[luf-team] Re: i think people are getting fed up with concepts of certain thing (fwd)
ben lipkowitz
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 12:09:33 -0600
From: Eric Hunting <erich...@gmail.com>
Reply-To: luf-...@yahoogroups.com
To: luf-...@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [luf-team] Re: i think people are getting fed up with concepts of
certain thing
Not to burst your bubble, but the video link you referenced is not
showing a model of anything intended to be a prototype for anything
real. It's a model (and an excellent model, I must say) of the Flying
Sub from the science fiction TV series Voyage To The Bottom Of The Sea
-created by the same producers of such other TV SciFi classics as Lost
In Space, Land of the Giants, and Time Tunnel.
But I understand your points here. I agree with you that time is not
our friend when it comes to making an impression on people. The lack
of activity over an increasing span of time hurts our image and makes
our proposals less plausible as people become fed-up waiting to see
what happens. They share much of the blame, of course, for not
actively participating themselves in creating the future they desire,
but in the western culture people have come to expect things delivered
to them in a consumer package. The notion that they even can or should
do anything about the future besides wait is strange to many.
Something that, I think, well illustrates your point is Yanko Design. (http://www.yankodesign.com/
) Yanko Design is an industrial design web magazine that has become
both famous and infamous for showcasing a steady stream of incredibly
amazing product designs that just piss people off because they never
get made into real products. In fact, many of them are impossible on
the face of it. Contemporary designers can now come out of design
schools with no basic functional knowledge of science, engineering, or
technology and see no problem with producing designs that are
technically impossible because they consider reality-checking to be
someone else's job. It's gotten to where the editors of some
technology and gadget blogs will not repost articles from Yanko or
other design blogs because they -and their readers- are just fed-up
with the let-down of realizing they will never see these things in
reality. We've come to intuitively know that, for the most part, we
can never have good things if their realization is left up to
corporations and this teasing by industrial designers with modeling
programs and too much free time on their hands is becoming annoying.
Concept cars have come to symbolize not how innovative car companies
are but how hopelessly and annoyingly stupid, because we all know
nothing significant from these concepts has ever made it into any
actual car. Concept cars are like the fat cats playing a sick game of
keep-away with the rest of us, mocking our dreams. Maybe we should
coin a term for this; Future Fatigue.
We do need to do more than just talk about concepts. We need to
demonstrate them. Models are one useful way to do that -as Jacque
Fresco has so well demonstrated with the Venus Project- but that's
still often just illustration rather than demonstration. RC models are
often used as practical scale engineering prototypes that serve as a
proof of concept. But not much more than vehicles lend themselves to
this scale model approach to demonstration.
We can actually demonstrate much of the early concepts of TMP at a
modest scale right now. As I've pointed out repeatedly, we can
prototype much of the architecture of Aquarius right on land and give
people a fair impression of what living there looks like and how these
structures are built. We can do the same for excavated lunar and Mars
settlements. We can cultivate businesses out of the building
technologies we use for this. But this means people have to put up
some money, get their hands dirty, and actually make and do things,
and so far not enough have been willing. I've said this before -the
Aquarian seed is a 6 months to a year project we can start at any
time. We can experiment with its building systems in even smaller
scale with projects that might take a couple months. I know exactly
how everything that goes into it is made. I know were to get
everything it needs. There is no speculation here. No new and unproven
technology. It's all off-the-shelf. And we could demonstrate much of
this with projects on the scale of a houseboat, just like this;
http://www.arkiboat.com.au/index_files/Page953.htm
A half dozen people designed and built this houseboat in 9 months and
just recently it's become the basis of a new business. (apparently so
recently, the company web site is still something of a work in
progress - http://www.arkiboat.com.au/) This is very similar to the
sort of design one would employ with the same T-slot frame building
system I've proposed for the Aquarius seed. They are both at the same
basic level of fabrication skill. If just six people in the Australian
countryside can do this in 9 months, what's our excuse? (admittedly,
these folks had the one key advantage; being connected by personal
friendship or marriage) Unfortunately, it seems that until someone
manages to pull off something on, at least, this scale all by
themselves, it's unlikely anyone in this forum will take such a
suggestion even remotely seriously. I wish it were otherwise. I want
to make things! But no one else seems to share that passion.
Eric Hunting
erich...@gmail.com
> Re: i think people are getting fed up with concepts of certain thing
> Posted by: "steve" rwa...@yahoo.com rward8
> Tue Oct 6, 2009 12:32 pm (PDT)
>
>
>
> case in point
>
> flying sub
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkDhtNytMhE&feature=related
>
> now true it only a RV but that proof of concept
>
> does it look ugly/suckly yea but it works that what has my interest
> and would have investor interest as well.
------------------------------------
______________________________________________________________________
Don't forget to visit these LUF Sites!
LUF Team http://groups.yahoo.com/group/luf-team/
LUF Home http://www.luf.org/
LUF Website http://groups.yahoo.com/group/luf-website/
Other sites:
OTEC News http://www.otecnews.org/
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/luf-team/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/luf-team/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:luf-tea...@yahoogroups.com
mailto:luf-team-f...@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
luf-team-u...@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Paul D. Fernhout
> [snip]
> But I understand your points here. I agree with you that time is not
> our friend when it comes to making an impression on people. The lack
> of activity over an increasing span of time hurts our image and makes
> our proposals less plausible as people become fed-up waiting to see
> what happens. They share much of the blame, of course, for not
> actively participating themselves in creating the future they desire,
> but in the western culture people have come to expect things delivered
> to them in a consumer package. The notion that they even can or should
> do anything about the future besides wait is strange to many.
>
> schools with no basic functional knowledge of science, engineering, or
> technology and see no problem with producing designs that are
> technically impossible because they consider reality-checking to be
This is not to disagree with Eric (it would be great for people to be
building real stuff). Here were my grand grad plans from twenty+ years ago:
http://www.pdfernhout.net/princeton-graduate-school-plans.html
And they included this (from 1988):
"""
5. For research on self replicating habitats, it is essential to have
some space for materials research at the Forrestal campus. The research
effort would be aimed at extracting aluminum and other substances from
generic soil. This project will take two years and cost $200,000. Various
materials companies like ALCOA might fund this, along with possibly EPRI or
DOE, since this system would use a lot of power. This project could be
integrated into the new Materials Science Program research agenda.
6. For research on the closed biosphere aspect of self-replicating
habitats, Princeton needs a Biosphere II like test facility. (Biosphere II
is a 2 acre terrarium like project going on in Arizona funded at thirty
million to explore closed life support systems. Eight scientists will live
in it for two years.) A few large Plexiglas covered geodesic domes should be
built at Forrestal campus nearby the extraction facility. This would cost
about $300,000 and would take a year. Issues to be explore would be
environment/habitat energy transfer, construction methods and costs, air and
water quality, maintenance, etc. A related issue would be to make these
structures earthquake and disaster resistant. This should turn into an
ongoing biosphere III project at Princeton within three years, involving
faculty and students from Biology, MolyBio, Civil Engineering, and Energy
and Environmental Science. EPA, NSF, and FEMA should fund this.
"""
I still think those two are good ideas, but they are still expensive, as
well as dangerous. Although as you (fenn) have said: "most manufacturing
processes are inherently dangerous without knowledge and safety precautions."
But I'm thinking simulation is a better next step, and it was one of the
things I listed, because it is easier, especially for some random group of
people on the web, not near each other physically. Many real industrial
products are designed in simulation first using finite element analysis and
a variety of other analysis tools to simulate how things behave under load
or use.
I'm not saying this is as good as building real stuff. But it is easy and
cheap. With a great simulated world, or sets of simulated worlds, even if
they were just text adventures or 2D maps or sets of interacting recipes,
http://www.kurtz-fernhout.com/oscomak/prototype.htm
we would be much further along than we are now. It would build momentum.
In the past, I've spent a lot of time thinking about the collecting aspect
of information, but it is really the simulating aspect that could drive that
and provide more excitement.
That's one reason we built our garden simulator, with my seeing it as a step
to simulating space habitats, as well as having on-Earth value:
http://www.gardenwithinsight.com/
Unfortunately, after more than six person years of work on our own, we got
burned-out emotionally and financially, and ended up having to work for
others for many years and lost that momentum.
But, imagine "gardening" involved spending US$300,000 and about several
person-years of labor like that Arkiboat probably does to build. I might be
a better first step to use computers to simulate the details, right? And a
free simulation could be shared with everyone. As great as the Arkiboat
looks, I'm never any time soon going to get to touch one. But and Arkiboat
simulation, I could download right now and play with.
Ideally, you want both, the simulations for design and communications, and
the physical things to validate and give confidence. But for people with
more free time than money and shop/land space and materials, simulation is a
place to start.
=== Towards some simulations
By the way, had Princeton permitted me to work towards that project instead
of essentially expelling me for being heretical, :-) the web might have
been invented at Princeton. :-) From my plans above: "Beyond these
individual tools, we need a good system for allowing multiple people to work
together on a project on the IRIS's (or across campus). This entails
producing workgroup software for managing shared databases, electronic mail,
and other communications and coordination systems. To get into this will
involve at least a year and probably $50,000. Various electronic mail
companies and software houses, as well as major companies and governmental
agencies may be interested in funding various parts of this. Suggestions are
Dupont, Da Vinci Systems, Apple, IBM, DEC, NASA, and Ford."
Contrast:
"CERN - Where the web was born"
http://public.web.cern.ch/Public/en/About/Web-en.html
"Tim Berners-Lee, a scientist at CERN, invented the World Wide Web (WWW) in
1989. The Web was originally conceived and developed to meet the demand for
automatic information sharing between scientists working in different
universities and institutes all over the world. CERN is not an isolated
laboratory, but rather a focus for an extensive community that now includes
about 60 countries and about 8000 scientists. Although these scientists
typically spend some time on the CERN site, they usually work at
universities and national laboratories in their home countries. Good contact
is clearly essential. The basic idea of the WWW was to merge the
technologies of personal computers, computer networking and hypertext into a
powerful and easy to use global information system."
See also:
"Freeman Dyson; University of Michigan 2005; Winter Commencement Address"
http://www.umich.edu/news/index.html?DysonWinCom05
"You students are proud possessors of the PhD, or some similar token of
academic respectability. You have endured many years of poverty and hard
labor. Now you are ready to go to your just rewards, to a place on the
tenure track of the university, or on the board of directors of a company.
And here am I, a person who never had a PhD myself and fought all my life
against the PhD system and everything it stands for. Of course I fought in
vain. The grip of the PhD system on academic life is tighter today than it
has ever been. But I will continue to fight against it for as long as I
live. In short I am proud to be heretic. Unfortunately, I am an old heretic.
Old heretics don't cut much ice. What the world needs is young heretics. I
am hoping that one or two of you may fill that role. So I will tell you
briefly about three heresies that I'm promoting. ..."
Referenced here, in a long list of links I've put together about seeing
beyond the mythology of schooling (even college and grad school):
http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/2009-October/005379.html
Dyson was one of the few people around who encouraged me, though he was next
door at Institute for Advanced Study, not at the university.
Still, the web came out of the people who were already getting boatloads of
money to build a really big thing of metal and concrete (at CERN), where a
little could get siphoned off, rather than some lowly grad student trying to
raise funds while fighting other battles about intellectual freedom as well
as about good teaching. Still, sure, if I could go back in time with what I
know now emotionally and socially and politically (even not technically), I
might have had a lot more success.
For example, rather than that long list of plans, I'd just say, I want to
work on "simulations of efficient communities" or some such thing that would
have fit in with the current dogma of the people who were otherwise helping
bring about the next profitable financial crisis and pyramid scheme. :-)
The important thing is that "efficiency" is in the eye of the beholder, as
far as relating to your purpose or values. If you want systems to be
intrinsically secure or mutually secure or capable of exponential growth or
not incurring pollution costs and so on, each of those things can be
described as "efficiency" in a way that Civil Engineering and Operations
Research faculty who claimed to be all about "efficiency" might have readily
been able to grasp. :-)
Anyway, I mentioned there about moving to Lisp, by the way, relating to a
concurrent thread on this list on Lisp and Tilera. :-)
Again from there:
"""
7. We need Common Lisp on the IRIS's. LISP provides the immediacy of APL
but enjoys more widespread support. The cost per station is $1750 for Common
Lisp from Franz Inc. The Princeton Computer Center should be able to get a
site license for around $10,000. Lisp will need someone half time to support
it, meaning about $15,000 a year indefinitely. The computer center should
pay for this. If not, the cost could be bundled under other projects.
8. Using LISP, I would like to develop a graphical general purpose
network analysis tool. Networks can be used in everything from architecture
to robotics to system design. Princeton should lead the way in producing one
tool that has many interacting subparts that allow anyone who can conceive
of a network approach to a problem to be able to readily build and use the
network in seconds to minutes. This tool will take two years to develop,
involve several students and faculty, and probably cost around $300,000 in
computer time and stipends, etc. I am currently talking with the T.C.
Howard, president of Synergetics, an architecture and engineering consulting
firm originally started by Buckminster Fuller. His company has much
expertise on the use of network analysis in building structures, as well as
in general design issues in engineering. We have discussed a SBIR to the NSF
that would involve me at Princeton developing a few parts of this network
tool and then using it to encode his expert knowledge about reticulated
structure design and engineering project management. I have also talked with
someone who is partner in a company that uses networks for personnel
management. He might be interested in funding some work on that, or in a
personal interest of his in using networks to represent biological ecosphere
relations. Conceivably, as per the above, this project could be funded by a
variety of small sources all kicking in around $20,000 to get their module
written and in use. The NSF, DOT, EPA, and specific companies could all be
approached. We must also integrate George Miller's Wordnet into this system.
Network modules: Structural, Management, Project Management, WordNet,
Ecosystem, Design, Hypertext, Communications, Transportation, Community
Interactions, Factory Work Row, Expert Systems, Chemical Processes, etc.
"""
But I'm Mr. "Toothless, Burned Out, and Beaten to the Ground by the Big Old
Professory Bullies and then dealing with decades of the consequences guy",
even if I try to put on a good clown face. :-) Like Nelson Mandela. :-)
And even as I see now how I could have been more successful with these ideas
even then. And, there were a few professory types who were emotionally and
intellectually supportive to some degree, so, it's not like all profs were
bad. They just did not understand what I've slowly learned over twenty years
of thinking about where this all went so wrong and the system they were as
trapped in as I was. :-)
Maybe someone else with more enthusiasm and optimism can do this? Just like
Nathan started this group, not me? :-) I had put some code here:
http://code.google.com/p/openvirgle/
Still, I was thinking yesterday of putting some more energy back into this,
which I started and got distracted by (had a kid) back in 2002:
http://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/simulchaord
"This project is mainly to develop simulations of chaordic organizations,
processes, and systems under the GPL license, with "chaordic" used as
defined by Dee Hock at http://www.chaordic.org and in his book "Birth of the
Chaordic Age"."
But that's a big climb to get people interested, when we have this mailing
list already.
It's all so much easier and cheaper to think about simulation and networks
now, with free software, the internet, the WWW (thanks Tim, you did have a
bigger vision there), and cheap computers, and a changing social ethic of
freedom and sustainability, lots of interested people, and so on. It can't
be as difficult as a quarter century ago.
Anyway, we need to figure out some way to work together on this in a variety
of ways. :-)
We had Bryan's start of "open manufacturing dev" (and I complained about
breaking the links between theory and practice) but maybe it would have been
better as a Google code project?
So, after a little reflection, and trepidation, I just made one. :-)
http://code.google.com/p/openmanufacturing/
"This is a companion project to the Open Manufacturing mailing list, as a
place to develop simulations about sustainable societies and their
associated knowledge as a semantic web."
I put the overall license as LGPL, using Mercurial for source control, with
a CC BY-SA license for content (same content license as Wikipedia these
days). I can change the defaults on it still, or change the description. The
only other choice for version control was SVN; I've never used mercurial,
but I thought Bryan and fenn would like it more. :-)
Anyway, so now we have a place holder for programs and digital content
related to open manufacturing, even if we have no collective shop space,
land, or hardware.
Presumably, one can put stuff under other compatible open source licenses
there (assuming it doesn't violate the Google Terms of Service). I just
picked LGPL as a default because it lets you use libraries in most any other
licensing.
I'm thinking of this more as a collection of attempts at simulation projects
or semantic web information management stuff than just one grand unified
project. So, sort of a public "open manufacturing playground". Maybe I'll
put some Clojure Lisp experiments up, and Pointrel stuff, or whatever, but
don't feel like that should restrict anybody from playing with different
approaches. Eventually a few of us FOSS termites will put a couple of grains
of sand together, and it will hopefully get exciting enough for others to
stigmergically build from there up to a termite mound's worth of simulations
and content.
Anybody who wants to be on the code project, and really plans to write code
or add semantic content (even to the wiki there), send me an email. But you
can do stuff in mercurial locally and I can add you later if you want to
publish your stuff.
I added Bryan and fenn and Eric and Nathan as a courtesy. I put Nathan as an
owner, too, Nathan; that's just in case I get hit by a bus, please leave the
shiny programmy buttons alone for now if you don't know what they do. :-) I
can remove any of you guys if you want. Or bump you up to admins if you
really need to have that at the start (but you all are busy with many other
things).
I'm trusting you all to avoid too much controversial content in the short
term. (I'm looking at you, Bryan. :-)
Related paraphrase:
"The Fifth Element"
http://www.imsdb.com/scripts/Fifth-Element,-The.html
"Sorry, open manufacturing, but I only got one point left on my license and
I gotta get to the garage!"
I put the logo Bryan made on it, which shrunk surprisingly nicely,
considering the text on it.
Anyway, the project is here:
http://code.google.com/p/openmanufacturing/
To quote Bruce Willis: "This is so stupid." :-)
"Fifth Element: Cab Chase"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCaomvjPIok
Of course: "If at first an idea doesn't seem absurd, then there is no hope
for it. (Albert Einstein)"
--Paul Fernhout
http://www.pdfernhout.net/
http://www.beyondajoblessrecovery.org/
Bryan Bishop
> So, after a little reflection, and trepidation, I just made one. :-)
> http://code.google.com/p/openmanufacturing/
> "This is a companion project to the Open Manufacturing mailing list, as a
> place to develop simulations about sustainable societies and their
> associated knowledge as a semantic web."
I played around with git2hg, but it didn't work too well for me. Some
error, something to track down. Anyway, feel free to import skdb,
that's what it's there for.
http://adl.serveftp.org/skdb.git
code view on web: http://adl.serveftp.org/skdb/
small wiki entry: http://adl.serveftp.org/dokuwiki/skdb
Paul D. Fernhout
I was thinking of "open manufacturing" as a code project should be more
focused on new simulations, as well as supporting new content like
manufacturing recipes in some information management context, with links to
other tools they depended on.
I see this as trying to build momentum in the direction Eric outlined by
having simulation toys related to open manufacturing that we or others can
download and play with. The simulations then in turn motivating further
knowledge collection and organization, which in turn could feed back to
better simulations in new directions.
So, for example, let's say someone put in a simulation of interacting agents
that formed some sort of simulated economy making simulated things in
relation to some simulated demand. With a simple GUI. Maybe even something
not much more complex that the Clojure ant simulation at the start.
"Clojure Ant Simulation links"
http://www.lisptoronto.org/past-meetings/2009-05-clojure-ants-demo
http://blip.tv/file/812787
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.lisp/msg/a86c91091ae16970
Then we'd start asking, how do we represent what they want to make? Or the
dependencies between stuff they want and what we give them in the
simulation? This gives us a basis for bringing our aspirations down to very
specific terms that people can comment on (like, "what do I see the
simulation doing? Do I like that?").
Sure, if you see SKDB as helping with that, and are working towards an open
manufacturing simulation that uses it, check it in. :-) Maybe SKDB could be
the core for that, I see you have done lots of work with it since I last
looked at it, including files that look related to GUI support and so on.
Still, there is a 100MB limit for source (you can ask for more at some
point, but I'm not sure what happens), so for active development of SKDB,
I'd suggest it might want its own project (like the Pointrel system is in a
project at SourceForge). If you just want to mirror SKDB, that might be a
better option as well. For example, you have a picture (dependency-tree.svg)
that is 115K. A few iterations of that and similar graphics for other trees
could start adding up pretty fast as bitmaps (maybe the source is smaller?).
You have a vision for SKDB, so, you'll figure out what's best. Maybe SKDB
might go through a stage of life where it becomes a simulation?
Anyway, I don't want to preclude anything at this point. Those are just my
first reactions, to focus on simulations and link to supporting tools. I
just wanted to do *something* to address Eric's point. Even if it was "so
stupid" as Corbin Dallas would say. :-)
And starting a code project was "free" (like a puppy. :-)
Buying Jacque Fresco's 21 acres in FL so we can all hang out there and make
cool physical prototypes of open manufacturing ideas would cost US$650K plus
upkeep and airfair. :-)
http://www.flalandsale.com/
"21 + acre park-like paradise, lush landscaping consisting of many ponds,
lakes, hundreds of palm trees, various fruit and flowering trees, many large
old, oak trees, two bridges and a large deck cantilevered over a lake. Ten
buildings; hurricane resistant, fire resistant, termite resistant, concrete
and steel buildings, 5 are domes, 3 homes, 1 office, 2 equipped shops, very
large spa, 4 wells, 3 septic tanks."
Wish I could buy it and keep it up, even if just to be a public memorial to
Jacque Fresco's and Roxanne Meadows' inspired contribution to humanity, but
better to be a living growing research institute. But I can't. :-(
Makes me feel like when Skylab and Mir were deorbited instead of being
boosted as permanent memorials. :-(
Bryan Bishop
> Bryan Bishop wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Paul D. Fernhout wrote:
>>> So, after a little reflection, and trepidation, I just made one. :-)
>>> http://code.google.com/p/openmanufacturing/
>>> "This is a companion project to the Open Manufacturing mailing list, as a
>>> place to develop simulations about sustainable societies and their
>>> associated knowledge as a semantic web."
>>
>> I played around with git2hg, but it didn't work too well for me. Some
>> error, something to track down. Anyway, feel free to import skdb,
>> that's what it's there for.
>>
>> http://adl.serveftp.org/skdb.git
>> code view on web: http://adl.serveftp.org/skdb/
>> small wiki entry: http://adl.serveftp.org/dokuwiki/skdb
>
> I was thinking of "open manufacturing" as a code project should be more
> focused on new simulations, as well as supporting new content like
> manufacturing recipes in some information management context, with links to
> other tools they depended on.
How is this different from skdb? I don't see the differences, other
than "This is Paul's project" which automagically makes it more
legitimate? I don't understand what's going on here. Manufacturing
recipes have always been the intent of skdb.
how to install pythonOCC:
http://adl.serveftp.org/dokuwiki/pythonocc
or http://adl.serveftp.org/skdb/doc/compile_pythonOCC
http://pythonocc.org/
> I see this as trying to build momentum in the direction Eric outlined by
> having simulation toys related to open manufacturing that we or others can
> download and play with. The simulations then in turn motivating further
> knowledge collection and organization, which in turn could feed back to
> better simulations in new directions.
So have simulations. To be fair, though, I have noticed that different
people mean different things when they say simulation. Sometimes they
mean CFD, other times they mean simple ODEs, higher-order models,
lower-order models, approximations, kinematics, mechanics, dynamics,
etc. The term is loaded-- just say what you mean.
> So, for example, let's say someone put in a simulation of interacting agents
> that formed some sort of simulated economy making simulated things in
> relation to some simulated demand. With a simple GUI. Maybe even something
> not much more complex that the Clojure ant simulation at the start.
Be my guest. There are some nifty ODE solvers you can call in, if you want.
> Then we'd start asking, how do we represent what they want to make? Or the
That was the original problem that skdb started solving from the
beginning. There are "parts" and "components". The two most popular
ways of representing a 3D model of the part is usually either (1) a
boundary representation (like with bezier curves) or (2) a mesh, and
sometimes (3) CSG. But this information isn't enough-- so this is
where the idea of metadata came from in skdb. You really should try it
out, Paul.
> dependencies between stuff they want and what we give them in the
Yes, that's also been given some thoughts, you should try the tools!
> Sure, if you see SKDB as helping with that, and are working towards an open
> manufacturing simulation that uses it, check it in. :-) Maybe SKDB could be
> the core for that, I see you have done lots of work with it since I last
> looked at it, including files that look related to GUI support and so on.
Have you ever actually used it?
> better option as well. For example, you have a picture (dependency-tree.svg)
> that is 115K. A few iterations of that and similar graphics for other trees
> could start adding up pretty fast as bitmaps (maybe the source is smaller?).
Just-by-the-way, SVG is not a bitmap.
> You have a vision for SKDB, so, you'll figure out what's best. Maybe SKDB
> might go through a stage of life where it becomes a simulation?
Maybe one day you will actually try it out?
Paul D. Fernhout
> On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 12:39 PM, Paul D. Fernhout wrote:
>> Bryan Bishop wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Paul D. Fernhout wrote:
>>>> So, after a little reflection, and trepidation, I just made one. :-)
>>>> http://code.google.com/p/openmanufacturing/
>>>> "This is a companion project to the Open Manufacturing mailing list, as a
>>>> place to develop simulations about sustainable societies and their
>>>> associated knowledge as a semantic web."
>>> I played around with git2hg, but it didn't work too well for me. Some
>>> error, something to track down. Anyway, feel free to import skdb,
>>> that's what it's there for.
>>>
>>> http://adl.serveftp.org/skdb.git
>>> code view on web: http://adl.serveftp.org/skdb/
>>> small wiki entry: http://adl.serveftp.org/dokuwiki/skdb
>> I was thinking of "open manufacturing" as a code project should be more
>> focused on new simulations, as well as supporting new content like
>> manufacturing recipes in some information management context, with links to
>> other tools they depended on.
>
> How is this different from skdb? I don't see the differences, other
> than "This is Paul's project" which automagically makes it more
> legitimate?
Well, legitimacy tends to emerge over time from action or effects. You're on
the committer list, so you can check stuff in, along with five people. I
said a general direction based on Eric's comment of "simulation". I offered
to add people who want to put in code. Nathan is also an administrator.
The project has not even had an hour to be talked about, so it is a little
early to say whose project it is.
> I don't understand what's going on here. Manufacturing
> recipes have always been the intent of skdb.
But not simulation?
As I said, if SKDB can support simulations, great.
> how to install pythonOCC:
> http://adl.serveftp.org/dokuwiki/pythonocc
> or http://adl.serveftp.org/skdb/doc/compile_pythonOCC
> http://pythonocc.org/
>
>> I see this as trying to build momentum in the direction Eric outlined by
>> having simulation toys related to open manufacturing that we or others can
>> download and play with. The simulations then in turn motivating further
>> knowledge collection and organization, which in turn could feed back to
>> better simulations in new directions.
>
> So have simulations. To be fair, though, I have noticed that different
> people mean different things when they say simulation. Sometimes they
> mean CFD, other times they mean simple ODEs, higher-order models,
> lower-order models, approximations, kinematics, mechanics, dynamics,
> etc. The term is loaded-- just say what you mean.
Sure, there are lots of simulations. Whatever people want. It was supposed
to be open ended and playful.
>> So, for example, let's say someone put in a simulation of interacting agents
>> that formed some sort of simulated economy making simulated things in
>> relation to some simulated demand. With a simple GUI. Maybe even something
>> not much more complex that the Clojure ant simulation at the start.
>
> Be my guest. There are some nifty ODE solvers you can call in, if you want.
We each focus on what interests us. If simulations don't interest you,
that's just the way it is.
>> Then we'd start asking, how do we represent what they want to make? Or the
>
> That was the original problem that skdb started solving from the
> beginning. There are "parts" and "components". The two most popular
> ways of representing a 3D model of the part is usually either (1) a
> boundary representation (like with bezier curves) or (2) a mesh, and
> sometimes (3) CSG. But this information isn't enough-- so this is
> where the idea of metadata came from in skdb. You really should try it
> out, Paul.
How will it help me write simulations?
>> dependencies between stuff they want and what we give them in the
>
> Yes, that's also been given some thoughts, you should try the tools!
There are lots of ways to model stuff.
>> Sure, if you see SKDB as helping with that, and are working towards an open
>> manufacturing simulation that uses it, check it in. :-) Maybe SKDB could be
>> the core for that, I see you have done lots of work with it since I last
>> looked at it, including files that look related to GUI support and so on.
>
> Have you ever actually used it?
I've looked at earlier stuff. But, you need to build a case for people to
try it rather than just asking them to try it. Why should I use it for
simulations? I'm not saying maybe I should not, I'm just sincerely asking
you to make some sort of case for that.
>> better option as well. For example, you have a picture (dependency-tree.svg)
>> that is 115K. A few iterations of that and similar graphics for other trees
>> could start adding up pretty fast as bitmaps (maybe the source is smaller?).
>
> Just-by-the-way, SVG is not a bitmap.
Good point, though I said picture at first. It must have bitmaps in it
though to be so big?
>> You have a vision for SKDB, so, you'll figure out what's best. Maybe SKDB
>> might go through a stage of life where it becomes a simulation?
>
> Maybe one day you will actually try it out?
Again, build the case for what you want to do and how specifically you want
others to help.
I could say the same on lots of software I wrote. I checked in a lot of
infrastructure into the OpenVirgle list you had no interest in trying then
(Mike at least tried it). But, I did not try to force you to try it. If it
is not of enough interest to you, that is just the way it is. I accept that.
Last year, I set up the OSCOMAK site, and paid thousands of dollars for a
dedicated web server. Probably stupid, especially for someone without health
insurance, but I did it. And people got confused because you went around and
on lots of pages put basically "This is the same as SKDB" everywhere. Even
as I was happy to let people know that SKDB was another project that existed
and maybe people should look at that. I eventually consolidate that SKDB
stuff mostly to one page on SKDB.
http://www.oscomak.net/wiki/SKDB
That wasn't the biggest reason that website flopped, but it contributed
negatively to that.
Now, I set up this Google Code project (for free :-), and you say, it is the
same as SKDB. :-) And I should switch to SKDB. :-)
OK, let's say it was the same, and I should start building on SKDB, even
though SKDB doesn't seem to have a simulation aspect. :-)
Then as a potential SKDB user and contributor, I just don't understand why
you don't just make an SKDB project at Google Groups and an SKDB discussion
list and ask people to join it? That's not to say not to be on this list or
not to be on the project I just started and added you to, nor is it to say I
would join such a list right away, it's just a serious question. Why not
just make a list and a project and try to attract people directly to it if
you have a specific vision and feel it is compelling? And then why not keep
telling people here and other places about all the great progress it is
making with SKDB, and have people adopt it because they see a lot is going
on and it would be useful for lots of what people want to do?
This question is a variant of the same stuff you said (legitimately I think)
about another group that formed that was mostly about promoting open project
but had not much stuff of their own and was just a month or so old then.
OSCOMAK and the Pointrel project have been ongoing for more than twenty
years in dribs and drabs. I'm not saying that means they need to succeed, or
even that yours or other projects might not be better, but that is the
context in which I see things.
Anyway, as I see it, SKDB is not about simulation. I've always wanted to do
simulation as part of this stuff, and have written related simulations, and
is was outlined as part of OSCOMAK from the start.
Anyway, I don't want to be disagreeable, and I want to cooperate with you,
but somehow I feel like I've been down this road before.
Still friends? :-)
--Paul Fernhout
http://www.pdfernhout.net/
Paul D. Fernhout
> Bryan Bishop wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 12:39 PM, Paul D. Fernhout wrote:
>>> Bryan Bishop wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 10:04 AM, Paul D. Fernhout wrote:
>>>>> So, after a little reflection, and trepidation, I just made one. :-)
>>>>> http://code.google.com/p/openmanufacturing/
>>>>> "This is a companion project to the Open Manufacturing mailing list, as a
>>>>> place to develop simulations about sustainable societies and their
>>>>> associated knowledge as a semantic web."
>>>> I played around with git2hg, but it didn't work too well for me. Some
>>>> error, something to track down. Anyway, feel free to import skdb,
>>>> that's what it's there for.
>>>>
>>>> http://adl.serveftp.org/skdb.git
>>>> code view on web: http://adl.serveftp.org/skdb/
>>>> small wiki entry: http://adl.serveftp.org/dokuwiki/skdb
>>> I was thinking of "open manufacturing" as a code project should be more
>>> focused on new simulations, as well as supporting new content like
>>> manufacturing recipes in some information management context, with links to
>>> other tools they depended on.
>> How is this different from skdb? I don't see the differences, other
>> than "This is Paul's project" which automagically makes it more
>> legitimate?
I've thought some more on this issue that Bryan raised, as well as looked at
all the great progress he has made with SKDB (sincerely meant, his current
stuff shows a lot of good and hard work), and I think I've been unfair here.
Plus, I did nag him a few times to try the code I put into the OpenVirgle
project. :-)
Plus, I got some good advice from Nathan about this.
The fact is, Bryan with SKDB *has* showed a lot more progress in terms of
engaging with the substance of manufacturing knowledge representation lately
than I have. So, he really deserves more credit and legitimacy here.
Also, no one else here has expressed much interest in the code project. I
was really hoping it would be a fun thing. But here from the start it is
not. Which is a bad way for anything to start. Certainly, my feelings about
it are no longer in relation to fun.
I'd delete the project and let is start again if people here wanted it
again, but when you delete these projects I don't think you can reuse the name.
So, I changed the summary to:
"Open manufacturing"
And the description to:
"This is a companion project to the Open Manufacturing mailing list."
And the labels to just:
"Manufacturing"
And I added Bryan (together with Nathan already there) as the owners (same
as for owners and moderators on this list). I removed any other committers,
who can rejoin later, because I don't want them to feel like they are seen
as endorsing anything.
So, now the project can be whatever we on the list decide it wants to be
down the road. I'm sure it might come in handy at some point. Or it can sit
there empty if no one else here thinks is is useful. Or Nathan can delete it
if he decides it is a nuisance (not that it takes much upkeep, but I guess
it could get vandalized).
And I also think I should follow my own advice to Bryan, and have some
separate project related to the ideas I've been thinking about lately
(especially as regards simulation), and report back on any progress there
periodically to this list, and see what develops. If I do that, I'll let
people know.
ben lipkowitz
> The fact is, Bryan with SKDB *has* showed a lot more progress in terms of
> engaging with the substance of manufacturing knowledge representation lately
> than I have. So, he really deserves more credit and legitimacy here.
hey um, while we're patting ourselves on the back and making public shows
of praise and attribution, i'd like to point out that I actually wrote
most of the code and came up with most of the ideas for skdb (both goal
and implementation)
it's the whole bucky fuller/ken snelson thing again i guess, and i don't
really know how to resolve it without devoting massive amounts of energy
(which i don't have) to promoting myself (which i find distasteful)
any ideas on fixing this?
> Also, no one else here has expressed much interest in the code project. I
> was really hoping it would be a fun thing. But here from the start it is
> not. Which is a bad way for anything to start. Certainly, my feelings about
> it are no longer in relation to fun.
my experience so far is that even with marvelous tools like wikis and
distributed version control, it's really hard to get people to cooperate
on the same idea; everyone feels like the other guy is doing things all
wrong or stealing the glory or is somehow rude and offensive (even if they
don't mean to be)
familiarity breeds contempt. this line of reasoning may be why i want to
go roam the wilderness for a couple months, just to get away from my life
for a while; maybe i'll appreciate it more.
-fenn
ben lipkowitz
> it's the whole bucky fuller/ken snelson thing again i guess, and i don't
> really know how to resolve it without devoting massive amounts of energy
> (which i don't have) to promoting myself (which i find distasteful)
>
> http://www.bfi.org/node/590
oops that was the wrong link
the right link:
http://www.grunch.net/snelson/rmoto.html
"""
Whenever an inventor defends his authorship the issue invariably turns out
to be important only to the author himself, to others it is trivia. Maybe
you're acquainted with the tale of Buckminster Fuller and me, but I'd
like, somehow, to set the record straight, especially because Mr. Fuller,
during his long and impressive career, was strong on publicity and, for
his own purposes, successfully led the public to believe tensegrity was
his discovery. He spoke and wrote about it in such a way as to confuse the
issue even though he never, in so many words, claimed to have been its
inventor. He talked about it publicly as "my tensegrity" as he also spoke
of "my octet truss". But since he rarely accredited anyone else for
anything, none of this is all that surprising. What Bucky did, however,
was to coin the word tensegrity as he did octet truss and geodesic dome,
dymaxion, etc., a powerful strategy for appropriating an idea. If it's his
name, isn't it his idea?
"""
I don't think these sorts of "ownership" issues are going to go away any
time soon, especially if we switch to some kind of Whuffie economy.
Sam Putman
>
> the right link:
> http://www.grunch.net/snelson/rmoto.html
>
> time soon, especially if we switch to some kind of Whuffie economy.
>
This simply isn't correct.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tensegrity
"In 1948, artist Kenneth Snelson produced his innovative 'X-Piece'
after artistic explorations at Black Mountain College (where
Buckminster Fuller was lecturing) and elsewhere. Some years later, the
term 'tensegrity' was coined by Fuller, who is best known for his
geodesic domes."
There's your Whuffie right there. If Bryan tries to jack your
Wikipedia glory, which I doubt, set the record straight and have a
flamefest on the talk page. :-D
Cheer,
-Sam
Bryan Bishop
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 12:40 PM, ben lipkowitz wrote:
>> the right link:
>> http://www.grunch.net/snelson/rmoto.html
>>
>> I don't think these sorts of "ownership" issues are going to go away any
>> time soon, especially if we switch to some kind of Whuffie economy.
>
> Wikipedia glory, which I doubt, set the record straight and have a
> flamefest on the talk page. :-D
fenn has been bringing this issue up every once in a while for the
past few months, and I feel bad, even though I don't know how to
handle this. I write a lot of emails, and I like to talk about my pet
projects, so I talk about "my project", but really it's "our project",
but really really it's "whoever wants to commit to it". So the
question becomes, how should I talk about it? Recently I have been
prefixing any introduction to it, to a person, as "ben and I have been
working on..", but the damage is already done, and Paul, om, diybio
seem to think that since I talk the most about it, I "own" it, but in
reality, I just spam everyone more than fenn does. He's over there in
the other room cringing each time I send out an email.
Paul D. Fernhout
Thanks for the comments.
I know how you feel sometimes. :-)
Of course, it can be hard to get away by going to roam in the wilderness
when you live in the largest wilderness park in the USA (the Adirondack
Park). :-) My dream of getting away from it all is to spend some time in a
town or city, especially around a university. :-)