
15:48 < illegale> Seems to me we all share interest in commonly accepted definition of TOP at first.
15:48 < illegale> My proposal of supporting creation of global public trust network among IT related initiatives is definitelly apropriate in the moment we do not share even basic thoughts about what this all actually mean to us.
15:48 < illegale> Emmanuels proposal for promotion of TOP (I hope I underood it correct) needs TOP defined also.
15:48 < illegale> Erics proposal was not just definition, but also what TOP means to us which is in my opinion very important as long as in that way we might define TOP in a way we can use it properly for our goals.
15:48 < illegale> Markus proposal of promotion of TOP and creation of adeqaute software for implementation of TOP, again needs fine definition.
15:48 < illegale> All in all, it seems to me that we all agree about
15:48 < illegale> "Erics says:" What does TOP mean to you?;
15:48 < illegale> to be our first step in going forward.
15:48 < illegale> Erics already voted for it (man before his time :-)), on Irc chat Emmanuel and I agreed about definition of TOP, Markus and I had phone conversation where Markus gave his vote to it also.
15:48 < illegale> not aprpopriate
15:49 < echarp> what is not appropriate?
15:49 < illegale> i wrote in my proposal apropriate and it was ment not apropriate
15:50 < illegale> it was just a correction
15:50 < illegale> i gonna louns this mail, adding a hint about defining other goals after we define this one
16:05 < echarp> "not" is more proper yes
16:05 < echarp> because we just don't have that kind of reach
16:06 < echarp> we can merely work on ourselves as of now
16:06 < echarp> define the principles that *we* wish to follow
16:08 < illegale> Thanks to all participants for making suggestions for the question above.
16:08 < illegale> It seems we all share interest in commonly accepted definition of TOP at first.
16:08 < illegale> My proposal of supporting creation of global public trust network among IT related initiatives might be not apropriate in the moment we do not share even basic thoughts about what this all actually mean to us.
16:08 < illegale> Emmanuels proposal for promotion of TOP (I hope I underood it correct) needs TOP defined also.
16:08 < illegale> Erics proposal was not just definition, but also sugestion of how to aproach to to, by what TOP means to us which is in my opinion very important as long as in that way we might define TOP in a way we can use it properly for our goals.
16:08 < illegale> Markus proposal of promotion of TOP and creation of adeqaute software for implementation of TOP, again needs fine definition.
16:08 < illegale> All in all, it seems that we all agree about
16:08 < illegale> "Erics says:" What does TOP mean to you?;
16:09 < illegale> to be our first step in going forward.
16:09 < illegale> Erics already voted for it (man before his time :-)), on Irc chat Emmanuel and I agreed about definition of TOP, Markus and I had phone conversation where Markus gave his vote for TOP also.
16:09 < illegale> So, the first goal for this group is set.
16:09 < illegale> The goal is clear definition of TOP.
16:09 < illegale> *Important*
16:09 < illegale> As long as there was no voting procedure cared on some formal way (I did not find it be needed in this very situation), if you see some problem with idea of defining TOP to be our first goal, please state in this topic to cancel decision that is done. In the meantime, we can get oriented to ways of how to create definition of TOP good as possible, satisfying our needs for it.
16:09 < illegale> this is stating post i gonna send in 5 minutes if you are fine with it
16:10 < illegale> there is a goal and first question, i see here
16:10 < echarp> you need to rephrase some bits
16:11 < echarp> "on" the question above
16:11 < illegale> can you be more specific?
16:11 < echarp> First, it seems we all share a commonly accepted definition of TOP
16:13 < echarp> "My 'Global Public Trust Network' proposal for IT related initiatives might be inapropriate because as of this moment we don't..."
16:13 < echarp> "also needs TOP defined"
16:14 < echarp> "was not just a definition"
16:14 < echarp> "but also a suggestion on how to approach it"
16:14 < illegale> you mean, we atre not dfinint top but reseaching it ?
16:14 < echarp> I'm just rephrasing
16:15 < echarp> eric propose a process to research it
16:16 < illegale> i do not understand this part
16:16 < illegale> you want to say we share dfinition in this very moment?
16:16 < echarp> "markus proposal, promoting TOP and creating an adequate software implementing it, again needs a definition"
16:17 < echarp> illegale: I'm just rephrasing what you wrote, but I might have misunderstood the meaning
16:17 < illegale> i get the point
16:18 < illegale> thank you
16:18 < illegale> will send completely new letter
16:18 < illegale> :)=
16:18 < echarp> no need to
16:18 < echarp> just need tweaking on the phrasing
16:19 < illegale> you said we share commonly accepted definition
16:19 < illegale> is that what you thinh?
16:19 < illegale> k?
16:19 < echarp> where do I say that?
16:19 < illegale> First, it seems we all share a commonly accepted definition of TOP
16:19 < illegale> misspelling?
16:20 < echarp> I stated what is, I believe, a simple definition of TOP
16:20 < echarp> and yes, we probably share it
16:20 < illegale> ok, we need to spread our thought about TOP i suppose
16:21 < echarp> the sentence "First, it seems we all share a commonly accepted definition of TOP" was just an attempt at rephrasing your sentence It seems we all share interest in commonly accepted definition of TOP at first"
16:21 < illegale> every single one of us sees some advantages/missandvatneages
16:21 < illegale> First, it seems we all share interest to define TOP more clearly.
16:23 < echarp> :)
16:26 < illegale> Erics proposal was not just a definition of TOP, but also proposal of such process.
16:26 < illegale> i did not dig you in Eric part
16:26 < echarp> dig me?
16:26 < illegale> folow you
16:26 < illegale> undesratnd what to write
16:27 < echarp> you didn't follow my attempt at rephrasing?
16:28 < illegale> yes
16:28 < echarp> which part exactly?
16:28 < illegale> was not just a definition"
16:28 < illegale> 16:14 < echarp> "but also a suggestion on how to approach it"
16:28 < illegale> 16:14 < illegale> you mean, we atre not dfinint top but reseaching it ?
16:28 < illegale> 16:14 < echarp> I'm just rephrasing
16:28 < illegale> 16:15 < echarp> eric propose a process to research it
16:29 < echarp> I'm looking at that sentence => "< illegale> Erics proposal was not just definition, but also sugestion of how to to, by what TOP means to us which is in my opinion very importa as in that way we might define TOP in a way we can use it properly goals.
16:29 < echarp> "
16:29 < echarp> that sentence I don't understand
16:29 < illegale> me neiter
16:29 < echarp> so I tried to rephrase it
16:29 < echarp> where did you get that sentence from?
16:29 < illegale> what i understand what TOP means to yuo is not same thing as lets define to
16:29 < illegale> p
16:29 < illegale> but proposal of how to articualte this concept too
16:29 < echarp> didn't you write that sentence?
16:31 < illegale> what i meant is that WHAT TOP MEANS TO YOU is way of defining TOP
16:31 < illegale> in a manner tobe commonly accepted and usefull to us
16:31 < echarp> sorry, I'm looking at the sentence from you, the sentence about Eric's proposal
16:34 < illegale> Erics proposal was what does TOP mean to you in order to define TOP more properly.
16:34 < illegale> thats it
16:35 < illegale> Thanks to all participants for making suggestions for the question above.
16:35 < illegale> First, it seems we all share interest to define TOP more clearly.
16:35 < illegale> My 'Global Public Trust Network' proposal for IT related initiatives might be inapropriate because as of this moment we don'tshare even basic thoughts about what this all actually mean to us.
16:35 < illegale> Emmanuels proposal for promotion of TOP also needs TOP defined.
16:35 < illegale> Erics proposal was "What does TOP mean to you " in order to define TOP more properly.
16:35 < illegale> Markus proposal, promoting TOP and creating an adequate software implementing it, again needs a definition.
16:35 < illegale> All in all, it seems that we all agree about
16:35 < illegale> "Erics says:" What does TOP mean to you?;
16:35 < illegale> to be our first step in going forward.
16:35 < illegale> Erics already voted for it (man before his time :-)), on Irc chat Emmanuel and I agreed about it, Markus and I had phone conversation where Markus gave his vote for TOP also.
16:35 < illegale> So, the first goal for this group is set.
16:35 < illegale> The goal is clear definition of TOP.
16:35 < illegale> *Important*
16:35 < illegale> As long as there was no voting procedure cared on some formal way (I did not find it be needed in this very situation), if you see some problem with idea of defining TOP to be our first goal, please state in this topic to cancel decision that is done. In the meantime, we can get oriented to ways of how to create definition of TOP good as possible, satisfying our needs for it.
16:35 < illegale> ok, that is it
16:37 < illegale> done
16:37 < illegale> thank you
16:51 < illegale> gotta go
16:52 < illegale> cu later, suppoe tomorrow
16:52 < illegale> night
16:52 -!- illegale [n=ille...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has quit ["leaving"]
17:01 < urgyen> I'm with salfield on also not liking vote delegation, of course
17:02 < echarp> urgyen: you only want direct vote?
17:02 < urgyen> and still feel your 'transparency' banner is an albatross around your neck
17:02 < urgyen> I do not believe vote direct is your only other alternative
17:03 < echarp> indirect through what means then?
17:03 < urgyen> so far I'm giving your system about 25% chance of success
17:03 < echarp> urgyen: are you speaking of parlement or TOP? 2 different things
17:03 < urgyen> neither are anything *yet*
17:03 < urgyen> both are sandboxes still
17:04 < echarp> parlement is code and a server
17:04 < urgyen> so I'm just talking about what actually becomes something
17:06 < echarp> something as in something "real"?
17:06 < urgyen> :-) which we can go into the definition of some time
17:06 < urgyen> http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/
17:07 < urgyen> nasatv online, there is probably other places to find feeds too but this usually has the best bandwidth
17:07 < echarp> nah, not tv at the work place no
17:07 < urgyen> launch is not today anyway
17:07 < urgyen> I just promised to remind you
17:07 < echarp> ok
17:08 < urgyen> and even after launch which is not too boring, you'd want to wait a couple days for the spacewalks
17:08 < urgyen> space does not follow time zones
17:09 < urgyen> so I've been trying to catch sayke's attention
17:10 < echarp> sayke is?
17:10 < urgyen> inventor of liquid democracy
17:10 < urgyen> have him drop by for a consult
17:10 < echarp> cool guy then
17:11 < urgyen> he can explain vote recommendation
17:11 < echarp> I think I understand most of it
17:12 < echarp> but in a transparent system where all data is to be replicated among servers, I don't see much difference with vote delegation
17:12 < urgyen> he had code
17:12 < urgyen> they used usenet as protocol
17:12 < urgyen> you still haven't proven transparent is significant
17:12 < urgyen> this is only just a whim
17:12 < echarp> it is not
17:12 < urgyen> your definition of transparent is not formal
17:13 < echarp> as far as I'm concerned, the transparency I speak about is *VERY* formal
17:13 < urgyen> transparent is like a buzzword "new" "fresh" "exciting"
17:13 < echarp> "all data need to be so transparent that it can be replicated in real time"
17:13 < urgyen> show me the other words and I will listen
17:13 < urgyen> the other words being the formal definition
17:13 < echarp> because I envision a graph of servers, P2P servers
17:14 < echarp> there are three elements distinct and interconnected elements in my view of online voting trust:
17:14 < echarp> * P2P servers
17:14 < echarp> * PGP signatures
17:14 < echarp> * electoral lists
17:14 < echarp> with those three elements, I believe we can attain actual and workable trust in online voting
17:15 < urgyen> what is the purpose of replication in real time?
17:15 < echarp> and of course it *requires* that all data be so transparent that it can be replicted in real time
17:15 < urgyen> you are weighting regional interest?
17:15 < echarp> replication is to make sure that there is no point of control in the global system
17:15 < echarp> no central administration
17:15 < echarp> I'm not weighting anything no
17:16 < urgyen> well then its not fair
17:16 < echarp> hu???
17:16 < echarp> fair to what or who?
17:16 < urgyen> I am asleep and real time power changes on the other side of the world
17:16 < urgyen> why?
17:16 < echarp> then it is not fair
17:16 < echarp> I'm fine with that
17:16 < urgyen> that is inherent weighting
17:17 < echarp> I don't care at all about that, the participants will have to manage it the way they want it
17:17 < echarp> I don't have much policy enforced by the system you know
17:17 < urgyen> it also breaks the single point of control rule, then
17:17 < echarp> it's very much free flow
17:17 < echarp> how does it break that???
17:17 < urgyen> by allowing a concentration of power
17:17 < urgyen> place where the most ppl live wins
17:18 < echarp> electoral lists shoud manage that all right I gues
17:18 < urgyen> but maybe that's ok
17:18 < echarp> shoud/should
17:18 < urgyen> maybe you really want a representative system
17:18 < urgyen> maybe you want to do a stepping stone transition
17:18 < echarp> parlement is not a global government system, it's a tool that any group can use to democratically express itself
17:18 < urgyen> right
17:19 < echarp> anybody can propose, vote on propositions or delegate their voice
17:19 < echarp> the results are tabulated using PGP signatures and electoral lists
17:19 < echarp> there can be any number of result
17:19 < urgyen> so as long as it is defined as such then it can be evaluated well enough
17:19 < echarp> parlement does not manage enforcement
17:19 < urgyen> another box on the shelf of option
17:19 < urgyen> s
17:19 < echarp> I guess yes
17:20 < echarp> another tool
17:20 < urgyen> maybe someday that will be something I need, but not for years probably
17:20 < echarp> and just a tool
17:21 < echarp> it's a web forum, a mailing list, and eventually a real time chat system
17:21 < urgyen> I still can't even get a single sentence shared between people :-)
17:21 < echarp> that's another thing entirely :)
17:21 < urgyen> yes
17:22 < urgyen> so much action without understanding ... scares me
17:22 < echarp> understanding? action?
17:22 < urgyen> with no mutual sentences ppl are voting
17:22 < urgyen> this is dangerous
17:22 < urgyen> silly
17:22 < urgyen> but that's currently life
17:22 < echarp> this is their choice
17:23 < urgyen> sometimes they get lucky sometimes it means struggle
17:23 < urgyen> ha no choice
17:23 < urgyen> no information
17:23 < urgyen> luck luck luck
17:23 < echarp> evolution, behaviour, sociology
17:23 < urgyen> sustainable dies to quickly
17:23 < urgyen> to engender is not a simple task
17:24 < urgyen> and what sticks is not always healthy
17:24 < echarp> I disagree, to engender is a basic task :)
17:24 < urgyen> so soon babies will be born knowing how to brush their teeth?
17:24 < echarp> of course not
17:24 < echarp> but they will exist!
17:24 < urgyen> what will exist?
17:27 < echarp> babies
17:27 < echarp> engendered humans
17:27 < urgyen> :-)
17:28 < echarp> we are champions in reproduction
17:28 < echarp> we are the descendants of millions of generations who managed this one thing for sure! :)
17:28 < urgyen> so many similar to netocracy type questions will begin to show up around genetic engineering
17:28 < urgyen> they will be tearing through things they don't understand
17:29 < urgyen> without an appreciation for the scale of time required to develop a sane means of expression
17:29 < urgyen> since this relative existence allows for *anything* even the very most right, neutral, or wrong
17:30 < urgyen> without a principle of regulation one is not acting with attentiveness
17:30 < echarp> and?
17:30 < echarp> attention is just one possibility to develop or not to develop
17:31 < urgyen> the sustainable side becomes the example
17:31 < urgyen> because, since it is more aware, it lasts longer
17:32 < urgyen> but it can be wiped out via the all allowing relative existence too
17:32 < urgyen> other non-aware can intervene
17:33 < urgyen> sharing understanding is the only defense
17:33 < echarp> I'm not convinced that it necessarily lasts longer
17:33 < urgyen> or systems can be built to harvest and manage unaware (like the governments we have today)
17:34 < urgyen> excellent to be skeptical
17:34 < echarp> I'm sure you could be highly aware yet enjoy taking extrem risks!
17:34 < urgyen> maybe my definition of aware is different
17:35 < echarp> aware of...?
17:35 < urgyen> aware of the scope of appreciation
17:36 < echarp> woaw, lost me there
17:36 < echarp> you sure you don't envision the grandest of things while concrete things would work just as well?
17:36 < urgyen> like salfield mentioned, liquid democracy retains an intelligence on the outside model
17:36 < urgyen> power is intelligence on the inside., what you are calling the opposite of transparency
17:37 < urgyen> to attempt to construct a medium of exchange that is not based on intelligence on the outside model means you are generating potential for single points of failure
17:38 < urgyen> maybe hybrid is ok,.. maybe not
17:39 < urgyen> but I don't want one of the goals to be determined from one of the points of failure
17:40 < echarp> sorry, I don't get it *at all*
17:40 < echarp> inside? outside?
17:40 < urgyen> I will try to find some sources
17:41 < echarp> point of failure?
17:41 < echarp> power, intelligence, inside??? you lost me deep
17:41 < urgyen> in french even
17:41 < echarp> ok
17:42 < urgyen> digging through my ICANN General Assembly archive
17:43 < echarp> to me it looks simple, there is direct democracy where every one can participate directly
17:43 < urgyen> it always looks simple until you dig in
17:43 < echarp> and there is the possibility to participate indirectly, for whatever reason each individual consider worthy
17:43 < echarp> I *dig* it!!!
17:43 < echarp> I'm into that stuff since 1998
17:43 < echarp> I already wrote one system from the bottom up
17:44 < echarp> I'm in the middle of a second one more general
17:45 < echarp> it's very low level, no policy, no goal like removing corruption or ensuring high level of intelligence or whatever
17:45 < echarp> almost nomic like :)
17:45 < urgyen> it's super noble, true
17:45 < echarp> noble I don't know
17:45 < echarp> it's fun
17:46 < echarp> I love constructing it
17:46 < urgyen> I can't criticize something when there is so little effort being made in this direction
17:46 < echarp> effort of who?
17:46 < urgyen> but I'm a fussy detailist
17:46 < echarp> in what direction?
17:46 < urgyen> effort by human population
17:46 < urgyen> direction toward common ground
17:46 < echarp> it's a tool made by one human as of now
17:47 < echarp> it's designed for a group of people, any group really
17:47 < urgyen> the guy I am trying to find reference to started in 1968
17:47 < urgyen> he's as much older than I as I to you
17:47 < urgyen> and French
17:47 < echarp> ok
17:47 < echarp> doesn't mean he is not a nutcase :)
17:47 < echarp> I'm waiting for his writing ;)
17:48 < echarp> time to go home
17:48 < urgyen> hmn I'll find deeper details later
17:49 < urgyen> his name: JFC Morfin
17:49 < urgyen> you can google and find a zillion references
17:49 < urgyen> he's been heavy into forwarding what we have been talking about but at legislative levels
17:49 < urgyen> euro standards bodies, etc
17:50 < echarp> ok
17:50 < echarp> cu in half an hour if you stay around
17:50 < urgyen> I have to get to work
18:07 -!- nsh (No Such Human) [n=nsh@wikipedia/nsh] has joined #parlement
18:07 < urgyen> hi
18:15 < nsh> ' soir
18:15 < nsh> how goes?
18:15 < urgyen> fair
18:15 < urgyen> maybe picking up
18:16 < nsh> in which respect?
18:16 < urgyen> day to day getting by
18:16 < nsh> ah
18:16 * nsh found rare book today
18:16 < nsh> 1890 edition of Light of Asia, by Sir. Edwin Arnold
18:17 < urgyen> I'm looking for a project affiliated with Jean-François C. MORFIN, aka JFC, aka, Jefsey
18:17 < nsh> there's a copy in the same edition selling on ebay with a reserve of $2,000
18:17 < nsh> hmm
18:17 < nsh> JFC maybe rings a bell
18:18 < urgyen> he was about the only other person that got me when I was trying to do netocracy ideas with ICANN General Assemby, DNSO, ICANN at Large, etc.
18:18 < nsh> yeah
18:18 < nsh> seems to have an open gestalt
18:18 < urgyen> he has many fingers in many pies
18:18 < nsh> "The deployment of the international digital ecosystem is granular. It results from two seemingly opposing logics. One is the concatenation into a single homogenous continuity. The other is the constantly renewed partition of this continuity into various national, cultural, lingual, local, economical, professional, community, private, etc. etc. elements."
18:18 < nsh> - http://jefsey.com/involv.htm
18:18 < urgyen> engineer
18:19 < urgyen> ya, for some reason I'm having trouble finding all the little nuggets I use to know about
18:20 < urgyen> we should start a wikipedia on him
18:20 < nsh> mm
18:21 < urgyen> wonder how old jefsey.com is
18:22 < nsh> http headers might tell
18:22 < urgyen> I tried to get him to irc once before :-)
18:22 < urgyen> he showed up but prefers email
18:22 < urgyen> I'm not that static of a guy
18:23 < nsh> yeah, lacking a median way there
18:23 < urgyen> right
18:23 < nsh> though the divides are narrowing
18:24 < nsh> things like googletalk archived conversations
18:24 < nsh> integrating with gmail
18:24 < urgyen> http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/
18:24 < urgyen> don't miss the shuttle mission
18:24 < urgyen> wonderful views from helmet cams, etc
18:24 < urgyen> launch is tomorrow I think
18:24 < nsh> ah, cool
18:26 < nsh> hmm
18:26 < nsh> seems active in the dns beurocracy and other naming authorities
18:26 < nsh> or was active
18:26 < nsh> i tend to shy from the monolithic..
18:26 < urgyen> I think still heavily
18:27 < nsh> http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:bvWAf1ycekwJ:jefsey.com/netvalue.pdf+site:jefsey.com&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=3&client=firefox-a
18:27 < urgyen> he is an internet for the people not business kind of guy
18:27 < nsh> hopefully :-)
18:27 < urgyen> so he stands to remove the monoliths
18:27 < nsh> sometimes integrity has to be invested...
18:28 < nsh> but i'm being cynical
18:28 < nsh> :-)
18:28 < urgyen> and he comes from the experience of having had to design the engineering that makes the net work
18:28 < nsh> yeah
18:28 < urgyen> must be horrible to see politicians attempt to destroy your life's work
18:28 < urgyen> (he's getting pretty old)
18:28 < nsh> 40 years older than i
18:28 < nsh> 61
18:29 < nsh> but it must be difficult, yes
18:29 < nsh> and things appear to be coming to a head
18:29 < nsh> with the current bills in the houses
18:29 < nsh> but i can't decide whether to apply medicine or paliative care
18:29 < nsh> there is a certain pheonix element to these things
18:30 < nsh> perhaps it might be better for decentralisation to emerge from the ashes of monolithic control
18:30 < nsh> or is that millenialism? :-)
18:30 < urgyen> even that can only happen if *someone* understands
18:31 < urgyen> route around has been a solid plan B for quite a while
18:31 * nsh nods
18:31 < urgyen> just look at pirate bay
18:31 < nsh> right
18:32 < nsh> so i guess important might be:
18:32 < nsh> making the connections necessary for a possible route b, and attempting to nudge for a hopeful cure
18:33 < nsh> and also, creating an awareness of the need for integrative technologies and ideologies to attenuate this banding-together phenomenon
18:33 < echarp> re
18:33 < urgyen> peek at channel logs right before you got here
18:33 < nsh> preventing partial cures
18:33 * nsh checks
18:34 < echarp> hello nsh !
18:34 < nsh> hey echarp :-)
18:35 < urgyen> 15:38:21 [urgyen]
18:35 < urgyen> like salfield
18:36 < urgyen> intelligence on the outside
18:36 < urgyen> it is what makes the net work
18:36 < nsh> can't find logs on website for just before i came
18:36 < urgyen> http://bridgeheart.net/parlement/irc.freenode.net:6667/parlement/
18:37 < urgyen> I see I should change the first directory name parlement to irclogs
18:37 < nsh> brb
18:37 < urgyen> echarp, nsh found a couple good jfc documents
18:38 < echarp> http://leparlement.org/irc ?
18:38 < urgyen> http://jefsey.com/netvalue.pdf
18:38 < urgyen> http://jefsey.com/involv.htm
18:39 < echarp> urgyen: do that relate to parlement?
18:39 < urgyen> does parlement relate to life?
18:40 < echarp> it relates to groups, thus to life yes
18:40 * nsh smiles
18:47 < urgyen> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Postel
18:48 < urgyen> he didn't have what happened to ICANN in mind when he tried to get a participation driven governance founded
18:49 < urgyen> using US legitimacy to jump start it didn't seem to produce the effect intended
18:50 < echarp> "be conservative in what you send, be liberal in what you receive", I love that one :)
18:50 < urgyen> that is another way to say 'intelligence on the outside'
18:50 < urgyen> network routers are dumb
18:51 < urgyen> the intelligence is on the outside
18:51 < urgyen> break that rule and you break the internet
18:51 < urgyen> I'm, of course, greatly reducing the story
18:51 < urgyen> :-)
18:52 < echarp> "intelligence on the outside" still does not speak to me :(
18:52 < urgyen> it will grow on you
18:52 < echarp> I understand that internet is what it is because it is based on dumb plumbing
18:52 < echarp> and that it is its connected nodes which give value to it
18:52 < urgyen> the principle is not limited to just the internet
18:53 < urgyen> when you tell me 'vigilence' I am thinking intelligence on the outside
18:53 < urgyen> when you tell me 'transparency' I am thinking intelligence on the outside
18:55 < echarp> :(
18:55 < urgyen> echarp you read that "THE VALUE OF A NETWORK - THE µ FACTOR" article?
18:55 < echarp> "strict on what you send, lax on what you accept", that I get and like
18:56 < echarp> urgyen: it's opened
19:03 < echarp> that document is about the signal/noise ratio?
19:03 < echarp> as it gets to 1, the system is dead
19:04 < urgyen> well..
19:05 < urgyen> I also posted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford-Fulkerson_algorithm
19:05 < echarp> the one about the strict/lax
19:05 < urgyen> http://www.nist.gov/dads/HTML/fordFulkerson.html
19:06 < urgyen> and if you think about binary level routing.. 0 is open as in 0.0.0.0 is everywhere
19:06 < echarp> it's not the first time you give me that page on algorithm
19:06 < urgyen> and 1 is closed as in 255.255.255.255 is here only
19:06 < echarp> what is the point you are making?
19:07 < urgyen> that the scope is much larger than it appears you are allowing
19:07 < echarp> I am allowing a scope?
19:07 < echarp> I'm lost
19:07 < urgyen> to be in a game that proposes 'no single point of control'
19:07 < echarp> I'm removing points of control, I don't consider this as a matter of "scope"
19:08 < urgyen> means that you will have to adopt a layer of abstraction outside of what it appears you have accepted so far
19:08 < echarp> buzzwords?
19:08 < echarp> :)
19:08 < urgyen> you have a blind spot
19:08 < echarp> which is?
19:08 < urgyen> I am trying to find a way to address it
19:08 < urgyen> I'm having to resort to infinite detail level
19:08 < echarp> you spoke about the signal/noise ratio, that I understand
19:09 < echarp> strict/lax I also understand
19:09 < urgyen> which means I am trying to break things down into something you are willing to consider
19:09 < echarp> try to use geek classical concepts, that should do you know :)
19:09 < urgyen> so first pass is attempting to find the gravity ( as illegale puts it )
19:09 < echarp> sorry, are you speaking of the tool itself?
19:10 < urgyen> classic greek does not contain this idea
19:10 < urgyen> this blind spot
19:10 < urgyen> but network science does
19:10 < urgyen> topology
19:10 < echarp> did you express that blind post in what you wrote already?
19:10 < urgyen> no
19:11 < echarp> that explains I don't see it then :)
19:11 < urgyen> for it to communicate to you it will be something that is sparked from your own understanding
19:11 < urgyen> I am frantically moving through a wide range of signals in an attempt to trigger one event
19:11 < echarp> just name it for a start, if it has a name
19:11 < urgyen> on each failure I expand
19:12 < echarp> try to use a commonly used name
19:12 < echarp> names are great handles
19:12 < urgyen> so I tried to show you some jefsey things
19:13 < urgyen> maybe you should write to jefsey, he could touch it in french very quickly
19:13 < urgyen> to the point. the problem is that quite a few people have already attempted what you are trying and it didn't work
19:14 < urgyen> they've all revised their positions over and over and over and now have a different stance
19:14 < urgyen> I think you should adopt these other stances and avoid the suffering and misery of making known mistakes
19:14 < echarp> I've been into that since 1998 you know
19:14 < urgyen> and others have, for even longer
19:14 < echarp> have already developed one full scale one
19:15 < urgyen> and attempted in real world labs
19:15 < echarp> I know what is failure, first hand
19:15 < urgyen> everyone starts out an island until they bump up into others that have done similar work
19:15 < urgyen> sometimes that never happens
19:16 < urgyen> in this arena is is, happily, happening quite a bit
19:16 < urgyen> s/is/it
19:16 < urgyen> so you have established working groups to solve protocol problems?
19:17 < echarp> protocol problems?
19:17 < echarp> what are you speaking about?
19:17 < echarp> I'm using mail as my protocol!
19:18 < urgyen> so it hasn't grown up enough to have any problems
19:18 < urgyen> mail doesn't have a decision structure
19:18 < echarp> it's a mere protocol...
19:18 < urgyen> protocol is everywhere
19:19 < echarp> I don't see the relation between protocol and decision structure
19:19 < echarp> parlement is low level
19:19 < urgyen> then that's my point
19:19 < echarp> it doesn't enforce much policy
19:19 < urgyen> parlement shouldn't be low level
19:19 < urgyen> parlement doesn't sound low level
19:19 < echarp> it aims to be
19:20 < echarp> it does not even enforce, *at all*, the fact that you should only have one identity
19:20 < echarp> it's up to the electoral list manager
19:20 < urgyen> so it needs a new name then
19:21 < echarp> I don't think so
19:21 < urgyen> ok
19:21 < echarp> parlement is a place where people discuss
19:21 < echarp> they can propose things, they can vote on things
19:21 < echarp> there is no inherent difference among participants
19:22 < echarp> any number of electoral list can be setup by any body, results are tabulated against them
19:22 < echarp> all propositions, all votes, are in fact mails
19:22 < echarp> I believe it is very basic, yet with potential, hopefully
19:23 < echarp> anyway, I do because it's fun :)
19:23 < echarp> anyway, I do it because it's fun :)
19:24 < echarp> you think there is a blind spot I missed?
19:25 < urgyen> probably just my own wishes clouding things
19:25 < urgyen> there is a dream jon postel had it, jefsey has it...
19:26 < echarp> what kind of dream? network thing?
19:26 < urgyen> that we as the users of the internet can have a governance from which to express our interests
19:26 < urgyen> many groups have stepped up and many groups have failed
19:26 < urgyen> you aren't even stepping up
19:26 < urgyen> that was my mistake
19:26 < urgyen> sorry
19:27 < echarp> I'm trying to propose my tool to help things
19:27 < echarp> just one tool, shame it might just end up as a non used tool :(
19:28 < urgyen> so my mistake was thinking it was a group and not a tool
19:28 < urgyen> it sounds very much like a group
19:28 < urgyen> it has a philosophy and principles
19:30 < echarp> I hope they are few
19:30 < echarp> but strong :)
19:33 * nsh back from dinner
19:33 < nsh> repentant
19:33 < nsh> make anew promise to feverantly avoid subject of middle east at dinner table
19:33 < nsh> :-/
19:33 < echarp> lol
19:33 * nsh smiles
19:33 < echarp> yet it's a great subject!
19:34 < nsh> it's a great subject if you wish to investigate the rapid deteriotation of reasoned argument :-)
19:35 < echarp> :)
19:35 < echarp> I love a good troll, makes for nice conversation
19:36 < echarp> but all participants must recognise that it's just a conversation
19:39 < urgyen> I can't accept that
19:40 < urgyen> http://www.circleid.com/backgrounders/view/Internet%20Governance/
19:41 < echarp> accept what? few principles and a small and tight philosophy?
19:41 < urgyen> that trolls are good and conversations mean nothing
19:43 < echarp> trolls can be useful, well, so I believe
19:44 < urgyen> so, if these so called internet governances, break the internet because they are not familiar with how it works...
19:44 < urgyen> you'd think that the governance that survives would be the one that respects the core values
19:45 < echarp> it could happen I guess, evolutionnary thing yes, but no certitude
19:45 < urgyen> but the governances that have the mightiest buck are the ones that seem to move first and question later
19:45 < urgyen> now there are lots of interest groups flying the flag called internet governance
19:45 < urgyen> not because they want to protect access but because they want to control it
19:46 < urgyen> I think the tool has to have the components that it tries to protect
19:46 < urgyen> or the protecton is guaranteed to be lost
19:47 < echarp> try to protect?
19:47 < echarp> can a tool do that? or is the participants who do that?
19:48 < urgyen> :-) you like the question?
19:48 < urgyen> I'm not being a troll
19:49 < echarp> you are speaking in term of goals and internet wide groups, I'm not
19:49 < echarp> if I'm not mistaken :)
19:49 < echarp> I'm just speaking of groups using internet
19:50 < urgyen> well the internet wide groups are looking for a tool as well
19:50 < urgyen> often they ask, what format will we use?
19:50 < urgyen> wiki? forums? mailing list?
19:50 < urgyen> you think, hey we can improve those
19:50 < echarp> I'd love to help them!!! :)
19:51 < urgyen> well, I have many scars and bruises from being in the governance trenches
19:51 < urgyen> I am not going to let that hard work be abused by a tool that doesn't get far enough
19:52 < urgyen> I only have a that list of scars
19:52 < echarp> well, do you think a mailing list is interesting and can be useful?
19:52 < urgyen> if the tool allows bullies to control, it is basically worthless
19:53 < echarp> I believe parlement is democratic and highly bully proof
19:53 < echarp> but there can be charisma and leaders
19:53 < echarp> reputation and all other human things
19:55 < echarp> it starts as a mailing list, then you add votes, electoral list to tabulate results, personal filters to hide all elements below a given result
19:57 < urgyen> so I have something like 8000 emails here from my participation with early attempts toward internet governance
19:57 < urgyen> we were primarily mailing list with some web support and a web voting booth
19:58 < urgyen> it was hell
19:58 < urgyen> these efforts are ongoing -- I just stopped helping
19:59 < echarp> parlement does that, but groups vote on elements, and each participant can easily filter things using those votes
19:59 < echarp> I think it's group/personal moderation
19:59 < echarp> if you don't want to be bothered, just filter most elements but those highly thought of
20:00 < echarp> on the contrary if you want you can see everything, including spam and other noise
20:00 < echarp> there can be many groups, each group being a kind of filter
20:02 < echarp> a group of one can thus be a moderator all by himself, but users have to choose him
20:03 < echarp> (of course those filters are not implemented yet)
20:16 < urgyen> have you looked at roundup issue tracker?
20:16 < echarp> roundup?
20:16 < echarp> one of the links you pasted here?
20:16 < urgyen> hmn
20:16 < urgyen> maybe, not today
20:16 < echarp> I don't know
20:17 < urgyen> http://roundup.sourceforge.net/
20:17 < urgyen> the model they use does very similar to what it sounds like you might be saying
20:17 < urgyen> every issue becomes a thread, every thread can become a mailing list
20:17 < urgyen> all responses are archived on the web and everything can be cross threaded by use of tags and other sort elements
20:18 < urgyen> so I can ask only for issues related to 'Voting'
20:18 < urgyen> you can retag anything
20:18 < echarp> it's mostly what I have in mind yes
20:18 < echarp> every mais is an issue, every issue is in a thread of issues
20:19 < echarp> votes are also mails, thus they are themselves threads
20:19 < urgyen> I can opt to subscribe or not to any thread
20:19 < echarp> yeap
20:19 < echarp> there are rss feeds
20:19 < echarp> each element as a rss feed based on arrival, and a rss feed based on voting result
20:19 < urgyen> I'm pretty sure roundup has rss/wiki convertors
20:20 < urgyen> you can participate in the medium of your choice that way
20:20 < echarp> you can also subscribe as a mailing list subscriber
20:20 < urgyen> it also has a xapian plugin so you can search my semantic value
20:20 < echarp> you can respond by mail
20:20 < echarp> I have to set up a search tool
20:21 < urgyen> http://www.xapian.org/
20:21 < urgyen> extensible you can probably make it work for you
20:22 < echarp> use it on top of Ruby on Rails?
20:22 < urgyen> you use mysql?
20:22 < echarp> there are packaged plugins for RoR too, easier ;)
20:22 < echarp> no, postgresql, but I hope to have it evolved toward database agnostism
20:23 < urgyen> ok
20:25 < echarp> in the best of worlds I would embark a db
20:25 < echarp> so that it can be deployed without outside dependancy
20:25 < urgyen> hmn
20:28 < urgyen> wow this is new.. issue management for IETF working groups
20:28 < urgyen> well maybe not new but newly advertised :-)
20:29 < echarp> Free?
20:29 < urgyen> roundup?
20:30 < urgyen> of course
20:30 < urgyen> python based
20:36 < echarp> there are features which are very much like parlement, the fact it's highly mail useable for a start
20:37 < echarp> but they center on other concepts, issue-tracking, roles, client-server
20:37 < echarp> I'm into mail as a protocol between P2P servers, no role (but for a node administrator), trust through PGP signatures and electoral lists
20:38 < echarp> trust is critical
20:43 < urgyen> identity is critical
20:43 < echarp> it is so critical that the tool does not really manage it
20:43 < urgyen> and yes, the reason I am not participating in existing on-going efforts was due to the lack of proper tools
20:43 < echarp> because a tool can not really enforce identity
20:43 < urgyen> it was hard to believe, after all these were all internet professionals, they should know how to code!
20:44 < urgyen> but I sure know the shoe when it fits right
20:44 < echarp> it's easy to code too complex and not useful things
20:44 < urgyen> as that article on circleid suggests there is an extra twist to 'internet' governance
20:45 < urgyen> due mostly to the fact that the conditions that allow internet have not been extensively communicated
20:45 < urgyen> so the conditions that would capsize them are the majority
20:45 < echarp> majority of?
20:45 < urgyen> corporations are using that to their advantage by saying things like 'democracy of the users'
20:46 < urgyen> just to hope that the majority will vote their personal interest at the expense of open systems
20:46 < urgyen> most ppl do not have a clue
20:46 < urgyen> the system has to be able to represent ideas, not people
20:46 < echarp> I concur
20:47 < urgyen> ideas can't delegate :-)
20:47 < echarp> no information can be removed from the system
20:47 < echarp> it can only be filtered by the moderators each user choose
20:50 < echarp> the most highly appreciated elements by a group, can be marked as rules or something alike
20:50 < echarp> but this is not managed by the tool itself, it's not in its reach
20:51 < urgyen> at least at the moment
20:51 < urgyen> I'm all for practical increments
20:51 < echarp> same same
20:53 < echarp> I'm for elegance
20:53 < echarp> take everything away, until you can't :)
--- Log closed sam jui 01 00:00:23 2006
illegale
Jul 1, 2006, 9:10:22 AM7/1/06
to top-politics
Hmh.
Me personaly do not consider logging through a group be a spam.
It use it that it easily enables to visitors of this group to see what
is going on at irc directly related to TOP-politics as long as we did
not decide to use any other channel, so it remains be our non official
meeting point.
ATB,
Gale
echarp
Jul 2, 2006, 12:29:45 AM7/2/06
to top-politics
--- Log opened sam jui 01 00:00:23 2006
00:52 < echarp> good night!
02:18 < urgyen> home
04:27 -!- urgen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
04:28 -!- urgen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Remote closed the connection]
04:29 -!- urgen (urgy) [n=sp...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
04:40 -!- urgyen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
13:27 -!- illegale (illegale) [n=ille...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has joined #parlement
13:27 < illegale> hey!
13:38 -!- beeli (illegale) [i=ille...@cmung168.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
13:39 -!- illegale [n=ille...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has quit ["Lost terminal"]
13:48 < beeli> i had a dream that fiatlex was usefull, really
14:49 < beeli> read last blog
14:49 < beeli> i mean log
14:50 < beeli> seems to me denail of the fact that people actually care ideas and make them powerfull makes any effort towards internet democracy be noctraproductive
14:51 < beeli> i think we should discuss over this as long as i find it be crutial element why power can not be generated using these grounds
15:37 -!- beeli [i=ille...@cmung168.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
--- Log closed dim jui 02 00:00:23 2006
00:52 < echarp> good night!
02:18 < urgyen> home
04:27 -!- urgen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
04:28 -!- urgen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Remote closed the connection]
04:29 -!- urgen (urgy) [n=sp...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
04:40 -!- urgyen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
13:27 -!- illegale (illegale) [n=ille...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has joined #parlement
13:27 < illegale> hey!
13:38 -!- beeli (illegale) [i=ille...@cmung168.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
13:39 -!- illegale [n=ille...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has quit ["Lost terminal"]
13:48 < beeli> i had a dream that fiatlex was usefull, really
14:49 < beeli> read last blog
14:49 < beeli> i mean log
14:50 < beeli> seems to me denail of the fact that people actually care ideas and make them powerfull makes any effort towards internet democracy be noctraproductive
14:51 < beeli> i think we should discuss over this as long as i find it be crutial element why power can not be generated using these grounds
15:37 -!- beeli [i=ille...@cmung168.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
--- Log closed dim jui 02 00:00:23 2006
echarp
Jul 3, 2006, 12:28:32 AM7/3/06
to top-politics
--- Log opened dim jui 02 00:00:23 2006
05:33 -!- nsh_ (No Such Human) [n=n...@84-43-120-78.ppp.onetel.net.uk] has joined #parlement
05:33 < urgen> hi
05:34 < urgen> hope you aren't one of the depressed of england being out of the cup now
05:48 -!- nsh [n=nsh@wikipedia/nsh] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
06:28 * nsh_ smiles
06:29 -!- nsh_ is now known as nsh
06:29 -!- nsh [n=nsh@wikipedia/nsh] has quit ["Leaving"]
06:29 -!- cnloyd (New Now Know How) [n=chat...@206.180.134.62.txl-dial-ip.hal-pc.org] has joined #parlement
06:29 < cnloyd> Hey.
06:39 < urgen> yo
06:40 < urgen> do you know what syntagm means?
06:40 < cnloyd> What's up? Syntagm...no. Synthesized something, I think.
06:40 < urgen> :-)
06:41 < urgen> appears to be a cool word
06:41 < urgen> just started to dig into it
06:41 < cnloyd> Neat. Do you know anything about El Segundo?
06:41 < urgen> not directly, sounds familiar
06:42 < urgen> its a place?
06:42 < cnloyd> It's one of the South Bay cities, in the Los Angeles area.
06:42 < urgen> ah, I probably drove through it a couple times
06:43 < cnloyd> I might be working in that area in a few years. Wondering if it's a safe place.
06:43 < urgen> probably
06:44 < urgen> LA is a place ppl go to make their careers then escape
06:44 < urgen> some ppl like it
06:44 < urgen> 'safe' is probably a growing consideration for why they want to leave
06:44 < urgen> but there are lots of other reasons too
06:44 < urgen> just to hot, is mine
06:44 < urgen> :-)
06:44 < urgen> too
06:45 < cnloyd> Consider that I live in Houston, where the high today was 90, and the city has gained tens of thousands of refugees from New Orleans.
06:45 < urgen> right
06:45 < urgen> same weather then
06:46 < cnloyd> And, I don't have an AC unit, so hot doesn't bother me.
06:46 < urgen> did you do a cost of living comparison?
06:46 < cnloyd> Yep.
06:47 < cnloyd> Essentially, my income will need to double before I consider taking the job.
06:47 < urgen> yes
06:47 < urgen> LA is probably the densest capital in california
06:48 < urgen> all waves of the rising tide ripple from there
06:48 < cnloyd> I had planned on moving to CA anyway, to work on my PhD. Not LA specifically. More like San Diego or Palo Alto.
06:48 < urgen> that's why ppl go there then ride the surf out
06:48 < urgen> sandiego is pretty spendy too
06:49 < urgen> but they are remote remote remote
06:49 < urgen> palo alto is nearer to that nice cultural hub SF
06:50 < cnloyd> More interested in research ops than cultural hubs. Again, coming from Houston, I've learned to rarely get excited about anything.
06:50 < urgen> yes
06:51 < urgen> palo alto had a large development rush during the bubble but is struggling from that debt now
06:51 < urgen> LA is probably still safer
06:51 < urgen> since debt is its middle name from time immemmorial
06:52 < cnloyd> I'm certainly not looking to buy a house or condo there. Just rent. I'd have to plan on being there for more than 10 or so years before I considered buying.
06:52 < urgen> you might want to get advise on that
06:52 < urgen> the california value thing has a steep curve
06:52 < urgen> ppl make their life just on that alone
06:53 < urgen> in ten years you might double your money
06:53 < cnloyd> Talk of buying may be premature anyway. I'd need to check out the neighborhood and like it before price (rent or buy) came into the picture.
06:54 < urgen> not sure if I know anyone that could scout for you
06:54 < urgen> I know a couple people, I think one is even in real estate
06:55 < cnloyd> I'd prefer to be within walking distance of my work building. Not sure if even that is feasible. These are the kinds of things that require a visit.
06:56 < cnloyd> Notwithstanding my workplace 11 miles away, I can walk to school now. It's about a 3/4 mile walk.
06:57 < urgen> sounds like it depends on your karma
06:58 < cnloyd> Eh?
06:58 < urgen> I could say, good luck
06:58 < cnloyd> Thanks. I wouldn't be moving until January 2008 at the earliest.
06:59 < cnloyd> Assuming that (a) the job goes through, and (b) they offer about twice what I currently make, I need to actually visit the place in early October.
07:02 < cnloyd> Never been further west than Phoenix. Visit CA should be interesting.
07:02 < cnloyd> Ever been to Texas?
07:02 < urgen> never
07:02 < urgen> I'm a northern guy
07:02 < urgen> desert stuff is hard on me
07:03 < cnloyd> Houston is not in the desert. It's climate is comparable to Atlanta, with swamps.
07:03 < cnloyd> Everything here has to float, including the streets and hi-rises.
08:07 -!- cnloyd [n=chat...@206.180.134.62.txl-dial-ip.hal-pc.org] has quit ["ChatZilla 0.9.52B [Mozilla rv:1.6/20040113]"]
13:27 -!- nsh (No Such Human) [n=nsh@wikipedia/nsh] has joined #parlement
16:17 < urgen> hi
16:24 -!- illegale (illegale) [i=ille...@cmung116.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
16:24 < illegale> hey
16:24 < urgen> hi
16:24 < urgen> yer at home
16:24 < illegale> yes :)
16:25 < illegale> here and there i get in ocasopn to use mirc and stuff :)
16:25 < illegale> pretty complexed situaiton
16:25 < illegale> urgen: we at top politics decided to define TOP good as we can
16:26 < illegale> is there some way you could help us in our intention
16:26 < illegale> ?
16:26 < urgen> top can't get here?
16:26 < illegale> what do you mean by that?
16:26 < illegale> you mean irc stuff?
16:26 < urgen> yes
16:26 < illegale> some of members do not use irc
16:26 < urgen> forums, and email take FOREVER to have discussions
16:27 < illegale> second thing i have some preferences to gorups
16:27 < urgen> most real change happens in working groups
16:27 < illegale> hmh, rainstorm nad stuff?
16:27 < urgen> and they have fast paced discussion to work out the basic points
16:27 < urgen> then it can be returned to slower forum/newsgroup/email type discussions
16:27 < illegale> suppose it depends on the way we aproach it
16:28 < illegale> to me irc is for instant conflict stuff
16:28 < illegale> pop up stuff
16:28 < illegale> to soleve minosr things and all
16:28 < urgen> to me. there is only instant conflict stuff :-)
16:28 < illegale> aproaches and simmilar things take some more time
16:28 < illegale> oh no
16:29 < urgen> if there is already mutual understanding, nothing more to explore
16:29 < illegale> at this moment i do not even know what are the was we should aproach to
16:29 < urgen> just build
16:29 < illegale> and there are many i suppose
16:29 < urgen> that's project management
16:29 < illegale> what is our interest in dfining top and stuff
16:29 < illegale> suppose ye
16:29 < illegale> s
16:29 < illegale> though, did you ever be part of such proejct?
16:29 < urgen> sure
16:29 < illegale> really?
16:30 < illegale> what was it about?
16:30 * illegale thinks we should do a little study over this stuff first
16:31 < illegale> http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics/browse_frm/thread/01463d9906483418/c22ab83db60a2f78#c22ab83db60a2f78
16:31 < urgen> I was on the working group to arrive at the method for identification and verification for one of the ICANN at Large attempts to formalize
16:31 < urgen> they were and some still are interested in organizing an internet governance
16:32 < illegale> is that gorup top?
16:32 < urgen> the first split happens between the people that want the process to reflect the means vs the people that see politics as having nothing to do with what it represents
16:32 < illegale> brb, please continue
16:33 < urgen> http://www.fitug.de/atlarge-discuss/0308/maillist.html
16:33 < urgen> search August 16, 2003
16:34 < urgen> you can see that transparency was a talking point
16:35 < illegale> urgen, what is you name, if i may know?
16:36 < urgen> :P
16:36 < urgen> names show up when there is real work to do
16:36 < illegale> k
16:37 < urgen> http://www.fitug.de/atlarge-discuss/0308/msg00023.html
16:37 < urgen> same thread
16:37 < urgen> Let us get over the obvious - these are positions that should be held by
16:37 < urgen> politicians, not neophyte social climbers.
16:37 < urgen> As long as we keep electing engineers to play politcal rolls we will not
16:37 < urgen> succeed.
16:38 < urgen> some feel politicians understand this process better than the people that built the internet
16:38 < urgen> if that were true we would not be having votes about letting the conglomerate telephone companies control access to the internet right now
16:39 < urgen> http://www.freepress.net/news/16227
16:39 < urgen> to me, this is an extremely critical point
16:40 < illegale> seems to me you are focusing to yesterdays objection of me, right here. Cool
16:40 < urgen> one that addresses the conversation we were having before about whether 'politicians' can be considered special
16:40 < illegale> first, we hgave to see what politician actually mean?
16:40 < illegale> then we can go on
16:40 < urgen> of course
16:40 < urgen> but politicians take that personally
16:40 < illegale> so, what does politican mean to you urge?
16:41 < urgen> I see a politician as a technician
16:41 < illegale> for what?
16:41 < urgen> a technician has a set of tools they know how to use
16:41 < urgen> there are many different tools available
16:41 < urgen> each performs a specifica task
16:41 < urgen> none review the process
16:41 < urgen> none invent processes
16:41 < illegale> what does politician by his tools?
16:42 < urgen> there are some very powerful tools, like democracy, that seem to take on a life of their own
16:43 < illegale> can u define politican in one or two lines?
16:43 < urgen> from cory doctorows article you can see that these tools are powerful and often blind
16:43 < illegale> doctor has tool that enables him to cure patients
16:43 < illegale> stuff
16:43 < urgen> a politician is a technician trained in the management of debate
16:43 < urgen> that's about it
16:43 < illegale> can you do it for politician
16:44 < illegale> seems to me you are wrng about definition
16:44 < urgen> evidence shows wrong or not
16:44 < illegale> ive seen many powerfull politicans who where not into debats at all
16:44 < illegale> they are not polticians than?
16:44 < illegale> Gojko Susak, ministar of defense
16:45 < urgen> maybe I should say deliberation
16:45 < illegale> quiet person, knew to find loyal cadre
16:45 < urgen> I think debate is still quite primary,,, but we can change terms
16:45 < illegale> making him b very powerfull
16:45 < illegale> let me try defne politican
16:45 < urgen> you seem to feel debate means something different
16:45 < illegale> politician is person who manages social power
16:46 < urgen> that's what they want to believe
16:46 < urgen> and that's what they want people to believe, sure
16:46 < illegale> thats what politica does
16:46 < urgen> and as long as that belief holds it works
16:46 < urgen> but this is not what actually happens
16:46 < illegale> why should not it work?
16:46 < urgen> power corrupts
16:46 < urgen> end of game
16:46 < illegale> why is that so, hav you evr think about that?
16:47 < illegale> end of game means you take it as dogma
16:47 < illegale> not good
16:47 < urgen> lack of sincerity
16:47 < urgen> lack of honesty
16:47 < urgen> lack of maturity
16:47 < urgen> lack of appreciation
16:47 < urgen> on and on
16:47 < urgen> dogma is on the other side of the fence
16:47 < urgen> that's the point I am arguing
16:47 < illegale> what do you mean concretely when you say power corrupts?
16:48 < illegale> ops, i have to go :-(
16:48 < urgen> influence begins to leave evidence
16:48 < illegale> hope to keep this conversation soon.
16:48 < urgen> we begin to say things like, ok, today we outlaw gravity
16:48 < illegale> see you later, Urgen :)
16:48 < urgen> np
16:51 < urgen> from the freepress article: It’s a dumb idea to put the plumbers who laid a pipe in charge of who gets to use it. It’s a way to ensure that incumbents with the deepest pockets will always be able to deliver a better service to the public, simply by degrading the quality of everyone else’s offerings.
16:52 < urgen> when the legislative technicians begin to feel they are in charge of the pipes they lay the same problem happens there
16:53 < urgen> the 'social power' is not owned nor should ever be owned by politicians
16:53 < urgen> -- for illegale to find in the logs --
16:55 < urgen> so it is more a matter of defining corruption
16:56 < urgen> from: http://rss.cnn.com/2006/US/06/09/newmark.internet/ Telecommunication companies already control the pipes that carry the Internet into your home. Now they want control which sites you visit and how you experience them. They would provide privileged access for themselves and their preferred partners while charging other businesses for varying levels of service.
16:56 < urgen> same 'ownership' issue
17:09 -!- illegale [i=ille...@cmung116.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
18:19 -!- illegale (illegale) [i=ille...@cmung2583.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
18:19 < illegale> here i am
18:25 < illegale> ok, seems to me we wentin wrong direction
18:25 < illegale> the point is that people are carriers of the power
18:25 < illegale> not ideas
18:25 < illegale> so, you ave to create system that understnds that
18:25 < illegale> if you do not do it, you cant go fine
18:36 < illegale> ideas are strong as long as they have support in people
18:36 < illegale> with no support of the people they do now worth
18:37 < illegale> idea orientation in a way ive seen around actually comletely ignores concept of power, making it funny game instead of being a serious political project
18:37 < illegale> maybe it is possible to change that way, yet ive never seen those idea supporters become powerfull in any manner
18:38 < illegale> people oriented projects in otrher hand show some future
19:12 < illegale> the system is corrupted due to slowness of the transfer of the power enabling creation of classes /powerfull and unpowerfull ones/
21:29 -!- beeli (illegale) [i=ille...@cmung471.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
21:45 -!- illegale [i=ille...@cmung2583.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
21:48 -!- beeli is now known as illegale
22:11 -!- illegale [i=ille...@cmung471.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)]
22:46 -!- nsh_ (No Such Human) [n=n...@84-43-100-246.ppp.onetel.net.uk] has joined #parlement
23:01 -!- nsh [n=nsh@wikipedia/nsh] has quit [Read error: 113 (No route to host)]
23:04 < echarp> hello and good night
23:04 < echarp> I won't be much here tomorrow, work work work
23:04 < echarp> cu
23:12 -!- nsh__ (No Such Human) [n=n...@88.144.23.146] has joined #parlement
23:21 -!- nsh (No Such Human) [n=n...@87.242.152.81] has joined #parlement
23:26 -!- nsh_ [n=n...@84-43-100-246.ppp.onetel.net.uk] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
23:28 -!- nsh_ (No Such Human) [n=n...@88.144.46.19] has joined #parlement
23:35 -!- nsh__ [n=n...@88.144.23.146] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
23:37 -!- nsh__ (No Such Human) [n=n...@87.242.137.5] has joined #parlement
23:44 -!- nsh [n=n...@87.242.152.81] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
23:47 -!- nsh (No Such Human) [n=n...@88.144.41.41] has joined #parlement
23:52 -!- nsh_ [n=n...@88.144.46.19] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
23:55 -!- nsh_ (No Such Human) [n=n...@84-43-111-161.ppp.onetel.net.uk] has joined #parlement
--- Log closed lun jui 03 00:00:24 2006
05:33 -!- nsh_ (No Such Human) [n=n...@84-43-120-78.ppp.onetel.net.uk] has joined #parlement
05:33 < urgen> hi
05:34 < urgen> hope you aren't one of the depressed of england being out of the cup now
05:48 -!- nsh [n=nsh@wikipedia/nsh] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
06:28 * nsh_ smiles
06:29 -!- nsh_ is now known as nsh
06:29 -!- nsh [n=nsh@wikipedia/nsh] has quit ["Leaving"]
06:29 -!- cnloyd (New Now Know How) [n=chat...@206.180.134.62.txl-dial-ip.hal-pc.org] has joined #parlement
06:29 < cnloyd> Hey.
06:39 < urgen> yo
06:40 < urgen> do you know what syntagm means?
06:40 < cnloyd> What's up? Syntagm...no. Synthesized something, I think.
06:40 < urgen> :-)
06:41 < urgen> appears to be a cool word
06:41 < urgen> just started to dig into it
06:41 < cnloyd> Neat. Do you know anything about El Segundo?
06:41 < urgen> not directly, sounds familiar
06:42 < urgen> its a place?
06:42 < cnloyd> It's one of the South Bay cities, in the Los Angeles area.
06:42 < urgen> ah, I probably drove through it a couple times
06:43 < cnloyd> I might be working in that area in a few years. Wondering if it's a safe place.
06:43 < urgen> probably
06:44 < urgen> LA is a place ppl go to make their careers then escape
06:44 < urgen> some ppl like it
06:44 < urgen> 'safe' is probably a growing consideration for why they want to leave
06:44 < urgen> but there are lots of other reasons too
06:44 < urgen> just to hot, is mine
06:44 < urgen> :-)
06:44 < urgen> too
06:45 < cnloyd> Consider that I live in Houston, where the high today was 90, and the city has gained tens of thousands of refugees from New Orleans.
06:45 < urgen> right
06:45 < urgen> same weather then
06:46 < cnloyd> And, I don't have an AC unit, so hot doesn't bother me.
06:46 < urgen> did you do a cost of living comparison?
06:46 < cnloyd> Yep.
06:47 < cnloyd> Essentially, my income will need to double before I consider taking the job.
06:47 < urgen> yes
06:47 < urgen> LA is probably the densest capital in california
06:48 < urgen> all waves of the rising tide ripple from there
06:48 < cnloyd> I had planned on moving to CA anyway, to work on my PhD. Not LA specifically. More like San Diego or Palo Alto.
06:48 < urgen> that's why ppl go there then ride the surf out
06:48 < urgen> sandiego is pretty spendy too
06:49 < urgen> but they are remote remote remote
06:49 < urgen> palo alto is nearer to that nice cultural hub SF
06:50 < cnloyd> More interested in research ops than cultural hubs. Again, coming from Houston, I've learned to rarely get excited about anything.
06:50 < urgen> yes
06:51 < urgen> palo alto had a large development rush during the bubble but is struggling from that debt now
06:51 < urgen> LA is probably still safer
06:51 < urgen> since debt is its middle name from time immemmorial
06:52 < cnloyd> I'm certainly not looking to buy a house or condo there. Just rent. I'd have to plan on being there for more than 10 or so years before I considered buying.
06:52 < urgen> you might want to get advise on that
06:52 < urgen> the california value thing has a steep curve
06:52 < urgen> ppl make their life just on that alone
06:53 < urgen> in ten years you might double your money
06:53 < cnloyd> Talk of buying may be premature anyway. I'd need to check out the neighborhood and like it before price (rent or buy) came into the picture.
06:54 < urgen> not sure if I know anyone that could scout for you
06:54 < urgen> I know a couple people, I think one is even in real estate
06:55 < cnloyd> I'd prefer to be within walking distance of my work building. Not sure if even that is feasible. These are the kinds of things that require a visit.
06:56 < cnloyd> Notwithstanding my workplace 11 miles away, I can walk to school now. It's about a 3/4 mile walk.
06:57 < urgen> sounds like it depends on your karma
06:58 < cnloyd> Eh?
06:58 < urgen> I could say, good luck
06:58 < cnloyd> Thanks. I wouldn't be moving until January 2008 at the earliest.
06:59 < cnloyd> Assuming that (a) the job goes through, and (b) they offer about twice what I currently make, I need to actually visit the place in early October.
07:02 < cnloyd> Never been further west than Phoenix. Visit CA should be interesting.
07:02 < cnloyd> Ever been to Texas?
07:02 < urgen> never
07:02 < urgen> I'm a northern guy
07:02 < urgen> desert stuff is hard on me
07:03 < cnloyd> Houston is not in the desert. It's climate is comparable to Atlanta, with swamps.
07:03 < cnloyd> Everything here has to float, including the streets and hi-rises.
08:07 -!- cnloyd [n=chat...@206.180.134.62.txl-dial-ip.hal-pc.org] has quit ["ChatZilla 0.9.52B [Mozilla rv:1.6/20040113]"]
13:27 -!- nsh (No Such Human) [n=nsh@wikipedia/nsh] has joined #parlement
16:17 < urgen> hi
16:24 -!- illegale (illegale) [i=ille...@cmung116.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
16:24 < illegale> hey
16:24 < urgen> hi
16:24 < urgen> yer at home
16:24 < illegale> yes :)
16:25 < illegale> here and there i get in ocasopn to use mirc and stuff :)
16:25 < illegale> pretty complexed situaiton
16:25 < illegale> urgen: we at top politics decided to define TOP good as we can
16:26 < illegale> is there some way you could help us in our intention
16:26 < illegale> ?
16:26 < urgen> top can't get here?
16:26 < illegale> what do you mean by that?
16:26 < illegale> you mean irc stuff?
16:26 < urgen> yes
16:26 < illegale> some of members do not use irc
16:26 < urgen> forums, and email take FOREVER to have discussions
16:27 < illegale> second thing i have some preferences to gorups
16:27 < urgen> most real change happens in working groups
16:27 < illegale> hmh, rainstorm nad stuff?
16:27 < urgen> and they have fast paced discussion to work out the basic points
16:27 < urgen> then it can be returned to slower forum/newsgroup/email type discussions
16:27 < illegale> suppose it depends on the way we aproach it
16:28 < illegale> to me irc is for instant conflict stuff
16:28 < illegale> pop up stuff
16:28 < illegale> to soleve minosr things and all
16:28 < urgen> to me. there is only instant conflict stuff :-)
16:28 < illegale> aproaches and simmilar things take some more time
16:28 < illegale> oh no
16:29 < urgen> if there is already mutual understanding, nothing more to explore
16:29 < illegale> at this moment i do not even know what are the was we should aproach to
16:29 < urgen> just build
16:29 < illegale> and there are many i suppose
16:29 < urgen> that's project management
16:29 < illegale> what is our interest in dfining top and stuff
16:29 < illegale> suppose ye
16:29 < illegale> s
16:29 < illegale> though, did you ever be part of such proejct?
16:29 < urgen> sure
16:29 < illegale> really?
16:30 < illegale> what was it about?
16:30 * illegale thinks we should do a little study over this stuff first
16:31 < illegale> http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics/browse_frm/thread/01463d9906483418/c22ab83db60a2f78#c22ab83db60a2f78
16:31 < urgen> I was on the working group to arrive at the method for identification and verification for one of the ICANN at Large attempts to formalize
16:31 < urgen> they were and some still are interested in organizing an internet governance
16:32 < illegale> is that gorup top?
16:32 < urgen> the first split happens between the people that want the process to reflect the means vs the people that see politics as having nothing to do with what it represents
16:32 < illegale> brb, please continue
16:33 < urgen> http://www.fitug.de/atlarge-discuss/0308/maillist.html
16:33 < urgen> search August 16, 2003
16:34 < urgen> you can see that transparency was a talking point
16:35 < illegale> urgen, what is you name, if i may know?
16:36 < urgen> :P
16:36 < urgen> names show up when there is real work to do
16:36 < illegale> k
16:37 < urgen> http://www.fitug.de/atlarge-discuss/0308/msg00023.html
16:37 < urgen> same thread
16:37 < urgen> Let us get over the obvious - these are positions that should be held by
16:37 < urgen> politicians, not neophyte social climbers.
16:37 < urgen> As long as we keep electing engineers to play politcal rolls we will not
16:37 < urgen> succeed.
16:38 < urgen> some feel politicians understand this process better than the people that built the internet
16:38 < urgen> if that were true we would not be having votes about letting the conglomerate telephone companies control access to the internet right now
16:39 < urgen> http://www.freepress.net/news/16227
16:39 < urgen> to me, this is an extremely critical point
16:40 < illegale> seems to me you are focusing to yesterdays objection of me, right here. Cool
16:40 < urgen> one that addresses the conversation we were having before about whether 'politicians' can be considered special
16:40 < illegale> first, we hgave to see what politician actually mean?
16:40 < illegale> then we can go on
16:40 < urgen> of course
16:40 < urgen> but politicians take that personally
16:40 < illegale> so, what does politican mean to you urge?
16:41 < urgen> I see a politician as a technician
16:41 < illegale> for what?
16:41 < urgen> a technician has a set of tools they know how to use
16:41 < urgen> there are many different tools available
16:41 < urgen> each performs a specifica task
16:41 < urgen> none review the process
16:41 < urgen> none invent processes
16:41 < illegale> what does politician by his tools?
16:42 < urgen> there are some very powerful tools, like democracy, that seem to take on a life of their own
16:43 < illegale> can u define politican in one or two lines?
16:43 < urgen> from cory doctorows article you can see that these tools are powerful and often blind
16:43 < illegale> doctor has tool that enables him to cure patients
16:43 < illegale> stuff
16:43 < urgen> a politician is a technician trained in the management of debate
16:43 < urgen> that's about it
16:43 < illegale> can you do it for politician
16:44 < illegale> seems to me you are wrng about definition
16:44 < urgen> evidence shows wrong or not
16:44 < illegale> ive seen many powerfull politicans who where not into debats at all
16:44 < illegale> they are not polticians than?
16:44 < illegale> Gojko Susak, ministar of defense
16:45 < urgen> maybe I should say deliberation
16:45 < illegale> quiet person, knew to find loyal cadre
16:45 < urgen> I think debate is still quite primary,,, but we can change terms
16:45 < illegale> making him b very powerfull
16:45 < illegale> let me try defne politican
16:45 < urgen> you seem to feel debate means something different
16:45 < illegale> politician is person who manages social power
16:46 < urgen> that's what they want to believe
16:46 < urgen> and that's what they want people to believe, sure
16:46 < illegale> thats what politica does
16:46 < urgen> and as long as that belief holds it works
16:46 < urgen> but this is not what actually happens
16:46 < illegale> why should not it work?
16:46 < urgen> power corrupts
16:46 < urgen> end of game
16:46 < illegale> why is that so, hav you evr think about that?
16:47 < illegale> end of game means you take it as dogma
16:47 < illegale> not good
16:47 < urgen> lack of sincerity
16:47 < urgen> lack of honesty
16:47 < urgen> lack of maturity
16:47 < urgen> lack of appreciation
16:47 < urgen> on and on
16:47 < urgen> dogma is on the other side of the fence
16:47 < urgen> that's the point I am arguing
16:47 < illegale> what do you mean concretely when you say power corrupts?
16:48 < illegale> ops, i have to go :-(
16:48 < urgen> influence begins to leave evidence
16:48 < illegale> hope to keep this conversation soon.
16:48 < urgen> we begin to say things like, ok, today we outlaw gravity
16:48 < illegale> see you later, Urgen :)
16:48 < urgen> np
16:51 < urgen> from the freepress article: It’s a dumb idea to put the plumbers who laid a pipe in charge of who gets to use it. It’s a way to ensure that incumbents with the deepest pockets will always be able to deliver a better service to the public, simply by degrading the quality of everyone else’s offerings.
16:52 < urgen> when the legislative technicians begin to feel they are in charge of the pipes they lay the same problem happens there
16:53 < urgen> the 'social power' is not owned nor should ever be owned by politicians
16:53 < urgen> -- for illegale to find in the logs --
16:55 < urgen> so it is more a matter of defining corruption
16:56 < urgen> from: http://rss.cnn.com/2006/US/06/09/newmark.internet/ Telecommunication companies already control the pipes that carry the Internet into your home. Now they want control which sites you visit and how you experience them. They would provide privileged access for themselves and their preferred partners while charging other businesses for varying levels of service.
16:56 < urgen> same 'ownership' issue
17:09 -!- illegale [i=ille...@cmung116.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
18:19 -!- illegale (illegale) [i=ille...@cmung2583.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
18:19 < illegale> here i am
18:25 < illegale> ok, seems to me we wentin wrong direction
18:25 < illegale> the point is that people are carriers of the power
18:25 < illegale> not ideas
18:25 < illegale> so, you ave to create system that understnds that
18:25 < illegale> if you do not do it, you cant go fine
18:36 < illegale> ideas are strong as long as they have support in people
18:36 < illegale> with no support of the people they do now worth
18:37 < illegale> idea orientation in a way ive seen around actually comletely ignores concept of power, making it funny game instead of being a serious political project
18:37 < illegale> maybe it is possible to change that way, yet ive never seen those idea supporters become powerfull in any manner
18:38 < illegale> people oriented projects in otrher hand show some future
19:12 < illegale> the system is corrupted due to slowness of the transfer of the power enabling creation of classes /powerfull and unpowerfull ones/
21:29 -!- beeli (illegale) [i=ille...@cmung471.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
21:45 -!- illegale [i=ille...@cmung2583.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
21:48 -!- beeli is now known as illegale
22:11 -!- illegale [i=ille...@cmung471.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)]
22:46 -!- nsh_ (No Such Human) [n=n...@84-43-100-246.ppp.onetel.net.uk] has joined #parlement
23:01 -!- nsh [n=nsh@wikipedia/nsh] has quit [Read error: 113 (No route to host)]
23:04 < echarp> hello and good night
23:04 < echarp> I won't be much here tomorrow, work work work
23:04 < echarp> cu
23:12 -!- nsh__ (No Such Human) [n=n...@88.144.23.146] has joined #parlement
23:21 -!- nsh (No Such Human) [n=n...@87.242.152.81] has joined #parlement
23:26 -!- nsh_ [n=n...@84-43-100-246.ppp.onetel.net.uk] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
23:28 -!- nsh_ (No Such Human) [n=n...@88.144.46.19] has joined #parlement
23:35 -!- nsh__ [n=n...@88.144.23.146] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
23:37 -!- nsh__ (No Such Human) [n=n...@87.242.137.5] has joined #parlement
23:44 -!- nsh [n=n...@87.242.152.81] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
23:47 -!- nsh (No Such Human) [n=n...@88.144.41.41] has joined #parlement
23:52 -!- nsh_ [n=n...@88.144.46.19] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
23:55 -!- nsh_ (No Such Human) [n=n...@84-43-111-161.ppp.onetel.net.uk] has joined #parlement
--- Log closed lun jui 03 00:00:24 2006
echarp
Jul 4, 2006, 12:29:33 AM7/4/06
to top-politics
--- Log opened lun jui 03 00:00:24 2006
00:01 -!- nsh__ [n=n...@87.242.137.5] has quit [Connection timed out]
00:04 -!- nsh__ (No Such Human) [n=n...@88.144.30.216] has joined #parlement
00:10 -!- nsh [n=n...@88.144.41.41] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
00:19 -!- nsh_ [n=n...@84-43-111-161.ppp.onetel.net.uk] has quit [Connection timed out]
00:53 < urgen> <illegale> the point is that people are carriers of the power
00:53 < urgen> I can't agree with this in the least
00:53 < urgen> power can't be owned even by people\
00:55 < urgen> perception creates this power, the perception of power isn't something that people are born with.
00:56 < urgen> there is no magic power inherent in people just because they are born
00:57 < urgen> learning how perception works so that it can cultivate a better life is more than any politic could ever hope to achieve
01:19 < urgen> it is only an idea that drives your understanding of this
01:19 < urgen> http://www.leekspin.com/
12:14 -!- urgen [n=sp...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)]
12:18 -!- urgyen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
12:18 -!- urgyen is urgy
12:52 -!- illegale (illegale) [i=ille...@cmung2775.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
12:53 < illegale> ioð
12:53 -!- illegale [i=ille...@cmung2775.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Client Quit]
14:48 -!- illegale (illegale) [n=ille...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has joined #parlement
16:12 < urgyen> morning
16:19 < illegale> hey urgen!
16:19 < illegale> > About TOP
16:19 < illegale> >
16:19 < illegale> > The idea of completely TOP (transparent, open, pubilc) political interface where all participants have the direct aproach to all informations relevant for their making of their political decisions ( it was not possible before ), interface that thanks to archieving of all information enables backrouting for any wrong decision and articualtes direct responsibility for political action. Full transaprency and opennes of the political process
16:19 < urgyen> hi
16:19 < illegale> >
16:19 < illegale> > Now, I am going to elaborate on the meaning of these new principles.
16:19 < illegale> >
16:19 < illegale> > Full transparency
16:19 < illegale> >
16:19 < illegale> > Full transparency means transparent process of decision making based on publicly reachable information. Every political body needs to have clear mechanism of desicion making, that makes easy to articulate exact responsibilty of every single participant. Every political move, using TOP politics gets archived, so good or bad moves become permanently reachable to the public.
16:19 < illegale> >
16:19 < illegale> > This benchmark means that every single deed, including good ones become permanent capital in someones political reputation. In the same time every single wrong deed becomes permanent blur, so participants of the top politics need to be much more carefull about doing actions that might be wrong. The whole thing enables long term reputation building, where full transparency enables full blessing of such investment.
16:20 < illegale> >
16:20 < illegale> > To make comparison, todays political process can not enable profit based on good deeds, as long as the lack of transparency does not enable it. In the non transparent process that is going on the level of the World, oportunistic moves are the ones that profilate political elite. Wrong decisions or any other political deeds of individal participants due to curtain of non transparency do not attach proportional public support. Sadly, the sa
16:20 < illegale> >
16:20 < illegale> > The whole process of today becomes "loan shark" oriented, as long as there is no mechanism that would protect long term investemnts, aka good.
16:20 < illegale> can you read it?
16:20 < illegale> i am transplating plus reshaping some of the basic thoughts about top
16:20 < illegale> find it be imoprtant thing
16:20 < urgyen> ok
16:26 < urgyen> missing info: ? Sadly, the sa
16:26 < urgyen> is this already on TOP somewhere?
16:27 < illegale> what do you mean, urgyeNž??
16:27 < illegale> in this moment i am translating part about openness
16:27 < urgyen> toward the end of what you pasted it appears something got left out
16:28 < urgyen> I was just wondering if it was already online somewhere, I could read it there instead of you pasting here
16:28 < urgyen> IRC is not the best for pasting large chunks of text
16:29 < illegale> ok, no there is no such text on line yet
16:29 < illegale> it is n progress right now
16:29 < illegale> i thought to check it out with you maybe before publichsin it
16:29 < urgyen> so did I miss something? --> Sadly, the sa <--
16:32 < illegale> sorry?
16:32 < urgyen> the sentence is cut off
16:33 < illegale> ilate political elite. Wrong decisions or any other political deeds of individal participants due to curtain of non transparency do not attach proportional public support. Sadly, the same thing happens to good deeds, which makes them be non popular for the ambitious ones.
16:33 < illegale> 16:19 < illegale> >
16:33 < illegale> 16:19 < illegale> > The whole process of today becomes "loan shark" oriented, as long as there is no mechanism that would protect long term investemnts, aka good.
16:33 < illegale> ops, sorry
16:33 < urgyen> cool, thanks
16:34 < illegale> this is about machivalism being obsolent in the i age
16:35 < urgyen> well it is the first fresh perspective I've seen in quite a while, and now I finally understand TOP in a way that isn't just buzzwords
16:35 < urgyen> thank you
16:35 < illegale> Thank you :)
16:56 < urgyen> <buridan> because you keep saying 'it will work' and you never provide any evidence
16:56 < urgyen> evidence is why I brought fiatlex here
16:57 < urgyen> or as I said before in a conversation we had, "evidence will determine right or wrong"
16:57 < urgyen> <euicho> a large vocabulary and buzz words dont provide factual basis
16:57 < urgyen> you are getting the 'buzzword' issue presented again
16:58 < illegale> urgyen,why dont you join discussion?
16:58 < urgyen> it isn't a discussion
16:59 < illegale> ok
16:59 < illegale> what is it?
16:59 < illegale> flame?
16:59 < urgyen> you have some emotional investment, maybe that is ok, but sharing it like this does not help your case
17:00 < urgyen> that gets detected first
17:00 < urgyen> after that no one is listening
17:58 < illegale> Full openness
17:58 < illegale> In political process ceratin data becomes relevant information only in comparision to other datas that create political context. As long as it is hard thing to articulate full political context, political ideologies set dogmas that become political context enabling data become relevant info. Yet, in the age of Internet, those dogmas loose their importance due to their impossibility to explain the whole process that is becoming more and more
17:58 < illegale> Public initiatives that are not based on ideologies, but exact issues in this case have serious problems as long as the full political context is not reachable to them, so their political engagement in lack of political context makes such initiatives pretty regularly inneficient due to lack of info gorund.
17:59 < illegale> The way of how to solve this problem partially is enabling completely open political channel that will be able to join concepts that participants find be usefull for setting the context. In the same time full info opennes enables public help such TOP initiatives by giving usefull suggestions and comments that enable them be more efficient and effective.
17:59 < illegale> In this way, open initiatives are forced to adopt new commonly acknowledged info, which forces them to mature and be more effective. Those initiatives that where set on the wrong grounds do not need to pass the whole way to realise it also. This information optimisation enables much more satisfaction of the participants as long as their work using openness becomes much more satisfying, enablig promotion of activism.
17:59 < illegale> Non TOP politics due to lack of openness of their information capital, can not realise the political context, so they regularly miss it, becoming obsolete in political reality from their beggining. TOP politics due to its openness optimises itself to the moment it guarantees motivation for further political engagement.
17:59 < illegale> That is the part about openness
17:59 < urgyen> ok
18:03 < illegale> suppose it is much worse than the first part
18:04 < urgyen> well,,,
18:04 < urgyen> :-)
18:09 < illegale> Full publicity
18:09 < illegale> Completely open and transparent political action is public process, where politicis becomes public thing (one of the basic definitions of politics), which annuls disporportion among closed structures and their personal interests from one side and publicity from the other creating destabilisation of such political bodies, due to their real incompetence for making decisions in the name of pulic. By TOP politics, this disporportions is annule
18:09 < illegale> this you do not have to read actually
18:09 < illegale> :-)
19:44 * nsh__ smiles
19:44 < nsh__> stupid freenode
19:45 -!- nsh__ is now known as nsh
19:45 < illegale> jey nsh !
19:45 < nsh> hey illegale :-)
19:48 < urgyen> glad you got to have a chat with prax, illegale
19:48 < urgyen> I didn't want to interrupt because prax hates me
19:48 < nsh> hrmm
19:48 < illegale> lol
19:48 < illegale> did not know that
19:49 < urgyen> I asked prax to do the same thing I asked you to.. say the same thing without using buzzwords
19:49 < illegale> urgen, i think TOP is the missing link of democracy
19:49 < urgyen> I think TOP <-- needs a new name
19:49 < illegale> suppose that is the way of promotion
19:49 < illegale> yes?
19:49 < urgyen> is something unique and you should stop linking it with democracy <<-- buzzword
19:50 < illegale> hmh
19:50 < illegale> suppose concept of democracy has some strenght in heads of some people actually
19:50 < urgyen> trust economy is close but that sounds like a buzzword too
19:51 < illegale> machiavlism is thing i find be usefull
19:51 < urgyen> I think your trust has enough strength to stand alone
19:51 < urgyen> it does not need to lean on old words
19:52 < illegale> thouhg, we started articulating meaning of it at top politics
19:52 < illegale> what does top mean to you?
19:52 < illegale> is topic started by eric lm
19:52 < illegale> lim
19:52 < urgyen> it only means to me what you shared so far
19:52 * nsh smiles
19:52 < illegale> hmh, you are not attached to transaprencyŠ?
19:53 < illegale> or openess?
19:53 < illegale> or stuff like that?
19:53 < illegale> suppose that makes you get different aproach to such concepts
19:53 < urgyen> I think those are buzzwords too :-)
19:53 < urgyen> buzz is a kind of lie
19:53 < illegale> you are pretty hard to get over buzword :)
19:53 < illegale> open source
19:53 < urgyen> it makes a happy noise with no nutrition
19:53 < illegale> is it some sort of phenomen?
19:54 < illegale> i get it
19:54 < illegale> though, how to go step frutehr from bu word?
19:54 < urgyen> if you make me get around the word by explaining my understanding then you will see there are many many worlds contained in that phrase
19:55 < illegale> ok
19:55 < illegale> uh, i should find the way of getting good definitionexplanation of TOP
19:55 < illegale> this is the first project of organisation of 4 of us
19:55 < urgyen> it seemed like your first paragraph was the best so far
19:55 < urgyen> the open and the public are just extra baggage
19:56 < illegale> i think so either
19:56 < urgyen> change 'transparency' and you have the whole thing
19:56 < illegale> oh, not extra, but not so tasty imo:)
19:56 < illegale> this stuff about context, find it important..
19:56 < illegale> maybe not in that article but
19:56 < urgyen> it is worth exploring
19:57 < illegale> though, this is jsut my article, Eric made anophter post, seems we will take several aproaches
19:58 < illegale> if you find some aproache worth of us, please post to top politics
19:58 < illegale> to spread the view as long as it is possible before narrowing it
19:58 < illegale> gotta go
19:58 < illegale> see you all
19:58 < illegale> :)
19:58 -!- illegale [n=ille...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has left #parlement []
19:58 < urgyen> http://bridgeheart.net/parlement/irc.freenode.net:6667/parlement/2006-07-03.html
19:59 < urgyen> you can read illegale's 'full transparency' section
19:59 < urgyen> short read
19:59 < urgyen> finally makes sense to me
20:13 < nsh> hmm
20:14 < urgyen> if there were a metric to measure 'return on trust' you'd probably 'invest' in the one that 'produced'
20:15 < urgyen> maybe this is just system of persuasion but it seems to have options for self correction
20:16 * nsh smiles
20:16 < nsh> a system can have different motivations for different participants
20:17 < nsh> with a general trend of progression
20:17 < urgyen> corruption will always be present
20:17 < nsh> but there are less robberies in daylight :-)
20:20 < urgyen> so what's new?
20:21 < nsh> bought an astrolabe
20:21 < nsh> i think that's what they're called
20:21 < urgyen> :-))
20:22 < nsh> it's cool
20:22 < urgyen> I've been envisioning one that's partially digital to turn it into a sundial
20:22 < nsh> aye
20:22 < urgyen> have a prism mounted in the center and measure wavelength to tell time AND date
20:23 < nsh> how do you mean?
20:24 < urgyen> you know how light draws a figure 8 through a hole projected onto a wall as the sun moves through the seasons?
20:25 < nsh> lemniscate
20:25 < nsh> yeah
20:25 < urgyen> so sundials can do time and date
20:25 < urgyen> you just have to be able to capture the angles of the 'shadow' better
20:26 < urgyen> if it was converted to rainbow then you'd get light frequency accuracy
20:26 < nsh> interesting
20:26 < nsh> i like the idea
20:27 < urgyen> so receiving side is a spectrometer
20:27 < urgyen> and that converts to digital numbers
20:27 < urgyen> etc
20:28 < nsh> mmm
20:29 * nsh throws stones into the lake
20:29 < nsh> ripples disperse but the stones remain there
20:29 < nsh> so occasionally, you're ankle gets hurt, or more generally, an emotional reaction
20:29 < nsh> *your
20:30 < nsh> what do they call the action of making a sound on a guitar string?
20:30 < nsh> not pluck..
20:31 < nsh> "1553, of imitative origin." - http://etymonline.com/?term=twang
20:32 < urgyen> I guess some 'pick'
20:33 < urgyen> but maybe that's not quite right either
20:33 < urgyen> strum
20:33 < urgyen> but that means many strings
20:33 < nsh> mmm
20:34 < nsh> so
20:34 < nsh> there seems to be a problem with the idea of equal investiture
20:34 < nsh> for example, not caring about family and friends to the exclusion of strangers
20:34 < nsh> it seems equivalent to investing in every stock on the market
20:35 < urgyen> :-)
20:35 < urgyen> I had a similar thought
20:35 < nsh> how did it conclude?
20:36 < urgyen> just noting novelness of the context
20:37 < urgyen> that it might be worth comparing to altruistics
20:37 < urgyen> if there wasn't actually a hidden value/formula there
20:37 < urgyen> a return not explicit
20:37 < nsh> mmm
20:37 < nsh> i guess the analogy is imperfect
20:37 < nsh> because the kind of investing we do in people has quality
20:38 < nsh> in addition to quantity
20:38 < nsh> therefore it can vary according to needs and means
20:39 < urgyen> and investment by being novel :-)
20:39 < urgyen> hey, had you heard of 'syntagm' before?
20:41 < urgyen> syntagma, syntagmata, syntagmatic
20:41 < urgyen> I like it
20:41 < nsh> hrmm
20:41 < nsh> don't think i've encountered it
20:41 < nsh> ah, semotics term
20:42 < nsh> http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/S4B/sem03.html
20:47 < urgyen> :-) it just seems to play so well with what I do so often --
20:47 < urgyen> A syntagm is an orderly combination of interacting signifiers which forms a meaningful whole within a text
20:47 < urgyen> I've been very focussed on process of meaning by means of breaking it down into components
20:49 < urgyen> tho this isn't quite the same it nearly works as a metaphor
20:49 < urgyen> or at least just one of the components
20:50 * nsh nods
20:50 < nsh> metcalfe's law
20:50 < nsh> Metcalfe's law states that the value of a telecommunications network is proportional to the square of the number of users of the system (n2).
20:51 < nsh> meaning is like routing between the syntagma
20:51 < nsh> *syntagmata
20:51 < urgyen> I found the term at: http://www.as.ua.edu/ant/Faculty/murphy/436/pomo.htm when you scroll down to the list comparing modernism and postmodernism
20:54 < nsh> interesting list
20:54 < urgyen> so you bought an astrolabe... that mean you have spare change?
20:56 * nsh nods
20:56 < urgyen> I'm still just scraping by
20:57 < urgyen> hoping that might change by next month
21:01 < nsh> have paypal?
21:03 < urgyen> I think it has -$10 :-)
21:03 < urgyen> I wasnt' begging...
21:03 < urgyen> no virtual paper cups here
21:03 * nsh smiles
21:03 < urgyen> I was just thinking that the sun was shining on your life a little more
21:04 < nsh> and i'm sure some plants are wilting
21:04 < nsh> :-)
21:04 < urgyen> hehe
21:04 < urgyen> ya trade offs are hard
21:05 < nsh> indeed
21:06 < urgyen> most the plants get much more sturdy in the long run
21:06 < nsh> or evolve to become cacti
21:06 < nsh> sharp and prickly
21:21 < urgyen> so without heady input seems the channel non business traffic bounces around trivial chatter :-)
21:22 < urgyen> no wonder phenny was muzzled ;-)
21:22 * nsh smiles
21:22 < nsh> people don't like parsing effort
21:22 < nsh> lots of phenny results look messy
21:23 < urgyen> ya
21:23 < nsh> and the fallacy of disrupted conversation is invoked (probably unconsciously) to try and stop the mess
21:28 * nsh hrmms
21:35 < urgyen> so
21:35 < urgyen> seems illegale's interest is to implement the trust economy
21:36 < nsh> so it seems
21:36 < urgyen> echarp wants to build the discussion halls
21:36 < urgyen> I want to build the lab that produces tested process
21:36 < nsh> hmm
21:36 < nsh> process?
21:38 < urgyen> illegale says things like principle vs idea
21:38 < urgyen> where I say all principle is none other than idea due to 'process' of perception
21:39 < urgyen> I try to remove the battle by dropping everything to a process
21:39 < urgyen> and allowing the lab to determine 'lie or not'
21:39 * nsh nods
21:39 < urgyen> so far it appears lie or not is a false dichotomy
21:40 * nsh tries to think of a true dichotomy..
21:40 < nsh> or rather, non-provisional
21:40 < urgyen> hehe
21:40 < nsh> conditional
21:40 < nsh> limited case use
21:40 < nsh> you use one ski more when cornering
21:40 < nsh> :-)
21:40 < urgyen> guess by definition
21:40 < nsh> lemma mutability
21:40 < nsh> mm
21:40 < urgyen> just say black or white only
21:42 < urgyen> there can't be any 'true' unless it is dependent OR you understand that the origin of this basis is generated from outside the limits that define it
21:42 < urgyen> and that second loop takes special climbing ropes to get to
21:42 < urgyen> parse bias
21:43 < urgyen> when ppl collapse the two we get problems
21:43 < urgyen> so even there, this 'two' is actually three because we have excluded middle
21:43 < nsh> hmm
21:43 * nsh smiles
21:44 < nsh> from 1 comes 2, from 2 comes 10,000
21:45 < nsh> so a process testing system
21:46 < nsh> must be able to apply contradictory lemmas over different areas
21:46 < nsh> simultaniously
21:47 < urgyen> you remember what those snow bumps that skiiers hop over to do tricks?
21:47 < urgyen> mogals?
21:47 < urgyen> ( are called )
21:47 < nsh> yeah
21:47 < nsh> mogols
21:47 < nsh> actually, not sure of spelling
21:48 < urgyen> me neither
21:48 < urgyen> nice play on modal tho
21:48 < nsh> moguls
21:48 < nsh> mmm
21:48 < nsh> interesting
21:48 < urgyen> multi-mogal skiing
21:48 < nsh> requires flexibility between grounding and centre
21:48 < urgyen> once you can hop lots of mogals the issue becomes moot
21:48 < nsh> (of gravity, system)
21:48 < nsh> right
21:48 < urgyen> it is the learning to hop that is the hard part
21:48 * nsh ndos
21:48 < nsh> *nods
21:49 < nsh> phenny "'powerful person,' 1678, from Great Mogul, Mongol emperor of India after the conquest of 1526, from Pers. and Arabic mughal, mughul, alt. of Mongol (q.v.), the Asiatic people." - http://etymonline.com/?term=mogul
21:49 < urgyen> ya not exactly the same thing :-) sort of
21:49 < urgyen> industrial mogals
21:51 < nsh> "elevation on a ski slope," 1961, probably from Scand. (cf. dial. Norw. mugje, fem. muga, "a heap, a mound"), or from southern Ger. dial. mugel in the same sense.
21:51 < nsh> yeah
21:51 < nsh> convergent
21:51 < nsh> skandha
21:52 < urgyen> hehe
21:52 < urgyen> multi-national conglomerate
21:52 < nsh> mmm
21:53 < nsh> hrmm
21:53 < nsh> did i ever mention emergy?
21:53 < nsh> [sic]
21:53 < urgyen> don't recall
21:54 < urgyen> had to blink twice to see the m
21:54 < urgyen> :-)
21:54 < nsh> :-)
21:54 < nsh> concept invented by an ecologist/biologist
21:54 < nsh> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergy
21:54 < nsh> Odum
21:54 < nsh> i was thinking about the relative efficiencies of small organisms and large organisms
21:54 < nsh> protoplasm -> human
21:55 < nsh> then realised simple energy ratios wouldn't be sufficient information
21:55 < nsh> and remembered coming across the concept
21:55 < nsh> in some book, maybe "Evolution of consciousness"
21:56 < nsh> so, kinda links with "difference that makes a difference"
21:56 < nsh> and "Unit of survival is organism /and/ environment"
22:02 < urgyen> ah
22:02 < urgyen> that seems to be similar to the ken wilber integral
22:02 < urgyen> sum of the parts thing
22:02 < nsh> mmm
22:02 < urgyen> what is lost when you collapse complex back into simple
22:03 < nsh> integral theory of consciousness?
22:03 < urgyen> there is an integral commons, even these day :-)
22:03 * nsh smiles
22:07 * nsh brb scavenging
22:08 < urgyen> it takes a long time to communicate an integral commons
22:11 < nsh> how do you mean?
22:12 < urgyen> same way it takes a long time to communicate open source
22:12 < nsh> ah
22:12 < urgyen> http://www.freepress.net/news/16227
22:14 < urgyen> from there a link, and I quote a quote "Think of the pipes and wires that you use to go online as a sidewalk. The question is whether the sidewalk should get a cut of the value of the conversations that you have as you walk along?"
22:14 < urgyen> open is very difficult to parse
22:14 < nsh> hrmm
22:15 < urgyen> it is the O in illegale's TOP
22:15 * nsh nods
22:15 < urgyen> and the sidewalk just in front of a particular shop or the ppl that poured it or.. ..
22:16 * nsh doesn't even want to think about it
22:16 < urgyen> so open and commons are very similar
22:16 < urgyen> integral means synergistic
22:16 < nsh> it scares me that i'll try so hard to figure out why [they] can think it's teneble that i'll actually start understanding it
22:16 < urgyen> value derived by participation
22:17 < urgyen> the synergy part was why I liked the syntagm
22:17 < nsh> synergy part of ?
22:19 < urgyen> part of integral part of commons part of participation part of arriving at mutual understanding
22:20 * nsh smiles
22:20 < nsh> synergy -> integral -> commons -> participation -> consensus
22:20 < urgyen> ya
22:20 < nsh> integral takes a function [process] and finds area under it
22:21 < nsh> process, logical concatenation of concepts
22:21 < nsh> area, understanding
22:21 < urgyen> right
22:21 < urgyen> it's cool
22:21 < nsh> aye
22:25 < urgyen> bringing daydreams to the edge of substance seems like a great use of human attention and then learning that it can be optimized...
22:25 < nsh> visualisation?
22:25 < urgyen> you get quantum intelligence
22:26 < urgyen> kenwilber calls it vision-logic
22:26 < nsh> mmm
22:26 < nsh> currently reading a book that which uses the term preverbal something
22:26 < nsh> *checks*
22:27 < nsh> rpeverbal imagery
22:27 < nsh> *preverbal
22:27 < nsh> In Ken Wilber's integral theory, vision-logic is a post-formal but personal level of cognitive development. A characteristic of vision-logic is the ability to conceptualize and compare different perspectives or point of view. In Wilber's theory, vision-logic corresponds to awareness at the centauric level of consciousness.
22:27 < nsh> In the book Sex, Ecology, Spirituality Wilber describes vision-logic as a planetary awareness. He uses it to translate the term vernunft as used by the German idealists, which means something like "transcendal knowledge". --Wikipedia
22:27 < urgyen> which is fine as a term if one has arrived at the structure of a preverb
22:27 < nsh> hrm
22:28 < nsh> veneeer
22:28 < nsh> s/eee/ee
22:28 < urgyen> there can be a tendency to anti-conceptualize
22:28 < nsh> wobbling?
22:28 < urgyen> primoridal is a difficult concept
22:28 < urgyen> oops
22:28 < urgyen> primordial
22:28 < nsh> surely the goal is not to reverse conceptualisation, but to transcend it
22:28 < nsh> hmm
22:29 < urgyen> prior-without without antithesis -- simplification without losing the synergy
22:30 -!- urgyen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)]
22:30 -!- urgen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
22:30 < urgen> oops
22:31 < urgen> disconnect
22:31 * nsh nods
22:31 < nsh> "prior-without without antithesis -- simplification without losing the synergy" ellaborate?
22:32 < nsh> i went to tripod, straight away
22:32 < nsh> but i still have threephilia
22:32 < nsh> :-)
22:32 < urgen> I like triad a lot tho
22:32 < urgen> picking up any one corner changes the other two
22:33 < nsh> right
22:34 < nsh> hrmm
22:43 * nsh mutliconversing, sorry
22:43 < urgen> np
22:43 < urgen> I'm suppose to be building a web page editing system
22:43 < nsh> it's called "vi"
22:43 * nsh sounds old
22:43 < urgen> :-) fer ppl that can't read words with only two letters
22:43 < nsh> lol
22:44 < nsh> i think a firefox based system would be cool
22:44 < nsh> with quasi-wysiwyg editing
22:44 < urgen> ya that would be nice but even firefox is a little bit elite
22:45 < nsh> mmm
22:45 < urgen> and it doesn't work on everything.. (old mac os9)
22:45 < nsh> true
--- Log closed mar jui 04 00:00:24 2006
00:01 -!- nsh__ [n=n...@87.242.137.5] has quit [Connection timed out]
00:04 -!- nsh__ (No Such Human) [n=n...@88.144.30.216] has joined #parlement
00:10 -!- nsh [n=n...@88.144.41.41] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
00:19 -!- nsh_ [n=n...@84-43-111-161.ppp.onetel.net.uk] has quit [Connection timed out]
00:53 < urgen> <illegale> the point is that people are carriers of the power
00:53 < urgen> I can't agree with this in the least
00:53 < urgen> power can't be owned even by people\
00:55 < urgen> perception creates this power, the perception of power isn't something that people are born with.
00:56 < urgen> there is no magic power inherent in people just because they are born
00:57 < urgen> learning how perception works so that it can cultivate a better life is more than any politic could ever hope to achieve
01:19 < urgen> it is only an idea that drives your understanding of this
01:19 < urgen> http://www.leekspin.com/
12:14 -!- urgen [n=sp...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)]
12:18 -!- urgyen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
12:18 -!- urgyen is urgy
12:52 -!- illegale (illegale) [i=ille...@cmung2775.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
12:53 < illegale> ioð
12:53 -!- illegale [i=ille...@cmung2775.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Client Quit]
14:48 -!- illegale (illegale) [n=ille...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has joined #parlement
16:12 < urgyen> morning
16:19 < illegale> hey urgen!
16:19 < illegale> > About TOP
16:19 < illegale> >
16:19 < illegale> > The idea of completely TOP (transparent, open, pubilc) political interface where all participants have the direct aproach to all informations relevant for their making of their political decisions ( it was not possible before ), interface that thanks to archieving of all information enables backrouting for any wrong decision and articualtes direct responsibility for political action. Full transaprency and opennes of the political process
16:19 < urgyen> hi
16:19 < illegale> >
16:19 < illegale> > Now, I am going to elaborate on the meaning of these new principles.
16:19 < illegale> >
16:19 < illegale> > Full transparency
16:19 < illegale> >
16:19 < illegale> > Full transparency means transparent process of decision making based on publicly reachable information. Every political body needs to have clear mechanism of desicion making, that makes easy to articulate exact responsibilty of every single participant. Every political move, using TOP politics gets archived, so good or bad moves become permanently reachable to the public.
16:19 < illegale> >
16:19 < illegale> > This benchmark means that every single deed, including good ones become permanent capital in someones political reputation. In the same time every single wrong deed becomes permanent blur, so participants of the top politics need to be much more carefull about doing actions that might be wrong. The whole thing enables long term reputation building, where full transparency enables full blessing of such investment.
16:20 < illegale> >
16:20 < illegale> > To make comparison, todays political process can not enable profit based on good deeds, as long as the lack of transparency does not enable it. In the non transparent process that is going on the level of the World, oportunistic moves are the ones that profilate political elite. Wrong decisions or any other political deeds of individal participants due to curtain of non transparency do not attach proportional public support. Sadly, the sa
16:20 < illegale> >
16:20 < illegale> > The whole process of today becomes "loan shark" oriented, as long as there is no mechanism that would protect long term investemnts, aka good.
16:20 < illegale> can you read it?
16:20 < illegale> i am transplating plus reshaping some of the basic thoughts about top
16:20 < illegale> find it be imoprtant thing
16:20 < urgyen> ok
16:26 < urgyen> missing info: ? Sadly, the sa
16:26 < urgyen> is this already on TOP somewhere?
16:27 < illegale> what do you mean, urgyeNž??
16:27 < illegale> in this moment i am translating part about openness
16:27 < urgyen> toward the end of what you pasted it appears something got left out
16:28 < urgyen> I was just wondering if it was already online somewhere, I could read it there instead of you pasting here
16:28 < urgyen> IRC is not the best for pasting large chunks of text
16:29 < illegale> ok, no there is no such text on line yet
16:29 < illegale> it is n progress right now
16:29 < illegale> i thought to check it out with you maybe before publichsin it
16:29 < urgyen> so did I miss something? --> Sadly, the sa <--
16:32 < illegale> sorry?
16:32 < urgyen> the sentence is cut off
16:33 < illegale> ilate political elite. Wrong decisions or any other political deeds of individal participants due to curtain of non transparency do not attach proportional public support. Sadly, the same thing happens to good deeds, which makes them be non popular for the ambitious ones.
16:33 < illegale> 16:19 < illegale> >
16:33 < illegale> 16:19 < illegale> > The whole process of today becomes "loan shark" oriented, as long as there is no mechanism that would protect long term investemnts, aka good.
16:33 < illegale> ops, sorry
16:33 < urgyen> cool, thanks
16:34 < illegale> this is about machivalism being obsolent in the i age
16:35 < urgyen> well it is the first fresh perspective I've seen in quite a while, and now I finally understand TOP in a way that isn't just buzzwords
16:35 < urgyen> thank you
16:35 < illegale> Thank you :)
16:56 < urgyen> <buridan> because you keep saying 'it will work' and you never provide any evidence
16:56 < urgyen> evidence is why I brought fiatlex here
16:57 < urgyen> or as I said before in a conversation we had, "evidence will determine right or wrong"
16:57 < urgyen> <euicho> a large vocabulary and buzz words dont provide factual basis
16:57 < urgyen> you are getting the 'buzzword' issue presented again
16:58 < illegale> urgyen,why dont you join discussion?
16:58 < urgyen> it isn't a discussion
16:59 < illegale> ok
16:59 < illegale> what is it?
16:59 < illegale> flame?
16:59 < urgyen> you have some emotional investment, maybe that is ok, but sharing it like this does not help your case
17:00 < urgyen> that gets detected first
17:00 < urgyen> after that no one is listening
17:58 < illegale> Full openness
17:58 < illegale> In political process ceratin data becomes relevant information only in comparision to other datas that create political context. As long as it is hard thing to articulate full political context, political ideologies set dogmas that become political context enabling data become relevant info. Yet, in the age of Internet, those dogmas loose their importance due to their impossibility to explain the whole process that is becoming more and more
17:58 < illegale> Public initiatives that are not based on ideologies, but exact issues in this case have serious problems as long as the full political context is not reachable to them, so their political engagement in lack of political context makes such initiatives pretty regularly inneficient due to lack of info gorund.
17:59 < illegale> The way of how to solve this problem partially is enabling completely open political channel that will be able to join concepts that participants find be usefull for setting the context. In the same time full info opennes enables public help such TOP initiatives by giving usefull suggestions and comments that enable them be more efficient and effective.
17:59 < illegale> In this way, open initiatives are forced to adopt new commonly acknowledged info, which forces them to mature and be more effective. Those initiatives that where set on the wrong grounds do not need to pass the whole way to realise it also. This information optimisation enables much more satisfaction of the participants as long as their work using openness becomes much more satisfying, enablig promotion of activism.
17:59 < illegale> Non TOP politics due to lack of openness of their information capital, can not realise the political context, so they regularly miss it, becoming obsolete in political reality from their beggining. TOP politics due to its openness optimises itself to the moment it guarantees motivation for further political engagement.
17:59 < illegale> That is the part about openness
17:59 < urgyen> ok
18:03 < illegale> suppose it is much worse than the first part
18:04 < urgyen> well,,,
18:04 < urgyen> :-)
18:09 < illegale> Full publicity
18:09 < illegale> Completely open and transparent political action is public process, where politicis becomes public thing (one of the basic definitions of politics), which annuls disporportion among closed structures and their personal interests from one side and publicity from the other creating destabilisation of such political bodies, due to their real incompetence for making decisions in the name of pulic. By TOP politics, this disporportions is annule
18:09 < illegale> this you do not have to read actually
18:09 < illegale> :-)
19:44 * nsh__ smiles
19:44 < nsh__> stupid freenode
19:45 -!- nsh__ is now known as nsh
19:45 < illegale> jey nsh !
19:45 < nsh> hey illegale :-)
19:48 < urgyen> glad you got to have a chat with prax, illegale
19:48 < urgyen> I didn't want to interrupt because prax hates me
19:48 < nsh> hrmm
19:48 < illegale> lol
19:48 < illegale> did not know that
19:49 < urgyen> I asked prax to do the same thing I asked you to.. say the same thing without using buzzwords
19:49 < illegale> urgen, i think TOP is the missing link of democracy
19:49 < urgyen> I think TOP <-- needs a new name
19:49 < illegale> suppose that is the way of promotion
19:49 < illegale> yes?
19:49 < urgyen> is something unique and you should stop linking it with democracy <<-- buzzword
19:50 < illegale> hmh
19:50 < illegale> suppose concept of democracy has some strenght in heads of some people actually
19:50 < urgyen> trust economy is close but that sounds like a buzzword too
19:51 < illegale> machiavlism is thing i find be usefull
19:51 < urgyen> I think your trust has enough strength to stand alone
19:51 < urgyen> it does not need to lean on old words
19:52 < illegale> thouhg, we started articulating meaning of it at top politics
19:52 < illegale> what does top mean to you?
19:52 < illegale> is topic started by eric lm
19:52 < illegale> lim
19:52 < urgyen> it only means to me what you shared so far
19:52 * nsh smiles
19:52 < illegale> hmh, you are not attached to transaprencyŠ?
19:53 < illegale> or openess?
19:53 < illegale> or stuff like that?
19:53 < illegale> suppose that makes you get different aproach to such concepts
19:53 < urgyen> I think those are buzzwords too :-)
19:53 < urgyen> buzz is a kind of lie
19:53 < illegale> you are pretty hard to get over buzword :)
19:53 < illegale> open source
19:53 < urgyen> it makes a happy noise with no nutrition
19:53 < illegale> is it some sort of phenomen?
19:54 < illegale> i get it
19:54 < illegale> though, how to go step frutehr from bu word?
19:54 < urgyen> if you make me get around the word by explaining my understanding then you will see there are many many worlds contained in that phrase
19:55 < illegale> ok
19:55 < illegale> uh, i should find the way of getting good definitionexplanation of TOP
19:55 < illegale> this is the first project of organisation of 4 of us
19:55 < urgyen> it seemed like your first paragraph was the best so far
19:55 < urgyen> the open and the public are just extra baggage
19:56 < illegale> i think so either
19:56 < urgyen> change 'transparency' and you have the whole thing
19:56 < illegale> oh, not extra, but not so tasty imo:)
19:56 < illegale> this stuff about context, find it important..
19:56 < illegale> maybe not in that article but
19:56 < urgyen> it is worth exploring
19:57 < illegale> though, this is jsut my article, Eric made anophter post, seems we will take several aproaches
19:58 < illegale> if you find some aproache worth of us, please post to top politics
19:58 < illegale> to spread the view as long as it is possible before narrowing it
19:58 < illegale> gotta go
19:58 < illegale> see you all
19:58 < illegale> :)
19:58 -!- illegale [n=ille...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has left #parlement []
19:58 < urgyen> http://bridgeheart.net/parlement/irc.freenode.net:6667/parlement/2006-07-03.html
19:59 < urgyen> you can read illegale's 'full transparency' section
19:59 < urgyen> short read
19:59 < urgyen> finally makes sense to me
20:13 < nsh> hmm
20:14 < urgyen> if there were a metric to measure 'return on trust' you'd probably 'invest' in the one that 'produced'
20:15 < urgyen> maybe this is just system of persuasion but it seems to have options for self correction
20:16 * nsh smiles
20:16 < nsh> a system can have different motivations for different participants
20:17 < nsh> with a general trend of progression
20:17 < urgyen> corruption will always be present
20:17 < nsh> but there are less robberies in daylight :-)
20:20 < urgyen> so what's new?
20:21 < nsh> bought an astrolabe
20:21 < nsh> i think that's what they're called
20:21 < urgyen> :-))
20:22 < nsh> it's cool
20:22 < urgyen> I've been envisioning one that's partially digital to turn it into a sundial
20:22 < nsh> aye
20:22 < urgyen> have a prism mounted in the center and measure wavelength to tell time AND date
20:23 < nsh> how do you mean?
20:24 < urgyen> you know how light draws a figure 8 through a hole projected onto a wall as the sun moves through the seasons?
20:25 < nsh> lemniscate
20:25 < nsh> yeah
20:25 < urgyen> so sundials can do time and date
20:25 < urgyen> you just have to be able to capture the angles of the 'shadow' better
20:26 < urgyen> if it was converted to rainbow then you'd get light frequency accuracy
20:26 < nsh> interesting
20:26 < nsh> i like the idea
20:27 < urgyen> so receiving side is a spectrometer
20:27 < urgyen> and that converts to digital numbers
20:27 < urgyen> etc
20:28 < nsh> mmm
20:29 * nsh throws stones into the lake
20:29 < nsh> ripples disperse but the stones remain there
20:29 < nsh> so occasionally, you're ankle gets hurt, or more generally, an emotional reaction
20:29 < nsh> *your
20:30 < nsh> what do they call the action of making a sound on a guitar string?
20:30 < nsh> not pluck..
20:31 < nsh> "1553, of imitative origin." - http://etymonline.com/?term=twang
20:32 < urgyen> I guess some 'pick'
20:33 < urgyen> but maybe that's not quite right either
20:33 < urgyen> strum
20:33 < urgyen> but that means many strings
20:33 < nsh> mmm
20:34 < nsh> so
20:34 < nsh> there seems to be a problem with the idea of equal investiture
20:34 < nsh> for example, not caring about family and friends to the exclusion of strangers
20:34 < nsh> it seems equivalent to investing in every stock on the market
20:35 < urgyen> :-)
20:35 < urgyen> I had a similar thought
20:35 < nsh> how did it conclude?
20:36 < urgyen> just noting novelness of the context
20:37 < urgyen> that it might be worth comparing to altruistics
20:37 < urgyen> if there wasn't actually a hidden value/formula there
20:37 < urgyen> a return not explicit
20:37 < nsh> mmm
20:37 < nsh> i guess the analogy is imperfect
20:37 < nsh> because the kind of investing we do in people has quality
20:38 < nsh> in addition to quantity
20:38 < nsh> therefore it can vary according to needs and means
20:39 < urgyen> and investment by being novel :-)
20:39 < urgyen> hey, had you heard of 'syntagm' before?
20:41 < urgyen> syntagma, syntagmata, syntagmatic
20:41 < urgyen> I like it
20:41 < nsh> hrmm
20:41 < nsh> don't think i've encountered it
20:41 < nsh> ah, semotics term
20:42 < nsh> http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/S4B/sem03.html
20:47 < urgyen> :-) it just seems to play so well with what I do so often --
20:47 < urgyen> A syntagm is an orderly combination of interacting signifiers which forms a meaningful whole within a text
20:47 < urgyen> I've been very focussed on process of meaning by means of breaking it down into components
20:49 < urgyen> tho this isn't quite the same it nearly works as a metaphor
20:49 < urgyen> or at least just one of the components
20:50 * nsh nods
20:50 < nsh> metcalfe's law
20:50 < nsh> Metcalfe's law states that the value of a telecommunications network is proportional to the square of the number of users of the system (n2).
20:51 < nsh> meaning is like routing between the syntagma
20:51 < nsh> *syntagmata
20:51 < urgyen> I found the term at: http://www.as.ua.edu/ant/Faculty/murphy/436/pomo.htm when you scroll down to the list comparing modernism and postmodernism
20:54 < nsh> interesting list
20:54 < urgyen> so you bought an astrolabe... that mean you have spare change?
20:56 * nsh nods
20:56 < urgyen> I'm still just scraping by
20:57 < urgyen> hoping that might change by next month
21:01 < nsh> have paypal?
21:03 < urgyen> I think it has -$10 :-)
21:03 < urgyen> I wasnt' begging...
21:03 < urgyen> no virtual paper cups here
21:03 * nsh smiles
21:03 < urgyen> I was just thinking that the sun was shining on your life a little more
21:04 < nsh> and i'm sure some plants are wilting
21:04 < nsh> :-)
21:04 < urgyen> hehe
21:04 < urgyen> ya trade offs are hard
21:05 < nsh> indeed
21:06 < urgyen> most the plants get much more sturdy in the long run
21:06 < nsh> or evolve to become cacti
21:06 < nsh> sharp and prickly
21:21 < urgyen> so without heady input seems the channel non business traffic bounces around trivial chatter :-)
21:22 < urgyen> no wonder phenny was muzzled ;-)
21:22 * nsh smiles
21:22 < nsh> people don't like parsing effort
21:22 < nsh> lots of phenny results look messy
21:23 < urgyen> ya
21:23 < nsh> and the fallacy of disrupted conversation is invoked (probably unconsciously) to try and stop the mess
21:28 * nsh hrmms
21:35 < urgyen> so
21:35 < urgyen> seems illegale's interest is to implement the trust economy
21:36 < nsh> so it seems
21:36 < urgyen> echarp wants to build the discussion halls
21:36 < urgyen> I want to build the lab that produces tested process
21:36 < nsh> hmm
21:36 < nsh> process?
21:38 < urgyen> illegale says things like principle vs idea
21:38 < urgyen> where I say all principle is none other than idea due to 'process' of perception
21:39 < urgyen> I try to remove the battle by dropping everything to a process
21:39 < urgyen> and allowing the lab to determine 'lie or not'
21:39 * nsh nods
21:39 < urgyen> so far it appears lie or not is a false dichotomy
21:40 * nsh tries to think of a true dichotomy..
21:40 < nsh> or rather, non-provisional
21:40 < urgyen> hehe
21:40 < nsh> conditional
21:40 < nsh> limited case use
21:40 < nsh> you use one ski more when cornering
21:40 < nsh> :-)
21:40 < urgyen> guess by definition
21:40 < nsh> lemma mutability
21:40 < nsh> mm
21:40 < urgyen> just say black or white only
21:42 < urgyen> there can't be any 'true' unless it is dependent OR you understand that the origin of this basis is generated from outside the limits that define it
21:42 < urgyen> and that second loop takes special climbing ropes to get to
21:42 < urgyen> parse bias
21:43 < urgyen> when ppl collapse the two we get problems
21:43 < urgyen> so even there, this 'two' is actually three because we have excluded middle
21:43 < nsh> hmm
21:43 * nsh smiles
21:44 < nsh> from 1 comes 2, from 2 comes 10,000
21:45 < nsh> so a process testing system
21:46 < nsh> must be able to apply contradictory lemmas over different areas
21:46 < nsh> simultaniously
21:47 < urgyen> you remember what those snow bumps that skiiers hop over to do tricks?
21:47 < urgyen> mogals?
21:47 < urgyen> ( are called )
21:47 < nsh> yeah
21:47 < nsh> mogols
21:47 < nsh> actually, not sure of spelling
21:48 < urgyen> me neither
21:48 < urgyen> nice play on modal tho
21:48 < nsh> moguls
21:48 < nsh> mmm
21:48 < nsh> interesting
21:48 < urgyen> multi-mogal skiing
21:48 < nsh> requires flexibility between grounding and centre
21:48 < urgyen> once you can hop lots of mogals the issue becomes moot
21:48 < nsh> (of gravity, system)
21:48 < nsh> right
21:48 < urgyen> it is the learning to hop that is the hard part
21:48 * nsh ndos
21:48 < nsh> *nods
21:49 < nsh> phenny "'powerful person,' 1678, from Great Mogul, Mongol emperor of India after the conquest of 1526, from Pers. and Arabic mughal, mughul, alt. of Mongol (q.v.), the Asiatic people." - http://etymonline.com/?term=mogul
21:49 < urgyen> ya not exactly the same thing :-) sort of
21:49 < urgyen> industrial mogals
21:51 < nsh> "elevation on a ski slope," 1961, probably from Scand. (cf. dial. Norw. mugje, fem. muga, "a heap, a mound"), or from southern Ger. dial. mugel in the same sense.
21:51 < nsh> yeah
21:51 < nsh> convergent
21:51 < nsh> skandha
21:52 < urgyen> hehe
21:52 < urgyen> multi-national conglomerate
21:52 < nsh> mmm
21:53 < nsh> hrmm
21:53 < nsh> did i ever mention emergy?
21:53 < nsh> [sic]
21:53 < urgyen> don't recall
21:54 < urgyen> had to blink twice to see the m
21:54 < urgyen> :-)
21:54 < nsh> :-)
21:54 < nsh> concept invented by an ecologist/biologist
21:54 < nsh> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergy
21:54 < nsh> Odum
21:54 < nsh> i was thinking about the relative efficiencies of small organisms and large organisms
21:54 < nsh> protoplasm -> human
21:55 < nsh> then realised simple energy ratios wouldn't be sufficient information
21:55 < nsh> and remembered coming across the concept
21:55 < nsh> in some book, maybe "Evolution of consciousness"
21:56 < nsh> so, kinda links with "difference that makes a difference"
21:56 < nsh> and "Unit of survival is organism /and/ environment"
22:02 < urgyen> ah
22:02 < urgyen> that seems to be similar to the ken wilber integral
22:02 < urgyen> sum of the parts thing
22:02 < nsh> mmm
22:02 < urgyen> what is lost when you collapse complex back into simple
22:03 < nsh> integral theory of consciousness?
22:03 < urgyen> there is an integral commons, even these day :-)
22:03 * nsh smiles
22:07 * nsh brb scavenging
22:08 < urgyen> it takes a long time to communicate an integral commons
22:11 < nsh> how do you mean?
22:12 < urgyen> same way it takes a long time to communicate open source
22:12 < nsh> ah
22:12 < urgyen> http://www.freepress.net/news/16227
22:14 < urgyen> from there a link, and I quote a quote "Think of the pipes and wires that you use to go online as a sidewalk. The question is whether the sidewalk should get a cut of the value of the conversations that you have as you walk along?"
22:14 < urgyen> open is very difficult to parse
22:14 < nsh> hrmm
22:15 < urgyen> it is the O in illegale's TOP
22:15 * nsh nods
22:15 < urgyen> and the sidewalk just in front of a particular shop or the ppl that poured it or.. ..
22:16 * nsh doesn't even want to think about it
22:16 < urgyen> so open and commons are very similar
22:16 < urgyen> integral means synergistic
22:16 < nsh> it scares me that i'll try so hard to figure out why [they] can think it's teneble that i'll actually start understanding it
22:16 < urgyen> value derived by participation
22:17 < urgyen> the synergy part was why I liked the syntagm
22:17 < nsh> synergy part of ?
22:19 < urgyen> part of integral part of commons part of participation part of arriving at mutual understanding
22:20 * nsh smiles
22:20 < nsh> synergy -> integral -> commons -> participation -> consensus
22:20 < urgyen> ya
22:20 < nsh> integral takes a function [process] and finds area under it
22:21 < nsh> process, logical concatenation of concepts
22:21 < nsh> area, understanding
22:21 < urgyen> right
22:21 < urgyen> it's cool
22:21 < nsh> aye
22:25 < urgyen> bringing daydreams to the edge of substance seems like a great use of human attention and then learning that it can be optimized...
22:25 < nsh> visualisation?
22:25 < urgyen> you get quantum intelligence
22:26 < urgyen> kenwilber calls it vision-logic
22:26 < nsh> mmm
22:26 < nsh> currently reading a book that which uses the term preverbal something
22:26 < nsh> *checks*
22:27 < nsh> rpeverbal imagery
22:27 < nsh> *preverbal
22:27 < nsh> In Ken Wilber's integral theory, vision-logic is a post-formal but personal level of cognitive development. A characteristic of vision-logic is the ability to conceptualize and compare different perspectives or point of view. In Wilber's theory, vision-logic corresponds to awareness at the centauric level of consciousness.
22:27 < nsh> In the book Sex, Ecology, Spirituality Wilber describes vision-logic as a planetary awareness. He uses it to translate the term vernunft as used by the German idealists, which means something like "transcendal knowledge". --Wikipedia
22:27 < urgyen> which is fine as a term if one has arrived at the structure of a preverb
22:27 < nsh> hrm
22:28 < nsh> veneeer
22:28 < nsh> s/eee/ee
22:28 < urgyen> there can be a tendency to anti-conceptualize
22:28 < nsh> wobbling?
22:28 < urgyen> primoridal is a difficult concept
22:28 < urgyen> oops
22:28 < urgyen> primordial
22:28 < nsh> surely the goal is not to reverse conceptualisation, but to transcend it
22:28 < nsh> hmm
22:29 < urgyen> prior-without without antithesis -- simplification without losing the synergy
22:30 -!- urgyen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)]
22:30 -!- urgen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
22:30 < urgen> oops
22:31 < urgen> disconnect
22:31 * nsh nods
22:31 < nsh> "prior-without without antithesis -- simplification without losing the synergy" ellaborate?
22:32 < nsh> i went to tripod, straight away
22:32 < nsh> but i still have threephilia
22:32 < nsh> :-)
22:32 < urgen> I like triad a lot tho
22:32 < urgen> picking up any one corner changes the other two
22:33 < nsh> right
22:34 < nsh> hrmm
22:43 * nsh mutliconversing, sorry
22:43 < urgen> np
22:43 < urgen> I'm suppose to be building a web page editing system
22:43 < nsh> it's called "vi"
22:43 * nsh sounds old
22:43 < urgen> :-) fer ppl that can't read words with only two letters
22:43 < nsh> lol
22:44 < nsh> i think a firefox based system would be cool
22:44 < nsh> with quasi-wysiwyg editing
22:44 < urgen> ya that would be nice but even firefox is a little bit elite
22:45 < nsh> mmm
22:45 < urgen> and it doesn't work on everything.. (old mac os9)
22:45 < nsh> true
--- Log closed mar jui 04 00:00:24 2006
echarp
Jul 5, 2006, 12:31:19 AM7/5/06
to top-politics
--- Log opened mar jui 04 00:00:24 2006
00:17 < nsh> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5058672332658910022
00:17 < nsh> interesting
00:25 < urgen> thanks
00:25 < urgen> kind of fun
00:25 < nsh> mm
00:26 < urgen> so I've noticed something when I watch talk show type recordings
00:26 < nsh> corpus callosum :-)
00:26 < urgen> I don't need very much time to get the inflection/body language
00:26 < nsh> hrmm
00:26 < nsh> how do you mean?
00:27 < urgen> I watch then only listen while doing something else
00:27 < nsh> oh right
00:27 < nsh> yeah
00:27 < urgen> not much need for it to be a video
00:27 < nsh> nah, mostly only audial information
00:28 < nsh> interesting thesis at ~40%
00:28 * nsh wonders why google video doesn't show how far you are into a clip
00:28 < nsh> in minutes and seconds
00:29 < urgen> mine seems to, over on the left
00:29 < urgen> right, I meant
00:29 < urgen> :P
00:29 < urgen> 10:21 / 1:47:55
00:29 < nsh> hrmm
00:30 < nsh> maybe preferences
00:30 < urgen> I'm in firefox
00:30 * nsh too
00:31 < nsh> logging into google account hasn't changed anything
00:33 * nsh shrugs
00:33 < nsh> can't find it
00:33 < nsh> and now lost buffer and place
00:33 < nsh> :-)
00:34 < nsh> anyway, the thesis i meant was the 7hz ionospherical ressonance
00:34 < urgen> blah, he just said permanent eternal thing is evolving
00:34 < nsh> well
00:34 < nsh> ..
00:34 < nsh> :-)
00:34 < urgen> hehe
00:35 < nsh> permanent eternal thing = evolving
00:35 < nsh> linguistic ambiguity
00:36 < urgen> ok
00:36 < urgen> not to be taken literally
00:37 < nsh> my literal is not your literal
00:37 < nsh> so there has to be some flexibility, i guess
00:37 < nsh> zooming
00:37 < nsh> fractal
00:37 < nsh> any term i use
00:37 < nsh> is going to map to a slightly different zone
00:37 < nsh> by successive mismapping between speaker and listener
00:37 < nsh> comes disagreement
00:38 < nsh> though the fractal mapped is identical
00:56 < nsh> hmmm
01:46 < nsh> this gets very esoteric
01:53 < nsh> s/esoteric/scenic/
01:53 < nsh> as in, scenic route..
01:53 < nsh> to a known destination :-)
01:56 < nsh> going for nightcap, back in ~15m
04:27 * urgen wakes up from a nap
05:22 < urgen> Help, I'm drowning in a pizza pan!
10:25 < echarp> hello hello
11:40 -!- illegale (illegale) [n=gale...@161.53.121.88] has joined #parlement
11:40 < illegale> hey!
11:41 < echarp> bonjour illegale
11:41 < echarp> how are you?
11:41 < illegale> hjey!
11:41 < illegale> zizou is bacvk :)
11:41 < echarp> lol
11:42 < illegale> is france happy?
11:42 < echarp> I didn't even watch the game, was doing some paintball and card games with some friends
11:42 < illegale> nice
11:42 < echarp> I've heard french hurras until quite late in the night :)
11:42 < illegale> yet, the play was good even for those who are not like it
11:42 < illegale> who notl ike tit
11:42 < echarp> there even are a few flags on windows, which is an incredibly rare sight around here
11:42 < illegale> that is positive
11:43 < echarp> kind of
11:43 < illegale> untill ou endangeour others freedom :-)
11:43 < echarp> exactly :)
11:43 < illegale> so you where paintballing?
11:43 < illegale> have a gun or loan it=?
11:43 < echarp> I think that games, sports, are nice, just somethimes they seem to reach incredibly highs and lows!
11:43 < illegale> yes
11:43 < echarp> loan it, it was my first time in fact
11:43 < echarp> my friends killed me!
11:43 < illegale> cool
11:44 < illegale> like it=?
11:44 < illegale> hehe
11:44 < illegale> shoot the president
11:44 < illegale> of parlement
11:44 < echarp> it's cool, just I need to be much more attentive
11:44 < echarp> lol
11:44 < illegale> gonna do it again?
11:44 < echarp> running and shooting is nice, but you need to spot your opponents first! :)
11:44 < echarp> I will definitely
11:44 < illegale> cool
11:44 < echarp> and it's a really great group of friends
11:44 < illegale> my people is trying to do it for a few years
11:44 < echarp> Free Software geeks! :)
11:45 < illegale> do not find time, money, whatever and we did not do it yet
11:45 < illegale> theys can be dangerous i knwo
11:45 < illegale> descent stuff
11:45 < illegale> played it?
11:45 < echarp> played what?
11:45 < illegale> descent?
11:45 < illegale> space game
11:46 < echarp> a game of space ship in mines?
11:46 < illegale> do nto know for it
11:46 < illegale> itr was popular in 86-7
11:46 < echarp> I played and loved it, a long time ago at uni
11:46 < echarp> yeap! :)
11:46 < illegale> 96-7
11:46 < echarp> I was quite good
11:46 < echarp> :)
11:46 < illegale> yes
11:46 < illegale> so, it can teach you a lot for this stuff
11:46 < illegale> where to wait for enemy and all
11:46 < echarp> we only had a few team games
11:46 < illegale> warfare it is
11:46 < illegale> k
11:46 < echarp> the admins didn't appreciate much our using their computers for this :)
11:47 < illegale> i know some geeks are pretty dangerious in pantball
11:47 < echarp> you bet!
11:47 < illegale> heh
11:47 < illegale> unreal made the big impact
11:47 < illegale> too
11:47 < echarp> one of us had what looked like a professional sniper gun
11:47 < echarp> a nut! :)
11:47 < illegale> friend of mine can walk blinded and shoot everybofdy
11:47 < echarp> oh
11:47 < illegale> yes
11:47 < illegale> that is it
11:47 < illegale> something like jean claude stuff
11:47 < illegale> :-.D
11:47 < echarp> and we had some cool babes in the group, the real hot kind ;)
11:48 < illegale> did you shoot them?
11:48 < illegale> or took as prisonerS?
11:48 < echarp> shoot
11:48 < illegale> by the law of war?
11:48 < illegale> huh
11:48 < echarp> flag, fort and respawn games
11:48 < illegale> how many of you where in hte gane=?
11:48 < illegale> have some pictureS=?
11:48 < illegale> :-)
11:49 < echarp> 11
11:49 < illegale> judge?
11:50 < echarp> it's a professional place, so judge and all that yes
11:50 < illegale> lol
11:50 < illegale> lunatics :)
11:51 < echarp> illegale: to advance in the photo slideshow, just press enter
11:51 < echarp> it's going to go from photo to photo as you click on enter
11:52 < illegale> where did you find all of those babes?
11:53 < illegale> they are really nice :)ž
11:53 < echarp> friends
11:53 < illegale> most of them :)
11:53 < echarp> all of them
11:54 < illegale> of course :)
11:54 < illegale> programers?
11:54 < echarp> one of them broke up with hey boy friend, you want to try your luck? ;)
11:54 < echarp> the geek kind mostly yes
11:54 < echarp> manga geeks
11:54 < illegale> coo
11:54 < illegale> l
11:54 < echarp> you bet
11:54 < illegale> i am in longtime and happy relationship
11:54 < echarp> of course all guys around them are in love
11:55 < illegale> .)
11:55 < illegale> there where some though shoots i can notice
11:55 < illegale> did you get some?
11:56 < illegale> reminds me to jackass
11:56 < echarp> tough shoots?
11:56 < illegale> you know, shoot in the butt and stuff
11:56 < illegale> where there is no armor
11:57 < illegale> it can be painfull pretty much i hear
11:57 < echarp> :)
11:57 < illegale> and you where not that lucky i see
11:57 < echarp> I'm sure
11:57 < echarp> I was not very good, so no problem anyway
11:57 < illegale> hehe
11:58 < illegale> what is the plan to do it again?
11:58 < illegale> before or after thegame wirh portugal?
11:58 < illegale> do not say me during
11:58 < illegale> because of the price :)
12:01 < illegale> so, you gonna watch the next game in football or not?
12:03 < illegale> E! :)
12:03 < echarp> it's not related at all to football, they don't really like that nationalitisc thing
12:03 < echarp> I'm not sure if I'll watch it
12:03 < illegale> oh, gee
12:03 < echarp> but I'll be with some other friends to see the finale
12:03 < echarp> they invited me for dinner, I can't refuse can I? :)
12:03 < illegale> finnay some positive feed back .)
12:04 < illegale> you geek man !
12:04 < illegale> my frien geeks do nto watch it either!
12:04 < illegale> Markus does only
12:04 < illegale> :)
12:04 < echarp> lol
12:04 < illegale> i usually gwet so pissed of that i need a day to chill out
12:04 < echarp> woaw
12:05 < echarp> that's huge for 22 guys running around :)
12:05 < illegale> emotions
12:05 < illegale> that is not just that
12:05 < echarp> yeap, emotions can not be controlled that easily
12:05 < illegale> far from that
12:05 < illegale> it is about our projections
12:05 < echarp> I'll admit that my heart does pound harder when I hear the marseillaise
12:05 < echarp> brain programmation! :)
12:05 < illegale> that stuff it is
12:05 < illegale> of course!
12:05 < illegale> i do not mind about that of coruse
12:06 < illegale> i like mass postivie vibe stuff
12:06 < echarp> yeap, and France is very very fond of the republic
12:06 < illegale> that is pretty cool phenomenon
12:07 < illegale> i propose to you to go out and be part of it
12:08 < illegale> have few beers and stuff
12:08 < illegale> :)
12:08 < illegale> that stuff does not happen to often
12:08 < illegale> btw, do you party?
12:08 < illegale> techno and stuff?
12:09 < echarp> not really
12:09 < echarp> it's definitely not what I like
12:09 < illegale> hehe
12:10 < illegale> i went to couple of such ocation
12:10 < echarp> http://radioparadise.com
12:10 < illegale> that is not fully me, yet it is cool
12:10 < echarp> that's my music :)
12:10 < echarp> but I should go out, to find a girl... :)
12:10 < illegale> tis about t shirtsT?
12:11 < illegale> poprock?
12:11 < illegale> that is nice, yet not for every mood
12:12 < illegale> seems Magnus is gonna join to 4 of us :)
12:12 < echarp> pop rock yes
12:12 < echarp> and eclectic
12:12 < echarp> oh, cool
12:13 < illegale> did not read recent posts?
12:13 < echarp> he's been testing parlement, and he already found a bug! :)
12:13 < illegale> hehe
12:13 < illegale> crazy swede
12:13 < echarp> I've been on it for some time already
12:13 < illegale> is he fine with parlemetn?
12:14 < echarp> he seems
12:14 < illegale> cool
12:14 < illegale> i like when we set grouping stuff
12:15 < illegale> though, about 5 of us
12:15 < illegale> 5 is not that bad number
12:15 < illegale> i am afraid of 6
12:15 < echarp> it's a great number!
12:15 < illegale> yes
12:16 < illegale> we should look for soem couple to pass number 6
12:16 < illegale> :)
12:16 < illegale> like in Japan, heard they do not have 4th floor
12:18 < echarp> oh
12:18 < echarp> how is that?
12:18 < echarp> fear of something?
12:18 < illegale> it is like number 13 for us
12:18 < illegale> that might be urbal legend
12:18 < illegale> can ask at joiito
12:18 < illegale> there is several japanese
12:18 < illegale> out there
12:19 < echarp> I guess there are yes
12:22 < echarp> bon appétit!
12:23 < illegale> why=ž
12:23 < illegale> eating?
12:24 < illegale> though, there is a big stuff in front of 5 of us :-)
12:33 < illegale> http://www.rense.com/Datapages/morgdat.htm
12:57 < illegale> echarp: we have to create first project of 5 of us if we want to suceed in it
12:57 < illegale> i find it unadequate practice that we just talk about it non systematically
12:57 < illegale> you?
13:18 < echarp> back
13:25 < illegale> ops, be back soon
13:25 -!- illegale [n=gale...@161.53.121.88] has quit []
13:42 -!- illegale (illegale) [n=ille...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has joined #parlement
13:42 < illegale> back i am
13:48 < illegale> echarp: you know about the way how ancient greeks solvled delicate issues?
13:51 < echarp> the boules?
13:57 < illegale> Now you reminded me about how in ancient Greece example where some
13:57 < illegale> military decisions that where too risky to be set publicly done. Some
13:57 < illegale> man came with location of where the Spartanian (if I remind corectly)
13:57 < illegale> keep their ships on ground. So, they choosed team of respected and
13:57 < illegale> trust wrothy people to make that in the name all. In that way they
13:57 < illegale> where all satisfied.
13:57 < illegale> can we use it in top*?
14:00 < illegale> echarp: you think we do not need to set some system of how to solve our first formal goal?
14:08 < illegale> join #esp
14:10 < illegale> echarp: why do you need TOP definition actually'ž
14:14 < echarp> illegale: I need it to know what we are talking about, that's mostly all
14:14 < echarp> you are back on #esp?
14:15 < illegale> they banned one ip
14:15 < illegale> its nothing happening there though
14:15 < echarp> I'm sure not much happens there
14:16 < echarp> it's mostly a few hard core hacker, like tav
14:16 < illegale> so, do we need to create project of articulation or just let it fo?
14:16 < illegale> go?
14:16 < illegale> nevermind about esp
14:20 < echarp> we need to articulate our position
14:22 < illegale> what do you mean y that?
14:22 < echarp> to define the concepts we share
14:22 < echarp> it's a foundation
14:22 < echarp> like in philosophy, one define the concepts he will use
14:23 < echarp> your last mail on that was quite a good start
14:24 -!- illegale [n=ille...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has quit [Remote closed the connection]
14:25 -!- illegale (illegale) [n=ille...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has joined #parlement
14:25 < echarp> re illegale :)
14:25 < echarp> illegale: I've just corrected the bug that magnus found!
14:25 * echarp is happy, it was tough on the db
14:26 < illegale> whats happening?
14:26 < echarp> I don't know
14:26 < echarp> happening to what or where?
14:26 < echarp> on my machine?
14:26 < illegale> it says user illegale has joined
14:26 < illegale> as i loged again
14:26 < illegale> see usrs and stuff
14:26 < illegale> and i ams til there
14:26 < illegale> suppose some ping stuff :)
14:26 < echarp> you are logged from 2 places
14:27 < echarp> well, I guess
14:27 < echarp> sometimes freenode does some weird things with their servers
14:27 < illegale> echarp: you think we do not need to set some system of how to solve our first formal goal?
14:29 < echarp> we can also do that in parallel yes
14:30 < echarp> goals are important, but goals often define the concepts they use
14:31 < illegale> hmh, so lets let it go for a weak or so, than lets se what do with all we get?
14:32 < echarp> I'm fine with that yes!
14:32 < echarp> it's cool to have magnus on board :)
14:33 < illegale> it really is
14:33 < illegale> i find him be pretty fundamental about top
14:33 < illegale> when i met him he forces public dialogue
14:34 < echarp> that's really cool
14:35 < illegale> about top, i find the reason we are not eqaul in info ditribution
14:35 < illegale> so, if we want democracy, we need equality and fundamenet equality is equaliti in info
14:36 < illegale> TOp enables it
14:36 < illegale> so, no TOP no democracy actuall
14:36 < illegale> yy
14:39 < echarp> that depends the level of required information
14:39 < echarp> but yes, all information required to take a decision is an interesting criterion
14:39 < echarp> I don't know if it's enough, and more important, if it's possible!
14:40 < echarp> because information "useful" to take a decision, is a difficult and relative concept
14:40 < illegale> did you read last mails at top?
14:40 < echarp> rapidly, that bug took all my energy ;)
14:40 < illegale> do it when you find time, we are discussing over that stuff i think
14:42 < echarp> it's done now, but that bug was quite important because one could not anymore post or even consult some things on parlement
14:42 < illegale> ok
14:43 < illegale> http://open.coop/history.htm
14:59 < illegale> http://open.coop/tiki-index.php?page=Open+Organisation
15:01 < echarp> that's TOP by another name!?
15:01 < illegale> hmh, maybe
15:02 < echarp> what differences do you spot?
15:02 < echarp> the big one
15:02 < illegale> none in this moment
15:03 < illegale> seems jhb created software
15:03 < illegale> planet is its nam
15:03 < illegale> e
15:03 < illegale> now i registers and looking around
15:04 < illegale> salfield is there too
15:04 < illegale> incredible :-=
15:04 < illegale> )
15:05 < illegale> jeffarch of course :)
15:07 < illegale> see first problem : Permission denied you cannot view this page
15:07 < illegale> :-(
15:07 < echarp> :)
15:07 < echarp> shame shame shame! :)
15:07 < illegale> not glad for that
15:11 < illegale> suppose this definition is desparealte needed
15:11 < echarp> it is
15:12 < echarp> and it needs to be phrased concisely and precisely
15:12 < echarp> maybe some great man of our past already did that?
15:13 < illegale> hmh, have somebody in mind=?
15:13 < echarp> not really no :(
15:14 < echarp> information theories are still rather young
15:14 < illegale> yes and they are the essence of it
15:15 < echarp> yeap
15:18 < illegale> hmh, do not like definitions in open organisation
15:25 < echarp> why is that?
15:27 < illegale> An open organisation is an organisation open to anyone who agrees to abide by its purpose and principles, with complete transparency and clearly defined desicion making structures, ownership patterns, and exchange mechanisms; designed, defined, and refined, by all members as part of a continual transformative process. Source
15:28 < illegale> in the same time they all take decision makng strucutre be rough concensus
15:28 < illegale> it is far from clear i might notice
15:29 < echarp> consensus minus one is a decision making process I quite like
15:30 < illegale> that is regularly fine in small groups
15:30 < echarp> I think it is yes
15:30 < echarp> and it allows disagrement
15:31 < illegale> would youjjoin this group?
15:31 < illegale> there is many intersting stuff around there,
15:31 < illegale> not intended for public, though
15:31 < echarp> I'm already on #opencoop
15:31 < illegale> http://open.coop/tiki-index.php?page=strategic+plan
15:31 < illegale> can you open this link?
15:33 < illegale> this stuff lacks with communication software i envision
15:36 < echarp> interesting
15:36 < echarp> most interesting
15:41 < illegale> http://open.coop/voop%2Bfunctional%2Bspec
15:41 < illegale> salfield did it
15:47 < illegale> http://open.coop/tiki-index.php?page=Decision+making
15:47 < illegale> cool
16:00 < illegale> what you say?
16:01 < echarp> a bit too complex for my taste
16:02 < echarp> I see they use a system very much like -1/0/+1 :
16:02 < echarp> :)
16:04 < illegale> hmh, i see it as good intention, yet suppose they should start from beggining again pretty soon
16:04 < illegale> in the mean time, i might hang around a bit
16:05 < echarp> I see you commented yes ;)
16:05 < illegale> they do not enable equality by info principle of thesite
16:05 < illegale> that is not good
16:05 < illegale> puts admin in the supreme position, that disables wider legitimation
16:05 < echarp> true yes
16:05 < echarp> admin are the one step most people forget about
16:06 < illegale> yes
16:06 < illegale> i do not see cleat organisation principles of the site
16:06 < illegale> either
16:06 < illegale> maybe i lurk bad
16:06 < illegale> though, i see it important in a way of enabling learning people how to use it properly
16:10 < illegale> so, anything you would like to paste to top politics group*
16:10 < illegale> ?
16:38 < echarp> just the delimitation of what is transparent or not
16:39 < echarp> I understand quite well what eric says on those matters
16:39 < echarp> private individuals can speak privately on public matters
16:39 < echarp> what about public individuals?
16:40 < illegale> you mean, can he talkt to family about politics at all?
16:40 < illegale> what do you think about what I wrote?
16:41 < illegale> I mean, lets set up net based requieremnets that distinct ones of others
16:41 < illegale> i can notice no US party has forum, not US important media
16:41 < illegale> that is not strictly controles?
16:41 < illegale> d
16:41 < illegale> I find it be very interesting moment
16:42 < echarp> even worse, can he talk about public stuff privately
16:44 < illegale> he can i suppose
16:44 < illegale> he can arange deals also
16:44 < illegale> privately
16:45 < illegale> yet, if there is no argumentation before him, he can legitimate quiet hardly
16:45 < illegale> forum enables legitimation of decisions much more easily
16:45 < illegale> at one side you have person who just acts in what he thinks is right,
16:45 < illegale> and the one person that forces public dialogue in proces of decsion making
16:46 < illegale> whom should you support?
16:48 < illegale> to me first step is actually enabling free info pass using legitimate sites of political actors
16:49 < illegale> sites that are visited
16:49 < illegale> and carried on
16:49 < illegale> and concentratedd
16:50 < echarp> me it's about the democratic process, that process *requires* transparency to be legitimate
16:50 < echarp> but it's for the process itself
16:50 < echarp> ie, die bold machines should die! :)
16:51 < illegale> ok, lets see political reality
16:51 < illegale> does it require in this moment?
16:51 < illegale> no
16:51 < illegale> suppose there is no one who would be concurency
16:51 < illegale> competition
16:53 < echarp> does it require what? transparency?
16:54 < illegale> yes
16:54 < illegale> if transparency helps political bodie get legiitimated it is good,
16:54 < illegale> if not, it is not good
16:54 < illegale> i mean effectie by good
16:54 < echarp> I think this is how it is yes
16:55 < echarp> ngo also need transparency, to show their legitimation
16:59 < illegale> of course
17:06 < illegale> Paradox of ruler
17:06 < illegale> Ruler /body that cares political power/ is only in ability to realise just society, but ruler in just society can not do whatever he wants as long as it is binded by common law, which is not happening in non just society where rulers will becomes actually only measure of someones ability. In injust society ruler is bounded only to its personal will enabling himself much bigger freedom where we as humans naturally aspire.
17:06 < echarp> so maybe top could also be used for all online organisations
17:06 < illegale> To create just society, it is necessary that ones who cares political power be completely bridled from the side of individuals who create political base of the one. The only possible way autor of this text sees is fully informed political base (which was not possible before internet due to lack of adequate political media), in order to disable manipulations of political reality from one side and freedom of political market from the other si
17:06 < illegale> As long as political base is non informed, political exponents might claim untruths that support his personal interests that might not be public ones and in the same time, due to control of mass media by consolidated and yet non democratic political strucures, by not alowing new people gain public trust, so political exponents remain to be only virtual option, being safe from any sanctions oriented to non responsible behaviour.
17:06 < illegale> new text about essence of non utopism
17:08 < echarp> (hard to read text, need to be simplified)
17:09 < illegale> when you are at position of power
17:09 < illegale> you do not need other rules but your will
17:09 < illegale> that is oportunistic behabviour of all of us
17:10 < illegale> all other rules are the ones that should be changed in order to set your will be in the first place
17:10 < urgen> morning
17:10 < illegale> hello, urgen
17:10 < echarp> hello hello urgen
17:10 < urgen> :-)
17:10 < echarp> illegale: many politicians do that yes
17:11 < echarp> they want to be at the very top of the pyramid
17:12 < illegale> i find it be human nature
17:12 < echarp> it probably is yes
17:12 < illegale> do not know any politician do oposite thing, unless he has some misision to realise
17:13 < illegale> so, setting to line of mission he seems to be just
17:13 < illegale> that is imo stuff with me
17:13 < echarp> that's what julius cesar did, he came at the very top, but the remaining aristocrats, who traditionally share the top powers, didn't really accept that
17:13 < illegale> of course
17:13 < illegale> loosing power is existential issue
17:14 < echarp> they used to have a kind of rotating plateau, never have one person in power, at least two
17:14 < illegale> oligarchy i see
17:14 < illegale> and did remove every hero from rome
17:14 < echarp> aristocracy it was
17:14 < echarp> the founding families
17:15 < illegale> if it is closed strucutre it isbased on oligopoly
17:15 < illegale> and base on oligopoly creates oligarchy
17:15 < illegale> that is the dictionary i use
17:15 < illegale> political dicitonary
17:15 < echarp> well, maybe an aristocracy is also an oligarchy
17:15 < illegale> in difference aristocracy might not be oligarcy
17:15 < illegale> if that is based on deeds
17:16 < illegale> it is sort of democracy actualyl
17:16 < illegale> in the same time
17:16 < illegale> the stuff i am looking for
17:19 < echarp> the deed was their family reputation
17:20 < echarp> which is not usually a democratic way to choose leaders
17:21 < illegale> the reputation was based on theexclusive structure, that is the problem
17:21 < illegale> noone knows everything stuff
17:21 < illegale> and you give the right to such structure that it knows
--- Log opened mar jui 04 19:55:41 2006
19:55 -!- echarp [n=33M0...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has joined #parlement
19:55 -!- Topic for #parlement: http://leparlement.org/irc
19:55 -!- Topic set by echarp [] [Sun Jun 11 20:50:53 2006]
19:55 [Users #parlement]
19:55 [ echarp] [ fiatlex] [ nsh] [ parlebot] [ urgen]
19:55 -!- Irssi: #parlement: Total of 5 nicks [0 ops, 0 halfops, 0 voices, 5 normal]
19:55 -!- Channel #parlement created Thu Apr 27 09:48:29 2006
19:56 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
19:56 -!- Topic for #parlement: http://leparlement.org/irc
19:56 -!- Topic set by echarp [] [Sun Jun 11 20:50:53 2006]
19:56 -!- Irssi: Join to #parlement was synced in 32 secs
19:56 < echarp> re
19:58 < urgen> re
20:00 < echarp> it's hot hot hot in here!
20:00 < echarp> let's hope we get a nice storm
20:00 < urgen> utoh
20:00 < urgen> beautiful here today
20:18 < echarp> it rained for a few minutes, what a pleasure!
20:22 < urgen> so you get a nasaTV stream working?
20:22 < urgen> http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/countdown/video/
20:22 < urgen> 14 minutes to launch
20:25 < echarp> does not seem to work for me
20:26 < urgen> the real feed?
20:26 < urgen> http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/rr.pl?kscnasa.rm
20:27 < urgen> http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/rrg2.pl?encoder/nasatv.rm
20:30 < urgen> http://www.nasa.gov/ram/35037main_portal.ram
20:31 < urgen> quicktime: http://www.nasa.gov/qtl/151335main_NASA_TV_QT.qtl
20:35 < echarp> they don't have any mplayer enabled feed? :(
20:35 < echarp> I'm on gnu/linux
20:35 < urgen> lots
20:35 < urgen> I was thinking maybe mplayer didn't work for you
20:35 < urgen> http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/index.html?skipIntro=1
20:36 < urgen> http://www.nasa.gov/55644main_NASATV_Windows.asx
20:41 < echarp> I'm not sure it will do
20:41 < urgen> http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/main/index.html
20:41 < urgen> has a plugin version from webpage
20:41 < echarp> I've got a yahoo page
20:42 < echarp> but it's just showing a static flash page
20:42 < urgen> hmn
20:49 < urgen> there real exciting stuff is the spacewalks a couple days from today
20:49 < echarp> and there seem to be a limit reached on real player
20:49 < urgen> 4th of july made it a popular event
20:49 < urgen> no one will be watching spacewalk
20:49 < echarp> :)
20:57 < echarp> I've got the sound with http://www.nasa.gov/ram/35037main_portal.ram
20:59 < urgen> ppl will start to drop off soon
21:00 < urgen> game starts now tho
21:00 < urgen> :-)
21:34 < echarp> I'm watching desperate housewives, also quite spatial :)
22:38 < echarp> urgen: that's it, realplayer can work with mplayer!!!
22:38 < echarp> I had to fiddle with its path to its codecs libraries
22:39 < urgen> that's generally what's recomended for nix or mac
22:39 < echarp> it's mplayer, so I love it :)
22:39 < echarp> just it manages to use the proper codecs, I didn't know it could
22:39 < urgen> I'm pretty sure I got media player to work before tho
22:40 < echarp> the stream is of very good quality
22:40 < urgen> I was using mplayer to capture a stream
22:40 < echarp> media player under gnu/linux?
22:40 < urgen> someone did an opensource codec but I don't recall where it is
22:40 < echarp> well, it's packaged for debian, just there was a missing link
22:41 < echarp> ln -s /usr/lib/win32/ /usr/lib/codecs
22:41 < echarp> and it works :)
22:41 < urgen> cool
22:41 < urgen> I'm watching a very fuzzy soccer match from a chinese stream
22:42 < echarp> :)
22:42 < echarp> I can even see the flicker on their screens
22:42 < urgen> nasatv is on the local public access channel television
22:42 < urgen> ya it's usually a very high quality stream
22:42 < urgen> there are 300 and 500K streams out there
22:46 < echarp> that one is a 164k one
22:47 < urgen> these days they auto adjust
23:04 < echarp> it does yes!
23:04 < echarp> what time do you think will be take off?
23:04 < urgen> launch is finished
23:04 < urgen> docking is late thursday
23:04 < echarp> oh, that's why the icon is moving
23:04 < urgen> like 11pm your time?
23:04 < echarp> shame they are showing a windows desktop!!!
23:05 < urgen> there will be some wonderfully beautiful downlinks soon
23:05 < echarp> 23:04
23:05 < urgen> they show lots of linux too
23:05 < urgen> says they are on the dark side right now
23:06 < urgen> the euro astronaut stays up there
23:15 < echarp> what are they showing now?
23:15 < urgen> can't tell yet, my television station is messing up
23:15 < urgen> I might have to move back to stream
23:15 < urgen> black and white something
23:15 < urgen> looks like part of the spacecraft and earth
23:15 < echarp> yeap, same here
23:15 < urgen> must be a safety camera
23:16 < urgen> they need to go look for loose tiles with the robotic arm
23:16 < echarp> possibly yes
23:16 < urgen> they have high rez and 3D radar imaging
23:16 < echarp> losing a spacecraft on foam, what bad luck this was...
23:16 < urgen> yep
23:55 < echarp> good night!
--- Log closed mer jui 05 00:00:57 2006
00:17 < nsh> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5058672332658910022
00:17 < nsh> interesting
00:25 < urgen> thanks
00:25 < urgen> kind of fun
00:25 < nsh> mm
00:26 < urgen> so I've noticed something when I watch talk show type recordings
00:26 < nsh> corpus callosum :-)
00:26 < urgen> I don't need very much time to get the inflection/body language
00:26 < nsh> hrmm
00:26 < nsh> how do you mean?
00:27 < urgen> I watch then only listen while doing something else
00:27 < nsh> oh right
00:27 < nsh> yeah
00:27 < urgen> not much need for it to be a video
00:27 < nsh> nah, mostly only audial information
00:28 < nsh> interesting thesis at ~40%
00:28 * nsh wonders why google video doesn't show how far you are into a clip
00:28 < nsh> in minutes and seconds
00:29 < urgen> mine seems to, over on the left
00:29 < urgen> right, I meant
00:29 < urgen> :P
00:29 < urgen> 10:21 / 1:47:55
00:29 < nsh> hrmm
00:30 < nsh> maybe preferences
00:30 < urgen> I'm in firefox
00:30 * nsh too
00:31 < nsh> logging into google account hasn't changed anything
00:33 * nsh shrugs
00:33 < nsh> can't find it
00:33 < nsh> and now lost buffer and place
00:33 < nsh> :-)
00:34 < nsh> anyway, the thesis i meant was the 7hz ionospherical ressonance
00:34 < urgen> blah, he just said permanent eternal thing is evolving
00:34 < nsh> well
00:34 < nsh> ..
00:34 < nsh> :-)
00:34 < urgen> hehe
00:35 < nsh> permanent eternal thing = evolving
00:35 < nsh> linguistic ambiguity
00:36 < urgen> ok
00:36 < urgen> not to be taken literally
00:37 < nsh> my literal is not your literal
00:37 < nsh> so there has to be some flexibility, i guess
00:37 < nsh> zooming
00:37 < nsh> fractal
00:37 < nsh> any term i use
00:37 < nsh> is going to map to a slightly different zone
00:37 < nsh> by successive mismapping between speaker and listener
00:37 < nsh> comes disagreement
00:38 < nsh> though the fractal mapped is identical
00:56 < nsh> hmmm
01:46 < nsh> this gets very esoteric
01:53 < nsh> s/esoteric/scenic/
01:53 < nsh> as in, scenic route..
01:53 < nsh> to a known destination :-)
01:56 < nsh> going for nightcap, back in ~15m
04:27 * urgen wakes up from a nap
05:22 < urgen> Help, I'm drowning in a pizza pan!
10:25 < echarp> hello hello
11:40 -!- illegale (illegale) [n=gale...@161.53.121.88] has joined #parlement
11:40 < illegale> hey!
11:41 < echarp> bonjour illegale
11:41 < echarp> how are you?
11:41 < illegale> hjey!
11:41 < illegale> zizou is bacvk :)
11:41 < echarp> lol
11:42 < illegale> is france happy?
11:42 < echarp> I didn't even watch the game, was doing some paintball and card games with some friends
11:42 < illegale> nice
11:42 < echarp> I've heard french hurras until quite late in the night :)
11:42 < illegale> yet, the play was good even for those who are not like it
11:42 < illegale> who notl ike tit
11:42 < echarp> there even are a few flags on windows, which is an incredibly rare sight around here
11:42 < illegale> that is positive
11:43 < echarp> kind of
11:43 < illegale> untill ou endangeour others freedom :-)
11:43 < echarp> exactly :)
11:43 < illegale> so you where paintballing?
11:43 < illegale> have a gun or loan it=?
11:43 < echarp> I think that games, sports, are nice, just somethimes they seem to reach incredibly highs and lows!
11:43 < illegale> yes
11:43 < echarp> loan it, it was my first time in fact
11:43 < echarp> my friends killed me!
11:43 < illegale> cool
11:44 < illegale> like it=?
11:44 < illegale> hehe
11:44 < illegale> shoot the president
11:44 < illegale> of parlement
11:44 < echarp> it's cool, just I need to be much more attentive
11:44 < echarp> lol
11:44 < illegale> gonna do it again?
11:44 < echarp> running and shooting is nice, but you need to spot your opponents first! :)
11:44 < echarp> I will definitely
11:44 < illegale> cool
11:44 < echarp> and it's a really great group of friends
11:44 < illegale> my people is trying to do it for a few years
11:44 < echarp> Free Software geeks! :)
11:45 < illegale> do not find time, money, whatever and we did not do it yet
11:45 < illegale> theys can be dangerous i knwo
11:45 < illegale> descent stuff
11:45 < illegale> played it?
11:45 < echarp> played what?
11:45 < illegale> descent?
11:45 < illegale> space game
11:46 < echarp> a game of space ship in mines?
11:46 < illegale> do nto know for it
11:46 < illegale> itr was popular in 86-7
11:46 < echarp> I played and loved it, a long time ago at uni
11:46 < echarp> yeap! :)
11:46 < illegale> 96-7
11:46 < echarp> I was quite good
11:46 < echarp> :)
11:46 < illegale> yes
11:46 < illegale> so, it can teach you a lot for this stuff
11:46 < illegale> where to wait for enemy and all
11:46 < echarp> we only had a few team games
11:46 < illegale> warfare it is
11:46 < illegale> k
11:46 < echarp> the admins didn't appreciate much our using their computers for this :)
11:47 < illegale> i know some geeks are pretty dangerious in pantball
11:47 < echarp> you bet!
11:47 < illegale> heh
11:47 < illegale> unreal made the big impact
11:47 < illegale> too
11:47 < echarp> one of us had what looked like a professional sniper gun
11:47 < echarp> a nut! :)
11:47 < illegale> friend of mine can walk blinded and shoot everybofdy
11:47 < echarp> oh
11:47 < illegale> yes
11:47 < illegale> that is it
11:47 < illegale> something like jean claude stuff
11:47 < illegale> :-.D
11:47 < echarp> and we had some cool babes in the group, the real hot kind ;)
11:48 < illegale> did you shoot them?
11:48 < illegale> or took as prisonerS?
11:48 < echarp> shoot
11:48 < illegale> by the law of war?
11:48 < illegale> huh
11:48 < echarp> flag, fort and respawn games
11:48 < illegale> how many of you where in hte gane=?
11:48 < illegale> have some pictureS=?
11:48 < illegale> :-)
11:49 < echarp> 11
11:49 < illegale> judge?
11:50 < echarp> it's a professional place, so judge and all that yes
11:50 < illegale> lol
11:50 < illegale> lunatics :)
11:51 < echarp> illegale: to advance in the photo slideshow, just press enter
11:51 < echarp> it's going to go from photo to photo as you click on enter
11:52 < illegale> where did you find all of those babes?
11:53 < illegale> they are really nice :)ž
11:53 < echarp> friends
11:53 < illegale> most of them :)
11:53 < echarp> all of them
11:54 < illegale> of course :)
11:54 < illegale> programers?
11:54 < echarp> one of them broke up with hey boy friend, you want to try your luck? ;)
11:54 < echarp> the geek kind mostly yes
11:54 < echarp> manga geeks
11:54 < illegale> coo
11:54 < illegale> l
11:54 < echarp> you bet
11:54 < illegale> i am in longtime and happy relationship
11:54 < echarp> of course all guys around them are in love
11:55 < illegale> .)
11:55 < illegale> there where some though shoots i can notice
11:55 < illegale> did you get some?
11:56 < illegale> reminds me to jackass
11:56 < echarp> tough shoots?
11:56 < illegale> you know, shoot in the butt and stuff
11:56 < illegale> where there is no armor
11:57 < illegale> it can be painfull pretty much i hear
11:57 < echarp> :)
11:57 < illegale> and you where not that lucky i see
11:57 < echarp> I'm sure
11:57 < echarp> I was not very good, so no problem anyway
11:57 < illegale> hehe
11:58 < illegale> what is the plan to do it again?
11:58 < illegale> before or after thegame wirh portugal?
11:58 < illegale> do not say me during
11:58 < illegale> because of the price :)
12:01 < illegale> so, you gonna watch the next game in football or not?
12:03 < illegale> E! :)
12:03 < echarp> it's not related at all to football, they don't really like that nationalitisc thing
12:03 < echarp> I'm not sure if I'll watch it
12:03 < illegale> oh, gee
12:03 < echarp> but I'll be with some other friends to see the finale
12:03 < echarp> they invited me for dinner, I can't refuse can I? :)
12:03 < illegale> finnay some positive feed back .)
12:04 < illegale> you geek man !
12:04 < illegale> my frien geeks do nto watch it either!
12:04 < illegale> Markus does only
12:04 < illegale> :)
12:04 < echarp> lol
12:04 < illegale> i usually gwet so pissed of that i need a day to chill out
12:04 < echarp> woaw
12:05 < echarp> that's huge for 22 guys running around :)
12:05 < illegale> emotions
12:05 < illegale> that is not just that
12:05 < echarp> yeap, emotions can not be controlled that easily
12:05 < illegale> far from that
12:05 < illegale> it is about our projections
12:05 < echarp> I'll admit that my heart does pound harder when I hear the marseillaise
12:05 < echarp> brain programmation! :)
12:05 < illegale> that stuff it is
12:05 < illegale> of course!
12:05 < illegale> i do not mind about that of coruse
12:06 < illegale> i like mass postivie vibe stuff
12:06 < echarp> yeap, and France is very very fond of the republic
12:06 < illegale> that is pretty cool phenomenon
12:07 < illegale> i propose to you to go out and be part of it
12:08 < illegale> have few beers and stuff
12:08 < illegale> :)
12:08 < illegale> that stuff does not happen to often
12:08 < illegale> btw, do you party?
12:08 < illegale> techno and stuff?
12:09 < echarp> not really
12:09 < echarp> it's definitely not what I like
12:09 < illegale> hehe
12:10 < illegale> i went to couple of such ocation
12:10 < echarp> http://radioparadise.com
12:10 < illegale> that is not fully me, yet it is cool
12:10 < echarp> that's my music :)
12:10 < echarp> but I should go out, to find a girl... :)
12:10 < illegale> tis about t shirtsT?
12:11 < illegale> poprock?
12:11 < illegale> that is nice, yet not for every mood
12:12 < illegale> seems Magnus is gonna join to 4 of us :)
12:12 < echarp> pop rock yes
12:12 < echarp> and eclectic
12:12 < echarp> oh, cool
12:13 < illegale> did not read recent posts?
12:13 < echarp> he's been testing parlement, and he already found a bug! :)
12:13 < illegale> hehe
12:13 < illegale> crazy swede
12:13 < echarp> I've been on it for some time already
12:13 < illegale> is he fine with parlemetn?
12:14 < echarp> he seems
12:14 < illegale> cool
12:14 < illegale> i like when we set grouping stuff
12:15 < illegale> though, about 5 of us
12:15 < illegale> 5 is not that bad number
12:15 < illegale> i am afraid of 6
12:15 < echarp> it's a great number!
12:15 < illegale> yes
12:16 < illegale> we should look for soem couple to pass number 6
12:16 < illegale> :)
12:16 < illegale> like in Japan, heard they do not have 4th floor
12:18 < echarp> oh
12:18 < echarp> how is that?
12:18 < echarp> fear of something?
12:18 < illegale> it is like number 13 for us
12:18 < illegale> that might be urbal legend
12:18 < illegale> can ask at joiito
12:18 < illegale> there is several japanese
12:18 < illegale> out there
12:19 < echarp> I guess there are yes
12:22 < echarp> bon appétit!
12:23 < illegale> why=ž
12:23 < illegale> eating?
12:24 < illegale> though, there is a big stuff in front of 5 of us :-)
12:33 < illegale> http://www.rense.com/Datapages/morgdat.htm
12:57 < illegale> echarp: we have to create first project of 5 of us if we want to suceed in it
12:57 < illegale> i find it unadequate practice that we just talk about it non systematically
12:57 < illegale> you?
13:18 < echarp> back
13:25 < illegale> ops, be back soon
13:25 -!- illegale [n=gale...@161.53.121.88] has quit []
13:42 -!- illegale (illegale) [n=ille...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has joined #parlement
13:42 < illegale> back i am
13:48 < illegale> echarp: you know about the way how ancient greeks solvled delicate issues?
13:51 < echarp> the boules?
13:57 < illegale> Now you reminded me about how in ancient Greece example where some
13:57 < illegale> military decisions that where too risky to be set publicly done. Some
13:57 < illegale> man came with location of where the Spartanian (if I remind corectly)
13:57 < illegale> keep their ships on ground. So, they choosed team of respected and
13:57 < illegale> trust wrothy people to make that in the name all. In that way they
13:57 < illegale> where all satisfied.
13:57 < illegale> can we use it in top*?
14:00 < illegale> echarp: you think we do not need to set some system of how to solve our first formal goal?
14:08 < illegale> join #esp
14:10 < illegale> echarp: why do you need TOP definition actually'ž
14:14 < echarp> illegale: I need it to know what we are talking about, that's mostly all
14:14 < echarp> you are back on #esp?
14:15 < illegale> they banned one ip
14:15 < illegale> its nothing happening there though
14:15 < echarp> I'm sure not much happens there
14:16 < echarp> it's mostly a few hard core hacker, like tav
14:16 < illegale> so, do we need to create project of articulation or just let it fo?
14:16 < illegale> go?
14:16 < illegale> nevermind about esp
14:20 < echarp> we need to articulate our position
14:22 < illegale> what do you mean y that?
14:22 < echarp> to define the concepts we share
14:22 < echarp> it's a foundation
14:22 < echarp> like in philosophy, one define the concepts he will use
14:23 < echarp> your last mail on that was quite a good start
14:24 -!- illegale [n=ille...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has quit [Remote closed the connection]
14:25 -!- illegale (illegale) [n=ille...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has joined #parlement
14:25 < echarp> re illegale :)
14:25 < echarp> illegale: I've just corrected the bug that magnus found!
14:25 * echarp is happy, it was tough on the db
14:26 < illegale> whats happening?
14:26 < echarp> I don't know
14:26 < echarp> happening to what or where?
14:26 < echarp> on my machine?
14:26 < illegale> it says user illegale has joined
14:26 < illegale> as i loged again
14:26 < illegale> see usrs and stuff
14:26 < illegale> and i ams til there
14:26 < illegale> suppose some ping stuff :)
14:26 < echarp> you are logged from 2 places
14:27 < echarp> well, I guess
14:27 < echarp> sometimes freenode does some weird things with their servers
14:27 < illegale> echarp: you think we do not need to set some system of how to solve our first formal goal?
14:29 < echarp> we can also do that in parallel yes
14:30 < echarp> goals are important, but goals often define the concepts they use
14:31 < illegale> hmh, so lets let it go for a weak or so, than lets se what do with all we get?
14:32 < echarp> I'm fine with that yes!
14:32 < echarp> it's cool to have magnus on board :)
14:33 < illegale> it really is
14:33 < illegale> i find him be pretty fundamental about top
14:33 < illegale> when i met him he forces public dialogue
14:34 < echarp> that's really cool
14:35 < illegale> about top, i find the reason we are not eqaul in info ditribution
14:35 < illegale> so, if we want democracy, we need equality and fundamenet equality is equaliti in info
14:36 < illegale> TOp enables it
14:36 < illegale> so, no TOP no democracy actuall
14:36 < illegale> yy
14:39 < echarp> that depends the level of required information
14:39 < echarp> but yes, all information required to take a decision is an interesting criterion
14:39 < echarp> I don't know if it's enough, and more important, if it's possible!
14:40 < echarp> because information "useful" to take a decision, is a difficult and relative concept
14:40 < illegale> did you read last mails at top?
14:40 < echarp> rapidly, that bug took all my energy ;)
14:40 < illegale> do it when you find time, we are discussing over that stuff i think
14:42 < echarp> it's done now, but that bug was quite important because one could not anymore post or even consult some things on parlement
14:42 < illegale> ok
14:43 < illegale> http://open.coop/history.htm
14:59 < illegale> http://open.coop/tiki-index.php?page=Open+Organisation
15:01 < echarp> that's TOP by another name!?
15:01 < illegale> hmh, maybe
15:02 < echarp> what differences do you spot?
15:02 < echarp> the big one
15:02 < illegale> none in this moment
15:03 < illegale> seems jhb created software
15:03 < illegale> planet is its nam
15:03 < illegale> e
15:03 < illegale> now i registers and looking around
15:04 < illegale> salfield is there too
15:04 < illegale> incredible :-=
15:04 < illegale> )
15:05 < illegale> jeffarch of course :)
15:07 < illegale> see first problem : Permission denied you cannot view this page
15:07 < illegale> :-(
15:07 < echarp> :)
15:07 < echarp> shame shame shame! :)
15:07 < illegale> not glad for that
15:11 < illegale> suppose this definition is desparealte needed
15:11 < echarp> it is
15:12 < echarp> and it needs to be phrased concisely and precisely
15:12 < echarp> maybe some great man of our past already did that?
15:13 < illegale> hmh, have somebody in mind=?
15:13 < echarp> not really no :(
15:14 < echarp> information theories are still rather young
15:14 < illegale> yes and they are the essence of it
15:15 < echarp> yeap
15:18 < illegale> hmh, do not like definitions in open organisation
15:25 < echarp> why is that?
15:27 < illegale> An open organisation is an organisation open to anyone who agrees to abide by its purpose and principles, with complete transparency and clearly defined desicion making structures, ownership patterns, and exchange mechanisms; designed, defined, and refined, by all members as part of a continual transformative process. Source
15:28 < illegale> in the same time they all take decision makng strucutre be rough concensus
15:28 < illegale> it is far from clear i might notice
15:29 < echarp> consensus minus one is a decision making process I quite like
15:30 < illegale> that is regularly fine in small groups
15:30 < echarp> I think it is yes
15:30 < echarp> and it allows disagrement
15:31 < illegale> would youjjoin this group?
15:31 < illegale> there is many intersting stuff around there,
15:31 < illegale> not intended for public, though
15:31 < echarp> I'm already on #opencoop
15:31 < illegale> http://open.coop/tiki-index.php?page=strategic+plan
15:31 < illegale> can you open this link?
15:33 < illegale> this stuff lacks with communication software i envision
15:36 < echarp> interesting
15:36 < echarp> most interesting
15:41 < illegale> http://open.coop/voop%2Bfunctional%2Bspec
15:41 < illegale> salfield did it
15:47 < illegale> http://open.coop/tiki-index.php?page=Decision+making
15:47 < illegale> cool
16:00 < illegale> what you say?
16:01 < echarp> a bit too complex for my taste
16:02 < echarp> I see they use a system very much like -1/0/+1 :
16:02 < echarp> :)
16:04 < illegale> hmh, i see it as good intention, yet suppose they should start from beggining again pretty soon
16:04 < illegale> in the mean time, i might hang around a bit
16:05 < echarp> I see you commented yes ;)
16:05 < illegale> they do not enable equality by info principle of thesite
16:05 < illegale> that is not good
16:05 < illegale> puts admin in the supreme position, that disables wider legitimation
16:05 < echarp> true yes
16:05 < echarp> admin are the one step most people forget about
16:06 < illegale> yes
16:06 < illegale> i do not see cleat organisation principles of the site
16:06 < illegale> either
16:06 < illegale> maybe i lurk bad
16:06 < illegale> though, i see it important in a way of enabling learning people how to use it properly
16:10 < illegale> so, anything you would like to paste to top politics group*
16:10 < illegale> ?
16:38 < echarp> just the delimitation of what is transparent or not
16:39 < echarp> I understand quite well what eric says on those matters
16:39 < echarp> private individuals can speak privately on public matters
16:39 < echarp> what about public individuals?
16:40 < illegale> you mean, can he talkt to family about politics at all?
16:40 < illegale> what do you think about what I wrote?
16:41 < illegale> I mean, lets set up net based requieremnets that distinct ones of others
16:41 < illegale> i can notice no US party has forum, not US important media
16:41 < illegale> that is not strictly controles?
16:41 < illegale> d
16:41 < illegale> I find it be very interesting moment
16:42 < echarp> even worse, can he talk about public stuff privately
16:44 < illegale> he can i suppose
16:44 < illegale> he can arange deals also
16:44 < illegale> privately
16:45 < illegale> yet, if there is no argumentation before him, he can legitimate quiet hardly
16:45 < illegale> forum enables legitimation of decisions much more easily
16:45 < illegale> at one side you have person who just acts in what he thinks is right,
16:45 < illegale> and the one person that forces public dialogue in proces of decsion making
16:46 < illegale> whom should you support?
16:48 < illegale> to me first step is actually enabling free info pass using legitimate sites of political actors
16:49 < illegale> sites that are visited
16:49 < illegale> and carried on
16:49 < illegale> and concentratedd
16:50 < echarp> me it's about the democratic process, that process *requires* transparency to be legitimate
16:50 < echarp> but it's for the process itself
16:50 < echarp> ie, die bold machines should die! :)
16:51 < illegale> ok, lets see political reality
16:51 < illegale> does it require in this moment?
16:51 < illegale> no
16:51 < illegale> suppose there is no one who would be concurency
16:51 < illegale> competition
16:53 < echarp> does it require what? transparency?
16:54 < illegale> yes
16:54 < illegale> if transparency helps political bodie get legiitimated it is good,
16:54 < illegale> if not, it is not good
16:54 < illegale> i mean effectie by good
16:54 < echarp> I think this is how it is yes
16:55 < echarp> ngo also need transparency, to show their legitimation
16:59 < illegale> of course
17:06 < illegale> Paradox of ruler
17:06 < illegale> Ruler /body that cares political power/ is only in ability to realise just society, but ruler in just society can not do whatever he wants as long as it is binded by common law, which is not happening in non just society where rulers will becomes actually only measure of someones ability. In injust society ruler is bounded only to its personal will enabling himself much bigger freedom where we as humans naturally aspire.
17:06 < echarp> so maybe top could also be used for all online organisations
17:06 < illegale> To create just society, it is necessary that ones who cares political power be completely bridled from the side of individuals who create political base of the one. The only possible way autor of this text sees is fully informed political base (which was not possible before internet due to lack of adequate political media), in order to disable manipulations of political reality from one side and freedom of political market from the other si
17:06 < illegale> As long as political base is non informed, political exponents might claim untruths that support his personal interests that might not be public ones and in the same time, due to control of mass media by consolidated and yet non democratic political strucures, by not alowing new people gain public trust, so political exponents remain to be only virtual option, being safe from any sanctions oriented to non responsible behaviour.
17:06 < illegale> new text about essence of non utopism
17:08 < echarp> (hard to read text, need to be simplified)
17:09 < illegale> when you are at position of power
17:09 < illegale> you do not need other rules but your will
17:09 < illegale> that is oportunistic behabviour of all of us
17:10 < illegale> all other rules are the ones that should be changed in order to set your will be in the first place
17:10 < urgen> morning
17:10 < illegale> hello, urgen
17:10 < echarp> hello hello urgen
17:10 < urgen> :-)
17:10 < echarp> illegale: many politicians do that yes
17:11 < echarp> they want to be at the very top of the pyramid
17:12 < illegale> i find it be human nature
17:12 < echarp> it probably is yes
17:12 < illegale> do not know any politician do oposite thing, unless he has some misision to realise
17:13 < illegale> so, setting to line of mission he seems to be just
17:13 < illegale> that is imo stuff with me
17:13 < echarp> that's what julius cesar did, he came at the very top, but the remaining aristocrats, who traditionally share the top powers, didn't really accept that
17:13 < illegale> of course
17:13 < illegale> loosing power is existential issue
17:14 < echarp> they used to have a kind of rotating plateau, never have one person in power, at least two
17:14 < illegale> oligarchy i see
17:14 < illegale> and did remove every hero from rome
17:14 < echarp> aristocracy it was
17:14 < echarp> the founding families
17:15 < illegale> if it is closed strucutre it isbased on oligopoly
17:15 < illegale> and base on oligopoly creates oligarchy
17:15 < illegale> that is the dictionary i use
17:15 < illegale> political dicitonary
17:15 < echarp> well, maybe an aristocracy is also an oligarchy
17:15 < illegale> in difference aristocracy might not be oligarcy
17:15 < illegale> if that is based on deeds
17:16 < illegale> it is sort of democracy actualyl
17:16 < illegale> in the same time
17:16 < illegale> the stuff i am looking for
17:19 < echarp> the deed was their family reputation
17:20 < echarp> which is not usually a democratic way to choose leaders
17:21 < illegale> the reputation was based on theexclusive structure, that is the problem
17:21 < illegale> noone knows everything stuff
17:21 < illegale> and you give the right to such structure that it knows
--- Log opened mar jui 04 19:55:41 2006
19:55 -!- echarp [n=33M0...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has joined #parlement
19:55 -!- Topic for #parlement: http://leparlement.org/irc
19:55 -!- Topic set by echarp [] [Sun Jun 11 20:50:53 2006]
19:55 [Users #parlement]
19:55 [ echarp] [ fiatlex] [ nsh] [ parlebot] [ urgen]
19:55 -!- Irssi: #parlement: Total of 5 nicks [0 ops, 0 halfops, 0 voices, 5 normal]
19:55 -!- Channel #parlement created Thu Apr 27 09:48:29 2006
19:56 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
19:56 -!- Topic for #parlement: http://leparlement.org/irc
19:56 -!- Topic set by echarp [] [Sun Jun 11 20:50:53 2006]
19:56 -!- Irssi: Join to #parlement was synced in 32 secs
19:56 < echarp> re
19:58 < urgen> re
20:00 < echarp> it's hot hot hot in here!
20:00 < echarp> let's hope we get a nice storm
20:00 < urgen> utoh
20:00 < urgen> beautiful here today
20:18 < echarp> it rained for a few minutes, what a pleasure!
20:22 < urgen> so you get a nasaTV stream working?
20:22 < urgen> http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/countdown/video/
20:22 < urgen> 14 minutes to launch
20:25 < echarp> does not seem to work for me
20:26 < urgen> the real feed?
20:26 < urgen> http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/rr.pl?kscnasa.rm
20:27 < urgen> http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/rrg2.pl?encoder/nasatv.rm
20:30 < urgen> http://www.nasa.gov/ram/35037main_portal.ram
20:31 < urgen> quicktime: http://www.nasa.gov/qtl/151335main_NASA_TV_QT.qtl
20:35 < echarp> they don't have any mplayer enabled feed? :(
20:35 < echarp> I'm on gnu/linux
20:35 < urgen> lots
20:35 < urgen> I was thinking maybe mplayer didn't work for you
20:35 < urgen> http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/index.html?skipIntro=1
20:36 < urgen> http://www.nasa.gov/55644main_NASATV_Windows.asx
20:41 < echarp> I'm not sure it will do
20:41 < urgen> http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/main/index.html
20:41 < urgen> has a plugin version from webpage
20:41 < echarp> I've got a yahoo page
20:42 < echarp> but it's just showing a static flash page
20:42 < urgen> hmn
20:49 < urgen> there real exciting stuff is the spacewalks a couple days from today
20:49 < echarp> and there seem to be a limit reached on real player
20:49 < urgen> 4th of july made it a popular event
20:49 < urgen> no one will be watching spacewalk
20:49 < echarp> :)
20:57 < echarp> I've got the sound with http://www.nasa.gov/ram/35037main_portal.ram
20:59 < urgen> ppl will start to drop off soon
21:00 < urgen> game starts now tho
21:00 < urgen> :-)
21:34 < echarp> I'm watching desperate housewives, also quite spatial :)
22:38 < echarp> urgen: that's it, realplayer can work with mplayer!!!
22:38 < echarp> I had to fiddle with its path to its codecs libraries
22:39 < urgen> that's generally what's recomended for nix or mac
22:39 < echarp> it's mplayer, so I love it :)
22:39 < echarp> just it manages to use the proper codecs, I didn't know it could
22:39 < urgen> I'm pretty sure I got media player to work before tho
22:40 < echarp> the stream is of very good quality
22:40 < urgen> I was using mplayer to capture a stream
22:40 < echarp> media player under gnu/linux?
22:40 < urgen> someone did an opensource codec but I don't recall where it is
22:40 < echarp> well, it's packaged for debian, just there was a missing link
22:41 < echarp> ln -s /usr/lib/win32/ /usr/lib/codecs
22:41 < echarp> and it works :)
22:41 < urgen> cool
22:41 < urgen> I'm watching a very fuzzy soccer match from a chinese stream
22:42 < echarp> :)
22:42 < echarp> I can even see the flicker on their screens
22:42 < urgen> nasatv is on the local public access channel television
22:42 < urgen> ya it's usually a very high quality stream
22:42 < urgen> there are 300 and 500K streams out there
22:46 < echarp> that one is a 164k one
22:47 < urgen> these days they auto adjust
23:04 < echarp> it does yes!
23:04 < echarp> what time do you think will be take off?
23:04 < urgen> launch is finished
23:04 < urgen> docking is late thursday
23:04 < echarp> oh, that's why the icon is moving
23:04 < urgen> like 11pm your time?
23:04 < echarp> shame they are showing a windows desktop!!!
23:05 < urgen> there will be some wonderfully beautiful downlinks soon
23:05 < echarp> 23:04
23:05 < urgen> they show lots of linux too
23:05 < urgen> says they are on the dark side right now
23:06 < urgen> the euro astronaut stays up there
23:15 < echarp> what are they showing now?
23:15 < urgen> can't tell yet, my television station is messing up
23:15 < urgen> I might have to move back to stream
23:15 < urgen> black and white something
23:15 < urgen> looks like part of the spacecraft and earth
23:15 < echarp> yeap, same here
23:15 < urgen> must be a safety camera
23:16 < urgen> they need to go look for loose tiles with the robotic arm
23:16 < echarp> possibly yes
23:16 < urgen> they have high rez and 3D radar imaging
23:16 < echarp> losing a spacecraft on foam, what bad luck this was...
23:16 < urgen> yep
23:55 < echarp> good night!
--- Log closed mer jui 05 00:00:57 2006
echarp
Jul 6, 2006, 12:30:14 AM7/6/06
to top-politics
--- Log opened mer jui 05 00:00:57 2006
03:05 < nsh> what happened?
03:24 < urgen> when?
03:24 < urgen> oh he was talking about the last disaster
03:24 < urgen> things are fine so far
03:25 < urgen> they still haven't done the standard skootch the arm around and take a look
03:26 < urgen> that was a fun google video
03:27 -!- nsh_ (No Such Human) [n=n...@88.144.33.27] has joined #parlement
03:27 < urgen> oh
03:28 < nsh_> hey
03:28 -!- nsh [n=nsh@wikipedia/nsh] has quit [Nick collision from services.]
03:28 -!- nsh_ is now known as nsh
03:28 < urgen> colliding with your virtual self
03:28 < nsh> thought something had happened with the shuttle
03:28 * nsh smiles
03:28 < nsh> yeah
03:28 < nsh> mirrors facing mirrors
03:29 < nsh> what's new?
03:29 < urgen> not as much as there should be
03:30 < nsh> the future is here, it's just not evenly distributed yes. -gibson
03:30 < nsh> *yet
03:31 < nsh> pebbles in a pizza pan
03:31 < urgen> :-)
03:31 < urgen> holons
03:31 * nsh smiles
03:31 < nsh> you've read Koestler?
03:31 < urgen> um can't remember
03:31 * urgen digs around
03:31 < nsh> think i may have mentioned it before
03:31 < urgen> ya
03:32 < nsh> Holons are part of the thesis of the book Roots of Coincidence.
03:32 < nsh> so last year i was toying with fields of cellular automata as metaphysical analogues
03:33 < urgen> Gore's 'An Inconvenient Truth' isn't really as bad as what 'A Convenient Truth' would be about
03:33 < nsh> hrmm
--- Log closed mer jui 05 03:39:10 2006
--- Log opened mer jui 05 07:42:17 2006
07:42 -!- echarp [n=33M0...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has joined #parlement
07:42 -!- Topic for #parlement: http://leparlement.org/irc
07:42 -!- Topic set by echarp [] [Sun Jun 11 20:50:53 2006]
07:42 [Users #parlement]
07:42 [ echarp] [ fiatlex] [ nsh] [ parlebot] [ urgen]
07:42 -!- Irssi: #parlement: Total of 5 nicks [0 ops, 0 halfops, 0 voices, 5 normal]
07:42 -!- Channel #parlement created Thu Apr 27 09:48:29 2006
07:42 -!- Irssi: Join to #parlement was synced in 44 secs
07:52 < urgen:#parlement> re
08:06 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
09:44 < echarp> hello hello
13:19 -!- illegale (illegale) [n=ille...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has joined #parlement
13:19 < illegale:#parlement> io
13:20 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
13:20 < echarp> hello hello illegale
13:20 < echarp> how are you?
13:31 < illegale> fine
13:31 < illegale> you?
13:31 < echarp> about fine, although the night was rather hot again
13:31 < echarp> today it's about to rain, yeah! :)
13:32 < illegale> nice
13:32 < echarp> and you, still sunny I bet?
13:32 < illegale> course, and now i am blod so sun hits my head pretty hard
13:33 < illegale> this about 4th floow, i missunderstood it obviously :)
13:33 < echarp> 4th floow?
13:34 < illegale> flor
13:34 < illegale> japanese stuff
13:36 < illegale> what do you think about autopoietic communication tool based on equality of all users?
13:36 < illegale> no moderators but transaprent discussion enabled
13:36 < illegale> i think that would change to internet in its core
13:36 < illegale> suggested it to Joi Ito, he is not interested :)
13:37 < echarp> I believe this is what I'm producing: parlement
13:37 < illegale> yet, you miss transparency part
13:37 < illegale> filters and stuff
13:37 < illegale> right?
13:37 < echarp> democratic moderation that each user choose
13:37 < illegale> you mean fitlerins?
13:37 < echarp> there are filters, but it's the user who choose them
13:37 < illegale> ng
13:38 < illegale> hide un hide posts?
13:38 < illegale> hide un hide users?
13:38 < echarp> there is that yes, and the possibility to choose the moderators and the moderation threshold
13:38 < echarp> it's all based on posts, not users
13:38 < illegale> moderation treshold, what does it mean?
13:39 < illegale> if i like someones moderation, a can not subscribe to him?
13:39 < echarp> if a post is voted "+5", if your threshold is +6 then it's hidden
13:39 < illegale> so common grade is only relevnt?
13:39 < illegale> what with minorities?
13:39 < echarp> you could only subscribe to an electoral list moderation, it could be an electoral list of "one" :)
13:40 < illegale> what does it mean elevotral
13:40 < echarp> an electoral list is a list of voters used to calculate a post acceptation
13:40 < illegale> everyone has his own list?
13:40 < echarp> there are different things here :)
13:41 < echarp> first users, individuals
13:41 < echarp> users can post anything they want
13:41 < echarp> all users can vote on all propositions
13:41 < echarp> how are calculated the results of those votes?
13:41 < echarp> using electoral lists, there can be any number of electoral lists
13:41 < echarp> any user can setup any number of electoral list
13:42 < echarp> using whatever criterion he wants
13:42 < illegale> does this mean i can not ignore someones votes if i care?
13:42 < echarp> but of course, only a few electoral list will be important
13:42 < echarp> you could create your own electoral list and only include the people you care about
13:42 < illegale> i can ignore people who are spamers for me?
13:42 < illegale> what about topics?
13:42 < illegale> issues ?
13:42 < echarp> no, that won't do, you can only ignore their vote
13:43 < echarp> there are only issues, no topics (yet anyway)
13:43 < echarp> post == issue
13:43 < illegale> so, electoral list for every issue?
13:43 < echarp> mail == post == issue
13:43 < echarp> you could have an electoral issue on every issue, but it does seem over kill
13:44 < illegale> not if it is properly organised?
13:44 < illegale> can i see popularity ratings?
13:44 < echarp> well, someone has to create and manage an electoral list
13:44 < illegale> how many people are subscirbed, or see stuff i seee?
13:44 < echarp> popularity rating of what?
13:44 < illegale> can i take a list from others?
13:44 < illegale> of issues=?
13:44 < echarp> you can see who is subscribed yes
13:45 < echarp> you can of course see popularity rating of issues
13:45 < echarp> you can take lists from others yes
13:45 < illegale> so, in general, i can subsciribe to one persons filter ?
13:45 < illegale> in certain set of issues?
13:45 < echarp> sort of yes :)
13:45 < echarp> you can use the electoral list defined by some one else!
13:45 < illegale> they are public?
13:46 < echarp> what I have in mind in parlement, on the main page, is that each user can choose the electoral list and the threshold that will filter their view
13:46 < echarp> electoral lists are definitely public yes, like everybody else (or almost)
13:46 < illegale> i do not need treshold
13:46 < echarp> electoral lists are definitely public yes, like *everything* else (or almost)
13:46 < illegale> personally
13:46 < echarp> fine
13:46 < illegale> why almost?
13:46 < illegale> what is not public?
13:47 < echarp> illegale: but then you will also see spam and others people votes, that will be a lot of things
13:47 < echarp> the only thing not public is password, and PGP private keys
13:47 < illegale> that is an option,i guess
13:47 < illegale> cool
13:47 < illegale> did you check out tiaktiv model, the old one?
13:47 < echarp> passwords and PGP private keys are not really part of the P2P server thing...
13:48 < echarp> they are part of the P2P client :)
13:48 < illegale> so, eveything is public
13:48 < illegale> :)
13:48 < echarp> everything is of course public yes, has to, to be managed on P2P servers!
13:48 < illegale> though, i wanted to notice one thingabout that softare
13:48 < echarp> yes?
13:48 < illegale> it enables open clusters,
13:49 < echarp> yeap
13:49 < illegale> in a manner i set someones filter and he is not filtering someone i find be spamer
13:49 < illegale> and stuff
13:49 < illegale> that is good i can notice
13:49 < echarp> filters are of course optional
13:49 < illegale> though, you have to give someone motivation for doing his job
13:49 < illegale> we are talking about moderators
13:49 < echarp> moderators are voters :)
13:49 < illegale> they are controling information
13:50 < illegale> if i want to see some discusion, i am old stuff guy
13:50 < illegale> i want to see someone who deals with it properl
13:50 < illegale> y
13:50 < echarp> the prime motivation is that they are contributing to the site quality, increasing the signal/noise ratio
13:50 < illegale> yes
13:50 < illegale> yet, moderaion is virtue
13:50 < echarp> I also expect some electoral lists to be the real democratic thing
13:50 < illegale> what means democratic?
13:50 < echarp> for example a village could set its own electoral list
13:50 < echarp> and they could vote on stuff
13:50 < illegale> cool
13:51 < echarp> they could decide, for example, that all elements reaching a pre determined threshold are automatically voted for the village
13:51 < illegale> are posts set in tree ?
13:51 < echarp> yes
13:51 < echarp> a big big tree
13:51 < illegale> ok, in that way i can subscirbe to someone to filter that tree for me
13:52 < illegale> leading discussion
13:52 < echarp> exactly :)
13:52 < illegale> that is a cool thing as an option that does not exist actuall
13:52 < illegale> y
13:52 < illegale> in TOP interface
13:52 < illegale> s
13:52 < illegale> i suppose
13:52 < echarp> there are rss feeds, based on time or on acceptation
13:52 < echarp> you can also subscribe by mail
13:52 < echarp> (the filtering and electoral lists are not yet programmed!!!)
13:53 < illegale> so, till we get something that can be set up at my server, how long should it take you think?
13:53 < echarp> for the filtering part?
13:53 < illegale> 6 months?
13:53 < illegale> filtering and selecting filter option
13:53 < echarp> nah, a few weeks for the filters and electoral lists
13:53 < illegale> it should work fast
13:53 < echarp> I'm in the middle of avatars right now, it almost works on ie :)
13:53 < illegale> :-)
13:54 < illegale> cool
13:54 < illegale> you expect some problems?
13:54 < echarp> not at all
13:54 < echarp> I expect *HUGE* problems with delegations :(
13:54 < illegale> are you goon in prognosing?
13:54 < illegale> ah
13:54 < echarp> but no problem with electoral lists and filters
13:54 < echarp> goon?
13:54 < illegale> good
13:55 < illegale> hmh, choosing electoral lists is delegating otgher bodies for filtering
13:55 < illegale> so, you think on something else
13:55 < illegale> power of vote, yes?
13:55 < echarp> no
13:55 < echarp> electoral lists and delegations are different beasts
13:56 < echarp> you use an electoral list to calculate the direct votes on an element
13:56 < echarp> delegations are a way to cast those votes indirectly, not to tabulate the results
13:57 < echarp> you are considering the moderation features, which is great, but it's not what I concentrate about personally, I concentrate about expressing opinions
13:57 < echarp> moderations are a by product, a cool one
13:57 < illegale> moderation is part internet lacks
13:57 < illegale> on autopoietic principel one
13:57 < echarp> true
13:57 < echarp> we are submerged with data
13:57 < illegale> so, i am looking for that part
13:58 < echarp> well, I'm starting to consider that parlement is a sort of "digg" software
13:58 < echarp> where everybody can propose and vote on news
13:58 < illegale> at tiaktiv we did not emerge due to this reason to one respected site
13:58 < echarp> those most voted upon will go up and up, and will reach more visibility
13:58 < illegale> they wanted to keep their reputatopm, we did not want to let opennes in any way
13:59 < illegale> this could solbve this problem aout
13:59 < echarp> I'd love it!
13:59 < illegale> digg=?
13:59 < illegale> you look at slashdot?
14:00 < illegale> that is the reason you need pluralism in voting
14:00 < illegale> in that way no karma bithes
14:00 < echarp> digg is a kind of slashdot thing yes (I follow very closely slashdot yes)
14:00 < echarp> there would most certainly be karma whoring on parlement too, just every one would choose their moderators :)
14:01 < illegale> this stuff makes it pretty bizzare to invest energy when you personlise stuff
14:01 < echarp> slashdot?
14:01 < illegale> i expect karma bithcing goes of topic
14:01 < illegale> btw reminds me on google co op
14:01 < illegale> what about shahdot'
14:01 < illegale> ?
14:02 < illegale> hmh, if i subscribe to your topic, others see it?
14:02 < echarp> I was wondering about your energy investment, if it was on slashdot or not
14:02 < echarp> subscription is public yes
14:02 < illegale> in pluralistic voting system
14:02 < echarp> you can use the rss feed to do it anonymously ;)
14:02 < illegale> col
14:02 < illegale> i mean this part abvou subscription
14:03 < echarp> illegale: you already have a pseudo on parlement btw
14:03 < illegale> find forcing public opinion be good thing in political maturing
14:03 < illegale> what do you mean?
14:03 < echarp> just log in (no need for password, just use your pseudo)
14:03 < echarp> go to the element you want to subscribe to, make it the main element on the page, then click on "subscribe!"
14:04 < echarp> illegale: you are registered already on parlement, but no password
14:04 < echarp> the "subscribe!" button will subscribe you to the main element on the page
14:04 < illegale> i see you voted for about TOP
14:04 < echarp> :)
14:04 < illegale> how is it did not happen at google groups*
14:04 < illegale> ?
14:05 < echarp> the data flows from google to parlement, and from parlement to my development server
14:05 < illegale> though, i like transparency you created
14:05 < echarp> it does not go from parlement to google
14:05 < illegale> can that be chagned?
14:05 < echarp> it's difficult, because google won't accept posts from people not registered on the group
14:05 < echarp> thus some elements could actually be sent to google, but not all of them :(
14:06 < echarp> that would be rather strange
14:06 < illegale> you know people still look at google primarly'
14:06 < illegale> ?
14:06 < illegale> at least i do:)
14:06 < echarp> I'm sure they do
14:07 < echarp> and thus I sometimes vote by mail directly on the google group
14:07 < illegale> what about some registered bot that sends results from voting and stuff?
14:07 < illegale> hard thing to do?
14:07 < illegale> I verify at your server and bot does this part?
14:07 < echarp> parlement use the "from" part a lot, and I won't fake it for google group :(
14:07 < illegale> cool
14:08 < echarp> and sending that kind of information would flood the google group
14:08 < illegale> i think you should use google groups voting in order of not confusing otehrs
14:09 < illegale> different results and stuff
14:09 < echarp> everybody can use google groups for voting, using the -1/0/+1 scheme
14:09 < illegale> let me check it out
14:09 < echarp> but the data flow will be hard to reverse, it's google=>parlement
14:10 < echarp> in a voting mail, just type -1 or 0 or +1, make sure it is at the beginning of a line!!! (important, or it won't be accepted as a vote)
14:10 < echarp> you can also write any number of other things
14:10 < echarp> but type a vote at the beginning of a line
14:12 < echarp> received!!!
14:13 < echarp> but
14:13 < echarp> but but but!
14:13 < illegale> just testing :9
14:13 < echarp> being the author of the original post onto which you voted... :)
14:13 < echarp> guess what, you had already voted +1 (implicitely) on it :)
14:14 < illegale> i know
14:14 < illegale> so it works?
14:14 < echarp> yeap
14:14 < echarp> I'm receiving it right now as we speak
14:14 < illegale> no bugs noticed?
14:14 < echarp> no bugs
14:14 < illegale> good
14:14 < illegale> you solved magnuss bugs toož
14:14 < illegale> ?
14:15 < echarp> yeap
14:15 < echarp> a bad bug, silly bug
14:15 < illegale> parent directories i need
14:15 < echarp> parent?
14:15 < illegale> there is a post and the one it is linked to
14:15 < illegale> right
14:16 < illegale> ?
14:16 < illegale> that one is parent
14:16 < illegale> one of the silly relations that might work fine
14:16 < echarp> a vote is always the child of the element it is a vote upon yes
14:16 < illegale> i know
14:16 < echarp> the parent element is at the top of the page
14:16 < echarp> at the very very top
14:17 < echarp> in fact just before the white body
14:17 < illegale> Highest posts
14:17 < illegale> +0 <Magnus> Re: About TOP
14:17 < illegale> -1 <anon> Re: About TOP
14:17 < illegale> -1 <anon> Re: About TOP
14:17 < illegale> Re: [top-politics] About TOP -2 <echarp> Re: About TOP
14:17 < illegale> what is this
14:17 < illegale> ?
14:17 < illegale> has soem meaning?
14:17 < echarp> this is the list of descendant elements, ordered by their acceptation level
14:17 < illegale> hmh, you invclude spamer lists?
14:17 < echarp> there are two such lists, by vote and by date
14:18 < illegale> i se
14:18 < echarp> no, no spamming filtering but for some simple one on the online form
14:18 < illegale> e
14:18 < illegale> why not'
14:18 < illegale> ?
14:18 < echarp> because it has not been required as of now :)
14:19 < echarp> but I might have to add it sometimes in the future :(
14:19 < illegale> you gonna create it maybe?
14:19 < illegale> ok
14:19 < echarp> when filtering will be available, it might not be needed anymore
14:19 < illegale> hmh, what abvout bots and stuff?
14:20 < illegale> i suppose they might be expected
14:20 < echarp> they won't be in electoral lists! :)
14:20 < echarp> and thus all their posts will be at +0
14:20 < illegale> yet will be in issue list
14:20 < echarp> I expect users to browse at a minimum of +1, but for moderators
14:20 < illegale> can be hard to filter thourgh dozens of messages
14:20 < illegale> adn stuff
14:20 < echarp> nah, issue list will also use the filter
14:21 < illegale> what do you mean?
14:21 < echarp> the list "by vote" and "by date" will also be filtered
14:21 < illegale> i am a bot and i flood you with 1000 mails what will you do?
14:21 < illegale> ban the only solution?
14:21 < echarp> I'll add spamassassin! :)
14:21 < illegale> what is that?
14:22 < echarp> it's a great spam filter
14:22 < echarp> I use it for my mails
14:22 < illegale> admin one?
14:22 < echarp> bayesian filtering
14:22 < illegale> suppose you need public filters for this stuff also
14:22 < illegale> flamers and those who spend weeks to flood
14:23 < illegale> have to have sharp mechanisms to deal with
14:23 < echarp> I don't know yet
14:23 < illegale> yet, no banning in any case but spam by defintion
14:23 < echarp> I guess the solutions will need refinement as they become required
14:23 < illegale> cool
14:23 < illegale> this is open source, right?
14:23 < illegale> :
14:23 < echarp> yeap :)
14:23 < echarp> GPL
14:23 < illegale> nice
14:24 < illegale> it works much faster than the last time i checked out
14:24 < illegale> ohohoh, what about tags?
14:24 < echarp> well, I'm looking at the logs right now, and it's not that good :(
14:25 < echarp> tags will also be used I guess, sometimes :)
14:25 < illegale> can your basic system hadle it with no big changeS?
14:25 < illegale> what do you mean about logs?
14:25 < echarp> there are RoR plugins for tags
14:26 < illegale> what does it mean?
14:26 < illegale> side system?
14:26 < echarp> I'm looking at the server logs, and I see that the page still takes huge amount of seconds to be generated :(
14:26 < illegale> I wish you luck in slovign this problem :9
14:26 < illegale> )
14:26 < echarp> the plugin is rather easy to add by itself, it needs slightly more work to integrate in the interface
14:26 < illegale> though, you mentioned avatars
14:27 < echarp> yeap, the ones I'm doing! :)
14:27 < illegale> persons will be able to register and stuff
14:27 < echarp> that will make for some nice candy
14:27 < illegale> create profiles and so on?
14:27 < echarp> people already can register easily
14:27 < illegale> i find it important part
14:27 < illegale> parsonification to be
14:27 < echarp> well, registration is only used to differentiate your posts from others
14:28 < illegale> i know, i look from psycholoical side
14:28 < echarp> you can register with a pseudo, with pseudo and password, with pesudo and password and email
14:28 < illegale> investment stuf
14:28 < illegale> caring about it stuff
14:28 < echarp> eventually I expect to allow some sort of personal css
14:28 < illegale> ego is cool mechanism that works fine
14:28 < echarp> :
14:28 < echarp> :)
14:30 < echarp> registration is so simple, I hope people will do just as you do it here on irc
14:30 < echarp> I've modelled parlement registration on the way we do it here ;)
14:31 < illegale> ok. gonna involve some designers and stuff in some future'
14:31 < illegale> or that is part of otehrs?
14:31 < echarp> others?
14:31 < echarp> I'm open to designers!!!
14:31 < illegale> those who wish to do it no matter of you
14:32 < echarp> that would be cool too
14:32 < echarp> they are most welcome
14:32 < illegale> hmh, i am at opencoop
14:33 < illegale> see what they miss , or what i miss there
14:33 < illegale> some thread of mine action
14:33 < illegale> that i can check out what hapend with all of that stuff
14:33 < illegale> now i have to surf the whole site
14:33 < illegale> again :I)
14:34 < illegale> btw, Mark is back aso .)=
14:34 < illegale> glad he gets in contact to smartocracy people
14:34 < illegale> though i doubt in his success about that conversation
14:34 < echarp> poor guys at smartocarcy :)
14:35 < illegale> poor mar
14:35 < illegale> k
14:35 < illegale> i understand him :)
14:35 < echarp> he's beyond that ;)
14:36 < illegale> i can not find decision making at opencoop
14:36 < illegale> bad
14:36 < illegale> ok, i found it
14:36 < illegale> they thought of that :)
14:37 < illegale> i go to luch
14:37 < illegale> see you later aligator
14:37 < echarp> bon appétit!
14:37 < illegale> merxi
14:37 -!- illegale [n=ille...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has quit ["Lost terminal"]
16:23 < urgen> what do you do with long aimless philosophical talk in the logs? ;-)
16:26 < echarp> they are cool
16:26 < echarp> it's a matter of practicality, if no one use the channel to speak on directly useful matters, then it's open to everything else
16:27 < urgen> ah yes I've explored this issue too, but I mean how can a log get filtered?
16:27 < echarp> urgen: you've been kicked out of channels who were stricter?
16:27 < urgen> no
16:27 < echarp> are you reading what you said this morning?
16:27 < echarp> oups
16:27 < echarp> what *we*
16:27 < urgen> I read it
16:28 < echarp> today the logs are static and for one day
16:28 < urgen> you need markers
16:28 < echarp> maybe they'll evolve in the future, and allow some more intelligence
16:28 < echarp> the obvious marker here, is the line
16:28 < urgen> [mark this topic as *tag*]
16:29 < echarp> parlement is designed to work with lines
16:29 < echarp> :)
16:29 < urgen> then it can be harvested
16:29 < echarp> but what are you marking exactly? the rest of the conversation?
16:29 < urgen> otherwise I can tag it ok to delete
16:29 < echarp> when does it changer? when someone else change the mark/tag?
16:29 < urgen> yes would have two sides
16:29 < urgen> might be fun to have individual prefs
16:30 < echarp> in fact I'm thinking of another way to do all of that
16:30 < urgen> I have logs from 1988
16:30 < echarp> group lines by time slices
16:30 < echarp> woaw
16:30 < echarp> old you! :)
16:31 < echarp> lines could be grouped using silences as delimiters
16:31 < urgen> but they are on 5 1/4" floppies
16:31 < urgen> :)
16:31 < urgen> I suppose I have a few old drives and could build a system to read them
16:31 < echarp> you *have* to push them on your current computers
16:31 < urgen> give it ethernet
16:31 < echarp> if you don't upgrade their substrate they will die
16:31 < urgen> yes, soon
16:32 < echarp> lol
16:32 < urgen> info is so interesting that way
16:32 < urgen> it's only real if it is alive
16:32 < echarp> true
16:33 < echarp> it needs some kind of energy, human generally
16:54 < urgen> EVA #1 BEGINS SATURDAY, JULY 8, 13:13 GMT, EVA #1 ENDS 19:43 GMT
16:59 < echarp> ^
17:00 < echarp> you'll remind me hopefully ;)
17:03 < urgen> EVA #2 BEGINS MONDAY, JULY 10, 12:43 GMT, ENDS 19:13 GMT
--- Log closed jeu jui 06 00:00:57 2006
03:05 < nsh> what happened?
03:24 < urgen> when?
03:24 < urgen> oh he was talking about the last disaster
03:24 < urgen> things are fine so far
03:25 < urgen> they still haven't done the standard skootch the arm around and take a look
03:26 < urgen> that was a fun google video
03:27 -!- nsh_ (No Such Human) [n=n...@88.144.33.27] has joined #parlement
03:27 < urgen> oh
03:28 < nsh_> hey
03:28 -!- nsh [n=nsh@wikipedia/nsh] has quit [Nick collision from services.]
03:28 -!- nsh_ is now known as nsh
03:28 < urgen> colliding with your virtual self
03:28 < nsh> thought something had happened with the shuttle
03:28 * nsh smiles
03:28 < nsh> yeah
03:28 < nsh> mirrors facing mirrors
03:29 < nsh> what's new?
03:29 < urgen> not as much as there should be
03:30 < nsh> the future is here, it's just not evenly distributed yes. -gibson
03:30 < nsh> *yet
03:31 < nsh> pebbles in a pizza pan
03:31 < urgen> :-)
03:31 < urgen> holons
03:31 * nsh smiles
03:31 < nsh> you've read Koestler?
03:31 < urgen> um can't remember
03:31 * urgen digs around
03:31 < nsh> think i may have mentioned it before
03:31 < urgen> ya
03:32 < nsh> Holons are part of the thesis of the book Roots of Coincidence.
03:32 < nsh> so last year i was toying with fields of cellular automata as metaphysical analogues
03:33 < urgen> Gore's 'An Inconvenient Truth' isn't really as bad as what 'A Convenient Truth' would be about
03:33 < nsh> hrmm
--- Log closed mer jui 05 03:39:10 2006
--- Log opened mer jui 05 07:42:17 2006
07:42 -!- echarp [n=33M0...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has joined #parlement
07:42 -!- Topic for #parlement: http://leparlement.org/irc
07:42 -!- Topic set by echarp [] [Sun Jun 11 20:50:53 2006]
07:42 [Users #parlement]
07:42 [ echarp] [ fiatlex] [ nsh] [ parlebot] [ urgen]
07:42 -!- Irssi: #parlement: Total of 5 nicks [0 ops, 0 halfops, 0 voices, 5 normal]
07:42 -!- Channel #parlement created Thu Apr 27 09:48:29 2006
07:42 -!- Irssi: Join to #parlement was synced in 44 secs
07:52 < urgen:#parlement> re
08:06 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
09:44 < echarp> hello hello
13:19 -!- illegale (illegale) [n=ille...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has joined #parlement
13:19 < illegale:#parlement> io
13:20 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
13:20 < echarp> hello hello illegale
13:20 < echarp> how are you?
13:31 < illegale> fine
13:31 < illegale> you?
13:31 < echarp> about fine, although the night was rather hot again
13:31 < echarp> today it's about to rain, yeah! :)
13:32 < illegale> nice
13:32 < echarp> and you, still sunny I bet?
13:32 < illegale> course, and now i am blod so sun hits my head pretty hard
13:33 < illegale> this about 4th floow, i missunderstood it obviously :)
13:33 < echarp> 4th floow?
13:34 < illegale> flor
13:34 < illegale> japanese stuff
13:36 < illegale> what do you think about autopoietic communication tool based on equality of all users?
13:36 < illegale> no moderators but transaprent discussion enabled
13:36 < illegale> i think that would change to internet in its core
13:36 < illegale> suggested it to Joi Ito, he is not interested :)
13:37 < echarp> I believe this is what I'm producing: parlement
13:37 < illegale> yet, you miss transparency part
13:37 < illegale> filters and stuff
13:37 < illegale> right?
13:37 < echarp> democratic moderation that each user choose
13:37 < illegale> you mean fitlerins?
13:37 < echarp> there are filters, but it's the user who choose them
13:37 < illegale> ng
13:38 < illegale> hide un hide posts?
13:38 < illegale> hide un hide users?
13:38 < echarp> there is that yes, and the possibility to choose the moderators and the moderation threshold
13:38 < echarp> it's all based on posts, not users
13:38 < illegale> moderation treshold, what does it mean?
13:39 < illegale> if i like someones moderation, a can not subscribe to him?
13:39 < echarp> if a post is voted "+5", if your threshold is +6 then it's hidden
13:39 < illegale> so common grade is only relevnt?
13:39 < illegale> what with minorities?
13:39 < echarp> you could only subscribe to an electoral list moderation, it could be an electoral list of "one" :)
13:40 < illegale> what does it mean elevotral
13:40 < echarp> an electoral list is a list of voters used to calculate a post acceptation
13:40 < illegale> everyone has his own list?
13:40 < echarp> there are different things here :)
13:41 < echarp> first users, individuals
13:41 < echarp> users can post anything they want
13:41 < echarp> all users can vote on all propositions
13:41 < echarp> how are calculated the results of those votes?
13:41 < echarp> using electoral lists, there can be any number of electoral lists
13:41 < echarp> any user can setup any number of electoral list
13:42 < echarp> using whatever criterion he wants
13:42 < illegale> does this mean i can not ignore someones votes if i care?
13:42 < echarp> but of course, only a few electoral list will be important
13:42 < echarp> you could create your own electoral list and only include the people you care about
13:42 < illegale> i can ignore people who are spamers for me?
13:42 < illegale> what about topics?
13:42 < illegale> issues ?
13:42 < echarp> no, that won't do, you can only ignore their vote
13:43 < echarp> there are only issues, no topics (yet anyway)
13:43 < echarp> post == issue
13:43 < illegale> so, electoral list for every issue?
13:43 < echarp> mail == post == issue
13:43 < echarp> you could have an electoral issue on every issue, but it does seem over kill
13:44 < illegale> not if it is properly organised?
13:44 < illegale> can i see popularity ratings?
13:44 < echarp> well, someone has to create and manage an electoral list
13:44 < illegale> how many people are subscirbed, or see stuff i seee?
13:44 < echarp> popularity rating of what?
13:44 < illegale> can i take a list from others?
13:44 < illegale> of issues=?
13:44 < echarp> you can see who is subscribed yes
13:45 < echarp> you can of course see popularity rating of issues
13:45 < echarp> you can take lists from others yes
13:45 < illegale> so, in general, i can subsciribe to one persons filter ?
13:45 < illegale> in certain set of issues?
13:45 < echarp> sort of yes :)
13:45 < echarp> you can use the electoral list defined by some one else!
13:45 < illegale> they are public?
13:46 < echarp> what I have in mind in parlement, on the main page, is that each user can choose the electoral list and the threshold that will filter their view
13:46 < echarp> electoral lists are definitely public yes, like everybody else (or almost)
13:46 < illegale> i do not need treshold
13:46 < echarp> electoral lists are definitely public yes, like *everything* else (or almost)
13:46 < illegale> personally
13:46 < echarp> fine
13:46 < illegale> why almost?
13:46 < illegale> what is not public?
13:47 < echarp> illegale: but then you will also see spam and others people votes, that will be a lot of things
13:47 < echarp> the only thing not public is password, and PGP private keys
13:47 < illegale> that is an option,i guess
13:47 < illegale> cool
13:47 < illegale> did you check out tiaktiv model, the old one?
13:47 < echarp> passwords and PGP private keys are not really part of the P2P server thing...
13:48 < echarp> they are part of the P2P client :)
13:48 < illegale> so, eveything is public
13:48 < illegale> :)
13:48 < echarp> everything is of course public yes, has to, to be managed on P2P servers!
13:48 < illegale> though, i wanted to notice one thingabout that softare
13:48 < echarp> yes?
13:48 < illegale> it enables open clusters,
13:49 < echarp> yeap
13:49 < illegale> in a manner i set someones filter and he is not filtering someone i find be spamer
13:49 < illegale> and stuff
13:49 < illegale> that is good i can notice
13:49 < echarp> filters are of course optional
13:49 < illegale> though, you have to give someone motivation for doing his job
13:49 < illegale> we are talking about moderators
13:49 < echarp> moderators are voters :)
13:49 < illegale> they are controling information
13:50 < illegale> if i want to see some discusion, i am old stuff guy
13:50 < illegale> i want to see someone who deals with it properl
13:50 < illegale> y
13:50 < echarp> the prime motivation is that they are contributing to the site quality, increasing the signal/noise ratio
13:50 < illegale> yes
13:50 < illegale> yet, moderaion is virtue
13:50 < echarp> I also expect some electoral lists to be the real democratic thing
13:50 < illegale> what means democratic?
13:50 < echarp> for example a village could set its own electoral list
13:50 < echarp> and they could vote on stuff
13:50 < illegale> cool
13:51 < echarp> they could decide, for example, that all elements reaching a pre determined threshold are automatically voted for the village
13:51 < illegale> are posts set in tree ?
13:51 < echarp> yes
13:51 < echarp> a big big tree
13:51 < illegale> ok, in that way i can subscirbe to someone to filter that tree for me
13:52 < illegale> leading discussion
13:52 < echarp> exactly :)
13:52 < illegale> that is a cool thing as an option that does not exist actuall
13:52 < illegale> y
13:52 < illegale> in TOP interface
13:52 < illegale> s
13:52 < illegale> i suppose
13:52 < echarp> there are rss feeds, based on time or on acceptation
13:52 < echarp> you can also subscribe by mail
13:52 < echarp> (the filtering and electoral lists are not yet programmed!!!)
13:53 < illegale> so, till we get something that can be set up at my server, how long should it take you think?
13:53 < echarp> for the filtering part?
13:53 < illegale> 6 months?
13:53 < illegale> filtering and selecting filter option
13:53 < echarp> nah, a few weeks for the filters and electoral lists
13:53 < illegale> it should work fast
13:53 < echarp> I'm in the middle of avatars right now, it almost works on ie :)
13:53 < illegale> :-)
13:54 < illegale> cool
13:54 < illegale> you expect some problems?
13:54 < echarp> not at all
13:54 < echarp> I expect *HUGE* problems with delegations :(
13:54 < illegale> are you goon in prognosing?
13:54 < illegale> ah
13:54 < echarp> but no problem with electoral lists and filters
13:54 < echarp> goon?
13:54 < illegale> good
13:55 < illegale> hmh, choosing electoral lists is delegating otgher bodies for filtering
13:55 < illegale> so, you think on something else
13:55 < illegale> power of vote, yes?
13:55 < echarp> no
13:55 < echarp> electoral lists and delegations are different beasts
13:56 < echarp> you use an electoral list to calculate the direct votes on an element
13:56 < echarp> delegations are a way to cast those votes indirectly, not to tabulate the results
13:57 < echarp> you are considering the moderation features, which is great, but it's not what I concentrate about personally, I concentrate about expressing opinions
13:57 < echarp> moderations are a by product, a cool one
13:57 < illegale> moderation is part internet lacks
13:57 < illegale> on autopoietic principel one
13:57 < echarp> true
13:57 < echarp> we are submerged with data
13:57 < illegale> so, i am looking for that part
13:58 < echarp> well, I'm starting to consider that parlement is a sort of "digg" software
13:58 < echarp> where everybody can propose and vote on news
13:58 < illegale> at tiaktiv we did not emerge due to this reason to one respected site
13:58 < echarp> those most voted upon will go up and up, and will reach more visibility
13:58 < illegale> they wanted to keep their reputatopm, we did not want to let opennes in any way
13:59 < illegale> this could solbve this problem aout
13:59 < echarp> I'd love it!
13:59 < illegale> digg=?
13:59 < illegale> you look at slashdot?
14:00 < illegale> that is the reason you need pluralism in voting
14:00 < illegale> in that way no karma bithes
14:00 < echarp> digg is a kind of slashdot thing yes (I follow very closely slashdot yes)
14:00 < echarp> there would most certainly be karma whoring on parlement too, just every one would choose their moderators :)
14:01 < illegale> this stuff makes it pretty bizzare to invest energy when you personlise stuff
14:01 < echarp> slashdot?
14:01 < illegale> i expect karma bithcing goes of topic
14:01 < illegale> btw reminds me on google co op
14:01 < illegale> what about shahdot'
14:01 < illegale> ?
14:02 < illegale> hmh, if i subscribe to your topic, others see it?
14:02 < echarp> I was wondering about your energy investment, if it was on slashdot or not
14:02 < echarp> subscription is public yes
14:02 < illegale> in pluralistic voting system
14:02 < echarp> you can use the rss feed to do it anonymously ;)
14:02 < illegale> col
14:02 < illegale> i mean this part abvou subscription
14:03 < echarp> illegale: you already have a pseudo on parlement btw
14:03 < illegale> find forcing public opinion be good thing in political maturing
14:03 < illegale> what do you mean?
14:03 < echarp> just log in (no need for password, just use your pseudo)
14:03 < echarp> go to the element you want to subscribe to, make it the main element on the page, then click on "subscribe!"
14:04 < echarp> illegale: you are registered already on parlement, but no password
14:04 < echarp> the "subscribe!" button will subscribe you to the main element on the page
14:04 < illegale> i see you voted for about TOP
14:04 < echarp> :)
14:04 < illegale> how is it did not happen at google groups*
14:04 < illegale> ?
14:05 < echarp> the data flows from google to parlement, and from parlement to my development server
14:05 < illegale> though, i like transparency you created
14:05 < echarp> it does not go from parlement to google
14:05 < illegale> can that be chagned?
14:05 < echarp> it's difficult, because google won't accept posts from people not registered on the group
14:05 < echarp> thus some elements could actually be sent to google, but not all of them :(
14:06 < echarp> that would be rather strange
14:06 < illegale> you know people still look at google primarly'
14:06 < illegale> ?
14:06 < illegale> at least i do:)
14:06 < echarp> I'm sure they do
14:07 < echarp> and thus I sometimes vote by mail directly on the google group
14:07 < illegale> what about some registered bot that sends results from voting and stuff?
14:07 < illegale> hard thing to do?
14:07 < illegale> I verify at your server and bot does this part?
14:07 < echarp> parlement use the "from" part a lot, and I won't fake it for google group :(
14:07 < illegale> cool
14:08 < echarp> and sending that kind of information would flood the google group
14:08 < illegale> i think you should use google groups voting in order of not confusing otehrs
14:09 < illegale> different results and stuff
14:09 < echarp> everybody can use google groups for voting, using the -1/0/+1 scheme
14:09 < illegale> let me check it out
14:09 < echarp> but the data flow will be hard to reverse, it's google=>parlement
14:10 < echarp> in a voting mail, just type -1 or 0 or +1, make sure it is at the beginning of a line!!! (important, or it won't be accepted as a vote)
14:10 < echarp> you can also write any number of other things
14:10 < echarp> but type a vote at the beginning of a line
14:12 < echarp> received!!!
14:13 < echarp> but
14:13 < echarp> but but but!
14:13 < illegale> just testing :9
14:13 < echarp> being the author of the original post onto which you voted... :)
14:13 < echarp> guess what, you had already voted +1 (implicitely) on it :)
14:14 < illegale> i know
14:14 < illegale> so it works?
14:14 < echarp> yeap
14:14 < echarp> I'm receiving it right now as we speak
14:14 < illegale> no bugs noticed?
14:14 < echarp> no bugs
14:14 < illegale> good
14:14 < illegale> you solved magnuss bugs toož
14:14 < illegale> ?
14:15 < echarp> yeap
14:15 < echarp> a bad bug, silly bug
14:15 < illegale> parent directories i need
14:15 < echarp> parent?
14:15 < illegale> there is a post and the one it is linked to
14:15 < illegale> right
14:16 < illegale> ?
14:16 < illegale> that one is parent
14:16 < illegale> one of the silly relations that might work fine
14:16 < echarp> a vote is always the child of the element it is a vote upon yes
14:16 < illegale> i know
14:16 < echarp> the parent element is at the top of the page
14:16 < echarp> at the very very top
14:17 < echarp> in fact just before the white body
14:17 < illegale> Highest posts
14:17 < illegale> +0 <Magnus> Re: About TOP
14:17 < illegale> -1 <anon> Re: About TOP
14:17 < illegale> -1 <anon> Re: About TOP
14:17 < illegale> Re: [top-politics] About TOP -2 <echarp> Re: About TOP
14:17 < illegale> what is this
14:17 < illegale> ?
14:17 < illegale> has soem meaning?
14:17 < echarp> this is the list of descendant elements, ordered by their acceptation level
14:17 < illegale> hmh, you invclude spamer lists?
14:17 < echarp> there are two such lists, by vote and by date
14:18 < illegale> i se
14:18 < echarp> no, no spamming filtering but for some simple one on the online form
14:18 < illegale> e
14:18 < illegale> why not'
14:18 < illegale> ?
14:18 < echarp> because it has not been required as of now :)
14:19 < echarp> but I might have to add it sometimes in the future :(
14:19 < illegale> you gonna create it maybe?
14:19 < illegale> ok
14:19 < echarp> when filtering will be available, it might not be needed anymore
14:19 < illegale> hmh, what abvout bots and stuff?
14:20 < illegale> i suppose they might be expected
14:20 < echarp> they won't be in electoral lists! :)
14:20 < echarp> and thus all their posts will be at +0
14:20 < illegale> yet will be in issue list
14:20 < echarp> I expect users to browse at a minimum of +1, but for moderators
14:20 < illegale> can be hard to filter thourgh dozens of messages
14:20 < illegale> adn stuff
14:20 < echarp> nah, issue list will also use the filter
14:21 < illegale> what do you mean?
14:21 < echarp> the list "by vote" and "by date" will also be filtered
14:21 < illegale> i am a bot and i flood you with 1000 mails what will you do?
14:21 < illegale> ban the only solution?
14:21 < echarp> I'll add spamassassin! :)
14:21 < illegale> what is that?
14:22 < echarp> it's a great spam filter
14:22 < echarp> I use it for my mails
14:22 < illegale> admin one?
14:22 < echarp> bayesian filtering
14:22 < illegale> suppose you need public filters for this stuff also
14:22 < illegale> flamers and those who spend weeks to flood
14:23 < illegale> have to have sharp mechanisms to deal with
14:23 < echarp> I don't know yet
14:23 < illegale> yet, no banning in any case but spam by defintion
14:23 < echarp> I guess the solutions will need refinement as they become required
14:23 < illegale> cool
14:23 < illegale> this is open source, right?
14:23 < illegale> :
14:23 < echarp> yeap :)
14:23 < echarp> GPL
14:23 < illegale> nice
14:24 < illegale> it works much faster than the last time i checked out
14:24 < illegale> ohohoh, what about tags?
14:24 < echarp> well, I'm looking at the logs right now, and it's not that good :(
14:25 < echarp> tags will also be used I guess, sometimes :)
14:25 < illegale> can your basic system hadle it with no big changeS?
14:25 < illegale> what do you mean about logs?
14:25 < echarp> there are RoR plugins for tags
14:26 < illegale> what does it mean?
14:26 < illegale> side system?
14:26 < echarp> I'm looking at the server logs, and I see that the page still takes huge amount of seconds to be generated :(
14:26 < illegale> I wish you luck in slovign this problem :9
14:26 < illegale> )
14:26 < echarp> the plugin is rather easy to add by itself, it needs slightly more work to integrate in the interface
14:26 < illegale> though, you mentioned avatars
14:27 < echarp> yeap, the ones I'm doing! :)
14:27 < illegale> persons will be able to register and stuff
14:27 < echarp> that will make for some nice candy
14:27 < illegale> create profiles and so on?
14:27 < echarp> people already can register easily
14:27 < illegale> i find it important part
14:27 < illegale> parsonification to be
14:27 < echarp> well, registration is only used to differentiate your posts from others
14:28 < illegale> i know, i look from psycholoical side
14:28 < echarp> you can register with a pseudo, with pseudo and password, with pesudo and password and email
14:28 < illegale> investment stuf
14:28 < illegale> caring about it stuff
14:28 < echarp> eventually I expect to allow some sort of personal css
14:28 < illegale> ego is cool mechanism that works fine
14:28 < echarp> :
14:28 < echarp> :)
14:30 < echarp> registration is so simple, I hope people will do just as you do it here on irc
14:30 < echarp> I've modelled parlement registration on the way we do it here ;)
14:31 < illegale> ok. gonna involve some designers and stuff in some future'
14:31 < illegale> or that is part of otehrs?
14:31 < echarp> others?
14:31 < echarp> I'm open to designers!!!
14:31 < illegale> those who wish to do it no matter of you
14:32 < echarp> that would be cool too
14:32 < echarp> they are most welcome
14:32 < illegale> hmh, i am at opencoop
14:33 < illegale> see what they miss , or what i miss there
14:33 < illegale> some thread of mine action
14:33 < illegale> that i can check out what hapend with all of that stuff
14:33 < illegale> now i have to surf the whole site
14:33 < illegale> again :I)
14:34 < illegale> btw, Mark is back aso .)=
14:34 < illegale> glad he gets in contact to smartocracy people
14:34 < illegale> though i doubt in his success about that conversation
14:34 < echarp> poor guys at smartocarcy :)
14:35 < illegale> poor mar
14:35 < illegale> k
14:35 < illegale> i understand him :)
14:35 < echarp> he's beyond that ;)
14:36 < illegale> i can not find decision making at opencoop
14:36 < illegale> bad
14:36 < illegale> ok, i found it
14:36 < illegale> they thought of that :)
14:37 < illegale> i go to luch
14:37 < illegale> see you later aligator
14:37 < echarp> bon appétit!
14:37 < illegale> merxi
14:37 -!- illegale [n=ille...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has quit ["Lost terminal"]
16:23 < urgen> what do you do with long aimless philosophical talk in the logs? ;-)
16:26 < echarp> they are cool
16:26 < echarp> it's a matter of practicality, if no one use the channel to speak on directly useful matters, then it's open to everything else
16:27 < urgen> ah yes I've explored this issue too, but I mean how can a log get filtered?
16:27 < echarp> urgen: you've been kicked out of channels who were stricter?
16:27 < urgen> no
16:27 < echarp> are you reading what you said this morning?
16:27 < echarp> oups
16:27 < echarp> what *we*
16:27 < urgen> I read it
16:28 < echarp> today the logs are static and for one day
16:28 < urgen> you need markers
16:28 < echarp> maybe they'll evolve in the future, and allow some more intelligence
16:28 < echarp> the obvious marker here, is the line
16:28 < urgen> [mark this topic as *tag*]
16:29 < echarp> parlement is designed to work with lines
16:29 < echarp> :)
16:29 < urgen> then it can be harvested
16:29 < echarp> but what are you marking exactly? the rest of the conversation?
16:29 < urgen> otherwise I can tag it ok to delete
16:29 < echarp> when does it changer? when someone else change the mark/tag?
16:29 < urgen> yes would have two sides
16:29 < urgen> might be fun to have individual prefs
16:30 < echarp> in fact I'm thinking of another way to do all of that
16:30 < urgen> I have logs from 1988
16:30 < echarp> group lines by time slices
16:30 < echarp> woaw
16:30 < echarp> old you! :)
16:31 < echarp> lines could be grouped using silences as delimiters
16:31 < urgen> but they are on 5 1/4" floppies
16:31 < urgen> :)
16:31 < urgen> I suppose I have a few old drives and could build a system to read them
16:31 < echarp> you *have* to push them on your current computers
16:31 < urgen> give it ethernet
16:31 < echarp> if you don't upgrade their substrate they will die
16:31 < urgen> yes, soon
16:32 < echarp> lol
16:32 < urgen> info is so interesting that way
16:32 < urgen> it's only real if it is alive
16:32 < echarp> true
16:33 < echarp> it needs some kind of energy, human generally
16:54 < urgen> EVA #1 BEGINS SATURDAY, JULY 8, 13:13 GMT, EVA #1 ENDS 19:43 GMT
16:59 < echarp> ^
17:00 < echarp> you'll remind me hopefully ;)
17:03 < urgen> EVA #2 BEGINS MONDAY, JULY 10, 12:43 GMT, ENDS 19:13 GMT
--- Log closed jeu jui 06 00:00:57 2006
Mark
Jul 6, 2006, 5:52:06 PM7/6/06
to top-politics
14:34 < illegale> btw, Mark is back aso .)=
14:34 < illegale> glad he gets in contact to smartocracy people
14:34 < illegale> though i doubt in his success about that conversation
14:34 < illegale> glad he gets in contact to smartocracy people
14:34 < illegale> though i doubt in his success about that conversation
-M: I am going to suggest that they split their representitives into
generalists and specialists.
I will also recommend *double defaulting* - if one or no specialists
are selected for an issue, the algorithm will default to general
trustees. If no trustees are selected, the algorithm will put voting
power to fill rank distribution gaps.
14:34 < echarp> poor guys at smartocarcy :)
14:35 < illegale> poor mar[...]k
14:35 < illegale> i understand him :)
14:35 < echarp> he's beyond that ;)
-M: I think things will work.
People, there are two things that we do in this world that are black
and white:
1. Methods that accelerate sociocultual evolutionary advancement.
2. Methods that decelerate sociocultural evolutionary advancement.
I prefer #1. And when people contradict themselves - its #2.
This is why I scold. Being the Thought Police is a burden, and I wish
that others would extend more respect.
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA
echarp
Jul 7, 2006, 12:28:57 AM7/7/06
to top-politics
--- Log opened jeu jui 06 00:00:57 2006
04:57 < urgen> http://www.getdemocracy.com/about/
10:55 < echarp> hello hello
16:14 < urgen:#parlement> morning
16:14 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
16:14 < echarp> good afternoon urgen :)
16:15 < urgen> :-)
16:30 -!- illegale (illegale) [n=ille...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has joined #parlement
16:30 < illegale> iož
16:36 < urgen> hi
16:36 < urgen> sorry I don't have a bot on your channel still illegale, been busy lately
16:36 < echarp> lo
16:39 < illegale> hey huys
16:39 < illegale> guys )
16:40 < illegale> no problem Urgen. If you get some time, Ill be glad to see it working, if not never mind :)
16:40 < illegale> charp,
16:40 < illegale> did not watch football again?
16:40 < urgen> hey illegale, what would you think about getting Steven Clift here in IRC?
16:41 < illegale> lol
16:41 < illegale> i am not sure in him though
16:41 < illegale> what you think?
16:41 < urgen> I think conversation helps
16:41 < illegale> thogh, my ability of noticing helpfull people around is debacle oriented :)
16:41 < urgen> but only if it really is conversation
16:41 < urgen> if it is just a one way story maybe too hard
16:41 < illegale> would you help it be conversation?
16:42 < urgen> he is asking me for help about IRC
16:42 < illegale> ok then :9
16:42 < illegale> he is you bitch in that way
16:42 < illegale> :-)
16:42 < urgen> :-)
16:42 < urgen> ya, well echarp
16:42 < illegale> he wants some e-democracy channel?
16:43 < urgen> is it ok to bring someone elses existing efforts to this channel or should I start another channel?
16:43 < echarp> I watched the match, for once :)
16:43 < illegale> echarp: finnaly¨
16:43 < urgen> yes, he wanted #e-democracy but we've found that someone else registered it already
16:43 < urgen> ah, so I did miss it
16:43 < urgen> rats
16:43 < echarp> you can of course bring him around here!
16:43 < echarp> he is most most welcome!!!
16:43 < illegale> that would be cool
16:43 < urgen> ok I'll let him know
16:43 < echarp> I'm very open
16:44 < illegale> urgen: you in contact to him?
16:44 < echarp> if he is a girl and nice looking, all the better ;)
16:44 < urgen> I'll be sure to get a wig for him
16:44 < illegale> echarp: he is not girl, but he might be good looking
16:44 < urgen> yes I asked him why #e-democracy was invite only
16:45 < urgen> and he emailed me back asking for help because he didn't do that
16:45 < illegale> col
16:46 < illegale> cool
16:46 < illegale> :)
16:46 < echarp> I would have loved to name the parlement project using a cool sounding name, like e-vote, but it's all taken already
16:47 < illegale> e-power
16:47 < illegale> check it out
16:47 < illegale> :)
16:47 < echarp> :)
16:48 < echarp> e-discussion-and-vote :)
16:48 < illegale> nah,
16:48 < illegale> short as possible
16:48 < echarp> yeap
16:48 < illegale> they say people can stand only two words at moest
16:48 < echarp> and one is of course better
16:48 < illegale> yes
16:48 < illegale> soundish one
16:48 < echarp> I choose parliament because it very much corresponds to the concept I envision
16:49 < echarp> e-parliament sounds silly
16:49 < illegale> i had simmilar envision
16:49 < illegale> forum
16:49 < echarp> so I just went for the french word :)
16:49 < echarp> forum yes
16:49 < illegale> it was taken of course
16:49 < illegale> then went for agora
16:49 < illegale> it was taken also
16:49 < echarp> agora is really cool yes
16:49 < illegale> now, i am for creation of new concepts we wuill create
16:50 < illegale> forum was not good in that way
16:50 < illegale> too many links i had to deny
16:50 < illegale> thats why i am lookng for fresh brend
16:50 < illegale> tradition, bye bye
16:50 < illegale> we are building new world stuff
16:50 < echarp> VeniVidiVoti sounds like a better name then? :)
16:50 < illegale> message i find cool
16:51 < illegale> lol
16:51 < illegale> www.vvv.org
16:51 < echarp> nah
16:51 < echarp> but I have http://vvv.sf.net
16:52 < illegale> heh
16:52 < echarp> and http://vvv.dyndns.org
16:52 < illegale> this is though stuff to be done
16:52 < illegale> i supposed top politics is fine
16:52 < illegale> urgen does not shatre that opinion
16:52 < illegale> maybe some lunatic linguist/copywriter could help
16:52 < echarp> that "top" is fine for a name?
16:52 < echarp> :)
16:53 < illegale> yes
16:53 < urgen> my opinion is that top should not call itself politics
16:53 < illegale> but?
16:53 < illegale> top itself?
16:53 < urgen> the principle
16:53 < illegale> top principle
16:53 < illegale> -
16:53 < urgen> it is a much larger tool much more valuable
16:53 < illegale> top economy
16:53 < illegale> stuff you aim at?
16:53 < echarp> Transparent Open Participative?
16:53 < urgen> sure it can help politics but you've got something if you polish it in the right way
16:54 < illegale> what way you see urgen?
16:54 < urgen> I'll be right back, finish this email first
16:54 < illegale> echarp: totally open politics
16:54 < illegale> ;:)
16:54 < illegale> k
16:54 < echarp> :)
16:55 < echarp> I prefer participation/participative to politics, but it's only my taste
16:55 < illegale> techbnical organsation practixe
16:55 < illegale> that part was public one
16:55 < echarp> you can be sure some one has already used it :)
16:55 < echarp> top is too tempting an acronym
16:55 < illegale> hmh
16:55 < illegale> lets chck
16:56 < illegale> google cant find it
16:56 < illegale> such as and
16:56 < illegale> too many stuf
16:56 < illegale> f
16:56 < illegale> suppose that is not perfect?
16:57 < illegale> we choosed Tiaktiv when was the time for choosing name organsation
16:57 < illegale> transparent interactive
16:57 < illegale> yet, some say it sounds as detergent
17:00 < urgen> maybe it is ;-)
17:00 < illegale> detergent=
17:00 < illegale> ?
17:00 < urgen> strong soap
17:00 < illegale> lol
17:00 < illegale> i like your conotation :)
17:02 < illegale> nevertheless, i am looking for new brand aslo
17:06 < urgen> oh no
17:06 < urgen> you asked prax here?
17:06 < urgen> :\
17:06 < urgen> that's like asking the pope here
17:06 < urgen> he's not going to talk democracy
17:07 < urgen> early efforts have to be cared for gently
17:08 < urgen> communism is prax's religion. it is a dogma to him. no room for discussion.
17:08 < illegale> i have no problems with Prax
17:09 < urgen> you will
17:09 < urgen> :-)
17:09 < urgen> I've know him for years
17:09 < illegale> had many discussions with many rigid people
17:09 < illegale> very rigid people
17:09 < illegale> find them be great sorce for info
17:09 < urgen> well there are places for that kind of thing
17:10 < urgen> maybe as a test loop for after the basics get outlined a little better
17:10 < urgen> but early stages, loud strong stubborn ppl make it crash fast
17:10 < illegale> urgen: btw, is there any way you could help us with defining top at google.groups+'
17:10 < illegale> ?
17:10 < illegale> urgen: i am lound abnd sometimes pretty subborn also :)=
17:11 < urgen> I don't feel the effort is mine. I appreciate what you shared so far
17:11 < urgen> ya but you talk
17:11 < illegale> urgen: thank you
17:12 < illegale> though, did you thought about joining discussion at groups?
17:12 < illegale> i find it be pretty though part
17:12 < urgen> I thought that I am stretched pretty thin these days
17:12 < illegale> asked for one known 7to me/ psychiatrist who is into this stuff also :)
17:12 < illegale> ok
17:13 < urgen> there are quite a few efforts going on right now, I want to watch them all
17:13 < illegale> urgen: it was up to me to ask, and up to you to answer :)
17:13 < urgen> sure
17:13 < illegale> what else is going on?
17:13 < urgen> I will start to make a list soon
17:13 < illegale> that would be pretty primary thing to do i suppose
17:14 < illegale> do you habve some prompt lines?
17:14 < illegale> btw, you into unitederdiversitysity y?
17:14 < illegale> now?
17:14 < urgen> here's a google group I started: http://groups.google.com/group/Spiritual-Politics
17:15 < urgen> when Bush won and it appeared due to the influence of the christian right
17:15 < illegale> interesting
17:15 < illegale> who are the members?
17:15 < urgen> how to get a handle on managing value systems like that
17:15 < urgen> it has zero activity now
17:16 < urgen> everyone got depressed I think :-)
17:16 < illegale> i see
17:16 < urgen> just various ppl that I came across in IRC
17:16 < illegale> that is regular stuff
17:16 < illegale> ok
17:16 < urgen> it had an irc channel for a while too
17:16 < illegale> i suppose you are not watching at it right ow though :)=
17:17 < urgen> not, yes
17:17 < urgen> trimmed back to six networks and 16 channels :-)
17:18 < urgen> it gets hard to manage
17:18 < illegale> freenode is not only one?
17:19 < illegale> can you name them and say a little more about prosperous ones IYO?
17:20 < illegale> echarp: what is subscribing adress to top politcs?
17:20 < illegale> sorry for asking such dull question, need to be sure
17:21 < urgen> http://irc.netsplit.de/
17:21 < urgen> http://irc.netsplit.de/networks/top10graphs.php
17:21 < echarp> illegale: on google groups?
17:21 < echarp> or on parlement?
17:21 < illegale> echarp: yes
17:22 < illegale> google gorups
17:22 < echarp> http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics
17:22 < illegale> how to subscribe to it?
17:22 < urgen> freenode is #8 atm
17:22 < illegale> urgen: really?
17:23 < illegale> urgen: though what about qualityŽ?
17:23 < urgen> that's always relative :-)
17:23 < urgen> freenode is a geek channel
17:23 < urgen> like oftc
17:24 < echarp> top-politic...@googlegroups.com
17:24 < illegale> ok, is there some channel pore politics orieneted but freenode?
17:24 < illegale> echarp: thank you
17:24 < echarp> you're welcome
17:25 < urgen> http://irc.netsplit.de/channels/?num=0&query=democracy
17:26 < illegale> urgen: hmh, it does not help my interest much
17:27 < urgen> what doesn't?
17:28 < urgen> there are a few IRC search engines these days too
17:29 < urgen> searchirc.com
17:29 < urgen> www.ircspy.com
17:29 < urgen> www.packetnews.com
17:29 < urgen> but you had better be careful thinking popular = power
17:30 < illegale> i understand that
17:30 < illegale> though, you mentioned 16 more channels
17:30 < illegale> and 2 more networks
17:31 < illegale> which ones they are?
17:31 < illegale> is there anything that might be interesting for us ?
17:31 < illegale> if it is prosperous to you, hmh, maybe some of us could notice it too?
17:33 < urgen> oh, you are just interviewing my interest?
17:34 < illegale> oh no
17:34 < illegale> if this stuff is simmilar to politics than i am interested also
17:35 < illegale> if you like this we might have simmilar brains to qualify quality of other issues in this field
17:35 < illegale> might not, but it should be checked out
17:35 < illegale> if you are into internet bissines stuff also i might be interested :)
17:37 < illegale> if you want to keep it for yourself, please take my apology for being rude and not taking this into consideration
17:38 < urgen> no my channels are usually not related to politics
17:38 < illegale> oh, ok.
17:38 < illegale> nevermind
17:39 < urgen> and not business other than systems administration and tech
17:39 < urgen> which is what I do
17:39 < illegale> echarp: search engine at google for top politics sets your site at 6th place
17:39 < illegale> urgen: you introduced me to esp which opened me new spehere
17:39 < illegale> that is pretty usefull info
17:39 < urgen> I wanted to get you out of #joiito
17:40 < illegale> hehe
17:40 < urgen> which was very not interested in what you had to say
17:40 < urgen> :-)
17:40 < urgen> but then #esp wasn't either
17:40 < illegale> at esp there are some interesting people though
17:40 < urgen> but it created enough gravity to get me here
17:40 < urgen> before you were just banned and lost
17:41 < urgen> my interest is finding the places that have 'silent conversations'
17:41 < urgen> places that allow the ppl in the back row a voice
17:41 < illegale> yes. though said to use net dynamcis only in stromy times
17:41 < urgen> no loud mouth central organization
17:42 < illegale> what i see is just info flow optimisation
17:42 < urgen> like taking a bicycle along the country side
17:42 < illegale> not to lound not to silent
17:42 < urgen> you miss too much in a fast car
17:42 < illegale> of course
17:42 < illegale> though fast cars have some advantages
17:42 < illegale> depends on what you are looking for in such moment
17:42 < urgen> depends on if you already know or not
17:42 < urgen> :-)
17:43 < illegale> hmh
17:43 < illegale> what i can notice is that i do not flow through info sphere
17:43 < illegale> not yet
17:43 < illegale> and i wish i was
17:44 < urgen> it has a history
17:44 < illegale> urgen: i see that info flow can be much better realised than it is right now
17:45 < illegale> right places, right people and stuff would help me much in keeping my energy for stuff that couild actually matter
17:45 < illegale> and when going through info buzz, people loose their energy and motivation
17:45 < illegale> that is what i see be the reason why so many people stay out of politics
17:45 < illegale> been young and stupid argumetn
17:46 < illegale> i had only two mentorsr (i might call them that name) in my politics pracite
17:47 < illegale> did many stuff for mine maturing process
17:47 < illegale> i suppose this network creation could help us all to mature and start to matter very much
17:47 < illegale> beside top politics issue
17:47 < urgen> ok
17:48 < urgen> there are engineers that had an open philosophy
17:48 < illegale> yeS*?
17:48 < urgen> it wasn't political in any classic sense
17:48 < urgen> it was driven by necessity
17:48 < urgen> to work the design needed to be open
17:48 < illegale> i liike tkat
17:49 < urgen> they worked very hard on this
17:49 < urgen> lots and lots and lots of white papers and RFC's
17:49 < urgen> the RFC system is a geek politics even, you study that?
17:49 < illegale> what are they working on?ž
17:49 < illegale> now, what is that?
17:51 < urgen> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Request_for_Comments
17:52 < urgen> http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html
17:53 < urgen> http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-index.html
17:53 < illegale> very interesting what i reas!
17:54 -!- illegale [n=ille...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has quit ["Lost terminal"]
17:54 < urgen> so you see RFC is like geek statutes
17:54 < urgen> oh
17:55 -!- illegale (illegale) [n=ille...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has joined #parlement
17:55 < illegale> ops
17:55 < illegale> here i am
17:55 < illegale> something happend
17:56 < illegale> so, this is pro transparency work?
17:56 < urgen> yep
17:56 < illegale> seems pretty cool
17:56 < illegale> in Tiaktiv we have our own based on reality methods
17:56 < illegale> this might help us a lot
17:56 < illegale> to take as standard of publshing
17:57 < illegale> is this standard based for creating coordination of work also?
17:58 < illegale> how many people work on these standards?
17:59 < illegale> urgen: how is that you are at "joiito?
18:00 < urgen> the whole of the internet community works on these
18:00 < urgen> but you'd better be able to speak technically to try
18:01 < urgen> joiito showed up after barcamp after foocamp
18:01 < urgen> foocamp is an event started by oreilly publishing to gather the smartest ppl of the online community and put them in the same room
18:01 < urgen> they also did presentations
18:01 < urgen> but it was invite only
18:02 < urgen> since invite only is not 'open' a number of ppl started barcamp as an alternative
18:02 < urgen> barcamp is anyone is welcome but everyone has to participate
18:02 < urgen> no spectators
18:02 < illegale> oreilly publishing, what is that?
18:02 < urgen> barcamp is starting to take off around the world
18:03 < illegale> is it only irc baseD?
18:03 < urgen> oreilly publishing does a large percentage of tech books
18:03 < illegale> so, people from barcam went to joiito?
18:03 < urgen> barcamp is a overnight multi-day event
18:03 < urgen> you camp out
18:04 < illegale> why?
18:04 < urgen> there is a lot of cross between joiito ppl and barcamp ppl
18:04 < urgen> why camp out?
18:04 < urgen> because it is also a party
18:04 < illegale> what sort'
18:04 < urgen> beer and pizza and tech
18:04 < illegale> ok
18:04 < illegale> i suppose it was not mentioned that way, yes?
18:04 < urgen> sure it is
18:05 < illegale> smrtest people and stuff ?
18:05 < illegale> though topics and stuff'
18:05 < urgen> http://barcamp.org/
18:05 < urgen> well,, naturally only the smartest ppl know about open source
18:05 < urgen> ;-)
18:05 < illegale> sure
18:05 < illegale> :-P
18:05 < illegale> Mensa woodoo
18:06 < illegale> I am smart, therefor i am
18:06 < illegale> :-
18:06 < urgen> so you should start a barcamp
18:06 < illegale> ok,ok
18:07 < illegale> what tech they use for anging around?
18:07 < urgen> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foobar
18:07 < urgen> foo and bar are geek inside jokes
18:07 < urgen> everyone is donation
18:07 < urgen> ppl bring what they need, laptops, wireless, projectors
18:07 < illegale> I see they are city insetad of topic orieneted
18:07 < illegale> how is that'
18:07 < urgen> we often get video streams of the events
18:08 < urgen> all topics are open
18:08 < urgen> you know something you go and present it
18:08 < urgen> that's how it works
18:08 < urgen> ppl in IRC can attend that way
18:08 < urgen> we watch the video and ask questions
18:08 < illegale> just irc?
18:08 < illegale> what about forums?
18:08 < urgen> wiki
18:08 < illegale> no forums?
18:08 < illegale> no groups?
18:09 < urgen> forums are so old fashioned
18:09 < illegale> no big mails and stuff?
18:09 < urgen> mail is slow
18:09 < urgen> this is a very high pace exchange
18:09 < urgen> some mail during organization I'm sure
18:09 < illegale> hmhm
18:09 < urgen> you know how to connect or you don't go
18:09 < urgen> seating is limited
18:09 < illegale> i can notice communities grow on forums
18:09 < illegale> suppose it is not that bad
18:10 < illegale> big communites i mean
18:10 < illegale> not 20 people, but big ones
18:10 < illegale> 10 000 people
18:10 < illegale> relevant ones
18:10 < urgen> like myspace
18:10 < illegale> that is why i can not say forums are not good
18:10 < urgen> millions
18:10 < illegale> do not know for my space
18:10 < urgen> :-)
18:10 < urgen> myspace is currently #1 popular
18:11 < illegale> link?
18:11 < urgen> myspace.com
18:11 < illegale> :)
18:11 < urgen> from the geek point of view.... it sux big time
18:11 < urgen> almost worse than AOL
18:11 < illegale> sort of
18:12 < illegale> i do not like whjat is see
18:12 < illegale> forums in croatia are bigger
18:12 < illegale> did you check out communiation part of echarp and me from yesterdays
18:12 < illegale> where echarp was talking abvout this software stuff'
18:13 < urgen> Rupert Murdock owns myspace
18:13 < urgen> big interest media tries to look hip
18:13 < urgen> not open
18:14 < urgen> I'm starting to understand echarp's software perspective
18:14 < illegale> yeS?:)
18:14 < urgen> so far so good. I'll have to create a design template
18:14 < illegale> i have some faith it that
18:14 < illegale> you remember my last visit to joiito?
18:15 < illegale> when i asked him is he interested?
18:15 < urgen> it comes across as very naive
18:15 < urgen> not sure you mean it that way
18:15 < urgen> but that's mostly why you get refused
18:15 < illegale> nah, i am fine with that :)
18:16 < urgen> you say that things that are ancient history on the internet
18:16 < illegale> what excatly?
18:16 < urgen> ppl look at you funny and stop listening
18:16 < urgen> you read RFC yet?
18:16 < illegale> i lurked through it
18:16 < urgen> the whole history of the internet is in RFC
18:16 < illegale> should take some time to anaylise it
18:17 < urgen> all the key players
18:17 < urgen> all the key ideas
18:17 < urgen> how ideas evolve
18:17 < urgen> what physical limits they discover
18:17 < urgen> this shapes open source, not politics
18:17 < urgen> politics kills open source
18:17 < urgen> that's why no one wants to listen to you
18:18 < urgen> there is quite a bit of politics in open source and maybe they would like some help managing that in a more efficient way
18:18 < urgen> but this is a large challenge that takes lots of special touch
18:19 < urgen> not accusations and demands
18:19 < illegale> whats wrong with accusastion?
18:19 < urgen> accusation is fine from someone who has the scars
18:19 < urgen> otherwise it is hot air
18:19 < illegale> ok
18:20 < urgen> so it has a history
18:20 < urgen> it is easy to tell the people who know the history from those who don't
18:20 < illegale> i do not like history too much
18:20 < urgen> really easy
18:21 < illegale> it gives false ceratinty to thow who know it
18:21 < urgen> history is no different than transparency
18:21 < illegale> it is just recognision way
18:21 < illegale> have some better ways to handle it
18:21 < urgen> only if there is no science involved
18:22 < urgen> you keep trying to layer politics on this
18:22 < urgen> technology has some politics, yes, especially with large industry players
18:22 < urgen> but you can't vote gravity to stop
18:22 < urgen> no matter how many people agree
18:22 < illegale> its not about agreement, but will
18:22 < urgen> that's the history I talk about
18:23 < urgen> the one that doesn't change whether you agree or not
18:23 < urgen> what works
18:23 < illegale> history is just commonly accepted context i can see
18:23 < illegale> i aproach through different one
18:23 < urgen> and so no one listens
18:23 < urgen> you are out of culture
18:23 < illegale> yes
18:23 < urgen> geeks see through that like glass
18:23 < urgen> stop listening
18:24 < urgen> remove the science
18:24 < urgen> remove the evidence
18:24 < urgen> and you don't have an audience anymore
18:24 < illegale> the problem is i need a new history
18:24 < illegale> as long as this is paradigmatical cchange what i can notice
18:25 < illegale> i suppose you wont agree to that
18:25 < illegale> but that is how i feel
18:25 < urgen> so the test is to run how long?
18:25 < urgen> what will the evidence look like?
18:25 < urgen> how will you know?
18:25 < illegale> eviednce? while i am not at dead end i keep rolling
18:26 < illegale> and i dee no dead end in front of me
18:26 < illegale> we passsed by many in the meantime of course
18:26 < urgen> I am not distracted by many
18:26 < illegale> though, now buridan?
18:26 < urgen> buridan works hard for what he sees
18:26 < illegale> his history does not enable too look clearly at any cocnetp
18:27 < urgen> clarity and concepts are mutually exclusive
18:27 < illegale> that is not just his problem (imo), but of any one who is attached to his own hisotry
18:27 < illegale> i do not think so
18:27 < urgen> so what is the test?
18:27 < illegale> what test?
18:27 < urgen> how long will this test run?
18:27 < urgen> what will show?
18:27 < illegale> test on what?
18:27 < urgen> on your opinion about clarity vs concept
18:28 < illegale> seems i do not understand meaning of word clartiy or concept
18:28 < urgen> there has to be a way to show this
18:28 < urgen> geeks only know test
18:28 < urgen> you have no test, you have no audience
18:29 < illegale> what echarp does with parlement could be one step forward in geek attention
18:29 < urgen> real world or nothing
18:29 < illegale> of course
18:29 < urgen> echarps uses lots of test
18:29 < illegale> though, politics what i do in RL is far from autopoiesis stuff
18:29 < urgen> you show test you get attention
18:29 < urgen> simple
18:29 < urgen> talk is deadly
18:30 < illegale> here comes the problem
18:30 < illegale> politicians do talk
18:30 < illegale> sharing ideas and stuff
18:30 < urgen> and they kill technology at the same time
18:30 < illegale> if it is not of use to them
18:30 < urgen> butter only shows up on one side of the bread
18:31 < illegale> what does it mean?
18:31 < urgen> um goose and golden egg
18:31 < illegale> ok
18:31 < urgen> politicans rely on what they reject
18:31 < urgen> bad form
18:31 < illegale> uh, have to go eat
18:31 < urgen> I have to go to work
18:32 < urgen> :-)
18:32 < illegale> ok
18:32 < urgen> laterz
18:32 < illegale> later
18:32 < illegale> :)
18:32 < illegale> echarp: cu!
18:32 -!- illegale [n=ille...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has quit ["Lost terminal"]
18:41 < echarp> ok, going home
23:25 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
23:25 < echarp> bonne nuit
--- Log closed ven jui 07 00:00:57 2006
04:57 < urgen> http://www.getdemocracy.com/about/
10:55 < echarp> hello hello
16:14 < urgen:#parlement> morning
16:14 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
16:14 < echarp> good afternoon urgen :)
16:15 < urgen> :-)
16:30 -!- illegale (illegale) [n=ille...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has joined #parlement
16:30 < illegale> iož
16:36 < urgen> hi
16:36 < urgen> sorry I don't have a bot on your channel still illegale, been busy lately
16:36 < echarp> lo
16:39 < illegale> hey huys
16:39 < illegale> guys )
16:40 < illegale> no problem Urgen. If you get some time, Ill be glad to see it working, if not never mind :)
16:40 < illegale> charp,
16:40 < illegale> did not watch football again?
16:40 < urgen> hey illegale, what would you think about getting Steven Clift here in IRC?
16:41 < illegale> lol
16:41 < illegale> i am not sure in him though
16:41 < illegale> what you think?
16:41 < urgen> I think conversation helps
16:41 < illegale> thogh, my ability of noticing helpfull people around is debacle oriented :)
16:41 < urgen> but only if it really is conversation
16:41 < urgen> if it is just a one way story maybe too hard
16:41 < illegale> would you help it be conversation?
16:42 < urgen> he is asking me for help about IRC
16:42 < illegale> ok then :9
16:42 < illegale> he is you bitch in that way
16:42 < illegale> :-)
16:42 < urgen> :-)
16:42 < urgen> ya, well echarp
16:42 < illegale> he wants some e-democracy channel?
16:43 < urgen> is it ok to bring someone elses existing efforts to this channel or should I start another channel?
16:43 < echarp> I watched the match, for once :)
16:43 < illegale> echarp: finnaly¨
16:43 < urgen> yes, he wanted #e-democracy but we've found that someone else registered it already
16:43 < urgen> ah, so I did miss it
16:43 < urgen> rats
16:43 < echarp> you can of course bring him around here!
16:43 < echarp> he is most most welcome!!!
16:43 < illegale> that would be cool
16:43 < urgen> ok I'll let him know
16:43 < echarp> I'm very open
16:44 < illegale> urgen: you in contact to him?
16:44 < echarp> if he is a girl and nice looking, all the better ;)
16:44 < urgen> I'll be sure to get a wig for him
16:44 < illegale> echarp: he is not girl, but he might be good looking
16:44 < urgen> yes I asked him why #e-democracy was invite only
16:45 < urgen> and he emailed me back asking for help because he didn't do that
16:45 < illegale> col
16:46 < illegale> cool
16:46 < illegale> :)
16:46 < echarp> I would have loved to name the parlement project using a cool sounding name, like e-vote, but it's all taken already
16:47 < illegale> e-power
16:47 < illegale> check it out
16:47 < illegale> :)
16:47 < echarp> :)
16:48 < echarp> e-discussion-and-vote :)
16:48 < illegale> nah,
16:48 < illegale> short as possible
16:48 < echarp> yeap
16:48 < illegale> they say people can stand only two words at moest
16:48 < echarp> and one is of course better
16:48 < illegale> yes
16:48 < illegale> soundish one
16:48 < echarp> I choose parliament because it very much corresponds to the concept I envision
16:49 < echarp> e-parliament sounds silly
16:49 < illegale> i had simmilar envision
16:49 < illegale> forum
16:49 < echarp> so I just went for the french word :)
16:49 < echarp> forum yes
16:49 < illegale> it was taken of course
16:49 < illegale> then went for agora
16:49 < illegale> it was taken also
16:49 < echarp> agora is really cool yes
16:49 < illegale> now, i am for creation of new concepts we wuill create
16:50 < illegale> forum was not good in that way
16:50 < illegale> too many links i had to deny
16:50 < illegale> thats why i am lookng for fresh brend
16:50 < illegale> tradition, bye bye
16:50 < illegale> we are building new world stuff
16:50 < echarp> VeniVidiVoti sounds like a better name then? :)
16:50 < illegale> message i find cool
16:51 < illegale> lol
16:51 < illegale> www.vvv.org
16:51 < echarp> nah
16:51 < echarp> but I have http://vvv.sf.net
16:52 < illegale> heh
16:52 < echarp> and http://vvv.dyndns.org
16:52 < illegale> this is though stuff to be done
16:52 < illegale> i supposed top politics is fine
16:52 < illegale> urgen does not shatre that opinion
16:52 < illegale> maybe some lunatic linguist/copywriter could help
16:52 < echarp> that "top" is fine for a name?
16:52 < echarp> :)
16:53 < illegale> yes
16:53 < urgen> my opinion is that top should not call itself politics
16:53 < illegale> but?
16:53 < illegale> top itself?
16:53 < urgen> the principle
16:53 < illegale> top principle
16:53 < illegale> -
16:53 < urgen> it is a much larger tool much more valuable
16:53 < illegale> top economy
16:53 < illegale> stuff you aim at?
16:53 < echarp> Transparent Open Participative?
16:53 < urgen> sure it can help politics but you've got something if you polish it in the right way
16:54 < illegale> what way you see urgen?
16:54 < urgen> I'll be right back, finish this email first
16:54 < illegale> echarp: totally open politics
16:54 < illegale> ;:)
16:54 < illegale> k
16:54 < echarp> :)
16:55 < echarp> I prefer participation/participative to politics, but it's only my taste
16:55 < illegale> techbnical organsation practixe
16:55 < illegale> that part was public one
16:55 < echarp> you can be sure some one has already used it :)
16:55 < echarp> top is too tempting an acronym
16:55 < illegale> hmh
16:55 < illegale> lets chck
16:56 < illegale> google cant find it
16:56 < illegale> such as and
16:56 < illegale> too many stuf
16:56 < illegale> f
16:56 < illegale> suppose that is not perfect?
16:57 < illegale> we choosed Tiaktiv when was the time for choosing name organsation
16:57 < illegale> transparent interactive
16:57 < illegale> yet, some say it sounds as detergent
17:00 < urgen> maybe it is ;-)
17:00 < illegale> detergent=
17:00 < illegale> ?
17:00 < urgen> strong soap
17:00 < illegale> lol
17:00 < illegale> i like your conotation :)
17:02 < illegale> nevertheless, i am looking for new brand aslo
17:06 < urgen> oh no
17:06 < urgen> you asked prax here?
17:06 < urgen> :\
17:06 < urgen> that's like asking the pope here
17:06 < urgen> he's not going to talk democracy
17:07 < urgen> early efforts have to be cared for gently
17:08 < urgen> communism is prax's religion. it is a dogma to him. no room for discussion.
17:08 < illegale> i have no problems with Prax
17:09 < urgen> you will
17:09 < urgen> :-)
17:09 < urgen> I've know him for years
17:09 < illegale> had many discussions with many rigid people
17:09 < illegale> very rigid people
17:09 < illegale> find them be great sorce for info
17:09 < urgen> well there are places for that kind of thing
17:10 < urgen> maybe as a test loop for after the basics get outlined a little better
17:10 < urgen> but early stages, loud strong stubborn ppl make it crash fast
17:10 < illegale> urgen: btw, is there any way you could help us with defining top at google.groups+'
17:10 < illegale> ?
17:10 < illegale> urgen: i am lound abnd sometimes pretty subborn also :)=
17:11 < urgen> I don't feel the effort is mine. I appreciate what you shared so far
17:11 < urgen> ya but you talk
17:11 < illegale> urgen: thank you
17:12 < illegale> though, did you thought about joining discussion at groups?
17:12 < illegale> i find it be pretty though part
17:12 < urgen> I thought that I am stretched pretty thin these days
17:12 < illegale> asked for one known 7to me/ psychiatrist who is into this stuff also :)
17:12 < illegale> ok
17:13 < urgen> there are quite a few efforts going on right now, I want to watch them all
17:13 < illegale> urgen: it was up to me to ask, and up to you to answer :)
17:13 < urgen> sure
17:13 < illegale> what else is going on?
17:13 < urgen> I will start to make a list soon
17:13 < illegale> that would be pretty primary thing to do i suppose
17:14 < illegale> do you habve some prompt lines?
17:14 < illegale> btw, you into unitederdiversitysity y?
17:14 < illegale> now?
17:14 < urgen> here's a google group I started: http://groups.google.com/group/Spiritual-Politics
17:15 < urgen> when Bush won and it appeared due to the influence of the christian right
17:15 < illegale> interesting
17:15 < illegale> who are the members?
17:15 < urgen> how to get a handle on managing value systems like that
17:15 < urgen> it has zero activity now
17:16 < urgen> everyone got depressed I think :-)
17:16 < illegale> i see
17:16 < urgen> just various ppl that I came across in IRC
17:16 < illegale> that is regular stuff
17:16 < illegale> ok
17:16 < urgen> it had an irc channel for a while too
17:16 < illegale> i suppose you are not watching at it right ow though :)=
17:17 < urgen> not, yes
17:17 < urgen> trimmed back to six networks and 16 channels :-)
17:18 < urgen> it gets hard to manage
17:18 < illegale> freenode is not only one?
17:19 < illegale> can you name them and say a little more about prosperous ones IYO?
17:20 < illegale> echarp: what is subscribing adress to top politcs?
17:20 < illegale> sorry for asking such dull question, need to be sure
17:21 < urgen> http://irc.netsplit.de/
17:21 < urgen> http://irc.netsplit.de/networks/top10graphs.php
17:21 < echarp> illegale: on google groups?
17:21 < echarp> or on parlement?
17:21 < illegale> echarp: yes
17:22 < illegale> google gorups
17:22 < echarp> http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics
17:22 < illegale> how to subscribe to it?
17:22 < urgen> freenode is #8 atm
17:22 < illegale> urgen: really?
17:23 < illegale> urgen: though what about qualityŽ?
17:23 < urgen> that's always relative :-)
17:23 < urgen> freenode is a geek channel
17:23 < urgen> like oftc
17:24 < echarp> top-politic...@googlegroups.com
17:24 < illegale> ok, is there some channel pore politics orieneted but freenode?
17:24 < illegale> echarp: thank you
17:24 < echarp> you're welcome
17:25 < urgen> http://irc.netsplit.de/channels/?num=0&query=democracy
17:26 < illegale> urgen: hmh, it does not help my interest much
17:27 < urgen> what doesn't?
17:28 < urgen> there are a few IRC search engines these days too
17:29 < urgen> searchirc.com
17:29 < urgen> www.ircspy.com
17:29 < urgen> www.packetnews.com
17:29 < urgen> but you had better be careful thinking popular = power
17:30 < illegale> i understand that
17:30 < illegale> though, you mentioned 16 more channels
17:30 < illegale> and 2 more networks
17:31 < illegale> which ones they are?
17:31 < illegale> is there anything that might be interesting for us ?
17:31 < illegale> if it is prosperous to you, hmh, maybe some of us could notice it too?
17:33 < urgen> oh, you are just interviewing my interest?
17:34 < illegale> oh no
17:34 < illegale> if this stuff is simmilar to politics than i am interested also
17:35 < illegale> if you like this we might have simmilar brains to qualify quality of other issues in this field
17:35 < illegale> might not, but it should be checked out
17:35 < illegale> if you are into internet bissines stuff also i might be interested :)
17:37 < illegale> if you want to keep it for yourself, please take my apology for being rude and not taking this into consideration
17:38 < urgen> no my channels are usually not related to politics
17:38 < illegale> oh, ok.
17:38 < illegale> nevermind
17:39 < urgen> and not business other than systems administration and tech
17:39 < urgen> which is what I do
17:39 < illegale> echarp: search engine at google for top politics sets your site at 6th place
17:39 < illegale> urgen: you introduced me to esp which opened me new spehere
17:39 < illegale> that is pretty usefull info
17:39 < urgen> I wanted to get you out of #joiito
17:40 < illegale> hehe
17:40 < urgen> which was very not interested in what you had to say
17:40 < urgen> :-)
17:40 < urgen> but then #esp wasn't either
17:40 < illegale> at esp there are some interesting people though
17:40 < urgen> but it created enough gravity to get me here
17:40 < urgen> before you were just banned and lost
17:41 < urgen> my interest is finding the places that have 'silent conversations'
17:41 < urgen> places that allow the ppl in the back row a voice
17:41 < illegale> yes. though said to use net dynamcis only in stromy times
17:41 < urgen> no loud mouth central organization
17:42 < illegale> what i see is just info flow optimisation
17:42 < urgen> like taking a bicycle along the country side
17:42 < illegale> not to lound not to silent
17:42 < urgen> you miss too much in a fast car
17:42 < illegale> of course
17:42 < illegale> though fast cars have some advantages
17:42 < illegale> depends on what you are looking for in such moment
17:42 < urgen> depends on if you already know or not
17:42 < urgen> :-)
17:43 < illegale> hmh
17:43 < illegale> what i can notice is that i do not flow through info sphere
17:43 < illegale> not yet
17:43 < illegale> and i wish i was
17:44 < urgen> it has a history
17:44 < illegale> urgen: i see that info flow can be much better realised than it is right now
17:45 < illegale> right places, right people and stuff would help me much in keeping my energy for stuff that couild actually matter
17:45 < illegale> and when going through info buzz, people loose their energy and motivation
17:45 < illegale> that is what i see be the reason why so many people stay out of politics
17:45 < illegale> been young and stupid argumetn
17:46 < illegale> i had only two mentorsr (i might call them that name) in my politics pracite
17:47 < illegale> did many stuff for mine maturing process
17:47 < illegale> i suppose this network creation could help us all to mature and start to matter very much
17:47 < illegale> beside top politics issue
17:47 < urgen> ok
17:48 < urgen> there are engineers that had an open philosophy
17:48 < illegale> yeS*?
17:48 < urgen> it wasn't political in any classic sense
17:48 < urgen> it was driven by necessity
17:48 < urgen> to work the design needed to be open
17:48 < illegale> i liike tkat
17:49 < urgen> they worked very hard on this
17:49 < urgen> lots and lots and lots of white papers and RFC's
17:49 < urgen> the RFC system is a geek politics even, you study that?
17:49 < illegale> what are they working on?ž
17:49 < illegale> now, what is that?
17:51 < urgen> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Request_for_Comments
17:52 < urgen> http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html
17:53 < urgen> http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-index.html
17:53 < illegale> very interesting what i reas!
17:54 -!- illegale [n=ille...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has quit ["Lost terminal"]
17:54 < urgen> so you see RFC is like geek statutes
17:54 < urgen> oh
17:55 -!- illegale (illegale) [n=ille...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has joined #parlement
17:55 < illegale> ops
17:55 < illegale> here i am
17:55 < illegale> something happend
17:56 < illegale> so, this is pro transparency work?
17:56 < urgen> yep
17:56 < illegale> seems pretty cool
17:56 < illegale> in Tiaktiv we have our own based on reality methods
17:56 < illegale> this might help us a lot
17:56 < illegale> to take as standard of publshing
17:57 < illegale> is this standard based for creating coordination of work also?
17:58 < illegale> how many people work on these standards?
17:59 < illegale> urgen: how is that you are at "joiito?
18:00 < urgen> the whole of the internet community works on these
18:00 < urgen> but you'd better be able to speak technically to try
18:01 < urgen> joiito showed up after barcamp after foocamp
18:01 < urgen> foocamp is an event started by oreilly publishing to gather the smartest ppl of the online community and put them in the same room
18:01 < urgen> they also did presentations
18:01 < urgen> but it was invite only
18:02 < urgen> since invite only is not 'open' a number of ppl started barcamp as an alternative
18:02 < urgen> barcamp is anyone is welcome but everyone has to participate
18:02 < urgen> no spectators
18:02 < illegale> oreilly publishing, what is that?
18:02 < urgen> barcamp is starting to take off around the world
18:03 < illegale> is it only irc baseD?
18:03 < urgen> oreilly publishing does a large percentage of tech books
18:03 < illegale> so, people from barcam went to joiito?
18:03 < urgen> barcamp is a overnight multi-day event
18:03 < urgen> you camp out
18:04 < illegale> why?
18:04 < urgen> there is a lot of cross between joiito ppl and barcamp ppl
18:04 < urgen> why camp out?
18:04 < urgen> because it is also a party
18:04 < illegale> what sort'
18:04 < urgen> beer and pizza and tech
18:04 < illegale> ok
18:04 < illegale> i suppose it was not mentioned that way, yes?
18:04 < urgen> sure it is
18:05 < illegale> smrtest people and stuff ?
18:05 < illegale> though topics and stuff'
18:05 < urgen> http://barcamp.org/
18:05 < urgen> well,, naturally only the smartest ppl know about open source
18:05 < urgen> ;-)
18:05 < illegale> sure
18:05 < illegale> :-P
18:05 < illegale> Mensa woodoo
18:06 < illegale> I am smart, therefor i am
18:06 < illegale> :-
18:06 < urgen> so you should start a barcamp
18:06 < illegale> ok,ok
18:07 < illegale> what tech they use for anging around?
18:07 < urgen> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foobar
18:07 < urgen> foo and bar are geek inside jokes
18:07 < urgen> everyone is donation
18:07 < urgen> ppl bring what they need, laptops, wireless, projectors
18:07 < illegale> I see they are city insetad of topic orieneted
18:07 < illegale> how is that'
18:07 < urgen> we often get video streams of the events
18:08 < urgen> all topics are open
18:08 < urgen> you know something you go and present it
18:08 < urgen> that's how it works
18:08 < urgen> ppl in IRC can attend that way
18:08 < urgen> we watch the video and ask questions
18:08 < illegale> just irc?
18:08 < illegale> what about forums?
18:08 < urgen> wiki
18:08 < illegale> no forums?
18:08 < illegale> no groups?
18:09 < urgen> forums are so old fashioned
18:09 < illegale> no big mails and stuff?
18:09 < urgen> mail is slow
18:09 < urgen> this is a very high pace exchange
18:09 < urgen> some mail during organization I'm sure
18:09 < illegale> hmhm
18:09 < urgen> you know how to connect or you don't go
18:09 < urgen> seating is limited
18:09 < illegale> i can notice communities grow on forums
18:09 < illegale> suppose it is not that bad
18:10 < illegale> big communites i mean
18:10 < illegale> not 20 people, but big ones
18:10 < illegale> 10 000 people
18:10 < illegale> relevant ones
18:10 < urgen> like myspace
18:10 < illegale> that is why i can not say forums are not good
18:10 < urgen> millions
18:10 < illegale> do not know for my space
18:10 < urgen> :-)
18:10 < urgen> myspace is currently #1 popular
18:11 < illegale> link?
18:11 < urgen> myspace.com
18:11 < illegale> :)
18:11 < urgen> from the geek point of view.... it sux big time
18:11 < urgen> almost worse than AOL
18:11 < illegale> sort of
18:12 < illegale> i do not like whjat is see
18:12 < illegale> forums in croatia are bigger
18:12 < illegale> did you check out communiation part of echarp and me from yesterdays
18:12 < illegale> where echarp was talking abvout this software stuff'
18:13 < urgen> Rupert Murdock owns myspace
18:13 < urgen> big interest media tries to look hip
18:13 < urgen> not open
18:14 < urgen> I'm starting to understand echarp's software perspective
18:14 < illegale> yeS?:)
18:14 < urgen> so far so good. I'll have to create a design template
18:14 < illegale> i have some faith it that
18:14 < illegale> you remember my last visit to joiito?
18:15 < illegale> when i asked him is he interested?
18:15 < urgen> it comes across as very naive
18:15 < urgen> not sure you mean it that way
18:15 < urgen> but that's mostly why you get refused
18:15 < illegale> nah, i am fine with that :)
18:16 < urgen> you say that things that are ancient history on the internet
18:16 < illegale> what excatly?
18:16 < urgen> ppl look at you funny and stop listening
18:16 < urgen> you read RFC yet?
18:16 < illegale> i lurked through it
18:16 < urgen> the whole history of the internet is in RFC
18:16 < illegale> should take some time to anaylise it
18:17 < urgen> all the key players
18:17 < urgen> all the key ideas
18:17 < urgen> how ideas evolve
18:17 < urgen> what physical limits they discover
18:17 < urgen> this shapes open source, not politics
18:17 < urgen> politics kills open source
18:17 < urgen> that's why no one wants to listen to you
18:18 < urgen> there is quite a bit of politics in open source and maybe they would like some help managing that in a more efficient way
18:18 < urgen> but this is a large challenge that takes lots of special touch
18:19 < urgen> not accusations and demands
18:19 < illegale> whats wrong with accusastion?
18:19 < urgen> accusation is fine from someone who has the scars
18:19 < urgen> otherwise it is hot air
18:19 < illegale> ok
18:20 < urgen> so it has a history
18:20 < urgen> it is easy to tell the people who know the history from those who don't
18:20 < illegale> i do not like history too much
18:20 < urgen> really easy
18:21 < illegale> it gives false ceratinty to thow who know it
18:21 < urgen> history is no different than transparency
18:21 < illegale> it is just recognision way
18:21 < illegale> have some better ways to handle it
18:21 < urgen> only if there is no science involved
18:22 < urgen> you keep trying to layer politics on this
18:22 < urgen> technology has some politics, yes, especially with large industry players
18:22 < urgen> but you can't vote gravity to stop
18:22 < urgen> no matter how many people agree
18:22 < illegale> its not about agreement, but will
18:22 < urgen> that's the history I talk about
18:23 < urgen> the one that doesn't change whether you agree or not
18:23 < urgen> what works
18:23 < illegale> history is just commonly accepted context i can see
18:23 < illegale> i aproach through different one
18:23 < urgen> and so no one listens
18:23 < urgen> you are out of culture
18:23 < illegale> yes
18:23 < urgen> geeks see through that like glass
18:23 < urgen> stop listening
18:24 < urgen> remove the science
18:24 < urgen> remove the evidence
18:24 < urgen> and you don't have an audience anymore
18:24 < illegale> the problem is i need a new history
18:24 < illegale> as long as this is paradigmatical cchange what i can notice
18:25 < illegale> i suppose you wont agree to that
18:25 < illegale> but that is how i feel
18:25 < urgen> so the test is to run how long?
18:25 < urgen> what will the evidence look like?
18:25 < urgen> how will you know?
18:25 < illegale> eviednce? while i am not at dead end i keep rolling
18:26 < illegale> and i dee no dead end in front of me
18:26 < illegale> we passsed by many in the meantime of course
18:26 < urgen> I am not distracted by many
18:26 < illegale> though, now buridan?
18:26 < urgen> buridan works hard for what he sees
18:26 < illegale> his history does not enable too look clearly at any cocnetp
18:27 < urgen> clarity and concepts are mutually exclusive
18:27 < illegale> that is not just his problem (imo), but of any one who is attached to his own hisotry
18:27 < illegale> i do not think so
18:27 < urgen> so what is the test?
18:27 < illegale> what test?
18:27 < urgen> how long will this test run?
18:27 < urgen> what will show?
18:27 < illegale> test on what?
18:27 < urgen> on your opinion about clarity vs concept
18:28 < illegale> seems i do not understand meaning of word clartiy or concept
18:28 < urgen> there has to be a way to show this
18:28 < urgen> geeks only know test
18:28 < urgen> you have no test, you have no audience
18:29 < illegale> what echarp does with parlement could be one step forward in geek attention
18:29 < urgen> real world or nothing
18:29 < illegale> of course
18:29 < illegale> though, politics what i do in RL is far from autopoiesis stuff
18:29 < urgen> you show test you get attention
18:29 < urgen> simple
18:29 < urgen> talk is deadly
18:30 < illegale> here comes the problem
18:30 < illegale> politicians do talk
18:30 < illegale> sharing ideas and stuff
18:30 < urgen> and they kill technology at the same time
18:30 < illegale> if it is not of use to them
18:30 < urgen> butter only shows up on one side of the bread
18:31 < illegale> what does it mean?
18:31 < urgen> um goose and golden egg
18:31 < illegale> ok
18:31 < urgen> politicans rely on what they reject
18:31 < urgen> bad form
18:31 < illegale> uh, have to go eat
18:31 < urgen> I have to go to work
18:32 < urgen> :-)
18:32 < illegale> ok
18:32 < urgen> laterz
18:32 < illegale> later
18:32 < illegale> :)
18:32 < illegale> echarp: cu!
18:32 -!- illegale [n=ille...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has quit ["Lost terminal"]
18:41 < echarp> ok, going home
23:25 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
23:25 < echarp> bonne nuit
--- Log closed ven jui 07 00:00:57 2006
echarp
Jul 8, 2006, 12:28:33 AM7/8/06
to top-politics
--- Log opened ven jui 07 00:00:57 2006
04:01 * urgen home
04:32 -!- Prax01D (goober) [n=Pra...@tor58-23b-94-36.dynamic.rogerstelecom.net] has joined #parlement
04:33 < Prax01D> qu'est-ce qu'il passe ici?
04:33 < Prax01D> de rien?
04:33 < Prax01D> c'est dommage...
04:33 -!- Prax01D [n=Pra...@tor58-23b-94-36.dynamic.rogerstelecom.net] has left #parlement ["Who was that masked man??"]
05:04 -!- urgen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit []
05:15 -!- urgen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
09:19 < echarp> hello hello
11:03 -!- illegale (illegale) [i=ille...@cmung25.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
11:03 < illegale:#parlement> io
11:03 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
11:03 < echarp> hello hello
11:03 -!- Topic for #parlement: http://leparlement.org/irc
11:03 -!- Topic set by echarp [] [Sun Jun 11 20:50:53 2006]
11:03 < illegale> wassap
11:06 < echarp> not much
11:06 < echarp> work of course
11:06 < echarp> I'm fighting with mysql :)
11:07 < illegale> k
11:07 < illegale> seen urgen?
11:08 < echarp> yesterday
11:08 < echarp> he probably is in bed
11:08 < illegale> k
11:09 < illegale> do you like adjusting your software for user friendly stuff wokring fine?
11:09 < illegale> you know, fancy software lookish
11:09 < echarp> I do
11:09 < illegale> :-)
11:10 < echarp> but it has to follow the general direction, be secure and not imply big warts
11:10 < illegale> big warts?
11:10 < echarp> yes, the ugly things one can do for short term benefits
11:11 < illegale> of course
11:12 < illegale> hmh, if stuff gonna work in simmilar enough way i envision by what you explained, we might start promoting communicaiton system in cro soon
11:12 < echarp> that would be cool
11:13 < echarp> what kind of adjustments do you have in mind?
11:13 < echarp> I'm open :)
11:13 < illegale> :-)
11:13 < illegale> nah, just parsonification stuff for better promotin
11:13 < illegale> though, suppose it comes after you set basics
11:13 < illegale> i am forumes
11:14 < illegale> forumes
11:14 < illegale> forumer
11:14 < illegale> though at forums you can not talk about politics in fine way
11:14 < illegale> you can not do it in any current communication software actually
11:14 < echarp> personalisation should be rather easy to add
11:15 < echarp> I envision using css, organisational and/or personal ones
11:15 < illegale> i need something that easily shows that constructivism can be worty and leading trend in communication
11:15 < illegale> yes, htat is it
11:17 < illegale> hmh, we should probably envision some exact communication models based on that software and make up them
11:17 < illegale> and promote them
11:17 < echarp> what is a communication model?
11:18 < illegale> sort of procedure that your software enables
11:18 < illegale> moderators and stuff
11:18 < illegale> groups and so on
11:18 < illegale> stuff people can easily envision as usefull things
11:18 < illegale> n communication process
11:19 < echarp> a presentation, yes
11:19 < echarp> features list
11:19 < echarp> things like that
11:19 < illegale> there is an interesting doubt about history context urgen and i discusssed yesterday
11:19 < illegale> should your softwre be attachabvle to some history , suppose yes
11:19 < illegale> that is much easier stuff for people to get into
11:20 < illegale> knowing context having more options
11:20 < illegale> seems like winer solution
11:20 < illegale> no histry more callenging
11:20 < echarp> what kind of history do you have in mind?
11:20 < illegale> discussion models at forums, groups and stuff
11:20 < illegale> do not find irc be one of such
11:21 < echarp> you think that discussions history should be made available?
11:21 < illegale> stuff stuff stuff
11:21 < echarp> but differently to irc?
11:21 < illegale> i mean, context people get ued too
11:21 < illegale> i do not find irc communication model has much with email base
11:22 < illegale> that is on littel essays or simmilar to that
11:22 < echarp> much "in common" with?
11:22 < illegale> i have in mind forums
11:22 < illegale> you?
11:22 < echarp> I don't see where you are getting at
11:23 < illegale> let me show you some history than
11:23 < illegale> :)
11:23 < echarp> ok
11:23 < illegale> http://akcijamladih.org/forum/
11:24 < illegale> http://www.hsp.hr/cgi-bin/forum/default.asp
11:24 < illegale> http://www.hns.hr/database/yabb/YaBB.pl
11:25 < echarp> is it so different to parlement?
11:25 < illegale> http://forum.hrt.hr/
11:25 < illegale> wait
11:25 < echarp> you can obtain that same kind of thing
11:26 < illegale> http://www.denis-latin.com/forum/
11:26 < illegale> and so on
11:26 < illegale> what i want to say is thaforums are rather popular in cro
11:26 < illegale> there are several parliament parties having forums
11:26 < illegale> national tv has forum
11:26 < echarp> I actually think that parlement is just that kind of thing
11:26 < illegale> rather popular one
11:27 < echarp> but democratic, and using web2.0 :)
11:27 < illegale> there is a big internet base of people who ar eused to such interface
11:27 < illegale> :-)
11:27 < illegale> if you enable to them to see upgraded forum, you have them all
11:28 < echarp> the ihm can be made about the same
11:28 < illegale> i was a moderator of several political forums before tiaktvi
11:28 < illegale> ihm'0
11:28 < echarp> gui/ihm
11:28 < echarp> interface
11:28 < illegale> and had the same problem thatmade me start thinking of new interface
11:28 < echarp> the look can be made the same
11:28 < illegale> cool!
11:28 < illegale> you know that problem?
11:28 < illegale> of political forumsž'
11:29 < echarp> what problem?
11:29 < illegale> of communication where quality has no chance to be born
11:29 < illegale> i suppose i could write fine elaborate on that topic that could help promotion of this interface
11:30 < illegale> i met many fine people, smart people, willing to think and stuff, but they where eliminated by spamers
11:30 < illegale> and we do not have any place thatfine people could hang
11:30 < illegale> in the numbers that enables internet
11:31 < echarp> what interface do you have in mind, those to which you gave me a link?
11:31 < illegale> meaning big numbers not some closed gatherings of 5
11:31 < illegale> nah, your interface
11:31 < illegale> :-)
11:31 < illegale> links are just examples of what is happening
11:32 < illegale> noone can start fine political site , gatehring place
11:32 < echarp> the problem you are speaking of is the signal/noise ratio
11:32 < illegale> so we have many little places that die sooner or later
11:32 < echarp> it's one very important matter since decades
11:32 < illegale> same thing wit hpolitical groups in the world
11:32 < illegale> yes
11:32 < echarp> signal/noise can be increased using different schemes
11:32 < illegale> this equality stuff plus transparence plus openness could change tht in root
11:33 < echarp> moderators are the easiest one
11:33 < illegale> ys?
11:33 < illegale> 1. generation
11:33 < illegale> ratings
11:33 < echarp> transparency is required to make sure the process is fair
11:33 < illegale> 2, generation
11:33 < illegale> and now we are looi+king for 3rd :)
11:33 < illegale> transprency, clear to see, no buzz aroiund?
11:34 < echarp> buzz around what?
11:34 < illegale> though, rating stuff and what you do is same with google
11:34 < illegale> info confusion, too many irrelevant data
11:34 < echarp> rating is about the same as with google yes
11:34 < illegale> coop
11:34 < illegale> yet, this stuff google does with coop
11:35 < echarp> that kind of buzz is another thing, it's the effectiveness of the interface
11:35 < illegale> this is very simmilar to your software!
11:35 < illegale> based on individuals
11:35 < illegale> did you look at google coop?
11:36 < echarp> I looked at it yes, but I don't see much yet
11:36 < illegale> ok, i am looking for point out there
11:37 < illegale> when you have virtual inteligent entities base on RL, you can avoid charmic whores
11:37 < illegale> trust network in the play
11:37 < illegale> as info mediator
11:37 < illegale> you know music stuff p3p
11:37 < echarp> whores will always be there, but that shouldn't be such a problem ;)
11:38 < illegale> yes
11:38 < illegale> if you rise s/n ratio for one level or two, no proble i see either
11:39 < illegale> and this is actually info revolution that could happened
11:39 < illegale> and we would eliminate one big problem towards the opennes
11:39 < illegale> in heads of the poeple
11:39 < echarp> maybe yes
11:39 < illegale> when they relate public to 3 idiots who ring around all the time
11:39 < echarp> well, moderation is just a by product of parlement, useful one :)
11:40 < illegale> i know this part perfectly
11:40 < illegale> yet i am not into envision more but the stuff i have history on
11:40 < illegale> :)
11:40 < illegale> looking from context stuff worshiping stuff tha is valuable to such
11:41 < illegale> and even that is big, big step forward
11:41 < illegale> talked to magnus'
11:41 < illegale> ?
11:41 < illegale> recently?
11:41 < echarp> here?
11:42 < illegale> at parlement'
11:42 < illegale> btw, did you call him to irc?
11:42 < illegale> bah, have to goo
11:42 < illegale> see you later
11:42 < illegale> :-)
11:43 < echarp> I don't think I really did, I proposed him to come around yes
11:43 < echarp> cu
11:43 -!- illegale [i=ille...@cmung25.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit []
15:10 -!- illegale (illegale) [i=ille...@cmung217.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
15:11 < illegale> tc
15:12 < echarp> re illegale
15:14 < illegale> what means re?
15:14 < echarp> like in reuse, or to redo, to return
15:15 < echarp> re- is probably latin
15:15 < illegale> ok
15:15 < echarp> prefix for back
15:22 < illegale> you talk to your friends about your politics work?
15:22 < echarp> of course
15:22 < illegale> what do they think?
15:23 < echarp> that I've been into that for too long, that it's never finished and never will be
15:23 < illegale> heh
15:23 < illegale> e
15:23 < illegale> you do not talk about it that much as before, yright+'
15:24 < echarp> yright?
15:24 < illegale> right?
15:24 < echarp> true
15:24 < echarp> but I do have some work also
15:24 < illegale> i can notice
15:24 < echarp> and I'm just advancing on the feature set itself
15:25 < echarp> the discussions were rather easy to lead with wackos as mark, useful as a wall against which to bounce words :)
15:25 < illegale> lol
15:25 < echarp> shame he could not grasp the meaning of those words too :)
15:25 < illegale> i like mark
15:26 < illegale> reminds me to my son
15:26 < illegale> says the priest
15:26 < illegale> though, he could help us a little bit if he gets a littlebit more focused
15:26 < echarp> I thought he would/could be useful, but I'm not of that opinion anymore
15:27 < echarp> just a wacko
15:27 < illegale> let it go and see
15:27 < echarp> illegale: you think I should speak more of parlement?
15:27 < illegale> needs several hits in the head
15:27 < echarp> lol
15:27 < illegale> wht do you mean?
15:28 < illegale> about mark, it is about mere interests
15:28 < illegale> would be good to keep all of this on that level
15:29 < illegale> he needs place where he can test his model
15:29 < illegale> i doubt he will find better one
15:36 < echarp> I doubt he will ever find one
15:36 < echarp> and I won't help him
15:36 < echarp> so what do I mean, should I be more aggressive in my presentation of parlement?
15:37 < echarp> should I speak about it more forums?
15:37 < illegale> hmh, you are not fine with the way it goes right now?
15:37 < echarp> not many people are testing and/or using it :(
15:38 < illegale> hehe
15:38 < illegale> what i see is that we could use it when we transef from the google groups
15:38 < illegale> yet, i am not lookingfor parlementbrend
15:38 < illegale> i look for something distinctive
15:38 < illegale> soundy
15:39 < echarp> parlementbrend?
15:39 < echarp> the name of parlement?
15:39 < illegale> there is a regular problem about it as long as it is yours
15:39 < illegale> it has different meaning to you but others in that way
15:40 < illegale> so, my wish is to use parlement software for promotion of progresive political options
15:40 < illegale> internet based
15:40 < illegale> and this has to be pretty catchy stuff
15:40 < illegale> equally acknowledged by several people to take it as theirown
15:40 < illegale> in that way gravity has good promoiton base
15:41 < echarp> well, there is the motor "parlement", and the forum you envision which would be another beast entirely ;)
15:41 < echarp> could be named tiAktivAgora for example :)
15:41 < illegale> so, parlement is brend for software
15:41 < illegale> ?
15:41 < echarp> or AktivAgora
15:41 < echarp> parlement is a server technology, like phpBB
15:41 < illegale> ok
15:42 < illegale> we have to make exact distinciotns
15:42 < echarp> there is the software, and the production server
15:42 < echarp> right now http://leparlement.org is one production server
15:42 < illegale> so, you think this could be interesting in this very moment to sme other groupations?
15:42 < illegale> parlement?
15:42 < echarp> but it's all designed to become a P2P system, with any number of interconnected servers (or unconnected servers too)
15:42 < illegale> i like that
15:43 < echarp> it is designed to be useful for other groups yes
15:43 < illegale> can you notice them?
15:43 < illegale> we are relatively in fron of our time
15:43 < echarp> notice who/what?
15:43 < illegale> avangarde stuff
15:43 < echarp> cool :)
15:43 < illegale> such group that would notice its usage?
15:44 < illegale> i had some problms with it
15:44 < illegale> people are regularly oriented to wiki stuff, those "alternatives"
15:44 < illegale> and blogs
15:44 < illegale> not many discuss on this manner
15:45 < echarp> parlement is also a blog tool you know => http://echarp.org/blog :)
15:45 < illegale> :-)
15:45 < illegale> though, thats why i wanted to set orientation towards creating such public network
15:45 < echarp> mailing list, forum, blog...
15:45 < illegale> in order to find similar thinkers
15:46 < illegale> are good in net history stuff?
15:46 < illegale> not to sound naive as i do?
15:46 < echarp> who is good in net history?
15:46 < illegale> ask urgen :)
15:46 < echarp> he seems quite knowledgable yes :)
15:47 < illegale> good hting to set up a context in order to promote software
15:47 < illegale> i know context of political forums in croatia pretty well
15:47 < illegale> this stuff i do not actually
15:48 < echarp> you can consider that parlement is a kind of phpBB, but using RoR and web2.0 technologies, and democratic
15:48 < illegale> what i am looking for is pluralistic model based on equality
15:48 < echarp> it aims to be a fully democratic tool, trustable and far reaching
15:48 < illegale> that is what i am ekeen about
15:48 < illegale> thise RoR non ror, does not matter to me at all, actually
15:48 < illegale> not into that stuff
15:48 < echarp> it's technical
15:49 < illegale> i get it
15:49 < illegale> though, you need people who will use it t
15:49 < echarp> yeap
15:49 < echarp> definitely
15:50 < illegale> i feel confident about croatia stuff
15:51 < illegale> do not feel that confident about world geek association stuff
15:51 < illegale> urgen could help you in this part much more i htink
15:51 < illegale> suppose you need to establish somewehere, hit high numbers and stuff
15:51 < illegale> to show its usefulneess
15:53 < echarp> yeap
15:53 < echarp> top-politics is quite interesting for that
15:53 < echarp> I use as a test bed
15:53 < illegale> get satisfied users, that is it :)
15:54 < illegale> loud ones
15:54 < echarp> right now there are no real users
15:54 < echarp> magnus
15:54 < illegale> i know
15:54 < illegale> i am not
15:54 < illegale> i just test a little bizt
15:54 < echarp> it's nice too
15:54 < illegale> wait for stuff i am looking for
15:54 < echarp> I want people to try breaking it :)
15:55 < illegale> bugs stuff?
15:55 < echarp> you are looking for moderation isn't it?
15:55 < echarp> yeap
15:55 < illegale> yes
15:55 < illegale> filters and stuff
15:55 < illegale> base for open societ
15:55 < illegale> y
15:55 < echarp> that will take me a few weeks I think
15:55 < illegale> not long tim
15:55 < illegale> e
15:55 < echarp> large enough
15:55 < illegale> you know popper?
15:56 < illegale> :-)
15:56 < echarp> lol
15:56 < echarp> hopefully I'm finished with avatars this week end
15:56 < illegale> open society and stuff
15:56 < illegale> several weeks in our hisotry of engagnemnt is very nothing :-)
16:26 < urgen> karl popper?
16:27 < illegale> yeah
16:28 < urgen> so you've been doing your homework on testing?
16:28 < urgen> that'd be cool
16:28 < illegale> not follow you...
16:29 < illegale> what excatly you aim at when talk about testing?
16:29 < echarp> hello urgen
16:29 < urgen> popper was one of hte first to suggest science needed a makeover
16:29 < urgen> hi
16:29 < urgen> he helped formulate what proveable truth was
16:30 < urgen> what you can and can not know
16:30 < illegale> he is ani historistic :-)
16:30 < urgen> probably why ppl use paradigm so much these days
16:30 < urgen> all terms have many different uses. I'd bet he would agree with my use
16:31 < urgen> since I anchored 'history' as proveable truth
16:31 < urgen> physical
16:31 < echarp> you anchored a word?
16:31 < urgen> I can research the history of gun powder and make some myself
16:31 < urgen> doesn't need opinion
16:32 < urgen> any term can have any arbitrary meaning attached
16:32 < echarp> exactly
16:32 < echarp> connotations
16:32 < urgen> anchored, assigned, attached
16:33 < urgen> designations are always arbitrary
16:33 < echarp> you mean that you reached consensus for a particular connotation?
16:33 < urgen> no I said it was this way
16:33 < urgen> I designated this mapping
16:34 < urgen> you can't tell me I am wrong because of the nature of terms
16:34 < echarp> "since I anchored 'history' as proveable truth" ?
16:34 < echarp> whad did you mean?
16:34 < echarp> anchor and proveable truth seems rathers strange to me
16:34 < urgen> means I already eliminated from my vocabulary the use that illegale finds distasteful
16:34 < urgen> and substituted a new one that works better
16:35 < urgen> you can't then tell me I am wrong just because I use that string of characters
16:35 < urgen> I just need to define my terms before a conversation
16:35 < echarp> well, no one can really tell that unless relying on a definition
16:35 < urgen> you going to tell me bleau is more true than blue?
16:35 < echarp> and there is always the possibility to just "redefine"
16:36 < echarp> I'm going to tell you that truth is a relative matter
16:36 < echarp> that to bleau can be attached meaning, you can define it
16:36 < urgen> of course
16:36 < echarp> or re-define
16:36 < echarp> no need to drop all the words which have different meanings
16:36 < echarp> or you are just losing ground to all your adversaries
16:37 < urgen> so if I want to say all evidence has a history you have determine the way I use the term before you decide to have a problem with it or not
16:37 < urgen> well I did have a point tho
16:37 < urgen> no need to let ancient tradition pull me around by the nose either ;-)
16:37 < echarp> I have theoretically to determine it yes, but often I/we don't because there are many assumptions
16:37 < urgen> or we'd all be in trouble fast
16:37 < echarp> just define/redefine, don't forget words because others use them differently
16:38 < echarp> don't give up words
16:38 < echarp> they are an incredible asset worth being defended
16:38 < echarp> you read 1984?
16:38 < echarp> the novlang is such a battle
16:38 < urgen> so the definition of history that is qualified by 'written by the victors' I also don't have much use for
16:39 < urgen> but history as the reference material that I use to learn to built an audio amplifier circuit I do use
16:39 < urgen> they are not the same use case
16:39 < echarp> of course
16:40 < echarp> this is why dictionaries collate many usages under the same words
16:40 < urgen> well it seemed illegale was applying definition one to my use two
16:41 < echarp> before discussing concepts, we all should define them
16:41 < urgen> of course
16:41 < echarp> then no problem, you can use the words democracy or transparency
16:42 < urgen> so I said that without sound foundation in evidence (something popper talks a lot about) we don't have 'history'
16:42 < urgen> the terms themselves are mostly shell
16:42 < echarp> they are yes
16:43 < echarp> we have to fill them
16:45 < urgen> so on top of popper's no truth without negation we have to add 'nonaffirming' negation
16:45 < urgen> because we do not need to construct fantasies to strike down just to establish our superiority
16:46 < urgen> the truth established by negation does not need our protection, it's stability remains whether we believe it or not
16:46 < echarp> negation or falsifiability?
16:46 < echarp> I'm not sure that negation can either be an absolute
16:46 < urgen> that's probably a productive inquiry
16:47 < urgen> truth is also not necessarily bi-modal
16:47 < urgen> it doesn't have to be relative OR absolute
16:47 < echarp> btw, you are speaking of relative aren't you?
16:47 < urgen> I'm speaking about the excluded middle
16:47 < echarp> absolutes being probably not reachable by humans
16:48 < urgen> but excluded middle is nearly a reification
16:48 < urgen> so one has to tread lightly
16:48 < urgen> you can get tripped up by your own vocabulary
16:49 < urgen> this 'history as opinion' tradition runs deep in your blood
16:49 < urgen> :-)
16:49 < echarp> you exclude and you materialise?
16:49 < echarp> (reification = materialisation?)
16:49 < echarp> history is opinion... (everything is if you dig deep enough)
16:50 < echarp> I'm of course open to contradiction
16:50 < urgen> of course
16:50 < echarp> but relativism is deep in me
16:50 < urgen> it's ok
16:50 < urgen> any extreme will eventualy bite you
16:50 < urgen> but that's far better discovered directly
16:50 < urgen> otherwise it wouldn't be real
16:51 < urgen> and otherwise with no frame of reference we'd not be able to share
16:51 < illegale> khm, you have great knowledge4
16:51 < illegale> if it can be used for something
16:52 < illegale> can it be used?
16:52 < urgen> it is used for lasting happiness
16:52 < urgen> ignore at your own peril :-)
16:52 < urgen> but then, that's life
16:52 < urgen> and life has it's own checks and balances
16:53 < illegale> thats attitude simmilar to guys from philsophy studies
16:53 < illegale> take it as a hobby, not something of wider use
16:54 < illegale> and i do not understand people who are mastering stuff they take as hobby
16:54 < illegale> why do you need college for hobby?
16:54 < urgen> I can take that as a provocation, shallowness, or simple ignorance,, which way would you prefer?
16:54 < illegale> makes no sense to me
16:54 < illegale> what?
16:54 < urgen> :-)
16:55 < illegale> my attitude, their attitude?
16:55 < illegale> your attitude?
16:55 < urgen> ok, how about. your phrase equally makes no sense to me
16:55 < illegale> ok, wht about that... you have the stone to move and what you do? you move it
16:56 * urgen kicks the stone
16:56 < illegale> and peoples ability of working in abstractions is abioity t olink to that stone
16:56 < illegale> othervice, they are just playing crcular games
16:56 < urgen> interesting theory, I hope to show you different some day
16:57 < illegale> you need a measure if you want to see are you going in wrong direction
16:57 < illegale> right?
16:57 < urgen> it is also equally as serious as your pursuit as well
16:57 < illegale> ok, that is hobby than
16:57 < illegale> playing words, poetry
16:57 < urgen> I already defined a basis to measure progress by
16:57 < urgen> I asked you for evidence
16:57 < urgen> otherwise I'm accusing you of the same thing
16:57 < illegale> ok, ten we agree about that part
16:57 < urgen> playing words and poetry, right?
16:57 < illegale> thank you :-(
16:58 < illegale> :-)
16:58 < illegale> i suppose we should look for such evidence, right?
16:58 < urgen> of course
16:58 < illegale> i suppose there is an evidnce for you
16:58 < urgen> and that's why it *almost* warmed my heart to see you say popper
16:58 < urgen> until you didn't see the connection with evidence
16:58 < illegale> oh, i am shallow reader :-(
16:59 < urgen> popper is not easy
16:59 < illegale> out of mathemaics informatics and stuff for a while
16:59 < urgen> he did a great job
16:59 < illegale> what i noticed is that i find him fine
16:59 < urgen> right
16:59 < urgen> and I'd hope that result would be the outcome
16:59 < illegale> though, why i am bithcing, you ask?
16:59 < illegale> or you knowž?
16:59 < illegale> ?
17:00 < urgen> because as one who worked diligently to define a basis he then went on to extend that foundation and the results weren't half bad
17:00 < illegale> hmh, let me use my own words, better :-)
17:00 < urgen> but since it is not an easy read not many people find it so the work doesn't continue very swiftly
17:01 < urgen> but that's not an attack
17:01 < urgen> maybe swift isn't always good
17:01 < illegale> look, urgen. i see you and echarp excangng words i actually never heard of, making me think you know something i do not actually
17:01 < urgen> the slowest revolutions are probably the best
17:01 < illegale> something about defining concepts and stuff
17:02 < illegale> id like to see this knowledge in use
17:02 < illegale> that is all
17:02 < illegale> and in this very moment this knowledge is excatly what we need
17:02 < echarp> one revolution every 20 years :)
17:02 < urgen> 20 for an optimist :-)
17:02 < echarp> for benjamin franklin I believe :)
17:02 < urgen> ah
17:03 < illegale> it is the info flow that measures change
17:03 < echarp> in france we are about right
17:03 < illegale> and we are in hyper info time
17:03 < echarp> information is key yes
17:03 < urgen> sure internet time has an interesting effect
17:04 < echarp> we are potentially all becoming borgs! but we keep our individuality :)
17:04 < illegale> wwb
17:04 * echarp can't wait for his eye and hears implants
17:04 < urgen> capacity can improve is radical thought
17:05 < urgen> but it's true, at least by my own experience
17:25 < echarp> human networks instead of dictatorial hierarchies
17:31 < urgen> which is a formulaic way to say something deeper
17:46 < echarp> formulas are great
17:46 < echarp> shortcuts
17:47 < urgen> and it communicated to me just fine
17:49 < illegale> where are we now?
17:50 < urgen> well, my inclination is to not use terms that you don't understand
17:50 < illegale> how do you know what you do and what you do not understand?
17:51 < urgen> we all want to found our understanding on something that lasts
17:51 < illegale> every conept is based on assosiation to other concepts
17:51 < illegale> so, this actually means you can know everything or nothing actually
17:51 < urgen> no one likes to have the rug pulled out from under them
17:51 < echarp> networks, taxonomies
17:51 < illegale> as long as you can not know everyrtihn, you can not talk about anything than
17:51 < echarp> urgen: did that happen a lot to you? (rug pulling)
17:51 < urgen> just because the sands are shifting doesn't mean we can't walk on them
17:52 < urgen> I think maybe once or twice before I learned :-)
17:52 < illegale> excatly
17:52 < echarp> personally I want to build, and I consider there is only sand available as a foundation
17:52 < illegale> echarp excatly
17:52 < echarp> the building has to withstand that lack of granitic foundations
17:52 < illegale> bazaar
17:52 < illegale> :-)
17:53 < echarp> yeap
17:53 < echarp> into which there can be any number of cathedrals
17:53 < urgen> but you come to find that lack of granitic foundation is actually superior
17:53 < urgen> withstands earthquakes better, etc
17:53 < illegale> lets not go off topci too mcuh with alegorias
17:53 < echarp> I guess it is superior yes, because it accepts/aknowledgeds our incertitudes
17:54 < illegale> where are we now?
17:54 < illegale> that is the basic quesiton we ned to ask about this goal
17:54 < urgen> so that's the only first step I personally need to hear is included in the model before I align with it
17:54 < illegale> Markus says :-)
17:54 < illegale> I agree
17:54 < echarp> define concepts, yes
17:54 < illegale> i see much problem wih it right now
17:55 < illegale> how to lead stuff towards products we are looking for
17:55 < urgen> we are at, is it flexible enough to change something foundational further down the road
17:55 < urgen> that's how the internet was built
17:55 < illegale> urgen suppose what is the way you building stuff
17:55 < echarp> kiss :)
17:55 < illegale> this way is much more human i can notice
17:55 < illegale> no place for indoctrination and stuff
17:56 < urgen> I build, function by function
17:56 < echarp> http://echarp.org/kiss
17:56 < illegale> indoctrinaiton gets important when you set postulates and build on them everyrting else
17:56 < urgen> small working prototype to prove then extend
17:56 < illegale> you get big builidng and these posutlates become dogma
17:57 < echarp> and they eventually fall down
17:57 < echarp> heavily
17:57 < illegale> what about ideology in that system?
17:57 < illegale> yes
17:57 < illegale> sooner or later
17:57 < urgen> ideology is like "flexible enough to introduce a foundational change at a later point"
17:57 < illegale> unless you have open organisation
17:58 < echarp> there is always some kind of ideology, but it can be lean and agile
17:58 < illegale> internet is good
17:58 < illegale> 1st postulate
17:58 < illegale> do not mess with it
17:58 < urgen> it is constantly being messed with
17:58 < urgen> a lab is always poking and stretching
17:59 < urgen> what isn't being messed with is what allows that messing
17:59 < urgen> when that changes then the internet becomes someone's property
18:00 < urgen> and we get into taxes and tarrifs
18:00 < urgen> that will happen in some places
18:00 < urgen> AOL use to be like that until they had to tear down the wall
18:00 < urgen> Prodigy use to be like that until they had to tear down the wall
18:01 < urgen> MCI use to be like that until they had to tear down the wall
18:01 < urgen> now ppl are busy trying to put walls back up
18:02 < echarp> stupid pipes, all sorts of nodes
18:03 < urgen> so it is ok, probably, to own a shopping mall
18:03 < urgen> and control what happens on your property
18:03 < urgen> I think we can survive with a hybrid system
18:03 < urgen> like military has private and public pipes
18:04 < echarp> the "last mile" should be the private property of the end person
18:04 < urgen> that'd be nice
18:04 < echarp> thus much less monopoly power
18:04 * urgen gripes at cable access policies
18:04 < echarp> :)
18:05 < illegale> i see actuall need for the first postulate
18:05 < illegale> i am not kidding
18:05 < illegale> :-)
18:05 < urgen> ok
18:06 < illegale> you do not?ž
18:06 < urgen> I am always ready :-)
18:06 < illegale> how do you mean'
18:06 < urgen> I've been doing this for years now
18:07 < illegale> postualting? :-)
18:07 < urgen> slowly getting ppl to the point where the definitions are clear enough to make progress
18:07 < urgen> there are easy ways to do something that doesn't last
18:07 < illegale> did you make any virotic memi?
18:07 < urgen> meme: the self-patenting meme
18:07 < urgen> no one can own it because it patented itself
18:08 < illegale> im not sure we are talking the same stuff, might be though
18:08 < urgen> what is a memi?
18:08 < urgen> I thought you were saying viral meme
18:08 < illegale> what i mean is that stuff thatgets spread is the stuff that is relevant
18:08 < illegale> other stuff can be releevant only as set up for such things
18:09 -!- beeli (illegale) [i=ille...@cmung2694.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
18:09 < beeli> this is serious stuff, obviously :-)
18:09 < beeli> tried to eliminate me, hahahaha
18:09 < beeli> osp
18:09 < urgen> :-)
18:09 < urgen> peer knows all, sees all
18:10 < beeli> yes
18:10 < beeli> though, it is not fair play
18:10 < beeli> i suppose to see peer too
18:10 < urgen> well that's core enough to work on
18:11 < beeli> this civilisation battle
18:11 < urgen> abuse tends to make peer seem less true
18:11 < beeli> apocalypsti issues and stuff
18:11 < beeli> the esssnce is clear to me
18:11 < beeli> as i see it
18:11 < urgen> so that's why I say it is important to take more care at first, be more gentle
18:11 < beeli> this battle is who is going to be first in orienting cammeras
18:11 < urgen> it is not abuse proof yet
18:11 < beeli> public or government
18:12 < beeli> who wins takes all
18:12 < urgen> I think bullet proof peer is possible
18:13 < beeli> hmh
18:13 < beeli> ok
18:13 < beeli> :-)
18:13 < urgen> so a lot of work at first is finding where the holes are
18:13 < urgen> IRC started like this
18:13 < urgen> totally open crazy wild wild west
18:14 < urgen> hackers, totalitarians, bullies anyone was allowed to do whatever they wanted
18:14 < urgen> even encouraged
18:14 < urgen> then the system learned and got stronger
18:14 < beeli> no ops?
18:14 < beeli> no moderators?
18:14 < urgen> now we hardly have a fraction of the problems we had in the early days
18:14 < urgen> we had ops
18:14 < urgen> but it was easy to hack
18:15 < urgen> the crazy fun days are over now, time to get back to work
18:15 < beeli> ok
18:15 < beeli> i have to do some stuff also
18:15 < beeli> blb
18:15 < urgen> we had whole wars by bots
18:15 < urgen> I meant IRC fun days
18:15 < beeli> oh,
18:15 < urgen> but I'm suppose to be doing other stuff too ;-)
18:16 < urgen> so the hackers learned too
18:16 < urgen> now they use that intelligence to get credit cards and bank accounts
18:16 < urgen> who cares about a stupid irc channel
18:17 < urgen> but quite a few still use irc
18:17 < urgen> so irc has a bad reputation now
18:17 < urgen> ppl think it is still the dark child of the internet
18:17 < beeli> lol
18:18 < echarp> ok, I'm going home
18:18 < echarp> cu right away
18:18 < urgen> 'k
18:28 -!- illegale [i=ille...@cmung217.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
18:47 -!- beeli [i=ille...@cmung2694.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
18:55 < echarp> re
18:56 < urgen> re
19:16 -!- illegale (illegale) [i=ille...@cmung4201.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
19:18 < urgen> re
19:19 < illegale> io
19:20 < urgen> :-)
19:20 < illegale> know somathing about strategic planning?
19:20 < urgen> just at a survival level
19:20 < urgen> I've never had formal training
19:20 < illegale> ok
19:21 < illegale> had talk to Markus of how to deal with our first goal
19:21 < urgen> I've moved software projects to product
19:21 < illegale> had people below?
19:21 < urgen> three
19:21 < illegale> than it is very essentia
19:21 < illegale> l
19:21 < illegale> to do it properly i assume
19:22 < illegale> you not into it?
19:22 < urgen> I'm way into it
19:22 < urgen> http://www.controlchaos.com/
19:22 < illegale> you are way into everytin, lol :-=
19:22 < illegale> )
19:23 < urgen> my conviction has carried me deeper and deeper
19:23 < illegale> it will take me some time to visit all those pages you send to me
19:23 < urgen> and I always try to pay enough attention to the process to duplicate it should any part of it go away
19:23 < illegale> yes
19:24 < urgen> part of living in a decentralized system is that you have to become a fractal
19:24 < urgen> any one part reflects the whole
19:24 < illegale> yes
19:24 < illegale> active element
19:25 < illegale> participator
19:25 < urgen> the coherency of the light is what a hologram relies on
19:25 < urgen> coherency means in align
19:26 < urgen> that is like echarp saying no dictatorial hierarchies
19:26 < illegale> had some problem to our goal of defining
19:26 < illegale> yet, Markus is studying organsation science
19:26 < illegale> good thing to know
19:27 < urgen> yes
19:27 < illegale> Where are we now?
19:27 < illegale> Where would we like to be?
19:27 < illegale> How do we get there?
19:28 < illegale> seems this bey key moment
19:28 < illegale> as long as we have to know why do we do it actually
19:28 < illegale> suppose projecting software is not in that way workin, right?
19:30 < urgen> software production is interesting
19:30 < urgen> lots of what feels like wasting time at first
19:30 < urgen> then mad dash scramble then pushing stuff around
19:30 < echarp> playing legos :)
19:36 < illegale> yes
19:37 < illegale> echarp do we have any definition of TOP in this very time?
19:37 * echarp loves them and always has
19:37 < echarp> illegale: we need to rephrase some of your last posts
19:38 < illegale> khm, i see many stuff to be done out there
19:38 < illegale> i mean, what do we want with it actually?
19:38 < illegale> i personaly want disctinctivness and stregnht
19:38 < illegale> of such definition
19:38 < illegale> you have some desires of it?
19:39 < echarp> but don't you want that just to market it more easily? :)
19:39 < echarp> while to me, TOP is a brick, one I would use
19:39 < illegale> we miss some parts for that
19:39 < echarp> a brick in the building
19:39 < illegale> what are others bricks?
19:39 < illegale> web 20 stuff?
19:39 < illegale> liberty?
19:40 < illegale> you do not need top for marketing parlement?
19:42 < urgen> bootstrapping is fun
19:42 < echarp> web2.0 is technical, I'm speaking of conceptual bricks
19:43 < illegale> what are they?
19:43 < echarp> we don't know yet
19:43 < echarp> transparency is a foundational brick
19:43 < illegale> hmh
19:43 < echarp> required to have a beginning of trust
19:43 < echarp> trust is another very very important step
19:43 < illegale> did you read text internet democracy?
19:43 < illegale> the apth to the internet democracy?
19:44 < echarp> apth?
19:44 < illegale> elietes are mentioned there
19:44 < illegale> path
19:44 < illegale> that text i wrote a coulpe years ago
19:44 < illegale> it is old
19:45 < echarp> I don't remember that text no, is that yours or tiaktiv's?
19:45 < illegale> many bad terms and stuff
19:45 < illegale> nah
19:45 < echarp> the one about forums?
19:45 < illegale> did you read vision of tiaktiv
19:45 < illegale> ?
19:45 < illegale> nonono
19:46 < illegale> http://top.xwiki.com/xwiki/bin/view/Main/TiAktiv_Vision
19:46 < illegale> this is my try to articulate some other concept
19:46 < illegale> bad attempt though
19:46 < illegale> neverteless, Tiaktiv was firstly ID oriented
19:47 < illegale> then we decided to chang direction towards TOP leaving such models beside
19:48 < echarp> I did yes
19:49 < illegale> share vision?
19:49 < echarp> I read it :)
19:49 < illegale> dont bother, say
19:49 < echarp> too grandiloquent for me ;)
19:50 < echarp> political order and such
19:50 * illegale translating...
19:51 < illegale> yes
19:51 < illegale> conceptually?
19:51 < echarp> ok, I'm proposing two inter linked bricks: transparency, trust
19:51 < echarp> what do you think? :)
19:51 < illegale> fine
19:51 < echarp> urgen?
19:51 < illegale> equality
19:52 < urgen> hi
19:52 < illegale> at start
19:52 < echarp> it's a start
19:52 < illegale> has same rights stuff
19:52 < echarp> equality is important yes, but it's *VERY* difficult to enforce in the virtual world
19:52 < illegale> eqaulity is missued sometimes pretty hard
19:52 < echarp> equality requires identity... no?
19:52 < illegale> identity?
19:53 < echarp> yeap, *who* is equal?
19:53 < illegale> ok
19:53 < illegale> people by right stuff
19:53 < illegale> though, not mean to much
19:53 < echarp> often there is a real life person, that person *can* have many virtual identities
19:53 < illegale> ok
19:53 < urgen> so I was calling transparency record or history (not the abused version but like scroll back version)
19:53 < urgen> trust is to know whether to invest or pull out
19:54 < urgen> with proper feedback better decisions should be possible
19:54 < echarp> transparent records can be used for history, most certainly yes
19:54 < urgen> is that what you are saying?
19:54 < echarp> trust is also linked to security
19:54 < echarp> I'm thinking in terms of e-votes and such matters
19:54 < urgen> verification
19:54 < echarp> online security is always relative
19:55 < echarp> but trust can exist
19:55 < echarp> verification yes
19:55 < echarp> trust can build on verification
19:55 < urgen> ok
19:55 < echarp> transparence => verification => trust ?
19:55 < urgen> I've been seeing it as a single component anyway..
19:56 < echarp> it's probably a box
19:56 < echarp> everything is
19:56 < urgen> but I was also wanting to allow various identities per person
19:56 < echarp> I'm sure there is another brick on agreement, participation
19:56 < urgen> I have my private self, my public self, my chilling online self....
19:56 < echarp> yeap
19:56 < urgen> but that can be later :-)
19:56 < echarp> agree
19:57 < echarp> urgen: as I said, virtual identities are incredibly difficult to enforce
19:57 < urgen> ya
19:57 < echarp> in my tool, I don't enforce it at all
19:57 < echarp> I leave it up to each electoral list manager
19:58 < urgen> still a tough job :-)
19:58 < echarp> but it's outside of the tool responsibility
19:58 < urgen> once there is stuff in motion it gets easier to notice patterns
19:58 < urgen> it is impossible to start air tight
19:58 < echarp> trust is displaced, from the tool to each manager
19:58 < illegale> responsibility
19:58 < echarp> yeap
19:59 < urgen> I don't mind you including such a relaxed position for containing dialogue
19:59 < echarp> containing?
19:59 < urgen> facilitating
19:59 < urgen> venue
19:59 < urgen> coordinating
19:59 < echarp> the electoral list manager only propose an electoral list which is used to calculate vote results
20:00 < echarp> voters on a list are moderators that each user can use to filter the content for him
20:00 < urgen> I started to call the job "The Ticket Master"
20:01 < urgen> because things are often line item and they carry the connotation of having a train ticket
20:01 < echarp> the job of?
20:01 < urgen> manager of lists
20:02 < urgen> lists being proposals and discussion, etc
20:02 < urgen> it is important to not restrict input flow
20:02 < urgen> but then you get huge stacks of material to sort through
20:02 < echarp> the electoral list
20:02 < echarp> just a list of voters
20:02 < urgen> the one who submits might be capable of helping but usually they are not interested in the process
20:03 < urgen> each voter can submit
20:03 < echarp> it's there to potentially increase the signal/noise ratio
20:03 < urgen> all submission become line items on 'the list' or 'the backlog' or 'the queue'
20:03 < urgen> it gets overwhelming very fast
20:03 < echarp> I'm sure
20:03 < urgen> but there are some powerful sorting tools to make quick work of setting priority
20:04 < echarp> yet many could participate intelligently in the moderation
20:04 < urgen> it helps if everyone understands but that can't and shouldn't be expected
20:04 < urgen> we want all participation, not just those who get it
20:05 < urgen> the small currents can flow together to form larger ones later
20:05 < urgen> then timely sweep to vote
20:06 < urgen> and slow and steady resolution
20:06 < urgen> you start to produce gems of social understanding
20:06 < echarp> there is content flowing
20:06 < echarp> people voting to organise that flow
20:07 < urgen> right
20:07 < echarp> but each user can choose the team of voters they follow
20:07 < urgen> only naturally :-)
20:08 < echarp> there is content, there are tags associated to it and saying, look at it or don't look at it
20:08 < echarp> well, that's what I'm targetting
20:09 < echarp> we are getting out of the brick building process aren't we? :)
20:09 < illegale> or be one
20:09 < illegale> :-)
20:09 < illegale> or part
20:09 < echarp> and I'm sorry if I tend to always pull back to the technical part of it (or my technical vision anyway)
20:09 < echarp> woaw, raining heavily here!
20:09 < illegale> nah, i am fine with this thing
20:09 < urgen> cool
20:10 < illegale> it boils some my past beliefs :)
20:10 < urgen> I always need the vision side to see the parts
20:10 < illegale> expectations and stuff
20:11 < echarp> ok, then you see how identity, equality, are difficult concepts?
20:11 < illegale> equality?
20:12 < illegale> why?
20:12 < illegale> you can do anything on the software level
20:12 < illegale> it is up to others to use or not use your service
20:12 < echarp> of course
20:12 < echarp> I mean that equality is almost impossible to enforce
20:13 < echarp> if it is not enforced, does it really exist?
20:13 < urgen> classic systems use spot checks to estimate percentage of accuracy
20:13 < echarp> if everybody can vote multiple times, is there any equality?
20:13 < echarp> spot check?
20:13 < urgen> isolate to verify
20:13 < urgen> to periodic testing
20:13 < urgen> s/to/do
20:14 < illegale> suppose we se equality differently
20:14 < illegale> samity
20:14 < illegale> same - > samity
20:14 < illegale> :-)
20:14 < urgen> the difference is too critical to make it be the same right now
20:14 < urgen> we are just interested in a way to harvest those differences
20:15 < echarp> yeap
20:15 < urgen> and make it fair at the same time
20:15 < illegale> i want to say we bring different qualities, different power, differet influence and stuff
20:15 < illegale> in that way we are not equal
20:15 < echarp> open participation is easier to have as a brick
20:15 < illegale> and we do not need to be equal
20:15 < illegale> what we need to be equal is chance
20:16 < illegale> right
20:16 < illegale> by birth
20:16 < illegale> and it is up to us to see what to do with it
20:16 < illegale> what means open participation*
20:16 < echarp> possibility to participate
20:16 < illegale> are we open if we vote if somebody can enter our team
20:16 < echarp> to speak, even if no one listens of course
20:16 < illegale> ok
20:17 < illegale> to say, i said you so
20:17 < echarp> :)
20:17 < illegale> to rise by reputation
20:17 < echarp> to be there, to share
20:17 < echarp> yeap
20:17 < illegale> yes
20:17 < illegale> :)
20:17 < echarp> and one can rise in a sub group
20:18 < illegale> sure
20:18 < illegale> the important part of ideal of democracy is that fisrt not get too sure and last not too discouraged
20:18 < illegale> when you get that, you get equality by our idealistic not mathematic preferences
20:18 < echarp> hum
20:18 < echarp> participation? openness?
20:19 < illegale> what about that?
20:19 < echarp> I think it fits with TOP perfectly, does it not?
20:19 < illegale> what?
20:19 < illegale> participation?
20:19 < echarp> to be open to anybody's participation
20:19 < illegale> what doea it mean?
20:19 < illegale> are you open to marks participaiton? :-=)
20:20 < echarp> of course
20:20 < illegale> what does it mean?
20:20 < echarp> just I won't listen to him ;)
20:20 < illegale> hehe
20:20 < echarp> he can participate, discuss, hopefully someone will respond
20:21 < illegale> ok, you wont block his right
20:21 < illegale> that is it
20:21 < illegale> you are not like tav
20:21 < echarp> yeap
20:22 < echarp> unless he actually is agressive, disruptive or such
20:22 < illegale> echarp: can i be serious for a few minutes?
20:22 < illegale> just say when
20:22 < illegale> yes, he is
20:22 < illegale> i am too sometimes
20:22 < echarp> of course you can be serious
20:23 < echarp> he is disruptive?
20:23 < illegale> i do not know meaning for htis, yet agressiv he is
20:23 < echarp> oh, agressive
20:23 < echarp> you mean he fucks up all the time? :)
20:24 < echarp> he's disrespectful?
20:31 < illegale> he pushes from his point of view not realising that point of view is not supreme to other ones perception
20:31 < illegale> that is stupid
20:31 < illegale> it can be handled though, but that is another story also
20:31 < illegale> nevertheless
20:32 < illegale> 4 of us set first goal
20:32 < illegale> it was definition of top
20:32 < illegale> what is the moment w find that goal realsied?
20:33 < illegale> urgen: can i borrow phenny from someone?
20:33 < illegale> or jibot?
20:33 < urgen> :-)
20:33 < urgen> jibot is open source
20:33 < urgen> and maybe phenny too
20:34 < urgen> I should give you a classic infobot if I can find one
20:36 < illegale> so, i can put it at illegale?
20:39 < urgen> to have it run from a shell account is the only requirement
20:40 < urgen> I have one and echarp has given you one, but to get permission for that you will probably have to let echarp review the code first
20:42 < illegale> so, that is it?
20:43 < illegale> is it long procedure or?
20:43 < urgen> sometimes it can be a little bit frustrating, but mostly a small job
20:46 < urgen> time is always the hardest
20:50 < illegale> hmh, it would be probably good to promote irc among politically oreinted ones
20:50 < illegale> public chat stuff
20:51 < illegale> standardiasation, networking and focus acting
20:51 < illegale> people shold adopt to dynamcis of internet
20:52 < illegale> steven clift and stuff :-)
20:52 < urgen> sure, but even this is hard work. IRC was around before Yahoo, and MSN and ICQ and Jabber and all the other kinds of chat protocols there are now
20:52 < urgen> they started their own protocols to lock people into non open systems
20:52 < illegale> you do not think irc has some big advantages to others?
20:52 < illegale> to me, there is no talk about it
20:53 < urgen> I think resistance is huge, not that irc has anything better or not to offer
20:53 < illegale> resistance to?
20:53 < urgen> ppl like glitz
20:53 < illegale> irc?
20:53 < illegale> glitz?
20:53 < urgen> yes resistance to irc
20:53 < urgen> MSN is prettier has more gimmicks
20:53 < urgen> microsoft pushes it on everything they own
20:53 < urgen> so MSN Messenger is more popular
20:54 < illegale> when we talked about chat in tiaktiv someone offered us pretty cool tool.
20:54 < urgen> getting people to change is almost impossible
20:54 < illegale> we di not find it adeqaute as long as irc is much more affiremed
20:54 < illegale> and decentralised
20:54 < urgen> so now there are efforts to glue all the different chat protocols into one
20:54 < illegale> it is the service that makes them look into direction
20:54 < urgen> ppl then can use whatever they want it to look like and the communication will still be possible
20:54 < illegale> what protocols are in the pay?
20:54 < illegale> play?
20:55 < urgen> jabber tries to bridge
20:55 < urgen> http://www.psyc.eu/ tries to bridge
20:55 < urgen> irc is getting old, it doesn't offer voice for example
20:56 < illegale> can that be changed?
20:56 < illegale> or is irc history
20:56 < urgen> anything open source can change
20:56 < urgen> just needs someone to worry about it enough to try
20:56 < urgen> :-) lots of work
20:56 < illegale> though is there enough energy to do such?
20:57 < urgen> the energy is provided by the vision
21:40 < echarp> ok, I've been thinking
21:40 < echarp> brick and all that, equality
21:40 < echarp> equality requires identity
21:40 < echarp> if to one man corresponds one vote, how do we ensure the fact one man can not have many votes?
21:41 < echarp> we can not using the internet only
21:41 < echarp> the only thing we have here is information
21:41 < echarp> it's the basis of everything else
21:41 < echarp> trust can be obtained through transparency of this information, verifiability
21:42 < echarp> trust is cool, it means we humans can invest into it
21:42 < echarp> we can invest with some hope of getting something out of it
21:42 < illegale> yes, though, tehre is no problem of multiple personlaities
21:42 < echarp> it's the promise that what happens will follow up with what was said
21:43 < echarp> illegale: oh there is
21:43 < echarp> because democracy requires identity
21:43 < echarp> thus as such internet is not democratic
21:43 < echarp> democracy requires something outside of the internet
21:43 < echarp> a bank account, an identity card, a birth certificate
21:44 < illegale> you are making virtual democracy with true power
21:44 < illegale> do not need such thing as base
21:44 < echarp> I'm thinking about it
21:44 < echarp> democracy does not need the "one man one vote" motto?
21:44 < illegale> you can use trust networks for identifying and all
21:44 < echarp> trust network are one step better than nothing, but they are not sufficient
21:44 < echarp> all identities are falsifiable
21:45 < illegale> nah
21:45 < echarp> can be stolen
21:45 < illegale> one man one vote is hoax
21:45 < illegale> mislieading essence of democracy
21:45 < echarp> trust network are just one way to increase the investment in order to forge an identity
21:45 < illegale> that is rigght to participate
21:45 < echarp> but what do you do if one participate one million times?
21:45 < echarp> what if a group of persons forge votes?
21:46 < illegale> what about votes?
21:46 < illegale> it is about power
21:46 < echarp> yeap
21:46 < illegale> there can be 1 votes worth more than 10000
21:46 < echarp> who says that?
21:46 < illegale> that is reality
21:47 < illegale> i
21:47 < echarp> how do you say that this man is worse 1000* more than others?
21:47 < echarp> why do you have that power?
21:47 < illegale> it is base on his abilities and stuff
21:47 < echarp> what gives you this right?
21:47 < illegale> power
21:47 < illegale> guts
21:47 < illegale> inteligence
21:47 < illegale> wisdom
21:47 < illegale> whatever
21:47 < echarp> sorry, it is based on you alone, and your judgement on his abilities and stuff
21:48 < echarp> what will you give a man 1000* more votes than another?
21:48 < illegale> for an example, you have an big investor in some party
21:48 < illegale> what he thinks for that party probabyl means more than what 20 regular members who do not actually participate think
21:48 < illegale> this about votes, it is acutalyl bs
21:48 < illegale> particiaption is what matters
21:48 < echarp> but then this is not a democracy
21:48 < illegale> not mere voting
21:49 < illegale> when i say participation, that means will to change
21:49 < illegale> depend onwhat you mean by that
21:49 < echarp> you have 10 people in a room, they have to decide on the temperature, how do you make the decision democratically?
21:49 < illegale> 50%+1 is only legitimated rate
21:49 < illegale> nothing more, nothing else
21:49 < echarp> there you go
21:49 < echarp> 50%+1 of what?
21:49 < echarp> of people isn't it?
21:49 < illegale> it is up to that group to set procedure
21:49 < echarp> of course
21:50 < illegale> you have vetos, and stuff
21:50 < echarp> yet what will be a democratic procedure?
21:50 < illegale> i do not know
21:50 < echarp> what characteristics make it democratic
21:50 < echarp> I think I know, if only partially
21:50 < illegale> to me, it is freedom of info and acknowledged equliaty as ground
21:50 < echarp> equality among participants is one requirement
21:50 < echarp> there you go, equality
21:50 < echarp> see, we agree :)
21:51 < echarp> but equality in a room of 10 is easy to obtain
21:51 < illegale> to me , organsation has to prosper o funcionability, not some dogmas
21:51 < illegale> and there are two levels inclusion and excluasion
21:51 < illegale> :-)
21:51 < illegale> inclusion slows down the process and articualtes better decsions
21:51 < echarp> sorry, are you speaking about the basis of democracy?
21:51 < illegale> exlusion enables rapid aciton and is less qualitative
21:52 < echarp> that means you push someone out of the room
21:52 < illegale> why?
21:52 < echarp> or you just exclude from the vote, fine
21:52 < echarp> how do you decide to exclude or not to exclude? :)
21:52 < echarp> does it not need a vote of some sorts?
21:53 < echarp> I believe it needs it
21:53 < echarp> equality and some kind of vote
21:53 < echarp> thresholds are almost an entirely different matters
21:53 < echarp> equality means that no one counts for more than the others, counts intrinsically
21:54 < echarp> equality means there is no aristocracy, or monarchy, or any of theses stupidities
21:54 < illegale> i see two systems, ok three
21:54 < illegale> one is lgarchy
21:54 < illegale> and second one is democracy
21:54 < echarp> the third is?
21:55 < illegale> third one is religious stuff based on some sort of dogma
21:55 < echarp> ok, fine by me, although there are probably others
21:55 < illegale> thoug it is acutally oligarchy
21:55 < echarp> thoug?
21:55 < illegale> though
21:55 < echarp> theocracy is an oligarchy?
21:56 < illegale> nevertheless, if you want to create system, you need to translate true pwer ratios to it
21:56 < echarp> power ratios???
21:56 < illegale> yes
21:56 < echarp> I thought we spoke of equality!
21:56 < echarp> power ratios is not against equality?
21:56 < illegale> nah
21:56 < illegale> it is reality
21:56 < echarp> explain please, I don't get it
21:56 < illegale> for an example you have military man
21:56 < illegale> men
21:57 < echarp> equality is required for democracy, I think we agreed on that
21:57 < illegale> rigid right
21:57 < echarp> equality in votes
21:57 < echarp> but the military is *not* democratic!
21:57 < illegale> we find it different
21:57 < echarp> it is very not
21:57 < echarp> military is a tyranny
21:58 < echarp> I'll admit easily that people are not equal in life
21:58 < illegale> what i want to say is that power ratios set politics
21:58 < illegale> today and all the time
21:58 < illegale> what you can do is to change these ratios
21:58 < illegale> be enforcing new models of gaining power
21:58 < echarp> sorry, you are speaking of ratios we can grasp and see?
21:58 < illegale> that enalbe decentralisaiton of it
21:59 < illegale> yes
21:59 < echarp> or just of leadership and influence?
21:59 < illegale> can you or can you not organsio demosntrations
21:59 < illegale> with 100 000 people
21:59 < echarp> this is influence, leadership, is it not?
21:59 < illegale> can you or can you not assasin president if you do not like him
21:59 < illegale> there is much of dark stuff also
21:59 < illegale> this is realiry
21:59 < illegale> i am looking to look at it and start from it
22:00 < echarp> but is that democratic matters?
22:00 < echarp> or is it just life?
22:00 < echarp> in life we are unequals
22:00 < echarp> we are stronger, faster, more intelligent
22:00 < illegale> politics is about reality
22:01 < illegale> the one who is pwerfull sets rules for others
22:01 < illegale> not vice versa
22:01 < echarp> yes, politics
22:01 < echarp> but democracy?
22:01 < echarp> democracy is in politics, politics englobe democracy
22:01 < echarp> englobe/contains
22:02 < illegale> what is the essence, philosphical one of democracy?
22:02 < echarp> politics are a matter of real life, democracy is a system we have devised
22:02 < echarp> philosophic for a start yes
22:02 < echarp> moral, ethics
22:03 < illegale> solidarity?
22:03 < echarp> democracy is linked to solidarity?
22:03 < illegale> i ask you :)
22:03 < echarp> I don't think it is, not strongly anyway
22:04 < echarp> democracy is, to me, the system we have devised to organise our liberties
22:04 < illegale> liberty?
22:04 < echarp> liberty defined as the absence of constraint from someone else
22:04 < echarp> liberty ends where the liberty of others begins
22:05 < echarp> if we meet in a pub, can I punch you in the face?
22:05 < illegale> though, what is liberty?
22:05 < illegale> emotion?
22:05 < illegale> principle?
22:05 < echarp> no!
22:05 < echarp> no!
22:05 < illegale> what?
22:05 < echarp> liberty is the absence of constraint!
22:05 < illegale> ok, what is contraintž
22:05 < illegale> ?
22:05 < echarp> if I punch you, then it is a constraint, I am enfreigning your liberty!
22:05 < illegale> does it mean you need wise and normal people to funcition?
22:05 < echarp> if I kidnap then it is against your liberty
22:05 < echarp> no!!!
22:06 < echarp> liberty in the discussion I'm bringing, is the limit between us
22:06 < echarp> you can do things, I can do things, yet those things can interact
22:06 < illegale> you think no constraint needed?
22:06 < illegale> jesus rethorics
22:06 < echarp> no!
22:06 < echarp> it's not "no constraint needed"
22:06 < illegale> so there is no liberty than?
22:07 < echarp> you have liberty when there is no constraint from others on you!
22:07 < echarp> I'm speaking of political liberty
22:07 < echarp> the one defined since the renaissance
22:07 < illegale> no political constraint needed?
22:07 < echarp> illegale: you never heard that sentence => liberty ends where the liberty of others begin?
22:08 < illegale> of course i did
22:08 < illegale> yet it does not touch the problematic part
22:08 < echarp> did you understand it?
22:08 < echarp> i think it does
22:08 < illegale> there is a problem
22:08 < echarp> which is?
22:09 < illegale> i do not like noise from outside
22:09 < echarp> noise?
22:09 < illegale> the one who makes that noise does not like my asking to cut it out as long as he is having good fun
22:09 < echarp> you don't want to reuse ideas?
22:09 < illegale> what can we do about it?
22:09 < echarp> oh
22:09 < echarp> he is enfreigning your liberty
22:09 < echarp> enforcement is another matter!!!
22:09 < illegale> who decides what is the liberty and where?
22:10 < echarp> people decide what is liberty among themselves
22:10 < illegale> are you sure he is enfreighinin my liberty?
22:10 < illegale> among who?
22:10 < echarp> on a box ring liberty is different than in the street
22:10 < echarp> among themselves
22:10 < echarp> liberty is a contract
22:10 < illegale> two of us?
22:10 < illegale> state?
22:10 < echarp> we set the contract
22:10 < illegale> who?
22:10 < echarp> all participants
22:10 < illegale> based on what?
22:10 < echarp> if I'm in a building, then it's its inhabitants
22:11 < illegale> if one puts one contract and the other one second ne
22:11 < echarp> based on being touched by the consequences
22:11 < illegale> and only one can be choosed
22:11 < echarp> it's a contract
22:11 < echarp> it's a mutual choice
22:11 < echarp> if one has another contract, then it is not a contract
22:11 < echarp> a contract is a sharing
22:11 < illegale> so, you need to enable contract
22:11 < echarp> we share conditions
22:11 < echarp> liberty is a contract
22:12 < echarp> no need to enable what we all do
22:12 < illegale> and this is the process called politics realised by power that can enforce
22:12 < echarp> politics define liberty, yes!
22:12 < illegale> what do you mean you have it?
22:12 < echarp> this is what I've been saying :)
22:12 < echarp> we all define contracts
22:12 < echarp> in a familly we constantly manage contracts
22:12 < echarp> often it's the kinds who impose their limits
22:13 < echarp> but it's still mutual agreement one way or another
22:13 < illegale> yes and it is not based on 1 man 1 vote
22:13 < illegale> but ratios of power
22:13 < echarp> it is not
22:13 < illegale> if my father says t me , you ca not get the icecream
22:13 < echarp> I'm speaking of liberty, politics, not of democracy there
22:13 < illegale> i can not than
22:13 < echarp> or you can try
22:13 < illegale> i can try, and he has the mones
22:13 < illegale> y
22:13 < echarp> the parents-relationship is not democratic at all
22:14 < echarp> yet there is always a matter of defining limits, liberty
22:14 < illegale> any group has its wn rules
22:14 < echarp> we all constantly define contracts
22:14 < illegale> the best rules enable progress of them
22:14 < echarp> yes, all groups have their own rules!!!
22:14 < echarp> I don't care about "best" right now
22:14 < echarp> so, liberty ends where the liberty of others begin
22:15 < echarp> is that good with you as a starting point to define liberty?
22:15 < echarp> liberty as the absence of constraint by others on youuuu
22:15 -!- beeli (illegale) [i=ille...@cmung4201.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
22:15 < beeli:#parlement> lets go to another edge
22:15 < beeli:#parlement> i droped out
22:16 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
22:16 < beeli> 10 men
22:16 < echarp> ok
22:16 < echarp> 10 men in a room, what would be a democratic decision?
22:16 < beeli> 6 of them decide to do some decision in name of all as long as they are 50%+1
22:16 < beeli> that decision is thedecision that will kill all of us for nothing
22:16 < beeli> i know that
22:16 < echarp> 50%+1 is just a starting point we generally easily accept
22:16 < beeli> and i am not willing to obey to them
22:17 < beeli> and they are even not that strong as i am with my good pall
22:17 < beeli> should i let them make decision for me?
22:17 < echarp> you decide on that :)
22:17 < beeli> i think it is logic thng thatit is not
22:17 < echarp> this is outside of makes a decision democratic or not
22:17 < echarp> you are just saying that with your pal you can be undemocratic, that's all
22:17 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
22:18 < beeli> so i am not democratic becasue of that?
22:18 < echarp> yeap, you are not
22:18 < beeli> and you, what would you do in that place
22:18 < beeli> ?
22:18 < echarp> you are going against a democratic decision
22:18 < echarp> I would get outside the room I guess, before the decision
22:18 < beeli> it does not help you as long as that decision rules your life
22:19 < echarp> sorry, a democratic is not nessecarily about decisions to rule your life
22:19 < echarp> a club can be democratic
22:19 < echarp> and you always the possibility to simply leave it
22:19 < beeli> i am placing you in this radical situation
22:19 < beeli> to point out stuff i find non logical
22:19 < echarp> I'm stepping out of it :)
22:20 < beeli> what about France
22:20 < echarp> don't forget that I'm rather anarchist, panarchist to be exact
22:20 < beeli> about the world
22:20 < echarp> I can choose not to participate :)
22:20 < beeli> big world governemnt
22:20 < echarp> I am against a big world gov
22:20 < beeli> decision for all of us
22:20 < beeli> you can not fly to mars
22:20 < echarp> I don't want that
22:20 < beeli> what then?
22:20 < beeli> if it happens
22:20 < beeli> cmon, do not run away from hypothesis
22:20 < echarp> I don't consider them relevan
22:20 < echarp> t
22:20 < beeli> you should
22:20 < echarp> I'm running away from it!!!
22:21 < echarp> to me democracy also need free participation
22:21 < echarp> see, another requirement :)
22:21 < echarp> if you are not free to participate, but obligated to, it is much less democratic
22:21 < beeli> seems you miss the point
22:21 < beeli> you are participant of this worl
22:21 < beeli> d
22:21 < echarp> and if you don't participate, yet the decision still apply to it, then it is something else entirely, force
22:22 < beeli> society
22:22 < echarp> but this is rather extrem
22:22 < beeli> it has its own rules
22:22 < beeli> and it took all the land
22:22 < echarp> well, it has *many* rulesets
22:22 < beeli> wherever you are ,you can not play fool
22:22 < beeli> ar you aware of that'
22:22 < echarp> I am
22:22 < beeli> ok
22:22 < echarp> but then I don't consider that attitude democratic at all
22:22 < beeli> is it natural though?
22:22 < echarp> sorry, humanity and nature, two different things
22:23 < beeli> am i non democratic person because of that attitude?
22:23 < echarp> to me yes you are
22:23 < beeli> i am in prison, i can not escape
22:23 < echarp> you are being pragmatic, but not democratic
22:23 < beeli> 5 decide to do some shit, should i let them do it as long as they are majority'
22:23 < beeli> seems to me you are mixing philosphy to mere numbers
22:23 < beeli> that is not good
22:23 < beeli> and this is big problem
22:23 < echarp> to me nations are not democratic, they are brutal and machiavelic
22:24 < echarp> numbers???
22:24 < beeli:#parlement> yes,
22:24 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
22:24 < echarp> what numbers?
22:24 < beeli> 5 out of 9 for some big shit is democratic
22:24 < beeli> 4 out of 9 for great deed is non democratic
22:24 < beeli> it is the number that differs in this scenario only
22:25 < echarp> free participation, equality, vote, three requirements as of now :)
22:25 < beeli> that is abvusrd
22:25 < echarp> 4 out of 9 is not democratic by your acceptation too :)
22:28 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
22:28 < echarp> that's a matter of threshold, which can be discussed by the group
22:28 < echarp> majority decision can also rely on brute force (it often does), which means it's not democratic, just pragmatic
22:29 < beeli:#parlement> that is of course base ofreality
22:29 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
22:29 < beeli> people actually vote for dictators due to one simple reason
22:29 < beeli> ceratinty
22:29 < echarp> violence is a base yes
22:29 < beeli> feel secure
22:29 < echarp> our nations are based on violence
22:29 < beeli> yes
22:29 < beeli> mostly
22:30 < echarp> yet there is a glimpse of hope, they authorise some kind of democratic procedure
22:30 < beeli> you can have some faith and look forward or you get into thsi stuff
22:30 < echarp> but to me it is not pure democracy, just a bastardised yet still useful one
22:30 < echarp> nations are bad :)
22:30 < beeli> partially
22:30 < echarp> I want free associations, enterprises, families
22:30 < beeli:#parlement> nations have strong magic
22:31 < beeli:#parlement> suggestions
22:31 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
22:31 < beeli> i do not like them too much either as long as they bring us to even larger stupidit models
22:31 < echarp> yeap
22:31 < beeli> in ex yu this happened
22:31 < echarp> so no, nations are not good examples of democracy to me
22:31 < beeli> and it happens all around
22:32 < echarp> a better example, more practical in our context, is an association of wilfull participants
22:32 < beeli> this is belonging stuff
22:32 < beeli:#parlement> when you are part of gourp and when you are not part of gour ,there are different perspsctive
22:32 < beeli:#parlement> s
22:32 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
22:32 < echarp> of your what?
22:33 < beeli:#parlement> you look from different perspective when you are part of some body
22:33 < beeli:#parlement> or if you are not
22:33 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
22:33 < beeli> find it social characteristic
22:33 < echarp> but, is that about democracy?
22:33 -!- illegale [i=ille...@cmung4201.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Connection timed out]
22:33 < echarp> or sociology?
22:34 < beeli:#parlement> to you this means, one vote one man is democracy
22:34 < beeli:#parlement> that is it, that is all?
22:34 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
22:34 < echarp> free participation, equality, vote
22:34 < echarp> that's three things as of now
22:35 < echarp> there must be others
22:35 < echarp> if you remove one, then it's less democratic
22:35 < echarp> follow me?
22:36 < beeli:#parlement> yes
22:37 < beeli:#parlement> echarp: is politics about action of vote or both?
22:37 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
22:37 < echarp> action o*r* vote?
22:37 < echarp> I don't think it's about action itself
22:38 < echarp> the vote is the expression of the participants
22:38 < echarp> there can be other expressions
22:38 < echarp> but it's hard to make sure participants are equals
22:38 < beeli:#parlement> your vote only worth in the moment you showed it is power behind it
22:39 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
22:39 < echarp> well, the nation requires power
22:39 < echarp> but democracy no, of course that also means it's a powerless democracy
22:39 < echarp> but it's still democratic :)
22:40 < beeli:#parlement> how can something powerless enforce anything to those who are?
22:40 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
22:40 < echarp> enforcement is yet another matter!
22:41 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
22:41 < echarp> I haven't given much thought about enforcement yet
22:41 < echarp> in an ideal world, enforcement can be done through exclusion
22:42 < beeli:#parlement> come to earth
22:42 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
22:43 < echarp> a democracy requires an army?
22:44 < beeli:#parlement> power
22:44 < beeli:#parlement> that is what i am talking about
22:44 < beeli:#parlement> origin of that power
22:44 < beeli:#parlement> does not matter
22:44 < beeli:#parlement> yet it must nbe acknowledged
22:45 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
22:45 < echarp> well, democracy is a way to organise things, there is of course power
22:45 < echarp> but that power can be much less impressive than physical violence
22:46 < echarp> for example we could democratically decide that mark is a prick
22:46 < echarp> and then, so what?
22:46 < echarp> we just expressed democratically an opinion, reflects democratically the opinion of the participants
22:48 < beeli:#parlement> what is expessing democratically opinion?
22:48 < beeli:#parlement> stuff when you vote?
22:48 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
22:48 < beeli> or jsut a fact that you have right for free speech?
22:48 < echarp> something else again
22:49 < echarp> democracy, to me, is also a matter of information
22:49 < echarp> information is its basis
22:49 < echarp> the group democratically makes a decision
22:49 < echarp> that decision is information
22:49 < beeli> by voting?
22:50 < echarp> yeap
22:51 < echarp> voting is one way, there might be others
22:51 < echarp> but I don't know them yet
22:51 < echarp> participation, equality (absence of differences in the process), vote (or expression)
22:51 < echarp> a vote is an expression, information
22:55 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
22:55 < echarp> free participation, equality, vote, information/expression?
22:56 < beeli:#parlement> hmh
22:56 < beeli:#parlement> to me it is actually TOP
22:56 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
22:56 < echarp> it could be
22:56 < echarp> does top speaks about equality, vote?
22:57 < beeli:#parlement> no
22:57 < beeli:#parlement> opennes might be that part though
22:57 < beeli:#parlement> but in my apsect of democracy
22:57 < beeli:#parlement> and public as meritor who needs to know to make proper desisions
22:57 < beeli:#parlement> in general
22:58 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
22:58 < beeli> yet, there is no numbers at all
22:58 < beeli> just principles
22:58 < echarp> top, to me, is a step for democracy
22:58 < beeli:#parlement> yes
23:00 < beeli:#parlement> there is a bigand f*** step in promotion of TOP
23:00 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
23:00 < beeli> that is about control of nfo
23:00 < echarp> thus it's very important
23:00 < beeli> very hard part that colides to curent economics
23:00 < echarp> and to the way people currently do politics
23:01 < beeli> its proved in informatics industry
23:01 < beeli> this part is going to be much harder and much more resulting (i suppose ) in poliiccs
23:02 < echarp> I think it needs more
23:02 < echarp> but again, it's a required step
23:02 < beeli> it needs pretty much stuff
23:03 < beeli> :-)
23:03 < echarp> yeap
23:03 < beeli> yet, base of inequality, of classes is in info
23:03 < echarp> lots of work
23:03 < beeli> control of it
23:03 < echarp> in info?
23:03 < beeli> information
23:04 < echarp> on the net it might just be a good chunk of it yes
23:04 < echarp> on the net we only have information :)
23:06 < beeli> some guy gets notice and by that notice he earns 2 000 000$.
23:06 < beeli> some other guy works his all life for 1000 $ and he has to sell his child
23:07 < beeli> suppose it is info that makes them different
23:07 < beeli> maybe discipline also
23:07 < echarp> or familly inheritance :(
23:07 < echarp> could also be racism
23:07 < echarp> stealing, kidnapping, black mailing
23:08 < beeli> yes
23:08 < beeli> thogh, such stuf f can not keep legimacy for long time
23:08 < beeli> in top system
23:09 < echarp> I didn't think you spoke about it in top
23:10 < beeli> about what?
23:10 < beeli> kidnaping?
23:10 < beeli> :)
23:13 < echarp> about equality
23:13 < beeli> ah, yes
23:25 < echarp> to make sure the produced expression really reflects all participants
23:38 < beeli> btw, have chat with communist :)
23:38 < beeli> s
23:38 < beeli> two of them
23:38 < beeli> ok, though reflection is though though,
23:38 < beeli> is there any way to measure it?ž
23:39 < echarp> reflection?
23:44 < beeli> how do you measure is something reflecting someones decision or does it not?
23:45 < beeli> what if somene has something n full contradictionary to others
23:45 < beeli> ?
23:48 < echarp> then in democracy his opinion is not reflected
23:49 < echarp> he can leave
23:49 < echarp> but if he does not, then the decision applies to himmm
23:50 < echarp> if you participate, you agree to have the decision apply on you
23:51 < echarp> you can still leave, you are not imprisoned by that first decision
23:51 < echarp> although it might be difficult to accept a departure after one has broken may sur le site de Nanie Massages sur Paris
23:51 < echarp> oups :)
23:51 < echarp> many rules
23:52 < echarp> if he breaks rules, then his first inclusion should apply
23:52 < echarp> but I don't know how to organise that
23:54 < beeli> heh
23:54 < beeli> i have to go
23:55 < beeli> got tieeo
23:55 < echarp> ok
23:55 < beeli> cu tommorow i guess
23:55 < echarp> I'm going to bed, late around here
23:55 < echarp> cu and good night!
23:55 < beeli> btw, gonna meet tommorot the guy fro socialist party who is inot TOP pretty much
23:55 < beeli> :-=)
23:55 < beeli> good night
23:55 < echarp> good luck then
23:56 -!- beeli [i=ille...@cmung4201.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit []
--- Log closed sam jui 08 00:00:58 2006
04:01 * urgen home
04:32 -!- Prax01D (goober) [n=Pra...@tor58-23b-94-36.dynamic.rogerstelecom.net] has joined #parlement
04:33 < Prax01D> qu'est-ce qu'il passe ici?
04:33 < Prax01D> de rien?
04:33 < Prax01D> c'est dommage...
04:33 -!- Prax01D [n=Pra...@tor58-23b-94-36.dynamic.rogerstelecom.net] has left #parlement ["Who was that masked man??"]
05:04 -!- urgen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit []
05:15 -!- urgen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
09:19 < echarp> hello hello
11:03 -!- illegale (illegale) [i=ille...@cmung25.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
11:03 < illegale:#parlement> io
11:03 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
11:03 < echarp> hello hello
11:03 -!- Topic for #parlement: http://leparlement.org/irc
11:03 -!- Topic set by echarp [] [Sun Jun 11 20:50:53 2006]
11:03 < illegale> wassap
11:06 < echarp> not much
11:06 < echarp> work of course
11:06 < echarp> I'm fighting with mysql :)
11:07 < illegale> k
11:07 < illegale> seen urgen?
11:08 < echarp> yesterday
11:08 < echarp> he probably is in bed
11:08 < illegale> k
11:09 < illegale> do you like adjusting your software for user friendly stuff wokring fine?
11:09 < illegale> you know, fancy software lookish
11:09 < echarp> I do
11:09 < illegale> :-)
11:10 < echarp> but it has to follow the general direction, be secure and not imply big warts
11:10 < illegale> big warts?
11:10 < echarp> yes, the ugly things one can do for short term benefits
11:11 < illegale> of course
11:12 < illegale> hmh, if stuff gonna work in simmilar enough way i envision by what you explained, we might start promoting communicaiton system in cro soon
11:12 < echarp> that would be cool
11:13 < echarp> what kind of adjustments do you have in mind?
11:13 < echarp> I'm open :)
11:13 < illegale> :-)
11:13 < illegale> nah, just parsonification stuff for better promotin
11:13 < illegale> though, suppose it comes after you set basics
11:13 < illegale> i am forumes
11:14 < illegale> forumes
11:14 < illegale> forumer
11:14 < illegale> though at forums you can not talk about politics in fine way
11:14 < illegale> you can not do it in any current communication software actually
11:14 < echarp> personalisation should be rather easy to add
11:15 < echarp> I envision using css, organisational and/or personal ones
11:15 < illegale> i need something that easily shows that constructivism can be worty and leading trend in communication
11:15 < illegale> yes, htat is it
11:17 < illegale> hmh, we should probably envision some exact communication models based on that software and make up them
11:17 < illegale> and promote them
11:17 < echarp> what is a communication model?
11:18 < illegale> sort of procedure that your software enables
11:18 < illegale> moderators and stuff
11:18 < illegale> groups and so on
11:18 < illegale> stuff people can easily envision as usefull things
11:18 < illegale> n communication process
11:19 < echarp> a presentation, yes
11:19 < echarp> features list
11:19 < echarp> things like that
11:19 < illegale> there is an interesting doubt about history context urgen and i discusssed yesterday
11:19 < illegale> should your softwre be attachabvle to some history , suppose yes
11:19 < illegale> that is much easier stuff for people to get into
11:20 < illegale> knowing context having more options
11:20 < illegale> seems like winer solution
11:20 < illegale> no histry more callenging
11:20 < echarp> what kind of history do you have in mind?
11:20 < illegale> discussion models at forums, groups and stuff
11:20 < illegale> do not find irc be one of such
11:21 < echarp> you think that discussions history should be made available?
11:21 < illegale> stuff stuff stuff
11:21 < echarp> but differently to irc?
11:21 < illegale> i mean, context people get ued too
11:21 < illegale> i do not find irc communication model has much with email base
11:22 < illegale> that is on littel essays or simmilar to that
11:22 < echarp> much "in common" with?
11:22 < illegale> i have in mind forums
11:22 < illegale> you?
11:22 < echarp> I don't see where you are getting at
11:23 < illegale> let me show you some history than
11:23 < illegale> :)
11:23 < echarp> ok
11:23 < illegale> http://akcijamladih.org/forum/
11:24 < illegale> http://www.hsp.hr/cgi-bin/forum/default.asp
11:24 < illegale> http://www.hns.hr/database/yabb/YaBB.pl
11:25 < echarp> is it so different to parlement?
11:25 < illegale> http://forum.hrt.hr/
11:25 < illegale> wait
11:25 < echarp> you can obtain that same kind of thing
11:26 < illegale> http://www.denis-latin.com/forum/
11:26 < illegale> and so on
11:26 < illegale> what i want to say is thaforums are rather popular in cro
11:26 < illegale> there are several parliament parties having forums
11:26 < illegale> national tv has forum
11:26 < echarp> I actually think that parlement is just that kind of thing
11:26 < illegale> rather popular one
11:27 < echarp> but democratic, and using web2.0 :)
11:27 < illegale> there is a big internet base of people who ar eused to such interface
11:27 < illegale> :-)
11:27 < illegale> if you enable to them to see upgraded forum, you have them all
11:28 < echarp> the ihm can be made about the same
11:28 < illegale> i was a moderator of several political forums before tiaktvi
11:28 < illegale> ihm'0
11:28 < echarp> gui/ihm
11:28 < echarp> interface
11:28 < illegale> and had the same problem thatmade me start thinking of new interface
11:28 < echarp> the look can be made the same
11:28 < illegale> cool!
11:28 < illegale> you know that problem?
11:28 < illegale> of political forumsž'
11:29 < echarp> what problem?
11:29 < illegale> of communication where quality has no chance to be born
11:29 < illegale> i suppose i could write fine elaborate on that topic that could help promotion of this interface
11:30 < illegale> i met many fine people, smart people, willing to think and stuff, but they where eliminated by spamers
11:30 < illegale> and we do not have any place thatfine people could hang
11:30 < illegale> in the numbers that enables internet
11:31 < echarp> what interface do you have in mind, those to which you gave me a link?
11:31 < illegale> meaning big numbers not some closed gatherings of 5
11:31 < illegale> nah, your interface
11:31 < illegale> :-)
11:31 < illegale> links are just examples of what is happening
11:32 < illegale> noone can start fine political site , gatehring place
11:32 < echarp> the problem you are speaking of is the signal/noise ratio
11:32 < illegale> so we have many little places that die sooner or later
11:32 < echarp> it's one very important matter since decades
11:32 < illegale> same thing wit hpolitical groups in the world
11:32 < illegale> yes
11:32 < echarp> signal/noise can be increased using different schemes
11:32 < illegale> this equality stuff plus transparence plus openness could change tht in root
11:33 < echarp> moderators are the easiest one
11:33 < illegale> ys?
11:33 < illegale> 1. generation
11:33 < illegale> ratings
11:33 < echarp> transparency is required to make sure the process is fair
11:33 < illegale> 2, generation
11:33 < illegale> and now we are looi+king for 3rd :)
11:33 < illegale> transprency, clear to see, no buzz aroiund?
11:34 < echarp> buzz around what?
11:34 < illegale> though, rating stuff and what you do is same with google
11:34 < illegale> info confusion, too many irrelevant data
11:34 < echarp> rating is about the same as with google yes
11:34 < illegale> coop
11:34 < illegale> yet, this stuff google does with coop
11:35 < echarp> that kind of buzz is another thing, it's the effectiveness of the interface
11:35 < illegale> this is very simmilar to your software!
11:35 < illegale> based on individuals
11:35 < illegale> did you look at google coop?
11:36 < echarp> I looked at it yes, but I don't see much yet
11:36 < illegale> ok, i am looking for point out there
11:37 < illegale> when you have virtual inteligent entities base on RL, you can avoid charmic whores
11:37 < illegale> trust network in the play
11:37 < illegale> as info mediator
11:37 < illegale> you know music stuff p3p
11:37 < echarp> whores will always be there, but that shouldn't be such a problem ;)
11:38 < illegale> yes
11:38 < illegale> if you rise s/n ratio for one level or two, no proble i see either
11:39 < illegale> and this is actually info revolution that could happened
11:39 < illegale> and we would eliminate one big problem towards the opennes
11:39 < illegale> in heads of the poeple
11:39 < echarp> maybe yes
11:39 < illegale> when they relate public to 3 idiots who ring around all the time
11:39 < echarp> well, moderation is just a by product of parlement, useful one :)
11:40 < illegale> i know this part perfectly
11:40 < illegale> yet i am not into envision more but the stuff i have history on
11:40 < illegale> :)
11:40 < illegale> looking from context stuff worshiping stuff tha is valuable to such
11:41 < illegale> and even that is big, big step forward
11:41 < illegale> talked to magnus'
11:41 < illegale> ?
11:41 < illegale> recently?
11:41 < echarp> here?
11:42 < illegale> at parlement'
11:42 < illegale> btw, did you call him to irc?
11:42 < illegale> bah, have to goo
11:42 < illegale> see you later
11:42 < illegale> :-)
11:43 < echarp> I don't think I really did, I proposed him to come around yes
11:43 < echarp> cu
11:43 -!- illegale [i=ille...@cmung25.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit []
15:10 -!- illegale (illegale) [i=ille...@cmung217.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
15:11 < illegale> tc
15:12 < echarp> re illegale
15:14 < illegale> what means re?
15:14 < echarp> like in reuse, or to redo, to return
15:15 < echarp> re- is probably latin
15:15 < illegale> ok
15:15 < echarp> prefix for back
15:22 < illegale> you talk to your friends about your politics work?
15:22 < echarp> of course
15:23 < echarp> that I've been into that for too long, that it's never finished and never will be
15:23 < illegale> heh
15:23 < illegale> e
15:23 < illegale> you do not talk about it that much as before, yright+'
15:24 < echarp> yright?
15:24 < illegale> right?
15:24 < echarp> true
15:24 < echarp> but I do have some work also
15:24 < illegale> i can notice
15:24 < echarp> and I'm just advancing on the feature set itself
15:25 < echarp> the discussions were rather easy to lead with wackos as mark, useful as a wall against which to bounce words :)
15:25 < illegale> lol
15:25 < echarp> shame he could not grasp the meaning of those words too :)
15:25 < illegale> i like mark
15:26 < illegale> reminds me to my son
15:26 < illegale> says the priest
15:26 < illegale> though, he could help us a little bit if he gets a littlebit more focused
15:26 < echarp> I thought he would/could be useful, but I'm not of that opinion anymore
15:27 < echarp> just a wacko
15:27 < illegale> let it go and see
15:27 < echarp> illegale: you think I should speak more of parlement?
15:27 < illegale> needs several hits in the head
15:27 < echarp> lol
15:27 < illegale> wht do you mean?
15:28 < illegale> about mark, it is about mere interests
15:28 < illegale> would be good to keep all of this on that level
15:29 < illegale> he needs place where he can test his model
15:29 < illegale> i doubt he will find better one
15:36 < echarp> I doubt he will ever find one
15:36 < echarp> and I won't help him
15:36 < echarp> so what do I mean, should I be more aggressive in my presentation of parlement?
15:37 < echarp> should I speak about it more forums?
15:37 < illegale> hmh, you are not fine with the way it goes right now?
15:37 < echarp> not many people are testing and/or using it :(
15:38 < illegale> hehe
15:38 < illegale> what i see is that we could use it when we transef from the google groups
15:38 < illegale> yet, i am not lookingfor parlementbrend
15:38 < illegale> i look for something distinctive
15:38 < illegale> soundy
15:39 < echarp> parlementbrend?
15:39 < echarp> the name of parlement?
15:39 < illegale> there is a regular problem about it as long as it is yours
15:39 < illegale> it has different meaning to you but others in that way
15:40 < illegale> so, my wish is to use parlement software for promotion of progresive political options
15:40 < illegale> internet based
15:40 < illegale> and this has to be pretty catchy stuff
15:40 < illegale> equally acknowledged by several people to take it as theirown
15:40 < illegale> in that way gravity has good promoiton base
15:41 < echarp> well, there is the motor "parlement", and the forum you envision which would be another beast entirely ;)
15:41 < echarp> could be named tiAktivAgora for example :)
15:41 < illegale> so, parlement is brend for software
15:41 < illegale> ?
15:41 < echarp> or AktivAgora
15:41 < echarp> parlement is a server technology, like phpBB
15:41 < illegale> ok
15:42 < illegale> we have to make exact distinciotns
15:42 < echarp> there is the software, and the production server
15:42 < echarp> right now http://leparlement.org is one production server
15:42 < illegale> so, you think this could be interesting in this very moment to sme other groupations?
15:42 < illegale> parlement?
15:42 < echarp> but it's all designed to become a P2P system, with any number of interconnected servers (or unconnected servers too)
15:42 < illegale> i like that
15:43 < echarp> it is designed to be useful for other groups yes
15:43 < illegale> can you notice them?
15:43 < illegale> we are relatively in fron of our time
15:43 < echarp> notice who/what?
15:43 < illegale> avangarde stuff
15:43 < echarp> cool :)
15:43 < illegale> such group that would notice its usage?
15:44 < illegale> i had some problms with it
15:44 < illegale> people are regularly oriented to wiki stuff, those "alternatives"
15:44 < illegale> and blogs
15:44 < illegale> not many discuss on this manner
15:45 < echarp> parlement is also a blog tool you know => http://echarp.org/blog :)
15:45 < illegale> :-)
15:45 < illegale> though, thats why i wanted to set orientation towards creating such public network
15:45 < echarp> mailing list, forum, blog...
15:45 < illegale> in order to find similar thinkers
15:46 < illegale> are good in net history stuff?
15:46 < illegale> not to sound naive as i do?
15:46 < echarp> who is good in net history?
15:46 < illegale> ask urgen :)
15:46 < echarp> he seems quite knowledgable yes :)
15:47 < illegale> good hting to set up a context in order to promote software
15:47 < illegale> i know context of political forums in croatia pretty well
15:47 < illegale> this stuff i do not actually
15:48 < echarp> you can consider that parlement is a kind of phpBB, but using RoR and web2.0 technologies, and democratic
15:48 < illegale> what i am looking for is pluralistic model based on equality
15:48 < echarp> it aims to be a fully democratic tool, trustable and far reaching
15:48 < illegale> that is what i am ekeen about
15:48 < illegale> thise RoR non ror, does not matter to me at all, actually
15:48 < illegale> not into that stuff
15:48 < echarp> it's technical
15:49 < illegale> i get it
15:49 < illegale> though, you need people who will use it t
15:49 < echarp> yeap
15:49 < echarp> definitely
15:50 < illegale> i feel confident about croatia stuff
15:51 < illegale> do not feel that confident about world geek association stuff
15:51 < illegale> urgen could help you in this part much more i htink
15:51 < illegale> suppose you need to establish somewehere, hit high numbers and stuff
15:51 < illegale> to show its usefulneess
15:53 < echarp> yeap
15:53 < echarp> top-politics is quite interesting for that
15:53 < echarp> I use as a test bed
15:53 < illegale> get satisfied users, that is it :)
15:54 < illegale> loud ones
15:54 < echarp> right now there are no real users
15:54 < echarp> magnus
15:54 < illegale> i know
15:54 < illegale> i am not
15:54 < illegale> i just test a little bizt
15:54 < echarp> it's nice too
15:54 < illegale> wait for stuff i am looking for
15:54 < echarp> I want people to try breaking it :)
15:55 < illegale> bugs stuff?
15:55 < echarp> you are looking for moderation isn't it?
15:55 < echarp> yeap
15:55 < illegale> yes
15:55 < illegale> filters and stuff
15:55 < illegale> base for open societ
15:55 < illegale> y
15:55 < echarp> that will take me a few weeks I think
15:55 < illegale> not long tim
15:55 < illegale> e
15:55 < echarp> large enough
15:55 < illegale> you know popper?
15:56 < illegale> :-)
15:56 < echarp> lol
15:56 < echarp> hopefully I'm finished with avatars this week end
15:56 < illegale> open society and stuff
15:56 < illegale> several weeks in our hisotry of engagnemnt is very nothing :-)
16:26 < urgen> karl popper?
16:27 < illegale> yeah
16:28 < urgen> so you've been doing your homework on testing?
16:28 < urgen> that'd be cool
16:28 < illegale> not follow you...
16:29 < illegale> what excatly you aim at when talk about testing?
16:29 < echarp> hello urgen
16:29 < urgen> popper was one of hte first to suggest science needed a makeover
16:29 < urgen> hi
16:29 < urgen> he helped formulate what proveable truth was
16:30 < urgen> what you can and can not know
16:30 < illegale> he is ani historistic :-)
16:30 < urgen> probably why ppl use paradigm so much these days
16:30 < urgen> all terms have many different uses. I'd bet he would agree with my use
16:31 < urgen> since I anchored 'history' as proveable truth
16:31 < urgen> physical
16:31 < echarp> you anchored a word?
16:31 < urgen> I can research the history of gun powder and make some myself
16:31 < urgen> doesn't need opinion
16:32 < urgen> any term can have any arbitrary meaning attached
16:32 < echarp> exactly
16:32 < echarp> connotations
16:32 < urgen> anchored, assigned, attached
16:33 < urgen> designations are always arbitrary
16:33 < echarp> you mean that you reached consensus for a particular connotation?
16:33 < urgen> no I said it was this way
16:33 < urgen> I designated this mapping
16:34 < urgen> you can't tell me I am wrong because of the nature of terms
16:34 < echarp> "since I anchored 'history' as proveable truth" ?
16:34 < echarp> whad did you mean?
16:34 < echarp> anchor and proveable truth seems rathers strange to me
16:34 < urgen> means I already eliminated from my vocabulary the use that illegale finds distasteful
16:34 < urgen> and substituted a new one that works better
16:35 < urgen> you can't then tell me I am wrong just because I use that string of characters
16:35 < urgen> I just need to define my terms before a conversation
16:35 < echarp> well, no one can really tell that unless relying on a definition
16:35 < urgen> you going to tell me bleau is more true than blue?
16:35 < echarp> and there is always the possibility to just "redefine"
16:36 < echarp> I'm going to tell you that truth is a relative matter
16:36 < echarp> that to bleau can be attached meaning, you can define it
16:36 < urgen> of course
16:36 < echarp> or re-define
16:36 < echarp> no need to drop all the words which have different meanings
16:36 < echarp> or you are just losing ground to all your adversaries
16:37 < urgen> so if I want to say all evidence has a history you have determine the way I use the term before you decide to have a problem with it or not
16:37 < urgen> well I did have a point tho
16:37 < urgen> no need to let ancient tradition pull me around by the nose either ;-)
16:37 < echarp> I have theoretically to determine it yes, but often I/we don't because there are many assumptions
16:37 < urgen> or we'd all be in trouble fast
16:37 < echarp> just define/redefine, don't forget words because others use them differently
16:38 < echarp> don't give up words
16:38 < echarp> they are an incredible asset worth being defended
16:38 < echarp> you read 1984?
16:38 < echarp> the novlang is such a battle
16:38 < urgen> so the definition of history that is qualified by 'written by the victors' I also don't have much use for
16:39 < urgen> but history as the reference material that I use to learn to built an audio amplifier circuit I do use
16:39 < urgen> they are not the same use case
16:39 < echarp> of course
16:40 < echarp> this is why dictionaries collate many usages under the same words
16:40 < urgen> well it seemed illegale was applying definition one to my use two
16:41 < echarp> before discussing concepts, we all should define them
16:41 < urgen> of course
16:41 < echarp> then no problem, you can use the words democracy or transparency
16:42 < urgen> so I said that without sound foundation in evidence (something popper talks a lot about) we don't have 'history'
16:42 < urgen> the terms themselves are mostly shell
16:42 < echarp> they are yes
16:43 < echarp> we have to fill them
16:45 < urgen> so on top of popper's no truth without negation we have to add 'nonaffirming' negation
16:45 < urgen> because we do not need to construct fantasies to strike down just to establish our superiority
16:46 < urgen> the truth established by negation does not need our protection, it's stability remains whether we believe it or not
16:46 < echarp> negation or falsifiability?
16:46 < echarp> I'm not sure that negation can either be an absolute
16:46 < urgen> that's probably a productive inquiry
16:47 < urgen> truth is also not necessarily bi-modal
16:47 < urgen> it doesn't have to be relative OR absolute
16:47 < echarp> btw, you are speaking of relative aren't you?
16:47 < urgen> I'm speaking about the excluded middle
16:47 < echarp> absolutes being probably not reachable by humans
16:48 < urgen> but excluded middle is nearly a reification
16:48 < urgen> so one has to tread lightly
16:48 < urgen> you can get tripped up by your own vocabulary
16:49 < urgen> this 'history as opinion' tradition runs deep in your blood
16:49 < urgen> :-)
16:49 < echarp> you exclude and you materialise?
16:49 < echarp> (reification = materialisation?)
16:49 < echarp> history is opinion... (everything is if you dig deep enough)
16:50 < echarp> I'm of course open to contradiction
16:50 < urgen> of course
16:50 < echarp> but relativism is deep in me
16:50 < urgen> it's ok
16:50 < urgen> any extreme will eventualy bite you
16:50 < urgen> but that's far better discovered directly
16:50 < urgen> otherwise it wouldn't be real
16:51 < urgen> and otherwise with no frame of reference we'd not be able to share
16:51 < illegale> khm, you have great knowledge4
16:51 < illegale> if it can be used for something
16:52 < illegale> can it be used?
16:52 < urgen> it is used for lasting happiness
16:52 < urgen> ignore at your own peril :-)
16:52 < urgen> but then, that's life
16:52 < urgen> and life has it's own checks and balances
16:53 < illegale> thats attitude simmilar to guys from philsophy studies
16:53 < illegale> take it as a hobby, not something of wider use
16:54 < illegale> and i do not understand people who are mastering stuff they take as hobby
16:54 < illegale> why do you need college for hobby?
16:54 < urgen> I can take that as a provocation, shallowness, or simple ignorance,, which way would you prefer?
16:54 < illegale> makes no sense to me
16:54 < illegale> what?
16:54 < urgen> :-)
16:55 < illegale> my attitude, their attitude?
16:55 < illegale> your attitude?
16:55 < urgen> ok, how about. your phrase equally makes no sense to me
16:55 < illegale> ok, wht about that... you have the stone to move and what you do? you move it
16:56 * urgen kicks the stone
16:56 < illegale> and peoples ability of working in abstractions is abioity t olink to that stone
16:56 < illegale> othervice, they are just playing crcular games
16:56 < urgen> interesting theory, I hope to show you different some day
16:57 < illegale> you need a measure if you want to see are you going in wrong direction
16:57 < illegale> right?
16:57 < urgen> it is also equally as serious as your pursuit as well
16:57 < illegale> ok, that is hobby than
16:57 < illegale> playing words, poetry
16:57 < urgen> I already defined a basis to measure progress by
16:57 < urgen> I asked you for evidence
16:57 < urgen> otherwise I'm accusing you of the same thing
16:57 < illegale> ok, ten we agree about that part
16:57 < urgen> playing words and poetry, right?
16:57 < illegale> thank you :-(
16:58 < illegale> :-)
16:58 < illegale> i suppose we should look for such evidence, right?
16:58 < urgen> of course
16:58 < illegale> i suppose there is an evidnce for you
16:58 < urgen> and that's why it *almost* warmed my heart to see you say popper
16:58 < urgen> until you didn't see the connection with evidence
16:58 < illegale> oh, i am shallow reader :-(
16:59 < urgen> popper is not easy
16:59 < illegale> out of mathemaics informatics and stuff for a while
16:59 < urgen> he did a great job
16:59 < illegale> what i noticed is that i find him fine
16:59 < urgen> right
16:59 < urgen> and I'd hope that result would be the outcome
16:59 < illegale> though, why i am bithcing, you ask?
16:59 < illegale> or you knowž?
16:59 < illegale> ?
17:00 < urgen> because as one who worked diligently to define a basis he then went on to extend that foundation and the results weren't half bad
17:00 < illegale> hmh, let me use my own words, better :-)
17:00 < urgen> but since it is not an easy read not many people find it so the work doesn't continue very swiftly
17:01 < urgen> but that's not an attack
17:01 < urgen> maybe swift isn't always good
17:01 < illegale> look, urgen. i see you and echarp excangng words i actually never heard of, making me think you know something i do not actually
17:01 < urgen> the slowest revolutions are probably the best
17:01 < illegale> something about defining concepts and stuff
17:02 < illegale> id like to see this knowledge in use
17:02 < illegale> that is all
17:02 < illegale> and in this very moment this knowledge is excatly what we need
17:02 < echarp> one revolution every 20 years :)
17:02 < urgen> 20 for an optimist :-)
17:02 < echarp> for benjamin franklin I believe :)
17:02 < urgen> ah
17:03 < illegale> it is the info flow that measures change
17:03 < echarp> in france we are about right
17:03 < illegale> and we are in hyper info time
17:03 < echarp> information is key yes
17:03 < urgen> sure internet time has an interesting effect
17:04 < echarp> we are potentially all becoming borgs! but we keep our individuality :)
17:04 < illegale> wwb
17:04 * echarp can't wait for his eye and hears implants
17:04 < urgen> capacity can improve is radical thought
17:05 < urgen> but it's true, at least by my own experience
17:25 < echarp> human networks instead of dictatorial hierarchies
17:31 < urgen> which is a formulaic way to say something deeper
17:46 < echarp> formulas are great
17:46 < echarp> shortcuts
17:47 < urgen> and it communicated to me just fine
17:49 < illegale> where are we now?
17:50 < urgen> well, my inclination is to not use terms that you don't understand
17:50 < illegale> how do you know what you do and what you do not understand?
17:51 < urgen> we all want to found our understanding on something that lasts
17:51 < illegale> every conept is based on assosiation to other concepts
17:51 < illegale> so, this actually means you can know everything or nothing actually
17:51 < urgen> no one likes to have the rug pulled out from under them
17:51 < echarp> networks, taxonomies
17:51 < illegale> as long as you can not know everyrtihn, you can not talk about anything than
17:51 < echarp> urgen: did that happen a lot to you? (rug pulling)
17:51 < urgen> just because the sands are shifting doesn't mean we can't walk on them
17:52 < urgen> I think maybe once or twice before I learned :-)
17:52 < illegale> excatly
17:52 < echarp> personally I want to build, and I consider there is only sand available as a foundation
17:52 < illegale> echarp excatly
17:52 < echarp> the building has to withstand that lack of granitic foundations
17:52 < illegale> bazaar
17:52 < illegale> :-)
17:53 < echarp> yeap
17:53 < echarp> into which there can be any number of cathedrals
17:53 < urgen> but you come to find that lack of granitic foundation is actually superior
17:53 < urgen> withstands earthquakes better, etc
17:53 < illegale> lets not go off topci too mcuh with alegorias
17:53 < echarp> I guess it is superior yes, because it accepts/aknowledgeds our incertitudes
17:54 < illegale> where are we now?
17:54 < illegale> that is the basic quesiton we ned to ask about this goal
17:54 < urgen> so that's the only first step I personally need to hear is included in the model before I align with it
17:54 < illegale> Markus says :-)
17:54 < illegale> I agree
17:54 < echarp> define concepts, yes
17:54 < illegale> i see much problem wih it right now
17:55 < illegale> how to lead stuff towards products we are looking for
17:55 < urgen> we are at, is it flexible enough to change something foundational further down the road
17:55 < urgen> that's how the internet was built
17:55 < illegale> urgen suppose what is the way you building stuff
17:55 < echarp> kiss :)
17:55 < illegale> this way is much more human i can notice
17:55 < illegale> no place for indoctrination and stuff
17:56 < urgen> I build, function by function
17:56 < echarp> http://echarp.org/kiss
17:56 < illegale> indoctrinaiton gets important when you set postulates and build on them everyrting else
17:56 < urgen> small working prototype to prove then extend
17:56 < illegale> you get big builidng and these posutlates become dogma
17:57 < echarp> and they eventually fall down
17:57 < echarp> heavily
17:57 < illegale> what about ideology in that system?
17:57 < illegale> yes
17:57 < illegale> sooner or later
17:57 < urgen> ideology is like "flexible enough to introduce a foundational change at a later point"
17:57 < illegale> unless you have open organisation
17:58 < echarp> there is always some kind of ideology, but it can be lean and agile
17:58 < illegale> internet is good
17:58 < illegale> 1st postulate
17:58 < illegale> do not mess with it
17:58 < urgen> it is constantly being messed with
17:58 < urgen> a lab is always poking and stretching
17:59 < urgen> what isn't being messed with is what allows that messing
17:59 < urgen> when that changes then the internet becomes someone's property
18:00 < urgen> and we get into taxes and tarrifs
18:00 < urgen> that will happen in some places
18:00 < urgen> AOL use to be like that until they had to tear down the wall
18:00 < urgen> Prodigy use to be like that until they had to tear down the wall
18:01 < urgen> MCI use to be like that until they had to tear down the wall
18:01 < urgen> now ppl are busy trying to put walls back up
18:02 < echarp> stupid pipes, all sorts of nodes
18:03 < urgen> so it is ok, probably, to own a shopping mall
18:03 < urgen> and control what happens on your property
18:03 < urgen> I think we can survive with a hybrid system
18:03 < urgen> like military has private and public pipes
18:04 < echarp> the "last mile" should be the private property of the end person
18:04 < urgen> that'd be nice
18:04 < echarp> thus much less monopoly power
18:04 * urgen gripes at cable access policies
18:04 < echarp> :)
18:05 < illegale> i see actuall need for the first postulate
18:05 < illegale> i am not kidding
18:05 < illegale> :-)
18:05 < urgen> ok
18:06 < illegale> you do not?ž
18:06 < urgen> I am always ready :-)
18:06 < illegale> how do you mean'
18:06 < urgen> I've been doing this for years now
18:07 < illegale> postualting? :-)
18:07 < urgen> slowly getting ppl to the point where the definitions are clear enough to make progress
18:07 < urgen> there are easy ways to do something that doesn't last
18:07 < illegale> did you make any virotic memi?
18:07 < urgen> meme: the self-patenting meme
18:07 < urgen> no one can own it because it patented itself
18:08 < illegale> im not sure we are talking the same stuff, might be though
18:08 < urgen> what is a memi?
18:08 < urgen> I thought you were saying viral meme
18:08 < illegale> what i mean is that stuff thatgets spread is the stuff that is relevant
18:08 < illegale> other stuff can be releevant only as set up for such things
18:09 -!- beeli (illegale) [i=ille...@cmung2694.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
18:09 < beeli> this is serious stuff, obviously :-)
18:09 < beeli> tried to eliminate me, hahahaha
18:09 < beeli> osp
18:09 < urgen> :-)
18:09 < urgen> peer knows all, sees all
18:10 < beeli> yes
18:10 < beeli> though, it is not fair play
18:10 < beeli> i suppose to see peer too
18:10 < urgen> well that's core enough to work on
18:11 < beeli> this civilisation battle
18:11 < urgen> abuse tends to make peer seem less true
18:11 < beeli> apocalypsti issues and stuff
18:11 < beeli> the esssnce is clear to me
18:11 < beeli> as i see it
18:11 < urgen> so that's why I say it is important to take more care at first, be more gentle
18:11 < beeli> this battle is who is going to be first in orienting cammeras
18:11 < urgen> it is not abuse proof yet
18:11 < beeli> public or government
18:12 < beeli> who wins takes all
18:12 < urgen> I think bullet proof peer is possible
18:13 < beeli> hmh
18:13 < beeli> ok
18:13 < beeli> :-)
18:13 < urgen> so a lot of work at first is finding where the holes are
18:13 < urgen> IRC started like this
18:13 < urgen> totally open crazy wild wild west
18:14 < urgen> hackers, totalitarians, bullies anyone was allowed to do whatever they wanted
18:14 < urgen> even encouraged
18:14 < urgen> then the system learned and got stronger
18:14 < beeli> no ops?
18:14 < beeli> no moderators?
18:14 < urgen> now we hardly have a fraction of the problems we had in the early days
18:14 < urgen> we had ops
18:14 < urgen> but it was easy to hack
18:15 < urgen> the crazy fun days are over now, time to get back to work
18:15 < beeli> ok
18:15 < beeli> i have to do some stuff also
18:15 < beeli> blb
18:15 < urgen> we had whole wars by bots
18:15 < urgen> I meant IRC fun days
18:15 < beeli> oh,
18:15 < urgen> but I'm suppose to be doing other stuff too ;-)
18:16 < urgen> so the hackers learned too
18:16 < urgen> now they use that intelligence to get credit cards and bank accounts
18:16 < urgen> who cares about a stupid irc channel
18:17 < urgen> but quite a few still use irc
18:17 < urgen> so irc has a bad reputation now
18:17 < urgen> ppl think it is still the dark child of the internet
18:17 < beeli> lol
18:18 < echarp> ok, I'm going home
18:18 < echarp> cu right away
18:18 < urgen> 'k
18:28 -!- illegale [i=ille...@cmung217.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
18:47 -!- beeli [i=ille...@cmung2694.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
18:55 < echarp> re
18:56 < urgen> re
19:16 -!- illegale (illegale) [i=ille...@cmung4201.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
19:18 < urgen> re
19:19 < illegale> io
19:20 < urgen> :-)
19:20 < illegale> know somathing about strategic planning?
19:20 < urgen> just at a survival level
19:20 < urgen> I've never had formal training
19:20 < illegale> ok
19:21 < illegale> had talk to Markus of how to deal with our first goal
19:21 < urgen> I've moved software projects to product
19:21 < illegale> had people below?
19:21 < urgen> three
19:21 < illegale> than it is very essentia
19:21 < illegale> l
19:21 < illegale> to do it properly i assume
19:22 < illegale> you not into it?
19:22 < urgen> I'm way into it
19:22 < urgen> http://www.controlchaos.com/
19:22 < illegale> you are way into everytin, lol :-=
19:22 < illegale> )
19:23 < urgen> my conviction has carried me deeper and deeper
19:23 < illegale> it will take me some time to visit all those pages you send to me
19:23 < urgen> and I always try to pay enough attention to the process to duplicate it should any part of it go away
19:23 < illegale> yes
19:24 < urgen> part of living in a decentralized system is that you have to become a fractal
19:24 < urgen> any one part reflects the whole
19:24 < illegale> yes
19:24 < illegale> active element
19:25 < illegale> participator
19:25 < urgen> the coherency of the light is what a hologram relies on
19:25 < urgen> coherency means in align
19:26 < urgen> that is like echarp saying no dictatorial hierarchies
19:26 < illegale> had some problem to our goal of defining
19:26 < illegale> yet, Markus is studying organsation science
19:26 < illegale> good thing to know
19:27 < urgen> yes
19:27 < illegale> Where are we now?
19:27 < illegale> Where would we like to be?
19:27 < illegale> How do we get there?
19:28 < illegale> seems this bey key moment
19:28 < illegale> as long as we have to know why do we do it actually
19:28 < illegale> suppose projecting software is not in that way workin, right?
19:30 < urgen> software production is interesting
19:30 < urgen> lots of what feels like wasting time at first
19:30 < urgen> then mad dash scramble then pushing stuff around
19:30 < echarp> playing legos :)
19:36 < illegale> yes
19:37 < illegale> echarp do we have any definition of TOP in this very time?
19:37 * echarp loves them and always has
19:37 < echarp> illegale: we need to rephrase some of your last posts
19:38 < illegale> khm, i see many stuff to be done out there
19:38 < illegale> i mean, what do we want with it actually?
19:38 < illegale> i personaly want disctinctivness and stregnht
19:38 < illegale> of such definition
19:38 < illegale> you have some desires of it?
19:39 < echarp> but don't you want that just to market it more easily? :)
19:39 < echarp> while to me, TOP is a brick, one I would use
19:39 < illegale> we miss some parts for that
19:39 < echarp> a brick in the building
19:39 < illegale> what are others bricks?
19:39 < illegale> web 20 stuff?
19:39 < illegale> liberty?
19:40 < illegale> you do not need top for marketing parlement?
19:42 < urgen> bootstrapping is fun
19:42 < echarp> web2.0 is technical, I'm speaking of conceptual bricks
19:43 < illegale> what are they?
19:43 < echarp> we don't know yet
19:43 < echarp> transparency is a foundational brick
19:43 < illegale> hmh
19:43 < echarp> required to have a beginning of trust
19:43 < echarp> trust is another very very important step
19:43 < illegale> did you read text internet democracy?
19:43 < illegale> the apth to the internet democracy?
19:44 < echarp> apth?
19:44 < illegale> elietes are mentioned there
19:44 < illegale> path
19:44 < illegale> that text i wrote a coulpe years ago
19:44 < illegale> it is old
19:45 < echarp> I don't remember that text no, is that yours or tiaktiv's?
19:45 < illegale> many bad terms and stuff
19:45 < illegale> nah
19:45 < echarp> the one about forums?
19:45 < illegale> did you read vision of tiaktiv
19:45 < illegale> ?
19:45 < illegale> nonono
19:46 < illegale> http://top.xwiki.com/xwiki/bin/view/Main/TiAktiv_Vision
19:46 < illegale> this is my try to articulate some other concept
19:46 < illegale> bad attempt though
19:46 < illegale> neverteless, Tiaktiv was firstly ID oriented
19:47 < illegale> then we decided to chang direction towards TOP leaving such models beside
19:48 < echarp> I did yes
19:49 < illegale> share vision?
19:49 < echarp> I read it :)
19:49 < illegale> dont bother, say
19:49 < echarp> too grandiloquent for me ;)
19:50 < echarp> political order and such
19:50 * illegale translating...
19:51 < illegale> yes
19:51 < illegale> conceptually?
19:51 < echarp> ok, I'm proposing two inter linked bricks: transparency, trust
19:51 < echarp> what do you think? :)
19:51 < illegale> fine
19:51 < echarp> urgen?
19:51 < illegale> equality
19:52 < urgen> hi
19:52 < illegale> at start
19:52 < echarp> it's a start
19:52 < illegale> has same rights stuff
19:52 < echarp> equality is important yes, but it's *VERY* difficult to enforce in the virtual world
19:52 < illegale> eqaulity is missued sometimes pretty hard
19:52 < echarp> equality requires identity... no?
19:52 < illegale> identity?
19:53 < echarp> yeap, *who* is equal?
19:53 < illegale> ok
19:53 < illegale> people by right stuff
19:53 < illegale> though, not mean to much
19:53 < echarp> often there is a real life person, that person *can* have many virtual identities
19:53 < illegale> ok
19:53 < urgen> so I was calling transparency record or history (not the abused version but like scroll back version)
19:53 < urgen> trust is to know whether to invest or pull out
19:54 < urgen> with proper feedback better decisions should be possible
19:54 < echarp> transparent records can be used for history, most certainly yes
19:54 < urgen> is that what you are saying?
19:54 < echarp> trust is also linked to security
19:54 < echarp> I'm thinking in terms of e-votes and such matters
19:54 < urgen> verification
19:54 < echarp> online security is always relative
19:55 < echarp> but trust can exist
19:55 < echarp> verification yes
19:55 < echarp> trust can build on verification
19:55 < urgen> ok
19:55 < echarp> transparence => verification => trust ?
19:55 < urgen> I've been seeing it as a single component anyway..
19:56 < echarp> it's probably a box
19:56 < echarp> everything is
19:56 < urgen> but I was also wanting to allow various identities per person
19:56 < echarp> I'm sure there is another brick on agreement, participation
19:56 < urgen> I have my private self, my public self, my chilling online self....
19:56 < echarp> yeap
19:56 < urgen> but that can be later :-)
19:56 < echarp> agree
19:57 < echarp> urgen: as I said, virtual identities are incredibly difficult to enforce
19:57 < urgen> ya
19:57 < echarp> in my tool, I don't enforce it at all
19:57 < echarp> I leave it up to each electoral list manager
19:58 < urgen> still a tough job :-)
19:58 < echarp> but it's outside of the tool responsibility
19:58 < urgen> once there is stuff in motion it gets easier to notice patterns
19:58 < urgen> it is impossible to start air tight
19:58 < echarp> trust is displaced, from the tool to each manager
19:58 < illegale> responsibility
19:58 < echarp> yeap
19:59 < urgen> I don't mind you including such a relaxed position for containing dialogue
19:59 < echarp> containing?
19:59 < urgen> facilitating
19:59 < urgen> venue
19:59 < urgen> coordinating
19:59 < echarp> the electoral list manager only propose an electoral list which is used to calculate vote results
20:00 < echarp> voters on a list are moderators that each user can use to filter the content for him
20:00 < urgen> I started to call the job "The Ticket Master"
20:01 < urgen> because things are often line item and they carry the connotation of having a train ticket
20:01 < echarp> the job of?
20:01 < urgen> manager of lists
20:02 < urgen> lists being proposals and discussion, etc
20:02 < urgen> it is important to not restrict input flow
20:02 < urgen> but then you get huge stacks of material to sort through
20:02 < echarp> the electoral list
20:02 < echarp> just a list of voters
20:02 < urgen> the one who submits might be capable of helping but usually they are not interested in the process
20:03 < urgen> each voter can submit
20:03 < echarp> it's there to potentially increase the signal/noise ratio
20:03 < urgen> all submission become line items on 'the list' or 'the backlog' or 'the queue'
20:03 < urgen> it gets overwhelming very fast
20:03 < echarp> I'm sure
20:03 < urgen> but there are some powerful sorting tools to make quick work of setting priority
20:04 < echarp> yet many could participate intelligently in the moderation
20:04 < urgen> it helps if everyone understands but that can't and shouldn't be expected
20:04 < urgen> we want all participation, not just those who get it
20:05 < urgen> the small currents can flow together to form larger ones later
20:05 < urgen> then timely sweep to vote
20:06 < urgen> and slow and steady resolution
20:06 < urgen> you start to produce gems of social understanding
20:06 < echarp> there is content flowing
20:06 < echarp> people voting to organise that flow
20:07 < urgen> right
20:07 < echarp> but each user can choose the team of voters they follow
20:07 < urgen> only naturally :-)
20:08 < echarp> there is content, there are tags associated to it and saying, look at it or don't look at it
20:08 < echarp> well, that's what I'm targetting
20:09 < echarp> we are getting out of the brick building process aren't we? :)
20:09 < illegale> or be one
20:09 < illegale> :-)
20:09 < illegale> or part
20:09 < echarp> and I'm sorry if I tend to always pull back to the technical part of it (or my technical vision anyway)
20:09 < echarp> woaw, raining heavily here!
20:09 < illegale> nah, i am fine with this thing
20:09 < urgen> cool
20:10 < illegale> it boils some my past beliefs :)
20:10 < urgen> I always need the vision side to see the parts
20:10 < illegale> expectations and stuff
20:11 < echarp> ok, then you see how identity, equality, are difficult concepts?
20:11 < illegale> equality?
20:12 < illegale> why?
20:12 < illegale> you can do anything on the software level
20:12 < illegale> it is up to others to use or not use your service
20:12 < echarp> of course
20:12 < echarp> I mean that equality is almost impossible to enforce
20:13 < echarp> if it is not enforced, does it really exist?
20:13 < urgen> classic systems use spot checks to estimate percentage of accuracy
20:13 < echarp> if everybody can vote multiple times, is there any equality?
20:13 < echarp> spot check?
20:13 < urgen> isolate to verify
20:13 < urgen> to periodic testing
20:13 < urgen> s/to/do
20:14 < illegale> suppose we se equality differently
20:14 < illegale> samity
20:14 < illegale> same - > samity
20:14 < illegale> :-)
20:14 < urgen> the difference is too critical to make it be the same right now
20:14 < urgen> we are just interested in a way to harvest those differences
20:15 < echarp> yeap
20:15 < urgen> and make it fair at the same time
20:15 < illegale> i want to say we bring different qualities, different power, differet influence and stuff
20:15 < illegale> in that way we are not equal
20:15 < echarp> open participation is easier to have as a brick
20:15 < illegale> and we do not need to be equal
20:15 < illegale> what we need to be equal is chance
20:16 < illegale> right
20:16 < illegale> by birth
20:16 < illegale> and it is up to us to see what to do with it
20:16 < illegale> what means open participation*
20:16 < echarp> possibility to participate
20:16 < illegale> are we open if we vote if somebody can enter our team
20:16 < echarp> to speak, even if no one listens of course
20:16 < illegale> ok
20:17 < illegale> to say, i said you so
20:17 < echarp> :)
20:17 < illegale> to rise by reputation
20:17 < echarp> to be there, to share
20:17 < echarp> yeap
20:17 < illegale> yes
20:17 < illegale> :)
20:17 < echarp> and one can rise in a sub group
20:18 < illegale> sure
20:18 < illegale> the important part of ideal of democracy is that fisrt not get too sure and last not too discouraged
20:18 < illegale> when you get that, you get equality by our idealistic not mathematic preferences
20:18 < echarp> hum
20:18 < echarp> participation? openness?
20:19 < illegale> what about that?
20:19 < echarp> I think it fits with TOP perfectly, does it not?
20:19 < illegale> what?
20:19 < illegale> participation?
20:19 < echarp> to be open to anybody's participation
20:19 < illegale> what doea it mean?
20:19 < illegale> are you open to marks participaiton? :-=)
20:20 < echarp> of course
20:20 < illegale> what does it mean?
20:20 < echarp> just I won't listen to him ;)
20:20 < illegale> hehe
20:20 < echarp> he can participate, discuss, hopefully someone will respond
20:21 < illegale> ok, you wont block his right
20:21 < illegale> that is it
20:21 < illegale> you are not like tav
20:21 < echarp> yeap
20:22 < echarp> unless he actually is agressive, disruptive or such
20:22 < illegale> echarp: can i be serious for a few minutes?
20:22 < illegale> just say when
20:22 < illegale> yes, he is
20:22 < illegale> i am too sometimes
20:22 < echarp> of course you can be serious
20:23 < echarp> he is disruptive?
20:23 < illegale> i do not know meaning for htis, yet agressiv he is
20:23 < echarp> oh, agressive
20:23 < echarp> you mean he fucks up all the time? :)
20:24 < echarp> he's disrespectful?
20:31 < illegale> he pushes from his point of view not realising that point of view is not supreme to other ones perception
20:31 < illegale> that is stupid
20:31 < illegale> it can be handled though, but that is another story also
20:31 < illegale> nevertheless
20:32 < illegale> 4 of us set first goal
20:32 < illegale> it was definition of top
20:32 < illegale> what is the moment w find that goal realsied?
20:33 < illegale> urgen: can i borrow phenny from someone?
20:33 < illegale> or jibot?
20:33 < urgen> :-)
20:33 < urgen> jibot is open source
20:33 < urgen> and maybe phenny too
20:34 < urgen> I should give you a classic infobot if I can find one
20:36 < illegale> so, i can put it at illegale?
20:39 < urgen> to have it run from a shell account is the only requirement
20:40 < urgen> I have one and echarp has given you one, but to get permission for that you will probably have to let echarp review the code first
20:42 < illegale> so, that is it?
20:43 < illegale> is it long procedure or?
20:43 < urgen> sometimes it can be a little bit frustrating, but mostly a small job
20:46 < urgen> time is always the hardest
20:50 < illegale> hmh, it would be probably good to promote irc among politically oreinted ones
20:50 < illegale> public chat stuff
20:51 < illegale> standardiasation, networking and focus acting
20:51 < illegale> people shold adopt to dynamcis of internet
20:52 < illegale> steven clift and stuff :-)
20:52 < urgen> sure, but even this is hard work. IRC was around before Yahoo, and MSN and ICQ and Jabber and all the other kinds of chat protocols there are now
20:52 < urgen> they started their own protocols to lock people into non open systems
20:52 < illegale> you do not think irc has some big advantages to others?
20:52 < illegale> to me, there is no talk about it
20:53 < urgen> I think resistance is huge, not that irc has anything better or not to offer
20:53 < illegale> resistance to?
20:53 < urgen> ppl like glitz
20:53 < illegale> irc?
20:53 < illegale> glitz?
20:53 < urgen> yes resistance to irc
20:53 < urgen> MSN is prettier has more gimmicks
20:53 < urgen> microsoft pushes it on everything they own
20:53 < urgen> so MSN Messenger is more popular
20:54 < illegale> when we talked about chat in tiaktiv someone offered us pretty cool tool.
20:54 < urgen> getting people to change is almost impossible
20:54 < illegale> we di not find it adeqaute as long as irc is much more affiremed
20:54 < illegale> and decentralised
20:54 < urgen> so now there are efforts to glue all the different chat protocols into one
20:54 < illegale> it is the service that makes them look into direction
20:54 < urgen> ppl then can use whatever they want it to look like and the communication will still be possible
20:54 < illegale> what protocols are in the pay?
20:54 < illegale> play?
20:55 < urgen> jabber tries to bridge
20:55 < urgen> http://www.psyc.eu/ tries to bridge
20:55 < urgen> irc is getting old, it doesn't offer voice for example
20:56 < illegale> can that be changed?
20:56 < illegale> or is irc history
20:56 < urgen> anything open source can change
20:56 < urgen> just needs someone to worry about it enough to try
20:56 < urgen> :-) lots of work
20:56 < illegale> though is there enough energy to do such?
20:57 < urgen> the energy is provided by the vision
21:40 < echarp> ok, I've been thinking
21:40 < echarp> brick and all that, equality
21:40 < echarp> equality requires identity
21:40 < echarp> if to one man corresponds one vote, how do we ensure the fact one man can not have many votes?
21:41 < echarp> we can not using the internet only
21:41 < echarp> the only thing we have here is information
21:41 < echarp> it's the basis of everything else
21:41 < echarp> trust can be obtained through transparency of this information, verifiability
21:42 < echarp> trust is cool, it means we humans can invest into it
21:42 < echarp> we can invest with some hope of getting something out of it
21:42 < illegale> yes, though, tehre is no problem of multiple personlaities
21:42 < echarp> it's the promise that what happens will follow up with what was said
21:43 < echarp> illegale: oh there is
21:43 < echarp> because democracy requires identity
21:43 < echarp> thus as such internet is not democratic
21:43 < echarp> democracy requires something outside of the internet
21:43 < echarp> a bank account, an identity card, a birth certificate
21:44 < illegale> you are making virtual democracy with true power
21:44 < illegale> do not need such thing as base
21:44 < echarp> I'm thinking about it
21:44 < echarp> democracy does not need the "one man one vote" motto?
21:44 < illegale> you can use trust networks for identifying and all
21:44 < echarp> trust network are one step better than nothing, but they are not sufficient
21:44 < echarp> all identities are falsifiable
21:45 < illegale> nah
21:45 < echarp> can be stolen
21:45 < illegale> one man one vote is hoax
21:45 < illegale> mislieading essence of democracy
21:45 < echarp> trust network are just one way to increase the investment in order to forge an identity
21:45 < illegale> that is rigght to participate
21:45 < echarp> but what do you do if one participate one million times?
21:45 < echarp> what if a group of persons forge votes?
21:46 < illegale> what about votes?
21:46 < illegale> it is about power
21:46 < echarp> yeap
21:46 < illegale> there can be 1 votes worth more than 10000
21:46 < echarp> who says that?
21:46 < illegale> that is reality
21:47 < illegale> i
21:47 < echarp> how do you say that this man is worse 1000* more than others?
21:47 < echarp> why do you have that power?
21:47 < illegale> it is base on his abilities and stuff
21:47 < echarp> what gives you this right?
21:47 < illegale> power
21:47 < illegale> guts
21:47 < illegale> inteligence
21:47 < illegale> wisdom
21:47 < illegale> whatever
21:47 < echarp> sorry, it is based on you alone, and your judgement on his abilities and stuff
21:48 < echarp> what will you give a man 1000* more votes than another?
21:48 < illegale> for an example, you have an big investor in some party
21:48 < illegale> what he thinks for that party probabyl means more than what 20 regular members who do not actually participate think
21:48 < illegale> this about votes, it is acutalyl bs
21:48 < illegale> particiaption is what matters
21:48 < echarp> but then this is not a democracy
21:48 < illegale> not mere voting
21:49 < illegale> when i say participation, that means will to change
21:49 < illegale> depend onwhat you mean by that
21:49 < echarp> you have 10 people in a room, they have to decide on the temperature, how do you make the decision democratically?
21:49 < illegale> 50%+1 is only legitimated rate
21:49 < illegale> nothing more, nothing else
21:49 < echarp> there you go
21:49 < echarp> 50%+1 of what?
21:49 < echarp> of people isn't it?
21:49 < illegale> it is up to that group to set procedure
21:49 < echarp> of course
21:50 < illegale> you have vetos, and stuff
21:50 < echarp> yet what will be a democratic procedure?
21:50 < illegale> i do not know
21:50 < echarp> what characteristics make it democratic
21:50 < echarp> I think I know, if only partially
21:50 < illegale> to me, it is freedom of info and acknowledged equliaty as ground
21:50 < echarp> equality among participants is one requirement
21:50 < echarp> there you go, equality
21:50 < echarp> see, we agree :)
21:51 < echarp> but equality in a room of 10 is easy to obtain
21:51 < illegale> to me , organsation has to prosper o funcionability, not some dogmas
21:51 < illegale> and there are two levels inclusion and excluasion
21:51 < illegale> :-)
21:51 < illegale> inclusion slows down the process and articualtes better decsions
21:51 < echarp> sorry, are you speaking about the basis of democracy?
21:51 < illegale> exlusion enables rapid aciton and is less qualitative
21:52 < echarp> that means you push someone out of the room
21:52 < illegale> why?
21:52 < echarp> or you just exclude from the vote, fine
21:52 < echarp> how do you decide to exclude or not to exclude? :)
21:52 < echarp> does it not need a vote of some sorts?
21:53 < echarp> I believe it needs it
21:53 < echarp> equality and some kind of vote
21:53 < echarp> thresholds are almost an entirely different matters
21:53 < echarp> equality means that no one counts for more than the others, counts intrinsically
21:54 < echarp> equality means there is no aristocracy, or monarchy, or any of theses stupidities
21:54 < illegale> i see two systems, ok three
21:54 < illegale> one is lgarchy
21:54 < illegale> and second one is democracy
21:54 < echarp> the third is?
21:55 < illegale> third one is religious stuff based on some sort of dogma
21:55 < echarp> ok, fine by me, although there are probably others
21:55 < illegale> thoug it is acutally oligarchy
21:55 < echarp> thoug?
21:55 < illegale> though
21:55 < echarp> theocracy is an oligarchy?
21:56 < illegale> nevertheless, if you want to create system, you need to translate true pwer ratios to it
21:56 < echarp> power ratios???
21:56 < illegale> yes
21:56 < echarp> I thought we spoke of equality!
21:56 < echarp> power ratios is not against equality?
21:56 < illegale> nah
21:56 < illegale> it is reality
21:56 < echarp> explain please, I don't get it
21:56 < illegale> for an example you have military man
21:56 < illegale> men
21:57 < echarp> equality is required for democracy, I think we agreed on that
21:57 < illegale> rigid right
21:57 < echarp> equality in votes
21:57 < echarp> but the military is *not* democratic!
21:57 < illegale> we find it different
21:57 < echarp> it is very not
21:57 < echarp> military is a tyranny
21:58 < echarp> I'll admit easily that people are not equal in life
21:58 < illegale> what i want to say is that power ratios set politics
21:58 < illegale> today and all the time
21:58 < illegale> what you can do is to change these ratios
21:58 < illegale> be enforcing new models of gaining power
21:58 < echarp> sorry, you are speaking of ratios we can grasp and see?
21:58 < illegale> that enalbe decentralisaiton of it
21:59 < illegale> yes
21:59 < echarp> or just of leadership and influence?
21:59 < illegale> can you or can you not organsio demosntrations
21:59 < illegale> with 100 000 people
21:59 < echarp> this is influence, leadership, is it not?
21:59 < illegale> can you or can you not assasin president if you do not like him
21:59 < illegale> there is much of dark stuff also
21:59 < illegale> this is realiry
21:59 < illegale> i am looking to look at it and start from it
22:00 < echarp> but is that democratic matters?
22:00 < echarp> or is it just life?
22:00 < echarp> in life we are unequals
22:00 < echarp> we are stronger, faster, more intelligent
22:00 < illegale> politics is about reality
22:01 < illegale> the one who is pwerfull sets rules for others
22:01 < illegale> not vice versa
22:01 < echarp> yes, politics
22:01 < echarp> but democracy?
22:01 < echarp> democracy is in politics, politics englobe democracy
22:01 < echarp> englobe/contains
22:02 < illegale> what is the essence, philosphical one of democracy?
22:02 < echarp> politics are a matter of real life, democracy is a system we have devised
22:02 < echarp> philosophic for a start yes
22:02 < echarp> moral, ethics
22:03 < illegale> solidarity?
22:03 < echarp> democracy is linked to solidarity?
22:03 < illegale> i ask you :)
22:03 < echarp> I don't think it is, not strongly anyway
22:04 < echarp> democracy is, to me, the system we have devised to organise our liberties
22:04 < illegale> liberty?
22:04 < echarp> liberty defined as the absence of constraint from someone else
22:04 < echarp> liberty ends where the liberty of others begins
22:05 < echarp> if we meet in a pub, can I punch you in the face?
22:05 < illegale> though, what is liberty?
22:05 < illegale> emotion?
22:05 < illegale> principle?
22:05 < echarp> no!
22:05 < echarp> no!
22:05 < illegale> what?
22:05 < echarp> liberty is the absence of constraint!
22:05 < illegale> ok, what is contraintž
22:05 < illegale> ?
22:05 < echarp> if I punch you, then it is a constraint, I am enfreigning your liberty!
22:05 < illegale> does it mean you need wise and normal people to funcition?
22:05 < echarp> if I kidnap then it is against your liberty
22:05 < echarp> no!!!
22:06 < echarp> liberty in the discussion I'm bringing, is the limit between us
22:06 < echarp> you can do things, I can do things, yet those things can interact
22:06 < illegale> you think no constraint needed?
22:06 < illegale> jesus rethorics
22:06 < echarp> no!
22:06 < echarp> it's not "no constraint needed"
22:06 < illegale> so there is no liberty than?
22:07 < echarp> you have liberty when there is no constraint from others on you!
22:07 < echarp> I'm speaking of political liberty
22:07 < echarp> the one defined since the renaissance
22:07 < illegale> no political constraint needed?
22:07 < echarp> illegale: you never heard that sentence => liberty ends where the liberty of others begin?
22:08 < illegale> of course i did
22:08 < illegale> yet it does not touch the problematic part
22:08 < echarp> did you understand it?
22:08 < echarp> i think it does
22:08 < illegale> there is a problem
22:08 < echarp> which is?
22:09 < illegale> i do not like noise from outside
22:09 < echarp> noise?
22:09 < illegale> the one who makes that noise does not like my asking to cut it out as long as he is having good fun
22:09 < echarp> you don't want to reuse ideas?
22:09 < illegale> what can we do about it?
22:09 < echarp> oh
22:09 < echarp> he is enfreigning your liberty
22:09 < echarp> enforcement is another matter!!!
22:09 < illegale> who decides what is the liberty and where?
22:10 < echarp> people decide what is liberty among themselves
22:10 < illegale> are you sure he is enfreighinin my liberty?
22:10 < illegale> among who?
22:10 < echarp> on a box ring liberty is different than in the street
22:10 < echarp> among themselves
22:10 < echarp> liberty is a contract
22:10 < illegale> two of us?
22:10 < illegale> state?
22:10 < echarp> we set the contract
22:10 < illegale> who?
22:10 < echarp> all participants
22:10 < illegale> based on what?
22:10 < echarp> if I'm in a building, then it's its inhabitants
22:11 < illegale> if one puts one contract and the other one second ne
22:11 < echarp> based on being touched by the consequences
22:11 < illegale> and only one can be choosed
22:11 < echarp> it's a contract
22:11 < echarp> it's a mutual choice
22:11 < echarp> if one has another contract, then it is not a contract
22:11 < echarp> a contract is a sharing
22:11 < illegale> so, you need to enable contract
22:11 < echarp> we share conditions
22:11 < echarp> liberty is a contract
22:12 < echarp> no need to enable what we all do
22:12 < illegale> and this is the process called politics realised by power that can enforce
22:12 < echarp> politics define liberty, yes!
22:12 < illegale> what do you mean you have it?
22:12 < echarp> this is what I've been saying :)
22:12 < echarp> we all define contracts
22:12 < echarp> in a familly we constantly manage contracts
22:12 < echarp> often it's the kinds who impose their limits
22:13 < echarp> but it's still mutual agreement one way or another
22:13 < illegale> yes and it is not based on 1 man 1 vote
22:13 < illegale> but ratios of power
22:13 < echarp> it is not
22:13 < illegale> if my father says t me , you ca not get the icecream
22:13 < echarp> I'm speaking of liberty, politics, not of democracy there
22:13 < illegale> i can not than
22:13 < echarp> or you can try
22:13 < illegale> i can try, and he has the mones
22:13 < illegale> y
22:13 < echarp> the parents-relationship is not democratic at all
22:14 < echarp> yet there is always a matter of defining limits, liberty
22:14 < illegale> any group has its wn rules
22:14 < echarp> we all constantly define contracts
22:14 < illegale> the best rules enable progress of them
22:14 < echarp> yes, all groups have their own rules!!!
22:14 < echarp> I don't care about "best" right now
22:14 < echarp> so, liberty ends where the liberty of others begin
22:15 < echarp> is that good with you as a starting point to define liberty?
22:15 < echarp> liberty as the absence of constraint by others on youuuu
22:15 -!- beeli (illegale) [i=ille...@cmung4201.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
22:15 < beeli:#parlement> lets go to another edge
22:15 < beeli:#parlement> i droped out
22:16 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
22:16 < beeli> 10 men
22:16 < echarp> ok
22:16 < echarp> 10 men in a room, what would be a democratic decision?
22:16 < beeli> 6 of them decide to do some decision in name of all as long as they are 50%+1
22:16 < beeli> that decision is thedecision that will kill all of us for nothing
22:16 < beeli> i know that
22:16 < echarp> 50%+1 is just a starting point we generally easily accept
22:16 < beeli> and i am not willing to obey to them
22:17 < beeli> and they are even not that strong as i am with my good pall
22:17 < beeli> should i let them make decision for me?
22:17 < echarp> you decide on that :)
22:17 < beeli> i think it is logic thng thatit is not
22:17 < echarp> this is outside of makes a decision democratic or not
22:17 < echarp> you are just saying that with your pal you can be undemocratic, that's all
22:17 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
22:18 < beeli> so i am not democratic becasue of that?
22:18 < echarp> yeap, you are not
22:18 < beeli> and you, what would you do in that place
22:18 < beeli> ?
22:18 < echarp> you are going against a democratic decision
22:18 < echarp> I would get outside the room I guess, before the decision
22:18 < beeli> it does not help you as long as that decision rules your life
22:19 < echarp> sorry, a democratic is not nessecarily about decisions to rule your life
22:19 < echarp> a club can be democratic
22:19 < echarp> and you always the possibility to simply leave it
22:19 < beeli> i am placing you in this radical situation
22:19 < beeli> to point out stuff i find non logical
22:19 < echarp> I'm stepping out of it :)
22:20 < beeli> what about France
22:20 < echarp> don't forget that I'm rather anarchist, panarchist to be exact
22:20 < beeli> about the world
22:20 < echarp> I can choose not to participate :)
22:20 < beeli> big world governemnt
22:20 < echarp> I am against a big world gov
22:20 < beeli> decision for all of us
22:20 < beeli> you can not fly to mars
22:20 < echarp> I don't want that
22:20 < beeli> what then?
22:20 < beeli> if it happens
22:20 < beeli> cmon, do not run away from hypothesis
22:20 < echarp> I don't consider them relevan
22:20 < echarp> t
22:20 < beeli> you should
22:20 < echarp> I'm running away from it!!!
22:21 < echarp> to me democracy also need free participation
22:21 < echarp> see, another requirement :)
22:21 < echarp> if you are not free to participate, but obligated to, it is much less democratic
22:21 < beeli> seems you miss the point
22:21 < beeli> you are participant of this worl
22:21 < beeli> d
22:21 < echarp> and if you don't participate, yet the decision still apply to it, then it is something else entirely, force
22:22 < beeli> society
22:22 < echarp> but this is rather extrem
22:22 < beeli> it has its own rules
22:22 < beeli> and it took all the land
22:22 < echarp> well, it has *many* rulesets
22:22 < beeli> wherever you are ,you can not play fool
22:22 < beeli> ar you aware of that'
22:22 < echarp> I am
22:22 < beeli> ok
22:22 < echarp> but then I don't consider that attitude democratic at all
22:22 < beeli> is it natural though?
22:22 < echarp> sorry, humanity and nature, two different things
22:23 < beeli> am i non democratic person because of that attitude?
22:23 < echarp> to me yes you are
22:23 < beeli> i am in prison, i can not escape
22:23 < echarp> you are being pragmatic, but not democratic
22:23 < beeli> 5 decide to do some shit, should i let them do it as long as they are majority'
22:23 < beeli> seems to me you are mixing philosphy to mere numbers
22:23 < beeli> that is not good
22:23 < beeli> and this is big problem
22:23 < echarp> to me nations are not democratic, they are brutal and machiavelic
22:24 < echarp> numbers???
22:24 < beeli:#parlement> yes,
22:24 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
22:24 < echarp> what numbers?
22:24 < beeli> 5 out of 9 for some big shit is democratic
22:24 < beeli> 4 out of 9 for great deed is non democratic
22:24 < beeli> it is the number that differs in this scenario only
22:25 < echarp> free participation, equality, vote, three requirements as of now :)
22:25 < beeli> that is abvusrd
22:25 < echarp> 4 out of 9 is not democratic by your acceptation too :)
22:28 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
22:28 < echarp> that's a matter of threshold, which can be discussed by the group
22:28 < echarp> majority decision can also rely on brute force (it often does), which means it's not democratic, just pragmatic
22:29 < beeli:#parlement> that is of course base ofreality
22:29 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
22:29 < beeli> people actually vote for dictators due to one simple reason
22:29 < beeli> ceratinty
22:29 < echarp> violence is a base yes
22:29 < beeli> feel secure
22:29 < echarp> our nations are based on violence
22:29 < beeli> yes
22:29 < beeli> mostly
22:30 < echarp> yet there is a glimpse of hope, they authorise some kind of democratic procedure
22:30 < beeli> you can have some faith and look forward or you get into thsi stuff
22:30 < echarp> but to me it is not pure democracy, just a bastardised yet still useful one
22:30 < echarp> nations are bad :)
22:30 < beeli> partially
22:30 < echarp> I want free associations, enterprises, families
22:30 < beeli:#parlement> nations have strong magic
22:31 < beeli:#parlement> suggestions
22:31 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
22:31 < beeli> i do not like them too much either as long as they bring us to even larger stupidit models
22:31 < echarp> yeap
22:31 < beeli> in ex yu this happened
22:31 < echarp> so no, nations are not good examples of democracy to me
22:31 < beeli> and it happens all around
22:32 < echarp> a better example, more practical in our context, is an association of wilfull participants
22:32 < beeli> this is belonging stuff
22:32 < beeli:#parlement> when you are part of gourp and when you are not part of gour ,there are different perspsctive
22:32 < beeli:#parlement> s
22:32 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
22:32 < echarp> of your what?
22:33 < beeli:#parlement> you look from different perspective when you are part of some body
22:33 < beeli:#parlement> or if you are not
22:33 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
22:33 < beeli> find it social characteristic
22:33 < echarp> but, is that about democracy?
22:33 -!- illegale [i=ille...@cmung4201.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Connection timed out]
22:33 < echarp> or sociology?
22:34 < beeli:#parlement> to you this means, one vote one man is democracy
22:34 < beeli:#parlement> that is it, that is all?
22:34 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
22:34 < echarp> free participation, equality, vote
22:34 < echarp> that's three things as of now
22:35 < echarp> there must be others
22:35 < echarp> if you remove one, then it's less democratic
22:35 < echarp> follow me?
22:36 < beeli:#parlement> yes
22:37 < beeli:#parlement> echarp: is politics about action of vote or both?
22:37 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
22:37 < echarp> action o*r* vote?
22:37 < echarp> I don't think it's about action itself
22:38 < echarp> the vote is the expression of the participants
22:38 < echarp> there can be other expressions
22:38 < echarp> but it's hard to make sure participants are equals
22:38 < beeli:#parlement> your vote only worth in the moment you showed it is power behind it
22:39 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
22:39 < echarp> well, the nation requires power
22:39 < echarp> but democracy no, of course that also means it's a powerless democracy
22:39 < echarp> but it's still democratic :)
22:40 < beeli:#parlement> how can something powerless enforce anything to those who are?
22:40 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
22:40 < echarp> enforcement is yet another matter!
22:41 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
22:41 < echarp> I haven't given much thought about enforcement yet
22:41 < echarp> in an ideal world, enforcement can be done through exclusion
22:42 < beeli:#parlement> come to earth
22:42 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
22:43 < echarp> a democracy requires an army?
22:44 < beeli:#parlement> power
22:44 < beeli:#parlement> that is what i am talking about
22:44 < beeli:#parlement> origin of that power
22:44 < beeli:#parlement> does not matter
22:44 < beeli:#parlement> yet it must nbe acknowledged
22:45 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
22:45 < echarp> well, democracy is a way to organise things, there is of course power
22:45 < echarp> but that power can be much less impressive than physical violence
22:46 < echarp> for example we could democratically decide that mark is a prick
22:46 < echarp> and then, so what?
22:46 < echarp> we just expressed democratically an opinion, reflects democratically the opinion of the participants
22:48 < beeli:#parlement> what is expessing democratically opinion?
22:48 < beeli:#parlement> stuff when you vote?
22:48 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
22:48 < beeli> or jsut a fact that you have right for free speech?
22:48 < echarp> something else again
22:49 < echarp> democracy, to me, is also a matter of information
22:49 < echarp> information is its basis
22:49 < echarp> the group democratically makes a decision
22:49 < echarp> that decision is information
22:49 < beeli> by voting?
22:50 < echarp> yeap
22:51 < echarp> voting is one way, there might be others
22:51 < echarp> but I don't know them yet
22:51 < echarp> participation, equality (absence of differences in the process), vote (or expression)
22:51 < echarp> a vote is an expression, information
22:55 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
22:55 < echarp> free participation, equality, vote, information/expression?
22:56 < beeli:#parlement> hmh
22:56 < beeli:#parlement> to me it is actually TOP
22:56 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
22:56 < echarp> it could be
22:56 < echarp> does top speaks about equality, vote?
22:57 < beeli:#parlement> no
22:57 < beeli:#parlement> opennes might be that part though
22:57 < beeli:#parlement> but in my apsect of democracy
22:57 < beeli:#parlement> and public as meritor who needs to know to make proper desisions
22:57 < beeli:#parlement> in general
22:58 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
22:58 < beeli> yet, there is no numbers at all
22:58 < beeli> just principles
22:58 < echarp> top, to me, is a step for democracy
22:58 < beeli:#parlement> yes
23:00 < beeli:#parlement> there is a bigand f*** step in promotion of TOP
23:00 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
23:00 < beeli> that is about control of nfo
23:00 < echarp> thus it's very important
23:00 < beeli> very hard part that colides to curent economics
23:00 < echarp> and to the way people currently do politics
23:01 < beeli> its proved in informatics industry
23:01 < beeli> this part is going to be much harder and much more resulting (i suppose ) in poliiccs
23:02 < echarp> I think it needs more
23:02 < echarp> but again, it's a required step
23:02 < beeli> it needs pretty much stuff
23:03 < beeli> :-)
23:03 < echarp> yeap
23:03 < beeli> yet, base of inequality, of classes is in info
23:03 < echarp> lots of work
23:03 < beeli> control of it
23:03 < echarp> in info?
23:03 < beeli> information
23:04 < echarp> on the net it might just be a good chunk of it yes
23:04 < echarp> on the net we only have information :)
23:06 < beeli> some guy gets notice and by that notice he earns 2 000 000$.
23:06 < beeli> some other guy works his all life for 1000 $ and he has to sell his child
23:07 < beeli> suppose it is info that makes them different
23:07 < beeli> maybe discipline also
23:07 < echarp> or familly inheritance :(
23:07 < echarp> could also be racism
23:07 < echarp> stealing, kidnapping, black mailing
23:08 < beeli> yes
23:08 < beeli> thogh, such stuf f can not keep legimacy for long time
23:08 < beeli> in top system
23:09 < echarp> I didn't think you spoke about it in top
23:10 < beeli> about what?
23:10 < beeli> kidnaping?
23:10 < beeli> :)
23:13 < echarp> about equality
23:13 < beeli> ah, yes
23:25 < echarp> to make sure the produced expression really reflects all participants
23:38 < beeli> btw, have chat with communist :)
23:38 < beeli> s
23:38 < beeli> two of them
23:38 < beeli> ok, though reflection is though though,
23:38 < beeli> is there any way to measure it?ž
23:39 < echarp> reflection?
23:44 < beeli> how do you measure is something reflecting someones decision or does it not?
23:45 < beeli> what if somene has something n full contradictionary to others
23:45 < beeli> ?
23:48 < echarp> then in democracy his opinion is not reflected
23:49 < echarp> he can leave
23:49 < echarp> but if he does not, then the decision applies to himmm
23:50 < echarp> if you participate, you agree to have the decision apply on you
23:51 < echarp> you can still leave, you are not imprisoned by that first decision
23:51 < echarp> although it might be difficult to accept a departure after one has broken may sur le site de Nanie Massages sur Paris
23:51 < echarp> oups :)
23:51 < echarp> many rules
23:52 < echarp> if he breaks rules, then his first inclusion should apply
23:52 < echarp> but I don't know how to organise that
23:54 < beeli> heh
23:54 < beeli> i have to go
23:55 < beeli> got tieeo
23:55 < echarp> ok
23:55 < beeli> cu tommorow i guess
23:55 < echarp> I'm going to bed, late around here
23:55 < echarp> cu and good night!
23:55 < beeli> btw, gonna meet tommorot the guy fro socialist party who is inot TOP pretty much
23:55 < beeli> :-=)
23:55 < beeli> good night
23:55 < echarp> good luck then
23:56 -!- beeli [i=ille...@cmung4201.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit []
--- Log closed sam jui 08 00:00:58 2006
echarp
Jul 9, 2006, 12:28:39 AM7/9/06
to top-politics
--- Log opened sam jui 08 00:00:58 2006
05:32 < urgen> had to go try the local neighborhood sushi
08:10 < urgen> http://www.memeorandum.com/
12:12 -!- illegale (illegale) [i=ille...@cmung562.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
12:12 < illegale> po
13:19 -!- beeli (illegale) [i=ille...@cmung2551.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
13:21 -!- illegale [i=ille...@cmung562.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
13:56 -!- beeli [i=ille...@cmung2551.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)]
14:15 -!- illegale (illegale) [i=ille...@cmung4217.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
15:45 -!- beeli (illegale) [i=ille...@cmung739.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
16:02 -!- illegale [i=ille...@cmung4217.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
16:18 -!- beeli [i=ille...@cmung739.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
17:45 -!- illegale (illegale) [i=ille...@cmung4171.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
18:06 -!- illegale [i=ille...@cmung4171.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)]
19:15 -!- illegale (illegale) [i=ille...@cmung65.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
19:17 < illegale> oi
19:35 < urgen> hi
19:45 -!- illegale [i=ille...@cmung65.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
19:47 < urgen> spacewalk is on right now
19:47 < urgen> I slept in! bad :-)
21:48 < urgen> EVA #2 BEGINS 12:13 GMT, Monday
--- Log closed dim jui 09 00:00:58 2006
05:32 < urgen> had to go try the local neighborhood sushi
08:10 < urgen> http://www.memeorandum.com/
12:12 -!- illegale (illegale) [i=ille...@cmung562.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
12:12 < illegale> po
13:19 -!- beeli (illegale) [i=ille...@cmung2551.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
13:21 -!- illegale [i=ille...@cmung562.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
13:56 -!- beeli [i=ille...@cmung2551.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)]
14:15 -!- illegale (illegale) [i=ille...@cmung4217.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
15:45 -!- beeli (illegale) [i=ille...@cmung739.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
16:02 -!- illegale [i=ille...@cmung4217.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
16:18 -!- beeli [i=ille...@cmung739.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
17:45 -!- illegale (illegale) [i=ille...@cmung4171.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
18:06 -!- illegale [i=ille...@cmung4171.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)]
19:15 -!- illegale (illegale) [i=ille...@cmung65.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
19:17 < illegale> oi
19:35 < urgen> hi
19:45 -!- illegale [i=ille...@cmung65.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
19:47 < urgen> spacewalk is on right now
19:47 < urgen> I slept in! bad :-)
21:48 < urgen> EVA #2 BEGINS 12:13 GMT, Monday
--- Log closed dim jui 09 00:00:58 2006
Mark
Jul 9, 2006, 1:09:41 PM7/9/06
to top-politics
15:25 < echarp> the discussions were rather easy to lead with wackos
as mark, useful as a wall against which to bounce words :)
15:25 < illegale> lol
15:25 < echarp> shame he could not grasp the meaning of those words too
:)
as mark, useful as a wall against which to bounce words :)
15:25 < illegale> lol
15:25 < echarp> shame he could not grasp the meaning of those words too
:)
-M: Emmanuel, you are the one with standing points that you have not
responded to.
15:25 < illegale> i like mark
15:26 < illegale> reminds me to my son
15:26 < illegale> says the priest
15:26 < illegale> though, he could help us a little bit if he gets a
littlebit more focused
-M: I think that I am the most focused one here.
I keep emphasizing the importance of centrality algorithms and the
importance non-arbitrariness and non-contradiction.
15:26 < echarp> I thought he would/could be useful, but I'm not of that
opinion anymore
15:27 < echarp> just a wacko
-M: You are the:
1. elite anti-elitist.
2. relativist who takes an absolute position against absolutism.
3. one who criticizes people for criticizing.
4. represents a position against representation.
15:27 < illegale> let it go and see
15:27 < echarp> illegale: you think I should speak more of parlement?
15:27 < illegale> needs several hits in the head
15:27 < echarp> lol
15:27 < illegale> wht do you mean?
15:28 < illegale> about mark, it is about mere interests
15:28 < illegale> would be good to keep all of this on that level
15:29 < illegale> he needs place where he can test his model
15:29 < illegale> i doubt he will find better one
15:36 < echarp> I doubt he will ever find one
15:36 < echarp> and I won't help him
-M: There is no helping 'him', there is only helping humanity.
If my system has the soundest theoretical basis, it should be
devoloped. And soundest theoretical basis(before testing) is determined
by debate.
15:36 < echarp> so what do I mean, should I be more aggressive in my
presentation of parlement? 22:46 < echarp> for example we could
democratically decide that mark is a prick
-M: If prick=*someone who whups Emmanuel in debate for his own good*,
then this is me.
If prick=*someone who breaks rules of discourse*, then this is not me.
22:46 < echarp> and then, so what?
22:46 < echarp> we just expressed democratically an opinion, reflects
democratically the opinion of the participants
-M: It may be useful to define 'prick' first.
echarp
Jul 10, 2006, 12:28:40 AM7/10/06
to top-politics
--- Log opened dim jui 09 00:00:58 2006
14:00 -!- KwisatzHaderach (Alban Crequy) [n=mua...@gar31-3-82-234-50-167.fbx.proxad.net] has joined #parlement
14:18 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
14:18 < echarp> resalut KwisatzHaderach
14:19 < KwisatzHaderach> re ;-)
14:19 < echarp> donc tu as vu un peu le projet?
14:19 < KwisatzHaderach> J'ai parcouru la page d'accueil
14:20 < KwisatzHaderach> Il y a un soft derrière ?
14:21 < echarp> le serveur applicatif c'est ruby on rails
14:21 < KwisatzHaderach> Ou c'est un site qui exprime une opinion politique?
14:21 < echarp> c un serveur que j'écris
14:21 < echarp> tu peux te loguer en utilisant ton pseudo, et y écrire ou voter
14:22 < echarp> c mieux si tu testes dans la zone de test :)
14:25 * KwisatzHaderach teste un nouveau vote : "Are you For or Against software patents?"
14:25 < echarp> cool :)
14:26 < echarp> but the way you phrased it, it's going to disappear because every body will vote against it
14:26 < echarp> I've voter too! :)
14:27 < echarp> j'ai voté aussi
14:27 < echarp> désolé, je reviens trop facilement à l'anglais
14:27 < KwisatzHaderach> pas grave, je understand les 2
14:28 < KwisatzHaderach> Je comprends pas... où est passé mon scrutin ?
14:28 < echarp> comment ça passé?
14:28 < echarp> moi je le vois
14:29 < echarp> enfin je l'ai reçu par mail aussi
14:29 < KwisatzHaderach> Sur quoi faut que je clique pour le voir ?
14:29 < echarp> clique sur le résultat, mais c lent, mon serveur est bien vieux
14:29 < KwisatzHaderach> ah si je le vois, c'est passé en haut
14:29 < echarp> en cliquant sur un résultat, on voit les votants
14:30 < echarp> mon vote vient d'arriver aussi
14:32 < echarp> c vraiment organisé comme un forum dans lequel les votes sont une modération
14:34 < echarp> KwisatzHaderach: qu'est ce que tu en penses?
14:35 < KwisatzHaderach> ça me semble orienté pour les votes d'associations, pas les scrutins nationaux.
14:36 < KwisatzHaderach> En fait, je ne suis pas trop intéressé par la technique sur le vote électronique mais plutot sur l'aspect politique ;)
14:45 < echarp> les scrutins nationaux c un sacré bouzin tu sais
14:45 < echarp> à mon avis il faut d'abord commencer petit
14:46 < KwisatzHaderach> Mais je ne suis pas spécialement pour le vote électronique en général ...
14:47 < KwisatzHaderach> donc je ne commence pas ;) Seulement, certains essaient de pousser ça, donc j'aimerais que ça soit fait au moins correctement
14:48 < echarp> il faut pas rêver, ça ne sera jamais super correct
14:48 < echarp> et surtout, pour quels avantages faire de l'électronique?
14:48 < KwisatzHaderach> Je veux juste que ce ne soit pas plus mauvais que le système actuel
14:48 < echarp> moi j'en vois, mais ces avantages ont des conséquences directes pas forcément acceptables par tous
14:48 < KwisatzHaderach> Je ne vois pas d'avantages
14:48 < echarp> s'il y a pas d'avantage dans ce cas refuser
14:49 < echarp> et que penses tu du "n'importe quand, n'importe où, sur n'importe quel sujet"?
14:49 < KwisatzHaderach> enfin, si ça a quand meme des petits avantages... le "n'importe où" justement
14:49 < KwisatzHaderach> echarp, utile pour les associations
14:50 < echarp> le temps et l'objet ne sont pas intéressants?
14:51 < KwisatzHaderach> echarp, si mais pas pour tous les scrutins. Pour le vote présidentiel par exemple, le temps n'a pas d'interet car je pense qu'il vaut mieux que cela se fasse à une date précise
14:51 < KwisatzHaderach> echarp, mais pour les associations, oui tout ça est utile
14:53 < echarp> à mon avis il n'y a pas de raison que ça ne soit pas utile pour tous les systèmes démocratiques
14:53 < echarp> mais les présidentielles c vraiment l'élection qui cache tout le reste
14:54 < KwisatzHaderach> mais c'est celle qui m'interesse (enfin les scutins officiels en général, pas spécialement la présidentielle)
14:55 < echarp> car c sur celle là qu'on te parle de vote électronique?
14:56 < KwisatzHaderach> oui: "La France, à l?occasion de l'élection présidentielle de 2002, a testé dans trois villes le vote électronique"
14:56 < KwisatzHaderach> http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vote_%C3%A9lectronique#France
14:56 < KwisatzHaderach> Puis d'autres tests lors d'autres élections par la suite
14:56 < echarp> probablement pour diminuer l'abstentio
14:56 < echarp> n
14:57 < KwisatzHaderach> La fin ne justifie pas toujours les moyens ;)
14:58 < KwisatzHaderach> Mes griefs sont exposés sur la liste de diffusion ap...@april.org
14:58 -!- KwisatzHaderach [n=mua...@gar31-3-82-234-50-167.fbx.proxad.net] has left #parlement ["Leaving"]
14:58 -!- KwisatzHaderach (Alban Crequy) [n=mua...@gar31-3-82-234-50-167.fbx.proxad.net] has joined #parlement
14:58 < KwisatzHaderach> oups
14:58 < echarp> re :)
15:01 < echarp> je lis
15:07 < echarp> c clair qu'avoir des experts, pour moi c loin d'être suffisant
15:24 < echarp> répondu
15:31 < KwisatzHaderach> en privé ou sur la liste ?
15:33 < echarp> liste
15:35 < echarp> ah non
15:36 < echarp> j'avais mal vu, par défaut on répond individuel
15:38 < echarp> voila, corrigé
16:07 < echarp> KwisatzHaderach: je sors ce soir, mais n'hésite pas à rester sur ce salon
16:07 < echarp> il y a pas mal de discussions assez générals, philo, sémantiques, politique
16:07 < echarp> à plus tard KwisatzHaderach
16:10 < KwisatzHaderach> a+
16:10 < KwisatzHaderach> je dois y aller aussi
16:10 < KwisatzHaderach> ++
16:16 < echarp> à peluches
17:09 < urgen> I need to get my translator bot working again
18:56 < urgen> Just got back from vacation ... haven't had time to digest my e-mail.
18:56 < urgen> Cheers,
18:56 < urgen> Steve
18:56 < urgen> (email from steve clift
18:56 < urgen> )
19:44 -!- illegale (illegale) [i=ille...@cmung3218.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
19:44 < urgen> re
19:44 < illegale> hey
19:46 < urgen> wonder if US tv will carry the match
19:46 < illegale> final?
19:47 < urgen> starts in about 10 minutes
19:47 < illegale> really?
19:47 < illegale> though in 1 hour :-)
19:47 < illegale> you watch football
19:47 < illegale> ?
19:47 < urgen> 18:00 gmt
19:47 < urgen> it's not easy to follow in the US
19:48 < illegale> satelite?
19:48 < illegale> cabel?
19:48 < illegale> smething?
19:48 < urgen> well I have cable but I have the basic package
19:48 < urgen> too expensive
19:48 < urgen> so I found a chinese online streaming service that has the game
19:49 < illegale> hehe
19:49 < illegale> echarp are you watching
19:49 < illegale> ?
19:49 < urgen> US tv has tennis and car racing on
19:50 < urgen> it's france... he might get caught :-)
19:51 < illegale> there is some chance, yes :)
19:52 < illegale> though, gonna watch it
19:52 < illegale> see you later
19:53 < urgen> ok
19:55 < urgen> oh cool they just put it on tv., at least I don't have to listen to chinese now
19:55 < urgen> ;-)
20:11 -!- illegale [i=ille...@cmung3218.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
22:59 -!- Netsplit niven.freenode.net <-> irc.freenode.net quits: KwisatzHaderach
--- Log closed lun jui 10 00:00:59 2006
14:00 -!- KwisatzHaderach (Alban Crequy) [n=mua...@gar31-3-82-234-50-167.fbx.proxad.net] has joined #parlement
14:18 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
14:18 < echarp> resalut KwisatzHaderach
14:19 < KwisatzHaderach> re ;-)
14:19 < echarp> donc tu as vu un peu le projet?
14:19 < KwisatzHaderach> J'ai parcouru la page d'accueil
14:20 < KwisatzHaderach> Il y a un soft derrière ?
14:21 < echarp> le serveur applicatif c'est ruby on rails
14:21 < KwisatzHaderach> Ou c'est un site qui exprime une opinion politique?
14:21 < echarp> c un serveur que j'écris
14:21 < echarp> tu peux te loguer en utilisant ton pseudo, et y écrire ou voter
14:22 < echarp> c mieux si tu testes dans la zone de test :)
14:25 * KwisatzHaderach teste un nouveau vote : "Are you For or Against software patents?"
14:25 < echarp> cool :)
14:26 < echarp> but the way you phrased it, it's going to disappear because every body will vote against it
14:26 < echarp> I've voter too! :)
14:27 < echarp> j'ai voté aussi
14:27 < echarp> désolé, je reviens trop facilement à l'anglais
14:27 < KwisatzHaderach> pas grave, je understand les 2
14:28 < KwisatzHaderach> Je comprends pas... où est passé mon scrutin ?
14:28 < echarp> comment ça passé?
14:28 < echarp> moi je le vois
14:29 < echarp> enfin je l'ai reçu par mail aussi
14:29 < KwisatzHaderach> Sur quoi faut que je clique pour le voir ?
14:29 < echarp> clique sur le résultat, mais c lent, mon serveur est bien vieux
14:29 < KwisatzHaderach> ah si je le vois, c'est passé en haut
14:29 < echarp> en cliquant sur un résultat, on voit les votants
14:30 < echarp> mon vote vient d'arriver aussi
14:32 < echarp> c vraiment organisé comme un forum dans lequel les votes sont une modération
14:34 < echarp> KwisatzHaderach: qu'est ce que tu en penses?
14:35 < KwisatzHaderach> ça me semble orienté pour les votes d'associations, pas les scrutins nationaux.
14:36 < KwisatzHaderach> En fait, je ne suis pas trop intéressé par la technique sur le vote électronique mais plutot sur l'aspect politique ;)
14:45 < echarp> les scrutins nationaux c un sacré bouzin tu sais
14:45 < echarp> à mon avis il faut d'abord commencer petit
14:46 < KwisatzHaderach> Mais je ne suis pas spécialement pour le vote électronique en général ...
14:47 < KwisatzHaderach> donc je ne commence pas ;) Seulement, certains essaient de pousser ça, donc j'aimerais que ça soit fait au moins correctement
14:48 < echarp> il faut pas rêver, ça ne sera jamais super correct
14:48 < echarp> et surtout, pour quels avantages faire de l'électronique?
14:48 < KwisatzHaderach> Je veux juste que ce ne soit pas plus mauvais que le système actuel
14:48 < echarp> moi j'en vois, mais ces avantages ont des conséquences directes pas forcément acceptables par tous
14:48 < KwisatzHaderach> Je ne vois pas d'avantages
14:48 < echarp> s'il y a pas d'avantage dans ce cas refuser
14:49 < echarp> et que penses tu du "n'importe quand, n'importe où, sur n'importe quel sujet"?
14:49 < KwisatzHaderach> enfin, si ça a quand meme des petits avantages... le "n'importe où" justement
14:49 < KwisatzHaderach> echarp, utile pour les associations
14:50 < echarp> le temps et l'objet ne sont pas intéressants?
14:51 < KwisatzHaderach> echarp, si mais pas pour tous les scrutins. Pour le vote présidentiel par exemple, le temps n'a pas d'interet car je pense qu'il vaut mieux que cela se fasse à une date précise
14:51 < KwisatzHaderach> echarp, mais pour les associations, oui tout ça est utile
14:53 < echarp> à mon avis il n'y a pas de raison que ça ne soit pas utile pour tous les systèmes démocratiques
14:53 < echarp> mais les présidentielles c vraiment l'élection qui cache tout le reste
14:54 < KwisatzHaderach> mais c'est celle qui m'interesse (enfin les scutins officiels en général, pas spécialement la présidentielle)
14:55 < echarp> car c sur celle là qu'on te parle de vote électronique?
14:56 < KwisatzHaderach> oui: "La France, à l?occasion de l'élection présidentielle de 2002, a testé dans trois villes le vote électronique"
14:56 < KwisatzHaderach> http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vote_%C3%A9lectronique#France
14:56 < KwisatzHaderach> Puis d'autres tests lors d'autres élections par la suite
14:56 < echarp> probablement pour diminuer l'abstentio
14:56 < echarp> n
14:57 < KwisatzHaderach> La fin ne justifie pas toujours les moyens ;)
14:58 < KwisatzHaderach> Mes griefs sont exposés sur la liste de diffusion ap...@april.org
14:58 -!- KwisatzHaderach [n=mua...@gar31-3-82-234-50-167.fbx.proxad.net] has left #parlement ["Leaving"]
14:58 -!- KwisatzHaderach (Alban Crequy) [n=mua...@gar31-3-82-234-50-167.fbx.proxad.net] has joined #parlement
14:58 < KwisatzHaderach> oups
14:58 < echarp> re :)
15:01 < echarp> je lis
15:07 < echarp> c clair qu'avoir des experts, pour moi c loin d'être suffisant
15:24 < echarp> répondu
15:31 < KwisatzHaderach> en privé ou sur la liste ?
15:33 < echarp> liste
15:35 < echarp> ah non
15:36 < echarp> j'avais mal vu, par défaut on répond individuel
15:38 < echarp> voila, corrigé
16:07 < echarp> KwisatzHaderach: je sors ce soir, mais n'hésite pas à rester sur ce salon
16:07 < echarp> il y a pas mal de discussions assez générals, philo, sémantiques, politique
16:07 < echarp> à plus tard KwisatzHaderach
16:10 < KwisatzHaderach> a+
16:10 < KwisatzHaderach> je dois y aller aussi
16:10 < KwisatzHaderach> ++
16:16 < echarp> à peluches
17:09 < urgen> I need to get my translator bot working again
18:56 < urgen> Just got back from vacation ... haven't had time to digest my e-mail.
18:56 < urgen> Cheers,
18:56 < urgen> Steve
18:56 < urgen> (email from steve clift
18:56 < urgen> )
19:44 -!- illegale (illegale) [i=ille...@cmung3218.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
19:44 < urgen> re
19:44 < illegale> hey
19:46 < urgen> wonder if US tv will carry the match
19:46 < illegale> final?
19:47 < urgen> starts in about 10 minutes
19:47 < illegale> really?
19:47 < illegale> though in 1 hour :-)
19:47 < illegale> you watch football
19:47 < illegale> ?
19:47 < urgen> 18:00 gmt
19:47 < urgen> it's not easy to follow in the US
19:48 < illegale> satelite?
19:48 < illegale> cabel?
19:48 < illegale> smething?
19:48 < urgen> well I have cable but I have the basic package
19:48 < urgen> too expensive
19:48 < urgen> so I found a chinese online streaming service that has the game
19:49 < illegale> hehe
19:49 < illegale> echarp are you watching
19:49 < illegale> ?
19:49 < urgen> US tv has tennis and car racing on
19:50 < urgen> it's france... he might get caught :-)
19:51 < illegale> there is some chance, yes :)
19:52 < illegale> though, gonna watch it
19:52 < illegale> see you later
19:53 < urgen> ok
19:55 < urgen> oh cool they just put it on tv., at least I don't have to listen to chinese now
19:55 < urgen> ;-)
20:11 -!- illegale [i=ille...@cmung3218.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
22:59 -!- Netsplit niven.freenode.net <-> irc.freenode.net quits: KwisatzHaderach
--- Log closed lun jui 10 00:00:59 2006
echarp
Jul 11, 2006, 12:28:57 AM7/11/06
to top-politics
--- Log opened lun jui 10 00:00:59 2006
01:24 -!- urgen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)]
01:25 -!- urgen (urgy) [n=sp...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
09:51 < echarp> hello hello
13:20 -!- illegale (illegale) [n=ille...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has joined #parlement
13:20 < illegale:#parlement> io
13:21 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
13:21 < echarp> hello hello illegale
13:21 < echarp> how are you?
13:22 < illegale> hey!
13:22 < illegale> Finre
13:22 < illegale> warthced match yesterday=
13:22 < illegale> ?
13:22 < echarp> yeap
13:22 < illegale> and?
13:23 < illegale> did you win?
13:23 < illegale> :-)
13:23 < echarp> pizza and beer with some friends, now I'm nauseous :(
13:23 < illegale> hehe
13:23 < echarp> lose of course
13:23 < echarp> bad game
13:23 < illegale> hah
13:23 < illegale> the one before was mutch beter
13:23 < illegale> yes
13:23 < echarp> possibly yes
13:23 < illegale> what happned to zizou
13:23 < illegale> ?
13:23 < echarp> brasil was probably the best one
13:23 < illegale> yes
13:24 < illegale> same with cri
13:24 < illegale> croatia
13:24 < echarp> he got angry, he was called a "terrorist" and reacted stupidly
13:24 < illegale> did tey interwieve him?
13:24 < echarp> I don't know
13:24 < illegale> ok
13:24 < echarp> just got the info at the office this morning
13:25 < illegale> we are interested in how did it happened?
13:25 < illegale> i see top politics is crowded again :-)
13:25 < echarp> however it happened, it should not have
13:25 < illegale> hehe
13:25 < echarp> yeap, much energy!
13:25 < illegale> now be carefull to create product out of it
13:26 < illegale> who was that yestereday at irc?
13:26 < illegale> your fecnjh friend'
13:26 < illegale> ?
13:27 < echarp> never seen before
13:27 < echarp> he was directed here after we discussed on another french channel
13:27 < illegale> ah
13:27 < illegale> what is he about?
13:28 < illegale> btw, can i have somehow permanent log by illegale?
13:28 < illegale> like you and urgen do?
13:28 < echarp> what do you mean?
13:28 < echarp> me it's irssi which does that automatically
13:28 < echarp> and I have a cron job which mails this log file every night
13:29 < illegale> if i had permanent loging, i could have permanent group #illegale
13:29 < illegale> id like to have such?
13:40 -!- illegale [n=ille...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has left #parlement []
13:40 -!- illegale (illegale) [n=ille...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has joined #parlement
13:45 -!- illegale [n=ille...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has quit ["Lost terminal"]
13:50 -!- illegale [n=ille...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has joined #parlement
13:50 -!- illegale is illegale
13:53 < illegale> e?
13:53 < echarp> oui?
13:53 < echarp> permanent logging is what to you?
13:54 < illegale> whenevey you come to this channle you seee me logged
13:57 < echarp> you need to use a tool like "screen" then
13:57 < echarp> screen does just that!
13:57 < illegale> one more thing. can you install some bots at this or other channels?
13:57 < illegale> ok, what do i have to do excatly?
13:57 < echarp> I don't use bots personally
13:58 < illegale> why=?
13:59 < illegale> i see them as cool option tools ,right?
13:59 < echarp> tools to do what?
13:59 < illegale> sending mesages, checking stuff, logging
13:59 < illegale> .seen and so on
13:59 < illegale> suppose you do not need that as ,ong as you are screening, tho9ugh
14:00 < echarp> nah, not that useful for me
14:00 < echarp> being here permanently, does just that
14:00 < illegale> nevertelss
14:00 < illegale> what do i have to do to use this screen stuff? of couirse, if you have time to explain to me, i am willing to follow your leads
14:01 < echarp> you need to leave irssi
14:02 < echarp> and on the console, type the followingcommand :
14:02 < illegale> ok
14:02 < echarp> screen irssi
14:02 < echarp> c'est tout
14:02 < echarp> ça va lancer irssi dans screen
14:02 < echarp> oups,
14:02 < echarp> that will launch irssi in screen
14:04 < illegale> that is it?
14:05 < echarp> yeap
14:06 < echarp> simple isn't
14:06 < echarp> it
14:07 < illegale> how do i quit irrsi? :)
14:07 < echarp> /quit
14:08 -!- illegale [n=ille...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has quit ["leaving"]
14:09 -!- illegale [n=ille...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has joined #parlement
14:09 -!- illegale is illegale
14:09 < illegale> hmh,htati si all?
14:10 < illegale> so, what if i leaqve channel now?
14:12 < echarp> now you do not have to leave the channel anymore
14:12 < echarp> you can just detach your "screen"
14:13 < echarp> and reattach it later on
14:13 < illegale> when i logo ff?ž
14:13 < illegale> from this computer?
14:13 < echarp> from this server
14:13 < echarp> your screen session is on my server
14:13 < illegale> ok
14:14 < illegale> so, i will log of now to check it out
14:14 < echarp> first set yourself as "away"
14:14 < echarp> using the command "/away outside"
14:15 < illegale> ok
14:15 < echarp> to detach your screen session, you have to type on Ctl-a then Ctrl-d
14:15 < echarp> to reattach, type =>
14:15 < echarp> screen -dr
14:15 < echarp> important!!!
14:15 < echarp> rememeber this "screen -dr" command
14:16 < illegale> hmh
14:16 < illegale> i will common villagers way ddo ti now
14:16 < illegale> why shoulkd i use this detach stuff anyway?
14:17 < echarp> so that irssi will keep running while you are away :)
14:18 < illegale> ok, now i do ctral a then strl d and go aqay, log of when i get back and log to your server i write screen -dr and irssi
14:18 < illegale> or ?
14:20 < echarp> just screen -dr
14:20 < echarp> irssi will still be there
14:20 < illegale> ok
14:20 < echarp> ctrl-a ctrl-d
14:22 < illegale> ok, i did it
14:22 < illegale> what odes ctrl a and ctrl d do?
14:22 < echarp> it detaches screen
14:23 < echarp> screen -dr to reattach it
14:23 < illegale> thank you very much :-)=
14:27 < echarp> does it work all right?
14:27 < illegale> i think yes
14:27 < illegale> i left
14:27 < illegale> i came basck
14:27 < illegale> that is it i suppse
14:28 < echarp> illegale: now, when you leave, it's nice of you to show that you are away
14:28 < illegale> ok
14:28 < echarp> to do that use the command /away reason
14:28 < echarp> and when you come back just type "/away" to be back in an active state
14:29 < illegale> no problem
14:34 < illegale> k
15:00 -!- illegale_ (illegale) [n=ille...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has joined #parlement
15:00 < illegale_> khm
15:00 < illegale_> :)
15:00 < echarp> troubles?
15:00 < illegale_> little
15:01 < illegale_> though, i can repeat the process, that is important
15:01 < illegale_> is there some sort of reset in irssi?
15:01 < echarp> reset?
15:01 < echarp> in screen you mean?
15:02 < illegale_> if i do somethging wrong so i can start from beggining following your instructions
15:02 < echarp> you mean that you want to destroy your screen session?
15:03 < echarp> just come back under your account
15:03 < echarp> and type "killall screen", that should do it
15:04 < illegale_> ok
15:08 < illegale_> origin of power
15:08 < illegale_> that is fine topic for taking elabiration
15:24 < illegale_> Origins of power
15:24 < illegale_> Politics is menagment of societal power. Those who are at position of power set adn enforce policies as long as they are only capable to set rules for all. Though, principle that made such structures powerfull is the principle that leads and orients them and hiden/unhiden policies they make.
15:24 < illegale_> The major principle of any such structure to remain alive is its survival and for survival the structure needs to remain its power.
15:24 < illegale_> Todays politics which is non TOP is based on machiavliestic principles that holds it alive. Many standards for such structures are non moral for wider audiences though, due to non transparency and imposibility to publicly judge such moves enables them to remain as a power base. Assasinations, public lynch, media missleadings, mass deception and other non ethical poltiical weapon are in core of these strucutres.
15:24 < illegale_> Whoever wants to participate in these structures, needs to accept rules that gain to him power in order to politically survive.
15:26 < illegale_> In the other hand, TOP based politics due to its completeley public, open and transparent (POT politics) action sets such "injust" actions
16:10 < illegale_> Origins of the power
16:10 < illegale_> * Little intro *
16:10 < illegale_> Politics is menagment of societal power. Those who are at position of power set and enforce policies as long as they are only capable to set rules for all. Though, principles that made such structures powerfull are the principles that lead and orient them and their hiden/unhiden policies.
16:10 < illegale_> The major principle of any such structure to remain alive is its survival and for survival the structure needs to remain its power. Whoever wants to participate in these structures, needs to accept rules that gain him power in order to politically prosper.
16:10 < illegale_> * Comparisons *
16:10 < illegale_> Todays politics which is non TOP is based on Machiavliestic principles. Many standards for such structures are non moral for wider audiences though, due to non transparency and imposibility to publicly judge such moves enables them to remain as a power base. Assasinations, public lynch, media missleadings, mass deception and other non ethical political weapons are in core of these strucutres.
16:10 < illegale_> Though, when we discuss over origins of power, we have to notice influence of such origins on the whole society.
16:10 < illegale_> Dictatorships that are based on brutal force and hegemony apreciate these origins before reason, morality, intelectual independency. In order to survive, dictatorships need to create represion over dangerous values which decreases human freedoms. Due to the fact that intelectual independency enables many solutions that lead society forward, these systems during the time become replaced by those that enable more political freedoms.
16:10 < illegale_> Todays pseudodemocracies in other hand do not enable global public participation which is base of true democracy. Origins of power of these structures are closed lobbies that control public through control of mass media pasivising it and disabling creation of exact political competition. This pseudodemocracy leads to global hypocrisia and decandency. In order to adopt to society, individuals actually accept widely promoted values which mea
16:11 < illegale_> TOP based politics due to its completeley public, open and transparent action sets all of "injust" or hypocritical actions non legitimate, so the political base is much more carefull about crearting power structures that might go against their basic human values. TOP politics thanks to its fundamental features is moral in its core /the only product of open system has to be autopoietic in order to survive/ so these strucutures set moral pol
16:11 < illegale_> * conclusion *
16:11 < illegale_> By enabling new political paradigm called TOP politics, origins of the power are not based in hypocrycy any more, nor any other form of misleadingbased of non informed structures that enable their legimacy. As long as the strongest power centers do set global policies in favor to their survival and empowerment, the new society standards are expected to be globaly accepted. What are these standards going to be excatly, we can notice by eval
16:20 < illegale_> echarp: do you like it ?
16:20 < illegale_> :-)
16:49 < illegale_> btw, no voting at all
16:51 < illegale_> Gonna go
16:51 < illegale_> see you
16:51 -!- illegale_ [n=ille...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has quit ["Lost terminal"]
17:48 < urgen> spacewalk is on
19:44 -!- beeli (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung2778.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
19:44 < beeli> io
19:46 < urgen> re
19:46 < beeli> re
19:50 < urgen> Jubin begged off discussion
19:50 < beeli> ok
19:50 < beeli> echarp made bot?
19:50 < urgen> "evolutionary economy" expert
19:50 < urgen> um..
19:51 < beeli> hmh
19:51 < urgen> I dont' see one
19:51 < beeli> parlbot
19:51 < urgen> that's mine
19:51 < beeli> ?
19:51 < beeli> oh
19:51 < beeli> zou made bot?
19:51 < beeli> :)
19:51 < urgen> it's been here a while, you didn't notice?
19:51 < beeli> what it does?
19:51 < urgen> so far just logging
19:51 < urgen> parlebot help
19:51 < beeli> where??
19:51 < urgen> nope that didn't work
19:52 < urgen> parlebot, help
19:52 < parlebot> The commands I know are:
19:52 < parlebot> silence - Stop logging (also: stop, off, ...)
19:52 < parlebot> listen - Start logging (also: start, on, ...)
19:52 < parlebot> bookmark - Give the URI of the current log
19:52 < parlebot> chump LETTER - Record the URI of the current log under chump LETTER
19:52 < parlebot> I respond to 'parlebot, command' in public and '/msg parlebot command' in private
19:52 < parlebot> Logging Policy: All public output is logged if I am listening except for
19:52 < parlebot> any lines starting [off]. All commands to me are logged.
19:52 < parlebot> My public output is logged but these lines are not searchable.
19:52 < parlebot> The logs are at http://bridgeheart.net/parlement
19:52 < parlebot> Do parlebot, adminhelp for help on administrative commands
19:52 < urgen> actually I don't think all those commands do work
19:52 < urgen> some do tho
19:52 < beeli> parlebot bookmark
19:52 < urgen> parlebot, bookmark
19:52 < parlebot> See http://bridgeheart.net/parlement2006-07-10#T17-53-01
19:52 < beeli> can you do it for #illegale?
19:53 < urgen> I think it knows how to do more than one channel... let me check
19:53 < beeli> not found
19:53 < beeli> 404
19:54 < urgen> :-) formating error
19:54 < beeli> can that be solved?
19:54 < urgen> click the other link
19:54 < beeli> parlebot bookmark
19:55 < beeli> parlebot, bookmark
19:55 < parlebot> See http://bridgeheart.net/parlement2006-07-10#T17-55-25
19:56 < urgen> http://bridgeheart.net/parlement/irc.freenode.net:6667/parlement/2006-07-10.html
19:56 < beeli> cool
19:57 < beeli> so, it works?
19:59 < urgen> well it seems I have a configuration issue
19:59 < urgen> because the bookmarks are not lining up
20:00 < beeli> you made it?
20:00 < urgen> it is opensource
20:01 < urgen> but abandoned
20:02 < beeli> ok
20:06 < beeli> urgen: i will be most happy if you menage to set me this bot at #illegale :)
20:06 < beeli> gonna go now
20:06 < urgen> ok
20:06 -!- beeli [n=ille...@cmung2778.cmu.carnet.hr] has left #parlement []
20:15 -!- salfield (tom) [n=t...@host-84-9-128-251.bulldogdsl.com] has joined #parlement
21:11 < urgen> hi
21:11 < urgen> welcome
21:11 < urgen> 'scuse me
21:11 < urgen> parlebot, adminhelp
21:11 < parlebot> Administrative commands are as follows:
21:11 < parlebot> quit - I will depart
21:11 < parlebot> restart - I will leave and rejoin channel
21:11 < parlebot> debug - Turn on debugging
21:11 < parlebot> nodebug - Turn off debugging
21:11 < parlebot> These commands work only with the admin PASSWORD like this:
21:11 < parlebot> /msg parlebot password PASSWORD command'
21:20 < urgen> parlebot, quit
21:20 < parlebot> I'm logging. I don't understand 'quit', urgen. Try /msg parlebot help
21:29 -!- parlebot [i=ur...@65.111.164.97] has quit [Remote closed the connection]
21:31 * parlebot is logging
21:31 -!- parlebot (Chat Logger) [i=ur...@65.111.164.97] has joined #parlement
21:31 -!- parlebot [i=ur...@65.111.164.97] has quit [Remote closed the connection]
21:37 * parlebot is logging
21:37 -!- parlebot (Chat Logger) [i=ur...@65.111.164.97] has joined #parlement
21:37 < urgen> parlebot, bookmark
21:37 < parlebot> See http://bridgeheart.net/irclogs/irc.freenode.net:6667/parlement/2006-07-10#T19-38-06
23:34 -!- tom_ (tom) [n=t...@host-84-9-128-251.bulldogdsl.com] has joined #parlement
23:35 -!- salfield [n=t...@host-84-9-128-251.bulldogdsl.com] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
--- Log closed mar jui 11 00:00:59 2006
01:24 -!- urgen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)]
01:25 -!- urgen (urgy) [n=sp...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
09:51 < echarp> hello hello
13:20 -!- illegale (illegale) [n=ille...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has joined #parlement
13:20 < illegale:#parlement> io
13:21 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
13:21 < echarp> hello hello illegale
13:21 < echarp> how are you?
13:22 < illegale> hey!
13:22 < illegale> Finre
13:22 < illegale> warthced match yesterday=
13:22 < illegale> ?
13:22 < echarp> yeap
13:22 < illegale> and?
13:23 < illegale> did you win?
13:23 < illegale> :-)
13:23 < echarp> pizza and beer with some friends, now I'm nauseous :(
13:23 < illegale> hehe
13:23 < echarp> lose of course
13:23 < echarp> bad game
13:23 < illegale> hah
13:23 < illegale> the one before was mutch beter
13:23 < illegale> yes
13:23 < echarp> possibly yes
13:23 < illegale> what happned to zizou
13:23 < illegale> ?
13:23 < echarp> brasil was probably the best one
13:23 < illegale> yes
13:24 < illegale> same with cri
13:24 < illegale> croatia
13:24 < echarp> he got angry, he was called a "terrorist" and reacted stupidly
13:24 < illegale> did tey interwieve him?
13:24 < echarp> I don't know
13:24 < illegale> ok
13:24 < echarp> just got the info at the office this morning
13:25 < illegale> we are interested in how did it happened?
13:25 < illegale> i see top politics is crowded again :-)
13:25 < echarp> however it happened, it should not have
13:25 < illegale> hehe
13:25 < echarp> yeap, much energy!
13:25 < illegale> now be carefull to create product out of it
13:26 < illegale> who was that yestereday at irc?
13:26 < illegale> your fecnjh friend'
13:26 < illegale> ?
13:27 < echarp> never seen before
13:27 < echarp> he was directed here after we discussed on another french channel
13:27 < illegale> ah
13:27 < illegale> what is he about?
13:28 < illegale> btw, can i have somehow permanent log by illegale?
13:28 < illegale> like you and urgen do?
13:28 < echarp> what do you mean?
13:28 < echarp> me it's irssi which does that automatically
13:28 < echarp> and I have a cron job which mails this log file every night
13:29 < illegale> if i had permanent loging, i could have permanent group #illegale
13:29 < illegale> id like to have such?
13:40 -!- illegale [n=ille...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has left #parlement []
13:40 -!- illegale (illegale) [n=ille...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has joined #parlement
13:45 -!- illegale [n=ille...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has quit ["Lost terminal"]
13:50 -!- illegale [n=ille...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has joined #parlement
13:50 -!- illegale is illegale
13:53 < illegale> e?
13:53 < echarp> oui?
13:53 < echarp> permanent logging is what to you?
13:54 < illegale> whenevey you come to this channle you seee me logged
13:57 < echarp> you need to use a tool like "screen" then
13:57 < echarp> screen does just that!
13:57 < illegale> one more thing. can you install some bots at this or other channels?
13:57 < illegale> ok, what do i have to do excatly?
13:57 < echarp> I don't use bots personally
13:58 < illegale> why=?
13:59 < illegale> i see them as cool option tools ,right?
13:59 < echarp> tools to do what?
13:59 < illegale> sending mesages, checking stuff, logging
13:59 < illegale> .seen and so on
13:59 < illegale> suppose you do not need that as ,ong as you are screening, tho9ugh
14:00 < echarp> nah, not that useful for me
14:00 < echarp> being here permanently, does just that
14:00 < illegale> nevertelss
14:00 < illegale> what do i have to do to use this screen stuff? of couirse, if you have time to explain to me, i am willing to follow your leads
14:01 < echarp> you need to leave irssi
14:02 < echarp> and on the console, type the followingcommand :
14:02 < illegale> ok
14:02 < echarp> screen irssi
14:02 < echarp> c'est tout
14:02 < echarp> ça va lancer irssi dans screen
14:02 < echarp> oups,
14:02 < echarp> that will launch irssi in screen
14:04 < illegale> that is it?
14:05 < echarp> yeap
14:06 < echarp> simple isn't
14:06 < echarp> it
14:07 < illegale> how do i quit irrsi? :)
14:07 < echarp> /quit
14:08 -!- illegale [n=ille...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has quit ["leaving"]
14:09 -!- illegale [n=ille...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has joined #parlement
14:09 -!- illegale is illegale
14:09 < illegale> hmh,htati si all?
14:10 < illegale> so, what if i leaqve channel now?
14:12 < echarp> now you do not have to leave the channel anymore
14:12 < echarp> you can just detach your "screen"
14:13 < echarp> and reattach it later on
14:13 < illegale> when i logo ff?ž
14:13 < illegale> from this computer?
14:13 < echarp> from this server
14:13 < echarp> your screen session is on my server
14:13 < illegale> ok
14:14 < illegale> so, i will log of now to check it out
14:14 < echarp> first set yourself as "away"
14:14 < echarp> using the command "/away outside"
14:15 < illegale> ok
14:15 < echarp> to detach your screen session, you have to type on Ctl-a then Ctrl-d
14:15 < echarp> to reattach, type =>
14:15 < echarp> screen -dr
14:15 < echarp> important!!!
14:15 < echarp> rememeber this "screen -dr" command
14:16 < illegale> hmh
14:16 < illegale> i will common villagers way ddo ti now
14:16 < illegale> why shoulkd i use this detach stuff anyway?
14:17 < echarp> so that irssi will keep running while you are away :)
14:18 < illegale> ok, now i do ctral a then strl d and go aqay, log of when i get back and log to your server i write screen -dr and irssi
14:18 < illegale> or ?
14:20 < echarp> just screen -dr
14:20 < echarp> irssi will still be there
14:20 < illegale> ok
14:20 < echarp> ctrl-a ctrl-d
14:22 < illegale> ok, i did it
14:22 < illegale> what odes ctrl a and ctrl d do?
14:22 < echarp> it detaches screen
14:23 < echarp> screen -dr to reattach it
14:23 < illegale> thank you very much :-)=
14:27 < echarp> does it work all right?
14:27 < illegale> i think yes
14:27 < illegale> i left
14:27 < illegale> i came basck
14:27 < illegale> that is it i suppse
14:28 < echarp> illegale: now, when you leave, it's nice of you to show that you are away
14:28 < illegale> ok
14:28 < echarp> to do that use the command /away reason
14:28 < echarp> and when you come back just type "/away" to be back in an active state
14:29 < illegale> no problem
14:34 < illegale> k
15:00 -!- illegale_ (illegale) [n=ille...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has joined #parlement
15:00 < illegale_> khm
15:00 < illegale_> :)
15:00 < echarp> troubles?
15:00 < illegale_> little
15:01 < illegale_> though, i can repeat the process, that is important
15:01 < illegale_> is there some sort of reset in irssi?
15:01 < echarp> reset?
15:01 < echarp> in screen you mean?
15:02 < illegale_> if i do somethging wrong so i can start from beggining following your instructions
15:02 < echarp> you mean that you want to destroy your screen session?
15:03 < echarp> just come back under your account
15:03 < echarp> and type "killall screen", that should do it
15:04 < illegale_> ok
15:08 < illegale_> origin of power
15:08 < illegale_> that is fine topic for taking elabiration
15:24 < illegale_> Origins of power
15:24 < illegale_> Politics is menagment of societal power. Those who are at position of power set adn enforce policies as long as they are only capable to set rules for all. Though, principle that made such structures powerfull is the principle that leads and orients them and hiden/unhiden policies they make.
15:24 < illegale_> The major principle of any such structure to remain alive is its survival and for survival the structure needs to remain its power.
15:24 < illegale_> Todays politics which is non TOP is based on machiavliestic principles that holds it alive. Many standards for such structures are non moral for wider audiences though, due to non transparency and imposibility to publicly judge such moves enables them to remain as a power base. Assasinations, public lynch, media missleadings, mass deception and other non ethical poltiical weapon are in core of these strucutres.
15:24 < illegale_> Whoever wants to participate in these structures, needs to accept rules that gain to him power in order to politically survive.
15:26 < illegale_> In the other hand, TOP based politics due to its completeley public, open and transparent (POT politics) action sets such "injust" actions
16:10 < illegale_> Origins of the power
16:10 < illegale_> * Little intro *
16:10 < illegale_> Politics is menagment of societal power. Those who are at position of power set and enforce policies as long as they are only capable to set rules for all. Though, principles that made such structures powerfull are the principles that lead and orient them and their hiden/unhiden policies.
16:10 < illegale_> The major principle of any such structure to remain alive is its survival and for survival the structure needs to remain its power. Whoever wants to participate in these structures, needs to accept rules that gain him power in order to politically prosper.
16:10 < illegale_> * Comparisons *
16:10 < illegale_> Todays politics which is non TOP is based on Machiavliestic principles. Many standards for such structures are non moral for wider audiences though, due to non transparency and imposibility to publicly judge such moves enables them to remain as a power base. Assasinations, public lynch, media missleadings, mass deception and other non ethical political weapons are in core of these strucutres.
16:10 < illegale_> Though, when we discuss over origins of power, we have to notice influence of such origins on the whole society.
16:10 < illegale_> Dictatorships that are based on brutal force and hegemony apreciate these origins before reason, morality, intelectual independency. In order to survive, dictatorships need to create represion over dangerous values which decreases human freedoms. Due to the fact that intelectual independency enables many solutions that lead society forward, these systems during the time become replaced by those that enable more political freedoms.
16:10 < illegale_> Todays pseudodemocracies in other hand do not enable global public participation which is base of true democracy. Origins of power of these structures are closed lobbies that control public through control of mass media pasivising it and disabling creation of exact political competition. This pseudodemocracy leads to global hypocrisia and decandency. In order to adopt to society, individuals actually accept widely promoted values which mea
16:11 < illegale_> TOP based politics due to its completeley public, open and transparent action sets all of "injust" or hypocritical actions non legitimate, so the political base is much more carefull about crearting power structures that might go against their basic human values. TOP politics thanks to its fundamental features is moral in its core /the only product of open system has to be autopoietic in order to survive/ so these strucutures set moral pol
16:11 < illegale_> * conclusion *
16:11 < illegale_> By enabling new political paradigm called TOP politics, origins of the power are not based in hypocrycy any more, nor any other form of misleadingbased of non informed structures that enable their legimacy. As long as the strongest power centers do set global policies in favor to their survival and empowerment, the new society standards are expected to be globaly accepted. What are these standards going to be excatly, we can notice by eval
16:20 < illegale_> echarp: do you like it ?
16:20 < illegale_> :-)
16:49 < illegale_> btw, no voting at all
16:51 < illegale_> Gonna go
16:51 < illegale_> see you
16:51 -!- illegale_ [n=ille...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has quit ["Lost terminal"]
17:48 < urgen> spacewalk is on
19:44 -!- beeli (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung2778.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
19:44 < beeli> io
19:46 < urgen> re
19:46 < beeli> re
19:50 < urgen> Jubin begged off discussion
19:50 < beeli> ok
19:50 < beeli> echarp made bot?
19:50 < urgen> "evolutionary economy" expert
19:50 < urgen> um..
19:51 < beeli> hmh
19:51 < urgen> I dont' see one
19:51 < beeli> parlbot
19:51 < urgen> that's mine
19:51 < beeli> ?
19:51 < beeli> oh
19:51 < beeli> zou made bot?
19:51 < beeli> :)
19:51 < urgen> it's been here a while, you didn't notice?
19:51 < beeli> what it does?
19:51 < urgen> so far just logging
19:51 < urgen> parlebot help
19:51 < beeli> where??
19:51 < urgen> nope that didn't work
19:52 < urgen> parlebot, help
19:52 < parlebot> The commands I know are:
19:52 < parlebot> silence - Stop logging (also: stop, off, ...)
19:52 < parlebot> listen - Start logging (also: start, on, ...)
19:52 < parlebot> bookmark - Give the URI of the current log
19:52 < parlebot> chump LETTER - Record the URI of the current log under chump LETTER
19:52 < parlebot> I respond to 'parlebot, command' in public and '/msg parlebot command' in private
19:52 < parlebot> Logging Policy: All public output is logged if I am listening except for
19:52 < parlebot> any lines starting [off]. All commands to me are logged.
19:52 < parlebot> My public output is logged but these lines are not searchable.
19:52 < parlebot> The logs are at http://bridgeheart.net/parlement
19:52 < parlebot> Do parlebot, adminhelp for help on administrative commands
19:52 < urgen> actually I don't think all those commands do work
19:52 < urgen> some do tho
19:52 < beeli> parlebot bookmark
19:52 < urgen> parlebot, bookmark
19:52 < parlebot> See http://bridgeheart.net/parlement2006-07-10#T17-53-01
19:52 < beeli> can you do it for #illegale?
19:53 < urgen> I think it knows how to do more than one channel... let me check
19:53 < beeli> not found
19:53 < beeli> 404
19:54 < urgen> :-) formating error
19:54 < beeli> can that be solved?
19:54 < urgen> click the other link
19:54 < beeli> parlebot bookmark
19:55 < beeli> parlebot, bookmark
19:55 < parlebot> See http://bridgeheart.net/parlement2006-07-10#T17-55-25
19:56 < urgen> http://bridgeheart.net/parlement/irc.freenode.net:6667/parlement/2006-07-10.html
19:56 < beeli> cool
19:57 < beeli> so, it works?
19:59 < urgen> well it seems I have a configuration issue
19:59 < urgen> because the bookmarks are not lining up
20:00 < beeli> you made it?
20:00 < urgen> it is opensource
20:01 < urgen> but abandoned
20:02 < beeli> ok
20:06 < beeli> urgen: i will be most happy if you menage to set me this bot at #illegale :)
20:06 < beeli> gonna go now
20:06 < urgen> ok
20:06 -!- beeli [n=ille...@cmung2778.cmu.carnet.hr] has left #parlement []
20:15 -!- salfield (tom) [n=t...@host-84-9-128-251.bulldogdsl.com] has joined #parlement
21:11 < urgen> hi
21:11 < urgen> welcome
21:11 < urgen> 'scuse me
21:11 < urgen> parlebot, adminhelp
21:11 < parlebot> Administrative commands are as follows:
21:11 < parlebot> quit - I will depart
21:11 < parlebot> restart - I will leave and rejoin channel
21:11 < parlebot> debug - Turn on debugging
21:11 < parlebot> nodebug - Turn off debugging
21:11 < parlebot> These commands work only with the admin PASSWORD like this:
21:11 < parlebot> /msg parlebot password PASSWORD command'
21:20 < urgen> parlebot, quit
21:20 < parlebot> I'm logging. I don't understand 'quit', urgen. Try /msg parlebot help
21:29 -!- parlebot [i=ur...@65.111.164.97] has quit [Remote closed the connection]
21:31 * parlebot is logging
21:31 -!- parlebot (Chat Logger) [i=ur...@65.111.164.97] has joined #parlement
21:31 -!- parlebot [i=ur...@65.111.164.97] has quit [Remote closed the connection]
21:37 * parlebot is logging
21:37 -!- parlebot (Chat Logger) [i=ur...@65.111.164.97] has joined #parlement
21:37 < urgen> parlebot, bookmark
21:37 < parlebot> See http://bridgeheart.net/irclogs/irc.freenode.net:6667/parlement/2006-07-10#T19-38-06
23:34 -!- tom_ (tom) [n=t...@host-84-9-128-251.bulldogdsl.com] has joined #parlement
23:35 -!- salfield [n=t...@host-84-9-128-251.bulldogdsl.com] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
--- Log closed mar jui 11 00:00:59 2006
echarp
Jul 12, 2006, 12:28:45 AM7/12/06
to top-politics
--- Log opened mar jui 11 00:00:59 2006
07:53 -!- Netsplit niven.freenode.net <-> irc.freenode.net quits: nsh
07:54 -!- Netsplit over, joins: nsh
09:12 -!- urgyen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
09:15 -!- urgen [n=sp...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)]
09:32 < echarp> hello hello
09:43 < urgyen> :-) too late
09:43 < urgyen> nite
09:44 < echarp> that late?
09:44 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
09:46 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
11:12 -!- beeli (illegale) [i=ille...@cmung673.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
11:12 < beeli:#parlement> io
11:14 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
11:14 < echarp> hello hello
11:14 < echarp> how are things?
11:15 < beeli> hey!
11:15 < beeli> fine!
11:15 < beeli> you?
11:15 < echarp> all right
11:16 < echarp> still digesting my sunday night pizzas
11:16 < beeli> heh
11:16 < beeli> take some soda
11:16 < echarp> I have
11:16 < beeli> throw up
11:18 < echarp> I've thought about that
11:18 < beeli> now its too late
11:18 < echarp> I probably should have, earlier
11:18 < echarp> yeap
11:18 < beeli> make klistir
11:18 < echarp> what is that?
11:19 < beeli> hmh, you put water into ass
11:19 < echarp> :(
11:19 < echarp> nah nah nah
11:20 < beeli> hehe
11:21 < beeli> the fact si you have to take toxins out of your body
11:21 < beeli> coffee is good also
11:21 < beeli> physical activites
11:22 < echarp> yeap
11:22 < echarp> my morning gym hopefully
11:22 < echarp> walking too
11:22 < beeli> i read just now some people enjoy intoclistir
11:23 < beeli> funny people
11:23 < beeli> did you read origins of the power?
11:23 < echarp> it takes all sorts of people to make a world
11:24 < beeli> yes
11:24 < echarp> haven't had the time yet
11:24 < beeli> into work?
11:24 < beeli> with parlement?
11:24 < echarp> nah, work and some girl I'm flirting with
11:24 < echarp> takes time too ;)
11:25 < beeli> hehe
11:25 < beeli> take your time
11:25 < echarp> terrible
11:25 < beeli> what?
11:25 < echarp> it takes so much time!
11:26 < beeli> if you enjoy, i see no problem :)
11:26 < beeli> se la vie stuff :)
11:26 < beeli> how do you spell it?
11:26 < echarp> "c'est la vie"
11:27 < beeli> you have funny spelling, i prefer mine own. it is short, obvious and fne
11:27 < beeli> fine
11:27 < echarp> :-p
11:31 < beeli> youd likte to move top politics to parlement?
11:32 < echarp> I'd love that
11:32 < echarp> of course the movement would be rather easy, all the google groups content is already there
11:32 < echarp> and it keeps getting populated with that content
11:33 < beeli> i dont
11:34 < beeli> eventhough, Markus nor I wont go against group decision I belive
11:34 < echarp> you don't want to use parlement?
11:34 < beeli> I want to use this software
11:34 < beeli> I do want to set some domain that would be soundish
11:34 < echarp> what is it you don't?
11:34 < beeli> atttractive stuff
11:35 < beeli> domain stuff
11:35 < echarp> I'm fine managing another server
11:35 < beeli> new doman?
11:35 < echarp> yes
11:35 < beeli> hmh, this is interesting :)
11:35 < beeli> one more thing, if you wont get med at me
11:35 < echarp> there already are three domains I'm managing
11:35 < beeli> i think wiki can be usefull also
11:36 < echarp> wiki can be useful yes
11:36 < beeli> cool
11:36 < beeli> :)
11:36 < beeli> than i do not have problems at all
11:36 < beeli> :-)
11:36 < echarp> ok
11:36 < echarp> you find the domain name you want to use
11:36 < beeli> yet, what wit 15 lurkers?
11:37 < echarp> what about them?
11:37 < beeli> we should announce that stuff and move the whole stuf
11:37 < beeli> bring every ne of them stuff
11:38 < echarp> they can subscribe or use the rss feeds
11:38 < beeli> ok, what are the options you have right now about sending mails?
11:38 < beeli> you have daily digest or smmiliar stuff
11:38 < beeli> ?
11:38 < echarp> subscription is easier than on google groups, just input a login and a mail, push button to subscribe
11:38 < echarp> no options to send mails, they are sent right away
11:38 < beeli> hmh
11:39 < echarp> it's way too complex for me right now
11:39 < beeli> i understand
11:39 < echarp> there are so many kind of options
11:39 < beeli> eric and magnus got hooked on voting :)
11:40 < beeli> ok, preliminary stuff
11:40 < echarp> I see them doing it, but they don't do it properly yet
11:40 < echarp> they vote anonymously! :)
11:40 < beeli> gotta go...
11:40 < echarp> well, using the "null" persona I mean
11:40 < beeli> i gonna be back!ž
11:40 < echarp> ok
11:40 -!- beeli [i=ille...@cmung673.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit []
11:52 -!- beeli (illegale) [i=ille...@cmung3245.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
11:53 < beeli> back
11:53 < echarp> cool
11:54 < beeli> id like to see it be undoubtebly better than gooogle groups first, that is it
11:54 < beeli> suppose filters could enable it
11:54 < echarp> I understand
11:54 < echarp> I don't feel that filters are that important right now
11:54 < beeli> hmh
11:54 < echarp> because we simply don't have that much noise yet
11:54 < beeli> i do not know actually
11:55 < beeli> suppose people are globably interested in testing
11:55 < beeli> that is good
11:55 < echarp> that's for sure!
11:55 < beeli> so, lets test it and see are we all fine with that
11:56 < beeli> you are getting in focus that way
11:56 < beeli> i loose nothing
11:56 < echarp> I also don't mind using google groups
11:56 < echarp> people can still vote on parlement
11:56 < beeli> i get it --- two way direction
11:57 < beeli> yet, we will have to legitimase results at google group
11:57 < beeli> na, your group
11:57 < beeli> :)
11:57 < beeli> to me, this means lurking at parlement right now
11:57 < beeli> a little bit more than i use to
11:57 < beeli> not big deal
11:58 < echarp> I would recommand that you subscribe to the top-politics element
11:58 < echarp> you will then receive quite a lot of mail
11:58 < echarp> on your mail account you should then set a filter to send them directly to a sub folder of your own
11:59 < beeli> yahoo has it?
11:59 < echarp> I'm sure it has
12:00 < echarp> it's a basic mail feature
12:01 < beeli> seems it has
12:02 < beeli> though,m do not know how to set redirection
12:02 < echarp> why set redirection?
12:03 < echarp> just filter the mails to a sub folder
12:03 < beeli> to that folder
12:03 < beeli> how?
12:03 < echarp> in the mail options, you can set or changer filters
12:03 < echarp> do you see that page?
12:05 < beeli> whatever
12:05 < beeli> ill use web browser as reguloar
12:05 < beeli> what do you mean as moral somethng about comment ot new text'
12:05 < beeli> ?
12:05 < echarp> you mean you don't want to set a filter?
12:05 < beeli> i do not need it right now
12:06 < echarp> I believe morals are highly relative matters, and thus difficult to use as a yardstick
12:06 < echarp> ok
12:06 < beeli> so, need to define moral, first?
12:06 < echarp> me I user filters for everything, much much easier
12:06 < echarp> morals are a loaded word yes
12:07 < beeli> moral is social indoctrination of indvidual that enables societal survival
12:07 < echarp> can animals have a moral?
12:07 < beeli> yes
12:07 < beeli> spocial ones
12:07 < beeli> monkeys and stuff
12:08 < echarp> what kind of indoctrination do you have in mind?
12:08 < beeli> story about moral
12:08 < beeli> it goes this way
12:08 < beeli> you are little kid
12:08 < echarp> myths and such?
12:08 < beeli> do not know about anything
12:08 < beeli> nah
12:08 < beeli> you take knive and itch eye from your friend
12:09 < beeli> you get shit ecause of that
12:09 < beeli> you learn that is not good
12:09 < beeli> you help someone, people say, good buy, hre you have a chockolate
12:09 < beeli> you learn this is a good thing
12:09 < beeli> after a while you build some boundaries
12:09 < beeli> that tell you you can not or you can do something
12:09 < beeli> that is actually moral
12:10 < beeli> feel of guilt and stuff
12:10 < echarp> indoctrination is still a loaded and very negative word
12:10 < beeli> that is not ok
12:10 < beeli> indoctrination is just setting i suppose
12:10 < beeli> set, srorry
12:10 < beeli> moment
12:10 < echarp> ok
12:11 < beeli> hmh, can use anotther +word
12:11 < beeli> yet, it is sort of doctrine
12:11 < beeli> natural one
12:12 < echarp> how can it be natural if it humans who set it?
12:12 < beeli> i do not make so big difference between us and nature
12:13 < beeli> we are part of it as morality
12:13 < echarp> ok, going to lunch
12:13 < echarp> cu in a short time
12:13 < beeli> ok
12:48 < beeli> think you need register stuff to your site
12:48 < beeli> in order of having non doubtfull voting
12:49 < beeli> this anon is not cool
12:49 < beeli> to me
12:58 < echarp> anon is just one persona people can use as a test
12:58 < echarp> whenever two persons use this anon persona, they overwrite each other votes
13:15 -!- beeli [i=ille...@cmung3245.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
13:24 -!- beeli (illegale) [i=ille...@cmung3087.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
13:28 < beeli> is it going to be problem to use some password in order of voting with no risk of problems happen
13:30 < echarp> what do you mean?
13:30 < beeli> i coma nad write illegale
13:30 < beeli> than i vote sa illegale
13:31 < echarp> as of now yes
13:31 < beeli> i suppoe need some verification
13:31 < echarp> there is no security right now
13:32 < beeli> i voted as tony :.)
13:32 < echarp> you can yes
13:32 < beeli> ip public?
13:32 < echarp> rather easy to also spoff
13:32 < echarp> spoof
13:32 < beeli> what is that?
13:33 < echarp> to spoof something is to make believe you have a certain IP adress, for example
13:34 < beeli> can you choose any ip or some?
13:34 < echarp> any
13:34 < beeli> even your own?
13:35 < echarp> no need to spoof then
13:35 < beeli> i see i can not log as echarp
13:35 < beeli> where do i registry?
13:37 < echarp> you can not because it is password protected
13:37 < beeli> can i passs protect illegale?
13:38 < echarp> easily yes
13:38 < beeli> now?
13:38 < echarp> go on http://leparlement.org
13:38 < beeli> ok
13:38 < echarp> if you are already logged in, then log out (click on the X)
13:39 < echarp> do you see the "log in" box?
13:40 < beeli> see
13:40 < beeli> i see
13:40 < beeli> yet i do not get it
13:40 < beeli> i do not know my pass
13:41 < echarp> you don't have any as of now
13:41 < echarp> you are at the login box?
13:41 < beeli> how do i make it?
13:41 < echarp> do you see the + and the ? buttons?
13:41 < beeli> <es
13:41 < echarp> click on them
13:42 < beeli> ok, now it is recorded
13:42 < echarp> you see, rather simple
13:42 < echarp> no way to change it as of now :(
13:42 < beeli> do magnus or eric know for this?
13:42 < echarp> I don't know
13:43 < beeli> ok
13:44 < beeli> What does TOP mean to you? #02
13:44 < beeli> there is many stuff you clik with mnoves and move to see text
13:44 < beeli> why is that?
13:45 < beeli> sort of activities you need also
13:45 < beeli> oh, you have sot of that sorry :)
13:45 < echarp> move???
13:46 < beeli> yes
13:46 < beeli> look at that post
13:46 < beeli> of Eric, there is many such lines
13:46 < echarp> I don't understand what you mean with "mnoves and move to see text", can you rephrase?
13:46 < beeli> seems to me your htl editor reads ------------- or something in order to create these lines
13:47 < echarp> I don't understand
13:47 < beeli> However, before I vote for it, I would like to have the views of Gale and Markus on the Magnus proposal. So what say you, Gale and Markus?
13:47 < beeli> see that line from Eric?
13:47 < echarp> what line?
13:47 < beeli> you have to move with mouse to read it all
13:47 < echarp> I don't know what you are speaking about!
13:47 < echarp> are you speaking about a web page?
13:48 < beeli> yes
13:48 < echarp> which is?
13:48 < echarp> because I do not know what you are speaking about
13:48 < echarp> please, give context
13:48 < beeli> While we are still waiting for Markus and echarp to say what TOP means to them, let us start preparing a list of the elements or 'aspects' of TOP from the responses so far we have received that would be incorporated into our group definition of TOP so that we may be in a position to vote on each of them when the list is finalized.
13:48 < beeli> A1 TOP is the acronym for Transparent, Open and Public in reference to the governance of the country or in the conduct of public business. What is open and public in governance will make it transparent as well.
13:48 < beeli> 2 TOP clearly does not apply to private exchanges on private matters among the public employees or on public matters among ordinary citizens.
13:49 < beeli> 3 All important decisions must be fully transparent. The whole process should be open and public with sufficient media coverage including the internet. At this point of time, public participation should be welcome and encouraged wherever practical, especially online 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and with elected or appointed discussion leaders.
13:49 < beeli> 5 Apart from the discussion process, the discussion minutes and other documents and records should be available online to anyone who wants access to them, especially those who are participating or interested in the discussions.
13:49 < beeli> these lines i c/p have that stuff below you have to click on with mouse
13:49 < beeli> 3 Any other matter where the body or authority responsible consider it a necessity in the national interests not to be open and public.
13:49 < beeli> E4 For Points 2 and 3, there has to be an elected or appointed independent body to review the decisions or recommendations not to be open and public, and the decision of this independent body should be make public and published in the media and the internet.
13:49 < beeli> 5 In the context of true democracy, the exceptions will be subject to the final say of the citizens through the use of the Citizens' Initiative or Referendum (I&R), if any citizen disagrees with the decision of the independent body.
13:50 < beeli> embers and readers are free to propose amendments or additions to the above draft items for voting. The vote shall only be called after the list of 'aspects' or elements of TOP are finalized.
13:50 < beeli> .
13:50 < beeli> .
13:50 < beeli> .
13:50 < beeli> that is it
13:50 < beeli> it happens only at Erics posts
13:51 < beeli> btw, can you reemove option that non registered / password protected can not vote?
13:51 < beeli> can vote
13:52 < echarp> no, but if you don't enlist the anon persona in an electoral list, then it won't counted
13:52 < beeli> ok
13:52 < beeli> bbl
13:52 < echarp> I still don't understand what you are talking about as far as eric post is concerned :(
13:52 -!- beeli [i=ille...@cmung3087.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit []
16:08 < urgyen:#parlement> hmn so beeli moved back into using buzzwords again
16:09 < urgyen:#parlement> well that's too bad
16:09 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
16:27 < echarp> :)
16:27 < echarp> I think it's a natural tendency when people have ambitions
16:27 < echarp> grandiloguence
16:33 < urgyen> it only started to make sense after sharing more detailed terminology
16:33 < echarp> yeap
16:33 < echarp> loaded words
16:33 < urgyen> and from there it started to seem like it had way more to do with economics than politics per se
16:33 < echarp> and even then, there are still troubles
16:35 < illegale> here i am
16:35 < illegale> :)
16:36 < echarp> we know we know :)
16:36 < echarp> illegale: ain't screen cool? :)
16:36 < illegale> yes
16:37 < echarp> I don't feel the need for log bots
16:38 < illegale> in this cas, it is for others
16:38 < illegale> case
16:39 < illegale> though, a comment about buzzwords
16:39 < illegale> it is relative
16:40 < echarp> of course
16:43 < urgyen> yes, yes, depending on audience
16:57 < illegale> urgyen: did you read last text, origin of the power?
16:57 < urgyen> no, that sounded like an interesting title tho
16:58 < echarp> "origin of power"
16:59 < illegale> ok
16:59 < echarp> need some rephrasing in some parts...
17:00 < illegale> definitely :)
17:00 < illegale> i find this text be essential one for claiming new era of human kind
17:01 < echarp> grandiloquent again >;-)
17:02 < illegale> heh, this is the grandiloquent stuff indeed
17:02 < illegale> claiming such thing
17:02 < illegale> is it nedeed, i guess nozt
17:02 < echarp> yeap, definitely
17:02 < illegale> is it cool, maybe
17:02 < illegale> gives you new dimensions of stuff you do
17:02 < illegale> motivating maybe
17:03 < echarp> claming grandiose things put you at a disadvantage, it means you have much to furnish from then on
17:04 < illegale> i get it
17:04 < illegale> style could make solution for this problem
17:04 < illegale> just have to find one that works
17:10 < echarp> that could be true yes
17:11 < illegale> making stories with animals
17:11 < illegale> how do you call them=?
17:11 < echarp> analogy
17:11 < illegale> SF and stuff
17:11 < echarp> myth
17:11 < echarp> fable
17:11 < illegale> fable yes
17:11 < echarp> :)
17:11 < illegale> animals using internet and stuff
17:11 < illegale> :)
17:11 < echarp> why not yes
17:13 < illegale> this stuff is not grandiloquent by definitionð
17:14 < illegale> instead of people just use animals
17:14 < illegale> that is it
17:14 < illegale> :)
17:14 < echarp> can be grandiloquent too, have no worry about that
17:15 < urgyen> so if I use the words 'clarity and honesty' instead of transparency and power it is less effective?
17:16 < echarp> if you don't claim "new era of human kind", then it will be less grandiloquent :)
17:16 < illegale> clarity is fine for transparency imo
17:16 < urgyen> clarity is clearness of understanding
17:17 < urgyen> transparency is a contentious word used in political battles
17:17 < illegale> actually, it is probably not so big difference
17:17 < urgyen> wouldn't you rather not become a political battle?
17:17 < illegale> just a difference as we feel of dictators hipo and pseudodemocracy
17:17 < illegale> nothging to bobastivc when you get used to is
17:17 < echarp> transparency is seeing through things
17:17 < urgyen> do you realize that the US senate is voting on whether to take away your internet?
17:17 < illegale> urgyen: really?
17:17 < urgyen> and that is mostly because they cleave to political power words instead of clear thought
17:18 < illegale> power is tabuieed
17:18 < illegale> that is not good tat all
17:18 < illegale> i do not see point of running away from it
17:18 * echarp is french, a whole lot bunch just as stupid
17:19 < illegale> politics without power and stuff that is popular in last time
17:19 < illegale> nah
17:20 < illegale> when i say i have pretentions for power, poeple want to stygmatise me
17:20 < illegale> that is hypocricy
17:20 < illegale> very bad one
17:21 < echarp> I approve of ambitions
17:21 < urgyen> I'm not running. nor see that challenge as much more than a distraction to getting work done. which is the point
17:21 < urgyen> getting work done
17:22 < illegale> what work?
17:23 < urgyen> the changes you would like to see
17:24 < urgyen> I'm not trying to stygmatize, just question the efficacy
17:24 < urgyen> the efficientnes
17:24 < urgyen> s
17:24 < urgyen> some change can happen fast with some kinds of support but it fades just as quickly
17:25 < urgyen> was that really work?
17:25 < urgyen> maybe the tools have to be picked up with care
17:25 < illegale> that is matter of tactics
17:25 < illegale> stuff goes its way
17:25 < urgyen> I think that is the only question, one of tactics
17:25 < illegale> though, if they try to f*** internet, ww3 is aproaching than
17:25 < urgyen> not whether anyone is being hypocritical
17:25 < urgyen> yes?
17:26 < illegale> closed structures are getting compromised during time till they can not handle their purpose anymore
17:26 < illegale> in that time social criss is happening
17:27 < illegale> when you do not have body of govrnor, body taht is commonly accepted, society goes to big problems
17:27 < illegale> if that body is based on force and hegemony, that it is very bad thing going on
17:27 < illegale> suppose commies can handle taht scenario only
17:27 < illegale> as long as they are only preparing for revolutions stuff
17:32 < urgyen> http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/8673
17:32 < urgyen> control vs dramatic change
17:33 < urgyen> *
17:33 < urgyen> Scenario I: The Carriers Win
17:33 < urgyen> *
17:33 < urgyen> Scenario II: The Public Workaround
17:33 < urgyen> *
17:33 < urgyen> Scenario III: Fight with Words and Not Just Deeds
17:33 < urgyen> so someone tries to take away the tool you see as facilitating a revolution in fairness
17:33 < urgyen> they win because bullies are still in power.
17:34 < urgyen> ppl know better and just remove the control from the equation
17:34 < urgyen> we learn to work better with our ability to share understanding
17:35 < urgyen> these are all likely to happen
18:10 < illegale> ok, what is the point?
18:10 < illegale> how can net be screwed the most easily?
18:11 < illegale> what do we have to wath for*?
18:11 < illegale> what do people in china do in way to control it?
18:11 < illegale> can that stuff happen to us?
18:11 < urgyen> the point is to watch more closely when terms like 'dramatic change' are used
18:11 < urgyen> dramatic change scares the status quo
18:11 < illegale> status quo, it is good or bad?
18:11 < urgyen> is it?
18:12 < illegale> i guess so
18:12 < illegale> we can chat., right?
18:12 < urgyen> for a while
18:12 < illegale> this is major political issue
18:12 < illegale> taking that in any other context means lost of the war
18:13 < illegale> what about other questions?
18:14 < urgyen> if we aren't talking about questions we aren't really talking at all
18:14 < illegale> china issue?
18:16 < urgyen> china has pockets of control and pockets of open
18:16 < urgyen> they don't seem to be talking to each other
18:16 < urgyen> maybe that's good maybe not
18:16 < urgyen> china is a big place
18:16 < illegale> i do nota understand, cany ouexplain it to me a little bit deepeR'
18:17 < urgyen> some places in china are still working toward control and some places say that there is hardly any control at all
18:17 < urgyen> it seems like these places don't know about each other
18:17 < illegale> net is partially free that means=?
18:18 < urgyen> not just net
18:18 < urgyen> life
18:18 < urgyen> but net is part of it too
18:18 < illegale> what aprts are not free?
18:19 < urgyen> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4757125.stm
18:20 < illegale> cmon, other parts are?
18:20 < illegale> seems funy to me
18:20 < urgyen> I see this caption: "The Dalai Lama says he wants autonomy for Tibet" under the picture
18:20 < urgyen> which isn't true
18:20 < urgyen> the chinese government kidnaps a religious leader and plants one of their own
18:20 < illegale> when?
18:21 < illegale> > http://www.crisispapers.org/
18:21 < illegale> know them?
18:23 < urgyen> none of them
18:23 < illegale> hmh
18:23 < illegale> many issues about scary stuff :)
18:23 < illegale> what i see there is the one thing it can help it
18:23 < illegale> vision of internet democracy
18:23 < urgyen> rule by sensational is important to a lot of people
18:23 < illegale> if we equal internet with freedom, there is point to fight for it
18:24 < urgyen> sensational vs sensational is still no change
18:24 < illegale> what should be done is the outweighting on the side of the internet
18:25 < illegale> as long as they promote "scary" issues and in the same time take more and more restricions while no one is ready to create political front against it
18:25 < urgyen> http://www.tibet.ca/en/panchenlama/
18:27 < urgyen> http://www.phayul.com/news/
18:30 < illegale> urgen, many people talk about trust networks and stuff in these days, yes?
18:31 < urgyen> not all talk about the same trust network
18:31 < urgyen> some even have proof that it will not work
18:31 < illegale> yeS?
18:31 < illegale> what are the trustn networks people talk about actualylŽ=
18:31 < illegale> ?
18:31 < illegale> and who started this issue anyway
18:31 < illegale> ?
18:32 < urgyen> the issue was started by someone trying to weed out spam on the internet
18:32 < urgyen> :-)
18:32 < illegale> no grand names
18:32 < illegale> in this history?
18:32 < illegale> i find this important part of political empowerment
18:32 < urgyen> ya you do :-)
18:33 < illegale> though, conotoation that it leads to is taht many of the people actually do talk about it and in the same time do nothing about it
18:33 < urgyen> but I'm trying to listen because of point 3 I outlined above
18:33 < illegale> not even the smalest part they could
18:33 < urgyen> learn to use words better
18:33 < illegale> and that part is enablement of TOP node at their place in order to conect people
18:34 < urgyen> but the words move too fast for me
18:34 < illegale> what words?
18:34 < urgyen> political
18:34 < illegale> ok, let me give an example of steven clifst
18:34 < illegale> ok?
18:34 < illegale> he promoted concept of e-democracy and stuff
18:34 < illegale> yet he never had open communication chanel that could link simmilar thinkers
18:35 < illegale> how is it possible?
18:35 < illegale> plain phpbb forum does that fine
18:35 < urgyen> democracy doesn't have much to do with open
18:35 < illegale> btw, you noticed no big site has such thing in US sphere?
18:35 < illegale> participation? no too much to demcoracY=
18:35 < urgyen> democracy is usually a tool used by ppl that want something and are willing to use others' ignorance to get it
18:36 < urgyen> it does not try to respect or conserve differing culture
18:36 < illegale> seems we are using words we do not need, buzz words in the same time
18:36 < urgyen> democracy is a huge slow steam roller
18:36 < urgyen> crushes whatever it meets
18:36 < illegale> lets stay out of democracy
18:36 < illegale> lets use simple ideas of empowerment of the people we do agree i suppose
18:36 < illegale> yeS?
18:37 < illegale> no i see this crisis paper and even these guys do not have public forunm
18:37 < urgyen> alignment
18:37 < illegale> how is that possible?
18:38 < urgyen> ignorance works as an explaination for me
18:38 < illegale> aligment?
18:38 < illegale> are there people who claim such big studff ignoran?
18:38 < illegale> you want to say that?
18:39 < illegale> if we set up public forums as standard we made a pretty big job u pthere
18:39 < illegale> essential one, even
18:40 < urgyen> short term goals vs long term goals
18:40 < urgyen> the short term goals are often at the expense of even reaching those very same goals
18:40 < urgyen> that sounds like ignorance
18:41 < illegale> i do not understand
18:41 < illegale> can you name these goals?
18:41 < urgyen> money, car, food, power, happiness, fame...
18:41 < urgyen> the list is nearly endless
18:41 < illegale> what does ti have to public forum?
18:42 < urgyen> yes, what? :-)
18:42 < illegale> you think anybody would loose some of it if did place it ?
18:42 < illegale> so, why do you mention it?
18:42 < urgyen> whether the forum is public or not doesn't mean anyone will find it
18:42 < illegale> this is up to standards
18:42 < illegale> you have to ahve someting easlily recognisible
18:42 < urgyen> your question was why do people not share more openly. I answered ignorance
18:43 < urgyen> eductate and you win
18:43 < illegale> do you find it dangerous one?
18:43 < illegale> or same as any?
18:43 < urgyen> it has been dangerous for billions of years now
18:43 < urgyen> so maybe not *too* dangerous
18:43 < illegale> you are playing fool
18:43 < urgyen> but there is still a lot of dissatisfaction
18:43 < illegale> we are talklking about exact issue
18:43 < illegale> public forum as standard,
18:44 < urgyen> I'm immune to emotional arguments
18:44 < illegale> i suppose it is clear issue. Is it?
18:44 < illegale> do you think you are not ignorant?
18:44 < urgyen> no I am ignorant too
18:44 < illegale> so, we are all ignorant, yes?
18:44 < urgyen> or I wouldn't have so many problems
18:44 < urgyen> yes
18:45 < illegale> so, what can we do?
18:45 < illegale> nothing as long as we are ignorant?
18:45 < urgyen> a forum for ignorant ppl to share doesn't help much
18:45 < urgyen> woo big deal share bad ideas back and forth
18:45 < illegale> you are looking for ubermenche
18:45 < illegale> ?
18:45 < urgyen> start with what we know
18:45 < urgyen> ok,
18:45 < urgyen> what do we know?
18:45 < illegale> you are ingoran, i am ignorant, does this channel help to us or not
18:45 < illegale> ?
18:45 < illegale> you are stating it does not
18:46 < urgyen> I do not know that transparency means much
18:46 < illegale> seems to be non logical, yes?
18:46 < urgyen> that's not the same as taking inventory
18:46 < illegale> we are not talking about transrency
18:46 < urgyen> ok
18:46 < illegale> we are talking about public chanels, forums
18:46 < urgyen> open forum does not equal transparency
18:46 < illegale> stuff that can link people
18:46 < urgyen> sharing
18:46 < illegale> of course
18:46 < illegale> we are talking about public forums right now
18:46 < illegale> pulbic forums as standards
18:47 < urgyen> a standard should happen after mutual understanding
18:47 < illegale> strandard taht is not realised in most "#democratical" newmagazines
18:47 < illegale> such as new york times
18:47 < urgyen> not as a flag ahead of the result
18:47 < illegale> cnn
18:47 < illegale> nor libretanian party
18:47 < illegale> is it something we should look at more carefully'
18:48 < illegale> this standards is standarnd among Tiaktvi members
18:48 < illegale> nothing more than that
18:48 < urgyen> a mad rush toward a myth is a worthy challenge
18:48 < illegale> what i am asking you is this standards somethig important, or something irrelevant?
18:48 < urgyen> why should it not be a question asked?
18:48 < illegale> what myth?
18:48 < illegale> what question?
18:49 < urgyen> "the internet is bringing dramatic change"
18:49 < urgyen> is it?
18:49 < illegale> i do not mind in this very moment
18:49 < illegale> what i mind is stuf about public forums
18:49 < urgyen> but I don't know why
18:49 < urgyen> I'm not sure about this banner you wave
18:50 < urgyen> I can understand a little bit but it scares me when someone plays an ideological card
18:50 < urgyen> why do you want to scare me?
18:50 < illegale> you find it not good to enalbe people from the world show their opinion in new york times without censourship?
18:51 < illegale> what i think is that freedom of experesion opinion to public is one of the basinc issues of yany prosperious societies
18:51 < illegale> what we can do is to enforce this standrd be globaly acccepted
18:52 < illegale> what i find be scary is to ignore this isea
18:52 < illegale> so, do we have to run away from each other because both of us is scared right now?
19:01 < illegale> bah
19:02 < echarp> re
19:02 < illegale> fine :)
19:02 < illegale> urgyen skiped
19:04 < echarp> skiped?
19:04 < illegale> run run run run
19:07 < illegale> echarp: do on line publications of newspapers have public forums in fracne?
19:08 < echarp> I don't think they have, no, but no certitude on my part
19:08 < illegale> can you check it out?
19:09 < illegale> belk mondo figaro and stuff
19:10 < echarp> no time to do that, sorry
19:10 * urgyen got a phone call
19:11 < illegale> nevermind, it is just about support of my thesis
19:12 < echarp> I'm sure there are forums in some places yes
19:14 < illegale> if you ever find some time, we might create research over this stuff
19:15 < illegale> there is the whole story behind that, made by us internetrealist
19:15 < illegale> some of people call as internet paranoics of course :)
19:16 < urgyen> I like internuts
19:16 < urgyen> :-)
19:20 < illegale> > the act of surfing the internet for too long, in which the testicles get caught under your legs. After a while of sitting on them, without you realizing it, they will become numb, moist, and disgusting.
19:20 < illegale> >
19:21 < urgyen> well... :-)
19:28 < echarp> pfff
19:44 < illegale> cu
20:14 < urgyen> 'k
21:46 < urgyen> constructing a document of best practices would be a good step
23:45 -!- urgyen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)]
23:50 -!- urgen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
--- Log closed mer jui 12 00:00:00 2006
07:53 -!- Netsplit niven.freenode.net <-> irc.freenode.net quits: nsh
07:54 -!- Netsplit over, joins: nsh
09:12 -!- urgyen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
09:15 -!- urgen [n=sp...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)]
09:32 < echarp> hello hello
09:43 < urgyen> :-) too late
09:43 < urgyen> nite
09:44 < echarp> that late?
09:44 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
09:46 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
11:12 -!- beeli (illegale) [i=ille...@cmung673.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
11:12 < beeli:#parlement> io
11:14 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
11:14 < echarp> hello hello
11:14 < echarp> how are things?
11:15 < beeli> hey!
11:15 < beeli> fine!
11:15 < beeli> you?
11:15 < echarp> all right
11:16 < echarp> still digesting my sunday night pizzas
11:16 < beeli> heh
11:16 < beeli> take some soda
11:16 < echarp> I have
11:16 < beeli> throw up
11:18 < echarp> I've thought about that
11:18 < beeli> now its too late
11:18 < echarp> I probably should have, earlier
11:18 < echarp> yeap
11:18 < beeli> make klistir
11:18 < echarp> what is that?
11:19 < beeli> hmh, you put water into ass
11:19 < echarp> :(
11:19 < echarp> nah nah nah
11:20 < beeli> hehe
11:21 < beeli> the fact si you have to take toxins out of your body
11:21 < beeli> coffee is good also
11:21 < beeli> physical activites
11:22 < echarp> yeap
11:22 < echarp> my morning gym hopefully
11:22 < echarp> walking too
11:22 < beeli> i read just now some people enjoy intoclistir
11:23 < beeli> funny people
11:23 < beeli> did you read origins of the power?
11:23 < echarp> it takes all sorts of people to make a world
11:24 < beeli> yes
11:24 < echarp> haven't had the time yet
11:24 < beeli> into work?
11:24 < beeli> with parlement?
11:24 < echarp> nah, work and some girl I'm flirting with
11:24 < echarp> takes time too ;)
11:25 < beeli> hehe
11:25 < beeli> take your time
11:25 < echarp> terrible
11:25 < beeli> what?
11:25 < echarp> it takes so much time!
11:26 < beeli> if you enjoy, i see no problem :)
11:26 < beeli> se la vie stuff :)
11:26 < beeli> how do you spell it?
11:26 < echarp> "c'est la vie"
11:27 < beeli> you have funny spelling, i prefer mine own. it is short, obvious and fne
11:27 < beeli> fine
11:27 < echarp> :-p
11:31 < beeli> youd likte to move top politics to parlement?
11:32 < echarp> I'd love that
11:32 < echarp> of course the movement would be rather easy, all the google groups content is already there
11:32 < echarp> and it keeps getting populated with that content
11:33 < beeli> i dont
11:34 < beeli> eventhough, Markus nor I wont go against group decision I belive
11:34 < echarp> you don't want to use parlement?
11:34 < beeli> I want to use this software
11:34 < beeli> I do want to set some domain that would be soundish
11:34 < echarp> what is it you don't?
11:34 < beeli> atttractive stuff
11:35 < beeli> domain stuff
11:35 < echarp> I'm fine managing another server
11:35 < beeli> new doman?
11:35 < echarp> yes
11:35 < beeli> hmh, this is interesting :)
11:35 < beeli> one more thing, if you wont get med at me
11:35 < echarp> there already are three domains I'm managing
11:35 < beeli> i think wiki can be usefull also
11:36 < echarp> wiki can be useful yes
11:36 < beeli> cool
11:36 < beeli> :)
11:36 < beeli> than i do not have problems at all
11:36 < beeli> :-)
11:36 < echarp> ok
11:36 < echarp> you find the domain name you want to use
11:36 < beeli> yet, what wit 15 lurkers?
11:37 < echarp> what about them?
11:37 < beeli> we should announce that stuff and move the whole stuf
11:37 < beeli> bring every ne of them stuff
11:38 < echarp> they can subscribe or use the rss feeds
11:38 < beeli> ok, what are the options you have right now about sending mails?
11:38 < beeli> you have daily digest or smmiliar stuff
11:38 < beeli> ?
11:38 < echarp> subscription is easier than on google groups, just input a login and a mail, push button to subscribe
11:38 < echarp> no options to send mails, they are sent right away
11:38 < beeli> hmh
11:39 < echarp> it's way too complex for me right now
11:39 < beeli> i understand
11:39 < echarp> there are so many kind of options
11:39 < beeli> eric and magnus got hooked on voting :)
11:40 < beeli> ok, preliminary stuff
11:40 < echarp> I see them doing it, but they don't do it properly yet
11:40 < echarp> they vote anonymously! :)
11:40 < beeli> gotta go...
11:40 < echarp> well, using the "null" persona I mean
11:40 < beeli> i gonna be back!ž
11:40 < echarp> ok
11:40 -!- beeli [i=ille...@cmung673.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit []
11:52 -!- beeli (illegale) [i=ille...@cmung3245.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
11:53 < beeli> back
11:53 < echarp> cool
11:54 < beeli> id like to see it be undoubtebly better than gooogle groups first, that is it
11:54 < beeli> suppose filters could enable it
11:54 < echarp> I understand
11:54 < echarp> I don't feel that filters are that important right now
11:54 < beeli> hmh
11:54 < echarp> because we simply don't have that much noise yet
11:54 < beeli> i do not know actually
11:55 < beeli> suppose people are globably interested in testing
11:55 < beeli> that is good
11:55 < echarp> that's for sure!
11:55 < beeli> so, lets test it and see are we all fine with that
11:56 < beeli> you are getting in focus that way
11:56 < beeli> i loose nothing
11:56 < echarp> I also don't mind using google groups
11:56 < echarp> people can still vote on parlement
11:56 < beeli> i get it --- two way direction
11:57 < beeli> yet, we will have to legitimase results at google group
11:57 < beeli> na, your group
11:57 < beeli> :)
11:57 < beeli> to me, this means lurking at parlement right now
11:57 < beeli> a little bit more than i use to
11:57 < beeli> not big deal
11:58 < echarp> I would recommand that you subscribe to the top-politics element
11:58 < echarp> you will then receive quite a lot of mail
11:58 < echarp> on your mail account you should then set a filter to send them directly to a sub folder of your own
11:59 < beeli> yahoo has it?
11:59 < echarp> I'm sure it has
12:00 < echarp> it's a basic mail feature
12:01 < beeli> seems it has
12:02 < beeli> though,m do not know how to set redirection
12:02 < echarp> why set redirection?
12:03 < echarp> just filter the mails to a sub folder
12:03 < beeli> to that folder
12:03 < beeli> how?
12:03 < echarp> in the mail options, you can set or changer filters
12:03 < echarp> do you see that page?
12:05 < beeli> whatever
12:05 < beeli> ill use web browser as reguloar
12:05 < beeli> what do you mean as moral somethng about comment ot new text'
12:05 < beeli> ?
12:05 < echarp> you mean you don't want to set a filter?
12:05 < beeli> i do not need it right now
12:06 < echarp> I believe morals are highly relative matters, and thus difficult to use as a yardstick
12:06 < echarp> ok
12:06 < beeli> so, need to define moral, first?
12:06 < echarp> me I user filters for everything, much much easier
12:06 < echarp> morals are a loaded word yes
12:07 < beeli> moral is social indoctrination of indvidual that enables societal survival
12:07 < echarp> can animals have a moral?
12:07 < beeli> yes
12:07 < beeli> spocial ones
12:07 < beeli> monkeys and stuff
12:08 < echarp> what kind of indoctrination do you have in mind?
12:08 < beeli> story about moral
12:08 < beeli> it goes this way
12:08 < beeli> you are little kid
12:08 < echarp> myths and such?
12:08 < beeli> do not know about anything
12:08 < beeli> nah
12:08 < beeli> you take knive and itch eye from your friend
12:09 < beeli> you get shit ecause of that
12:09 < beeli> you learn that is not good
12:09 < beeli> you help someone, people say, good buy, hre you have a chockolate
12:09 < beeli> you learn this is a good thing
12:09 < beeli> after a while you build some boundaries
12:09 < beeli> that tell you you can not or you can do something
12:09 < beeli> that is actually moral
12:10 < beeli> feel of guilt and stuff
12:10 < echarp> indoctrination is still a loaded and very negative word
12:10 < beeli> that is not ok
12:10 < beeli> indoctrination is just setting i suppose
12:10 < beeli> set, srorry
12:10 < beeli> moment
12:10 < echarp> ok
12:11 < beeli> hmh, can use anotther +word
12:11 < beeli> yet, it is sort of doctrine
12:11 < beeli> natural one
12:12 < echarp> how can it be natural if it humans who set it?
12:12 < beeli> i do not make so big difference between us and nature
12:13 < beeli> we are part of it as morality
12:13 < echarp> ok, going to lunch
12:13 < echarp> cu in a short time
12:13 < beeli> ok
12:48 < beeli> think you need register stuff to your site
12:48 < beeli> in order of having non doubtfull voting
12:49 < beeli> this anon is not cool
12:49 < beeli> to me
12:58 < echarp> anon is just one persona people can use as a test
12:58 < echarp> whenever two persons use this anon persona, they overwrite each other votes
13:15 -!- beeli [i=ille...@cmung3245.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
13:24 -!- beeli (illegale) [i=ille...@cmung3087.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
13:28 < beeli> is it going to be problem to use some password in order of voting with no risk of problems happen
13:30 < echarp> what do you mean?
13:30 < beeli> i coma nad write illegale
13:30 < beeli> than i vote sa illegale
13:31 < echarp> as of now yes
13:31 < beeli> i suppoe need some verification
13:31 < echarp> there is no security right now
13:32 < beeli> i voted as tony :.)
13:32 < echarp> you can yes
13:32 < beeli> ip public?
13:32 < echarp> rather easy to also spoff
13:32 < echarp> spoof
13:32 < beeli> what is that?
13:33 < echarp> to spoof something is to make believe you have a certain IP adress, for example
13:34 < beeli> can you choose any ip or some?
13:34 < echarp> any
13:34 < beeli> even your own?
13:35 < echarp> no need to spoof then
13:35 < beeli> i see i can not log as echarp
13:35 < beeli> where do i registry?
13:37 < echarp> you can not because it is password protected
13:37 < beeli> can i passs protect illegale?
13:38 < echarp> easily yes
13:38 < beeli> now?
13:38 < echarp> go on http://leparlement.org
13:38 < beeli> ok
13:38 < echarp> if you are already logged in, then log out (click on the X)
13:39 < echarp> do you see the "log in" box?
13:40 < beeli> see
13:40 < beeli> i see
13:40 < beeli> yet i do not get it
13:40 < beeli> i do not know my pass
13:41 < echarp> you don't have any as of now
13:41 < echarp> you are at the login box?
13:41 < beeli> how do i make it?
13:41 < echarp> do you see the + and the ? buttons?
13:41 < beeli> <es
13:41 < echarp> click on them
13:42 < beeli> ok, now it is recorded
13:42 < echarp> you see, rather simple
13:42 < echarp> no way to change it as of now :(
13:42 < beeli> do magnus or eric know for this?
13:42 < echarp> I don't know
13:43 < beeli> ok
13:44 < beeli> What does TOP mean to you? #02
13:44 < beeli> there is many stuff you clik with mnoves and move to see text
13:44 < beeli> why is that?
13:45 < beeli> sort of activities you need also
13:45 < beeli> oh, you have sot of that sorry :)
13:45 < echarp> move???
13:46 < beeli> yes
13:46 < beeli> look at that post
13:46 < beeli> of Eric, there is many such lines
13:46 < echarp> I don't understand what you mean with "mnoves and move to see text", can you rephrase?
13:46 < beeli> seems to me your htl editor reads ------------- or something in order to create these lines
13:47 < echarp> I don't understand
13:47 < beeli> However, before I vote for it, I would like to have the views of Gale and Markus on the Magnus proposal. So what say you, Gale and Markus?
13:47 < beeli> see that line from Eric?
13:47 < echarp> what line?
13:47 < beeli> you have to move with mouse to read it all
13:47 < echarp> I don't know what you are speaking about!
13:47 < echarp> are you speaking about a web page?
13:48 < beeli> yes
13:48 < echarp> which is?
13:48 < echarp> because I do not know what you are speaking about
13:48 < echarp> please, give context
13:48 < beeli> While we are still waiting for Markus and echarp to say what TOP means to them, let us start preparing a list of the elements or 'aspects' of TOP from the responses so far we have received that would be incorporated into our group definition of TOP so that we may be in a position to vote on each of them when the list is finalized.
13:48 < beeli> A1 TOP is the acronym for Transparent, Open and Public in reference to the governance of the country or in the conduct of public business. What is open and public in governance will make it transparent as well.
13:48 < beeli> 2 TOP clearly does not apply to private exchanges on private matters among the public employees or on public matters among ordinary citizens.
13:49 < beeli> 3 All important decisions must be fully transparent. The whole process should be open and public with sufficient media coverage including the internet. At this point of time, public participation should be welcome and encouraged wherever practical, especially online 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and with elected or appointed discussion leaders.
13:49 < beeli> 5 Apart from the discussion process, the discussion minutes and other documents and records should be available online to anyone who wants access to them, especially those who are participating or interested in the discussions.
13:49 < beeli> these lines i c/p have that stuff below you have to click on with mouse
13:49 < beeli> 3 Any other matter where the body or authority responsible consider it a necessity in the national interests not to be open and public.
13:49 < beeli> E4 For Points 2 and 3, there has to be an elected or appointed independent body to review the decisions or recommendations not to be open and public, and the decision of this independent body should be make public and published in the media and the internet.
13:49 < beeli> 5 In the context of true democracy, the exceptions will be subject to the final say of the citizens through the use of the Citizens' Initiative or Referendum (I&R), if any citizen disagrees with the decision of the independent body.
13:50 < beeli> embers and readers are free to propose amendments or additions to the above draft items for voting. The vote shall only be called after the list of 'aspects' or elements of TOP are finalized.
13:50 < beeli> .
13:50 < beeli> .
13:50 < beeli> .
13:50 < beeli> that is it
13:50 < beeli> it happens only at Erics posts
13:51 < beeli> btw, can you reemove option that non registered / password protected can not vote?
13:51 < beeli> can vote
13:52 < echarp> no, but if you don't enlist the anon persona in an electoral list, then it won't counted
13:52 < beeli> ok
13:52 < beeli> bbl
13:52 < echarp> I still don't understand what you are talking about as far as eric post is concerned :(
13:52 -!- beeli [i=ille...@cmung3087.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit []
16:08 < urgyen:#parlement> hmn so beeli moved back into using buzzwords again
16:09 < urgyen:#parlement> well that's too bad
16:09 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
16:27 < echarp> :)
16:27 < echarp> I think it's a natural tendency when people have ambitions
16:27 < echarp> grandiloguence
16:33 < urgyen> it only started to make sense after sharing more detailed terminology
16:33 < echarp> yeap
16:33 < echarp> loaded words
16:33 < urgyen> and from there it started to seem like it had way more to do with economics than politics per se
16:33 < echarp> and even then, there are still troubles
16:35 < illegale> here i am
16:35 < illegale> :)
16:36 < echarp> we know we know :)
16:36 < echarp> illegale: ain't screen cool? :)
16:36 < illegale> yes
16:37 < echarp> I don't feel the need for log bots
16:38 < illegale> in this cas, it is for others
16:38 < illegale> case
16:39 < illegale> though, a comment about buzzwords
16:39 < illegale> it is relative
16:40 < echarp> of course
16:43 < urgyen> yes, yes, depending on audience
16:57 < illegale> urgyen: did you read last text, origin of the power?
16:57 < urgyen> no, that sounded like an interesting title tho
16:58 < echarp> "origin of power"
16:59 < illegale> ok
16:59 < echarp> need some rephrasing in some parts...
17:00 < illegale> definitely :)
17:00 < illegale> i find this text be essential one for claiming new era of human kind
17:01 < echarp> grandiloquent again >;-)
17:02 < illegale> heh, this is the grandiloquent stuff indeed
17:02 < illegale> claiming such thing
17:02 < illegale> is it nedeed, i guess nozt
17:02 < echarp> yeap, definitely
17:02 < illegale> is it cool, maybe
17:02 < illegale> gives you new dimensions of stuff you do
17:02 < illegale> motivating maybe
17:03 < echarp> claming grandiose things put you at a disadvantage, it means you have much to furnish from then on
17:04 < illegale> i get it
17:04 < illegale> style could make solution for this problem
17:04 < illegale> just have to find one that works
17:10 < echarp> that could be true yes
17:11 < illegale> making stories with animals
17:11 < illegale> how do you call them=?
17:11 < echarp> analogy
17:11 < illegale> SF and stuff
17:11 < echarp> myth
17:11 < echarp> fable
17:11 < illegale> fable yes
17:11 < echarp> :)
17:11 < illegale> animals using internet and stuff
17:11 < illegale> :)
17:11 < echarp> why not yes
17:13 < illegale> this stuff is not grandiloquent by definitionð
17:14 < illegale> instead of people just use animals
17:14 < illegale> that is it
17:14 < illegale> :)
17:14 < echarp> can be grandiloquent too, have no worry about that
17:15 < urgyen> so if I use the words 'clarity and honesty' instead of transparency and power it is less effective?
17:16 < echarp> if you don't claim "new era of human kind", then it will be less grandiloquent :)
17:16 < illegale> clarity is fine for transparency imo
17:16 < urgyen> clarity is clearness of understanding
17:17 < urgyen> transparency is a contentious word used in political battles
17:17 < illegale> actually, it is probably not so big difference
17:17 < urgyen> wouldn't you rather not become a political battle?
17:17 < illegale> just a difference as we feel of dictators hipo and pseudodemocracy
17:17 < illegale> nothging to bobastivc when you get used to is
17:17 < echarp> transparency is seeing through things
17:17 < urgyen> do you realize that the US senate is voting on whether to take away your internet?
17:17 < illegale> urgyen: really?
17:17 < urgyen> and that is mostly because they cleave to political power words instead of clear thought
17:18 < illegale> power is tabuieed
17:18 < illegale> that is not good tat all
17:18 < illegale> i do not see point of running away from it
17:18 * echarp is french, a whole lot bunch just as stupid
17:19 < illegale> politics without power and stuff that is popular in last time
17:19 < illegale> nah
17:20 < illegale> when i say i have pretentions for power, poeple want to stygmatise me
17:20 < illegale> that is hypocricy
17:20 < illegale> very bad one
17:21 < echarp> I approve of ambitions
17:21 < urgyen> I'm not running. nor see that challenge as much more than a distraction to getting work done. which is the point
17:21 < urgyen> getting work done
17:22 < illegale> what work?
17:23 < urgyen> the changes you would like to see
17:24 < urgyen> I'm not trying to stygmatize, just question the efficacy
17:24 < urgyen> the efficientnes
17:24 < urgyen> s
17:24 < urgyen> some change can happen fast with some kinds of support but it fades just as quickly
17:25 < urgyen> was that really work?
17:25 < urgyen> maybe the tools have to be picked up with care
17:25 < illegale> that is matter of tactics
17:25 < illegale> stuff goes its way
17:25 < urgyen> I think that is the only question, one of tactics
17:25 < illegale> though, if they try to f*** internet, ww3 is aproaching than
17:25 < urgyen> not whether anyone is being hypocritical
17:25 < urgyen> yes?
17:26 < illegale> closed structures are getting compromised during time till they can not handle their purpose anymore
17:26 < illegale> in that time social criss is happening
17:27 < illegale> when you do not have body of govrnor, body taht is commonly accepted, society goes to big problems
17:27 < illegale> if that body is based on force and hegemony, that it is very bad thing going on
17:27 < illegale> suppose commies can handle taht scenario only
17:27 < illegale> as long as they are only preparing for revolutions stuff
17:32 < urgyen> http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/8673
17:32 < urgyen> control vs dramatic change
17:33 < urgyen> *
17:33 < urgyen> Scenario I: The Carriers Win
17:33 < urgyen> *
17:33 < urgyen> Scenario II: The Public Workaround
17:33 < urgyen> *
17:33 < urgyen> Scenario III: Fight with Words and Not Just Deeds
17:33 < urgyen> so someone tries to take away the tool you see as facilitating a revolution in fairness
17:33 < urgyen> they win because bullies are still in power.
17:34 < urgyen> ppl know better and just remove the control from the equation
17:34 < urgyen> we learn to work better with our ability to share understanding
17:35 < urgyen> these are all likely to happen
18:10 < illegale> ok, what is the point?
18:10 < illegale> how can net be screwed the most easily?
18:11 < illegale> what do we have to wath for*?
18:11 < illegale> what do people in china do in way to control it?
18:11 < illegale> can that stuff happen to us?
18:11 < urgyen> the point is to watch more closely when terms like 'dramatic change' are used
18:11 < urgyen> dramatic change scares the status quo
18:11 < illegale> status quo, it is good or bad?
18:11 < urgyen> is it?
18:12 < illegale> i guess so
18:12 < illegale> we can chat., right?
18:12 < urgyen> for a while
18:12 < illegale> this is major political issue
18:12 < illegale> taking that in any other context means lost of the war
18:13 < illegale> what about other questions?
18:14 < urgyen> if we aren't talking about questions we aren't really talking at all
18:14 < illegale> china issue?
18:16 < urgyen> china has pockets of control and pockets of open
18:16 < urgyen> they don't seem to be talking to each other
18:16 < urgyen> maybe that's good maybe not
18:16 < urgyen> china is a big place
18:16 < illegale> i do nota understand, cany ouexplain it to me a little bit deepeR'
18:17 < urgyen> some places in china are still working toward control and some places say that there is hardly any control at all
18:17 < urgyen> it seems like these places don't know about each other
18:17 < illegale> net is partially free that means=?
18:18 < urgyen> not just net
18:18 < urgyen> life
18:18 < urgyen> but net is part of it too
18:18 < illegale> what aprts are not free?
18:19 < urgyen> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4757125.stm
18:20 < illegale> cmon, other parts are?
18:20 < illegale> seems funy to me
18:20 < urgyen> I see this caption: "The Dalai Lama says he wants autonomy for Tibet" under the picture
18:20 < urgyen> which isn't true
18:20 < urgyen> the chinese government kidnaps a religious leader and plants one of their own
18:20 < illegale> when?
18:21 < illegale> > http://www.crisispapers.org/
18:21 < illegale> know them?
18:23 < urgyen> none of them
18:23 < illegale> hmh
18:23 < illegale> many issues about scary stuff :)
18:23 < illegale> what i see there is the one thing it can help it
18:23 < illegale> vision of internet democracy
18:23 < urgyen> rule by sensational is important to a lot of people
18:23 < illegale> if we equal internet with freedom, there is point to fight for it
18:24 < urgyen> sensational vs sensational is still no change
18:24 < illegale> what should be done is the outweighting on the side of the internet
18:25 < illegale> as long as they promote "scary" issues and in the same time take more and more restricions while no one is ready to create political front against it
18:25 < urgyen> http://www.tibet.ca/en/panchenlama/
18:27 < urgyen> http://www.phayul.com/news/
18:30 < illegale> urgen, many people talk about trust networks and stuff in these days, yes?
18:31 < urgyen> not all talk about the same trust network
18:31 < urgyen> some even have proof that it will not work
18:31 < illegale> yeS?
18:31 < illegale> what are the trustn networks people talk about actualylŽ=
18:31 < illegale> ?
18:31 < illegale> and who started this issue anyway
18:31 < illegale> ?
18:32 < urgyen> the issue was started by someone trying to weed out spam on the internet
18:32 < urgyen> :-)
18:32 < illegale> no grand names
18:32 < illegale> in this history?
18:32 < illegale> i find this important part of political empowerment
18:32 < urgyen> ya you do :-)
18:33 < illegale> though, conotoation that it leads to is taht many of the people actually do talk about it and in the same time do nothing about it
18:33 < urgyen> but I'm trying to listen because of point 3 I outlined above
18:33 < illegale> not even the smalest part they could
18:33 < urgyen> learn to use words better
18:33 < illegale> and that part is enablement of TOP node at their place in order to conect people
18:34 < urgyen> but the words move too fast for me
18:34 < illegale> what words?
18:34 < urgyen> political
18:34 < illegale> ok, let me give an example of steven clifst
18:34 < illegale> ok?
18:34 < illegale> he promoted concept of e-democracy and stuff
18:34 < illegale> yet he never had open communication chanel that could link simmilar thinkers
18:35 < illegale> how is it possible?
18:35 < illegale> plain phpbb forum does that fine
18:35 < urgyen> democracy doesn't have much to do with open
18:35 < illegale> btw, you noticed no big site has such thing in US sphere?
18:35 < illegale> participation? no too much to demcoracY=
18:35 < urgyen> democracy is usually a tool used by ppl that want something and are willing to use others' ignorance to get it
18:36 < urgyen> it does not try to respect or conserve differing culture
18:36 < illegale> seems we are using words we do not need, buzz words in the same time
18:36 < urgyen> democracy is a huge slow steam roller
18:36 < urgyen> crushes whatever it meets
18:36 < illegale> lets stay out of democracy
18:36 < illegale> lets use simple ideas of empowerment of the people we do agree i suppose
18:36 < illegale> yeS?
18:37 < illegale> no i see this crisis paper and even these guys do not have public forunm
18:37 < urgyen> alignment
18:37 < illegale> how is that possible?
18:38 < urgyen> ignorance works as an explaination for me
18:38 < illegale> aligment?
18:38 < illegale> are there people who claim such big studff ignoran?
18:38 < illegale> you want to say that?
18:39 < illegale> if we set up public forums as standard we made a pretty big job u pthere
18:39 < illegale> essential one, even
18:40 < urgyen> short term goals vs long term goals
18:40 < urgyen> the short term goals are often at the expense of even reaching those very same goals
18:40 < urgyen> that sounds like ignorance
18:41 < illegale> i do not understand
18:41 < illegale> can you name these goals?
18:41 < urgyen> money, car, food, power, happiness, fame...
18:41 < urgyen> the list is nearly endless
18:41 < illegale> what does ti have to public forum?
18:42 < urgyen> yes, what? :-)
18:42 < illegale> you think anybody would loose some of it if did place it ?
18:42 < illegale> so, why do you mention it?
18:42 < urgyen> whether the forum is public or not doesn't mean anyone will find it
18:42 < illegale> this is up to standards
18:42 < illegale> you have to ahve someting easlily recognisible
18:42 < urgyen> your question was why do people not share more openly. I answered ignorance
18:43 < urgyen> eductate and you win
18:43 < illegale> do you find it dangerous one?
18:43 < illegale> or same as any?
18:43 < urgyen> it has been dangerous for billions of years now
18:43 < urgyen> so maybe not *too* dangerous
18:43 < illegale> you are playing fool
18:43 < urgyen> but there is still a lot of dissatisfaction
18:43 < illegale> we are talklking about exact issue
18:43 < illegale> public forum as standard,
18:44 < urgyen> I'm immune to emotional arguments
18:44 < illegale> i suppose it is clear issue. Is it?
18:44 < illegale> do you think you are not ignorant?
18:44 < urgyen> no I am ignorant too
18:44 < illegale> so, we are all ignorant, yes?
18:44 < urgyen> or I wouldn't have so many problems
18:44 < urgyen> yes
18:45 < illegale> so, what can we do?
18:45 < illegale> nothing as long as we are ignorant?
18:45 < urgyen> a forum for ignorant ppl to share doesn't help much
18:45 < urgyen> woo big deal share bad ideas back and forth
18:45 < illegale> you are looking for ubermenche
18:45 < illegale> ?
18:45 < urgyen> start with what we know
18:45 < urgyen> ok,
18:45 < urgyen> what do we know?
18:45 < illegale> you are ingoran, i am ignorant, does this channel help to us or not
18:45 < illegale> ?
18:45 < illegale> you are stating it does not
18:46 < urgyen> I do not know that transparency means much
18:46 < illegale> seems to be non logical, yes?
18:46 < urgyen> that's not the same as taking inventory
18:46 < illegale> we are not talking about transrency
18:46 < urgyen> ok
18:46 < illegale> we are talking about public chanels, forums
18:46 < urgyen> open forum does not equal transparency
18:46 < illegale> stuff that can link people
18:46 < urgyen> sharing
18:46 < illegale> of course
18:46 < illegale> we are talking about public forums right now
18:46 < illegale> pulbic forums as standards
18:47 < urgyen> a standard should happen after mutual understanding
18:47 < illegale> strandard taht is not realised in most "#democratical" newmagazines
18:47 < illegale> such as new york times
18:47 < urgyen> not as a flag ahead of the result
18:47 < illegale> cnn
18:47 < illegale> nor libretanian party
18:47 < illegale> is it something we should look at more carefully'
18:48 < illegale> this standards is standarnd among Tiaktvi members
18:48 < illegale> nothing more than that
18:48 < urgyen> a mad rush toward a myth is a worthy challenge
18:48 < illegale> what i am asking you is this standards somethig important, or something irrelevant?
18:48 < urgyen> why should it not be a question asked?
18:48 < illegale> what myth?
18:48 < illegale> what question?
18:49 < urgyen> "the internet is bringing dramatic change"
18:49 < urgyen> is it?
18:49 < illegale> i do not mind in this very moment
18:49 < illegale> what i mind is stuf about public forums
18:49 < urgyen> but I don't know why
18:49 < urgyen> I'm not sure about this banner you wave
18:50 < urgyen> I can understand a little bit but it scares me when someone plays an ideological card
18:50 < urgyen> why do you want to scare me?
18:50 < illegale> you find it not good to enalbe people from the world show their opinion in new york times without censourship?
18:51 < illegale> what i think is that freedom of experesion opinion to public is one of the basinc issues of yany prosperious societies
18:51 < illegale> what we can do is to enforce this standrd be globaly acccepted
18:52 < illegale> what i find be scary is to ignore this isea
18:52 < illegale> so, do we have to run away from each other because both of us is scared right now?
19:01 < illegale> bah
19:02 < echarp> re
19:02 < illegale> fine :)
19:02 < illegale> urgyen skiped
19:04 < echarp> skiped?
19:04 < illegale> run run run run
19:07 < illegale> echarp: do on line publications of newspapers have public forums in fracne?
19:08 < echarp> I don't think they have, no, but no certitude on my part
19:08 < illegale> can you check it out?
19:09 < illegale> belk mondo figaro and stuff
19:10 < echarp> no time to do that, sorry
19:10 * urgyen got a phone call
19:11 < illegale> nevermind, it is just about support of my thesis
19:12 < echarp> I'm sure there are forums in some places yes
19:14 < illegale> if you ever find some time, we might create research over this stuff
19:15 < illegale> there is the whole story behind that, made by us internetrealist
19:15 < illegale> some of people call as internet paranoics of course :)
19:16 < urgyen> I like internuts
19:16 < urgyen> :-)
19:20 < illegale> > the act of surfing the internet for too long, in which the testicles get caught under your legs. After a while of sitting on them, without you realizing it, they will become numb, moist, and disgusting.
19:20 < illegale> >
19:21 < urgyen> well... :-)
19:28 < echarp> pfff
19:44 < illegale> cu
20:14 < urgyen> 'k
21:46 < urgyen> constructing a document of best practices would be a good step
23:45 -!- urgyen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)]
23:50 -!- urgen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
--- Log closed mer jui 12 00:00:00 2006
echarp
Jul 13, 2006, 12:28:54 AM7/13/06
to top-politics
--- Log opened mer jui 12 00:00:00 2006
00:36 < urgen> Live Spacewalk on NasaTV #3 BEGINS 11:13 GMT, WEDNESDAY, JULY 12
09:44 < echarp> hello hello
10:09 < urgen> <-- still working :P
10:09 < echarp> woaw!!!
10:09 < echarp> that's late for you!
10:09 < urgen> ya, kept running into problems
10:09 < urgen> this project is due
10:10 < echarp> due for?
10:10 < echarp> late already?
10:10 < urgen> due for delivery
10:11 < urgen> making a wysiwyg editor to add job postings for a local business
10:11 < urgen> simple flat file
10:11 < urgen> using FCKeditor
10:11 < urgen> seems to be ok
10:19 < echarp> no wiki syntax?
10:22 < echarp> I love wiki syntax, so effective and fast
10:26 < urgen> wiki is for smart ppl :-)
10:26 < urgen> most I've tried to share it with get frustrated
10:26 < urgen> even tho it is very simple
10:31 < echarp> so simple it's incredible we don't use it more
10:31 < echarp> but the syntax needs to be simple too, like _underline_, /italic/, *bold*
10:39 -!- urgen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)]
12:50 -!- beeli (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung2575.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
12:50 < beeli> oi
13:19 -!- beeli [n=ille...@cmung2575.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
14:23 < illegale> oi
14:23 < illegale> :)
14:24 < illegale> what does ti mean replicated in real time?=
14:44 < echarp> hello illegale
14:44 < echarp> illegale: that all data is copied as it is created
14:44 < echarp> or can be copied
15:59 < illegale> hmh, this means free info i suppose
15:59 < illegale> is it transparency?
15:59 < illegale> seems to me transparency has one more isue, that is clarity of info
15:59 < illegale> i do not know is it possible to obtain, or real to mention at all
16:01 < echarp> free info yes
16:01 < echarp> replication is a computer term
16:01 < echarp> it means that you can copy data so much you have a clone that can actually works just as well
16:01 < echarp> it's a strong clone
16:12 < illegale> transparent, window
16:12 < illegale> open door
16:13 < illegale> transparent light
16:13 < illegale> open door
16:13 < echarp> much better than that
16:13 < echarp> a door so transparent that you can do another door just identical
16:14 < echarp> imagine an administration, if you can replicate it in real time, that is set up an identical administration which functions in parallel, then this actually and technically shows that the original administration is *TOTALLY* transparent
16:15 < echarp> so transparent, that you can clone as it functions
16:15 < illegale> i get your point
16:15 < echarp> so to me, replicability is a test of transparency
16:15 < echarp> to replicate something is a technical test
16:15 < echarp> and it's cool to be able to test concepts :)
16:15 < illegale> yes
16:16 < illegale> btw, we need decision making procedures and basic organisational principles to be done
16:17 < illegale> to know when to vote about what ands tuff
16:17 < illegale> in order to see is this just showing opinion, or participation in decsion making stuff
16:18 < echarp> my first instinct would be to just do it in an ad hoc fashion
16:18 < echarp> maybe create another forum for it
16:18 < echarp> and anybody who wants to, can ask a question and ask others to vote on it
16:18 < echarp> those with high acceptation automatically become more important than others
16:19 < illegale> there is the problem
16:19 < illegale> implementation
16:19 < illegale> decision is important in order to do something
16:19 < echarp> implementation of a decision?
16:19 < illegale> not to decide because of decision
16:19 < illegale> yes
16:19 < illegale> for this you need reason
16:19 < echarp> this is going to be matters of management isn't it?
16:19 < illegale> imagine 5 of us set some 2 moth project strategy done
16:20 < illegale> yes
16:20 < illegale> in htat moment, voting stuff is not good any more
16:20 < illegale> we have to do stuff
16:20 < illegale> that is what is this all about
16:20 < echarp> doing things is hard, requires time and energy, commitment
16:20 < echarp> this will be a test
16:20 < echarp> test of the group will
16:21 < illegale> so, what is going to bechecked how when and all those issues that enable such project to be realised, not forgoten
16:21 < illegale> we can do some stuff to enforce that will
16:21 < echarp> what kind of stuff do you have in mind?
16:22 < illegale> i suppose this is group menaemtn and definition of oblidge
16:22 < echarp> ???
16:22 < illegale> obligation
16:23 < illegale> we have to define this stuff in order to know what to expect and how te evalute all the job
16:24 < echarp> group menaemtn???
16:24 < illegale> menagment
16:25 < echarp> management! :)
16:25 < illegale> have some experience?
16:25 < echarp> chef de projet of a 7-10 persons team
16:26 -!- tom_ [n=t...@host-84-9-128-251.bulldogdsl.com] has quit ["Leaving"]
16:26 < illegale> can you tell me something about problems that get out, solutions and stuff
16:26 < echarp> it's a different context here than in a paid job
16:26 < illegale> stuff we need to define first stuff that is important and sso one
16:26 < echarp> here you rely on people motivation only
16:26 < echarp> it's a very very thin thing
16:28 < illegale> can we change it?
16:28 < illegale> should we cahnge it at all?
16:29 < echarp> you have huge amount of money to spend?
16:29 < echarp> girls to send us?
16:29 < echarp> status?
16:30 < echarp> great foods and drinks?
16:30 < echarp> there are not that many drives in human psyche, but hard to tame here
16:30 < illegale> every single one of us can put something as investition
16:30 < illegale> capital
16:30 < echarp> it has been said before, that if a project gets you laid, then it's a very successful project!!!
16:30 < illegale> when you put investition, you want to keep it on
16:30 < echarp> to get laid = to fuck
16:31 < echarp> :)
16:31 < illegale> heh
16:31 < illegale> i am serious though
16:31 < illegale> :)
16:32 < echarp> what kind of investment do you have in mind?
16:32 < echarp> and how do you motivate the group to give up something in order to gain something which is not defined clearly yet?
16:33 < illegale> we have some political reputation in this very moment
16:33 < illegale> we have some political work that has been done
16:33 < illegale> we have sites we can merge
16:33 < illegale> we have money
16:33 < illegale> we have time
16:34 < illegale> i mean, some has something, other has something else
16:34 < illegale> yet, put it in care of the group deciison making procedure
16:34 < illegale> or sometgin
16:34 < illegale> i am finding the way
16:34 < illegale> looking for it
16:36 < illegale> we can make oblidgment to products of our work
16:37 < illegale> we can give 400 Euro to some fondation
16:38 < echarp> difficult to recommand and enforce in our current group
16:38 < illegale> he who fucks up loose it
16:38 < illegale> what do we have to do first?
16:38 < illegale> set goal?
16:38 < echarp> of course
16:39 < illegale> what goal you have in mind?
16:39 < echarp> my personal goals are technical, playing with legos :)
16:39 < echarp> constructing tools
16:39 < echarp> and for those I need conceptual foundations
16:40 < echarp> so I'm an user of TOP really
16:40 < illegale> what i see in you is outside partner actually
16:40 < illegale> you did set your mission and that is what drives you on
16:41 < illegale> do you need any oblidgment to me or some other users?
16:41 < echarp> obligation??
16:41 < illegale> do you need any oblidgment from me or some other users?
16:41 < illegale> yes
16:41 < echarp> I don't need anybody really, but to use my toy :)
16:42 < illegale> that is the actual problem
16:42 < echarp> I know
16:42 < echarp> it'a problem for the top group
16:42 < illegale> yes
16:42 < illegale> maybe not for us politicians
16:42 < echarp> I don't know
16:42 < illegale> as long as we need partnership to succeedd
16:42 < echarp> I do and will participate
16:42 < echarp> but top is not by itself my primary goal
16:43 < echarp> it's an useful concept
16:43 < illegale> what we can do is set some higher goal that that
16:43 < illegale> the goal that emerges us in higher spheres
16:43 < illegale> merges
16:44 < illegale> though, you do not like it i see
16:44 < illegale> you want to be free :)
16:44 < illegale> no comitments to ideals
16:44 < illegale> but play
16:44 < illegale> right?
16:45 < echarp> of course play
16:45 < echarp> it's a need
16:45 < echarp> but I'm also commited
16:46 < illegale> you choosed your commitment already.
16:46 < illegale> yes?
16:46 < echarp> freedom, democracy
16:46 < illegale> how do you commit to freedom*?
16:46 < echarp> by making sure you don't step on others!
16:46 < illegale> how do you do it?
16:47 < echarp> not acting too boldly with others
16:47 < echarp> not being violent
16:47 < echarp> not telling others how to live
16:47 < echarp> not manipulating others
16:47 < echarp> and it's a strong commitment on my part
16:47 < illegale> ok, this is not political issue
16:47 < echarp> it is *HIGHLY* political to me
16:48 < illegale> it is cultural issue
16:48 < echarp> of course
16:48 < illegale> when you involve power than it becomes political
16:48 < echarp> this is all matters of power on others
16:50 < illegale> ok, you need not to make commitiment to the group
16:50 < illegale> yes?
16:51 < echarp> I don't know
16:51 < illegale> if we decide to use your software
16:51 < echarp> it of course depends on the subject
16:52 < illegale> but you have to do it in a way we are satisfied
16:52 < echarp> I'm very open about the soft
16:52 < echarp> of course
16:52 < illegale> in other hand we are up to set commitiment of promoting it full
16:52 < illegale> y
16:52 < illegale> then we can profit in a way
16:53 < illegale> though, does this need any obligation in the process?
16:53 < echarp> no idea
16:53 < echarp> obligation to maintain a server I guess
16:53 < echarp> and I'm definitely fine with that
16:54 < echarp> it's technical
16:54 < illegale> in this moment i am fine with anything
16:54 < illegale> yet, if we want to make some bigger, more ambitous issues then this stuff is different
16:55 < illegale> salfield is tom*?
16:56 < echarp> no idea
16:56 < echarp> seems he is considering his pseudo
16:56 < echarp> you are using an irssi plugin which shows his login name (tom)
17:04 < illegale> gotta go to luch
17:04 < illegale> cu
17:06 -!- urgen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
17:07 < echarp> cu illegale
17:07 < echarp> hello urgen
17:07 < echarp> better?
17:07 < urgen> hi
17:08 < urgen> power went out last night
17:09 < echarp> oh
17:09 < echarp> that's bad on the servers
17:10 < echarp> any one which didn't come back up?
17:15 < urgen> just my desktop
17:15 < urgen> not servers
17:15 < urgen> but its bad on computers just the same
17:15 < urgen> I have a UPS attached
17:19 < echarp> that's nice
18:26 * urgen rushes off to work
--- Log closed jeu jui 13 00:00:00 2006
00:36 < urgen> Live Spacewalk on NasaTV #3 BEGINS 11:13 GMT, WEDNESDAY, JULY 12
09:44 < echarp> hello hello
10:09 < echarp> woaw!!!
10:09 < echarp> that's late for you!
10:09 < urgen> ya, kept running into problems
10:09 < urgen> this project is due
10:10 < echarp> due for?
10:10 < echarp> late already?
10:10 < urgen> due for delivery
10:11 < urgen> making a wysiwyg editor to add job postings for a local business
10:11 < urgen> simple flat file
10:11 < urgen> using FCKeditor
10:11 < urgen> seems to be ok
10:19 < echarp> no wiki syntax?
10:22 < echarp> I love wiki syntax, so effective and fast
10:26 < urgen> wiki is for smart ppl :-)
10:26 < urgen> most I've tried to share it with get frustrated
10:26 < urgen> even tho it is very simple
10:31 < echarp> so simple it's incredible we don't use it more
10:31 < echarp> but the syntax needs to be simple too, like _underline_, /italic/, *bold*
10:39 -!- urgen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)]
12:50 -!- beeli (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung2575.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
12:50 < beeli> oi
13:19 -!- beeli [n=ille...@cmung2575.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
14:23 < illegale> oi
14:23 < illegale> :)
14:24 < illegale> what does ti mean replicated in real time?=
14:44 < echarp> hello illegale
14:44 < echarp> illegale: that all data is copied as it is created
14:44 < echarp> or can be copied
15:59 < illegale> hmh, this means free info i suppose
15:59 < illegale> is it transparency?
15:59 < illegale> seems to me transparency has one more isue, that is clarity of info
15:59 < illegale> i do not know is it possible to obtain, or real to mention at all
16:01 < echarp> free info yes
16:01 < echarp> replication is a computer term
16:01 < echarp> it means that you can copy data so much you have a clone that can actually works just as well
16:01 < echarp> it's a strong clone
16:12 < illegale> transparent, window
16:12 < illegale> open door
16:13 < illegale> transparent light
16:13 < illegale> open door
16:13 < echarp> much better than that
16:13 < echarp> a door so transparent that you can do another door just identical
16:14 < echarp> imagine an administration, if you can replicate it in real time, that is set up an identical administration which functions in parallel, then this actually and technically shows that the original administration is *TOTALLY* transparent
16:15 < echarp> so transparent, that you can clone as it functions
16:15 < illegale> i get your point
16:15 < echarp> so to me, replicability is a test of transparency
16:15 < echarp> to replicate something is a technical test
16:15 < echarp> and it's cool to be able to test concepts :)
16:15 < illegale> yes
16:16 < illegale> btw, we need decision making procedures and basic organisational principles to be done
16:17 < illegale> to know when to vote about what ands tuff
16:17 < illegale> in order to see is this just showing opinion, or participation in decsion making stuff
16:18 < echarp> my first instinct would be to just do it in an ad hoc fashion
16:18 < echarp> maybe create another forum for it
16:18 < echarp> and anybody who wants to, can ask a question and ask others to vote on it
16:18 < echarp> those with high acceptation automatically become more important than others
16:19 < illegale> there is the problem
16:19 < illegale> implementation
16:19 < illegale> decision is important in order to do something
16:19 < echarp> implementation of a decision?
16:19 < illegale> not to decide because of decision
16:19 < illegale> yes
16:19 < illegale> for this you need reason
16:19 < echarp> this is going to be matters of management isn't it?
16:19 < illegale> imagine 5 of us set some 2 moth project strategy done
16:20 < illegale> yes
16:20 < illegale> in htat moment, voting stuff is not good any more
16:20 < illegale> we have to do stuff
16:20 < illegale> that is what is this all about
16:20 < echarp> doing things is hard, requires time and energy, commitment
16:20 < echarp> this will be a test
16:20 < echarp> test of the group will
16:21 < illegale> so, what is going to bechecked how when and all those issues that enable such project to be realised, not forgoten
16:21 < illegale> we can do some stuff to enforce that will
16:21 < echarp> what kind of stuff do you have in mind?
16:22 < illegale> i suppose this is group menaemtn and definition of oblidge
16:22 < echarp> ???
16:22 < illegale> obligation
16:23 < illegale> we have to define this stuff in order to know what to expect and how te evalute all the job
16:24 < echarp> group menaemtn???
16:24 < illegale> menagment
16:25 < echarp> management! :)
16:25 < illegale> have some experience?
16:25 < echarp> chef de projet of a 7-10 persons team
16:26 -!- tom_ [n=t...@host-84-9-128-251.bulldogdsl.com] has quit ["Leaving"]
16:26 < illegale> can you tell me something about problems that get out, solutions and stuff
16:26 < echarp> it's a different context here than in a paid job
16:26 < illegale> stuff we need to define first stuff that is important and sso one
16:26 < echarp> here you rely on people motivation only
16:26 < echarp> it's a very very thin thing
16:28 < illegale> can we change it?
16:28 < illegale> should we cahnge it at all?
16:29 < echarp> you have huge amount of money to spend?
16:29 < echarp> girls to send us?
16:29 < echarp> status?
16:30 < echarp> great foods and drinks?
16:30 < echarp> there are not that many drives in human psyche, but hard to tame here
16:30 < illegale> every single one of us can put something as investition
16:30 < illegale> capital
16:30 < echarp> it has been said before, that if a project gets you laid, then it's a very successful project!!!
16:30 < illegale> when you put investition, you want to keep it on
16:30 < echarp> to get laid = to fuck
16:31 < echarp> :)
16:31 < illegale> heh
16:31 < illegale> i am serious though
16:31 < illegale> :)
16:32 < echarp> what kind of investment do you have in mind?
16:32 < echarp> and how do you motivate the group to give up something in order to gain something which is not defined clearly yet?
16:33 < illegale> we have some political reputation in this very moment
16:33 < illegale> we have some political work that has been done
16:33 < illegale> we have sites we can merge
16:33 < illegale> we have money
16:33 < illegale> we have time
16:34 < illegale> i mean, some has something, other has something else
16:34 < illegale> yet, put it in care of the group deciison making procedure
16:34 < illegale> or sometgin
16:34 < illegale> i am finding the way
16:34 < illegale> looking for it
16:36 < illegale> we can make oblidgment to products of our work
16:37 < illegale> we can give 400 Euro to some fondation
16:38 < echarp> difficult to recommand and enforce in our current group
16:38 < illegale> he who fucks up loose it
16:38 < illegale> what do we have to do first?
16:38 < illegale> set goal?
16:38 < echarp> of course
16:39 < illegale> what goal you have in mind?
16:39 < echarp> my personal goals are technical, playing with legos :)
16:39 < echarp> constructing tools
16:39 < echarp> and for those I need conceptual foundations
16:40 < echarp> so I'm an user of TOP really
16:40 < illegale> what i see in you is outside partner actually
16:40 < illegale> you did set your mission and that is what drives you on
16:41 < illegale> do you need any oblidgment to me or some other users?
16:41 < echarp> obligation??
16:41 < illegale> do you need any oblidgment from me or some other users?
16:41 < illegale> yes
16:41 < echarp> I don't need anybody really, but to use my toy :)
16:42 < illegale> that is the actual problem
16:42 < echarp> I know
16:42 < echarp> it'a problem for the top group
16:42 < illegale> yes
16:42 < illegale> maybe not for us politicians
16:42 < echarp> I don't know
16:42 < illegale> as long as we need partnership to succeedd
16:42 < echarp> I do and will participate
16:42 < echarp> but top is not by itself my primary goal
16:43 < echarp> it's an useful concept
16:43 < illegale> what we can do is set some higher goal that that
16:43 < illegale> the goal that emerges us in higher spheres
16:43 < illegale> merges
16:44 < illegale> though, you do not like it i see
16:44 < illegale> you want to be free :)
16:44 < illegale> no comitments to ideals
16:44 < illegale> but play
16:44 < illegale> right?
16:45 < echarp> of course play
16:45 < echarp> it's a need
16:45 < echarp> but I'm also commited
16:46 < illegale> you choosed your commitment already.
16:46 < illegale> yes?
16:46 < echarp> freedom, democracy
16:46 < illegale> how do you commit to freedom*?
16:46 < echarp> by making sure you don't step on others!
16:46 < illegale> how do you do it?
16:47 < echarp> not acting too boldly with others
16:47 < echarp> not being violent
16:47 < echarp> not telling others how to live
16:47 < echarp> not manipulating others
16:47 < echarp> and it's a strong commitment on my part
16:47 < illegale> ok, this is not political issue
16:47 < echarp> it is *HIGHLY* political to me
16:48 < illegale> it is cultural issue
16:48 < echarp> of course
16:48 < illegale> when you involve power than it becomes political
16:48 < echarp> this is all matters of power on others
16:50 < illegale> ok, you need not to make commitiment to the group
16:50 < illegale> yes?
16:51 < echarp> I don't know
16:51 < illegale> if we decide to use your software
16:51 < echarp> it of course depends on the subject
16:52 < illegale> but you have to do it in a way we are satisfied
16:52 < echarp> I'm very open about the soft
16:52 < echarp> of course
16:52 < illegale> in other hand we are up to set commitiment of promoting it full
16:52 < illegale> y
16:52 < illegale> then we can profit in a way
16:53 < illegale> though, does this need any obligation in the process?
16:53 < echarp> no idea
16:53 < echarp> obligation to maintain a server I guess
16:53 < echarp> and I'm definitely fine with that
16:54 < echarp> it's technical
16:54 < illegale> in this moment i am fine with anything
16:54 < illegale> yet, if we want to make some bigger, more ambitous issues then this stuff is different
16:55 < illegale> salfield is tom*?
16:56 < echarp> no idea
16:56 < echarp> seems he is considering his pseudo
16:56 < echarp> you are using an irssi plugin which shows his login name (tom)
17:04 < illegale> gotta go to luch
17:04 < illegale> cu
17:06 -!- urgen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
17:07 < echarp> cu illegale
17:07 < echarp> hello urgen
17:07 < echarp> better?
17:07 < urgen> hi
17:08 < urgen> power went out last night
17:09 < echarp> oh
17:09 < echarp> that's bad on the servers
17:10 < echarp> any one which didn't come back up?
17:15 < urgen> just my desktop
17:15 < urgen> not servers
17:15 < urgen> but its bad on computers just the same
17:15 < urgen> I have a UPS attached
17:19 < echarp> that's nice
18:26 * urgen rushes off to work
--- Log closed jeu jui 13 00:00:00 2006
echarp
Jul 14, 2006, 12:28:16 AM7/14/06
to top-politics
--- Log opened jeu jui 13 00:00:00 2006
01:12 -!- beeli (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung3183.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
01:13 < beeli> io
02:39 -!- beeli [n=ille...@cmung3183.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit []
04:11 < urgen> back
19:25 -!- beeli (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung3169.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
19:25 < beeli> io
19:37 < echarp> helo
19:37 < beeli> ohoho
19:37 < beeli> you alive :)
19:38 < echarp> yeap!
19:38 < echarp> had some going out going on :)
19:38 < beeli> reguler stuff i see
19:38 < beeli> in a mean time i rediscover my revolutinary soul
19:38 < beeli> suppose it is issue of character
19:39 < echarp> revolution?
19:39 < beeli> have some chat with commies at irc
19:39 < beeli> good time we have :)
19:39 < echarp> oh, fun things :)
19:39 < beeli> suppose it can be fun only for such people
19:39 < beeli> to others, nah
19:40 < beeli> though, focus of their action is fine
19:42 < echarp> what kind of action?
19:42 < echarp> revolutionary?
19:42 < beeli> poitical focus stuff
19:43 < echarp> setting rules which will topple current institutions?
19:43 < beeli> weak chain and simmilar thigns
19:43 < beeli> topple?
19:44 < echarp> turn around
19:44 < beeli> your english is good
19:44 < beeli> very good for french man
19:45 < beeli> this is funny thing
19:45 < beeli> little distincions on idea level make very big distincion in its final
19:45 < beeli> such as topple
19:45 < beeli> i look for overgrow
19:45 < beeli> they are satisfied with that also
19:47 < echarp> I lived in scotland for a few years ;)
19:48 < beeli> really>?
19:48 < beeli> how was that?
19:50 < echarp> after my 18th birthday, I went there to study mechanical engineering
19:50 < echarp> in strathclyde university
19:50 < echarp> that helped my english a lot :)
19:50 < beeli> fine decision
19:50 < beeli> good university?
19:51 < echarp> very good one yes
19:51 < beeli> was hard to come back?
19:51 < echarp> no no
19:51 < echarp> and I love paris too
20:17 < beeli> It is important to set primary rules that we know to follow in order to reduce misunderstandings that are regular in any new team, especially cyber one. As long as I am in position of leader I am willing to use my status and explain our first procedure we can of course change completely if you do not find this to be adequate. Yet, it is the a starting one.
20:17 -!- beeli [n=ille...@cmung3169.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Excess Flood]
20:18 -!- beeli (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung3169.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
20:18 < echarp> good thing to do yes
20:19 < echarp> urgen would love that!
20:19 < beeli> did you read it?
20:19 < beeli> i flood and hit ou
20:19 < urgen> sec
20:21 < urgen> "Guideline to Establishing Best Practices'
20:21 < echarp> I just read it yes
20:21 < urgen> read what? where?
20:23 < echarp> "it is important to set primary rules..."
20:25 < beeli> Ok, that is it
20:25 < echarp> of course those first rules will be difficult
20:25 < echarp> nomic!
20:26 < beeli> http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics/browse_frm/thread/2b94a2fbcc92b767/5f0efba4be7d1c56#5f0efba4be7d1c56
20:26 < urgen> for me, 'transparency' means 'visible results'
20:27 < urgen> a netocracy labratory that produces visible results is a great primary step
20:27 < urgen> thanks, beeli
20:28 < urgen> <-- late for a job
20:28 < echarp> :)
20:28 < urgen> I'll have to follow up later
20:28 < beeli> ok
20:28 < beeli> i see some maybe non consisten part
20:28 < beeli> in this procedure
20:28 < beeli> yet, we can change it
20:28 < urgen> take good notes :-)
20:29 < beeli> if we can not make decisions about anythinh else before we realise our tasks, is it possible this thing to be narrow part
20:29 < beeli> ?
20:39 < beeli> echarp: fine with this?
20:40 < echarp> fine with the text?
20:40 < beeli> first procedure
20:41 < echarp> which is?
20:42 < echarp> consensus -1?
20:42 < beeli> yes
20:42 < beeli> and other stuff
20:42 < echarp> you call it "first procedure"?
20:43 < beeli> yes
20:43 < beeli> you can not go against it of course
20:43 < echarp> ?
20:43 < beeli> do you support this?
20:44 < echarp> I mostly do yes
20:44 < echarp> it needs rephrasing in some parts
20:44 < echarp> rephrasing to transform it in slightly more proper english
20:44 < beeli> ok
20:45 < beeli> i can not do taht part
20:45 < echarp> I can take a look on that then
20:45 < echarp> because sometimes it's difficult to understand some parts :(
20:45 < echarp> guess work
20:47 < beeli> ok
20:47 < beeli> i did my job, it is up to you to do stuff i am not good into
20:48 < beeli> now, you can discuss the stuff, i am at 0.
20:49 < beeli> what you conclude, i will support
21:09 < beeli> gonna go
21:09 < beeli> cu
21:09 < echarp> cu
21:24 -!- beeli [n=ille...@cmung3169.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit []
--- Log closed ven jui 14 00:00:00 2006
01:12 -!- beeli (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung3183.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
01:13 < beeli> io
02:39 -!- beeli [n=ille...@cmung3183.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit []
04:11 < urgen> back
19:25 -!- beeli (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung3169.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
19:25 < beeli> io
19:37 < echarp> helo
19:37 < beeli> ohoho
19:37 < beeli> you alive :)
19:38 < echarp> yeap!
19:38 < echarp> had some going out going on :)
19:38 < beeli> reguler stuff i see
19:38 < beeli> in a mean time i rediscover my revolutinary soul
19:38 < beeli> suppose it is issue of character
19:39 < echarp> revolution?
19:39 < beeli> have some chat with commies at irc
19:39 < beeli> good time we have :)
19:39 < echarp> oh, fun things :)
19:39 < beeli> suppose it can be fun only for such people
19:39 < beeli> to others, nah
19:40 < beeli> though, focus of their action is fine
19:42 < echarp> what kind of action?
19:42 < echarp> revolutionary?
19:42 < beeli> poitical focus stuff
19:43 < echarp> setting rules which will topple current institutions?
19:43 < beeli> weak chain and simmilar thigns
19:43 < beeli> topple?
19:44 < echarp> turn around
19:44 < beeli> your english is good
19:44 < beeli> very good for french man
19:45 < beeli> this is funny thing
19:45 < beeli> little distincions on idea level make very big distincion in its final
19:45 < beeli> such as topple
19:45 < beeli> i look for overgrow
19:45 < beeli> they are satisfied with that also
19:47 < echarp> I lived in scotland for a few years ;)
19:48 < beeli> really>?
19:48 < beeli> how was that?
19:50 < echarp> after my 18th birthday, I went there to study mechanical engineering
19:50 < echarp> in strathclyde university
19:50 < echarp> that helped my english a lot :)
19:50 < beeli> fine decision
19:50 < beeli> good university?
19:51 < echarp> very good one yes
19:51 < beeli> was hard to come back?
19:51 < echarp> no no
19:51 < echarp> and I love paris too
20:17 < beeli> It is important to set primary rules that we know to follow in order to reduce misunderstandings that are regular in any new team, especially cyber one. As long as I am in position of leader I am willing to use my status and explain our first procedure we can of course change completely if you do not find this to be adequate. Yet, it is the a starting one.
20:17 -!- beeli [n=ille...@cmung3169.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Excess Flood]
20:18 -!- beeli (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung3169.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
20:18 < echarp> good thing to do yes
20:19 < echarp> urgen would love that!
20:19 < beeli> did you read it?
20:19 < beeli> i flood and hit ou
20:19 < urgen> sec
20:21 < urgen> "Guideline to Establishing Best Practices'
20:21 < echarp> I just read it yes
20:21 < urgen> read what? where?
20:23 < echarp> "it is important to set primary rules..."
20:25 < beeli> Ok, that is it
20:25 < echarp> of course those first rules will be difficult
20:25 < echarp> nomic!
20:26 < beeli> http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics/browse_frm/thread/2b94a2fbcc92b767/5f0efba4be7d1c56#5f0efba4be7d1c56
20:26 < urgen> for me, 'transparency' means 'visible results'
20:27 < urgen> a netocracy labratory that produces visible results is a great primary step
20:27 < urgen> thanks, beeli
20:28 < urgen> <-- late for a job
20:28 < echarp> :)
20:28 < urgen> I'll have to follow up later
20:28 < beeli> ok
20:28 < beeli> i see some maybe non consisten part
20:28 < beeli> in this procedure
20:28 < beeli> yet, we can change it
20:28 < urgen> take good notes :-)
20:29 < beeli> if we can not make decisions about anythinh else before we realise our tasks, is it possible this thing to be narrow part
20:29 < beeli> ?
20:39 < beeli> echarp: fine with this?
20:40 < echarp> fine with the text?
20:40 < beeli> first procedure
20:41 < echarp> which is?
20:42 < echarp> consensus -1?
20:42 < beeli> yes
20:42 < beeli> and other stuff
20:42 < echarp> you call it "first procedure"?
20:43 < beeli> yes
20:43 < beeli> you can not go against it of course
20:43 < echarp> ?
20:43 < beeli> do you support this?
20:44 < echarp> I mostly do yes
20:44 < echarp> it needs rephrasing in some parts
20:44 < echarp> rephrasing to transform it in slightly more proper english
20:44 < beeli> ok
20:45 < beeli> i can not do taht part
20:45 < echarp> I can take a look on that then
20:45 < echarp> because sometimes it's difficult to understand some parts :(
20:45 < echarp> guess work
20:47 < beeli> ok
20:47 < beeli> i did my job, it is up to you to do stuff i am not good into
20:48 < beeli> now, you can discuss the stuff, i am at 0.
20:49 < beeli> what you conclude, i will support
21:09 < beeli> gonna go
21:09 < beeli> cu
21:09 < echarp> cu
21:24 -!- beeli [n=ille...@cmung3169.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit []
--- Log closed ven jui 14 00:00:00 2006
echarp
Jul 15, 2006, 12:28:30 AM7/15/06
to top-politics
--- Log opened ven jui 14 00:00:00 2006
--- Log closed ven jui 14 04:42:00 2006
--- Log opened ven jui 14 05:53:39 2006
05:53 -!- echarp [n=33M0...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has joined #parlement
05:53 -!- Topic for #parlement: http://leparlement.org/irc
05:53 -!- Topic set by echarp [] [Sun Jun 11 20:50:53 2006]
05:53 [Users #parlement]
05:53 [ echarp] [ fiatlex] [ illegale] [ nsh] [ urgen]
05:53 -!- Irssi: #parlement: Total of 5 nicks [0 ops, 0 halfops, 0 voices, 5 normal]
05:53 -!- Channel #parlement created Thu Apr 27 09:48:29 2006
05:53 < urgen:#parlement> re
05:54 -!- Irssi: Join to #parlement was synced in 44 secs
09:21 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
09:21 -!- Topic for #parlement: http://leparlement.org/irc
09:21 -!- Topic set by echarp [] [Sun Jun 11 20:50:53 2006]
11:57 -!- beeli (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung617.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
12:38 -!- beeli [n=ille...@cmung617.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
12:57 -!- beeli (illegale) [i=ille...@cmung2683.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
13:01 < echarp> hello beeli
13:06 < beeli> oi
13:06 < beeli> how is parlement?
13:06 < echarp> going fine I believe
13:07 < echarp> but I did not work much on it
13:07 < beeli> what are you doing right now *
13:07 < beeli> ?
13:07 < echarp> still avatars :(
13:07 < beeli> hmh
13:07 < echarp> I'm testing the mail avatar updating code
13:08 < beeli> some problems?
13:08 < echarp> difficulties on that yes, but mostly I haven't spent much time on it yet
13:08 < echarp> some girl was on my mind lately ;)
13:09 < beeli> too badž
13:09 < beeli> first hobby than love
13:09 < beeli> that is better for me :)
13:10 < echarp> lol
13:10 < echarp> I'm already spending much on parlement and my job
13:10 < echarp> too much probably
13:11 < beeli> nah
13:11 < beeli> you do it from 98
13:11 < beeli> now you have nikefobia
13:11 < beeli> though stuff it is
13:12 < echarp> nikefobia?
13:12 < echarp> what is that?
13:13 < beeli> being affraid of vixtory
13:13 < beeli> x - c
13:13 < echarp> x - c ?
13:14 < echarp> oh ok
13:14 < echarp> well, I don't see any sort of possible "victory" you know
13:14 < echarp> it's just a continuation
13:14 < echarp> but my sex life also has needs, I'm sure you'll understand ;)
13:14 < beeli> there is victory
13:14 < beeli> ok
13:14 < echarp> girl friend?
13:14 < echarp> wife?
13:15 < beeli> what with tem?
13:15 < echarp> you have any? I don't remember
13:15 < beeli> sure
13:15 < beeli> :)
13:16 < beeli> stuff like food
13:16 < echarp> probably takes some time too isn't it?
13:16 < echarp> lol
13:16 < beeli> yes
13:16 < beeli> i eat fast
13:16 < beeli> sleeep much
13:16 < beeli> lion stuff
13:17 < beeli> so, have much time for this if i do not sleep
13:17 < echarp> :)
13:17 < beeli> you should find a girfriend who will sare your interests
13:17 < beeli> two flies with one shoot
13:17 < beeli> inteerests but sex of course
13:18 < beeli> this saves much energy
13:18 < beeli> and time
13:19 < echarp> that's difficult to find you know, very difficult
13:20 < beeli> depends on where you look for chicks
13:21 < echarp> you have ideas?
13:21 < beeli> you build famous software, sell some mysterious story and youll get them from around the whole world
13:22 < beeli> that was my strategy :)
13:22 < beeli> of course, you can not wait that long :/
13:23 < echarp> :-D
13:23 < echarp> great strategy, hopefully you'll still have libido by the time it gets results!
13:24 < beeli> hehe
13:38 < beeli> gonna go now, cu
13:38 -!- beeli [i=ille...@cmung2683.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit []
14:26 -!- beeli (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung3230.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
15:50 -!- beeli [n=ille...@cmung3230.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit []
--- Log opened ven jui 14 21:07:26 2006
21:07 -!- echarp [n=33M0...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has joined #parlement
21:07 -!- Topic for #parlement: http://leparlement.org/irc
21:07 -!- Topic set by echarp [] [Sun Jun 11 20:50:53 2006]
21:07 [Users #parlement]
21:07 [ echarp] [ fiatlex] [ illegale] [ nsh] [ urgen]
21:07 -!- Irssi: #parlement: Total of 5 nicks [0 ops, 0 halfops, 0 voices, 5 normal]
21:07 -!- Channel #parlement created Thu Apr 27 09:48:29 2006
21:07 -!- Irssi: Join to #parlement was synced in 32 secs
21:08 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
21:30 -!- illegale [i=ille...@cmung4163.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit []
23:49 * echarp loves fireworks
--- Log closed sam jui 15 00:00:50 2006
--- Log closed ven jui 14 04:42:00 2006
--- Log opened ven jui 14 05:53:39 2006
05:53 -!- echarp [n=33M0...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has joined #parlement
05:53 -!- Topic for #parlement: http://leparlement.org/irc
05:53 -!- Topic set by echarp [] [Sun Jun 11 20:50:53 2006]
05:53 [Users #parlement]
05:53 [ echarp] [ fiatlex] [ illegale] [ nsh] [ urgen]
05:53 -!- Irssi: #parlement: Total of 5 nicks [0 ops, 0 halfops, 0 voices, 5 normal]
05:53 -!- Channel #parlement created Thu Apr 27 09:48:29 2006
05:53 < urgen:#parlement> re
05:54 -!- Irssi: Join to #parlement was synced in 44 secs
09:21 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
09:21 -!- Topic for #parlement: http://leparlement.org/irc
09:21 -!- Topic set by echarp [] [Sun Jun 11 20:50:53 2006]
11:57 -!- beeli (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung617.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
12:38 -!- beeli [n=ille...@cmung617.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
12:57 -!- beeli (illegale) [i=ille...@cmung2683.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
13:01 < echarp> hello beeli
13:06 < beeli> oi
13:06 < beeli> how is parlement?
13:06 < echarp> going fine I believe
13:07 < echarp> but I did not work much on it
13:07 < beeli> what are you doing right now *
13:07 < beeli> ?
13:07 < echarp> still avatars :(
13:07 < beeli> hmh
13:07 < echarp> I'm testing the mail avatar updating code
13:08 < beeli> some problems?
13:08 < echarp> difficulties on that yes, but mostly I haven't spent much time on it yet
13:08 < echarp> some girl was on my mind lately ;)
13:09 < beeli> too badž
13:09 < beeli> first hobby than love
13:09 < beeli> that is better for me :)
13:10 < echarp> lol
13:10 < echarp> I'm already spending much on parlement and my job
13:10 < echarp> too much probably
13:11 < beeli> nah
13:11 < beeli> you do it from 98
13:11 < beeli> now you have nikefobia
13:11 < beeli> though stuff it is
13:12 < echarp> nikefobia?
13:12 < echarp> what is that?
13:13 < beeli> being affraid of vixtory
13:13 < beeli> x - c
13:13 < echarp> x - c ?
13:14 < echarp> oh ok
13:14 < echarp> well, I don't see any sort of possible "victory" you know
13:14 < echarp> it's just a continuation
13:14 < echarp> but my sex life also has needs, I'm sure you'll understand ;)
13:14 < beeli> there is victory
13:14 < beeli> ok
13:14 < echarp> girl friend?
13:14 < echarp> wife?
13:15 < beeli> what with tem?
13:15 < echarp> you have any? I don't remember
13:15 < beeli> sure
13:15 < beeli> :)
13:16 < beeli> stuff like food
13:16 < echarp> probably takes some time too isn't it?
13:16 < echarp> lol
13:16 < beeli> yes
13:16 < beeli> i eat fast
13:16 < beeli> sleeep much
13:16 < beeli> lion stuff
13:17 < beeli> so, have much time for this if i do not sleep
13:17 < echarp> :)
13:17 < beeli> you should find a girfriend who will sare your interests
13:17 < beeli> two flies with one shoot
13:17 < beeli> inteerests but sex of course
13:18 < beeli> this saves much energy
13:18 < beeli> and time
13:19 < echarp> that's difficult to find you know, very difficult
13:20 < beeli> depends on where you look for chicks
13:21 < echarp> you have ideas?
13:21 < beeli> you build famous software, sell some mysterious story and youll get them from around the whole world
13:22 < beeli> that was my strategy :)
13:22 < beeli> of course, you can not wait that long :/
13:23 < echarp> :-D
13:23 < echarp> great strategy, hopefully you'll still have libido by the time it gets results!
13:24 < beeli> hehe
13:38 < beeli> gonna go now, cu
13:38 -!- beeli [i=ille...@cmung2683.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit []
14:26 -!- beeli (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung3230.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
15:50 -!- beeli [n=ille...@cmung3230.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit []
--- Log opened ven jui 14 21:07:26 2006
21:07 -!- echarp [n=33M0...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has joined #parlement
21:07 -!- Topic for #parlement: http://leparlement.org/irc
21:07 -!- Topic set by echarp [] [Sun Jun 11 20:50:53 2006]
21:07 [Users #parlement]
21:07 [ echarp] [ fiatlex] [ illegale] [ nsh] [ urgen]
21:07 -!- Irssi: #parlement: Total of 5 nicks [0 ops, 0 halfops, 0 voices, 5 normal]
21:07 -!- Channel #parlement created Thu Apr 27 09:48:29 2006
21:07 -!- Irssi: Join to #parlement was synced in 32 secs
21:08 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
21:30 -!- illegale [i=ille...@cmung4163.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit []
23:49 * echarp loves fireworks
--- Log closed sam jui 15 00:00:50 2006
echarp
Jul 16, 2006, 12:28:51 AM7/16/06
to top-politics
--- Log opened sam jui 15 00:00:50 2006
07:09 < urgen> wow
07:09 < urgen> what's happening?
07:09 < urgen> I've been doing such long hours lately with no extra dollars for it
07:10 < urgen> been working til 2am, 3am, it's 10pm and I just got home
08:35 < urgen> http://microformats.org/wiki/hcalendar
08:35 * urgen checks out
11:52 < echarp> urgen: are you working on ical?
15:39 -!- beeli (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung2663.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
16:42 < echarp> hello hello beeli
16:49 < urgen> ya I
16:49 < urgen> I've been doing icalendar stuff for quite a while
16:53 * urgen sneezes
17:00 < echarp> a cold?
17:01 < echarp> urgen: in a previous job we had to do some stuff on that
17:01 < urgen> allergy
17:01 < echarp> the free software world cruelly lack a good webcal standard
17:01 < urgen> still, more or less, yes
17:01 < urgen> things have been slowly improving
17:01 < echarp> there is openexchange though
17:01 < echarp> kolab2 too
17:02 < echarp> but people still crave an outlook thingy
17:02 < urgen> so have you run across the transparent png24 problem?
17:02 < urgen> IE breaks transparent png's
17:02 < urgen> microsoft breaks so many things all the time
17:03 < urgen> I hear IE7 is going to trash the web again
17:03 < echarp> use the ie7 hack from dean edward!!!
17:03 < echarp> it works marvels, a must have!
17:03 < urgen> I can't really support anything that attempts to interface with microsoft if they continue to bully standards
17:04 < urgen> I always advise ppl away from exchange or anything like that
17:04 < urgen> work arounds should not have to be a way of life
17:04 < echarp> the ie7 hack is quite nice to program to
17:04 < echarp> is standardises ie!
17:05 < urgen> ya but why can't microsoft fix it?
17:05 < urgen> why do we have to rely on angels?
17:05 < urgen> it's just wrong
17:07 < echarp> because MS doesn't care
17:07 < urgen> it actually cares
17:07 < echarp> they want to move towards their own standards
17:07 < urgen> just in the opposite directions
17:07 < echarp> flex like things
17:07 < echarp> yeap
17:07 < echarp> they want to be the one to move
17:07 < urgen> unfortuneately it is not an efficient think tank system
17:09 < echarp> lucky us, there is firefox and other konqueror/safari browsers
17:09 < echarp> personally I'm quite fond of w3m :)
17:10 < urgen> hmn
17:10 < urgen> w3m does a better job than links?
17:10 * urgen goes to try
17:11 < echarp> I prefer it for reading online
17:11 < echarp> it does images
17:11 < urgen> what?
17:11 < echarp> it show images although in a plain terminal
17:12 < urgen> wow has a zillion switches
17:13 < echarp> type on "o" to see options
17:13 < echarp> well, it's a godd browser for reading and nothing more
17:14 < urgen> I can't enter text into a google search then, you mean
17:20 < echarp> you can you can
17:20 < echarp> trouble with w3m is that it doesn't read css files
17:20 < echarp> and no javascript of course
17:20 < urgen> right ok you just mean no fancy pages
17:20 < urgen> it's doing ok with google news
17:21 < urgen> displaying columns of text
17:21 < echarp> yeap
17:26 < echarp> ok, I'm going out for some shopping
17:26 < echarp> cu
17:26 < urgen> ok
17:26 < beeli> cu
17:26 < beeli> :)
17:27 < beeli> gonna go alo
17:27 < beeli> so
17:27 -!- beeli [n=ille...@cmung2663.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit []
17:27 < urgen> ok
18:40 -!- urgyen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
18:41 -!- urgen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)]
--- Log closed dim jui 16 00:00:50 2006
07:09 < urgen> wow
07:09 < urgen> what's happening?
07:09 < urgen> I've been doing such long hours lately with no extra dollars for it
07:10 < urgen> been working til 2am, 3am, it's 10pm and I just got home
08:35 < urgen> http://microformats.org/wiki/hcalendar
08:35 * urgen checks out
11:52 < echarp> urgen: are you working on ical?
15:39 -!- beeli (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung2663.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
16:42 < echarp> hello hello beeli
16:49 < urgen> ya I
16:49 < urgen> I've been doing icalendar stuff for quite a while
16:53 * urgen sneezes
17:00 < echarp> a cold?
17:01 < echarp> urgen: in a previous job we had to do some stuff on that
17:01 < urgen> allergy
17:01 < echarp> the free software world cruelly lack a good webcal standard
17:01 < urgen> still, more or less, yes
17:01 < urgen> things have been slowly improving
17:01 < echarp> there is openexchange though
17:01 < echarp> kolab2 too
17:02 < echarp> but people still crave an outlook thingy
17:02 < urgen> so have you run across the transparent png24 problem?
17:02 < urgen> IE breaks transparent png's
17:02 < urgen> microsoft breaks so many things all the time
17:03 < urgen> I hear IE7 is going to trash the web again
17:03 < echarp> use the ie7 hack from dean edward!!!
17:03 < echarp> it works marvels, a must have!
17:03 < urgen> I can't really support anything that attempts to interface with microsoft if they continue to bully standards
17:04 < urgen> I always advise ppl away from exchange or anything like that
17:04 < urgen> work arounds should not have to be a way of life
17:04 < echarp> the ie7 hack is quite nice to program to
17:04 < echarp> is standardises ie!
17:05 < urgen> ya but why can't microsoft fix it?
17:05 < urgen> why do we have to rely on angels?
17:05 < urgen> it's just wrong
17:07 < echarp> because MS doesn't care
17:07 < urgen> it actually cares
17:07 < echarp> they want to move towards their own standards
17:07 < urgen> just in the opposite directions
17:07 < echarp> flex like things
17:07 < echarp> yeap
17:07 < echarp> they want to be the one to move
17:07 < urgen> unfortuneately it is not an efficient think tank system
17:09 < echarp> lucky us, there is firefox and other konqueror/safari browsers
17:09 < echarp> personally I'm quite fond of w3m :)
17:10 < urgen> hmn
17:10 < urgen> w3m does a better job than links?
17:10 * urgen goes to try
17:11 < echarp> I prefer it for reading online
17:11 < echarp> it does images
17:11 < urgen> what?
17:11 < echarp> it show images although in a plain terminal
17:12 < urgen> wow has a zillion switches
17:13 < echarp> type on "o" to see options
17:13 < echarp> well, it's a godd browser for reading and nothing more
17:14 < urgen> I can't enter text into a google search then, you mean
17:20 < echarp> you can you can
17:20 < echarp> trouble with w3m is that it doesn't read css files
17:20 < echarp> and no javascript of course
17:20 < urgen> right ok you just mean no fancy pages
17:20 < urgen> it's doing ok with google news
17:21 < urgen> displaying columns of text
17:21 < echarp> yeap
17:26 < echarp> ok, I'm going out for some shopping
17:26 < echarp> cu
17:26 < urgen> ok
17:26 < beeli> cu
17:26 < beeli> :)
17:27 < beeli> gonna go alo
17:27 < beeli> so
17:27 -!- beeli [n=ille...@cmung2663.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit []
17:27 < urgen> ok
18:40 -!- urgyen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
18:41 -!- urgen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)]
--- Log closed dim jui 16 00:00:50 2006
echarp
Jul 17, 2006, 12:28:25 AM7/17/06
to top-politics
--- Log opened dim jui 16 00:00:50 2006
18:39 -!- cnloyd (Chris Loyd) [n=mtb...@ppp-69-148-50-114.dsl.hstntx.swbell.net] has joined #parlement
19:56 -!- beeli (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung4270.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
20:29 < beeli> they say it is ww3 going on at fox
20:29 < beeli> urgyen: what you think?
21:02 < beeli> btw, what are the places where net is the weakest?
21:03 < echarp> hello hello
21:04 < beeli> hey
21:05 < beeli> how is in fracne about this stuff?
21:07 < echarp> all news channels speak about it
21:07 < echarp> mostly it's israel & the US being war hungry
21:07 < echarp> mostly
21:08 < beeli> what about it?
21:08 < beeli> iran enterst the war
21:08 < echarp> the US blocked yet another UN resolution
21:08 < beeli> us enterst tha war
21:08 < beeli> what will frnace do?
21:08 < echarp> how could iran enter anything?
21:08 < beeli> un resulution do not be funnz
21:08 < echarp> no chance this goes that far
21:08 < echarp> funnz?
21:08 < beeli> what if?
21:08 < beeli> funny
21:09 < beeli> un resolutions are cral
21:09 < beeli> crap
21:09 < echarp> they are because the US veto them
21:09 < echarp> otherwise it would result in an envoy of UN troops
21:09 < beeli> us does not respond to them
21:09 < beeli> and there is no sancitons
21:09 < beeli> when that stuff is happened, that means it worths no more
21:09 < echarp> yes, the US block them, because israel is their proxy
21:10 < echarp> "that stuff is happened"???
21:10 < beeli> has happened
21:10 < beeli> with iraw
21:10 < beeli> an un resolution
21:10 < beeli> so, from that moment it is worthelss
21:10 < echarp> (you should be careful with you english grammar)
21:10 < beeli> yes
21:10 < echarp> anyway, has israel attacked syria?
21:11 < beeli> i think not
21:11 < beeli> though, what if?
21:11 < beeli> how do france feel about this?
21:11 < beeli> pro america
21:11 < beeli> pro islam?
21:12 < echarp> france used to be a lebanon and syria ally
21:12 < echarp> but you must have seen what happened not so long ago
21:12 < echarp> US & france became allies against syria and for leban
21:12 < echarp> it probably would continue
21:12 < beeli> what is with people?
21:13 < beeli> are they supportive to US or Iran?
21:13 < beeli> no clear opinion?
21:13 < echarp> no clear opinion
21:14 < echarp> we are looking at what is happening
21:14 < beeli> can you imagine where could it go?
21:14 < beeli> to me, thet took good enemy
21:14 < beeli> easy to dehumanise
21:14 < echarp> good ennemy???
21:14 < beeli> yes
21:14 < echarp> please rephrase
21:14 < beeli> islam and those lunatic
21:14 < beeli> s
21:14 < beeli> us establishement is based on enemies for decades
21:14 < beeli> commies
21:15 < beeli> nazis
21:15 < beeli> now these ones
21:15 < beeli> some global threat that is used for consolidation based on fear
21:15 < beeli> not thinking
21:15 < beeli> these new ones are cool for them
21:15 < echarp> yeap
21:15 < beeli> can vastlz manipualte
21:15 < beeli> i am afraid of it
21:16 < beeli> global civil war could happen if this escalates
21:16 < echarp> I am not afraid
21:16 < echarp> no chance it would escalate to a ww3
21:17 < beeli> hmh, you are not worried of patriot act stuff?
21:17 < echarp> at worse iran intervenes and blocks their petroleum passageways
21:17 < echarp> patriot act is something else, is it not?
21:17 < echarp> police state and such
21:17 < beeli> nah
21:17 < beeli> the reason is the same
21:17 < beeli> in this theory i understand
21:17 < beeli> to enforce police state, you need enemy
21:18 < beeli> islam is nowdays enemy and in this moment they can make blitz krieg
21:18 < beeli> to info freedom
21:18 < beeli> remove infoo freedom, no chance to evolve
21:18 < beeli> revolution is the only solution
21:18 < beeli> revolution means war
21:18 < beeli> and big shit
21:18 < beeli> ww3
21:18 < echarp> no, we are far from it
21:18 < beeli> why do you think so:
21:19 < echarp> well patriot act would result into a ww3?
21:19 < beeli> bea use you arre far from it?
21:19 < beeli> nah, it is just a symptom we ca notice
21:19 < echarp> then what are the causes and consequences?
21:19 < echarp> who would act in such a ww3?
21:19 < echarp> north korea? china? iran?
21:20 < echarp> they are all weak very weak
21:20 < beeli> civilis aganst civilis
21:20 < echarp> come on
21:20 < echarp> no chance
21:20 < beeli> chine shares the same interst to those who start this war
21:20 < echarp> yeap
21:20 < echarp> china & US are allies, economic allies
21:20 < beeli> if this happenes, countries are not the issue
21:20 < beeli> political too
21:20 < echarp> who are the players in a ww3?
21:21 < beeli> at first time islam world against west
21:21 < beeli> this war goes on to global civil world
21:21 < beeli> war
21:21 < echarp> who is in that islam world? because there is no such world you know
21:21 < beeli> much much terrorist attacks all around
21:22 < echarp> turky? egypt? marocco?
21:22 < beeli> many many victims all around
21:22 < beeli> pakistan
21:22 < echarp> pakistan is US allies!!!
21:22 < beeli> if this happens no
21:22 < echarp> come on, it is and there is no chance they turn around, because of india and kasmir
21:22 < echarp> who else?
21:22 < beeli> why not
21:22 < beeli> we are talking about ww3 :)
21:23 < echarp> you are talking emotionally
21:23 < beeli> suppose this is enough in this very time
21:23 < beeli> i am talking from this stay of point
21:23 < beeli> we do not know much about all of this
21:23 < beeli> so, we can speculate based on feeling and global understading
21:24 < beeli> what i know is this way to global crasines takes about few months only
21:24 < beeli> not more
21:24 < echarp> no chance this goes there
21:24 < beeli> why do you think so?
21:24 < echarp> saudi arabia is US ally, egypt yet again, algeria and marocoo same
21:24 < echarp> syria is weak
21:24 < beeli> they are allies as long as it fits to both sides
21:24 < echarp> turkey is US ally
21:24 < echarp> of cours
21:25 < echarp> but it won't change easily
21:25 < beeli> this stuff is changed in a moment if somebody wishes
21:25 < beeli> nah, very easily
21:25 < beeli> fire starting is easy stuff
21:25 < beeli> bird flue is just an example
21:25 < beeli> world histery is stuff based on 2 month work
21:26 < echarp> there had to be a build up
21:26 < beeli> yes
21:26 < echarp> you are being emotional, there is no such thing as a clash of civilisations
21:26 < beeli> when you control media, it is peace of cake
21:27 < beeli> and they do control it
21:27 < beeli> hehe
21:27 < beeli> of course there is
21:27 < echarp> US is the biggest army *EVER*
21:27 < beeli> there is whatever happens on tv
21:27 < beeli> so what?
21:28 < echarp> so no one stands against them
21:28 < echarp> not arabs anyway
21:28 < beeli> US?
21:28 < echarp> shia maybe, but that's small
21:28 < echarp> yeap, US
21:28 < beeli> the age of militay weapon strenght is beind us
21:29 < beeli> every lunatic ha A bomb
21:29 < beeli> chem stuff is easy to produce
21:29 < beeli> bio stuff is easy to produce also
21:29 < echarp> chem is not that important, nuke is
21:29 < beeli> in this moment you can create few sleepers
21:30 < beeli> what i am talking about is that everybody is powerfull enough to create big mess if he is forcesd to do so
21:30 < echarp> everybody has nukes?
21:31 < beeli> more or less
21:31 < beeli> :(
21:31 < beeli> Pakistan for an example
21:31 < beeli> Israel too
21:31 < beeli> I cold bet they in arab world have few of them aslo
21:31 < echarp> israel we gave them :)
21:31 < beeli> it was produced 50 years ago
21:31 < echarp> old bombs are not useful
21:31 < beeli> it is controled by rare chams end uran
21:32 < echarp> radiations dismantle their mechanisms
21:32 < beeli> how do you mean/
21:32 < beeli> its about technology
21:32 < echarp> yeap
21:32 < echarp> difficult to manage efficiently
21:32 < beeli> nevetheless
21:32 < beeli> the whole point is about the fact there is two major world clasees around the world
21:32 < echarp> old bombs can merele become dirty bombs
21:33 < echarp> classes???
21:33 < beeli> yes
21:33 < echarp> who???
21:33 < echarp> who who who?
21:33 < beeli> those who are at the position of the power and those who are not :)
21:33 < echarp> lol
21:34 < echarp> we better burn our computers then :)
21:34 < beeli> nah
21:34 < beeli> we are talking about political power
21:34 < beeli> be part of the system
21:34 < echarp> who?
21:34 < echarp> give me names
21:35 < beeli> What is the name of your president:
21:35 < beeli> ?
21:35 < echarp> chirac
21:36 < beeli> he is!
21:36 < beeli> :-)
21:36 < echarp> old and not powerful anymore
21:36 < beeli> Rumsfeld also!
21:36 < echarp> end of mandates
21:36 < beeli> you know those brissel birocrats?
21:36 < beeli> btw, wathced Brasil?
21:36 < echarp> brasil?
21:36 < echarp> what about them?
21:37 < beeli> the movie
21:37 < echarp> yeap, I love it
21:38 < beeli> hehe
21:38 < beeli> that is cool scenario
21:38 < beeli> something how i see EU looks like actually
21:38 < echarp> I don't
21:39 < echarp> how does it compare?
21:40 < beeli> political will is much harder to realise if there is more steps between you and the state
21:40 < beeli> political will of regular member
21:40 < beeli> of course
21:40 < beeli> now, people in slovenia can not blame their politicans any more as long as it is up to EU from now
21:40 < echarp> eu is merely a commercial union
21:41 < beeli> they do not feel strong to fight it though
21:41 < beeli> and their country goes dow and they do not know what to do actually
21:41 < beeli> before EU they would organise political parties and stuf, now they do not belive it any more, they sold sovernitgyty
21:41 < beeli> i am talking from the view af a regular member
21:42 < beeli> laws what about laws for work and stuff?
21:42 < beeli> this is all about EU also
21:42 < beeli> quotas and so on
21:42 < beeli> whatever you want to do you can not if it goes against EU
21:42 < beeli> and it is the same stuff to everybody actuallt
21:42 < beeli> so where does it actually leaking?
21:43 < beeli> is EU tranparent?
21:43 < beeli> :)
21:44 < echarp> not transparent no
21:44 < echarp> but sovereignity has be given on those matters
21:44 < echarp> there remain many others
21:45 < echarp> criminal, education, army, police, medical, etc.
21:45 < beeli> in cro, from my point of view it seems to me all stuff you mention is up to EU also
21:45 < beeli> Criminal, laws about it are laws EU demands
21:45 < beeli> Education, bologna stuff
21:45 < echarp> nope
21:46 < beeli> already happened
21:46 < beeli> Army, ok it is up to NATO.
21:46 < beeli> Medical, it is up to budget of state
21:46 < beeli> and budget is based on economis of course
21:46 < echarp> what is it that eu controls then?
21:46 < beeli> what?
21:47 < beeli> it is myesterious argument people do obey to
21:47 < beeli> in cro
21:47 < echarp> penal law is national
21:47 < beeli> EU gives politicians some money
21:47 < echarp> education too ( I do know not about that bologna thing)
21:47 < beeli> they are at the position and they enforce laws that is said to them they should so
21:48 < echarp> or so they say
21:48 < echarp> eu is a pleasant excuse
21:48 < beeli> bologna thing is about using same principles in order of having equal diplomas and stuff
21:48 < beeli> yes
21:48 < echarp> not much then
21:48 < echarp> in fact bologna seems like an intelligent thing
21:48 < beeli> it changed the whole high edducation process
21:48 < echarp> and it does not remove power from nations
21:48 < beeli> yes
21:48 < beeli> it does :)
21:49 < beeli> it is the point of view
21:49 < echarp> come on, it's a standard, you most certainly don't *have* to obey it
21:49 < beeli> all of this stuf is realised becasue EU said so
21:49 < echarp> you can just obey if you so want
21:49 < beeli> hehe
21:49 < echarp> same with shengen
21:49 < echarp> same with euro
21:49 < beeli> this is about leeching
21:49 < beeli> selling proporties to foreing citizens
21:50 < echarp> leeching by whom on whom?
21:50 < beeli> for an example
21:50 < beeli> some lobbies doing dirty political work for politicans, having them in fist
21:50 < beeli> such as secret services and stuff
21:50 < beeli> big interests in play
21:50 < beeli> regular people just cover it not to be that obvcious
21:51 < beeli> while they are needeed
21:51 < echarp> to come back on ww3, you still think we are on its brink?
21:51 < beeli> though, echarp. it seems to me you are pretty not interested in politics
21:51 < echarp> I am
21:51 < echarp> and I believe I understand some of it
21:51 < beeli> if it happens i wont be surprised
21:52 < echarp> yet I am not pessimistic or optimistic, just realist
21:52 < beeli> as every9ne else
21:52 < echarp> I don't think so
21:52 < echarp> I think you are being very pessimistic right now
21:52 < beeli> for an example, i am objective
21:52 < echarp> even envisioning ww3 without much reasons for it
21:52 < beeli> nah, the fact is that ive already seen some stuff that i would never imagine that could happen
21:52 < beeli> and it happened
21:52 < beeli> needed some models to explain it
21:52 < echarp> which is?
21:53 < beeli> ex yu shit
21:53 < echarp> uh?
21:53 < echarp> oh, ex yougoslavie
21:53 < echarp> that was bad stuff yes
21:54 < echarp> yet it did not result in much either, from a world wide point of view
21:54 < echarp> it resulted in misery and massacres
21:54 < beeli> now, 15 years later, many interesting stuff goes to the surface
21:54 < echarp> war crimes
21:54 < echarp> which is?
21:54 < beeli> what did who in what time
21:54 < beeli> when you see this process you can only state it was all simply fraimed
21:55 < beeli> and people as regular
21:55 < beeli> did cattle work as they regularly do
21:55 < beeli> you can put safe tip on the people in such situatioj
21:55 < beeli> ns
21:55 < beeli> now, when i see all of this
21:56 < echarp> so, why be pessimistic on israel's reinvasion of leban?
21:56 < beeli> i can not be suprised by anything @pessimistic@ actualy
21:56 < beeli> it is not pessimism, but concern
21:56 < beeli> i do not play fool and say it is not possible
21:56 < echarp> see, you are bing pessimistic ;)
21:56 < echarp> it is of course possible
21:56 < beeli> you state is it is actually not
21:56 < echarp> where do I say that???
21:56 < beeli> and i do take care of such possiblity
21:57 < beeli> might be 5% yet, big interests are, big enugh not to ignore it
21:57 < echarp> everything is possible :)
21:57 < beeli> so, what is the point you will become concern?|
21:57 < echarp> 0.5% might still be a lot
21:57 < beeli> before or after it is too late?
21:58 < echarp> I will be concerned if china builds an army and destroys economically the US, then they invade their neighbours in search of natural resources
21:58 < echarp> or if volcanos wake up and clouds the sun for years
21:58 < beeli> so, you are not concern oriented person, i can notice
21:58 < echarp> I am not
21:59 < beeli> that is regular stuff among those who are not involved into greed factor
21:59 < echarp> I am a very happy and stable person
21:59 < echarp> I think everything can happens, but I don't envision the end of history
21:59 < beeli> so, you make a big mistake
21:59 < echarp> maybe, but I don't think I do
21:59 < beeli> you go from yourself in expcting political process going on
21:59 < echarp> I would be all the gladder if we could colonize earth, just for security
21:59 < beeli> echarp I do not envisioun end of history needer
22:00 < echarp> we are living a golden age of humanity
22:00 < echarp> no more big wars
22:00 < echarp> not much concerns for food
22:00 < beeli> hehe
22:00 < beeli> lol
22:00 < echarp> democracy in many places
22:00 < beeli> you live in your reality
22:00 < echarp> science and arts
22:01 < beeli> sadly, it is not you who is asked
22:01 < beeli> for an example, situation in Bosnia
22:01 < echarp> I'm interested in history, I can relativise
22:01 < beeli> people who where OK, regularly thought no chance the war could ever happen
22:01 < echarp> we are *SOOOO* much better than even 30 years ago
22:01 < beeli> we are all the people , the neghbours stuff
22:01 < beeli> we are for each other
22:01 < beeli> how could we go againt
22:01 < beeli> it
22:01 < beeli> ?
22:01 < beeli> stuff
22:01 < beeli> they where wrong :)
22:01 < echarp> against what???
22:02 < beeli> each other
22:02 < echarp> can you rephrase?
22:02 < beeli> now, i met some @baaaaad@ people
22:02 < beeli> what?
22:02 < echarp> people, neighbour, those things
22:02 < beeli> i am talking about thought process of regular good guy in bosnia in 91
22:03 < beeli> we are all neighoubrs
22:03 < beeli> we live together
22:03 < beeli> we wark together
22:03 < beeli> we love each other
22:03 < beeli> how could it be changed ?
22:03 < echarp> come on, yugoslavia has always been a place of troubles
22:03 < echarp> it's not new
22:03 < beeli> we do not have to listen those bastards
22:03 < echarp> there are many religions and populations
22:03 < beeli> echarp: that is pretty simplistic aproach
22:03 < echarp> it is not
22:03 < echarp> it is historic
22:04 < beeli> history is just an excuse
22:04 < echarp> a place from which came alexander the great, where the hun destroyed many a roman
22:04 < beeli> we can notice frecnh get kiched in all wars also
22:04 < echarp> where crusades ended up, wasted and destroyed
22:04 < beeli> yet, does it have anthingh to reality?
22:04 < beeli> we can say serbs are bad warriours
22:04 < echarp> what point are you making?
22:04 < beeli> does it have antyhing to reality
22:04 < beeli> ?
22:04 < beeli> history is nor argument for anythin
22:04 < beeli> g
22:04 < beeli> but for keeping ignorant
22:05 < echarp> COME ON
22:05 < beeli> we are the poeple
22:05 < beeli> same actuallt
22:05 < echarp> without history how can you try to understand
22:05 < echarp> ?
22:05 < beeli> we in cro, or those in thailand
22:05 < beeli> look at the facts
22:05 < beeli> it is much simpler and better aproacj
22:05 < echarp> what is better???
22:05 < beeli> not uise generalisation to make shortcut
22:06 < echarp> state your point please
22:06 < beeli> look at hte exact moment that made impact on the process
22:06 < echarp> history is of no interest to understand the present and the future?
22:06 < echarp> what are you saying?
22:06 < beeli> i am saying that your argument is not valid
22:06 < echarp> which is?
22:07 < beeli> historcism,
22:07 < beeli> it is always that way
22:07 < beeli> stuff
22:07 < beeli> it is not explainaiton, but ignorance
22:07 < beeli> you need to get to exact paramethers if you want to have a littlbe bit more valid understaindg
22:07 < echarp> sorry, me stating that this place of the world is a place of troube is wrong????
22:07 < beeli> exact parameter is who talkfd to who
22:07 < beeli> about what
22:07 < beeli> what did he do
22:07 < beeli> who did screw him and stuff
22:08 < beeli> it is superafacioal
22:08 < echarp> has it or has it not been a place of trouble???????????????????
22:08 < beeli> btw, could anything new happened if argument of historicim is the only one andgood one?
22:08 < echarp> do acknowledge me, I'm not speaking bullshit
22:08 < beeli> it has
22:08 < beeli> yet, it is actualy irreleavant
22:09 < echarp> so, am I wrong saying it is not new?
22:09 < beeli> it is not explaination
22:09 < echarp> I'm not stating an explanation, I'm stating that it is not new
22:09 < beeli> it is just excuse for you to get into understaing of the process
22:09 < beeli> that has nothing to historicism, but to human nateure
22:09 < beeli> and human igonrance
22:09 < beeli> ok
22:09 < echarp> I'm a relativist, I can compare our current state of the world and past states of the world
22:10 < beeli> look at the moment you stated you argument
22:10 < echarp> and I'm saying that we are living a golden age, by *far*!!!
22:10 < beeli> why did you stated it?
22:10 < echarp> to show that current world affairs are at a best of time
22:10 < beeli> seems to me it is sort of explanation
22:10 < echarp> it is relativism
22:10 < echarp> I relativise what is happening
22:11 < echarp> I compare it with past states
22:11 < beeli> what do you get from it?
22:11 < echarp> I see the nations as tectonic plates which affront or help each others
22:11 < beeli> what is conclusion of such argment?
22:11 < beeli> wht about wars?
22:11 < beeli> it happens here and there
22:11 < echarp> the conclusion is rather easy, world affairs are currently getting all the times better
22:11 < beeli> it is nothing new also
22:11 < echarp> wars are minuscule in comparision to past times
22:12 < beeli> what times?
22:12 < echarp> there is darfour, but it's not war as much as a crime
22:12 < beeli> you mean ww2?
22:12 < echarp> the 80's for example
22:12 < echarp> you had a war between millions of people, iran/irak
22:12 < beeli> so, in yu it happened
22:12 < echarp> the 60s and 70s, with vietnam
22:12 < beeli> some people though, it could never happened
22:12 < echarp> the cold war in general
22:12 < beeli> same as you do right now
22:13 < echarp> what could never have happened???
22:13 < beeli> yet, the point is tat they where not asked
22:13 < beeli> war in yu
22:13 < beeli> same as you state war in france
22:13 < beeli> yet, it did happened 50 ears ago
22:13 < beeli> that is not that long actually
22:13 < beeli> same as in yu
22:13 < beeli> same time
22:13 < beeli> same arguments
22:13 < echarp> well, you are comparing my attitude with the attitude of others who were wrong, and claiming that I am then wrong???
22:14 < beeli> suppose you would do the same tihng if you where in yu in those times
22:14 < echarp> why do you suppose that?
22:14 < beeli> nah, i just give you the point
22:14 < beeli> because you did not touvh human dirth
22:14 < echarp> sorry, you are attacking a strawman
22:14 < echarp> touvh???
22:14 < beeli> touch
22:14 < beeli> strawman?
22:14 < echarp> sorry, you don't know me, I have touched dirt
22:15 < beeli> human one?
22:15 < beeli> :)
22:15 < echarp> strawman is when you are not attacking your opponent argument, but someone's else, then claim that you win
22:15 < echarp> human one yes, from very near
22:15 < beeli> you might be right
22:15 < beeli> or might not
22:15 < beeli> :L)
22:16 < beeli> did you ever shoot at your brother?
22:16 < beeli> :P
22:16 < echarp> I did things along those lines
22:16 < echarp> but I'd rather talk about it
22:16 < echarp> "not" talk
22:16 < beeli> this is shitty stuff going on when mass histaria starts
22:16 < beeli> yes
22:16 < beeli> can you be completely open to anyone?
22:17 < beeli> no :)
22:17 < beeli> why?
22:17 < echarp> open in what sense?
22:17 < beeli> in every sense spiritual
22:17 < beeli> intelecutall and stuff
22:17 < beeli> be honest
22:17 < echarp> because I consider myself *VERY* open!
22:17 < beeli> very
22:17 < echarp> and highly frank and honest
22:17 < beeli> not absolutely
22:17 < echarp> I think absolutes can not be known by man
22:18 < beeli> it depends
22:18 < echarp> thus I don't speak, *never, in absolutes :)
22:18 < echarp> depends not
22:18 < beeli> if there is no moment you stop and thing again
22:18 < beeli> than you are abslutely open
22:18 < echarp> no moment you stop and think again???
22:18 < echarp> what do you mean?
22:18 < beeli> rephrase
22:18 < beeli> be just plain
22:18 < beeli> not need to pack stuff
22:18 < beeli> and so om
22:18 < echarp> should *I* rephrase? rephrase what?
22:19 < beeli> your thought in order ot to hurth somebody
22:19 < beeli> to censour youreslf a bit
22:19 < echarp> censor?
22:19 < beeli> nevermind
22:19 < beeli> this goes nowhere
22:19 < beeli> what i wanted to say
22:19 < echarp> can you state your point? I'm lost
22:20 < beeli> when you see how people are easily manipulated by their depest complexes fears and anger that comes out of it, you can easilt imagine pretty bad scenarios going on
22:20 < beeli> in the same time you need to notice political reality that is based on pretty non scrupulosu pople
22:20 < beeli> those who will do anything to protect their pretty low interest
22:21 < beeli> pretty low interest, as long as higher interest, there is no polace for them in this reality
22:21 < beeli> political reality
22:21 < echarp> and?
22:21 < beeli> and that is it
22:22 < echarp> you think I don't share that opinion?
22:22 < beeli> i think you might not realise it
22:22 < echarp> but manipulations will *always* be here, at most we can decrease it
22:22 < beeli> as long as i see your states, no way dude be such
22:22 < echarp> I'm not running around fearing it
22:22 < echarp> dude?
22:22 < beeli> dude
22:22 < beeli> hey dude
22:23 < echarp> :)
22:23 < echarp> my states?
22:23 < beeli> you do not think any bad scenario is actually possible
22:23 < beeli> you think this all goes forward by itslef
22:23 < echarp> where do I say that?
22:23 < beeli> but it does not
22:23 < beeli> i have such opinion
22:24 < echarp> please, state what I think :)
22:25 < beeli> you do not think any bad scenario is actually possible
22:25 < echarp> golden age of humanity is no obstacle to bad scenarios that could always occur
22:25 < beeli> when i say possible, lets say expecting
22:25 < echarp> where do I state that bad scenario are not possible???
22:25 < beeli> what is so gold about it?
22:25 < beeli> i do not aim at everyithing is possible
22:25 < echarp> it is a golden age because wars are almost non existant
22:26 < echarp> because we are not on the brink of annihilation as we were during the cold war
22:26 < echarp> because we can mostly feed all the planet (what we don't feed is mostly due to local warlords)
22:27 < echarp> because the world is in pretty good shape right now
22:27 < echarp> sciences are being worked upon openly
22:27 < echarp> democracies in many countries
22:27 < echarp> arts
22:27 < echarp> borders opened to people
22:27 < echarp> internet!
22:27 < echarp> we can actually think about the future
22:28 < echarp> we can plan, plan things like interstella colonisation
22:28 < echarp> of course the current affairs could turn into a ww3, but the chances are really faint
22:28 < echarp> irak is over as a political and military entity
22:28 < echarp> iran is not much right now militarily and economically
22:28 < echarp> same with n korea
22:29 < echarp> china is in its economic boom, let's hope for a political change
22:29 < echarp> bellarus might take more years for some opening :(
22:29 < echarp> russians nukes are rusting and *could* be sold world wide, but they are also very old
22:30 < echarp> the only danger in the world is.... the united states of america, ain't that ironic?
22:30 < echarp> leaders of the free world!
22:41 -!- illegale (illegale) [i=ille...@cmung4143.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
22:42 < illegale> back i am
22:42 < illegale> computer crashed
22:43 < illegale> the last thing you said and i did see is the thing that does not fit to the data i know
22:43 < illegale> that is the issue of local warloads be the reason we are far from perfection
22:44 < illegale> cnloyd
22:46 -!- beeli [n=ille...@cmung4270.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
22:46 < echarp> we are of course far from perfection
22:46 < echarp> we will *never* reach perfection
22:46 < illegale> this is the food stuff
22:46 < echarp> there will alway be some injustice, some violence
22:46 < illegale> exact human needs that shohd be solved, but that are not
22:47 < echarp> we just try to make the world a better place
22:47 < illegale> the point i am aiming to is those local chiefs are thare just becasue they do not into contrary to interests of big players
22:47 < illegale> in africa, you can notice many such regimes
22:47 < echarp> I don't believed those needs need to be solved, but warlords need to be eliminated
22:47 < illegale> and they are not, why_
22:47 < illegale> ?
22:47 < echarp> yeap I know, france love some of those regimes :(
22:48 < illegale> yes
22:48 < illegale> not just love
22:48 < illegale> but much more than it
22:48 < illegale> it creates those
22:48 < illegale> keeps those
22:48 < echarp> love is already a big word :)
22:48 < illegale> thsoe can not survive without hones help of their lovers
22:48 < echarp> it's the consequence of colonialism
22:48 < echarp> yeap
22:48 < illegale> so, when we talk about local chiefs
22:48 < echarp> they survive largely because of us
22:48 < illegale> we are not talking avbout them actually
22:49 < illegale> we are talking about global political establishemnt
22:49 < illegale> ologopoly of politics
22:49 < illegale> on the worl level
22:49 < illegale> that endures such issues suc has hunger
22:50 < illegale> echarp, it is not just largery
22:50 < illegale> it is essential part
22:50 < illegale> actually
22:50 < illegale> UN, English, USA, France, Germany
22:50 < echarp> I do not think it is essential
22:50 < illegale> Italy . I do not know for Italy
22:51 < echarp> and germany is largely out of it
22:51 < illegale> cmon, if it creates them if it removes them
22:51 < echarp> germany has no colonies
22:51 < illegale> when they wish to
22:51 < illegale> than i have to admit it has much to it
22:51 < illegale> it has
22:51 < illegale> Croatia
22:51 < illegale> :)
22:51 < echarp> lol
22:51 < echarp> touristic place, mostly
22:51 < echarp> sattelite
22:51 < illegale> Deutche tleekom
22:52 < illegale> the point is the same
22:52 < illegale> they have political elites that are dependent to them
22:52 < illegale> not to the poeple who should choose them
22:55 < echarp> it's the very point of elitism
22:55 < echarp> choosing leaders among a choosen few
22:55 < echarp> no social lift
22:55 < echarp> no inter mixing
22:56 < echarp> I would say that elitism is when you choose leaders only among a supposed elite
22:56 < echarp> even among current leaders
23:03 < illegale> yes
23:05 < illegale> so, democracy means no closing such structures
23:05 < illegale> how to do that?
23:05 < illegale> how to distinct that?
23:05 < illegale> i am going to sleep
23:05 < illegale> had though day today
23:05 < illegale> good night :)
23:05 -!- illegale [i=ille...@cmung4143.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit []
23:20 < echarp> good night
--- Log closed lun jui 17 00:00:51 2006
18:39 -!- cnloyd (Chris Loyd) [n=mtb...@ppp-69-148-50-114.dsl.hstntx.swbell.net] has joined #parlement
19:56 -!- beeli (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung4270.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
20:29 < beeli> they say it is ww3 going on at fox
20:29 < beeli> urgyen: what you think?
21:02 < beeli> btw, what are the places where net is the weakest?
21:03 < echarp> hello hello
21:04 < beeli> hey
21:05 < beeli> how is in fracne about this stuff?
21:07 < echarp> all news channels speak about it
21:07 < echarp> mostly it's israel & the US being war hungry
21:07 < echarp> mostly
21:08 < beeli> what about it?
21:08 < beeli> iran enterst the war
21:08 < echarp> the US blocked yet another UN resolution
21:08 < beeli> us enterst tha war
21:08 < beeli> what will frnace do?
21:08 < echarp> how could iran enter anything?
21:08 < beeli> un resulution do not be funnz
21:08 < echarp> no chance this goes that far
21:08 < echarp> funnz?
21:08 < beeli> what if?
21:08 < beeli> funny
21:09 < beeli> un resolutions are cral
21:09 < beeli> crap
21:09 < echarp> they are because the US veto them
21:09 < echarp> otherwise it would result in an envoy of UN troops
21:09 < beeli> us does not respond to them
21:09 < beeli> and there is no sancitons
21:09 < beeli> when that stuff is happened, that means it worths no more
21:09 < echarp> yes, the US block them, because israel is their proxy
21:10 < echarp> "that stuff is happened"???
21:10 < beeli> has happened
21:10 < beeli> with iraw
21:10 < beeli> an un resolution
21:10 < beeli> so, from that moment it is worthelss
21:10 < echarp> (you should be careful with you english grammar)
21:10 < beeli> yes
21:10 < echarp> anyway, has israel attacked syria?
21:11 < beeli> i think not
21:11 < beeli> though, what if?
21:11 < beeli> how do france feel about this?
21:11 < beeli> pro america
21:11 < beeli> pro islam?
21:12 < echarp> france used to be a lebanon and syria ally
21:12 < echarp> but you must have seen what happened not so long ago
21:12 < echarp> US & france became allies against syria and for leban
21:12 < echarp> it probably would continue
21:12 < beeli> what is with people?
21:13 < beeli> are they supportive to US or Iran?
21:13 < beeli> no clear opinion?
21:13 < echarp> no clear opinion
21:14 < echarp> we are looking at what is happening
21:14 < beeli> can you imagine where could it go?
21:14 < beeli> to me, thet took good enemy
21:14 < beeli> easy to dehumanise
21:14 < echarp> good ennemy???
21:14 < beeli> yes
21:14 < echarp> please rephrase
21:14 < beeli> islam and those lunatic
21:14 < beeli> s
21:14 < beeli> us establishement is based on enemies for decades
21:14 < beeli> commies
21:15 < beeli> nazis
21:15 < beeli> now these ones
21:15 < beeli> some global threat that is used for consolidation based on fear
21:15 < beeli> not thinking
21:15 < beeli> these new ones are cool for them
21:15 < echarp> yeap
21:15 < beeli> can vastlz manipualte
21:15 < beeli> i am afraid of it
21:16 < beeli> global civil war could happen if this escalates
21:16 < echarp> I am not afraid
21:16 < echarp> no chance it would escalate to a ww3
21:17 < beeli> hmh, you are not worried of patriot act stuff?
21:17 < echarp> at worse iran intervenes and blocks their petroleum passageways
21:17 < echarp> patriot act is something else, is it not?
21:17 < echarp> police state and such
21:17 < beeli> nah
21:17 < beeli> the reason is the same
21:17 < beeli> in this theory i understand
21:17 < beeli> to enforce police state, you need enemy
21:18 < beeli> islam is nowdays enemy and in this moment they can make blitz krieg
21:18 < beeli> to info freedom
21:18 < beeli> remove infoo freedom, no chance to evolve
21:18 < beeli> revolution is the only solution
21:18 < beeli> revolution means war
21:18 < beeli> and big shit
21:18 < beeli> ww3
21:18 < echarp> no, we are far from it
21:18 < beeli> why do you think so:
21:19 < echarp> well patriot act would result into a ww3?
21:19 < beeli> bea use you arre far from it?
21:19 < beeli> nah, it is just a symptom we ca notice
21:19 < echarp> then what are the causes and consequences?
21:19 < echarp> who would act in such a ww3?
21:19 < echarp> north korea? china? iran?
21:20 < echarp> they are all weak very weak
21:20 < beeli> civilis aganst civilis
21:20 < echarp> come on
21:20 < echarp> no chance
21:20 < beeli> chine shares the same interst to those who start this war
21:20 < echarp> yeap
21:20 < echarp> china & US are allies, economic allies
21:20 < beeli> if this happenes, countries are not the issue
21:20 < beeli> political too
21:20 < echarp> who are the players in a ww3?
21:21 < beeli> at first time islam world against west
21:21 < beeli> this war goes on to global civil world
21:21 < beeli> war
21:21 < echarp> who is in that islam world? because there is no such world you know
21:21 < beeli> much much terrorist attacks all around
21:22 < echarp> turky? egypt? marocco?
21:22 < beeli> many many victims all around
21:22 < beeli> pakistan
21:22 < echarp> pakistan is US allies!!!
21:22 < beeli> if this happens no
21:22 < echarp> come on, it is and there is no chance they turn around, because of india and kasmir
21:22 < echarp> who else?
21:22 < beeli> why not
21:22 < beeli> we are talking about ww3 :)
21:23 < echarp> you are talking emotionally
21:23 < beeli> suppose this is enough in this very time
21:23 < beeli> i am talking from this stay of point
21:23 < beeli> we do not know much about all of this
21:23 < beeli> so, we can speculate based on feeling and global understading
21:24 < beeli> what i know is this way to global crasines takes about few months only
21:24 < beeli> not more
21:24 < echarp> no chance this goes there
21:24 < beeli> why do you think so?
21:24 < echarp> saudi arabia is US ally, egypt yet again, algeria and marocoo same
21:24 < echarp> syria is weak
21:24 < beeli> they are allies as long as it fits to both sides
21:24 < echarp> turkey is US ally
21:24 < echarp> of cours
21:25 < echarp> but it won't change easily
21:25 < beeli> this stuff is changed in a moment if somebody wishes
21:25 < beeli> nah, very easily
21:25 < beeli> fire starting is easy stuff
21:25 < beeli> bird flue is just an example
21:25 < beeli> world histery is stuff based on 2 month work
21:26 < echarp> there had to be a build up
21:26 < beeli> yes
21:26 < echarp> you are being emotional, there is no such thing as a clash of civilisations
21:26 < beeli> when you control media, it is peace of cake
21:27 < beeli> and they do control it
21:27 < beeli> hehe
21:27 < beeli> of course there is
21:27 < echarp> US is the biggest army *EVER*
21:27 < beeli> there is whatever happens on tv
21:27 < beeli> so what?
21:28 < echarp> so no one stands against them
21:28 < echarp> not arabs anyway
21:28 < beeli> US?
21:28 < echarp> shia maybe, but that's small
21:28 < echarp> yeap, US
21:28 < beeli> the age of militay weapon strenght is beind us
21:29 < beeli> every lunatic ha A bomb
21:29 < beeli> chem stuff is easy to produce
21:29 < beeli> bio stuff is easy to produce also
21:29 < echarp> chem is not that important, nuke is
21:29 < beeli> in this moment you can create few sleepers
21:30 < beeli> what i am talking about is that everybody is powerfull enough to create big mess if he is forcesd to do so
21:30 < echarp> everybody has nukes?
21:31 < beeli> more or less
21:31 < beeli> :(
21:31 < beeli> Pakistan for an example
21:31 < beeli> Israel too
21:31 < beeli> I cold bet they in arab world have few of them aslo
21:31 < echarp> israel we gave them :)
21:31 < beeli> it was produced 50 years ago
21:31 < echarp> old bombs are not useful
21:31 < beeli> it is controled by rare chams end uran
21:32 < echarp> radiations dismantle their mechanisms
21:32 < beeli> how do you mean/
21:32 < beeli> its about technology
21:32 < echarp> yeap
21:32 < echarp> difficult to manage efficiently
21:32 < beeli> nevetheless
21:32 < beeli> the whole point is about the fact there is two major world clasees around the world
21:32 < echarp> old bombs can merele become dirty bombs
21:33 < echarp> classes???
21:33 < beeli> yes
21:33 < echarp> who???
21:33 < echarp> who who who?
21:33 < beeli> those who are at the position of the power and those who are not :)
21:33 < echarp> lol
21:34 < echarp> we better burn our computers then :)
21:34 < beeli> nah
21:34 < beeli> we are talking about political power
21:34 < beeli> be part of the system
21:34 < echarp> who?
21:34 < echarp> give me names
21:35 < beeli> What is the name of your president:
21:35 < beeli> ?
21:35 < echarp> chirac
21:36 < beeli> he is!
21:36 < beeli> :-)
21:36 < echarp> old and not powerful anymore
21:36 < beeli> Rumsfeld also!
21:36 < echarp> end of mandates
21:36 < beeli> you know those brissel birocrats?
21:36 < beeli> btw, wathced Brasil?
21:36 < echarp> brasil?
21:36 < echarp> what about them?
21:37 < beeli> the movie
21:37 < echarp> yeap, I love it
21:38 < beeli> hehe
21:38 < beeli> that is cool scenario
21:38 < beeli> something how i see EU looks like actually
21:38 < echarp> I don't
21:39 < echarp> how does it compare?
21:40 < beeli> political will is much harder to realise if there is more steps between you and the state
21:40 < beeli> political will of regular member
21:40 < beeli> of course
21:40 < beeli> now, people in slovenia can not blame their politicans any more as long as it is up to EU from now
21:40 < echarp> eu is merely a commercial union
21:41 < beeli> they do not feel strong to fight it though
21:41 < beeli> and their country goes dow and they do not know what to do actually
21:41 < beeli> before EU they would organise political parties and stuf, now they do not belive it any more, they sold sovernitgyty
21:41 < beeli> i am talking from the view af a regular member
21:42 < beeli> laws what about laws for work and stuff?
21:42 < beeli> this is all about EU also
21:42 < beeli> quotas and so on
21:42 < beeli> whatever you want to do you can not if it goes against EU
21:42 < beeli> and it is the same stuff to everybody actuallt
21:42 < beeli> so where does it actually leaking?
21:43 < beeli> is EU tranparent?
21:43 < beeli> :)
21:44 < echarp> not transparent no
21:44 < echarp> but sovereignity has be given on those matters
21:44 < echarp> there remain many others
21:45 < echarp> criminal, education, army, police, medical, etc.
21:45 < beeli> in cro, from my point of view it seems to me all stuff you mention is up to EU also
21:45 < beeli> Criminal, laws about it are laws EU demands
21:45 < beeli> Education, bologna stuff
21:45 < echarp> nope
21:46 < beeli> already happened
21:46 < beeli> Army, ok it is up to NATO.
21:46 < beeli> Medical, it is up to budget of state
21:46 < beeli> and budget is based on economis of course
21:46 < echarp> what is it that eu controls then?
21:46 < beeli> what?
21:47 < beeli> it is myesterious argument people do obey to
21:47 < beeli> in cro
21:47 < echarp> penal law is national
21:47 < beeli> EU gives politicians some money
21:47 < echarp> education too ( I do know not about that bologna thing)
21:47 < beeli> they are at the position and they enforce laws that is said to them they should so
21:48 < echarp> or so they say
21:48 < echarp> eu is a pleasant excuse
21:48 < beeli> bologna thing is about using same principles in order of having equal diplomas and stuff
21:48 < beeli> yes
21:48 < echarp> not much then
21:48 < echarp> in fact bologna seems like an intelligent thing
21:48 < beeli> it changed the whole high edducation process
21:48 < echarp> and it does not remove power from nations
21:48 < beeli> yes
21:48 < beeli> it does :)
21:49 < beeli> it is the point of view
21:49 < echarp> come on, it's a standard, you most certainly don't *have* to obey it
21:49 < beeli> all of this stuf is realised becasue EU said so
21:49 < echarp> you can just obey if you so want
21:49 < beeli> hehe
21:49 < echarp> same with shengen
21:49 < echarp> same with euro
21:49 < beeli> this is about leeching
21:49 < beeli> selling proporties to foreing citizens
21:50 < echarp> leeching by whom on whom?
21:50 < beeli> for an example
21:50 < beeli> some lobbies doing dirty political work for politicans, having them in fist
21:50 < beeli> such as secret services and stuff
21:50 < beeli> big interests in play
21:50 < beeli> regular people just cover it not to be that obvcious
21:51 < beeli> while they are needeed
21:51 < echarp> to come back on ww3, you still think we are on its brink?
21:51 < beeli> though, echarp. it seems to me you are pretty not interested in politics
21:51 < echarp> I am
21:51 < echarp> and I believe I understand some of it
21:51 < beeli> if it happens i wont be surprised
21:52 < echarp> yet I am not pessimistic or optimistic, just realist
21:52 < beeli> as every9ne else
21:52 < echarp> I don't think so
21:52 < echarp> I think you are being very pessimistic right now
21:52 < beeli> for an example, i am objective
21:52 < echarp> even envisioning ww3 without much reasons for it
21:52 < beeli> nah, the fact is that ive already seen some stuff that i would never imagine that could happen
21:52 < beeli> and it happened
21:52 < beeli> needed some models to explain it
21:52 < echarp> which is?
21:53 < beeli> ex yu shit
21:53 < echarp> uh?
21:53 < echarp> oh, ex yougoslavie
21:53 < echarp> that was bad stuff yes
21:54 < echarp> yet it did not result in much either, from a world wide point of view
21:54 < echarp> it resulted in misery and massacres
21:54 < beeli> now, 15 years later, many interesting stuff goes to the surface
21:54 < echarp> war crimes
21:54 < echarp> which is?
21:54 < beeli> what did who in what time
21:54 < beeli> when you see this process you can only state it was all simply fraimed
21:55 < beeli> and people as regular
21:55 < beeli> did cattle work as they regularly do
21:55 < beeli> you can put safe tip on the people in such situatioj
21:55 < beeli> ns
21:55 < beeli> now, when i see all of this
21:56 < echarp> so, why be pessimistic on israel's reinvasion of leban?
21:56 < beeli> i can not be suprised by anything @pessimistic@ actualy
21:56 < beeli> it is not pessimism, but concern
21:56 < beeli> i do not play fool and say it is not possible
21:56 < echarp> see, you are bing pessimistic ;)
21:56 < echarp> it is of course possible
21:56 < beeli> you state is it is actually not
21:56 < echarp> where do I say that???
21:56 < beeli> and i do take care of such possiblity
21:57 < beeli> might be 5% yet, big interests are, big enugh not to ignore it
21:57 < echarp> everything is possible :)
21:57 < beeli> so, what is the point you will become concern?|
21:57 < echarp> 0.5% might still be a lot
21:57 < beeli> before or after it is too late?
21:58 < echarp> I will be concerned if china builds an army and destroys economically the US, then they invade their neighbours in search of natural resources
21:58 < echarp> or if volcanos wake up and clouds the sun for years
21:58 < beeli> so, you are not concern oriented person, i can notice
21:58 < echarp> I am not
21:59 < beeli> that is regular stuff among those who are not involved into greed factor
21:59 < echarp> I am a very happy and stable person
21:59 < echarp> I think everything can happens, but I don't envision the end of history
21:59 < beeli> so, you make a big mistake
21:59 < echarp> maybe, but I don't think I do
21:59 < beeli> you go from yourself in expcting political process going on
21:59 < echarp> I would be all the gladder if we could colonize earth, just for security
21:59 < beeli> echarp I do not envisioun end of history needer
22:00 < echarp> we are living a golden age of humanity
22:00 < echarp> no more big wars
22:00 < echarp> not much concerns for food
22:00 < beeli> hehe
22:00 < beeli> lol
22:00 < echarp> democracy in many places
22:00 < beeli> you live in your reality
22:00 < echarp> science and arts
22:01 < beeli> sadly, it is not you who is asked
22:01 < beeli> for an example, situation in Bosnia
22:01 < echarp> I'm interested in history, I can relativise
22:01 < beeli> people who where OK, regularly thought no chance the war could ever happen
22:01 < echarp> we are *SOOOO* much better than even 30 years ago
22:01 < beeli> we are all the people , the neghbours stuff
22:01 < beeli> we are for each other
22:01 < beeli> how could we go againt
22:01 < beeli> it
22:01 < beeli> ?
22:01 < beeli> stuff
22:01 < beeli> they where wrong :)
22:01 < echarp> against what???
22:02 < beeli> each other
22:02 < echarp> can you rephrase?
22:02 < beeli> now, i met some @baaaaad@ people
22:02 < beeli> what?
22:02 < echarp> people, neighbour, those things
22:02 < beeli> i am talking about thought process of regular good guy in bosnia in 91
22:03 < beeli> we are all neighoubrs
22:03 < beeli> we live together
22:03 < beeli> we wark together
22:03 < beeli> we love each other
22:03 < beeli> how could it be changed ?
22:03 < echarp> come on, yugoslavia has always been a place of troubles
22:03 < echarp> it's not new
22:03 < beeli> we do not have to listen those bastards
22:03 < echarp> there are many religions and populations
22:03 < beeli> echarp: that is pretty simplistic aproach
22:03 < echarp> it is not
22:03 < echarp> it is historic
22:04 < beeli> history is just an excuse
22:04 < echarp> a place from which came alexander the great, where the hun destroyed many a roman
22:04 < beeli> we can notice frecnh get kiched in all wars also
22:04 < echarp> where crusades ended up, wasted and destroyed
22:04 < beeli> yet, does it have anthingh to reality?
22:04 < beeli> we can say serbs are bad warriours
22:04 < echarp> what point are you making?
22:04 < beeli> does it have antyhing to reality
22:04 < beeli> ?
22:04 < beeli> history is nor argument for anythin
22:04 < beeli> g
22:04 < beeli> but for keeping ignorant
22:05 < echarp> COME ON
22:05 < beeli> we are the poeple
22:05 < beeli> same actuallt
22:05 < echarp> without history how can you try to understand
22:05 < echarp> ?
22:05 < beeli> we in cro, or those in thailand
22:05 < beeli> look at the facts
22:05 < beeli> it is much simpler and better aproacj
22:05 < echarp> what is better???
22:05 < beeli> not uise generalisation to make shortcut
22:06 < echarp> state your point please
22:06 < beeli> look at hte exact moment that made impact on the process
22:06 < echarp> history is of no interest to understand the present and the future?
22:06 < echarp> what are you saying?
22:06 < beeli> i am saying that your argument is not valid
22:06 < echarp> which is?
22:07 < beeli> historcism,
22:07 < beeli> it is always that way
22:07 < beeli> stuff
22:07 < beeli> it is not explainaiton, but ignorance
22:07 < beeli> you need to get to exact paramethers if you want to have a littlbe bit more valid understaindg
22:07 < echarp> sorry, me stating that this place of the world is a place of troube is wrong????
22:07 < beeli> exact parameter is who talkfd to who
22:07 < beeli> about what
22:07 < beeli> what did he do
22:07 < beeli> who did screw him and stuff
22:08 < beeli> it is superafacioal
22:08 < echarp> has it or has it not been a place of trouble???????????????????
22:08 < beeli> btw, could anything new happened if argument of historicim is the only one andgood one?
22:08 < echarp> do acknowledge me, I'm not speaking bullshit
22:08 < beeli> it has
22:08 < beeli> yet, it is actualy irreleavant
22:09 < echarp> so, am I wrong saying it is not new?
22:09 < beeli> it is not explaination
22:09 < echarp> I'm not stating an explanation, I'm stating that it is not new
22:09 < beeli> it is just excuse for you to get into understaing of the process
22:09 < beeli> that has nothing to historicism, but to human nateure
22:09 < beeli> and human igonrance
22:09 < beeli> ok
22:09 < echarp> I'm a relativist, I can compare our current state of the world and past states of the world
22:10 < beeli> look at the moment you stated you argument
22:10 < echarp> and I'm saying that we are living a golden age, by *far*!!!
22:10 < beeli> why did you stated it?
22:10 < echarp> to show that current world affairs are at a best of time
22:10 < beeli> seems to me it is sort of explanation
22:10 < echarp> it is relativism
22:10 < echarp> I relativise what is happening
22:11 < echarp> I compare it with past states
22:11 < beeli> what do you get from it?
22:11 < echarp> I see the nations as tectonic plates which affront or help each others
22:11 < beeli> what is conclusion of such argment?
22:11 < beeli> wht about wars?
22:11 < beeli> it happens here and there
22:11 < echarp> the conclusion is rather easy, world affairs are currently getting all the times better
22:11 < beeli> it is nothing new also
22:11 < echarp> wars are minuscule in comparision to past times
22:12 < beeli> what times?
22:12 < echarp> there is darfour, but it's not war as much as a crime
22:12 < beeli> you mean ww2?
22:12 < echarp> the 80's for example
22:12 < echarp> you had a war between millions of people, iran/irak
22:12 < beeli> so, in yu it happened
22:12 < echarp> the 60s and 70s, with vietnam
22:12 < beeli> some people though, it could never happened
22:12 < echarp> the cold war in general
22:12 < beeli> same as you do right now
22:13 < echarp> what could never have happened???
22:13 < beeli> yet, the point is tat they where not asked
22:13 < beeli> war in yu
22:13 < beeli> same as you state war in france
22:13 < beeli> yet, it did happened 50 ears ago
22:13 < beeli> that is not that long actually
22:13 < beeli> same as in yu
22:13 < beeli> same time
22:13 < beeli> same arguments
22:13 < echarp> well, you are comparing my attitude with the attitude of others who were wrong, and claiming that I am then wrong???
22:14 < beeli> suppose you would do the same tihng if you where in yu in those times
22:14 < echarp> why do you suppose that?
22:14 < beeli> nah, i just give you the point
22:14 < beeli> because you did not touvh human dirth
22:14 < echarp> sorry, you are attacking a strawman
22:14 < echarp> touvh???
22:14 < beeli> touch
22:14 < beeli> strawman?
22:14 < echarp> sorry, you don't know me, I have touched dirt
22:15 < beeli> human one?
22:15 < beeli> :)
22:15 < echarp> strawman is when you are not attacking your opponent argument, but someone's else, then claim that you win
22:15 < echarp> human one yes, from very near
22:15 < beeli> you might be right
22:15 < beeli> or might not
22:15 < beeli> :L)
22:16 < beeli> did you ever shoot at your brother?
22:16 < beeli> :P
22:16 < echarp> I did things along those lines
22:16 < echarp> but I'd rather talk about it
22:16 < echarp> "not" talk
22:16 < beeli> this is shitty stuff going on when mass histaria starts
22:16 < beeli> yes
22:16 < beeli> can you be completely open to anyone?
22:17 < beeli> no :)
22:17 < beeli> why?
22:17 < echarp> open in what sense?
22:17 < beeli> in every sense spiritual
22:17 < beeli> intelecutall and stuff
22:17 < beeli> be honest
22:17 < echarp> because I consider myself *VERY* open!
22:17 < beeli> very
22:17 < echarp> and highly frank and honest
22:17 < beeli> not absolutely
22:17 < echarp> I think absolutes can not be known by man
22:18 < beeli> it depends
22:18 < echarp> thus I don't speak, *never, in absolutes :)
22:18 < echarp> depends not
22:18 < beeli> if there is no moment you stop and thing again
22:18 < beeli> than you are abslutely open
22:18 < echarp> no moment you stop and think again???
22:18 < echarp> what do you mean?
22:18 < beeli> rephrase
22:18 < beeli> be just plain
22:18 < beeli> not need to pack stuff
22:18 < beeli> and so om
22:18 < echarp> should *I* rephrase? rephrase what?
22:19 < beeli> your thought in order ot to hurth somebody
22:19 < beeli> to censour youreslf a bit
22:19 < echarp> censor?
22:19 < beeli> nevermind
22:19 < beeli> this goes nowhere
22:19 < beeli> what i wanted to say
22:19 < echarp> can you state your point? I'm lost
22:20 < beeli> when you see how people are easily manipulated by their depest complexes fears and anger that comes out of it, you can easilt imagine pretty bad scenarios going on
22:20 < beeli> in the same time you need to notice political reality that is based on pretty non scrupulosu pople
22:20 < beeli> those who will do anything to protect their pretty low interest
22:21 < beeli> pretty low interest, as long as higher interest, there is no polace for them in this reality
22:21 < beeli> political reality
22:21 < echarp> and?
22:21 < beeli> and that is it
22:22 < echarp> you think I don't share that opinion?
22:22 < beeli> i think you might not realise it
22:22 < echarp> but manipulations will *always* be here, at most we can decrease it
22:22 < beeli> as long as i see your states, no way dude be such
22:22 < echarp> I'm not running around fearing it
22:22 < echarp> dude?
22:22 < beeli> dude
22:22 < beeli> hey dude
22:23 < echarp> :)
22:23 < echarp> my states?
22:23 < beeli> you do not think any bad scenario is actually possible
22:23 < beeli> you think this all goes forward by itslef
22:23 < echarp> where do I say that?
22:23 < beeli> but it does not
22:23 < beeli> i have such opinion
22:24 < echarp> please, state what I think :)
22:25 < beeli> you do not think any bad scenario is actually possible
22:25 < echarp> golden age of humanity is no obstacle to bad scenarios that could always occur
22:25 < beeli> when i say possible, lets say expecting
22:25 < echarp> where do I state that bad scenario are not possible???
22:25 < beeli> what is so gold about it?
22:25 < beeli> i do not aim at everyithing is possible
22:25 < echarp> it is a golden age because wars are almost non existant
22:26 < echarp> because we are not on the brink of annihilation as we were during the cold war
22:26 < echarp> because we can mostly feed all the planet (what we don't feed is mostly due to local warlords)
22:27 < echarp> because the world is in pretty good shape right now
22:27 < echarp> sciences are being worked upon openly
22:27 < echarp> democracies in many countries
22:27 < echarp> arts
22:27 < echarp> borders opened to people
22:27 < echarp> internet!
22:27 < echarp> we can actually think about the future
22:28 < echarp> we can plan, plan things like interstella colonisation
22:28 < echarp> of course the current affairs could turn into a ww3, but the chances are really faint
22:28 < echarp> irak is over as a political and military entity
22:28 < echarp> iran is not much right now militarily and economically
22:28 < echarp> same with n korea
22:29 < echarp> china is in its economic boom, let's hope for a political change
22:29 < echarp> bellarus might take more years for some opening :(
22:29 < echarp> russians nukes are rusting and *could* be sold world wide, but they are also very old
22:30 < echarp> the only danger in the world is.... the united states of america, ain't that ironic?
22:30 < echarp> leaders of the free world!
22:41 -!- illegale (illegale) [i=ille...@cmung4143.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
22:42 < illegale> back i am
22:42 < illegale> computer crashed
22:43 < illegale> the last thing you said and i did see is the thing that does not fit to the data i know
22:43 < illegale> that is the issue of local warloads be the reason we are far from perfection
22:44 < illegale> cnloyd
22:46 -!- beeli [n=ille...@cmung4270.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
22:46 < echarp> we are of course far from perfection
22:46 < echarp> we will *never* reach perfection
22:46 < illegale> this is the food stuff
22:46 < echarp> there will alway be some injustice, some violence
22:46 < illegale> exact human needs that shohd be solved, but that are not
22:47 < echarp> we just try to make the world a better place
22:47 < illegale> the point i am aiming to is those local chiefs are thare just becasue they do not into contrary to interests of big players
22:47 < illegale> in africa, you can notice many such regimes
22:47 < echarp> I don't believed those needs need to be solved, but warlords need to be eliminated
22:47 < illegale> and they are not, why_
22:47 < illegale> ?
22:47 < echarp> yeap I know, france love some of those regimes :(
22:48 < illegale> yes
22:48 < illegale> not just love
22:48 < illegale> but much more than it
22:48 < illegale> it creates those
22:48 < illegale> keeps those
22:48 < echarp> love is already a big word :)
22:48 < illegale> thsoe can not survive without hones help of their lovers
22:48 < echarp> it's the consequence of colonialism
22:48 < echarp> yeap
22:48 < illegale> so, when we talk about local chiefs
22:48 < echarp> they survive largely because of us
22:48 < illegale> we are not talking avbout them actually
22:49 < illegale> we are talking about global political establishemnt
22:49 < illegale> ologopoly of politics
22:49 < illegale> on the worl level
22:49 < illegale> that endures such issues suc has hunger
22:50 < illegale> echarp, it is not just largery
22:50 < illegale> it is essential part
22:50 < illegale> actually
22:50 < illegale> UN, English, USA, France, Germany
22:50 < echarp> I do not think it is essential
22:50 < illegale> Italy . I do not know for Italy
22:51 < echarp> and germany is largely out of it
22:51 < illegale> cmon, if it creates them if it removes them
22:51 < echarp> germany has no colonies
22:51 < illegale> when they wish to
22:51 < illegale> than i have to admit it has much to it
22:51 < illegale> it has
22:51 < illegale> Croatia
22:51 < illegale> :)
22:51 < echarp> lol
22:51 < echarp> touristic place, mostly
22:51 < echarp> sattelite
22:51 < illegale> Deutche tleekom
22:52 < illegale> the point is the same
22:52 < illegale> they have political elites that are dependent to them
22:52 < illegale> not to the poeple who should choose them
22:55 < echarp> it's the very point of elitism
22:55 < echarp> choosing leaders among a choosen few
22:55 < echarp> no social lift
22:55 < echarp> no inter mixing
22:56 < echarp> I would say that elitism is when you choose leaders only among a supposed elite
22:56 < echarp> even among current leaders
23:03 < illegale> yes
23:05 < illegale> so, democracy means no closing such structures
23:05 < illegale> how to do that?
23:05 < illegale> how to distinct that?
23:05 < illegale> i am going to sleep
23:05 < illegale> had though day today
23:05 < illegale> good night :)
23:05 -!- illegale [i=ille...@cmung4143.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit []
23:20 < echarp> good night
--- Log closed lun jui 17 00:00:51 2006
echarp
Jul 18, 2006, 12:28:14 AM7/18/06
to top-politics
--- Log opened lun jui 17 00:00:51 2006
01:02 -!- nsh_ (No Such Human) [n=n...@87.242.140.179] has joined #parlement
01:17 -!- nsh [n=nsh@wikipedia/nsh] has quit [Read error: 113 (No route to host)]
02:15 -!- beeli (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung638.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
02:39 < urgyen> re
02:41 < beeli> re
02:43 < urgyen> touching 38C today
02:43 < beeli> oh
02:43 < beeli> what is going on?
02:44 < urgyen> evolutionary economy
02:45 < beeli> 38c? you sick?
02:45 < urgyen> no, outside
02:45 < urgyen> warm day
02:45 < beeli> ok
02:46 < beeli> thougt i could start some serious stuff you need to be sick to involve into
02:47 < beeli> and you are still in economy
02:47 < beeli> yet, why you more into economy but politcs?
02:48 < urgyen> politics is a disease
02:48 < urgyen> I'm looking for cures
02:49 < urgyen> evolutionary economy suggests that 'social power' follows rules of thermodynamics
02:49 < urgyen> as a mathematical formula politics would be obsolete
02:50 < beeli> that means you developed perfection
02:50 < beeli> perfection is not part of this world as i can notice
02:51 < urgyen> you don't believe in the law of thermodynamics?
02:51 < urgyen> hmn
02:51 < urgyen> I don
02:51 < urgyen> 't
02:51 < urgyen> think you will get far, but it always is open for a peer review
02:51 < beeli> thermodynamics is wacky stuff
02:53 < beeli> in that formula, i can notice intelectual work would be obsolete also
02:53 < beeli> everything but software development
02:53 < beeli> right?
02:55 < urgyen> what definition of intelligence do you use?
02:55 < beeli> info stuff
02:55 < beeli> thinking about solving problems
02:56 < urgyen> themodynamics is not a solution to a problem?
02:56 < urgyen> about how energy is a constant?
02:56 < beeli> ingineering stuff
02:56 < beeli> implementation
02:56 < urgyen> the church put many people to death for discovering info stuff
02:56 < beeli> this is only description of system
02:57 < urgyen> system.
02:57 < urgyen> system follows order
02:57 < urgyen> discovery of order is not by persuasion
02:57 < urgyen> politics is only persuasion
02:57 < urgyen> always a lie
02:58 < urgyen> it is easy to fool people
02:58 < beeli> as any other intelectual discipline
02:58 < urgyen> all other intellectual discipline is the discovery of one's own personal lie
02:58 < urgyen> not it's enforcement on others
02:58 < beeli> law especially
02:58 < beeli> or medicine
02:59 < beeli> or chemistry :)
02:59 < urgyen> if people take responsibility for their own lies there is no need for politics
02:59 < beeli> if people where perfect, there would be no need for much stuff, i do agree
03:00 < urgyen> well it exists whether one believes in it or not
03:00 < urgyen> you might want to call that unavailable perfection
03:00 < urgyen> but I would think you may have interest other than helping others with their own lies
03:00 < beeli> what does exisit?
03:01 < urgyen> :-)
03:01 < urgyen> so you already give up politics?
03:01 < urgyen> wow you are easy
03:02 < beeli> i do not follow you
03:02 < urgyen> if you are asking about questions of existence you have fully left politics
03:02 < beeli> you are rather presumptios tonight
03:03 < urgyen> I was just responding to your nuke message
03:03 < urgyen> ;-)
03:03 < beeli> hmh
03:04 < beeli> you are sometimes pretty mystery
03:15 * nsh_ smiles
03:15 -!- nsh_ is now known as nsh
03:15 < urgyen> hi nsh
03:16 < urgyen> 'snew?
03:16 < nsh> hey urgy
03:16 < nsh> mmm
03:16 < nsh> reading bateson
03:16 < beeli> hey nsh :)
03:16 < nsh> hi beeli
03:19 < urgyen> ya I love bateson
03:19 < urgyen> hee, I'm spozeta poke you for losing ops again ;-)
03:20 < nsh> oh
03:20 * nsh smiles
03:20 < urgyen> gregory bateson, for beeli
03:20 < nsh> Steps to an Ecology of Mind
03:20 < urgyen> thanks
03:20 < beeli> dr. strangelove
03:20 < urgyen> was about to write that
03:20 < nsh> hee
03:20 < beeli> who is gregory?
03:21 < nsh> "Gregory Bateson (9 May 1904–4 July 1980) was a British anthropologist, social scientist, linguist and cyberneticist whose work intersected that of many other fields. Some of his most noted writings are to be found in his books, Steps to an Ecology of Mind, 1972, Mind and Nature, 1980, and Angels Fear: Towards an epistemology of the sacred 1988, (published posthumously and co-authored by his daughter Mary Catherine Bateson)."
03:21 < nsh> - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_Bateson
03:21 < urgyen> beeli regards scientists the way I regard politicians ;-)
03:22 * nsh smiles
03:22 < urgyen> but I can understand why
03:22 < nsh> mm
03:22 < urgyen> lots of scientists are on payroll of politics
03:23 < nsh> all things on each others' payrolls
03:24 < urgyen> you see the evolutionary economics discussion on #esp nsh?
03:24 < nsh> no
03:24 * nsh checks buffer
03:24 < urgyen> might be a few days back
03:24 < urgyen> I've been so completely busy...
03:24 < beeli> nsh: any work from bateson to reccomend?
03:25 < urgyen> "steps to an ecology of mind"
03:25 < nsh> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0226039056/102-1764729-2977716?v=glance&n=283155
03:25 < nsh> it's is reasonably comprehensive anthology
03:25 < beeli> sounds interesting
03:26 * nsh smiles
03:26 < nsh> interesting stuff about evolution and thermodynamics/entropy
03:27 < beeli> what about it?
03:27 < urgyen> ya got me to looking deeper anyway
03:27 < urgyen> http://cf32.clusty.com/search?v%3afile=viv_474%4032%3awdeoeV&v%3aframe=list&v%3astate=root%7cN854&id=N854&action=list
03:28 < nsh> hmmm
03:28 < urgyen> I've been focussed on 'sustainable' lately
03:28 < beeli> hard to tell, huh?
03:28 < beeli> :)
03:29 < nsh> what have you found, urgy?
03:30 < urgyen> ack
03:30 < urgyen> guess I'm not done harvesting
03:30 < beeli> i just realised that if you can not put something in 80 letter, there is no info gained
03:30 < nsh> how do you mean, beeli?
03:30 < beeli> when you read some stuff and it is intriging
03:31 < beeli> yet, if you do not realise some easy definition, relation or something, than you actually did not learn much
03:31 < beeli> no productive knowledge
03:31 * nsh smiles
03:31 < beeli> tends to go towards chaos instead of supremacy of mind
03:31 < beeli> when did you read someone you could define in such criteria to be informative?
03:32 < beeli> that is hard stuff i think
03:32 < nsh> hmm
03:32 < urgyen> must be why I like hard stuff
03:32 < beeli> when oyu read those philosophers i am alergic of, those clasics, there is no one thing you can actually learn
03:32 * nsh listens to beethoven's 6th
03:32 < urgyen> ah so you enjoy factoids beeli?
03:33 < beeli> btw, at Zagreb, people who go to philosophy are regularly those of lesser capabilities
03:33 < beeli> if we take tests to be criteria
03:33 < urgyen> little nuggets of information you can put in your pocket
03:33 < beeli> nah, urgyen. that is smple test
03:33 < beeli> no factoids, there can be thessis, new realtion whatever
03:33 < beeli> on philosphical level of course
03:33 < beeli> more deep, more good
03:34 < urgyen> I can understand the attack on philosophy but I can't give it much consideration
03:34 < urgyen> only means one has glanced of very superficially
03:34 < beeli> whenever you can not create valuation of something, it gets corrupted
03:34 < urgyen> s/of/off
03:34 < urgyen> yes superficial is easy to corrupt
03:34 < beeli> or got indoctrinqted himself pretty hard due to fact he could not face reality
03:34 < urgyen> often why ppl try to help others not feel it is important to think
03:35 < urgyen> easy to herd them that way
03:35 < beeli> can you do it agian?
03:35 < beeli> in antoher words?
03:35 < beeli> ecology of conversaion
03:35 < beeli> prettty cool name
03:35 < urgyen> :-)
03:36 < urgyen> ecology, suggesting a sphere of interconnectedness
03:36 < beeli> so it is double wording
03:36 < urgyen> all parts of the system rely on each other no one part better than any other
03:36 < beeli> as long as communication is proces of interconecting or?
03:36 < urgyen> conversation as a system
03:36 < beeli> ok
03:36 < urgyen> all parts of the conversation being important
03:37 * nsh thinks of relata
03:37 < urgyen> no information should be determined to be better than the other as meaning is found only when all the parts are present
03:37 < beeli> dead speech networks...
03:37 < beeli> cool
03:37 < beeli> urgyen, we have context and exact info
03:37 < beeli> something as fishenet
03:38 < beeli> every node being a info
03:39 < beeli> when you have some big gap you need that moment, that info that covers it in this context is of very high evalution to you
03:39 < urgyen> :-) when guessing becomes critical?
03:39 < urgyen> like a deer in the road and I have to guess which direction it will jump
03:40 < beeli> yes
03:40 < urgyen> I think wrong and it will be a car wreck and a dead deer
03:40 < urgyen> I've learned from past wrong decisions that I should head the opposite direction I would think ;-)
03:42 < urgyen> but this is elite american car owner propoganda
03:43 < urgyen> that car would be too expensive to own if the total load on the planet were added to the price tag
03:43 < beeli> something like george from seinfield
03:43 < beeli> did yuo watch it?
03:43 < urgyen> yes
03:43 < beeli> hehe
03:43 < urgyen> I missed it when it was in production so I watch reruns now
03:43 < beeli> cool george :P)
03:43 < beeli> that was specail episode
03:44 < beeli> about when he realised that whenever he does oposie to his reason, he does good thing
03:44 < urgyen> truth always arrives from an unexpected direction
03:44 < urgyen> otherwise we would know it already, right?
03:45 < beeli> ni
03:45 < beeli> o
03:45 < beeli> :)
03:46 < urgyen> well that's a question similar to 'what exists?'
03:46 < urgyen> existence is dependent
03:46 < urgyen> but do dependent things exist?
03:47 < beeli> here i am
03:47 < urgyen> they exist due to their relation, their context
03:47 < beeli> so i exist
03:47 < urgyen> they do not exist without that
03:47 < beeli> there i see
03:47 < beeli> so it exist
03:47 < urgyen> relation
03:47 < beeli> to me
03:47 < urgyen> relation is dependent
03:47 < beeli> to my personal feelling
03:47 < beeli> to itself
03:47 < urgyen> context generates existence
03:47 < beeli> means nothing
03:48 < urgyen> that's why you want to define terms
03:48 < beeli> there is interesting relation among info/good/truth
03:48 < beeli> somebody should look into a little bit more deeply
03:48 < beeli> not good bot God
03:48 < urgyen> God would be something that does not rely on relation for existence
03:49 < beeli> God is the word of open system
03:49 < urgyen> well we can use the label for other things, sure
03:50 < beeli> nsh we talked about process thinking and object thinkg, do you remember?
03:50 * nsh nods
03:51 < beeli> do you have some new thoughts about it?
03:51 < beeli> i mean, is it worth it to go that way?
03:51 < beeli> in this moment?
03:51 < urgyen> the worthiness is a solid question isn't it?
03:51 < beeli> yes
03:51 < urgyen> without asking then there is so much wasted time
03:52 < nsh> hmm
03:52 < beeli> look, i am into open philosophy a little bit
03:52 < urgyen> 'k
03:52 < urgyen> :-)
03:52 < beeli> and that is procedural concept as i can notice
03:52 < beeli> no dogmas and stuff
03:52 < beeli> no object that are solid
03:52 < urgyen> thank you
03:52 < beeli> though, do we set new dogmas actually
03:52 < beeli> in procedures?
03:52 < beeli> is it the same?
03:52 < urgyen> it is easy to slip into making new dogmas
03:52 < urgyen> but it is not necessary
03:53 < beeli> is it stuff of linguistincs?
03:53 < beeli> state of action instead of state of state?
03:53 < urgyen> linguistics isn't very interested in studying that direction but it can
03:54 < beeli> i think about it in oredr of proper distucnsitons
03:54 < beeli> path instead of vision?
03:54 < beeli> patho of samurai, aiiii
03:55 * nsh smiles
03:55 < beeli> yet, be good
03:55 < beeli> that is regular stuff i can notice around
03:56 < beeli> though, what i can also notice is that those religins are not looking into these task
03:56 < urgyen> part of why I am watching sustainability
03:56 < beeli> but about symbols themselves
03:56 < beeli> objects
03:56 < urgyen> truth doesn't need protection, it will be whether we help it or not
03:56 < beeli> what about truth?
03:56 < urgyen> what we, as humans, do often does not last
03:56 < beeli> what is realtion to us?
03:57 < urgyen> so it is not truth, is it?
03:57 < beeli> supose it is wrong aproach to that concept
03:57 < urgyen> we change our minds when we learn that what we thought will not last
03:57 < beeli> yet, if we start be procedurous, we wont need to bother about these issues
03:57 < urgyen> so sustainability and durability begins to show some direction toward truth
03:57 < urgyen> approaching truth
03:58 < urgyen> refining our understanding toward what does not change
03:58 < beeli> what is it?
03:58 < urgyen> yet this life has only change
03:58 < beeli> stupid thought in word where panta rei
03:58 < urgyen> how will we see if it does not move?
03:58 < beeli> yes
03:58 < beeli> it is feeling
03:58 < beeli> and security
03:58 < beeli> we see security in truth as long as it lasts
03:58 < beeli> more than other stuff
03:58 < urgyen> so it is important to notice that quality
03:58 < beeli> so we set our morals towards it in a manner of sustainability
03:59 < beeli> if we set procedures, we wont mingd about it anymore
03:59 < urgyen> so words are possible still
03:59 < urgyen> we can reach short term success sharing with philosophy
03:59 < beeli> it will spoke through us better than we could ever find any word for it
04:00 < beeli> what i am looking for is procedure, codex stuff
04:00 < beeli> for a person of new age
04:00 < beeli> that it has to obey if it wants to be satisfied with its life
04:00 < beeli> truth and such stuff is also orineted towards it
04:00 < beeli> yet it gets into symblisms that loose the gorund, loosing themselves
04:01 < beeli> we do not need that at all actually
04:01 < beeli> it is neede for those who are to lazy to follow rules,
04:01 < beeli> do they discuss over them instead
04:01 < beeli> other need for it tere is no
04:01 < urgyen> it will happen only in participation
04:01 < beeli> what?
04:01 < urgyen> understanding
04:02 < urgyen> there is no word ahead of time
04:02 < beeli> btw, these hetararchical organsiaitons and stuff
04:02 < beeli> yes
04:02 < beeli> we might discuss over them for years, yet they wont happen untill people do not realise what they need to do to be possible to attach to such systems
04:02 < beeli> for an example.
04:03 < beeli> honesty
04:03 < beeli> worth of word
04:03 < beeli> and stuff
04:03 < beeli> these are basic needs people do not undersdtand at all
04:03 < urgyen> it is hard
04:03 < beeli> so, as long as people do not understant them, it is immposible to build any such organsation to be prose-preous
04:03 < beeli> so, we actully set new moral
04:03 < beeli> not that of christianity
04:03 < beeli> not one of antichristinyi
04:04 < beeli> but nuw one, selfcinistent
04:04 < urgyen> a convention can not be a value
04:04 < beeli> what do you mean?
04:04 < urgyen> one is success
04:04 < urgyen> two is success
04:04 < urgyen> if you can arrive at sharing in a way that both people understand, that is enough
04:05 < urgyen> we do not need a new moral
04:05 < beeli> not for political organsatio
04:05 < urgyen> one by one is the only way success moves
04:05 < urgyen> right.. but, then, you understand that I'm not a fan of politics
04:05 < beeli> that is the story of derivation
04:05 < beeli> when you look at the moment, it is only one step in a time
04:05 < beeli> yet, we can look at large picture also
04:06 < beeli> that is the problem of ignorance
04:06 < urgyen> when you say honest, how far does that go?
04:06 < urgyen> you already know everything?
04:06 < beeli> as far as it can be legitiamted and progresive
04:06 < beeli> prety relative
04:06 < beeli> so , this is stuff of engiineers
04:06 < urgyen> I can not trust an incomplete system
04:06 < beeli> those who have feel of reality
04:06 < beeli> science and engineeerng two different things
04:07 < urgyen> we can develop a hybrid
04:07 < beeli> what does it mean incomplete system?
04:07 < beeli> is life incomplete?
04:07 < urgyen> acting on behalf of others without capacity to do so
04:08 < urgyen> I do not need flawed politicians making decisions for me
04:08 < beeli> someone will always take political desicion for you
04:08 < urgyen> so many part of hybrid suggests a poltics that doesn't have flaws
04:08 < urgyen> not for me. but yes they will do that
04:09 < beeli> open systems are open
04:09 < urgyen> ignorance runs deep
04:09 < beeli> nah, it is not about ignorance
04:09 < urgyen> way oh so only about ignorance, sorry
04:09 < beeli> but about fact your freedom stops in front of the nose of the other one
04:09 < urgyen> but you are welcome to break that line if you can
04:10 < beeli> and you need to distinct these lines pretty clearly
04:10 < beeli> line of ignorance?
04:10 < urgyen> yes
04:10 < beeli> see that as evolution
04:10 < beeli> towards the world free of pain
04:10 < beeli> natural process
04:10 < urgyen> it starts with understanding
04:10 < beeli> nah
04:10 < beeli> it starts with need :)
04:10 < urgyen> you are addicted to power
04:10 < urgyen> way oh so too addicted
04:11 < urgyen> this will end ugly
04:11 < beeli> you need a need to understand
04:11 < beeli> you have to be driven that way also
04:11 < beeli> though, people who refuse power need are people who do not wish anything
04:12 < beeli> i think they have problem with apathy
04:12 < urgyen> a wish for satisfaction for all life forms doesn't need to appoint someone to be in charge of that
04:12 < urgyen> unless you are too lazy already to try
04:12 < beeli> i agree with you
04:12 < urgyen> :-)
04:12 < urgyen> so this understanding starts right now
04:12 < urgyen> the need is met
04:13 < beeli> nah, that is ideal only talking from me
04:13 < beeli> i can notice it will happened some time in our future maybe
04:13 < urgyen> you can not force the ideal on others
04:13 < urgyen> they all find it on their own
04:13 < beeli> i do not see that happen now
04:13 < urgyen> understanding happens after experience
04:13 < urgyen> without experience there is nothing worth talking about
04:13 < beeli> you need process of autopoisetical communities happen in the world all around
04:14 < urgyen> we can offer classes on how to experience
04:14 < beeli> nah
04:14 < beeli> we can only learn :)
04:14 < urgyen> every corner you cut off my breath
04:14 < urgyen> so now what am I to do?
04:14 < urgyen> you wish me death?
04:14 < urgyen> wow
04:14 < urgyen> maybe we have a way for you to own a world
04:14 < beeli> yes:
04:14 < beeli> ?
04:14 < urgyen> everyone dies then you will be happy
04:14 < beeli> i do not htink so
04:15 < beeli> i find people be cool thin for my appnies
04:15 < urgyen> so you have a large battle with no hope
04:15 < beeli> i think we missed the point in our dialogue
04:15 < urgyen> you better give people some air
04:16 < urgyen> deeper than need
04:16 < urgyen> don't take away intention
04:16 < beeli> there should be some socrates
04:16 < beeli> what about it?
04:17 < beeli> world wide solomon
04:17 < beeli> knowledge of happniess
04:17 < beeli> there is many such stuff around
04:17 < beeli> yet, no public one
04:17 < beeli> why is that so?
04:18 < beeli> you into secret organisations?
04:18 < beeli> :)
04:18 < beeli> you can tell me, nobody is listning
04:19 < beeli> btw, i found a way in politics
04:19 < beeli> based on stalins 1.st principle
04:20 < urgyen> yes
04:20 < urgyen> it has always been easy to see you have been influenced by stalin
04:20 < beeli> nah, it is up to your perspective only
04:21 < beeli> prax would never agree with you
04:21 < urgyen> well, prax is beyond influence
04:21 < urgyen> ;-)
04:21 < urgyen> he already hold communism as a religion
04:21 < urgyen> dogma
04:21 < beeli> to you, what i can notice, everyithing pro nature, pro dog pricniple is bad
04:22 < beeli> to me, that is the way to be happy
04:22 < urgyen> anything that does not allow question
04:22 < urgyen> this kind of happy is not worth owning
04:22 < beeli> why do you need question
04:22 < beeli> ?
04:22 < urgyen> but it takes experience to know that
04:22 < urgyen> so we will let you cook
04:22 < beeli> yes
04:23 < beeli> what kind of happy?
04:23 < beeli> dog happy?
04:23 < urgyen> lasting
04:23 < urgyen> sustainable
04:23 < urgyen> durable
04:23 < beeli> nah
04:23 < beeli> two different thought
04:23 < urgyen> agree
04:23 < beeli> we are autopoietical being
04:23 < beeli> s
04:23 < urgyen> but time will show
04:23 < beeli> as animals are
04:23 < beeli> our brains are only upgrade
04:23 < urgyen> so no more conversation
04:24 < urgyen> I will take the side of breath you can take the side of regulation
04:24 < beeli> ok
04:26 < cnloyd> Wow. Did I miss a lot or what?
04:27 < beeli> two or free bottom lines
04:27 < beeli> maybe 5
04:28 < cnloyd> Did you and urgyen have a fight or something?
04:28 < urgyen> without conversation there can be no fight :-)
04:29 < beeli> regular stuff
04:29 < beeli> urgyen is alergic at politicans, me at scientists
04:29 < beeli> that was bottom line 1
04:30 < beeli> urgen is budhist, i am naturist or somethgin
04:31 < cnloyd> Allergic to scientists? In what way? The technology, the kind of people that scientists are, ...?
04:31 < cnloyd> I understand the allergy to politicians. Fourier analysis is easier to understand than politics.
04:32 < urgyen> political science even uses fourier analysis
04:32 < beeli> ok, it is not about scientist, but about those non empirical ones
04:32 < urgyen> ;-)
04:32 < beeli> just to be clear
04:32 < urgyen> there is not such thing as nonempirical science
04:32 < cnloyd> Theoretical scientists, you mean?
04:32 < beeli> why, because they are apologets of system, not those who make new stuff
04:33 < beeli> social science
04:33 < cnloyd> I think engineers are the ones who usually "make" new stuff.
04:33 < cnloyd> OH! SOCIAL science.
04:33 < beeli> and philosophy and stuff
04:33 < urgyen> you would get slapped by a social scientist :-)
04:33 < cnloyd> Who, me? Sorry.
04:33 < beeli> cnloyd you are social scientist? :)
04:33 < cnloyd> No...
04:34 < beeli> cool
04:34 < cnloyd> I...read history books...
04:34 < cnloyd> ...and books about spacecraft systems...
04:34 < cnloyd> ...and Neal Stephenson novels...
04:35 < beeli> hmh, you are not scientist than :L)
04:36 < cnloyd> I'm a space architect student. I...try to design spacecraft and other habitats for extreme situations.
04:36 < beeli> engineer
04:37 < beeli> i have no problems to engineers
04:37 < cnloyd> HAHAHAHA
04:37 < cnloyd> I'm no engineer.
04:38 < cnloyd> Engineers don't consider me to be an engineer.
04:39 < beeli> i do not mind about that
04:41 < cnloyd> OK
04:41 < cnloyd> I'm actually trained in architecture.
04:41 < cnloyd> Put buildings up and such.
04:41 < cnloyd> Make 'em pretty.
04:41 < cnloyd> Make 'em buildable.
04:41 < cnloyd> Make 'em profitable.
04:41 < cnloyd> In reverse order.
04:42 < cnloyd> So, how about you?
04:42 < beeli> i am pharmacist
04:42 < beeli> student yet
04:43 < beeli> we make drugs pretty, buildable, profitable
04:43 < beeli> same order as yours :)
04:44 < cnloyd> Cool.
04:44 < cnloyd> Pharma is more popular than I would have imagined.
04:46 < beeli> people are sick and will be sick
04:46 < beeli> and when people are sick they do not ask for price
04:46 < beeli> that is great characteristic of people
04:48 < beeli> so, we are something like doctorst
04:48 < cnloyd> Minus the diagnosing and prescribing.
04:49 < beeli> plus fency jobs
04:49 < cnloyd> Fancy?
04:50 < beeli> yes
04:50 < beeli> no need to be near death and stuff
04:50 < beeli> everything in gloves stuff
04:50 < beeli> no overtime or stuff
04:50 < beeli> no need to shorten vacations or something
04:50 < beeli> to be a pharmacist, it is act of reason
04:50 < cnloyd> OK. Well, I've dropped out of architecture, due to low wages, poor personalities, and lack of interest.
04:51 < cnloyd> Mine's an escape act.
04:51 < beeli> go to pharm
04:51 < beeli> school
04:51 < beeli> you wont miss
04:51 < beeli> for shure
04:51 < cnloyd> Worked with several architects, and realized, "Hey! I'm not one of them!"
04:52 < beeli> hehe
04:52 < beeli> i worked with several pharmatcis
04:52 < beeli> got to the same conclusion
04:52 < cnloyd> Thanks for the suggestions, but space architecture and extreme habitat design seems a lot more interesting. I may go into aerospace in the future.
04:52 < beeli> but after time it takes you
04:52 < beeli> ok
04:52 < cnloyd> Worked with architects for two years. Either I quit them, or they fired me.
04:52 < beeli> i wanted to build airplanes when i was kid
04:52 < beeli> i still want, yet i do not want to study that stuff
04:53 < beeli> these experimental low budget planes
04:53 < beeli> cool stuff
04:53 < cnloyd> There's a lot that happens during flight.
04:53 < cnloyd> Got to control three axes of movement.
04:53 < cnloyd> Make sure your plane doesn't vibrate apart.
04:53 < beeli> yet, you into these stratospehric stuff?
04:53 < beeli> not into this regulars??
04:54 < cnloyd> Not sure what you mean by regulars.
04:54 < cnloyd> I'm into off-world stuff.
04:54 < cnloyd> Low Earth Orbit and up.
04:54 < beeli> yes
04:54 < beeli> not regular airplanes
04:54 < beeli> space stations
04:54 < beeli> that is your interest?
04:55 < cnloyd> Nah. Current push seems to be bigger and bigger...but the market demand seems to suggest local jumps, from smallish city to smallish city. Nothing requiring a Boeing 7E7.
04:55 < cnloyd> Space stations over 7E7, yes.
04:56 < beeli> have some sites aobut this stuff?
04:56 < cnloyd> Space stations, emergency set-up housing, interplanetary ships, hi-tech habitats for earth. Even experimental designs using new materials.
04:56 < cnloyd> The wikipedia is a good place to start for the basics.
04:57 < cnloyd> Wiki "CEV" for the new, post-2010 launch vehicles.
04:57 < beeli> is this stuff for US only or ?
04:57 < beeli> i mean, can some small country build anyhthing?
04:57 < cnloyd> US/Russian/Japanese/Euros will probably share the Shuttle/Soyuz/CEV.
04:58 < beeli> so, how is about employing in this brench?
04:58 < cnloyd> Well...Russia has a GDP the same size as the Netherlands, they have their own launch system.
04:58 < beeli> is there demand for you?
04:58 < beeli> hmh
04:58 < beeli> russia is weird country
04:58 < cnloyd> That's not an easy question to answer.
04:58 < cnloyd> There is demand for people to design some new stuff, or to work on a subsystem.
04:59 < cnloyd> There WILL be demand for people who can integrate all the subsystems into a can that can support people for long durations missions, once they find out that people need comfort, aesthetics, and all sorts of non-linear things to keep them sane.
05:00 < beeli> a little bit before your time you are :)
05:00 < cnloyd> I plan on living for a long time.
05:00 < cnloyd> Watch, I will die tomorrow in a car crash.
05:00 < beeli> hehe
05:00 < cnloyd> Now that I have said all that.
05:00 < beeli> and you can always escape
05:00 < cnloyd> To?
05:00 < beeli> out from earth
05:01 < beeli> when you build such station
05:01 < beeli> that is strategic thinking i can notice
05:01 < cnloyd> Yeah, once I figure out a way to never need Earth to resupply food and spare parts.
05:01 < beeli> huh, gonna go.
05:01 < beeli> it is 5 am
05:01 < beeli> good night, cnloyd
05:01 < cnloyd> Need resource mining, manufacturing, and recycling systems that don't exist yet, or only Technology Readiness Level 2.
05:02 < cnloyd> Good night.
05:02 -!- beeli [n=ille...@cmung638.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit []
05:02 < cnloyd> I guess beeli is somewhere in Central or Eastern Europe.
05:07 < urgyen> you got it
05:07 < urgyen> which is really nice to see
05:07 < urgyen> it's great to watch life move along
05:14 < cnloyd> Yeah. I have something like a Mercator projection of the earth as my wallpaper. It has cloud cover, daylight, nighttime, and city lights, in an almost live image.
05:14 < urgyen> you catch any nasaTV for the spacewalks?
05:16 < cnloyd> As a video stream, yeah. Especially now that I fixed Windows. I know that Windows may be verboten among IRC people, but hey, it's my machine.
05:23 < urgyen> I use xp most the time
05:24 < cnloyd> Same here.
05:30 < urgyen> among IRC people... you must hang out too much on freenode ;-)
05:31 < urgyen> http://irc.netsplit.de/
05:33 < cnloyd> You part of a group on that node?
05:33 < cnloyd> And, yes, I do spend a lot of my life on-line. Part of the Trans-human trend to stay indoors.
05:34 < urgyen> netsplit is the irc inventory
05:34 < urgyen> it lists all the IRC networks out there... at least one's that want to be found
05:37 < cnloyd> Awww...not the dark, shadowy kind, where people speak 3l11t lingo all day? ;-)
05:44 < urgyen> there's a few of those listed
06:41 < cnloyd> Need to go to bed. Almost midnight here in the CDT.
06:41 -!- cnloyd [n=mtb...@ppp-69-148-50-114.dsl.hstntx.swbell.net] has left #parlement []
14:05 -!- illegale (illegale) [i=ille...@cmung511.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
14:17 < illegale:#parlement> you know that US dollar is based on the price of oil as long as US$ has monopoly over any transaction of it?
14:18 -!- illegale [i=ille...@cmung511.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit []
--- Log closed lun jui 17 17:56:02 2006
--- Log opened lun jui 17 17:56:38 2006
17:56 -!- echarp [n=33M0...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has joined #parlement
17:56 -!- Topic for #parlement: http://leparlement.org/irc
17:56 -!- Topic set by echarp [] [Sun Jun 11 20:50:53 2006]
17:56 [Users #parlement]
17:56 [ echarp] [ fiatlex] [ nsh] [ urgyen]
17:56 -!- Irssi: #parlement: Total of 4 nicks [0 ops, 0 halfops, 0 voices, 4 normal]
17:56 -!- Channel #parlement created Thu Apr 27 09:48:29 2006
17:57 -!- Irssi: Join to #parlement was synced in 42 secs
--- Log closed mar jui 18 00:00:51 2006
01:02 -!- nsh_ (No Such Human) [n=n...@87.242.140.179] has joined #parlement
01:17 -!- nsh [n=nsh@wikipedia/nsh] has quit [Read error: 113 (No route to host)]
02:15 -!- beeli (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung638.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
02:39 < urgyen> re
02:41 < beeli> re
02:43 < urgyen> touching 38C today
02:43 < beeli> oh
02:43 < beeli> what is going on?
02:44 < urgyen> evolutionary economy
02:45 < beeli> 38c? you sick?
02:45 < urgyen> no, outside
02:45 < urgyen> warm day
02:45 < beeli> ok
02:46 < beeli> thougt i could start some serious stuff you need to be sick to involve into
02:47 < beeli> and you are still in economy
02:47 < beeli> yet, why you more into economy but politcs?
02:48 < urgyen> politics is a disease
02:48 < urgyen> I'm looking for cures
02:49 < urgyen> evolutionary economy suggests that 'social power' follows rules of thermodynamics
02:49 < urgyen> as a mathematical formula politics would be obsolete
02:50 < beeli> that means you developed perfection
02:50 < beeli> perfection is not part of this world as i can notice
02:51 < urgyen> you don't believe in the law of thermodynamics?
02:51 < urgyen> hmn
02:51 < urgyen> I don
02:51 < urgyen> 't
02:51 < urgyen> think you will get far, but it always is open for a peer review
02:51 < beeli> thermodynamics is wacky stuff
02:53 < beeli> in that formula, i can notice intelectual work would be obsolete also
02:53 < beeli> everything but software development
02:53 < beeli> right?
02:55 < urgyen> what definition of intelligence do you use?
02:55 < beeli> info stuff
02:55 < beeli> thinking about solving problems
02:56 < urgyen> themodynamics is not a solution to a problem?
02:56 < urgyen> about how energy is a constant?
02:56 < beeli> ingineering stuff
02:56 < beeli> implementation
02:56 < urgyen> the church put many people to death for discovering info stuff
02:56 < beeli> this is only description of system
02:57 < urgyen> system.
02:57 < urgyen> system follows order
02:57 < urgyen> discovery of order is not by persuasion
02:57 < urgyen> politics is only persuasion
02:57 < urgyen> always a lie
02:58 < urgyen> it is easy to fool people
02:58 < beeli> as any other intelectual discipline
02:58 < urgyen> all other intellectual discipline is the discovery of one's own personal lie
02:58 < urgyen> not it's enforcement on others
02:58 < beeli> law especially
02:58 < beeli> or medicine
02:59 < beeli> or chemistry :)
02:59 < urgyen> if people take responsibility for their own lies there is no need for politics
02:59 < beeli> if people where perfect, there would be no need for much stuff, i do agree
03:00 < urgyen> well it exists whether one believes in it or not
03:00 < urgyen> you might want to call that unavailable perfection
03:00 < urgyen> but I would think you may have interest other than helping others with their own lies
03:00 < beeli> what does exisit?
03:01 < urgyen> :-)
03:01 < urgyen> so you already give up politics?
03:01 < urgyen> wow you are easy
03:02 < beeli> i do not follow you
03:02 < urgyen> if you are asking about questions of existence you have fully left politics
03:02 < beeli> you are rather presumptios tonight
03:03 < urgyen> I was just responding to your nuke message
03:03 < urgyen> ;-)
03:03 < beeli> hmh
03:04 < beeli> you are sometimes pretty mystery
03:15 * nsh_ smiles
03:15 -!- nsh_ is now known as nsh
03:15 < urgyen> hi nsh
03:16 < urgyen> 'snew?
03:16 < nsh> hey urgy
03:16 < nsh> mmm
03:16 < nsh> reading bateson
03:16 < beeli> hey nsh :)
03:16 < nsh> hi beeli
03:19 < urgyen> ya I love bateson
03:19 < urgyen> hee, I'm spozeta poke you for losing ops again ;-)
03:20 < nsh> oh
03:20 * nsh smiles
03:20 < urgyen> gregory bateson, for beeli
03:20 < nsh> Steps to an Ecology of Mind
03:20 < urgyen> thanks
03:20 < beeli> dr. strangelove
03:20 < urgyen> was about to write that
03:20 < nsh> hee
03:20 < beeli> who is gregory?
03:21 < nsh> "Gregory Bateson (9 May 1904–4 July 1980) was a British anthropologist, social scientist, linguist and cyberneticist whose work intersected that of many other fields. Some of his most noted writings are to be found in his books, Steps to an Ecology of Mind, 1972, Mind and Nature, 1980, and Angels Fear: Towards an epistemology of the sacred 1988, (published posthumously and co-authored by his daughter Mary Catherine Bateson)."
03:21 < nsh> - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_Bateson
03:21 < urgyen> beeli regards scientists the way I regard politicians ;-)
03:22 * nsh smiles
03:22 < urgyen> but I can understand why
03:22 < nsh> mm
03:22 < urgyen> lots of scientists are on payroll of politics
03:23 < nsh> all things on each others' payrolls
03:24 < urgyen> you see the evolutionary economics discussion on #esp nsh?
03:24 < nsh> no
03:24 * nsh checks buffer
03:24 < urgyen> might be a few days back
03:24 < urgyen> I've been so completely busy...
03:24 < beeli> nsh: any work from bateson to reccomend?
03:25 < urgyen> "steps to an ecology of mind"
03:25 < nsh> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0226039056/102-1764729-2977716?v=glance&n=283155
03:25 < nsh> it's is reasonably comprehensive anthology
03:25 < beeli> sounds interesting
03:26 * nsh smiles
03:26 < nsh> interesting stuff about evolution and thermodynamics/entropy
03:27 < beeli> what about it?
03:27 < urgyen> ya got me to looking deeper anyway
03:27 < urgyen> http://cf32.clusty.com/search?v%3afile=viv_474%4032%3awdeoeV&v%3aframe=list&v%3astate=root%7cN854&id=N854&action=list
03:28 < nsh> hmmm
03:28 < urgyen> I've been focussed on 'sustainable' lately
03:28 < beeli> hard to tell, huh?
03:28 < beeli> :)
03:29 < nsh> what have you found, urgy?
03:30 < urgyen> ack
03:30 < urgyen> guess I'm not done harvesting
03:30 < beeli> i just realised that if you can not put something in 80 letter, there is no info gained
03:30 < nsh> how do you mean, beeli?
03:30 < beeli> when you read some stuff and it is intriging
03:31 < beeli> yet, if you do not realise some easy definition, relation or something, than you actually did not learn much
03:31 < beeli> no productive knowledge
03:31 * nsh smiles
03:31 < beeli> when did you read someone you could define in such criteria to be informative?
03:32 < beeli> that is hard stuff i think
03:32 < nsh> hmm
03:32 < urgyen> must be why I like hard stuff
03:32 < beeli> when oyu read those philosophers i am alergic of, those clasics, there is no one thing you can actually learn
03:32 * nsh listens to beethoven's 6th
03:32 < urgyen> ah so you enjoy factoids beeli?
03:33 < beeli> btw, at Zagreb, people who go to philosophy are regularly those of lesser capabilities
03:33 < beeli> if we take tests to be criteria
03:33 < urgyen> little nuggets of information you can put in your pocket
03:33 < beeli> nah, urgyen. that is smple test
03:33 < beeli> no factoids, there can be thessis, new realtion whatever
03:33 < beeli> on philosphical level of course
03:33 < beeli> more deep, more good
03:34 < urgyen> I can understand the attack on philosophy but I can't give it much consideration
03:34 < urgyen> only means one has glanced of very superficially
03:34 < beeli> whenever you can not create valuation of something, it gets corrupted
03:34 < urgyen> s/of/off
03:34 < urgyen> yes superficial is easy to corrupt
03:34 < beeli> or got indoctrinqted himself pretty hard due to fact he could not face reality
03:34 < urgyen> often why ppl try to help others not feel it is important to think
03:35 < urgyen> easy to herd them that way
03:35 < beeli> can you do it agian?
03:35 < beeli> in antoher words?
03:35 < beeli> ecology of conversaion
03:35 < beeli> prettty cool name
03:35 < urgyen> :-)
03:36 < urgyen> ecology, suggesting a sphere of interconnectedness
03:36 < beeli> so it is double wording
03:36 < urgyen> all parts of the system rely on each other no one part better than any other
03:36 < beeli> as long as communication is proces of interconecting or?
03:36 < urgyen> conversation as a system
03:36 < beeli> ok
03:36 < urgyen> all parts of the conversation being important
03:37 * nsh thinks of relata
03:37 < urgyen> no information should be determined to be better than the other as meaning is found only when all the parts are present
03:37 < beeli> dead speech networks...
03:37 < beeli> cool
03:37 < beeli> urgyen, we have context and exact info
03:37 < beeli> something as fishenet
03:38 < beeli> every node being a info
03:39 < beeli> when you have some big gap you need that moment, that info that covers it in this context is of very high evalution to you
03:39 < urgyen> :-) when guessing becomes critical?
03:39 < urgyen> like a deer in the road and I have to guess which direction it will jump
03:40 < beeli> yes
03:40 < urgyen> I think wrong and it will be a car wreck and a dead deer
03:40 < urgyen> I've learned from past wrong decisions that I should head the opposite direction I would think ;-)
03:42 < urgyen> but this is elite american car owner propoganda
03:43 < urgyen> that car would be too expensive to own if the total load on the planet were added to the price tag
03:43 < beeli> something like george from seinfield
03:43 < beeli> did yuo watch it?
03:43 < urgyen> yes
03:43 < beeli> hehe
03:43 < urgyen> I missed it when it was in production so I watch reruns now
03:43 < beeli> cool george :P)
03:43 < beeli> that was specail episode
03:44 < beeli> about when he realised that whenever he does oposie to his reason, he does good thing
03:44 < urgyen> truth always arrives from an unexpected direction
03:44 < urgyen> otherwise we would know it already, right?
03:45 < beeli> ni
03:45 < beeli> o
03:45 < beeli> :)
03:46 < urgyen> well that's a question similar to 'what exists?'
03:46 < urgyen> existence is dependent
03:46 < urgyen> but do dependent things exist?
03:47 < beeli> here i am
03:47 < urgyen> they exist due to their relation, their context
03:47 < beeli> so i exist
03:47 < urgyen> they do not exist without that
03:47 < beeli> there i see
03:47 < beeli> so it exist
03:47 < urgyen> relation
03:47 < beeli> to me
03:47 < urgyen> relation is dependent
03:47 < beeli> to my personal feelling
03:47 < beeli> to itself
03:47 < urgyen> context generates existence
03:47 < beeli> means nothing
03:48 < urgyen> that's why you want to define terms
03:48 < beeli> there is interesting relation among info/good/truth
03:48 < beeli> somebody should look into a little bit more deeply
03:48 < beeli> not good bot God
03:48 < urgyen> God would be something that does not rely on relation for existence
03:49 < beeli> God is the word of open system
03:49 < urgyen> well we can use the label for other things, sure
03:50 < beeli> nsh we talked about process thinking and object thinkg, do you remember?
03:50 * nsh nods
03:51 < beeli> do you have some new thoughts about it?
03:51 < beeli> i mean, is it worth it to go that way?
03:51 < beeli> in this moment?
03:51 < urgyen> the worthiness is a solid question isn't it?
03:51 < beeli> yes
03:51 < urgyen> without asking then there is so much wasted time
03:52 < nsh> hmm
03:52 < beeli> look, i am into open philosophy a little bit
03:52 < urgyen> 'k
03:52 < urgyen> :-)
03:52 < beeli> and that is procedural concept as i can notice
03:52 < beeli> no dogmas and stuff
03:52 < beeli> no object that are solid
03:52 < urgyen> thank you
03:52 < beeli> though, do we set new dogmas actually
03:52 < beeli> in procedures?
03:52 < beeli> is it the same?
03:52 < urgyen> it is easy to slip into making new dogmas
03:52 < urgyen> but it is not necessary
03:53 < beeli> is it stuff of linguistincs?
03:53 < beeli> state of action instead of state of state?
03:53 < urgyen> linguistics isn't very interested in studying that direction but it can
03:54 < beeli> i think about it in oredr of proper distucnsitons
03:54 < beeli> path instead of vision?
03:54 < beeli> patho of samurai, aiiii
03:55 * nsh smiles
03:55 < beeli> yet, be good
03:55 < beeli> that is regular stuff i can notice around
03:56 < beeli> though, what i can also notice is that those religins are not looking into these task
03:56 < urgyen> part of why I am watching sustainability
03:56 < beeli> but about symbols themselves
03:56 < beeli> objects
03:56 < urgyen> truth doesn't need protection, it will be whether we help it or not
03:56 < beeli> what about truth?
03:56 < urgyen> what we, as humans, do often does not last
03:56 < beeli> what is realtion to us?
03:57 < urgyen> so it is not truth, is it?
03:57 < beeli> supose it is wrong aproach to that concept
03:57 < urgyen> we change our minds when we learn that what we thought will not last
03:57 < beeli> yet, if we start be procedurous, we wont need to bother about these issues
03:57 < urgyen> so sustainability and durability begins to show some direction toward truth
03:57 < urgyen> approaching truth
03:58 < urgyen> refining our understanding toward what does not change
03:58 < beeli> what is it?
03:58 < urgyen> yet this life has only change
03:58 < beeli> stupid thought in word where panta rei
03:58 < urgyen> how will we see if it does not move?
03:58 < beeli> yes
03:58 < beeli> it is feeling
03:58 < beeli> and security
03:58 < beeli> we see security in truth as long as it lasts
03:58 < beeli> more than other stuff
03:58 < urgyen> so it is important to notice that quality
03:58 < beeli> so we set our morals towards it in a manner of sustainability
03:59 < beeli> if we set procedures, we wont mingd about it anymore
03:59 < urgyen> so words are possible still
03:59 < urgyen> we can reach short term success sharing with philosophy
03:59 < beeli> it will spoke through us better than we could ever find any word for it
04:00 < beeli> what i am looking for is procedure, codex stuff
04:00 < beeli> for a person of new age
04:00 < beeli> that it has to obey if it wants to be satisfied with its life
04:00 < beeli> truth and such stuff is also orineted towards it
04:00 < beeli> yet it gets into symblisms that loose the gorund, loosing themselves
04:01 < beeli> we do not need that at all actually
04:01 < beeli> it is neede for those who are to lazy to follow rules,
04:01 < beeli> do they discuss over them instead
04:01 < beeli> other need for it tere is no
04:01 < urgyen> it will happen only in participation
04:01 < beeli> what?
04:01 < urgyen> understanding
04:02 < urgyen> there is no word ahead of time
04:02 < beeli> btw, these hetararchical organsiaitons and stuff
04:02 < beeli> yes
04:02 < beeli> we might discuss over them for years, yet they wont happen untill people do not realise what they need to do to be possible to attach to such systems
04:02 < beeli> for an example.
04:03 < beeli> honesty
04:03 < beeli> worth of word
04:03 < beeli> and stuff
04:03 < beeli> these are basic needs people do not undersdtand at all
04:03 < urgyen> it is hard
04:03 < beeli> so, as long as people do not understant them, it is immposible to build any such organsation to be prose-preous
04:03 < beeli> so, we actully set new moral
04:03 < beeli> not that of christianity
04:03 < beeli> not one of antichristinyi
04:04 < beeli> but nuw one, selfcinistent
04:04 < urgyen> a convention can not be a value
04:04 < beeli> what do you mean?
04:04 < urgyen> one is success
04:04 < urgyen> two is success
04:04 < urgyen> if you can arrive at sharing in a way that both people understand, that is enough
04:05 < urgyen> we do not need a new moral
04:05 < beeli> not for political organsatio
04:05 < urgyen> one by one is the only way success moves
04:05 < urgyen> right.. but, then, you understand that I'm not a fan of politics
04:05 < beeli> that is the story of derivation
04:05 < beeli> when you look at the moment, it is only one step in a time
04:05 < beeli> yet, we can look at large picture also
04:06 < beeli> that is the problem of ignorance
04:06 < urgyen> when you say honest, how far does that go?
04:06 < urgyen> you already know everything?
04:06 < beeli> as far as it can be legitiamted and progresive
04:06 < beeli> prety relative
04:06 < beeli> so , this is stuff of engiineers
04:06 < urgyen> I can not trust an incomplete system
04:06 < beeli> those who have feel of reality
04:06 < beeli> science and engineeerng two different things
04:07 < urgyen> we can develop a hybrid
04:07 < beeli> what does it mean incomplete system?
04:07 < beeli> is life incomplete?
04:07 < urgyen> acting on behalf of others without capacity to do so
04:08 < urgyen> I do not need flawed politicians making decisions for me
04:08 < beeli> someone will always take political desicion for you
04:08 < urgyen> so many part of hybrid suggests a poltics that doesn't have flaws
04:08 < urgyen> not for me. but yes they will do that
04:09 < beeli> open systems are open
04:09 < urgyen> ignorance runs deep
04:09 < beeli> nah, it is not about ignorance
04:09 < urgyen> way oh so only about ignorance, sorry
04:09 < beeli> but about fact your freedom stops in front of the nose of the other one
04:09 < urgyen> but you are welcome to break that line if you can
04:10 < beeli> and you need to distinct these lines pretty clearly
04:10 < beeli> line of ignorance?
04:10 < urgyen> yes
04:10 < beeli> see that as evolution
04:10 < beeli> towards the world free of pain
04:10 < beeli> natural process
04:10 < urgyen> it starts with understanding
04:10 < beeli> nah
04:10 < beeli> it starts with need :)
04:10 < urgyen> you are addicted to power
04:10 < urgyen> way oh so too addicted
04:11 < urgyen> this will end ugly
04:11 < beeli> you need a need to understand
04:11 < beeli> you have to be driven that way also
04:11 < beeli> though, people who refuse power need are people who do not wish anything
04:12 < beeli> i think they have problem with apathy
04:12 < urgyen> a wish for satisfaction for all life forms doesn't need to appoint someone to be in charge of that
04:12 < urgyen> unless you are too lazy already to try
04:12 < beeli> i agree with you
04:12 < urgyen> :-)
04:12 < urgyen> so this understanding starts right now
04:12 < urgyen> the need is met
04:13 < beeli> nah, that is ideal only talking from me
04:13 < beeli> i can notice it will happened some time in our future maybe
04:13 < urgyen> you can not force the ideal on others
04:13 < urgyen> they all find it on their own
04:13 < beeli> i do not see that happen now
04:13 < urgyen> understanding happens after experience
04:13 < urgyen> without experience there is nothing worth talking about
04:13 < beeli> you need process of autopoisetical communities happen in the world all around
04:14 < urgyen> we can offer classes on how to experience
04:14 < beeli> nah
04:14 < beeli> we can only learn :)
04:14 < urgyen> every corner you cut off my breath
04:14 < urgyen> so now what am I to do?
04:14 < urgyen> you wish me death?
04:14 < urgyen> wow
04:14 < urgyen> maybe we have a way for you to own a world
04:14 < beeli> yes:
04:14 < beeli> ?
04:14 < urgyen> everyone dies then you will be happy
04:14 < beeli> i do not htink so
04:15 < beeli> i find people be cool thin for my appnies
04:15 < urgyen> so you have a large battle with no hope
04:15 < beeli> i think we missed the point in our dialogue
04:15 < urgyen> you better give people some air
04:16 < urgyen> deeper than need
04:16 < urgyen> don't take away intention
04:16 < beeli> there should be some socrates
04:16 < beeli> what about it?
04:17 < beeli> world wide solomon
04:17 < beeli> knowledge of happniess
04:17 < beeli> there is many such stuff around
04:17 < beeli> yet, no public one
04:17 < beeli> why is that so?
04:18 < beeli> you into secret organisations?
04:18 < beeli> :)
04:18 < beeli> you can tell me, nobody is listning
04:19 < beeli> btw, i found a way in politics
04:19 < beeli> based on stalins 1.st principle
04:20 < urgyen> yes
04:20 < urgyen> it has always been easy to see you have been influenced by stalin
04:20 < beeli> nah, it is up to your perspective only
04:21 < beeli> prax would never agree with you
04:21 < urgyen> well, prax is beyond influence
04:21 < urgyen> ;-)
04:21 < urgyen> he already hold communism as a religion
04:21 < urgyen> dogma
04:21 < beeli> to you, what i can notice, everyithing pro nature, pro dog pricniple is bad
04:22 < beeli> to me, that is the way to be happy
04:22 < urgyen> anything that does not allow question
04:22 < urgyen> this kind of happy is not worth owning
04:22 < beeli> why do you need question
04:22 < beeli> ?
04:22 < urgyen> but it takes experience to know that
04:22 < urgyen> so we will let you cook
04:22 < beeli> yes
04:23 < beeli> what kind of happy?
04:23 < beeli> dog happy?
04:23 < urgyen> lasting
04:23 < urgyen> sustainable
04:23 < urgyen> durable
04:23 < beeli> nah
04:23 < beeli> two different thought
04:23 < urgyen> agree
04:23 < beeli> we are autopoietical being
04:23 < beeli> s
04:23 < urgyen> but time will show
04:23 < beeli> as animals are
04:23 < beeli> our brains are only upgrade
04:23 < urgyen> so no more conversation
04:24 < urgyen> I will take the side of breath you can take the side of regulation
04:24 < beeli> ok
04:26 < cnloyd> Wow. Did I miss a lot or what?
04:27 < beeli> two or free bottom lines
04:27 < beeli> maybe 5
04:28 < cnloyd> Did you and urgyen have a fight or something?
04:28 < urgyen> without conversation there can be no fight :-)
04:29 < beeli> regular stuff
04:29 < beeli> urgyen is alergic at politicans, me at scientists
04:29 < beeli> that was bottom line 1
04:30 < beeli> urgen is budhist, i am naturist or somethgin
04:31 < cnloyd> Allergic to scientists? In what way? The technology, the kind of people that scientists are, ...?
04:31 < cnloyd> I understand the allergy to politicians. Fourier analysis is easier to understand than politics.
04:32 < urgyen> political science even uses fourier analysis
04:32 < beeli> ok, it is not about scientist, but about those non empirical ones
04:32 < urgyen> ;-)
04:32 < beeli> just to be clear
04:32 < urgyen> there is not such thing as nonempirical science
04:32 < cnloyd> Theoretical scientists, you mean?
04:32 < beeli> why, because they are apologets of system, not those who make new stuff
04:33 < beeli> social science
04:33 < cnloyd> I think engineers are the ones who usually "make" new stuff.
04:33 < cnloyd> OH! SOCIAL science.
04:33 < beeli> and philosophy and stuff
04:33 < urgyen> you would get slapped by a social scientist :-)
04:33 < cnloyd> Who, me? Sorry.
04:33 < beeli> cnloyd you are social scientist? :)
04:33 < cnloyd> No...
04:34 < beeli> cool
04:34 < cnloyd> I...read history books...
04:34 < cnloyd> ...and books about spacecraft systems...
04:34 < cnloyd> ...and Neal Stephenson novels...
04:35 < beeli> hmh, you are not scientist than :L)
04:36 < cnloyd> I'm a space architect student. I...try to design spacecraft and other habitats for extreme situations.
04:36 < beeli> engineer
04:37 < beeli> i have no problems to engineers
04:37 < cnloyd> HAHAHAHA
04:37 < cnloyd> I'm no engineer.
04:38 < cnloyd> Engineers don't consider me to be an engineer.
04:39 < beeli> i do not mind about that
04:41 < cnloyd> OK
04:41 < cnloyd> I'm actually trained in architecture.
04:41 < cnloyd> Put buildings up and such.
04:41 < cnloyd> Make 'em pretty.
04:41 < cnloyd> Make 'em buildable.
04:41 < cnloyd> Make 'em profitable.
04:41 < cnloyd> In reverse order.
04:42 < cnloyd> So, how about you?
04:42 < beeli> i am pharmacist
04:42 < beeli> student yet
04:43 < beeli> we make drugs pretty, buildable, profitable
04:43 < beeli> same order as yours :)
04:44 < cnloyd> Cool.
04:44 < cnloyd> Pharma is more popular than I would have imagined.
04:46 < beeli> people are sick and will be sick
04:46 < beeli> and when people are sick they do not ask for price
04:46 < beeli> that is great characteristic of people
04:48 < beeli> so, we are something like doctorst
04:48 < cnloyd> Minus the diagnosing and prescribing.
04:49 < beeli> plus fency jobs
04:49 < cnloyd> Fancy?
04:50 < beeli> yes
04:50 < beeli> no need to be near death and stuff
04:50 < beeli> everything in gloves stuff
04:50 < beeli> no overtime or stuff
04:50 < beeli> no need to shorten vacations or something
04:50 < beeli> to be a pharmacist, it is act of reason
04:50 < cnloyd> OK. Well, I've dropped out of architecture, due to low wages, poor personalities, and lack of interest.
04:51 < cnloyd> Mine's an escape act.
04:51 < beeli> go to pharm
04:51 < beeli> school
04:51 < beeli> you wont miss
04:51 < beeli> for shure
04:51 < cnloyd> Worked with several architects, and realized, "Hey! I'm not one of them!"
04:52 < beeli> hehe
04:52 < beeli> i worked with several pharmatcis
04:52 < beeli> got to the same conclusion
04:52 < cnloyd> Thanks for the suggestions, but space architecture and extreme habitat design seems a lot more interesting. I may go into aerospace in the future.
04:52 < beeli> but after time it takes you
04:52 < beeli> ok
04:52 < cnloyd> Worked with architects for two years. Either I quit them, or they fired me.
04:52 < beeli> i wanted to build airplanes when i was kid
04:52 < beeli> i still want, yet i do not want to study that stuff
04:53 < beeli> these experimental low budget planes
04:53 < beeli> cool stuff
04:53 < cnloyd> There's a lot that happens during flight.
04:53 < cnloyd> Got to control three axes of movement.
04:53 < cnloyd> Make sure your plane doesn't vibrate apart.
04:53 < beeli> yet, you into these stratospehric stuff?
04:53 < beeli> not into this regulars??
04:54 < cnloyd> Not sure what you mean by regulars.
04:54 < cnloyd> I'm into off-world stuff.
04:54 < cnloyd> Low Earth Orbit and up.
04:54 < beeli> yes
04:54 < beeli> not regular airplanes
04:54 < beeli> space stations
04:54 < beeli> that is your interest?
04:55 < cnloyd> Nah. Current push seems to be bigger and bigger...but the market demand seems to suggest local jumps, from smallish city to smallish city. Nothing requiring a Boeing 7E7.
04:55 < cnloyd> Space stations over 7E7, yes.
04:56 < beeli> have some sites aobut this stuff?
04:56 < cnloyd> Space stations, emergency set-up housing, interplanetary ships, hi-tech habitats for earth. Even experimental designs using new materials.
04:56 < cnloyd> The wikipedia is a good place to start for the basics.
04:57 < cnloyd> Wiki "CEV" for the new, post-2010 launch vehicles.
04:57 < beeli> is this stuff for US only or ?
04:57 < beeli> i mean, can some small country build anyhthing?
04:57 < cnloyd> US/Russian/Japanese/Euros will probably share the Shuttle/Soyuz/CEV.
04:58 < beeli> so, how is about employing in this brench?
04:58 < cnloyd> Well...Russia has a GDP the same size as the Netherlands, they have their own launch system.
04:58 < beeli> is there demand for you?
04:58 < beeli> hmh
04:58 < beeli> russia is weird country
04:58 < cnloyd> That's not an easy question to answer.
04:58 < cnloyd> There is demand for people to design some new stuff, or to work on a subsystem.
04:59 < cnloyd> There WILL be demand for people who can integrate all the subsystems into a can that can support people for long durations missions, once they find out that people need comfort, aesthetics, and all sorts of non-linear things to keep them sane.
05:00 < beeli> a little bit before your time you are :)
05:00 < cnloyd> I plan on living for a long time.
05:00 < cnloyd> Watch, I will die tomorrow in a car crash.
05:00 < beeli> hehe
05:00 < cnloyd> Now that I have said all that.
05:00 < beeli> and you can always escape
05:00 < cnloyd> To?
05:00 < beeli> out from earth
05:01 < beeli> when you build such station
05:01 < beeli> that is strategic thinking i can notice
05:01 < cnloyd> Yeah, once I figure out a way to never need Earth to resupply food and spare parts.
05:01 < beeli> huh, gonna go.
05:01 < beeli> it is 5 am
05:01 < beeli> good night, cnloyd
05:01 < cnloyd> Need resource mining, manufacturing, and recycling systems that don't exist yet, or only Technology Readiness Level 2.
05:02 < cnloyd> Good night.
05:02 -!- beeli [n=ille...@cmung638.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit []
05:02 < cnloyd> I guess beeli is somewhere in Central or Eastern Europe.
05:07 < urgyen> you got it
05:07 < urgyen> which is really nice to see
05:07 < urgyen> it's great to watch life move along
05:14 < cnloyd> Yeah. I have something like a Mercator projection of the earth as my wallpaper. It has cloud cover, daylight, nighttime, and city lights, in an almost live image.
05:14 < urgyen> you catch any nasaTV for the spacewalks?
05:16 < cnloyd> As a video stream, yeah. Especially now that I fixed Windows. I know that Windows may be verboten among IRC people, but hey, it's my machine.
05:23 < urgyen> I use xp most the time
05:24 < cnloyd> Same here.
05:30 < urgyen> among IRC people... you must hang out too much on freenode ;-)
05:31 < urgyen> http://irc.netsplit.de/
05:33 < cnloyd> You part of a group on that node?
05:33 < cnloyd> And, yes, I do spend a lot of my life on-line. Part of the Trans-human trend to stay indoors.
05:34 < urgyen> netsplit is the irc inventory
05:34 < urgyen> it lists all the IRC networks out there... at least one's that want to be found
05:37 < cnloyd> Awww...not the dark, shadowy kind, where people speak 3l11t lingo all day? ;-)
05:44 < urgyen> there's a few of those listed
06:41 < cnloyd> Need to go to bed. Almost midnight here in the CDT.
06:41 -!- cnloyd [n=mtb...@ppp-69-148-50-114.dsl.hstntx.swbell.net] has left #parlement []
14:05 -!- illegale (illegale) [i=ille...@cmung511.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
14:17 < illegale:#parlement> you know that US dollar is based on the price of oil as long as US$ has monopoly over any transaction of it?
14:18 -!- illegale [i=ille...@cmung511.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit []
--- Log closed lun jui 17 17:56:02 2006
--- Log opened lun jui 17 17:56:38 2006
17:56 -!- echarp [n=33M0...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has joined #parlement
17:56 -!- Topic for #parlement: http://leparlement.org/irc
17:56 -!- Topic set by echarp [] [Sun Jun 11 20:50:53 2006]
17:56 [Users #parlement]
17:56 [ echarp] [ fiatlex] [ nsh] [ urgyen]
17:56 -!- Irssi: #parlement: Total of 4 nicks [0 ops, 0 halfops, 0 voices, 4 normal]
17:56 -!- Channel #parlement created Thu Apr 27 09:48:29 2006
17:57 -!- Irssi: Join to #parlement was synced in 42 secs
--- Log closed mar jui 18 00:00:51 2006
echarp
Jul 19, 2006, 12:28:48 AM7/19/06
to top-politics
--- Log opened mar jui 18 00:00:51 2006
00:53 -!- cnloyd (Chris Loyd) [n=mtb...@ppp-69-148-50-114.dsl.hstntx.swbell.net] has joined #parlement
00:54 < cnloyd:#parlement> Good evening from the Central Time Zone of North America.
00:57 -!- cnloyd [n=mtb...@ppp-69-148-50-114.dsl.hstntx.swbell.net] has left #parlement []
00:58 -!- cnloyd (leafChat 1.8) [n=801...@ppp-69-148-50-114.dsl.hstntx.swbell.net] has joined #parlement
00:58 < cnloyd:#parlement> OK, back. Now using leafChat.
01:40 -!- urgyen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)]
02:56 -!- urgen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
03:09 < cnloyd:#parlement> Urgyen is now urgen...
03:09 < urgen:#parlement> hi
03:10 < cnloyd:#parlement> Relaxing evening here in the CDT.
03:10 < cnloyd:#parlement> How about you?
03:10 -!- cnloyd [n=801...@ppp-69-148-50-114.dsl.hstntx.swbell.net] has quit ["Changing server"]
03:11 < urgen:#parlement> oops
03:11 -!- cnloyd (leafChat 1.8) [n=801...@ppp-69-148-50-114.dsl.hstntx.swbell.net] has joined #parlement
03:11 < urgen:#parlement> ;-)
03:11 < cnloyd:#parlement> Whoops. Sorry about that.
03:11 < cnloyd:#parlement> Tried logging onto two servers.
03:11 < urgen:#parlement> it's toasty here today
03:11 < cnloyd:#parlement> Yeah. It's been in the 90s here, with indicies in the 105 range.
03:12 < urgen:#parlement> ya same here
03:12 < urgen:#parlement> your version command seems disabled
03:12 < urgen:#parlement> so I can't tell what client you have to suggest the command to do more than one server at a time
03:12 < cnloyd:#parlement> leafChat 1.8
03:13 < cnloyd:#parlement> mIRC apparently costs money now.
03:13 < urgen:#parlement> mirc's about $20 I think
03:13 < cnloyd:#parlement> Yeah.
03:15 < cnloyd:#parlement> Can't even do "/msg NickServ"
03:15 < cnloyd:#parlement> I will just get Mozilla. It seems to work well enough at my friend's house.
03:18 < cnloyd:#parlement> Need to exit, to install.
03:18 -!- cnloyd [n=801...@ppp-69-148-50-114.dsl.hstntx.swbell.net] has left #parlement []
03:20 -!- cnloyd (New Now Know How) [n=chat...@ppp-69-148-50-114.dsl.hstntx.swbell.net] has joined #parlement
03:20 < cnloyd:#parlement> OK. Trying to register my nick, but the NickServ doesn't recognize INDENTIFY.
03:21 < cnloyd:#parlement> Any tips?
03:21 < cnloyd:#parlement> It's worked before.
03:21 < urgen:#parlement> first make sure it is really nickserv ;-)
03:21 < urgen:#parlement> but then just type help and see if you have the context right
03:21 < cnloyd:#parlement> OK...
03:22 < cnloyd:#parlement> I misspelled IDENTIFY. :|
03:27 < cnloyd:#parlement> Apparently, the temps are high even in Germany.
03:27 < cnloyd:#parlement> High later today (over there), is in the 30s Celsius.
03:56 -!- urgen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)]
03:56 -!- urgen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
04:09 < cnloyd:#parlement> Welcome...back...?
04:09 < urgen:#parlement> dunno
04:37 < cnloyd:#parlement> On page 797 of System of the World.
04:46 < cnloyd:#parlement> Now on Page 804. Calling it a night, live from the CDT.
04:47 -!- cnloyd [n=chat...@ppp-69-148-50-114.dsl.hstntx.swbell.net] has quit ["ChatZilla 0.9.61 [Mozilla rv:1.7.13/20060414]"]
06:50 -!- urgen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)]
06:56 -!- urgen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
07:35 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
07:36 -!- Netsplit brown.freenode.net <-> irc.freenode.net quits: fiatlex
07:37 -!- Netsplit over, joins: fiatlex
09:21 < echarp> hello hello
17:28 -!- illegale (illegale) [n=ille...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has joined #parlement
17:28 < illegale> oi
17:29 < echarp> hello hello illegale
17:29 < illegale> wassa?
17:29 < echarp> hot hot hot!
17:30 < echarp> avatars are mostly finished, I'll just have to deploy them
17:30 < illegale> turn on air condition !
17:30 < illegale> nice!
17:31 < echarp> we *have* air conditionning, and I'm sooo glad for that!
17:31 < illegale> going to vacations soon?
17:32 < echarp> nope, not this year I believe
17:33 < echarp> but it's not so bad, I quite like paris in summer time
17:33 < echarp> all parisians are out on the sea or in mountains! :)
17:34 < illegale> heh. mountains are nice
17:34 < illegale> fresh
17:34 < illegale> airi Ȯ=
17:34 < illegale> :)
17:35 < echarp> give me air conditioning in my bedroom, that will do! :)
17:35 < illegale> you computer geek :p
17:36 < echarp> :-p
17:41 < echarp> http://copinedegeek.com (click on the purple image, I'm in the "roman photo")
17:48 < illegale> 17:29 < echarp> hello hello illegale
17:48 < illegale> 17:29 < illegale> wassa?
17:48 < illegale> 17:29 < echarp> hot hot hot!
17:48 < illegale> 17:30 < echarp> avatars are mostly finished, I'll just have to deploy them
17:48 < illegale> 17:30 < illegale> turn on air con
17:48 < illegale> 17:30 < illegale> turn on air con17:29 < echarp> hello hello illegale
17:48 < illegale> 17:29 < illegale> wassa?
17:48 < illegale> 17:29 < echarp> hot hot hot!
17:48 < illegale> 17:30 < echarp> avatars are mostly finished, I'll just have to deploy them
17:48 < illegale> 17:30 < illegale> turn on air con
17:48 < illegale> 17:30 < illegale> turn on air con17:29 < echarp> hello hello illegale
17:48 < illegale> 17:29 < illegale> wassa?
17:48 < illegale> 17:29 < echarp> hot hot hot!
17:48 < echarp> ^
17:48 < illegale> 17:30 < echarp> avatars are mostly finished, I'll just have to deploy them
17:48 < illegale> ops
17:48 < echarp> playing with copy-paste?
17:48 < illegale> making mistakes
17:49 < echarp> that happens :(
17:50 < illegale> http://copinedegeek.com http://copinedegeek.com purple image?
17:50 < illegale> purple imge
17:50 < illegale> ?
17:51 < echarp> you don't see it? with a geek's head on it
17:52 < illegale> nah
17:52 < echarp> did you open the web page?
17:52 < illegale> have direct link?
17:52 < illegale> yes
17:53 < echarp> the image is right in the middle!
17:53 < echarp> http://copinedegeek.com/roman.php3?id_rubrique=65
17:53 < illegale> no images but that with animal
17:53 < illegale> http://copinedegeek.com/roman.php3?id_rubrique=65http://copinedegeek.com/roman.php3?id_rubrique=65
17:56 < illegale> the one with beard?
17:56 < echarp> I'm the bad one
17:57 < illegale> yeah. i see you :)
18:00 < echarp> we still need to finish the 3rd episode
18:01 < illegale> what epizde you are talking about actually?
18:01 < illegale> video stuff?
18:02 < echarp> no, the roman photo has 2 episodes as of now
18:02 < echarp> it lacks an end
18:02 < illegale> i saw just banner with moving pictures
18:03 < illegale> momnet
18:04 < illegale> gee :o
18:06 < illegale> lol
18:06 < illegale> that was a team buildng stuff *?
18:07 < echarp> yeap
18:07 < echarp> geeks
18:07 < illegale> http://www.odrediste-nepoznato.com/
18:08 < illegale> that are my video geeks doing productio
18:08 < illegale> boss oredered it?
18:08 < illegale> there is no me in that though
18:08 < illegale> i am mysterious
18:08 < illegale> nobodz ever seen me stuff
18:13 < illegale> you feel fine with showing it?
18:14 < illegale> :-)
18:16 < echarp> :)why not?
18:17 < echarp> it's just stupid stuff
18:18 < illegale> haha :)
18:18 < illegale> kidding
18:18 < echarp> in the 3rd opus, I'm supposedly turning as the good guy :)
18:28 < illegale> you gonna neeed designer
18:37 < illegale> i gotta go
18:37 < illegale> cu !
18:37 -!- illegale [n=ille...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has quit ["Lost terminal"]
18:37 < echarp> cu
--- Log closed mer jui 19 00:00:52 2006
00:53 -!- cnloyd (Chris Loyd) [n=mtb...@ppp-69-148-50-114.dsl.hstntx.swbell.net] has joined #parlement
00:54 < cnloyd:#parlement> Good evening from the Central Time Zone of North America.
00:57 -!- cnloyd [n=mtb...@ppp-69-148-50-114.dsl.hstntx.swbell.net] has left #parlement []
00:58 -!- cnloyd (leafChat 1.8) [n=801...@ppp-69-148-50-114.dsl.hstntx.swbell.net] has joined #parlement
00:58 < cnloyd:#parlement> OK, back. Now using leafChat.
01:40 -!- urgyen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)]
02:56 -!- urgen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
03:09 < cnloyd:#parlement> Urgyen is now urgen...
03:09 < urgen:#parlement> hi
03:10 < cnloyd:#parlement> Relaxing evening here in the CDT.
03:10 < cnloyd:#parlement> How about you?
03:10 -!- cnloyd [n=801...@ppp-69-148-50-114.dsl.hstntx.swbell.net] has quit ["Changing server"]
03:11 < urgen:#parlement> oops
03:11 -!- cnloyd (leafChat 1.8) [n=801...@ppp-69-148-50-114.dsl.hstntx.swbell.net] has joined #parlement
03:11 < urgen:#parlement> ;-)
03:11 < cnloyd:#parlement> Whoops. Sorry about that.
03:11 < cnloyd:#parlement> Tried logging onto two servers.
03:11 < urgen:#parlement> it's toasty here today
03:11 < cnloyd:#parlement> Yeah. It's been in the 90s here, with indicies in the 105 range.
03:12 < urgen:#parlement> ya same here
03:12 < urgen:#parlement> your version command seems disabled
03:12 < urgen:#parlement> so I can't tell what client you have to suggest the command to do more than one server at a time
03:12 < cnloyd:#parlement> leafChat 1.8
03:13 < cnloyd:#parlement> mIRC apparently costs money now.
03:13 < urgen:#parlement> mirc's about $20 I think
03:13 < cnloyd:#parlement> Yeah.
03:15 < cnloyd:#parlement> Can't even do "/msg NickServ"
03:15 < cnloyd:#parlement> I will just get Mozilla. It seems to work well enough at my friend's house.
03:18 < cnloyd:#parlement> Need to exit, to install.
03:18 -!- cnloyd [n=801...@ppp-69-148-50-114.dsl.hstntx.swbell.net] has left #parlement []
03:20 -!- cnloyd (New Now Know How) [n=chat...@ppp-69-148-50-114.dsl.hstntx.swbell.net] has joined #parlement
03:20 < cnloyd:#parlement> OK. Trying to register my nick, but the NickServ doesn't recognize INDENTIFY.
03:21 < cnloyd:#parlement> Any tips?
03:21 < cnloyd:#parlement> It's worked before.
03:21 < urgen:#parlement> first make sure it is really nickserv ;-)
03:21 < urgen:#parlement> but then just type help and see if you have the context right
03:21 < cnloyd:#parlement> OK...
03:22 < cnloyd:#parlement> I misspelled IDENTIFY. :|
03:27 < cnloyd:#parlement> Apparently, the temps are high even in Germany.
03:27 < cnloyd:#parlement> High later today (over there), is in the 30s Celsius.
03:56 -!- urgen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)]
03:56 -!- urgen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
04:09 < cnloyd:#parlement> Welcome...back...?
04:09 < urgen:#parlement> dunno
04:37 < cnloyd:#parlement> On page 797 of System of the World.
04:46 < cnloyd:#parlement> Now on Page 804. Calling it a night, live from the CDT.
04:47 -!- cnloyd [n=chat...@ppp-69-148-50-114.dsl.hstntx.swbell.net] has quit ["ChatZilla 0.9.61 [Mozilla rv:1.7.13/20060414]"]
06:50 -!- urgen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)]
06:56 -!- urgen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
07:35 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
07:36 -!- Netsplit brown.freenode.net <-> irc.freenode.net quits: fiatlex
07:37 -!- Netsplit over, joins: fiatlex
09:21 < echarp> hello hello
17:28 -!- illegale (illegale) [n=ille...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has joined #parlement
17:28 < illegale> oi
17:29 < echarp> hello hello illegale
17:29 < illegale> wassa?
17:29 < echarp> hot hot hot!
17:30 < echarp> avatars are mostly finished, I'll just have to deploy them
17:30 < illegale> turn on air condition !
17:30 < illegale> nice!
17:31 < echarp> we *have* air conditionning, and I'm sooo glad for that!
17:31 < illegale> going to vacations soon?
17:32 < echarp> nope, not this year I believe
17:33 < echarp> but it's not so bad, I quite like paris in summer time
17:33 < echarp> all parisians are out on the sea or in mountains! :)
17:34 < illegale> heh. mountains are nice
17:34 < illegale> fresh
17:34 < illegale> airi Ȯ=
17:34 < illegale> :)
17:35 < echarp> give me air conditioning in my bedroom, that will do! :)
17:35 < illegale> you computer geek :p
17:36 < echarp> :-p
17:41 < echarp> http://copinedegeek.com (click on the purple image, I'm in the "roman photo")
17:48 < illegale> 17:29 < echarp> hello hello illegale
17:48 < illegale> 17:29 < illegale> wassa?
17:48 < illegale> 17:29 < echarp> hot hot hot!
17:48 < illegale> 17:30 < echarp> avatars are mostly finished, I'll just have to deploy them
17:48 < illegale> 17:30 < illegale> turn on air con
17:48 < illegale> 17:30 < illegale> turn on air con17:29 < echarp> hello hello illegale
17:48 < illegale> 17:29 < illegale> wassa?
17:48 < illegale> 17:29 < echarp> hot hot hot!
17:48 < illegale> 17:30 < echarp> avatars are mostly finished, I'll just have to deploy them
17:48 < illegale> 17:30 < illegale> turn on air con
17:48 < illegale> 17:30 < illegale> turn on air con17:29 < echarp> hello hello illegale
17:48 < illegale> 17:29 < illegale> wassa?
17:48 < illegale> 17:29 < echarp> hot hot hot!
17:48 < echarp> ^
17:48 < illegale> 17:30 < echarp> avatars are mostly finished, I'll just have to deploy them
17:48 < illegale> ops
17:48 < echarp> playing with copy-paste?
17:48 < illegale> making mistakes
17:49 < echarp> that happens :(
17:50 < illegale> http://copinedegeek.com http://copinedegeek.com purple image?
17:50 < illegale> purple imge
17:50 < illegale> ?
17:51 < echarp> you don't see it? with a geek's head on it
17:52 < illegale> nah
17:52 < echarp> did you open the web page?
17:52 < illegale> have direct link?
17:52 < illegale> yes
17:53 < echarp> the image is right in the middle!
17:53 < echarp> http://copinedegeek.com/roman.php3?id_rubrique=65
17:53 < illegale> no images but that with animal
17:53 < illegale> http://copinedegeek.com/roman.php3?id_rubrique=65http://copinedegeek.com/roman.php3?id_rubrique=65
17:56 < illegale> the one with beard?
17:56 < echarp> I'm the bad one
17:57 < illegale> yeah. i see you :)
18:00 < echarp> we still need to finish the 3rd episode
18:01 < illegale> what epizde you are talking about actually?
18:01 < illegale> video stuff?
18:02 < echarp> no, the roman photo has 2 episodes as of now
18:02 < echarp> it lacks an end
18:02 < illegale> i saw just banner with moving pictures
18:03 < illegale> momnet
18:04 < illegale> gee :o
18:06 < illegale> lol
18:06 < illegale> that was a team buildng stuff *?
18:07 < echarp> yeap
18:07 < echarp> geeks
18:07 < illegale> http://www.odrediste-nepoznato.com/
18:08 < illegale> that are my video geeks doing productio
18:08 < illegale> boss oredered it?
18:08 < illegale> there is no me in that though
18:08 < illegale> i am mysterious
18:08 < illegale> nobodz ever seen me stuff
18:13 < illegale> you feel fine with showing it?
18:14 < illegale> :-)
18:16 < echarp> :)why not?
18:17 < echarp> it's just stupid stuff
18:18 < illegale> haha :)
18:18 < illegale> kidding
18:18 < echarp> in the 3rd opus, I'm supposedly turning as the good guy :)
18:28 < illegale> you gonna neeed designer
18:37 < illegale> i gotta go
18:37 < illegale> cu !
18:37 -!- illegale [n=ille...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has quit ["Lost terminal"]
18:37 < echarp> cu
--- Log closed mer jui 19 00:00:52 2006
echarp
Jul 20, 2006, 12:29:41 AM7/20/06
to top-politics
--- Log opened mer jui 19 00:00:52 2006
01:15 -!- fiatlex [n=b...@216.218.203.219] has quit []
01:15 -!- fiatlex (fiatlex bot) [n=b...@tridity.org] has joined #parlement
09:50 < echarp> hello hello
09:50 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
09:50 -!- Topic for #parlement: http://leparlement.org/irc
09:50 -!- Topic set by echarp [] [Sun Jun 11 20:50:53 2006]
11:48 * nsh:#parlement smiles
11:52 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
11:52 < echarp> how are you nsh ?
11:52 < nsh> we are a confluence
11:52 * nsh is well
11:52 < nsh> tired
11:53 < echarp> too early?
11:53 < echarp> partied last night? :)
11:54 * nsh has poor sleeping pattern
11:54 < nsh> :-)
11:54 < nsh> how are you?
11:54 < echarp> very well, thank you
11:54 < echarp> climatisation works wonders ;)
11:55 * nsh smiles
11:55 < echarp> and your job?
11:55 < nsh> same, same
11:56 < nsh> picked up an economics book
11:56 < echarp> to learn on your spare time?
11:56 * nsh has to decide what to study
11:57 < nsh> , should he return to university
11:57 < echarp> you probably can go there while still working
11:57 < echarp> I believe the uk has some nice arrangements on that
11:58 * nsh nods
11:59 < echarp> why not try that?
11:59 < echarp> economic studies are also invaluable for an enterprise
12:00 * nsh smiles
12:00 < nsh> it's hard to decide course without knowing intention
12:00 < echarp> you plan to create your own maybe?
12:02 < nsh> interesting idea
12:03 < echarp> well, needs much much energy :(
12:05 < echarp> ok, time for lunch
12:05 < nsh> take care
12:05 < echarp> japanese probably
12:05 * nsh smiles
12:06 < echarp> cu, you'll tell me about your ideas in economy ;)
12:07 < nsh:#parlement> sometime :-)
12:08 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
13:11 -!- illegale (illegale) [i=ille...@cmung734.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
13:18 < echarp> hello hello illegale
13:19 < illegale> oi
13:19 < illegale> how are avatars?
13:20 < echarp> going well
13:20 < echarp> still not in production, but about finished
13:21 < echarp> how are you?
13:21 < illegale> fine :)
13:21 < illegale> finishing study
13:21 < illegale> doing final work
13:21 < echarp> study on ?
13:21 < illegale> too bad i wont be in poitics that much after that
13:21 < illegale> pharmacy
13:21 < illegale> official stuff
13:22 < illegale> probalby not going to see this year
13:22 < illegale> due to ass problems
13:22 < echarp> I'm sorry for you
13:23 < illegale> and than work
13:23 < illegale> sooner or later that is the scenario we get into
13:23 < illegale> thought i gnna have a little bit more cool last free summer yet
13:23 < illegale> thohg
13:24 < echarp> cool what?
13:24 < illegale> summer
13:24 < illegale> last time of freedom
13:27 < echarp> yeap
13:27 < echarp> student time
13:27 < echarp> what about politics then?
13:27 < illegale> i met several persons who are already in working age i find have some poetential
13:28 < illegale> will keep connection to them
13:28 < echarp> that's good
13:28 < illegale> doing back work and stuff
13:28 < illegale> that is curren scenario
13:28 < illegale> will see what will happen
13:29 < illegale> though, if you suceed before 9t month to develop this stuff
13:29 < echarp> we make up life as it comes :)
13:29 < echarp> make up = create
13:29 < illegale> i will be able to promote new technology of communicaiton software
13:29 < echarp> interesting :)
13:29 < illegale> make it working fine
13:29 < illegale> in 9th mont, 10th the moest i will probably be in other spheres much more
13:30 < echarp> things shift, change
13:31 < illegale> what you aim at?
13:32 < illegale> btw, this top politics
13:33 < illegale> seems to me people gave up :)
13:33 < echarp> it's summer time too you know
13:35 < echarp> there was some energy a few days ago
13:36 < echarp> shame it died off
13:36 < illegale> regular stuff
13:36 < illegale> suppose people have problems with me pushing this first procedure
13:36 < illegale> find it non democraic manner
13:37 < illegale> mayve think we should vote about every singe issue before anyzthing is done
13:39 < echarp> in fact, I'm not sure they have any opinion
13:39 < echarp> me I'm fine with the procedure, the part I understand anyway
13:40 < illegale> there is pretty much **** about idea of democracy around
13:40 < illegale> and direct democracy much mor
13:40 < illegale> to me, it is only up to principle that origns the power
13:40 < illegale> is it base on free info and full info or not
13:41 < illegale> democracy? pretty lame wod actually
13:41 < illegale> it only acknowledgges that people do have potential to change issues
13:41 < illegale> that is not big news to anybody
13:41 < echarp> it's just a word
13:42 < echarp> being a word, it does not imply that everything will advance smoothly
13:44 < illegale> that word does not carry to much info value to be taken that seriously
13:45 < illegale> i mean why this is not democracy?
13:46 < echarp> what is not democracy?
13:47 < echarp> the word democracy does carry information
13:47 < illegale> is this democracy?
13:47 < illegale> system that exists?
13:47 < echarp> "what" is democracy???
13:47 < echarp> what system are you speaking of?
13:48 < illegale> regular one that is around in western countries
13:48 < echarp> it is a kind of democratic system
13:48 < echarp> washed down democracy
13:49 < illegale> this is the reason i do not take democracy be importan issue
13:49 < illegale> distincion that makes distincion stuff
13:49 < illegale> word democracy that is not
13:49 < illegale> no info value
13:50 < illegale> if we talk about top, there is much mor info value
13:50 < illegale> lets leave democracy besude
13:52 < echarp> I disagree strongly
13:53 < echarp> democracy is a concept I'm not ready *at all* to leave aside
13:54 < echarp> but it is just a word, a description, that word will not act by itself
13:54 < illegale> so, what lacks in conceptof democracy gthat makes you see it washed up today?
13:55 < illegale> make quality obseravations that can not be eliminated
13:55 < echarp> not in the concept of democracy
13:55 < echarp> in the current implementations on the national levels
13:55 < illegale> ok, say
13:55 < echarp> what is lacking is the possibility to easily leave/join the system
13:56 < echarp> a national democracy is not that different to a geographic dictature
13:56 < illegale> what does it mean leave system?
13:56 < illegale> no paying taxes as long as you do not like it?
13:57 < echarp> it's one way yes
13:57 < illegale> no driving due you did not pay for highways?
13:57 < echarp> another way yes
13:57 < echarp> there are plenty of ways to not only go by one geographic democracy
13:57 < illegale> no living in paris as long as you did not pay community taxes?
13:57 < echarp> a democracy can be non geographic you know
13:58 < illegale> geography is part of reality you know
13:58 < echarp> and?
13:58 < illegale> if you want to live in france you have to pay taxes
13:58 < illegale> if you do notr want to live in france, you can leacve
13:58 < illegale> go in exile
13:59 < echarp> it's the way to do it today, and I'm complaining about it!!!!
13:59 < echarp> I'm saying this is not a proper democratic way
13:59 < illegale> do you have vision how to solve that problem?
14:00 < echarp> there already are such things
14:00 < echarp> communities, international laws, consulates, contracts
14:00 < echarp> let's allow people to use contracts in order to manage their relationships
14:01 < illegale> what about road buildig?
14:01 < illegale> is it possible bo vreate such thing among 1 000 000 of people to enable a road?
14:03 < illegale> than multiply it with all other decisions that such as social care syste + + + + +
14:03 < illegale> community servie
14:03 < illegale> where to put node for mobile phones
14:04 < illegale> what dto be speed limit in the area you are in?
14:04 < illegale> all contracts about anything
14:04 < echarp> roads are local things
14:04 < echarp> they should be managed locally
14:04 < illegale> and if you do not like some contract, than yoiu can leave
14:04 < illegale> cmon
14:04 < illegale> what does it mea locally?
14:04 < echarp> I have much less problems with small geographically based democracies
14:04 < illegale> why?
14:05 < echarp> because they are not an artificial construct based on force and invasions
14:05 < echarp> france is an artificial construct you know, which dates back to the revolution and louis XIV
14:05 < illegale> so, they can use regular democratic procedures
14:05 < echarp> locally?
14:05 < illegale> yes
14:05 < echarp> of course, everybody can
14:05 < illegale> npo need to contrct and stuff
14:05 < echarp> I'm just saying that imposing a democracy by force is not very democratic
14:06 < echarp> nations are thus not perfect democracies, and never will be unless they allow secessions or such things
14:07 < echarp> a true democracy should only include those willing to be part of it
14:07 < illegale> part of what?
14:08 < echarp> part of the democracy
14:08 < illegale> you mean collective?
14:08 < illegale> if you seay democracy, you need to elaborate what is democracy
14:09 < echarp> a democracy is a group of people you know
14:10 < illegale> democracy is a group of people?
14:10 < illegale> that is a definition of democracy=
14:11 < echarp> sorry, but politics necessarilly concern people :)
14:12 < illegale> s, we do not need word democrcy as long as we have some other words that explan the same concept
14:12 < illegale> such as group of people
14:13 < echarp> sorry but I'm speaking about democracy, so the word seems important
14:14 < illegale> you need to define that wordgain its meaning
14:14 < illegale> what distincts it to other words
14:14 < illegale> what are relations to other concepts
14:14 < illegale> i do mnot see such thing
14:14 < illegale> so, as long sa people regularly have no clue about it
14:14 < illegale> they lke to equal it to 50%+¸
14:14 < illegale> that is bad
14:15 < illegale> meaningless
14:15 < echarp> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy
14:15 < echarp> that should do
14:19 < illegale:#parlement> rule by the people?
14:19 < illegale:#parlement> what is people*?
14:21 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
14:21 < echarp> you want to learn the dictionary?
14:22 < illegale> i want to prove this is actally lae issue
14:22 < illegale> there is you there is me
14:22 < illegale> we are the people
14:22 < illegale> yes?
14:23 < echarp> of course
14:23 < illegale> if we do not agree?
14:23 < illegale> how can people rule?
14:23 < echarp> this is actually "what" issue???
14:23 < illegale> emptiness of word democracy
14:23 < echarp> ??? "i want to prove this is actally lae issue" ???
14:24 < echarp> you want to prove what???
14:24 < echarp> please rephrase your sentence
14:26 < illegale> word democracy is pretty lame
14:26 < illegale> its essence is that everybody has freedom to participate
14:26 < illegale> that is all
14:27 < illegale> that freedom at declarative level is already enabled by todays regume
14:27 < illegale> so, as long as it does not create any distinction to current system, it is actually empty
14:27 < illegale> what you need are not empty words
14:27 < illegale> words that make distinction to current system
14:27 < illegale> principles that make distinction
14:28 < illegale> these are ideas that need to be articualted and to see how these issues can be implemented
14:28 < illegale> that is what i am trying to say
14:28 < illegale> though, i have to go now
14:28 < illegale> cu!
14:28 -!- illegale [i=ille...@cmung734.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit []
17:06 -!- illegale (illegale) [n=ille...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has joined #parlement
17:06 < illegale> oi
17:07 < illegale> fight for democracy = power to the people?
17:07 < echarp> re
17:07 < echarp> mostly yes
17:07 < echarp> you are playing obtuse aren't you?
17:08 < echarp> same as urgen it seems :)
17:08 < echarp> yet you don't really understand each other (from what I can see)
17:09 < echarp> picking on words, trying to tear appart their meaning
17:09 < echarp> yet it's not complex
17:09 < echarp> yes there are connotations, big big one
17:09 < echarp> they just need to be made public
17:28 < illegale> bbl
17:28 -!- illegale [n=ille...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has quit ["Lost terminal"]
17:52 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
18:02 < urgen> I can understand oh too well, I just don't agree
18:02 < urgen> if there is no process toward which we can arrive at some place to mutually appreciate then there can be no social power
18:02 < urgen> if there is no social power illegale's stage falls
18:03 < urgen> I'm not just being stubborn
18:03 < urgen> I do have values
18:03 < urgen> none are being explored
18:03 < urgen> if it is not important to include me then that's fine
18:03 < urgen> but if that lack of inclusion trespasses on my values, it is not fine, no matter how transparent
18:04 < urgen> just because other ppl don't share these same values doesn't give them a right to remove my lifestyle
18:05 < urgen> this is the contention I have will the idea retaining an individual as the focus of power ( what I still believe illegale's position is ).
18:05 < urgen> s/will/with
18:05 < urgen> if there is no basis for a voice of one then there is no basis
18:06 < echarp> I'm slightly lost I'm afraid
18:06 < urgen> consensus -1 removes this basis
18:06 < echarp> but have not time, drinking out with a babe ;)
18:06 < echarp> consensus is also rather difficult on a democracy
18:06 < echarp> "on", not "in"
18:06 < urgen> which is why I am not a proponent of democracy
18:07 < urgen> but way so not one of social or communist flavor either :-)
18:07 < echarp> and democracies usually accept some kind of acceptation to follow the "common will" as determined by "a" majority
18:07 < urgen> majority is blind
18:07 < urgen> every time
18:07 < echarp> I don't care
18:07 < urgen> illegale want benevolent dictator
18:07 < echarp> you are anarchist?
18:07 < urgen> I'm not an anarchist either
18:07 < echarp> I don't really what he wants, but dictator I'm not sure
18:08 < echarp> ok, we'll discuss later if you want (I personally want)
18:08 < echarp> cu!
18:08 < urgen> ya
18:17 -!- illegale (illegale) [i=ille...@cmung2763.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
18:21 < illegale> back i am
18:21 < illegale> clasical problem did happen
18:22 < illegale> i can not see what did you write last time
19:15 < urgen> http://bridgeheart.net/irclogs/irc.freenode.net:6667/parlement/
19:15 < urgen> oh the bot is not home
19:15 < urgen> :\
19:16 < urgen> oops
19:18 * parlebot is logging
19:18 -!- parlebot (Chat Logger) [i=ur...@65.111.164.97] has joined #parlement
19:19 -!- parlebot [i=ur...@65.111.164.97] has quit [Remote closed the connection]
19:19 < illegale> dont work?
19:19 * parlebot is logging
19:19 -!- parlebot (Chat Logger) [i=ur...@65.111.164.97] has joined #parlement
19:20 < urgen> I had forgotten a command
19:20 < urgen> :P
19:20 < illegale> urgen: can you send it to illegale?
19:20 < urgen> this one only knows how to be on one channel at a time
19:21 < illegale> start two ow them
19:21 < urgen> ya, when I get some time
19:21 < urgen> maybe friday?
19:21 < illegale> nevermind
19:21 < urgen> I have to run to work
19:21 * urgen out
20:06 -!- illegale [i=ille...@cmung2763.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit []
22:17 < echarp> hello again
--- Log closed jeu jui 20 00:00:52 2006
01:15 -!- fiatlex [n=b...@216.218.203.219] has quit []
01:15 -!- fiatlex (fiatlex bot) [n=b...@tridity.org] has joined #parlement
09:50 < echarp> hello hello
09:50 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
09:50 -!- Topic for #parlement: http://leparlement.org/irc
09:50 -!- Topic set by echarp [] [Sun Jun 11 20:50:53 2006]
11:48 * nsh:#parlement smiles
11:52 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
11:52 < echarp> how are you nsh ?
11:52 < nsh> we are a confluence
11:52 * nsh is well
11:52 < nsh> tired
11:53 < echarp> too early?
11:53 < echarp> partied last night? :)
11:54 * nsh has poor sleeping pattern
11:54 < nsh> :-)
11:54 < nsh> how are you?
11:54 < echarp> very well, thank you
11:54 < echarp> climatisation works wonders ;)
11:55 * nsh smiles
11:55 < echarp> and your job?
11:55 < nsh> same, same
11:56 < nsh> picked up an economics book
11:56 < echarp> to learn on your spare time?
11:56 * nsh has to decide what to study
11:57 < nsh> , should he return to university
11:57 < echarp> you probably can go there while still working
11:57 < echarp> I believe the uk has some nice arrangements on that
11:58 * nsh nods
11:59 < echarp> why not try that?
11:59 < echarp> economic studies are also invaluable for an enterprise
12:00 * nsh smiles
12:00 < nsh> it's hard to decide course without knowing intention
12:00 < echarp> you plan to create your own maybe?
12:02 < nsh> interesting idea
12:03 < echarp> well, needs much much energy :(
12:05 < echarp> ok, time for lunch
12:05 < nsh> take care
12:05 < echarp> japanese probably
12:05 * nsh smiles
12:06 < echarp> cu, you'll tell me about your ideas in economy ;)
12:07 < nsh:#parlement> sometime :-)
12:08 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
13:11 -!- illegale (illegale) [i=ille...@cmung734.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
13:18 < echarp> hello hello illegale
13:19 < illegale> oi
13:19 < illegale> how are avatars?
13:20 < echarp> going well
13:20 < echarp> still not in production, but about finished
13:21 < echarp> how are you?
13:21 < illegale> fine :)
13:21 < illegale> finishing study
13:21 < illegale> doing final work
13:21 < echarp> study on ?
13:21 < illegale> too bad i wont be in poitics that much after that
13:21 < illegale> pharmacy
13:21 < illegale> official stuff
13:22 < illegale> probalby not going to see this year
13:22 < illegale> due to ass problems
13:22 < echarp> I'm sorry for you
13:23 < illegale> and than work
13:23 < illegale> sooner or later that is the scenario we get into
13:23 < illegale> thought i gnna have a little bit more cool last free summer yet
13:23 < illegale> thohg
13:24 < echarp> cool what?
13:24 < illegale> summer
13:24 < illegale> last time of freedom
13:27 < echarp> yeap
13:27 < echarp> student time
13:27 < echarp> what about politics then?
13:27 < illegale> i met several persons who are already in working age i find have some poetential
13:28 < illegale> will keep connection to them
13:28 < echarp> that's good
13:28 < illegale> doing back work and stuff
13:28 < illegale> that is curren scenario
13:28 < illegale> will see what will happen
13:29 < illegale> though, if you suceed before 9t month to develop this stuff
13:29 < echarp> we make up life as it comes :)
13:29 < echarp> make up = create
13:29 < illegale> i will be able to promote new technology of communicaiton software
13:29 < echarp> interesting :)
13:29 < illegale> make it working fine
13:29 < illegale> in 9th mont, 10th the moest i will probably be in other spheres much more
13:30 < echarp> things shift, change
13:31 < illegale> what you aim at?
13:32 < illegale> btw, this top politics
13:33 < illegale> seems to me people gave up :)
13:33 < echarp> it's summer time too you know
13:35 < echarp> there was some energy a few days ago
13:36 < echarp> shame it died off
13:36 < illegale> regular stuff
13:36 < illegale> suppose people have problems with me pushing this first procedure
13:36 < illegale> find it non democraic manner
13:37 < illegale> mayve think we should vote about every singe issue before anyzthing is done
13:39 < echarp> in fact, I'm not sure they have any opinion
13:39 < echarp> me I'm fine with the procedure, the part I understand anyway
13:40 < illegale> there is pretty much **** about idea of democracy around
13:40 < illegale> and direct democracy much mor
13:40 < illegale> to me, it is only up to principle that origns the power
13:40 < illegale> is it base on free info and full info or not
13:41 < illegale> democracy? pretty lame wod actually
13:41 < illegale> it only acknowledgges that people do have potential to change issues
13:41 < illegale> that is not big news to anybody
13:41 < echarp> it's just a word
13:42 < echarp> being a word, it does not imply that everything will advance smoothly
13:44 < illegale> that word does not carry to much info value to be taken that seriously
13:45 < illegale> i mean why this is not democracy?
13:46 < echarp> what is not democracy?
13:47 < echarp> the word democracy does carry information
13:47 < illegale> is this democracy?
13:47 < illegale> system that exists?
13:47 < echarp> "what" is democracy???
13:47 < echarp> what system are you speaking of?
13:48 < illegale> regular one that is around in western countries
13:48 < echarp> it is a kind of democratic system
13:48 < echarp> washed down democracy
13:49 < illegale> this is the reason i do not take democracy be importan issue
13:49 < illegale> distincion that makes distincion stuff
13:49 < illegale> word democracy that is not
13:49 < illegale> no info value
13:50 < illegale> if we talk about top, there is much mor info value
13:50 < illegale> lets leave democracy besude
13:52 < echarp> I disagree strongly
13:53 < echarp> democracy is a concept I'm not ready *at all* to leave aside
13:54 < echarp> but it is just a word, a description, that word will not act by itself
13:54 < illegale> so, what lacks in conceptof democracy gthat makes you see it washed up today?
13:55 < illegale> make quality obseravations that can not be eliminated
13:55 < echarp> not in the concept of democracy
13:55 < echarp> in the current implementations on the national levels
13:55 < illegale> ok, say
13:55 < echarp> what is lacking is the possibility to easily leave/join the system
13:56 < echarp> a national democracy is not that different to a geographic dictature
13:56 < illegale> what does it mean leave system?
13:56 < illegale> no paying taxes as long as you do not like it?
13:57 < echarp> it's one way yes
13:57 < illegale> no driving due you did not pay for highways?
13:57 < echarp> another way yes
13:57 < echarp> there are plenty of ways to not only go by one geographic democracy
13:57 < illegale> no living in paris as long as you did not pay community taxes?
13:57 < echarp> a democracy can be non geographic you know
13:58 < illegale> geography is part of reality you know
13:58 < echarp> and?
13:58 < illegale> if you want to live in france you have to pay taxes
13:58 < illegale> if you do notr want to live in france, you can leacve
13:58 < illegale> go in exile
13:59 < echarp> it's the way to do it today, and I'm complaining about it!!!!
13:59 < echarp> I'm saying this is not a proper democratic way
13:59 < illegale> do you have vision how to solve that problem?
14:00 < echarp> there already are such things
14:00 < echarp> communities, international laws, consulates, contracts
14:00 < echarp> let's allow people to use contracts in order to manage their relationships
14:01 < illegale> what about road buildig?
14:01 < illegale> is it possible bo vreate such thing among 1 000 000 of people to enable a road?
14:03 < illegale> than multiply it with all other decisions that such as social care syste + + + + +
14:03 < illegale> community servie
14:03 < illegale> where to put node for mobile phones
14:04 < illegale> what dto be speed limit in the area you are in?
14:04 < illegale> all contracts about anything
14:04 < echarp> roads are local things
14:04 < echarp> they should be managed locally
14:04 < illegale> and if you do not like some contract, than yoiu can leave
14:04 < illegale> cmon
14:04 < illegale> what does it mea locally?
14:04 < echarp> I have much less problems with small geographically based democracies
14:04 < illegale> why?
14:05 < echarp> because they are not an artificial construct based on force and invasions
14:05 < echarp> france is an artificial construct you know, which dates back to the revolution and louis XIV
14:05 < illegale> so, they can use regular democratic procedures
14:05 < echarp> locally?
14:05 < illegale> yes
14:05 < echarp> of course, everybody can
14:05 < illegale> npo need to contrct and stuff
14:05 < echarp> I'm just saying that imposing a democracy by force is not very democratic
14:06 < echarp> nations are thus not perfect democracies, and never will be unless they allow secessions or such things
14:07 < echarp> a true democracy should only include those willing to be part of it
14:07 < illegale> part of what?
14:08 < echarp> part of the democracy
14:08 < illegale> you mean collective?
14:08 < illegale> if you seay democracy, you need to elaborate what is democracy
14:09 < echarp> a democracy is a group of people you know
14:10 < illegale> democracy is a group of people?
14:10 < illegale> that is a definition of democracy=
14:11 < echarp> sorry, but politics necessarilly concern people :)
14:12 < illegale> s, we do not need word democrcy as long as we have some other words that explan the same concept
14:12 < illegale> such as group of people
14:13 < echarp> sorry but I'm speaking about democracy, so the word seems important
14:14 < illegale> you need to define that wordgain its meaning
14:14 < illegale> what distincts it to other words
14:14 < illegale> what are relations to other concepts
14:14 < illegale> i do mnot see such thing
14:14 < illegale> so, as long sa people regularly have no clue about it
14:14 < illegale> they lke to equal it to 50%+¸
14:14 < illegale> that is bad
14:15 < illegale> meaningless
14:15 < echarp> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy
14:15 < echarp> that should do
14:19 < illegale:#parlement> rule by the people?
14:19 < illegale:#parlement> what is people*?
14:21 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
14:21 < echarp> you want to learn the dictionary?
14:22 < illegale> i want to prove this is actally lae issue
14:22 < illegale> there is you there is me
14:22 < illegale> we are the people
14:22 < illegale> yes?
14:23 < echarp> of course
14:23 < illegale> if we do not agree?
14:23 < illegale> how can people rule?
14:23 < echarp> this is actually "what" issue???
14:23 < illegale> emptiness of word democracy
14:23 < echarp> ??? "i want to prove this is actally lae issue" ???
14:24 < echarp> you want to prove what???
14:24 < echarp> please rephrase your sentence
14:26 < illegale> word democracy is pretty lame
14:26 < illegale> its essence is that everybody has freedom to participate
14:26 < illegale> that is all
14:27 < illegale> that freedom at declarative level is already enabled by todays regume
14:27 < illegale> so, as long as it does not create any distinction to current system, it is actually empty
14:27 < illegale> what you need are not empty words
14:27 < illegale> words that make distinction to current system
14:27 < illegale> principles that make distinction
14:28 < illegale> these are ideas that need to be articualted and to see how these issues can be implemented
14:28 < illegale> that is what i am trying to say
14:28 < illegale> though, i have to go now
14:28 < illegale> cu!
14:28 -!- illegale [i=ille...@cmung734.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit []
17:06 -!- illegale (illegale) [n=ille...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has joined #parlement
17:06 < illegale> oi
17:07 < illegale> fight for democracy = power to the people?
17:07 < echarp> re
17:07 < echarp> mostly yes
17:07 < echarp> you are playing obtuse aren't you?
17:08 < echarp> same as urgen it seems :)
17:08 < echarp> yet you don't really understand each other (from what I can see)
17:09 < echarp> picking on words, trying to tear appart their meaning
17:09 < echarp> yet it's not complex
17:09 < echarp> yes there are connotations, big big one
17:09 < echarp> they just need to be made public
17:28 < illegale> bbl
17:28 -!- illegale [n=ille...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has quit ["Lost terminal"]
17:52 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
18:02 < urgen> I can understand oh too well, I just don't agree
18:02 < urgen> if there is no process toward which we can arrive at some place to mutually appreciate then there can be no social power
18:02 < urgen> if there is no social power illegale's stage falls
18:03 < urgen> I'm not just being stubborn
18:03 < urgen> I do have values
18:03 < urgen> none are being explored
18:03 < urgen> if it is not important to include me then that's fine
18:03 < urgen> but if that lack of inclusion trespasses on my values, it is not fine, no matter how transparent
18:04 < urgen> just because other ppl don't share these same values doesn't give them a right to remove my lifestyle
18:05 < urgen> this is the contention I have will the idea retaining an individual as the focus of power ( what I still believe illegale's position is ).
18:05 < urgen> s/will/with
18:05 < urgen> if there is no basis for a voice of one then there is no basis
18:06 < echarp> I'm slightly lost I'm afraid
18:06 < urgen> consensus -1 removes this basis
18:06 < echarp> but have not time, drinking out with a babe ;)
18:06 < echarp> consensus is also rather difficult on a democracy
18:06 < echarp> "on", not "in"
18:06 < urgen> which is why I am not a proponent of democracy
18:07 < urgen> but way so not one of social or communist flavor either :-)
18:07 < echarp> and democracies usually accept some kind of acceptation to follow the "common will" as determined by "a" majority
18:07 < urgen> majority is blind
18:07 < urgen> every time
18:07 < echarp> I don't care
18:07 < urgen> illegale want benevolent dictator
18:07 < echarp> you are anarchist?
18:07 < urgen> I'm not an anarchist either
18:07 < echarp> I don't really what he wants, but dictator I'm not sure
18:08 < echarp> ok, we'll discuss later if you want (I personally want)
18:08 < echarp> cu!
18:08 < urgen> ya
18:17 -!- illegale (illegale) [i=ille...@cmung2763.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
18:21 < illegale> back i am
18:21 < illegale> clasical problem did happen
18:22 < illegale> i can not see what did you write last time
19:15 < urgen> http://bridgeheart.net/irclogs/irc.freenode.net:6667/parlement/
19:15 < urgen> oh the bot is not home
19:15 < urgen> :\
19:16 < urgen> oops
19:18 * parlebot is logging
19:18 -!- parlebot (Chat Logger) [i=ur...@65.111.164.97] has joined #parlement
19:19 -!- parlebot [i=ur...@65.111.164.97] has quit [Remote closed the connection]
19:19 < illegale> dont work?
19:19 * parlebot is logging
19:19 -!- parlebot (Chat Logger) [i=ur...@65.111.164.97] has joined #parlement
19:20 < urgen> I had forgotten a command
19:20 < urgen> :P
19:20 < illegale> urgen: can you send it to illegale?
19:20 < urgen> this one only knows how to be on one channel at a time
19:21 < illegale> start two ow them
19:21 < urgen> ya, when I get some time
19:21 < urgen> maybe friday?
19:21 < illegale> nevermind
19:21 < urgen> I have to run to work
19:21 * urgen out
20:06 -!- illegale [i=ille...@cmung2763.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit []
22:17 < echarp> hello again
--- Log closed jeu jui 20 00:00:52 2006
echarp
Jul 21, 2006, 12:29:58 AM7/21/06
to top-politics
--- Log opened jeu jui 20 00:00:52 2006
06:05 -!- Netsplit brown.freenode.net <-> irc.freenode.net quits: parlebot, nsh
--- Log closed jeu jui 20 06:05:08 2006
--- Log opened jeu jui 20 06:41:03 2006
06:41 -!- echarp [n=33M0...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has joined #parlement
06:41 [Users #parlement]
06:41 [ echarp] [ nsh_]
06:41 -!- Irssi: #parlement: Total of 2 nicks [0 ops, 0 halfops, 0 voices, 2 normal]
06:41 -!- Channel #parlement created Thu Jul 20 06:40:25 2006
06:41 -!- Irssi: Join to #parlement was synced in 53 secs
06:57 -!- urgen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
06:58 -!- fiatlex (fiatlex bot) [n=b...@tridity.org] has joined #parlement
07:40 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
09:11 < echarp> hello
09:48 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
09:48 -!- No topic set for #parlement
09:48 -!- No topic set for #parlement
09:50 -!- mode/#parlement [+o echarp] by ChanServ
09:50 -!- echarp changed the topic of #parlement to: http://leparlement.org
17:23 -!- illegale (illegale) [i=ille...@cmung3174.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
17:23 < illegale:#parlement> oi
17:23 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
17:24 <@echarp> hello hello illegale
17:24 <@echarp> how are you?
17:24 < illegale> whassa?
17:24 < illegale> good htank you
17:24 < illegale> http://www.farmakologija.com/
17:24 < illegale> see this VELIKA ANKETA
17:26 <@echarp> what/who is Velika?
17:26 < illegale> big
17:27 < illegale> clik on that
17:27 < illegale> you can fill this survey if you wihs :)
17:27 < illegale> lo
17:27 <@echarp> nah :)
17:27 < illegale> its in croatian, i think it wont bother you
17:28 <@echarp> not at all!
17:28 <@echarp> I'm fluent in tens of languages ;)
17:28 < illegale> feel the force
17:28 < illegale> let it click
17:29 <@echarp> :-p
17:29 < illegale> this is my work for diploma
17:29 < illegale> not too much to politics indeed
17:30 <@echarp> yeap
17:30 <@echarp> but I hope it's filled with girls ;)
17:30 < illegale> girls, nag
17:31 < illegale> to me girls are too strog
17:31 < illegale> i loose myslef
17:31 < illegale> too sensitive for them
17:31 <@echarp> :)
17:31 < illegale> so i be bastard than
17:32 < illegale> complicated stuff it is
17:32 < illegale> what was your longest time being wtih one girl?
17:34 < illegale> secret?
17:36 <@echarp> 2 years
17:36 <@echarp> and another one for 1,5, but it was mostly sexual :)
17:36 < illegale> not too long
17:36 < illegale> you are 30?
17:36 < illegale> right?
17:36 <@echarp> I guess not, and you?
17:36 <@echarp> I'm 33
17:36 < illegale> yeds
17:37 < illegale> 1.5
17:37 < illegale> jesus age
17:37 < illegale> its now or never to build htat software
17:37 < illegale> :P
17:37 <@echarp> I do expect to live much much longer!!! ;)
17:38 < illegale> 800?
17:38 <@echarp> in the hundreds of years if possible :)
17:38 <@echarp> millions!
17:38 < illegale> hmh
17:38 < illegale> into matrix?
17:38 < illegale> making hole into head'
17:38 < illegale> ?
17:39 <@echarp> any way possible in fact
17:39 <@echarp> upload to a computer is just one way
17:39 <@echarp> I'm very much into transhumanist thinking in those matters
17:39 < illegale> not expected one?
17:40 <@echarp> upload in a computer still seems rather complex
17:40 < illegale> so, ou gona be replicalbe?
17:40 <@echarp> cryogeny is more achievable at first
17:40 < illegale> transparent?
17:40 <@echarp> I'd love to be replicable!!!
17:40 <@echarp> transparent, nah ;)
17:40 < illegale> how is that?
17:40 < illegale> be replicable not transprent?
17:41 <@echarp> yeap
17:41 < illegale> when you are transparent, you are as ghoust and much more thant
17:41 < illegale> that
17:41 <@echarp> that would mean that you replicate data but don't make the data available to others :)
17:41 <@echarp> replicable only by yourself or the chosen few :)
17:42 < illegale> ego stuff
17:42 < illegale> :p
17:42 <@echarp> ghost?
17:42 < illegale> yes
17:42 < illegale> everywhere
17:42 <@echarp> a ghost would be one of your replicate striving for survival on the net :)
17:42 < illegale> you know stuff of world wide brain?
17:43 <@echarp> what is that?
17:43 < illegale> getting into new level of evolutiojn
17:43 < illegale> i do not know either, yet it is soundy
17:43 < illegale> how i see it is that we are just cells of the humanity
17:43 < illegale> internet is going to be CNS
17:43 <@echarp> CNS?
17:43 < illegale> central nervous system
17:44 < illegale> stuff of communism it is actually
17:44 < illegale> communism as ideal
17:44 < illegale> determinism
17:44 < illegale> i know you do not like it
17:44 < illegale> you are into individualism
17:44 < illegale> as i can notice
17:45 <@echarp> I believe in strong determinism
17:45 < illegale> it is not needed to believe
17:45 < illegale> it does not matter
17:45 < illegale> you can not prove it o r not prove
17:45 <@echarp> yet I don't appreciate a global entity alienating individuality
17:45 <@echarp> I think I can mostly demonstrate it, rather easily :)
17:45 < illegale> that entity somebody can call love
17:46 < illegale> when you love you loose yourself either
17:46 <@echarp> euh, an entity???
17:46 <@echarp> just a feeling, nervous pathways, hormones, things like that
17:47 < illegale> you can explain every dsingle thing that way
17:47 <@echarp> of course, it's the whole point!!!
17:47 < illegale> i see no point in thatž
17:47 < illegale> there is some movement in the world
17:47 < illegale> i forgot its ame
17:47 < illegale> yet it preaches heavy dogsing
17:47 < illegale> with heroin ad stuff
17:48 < illegale> in order to indulge biggest satisfaction in otrder to move on
17:48 < illegale> to make it not interesting
17:48 < illegale> as long as it is all around
17:49 <@echarp> the point is to explain the universe, is that not of interest?
17:49 < illegale> not to me
17:49 <@echarp> what is interesting in that movement which use drugs?
17:49 <@echarp> well, it is to me
17:49 < illegale> i need info for fulfill my soul as muchas it can be
17:49 <@echarp> it is info
17:49 < illegale> i do not need explanaiton for univers
17:49 < illegale> e
17:50 < illegale> why should i need it?
17:50 <@echarp> I crave it
17:50 < illegale> why do you need it
17:50 <@echarp> to explain the universe
17:50 <@echarp> to understand
17:50 < illegale> what do you have frm it?
17:50 <@echarp> information
17:50 <@echarp> data
17:50 <@echarp> understanding
17:50 <@echarp> power :)
17:50 < illegale> you feel fine and cry around with that
17:50 <@echarp> the power that comes from understanding
17:50 <@echarp> "cry around"???
17:50 < illegale> yell
17:51 <@echarp> what/who yells?
17:51 < illegale> nobody in this moment
17:51 < illegale> there are two different thins
17:51 < illegale> observing and being a part
17:51 < illegale> observing is pretty regularly not modus fro human beng to be happy
17:52 < illegale> being a part it is
17:52 < illegale> i am interested in thing that help me in that part
17:52 < illegale> other thing are irelevant as long as they have no much influence to my bbehaviour
17:53 < illegale> btw, what associates you to healt?
17:53 <@echarp> understanding does not help in being a part of?
17:53 < illegale> health?
17:53 < illegale> it is not so good aproach
17:53 <@echarp> how can you not appreciate understanding???
17:53 < illegale> it is hard thing to fit the context post aterior
17:53 < illegale> or how do you say it
17:54 <@echarp> are you being silly for the sake of argumentation?
17:54 < illegale> lol
17:54 <@echarp> how can you not appreciate understanding???
17:54 < illegale> there are many questions people ask that are irrelevant
17:54 <@echarp> and?
17:54 < illegale> as long as they want to explan "it"
17:54 <@echarp> I'm not speaking of "people"
17:54 < illegale> for an example, freedom of choiuce
17:54 < illegale> vs determinism
17:54 <@echarp> we are speaking of understanding the universe
17:55 < illegale> i think it is question that took you some time
17:55 <@echarp> don't you appreciate understanding?
17:55 < illegale> maybe i am wrong
17:55 < illegale> i do
17:55 <@echarp> took me some time to...?
17:55 < illegale> did you ever had collision of determinsm vs free wqill?
17:55 < illegale> in your mind
17:55 < illegale> have you been partof suc debate'
17:56 <@echarp> I have been part of such debate
17:56 < illegale> you find it relevant'
17:56 < illegale> ?
17:56 <@echarp> and in my mind free will has died of a good death a long time ago
17:56 <@echarp> a good and hard death
17:57 <@echarp> there is no such thing as "free will", philosophically speaking
17:57 < illegale> do you fid this debate being important in a matter of understanding?
17:58 < illegale> to me, it does not matter as long as it does not change my behavviour
17:58 < illegale> that is the difference beteen these two apraches
17:59 <@echarp> I find it hugely important
17:59 <@echarp> and I consider that it changes behaviour
17:59 < illegale> how?
17:59 <@echarp> because one understand he is part of the universe, and not separate
17:59 <@echarp> it's huge
18:00 <@echarp> you are an animal, driven by laws and determinism
18:00 < illegale> can you give an example of chanign any decision
18:00 < illegale> of two persons where one is determinst
18:00 < illegale> and second one is free wilist
18:00 <@echarp> the free willist is simply silly
18:00 < illegale> in behavious?
18:00 <@echarp> probably and as a generality more naive
18:00 <@echarp> more accepting of silly explanations
18:00 < illegale> what i want you to notice is that that is no point of discussing this thing
18:01 <@echarp> sorry, philosophy is *worth* discussing
18:01 < illegale> these two guys will make same decisions in no matter of thatthough
18:01 < illegale> t
18:01 <@echarp> it can change your happiness
18:01 <@echarp> makes you more accepting of who you are
18:01 <@echarp> no they will not
18:01 < illegale> give me an examlpe
18:01 < illegale> i will play fee willist
18:01 <@echarp> a silly free willist might think that he can change the universe and not consider that he is an instrument of it
18:02 <@echarp> he probably will be more unhappy
18:02 <@echarp> he will not understand where his will comes from
18:02 <@echarp> he will be blind to his own nature
18:02 < illegale> is it implrtant for anything?
18:02 <@echarp> to the ways *he* works
18:02 < illegale> i say it is not
18:02 <@echarp> of course it is
18:02 < illegale> absolutly irrelevant
18:02 <@echarp> it's *HUGE*
18:02 < illegale> give me an example
18:02 < illegale> concrete as yo ucan
18:03 <@echarp> a free willist might appreciate less the theory of evolution
18:03 <@echarp> religious people are more into free will than scientists
18:03 < illegale> cmon, what has that theory to my happines?
18:03 <@echarp> it's an interesting correlation to say the least
18:03 < illegale> this does mattr only in the level of irrelevance
18:03 <@echarp> you have less possibility to be happy if you don't even know and understand yourself
18:03 <@echarp> it matters *hugely*!!!
18:04 <@echarp> it matters since philosophy started
18:04 < illegale> you still do not have any example
18:04 <@echarp> the difference between scientists and religious people is not relevant?
18:04 < illegale> and i can be proud to notice, you can not have such thing
18:04 < illegale> scienteis can belive n free will aslo
18:04 <@echarp> of course they can, I am speaking in matters of generality...
18:04 < illegale> scientis can be also religious
18:04 <@echarp> of course they can
18:05 <@echarp> but, they tend to be more determinists
18:05 < illegale> neverthzelss, i do not expect you to understand what i try to point out
18:05 <@echarp> in fact sciences are often criticised for their determinist outlook on things
18:05 < illegale> so, when i say, i do not mind about i
18:05 < illegale> t
18:05 <@echarp> I consider the attitude of not wanting to understand to be not only silly, but dangerous... :(
18:06 < illegale> my will can be free, nor can be deterministic
18:06 <@echarp> do you know that old saying => "know yourself"?
18:06 < illegale> i can say that and i will be more right than you are or other ones are
18:06 <@echarp> is it relevant and important?
18:06 < illegale> of course it is not
18:06 < illegale> it does not change anything
18:06 <@echarp> do you understand it?
18:06 < illegale> if somebody does not change anything
18:06 < illegale> that info has no worth
18:06 < illegale> and philosophy tends to exlpain wortless issues
18:07 <@echarp> do you understand this outlook on life? (understand yourself)
18:07 < illegale> making them worty only in context of themslefves
18:07 < illegale> which is absurd
18:07 < illegale> yes
18:07 <@echarp> it is not absurd
18:07 <@echarp> it is not only worthy in context of themselves!
18:07 < illegale> you have to prove it in tel level of regular life
18:07 <@echarp> it is worthy in all levels
18:07 < illegale> if you can do such thing i will say you are right
18:07 < illegale> if you can not do that
18:07 < illegale> than it is absurd indeed
18:08 <@echarp> do you think that information can make someone more powerfull than someone with less information?
18:08 < illegale> yes
18:08 <@echarp> are the blinds more powerfull than those with eyes?
18:08 <@echarp> there you
18:08 <@echarp> are
18:08 < illegale> still information is data in context
18:08 <@echarp> more information is good, understanding is more information
18:08 < illegale> no
18:08 <@echarp> understanding yourself and the universe is *EXTREMELY* important
18:08 < illegale> understadng rrelevant issues is not infornmation
18:09 <@echarp> the universe and you is relevant
18:09 < illegale> so, you have concept of ad infomisinfo and all of such
18:09 <@echarp> ?
18:09 <@echarp> it is all matters of information
18:09 < illegale> you can know everything about WDERT
18:09 < illegale> WDERT is defined with bigger tan KWDER5
18:09 <@echarp> information on yourself and the universe, understanding how it all works, and being able to act with/on that understanding
18:09 < illegale> blue as GRT5RECD
18:10 < illegale> and fast as HKO9JF
18:10 <@echarp> ?
18:10 < illegale> it is in fight ewith its opposite principle GSGT5
18:10 <@echarp> ?
18:10 < illegale> so, imagine you have much #information# about WDERT
18:10 < illegale> it is irrelevant
18:10 < illegale> it can not make you powerfull
18:10 < illegale> unless somebody worships the same idols as you do
18:11 <@echarp> it can, if WDERT is important, and I consider the universe and myself important
18:11 < illegale> that is the story of this philosphy whic is context in itself only
18:11 <@echarp> aren't the universe and yourself important?
18:11 <@echarp> it is not "in context of itself only"!!!
18:11 <@echarp> it is in the context of everything human
18:11 <@echarp> it is why philosophy is the greatest of search
18:12 <@echarp> the search for wisdom, the love of wisdom
18:12 < illegale> ok, you think that knowing about WSERT is not loosing your time?
18:12 <@echarp> you are losing my time, which is different
18:12 < illegale> in the same time when you can spend iton stuff that has much more connectin to you?
18:12 <@echarp> because you fail to acknowledge the importance of the universe and yourself
18:12 < illegale> i do acnowledge this assocsioation
18:13 < illegale> what is relevant to me might be important5 also
18:13 < illegale> universe in general is relevant to me
18:13 <@echarp> then is understanding the universe important?
18:13 < illegale> yet, some parts are less relevant than some other parts
18:13 <@echarp> is understanding yourself important?
18:13 < illegale> ok it is
18:14 < illegale> yet, we have to notice we do not have limitless time to
18:14 < illegale> study about issues that are not relevant to us
18:14 <@echarp> is yourself relevant to you...???
18:14 < illegale> if we do study them, we actually waste our time
18:14 <@echarp> I think it necessarily is
18:14 < illegale> as long aswe have to talk in a manner of engineers
18:14 < illegale> lets get back to free will
18:14 <@echarp> it is about free will
18:14 < illegale> whats your problem with it?
18:15 < illegale> i can function perfectly fine with it
18:15 < illegale> make same statements
18:15 < illegale> as you do
18:15 < illegale> make same conclusion as you do
18:15 <@echarp> you acknowledge, after much energy, that understanding the universe and yourself is important
18:15 <@echarp> then understanding the non existence of free will is important
18:15 < illegale> this is not the way you need if you want to come to conclusion
18:15 <@echarp> because it is a big information and yourself and the way you fit in the universe
18:16 <@echarp> I'm just showing the importance of such concepts
18:16 < illegale> who writhes that?
18:16 < illegale> nah
18:16 <@echarp> writes what?
18:16 < illegale> can you give me exact example where we differ?
18:16 < illegale> i am free wilist for an example and you are nit
18:16 < illegale> not
18:17 < illegale> what i can notice it does not change anything
18:17 <@echarp> I believe it is silly philosophically to believe in free will
18:17 < illegale> i can state perfectly sam thingas you do and explain them by free will
18:17 <@echarp> it is a bad explanation
18:17 <@echarp> of course you can state the same things
18:17 <@echarp> yet the way you reach it is wrong
18:17 < illegale> as long as you can not make any statement that would make it important, that info is obsolete
18:17 <@echarp> because your understanding has a flaw
18:17 < illegale> absurd to claim or to think about
18:17 <@echarp> your understanding of human nature
18:18 < illegale> as long as you can not make any statement that would make it important, that info is obsolete
18:18 < illegale> can you?
18:18 < illegale> ve just one thing
18:18 <@echarp> let's make a statement then => all human behaviours are rational in the grand scheme of things, there you go
18:18 < illegale> so, does knowledge that makes no difference to anything have any worthness, echarp::?
18:18 <@echarp> the fact that the list is not active nowadays has explanations
18:18 <@echarp> it makes differences
18:19 <@echarp> it is a knowledge that explains human behaviour, at least in part
18:19 < illegale> does knowledge that makes no difference to anything have any worthness, echarp::?
18:19 <@echarp> determinism allows for more explanations than free will
18:19 < illegale> such as?
18:19 <@echarp> determinism is a matter of sciences
18:19 <@echarp> sciences are knowledge
18:20 < illegale> you can not state there is free will behind all of that?
18:20 <@echarp> determenism encourages the search of knowledge because everything is based on it
18:20 <@echarp> free will is like is like religion, it explains onthing
18:21 <@echarp> ok, I'm leaving
18:21 <@echarp> some girl to meet :)
18:22 <@echarp> cu later, probably tomorrow ;)
18:22 <@echarp> we'll discuss some more on free will and philosophy
18:22 <@echarp> to me it *is* central to almost all human endeavour
18:22 <@echarp> have a good evening
18:27 < illegale> cu
18:33 < illegale> ok, you proved your point
18:34 < illegale> if we say it is free will, we can put under it it is in no corelation to anything meaning there is no way to understand it
18:34 < illegale> and that is really a difference
18:48 -!- illegale [i=ille...@cmung3174.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit []
19:35 -!- illegale (illegale) [i=ille...@cmung3174.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
20:26 -!- illegale [i=ille...@cmung3174.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
22:41 -!- nsh (nsh) [n=n...@host81-152-48-131.range81-152.btcentralplus.com] has joined #parlement
22:42 < nsh> urgen, about?
--- Log closed ven jui 21 00:00:52 2006
06:05 -!- Netsplit brown.freenode.net <-> irc.freenode.net quits: parlebot, nsh
--- Log closed jeu jui 20 06:05:08 2006
--- Log opened jeu jui 20 06:41:03 2006
06:41 -!- echarp [n=33M0...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has joined #parlement
06:41 [Users #parlement]
06:41 [ echarp] [ nsh_]
06:41 -!- Irssi: #parlement: Total of 2 nicks [0 ops, 0 halfops, 0 voices, 2 normal]
06:41 -!- Channel #parlement created Thu Jul 20 06:40:25 2006
06:41 -!- Irssi: Join to #parlement was synced in 53 secs
06:57 -!- urgen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
06:58 -!- fiatlex (fiatlex bot) [n=b...@tridity.org] has joined #parlement
07:40 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
09:11 < echarp> hello
09:48 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
09:48 -!- No topic set for #parlement
09:48 -!- No topic set for #parlement
09:50 -!- mode/#parlement [+o echarp] by ChanServ
09:50 -!- echarp changed the topic of #parlement to: http://leparlement.org
17:23 -!- illegale (illegale) [i=ille...@cmung3174.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
17:23 < illegale:#parlement> oi
17:23 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
17:24 <@echarp> hello hello illegale
17:24 <@echarp> how are you?
17:24 < illegale> whassa?
17:24 < illegale> good htank you
17:24 < illegale> http://www.farmakologija.com/
17:24 < illegale> see this VELIKA ANKETA
17:26 <@echarp> what/who is Velika?
17:26 < illegale> big
17:27 < illegale> clik on that
17:27 < illegale> you can fill this survey if you wihs :)
17:27 < illegale> lo
17:27 <@echarp> nah :)
17:27 < illegale> its in croatian, i think it wont bother you
17:28 <@echarp> not at all!
17:28 <@echarp> I'm fluent in tens of languages ;)
17:28 < illegale> feel the force
17:28 < illegale> let it click
17:29 <@echarp> :-p
17:29 < illegale> this is my work for diploma
17:29 < illegale> not too much to politics indeed
17:30 <@echarp> yeap
17:30 <@echarp> but I hope it's filled with girls ;)
17:30 < illegale> girls, nag
17:31 < illegale> to me girls are too strog
17:31 < illegale> i loose myslef
17:31 < illegale> too sensitive for them
17:31 <@echarp> :)
17:31 < illegale> so i be bastard than
17:32 < illegale> complicated stuff it is
17:32 < illegale> what was your longest time being wtih one girl?
17:34 < illegale> secret?
17:36 <@echarp> 2 years
17:36 <@echarp> and another one for 1,5, but it was mostly sexual :)
17:36 < illegale> not too long
17:36 < illegale> you are 30?
17:36 < illegale> right?
17:36 <@echarp> I guess not, and you?
17:36 <@echarp> I'm 33
17:36 < illegale> yeds
17:37 < illegale> 1.5
17:37 < illegale> jesus age
17:37 < illegale> its now or never to build htat software
17:37 < illegale> :P
17:37 <@echarp> I do expect to live much much longer!!! ;)
17:38 < illegale> 800?
17:38 <@echarp> in the hundreds of years if possible :)
17:38 <@echarp> millions!
17:38 < illegale> hmh
17:38 < illegale> into matrix?
17:38 < illegale> making hole into head'
17:38 < illegale> ?
17:39 <@echarp> any way possible in fact
17:39 <@echarp> upload to a computer is just one way
17:39 <@echarp> I'm very much into transhumanist thinking in those matters
17:39 < illegale> not expected one?
17:40 <@echarp> upload in a computer still seems rather complex
17:40 < illegale> so, ou gona be replicalbe?
17:40 <@echarp> cryogeny is more achievable at first
17:40 < illegale> transparent?
17:40 <@echarp> I'd love to be replicable!!!
17:40 <@echarp> transparent, nah ;)
17:40 < illegale> how is that?
17:40 < illegale> be replicable not transprent?
17:41 <@echarp> yeap
17:41 < illegale> when you are transparent, you are as ghoust and much more thant
17:41 < illegale> that
17:41 <@echarp> that would mean that you replicate data but don't make the data available to others :)
17:41 <@echarp> replicable only by yourself or the chosen few :)
17:42 < illegale> ego stuff
17:42 < illegale> :p
17:42 <@echarp> ghost?
17:42 < illegale> yes
17:42 < illegale> everywhere
17:42 <@echarp> a ghost would be one of your replicate striving for survival on the net :)
17:42 < illegale> you know stuff of world wide brain?
17:43 <@echarp> what is that?
17:43 < illegale> getting into new level of evolutiojn
17:43 < illegale> i do not know either, yet it is soundy
17:43 < illegale> how i see it is that we are just cells of the humanity
17:43 < illegale> internet is going to be CNS
17:43 <@echarp> CNS?
17:43 < illegale> central nervous system
17:44 < illegale> stuff of communism it is actually
17:44 < illegale> communism as ideal
17:44 < illegale> determinism
17:44 < illegale> i know you do not like it
17:44 < illegale> you are into individualism
17:44 < illegale> as i can notice
17:45 <@echarp> I believe in strong determinism
17:45 < illegale> it is not needed to believe
17:45 < illegale> it does not matter
17:45 < illegale> you can not prove it o r not prove
17:45 <@echarp> yet I don't appreciate a global entity alienating individuality
17:45 <@echarp> I think I can mostly demonstrate it, rather easily :)
17:45 < illegale> that entity somebody can call love
17:46 < illegale> when you love you loose yourself either
17:46 <@echarp> euh, an entity???
17:46 <@echarp> just a feeling, nervous pathways, hormones, things like that
17:47 < illegale> you can explain every dsingle thing that way
17:47 <@echarp> of course, it's the whole point!!!
17:47 < illegale> i see no point in thatž
17:47 < illegale> there is some movement in the world
17:47 < illegale> i forgot its ame
17:47 < illegale> yet it preaches heavy dogsing
17:47 < illegale> with heroin ad stuff
17:48 < illegale> in order to indulge biggest satisfaction in otrder to move on
17:48 < illegale> to make it not interesting
17:48 < illegale> as long as it is all around
17:49 <@echarp> the point is to explain the universe, is that not of interest?
17:49 < illegale> not to me
17:49 <@echarp> what is interesting in that movement which use drugs?
17:49 <@echarp> well, it is to me
17:49 < illegale> i need info for fulfill my soul as muchas it can be
17:49 <@echarp> it is info
17:49 < illegale> i do not need explanaiton for univers
17:49 < illegale> e
17:50 < illegale> why should i need it?
17:50 <@echarp> I crave it
17:50 < illegale> why do you need it
17:50 <@echarp> to explain the universe
17:50 <@echarp> to understand
17:50 < illegale> what do you have frm it?
17:50 <@echarp> information
17:50 <@echarp> data
17:50 <@echarp> understanding
17:50 <@echarp> power :)
17:50 < illegale> you feel fine and cry around with that
17:50 <@echarp> the power that comes from understanding
17:50 <@echarp> "cry around"???
17:50 < illegale> yell
17:51 <@echarp> what/who yells?
17:51 < illegale> nobody in this moment
17:51 < illegale> there are two different thins
17:51 < illegale> observing and being a part
17:51 < illegale> observing is pretty regularly not modus fro human beng to be happy
17:52 < illegale> being a part it is
17:52 < illegale> i am interested in thing that help me in that part
17:52 < illegale> other thing are irelevant as long as they have no much influence to my bbehaviour
17:53 < illegale> btw, what associates you to healt?
17:53 <@echarp> understanding does not help in being a part of?
17:53 < illegale> health?
17:53 < illegale> it is not so good aproach
17:53 <@echarp> how can you not appreciate understanding???
17:53 < illegale> it is hard thing to fit the context post aterior
17:53 < illegale> or how do you say it
17:54 <@echarp> are you being silly for the sake of argumentation?
17:54 < illegale> lol
17:54 <@echarp> how can you not appreciate understanding???
17:54 < illegale> there are many questions people ask that are irrelevant
17:54 <@echarp> and?
17:54 < illegale> as long as they want to explan "it"
17:54 <@echarp> I'm not speaking of "people"
17:54 < illegale> for an example, freedom of choiuce
17:54 < illegale> vs determinism
17:54 <@echarp> we are speaking of understanding the universe
17:55 < illegale> i think it is question that took you some time
17:55 <@echarp> don't you appreciate understanding?
17:55 < illegale> maybe i am wrong
17:55 < illegale> i do
17:55 <@echarp> took me some time to...?
17:55 < illegale> did you ever had collision of determinsm vs free wqill?
17:55 < illegale> in your mind
17:55 < illegale> have you been partof suc debate'
17:56 <@echarp> I have been part of such debate
17:56 < illegale> you find it relevant'
17:56 < illegale> ?
17:56 <@echarp> and in my mind free will has died of a good death a long time ago
17:56 <@echarp> a good and hard death
17:57 <@echarp> there is no such thing as "free will", philosophically speaking
17:57 < illegale> do you fid this debate being important in a matter of understanding?
17:58 < illegale> to me, it does not matter as long as it does not change my behavviour
17:58 < illegale> that is the difference beteen these two apraches
17:59 <@echarp> I find it hugely important
17:59 <@echarp> and I consider that it changes behaviour
17:59 < illegale> how?
17:59 <@echarp> because one understand he is part of the universe, and not separate
17:59 <@echarp> it's huge
18:00 <@echarp> you are an animal, driven by laws and determinism
18:00 < illegale> can you give an example of chanign any decision
18:00 < illegale> of two persons where one is determinst
18:00 < illegale> and second one is free wilist
18:00 <@echarp> the free willist is simply silly
18:00 < illegale> in behavious?
18:00 <@echarp> probably and as a generality more naive
18:00 <@echarp> more accepting of silly explanations
18:00 < illegale> what i want you to notice is that that is no point of discussing this thing
18:01 <@echarp> sorry, philosophy is *worth* discussing
18:01 < illegale> these two guys will make same decisions in no matter of thatthough
18:01 < illegale> t
18:01 <@echarp> it can change your happiness
18:01 <@echarp> makes you more accepting of who you are
18:01 <@echarp> no they will not
18:01 < illegale> give me an examlpe
18:01 < illegale> i will play fee willist
18:01 <@echarp> a silly free willist might think that he can change the universe and not consider that he is an instrument of it
18:02 <@echarp> he probably will be more unhappy
18:02 <@echarp> he will not understand where his will comes from
18:02 <@echarp> he will be blind to his own nature
18:02 < illegale> is it implrtant for anything?
18:02 <@echarp> to the ways *he* works
18:02 < illegale> i say it is not
18:02 <@echarp> of course it is
18:02 < illegale> absolutly irrelevant
18:02 <@echarp> it's *HUGE*
18:02 < illegale> give me an example
18:02 < illegale> concrete as yo ucan
18:03 <@echarp> a free willist might appreciate less the theory of evolution
18:03 <@echarp> religious people are more into free will than scientists
18:03 < illegale> cmon, what has that theory to my happines?
18:03 <@echarp> it's an interesting correlation to say the least
18:03 < illegale> this does mattr only in the level of irrelevance
18:03 <@echarp> you have less possibility to be happy if you don't even know and understand yourself
18:03 <@echarp> it matters *hugely*!!!
18:04 <@echarp> it matters since philosophy started
18:04 < illegale> you still do not have any example
18:04 <@echarp> the difference between scientists and religious people is not relevant?
18:04 < illegale> and i can be proud to notice, you can not have such thing
18:04 < illegale> scienteis can belive n free will aslo
18:04 <@echarp> of course they can, I am speaking in matters of generality...
18:04 < illegale> scientis can be also religious
18:04 <@echarp> of course they can
18:05 <@echarp> but, they tend to be more determinists
18:05 < illegale> neverthzelss, i do not expect you to understand what i try to point out
18:05 <@echarp> in fact sciences are often criticised for their determinist outlook on things
18:05 < illegale> so, when i say, i do not mind about i
18:05 < illegale> t
18:05 <@echarp> I consider the attitude of not wanting to understand to be not only silly, but dangerous... :(
18:06 < illegale> my will can be free, nor can be deterministic
18:06 <@echarp> do you know that old saying => "know yourself"?
18:06 < illegale> i can say that and i will be more right than you are or other ones are
18:06 <@echarp> is it relevant and important?
18:06 < illegale> of course it is not
18:06 < illegale> it does not change anything
18:06 <@echarp> do you understand it?
18:06 < illegale> if somebody does not change anything
18:06 < illegale> that info has no worth
18:06 < illegale> and philosophy tends to exlpain wortless issues
18:07 <@echarp> do you understand this outlook on life? (understand yourself)
18:07 < illegale> making them worty only in context of themslefves
18:07 < illegale> which is absurd
18:07 < illegale> yes
18:07 <@echarp> it is not absurd
18:07 <@echarp> it is not only worthy in context of themselves!
18:07 < illegale> you have to prove it in tel level of regular life
18:07 <@echarp> it is worthy in all levels
18:07 < illegale> if you can do such thing i will say you are right
18:07 < illegale> if you can not do that
18:07 < illegale> than it is absurd indeed
18:08 <@echarp> do you think that information can make someone more powerfull than someone with less information?
18:08 < illegale> yes
18:08 <@echarp> are the blinds more powerfull than those with eyes?
18:08 <@echarp> there you
18:08 <@echarp> are
18:08 < illegale> still information is data in context
18:08 <@echarp> more information is good, understanding is more information
18:08 < illegale> no
18:08 <@echarp> understanding yourself and the universe is *EXTREMELY* important
18:08 < illegale> understadng rrelevant issues is not infornmation
18:09 <@echarp> the universe and you is relevant
18:09 < illegale> so, you have concept of ad infomisinfo and all of such
18:09 <@echarp> ?
18:09 <@echarp> it is all matters of information
18:09 < illegale> you can know everything about WDERT
18:09 < illegale> WDERT is defined with bigger tan KWDER5
18:09 <@echarp> information on yourself and the universe, understanding how it all works, and being able to act with/on that understanding
18:09 < illegale> blue as GRT5RECD
18:10 < illegale> and fast as HKO9JF
18:10 <@echarp> ?
18:10 < illegale> it is in fight ewith its opposite principle GSGT5
18:10 <@echarp> ?
18:10 < illegale> so, imagine you have much #information# about WDERT
18:10 < illegale> it is irrelevant
18:10 < illegale> it can not make you powerfull
18:10 < illegale> unless somebody worships the same idols as you do
18:11 <@echarp> it can, if WDERT is important, and I consider the universe and myself important
18:11 < illegale> that is the story of this philosphy whic is context in itself only
18:11 <@echarp> aren't the universe and yourself important?
18:11 <@echarp> it is not "in context of itself only"!!!
18:11 <@echarp> it is in the context of everything human
18:11 <@echarp> it is why philosophy is the greatest of search
18:12 <@echarp> the search for wisdom, the love of wisdom
18:12 < illegale> ok, you think that knowing about WSERT is not loosing your time?
18:12 <@echarp> you are losing my time, which is different
18:12 < illegale> in the same time when you can spend iton stuff that has much more connectin to you?
18:12 <@echarp> because you fail to acknowledge the importance of the universe and yourself
18:12 < illegale> i do acnowledge this assocsioation
18:13 < illegale> what is relevant to me might be important5 also
18:13 < illegale> universe in general is relevant to me
18:13 <@echarp> then is understanding the universe important?
18:13 < illegale> yet, some parts are less relevant than some other parts
18:13 <@echarp> is understanding yourself important?
18:13 < illegale> ok it is
18:14 < illegale> yet, we have to notice we do not have limitless time to
18:14 < illegale> study about issues that are not relevant to us
18:14 <@echarp> is yourself relevant to you...???
18:14 < illegale> if we do study them, we actually waste our time
18:14 <@echarp> I think it necessarily is
18:14 < illegale> as long aswe have to talk in a manner of engineers
18:14 < illegale> lets get back to free will
18:14 <@echarp> it is about free will
18:14 < illegale> whats your problem with it?
18:15 < illegale> i can function perfectly fine with it
18:15 < illegale> make same statements
18:15 < illegale> as you do
18:15 < illegale> make same conclusion as you do
18:15 <@echarp> you acknowledge, after much energy, that understanding the universe and yourself is important
18:15 <@echarp> then understanding the non existence of free will is important
18:15 < illegale> this is not the way you need if you want to come to conclusion
18:15 <@echarp> because it is a big information and yourself and the way you fit in the universe
18:16 <@echarp> I'm just showing the importance of such concepts
18:16 < illegale> who writhes that?
18:16 < illegale> nah
18:16 <@echarp> writes what?
18:16 < illegale> can you give me exact example where we differ?
18:16 < illegale> i am free wilist for an example and you are nit
18:16 < illegale> not
18:17 < illegale> what i can notice it does not change anything
18:17 <@echarp> I believe it is silly philosophically to believe in free will
18:17 < illegale> i can state perfectly sam thingas you do and explain them by free will
18:17 <@echarp> it is a bad explanation
18:17 <@echarp> of course you can state the same things
18:17 <@echarp> yet the way you reach it is wrong
18:17 < illegale> as long as you can not make any statement that would make it important, that info is obsolete
18:17 <@echarp> because your understanding has a flaw
18:17 < illegale> absurd to claim or to think about
18:17 <@echarp> your understanding of human nature
18:18 < illegale> as long as you can not make any statement that would make it important, that info is obsolete
18:18 < illegale> can you?
18:18 < illegale> ve just one thing
18:18 <@echarp> let's make a statement then => all human behaviours are rational in the grand scheme of things, there you go
18:18 < illegale> so, does knowledge that makes no difference to anything have any worthness, echarp::?
18:18 <@echarp> the fact that the list is not active nowadays has explanations
18:18 <@echarp> it makes differences
18:19 <@echarp> it is a knowledge that explains human behaviour, at least in part
18:19 < illegale> does knowledge that makes no difference to anything have any worthness, echarp::?
18:19 <@echarp> determinism allows for more explanations than free will
18:19 < illegale> such as?
18:19 <@echarp> determinism is a matter of sciences
18:19 <@echarp> sciences are knowledge
18:20 < illegale> you can not state there is free will behind all of that?
18:20 <@echarp> determenism encourages the search of knowledge because everything is based on it
18:20 <@echarp> free will is like is like religion, it explains onthing
18:21 <@echarp> ok, I'm leaving
18:21 <@echarp> some girl to meet :)
18:22 <@echarp> cu later, probably tomorrow ;)
18:22 <@echarp> we'll discuss some more on free will and philosophy
18:22 <@echarp> to me it *is* central to almost all human endeavour
18:22 <@echarp> have a good evening
18:27 < illegale> cu
18:33 < illegale> ok, you proved your point
18:34 < illegale> if we say it is free will, we can put under it it is in no corelation to anything meaning there is no way to understand it
18:34 < illegale> and that is really a difference
18:48 -!- illegale [i=ille...@cmung3174.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit []
19:35 -!- illegale (illegale) [i=ille...@cmung3174.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
20:26 -!- illegale [i=ille...@cmung3174.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
22:41 -!- nsh (nsh) [n=n...@host81-152-48-131.range81-152.btcentralplus.com] has joined #parlement
22:42 < nsh> urgen, about?
--- Log closed ven jui 21 00:00:52 2006
echarp
Jul 22, 2006, 12:28:49 AM7/22/06
to top-politics
--- Log opened ven jui 21 00:00:52 2006
00:03 -!- nsh [n=nsh@wikipedia/nsh] has quit []
02:41 -!- nsh_ is now known as nsh
02:43 < urgen> home
02:53 < nsh> hey
02:53 < nsh> que pasa?
02:54 < urgen> whole week of hot
02:54 * nsh nods
02:54 < nsh> same here, but probably to a lesser extent
02:55 < urgen> 35 degrees Celsius
02:56 < nsh> 30 here today
02:56 < nsh> hottest recorded day in britain
02:57 < urgen> :-)
02:57 < urgen> it's going to be global toasting before we know it
02:57 * nsh nods
02:57 < urgen> heck with this warming stuff
02:57 < nsh> i think we skipped warming
02:58 < nsh> do you know the story of devadatta and the boulder?
02:58 < urgen> um
02:58 < urgen> that the feather story?
02:58 * nsh doesn't think so
02:59 < nsh> "Devadatta then had the evil idea to pushing down [a boulder] from the mountain to crush the Buddha. A vajra-bearing stalwart intervened from a distance by throwing his vajra cudgel [to deflect it]. A broken piece of the boulder rolled up and injured the Buddha's toe."
02:59 < urgen> guy trying to remove a boulder so the sun will shine on his house by rubbing it with a feather
02:59 < nsh> ah, no; sounds interesting though
02:59 < urgen> story of patience
02:59 < urgen> ya devadatta is like spy vs spy
02:59 < nsh> mmm
03:00 < urgen> you don't know that mad magazine comic?
03:00 < nsh> heard of
03:00 < nsh> but not seen or anything
03:00 < nsh> so reference probably missed
03:00 < urgen> you know road runner coyote?
03:00 < urgen> coyote's plans always fizzle
03:00 < urgen> white spy vs black spy
03:00 < urgen> each other's plans are always backfiring
03:01 < nsh> ah yeah
03:01 < urgen> devadata is evil brother but he finally figures it out
03:01 * nsh nods
03:01 < nsh> but what i wonder is
03:02 < nsh> how the potential for such conditions survived
03:02 < urgen> everything a lesson
03:03 * nsh thought one of the premises was that awakening fulfilled all lessons
03:05 < urgen> lessons are always for someone else
03:05 < nsh> mmm
03:06 < nsh> so it wasn't just that there was still some settling required
03:06 < nsh> "And so the commentators tell us that the Buddha’s difficulties with Deva-
03:06 < nsh> datta, and the injuries he received at Devadatta’s instigation, were the final results
03:06 < nsh> of maliciousness and anger that Gotama had felt before becoming a Buddha."
03:06 < nsh> http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:avDmXJZDmdAJ:www.unm.edu/~rhayes/twocousins.pdf+buddha+devadatta+karma+cousin&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=firefox-a
03:06 < urgen> it's always more complicated than that
03:06 * nsh nods
03:07 < urgen> they give you the dryest slimmest metaphorical explaination
03:07 < nsh> hmm
03:07 < urgen> so most ppl take it literally and stop looking
03:08 < nsh> it's hard to meter metaphoric depth
03:08 < urgen> well not hard to dismiss immediately anything literal tho
03:09 < urgen> take it as a solid and you get mislead
03:09 * nsh nods
03:09 < urgen> drop it into dynamic context and it shows up alive this very moment
03:10 < nsh> hmm
03:11 < nsh> dynamic seems often to go hand in hand with ambiguous
03:11 < urgen> unless you stick with what you know
03:11 < nsh> the further one abstracts from literal, the greater freedom to interpret
03:11 < urgen> anchor with experience
03:11 * nsh nods
03:13 < urgen> the literal has a counterpoint
03:13 < urgen> what do the texts say is the antidote to anger?
03:13 < nsh> patience
03:13 < urgen> so how would patience show up in a multi-life time line?
03:14 < urgen> in a way that described the nature of interactiveness?
03:14 < urgen> in a way that described productive use of interactiveness?
03:14 < nsh> hmmm
03:15 < urgen> patience is like the stillness of a reed in a wind storm as the dragonfly of truth lands...
03:15 * nsh smiles
03:15 < urgen> it wouldn't show up without the wind
03:16 < urgen> I've got to go get something to eat
03:16 < nsh> ok
04:24 < urgen> back
09:31 <@echarp> hello
14:14 -!- illegale (illegale) [i=ille...@cmung4287.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
14:14 < illegale:#parlement> oi
14:14 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
14:14 <@echarp> hello hello illegale
14:28 < illegale> im back into philosophy
14:28 < illegale> and religion
14:34 <@echarp> that's cool, for the first one at least ;)
14:35 <@echarp> religions being mostly lies used to control people
14:52 < illegale> how i see the stuff, chridstianity is the biggest hoax in modern western history enabling global hypocrisy all around
14:52 <@echarp> yes, and it's been so since ages
14:53 < illegale> so, i gonna read the Bible for beggiiung :)
14:55 <@echarp> woaw
14:55 < illegale> you did that?
14:56 <@echarp> I've read parts of it when I was young, I was educated by nuns, even was an altar boy
14:57 < illegale> so, nothing in recent history?
14:58 <@echarp> definitely not
14:58 <@echarp> although I'm somehow interested and knowledgeable about the history of the bible
14:58 * echarp loves documentaries on TV
15:03 < illegale> whats up with lebanon, islam and other stuff n france?
15:04 <@echarp> we talk about it
15:04 <@echarp> islam is the 2nd religion over here
15:05 <@echarp> very important and we had troubles with this mixity before
15:05 <@echarp> nowadays france is officially much more friendly toward this culture
15:05 < illegale> officialy
15:05 <@echarp> that might explain in parts our divergence with the US on saddam
15:06 < illegale> you think common people fine with it?
15:06 <@echarp> not only officially, arab countries and france share some good relations
15:06 < illegale> culturaly
15:06 <@echarp> I think most are fine, of course there remain fears and racism
15:08 < illegale> how loud are such elementS?
15:09 <@echarp> very
15:10 <@echarp> plus there is quite some refusal over turkey entry in the EU
15:10 <@echarp> (my I'm fine and encourage the entry of turkey)
15:10 < illegale> is there any agressive force against such elements?
15:10 <@echarp> yeap
15:10 < illegale> who?
15:12 <@echarp> the extrem right wing
15:13 < illegale> nah, i wanted to ask is there any force against thright wing'
15:14 <@echarp> liberal minded people, some of the left wing too
15:14 < illegale> how agresive they are?
15:16 <@echarp> to include turkey? or the extremes?
15:17 < illegale> against right wing extremes
15:17 <@echarp> anyway, france does not want to include turkey right now, that's a certitutde
15:17 < illegale> if they are against islamic issues
15:17 < illegale> whatever about turkey
15:18 < illegale> what i want to see what will happen if consoliation starts its rapid process
15:18 <@echarp> in fact the extreme right wing love islamists, le pen was a friend of saddam hussein too
15:18 <@echarp> consoidation of?
15:18 < illegale> cool
15:19 < illegale> amerika wants to crete global enemy caled islam
15:19 < illegale> it wont stop that easily in its issue
15:19 < illegale> it might provoke sme big ***** in order to gain global consolidati0n on its side
15:20 < illegale> when consolidation at act of war happens there is no space for two attitudes
15:20 < illegale> but one, consoldiatied
15:20 < illegale> so, i ma interested what will happen to france
15:20 < illegale> how prone franci is gonna be
15:21 < illegale> btw, extreme wing has no problem to rasicm?
15:21 <@echarp> of course it has, it is racist!!!
15:21 < illegale> and about algerians and stuff iun france
15:21 < illegale> ?
15:21 < illegale> muslims
15:22 < illegale> there is planty of tem as i can notice
15:22 <@echarp> do you think there is such a thing as "clash of civilisations"?
15:22 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
15:22 < illegale> it is provked issue
15:23 < illegale> planned for several decades from now
15:23 <@echarp> I don't think the US are truelly and machiavecally creating a strawman islam
15:23 <@echarp> bush and blair are just too idiot for that
15:23 < illegale> oh yes
15:23 < illegale> they are only exponents
15:23 <@echarp> oh no
15:23 < illegale> they are not asked actually
15:23 <@echarp> they act on short term issues
15:23 < illegale> they serve only
15:23 <@echarp> serve who?
15:23 < illegale> tat is a little bit naive
15:24 < illegale> oligarch
15:24 < illegale> s
15:24 <@echarp> so, who?
15:24 < illegale:#parlement> suppose several rich fammilies that control over 50% of global makret
15:24 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
15:24 <@echarp> and?
15:24 < illegale> what?
15:25 <@echarp> so what if some people are very rich?
15:25 < illegale:#parlement> nothing
15:25 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
15:26 <@echarp> who are those oligarchs who control the world?
15:26 < illegale> this is a black box we are talking about
15:26 < illegale> we might only suppose
15:26 < illegale> for an example, same ones who killed kennedy
15:26 < illegale> and that man from sweden
15:27 < illegale> who are they?
15:27 <@echarp> oligarchs killed jfk???
15:27 < illegale> someone very powerfull
15:27 <@echarp> there is quite some knowledge on who could have killed jfk you know...
15:27 < illegale> very very powerfull
15:27 < illegale> and that is?
15:27 <@echarp> fbi, cia, johnson, mafia from the east
15:27 <@echarp> johnson and a texas mafia are high on the list
15:28 < illegale> so, they are these oligarch maybe
15:28 * echarp disagree
15:28 <@echarp> they are people, rich people, who did a coup d'état
15:28 < illegale> so?
15:28 <@echarp> it is bad very bad, but it does not imply we are nowadays controled by an oligarchy
15:28 < illegale> lol
15:28 < illegale> bird flu
15:29 <@echarp> what about that?
15:29 < illegale> what you think about that?
15:29 <@echarp> flu is an avian sickness which dates to millions of years
15:29 <@echarp> every 30 years or so there is a giant epidemy
15:29 < illegale> how is that is so popular these dayS?
15:29 <@echarp> nothing new
15:29 < illegale> sensacionalism
15:29 < illegale> ?
15:30 <@echarp> and?
15:30 < illegale> sensacionalism?
15:30 <@echarp> what about that?
15:31 < illegale> why is it popular? due to sensacionalism?
15:32 <@echarp> because it is an important and risky matter, because it is good for newspapers who can then sell more papers
15:32 <@echarp> and?
15:32 < illegale> there is very much simmilar issues around the wolrd
15:32 < illegale> eqauly sensational you know
15:33 < illegale> but this took all media space
15:33 < illegale> what i can notic is that media space can be same to the whole global world
15:33 < illegale> from russia china bangladesh, burundi and all other the same
15:34 < illegale> btw, who killed ml king?
15:34 < illegale> malocom*?
15:34 < illegale> john lennon?
15:34 < illegale> several texas people who are rich?
15:36 < illegale> what i can notice, american oligarchy is pretty consolidated thing, prone to public or foreign issues absolutely
15:37 < illegale> in the same time it can dictate global trends pretty easily
15:38 <@echarp> ml king was probably killed by the same people, texas conspiration
15:38 <@echarp> same with the other kennedy
15:39 < illegale> pretty strong that consipircy group is
15:39 < illegale> what you think?
15:39 <@echarp> of course
15:39 <@echarp> they did a coup d'état
15:39 <@echarp> but that didn't help them so much
15:39 < illegale> so, you think they are too stupid to plan things?
15:39 <@echarp> they were already old and not that relevant
15:39 <@echarp> they are not in power anymore
15:40 <@echarp> they were kicked out during the next elections or so
15:40 < illegale> you think such grops are depenednt on one man?
15:40 <@echarp> did I say that?
15:40 < illegale> they where kicked ot from whre?
15:40 <@echarp> I'm saying they gained huge powers, then mostly lost them
15:40 < illegale> what makes you think that?
15:40 <@echarp> from the white house
15:40 <@echarp> because johnson lost the elections
15:41 < illegale> you think peope who killed president and are not condemned can be kicked out from white house?
15:41 < illegale> what makes you think soi
15:41 < illegale> if it was johnson
15:41 < illegale> you think some parlament votes can loose their power?
15:41 < illegale> you think they power to do such thing as kill te president has anything to public?
15:42 < illegale> interesting though
15:42 <@echarp> because johson was actually not reelected
15:43 < illegale> so you think johnoson did it'
15:43 < illegale> isnt that to strong corelation to take it that seriously due to fact nobody ever got any sancion for killng the president
15:43 < illegale> how do you imagie such power of center?
15:44 < illegale> johnson with two oldies killing several people with no consequencs
15:44 < illegale> how?
15:44 < illegale> how is that so?
15:44 < illegale> so many kenedies died
15:44 < illegale> and those who killed him never got any shit for that?
15:46 < illegale> and you say they are too old now?!
15:47 <@echarp> I'm not making up, this idea comes from some documentaries I've seen
15:47 <@echarp> johnson and his pals were in the best of position to cover up everything!
15:48 < illegale> for all the time?
15:48 < illegale> btw, documentary is very trust wort thing :-p
15:48 <@echarp> and it is hard to deny that sealing all evidence, ordering the warren commission, closing a partial autopsy, is easy to do, unless you hold power
15:49 < illegale> hold power, yes
15:51 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
15:52 < illegale> see, theie power wa not democratic one
15:52 < illegale> they where not voted to kill president
15:52 < illegale> when johnson moved out
15:52 < illegale> their power remained the same
15:52 < illegale> you think differently?
15:58 < illegale> What i can notice from htis story is that some center removed whole democratically voted body, scaring whole lobbies behind it
15:58 < illegale> controling CIA, FBI and other institutes
15:58 < illegale> controling media, controling everything
15:58 < illegale> showing every next president one simple thing
15:59 < illegale> you are our bitch
16:00 <@echarp> I think differently yes
16:00 < illegale> how do you explain this?
16:01 <@echarp> explain that they lost power?
16:02 < illegale> yes
16:02 < illegale> how do you explain all the thing?
16:06 < illegale:#parlement> no explanation :P
16:07 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
16:07 <@echarp> it's rather easy, power *is* a difficult thing to hold on
16:08 < illegale> so what?
16:09 < illegale> btw, you think it is plan of two oldies?
16:09 < illegale> it seems to me it is much more people involved in this issue
16:09 < illegale> people who know how to keep their power line
16:09 < illegale> that is the reason "you are my bitch" phenomenon holds in USA
16:10 < illegale> In Russia wehn Stalin died, his cooworkers were exectued
16:10 < illegale> there was no way to stop it due to bunt
16:10 < illegale> and in USA everybody is fine with the fact their president and his brother is eliminated
16:10 < illegale> that is cool
16:10 < illegale> we wont touch Johnson
16:10 < illegale> he is old
16:10 < illegale> common
16:10 <@echarp> cia, fbi, mafia, johnson cabale, does not need to remove any one from the equation
16:11 < illegale:#parlement> whic one?
16:11 < illegale:#parlement> and what about next president?
16:11 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
16:11 <@echarp> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy_assassination_theories
16:12 < illegale> who does he feel among CIA, FBI and other people who can eliminate him if he does not do things they say to him to do?
16:12 < illegale> nevertheless, we started talking about oligarchy that might plan this Islam issue for decades
16:13 < illegale> issue about Kennedy is just an argument
16:13 < illegale> nothing more
16:13 <@echarp> and I'm saying I just don't believe it, it is too difficult for almost any real organisation, let alone an undercover and non permanent one
16:13 <@echarp> it's like believing in the illuminaty!
16:14 < illegale> it is obvious it is not that hard as long as we do not know who killed kennedy
16:14 < illegale> yes?
16:14 < illegale> facts show us somethging differnet
16:14 < illegale> yes?
16:14 <@echarp> sorry, not knowing can be due to any number of reasons
16:14 < illegale> are you part of any secret society?
16:15 <@echarp> I am not part of any secret society
16:15 < illegale> absolutely
16:15 < illegale> though, stating it is not possible in the same time we see it is is not act of reason
16:15 <@echarp> thus facts show us nothing as far as a conspiration to direct the planet over decades is concerned
16:15 < illegale> it does
16:15 <@echarp> "do not attribute to malice what can simply be the consequence of stupidity"
16:16 < urgen> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_Bell
16:16 < illegale> i suppose you would state the same thing if i said president could be killed rightnow if he does not what sme seceret lobby ask hm to do
16:16 < urgen> my new nickname for illegale
16:17 < urgen> I think 'concrete' is a word that undermines understanding at this point
16:17 < illegale> you would say it is not possible
16:17 < illegale> having te same arguments as this about decades of planing
16:17 < illegale> look echarp, the logic of governing is simple one
16:17 < illegale> you do not need to be expert to see you need permanent enemie to hld the power based on ignrace
16:18 <@echarp> who is saying it is impossible???
16:18 <@echarp> I am not saying that
16:18 < illegale> so, it is possible'
16:18 < illegale> ?
16:18 <@echarp> everything is of course possible!!!
16:18 < illegale> you say nothing whe you say that
16:18 <@echarp> there is no such thing as absolutes!!!
16:18 < illegale> you just elimnate meaning of such word
16:19 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
16:19 <@echarp> I don't
16:19 < urgen> if you can't be simple you will be shot "illegale"
16:19 <@echarp> I'm just showing that absolutes are not something I consider of value
16:19 < urgen> and that's the basis of illegale's philosophy of power
16:19 < urgen> the fact that simple is the majority suggests the theory holds water
16:19 < urgen> truth? who cares!
16:20 < urgen> to counter such a force education becomes the best weapon
16:20 < urgen> the education required, here, is one about the definition of 'concrete'
16:21 < urgen> hunger does not support concrete
16:21 < urgen> this is a 'simple' explaination
16:21 <@echarp> necessity is the ultimate force
16:21 < illegale> echarp: you say this about kennedy proves nothing
16:21 < illegale> it is just a argument that smebody ca realise such big issue as kill the president and to cover it up
16:22 < illegale> so, we do not doubt that it is possible any more
16:22 < illegale> this is the argument
16:22 < illegale> you can not say that thinkg such thins is possible is not reasonable one
16:22 < urgen> distraction works well for magicians on a stage, illegale
16:22 < urgen> ppl want to believe
16:22 < illegale> urgen: i do not folow you
16:22 < urgen> conspiracy is truth by sensationalism
16:23 < illegale> what does it mean?
16:23 < urgen> like wanting to let go when you enter a movie theater
16:23 < illegale> you do not believe conspriacies happen?
16:23 < urgen> and you forget and believe what you watch
16:23 < urgen> you feel it
16:23 < urgen> conspiracy may darn well happen but those who use it as a tool for arguments don't care
16:24 < illegale> so, ehat you think about this islam **** going on?
16:24 < illegale> is it dangerous?
16:25 < urgen> sad and stupid
16:25 < illegale> how does america breeth?
16:25 < illegale> why is this happening?
16:25 < urgen> stupid costs life about 20% misery
16:26 < urgen> I will work harder to find a way to help educate
16:27 < urgen> maybe you are a lost cause trying so hard to hit people over the head with conspiracy theories...
16:27 < urgen> but someone else might grow
16:27 < urgen> some day
16:28 * echarp believes there are many many conspiracies occuring, but I don't think everything can be explained by conspiracies
16:28 < urgen> if my own stupidity were better polished maybe we wouldn't have war
16:28 < illegale> echarp everything can beexplaind by them as long as they are not provable
16:28 < illegale> we do not see them
16:28 < illegale> so we can speculate a lot
16:29 < illegale> that is whay they are so popular
16:29 <@echarp> exactly
16:29 < illegale> yet, in the same time claiming there is no consipracies is actually even more stubborn
16:29 <@echarp> who claims that?
16:29 < urgen> exactly
16:29 < illegale> just notic
16:29 <@echarp> do you see any one here claiming that???
16:29 < illegale> e
16:29 < urgen> stubborn = stupid
16:30 < illegale> echarp, we where talking about islam issue
16:30 < illegale> ww3 and stuff
16:30 < illegale> ok, lets not call it ww3
16:30 <@echarp> and you moved toward a ww conspiracy to explain it
16:30 < illegale> but global mess
16:30 <@echarp> and I'm saying that I don't see it, at all
16:31 < illegale> nah, i am talking about the people who have the power, who have the position and who have interest to create all this scenario
16:31 <@echarp> the most they could reach was the iraq invasion, which was probably the result of some kind of cover up on the part of the white house
16:31 < illegale> these are pretty strong indicion
16:31 <@echarp> indications?
16:31 < illegale> yes
16:31 < illegale> who has interest in creating wars?
16:31 <@echarp> how do you show this conspiracy?
16:31 < illegale> people?
16:31 < urgen> I don't call abuse a conspiracy
16:32 < urgen> it is fully expected, nothing to hide
16:32 < illegale> yes
16:32 < illegale> ok
16:32 <@echarp> they hid their intentions to invade irak, invasion planned from before the 911
16:32 < illegale> consiparccy about kennedy s just an example of morality of such people
16:32 <@echarp> illegale: please, I *do* acknowledge the existence of conspiracies
16:33 < illegale> what you do not acknowledge?
16:33 <@echarp> but I doubt and have no indication of a conspiracy in the case of lebanon
16:33 < illegale> ok
16:33 <@echarp> lebanon is the result of a long term engagement there
16:33 < illegale> what i "feel" is this islam issue going on pretty hard for laset several decades
16:33 <@echarp> it is the result of israeli, lebanon, syrian, iran, US, france, english, decisions
16:33 < illegale> some kennedy stareted thesis of collision of civilisations
16:33 < urgen> decades? maybe centuries
16:34 < illegale> in the same time many obscure, pathetic novelists who greed for lowest emotions are very popular due to media support all arond the globe
16:34 <@echarp> yeap, centuries, in france we still talk about the arab failed invasion which was stopped at tours
16:34 < illegale> no, for three decades i think concretyl
16:35 < illegale> this all gets prety fine in line to dead of communism,
16:35 < illegale> dead of last enemy
16:35 < illegale> so they need new one
16:35 < illegale> they had to plan what now?
16:35 < illegale> that is strategy of ruling
16:35 < illegale> of oligopolists
16:35 < illegale> against the knowledge
16:36 < illegale> if people are affraid they can beamnipulated much more easily
16:36 <@echarp> sorry, you are positing a conspiracy then looking at ways to prove it? isn't that backward?
16:36 < illegale> if it is the state of war, logic looses its power completely
16:36 < illegale> i am placing i the place of such people
16:36 < illegale> and look what would i do
16:36 < illegale> ok, consipary it is though word
16:37 < illegale> not needed at all
16:37 <@echarp> sorry, demonstrate that such people exist first
16:37 < illegale> to enable this whole process going on
16:37 < illegale> such people?
16:37 <@echarp> yes, such people
16:37 < illegale> who rule behind te curtain?
16:37 <@echarp> I am asking you to demonstrate their existence
16:37 < illegale> Kenedy is a example
16:38 <@echarp> a consequence you attribute to them?
16:38 < illegale> to smething
16:38 < illegale> and i define them by that smething
16:38 <@echarp> can you prove their existence?
16:38 < illegale> i just did
16:38 <@echarp> sorry, you point to a possible consequence and you consider that a proof???
16:39 < illegale> i have no other explanation
16:39 < illegale> you do'
16:39 < illegale> ?
16:39 <@echarp> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy_assassination_theories
16:39 < illegale> lets talk about kenedy
16:39 < illegale> no, le US talk about it
16:39 <@echarp> there are plenty of theories to pick from
16:39 < illegale> plenty, how is that
16:39 < illegale> why plenty?
16:39 <@echarp> because we lack exact information
16:39 < illegale> how is that?
16:40 <@echarp> you want me to again acknowledge a conspiracy?
16:40 < illegale> you think us establishment can not find such things?
16:40 <@echarp> I have acknowledged a conspiracy, no more
16:40 < urgen> illegale still wants you to accept that the elusiveness of concrete evidence is a conspiracy
16:40 < illegale> acknowledge exsistence of the power center beyond democratic procedures
16:40 < illegale> hugher then them
16:40 < illegale> stronger then tham
16:40 < illegale> who use such instituation
16:40 < illegale> not vice versa
16:40 < urgen> the less we know the better to blame someone by
16:41 <@echarp> illegale: please rephrase
16:41 < illegale:#parlement> echarp: how do YOU imagine that Johnson be in relation to death of kennedy
16:41 < illegale:#parlement> can you show some scenario?
16:41 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
16:41 < illegale> or whatever scenario you pick
16:41 <@echarp> you want me to find that documentary?
16:42 < illegale> no, i want to hear your words excatly
16:42 <@echarp> the one I watched and which seemed very interesting?
16:42 < illegale> your model
16:42 < illegale> if you have one
16:42 <@echarp> I don't have that much time to devote to a conspiration I have acknowledged
16:42 <@echarp> what is your point?
16:42 < illegale> there is power center biger than instituiton of president in US
16:43 <@echarp> what kind of point are you targetting at, but your lack on information and your imagination on lebanon?
16:43 < illegale> bigger than all public service
16:43 <@echarp> sorry, prove those power centers!!!
16:43 <@echarp> prove their existence!!!
16:43 < illegale> relatively small and strong enough to do anything
16:43 <@echarp> showing a possible consequence is not a proof!
16:43 < illegale> yes, it is
16:43 <@echarp> jfk is not a proof!!!
16:43 <@echarp> come on then, give the name of those who killed jfk
16:43 < illegale> how do you want me to proove it?
16:43 < urgen> this is why I brought up 'concrete'
16:43 <@echarp> I'm saying you can't!!!
16:43 < illegale> so what
16:44 < urgen> illegale claims concrete can be an emotion
16:44 <@echarp> so you have no proof!!!
16:44 < illegale> we can use a little bit of pure logic also
16:44 <@echarp> go on, have fun
16:44 < illegale> and state is as proof
16:44 < illegale> echarp: can i ask you something?
16:44 < illegale> can you kill your president if you do not like hm?
16:44 <@echarp> of course
16:44 <@echarp> (you can ask)
16:44 < illegale> and be not detected?
16:45 <@echarp> illegale: I have acknowledged a conspiration already
16:45 < illegale> lets go beynd that
16:45 < urgen> wait wait.. this is a trick question.. ;-)
16:45 < illegale> lets see consequeces of it
16:45 < urgen> can stupid people do stupid things and do them intelligently...
16:45 < urgen> hmn
16:45 < urgen> tricky
16:46 <@echarp> any combination is possible
16:46 <@echarp> illegale: so?
16:46 < illegale> echarp is it reasonalbe to think that if somebody can kill president ad have no cosequences t be very powerfull
16:46 < illegale> extremely powerfull?
16:46 <@echarp> it's one way to see it yes
16:47 <@echarp> very powerfull yes
16:47 < illegale> is it reasonable?
16:47 <@echarp> so powerfull that he could become the president of the most powerful country ever
16:47 <@echarp> yes
16:47 <@echarp> and?
16:47 < illegale> does reason say to us there are probably, very probalby such power centers i am talking about?
16:47 <@echarp> reason does not say that no
16:47 < illegale> is it reasonable to state them existant
16:47 <@echarp> it is not reasonable no
16:47 < illegale> why?
16:47 <@echarp> it is emotional
16:48 < illegale> why?
16:48 <@echarp> why? => because there are no proofs of their existence
16:48 < illegale> there are inditions
16:48 <@echarp> because they don't *have* to exist
16:48 < illegale> are they worthless
16:48 <@echarp> they could explain things
16:48 < illegale> do you have some toher explanation?
16:48 <@echarp> yet stupidity can also explain things
16:48 < illegale> reasonalbe one?
16:49 < urgen> depends on who is listening
16:49 <@echarp> "do not attribute to malice what can be caused by stupidity"
16:49 <@echarp> illegale: you are positing things
16:50 <@echarp> I am asking for a demonstration
16:50 < illegale> ok, as long as i have no other reasonalbe explanation
16:50 <@echarp> and of course you can not give one
16:50 < illegale> as long as this fits ad explainses everything
16:50 <@echarp> occam razor
16:50 < illegale> i am ready to claim they do exist using 80% probablility facotr
16:50 < urgen> fittest of the fittest of the fittest
16:50 < urgen> as long as it fits
16:50 <@echarp> sorry, prove their existence if you want to convince us of their existence!!!
16:50 < illegale> as long as everything is possible and nothing is imposible it is all up to leve of sprobalbility we will acklaim
16:51 <@echarp> claiming that a convoluted and decades old conspiracy can explain everything in the world is no better than a religion
16:51 <@echarp> of course it is all up to probabilities
16:51 < illegale> we might not take inditions serioulsy
16:51 < illegale> or we can
16:51 <@echarp> indition???
16:51 < illegale> it is up to everyone in level of is it important to him or not
16:51 <@echarp> of course
16:51 < illegale> indications
16:52 <@echarp> yes, it is all matters of probability!
16:52 < illegale> i can use such thin with probability f 80% and if it fits ne facts perfectly fine, i am fin with that
16:52 <@echarp> assigning a 80% probability to a worldwide and decades conspiracy is still just as intelligent as a sect claiming we are all the descendants of aliens trapped on earth
16:53 < illegale> i can play i need proves issue, yet if i need to go on with it finding the roots of the problem, i am being stupid than
16:53 < illegale> not to me, as long as i can explain several thing much better with such a statement
16:53 < illegale> hypotheticaly speaking
16:53 <@echarp> it is possible that we are all the descendants of alien trapped on earth, but I am not convinced *at all* that it is the case
16:54 < illegale> ok
16:54 < illegale> echarp: when i talk about this, it is up to you to follow or not to follow my reason and exlpamation
16:54 < illegale> if you find it reasonable it is ok
16:54 < illegale> if not, than nothing
16:55 < illegale> so, lets notice bird fue
16:55 < illegale> there is a little indication that it could be bad
16:55 < illegale> and there is no proof for such thing
16:55 < illegale> no proof at all
16:56 < illegale> yet, poeple take such indications very seriously and do their job in order to solve non existng problem
16:56 < illegale> same reason it is
16:56 < illegale> do we need a proof?
16:56 < illegale> or is it possible to work that way at all?
17:01 < urgen> illegale,,, if might equals right you will always be correct
17:02 < urgen> keep collecting the support of those who do not understand questions and you can be king as long as you want
17:02 < urgen> is that what you really want?
17:02 < urgen> is it really right?
17:03 < illegale> why should i collect anything?
17:03 < urgen> because that is what you do
17:03 < illegale> urgen: you have one big problem
17:03 < urgen> you are like a bee that goes flower to flower
17:04 < urgen> you discard those who don't agree and continue to only find the ones that do not question
17:04 * urgen is discarded
17:04 < illegale> urgen: when you work on something that needs 5 people
17:04 < illegale> are you looking for those who share the same interest or not?
17:05 < urgen> same game, same question
17:05 < illegale> it is really rethorical one
17:05 < urgen> look, there are people that are immune to persuasive only based arguments
17:05 < urgen> it isn't logic ok?
17:05 < urgen> stop trying
17:06 < illegale> stop bitching
17:10 < illegale> so, lets see
17:11 < urgen> http://www.fallacyfiles.org/index.html
17:11 < illegale> finding people with equal views that enable easy consolidation is legitimated thing among regular people
17:12 < illegale> you are acusing me of this thing
17:12 < urgen> way
17:12 < illegale> i do not find reasonable
17:12 < urgen> point
17:13 <@echarp> (just to finish on bird flue, yes there are indications that it would be very bad, because bird flues have probably killed millions over centuries, and we are due for another pandemy already, yet yes, media attention on this subject is overrated yes, but it does not imply at all a conspiracy)
17:14 -!- beeli (illegale) [i=ille...@cmung3208.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
17:15 < urgen> there are 911 conspiracies lately that say the US government collapsed the towers deliberately
17:16 < urgen> to what end is this conjecture?
17:17 <@echarp> to me it's the same mechanisms as religion
17:18 < beeli> explanation with no facts behind it?
17:19 < urgen> explanation with no way to test
17:19 <@echarp> yes, and search of facts to fit the explanation
17:19 < beeli> this fallacy file is big on
17:19 < beeli> e
17:20 < beeli> there is the way to test it of course
17:20 < beeli> these consipriracies are here to make people interested in whatreally happened
17:20 < urgen> there is a way to test for God?
17:20 < urgen> hmn
17:20 < beeli> not to god, the God is proven alredy
17:21 <@echarp> :)
17:21 <@echarp> ok, it's slipping away from logic there
17:22 <@echarp> if one can prove god, then I'm jesus
17:22 < urgen> I think that was the point echarp
17:22 < beeli> you are
17:22 < urgen> see?
17:22 < urgen> :-)
17:22 <@echarp> beeli: you consider yourself in the jesus phase you once spoke about? :)
17:22 < beeli> ok, i will prove god if you want
17:22 < beeli> in 6 years i will be
17:22 < beeli> :)
17:22 <@echarp> don't even try, I'm interested in philosophy
17:23 < beeli> philosophiclay of course
17:23 < beeli> first thing you need to notice is what atributes god has
17:23 < beeli> so, what are the atributes of god?
17:24 < beeli> echarp: yesterday you convinced into determinsims has exact benefits to free will
17:25 <@echarp> and today you want to prove god :(
17:25 < beeli> i suppose this gives me the credit of being not attached to what i think too much, but to the arguments
17:25 < beeli> and their solidity
17:25 < beeli> we can play it
17:25 < beeli> why not?
17:25 < beeli> or stigma is too big?
17:26 <@echarp> this is getting tedious
17:30 < beeli> indeed
17:30 <@echarp> I'm being simple
17:30 <@echarp> I state the things I believe in
17:30 <@echarp> I'm open minded
17:30 <@echarp> why keep repeating and not understanding seemingly on purpose?
17:30 < urgen> want my theory?
17:31 < urgen> it's sad but I'm watching for further evidence
17:31 <@echarp> shoot :)
17:31 <@echarp> evidence of?
17:31 < urgen> communism started a type of psychosis of society
17:31 < urgen> like when you kick a dog as it tries to eat
17:31 < urgen> people were forced to swallow a lot of definitions that are now causing indigestion
17:31 <@echarp> it must also have been true of the french revolution you know
17:32 < urgen> these are burping back out in illegale
17:32 -!- illegale [i=ille...@cmung4287.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
17:32 <@echarp> I guess yes
17:32 < urgen> the french revolution destroyed culture?
17:32 <@echarp> in some ways yes
17:32 < urgen> when I use a word like communism of course I'm not intending the 'classic' definition
17:33 < urgen> just the use case per country that claimed to have adopted it
17:33 <@echarp> you are intending the communist block
17:33 < urgen> killing millions and millions of people to make sure only one definition was allowed
17:33 < beeli> urgen: what i can notice is the same thing
17:33 < beeli> you belong to the culture that is based o hypocricy
17:34 <@echarp> ?
17:34 < beeli> the way of controling the power is the way of letting everyone little worlds
17:34 < beeli> as long as you are not a threat to regime, you are fine to claim anthing
17:34 < beeli> more differencies, more non provable ideas
17:34 < beeli> less solid gorunds,
17:35 < beeli> better for centers of power to hold their position
17:35 < beeli> this makes you negate concept of power
17:35 < beeli> as long as this is not popular in small world where you can be a boss
17:35 < urgen> darn, and I almost thought you were going to stick with logic for a moment
17:35 < beeli> concpet of power is not good as long as it remind you at fact that you are part of big hoax
17:36 < beeli> so, you play silly cultural games, communicaiton one to one and other issues that might befine in the conctex of your local world
17:36 < beeli> and still you hardly context
17:36 < beeli> global context
17:37 < beeli> so, you have no reason to push you limits as long as you see no limits blessed with ignorance
17:37 < beeli> of denial
17:37 < beeli> when i say POWER
17:37 < beeli> you want to stigmatise me
17:37 < beeli> POWER is bad
17:37 < urgen> only the way you say it
17:37 < urgen> power can mean other things but I am not allowed to address those
17:37 < beeli> that is one of several things maybe, the only one your culture is teaching you
17:38 < beeli> so, whe i am being so ambitious of chaning things gittig the walls and other stuff
17:38 < beeli> it annoys
17:38 < beeli> you
17:38 < urgen> not just me
17:38 < beeli> as long as you like security of your word where no flamers exist
17:38 < beeli> of course
17:38 < beeli> it is regular thing
17:38 < beeli> if you are not part of some larger system
17:39 < urgen> and there is a reason for that which may be different than your assumption
17:39 < beeli> than necessarily needs to telrate it
17:39 < beeli> so, you claim i am product of sick society
17:39 < beeli> I am
17:39 < beeli> Indeed,
17:39 < beeli> but you are part of it
17:39 < urgen> of course
17:40 < urgen> and I don't need to try to defend it
17:40 < beeli> yet, this is the reason we are not so compatible
17:40 < beeli> you belong to easy words
17:40 < beeli> no need to stand behind them
17:40 < beeli> you need to talk about them only
17:40 < beeli> you deny bad core that is part of this world
17:40 < beeli> you want to be in gloves
17:40 < urgen> so I break my promises
17:41 < beeli> to be clean in this dirty world
17:41 < urgen> not a single word I define to I extend
17:41 < beeli> and yet, most of dirt is the actual product f denial concept yo care
17:41 < urgen> in every case I change the game before anyone can have a turn
17:42 < urgen> I must be part of a conspiracy
17:42 < beeli> echarp and you do share easy mode
17:42 < urgen> so what's the medicine?
17:42 < beeli> i do not
17:43 < beeli> it is probably up to personality issue
17:43 < beeli> horopsocpe and stuff
17:49 * echarp is back
17:49 < urgen> ok, so I try to find something in common now
17:49 < urgen> is that ok?
17:50 < urgen> doesn't sound like anything I say can be trusted tho
17:50 < urgen> so without trust as the common ground what else is there?
17:52 < beeli> why find something?
17:52 < urgen> because you will probably kill me
17:52 < beeli> is there anything we share at all?
17:52 < beeli> but this channel?
17:53 < urgen> if common trust is not a value for you...
17:53 < beeli> trust? what trust you talk about?
17:53 <@echarp> we probably share concepts, words
17:54 < beeli> should trust you?
17:54 < urgen> http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-05/new-age.html
17:54 * echarp personally builds on philosophy, words, concepts
17:55 <@echarp> there are old thoughts worse using and reusing
17:55 < beeli> urgen: you talk about trust only
17:55 <@echarp> it's difficult to create everything anew
17:55 < beeli> i do not have much repsct to the people who do not do what they talk about
17:55 < urgen> that article talks about a missing bridge
17:55 <@echarp> beeli: he's looking for common concepts
17:56 < urgen> one culture does not trust truth by test and the other does not trust truth by faith
17:56 <@echarp> ?
17:57 < urgen> the link I posted
17:58 <@echarp> that article *is* comprehensible!!!
17:58 <@echarp> I actually quite like the link on fallacies too
18:00 <@echarp> guys, when I speak, do I usually make sense?
18:00 < urgen> sure
18:00 <@echarp> I'm wondering, because communication between seems *sooo* broken :(
18:00 <@echarp> I'm wondering, because communication between "us" seems *sooo* broken :(
18:01 < beeli> you are software developer
18:01 < urgen> to me, karla mclaren represents what illegale talks about as social power
18:01 <@echarp> chef de projet, consultant, formatteur
18:01 < urgen> she has a large large following
18:01 <@echarp> I appreciate the way she finally encounters "scepticts"
18:02 <@echarp> I consider myself a sceptic
18:02 < urgen> my nature does not allow me to enjoy broken
18:03 <@echarp> same same with me
18:03 <@echarp> I crave confiance
18:03 <@echarp> it's the one thing I build upon in my inter relationships
18:03 < beeli> urgen: you missinterpet me
18:04 < urgen> beeli,, I would be glad to admit that
18:04 < urgen> because I really like you..
18:04 < urgen> so I know there is room here
18:05 < beeli> why do you like me?
18:06 < beeli> nevertheless, i have part of nboth worlds
18:06 < beeli> that is why neither of these worlds can nderstand me acutally
18:06 < beeli> mixing issues is hard and permanent thing
18:07 <@echarp> "both" worlds? what are they?
18:07 < beeli> so, this misses culture basis by defualt
18:07 < beeli> world of facts and exact correlations
18:07 <@echarp> beeli: me I'm sometimes having *huge* troubles understanding you
18:07 < beeli> and world of observation creating explanation
18:08 <@echarp> I wonder if you are being irrational, trollish, or just using other concepts
18:08 < beeli> it is actually a process
18:08 < beeli> i think outloud a lot
18:08 <@echarp> beeli: do you base it on something? a theory? a school of thought? a philosophy
18:08 <@echarp> ?
18:09 < beeli> creating ad hoc opinion and stuff
18:09 < beeli> no, i am far from systematic person
18:09 <@echarp> ad hoc organisations is great, but it's incredibly hard to invent totally new concepts and try to communicate them
18:09 < beeli> maybe imposible
18:09 <@echarp> concepts very often already exist and have some body of work around them
18:10 <@echarp> I try to learn, using philosophy, watching documentaries (which I love)
18:10 < beeli> issue i see here to be base of the future is pretty philosophical indeed
18:10 < beeli> setting new moral principles
18:10 < beeli> that can generate power
18:10 < beeli> on bottom up initatifes
18:10 <@echarp> "new moral principles", see again
18:11 < beeli> urgen knows somethng about it
18:11 < beeli> sorry etchical
18:11 <@echarp> same same
18:11 < beeli> i defined moral some time ago
18:11 <@echarp> it's *incredibly* difficult to create such a thing as a *new* ethical/moral principle
18:11 <@echarp> it most certainly won't be new at all
18:11 < beeli> it is actually not that new
18:12 < beeli> minor adjustments only
18:12 <@echarp> :)
18:12 < beeli> yet, essential one
18:12 <@echarp> there, I appreciate :)
18:12 < beeli> yet, this all stuff about democratisation is the stuff about origin of power
18:13 < beeli> about principles
18:13 < beeli> are they human or are they not
18:13 <@echarp> "principles" are not very very important to me
18:13 < beeli> Kiram from media weapon share simmilar thought
18:13 < beeli> s
18:13 < beeli> he is sorf of commies
18:14 <@echarp> kiram?
18:14 < beeli> yes, from another channel prax goes
18:14 < beeli> we talked about transaprent strucure of power
18:14 < beeli> creating such
18:14 < beeli> that is actually my mission as i can notice
18:14 <@echarp> jesus phase?
18:15 <@echarp> "mission"?
18:15 < beeli> why?
18:15 < beeli> you hgave your missoin to?
18:15 < beeli> right?
18:15 <@echarp> I don't
18:15 < beeli> to develop fine software?
18:15 < beeli> no?
18:15 <@echarp> I most certainly don't
18:15 <@echarp> I enjoy developping software
18:15 <@echarp> it's lego blocks to me
18:15 <@echarp> a game I loves as a child
18:15 < beeli> you are into wu wei
18:15 <@echarp> it's a hobby, and maybe something useful
18:15 <@echarp> wu wei?
18:16 < beeli> tao stuff
18:16 <@echarp> I don't know about that
18:16 < beeli> living the moment gaining perfection of it
18:16 <@echarp> that seems interesting
18:16 <@echarp> I'm a very happy and stable person
18:16 <@echarp> I enjoy the texts on hedonism
18:17 < beeli> glad for you :p
18:17 <@echarp> I feel like a direct descendant to epicure and descartes
18:17 <@echarp> nietsche also seems of much much interest
18:17 <@echarp> deconstructing the concepts that mean nothing
18:18 <@echarp> seeing beyond smoke
18:18 <@echarp> only accepting that there are no certitudes
18:18 < beeli:#parlement> do it with democracy
18:18 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
18:18 < beeli> btw, you think jesus had mission?
18:19 <@echarp> democracy is a way to gain more freedom, more individual happiness
18:19 < beeli> to me, he was ust cool
18:19 < beeli> deconstruct it
18:19 <@echarp> deconstruct what?
18:19 < beeli> democracy
18:19 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
18:20 <@echarp> please explain
18:20 < beeli> we talked about it
18:20 < beeli> meaning of that word
18:20 < beeli> emptiness
18:20 < beeli> of it
18:21 < beeli> i see some initiatives
18:21 < beeli> then i see argument about non democratical behaviour
18:21 < beeli> it regularly goes to 50%+1
18:21 < beeli> nothing else
18:22 <@echarp> sorry, but to me it is a concept with a history, it carries a lot of things and is not empty *at all*
18:22 <@echarp> democracy is *huge*
18:22 < beeli> you need to attach attributes to it
18:22 < beeli> than it iwll worth something
18:22 <@echarp> there already are attributes attached to it, open any dictionary!
18:22 < beeli> rule of the peple
18:22 < beeli> lol
18:22 <@echarp> there is history attached to it
18:23 < beeli> lol
18:23 <@echarp> there are texts attached to it
18:23 < beeli> many buzz texts
18:23 < urgen> and many not buzz
18:23 < beeli> so buzz that Bush can create democracy in Iraq by invasion
18:23 < beeli> There is guy Dahl
18:23 < beeli> he is good
18:24 <@echarp> and?
18:24 <@echarp> concepts can be used in different ways of course
18:24 <@echarp> and?
18:24 < beeli> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Dahl
18:25 < beeli> he set some questions that enable to you to see is somethingdemocracyti or not
18:25 <@echarp> the guy seems interesting
18:26 <@echarp> and as I've said, I consider that current nations are not great democracies
18:27 < beeli:#parlement> you did not say why?
18:27 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
18:27 <@echarp> I believe I did
18:27 < beeli> you mentioned right to leave system
18:27 < beeli> yet you do have such right
18:27 <@echarp> because our current nations control a geographic zone by force
18:28 < beeli> i do not remember anythine else
18:28 <@echarp> didn't I speak about violence and force?
18:28 < beeli> so, that is the onlyprolbem as i remind
18:28 < urgen> and virtual citizens
18:28 <@echarp> well, it's big
18:28 < urgen:#parlement> like corporations
18:28 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
18:28 < beeli> so, what is your vision of true demcoracy than?
18:29 < beeli> no force'
18:29 < beeli> ?
18:29 <@echarp> less force
18:29 < beeli> Ability to set your own state in Paris and to stop paying taxes?
18:29 < beeli> that is not quality
18:29 <@echarp> the right to secede without losing everything you have (or almost)
18:29 < beeli> you can not define something in that way
18:29 <@echarp> I don't speak about quality (not yet anyway)
18:30 <@echarp> why can I not?
18:30 < beeli:#parlement> it is not sdistinctive
18:30 < beeli:#parlement> it has no info value
18:30 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
18:30 <@echarp> sorry, I consider it has
18:30 <@echarp> there is information
18:31 < beeli> so, how are you going to define democracy
18:31 <@echarp> there are words, those words are grammatically correctly organised
18:31 < beeli> system with less violence
18:31 < beeli> ?
18:31 <@echarp> come on, I've defined it many many times
18:31 < beeli> yes
18:31 <@echarp> I'm saying our current nations are not *that* democratic
18:31 < beeli> democracy
18:31 < beeli> group of people
18:31 <@echarp> ok, I'm going out, some other girl to have a drink with
18:31 < beeli> no operational
18:31 <@echarp> cu later guys!
18:31 < beeli:#parlement> ok
18:32 < beeli:#parlement> cu
18:32 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
18:32 <@echarp> cu later, we'll discuss some more
18:32 <@echarp> philosophy is good, you should study its concepts like free will (among others) ;)
18:33 < beeli> read Dahl
18:34 -!- Netsplit kornbluth.freenode.net <-> irc.freenode.net quits: fiatlex, nsh, beeli
18:34 -!- illegale [i=ille...@193.198.140.160] has joined #parlement
18:34 -!- illegale is illegale
18:34 -!- nsh [n=n...@87.242.140.179] has joined #parlement
18:34 < illegale> http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:6P7XFIFYmFkJ:web.mit.edu/polisci/research/cohen/dahl_on_democracy.pdf+dahl+democracy&hl=en&gl=hr&ct=clnk&cd=1
18:34 -!- fiatlex (fiatlex bot) [n=b...@216.218.203.219] has joined #parlement
--- Log closed ven jui 21 18:37:27 2006
--- Log opened ven jui 21 18:43:07 2006
18:43 -!- echarp [n=33M0...@81.66.133.96] has joined #parlement
18:43 [Users #parlement]
18:43 [ echarp] [ nsh] [ urgen]
18:43 -!- Irssi: #parlement: Total of 3 nicks [0 ops, 0 halfops, 0 voices, 3 normal]
18:43 -!- Channel #parlement created Fri Jul 21 18:39:21 2006
18:43 -!- Irssi: Join to #parlement was synced in 47 secs
18:46 -!- fiatlex (fiatlex bot) [n=b...@tridity.org] has joined #parlement
18:47 -!- illegale (illegale) [n=ille...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has joined #parlement
18:52 < urgen:#parlement> dang that bot doesnt rejoin
18:55 -!- [freenode-info] channel trolls and no channel staff around to help? please check with freenode support: http://freenode.net/faq.shtml#gettinghelp
19:02 * parlebot:#parlement is logging
19:02 -!- parlebot (Chat Logger) [i=ur...@65.111.164.97] has joined #parlement
19:02 < urgen:#parlement> it's got bugs
19:05 -!- illegale [n=ille...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has quit ["Lost terminal"]
19:27 -!- illegale (illegale) [i=ille...@cmung4146.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
19:29 < illegale:#parlement> http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/
19:31 < illegale:#parlement> http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/theory/four_networks.html
20:06 < illegale:#parlement> Or is power lodged in the institutional elites who run the corporate, political, and military institutions of the society, as Mills (1956) claimed?
20:22 -!- beeli (illegale) [i=ille...@cmung4215.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
20:29 < beeli:#parlement> http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/theory/conspiracy.html
20:29 < beeli:#parlement> lousy arguments
20:32 -!- illegale [i=ille...@cmung4146.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
20:40 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
20:40 < echarp> re
20:41 < beeli> for you:
20:41 < beeli> http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/theory/power_structure_research.html
20:41 < beeli> like it very much
20:43 < echarp> I've read "briding the chasm", most interesting
20:43 < echarp> I'm definitely a sceptic :)
20:46 < beeli> They centralize profits. Just 500 companies, the heart of the corporate community, earned 57% of all profits made in the United States in the year 2000, while employing 16.3 percent of the private-sector workforce (White, 2002).
20:47 < echarp> yes, that's pretty bad
20:48 < echarp> I really dislike the whole structures helping the very notion of corporation
20:52 < beeli> culture of ruling that is it
20:58 < echarp> sorry, too complex a concept for me as of now
20:58 < echarp> not enough intermediaries
20:58 < beeli> thaqt is problematic stuff i9n social studies indeed
20:58 < echarp> what is problematic? leaps?
20:58 < beeli> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_oligarchy
20:59 < beeli> concepts
20:59 < echarp> I've seen I've read it before yes
20:59 < beeli> defining stuff
21:01 < beeli> They control the information that flows down the channels of communication.
21:01 < beeli> " "
21:01 < beeli> that is it
21:01 < echarp> it is important
21:01 < echarp> maybe a "most important" of powers even, yes
21:04 < beeli> everything is maybe :-P
21:06 < beeli> this is the stuff i have big problem to talk about
21:06 < beeli> origin of the power in open source organsiation is pretty different to closed ones
21:07 < beeli> as long as closed organsiaitons arre the question that has been analysed, people, scientists try to make conclusions about TOP that is actually not realted to them
21:07 < beeli> big problems that are
21:09 < echarp> of course everything is a degree of "maybe", of course!!!
21:10 < echarp> not "origin of the power", more likely "power's source", or "power origins", or "power's origins"
21:11 < beeli> http://www.uoregon.edu/~vburris/whorules/network.htm
21:13 < beeli> interesting stuff when write power origin on google
21:13 < beeli> lame about conspiracy theory, though, it does not matter too much anyway
21:14 < beeli> as long as that consipacy factor is easily eliminated by network
21:14 < beeli> gonna go
21:14 < beeli> cu
21:14 -!- beeli [i=ille...@cmung4215.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit []
21:31 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
22:25 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
--- Log closed sam jui 22 00:00:53 2006
00:03 -!- nsh [n=nsh@wikipedia/nsh] has quit []
02:41 -!- nsh_ is now known as nsh
02:43 < urgen> home
02:53 < nsh> hey
02:53 < nsh> que pasa?
02:54 < urgen> whole week of hot
02:54 * nsh nods
02:54 < nsh> same here, but probably to a lesser extent
02:55 < urgen> 35 degrees Celsius
02:56 < nsh> 30 here today
02:56 < nsh> hottest recorded day in britain
02:57 < urgen> :-)
02:57 < urgen> it's going to be global toasting before we know it
02:57 * nsh nods
02:57 < urgen> heck with this warming stuff
02:57 < nsh> i think we skipped warming
02:58 < nsh> do you know the story of devadatta and the boulder?
02:58 < urgen> um
02:58 < urgen> that the feather story?
02:58 * nsh doesn't think so
02:59 < nsh> "Devadatta then had the evil idea to pushing down [a boulder] from the mountain to crush the Buddha. A vajra-bearing stalwart intervened from a distance by throwing his vajra cudgel [to deflect it]. A broken piece of the boulder rolled up and injured the Buddha's toe."
02:59 < urgen> guy trying to remove a boulder so the sun will shine on his house by rubbing it with a feather
02:59 < nsh> ah, no; sounds interesting though
02:59 < urgen> story of patience
02:59 < urgen> ya devadatta is like spy vs spy
02:59 < nsh> mmm
03:00 < urgen> you don't know that mad magazine comic?
03:00 < nsh> heard of
03:00 < nsh> but not seen or anything
03:00 < nsh> so reference probably missed
03:00 < urgen> you know road runner coyote?
03:00 < urgen> coyote's plans always fizzle
03:00 < urgen> white spy vs black spy
03:00 < urgen> each other's plans are always backfiring
03:01 < nsh> ah yeah
03:01 < urgen> devadata is evil brother but he finally figures it out
03:01 * nsh nods
03:01 < nsh> but what i wonder is
03:02 < nsh> how the potential for such conditions survived
03:02 < urgen> everything a lesson
03:03 * nsh thought one of the premises was that awakening fulfilled all lessons
03:05 < urgen> lessons are always for someone else
03:05 < nsh> mmm
03:06 < nsh> so it wasn't just that there was still some settling required
03:06 < nsh> "And so the commentators tell us that the Buddha’s difficulties with Deva-
03:06 < nsh> datta, and the injuries he received at Devadatta’s instigation, were the final results
03:06 < nsh> of maliciousness and anger that Gotama had felt before becoming a Buddha."
03:06 < nsh> http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:avDmXJZDmdAJ:www.unm.edu/~rhayes/twocousins.pdf+buddha+devadatta+karma+cousin&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=firefox-a
03:06 < urgen> it's always more complicated than that
03:06 * nsh nods
03:07 < urgen> they give you the dryest slimmest metaphorical explaination
03:07 < nsh> hmm
03:07 < urgen> so most ppl take it literally and stop looking
03:08 < nsh> it's hard to meter metaphoric depth
03:08 < urgen> well not hard to dismiss immediately anything literal tho
03:09 < urgen> take it as a solid and you get mislead
03:09 * nsh nods
03:09 < urgen> drop it into dynamic context and it shows up alive this very moment
03:10 < nsh> hmm
03:11 < nsh> dynamic seems often to go hand in hand with ambiguous
03:11 < urgen> unless you stick with what you know
03:11 < nsh> the further one abstracts from literal, the greater freedom to interpret
03:11 < urgen> anchor with experience
03:11 * nsh nods
03:13 < urgen> the literal has a counterpoint
03:13 < urgen> what do the texts say is the antidote to anger?
03:13 < nsh> patience
03:13 < urgen> so how would patience show up in a multi-life time line?
03:14 < urgen> in a way that described the nature of interactiveness?
03:14 < urgen> in a way that described productive use of interactiveness?
03:14 < nsh> hmmm
03:15 < urgen> patience is like the stillness of a reed in a wind storm as the dragonfly of truth lands...
03:15 * nsh smiles
03:15 < urgen> it wouldn't show up without the wind
03:16 < urgen> I've got to go get something to eat
03:16 < nsh> ok
04:24 < urgen> back
09:31 <@echarp> hello
14:14 -!- illegale (illegale) [i=ille...@cmung4287.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
14:14 < illegale:#parlement> oi
14:14 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
14:14 <@echarp> hello hello illegale
14:28 < illegale> im back into philosophy
14:28 < illegale> and religion
14:34 <@echarp> that's cool, for the first one at least ;)
14:35 <@echarp> religions being mostly lies used to control people
14:52 < illegale> how i see the stuff, chridstianity is the biggest hoax in modern western history enabling global hypocrisy all around
14:52 <@echarp> yes, and it's been so since ages
14:53 < illegale> so, i gonna read the Bible for beggiiung :)
14:55 <@echarp> woaw
14:55 < illegale> you did that?
14:56 <@echarp> I've read parts of it when I was young, I was educated by nuns, even was an altar boy
14:57 < illegale> so, nothing in recent history?
14:58 <@echarp> definitely not
14:58 <@echarp> although I'm somehow interested and knowledgeable about the history of the bible
14:58 * echarp loves documentaries on TV
15:03 < illegale> whats up with lebanon, islam and other stuff n france?
15:04 <@echarp> we talk about it
15:04 <@echarp> islam is the 2nd religion over here
15:05 <@echarp> very important and we had troubles with this mixity before
15:05 <@echarp> nowadays france is officially much more friendly toward this culture
15:05 < illegale> officialy
15:05 <@echarp> that might explain in parts our divergence with the US on saddam
15:06 < illegale> you think common people fine with it?
15:06 <@echarp> not only officially, arab countries and france share some good relations
15:06 < illegale> culturaly
15:06 <@echarp> I think most are fine, of course there remain fears and racism
15:08 < illegale> how loud are such elementS?
15:09 <@echarp> very
15:10 <@echarp> plus there is quite some refusal over turkey entry in the EU
15:10 <@echarp> (my I'm fine and encourage the entry of turkey)
15:10 < illegale> is there any agressive force against such elements?
15:10 <@echarp> yeap
15:10 < illegale> who?
15:12 <@echarp> the extrem right wing
15:13 < illegale> nah, i wanted to ask is there any force against thright wing'
15:14 <@echarp> liberal minded people, some of the left wing too
15:14 < illegale> how agresive they are?
15:16 <@echarp> to include turkey? or the extremes?
15:17 < illegale> against right wing extremes
15:17 <@echarp> anyway, france does not want to include turkey right now, that's a certitutde
15:17 < illegale> if they are against islamic issues
15:17 < illegale> whatever about turkey
15:18 < illegale> what i want to see what will happen if consoliation starts its rapid process
15:18 <@echarp> in fact the extreme right wing love islamists, le pen was a friend of saddam hussein too
15:18 <@echarp> consoidation of?
15:18 < illegale> cool
15:19 < illegale> amerika wants to crete global enemy caled islam
15:19 < illegale> it wont stop that easily in its issue
15:19 < illegale> it might provoke sme big ***** in order to gain global consolidati0n on its side
15:20 < illegale> when consolidation at act of war happens there is no space for two attitudes
15:20 < illegale> but one, consoldiatied
15:20 < illegale> so, i ma interested what will happen to france
15:20 < illegale> how prone franci is gonna be
15:21 < illegale> btw, extreme wing has no problem to rasicm?
15:21 <@echarp> of course it has, it is racist!!!
15:21 < illegale> and about algerians and stuff iun france
15:21 < illegale> ?
15:21 < illegale> muslims
15:22 < illegale> there is planty of tem as i can notice
15:22 <@echarp> do you think there is such a thing as "clash of civilisations"?
15:22 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
15:22 < illegale> it is provked issue
15:23 < illegale> planned for several decades from now
15:23 <@echarp> I don't think the US are truelly and machiavecally creating a strawman islam
15:23 <@echarp> bush and blair are just too idiot for that
15:23 < illegale> oh yes
15:23 < illegale> they are only exponents
15:23 <@echarp> oh no
15:23 < illegale> they are not asked actually
15:23 <@echarp> they act on short term issues
15:23 < illegale> they serve only
15:23 <@echarp> serve who?
15:23 < illegale> tat is a little bit naive
15:24 < illegale> oligarch
15:24 < illegale> s
15:24 <@echarp> so, who?
15:24 < illegale:#parlement> suppose several rich fammilies that control over 50% of global makret
15:24 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
15:24 <@echarp> and?
15:24 < illegale> what?
15:25 <@echarp> so what if some people are very rich?
15:25 < illegale:#parlement> nothing
15:25 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
15:26 <@echarp> who are those oligarchs who control the world?
15:26 < illegale> this is a black box we are talking about
15:26 < illegale> we might only suppose
15:26 < illegale> for an example, same ones who killed kennedy
15:26 < illegale> and that man from sweden
15:27 < illegale> who are they?
15:27 <@echarp> oligarchs killed jfk???
15:27 < illegale> someone very powerfull
15:27 <@echarp> there is quite some knowledge on who could have killed jfk you know...
15:27 < illegale> very very powerfull
15:27 < illegale> and that is?
15:27 <@echarp> fbi, cia, johnson, mafia from the east
15:27 <@echarp> johnson and a texas mafia are high on the list
15:28 < illegale> so, they are these oligarch maybe
15:28 * echarp disagree
15:28 <@echarp> they are people, rich people, who did a coup d'état
15:28 < illegale> so?
15:28 <@echarp> it is bad very bad, but it does not imply we are nowadays controled by an oligarchy
15:28 < illegale> lol
15:28 < illegale> bird flu
15:29 <@echarp> what about that?
15:29 < illegale> what you think about that?
15:29 <@echarp> flu is an avian sickness which dates to millions of years
15:29 <@echarp> every 30 years or so there is a giant epidemy
15:29 < illegale> how is that is so popular these dayS?
15:29 <@echarp> nothing new
15:29 < illegale> sensacionalism
15:29 < illegale> ?
15:30 <@echarp> and?
15:30 < illegale> sensacionalism?
15:30 <@echarp> what about that?
15:31 < illegale> why is it popular? due to sensacionalism?
15:32 <@echarp> because it is an important and risky matter, because it is good for newspapers who can then sell more papers
15:32 <@echarp> and?
15:32 < illegale> there is very much simmilar issues around the wolrd
15:32 < illegale> eqauly sensational you know
15:33 < illegale> but this took all media space
15:33 < illegale> what i can notic is that media space can be same to the whole global world
15:33 < illegale> from russia china bangladesh, burundi and all other the same
15:34 < illegale> btw, who killed ml king?
15:34 < illegale> malocom*?
15:34 < illegale> john lennon?
15:34 < illegale> several texas people who are rich?
15:36 < illegale> what i can notice, american oligarchy is pretty consolidated thing, prone to public or foreign issues absolutely
15:37 < illegale> in the same time it can dictate global trends pretty easily
15:38 <@echarp> ml king was probably killed by the same people, texas conspiration
15:38 <@echarp> same with the other kennedy
15:39 < illegale> pretty strong that consipircy group is
15:39 < illegale> what you think?
15:39 <@echarp> of course
15:39 <@echarp> they did a coup d'état
15:39 <@echarp> but that didn't help them so much
15:39 < illegale> so, you think they are too stupid to plan things?
15:39 <@echarp> they were already old and not that relevant
15:39 <@echarp> they are not in power anymore
15:40 <@echarp> they were kicked out during the next elections or so
15:40 < illegale> you think such grops are depenednt on one man?
15:40 <@echarp> did I say that?
15:40 < illegale> they where kicked ot from whre?
15:40 <@echarp> I'm saying they gained huge powers, then mostly lost them
15:40 < illegale> what makes you think that?
15:40 <@echarp> from the white house
15:40 <@echarp> because johnson lost the elections
15:41 < illegale> you think peope who killed president and are not condemned can be kicked out from white house?
15:41 < illegale> what makes you think soi
15:41 < illegale> if it was johnson
15:41 < illegale> you think some parlament votes can loose their power?
15:41 < illegale> you think they power to do such thing as kill te president has anything to public?
15:42 < illegale> interesting though
15:42 <@echarp> because johson was actually not reelected
15:43 < illegale> so you think johnoson did it'
15:43 < illegale> isnt that to strong corelation to take it that seriously due to fact nobody ever got any sancion for killng the president
15:43 < illegale> how do you imagie such power of center?
15:44 < illegale> johnson with two oldies killing several people with no consequencs
15:44 < illegale> how?
15:44 < illegale> how is that so?
15:44 < illegale> so many kenedies died
15:44 < illegale> and those who killed him never got any shit for that?
15:46 < illegale> and you say they are too old now?!
15:47 <@echarp> I'm not making up, this idea comes from some documentaries I've seen
15:47 <@echarp> johnson and his pals were in the best of position to cover up everything!
15:48 < illegale> for all the time?
15:48 < illegale> btw, documentary is very trust wort thing :-p
15:48 <@echarp> and it is hard to deny that sealing all evidence, ordering the warren commission, closing a partial autopsy, is easy to do, unless you hold power
15:49 < illegale> hold power, yes
15:51 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
15:52 < illegale> see, theie power wa not democratic one
15:52 < illegale> they where not voted to kill president
15:52 < illegale> when johnson moved out
15:52 < illegale> their power remained the same
15:52 < illegale> you think differently?
15:58 < illegale> What i can notice from htis story is that some center removed whole democratically voted body, scaring whole lobbies behind it
15:58 < illegale> controling CIA, FBI and other institutes
15:58 < illegale> controling media, controling everything
15:58 < illegale> showing every next president one simple thing
15:59 < illegale> you are our bitch
16:00 <@echarp> I think differently yes
16:00 < illegale> how do you explain this?
16:01 <@echarp> explain that they lost power?
16:02 < illegale> yes
16:02 < illegale> how do you explain all the thing?
16:06 < illegale:#parlement> no explanation :P
16:07 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
16:07 <@echarp> it's rather easy, power *is* a difficult thing to hold on
16:08 < illegale> so what?
16:09 < illegale> btw, you think it is plan of two oldies?
16:09 < illegale> it seems to me it is much more people involved in this issue
16:09 < illegale> people who know how to keep their power line
16:09 < illegale> that is the reason "you are my bitch" phenomenon holds in USA
16:10 < illegale> In Russia wehn Stalin died, his cooworkers were exectued
16:10 < illegale> there was no way to stop it due to bunt
16:10 < illegale> and in USA everybody is fine with the fact their president and his brother is eliminated
16:10 < illegale> that is cool
16:10 < illegale> we wont touch Johnson
16:10 < illegale> he is old
16:10 < illegale> common
16:10 <@echarp> cia, fbi, mafia, johnson cabale, does not need to remove any one from the equation
16:11 < illegale:#parlement> whic one?
16:11 < illegale:#parlement> and what about next president?
16:11 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
16:11 <@echarp> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy_assassination_theories
16:12 < illegale> who does he feel among CIA, FBI and other people who can eliminate him if he does not do things they say to him to do?
16:12 < illegale> nevertheless, we started talking about oligarchy that might plan this Islam issue for decades
16:13 < illegale> issue about Kennedy is just an argument
16:13 < illegale> nothing more
16:13 <@echarp> and I'm saying I just don't believe it, it is too difficult for almost any real organisation, let alone an undercover and non permanent one
16:13 <@echarp> it's like believing in the illuminaty!
16:14 < illegale> it is obvious it is not that hard as long as we do not know who killed kennedy
16:14 < illegale> yes?
16:14 < illegale> facts show us somethging differnet
16:14 < illegale> yes?
16:14 <@echarp> sorry, not knowing can be due to any number of reasons
16:14 < illegale> are you part of any secret society?
16:15 <@echarp> I am not part of any secret society
16:15 < illegale> absolutely
16:15 < illegale> though, stating it is not possible in the same time we see it is is not act of reason
16:15 <@echarp> thus facts show us nothing as far as a conspiration to direct the planet over decades is concerned
16:15 < illegale> it does
16:15 <@echarp> "do not attribute to malice what can simply be the consequence of stupidity"
16:16 < urgen> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_Bell
16:16 < illegale> i suppose you would state the same thing if i said president could be killed rightnow if he does not what sme seceret lobby ask hm to do
16:16 < urgen> my new nickname for illegale
16:17 < urgen> I think 'concrete' is a word that undermines understanding at this point
16:17 < illegale> you would say it is not possible
16:17 < illegale> having te same arguments as this about decades of planing
16:17 < illegale> look echarp, the logic of governing is simple one
16:17 < illegale> you do not need to be expert to see you need permanent enemie to hld the power based on ignrace
16:18 <@echarp> who is saying it is impossible???
16:18 <@echarp> I am not saying that
16:18 < illegale> so, it is possible'
16:18 < illegale> ?
16:18 <@echarp> everything is of course possible!!!
16:18 < illegale> you say nothing whe you say that
16:18 <@echarp> there is no such thing as absolutes!!!
16:18 < illegale> you just elimnate meaning of such word
16:19 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
16:19 <@echarp> I don't
16:19 < urgen> if you can't be simple you will be shot "illegale"
16:19 <@echarp> I'm just showing that absolutes are not something I consider of value
16:19 < urgen> and that's the basis of illegale's philosophy of power
16:19 < urgen> the fact that simple is the majority suggests the theory holds water
16:19 < urgen> truth? who cares!
16:20 < urgen> to counter such a force education becomes the best weapon
16:20 < urgen> the education required, here, is one about the definition of 'concrete'
16:21 < urgen> hunger does not support concrete
16:21 < urgen> this is a 'simple' explaination
16:21 <@echarp> necessity is the ultimate force
16:21 < illegale> echarp: you say this about kennedy proves nothing
16:21 < illegale> it is just a argument that smebody ca realise such big issue as kill the president and to cover it up
16:22 < illegale> so, we do not doubt that it is possible any more
16:22 < illegale> this is the argument
16:22 < illegale> you can not say that thinkg such thins is possible is not reasonable one
16:22 < urgen> distraction works well for magicians on a stage, illegale
16:22 < urgen> ppl want to believe
16:22 < illegale> urgen: i do not folow you
16:22 < urgen> conspiracy is truth by sensationalism
16:23 < illegale> what does it mean?
16:23 < urgen> like wanting to let go when you enter a movie theater
16:23 < illegale> you do not believe conspriacies happen?
16:23 < urgen> and you forget and believe what you watch
16:23 < urgen> you feel it
16:23 < urgen> conspiracy may darn well happen but those who use it as a tool for arguments don't care
16:24 < illegale> so, ehat you think about this islam **** going on?
16:24 < illegale> is it dangerous?
16:25 < urgen> sad and stupid
16:25 < illegale> how does america breeth?
16:25 < illegale> why is this happening?
16:25 < urgen> stupid costs life about 20% misery
16:26 < urgen> I will work harder to find a way to help educate
16:27 < urgen> maybe you are a lost cause trying so hard to hit people over the head with conspiracy theories...
16:27 < urgen> but someone else might grow
16:27 < urgen> some day
16:28 * echarp believes there are many many conspiracies occuring, but I don't think everything can be explained by conspiracies
16:28 < urgen> if my own stupidity were better polished maybe we wouldn't have war
16:28 < illegale> echarp everything can beexplaind by them as long as they are not provable
16:28 < illegale> we do not see them
16:28 < illegale> so we can speculate a lot
16:29 < illegale> that is whay they are so popular
16:29 <@echarp> exactly
16:29 < illegale> yet, in the same time claiming there is no consipracies is actually even more stubborn
16:29 <@echarp> who claims that?
16:29 < urgen> exactly
16:29 < illegale> just notic
16:29 <@echarp> do you see any one here claiming that???
16:29 < illegale> e
16:29 < urgen> stubborn = stupid
16:30 < illegale> echarp, we where talking about islam issue
16:30 < illegale> ww3 and stuff
16:30 < illegale> ok, lets not call it ww3
16:30 <@echarp> and you moved toward a ww conspiracy to explain it
16:30 < illegale> but global mess
16:30 <@echarp> and I'm saying that I don't see it, at all
16:31 < illegale> nah, i am talking about the people who have the power, who have the position and who have interest to create all this scenario
16:31 <@echarp> the most they could reach was the iraq invasion, which was probably the result of some kind of cover up on the part of the white house
16:31 < illegale> these are pretty strong indicion
16:31 <@echarp> indications?
16:31 < illegale> yes
16:31 < illegale> who has interest in creating wars?
16:31 <@echarp> how do you show this conspiracy?
16:31 < illegale> people?
16:31 < urgen> I don't call abuse a conspiracy
16:32 < urgen> it is fully expected, nothing to hide
16:32 < illegale> yes
16:32 < illegale> ok
16:32 <@echarp> they hid their intentions to invade irak, invasion planned from before the 911
16:32 < illegale> consiparccy about kennedy s just an example of morality of such people
16:32 <@echarp> illegale: please, I *do* acknowledge the existence of conspiracies
16:33 < illegale> what you do not acknowledge?
16:33 <@echarp> but I doubt and have no indication of a conspiracy in the case of lebanon
16:33 < illegale> ok
16:33 <@echarp> lebanon is the result of a long term engagement there
16:33 < illegale> what i "feel" is this islam issue going on pretty hard for laset several decades
16:33 <@echarp> it is the result of israeli, lebanon, syrian, iran, US, france, english, decisions
16:33 < illegale> some kennedy stareted thesis of collision of civilisations
16:33 < urgen> decades? maybe centuries
16:34 < illegale> in the same time many obscure, pathetic novelists who greed for lowest emotions are very popular due to media support all arond the globe
16:34 <@echarp> yeap, centuries, in france we still talk about the arab failed invasion which was stopped at tours
16:34 < illegale> no, for three decades i think concretyl
16:35 < illegale> this all gets prety fine in line to dead of communism,
16:35 < illegale> dead of last enemy
16:35 < illegale> so they need new one
16:35 < illegale> they had to plan what now?
16:35 < illegale> that is strategy of ruling
16:35 < illegale> of oligopolists
16:35 < illegale> against the knowledge
16:36 < illegale> if people are affraid they can beamnipulated much more easily
16:36 <@echarp> sorry, you are positing a conspiracy then looking at ways to prove it? isn't that backward?
16:36 < illegale> if it is the state of war, logic looses its power completely
16:36 < illegale> i am placing i the place of such people
16:36 < illegale> and look what would i do
16:36 < illegale> ok, consipary it is though word
16:37 < illegale> not needed at all
16:37 <@echarp> sorry, demonstrate that such people exist first
16:37 < illegale> to enable this whole process going on
16:37 < illegale> such people?
16:37 <@echarp> yes, such people
16:37 < illegale> who rule behind te curtain?
16:37 <@echarp> I am asking you to demonstrate their existence
16:37 < illegale> Kenedy is a example
16:38 <@echarp> a consequence you attribute to them?
16:38 < illegale> to smething
16:38 < illegale> and i define them by that smething
16:38 <@echarp> can you prove their existence?
16:38 < illegale> i just did
16:38 <@echarp> sorry, you point to a possible consequence and you consider that a proof???
16:39 < illegale> i have no other explanation
16:39 < illegale> you do'
16:39 < illegale> ?
16:39 <@echarp> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy_assassination_theories
16:39 < illegale> lets talk about kenedy
16:39 < illegale> no, le US talk about it
16:39 <@echarp> there are plenty of theories to pick from
16:39 < illegale> plenty, how is that
16:39 < illegale> why plenty?
16:39 <@echarp> because we lack exact information
16:39 < illegale> how is that?
16:40 <@echarp> you want me to again acknowledge a conspiracy?
16:40 < illegale> you think us establishment can not find such things?
16:40 <@echarp> I have acknowledged a conspiracy, no more
16:40 < urgen> illegale still wants you to accept that the elusiveness of concrete evidence is a conspiracy
16:40 < illegale> acknowledge exsistence of the power center beyond democratic procedures
16:40 < illegale> hugher then them
16:40 < illegale> stronger then tham
16:40 < illegale> who use such instituation
16:40 < illegale> not vice versa
16:40 < urgen> the less we know the better to blame someone by
16:41 <@echarp> illegale: please rephrase
16:41 < illegale:#parlement> echarp: how do YOU imagine that Johnson be in relation to death of kennedy
16:41 < illegale:#parlement> can you show some scenario?
16:41 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
16:41 < illegale> or whatever scenario you pick
16:41 <@echarp> you want me to find that documentary?
16:42 < illegale> no, i want to hear your words excatly
16:42 <@echarp> the one I watched and which seemed very interesting?
16:42 < illegale> your model
16:42 < illegale> if you have one
16:42 <@echarp> I don't have that much time to devote to a conspiration I have acknowledged
16:42 <@echarp> what is your point?
16:42 < illegale> there is power center biger than instituiton of president in US
16:43 <@echarp> what kind of point are you targetting at, but your lack on information and your imagination on lebanon?
16:43 < illegale> bigger than all public service
16:43 <@echarp> sorry, prove those power centers!!!
16:43 <@echarp> prove their existence!!!
16:43 < illegale> relatively small and strong enough to do anything
16:43 <@echarp> showing a possible consequence is not a proof!
16:43 < illegale> yes, it is
16:43 <@echarp> jfk is not a proof!!!
16:43 <@echarp> come on then, give the name of those who killed jfk
16:43 < illegale> how do you want me to proove it?
16:43 < urgen> this is why I brought up 'concrete'
16:43 <@echarp> I'm saying you can't!!!
16:43 < illegale> so what
16:44 < urgen> illegale claims concrete can be an emotion
16:44 <@echarp> so you have no proof!!!
16:44 < illegale> we can use a little bit of pure logic also
16:44 <@echarp> go on, have fun
16:44 < illegale> and state is as proof
16:44 < illegale> echarp: can i ask you something?
16:44 < illegale> can you kill your president if you do not like hm?
16:44 <@echarp> of course
16:44 <@echarp> (you can ask)
16:44 < illegale> and be not detected?
16:45 <@echarp> illegale: I have acknowledged a conspiration already
16:45 < illegale> lets go beynd that
16:45 < urgen> wait wait.. this is a trick question.. ;-)
16:45 < illegale> lets see consequeces of it
16:45 < urgen> can stupid people do stupid things and do them intelligently...
16:45 < urgen> hmn
16:45 < urgen> tricky
16:46 <@echarp> any combination is possible
16:46 <@echarp> illegale: so?
16:46 < illegale> echarp is it reasonalbe to think that if somebody can kill president ad have no cosequences t be very powerfull
16:46 < illegale> extremely powerfull?
16:46 <@echarp> it's one way to see it yes
16:47 <@echarp> very powerfull yes
16:47 < illegale> is it reasonable?
16:47 <@echarp> so powerfull that he could become the president of the most powerful country ever
16:47 <@echarp> yes
16:47 <@echarp> and?
16:47 < illegale> does reason say to us there are probably, very probalby such power centers i am talking about?
16:47 <@echarp> reason does not say that no
16:47 < illegale> is it reasonable to state them existant
16:47 <@echarp> it is not reasonable no
16:47 < illegale> why?
16:47 <@echarp> it is emotional
16:48 < illegale> why?
16:48 <@echarp> why? => because there are no proofs of their existence
16:48 < illegale> there are inditions
16:48 <@echarp> because they don't *have* to exist
16:48 < illegale> are they worthless
16:48 <@echarp> they could explain things
16:48 < illegale> do you have some toher explanation?
16:48 <@echarp> yet stupidity can also explain things
16:48 < illegale> reasonalbe one?
16:49 < urgen> depends on who is listening
16:49 <@echarp> "do not attribute to malice what can be caused by stupidity"
16:49 <@echarp> illegale: you are positing things
16:50 <@echarp> I am asking for a demonstration
16:50 < illegale> ok, as long as i have no other reasonalbe explanation
16:50 <@echarp> and of course you can not give one
16:50 < illegale> as long as this fits ad explainses everything
16:50 <@echarp> occam razor
16:50 < illegale> i am ready to claim they do exist using 80% probablility facotr
16:50 < urgen> fittest of the fittest of the fittest
16:50 < urgen> as long as it fits
16:50 <@echarp> sorry, prove their existence if you want to convince us of their existence!!!
16:50 < illegale> as long as everything is possible and nothing is imposible it is all up to leve of sprobalbility we will acklaim
16:51 <@echarp> claiming that a convoluted and decades old conspiracy can explain everything in the world is no better than a religion
16:51 <@echarp> of course it is all up to probabilities
16:51 < illegale> we might not take inditions serioulsy
16:51 < illegale> or we can
16:51 <@echarp> indition???
16:51 < illegale> it is up to everyone in level of is it important to him or not
16:51 <@echarp> of course
16:51 < illegale> indications
16:52 <@echarp> yes, it is all matters of probability!
16:52 < illegale> i can use such thin with probability f 80% and if it fits ne facts perfectly fine, i am fin with that
16:52 <@echarp> assigning a 80% probability to a worldwide and decades conspiracy is still just as intelligent as a sect claiming we are all the descendants of aliens trapped on earth
16:53 < illegale> i can play i need proves issue, yet if i need to go on with it finding the roots of the problem, i am being stupid than
16:53 < illegale> not to me, as long as i can explain several thing much better with such a statement
16:53 < illegale> hypotheticaly speaking
16:53 <@echarp> it is possible that we are all the descendants of alien trapped on earth, but I am not convinced *at all* that it is the case
16:54 < illegale> ok
16:54 < illegale> echarp: when i talk about this, it is up to you to follow or not to follow my reason and exlpamation
16:54 < illegale> if you find it reasonable it is ok
16:54 < illegale> if not, than nothing
16:55 < illegale> so, lets notice bird fue
16:55 < illegale> there is a little indication that it could be bad
16:55 < illegale> and there is no proof for such thing
16:55 < illegale> no proof at all
16:56 < illegale> yet, poeple take such indications very seriously and do their job in order to solve non existng problem
16:56 < illegale> same reason it is
16:56 < illegale> do we need a proof?
16:56 < illegale> or is it possible to work that way at all?
17:01 < urgen> illegale,,, if might equals right you will always be correct
17:02 < urgen> keep collecting the support of those who do not understand questions and you can be king as long as you want
17:02 < urgen> is that what you really want?
17:02 < urgen> is it really right?
17:03 < illegale> why should i collect anything?
17:03 < urgen> because that is what you do
17:03 < illegale> urgen: you have one big problem
17:03 < urgen> you are like a bee that goes flower to flower
17:04 < urgen> you discard those who don't agree and continue to only find the ones that do not question
17:04 * urgen is discarded
17:04 < illegale> urgen: when you work on something that needs 5 people
17:04 < illegale> are you looking for those who share the same interest or not?
17:05 < urgen> same game, same question
17:05 < illegale> it is really rethorical one
17:05 < urgen> look, there are people that are immune to persuasive only based arguments
17:05 < urgen> it isn't logic ok?
17:05 < urgen> stop trying
17:06 < illegale> stop bitching
17:10 < illegale> so, lets see
17:11 < urgen> http://www.fallacyfiles.org/index.html
17:11 < illegale> finding people with equal views that enable easy consolidation is legitimated thing among regular people
17:12 < illegale> you are acusing me of this thing
17:12 < urgen> way
17:12 < illegale> i do not find reasonable
17:12 < urgen> point
17:13 <@echarp> (just to finish on bird flue, yes there are indications that it would be very bad, because bird flues have probably killed millions over centuries, and we are due for another pandemy already, yet yes, media attention on this subject is overrated yes, but it does not imply at all a conspiracy)
17:14 -!- beeli (illegale) [i=ille...@cmung3208.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
17:15 < urgen> there are 911 conspiracies lately that say the US government collapsed the towers deliberately
17:16 < urgen> to what end is this conjecture?
17:17 <@echarp> to me it's the same mechanisms as religion
17:18 < beeli> explanation with no facts behind it?
17:19 < urgen> explanation with no way to test
17:19 <@echarp> yes, and search of facts to fit the explanation
17:19 < beeli> this fallacy file is big on
17:19 < beeli> e
17:20 < beeli> there is the way to test it of course
17:20 < beeli> these consipriracies are here to make people interested in whatreally happened
17:20 < urgen> there is a way to test for God?
17:20 < urgen> hmn
17:20 < beeli> not to god, the God is proven alredy
17:21 <@echarp> :)
17:21 <@echarp> ok, it's slipping away from logic there
17:22 <@echarp> if one can prove god, then I'm jesus
17:22 < urgen> I think that was the point echarp
17:22 < beeli> you are
17:22 < urgen> see?
17:22 < urgen> :-)
17:22 <@echarp> beeli: you consider yourself in the jesus phase you once spoke about? :)
17:22 < beeli> ok, i will prove god if you want
17:22 < beeli> in 6 years i will be
17:22 < beeli> :)
17:22 <@echarp> don't even try, I'm interested in philosophy
17:23 < beeli> philosophiclay of course
17:23 < beeli> first thing you need to notice is what atributes god has
17:23 < beeli> so, what are the atributes of god?
17:24 < beeli> echarp: yesterday you convinced into determinsims has exact benefits to free will
17:25 <@echarp> and today you want to prove god :(
17:25 < beeli> i suppose this gives me the credit of being not attached to what i think too much, but to the arguments
17:25 < beeli> and their solidity
17:25 < beeli> we can play it
17:25 < beeli> why not?
17:25 < beeli> or stigma is too big?
17:26 <@echarp> this is getting tedious
17:30 < beeli> indeed
17:30 <@echarp> I'm being simple
17:30 <@echarp> I state the things I believe in
17:30 <@echarp> I'm open minded
17:30 <@echarp> why keep repeating and not understanding seemingly on purpose?
17:30 < urgen> want my theory?
17:31 < urgen> it's sad but I'm watching for further evidence
17:31 <@echarp> shoot :)
17:31 <@echarp> evidence of?
17:31 < urgen> communism started a type of psychosis of society
17:31 < urgen> like when you kick a dog as it tries to eat
17:31 < urgen> people were forced to swallow a lot of definitions that are now causing indigestion
17:31 <@echarp> it must also have been true of the french revolution you know
17:32 < urgen> these are burping back out in illegale
17:32 -!- illegale [i=ille...@cmung4287.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
17:32 <@echarp> I guess yes
17:32 < urgen> the french revolution destroyed culture?
17:32 <@echarp> in some ways yes
17:32 < urgen> when I use a word like communism of course I'm not intending the 'classic' definition
17:33 < urgen> just the use case per country that claimed to have adopted it
17:33 <@echarp> you are intending the communist block
17:33 < urgen> killing millions and millions of people to make sure only one definition was allowed
17:33 < beeli> urgen: what i can notice is the same thing
17:33 < beeli> you belong to the culture that is based o hypocricy
17:34 <@echarp> ?
17:34 < beeli> the way of controling the power is the way of letting everyone little worlds
17:34 < beeli> as long as you are not a threat to regime, you are fine to claim anthing
17:34 < beeli> more differencies, more non provable ideas
17:34 < beeli> less solid gorunds,
17:35 < beeli> better for centers of power to hold their position
17:35 < beeli> this makes you negate concept of power
17:35 < beeli> as long as this is not popular in small world where you can be a boss
17:35 < urgen> darn, and I almost thought you were going to stick with logic for a moment
17:35 < beeli> concpet of power is not good as long as it remind you at fact that you are part of big hoax
17:36 < beeli> so, you play silly cultural games, communicaiton one to one and other issues that might befine in the conctex of your local world
17:36 < beeli> and still you hardly context
17:36 < beeli> global context
17:37 < beeli> so, you have no reason to push you limits as long as you see no limits blessed with ignorance
17:37 < beeli> of denial
17:37 < beeli> when i say POWER
17:37 < beeli> you want to stigmatise me
17:37 < beeli> POWER is bad
17:37 < urgen> only the way you say it
17:37 < urgen> power can mean other things but I am not allowed to address those
17:37 < beeli> that is one of several things maybe, the only one your culture is teaching you
17:38 < beeli> so, whe i am being so ambitious of chaning things gittig the walls and other stuff
17:38 < beeli> it annoys
17:38 < beeli> you
17:38 < urgen> not just me
17:38 < beeli> as long as you like security of your word where no flamers exist
17:38 < beeli> of course
17:38 < beeli> it is regular thing
17:38 < beeli> if you are not part of some larger system
17:39 < urgen> and there is a reason for that which may be different than your assumption
17:39 < beeli> than necessarily needs to telrate it
17:39 < beeli> so, you claim i am product of sick society
17:39 < beeli> I am
17:39 < beeli> Indeed,
17:39 < beeli> but you are part of it
17:39 < urgen> of course
17:40 < beeli> yet, this is the reason we are not so compatible
17:40 < beeli> you belong to easy words
17:40 < beeli> no need to stand behind them
17:40 < beeli> you need to talk about them only
17:40 < beeli> you deny bad core that is part of this world
17:40 < beeli> you want to be in gloves
17:40 < urgen> so I break my promises
17:41 < beeli> to be clean in this dirty world
17:41 < urgen> not a single word I define to I extend
17:41 < beeli> and yet, most of dirt is the actual product f denial concept yo care
17:41 < urgen> in every case I change the game before anyone can have a turn
17:42 < urgen> I must be part of a conspiracy
17:42 < beeli> echarp and you do share easy mode
17:42 < urgen> so what's the medicine?
17:42 < beeli> i do not
17:43 < beeli> it is probably up to personality issue
17:43 < beeli> horopsocpe and stuff
17:49 * echarp is back
17:49 < urgen> ok, so I try to find something in common now
17:49 < urgen> is that ok?
17:50 < urgen> doesn't sound like anything I say can be trusted tho
17:50 < urgen> so without trust as the common ground what else is there?
17:52 < beeli> why find something?
17:52 < urgen> because you will probably kill me
17:52 < beeli> is there anything we share at all?
17:52 < beeli> but this channel?
17:53 < urgen> if common trust is not a value for you...
17:53 < beeli> trust? what trust you talk about?
17:53 <@echarp> we probably share concepts, words
17:54 < beeli> should trust you?
17:54 < urgen> http://www.csicop.org/si/2004-05/new-age.html
17:54 * echarp personally builds on philosophy, words, concepts
17:55 <@echarp> there are old thoughts worse using and reusing
17:55 < beeli> urgen: you talk about trust only
17:55 <@echarp> it's difficult to create everything anew
17:55 < beeli> i do not have much repsct to the people who do not do what they talk about
17:55 < urgen> that article talks about a missing bridge
17:55 <@echarp> beeli: he's looking for common concepts
17:56 < urgen> one culture does not trust truth by test and the other does not trust truth by faith
17:56 <@echarp> ?
17:57 < urgen> the link I posted
17:58 <@echarp> that article *is* comprehensible!!!
17:58 <@echarp> I actually quite like the link on fallacies too
18:00 <@echarp> guys, when I speak, do I usually make sense?
18:00 < urgen> sure
18:00 <@echarp> I'm wondering, because communication between seems *sooo* broken :(
18:00 <@echarp> I'm wondering, because communication between "us" seems *sooo* broken :(
18:01 < beeli> you are software developer
18:01 < urgen> to me, karla mclaren represents what illegale talks about as social power
18:01 <@echarp> chef de projet, consultant, formatteur
18:01 < urgen> she has a large large following
18:01 <@echarp> I appreciate the way she finally encounters "scepticts"
18:02 <@echarp> I consider myself a sceptic
18:02 < urgen> my nature does not allow me to enjoy broken
18:03 <@echarp> same same with me
18:03 <@echarp> I crave confiance
18:03 <@echarp> it's the one thing I build upon in my inter relationships
18:03 < beeli> urgen: you missinterpet me
18:04 < urgen> beeli,, I would be glad to admit that
18:04 < urgen> because I really like you..
18:04 < urgen> so I know there is room here
18:05 < beeli> why do you like me?
18:06 < beeli> nevertheless, i have part of nboth worlds
18:06 < beeli> that is why neither of these worlds can nderstand me acutally
18:06 < beeli> mixing issues is hard and permanent thing
18:07 <@echarp> "both" worlds? what are they?
18:07 < beeli> so, this misses culture basis by defualt
18:07 < beeli> world of facts and exact correlations
18:07 <@echarp> beeli: me I'm sometimes having *huge* troubles understanding you
18:07 < beeli> and world of observation creating explanation
18:08 <@echarp> I wonder if you are being irrational, trollish, or just using other concepts
18:08 < beeli> it is actually a process
18:08 < beeli> i think outloud a lot
18:08 <@echarp> beeli: do you base it on something? a theory? a school of thought? a philosophy
18:08 <@echarp> ?
18:09 < beeli> creating ad hoc opinion and stuff
18:09 < beeli> no, i am far from systematic person
18:09 <@echarp> ad hoc organisations is great, but it's incredibly hard to invent totally new concepts and try to communicate them
18:09 < beeli> maybe imposible
18:09 <@echarp> concepts very often already exist and have some body of work around them
18:10 <@echarp> I try to learn, using philosophy, watching documentaries (which I love)
18:10 < beeli> issue i see here to be base of the future is pretty philosophical indeed
18:10 < beeli> setting new moral principles
18:10 < beeli> that can generate power
18:10 < beeli> on bottom up initatifes
18:10 <@echarp> "new moral principles", see again
18:11 < beeli> urgen knows somethng about it
18:11 < beeli> sorry etchical
18:11 <@echarp> same same
18:11 < beeli> i defined moral some time ago
18:11 <@echarp> it's *incredibly* difficult to create such a thing as a *new* ethical/moral principle
18:11 <@echarp> it most certainly won't be new at all
18:11 < beeli> it is actually not that new
18:12 < beeli> minor adjustments only
18:12 <@echarp> :)
18:12 < beeli> yet, essential one
18:12 <@echarp> there, I appreciate :)
18:12 < beeli> yet, this all stuff about democratisation is the stuff about origin of power
18:13 < beeli> about principles
18:13 < beeli> are they human or are they not
18:13 <@echarp> "principles" are not very very important to me
18:13 < beeli> Kiram from media weapon share simmilar thought
18:13 < beeli> s
18:13 < beeli> he is sorf of commies
18:14 <@echarp> kiram?
18:14 < beeli> yes, from another channel prax goes
18:14 < beeli> we talked about transaprent strucure of power
18:14 < beeli> creating such
18:14 < beeli> that is actually my mission as i can notice
18:14 <@echarp> jesus phase?
18:15 <@echarp> "mission"?
18:15 < beeli> why?
18:15 < beeli> you hgave your missoin to?
18:15 < beeli> right?
18:15 <@echarp> I don't
18:15 < beeli> to develop fine software?
18:15 < beeli> no?
18:15 <@echarp> I most certainly don't
18:15 <@echarp> I enjoy developping software
18:15 <@echarp> it's lego blocks to me
18:15 <@echarp> a game I loves as a child
18:15 < beeli> you are into wu wei
18:15 <@echarp> it's a hobby, and maybe something useful
18:15 <@echarp> wu wei?
18:16 < beeli> tao stuff
18:16 <@echarp> I don't know about that
18:16 < beeli> living the moment gaining perfection of it
18:16 <@echarp> that seems interesting
18:16 <@echarp> I'm a very happy and stable person
18:16 <@echarp> I enjoy the texts on hedonism
18:17 < beeli> glad for you :p
18:17 <@echarp> I feel like a direct descendant to epicure and descartes
18:17 <@echarp> nietsche also seems of much much interest
18:17 <@echarp> deconstructing the concepts that mean nothing
18:18 <@echarp> seeing beyond smoke
18:18 <@echarp> only accepting that there are no certitudes
18:18 < beeli:#parlement> do it with democracy
18:18 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
18:18 < beeli> btw, you think jesus had mission?
18:19 <@echarp> democracy is a way to gain more freedom, more individual happiness
18:19 < beeli> to me, he was ust cool
18:19 < beeli> deconstruct it
18:19 <@echarp> deconstruct what?
18:19 < beeli> democracy
18:19 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
18:20 <@echarp> please explain
18:20 < beeli> we talked about it
18:20 < beeli> meaning of that word
18:20 < beeli> emptiness
18:20 < beeli> of it
18:21 < beeli> i see some initiatives
18:21 < beeli> then i see argument about non democratical behaviour
18:21 < beeli> it regularly goes to 50%+1
18:21 < beeli> nothing else
18:22 <@echarp> sorry, but to me it is a concept with a history, it carries a lot of things and is not empty *at all*
18:22 <@echarp> democracy is *huge*
18:22 < beeli> you need to attach attributes to it
18:22 < beeli> than it iwll worth something
18:22 <@echarp> there already are attributes attached to it, open any dictionary!
18:22 < beeli> rule of the peple
18:22 < beeli> lol
18:22 <@echarp> there is history attached to it
18:23 < beeli> lol
18:23 <@echarp> there are texts attached to it
18:23 < beeli> many buzz texts
18:23 < urgen> and many not buzz
18:23 < beeli> so buzz that Bush can create democracy in Iraq by invasion
18:23 < beeli> There is guy Dahl
18:23 < beeli> he is good
18:24 <@echarp> and?
18:24 <@echarp> concepts can be used in different ways of course
18:24 <@echarp> and?
18:24 < beeli> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Dahl
18:25 < beeli> he set some questions that enable to you to see is somethingdemocracyti or not
18:25 <@echarp> the guy seems interesting
18:26 <@echarp> and as I've said, I consider that current nations are not great democracies
18:27 < beeli:#parlement> you did not say why?
18:27 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
18:27 <@echarp> I believe I did
18:27 < beeli> you mentioned right to leave system
18:27 < beeli> yet you do have such right
18:27 <@echarp> because our current nations control a geographic zone by force
18:28 < beeli> i do not remember anythine else
18:28 <@echarp> didn't I speak about violence and force?
18:28 < beeli> so, that is the onlyprolbem as i remind
18:28 < urgen> and virtual citizens
18:28 <@echarp> well, it's big
18:28 < urgen:#parlement> like corporations
18:28 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
18:28 < beeli> so, what is your vision of true demcoracy than?
18:29 < beeli> no force'
18:29 < beeli> ?
18:29 <@echarp> less force
18:29 < beeli> Ability to set your own state in Paris and to stop paying taxes?
18:29 < beeli> that is not quality
18:29 <@echarp> the right to secede without losing everything you have (or almost)
18:29 < beeli> you can not define something in that way
18:29 <@echarp> I don't speak about quality (not yet anyway)
18:30 <@echarp> why can I not?
18:30 < beeli:#parlement> it is not sdistinctive
18:30 < beeli:#parlement> it has no info value
18:30 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
18:30 <@echarp> sorry, I consider it has
18:30 <@echarp> there is information
18:31 < beeli> so, how are you going to define democracy
18:31 <@echarp> there are words, those words are grammatically correctly organised
18:31 < beeli> system with less violence
18:31 < beeli> ?
18:31 <@echarp> come on, I've defined it many many times
18:31 < beeli> yes
18:31 <@echarp> I'm saying our current nations are not *that* democratic
18:31 < beeli> democracy
18:31 < beeli> group of people
18:31 <@echarp> ok, I'm going out, some other girl to have a drink with
18:31 < beeli> no operational
18:31 <@echarp> cu later guys!
18:31 < beeli:#parlement> ok
18:32 < beeli:#parlement> cu
18:32 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
18:32 <@echarp> cu later, we'll discuss some more
18:32 <@echarp> philosophy is good, you should study its concepts like free will (among others) ;)
18:33 < beeli> read Dahl
18:34 -!- Netsplit kornbluth.freenode.net <-> irc.freenode.net quits: fiatlex, nsh, beeli
18:34 -!- illegale [i=ille...@193.198.140.160] has joined #parlement
18:34 -!- illegale is illegale
18:34 -!- nsh [n=n...@87.242.140.179] has joined #parlement
18:34 < illegale> http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:6P7XFIFYmFkJ:web.mit.edu/polisci/research/cohen/dahl_on_democracy.pdf+dahl+democracy&hl=en&gl=hr&ct=clnk&cd=1
18:34 -!- fiatlex (fiatlex bot) [n=b...@216.218.203.219] has joined #parlement
--- Log closed ven jui 21 18:37:27 2006
--- Log opened ven jui 21 18:43:07 2006
18:43 -!- echarp [n=33M0...@81.66.133.96] has joined #parlement
18:43 [Users #parlement]
18:43 [ echarp] [ nsh] [ urgen]
18:43 -!- Irssi: #parlement: Total of 3 nicks [0 ops, 0 halfops, 0 voices, 3 normal]
18:43 -!- Channel #parlement created Fri Jul 21 18:39:21 2006
18:43 -!- Irssi: Join to #parlement was synced in 47 secs
18:46 -!- fiatlex (fiatlex bot) [n=b...@tridity.org] has joined #parlement
18:47 -!- illegale (illegale) [n=ille...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has joined #parlement
18:52 < urgen:#parlement> dang that bot doesnt rejoin
18:55 -!- [freenode-info] channel trolls and no channel staff around to help? please check with freenode support: http://freenode.net/faq.shtml#gettinghelp
19:02 * parlebot:#parlement is logging
19:02 -!- parlebot (Chat Logger) [i=ur...@65.111.164.97] has joined #parlement
19:02 < urgen:#parlement> it's got bugs
19:05 -!- illegale [n=ille...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has quit ["Lost terminal"]
19:27 -!- illegale (illegale) [i=ille...@cmung4146.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
19:29 < illegale:#parlement> http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/
19:31 < illegale:#parlement> http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/theory/four_networks.html
20:06 < illegale:#parlement> Or is power lodged in the institutional elites who run the corporate, political, and military institutions of the society, as Mills (1956) claimed?
20:22 -!- beeli (illegale) [i=ille...@cmung4215.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
20:29 < beeli:#parlement> http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/theory/conspiracy.html
20:29 < beeli:#parlement> lousy arguments
20:32 -!- illegale [i=ille...@cmung4146.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
20:40 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
20:40 < echarp> re
20:41 < beeli> for you:
20:41 < beeli> http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/theory/power_structure_research.html
20:41 < beeli> like it very much
20:43 < echarp> I've read "briding the chasm", most interesting
20:43 < echarp> I'm definitely a sceptic :)
20:46 < beeli> They centralize profits. Just 500 companies, the heart of the corporate community, earned 57% of all profits made in the United States in the year 2000, while employing 16.3 percent of the private-sector workforce (White, 2002).
20:47 < echarp> yes, that's pretty bad
20:48 < echarp> I really dislike the whole structures helping the very notion of corporation
20:52 < beeli> culture of ruling that is it
20:58 < echarp> sorry, too complex a concept for me as of now
20:58 < echarp> not enough intermediaries
20:58 < beeli> thaqt is problematic stuff i9n social studies indeed
20:58 < echarp> what is problematic? leaps?
20:58 < beeli> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_oligarchy
20:59 < beeli> concepts
20:59 < echarp> I've seen I've read it before yes
20:59 < beeli> defining stuff
21:01 < beeli> They control the information that flows down the channels of communication.
21:01 < beeli> " "
21:01 < beeli> that is it
21:01 < echarp> it is important
21:01 < echarp> maybe a "most important" of powers even, yes
21:04 < beeli> everything is maybe :-P
21:06 < beeli> this is the stuff i have big problem to talk about
21:06 < beeli> origin of the power in open source organsiation is pretty different to closed ones
21:07 < beeli> as long as closed organsiaitons arre the question that has been analysed, people, scientists try to make conclusions about TOP that is actually not realted to them
21:07 < beeli> big problems that are
21:09 < echarp> of course everything is a degree of "maybe", of course!!!
21:10 < echarp> not "origin of the power", more likely "power's source", or "power origins", or "power's origins"
21:11 < beeli> http://www.uoregon.edu/~vburris/whorules/network.htm
21:13 < beeli> interesting stuff when write power origin on google
21:13 < beeli> lame about conspiracy theory, though, it does not matter too much anyway
21:14 < beeli> as long as that consipacy factor is easily eliminated by network
21:14 < beeli> gonna go
21:14 < beeli> cu
21:14 -!- beeli [i=ille...@cmung4215.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit []
21:31 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
22:25 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
--- Log closed sam jui 22 00:00:53 2006
echarp
Jul 23, 2006, 12:29:36 AM7/23/06
to top-politics
--- Log opened sam jui 22 00:00:53 2006
--- Log opened sam jui 22 09:45:04 2006
09:45 -!- echarp [n=33M0...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has joined #parlement
09:45 [Users #parlement]
09:45 [ echarp] [ fiatlex] [ nsh] [ parlebot] [ urgen]
09:45 -!- Irssi: #parlement: Total of 5 nicks [0 ops, 0 halfops, 0 voices, 5 normal]
09:45 -!- Channel #parlement created Fri Jul 21 18:39:21 2006
09:45 -!- Irssi: Join to #parlement was synced in 32 secs
09:46 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
09:46 -!- No topic set for #parlement
09:46 < echarp> hello
10:31 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
11:23 < echarp> have a good day guys, me it's paintball day, I'm going to be a painting at the hand of my friends!
21:29 -!- urgen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)]
21:35 -!- urgen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
--- Log closed dim jui 23 00:00:28 2006
--- Log opened sam jui 22 09:45:04 2006
09:45 -!- echarp [n=33M0...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has joined #parlement
09:45 [Users #parlement]
09:45 [ echarp] [ fiatlex] [ nsh] [ parlebot] [ urgen]
09:45 -!- Irssi: #parlement: Total of 5 nicks [0 ops, 0 halfops, 0 voices, 5 normal]
09:45 -!- Channel #parlement created Fri Jul 21 18:39:21 2006
09:45 -!- Irssi: Join to #parlement was synced in 32 secs
09:46 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
09:46 -!- No topic set for #parlement
09:46 < echarp> hello
10:31 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
11:23 < echarp> have a good day guys, me it's paintball day, I'm going to be a painting at the hand of my friends!
21:29 -!- urgen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)]
21:35 -!- urgen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
--- Log closed dim jui 23 00:00:28 2006
echarp
Jul 24, 2006, 12:29:28 AM7/24/06
to top-politics
--- Log opened dim jui 23 00:00:28 2006
05:00 < urgen> echarp was suppose to get painted today
05:02 -!- illegale (illegale) [i=ille...@cmung4158.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
05:03 < urgen> echarp was suppose to get painted today
05:05 < illegale> paintball?
05:05 < urgen> ya
05:14 -!- urgen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)]
05:21 -!- urgen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
05:44 < urgen> truth needs no justification
05:59 < illegale> depends
05:59 < urgen> :-)
05:59 < urgen> that's a good start
06:00 < illegale> for what
06:00 < urgen> for a response to that assertion
06:01 < illegale> why do you bother?
06:01 < urgen> keeps life in the swing of balance
06:01 < urgen> don't you care?
06:01 < illegale> should i?
06:01 < urgen> life does
06:01 < urgen> maybe you are dead already
06:02 < illegale> so what?
06:02 < urgen> precisely
07:12 < illegale> nite, time to go sleep
07:12 -!- illegale [i=ille...@cmung4158.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit []
18:55 -!- polo (Paul) [i=pa...@clogic.homeunix.net] has joined #parlement
18:55 -!- polo (Paul) [i=pa...@clogic.homeunix.net] has joined #parlement
18:56 < polo> yo
18:57 < urgen> hi
18:57 < urgen> how are you?
18:57 < polo> well thanks
18:57 < urgen> you know echarp or illegale?
18:58 < urgen> top?
18:58 < urgen> parlement?
18:58 < polo> esharp is on #april too
18:59 < polo> your site in the top of #april :)
18:59 < urgen> oh
18:59 < urgen> I don't know that channel
19:00 < polo> it's a french channel
19:00 < urgen> 'k
20:16 -!- illegale (illegale) [i=ille...@cmung3151.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
20:16 < illegale> oi
21:00 -!- illegale [i=ille...@cmung3151.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)]
21:02 < echarp> hello hello
23:03 -!- polo [i=pa...@clogic.homeunix.net] has quit ["bye"]
23:08 < echarp> we lost polo, too bad
23:09 -!- polo (Paul) [i=pa...@clogic.homeunix.net] has joined #parlement
23:09 -!- polo (Paul) [i=pa...@clogic.homeunix.net] has joined #parlement
23:19 < echarp> resalut polo :)
23:19 < echarp> polo: curieux ou alors tu connais déjà un peu?
23:19 -!- No topic set for #parlement
23:19 < polo> un peu curieux
23:20 < polo> je connaissais pas cette initiative :)
23:20 < echarp> on n'est pas si nombreux que ça
23:21 < echarp> qui/quoi connais tu?
23:21 < polo> rien ni personne, je traine souvent chez april, c'est tout
--- Log opened dim jui 23 23:22:49 2006
23:22 -!- echarp [n=33M0...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has joined #parlement
23:22 [Users #parlement]
23:22 [ echarp] [ fiatlex] [ nsh] [ parlebot] [ polo] [ urgen]
23:22 -!- Irssi: #parlement: Total of 6 nicks [0 ops, 0 halfops, 0 voices, 6 normal]
23:22 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
23:22 < echarp> resalut
23:22 -!- Channel #parlement created Fri Jul 21 18:39:21 2006
23:22 < polo> re
23:23 < echarp> désolé, je crois que j'ai un Ctrl+z qui a rippé
23:23 -!- Irssi: Join to #parlement was synced in 37 secs
23:23 -!- No topic set for #parlement
23:23 < polo> moi j'ai le Atl+n qui marche pas, ça me gave :)
23:24 < polo> (plus numéro) pour changer de fenêtre
23:24 < echarp> c chiant ça
23:24 < echarp> ptet juste le clavier qui va pas avec le terminal
23:24 < polo> oui
23:25 < echarp> polo: tu es informaticien? logiciel libre?
23:26 < polo> j'étais informaticien
23:26 < polo> maintenant, je peux plus, on veut plus de moi :)
23:26 < echarp> oooh, je te crois pas
23:26 < polo> je vais faire de la lutherie
23:26 < echarp> on t'a collé manager?
23:26 < polo> :)
23:26 < echarp> consultant alors!!!
23:26 < polo> non, je suis au chômage
23:26 < echarp> moi je suis fluttiste de temps en temps :)
23:27 < polo> :)
23:28 < echarp> polo: et tu as quoi comme compétence? car trouver du taff c pas la mort dans notre domaine
23:28 < polo> j'ai qu'une pauvre licence
23:28 < polo> et je me fais vieux
23:29 < echarp> c à dire? 35ans? :)
23:29 < polo> oui :) 36
23:30 < echarp> pfff
23:30 < echarp> vieillard!!! :)
23:30 < echarp> (moi 33)
23:32 < echarp> tu cherches activement?
23:32 < polo> pas trop en ce moment
23:47 -!- No topic set for #parlement
--- Log closed lun jui 24 00:00:13 2006
05:00 < urgen> echarp was suppose to get painted today
05:02 -!- illegale (illegale) [i=ille...@cmung4158.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
05:03 < urgen> echarp was suppose to get painted today
05:05 < illegale> paintball?
05:05 < urgen> ya
05:14 -!- urgen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)]
05:21 -!- urgen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
05:44 < urgen> truth needs no justification
05:59 < illegale> depends
05:59 < urgen> :-)
05:59 < urgen> that's a good start
06:00 < illegale> for what
06:00 < urgen> for a response to that assertion
06:01 < illegale> why do you bother?
06:01 < urgen> keeps life in the swing of balance
06:01 < urgen> don't you care?
06:01 < illegale> should i?
06:01 < urgen> life does
06:01 < urgen> maybe you are dead already
06:02 < illegale> so what?
06:02 < urgen> precisely
07:12 < illegale> nite, time to go sleep
07:12 -!- illegale [i=ille...@cmung4158.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit []
18:55 -!- polo (Paul) [i=pa...@clogic.homeunix.net] has joined #parlement
18:55 -!- polo (Paul) [i=pa...@clogic.homeunix.net] has joined #parlement
18:56 < polo> yo
18:57 < urgen> hi
18:57 < urgen> how are you?
18:57 < polo> well thanks
18:57 < urgen> you know echarp or illegale?
18:58 < urgen> top?
18:58 < urgen> parlement?
18:58 < polo> esharp is on #april too
18:59 < polo> your site in the top of #april :)
18:59 < urgen> oh
18:59 < urgen> I don't know that channel
19:00 < polo> it's a french channel
19:00 < urgen> 'k
20:16 -!- illegale (illegale) [i=ille...@cmung3151.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
20:16 < illegale> oi
21:00 -!- illegale [i=ille...@cmung3151.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)]
21:02 < echarp> hello hello
23:03 -!- polo [i=pa...@clogic.homeunix.net] has quit ["bye"]
23:08 < echarp> we lost polo, too bad
23:09 -!- polo (Paul) [i=pa...@clogic.homeunix.net] has joined #parlement
23:09 -!- polo (Paul) [i=pa...@clogic.homeunix.net] has joined #parlement
23:19 < echarp> resalut polo :)
23:19 < echarp> polo: curieux ou alors tu connais déjà un peu?
23:19 -!- No topic set for #parlement
23:19 < polo> un peu curieux
23:20 < polo> je connaissais pas cette initiative :)
23:20 < echarp> on n'est pas si nombreux que ça
23:21 < echarp> qui/quoi connais tu?
23:21 < polo> rien ni personne, je traine souvent chez april, c'est tout
--- Log opened dim jui 23 23:22:49 2006
23:22 -!- echarp [n=33M0...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has joined #parlement
23:22 [Users #parlement]
23:22 [ echarp] [ fiatlex] [ nsh] [ parlebot] [ polo] [ urgen]
23:22 -!- Irssi: #parlement: Total of 6 nicks [0 ops, 0 halfops, 0 voices, 6 normal]
23:22 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
23:22 < echarp> resalut
23:22 -!- Channel #parlement created Fri Jul 21 18:39:21 2006
23:22 < polo> re
23:23 < echarp> désolé, je crois que j'ai un Ctrl+z qui a rippé
23:23 -!- Irssi: Join to #parlement was synced in 37 secs
23:23 -!- No topic set for #parlement
23:23 < polo> moi j'ai le Atl+n qui marche pas, ça me gave :)
23:24 < polo> (plus numéro) pour changer de fenêtre
23:24 < echarp> c chiant ça
23:24 < echarp> ptet juste le clavier qui va pas avec le terminal
23:24 < polo> oui
23:25 < echarp> polo: tu es informaticien? logiciel libre?
23:26 < polo> j'étais informaticien
23:26 < polo> maintenant, je peux plus, on veut plus de moi :)
23:26 < echarp> oooh, je te crois pas
23:26 < polo> je vais faire de la lutherie
23:26 < echarp> on t'a collé manager?
23:26 < polo> :)
23:26 < echarp> consultant alors!!!
23:26 < polo> non, je suis au chômage
23:26 < echarp> moi je suis fluttiste de temps en temps :)
23:27 < polo> :)
23:28 < echarp> polo: et tu as quoi comme compétence? car trouver du taff c pas la mort dans notre domaine
23:28 < polo> j'ai qu'une pauvre licence
23:28 < polo> et je me fais vieux
23:29 < echarp> c à dire? 35ans? :)
23:29 < polo> oui :) 36
23:30 < echarp> pfff
23:30 < echarp> vieillard!!! :)
23:30 < echarp> (moi 33)
23:32 < echarp> tu cherches activement?
23:32 < polo> pas trop en ce moment
23:47 -!- No topic set for #parlement
--- Log closed lun jui 24 00:00:13 2006
echarp
Jul 25, 2006, 12:29:43 AM7/25/06
to top-politics
--- Log opened lun jui 24 00:00:13 2006
00:13 < echarp> allez hop, bonne nuit
00:13 < echarp> polo: on en rediscute demain si tu veux
00:14 < polo> bonne nuit
00:20 -!- mode/#parlement [+o echarp] by ChanServ
00:20 -!- echarp changed the topic of #parlement to: http://leparlement.org
06:02 -!- polo [i=pa...@clogic.homeunix.net] has quit ["bye"]
10:40 -!- polo (Paul) [i=pa...@clogic.homeunix.net] has joined #parlement
10:46 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
10:46 <@echarp> salut polo
11:16 < polo:#parlement> salut
11:17 < polo:#parlement> lag : 2160000 s :)
11:17 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
11:17 <@echarp> énooorme! :)
11:17 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
11:18 < polo:#parlement> je viens d'obtenir un RDV chez "forum réfugiés" :)
11:18 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
11:18 <@echarp> un truc moitié politique moitié informatique?
11:19 < polo> certainement une boite crée à l'occasion d'un forum politique
11:19 < polo> d'une association
11:19 < polo> c'est clair en fait
11:20 < polo> c'est une "société"
11:20 <@echarp> qui paye des salaires?
11:20 <@echarp> ils pourraient avoir utilité de parlement, peut être ;)
11:20 < polo> une association sur leur site
11:20 < polo> ils disent
11:21 < polo> :)
11:24 < polo:#parlement> ça peut être bien sympa
11:24 < polo:#parlement> oui, il faut proposer aussi sur le droit d'asile :)
11:26 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
11:26 <@echarp> ça c dur en ce moment
11:26 <@echarp> cette peur des pauvres, c terrible ce que ça fait faire
11:28 < polo> c'est opérationnel là le parlement, non ?
11:29 <@echarp> je parlais de "parlement", le projet que je fais
11:29 < polo> oui, moi aussi
11:29 <@echarp> oups, mal lu, trop vite
11:29 <@echarp> ça fonctonne oui
11:29 <@echarp> on l'a utilisé pour faire mirroir d'un groupe google pour l'instant
11:29 < polo> je vais m'enregistrer, pis tous les copains des collectifs du 29 mai et des comités d'union populaire aussi
11:30 <@echarp> ça pourrait le faire ça, j'en serai enchanté
11:30 < polo> ok
11:30 <@echarp> besoin d'un espace dédié? une url par exemple?
11:30 <@echarp> ça fait mailing list en même temps que forum web
11:30 < polo> non merçi
11:31 < polo> mieux vaut des commentaire que des votes d'internautes sur les sites dont j'ai eu besoin
11:32 < polo> en fait ça le fait leparlement
11:32 <@echarp> c sympa
11:32 <@echarp> enfin il n'est pas encore complet j'en ai peur
11:32 < polo> :)
11:32 <@echarp> il est fonctionnel, fait forum et mailing list, et on peut voter de manière simple
11:32 <@echarp> mais il manque les avatars (il faut que je les mette en prod)
11:32 < polo> on peut déposer des commentaires annonymes ?
11:33 <@echarp> et ensuite je voudrais faire le système de modération démocratique
11:33 <@echarp> on peut oui, tout à fait
11:33 < polo> ça va déchirer sa mémé :)
11:33 <@echarp> les pages sont tout de même lentes à générer
13:32 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
13:32 <@echarp> re
13:34 < polo:#parlement> re
14:54 -!- illegale (illegale) [i=ille...@cmung2768.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
14:54 < illegale:#parlement> io
14:56 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
14:56 <@echarp> hello hello illegale
14:56 <@echarp> how are you?
14:56 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
15:01 < illegale:#parlement> thanks fine
15:01 < illegale:#parlement> you?
15:02 < illegale:#parlement> had paintball session?
15:02 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
15:02 <@echarp> great paintball day yes!
15:02 <@echarp> huge fun
15:03 <@echarp> and you, how was your week end?
15:04 < illegale> drinking, nothing sp3ctacular
15:04 < illegale> am in some oinspiration gap
15:04 <@echarp> oin? conspiration/inspiration? :)
15:05 < illegale> inspiraiton
15:05 < illegale> maybe because of heat
15:05 < illegale> i do not know
15:05 < illegale> air conditioner
15:05 < illegale> till 8, 8 30
15:05 < illegale> than go out till 3 3 30
15:06 < illegale> every day
15:06 < illegale> doing nothing
15:06 <@echarp> I can understand that
15:06 <@echarp> it's difficult to have any activity under that kind of heat
15:06 < illegale> it is excuse at least
15:07 <@echarp> :)
15:07 <@echarp> a good one
15:10 < illegale> do you hav a car'
15:10 < illegale> ?
15:10 <@echarp> no
15:10 <@echarp> and I don't really appreciate it, living in paris it's a liberation not to have to be "owned" by one
15:11 < illegale> now i read stuff about worest car
15:11 < illegale> what people from forum thinkg and stuff
15:11 < illegale> interesting thoughts
15:11 < illegale> you do not like cars?
15:11 <@echarp> about petrol and those things?
15:11 <@echarp> I don't appreciate much cars
15:11 < illegale> everything
15:11 < illegale> ifr you are in paris most of the time, than i get it
15:12 < illegale> where do you live, far from center?
15:12 <@echarp> they are 1) dangerous, 2) polluting, 3) expensive, 4) require maintenance, 5) not that practical
15:12 <@echarp> I live not far at all from the center
15:12 <@echarp> 20 minutes by foot from the eiffel tower
15:12 < illegale> what part is the name?
15:12 < illegale> i was in pigall
15:13 <@echarp> pigalle is on the other side
15:13 <@echarp> I'm in the 15th
15:13 <@echarp> between the eiffel tower and montparnasse
15:13 <@echarp> toward the south-west
15:13 < illegale> ok
15:13 < illegale> my cousin lives oiutside paris
15:14 < illegale> suburbian stuff
15:14 < illegale> much green and stuff
15:14 < illegale> i like that
15:14 < illegale> though, than you need car
15:14 < illegale> you hgave a bicycle?
15:14 <@echarp> yeap
15:15 < illegale> ride it regularly?going to job by it?
15:16 <@echarp> metro
15:16 < polo> métro, boulot, dodo :)
15:16 < polo> c'est rude Paris
15:17 * echarp likes paris
15:17 <@echarp> http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=1+av+F%C3%A9lix+Faure,+Paris&ie=UTF8&t=h&om=1
15:18 * echarp waves toward the sattelite!!!
15:22 < illegale> nice
15:32 < illegale:#parlement> how is palrement?
15:32 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
15:32 <@echarp> not advancing much
15:32 <@echarp> weather is just too nice!
15:33 < illegale> <es
15:33 <@echarp> and I'm having a small block on avatars which trigger the sending of a mail containing the photo :(
15:33 <@echarp> there are implicit multipart mails, that conflict with explicit attachments
15:36 < illegale:#parlement> what with attachments?
15:36 < illegale:#parlement> avatars in them?
15:45 < illegale:#parlement> suppose you should build mail client also with this software
15:52 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
15:52 <@echarp> oh no, way too much
15:53 <@echarp> or you consider that the web forum *is* a mail client of sorts
15:55 < illegale> if you donthave mail client, i think your web interface will be primary one
15:56 <@echarp> I guess so
15:56 <@echarp> it's here to simplify access for the casual user
15:56 <@echarp> plus it will look nicer, having avatars, ajax interactions, vote results
16:43 -!- illegale [i=ille...@cmung2768.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
18:13 < urgen:#parlement> you are trying to embed the avatar graphic in the email?
18:46 -!- urgen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)]
18:48 -!- urgen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
18:49 -!- urgen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)]
18:50 -!- urgen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
19:06 -!- urgen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)]
19:13 -!- urgen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
--- Log closed mar jui 25 00:00:13 2006
00:13 < echarp> allez hop, bonne nuit
00:13 < echarp> polo: on en rediscute demain si tu veux
00:14 < polo> bonne nuit
00:20 -!- mode/#parlement [+o echarp] by ChanServ
00:20 -!- echarp changed the topic of #parlement to: http://leparlement.org
06:02 -!- polo [i=pa...@clogic.homeunix.net] has quit ["bye"]
10:40 -!- polo (Paul) [i=pa...@clogic.homeunix.net] has joined #parlement
10:46 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
10:46 <@echarp> salut polo
11:16 < polo:#parlement> salut
11:17 < polo:#parlement> lag : 2160000 s :)
11:17 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
11:17 <@echarp> énooorme! :)
11:17 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
11:18 < polo:#parlement> je viens d'obtenir un RDV chez "forum réfugiés" :)
11:18 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
11:18 <@echarp> un truc moitié politique moitié informatique?
11:19 < polo> certainement une boite crée à l'occasion d'un forum politique
11:19 < polo> d'une association
11:19 < polo> c'est clair en fait
11:20 < polo> c'est une "société"
11:20 <@echarp> qui paye des salaires?
11:20 <@echarp> ils pourraient avoir utilité de parlement, peut être ;)
11:20 < polo> une association sur leur site
11:20 < polo> ils disent
11:21 < polo> :)
11:24 < polo:#parlement> ça peut être bien sympa
11:24 < polo:#parlement> oui, il faut proposer aussi sur le droit d'asile :)
11:26 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
11:26 <@echarp> ça c dur en ce moment
11:26 <@echarp> cette peur des pauvres, c terrible ce que ça fait faire
11:28 < polo> c'est opérationnel là le parlement, non ?
11:29 <@echarp> je parlais de "parlement", le projet que je fais
11:29 < polo> oui, moi aussi
11:29 <@echarp> oups, mal lu, trop vite
11:29 <@echarp> ça fonctonne oui
11:29 <@echarp> on l'a utilisé pour faire mirroir d'un groupe google pour l'instant
11:29 < polo> je vais m'enregistrer, pis tous les copains des collectifs du 29 mai et des comités d'union populaire aussi
11:30 <@echarp> ça pourrait le faire ça, j'en serai enchanté
11:30 < polo> ok
11:30 <@echarp> besoin d'un espace dédié? une url par exemple?
11:30 <@echarp> ça fait mailing list en même temps que forum web
11:30 < polo> non merçi
11:31 < polo> mieux vaut des commentaire que des votes d'internautes sur les sites dont j'ai eu besoin
11:32 < polo> en fait ça le fait leparlement
11:32 <@echarp> c sympa
11:32 <@echarp> enfin il n'est pas encore complet j'en ai peur
11:32 < polo> :)
11:32 <@echarp> il est fonctionnel, fait forum et mailing list, et on peut voter de manière simple
11:32 <@echarp> mais il manque les avatars (il faut que je les mette en prod)
11:32 < polo> on peut déposer des commentaires annonymes ?
11:33 <@echarp> et ensuite je voudrais faire le système de modération démocratique
11:33 <@echarp> on peut oui, tout à fait
11:33 < polo> ça va déchirer sa mémé :)
11:33 <@echarp> les pages sont tout de même lentes à générer
13:32 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
13:32 <@echarp> re
13:34 < polo:#parlement> re
14:54 -!- illegale (illegale) [i=ille...@cmung2768.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
14:54 < illegale:#parlement> io
14:56 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
14:56 <@echarp> hello hello illegale
14:56 <@echarp> how are you?
14:56 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
15:01 < illegale:#parlement> thanks fine
15:01 < illegale:#parlement> you?
15:02 < illegale:#parlement> had paintball session?
15:02 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
15:02 <@echarp> great paintball day yes!
15:02 <@echarp> huge fun
15:03 <@echarp> and you, how was your week end?
15:04 < illegale> drinking, nothing sp3ctacular
15:04 < illegale> am in some oinspiration gap
15:04 <@echarp> oin? conspiration/inspiration? :)
15:05 < illegale> inspiraiton
15:05 < illegale> maybe because of heat
15:05 < illegale> i do not know
15:05 < illegale> air conditioner
15:05 < illegale> till 8, 8 30
15:05 < illegale> than go out till 3 3 30
15:06 < illegale> every day
15:06 < illegale> doing nothing
15:06 <@echarp> I can understand that
15:06 <@echarp> it's difficult to have any activity under that kind of heat
15:06 < illegale> it is excuse at least
15:07 <@echarp> :)
15:07 <@echarp> a good one
15:10 < illegale> do you hav a car'
15:10 < illegale> ?
15:10 <@echarp> no
15:10 <@echarp> and I don't really appreciate it, living in paris it's a liberation not to have to be "owned" by one
15:11 < illegale> now i read stuff about worest car
15:11 < illegale> what people from forum thinkg and stuff
15:11 < illegale> interesting thoughts
15:11 < illegale> you do not like cars?
15:11 <@echarp> about petrol and those things?
15:11 <@echarp> I don't appreciate much cars
15:11 < illegale> everything
15:11 < illegale> ifr you are in paris most of the time, than i get it
15:12 < illegale> where do you live, far from center?
15:12 <@echarp> they are 1) dangerous, 2) polluting, 3) expensive, 4) require maintenance, 5) not that practical
15:12 <@echarp> I live not far at all from the center
15:12 <@echarp> 20 minutes by foot from the eiffel tower
15:12 < illegale> what part is the name?
15:12 < illegale> i was in pigall
15:13 <@echarp> pigalle is on the other side
15:13 <@echarp> I'm in the 15th
15:13 <@echarp> between the eiffel tower and montparnasse
15:13 <@echarp> toward the south-west
15:13 < illegale> ok
15:13 < illegale> my cousin lives oiutside paris
15:14 < illegale> suburbian stuff
15:14 < illegale> much green and stuff
15:14 < illegale> i like that
15:14 < illegale> though, than you need car
15:14 < illegale> you hgave a bicycle?
15:14 <@echarp> yeap
15:15 < illegale> ride it regularly?going to job by it?
15:16 <@echarp> metro
15:16 < polo> métro, boulot, dodo :)
15:16 < polo> c'est rude Paris
15:17 * echarp likes paris
15:17 <@echarp> http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=1+av+F%C3%A9lix+Faure,+Paris&ie=UTF8&t=h&om=1
15:18 * echarp waves toward the sattelite!!!
15:22 < illegale> nice
15:32 < illegale:#parlement> how is palrement?
15:32 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
15:32 <@echarp> not advancing much
15:32 <@echarp> weather is just too nice!
15:33 < illegale> <es
15:33 <@echarp> and I'm having a small block on avatars which trigger the sending of a mail containing the photo :(
15:33 <@echarp> there are implicit multipart mails, that conflict with explicit attachments
15:36 < illegale:#parlement> what with attachments?
15:36 < illegale:#parlement> avatars in them?
15:45 < illegale:#parlement> suppose you should build mail client also with this software
15:52 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
15:52 <@echarp> oh no, way too much
15:53 <@echarp> or you consider that the web forum *is* a mail client of sorts
15:55 < illegale> if you donthave mail client, i think your web interface will be primary one
15:56 <@echarp> I guess so
15:56 <@echarp> it's here to simplify access for the casual user
15:56 <@echarp> plus it will look nicer, having avatars, ajax interactions, vote results
16:43 -!- illegale [i=ille...@cmung2768.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
18:13 < urgen:#parlement> you are trying to embed the avatar graphic in the email?
18:46 -!- urgen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)]
18:48 -!- urgen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
18:49 -!- urgen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)]
18:50 -!- urgen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
19:06 -!- urgen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)]
19:13 -!- urgen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
--- Log closed mar jui 25 00:00:13 2006
echarp
Jul 26, 2006, 12:34:27 AM7/26/06
to top-politics
--- Log opened mar jui 25 00:00:13 2006
00:49 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
07:55 < urgen> http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/9/3/10.html
07:55 < urgen> Truth and Cognitive Division of Labour: First Steps Towards a Computer Aided Social Epistemology
16:15 * nsh:#parlement looks
16:16 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
16:16 <@echarp> hello nsh
16:16 < nsh> hey echarp
16:16 < nsh> how are you?
16:16 <@echarp> about fine, but tired
16:16 <@echarp> birthday party yesterday
16:16 < nsh> congratulations
16:16 <@echarp> not mine, a friend's
16:16 <@echarp> and we drank
16:16 * nsh nods
16:16 <@echarp> this afternoon is hard :)
16:17 * nsh smiles
16:17 <@echarp> and you?
16:18 < nsh> slept a little long
16:18 < nsh> but it's very hot out, so hermit isn't a bad day plan
16:19 <@echarp> hot hot hot here too!
16:19 * nsh smiles
16:22 <@echarp> supposedly going to last for yet a few more days
16:28 < nsh> mm
17:59 < urgen> hot here too
18:00 < urgen> george bush better stop talking
18:00 < urgen> all this hot air is warming the planet
18:01 <@echarp> :)
20:55 * nsh:#parlement smiles
23:17 -!- polo [i=pa...@clogic.homeunix.net] has quit ["brb"]
--- Log closed mer jui 26 00:00:14 2006
00:49 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
07:55 < urgen> http://jasss.soc.surrey.ac.uk/9/3/10.html
07:55 < urgen> Truth and Cognitive Division of Labour: First Steps Towards a Computer Aided Social Epistemology
16:15 * nsh:#parlement looks
16:16 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
16:16 <@echarp> hello nsh
16:16 < nsh> hey echarp
16:16 < nsh> how are you?
16:16 <@echarp> about fine, but tired
16:16 <@echarp> birthday party yesterday
16:16 < nsh> congratulations
16:16 <@echarp> not mine, a friend's
16:16 <@echarp> and we drank
16:16 * nsh nods
16:16 <@echarp> this afternoon is hard :)
16:17 * nsh smiles
16:17 <@echarp> and you?
16:18 < nsh> slept a little long
16:18 < nsh> but it's very hot out, so hermit isn't a bad day plan
16:19 <@echarp> hot hot hot here too!
16:19 * nsh smiles
16:22 <@echarp> supposedly going to last for yet a few more days
16:28 < nsh> mm
17:59 < urgen> hot here too
18:00 < urgen> george bush better stop talking
18:00 < urgen> all this hot air is warming the planet
18:01 <@echarp> :)
20:55 * nsh:#parlement smiles
23:17 -!- polo [i=pa...@clogic.homeunix.net] has quit ["brb"]
--- Log closed mer jui 26 00:00:14 2006
echarp
Jul 27, 2006, 12:30:04 AM7/27/06
to top-politics
--- Log opened mer jui 26 00:00:14 2006
03:58 < urgen:#parlement> home
05:17 -!- urgen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)]
05:20 -!- urgen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
09:26 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
09:26 <@echarp> hello!
12:39 -!- illegale (illegale) [i=ille...@cmung4070.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
12:39 < illegale:#parlement> oi
12:39 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
12:39 <@echarp> hello hello illegale
12:39 <@echarp> how are things?
12:39 < illegale> fine
12:39 < illegale> y<ou?
12:40 <@echarp> very fine, I love the air conditionning in the office :)
12:41 <@echarp> I see MG has replied to many posts
12:41 <@echarp> maybe an occasion to reliven the list
12:41 < illegale> yes
12:42 < illegale> yesterday i played footbal
12:42 < illegale> now i am dead
12:42 < illegale> every single uscle hurts me
12:42 <@echarp> lol
12:42 <@echarp> plus it's probably quite hot where you are
12:43 < illegale> it did not bother
12:43 < illegale> playing footbal after several months is fine
12:43 < illegale> something like paintball
12:44 <@echarp> :)
12:44 <@echarp> that last saturday was much more fun than the other time, and I don't ache :)
12:45 < illegale> you got used to
12:45 < illegale> highh call
12:45 < illegale> class
12:46 <@echarp> still follow lebanon?
12:47 < illegale> did not have time
12:47 < illegale> whats up?
12:47 <@echarp> diplomacy
12:47 <@echarp> israel seems to understand they can't win
12:49 < illegale> thats good
12:49 <@echarp> it could be
12:49 <@echarp> of course nothing yet
12:49 <@echarp> but israel has already gone trough a decade long invasion of lebanon, they know what it entails
12:51 < illegale> different times
12:51 < illegale> every time
12:51 <@echarp> of course, yet do you do twice the same painful thing?
12:52 <@echarp> particularly if the first time took you 17years and was very painful?
12:52 < illegale> regularly not
12:54 <@echarp> we shall of course see
12:54 <@echarp> in all that mess it seems every body has forgotten about gaza :(
14:19 -!- illegale [i=ille...@cmung4070.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
15:05 -!- illegale (illegale) [i=ille...@cmung4098.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
15:05 < illegale> back
15:19 < illegale> parlebot
15:19 < illegale> help?
15:19 <@echarp> parlebot: help
15:19 < illegale> ? parlebot
15:19 < parlebot> The commands I know are:
15:19 < parlebot> silence - Stop logging (also: stop, off, ...)
15:19 < parlebot> listen - Start logging (also: start, on, ...)
15:19 < parlebot> bookmark - Give the URI of the current log
15:19 < parlebot> chump LETTER - Record the URI of the current log under chump LETTER
15:19 < parlebot> I respond to 'parlebot, command' in public and '/msg parlebot command' in private
15:19 < parlebot> Logging Policy: All public output is logged if I am listening except for
15:19 < parlebot> any lines starting [off]. All commands to me are logged.
15:19 < parlebot> My public output is logged but these lines are not searchable.
15:19 < parlebot> The logs are at http://bridgeheart.net/irclogs/irc.freenode.net:6667/parlement/
15:19 < parlebot> Do parlebot, adminhelp for help on administrative commands
15:19 < illegale> thx
15:20 <@echarp> a classic ;)
15:20 < illegale> yes
15:22 < illegale> you think voluntary work can place profesional politicians?
15:22 < illegale> place > replace
15:26 < illegale> that politics will be able to function properly without profesionals?
15:27 <@echarp> I'm sure some people will/can make a profession out of anything
15:27 <@echarp> I just don't want any special status differentiating one participant from another
15:28 <@echarp> but for the fact that one might be heard by, and control, others
15:28 <@echarp> I can influence, this is politics and human nature, but I can't claim a "special" position
15:29 < illegale> this moment is problematic due to the fact there is no big economic interest in creating such TOP organisation becoming politically relevant
15:29 < illegale> at least i do not see it
15:29 <@echarp> I don't see economics either, that would require thousands of participants
15:29 < illegale> so, it is hard thing to enable whole infrastrucuture with no big funds and their interesrests in it
15:30 <@echarp> I'm not really speaking of big infrastructures ;)
15:30 < illegale> if this stuff works on voluntary base, we have what we have
15:30 < illegale> not to perspective
15:30 < illegale> you need one
15:30 < illegale> that is a way of gaining power
15:30 <@echarp> not to perspective??? (please rephrase)
15:30 < illegale> influence
15:31 < illegale> not too perspectibe
15:31 <@echarp> I don't understand, please rephrase
15:31 <@echarp> I understand up to "we have what we have"
15:31 <@echarp> then it goes giberish for me :(
15:31 < illegale> in this very moment, those top organisations are based on voluntary work
15:31 <@echarp> ok
15:31 < illegale> they are not too perspective
15:31 <@echarp> stop!!!
15:32 <@echarp> there, rephrase please
15:32 < illegale> in the same time, only money people get is out of global foundations that are controler by big capital
15:32 <@echarp> "not too perspective" is not english
15:32 < illegale> do you htink group 5 of us is perspective?
15:32 <@echarp> I am not hinting anything, I do not understand your phrase
15:32 <@echarp> it's an english problem!!!
15:33 <@echarp> (when I ask you to rephrase it's because I don't understand your english)
15:33 < illegale> perspective, promising,
15:33 <@echarp> perspective and promising are different things, they are not equivalent
15:33 < illegale> so, what is the problem?
15:33 <@echarp> yet, not too promising *is* proper english
15:34 <@echarp> the problem is that sometimes I don't understand your english :(
15:34 < illegale> ok
15:34 < illegale> did you see stuff at open coop?
15:34 <@echarp> illegale: you understand why we sometimes have problems in communicating our ideas?
15:34 < illegale> no6 too promising either
15:35 < illegale> several reasons there are
15:35 <@echarp> it's very difficult to gather troops
15:35 < illegale> it is for some peple
15:36 <@echarp> particularly on the net, where many are rather individualistic
15:36 < illegale> i can notice it gathering is possible
15:36 < illegale> if you have fine people who can do it
15:36 <@echarp> it's difficult
15:36 < illegale> happens all the time
15:36 <@echarp> it happens yes
15:36 <@echarp> from time to time :)
15:36 < illegale> the badsic issue is to create something recognisable
15:37 < illegale> articulate proper idea
15:37 <@echarp> to market something and gather steam
15:38 < illegale> so, there has to be enogh will and wisdom
15:38 < illegale> that is all
15:38 < illegale> :-)
15:39 <@echarp> I'm not so convinced
15:39 <@echarp> it's like you want to go to battle, you want fame and glory, yet the reasons for battle are not so important
15:40 < illegale> i do not understand
15:40 < illegale> what you are not convivnced into?
15:41 <@echarp> it seems it is not a matter of convictions, but of political power
15:41 < illegale> you have prolbem with pwer?
15:42 < illegale> i hve
15:42 <@echarp> of course not
15:42 < illegale> i have
15:42 <@echarp> I don't
15:42 < illegale> i have big problems with power
15:42 < illegale> seen to many powerless initiatives that where only capable to see bs around
15:43 < illegale> see sell
15:43 <@echarp> your problem is that you don't have enough power? ;)
15:43 < illegale> yes
15:43 < illegale> i am not fine with power structure of today
15:44 < illegale> you are?
15:45 <@echarp> of course not
15:45 < illegale> so, what si the problem than?ž
15:45 <@echarp> the problem is not "power", power is a consequence as far as I'm concerned
15:45 < illegale> power is tool
15:46 <@echarp> what is important are people and what they want, their energy to participate or not
15:46 < illegale> create strucutre of pwer based on different basis, you have whole new consequences of it
15:46 < illegale> what do people want?
15:47 < illegale> i mean why do you think this is not what people do want?
15:47 <@echarp> I don't know what they want, I want them to express what they want
15:47 < illegale> they can
15:47 <@echarp> they define it
15:47 < illegale> make graphits
15:47 <@echarp> I think they could do it better
15:47 < illegale> write blogs
15:48 < illegale> they can yell around
15:48 <@echarp> it's a start, but definitely not enough
15:48 < illegale> they can express it pretty easy
15:48 < illegale> so, what do people need?
15:48 < illegale> power?
15:48 <@echarp> I do not know
15:48 <@echarp> I want them to define it!!!
15:48 < illegale> you are afraid to admit
15:49 <@echarp> I consciously do not want to define what others want!!!
15:49 < illegale> so, when they define it, shell they need power to implement it?
15:49 < illegale> so, what do we talk about than?
15:49 <@echarp> because I consider that definition to be a restriction
15:49 <@echarp> I am talking about the ways they can define it
15:50 < illegale> sometimes, you have to make assumptions
15:50 < illegale> to look few steps ahead
15:50 <@echarp> there might be assumptions yes
15:50 < illegale> i made my assumption
15:50 < illegale> can you overturn it?
15:51 <@echarp> "a definition is already a restriction"
15:51 <@echarp> a restriction on what is possible
15:51 <@echarp> it's like you are closing doors for someone else
15:51 < illegale> ok, you can be loosy if you wish
15:51 < illegale> no, it is like creatng product you have trust into
15:52 < illegale> you make same issue also
15:52 < illegale> you are creating tool you have trust into also
15:52 <@echarp> "make same issue" please rephrase
15:52 < illegale> and you did not ask people do they need it
15:53 < illegale> you are also assumptious
15:53 <@echarp> no it is not
15:53 <@echarp> I am making something available, nothing more
15:53 < illegale> why?
15:53 < illegale> me too
15:54 <@echarp> making what available then?
15:54 < illegale> i can not do more, that is obvious
15:54 < illegale> power to the people
15:54 < illegale> essence of dd
15:54 <@echarp> you are proposing something and trying to gather support
15:55 <@echarp> I am fine with that
15:55 <@echarp> yet that support is difficult to gather, particularly in summer time
15:55 < illegale> of course
15:55 < illegale> i am not able to fine suppoer
15:55 < illegale> find
15:56 <@echarp> I know that situation, same same here
15:57 < illegale> why is that so?
15:57 < illegale> what do you thik?
15:58 <@echarp> personally it's because I don't like going around to market my idea
15:58 < illegale> no sense for collectivity?
15:58 < illegale> why dont you find somebody to do it for you?
15:58 <@echarp> I am in a community
15:58 <@echarp> because finding someone to do it for me is already a matter of marketing an idea
15:59 < illegale> pay him
15:59 <@echarp> what kind of money?
15:59 < illegale> find some indian
15:59 < illegale> $$$
15:59 < illegale> to promote your software for several bucks
15:59 <@echarp> what amount?
16:00 < illegale> suppose there are the ways to handle this issue
16:00 < illegale> several 100 $
16:00 < illegale> you can make different deals also
16:00 < illegale> with me for instance
16:00 < illegale> or with magnus
16:01 < illegale> maybe Eric
16:01 < illegale> maybe even MArk
16:01 <@echarp> and with money?
16:01 < illegale> i would not ask for money
16:02 < illegale> but agreement
16:02 < illegale> who knows what would other guys do?
16:02 < illegale> maybe smebody would not ask for anything?
16:03 < illegale> suppose money issue is what you are more comfort about but sors of agreements
16:03 <@echarp> still requires marketing
16:03 < illegale> of course
16:03 <@echarp> and altough I do it I don't like it much
16:03 <@echarp> lucky the group is fun to be with
16:04 <@echarp> well, but for mark obviously
16:05 < illegale> what is the essence of your software?
16:05 < illegale> mailing stuff?
16:05 < illegale> equality stuff?
16:05 < illegale> voting stuff?
16:06 < illegale> whats difference to regular software such as phpbb with mail sending
16:06 < illegale> ?
16:07 < illegale> no pain , no gain :p
16:08 <@echarp> of course
16:08 <@echarp> yet there are pains which we can take more easily than others
16:08 < illegale> how would you market you software?
16:09 < illegale> promote
16:13 < illegale> it would be good for you to make little letter about ideas for promotion
16:13 < illegale> whoever is gonny promote it, that will be usefull to him,
16:13 < illegale> gotta go
16:13 < illegale> cu
16:13 -!- illegale [i=ille...@cmung4098.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit []
16:45 -!- illegale (illegale) [i=ille...@cmung169.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
17:00 < illegale> parlebot: help
17:00 < parlebot> The commands I know are:
17:00 < parlebot> silence - Stop logging (also: stop, off, ...)
17:00 < parlebot> listen - Start logging (also: start, on, ...)
17:00 < parlebot> bookmark - Give the URI of the current log
17:00 < parlebot> chump LETTER - Record the URI of the current log under chump LETTER
17:00 < parlebot> I respond to 'parlebot, command' in public and '/msg parlebot command' in private
17:00 < parlebot> Logging Policy: All public output is logged if I am listening except for
17:00 < parlebot> any lines starting [off]. All commands to me are logged.
17:00 < parlebot> My public output is logged but these lines are not searchable.
17:00 < parlebot> The logs are at http://bridgeheart.net/irclogs/irc.freenode.net:6667/parlement/
17:00 < parlebot> Do parlebot, adminhelp for help on administrative commands
17:34 -!- illegale [i=ille...@cmung169.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit []
17:54 -!- illegale (illegale) [n=ille...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has joined #parlement
17:55 -!- illegale [n=ille...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has quit [Remote closed the connection]
--- Log closed jeu jui 27 00:00:14 2006
03:58 < urgen:#parlement> home
05:17 -!- urgen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)]
05:20 -!- urgen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
09:26 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
09:26 <@echarp> hello!
12:39 -!- illegale (illegale) [i=ille...@cmung4070.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
12:39 < illegale:#parlement> oi
12:39 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
12:39 <@echarp> hello hello illegale
12:39 <@echarp> how are things?
12:39 < illegale> fine
12:39 < illegale> y<ou?
12:40 <@echarp> very fine, I love the air conditionning in the office :)
12:41 <@echarp> I see MG has replied to many posts
12:41 <@echarp> maybe an occasion to reliven the list
12:41 < illegale> yes
12:42 < illegale> yesterday i played footbal
12:42 < illegale> now i am dead
12:42 < illegale> every single uscle hurts me
12:42 <@echarp> lol
12:42 <@echarp> plus it's probably quite hot where you are
12:43 < illegale> it did not bother
12:43 < illegale> playing footbal after several months is fine
12:43 < illegale> something like paintball
12:44 <@echarp> :)
12:44 <@echarp> that last saturday was much more fun than the other time, and I don't ache :)
12:45 < illegale> you got used to
12:45 < illegale> highh call
12:45 < illegale> class
12:46 <@echarp> still follow lebanon?
12:47 < illegale> did not have time
12:47 < illegale> whats up?
12:47 <@echarp> diplomacy
12:47 <@echarp> israel seems to understand they can't win
12:49 < illegale> thats good
12:49 <@echarp> it could be
12:49 <@echarp> of course nothing yet
12:49 <@echarp> but israel has already gone trough a decade long invasion of lebanon, they know what it entails
12:51 < illegale> different times
12:51 < illegale> every time
12:51 <@echarp> of course, yet do you do twice the same painful thing?
12:52 <@echarp> particularly if the first time took you 17years and was very painful?
12:52 < illegale> regularly not
12:54 <@echarp> we shall of course see
12:54 <@echarp> in all that mess it seems every body has forgotten about gaza :(
14:19 -!- illegale [i=ille...@cmung4070.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
15:05 -!- illegale (illegale) [i=ille...@cmung4098.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
15:05 < illegale> back
15:19 < illegale> parlebot
15:19 < illegale> help?
15:19 <@echarp> parlebot: help
15:19 < illegale> ? parlebot
15:19 < parlebot> The commands I know are:
15:19 < parlebot> silence - Stop logging (also: stop, off, ...)
15:19 < parlebot> listen - Start logging (also: start, on, ...)
15:19 < parlebot> bookmark - Give the URI of the current log
15:19 < parlebot> chump LETTER - Record the URI of the current log under chump LETTER
15:19 < parlebot> I respond to 'parlebot, command' in public and '/msg parlebot command' in private
15:19 < parlebot> Logging Policy: All public output is logged if I am listening except for
15:19 < parlebot> any lines starting [off]. All commands to me are logged.
15:19 < parlebot> My public output is logged but these lines are not searchable.
15:19 < parlebot> The logs are at http://bridgeheart.net/irclogs/irc.freenode.net:6667/parlement/
15:19 < parlebot> Do parlebot, adminhelp for help on administrative commands
15:19 < illegale> thx
15:20 <@echarp> a classic ;)
15:20 < illegale> yes
15:22 < illegale> you think voluntary work can place profesional politicians?
15:22 < illegale> place > replace
15:26 < illegale> that politics will be able to function properly without profesionals?
15:27 <@echarp> I'm sure some people will/can make a profession out of anything
15:27 <@echarp> I just don't want any special status differentiating one participant from another
15:28 <@echarp> but for the fact that one might be heard by, and control, others
15:28 <@echarp> I can influence, this is politics and human nature, but I can't claim a "special" position
15:29 < illegale> this moment is problematic due to the fact there is no big economic interest in creating such TOP organisation becoming politically relevant
15:29 < illegale> at least i do not see it
15:29 <@echarp> I don't see economics either, that would require thousands of participants
15:29 < illegale> so, it is hard thing to enable whole infrastrucuture with no big funds and their interesrests in it
15:30 <@echarp> I'm not really speaking of big infrastructures ;)
15:30 < illegale> if this stuff works on voluntary base, we have what we have
15:30 < illegale> not to perspective
15:30 < illegale> you need one
15:30 < illegale> that is a way of gaining power
15:30 <@echarp> not to perspective??? (please rephrase)
15:30 < illegale> influence
15:31 < illegale> not too perspectibe
15:31 <@echarp> I don't understand, please rephrase
15:31 <@echarp> I understand up to "we have what we have"
15:31 <@echarp> then it goes giberish for me :(
15:31 < illegale> in this very moment, those top organisations are based on voluntary work
15:31 <@echarp> ok
15:31 < illegale> they are not too perspective
15:31 <@echarp> stop!!!
15:32 <@echarp> there, rephrase please
15:32 < illegale> in the same time, only money people get is out of global foundations that are controler by big capital
15:32 <@echarp> "not too perspective" is not english
15:32 < illegale> do you htink group 5 of us is perspective?
15:32 <@echarp> I am not hinting anything, I do not understand your phrase
15:32 <@echarp> it's an english problem!!!
15:33 <@echarp> (when I ask you to rephrase it's because I don't understand your english)
15:33 < illegale> perspective, promising,
15:33 <@echarp> perspective and promising are different things, they are not equivalent
15:33 < illegale> so, what is the problem?
15:33 <@echarp> yet, not too promising *is* proper english
15:34 <@echarp> the problem is that sometimes I don't understand your english :(
15:34 < illegale> ok
15:34 < illegale> did you see stuff at open coop?
15:34 <@echarp> illegale: you understand why we sometimes have problems in communicating our ideas?
15:34 < illegale> no6 too promising either
15:35 < illegale> several reasons there are
15:35 <@echarp> it's very difficult to gather troops
15:35 < illegale> it is for some peple
15:36 <@echarp> particularly on the net, where many are rather individualistic
15:36 < illegale> i can notice it gathering is possible
15:36 < illegale> if you have fine people who can do it
15:36 <@echarp> it's difficult
15:36 < illegale> happens all the time
15:36 <@echarp> it happens yes
15:36 <@echarp> from time to time :)
15:36 < illegale> the badsic issue is to create something recognisable
15:37 < illegale> articulate proper idea
15:37 <@echarp> to market something and gather steam
15:38 < illegale> so, there has to be enogh will and wisdom
15:38 < illegale> that is all
15:38 < illegale> :-)
15:39 <@echarp> I'm not so convinced
15:39 <@echarp> it's like you want to go to battle, you want fame and glory, yet the reasons for battle are not so important
15:40 < illegale> i do not understand
15:40 < illegale> what you are not convivnced into?
15:41 <@echarp> it seems it is not a matter of convictions, but of political power
15:41 < illegale> you have prolbem with pwer?
15:42 < illegale> i hve
15:42 <@echarp> of course not
15:42 < illegale> i have
15:42 <@echarp> I don't
15:42 < illegale> i have big problems with power
15:42 < illegale> seen to many powerless initiatives that where only capable to see bs around
15:43 < illegale> see sell
15:43 <@echarp> your problem is that you don't have enough power? ;)
15:43 < illegale> yes
15:43 < illegale> i am not fine with power structure of today
15:44 < illegale> you are?
15:45 <@echarp> of course not
15:45 < illegale> so, what si the problem than?ž
15:45 <@echarp> the problem is not "power", power is a consequence as far as I'm concerned
15:45 < illegale> power is tool
15:46 <@echarp> what is important are people and what they want, their energy to participate or not
15:46 < illegale> create strucutre of pwer based on different basis, you have whole new consequences of it
15:46 < illegale> what do people want?
15:47 < illegale> i mean why do you think this is not what people do want?
15:47 <@echarp> I don't know what they want, I want them to express what they want
15:47 < illegale> they can
15:47 <@echarp> they define it
15:47 < illegale> make graphits
15:47 <@echarp> I think they could do it better
15:47 < illegale> write blogs
15:48 < illegale> they can yell around
15:48 <@echarp> it's a start, but definitely not enough
15:48 < illegale> they can express it pretty easy
15:48 < illegale> so, what do people need?
15:48 < illegale> power?
15:48 <@echarp> I do not know
15:48 <@echarp> I want them to define it!!!
15:48 < illegale> you are afraid to admit
15:49 <@echarp> I consciously do not want to define what others want!!!
15:49 < illegale> so, when they define it, shell they need power to implement it?
15:49 < illegale> so, what do we talk about than?
15:49 <@echarp> because I consider that definition to be a restriction
15:49 <@echarp> I am talking about the ways they can define it
15:50 < illegale> sometimes, you have to make assumptions
15:50 < illegale> to look few steps ahead
15:50 <@echarp> there might be assumptions yes
15:50 < illegale> i made my assumption
15:50 < illegale> can you overturn it?
15:51 <@echarp> "a definition is already a restriction"
15:51 <@echarp> a restriction on what is possible
15:51 <@echarp> it's like you are closing doors for someone else
15:51 < illegale> ok, you can be loosy if you wish
15:51 < illegale> no, it is like creatng product you have trust into
15:52 < illegale> you make same issue also
15:52 < illegale> you are creating tool you have trust into also
15:52 <@echarp> "make same issue" please rephrase
15:52 < illegale> and you did not ask people do they need it
15:53 < illegale> you are also assumptious
15:53 <@echarp> no it is not
15:53 <@echarp> I am making something available, nothing more
15:53 < illegale> why?
15:53 < illegale> me too
15:54 <@echarp> making what available then?
15:54 < illegale> i can not do more, that is obvious
15:54 < illegale> power to the people
15:54 < illegale> essence of dd
15:54 <@echarp> you are proposing something and trying to gather support
15:55 <@echarp> I am fine with that
15:55 <@echarp> yet that support is difficult to gather, particularly in summer time
15:55 < illegale> of course
15:55 < illegale> i am not able to fine suppoer
15:55 < illegale> find
15:56 <@echarp> I know that situation, same same here
15:57 < illegale> why is that so?
15:57 < illegale> what do you thik?
15:58 <@echarp> personally it's because I don't like going around to market my idea
15:58 < illegale> no sense for collectivity?
15:58 < illegale> why dont you find somebody to do it for you?
15:58 <@echarp> I am in a community
15:58 <@echarp> because finding someone to do it for me is already a matter of marketing an idea
15:59 < illegale> pay him
15:59 <@echarp> what kind of money?
15:59 < illegale> find some indian
15:59 < illegale> $$$
15:59 < illegale> to promote your software for several bucks
15:59 <@echarp> what amount?
16:00 < illegale> suppose there are the ways to handle this issue
16:00 < illegale> several 100 $
16:00 < illegale> you can make different deals also
16:00 < illegale> with me for instance
16:00 < illegale> or with magnus
16:01 < illegale> maybe Eric
16:01 < illegale> maybe even MArk
16:01 <@echarp> and with money?
16:01 < illegale> i would not ask for money
16:02 < illegale> but agreement
16:02 < illegale> who knows what would other guys do?
16:02 < illegale> maybe smebody would not ask for anything?
16:03 < illegale> suppose money issue is what you are more comfort about but sors of agreements
16:03 <@echarp> still requires marketing
16:03 < illegale> of course
16:03 <@echarp> and altough I do it I don't like it much
16:03 <@echarp> lucky the group is fun to be with
16:04 <@echarp> well, but for mark obviously
16:05 < illegale> what is the essence of your software?
16:05 < illegale> mailing stuff?
16:05 < illegale> equality stuff?
16:05 < illegale> voting stuff?
16:06 < illegale> whats difference to regular software such as phpbb with mail sending
16:06 < illegale> ?
16:07 < illegale> no pain , no gain :p
16:08 <@echarp> of course
16:08 <@echarp> yet there are pains which we can take more easily than others
16:08 < illegale> how would you market you software?
16:09 < illegale> promote
16:13 < illegale> it would be good for you to make little letter about ideas for promotion
16:13 < illegale> whoever is gonny promote it, that will be usefull to him,
16:13 < illegale> gotta go
16:13 < illegale> cu
16:13 -!- illegale [i=ille...@cmung4098.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit []
16:45 -!- illegale (illegale) [i=ille...@cmung169.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
17:00 < illegale> parlebot: help
17:00 < parlebot> The commands I know are:
17:00 < parlebot> silence - Stop logging (also: stop, off, ...)
17:00 < parlebot> listen - Start logging (also: start, on, ...)
17:00 < parlebot> bookmark - Give the URI of the current log
17:00 < parlebot> chump LETTER - Record the URI of the current log under chump LETTER
17:00 < parlebot> I respond to 'parlebot, command' in public and '/msg parlebot command' in private
17:00 < parlebot> Logging Policy: All public output is logged if I am listening except for
17:00 < parlebot> any lines starting [off]. All commands to me are logged.
17:00 < parlebot> My public output is logged but these lines are not searchable.
17:00 < parlebot> The logs are at http://bridgeheart.net/irclogs/irc.freenode.net:6667/parlement/
17:00 < parlebot> Do parlebot, adminhelp for help on administrative commands
17:34 -!- illegale [i=ille...@cmung169.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit []
17:54 -!- illegale (illegale) [n=ille...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has joined #parlement
17:55 -!- illegale [n=ille...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has quit [Remote closed the connection]
--- Log closed jeu jui 27 00:00:14 2006
echarp
Jul 28, 2006, 12:30:56 AM7/28/06
to top-politics
--- Log opened jeu jui 27 00:00:14 2006
09:42 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
09:42 <@echarp> hello
18:24 < urgen> http://slashdot.org/articles/06/07/27/1338251.shtml
18:25 <@echarp> hello urgen
18:25 < urgen> search: Internet as a Sovereign Nation
18:26 <@echarp> I actually consider somehow differently
18:26 <@echarp> the "memesphere"
18:27 <@echarp> a place of platonist quality :)
18:27 < urgen> ya I have a different model too.. but the thread works for this discussion space anyway
18:27 < urgen> memocracy
18:27 <@echarp> :)
18:27 < urgen> but someone already used that
18:27 <@echarp> you sure there is any sort of "cracy" anyway? :)
18:27 <@echarp> (in the net)
18:28 < urgen> well meme o cracy should be a contradiction
18:28 < urgen> but meme's do work very well
18:28 <@echarp> yeap they do
18:28 < urgen> and btw vernor vinge's Rainbow's End, excellent scifi
18:29 < urgen> you'll love it
18:29 <@echarp> the net has one strange quality, it does not have the same kind of geography and physical identity the world seem to have
18:29 <@echarp> I loooove vinge
18:29 < urgen> I'm halfway through the book
18:29 <@echarp> I don't share his belief in a singularity, yet I love what he writes
18:29 <@echarp> I'll have to command it
18:30 <@echarp> some day, I'd love to write some strong SF
18:30 <@echarp> somehow, it might be more fun than risking reading yet another crappy fantasy posing as SF
19:46 <@echarp> re
20:55 -!- StevenClift (e-democracy guy) [n=chat...@user-12l39a5.cable.mindspring.com] has joined #parlement
21:19 -!- StevenClift [n=chat...@user-12l39a5.cable.mindspring.com] has quit ["Chatzilla 0.9.72 [Firefox 1.5.0.4/2006050817]"]
21:26 <@echarp> nsh is StevenClift? :)
21:29 -!- illegale (illegale) [i=ille...@cmung2655.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
21:50 -!- illegale [i=ille...@cmung2655.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
--- Log closed ven jui 28 00:00:14 2006
09:42 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
09:42 <@echarp> hello
18:24 < urgen> http://slashdot.org/articles/06/07/27/1338251.shtml
18:25 <@echarp> hello urgen
18:25 < urgen> search: Internet as a Sovereign Nation
18:26 <@echarp> I actually consider somehow differently
18:26 <@echarp> the "memesphere"
18:27 <@echarp> a place of platonist quality :)
18:27 < urgen> ya I have a different model too.. but the thread works for this discussion space anyway
18:27 < urgen> memocracy
18:27 <@echarp> :)
18:27 < urgen> but someone already used that
18:27 <@echarp> you sure there is any sort of "cracy" anyway? :)
18:27 <@echarp> (in the net)
18:28 < urgen> well meme o cracy should be a contradiction
18:28 < urgen> but meme's do work very well
18:28 <@echarp> yeap they do
18:28 < urgen> and btw vernor vinge's Rainbow's End, excellent scifi
18:29 < urgen> you'll love it
18:29 <@echarp> the net has one strange quality, it does not have the same kind of geography and physical identity the world seem to have
18:29 <@echarp> I loooove vinge
18:29 < urgen> I'm halfway through the book
18:29 <@echarp> I don't share his belief in a singularity, yet I love what he writes
18:29 <@echarp> I'll have to command it
18:30 <@echarp> some day, I'd love to write some strong SF
18:30 <@echarp> somehow, it might be more fun than risking reading yet another crappy fantasy posing as SF
19:46 <@echarp> re
20:55 -!- StevenClift (e-democracy guy) [n=chat...@user-12l39a5.cable.mindspring.com] has joined #parlement
21:19 -!- StevenClift [n=chat...@user-12l39a5.cable.mindspring.com] has quit ["Chatzilla 0.9.72 [Firefox 1.5.0.4/2006050817]"]
21:26 <@echarp> nsh is StevenClift? :)
21:29 -!- illegale (illegale) [i=ille...@cmung2655.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
21:50 -!- illegale [i=ille...@cmung2655.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
--- Log closed ven jui 28 00:00:14 2006
echarp
Jul 29, 2006, 12:29:46 AM7/29/06
to top-politics
--- Log opened ven jui 28 00:00:14 2006
01:39 < urgen> no
01:39 < urgen> he sent me an email
01:50 < urgen> stick him on your notify and strike up a conversation next time you see him
01:50 < urgen> I just sent another email
04:28 -!- urgyen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
06:03 -!- urgyen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit []
09:15 <@echarp> hello hello
18:02 < urgen:#parlement> no return of steven yet
18:05 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
18:05 <@echarp> not yet anyway
18:05 <@echarp> how are you urgen? just waking up? ;)
18:05 < urgen> ya, having some tea
18:06 <@echarp> me I'm about to go home
18:06 <@echarp> end of week is quite a nice prospect :)
18:06 < urgen> didn't know you were away
18:06 < urgen> oh you mean just today
18:07 < urgen> home for the evenign
18:07 < urgen> ng
18:07 <@echarp> yeap
--- Log closed sam jui 29 00:00:15 2006
01:39 < urgen> no
01:39 < urgen> he sent me an email
01:50 < urgen> stick him on your notify and strike up a conversation next time you see him
01:50 < urgen> I just sent another email
04:28 -!- urgyen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
06:03 -!- urgyen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit []
09:15 <@echarp> hello hello
18:02 < urgen:#parlement> no return of steven yet
18:05 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
18:05 <@echarp> not yet anyway
18:05 <@echarp> how are you urgen? just waking up? ;)
18:05 < urgen> ya, having some tea
18:06 <@echarp> me I'm about to go home
18:06 <@echarp> end of week is quite a nice prospect :)
18:06 < urgen> didn't know you were away
18:06 < urgen> oh you mean just today
18:07 < urgen> home for the evenign
18:07 < urgen> ng
18:07 <@echarp> yeap
--- Log closed sam jui 29 00:00:15 2006
echarp
Jul 30, 2006, 12:31:07 AM7/30/06
to top-politics
--- Log opened sam jui 29 00:00:15 2006
09:21 < urgen> http://www.kirktoons.com/busheviks/busheviks.html
10:19 <@echarp> woaw, bushes are great, bushes are the great leap forward :)
20:24 -!- illegale (illegale) [i=ille...@cmung2549.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
20:25 < illegale> what a day
20:28 < urgen> hi
20:28 < urgen> here, to lighten your day: http://www.kirktoons.com/busheviks/busheviks.html
20:30 < illegale> nicw
20:30 < illegale> parlebot: help
20:30 < parlebot> The commands I know are:
20:30 < parlebot> silence - Stop logging (also: stop, off, ...)
20:30 < parlebot> listen - Start logging (also: start, on, ...)
20:30 < parlebot> bookmark - Give the URI of the current log
20:30 < parlebot> chump LETTER - Record the URI of the current log under chump LETTER
20:30 < parlebot> I respond to 'parlebot, command' in public and '/msg parlebot command' in private
20:30 < parlebot> Logging Policy: All public output is logged if I am listening except for
20:30 < parlebot> any lines starting [off]. All commands to me are logged.
20:30 < parlebot> My public output is logged but these lines are not searchable.
20:30 < parlebot> The logs are at http://bridgeheart.net/irclogs/irc.freenode.net:6667/parlement/
20:30 < parlebot> Do parlebot, adminhelp for help on administrative commands
20:45 < illegale> you still with Clift?
20:48 < urgen> slowly
20:49 < urgen> I still can't join the channel he set up
20:49 < urgen> he did show up here because I asked him to try that command as a way for me to see that he was at least on freenode
21:00 < illegale> so, why you hang with Clift?
21:00 < illegale> Is he yours Joi Ito?
21:18 < urgen> jab jab jab
21:18 < urgen> = illegale
21:18 < urgen> is this your only tool?
21:18 < urgen> I am interested in online consensus forming
21:18 < urgen> so mr clift says as well
21:19 < urgen> I wanted to talk
21:19 < urgen> I found a link on his website that said join IRC
21:19 < urgen> but it didn't work, I asked why not and was asked to help get it to work
21:19 < urgen> since I have ate breathed and slept IRC since 1989 I said ok
21:20 < urgen> I haven't even met the guy yet
21:20 < urgen> sheesh
21:33 < urgen> did you see: http://www.opendemocracy.net/home/index.jsp
21:36 < illegale> what about it?
21:36 < urgen> yet more online open democracy
21:36 < urgen> what about it?
21:37 < illegale> i hanged there for a whule
21:37 < illegale> clasical NGO stuff
21:37 < urgen> every front a different democracy
21:37 < urgen> how can any be democracy at all?
21:37 < illegale> it cant
21:37 < illegale> democracy is stupid word
21:37 < illegale> at least in context it is used for
21:38 < illegale> btw, they do not obey to TOP standards
21:40 < illegale> so, escalation of Lebannon crisis is rather common thought around
21:40 < urgen> :-) I noticed
21:40 < illegale> how do you feel as an agressor?
21:41 < illegale> ignorance is satisfying tool for protection'0
21:41 < illegale> ?
21:42 < urgen> me?
21:42 * urgen checks when the last time he agressed
21:42 < illegale> ignorant as usually
21:42 < urgen> I usually get upset at people that push rules without understanding them
21:43 < urgen> or push ignorance
21:43 < urgen> but I still reserve my expression
21:43 < illegale> i am not sure do you realise, but you are part of political entity that realises agreesion
21:44 < urgen> so this latest jab of yours.. still only one tool?
21:44 < urgen> is too silly it makes me cry
21:44 < urgen> you really think people have a national stamp of identity?
21:44 < urgen> do you?
21:44 < illegale> what i can notice, you carry US passport
21:44 < illegale> is that true?
21:44 < urgen> no I don't
21:44 < urgen> I sold it
21:44 < illegale> you pay US taxes
21:45 < urgen> with what?
21:45 < illegale> you support US economy
21:45 < illegale> You are part of US
21:45 < urgen> I support lots of things
21:45 < illegale> You are American
21:45 < urgen> american is two continents
21:45 < urgen> jab jab jab jab jab jab
21:45 < urgen> wow
21:45 < illegale> Part of responsibility of political actions of your political entity is on you
21:45 < urgen> so much skill developing consensus
21:45 < urgen> this must really work for you
21:46 < illegale> i am from Bsonisa
21:46 < urgen> more excuses
21:46 < illegale> seen there,
21:46 < illegale> seen that
21:46 < illegale> been there
21:46 < illegale> seen what ignorance means when it hits you back
21:46 < urgen> it is a hard way to learn for sure
21:46 < illegale> and that is actual reason ignorance is concerned as bad thing
21:47 < illegale> you want to talk to me?
21:47 < urgen> so people have to be in a bad place to be ok?
21:47 < illegale> you want to talk to me?
21:47 < urgen> I have to go get an arm blown off?
21:47 < illegale> you want to talk to me?
21:48 < urgen> I am asking you to, anyway
21:48 < urgen> but maybe it isn't possible
21:48 < illegale> how are you asking me?
21:48 < urgen> lets look for how to understand instead of assume
21:48 < illegale> by putting my thought to jab, jab, jab level?
21:48 < urgen> it sure feels like that
21:49 < urgen> attack first ask questions later... someone might call you american if you are not careful
21:49 < illegale> seems to me there are two thing that make this communication possible
21:49 < illegale> do not make it
21:52 < urgen> ok, I'll change method
21:52 < urgen> you have full permission to blame me for the worlds troubles
21:53 < urgen> for whatever reason, US, Global Warming, Ignorance...
21:53 < illegale> urgen: there is a bigger problem but this in our communications process
21:53 < illegale> 1. we are too different
21:53 < illegale> 2. we do not have motive to get fammilar to each other
21:54 < illegale> so, why bother at all?
21:54 < urgen> well... difference is the spice of life
21:54 < urgen> and 2 is your rule not mine
21:54 < urgen> now what?
21:55 < illegale> nothing
21:55 < urgen> http://sovereignsociety.com/
22:04 < illegale> what about it?
22:15 -!- illegale [i=ille...@cmung2549.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Read error: 54 (Connection reset by peer)]
23:32 < urgen> Start, Log Off, It is now safe to turn off your government.
23:34 < urgen> http://www.bemroses.net/images/curves.jpg
--- Log closed dim jui 30 00:00:15 2006
09:21 < urgen> http://www.kirktoons.com/busheviks/busheviks.html
10:19 <@echarp> woaw, bushes are great, bushes are the great leap forward :)
20:24 -!- illegale (illegale) [i=ille...@cmung2549.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
20:25 < illegale> what a day
20:28 < urgen> hi
20:28 < urgen> here, to lighten your day: http://www.kirktoons.com/busheviks/busheviks.html
20:30 < illegale> nicw
20:30 < illegale> parlebot: help
20:30 < parlebot> The commands I know are:
20:30 < parlebot> silence - Stop logging (also: stop, off, ...)
20:30 < parlebot> listen - Start logging (also: start, on, ...)
20:30 < parlebot> bookmark - Give the URI of the current log
20:30 < parlebot> chump LETTER - Record the URI of the current log under chump LETTER
20:30 < parlebot> I respond to 'parlebot, command' in public and '/msg parlebot command' in private
20:30 < parlebot> Logging Policy: All public output is logged if I am listening except for
20:30 < parlebot> any lines starting [off]. All commands to me are logged.
20:30 < parlebot> My public output is logged but these lines are not searchable.
20:30 < parlebot> The logs are at http://bridgeheart.net/irclogs/irc.freenode.net:6667/parlement/
20:30 < parlebot> Do parlebot, adminhelp for help on administrative commands
20:45 < illegale> you still with Clift?
20:48 < urgen> slowly
20:49 < urgen> I still can't join the channel he set up
20:49 < urgen> he did show up here because I asked him to try that command as a way for me to see that he was at least on freenode
21:00 < illegale> so, why you hang with Clift?
21:00 < illegale> Is he yours Joi Ito?
21:18 < urgen> jab jab jab
21:18 < urgen> = illegale
21:18 < urgen> is this your only tool?
21:18 < urgen> I am interested in online consensus forming
21:18 < urgen> so mr clift says as well
21:19 < urgen> I wanted to talk
21:19 < urgen> I found a link on his website that said join IRC
21:19 < urgen> but it didn't work, I asked why not and was asked to help get it to work
21:19 < urgen> since I have ate breathed and slept IRC since 1989 I said ok
21:20 < urgen> I haven't even met the guy yet
21:20 < urgen> sheesh
21:33 < urgen> did you see: http://www.opendemocracy.net/home/index.jsp
21:36 < illegale> what about it?
21:36 < urgen> yet more online open democracy
21:36 < urgen> what about it?
21:37 < illegale> i hanged there for a whule
21:37 < illegale> clasical NGO stuff
21:37 < urgen> every front a different democracy
21:37 < urgen> how can any be democracy at all?
21:37 < illegale> it cant
21:37 < illegale> democracy is stupid word
21:37 < illegale> at least in context it is used for
21:38 < illegale> btw, they do not obey to TOP standards
21:40 < illegale> so, escalation of Lebannon crisis is rather common thought around
21:40 < urgen> :-) I noticed
21:40 < illegale> how do you feel as an agressor?
21:41 < illegale> ignorance is satisfying tool for protection'0
21:41 < illegale> ?
21:42 < urgen> me?
21:42 * urgen checks when the last time he agressed
21:42 < illegale> ignorant as usually
21:42 < urgen> I usually get upset at people that push rules without understanding them
21:43 < urgen> or push ignorance
21:43 < urgen> but I still reserve my expression
21:43 < illegale> i am not sure do you realise, but you are part of political entity that realises agreesion
21:44 < urgen> so this latest jab of yours.. still only one tool?
21:44 < urgen> is too silly it makes me cry
21:44 < urgen> you really think people have a national stamp of identity?
21:44 < urgen> do you?
21:44 < illegale> what i can notice, you carry US passport
21:44 < illegale> is that true?
21:44 < urgen> no I don't
21:44 < urgen> I sold it
21:44 < illegale> you pay US taxes
21:45 < urgen> with what?
21:45 < illegale> you support US economy
21:45 < illegale> You are part of US
21:45 < urgen> I support lots of things
21:45 < illegale> You are American
21:45 < urgen> american is two continents
21:45 < urgen> jab jab jab jab jab jab
21:45 < urgen> wow
21:45 < illegale> Part of responsibility of political actions of your political entity is on you
21:45 < urgen> so much skill developing consensus
21:45 < urgen> this must really work for you
21:46 < illegale> i am from Bsonisa
21:46 < urgen> more excuses
21:46 < illegale> seen there,
21:46 < illegale> seen that
21:46 < illegale> been there
21:46 < illegale> seen what ignorance means when it hits you back
21:46 < urgen> it is a hard way to learn for sure
21:46 < illegale> and that is actual reason ignorance is concerned as bad thing
21:47 < illegale> you want to talk to me?
21:47 < urgen> so people have to be in a bad place to be ok?
21:47 < illegale> you want to talk to me?
21:47 < urgen> I have to go get an arm blown off?
21:47 < illegale> you want to talk to me?
21:48 < urgen> I am asking you to, anyway
21:48 < urgen> but maybe it isn't possible
21:48 < illegale> how are you asking me?
21:48 < urgen> lets look for how to understand instead of assume
21:48 < illegale> by putting my thought to jab, jab, jab level?
21:48 < urgen> it sure feels like that
21:49 < urgen> attack first ask questions later... someone might call you american if you are not careful
21:49 < illegale> seems to me there are two thing that make this communication possible
21:49 < illegale> do not make it
21:52 < urgen> ok, I'll change method
21:52 < urgen> you have full permission to blame me for the worlds troubles
21:53 < urgen> for whatever reason, US, Global Warming, Ignorance...
21:53 < illegale> urgen: there is a bigger problem but this in our communications process
21:53 < illegale> 1. we are too different
21:53 < illegale> 2. we do not have motive to get fammilar to each other
21:54 < illegale> so, why bother at all?
21:54 < urgen> well... difference is the spice of life
21:54 < urgen> and 2 is your rule not mine
21:54 < urgen> now what?
21:55 < illegale> nothing
21:55 < urgen> http://sovereignsociety.com/
22:04 < illegale> what about it?
22:15 -!- illegale [i=ille...@cmung2549.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Read error: 54 (Connection reset by peer)]
23:32 < urgen> Start, Log Off, It is now safe to turn off your government.
23:34 < urgen> http://www.bemroses.net/images/curves.jpg
--- Log closed dim jui 30 00:00:15 2006
echarp
Jul 31, 2006, 12:29:23 AM7/31/06
to top-politics
--- Log opened dim jui 30 00:00:15 2006
00:22 <@echarp> hellooo
00:26 <@echarp> urgen: seems communication is difficult with illegale ;)
00:27 < urgen> a bit
00:27 <@echarp> nice graph, I'm a vim guy :)
00:27 < urgen> I'm pretty patient tho
00:27 <@echarp> I see that
00:27 <@echarp> there are also matters of vocabulary and grammar, sometimes it gets in the way between gale and me, maybe with you too
00:29 < urgen> sort of
00:29 < urgen> I know how to ask to clarify too
00:29 < urgen> but I don't think illegale wants to explore anything outside of what has been adopted
00:29 <@echarp> I'm not sure
00:30 < urgen> the spectrum of human interaction is so broad
00:30 <@echarp> that's for sure! :)
00:30 < urgen> not just a narrow definition of 'social power'
00:30 <@echarp> I think he's ambitious and wants to change things
00:31 <@echarp> his viewpoint is through principles
00:31 <@echarp> and you come in and change everything from the inside out, "juggling" with words as you do! ;)
00:31 <@echarp> you deconstruct, it's sometimes difficult
00:32 < urgen> only because I'm trying to get ground for my own perspective
00:32 < urgen> which his gives me none of
00:32 < urgen> so I figure if he wants to move forward his 'social power' will have to eventualy include me
00:32 < urgen> but guess not
00:33 <@echarp> you might have to find a common ground
00:33 <@echarp> the difficulties of online interactions too
00:33 <@echarp> what are the shared goals?
00:33 < urgen> ya
00:33 <@echarp> him I would say it's political importance, changes
00:33 < urgen> well I have an understanding of how illegale uses 'transparency'
00:34 <@echarp> you, it's lasting, solidity (or am I wrong?)
00:34 < urgen> but I don't think illegale wants to hear my version
00:34 <@echarp> I also tend to still find your vision not clear
00:34 < urgen> illegale's version sounds like the classic line: no good money after bad
00:34 <@echarp> "the end does not justify the means"?
00:34 < urgen> but how do you tell without an open record?
00:35 < urgen> so illegale wants a record so ppl can see what they support gives them the change they intend
00:35 <@echarp> a reputation?
00:35 < urgen> seems like it
00:35 <@echarp> maybe yes
00:35 < urgen> but it is so way more complex than that
00:36 < urgen> and this is never allowed to be discussed
00:36 < urgen> the simple test is "can I see or not"
00:36 < urgen> this seeing is incredibly biased without discussion
00:36 <@echarp> maybe it's a first step, one he considers required
00:37 < urgen> early social power is fragile
00:37 < urgen> a test like that steps on it
00:37 < urgen> so no social power
00:37 < urgen> illegale is illegale's best enemy
00:37 <@echarp> :)
00:37 <@echarp> you think transparency makes things fragile?
00:37 < urgen> no
00:37 < urgen> transparency is a given
00:38 < urgen> ppl being able to see it the problem
00:38 <@echarp> two ends to a same stick ;)
00:38 < urgen> even handed to them ppl often reject simple evidence
00:38 <@echarp> definitely true
00:38 <@echarp> and no way to force it down their throat/mind
00:38 < urgen> none
00:38 <@echarp> (if we remain liberal nations)
00:40 <@echarp> and you, to last is your goal?
00:40 <@echarp> eternity? stability?
00:40 < urgen> not me last
00:40 < urgen> just understanding last
00:40 <@echarp> I'm struggling for an adjective
00:40 <@echarp> lastingness? :)
00:40 < urgen> I try to avoid jargon
00:41 < urgen> it sets people into motions that decay very slowly
00:41 <@echarp> loaded jargon? ;)
00:41 < urgen> :-)
00:41 < urgen> lasting appreciation
00:41 <@echarp> try me, I will jiggle but not consider it so important :)
00:41 < urgen> flowers are still nice to look at even after millions of years of evolution
00:42 < urgen> not need to sell or defend
00:43 <@echarp> but memes might work in a sligthly different way
00:43 < urgen> worthy discussion
00:44 < urgen> it is hard to slice it
00:44 <@echarp> I've got some ideas about the mind, consciousness, will
00:44 < urgen> aesthetics is so personal
00:44 < urgen> but seems to sometimes have mathematical optimization
00:45 <@echarp> aesthetics are both learned and instinctive
00:46 <@echarp> I try to view things through the prism of evolution, of utility
00:46 <@echarp> it's not a goal so much as an observation of what we are and our world
00:46 < urgen> that's why I started to pay attention to "evolutionary economics"
00:46 <@echarp> game theories?
00:47 <@echarp> prisoner dilema?
00:47 * echarp love those works
00:47 < urgen> has a premise that suggests a law of thermodynamics applied to social power
00:48 <@echarp> conservation of energy? of information?
00:48 < urgen> we get better at tracking actual transaction and lasting understanding improves
00:48 < urgen> lasting understanding being something similar to 'transparent value'
00:48 <@echarp> this is definitely a matter of economy yes
00:49 <@echarp> there are theories that explain our brain evolution through the increasing size of our social settings
00:49 <@echarp> the bigger our villages the more we had to remember :)
00:50 < urgen> yes tracking transactions
00:50 < urgen> means more brain loops
00:50 <@echarp> like bats, vampires, who can share blood in case of need, but only with those they remember
00:50 <@echarp> definitely more loops, exactly, it's an interesting theory anyway, probably a stone among others
00:51 < urgen> neuro path development is important
00:52 <@echarp> those memories of our past comitments, is that your goal (or one of them)?
00:52 < urgen> I also really appreciate a record
00:53 < urgen> a way to test whether understanding has drifted from original intent
00:53 < urgen> and access to the record is therefor critical
00:53 <@echarp> you bet! a written contract of sort! :)
00:53 < urgen> but I don't go around hitting people who guard the access
00:53 <@echarp> yet even words and connotations might/will drift
00:53 <@echarp> lol
00:53 < urgen> illegale needs a new strategy
00:54 <@echarp> I bet he enjoys unsettling things too ;)
00:54 < urgen> feeling alive generates some positive creative tension
00:54 < urgen> helps perspective grow
00:55 <@echarp> carpe diem!
00:55 <@echarp> to enjoy every instant in life
00:55 <@echarp> or to prepare for the next instant to be an enjoyment
00:56 < urgen> responsibility, responsiveness, accountability
00:57 <@echarp> the consequences of every instant
00:57 <@echarp> they are important, to make sure our coming time will be just as pleasant
00:57 <@echarp> I'm trying to become a hedonist, I've always been an eudemonist
00:57 <@echarp> (eudemonism is about happiness while hedonism concerns pleasure)
00:57 < urgen> can hedonist be green?
00:58 <@echarp> you bet they can
00:58 <@echarp> hedonist calculate everything
00:58 <@echarp> the first hedonist were ascetes
00:58 <@echarp> only ate some cheese and some water everyday
00:59 <@echarp> they also seeked attaraxy, the absence of trouble
01:00 < urgen> so evolution of school of thought seems to help communicate basis of understanding
01:00 < urgen> avoiding trouble doesn't build resiliency
01:01 < urgen> will lead one into the same traps over and over
01:01 < urgen> so the ascetes had to learn eventually
01:02 <@echarp> ataraxy just builds tranquility
01:02 <@echarp> they also promoted a highly evolved kind of understanding... friendship!
01:02 <@echarp> muttually advantageous friendship
01:03 <@echarp> maybe this is one structure you could use?
01:04 < urgen> friendship is critical
01:04 < urgen> the world is no fun with no one to share it with
01:04 <@echarp> it helps me to understand your point of view
01:05 < urgen> that's why I don't worry about people with game of one
01:05 <@echarp> game of one is a start :)
01:05 < urgen> I know they will change their mind eventually
01:05 < urgen> so 'change of mind' is also critical
01:05 < urgen> that's why I don't think "trust me" works
01:06 < urgen> which is what I hear from illegale too many times
01:06 < urgen> and this is where we sit
01:06 < urgen> :-)
01:06 < urgen> who will blink first?
01:06 < urgen> how many years will it take?
01:06 <@echarp> :-D
01:06 < urgen> why?
01:07 <@echarp> you sure he goes "trust me"?
01:07 < urgen> oh ya
01:07 <@echarp> personally it's one great way to make sure I won't trust! :^)
01:07 < urgen> there have been many speeches with "people need to trust the new morality"
01:07 < urgen> people don't need to trust anything they need to learn and understand
01:08 < urgen> appreciation follows
01:08 * echarp agrees
01:08 < urgen> illegale proposes a special group of people with higher values to lead
01:08 <@echarp> you don't force things on people, you give them the tools
01:09 < urgen> so top is suppose to expose these people of higher value
01:09 < urgen> it is probably an excellent tool but the product will be unexpected for illegale
01:10 <@echarp> I don't think he particularly wants leaders
01:10 < urgen> illegale claims my own crumpled social value prevents me from seeing this
01:10 <@echarp> well, he does not jump to my mind
01:10 < urgen> I keep hearing leaders from illegale but we never get far enough to find out
01:10 <@echarp> nah, you read to much in his last words on america & co
01:11 <@echarp> I'm french, yet I don't consider myself personaly responsible for slavery
01:11 < urgen> right
01:11 < urgen> it's not a one to one
01:11 <@echarp> but I recognise this history
01:11 <@echarp> identity is a complex thing
01:12 <@echarp> I'm me, and I'm also a french man
01:12 < urgen> I love chasing bias
01:12 <@echarp> I am the heir of a tradition, of sorts
01:12 <@echarp> chasing bias is cool, dangerous but cool ;)
01:12 < urgen> I will enjoy the critical question but it has to make sense too
01:13 <@echarp> it's where grammar can get in the way :(
01:13 < urgen> ya
01:13 < urgen> I am not so good on multiple languages
01:14 < urgen> I use to know russian, french, german, spanish grammar
01:14 < urgen> but it you don't use it you lose it
01:14 <@echarp> not bad
01:14 <@echarp> I'm supposed to have learned latin, german and spanish, a loooong time ago :)
01:15 < urgen> I missed latin
01:15 < urgen> that would have probably helped me a lot
01:15 <@echarp> I'm sure I could have enjoyed it some more if I had learned it later
01:15 < urgen> hehehe
01:15 <@echarp> its historic utility is incredible
01:15 < urgen> ya that too, funny how experience changes values
01:15 <@echarp> definitely
01:16 <@echarp> forcing an education is not the best of things :(
01:16 < urgen> right
01:17 <@echarp> you have kids? I don't remember
01:19 <@echarp> should parents and their children use friendship as their bond?
01:22 < urgen> it is hard for parents and children to be friends because society teaches parents to consider children as property
01:23 < urgen> some families can transcend that
01:23 <@echarp> what about authority? responsibility?
01:24 < urgen> I did not learn my mature politics, authority or responsibility from my parents
01:25 < urgen> tho they did probably guide some early probability of choice
01:26 <@echarp> I mean, can and should parents control what their kids do? even through physical violence?
01:27 < urgen> that's the 'property' thing
01:27 < urgen> children are not property
01:28 <@echarp> then parents should not control their kids?
01:28 < urgen> 'ownership' is a point of contention to me
01:29 < urgen> there's guiding and there's control
01:29 < urgen> there are a lot of laws now that are trying to mandate that doctors inform parents of children's choices
01:29 < urgen> it's a hard line to define
01:30 <@echarp> definitely very hard
01:31 <@echarp> personally I have a few beliefs about kids and responsibility
01:31 <@echarp> it's almost a certitude to me, that anybody asking to take responsibility on something should be heard and given a go
01:31 < urgen> this is directly related to 'informed choice' ala democracy too
01:31 <@echarp> from puberty it's rather easy to allow
01:32 < urgen> we seem to allow "political children" to vote
01:32 <@echarp> political children is not an interesting concept to me, it belittles individuals
01:33 < urgen> there seems to be an active move to control education
01:33 < urgen> this seems to limit informed choice
01:33 < urgen> to keep people uneducated on purpose with interest to control
01:34 < urgen> that, I can't totally blame the individual for
01:34 <@echarp> I agree yes
01:34 <@echarp> wilfully removing tools, opportunities, is bad
01:37 <@echarp> I still have difficulties with kids
01:37 <@echarp> the one I encounter do seem to need control from their parents
01:37 <@echarp> even physical violence at times
01:39 < urgen> brb
01:39 <@echarp> ok
01:39 <@echarp> I might go to bed, rather late here
01:55 < urgen> ya
02:09 <@echarp> I'm off to bed urgen
02:09 <@echarp> good night
02:10 <@echarp> cu tomorrow, we'll discuss responsability, maybe
04:40 -!- nsh [n=n...@87.242.140.179] has quit [Nick collision from services.]
04:40 -!- nsh (No Such Human) [n=nsh@wikipedia/nsh] has joined #parlement
05:17 -!- cnloyd (New Now Know How) [n=chat...@206.180.135.187.txl-dial-ip.hal-pc.org] has joined #parlement
05:18 < cnloyd> Hello everyone.
05:18 < cnloyd> Urgen, how are you coping with the heat wave?
05:18 < cnloyd> Have you experienced any rotating blackouts?
05:19 < urgen> not here
05:19 < urgen> we hit fog yesterday
05:19 < urgen> so it's been beautifull wonderful
05:19 < cnloyd> That's good. Temps hit the dewpoint.
05:19 < cnloyd> I finally updated my blog (trumpets sound; the masses rejoice)
05:21 < cnloyd> So...yeah. I added pictures.
05:21 < urgen> I'm an unblogger
05:22 < cnloyd> Unblogger? Is that cool now? I'm so far behind.
05:22 < cnloyd> Finished the Baroque Cycle. Finally.
05:23 < urgen> I am half way through vernor ving Rainbow's End
05:23 < urgen> wonderful wonderful
05:24 < cnloyd> Really? Isn't he the guy who help insert the Singularity meme, that is making the rounds?
05:25 < urgen> he also invented 'cyberspace'
05:25 < urgen> but is one of the all time best scifi authors easily
05:26 < cnloyd> Haven't read any of his work. Got into Cory Doctorow.
05:28 < cnloyd> Started reading Accelerando, but it wasn't safe for work.
05:28 < cnloyd> What's Rainbow's End about?
05:36 < urgen> it is about genetic engineering where they create a virus that makes you purchase a specific product
05:36 < urgen> so very near future
05:36 < urgen> ;-)
05:37 < cnloyd> Twisted. Is it a way of "encouraging" consumer spending?
05:40 < urgen> they call it "You Gotta Believe Me" technology
05:40 < urgen> YGBM
05:43 < cnloyd> Does it use unobtainium?
05:43 < urgen> :-)
05:44 < urgen> not yet
05:44 < urgen> but the world is layers and layers of virtual reality
05:44 < urgen> ppl wear
05:45 < cnloyd> All VR, all the time?
05:46 < urgen> layers
05:46 < urgen> so you can peel it back to actual if you want
05:47 < cnloyd> Is there an on/off switch?
05:47 < urgen> you don't have to wear
05:48 < cnloyd> Hmm.
05:48 < urgen> but then you have to rely on antique stuff like digital newspapers or clunky laptops
05:48 < cnloyd> Oh well. There are always Amish in society.
05:49 < urgen> amish are allowed to use anything that's 100 years old aren't they?
05:49 < cnloyd> Some people still pay ATT for their actual physical phones.
05:49 < cnloyd> I think that it depends on the sect. They use chainsaws and MRIs, when needed.
05:50 < cnloyd> I think they avoid modern tech as far as they can practically get away with.
05:50 < urgen> oh
05:50 < cnloyd> Mennonites are not so hard core.
05:50 < cnloyd> And, it varies from there.
05:51 < cnloyd> Some Mennonites drive.
--- Log closed dim jui 30 06:30:32 2006
--- Log opened dim jui 30 10:34:45 2006
10:34 -!- echarp [n=33M0...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has joined #parlement
10:34 -!- Topic for #parlement: http://leparlement.org
10:34 -!- Topic set by echarp [] [Mon Jul 24 00:20:56 2006]
10:34 [Users #parlement]
10:34 [ echarp] [ fiatlex] [ nsh] [ parlebot] [ urgen]
10:34 -!- Irssi: #parlement: Total of 5 nicks [0 ops, 0 halfops, 0 voices, 5 normal]
10:34 -!- Channel #parlement created Fri Jul 21 18:39:21 2006
10:35 -!- Irssi: Join to #parlement was synced in 31 secs
10:36 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
10:36 < echarp> hello
10:36 -!- Topic for #parlement: http://leparlement.org
10:36 -!- Topic set by echarp [] [Mon Jul 24 00:20:56 2006]
16:52 < nsh> urgy, what's boomeritis?
19:58 -!- crobig (illegale) [i=ille...@cmung3090.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
19:58 -!- crobig is now known as illegale
20:27 < echarp> hello illegale
20:35 -!- illegale [i=ille...@cmung3090.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
--- Log closed lun jui 31 00:00:08 2006
00:22 <@echarp> hellooo
00:26 <@echarp> urgen: seems communication is difficult with illegale ;)
00:27 < urgen> a bit
00:27 <@echarp> nice graph, I'm a vim guy :)
00:27 < urgen> I'm pretty patient tho
00:27 <@echarp> I see that
00:27 <@echarp> there are also matters of vocabulary and grammar, sometimes it gets in the way between gale and me, maybe with you too
00:29 < urgen> sort of
00:29 < urgen> I know how to ask to clarify too
00:29 < urgen> but I don't think illegale wants to explore anything outside of what has been adopted
00:29 <@echarp> I'm not sure
00:30 < urgen> the spectrum of human interaction is so broad
00:30 <@echarp> that's for sure! :)
00:30 < urgen> not just a narrow definition of 'social power'
00:30 <@echarp> I think he's ambitious and wants to change things
00:31 <@echarp> his viewpoint is through principles
00:31 <@echarp> and you come in and change everything from the inside out, "juggling" with words as you do! ;)
00:31 <@echarp> you deconstruct, it's sometimes difficult
00:32 < urgen> only because I'm trying to get ground for my own perspective
00:32 < urgen> which his gives me none of
00:32 < urgen> so I figure if he wants to move forward his 'social power' will have to eventualy include me
00:32 < urgen> but guess not
00:33 <@echarp> you might have to find a common ground
00:33 <@echarp> the difficulties of online interactions too
00:33 <@echarp> what are the shared goals?
00:33 < urgen> ya
00:33 <@echarp> him I would say it's political importance, changes
00:33 < urgen> well I have an understanding of how illegale uses 'transparency'
00:34 <@echarp> you, it's lasting, solidity (or am I wrong?)
00:34 < urgen> but I don't think illegale wants to hear my version
00:34 <@echarp> I also tend to still find your vision not clear
00:34 < urgen> illegale's version sounds like the classic line: no good money after bad
00:34 <@echarp> "the end does not justify the means"?
00:34 < urgen> but how do you tell without an open record?
00:35 < urgen> so illegale wants a record so ppl can see what they support gives them the change they intend
00:35 <@echarp> a reputation?
00:35 < urgen> seems like it
00:35 <@echarp> maybe yes
00:35 < urgen> but it is so way more complex than that
00:36 < urgen> and this is never allowed to be discussed
00:36 < urgen> the simple test is "can I see or not"
00:36 < urgen> this seeing is incredibly biased without discussion
00:36 <@echarp> maybe it's a first step, one he considers required
00:37 < urgen> early social power is fragile
00:37 < urgen> a test like that steps on it
00:37 < urgen> so no social power
00:37 < urgen> illegale is illegale's best enemy
00:37 <@echarp> :)
00:37 <@echarp> you think transparency makes things fragile?
00:37 < urgen> no
00:37 < urgen> transparency is a given
00:38 < urgen> ppl being able to see it the problem
00:38 <@echarp> two ends to a same stick ;)
00:38 < urgen> even handed to them ppl often reject simple evidence
00:38 <@echarp> definitely true
00:38 <@echarp> and no way to force it down their throat/mind
00:38 < urgen> none
00:38 <@echarp> (if we remain liberal nations)
00:40 <@echarp> and you, to last is your goal?
00:40 <@echarp> eternity? stability?
00:40 < urgen> not me last
00:40 < urgen> just understanding last
00:40 <@echarp> I'm struggling for an adjective
00:40 <@echarp> lastingness? :)
00:40 < urgen> I try to avoid jargon
00:41 < urgen> it sets people into motions that decay very slowly
00:41 <@echarp> loaded jargon? ;)
00:41 < urgen> :-)
00:41 < urgen> lasting appreciation
00:41 <@echarp> try me, I will jiggle but not consider it so important :)
00:41 < urgen> flowers are still nice to look at even after millions of years of evolution
00:42 < urgen> not need to sell or defend
00:43 <@echarp> but memes might work in a sligthly different way
00:43 < urgen> worthy discussion
00:44 < urgen> it is hard to slice it
00:44 <@echarp> I've got some ideas about the mind, consciousness, will
00:44 < urgen> aesthetics is so personal
00:44 < urgen> but seems to sometimes have mathematical optimization
00:45 <@echarp> aesthetics are both learned and instinctive
00:46 <@echarp> I try to view things through the prism of evolution, of utility
00:46 <@echarp> it's not a goal so much as an observation of what we are and our world
00:46 < urgen> that's why I started to pay attention to "evolutionary economics"
00:46 <@echarp> game theories?
00:47 <@echarp> prisoner dilema?
00:47 * echarp love those works
00:47 < urgen> has a premise that suggests a law of thermodynamics applied to social power
00:48 <@echarp> conservation of energy? of information?
00:48 < urgen> we get better at tracking actual transaction and lasting understanding improves
00:48 < urgen> lasting understanding being something similar to 'transparent value'
00:48 <@echarp> this is definitely a matter of economy yes
00:49 <@echarp> there are theories that explain our brain evolution through the increasing size of our social settings
00:49 <@echarp> the bigger our villages the more we had to remember :)
00:50 < urgen> yes tracking transactions
00:50 < urgen> means more brain loops
00:50 <@echarp> like bats, vampires, who can share blood in case of need, but only with those they remember
00:50 <@echarp> definitely more loops, exactly, it's an interesting theory anyway, probably a stone among others
00:51 < urgen> neuro path development is important
00:52 <@echarp> those memories of our past comitments, is that your goal (or one of them)?
00:52 < urgen> I also really appreciate a record
00:53 < urgen> a way to test whether understanding has drifted from original intent
00:53 < urgen> and access to the record is therefor critical
00:53 <@echarp> you bet! a written contract of sort! :)
00:53 < urgen> but I don't go around hitting people who guard the access
00:53 <@echarp> yet even words and connotations might/will drift
00:53 <@echarp> lol
00:53 < urgen> illegale needs a new strategy
00:54 <@echarp> I bet he enjoys unsettling things too ;)
00:54 < urgen> feeling alive generates some positive creative tension
00:54 < urgen> helps perspective grow
00:55 <@echarp> carpe diem!
00:55 <@echarp> to enjoy every instant in life
00:55 <@echarp> or to prepare for the next instant to be an enjoyment
00:56 < urgen> responsibility, responsiveness, accountability
00:57 <@echarp> the consequences of every instant
00:57 <@echarp> they are important, to make sure our coming time will be just as pleasant
00:57 <@echarp> I'm trying to become a hedonist, I've always been an eudemonist
00:57 <@echarp> (eudemonism is about happiness while hedonism concerns pleasure)
00:57 < urgen> can hedonist be green?
00:58 <@echarp> you bet they can
00:58 <@echarp> hedonist calculate everything
00:58 <@echarp> the first hedonist were ascetes
00:58 <@echarp> only ate some cheese and some water everyday
00:59 <@echarp> they also seeked attaraxy, the absence of trouble
01:00 < urgen> so evolution of school of thought seems to help communicate basis of understanding
01:00 < urgen> avoiding trouble doesn't build resiliency
01:01 < urgen> will lead one into the same traps over and over
01:01 < urgen> so the ascetes had to learn eventually
01:02 <@echarp> ataraxy just builds tranquility
01:02 <@echarp> they also promoted a highly evolved kind of understanding... friendship!
01:02 <@echarp> muttually advantageous friendship
01:03 <@echarp> maybe this is one structure you could use?
01:04 < urgen> friendship is critical
01:04 < urgen> the world is no fun with no one to share it with
01:04 <@echarp> it helps me to understand your point of view
01:05 < urgen> that's why I don't worry about people with game of one
01:05 <@echarp> game of one is a start :)
01:05 < urgen> I know they will change their mind eventually
01:05 < urgen> so 'change of mind' is also critical
01:05 < urgen> that's why I don't think "trust me" works
01:06 < urgen> which is what I hear from illegale too many times
01:06 < urgen> and this is where we sit
01:06 < urgen> :-)
01:06 < urgen> who will blink first?
01:06 < urgen> how many years will it take?
01:06 <@echarp> :-D
01:06 < urgen> why?
01:07 <@echarp> you sure he goes "trust me"?
01:07 < urgen> oh ya
01:07 <@echarp> personally it's one great way to make sure I won't trust! :^)
01:07 < urgen> there have been many speeches with "people need to trust the new morality"
01:07 < urgen> people don't need to trust anything they need to learn and understand
01:08 < urgen> appreciation follows
01:08 * echarp agrees
01:08 < urgen> illegale proposes a special group of people with higher values to lead
01:08 <@echarp> you don't force things on people, you give them the tools
01:09 < urgen> so top is suppose to expose these people of higher value
01:09 < urgen> it is probably an excellent tool but the product will be unexpected for illegale
01:10 <@echarp> I don't think he particularly wants leaders
01:10 < urgen> illegale claims my own crumpled social value prevents me from seeing this
01:10 <@echarp> well, he does not jump to my mind
01:10 < urgen> I keep hearing leaders from illegale but we never get far enough to find out
01:10 <@echarp> nah, you read to much in his last words on america & co
01:11 <@echarp> I'm french, yet I don't consider myself personaly responsible for slavery
01:11 < urgen> right
01:11 < urgen> it's not a one to one
01:11 <@echarp> but I recognise this history
01:11 <@echarp> identity is a complex thing
01:12 <@echarp> I'm me, and I'm also a french man
01:12 < urgen> I love chasing bias
01:12 <@echarp> I am the heir of a tradition, of sorts
01:12 <@echarp> chasing bias is cool, dangerous but cool ;)
01:12 < urgen> I will enjoy the critical question but it has to make sense too
01:13 <@echarp> it's where grammar can get in the way :(
01:13 < urgen> ya
01:13 < urgen> I am not so good on multiple languages
01:14 < urgen> I use to know russian, french, german, spanish grammar
01:14 < urgen> but it you don't use it you lose it
01:14 <@echarp> not bad
01:14 <@echarp> I'm supposed to have learned latin, german and spanish, a loooong time ago :)
01:15 < urgen> I missed latin
01:15 < urgen> that would have probably helped me a lot
01:15 <@echarp> I'm sure I could have enjoyed it some more if I had learned it later
01:15 < urgen> hehehe
01:15 <@echarp> its historic utility is incredible
01:15 < urgen> ya that too, funny how experience changes values
01:15 <@echarp> definitely
01:16 <@echarp> forcing an education is not the best of things :(
01:16 < urgen> right
01:17 <@echarp> you have kids? I don't remember
01:19 <@echarp> should parents and their children use friendship as their bond?
01:22 < urgen> it is hard for parents and children to be friends because society teaches parents to consider children as property
01:23 < urgen> some families can transcend that
01:23 <@echarp> what about authority? responsibility?
01:24 < urgen> I did not learn my mature politics, authority or responsibility from my parents
01:25 < urgen> tho they did probably guide some early probability of choice
01:26 <@echarp> I mean, can and should parents control what their kids do? even through physical violence?
01:27 < urgen> that's the 'property' thing
01:27 < urgen> children are not property
01:28 <@echarp> then parents should not control their kids?
01:28 < urgen> 'ownership' is a point of contention to me
01:29 < urgen> there's guiding and there's control
01:29 < urgen> there are a lot of laws now that are trying to mandate that doctors inform parents of children's choices
01:29 < urgen> it's a hard line to define
01:30 <@echarp> definitely very hard
01:31 <@echarp> personally I have a few beliefs about kids and responsibility
01:31 <@echarp> it's almost a certitude to me, that anybody asking to take responsibility on something should be heard and given a go
01:31 < urgen> this is directly related to 'informed choice' ala democracy too
01:31 <@echarp> from puberty it's rather easy to allow
01:32 < urgen> we seem to allow "political children" to vote
01:32 <@echarp> political children is not an interesting concept to me, it belittles individuals
01:33 < urgen> there seems to be an active move to control education
01:33 < urgen> this seems to limit informed choice
01:33 < urgen> to keep people uneducated on purpose with interest to control
01:34 < urgen> that, I can't totally blame the individual for
01:34 <@echarp> I agree yes
01:34 <@echarp> wilfully removing tools, opportunities, is bad
01:37 <@echarp> I still have difficulties with kids
01:37 <@echarp> the one I encounter do seem to need control from their parents
01:37 <@echarp> even physical violence at times
01:39 < urgen> brb
01:39 <@echarp> ok
01:39 <@echarp> I might go to bed, rather late here
01:55 < urgen> ya
02:09 <@echarp> I'm off to bed urgen
02:09 <@echarp> good night
02:10 <@echarp> cu tomorrow, we'll discuss responsability, maybe
04:40 -!- nsh [n=n...@87.242.140.179] has quit [Nick collision from services.]
04:40 -!- nsh (No Such Human) [n=nsh@wikipedia/nsh] has joined #parlement
05:17 -!- cnloyd (New Now Know How) [n=chat...@206.180.135.187.txl-dial-ip.hal-pc.org] has joined #parlement
05:18 < cnloyd> Hello everyone.
05:18 < cnloyd> Urgen, how are you coping with the heat wave?
05:18 < cnloyd> Have you experienced any rotating blackouts?
05:19 < urgen> not here
05:19 < urgen> we hit fog yesterday
05:19 < urgen> so it's been beautifull wonderful
05:19 < cnloyd> That's good. Temps hit the dewpoint.
05:19 < cnloyd> I finally updated my blog (trumpets sound; the masses rejoice)
05:21 < cnloyd> So...yeah. I added pictures.
05:21 < urgen> I'm an unblogger
05:22 < cnloyd> Unblogger? Is that cool now? I'm so far behind.
05:22 < cnloyd> Finished the Baroque Cycle. Finally.
05:23 < urgen> I am half way through vernor ving Rainbow's End
05:23 < urgen> wonderful wonderful
05:24 < cnloyd> Really? Isn't he the guy who help insert the Singularity meme, that is making the rounds?
05:25 < urgen> he also invented 'cyberspace'
05:25 < urgen> but is one of the all time best scifi authors easily
05:26 < cnloyd> Haven't read any of his work. Got into Cory Doctorow.
05:28 < cnloyd> Started reading Accelerando, but it wasn't safe for work.
05:28 < cnloyd> What's Rainbow's End about?
05:36 < urgen> it is about genetic engineering where they create a virus that makes you purchase a specific product
05:36 < urgen> so very near future
05:36 < urgen> ;-)
05:37 < cnloyd> Twisted. Is it a way of "encouraging" consumer spending?
05:40 < urgen> they call it "You Gotta Believe Me" technology
05:40 < urgen> YGBM
05:43 < cnloyd> Does it use unobtainium?
05:43 < urgen> :-)
05:44 < urgen> not yet
05:44 < urgen> but the world is layers and layers of virtual reality
05:44 < urgen> ppl wear
05:45 < cnloyd> All VR, all the time?
05:46 < urgen> layers
05:46 < urgen> so you can peel it back to actual if you want
05:47 < cnloyd> Is there an on/off switch?
05:47 < urgen> you don't have to wear
05:48 < cnloyd> Hmm.
05:48 < urgen> but then you have to rely on antique stuff like digital newspapers or clunky laptops
05:48 < cnloyd> Oh well. There are always Amish in society.
05:49 < urgen> amish are allowed to use anything that's 100 years old aren't they?
05:49 < cnloyd> Some people still pay ATT for their actual physical phones.
05:49 < cnloyd> I think that it depends on the sect. They use chainsaws and MRIs, when needed.
05:50 < cnloyd> I think they avoid modern tech as far as they can practically get away with.
05:50 < urgen> oh
05:50 < cnloyd> Mennonites are not so hard core.
05:50 < cnloyd> And, it varies from there.
05:51 < cnloyd> Some Mennonites drive.
--- Log closed dim jui 30 06:30:32 2006
--- Log opened dim jui 30 10:34:45 2006
10:34 -!- echarp [n=33M0...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has joined #parlement
10:34 -!- Topic for #parlement: http://leparlement.org
10:34 -!- Topic set by echarp [] [Mon Jul 24 00:20:56 2006]
10:34 [Users #parlement]
10:34 [ echarp] [ fiatlex] [ nsh] [ parlebot] [ urgen]
10:34 -!- Irssi: #parlement: Total of 5 nicks [0 ops, 0 halfops, 0 voices, 5 normal]
10:34 -!- Channel #parlement created Fri Jul 21 18:39:21 2006
10:35 -!- Irssi: Join to #parlement was synced in 31 secs
10:36 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
10:36 < echarp> hello
10:36 -!- Topic for #parlement: http://leparlement.org
10:36 -!- Topic set by echarp [] [Mon Jul 24 00:20:56 2006]
16:52 < nsh> urgy, what's boomeritis?
19:58 -!- crobig (illegale) [i=ille...@cmung3090.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
19:58 -!- crobig is now known as illegale
20:27 < echarp> hello illegale
20:35 -!- illegale [i=ille...@cmung3090.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
--- Log closed lun jui 31 00:00:08 2006
echarp
Aug 1, 2006, 12:29:53 AM8/1/06
to top-politics
--- Log opened lun jui 31 00:00:08 2006
04:01 < urgen> boomers are ppl born during the baby boom following WWII
04:02 < urgen> boomeritus is what they get right about now that makes them buy sports cars and high tech gadgets
04:02 < urgen> but I'm just guessing
09:16 < echarp> hello
09:19 < urgen> hi
09:21 < echarp> urgen: still awake at this time?
09:21 < urgen> not really
09:21 < urgen> had some indigestion
09:21 < echarp> oh, sorry for you
09:21 < echarp> you ate out?
09:22 < urgen> we picked some berries and put them on icecream
09:22 < urgen> fruit and dairy gives me gas
09:22 < echarp> the icecream must have been bad ;)
09:22 < urgen> painful
09:22 < echarp> I'm very sorry for you, what time is it for you? here 09:22
09:22 < urgen> just after midnight
09:23 < echarp> and you still have energy for the computer?
09:23 < echarp> you should go cuddle ;)
09:23 < urgen> I live online
09:42 < urgen> nite
09:50 < echarp> sweet dreams
09:51 < echarp> whipped dreams >;-)
21:58 -!- illegale (illegale) [i=ille...@cmung3286.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
21:59 < illegale:#parlement> parlebot: help
21:59 < parlebot:#parlement> The commands I know are:
21:59 < parlebot:#parlement> silence - Stop logging (also: stop, off, ...)
21:59 < parlebot:#parlement> listen - Start logging (also: start, on, ...)
21:59 < parlebot:#parlement> bookmark - Give the URI of the current log
21:59 < parlebot:#parlement> chump LETTER - Record the URI of the current log under chump LETTER
21:59 < parlebot:#parlement> I respond to 'parlebot, command' in public and '/msg parlebot command' in private
21:59 < parlebot:#parlement> Logging Policy: All public output is logged if I am listening except for
21:59 < parlebot:#parlement> any lines starting [off]. All commands to me are logged.
21:59 < parlebot:#parlement> My public output is logged but these lines are not searchable.
21:59 < parlebot:#parlement> The logs are at http://bridgeheart.net/irclogs/irc.freenode.net:6667/parlement/
21:59 < parlebot:#parlement> Do parlebot, adminhelp for help on administrative commands
21:59 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
21:59 < echarp> hello illegale
21:59 < illegale> hey
22:00 < illegale> did you think about the stuff we talked last time?
22:00 < echarp> I'm in the process of putting in production my avatars
22:00 < echarp> free will?
22:00 < illegale> no, technocal stuff
22:00 < illegale> for promotion of palrement
22:00 < echarp> I remember yes
22:00 < illegale> you did not think?
22:02 < illegale> echarp?
22:03 < echarp> I thought about it
22:03 < echarp> it amounts to an amount of energy each is willing to spend
22:03 < echarp> to spend in a given field
22:04 < echarp> or are you also thinking about money?
22:04 < echarp> about exchange of actions?
22:04 < illegale> about doing stuff
22:05 < echarp> energy? work?
22:05 < illegale> synergy
22:06 < illegale> working by an example
22:06 < illegale> grass roots succeess
22:06 < illegale> taking umbrela that might matter
22:08 < illegale> gotta go
22:08 < illegale> cu
22:08 -!- illegale [i=ille...@cmung3286.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit []
22:08 < echarp> all things that can occur exponientally on the web
22:08 < echarp> oups
--- Log closed mar aoû 01 00:00:08 2006
04:01 < urgen> boomers are ppl born during the baby boom following WWII
04:02 < urgen> boomeritus is what they get right about now that makes them buy sports cars and high tech gadgets
04:02 < urgen> but I'm just guessing
09:16 < echarp> hello
09:19 < urgen> hi
09:21 < echarp> urgen: still awake at this time?
09:21 < urgen> not really
09:21 < urgen> had some indigestion
09:21 < echarp> oh, sorry for you
09:21 < echarp> you ate out?
09:22 < urgen> we picked some berries and put them on icecream
09:22 < urgen> fruit and dairy gives me gas
09:22 < echarp> the icecream must have been bad ;)
09:22 < urgen> painful
09:22 < echarp> I'm very sorry for you, what time is it for you? here 09:22
09:22 < urgen> just after midnight
09:23 < echarp> and you still have energy for the computer?
09:23 < echarp> you should go cuddle ;)
09:23 < urgen> I live online
09:42 < urgen> nite
09:50 < echarp> sweet dreams
09:51 < echarp> whipped dreams >;-)
21:58 -!- illegale (illegale) [i=ille...@cmung3286.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
21:59 < illegale:#parlement> parlebot: help
21:59 < parlebot:#parlement> The commands I know are:
21:59 < parlebot:#parlement> silence - Stop logging (also: stop, off, ...)
21:59 < parlebot:#parlement> listen - Start logging (also: start, on, ...)
21:59 < parlebot:#parlement> bookmark - Give the URI of the current log
21:59 < parlebot:#parlement> chump LETTER - Record the URI of the current log under chump LETTER
21:59 < parlebot:#parlement> I respond to 'parlebot, command' in public and '/msg parlebot command' in private
21:59 < parlebot:#parlement> Logging Policy: All public output is logged if I am listening except for
21:59 < parlebot:#parlement> any lines starting [off]. All commands to me are logged.
21:59 < parlebot:#parlement> My public output is logged but these lines are not searchable.
21:59 < parlebot:#parlement> The logs are at http://bridgeheart.net/irclogs/irc.freenode.net:6667/parlement/
21:59 < parlebot:#parlement> Do parlebot, adminhelp for help on administrative commands
21:59 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
21:59 < echarp> hello illegale
21:59 < illegale> hey
22:00 < illegale> did you think about the stuff we talked last time?
22:00 < echarp> I'm in the process of putting in production my avatars
22:00 < echarp> free will?
22:00 < illegale> no, technocal stuff
22:00 < illegale> for promotion of palrement
22:00 < echarp> I remember yes
22:00 < illegale> you did not think?
22:02 < illegale> echarp?
22:03 < echarp> I thought about it
22:03 < echarp> it amounts to an amount of energy each is willing to spend
22:03 < echarp> to spend in a given field
22:04 < echarp> or are you also thinking about money?
22:04 < echarp> about exchange of actions?
22:04 < illegale> about doing stuff
22:05 < echarp> energy? work?
22:05 < illegale> synergy
22:06 < illegale> working by an example
22:06 < illegale> grass roots succeess
22:06 < illegale> taking umbrela that might matter
22:08 < illegale> gotta go
22:08 < illegale> cu
22:08 -!- illegale [i=ille...@cmung3286.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit []
22:08 < echarp> all things that can occur exponientally on the web
22:08 < echarp> oups
--- Log closed mar aoû 01 00:00:08 2006
echarp
Aug 2, 2006, 12:29:33 AM8/2/06
to top-politics
--- Log opened mar aoû 01 00:00:08 2006
03:16 -!- beeli (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung2724.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
03:19 < beeli> parlebot url
03:19 < beeli> parlebot: url
03:19 < parlebot> I'm logging. I don't understand 'url', beeli. Try /msg parlebot help
03:19 < beeli> parlebot: help
03:19 < parlebot> The commands I know are:
03:19 < parlebot> silence - Stop logging (also: stop, off, ...)
03:19 < parlebot> listen - Start logging (also: start, on, ...)
03:19 < parlebot> bookmark - Give the URI of the current log
03:19 < parlebot> chump LETTER - Record the URI of the current log under chump LETTER
03:19 < parlebot> I respond to 'parlebot, command' in public and '/msg parlebot command' in private
03:19 < parlebot> Logging Policy: All public output is logged if I am listening except for
03:19 < parlebot> any lines starting [off]. All commands to me are logged.
03:19 < parlebot> My public output is logged but these lines are not searchable.
03:19 < parlebot> The logs are at http://bridgeheart.net/irclogs/irc.freenode.net:6667/parlement/
03:19 < parlebot> Do parlebot, adminhelp for help on administrative commands
05:04 < urgen> so minimum foundation is three, two can perpetually agree or disagree
05:04 < urgen> like the game of go
05:08 < urgen> do you play go beeli?
05:09 < urgen> or wei-chi
05:09 < beeli> no
05:12 < urgen> there is a condition in play that creates a reciprocal exchange of pieces back and forth forever
05:12 < urgen> it is against the rules
05:44 < beeli> cu
05:44 < urgen> ok
05:44 -!- beeli [n=ille...@cmung2724.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit []
05:45 < urgen> so many games of one
18:27 -!- beeli (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung2554.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
19:16 -!- beeli [n=ille...@cmung2554.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit []
--- Log closed mer aoû 02 00:00:09 2006
03:16 -!- beeli (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung2724.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
03:19 < beeli> parlebot url
03:19 < beeli> parlebot: url
03:19 < parlebot> I'm logging. I don't understand 'url', beeli. Try /msg parlebot help
03:19 < beeli> parlebot: help
03:19 < parlebot> The commands I know are:
03:19 < parlebot> silence - Stop logging (also: stop, off, ...)
03:19 < parlebot> listen - Start logging (also: start, on, ...)
03:19 < parlebot> bookmark - Give the URI of the current log
03:19 < parlebot> chump LETTER - Record the URI of the current log under chump LETTER
03:19 < parlebot> I respond to 'parlebot, command' in public and '/msg parlebot command' in private
03:19 < parlebot> Logging Policy: All public output is logged if I am listening except for
03:19 < parlebot> any lines starting [off]. All commands to me are logged.
03:19 < parlebot> My public output is logged but these lines are not searchable.
03:19 < parlebot> The logs are at http://bridgeheart.net/irclogs/irc.freenode.net:6667/parlement/
03:19 < parlebot> Do parlebot, adminhelp for help on administrative commands
05:04 < urgen> so minimum foundation is three, two can perpetually agree or disagree
05:04 < urgen> like the game of go
05:08 < urgen> do you play go beeli?
05:09 < urgen> or wei-chi
05:09 < beeli> no
05:12 < urgen> there is a condition in play that creates a reciprocal exchange of pieces back and forth forever
05:12 < urgen> it is against the rules
05:44 < beeli> cu
05:44 < urgen> ok
05:44 -!- beeli [n=ille...@cmung2724.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit []
05:45 < urgen> so many games of one
18:27 -!- beeli (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung2554.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
19:16 -!- beeli [n=ille...@cmung2554.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit []
--- Log closed mer aoû 02 00:00:09 2006
echarp
Aug 3, 2006, 12:30:48 AM8/3/06
to top-politics
--- Log opened mer aoû 02 00:00:09 2006
00:32 -!- nsh_ (No Such Human) [n=n...@84-43-104-132.ppp.onetel.net.uk] has joined #parlement
00:40 -!- nsh [n=nsh@wikipedia/nsh] has quit [Read error: 60 (Operation timed out)]
00:41 -!- beeli (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung2633.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
02:35 -!- beeli [n=ille...@cmung2633.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
14:59 -!- beeli (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung3059.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
15:51 < beeli:#parlement> hello hello
15:55 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
15:55 < echarp> hello beeli, how are you?
16:02 < beeli> good
16:02 < beeli> you?
16:11 < echarp> re
16:11 < echarp> just had a talk with my current boss
16:11 < echarp> just just now, right away
16:11 < echarp> he doesn't have enough money to employ me at the rates I ask, too bad
16:22 < beeli:#parlement> bad
16:22 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
16:22 < echarp> too bad, too bad for them ;)
16:23 < beeli> so what now?
16:24 < echarp> I'll look for another contract
16:24 < echarp> I already got a formation coming up
16:25 < beeli> formation?
16:25 < beeli> group?
16:26 < echarp> nah, one guy only
16:27 < echarp> which means much less money, but it's interesting because I can go deeper in my understanding of RoR
16:27 < beeli> you change jobs regularly?
16:27 < echarp> :)
16:28 < beeli:#parlement> that is good
16:28 < beeli:#parlement> imo
16:28 < beeli:#parlement> getting stuck is not good
16:29 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
16:29 < echarp> well, I may be going too fast none the less
16:29 < echarp> I'm definitely not stuck! :)
16:29 < beeli> me neither :)
16:30 < beeli> felt that for a moment though
16:30 < beeli> btw, figured out need to be more pramgatical in this
16:30 < beeli> politicw issue
16:30 < beeli> now i have no more problems with t
16:30 < beeli> it
16:31 < echarp> on what issue?
16:31 < beeli> politics
16:31 < beeli> creating better systems stuff
16:31 < beeli> moving power to the pluralstic media, internet
16:32 < beeli> talked to good friend of mine
16:32 < beeli> involved
16:32 < beeli> i had no contact to him for a while
16:32 < beeli> and now there are some thoihgts from him and from me
16:32 < beeli> we synergised very finaly
16:32 < beeli> finely
16:33 < beeli> monitoring NGO is not what i am looking for
16:33 < beeli> neither economy oriented NGO
16:33 < beeli> this open organisation is for politics only
16:33 < beeli> for getting reputation
16:33 < beeli> and trust
16:33 < beeli> that is all you need in politics if you take current tradition
16:34 < echarp> moving into politics and mattering ;)
16:34 < beeli> mattering?
16:34 < beeli> yes
16:34 < echarp> to be an important matter
16:34 < beeli> hitting the center
16:34 < beeli> sharing issue and stuff
16:34 < beeli> who will share?
16:35 < echarp> to share?
16:35 < echarp> is that a goal?
16:35 < beeli> to me goal is rule of knowledge
16:35 < beeli> and sense
16:36 < beeli> sharing is communistic concept
16:36 < beeli> might be utopia or not
16:37 < beeli> so this is the plan
16:37 < beeli> division the goverment to its parts
16:37 < beeli> and sub parts
16:37 < echarp> an utopia is not a goal?
16:37 < beeli> when i say utopia i mean sometghing that can not be possible
16:38 < beeli> so, the point is to divide power to these individual particles
16:38 < beeli> people who are already established in their fields
16:38 < beeli> but who are not public meaninghaving no political relevance
16:38 < echarp> the goal is rule of knowledge? but what is rule of knowledge?
16:38 < beeli> turning them to internet where puvlic can participate share support or create new power centers
16:39 < beeli> that is the way
16:39 < beeli> than going to party system
16:39 < echarp> too complex for me
16:39 < beeli> enablig full participation on the level of TOP
16:39 < echarp> care to elaborate?
16:39 < beeli> rule of knowledge?
16:39 < beeli> you mean that?
16:39 < echarp> on that yes
16:39 < echarp> what does it mean?
16:40 < beeli> i want to see reason behind any decision
16:40 < beeli> i do not want to see ignorance setting rules
16:41 < beeli> when i give some data, you need to involve it in the whole picture
16:41 < beeli> you can not ignore it
16:41 < beeli> if you ignore it, you are not reasoning
16:41 < echarp> rule by experts then?
16:41 < echarp> mandatory IQ tests?
16:42 < beeli> no
16:42 < beeli> nothing like that
16:42 < beeli> i see it is regular evolution
16:42 < beeli> be regular evolutio
16:42 < beeli> n
16:42 < beeli> willing to set such party
16:42 < beeli> no ideologies are strong today
16:42 < beeli> it is only matter of corruption
16:43 < beeli> other issues are keeping blured in order to set long tme crisis
16:43 < beeli> disabling possiblity to solve them forcing hittinh the wall issue
16:43 < beeli> this part i am very serious about
16:43 < beeli> might say fnded
16:44 < echarp> you want rule by an ideology?
16:44 < beeli> is reason ideology?
16:44 < beeli> have to go
16:44 < beeli> vu
16:44 < urgen> your definition of reason is
16:44 -!- beeli [n=ille...@cmung3059.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit []
16:45 < echarp> I'm lost, did you get it urgen ?
16:46 < urgen> there was no change from before even though it was suggested that there was a shift
16:46 < echarp> no change in?
16:46 < urgen> it is interesting to attempt to implement a top down system within a decentralized platform
16:47 < echarp> I strongly dislike top-down
16:47 < urgen> beeli really really wants focus of power
16:47 < echarp> I also think so
16:47 < urgen> really really really really wants focus of power to be one person
16:47 < urgen> as a job
16:47 < urgen> it's ok for now
16:47 < urgen> maybe even needed
16:47 < echarp> one person I don't know, but to be someone that matters
16:47 < echarp> ambitions are cool and useful
16:48 < urgen> but there is a little bit of misunderstanding about what decentralized authority means
16:49 < urgen> and trying to say that it means a focus of social power is being sneeky
16:49 < urgen> sneeky is not reason
16:50 < urgen> beeli was a powerful idea for a social ledger but resists the idea that it has anything to do with economy
16:50 < urgen> I suppose maybe economy as a measure was pounded on by the socialists?
16:50 < urgen> this leads to challenging some ideology somewhere?
16:51 < urgen> I have to admit my socialist ignorance and enjoy finding some help with this
16:51 < echarp> I don't know
16:51 < echarp> I don't see what is the relationship with socialism and economy :(
16:51 < urgen> I didn't before, either
16:51 < urgen> but beeli always strongly reacts to it
16:52 < urgen> so there must be something
16:52 < urgen> it is seen as a challenge to political power somehow
16:53 < echarp> somehow then
16:54 < urgen> beeli claims it is an unchallenged assumption of mine that economic means can measure value
16:54 < echarp> it's out of my sphere of understanding
16:54 < urgen> but it seems like this trail of action method proposed is the very same thing to me
16:54 < urgen> so I get lost
16:54 < echarp> economy, to me, is the science of choice
16:54 < echarp> why do we choose that instead of this
16:55 < urgen> because it furthers immediate interests
16:55 < echarp> the donkey which had to choose between water and food is an economic apparatus :)
16:56 < urgen> if food outweighs water then it's food at least enough to get over to the water
16:56 < urgen> and back
16:56 < urgen> or visa versa
16:56 < urgen> a natural regulator
16:58 < echarp> or vice versa :)
16:58 < urgen> http://english.people.com.cn/200607/26/eng20060726_286808.html
16:58 < urgen> China Tibet Information Center
16:58 < urgen> here is an example of multi system evolution
16:59 < urgen> this is the very first time I've seen the PRC line change to acknowledge that dalai lama is not asking for independence
16:59 < urgen> a soft shift of position inside a lot of strong words
16:59 < echarp> since the construction of rail tracks to tibet, I think they are a lost cause :(
17:00 < urgen> the culture is already surviving in the west
17:00 < echarp> the chinese main ethnie will sweep over the tibetans
17:00 < urgen> the loss won't be because of the introduction of technology
17:00 < echarp> technology just allows what was tried before
17:00 < urgen> the chinese don't like the high elevations
17:00 < echarp> I know
17:00 < urgen> ppl get sick living there
17:00 < echarp> women even have trouble giving birth
17:00 < echarp> thus the rail tracks
17:01 < urgen> so this sounds like a parallel argument about 'reason'
17:01 < urgen> when reason is traded for the word ideology
17:02 < urgen> we can not even think to question the ideology it is far beyond consideration
17:02 < urgen> but why can't people have reason?
17:03 < urgen> so we change the definition of the ideology to reason and say here, have your reason
17:03 < urgen> that seems to be how the communist system worked from my point of view
17:04 < urgen:#parlement> if the person did not check to see if the 'old wine in a new bottle' was true or not then maybe there would be no change and ideology could remain in political control
17:04 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
17:04 < urgen> but reason is smart
17:04 < urgen> it isn't tricked easily
17:05 < echarp> or it's tricked all the time but can question those tricks
17:05 < urgen> it can be repaired, yes
17:05 < urgen> so systems that do not allow repair as an option make me wonder
17:05 < echarp> definitely
17:05 -!- Topic for #parlement: http://leparlement.org
17:05 -!- Topic set by echarp [] [Mon Jul 24 00:20:56 2006]
17:06 < echarp> not allowing to change your mind is a dictature of sorts
17:06 < urgen> so I just saw a change in the stance of the PRC with this letter, and that amazes me
17:06 < urgen> I've heard lots of change has happened in China
17:07 < urgen> people say the rumors of heavily controlled internet, etc are not true
17:08 < urgen> maybe more tricks, I don't know
17:08 < echarp> I think the net is still a wild west
17:09 < echarp> it's not controlled, it's observed and manipulated :)
17:09 < urgen> :-) lots of room to move
17:09 < echarp> yeap
17:09 < echarp> the world of ideas made concrete
22:39 -!- nsh__ (No Such Human) [n=n...@84-43-93-194.ppp.onetel.net.uk] has joined #parlement
22:46 -!- nsh_ [n=n...@84-43-104-132.ppp.onetel.net.uk] has quit [Read error: 60 (Operation timed out)]
22:47 -!- nsh_ (No Such Human) [n=n...@87.242.153.101] has joined #parlement
22:54 -!- nsh__ [n=n...@84-43-93-194.ppp.onetel.net.uk] has quit [Read error: 60 (Operation timed out)]
22:56 -!- nsh__ (No Such Human) [n=n...@88.144.36.159] has joined #parlement
23:03 -!- nsh_ [n=n...@87.242.153.101] has quit [Read error: 60 (Operation timed out)]
--- Log closed jeu aoû 03 00:00:09 2006
00:32 -!- nsh_ (No Such Human) [n=n...@84-43-104-132.ppp.onetel.net.uk] has joined #parlement
00:40 -!- nsh [n=nsh@wikipedia/nsh] has quit [Read error: 60 (Operation timed out)]
00:41 -!- beeli (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung2633.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
02:35 -!- beeli [n=ille...@cmung2633.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
14:59 -!- beeli (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung3059.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
15:51 < beeli:#parlement> hello hello
15:55 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
15:55 < echarp> hello beeli, how are you?
16:02 < beeli> good
16:02 < beeli> you?
16:11 < echarp> re
16:11 < echarp> just had a talk with my current boss
16:11 < echarp> just just now, right away
16:11 < echarp> he doesn't have enough money to employ me at the rates I ask, too bad
16:22 < beeli:#parlement> bad
16:22 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
16:22 < echarp> too bad, too bad for them ;)
16:23 < beeli> so what now?
16:24 < echarp> I'll look for another contract
16:24 < echarp> I already got a formation coming up
16:25 < beeli> formation?
16:25 < beeli> group?
16:26 < echarp> nah, one guy only
16:27 < echarp> which means much less money, but it's interesting because I can go deeper in my understanding of RoR
16:27 < beeli> you change jobs regularly?
16:27 < echarp> :)
16:28 < beeli:#parlement> that is good
16:28 < beeli:#parlement> imo
16:28 < beeli:#parlement> getting stuck is not good
16:29 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
16:29 < echarp> well, I may be going too fast none the less
16:29 < echarp> I'm definitely not stuck! :)
16:29 < beeli> me neither :)
16:30 < beeli> felt that for a moment though
16:30 < beeli> btw, figured out need to be more pramgatical in this
16:30 < beeli> politicw issue
16:30 < beeli> now i have no more problems with t
16:30 < beeli> it
16:31 < echarp> on what issue?
16:31 < beeli> politics
16:31 < beeli> creating better systems stuff
16:31 < beeli> moving power to the pluralstic media, internet
16:32 < beeli> talked to good friend of mine
16:32 < beeli> involved
16:32 < beeli> i had no contact to him for a while
16:32 < beeli> and now there are some thoihgts from him and from me
16:32 < beeli> we synergised very finaly
16:32 < beeli> finely
16:33 < beeli> monitoring NGO is not what i am looking for
16:33 < beeli> neither economy oriented NGO
16:33 < beeli> this open organisation is for politics only
16:33 < beeli> for getting reputation
16:33 < beeli> and trust
16:33 < beeli> that is all you need in politics if you take current tradition
16:34 < echarp> moving into politics and mattering ;)
16:34 < beeli> mattering?
16:34 < beeli> yes
16:34 < echarp> to be an important matter
16:34 < beeli> hitting the center
16:34 < beeli> sharing issue and stuff
16:34 < beeli> who will share?
16:35 < echarp> to share?
16:35 < echarp> is that a goal?
16:35 < beeli> to me goal is rule of knowledge
16:35 < beeli> and sense
16:36 < beeli> sharing is communistic concept
16:36 < beeli> might be utopia or not
16:37 < beeli> so this is the plan
16:37 < beeli> division the goverment to its parts
16:37 < beeli> and sub parts
16:37 < echarp> an utopia is not a goal?
16:37 < beeli> when i say utopia i mean sometghing that can not be possible
16:38 < beeli> so, the point is to divide power to these individual particles
16:38 < beeli> people who are already established in their fields
16:38 < beeli> but who are not public meaninghaving no political relevance
16:38 < echarp> the goal is rule of knowledge? but what is rule of knowledge?
16:38 < beeli> turning them to internet where puvlic can participate share support or create new power centers
16:39 < beeli> that is the way
16:39 < beeli> than going to party system
16:39 < echarp> too complex for me
16:39 < beeli> enablig full participation on the level of TOP
16:39 < echarp> care to elaborate?
16:39 < beeli> rule of knowledge?
16:39 < beeli> you mean that?
16:39 < echarp> on that yes
16:39 < echarp> what does it mean?
16:40 < beeli> i want to see reason behind any decision
16:40 < beeli> i do not want to see ignorance setting rules
16:41 < beeli> when i give some data, you need to involve it in the whole picture
16:41 < beeli> you can not ignore it
16:41 < beeli> if you ignore it, you are not reasoning
16:41 < echarp> rule by experts then?
16:41 < echarp> mandatory IQ tests?
16:42 < beeli> no
16:42 < beeli> nothing like that
16:42 < beeli> i see it is regular evolution
16:42 < beeli> be regular evolutio
16:42 < beeli> n
16:42 < beeli> willing to set such party
16:42 < beeli> no ideologies are strong today
16:42 < beeli> it is only matter of corruption
16:43 < beeli> other issues are keeping blured in order to set long tme crisis
16:43 < beeli> disabling possiblity to solve them forcing hittinh the wall issue
16:43 < beeli> this part i am very serious about
16:43 < beeli> might say fnded
16:44 < echarp> you want rule by an ideology?
16:44 < beeli> is reason ideology?
16:44 < beeli> have to go
16:44 < beeli> vu
16:44 < urgen> your definition of reason is
16:44 -!- beeli [n=ille...@cmung3059.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit []
16:45 < echarp> I'm lost, did you get it urgen ?
16:46 < urgen> there was no change from before even though it was suggested that there was a shift
16:46 < echarp> no change in?
16:46 < urgen> it is interesting to attempt to implement a top down system within a decentralized platform
16:47 < echarp> I strongly dislike top-down
16:47 < urgen> beeli really really wants focus of power
16:47 < echarp> I also think so
16:47 < urgen> really really really really wants focus of power to be one person
16:47 < urgen> as a job
16:47 < urgen> it's ok for now
16:47 < urgen> maybe even needed
16:47 < echarp> one person I don't know, but to be someone that matters
16:47 < echarp> ambitions are cool and useful
16:48 < urgen> but there is a little bit of misunderstanding about what decentralized authority means
16:49 < urgen> and trying to say that it means a focus of social power is being sneeky
16:49 < urgen> sneeky is not reason
16:50 < urgen> beeli was a powerful idea for a social ledger but resists the idea that it has anything to do with economy
16:50 < urgen> I suppose maybe economy as a measure was pounded on by the socialists?
16:50 < urgen> this leads to challenging some ideology somewhere?
16:51 < urgen> I have to admit my socialist ignorance and enjoy finding some help with this
16:51 < echarp> I don't know
16:51 < urgen> I didn't before, either
16:51 < urgen> but beeli always strongly reacts to it
16:52 < urgen> so there must be something
16:52 < urgen> it is seen as a challenge to political power somehow
16:53 < echarp> somehow then
16:54 < urgen> beeli claims it is an unchallenged assumption of mine that economic means can measure value
16:54 < echarp> it's out of my sphere of understanding
16:54 < urgen> but it seems like this trail of action method proposed is the very same thing to me
16:54 < urgen> so I get lost
16:54 < echarp> economy, to me, is the science of choice
16:54 < echarp> why do we choose that instead of this
16:55 < urgen> because it furthers immediate interests
16:55 < echarp> the donkey which had to choose between water and food is an economic apparatus :)
16:56 < urgen> if food outweighs water then it's food at least enough to get over to the water
16:56 < urgen> and back
16:56 < urgen> or visa versa
16:56 < urgen> a natural regulator
16:58 < echarp> or vice versa :)
16:58 < urgen> http://english.people.com.cn/200607/26/eng20060726_286808.html
16:58 < urgen> China Tibet Information Center
16:58 < urgen> here is an example of multi system evolution
16:59 < urgen> this is the very first time I've seen the PRC line change to acknowledge that dalai lama is not asking for independence
16:59 < urgen> a soft shift of position inside a lot of strong words
16:59 < echarp> since the construction of rail tracks to tibet, I think they are a lost cause :(
17:00 < urgen> the culture is already surviving in the west
17:00 < echarp> the chinese main ethnie will sweep over the tibetans
17:00 < urgen> the loss won't be because of the introduction of technology
17:00 < echarp> technology just allows what was tried before
17:00 < urgen> the chinese don't like the high elevations
17:00 < echarp> I know
17:00 < urgen> ppl get sick living there
17:00 < echarp> women even have trouble giving birth
17:00 < echarp> thus the rail tracks
17:01 < urgen> so this sounds like a parallel argument about 'reason'
17:01 < urgen> when reason is traded for the word ideology
17:02 < urgen> we can not even think to question the ideology it is far beyond consideration
17:02 < urgen> but why can't people have reason?
17:03 < urgen> so we change the definition of the ideology to reason and say here, have your reason
17:03 < urgen> that seems to be how the communist system worked from my point of view
17:04 < urgen:#parlement> if the person did not check to see if the 'old wine in a new bottle' was true or not then maybe there would be no change and ideology could remain in political control
17:04 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
17:04 < urgen> but reason is smart
17:04 < urgen> it isn't tricked easily
17:05 < echarp> or it's tricked all the time but can question those tricks
17:05 < urgen> it can be repaired, yes
17:05 < urgen> so systems that do not allow repair as an option make me wonder
17:05 < echarp> definitely
17:05 -!- Topic for #parlement: http://leparlement.org
17:05 -!- Topic set by echarp [] [Mon Jul 24 00:20:56 2006]
17:06 < echarp> not allowing to change your mind is a dictature of sorts
17:06 < urgen> so I just saw a change in the stance of the PRC with this letter, and that amazes me
17:06 < urgen> I've heard lots of change has happened in China
17:07 < urgen> people say the rumors of heavily controlled internet, etc are not true
17:08 < urgen> maybe more tricks, I don't know
17:08 < echarp> I think the net is still a wild west
17:09 < echarp> it's not controlled, it's observed and manipulated :)
17:09 < urgen> :-) lots of room to move
17:09 < echarp> yeap
17:09 < echarp> the world of ideas made concrete
22:39 -!- nsh__ (No Such Human) [n=n...@84-43-93-194.ppp.onetel.net.uk] has joined #parlement
22:46 -!- nsh_ [n=n...@84-43-104-132.ppp.onetel.net.uk] has quit [Read error: 60 (Operation timed out)]
22:47 -!- nsh_ (No Such Human) [n=n...@87.242.153.101] has joined #parlement
22:54 -!- nsh__ [n=n...@84-43-93-194.ppp.onetel.net.uk] has quit [Read error: 60 (Operation timed out)]
22:56 -!- nsh__ (No Such Human) [n=n...@88.144.36.159] has joined #parlement
23:03 -!- nsh_ [n=n...@87.242.153.101] has quit [Read error: 60 (Operation timed out)]
--- Log closed jeu aoû 03 00:00:09 2006
echarp
Aug 4, 2006, 12:30:45 AM8/4/06
to top-politics
--- Log opened jeu aoû 03 00:00:09 2006
17:11 -!- beeli (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung4106.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
17:11 < beeli:#parlement> io
17:18 < beeli:#parlement> seems like you have some problems to idea of reason?
17:24 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
17:24 < echarp> hello hello
17:24 < echarp> idea of reason??
17:24 < echarp> I consider myself very reasonable :)
17:25 < echarp> and rational and materialist
17:26 < beeli> so, what is the problem?
17:27 < echarp> what are you referring to when you state? => "seems like you have some problems to idea of reason?"
17:27 < echarp> where does it seem that there is such a problem?
17:29 < beeli> reason - ideology
17:29 < beeli> seems like you equal it
17:29 < echarp> what context are you referring to?
17:30 < beeli> yesterday chat of you and urgen
17:30 < echarp> because I don't have it in mind you know
17:30 < beeli> btw, echarp. Can I park domain at your server?
17:31 < echarp> most certainly yes
17:31 < beeli> can i host it from you server?
17:32 < beeli> there is an idea of starting new croatian project
17:32 < beeli> called parasites.com
17:32 < echarp> what is it you want to host? the dns server?
17:32 < beeli> anticorruption by internet
17:32 < beeli> site
17:32 < echarp> the site is constituted of something in particular?
17:33 < beeli> not yet
17:33 < beeli> php stuff i belive its gonna be
17:33 < echarp> you can point the dns server that you use to my server yes
17:33 < beeli> what does it mean point the dns server?
17:33 < beeli> what do i need too?
17:35 < echarp> I'm no specialist in that domain
17:35 < echarp> there are two important elements:
17:35 < echarp> 1) the ip adress
17:35 < echarp> 2) the textual name (ie http://parasites.com)
17:35 < echarp> to bind one to the user browsers use a dns
17:36 < urgen> I know how to do dns
17:36 < beeli> what do you need from me when i buy domain?
17:36 < urgen> so when you register your domain name it asks you what dns server is in charge of converting the name to the ip number
17:36 < urgen> you need two
17:37 < beeli> so, i need dns server? is it hard thing to get?
17:37 < echarp> there are free one
17:37 < urgen> sometimes where you purchase the domain name from also has dns control,, but then again, sometimes they only will give you that service if you also host with them
17:37 < beeli> geee, it is time for me to learn that stuff
17:37 < urgen> I don't know any free ones
17:38 < echarp> http://www.zoneedit.com
17:38 < echarp> I think it's the one I use with leparlement.org and echarp.org
17:39 < echarp> see => http://www.zoneedit.com/doc/faq.html#faq2
17:40 < beeli> so, i have to park domain at zoneedit?
17:40 < echarp> they offer the dns service
17:40 < beeli> is that parking ?
17:40 * echarp doesn't know
17:40 < urgen> parking is not a technical term
17:40 < urgen> :-)
17:40 < echarp> what is it you want when you say "park"?
17:41 < urgen> it usually means you have purchased a domain name and have not assigned it a location
17:41 < beeli> zes
17:41 < beeli> yes
17:41 < echarp> if you want a domain then I don't see the need for parking it, just leave it as it is
17:41 < urgen> registrars demand dns assignment
17:42 < beeli> i gonna buy domain name, then what?
17:42 < echarp> just point it to http://leparlement.org, I'll be glad for any visitors :)
17:42 < beeli> i have to find dns assigmnetn at zoneedit?
17:42 < beeli> .
17:42 < beeli> cheat
17:42 < echarp> your registrar might do the dns stuff himself, much easier then
17:43 < beeli> ok
17:43 < beeli> then, when i do the stuff ill contact you for futhrer moves
17:43 < echarp> I don't know if you'll need it
17:44 < urgen> yes most registrar do dns, at least they will 'park' for free if you do not know what dns you will be using
17:45 < beeli> thanks
17:49 < echarp> I'm looking back in yesterday's logs
17:50 < echarp> beeli: I keep not understanding what it is you are saying and you want
17:50 < echarp> "rule of knowledge" for example
17:50 < urgen> I think I made a challenge
17:50 < echarp> what challenge? :)
17:51 < urgen> something like beeli's definition of reason sounds like beeli's definition of ideology
17:51 < urgen> so I think beeli is asking how this reason = ideology works?
17:51 * echarp is a boat lost at sea and without any link to solid earth
17:52 < echarp> yet reason, as many philosophers would state, is a faculty we can use to understand the world
17:52 < beeli> blah
17:52 < echarp> to be reasonable would be a quality of someone using this faculty
17:52 < beeli> we talked about concept of rule of knowledge
17:52 < echarp> an ideology would more likely be a set of ideas, of concepts, which can be used to decide on political matters
17:53 < beeli> knowledge can be grounded bottomish up
17:53 < echarp> rule of knowledge is an aggregate of words I don't follow
17:53 < beeli> is it regularly is
17:53 < beeli> brb
17:55 < urgen> descarte's 'rule of knowledge' "whatever I perceive very clearly and distinctly is true"
17:56 < urgen> gale reference to term: http://www.opendemocracy.net/forums/thread.jspa?forumID=82&threadID=44546&tstart=0
17:56 < echarp> thx, I was looking for references
17:58 < echarp> oh, well, I can't use that to understand this concept
17:59 < echarp> or is it rule by experts and most responsible individuals?
17:59 < beeli> yes
18:00 < beeli> findeing a way that consistent thought gets power
18:00 < beeli> i suppose truth is self consistent by definition
18:00 < echarp> sorry, I don't believe in truth
18:00 < beeli> do you believe in word?
18:00 < echarp> no absolutes that we, mere humans, can ever recognise
18:01 < beeli> do you belive n absolute?
18:01 < echarp> I don't have any absolute belief
18:01 < echarp> no, no absolute
18:01 < beeli> yet, you can use these words pretty often
18:01 < echarp> of course
18:01 < beeli> and they do have some meniunng
18:01 < echarp> they are words, I don't fear using them :)
18:01 < beeli> same as truth
18:01 < echarp> how is that?
18:02 < beeli> truth is just another concept
18:02 < echarp> of course it is
18:02 < beeli> we can describe that concept
18:02 < echarp> of course
18:02 < beeli> so, what is up to belief than?
18:02 < echarp> and I'm stating that what this concept refers to is wrong
18:03 < echarp> everything is a matter of belief
18:03 < beeli> what does it refers to?
18:03 < echarp> from 0 to 100%
18:03 < echarp> truth is a concept that refer to absolutes and unchanging data
18:03 < beeli> if you define that way
18:04 < beeli> i can define trruth as openstanding selfcinsistency
18:04 < echarp> of course I can just say "true" to state my agreement :)
18:04 < echarp> you can yes, and it is worthwhile
18:04 < beeli> so, this openstanding word is the one that puts higher though od truth to the earth
18:04 < echarp> a tautology, mathematics, is a set of equations that lead to "truth"
18:04 < echarp> ??
18:04 < echarp> higher what??
18:05 < beeli> when word has no attachment to time line it becomes absolutish
18:05 < beeli> when you do attachment it has reeal value
18:05 < echarp> I mean, what did you write???
18:05 < echarp> "though od truth"???
18:05 < echarp> what does it mean?
18:05 < beeli> we can talk about abstractions
18:05 < beeli> we can talk about facts
18:06 < echarp> "though od truth"???
18:06 < echarp> what does it mean?
18:06 < beeli> spell error
18:06 < beeli> do not mind
18:06 < echarp> please correct!
18:06 < beeli> :)
18:06 < echarp> I do mind
18:06 < echarp> it's like a difficult journey onto which I keep on falling
18:07 < beeli> openstading word gives to the regular concept of philosophical thought time line
18:07 < beeli> openstanding
18:07 < beeli> something that preserves in open system
18:07 < beeli> the essence of ti
18:07 < echarp> it's not that I mind spelling, it's more that I want to understand!!!
18:07 < beeli> ok, this stuff is what i have just some thoughts of
18:07 < beeli> working stage
18:08 < echarp> and when I don't understand a whole understand, I get mad
18:08 < beeli> beta version
18:08 < echarp> and when I don't understand a whole "sentence", I get mad
18:08 < beeli> so, we can talk about love, truth, all the stuff
18:08 < beeli> all the concepts
18:08 < echarp> well, I've studied AI
18:08 < beeli> yet, they have no value to us if they do not say to us what is good what is wrong
18:08 < beeli> what is right and so on
18:08 < echarp> and the system of beliefs I prefer is one based on expert systems
18:09 < echarp> there is no truth, no "right" or "wrong", just a set of rules linked with %
18:09 < echarp> bayesian networks, markov chains
18:09 < beeli> you need reference, allways
18:09 < beeli> and you have to check it out
18:09 < beeli> its validity
18:09 < echarp> no
18:09 < beeli> cheking its validity you attach words
18:10 < beeli> what do you mean?
18:10 < echarp> it can remain unchecked :)
18:10 < beeli> how?
18:10 < echarp> just leave it as it is
18:10 < beeli> you can detach human life from belifs?
18:10 < echarp> is the moon a giant cheese or not?
18:10 < echarp> I believe it is not
18:10 < beeli> you need to make political decision
18:10 < echarp> yet I didn't check it
18:10 < beeli> what is your base?
18:10 < beeli> is there any right or wrong >
18:10 < beeli> ?
18:11 < beeli> in your decision making?
18:11 < echarp> no right or wrong
18:11 < beeli> truth or false?
18:11 < echarp> no true or false
18:11 < beeli> right or wrong?
18:11 < echarp> no
18:11 < echarp> no right or wrong
18:11 < beeli> so, how do you make it?
18:11 < echarp> make what?
18:11 < beeli> political decision?
18:11 < echarp> on the expected consequences
18:12 < echarp> I try to imagine them
18:12 < echarp> and I choose according to different criteria
18:12 < beeli> so, that is how you call it
18:12 < echarp> most of the time it's along lines of utility
18:12 < beeli> how do you set criteria?
18:12 < echarp> utilitarianism if you want a name
18:12 < echarp> I set criteria through trial an error, through ideology
18:12 < echarp> trial "and" error
18:13 < beeli> different words
18:13 < beeli> that is it
18:13 < beeli> wrong is when you notice error
18:13 < echarp> not to me
18:13 < beeli> gee
18:13 < beeli> so, what d you measure?
18:13 < echarp> there is not error, there are bad consequences
18:14 < beeli> what are bad cosequences?
18:14 < urgen> measure unexpected result
18:14 < beeli> how?
18:14 < urgen> the expectation was defined before the action
18:14 < beeli> so, i can define what is right
18:14 < echarp> bad consequences would be consequences you don't like, you don't want to live with, or even consequences that kill you
18:14 < beeli> wrong is what brings you bad consequences
18:14 < beeli> so, what was the point of escaping of that word?
18:14 < echarp> you can redefine "wrong" of course :)
18:15 < beeli> no, it is not redefintiion
18:15 < urgen> one can repair expectation
18:15 < echarp> even unintended consequences can be highly appreciated
18:16 < urgen> unexpected result in physics allows them to discover unknown particles
18:16 < echarp> I would define politics, and this is from a former philosophy teacher of mine, as => politics is the process we use to define what we want to become
18:16 < echarp> I like that definition
18:17 < echarp> urgen: definitely!
18:17 < urgen> unknown is valuable
18:17 < echarp> of course defining our future is highly difficult
18:18 < beeli> i see this definition as ideology process
18:19 < urgen> as long as the ideology, itself, can be repaired it is ok to gather a way to guide decision
18:19 < echarp> an ideology is important, but not required
18:20 < beeli> ideology is cursore
18:20 < beeli> do we need it?
18:20 < echarp> at another level, we can consider that every human interaction is political in nature, because those relationships have to struggle through what they want to become :)
18:20 < echarp> "cursore"???
18:20 < urgen> cursory
18:21 < urgen> Performed with haste and scant attention to detail: a cursory glance at the headlines.
18:21 < echarp> I would have not have associated cursory and ideology :)
18:21 < echarp> I would not have associated cursory and ideology :)
18:21 < beeli> direction
18:21 < urgen> I used the word "guide"
18:22 < urgen> ideology can suggest
18:22 < beeli> ok
18:22 < echarp> ideology is mostly a set of ideas you know
18:22 < echarp> supposedly self consistent set :)
18:23 < echarp> urgen and beeli: in what you are saying, is ideology the opposite of pragmatism?
18:24 < urgen> pragmatic is an ideology
18:24 < urgen> but I think I see what you might have been asking about
18:25 < echarp> trying to clear things up
18:25 < urgen> pragmatic, like hands on day to day,, ideology like, dreams that sure would be nice some day
18:25 < echarp> well, dict seems to agree with that :)
18:26 < beeli> set of ideas
18:26 < urgen> 1. The body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, group, class, or culture.
18:26 < urgen> 2. A set of doctrines or beliefs that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system.
18:26 < beeli> why would anyone need it but for mentioned purpouse?
18:27 * echarp doesn't know
18:27 < echarp> anyway, to me the society I would like to reach is one where freedom is maximised
18:27 < echarp> where individuals can interact and decide what relationships they enter into
18:27 < beeli> so, you need to elaborate it
18:27 < echarp> relationships allowing all sorts of possibilities
18:27 < beeli> to conect it to other concepts and stuff
18:28 < beeli> and you get ideologgy
18:28 < beeli> you want a chaos?
18:28 < echarp> libertarianism, anarchism
18:28 < echarp> a big mess most certainly yes :)
18:28 < beeli> so, you have ideology you accepted?
18:29 < echarp> nah, I pick the ideas I prefer
18:29 < beeli> i am partly anarchist
18:29 < echarp> I am in many ways
18:29 < beeli> so, you haven o ideology?
18:29 < echarp> my own
18:29 < beeli> are you sure?
18:29 < beeli> does everyone has his own ideology?
18:29 < echarp> it's not constituted of many original ideas
18:30 < echarp> just the set is original, I believe
18:30 < beeli> i understand
18:30 < echarp> no, some people just swallow a ready made one
18:30 < beeli> why do you have ideology?
18:30 < echarp> because I have ideas
18:30 < echarp> a set of ideas
18:30 < echarp> and I use them to think about the future
18:30 < beeli> spontanious stuff?
18:31 < echarp> spontaneous in what way?
18:31 < echarp> did I invent those ideas?
18:31 < beeli> you just have idelogy
18:31 < echarp> "just have"?
18:31 < beeli> you did not need it , but ideology is just there as consequence?
18:31 < beeli> is your ideology open?
18:32 < echarp> it's a set of evolving ideas stolen from everywhere
18:32 < echarp> can you do more open?
18:32 < beeli> guess not
18:32 < beeli> so, is it ideology or just set of ideas than?
18:33 < echarp> same same for me
18:33 < beeli> suppose ideology is defined relaitonship among all of them
18:33 < beeli> not just tu sum of them
18:33 < beeli> urgen: what you tnink?
18:34 < beeli> does everybody who has ideas also has ideology?
18:35 < beeli> bbl
18:35 -!- beeli [n=ille...@cmung4106.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit []
18:44 * urgen thinks a similar discussion like the one between ideology aspiration and ideology doctrine
18:44 < urgen> needs to happen with 'rule'
18:44 < urgen> I think maybe beeli was saying rule 'by' knowledge
18:45 < echarp> yet it's difficult to consider knowledge as an actor :)
18:45 < urgen> descarte's rule of knowlege was a rule that guided the classification of knowledge
18:45 < urgen> beeli's is a rule that control a governing body
18:45 < echarp> experts yes
18:46 < echarp> I don't like that kind of construction
18:46 < echarp> experts are here to help, they don't have to live with the consequences
18:46 < urgen> and they get paid
18:46 < echarp> it's those who live the consequences that should decide!
18:47 < echarp> and they get paid, yes :)
18:48 < urgen> ..speaking of paid
18:48 < urgen> you looking for other work already?
18:49 < echarp> nah
18:49 < echarp> I'm taking my time
18:50 < echarp> and I wouldn't mind some time off either
18:50 < urgen> I always take my time
18:50 < urgen> even if it does sting sometimes
18:51 < echarp> and you, what are you up to currently?
18:52 < urgen> I have full time work two days a week
18:52 < echarp> it's a start
18:52 < urgen> and tend to fill up another two
18:52 < urgen> but it is hard doing four jobs and getting paid for 1/2
18:55 < echarp> I have difficulties swapping contexts
18:55 < echarp> that would kill me
18:55 < urgen> it does kill me
18:59 < echarp> no opportunity for something more appealing?
19:00 < urgen> the more people I meet the more opportunity will show up
19:00 < echarp> definitely
19:00 < echarp> putting your CV on the net is not enough?
19:00 < urgen> not for three years
19:00 < echarp> why 3?
19:01 < urgen> that's how long it has been posted
19:01 < echarp> oh
19:01 < urgen> with only weird responses, scams, or headhunters that want me to move
19:01 < echarp> you'll have to show it to me ;)
19:01 < urgen> I just got here, I don't want to move already
19:02 < urgen> gizmo has free calling now
19:02 < echarp> I can understand that
19:02 < echarp> ok, I'm going home
19:02 < echarp> gizmo is your gf?
19:02 < urgen> anyone with a gizmo project account can call anyone else's real phone number if they also have an account
19:02 < urgen> gizmo is opensource voip
19:03 < urgen> if you get an account I can use the net to call telephones in something like 43 countries
19:03 < echarp> like skype then
19:03 < urgen> skype does US and Canada
19:04 < urgen> and that ends in december
19:04 < echarp> oh
19:04 < echarp> I'll have to check on gizmo
19:04 < urgen> (their free to real telephone program)
19:04 < urgen> skype is simpler tho
19:05 < urgen> and c u later
19:05 < urgen> I have to get to work :-)
19:57 -!- beeli (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung2605.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
19:57 < beeli> nback
20:02 < echarp> re
20:02 < echarp> cu later urgen
20:02 < beeli> cu
20:02 < beeli> 5 of us
20:02 < beeli> what should i do?
20:02 < echarp> the group necessarily is asleep over summer time
20:03 < beeli> there was an instant rule about making decisions that oblidge us
20:03 < beeli> there was no such desicion made till now
20:03 < beeli> suppose i should articulate it based on the our first quest?
20:04 < echarp> first quest being?
20:04 < beeli> definition of top
20:04 < beeli> what does top mean to you
20:06 < beeli> lets go back to our old quest
20:06 < beeli> we need to create clear distincion of what is TOP and what is not TOP
20:06 < beeli> that is the whole point
20:07 < beeli> now, what. Is that person, organisation or what?
20:07 < beeli> projects?
20:07 < beeli> maybe?
20:07 < echarp> process
20:07 < beeli> what do you mean. can you give an example?
20:08 < echarp> the process of votes for example
20:08 < beeli> what can we do with it?
20:08 < echarp> all formal processes in fact
20:08 < echarp> we can require that it be "cloneable"
20:08 < beeli> what i am looking for is solidarity based on clear distinction
20:08 < beeli> ok
20:08 < beeli> this part is important
20:09 < beeli> what i am looking for is solidarity based on clear distinction
20:09 < beeli> do you copy?
20:09 < beeli> when you say cloneable, what does it mean?
20:09 < beeli> how do you distinct that?
20:09 < beeli> how do you test that?
20:09 < echarp> cloneable means that the process can copied somewhere else
20:10 < beeli> i mean, if some org is completely top yet it all deals on four eye meetings
20:10 < beeli> is it cloneblae
20:10 < beeli> ?
20:10 < beeli> i underastand that part
20:10 < echarp> the process is
20:10 < echarp> I'm merely speaking of the process yet
20:10 < beeli> in what case?
20:10 < beeli> ok
20:10 < beeli> i get it
20:10 < echarp> consider all deputies in the parliament
20:10 < echarp> what they do is a process
20:11 < beeli> if org has TOP interface, than org is TOP?
20:11 < echarp> if it is transparent, then you can redo it somewhere else, you can clone it
20:11 < echarp> TOP interface???
20:11 < beeli> how do you define redoing?
20:11 < beeli> who can redo?
20:11 < beeli> me and you?
20:11 < beeli> or who?
20:11 < beeli> is it up to individual to understand?
20:12 < beeli> TOP interface meaning interface that enables this sort of communication
20:12 < beeli> means you are TOP if you have public forum or public grou
20:12 < beeli> p
20:13 < echarp> a parliamentary session would be TOP if you can redo every single thing that happened
20:13 < echarp> if you can restart it from any point in time
20:13 < beeli> based on gathered info
20:13 < beeli> ?
20:13 < echarp> you not only have data on what happened, but you have enough data to re act it
20:13 < beeli> understand
20:13 < echarp> based on information of course, what else is there?
20:13 < beeli> i like it
20:14 < echarp> for example you can do a movie
20:14 < beeli> go on
20:14 < echarp> but to make cloneable you not only need one movie, you need a movie of each participant
20:14 < echarp> of every meeting
20:15 < beeli> so if there is missing part of some movie, it is not TOP any more
20:15 < beeli> it is up to every single person to notice is this fitting top standards or not?
20:15 < beeli> we can offer checking mechanism?
20:16 < beeli> TOP is a process
20:16 < beeli> Every process that can be redone based on public info is TOP
20:16 < echarp> it is effectively not TOP anymore
20:16 < beeli> what?
20:17 < echarp> cloneable is a strong kind of TOP
20:17 < echarp> if something can be replicated, then it is necessarily TOP
20:17 < beeli> whats up to opennes?
20:17 < beeli> is it not needed?
20:17 < echarp> but being TOP does not mean it is necessarily replicatable
20:18 < beeli> why?
20:18 < echarp> openness is something else
20:18 < echarp> replication implies transparency, transparency does not imply replication
20:18 < beeli> give me an example
20:20 < echarp> if you can do an intricate movie of a parliament, and this very detailed movie allows you to replay the parliament in all its details, then it is replicatable *and* transparent
20:20 < echarp> but if a meeting is considered transparent, yet you can not replicate it for one reason or another, then it is transparent yet it is not necessarily replicatable
20:20 < beeli> how can it be transparent?
20:20 < beeli> what does it mean being transparent than?
20:21 < echarp> that most pertinent data is known to the outside world, I guess
20:21 < beeli> what makes it be transparent ?
20:21 < beeli> than it is partially transparent
20:21 < beeli> or non transparent
20:21 < echarp> replication is a very strong kind of transparency
20:21 < echarp> but just one kind
20:21 < beeli> you can not mix it
20:21 < beeli> you are transparent or you are not
20:22 < beeli> everybody is transparent if you talk about possitive sides of something
20:22 < beeli> but dirty loundary is where orgs and process differr
20:22 < beeli> some will keep it for themselves
20:22 < beeli> and protect them from their enemies
20:22 < beeli> other will take others as friends
20:24 < beeli> TOP is point of view
20:24 < beeli> playing top
20:26 < echarp> playing?
20:26 < beeli> working TOP
20:27 < beeli> so, do you agree about this distincion
20:27 < beeli> you are Transparent if you gve all
20:27 < beeli> if you do not give all you are not transparent any mroe
20:27 < echarp> I agree that you are transparent if you are replicatable :)
20:27 < echarp> that is for sure
20:28 < echarp> we might consider that you are transparent if, for example, you publicate all electronic data you have
20:28 < beeli> too keep definition as transparent being replicatable?
20:28 < beeli> i do not like it
20:28 < echarp> replication is a test
20:28 < beeli> in this way you can manipulate
20:28 < beeli> you play dirty part off line
20:29 < beeli> and everything is fine
20:29 < echarp> ?
20:29 < echarp> manipulate what?
20:29 < beeli> you can pretend of beng transparent
20:29 < beeli> everyone
20:29 < beeli> that is not good
20:29 < echarp> in what way can you manipulate?
20:30 < beeli> i keep dirty laundry for my self
20:30 < beeli> play full transparency in issues that i prefer
20:30 < beeli> and you say i am TOP
20:30 < beeli> that is not good
20:30 < echarp> sorry, restate all of it, I'm missing data
20:30 < beeli> in that way TOP looses its sense
20:30 < echarp> what way???
20:30 < beeli> @we might consider wthat you are transparent if....@
20:31 < echarp> who, what!?
20:31 < beeli> that is your qute
20:31 < beeli> read it whole
20:31 < beeli> i was answering that part
20:31 < echarp> "might" is the key word you know
20:31 < echarp> we "might"
20:31 < beeli> in this moment i am strongly for replication test
20:31 < echarp> I'm not stating it as a strong belief
20:31 < beeli> understand
20:31 < echarp> might is a very weak statement
20:31 < beeli> cool
20:31 < beeli> :)
20:32 < echarp> I'm just stating a possibility
20:32 < beeli> i think you solved the first part about transparency!
20:32 < echarp> and I agree, it could lead to manipulations, if only because not all data is electronic
20:33 < beeli> what about public and open?
20:33 < beeli> openness?
20:33 < beeli> free info attachment?
20:33 < beeli> disabling ignorance factor?
20:33 < beeli> brb
20:33 < echarp> ok
20:35 < beeli> re
20:35 < beeli> you agree to move to openness?
20:38 < echarp> I wonder about it
20:38 < echarp> transparency speaks to me
20:38 < echarp> open and public, I don't know
20:38 < beeli> ok,
20:39 < beeli> openness is a little bit thougher term
20:39 < beeli> there was second part of article about openness
20:39 < beeli> when i wrote about transparenct
20:39 < beeli> i do not remember did i posted it?
20:39 < beeli> do you?
20:39 < echarp> no
20:40 < beeli> huh, now i have to find right date...
20:43 < beeli> Full openness
20:43 < beeli> 17:58 < illegale> In political process ceratin data becomes relevant information only in comparision to other datas that create political context. As long as it is hard thing to articulate full political context, political ideologies set dogmas that become political context enabling data become relevant info. Yet, in the age of Internet, those dogmas loose their importance due to their impossibility to explain the whole process that is becoming
20:43 < beeli> 17:58 < illegale> Public initiatives that are not based on ideologies, but exact issues in this case have serious problems as long as the full political context is not reachable to them, so their political engagement in lack of political context makes such initiatives pretty regularly inneficient due to lack of info gorund.
20:43 < beeli> 17:59 < illegale> The way of how to solve this problem partially is enabling completely open political channel that will be able to join concepts that participants find be usefull for setting the context. In the same time full info opennes enables public help such TOP initiatives by giving usefull suggestions and comments that enable them be more efficient and effective.
20:43 < beeli> 17:59 < illegale> In this way, open initiatives are forced to adopt new commonly acknowledged info, which forces them to mature and be more effective. Those initiatives that where set on the wrong grounds do not need to pass the whole way to realise it also. This information optimisation enables much more satisfaction of the participants as long as their work using openness becomes much more satisfying, enablig promotion of activism.
20:43 < beeli> 17:59 < illegale> Non TOP politics due to lack of openness of their information capital, can not realise the political context, so they regularly miss it, becoming obsolete in political reality from their beggining. TOP politics due to its openness optimises itself to the moment it guarantees motivation for further political engagement.
20:43 < beeli> this is a part of perspective where i find some sense
20:43 < beeli> part is far from fine of course
20:46 < beeli> openness is about level of ignorance
20:51 < beeli> we can distinct ignorant ones of those who are looking for knowledge
20:51 < beeli> by openness
20:52 < beeli> looking for knowledge vs dogmatic
20:52 < echarp> that last sentence seems more comprehensible
20:53 < beeli> yes
20:53 < beeli> though, this part sets clear distintion
20:53 < beeli> i suppose
20:53 < beeli> when you create open channel you can not play you did not know
20:53 < beeli> others can eliminate particle of ignorance by it
20:54 < beeli> or can understand your lack of knowledge if info was not available
20:54 < echarp> play or lie about?
20:54 < beeli> lie
20:54 < beeli> you become responsible for info that is availabe to you
20:54 < beeli> you set such channel
20:54 < beeli> that is openness
20:54 < echarp> lost again
20:54 < beeli> what else?
20:55 < beeli> what is difference between TOP and T?
20:55 < beeli> OT and T?
20:55 < beeli> there is no free info flow in straight T
20:55 < beeli> defined
20:55 < beeli> agreed?
20:56 < echarp> lost
20:56 < beeli> you can set transparent interface where public can not participatre
20:56 < echarp> yes, and?
20:56 < beeli> you can have transparent initiative that is closed for public
20:56 < echarp> can you not?
20:57 < beeli> except wathcing
20:57 < beeli> yet it is not TOP
20:57 < beeli> as long as it is not OPen
20:57 < beeli> what does open mean?
20:57 < beeli> why should it be open?
20:57 < beeli> what do we get by being open?
20:57 < beeli> it is about info flow
20:57 < beeli> agreed?
20:58 < beeli> this is about responsibility
20:58 < beeli> you can not know everything
20:58 < beeli> so, people get unpunished due to lack of knowledge issue
20:59 < beeli> people are apologised in that way
20:59 < beeli> what does Bush know about what US goverment does at all?
20:59 < beeli> blah
21:00 < beeli> next time
21:00 < beeli> you made your time very fine
21:00 < beeli> i am really satisfied with todays job
21:00 < beeli> now things are much more polished to me :)
21:00 < echarp> open to who???
21:00 < beeli> to everyone
21:00 < beeli> public
21:00 < beeli> i suppose
21:00 < echarp> info flow, what info, from who, to who?
21:00 < echarp> public is too large for me
21:01 < beeli> from public to public through such node
21:01 < echarp> because I don't stop at nations
21:01 < beeli> ok
21:01 < echarp> I care about groups of people
21:01 < beeli> those who judge
21:01 < beeli> everyone
21:01 < beeli> and everybody
21:01 < beeli> bottoms of any powwr
21:02 < beeli> Coca Cola is based on its users
21:02 < beeli> Bush also
21:02 < beeli> Church also
21:02 < beeli> it is based on its users
21:02 < beeli> lets call them public
21:02 < beeli> this is the way of influence
21:03 < echarp> yet is open not redundant with being transparent?
21:04 < beeli> i do not think so at all
21:04 < beeli> two different concepts
21:04 < beeli> very much actually
21:04 < beeli> look at forum
21:04 < beeli> it can be open
21:05 < beeli> it can be transparent
21:05 < beeli> open means you can participate
21:05 < beeli> transparent means you can see what is going on
21:05 < beeli> it can be public or non public also
21:05 < beeli> if public can see it or not
21:05 < beeli> and you have many interstuff among these 3
21:09 < echarp> but will you allow everybody to participate?
21:09 < echarp> I don't think so
21:09 < beeli> why?
21:09 < echarp> seeing and participating are 2 different things
21:09 < beeli> that is an essence of participateive democracy
21:09 < echarp> can I vote for the US elections?
21:09 < beeli> decision making system is different
21:09 < echarp> you will discover limits to your openness :)
21:09 < echarp> of course it is
21:09 < beeli> you can participate not only in making decisions
21:09 < echarp> yet I can not participate
21:10 < beeli> you can post
21:10 < beeli> :)
21:10 < beeli> youi can give opinion
21:10 < beeli> provide info
21:10 < beeli> lobby
21:10 < beeli> you can do much stuff
21:10 < beeli> can be even important as a public
21:11 < echarp> sorry, I don't think I can
21:11 < echarp> can I vote in US elections?
21:12 < beeli> you can not
21:12 < beeli> so?
21:12 < echarp> this is the cherry of participation in a democracy
21:12 < beeli> i would always give my right to vote for taking right to propose opinion to all
21:12 < echarp> if you don't vote, then your voice is just not that important
21:12 < beeli> voice is regularly more important than regular vote
21:12 < echarp> speaking is crap
21:13 < echarp> imagine yourself in a group of 3
21:13 < beeli> far from it
21:13 < echarp> if you can speak but not vote, then you are meat
21:13 < beeli> no, i am looking for gorup of 1 000 000
21:13 < echarp> I know
21:13 < echarp> yet you should consider all scales
21:13 < beeli> in this way i am meat anyway
21:13 < echarp> no limit up or down
21:13 < beeli> there is
21:13 < beeli> 1: 1 000 000 is really nothing
21:13 < beeli> 1: 3 is not
21:14 < beeli> size does matter
21:14 < beeli> :)
21:14 < beeli> though, i do not go to parliamewntary elections at all for some time
21:14 < beeli> and i believe i participate much more in political proces than those who did vote last time
21:15 < beeli> i see no point of choosing between two bad sides if i can not provide third that makes sense
21:15 < beeli> and that is part of no voting process
21:15 < echarp> size matters, yet scaling even more
21:16 < echarp> yet, what if noone can choose?
21:16 < echarp> or only 2 in a group of 1_000_000?
21:16 < echarp> freedom is about choice
21:16 < beeli> that is the way stuff works this moment
21:17 < beeli> though, the point is that vote is not only way of particiaption
21:17 < beeli> the second part is pretty important aslo
21:17 < beeli> tat part is the part political process really lacks actually
21:17 < echarp> it is
21:18 < beeli> that part is about openness imo
21:18 < beeli> and some more
21:18 < echarp> open would mean that you can talk all you want then?
21:21 < beeli> suppose
21:21 < beeli> providing info
21:21 < beeli> oblidging second part of taking into acount
21:22 < echarp> taking into account???
21:22 < beeli> provided informations
21:22 < echarp> explain
21:24 < beeli> I do not have to know everything
21:24 < beeli> Other participants neither
21:25 < beeli> As long as I do know that, I can manipulate with these participants by hiding some info and stuff
21:25 < beeli> in a way of amking them decide what i wanty
21:25 < beeli> Open participation hardly reduces this possibility
21:25 < beeli> in a way it does not worth playing that way anymore
21:25 < beeli> this part is not solved by transparency, but by openness
21:25 < beeli> btw,
21:26 < beeli> i created topic for this survive on itnernet
21:26 < beeli> at some forum and now in 2 hours i got 15 people answering that
21:26 < beeli> pretty non expected :)
21:26 < beeli> I need 70 of them
21:26 < beeli> so, this is pretty much!
21:29 < beeli> openness enables on line manipulation be part from oportunistic behaviour
21:36 < beeli> echarp, tired?
21:36 < echarp> no
21:36 < echarp> eating an ice cream :)
21:36 < beeli> so thats it
21:36 < beeli> L:
21:36 < beeli> whats with job?
21:37 < echarp> should end this month
21:37 < beeli> having something new?
21:42 < echarp> will be easy to find
21:43 < beeli> lucky you
21:43 < beeli> have nothing much to commies :)
21:43 < beeli> as long as you are capitalist
21:45 < echarp> I'm also pragmatic
21:47 < beeli> free enetrpires?
21:48 < echarp> of course
21:50 < beeli> have you ever run your own bussiness?
21:58 < echarp> back after my ice cream :)
21:58 < echarp> lemon, miam
21:59 < beeli> we have discounts for lemon ice cream
21:59 < echarp> back on your hiding and manipulating
21:59 < echarp> is that not accounted by transparency?
21:59 < echarp> lol
22:00 < beeli> no
22:00 < beeli> transparency has not much to info that will be involved
22:01 < beeli> into dcision making process
22:01 < beeli> it does not oblidge you to anything
22:01 < beeli> but to repetatibility
22:01 < echarp> it gives information
22:01 < beeli> you can ignore some facts in transparent system plainly
22:02 < beeli> if some info is not politically relevant, oy can play deaf to them
22:02 < echarp> and?
22:02 < beeli> in open system if somebody provides it to you, you can not do it any more
22:02 < echarp> how can you ever go against that?
22:02 < echarp> can not do what anymore?
22:03 < beeli> if public sees Mr X has that info, public counts on Mr X to take it into consideartion
22:03 < beeli> that info is provided by Mr Y who is part of public
22:03 < echarp> how is that related to openness???
22:03 < beeli> Mr Y did have possiblity to provide it to Mr X
22:03 < beeli> publicly
22:03 < beeli> btw
22:04 < beeli> Ignorance is not argument any more in open system
22:05 < echarp> sorry, what is openness???
22:05 < echarp> being seen to give information?
22:05 < beeli> in this way it is
22:06 < beeli> what else it is?
22:06 < beeli> opennes is acklaimed readyness to adopt new info into account in order of optimisation ogf youtr work
22:06 < beeli> this is way how to do it
22:07 < beeli> you can be transparent and not be open
22:07 < beeli> you can be transparent and dogmatic
22:07 < echarp> I'm sorry, I disagree about this openness
22:07 < echarp> you might just push people into "showing" they care
22:07 < echarp> nothing else
22:08 < beeli> what is opennes to you
22:08 < beeli> ?
22:09 < echarp> I don't really know
22:09 < echarp> I have a tool to determine what is transparent
22:09 < echarp> but open and public, I don't really know
22:09 < beeli> hmh, it seems you miss political context
22:10 < beeli> concept of public ignorance as a way of legitimation in making non proper decisions
22:10 < beeli> there is no way to catch this part of responsibility in this very moment but by this attaching part
22:10 < beeli> for an exampe
22:10 < echarp> sorry, too many words that need explanation
22:10 < beeli> there is a big party in cro
22:11 < beeli> they say economic politics was very good
22:11 < beeli> and party that came destroyed eveything
22:11 < beeli> the person shows several parameters
22:11 < beeli> and everybody aplauds
22:11 < echarp> yes, happens all the time
22:12 < beeli> than, thanks to openness here comes Hrvoje and says that policy is the same one as the one they had
22:12 < beeli> new arty just kept the same way
22:12 < echarp> thx to openness???
22:12 < beeli> dircet confrontation
22:12 < beeli> of those who are at position and those who are not
22:12 < beeli> this is idea
22:12 < beeli> attaching new info
22:12 < beeli> freely
22:13 < beeli> in some other parties there is no openness at all
22:13 < beeli> though, this part has nothing to transparency at all
22:13 < beeli> but to common ignorance
22:13 < beeli> which opennes eliminates
22:13 < beeli> not transparency
22:13 < beeli> transparenct is just insurance
22:14 < echarp> what is openness???
22:14 < beeli> possibility of free info attacment
22:14 < echarp> to attach info to something?
22:14 < echarp> that speaks more
22:15 < beeli> to process
22:15 < beeli> :)
22:15 < beeli> you have to take info into account
22:15 < beeli> there is no obligation for this in RL
22:15 < echarp> how can make someone take info into account???
22:15 < echarp> how can you ever do such a thing?
22:15 < beeli> if you have forum
22:16 < beeli> and very popular info that is accepted commonly into account
22:16 < beeli> of participiants
22:16 < beeli> that face at top has to do the same thing
22:16 < beeli> if he does not
22:16 < beeli> he looses his credits
22:17 < echarp> yet the guy still has control over the forum?
22:17 < beeli> yes
22:17 < beeli> though, he looses his political base
22:17 < beeli> that is the poijnt
22:17 < echarp> and, you should say straight away that openness means "attaching a forum to any TOP organisation"
22:17 < beeli> that is only part of it
22:17 < beeli> as i can notice
22:17 < echarp> I disagree with the importance of such a forum
22:17 < echarp> because "he" controls it
22:18 < beeli> he does not control info
22:18 < beeli> that is the point
22:18 < beeli> of TOP
22:19 < echarp> if it is his forum, he controls it
22:19 < beeli> so, we can create forum that will set such rules that he might not control it
22:19 < echarp> how can he not control it if it is his?
22:19 < beeli> he acklaims such forum to be his
22:20 < beeli> that does not mean possiblity to do mess
22:20 < beeli> to censor
22:20 < beeli> for an example
22:20 < beeli> i can acknowledfge TOP politis as my forum
22:20 < echarp> but he can none the less
22:20 < beeli> I do not control it in any way
22:20 < beeli> the point is that we can set principle that he can not either
22:21 < beeli> control his own forum
22:21 < echarp> how can you be sure you can attache information to a person, if that person controls this attachment?
22:21 < echarp> just saying he can't do, is not much :(
22:22 < beeli> he does not
22:22 < beeli> IO do not control attachemnt of what is going on at top politics
22:22 < beeli> if I acklaim top politics, than i do obey to TOP completley
22:22 < beeli> in a manner of opennes and lack of control
22:23 < echarp> then what is it that a top person or organisation has to do?
22:23 < echarp> he/she has to speak about a forum?
22:23 < echarp> to publicise it?
22:23 < beeli> huh, it is enough for me for today :)
22:24 < beeli> i respect your durability
22:24 < echarp> I simply don't get it
22:24 < beeli> though, we might continue the process tomorow if you please
22:24 < echarp> you need to be down to earth with me
22:24 < echarp> no big sentence
22:24 < beeli> this is in process of articualtion
22:24 < echarp> tomorrow, ok
22:24 < beeli> cu!
22:24 -!- beeli [n=ille...@cmung2605.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit []
--- Log closed ven aoû 04 00:00:10 2006
17:11 -!- beeli (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung4106.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
17:11 < beeli:#parlement> io
17:18 < beeli:#parlement> seems like you have some problems to idea of reason?
17:24 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
17:24 < echarp> hello hello
17:24 < echarp> idea of reason??
17:24 < echarp> I consider myself very reasonable :)
17:25 < echarp> and rational and materialist
17:26 < beeli> so, what is the problem?
17:27 < echarp> what are you referring to when you state? => "seems like you have some problems to idea of reason?"
17:27 < echarp> where does it seem that there is such a problem?
17:29 < beeli> reason - ideology
17:29 < beeli> seems like you equal it
17:29 < echarp> what context are you referring to?
17:30 < beeli> yesterday chat of you and urgen
17:30 < echarp> because I don't have it in mind you know
17:30 < beeli> btw, echarp. Can I park domain at your server?
17:31 < echarp> most certainly yes
17:31 < beeli> can i host it from you server?
17:32 < beeli> there is an idea of starting new croatian project
17:32 < beeli> called parasites.com
17:32 < echarp> what is it you want to host? the dns server?
17:32 < beeli> anticorruption by internet
17:32 < beeli> site
17:32 < echarp> the site is constituted of something in particular?
17:33 < beeli> not yet
17:33 < beeli> php stuff i belive its gonna be
17:33 < echarp> you can point the dns server that you use to my server yes
17:33 < beeli> what does it mean point the dns server?
17:33 < beeli> what do i need too?
17:35 < echarp> I'm no specialist in that domain
17:35 < echarp> there are two important elements:
17:35 < echarp> 1) the ip adress
17:35 < echarp> 2) the textual name (ie http://parasites.com)
17:35 < echarp> to bind one to the user browsers use a dns
17:36 < urgen> I know how to do dns
17:36 < beeli> what do you need from me when i buy domain?
17:36 < urgen> so when you register your domain name it asks you what dns server is in charge of converting the name to the ip number
17:36 < urgen> you need two
17:37 < beeli> so, i need dns server? is it hard thing to get?
17:37 < echarp> there are free one
17:37 < urgen> sometimes where you purchase the domain name from also has dns control,, but then again, sometimes they only will give you that service if you also host with them
17:37 < beeli> geee, it is time for me to learn that stuff
17:37 < urgen> I don't know any free ones
17:38 < echarp> http://www.zoneedit.com
17:38 < echarp> I think it's the one I use with leparlement.org and echarp.org
17:39 < echarp> see => http://www.zoneedit.com/doc/faq.html#faq2
17:40 < beeli> so, i have to park domain at zoneedit?
17:40 < echarp> they offer the dns service
17:40 < beeli> is that parking ?
17:40 * echarp doesn't know
17:40 < urgen> parking is not a technical term
17:40 < urgen> :-)
17:40 < echarp> what is it you want when you say "park"?
17:41 < urgen> it usually means you have purchased a domain name and have not assigned it a location
17:41 < beeli> zes
17:41 < beeli> yes
17:41 < echarp> if you want a domain then I don't see the need for parking it, just leave it as it is
17:41 < urgen> registrars demand dns assignment
17:42 < beeli> i gonna buy domain name, then what?
17:42 < echarp> just point it to http://leparlement.org, I'll be glad for any visitors :)
17:42 < beeli> i have to find dns assigmnetn at zoneedit?
17:42 < beeli> .
17:42 < beeli> cheat
17:42 < echarp> your registrar might do the dns stuff himself, much easier then
17:43 < beeli> ok
17:43 < beeli> then, when i do the stuff ill contact you for futhrer moves
17:43 < echarp> I don't know if you'll need it
17:44 < urgen> yes most registrar do dns, at least they will 'park' for free if you do not know what dns you will be using
17:45 < beeli> thanks
17:49 < echarp> I'm looking back in yesterday's logs
17:50 < echarp> beeli: I keep not understanding what it is you are saying and you want
17:50 < echarp> "rule of knowledge" for example
17:50 < urgen> I think I made a challenge
17:50 < echarp> what challenge? :)
17:51 < urgen> something like beeli's definition of reason sounds like beeli's definition of ideology
17:51 < urgen> so I think beeli is asking how this reason = ideology works?
17:51 * echarp is a boat lost at sea and without any link to solid earth
17:52 < echarp> yet reason, as many philosophers would state, is a faculty we can use to understand the world
17:52 < beeli> blah
17:52 < echarp> to be reasonable would be a quality of someone using this faculty
17:52 < beeli> we talked about concept of rule of knowledge
17:52 < echarp> an ideology would more likely be a set of ideas, of concepts, which can be used to decide on political matters
17:53 < beeli> knowledge can be grounded bottomish up
17:53 < echarp> rule of knowledge is an aggregate of words I don't follow
17:53 < beeli> is it regularly is
17:53 < beeli> brb
17:55 < urgen> descarte's 'rule of knowledge' "whatever I perceive very clearly and distinctly is true"
17:56 < urgen> gale reference to term: http://www.opendemocracy.net/forums/thread.jspa?forumID=82&threadID=44546&tstart=0
17:56 < echarp> thx, I was looking for references
17:58 < echarp> oh, well, I can't use that to understand this concept
17:59 < echarp> or is it rule by experts and most responsible individuals?
17:59 < beeli> yes
18:00 < beeli> findeing a way that consistent thought gets power
18:00 < beeli> i suppose truth is self consistent by definition
18:00 < echarp> sorry, I don't believe in truth
18:00 < beeli> do you believe in word?
18:00 < echarp> no absolutes that we, mere humans, can ever recognise
18:01 < beeli> do you belive n absolute?
18:01 < echarp> I don't have any absolute belief
18:01 < echarp> no, no absolute
18:01 < beeli> yet, you can use these words pretty often
18:01 < echarp> of course
18:01 < beeli> and they do have some meniunng
18:01 < echarp> they are words, I don't fear using them :)
18:01 < beeli> same as truth
18:01 < echarp> how is that?
18:02 < beeli> truth is just another concept
18:02 < echarp> of course it is
18:02 < beeli> we can describe that concept
18:02 < echarp> of course
18:02 < echarp> and I'm stating that what this concept refers to is wrong
18:03 < echarp> everything is a matter of belief
18:03 < beeli> what does it refers to?
18:03 < echarp> from 0 to 100%
18:03 < echarp> truth is a concept that refer to absolutes and unchanging data
18:03 < beeli> if you define that way
18:04 < beeli> i can define trruth as openstanding selfcinsistency
18:04 < echarp> of course I can just say "true" to state my agreement :)
18:04 < echarp> you can yes, and it is worthwhile
18:04 < beeli> so, this openstanding word is the one that puts higher though od truth to the earth
18:04 < echarp> a tautology, mathematics, is a set of equations that lead to "truth"
18:04 < echarp> ??
18:04 < echarp> higher what??
18:05 < beeli> when word has no attachment to time line it becomes absolutish
18:05 < beeli> when you do attachment it has reeal value
18:05 < echarp> I mean, what did you write???
18:05 < echarp> "though od truth"???
18:05 < echarp> what does it mean?
18:05 < beeli> we can talk about abstractions
18:05 < beeli> we can talk about facts
18:06 < echarp> "though od truth"???
18:06 < echarp> what does it mean?
18:06 < beeli> spell error
18:06 < beeli> do not mind
18:06 < echarp> please correct!
18:06 < beeli> :)
18:06 < echarp> I do mind
18:06 < echarp> it's like a difficult journey onto which I keep on falling
18:07 < beeli> openstading word gives to the regular concept of philosophical thought time line
18:07 < beeli> openstanding
18:07 < beeli> something that preserves in open system
18:07 < beeli> the essence of ti
18:07 < echarp> it's not that I mind spelling, it's more that I want to understand!!!
18:07 < beeli> ok, this stuff is what i have just some thoughts of
18:07 < beeli> working stage
18:08 < echarp> and when I don't understand a whole understand, I get mad
18:08 < beeli> beta version
18:08 < echarp> and when I don't understand a whole "sentence", I get mad
18:08 < beeli> so, we can talk about love, truth, all the stuff
18:08 < beeli> all the concepts
18:08 < echarp> well, I've studied AI
18:08 < beeli> yet, they have no value to us if they do not say to us what is good what is wrong
18:08 < beeli> what is right and so on
18:08 < echarp> and the system of beliefs I prefer is one based on expert systems
18:09 < echarp> there is no truth, no "right" or "wrong", just a set of rules linked with %
18:09 < echarp> bayesian networks, markov chains
18:09 < beeli> you need reference, allways
18:09 < beeli> and you have to check it out
18:09 < beeli> its validity
18:09 < echarp> no
18:09 < beeli> cheking its validity you attach words
18:10 < beeli> what do you mean?
18:10 < echarp> it can remain unchecked :)
18:10 < beeli> how?
18:10 < echarp> just leave it as it is
18:10 < beeli> you can detach human life from belifs?
18:10 < echarp> is the moon a giant cheese or not?
18:10 < echarp> I believe it is not
18:10 < beeli> you need to make political decision
18:10 < echarp> yet I didn't check it
18:10 < beeli> what is your base?
18:10 < beeli> is there any right or wrong >
18:10 < beeli> ?
18:11 < beeli> in your decision making?
18:11 < echarp> no right or wrong
18:11 < beeli> truth or false?
18:11 < echarp> no true or false
18:11 < beeli> right or wrong?
18:11 < echarp> no
18:11 < echarp> no right or wrong
18:11 < beeli> so, how do you make it?
18:11 < echarp> make what?
18:11 < beeli> political decision?
18:11 < echarp> on the expected consequences
18:12 < echarp> I try to imagine them
18:12 < echarp> and I choose according to different criteria
18:12 < beeli> so, that is how you call it
18:12 < echarp> most of the time it's along lines of utility
18:12 < beeli> how do you set criteria?
18:12 < echarp> utilitarianism if you want a name
18:12 < echarp> I set criteria through trial an error, through ideology
18:12 < echarp> trial "and" error
18:13 < beeli> different words
18:13 < beeli> that is it
18:13 < beeli> wrong is when you notice error
18:13 < echarp> not to me
18:13 < beeli> gee
18:13 < beeli> so, what d you measure?
18:13 < echarp> there is not error, there are bad consequences
18:14 < beeli> what are bad cosequences?
18:14 < urgen> measure unexpected result
18:14 < beeli> how?
18:14 < urgen> the expectation was defined before the action
18:14 < beeli> so, i can define what is right
18:14 < echarp> bad consequences would be consequences you don't like, you don't want to live with, or even consequences that kill you
18:14 < beeli> wrong is what brings you bad consequences
18:14 < beeli> so, what was the point of escaping of that word?
18:14 < echarp> you can redefine "wrong" of course :)
18:15 < beeli> no, it is not redefintiion
18:15 < urgen> one can repair expectation
18:15 < echarp> even unintended consequences can be highly appreciated
18:16 < urgen> unexpected result in physics allows them to discover unknown particles
18:16 < echarp> I would define politics, and this is from a former philosophy teacher of mine, as => politics is the process we use to define what we want to become
18:16 < echarp> I like that definition
18:17 < echarp> urgen: definitely!
18:17 < urgen> unknown is valuable
18:17 < echarp> of course defining our future is highly difficult
18:18 < beeli> i see this definition as ideology process
18:19 < urgen> as long as the ideology, itself, can be repaired it is ok to gather a way to guide decision
18:19 < echarp> an ideology is important, but not required
18:20 < beeli> ideology is cursore
18:20 < beeli> do we need it?
18:20 < echarp> at another level, we can consider that every human interaction is political in nature, because those relationships have to struggle through what they want to become :)
18:20 < echarp> "cursore"???
18:20 < urgen> cursory
18:21 < urgen> Performed with haste and scant attention to detail: a cursory glance at the headlines.
18:21 < echarp> I would have not have associated cursory and ideology :)
18:21 < echarp> I would not have associated cursory and ideology :)
18:21 < beeli> direction
18:21 < urgen> I used the word "guide"
18:22 < urgen> ideology can suggest
18:22 < beeli> ok
18:22 < echarp> ideology is mostly a set of ideas you know
18:22 < echarp> supposedly self consistent set :)
18:23 < echarp> urgen and beeli: in what you are saying, is ideology the opposite of pragmatism?
18:24 < urgen> pragmatic is an ideology
18:24 < urgen> but I think I see what you might have been asking about
18:25 < echarp> trying to clear things up
18:25 < urgen> pragmatic, like hands on day to day,, ideology like, dreams that sure would be nice some day
18:25 < echarp> well, dict seems to agree with that :)
18:26 < beeli> set of ideas
18:26 < urgen> 1. The body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, group, class, or culture.
18:26 < urgen> 2. A set of doctrines or beliefs that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system.
18:26 < beeli> why would anyone need it but for mentioned purpouse?
18:27 * echarp doesn't know
18:27 < echarp> anyway, to me the society I would like to reach is one where freedom is maximised
18:27 < echarp> where individuals can interact and decide what relationships they enter into
18:27 < beeli> so, you need to elaborate it
18:27 < echarp> relationships allowing all sorts of possibilities
18:27 < beeli> to conect it to other concepts and stuff
18:28 < beeli> and you get ideologgy
18:28 < beeli> you want a chaos?
18:28 < echarp> libertarianism, anarchism
18:28 < echarp> a big mess most certainly yes :)
18:28 < beeli> so, you have ideology you accepted?
18:29 < echarp> nah, I pick the ideas I prefer
18:29 < beeli> i am partly anarchist
18:29 < echarp> I am in many ways
18:29 < beeli> so, you haven o ideology?
18:29 < echarp> my own
18:29 < beeli> are you sure?
18:29 < beeli> does everyone has his own ideology?
18:29 < echarp> it's not constituted of many original ideas
18:30 < echarp> just the set is original, I believe
18:30 < beeli> i understand
18:30 < echarp> no, some people just swallow a ready made one
18:30 < beeli> why do you have ideology?
18:30 < echarp> because I have ideas
18:30 < echarp> a set of ideas
18:30 < echarp> and I use them to think about the future
18:30 < beeli> spontanious stuff?
18:31 < echarp> spontaneous in what way?
18:31 < echarp> did I invent those ideas?
18:31 < beeli> you just have idelogy
18:31 < echarp> "just have"?
18:31 < beeli> you did not need it , but ideology is just there as consequence?
18:31 < beeli> is your ideology open?
18:32 < echarp> it's a set of evolving ideas stolen from everywhere
18:32 < echarp> can you do more open?
18:32 < beeli> guess not
18:32 < beeli> so, is it ideology or just set of ideas than?
18:33 < echarp> same same for me
18:33 < beeli> suppose ideology is defined relaitonship among all of them
18:33 < beeli> not just tu sum of them
18:33 < beeli> urgen: what you tnink?
18:34 < beeli> does everybody who has ideas also has ideology?
18:35 < beeli> bbl
18:35 -!- beeli [n=ille...@cmung4106.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit []
18:44 * urgen thinks a similar discussion like the one between ideology aspiration and ideology doctrine
18:44 < urgen> needs to happen with 'rule'
18:44 < urgen> I think maybe beeli was saying rule 'by' knowledge
18:45 < echarp> yet it's difficult to consider knowledge as an actor :)
18:45 < urgen> descarte's rule of knowlege was a rule that guided the classification of knowledge
18:45 < urgen> beeli's is a rule that control a governing body
18:45 < echarp> experts yes
18:46 < echarp> I don't like that kind of construction
18:46 < echarp> experts are here to help, they don't have to live with the consequences
18:46 < urgen> and they get paid
18:46 < echarp> it's those who live the consequences that should decide!
18:47 < echarp> and they get paid, yes :)
18:48 < urgen> ..speaking of paid
18:48 < urgen> you looking for other work already?
18:49 < echarp> nah
18:49 < echarp> I'm taking my time
18:50 < echarp> and I wouldn't mind some time off either
18:50 < urgen> I always take my time
18:50 < urgen> even if it does sting sometimes
18:51 < echarp> and you, what are you up to currently?
18:52 < urgen> I have full time work two days a week
18:52 < echarp> it's a start
18:52 < urgen> and tend to fill up another two
18:52 < urgen> but it is hard doing four jobs and getting paid for 1/2
18:55 < echarp> I have difficulties swapping contexts
18:55 < echarp> that would kill me
18:55 < urgen> it does kill me
18:59 < echarp> no opportunity for something more appealing?
19:00 < urgen> the more people I meet the more opportunity will show up
19:00 < echarp> definitely
19:00 < echarp> putting your CV on the net is not enough?
19:00 < urgen> not for three years
19:00 < echarp> why 3?
19:01 < urgen> that's how long it has been posted
19:01 < echarp> oh
19:01 < urgen> with only weird responses, scams, or headhunters that want me to move
19:01 < echarp> you'll have to show it to me ;)
19:01 < urgen> I just got here, I don't want to move already
19:02 < urgen> gizmo has free calling now
19:02 < echarp> I can understand that
19:02 < echarp> ok, I'm going home
19:02 < echarp> gizmo is your gf?
19:02 < urgen> anyone with a gizmo project account can call anyone else's real phone number if they also have an account
19:02 < urgen> gizmo is opensource voip
19:03 < urgen> if you get an account I can use the net to call telephones in something like 43 countries
19:03 < echarp> like skype then
19:03 < urgen> skype does US and Canada
19:04 < urgen> and that ends in december
19:04 < echarp> oh
19:04 < echarp> I'll have to check on gizmo
19:04 < urgen> (their free to real telephone program)
19:04 < urgen> skype is simpler tho
19:05 < urgen> and c u later
19:05 < urgen> I have to get to work :-)
19:57 -!- beeli (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung2605.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
19:57 < beeli> nback
20:02 < echarp> re
20:02 < echarp> cu later urgen
20:02 < beeli> cu
20:02 < beeli> 5 of us
20:02 < beeli> what should i do?
20:02 < echarp> the group necessarily is asleep over summer time
20:03 < beeli> there was an instant rule about making decisions that oblidge us
20:03 < beeli> there was no such desicion made till now
20:03 < beeli> suppose i should articulate it based on the our first quest?
20:04 < echarp> first quest being?
20:04 < beeli> definition of top
20:04 < beeli> what does top mean to you
20:06 < beeli> lets go back to our old quest
20:06 < beeli> we need to create clear distincion of what is TOP and what is not TOP
20:06 < beeli> that is the whole point
20:07 < beeli> now, what. Is that person, organisation or what?
20:07 < beeli> projects?
20:07 < beeli> maybe?
20:07 < echarp> process
20:07 < beeli> what do you mean. can you give an example?
20:08 < echarp> the process of votes for example
20:08 < beeli> what can we do with it?
20:08 < echarp> all formal processes in fact
20:08 < echarp> we can require that it be "cloneable"
20:08 < beeli> what i am looking for is solidarity based on clear distinction
20:08 < beeli> ok
20:08 < beeli> this part is important
20:09 < beeli> what i am looking for is solidarity based on clear distinction
20:09 < beeli> do you copy?
20:09 < beeli> when you say cloneable, what does it mean?
20:09 < beeli> how do you distinct that?
20:09 < beeli> how do you test that?
20:09 < echarp> cloneable means that the process can copied somewhere else
20:10 < beeli> i mean, if some org is completely top yet it all deals on four eye meetings
20:10 < beeli> is it cloneblae
20:10 < beeli> ?
20:10 < beeli> i underastand that part
20:10 < echarp> the process is
20:10 < echarp> I'm merely speaking of the process yet
20:10 < beeli> in what case?
20:10 < beeli> ok
20:10 < beeli> i get it
20:10 < echarp> consider all deputies in the parliament
20:10 < echarp> what they do is a process
20:11 < beeli> if org has TOP interface, than org is TOP?
20:11 < echarp> if it is transparent, then you can redo it somewhere else, you can clone it
20:11 < echarp> TOP interface???
20:11 < beeli> how do you define redoing?
20:11 < beeli> who can redo?
20:11 < beeli> me and you?
20:11 < beeli> or who?
20:11 < beeli> is it up to individual to understand?
20:12 < beeli> TOP interface meaning interface that enables this sort of communication
20:12 < beeli> means you are TOP if you have public forum or public grou
20:12 < beeli> p
20:13 < echarp> a parliamentary session would be TOP if you can redo every single thing that happened
20:13 < echarp> if you can restart it from any point in time
20:13 < beeli> based on gathered info
20:13 < beeli> ?
20:13 < echarp> you not only have data on what happened, but you have enough data to re act it
20:13 < beeli> understand
20:13 < echarp> based on information of course, what else is there?
20:13 < beeli> i like it
20:14 < echarp> for example you can do a movie
20:14 < beeli> go on
20:14 < echarp> but to make cloneable you not only need one movie, you need a movie of each participant
20:14 < echarp> of every meeting
20:15 < beeli> so if there is missing part of some movie, it is not TOP any more
20:15 < beeli> it is up to every single person to notice is this fitting top standards or not?
20:15 < beeli> we can offer checking mechanism?
20:16 < beeli> TOP is a process
20:16 < beeli> Every process that can be redone based on public info is TOP
20:16 < echarp> it is effectively not TOP anymore
20:16 < beeli> what?
20:17 < echarp> cloneable is a strong kind of TOP
20:17 < echarp> if something can be replicated, then it is necessarily TOP
20:17 < beeli> whats up to opennes?
20:17 < beeli> is it not needed?
20:17 < echarp> but being TOP does not mean it is necessarily replicatable
20:18 < beeli> why?
20:18 < echarp> openness is something else
20:18 < echarp> replication implies transparency, transparency does not imply replication
20:18 < beeli> give me an example
20:20 < echarp> if you can do an intricate movie of a parliament, and this very detailed movie allows you to replay the parliament in all its details, then it is replicatable *and* transparent
20:20 < echarp> but if a meeting is considered transparent, yet you can not replicate it for one reason or another, then it is transparent yet it is not necessarily replicatable
20:20 < beeli> how can it be transparent?
20:20 < beeli> what does it mean being transparent than?
20:21 < echarp> that most pertinent data is known to the outside world, I guess
20:21 < beeli> what makes it be transparent ?
20:21 < beeli> than it is partially transparent
20:21 < beeli> or non transparent
20:21 < echarp> replication is a very strong kind of transparency
20:21 < echarp> but just one kind
20:21 < beeli> you can not mix it
20:21 < beeli> you are transparent or you are not
20:22 < beeli> everybody is transparent if you talk about possitive sides of something
20:22 < beeli> but dirty loundary is where orgs and process differr
20:22 < beeli> some will keep it for themselves
20:22 < beeli> and protect them from their enemies
20:22 < beeli> other will take others as friends
20:24 < beeli> TOP is point of view
20:24 < beeli> playing top
20:26 < echarp> playing?
20:26 < beeli> working TOP
20:27 < beeli> so, do you agree about this distincion
20:27 < beeli> you are Transparent if you gve all
20:27 < beeli> if you do not give all you are not transparent any mroe
20:27 < echarp> I agree that you are transparent if you are replicatable :)
20:27 < echarp> that is for sure
20:28 < echarp> we might consider that you are transparent if, for example, you publicate all electronic data you have
20:28 < beeli> too keep definition as transparent being replicatable?
20:28 < beeli> i do not like it
20:28 < echarp> replication is a test
20:28 < beeli> in this way you can manipulate
20:28 < beeli> you play dirty part off line
20:29 < beeli> and everything is fine
20:29 < echarp> ?
20:29 < echarp> manipulate what?
20:29 < beeli> you can pretend of beng transparent
20:29 < beeli> everyone
20:29 < beeli> that is not good
20:29 < echarp> in what way can you manipulate?
20:30 < beeli> i keep dirty laundry for my self
20:30 < beeli> play full transparency in issues that i prefer
20:30 < beeli> and you say i am TOP
20:30 < beeli> that is not good
20:30 < echarp> sorry, restate all of it, I'm missing data
20:30 < beeli> in that way TOP looses its sense
20:30 < echarp> what way???
20:30 < beeli> @we might consider wthat you are transparent if....@
20:31 < echarp> who, what!?
20:31 < beeli> that is your qute
20:31 < beeli> read it whole
20:31 < beeli> i was answering that part
20:31 < echarp> "might" is the key word you know
20:31 < echarp> we "might"
20:31 < beeli> in this moment i am strongly for replication test
20:31 < echarp> I'm not stating it as a strong belief
20:31 < beeli> understand
20:31 < echarp> might is a very weak statement
20:31 < beeli> cool
20:31 < beeli> :)
20:32 < echarp> I'm just stating a possibility
20:32 < beeli> i think you solved the first part about transparency!
20:32 < echarp> and I agree, it could lead to manipulations, if only because not all data is electronic
20:33 < beeli> what about public and open?
20:33 < beeli> openness?
20:33 < beeli> free info attachment?
20:33 < beeli> disabling ignorance factor?
20:33 < beeli> brb
20:33 < echarp> ok
20:35 < beeli> re
20:35 < beeli> you agree to move to openness?
20:38 < echarp> I wonder about it
20:38 < echarp> transparency speaks to me
20:38 < echarp> open and public, I don't know
20:38 < beeli> ok,
20:39 < beeli> openness is a little bit thougher term
20:39 < beeli> there was second part of article about openness
20:39 < beeli> when i wrote about transparenct
20:39 < beeli> i do not remember did i posted it?
20:39 < beeli> do you?
20:39 < echarp> no
20:40 < beeli> huh, now i have to find right date...
20:43 < beeli> Full openness
20:43 < beeli> 17:58 < illegale> In political process ceratin data becomes relevant information only in comparision to other datas that create political context. As long as it is hard thing to articulate full political context, political ideologies set dogmas that become political context enabling data become relevant info. Yet, in the age of Internet, those dogmas loose their importance due to their impossibility to explain the whole process that is becoming
20:43 < beeli> 17:58 < illegale> Public initiatives that are not based on ideologies, but exact issues in this case have serious problems as long as the full political context is not reachable to them, so their political engagement in lack of political context makes such initiatives pretty regularly inneficient due to lack of info gorund.
20:43 < beeli> 17:59 < illegale> The way of how to solve this problem partially is enabling completely open political channel that will be able to join concepts that participants find be usefull for setting the context. In the same time full info opennes enables public help such TOP initiatives by giving usefull suggestions and comments that enable them be more efficient and effective.
20:43 < beeli> 17:59 < illegale> In this way, open initiatives are forced to adopt new commonly acknowledged info, which forces them to mature and be more effective. Those initiatives that where set on the wrong grounds do not need to pass the whole way to realise it also. This information optimisation enables much more satisfaction of the participants as long as their work using openness becomes much more satisfying, enablig promotion of activism.
20:43 < beeli> 17:59 < illegale> Non TOP politics due to lack of openness of their information capital, can not realise the political context, so they regularly miss it, becoming obsolete in political reality from their beggining. TOP politics due to its openness optimises itself to the moment it guarantees motivation for further political engagement.
20:43 < beeli> this is a part of perspective where i find some sense
20:43 < beeli> part is far from fine of course
20:46 < beeli> openness is about level of ignorance
20:51 < beeli> we can distinct ignorant ones of those who are looking for knowledge
20:51 < beeli> by openness
20:52 < beeli> looking for knowledge vs dogmatic
20:52 < echarp> that last sentence seems more comprehensible
20:53 < beeli> yes
20:53 < beeli> though, this part sets clear distintion
20:53 < beeli> i suppose
20:53 < beeli> when you create open channel you can not play you did not know
20:53 < beeli> others can eliminate particle of ignorance by it
20:54 < beeli> or can understand your lack of knowledge if info was not available
20:54 < echarp> play or lie about?
20:54 < beeli> lie
20:54 < beeli> you become responsible for info that is availabe to you
20:54 < beeli> you set such channel
20:54 < beeli> that is openness
20:54 < echarp> lost again
20:54 < beeli> what else?
20:55 < beeli> what is difference between TOP and T?
20:55 < beeli> OT and T?
20:55 < beeli> there is no free info flow in straight T
20:55 < beeli> defined
20:55 < beeli> agreed?
20:56 < echarp> lost
20:56 < beeli> you can set transparent interface where public can not participatre
20:56 < echarp> yes, and?
20:56 < beeli> you can have transparent initiative that is closed for public
20:56 < echarp> can you not?
20:57 < beeli> except wathcing
20:57 < beeli> yet it is not TOP
20:57 < beeli> as long as it is not OPen
20:57 < beeli> what does open mean?
20:57 < beeli> why should it be open?
20:57 < beeli> what do we get by being open?
20:57 < beeli> it is about info flow
20:57 < beeli> agreed?
20:58 < beeli> this is about responsibility
20:58 < beeli> you can not know everything
20:58 < beeli> so, people get unpunished due to lack of knowledge issue
20:59 < beeli> people are apologised in that way
20:59 < beeli> what does Bush know about what US goverment does at all?
20:59 < beeli> blah
21:00 < beeli> next time
21:00 < beeli> you made your time very fine
21:00 < beeli> i am really satisfied with todays job
21:00 < beeli> now things are much more polished to me :)
21:00 < echarp> open to who???
21:00 < beeli> to everyone
21:00 < beeli> public
21:00 < beeli> i suppose
21:00 < echarp> info flow, what info, from who, to who?
21:00 < echarp> public is too large for me
21:01 < beeli> from public to public through such node
21:01 < echarp> because I don't stop at nations
21:01 < beeli> ok
21:01 < echarp> I care about groups of people
21:01 < beeli> those who judge
21:01 < beeli> everyone
21:01 < beeli> and everybody
21:01 < beeli> bottoms of any powwr
21:02 < beeli> Coca Cola is based on its users
21:02 < beeli> Bush also
21:02 < beeli> Church also
21:02 < beeli> it is based on its users
21:02 < beeli> lets call them public
21:02 < beeli> this is the way of influence
21:03 < echarp> yet is open not redundant with being transparent?
21:04 < beeli> i do not think so at all
21:04 < beeli> two different concepts
21:04 < beeli> very much actually
21:04 < beeli> look at forum
21:04 < beeli> it can be open
21:05 < beeli> it can be transparent
21:05 < beeli> open means you can participate
21:05 < beeli> transparent means you can see what is going on
21:05 < beeli> it can be public or non public also
21:05 < beeli> if public can see it or not
21:05 < beeli> and you have many interstuff among these 3
21:09 < echarp> but will you allow everybody to participate?
21:09 < echarp> I don't think so
21:09 < beeli> why?
21:09 < echarp> seeing and participating are 2 different things
21:09 < beeli> that is an essence of participateive democracy
21:09 < echarp> can I vote for the US elections?
21:09 < beeli> decision making system is different
21:09 < echarp> you will discover limits to your openness :)
21:09 < echarp> of course it is
21:09 < beeli> you can participate not only in making decisions
21:09 < echarp> yet I can not participate
21:10 < beeli> you can post
21:10 < beeli> :)
21:10 < beeli> youi can give opinion
21:10 < beeli> provide info
21:10 < beeli> lobby
21:10 < beeli> you can do much stuff
21:10 < beeli> can be even important as a public
21:11 < echarp> sorry, I don't think I can
21:11 < echarp> can I vote in US elections?
21:12 < beeli> you can not
21:12 < beeli> so?
21:12 < echarp> this is the cherry of participation in a democracy
21:12 < beeli> i would always give my right to vote for taking right to propose opinion to all
21:12 < echarp> if you don't vote, then your voice is just not that important
21:12 < beeli> voice is regularly more important than regular vote
21:12 < echarp> speaking is crap
21:13 < echarp> imagine yourself in a group of 3
21:13 < beeli> far from it
21:13 < echarp> if you can speak but not vote, then you are meat
21:13 < beeli> no, i am looking for gorup of 1 000 000
21:13 < echarp> I know
21:13 < echarp> yet you should consider all scales
21:13 < beeli> in this way i am meat anyway
21:13 < echarp> no limit up or down
21:13 < beeli> there is
21:13 < beeli> 1: 1 000 000 is really nothing
21:13 < beeli> 1: 3 is not
21:14 < beeli> size does matter
21:14 < beeli> :)
21:14 < beeli> though, i do not go to parliamewntary elections at all for some time
21:14 < beeli> and i believe i participate much more in political proces than those who did vote last time
21:15 < beeli> i see no point of choosing between two bad sides if i can not provide third that makes sense
21:15 < beeli> and that is part of no voting process
21:15 < echarp> size matters, yet scaling even more
21:16 < echarp> yet, what if noone can choose?
21:16 < echarp> or only 2 in a group of 1_000_000?
21:16 < echarp> freedom is about choice
21:16 < beeli> that is the way stuff works this moment
21:17 < beeli> though, the point is that vote is not only way of particiaption
21:17 < beeli> the second part is pretty important aslo
21:17 < beeli> tat part is the part political process really lacks actually
21:17 < echarp> it is
21:18 < beeli> that part is about openness imo
21:18 < beeli> and some more
21:18 < echarp> open would mean that you can talk all you want then?
21:21 < beeli> suppose
21:21 < beeli> providing info
21:21 < beeli> oblidging second part of taking into acount
21:22 < echarp> taking into account???
21:22 < beeli> provided informations
21:22 < echarp> explain
21:24 < beeli> I do not have to know everything
21:24 < beeli> Other participants neither
21:25 < beeli> As long as I do know that, I can manipulate with these participants by hiding some info and stuff
21:25 < beeli> in a way of amking them decide what i wanty
21:25 < beeli> Open participation hardly reduces this possibility
21:25 < beeli> in a way it does not worth playing that way anymore
21:25 < beeli> this part is not solved by transparency, but by openness
21:25 < beeli> btw,
21:26 < beeli> i created topic for this survive on itnernet
21:26 < beeli> at some forum and now in 2 hours i got 15 people answering that
21:26 < beeli> pretty non expected :)
21:26 < beeli> I need 70 of them
21:26 < beeli> so, this is pretty much!
21:29 < beeli> openness enables on line manipulation be part from oportunistic behaviour
21:36 < beeli> echarp, tired?
21:36 < echarp> no
21:36 < echarp> eating an ice cream :)
21:36 < beeli> so thats it
21:36 < beeli> L:
21:36 < beeli> whats with job?
21:37 < echarp> should end this month
21:37 < beeli> having something new?
21:42 < echarp> will be easy to find
21:43 < beeli> lucky you
21:43 < beeli> have nothing much to commies :)
21:43 < beeli> as long as you are capitalist
21:45 < echarp> I'm also pragmatic
21:47 < beeli> free enetrpires?
21:48 < echarp> of course
21:50 < beeli> have you ever run your own bussiness?
21:58 < echarp> back after my ice cream :)
21:58 < echarp> lemon, miam
21:59 < beeli> we have discounts for lemon ice cream
21:59 < echarp> back on your hiding and manipulating
21:59 < echarp> is that not accounted by transparency?
21:59 < echarp> lol
22:00 < beeli> no
22:00 < beeli> transparency has not much to info that will be involved
22:01 < beeli> into dcision making process
22:01 < beeli> it does not oblidge you to anything
22:01 < beeli> but to repetatibility
22:01 < echarp> it gives information
22:01 < beeli> you can ignore some facts in transparent system plainly
22:02 < beeli> if some info is not politically relevant, oy can play deaf to them
22:02 < echarp> and?
22:02 < beeli> in open system if somebody provides it to you, you can not do it any more
22:02 < echarp> how can you ever go against that?
22:02 < echarp> can not do what anymore?
22:03 < beeli> if public sees Mr X has that info, public counts on Mr X to take it into consideartion
22:03 < beeli> that info is provided by Mr Y who is part of public
22:03 < echarp> how is that related to openness???
22:03 < beeli> Mr Y did have possiblity to provide it to Mr X
22:03 < beeli> publicly
22:03 < beeli> btw
22:04 < beeli> Ignorance is not argument any more in open system
22:05 < echarp> sorry, what is openness???
22:05 < echarp> being seen to give information?
22:05 < beeli> in this way it is
22:06 < beeli> what else it is?
22:06 < beeli> opennes is acklaimed readyness to adopt new info into account in order of optimisation ogf youtr work
22:06 < beeli> this is way how to do it
22:07 < beeli> you can be transparent and not be open
22:07 < beeli> you can be transparent and dogmatic
22:07 < echarp> I'm sorry, I disagree about this openness
22:07 < echarp> you might just push people into "showing" they care
22:07 < echarp> nothing else
22:08 < beeli> what is opennes to you
22:08 < beeli> ?
22:09 < echarp> I don't really know
22:09 < echarp> I have a tool to determine what is transparent
22:09 < echarp> but open and public, I don't really know
22:09 < beeli> hmh, it seems you miss political context
22:10 < beeli> concept of public ignorance as a way of legitimation in making non proper decisions
22:10 < beeli> there is no way to catch this part of responsibility in this very moment but by this attaching part
22:10 < beeli> for an exampe
22:10 < echarp> sorry, too many words that need explanation
22:10 < beeli> there is a big party in cro
22:11 < beeli> they say economic politics was very good
22:11 < beeli> and party that came destroyed eveything
22:11 < beeli> the person shows several parameters
22:11 < beeli> and everybody aplauds
22:11 < echarp> yes, happens all the time
22:12 < beeli> than, thanks to openness here comes Hrvoje and says that policy is the same one as the one they had
22:12 < beeli> new arty just kept the same way
22:12 < echarp> thx to openness???
22:12 < beeli> dircet confrontation
22:12 < beeli> of those who are at position and those who are not
22:12 < beeli> this is idea
22:12 < beeli> attaching new info
22:12 < beeli> freely
22:13 < beeli> in some other parties there is no openness at all
22:13 < beeli> though, this part has nothing to transparency at all
22:13 < beeli> but to common ignorance
22:13 < beeli> which opennes eliminates
22:13 < beeli> not transparency
22:13 < beeli> transparenct is just insurance
22:14 < echarp> what is openness???
22:14 < beeli> possibility of free info attacment
22:14 < echarp> to attach info to something?
22:14 < echarp> that speaks more
22:15 < beeli> to process
22:15 < beeli> :)
22:15 < beeli> you have to take info into account
22:15 < beeli> there is no obligation for this in RL
22:15 < echarp> how can make someone take info into account???
22:15 < echarp> how can you ever do such a thing?
22:15 < beeli> if you have forum
22:16 < beeli> and very popular info that is accepted commonly into account
22:16 < beeli> of participiants
22:16 < beeli> that face at top has to do the same thing
22:16 < beeli> if he does not
22:16 < beeli> he looses his credits
22:17 < echarp> yet the guy still has control over the forum?
22:17 < beeli> yes
22:17 < beeli> though, he looses his political base
22:17 < beeli> that is the poijnt
22:17 < echarp> and, you should say straight away that openness means "attaching a forum to any TOP organisation"
22:17 < beeli> that is only part of it
22:17 < beeli> as i can notice
22:17 < echarp> I disagree with the importance of such a forum
22:17 < echarp> because "he" controls it
22:18 < beeli> he does not control info
22:18 < beeli> that is the point
22:18 < beeli> of TOP
22:19 < echarp> if it is his forum, he controls it
22:19 < beeli> so, we can create forum that will set such rules that he might not control it
22:19 < echarp> how can he not control it if it is his?
22:19 < beeli> he acklaims such forum to be his
22:20 < beeli> that does not mean possiblity to do mess
22:20 < beeli> to censor
22:20 < beeli> for an example
22:20 < beeli> i can acknowledfge TOP politis as my forum
22:20 < echarp> but he can none the less
22:20 < beeli> I do not control it in any way
22:20 < beeli> the point is that we can set principle that he can not either
22:21 < beeli> control his own forum
22:21 < echarp> how can you be sure you can attache information to a person, if that person controls this attachment?
22:21 < echarp> just saying he can't do, is not much :(
22:22 < beeli> he does not
22:22 < beeli> IO do not control attachemnt of what is going on at top politics
22:22 < beeli> if I acklaim top politics, than i do obey to TOP completley
22:22 < beeli> in a manner of opennes and lack of control
22:23 < echarp> then what is it that a top person or organisation has to do?
22:23 < echarp> he/she has to speak about a forum?
22:23 < echarp> to publicise it?
22:23 < beeli> huh, it is enough for me for today :)
22:24 < beeli> i respect your durability
22:24 < echarp> I simply don't get it
22:24 < beeli> though, we might continue the process tomorow if you please
22:24 < echarp> you need to be down to earth with me
22:24 < echarp> no big sentence
22:24 < beeli> this is in process of articualtion
22:24 < echarp> tomorrow, ok
22:24 < beeli> cu!
22:24 -!- beeli [n=ille...@cmung2605.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit []
--- Log closed ven aoû 04 00:00:10 2006
echarp
Aug 5, 2006, 12:29:43 AM8/5/06
to top-politics
--- Log opened ven aoû 04 00:00:10 2006
11:03 -!- nsh__ is now known as nsh
11:08 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
11:08 < echarp> hello nsh
14:56 < echarp> re
15:02 -!- beeli (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung183.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
15:03 < beeli:#parlement> parlebot help
15:03 < beeli:#parlement> parlebot: help
15:03 < parlebot:#parlement> The commands I know are:
15:03 < parlebot:#parlement> silence - Stop logging (also: stop, off, ...)
15:03 < parlebot:#parlement> listen - Start logging (also: start, on, ...)
15:03 < parlebot:#parlement> bookmark - Give the URI of the current log
15:03 < parlebot:#parlement> chump LETTER - Record the URI of the current log under chump LETTER
15:03 < parlebot:#parlement> I respond to 'parlebot, command' in public and '/msg parlebot command' in private
15:03 < parlebot:#parlement> Logging Policy: All public output is logged if I am listening except for
15:03 < parlebot:#parlement> any lines starting [off]. All commands to me are logged.
15:03 < parlebot:#parlement> My public output is logged but these lines are not searchable.
15:03 < parlebot:#parlement> The logs are at http://bridgeheart.net/irclogs/irc.freenode.net:6667/parlement/
15:03 < parlebot:#parlement> Do parlebot, adminhelp for help on administrative commands
15:07 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
15:07 < echarp> hello beeli
15:11 < beeli> hey
15:13 < echarp> how are you?
15:29 < beeli:#parlement> fine. number of people who answered survey is now more than enough
15:29 < beeli:#parlement> 90
15:29 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
15:29 < echarp> what survey?
15:30 < beeli> the link i posted to you from farmakologija.com
15:30 < beeli> questionary
15:30 < beeli> http://www.farmakologija.com/ankete/gale/anketa.html
15:33 < beeli> now i have to do other part of work :(
15:35 < beeli> did you watch BARAKA?
15:36 < echarp> what is BARAKA?
15:37 < echarp> oh, incomprehensible survey, ok
15:40 < beeli> yes
16:24 < beeli> what should i do if i get more than 120 people?
16:24 < beeli> do you do statistics?
16:24 < echarp> not really no, but it's not very difficult
16:25 < beeli> yes
16:25 < beeli> suppose it does not matter is it 70 or 120
16:25 < beeli> mentor looked for 70-90
16:25 < beeli> and in this very moment i have 90
16:25 < beeli> 35 people did it last night
16:26 < beeli> ops not 34
16:26 < beeli> but 55
16:27 < echarp> that's cool
16:27 < echarp> there must online pages where you can easily get the mean and the repartition
16:28 < echarp> basically you want to discover you bell shapes :)
16:28 < beeli> yes
16:28 < beeli> btw i registered domain
16:28 < beeli> paraziti.net
16:28 < beeli> now it is parked at goddady
16:28 < beeli> i have pass and stuff
16:28 < echarp> cool
16:29 < beeli> you need dns now?
16:29 < echarp> don't hesitate to point it to me, more visitors all the better! ;)
16:29 < beeli> khm
16:29 < beeli> :)
16:29 < echarp> need dns to have it point toward leparlement.org?
16:29 < beeli> i do not know
16:29 < beeli> i need space where i can put the page
16:29 < beeli> i have such space at carnet
16:30 < beeli> it is croatian academinc network research
16:30 < beeli> they are about internet and stuff
16:30 < beeli> yet i do not have big trust in these people
16:30 < beeli> had several conflicts in past
16:30 < beeli> there is another thing also
16:30 < beeli> in croatia you have to register page if it is meant for larger audience
16:30 < beeli> fines are about 100 000 kunas
16:31 < beeli> 10 000 Euros if that is not done
16:31 < beeli> if everything runs at non croatian servers and so on
16:31 < beeli> i think we can play dull
16:33 < beeli> your offer for hosting still worths?
16:35 < echarp> depends what hostig
16:35 < echarp> hosting
16:35 < echarp> pointing on a parlement page is definitely ok
16:36 < beeli> non profit anto corruption project
16:36 < beeli> host provded by leparlament is fine with me
16:36 < echarp> by the software "parlement"?
16:37 < beeli> not really
16:37 < beeli> not in this moment
16:37 < beeli> you need filters and to see how it works
16:37 < beeli> need to attach images and stf
16:37 < echarp> attachments are there, by mail but they are there
16:38 < beeli> i am pro some regular cms that works fine
16:38 < beeli> for this purpose
16:38 < beeli> should overcome that state and become autopoietic
16:38 < beeli> selfregulating
16:39 < echarp> but another software will require some kind of administration and maintenance :(
16:39 < beeli> do you know mambo?
16:39 < echarp> no
16:39 < echarp> is it debian packaged?
16:39 < beeli> i do not know
16:39 < beeli> it is cms
16:40 < beeli> we have it for tiaktiv.hr
16:40 < beeli> look, if you have any problem to it i wont pressure you
16:41 < beeli> suppose we can handle it in some way anyway
16:44 < echarp> it's easy to host stuff like static html pages
16:44 < echarp> but many cms are difficult to manage
16:44 < echarp> particularly if not debian packaged
16:45 < beeli> http://www.google.hr/search?hl=hr&q=mambo+debian+packed&btnG=Google+pretraga
16:46 < beeli> ?
16:47 < echarp> when something is debian packaged, that means I can install it with a command like "apt-get install name"
16:47 < echarp> it does everything
16:48 < beeli> so is mambo debian packed?
16:48 < echarp> I didn't find it
16:57 < beeli> can you give some rights to me or MArkus to do this stuff for us?
17:00 < echarp> what kind of right do you have in mind?
17:00 < echarp> you can do anything you want in an account
17:01 < echarp> it might be enough for an installation
17:02 < beeli> with illegale/
17:02 < beeli> ?
17:04 < echarp> yeap
17:06 < beeli> cool!
17:07 < beeli> so i can maintain mambo myself. that is fine with me if it is fine with you
17:09 < beeli> http://packages.debian.org/experimental/web/mambo
17:12 < beeli> statistics is cool stuff
18:10 -!- beeli [n=ille...@cmung183.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Read error: 60 (Operation timed out)]
18:38 -!- beeli (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung2692.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
19:13 < echarp> re beeli
19:15 < beeli> re
19:17 < echarp> I feel sad, some of my last days in that company, one of the guy I like leaves for his vacations, I probably won't see him again
19:17 < beeli> heh
19:18 < beeli> regular stuff
19:18 < echarp> yeap, still, after six months you get some attachment
19:19 < beeli> come and go come and go
19:20 < echarp> yeap
19:20 < beeli> there is only one group of people i got permanenlty attached to
19:21 < beeli> meaning 10 years or more
19:21 < beeli> others come and go
19:21 < echarp> friends? familly?
19:22 < beeli> killarny at esp asks about significance of word transparnt
19:22 < beeli> talking abourt friends
19:22 < beeli> fammily is different
19:24 < echarp> still on #esp then?
19:24 < beeli> i use comp with autoloign
19:24 < beeli> to esp
19:24 < beeli> did not bother to change it
19:25 < echarp> and you keep going back on the fact that esp is not transparent?
19:25 < beeli> they started it
19:25 < beeli> :)
19:26 < echarp> lol
19:39 < urgen> OK, caught up with conversations
19:39 < urgen> hello
19:39 < urgen> good stuff ppls
19:39 < urgen> mambo is now 'joomla'
19:39 < urgen> well maybe mambo is still around but no longer open
19:40 < urgen> the original author of mambo got upset and broke away to retain open
19:40 < urgen> but, you might want to look at 'drupal' instead
19:41 < urgen> I haven't installed it yet but it is appearing way easier to manage and will soon eclipse joomla in power due to it being even more open so therefor lots more volunteer effort backing it
19:41 < beeli> drupal?
19:41 < urgen> drupal.org
19:41 < beeli> thank you urgen
19:41 < urgen> is also a community organizing content management system
19:47 < beeli> really?
19:47 < beeli> that might be very fine for the purpose i have in mind
19:47 < beeli> yet, filters issue
19:48 < beeli> freedom to choose and all that stuff is something i miss a little bit
19:48 < urgen> sorry on phone
19:55 < urgen> ok back
19:56 < beeli> yet, filters issue
19:56 < beeli> ops
19:56 < urgen> I'm sure drupal allows even sectional moderating control
19:56 < beeli> i will install it at local host and check it out
19:56 < urgen> you can assign different people to be in charge of different sections
19:56 < urgen> that keeps the spam out
19:57 < beeli> you understand what software i am looing for, urgen?
19:57 < beeli> about autopoietic principle?
19:58 < urgen> all programmers would love to see this a reality
19:58 < beeli> me too
19:58 < beeli> yet i seen no softare that would function that way
19:58 < urgen> not yet
19:58 < beeli> in order to gain it neither
19:58 < beeli> why is that so??
19:58 < urgen> it isn't simple
19:59 < beeli> what?
19:59 < urgen> all software follows human pattern
19:59 < beeli> all you need it to give the option that enables every one do the stuff that needs to be done
19:59 < urgen> we have to create the action first, then it can be automated
19:59 < urgen> you can not automate first
20:00 < urgen> so we play here on #parlement and discover the action
20:00 < beeli> when we developed concept of such software
20:00 < urgen> then code it
20:00 < beeli> at least going in that direction the point, the essence was eqaulity
20:00 < beeli> i am not programer :(
20:00 < beeli> :)
20:00 < urgen> I was talking with someone who wrote some code that allowed that same code to rewrite parts of itself
20:00 < beeli> I am pharamccist :)
20:00 < urgen> this is not an easy trick
20:00 < beeli> hmh, maybe i use wrong word
20:01 < beeli> i do not need at least not in this moment autopoietic code
20:01 < beeli> only organisation based on it
20:01 < beeli> atupoietic code is really monster, indeed
20:01 < beeli> yet, no such preferences in this very moment
20:01 < beeli> btw
20:01 < urgen> fun, but monster, yes
20:02 < beeli> Terminator 32
20:02 < beeli> :)
20:02 < urgen> I did not see terminator movies yet
20:02 < beeli> that is ok
20:02 < beeli> did you see baraka?
20:02 < urgen> I don't remember if I saw baraka, I think maybe I did
20:03 < beeli> documenteary with no comments
20:03 < urgen> right
20:03 < beeli> though, let me say the problem i have with this software
20:03 < beeli> if i made site i have to reg it in cro
20:03 < beeli> ISDN stuff
20:04 < beeli> IDSN
20:04 < beeli> or something
20:04 < urgen> "Koyaanisqatsi" is similar
20:04 < urgen> yes croatia has some interesting rules
20:04 < beeli> if i make forum or blog i do not have to do it as long as i do not control content
20:04 < beeli> so, if i create sort of slashdot, i have central point and it is partially autopoietic also
20:04 < beeli> this rule is new one
20:05 < beeli> we have a little bit evolved internet culture in cro
20:06 < urgen> so just by virtue that the site has croatian language?
20:06 < urgen> or to be regarded as part of the croatian political process?
20:07 < urgen> or just simple tax?
20:07 < urgen> :-)
20:08 < beeli> croatian political process
20:08 < beeli> interesting concept
20:08 < beeli> i mean how to cotnrol internet
20:08 < urgen> yes
20:08 < urgen> they have to try
20:09 < beeli> all in all, if we setup sort of slashdot or somehing where is no head director
20:09 < beeli> we do not have to reg it at al
20:09 < beeli> l
20:09 < urgen> you need to regulate to keep spam out
20:09 < beeli> yes
20:09 < urgen> chinese will come in and make a mess
20:09 < beeli> hmh
20:10 < beeli> till we have sometihng like slashdot, i think stuff you recocmnet might be just fine
20:10 < urgen> at least that is what happens to a lot of wiki style sites
20:10 < beeli> no wiki
20:10 < beeli> do not like it
20:10 < beeli> too much
20:10 < urgen> wiki is hard
20:10 < urgen> harder
20:10 < urgen> though this is changing quickly too
20:10 < beeli> it is not good for publishing
20:10 < urgen> did you look at pbwiki?
20:10 < beeli> it is for long term process of articualtion fine
20:11 < beeli> no, what is that?
20:11 < urgen> http://pbwiki.com/
20:11 < urgen> simple fast free website that you can control with one password
20:11 < urgen> you share password then people can contribute
20:11 < urgen> they are working on making new ways to control access too
20:12 < urgen> like by invitation by use of a website key
20:12 < urgen> or people create an account first
20:12 < beeli> ok
20:12 < beeli> reuglar stuff
20:12 < beeli> did you see our concept of forum?
20:12 < urgen> it is a wiki model designed for ease of sharing
20:12 < urgen> no
20:13 < beeli> it is on old site
20:13 < beeli> have to look for cache
20:13 < urgen> 'k
20:16 < beeli> http://kovach.web.srk.fer.hr/tiaktiv/index.php?mode=projekt_forum&m=forum&jezik=en
20:16 < beeli> http://kovach.web.srk.fer.hr/tiaktiv/index.php?mode=projekt_forum&m=uvod&jezik=en
20:16 < beeli> second line is intro
20:16 < beeli> the only important part is about forum structure
20:17 < beeli> and way of leaving need for moderators
20:17 < urgen> is tiaktiv phpBB?
20:17 < beeli> forum of tiaktiv is phpbb
20:17 < urgen> ok
20:17 < urgen> and you have discovered limits?
20:17 < beeli> yet, this was our stupid move
20:17 < beeli> yes
20:18 < beeli> phpbb is not proper base for sure
20:18 < urgen> can you list them? or are they listed in this description?
20:18 < urgen> I have never liked phpBB
20:18 < urgen> but it is/was very popular
20:18 < beeli> not abny more
20:19 < urgen> there are always technical ways to address any control issue
20:20 < beeli> what you mean?
20:21 < urgen> when did the problems you observed show up?
20:21 < beeli> in programing or in social way?
20:21 < urgen> like someone in charge of a topic thread found another's point of view distasteful so moderated them out of the discussion without any group review?
20:22 < beeli> you ask me why did we decide to creatne new software if i get you correctly?
20:22 < urgen> I am interested in discovering a test to review drupal with
20:23 < urgen> so you don't have to find out later that it was just another mistake :-)
20:23 < beeli> drupal is not funal solution
20:23 < beeli> i still look for palrement
20:23 < beeli> :)
20:23 < urgen> yes me too
20:23 < beeli> the problem was this
20:24 < beeli> moderators can introduce manners of dicussion very easily
20:24 < beeli> in politics they regularly did not enalbe constructive climate
20:24 < beeli> i moderated at several public forums and i realised the problem is actually in software
20:25 < beeli> when you have much of not great posts you can remove them or leave them
20:25 < beeli> if you remove them you are censorinf
20:25 < beeli> g
20:25 < beeli> if you leave them you have mess
20:25 < beeli> in any way it is delicate thing in political forums
20:25 < urgen> always is
20:25 < beeli> moderaotes can not make big cuts also
20:25 < beeli> as long as public gets against them than
20:25 < beeli> so, no big moves
20:26 < beeli> letting destructive communiaation
20:26 < beeli> flame and such thing be basic of forum communication
20:26 < beeli> in the same time ive noticed severa high class forumers
20:26 < beeli> who where not at politics due to mess
20:27 < beeli> so i thought it would be great if such people gatheresd in proper climate and started buidling fine place
20:27 < beeli> which is not possible bty this software
20:27 < beeli> so, we started thinking how to do it
20:27 < beeli> i c/p our model that was not tested of course
20:27 < urgen> drupal is nice because you can find people willing to help you change software behavior
20:28 < urgen> phpBB is pretty much a closed product
20:29 < beeli> yes
20:29 < beeli> the purpose of software i need now is not the same to the sofware i looked for then
20:29 < beeli> the fact is that regular form can handle several dozens people finely
20:30 < beeli> till that moment this all works relativelly fine
20:30 < beeli> but that is the limit
20:30 < beeli> sad thing
20:31 < urgen> even in irc it is difficult to have many people on a channel and make sense of it
20:32 < beeli> suppose info flow is far from optimal with the software we have now
20:32 < beeli> and culture of course
20:35 < beeli> urgen: WHAT you say about model?
20:35 < beeli> do not like it suppose
20:37 < urgen> studying
20:38 < urgen> mostly my thoughts go back to the development path irc has come down
20:39 < urgen> "each forum user can be the moderator of any topic"
20:40 < urgen> that is like if you don't like this channel go to another one, or if you don't like a specific user then type: /ignore user
20:41 < beeli> not really
20:41 < beeli> the whole point is about offering
20:41 < beeli> not censoring
20:41 < beeli> not leaving
20:41 < beeli> just offering views and optimisation of such
20:41 < urgen> so when hurricane katrina hit and communication in that area went down and news was controlled by the government...
20:42 < urgen> there were volunteers that monitored the radio communication and trascribed everything into IRC channels
20:42 < urgen> those became public record where there wasn't any before
20:42 < beeli> nice
20:43 < urgen> we had three people listening to any one channel, that way there were ways to capture accidental ommission
20:43 < beeli> how many people knew for that?
20:43 < urgen> we had hundreds of volunteers
20:43 < beeli> cool
20:44 < beeli> where did you get them?
20:44 < urgen> it was posted on slashdot
20:44 < urgen> and other geek news places
20:45 < beeli> cool
20:46 < urgen> example: http://crschmidt.net/blog/archives/95/transcribing-radio-feeds/
20:55 < beeli> fine
20:55 < beeli> did you have any impact by your work?
21:01 < urgen> yes eventually the news found the real story
21:01 < urgen> plus they caught use of the government black ops teams
21:03 < beeli> black ops teams?
21:04 < urgen> special reserve forces
21:04 < urgen> I forgot their name, secret military branch
21:05 < beeli> what do they do?
21:05 < beeli> what did they do?
21:05 < urgen> a highly trained strike force
21:05 < urgen> they were probably sent in to guard someone's property
21:05 < beeli> why secret? dirty work?
21:05 < urgen> all military work is dirty :-)
21:06 < beeli> not to all
21:06 < urgen> the less the public knows the easier the job
21:07 < urgen> there should have been no reason to use force like that
21:07 < beeli> how do you mean there should be no reason?
21:07 < beeli> no legitimate reason?
21:07 < urgen> :-) is there any other kind of reason?
21:07 < beeli> protecting propert does seem legitimate, no?
21:08 < beeli> in politics this is the basic distintion
21:08 < urgen> not if it was not public property from an invading army
21:08 < beeli> big faces protection you mean
21:08 < urgen> yes
21:08 < beeli> so, why it is not legitimate?
21:09 < beeli> due to hypocricy maube?
21:09 < urgen> it was only money talking and harmed innocent people
21:09 < urgen> it was a US action on the US
21:09 < beeli> military does help fire brigades and stuff
21:09 < beeli> at least in cro
21:10 < beeli> do for humanitarian purpose and stuff
21:10 < urgen> someone abandoned and hungry and sick breaks into a building looking for food and is shot by a black ops team.. this is ok?
21:10 < urgen> why?
21:10 < beeli> i do not think it is ok
21:10 < urgen> but they changed the reason
21:10 < urgen> 'looting'
21:10 < beeli> what does it mean?
21:10 < urgen> how was that determined?
21:11 < urgen> breaking in to get expensive property
21:11 < urgen> not food for survival
21:11 < beeli> ok
21:11 < urgen> the police force was resigning because the situation was so severe
21:12 < beeli> seems to me US goverment did great, great shit up there
21:12 < urgen> they were being asked to do things against their conscience
21:12 < beeli> more than enough for impeechment
21:12 < urgen> way more
21:12 < urgen> but if they impeach we get worse, the vice prez is not a good choice for leadership either
21:12 < beeli> it is the same guy
21:12 < beeli> Bush is imbecile
21:13 < beeli> pretty obvious statement
21:13 < urgen> did you see his trying to give the german chancellor a massage in the news?
21:13 < urgen> I was shocked
21:13 < beeli> no, what happened?
21:13 < urgen> let me find,,,
21:14 < urgen> http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,428852,00.html
21:15 < urgen> it is another scandal that the US news has no comment about
21:15 < beeli> you do not have free media
21:15 < beeli> pretty awfull thing
21:16 < beeli> bbl
21:25 -!- beeli [n=ille...@cmung2692.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Read error: 60 (Operation timed out)]
21:42 < echarp> urgen: real cool those irc channels monitoring everything
21:42 < urgen> it was fun
21:46 < echarp> katrina was something pretty bad too
21:46 < echarp> shame it was all transformed into looting and violences instead of survival and solidarity
22:44 -!- beeli (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung570.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
23:27 < beeli> openness
23:31 < beeli> transparency is having aproach to information
23:32 < beeli> opennes is having oportunity to inform
23:32 < echarp> transparency is letting information flow
23:32 < beeli> there is no info flow in transparent
23:32 < echarp> opportunity to inform seems so circonvoluted and complex
23:32 < beeli> transparent is one direction only
23:32 < echarp> transparent is all about flow
23:32 < echarp> like a windows, it lets light flow through or not
23:32 < beeli> openness is second direciton
23:33 < beeli> i think you underestimate power of info control
23:33 < echarp> I underestimate nothing, I don't really consider it!
23:34 < beeli> imagine top is transparent only
23:34 < beeli> is it good ?
23:34 < beeli> or is it good to be open alos?
23:35 < echarp> it is good yes
23:35 < echarp> to be transparent
23:35 < echarp> to be open has no meaning to me
23:35 < beeli> what is better that we have open membership but closed to public
23:35 < echarp> no meaning in a free world
23:35 < beeli> or to be transparent but not invite only
23:35 < beeli> open means anybody can participate
23:35 < beeli> post and do what he wants
23:35 < beeli> as user
23:36 < beeli> that is the meaning of being open isuppose
23:36 < beeli> echarp: how is that you not out?
23:36 < echarp> define participation
23:36 < echarp> me not out???
23:36 < echarp> what do you mean?
23:36 < beeli> outside
23:36 < beeli> at fresh air
23:37 < beeli> you can post
23:37 < beeli> at top politics
23:37 < beeli> it is open to you
23:37 < beeli> anybody can post in this moment
23:37 < beeli> it is open to everyone
23:37 < beeli> that is fully open system
23:37 < beeli> that is the meaning of it
23:38 < echarp> do you mean that every one can speak?
23:38 < beeli> yes
23:38 < echarp> then internet is for you
23:38 < beeli> this sort of info attachment you do underestimate
23:38 < beeli> nobody is oblidged to now everything what is on internet
23:39 < beeli> but, this open channel can be oblidgefull
23:39 < beeli> and this means no space for setting false context
23:39 < beeli> and setting context is half of the whole info process
23:39 < echarp> sorry, you go in your too complex way
23:40 < echarp> if you want me to understand you, go for simplicity, please
23:40 < beeli> where do you loose me?
23:40 < echarp> from the beginning!
23:40 < beeli> ok
23:40 < beeli> i make some political deicsion
23:40 < echarp> uh?
23:40 < beeli> for that decision i have to be properly informed
23:40 < echarp> no
23:40 < beeli> giving oyu example
23:40 < echarp> you don't "have"
23:40 < beeli> what do you mean?
23:41 < echarp> you take a decision for whatever reasons
23:41 < echarp> information is just one
23:41 < beeli> i loose you
23:41 < beeli> how do you make decisions?
23:41 < beeli> by penny?
23:41 < echarp> through any process!!!
23:41 < beeli> or by informing about the issue
23:42 < beeli> what does that process do to you?
23:42 < echarp> information is just one stone in a wall
23:42 < beeli> what does it give to you?
23:42 < beeli> what is the second stone?
23:42 < echarp> personal history
23:42 < echarp> feeling
23:42 < beeli> ok
23:42 < echarp> outside pressure
23:42 < echarp> friends
23:42 < echarp> familly
23:42 < beeli> that is where we do differ
23:42 < echarp> expectations
23:42 < echarp> I don't know if we differ, I don't follow you
23:42 < beeli> neverrthelss more informed we are more similar decison we will take.
23:43 < beeli> yes?
23:43 < beeli> no|?
23:43 < echarp> no
23:43 < echarp> definitely no!
23:43 < echarp> most certainly no!!!
23:43 < beeli> what do i want to do at all with all of this?
23:43 < echarp> political decisions are probably made according to expectations
23:43 < beeli> I want to set possition where we can have responsible political practice
23:43 < echarp> expectations are not matters of mere information
23:44 < beeli> so what?
23:44 < beeli> i am talking about this part
23:44 < beeli> about value of proper ifnorming
23:44 < beeli> just that
23:44 < beeli> i have no imapct to someones personla history
23:44 < beeli> i do not have impact on familiy friends whatever
23:45 < beeli> what i can to have impact is setting proper info process
23:45 < beeli> is it wrong?
23:45 < beeli> is it needed?
23:45 < echarp> I don't follow you there
23:45 < echarp> setting proper info process, what is that???
23:45 < echarp> giving information?
23:45 < echarp> go simple for me!!!
23:45 < beeli> finding a way of informing properly
23:45 < echarp> "setting proper info process", waaaay tooo complex!!!
23:46 < beeli> look at Bush
23:46 < echarp> bush is not a matter of information
23:46 < beeli> What are the info channels he has?
23:46 < beeli> any stateman
23:46 < beeli> i suppose that several people he has trust to keep him think whatever they want to
23:47 < beeli> as long as political reality is not somethng we can see
23:47 < beeli> so, you have to find out what is going on at all
23:47 < beeli> Bush has his channels
23:47 < beeli> they are not free channels i suppose
23:47 < echarp> you think it's all matters of information?
23:47 < beeli> no
23:47 < beeli> That is base
23:47 < echarp> you think having information will make sure we take similar decisions?
23:47 < beeli> no
23:48 < beeli> Base is rather important part of any buidling
23:48 < beeli> so, that is not JUST issue
23:48 < beeli> but very important
23:48 < beeli> that is the reason i am into info process that much
23:49 < beeli> if you do not have free info processing you can not make free decisions neither
23:49 < beeli> when i say free decision, i mean decision that is not directed by those who control info
23:50 < beeli> So, any statesman is dependent on his resources
23:50 < beeli> + he has to be extra carefull as long as big interests are in play
23:51 < beeli> i suppose free info channel would be really benefit for those who want to gather proper info before making decisions
23:51 < beeli> that be a base
23:51 < beeli> lol
23:51 < beeli> this is part that reminded me to Stalman
23:51 < beeli> he was forcing me to use free source
23:51 < beeli> not open source
23:51 < beeli> and now i am word open eqaling to free
23:53 < echarp> information is base?
23:53 < beeli> way of gathering it
23:53 < beeli> aproach
23:53 < beeli> and stuff
23:53 < echarp> information is base?
23:54 < beeli> base of political process. yes
23:54 < echarp> any other base?
23:54 < beeli> we have setting issue
23:54 < echarp> and I disagree that it is "the" base
23:54 < beeli> that is not a base
23:54 < beeli> what is the base?
23:54 < echarp> to me politics are based on what we want to become, on expectations, desire
23:55 < echarp> creating our future self
23:55 < beeli> we are talking about the process. right?
23:55 < echarp> definitely not based on information
23:55 < beeli> we are talking about the process. right?
23:55 < echarp> I am talking about politics, the process yes
23:55 < beeli> so, what is the base of the process?
23:55 < beeli> human?
23:55 < echarp> what we want to become, on expectations, desire
23:56 < beeli> what is the base of culture?
23:56 < beeli> what is the base of religion?
23:56 < beeli> are you sure this definition is good one?
23:56 < echarp> culture is based on ideas transmitted through carriers
23:56 < beeli> seems to me you are cultural worker
23:56 < echarp> I am
23:57 < beeli> so, i do accept your definition for culture maybe
23:57 < beeli> not for politics as a process
23:57 < beeli> when we talk about process we do not look at material that process is using
23:57 < beeli> but process itself
23:57 < beeli> same as software
23:57 < beeli> we do not look at database, but software iteslef
23:58 < beeli> these expectaion and stuff
23:58 < beeli> that is data base
23:58 < beeli> not the software
23:58 < beeli> politics is softsare
23:58 < beeli> political system at least
23:59 < beeli> the way of generating political power is the way how systems differ
23:59 < beeli> look at dictatorship and relation to free media
23:59 < beeli> that is regularly the best way to judge freedom of any state
23:59 < echarp> when I look at software, the db *is* important
23:59 < beeli> ok
23:59 < beeli> i can say it is
23:59 < echarp> of course it is
--- Log closed sam aoû 05 00:00:00 2006
11:03 -!- nsh__ is now known as nsh
11:08 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
11:08 < echarp> hello nsh
14:56 < echarp> re
15:02 -!- beeli (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung183.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
15:03 < beeli:#parlement> parlebot help
15:03 < beeli:#parlement> parlebot: help
15:03 < parlebot:#parlement> The commands I know are:
15:03 < parlebot:#parlement> silence - Stop logging (also: stop, off, ...)
15:03 < parlebot:#parlement> listen - Start logging (also: start, on, ...)
15:03 < parlebot:#parlement> bookmark - Give the URI of the current log
15:03 < parlebot:#parlement> chump LETTER - Record the URI of the current log under chump LETTER
15:03 < parlebot:#parlement> I respond to 'parlebot, command' in public and '/msg parlebot command' in private
15:03 < parlebot:#parlement> Logging Policy: All public output is logged if I am listening except for
15:03 < parlebot:#parlement> any lines starting [off]. All commands to me are logged.
15:03 < parlebot:#parlement> My public output is logged but these lines are not searchable.
15:03 < parlebot:#parlement> The logs are at http://bridgeheart.net/irclogs/irc.freenode.net:6667/parlement/
15:03 < parlebot:#parlement> Do parlebot, adminhelp for help on administrative commands
15:07 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
15:07 < echarp> hello beeli
15:11 < beeli> hey
15:13 < echarp> how are you?
15:29 < beeli:#parlement> fine. number of people who answered survey is now more than enough
15:29 < beeli:#parlement> 90
15:29 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
15:29 < echarp> what survey?
15:30 < beeli> the link i posted to you from farmakologija.com
15:30 < beeli> questionary
15:30 < beeli> http://www.farmakologija.com/ankete/gale/anketa.html
15:33 < beeli> now i have to do other part of work :(
15:35 < beeli> did you watch BARAKA?
15:36 < echarp> what is BARAKA?
15:37 < echarp> oh, incomprehensible survey, ok
15:40 < beeli> yes
16:24 < beeli> what should i do if i get more than 120 people?
16:24 < beeli> do you do statistics?
16:24 < echarp> not really no, but it's not very difficult
16:25 < beeli> yes
16:25 < beeli> suppose it does not matter is it 70 or 120
16:25 < beeli> mentor looked for 70-90
16:25 < beeli> and in this very moment i have 90
16:25 < beeli> 35 people did it last night
16:26 < beeli> ops not 34
16:26 < beeli> but 55
16:27 < echarp> that's cool
16:27 < echarp> there must online pages where you can easily get the mean and the repartition
16:28 < echarp> basically you want to discover you bell shapes :)
16:28 < beeli> yes
16:28 < beeli> btw i registered domain
16:28 < beeli> paraziti.net
16:28 < beeli> now it is parked at goddady
16:28 < beeli> i have pass and stuff
16:28 < echarp> cool
16:29 < beeli> you need dns now?
16:29 < echarp> don't hesitate to point it to me, more visitors all the better! ;)
16:29 < beeli> khm
16:29 < beeli> :)
16:29 < echarp> need dns to have it point toward leparlement.org?
16:29 < beeli> i do not know
16:29 < beeli> i need space where i can put the page
16:29 < beeli> i have such space at carnet
16:30 < beeli> it is croatian academinc network research
16:30 < beeli> they are about internet and stuff
16:30 < beeli> yet i do not have big trust in these people
16:30 < beeli> had several conflicts in past
16:30 < beeli> there is another thing also
16:30 < beeli> in croatia you have to register page if it is meant for larger audience
16:30 < beeli> fines are about 100 000 kunas
16:31 < beeli> 10 000 Euros if that is not done
16:31 < beeli> if everything runs at non croatian servers and so on
16:31 < beeli> i think we can play dull
16:33 < beeli> your offer for hosting still worths?
16:35 < echarp> depends what hostig
16:35 < echarp> hosting
16:35 < echarp> pointing on a parlement page is definitely ok
16:36 < beeli> non profit anto corruption project
16:36 < beeli> host provded by leparlament is fine with me
16:36 < echarp> by the software "parlement"?
16:37 < beeli> not really
16:37 < beeli> not in this moment
16:37 < beeli> you need filters and to see how it works
16:37 < beeli> need to attach images and stf
16:37 < echarp> attachments are there, by mail but they are there
16:38 < beeli> i am pro some regular cms that works fine
16:38 < beeli> for this purpose
16:38 < beeli> should overcome that state and become autopoietic
16:38 < beeli> selfregulating
16:39 < echarp> but another software will require some kind of administration and maintenance :(
16:39 < beeli> do you know mambo?
16:39 < echarp> no
16:39 < echarp> is it debian packaged?
16:39 < beeli> i do not know
16:39 < beeli> it is cms
16:40 < beeli> we have it for tiaktiv.hr
16:40 < beeli> look, if you have any problem to it i wont pressure you
16:41 < beeli> suppose we can handle it in some way anyway
16:44 < echarp> it's easy to host stuff like static html pages
16:44 < echarp> but many cms are difficult to manage
16:44 < echarp> particularly if not debian packaged
16:45 < beeli> http://www.google.hr/search?hl=hr&q=mambo+debian+packed&btnG=Google+pretraga
16:46 < beeli> ?
16:47 < echarp> when something is debian packaged, that means I can install it with a command like "apt-get install name"
16:47 < echarp> it does everything
16:48 < beeli> so is mambo debian packed?
16:48 < echarp> I didn't find it
16:57 < beeli> can you give some rights to me or MArkus to do this stuff for us?
17:00 < echarp> what kind of right do you have in mind?
17:00 < echarp> you can do anything you want in an account
17:01 < echarp> it might be enough for an installation
17:02 < beeli> with illegale/
17:02 < beeli> ?
17:04 < echarp> yeap
17:06 < beeli> cool!
17:07 < beeli> so i can maintain mambo myself. that is fine with me if it is fine with you
17:09 < beeli> http://packages.debian.org/experimental/web/mambo
17:12 < beeli> statistics is cool stuff
18:10 -!- beeli [n=ille...@cmung183.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Read error: 60 (Operation timed out)]
18:38 -!- beeli (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung2692.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
19:13 < echarp> re beeli
19:15 < beeli> re
19:17 < echarp> I feel sad, some of my last days in that company, one of the guy I like leaves for his vacations, I probably won't see him again
19:17 < beeli> heh
19:18 < beeli> regular stuff
19:18 < echarp> yeap, still, after six months you get some attachment
19:19 < beeli> come and go come and go
19:20 < echarp> yeap
19:20 < beeli> there is only one group of people i got permanenlty attached to
19:21 < beeli> meaning 10 years or more
19:21 < beeli> others come and go
19:21 < echarp> friends? familly?
19:22 < beeli> killarny at esp asks about significance of word transparnt
19:22 < beeli> talking abourt friends
19:22 < beeli> fammily is different
19:24 < echarp> still on #esp then?
19:24 < beeli> i use comp with autoloign
19:24 < beeli> to esp
19:24 < beeli> did not bother to change it
19:25 < echarp> and you keep going back on the fact that esp is not transparent?
19:25 < beeli> they started it
19:25 < beeli> :)
19:26 < echarp> lol
19:39 < urgen> OK, caught up with conversations
19:39 < urgen> hello
19:39 < urgen> good stuff ppls
19:39 < urgen> mambo is now 'joomla'
19:39 < urgen> well maybe mambo is still around but no longer open
19:40 < urgen> the original author of mambo got upset and broke away to retain open
19:40 < urgen> but, you might want to look at 'drupal' instead
19:41 < urgen> I haven't installed it yet but it is appearing way easier to manage and will soon eclipse joomla in power due to it being even more open so therefor lots more volunteer effort backing it
19:41 < beeli> drupal?
19:41 < urgen> drupal.org
19:41 < beeli> thank you urgen
19:41 < urgen> is also a community organizing content management system
19:47 < beeli> really?
19:47 < beeli> that might be very fine for the purpose i have in mind
19:47 < beeli> yet, filters issue
19:48 < beeli> freedom to choose and all that stuff is something i miss a little bit
19:48 < urgen> sorry on phone
19:55 < urgen> ok back
19:56 < beeli> yet, filters issue
19:56 < beeli> ops
19:56 < urgen> I'm sure drupal allows even sectional moderating control
19:56 < beeli> i will install it at local host and check it out
19:56 < urgen> you can assign different people to be in charge of different sections
19:56 < urgen> that keeps the spam out
19:57 < beeli> you understand what software i am looing for, urgen?
19:57 < beeli> about autopoietic principle?
19:58 < urgen> all programmers would love to see this a reality
19:58 < beeli> me too
19:58 < beeli> yet i seen no softare that would function that way
19:58 < urgen> not yet
19:58 < beeli> in order to gain it neither
19:58 < beeli> why is that so??
19:58 < urgen> it isn't simple
19:59 < beeli> what?
19:59 < urgen> all software follows human pattern
19:59 < beeli> all you need it to give the option that enables every one do the stuff that needs to be done
19:59 < urgen> we have to create the action first, then it can be automated
19:59 < urgen> you can not automate first
20:00 < urgen> so we play here on #parlement and discover the action
20:00 < beeli> when we developed concept of such software
20:00 < urgen> then code it
20:00 < beeli> at least going in that direction the point, the essence was eqaulity
20:00 < beeli> i am not programer :(
20:00 < beeli> :)
20:00 < urgen> I was talking with someone who wrote some code that allowed that same code to rewrite parts of itself
20:00 < beeli> I am pharamccist :)
20:00 < urgen> this is not an easy trick
20:00 < beeli> hmh, maybe i use wrong word
20:01 < beeli> i do not need at least not in this moment autopoietic code
20:01 < beeli> only organisation based on it
20:01 < beeli> atupoietic code is really monster, indeed
20:01 < beeli> yet, no such preferences in this very moment
20:01 < beeli> btw
20:01 < urgen> fun, but monster, yes
20:02 < beeli> Terminator 32
20:02 < beeli> :)
20:02 < urgen> I did not see terminator movies yet
20:02 < beeli> that is ok
20:02 < beeli> did you see baraka?
20:02 < urgen> I don't remember if I saw baraka, I think maybe I did
20:03 < beeli> documenteary with no comments
20:03 < urgen> right
20:03 < beeli> though, let me say the problem i have with this software
20:03 < beeli> if i made site i have to reg it in cro
20:03 < beeli> ISDN stuff
20:04 < beeli> IDSN
20:04 < beeli> or something
20:04 < urgen> "Koyaanisqatsi" is similar
20:04 < urgen> yes croatia has some interesting rules
20:04 < beeli> if i make forum or blog i do not have to do it as long as i do not control content
20:04 < beeli> so, if i create sort of slashdot, i have central point and it is partially autopoietic also
20:04 < beeli> this rule is new one
20:05 < beeli> we have a little bit evolved internet culture in cro
20:06 < urgen> so just by virtue that the site has croatian language?
20:06 < urgen> or to be regarded as part of the croatian political process?
20:07 < urgen> or just simple tax?
20:07 < urgen> :-)
20:08 < beeli> croatian political process
20:08 < beeli> interesting concept
20:08 < beeli> i mean how to cotnrol internet
20:08 < urgen> yes
20:08 < urgen> they have to try
20:09 < beeli> all in all, if we setup sort of slashdot or somehing where is no head director
20:09 < beeli> we do not have to reg it at al
20:09 < beeli> l
20:09 < urgen> you need to regulate to keep spam out
20:09 < beeli> yes
20:09 < urgen> chinese will come in and make a mess
20:09 < beeli> hmh
20:10 < beeli> till we have sometihng like slashdot, i think stuff you recocmnet might be just fine
20:10 < urgen> at least that is what happens to a lot of wiki style sites
20:10 < beeli> no wiki
20:10 < beeli> do not like it
20:10 < beeli> too much
20:10 < urgen> wiki is hard
20:10 < urgen> harder
20:10 < urgen> though this is changing quickly too
20:10 < beeli> it is not good for publishing
20:10 < urgen> did you look at pbwiki?
20:10 < beeli> it is for long term process of articualtion fine
20:11 < beeli> no, what is that?
20:11 < urgen> http://pbwiki.com/
20:11 < urgen> simple fast free website that you can control with one password
20:11 < urgen> you share password then people can contribute
20:11 < urgen> they are working on making new ways to control access too
20:12 < urgen> like by invitation by use of a website key
20:12 < urgen> or people create an account first
20:12 < beeli> ok
20:12 < beeli> reuglar stuff
20:12 < beeli> did you see our concept of forum?
20:12 < urgen> it is a wiki model designed for ease of sharing
20:12 < urgen> no
20:13 < beeli> it is on old site
20:13 < beeli> have to look for cache
20:13 < urgen> 'k
20:16 < beeli> http://kovach.web.srk.fer.hr/tiaktiv/index.php?mode=projekt_forum&m=forum&jezik=en
20:16 < beeli> http://kovach.web.srk.fer.hr/tiaktiv/index.php?mode=projekt_forum&m=uvod&jezik=en
20:16 < beeli> second line is intro
20:16 < beeli> the only important part is about forum structure
20:17 < beeli> and way of leaving need for moderators
20:17 < urgen> is tiaktiv phpBB?
20:17 < beeli> forum of tiaktiv is phpbb
20:17 < urgen> ok
20:17 < urgen> and you have discovered limits?
20:17 < beeli> yet, this was our stupid move
20:17 < beeli> yes
20:18 < beeli> phpbb is not proper base for sure
20:18 < urgen> can you list them? or are they listed in this description?
20:18 < urgen> I have never liked phpBB
20:18 < urgen> but it is/was very popular
20:18 < beeli> not abny more
20:19 < urgen> there are always technical ways to address any control issue
20:20 < beeli> what you mean?
20:21 < urgen> when did the problems you observed show up?
20:21 < beeli> in programing or in social way?
20:21 < urgen> like someone in charge of a topic thread found another's point of view distasteful so moderated them out of the discussion without any group review?
20:22 < beeli> you ask me why did we decide to creatne new software if i get you correctly?
20:22 < urgen> I am interested in discovering a test to review drupal with
20:23 < urgen> so you don't have to find out later that it was just another mistake :-)
20:23 < beeli> drupal is not funal solution
20:23 < beeli> i still look for palrement
20:23 < beeli> :)
20:23 < urgen> yes me too
20:23 < beeli> the problem was this
20:24 < beeli> moderators can introduce manners of dicussion very easily
20:24 < beeli> in politics they regularly did not enalbe constructive climate
20:24 < beeli> i moderated at several public forums and i realised the problem is actually in software
20:25 < beeli> when you have much of not great posts you can remove them or leave them
20:25 < beeli> if you remove them you are censorinf
20:25 < beeli> g
20:25 < beeli> if you leave them you have mess
20:25 < beeli> in any way it is delicate thing in political forums
20:25 < urgen> always is
20:25 < beeli> moderaotes can not make big cuts also
20:25 < beeli> as long as public gets against them than
20:25 < beeli> so, no big moves
20:26 < beeli> letting destructive communiaation
20:26 < beeli> flame and such thing be basic of forum communication
20:26 < beeli> in the same time ive noticed severa high class forumers
20:26 < beeli> who where not at politics due to mess
20:27 < beeli> so i thought it would be great if such people gatheresd in proper climate and started buidling fine place
20:27 < beeli> which is not possible bty this software
20:27 < beeli> so, we started thinking how to do it
20:27 < beeli> i c/p our model that was not tested of course
20:27 < urgen> drupal is nice because you can find people willing to help you change software behavior
20:28 < urgen> phpBB is pretty much a closed product
20:29 < beeli> yes
20:29 < beeli> the purpose of software i need now is not the same to the sofware i looked for then
20:29 < beeli> the fact is that regular form can handle several dozens people finely
20:30 < beeli> till that moment this all works relativelly fine
20:30 < beeli> but that is the limit
20:30 < beeli> sad thing
20:31 < urgen> even in irc it is difficult to have many people on a channel and make sense of it
20:32 < beeli> suppose info flow is far from optimal with the software we have now
20:32 < beeli> and culture of course
20:35 < beeli> urgen: WHAT you say about model?
20:35 < beeli> do not like it suppose
20:37 < urgen> studying
20:38 < urgen> mostly my thoughts go back to the development path irc has come down
20:39 < urgen> "each forum user can be the moderator of any topic"
20:40 < urgen> that is like if you don't like this channel go to another one, or if you don't like a specific user then type: /ignore user
20:41 < beeli> not really
20:41 < beeli> the whole point is about offering
20:41 < beeli> not censoring
20:41 < beeli> not leaving
20:41 < beeli> just offering views and optimisation of such
20:41 < urgen> so when hurricane katrina hit and communication in that area went down and news was controlled by the government...
20:42 < urgen> there were volunteers that monitored the radio communication and trascribed everything into IRC channels
20:42 < urgen> those became public record where there wasn't any before
20:42 < beeli> nice
20:43 < urgen> we had three people listening to any one channel, that way there were ways to capture accidental ommission
20:43 < beeli> how many people knew for that?
20:43 < urgen> we had hundreds of volunteers
20:43 < beeli> cool
20:44 < beeli> where did you get them?
20:44 < urgen> it was posted on slashdot
20:44 < urgen> and other geek news places
20:45 < beeli> cool
20:46 < urgen> example: http://crschmidt.net/blog/archives/95/transcribing-radio-feeds/
20:55 < beeli> fine
20:55 < beeli> did you have any impact by your work?
21:01 < urgen> yes eventually the news found the real story
21:01 < urgen> plus they caught use of the government black ops teams
21:03 < beeli> black ops teams?
21:04 < urgen> special reserve forces
21:04 < urgen> I forgot their name, secret military branch
21:05 < beeli> what do they do?
21:05 < beeli> what did they do?
21:05 < urgen> a highly trained strike force
21:05 < urgen> they were probably sent in to guard someone's property
21:05 < beeli> why secret? dirty work?
21:05 < urgen> all military work is dirty :-)
21:06 < beeli> not to all
21:06 < urgen> the less the public knows the easier the job
21:07 < urgen> there should have been no reason to use force like that
21:07 < beeli> how do you mean there should be no reason?
21:07 < beeli> no legitimate reason?
21:07 < urgen> :-) is there any other kind of reason?
21:07 < beeli> protecting propert does seem legitimate, no?
21:08 < beeli> in politics this is the basic distintion
21:08 < urgen> not if it was not public property from an invading army
21:08 < beeli> big faces protection you mean
21:08 < urgen> yes
21:08 < beeli> so, why it is not legitimate?
21:09 < beeli> due to hypocricy maube?
21:09 < urgen> it was only money talking and harmed innocent people
21:09 < urgen> it was a US action on the US
21:09 < beeli> military does help fire brigades and stuff
21:09 < beeli> at least in cro
21:10 < beeli> do for humanitarian purpose and stuff
21:10 < urgen> someone abandoned and hungry and sick breaks into a building looking for food and is shot by a black ops team.. this is ok?
21:10 < urgen> why?
21:10 < beeli> i do not think it is ok
21:10 < urgen> but they changed the reason
21:10 < urgen> 'looting'
21:10 < beeli> what does it mean?
21:10 < urgen> how was that determined?
21:11 < urgen> breaking in to get expensive property
21:11 < urgen> not food for survival
21:11 < beeli> ok
21:11 < urgen> the police force was resigning because the situation was so severe
21:12 < beeli> seems to me US goverment did great, great shit up there
21:12 < urgen> they were being asked to do things against their conscience
21:12 < beeli> more than enough for impeechment
21:12 < urgen> way more
21:12 < urgen> but if they impeach we get worse, the vice prez is not a good choice for leadership either
21:12 < beeli> it is the same guy
21:12 < beeli> Bush is imbecile
21:13 < beeli> pretty obvious statement
21:13 < urgen> did you see his trying to give the german chancellor a massage in the news?
21:13 < urgen> I was shocked
21:13 < beeli> no, what happened?
21:13 < urgen> let me find,,,
21:14 < urgen> http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,428852,00.html
21:15 < urgen> it is another scandal that the US news has no comment about
21:15 < beeli> you do not have free media
21:15 < beeli> pretty awfull thing
21:16 < beeli> bbl
21:25 -!- beeli [n=ille...@cmung2692.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Read error: 60 (Operation timed out)]
21:42 < echarp> urgen: real cool those irc channels monitoring everything
21:42 < urgen> it was fun
21:46 < echarp> katrina was something pretty bad too
21:46 < echarp> shame it was all transformed into looting and violences instead of survival and solidarity
22:44 -!- beeli (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung570.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
23:27 < beeli> openness
23:31 < beeli> transparency is having aproach to information
23:32 < beeli> opennes is having oportunity to inform
23:32 < echarp> transparency is letting information flow
23:32 < beeli> there is no info flow in transparent
23:32 < echarp> opportunity to inform seems so circonvoluted and complex
23:32 < beeli> transparent is one direction only
23:32 < echarp> transparent is all about flow
23:32 < echarp> like a windows, it lets light flow through or not
23:32 < beeli> openness is second direciton
23:33 < beeli> i think you underestimate power of info control
23:33 < echarp> I underestimate nothing, I don't really consider it!
23:34 < beeli> imagine top is transparent only
23:34 < beeli> is it good ?
23:34 < beeli> or is it good to be open alos?
23:35 < echarp> it is good yes
23:35 < echarp> to be transparent
23:35 < echarp> to be open has no meaning to me
23:35 < beeli> what is better that we have open membership but closed to public
23:35 < echarp> no meaning in a free world
23:35 < beeli> or to be transparent but not invite only
23:35 < beeli> open means anybody can participate
23:35 < beeli> post and do what he wants
23:35 < beeli> as user
23:36 < beeli> that is the meaning of being open isuppose
23:36 < beeli> echarp: how is that you not out?
23:36 < echarp> define participation
23:36 < echarp> me not out???
23:36 < echarp> what do you mean?
23:36 < beeli> outside
23:36 < beeli> at fresh air
23:37 < beeli> you can post
23:37 < beeli> at top politics
23:37 < beeli> it is open to you
23:37 < beeli> anybody can post in this moment
23:37 < beeli> it is open to everyone
23:37 < beeli> that is fully open system
23:37 < beeli> that is the meaning of it
23:38 < echarp> do you mean that every one can speak?
23:38 < beeli> yes
23:38 < echarp> then internet is for you
23:38 < beeli> this sort of info attachment you do underestimate
23:38 < beeli> nobody is oblidged to now everything what is on internet
23:39 < beeli> but, this open channel can be oblidgefull
23:39 < beeli> and this means no space for setting false context
23:39 < beeli> and setting context is half of the whole info process
23:39 < echarp> sorry, you go in your too complex way
23:40 < echarp> if you want me to understand you, go for simplicity, please
23:40 < beeli> where do you loose me?
23:40 < echarp> from the beginning!
23:40 < beeli> ok
23:40 < beeli> i make some political deicsion
23:40 < echarp> uh?
23:40 < beeli> for that decision i have to be properly informed
23:40 < echarp> no
23:40 < beeli> giving oyu example
23:40 < echarp> you don't "have"
23:40 < beeli> what do you mean?
23:41 < echarp> you take a decision for whatever reasons
23:41 < echarp> information is just one
23:41 < beeli> i loose you
23:41 < beeli> how do you make decisions?
23:41 < beeli> by penny?
23:41 < echarp> through any process!!!
23:41 < beeli> or by informing about the issue
23:42 < beeli> what does that process do to you?
23:42 < echarp> information is just one stone in a wall
23:42 < beeli> what does it give to you?
23:42 < beeli> what is the second stone?
23:42 < echarp> personal history
23:42 < echarp> feeling
23:42 < beeli> ok
23:42 < echarp> outside pressure
23:42 < echarp> friends
23:42 < echarp> familly
23:42 < beeli> that is where we do differ
23:42 < echarp> expectations
23:42 < echarp> I don't know if we differ, I don't follow you
23:42 < beeli> neverrthelss more informed we are more similar decison we will take.
23:43 < beeli> yes?
23:43 < beeli> no|?
23:43 < echarp> no
23:43 < echarp> definitely no!
23:43 < echarp> most certainly no!!!
23:43 < beeli> what do i want to do at all with all of this?
23:43 < echarp> political decisions are probably made according to expectations
23:43 < beeli> I want to set possition where we can have responsible political practice
23:43 < echarp> expectations are not matters of mere information
23:44 < beeli> so what?
23:44 < beeli> i am talking about this part
23:44 < beeli> about value of proper ifnorming
23:44 < beeli> just that
23:44 < beeli> i have no imapct to someones personla history
23:44 < beeli> i do not have impact on familiy friends whatever
23:45 < beeli> what i can to have impact is setting proper info process
23:45 < beeli> is it wrong?
23:45 < beeli> is it needed?
23:45 < echarp> I don't follow you there
23:45 < echarp> setting proper info process, what is that???
23:45 < echarp> giving information?
23:45 < echarp> go simple for me!!!
23:45 < beeli> finding a way of informing properly
23:45 < echarp> "setting proper info process", waaaay tooo complex!!!
23:46 < beeli> look at Bush
23:46 < echarp> bush is not a matter of information
23:46 < beeli> What are the info channels he has?
23:46 < beeli> any stateman
23:46 < beeli> i suppose that several people he has trust to keep him think whatever they want to
23:47 < beeli> as long as political reality is not somethng we can see
23:47 < beeli> so, you have to find out what is going on at all
23:47 < beeli> Bush has his channels
23:47 < beeli> they are not free channels i suppose
23:47 < echarp> you think it's all matters of information?
23:47 < beeli> no
23:47 < beeli> That is base
23:47 < echarp> you think having information will make sure we take similar decisions?
23:47 < beeli> no
23:48 < beeli> Base is rather important part of any buidling
23:48 < beeli> so, that is not JUST issue
23:48 < beeli> but very important
23:48 < beeli> that is the reason i am into info process that much
23:49 < beeli> if you do not have free info processing you can not make free decisions neither
23:49 < beeli> when i say free decision, i mean decision that is not directed by those who control info
23:50 < beeli> So, any statesman is dependent on his resources
23:50 < beeli> + he has to be extra carefull as long as big interests are in play
23:51 < beeli> i suppose free info channel would be really benefit for those who want to gather proper info before making decisions
23:51 < beeli> that be a base
23:51 < beeli> lol
23:51 < beeli> this is part that reminded me to Stalman
23:51 < beeli> he was forcing me to use free source
23:51 < beeli> not open source
23:51 < beeli> and now i am word open eqaling to free
23:53 < echarp> information is base?
23:53 < beeli> way of gathering it
23:53 < beeli> aproach
23:53 < beeli> and stuff
23:53 < echarp> information is base?
23:54 < beeli> base of political process. yes
23:54 < echarp> any other base?
23:54 < beeli> we have setting issue
23:54 < echarp> and I disagree that it is "the" base
23:54 < beeli> that is not a base
23:54 < beeli> what is the base?
23:54 < echarp> to me politics are based on what we want to become, on expectations, desire
23:55 < echarp> creating our future self
23:55 < beeli> we are talking about the process. right?
23:55 < echarp> definitely not based on information
23:55 < beeli> we are talking about the process. right?
23:55 < echarp> I am talking about politics, the process yes
23:55 < beeli> so, what is the base of the process?
23:55 < beeli> human?
23:55 < echarp> what we want to become, on expectations, desire
23:56 < beeli> what is the base of culture?
23:56 < beeli> what is the base of religion?
23:56 < beeli> are you sure this definition is good one?
23:56 < echarp> culture is based on ideas transmitted through carriers
23:56 < beeli> seems to me you are cultural worker
23:56 < echarp> I am
23:57 < beeli> so, i do accept your definition for culture maybe
23:57 < beeli> not for politics as a process
23:57 < beeli> when we talk about process we do not look at material that process is using
23:57 < beeli> but process itself
23:57 < beeli> same as software
23:57 < beeli> we do not look at database, but software iteslef
23:58 < beeli> these expectaion and stuff
23:58 < beeli> that is data base
23:58 < beeli> not the software
23:58 < beeli> politics is softsare
23:58 < beeli> political system at least
23:59 < beeli> the way of generating political power is the way how systems differ
23:59 < beeli> look at dictatorship and relation to free media
23:59 < beeli> that is regularly the best way to judge freedom of any state
23:59 < echarp> when I look at software, the db *is* important
23:59 < beeli> ok
23:59 < beeli> i can say it is
23:59 < echarp> of course it is
--- Log closed sam aoû 05 00:00:00 2006
echarp
Aug 6, 2006, 12:29:57 AM8/6/06
to top-politics
--- Log opened sam aoû 05 00:00:00 2006
--- Day changed sam aoû 05 2006
00:00 < echarp> desires are the db
00:00 < beeli> yes
00:00 < echarp> I'm not talking about particular desires
00:00 < echarp> just desires
00:00 < beeli> desires enter the process
00:00 < beeli> tey are not definition of process
00:00 < echarp> they are a base
00:00 < echarp> they are the energy of the process
00:00 < beeli> they are stuff that is processed
00:01 < beeli> db is more or less same
00:01 < beeli> it is Humanity
00:01 < echarp> in a software, db is base
00:01 < beeli> ok
00:02 < echarp> in a process, the type of information used and flowing is very important
00:02 < beeli> though, i like to analyse part that is up to me
00:02 < echarp> recognising what are politics
00:02 < beeli> that is software as long as data base is setup
00:02 < echarp> it is not a "setup"
00:02 < echarp> the db design *is* software
00:02 < beeli> so, i am looking the process
00:03 < beeli> and defining ok ESSENCE< not BASe of it
00:03 < echarp> the process requires to know the db design
00:03 < beeli> so, information is essence of political process
00:03 < beeli> not base :)
00:03 < echarp> :)
00:03 < echarp> possibly yes
00:03 < beeli> you are ideology orieneted
00:03 < beeli> i am not in this very moment
00:04 < beeli> now i just look at essence of political system
00:04 < beeli> second part is part of culture
00:04 < beeli> for an example
00:04 < beeli> communists set a great @base@, yet they forgot to look at processing process
00:04 < beeli> what did they get:
00:04 < beeli> ?
00:04 < beeli> nada
00:05 < beeli> as long as i am liberal i let everyone choose his ideology as long as freedom is guaranteed
00:05 < beeli> in ifno procesing
00:05 < beeli> i think we share that part
00:05 < echarp> and what do you think is my ideology...?
00:05 < beeli> freedom stuff
00:05 < echarp> didn't we share about it?
00:06 < beeli> :
00:06 < echarp> then isn't it the same as "as long as freedom is guaranted"
00:06 < echarp> ?
00:06 < beeli> maybe
00:06 < beeli> that is the most i can tell as long as i am rather correct if we talk seriously
00:07 < beeli> i can not state anything else of being correct or being not correct in this very moment
00:07 < echarp> correct on what?
00:07 < echarp> on my ideology?
00:07 < echarp> beeli I have huge troubles following you you know!
00:08 < echarp> for example, "as long as I am correct if we talk seriously" does not seem to make sense!
00:08 < beeli> lets go from last part
00:08 < beeli> i like to bs over bush over israel and stuff
00:08 < echarp> please, make short complete sentences
00:09 < beeli> yet, these comments are not my definite statements
00:09 < beeli> i wont sign anywhere for these things
00:09 < beeli> i will sign for freedom of info only
00:09 < echarp> what comments are you speaking about?
00:09 < beeli> in this part i am very serious
00:10 < beeli> you have notices i have many attitudes about conspiracy and simmilar issues
00:10 < echarp> what is the relation
00:10 < echarp> ?
00:10 < echarp> STOP!!!
00:10 < echarp> don't go somewhere else please!!!
00:10 < echarp> beeli: I can hardly follow you
00:10 < echarp> where are you going to???
00:11 < beeli> i am not going anywhere
00:11 < echarp> then why go on conspiracy???
00:11 < beeli> maybe we should move to the part this conversaion lost the focus
00:11 < echarp> you loose me all the time, it's *VERY* painful!!!
00:11 < beeli> that was only example
00:11 < beeli> we talked about base
00:11 < echarp> beeli: do you understand that I don't follow you as you speak?
00:11 < beeli> maybe we should talk about it again :)
00:12 < beeli> ok
00:12 < beeli> ask me
00:12 < beeli> i will answer
00:12 < echarp> what is openness? (see how far back this goes)
00:12 < echarp> openness concerns information and information only?
00:12 < echarp> or does it concern people too?
00:12 < beeli> yes
00:12 < beeli> people are mediators of info
00:13 < echarp> then it concerns people too!!!
00:13 < beeli> yes
00:13 < echarp> see, hugely important
00:13 < echarp> what roles does it concern?
00:13 < beeli> info?
00:13 < beeli> can you rephrase last quesiton:
00:13 < beeli> ?
00:14 < echarp> what roles are concerned in openness?
00:14 < echarp> do you know what a role is?
00:14 < beeli> not really in this context
00:15 < beeli> opennes is characteristic of system
00:15 < beeli> that enables free info flow
00:15 < beeli> free info flow meaning no head censor who can stop it
00:16 < echarp> sorry, is that not transparency?
00:17 < beeli> it is not
00:17 < echarp> transparency *is* free info flow!!!
00:17 < beeli> it is not
00:17 < beeli> transparency is passive
00:18 < beeli> you can play deaf and be transparent
00:18 < echarp> and?
00:18 < beeli> you can choose what will you publish in the decision making process
00:18 < echarp> who is concerned by openness? these are roles
00:19 < beeli> in order to make proper decision
00:19 < beeli> system
00:19 < beeli> process
00:19 < beeli> of gathering info
00:20 < beeli> transprancy is about publishin
00:20 < beeli> opennes is about gatherng
00:20 < beeli> all public
00:20 < beeli> ok
00:20 < beeli> ?
00:20 < echarp> not ok!
00:20 < beeli> what?
00:20 < echarp> not ok!!!
00:20 < echarp> transparency can be about publishing, ok on that
00:20 < echarp> gathering, not ok!!!
00:20 < beeli> why?
00:21 < echarp> because I don't understand how it is openness
00:21 < beeli> you have problems with implemntaion?
00:21 < echarp> of course
00:21 < beeli> i thought about it today
00:21 < echarp> and?
00:21 < beeli> lets imagine SD-2 as a way on what public can point out info that it finds an adequate
00:22 < beeli> before that we can imagine simple forum where people can openly discuss about anything
00:22 < echarp> not SD2!!! not!!!
00:22 < beeli> the forum i am oblidged to follow as long as i noticed that as being open
00:22 < beeli> ok, take your one
00:23 < beeli> so, i accept some free bottom up cannel to be influentive in order of info gathering
00:23 < echarp> please rephrase that => " way on what public can point out info that it finds an adequate"
00:23 < echarp> please rephrase your last sentences!!!
00:23 < beeli> there is 1000 of users on my site
00:23 < echarp> you don't make sense!!!
00:23 < beeli> on my forum
00:23 < echarp> STOP!!!
00:24 < beeli> that is imagination
00:24 < echarp> I'm going to give up, I should be putting in production my avatars
00:24 < beeli> gee, you not into nfo processing issue too much \
00:24 < echarp> I don't understand your sentences
00:24 < echarp> it is not proper english!!!
00:25 < echarp> please rephrase means that you don't speak proper english I can understand
00:25 < beeli> i gonna write an article about it
00:25 < echarp> :(
00:25 < beeli> so, tommorow i suppose will publish it
00:25 < echarp> if your article is composed of the same sentences, it will not be comprehensible
00:25 < beeli> i will take care of it too be as articulated as i can go
00:26 < beeli> the fact is that i have never before talked about this
00:26 < beeli> in this way
00:26 < beeli> this is process of articualtion to me
00:26 < beeli> so, i am rephrasing to me also
00:26 < echarp> do you understand that you don't make sense in your english use?
00:26 < beeli> ok
00:26 < beeli> till tomorow :)
00:27 < beeli> btw, you equal transpareny with opennes?/
00:27 < echarp> tomorrow I'm with a friend, out
00:27 < echarp> I don't understand your openness!
00:27 < beeli> in your words
00:27 < beeli> in your definitions
00:27 < echarp> openness does not seem useful to me
00:27 < beeli> what is openees to you?
00:28 < echarp> from what I can barely understand, you want politicians to show they gather information
00:28 < echarp> it's silly to me
00:28 < beeli> when i know you know and everybodies knows, then you are oblidged
00:28 < echarp> you are not
00:29 < beeli> you have no ignorance excuse any more
00:29 < echarp> you have all sorts of excuses
00:29 < echarp> always
00:29 < beeli> the fact we can not know everyhing can not cover you up
00:29 < echarp> it can
00:29 < echarp> always can
00:29 < beeli> some are easy to swollow some others are not
00:29 < echarp> because you can never know everything
00:30 < beeli> if you set such channel then you are oblidged to know something
00:30 < beeli> i have influence to
00:30 < beeli> when i say i i mean partof public
00:30 < echarp> "set such channel"???
00:30 < beeli> for info gathering
00:31 < beeli> meybe i should ask you what do people miss today at all?
00:31 < beeli> what politics miss today at all?
00:31 < beeli> maybe that would be reasonable start for discussion
00:31 < echarp> delegation of powers
00:31 < echarp> tolerance
00:31 < beeli> what do you mean by delgation of powers
00:31 < echarp> makins sure those who will live with consequences decide
00:32 < echarp> delegating powers is decentralisation, for a start
00:32 < beeli> responsibility you mean?
00:32 < beeli> decentralisaion, why?
00:33 < beeli> what do we get by decentralisaiotn?
00:33 < echarp> we get => those who will live with consequences decide
00:33 < echarp> centralisation means taking away decisions
00:34 < echarp> centralisation can only be useful when a decision affect everybody
00:34 < beeli> do you want more power?
00:34 < echarp> do *I* want more power? no
00:34 < beeli> why not?
00:34 < echarp> because I'm a happy man
00:34 < beeli> why do you want to others something you do not need for youself?
00:34 < echarp> I want women and recognition, that would do fine :)
00:34 < beeli> why are you different?
00:35 < echarp> because I love to construct things
00:35 < beeli> but why?
00:35 < beeli> you do not need it
00:35 < echarp> because I have given thought to philosophy
00:35 < beeli> why should anybody need it?
00:35 < echarp> I do not need it, I enjoy it
00:35 < beeli> what?
00:35 < beeli> in power?
00:35 < echarp> in constructing a tool, constructing the future
00:35 < beeli> future?
00:35 < echarp> the future yes
00:35 < beeli> how do you construct future?
00:36 < echarp> through politics
00:36 < beeli> or culture?
00:36 < echarp> politics is part of culture!
00:36 < beeli> blah
00:36 < beeli> medicine is also part of culture
00:36 < beeli> do you see what is the difference between culture and politics?
00:37 < beeli> when we talk in social terms?
00:37 < beeli> terms from sociology
00:37 < beeli> at least the way i understand it
00:37 < beeli> working on culture is promotion of your views
00:37 < beeli> working in politics is using power to realise it
00:38 < echarp> culture is everything containing ideas and transmitting it
00:38 < echarp> medecine is a part of culture
00:38 < echarp> necessarily
00:38 < beeli> neverthelesss
00:38 < echarp> politics are also, of course they are
00:38 < beeli> what i want to say politics is about power
00:39 < echarp> and you personally want power?
00:39 < beeli> yes
00:39 < beeli> i want more power indeed
00:39 < echarp> see, I almost understood that, but was not sure at all
00:39 < echarp> you never communicated it
00:39 < beeli> i want rebalns of the power
00:40 < echarp> rebalns?
00:40 < beeli> sorry
00:40 < beeli> moment
00:40 < beeli> new power ratios
00:40 < beeli> ratios that make sense
00:41 < beeli> though, you are buidling that parliament
00:41 < beeli> what than?
00:41 < echarp> sorry, does not make that much sense to me
00:41 < echarp> what *then*?
00:41 < beeli> how do you see thigs will work after you make wokring version?
00:41 < echarp> it's already working
00:42 < echarp> I don't see any revolution
00:42 < beeli> what do you see?
00:42 < echarp> I see myself continuingly working on it, for the fun of it
00:42 < beeli> what about people?
00:42 < beeli> about politics?
00:42 < beeli> about culture?
00:42 < beeli> about reason you are doing it?
00:42 < echarp> because I love making that tool
00:42 < echarp> because I envision a future that could use such a tool
00:43 < beeli> i suppose you have to explain to yourself that what you are doing is usefull
00:43 < beeli> or not?
00:43 < echarp> it is already useful!!!
00:43 < beeli> for whom?
00:43 < echarp> because I take pleasure in making it
00:43 < beeli> so, you could build sand castles with the same eager?
00:43 < beeli> same reason?
00:43 < echarp> yeap
00:44 < echarp> definitely, I could
00:44 < echarp> hopefully parlement might be more useful in the long term
00:44 < beeli> why did you choose to make this instead of sand castles?
00:44 < beeli> becose of that hope?
00:44 < echarp> because it's also good for my CV
00:44 < echarp> because I consider it potentially useful
00:44 < beeli> so, no dream behind it at all?
00:46 < echarp> is it not a dream to dream of its use?
00:46 < beeli> it is
00:46 < beeli> but what use it is?
00:46 < beeli> what i see the only use now is that you have a fun with it
00:46 < beeli> you never stated more of use
00:47 < echarp> "more of use"???
00:47 < beeli> involving other people
00:47 < beeli> more use
00:47 < beeli> in this moment i see you be selfconsistent
00:48 < echarp> I think I am
00:48 < beeli> that is pretty differnet to my ambisions
00:48 < beeli> where i am not selfconsistent in neaither of them
00:50 < echarp> I hope some other people could find parlement useful
00:50 < echarp> it's one tool, original I believe, and with great potentials
00:50 < beeli> is it importent to you?
00:51 < echarp> it is
00:51 < beeli> i see this be a way of recognision
00:51 < beeli> right?
00:51 < echarp> it might be yes
00:51 < beeli> yet, you do not have political vision involved :(
00:51 < beeli> in the other hand we are complement in this
00:51 < echarp> my political vision is one of freedom, of extreme decentralisatio
00:52 < echarp> of autonomy
00:52 < beeli> yet, that vsion has no much relation to your software or?
00:52 < echarp> panarchy is one thing I like
00:52 < echarp> the software could be a stone in that vision
00:52 < echarp> but the tool could also be used differently
00:53 < echarp> it is mostly agnostic, yet its full potential directs to a panarchy of sorts
00:53 < echarp> maybe not agnostic then
00:53 < echarp> I don't know, would have to think about it
00:54 < beeli> maybe it would be good thing for us
00:54 < beeli> in that way you might get some political eager :)
00:55 < beeli> and interest for creating partnerships and stuff
00:56 < beeli> yet, friend of mine, programer shares pretty many thoughts with you
00:56 < beeli> thnk you would like him :)
00:57 < echarp> possibly yes
00:57 < beeli> he looks at software and moderation model we created only as communication channel
00:58 < beeli> though, as long as we did not prosper in programing he got orieted to TOP
00:59 < beeli> that is not story of you :)
00:59 < echarp> I'm more into T :)
00:59 < beeli> are you finished with avatars?
00:59 < beeli> heh
01:00 < beeli> that is your lack of political knowledgetalking :)
01:01 < echarp> I'm finished yes, finally!!!
01:01 < beeli> cool
01:01 < echarp> struggled with internet explorer and some hairy javascript
01:01 < echarp> I'll probably put it into production this week end
01:01 < echarp> took me 2 weeks more than I thought :(
01:01 < echarp> or 3 even
01:02 < echarp> btw, ever heard of http://www.nationstates.net ?
01:02 < beeli> so, you are finished :)
01:02 < echarp> I am yes, well, production now, publishing a release
01:03 < beeli> no, i havent
01:03 < beeli> what about it?
01:03 < echarp> it's a game, political one
01:04 < echarp> my country, an anarchy btw => http://www.nationstates.net/leparlement
01:04 < echarp> I don't agree with many of the description and settings, yet it's fun
01:05 < beeli> cool
01:05 < echarp> for example they consider that having the 3 possible freedoms is equivalent to anarchy, and that anarchy is equivalent to chaos
01:05 < echarp> I think it's silly
01:06 < beeli> yes
01:07 < beeli> that is hard thing in accepting word freedom in politcs
01:07 < echarp> economic, social, political freedoms
01:08 < beeli> The Holy Republic of Jabaharija
01:08 < echarp> is that yours? :)
01:09 < beeli> yes
01:10 < echarp> what login?
01:11 < beeli> what login?
01:11 < echarp> your nation login
01:11 < echarp> so that I can look it up and see if you are a good leader :)
01:11 < beeli> lol
01:12 < beeli> forget about it
01:12 < echarp> why not?
01:12 < beeli> :/
01:12 < echarp> it's a test
01:12 < echarp> I enjoy playing it twice a day
01:12 < echarp> no more
01:13 < beeli> cool game
01:13 < echarp> ok, Jabaharija works :)
01:13 < beeli> i involved compulsory voting
01:15 < echarp> bad
01:15 < echarp> very very bad, from my POV
01:15 < beeli> pov?
01:17 < echarp> compulsory military service?
01:17 < echarp> POV = point of view
01:17 < beeli> ok
01:17 < beeli> it is up to context ?
01:17 < beeli> :)
01:18 < echarp> compulsory is a word I don't like
01:18 < beeli> in this way we have better picture
01:19 < beeli> neverthless id involve some network decision making anyway
01:20 < echarp> what is that?
01:20 < echarp> seems like a complex concept, again
01:21 < beeli> smartocracy stuff
01:21 < beeli> sd2 stuff
01:21 < beeli> internet democracy actually
01:21 < beeli> direct responsibility of smart people
01:21 < beeli> for political actions
01:21 < echarp> :(
01:21 < beeli> politicians be mediator of power onlt
01:22 < beeli> y
01:22 < echarp> SD2 is so crap, I can't believe you use that term
01:22 < beeli> it is popular
01:22 < echarp> popular???
01:22 < echarp> how is that?
01:22 < echarp> how do you arrive at that conclusion?
01:22 < beeli> like the picture at yahoo groups
01:22 < echarp> how do you arrive at that conclusion?
01:23 < beeli> kidding
01:23 < echarp> :)
01:23 < echarp> and I don't want "direct responsibility of smart people"
01:23 < beeli> though, mark is only oriented to act of direct responsibility
01:23 < echarp> I want decisions by those who will live with the consequences of the decisions
01:23 < echarp> "act of direct responsibility"???
01:24 < echarp> experts I don't care about
01:24 < beeli> you can go against the big faces
01:24 < echarp> I gladly go
01:24 < beeli> if you wish
01:24 < echarp> I very much wish
01:24 < beeli> why is that so?
01:24 < echarp> because I consider that:
01:24 < echarp> I want decisions by those who will live with the consequences of the decisions
01:25 < beeli> what do you know about law?
01:25 < beeli> stuff about delagates it is
01:25 < echarp> I think I know some bits of its theory
01:25 < beeli> not everyobd is willing to take reposnibility
01:25 < echarp> it's not about "taking"
01:25 < beeli> yes it is
01:25 < echarp> it's about living with the consequences
01:25 < beeli> you want to enforce it?
01:26 < echarp> you have it backward
01:26 < beeli> lets be dull and go to war
01:26 < beeli> yey
01:26 < echarp> I want to let decide those who will live with the consequences of a decision
01:26 < echarp> no need to enforce or take responsibility
01:26 < beeli> so, those who are supposed to go to the war are the ones to be asked?
01:26 < echarp> yes!!!
01:27 < echarp> see how easy it is
01:27 < beeli> i am tirs
01:27 < beeli> tired
01:27 < echarp> so I am
01:27 < beeli> go to bad
01:27 < beeli> have a good time tommorow
01:27 < echarp> good night
01:27 < beeli> gonna go now
01:27 < beeli> nite
01:27 < echarp> cu
01:27 -!- beeli [n=ille...@cmung570.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit []
03:58 -!- urgen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit []
04:39 -!- urgen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
22:40 < echarp> hello hello
22:48 < urgen> hi
22:49 < echarp> how are you urgen ?
22:53 < urgen> summer business but still not a lot of productiveness
22:54 < echarp> understandable :)
23:22 < urgen> I can teach you bind9
23:23 < urgen> it is pretty handy to have dns control
23:23 < urgen> but I haven't really tried ezzone or whatever it was called
23:23 < urgen> maybe that's easy too
23:23 < urgen> it had a 5 domain limit per account?
23:23 < echarp> I don't know, it's one of those things you use once then forget
23:23 < echarp> yeap, limits of 5
23:24 < urgen> oh guess I've been adding about two or three domains a month
23:25 < echarp> that's a lot!!!
23:25 < urgen> mostly on voluntary basis too
23:25 < urgen> busy but no (immediate) compensation
23:25 < echarp> bind9 is hosted on your own machine?
23:25 < urgen> favors always pay off in the long run
23:25 < echarp> yeap
23:26 < urgen> ya I'm doing the all in one type setup, db, email, dns, web, etc.
23:26 < urgen> but serverpronto will do secondary dns for free
23:26 < urgen> but you and I can back up each other's dns too
23:28 < echarp> if I ever set my own dns server, that would be nice yes :)
23:28 < urgen> it's not very hard
23:28 < urgen> a little cryptic at first, but then quick to replicate
--- Log closed dim aoû 06 00:00:11 2006
--- Day changed sam aoû 05 2006
00:00 < echarp> desires are the db
00:00 < beeli> yes
00:00 < echarp> I'm not talking about particular desires
00:00 < echarp> just desires
00:00 < beeli> desires enter the process
00:00 < beeli> tey are not definition of process
00:00 < echarp> they are a base
00:00 < echarp> they are the energy of the process
00:00 < beeli> they are stuff that is processed
00:01 < beeli> db is more or less same
00:01 < beeli> it is Humanity
00:01 < echarp> in a software, db is base
00:01 < beeli> ok
00:02 < echarp> in a process, the type of information used and flowing is very important
00:02 < beeli> though, i like to analyse part that is up to me
00:02 < echarp> recognising what are politics
00:02 < beeli> that is software as long as data base is setup
00:02 < echarp> it is not a "setup"
00:02 < echarp> the db design *is* software
00:02 < beeli> so, i am looking the process
00:03 < beeli> and defining ok ESSENCE< not BASe of it
00:03 < echarp> the process requires to know the db design
00:03 < beeli> so, information is essence of political process
00:03 < beeli> not base :)
00:03 < echarp> :)
00:03 < echarp> possibly yes
00:03 < beeli> you are ideology orieneted
00:03 < beeli> i am not in this very moment
00:04 < beeli> now i just look at essence of political system
00:04 < beeli> second part is part of culture
00:04 < beeli> for an example
00:04 < beeli> communists set a great @base@, yet they forgot to look at processing process
00:04 < beeli> what did they get:
00:04 < beeli> ?
00:04 < beeli> nada
00:05 < beeli> as long as i am liberal i let everyone choose his ideology as long as freedom is guaranteed
00:05 < beeli> in ifno procesing
00:05 < beeli> i think we share that part
00:05 < echarp> and what do you think is my ideology...?
00:05 < beeli> freedom stuff
00:05 < echarp> didn't we share about it?
00:06 < beeli> :
00:06 < echarp> then isn't it the same as "as long as freedom is guaranted"
00:06 < echarp> ?
00:06 < beeli> maybe
00:06 < beeli> that is the most i can tell as long as i am rather correct if we talk seriously
00:07 < beeli> i can not state anything else of being correct or being not correct in this very moment
00:07 < echarp> correct on what?
00:07 < echarp> on my ideology?
00:07 < echarp> beeli I have huge troubles following you you know!
00:08 < echarp> for example, "as long as I am correct if we talk seriously" does not seem to make sense!
00:08 < beeli> lets go from last part
00:08 < beeli> i like to bs over bush over israel and stuff
00:08 < echarp> please, make short complete sentences
00:09 < beeli> yet, these comments are not my definite statements
00:09 < beeli> i wont sign anywhere for these things
00:09 < beeli> i will sign for freedom of info only
00:09 < echarp> what comments are you speaking about?
00:09 < beeli> in this part i am very serious
00:10 < beeli> you have notices i have many attitudes about conspiracy and simmilar issues
00:10 < echarp> what is the relation
00:10 < echarp> ?
00:10 < echarp> STOP!!!
00:10 < echarp> don't go somewhere else please!!!
00:10 < echarp> beeli: I can hardly follow you
00:10 < echarp> where are you going to???
00:11 < beeli> i am not going anywhere
00:11 < echarp> then why go on conspiracy???
00:11 < beeli> maybe we should move to the part this conversaion lost the focus
00:11 < echarp> you loose me all the time, it's *VERY* painful!!!
00:11 < beeli> that was only example
00:11 < beeli> we talked about base
00:11 < echarp> beeli: do you understand that I don't follow you as you speak?
00:11 < beeli> maybe we should talk about it again :)
00:12 < beeli> ok
00:12 < beeli> ask me
00:12 < beeli> i will answer
00:12 < echarp> what is openness? (see how far back this goes)
00:12 < echarp> openness concerns information and information only?
00:12 < echarp> or does it concern people too?
00:12 < beeli> yes
00:12 < beeli> people are mediators of info
00:13 < echarp> then it concerns people too!!!
00:13 < beeli> yes
00:13 < echarp> see, hugely important
00:13 < echarp> what roles does it concern?
00:13 < beeli> info?
00:13 < beeli> can you rephrase last quesiton:
00:13 < beeli> ?
00:14 < echarp> what roles are concerned in openness?
00:14 < echarp> do you know what a role is?
00:14 < beeli> not really in this context
00:15 < beeli> opennes is characteristic of system
00:15 < beeli> that enables free info flow
00:15 < beeli> free info flow meaning no head censor who can stop it
00:16 < echarp> sorry, is that not transparency?
00:17 < beeli> it is not
00:17 < echarp> transparency *is* free info flow!!!
00:17 < beeli> it is not
00:17 < beeli> transparency is passive
00:18 < beeli> you can play deaf and be transparent
00:18 < echarp> and?
00:18 < beeli> you can choose what will you publish in the decision making process
00:18 < echarp> who is concerned by openness? these are roles
00:19 < beeli> in order to make proper decision
00:19 < beeli> system
00:19 < beeli> process
00:19 < beeli> of gathering info
00:20 < beeli> transprancy is about publishin
00:20 < beeli> opennes is about gatherng
00:20 < beeli> all public
00:20 < beeli> ok
00:20 < beeli> ?
00:20 < echarp> not ok!
00:20 < beeli> what?
00:20 < echarp> not ok!!!
00:20 < echarp> transparency can be about publishing, ok on that
00:20 < echarp> gathering, not ok!!!
00:20 < beeli> why?
00:21 < echarp> because I don't understand how it is openness
00:21 < beeli> you have problems with implemntaion?
00:21 < echarp> of course
00:21 < beeli> i thought about it today
00:21 < echarp> and?
00:21 < beeli> lets imagine SD-2 as a way on what public can point out info that it finds an adequate
00:22 < beeli> before that we can imagine simple forum where people can openly discuss about anything
00:22 < echarp> not SD2!!! not!!!
00:22 < beeli> the forum i am oblidged to follow as long as i noticed that as being open
00:22 < beeli> ok, take your one
00:23 < beeli> so, i accept some free bottom up cannel to be influentive in order of info gathering
00:23 < echarp> please rephrase that => " way on what public can point out info that it finds an adequate"
00:23 < echarp> please rephrase your last sentences!!!
00:23 < beeli> there is 1000 of users on my site
00:23 < echarp> you don't make sense!!!
00:23 < beeli> on my forum
00:23 < echarp> STOP!!!
00:24 < beeli> that is imagination
00:24 < echarp> I'm going to give up, I should be putting in production my avatars
00:24 < beeli> gee, you not into nfo processing issue too much \
00:24 < echarp> I don't understand your sentences
00:24 < echarp> it is not proper english!!!
00:25 < echarp> please rephrase means that you don't speak proper english I can understand
00:25 < beeli> i gonna write an article about it
00:25 < echarp> :(
00:25 < beeli> so, tommorow i suppose will publish it
00:25 < echarp> if your article is composed of the same sentences, it will not be comprehensible
00:25 < beeli> i will take care of it too be as articulated as i can go
00:26 < beeli> the fact is that i have never before talked about this
00:26 < beeli> in this way
00:26 < beeli> this is process of articualtion to me
00:26 < beeli> so, i am rephrasing to me also
00:26 < echarp> do you understand that you don't make sense in your english use?
00:26 < beeli> ok
00:26 < beeli> till tomorow :)
00:27 < beeli> btw, you equal transpareny with opennes?/
00:27 < echarp> tomorrow I'm with a friend, out
00:27 < echarp> I don't understand your openness!
00:27 < beeli> in your words
00:27 < beeli> in your definitions
00:27 < echarp> openness does not seem useful to me
00:27 < beeli> what is openees to you?
00:28 < echarp> from what I can barely understand, you want politicians to show they gather information
00:28 < echarp> it's silly to me
00:28 < beeli> when i know you know and everybodies knows, then you are oblidged
00:28 < echarp> you are not
00:29 < beeli> you have no ignorance excuse any more
00:29 < echarp> you have all sorts of excuses
00:29 < echarp> always
00:29 < beeli> the fact we can not know everyhing can not cover you up
00:29 < echarp> it can
00:29 < echarp> always can
00:29 < beeli> some are easy to swollow some others are not
00:29 < echarp> because you can never know everything
00:30 < beeli> if you set such channel then you are oblidged to know something
00:30 < beeli> i have influence to
00:30 < beeli> when i say i i mean partof public
00:30 < echarp> "set such channel"???
00:30 < beeli> for info gathering
00:31 < beeli> meybe i should ask you what do people miss today at all?
00:31 < beeli> what politics miss today at all?
00:31 < beeli> maybe that would be reasonable start for discussion
00:31 < echarp> delegation of powers
00:31 < echarp> tolerance
00:31 < beeli> what do you mean by delgation of powers
00:31 < echarp> makins sure those who will live with consequences decide
00:32 < echarp> delegating powers is decentralisation, for a start
00:32 < beeli> responsibility you mean?
00:32 < beeli> decentralisaion, why?
00:33 < beeli> what do we get by decentralisaiotn?
00:33 < echarp> we get => those who will live with consequences decide
00:33 < echarp> centralisation means taking away decisions
00:34 < echarp> centralisation can only be useful when a decision affect everybody
00:34 < beeli> do you want more power?
00:34 < echarp> do *I* want more power? no
00:34 < beeli> why not?
00:34 < echarp> because I'm a happy man
00:34 < beeli> why do you want to others something you do not need for youself?
00:34 < echarp> I want women and recognition, that would do fine :)
00:34 < beeli> why are you different?
00:35 < echarp> because I love to construct things
00:35 < beeli> but why?
00:35 < beeli> you do not need it
00:35 < echarp> because I have given thought to philosophy
00:35 < beeli> why should anybody need it?
00:35 < echarp> I do not need it, I enjoy it
00:35 < beeli> what?
00:35 < beeli> in power?
00:35 < echarp> in constructing a tool, constructing the future
00:35 < beeli> future?
00:35 < echarp> the future yes
00:35 < beeli> how do you construct future?
00:36 < echarp> through politics
00:36 < beeli> or culture?
00:36 < echarp> politics is part of culture!
00:36 < beeli> blah
00:36 < beeli> medicine is also part of culture
00:36 < beeli> do you see what is the difference between culture and politics?
00:37 < beeli> when we talk in social terms?
00:37 < beeli> terms from sociology
00:37 < beeli> at least the way i understand it
00:37 < beeli> working on culture is promotion of your views
00:37 < beeli> working in politics is using power to realise it
00:38 < echarp> culture is everything containing ideas and transmitting it
00:38 < echarp> medecine is a part of culture
00:38 < echarp> necessarily
00:38 < beeli> neverthelesss
00:38 < echarp> politics are also, of course they are
00:38 < beeli> what i want to say politics is about power
00:39 < echarp> and you personally want power?
00:39 < beeli> yes
00:39 < beeli> i want more power indeed
00:39 < echarp> see, I almost understood that, but was not sure at all
00:39 < echarp> you never communicated it
00:39 < beeli> i want rebalns of the power
00:40 < echarp> rebalns?
00:40 < beeli> sorry
00:40 < beeli> moment
00:40 < beeli> new power ratios
00:40 < beeli> ratios that make sense
00:41 < beeli> though, you are buidling that parliament
00:41 < beeli> what than?
00:41 < echarp> sorry, does not make that much sense to me
00:41 < echarp> what *then*?
00:41 < beeli> how do you see thigs will work after you make wokring version?
00:41 < echarp> it's already working
00:42 < echarp> I don't see any revolution
00:42 < beeli> what do you see?
00:42 < echarp> I see myself continuingly working on it, for the fun of it
00:42 < beeli> what about people?
00:42 < beeli> about politics?
00:42 < beeli> about culture?
00:42 < beeli> about reason you are doing it?
00:42 < echarp> because I love making that tool
00:42 < echarp> because I envision a future that could use such a tool
00:43 < beeli> i suppose you have to explain to yourself that what you are doing is usefull
00:43 < beeli> or not?
00:43 < echarp> it is already useful!!!
00:43 < beeli> for whom?
00:43 < echarp> because I take pleasure in making it
00:43 < beeli> so, you could build sand castles with the same eager?
00:43 < beeli> same reason?
00:43 < echarp> yeap
00:44 < echarp> definitely, I could
00:44 < echarp> hopefully parlement might be more useful in the long term
00:44 < beeli> why did you choose to make this instead of sand castles?
00:44 < beeli> becose of that hope?
00:44 < echarp> because it's also good for my CV
00:44 < echarp> because I consider it potentially useful
00:44 < beeli> so, no dream behind it at all?
00:46 < echarp> is it not a dream to dream of its use?
00:46 < beeli> it is
00:46 < beeli> but what use it is?
00:46 < beeli> what i see the only use now is that you have a fun with it
00:46 < beeli> you never stated more of use
00:47 < echarp> "more of use"???
00:47 < beeli> involving other people
00:47 < beeli> more use
00:47 < beeli> in this moment i see you be selfconsistent
00:48 < echarp> I think I am
00:48 < beeli> that is pretty differnet to my ambisions
00:48 < beeli> where i am not selfconsistent in neaither of them
00:50 < echarp> I hope some other people could find parlement useful
00:50 < echarp> it's one tool, original I believe, and with great potentials
00:50 < beeli> is it importent to you?
00:51 < echarp> it is
00:51 < beeli> i see this be a way of recognision
00:51 < beeli> right?
00:51 < echarp> it might be yes
00:51 < beeli> yet, you do not have political vision involved :(
00:51 < beeli> in the other hand we are complement in this
00:51 < echarp> my political vision is one of freedom, of extreme decentralisatio
00:52 < echarp> of autonomy
00:52 < beeli> yet, that vsion has no much relation to your software or?
00:52 < echarp> panarchy is one thing I like
00:52 < echarp> the software could be a stone in that vision
00:52 < echarp> but the tool could also be used differently
00:53 < echarp> it is mostly agnostic, yet its full potential directs to a panarchy of sorts
00:53 < echarp> maybe not agnostic then
00:53 < echarp> I don't know, would have to think about it
00:54 < beeli> maybe it would be good thing for us
00:54 < beeli> in that way you might get some political eager :)
00:55 < beeli> and interest for creating partnerships and stuff
00:56 < beeli> yet, friend of mine, programer shares pretty many thoughts with you
00:56 < beeli> thnk you would like him :)
00:57 < echarp> possibly yes
00:57 < beeli> he looks at software and moderation model we created only as communication channel
00:58 < beeli> though, as long as we did not prosper in programing he got orieted to TOP
00:59 < beeli> that is not story of you :)
00:59 < echarp> I'm more into T :)
00:59 < beeli> are you finished with avatars?
00:59 < beeli> heh
01:00 < beeli> that is your lack of political knowledgetalking :)
01:01 < echarp> I'm finished yes, finally!!!
01:01 < beeli> cool
01:01 < echarp> struggled with internet explorer and some hairy javascript
01:01 < echarp> I'll probably put it into production this week end
01:01 < echarp> took me 2 weeks more than I thought :(
01:01 < echarp> or 3 even
01:02 < echarp> btw, ever heard of http://www.nationstates.net ?
01:02 < beeli> so, you are finished :)
01:02 < echarp> I am yes, well, production now, publishing a release
01:03 < beeli> no, i havent
01:03 < beeli> what about it?
01:03 < echarp> it's a game, political one
01:04 < echarp> my country, an anarchy btw => http://www.nationstates.net/leparlement
01:04 < echarp> I don't agree with many of the description and settings, yet it's fun
01:05 < beeli> cool
01:05 < echarp> for example they consider that having the 3 possible freedoms is equivalent to anarchy, and that anarchy is equivalent to chaos
01:05 < echarp> I think it's silly
01:06 < beeli> yes
01:07 < beeli> that is hard thing in accepting word freedom in politcs
01:07 < echarp> economic, social, political freedoms
01:08 < beeli> The Holy Republic of Jabaharija
01:08 < echarp> is that yours? :)
01:09 < beeli> yes
01:10 < echarp> what login?
01:11 < beeli> what login?
01:11 < echarp> your nation login
01:11 < echarp> so that I can look it up and see if you are a good leader :)
01:11 < beeli> lol
01:12 < beeli> forget about it
01:12 < echarp> why not?
01:12 < beeli> :/
01:12 < echarp> it's a test
01:12 < echarp> I enjoy playing it twice a day
01:12 < echarp> no more
01:13 < beeli> cool game
01:13 < echarp> ok, Jabaharija works :)
01:13 < beeli> i involved compulsory voting
01:15 < echarp> bad
01:15 < echarp> very very bad, from my POV
01:15 < beeli> pov?
01:17 < echarp> compulsory military service?
01:17 < echarp> POV = point of view
01:17 < beeli> ok
01:17 < beeli> it is up to context ?
01:17 < beeli> :)
01:18 < echarp> compulsory is a word I don't like
01:18 < beeli> in this way we have better picture
01:19 < beeli> neverthless id involve some network decision making anyway
01:20 < echarp> what is that?
01:20 < echarp> seems like a complex concept, again
01:21 < beeli> smartocracy stuff
01:21 < beeli> sd2 stuff
01:21 < beeli> internet democracy actually
01:21 < beeli> direct responsibility of smart people
01:21 < beeli> for political actions
01:21 < echarp> :(
01:21 < beeli> politicians be mediator of power onlt
01:22 < beeli> y
01:22 < echarp> SD2 is so crap, I can't believe you use that term
01:22 < beeli> it is popular
01:22 < echarp> popular???
01:22 < echarp> how is that?
01:22 < echarp> how do you arrive at that conclusion?
01:22 < beeli> like the picture at yahoo groups
01:22 < echarp> how do you arrive at that conclusion?
01:23 < beeli> kidding
01:23 < echarp> :)
01:23 < echarp> and I don't want "direct responsibility of smart people"
01:23 < beeli> though, mark is only oriented to act of direct responsibility
01:23 < echarp> I want decisions by those who will live with the consequences of the decisions
01:23 < echarp> "act of direct responsibility"???
01:24 < echarp> experts I don't care about
01:24 < beeli> you can go against the big faces
01:24 < echarp> I gladly go
01:24 < beeli> if you wish
01:24 < echarp> I very much wish
01:24 < beeli> why is that so?
01:24 < echarp> because I consider that:
01:24 < echarp> I want decisions by those who will live with the consequences of the decisions
01:25 < beeli> what do you know about law?
01:25 < beeli> stuff about delagates it is
01:25 < echarp> I think I know some bits of its theory
01:25 < beeli> not everyobd is willing to take reposnibility
01:25 < echarp> it's not about "taking"
01:25 < beeli> yes it is
01:25 < echarp> it's about living with the consequences
01:25 < beeli> you want to enforce it?
01:26 < echarp> you have it backward
01:26 < beeli> lets be dull and go to war
01:26 < beeli> yey
01:26 < echarp> I want to let decide those who will live with the consequences of a decision
01:26 < echarp> no need to enforce or take responsibility
01:26 < beeli> so, those who are supposed to go to the war are the ones to be asked?
01:26 < echarp> yes!!!
01:27 < echarp> see how easy it is
01:27 < beeli> i am tirs
01:27 < beeli> tired
01:27 < echarp> so I am
01:27 < beeli> go to bad
01:27 < beeli> have a good time tommorow
01:27 < echarp> good night
01:27 < beeli> gonna go now
01:27 < beeli> nite
01:27 < echarp> cu
01:27 -!- beeli [n=ille...@cmung570.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit []
03:58 -!- urgen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit []
04:39 -!- urgen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
22:40 < echarp> hello hello
22:48 < urgen> hi
22:49 < echarp> how are you urgen ?
22:53 < urgen> summer business but still not a lot of productiveness
22:54 < echarp> understandable :)
23:22 < urgen> I can teach you bind9
23:23 < urgen> it is pretty handy to have dns control
23:23 < urgen> but I haven't really tried ezzone or whatever it was called
23:23 < urgen> maybe that's easy too
23:23 < urgen> it had a 5 domain limit per account?
23:23 < echarp> I don't know, it's one of those things you use once then forget
23:23 < echarp> yeap, limits of 5
23:24 < urgen> oh guess I've been adding about two or three domains a month
23:25 < echarp> that's a lot!!!
23:25 < urgen> mostly on voluntary basis too
23:25 < urgen> busy but no (immediate) compensation
23:25 < echarp> bind9 is hosted on your own machine?
23:25 < urgen> favors always pay off in the long run
23:25 < echarp> yeap
23:26 < urgen> ya I'm doing the all in one type setup, db, email, dns, web, etc.
23:26 < urgen> but serverpronto will do secondary dns for free
23:26 < urgen> but you and I can back up each other's dns too
23:28 < echarp> if I ever set my own dns server, that would be nice yes :)
23:28 < urgen> it's not very hard
23:28 < urgen> a little cryptic at first, but then quick to replicate
--- Log closed dim aoû 06 00:00:11 2006
Mark
Aug 6, 2006, 1:13:22 PM8/6/06
to top-politics
[...]
> 00:21 < beeli> lets imagine SD-2 as a way on what public can point out info that it finds an adequate
> 00:22 < beeli> before that we can imagine simple forum where people can openly discuss about anything
> 00:22 < echarp> not SD2!!! not!!![...]
> 00:31 < echarp> makins sure those who will live with consequences decide
> 00:32 < echarp> delegating powers is decentralisation, for a start
> 00:32 < beeli> responsibility you mean?
> 00:32 < beeli> decentralisaion, why?
> 00:33 < beeli> what do we get by decentralisaiotn?
> 00:33 < echarp> we get => those who will live with consequences decide
> 00:21 < beeli> lets imagine SD-2 as a way on what public can point out info that it finds an adequate
> 00:22 < beeli> before that we can imagine simple forum where people can openly discuss about anything
> 00:31 < echarp> makins sure those who will live with consequences decide
> 00:32 < echarp> delegating powers is decentralisation, for a start
> 00:32 < beeli> responsibility you mean?
> 00:32 < beeli> decentralisaion, why?
> 00:33 < beeli> what do we get by decentralisaiotn?
> 00:33 < echarp> we get => those who will live with consequences decide
-M: Emmanuel, even with decentralization, decisions are made by the
collective and not the individual. So we have a degree of
collectiveness regardless, and SD2 addresses this collectiveness with
as much quality filtering as possible.
> 00:33 < echarp> centralisation means taking away decisions
> 00:34 < echarp> centralisation can only be useful when a decision affect everybody
cept, again [...]
> 01:21 < beeli> smartocracy stuff
> 01:21 < beeli> sd2 stuff
> 01:21 < beeli> internet democracy actually
> 01:21 < beeli> direct responsibility of smart people
> 01:21 < beeli> for political actions[...]
> 01:23 < echarp> and I don't want "direct responsibility of smart people"
> 01:23 < beeli> though, mark is only oriented to act of direct responsibility
> 01:23 < echarp> I want decisions by those who will live with the consequences of the decisions[...]
-M: You want democracy - SD2 is democracy which tries to represent the
100% of these people and not just the *50%+1*. Since SD2 is also
republican system, it tries to *see past* the majoritarian inital
inputs and give a more informed and principled decision than what the
lemmings may think that they want for themselves.
> 01:25 < echarp> it's about living with the consequences
> 01:25 < beeli> you want to enforce it?
> 01:26 < echarp> you have it backward
-M: Lemmingist systems have to be enforced.
> 01:26 < beeli> lets be dull and go to war
> 01:26 < beeli> yey
> 01:26 < echarp> I want to let decide those who will live with the consequences of a decision
> 01:26 < echarp> no need to enforce or take responsibility
> 01:26 < beeli> so, those who are supposed to go to the war are the ones to be asked?
> 01:26 < echarp> yes!!!
> 01:27 < echarp> see how easy it is[...]
-M: See, that has to be enforced.
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA
echarp
Aug 6, 2006, 1:43:10 PM8/6/06
to top-po...@googlegroups.com
On Sun, Aug 06, 2006 at 10:13:22AM -0700, Mark wrote:
> Lemmingist systems have to be enforced.
> Lemmingist systems have to be enforced.
I'm sorry, but considering yourself a democrat while showing only
contempt and insults for the demos, is just too much for me.
Oh, and true democracy is generally a name given to direct democracy.
echarp - http://leparlement.org
echarp
Aug 7, 2006, 12:29:02 AM8/7/06
to top-politics
--- Log opened dim aoû 06 00:00:11 2006
16:08 -!- cnloyd (New Now Know How) [n=chat...@adsl-69-150-34-165.dsl.hstntx.swbell.net] has joined #parlement
16:39 < urgen> morning cn
16:42 < echarp> good afternoon urgen
16:43 < urgen> ya, over there
16:46 < cnloyd> Hey
16:46 < echarp> hello cnloyd
16:47 < cnloyd> Wait, isn't Urgen in the west USA? It should be early morning over there.
16:47 < urgen> I'm about 3/4 way through Rainbow's End, still quite enjoyable and refreshing
16:47 < urgen> yes
16:47 < echarp> the world is a small village
16:47 < urgen> echarp was afternooning from eu pov
16:48 < cnloyd> Cool. I started reading Accelerando at work, but chapter 3 was not safe for work.
16:48 < urgen> eep :-)
16:48 < cnloyd> I remember echarp being somewhere in central/eastern eu
16:48 < cnloyd> It was all text, but I didn't want to take the chance.
16:48 < cnloyd> I started reading an on-line comic, but that became unsafe for work, too!
16:48 < cnloyd> GRRR, should stick with paper-based non-fiction.
16:49 < echarp> paris here
16:49 < urgen> you mean just during your break time, right?
16:49 < cnloyd> Reading?
16:49 < cnloyd> I read during break, and whenever the drafting software gets bogged down in some task.
16:49 < cnloyd> Like, loading aerial photos. That can easily take an hour.
16:50 < urgen> they on a mac?
16:51 < echarp> urgen: are you speaking from an amercian perspective? where working time is non stop and non fun?
16:51 < urgen> I am speaking from a life's experience of bosses with 'nose to the grindstone' philosophy
16:52 < urgen> personally, I'd think a fresh mind works much more efficiently
16:52 < cnloyd> Windows. Hey, my workplace is full of stopping and fun. The machines get bogged down running a process, and there nothing else to do but throw paper airplanes and socialize.
16:53 < echarp> me I spend many hours at the work place, and I tend to use some of my time for personal matters too
16:53 < echarp> the opposite is true during the week end
16:54 < cnloyd> Agree with urgen. Working non-stop for a four-hour stretch, hour lunch, and then another four hours of work, is OK. Problems come when its 12 hours of non-stop work, working while eating, etc.
16:57 < echarp> do you tend to also switch off your personal phone?
16:57 < echarp> to not read your own mail?
16:58 < urgen> my cell is my work phone, since I'm a consultant
16:58 < urgen> and I don't read personal email at a client's location
16:59 < urgen> I so take calls there, tho
17:01 < cnloyd> My phone is on vibrate, but everyone takes personal calls.
17:01 < cnloyd> I don't read mail on my phone, but I do check it at work, as does everyone else.
17:02 < echarp> same with me
17:02 < echarp> I use my personal computers for work
17:05 < cnloyd> Just updated my blog. I don't think urgen cares, but echarp might.
17:05 < urgen> hee
17:06 < urgen> blog once meant 'log of web explorations' not a newscolumn
17:06 < urgen> don't know how that changed
17:06 < cnloyd> "Web Explorations"?
17:06 < echarp> cnloyd: where is it?
17:06 < urgen> web log
17:06 < cnloyd> spacearch.blogspot.com
17:06 < urgen> we blog
17:07 < urgen> the trail you leave as you scan the net looking for stuff
17:07 < urgen> when you found significant things you'd log it
17:07 < cnloyd> Well, the /w/ sound in English is fairly week...so it makes sense that weblog becomes just blog.
17:07 < urgen> and then, could share that list with others
17:07 < cnloyd> Hey, today I shared a highly entertaining <sarcasm> report about Human Space Factors.
17:07 < cnloyd> I linked a whole damn book.
17:11 < echarp> I see it's a blog all about space
17:13 < cnloyd> You actually read it?
17:15 < echarp> yeap
17:16 < echarp> you space freaks, when do you think we will finally use artificial gravity up there?
17:16 < echarp> :)
17:16 < echarp> (I also have a degree of mechanical engineering ;)
17:16 < cnloyd> When it becomes cheaper than giving astronauts diet supplements and having them on an excercise routine.
17:16 < urgen> that cable elevator thing had a setback didn't it?
17:17 * urgen seems to remember something about it in the news
17:17 < cnloyd> It did? I haven't followed recent developments. Been trying to understand it from...a basic (need better word) point of view.
17:17 < cnloyd> That is, I want to know more about how the space elevator works.
17:17 < echarp> they found ways to manufacture better nano tubes
17:18 < cnloyd> Up to a meter long, last I heard.
17:18 < echarp> but it's still far far from the required tensile strength
17:18 < cnloyd> Still fragile.
17:18 < echarp> but a great research area
17:19 < cnloyd> It does look promising. Getting into space cheaply is the first step. Signs that I got into the wrong major a while ago.
17:21 < echarp> your major was?
17:24 < cnloyd> Architecture.
17:24 < cnloyd> Wanted to design buildings.
17:30 < echarp> you have to design moon buildings then ;)
17:30 < cnloyd> Echarp: live within or outside Periphique (misspelled, I know)
17:30 < cnloyd> Moon is hard. Harder than Mars.
17:30 < cnloyd> Moon has glass shards as "dirt"
17:30 < cnloyd> Gets in everything.
17:30 < cnloyd> No radiation protection, unless you go underground.
17:31 < echarp> I live inside the périphérique
17:31 < echarp> "intra muros"
17:31 < cnloyd> Which means digging through dozens of meters of glass shard dirt.
17:31 < cnloyd> Cool. I spent three days in Paris in 2002. Slept at a hotel on Rue d'Amsterdam.
17:31 < cnloyd> Near Gar du Nord (?)
17:31 < cnloyd> And Palais Garnier.
17:33 < echarp> I'm not very far to the eiffel tower
17:34 < echarp> digging would be very hard?
17:35 < echarp> and is it really required?
17:36 < cnloyd> For Radiation protection, yeah.
17:36 < cnloyd> Or, piling a whole bunch of dirt on top of the building.
17:37 < cnloyd> You want to shield as much Gamma Radaition as possible.
17:37 < cnloyd> The Van Allen Belts and atmosphere do the job for humans on Earth.
17:37 < cnloyd> Moon has neither Van Allen Belts or atmosphere.
17:38 < echarp> any chance to, one day, use some kind of man made magnetic shielding?
17:38 < echarp> a big magnet underneath the building :)
17:38 < cnloyd> You're also totally exposed to Corona Mass Ejections.
17:38 < cnloyd> ...to create an artificial Van Allen Belt?
17:38 < echarp> of sorts
17:39 < echarp> I don't the nature of that belt, I know it generates a sink at the poles, which create beautiful outbursts
17:39 < cnloyd> Auroura
17:39 < cnloyd> Often seen following a CME.
17:40 < cnloyd> Moon doesn't have that, although shielding from CMEs is much easier than shielding from GCR.
17:40 < cnloyd> Shielding from GCR is do-able, at all, on Moon and Mars.
17:41 < cnloyd> Currently not so out in space.
17:41 < cnloyd> Unless you packed a whole bunch of lead out the outside of your ship.
17:41 < echarp> yeap, 50 rems per year ;)
17:41 < echarp> can't use water either?
17:41 < cnloyd> Water useful for CME.
17:41 < cnloyd> Blocks the beta radiation.
17:41 < cnloyd> Gamma passes through almost everything.
17:42 < cnloyd> And, even better, it ionizes.
17:42 < cnloyd> And sends out more radiation from whatever object got ionized.
17:42 < cnloyd> It's raining radiation right now on us.
17:42 < cnloyd> But, we humans have always lived thus.
17:42 < echarp> how many rem do we get right now?
17:42 * urgen out
17:42 < cnloyd> Depends on where you live.
17:43 < cnloyd> I get about 1.1 or so in Houston.
17:43 < cnloyd> American average is about 1.0
17:43 < echarp> I know that those radiations can do all kinds of tricks
17:43 < cnloyd> Parts of Italy and Iran get 5 or so.
17:46 < cnloyd> People who live in the Ural Mountains get 500 mSv.
17:48 < cnloyd> Which is about 5 rem.
17:48 < cnloyd> I had my units mixed up.
17:48 < cnloyd> 1.1 mSv in Houston is like 0.011 rem
17:48 < cnloyd> Radiation is tricky. Sometimes helpful, sometimes not.
17:49 < echarp> plus it can have or not consequences
17:49 < echarp> the skin can be thick :)
17:50 < cnloyd> That's right. Not everyone at Chernobyl got cancer.
17:51 < cnloyd> I'm going to watch so more of a video about radiation.
17:51 < echarp> that's one example
17:51 < echarp> and what about medical research to diminish the consequence?
17:57 < cnloyd> Little that I'm aware of. Sometimes cells detect defective/damage cells, and kill them off, before they reproduce without limits.
17:59 < cnloyd> I need to go. Will be back later, though I will be away from the computer much of the time. Nice talking to you. Hope to talk further later this day 6 August, which should still be your evening.
17:59 -!- cnloyd [n=chat...@adsl-69-150-34-165.dsl.hstntx.swbell.net] has quit ["ChatZilla 0.9.61 [Mozilla rv:1.7.13/20060414]"]
21:02 -!- fiatlex [n=b...@tridity.org] has quit [Remote closed the connection]
21:11 -!- cnloyd (New Now Know How) [n=chat...@adsl-69-150-34-165.dsl.hstntx.swbell.net] has joined #parlement
21:11 < cnloyd:#parlement> Hello, everyone.
21:12 < cnloyd:#parlement> The sun is setting by now, in Paris.
21:12 < cnloyd:#parlement> Lunchtime in California.
21:27 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
21:27 < echarp> hello cnloyd
21:27 < cnloyd> Hi. Is Paris still under a heat wave? It's usually in the 30s C here.
21:28 < echarp> the heat wave was last week
21:28 < echarp> those last days have in fact been quite chilly
21:31 < cnloyd> July and August are usually the hottest time of year. Is the city still under a vacation/holiday?
21:35 < echarp> definitely
21:35 < echarp> august is peculiar in france, it's the period when most are on vacation
21:35 < echarp> paris is all the better without all those stressed parisians :)
21:35 < echarp> pesky parisians!
21:39 < cnloyd> You're not from Paris yourself?
21:39 < cnloyd> Originally, I mean.
21:43 < echarp> countryside
21:43 < echarp> I'm originally a peasant
21:48 < cnloyd> France still has peasants? The US lost its peasantry class during the Great Depression and World War II.
21:49 < echarp> huge number of farmers here yes
21:49 < echarp> heavily subsidised of course
21:49 < cnloyd> Family-owned? Not Corporate?
21:49 < echarp> family
21:49 < echarp> the old kind, tens of hectares each
21:49 < echarp> nothing like the US corporations
21:51 < cnloyd> Farming entered a depression in the US back in the 1920s. Some might argue that it is still under a depression.
21:52 < echarp> anyway, us rich countries, it's only our subsidies which destroy the agricultural world free market
21:52 < cnloyd> Food production is so cheap now, that subsidies only aggravate what would happen anyway.
21:53 < echarp> they make sure third world countries can't compete
21:54 < cnloyd> Third world countries would have a hard time anyway. It's not like being a subsistence farmer in the US is easy either.
21:55 < echarp> they could actually sell on the world market
21:55 < echarp> while the subsidies make it so *we* sell them what they ought to sell us
21:58 < cnloyd> No one had ought to sell anyone anything.
22:01 < echarp> you mean, no free market?
22:01 < cnloyd> I mean, one can sell what one wants to, but no one should be compelled into selling.
22:01 < cnloyd> In an ideal setting.
22:02 < cnloyd> The third world should not be compelled to sell its agricultural products to the US.
22:02 < echarp> well, it's an interconnected small planet nowadays
22:03 < echarp> and many economies can not stand on their own
22:03 < cnloyd> It's been thus for centuries. The Romans got their silk from somewhere.
22:03 < echarp> particularly after centuries of slavery and colonisation :(
22:04 < cnloyd> No economy can be isolated (ex, North Korea)
22:04 < echarp> I agree
22:04 < echarp> well, it can/could be, but it's not very interesting
22:05 < cnloyd> One can also say that the economy of Earth is isolated from any other planets that may have its own economy.
22:05 < echarp> :)
22:05 < echarp> true
22:06 < cnloyd> I've hung around people who think that economy == everything about a society, and their ideas are sterile and immobile.
22:06 < echarp> culture is more important in my eyes
22:06 < echarp> economy being merely the science of choice
22:07 < cnloyd> Economy can indicate what people value in inaminate objects (food, cars, real estate), but then some people cannot comprehend things like the Wikipedia.
22:07 < cnloyd> People doing work, creating value, and asking for almost nothing in return.
22:08 < echarp> we are, maybe, getting in a gift economy
22:08 < echarp> I would love love love that!
22:08 < echarp> no more thinking in scarcity terms
22:08 < echarp> no more stupid consumerism
22:08 < cnloyd> Which scares some people. I have a friend who works in video, and people are creating their own videos. He has trouble finding work, and thinks that the quality of video will go down. I say, "If people cannot see quality, then what does it matter that it goes down?"
22:09 < echarp> exactly!
22:09 < cnloyd> Find the people who DO seek quality, and deal with them directly.
22:09 < echarp> there are six billions people, quality *will* emerge
22:10 < cnloyd> It's the same in architecture. 99.9% of people don't care about the quality of their houses. Find the 0.1% who DO.
22:11 < cnloyd> On a lighter note: "Coup de Boule" is becoming popular in the US.
22:11 < echarp> and even if it is 0.0001% who do, it's still a lot
22:11 < cnloyd> Thanks France.
22:11 < echarp> lol
22:11 < echarp> vive zidane! :)
22:12 < echarp> do you actually speak about that head butt?
22:12 < cnloyd> Yes. People watch the video of Zidane knocking the guy down, over and over.
22:12 < cnloyd> They think it's funny.
22:12 < cnloyd> French culture can enter the US. It just has to be as dumb as the US culture!
22:13 < echarp> lol
22:13 < echarp> have no worry, we can compete with anything US, we can try anyway!
22:14 < echarp> zidane will probably go down in history for his personality, and that gesture
22:14 < echarp> quite an end to a carreer
22:15 < cnloyd> Soccer may never become that popular here in the states. It has to compete with the ANNUAL SUPER FABULOUS EXTRAVAGANZA MARKETING FANDAGO FUN FUN FUN TIME known as the Super Bowl.
22:16 < cnloyd> It's up there with Christmas and the 4th of July.
22:17 < cnloyd> Imagine an annual World Cup, compressed into a six-hour period.
22:17 < echarp> and you had such a great game, base ball!
22:17 < cnloyd> It's OK.
22:17 < cnloyd> It's more of a northeastern game.
22:17 < cnloyd> Yankees, Sox, etc. These are industrial city teams.
22:17 < echarp> anyway, getting so passionated on what are just games, is probably too much
22:18 < cnloyd> A symptom in the decline of religion?
22:18 < echarp> if only!
22:18 < echarp> a consequence to the international treaties which allow one to own "videos"
22:18 < cnloyd> Bah. That's why I stopped watching the Olympics.
22:18 < echarp> you own, you restrict, image can become an incredible merchandise
22:19 < echarp> olympics are supposedly amateur
22:19 < cnloyd> Couldn't watch German TV during the Olympics, or the World Cup.
22:19 < cnloyd> I refuse to watch Olympics.
22:21 < echarp> I don't refuse, I mostly am not much interested
22:21 < echarp> I'd rather watch great documentaries showing the impact of games on the world :)
22:22 < cnloyd> I'd rather watch anime about people who vie for political power, and how they try to get it.
22:23 < echarp> south park? :)
22:24 < cnloyd> Er, sometimes. "Legends of Galactic Heroes" is what I watch currently.
22:24 * echarp doesn't know that one
22:24 < echarp> SF?
22:24 < cnloyd> Yeah, but it was made the late-1980s.
22:25 < cnloyd> Technology is not the issue. Centuries-long warfare is.
22:25 < cnloyd> Society is frozen in a sort of very late Cold War mindset.
22:26 < echarp> strange that I haven't heard of it!
22:26 < echarp> I'd love to get some of the US channels over here
22:27 < cnloyd> It's Japanese, not American. You have to download it. The best US channels, in my opinion, are The Weather Channel, the Sci-Fi Channel, Discovery, History, and USA.
22:31 < echarp> undertones of star wars?
22:31 < cnloyd> Not really. More like the Hundred Years War, or the Russian-Japanese War of 1905. In space.
22:32 < cnloyd> One side is like Germany in the 1890s. The other side is like the Soviet Union in the 1980s.
22:32 < cnloyd> Equal technology.
22:32 < cnloyd> But different cultures.
22:34 < echarp> downloading right now ;)
22:38 < cnloyd> Warning. It's very talky.
22:38 < cnloyd> But you seem like a smart guy, so that shouldn't bother you.
22:38 < echarp> :)
22:39 < echarp> hopefully it's not in japanese :)
22:43 < cnloyd> The audio is, but the subtitles are in English.
--- Log closed lun aoû 07 00:00:11 2006
16:08 -!- cnloyd (New Now Know How) [n=chat...@adsl-69-150-34-165.dsl.hstntx.swbell.net] has joined #parlement
16:39 < urgen> morning cn
16:42 < echarp> good afternoon urgen
16:43 < urgen> ya, over there
16:46 < cnloyd> Hey
16:46 < echarp> hello cnloyd
16:47 < cnloyd> Wait, isn't Urgen in the west USA? It should be early morning over there.
16:47 < urgen> I'm about 3/4 way through Rainbow's End, still quite enjoyable and refreshing
16:47 < urgen> yes
16:47 < echarp> the world is a small village
16:47 < urgen> echarp was afternooning from eu pov
16:48 < cnloyd> Cool. I started reading Accelerando at work, but chapter 3 was not safe for work.
16:48 < urgen> eep :-)
16:48 < cnloyd> I remember echarp being somewhere in central/eastern eu
16:48 < cnloyd> It was all text, but I didn't want to take the chance.
16:48 < cnloyd> I started reading an on-line comic, but that became unsafe for work, too!
16:48 < cnloyd> GRRR, should stick with paper-based non-fiction.
16:49 < echarp> paris here
16:49 < urgen> you mean just during your break time, right?
16:49 < cnloyd> Reading?
16:49 < cnloyd> I read during break, and whenever the drafting software gets bogged down in some task.
16:49 < cnloyd> Like, loading aerial photos. That can easily take an hour.
16:50 < urgen> they on a mac?
16:51 < echarp> urgen: are you speaking from an amercian perspective? where working time is non stop and non fun?
16:51 < urgen> I am speaking from a life's experience of bosses with 'nose to the grindstone' philosophy
16:52 < urgen> personally, I'd think a fresh mind works much more efficiently
16:52 < cnloyd> Windows. Hey, my workplace is full of stopping and fun. The machines get bogged down running a process, and there nothing else to do but throw paper airplanes and socialize.
16:53 < echarp> me I spend many hours at the work place, and I tend to use some of my time for personal matters too
16:53 < echarp> the opposite is true during the week end
16:54 < cnloyd> Agree with urgen. Working non-stop for a four-hour stretch, hour lunch, and then another four hours of work, is OK. Problems come when its 12 hours of non-stop work, working while eating, etc.
16:57 < echarp> do you tend to also switch off your personal phone?
16:57 < echarp> to not read your own mail?
16:58 < urgen> my cell is my work phone, since I'm a consultant
16:58 < urgen> and I don't read personal email at a client's location
16:59 < urgen> I so take calls there, tho
17:01 < cnloyd> My phone is on vibrate, but everyone takes personal calls.
17:01 < cnloyd> I don't read mail on my phone, but I do check it at work, as does everyone else.
17:02 < echarp> same with me
17:02 < echarp> I use my personal computers for work
17:05 < cnloyd> Just updated my blog. I don't think urgen cares, but echarp might.
17:05 < urgen> hee
17:06 < urgen> blog once meant 'log of web explorations' not a newscolumn
17:06 < urgen> don't know how that changed
17:06 < cnloyd> "Web Explorations"?
17:06 < echarp> cnloyd: where is it?
17:06 < urgen> web log
17:06 < cnloyd> spacearch.blogspot.com
17:06 < urgen> we blog
17:07 < urgen> the trail you leave as you scan the net looking for stuff
17:07 < urgen> when you found significant things you'd log it
17:07 < cnloyd> Well, the /w/ sound in English is fairly week...so it makes sense that weblog becomes just blog.
17:07 < urgen> and then, could share that list with others
17:07 < cnloyd> Hey, today I shared a highly entertaining <sarcasm> report about Human Space Factors.
17:07 < cnloyd> I linked a whole damn book.
17:11 < echarp> I see it's a blog all about space
17:13 < cnloyd> You actually read it?
17:15 < echarp> yeap
17:16 < echarp> you space freaks, when do you think we will finally use artificial gravity up there?
17:16 < echarp> :)
17:16 < echarp> (I also have a degree of mechanical engineering ;)
17:16 < cnloyd> When it becomes cheaper than giving astronauts diet supplements and having them on an excercise routine.
17:16 < urgen> that cable elevator thing had a setback didn't it?
17:17 * urgen seems to remember something about it in the news
17:17 < cnloyd> It did? I haven't followed recent developments. Been trying to understand it from...a basic (need better word) point of view.
17:17 < cnloyd> That is, I want to know more about how the space elevator works.
17:17 < echarp> they found ways to manufacture better nano tubes
17:18 < cnloyd> Up to a meter long, last I heard.
17:18 < echarp> but it's still far far from the required tensile strength
17:18 < cnloyd> Still fragile.
17:18 < echarp> but a great research area
17:19 < cnloyd> It does look promising. Getting into space cheaply is the first step. Signs that I got into the wrong major a while ago.
17:21 < echarp> your major was?
17:24 < cnloyd> Architecture.
17:24 < cnloyd> Wanted to design buildings.
17:30 < echarp> you have to design moon buildings then ;)
17:30 < cnloyd> Echarp: live within or outside Periphique (misspelled, I know)
17:30 < cnloyd> Moon is hard. Harder than Mars.
17:30 < cnloyd> Moon has glass shards as "dirt"
17:30 < cnloyd> Gets in everything.
17:30 < cnloyd> No radiation protection, unless you go underground.
17:31 < echarp> I live inside the périphérique
17:31 < echarp> "intra muros"
17:31 < cnloyd> Which means digging through dozens of meters of glass shard dirt.
17:31 < cnloyd> Cool. I spent three days in Paris in 2002. Slept at a hotel on Rue d'Amsterdam.
17:31 < cnloyd> Near Gar du Nord (?)
17:31 < cnloyd> And Palais Garnier.
17:33 < echarp> I'm not very far to the eiffel tower
17:34 < echarp> digging would be very hard?
17:35 < echarp> and is it really required?
17:36 < cnloyd> For Radiation protection, yeah.
17:36 < cnloyd> Or, piling a whole bunch of dirt on top of the building.
17:37 < cnloyd> You want to shield as much Gamma Radaition as possible.
17:37 < cnloyd> The Van Allen Belts and atmosphere do the job for humans on Earth.
17:37 < cnloyd> Moon has neither Van Allen Belts or atmosphere.
17:38 < echarp> any chance to, one day, use some kind of man made magnetic shielding?
17:38 < echarp> a big magnet underneath the building :)
17:38 < cnloyd> You're also totally exposed to Corona Mass Ejections.
17:38 < cnloyd> ...to create an artificial Van Allen Belt?
17:38 < echarp> of sorts
17:39 < echarp> I don't the nature of that belt, I know it generates a sink at the poles, which create beautiful outbursts
17:39 < cnloyd> Auroura
17:39 < cnloyd> Often seen following a CME.
17:40 < cnloyd> Moon doesn't have that, although shielding from CMEs is much easier than shielding from GCR.
17:40 < cnloyd> Shielding from GCR is do-able, at all, on Moon and Mars.
17:41 < cnloyd> Currently not so out in space.
17:41 < cnloyd> Unless you packed a whole bunch of lead out the outside of your ship.
17:41 < echarp> yeap, 50 rems per year ;)
17:41 < echarp> can't use water either?
17:41 < cnloyd> Water useful for CME.
17:41 < cnloyd> Blocks the beta radiation.
17:41 < cnloyd> Gamma passes through almost everything.
17:42 < cnloyd> And, even better, it ionizes.
17:42 < cnloyd> And sends out more radiation from whatever object got ionized.
17:42 < cnloyd> It's raining radiation right now on us.
17:42 < cnloyd> But, we humans have always lived thus.
17:42 < echarp> how many rem do we get right now?
17:42 * urgen out
17:42 < cnloyd> Depends on where you live.
17:43 < cnloyd> I get about 1.1 or so in Houston.
17:43 < cnloyd> American average is about 1.0
17:43 < echarp> I know that those radiations can do all kinds of tricks
17:43 < cnloyd> Parts of Italy and Iran get 5 or so.
17:46 < cnloyd> People who live in the Ural Mountains get 500 mSv.
17:48 < cnloyd> Which is about 5 rem.
17:48 < cnloyd> I had my units mixed up.
17:48 < cnloyd> 1.1 mSv in Houston is like 0.011 rem
17:48 < cnloyd> Radiation is tricky. Sometimes helpful, sometimes not.
17:49 < echarp> plus it can have or not consequences
17:49 < echarp> the skin can be thick :)
17:50 < cnloyd> That's right. Not everyone at Chernobyl got cancer.
17:51 < cnloyd> I'm going to watch so more of a video about radiation.
17:51 < echarp> that's one example
17:51 < echarp> and what about medical research to diminish the consequence?
17:57 < cnloyd> Little that I'm aware of. Sometimes cells detect defective/damage cells, and kill them off, before they reproduce without limits.
17:59 < cnloyd> I need to go. Will be back later, though I will be away from the computer much of the time. Nice talking to you. Hope to talk further later this day 6 August, which should still be your evening.
17:59 -!- cnloyd [n=chat...@adsl-69-150-34-165.dsl.hstntx.swbell.net] has quit ["ChatZilla 0.9.61 [Mozilla rv:1.7.13/20060414]"]
21:02 -!- fiatlex [n=b...@tridity.org] has quit [Remote closed the connection]
21:11 -!- cnloyd (New Now Know How) [n=chat...@adsl-69-150-34-165.dsl.hstntx.swbell.net] has joined #parlement
21:11 < cnloyd:#parlement> Hello, everyone.
21:12 < cnloyd:#parlement> The sun is setting by now, in Paris.
21:12 < cnloyd:#parlement> Lunchtime in California.
21:27 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
21:27 < echarp> hello cnloyd
21:27 < cnloyd> Hi. Is Paris still under a heat wave? It's usually in the 30s C here.
21:28 < echarp> the heat wave was last week
21:28 < echarp> those last days have in fact been quite chilly
21:31 < cnloyd> July and August are usually the hottest time of year. Is the city still under a vacation/holiday?
21:35 < echarp> definitely
21:35 < echarp> august is peculiar in france, it's the period when most are on vacation
21:35 < echarp> paris is all the better without all those stressed parisians :)
21:35 < echarp> pesky parisians!
21:39 < cnloyd> You're not from Paris yourself?
21:39 < cnloyd> Originally, I mean.
21:43 < echarp> countryside
21:43 < echarp> I'm originally a peasant
21:48 < cnloyd> France still has peasants? The US lost its peasantry class during the Great Depression and World War II.
21:49 < echarp> huge number of farmers here yes
21:49 < echarp> heavily subsidised of course
21:49 < cnloyd> Family-owned? Not Corporate?
21:49 < echarp> family
21:49 < echarp> the old kind, tens of hectares each
21:49 < echarp> nothing like the US corporations
21:51 < cnloyd> Farming entered a depression in the US back in the 1920s. Some might argue that it is still under a depression.
21:52 < echarp> anyway, us rich countries, it's only our subsidies which destroy the agricultural world free market
21:52 < cnloyd> Food production is so cheap now, that subsidies only aggravate what would happen anyway.
21:53 < echarp> they make sure third world countries can't compete
21:54 < cnloyd> Third world countries would have a hard time anyway. It's not like being a subsistence farmer in the US is easy either.
21:55 < echarp> they could actually sell on the world market
21:55 < echarp> while the subsidies make it so *we* sell them what they ought to sell us
21:58 < cnloyd> No one had ought to sell anyone anything.
22:01 < echarp> you mean, no free market?
22:01 < cnloyd> I mean, one can sell what one wants to, but no one should be compelled into selling.
22:01 < cnloyd> In an ideal setting.
22:02 < cnloyd> The third world should not be compelled to sell its agricultural products to the US.
22:02 < echarp> well, it's an interconnected small planet nowadays
22:03 < echarp> and many economies can not stand on their own
22:03 < cnloyd> It's been thus for centuries. The Romans got their silk from somewhere.
22:03 < echarp> particularly after centuries of slavery and colonisation :(
22:04 < cnloyd> No economy can be isolated (ex, North Korea)
22:04 < echarp> I agree
22:04 < echarp> well, it can/could be, but it's not very interesting
22:05 < cnloyd> One can also say that the economy of Earth is isolated from any other planets that may have its own economy.
22:05 < echarp> :)
22:05 < echarp> true
22:06 < cnloyd> I've hung around people who think that economy == everything about a society, and their ideas are sterile and immobile.
22:06 < echarp> culture is more important in my eyes
22:06 < echarp> economy being merely the science of choice
22:07 < cnloyd> Economy can indicate what people value in inaminate objects (food, cars, real estate), but then some people cannot comprehend things like the Wikipedia.
22:07 < cnloyd> People doing work, creating value, and asking for almost nothing in return.
22:08 < echarp> we are, maybe, getting in a gift economy
22:08 < echarp> I would love love love that!
22:08 < echarp> no more thinking in scarcity terms
22:08 < echarp> no more stupid consumerism
22:08 < cnloyd> Which scares some people. I have a friend who works in video, and people are creating their own videos. He has trouble finding work, and thinks that the quality of video will go down. I say, "If people cannot see quality, then what does it matter that it goes down?"
22:09 < echarp> exactly!
22:09 < cnloyd> Find the people who DO seek quality, and deal with them directly.
22:09 < echarp> there are six billions people, quality *will* emerge
22:10 < cnloyd> It's the same in architecture. 99.9% of people don't care about the quality of their houses. Find the 0.1% who DO.
22:11 < cnloyd> On a lighter note: "Coup de Boule" is becoming popular in the US.
22:11 < echarp> and even if it is 0.0001% who do, it's still a lot
22:11 < cnloyd> Thanks France.
22:11 < echarp> lol
22:11 < echarp> vive zidane! :)
22:12 < echarp> do you actually speak about that head butt?
22:12 < cnloyd> Yes. People watch the video of Zidane knocking the guy down, over and over.
22:12 < cnloyd> They think it's funny.
22:12 < cnloyd> French culture can enter the US. It just has to be as dumb as the US culture!
22:13 < echarp> lol
22:13 < echarp> have no worry, we can compete with anything US, we can try anyway!
22:14 < echarp> zidane will probably go down in history for his personality, and that gesture
22:14 < echarp> quite an end to a carreer
22:15 < cnloyd> Soccer may never become that popular here in the states. It has to compete with the ANNUAL SUPER FABULOUS EXTRAVAGANZA MARKETING FANDAGO FUN FUN FUN TIME known as the Super Bowl.
22:16 < cnloyd> It's up there with Christmas and the 4th of July.
22:17 < cnloyd> Imagine an annual World Cup, compressed into a six-hour period.
22:17 < echarp> and you had such a great game, base ball!
22:17 < cnloyd> It's OK.
22:17 < cnloyd> It's more of a northeastern game.
22:17 < cnloyd> Yankees, Sox, etc. These are industrial city teams.
22:17 < echarp> anyway, getting so passionated on what are just games, is probably too much
22:18 < cnloyd> A symptom in the decline of religion?
22:18 < echarp> if only!
22:18 < echarp> a consequence to the international treaties which allow one to own "videos"
22:18 < cnloyd> Bah. That's why I stopped watching the Olympics.
22:18 < echarp> you own, you restrict, image can become an incredible merchandise
22:19 < echarp> olympics are supposedly amateur
22:19 < cnloyd> Couldn't watch German TV during the Olympics, or the World Cup.
22:19 < cnloyd> I refuse to watch Olympics.
22:21 < echarp> I don't refuse, I mostly am not much interested
22:21 < echarp> I'd rather watch great documentaries showing the impact of games on the world :)
22:22 < cnloyd> I'd rather watch anime about people who vie for political power, and how they try to get it.
22:23 < echarp> south park? :)
22:24 < cnloyd> Er, sometimes. "Legends of Galactic Heroes" is what I watch currently.
22:24 * echarp doesn't know that one
22:24 < echarp> SF?
22:24 < cnloyd> Yeah, but it was made the late-1980s.
22:25 < cnloyd> Technology is not the issue. Centuries-long warfare is.
22:25 < cnloyd> Society is frozen in a sort of very late Cold War mindset.
22:26 < echarp> strange that I haven't heard of it!
22:26 < echarp> I'd love to get some of the US channels over here
22:27 < cnloyd> It's Japanese, not American. You have to download it. The best US channels, in my opinion, are The Weather Channel, the Sci-Fi Channel, Discovery, History, and USA.
22:31 < echarp> undertones of star wars?
22:31 < cnloyd> Not really. More like the Hundred Years War, or the Russian-Japanese War of 1905. In space.
22:32 < cnloyd> One side is like Germany in the 1890s. The other side is like the Soviet Union in the 1980s.
22:32 < cnloyd> Equal technology.
22:32 < cnloyd> But different cultures.
22:34 < echarp> downloading right now ;)
22:38 < cnloyd> Warning. It's very talky.
22:38 < cnloyd> But you seem like a smart guy, so that shouldn't bother you.
22:38 < echarp> :)
22:39 < echarp> hopefully it's not in japanese :)
22:43 < cnloyd> The audio is, but the subtitles are in English.
--- Log closed lun aoû 07 00:00:11 2006
Mark
Aug 7, 2006, 4:38:50 PM8/7/06
to top-politics
echarp wrote:
>Mark wrote:
> > Lemmingist systems have to be enforced.
>ec: I'm sorry, but considering yourself a democrat while showing only contempt and insults for the demos, is just too much for me.
-M:"...contempt and insults..."
Au contraire mon frare - I love the lemmings dearly, and I don't want
to see them hurt themselves AGAIN, as with the election of the
Bushmonkey, slavery in the American South, and the rise of Nazi Germany
-
all POPULIST degeneracies and NOT republican.
>ec: Oh, and true democracy is generally a name given to direct democracy.
-M: Thats the name that populists give democracy.
Republicans know better.
echarp
Aug 8, 2006, 12:30:47 AM8/8/06
to top-politics
--- Log opened lun aoû 07 00:00:11 2006
00:30 -!- cnloyd [n=chat...@adsl-69-150-34-165.dsl.hstntx.swbell.net] has quit ["ChatZilla 0.9.61 [Mozilla rv:1.7.13/20060414]"]
16:55 -!- beeli (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung3098.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
16:55 < beeli:#parlement> oi
16:55 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
16:55 < echarp> hello hello beeli, how are you?
16:56 < beeli> good
16:57 < beeli> you
16:57 < beeli> ?
16:57 < echarp> fine fine, just the bloody rain, and I forgot to close my windows this morning :(
16:57 < echarp> speak a peasant descendant!!!
16:58 < beeli> :)
16:58 < beeli> oike this rainy part
16:58 < beeli> loike
16:58 < beeli> like
16:58 < beeli> i like it
16:59 < echarp> lol
16:59 < echarp> I like it too, when I don't have to go under it and my windows are closed :)
16:59 < beeli> heh
17:02 < beeli> whats up with parlement?
17:02 < echarp> code has been committed
17:02 < echarp> I need to put it onto leparlement.org
17:05 < beeli> code for avatars?
17:07 < echarp> yeap
17:07 < beeli> what next?
17:08 < echarp> filters
17:08 < echarp> but not electoral list, yet, it's just too much work in one go
17:11 < beeli> what filers excatly?
17:11 < beeli> that everyone can set it for public?
17:11 < beeli> meybe :)
17:16 < echarp> personal filters
17:16 < echarp> everybody can vote on elements
17:16 < echarp> everyone can set a filter to hide elements below some threshold
17:16 < echarp> it should be rather simple to implement
17:17 < beeli> can you make it be public easily
17:17 < beeli> ?
17:17 < beeli> that i can use your filter for certain area if i am fine with it?
17:17 < echarp> no
17:18 < beeli> what is the problem?
17:18 < echarp> I only envision it as a personal filter
17:18 < beeli> can you envision diferent;y?
17:18 < echarp> well, I feel like it's personal
17:18 < echarp> of course I could
17:18 < echarp> but to me those filters are not that important
17:19 < beeli> to me this publc option is extremely importent
17:19 < beeli> it actually does not exist around
17:19 < echarp> someone with time and energy will use a very low filter to see everything, someone else might only want those highly appreciated
17:20 < beeli> do what you think it is right :)
17:20 < echarp> using someone's filter seems strange, votes are the tool used to say if something is worthwhile or not
17:20 < echarp> then there will be electoral lists
17:20 < echarp> users will decide against which electoral list their filter will work
17:21 < echarp> an electoral list could only contain one person
17:21 < echarp> a moderator
17:24 < beeli> what is electoral list?
17:24 < beeli> why set only one person? it goes off power of simplicity
17:24 < beeli> not good
17:25 < echarp> there are any number of electoral lists
17:25 < echarp> just, you can have an electoral list containing one person
17:25 < echarp> which would then act as a moderator to those using this electoral list according to their filter
17:26 < beeli> what does that list do
17:26 < beeli> ?
17:26 < echarp> electoral list of one person will give 3 possibilities => -1, 0, +1, your filter can have those 3 values
17:26 < echarp> if the person in that electoral list votes against an element, but your filter is set on +1, then you won't see that element
17:26 < beeli> Do you see this software as functional?
17:27 < echarp> definitely
17:27 < beeli> have you envisioned what that software will actually offere to the people?
17:27 < echarp> and rather easy to use
17:27 < echarp> democratically moderated forums
17:27 < echarp> people will choose their moderators
17:27 < beeli> in this moment what i can understand it is only +1 0 -1
17:27 < beeli> right?
17:27 < echarp> that's your vote yes
17:27 < beeli> and this is what already exists as 0 +1 option
17:27 < echarp> every one can vote
17:27 < beeli> so what?
17:27 < echarp> 0 +1?
17:27 < beeli> it is done already
17:28 < beeli> yes. seen at google rating?
17:28 < echarp> you can vote, yes, but what use is your vote?
17:28 < echarp> your vote will be used to hide or show elements
17:28 < beeli> what use is your vote?
17:28 < beeli> what elements?
17:28 < echarp> the higher an element is voted, the more people will see it
17:28 < echarp> an element is a post, a proposition, a mail
17:29 < beeli> so is this attack of majority over minoritys rights?
17:29 < echarp> a blog entry, a news, an article
17:29 < echarp> no
17:29 < beeli> how is that?
17:29 < echarp> it's just, you can vote, when you vote you tell other people that the thing you voted on is worthwhile or not
17:29 < beeli> yes, and if majority is lunatic, you can pnly go of?
17:29 < beeli> off?
17:29 < echarp> there is no matter of majority or minority, it's just a digg kind of thing
17:30 < beeli> is it only mainstream support what i can notice there?
17:30 < echarp> if majority is erratic, you can only follow a part of it
17:30 < beeli> how is that being done?
17:30 < echarp> you can follow any group you choose => electoral list
17:30 < beeli> that list can be based on one?
17:30 < echarp> an electoral list is simply a sub group of voters
17:30 < echarp> it can be based on one
17:31 < beeli> so i can subscibe on somebodies publc filter than?
17:31 < echarp> then that one is de facto the moderator of all those using that electoral list
17:31 < echarp> well, yes, you can in fact! :)
17:31 < echarp> I didn't see it that way ;)
17:31 < beeli> what did you mean that you can not do that when asked you first itme?
17:32 < echarp> there are different elements you know => an element, a personal vote, a personal filter to hide elements, a voting result, an electoral list
17:32 < echarp> (there might be others)
17:32 < echarp> you don't share others filters, they are personal
17:32 < beeli> public and personal filters?
17:33 < echarp> but you can use an electoral list of one person
17:33 < beeli> but they are not if you subscribe to me?
17:33 < beeli> is it not filter?
17:33 < echarp> subscribe to your electoral list results?
17:33 < beeli> if i get you right, you have personal and public filters
17:33 < beeli> that are separate?
17:34 < echarp> no, you could still decide to set a very very low filter, thus you will merely see what you consider interesting or not
17:34 < echarp> your filter is a tool used to hide elements
17:34 < beeli> and what about electoral list/
17:34 < beeli> ?
17:34 < echarp> but you may want to also see low things and me to only see high stuff
17:35 < echarp> element, vote, vote result, electoral list, filter
17:35 < echarp> you filter the elements according to the vote results tabulated against a given electoral list :)
17:35 < beeli> is moderatingg different to filtering?
17:35 < echarp> yes, it is different
17:35 < beeli> so it is el dependendt
17:35 < echarp> moderating is just setting a value on elements
17:35 < beeli> EL dependent
17:35 < echarp> filtering is hiding elements below
17:35 < beeli> + / -
17:35 < echarp> el?
17:36 < beeli> short
17:36 < beeli> el llist
17:36 < beeli> can you give an example of what you have in mind?
17:36 < echarp> I can say "this is very interesting" and "this other thing is not interesting", you may still want to check on that other thing ;)
17:36 < beeli> to be sure that i dig you
17:36 < echarp> for example yes :)
17:37 < beeli> make scenario
17:37 < echarp> in an electoral list of 2, the second moderator might want to also check on what has been moderated by his partner
17:37 < beeli> with modraotr, supporter of list
17:37 < beeli> part of list
17:37 < echarp> if both digg something, then it goes +2
17:37 < beeli> suppose that is enough
17:37 < echarp> supporter of list??
17:38 < beeli> what is difference between first moderator and second one?
17:38 < beeli> is there any?
17:38 < echarp> no
17:38 < echarp> they are just coworkers :)
17:38 < beeli> ok
17:38 < beeli> i get is
17:39 < beeli> it
17:39 < echarp> their moderation can result in a range of -2, -1, 0, +1, +2
17:39 < echarp> your personal filter can be any of those values
17:39 < echarp> +2 is supposedly very interesting
17:39 < echarp> and it's all going to improve with the number of voters taken into account
17:40 < echarp> if your filter is set on an approval rating of 99%, you will only see the very cream :)
17:40 < beeli> ok
17:40 < echarp> but electoral list are harder to implement than filter
17:41 < echarp> a filter will/should just be a neat javascript trick
17:41 < echarp> an electoral list will require much more interactions
17:41 < beeli> wat about list?
17:41 < beeli> btw, what i am looking for is different list for difernet issue
17:41 < echarp> a list is on the server, but it is managed by an electoral list manager
17:41 < beeli> you have that in mind?
17:42 < echarp> there can be as many list as you want, no limit on their number and their constituents
17:42 < echarp> I have that in my mind yes
17:42 < beeli> ok
17:42 < beeli> fine
17:43 < echarp> but there is one problem, an issue will by default, be moderated according to the electoral list the user is currently using
17:43 < echarp> thus different electoral lists for different issues, might be tricky
17:43 < beeli> hmh, that is not good
17:44 < beeli> as i can notice, people like their own parts where they can be apreciated by doing good
17:44 < beeli> people like to invest when they feel important
17:44 < beeli> this is the way moderating works
17:45 < beeli> the problem with moderating is of course lack of pluralism what i am looking to solve by new software
17:45 < echarp> hopefully, a server where a default initial electoral list can be set, will be easy to setup (or something else)
17:45 < beeli> second thing is about this electoral list
17:45 < beeli> is it free org or org defined by strict rules
17:45 < beeli> ?
17:46 < beeli> envisioned of course?
17:46 < echarp> what is the difference?
17:47 < beeli> if i set org based that every person covers one part for himself
17:47 < beeli> and we do cooworking pretty fine
17:47 < echarp> ?
17:47 < beeli> than we have org that is not based on regular votings and stuff
17:48 < beeli> echarp covers info stuff
17:48 < beeli> magnus covers political action stuff
17:48 < beeli> eric covers political phislophy stuff
17:48 < beeli> no voting, but that is it
17:48 < beeli> +1 is the onlt filter than as i can notice
17:48 < echarp> have one electoral list with all those people
17:49 < echarp> but ask each one not to vote on what he is not knowledgeable about
17:49 < beeli> spo trust fondation in org
17:50 < beeli> voting is transparent/
17:50 < beeli> ?
17:50 < beeli> public?
17:50 < echarp> of course
17:50 < echarp> just click on a vote result to see the personal votes
17:50 < beeli> ok
17:51 < beeli> how is electoral list set?/
17:51 < echarp> this is one difficult part :)
17:52 < echarp> my first thought, is that its manager will send an electoral list by mail, to a given adress
17:52 < beeli> do you have smething in mind/\
17:53 < echarp> plus the possibility to reply to that first mail, with sub mails adding or removing people
17:53 < echarp> using a "diff" syntax
17:53 < echarp> it's just a thought as of now
17:53 < beeli> so, you have primus stuff
17:54 < beeli> in el list
17:54 < beeli> capo
17:54 < echarp> what is that?
17:55 < beeli> you have list manager
17:56 < beeli> the person with higher infulence
17:56 < beeli> as long as he sets list
17:56 < echarp> but then, anybody can be the manager of any number of lists ;)
17:56 < beeli> yes
17:56 < beeli> suppose you gonna have much work to do
17:56 < echarp> on that part, possibly yes
17:57 < echarp> I'll have to think about the easiest way to manage a personal list of people
17:57 < echarp> I already know how the db will be, should be rather easy
17:58 < beeli> what are your expectations?
17:58 < beeli> 3 months?
17:58 < beeli> :)
17:58 < echarp> nah, shorter
17:58 < echarp> possibly half of that considering my last realisations
17:59 < beeli> meaning\/
17:59 < echarp> a few weeks
17:59 < echarp> that is, < 10 weeks
17:59 < echarp> I would say, between 3 and 10 weeks
18:00 < beeli> ok
18:00 < beeli> looking forward
18:00 < echarp> and a few days for the personal filters
18:02 < echarp> oh, and to an electoral list should be associated the default filter to use
18:02 < echarp> filter decided by the electoral list, of course :)
18:03 < beeli> mk
18:05 < beeli> what about security issue?
18:06 < echarp> I've got ideas on that, but this is complex to implement :(
18:06 < echarp> GPG keys to sign everything every individual does
18:06 < echarp> at first this would work using your traditional mail client
18:06 < echarp> (most of them can do GPG signing)
18:07 < beeli> is it abou hacking and making software / site be not trust worthy?
18:07 < echarp> each electoral list could then list people according to their public PGP key)
18:07 < echarp> no, websites can be rather insecure in fact
18:07 < echarp> but using PGP signatures to propose/vote/delegate, and those signatures to calculate results, should be quite secure and strong
18:08 < beeli> hard to use by regular user?
18:08 < echarp> at first yes :(
18:08 < beeli> any other popular method?
18:09 < beeli> the way how todays forums use
18:09 < echarp> then later on, I expect some people will set up parlement nodes that will generate/keep/use their PGP private keys in the place of the novice users
18:09 < echarp> but the admin of that node will have huge powers
18:09 < echarp> thus users should choose that node carefully, or set up their own even
18:10 < echarp> hopefully, a parlement server should be *very* easy to install, then no problem
18:13 < echarp> security would work using three concepts => P2P servers, PGP signatures, electoral lists
18:13 < echarp> it's definitely not 100% secure, but it can generate trust
18:14 < echarp> (nothing can ever be 100% secure)
18:14 < beeli> ok
18:14 < beeli> lot of work i suppose?
18:15 < echarp> P2P servers already work in fact
18:15 < echarp> electoral lists, well, we discussed about it
18:16 < echarp> PGP signatures will be something else, but it's still a very well simple feature
18:16 < echarp> people will be able to PGP sign, electoral list managers will allow or disallow the members to sign or not sign
18:17 < echarp> people will be able to PGP sign "or not", electoral list managers will allow or disallow the members to sign or not sign
18:30 < beeli> till the end of the year you might have something cool
18:31 < beeli> i am glad to notice that
18:31 < echarp> it's already useable, I think
18:31 < echarp> as a forum and mailing list where you can vote
18:31 < echarp> that's already something
18:32 < echarp> just, it's not useable right away to moderate those forums and mailing lists
18:32 < echarp> hopefully, in 2 weeks it will be at the level of digg
19:09 -!- beeli [n=ille...@cmung3098.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
19:30 < echarp> re
19:36 < urgen> re
19:38 < echarp> how are you urgen?
19:39 < echarp> and good morning ;)
19:39 < urgen> I just found out the tibetan government in exile lauched online tv
19:42 < echarp> religious tv then? :(
19:43 < echarp> I hate the chinese PC, but I also dislike a theocracy (although I don't know much about that one)
19:43 < urgen> the government is not a religious one, it is democratic
19:43 < echarp> cool then
19:43 < echarp> and that tv?
19:44 < urgen> just online video so far
19:44 < echarp> internet is a great tool, I hope tv will somedays only use it
19:45 < urgen> example topic:
19:45 < urgen> Debate: Kalon Tripa's candidate - Prof. Samdhong Rinpoche and Juchen Thupten Namgyal at Gangchen Kyishong staffmess Hall on 18th May 2006
19:45 < urgen> it's all in tibetan
19:46 < urgen> government's in exile are nearly the same thing as governments in cyberspace
19:46 < echarp> that will require some subtitles one day ;)
19:46 < urgen> next governments of cyberspace
19:47 < echarp> :)
19:47 < echarp> that would turn into a panarchy!!! you participate if you want to, you can secede any time
19:47 * echarp loves this
19:47 < urgen> yes room enough for every view
19:48 < echarp> exactly
19:49 < echarp> plus, there might be the possibility to follow more than one governent!
19:49 < urgen> and multiple loyalties
19:49 < echarp> :)
19:49 < urgen> he
19:49 < echarp> a war would turn into quite something funny :)
19:49 < urgen> like the old botwars of early irc
19:49 < echarp> a true panarchy I'm telling you
19:50 < echarp> botwars yes, for example
19:51 < echarp> I'm sure there would be many possibilities
19:51 < echarp> defacing websites would be a start, a "take the flag" challenge
19:58 < urgen> tibet never was a theocracy anyway...
19:58 < urgen> that's just an example of the western world's lack of vocabulary :-)
19:58 < urgen> there is no theo in buddhism
19:59 < echarp> true yes
19:59 < echarp> churchocracy? :)
19:59 < urgen> order ocracy?
19:59 < urgen> there is no church either
20:00 < urgen> the order being logic and reason
20:00 < urgen> so.. sanity ocracy?
20:01 < echarp> lama cracy then?
20:01 < urgen> hard to put a shell around sense
20:01 < echarp> sanity, hum
20:01 < urgen> buddhism is bigger than lama too
20:01 < echarp> but isn't that gov managed by a lama?
20:01 < urgen> no
20:01 < echarp> who is at the top?
20:01 < echarp> how is he designated?
20:01 < urgen> a group
20:02 < urgen> a group is the top
20:03 < echarp> I thought there was some kind of prime minister
20:03 < echarp> and that he was a lama
20:03 < urgen> that would be boring for a lama :-)
20:04 < urgen> administrative body
20:04 < echarp> possibly
20:04 < urgen> you gotta realize that vajrayana practitioners are experts in decentralized authority
20:05 < urgen> why would they want to try to create a top down model?
20:05 < echarp> I don't know, I thought I read something about it in one of the links you pasted here
20:05 < echarp> let's have a look on wp
20:07 < echarp> "In 2001 the worldwide Tibetan exile community conducted a democratic election for the position of Prime Minister"
20:07 < urgen> :-) "the neutrality of this article is disputed"
20:07 < urgen> see? already problems
20:07 < echarp> But, "This was the first democratic election in the history of the Tibetan people." :)
20:07 < urgen> so they have a central figure now
20:09 < echarp> plus the dalai lama
20:09 < echarp> does it not make it into some kind of religious monarchy?
20:10 < echarp> democratic, but not a republic
20:10 < urgen> that's a wonderful question
20:10 < urgen> because it forces you to define religion and monarchy
20:10 < urgen> and you have to come to terms for power vs Power
20:10 < urgen> where does the root of power come from?
20:11 < urgen> power comes from the ability to change one's mind
20:11 < urgen> that's not religious nor a monarchy
20:12 < echarp> to change one's mind is one possibility, among possible others, no?
20:12 < urgen> the end is the result
20:12 < urgen> the proof is in the pudding, thing
20:12 < echarp> most certainly
20:13 < echarp> you judge by the consequences
20:13 < urgen> so is there anything other than consequence?
20:13 < urgen> that would be holding on to something that is not and would lead to disappointment
20:14 < echarp> holding on to something that is not?
20:14 < echarp> fantasies? lies?
20:14 < urgen> the root of all problems
20:14 < urgen> delusion
20:15 < urgen> mistakes
20:15 < echarp> I'm sure there are other roots ;)
20:15 < urgen> oh?
20:15 < echarp> pulsions, libidos
20:15 < urgen> ok, remedial problems
20:15 < echarp> our bodies energy, channeled in our mind and generating all those energies that crave expression
20:15 < urgen> unnecessary problems
20:15 < echarp> pulsions are often considered one root
20:15 < echarp> desires
20:16 < echarp> your inner self, the one so difficult to understand and accept
20:16 < urgen> the one held to that is not :-)
20:16 < echarp> your true self, conscience merely a tapestry constituted of the "floating" elements of the mind
20:16 < urgen> of course that would cause problems
20:17 < echarp> held to that is not?
20:17 < urgen> taking something that does not exist for something that doe
20:17 < urgen> s
20:18 < urgen> stubborness
20:18 < echarp> illusion
20:18 < urgen> the illusion doesn't cause the problem as much as not being able to correct the view
20:18 < urgen> not willing to let go
20:18 < urgen> not willing to change your mind
20:19 < echarp> I would use freudian terms => our true pulsions are not accepted, and they can only express themselves through hidden but acceptable terms, lies and illusions
20:19 < urgen> how can something that does not exist express itself?
20:19 < urgen> this is only the expression of our lack of ability to recognize
20:19 < echarp> you may want to have sex with your mother, but that desire will go into hiding and will generate all sorts of others things
20:19 < echarp> pulsions do exist (as far as I can tell)
20:20 < echarp> they are the root of our mind
20:20 < urgen> I don't have to anthropomorphize it tho
20:20 < echarp> the dark root, those we don't understand and accept
20:20 < echarp> I'm thinking about it as a fluid
20:20 < urgen> brownian movement
20:20 < echarp> pulsions are water/information generated by our body
20:21 < echarp> it is channeled in the mind
20:21 < echarp> thousands and thousands of rivers, who have to flow
20:21 < echarp> but their flow is not always acceptable
20:21 < echarp> and those rivers are dammed
20:21 < echarp> up to a point of course, when they'll either break free violently
20:21 < echarp> or be diverted covertly
20:21 < urgen> misunderstanding happens all the time :-) or we wouldn't hang on so tightly to ideas like "acceptable"
20:22 < echarp> diversion being the most frequent and acceptable solution
20:22 < echarp> acceptable from a social/moral point of view?
20:22 < urgen> if you want to chart a broken system then that's fine
20:22 < urgen> I'd rather work toward resolution
20:22 < echarp> resolution would be, from that POV, to accept those rives, and not try to dam them
20:23 < urgen> of course
20:23 < echarp> but let them flow mostly freely
20:23 < urgen> recognition is much more healthy
20:23 < echarp> you would observe yourself
20:23 < echarp> recognition yes
20:23 < echarp> understanding who you truely are
20:23 < urgen> or aren't
20:23 < echarp> :)
20:23 < urgen> don't need to bias it already
20:23 < urgen> :-)
20:24 < urgen> so I can't put existence dependent in a religious box
20:24 < urgen> it is easy to put existence independent in one tho
20:25 < urgen> buddhism is not constructed on an existence independent system
20:25 < echarp> dependant? independant? from what?
20:25 < urgen> upon origin
20:25 < echarp> I don't follow
20:25 < urgen> relative vs absolute
20:25 < echarp> distancing yourself from your pulsions?
20:26 < urgen> existence dependent upon other than itself for its existence vs existence not dependent upon other than itself for its existence
20:26 < urgen> there is no yourself
20:26 < urgen> that would be an independent existence
20:27 < echarp> you are an interconnected part of the universe
20:27 < urgen> freud was a deist
20:27 < echarp> maybe yes
20:27 < urgen> or at least someone that recognized seeing the difference as something significant
20:27 < echarp> but I still think individuality exists, just that the "I" we speak about is a construction
20:27 < urgen> then he got lost in the details
20:28 < urgen> the nexus of habitual tendency that happens to be temporarily associated with this the activity I merely refer to as myself
20:28 < urgen> :-)
20:29 < urgen> that one has all the ground it needs as long as it doesn't try to take itself too seriously
20:29 < echarp> still, "I" is a tag we can find useful, no?
20:29 < urgen> I works for me as long as it is filtered from the I that ppl use to describe their 'soul'
20:29 < echarp> ok, I'm going to have a knack
20:30 < echarp> I love to speak about that "I", and to shock people when conversation drifts toward it
20:30 < echarp> because it's a shock to say that "I" is a mere construction :)
20:30 < echarp> it belittles that "I" so much, it's fun :)
20:31 < urgen> it does seem to rattle people that have never looked at it before
20:31 * echarp loves it :)
20:32 < echarp> nothing better than to play with a bee's nest, occasionaly ;)
20:33 < urgen> so if buddhism is based on an understanding of the nature of this mere I how can that be a theocracy or a monarchy?
20:33 < urgen> completely opposite
20:34 < urgen> more like saying einstein is god, even though, he too, was a theist
20:34 < urgen> it is hard to find non-theistics
20:34 < urgen> that are not also then, pulled into atheistic and want to rail on the church
20:35 < urgen> maybe we can find two schools of thought in atheistic view as well
20:36 < urgen> one that finds its life mission to destroy religion and the other to recognize the fatality of attempting to destroy something that does not exist
20:36 < urgen> like non-theistic but still dripping of having been born from a religious family
20:36 < urgen> but I haven't yet
20:37 < urgen> all atheists are anti church
20:39 < urgen> going around trying to knock over an illusion
20:39 < urgen> finding demons to excommunicate.. they are as bad as the church
20:41 < urgen> it isn't hard to find bees nests anywhere :-)
20:47 < echarp> trouble with atheists, is that it is not a religion, it is a "none" religion
20:47 < echarp> thus it can be anything, not just an opposite
20:48 < urgen> so why can't ppl see tibet in the same light?
20:48 < urgen> it is just misunderstanding
20:48 < echarp> and the dala lama is a religious figure, chosen by a process which, well, how to name it?
20:48 < urgen> and if so, then what understanding is missing?
20:48 < echarp> what is the process used to find the dalai lama?
20:48 < urgen> yes, what are the details
20:49 < urgen> and why isn't there ever a chance to even explore the issue?
20:49 < urgen> it's so weird to me
20:49 < urgen> an interesting bees nest
20:49 < echarp> and something comes to my mind!!! if the soul is eternal, and the dalai lama always is the same soul, then isn't it a dictature? :)
20:50 < urgen> it would be if buddhism held to any idea of a soul, but it doesn't
20:50 < echarp> soul or any other word that fits
20:50 < urgen> a sould would be an existence independent
20:50 < echarp> reincarnation?
20:50 < echarp> or is it hinduist?
20:50 < urgen> would you use the word reincarnation if I were to take one candle and light another?
20:51 < urgen> yes left over hindu terminology
20:51 < urgen> more misunderstanding
20:51 < echarp> about that light, I don't know
20:51 < urgen> the core is called condition and circumstance
20:52 < urgen> if you have the right condition and circumstance you get the right result
20:52 < urgen> this also talks to the idea of transhuman
20:52 < urgen> model the set and continue the activity defined
20:52 < echarp> I was about to talk about it yes
20:53 < echarp> I of course don't believe in a soul, but I understand the candle analogy
20:53 < echarp> replicate one's pattern, have someone else who is still originally the same person
20:53 < urgen> but a clone isn't the same prior person :-)
20:54 < urgen> but everyday the conditions and circumstances that allow you to extend your existence in time and space continue
20:54 < urgen> so 'continuity' is a good word to explore
20:55 < urgen> not in a sense of something ultimate but through meeting dependencies
20:55 < echarp> same is a difficult word :)
20:55 < urgen> same really is
20:55 < urgen> another fun word
20:56 < echarp> we should just use fuzzy logic
20:56 < echarp> a perfect technical clone would be the "same" person
20:56 < echarp> then both would diverge
20:56 < echarp> there would not be an original, unless you choose to tag one as such, but really, it's arbitrary (if both are strictly identical)
20:57 < urgen> right
20:57 < urgen> that arbitrary is essential
20:57 < echarp> so, is the dalai lama a continuation of something?
20:57 < urgen> you think this could also potentially re-merge?
20:57 < echarp> is he a dictator? ;)
20:57 < echarp> what could re-merge?
20:57 < urgen> the two clones
20:58 < echarp> oh yes, technically difficult, but philosophically most interesting
20:58 < urgen> if you can diverge due to the conditions and circumstances...
20:58 < echarp> I've thought about it, I think it would make for great novels! :)
20:58 < urgen> couldn't you also then possible guide these conditions and circumstances back together?
20:58 < echarp> you could try yes
20:58 < urgen> I think it has to be left open as a potential
20:58 < echarp> the merging might be dangerous, but still useful
20:58 < echarp> it is a potential yes
20:59 < urgen> so the idea is that all 'sentience' has the same nature
20:59 < echarp> there would be all sorts of criteria, degree of divergences, neural network incompatibilities
20:59 < urgen> we would all be dictators
20:59 < echarp> sentience is not much in my book, a computer could/can be sentient
20:59 < echarp> but, is he a continuation?
20:59 < urgen> yes even dalailama said a computer could be sentient
21:00 < echarp> isn't the process to discover him a process to trigger a recognition of this continuity?
21:00 < urgen> if we are all continuities why would he not be one?
21:00 < echarp> him = dalai lama
21:00 < echarp> he could be one, but then, is he a dictator?
21:00 < echarp> a life long dictator
21:00 < echarp> a lives long dictator :)
21:00 < urgen> all continuities are equally so
21:01 < urgen> there is not special condition and circumstance
21:01 < echarp> but that continuity, is given a temporal power over a country
21:01 < urgen> no need to horde
21:01 < echarp> horde?
21:01 < urgen> the temporal power is a myth
21:01 < echarp> well, he is the head of state
21:01 < urgen> hord?
21:01 < urgen> so is bush
21:01 < echarp> horde? hord? what do you want to express?
21:02 < echarp> and bush has temporal power
21:02 < urgen> um no need to stock up on condition and circumstance
21:02 < echarp> stock up?
21:02 < urgen> to be the 'leader' of condtion and circumstance
21:02 < urgen> nature is nature
21:02 < echarp> sorry, I'm not following you
21:02 < urgen> it isn't going to elect some part of itself as supreme
21:03 < urgen> supreme would be existence independent
21:03 < urgen> the nature of all things that have a beginning is that they end
21:04 < echarp> then, what is that process to discover the dalai lama when the old shell dies?
21:04 < echarp> why do they do that?
21:04 < urgen> whether you want to call it Tibet, the United States, or my old VW buss
21:04 < urgen> bus
21:04 < urgen> it is good to test for divergence
21:04 < urgen> when you have a theory you need to constantly test it
21:04 < echarp> but, what use is it to rediscover the dalai lama?
21:05 < urgen> you set up an experiment and if the results are not as you expected then you had better check why
21:05 < echarp> no need to designate him as head of state then
21:05 < urgen> as these locii of condition and circumstance operate they accumulate as well
21:06 < urgen> I am not the same as the I that was when it was six years old
21:06 < urgen> no need, true
21:06 < echarp> of course, and?
21:06 < echarp> no need to have the dalai lama?
21:06 < urgen> no need at all
21:06 < echarp> then why have the dalai lama?
21:06 < urgen> ppl are lazy?
21:06 < echarp> I thought it was a difficult process
21:07 < urgen> :-)
21:07 < urgen> it is a precise process
21:07 < echarp> and that the guy did have temporal powers
21:07 < urgen> don't know about difficult
21:07 < echarp> like the decision to create an expatriate government
21:07 < urgen> dalai lama hold the reigns of office for the government and a sect
21:07 < urgen> the sect by no means represents the whole of vajrayana
21:08 < urgen> no other sect recognizes the dalai lama as having some special means of control over their school of thought
21:08 < echarp> reigns of office?
21:08 < urgen> reins?
21:08 < urgen> spelling.. what stears a horse?
21:09 < urgen> the idea that there is some kind of god-kingness there is purely western myth
21:09 < echarp> he has powers?
21:09 < urgen> limited
21:09 < echarp> like the english queen,
21:09 < echarp> ?
21:09 < urgen> like any office's limit
21:10 < urgen> it's an office for gawsh sakes
21:10 < echarp> well, bad example, the english queen theoretically has huge powers, just she does not dare use them
21:10 < urgen> :-)
21:10 < echarp> but that office, what does it control if anything?
21:10 < urgen> that's for the tibetan people in exile to decide
21:10 < echarp> strategic decisions?
21:10 < echarp> they've decided, yes
21:11 < echarp> but still, rather like a somethingLikeATheo-cracy :)
21:11 < urgen> as far as for the gelugpa lineage he's not even the seat for that
21:12 < urgen> so it is still western myth
21:12 < echarp> you mean, he can't choose his own successor?
21:13 < urgen> no
21:14 < echarp> cool and good :)
21:14 < urgen> it is the west that puts so much emphasis on focus of power
21:15 < echarp> ok, I'm deploying my avatars :)
21:15 < urgen> and it is in the tibetan governments interest to meet that expectation
21:15 < echarp> dam, error
21:15 < urgen> because when they don't.. the chinese take it all away
21:15 < urgen> and since this is the coin of the realm,,,
21:15 < urgen> they no longer have a country
21:16 < urgen> just because ppl believed in the god-king myth
21:16 < urgen> sux to be tibetan
21:16 < echarp> focus of power is one of our way to think, yes
21:18 < echarp> maybe we've been bitten by it so many times ;)
21:18 < urgen> that's for sure
21:18 < urgen> learn or say ouch
21:19 < urgen> but this is also my point about democracy being a fragile structure
21:19 < urgen> it is very easy to topple
21:20 < echarp> ok, seems my avatars work!
21:20 * echarp dances
21:20 < echarp> democracy is one of those things which look like a cristal
21:20 < echarp> strong and fragile
21:21 < echarp> when the force applies rightly, it can withstand huge things
21:21 < echarp> yet there are potential fracture points :(
21:30 < urgen> yer picture isn't your avatar is it?
21:31 < echarp> any image can be
21:31 < urgen> I mean the one I see
21:31 < echarp> on the irc element?
21:31 < echarp> it is me :)
21:31 < urgen> I mean.. what you just implemented
21:31 < urgen> or was the picture there already
21:32 < urgen> (just looking for a way to check out the change)
21:32 < echarp> it's new, this is what I just put in production
21:32 < urgen> ok
21:32 < echarp> if you log in, with a pseudo, maybe a password and/or email
21:32 < echarp> you can set set your own avatar
21:32 < echarp> avatar which will go on the side of your posts
21:32 < echarp> I expect its appearance to feel strange at times, due to sizing issues
21:33 < echarp> look in "testing" for an example of what I mean
21:34 < urgen> woo, worked
21:34 < echarp> urgy_avy? :)
21:34 * urgen is urgen
21:34 < echarp> is that you with all that hair on the head? :)
21:35 * urgen is fuzzy
21:37 < echarp> :)
21:39 < echarp> funny, those avatars almost seem to work :)
21:40 < echarp> your image is now on my two servers, automatically replicated!!!
21:40 < echarp> ok, time for an ice cream :)
--- Log closed mar aoû 08 00:00:12 2006
00:30 -!- cnloyd [n=chat...@adsl-69-150-34-165.dsl.hstntx.swbell.net] has quit ["ChatZilla 0.9.61 [Mozilla rv:1.7.13/20060414]"]
16:55 -!- beeli (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung3098.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
16:55 < beeli:#parlement> oi
16:55 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
16:55 < echarp> hello hello beeli, how are you?
16:56 < beeli> good
16:57 < beeli> you
16:57 < beeli> ?
16:57 < echarp> fine fine, just the bloody rain, and I forgot to close my windows this morning :(
16:57 < echarp> speak a peasant descendant!!!
16:58 < beeli> :)
16:58 < beeli> oike this rainy part
16:58 < beeli> loike
16:58 < beeli> like
16:58 < beeli> i like it
16:59 < echarp> lol
16:59 < echarp> I like it too, when I don't have to go under it and my windows are closed :)
16:59 < beeli> heh
17:02 < beeli> whats up with parlement?
17:02 < echarp> code has been committed
17:02 < echarp> I need to put it onto leparlement.org
17:05 < beeli> code for avatars?
17:07 < echarp> yeap
17:07 < beeli> what next?
17:08 < echarp> filters
17:08 < echarp> but not electoral list, yet, it's just too much work in one go
17:11 < beeli> what filers excatly?
17:11 < beeli> that everyone can set it for public?
17:11 < beeli> meybe :)
17:16 < echarp> personal filters
17:16 < echarp> everybody can vote on elements
17:16 < echarp> everyone can set a filter to hide elements below some threshold
17:16 < echarp> it should be rather simple to implement
17:17 < beeli> can you make it be public easily
17:17 < beeli> ?
17:17 < beeli> that i can use your filter for certain area if i am fine with it?
17:17 < echarp> no
17:18 < beeli> what is the problem?
17:18 < echarp> I only envision it as a personal filter
17:18 < beeli> can you envision diferent;y?
17:18 < echarp> well, I feel like it's personal
17:18 < echarp> of course I could
17:18 < echarp> but to me those filters are not that important
17:19 < beeli> to me this publc option is extremely importent
17:19 < beeli> it actually does not exist around
17:19 < echarp> someone with time and energy will use a very low filter to see everything, someone else might only want those highly appreciated
17:20 < beeli> do what you think it is right :)
17:20 < echarp> using someone's filter seems strange, votes are the tool used to say if something is worthwhile or not
17:20 < echarp> then there will be electoral lists
17:20 < echarp> users will decide against which electoral list their filter will work
17:21 < echarp> an electoral list could only contain one person
17:21 < echarp> a moderator
17:24 < beeli> what is electoral list?
17:24 < beeli> why set only one person? it goes off power of simplicity
17:24 < beeli> not good
17:25 < echarp> there are any number of electoral lists
17:25 < echarp> just, you can have an electoral list containing one person
17:25 < echarp> which would then act as a moderator to those using this electoral list according to their filter
17:26 < beeli> what does that list do
17:26 < beeli> ?
17:26 < echarp> electoral list of one person will give 3 possibilities => -1, 0, +1, your filter can have those 3 values
17:26 < echarp> if the person in that electoral list votes against an element, but your filter is set on +1, then you won't see that element
17:26 < beeli> Do you see this software as functional?
17:27 < echarp> definitely
17:27 < beeli> have you envisioned what that software will actually offere to the people?
17:27 < echarp> and rather easy to use
17:27 < echarp> democratically moderated forums
17:27 < echarp> people will choose their moderators
17:27 < beeli> in this moment what i can understand it is only +1 0 -1
17:27 < beeli> right?
17:27 < echarp> that's your vote yes
17:27 < beeli> and this is what already exists as 0 +1 option
17:27 < echarp> every one can vote
17:27 < beeli> so what?
17:27 < echarp> 0 +1?
17:27 < beeli> it is done already
17:28 < beeli> yes. seen at google rating?
17:28 < echarp> you can vote, yes, but what use is your vote?
17:28 < echarp> your vote will be used to hide or show elements
17:28 < beeli> what use is your vote?
17:28 < beeli> what elements?
17:28 < echarp> the higher an element is voted, the more people will see it
17:28 < echarp> an element is a post, a proposition, a mail
17:29 < beeli> so is this attack of majority over minoritys rights?
17:29 < echarp> a blog entry, a news, an article
17:29 < echarp> no
17:29 < beeli> how is that?
17:29 < echarp> it's just, you can vote, when you vote you tell other people that the thing you voted on is worthwhile or not
17:29 < beeli> yes, and if majority is lunatic, you can pnly go of?
17:29 < beeli> off?
17:29 < echarp> there is no matter of majority or minority, it's just a digg kind of thing
17:30 < beeli> is it only mainstream support what i can notice there?
17:30 < echarp> if majority is erratic, you can only follow a part of it
17:30 < beeli> how is that being done?
17:30 < echarp> you can follow any group you choose => electoral list
17:30 < beeli> that list can be based on one?
17:30 < echarp> an electoral list is simply a sub group of voters
17:30 < echarp> it can be based on one
17:31 < beeli> so i can subscibe on somebodies publc filter than?
17:31 < echarp> then that one is de facto the moderator of all those using that electoral list
17:31 < echarp> well, yes, you can in fact! :)
17:31 < echarp> I didn't see it that way ;)
17:31 < beeli> what did you mean that you can not do that when asked you first itme?
17:32 < echarp> there are different elements you know => an element, a personal vote, a personal filter to hide elements, a voting result, an electoral list
17:32 < echarp> (there might be others)
17:32 < echarp> you don't share others filters, they are personal
17:32 < beeli> public and personal filters?
17:33 < echarp> but you can use an electoral list of one person
17:33 < beeli> but they are not if you subscribe to me?
17:33 < beeli> is it not filter?
17:33 < echarp> subscribe to your electoral list results?
17:33 < beeli> if i get you right, you have personal and public filters
17:33 < beeli> that are separate?
17:34 < echarp> no, you could still decide to set a very very low filter, thus you will merely see what you consider interesting or not
17:34 < echarp> your filter is a tool used to hide elements
17:34 < beeli> and what about electoral list/
17:34 < beeli> ?
17:34 < echarp> but you may want to also see low things and me to only see high stuff
17:35 < echarp> element, vote, vote result, electoral list, filter
17:35 < echarp> you filter the elements according to the vote results tabulated against a given electoral list :)
17:35 < beeli> is moderatingg different to filtering?
17:35 < echarp> yes, it is different
17:35 < beeli> so it is el dependendt
17:35 < echarp> moderating is just setting a value on elements
17:35 < beeli> EL dependent
17:35 < echarp> filtering is hiding elements below
17:35 < beeli> + / -
17:35 < echarp> el?
17:36 < beeli> short
17:36 < beeli> el llist
17:36 < beeli> can you give an example of what you have in mind?
17:36 < echarp> I can say "this is very interesting" and "this other thing is not interesting", you may still want to check on that other thing ;)
17:36 < beeli> to be sure that i dig you
17:36 < echarp> for example yes :)
17:37 < beeli> make scenario
17:37 < echarp> in an electoral list of 2, the second moderator might want to also check on what has been moderated by his partner
17:37 < beeli> with modraotr, supporter of list
17:37 < beeli> part of list
17:37 < echarp> if both digg something, then it goes +2
17:37 < beeli> suppose that is enough
17:37 < echarp> supporter of list??
17:38 < beeli> what is difference between first moderator and second one?
17:38 < beeli> is there any?
17:38 < echarp> no
17:38 < echarp> they are just coworkers :)
17:38 < beeli> ok
17:38 < beeli> i get is
17:39 < beeli> it
17:39 < echarp> their moderation can result in a range of -2, -1, 0, +1, +2
17:39 < echarp> your personal filter can be any of those values
17:39 < echarp> +2 is supposedly very interesting
17:39 < echarp> and it's all going to improve with the number of voters taken into account
17:40 < echarp> if your filter is set on an approval rating of 99%, you will only see the very cream :)
17:40 < beeli> ok
17:40 < echarp> but electoral list are harder to implement than filter
17:41 < echarp> a filter will/should just be a neat javascript trick
17:41 < echarp> an electoral list will require much more interactions
17:41 < beeli> wat about list?
17:41 < beeli> btw, what i am looking for is different list for difernet issue
17:41 < echarp> a list is on the server, but it is managed by an electoral list manager
17:41 < beeli> you have that in mind?
17:42 < echarp> there can be as many list as you want, no limit on their number and their constituents
17:42 < echarp> I have that in my mind yes
17:42 < beeli> ok
17:42 < beeli> fine
17:43 < echarp> but there is one problem, an issue will by default, be moderated according to the electoral list the user is currently using
17:43 < echarp> thus different electoral lists for different issues, might be tricky
17:43 < beeli> hmh, that is not good
17:44 < beeli> as i can notice, people like their own parts where they can be apreciated by doing good
17:44 < beeli> people like to invest when they feel important
17:44 < beeli> this is the way moderating works
17:45 < beeli> the problem with moderating is of course lack of pluralism what i am looking to solve by new software
17:45 < echarp> hopefully, a server where a default initial electoral list can be set, will be easy to setup (or something else)
17:45 < beeli> second thing is about this electoral list
17:45 < beeli> is it free org or org defined by strict rules
17:45 < beeli> ?
17:46 < beeli> envisioned of course?
17:46 < echarp> what is the difference?
17:47 < beeli> if i set org based that every person covers one part for himself
17:47 < beeli> and we do cooworking pretty fine
17:47 < echarp> ?
17:47 < beeli> than we have org that is not based on regular votings and stuff
17:48 < beeli> echarp covers info stuff
17:48 < beeli> magnus covers political action stuff
17:48 < beeli> eric covers political phislophy stuff
17:48 < beeli> no voting, but that is it
17:48 < beeli> +1 is the onlt filter than as i can notice
17:48 < echarp> have one electoral list with all those people
17:49 < echarp> but ask each one not to vote on what he is not knowledgeable about
17:49 < beeli> spo trust fondation in org
17:50 < beeli> voting is transparent/
17:50 < beeli> ?
17:50 < beeli> public?
17:50 < echarp> of course
17:50 < echarp> just click on a vote result to see the personal votes
17:50 < beeli> ok
17:51 < beeli> how is electoral list set?/
17:51 < echarp> this is one difficult part :)
17:52 < echarp> my first thought, is that its manager will send an electoral list by mail, to a given adress
17:52 < beeli> do you have smething in mind/\
17:53 < echarp> plus the possibility to reply to that first mail, with sub mails adding or removing people
17:53 < echarp> using a "diff" syntax
17:53 < echarp> it's just a thought as of now
17:53 < beeli> so, you have primus stuff
17:54 < beeli> in el list
17:54 < beeli> capo
17:54 < echarp> what is that?
17:55 < beeli> you have list manager
17:56 < beeli> the person with higher infulence
17:56 < beeli> as long as he sets list
17:56 < echarp> but then, anybody can be the manager of any number of lists ;)
17:56 < beeli> yes
17:56 < beeli> suppose you gonna have much work to do
17:56 < echarp> on that part, possibly yes
17:57 < echarp> I'll have to think about the easiest way to manage a personal list of people
17:57 < echarp> I already know how the db will be, should be rather easy
17:58 < beeli> what are your expectations?
17:58 < beeli> 3 months?
17:58 < beeli> :)
17:58 < echarp> nah, shorter
17:58 < echarp> possibly half of that considering my last realisations
17:59 < beeli> meaning\/
17:59 < echarp> a few weeks
17:59 < echarp> that is, < 10 weeks
17:59 < echarp> I would say, between 3 and 10 weeks
18:00 < beeli> ok
18:00 < beeli> looking forward
18:00 < echarp> and a few days for the personal filters
18:02 < echarp> oh, and to an electoral list should be associated the default filter to use
18:02 < echarp> filter decided by the electoral list, of course :)
18:03 < beeli> mk
18:05 < beeli> what about security issue?
18:06 < echarp> I've got ideas on that, but this is complex to implement :(
18:06 < echarp> GPG keys to sign everything every individual does
18:06 < echarp> at first this would work using your traditional mail client
18:06 < echarp> (most of them can do GPG signing)
18:07 < beeli> is it abou hacking and making software / site be not trust worthy?
18:07 < echarp> each electoral list could then list people according to their public PGP key)
18:07 < echarp> no, websites can be rather insecure in fact
18:07 < echarp> but using PGP signatures to propose/vote/delegate, and those signatures to calculate results, should be quite secure and strong
18:08 < beeli> hard to use by regular user?
18:08 < echarp> at first yes :(
18:08 < beeli> any other popular method?
18:09 < beeli> the way how todays forums use
18:09 < echarp> then later on, I expect some people will set up parlement nodes that will generate/keep/use their PGP private keys in the place of the novice users
18:09 < echarp> but the admin of that node will have huge powers
18:09 < echarp> thus users should choose that node carefully, or set up their own even
18:10 < echarp> hopefully, a parlement server should be *very* easy to install, then no problem
18:13 < echarp> security would work using three concepts => P2P servers, PGP signatures, electoral lists
18:13 < echarp> it's definitely not 100% secure, but it can generate trust
18:14 < echarp> (nothing can ever be 100% secure)
18:14 < beeli> ok
18:14 < beeli> lot of work i suppose?
18:15 < echarp> P2P servers already work in fact
18:15 < echarp> electoral lists, well, we discussed about it
18:16 < echarp> PGP signatures will be something else, but it's still a very well simple feature
18:16 < echarp> people will be able to PGP sign, electoral list managers will allow or disallow the members to sign or not sign
18:17 < echarp> people will be able to PGP sign "or not", electoral list managers will allow or disallow the members to sign or not sign
18:30 < beeli> till the end of the year you might have something cool
18:31 < beeli> i am glad to notice that
18:31 < echarp> it's already useable, I think
18:31 < echarp> as a forum and mailing list where you can vote
18:31 < echarp> that's already something
18:32 < echarp> just, it's not useable right away to moderate those forums and mailing lists
18:32 < echarp> hopefully, in 2 weeks it will be at the level of digg
19:09 -!- beeli [n=ille...@cmung3098.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
19:30 < echarp> re
19:36 < urgen> re
19:38 < echarp> how are you urgen?
19:39 < echarp> and good morning ;)
19:39 < urgen> I just found out the tibetan government in exile lauched online tv
19:42 < echarp> religious tv then? :(
19:43 < echarp> I hate the chinese PC, but I also dislike a theocracy (although I don't know much about that one)
19:43 < urgen> the government is not a religious one, it is democratic
19:43 < echarp> cool then
19:43 < echarp> and that tv?
19:44 < urgen> just online video so far
19:44 < echarp> internet is a great tool, I hope tv will somedays only use it
19:45 < urgen> example topic:
19:45 < urgen> Debate: Kalon Tripa's candidate - Prof. Samdhong Rinpoche and Juchen Thupten Namgyal at Gangchen Kyishong staffmess Hall on 18th May 2006
19:45 < urgen> it's all in tibetan
19:46 < urgen> government's in exile are nearly the same thing as governments in cyberspace
19:46 < echarp> that will require some subtitles one day ;)
19:46 < urgen> next governments of cyberspace
19:47 < echarp> :)
19:47 < echarp> that would turn into a panarchy!!! you participate if you want to, you can secede any time
19:47 * echarp loves this
19:47 < urgen> yes room enough for every view
19:48 < echarp> exactly
19:49 < echarp> plus, there might be the possibility to follow more than one governent!
19:49 < urgen> and multiple loyalties
19:49 < echarp> :)
19:49 < urgen> he
19:49 < echarp> a war would turn into quite something funny :)
19:49 < urgen> like the old botwars of early irc
19:49 < echarp> a true panarchy I'm telling you
19:50 < echarp> botwars yes, for example
19:51 < echarp> I'm sure there would be many possibilities
19:51 < echarp> defacing websites would be a start, a "take the flag" challenge
19:58 < urgen> tibet never was a theocracy anyway...
19:58 < urgen> that's just an example of the western world's lack of vocabulary :-)
19:58 < urgen> there is no theo in buddhism
19:59 < echarp> true yes
19:59 < echarp> churchocracy? :)
19:59 < urgen> order ocracy?
19:59 < urgen> there is no church either
20:00 < urgen> the order being logic and reason
20:00 < urgen> so.. sanity ocracy?
20:01 < echarp> lama cracy then?
20:01 < urgen> hard to put a shell around sense
20:01 < echarp> sanity, hum
20:01 < urgen> buddhism is bigger than lama too
20:01 < echarp> but isn't that gov managed by a lama?
20:01 < urgen> no
20:01 < echarp> who is at the top?
20:01 < echarp> how is he designated?
20:01 < urgen> a group
20:02 < urgen> a group is the top
20:03 < echarp> I thought there was some kind of prime minister
20:03 < echarp> and that he was a lama
20:03 < urgen> that would be boring for a lama :-)
20:04 < urgen> administrative body
20:04 < echarp> possibly
20:04 < urgen> you gotta realize that vajrayana practitioners are experts in decentralized authority
20:05 < urgen> why would they want to try to create a top down model?
20:05 < echarp> I don't know, I thought I read something about it in one of the links you pasted here
20:05 < echarp> let's have a look on wp
20:07 < echarp> "In 2001 the worldwide Tibetan exile community conducted a democratic election for the position of Prime Minister"
20:07 < urgen> :-) "the neutrality of this article is disputed"
20:07 < urgen> see? already problems
20:07 < echarp> But, "This was the first democratic election in the history of the Tibetan people." :)
20:07 < urgen> so they have a central figure now
20:09 < echarp> plus the dalai lama
20:09 < echarp> does it not make it into some kind of religious monarchy?
20:10 < echarp> democratic, but not a republic
20:10 < urgen> that's a wonderful question
20:10 < urgen> because it forces you to define religion and monarchy
20:10 < urgen> and you have to come to terms for power vs Power
20:10 < urgen> where does the root of power come from?
20:11 < urgen> power comes from the ability to change one's mind
20:11 < urgen> that's not religious nor a monarchy
20:12 < echarp> to change one's mind is one possibility, among possible others, no?
20:12 < urgen> the end is the result
20:12 < urgen> the proof is in the pudding, thing
20:12 < echarp> most certainly
20:13 < echarp> you judge by the consequences
20:13 < urgen> so is there anything other than consequence?
20:13 < urgen> that would be holding on to something that is not and would lead to disappointment
20:14 < echarp> holding on to something that is not?
20:14 < echarp> fantasies? lies?
20:14 < urgen> the root of all problems
20:14 < urgen> delusion
20:15 < urgen> mistakes
20:15 < echarp> I'm sure there are other roots ;)
20:15 < urgen> oh?
20:15 < echarp> pulsions, libidos
20:15 < urgen> ok, remedial problems
20:15 < echarp> our bodies energy, channeled in our mind and generating all those energies that crave expression
20:15 < urgen> unnecessary problems
20:15 < echarp> pulsions are often considered one root
20:15 < echarp> desires
20:16 < echarp> your inner self, the one so difficult to understand and accept
20:16 < urgen> the one held to that is not :-)
20:16 < echarp> your true self, conscience merely a tapestry constituted of the "floating" elements of the mind
20:16 < urgen> of course that would cause problems
20:17 < echarp> held to that is not?
20:17 < urgen> taking something that does not exist for something that doe
20:17 < urgen> s
20:18 < urgen> stubborness
20:18 < echarp> illusion
20:18 < urgen> the illusion doesn't cause the problem as much as not being able to correct the view
20:18 < urgen> not willing to let go
20:18 < urgen> not willing to change your mind
20:19 < echarp> I would use freudian terms => our true pulsions are not accepted, and they can only express themselves through hidden but acceptable terms, lies and illusions
20:19 < urgen> how can something that does not exist express itself?
20:19 < urgen> this is only the expression of our lack of ability to recognize
20:19 < echarp> you may want to have sex with your mother, but that desire will go into hiding and will generate all sorts of others things
20:19 < echarp> pulsions do exist (as far as I can tell)
20:20 < echarp> they are the root of our mind
20:20 < urgen> I don't have to anthropomorphize it tho
20:20 < echarp> the dark root, those we don't understand and accept
20:20 < echarp> I'm thinking about it as a fluid
20:20 < urgen> brownian movement
20:20 < echarp> pulsions are water/information generated by our body
20:21 < echarp> it is channeled in the mind
20:21 < echarp> thousands and thousands of rivers, who have to flow
20:21 < echarp> but their flow is not always acceptable
20:21 < echarp> and those rivers are dammed
20:21 < echarp> up to a point of course, when they'll either break free violently
20:21 < echarp> or be diverted covertly
20:21 < urgen> misunderstanding happens all the time :-) or we wouldn't hang on so tightly to ideas like "acceptable"
20:22 < echarp> diversion being the most frequent and acceptable solution
20:22 < echarp> acceptable from a social/moral point of view?
20:22 < urgen> if you want to chart a broken system then that's fine
20:22 < urgen> I'd rather work toward resolution
20:22 < echarp> resolution would be, from that POV, to accept those rives, and not try to dam them
20:23 < urgen> of course
20:23 < echarp> but let them flow mostly freely
20:23 < urgen> recognition is much more healthy
20:23 < echarp> you would observe yourself
20:23 < echarp> recognition yes
20:23 < echarp> understanding who you truely are
20:23 < urgen> or aren't
20:23 < echarp> :)
20:23 < urgen> don't need to bias it already
20:23 < urgen> :-)
20:24 < urgen> so I can't put existence dependent in a religious box
20:24 < urgen> it is easy to put existence independent in one tho
20:25 < urgen> buddhism is not constructed on an existence independent system
20:25 < echarp> dependant? independant? from what?
20:25 < urgen> upon origin
20:25 < echarp> I don't follow
20:25 < urgen> relative vs absolute
20:25 < echarp> distancing yourself from your pulsions?
20:26 < urgen> existence dependent upon other than itself for its existence vs existence not dependent upon other than itself for its existence
20:26 < urgen> there is no yourself
20:26 < urgen> that would be an independent existence
20:27 < echarp> you are an interconnected part of the universe
20:27 < urgen> freud was a deist
20:27 < echarp> maybe yes
20:27 < urgen> or at least someone that recognized seeing the difference as something significant
20:27 < echarp> but I still think individuality exists, just that the "I" we speak about is a construction
20:27 < urgen> then he got lost in the details
20:28 < urgen> the nexus of habitual tendency that happens to be temporarily associated with this the activity I merely refer to as myself
20:28 < urgen> :-)
20:29 < urgen> that one has all the ground it needs as long as it doesn't try to take itself too seriously
20:29 < echarp> still, "I" is a tag we can find useful, no?
20:29 < urgen> I works for me as long as it is filtered from the I that ppl use to describe their 'soul'
20:29 < echarp> ok, I'm going to have a knack
20:30 < echarp> I love to speak about that "I", and to shock people when conversation drifts toward it
20:30 < echarp> because it's a shock to say that "I" is a mere construction :)
20:30 < echarp> it belittles that "I" so much, it's fun :)
20:31 < urgen> it does seem to rattle people that have never looked at it before
20:31 * echarp loves it :)
20:32 < echarp> nothing better than to play with a bee's nest, occasionaly ;)
20:33 < urgen> so if buddhism is based on an understanding of the nature of this mere I how can that be a theocracy or a monarchy?
20:33 < urgen> completely opposite
20:34 < urgen> more like saying einstein is god, even though, he too, was a theist
20:34 < urgen> it is hard to find non-theistics
20:34 < urgen> that are not also then, pulled into atheistic and want to rail on the church
20:35 < urgen> maybe we can find two schools of thought in atheistic view as well
20:36 < urgen> one that finds its life mission to destroy religion and the other to recognize the fatality of attempting to destroy something that does not exist
20:36 < urgen> like non-theistic but still dripping of having been born from a religious family
20:36 < urgen> but I haven't yet
20:37 < urgen> all atheists are anti church
20:39 < urgen> going around trying to knock over an illusion
20:39 < urgen> finding demons to excommunicate.. they are as bad as the church
20:41 < urgen> it isn't hard to find bees nests anywhere :-)
20:47 < echarp> trouble with atheists, is that it is not a religion, it is a "none" religion
20:47 < echarp> thus it can be anything, not just an opposite
20:48 < urgen> so why can't ppl see tibet in the same light?
20:48 < urgen> it is just misunderstanding
20:48 < echarp> and the dala lama is a religious figure, chosen by a process which, well, how to name it?
20:48 < urgen> and if so, then what understanding is missing?
20:48 < echarp> what is the process used to find the dalai lama?
20:48 < urgen> yes, what are the details
20:49 < urgen> and why isn't there ever a chance to even explore the issue?
20:49 < urgen> it's so weird to me
20:49 < urgen> an interesting bees nest
20:49 < echarp> and something comes to my mind!!! if the soul is eternal, and the dalai lama always is the same soul, then isn't it a dictature? :)
20:50 < urgen> it would be if buddhism held to any idea of a soul, but it doesn't
20:50 < echarp> soul or any other word that fits
20:50 < urgen> a sould would be an existence independent
20:50 < echarp> reincarnation?
20:50 < echarp> or is it hinduist?
20:50 < urgen> would you use the word reincarnation if I were to take one candle and light another?
20:51 < urgen> yes left over hindu terminology
20:51 < urgen> more misunderstanding
20:51 < echarp> about that light, I don't know
20:51 < urgen> the core is called condition and circumstance
20:52 < urgen> if you have the right condition and circumstance you get the right result
20:52 < urgen> this also talks to the idea of transhuman
20:52 < urgen> model the set and continue the activity defined
20:52 < echarp> I was about to talk about it yes
20:53 < echarp> I of course don't believe in a soul, but I understand the candle analogy
20:53 < echarp> replicate one's pattern, have someone else who is still originally the same person
20:53 < urgen> but a clone isn't the same prior person :-)
20:54 < urgen> but everyday the conditions and circumstances that allow you to extend your existence in time and space continue
20:54 < urgen> so 'continuity' is a good word to explore
20:55 < urgen> not in a sense of something ultimate but through meeting dependencies
20:55 < echarp> same is a difficult word :)
20:55 < urgen> same really is
20:55 < urgen> another fun word
20:56 < echarp> we should just use fuzzy logic
20:56 < echarp> a perfect technical clone would be the "same" person
20:56 < echarp> then both would diverge
20:56 < echarp> there would not be an original, unless you choose to tag one as such, but really, it's arbitrary (if both are strictly identical)
20:57 < urgen> right
20:57 < urgen> that arbitrary is essential
20:57 < echarp> so, is the dalai lama a continuation of something?
20:57 < urgen> you think this could also potentially re-merge?
20:57 < echarp> is he a dictator? ;)
20:57 < echarp> what could re-merge?
20:57 < urgen> the two clones
20:58 < echarp> oh yes, technically difficult, but philosophically most interesting
20:58 < urgen> if you can diverge due to the conditions and circumstances...
20:58 < echarp> I've thought about it, I think it would make for great novels! :)
20:58 < urgen> couldn't you also then possible guide these conditions and circumstances back together?
20:58 < echarp> you could try yes
20:58 < urgen> I think it has to be left open as a potential
20:58 < echarp> the merging might be dangerous, but still useful
20:58 < echarp> it is a potential yes
20:59 < urgen> so the idea is that all 'sentience' has the same nature
20:59 < echarp> there would be all sorts of criteria, degree of divergences, neural network incompatibilities
20:59 < urgen> we would all be dictators
20:59 < echarp> sentience is not much in my book, a computer could/can be sentient
20:59 < echarp> but, is he a continuation?
20:59 < urgen> yes even dalailama said a computer could be sentient
21:00 < echarp> isn't the process to discover him a process to trigger a recognition of this continuity?
21:00 < urgen> if we are all continuities why would he not be one?
21:00 < echarp> him = dalai lama
21:00 < echarp> he could be one, but then, is he a dictator?
21:00 < echarp> a life long dictator
21:00 < echarp> a lives long dictator :)
21:00 < urgen> all continuities are equally so
21:01 < urgen> there is not special condition and circumstance
21:01 < echarp> but that continuity, is given a temporal power over a country
21:01 < urgen> no need to horde
21:01 < echarp> horde?
21:01 < urgen> the temporal power is a myth
21:01 < echarp> well, he is the head of state
21:01 < urgen> hord?
21:01 < urgen> so is bush
21:01 < echarp> horde? hord? what do you want to express?
21:02 < echarp> and bush has temporal power
21:02 < urgen> um no need to stock up on condition and circumstance
21:02 < echarp> stock up?
21:02 < urgen> to be the 'leader' of condtion and circumstance
21:02 < urgen> nature is nature
21:02 < echarp> sorry, I'm not following you
21:02 < urgen> it isn't going to elect some part of itself as supreme
21:03 < urgen> supreme would be existence independent
21:03 < urgen> the nature of all things that have a beginning is that they end
21:04 < echarp> then, what is that process to discover the dalai lama when the old shell dies?
21:04 < echarp> why do they do that?
21:04 < urgen> whether you want to call it Tibet, the United States, or my old VW buss
21:04 < urgen> bus
21:04 < urgen> it is good to test for divergence
21:04 < urgen> when you have a theory you need to constantly test it
21:04 < echarp> but, what use is it to rediscover the dalai lama?
21:05 < urgen> you set up an experiment and if the results are not as you expected then you had better check why
21:05 < echarp> no need to designate him as head of state then
21:05 < urgen> as these locii of condition and circumstance operate they accumulate as well
21:06 < urgen> I am not the same as the I that was when it was six years old
21:06 < urgen> no need, true
21:06 < echarp> of course, and?
21:06 < echarp> no need to have the dalai lama?
21:06 < urgen> no need at all
21:06 < echarp> then why have the dalai lama?
21:06 < urgen> ppl are lazy?
21:06 < echarp> I thought it was a difficult process
21:07 < urgen> :-)
21:07 < urgen> it is a precise process
21:07 < echarp> and that the guy did have temporal powers
21:07 < urgen> don't know about difficult
21:07 < echarp> like the decision to create an expatriate government
21:07 < urgen> dalai lama hold the reigns of office for the government and a sect
21:07 < urgen> the sect by no means represents the whole of vajrayana
21:08 < urgen> no other sect recognizes the dalai lama as having some special means of control over their school of thought
21:08 < echarp> reigns of office?
21:08 < urgen> reins?
21:08 < urgen> spelling.. what stears a horse?
21:09 < urgen> the idea that there is some kind of god-kingness there is purely western myth
21:09 < echarp> he has powers?
21:09 < urgen> limited
21:09 < echarp> like the english queen,
21:09 < echarp> ?
21:09 < urgen> like any office's limit
21:10 < urgen> it's an office for gawsh sakes
21:10 < echarp> well, bad example, the english queen theoretically has huge powers, just she does not dare use them
21:10 < urgen> :-)
21:10 < echarp> but that office, what does it control if anything?
21:10 < urgen> that's for the tibetan people in exile to decide
21:10 < echarp> strategic decisions?
21:10 < echarp> they've decided, yes
21:11 < echarp> but still, rather like a somethingLikeATheo-cracy :)
21:11 < urgen> as far as for the gelugpa lineage he's not even the seat for that
21:12 < urgen> so it is still western myth
21:12 < echarp> you mean, he can't choose his own successor?
21:13 < urgen> no
21:14 < echarp> cool and good :)
21:14 < urgen> it is the west that puts so much emphasis on focus of power
21:15 < echarp> ok, I'm deploying my avatars :)
21:15 < urgen> and it is in the tibetan governments interest to meet that expectation
21:15 < echarp> dam, error
21:15 < urgen> because when they don't.. the chinese take it all away
21:15 < urgen> and since this is the coin of the realm,,,
21:15 < urgen> they no longer have a country
21:16 < urgen> just because ppl believed in the god-king myth
21:16 < urgen> sux to be tibetan
21:16 < echarp> focus of power is one of our way to think, yes
21:18 < echarp> maybe we've been bitten by it so many times ;)
21:18 < urgen> that's for sure
21:18 < urgen> learn or say ouch
21:19 < urgen> but this is also my point about democracy being a fragile structure
21:19 < urgen> it is very easy to topple
21:20 < echarp> ok, seems my avatars work!
21:20 * echarp dances
21:20 < echarp> democracy is one of those things which look like a cristal
21:20 < echarp> strong and fragile
21:21 < echarp> when the force applies rightly, it can withstand huge things
21:21 < echarp> yet there are potential fracture points :(
21:30 < urgen> yer picture isn't your avatar is it?
21:31 < echarp> any image can be
21:31 < urgen> I mean the one I see
21:31 < echarp> on the irc element?
21:31 < echarp> it is me :)
21:31 < urgen> I mean.. what you just implemented
21:31 < urgen> or was the picture there already
21:32 < urgen> (just looking for a way to check out the change)
21:32 < echarp> it's new, this is what I just put in production
21:32 < urgen> ok
21:32 < echarp> if you log in, with a pseudo, maybe a password and/or email
21:32 < echarp> you can set set your own avatar
21:32 < echarp> avatar which will go on the side of your posts
21:32 < echarp> I expect its appearance to feel strange at times, due to sizing issues
21:33 < echarp> look in "testing" for an example of what I mean
21:34 < urgen> woo, worked
21:34 < echarp> urgy_avy? :)
21:34 * urgen is urgen
21:34 < echarp> is that you with all that hair on the head? :)
21:35 * urgen is fuzzy
21:37 < echarp> :)
21:39 < echarp> funny, those avatars almost seem to work :)
21:40 < echarp> your image is now on my two servers, automatically replicated!!!
21:40 < echarp> ok, time for an ice cream :)
--- Log closed mar aoû 08 00:00:12 2006
echarp
Aug 9, 2006, 12:28:36 AM8/9/06
to top-politics
--- Log opened mar aoû 08 00:00:12 2006
--- Log closed mar aoû 08 04:18:10 2006
--- Log opened mar aoû 08 09:57:18 2006
09:57 -!- echarp [n=33M0...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has joined #parlement
09:57 -!- Topic for #parlement: http://leparlement.org
09:57 -!- Topic set by echarp [] [Mon Jul 24 00:20:56 2006]
09:57 [Users #parlement]
09:57 [ echarp] [ nsh] [ parlebot] [ urgen]
09:57 -!- Irssi: #parlement: Total of 4 nicks [0 ops, 0 halfops, 0 voices, 4 normal]
09:57 -!- Channel #parlement created Fri Jul 21 18:39:21 2006
09:57 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
09:57 -!- Irssi: Join to #parlement was synced in 31 secs
09:57 < echarp> hello hello
16:13 -!- nsh_ (No Such Human) [n=n...@88.144.1.63] has joined #parlement
16:20 -!- nsh [n=nsh@wikipedia/nsh] has quit [Read error: 60 (Operation timed out)]
20:33 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
--- Log closed mer aoû 09 00:00:43 2006
--- Log closed mar aoû 08 04:18:10 2006
--- Log opened mar aoû 08 09:57:18 2006
09:57 -!- echarp [n=33M0...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has joined #parlement
09:57 -!- Topic for #parlement: http://leparlement.org
09:57 -!- Topic set by echarp [] [Mon Jul 24 00:20:56 2006]
09:57 [Users #parlement]
09:57 [ echarp] [ nsh] [ parlebot] [ urgen]
09:57 -!- Irssi: #parlement: Total of 4 nicks [0 ops, 0 halfops, 0 voices, 4 normal]
09:57 -!- Channel #parlement created Fri Jul 21 18:39:21 2006
09:57 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
09:57 -!- Irssi: Join to #parlement was synced in 31 secs
09:57 < echarp> hello hello
16:13 -!- nsh_ (No Such Human) [n=n...@88.144.1.63] has joined #parlement
16:20 -!- nsh [n=nsh@wikipedia/nsh] has quit [Read error: 60 (Operation timed out)]
20:33 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
--- Log closed mer aoû 09 00:00:43 2006
echarp
Aug 10, 2006, 12:29:01 AM8/10/06
to top-politics
--- Log opened mer aoû 09 00:00:43 2006
01:55 -!- beeli (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung66.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
03:50 -!- beeli [n=ille...@cmung66.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit []
09:36 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
09:36 < echarp> hello
11:03 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
11:03 < echarp> http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2006/8/6/155745/7278
11:03 -!- Topic for #parlement: http://leparlement.org
11:03 -!- Topic set by echarp [] [Mon Jul 24 00:20:56 2006]
11:03 < echarp> :)
16:04 < nsh_:#parlement> urgen: http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:fIg1zvDRceQJ:farleighcom.ozstaging.com/ajpt_papers/vol02/02_scarfe.pdf+hegel+tetralemma&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=firefox-a
16:10 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
17:16 < urgen> the best thing about tetralemma to notice is its mirror like quality
18:34 < nsh_> how do you mean?
18:38 < urgen> who is looking in the mirror?
18:38 < urgen> in that article 'symmetry' is a key component
18:38 < urgen> mirrors also show this quality, no?
18:38 < urgen> whatever is in front shows up
18:39 < urgen> some people see nothing in nagarjuna, is that because they are nothing or because they are just looking at the surface only, missing the reflection?
18:40 < urgen> ‘asymmetrical
18:40 < urgen> interdependence’ or ‘asymmetry-in-symmetry’
18:41 < urgen> reflection gets it too, but we still see it as a reflection
18:41 < urgen> after all it is an exploration in identity
18:42 < urgen> ala existence
23:37 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
--- Log closed jeu aoû 10 00:00:46 2006
01:55 -!- beeli (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung66.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
03:50 -!- beeli [n=ille...@cmung66.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit []
09:36 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
09:36 < echarp> hello
11:03 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
11:03 < echarp> http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2006/8/6/155745/7278
11:03 -!- Topic for #parlement: http://leparlement.org
11:03 -!- Topic set by echarp [] [Mon Jul 24 00:20:56 2006]
11:03 < echarp> :)
16:04 < nsh_:#parlement> urgen: http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:fIg1zvDRceQJ:farleighcom.ozstaging.com/ajpt_papers/vol02/02_scarfe.pdf+hegel+tetralemma&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=firefox-a
16:10 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
17:16 < urgen> the best thing about tetralemma to notice is its mirror like quality
18:34 < nsh_> how do you mean?
18:38 < urgen> who is looking in the mirror?
18:38 < urgen> in that article 'symmetry' is a key component
18:38 < urgen> mirrors also show this quality, no?
18:38 < urgen> whatever is in front shows up
18:39 < urgen> some people see nothing in nagarjuna, is that because they are nothing or because they are just looking at the surface only, missing the reflection?
18:40 < urgen> ‘asymmetrical
18:40 < urgen> interdependence’ or ‘asymmetry-in-symmetry’
18:41 < urgen> reflection gets it too, but we still see it as a reflection
18:41 < urgen> after all it is an exploration in identity
18:42 < urgen> ala existence
23:37 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
--- Log closed jeu aoû 10 00:00:46 2006
echarp
Aug 11, 2006, 12:29:15 AM8/11/06
to top-politics
--- Log opened jeu aoû 10 00:00:46 2006
00:21 -!- urgen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
04:01 -!- urgen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
09:36 < echarp> hello hello
12:06 -!- urgen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
12:46 -!- urgen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
12:47 -!- urgyen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
12:58 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
12:58 < echarp> hello urgens :)
16:01 < urgen:#parlement> ya, oops
16:01 < urgen:#parlement> brb
16:01 -!- urgen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit []
16:01 -!- urgyen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit []
16:02 -!- urgen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
16:09 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
16:09 < echarp> :)
16:09 < echarp> the multiplication of urgen is a great feature! :)
16:10 < urgen> servers usually drop you if they detect that
16:10 < urgen> they'll tolerate two tho
16:10 < urgen> due to splits
16:11 < echarp> ghosts yes
16:11 < urgen> I forgot to disable my join script and had a network hiccup here
16:11 < urgen> that triggered a massive join
16:11 < urgen> so I was everywhere twice
--- Log closed ven aoû 11 00:00:46 2006
00:21 -!- urgen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
04:01 -!- urgen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
09:36 < echarp> hello hello
12:06 -!- urgen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
12:46 -!- urgen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
12:47 -!- urgyen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
12:58 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
12:58 < echarp> hello urgens :)
16:01 < urgen:#parlement> ya, oops
16:01 < urgen:#parlement> brb
16:01 -!- urgen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit []
16:01 -!- urgyen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit []
16:02 -!- urgen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
16:09 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
16:09 < echarp> :)
16:09 < echarp> the multiplication of urgen is a great feature! :)
16:10 < urgen> servers usually drop you if they detect that
16:10 < urgen> they'll tolerate two tho
16:10 < urgen> due to splits
16:11 < echarp> ghosts yes
16:11 < urgen> I forgot to disable my join script and had a network hiccup here
16:11 < urgen> that triggered a massive join
16:11 < urgen> so I was everywhere twice
--- Log closed ven aoû 11 00:00:46 2006
echarp
Aug 12, 2006, 12:28:51 AM8/12/06
to top-politics
--- Log opened ven aoû 11 00:00:46 2006
04:13 -!- urgen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit []
04:32 -!- urgen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
14:40 -!- beeli (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung721.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
14:41 < beeli:#parlement> oi
14:43 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
14:43 < echarp> lo lo beeli
14:43 < echarp> how are things?
14:45 < beeli> good, with you
14:45 < beeli> ?
14:46 < echarp> tired very tired
14:46 < echarp> going out too much
14:47 < beeli> why?
14:47 < beeli> gonna miss something if you dont>?
14:48 < echarp> friends, a girl :)
14:51 < beeli> some long relationship? huh?
15:08 < echarp> the very beginning
15:09 < beeli> the same girl you are talking about always, or some brand new?
15:10 < echarp> very much new
15:11 < beeli> cool
15:11 < beeli> is she young?
15:11 < beeli> :)
15:11 < echarp> not that much than me, 28
15:11 < echarp> we'll see where it goes
15:11 < beeli> nice
15:12 < beeli> where did you find her?
15:13 < echarp> on the net
15:13 < echarp> great place nowadays!
15:15 < beeli> heh
15:15 < echarp> and you then?
15:15 < echarp> on the beach every afternoon? ;)
15:16 < beeli> nah,
15:16 < beeli> i am sick and have to carry for gradnpa
15:16 < beeli> so, do not go out from Zgb
15:16 < echarp> oh
15:16 < echarp> lucky the weather is rather bad then
15:17 < beeli> yes
15:17 < beeli> lucky me :)
15:18 < echarp> :-p
16:28 < urgen:#parlement> morning
16:28 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
16:28 < echarp> hello hello you lazy bunch who wake up so late! :-p
16:29 < urgen> hehe
16:29 < echarp> earth rotation should not be an excuse :)
16:35 < urgen:#parlement> it doesn't have to be
16:36 < urgen:#parlement> ppl in space do fine
16:36 < urgen:#parlement> ppl in deep caves do fine
16:37 < urgen:#parlement> is vivarto a topic here?
16:38 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
16:38 < echarp> what is that???
16:39 < urgen> I don't know
16:39 < urgen> beeli was talking about it on other channels
16:39 < urgen> http://www.vivarto.com/the+Vivarto+Story
16:39 < urgen> as an example of something failing the 'open' test
16:39 < echarp> an "open" test, I'm interested!!!
16:40 < urgen> from what I've observed, beeli goes around and looks for places that require registration after advertising themselves as an 'open' community and then claiming that they have failed the test
16:40 < urgen> I'm still studying this :-)
16:41 < echarp> oh yes, you need to allow anonymous participation I believe
16:44 < beeli> talking about free attachment of info you think is not important :p
16:44 < echarp> I don't (yet) see that as pertinent in a world of free information
16:45 < beeli> perinent?
16:45 < echarp> how do you force some"one" to be open to outside information?
16:45 < echarp> perinent/pertinent
16:45 < beeli> you can not force hm to
16:45 < beeli> that is not the point
16:45 < beeli> point is about easy understaing of others potentials
16:46 < echarp> ?
16:46 < beeli> enablng support of those that have future
16:46 < echarp> which?
16:46 < beeli> optimisaion of the whole process
16:46 < beeli> by developing issues,
16:46 < beeli> creating political decisions
16:46 < beeli> creating sustainble economy
16:46 < beeli> whatever
16:46 < beeli> the same principle
16:46 < beeli> that give you possition to succeed before faling too many times
16:47 < beeli> and this means empowerment
16:48 < beeli> of the people
16:49 < echarp> support => optimisation => sustainable => empowerment???
16:49 < beeli> no need for sustainable
16:49 < beeli> optimisation of support leads to empowerment
16:49 < echarp> what is support?
16:50 < beeli> setting new power centers means decentralisation of power
16:50 < beeli> i can support parliament by talking about it
16:50 < beeli> using it
16:50 < beeli> promoting it
16:51 < echarp> what is the relation with openness?
16:51 < urgen> decentralized authority doesn't look like it is located anywhere
16:51 < beeli> it is
16:52 < beeli> relation to openness is that i can test is it ignorance or disability guilty for eventuall non success
16:52 < beeli> in one part i can help you
16:52 < beeli> in other one i can not
16:52 < beeli> if i can help you and if i can benfeit from it
16:52 < beeli> i will help you
16:52 < beeli> as anybody others
16:53 < urgen> an expression that indicates potential continuity....
16:54 < echarp> ignorance/disability => failure => openness?
16:55 < beeli> you can not know everything
16:55 < beeli> i understand that
16:55 < beeli> and i accept that
16:55 < beeli> yet, if i offer you info
16:55 < beeli> and you fail
16:55 < beeli> i will look for other centers
16:55 < beeli> if somebody is not open
16:55 < urgen> I'm think beeli means: a [secret] component essential to the ingredients for sustainability
16:55 < beeli> than i can not help him in informing himslef
16:55 < urgen> not really secret but something that takes a little digestion to see
16:56 < urgen> the 'secret' is another way of addressing ignorance
16:56 < beeli> no, we are talking avbout openness, not transapreny
16:56 < beeli> about attaching info
16:57 < urgen> I think it is identical
16:57 < beeli> in political process it is essential
16:57 < beeli> in other it is way of working
16:57 < beeli> you can be transparent with non interactive tool
16:57 < beeli> you can not be open by it
16:58 < echarp> transparency is giving infor, openness is receiving it?
16:59 < beeli> that stuff we talked about , yes
16:59 < urgen> conceit, arrogance, pride, stubborness as the opposite of open?
16:59 < beeli> no, we talk about processs
16:59 < beeli> these are human characteristic
17:00 < beeli> esp
17:00 < beeli> is not transparent, it is only open
17:00 < beeli> yet, as long as it is not transparent i can not give them proper nfo they might need
17:00 < beeli> as long as they did not informed me properly so i can not help them
17:01 < beeli> these parts work very very fine onoly if they are together
17:01 < urgen> they aren't interested in needing
17:01 < beeli> ok
17:01 < urgen> so they aren't open either?
17:02 < echarp> this openness just is to accept information, like a black hole? or to show this information is used in some way?
17:02 < beeli> it depands nothing, just public channel they use
17:02 < beeli> we know and they know we know everybody knows that
17:02 < urgen> public is already obsolete with internet
17:02 < beeli> p / m
17:03 < beeli> its not
17:03 < urgen> freenode is not public
17:03 < beeli> #esp channel is good example
17:03 < beeli> ok, lets talk about open
17:03 < urgen> it has full right to restrict traffic
17:03 < beeli> public is an issue we have not aproached to it yes
17:05 < urgen> it is often required to restrict traffic in order to allow an enjoyable experience for the users that are not disruptive
17:05 < echarp> is it required to tackle openness?
17:06 < beeli> urgen, what is the situation about freedom of internet in USA?
17:06 < beeli> how can goverment close site?
17:06 < beeli> Is it possibe?
17:06 < urgen> easy
17:06 < beeli> what you mean tackle?
17:07 < beeli> urgen: does it happens regularly and why?
17:07 < beeli> and how at all?
17:07 < echarp> is participation important in order to understand openness?
17:07 < urgen> it happens when people blatantly break the law
17:07 < urgen> is participation important to understand openness, v. nice question :-)
17:08 < beeli> suppose it might be
17:08 < beeli> yet, we have to see what does it mean participation
17:09 < urgen> if you want to play you have to follow the rules, otherwise it is a different game
17:09 < beeli> in decision making?
17:09 < beeli> in realising stuff and so on?
17:09 < urgen> internet generally follows the rules of tcp/ip
17:10 < urgen> it is possible for there to be some co-existing alternative protocols
17:10 < urgen> example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_DNS_root
17:11 < beeli> in this moment openees is relatively easy to define by provided interaction
17:11 < urgen> alternative dns allows different naming conventions for web addresses
17:11 < urgen> but you still have to follow the rules of the alternative to play
17:11 < beeli> or if we set it as part of TOP as having public forum where org participaties
17:11 < urgen> otherwise typing in i.am.a.geek does not route
17:11 < beeli> what is the point you aim at, urgen?
17:12 < urgen> these alternative roots claim classid dns is not 'open'
17:12 < beeli> i do not follow you
17:13 < urgen> s/classid/classic
17:13 < urgen> so they name themselves OpenNIC, etc
17:13 < beeli> and they do no differ?
17:13 < urgen> they differ greatly
17:13 < urgen> so much that they occasionally negatively impact the function of the internet
17:14 < urgen> or more, the other way around
17:14 < beeli> how do they differ?
17:14 < urgen> they offer new top level domains
17:14 < urgen> they allow you to invent your own and register it
17:15 < urgen> but they require you to use 'their' dns server to access this level of participation
17:15 < urgen> that's not especially hard, but you'd have to understand how before you could participate
17:15 < urgen> is this hidden? not really. did you know about it?
17:16 < urgen> do they flunk transparency or openness?
17:16 < beeli> do not know
17:16 < beeli> so, they offer me to develop protocol stuff?
17:17 < beeli> have wider offer is that so?
17:17 < urgen> they offer you to have my.own.top.level.domain.beeli
17:17 < urgen> and it lands on your web page when you type that
17:17 < urgen> classic dns only offers edu org mil com biz info net (recognized by icann)
17:18 < beeli> ok
17:18 < beeli> this has nothing to opennes or transparency on the level we discuss about it
17:18 < beeli> and that is about procedures as i remember
17:18 < urgen> are you sure?
17:19 < urgen> if I wanted to have .urgen and asked people to visit my page by typing in http://www.home.urgen/
17:19 < urgen> it would not work
17:19 < urgen> because 99% of the people use classic internet root servers
17:19 < beeli> so, what is the point?
17:19 < urgen> and it would be very hard for me to explain to them how to change that
17:20 < beeli> echarp: do you follow?
17:20 < urgen> but why doesn't classic root just pick up the list from the alternative root?
17:20 < urgen> because the internet is not open?
17:21 < beeli> dns did not accept that thought
17:21 < urgen> dns is a cabal
17:21 < beeli> being open does not meen to accept crap
17:21 < beeli> it is up to individual to decide what is crap and what is not
17:22 < urgen> you asked for what was the state of US and internet
17:22 < urgen> this is the state.. dns is a cabal
17:22 < urgen> open is a fantasy still
17:22 < echarp> opennic I follow yes
17:23 < echarp> dns is terrible, because it's a simpe basic tree
17:23 < echarp> simpe/simple
17:23 < beeli> what is the relation to top we discuss about?
17:23 < beeli> i do not get it
17:23 < echarp> if at least they had opened all top domains!
17:23 < urgen> icann is not top
17:23 < echarp> dns servers are definitely not open :)
17:24 < beeli> what does it mean?
17:24 < echarp> it's rigid and controlled by big interests
17:25 < urgen> it means there are many monopolies controlled by big interest
17:25 < echarp> I don't know exactly what is openness, but dns servers are probably not :)
17:25 < beeli> what would mean to you if it was open?
17:25 < beeli> heh
17:25 < beeli> there is easy to defne level of openness
17:25 < urgen> this discussion,, what would it mean were it to be open
17:25 < beeli> and there is intuitive level of openness
17:25 < urgen> is a nice exploration in the technical difficulties of being open
17:26 < urgen> it is totally possible
17:26 < echarp> particularly considering a global tree
17:28 < beeli> what open to you means?
17:28 < beeli> seems it means something that is open as you, or open as you would be if you where there
17:29 < beeli> right?
17:29 < echarp> I would speak about freedom, not being restricted
17:29 < beeli> free is another term
17:29 < beeli> :)
17:29 < urgen> open to influence outside of a select body of control
17:30 < echarp> not being restrited => freedom, easy :)
17:33 < urgen> but for the internet, for dns... not open to anything at all, it still has to work, it still has to meet the needs of the participants
17:33 < urgen> there is still a body of control
17:34 < urgen> what works is dependent upon principles of operation
17:34 < urgen> physical contraints
17:34 < urgen> there is no reason everyone could not have their own tld
17:35 < echarp> for a start!
17:35 < echarp> it's so basic yet so far reaching!!!
17:35 < urgen> once, maybe, when machines were very very slow there was some interest in keeping the tld under limitations
17:36 < urgen> another physical constraint
17:36 < urgen> but when that was solved it should have been openned up
17:36 < echarp> I know tests were done, and demonstrated that there is no technical limitations with current dns servers
17:37 < urgen> the limit is who pays for the electricity
17:37 < urgen> who pays for the rent to house
17:40 < echarp> to your knowledge, has any one devised a truely decentralised way to organise something like internet?
17:40 < echarp> no central dns, or even ip
17:40 < urgen> I've seen some models
17:41 < urgen> I haven't looked in that direction in quite a while
17:41 < urgen> they seemed to have solid logic supporting them and a way to discuss and improve
17:41 < echarp> I know of ways to construct a self healing net
17:41 < echarp> but I'm wondering about url and such things
17:41 -!- illegal (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung2725.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
17:42 < urgen> have you looked at .glue ?
17:42 < echarp> no
17:42 < urgen> many of the alt-roots have worked on a protocol to 'glue' them together
17:43 < illegal> back
17:43 < illegal> parelbot help
17:43 < illegal> parlebot help
17:43 < illegal> parlebot: help
17:43 < parlebot> The commands I know are:
17:43 < parlebot> silence - Stop logging (also: stop, off, ...)
17:43 < parlebot> listen - Start logging (also: start, on, ...)
17:43 < parlebot> bookmark - Give the URI of the current log
17:43 < parlebot> chump LETTER - Record the URI of the current log under chump LETTER
17:43 < parlebot> I respond to 'parlebot, command' in public and '/msg parlebot command' in private
17:43 < parlebot> Logging Policy: All public output is logged if I am listening except for
17:43 < parlebot> any lines starting [off]. All commands to me are logged.
17:43 < parlebot> My public output is logged but these lines are not searchable.
17:43 < parlebot> The logs are at http://bridgeheart.net/irclogs/irc.freenode.net:6667/parlement/
17:43 < parlebot> Do parlebot, adminhelp for help on administrative commands
17:44 < echarp> glueing would/might be a start, but what of conflicts?
17:45 < urgen> I think the model maps to a unique enum type system
17:46 < urgen> but I forget how it worked offhand
17:46 < echarp> still a hierarchy then?
17:46 < echarp> I don't even know if a non hierarchy is possible
17:46 < urgen> that was one, I do remember something of smaller islands too
17:46 < urgen> but I don't remember the principle they were using
17:47 < urgen> the most fun I had was reading Jim Flemming's IPv8
17:48 < urgen> he figured out a way to offer expanded routing on existing IPv4 routers
17:48 < urgen> bypassing the whole IPv6 politics
17:48 < urgen> pissed off quite a few engineers
17:48 < echarp> lol
17:49 < illegal> how do you set unique stuff by it?
17:49 < echarp> there might not be "unique" stuff
17:50 < illegal> how do i find you?
17:50 < echarp> no idea
17:50 < illegal> pgp
17:50 < illegal> ?
17:50 < illegal> public pgp + nodes that direct to?
17:51 < urgen> uddi is a directory protocol
17:53 < echarp> and I believe it's mostly dead
17:53 < echarp> PGP are a starding point
17:54 < echarp> starting
17:54 < urgen> there is a new UDDI Lite
17:54 < illegal> what is the weakest part of nternet?
17:54 < urgen> the user is the weakest point
17:54 < urgen> education is the weakest point
17:54 < illegal> what you mean?
17:54 < urgen> understanding is the weakest point
17:55 < urgen> the department of homeland security sent a warning recently: http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?content=5789
17:56 < urgen> people, PLEASE update your windows
17:56 < urgen> it has to be a national alert to get people to take concern about their own participation on the internet :-)
17:56 < illegal> why?
17:56 < illegal> my windows are old very much
17:57 < urgen> because it is easy to turn older systems into zombies
17:57 < urgen> the zombies can be used to remote control attacks on other services
17:57 < illegal> ok
17:57 -!- beeli [n=ille...@cmung721.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
17:58 < urgen> it would appear like repeated loss of connection to the internet :-)
17:58 < echarp> lol
17:58 < urgen> but I'm sure you have even more other problems :-)
17:58 < illegal> yes
17:59 < echarp> a good ubuntu and it resolves so many things!
17:59 < urgen> yes, ubuntu is doing well
19:15 -!- illegal [n=ille...@cmung2725.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit []
--- Log closed sam aoû 12 00:00:47 2006
04:13 -!- urgen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit []
04:32 -!- urgen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
14:40 -!- beeli (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung721.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
14:41 < beeli:#parlement> oi
14:43 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
14:43 < echarp> lo lo beeli
14:43 < echarp> how are things?
14:45 < beeli> good, with you
14:45 < beeli> ?
14:46 < echarp> tired very tired
14:46 < echarp> going out too much
14:47 < beeli> why?
14:47 < beeli> gonna miss something if you dont>?
14:48 < echarp> friends, a girl :)
14:51 < beeli> some long relationship? huh?
15:08 < echarp> the very beginning
15:09 < beeli> the same girl you are talking about always, or some brand new?
15:10 < echarp> very much new
15:11 < beeli> cool
15:11 < beeli> is she young?
15:11 < beeli> :)
15:11 < echarp> not that much than me, 28
15:11 < echarp> we'll see where it goes
15:11 < beeli> nice
15:12 < beeli> where did you find her?
15:13 < echarp> on the net
15:13 < echarp> great place nowadays!
15:15 < beeli> heh
15:15 < echarp> and you then?
15:15 < echarp> on the beach every afternoon? ;)
15:16 < beeli> nah,
15:16 < beeli> i am sick and have to carry for gradnpa
15:16 < beeli> so, do not go out from Zgb
15:16 < echarp> oh
15:16 < echarp> lucky the weather is rather bad then
15:17 < beeli> yes
15:17 < beeli> lucky me :)
15:18 < echarp> :-p
16:28 < urgen:#parlement> morning
16:28 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
16:28 < echarp> hello hello you lazy bunch who wake up so late! :-p
16:29 < urgen> hehe
16:29 < echarp> earth rotation should not be an excuse :)
16:35 < urgen:#parlement> it doesn't have to be
16:36 < urgen:#parlement> ppl in space do fine
16:36 < urgen:#parlement> ppl in deep caves do fine
16:37 < urgen:#parlement> is vivarto a topic here?
16:38 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
16:38 < echarp> what is that???
16:39 < urgen> I don't know
16:39 < urgen> beeli was talking about it on other channels
16:39 < urgen> http://www.vivarto.com/the+Vivarto+Story
16:39 < urgen> as an example of something failing the 'open' test
16:39 < echarp> an "open" test, I'm interested!!!
16:40 < urgen> from what I've observed, beeli goes around and looks for places that require registration after advertising themselves as an 'open' community and then claiming that they have failed the test
16:40 < urgen> I'm still studying this :-)
16:41 < echarp> oh yes, you need to allow anonymous participation I believe
16:44 < beeli> talking about free attachment of info you think is not important :p
16:44 < echarp> I don't (yet) see that as pertinent in a world of free information
16:45 < beeli> perinent?
16:45 < echarp> how do you force some"one" to be open to outside information?
16:45 < echarp> perinent/pertinent
16:45 < beeli> you can not force hm to
16:45 < beeli> that is not the point
16:45 < beeli> point is about easy understaing of others potentials
16:46 < echarp> ?
16:46 < beeli> enablng support of those that have future
16:46 < echarp> which?
16:46 < beeli> optimisaion of the whole process
16:46 < beeli> by developing issues,
16:46 < beeli> creating political decisions
16:46 < beeli> creating sustainble economy
16:46 < beeli> whatever
16:46 < beeli> the same principle
16:46 < beeli> that give you possition to succeed before faling too many times
16:47 < beeli> and this means empowerment
16:48 < beeli> of the people
16:49 < echarp> support => optimisation => sustainable => empowerment???
16:49 < beeli> no need for sustainable
16:49 < beeli> optimisation of support leads to empowerment
16:49 < echarp> what is support?
16:50 < beeli> setting new power centers means decentralisation of power
16:50 < beeli> i can support parliament by talking about it
16:50 < beeli> using it
16:50 < beeli> promoting it
16:51 < echarp> what is the relation with openness?
16:51 < urgen> decentralized authority doesn't look like it is located anywhere
16:51 < beeli> it is
16:52 < beeli> relation to openness is that i can test is it ignorance or disability guilty for eventuall non success
16:52 < beeli> in one part i can help you
16:52 < beeli> in other one i can not
16:52 < beeli> if i can help you and if i can benfeit from it
16:52 < beeli> i will help you
16:52 < beeli> as anybody others
16:53 < urgen> an expression that indicates potential continuity....
16:54 < echarp> ignorance/disability => failure => openness?
16:55 < beeli> you can not know everything
16:55 < beeli> i understand that
16:55 < beeli> and i accept that
16:55 < beeli> yet, if i offer you info
16:55 < beeli> and you fail
16:55 < beeli> i will look for other centers
16:55 < beeli> if somebody is not open
16:55 < urgen> I'm think beeli means: a [secret] component essential to the ingredients for sustainability
16:55 < beeli> than i can not help him in informing himslef
16:55 < urgen> not really secret but something that takes a little digestion to see
16:56 < urgen> the 'secret' is another way of addressing ignorance
16:56 < beeli> no, we are talking avbout openness, not transapreny
16:56 < beeli> about attaching info
16:57 < urgen> I think it is identical
16:57 < beeli> in political process it is essential
16:57 < beeli> in other it is way of working
16:57 < beeli> you can be transparent with non interactive tool
16:57 < beeli> you can not be open by it
16:58 < echarp> transparency is giving infor, openness is receiving it?
16:59 < beeli> that stuff we talked about , yes
16:59 < urgen> conceit, arrogance, pride, stubborness as the opposite of open?
16:59 < beeli> no, we talk about processs
16:59 < beeli> these are human characteristic
17:00 < beeli> esp
17:00 < beeli> is not transparent, it is only open
17:00 < beeli> yet, as long as it is not transparent i can not give them proper nfo they might need
17:00 < beeli> as long as they did not informed me properly so i can not help them
17:01 < beeli> these parts work very very fine onoly if they are together
17:01 < urgen> they aren't interested in needing
17:01 < beeli> ok
17:01 < urgen> so they aren't open either?
17:02 < echarp> this openness just is to accept information, like a black hole? or to show this information is used in some way?
17:02 < beeli> it depands nothing, just public channel they use
17:02 < beeli> we know and they know we know everybody knows that
17:02 < urgen> public is already obsolete with internet
17:02 < beeli> p / m
17:03 < beeli> its not
17:03 < urgen> freenode is not public
17:03 < beeli> #esp channel is good example
17:03 < beeli> ok, lets talk about open
17:03 < urgen> it has full right to restrict traffic
17:03 < beeli> public is an issue we have not aproached to it yes
17:05 < urgen> it is often required to restrict traffic in order to allow an enjoyable experience for the users that are not disruptive
17:05 < echarp> is it required to tackle openness?
17:06 < beeli> urgen, what is the situation about freedom of internet in USA?
17:06 < beeli> how can goverment close site?
17:06 < beeli> Is it possibe?
17:06 < urgen> easy
17:06 < beeli> what you mean tackle?
17:07 < beeli> urgen: does it happens regularly and why?
17:07 < beeli> and how at all?
17:07 < echarp> is participation important in order to understand openness?
17:07 < urgen> it happens when people blatantly break the law
17:07 < urgen> is participation important to understand openness, v. nice question :-)
17:08 < beeli> suppose it might be
17:08 < beeli> yet, we have to see what does it mean participation
17:09 < urgen> if you want to play you have to follow the rules, otherwise it is a different game
17:09 < beeli> in decision making?
17:09 < beeli> in realising stuff and so on?
17:09 < urgen> internet generally follows the rules of tcp/ip
17:10 < urgen> it is possible for there to be some co-existing alternative protocols
17:10 < urgen> example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_DNS_root
17:11 < beeli> in this moment openees is relatively easy to define by provided interaction
17:11 < urgen> alternative dns allows different naming conventions for web addresses
17:11 < urgen> but you still have to follow the rules of the alternative to play
17:11 < beeli> or if we set it as part of TOP as having public forum where org participaties
17:11 < urgen> otherwise typing in i.am.a.geek does not route
17:11 < beeli> what is the point you aim at, urgen?
17:12 < urgen> these alternative roots claim classid dns is not 'open'
17:12 < beeli> i do not follow you
17:13 < urgen> s/classid/classic
17:13 < urgen> so they name themselves OpenNIC, etc
17:13 < beeli> and they do no differ?
17:13 < urgen> they differ greatly
17:13 < urgen> so much that they occasionally negatively impact the function of the internet
17:14 < urgen> or more, the other way around
17:14 < beeli> how do they differ?
17:14 < urgen> they offer new top level domains
17:14 < urgen> they allow you to invent your own and register it
17:15 < urgen> but they require you to use 'their' dns server to access this level of participation
17:15 < urgen> that's not especially hard, but you'd have to understand how before you could participate
17:15 < urgen> is this hidden? not really. did you know about it?
17:16 < urgen> do they flunk transparency or openness?
17:16 < beeli> do not know
17:16 < beeli> so, they offer me to develop protocol stuff?
17:17 < beeli> have wider offer is that so?
17:17 < urgen> they offer you to have my.own.top.level.domain.beeli
17:17 < urgen> and it lands on your web page when you type that
17:17 < urgen> classic dns only offers edu org mil com biz info net (recognized by icann)
17:18 < beeli> ok
17:18 < beeli> this has nothing to opennes or transparency on the level we discuss about it
17:18 < beeli> and that is about procedures as i remember
17:18 < urgen> are you sure?
17:19 < urgen> if I wanted to have .urgen and asked people to visit my page by typing in http://www.home.urgen/
17:19 < urgen> it would not work
17:19 < urgen> because 99% of the people use classic internet root servers
17:19 < beeli> so, what is the point?
17:19 < urgen> and it would be very hard for me to explain to them how to change that
17:20 < beeli> echarp: do you follow?
17:20 < urgen> but why doesn't classic root just pick up the list from the alternative root?
17:20 < urgen> because the internet is not open?
17:21 < beeli> dns did not accept that thought
17:21 < urgen> dns is a cabal
17:21 < beeli> being open does not meen to accept crap
17:21 < beeli> it is up to individual to decide what is crap and what is not
17:22 < urgen> you asked for what was the state of US and internet
17:22 < urgen> this is the state.. dns is a cabal
17:22 < urgen> open is a fantasy still
17:22 < echarp> opennic I follow yes
17:23 < echarp> dns is terrible, because it's a simpe basic tree
17:23 < echarp> simpe/simple
17:23 < beeli> what is the relation to top we discuss about?
17:23 < beeli> i do not get it
17:23 < echarp> if at least they had opened all top domains!
17:23 < urgen> icann is not top
17:23 < echarp> dns servers are definitely not open :)
17:24 < beeli> what does it mean?
17:24 < echarp> it's rigid and controlled by big interests
17:25 < urgen> it means there are many monopolies controlled by big interest
17:25 < echarp> I don't know exactly what is openness, but dns servers are probably not :)
17:25 < beeli> what would mean to you if it was open?
17:25 < beeli> heh
17:25 < beeli> there is easy to defne level of openness
17:25 < urgen> this discussion,, what would it mean were it to be open
17:25 < beeli> and there is intuitive level of openness
17:25 < urgen> is a nice exploration in the technical difficulties of being open
17:26 < urgen> it is totally possible
17:26 < echarp> particularly considering a global tree
17:28 < beeli> what open to you means?
17:28 < beeli> seems it means something that is open as you, or open as you would be if you where there
17:29 < beeli> right?
17:29 < echarp> I would speak about freedom, not being restricted
17:29 < beeli> free is another term
17:29 < beeli> :)
17:29 < urgen> open to influence outside of a select body of control
17:30 < echarp> not being restrited => freedom, easy :)
17:33 < urgen> but for the internet, for dns... not open to anything at all, it still has to work, it still has to meet the needs of the participants
17:33 < urgen> there is still a body of control
17:34 < urgen> what works is dependent upon principles of operation
17:34 < urgen> physical contraints
17:34 < urgen> there is no reason everyone could not have their own tld
17:35 < echarp> for a start!
17:35 < echarp> it's so basic yet so far reaching!!!
17:35 < urgen> once, maybe, when machines were very very slow there was some interest in keeping the tld under limitations
17:36 < urgen> another physical constraint
17:36 < urgen> but when that was solved it should have been openned up
17:36 < echarp> I know tests were done, and demonstrated that there is no technical limitations with current dns servers
17:37 < urgen> the limit is who pays for the electricity
17:37 < urgen> who pays for the rent to house
17:40 < echarp> to your knowledge, has any one devised a truely decentralised way to organise something like internet?
17:40 < echarp> no central dns, or even ip
17:40 < urgen> I've seen some models
17:41 < urgen> I haven't looked in that direction in quite a while
17:41 < urgen> they seemed to have solid logic supporting them and a way to discuss and improve
17:41 < echarp> I know of ways to construct a self healing net
17:41 < echarp> but I'm wondering about url and such things
17:41 -!- illegal (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung2725.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
17:42 < urgen> have you looked at .glue ?
17:42 < echarp> no
17:42 < urgen> many of the alt-roots have worked on a protocol to 'glue' them together
17:43 < illegal> back
17:43 < illegal> parelbot help
17:43 < illegal> parlebot help
17:43 < illegal> parlebot: help
17:43 < parlebot> The commands I know are:
17:43 < parlebot> silence - Stop logging (also: stop, off, ...)
17:43 < parlebot> listen - Start logging (also: start, on, ...)
17:43 < parlebot> bookmark - Give the URI of the current log
17:43 < parlebot> chump LETTER - Record the URI of the current log under chump LETTER
17:43 < parlebot> I respond to 'parlebot, command' in public and '/msg parlebot command' in private
17:43 < parlebot> Logging Policy: All public output is logged if I am listening except for
17:43 < parlebot> any lines starting [off]. All commands to me are logged.
17:43 < parlebot> My public output is logged but these lines are not searchable.
17:43 < parlebot> The logs are at http://bridgeheart.net/irclogs/irc.freenode.net:6667/parlement/
17:43 < parlebot> Do parlebot, adminhelp for help on administrative commands
17:44 < echarp> glueing would/might be a start, but what of conflicts?
17:45 < urgen> I think the model maps to a unique enum type system
17:46 < urgen> but I forget how it worked offhand
17:46 < echarp> still a hierarchy then?
17:46 < echarp> I don't even know if a non hierarchy is possible
17:46 < urgen> that was one, I do remember something of smaller islands too
17:46 < urgen> but I don't remember the principle they were using
17:47 < urgen> the most fun I had was reading Jim Flemming's IPv8
17:48 < urgen> he figured out a way to offer expanded routing on existing IPv4 routers
17:48 < urgen> bypassing the whole IPv6 politics
17:48 < urgen> pissed off quite a few engineers
17:48 < echarp> lol
17:49 < illegal> how do you set unique stuff by it?
17:49 < echarp> there might not be "unique" stuff
17:50 < illegal> how do i find you?
17:50 < echarp> no idea
17:50 < illegal> pgp
17:50 < illegal> ?
17:50 < illegal> public pgp + nodes that direct to?
17:51 < urgen> uddi is a directory protocol
17:53 < echarp> and I believe it's mostly dead
17:53 < echarp> PGP are a starding point
17:54 < echarp> starting
17:54 < urgen> there is a new UDDI Lite
17:54 < illegal> what is the weakest part of nternet?
17:54 < urgen> the user is the weakest point
17:54 < urgen> education is the weakest point
17:54 < illegal> what you mean?
17:54 < urgen> understanding is the weakest point
17:55 < urgen> the department of homeland security sent a warning recently: http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?content=5789
17:56 < urgen> people, PLEASE update your windows
17:56 < urgen> it has to be a national alert to get people to take concern about their own participation on the internet :-)
17:56 < illegal> why?
17:56 < illegal> my windows are old very much
17:57 < urgen> because it is easy to turn older systems into zombies
17:57 < urgen> the zombies can be used to remote control attacks on other services
17:57 < illegal> ok
17:57 -!- beeli [n=ille...@cmung721.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
17:58 < urgen> it would appear like repeated loss of connection to the internet :-)
17:58 < echarp> lol
17:58 < urgen> but I'm sure you have even more other problems :-)
17:58 < illegal> yes
17:59 < echarp> a good ubuntu and it resolves so many things!
17:59 < urgen> yes, ubuntu is doing well
19:15 -!- illegal [n=ille...@cmung2725.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit []
--- Log closed sam aoû 12 00:00:47 2006
echarp
Aug 13, 2006, 12:29:12 AM8/13/06
to top-politics
--- Log opened sam aoû 12 00:00:47 2006
05:18 -!- illegal (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung4097.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
05:22 -!- illegal is now known as beeli
05:40 -!- beeli [n=ille...@cmung4097.cmu.carnet.hr] has left #parlement []
11:05 < echarp> hello hello
16:40 -!- illegal (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung2576.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
16:49 < illegal:#parlement> pi
16:49 -!- illegal is now known as beeli
17:08 < urgen:#parlement> diameter = pi time the radius to the second power
17:18 < beeli:#parlement> *2
17:18 < urgen:#parlement> **2
17:18 < beeli:#parlement> ops
17:19 < beeli:#parlement> urgen where do you live?
17:19 < urgen:#parlement> 2 pi r is ummm
17:19 < beeli:#parlement> yes
17:19 * urgen:#parlement is west coast US
17:20 < beeli:#parlement> in house?
17:20 < urgen:#parlement> I rent
17:20 < beeli:#parlement> a house?
17:20 < urgen:#parlement> it is in a house with three apartments
17:20 < beeli:#parlement> cool
17:20 < beeli:#parlement> in cro these prices went pretty high these days
17:20 < urgen:#parlement> hee. I've heard
17:21 < beeli:#parlement> one m2 is 1500 - 2000 E
17:21 < urgen:#parlement> utoh my monitor is dying...
17:21 < beeli:#parlement> not even some great zone
17:21 < beeli:#parlement> k
17:22 < urgen:#parlement> the cheapest house here is 350K E
17:22 < urgen:#parlement> that's for something with a leaky roof and needs other repairs
17:22 < beeli:#parlement> that is much aslo
17:22 < beeli:#parlement> is it sururban area?
17:22 < beeli:#parlement> SD?
17:22 < beeli:#parlement> SF?
17:23 < urgen:#parlement> this is pretty rural
17:23 < urgen:#parlement> edge of a forest
17:23 < beeli:#parlement> cool
17:23 < urgen:#parlement> about a half hour drive to the nearest city of 140 thousand
17:24 < urgen:#parlement> which is a couple hours drive from SF
18:14 -!- illegal (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung720.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
18:14 < urgen:#parlement> re
18:15 < illegal:#parlement> re
18:16 < illegal:#parlement> did you ever played D n D and simmilar RPG stuff?
18:16 < urgen:#parlement> a little bit quite a long time ago
18:17 < illegal:#parlement> anybody from irc is about that?
18:17 < illegal:#parlement> in that?
18:17 < urgen:#parlement> I'd imagine that there are quite a few
18:17 < urgen:#parlement> also have you heard of mud's?
18:17 < urgen:#parlement> multi user dungeons
18:17 < illegal:#parlement> hmh, not
18:17 < urgen:#parlement> it is like irc but a text adventure
18:17 < illegal:#parlement> just reading about this stuff
18:17 < illegal:#parlement> oh i know for that
18:18 < illegal:#parlement> very old thing
18:18 < illegal:#parlement> right\/
18:18 < urgen:#parlement> yes
18:18 < illegal:#parlement> you where part of it?
18:18 < illegal:#parlement> :)
18:18 < urgen:#parlement> I liked irc better
18:18 < illegal:#parlement> no games?
18:19 < urgen:#parlement> I am an avid game fan
18:20 < illegal:#parlement> avid?
18:20 < urgen:#parlement> enthusiastic
18:20 < illegal:#parlement> :)
18:21 < illegal:#parlement> now i read about these worlds
18:21 < illegal:#parlement> Dnd, WW and stuff
18:21 < illegal:#parlement> interesting
18:21 < illegal:#parlement> i played DnD while ago for one month
18:21 < illegal:#parlement> great thing
18:21 < urgen:#parlement> a long time ago there was a computer game called Adventure
18:21 < urgen:#parlement> before PCs existed
18:21 < illegal:#parlement> yes
18:36 < illegal:#parlement> there is a guy who makes leather stuff, pretty cool things
18:38 < urgen:#parlement> I haven't done anything in leather since I had a class in school
18:38 < urgen:#parlement> high school
18:39 < illegal:#parlement> i never did
18:39 < urgen:#parlement> it was fun
18:39 < illegal:#parlement> nevertheless, me think that guy has authentic work
18:39 -!- beeli [n=ille...@cmung2576.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
18:39 < urgen:#parlement> I haven't done anything artistic in years and years
18:39 < illegal:#parlement> he makes masks out of clup?
18:40 < illegal:#parlement> i am not into art at al
18:40 < illegal:#parlement> l
18:40 < illegal:#parlement> to me art is to make something sustainable :)
18:41 < illegal:#parlement> boot tree, boot-tree, build, cast, die, ingot, matrix, model, mold, mould, pile, tree,
18:41 < illegal:#parlement> that is translation for that word
19:13 < illegal:#parlement> http://www.thesteelsource.com/html/mr9636.htm
19:14 < urgen:#parlement> good to protect from snakes and underbrush
19:14 < illegal:#parlement> and to go to the city
19:50 -!- illegal [n=ille...@cmung720.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
--- Log closed sam aoû 12 22:03:41 2006
--- Log opened sam aoû 12 22:04:42 2006
22:04 -!- echarp [n=33M0...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has joined #parlement
22:04 -!- Topic for #parlement: http://leparlement.org
22:04 -!- Topic set by echarp [] [Mon Jul 24 00:20:56 2006]
22:04 [Users #parlement]
22:04 [ echarp] [ nsh_] [ parlebot] [ urgen]
22:04 -!- Irssi: #parlement: Total of 4 nicks [0 ops, 0 halfops, 0 voices, 4 normal]
22:04 -!- Channel #parlement created Fri Jul 21 18:39:21 2006
22:05 -!- Irssi: Join to #parlement was synced in 32 secs
22:06 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
--- Log closed dim aoû 13 00:00:04 2006
05:18 -!- illegal (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung4097.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
05:22 -!- illegal is now known as beeli
05:40 -!- beeli [n=ille...@cmung4097.cmu.carnet.hr] has left #parlement []
11:05 < echarp> hello hello
16:40 -!- illegal (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung2576.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
16:49 < illegal:#parlement> pi
16:49 -!- illegal is now known as beeli
17:08 < urgen:#parlement> diameter = pi time the radius to the second power
17:18 < beeli:#parlement> *2
17:18 < urgen:#parlement> **2
17:18 < beeli:#parlement> ops
17:19 < beeli:#parlement> urgen where do you live?
17:19 < urgen:#parlement> 2 pi r is ummm
17:19 < beeli:#parlement> yes
17:19 * urgen:#parlement is west coast US
17:20 < beeli:#parlement> in house?
17:20 < urgen:#parlement> I rent
17:20 < beeli:#parlement> a house?
17:20 < urgen:#parlement> it is in a house with three apartments
17:20 < beeli:#parlement> cool
17:20 < beeli:#parlement> in cro these prices went pretty high these days
17:20 < urgen:#parlement> hee. I've heard
17:21 < beeli:#parlement> one m2 is 1500 - 2000 E
17:21 < urgen:#parlement> utoh my monitor is dying...
17:21 < beeli:#parlement> not even some great zone
17:21 < beeli:#parlement> k
17:22 < urgen:#parlement> the cheapest house here is 350K E
17:22 < urgen:#parlement> that's for something with a leaky roof and needs other repairs
17:22 < beeli:#parlement> that is much aslo
17:22 < beeli:#parlement> is it sururban area?
17:22 < beeli:#parlement> SD?
17:22 < beeli:#parlement> SF?
17:23 < urgen:#parlement> this is pretty rural
17:23 < urgen:#parlement> edge of a forest
17:23 < beeli:#parlement> cool
17:23 < urgen:#parlement> about a half hour drive to the nearest city of 140 thousand
17:24 < urgen:#parlement> which is a couple hours drive from SF
18:14 -!- illegal (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung720.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
18:14 < urgen:#parlement> re
18:15 < illegal:#parlement> re
18:16 < illegal:#parlement> did you ever played D n D and simmilar RPG stuff?
18:16 < urgen:#parlement> a little bit quite a long time ago
18:17 < illegal:#parlement> anybody from irc is about that?
18:17 < illegal:#parlement> in that?
18:17 < urgen:#parlement> I'd imagine that there are quite a few
18:17 < urgen:#parlement> also have you heard of mud's?
18:17 < urgen:#parlement> multi user dungeons
18:17 < illegal:#parlement> hmh, not
18:17 < urgen:#parlement> it is like irc but a text adventure
18:17 < illegal:#parlement> just reading about this stuff
18:17 < illegal:#parlement> oh i know for that
18:18 < illegal:#parlement> very old thing
18:18 < illegal:#parlement> right\/
18:18 < urgen:#parlement> yes
18:18 < illegal:#parlement> you where part of it?
18:18 < illegal:#parlement> :)
18:18 < urgen:#parlement> I liked irc better
18:18 < illegal:#parlement> no games?
18:19 < urgen:#parlement> I am an avid game fan
18:20 < illegal:#parlement> avid?
18:20 < urgen:#parlement> enthusiastic
18:20 < illegal:#parlement> :)
18:21 < illegal:#parlement> now i read about these worlds
18:21 < illegal:#parlement> Dnd, WW and stuff
18:21 < illegal:#parlement> interesting
18:21 < illegal:#parlement> i played DnD while ago for one month
18:21 < illegal:#parlement> great thing
18:21 < urgen:#parlement> a long time ago there was a computer game called Adventure
18:21 < urgen:#parlement> before PCs existed
18:21 < illegal:#parlement> yes
18:36 < illegal:#parlement> there is a guy who makes leather stuff, pretty cool things
18:38 < urgen:#parlement> I haven't done anything in leather since I had a class in school
18:38 < urgen:#parlement> high school
18:39 < illegal:#parlement> i never did
18:39 < urgen:#parlement> it was fun
18:39 < illegal:#parlement> nevertheless, me think that guy has authentic work
18:39 -!- beeli [n=ille...@cmung2576.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
18:39 < urgen:#parlement> I haven't done anything artistic in years and years
18:39 < illegal:#parlement> he makes masks out of clup?
18:40 < illegal:#parlement> i am not into art at al
18:40 < illegal:#parlement> l
18:40 < illegal:#parlement> to me art is to make something sustainable :)
18:41 < illegal:#parlement> boot tree, boot-tree, build, cast, die, ingot, matrix, model, mold, mould, pile, tree,
18:41 < illegal:#parlement> that is translation for that word
19:13 < illegal:#parlement> http://www.thesteelsource.com/html/mr9636.htm
19:14 < urgen:#parlement> good to protect from snakes and underbrush
19:14 < illegal:#parlement> and to go to the city
19:50 -!- illegal [n=ille...@cmung720.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
--- Log closed sam aoû 12 22:03:41 2006
--- Log opened sam aoû 12 22:04:42 2006
22:04 -!- echarp [n=33M0...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has joined #parlement
22:04 -!- Topic for #parlement: http://leparlement.org
22:04 -!- Topic set by echarp [] [Mon Jul 24 00:20:56 2006]
22:04 [Users #parlement]
22:04 [ echarp] [ nsh_] [ parlebot] [ urgen]
22:04 -!- Irssi: #parlement: Total of 4 nicks [0 ops, 0 halfops, 0 voices, 4 normal]
22:04 -!- Channel #parlement created Fri Jul 21 18:39:21 2006
22:05 -!- Irssi: Join to #parlement was synced in 32 secs
22:06 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
--- Log closed dim aoû 13 00:00:04 2006
echarp
Aug 14, 2006, 12:29:11 AM8/14/06
to top-politics
--- Log opened dim aoû 13 00:00:04 2006
06:37 -!- urgyen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
06:37 -!- urgen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)]
22:21 -!- urgyen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit []
22:33 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
22:37 -!- urgen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
--- Log closed lun aoû 14 00:00:04 2006
06:37 -!- urgyen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
06:37 -!- urgen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)]
22:21 -!- urgyen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit []
22:33 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
22:37 -!- urgen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
--- Log closed lun aoû 14 00:00:04 2006
echarp
Aug 15, 2006, 12:30:46 AM8/15/06
to top-politics
--- Log opened lun aoû 14 00:00:04 2006
02:20 < nsh_> hey
02:20 -!- nsh_ is now known as nsh
02:25 -!- illegal (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung2642.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
02:33 -!- urgyen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
02:35 -!- urgen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)]
02:50 < nsh> connectivity problems, urgyen?
02:50 < illegal> oi
02:50 < illegal> nsh thought you are far from alive :)
02:51 < nsh> ah :-)
02:51 < nsh> busy busy
02:51 < nsh> finding ways to be busy
02:51 < illegal> that is cool
02:51 < illegal> i am to lazy to be bussy
02:52 < illegal> can not get time for it
02:52 < illegal> :)
02:52 < nsh> hehe
02:52 < nsh> how have you been though?
02:52 < illegal> good
02:52 < illegal> everyithing is fine
02:52 < illegal> cahnigng focuses like pants
02:52 < nsh> so true
03:00 < illegal> now i am back to local politics, feel the best in that scenario
03:00 < illegal> tried doing some commercial, free enetrprises stuff, it is not that interesting indeed
03:02 < nsh> hmm
03:02 < nsh> have to strike a balance between the effect on the environment, that is the good that you do externally, and the effect on the organism, how it changes you for the better
03:03 < nsh> sometimes it's better to have a great personal change while not necessarily changing the world very much
03:03 < nsh> because it paves the way for a bigger difference
03:03 < illegal> i undersdtand that part, at least i suppose that
03:04 < illegal> yet, i can notice this great disbalance between external and internal process
03:04 < illegal> everybody is actually about internal part
03:04 < nsh> well
03:04 < illegal> so, or they are not balanced, or there is just the question how do you function
03:05 < nsh> it's easy to get the impression that you have to have external circumstances in a certain way to feel balanced internally
03:05 < nsh> but then you just get caught up in that cycle of never feeling your environment is quite right yet
03:05 < nsh> i think the most often used parable is that of the ground being covered in rocks and thorns. which is better, to try and carpet the whole earth, or wear sandals?
03:06 < nsh> once you can walk without pained feet, you can start clearing paths :-)
03:06 < illegal> :)
03:07 * nsh is going to get some sleep
03:07 < nsh> take care illegal :-)
03:08 < illegal> cu :)
03:09 -!- nsh is now known as nsh\sleep
03:15 -!- illegal is now known as beeli
03:52 -!- beeli [n=ille...@cmung2642.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit []
10:45 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
10:46 < echarp> hello hello
16:56 < urgyen:#parlement> morning
17:54 -!- illegal (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung4283.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
17:56 < illegal:#parlement> HEyahaha
17:57 < urgyen:#parlement> hi
17:59 < urgyen:#parlement> how are things today?
18:01 < illegal:#parlement> good, good
18:01 < urgyen:#parlement> I feel bad because I can not do everything that is being asked of me
18:02 < urgyen:#parlement> but I worked hard to move to where people could ask things of me
18:02 < urgyen:#parlement> because I needed to be somewhere of note to earn money to live
18:02 < urgyen:#parlement> but not many of these favors earn money
18:02 < urgyen:#parlement> but I still try to keep my promises
18:03 < urgyen:#parlement> some things are paid in a return favor
18:03 < urgyen:#parlement> some things are just being busy and trying to help
18:03 < urgyen:#parlement> it is hard to weigh trying to help with trying to live
18:04 < urgyen:#parlement> it is probably the same when someone becomes ill
18:04 < urgyen:#parlement> suddenly you are unable to fulfill promises
18:06 < illegal:#parlement> hmh, why do you talk that? are you too weak to reject someone if you do not feeel soo good about fulfilling his promises?
18:07 < urgyen:#parlement> to be fair to myself is to be fair to other's first
18:07 < urgyen:#parlement> that is weak?
18:08 < urgyen:#parlement> s/other's/others
18:08 < urgyen:#parlement> within a system that is built on dependencies. Dependency comes first
18:09 < illegal:#parlement> hmh, it is relative
18:09 < urgyen:#parlement> dependency is relative, yes
18:10 < illegal:#parlement> i mean, you promised to me you are going to move parlebot, remember?
18:10 < urgyen:#parlement> yep
18:10 < illegal:#parlement> so, to whom you are not fair?
18:10 < urgyen:#parlement> right
18:10 < illegal:#parlement> to me, or to you?
18:10 < urgyen:#parlement> exactly
18:10 < illegal:#parlement> hmh
18:10 < urgyen:#parlement> I'd say to you
18:10 < urgyen:#parlement> wouldn't you agree?
18:10 < illegal:#parlement> what i can notice is that you work in good faith
18:10 < illegal:#parlement> when you make promises :)
18:11 < illegal:#parlement> though, you are not able to keep word
18:11 < illegal:#parlement> and that is not good to yourself
18:11 < illegal:#parlement> me perosnoly am simmilar to you very much
18:11 < illegal:#parlement> yet, this part is very important in this trust relating issues
18:11 < illegal:#parlement> the fact you have to know yourself better tan i can
18:12 < illegal:#parlement> that is your responsiblity i suppose
18:12 < illegal:#parlement> right?
18:12 < urgyen:#parlement> promises have a way of becoming unexpectedly complicated
18:12 < illegal:#parlement> that is the reason no much promises are needed
18:12 < urgyen:#parlement> and then it seems fair that this additional negotiation be communicated
18:12 < urgyen:#parlement> without that communicated understanding then bad feelings often arise
18:13 < illegal:#parlement> nah, in mafia it does not work that way
18:13 < illegal:#parlement> and they know their job :)
18:13 < urgyen:#parlement> sometimes you find noble people that can understand but more often not
18:13 < illegal:#parlement> you have some problems in rl?
18:14 < urgyen:#parlement> that is relative too
18:14 < illegal:#parlement> in life aparted from irc?
18:14 < urgyen:#parlement> compared to most, I'd say I live a great life
18:14 < illegal:#parlement> ah
18:14 < urgyen:#parlement> I own a car, I have friends, enough food, a place to sleep
18:14 < urgyen:#parlement> but I don't have an extra $20 to give to a friend or someone in need
18:15 < urgyen:#parlement> that makes it hard for me.
18:15 < urgyen:#parlement> I try to help quite a bit
18:15 < illegal:#parlement> hmh
18:15 < urgyen:#parlement> so maybe I change the idea of what help means
18:15 < illegal:#parlement> how is that so?
18:15 < illegal:#parlement> you have a decent work, right?
18:15 < urgyen:#parlement> maybe $20 is a shallow idea
18:15 < illegal:#parlement> i lke money
18:16 < urgyen:#parlement> I work a couple days out of the week
18:16 < illegal:#parlement> heh
18:16 < illegal:#parlement> so, that is enough for you?
18:16 < urgyen:#parlement> that's very nearly not decent
18:16 < urgyen:#parlement> keeps me hungry anyway :-)
18:16 < illegal:#parlement> hungry for ?
18:17 < urgyen:#parlement> alert, interested
18:17 < urgyen:#parlement> attentive
18:17 < urgyen:#parlement> otherwise life gets lazy and content
18:17 < urgyen:#parlement> too much is a bad thing too :-)
18:17 < illegal:#parlement> you are in middle age criss? :)
18:18 < urgyen:#parlement> I think maybe I have passed middle age crisis
18:18 < illegal:#parlement> ohoh :)
18:18 < illegal:#parlement> By the cabrio and ride truth the country
18:18 < illegal:#parlement> :)
18:18 < urgyen:#parlement> what is cabrio ride?
18:18 < illegal:#parlement> Sabriolet
18:18 < illegal:#parlement> Cabriolet
18:18 < illegal:#parlement> with no roof car
18:19 < urgyen:#parlement> ah yes
18:19 < urgyen:#parlement> sports car time
18:19 < urgyen:#parlement> sports cars still catch my attention
18:19 < illegal:#parlement> regular stuff in middle age crisis
18:19 < illegal:#parlement> gets you back the life
18:20 < urgyen:#parlement> I am committed to a greater experience but I get the point
18:20 < illegal:#parlement> ohoho
18:20 < illegal:#parlement> greater experience?
18:20 < illegal:#parlement> you are ready for politics :)
18:20 < urgyen:#parlement> I am moving past politics too
18:20 < urgyen:#parlement> but I am still interested
18:20 < illegal:#parlement> i had realtively simmilar dillema yesterday
18:21 < illegal:#parlement> had a couple of bussines idea these days and this about politcs
18:21 < illegal:#parlement> my ex told me to keep to politics
18:21 < illegal:#parlement> came back to it and feel what means being not newbie
18:21 < illegal:#parlement> feeling empowered
18:21 < illegal:#parlement> that you can do something realy
18:21 < illegal:#parlement> that is fine feeling in deed
18:21 < urgyen:#parlement> humans become stretched too thin too quickly
18:22 < urgyen:#parlement> it would be nice to do both
18:22 < illegal:#parlement> you can
18:23 < urgyen:#parlement> I do, but then promises start to slide
18:23 < urgyen:#parlement> and I start to feel bad again
18:23 < illegal:#parlement> need to cut it
18:23 < illegal:#parlement> cut the promises, solve tham and do not take them any more
18:23 < urgyen:#parlement> so I need to come to terms with my limits
18:23 < illegal:#parlement> for a while
18:23 < illegal:#parlement> one promise per week
18:23 < illegal:#parlement> :)
18:23 < urgyen:#parlement> :-)) hehehe
18:23 < illegal:#parlement> or no promises at all
18:23 < illegal:#parlement> just say i ll see what i can do about it
18:24 < illegal:#parlement> than you see and do, or do not
18:24 < illegal:#parlement> oh, i had a cro president n my dream
18:24 < illegal:#parlement> he was very weak
18:24 < illegal:#parlement> wstrange dream
18:25 < illegal:#parlement> and today one big party is calling me and my friend to talk about internet democracy
18:25 < illegal:#parlement> that is nice
18:25 < urgyen:#parlement> that is always nice
18:25 < urgyen:#parlement> I enjoy when dream time and real life time match
18:25 < illegal:#parlement> have some similar thinkers who passed it
18:25 < illegal:#parlement> that is nice
18:29 < urgyen:#parlement> internet democracy should have some time management built in :-)
18:30 < illegal:#parlement> you mean dead lines
18:30 < illegal:#parlement> ?
18:30 < urgyen:#parlement> I mean ways to keep track of the pipelines
18:30 < urgyen:#parlement> the queue
18:30 < illegal:#parlement> ah, ok
18:30 < illegal:#parlement> that is not easy thing to do
18:31 < illegal:#parlement> when we did strategies two times or maybe even three times before
18:31 < illegal:#parlement> it showed we where to non informed to set them properly
18:31 < illegal:#parlement> we might do somethng only if we set gravity, and that is not the case right now
18:34 < illegal:#parlement> you want to hear the whole story about queues? It might be long story, you know :)
18:34 < urgyen:#parlement> if priority were possible then other's would be able to adjust their expectations more easily
18:34 < urgyen:#parlement> it is something I am interested in
18:35 < illegal:#parlement> there is the problem
18:35 < illegal:#parlement> we had
18:35 < illegal:#parlement> the whole point in this is about audience
18:36 < illegal:#parlement> if you aim at wrong audience you move very slow
18:36 < illegal:#parlement> you have to find right audience
18:36 < illegal:#parlement> and there is a lot of groups existing around
18:36 < illegal:#parlement> these audiences are something such as avantgarde
18:36 < illegal:#parlement> they set the infrastructure for movement
18:37 < illegal:#parlement> now, i am looking at audience of parlamentary option that has invited us to talk about it
18:38 < illegal:#parlement> if we set good base up there, there would be several wana be politianc around who might do something rather usefull
18:38 < illegal:#parlement> that is better than aiming at college studs who are too lazy to endure action that lasts over 2 weeks
18:39 < urgyen:#parlement> and easily distracted
18:39 < illegal:#parlement> or to older people who will only support here the whole infrastructure,
18:39 < illegal:#parlement> hmh
18:39 < illegal:#parlement> hard stuff to do, indeed
18:41 < urgyen:#parlement> so I have some ideas on a solution
18:41 < illegal:#parlement> yes?
18:41 < urgyen:#parlement> my model seems to follow similar structure to echarp's but in other ways different
18:41 < urgyen:#parlement> I also don't shy off of the proof of identity problem
18:42 < urgyen:#parlement> so I try to keep real life set to work enough to eat while still having time for creative
18:42 < urgyen:#parlement> but it isn't enough time
18:42 < urgyen:#parlement> not enough time to even put extra log bots up
18:42 < urgyen:#parlement> :-)
18:43 < urgyen:#parlement> the outline of the solution seems to settle around information category control
18:44 < urgyen:#parlement> to find that group where interest moves forward more quickly would be a filter
18:44 < illegal:#parlement> ok
18:44 < illegal:#parlement> ho
18:44 < illegal:#parlement> w
18:44 < illegal:#parlement> what is the measure?
18:44 < urgyen:#parlement> to be able to sort or search to that category is the key
18:44 < urgyen:#parlement> two problems, defination of the category and a directory services to index it by
18:45 < urgyen:#parlement> google uses technology called Latent Semantic Indexing
18:45 < urgyen:#parlement> this observes for patterns of terminology use
18:45 < urgyen:#parlement> like a fingerprint for a paragraph
18:47 < urgyen:#parlement> there are a growing number of people working toward these technologies
18:47 < urgyen:#parlement> it is still very new
18:47 < urgyen:#parlement> one of the promises of the Internet age
18:47 < urgyen:#parlement> brb
18:49 < illegal:#parlement> that sounds promising
18:53 < urgyen:#parlement> back
18:53 < urgyen:#parlement> yes but not right now :-)
18:53 < urgyen:#parlement> so I try to glue these little pieces of code together to find my magic cure for lost promises
18:54 < illegal:#parlement> interesting
18:54 < illegal:#parlement> that is the most i can say right now :)
18:54 < urgyen:#parlement> otherwise I have to code it myself
18:54 < urgyen:#parlement> and that takes much longer
18:54 < illegal:#parlement> do you have reputation and individualisation in calculations?
18:55 < urgyen:#parlement> then it is a matter of politics, I suppose, to find interest to focus and drive this forward more quickly without losing the goal
18:55 < urgyen:#parlement> no?
18:55 < urgyen:#parlement> reputation and individualisation sounds like technical terms
18:56 < urgyen:#parlement> I can't comment without more description
18:58 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
18:58 < illegal> sorry
18:58 < urgyen> it takes time for echarp and myself to merge our point of view
18:59 < illegal> this is about analysis of current political situation in the world
18:59 < illegal> the whole public sphere is based on monopolism
18:59 < illegal> there is no many people who offer true alternatives
18:59 < illegal> for an example gore vs bush to war in iraq
18:59 < illegal> the same situation is in NGO sector
19:00 < illegal> in Media
19:00 < illegal> in Goverment
19:00 < illegal> if you want to enable free political enterprise you need to enable those who are respected in their small fields be recognised by larger public
19:00 < illegal> to become politically relevent
19:00 < illegal> if those people, that networks accepts TOP paradigm
19:01 < illegal> you have positive profilation at least
19:01 < illegal> so, to make that, you need exact names, exact people, exact way of direct promotion
19:01 < illegal> which is individauiosn
19:01 < urgyen> ok
19:01 < urgyen> so...
19:01 < illegal> and reputation
19:01 < illegal> that is how i see it
19:01 < urgyen> the problem seems to be merging vocabularies
19:02 < illegal> the way i am follong
19:02 < urgyen> the technical field often uses very different words for similar behaviors
19:03 < urgyen> http://cs.nyu.edu/courses/fall02/G22.3033-008/lec10.html
19:03 < urgyen> "minority language corpora"
19:05 < urgyen> "focussed crawling"
19:10 < illegal> Cro is not so promising language for this :(
19:11 < urgyen> well, I didn't mean a classic language
19:11 < urgyen> language as in the difference between physics and sociology
19:12 < urgyen> I was just using that page as an example on how to outline the problem
19:12 < urgyen> interest groups can also be divided on a classic language
19:13 < urgyen> sorry I didn't mean to find something about slovenian
19:13 < urgyen> that just showed up first in my search list
19:14 < urgyen> it is just to show that it is possible to automate interest group '
19:14 < urgyen> "corpora"
19:19 < illegal> ok
19:19 < illegal> this sounds good
19:19 < urgyen> I think it will work
19:19 < illegal> something internet needs
19:19 < urgyen> very much
19:19 < illegal> yet, i am not that sure it is an easy task to do
19:19 < illegal> this is about setting internet to new dimension
19:21 < urgyen> well...
19:21 < urgyen> once I thought this was at least 5 to 10 years away still
19:22 < urgyen> then I saw people doing it now
19:22 < urgyen> so it moves much more quickly than we think
19:22 < illegal> :)
19:22 < urgyen> I think the time is now
19:22 < urgyen> so I have been collecting an inventory of examples
19:24 < illegal> cool
19:24 < illegal> what it is goona look like?
19:24 < illegal> have something in mind
19:24 < urgyen> and the list shocks me every time I look
19:24 < illegal> is it something like googe?
19:24 < urgyen> it is google next generation, yes
19:24 < illegal> what do i get from it?
19:24 < urgyen> only it selectively specializes on certain interest topics
19:25 < urgyen> you get better precision in what you are looking for
19:25 < urgyen> you get better representation on what you want others to find
19:25 < illegal> can you show me theoretical example?
19:25 < illegal> about jaguar car toy
19:25 < urgyen> I think only clusty is a current working model...
19:25 < illegal> remebmer tht?
19:25 < urgyen> I already showed once
19:25 < urgyen> yes
19:26 < illegal> so, what is the differenct?
19:26 < illegal> this boollean does not work?
19:26 < illegal> sorry to ask you stupid quesitons
19:26 < urgyen> http://clusty.com/search?tb=firefox-1.1.1&locale=en-US&query=jaguar
19:27 < urgyen> it automatically identifies 'sets' or 'clusters' of use for terms
19:27 < illegal> ok
19:27 < illegal> with 90 % precision
19:27 < illegal> right?
19:27 < urgyen> hehehe
19:28 < urgyen> what it doesn't have is a way for you to suggest categories or clusters
19:28 < urgyen> or provide example work
19:28 < illegal> yes
19:29 < urgyen> the model I am thinking of would allow you to train your specialty into the directory
19:29 < urgyen> so you can be sure of representation
19:29 < urgyen> a hybrid auto/human method
19:29 < urgyen> then you start similar individuation
19:30 < urgyen> birds of a feather interest
19:30 < urgyen> ppl of similar thought could find each other
19:30 < urgyen> to me, this starts 'social power'
19:31 < illegal> hmh
19:31 < illegal> seen at google some smmilar pilot project
19:31 < illegal> @simmmilar@
19:31 < illegal> when you set 3 words and get all others
19:32 < urgyen> there are attempts, yes
19:32 < illegal> terms simmilar to them
19:32 < urgyen> but very rough
19:32 < urgyen> and it isn't a way for people to meet people
19:32 < illegal> yes
19:32 < illegal> not working regularly
19:32 < illegal> yes
19:33 < urgyen> so I try to put a lot of attention on this and move it forward
19:33 < urgyen> I have not found very many people interested
19:33 < urgyen> everyone has their own idea
19:34 < urgyen> that makes it seem like there needs to be a way to translate all of these ideas to find the overlap
19:35 < urgyen> but still, some would only be interested in their own version :-)
19:36 < urgyen> so how is this discovery moderated?
19:36 < urgyen> and, for me, this is where internet democracy starts to look helpful
19:37 < urgyen> interest discovery moderation, or mediation
19:38 < urgyen> it takes SOOOO long to find out where another person stands
19:38 < urgyen> even reputation might not help very much
19:38 < urgyen> although it would contribute significantly
19:38 < urgyen> ( compared to what we have now )
19:41 < urgyen> interest discovery mediation shows both similar and dis-similar
19:43 < illegal> hmh
19:44 < illegal> there are several @factors@ we can @measure@ up there
19:44 < illegal> in politics it is about generation of power and about providing info for gaining it
19:44 < illegal> these are only two examples
19:48 < urgyen> and internet allows this to potentially happen more quickly?
19:48 < illegal> of course
19:49 < illegal> so, i do not see direct relations betweeen what i do right now and what you are willing to do?
19:50 < illegal> do you want to create tool for exact purpose that will go from special to common task?
19:51 < urgyen> my goal is based on my ability to find people of similar interest to my own and my interest in having my interest included
19:51 < illegal> ok
19:51 < urgyen> I am not so interested in organizing those groups of interest
19:51 < illegal> i understand that
19:52 < urgyen> I do see that organizing would be a next logical step
19:52 < urgyen> a way to harvest the interests
19:52 < urgyen> but I certainly don't want to see any harvesting happening before complete representation is allowed
19:53 < urgyen> otherwise my voice is stepped on
19:53 < illegal> we had the first strategy based on that
19:53 < illegal> building software fisrst
19:53 < illegal> yet, you need to build really great software to stand that
19:53 < urgyen> yet :-)
19:54 < illegal> with no needs for great readjustmenst
19:54 < illegal> OK\
19:54 < illegal> of course
19:54 < illegal> btw, whats up with echarp?
19:54 < illegal> he has a gf, seems he lost his interest in software development pretty much
19:55 < illegal> so, we have some site for an example
19:55 < illegal> i write somethng in query and get simmilar thinkers in that querry?
19:55 < illegal> is it that , simmilar to that or?
19:55 < urgyen> to echarps?
19:55 < urgyen> I think this might be included but I do not know the mechanism
19:56 < illegal> heh
19:56 < urgyen> I think it is a manual selection of similar tagging
19:56 < urgyen> and that is problematic
19:56 < urgyen> ppl select similar tags for different reasons
19:56 < urgyen> echarp just wants to do step at a time
19:57 < urgyen> because it is so complicated
20:03 < illegal> yes, that is the reason i wont count on you in this special moment :)
20:03 < illegal> so you can only make me happy, which is good
20:03 < urgyen> well I have to be practical too
20:04 < urgyen> so I have to settle on immediate tools that do something
20:12 < illegal> so, wghat is the first you gonna do?
20:37 < urgyen> something that can record and prioritize requests, a tracker
20:37 < urgyen> ( sorry was on phone )
20:46 -!- illegal is now known as beeli
20:46 < beeli> prioritize requests
20:47 < beeli> can you explain it to me?
20:51 < urgyen> to determine what is important
20:52 < urgyen> I am sure politics spends a lot of time determining what is most important to spend money on
20:52 < beeli> yes
20:52 < urgyen> military, education, farming subsidies..
20:52 < beeli> how are you going to do that?
20:52 < urgyen> this is just for my own requests
20:53 < urgyen> my measure is probably similar.. food shelter health, etc
20:54 -!- illegal (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung2731.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
20:57 < illegal> back
20:58 < illegal> missed anything?
20:58 < illegal> my line brok
20:58 < illegal> e
20:59 -!- urgyen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)]
21:02 -!- urgen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
21:06 < illegal> urgen, how are you going to structurise what is important and what is not?
21:07 < urgen> short term vs long term
21:07 < illegal> short term
21:07 < illegal> they are important?
21:08 < urgen> food and rent is short term
21:08 < urgen> but sometimes some short term goals cut into long term sustainability
21:08 < illegal> you talk about yourself or political issues/
21:09 < urgen> my goals
21:09 < illegal> oh, ok )
21:09 < urgen> political is longer term interest
21:09 < illegal> P)
21:09 < illegal> i wondered about software you ahve in mind
21:12 < urgen> I need to check out: http://opengroupware.org/
21:12 -!- beeli [n=ille...@cmung4283.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Connection timed out]
21:12 -!- illegal is now known as beeli
21:12 < urgen> a lot of what I do depends on other people
21:18 < beeli> have to go.
21:18 < urgen> ok
21:18 < beeli> have a good time in finding a key :)
21:18 -!- beeli [n=ille...@cmung2731.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit []
23:27 < echarp> hello hello
23:27 < echarp> sorry guys for not being there
23:27 < echarp> a long week end!
23:27 < echarp> 15th of july in a catholic country is off => st mary day
23:29 < echarp> hop hop, back in my social life ;)
--- Log closed mar aoû 15 00:00:05 2006
02:20 < nsh_> hey
02:20 -!- nsh_ is now known as nsh
02:25 -!- illegal (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung2642.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
02:33 -!- urgyen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
02:35 -!- urgen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)]
02:50 < nsh> connectivity problems, urgyen?
02:50 < illegal> oi
02:50 < illegal> nsh thought you are far from alive :)
02:51 < nsh> ah :-)
02:51 < nsh> busy busy
02:51 < nsh> finding ways to be busy
02:51 < illegal> that is cool
02:51 < illegal> i am to lazy to be bussy
02:52 < illegal> can not get time for it
02:52 < illegal> :)
02:52 < nsh> hehe
02:52 < nsh> how have you been though?
02:52 < illegal> good
02:52 < illegal> everyithing is fine
02:52 < illegal> cahnigng focuses like pants
02:52 < nsh> so true
03:00 < illegal> now i am back to local politics, feel the best in that scenario
03:00 < illegal> tried doing some commercial, free enetrprises stuff, it is not that interesting indeed
03:02 < nsh> hmm
03:02 < nsh> have to strike a balance between the effect on the environment, that is the good that you do externally, and the effect on the organism, how it changes you for the better
03:03 < nsh> sometimes it's better to have a great personal change while not necessarily changing the world very much
03:03 < nsh> because it paves the way for a bigger difference
03:03 < illegal> i undersdtand that part, at least i suppose that
03:04 < illegal> yet, i can notice this great disbalance between external and internal process
03:04 < illegal> everybody is actually about internal part
03:04 < nsh> well
03:04 < illegal> so, or they are not balanced, or there is just the question how do you function
03:05 < nsh> it's easy to get the impression that you have to have external circumstances in a certain way to feel balanced internally
03:05 < nsh> but then you just get caught up in that cycle of never feeling your environment is quite right yet
03:05 < nsh> i think the most often used parable is that of the ground being covered in rocks and thorns. which is better, to try and carpet the whole earth, or wear sandals?
03:06 < nsh> once you can walk without pained feet, you can start clearing paths :-)
03:06 < illegal> :)
03:07 * nsh is going to get some sleep
03:07 < nsh> take care illegal :-)
03:08 < illegal> cu :)
03:09 -!- nsh is now known as nsh\sleep
03:15 -!- illegal is now known as beeli
03:52 -!- beeli [n=ille...@cmung2642.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit []
10:45 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
10:46 < echarp> hello hello
16:56 < urgyen:#parlement> morning
17:54 -!- illegal (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung4283.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
17:56 < illegal:#parlement> HEyahaha
17:57 < urgyen:#parlement> hi
17:59 < urgyen:#parlement> how are things today?
18:01 < illegal:#parlement> good, good
18:01 < urgyen:#parlement> I feel bad because I can not do everything that is being asked of me
18:02 < urgyen:#parlement> but I worked hard to move to where people could ask things of me
18:02 < urgyen:#parlement> because I needed to be somewhere of note to earn money to live
18:02 < urgyen:#parlement> but not many of these favors earn money
18:02 < urgyen:#parlement> but I still try to keep my promises
18:03 < urgyen:#parlement> some things are paid in a return favor
18:03 < urgyen:#parlement> some things are just being busy and trying to help
18:03 < urgyen:#parlement> it is hard to weigh trying to help with trying to live
18:04 < urgyen:#parlement> it is probably the same when someone becomes ill
18:04 < urgyen:#parlement> suddenly you are unable to fulfill promises
18:06 < illegal:#parlement> hmh, why do you talk that? are you too weak to reject someone if you do not feeel soo good about fulfilling his promises?
18:07 < urgyen:#parlement> to be fair to myself is to be fair to other's first
18:07 < urgyen:#parlement> that is weak?
18:08 < urgyen:#parlement> s/other's/others
18:08 < urgyen:#parlement> within a system that is built on dependencies. Dependency comes first
18:09 < illegal:#parlement> hmh, it is relative
18:09 < urgyen:#parlement> dependency is relative, yes
18:10 < illegal:#parlement> i mean, you promised to me you are going to move parlebot, remember?
18:10 < urgyen:#parlement> yep
18:10 < illegal:#parlement> so, to whom you are not fair?
18:10 < urgyen:#parlement> right
18:10 < illegal:#parlement> to me, or to you?
18:10 < urgyen:#parlement> exactly
18:10 < illegal:#parlement> hmh
18:10 < urgyen:#parlement> I'd say to you
18:10 < urgyen:#parlement> wouldn't you agree?
18:10 < illegal:#parlement> what i can notice is that you work in good faith
18:10 < illegal:#parlement> when you make promises :)
18:11 < illegal:#parlement> though, you are not able to keep word
18:11 < illegal:#parlement> and that is not good to yourself
18:11 < illegal:#parlement> me perosnoly am simmilar to you very much
18:11 < illegal:#parlement> yet, this part is very important in this trust relating issues
18:11 < illegal:#parlement> the fact you have to know yourself better tan i can
18:12 < illegal:#parlement> that is your responsiblity i suppose
18:12 < illegal:#parlement> right?
18:12 < urgyen:#parlement> promises have a way of becoming unexpectedly complicated
18:12 < illegal:#parlement> that is the reason no much promises are needed
18:12 < urgyen:#parlement> and then it seems fair that this additional negotiation be communicated
18:12 < urgyen:#parlement> without that communicated understanding then bad feelings often arise
18:13 < illegal:#parlement> nah, in mafia it does not work that way
18:13 < illegal:#parlement> and they know their job :)
18:13 < urgyen:#parlement> sometimes you find noble people that can understand but more often not
18:13 < illegal:#parlement> you have some problems in rl?
18:14 < urgyen:#parlement> that is relative too
18:14 < illegal:#parlement> in life aparted from irc?
18:14 < urgyen:#parlement> compared to most, I'd say I live a great life
18:14 < illegal:#parlement> ah
18:14 < urgyen:#parlement> I own a car, I have friends, enough food, a place to sleep
18:14 < urgyen:#parlement> but I don't have an extra $20 to give to a friend or someone in need
18:15 < urgyen:#parlement> that makes it hard for me.
18:15 < urgyen:#parlement> I try to help quite a bit
18:15 < illegal:#parlement> hmh
18:15 < urgyen:#parlement> so maybe I change the idea of what help means
18:15 < illegal:#parlement> how is that so?
18:15 < illegal:#parlement> you have a decent work, right?
18:15 < urgyen:#parlement> maybe $20 is a shallow idea
18:15 < illegal:#parlement> i lke money
18:16 < urgyen:#parlement> I work a couple days out of the week
18:16 < illegal:#parlement> heh
18:16 < illegal:#parlement> so, that is enough for you?
18:16 < urgyen:#parlement> that's very nearly not decent
18:16 < urgyen:#parlement> keeps me hungry anyway :-)
18:16 < illegal:#parlement> hungry for ?
18:17 < urgyen:#parlement> alert, interested
18:17 < urgyen:#parlement> attentive
18:17 < urgyen:#parlement> otherwise life gets lazy and content
18:17 < urgyen:#parlement> too much is a bad thing too :-)
18:17 < illegal:#parlement> you are in middle age criss? :)
18:18 < urgyen:#parlement> I think maybe I have passed middle age crisis
18:18 < illegal:#parlement> ohoh :)
18:18 < illegal:#parlement> By the cabrio and ride truth the country
18:18 < illegal:#parlement> :)
18:18 < illegal:#parlement> Sabriolet
18:18 < illegal:#parlement> Cabriolet
18:18 < illegal:#parlement> with no roof car
18:19 < urgyen:#parlement> ah yes
18:19 < urgyen:#parlement> sports car time
18:19 < urgyen:#parlement> sports cars still catch my attention
18:19 < illegal:#parlement> regular stuff in middle age crisis
18:19 < illegal:#parlement> gets you back the life
18:20 < urgyen:#parlement> I am committed to a greater experience but I get the point
18:20 < illegal:#parlement> ohoho
18:20 < illegal:#parlement> greater experience?
18:20 < illegal:#parlement> you are ready for politics :)
18:20 < urgyen:#parlement> I am moving past politics too
18:20 < urgyen:#parlement> but I am still interested
18:20 < illegal:#parlement> i had realtively simmilar dillema yesterday
18:21 < illegal:#parlement> had a couple of bussines idea these days and this about politcs
18:21 < illegal:#parlement> my ex told me to keep to politics
18:21 < illegal:#parlement> came back to it and feel what means being not newbie
18:21 < illegal:#parlement> feeling empowered
18:21 < illegal:#parlement> that you can do something realy
18:21 < illegal:#parlement> that is fine feeling in deed
18:21 < urgyen:#parlement> humans become stretched too thin too quickly
18:22 < urgyen:#parlement> it would be nice to do both
18:22 < illegal:#parlement> you can
18:23 < urgyen:#parlement> I do, but then promises start to slide
18:23 < urgyen:#parlement> and I start to feel bad again
18:23 < illegal:#parlement> need to cut it
18:23 < illegal:#parlement> cut the promises, solve tham and do not take them any more
18:23 < urgyen:#parlement> so I need to come to terms with my limits
18:23 < illegal:#parlement> for a while
18:23 < illegal:#parlement> one promise per week
18:23 < illegal:#parlement> :)
18:23 < urgyen:#parlement> :-)) hehehe
18:23 < illegal:#parlement> or no promises at all
18:23 < illegal:#parlement> just say i ll see what i can do about it
18:24 < illegal:#parlement> than you see and do, or do not
18:24 < illegal:#parlement> oh, i had a cro president n my dream
18:24 < illegal:#parlement> he was very weak
18:24 < illegal:#parlement> wstrange dream
18:25 < illegal:#parlement> and today one big party is calling me and my friend to talk about internet democracy
18:25 < illegal:#parlement> that is nice
18:25 < urgyen:#parlement> that is always nice
18:25 < urgyen:#parlement> I enjoy when dream time and real life time match
18:25 < illegal:#parlement> have some similar thinkers who passed it
18:25 < illegal:#parlement> that is nice
18:29 < urgyen:#parlement> internet democracy should have some time management built in :-)
18:30 < illegal:#parlement> you mean dead lines
18:30 < illegal:#parlement> ?
18:30 < urgyen:#parlement> I mean ways to keep track of the pipelines
18:30 < urgyen:#parlement> the queue
18:30 < illegal:#parlement> ah, ok
18:30 < illegal:#parlement> that is not easy thing to do
18:31 < illegal:#parlement> when we did strategies two times or maybe even three times before
18:31 < illegal:#parlement> it showed we where to non informed to set them properly
18:31 < illegal:#parlement> we might do somethng only if we set gravity, and that is not the case right now
18:34 < illegal:#parlement> you want to hear the whole story about queues? It might be long story, you know :)
18:34 < urgyen:#parlement> if priority were possible then other's would be able to adjust their expectations more easily
18:34 < urgyen:#parlement> it is something I am interested in
18:35 < illegal:#parlement> there is the problem
18:35 < illegal:#parlement> we had
18:35 < illegal:#parlement> the whole point in this is about audience
18:36 < illegal:#parlement> if you aim at wrong audience you move very slow
18:36 < illegal:#parlement> you have to find right audience
18:36 < illegal:#parlement> and there is a lot of groups existing around
18:36 < illegal:#parlement> these audiences are something such as avantgarde
18:36 < illegal:#parlement> they set the infrastructure for movement
18:37 < illegal:#parlement> now, i am looking at audience of parlamentary option that has invited us to talk about it
18:38 < illegal:#parlement> if we set good base up there, there would be several wana be politianc around who might do something rather usefull
18:38 < illegal:#parlement> that is better than aiming at college studs who are too lazy to endure action that lasts over 2 weeks
18:39 < urgyen:#parlement> and easily distracted
18:39 < illegal:#parlement> or to older people who will only support here the whole infrastructure,
18:39 < illegal:#parlement> hmh
18:39 < illegal:#parlement> hard stuff to do, indeed
18:41 < urgyen:#parlement> so I have some ideas on a solution
18:41 < illegal:#parlement> yes?
18:41 < urgyen:#parlement> my model seems to follow similar structure to echarp's but in other ways different
18:41 < urgyen:#parlement> I also don't shy off of the proof of identity problem
18:42 < urgyen:#parlement> so I try to keep real life set to work enough to eat while still having time for creative
18:42 < urgyen:#parlement> but it isn't enough time
18:42 < urgyen:#parlement> not enough time to even put extra log bots up
18:42 < urgyen:#parlement> :-)
18:43 < urgyen:#parlement> the outline of the solution seems to settle around information category control
18:44 < urgyen:#parlement> to find that group where interest moves forward more quickly would be a filter
18:44 < illegal:#parlement> ok
18:44 < illegal:#parlement> ho
18:44 < illegal:#parlement> w
18:44 < illegal:#parlement> what is the measure?
18:44 < urgyen:#parlement> to be able to sort or search to that category is the key
18:44 < urgyen:#parlement> two problems, defination of the category and a directory services to index it by
18:45 < urgyen:#parlement> google uses technology called Latent Semantic Indexing
18:45 < urgyen:#parlement> this observes for patterns of terminology use
18:45 < urgyen:#parlement> like a fingerprint for a paragraph
18:47 < urgyen:#parlement> there are a growing number of people working toward these technologies
18:47 < urgyen:#parlement> it is still very new
18:47 < urgyen:#parlement> one of the promises of the Internet age
18:47 < urgyen:#parlement> brb
18:49 < illegal:#parlement> that sounds promising
18:53 < urgyen:#parlement> back
18:53 < urgyen:#parlement> yes but not right now :-)
18:53 < urgyen:#parlement> so I try to glue these little pieces of code together to find my magic cure for lost promises
18:54 < illegal:#parlement> interesting
18:54 < illegal:#parlement> that is the most i can say right now :)
18:54 < urgyen:#parlement> otherwise I have to code it myself
18:54 < urgyen:#parlement> and that takes much longer
18:54 < illegal:#parlement> do you have reputation and individualisation in calculations?
18:55 < urgyen:#parlement> then it is a matter of politics, I suppose, to find interest to focus and drive this forward more quickly without losing the goal
18:55 < urgyen:#parlement> no?
18:55 < urgyen:#parlement> reputation and individualisation sounds like technical terms
18:56 < urgyen:#parlement> I can't comment without more description
18:58 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
18:58 < illegal> sorry
18:58 < urgyen> it takes time for echarp and myself to merge our point of view
18:59 < illegal> this is about analysis of current political situation in the world
18:59 < illegal> the whole public sphere is based on monopolism
18:59 < illegal> there is no many people who offer true alternatives
18:59 < illegal> for an example gore vs bush to war in iraq
18:59 < illegal> the same situation is in NGO sector
19:00 < illegal> in Media
19:00 < illegal> in Goverment
19:00 < illegal> if you want to enable free political enterprise you need to enable those who are respected in their small fields be recognised by larger public
19:00 < illegal> to become politically relevent
19:00 < illegal> if those people, that networks accepts TOP paradigm
19:01 < illegal> you have positive profilation at least
19:01 < illegal> so, to make that, you need exact names, exact people, exact way of direct promotion
19:01 < illegal> which is individauiosn
19:01 < urgyen> ok
19:01 < urgyen> so...
19:01 < illegal> and reputation
19:01 < illegal> that is how i see it
19:01 < urgyen> the problem seems to be merging vocabularies
19:02 < illegal> the way i am follong
19:02 < urgyen> the technical field often uses very different words for similar behaviors
19:03 < urgyen> http://cs.nyu.edu/courses/fall02/G22.3033-008/lec10.html
19:03 < urgyen> "minority language corpora"
19:05 < urgyen> "focussed crawling"
19:10 < illegal> Cro is not so promising language for this :(
19:11 < urgyen> well, I didn't mean a classic language
19:11 < urgyen> language as in the difference between physics and sociology
19:12 < urgyen> I was just using that page as an example on how to outline the problem
19:12 < urgyen> interest groups can also be divided on a classic language
19:13 < urgyen> sorry I didn't mean to find something about slovenian
19:13 < urgyen> that just showed up first in my search list
19:14 < urgyen> it is just to show that it is possible to automate interest group '
19:14 < urgyen> "corpora"
19:19 < illegal> ok
19:19 < illegal> this sounds good
19:19 < urgyen> I think it will work
19:19 < illegal> something internet needs
19:19 < urgyen> very much
19:19 < illegal> yet, i am not that sure it is an easy task to do
19:19 < illegal> this is about setting internet to new dimension
19:21 < urgyen> well...
19:21 < urgyen> once I thought this was at least 5 to 10 years away still
19:22 < urgyen> then I saw people doing it now
19:22 < urgyen> so it moves much more quickly than we think
19:22 < illegal> :)
19:22 < urgyen> I think the time is now
19:22 < urgyen> so I have been collecting an inventory of examples
19:24 < illegal> cool
19:24 < illegal> what it is goona look like?
19:24 < illegal> have something in mind
19:24 < urgyen> and the list shocks me every time I look
19:24 < illegal> is it something like googe?
19:24 < urgyen> it is google next generation, yes
19:24 < illegal> what do i get from it?
19:24 < urgyen> only it selectively specializes on certain interest topics
19:25 < urgyen> you get better precision in what you are looking for
19:25 < urgyen> you get better representation on what you want others to find
19:25 < illegal> can you show me theoretical example?
19:25 < illegal> about jaguar car toy
19:25 < urgyen> I think only clusty is a current working model...
19:25 < illegal> remebmer tht?
19:25 < urgyen> I already showed once
19:25 < urgyen> yes
19:26 < illegal> so, what is the differenct?
19:26 < illegal> this boollean does not work?
19:26 < illegal> sorry to ask you stupid quesitons
19:26 < urgyen> http://clusty.com/search?tb=firefox-1.1.1&locale=en-US&query=jaguar
19:27 < urgyen> it automatically identifies 'sets' or 'clusters' of use for terms
19:27 < illegal> ok
19:27 < illegal> with 90 % precision
19:27 < illegal> right?
19:27 < urgyen> hehehe
19:28 < urgyen> what it doesn't have is a way for you to suggest categories or clusters
19:28 < urgyen> or provide example work
19:28 < illegal> yes
19:29 < urgyen> the model I am thinking of would allow you to train your specialty into the directory
19:29 < urgyen> so you can be sure of representation
19:29 < urgyen> a hybrid auto/human method
19:29 < urgyen> then you start similar individuation
19:30 < urgyen> birds of a feather interest
19:30 < urgyen> ppl of similar thought could find each other
19:30 < urgyen> to me, this starts 'social power'
19:31 < illegal> hmh
19:31 < illegal> seen at google some smmilar pilot project
19:31 < illegal> @simmmilar@
19:31 < illegal> when you set 3 words and get all others
19:32 < urgyen> there are attempts, yes
19:32 < illegal> terms simmilar to them
19:32 < urgyen> but very rough
19:32 < urgyen> and it isn't a way for people to meet people
19:32 < illegal> yes
19:32 < illegal> not working regularly
19:32 < illegal> yes
19:33 < urgyen> so I try to put a lot of attention on this and move it forward
19:33 < urgyen> I have not found very many people interested
19:33 < urgyen> everyone has their own idea
19:34 < urgyen> that makes it seem like there needs to be a way to translate all of these ideas to find the overlap
19:35 < urgyen> but still, some would only be interested in their own version :-)
19:36 < urgyen> so how is this discovery moderated?
19:36 < urgyen> and, for me, this is where internet democracy starts to look helpful
19:37 < urgyen> interest discovery moderation, or mediation
19:38 < urgyen> it takes SOOOO long to find out where another person stands
19:38 < urgyen> even reputation might not help very much
19:38 < urgyen> although it would contribute significantly
19:38 < urgyen> ( compared to what we have now )
19:41 < urgyen> interest discovery mediation shows both similar and dis-similar
19:43 < illegal> hmh
19:44 < illegal> there are several @factors@ we can @measure@ up there
19:44 < illegal> in politics it is about generation of power and about providing info for gaining it
19:44 < illegal> these are only two examples
19:48 < urgyen> and internet allows this to potentially happen more quickly?
19:48 < illegal> of course
19:49 < illegal> so, i do not see direct relations betweeen what i do right now and what you are willing to do?
19:50 < illegal> do you want to create tool for exact purpose that will go from special to common task?
19:51 < urgyen> my goal is based on my ability to find people of similar interest to my own and my interest in having my interest included
19:51 < illegal> ok
19:51 < urgyen> I am not so interested in organizing those groups of interest
19:51 < illegal> i understand that
19:52 < urgyen> I do see that organizing would be a next logical step
19:52 < urgyen> a way to harvest the interests
19:52 < urgyen> but I certainly don't want to see any harvesting happening before complete representation is allowed
19:53 < urgyen> otherwise my voice is stepped on
19:53 < illegal> we had the first strategy based on that
19:53 < illegal> building software fisrst
19:53 < illegal> yet, you need to build really great software to stand that
19:53 < urgyen> yet :-)
19:54 < illegal> with no needs for great readjustmenst
19:54 < illegal> OK\
19:54 < illegal> of course
19:54 < illegal> btw, whats up with echarp?
19:54 < illegal> he has a gf, seems he lost his interest in software development pretty much
19:55 < illegal> so, we have some site for an example
19:55 < illegal> i write somethng in query and get simmilar thinkers in that querry?
19:55 < illegal> is it that , simmilar to that or?
19:55 < urgyen> to echarps?
19:55 < urgyen> I think this might be included but I do not know the mechanism
19:56 < illegal> heh
19:56 < urgyen> I think it is a manual selection of similar tagging
19:56 < urgyen> and that is problematic
19:56 < urgyen> ppl select similar tags for different reasons
19:56 < urgyen> echarp just wants to do step at a time
19:57 < urgyen> because it is so complicated
20:03 < illegal> yes, that is the reason i wont count on you in this special moment :)
20:03 < illegal> so you can only make me happy, which is good
20:03 < urgyen> well I have to be practical too
20:04 < urgyen> so I have to settle on immediate tools that do something
20:12 < illegal> so, wghat is the first you gonna do?
20:37 < urgyen> something that can record and prioritize requests, a tracker
20:37 < urgyen> ( sorry was on phone )
20:46 -!- illegal is now known as beeli
20:46 < beeli> prioritize requests
20:47 < beeli> can you explain it to me?
20:51 < urgyen> to determine what is important
20:52 < urgyen> I am sure politics spends a lot of time determining what is most important to spend money on
20:52 < beeli> yes
20:52 < urgyen> military, education, farming subsidies..
20:52 < beeli> how are you going to do that?
20:52 < urgyen> this is just for my own requests
20:53 < urgyen> my measure is probably similar.. food shelter health, etc
20:54 -!- illegal (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung2731.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
20:57 < illegal> back
20:58 < illegal> missed anything?
20:58 < illegal> my line brok
20:58 < illegal> e
20:59 -!- urgyen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)]
21:02 -!- urgen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
21:06 < illegal> urgen, how are you going to structurise what is important and what is not?
21:07 < urgen> short term vs long term
21:07 < illegal> short term
21:07 < illegal> they are important?
21:08 < urgen> food and rent is short term
21:08 < urgen> but sometimes some short term goals cut into long term sustainability
21:08 < illegal> you talk about yourself or political issues/
21:09 < urgen> my goals
21:09 < illegal> oh, ok )
21:09 < urgen> political is longer term interest
21:09 < illegal> P)
21:09 < illegal> i wondered about software you ahve in mind
21:12 < urgen> I need to check out: http://opengroupware.org/
21:12 -!- beeli [n=ille...@cmung4283.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Connection timed out]
21:12 -!- illegal is now known as beeli
21:12 < urgen> a lot of what I do depends on other people
21:18 < beeli> have to go.
21:18 < urgen> ok
21:18 < beeli> have a good time in finding a key :)
21:18 -!- beeli [n=ille...@cmung2731.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit []
23:27 < echarp> hello hello
23:27 < echarp> sorry guys for not being there
23:27 < echarp> a long week end!
23:27 < echarp> 15th of july in a catholic country is off => st mary day
23:29 < echarp> hop hop, back in my social life ;)
--- Log closed mar aoû 15 00:00:05 2006
echarp
Aug 16, 2006, 12:30:56 AM8/16/06
to top-politics
--- Log opened mar aoû 15 00:00:05 2006
00:05 -!- urgyen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
00:10 -!- Netsplit niven.freenode.net <-> irc.freenode.net quits: urgen
00:43 -!- illegal (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung4092.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
02:40 -!- illegal [n=ille...@cmung4092.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
02:49 -!- illegal (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung228.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
02:56 -!- nsh\sleep is now known as nsh
04:54 -!- illegal [n=ille...@cmung228.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit []
--- Log closed mar aoû 15 05:19:44 2006
--- Log opened mar aoû 15 10:11:50 2006
10:11 -!- echarp [n=33M0...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has joined #parlement
10:11 -!- Topic for #parlement: http://leparlement.org
10:11 -!- Topic set by echarp [] [Mon Jul 24 00:20:56 2006]
10:11 [Users #parlement]
10:11 [ echarp] [ nsh] [ parlebot] [ urgen]
10:11 -!- Irssi: #parlement: Total of 4 nicks [0 ops, 0 halfops, 0 voices, 4 normal]
10:11 -!- Channel #parlement created Fri Jul 21 18:39:21 2006
10:12 -!- Irssi: Join to #parlement was synced in 34 secs
11:25 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
12:23 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
12:23 < echarp> hello
12:23 < echarp> bon appétit!
18:20 < echarp> hell
18:21 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
18:26 < echarp> hell o
19:24 -!- illegal (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung4160.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
20:06 < echarp> hello illegal !
20:07 < illegal> hey!
20:07 < illegal> how are you?
20:07 < illegal> alive?
20:08 < echarp> yeap! :)
20:08 < echarp> going out wayyy too much ;)
20:08 < illegal> that is good :)
20:08 < echarp> and you?
20:08 < illegal> standard
20:08 < echarp> yeap, plus paris is dead over this 15th of august week end
20:09 < illegal> so you found a girl who did not go out of Paris in this time
20:09 < illegal> that means something
20:09 < echarp> :)
20:09 < illegal> :)
20:09 < echarp> hard working girl
20:09 < echarp> librarian
20:09 < illegal> uhuhuh
20:09 < illegal> sweet heart
20:10 < echarp> lovely and all (she'll certainly read the log files, salut chérie!)
20:10 < illegal> salut cherie!
20:10 < illegal> for any case :)
20:11 < echarp> yeap, very important
20:11 < echarp> what is here email adress again? ;)
20:11 < illegal> how is job?
20:11 < echarp> here/her
20:11 < echarp> job should be finished by the end of the week
20:11 < illegal> puss...@spankme.net
20:12 < illegal> found something?
20:12 < illegal> new
20:12 < echarp> lol
20:13 < echarp> I'm not right now looking hard, looking forward for some vacation ;)
20:14 < illegal> lucky you
20:15 < echarp> I know yes
20:16 < illegal> seems urgen is going to develop some software too!
20:16 * urgen is not a programmer tho
20:16 < illegal> yes?
20:17 < echarp> oh
20:17 < echarp> programming is lovely yet ;)
20:17 < urgen> I can force my self to learn when required
20:17 < urgen> I know basics
20:17 < urgen> but no one has ever hired me to just program so I end up learning lots of other things
20:18 < illegal> you did not look promising :)
20:19 < echarp> there is a mindset to be acquired
20:19 < urgen> dedication
20:19 < urgen> I need to be sponsored to learn
20:19 < urgen> so I am usually 'last chance gas' because I can generally dissolve any problem someone sets in front of me
20:21 < echarp> it's a great occupation
20:21 < urgen> yes
20:21 * echarp loves solving technical problems to build something
20:37 < echarp> urgen: what kind of tech will you have to handle?
20:37 < urgen> for my work?
21:01 < echarp> yeap
21:45 < echarp> urgen: working too much already? ;)
21:47 -!- illegal [n=ille...@cmung4160.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
22:46 -!- illegal (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung4196.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
22:47 < illegal> parlebot: help
22:47 < parlebot> The commands I know are:
22:47 < parlebot> silence - Stop logging (also: stop, off, ...)
22:47 < parlebot> listen - Start logging (also: start, on, ...)
22:47 < parlebot> bookmark - Give the URI of the current log
22:47 < parlebot> chump LETTER - Record the URI of the current log under chump LETTER
22:47 < parlebot> I respond to 'parlebot, command' in public and '/msg parlebot command' in private
22:47 < parlebot> Logging Policy: All public output is logged if I am listening except for
22:47 < parlebot> any lines starting [off]. All commands to me are logged.
22:47 < parlebot> My public output is logged but these lines are not searchable.
22:47 < parlebot> The logs are at http://bridgeheart.net/irclogs/irc.freenode.net:6667/parlement/
22:47 < parlebot> Do parlebot, adminhelp for help on administrative commands
22:58 -!- illegal [n=ille...@cmung4196.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Read error: 60 (Operation timed out)]
--- Log closed mer aoû 16 00:00:06 2006
00:05 -!- urgyen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
00:10 -!- Netsplit niven.freenode.net <-> irc.freenode.net quits: urgen
00:43 -!- illegal (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung4092.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
02:40 -!- illegal [n=ille...@cmung4092.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
02:49 -!- illegal (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung228.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
02:56 -!- nsh\sleep is now known as nsh
04:54 -!- illegal [n=ille...@cmung228.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit []
--- Log closed mar aoû 15 05:19:44 2006
--- Log opened mar aoû 15 10:11:50 2006
10:11 -!- echarp [n=33M0...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has joined #parlement
10:11 -!- Topic for #parlement: http://leparlement.org
10:11 -!- Topic set by echarp [] [Mon Jul 24 00:20:56 2006]
10:11 [Users #parlement]
10:11 [ echarp] [ nsh] [ parlebot] [ urgen]
10:11 -!- Irssi: #parlement: Total of 4 nicks [0 ops, 0 halfops, 0 voices, 4 normal]
10:11 -!- Channel #parlement created Fri Jul 21 18:39:21 2006
10:12 -!- Irssi: Join to #parlement was synced in 34 secs
11:25 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
12:23 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
12:23 < echarp> hello
12:23 < echarp> bon appétit!
18:20 < echarp> hell
18:21 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
18:26 < echarp> hell o
19:24 -!- illegal (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung4160.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
20:06 < echarp> hello illegal !
20:07 < illegal> hey!
20:07 < illegal> how are you?
20:07 < illegal> alive?
20:08 < echarp> yeap! :)
20:08 < echarp> going out wayyy too much ;)
20:08 < illegal> that is good :)
20:08 < echarp> and you?
20:08 < illegal> standard
20:08 < echarp> yeap, plus paris is dead over this 15th of august week end
20:09 < illegal> so you found a girl who did not go out of Paris in this time
20:09 < illegal> that means something
20:09 < echarp> :)
20:09 < illegal> :)
20:09 < echarp> hard working girl
20:09 < echarp> librarian
20:09 < illegal> uhuhuh
20:09 < illegal> sweet heart
20:10 < echarp> lovely and all (she'll certainly read the log files, salut chérie!)
20:10 < illegal> salut cherie!
20:10 < illegal> for any case :)
20:11 < echarp> yeap, very important
20:11 < echarp> what is here email adress again? ;)
20:11 < illegal> how is job?
20:11 < echarp> here/her
20:11 < echarp> job should be finished by the end of the week
20:11 < illegal> puss...@spankme.net
20:12 < illegal> found something?
20:12 < illegal> new
20:12 < echarp> lol
20:13 < echarp> I'm not right now looking hard, looking forward for some vacation ;)
20:14 < illegal> lucky you
20:15 < echarp> I know yes
20:16 < illegal> seems urgen is going to develop some software too!
20:16 * urgen is not a programmer tho
20:16 < illegal> yes?
20:17 < echarp> oh
20:17 < echarp> programming is lovely yet ;)
20:17 < urgen> I can force my self to learn when required
20:17 < urgen> I know basics
20:17 < urgen> but no one has ever hired me to just program so I end up learning lots of other things
20:18 < illegal> you did not look promising :)
20:19 < echarp> there is a mindset to be acquired
20:19 < urgen> dedication
20:19 < urgen> I need to be sponsored to learn
20:19 < urgen> so I am usually 'last chance gas' because I can generally dissolve any problem someone sets in front of me
20:21 < echarp> it's a great occupation
20:21 < urgen> yes
20:21 * echarp loves solving technical problems to build something
20:37 < echarp> urgen: what kind of tech will you have to handle?
20:37 < urgen> for my work?
21:01 < echarp> yeap
21:45 < echarp> urgen: working too much already? ;)
21:47 -!- illegal [n=ille...@cmung4160.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
22:46 -!- illegal (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung4196.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
22:47 < illegal> parlebot: help
22:47 < parlebot> The commands I know are:
22:47 < parlebot> silence - Stop logging (also: stop, off, ...)
22:47 < parlebot> listen - Start logging (also: start, on, ...)
22:47 < parlebot> bookmark - Give the URI of the current log
22:47 < parlebot> chump LETTER - Record the URI of the current log under chump LETTER
22:47 < parlebot> I respond to 'parlebot, command' in public and '/msg parlebot command' in private
22:47 < parlebot> Logging Policy: All public output is logged if I am listening except for
22:47 < parlebot> any lines starting [off]. All commands to me are logged.
22:47 < parlebot> My public output is logged but these lines are not searchable.
22:47 < parlebot> The logs are at http://bridgeheart.net/irclogs/irc.freenode.net:6667/parlement/
22:47 < parlebot> Do parlebot, adminhelp for help on administrative commands
22:58 -!- illegal [n=ille...@cmung4196.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Read error: 60 (Operation timed out)]
--- Log closed mer aoû 16 00:00:06 2006
echarp
Aug 17, 2006, 12:28:52 AM8/17/06
to top-politics
--- Log opened mer aoû 16 00:00:06 2006
00:22 -!- illegal (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung3241.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
00:22 < illegal> hello earth
00:44 -!- illegal [n=ille...@cmung3241.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit []
06:12 -!- urgen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit []
06:26 -!- urgen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
10:46 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
15:16 -!- urgen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)]
15:16 -!- urgen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
15:16 -!- urgyen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
17:05 -!- urgyen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit []
17:05 -!- urgen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit []
17:05 -!- urgen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
17:32 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
--- Log closed jeu aoû 17 00:00:07 2006
00:22 -!- illegal (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung3241.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
00:22 < illegal> hello earth
00:44 -!- illegal [n=ille...@cmung3241.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit []
06:12 -!- urgen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit []
06:26 -!- urgen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
10:46 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
15:16 -!- urgen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)]
15:16 -!- urgen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
15:16 -!- urgyen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
17:05 -!- urgyen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit []
17:05 -!- urgen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit []
17:05 -!- urgen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
17:32 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
--- Log closed jeu aoû 17 00:00:07 2006
echarp
Aug 18, 2006, 12:29:06 AM8/18/06
to top-politics
--- Log opened jeu aoû 17 00:00:07 2006
09:26 < echarp> hello
11:34 -!- illegal (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung144.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
11:36 < echarp> hello illegal
11:45 < illegal> hey
11:45 < illegal> whats up with mass hysteria about arabs/muslims etc?
11:46 < echarp> mass?
11:46 < echarp> what hysteria? in england?
11:46 < illegal> ok, there is no hysteria
11:46 < illegal> glad to hear tha
11:46 < illegal> t
11:47 < illegal> how actual is this problem in france?
11:47 < illegal> are you fammiliar with it?
11:47 < echarp> no hysteria here at all
11:47 < illegal> what abot public debates
11:47 < illegal> ?
11:47 < echarp> just the classic rascists
11:48 < echarp> I don't see any of that in public debates
11:48 < echarp> but well, it is summer time too
11:48 < illegal> hear France did fuck up something by puttin veto
11:48 < illegal> your president good with USA?
11:50 < echarp> putin veto? on what? omc entry?
11:50 < echarp> france and the US have been at odds for ages
11:50 < echarp> we tend to be... competitive :)
11:53 < illegal> you are not into politics these days?
11:53 < echarp> I always am
11:53 < illegal> reporter from paris, exclusive
11:53 < echarp> just during summer time, not much happens
11:53 < illegal> how deep?
11:53 < echarp> I watch it, I read about it
11:54 < illegal> go to discussion forums?
11:54 < echarp> not really, that would take a lot of time I guess
11:54 < illegal> who is worse? Jews or Arabs?
11:54 < echarp> worse in what ways?
11:55 < echarp> zionists or palestinians?
11:55 < illegal> who is more hated these days?
11:55 < illegal> Islamists or Zionists?
11:57 < illegal> these days i can notice discussions all around are going to peak
11:58 < illegal> http://www.lefigaro.fr/english/
11:58 < illegal> pretty much stuff about this
11:58 < echarp> zionists are slightly less appreciated these days
11:59 < echarp> the thing is, france has had long and strong ties with lebanon
12:00 < illegal> in cro media sphere i can notice flod of anti islamists
12:00 < echarp> US and france were allied over syrian troop withdrawals
12:00 < illegal> more than in us forums
12:00 < echarp> US and france want a democratic lebanon, but one with a relevant government, able to control the hiballah
12:01 < illegal> us wants something democratic?
12:01 < illegal> are you suree about it?
12:02 < echarp> almost yes
12:02 < illegal> lol
12:02 < illegal> you like Soros?
12:03 < echarp> I somehow understand him
12:04 < echarp> cynical yet able to matter in the grand scheme of things
12:04 < illegal> you know anything about his organisation? fammiliar to it?
12:04 < illegal> open institute
12:05 < illegal> no?
12:06 < echarp> ok, I'm going for food right now
12:06 < echarp> cu in an hour or so
12:06 < illegal> cu
12:07 < illegal> if you get some time, say what you know about his organisation
12:07 < illegal> i am interested in your perception and how informed you are
12:07 -!- illegal [n=ille...@cmung144.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit []
17:26 -!- urgen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)]
17:26 -!- urgyen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
17:56 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
17:56 < echarp> hello urgyen
23:48 -!- illegal (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung2664.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
--- Log closed ven aoû 18 00:00:07 2006
09:26 < echarp> hello
11:34 -!- illegal (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung144.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
11:36 < echarp> hello illegal
11:45 < illegal> hey
11:45 < illegal> whats up with mass hysteria about arabs/muslims etc?
11:46 < echarp> mass?
11:46 < echarp> what hysteria? in england?
11:46 < illegal> ok, there is no hysteria
11:46 < illegal> glad to hear tha
11:46 < illegal> t
11:47 < illegal> how actual is this problem in france?
11:47 < illegal> are you fammiliar with it?
11:47 < echarp> no hysteria here at all
11:47 < illegal> what abot public debates
11:47 < illegal> ?
11:47 < echarp> just the classic rascists
11:48 < echarp> I don't see any of that in public debates
11:48 < echarp> but well, it is summer time too
11:48 < illegal> hear France did fuck up something by puttin veto
11:48 < illegal> your president good with USA?
11:50 < echarp> putin veto? on what? omc entry?
11:50 < echarp> france and the US have been at odds for ages
11:50 < echarp> we tend to be... competitive :)
11:53 < illegal> you are not into politics these days?
11:53 < echarp> I always am
11:53 < illegal> reporter from paris, exclusive
11:53 < echarp> just during summer time, not much happens
11:53 < illegal> how deep?
11:53 < echarp> I watch it, I read about it
11:54 < illegal> go to discussion forums?
11:54 < echarp> not really, that would take a lot of time I guess
11:54 < illegal> who is worse? Jews or Arabs?
11:54 < echarp> worse in what ways?
11:55 < echarp> zionists or palestinians?
11:55 < illegal> who is more hated these days?
11:55 < illegal> Islamists or Zionists?
11:57 < illegal> these days i can notice discussions all around are going to peak
11:58 < illegal> http://www.lefigaro.fr/english/
11:58 < illegal> pretty much stuff about this
11:58 < echarp> zionists are slightly less appreciated these days
11:59 < echarp> the thing is, france has had long and strong ties with lebanon
12:00 < illegal> in cro media sphere i can notice flod of anti islamists
12:00 < echarp> US and france were allied over syrian troop withdrawals
12:00 < illegal> more than in us forums
12:00 < echarp> US and france want a democratic lebanon, but one with a relevant government, able to control the hiballah
12:01 < illegal> us wants something democratic?
12:01 < illegal> are you suree about it?
12:02 < echarp> almost yes
12:02 < illegal> lol
12:02 < illegal> you like Soros?
12:03 < echarp> I somehow understand him
12:04 < echarp> cynical yet able to matter in the grand scheme of things
12:04 < illegal> you know anything about his organisation? fammiliar to it?
12:04 < illegal> open institute
12:05 < illegal> no?
12:06 < echarp> ok, I'm going for food right now
12:06 < echarp> cu in an hour or so
12:06 < illegal> cu
12:07 < illegal> if you get some time, say what you know about his organisation
12:07 < illegal> i am interested in your perception and how informed you are
12:07 -!- illegal [n=ille...@cmung144.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit []
17:26 -!- urgen [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)]
17:26 -!- urgyen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
17:56 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
17:56 < echarp> hello urgyen
23:48 -!- illegal (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung2664.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
--- Log closed ven aoû 18 00:00:07 2006
echarp
Aug 19, 2006, 12:28:57 AM8/19/06
to top-politics
--- Log opened ven aoû 18 00:00:07 2006
00:35 < echarp> hello again illegal
00:42 < illegal> hey
00:43 < echarp> late late!
00:45 < illegal> go to sleep?
00:46 < echarp> I'm going to yess
00:47 < echarp> and you?
00:47 < echarp> it must be even later for you, considering the sun :)
01:03 < illegal> i go to sleep pretty late
02:18 -!- illegal [n=ille...@cmung2664.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
06:45 -!- Netsplit niven.freenode.net <-> irc.freenode.net quits: nsh
07:01 -!- nsh (No Such Human) [n=n...@88.144.1.63] has joined #parlement
10:38 < echarp> hello
20:02 -!- Netsplit niven.freenode.net <-> irc.freenode.net quits: nsh, parlebot
20:07 -!- Netsplit niven.freenode.net <-> irc.freenode.net quits: urgyen
20:07 -!- nsh (No Such Human) [n=n...@88.144.1.63] has joined #parlement
20:09 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
--- Log closed ven aoû 18 22:22:37 2006
--- Log opened ven aoû 18 22:23:12 2006
22:23 -!- echarp [n=33M0...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has joined #parlement
22:23 -!- Topic for #parlement: http://leparlement.org
22:23 -!- Topic set by echarp [] [Mon Jul 24 00:20:56 2006]
22:23 [Users #parlement]
22:23 [ echarp] [ nsh]
22:23 -!- Irssi: #parlement: Total of 2 nicks [0 ops, 0 halfops, 0 voices, 2 normal]
22:23 -!- Channel #parlement created Fri Jul 21 18:39:21 2006
22:24 -!- Irssi: Join to #parlement was synced in 63 secs
22:26 -!- [freenode-info] if you're at a conference and other people are having trouble connecting, please mention it to staff: http://freenode.net/faq.shtml#gettinghelp
22:31 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
22:41 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
--- Log closed sam aoû 19 00:00:07 2006
00:35 < echarp> hello again illegal
00:42 < illegal> hey
00:43 < echarp> late late!
00:45 < illegal> go to sleep?
00:46 < echarp> I'm going to yess
00:47 < echarp> and you?
00:47 < echarp> it must be even later for you, considering the sun :)
01:03 < illegal> i go to sleep pretty late
02:18 -!- illegal [n=ille...@cmung2664.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
06:45 -!- Netsplit niven.freenode.net <-> irc.freenode.net quits: nsh
07:01 -!- nsh (No Such Human) [n=n...@88.144.1.63] has joined #parlement
10:38 < echarp> hello
20:02 -!- Netsplit niven.freenode.net <-> irc.freenode.net quits: nsh, parlebot
20:07 -!- Netsplit niven.freenode.net <-> irc.freenode.net quits: urgyen
20:07 -!- nsh (No Such Human) [n=n...@88.144.1.63] has joined #parlement
20:09 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
--- Log closed ven aoû 18 22:22:37 2006
--- Log opened ven aoû 18 22:23:12 2006
22:23 -!- echarp [n=33M0...@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] has joined #parlement
22:23 -!- Topic for #parlement: http://leparlement.org
22:23 -!- Topic set by echarp [] [Mon Jul 24 00:20:56 2006]
22:23 [Users #parlement]
22:23 [ echarp] [ nsh]
22:23 -!- Irssi: #parlement: Total of 2 nicks [0 ops, 0 halfops, 0 voices, 2 normal]
22:23 -!- Channel #parlement created Fri Jul 21 18:39:21 2006
22:24 -!- Irssi: Join to #parlement was synced in 63 secs
22:26 -!- [freenode-info] if you're at a conference and other people are having trouble connecting, please mention it to staff: http://freenode.net/faq.shtml#gettinghelp
22:31 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
22:41 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
--- Log closed sam aoû 19 00:00:07 2006
echarp
Aug 20, 2006, 12:30:05 AM8/20/06
to top-politics
--- Log opened sam aoû 19 00:00:07 2006
--- Log closed dim aoû 20 00:00:08 2006
--- Log closed dim aoû 20 00:00:08 2006
echarp
Aug 21, 2006, 12:28:43 AM8/21/06
to top-politics
--- Log opened dim aoû 20 00:00:08 2006
00:17 -!- nsh_ (No Such Human) [n=n...@88.144.62.172] has joined #parlement
00:24 -!- nsh [n=n...@88.144.1.63] has quit [Read error: 60 (Operation timed out)]
--- Log closed lun aoû 21 00:00:08 2006
00:17 -!- nsh_ (No Such Human) [n=n...@88.144.62.172] has joined #parlement
00:24 -!- nsh [n=n...@88.144.1.63] has quit [Read error: 60 (Operation timed out)]
--- Log closed lun aoû 21 00:00:08 2006
echarp
Aug 22, 2006, 12:30:17 AM8/22/06
to top-politics
--- Log opened lun aoû 21 00:00:08 2006
01:29 -!- nsh_ is now known as nsh
03:59 -!- nsh_ (No Such Human) [n=n...@88.144.70.116] has joined #parlement
04:07 -!- nsh [n=nsh@wikipedia/nsh] has quit [Read error: 60 (Operation timed out)]
06:06 -!- illegal (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung4245.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
06:26 < illegal:#parlement> hello hello echarp
06:28 -!- illegal [n=ille...@cmung4245.cmu.carnet.hr] has left #parlement []
--- Log closed lun aoû 21 09:41:37 2006
--- Log opened lun aoû 21 09:42:27 2006
09:42 -!- echarp [n=33M0...@81.66.133.96] has joined #parlement
09:42 -!- Topic for #parlement: http://leparlement.org
09:42 -!- Topic set by echarp [] [Mon Jul 24 00:20:56 2006]
09:42 [Users #parlement]
09:42 [ echarp] [ nsh_]
09:42 -!- Irssi: #parlement: Total of 2 nicks [0 ops, 0 halfops, 0 voices, 2 normal]
09:42 -!- Channel #parlement created Fri Jul 21 18:39:21 2006
09:43 -!- Irssi: Join to #parlement was synced in 53 secs
18:58 -!- illegale (illegale) [i=ille...@cmung3244.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
18:58 < illegale:#parlement> oi
19:12 -!- illegale [i=ille...@cmung3244.cmu.carnet.hr] has left #parlement []
23:43 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
--- Log closed mar aoû 22 00:00:09 2006
01:29 -!- nsh_ is now known as nsh
03:59 -!- nsh_ (No Such Human) [n=n...@88.144.70.116] has joined #parlement
04:07 -!- nsh [n=nsh@wikipedia/nsh] has quit [Read error: 60 (Operation timed out)]
06:06 -!- illegal (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung4245.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
06:26 < illegal:#parlement> hello hello echarp
06:28 -!- illegal [n=ille...@cmung4245.cmu.carnet.hr] has left #parlement []
--- Log closed lun aoû 21 09:41:37 2006
--- Log opened lun aoû 21 09:42:27 2006
09:42 -!- echarp [n=33M0...@81.66.133.96] has joined #parlement
09:42 -!- Topic for #parlement: http://leparlement.org
09:42 -!- Topic set by echarp [] [Mon Jul 24 00:20:56 2006]
09:42 [Users #parlement]
09:42 [ echarp] [ nsh_]
09:42 -!- Irssi: #parlement: Total of 2 nicks [0 ops, 0 halfops, 0 voices, 2 normal]
09:42 -!- Channel #parlement created Fri Jul 21 18:39:21 2006
09:43 -!- Irssi: Join to #parlement was synced in 53 secs
18:58 -!- illegale (illegale) [i=ille...@cmung3244.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
18:58 < illegale:#parlement> oi
19:12 -!- illegale [i=ille...@cmung3244.cmu.carnet.hr] has left #parlement []
23:43 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
--- Log closed mar aoû 22 00:00:09 2006
echarp
Aug 23, 2006, 12:29:25 AM8/23/06
to top-politics
--- Log opened mar aoû 22 00:00:09 2006
03:08 -!- nsh_ is now known as nsh
05:57 -!- urgen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
07:08 < urgen> Creativity and innovation always builds on the past.
07:08 < urgen> The past always tries to control the creativity that builds upon it.
07:08 < urgen> Free societies enable the future by limiting this power of the past.
07:08 < urgen> Ours is less and less a free society.
07:08 < urgen> -Lawrence Lessig
08:50 < echarp> hello hello urgen
16:24 < urgen:#parlement> hi
16:54 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
16:54 < echarp> hello hello urgen
16:54 < echarp> how are you?
16:54 < urgen> doing well
16:55 < urgen> starting to be foggy in the mornings here
16:55 < urgen> I'm expecting some late season heat wave tho
16:59 < echarp> yeap, same here
16:59 < echarp> today the sun si just starting to understand it is august time! :)
17:00 < urgen> august is vacation isn't it?
17:02 < echarp> for many yes
18:27 -!- illegal (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung217.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
18:28 < illegal> hello hello
18:32 < illegal> echarp: are you alive?
18:37 < illegal> urgen: what happened to parlebot?
18:38 < urgen> hehe
18:38 < urgen> :-)
18:38 < urgen> it doesn't have auto-reconnect
18:38 < illegal> yes?
18:38 < urgen> I really need new software
18:38 < illegal> hmh
18:38 * urgen logs in to kick the bots butt
18:38 < illegal> i saw several bots that work fine
18:38 < illegal> phenny is cool
18:38 < illegal> plus some logging bot
18:38 < illegal> maybe from jeffarch
18:38 < illegal> you find them fine?
18:39 < urgen> no
18:39 < illegal> why?
18:39 < urgen> I was going for something that allowed extraction of sections of conversation
18:40 < urgen> a way to highlight and edit what was transcribed so it could be used in other documents
18:40 < urgen> without having to do a bunch of editing after copy paste
18:41 < illegal> ok
18:41 < illegal> btw, we need some forum software that can be non censourous
18:42 < urgen> what is that?
18:42 < illegal> ops
18:42 < illegal> i mean with not moderators who can ban censor and do stuff
18:42 < illegal> and in the same time constructive talk to be enabled
18:42 < illegal> the world desperately need it
18:42 * parlebot is logging
18:42 -!- parlebot (Chat Logger) [i=ur...@65.111.164.97] has joined #parlement
18:42 < illegal> :)
18:44 < urgen> I just got Open Groupware going
18:44 < urgen> you might want to look through that
18:44 < illegal> yes
18:44 < illegal> whewre?
18:44 < urgen> opengroupware.org
18:44 < urgen> I think
18:44 < urgen> it allows teams and things like that to collaborate
18:44 < illegal> btw, did you check top politics recently?
18:44 < urgen> not
18:44 < illegal> PNE is cool thing
18:44 < illegal> there is a new member
18:45 < illegal> has 4 posts or sometging
18:45 < illegal> into proxy stuff on social networks
18:45 < illegal> seems to have some knowledge \about the stff he talks
18:45 < echarp> hello illegal, I'm alive!!!
18:45 < illegal> good
18:45 < illegal> :)
18:46 * echarp is finishing is contract
18:46 < illegal> yes?
18:46 < illegal> today i was banned at my host forum
18:46 < illegal> it reminded me of imperfectness of tech solution of it
18:47 < illegal> there is yet no possibility of free public concsnus building
18:47 < illegal> no such software yet
18:49 < illegal> have to go
18:49 < illegal> cu
18:49 -!- illegal [n=ille...@cmung217.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit []
18:51 < urgen> banned from your own thing.. bummer
18:52 < echarp> that is very bad
18:52 < echarp> I wonder how he managed that!
18:53 < urgen> :-))
18:53 < urgen> with practice, of course
18:53 < echarp> lol
18:53 < echarp> hop, I'm going home
18:54 < echarp> see you in a few minutes
22:09 -!- illegal (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung151.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
22:10 < illegal> oi
22:13 < illegal> parlebot: help
22:13 < parlebot> The commands I know are:
22:13 < parlebot> silence - Stop logging (also: stop, off, ...)
22:13 < parlebot> listen - Start logging (also: start, on, ...)
22:13 < parlebot> bookmark - Give the URI of the current log
22:13 < parlebot> chump LETTER - Record the URI of the current log under chump LETTER
22:13 < parlebot> I respond to 'parlebot, command' in public and '/msg parlebot command' in private
22:13 < parlebot> Logging Policy: All public output is logged if I am listening except for
22:13 < parlebot> any lines starting [off]. All commands to me are logged.
22:13 < parlebot> My public output is logged but these lines are not searchable.
22:13 < parlebot> The logs are at http://bridgeheart.net/irclogs/irc.freenode.net:6667/parlement/
22:13 < parlebot> Do parlebot, adminhelp for help on administrative commands
22:15 < illegal> that forum is the place i am emotionally attached to as long as i spend over 6 000 posts up there
22:15 < illegal> that is the reason i considering it @mine@ place
22:24 < echarp> hello back illegal
22:24 < echarp> so, what forum is/was that?
22:24 < echarp> opengroupware.org, ok
22:31 < illegal> www.forum.hr
22:32 < illegal> you go out tonight?
22:34 < echarp> not tonight no :)
22:34 < echarp> yesterday, and the day before, and yet again the day before
22:34 < echarp> tomorrow too :)
22:35 < illegal> read that abn new top politics member?
22:35 < echarp> most interesting
22:36 < echarp> shame he responded to mark
22:36 < illegal> i think we aim at very simmilar, maybe identical things
22:36 < illegal> what you mean?
22:37 < illegal> nevertheless, org he is talking about might be virtual group by itseld
22:38 < illegal> do you notice some interest in this?
22:39 < echarp> I have not read everything yet
22:39 < illegal> it takes 10 minutes.
22:39 < echarp> mostly the bits about delegable proxy
22:40 < illegal> ways of explaining too
22:40 < echarp> some 300 lines posts there are
22:40 < illegal> such as filtering stuff
22:44 < illegal> yet, seems he does same mistakes as Magnus
22:44 < echarp> I think I talked with him, particularly on the FA stuff
22:44 < echarp> which mistake is that?
22:44 < illegal> tool is not political idea
22:45 < illegal> you need political idea to promote much more in order to make tool working
22:45 < echarp> I don't know about that
22:45 < illegal> top is on the path of that
22:45 < echarp> ideas are tools and vice versa :)
22:45 < illegal> i am talking about exact political stuff
22:45 < illegal> no philosophy
22:46 < illegal> http://metaparty.beyondpolitics.org/tiki-index.php
22:46 < echarp> you are speaking about direct power, aren't you?
22:47 < illegal> noi
22:48 < illegal> talking about catchy and clear thoughts that can mobilise people
22:48 < illegal> technical solution is not catchy and clear thought
22:48 < echarp> that is direct power, isn't it?
22:48 < illegal> what does it mean?
22:48 < echarp> direct power? influencing what others do is one way to look at it
22:49 < echarp> direct power is the ability to, start or stop a war for example
22:49 < illegal> so?
22:49 < illegal> ok, what about that?
22:49 < echarp> and a catchy clear thought can do that
22:49 < illegal> yes
22:49 < echarp> then you are speaking about direct power
22:49 < echarp> yet indirect one is also of interest
22:49 < illegal> look, politics IS ABOUT POWER
22:49 < echarp> politcs is about powers, yes
22:50 < echarp> a liquid kind of so many different powers
22:50 < illegal> if you do not handle wih it, than you are not doing politics
22:50 < echarp> any human relationship is a matter of politics
22:50 < illegal> there is plenty of models around
22:50 < illegal> pretty simmilar ones
22:50 < illegal> and yet, nobody people actually ask themselves how to get it implemented?
22:50 < echarp> but speaking about political systems is a huge matter
22:50 < illegal> we have many stuff about it
22:51 < illegal> much stuff
22:51 < illegal> look at this Abdul
22:51 < echarp> speaking and trying to convince *is* political
22:51 < illegal> we are very close to each other even we havent met before
22:51 < illegal> this process goes spontaneusly to one moment it needs to be tested, not talked about
22:51 < illegal> yes
22:52 < illegal> anyway, this is not 2001 or something when proxy delegation or TOP where sort of political tabus
22:52 < echarp> but only speaking and trying to convince without ideas, is bound to be fruitless
22:52 < illegal> we do not talk about digital divide as only iplrtant thing
22:52 < illegal> or e-voting
22:52 < illegal> what ideas?
22:53 < echarp> political organisation
22:53 < echarp> democracy
22:53 < echarp> transparency
22:53 < illegal> so, we have some ideas, yes?
22:53 < echarp> the fact that people should decide for themselves on the matters that impact themselves
22:53 < illegal> ok
22:53 < echarp> I have ideas, you have ideas, we share some of them
22:53 < illegal> ok
22:54 < echarp> we share transparencyhttp://metaparty.beyondpolitics.org/tiki-index.php
22:54 < echarp> oups
22:54 < illegal> so what is the problem?
22:54 < echarp> we share transparency
22:54 < illegal> so what is the problem?
22:54 < echarp> I don't see much problem, you were talking about the mistake as magnus
22:55 < illegal> do not folllow you
22:55 < echarp> and then you spoke about the fact you didn't want to go into philosophy
22:55 < illegal> maybe i get what you want to say
22:56 < illegal> you want to say i am only philosophing
22:56 < echarp> < illegal> yet, seems he does same mistakes as Magnus
22:56 < echarp> no no no
22:56 < illegal> but
22:56 < echarp> I am just considering what you said
22:56 < echarp> "< illegal> tool is not political idea"
22:56 < echarp> "< illegal> you need political idea to promote much more in order to make tool"
22:57 < echarp> and I try to talk about it
22:57 < echarp> with you
22:57 < illegal> ok
22:57 < illegal> tool is empty shell
22:58 < illegal> in the moment it has no users
22:58 < illegal> users fullfill it
22:58 < illegal> if you get 100 lunatics, your shell will act in that order
22:58 < echarp> tool *is* an empty shell, yes!
22:58 < echarp> and?
22:58 < illegal> you need something catchy that will explain what is so special aobut that shell
22:58 < echarp> I'm doing it as a shell, to be filled if it ever shall be filled
22:59 < echarp> I do need something catchy, yes
22:59 < echarp> any ideas?
22:59 < illegal> you are not interest in what you will fill?
22:59 < illegal> it will be filled?
23:00 < echarp> it might be filled
23:00 < echarp> "might"
23:00 < echarp> there is no certitude
23:00 < illegal> what i can notice, stff such as responsibility, solidarity and simmilar issues explained in fine ways might be catchy things
23:00 < illegal> these isses can be easily attached to current bizzare situation
23:01 < illegal> with problems we have
23:01 < echarp> but it is a shell, it does not concern itself with such things as responsability, solidarity and all that
23:01 < illegal> yet, there is a big problem about DD concept
23:01 < illegal> what is a shell>
23:01 < illegal> ?
23:01 < illegal> your tool?
23:01 < illegal> yes
23:02 < illegal> that shell needs clear reason for its existance
23:02 < illegal> if you say people will, yada, yada, yada, that is not good
23:02 < illegal> people are connected to masses who vote for Bush
23:03 < illegal> there is no great at5raction when you are making solutions looking for grreat masses
23:04 < illegal> you need a whole story that will avoid misunderstdings, showing clearly that stuff such as TOP and DPs can solve the global problem
23:04 < illegal> in this process, there is many political hoaxes, pretty though play to be done
23:05 < illegal> this is the way i support in this very moment very much
23:05 < illegal> giving vision
23:05 < illegal> maybe reading Fromm >D
23:05 < echarp> reading Fromm?
23:05 < echarp> ??
23:05 < illegal> just kidding
23:05 < illegal> about role models stuff
23:06 < illegal> the question you asked,
23:06 < illegal> what are we trying actually to be?
23:06 < illegal> what do we want from ourselves?
23:06 < illegal> do we actually want world based on responsibility?
23:06 < illegal> and truth?
23:07 < illegal> determinism
23:07 < echarp> I'm not going for the whole world
23:08 < illegal> but for what?
23:08 < echarp> just for those individuals who want a shell based on democratic, transparent, principles
23:08 < echarp> I'm very meritocratic that way ;)
23:09 < illegal> who might be user of such interface?
23:09 < illegal> except us interested in politics
23:11 < echarp> I think the shell could be useful to any online group
23:11 < echarp> as a forum/mailingList
23:11 < echarp> one where content can be democratically moderated
23:11 < echarp> it is open to any kind of subject
23:12 < illegal> moderatcally moderated, you mean 50%+1?
23:13 < echarp> no no, voluntary moderation, one chosen by users
23:13 < illegal> this software you do is actually panocracy under the eart of site admin
23:13 < echarp> :)
23:13 < echarp> some kind of yes
23:14 < echarp> see, it does have a payload I guess
23:14 < illegal> how is it going on, btw?
23:14 < illegal> how is gf?
23:14 < echarp> but one sooo open and tolerant, it should (hopefully) accomodate with anything
23:14 < echarp> girlfriend is reading that forum ;)
23:14 < echarp> she's intelligent!!!
23:14 < illegal> cool :)
23:15 < echarp> we had great sex yesterday night!!! :-D
23:15 < echarp> (we'll see what she says ;)
23:15 < illegal> hmh
23:15 < illegal> i got very drunk in the same time
23:15 < echarp> lol
23:15 < illegal> how is going on with filters and stuff?
23:16 < illegal> you know how keen i am about it
23:16 < echarp> I've been thinking about it, but no programming as of now
23:16 < echarp> it should be rather fast and easy to implement well
23:16 < echarp> of course I'm merely talking about filters
23:16 < illegal> in this moment i am banned, i really wish to promote moderation free groupware
23:16 < echarp> not about electoral list
23:16 < illegal> yes, yes
23:17 < illegal> modration free forum
23:17 < echarp> I would love it if parlement was a tool you used and appreciated!
23:17 < illegal> in this moment, you miss not much
23:17 < echarp> user chosen moderators :)
23:17 < illegal> yes
23:17 < illegal> these killeer messages are important stuff indeed
23:18 < echarp> each user can choose to: 1) see everytning, 2) see only things highly appreciated by everybody, 3) see only things highly appreciated by a group of his liking
23:18 < illegal> i wish if i had that software in the moment moderators in forum.hr become trully despotic
23:18 < illegal> in that way i could get many users around
23:18 < echarp> each user can: say if he appreciates or not everything
23:19 < illegal> proxy delegation is important here :)
23:19 < illegal> like this new term
23:19 < illegal> new to me
23:20 < echarp> I quite appreciate it too
23:21 < echarp> although it is originally not mine, originally I merely spoke of translatable delegation
23:21 < illegal> nevermind
23:21 < illegal> that is that
23:21 < echarp> you delegate your vote, the person you delegate to can also delegate to someone else, infinitely
23:21 < illegal> the essence of sd2 whatever Mark is trying to say :)
23:22 < echarp> it's going to end up in a pyramid of sorts, but it's better than classic representation
23:22 < echarp> essence of SD2? hum, I'm not sure
23:22 < echarp> I guess SD2 does try to implement some kind of translatable delegation
23:22 < illegal> Abn talks good about the reason why this aproach has many advances to classic reprensetation
23:22 < echarp> but then he puts waaaayyyy too much on top of that
23:23 < illegal> manipulation over public opinion through mass media
23:23 < echarp> yes, he does seem quite cogent
23:23 < echarp> I love his "only an idiot argue with idiots" :)
23:23 < illegal> yes
23:23 < echarp> why did I ever argue with mark, why why why!!! :-D
23:24 < illegal> khm...
23:24 < echarp> (no need to answer ;)
23:24 < illegal> :)
23:26 < illegal> so, small world indeed :)
23:28 < echarp> isn't it!
23:30 < echarp> I quite like his idea about FA and AA
23:30 < echarp> that's the way the internet mostly works already
23:31 < echarp> just, could the real world ever use that kind of model? (AA already do)
23:31 < illegal> hmh
23:34 < echarp> again, this is panarchy ;)
23:35 < illegal> what is he talking about, i do note get it
23:36 < illegal> ok, i get it
23:36 < illegal> seems this stuff to be simmilar what i am trying to do with parasites.
23:37 < illegal> or maing top politics be bigger
23:37 < illegal> more influencive
23:37 < echarp> he does seem to look for it, or something like it
23:37 < echarp> if I remember correctly, he is quite older than us
23:38 < illegal> probably
23:38 < echarp> it's like a pet idea of his
23:39 < illegal> nevertheless, i am really glad he so nicely talks about trust networks
23:39 < illegal> influence networks and so on
23:40 < illegal> global public political network empowerment could be project pretty interesting for him
23:40 < illegal> to see what are the problems on a path of his dream come true
23:40 < illegal> urgen:
23:40 < illegal> thank you for mail
23:40 < illegal> :)
23:45 < illegal> http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/1871/slika000mm0.jpg
23:46 < illegal> http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/2273/gusjenicavl2.jpg
23:49 < echarp> eurk :(
23:49 < illegal> it is going to be butterfly
23:51 < illegal> hmh, this about your softwere development, btw
23:51 < illegal> you might introduce some user demand place or somethng where people can help you developing this software
23:51 < illegal> tOp
23:52 < illegal> :)
23:52 < echarp> definitely
23:52 < echarp> dev @ leparlement . org
23:53 < illegal> i could help you promoting that spot
23:53 < echarp> or such
23:53 < illegal> public to be
23:53 < illegal> right?
23:53 < echarp> http://leparlement.org/dev (nothing there yet)
23:53 < echarp> of course public yes :)
23:53 < illegal> TOP
23:53 < illegal> would be really nice to see how you handle with all of these demands
23:54 < illegal> magnus, me, mark and stuff
23:54 < illegal> :)
23:54 < echarp> I'd love to see demands
23:54 < illegal> magnus markus mark me a
23:54 < echarp> but of course, there are already directions I have, in my mind :)
23:54 < illegal> i know
23:54 < echarp> but no trouble yes!
23:55 < illegal> so, would it be democratical organisation?
23:55 < illegal> where you decide what to do :)
23:55 < illegal> or panocratical maybe?
23:56 < illegal> or just TOP ;_)
23:56 < echarp> nah, at the end of the day, *I* decide what *I* do :)
23:57 < echarp> just I have no trouble discussing it
23:57 < illegal> so, you are not democratic at all!
23:57 < echarp> and am very open to suggestinos
23:57 < illegal> :D
23:57 < echarp> suggestions
23:57 < echarp> my work power is not comanded by democratic decisions, no :)
23:57 < illegal> i think that is cool thing to do
23:57 < illegal> we do not need democracy at all
23:58 < illegal> :D
23:58 < illegal> top is more than democracy
23:58 < illegal> top is freedom itself blah
23:58 < illegal> :D
23:59 < illegal> have to go working on my final work at college
23:59 < illegal> cu later aligater
23:59 -!- illegal [n=ille...@cmung151.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit []
--- Log closed mer aoû 23 00:00:07 2006
03:08 -!- nsh_ is now known as nsh
05:57 -!- urgen (urgy) [i=ur...@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement
07:08 < urgen> Creativity and innovation always builds on the past.
07:08 < urgen> The past always tries to control the creativity that builds upon it.
07:08 < urgen> Free societies enable the future by limiting this power of the past.
07:08 < urgen> Ours is less and less a free society.
07:08 < urgen> -Lawrence Lessig
08:50 < echarp> hello hello urgen
16:24 < urgen:#parlement> hi
16:54 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
16:54 < echarp> hello hello urgen
16:54 < echarp> how are you?
16:54 < urgen> doing well
16:55 < urgen> starting to be foggy in the mornings here
16:55 < urgen> I'm expecting some late season heat wave tho
16:59 < echarp> yeap, same here
16:59 < echarp> today the sun si just starting to understand it is august time! :)
17:00 < urgen> august is vacation isn't it?
17:02 < echarp> for many yes
18:27 -!- illegal (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung217.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
18:28 < illegal> hello hello
18:32 < illegal> echarp: are you alive?
18:37 < illegal> urgen: what happened to parlebot?
18:38 < urgen> hehe
18:38 < urgen> :-)
18:38 < urgen> it doesn't have auto-reconnect
18:38 < illegal> yes?
18:38 < urgen> I really need new software
18:38 < illegal> hmh
18:38 * urgen logs in to kick the bots butt
18:38 < illegal> i saw several bots that work fine
18:38 < illegal> phenny is cool
18:38 < illegal> plus some logging bot
18:38 < illegal> maybe from jeffarch
18:38 < illegal> you find them fine?
18:39 < urgen> no
18:39 < illegal> why?
18:39 < urgen> I was going for something that allowed extraction of sections of conversation
18:40 < urgen> a way to highlight and edit what was transcribed so it could be used in other documents
18:40 < urgen> without having to do a bunch of editing after copy paste
18:41 < illegal> ok
18:41 < illegal> btw, we need some forum software that can be non censourous
18:42 < urgen> what is that?
18:42 < illegal> ops
18:42 < illegal> i mean with not moderators who can ban censor and do stuff
18:42 < illegal> and in the same time constructive talk to be enabled
18:42 < illegal> the world desperately need it
18:42 * parlebot is logging
18:42 -!- parlebot (Chat Logger) [i=ur...@65.111.164.97] has joined #parlement
18:42 < illegal> :)
18:44 < urgen> I just got Open Groupware going
18:44 < urgen> you might want to look through that
18:44 < illegal> yes
18:44 < illegal> whewre?
18:44 < urgen> opengroupware.org
18:44 < urgen> I think
18:44 < illegal> btw, did you check top politics recently?
18:44 < urgen> not
18:44 < illegal> PNE is cool thing
18:44 < illegal> there is a new member
18:45 < illegal> has 4 posts or sometging
18:45 < illegal> into proxy stuff on social networks
18:45 < illegal> seems to have some knowledge \about the stff he talks
18:45 < echarp> hello illegal, I'm alive!!!
18:45 < illegal> good
18:45 < illegal> :)
18:46 * echarp is finishing is contract
18:46 < illegal> yes?
18:46 < illegal> today i was banned at my host forum
18:46 < illegal> it reminded me of imperfectness of tech solution of it
18:47 < illegal> there is yet no possibility of free public concsnus building
18:47 < illegal> no such software yet
18:49 < illegal> have to go
18:49 < illegal> cu
18:49 -!- illegal [n=ille...@cmung217.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit []
18:51 < urgen> banned from your own thing.. bummer
18:52 < echarp> that is very bad
18:52 < echarp> I wonder how he managed that!
18:53 < urgen> :-))
18:53 < urgen> with practice, of course
18:53 < echarp> lol
18:53 < echarp> hop, I'm going home
18:54 < echarp> see you in a few minutes
22:09 -!- illegal (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung151.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
22:10 < illegal> oi
22:13 < illegal> parlebot: help
22:13 < parlebot> The commands I know are:
22:13 < parlebot> silence - Stop logging (also: stop, off, ...)
22:13 < parlebot> listen - Start logging (also: start, on, ...)
22:13 < parlebot> bookmark - Give the URI of the current log
22:13 < parlebot> chump LETTER - Record the URI of the current log under chump LETTER
22:13 < parlebot> I respond to 'parlebot, command' in public and '/msg parlebot command' in private
22:13 < parlebot> Logging Policy: All public output is logged if I am listening except for
22:13 < parlebot> any lines starting [off]. All commands to me are logged.
22:13 < parlebot> My public output is logged but these lines are not searchable.
22:13 < parlebot> The logs are at http://bridgeheart.net/irclogs/irc.freenode.net:6667/parlement/
22:13 < parlebot> Do parlebot, adminhelp for help on administrative commands
22:15 < illegal> that forum is the place i am emotionally attached to as long as i spend over 6 000 posts up there
22:15 < illegal> that is the reason i considering it @mine@ place
22:24 < echarp> hello back illegal
22:24 < echarp> so, what forum is/was that?
22:24 < echarp> opengroupware.org, ok
22:31 < illegal> www.forum.hr
22:32 < illegal> you go out tonight?
22:34 < echarp> not tonight no :)
22:34 < echarp> yesterday, and the day before, and yet again the day before
22:34 < echarp> tomorrow too :)
22:35 < illegal> read that abn new top politics member?
22:35 < echarp> most interesting
22:36 < echarp> shame he responded to mark
22:36 < illegal> i think we aim at very simmilar, maybe identical things
22:36 < illegal> what you mean?
22:37 < illegal> nevertheless, org he is talking about might be virtual group by itseld
22:38 < illegal> do you notice some interest in this?
22:39 < echarp> I have not read everything yet
22:39 < illegal> it takes 10 minutes.
22:39 < echarp> mostly the bits about delegable proxy
22:40 < illegal> ways of explaining too
22:40 < echarp> some 300 lines posts there are
22:40 < illegal> such as filtering stuff
22:44 < illegal> yet, seems he does same mistakes as Magnus
22:44 < echarp> I think I talked with him, particularly on the FA stuff
22:44 < echarp> which mistake is that?
22:44 < illegal> tool is not political idea
22:45 < illegal> you need political idea to promote much more in order to make tool working
22:45 < echarp> I don't know about that
22:45 < illegal> top is on the path of that
22:45 < echarp> ideas are tools and vice versa :)
22:45 < illegal> i am talking about exact political stuff
22:45 < illegal> no philosophy
22:46 < illegal> http://metaparty.beyondpolitics.org/tiki-index.php
22:46 < echarp> you are speaking about direct power, aren't you?
22:47 < illegal> noi
22:48 < illegal> talking about catchy and clear thoughts that can mobilise people
22:48 < illegal> technical solution is not catchy and clear thought
22:48 < echarp> that is direct power, isn't it?
22:48 < illegal> what does it mean?
22:48 < echarp> direct power? influencing what others do is one way to look at it
22:49 < echarp> direct power is the ability to, start or stop a war for example
22:49 < illegal> so?
22:49 < illegal> ok, what about that?
22:49 < echarp> and a catchy clear thought can do that
22:49 < illegal> yes
22:49 < echarp> then you are speaking about direct power
22:49 < echarp> yet indirect one is also of interest
22:49 < illegal> look, politics IS ABOUT POWER
22:49 < echarp> politcs is about powers, yes
22:50 < echarp> a liquid kind of so many different powers
22:50 < illegal> if you do not handle wih it, than you are not doing politics
22:50 < echarp> any human relationship is a matter of politics
22:50 < illegal> there is plenty of models around
22:50 < illegal> pretty simmilar ones
22:50 < illegal> and yet, nobody people actually ask themselves how to get it implemented?
22:50 < echarp> but speaking about political systems is a huge matter
22:50 < illegal> we have many stuff about it
22:51 < illegal> much stuff
22:51 < illegal> look at this Abdul
22:51 < echarp> speaking and trying to convince *is* political
22:51 < illegal> we are very close to each other even we havent met before
22:51 < illegal> this process goes spontaneusly to one moment it needs to be tested, not talked about
22:51 < illegal> yes
22:52 < illegal> anyway, this is not 2001 or something when proxy delegation or TOP where sort of political tabus
22:52 < echarp> but only speaking and trying to convince without ideas, is bound to be fruitless
22:52 < illegal> we do not talk about digital divide as only iplrtant thing
22:52 < illegal> or e-voting
22:52 < illegal> what ideas?
22:53 < echarp> political organisation
22:53 < echarp> democracy
22:53 < echarp> transparency
22:53 < illegal> so, we have some ideas, yes?
22:53 < echarp> the fact that people should decide for themselves on the matters that impact themselves
22:53 < illegal> ok
22:53 < echarp> I have ideas, you have ideas, we share some of them
22:53 < illegal> ok
22:54 < echarp> we share transparencyhttp://metaparty.beyondpolitics.org/tiki-index.php
22:54 < echarp> oups
22:54 < illegal> so what is the problem?
22:54 < echarp> we share transparency
22:54 < illegal> so what is the problem?
22:54 < echarp> I don't see much problem, you were talking about the mistake as magnus
22:55 < illegal> do not folllow you
22:55 < echarp> and then you spoke about the fact you didn't want to go into philosophy
22:55 < illegal> maybe i get what you want to say
22:56 < illegal> you want to say i am only philosophing
22:56 < echarp> < illegal> yet, seems he does same mistakes as Magnus
22:56 < echarp> no no no
22:56 < illegal> but
22:56 < echarp> I am just considering what you said
22:56 < echarp> "< illegal> tool is not political idea"
22:56 < echarp> "< illegal> you need political idea to promote much more in order to make tool"
22:57 < echarp> and I try to talk about it
22:57 < echarp> with you
22:57 < illegal> ok
22:57 < illegal> tool is empty shell
22:58 < illegal> in the moment it has no users
22:58 < illegal> users fullfill it
22:58 < illegal> if you get 100 lunatics, your shell will act in that order
22:58 < echarp> tool *is* an empty shell, yes!
22:58 < echarp> and?
22:58 < illegal> you need something catchy that will explain what is so special aobut that shell
22:58 < echarp> I'm doing it as a shell, to be filled if it ever shall be filled
22:59 < echarp> I do need something catchy, yes
22:59 < echarp> any ideas?
22:59 < illegal> you are not interest in what you will fill?
22:59 < illegal> it will be filled?
23:00 < echarp> it might be filled
23:00 < echarp> "might"
23:00 < echarp> there is no certitude
23:00 < illegal> what i can notice, stff such as responsibility, solidarity and simmilar issues explained in fine ways might be catchy things
23:00 < illegal> these isses can be easily attached to current bizzare situation
23:01 < illegal> with problems we have
23:01 < echarp> but it is a shell, it does not concern itself with such things as responsability, solidarity and all that
23:01 < illegal> yet, there is a big problem about DD concept
23:01 < illegal> what is a shell>
23:01 < illegal> ?
23:01 < illegal> your tool?
23:01 < illegal> yes
23:02 < illegal> that shell needs clear reason for its existance
23:02 < illegal> if you say people will, yada, yada, yada, that is not good
23:02 < illegal> people are connected to masses who vote for Bush
23:03 < illegal> there is no great at5raction when you are making solutions looking for grreat masses
23:04 < illegal> you need a whole story that will avoid misunderstdings, showing clearly that stuff such as TOP and DPs can solve the global problem
23:04 < illegal> in this process, there is many political hoaxes, pretty though play to be done
23:05 < illegal> this is the way i support in this very moment very much
23:05 < illegal> giving vision
23:05 < illegal> maybe reading Fromm >D
23:05 < echarp> reading Fromm?
23:05 < echarp> ??
23:05 < illegal> just kidding
23:05 < illegal> about role models stuff
23:06 < illegal> the question you asked,
23:06 < illegal> what are we trying actually to be?
23:06 < illegal> what do we want from ourselves?
23:06 < illegal> do we actually want world based on responsibility?
23:06 < illegal> and truth?
23:07 < illegal> determinism
23:07 < echarp> I'm not going for the whole world
23:08 < illegal> but for what?
23:08 < echarp> just for those individuals who want a shell based on democratic, transparent, principles
23:08 < echarp> I'm very meritocratic that way ;)
23:09 < illegal> who might be user of such interface?
23:09 < illegal> except us interested in politics
23:11 < echarp> I think the shell could be useful to any online group
23:11 < echarp> as a forum/mailingList
23:11 < echarp> one where content can be democratically moderated
23:11 < echarp> it is open to any kind of subject
23:12 < illegal> moderatcally moderated, you mean 50%+1?
23:13 < echarp> no no, voluntary moderation, one chosen by users
23:13 < illegal> this software you do is actually panocracy under the eart of site admin
23:13 < echarp> :)
23:13 < echarp> some kind of yes
23:14 < echarp> see, it does have a payload I guess
23:14 < illegal> how is it going on, btw?
23:14 < illegal> how is gf?
23:14 < echarp> but one sooo open and tolerant, it should (hopefully) accomodate with anything
23:14 < echarp> girlfriend is reading that forum ;)
23:14 < echarp> she's intelligent!!!
23:14 < illegal> cool :)
23:15 < echarp> we had great sex yesterday night!!! :-D
23:15 < echarp> (we'll see what she says ;)
23:15 < illegal> hmh
23:15 < illegal> i got very drunk in the same time
23:15 < echarp> lol
23:15 < illegal> how is going on with filters and stuff?
23:16 < illegal> you know how keen i am about it
23:16 < echarp> I've been thinking about it, but no programming as of now
23:16 < echarp> it should be rather fast and easy to implement well
23:16 < echarp> of course I'm merely talking about filters
23:16 < illegal> in this moment i am banned, i really wish to promote moderation free groupware
23:16 < echarp> not about electoral list
23:16 < illegal> yes, yes
23:17 < illegal> modration free forum
23:17 < echarp> I would love it if parlement was a tool you used and appreciated!
23:17 < illegal> in this moment, you miss not much
23:17 < echarp> user chosen moderators :)
23:17 < illegal> yes
23:17 < illegal> these killeer messages are important stuff indeed
23:18 < echarp> each user can choose to: 1) see everytning, 2) see only things highly appreciated by everybody, 3) see only things highly appreciated by a group of his liking
23:18 < illegal> i wish if i had that software in the moment moderators in forum.hr become trully despotic
23:18 < illegal> in that way i could get many users around
23:18 < echarp> each user can: say if he appreciates or not everything
23:19 < illegal> proxy delegation is important here :)
23:19 < illegal> like this new term
23:19 < illegal> new to me
23:20 < echarp> I quite appreciate it too
23:21 < echarp> although it is originally not mine, originally I merely spoke of translatable delegation
23:21 < illegal> nevermind
23:21 < illegal> that is that
23:21 < echarp> you delegate your vote, the person you delegate to can also delegate to someone else, infinitely
23:21 < illegal> the essence of sd2 whatever Mark is trying to say :)
23:22 < echarp> it's going to end up in a pyramid of sorts, but it's better than classic representation
23:22 < echarp> essence of SD2? hum, I'm not sure
23:22 < echarp> I guess SD2 does try to implement some kind of translatable delegation
23:22 < illegal> Abn talks good about the reason why this aproach has many advances to classic reprensetation
23:22 < echarp> but then he puts waaaayyyy too much on top of that
23:23 < illegal> manipulation over public opinion through mass media
23:23 < echarp> yes, he does seem quite cogent
23:23 < echarp> I love his "only an idiot argue with idiots" :)
23:23 < illegal> yes
23:23 < echarp> why did I ever argue with mark, why why why!!! :-D
23:24 < illegal> khm...
23:24 < echarp> (no need to answer ;)
23:24 < illegal> :)
23:26 < illegal> so, small world indeed :)
23:28 < echarp> isn't it!
23:30 < echarp> I quite like his idea about FA and AA
23:30 < echarp> that's the way the internet mostly works already
23:31 < echarp> just, could the real world ever use that kind of model? (AA already do)
23:31 < illegal> hmh
23:34 < echarp> again, this is panarchy ;)
23:35 < illegal> what is he talking about, i do note get it
23:36 < illegal> ok, i get it
23:36 < illegal> seems this stuff to be simmilar what i am trying to do with parasites.
23:37 < illegal> or maing top politics be bigger
23:37 < illegal> more influencive
23:37 < echarp> he does seem to look for it, or something like it
23:37 < echarp> if I remember correctly, he is quite older than us
23:38 < illegal> probably
23:38 < echarp> it's like a pet idea of his
23:39 < illegal> nevertheless, i am really glad he so nicely talks about trust networks
23:39 < illegal> influence networks and so on
23:40 < illegal> global public political network empowerment could be project pretty interesting for him
23:40 < illegal> to see what are the problems on a path of his dream come true
23:40 < illegal> urgen:
23:40 < illegal> thank you for mail
23:40 < illegal> :)
23:45 < illegal> http://img100.imageshack.us/img100/1871/slika000mm0.jpg
23:46 < illegal> http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/2273/gusjenicavl2.jpg
23:49 < echarp> eurk :(
23:49 < illegal> it is going to be butterfly
23:51 < illegal> hmh, this about your softwere development, btw
23:51 < illegal> you might introduce some user demand place or somethng where people can help you developing this software
23:51 < illegal> tOp
23:52 < illegal> :)
23:52 < echarp> definitely
23:52 < echarp> dev @ leparlement . org
23:53 < illegal> i could help you promoting that spot
23:53 < echarp> or such
23:53 < illegal> public to be
23:53 < illegal> right?
23:53 < echarp> http://leparlement.org/dev (nothing there yet)
23:53 < echarp> of course public yes :)
23:53 < illegal> TOP
23:53 < illegal> would be really nice to see how you handle with all of these demands
23:54 < illegal> magnus, me, mark and stuff
23:54 < illegal> :)
23:54 < echarp> I'd love to see demands
23:54 < illegal> magnus markus mark me a
23:54 < echarp> but of course, there are already directions I have, in my mind :)
23:54 < illegal> i know
23:54 < echarp> but no trouble yes!
23:55 < illegal> so, would it be democratical organisation?
23:55 < illegal> where you decide what to do :)
23:55 < illegal> or panocratical maybe?
23:56 < illegal> or just TOP ;_)
23:56 < echarp> nah, at the end of the day, *I* decide what *I* do :)
23:57 < echarp> just I have no trouble discussing it
23:57 < illegal> so, you are not democratic at all!
23:57 < echarp> and am very open to suggestinos
23:57 < illegal> :D
23:57 < echarp> suggestions
23:57 < echarp> my work power is not comanded by democratic decisions, no :)
23:57 < illegal> i think that is cool thing to do
23:57 < illegal> we do not need democracy at all
23:58 < illegal> :D
23:58 < illegal> top is more than democracy
23:58 < illegal> top is freedom itself blah
23:58 < illegal> :D
23:59 < illegal> have to go working on my final work at college
23:59 < illegal> cu later aligater
23:59 -!- illegal [n=ille...@cmung151.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit []
--- Log closed mer aoû 23 00:00:07 2006
echarp
Aug 24, 2006, 12:33:50 AM8/24/06
to top-politics
--- Log opened mer aoû 23 00:00:07 2006
--- Day changed mer aoû 23 2006
00:00 < echarp> alligator! :)
04:01 < urgen> home
23:42 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
--- Log closed jeu aoû 24 00:00:10 2006
--- Day changed mer aoû 23 2006
00:00 < echarp> alligator! :)
04:01 < urgen> home
23:42 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
--- Log closed jeu aoû 24 00:00:10 2006
Mark
Aug 24, 2006, 5:52:41 PM8/24/06
to top-politics
23:21 < illegal> the essence of sd2 whatever Mark is trying to say :)
23:22 < echarp> it's going to end up in a pyramid of sorts, but it's
better than classic representation
23:22 < echarp> it's going to end up in a pyramid of sorts, but it's
better than classic representation
-M: Yes, and these pyramids are what yield decentralization and
unification. (Decentralization and distributedness are different -
distributedness is more fragmented.)
23:22 < echarp> essence of SD2? hum, I'm not sure
23:22 < echarp> I guess SD2 does try to implement some kind of
translatable delegation
-M: All systems do, and SD2 builds itself around this principle.
23:22 < illegal> Abn talks good about the reason why this aproach has
many advances to classic reprensetation
23:22 < echarp> but then he puts waaaayyyy too much on top of that
-M: No, his centrality algorithm appears only to be two orders deep,
and his input field seems only slightly more complex than classic
representation.
My input field would be about twice as complex as his.
23:23 < illegal> manipulation over public opinion through mass media
23:23 < echarp> yes, he does seem quite cogent
-M: He *knows* about mass media manipulation - so?
His second-order representation slighly de-lemmingizes those on top,
but it won't work as well as a multi-order system like SD2-S.
23:23 < echarp> I love his "only an idiot argue with idiots" :)
23:23 < illegal> yes
-M: I don't agree. I argue with idiots all the time. More intelligent
people can benefit from reading the exchanges.
23:23 < echarp> why did I ever argue with mark, why why why!!! :-D
-M: You though that you could win.
echarp
Aug 25, 2006, 12:30:13 AM8/25/06
to top-politics
--- Log opened jeu aoû 24 00:00:10 2006
12:00 < echarp> hello hello everybody!
--- Log closed ven aoû 25 00:00:10 2006
12:00 < echarp> hello hello everybody!
--- Log closed ven aoû 25 00:00:10 2006
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
Aug 25, 2006, 1:15:39 AM8/25/06
to top-po...@googlegroups.com
At 05:52 PM 8/24/2006, Mark wrote:
>-M: I don't agree. I argue with idiots all the time. More intelligent
>people can benefit from reading the exchanges.
>
>23:23 < echarp> why did I ever argue with mark, why why why!!! :-D
>
>-M: You though that you could win.
>-M: I don't agree. I argue with idiots all the time. More intelligent
>people can benefit from reading the exchanges.
>
>23:23 < echarp> why did I ever argue with mark, why why why!!! :-D
>
>-M: You though that you could win.
I doubt that Mark is correct here. Echarp "argues" with Mark because
he imagines that Mark is a reasonable person, motivated to
cooperatively discover the truth. He imagines that Mark will follow
the unwritten rules of civilized discussion, among which are a
certain courtesy.
I very much doubt that Echarp writes to "win." Rather, I'd suggest,
he is seeking consensus and agreement, and, if it seems to him that
Mark has written something incorrect, he proposes a different understanding.
Let's see, which of these two would I choose as a proxy?
One point, though, is interesting: "More intelligent people can
benefit from reading the exchanges."
More intelligent people, I'd suggest, don't need the exchanges, they
can see most of this for themselves. As to the rest of us, we need to
be reminded from time to time, and it can help to read what we
already understand.
Because then we don't feel so all alone.
I've written extensively in what could be described as debate with
many different kinds of fundamentalists and fanatics. I do so when I
think there is some truth that can be more openly revealed by the
discussion. I, and I happen to know or to recognize something about
it, that may remain unexpressed if I don't pipe up. I really don't
give a fig about "winning." In fact, I'd rather lose, I learn a lot
more when I do.
If what I've written is false, I certainly hope that my friends will
point it out to me. In fact, even my enemies can sometimes provide
that service.
Mark
Aug 25, 2006, 7:55:16 PM8/25/06
to top-politics
> >-M: I don't agree. I argue with idiots all the time. More intelligent
> >people can benefit from reading the exchanges.
> >people can benefit from reading the exchanges.
> >23:23 < echarp> why did I ever argue with mark, why why why!!! :-D
> >-M: You though that you could win.
>L: I doubt that Mark is correct here. Echarp "argues" with Mark because
he imagines that Mark is a reasonable person, motivated to
cooperatively discover the truth.
-M: Not quite. Emmanuel has rejected any idea of 'truth' - he has tried
to take a *truthful position against truth* among his many
contradictions that he has not apologized for.
>L: He imagines that Mark will follow the unwritten rules of civilized discussion,...
-M: So I follow the written rules? OK, thanks for the compliment.
When a rule is *written*, it can be *tested*, and hence *optimized* -
this makes the written rules(as opposed to the unwritten ones) much
more compatible with the processes of memetic/socio-cultural
evolutionary advancement.
>L:...among which are a certain courtesy.
-M: I am courteous to those who don't fuck-up, like Gale and Marcus.
>L: I very much doubt that Echarp writes to "win."
-M: So he writes to lose? If so, this is consistent with past data.
But he hasen't expressed gratitude to me for whupping him for his own
good.
>L: Rather, I'd suggest, he is seeking consensus and agreement, and, if it seems to him that Mark has written something incorrect, he proposes a different understanding.
-M: No, Emmanuel is more concerned with my personal style, than with
his inconsistencies, or with centrality algorithms and input fields.
He is a sharp guy, and he is probably nice in person, but he is
painfully emotionally biased online. :-(
>L: Let's see, which of these two would I choose as a proxy? One point, though, is interesting: "More intelligent people can benefit from reading the exchanges."
More intelligent people, I'd suggest, don't need the exchanges, they
can see most of this for themselves.[...]
-M: No, if this was the case, they would already know any potentially
new idea.
Then there would no longer such a thing as a *new idea*.
>L: I really don't give a fig about "winning."
-M: Shouldn't everyone want to win fairly? Dosen't this serve humanity?
>L: In fact, I'd rather lose, I learn a lot more when I do.
-M: That is a sporty thing to say. :-)
Showing gratitude to those who defeat you is much more difficult.
>L: If what I've written is false, I certainly hope that my friends will point it out to me.
-M: OK. My points of contention are:
1. Why is DP/FA only a communication protocol?
Aren't binding collective action process more needed?
2. Why not make RD a manditory constraint within DP?:
RD or RD-and-DD.
3. Why only one proxy?
4. Why not make multi-order proxy delegation manditory?
(Lemming filtration.)
>L: In fact, even my enemies can sometimes provide that service.
-M: Where are they? Can you bring them here?
echarp
Aug 26, 2006, 12:28:36 AM8/26/06
to top-politics
--- Log opened ven aoû 25 00:00:10 2006
03:43 -!- illegal (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung3218.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
03:43 < illegal:#parlement> oi
04:02 -!- illegal [n=ille...@cmung3218.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit []
05:26 -!- illegal [n=ille...@cmung4162.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
05:27 -!- illegal is irc.freenode.net
06:09 -!- illegal [n=ille...@cmung4162.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
16:32 -!- illegal (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung662.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
16:32 < illegal:#parlement> oi
16:36 * illegal:#parlement slaps echarp around a bit with a large trout
16:36 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
16:36 < echarp> lol
16:36 < echarp> hello hello illegal
16:36 < echarp> how are you?
16:36 < illegal> hey!
16:36 < illegal> fine
16:37 < illegal> you?
16:37 < echarp> very much so!
16:37 < illegal> loveeee?
16:38 < echarp> :-p
16:38 < illegal> mind on holiday?
16:38 < illegal> :)
16:38 < echarp> definitely!
16:38 < echarp> going out and all that
16:38 < illegal> lucky bastard
16:38 < echarp> seeing friends
16:38 < echarp> :)
16:39 < illegal> i have only small satisfactions
16:39 < illegal> such as counting new members at top politics
16:39 < illegal> :)
16:40 < illegal> next week going to talk about internet democracy
16:40 < echarp> what kind of talk?
16:41 < illegal> 45 min
16:41 < illegal> 100 listener
16:41 < illegal> it is congress of youth part of second largest political party in cro
16:41 < illegal> or better to say largest
16:43 < illegal> it is going to be at coast, first time this year going to see
16:43 < echarp> that's huge
16:43 < illegal> sea
16:43 < echarp> I hope the weather will be nice
16:43 < illegal> markus gonna be there
16:43 < echarp> what is your subject?
16:43 < illegal> yes
16:43 < illegal> internet and democracy
16:43 < illegal> stuf from top politics plus some political concepts
16:44 < illegal> generating POWER
16:44 < illegal> :D
16:44 < echarp> seems very cool
16:44 < illegal> solidarity and stuff
16:44 < illegal> well see
16:45 < illegal> so, now when i do not roll any more
16:45 < illegal> it keeps rolling itself
16:45 < illegal> lucky to notice that
16:45 < echarp> getting feedback and outside energy then
16:46 < echarp> on the mailing list, I quite like how abd is treating mark
16:46 < illegal> hmh
16:46 < echarp> he notices quite fast that he has medical troubles :-D
16:48 < illegal> Abd is smart and his pall also
16:48 < illegal> Like the aproach they took
16:50 < echarp> definitely yes
16:51 < illegal> concretelly, it is very important to get sublimate of the thought
16:52 < illegal> in that way you can easily use it and combine it
16:52 < illegal> seems they noticed it
16:52 < illegal> though, metaparty not good name
16:52 < illegal> as long as they are creating typical network
16:52 < echarp> not good?
16:52 < echarp> Free Association might be better then
16:53 < illegal> what does it mean?
16:53 < echarp> and his analogy with AA is very good and explanatory
16:53 < illegal> you mean, infrastrucure
16:53 < illegal> communication channellÐ*?
16:53 < echarp> Free Association is the possibility to enter into different social circles
16:53 < illegal> Ok, that is very fine
16:53 < echarp> it is very much fine yes
16:54 < echarp> and a way to consider politics in a more general frame
16:54 < echarp> not just national politics
16:54 < echarp> but intervening in all places
16:54 < illegal> yet, there is a diference between network and party
16:55 < illegal> party generates power
16:55 < illegal> not good to mix it
16:55 < illegal> you see leparlement be useffull for them?
16:56 < illegal> this is the stuff about pluralisms of decision making procedures
16:57 < illegal> party is actually defined by acknolwedgment of one
16:57 < illegal> in tat way you create structure bigger than yourslef, being politically strong or at least makking possiblity for such thing
16:57 < echarp> I think parlement could definitely be useful for them yes
16:57 < echarp> party and association is so different in your mind?
16:57 < illegal> this network issue is imo good basic if they find good attractor with no party mentioning
16:58 < echarp> isn't a party also an association?
16:58 < illegal> clearly defined
16:58 < illegal> communicaiton channel means no discipline, no doing wrong no nothing
16:58 < illegal> party has clear feed back mechanisms
16:58 < illegal> it would be nice that some day it become one
16:58 < illegal> yet that would be actual anarchy
17:00 < echarp> aren't parties currently associations?
17:00 < illegal> yes
17:00 < echarp> an association is something rather general
17:00 < illegal> yes
17:01 < illegal> we could hypothetically also develop culture that could be strong enough to repace politics in such organisation
17:02 < illegal> that would mean something really huge for human kind
17:02 < illegal> yet, i am rather pro clasical political action trying first
17:02 < illegal> culture developing on the shulder of politics
17:02 < illegal> as it regulary goes
17:03 < illegal> backing each other
17:04 < echarp> how could anything be able to remove politics?
17:05 < echarp> politics is not something you can ever remove from social interactions
17:05 < echarp> and parties are just one way to organise national politic
17:05 < echarp> s
17:05 < echarp> yet there are so many other levels
17:05 < illegal> all these levels in TOP politics go in one direction
17:05 < illegal> public politics
17:06 < illegal> getting effect on all politics
17:06 < illegal> not just effect, but monopoly either
17:06 < illegal> in this moment, with no public politics, there are some other structures taking its spremacy
17:07 < illegal> neverrtheless, when i say culture, i mean non formal dimension based on every single individuals principles
17:07 < illegal> the way of functioning
17:07 < illegal> if it becmes that big attractor of power, we will loos need for regular politics
17:07 < echarp> monopoly on politics???
17:07 < illegal> actually yes
17:07 < illegal> public politics
17:07 < echarp> national politics even?
17:08 < illegal> everything
17:08 < illegal> if you create some internet party based on TOP
17:08 < echarp> not everything
17:08 < illegal> in that moment that party becomes public party actually
17:08 < illegal> what not?
17:08 < echarp> I believe associations are more general than parties
17:08 < illegal> yes
17:08 < echarp> unless you want to try what they tried in russia?
17:09 < illegal> they are more general
17:09 < illegal> yet if you develop such a good mechanism, you will loose the need for other inputs
17:09 < illegal> that is not what i am aiming at of course
17:09 < illegal> what i aim at is moving power to tOP
17:09 < illegal> interface
17:10 < echarp> TOP is a set of ideas isn't it?
17:10 < illegal> in this context it is only definition of interface
17:10 < illegal> we act in that way actually
17:10 < illegal> set of ideas are here to empower tOP
17:12 < echarp> can you explain => "moving power to tOP"?
17:12 < illegal> do you remember one of my tries about setting top politics be our gathering point, stuff such as peroxy?
17:12 < echarp> meeting point yes
17:13 < illegal> moving power to top interface
17:13 < echarp> ???top interface???
17:13 < illegal> TOP interface
17:13 < illegal> forum
17:13 < illegal> group
17:13 < illegal> whatever
17:13 < illegal> with clear definition
17:14 < illegal> this means supporting initiatives on TOP interfaces in order of fullfiling their missions
17:14 < illegal> in that way people have easy access to public power centers which means they have really big motivce to start particpating
17:15 < illegal> in this moment, you can not become part of political life unless you are part of oligarchy actually
17:15 < illegal> there is really small number of independent thinkers
17:15 < illegal> yet they are not attacking it
17:15 < echarp> currently most national politics are rather elisists, yes
17:15 < echarp> but associations could change that
17:15 < echarp> a syndicate is an association
17:15 < echarp> our TOP group is an association
17:15 < illegal> this is the moment i am talking about associations in geneeral, yes
17:16 < illegal> the only question i have is one of the strategy
17:16 < illegal> is it good to go with party
17:16 < illegal> ?
17:16 < echarp> what I see is that FA (Free Association) could be a quite way toward some kind of panarchy
17:17 < illegal> you need transfer from current legitimate bodies
17:17 < illegal> party is the most easy way as i can notice
17:17 < illegal> of course you can go with no such exact transfer, yet it might be dangerous
17:17 < echarp> transfer from national politics to FA?
17:18 < illegal> to TOP
17:18 < illegal> :)
17:18 < echarp> that's highly ambitious
17:18 < illegal> that is global mission
17:18 < illegal> based on vision
17:18 < illegal> reglar stuff
17:19 < illegal> and we do have some time
17:19 < illegal> :=)
17:19 < illegal> while it all goes in desired drection
17:19 < echarp> FA are yet another element I really like
17:19 < illegal> yes
17:19 < illegal> i like to call it trust networks, yet if you prefer it ok
17:20 < echarp> they are a way to decentralise and give back responsability
17:20 < illegal> it is part of it, very important yes
17:21 < echarp> a town meeting is another good example of politics
17:21 < illegal> yes
17:21 < echarp> yet you don't need a party to enter into a town meeting
17:21 < illegal> you need a party to accept the results of it
17:21 < illegal> or some list
17:21 < echarp> list != party
17:21 < illegal> yes
17:22 < echarp> and lists are just one way to organise things
17:22 < echarp> it is not required
17:22 < illegal> talking about political reality in cro
17:23 < illegal> i can call for town meeting, yet it wont oworth anything if there is no way of mplementation
17:23 < illegal> of group decision
17:23 < echarp> the most potent way is convincing citizens
17:24 < illegal> in what?
17:24 < echarp> in doing politics
17:24 < echarp> democratically
17:24 < illegal> in participatng?
17:24 < echarp> in making decisions
17:24 < echarp> implementing decisions
17:25 < illegal> if you want to do that, you need to show them the way
17:25 < illegal> i do not know for it but party or direct action gorups
17:25 < echarp> plenty of ways
17:25 < illegal> tell some
17:25 < echarp> a guy speaking on the tv for example
17:25 < echarp> he can convince and ask people to do anything
17:25 < illegal> you think guy can talk on the tv just like that
17:25 < illegal> ?
17:26 < echarp> I'm not talking about *me*
17:26 < illegal> second thing is that if you do not want to be populistic, you need a lttle bit more tim ine order to get attention
17:26 < echarp> I'm talking about politics and the way we do it
17:26 < illegal> i understand that
17:26 < echarp> I am not politically ambitious!!!
17:26 < illegal> in cro, word means nothing any more
17:26 < illegal> words are cheap
17:27 < echarp> yet they are the strongest tools
17:27 < illegal> if yo want to do something, you need to give pilot project that is successfull showing that you are capable
17:27 < illegal> reputation is strongest tool
17:27 < illegal> :)
17:28 < illegal> there is several good talkers in cro, very good talkers
17:28 < illegal> yet, their reputation is not worthing a dime
17:28 < illegal> so, they are far from efficient
17:28 < illegal> people do not listen them anymore
17:28 < illegal> in te other hand if you have several cool actions behind you
17:28 < echarp> there are many ways to communicate, they are probably poorer at it than you think then
17:28 < illegal> actions that show others there is some vision in your deed
17:29 < illegal> in that way you can generate huge power
17:29 < illegal> no, if there is no deed behinf these words
17:29 < illegal> words loose its potency very soon
17:30 < echarp> sorry, but a guy like churchhill for example, managed a whole word with words
17:30 < illegal> i do not know churchill
17:30 < illegal> talking from experience in cro political scene
17:30 < illegal> there was vlado gotovac, great talker
17:31 < illegal> one who was aprreeciated by greatet enemies also
17:31 < illegal> liberal
17:31 < illegal> poet
17:31 < illegal> philosopher
17:31 < illegal> and stuff
17:31 < illegal> yet, he did not do politics
17:31 < illegal> did not sense politics
17:31 < illegal> for an example, he was phiysically attacked several times
17:31 < illegal> by some HV crew
17:32 < illegal> yet, he did not punish tem
17:32 < illegal> them
17:33 < illegal> not because he was great, but because among his supporters there where no need for risking their fine lives by going into pbattle with such people
17:33 < echarp> and?
17:33 < illegal> all of that political force was emptz
17:33 < illegal> and people do not like emptiness
17:33 < illegal> people like security very much
17:33 < illegal> you need to give that to them
17:33 < echarp> sorry, you want to accumulate political force isn't it? what for?
17:33 < illegal> i just talk the way ow things work
17:34 < echarp> if I remember your nationstates country, we don't share much political ideas you know
17:34 < illegal> hehe:09
17:34 < illegal> had to remindd what you where talking abot :)
17:34 < illegal> it might be French has more developed political culture than Cro
17:34 < echarp> I'm an autonomous person who adore liberty
17:35 < echarp> live and let live
17:35 < illegal> I could give you some not such fine names in explaining your political thought :)
17:35 < echarp> I'm building and offering a shell that anybody can fill as he wishes
17:35 < echarp> not such fine names? which one?
17:35 < illegal> naive
17:35 < illegal> ignorant
17:35 < illegal> selfprojecting
17:36 < echarp> which political ideas are naive and ignorant?
17:36 < echarp> autonomy?
17:36 < echarp> liberty?
17:36 < illegal> no
17:36 < illegal> its not about ideas
17:36 < illegal> but about society
17:36 < illegal> how it functions
17:36 < echarp> oh, and this is not about ideas then? :)
17:36 < illegal> its not about ideasl
17:36 < illegal> ideals
17:37 < echarp> am I speaking of impossible ideals?
17:37 < illegal> in the same time both of us promote TOP
17:37 < illegal> i do trust into people
17:37 < echarp> for example, do I propose a society free of wars and murders?
17:37 < echarp> do I propose a society without lies and manipulations?
17:37 < illegal> no, it is all about the way you look at me when i mention force in political action
17:37 < illegal> you deny it
17:38 < echarp> I keep speaking about the way we can construct society
17:38 < echarp> I'm a builder
17:38 < illegal> you are partial
17:38 < echarp> I want and crave to construct things
17:38 < echarp> partial to what??
17:38 < illegal> society is not based only on bilderrs you know
17:38 < echarp> and?
17:38 < illegal> there are destroyers, keepers, reationaries and so on
17:39 < illegal> if you want to set the context you have to have all of that in your mind
17:39 < illegal> of course, it is not your ambition
17:39 < illegal> yet, it is not fine to judge me for taking such things into acccount
17:39 < echarp> sorry, do I envision a society only composed of builders???
17:40 < echarp> do I push all others outside???
17:40 < illegal> no, it is all about the way you look at me when i mention force in political action
17:40 < echarp> ambitions are not ideas
17:40 < illegal> that is regular thing that s being igored by fine people
17:40 < illegal> that is the Kerry hoax actually based on this ignorance
17:40 < echarp> I don't care so much about political ambitions, but about ideas
17:41 < echarp> kerry hoax????,,,
17:41 < illegal> Bushs enemy
17:41 < illegal> and his way of debatng etc
17:41 < illegal> giving winny impresion before Bush which is funny
17:42 < echarp> sorry, explain more I don't undestand
17:42 < illegal> Kerry was not ment to win
17:42 < illegal> BTW, you thinkg Bush is smart guy?
17:42 < illegal> How would it look like in some debate if there was some cool, but not reserved person in direct combat with Bush?
17:43 < echarp> bush is an asshole
17:43 < illegal> He could really easily nail Bush in presidental campaign if that was somebodies interest
17:43 < illegal> Yet, it was not
17:43 < illegal> So, they got Kerry
17:43 < illegal> Kerry who was winney
17:43 < echarp> but bush is also very politically intelligent
17:43 < illegal> No, Bush acts in a way he is told to act
17:43 < illegal> he has several fne lines he repear
17:43 < illegal> no ability to imporvis
17:44 < illegal> e
17:44 < illegal> which is inteligence
17:44 < echarp> anyway, I don't really care
17:44 < echarp> so, ideas are not the same as political ambitions, isn't it?
17:44 < illegal> nevertheless, democrats did not engage somebody who could nail bush, but took some whinney who can not change current person in the act of war
17:45 < echarp> and?
17:45 < illegal> no, you are looking only for fine, happy ideas as long as you do not have ambition
17:45 < illegal> so, you miss the whole context as long as you choose only those ideas you are fine with tem
17:45 < echarp> uh?
17:46 < echarp> am I being a dreaming boy?
17:46 < illegal> and? what i am wanting to say is that Kerry was ment to loose, it was obvious for any analitic of political process
17:46 < illegal> yet, it was not obvious to those who ignore easy thought such as body language, speed of reasction and other stuff that show people confidence
17:46 < illegal> which is far from intelectual debate that can not replace it
17:46 < illegal> people actually act in political prcess on this way
17:47 < illegal> as long as we can only choose character of who will lead us for next several years
17:47 < illegal> no, you aren ot being dreaming boy
17:47 < illegal> you are only not keen into seeing dirst
17:47 < illegal> dirt
17:47 < illegal> you are not interested in that and that s what i understand
17:48 < echarp> sorry, I am *very* interested in dirt, manipulation, lies
17:48 < illegal> if i had no mabition, i would probable be oriented on parts that make me happy
17:48 < echarp> just I don't care that much in political ambitions
17:48 < illegal> ok
17:48 < echarp> and yes, I am of course orientated toward the things that make me happy!
17:48 < illegal> if you say so
17:48 < echarp> I say so
17:48 < illegal> :)
17:49 < echarp> political ambitions by themselves are empty
17:49 < echarp> it's ideas which are at the core of everything
17:49 < echarp> memes
17:49 < illegal> yes
17:49 < echarp> humanity is the substrate of those
17:49 < illegal> yet you need good carrier
17:50 < echarp> of course
17:51 < echarp> but it is ideas, issues, memes, which are the most important elements
17:51 < echarp> they are carried through eternity using us as carriers
17:51 < illegal> they can only change the current sitution i think
17:52 < illegal> cmon, you want to say we do not have to discuss over them as long as they are always here?
17:52 < illegal> so, what are we up to than?
17:52 < echarp> where do I say that we don't have to discuss them???
17:52 < echarp> we *have* to discuss them!!!
17:52 < illegal> why?
17:52 < illegal> why?
17:52 < echarp> of course whe have to!!!
17:52 < illegal> why?
17:52 < echarp> because ideas are an ecosystem
17:52 < echarp> they survive, mutate, emerge
17:53 < illegal> what you mean?
17:53 < echarp> they create networks, ecologies, of ideas
17:53 < illegal> so, they are not ethenral?
17:53 < echarp> memetics
17:53 < echarp> they are carried through eternity
17:53 < echarp> nothing is eternal
17:53 < echarp> "through"
17:53 < illegal> what does it mean than carried through eternity?
17:53 < echarp> or "through" time if you prefer
17:54 < illegal> who carres them?
17:54 < echarp> an idea will be discovered at a given time, will be transmitted, will fight for its survival, will die
17:54 < echarp> we carry them
17:54 < echarp> paper, computers, songs, carry them
17:54 < echarp> memetics
17:54 < illegal> ok
17:54 < illegal> so, what do we need ideas for?
17:55 < echarp> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme
17:55 < illegal> to me, it is up to utilitarism as merit
17:55 < echarp> of course it is up to utilitarism!
17:55 < illegal> ok
17:55 < illegal> so, we need to discuss over the ways of implementation also
17:55 < illegal> in that way ideas become more worhty
17:56 < illegal> setting right context
17:57 < echarp> we can discuss about the possible future societies
17:57 < echarp> and consider how they might end up more useful or not
17:58 < echarp> my opinions are orentiated toward individuals, freedom, responsability
17:58 < illegal> just take politics into accont that is all
17:58 < echarp> I think society is currently going toward it
17:58 < echarp> everything human involve politics!
17:58 < illegal> you have something against commuinism?
17:58 < illegal> C=
17:58 < illegal> :=
17:58 < illegal> =)
17:58 < echarp> I strongly dislike communism, yes
17:59 < illegal> ok, keep the mind on lower astral
17:59 < echarp> lower is better!!
17:59 < echarp> finer is more interesting!!!
17:59 < illegal> it is very strong force today
17:59 < illegal> what you mean?
17:59 < echarp> what is a very strong force today?
17:59 < illegal> lower astral
17:59 < illegal> power of destruction
17:59 < echarp> I don't care that much about national politics
17:59 < illegal> you have to keep that in mind
18:00 < illegal> you are dependet on it right ow
18:00 < illegal> now
18:00 < echarp> yet I'd like to evolve out of it
18:00 < echarp> just like we evolved out of monarchy
18:01 < illegal> it was not based on ignorance, but affirmation and setting better solutions
18:03 < echarp> ?
18:03 < illegal> you can not evolve out of it if you are not even interested in it
18:03 < echarp> oh you think?
18:03 < illegal> i mean you can by taking chance , but not by using our strongest power mind
18:03 < echarp> same principle applies with religion?
18:04 < illegal> it is good to know your enemy
18:04 < echarp> it's not an enemy, it's the past
18:04 < illegal> its reality, actually
18:05 < illegal> religion. what about it?
18:05 < echarp> we evolved out of religion in france
18:05 < echarp> have you yourself personnaly?
18:05 < illegal> evolved out of relgion?
18:05 < echarp> yet do you need to understand it to get out of it?
18:05 < echarp> same with astrology really
18:06 < illegal> it might be true that religion knowers where some good setters of new path
18:06 < echarp> care to give examples?
18:06 < illegal> no, i just speculate
18:06 < illegal> nevertheless, thi is how things work
18:06 < echarp> what is how things work?
18:06 < illegal> about politics
18:07 < echarp> national politics?
18:07 < illegal> you can not ingore it as long as it is about actual and direct force
18:07 < illegal> yes
18:07 < illegal> part of it
18:07 < illegal> we could talk about corporation politics even
18:07 < illegal> global politics and so on
18:07 < illegal> nevertheless all of these politics are in state of peace
18:07 < illegal> contemplentary
18:08 < illegal> if you involve something new, there is a great chance that it wont be contemplentary to other
18:08 < illegal> s
18:08 < illegal> so, if you become dangerous to themm they might wish to eliminate its danger
18:08 < illegal> so, if you want to be powerfull enough to stand it, you need great power on your side
18:09 < illegal> in local politics there is no great power
18:09 < illegal> in global politics, there is
18:09 < illegal> in the other way, you talk about church and i have to acknowledge your argument
18:10 < illegal> in the same time, i am afraid that these little parts of direct power / force plus low kicks position wont let you go odd just like that
18:10 < illegal> church is actally bombared these days as long as it is not needed anymore by the rest of power centers
18:10 < illegal> we have TV now
18:10 < illegal> very strong tool
18:10 < illegal> video games also
18:11 < illegal> so, church did get off support of others preparing for lynch in mass media if church asks for more than it "deserves" it
18:11 < echarp> we have internet too
18:11 < echarp> cell phones
18:11 < illegal> yes
18:12 < illegal> though, church can not fight it
18:12 < illegal> nor other conventional media :)
18:13 < urgen> hi
18:13 < illegal> hey
18:13 < echarp> hello urgen
18:13 < echarp> urgen: you have policital ambitions yourself? ;)
18:14 < urgen> only in the sense that it is not focussed on any transference of power
18:14 < urgen> which means, not as a job
18:14 < illegal> echarp: btw, i have no political ambitions in settin political position, but by realising political thought i have
18:15 < illegal> suppose you need ambition for such thing
18:15 < urgen> in the sense that I see things that need repair, yes
18:15 < illegal> that is not ambition, urgen :)
18:15 < illegal> that is eyes
18:15 < urgen> it is courage
18:16 < echarp> and you nsh? :)
18:17 < illegal> urgen, did you check top politics recently?
18:17 < urgen> no
18:17 < urgen> the groups one?
18:17 < illegal> there is new guy on the block :)
18:17 < illegal> in the block
18:17 < echarp> 2 guys
18:17 < illegal> Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
18:18 < illegal> Kan Kok
18:18 < illegal> Ja Kok
18:18 < illegal> Jan Kok
18:18 < illegal> have you heard for any of them?
18:19 < illegal> nevertheless, fine people
18:19 < illegal> you could read some of Abds texts maybe
18:20 < urgen> oh I see sparks from irc chat :-)
18:20 < echarp> long texts :(
18:20 < urgen> that's cute
18:20 < urgen> this is one of the main hurdles
18:21 < urgen> long text and occasional issue
18:22 < urgen> does parlement have something like http://xapian.org/ ?
18:23 < urgen> and I found a variation, http://www.nichebot.com/
18:23 < urgen> but that one would have to be modified for political discovery
18:24 < illegal> what is that?
18:25 < urgen> 4. Ecology. the position or function of an organism in a community of plants and animals.
18:25 < urgen> –adjective
18:25 < echarp> xapian is a search motor (there is no such thing yet in parlement)
18:25 < urgen> and then niche started to be used in marketing
18:26 < urgen> to suggest that there may be an ecology of ideas
18:26 < urgen> and these ideas generally organize around other ideas that can be detected
18:26 < illegal> hmh yes
18:27 < urgen> so bots that are trained to identify vertical or niche ideas would be helpful for sorting through long long text
18:27 < urgen> that is the extent of my ambition
18:27 < echarp> nichebot is also some kind of search motor?
18:27 < echarp> lucene like?
18:28 < urgen> nichebot, as it is presented there, only watches what other people search for
18:28 < urgen> so if you type in a word it will tell you what other words people often type in when it sees the one you entered
18:29 < illegal> urgen, i think i talked to somebody who had simmilar project, do not remid who it was
18:29 < illegal> mybe someone frm #opencop
18:29 < illegal> nevertheless, you did not like intentions of other people?
18:30 < urgen> discovery and identification technology interest is everywhere.. what you do with it is still not common
18:30 < illegal> yes
18:33 < urgen> http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics/browse_frm/thread/808b8139c16888c4/cbe034a28ae63036#cbe034a28ae63036
18:33 < urgen> :-)) consensus and agreement -- gee where did I hear that before?
18:33 < illegal> i do not know
18:34 < illegal> :-P
18:34 < illegal> though, i am glad to notice many complementary ideas, very simmilar ones, with slightly different complent focu around
18:35 < urgen> so the log bot I picked there, you've probably noticed, also stores an xml file
18:35 < urgen> there is probably a way to extract that information to be integrated in formats like the google top group or perhaps parlement...
18:36 < urgen> so that it will display who is talking at any particular time and people can jump straight to that section
18:42 < echarp> to "redo" irc?
18:43 < urgen> redo irc would be supreme
18:47 < echarp> :)
18:47 < echarp> in parlement I did envision that
18:48 < urgen> yes, eventually, it has to be done
18:48 < echarp> but the current "tree" algorithm I use to organise posts is troublesome :(
18:48 < urgen> but step by step is fine
18:48 < urgen> in the google group, isn't there a way to post html ready content?
18:49 < urgen> it could be a collapsed summary
18:49 < echarp> I don't know for sure
18:49 < urgen> and when you clicked in then you'd get the broader focus
18:49 < echarp> in parlement you can post html yes
18:49 -!- beeli (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung118.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
18:49 < urgen> a directory or index form of a day on irc
18:50 < urgen> we could teach the log bot to put special tags around terms we'd like to highlight later
18:50 < urgen> like it doesn't but was suppose to when you say:
18:50 < urgen> parlebot mark
18:50 < urgen> or something like that :-)
18:51 < urgen> but with better control so you can say parlebot tag as topic <botnews>
18:52 < echarp> what I would love, is to link the irc nick and the parlement name, but it's difficult
18:52 < urgen> you mean auto link?
18:52 < echarp> and you can collapse everything, using the left side V symbol (which then trsansforms into a >)
18:52 < echarp> auto link yes
18:52 < urgen> I've seen many wiki where there was an irc registry, people put their identities matched there
18:53 < echarp> exactly
18:54 < echarp> or I would recommand to use the same pseudo in irc and parlement
18:54 < echarp> (easier)
19:03 -!- illegal [n=ille...@cmung662.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
19:11 < echarp> ok, I'm leaving, going out (again) tonight
19:11 < echarp> cu guys
19:29 -!- beeli [n=ille...@cmung118.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
--- Log closed sam aoû 26 00:00:10 2006
03:43 -!- illegal (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung3218.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
03:43 < illegal:#parlement> oi
04:02 -!- illegal [n=ille...@cmung3218.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit []
05:26 -!- illegal [n=ille...@cmung4162.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
05:27 -!- illegal is irc.freenode.net
06:09 -!- illegal [n=ille...@cmung4162.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
16:32 -!- illegal (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung662.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
16:32 < illegal:#parlement> oi
16:36 * illegal:#parlement slaps echarp around a bit with a large trout
16:36 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
16:36 < echarp> lol
16:36 < echarp> hello hello illegal
16:36 < echarp> how are you?
16:36 < illegal> hey!
16:36 < illegal> fine
16:37 < illegal> you?
16:37 < echarp> very much so!
16:37 < illegal> loveeee?
16:38 < echarp> :-p
16:38 < illegal> mind on holiday?
16:38 < illegal> :)
16:38 < echarp> definitely!
16:38 < echarp> going out and all that
16:38 < illegal> lucky bastard
16:38 < echarp> seeing friends
16:38 < echarp> :)
16:39 < illegal> i have only small satisfactions
16:39 < illegal> such as counting new members at top politics
16:39 < illegal> :)
16:40 < illegal> next week going to talk about internet democracy
16:40 < echarp> what kind of talk?
16:41 < illegal> 45 min
16:41 < illegal> 100 listener
16:41 < illegal> it is congress of youth part of second largest political party in cro
16:41 < illegal> or better to say largest
16:43 < illegal> it is going to be at coast, first time this year going to see
16:43 < echarp> that's huge
16:43 < illegal> sea
16:43 < echarp> I hope the weather will be nice
16:43 < illegal> markus gonna be there
16:43 < echarp> what is your subject?
16:43 < illegal> yes
16:43 < illegal> internet and democracy
16:43 < illegal> stuf from top politics plus some political concepts
16:44 < illegal> generating POWER
16:44 < illegal> :D
16:44 < echarp> seems very cool
16:44 < illegal> solidarity and stuff
16:44 < illegal> well see
16:45 < illegal> so, now when i do not roll any more
16:45 < illegal> it keeps rolling itself
16:45 < illegal> lucky to notice that
16:45 < echarp> getting feedback and outside energy then
16:46 < echarp> on the mailing list, I quite like how abd is treating mark
16:46 < illegal> hmh
16:46 < echarp> he notices quite fast that he has medical troubles :-D
16:48 < illegal> Abd is smart and his pall also
16:48 < illegal> Like the aproach they took
16:50 < echarp> definitely yes
16:51 < illegal> concretelly, it is very important to get sublimate of the thought
16:52 < illegal> in that way you can easily use it and combine it
16:52 < illegal> seems they noticed it
16:52 < illegal> though, metaparty not good name
16:52 < illegal> as long as they are creating typical network
16:52 < echarp> not good?
16:52 < echarp> Free Association might be better then
16:53 < illegal> what does it mean?
16:53 < echarp> and his analogy with AA is very good and explanatory
16:53 < illegal> you mean, infrastrucure
16:53 < illegal> communication channellÐ*?
16:53 < echarp> Free Association is the possibility to enter into different social circles
16:53 < illegal> Ok, that is very fine
16:53 < echarp> it is very much fine yes
16:54 < echarp> and a way to consider politics in a more general frame
16:54 < echarp> not just national politics
16:54 < echarp> but intervening in all places
16:54 < illegal> yet, there is a diference between network and party
16:55 < illegal> party generates power
16:55 < illegal> not good to mix it
16:55 < illegal> you see leparlement be useffull for them?
16:56 < illegal> this is the stuff about pluralisms of decision making procedures
16:57 < illegal> party is actually defined by acknolwedgment of one
16:57 < illegal> in tat way you create structure bigger than yourslef, being politically strong or at least makking possiblity for such thing
16:57 < echarp> I think parlement could definitely be useful for them yes
16:57 < echarp> party and association is so different in your mind?
16:57 < illegal> this network issue is imo good basic if they find good attractor with no party mentioning
16:58 < echarp> isn't a party also an association?
16:58 < illegal> clearly defined
16:58 < illegal> communicaiton channel means no discipline, no doing wrong no nothing
16:58 < illegal> party has clear feed back mechanisms
16:58 < illegal> it would be nice that some day it become one
16:58 < illegal> yet that would be actual anarchy
17:00 < echarp> aren't parties currently associations?
17:00 < illegal> yes
17:00 < echarp> an association is something rather general
17:00 < illegal> yes
17:01 < illegal> we could hypothetically also develop culture that could be strong enough to repace politics in such organisation
17:02 < illegal> that would mean something really huge for human kind
17:02 < illegal> yet, i am rather pro clasical political action trying first
17:02 < illegal> culture developing on the shulder of politics
17:02 < illegal> as it regulary goes
17:03 < illegal> backing each other
17:04 < echarp> how could anything be able to remove politics?
17:05 < echarp> politics is not something you can ever remove from social interactions
17:05 < echarp> and parties are just one way to organise national politic
17:05 < echarp> s
17:05 < echarp> yet there are so many other levels
17:05 < illegal> all these levels in TOP politics go in one direction
17:05 < illegal> public politics
17:06 < illegal> getting effect on all politics
17:06 < illegal> not just effect, but monopoly either
17:06 < illegal> in this moment, with no public politics, there are some other structures taking its spremacy
17:07 < illegal> neverrtheless, when i say culture, i mean non formal dimension based on every single individuals principles
17:07 < illegal> the way of functioning
17:07 < illegal> if it becmes that big attractor of power, we will loos need for regular politics
17:07 < echarp> monopoly on politics???
17:07 < illegal> actually yes
17:07 < illegal> public politics
17:07 < echarp> national politics even?
17:08 < illegal> everything
17:08 < illegal> if you create some internet party based on TOP
17:08 < echarp> not everything
17:08 < illegal> in that moment that party becomes public party actually
17:08 < illegal> what not?
17:08 < echarp> I believe associations are more general than parties
17:08 < illegal> yes
17:08 < echarp> unless you want to try what they tried in russia?
17:09 < illegal> they are more general
17:09 < illegal> yet if you develop such a good mechanism, you will loose the need for other inputs
17:09 < illegal> that is not what i am aiming at of course
17:09 < illegal> what i aim at is moving power to tOP
17:09 < illegal> interface
17:10 < echarp> TOP is a set of ideas isn't it?
17:10 < illegal> in this context it is only definition of interface
17:10 < illegal> we act in that way actually
17:10 < illegal> set of ideas are here to empower tOP
17:12 < echarp> can you explain => "moving power to tOP"?
17:12 < illegal> do you remember one of my tries about setting top politics be our gathering point, stuff such as peroxy?
17:12 < echarp> meeting point yes
17:13 < illegal> moving power to top interface
17:13 < echarp> ???top interface???
17:13 < illegal> TOP interface
17:13 < illegal> forum
17:13 < illegal> group
17:13 < illegal> whatever
17:13 < illegal> with clear definition
17:14 < illegal> this means supporting initiatives on TOP interfaces in order of fullfiling their missions
17:14 < illegal> in that way people have easy access to public power centers which means they have really big motivce to start particpating
17:15 < illegal> in this moment, you can not become part of political life unless you are part of oligarchy actually
17:15 < illegal> there is really small number of independent thinkers
17:15 < illegal> yet they are not attacking it
17:15 < echarp> currently most national politics are rather elisists, yes
17:15 < echarp> but associations could change that
17:15 < echarp> a syndicate is an association
17:15 < echarp> our TOP group is an association
17:15 < illegal> this is the moment i am talking about associations in geneeral, yes
17:16 < illegal> the only question i have is one of the strategy
17:16 < illegal> is it good to go with party
17:16 < illegal> ?
17:16 < echarp> what I see is that FA (Free Association) could be a quite way toward some kind of panarchy
17:17 < illegal> you need transfer from current legitimate bodies
17:17 < illegal> party is the most easy way as i can notice
17:17 < illegal> of course you can go with no such exact transfer, yet it might be dangerous
17:17 < echarp> transfer from national politics to FA?
17:18 < illegal> to TOP
17:18 < illegal> :)
17:18 < echarp> that's highly ambitious
17:18 < illegal> that is global mission
17:18 < illegal> based on vision
17:18 < illegal> reglar stuff
17:19 < illegal> and we do have some time
17:19 < illegal> :=)
17:19 < illegal> while it all goes in desired drection
17:19 < echarp> FA are yet another element I really like
17:19 < illegal> yes
17:19 < illegal> i like to call it trust networks, yet if you prefer it ok
17:20 < echarp> they are a way to decentralise and give back responsability
17:20 < illegal> it is part of it, very important yes
17:21 < echarp> a town meeting is another good example of politics
17:21 < illegal> yes
17:21 < echarp> yet you don't need a party to enter into a town meeting
17:21 < illegal> you need a party to accept the results of it
17:21 < illegal> or some list
17:21 < echarp> list != party
17:21 < illegal> yes
17:22 < echarp> and lists are just one way to organise things
17:22 < echarp> it is not required
17:22 < illegal> talking about political reality in cro
17:23 < illegal> i can call for town meeting, yet it wont oworth anything if there is no way of mplementation
17:23 < illegal> of group decision
17:23 < echarp> the most potent way is convincing citizens
17:24 < illegal> in what?
17:24 < echarp> in doing politics
17:24 < echarp> democratically
17:24 < illegal> in participatng?
17:24 < echarp> in making decisions
17:24 < echarp> implementing decisions
17:25 < illegal> if you want to do that, you need to show them the way
17:25 < illegal> i do not know for it but party or direct action gorups
17:25 < echarp> plenty of ways
17:25 < illegal> tell some
17:25 < echarp> a guy speaking on the tv for example
17:25 < echarp> he can convince and ask people to do anything
17:25 < illegal> you think guy can talk on the tv just like that
17:25 < illegal> ?
17:26 < echarp> I'm not talking about *me*
17:26 < illegal> second thing is that if you do not want to be populistic, you need a lttle bit more tim ine order to get attention
17:26 < echarp> I'm talking about politics and the way we do it
17:26 < illegal> i understand that
17:26 < echarp> I am not politically ambitious!!!
17:26 < illegal> in cro, word means nothing any more
17:26 < illegal> words are cheap
17:27 < echarp> yet they are the strongest tools
17:27 < illegal> if yo want to do something, you need to give pilot project that is successfull showing that you are capable
17:27 < illegal> reputation is strongest tool
17:27 < illegal> :)
17:28 < illegal> there is several good talkers in cro, very good talkers
17:28 < illegal> yet, their reputation is not worthing a dime
17:28 < illegal> so, they are far from efficient
17:28 < illegal> people do not listen them anymore
17:28 < illegal> in te other hand if you have several cool actions behind you
17:28 < echarp> there are many ways to communicate, they are probably poorer at it than you think then
17:28 < illegal> actions that show others there is some vision in your deed
17:29 < illegal> in that way you can generate huge power
17:29 < illegal> no, if there is no deed behinf these words
17:29 < illegal> words loose its potency very soon
17:30 < echarp> sorry, but a guy like churchhill for example, managed a whole word with words
17:30 < illegal> i do not know churchill
17:30 < illegal> talking from experience in cro political scene
17:30 < illegal> there was vlado gotovac, great talker
17:31 < illegal> one who was aprreeciated by greatet enemies also
17:31 < illegal> liberal
17:31 < illegal> poet
17:31 < illegal> philosopher
17:31 < illegal> and stuff
17:31 < illegal> yet, he did not do politics
17:31 < illegal> did not sense politics
17:31 < illegal> for an example, he was phiysically attacked several times
17:31 < illegal> by some HV crew
17:32 < illegal> yet, he did not punish tem
17:32 < illegal> them
17:33 < illegal> not because he was great, but because among his supporters there where no need for risking their fine lives by going into pbattle with such people
17:33 < echarp> and?
17:33 < illegal> all of that political force was emptz
17:33 < illegal> and people do not like emptiness
17:33 < illegal> people like security very much
17:33 < illegal> you need to give that to them
17:33 < echarp> sorry, you want to accumulate political force isn't it? what for?
17:33 < illegal> i just talk the way ow things work
17:34 < echarp> if I remember your nationstates country, we don't share much political ideas you know
17:34 < illegal> hehe:09
17:34 < illegal> had to remindd what you where talking abot :)
17:34 < illegal> it might be French has more developed political culture than Cro
17:34 < echarp> I'm an autonomous person who adore liberty
17:35 < echarp> live and let live
17:35 < illegal> I could give you some not such fine names in explaining your political thought :)
17:35 < echarp> I'm building and offering a shell that anybody can fill as he wishes
17:35 < echarp> not such fine names? which one?
17:35 < illegal> naive
17:35 < illegal> ignorant
17:35 < illegal> selfprojecting
17:36 < echarp> which political ideas are naive and ignorant?
17:36 < echarp> autonomy?
17:36 < echarp> liberty?
17:36 < illegal> no
17:36 < illegal> its not about ideas
17:36 < illegal> but about society
17:36 < illegal> how it functions
17:36 < echarp> oh, and this is not about ideas then? :)
17:36 < illegal> its not about ideasl
17:36 < illegal> ideals
17:37 < echarp> am I speaking of impossible ideals?
17:37 < illegal> in the same time both of us promote TOP
17:37 < illegal> i do trust into people
17:37 < echarp> for example, do I propose a society free of wars and murders?
17:37 < echarp> do I propose a society without lies and manipulations?
17:37 < illegal> no, it is all about the way you look at me when i mention force in political action
17:37 < illegal> you deny it
17:38 < echarp> I keep speaking about the way we can construct society
17:38 < echarp> I'm a builder
17:38 < illegal> you are partial
17:38 < echarp> I want and crave to construct things
17:38 < echarp> partial to what??
17:38 < illegal> society is not based only on bilderrs you know
17:38 < echarp> and?
17:38 < illegal> there are destroyers, keepers, reationaries and so on
17:39 < illegal> if you want to set the context you have to have all of that in your mind
17:39 < illegal> of course, it is not your ambition
17:39 < illegal> yet, it is not fine to judge me for taking such things into acccount
17:39 < echarp> sorry, do I envision a society only composed of builders???
17:40 < echarp> do I push all others outside???
17:40 < illegal> no, it is all about the way you look at me when i mention force in political action
17:40 < echarp> ambitions are not ideas
17:40 < illegal> that is regular thing that s being igored by fine people
17:40 < illegal> that is the Kerry hoax actually based on this ignorance
17:40 < echarp> I don't care so much about political ambitions, but about ideas
17:41 < echarp> kerry hoax????,,,
17:41 < illegal> Bushs enemy
17:41 < illegal> and his way of debatng etc
17:41 < illegal> giving winny impresion before Bush which is funny
17:42 < echarp> sorry, explain more I don't undestand
17:42 < illegal> Kerry was not ment to win
17:42 < illegal> BTW, you thinkg Bush is smart guy?
17:42 < illegal> How would it look like in some debate if there was some cool, but not reserved person in direct combat with Bush?
17:43 < echarp> bush is an asshole
17:43 < illegal> He could really easily nail Bush in presidental campaign if that was somebodies interest
17:43 < illegal> Yet, it was not
17:43 < illegal> So, they got Kerry
17:43 < illegal> Kerry who was winney
17:43 < echarp> but bush is also very politically intelligent
17:43 < illegal> No, Bush acts in a way he is told to act
17:43 < illegal> he has several fne lines he repear
17:43 < illegal> no ability to imporvis
17:44 < illegal> e
17:44 < illegal> which is inteligence
17:44 < echarp> anyway, I don't really care
17:44 < echarp> so, ideas are not the same as political ambitions, isn't it?
17:44 < illegal> nevertheless, democrats did not engage somebody who could nail bush, but took some whinney who can not change current person in the act of war
17:45 < echarp> and?
17:45 < illegal> no, you are looking only for fine, happy ideas as long as you do not have ambition
17:45 < illegal> so, you miss the whole context as long as you choose only those ideas you are fine with tem
17:45 < echarp> uh?
17:46 < echarp> am I being a dreaming boy?
17:46 < illegal> and? what i am wanting to say is that Kerry was ment to loose, it was obvious for any analitic of political process
17:46 < illegal> yet, it was not obvious to those who ignore easy thought such as body language, speed of reasction and other stuff that show people confidence
17:46 < illegal> which is far from intelectual debate that can not replace it
17:46 < illegal> people actually act in political prcess on this way
17:47 < illegal> as long as we can only choose character of who will lead us for next several years
17:47 < illegal> no, you aren ot being dreaming boy
17:47 < illegal> you are only not keen into seeing dirst
17:47 < illegal> dirt
17:47 < illegal> you are not interested in that and that s what i understand
17:48 < echarp> sorry, I am *very* interested in dirt, manipulation, lies
17:48 < illegal> if i had no mabition, i would probable be oriented on parts that make me happy
17:48 < echarp> just I don't care that much in political ambitions
17:48 < illegal> ok
17:48 < echarp> and yes, I am of course orientated toward the things that make me happy!
17:48 < illegal> if you say so
17:48 < echarp> I say so
17:48 < illegal> :)
17:49 < echarp> political ambitions by themselves are empty
17:49 < echarp> it's ideas which are at the core of everything
17:49 < echarp> memes
17:49 < illegal> yes
17:49 < echarp> humanity is the substrate of those
17:49 < illegal> yet you need good carrier
17:50 < echarp> of course
17:51 < echarp> they are carried through eternity using us as carriers
17:51 < illegal> they can only change the current sitution i think
17:52 < illegal> cmon, you want to say we do not have to discuss over them as long as they are always here?
17:52 < illegal> so, what are we up to than?
17:52 < echarp> where do I say that we don't have to discuss them???
17:52 < echarp> we *have* to discuss them!!!
17:52 < illegal> why?
17:52 < illegal> why?
17:52 < echarp> of course whe have to!!!
17:52 < illegal> why?
17:52 < echarp> because ideas are an ecosystem
17:52 < echarp> they survive, mutate, emerge
17:53 < illegal> what you mean?
17:53 < echarp> they create networks, ecologies, of ideas
17:53 < illegal> so, they are not ethenral?
17:53 < echarp> memetics
17:53 < echarp> they are carried through eternity
17:53 < echarp> nothing is eternal
17:53 < echarp> "through"
17:53 < illegal> what does it mean than carried through eternity?
17:53 < echarp> or "through" time if you prefer
17:54 < illegal> who carres them?
17:54 < echarp> an idea will be discovered at a given time, will be transmitted, will fight for its survival, will die
17:54 < echarp> we carry them
17:54 < echarp> paper, computers, songs, carry them
17:54 < echarp> memetics
17:54 < illegal> ok
17:54 < illegal> so, what do we need ideas for?
17:55 < echarp> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme
17:55 < illegal> to me, it is up to utilitarism as merit
17:55 < echarp> of course it is up to utilitarism!
17:55 < illegal> ok
17:55 < illegal> so, we need to discuss over the ways of implementation also
17:55 < illegal> in that way ideas become more worhty
17:56 < illegal> setting right context
17:57 < echarp> we can discuss about the possible future societies
17:57 < echarp> and consider how they might end up more useful or not
17:58 < echarp> my opinions are orentiated toward individuals, freedom, responsability
17:58 < illegal> just take politics into accont that is all
17:58 < echarp> I think society is currently going toward it
17:58 < echarp> everything human involve politics!
17:58 < illegal> you have something against commuinism?
17:58 < illegal> C=
17:58 < illegal> :=
17:58 < illegal> =)
17:58 < echarp> I strongly dislike communism, yes
17:59 < illegal> ok, keep the mind on lower astral
17:59 < echarp> lower is better!!
17:59 < echarp> finer is more interesting!!!
17:59 < illegal> it is very strong force today
17:59 < illegal> what you mean?
17:59 < echarp> what is a very strong force today?
17:59 < illegal> lower astral
17:59 < illegal> power of destruction
17:59 < echarp> I don't care that much about national politics
17:59 < illegal> you have to keep that in mind
18:00 < illegal> you are dependet on it right ow
18:00 < illegal> now
18:00 < echarp> yet I'd like to evolve out of it
18:00 < echarp> just like we evolved out of monarchy
18:01 < illegal> it was not based on ignorance, but affirmation and setting better solutions
18:03 < echarp> ?
18:03 < illegal> you can not evolve out of it if you are not even interested in it
18:03 < echarp> oh you think?
18:03 < illegal> i mean you can by taking chance , but not by using our strongest power mind
18:03 < echarp> same principle applies with religion?
18:04 < illegal> it is good to know your enemy
18:04 < echarp> it's not an enemy, it's the past
18:04 < illegal> its reality, actually
18:05 < illegal> religion. what about it?
18:05 < echarp> we evolved out of religion in france
18:05 < echarp> have you yourself personnaly?
18:05 < illegal> evolved out of relgion?
18:05 < echarp> yet do you need to understand it to get out of it?
18:05 < echarp> same with astrology really
18:06 < illegal> it might be true that religion knowers where some good setters of new path
18:06 < echarp> care to give examples?
18:06 < illegal> no, i just speculate
18:06 < illegal> nevertheless, thi is how things work
18:06 < echarp> what is how things work?
18:06 < illegal> about politics
18:07 < echarp> national politics?
18:07 < illegal> you can not ingore it as long as it is about actual and direct force
18:07 < illegal> yes
18:07 < illegal> part of it
18:07 < illegal> we could talk about corporation politics even
18:07 < illegal> global politics and so on
18:07 < illegal> nevertheless all of these politics are in state of peace
18:07 < illegal> contemplentary
18:08 < illegal> if you involve something new, there is a great chance that it wont be contemplentary to other
18:08 < illegal> s
18:08 < illegal> so, if you become dangerous to themm they might wish to eliminate its danger
18:08 < illegal> so, if you want to be powerfull enough to stand it, you need great power on your side
18:09 < illegal> in local politics there is no great power
18:09 < illegal> in global politics, there is
18:09 < illegal> in the other way, you talk about church and i have to acknowledge your argument
18:10 < illegal> in the same time, i am afraid that these little parts of direct power / force plus low kicks position wont let you go odd just like that
18:10 < illegal> church is actally bombared these days as long as it is not needed anymore by the rest of power centers
18:10 < illegal> we have TV now
18:10 < illegal> very strong tool
18:10 < illegal> video games also
18:11 < illegal> so, church did get off support of others preparing for lynch in mass media if church asks for more than it "deserves" it
18:11 < echarp> we have internet too
18:11 < echarp> cell phones
18:11 < illegal> yes
18:12 < illegal> though, church can not fight it
18:12 < illegal> nor other conventional media :)
18:13 < urgen> hi
18:13 < illegal> hey
18:13 < echarp> hello urgen
18:13 < echarp> urgen: you have policital ambitions yourself? ;)
18:14 < urgen> only in the sense that it is not focussed on any transference of power
18:14 < urgen> which means, not as a job
18:14 < illegal> echarp: btw, i have no political ambitions in settin political position, but by realising political thought i have
18:15 < illegal> suppose you need ambition for such thing
18:15 < urgen> in the sense that I see things that need repair, yes
18:15 < illegal> that is not ambition, urgen :)
18:15 < illegal> that is eyes
18:15 < urgen> it is courage
18:16 < echarp> and you nsh? :)
18:17 < illegal> urgen, did you check top politics recently?
18:17 < urgen> no
18:17 < urgen> the groups one?
18:17 < illegal> there is new guy on the block :)
18:17 < illegal> in the block
18:17 < echarp> 2 guys
18:17 < illegal> Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
18:18 < illegal> Kan Kok
18:18 < illegal> Ja Kok
18:18 < illegal> Jan Kok
18:18 < illegal> have you heard for any of them?
18:19 < illegal> nevertheless, fine people
18:19 < illegal> you could read some of Abds texts maybe
18:20 < urgen> oh I see sparks from irc chat :-)
18:20 < echarp> long texts :(
18:20 < urgen> that's cute
18:20 < urgen> this is one of the main hurdles
18:21 < urgen> long text and occasional issue
18:22 < urgen> does parlement have something like http://xapian.org/ ?
18:23 < urgen> and I found a variation, http://www.nichebot.com/
18:23 < urgen> but that one would have to be modified for political discovery
18:24 < illegal> what is that?
18:25 < urgen> 4. Ecology. the position or function of an organism in a community of plants and animals.
18:25 < urgen> –adjective
18:25 < echarp> xapian is a search motor (there is no such thing yet in parlement)
18:25 < urgen> and then niche started to be used in marketing
18:26 < urgen> to suggest that there may be an ecology of ideas
18:26 < urgen> and these ideas generally organize around other ideas that can be detected
18:26 < illegal> hmh yes
18:27 < urgen> so bots that are trained to identify vertical or niche ideas would be helpful for sorting through long long text
18:27 < urgen> that is the extent of my ambition
18:27 < echarp> nichebot is also some kind of search motor?
18:27 < echarp> lucene like?
18:28 < urgen> nichebot, as it is presented there, only watches what other people search for
18:28 < urgen> so if you type in a word it will tell you what other words people often type in when it sees the one you entered
18:29 < illegal> urgen, i think i talked to somebody who had simmilar project, do not remid who it was
18:29 < illegal> mybe someone frm #opencop
18:29 < illegal> nevertheless, you did not like intentions of other people?
18:30 < urgen> discovery and identification technology interest is everywhere.. what you do with it is still not common
18:30 < illegal> yes
18:33 < urgen> http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics/browse_frm/thread/808b8139c16888c4/cbe034a28ae63036#cbe034a28ae63036
18:33 < urgen> :-)) consensus and agreement -- gee where did I hear that before?
18:33 < illegal> i do not know
18:34 < illegal> :-P
18:34 < illegal> though, i am glad to notice many complementary ideas, very simmilar ones, with slightly different complent focu around
18:35 < urgen> so the log bot I picked there, you've probably noticed, also stores an xml file
18:35 < urgen> there is probably a way to extract that information to be integrated in formats like the google top group or perhaps parlement...
18:36 < urgen> so that it will display who is talking at any particular time and people can jump straight to that section
18:42 < echarp> to "redo" irc?
18:43 < urgen> redo irc would be supreme
18:47 < echarp> :)
18:47 < echarp> in parlement I did envision that
18:48 < urgen> yes, eventually, it has to be done
18:48 < echarp> but the current "tree" algorithm I use to organise posts is troublesome :(
18:48 < urgen> but step by step is fine
18:48 < urgen> in the google group, isn't there a way to post html ready content?
18:49 < urgen> it could be a collapsed summary
18:49 < echarp> I don't know for sure
18:49 < urgen> and when you clicked in then you'd get the broader focus
18:49 < echarp> in parlement you can post html yes
18:49 -!- beeli (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung118.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
18:49 < urgen> a directory or index form of a day on irc
18:50 < urgen> we could teach the log bot to put special tags around terms we'd like to highlight later
18:50 < urgen> like it doesn't but was suppose to when you say:
18:50 < urgen> parlebot mark
18:50 < urgen> or something like that :-)
18:51 < urgen> but with better control so you can say parlebot tag as topic <botnews>
18:52 < echarp> what I would love, is to link the irc nick and the parlement name, but it's difficult
18:52 < urgen> you mean auto link?
18:52 < echarp> and you can collapse everything, using the left side V symbol (which then trsansforms into a >)
18:52 < echarp> auto link yes
18:52 < urgen> I've seen many wiki where there was an irc registry, people put their identities matched there
18:53 < echarp> exactly
18:54 < echarp> or I would recommand to use the same pseudo in irc and parlement
18:54 < echarp> (easier)
19:03 -!- illegal [n=ille...@cmung662.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
19:11 < echarp> ok, I'm leaving, going out (again) tonight
19:11 < echarp> cu guys
19:29 -!- beeli [n=ille...@cmung118.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)]
--- Log closed sam aoû 26 00:00:10 2006
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax
Aug 27, 2006, 12:17:56 AM8/27/06
to top-po...@googlegroups.com
Technically, they don't.
But that is certainly not the whole story, indeed, it could be very misleading.
(FA = Free Association, a technical term as I use it, referring to
organizations most easily described as modelled after the
organizational traditions of Alcoholics Anonymous.)
The basic problem in politics is that politics purports to be, in the
modern context, organization of the people; yet the structures used
in politics result in oligarchical control and loss of full democracy.
Oligarchical control is here not used as a perjorative term. It is
simply a description. Oligarchy may be appropriate under some
circumstances. However, it is my thesis that full democracy is more
powerful, that, properly designed and implemented, it makes a people
strong. In my view, the relative success of the "West" is due to the
degree of democracy which exists there. Which is also, in my view,
quite limited and dangerously defective. But it is still stronger
than blatant dictatorship and oligarchical control that is oppressive
beyond limits.
Now, many people have noticed that what is missing is an organization
of the people, and many have attempted to form such organizations.
However, the communication and control structures which have been
used have been largely structures inherited from royalist or
strong-leader traditions. And, so, even though these organizations
started as an attempt to organize the people, presumably for the
benefit of the people, they ended up either failing utterly or, what
may have been worse, succeeding in overthrowing prior governments,
replacing the old set of oligarchs with a new one. Parties were
organized top-down, for discipline, considered necessary to succeed,
and, of course, did not simply fade away as had been predicted.
People who hold power only rarely give it up voluntarily. (They will
believe that they know better than others what is best for the
people, so anyone attempting to replace them must either be
dangerously insane or an enemy of the people.)
Bottom line: attempts to change the system by employing the system
are doomed to reproducing the system with new faces.
The FA/DP concept is to organize the people, not in opposition to the
system, but *outside* it. FAs don't take controversial positions,
they neither endorse nor oppose any causes.
What good are they, then?
You might as well ask, "What good is an open mind?"
FAs *do* facilitate communication. That's really almost all they do.
Once people can communicate effectively *and efficiently*, they can
organize as needed whatever activities need to be undertaken
*independently of the FA.*
Again, this comes from Alcoholics Anonymous. AA groups never own
property, and starting a treatement center involves not only owning
property, but also, perhaps, employing or supporting some method of
treatment which might be controversial. So what do they do? Those
members of AA who want to do it, simply form an independent
association, formal or informal, to take on the task. They can
structure this independent organization however they like. AA will
not endorse it, *but the individual members are completely free to
endorse it, contribute to it, work for it, talk about it, represent
it if authorized, etc.*
The members met through AA.
There is a new political party forming, composed of dissidents from
the Libertarian Party, a minor party in the U.S. which is probably
number three or four in terms of votes it gets in elections. The
party is called the Bostoni Tea Party. Jan Kok has been active in the
Libertarian Party, and is participating in the formation of the new
party, but significant for our discussion here, he is also forming
another organization called the Boston Tea Free Association.
The Boston Tea Party is a traditional political party. Well, not
entirely traditional, but it will run candidates for office,
presumably, it has a platform. It takes positions. The Boston Tea
Free Association won't do any of these things. However, I think,
members of the BTP will be encouraged to join the BTFA. What happens
if they do?
Well, right off, the BTFA is a DP organization. As such, it will
create, if the members use it, a communications structure that is
immune to top-down control. In AA, "Our leaders are but trusted
servants, they do not govern." The function of the BTFA has a number
of aspects:
(1) It exists to advise the BTP leadership through deliberation and DP polls.
(2) It exists to advise its members regarding political action, not
by taking an organizational position, but by developing consensus and
expressing that consensus back to its members, through the DP
structure. (That is, members are advised by people they have chosen
as trustworthy, not merely by some position developed as a majority
view, or as a view of "leaders," which is how traditional parties function.)
(3) It is a way for people *not* members of the BTP to connect with
the BTP. BTFA members can be in opposition to the BTP. Thus a path is
created for the BTP to grow beyond its initial doctrinal and
membership limitations. The BTP can choose to change or not; but if
it chooses to ignore a developing consensus, well, it is simply
turning away from power, which, in that context, would be beneficial
to society. We don't want parties gaining power which will ignore a
social consensus. That's dictatorship, really, even if it satisfies
the technical requirements of an allegedly democratic structure. Such
as by having enough votes on the Supreme Court to basically define
and implement a desired election result, combined with a gutless
opposition not willing to raise the serious constitutional question
of a Supreme Court making a blantantly political decision based on
outcome rather than the law itself.... ahem....
If the people are organized, there is no power that can resist them.
Indeed, organization of the people is quite dangerous, if the
organizational structure is such that it can be hijacked by
ideologues, fanatics, special interests, or other parasites.
This is why I am so interested in seeing DP implemented, at first, in
an FA context. DP is a general organization method, and it certainly
has potential governmental applications, but I'd much prefer seeing
it used in a relatively fail-safe environment. I propose FAs as that
environment.
Plus, I suspect, FA/DP organizations have the potential to make
changes in governmental structures unnecessary. After all, if one has
minimal democracy in government, and the people are organized, they
can simply elect those whom they trust to positions of power; and
should those people be corrupted, they can quickly detect this and
remove them. Even massive election fraud cannot withstand the people
directly organized, even with far less effective organization than we
forsee for FA/DP organizations.
It is not necessary for everyone to sign on to this plan, it is not
necessary for even a majority to sign on. All that is needed, really,
is for a few people to begin functioning this way. If the theory is
correct, those small organizations will be successful, and they will
grow and be imitated.
And this is the trick: if, say, liberals form an FA/DP organization
and dominate it (not by control, but simply by percentage of
membership), and conservatives see that this organization is growing,
threatening them, they would be quite likely to adopt the structure.
And *the message is the structure*. Because FA/DP organizations don't
have an organizational bias, if there were a "liberal" FA/DP
organization and a "conservative" one, there would be nothing,
really, to prevent them from merging and seeking consensus. FA/DP
organizations, structurally, encourage consensus because with
consensus, effort is not wasted in opposition. If caucus A wants to
advance cause A, and caucus B opposes it, they are each free to form
political action organizations for their respective purposes, collect
money, organize volunteers, and so forth. But their net effect will
be reduced because their actions will be opposite in direction. If,
instead, they can find some kind of compromise or consensus that both
groups can support, their power is amplified, not reduced.
How rapidly this would cause the traditions of opposition and
conflict to change, I can't predict. But FA/DP will create forces in
that direction, and will make such change possible.
As to software for DP, certainly this will be useful. I'm trying to
avoid making it *necessary*, making it the foundation of the
organization; that is the cart before the horse. DP can be
implemented with a minimum of software, even special-purpose proxy
can be done this way, simply by creating proxy lists and allowing
people to analyze them in their own ways. Decentralizing analysis is
yet another protection against fraud, though the FA context is the
strongest protection.
An open proxy list, anyone can check. And anyone can take an open
voting record and analyze it to expand it by proxy representation.
These are only polls, in FAs, they do not result -- except for
organizational decisions, which are minimal in FAs -- in the
application of power. Polls are reported by anyone, using analytical
methods that they choose. If they suspect that a set of proxies are
fraudulent, they can discount them, even without investigating them directly.
But it would be useful, I'd suggest, to consider a list of possible
functions of a DP tool, starting with the simplest. Instead of trying
to come up with at complete system, with all the bells and whistles
and possible features.
I've been working with assumptions of open assignment of proxies and
open voting, as it is in Town Meeting government. But some might want
secrecy, and DP systems with some level of secrecy are possible.
Note, however, that with secrecy comes risk of fraud that cannot
easily be detected.
echarp
Aug 27, 2006, 12:28:34 AM8/27/06
to top-politics
--- Log opened sam aoû 26 00:00:10 2006
00:43 < echarp> good night
11:47 < echarp> hello
19:48 < urgen:#parlement> goodnight hello?
19:48 < urgen:#parlement> :-)
19:48 < urgen:#parlement> that much time has passed?
22:10 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
22:10 < echarp> goodnight
--- Log closed dim aoû 27 00:00:11 2006
00:43 < echarp> good night
11:47 < echarp> hello
19:48 < urgen:#parlement> goodnight hello?
19:48 < urgen:#parlement> :-)
19:48 < urgen:#parlement> that much time has passed?
22:10 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
22:10 < echarp> goodnight
--- Log closed dim aoû 27 00:00:11 2006
echarp
Aug 28, 2006, 12:28:31 AM8/28/06
to top-politics
--- Log opened dim aoû 27 00:00:11 2006
19:28 -!- illegal (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung3127.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
19:32 -!- illegal [n=ille...@cmung3127.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Client Quit]
21:10 * nsh:#parlement smiles
21:37 < urgen:#parlement> yo
21:38 < nsh:#parlement> hey
21:38 < nsh:#parlement> how goes?
21:38 < urgen:#parlement> head spinning in day to day overload
21:38 < urgen:#parlement> someways it's good, some not so
21:39 < nsh:#parlement> mm
21:39 < nsh:#parlement> what are you working on at present?
21:40 < urgen:#parlement> um finding a freeware streaming mp3 player for my new phone
21:40 < urgen:#parlement> ( avoiding a pile of work )
21:40 * nsh:#parlement smiles
21:41 < urgen:#parlement> I found a trialware one. but nothing free yet
21:42 < nsh:#parlement> what os the does the phone run?
21:42 < urgen:#parlement> windows mobile 5.0
21:42 < urgen:#parlement> I found a vnc and an ssh app for it
21:43 < nsh:#parlement> hmm
21:43 < nsh:#parlement> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/player/windowsmobile/default.aspx
21:44 < urgen:#parlement> I tried that it didn't seem to want to play nice with shoutcast
21:44 < urgen:#parlement> windows lock in
21:44 < urgen:#parlement> use msn only
21:44 < urgen:#parlement> pay first
21:44 < nsh:#parlement> :-/
21:44 < urgen:#parlement> maybe I didn't dig deep enough
21:45 * nsh:#parlement muses about flexiarchy
21:45 < urgen:#parlement> temporary relative indexing?
21:46 < nsh:#parlement> hmm
21:46 < nsh:#parlement> was thinking in context of rearrangable programs
21:46 < nsh:#parlement> like, modular
21:46 < urgen:#parlement> self re-organizing software.. hmn
21:46 * nsh:#parlement nods
21:47 < urgen:#parlement> I was watching some robot blocks that re-assemble themselves
21:47 < urgen:#parlement> each piece learning what the others knew
21:47 < nsh:#parlement> right
21:47 < nsh:#parlement> the human brain exploded with the advent of verbal communication
21:48 < urgen:#parlement> the medium is the message
21:48 < nsh:#parlement> mm
21:49 < nsh:#parlement> the problem is avoiding arbitrary design artifacts
21:49 < urgen:#parlement> just classify them
21:49 < nsh:#parlement> how do you mean?
21:49 < urgen:#parlement> an accident might become useful sometime
21:49 < urgen:#parlement> but a bag to put them in so they don't clutter the known value ones might be helpful
21:50 * nsh:#parlement nods
21:50 < urgen:#parlement> how to map to known value almost seems to defeat the flexi-ness
21:50 < nsh:#parlement> growth by abberation
21:50 < urgen:#parlement> but I think 'temporary autonomous' is helpful
21:50 < nsh:#parlement> right
21:51 * nsh:#parlement goes to grab some food - brb
21:55 < nsh:#parlement> mm
21:55 < nsh:#parlement> i think i have a tablet lodged in my foodpipe
21:55 < nsh:#parlement> it's kinda uncomfortable
21:56 < nsh:#parlement> was in a car for a few hours earlier
21:56 < urgen:#parlement> it may have passed but I think they scratch when they do that so it still feels bad
21:56 < nsh:#parlement> ah
21:56 < nsh:#parlement> i'm always amazed by how well traffic works
21:56 < urgen:#parlement> mind numbing traffic :-)
21:56 * nsh:#parlement smiles
21:56 * nsh:#parlement goes to check on bacon
21:57 < urgen:#parlement> we sure are glad those lanes are intelligent
21:57 < urgen:#parlement> um.. oh, they aren't
22:03 < nsh:#parlement> hmmm
22:03 < nsh:#parlement> how do you mean?
22:06 * nsh:#parlement was reading about the 85th percentile rule the other day
22:08 < urgen:#parlement> so flexi indexing seems to be what dns is missing
22:08 < nsh:#parlement> mmm
22:08 < urgen:#parlement> unless IBM wants to go buy ibm.info ibm.name ibm.com ibm.net etc
22:09 < urgen:#parlement> some other company that has a legitimate right to those letters
22:09 < urgen:#parlement> like Indianna Box Manufacturing
22:09 * nsh:#parlement nods
22:09 < urgen:#parlement> because they obviously don't have anything to do with business machines...
22:09 < urgen:#parlement> should be able to use it
22:09 < urgen:#parlement> so there should be an intermediary mapping
22:10 < urgen:#parlement> ibm.usecase1.com ibm.usecase2.com
22:10 < urgen:#parlement> or apple.com and apple records
22:11 < nsh:#parlement> well, this relates to the meaning-in-context thing we discussed in reference to search engines
22:11 < nsh:#parlement> jaguar-as-cat vs. jaguar-as-car
22:11 < urgen:#parlement> apple computers shouldn't have any more right over apple.com than records
22:11 < urgen:#parlement> so maybe we do computers.apple.com and recording.apple.com
22:11 * nsh:#parlement wonders why dns has to be centralised anyway
22:11 < urgen:#parlement> it is rather what the dns was suppose to assist with once upon a time anyway
22:12 < urgen:#parlement> a pseudo directory
22:12 < nsh:#parlement> the answer seems to be authorativeness
22:12 * nsh:#parlement nods
22:12 < urgen:#parlement> the enum thing is suppose to be a psuedo directory isn't it?
22:12 < urgen:#parlement> my phone number maps to where I happen to be
22:12 < urgen:#parlement> at home or travel or work, etc
22:13 < urgen:#parlement> or email only, or voicemail only...
22:13 < nsh:#parlement> right
22:13 < urgen:#parlement> whatever
22:13 < urgen:#parlement> this temporary arbitrary mapping should be the norm
22:14 < nsh:#parlement> mmm
22:14 < urgen:#parlement> it is an obvious problem
22:14 < urgen:#parlement> but everyone, xml, rdf, microformats
22:14 < urgen:#parlement> keeps trying to develop a fixed solution
22:15 < nsh:#parlement> fixed is rarely solution
22:15 < urgen:#parlement> isn't the x in xml suppose to mean extensible?
22:15 * nsh:#parlement nods
22:15 < urgen:#parlement> then why do they try to fix an extended definition?
22:15 < urgen:#parlement> why aren't more people modelling on flex?
22:15 < urgen:#parlement> is it really that difficult?
22:16 * nsh:#parlement isn't sure
22:16 < urgen:#parlement> if so, then why not, at least, try a hybrid solution
22:16 < urgen:#parlement> that has to be better than just constantly repairing broken fixed models
22:16 < nsh:#parlement> mmm
22:16 < urgen:#parlement> instead whenever I bring this up I get argument
22:16 < urgen:#parlement> it doesn't make sense to me
22:17 < urgen:#parlement> ( to those that do specs and standards )
22:17 < nsh:#parlement> i suppose the inclination to define behaviour initially is quite strong
22:17 < nsh:#parlement> open-endedness is seen as counterpoint to predictability
22:18 < urgen:#parlement> and this is the heart of the discussion for "net neutrality" as well
22:18 < urgen:#parlement> but no one gets the point :-)))))
22:18 * nsh:#parlement smiles
22:18 < urgen:#parlement> it is fantastic
22:18 < nsh:#parlement> how do you mean?
22:19 < urgen:#parlement> fantastic that this seems to easy to connect but goes completely missing
22:19 < urgen:#parlement> s/to/so
22:19 < nsh:#parlement> mmm
22:19 < urgen:#parlement> I think you are right about attributing old thought habit
22:19 < urgen:#parlement> it's just more "natural" for ppl to attempt to solidify
22:19 < nsh:#parlement> right
22:20 < urgen:#parlement> that might even encroach upon some religious feelings if pressed :-)
22:20 * nsh:#parlement smiles
22:20 < urgen:#parlement> unholy to suggest a loose connection
22:21 < urgen:#parlement> but the very nature of that looseness is what brings value itself
22:21 < nsh:#parlement> mmm
22:21 < urgen:#parlement> you notice this channel has been making the big screen?
22:21 < nsh:#parlement> oh?
22:22 < urgen:#parlement> http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics/browse_frm/thread/808b8139c16888c4/79880390a48927db#79880390a48927db
22:22 < urgen:#parlement> we're indexable now
22:23 < urgen:#parlement> indexible?
22:23 * nsh:#parlement not sure
22:23 < nsh:#parlement> probably later
22:23 < urgen:#parlement> nope ible's not it
22:23 < nsh:#parlement> *latter
22:23 < urgen:#parlement> I see an indicible
22:23 < urgen:#parlement> :-)
22:23 * nsh:#parlement smiles
22:24 < urgen:#parlement> Unspeakable
22:24 < urgen:#parlement> someone needs to warm that word back up
22:24 < urgen:#parlement> indice
22:24 < urgen:#parlement> indicible
22:24 < nsh:#parlement> indicible is a french word
22:25 < urgen:#parlement> indexical
22:25 < nsh:#parlement> nsh @translate french english indicible
22:25 < nsh:#parlement> supybot nsh: inexpressible
22:25 < nsh:#parlement> which is what unspeakable originally meant
22:25 < urgen:#parlement> inexpressible has the non-fixed-ness of enum root
22:25 < nsh:#parlement> before it aquired moral overtones
22:26 < nsh:#parlement> oh
22:26 < nsh:#parlement> slime mold
22:26 < urgen:#parlement> :-) hybrid
22:26 < nsh:#parlement> In the DVD release of "This is Spinal Tap" there is an outtake of an interview with David St. Hubbins where he speaks of slime moulds, saying "They are both plant AND animal...it's like they can't make up their mind...but if they ever did, they can take us over just like that!"
22:27 < nsh:#parlement> so, temporary coallesing
22:27 < nsh:#parlement> coallecing?
22:27 < nsh:#parlement> coalescing
22:28 < urgen:#parlement> [Origin: 1535–45; < L coalescere, equiv. to co- co- + al- (s. of alere to nourish, make grow) + -escere -esce]
22:28 < nsh:#parlement> decentralised organisation of temporary autonomy subsumption
22:28 < nsh:#parlement> mm
22:28 < nsh:#parlement> The cellular slime moulds or dictyostelids take the form of individual amoebae, but under stress aggregate to form a multicellular assembly called a pseudoplasmodium or slug. This migrates to a new location, then forms into a fruiting body, usually with a stalk formed from dead amoebae. Spores release new amoebae. Similar life-cycles are found among the acrasids, now known to be an unrelated group, and among the myxobacteria
22:30 < nsh:#parlement> -wikipedia
22:30 < urgen:#parlement> :-)
22:30 < urgen:#parlement> you see tav threatening plexnet launch?
22:30 < nsh:#parlement> musta missed it
22:30 * nsh:#parlement smiles
22:30 < urgen:#parlement> <wybow> So as it looks now plexnet will be finished by november ? That'd be great!
22:30 < urgen:#parlement> <tav> not finished, but in a deployable state
22:31 * nsh:#parlement never quite figured out what plex was
22:31 < urgen:#parlement> plex/flex
22:31 * nsh:#parlement nods
22:31 < urgen:#parlement> but since we are never allowed to discuss slimemold plexiness...
22:31 < urgen:#parlement> who knows
22:32 * nsh:#parlement smiles
22:32 < nsh:#parlement> "The "plex" as it was called then and is called now was a concept very difficult to grasp at first, but it panned out to be the smoothie that you'd make if you dumped HTTP, public key based identities, and peer to peer software in a blender (with some vodka for kick) and pushed the "blend" button or whatever those things have. I don't own one myself."
22:32 < nsh:#parlement> -http://infomesh.net/200X/wtf1
22:32 < nsh:#parlement> moonlight sonata is a nice piece
22:32 < urgen:#parlement> yes
22:33 < urgen:#parlement> I think my copy molded in a basement flood
22:33 < urgen:#parlement> had to throw it out
22:33 < nsh:#parlement> that's a shame
22:33 < urgen:#parlement> so temporary indexing / pseudo indexing
22:33 < urgen:#parlement> transient assignment
22:34 < urgen:#parlement> transient designation
22:34 < urgen:#parlement> transient alignment
22:34 < nsh:#parlement> i always try to explain how thoughts are not in words
22:34 < urgen:#parlement> transient regard
22:34 < nsh:#parlement> more like nebulous cloudy things, which are then made temporarily concrete for transmission to be reborn as a nebulous cloudy thing in the hearer's head
22:35 < nsh:#parlement> so maybe modules/components of flexiprograms can have internal organisation which is not known
22:36 < nsh:#parlement> but when interacting, they assume a virtual structure which is communicable
22:36 < urgen:#parlement> :-) like um what do they callit.. black hole routing?
22:37 * nsh:#parlement smiles, yeah
22:37 < urgen:#parlement> seems like I remember large isp replicating the routing of the internet in 10. space
22:37 < nsh:#parlement> there's probably some sorta hawking information leakage analogy there
22:37 < nsh:#parlement> hmm
22:38 < urgen:#parlement> so they can do public space to private space to public space on the other side
22:38 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
22:38 < urgen> and it only looks like public to public to the packet
22:38 < echarp> hello guys
22:38 < nsh> hey echarp :-)
22:38 < echarp> just passing over, to say hello ;)
22:38 < urgen> hi e
22:38 < nsh> tribbling matter
22:39 < nsh> so
22:39 < nsh> working hypothesis interaction
22:40 < nsh> a component has a working model of how another component behaves
22:40 < nsh> which is modified by each interaction
22:41 < urgen> starting to sound like mapper/packer
22:41 < nsh> what's that?
22:42 < urgen> packers can't see mappers but mappers can only partially see packers
22:42 < urgen> http://www.reciprocality.org/Reciprocality/r0/
22:42 < urgen> Chapter 1 - section: The Ways of Mappers and Packers
22:43 < urgen> packers memorize whole systems, mappers digest relationships
22:43 < nsh> hmm
22:43 < urgen> like the way people who can memorize anatomy become doctors
22:44 < urgen> but some doctors go into research to learn *how*
22:44 < urgen> most remain technicians
22:44 < nsh> seems that the question generally evolves from what, to how, to why
22:45 < nsh> along with a process of subjectification
22:45 < urgen> why is solved when you can map the never vs occasionally
22:45 < nsh> how do you mean?
22:45 < urgen> why do packers never get mappers but mappers occasionaly understand packers?
22:46 < urgen> most the time it is a complete disconnect
22:46 < nsh> hmm
22:46 < urgen> section: The Mapper/Packer Communication Barrier
22:47 < urgen> this seems to reflect missing the enum root obviousness
22:47 < urgen> so there may be a third 'type'
22:48 < nsh> well, it reminds me of ptolomy
22:48 < nsh> there is a mentality the is more inclined to refine an existing system
22:48 < nsh> and a mentality that is more inclinded to replace one system with another
22:49 < nsh> *englishify
22:50 < nsh> society/culture generally reaches a stage of calcification
22:50 < nsh> byzantine
22:50 < nsh> in which the weight of history precludes inventivity
22:51 < urgen> the disruptometer
22:51 < nsh> mmm
22:52 < nsh> explainify
22:53 < urgen> disruptive technologies make more money
22:53 < nsh> why?
22:53 < urgen> why riaa is legislating for protection
22:53 < nsh> right
22:53 < urgen> couldn't we just lock in the good ol' ways?
22:53 < nsh> investiture
22:54 < nsh> dig up, not down
22:54 < nsh> canals had to give way to railroads
22:55 < nsh> but what drives this tendency to cling?
22:55 < nsh> embracement overhead avoidance?
22:56 < urgen> tibetan: shenpa
22:58 < nsh> attachment
22:58 < nsh> hookedness
22:58 < urgen> attachment has lost favor
22:58 < urgen> clinging has lost favor
22:58 < urgen> desire has lost favor
22:58 < urgen> as words to translate into
22:58 * nsh nods
22:58 < urgen> velcro
22:59 < urgen> addiction
22:59 < urgen> snap-lock
22:59 < urgen> I call it the power of immersiveness
22:59 < nsh> i like the snowball analogy
22:59 < nsh> momentum drives accumulation
22:59 < urgen> "don't harsh my buzz"
22:59 < nsh> accumulation increases momentum
22:59 < nsh> mmm
23:00 < urgen> don't break the illusion
23:00 < urgen> it is a taboo
23:01 < urgen> you'll get swatted for it
23:01 < nsh> mm
23:01 < nsh> illusion isn't necessarily bad
23:01 < nsh> like film, suspension of disbelief
23:01 < urgen> when people come to begin to understand that the buzz is relative they think any dream goes
23:02 < urgen> the power of the buzz gains some leverage
23:02 < nsh> hmm
23:02 < urgen> but replacing one foundationlessness with another is not progress
23:03 < urgen> even if the velcro proves there is some 'power' in it
23:03 < urgen> this root basic power is not a genuine promise outside of the phenomenon itself
23:04 < urgen> we can leverage the phenomenon to a real advantage/advance
23:04 < urgen> but that means not getting lost in daydreams
23:04 < urgen> :-)
23:04 * nsh smiles
23:05 < nsh> i can see air
23:05 * nsh is sure that's probably not normal
23:05 < urgen> it is probably available tho
23:05 < nsh> mm
23:05 < urgen> 'potential'
23:06 < nsh> so i'd love to be able to dream overlay while awake
23:06 < nsh> which is feasable
23:07 < urgen> or, back to the third 'type,' allow a neutrality of dream to intervene
23:07 < nsh> how do you mean?
23:08 < urgen> the unfolding of dimension... when one shows two shows three shows four
23:08 < nsh> hmmm
23:08 < urgen> and we begin to suspect that the dual modal logic is not honestly reflecting potential
23:09 < urgen> and we posit a third type
23:09 < urgen> a bridge
23:09 < urgen> which is how we got to where we were with the dual struggle...
23:09 < nsh> dual struggle?
23:09 < urgen> but this third type has to transcend two
23:09 < nsh> mm
23:09 < urgen> either or
23:09 < urgen> dual
23:09 < nsh> tao te ching
23:09 < urgen> so the third has to be a middle
23:09 < nsh> from 1 comes 2 comes 10,000
23:10 < urgen> but the middle arrives suggesting no more sides
23:10 < urgen> so it breaks the buzz
23:10 < urgen> and people get harshed
23:11 < urgen> the investment is what costs
23:11 < nsh> mmm
23:11 < urgen> but there aren't any sides
23:11 < urgen> so what's up with that?
23:12 < nsh> artifact
23:12 < urgen> by the time we get to four ( tetralemmic ) then the rules change drastically
23:12 < nsh> hmmm
23:12 < urgen> multi-modal logic helps the hooks not tear
23:13 < urgen> not rip
23:13 * nsh nods
23:14 < nsh> but it's difficult like juggling
23:14 < urgen> and like juggling, you can tell when you drop the ball
23:15 < urgen> feedback still exists
23:15 < nsh> right
23:15 < nsh> how many ends does a loop have?
23:15 < nsh> :-)
23:16 < nsh> brb
23:18 < nsh> reaping a fever :-/
23:18 < nsh> so how is multimodal logic applied?
23:19 < urgen> type feedback
23:19 < urgen> typing
23:19 < urgen> logical typing
23:19 < urgen> categoricals
23:19 < urgen> topologies
23:19 < urgen> dimension
23:19 < urgen> class
23:20 < urgen> referents
23:20 < urgen> alignment
23:20 < urgen> associative
23:20 < nsh> conceptual net extrication
23:22 < nsh> so i was wondering
23:22 < urgen> you need to ask your dad if there can be a non-originating grace
23:22 < nsh> hmmm
23:22 < nsh> how do you mean?
23:23 < urgen> I'm trying to bridge :-)
23:23 < urgen> <-- dedicated mapper
23:24 * nsh smiles
23:24 < nsh> The New Testament word that is usually translated "grace" is in Greek charis (χαρις), which literally means "gift". The word was not often used by Jesus himself; in the canonical Gospels it is attributed to him only in the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of John. However, the parables attributed to Jesus in the Gospels make clear that Jesus did in fact teach the concept of grace. More importantly, He told stories that underlined that grace was God's to giv
23:24 < nsh> e, God's sole prerogative, and that it was freely offered.
23:24 < nsh> but i don't understand the non-originating qualifier
23:25 < urgen> gifts come from somewhere
23:25 < urgen> can not we have this bridging without it have been originated?
23:25 < urgen> something not needing transcendence nor rectification
23:25 < urgen> already present
23:27 < urgen> no giving required
23:27 < nsh> it's kinda antithetical to the theological tenets
23:28 < urgen> but shouldn't be
23:28 < urgen> that's my point
23:28 * nsh nods
23:28 < urgen> limitlessness goes in all directions, cuz it is
23:28 < nsh> heh
23:29 < nsh> one of the biggest illusions i've noticed is that you can have any idea of infinity
23:29 < nsh> what was that great article about really big numbers?
23:29 < urgen> that there is always one bigger?
23:29 * nsh nods
23:29 < urgen> it is similar to this middle means no more sides idea
23:30 < nsh> how do you mean?
23:30 < urgen> tetralemmic
23:30 < nsh> mmm
23:30 < urgen> when you walk through that it comes back to where you were but different
23:30 < urgen> inclusive and sideless simultaneously
23:30 < nsh> right
23:30 < nsh> there's a nice quote
23:31 < nsh> one sec
23:31 < nsh> There is a famous Ch'an saying that goes, "When I began, mountains were mountains and rivers were rivers; when I penetrated deeply, mountains were no longer mountains and rivers were no longer rivers; and when I had finished, mountains were again mountains and rivers again rivers."
23:32 < nsh> mmmm, pre/trans fallacy
23:32 < urgen> exactly
23:32 < urgen> pre/trans fallacy
23:32 < urgen> it is such the common mistake
23:32 < nsh> right
23:32 < urgen> and I have no magic medicine for it still
23:32 < urgen> :-)
23:33 < nsh> sticks sometime work :-)
23:33 < nsh> katz
23:33 < urgen> hehe
23:33 < nsh> so this is the classic misinterpretation of the philosophy
23:33 < nsh> hence the accusation of nihilism, etc.
23:33 < urgen> exactly
23:34 < nsh> so transpersonal goes hand in hand with transconceptual
23:35 < nsh> which is part of the difference of mappers
23:35 < nsh> lego versus bespoke models
23:36 < urgen> http://wilber.shambhala.com/html/books/kosmos/excerptC/part3-2.cfm
23:37 * nsh smilemolds
23:38 < nsh> so
23:38 < nsh> i wondered once
23:38 < nsh> is it actually inconcievable that humanity has a mind
23:39 < urgen> mind-ness is a technical term
23:39 < nsh> as in, the cells in my body aren't aware that i have a mind
23:39 < nsh> hmm
23:39 < nsh> "If by agency you mean a single intentionality, sensitive center, or dominant "I," then no, collective holons do not have agency, in my opinion."
23:40 < nsh> can understand, but it's still assumed
23:41 < nsh> what are right-hand holons?
23:41 < urgen> is that a wilber term?
23:41 < nsh> yeah
23:41 < urgen> let me see...
23:41 < urgen> he's building this transpersonal model
23:42 < nsh> mm
23:42 < urgen> it has four directions...
23:42 < nsh> yeah
23:42 < urgen> looking for a map
23:42 < nsh> http://www.imprint.co.uk/Wilber.htm
23:43 < nsh> diagram helps
23:43 < urgen> there are some graphics
23:44 * nsh nods
23:44 * nsh wonders what formop and conop are
23:44 < nsh> i gues fomulation/concept opperability
23:44 < urgen> ya
23:46 < nsh> so left seems to be interior and right exterior
23:48 < urgen> wilber is trying to apply / engage multi-modal perspectives
23:48 < nsh> Autopoiesis literally means "auto (self)-creation" (from the Greek: auto - αυτό for self- and poiesis - ποίησις for creation or production) and expresses a fundamental complementarity between structure and function. The term was originally introduced by Chilean biologists Francisco Varela and Humberto Maturana in 1973:
23:48 < urgen> and he calls this non-fixed core-ness the integral commons
23:48 < urgen> but he has poor representation from other non-fixed schools of thought
23:49 < nsh> how do you mean?
23:49 < urgen> probably mostly due to the whole thing still being very new to most people
23:49 < urgen> so he's working hard on creating a bridging language, but it ends up being an overly personal vocabulary
23:49 < urgen> he needs more peer review but there are not a lot of peers out there
23:50 < nsh> yeah
23:50 < nsh> or there are not many actualised peers
23:50 < nsh> plenty potential peers
23:50 < urgen> so it is evolving into a marketing program :-)
23:50 < urgen> which is kind of silly, kind of wrong, and a bit interesting
23:51 < nsh> hmm
23:51 < nsh> container shapes contents
23:52 < nsh> the delivery system for ideas generally undermines them
23:55 < nsh> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autopoiesis
23:55 < urgen> :-)
23:55 < urgen> illegal's favorite term
23:56 < nsh> cool
23:57 < nsh> so skandhas seem quite autopoietic
23:58 < urgen> :-) they are the very essence of formulation
23:58 < nsh> mmm
23:59 < nsh> 12 monkeys
23:59 < nsh> deporig
--- Log closed lun aoû 28 00:00:11 2006
19:28 -!- illegal (irc.freenode.net) [n=ille...@cmung3127.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement
19:32 -!- illegal [n=ille...@cmung3127.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Client Quit]
21:10 * nsh:#parlement smiles
21:37 < urgen:#parlement> yo
21:38 < nsh:#parlement> hey
21:38 < nsh:#parlement> how goes?
21:38 < urgen:#parlement> head spinning in day to day overload
21:38 < urgen:#parlement> someways it's good, some not so
21:39 < nsh:#parlement> mm
21:39 < nsh:#parlement> what are you working on at present?
21:40 < urgen:#parlement> um finding a freeware streaming mp3 player for my new phone
21:40 < urgen:#parlement> ( avoiding a pile of work )
21:40 * nsh:#parlement smiles
21:41 < urgen:#parlement> I found a trialware one. but nothing free yet
21:42 < nsh:#parlement> what os the does the phone run?
21:42 < urgen:#parlement> windows mobile 5.0
21:42 < urgen:#parlement> I found a vnc and an ssh app for it
21:43 < nsh:#parlement> hmm
21:43 < nsh:#parlement> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsmedia/player/windowsmobile/default.aspx
21:44 < urgen:#parlement> I tried that it didn't seem to want to play nice with shoutcast
21:44 < urgen:#parlement> windows lock in
21:44 < urgen:#parlement> use msn only
21:44 < urgen:#parlement> pay first
21:44 < nsh:#parlement> :-/
21:44 < urgen:#parlement> maybe I didn't dig deep enough
21:45 * nsh:#parlement muses about flexiarchy
21:45 < urgen:#parlement> temporary relative indexing?
21:46 < nsh:#parlement> hmm
21:46 < nsh:#parlement> was thinking in context of rearrangable programs
21:46 < nsh:#parlement> like, modular
21:46 < urgen:#parlement> self re-organizing software.. hmn
21:46 * nsh:#parlement nods
21:47 < urgen:#parlement> I was watching some robot blocks that re-assemble themselves
21:47 < urgen:#parlement> each piece learning what the others knew
21:47 < nsh:#parlement> right
21:47 < nsh:#parlement> the human brain exploded with the advent of verbal communication
21:48 < urgen:#parlement> the medium is the message
21:48 < nsh:#parlement> mm
21:49 < nsh:#parlement> the problem is avoiding arbitrary design artifacts
21:49 < urgen:#parlement> just classify them
21:49 < nsh:#parlement> how do you mean?
21:49 < urgen:#parlement> an accident might become useful sometime
21:49 < urgen:#parlement> but a bag to put them in so they don't clutter the known value ones might be helpful
21:50 * nsh:#parlement nods
21:50 < urgen:#parlement> how to map to known value almost seems to defeat the flexi-ness
21:50 < nsh:#parlement> growth by abberation
21:50 < urgen:#parlement> but I think 'temporary autonomous' is helpful
21:50 < nsh:#parlement> right
21:51 * nsh:#parlement goes to grab some food - brb
21:55 < nsh:#parlement> mm
21:55 < nsh:#parlement> i think i have a tablet lodged in my foodpipe
21:55 < nsh:#parlement> it's kinda uncomfortable
21:56 < nsh:#parlement> was in a car for a few hours earlier
21:56 < urgen:#parlement> it may have passed but I think they scratch when they do that so it still feels bad
21:56 < nsh:#parlement> ah
21:56 < nsh:#parlement> i'm always amazed by how well traffic works
21:56 < urgen:#parlement> mind numbing traffic :-)
21:56 * nsh:#parlement smiles
21:56 * nsh:#parlement goes to check on bacon
21:57 < urgen:#parlement> we sure are glad those lanes are intelligent
21:57 < urgen:#parlement> um.. oh, they aren't
22:03 < nsh:#parlement> hmmm
22:03 < nsh:#parlement> how do you mean?
22:06 * nsh:#parlement was reading about the 85th percentile rule the other day
22:08 < urgen:#parlement> so flexi indexing seems to be what dns is missing
22:08 < nsh:#parlement> mmm
22:08 < urgen:#parlement> unless IBM wants to go buy ibm.info ibm.name ibm.com ibm.net etc
22:09 < urgen:#parlement> some other company that has a legitimate right to those letters
22:09 < urgen:#parlement> like Indianna Box Manufacturing
22:09 * nsh:#parlement nods
22:09 < urgen:#parlement> because they obviously don't have anything to do with business machines...
22:09 < urgen:#parlement> should be able to use it
22:09 < urgen:#parlement> so there should be an intermediary mapping
22:10 < urgen:#parlement> ibm.usecase1.com ibm.usecase2.com
22:10 < urgen:#parlement> or apple.com and apple records
22:11 < nsh:#parlement> well, this relates to the meaning-in-context thing we discussed in reference to search engines
22:11 < nsh:#parlement> jaguar-as-cat vs. jaguar-as-car
22:11 < urgen:#parlement> apple computers shouldn't have any more right over apple.com than records
22:11 < urgen:#parlement> so maybe we do computers.apple.com and recording.apple.com
22:11 * nsh:#parlement wonders why dns has to be centralised anyway
22:11 < urgen:#parlement> it is rather what the dns was suppose to assist with once upon a time anyway
22:12 < urgen:#parlement> a pseudo directory
22:12 < nsh:#parlement> the answer seems to be authorativeness
22:12 * nsh:#parlement nods
22:12 < urgen:#parlement> the enum thing is suppose to be a psuedo directory isn't it?
22:12 < urgen:#parlement> my phone number maps to where I happen to be
22:12 < urgen:#parlement> at home or travel or work, etc
22:13 < urgen:#parlement> or email only, or voicemail only...
22:13 < nsh:#parlement> right
22:13 < urgen:#parlement> whatever
22:13 < urgen:#parlement> this temporary arbitrary mapping should be the norm
22:14 < nsh:#parlement> mmm
22:14 < urgen:#parlement> it is an obvious problem
22:14 < urgen:#parlement> but everyone, xml, rdf, microformats
22:14 < urgen:#parlement> keeps trying to develop a fixed solution
22:15 < nsh:#parlement> fixed is rarely solution
22:15 < urgen:#parlement> isn't the x in xml suppose to mean extensible?
22:15 * nsh:#parlement nods
22:15 < urgen:#parlement> then why do they try to fix an extended definition?
22:15 < urgen:#parlement> why aren't more people modelling on flex?
22:15 < urgen:#parlement> is it really that difficult?
22:16 * nsh:#parlement isn't sure
22:16 < urgen:#parlement> if so, then why not, at least, try a hybrid solution
22:16 < urgen:#parlement> that has to be better than just constantly repairing broken fixed models
22:16 < nsh:#parlement> mmm
22:16 < urgen:#parlement> instead whenever I bring this up I get argument
22:16 < urgen:#parlement> it doesn't make sense to me
22:17 < urgen:#parlement> ( to those that do specs and standards )
22:17 < nsh:#parlement> i suppose the inclination to define behaviour initially is quite strong
22:17 < nsh:#parlement> open-endedness is seen as counterpoint to predictability
22:18 < urgen:#parlement> and this is the heart of the discussion for "net neutrality" as well
22:18 < urgen:#parlement> but no one gets the point :-)))))
22:18 * nsh:#parlement smiles
22:18 < urgen:#parlement> it is fantastic
22:18 < nsh:#parlement> how do you mean?
22:19 < urgen:#parlement> fantastic that this seems to easy to connect but goes completely missing
22:19 < urgen:#parlement> s/to/so
22:19 < nsh:#parlement> mmm
22:19 < urgen:#parlement> I think you are right about attributing old thought habit
22:19 < urgen:#parlement> it's just more "natural" for ppl to attempt to solidify
22:19 < nsh:#parlement> right
22:20 < urgen:#parlement> that might even encroach upon some religious feelings if pressed :-)
22:20 * nsh:#parlement smiles
22:20 < urgen:#parlement> unholy to suggest a loose connection
22:21 < urgen:#parlement> but the very nature of that looseness is what brings value itself
22:21 < nsh:#parlement> mmm
22:21 < urgen:#parlement> you notice this channel has been making the big screen?
22:21 < nsh:#parlement> oh?
22:22 < urgen:#parlement> http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics/browse_frm/thread/808b8139c16888c4/79880390a48927db#79880390a48927db
22:22 < urgen:#parlement> we're indexable now
22:23 < urgen:#parlement> indexible?
22:23 * nsh:#parlement not sure
22:23 < nsh:#parlement> probably later
22:23 < urgen:#parlement> nope ible's not it
22:23 < nsh:#parlement> *latter
22:23 < urgen:#parlement> I see an indicible
22:23 < urgen:#parlement> :-)
22:23 * nsh:#parlement smiles
22:24 < urgen:#parlement> Unspeakable
22:24 < urgen:#parlement> someone needs to warm that word back up
22:24 < urgen:#parlement> indice
22:24 < urgen:#parlement> indicible
22:24 < nsh:#parlement> indicible is a french word
22:25 < urgen:#parlement> indexical
22:25 < nsh:#parlement> nsh @translate french english indicible
22:25 < nsh:#parlement> supybot nsh: inexpressible
22:25 < nsh:#parlement> which is what unspeakable originally meant
22:25 < urgen:#parlement> inexpressible has the non-fixed-ness of enum root
22:25 < nsh:#parlement> before it aquired moral overtones
22:26 < nsh:#parlement> oh
22:26 < nsh:#parlement> slime mold
22:26 < urgen:#parlement> :-) hybrid
22:26 < nsh:#parlement> In the DVD release of "This is Spinal Tap" there is an outtake of an interview with David St. Hubbins where he speaks of slime moulds, saying "They are both plant AND animal...it's like they can't make up their mind...but if they ever did, they can take us over just like that!"
22:27 < nsh:#parlement> so, temporary coallesing
22:27 < nsh:#parlement> coallecing?
22:27 < nsh:#parlement> coalescing
22:28 < urgen:#parlement> [Origin: 1535–45; < L coalescere, equiv. to co- co- + al- (s. of alere to nourish, make grow) + -escere -esce]
22:28 < nsh:#parlement> decentralised organisation of temporary autonomy subsumption
22:28 < nsh:#parlement> mm
22:28 < nsh:#parlement> The cellular slime moulds or dictyostelids take the form of individual amoebae, but under stress aggregate to form a multicellular assembly called a pseudoplasmodium or slug. This migrates to a new location, then forms into a fruiting body, usually with a stalk formed from dead amoebae. Spores release new amoebae. Similar life-cycles are found among the acrasids, now known to be an unrelated group, and among the myxobacteria
22:30 < nsh:#parlement> -wikipedia
22:30 < urgen:#parlement> :-)
22:30 < urgen:#parlement> you see tav threatening plexnet launch?
22:30 < nsh:#parlement> musta missed it
22:30 * nsh:#parlement smiles
22:30 < urgen:#parlement> <wybow> So as it looks now plexnet will be finished by november ? That'd be great!
22:30 < urgen:#parlement> <tav> not finished, but in a deployable state
22:31 * nsh:#parlement never quite figured out what plex was
22:31 < urgen:#parlement> plex/flex
22:31 * nsh:#parlement nods
22:31 < urgen:#parlement> but since we are never allowed to discuss slimemold plexiness...
22:31 < urgen:#parlement> who knows
22:32 * nsh:#parlement smiles
22:32 < nsh:#parlement> "The "plex" as it was called then and is called now was a concept very difficult to grasp at first, but it panned out to be the smoothie that you'd make if you dumped HTTP, public key based identities, and peer to peer software in a blender (with some vodka for kick) and pushed the "blend" button or whatever those things have. I don't own one myself."
22:32 < nsh:#parlement> -http://infomesh.net/200X/wtf1
22:32 < nsh:#parlement> moonlight sonata is a nice piece
22:32 < urgen:#parlement> yes
22:33 < urgen:#parlement> I think my copy molded in a basement flood
22:33 < urgen:#parlement> had to throw it out
22:33 < nsh:#parlement> that's a shame
22:33 < urgen:#parlement> so temporary indexing / pseudo indexing
22:33 < urgen:#parlement> transient assignment
22:34 < urgen:#parlement> transient designation
22:34 < urgen:#parlement> transient alignment
22:34 < nsh:#parlement> i always try to explain how thoughts are not in words
22:34 < urgen:#parlement> transient regard
22:34 < nsh:#parlement> more like nebulous cloudy things, which are then made temporarily concrete for transmission to be reborn as a nebulous cloudy thing in the hearer's head
22:35 < nsh:#parlement> so maybe modules/components of flexiprograms can have internal organisation which is not known
22:36 < nsh:#parlement> but when interacting, they assume a virtual structure which is communicable
22:36 < urgen:#parlement> :-) like um what do they callit.. black hole routing?
22:37 * nsh:#parlement smiles, yeah
22:37 < urgen:#parlement> seems like I remember large isp replicating the routing of the internet in 10. space
22:37 < nsh:#parlement> there's probably some sorta hawking information leakage analogy there
22:37 < nsh:#parlement> hmm
22:38 < urgen:#parlement> so they can do public space to private space to public space on the other side
22:38 -!- Irssi: You are now talking in #parlement
22:38 < urgen> and it only looks like public to public to the packet
22:38 < echarp> hello guys
22:38 < nsh> hey echarp :-)
22:38 < echarp> just passing over, to say hello ;)
22:38 < urgen> hi e
22:38 < nsh> tribbling matter
22:39 < nsh> so
22:39 < nsh> working hypothesis interaction
22:40 < nsh> a component has a working model of how another component behaves
22:40 < nsh> which is modified by each interaction
22:41 < urgen> starting to sound like mapper/packer
22:41 < nsh> what's that?
22:42 < urgen> packers can't see mappers but mappers can only partially see packers
22:42 < urgen> http://www.reciprocality.org/Reciprocality/r0/
22:42 < urgen> Chapter 1 - section: The Ways of Mappers and Packers
22:43 < urgen> packers memorize whole systems, mappers digest relationships
22:43 < nsh> hmm
22:43 < urgen> like the way people who can memorize anatomy become doctors
22:44 < urgen> but some doctors go into research to learn *how*
22:44 < urgen> most remain technicians
22:44 < nsh> seems that the question generally evolves from what, to how, to why
22:45 < nsh> along with a process of subjectification
22:45 < urgen> why is solved when you can map the never vs occasionally
22:45 < nsh> how do you mean?
22:45 < urgen> why do packers never get mappers but mappers occasionaly understand packers?
22:46 < urgen> most the time it is a complete disconnect
22:46 < nsh> hmm
22:46 < urgen> section: The Mapper/Packer Communication Barrier
22:47 < urgen> this seems to reflect missing the enum root obviousness
22:47 < urgen> so there may be a third 'type'
22:48 < nsh> well, it reminds me of ptolomy
22:48 < nsh> there is a mentality the is more inclined to refine an existing system
22:48 < nsh> and a mentality that is more inclinded to replace one system with another
22:49 < nsh> *englishify
22:50 < nsh> society/culture generally reaches a stage of calcification
22:50 < nsh> byzantine
22:50 < nsh> in which the weight of history precludes inventivity
22:51 < urgen> the disruptometer
22:51 < nsh> mmm
22:52 < nsh> explainify
22:53 < urgen> disruptive technologies make more money
22:53 < nsh> why?
22:53 < urgen> why riaa is legislating for protection
22:53 < nsh> right
22:53 < urgen> couldn't we just lock in the good ol' ways?
22:53 < nsh> investiture
22:54 < nsh> dig up, not down
22:54 < nsh> canals had to give way to railroads
22:55 < nsh> but what drives this tendency to cling?
22:55 < nsh> embracement overhead avoidance?
22:56 < urgen> tibetan: shenpa
22:58 < nsh> attachment
22:58 < nsh> hookedness
22:58 < urgen> attachment has lost favor
22:58 < urgen> clinging has lost favor
22:58 < urgen> desire has lost favor
22:58 < urgen> as words to translate into
22:58 * nsh nods
22:58 < urgen> velcro
22:59 < urgen> addiction
22:59 < urgen> snap-lock
22:59 < urgen> I call it the power of immersiveness
22:59 < nsh> i like the snowball analogy
22:59 < nsh> momentum drives accumulation
22:59 < urgen> "don't harsh my buzz"
22:59 < nsh> accumulation increases momentum
22:59 < nsh> mmm
23:00 < urgen> don't break the illusion
23:00 < urgen> it is a taboo
23:01 < urgen> you'll get swatted for it
23:01 < nsh> mm
23:01 < nsh> illusion isn't necessarily bad
23:01 < nsh> like film, suspension of disbelief
23:01 < urgen> when people come to begin to understand that the buzz is relative they think any dream goes
23:02 < urgen> the power of the buzz gains some leverage
23:02 < nsh> hmm
23:02 < urgen> but replacing one foundationlessness with another is not progress
23:03 < urgen> even if the velcro proves there is some 'power' in it
23:03 < urgen> this root basic power is not a genuine promise outside of the phenomenon itself
23:04 < urgen> we can leverage the phenomenon to a real advantage/advance
23:04 < urgen> but that means not getting lost in daydreams
23:04 < urgen> :-)
23:04 * nsh smiles
23:05 < nsh> i can see air
23:05 * nsh is sure that's probably not normal
23:05 < urgen> it is probably available tho
23:05 < nsh> mm
23:05 < urgen> 'potential'
23:06 < nsh> so i'd love to be able to dream overlay while awake
23:06 < nsh> which is feasable
23:07 < urgen> or, back to the third 'type,' allow a neutrality of dream to intervene
23:07 < nsh> how do you mean?
23:08 < urgen> the unfolding of dimension... when one shows two shows three shows four
23:08 < nsh> hmmm
23:08 < urgen> and we begin to suspect that the dual modal logic is not honestly reflecting potential
23:09 < urgen> and we posit a third type
23:09 < urgen> a bridge
23:09 < urgen> which is how we got to where we were with the dual struggle...
23:09 < nsh> dual struggle?
23:09 < urgen> but this third type has to transcend two
23:09 < nsh> mm
23:09 < urgen> either or
23:09 < urgen> dual
23:09 < nsh> tao te ching
23:09 < urgen> so the third has to be a middle
23:09 < nsh> from 1 comes 2 comes 10,000
23:10 < urgen> but the middle arrives suggesting no more sides
23:10 < urgen> so it breaks the buzz
23:10 < urgen> and people get harshed
23:11 < urgen> the investment is what costs
23:11 < nsh> mmm
23:11 < urgen> but there aren't any sides
23:11 < urgen> so what's up with that?
23:12 < nsh> artifact
23:12 < urgen> by the time we get to four ( tetralemmic ) then the rules change drastically
23:12 < nsh> hmmm
23:12 < urgen> multi-modal logic helps the hooks not tear
23:13 < urgen> not rip
23:13 * nsh nods
23:14 < nsh> but it's difficult like juggling
23:14 < urgen> and like juggling, you can tell when you drop the ball
23:15 < urgen> feedback still exists
23:15 < nsh> right
23:15 < nsh> how many ends does a loop have?
23:15 < nsh> :-)
23:16 < nsh> brb
23:18 < nsh> reaping a fever :-/
23:18 < nsh> so how is multimodal logic applied?
23:19 < urgen> type feedback
23:19 < urgen> typing
23:19 < urgen> logical typing
23:19 < urgen> categoricals
23:19 < urgen> topologies
23:19 < urgen> dimension
23:19 < urgen> class
23:20 < urgen> referents
23:20 < urgen> alignment
23:20 < urgen> associative
23:20 < nsh> conceptual net extrication
23:22 < nsh> so i was wondering
23:22 < urgen> you need to ask your dad if there can be a non-originating grace
23:22 < nsh> hmmm
23:22 < nsh> how do you mean?
23:23 < urgen> I'm trying to bridge :-)
23:23 < urgen> <-- dedicated mapper
23:24 * nsh smiles
23:24 < nsh> The New Testament word that is usually translated "grace" is in Greek charis (χαρις), which literally means "gift". The word was not often used by Jesus himself; in the canonical Gospels it is attributed to him only in the Gospel of Luke and the Gospel of John. However, the parables attributed to Jesus in the Gospels make clear that Jesus did in fact teach the concept of grace. More importantly, He told stories that underlined that grace was God's to giv
23:24 < nsh> e, God's sole prerogative, and that it was freely offered.
23:24 < nsh> but i don't understand the non-originating qualifier
23:25 < urgen> gifts come from somewhere
23:25 < urgen> can not we have this bridging without it have been originated?
23:25 < urgen> something not needing transcendence nor rectification
23:25 < urgen> already present
23:27 < urgen> no giving required
23:27 < nsh> it's kinda antithetical to the theological tenets
23:28 < urgen> but shouldn't be
23:28 < urgen> that's my point
23:28 * nsh nods
23:28 < urgen> limitlessness goes in all directions, cuz it is
23:28 < nsh> heh
23:29 < nsh> one of the biggest illusions i've noticed is that you can have any idea of infinity
23:29 < nsh> what was that great article about really big numbers?
23:29 < urgen> that there is always one bigger?
23:29 * nsh nods
23:29 < urgen> it is similar to this middle means no more sides idea
23:30 < nsh> how do you mean?
23:30 < urgen> tetralemmic
23:30 < nsh> mmm
23:30 < urgen> when you walk through that it comes back to where you were but different
23:30 < urgen> inclusive and sideless simultaneously
23:30 < nsh> right
23:30 < nsh> there's a nice quote
23:31 < nsh> one sec
23:31 < nsh> There is a famous Ch'an saying that goes, "When I began, mountains were mountains and rivers were rivers; when I penetrated deeply, mountains were no longer mountains and rivers were no longer rivers; and when I had finished, mountains were again mountains and rivers again rivers."
23:32 < nsh> mmmm, pre/trans fallacy
23:32 < urgen> exactly
23:32 < urgen> pre/trans fallacy
23:32 < urgen> it is such the common mistake
23:32 < nsh> right
23:32 < urgen> and I have no magic medicine for it still
23:32 < urgen> :-)
23:33 < nsh> sticks sometime work :-)
23:33 < nsh> katz
23:33 < urgen> hehe
23:33 < nsh> so this is the classic misinterpretation of the philosophy
23:33 < nsh> hence the accusation of nihilism, etc.
23:33 < urgen> exactly
23:34 < nsh> so transpersonal goes hand in hand with transconceptual
23:35 < nsh> which is part of the difference of mappers
23:35 < nsh> lego versus bespoke models
23:36 < urgen> http://wilber.shambhala.com/html/books/kosmos/excerptC/part3-2.cfm
23:37 * nsh smilemolds
23:38 < nsh> so
23:38 < nsh> i wondered once
23:38 < nsh> is it actually inconcievable that humanity has a mind
23:39 < urgen> mind-ness is a technical term
23:39 < nsh> as in, the cells in my body aren't aware that i have a mind
23:39 < nsh> hmm
23:39 < nsh> "If by agency you mean a single intentionality, sensitive center, or dominant "I," then no, collective holons do not have agency, in my opinion."
23:40 < nsh> can understand, but it's still assumed
23:41 < nsh> what are right-hand holons?
23:41 < urgen> is that a wilber term?
23:41 < nsh> yeah
23:41 < urgen> let me see...
23:41 < urgen> he's building this transpersonal model
23:42 < nsh> mm
23:42 < urgen> it has four directions...
23:42 < nsh> yeah
23:42 < urgen> looking for a map
23:42 < nsh> http://www.imprint.co.uk/Wilber.htm
23:43 < nsh> diagram helps
23:43 < urgen> there are some graphics
23:44 * nsh nods
23:44 * nsh wonders what formop and conop are
23:44 < nsh> i gues fomulation/concept opperability
23:44 < urgen> ya
23:46 < nsh> so left seems to be interior and right exterior
23:48 < urgen> wilber is trying to apply / engage multi-modal perspectives
23:48 < nsh> Autopoiesis literally means "auto (self)-creation" (from the Greek: auto - αυτό for self- and poiesis - ποίησις for creation or production) and expresses a fundamental complementarity between structure and function. The term was originally introduced by Chilean biologists Francisco Varela and Humberto Maturana in 1973:
23:48 < urgen> and he calls this non-fixed core-ness the integral commons
23:48 < urgen> but he has poor representation from other non-fixed schools of thought
23:49 < nsh> how do you mean?
23:49 < urgen> probably mostly due to the whole thing still being very new to most people
23:49 < urgen> so he's working hard on creating a bridging language, but it ends up being an overly personal vocabulary
23:49 < urgen> he needs more peer review but there are not a lot of peers out there
23:50 < nsh> yeah
23:50 < nsh> or there are not many actualised peers
23:50 < nsh> plenty potential peers
23:50 < urgen> so it is evolving into a marketing program :-)
23:50 < urgen> which is kind of silly, kind of wrong, and a bit interesting
23:51 < nsh> hmm
23:51 < nsh> container shapes contents
23:52 < nsh> the delivery system for ideas generally undermines them
23:55 < nsh> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autopoiesis
23:55 < urgen> :-)
23:55 < urgen> illegal's favorite term
23:56 < nsh> cool
23:57 < nsh> so skandhas seem quite autopoietic
23:58 < urgen> :-) they are the very essence of formulation
23:58 < nsh> mmm
23:59 < nsh> 12 monkeys
23:59 < nsh> deporig
--- Log closed lun aoû 28 00:00:11 2006
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages