Identity
Filter
Visitors
(1) (1) (0) (0) (0) (0) (1) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (0) (61) (0) (0) (0)Subscribers
(0) (0)
Links
Blogs
Democracy
Search
top-politics
-
08/06/06 18:29
[top-politics] 20060607#parlement
Log opened mer jun 07 00:00:13 2006- 01:35
!illegale [n=illegale@cmung4142.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [] - 02:31
!M4RkU5 (Pocket IRC 1.1 UNREGISTERED) [n=pocketir@83-131-76-52.adsl.net.t-com.hr] has joined #parlement - 02:32
!crobih (irc.freenode.net) [n=illegale@cmung4142.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement - 02:32
!crobih is now known as illegale - 02:32 < M4RkU5> ola
- 02:32 < illegale> ma nemoguce
- 02:32 < M4RkU5> hehehe
- 02:32 < illegale> od kud ti ovdje?
- 02:32 < M4RkU5> upravo stigoh
- 02:33 < M4RkU5> prije sec
- 02:33 < illegale> sta ima sa wikijem
- 02:33 < illegale> jel se da srediti? onaj nas
- 02:33 < M4RkU5> sto bjese?
- 02:33 < illegale> logiranje
- 02:33 < illegale> ono sa jendim passom spike
- 02:34 < M4RkU5> aha, mislis da ti posaljem pass?
- 02:34 < illegale> ako je moguce da ide bez pasa
- 02:34 < illegale> ili da se bar moze logirat sa nickom
- 02:34 < illegale> useri spike
- 02:34 < M4RkU5> aha, ne znam moram pogledat…
- 02:34 < illegale> ovo bas nije najludje rjesenje
- 02:34 < illegale> nu, posalji pass za pocetak :)
- 02:34 < M4RkU5> ok, pogledat cu
- 02:34 < M4RkU5> budem
- 02:34 < illegale> sa ima?
- 02:35 < M4RkU5> eto marinela mi konfiscirala komp pa sam preo moba ;-)
- 02:35 < illegale> mda/
- 02:35 < M4RkU5> na ircu ;-)
- 02:35 < illegale> svasta :)
- 02:35 < M4RkU5> hehe
- 02:35 < M4RkU5> inace?
- 02:35 < illegale> ma sta da ti kazem
- 02:35 < illegale> nisam zadovoljan sa ekipom
- 02:36 < M4RkU5> top?
- 02:36 < illegale> sa
- 02:36 < illegale> da
- 02:36 < illegale> nema duha
- 02:36 < M4RkU5> zajebaju ha?
- 02:36 < M4RkU5> istina
- 02:36 < illegale> napiso u izvjeetaju da se vracam na tdz
- 02:36 < illegale> tiha patanj
- 02:36 < illegale> patnja
- 02:36 < M4RkU5> hehe
- 02:37 < illegale> sta cemo sa topom
- 02:37 < illegale> ?
- 02:37 < M4RkU5> imao sam danas ispit tako da nisam u toku
- 02:37 < M4RkU5> ima sta pametno
- 02:37 < M4RkU5> s njima mozemo svasta ali tesko
- 02:38 < M4RkU5> problem po meni je da nema grupnog duha
- 02:38 < M4RkU5> zajednistvo i sl
- 02:38 < M4RkU5> si tu?
- 02:38 < illegale> ops
- 02:38 < illegale> tu sam
- 02:38 < M4RkU5> ;-)
- 02:39 < illegale> gledam sta se dogadja
- 02:39 < M4RkU5> nesto si spominjao neku esp ekipu
- 02:39 < M4RkU5> u izvjestaju
- 02:39 < illegale> join esp
- 02:39 < illegale> prckaju nesto po nodovima i tim spikama
- 02:39 < illegale> nu, financiraju ih un spike
- 02:40 < illegale> UN spike
- 02:40 < M4RkU5> aha, bed
- 02:40 < illegale> pa mi to mirise na klasicnu ngo sprdacinu
- 02:40 < illegale> ali opet, na kanalu ih je 30tak
- 02:40 < M4RkU5> a kakvi su ovako na prvi pogled
- 02:40 < illegale> mozda se nesto moze nauciti od njih
- 02:40 < illegale> svasta
- 02:40 < illegale> moguce je naci pokoju vezicu
- 02:40 < illegale> ali opet, imaju zatvorenu grupu
- 02:41 < M4RkU5> hmm… kuzim
- 02:41 < illegale> imaju nekog sefa kojeg svi ispituju
- 02:41 < illegale> tipa zbog cega je grupa zatvorena?
- 02:41 < illegale> ha?
- 02:41 < illegale> i tako
- 02:41 < M4RkU5> pa cekaj kakko onda network
- 02:41 < illegale> od tih 30 ljudi, brijem da jedan vodi i placa ostale
- 02:41 < M4RkU5> ako imaju sefa
- 02:41 < illegale> furaju se na izradu networka
- 02:41 < illegale> ali financijranje je jasna stvar
- 02:42 < illegale> ko ima pare , ko radi, taj je sef
- 02:42 < M4RkU5> hmm… treba njima objasnit sto je to network ;-)
- 02:42 < illegale> ima puno nedorecenosti tmo
- 02:42 < illegale> tamo
- 02:42 < M4RkU5> kuzim
- 02:42 < illegale> neartikuliransot
- 02:42 < illegale> nu, ovaj freenode
- 02:42 < illegale> ima dosta chatova koji mogu biti interesantni
- 02:42 < M4RkU5> irc, dovb
- 02:42 < illegale> jesi li pogledao?
- 02:42 < M4RkU5> dobra stvar…
- 02:43 < M4RkU5> nisam stigao… rekoh ispit
- 02:43 < M4RkU5> nu bit ce vremena i za to
- 02:43 < illegale> ok
- 02:43 < illegale> kako je proslo?
- 02:43 < M4RkU5> intelektualno masturbiranje ;-)
- 02:43 < M4RkU5> teorija baza podataka
- 02:44 < illegale> ma i ja pitam gluspoti, kako bi proslo?
- 02:44 < illegale> :)
- 02:44 < M4RkU5> moram ja lagano, idem sutra doma na more pa nebi bilo lose malo odspavat
- 02:44 < M4RkU5> hehe
- 02:44 < illegale> ok, kada se vracas?
- 02:44 < illegale> trebalo bi sada isfurat wiki da na nesto lici, kuzis
- 02:44 < illegale> ovaj od topa
- 02:44 < M4RkU5> u petak vjerojatno no nisam 100% siguran
- 02:45 < illegale> ok, ja cu pokusat nesto izagitirati
- 02:45 < illegale> bumo se culi
- 02:45 < illegale> ydravpo
- 02:45 < M4RkU5> ok, znam… poceo sam radit na tome
- 02:45 < M4RkU5> btw. razmisljao sam da ubacime koncepte od drugih (ono s njihovih stranica) ali je malo bed da ih navlacimo
- 02:46 < M4RkU5> ok cut cemo se
- 02:46 < M4RkU5> laku noc i nedaj se ;-)
- 02:46
!M4RkU5 [n=pocketir@83-131-76-52.adsl.net.t-com.hr] has quit ["Pocket IRC 1.1 (http://pocketirc.com/) UNREGISTERED"] - 03:04
!illegale [n=illegale@cmung4142.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)] - 13:34
!mode/#parlement [-o echarp] by echarp - 16:52
!illegale (irc.freenode.net) [n=illegale@cmung718.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement - 17:03 < echarp> hello hello illegale
- 17:04 < echarp> illegale: how are you?
- 17:06 < illegale> hey!
- 17:06 < illegale> good, thanks!
- 17:06 < illegale> you?
- 17:07 < illegale> did lunch?
- 17:08 < echarp> of course
- 17:09 < echarp> it’s 17:10 here :)
- 17:09 < echarp> you’re waking up? :)
- 17:09 < illegale> nah
- 17:09 < illegale> just not have such time awarness
- 17:11 < echarp> the world is a big village, you are set on another meridian :)
- 17:12 < illegale> whats up?
- 17:13 < illegale> any recent visitors?
- 17:13 < illegale> yesterday i met Markus. havent talked to hi for a while
- 17:13 < echarp> yeap, I’ve seen the logs, all in a weird language! :)
- 17:14 < illegale> yes
- 17:14 < illegale> its easier to us
- 17:15 < echarp> I understand that
- 17:15 < illegale> we talked about motivation
- 17:15 < illegale> of group
- 17:15 < illegale> what to do to make it
- 17:15 < echarp> and how do you consider it…?
- 17:15 < illegale> is there sense actually to do it at all?
- 17:15 < illegale> maybe it is not time for it
- 17:16 < illegale> we all have some work to do
- 17:16 < echarp> I’m not sure there is enough focused energy :(
- 17:16 < illegale> I neglected Tiatkiv in this time
- 17:16 < illegale> yes
- 17:16 < echarp> but it is still a great idea none the less, just rather difficult to open up to the world
- 17:16 < illegale> supposed we should write what we are ready to do, what we are willing to do
- 17:16 < illegale> every single one of us
- 17:17 < illegale> to make one more step into trust
- 17:17 < illegale> network
- 17:17 < echarp> I consider it as a matter of goals
- 17:17 < illegale> how much is every single one of us ready to invest, if not why, if yes how
- 17:17 < echarp> me my goals is building tools, I’m a lego player at heart :)
- 17:18 < illegale> yet, are you willing to lego play for your pation, or for the pasion of the group and stuff
- 17:18 < illegale> can other relie on you stuff
- 17:18 < illegale> how much we can relyon each other
- 17:18 < illegale> in this very time of course
- 17:19 < illegale> it is not easy to do this stuff in a way these things are black boxes
- 17:19 < echarp> would ever TOP become a “construction/engineering” sort of things? :(
- 17:20 < illegale> ehat do you mean?
- 17:20 < echarp> TOP is a matter of principles and their marketing, isn’t it?
- 17:21 < echarp> do we envision tools? engineering?
- 17:21 < illegale> me personlay envison all infrastructure top needs
- 17:21 < illegale> and empowerment of it
- 17:22 < echarp> what kind of infrastructure do you have in mind?
- 17:22 < illegale> stuff that can make organisations proser by using top
- 17:22 < echarp> the required opened and transparent forums each TOPed organisation would be required to manage?
- 17:22 < illegale> decision making tools, procedures, licences
- 17:22 < echarp> those tools are interesting to me, yes :)
- 17:22 < illegale> everthin
- 17:23 < illegale> i know that :)
- 17:23 < illegale> yet, i found out that exact need is the best way to create clear focus of a group
- 17:23 < echarp> I’m into the idea of a democratically managed forum
- 17:23 < illegale> yet, what is democratically?
- 17:23 < illegale> majority rules or equality based?
- 17:23 < echarp> democratically => equality among participants
- 17:24 < illegale> free decision of every singe of us
- 17:24 < echarp> some sort of voting procedure
- 17:24 < illegale> than we completely agree :)
- 17:24 < echarp> I think we do yes
- 17:24 < illegale> what i find here important is pluralism
- 17:24 < illegale> if somebody wants to aproach sme organisation he has right to do it
- 17:25 < echarp> plurality is important, there are plenty of voting methods, let’s be open :)
- 17:25 < illegale> in this manner organisations with best protocols etc prosper, making others learn from tem more
- 17:25 < illegale> yes!
- 17:25 < illegale> what I find make no sense is this umbrella stuff, especially in this moment
- 17:25 < echarp> yet some of the most byzantine condorcet variations might be tough to implement ;)
- 17:26 < illegale> what>?
- 17:26 < echarp> an umbrella is just stupid, we all agree yes :)
- 17:26 < illegale> yeS!
- 17:26 < illegale> I am very glad to hear that!
- 17:26 < echarp> illegale: plurality is good, but implementations will sometimes be difficult :)
- 17:26 < illegale> Some people have opinon democracy is 50%+1
- 17:26 < illegale> yes
- 17:27 < echarp> I don’t envision personally implementing the weirdest voting schemes
- 17:27 < illegale> IMO, by learning and keeping in mind that condolidation is good is the way to go on
- 17:27 < illegale> if consolidation can not work, divsion is cool to
- 17:27 < illegale> yes?
- 17:27 < echarp> well, it is true that in a democracy, if 50%+1 do agree on some elements, they have more legitimacy than all others
- 17:27 < echarp> consolidation of?
- 17:28 < illegale> among people who join forces
- 17:28 < echarp> what do you have in mind? :)
- 17:28 < echarp> oh, yes, inter group organisation yes
- 17:28 < illegale> At joi ito sometghing happens!
- 17:28 < echarp> it is of much interest yes
- 17:29 < echarp> I don’t know, you sure that #joiito is really of interest?
- 17:29 < echarp> many people, yet not much happening
- 17:33 < illegale> nevertheless :)
- 17:34 < echarp> it’s a classic
- 17:34 < echarp> big interest, many people, fun, interest, energy, yet after a while, it fades out
- 17:34 < illegale> e, if you want to test some procedure, you need to legitimase it first
- 17:34 < echarp> the 15 minutes of glory so much talked about! :)
- 17:34 < illegale> I mean need for such
- 17:36 < echarp> scratch an itch or… make it so you will get all the girls! :)
- 17:36
!urgen (urgy) [i=urgy@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement - 17:36
!urgen (urgy) [i=urgy@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement - 17:36
!urgen (urgy) [i=urgy@c-67-188-71-51.hsd1.ca.comcast.net] has joined #parlement - 17:36 < urgen> I can move conversation here
- 17:36 < echarp> hello hello urgen, nice to meet you
- 17:36 < illegale> hey Urgen!
- 17:37 < echarp> very cool of you
- 17:37 < illegale> brb
- 17:37 < echarp> ( urgen: the conversation will be duplicated on the web site )
- 17:37 < urgen> ok
- 17:37 < urgen> logging is fine with me
- 17:37 < echarp> I guess, considering how important it is on #esp
- 17:37 < echarp> urgen: so, what kind of talk did you have with buridan?
- 17:38 < urgen> only philosophy
- 17:38 < urgen> I didn’t know any buridan history but noticed only he picked up on some ideas that I was expressing
- 17:38 < echarp> urgen: you’re not the philosphy guy who invented nomic, are you?
- 17:38 < urgen> no, tho he does come on irc from time to time
- 17:39 < echarp> hugely cool game
- 17:39 < echarp> though I’ve never played it, yet anyway
- 17:39 < illegale> what about it?
- 17:39 < urgen> I started studying automation of the negotiation of meaning around 1977
- 17:39 < illegale> what is a goal of nomic?
- 17:39 < echarp> illegale: to score points or to knot the game in an impossible way
- 17:39 < urgen> nomic is a study in rules that change rules
- 17:40 < echarp> urgen: semantics?
- 17:40 < illegale> ok
- 17:40 < urgen> semantics has become such the extended term these days…
- 17:40 < urgen> :-)
- 17:40 < illegale> can it help to us
- 17:40 < illegale> ?
- 17:40 < echarp> nomic is really a clever game, the kind of thing we all do when we lay out the rules of a game, yet here it is a game by itself
- 17:41 < echarp> it could maybe help with mark!!! :)
- 17:41 < illegale> lol
- 17:41 < urgen> it helps by showing a way for one to get direct experience of the importance of “loophole surfing”
- 17:41 < echarp> urgen: any time to spare on a little false dilemma sort of things?
- 17:41 < illegale> could play it sometimes
- 17:41 < illegale> at wow, for an example
- 17:41 < illegale> :)
- 17:41 < echarp> a guy who thinks he has found a logical loophole in human language
- 17:41 < urgen> we had a nomic bot on channel #bots ( different network ) for a while
- 17:42 < urgen> I may have some time, thanks
- 17:42 < illegale> cool
- 17:42 < echarp> ok, the sentence and idea is something along the lines of:
- 17:42 < urgen> logic has loopholes all by itself, let alone language :-)
- 17:43 < urgen> “multi-modal logic”
- 17:43 < echarp> “arguing against elitism is elitist” thus iconsistent
- 17:43 < urgen> I think logic would trump language
- 17:43 < echarp> same with “criticising authority requires authority”
- 17:43 < illegale> lol
- 17:43 < urgen> hmn ok, so you know “logical typing?”
- 17:43 < echarp> lejban sort of things?
- 17:44 < urgen> applying one class of rules to the wrong class will yield what looks like loopholes in language
- 17:44 < echarp> I mean loglan
- 17:44 < urgen> I don’t know loglan
- 17:44 < urgen> at least not extensively enough to comment about it
- 17:44 < echarp> I just know the name of it :)
- 17:44 < urgen> me too
- 17:45 < illegale> e. soemthing like 0-100% in decsicion makoiing of taxes?
- 17:45 < illegale> lol
- 17:45 < echarp> illegale: nah
- 17:45 < illegale> teasing you
- 17:45 < echarp> loglan = logical language, an artificial human language aiming at disambiguity
- 17:46 < illegale> urgen, did you join TOP?
- 17:46 < urgen> not yet
- 17:46 < illegale> somebody just did.
- 17:46 < illegale> thought it was you
- 17:46 < illegale> somthing like esperanto ?D
- 17:46 < illegale> :)
- 17:46 < echarp> kind of esperanto yes!
- 17:47 < illegale> that stuff does not work
- 17:47 < illegale> inductive/deductive tuff
- 17:47 < illegale> collision
- 17:47 < echarp> urgen: so, we could reorganise “arguing against elitism is elitist” logically?
- 17:48 < urgen> this is set theory
- 17:48 < urgen> a class can never become a member of itself
- 17:48 < illegale> had some reading from some philsopher.
- 17:48 < illegale> do not recall his name
- 17:48 < illegale> about sophism
- 17:48 < illegale> cool stuff
- 17:48 < illegale> pretty articulated
- 17:48 < urgen> :-) lexical topology, lexical vertigo
- 17:48 < echarp> urgen: would that be from gödel?
- 17:49 < echarp> incompleteness expanded into the realm of lexical cliffs! :)
- 17:49 < urgen> godel., hmn godel would be a good foundation from which to begin to understand multi-modal
- 17:49 < illegale> what is godal?
- 17:49 < illegale> godel?
- 17:49 < illegale> sorry, it seems i am pretty short in this stuff…
- 17:49 < urgen> a philosopher scientist
- 17:50 < echarp> illegale: logician/mathematician who demonstrated that no theory can be complete and still consistent (or something along those lines)
- 17:50 < illegale> cool!
- 17:50 < urgen> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del,Escher,Bach
- 17:50 < echarp> if theory T is true and complete, it could also include a demonstration that T is false, which is inconsistent
- 17:50 < illegale> Urgen, I ve heard you espians have your own philosophy too
- 17:51 < urgen> <— exempt from being an esp
- 17:51 < illegale> thank for the lnk
- 17:52 < urgen> as to whether they have an actual philosophy… :-)
- 17:52 < echarp> I’m rather critical of #espians goals :(
- 17:52 < illegale> you do not consider you self be espian, sorry
- 17:53 < illegale> wanted to talk about it, yet it makes no sense as long as you are notespian :)
- 17:53 < urgen> a group gains identity by working together
- 17:53 < urgen> that’s an espian
- 17:53 < illegale> yes
- 17:53 < illegale> nice you said
- 17:54 < illegale> hard to be open in this way
- 17:54 < urgen> I have not travelled to germany for mad code marathons., so I am not an espian
- 17:54 < echarp> lol, I didn’t know they did that kind of thing
- 17:54 < illegale> mad code marathons
- 17:54 < illegale> interesting :)
- 17:55 < urgen> yes, they do software products as a goal
- 17:55 < illegale> Markus has nice house at adriatic sea, btw :)
- 17:55 < echarp> illegale: we do that into your villa on the sea side this summer? :)
- 17:55 < urgen> they are interested in purchasing land to found a community
- 17:55 < illegale> actually his parents do :)
- 17:55 < illegale> oh, that is not good
- 17:55 * echarp appreciates markus greatly!!!
- 17:55 < illegale> if they want to create impact onf the word
- 17:56 * illegale shares echarps appreciations
- 17:56 < echarp> urgen: and you, what land do you plan to discover?
- 17:57 < urgen> I was a member of ICANN General Assembly and ICANN at Large voting verification committee
- 17:57 < urgen> so have some sense of exactly how steep the road is you wish to travel here
- 17:57 < echarp> woaw
- 17:57 < urgen> the General Assembly was dissolved
- 17:58 < echarp> I know, I watched the disaster in slow motion
- 17:58 < urgen> and ICANN at Large crumbled from within
- 17:58 < echarp> administrators not wanting to lose their powers
- 17:58 < urgen> yes
- 17:58 < echarp> a parody of democracy
- 17:58 < illegale> that is the stuff it goes
- 17:58 < echarp> they almost did it by the book, yet they hollowed it out
- 17:59 < illegale> running from the power is not what i found to be human behaviour
- 17:59 < urgen> my own discoveries still take a few days to share
- 17:59 < urgen> and have no actual ‘home’ yet
- 18:00 < echarp> homeless?
- 18:00 < urgen> I seem to focus on the concerns people miss when attempting to form a decentralized authority
- 18:00 < illegale> decentralised authority is possible now
- 18:00 < illegale> to info equality
- 18:00 < illegale> because of
- 18:01 < urgen> and so that usually slows them down too much for their sensibilities so they continue to build until it falls apart
- 18:01 < illegale> networks are better for heterarchies
- 18:01 < illegale> unless you have good team
- 18:01 < illegale> when the responsibility is finnely articulated, thisnetwork is not sow any more
- 18:02 < urgen> I was bitten by understanding of the significance of a decentralized authority almost 40 years ago
- 18:02 < illegale> by whom?
- 18:02 < illegale> french?
- 18:02 < echarp> I wonder how much of all this is due to some sort of genetical tendency to centralised hierarchies (you know, tribes, hunter groups, …)
- 18:03 < urgen> by my own experience?
- 18:03 < illegale> how old are you?
- 18:03 < echarp> it’s true that 40 years ago, it was almost 1968, quite a mile stone in france
- 18:03 < urgen> there was the founder of .ws (French) in the ICANN efforts
- 18:04 < urgen> I am 46 :-)
- 18:04 < illegale> cool
- 18:04 < illegale> me 26
- 18:04 < illegale> :)
- 18:04 < echarp> .ws ??? ws stands for something special?
- 18:04 < urgen> so I have nursed this small dream for quite a long time
- 18:04 < urgen> web site?
- 18:04 < urgen> a TLD
- 18:04 < echarp> no associated meaning? as in .fr or .eu or even .tv?
- 18:04 < illegale> urgen, about decentralised authority
- 18:05 < urgen> I think it means Web Site… ws
- 18:05 < illegale> it is a must that commes by internet MO
- 18:05 < illegale> IMO
- 18:05 < echarp> ok
- 18:05 < urgen> it is whether you believe or not
- 18:05 < urgen> the net allows a new way to express
- 18:06 < illegale> and new sort of organsations to scuceed!
- 18:06 < echarp> you must have given some thoughts on web names and how they could be decentralised
- 18:06 < urgen> I’ve seen some models like that
- 18:06 < urgen> no personal thought
- 18:06 < echarp> today a tree with a root node, what other ways have been studied?
- 18:06 < illegale> did you read cathedral and bazar, Urgen?
- 18:06 < urgen> yes
- 18:06 < illegale> cool stuff
- 18:06 < illegale> talks about new sort of organsiations, democratic ones
- 18:06 < urgen> it helps
- 18:07 < illegale> you need to be racognised on voluntary based
- 18:07 < illegale> on this free area
- 18:07 < urgen> so., a decentralized domain name idea.
- 18:07 < urgen> this is because names have ‘index’ power, right?
- 18:07 < urgen> once upon a time the Top Level Domains were thought to be a way to categorize information
- 18:08 < urgen> the way the usenet.newsgroup.names were
- 18:08 < urgen> although as a way to keep certain information in certain easy to find places it died a quick death
- 18:08 < echarp> painful death
- 18:08 < illegale> do not work that way
- 18:08 < echarp> but even usenet remains a tree with a central authority :(
- 18:08 < urgen> and then,,, we come to find out that there are many differing uses for words that appear the same…
- who would have thought? ;) - 18:09 < urgen> that wasn’t much foresight there
- 18:09 < echarp> lol
- 18:09 < illegale> os?
- 18:09 < echarp> taxonomies are a cool reinvention, at least words are just tags and not strict and unique indexes
- 18:09 < urgen> so now we have places like: http://clusty.com/search?tb=firefox-1.1.1&locale=en-US&query=G%C3%B6del
- 18:09 < urgen> ‘clustering’ of similar use
- 18:10 < urgen> flickr does clusters too
- 18:10 < urgen> these recognized categories of use should be CONSTANTLY open to renegotiation
- 18:11 < urgen> that is your heart of net governance
- 18:11 < echarp> yes, tags, not unique indexes
- 18:11 < urgen> the gem that should not be used as a doorstop
- 18:11 < urgen> I am actually saying the ‘renegotiability’ and not even the tag
- 18:11 < urgen> signifier is arbitrary
- 18:11 < echarp> the fact that tags are transitory then?
- 18:12 < urgen> yes
- 18:12 < echarp> (I’m translating in my web programmer language)
- 18:12 < urgen> that is the ‘proper revolution’
- 18:12 < echarp> I do need to add tags on parlement :)
- 18:12 < urgen> people get too stuck on assigning a fixed designation
- 18:12 < urgen> and then they get too addicted to their own work
- 18:13 < echarp> well, computers, file systems, tend to be those strict hierarchies we all have come accustomed to
- 18:13 < urgen> and then they forget that it was from clear, fair, open origination that they were able to perform such a feat in the first place
- 18:13 < urgen> well. you start to see SOA show up lately in software conversations
- 18:13 < urgen> Service Oriented Architecture
- 18:14 < urgen> Service is a performance not a static
- 18:14 < echarp> plus human short term memory does seem to work into a hierarchic sort of infinitely smaller chunks
- 18:14 < urgen> lots of human bias in this game :-)
- 18:14 < echarp> soa is still young, and the big players have jumped like sharks
- 18:14 < urgen> but we can learn and adapt
- 18:15 < echarp> human short term memory could be sort of hierarchic, but the long term one is a network
- 18:15 < echarp> constanlty renegotiated :)
- 18:16 < urgen> in a business they have hats and people.. the people come and go but most of the hats remain
- 18:16 < urgen> some evolution of roles happens but much more slowly
- 18:16 < echarp> I’m wondering about those renegotiated tags, maybe that could be implemented as a simple list of the n last associated tags, no more
- 18:16 < urgen> if the understanding a person had discovered during their time on that job could remain then the business might evolve even more quickly
- 18:16 < echarp> not just the last n, won’t be enough
- 18:17 < urgen> :-)
- 18:17 < echarp> knowledge capitalisation, the golden goose of many a consulting firm! ;)
- 18:18 < echarp> to me it looks more like perpetual motion, dreamed of, sought after, but never can be
- 18:18 < urgen> http://www.nist.gov/dads/HTML/fordFulkerson.html
- 18:18 < echarp> the best knowledge capitalisation tool is the coffe machine!!! :)
- 18:19 < urgen> connecting sign to meaning is a matter of flow control
- 18:20 * echarp never thought about it that way
- 18:21 < echarp> ford fulkerson seem terribly like some of the bee/ant algorightms I’ve already seen
- 18:21 < urgen> another sign to meeting link: http://glassplategame.com/
- 18:21 < echarp> send an agent down a path, leave some attractive traces on that path, follow all attractive paths! :)
- 18:21 < urgen> I meant s/meeting/meaning
- 18:22 < illegale> btw, brain is whole about network, E.
- 18:22 < urgen> so the nist site is in a definitions format
- 18:22 < urgen> but they do not allow (very much) interaction
- 18:23 < echarp> illegale: I know that neurons are inherently a network structure, yet the functioning of short term memory looks very much like a tree
- 18:23 < urgen> does parlement have an interactive definitions page?
- 18:23 < urgen> or a way for discussion to result in formalized defintions?
- 18:23 < echarp> urgen: not yet, but there are taxonomy plugins in ruby on rails which I plan to add onto parlement
- 18:23 < echarp> neither formalised definitions no
- 18:23 < urgen> so you built it on ror?
- 18:24 < urgen> what web server?
- 18:24 < illegale> E, you have input stream having its three path, yes
- 18:24 < illegale> Same as internet.
- 18:24 < echarp> parlement is more like a democratically managed forum/mailingList
- 18:25 < urgen> so the toolbox is still forming
- 18:25 < illegale> youhave input path and as long as you are indivdual, you can not share you mind, but keepsort of a tree moving
- 18:25 < echarp> urgen: it’s the ror web server, webrick
- 18:25 < urgen> ok
- 18:25 < echarp> terrible performance, plus I haven’t optimised it and there are no caches yet :(
- 18:26 < illegale> Urgen: top politics networks several initiatives.
- 18:26 < illegale> If you wish, yo might see the list:
- 18:26 < illegale> http://top.xwiki.com/xwiki/bin/view/Main/Network
- 18:26 < echarp> illegale: I view the short term memory more like a matter of evolving forest, all energy/information coming in lights up pathways, each information and its pathway is held in the memory for a short duration
- 18:27 < illegale> ok
- 18:27 < echarp> you can hoop up a forest under another one
- 18:27 < echarp> mnemonic
- 18:27 < illegale> Urgen, do you have any top initiative we might add there?
- 18:27 < echarp> the short term memory can only hold some 7+/-2 items
- 18:28 < illegale> E, I actually never thought about short memory as different process, just running one
- 18:28 < echarp> yet you can reorganise items under other items and thus expand greatly that number (mnemonics)
- 18:28 < illegale> Much chemicals finding new ways :)
- 18:28 < echarp> cognitive psychology
- 18:28 < urgen> my first concern is in noticing how well democracy destroys culture
- 18:28 < illegale> physiology :)
- 18:28 < urgen> that means it does not tip toe gently
- 18:28 < urgen> it walks in with very large boots
- 18:28 < urgen> and lots and lots of toes get stepped on
- 18:28 < illegale> Urgen, what do you mean by democracy?
- 18:28 < echarp> it flattens culture? lowest denominator?
- 18:29 < urgen> so my ideas require an incubator to be safe
- 18:29 < echarp> physiology will mostly talk about neurology independantly of senses, yet their interaction is of much interaction
- 18:29 < urgen> time to work and develop before beta testing
- 18:30 < echarp> a wee bit of cathedral before the bazaar? ;)
- 18:30 < urgen> my first initiative is an incubator for meaningful exchange
- 18:30 < illegale> lol
- 18:30 < urgen> a way to cultivate dialogue
- 18:30 < urgen> in a general case wikipedia and google do great
- 18:30 < illegale> Yet, when you go to bazaar, it might not be used to it
- 18:30 < urgen> but when you get down to specialist information blam, flat, no respect
- 18:31 < illegale> Like children who did not go out, get sick eating in restaurant stuff
- 18:31 < urgen> I’m not anti bazaar at all.. I’d just be in one of the far dark corners
- 18:31 < urgen> away from the people that don’t look where they are walkign
- 18:31 < echarp> :)
- 18:32 < illegale> you have to trust the bazaar :)
- 18:32 < urgen> I am trusting right here
- 18:33 < illegale> I see :)
- 18:33 < urgen> I am nearly exclusively IRC and have been since 1990 or so
- 18:33 < urgen> that’s almost 24 hours a day online since then :-)
- 18:33 < illegale> whoah
- 18:33 < urgen> hardly anyone logs and even if they did there are still no mining tools
- 18:33 < illegale> maybe even too much?
- 18:33 < urgen> too much goes away after the first few years
- 18:34 < illegale> lol
- 18:34 < illegale> same with me and forums:)
- 18:34 < urgen> there is a threshhold of attention that allows for not getting trapped in intensities
- 18:34 < echarp> well, that conversation will end up on a google groups and http://leparlement.org :)
- 18:34 < urgen> immersive environments are addicting but that doesn’t mean one can not develop a tolerance
- 18:35 < illegale> yes
- 18:36 < illegale> Urgen, you mentioned UD and ESP. Is there some others socially/poliitcally oriented initiatives in irc?
- 18:36 < echarp> personnaly I love irc, it’s been honed over the decades, almost perfect for what it aims to be
- 18:36 < urgen> :( I was asking you the same question illegale, you know any?
- 18:36 < urgen> :-)
- 18:36 < echarp> lol
- 18:36 < echarp>
:)
- 18:36 < illegale> what we met, is on the link
- 18:36 < illegale> top politics
- 18:37 < illegale> Though, some networks still exist. I will possibly list all the public lists about democratisation on wiki
- 18:37 < urgen> I have a friend that did: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_democracy
- 18:37 < illegale> lol
- 18:37 < illegale> See, E. It is well know thing :)
- 18:37 < urgen> sayke
- 18:37 < illegale> why?
- 18:38 < illegale> He is pretty famous by his system.
- 18:38 < illegale> How did he menaged to to that?
- 18:38 < urgen> he learned the right vocabulary first
- 18:38 < echarp> rather famous yes
- 18:39 < illegale> cool
- 18:39 < illegale> Articualting terms, right?
- 18:39 < echarp> urgen: does he hang around? :)
- 18:39 < urgen> so the other ‘hub’ on irc that I know is server: irc.perl.org channel:#bots
- 18:39 < urgen> he is on the other channel I have always been on since the beginning of irc
- 18:40 < urgen> efnet #tibet
- 18:40 < illegale> perl?
- 18:40 < illegale> ok
- 18:40 < urgen> tibetan buddhism has very specialized vocabulary focussed around decentralized authority
- 18:40 < illegale> this freenode is pretty stron in this sphere
- 18:40 < illegale> how did it happened?
- 18:40 < urgen> that’s vocabulary over 2000 years old
- 18:40 < urgen> very refined
- 18:40 < illegale> hmh
- 18:40 < illegale> Are you into budhism?
- 18:41 < echarp> yet somehow estranged from occidental thoughts
- 18:41 < urgen> yes, I study Nyingma branch of vajrayana buddhism
- 18:41 < echarp> arg
- 18:41 < echarp> you mean you are awakaned? enlightened?
- 18:41 < echarp> awakened
- 18:41 < urgen> you can search “prasangika madhyamika” for the school of thought
- 18:42 < urgen> awake to what?
- 18:42 < illegale> E, you do not have much friends who practice budhism?
- 18:42 < echarp> nope
- 18:42 < illegale> I see :)
- 18:42 < echarp> here it’s mostly catholicism, some protestants and then islam
- 18:43 < illegale> OK, that pm. It is a book, school or
- 18:43 < illegale> ?
- 18:43 < echarp> ex girl friend was a devout protestant believing in everything including the flood, adam & eve and apocalypse
- 18:43 < urgen> like cartesian philosophy is a school of thought
- 18:43 < illegale> gee
- 18:43 < illegale> ok
- 18:43 < urgen> it has its own internal consistencies
- 18:43 < echarp> still cute and lovely :)
- 18:44 < illegale> Urgen, is it hermtic thought?
- 18:44 < urgen> not necessarily
- 18:44 < illegale> She must be :)
- 18:44 < illegale> Not defined in that matter?
- 18:44 < illegale> I had some big fights with hermetic thoughers
- 18:45 < illegale> :)
- 18:45 < urgen> western terminology doesn’t really work very well
- 18:45 < illegale> What I have noticed is it is buzzed
- 18:46 < urgen> ok, I just thought of a top initiative.
- 18:46 < urgen> using Google Co-op
- 18:46 < illegale> co-op?
- 18:47 < urgen> http://www.google.com/coop
- 18:48 < urgen> a place to begin to define some folks/tax onomies and whatever other onomies begin to be suggested
- 18:48 < echarp> ok, end of working day for me, I’m going home
- 18:48 < urgen> it is google’s effort to allow that specialization rule by majority is not so friendly to
- 18:49 < echarp> urgen: don’t hesitate to stay on the channel if you wish to, you are of course most welcome!
- 18:49 < urgen> np
- 18:49 < urgen> thanks
- 18:49 < urgen> I’ll hang out
- 18:49 < illegale> E, cu later, probably~!
- 18:49 < echarp> I’m going home, will be there in some 30/40 minutes and will not hesitate to read the logs, you’ve been warned! ;)
- 18:49 < echarp> cu later most certainly yes
- 18:49 < echarp> nice to discuss with you urgen, most interested I am!!!
- 18:50 < illegale> Urgen, this is taging stuff or? This with google I mean
- 18:50 < echarp> oh, and buridan seems to have come back on #joiito !
- 18:50 < illegale> I am pretty slow in understaing this , so I ask :)
- 18:50 < illegale> lol
- 18:51
!buridan (pale horse?) [n=shitznic@pdpc/supporter/active/buridan] has joined #Parlement - 18:51 < urgen> hi
- 18:51 < urgen> tnx
- 18:51 < buridan> whacha need?
- 18:51 < illegale> Welcome!
- 18:52 < illegale> Seems we share some interests :)
- 18:52 < urgen> since there is a side of me that loves to explore the automation of consensus I was wondering if you’d not mind sharing some of your views re that?
- 18:52 < illegale> Politics and stuff
- 18:52 < buridan> the automation of consensus?
- 18:53 < buridan> can you expand that idea a bit?
- 18:53 < urgen> and this channel is being generous enough to allow this sort of traffic
- 18:53 < urgen> so it won’t make other people, not interested, crazy
- 18:53 < buridan> and your url in the topic is broken
- 18:53 < urgen> <— not affiliated here, just a visitor
- 18:54 < illegale> http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics
- 18:54 < illegale> That is the common base, actually
- 18:54 < urgen> We are are experiencing some hardware issues on one of our servers. We are doing our best to restore the service. Sorry for the inconvenience.
- 18:55 < urgen> i get for: http://top.xwiki.com/xwiki/bin/view/Main/Network
- 18:55 < buridan> hmm
- 18:55 < illegale> Huh, we should find better host :(
- 18:56 < illegale> Although, we started fullfiliing it recently, several days ago
- 18:56 < urgen> n e way.. we can start on just the general topic of social informatics
- 18:56 < illegale> I find it be good thing as long as I can follow new entries pretty easily in thismometn:)
- 18:56 < urgen> how to represent consent?
- 18:56 < buridan> so this is some sort of direct democracy meats substantive democracy syste?
- 18:57 < illegale> I am not into direct democracy actually
- 18:57 < buridan> well, i think that you would be far better mapping areas of dissent then seeing the spaces left that you agree on
- 18:57 < urgen> I haven’t read enough of #parlement’s efforts yet
- 18:57 < illegale> What I can notice is that we share belives in informatiastion of politics in order of democratic process go furthetr
- 18:57 < buridan> because most representations of consent, in truth, are not that, they are representation of votes
- 18:58 < buridan> and people might vote for things they do not consent to
- 18:58 < urgen> well, I would love to fine tooth comb a vote some day…
- 18:58 < urgen> right
- 18:58 < buridan> because people vote for all kinds of reasons
- 18:58 < illegale> Buridan, are you internet believer?
- 18:59 < buridan> what do you mean by that illegale
- 18:59 < illegale> Meaning believeng in sort of political revolution based on new tecbology
- 18:59 < urgen> so would it be amiable to you to have a sketch pad here, or somewhere on irc/wiki/etc ?
- 18:59 < illegale> What i can notice is that political process does not need to be run behind the curtain
- 18:59 < illegale> any more
- 18:59 < urgen> or discussion too much work and not enough passion? :-)
- 19:00 < illegale> and this slight difference might distinct new political divsion
- 19:00 < illegale> democrats and non democrats
- 19:00 < illegale> actaully
- 19:00 < buridan> no, i don’t believe technology can change human relations in general terms, i think humans might use technologies in different ways that over a period of time might bring about something that looks substantively different than the system of relations that we have today
- 19:01 < illegale> yet, what I am working on is restructuralisation of the power origins
- 19:01 < illegale> using open source as a new organisational paradigm
- 19:02 < illegale> new origins of the power, new interests are available to be realised
- 19:02 < illegale> such as solving paradox of the governer
- 19:02 < urgen> quite a few people were taken by the experience of the internet allowing the possibility of new social networks and interpretted it from the perspective of ‘alternative’ governance
- 19:02
!buridan [n=shitznic@pdpc/supporter/active/buridan] has quit [Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)] - 19:02 < urgen> oops
- 19:02 < illegale> lol
- 19:02 < urgen> :-)
- 19:02 < illegale> I got into mood
- 19:02 < illegale> and..
- 19:02 < illegale> :)
- 19:03 < illegale> Urgen, are you believr?
- 19:03 < urgen> in the way I think I understand what you are trying to suggest with that term, yes
- 19:03 < urgen> I was one of those people, struck
- 19:03 < illegale> stuck?
- 19:03 < urgen> sudden new lights
- 19:03 < illegale> My engsish oisn ot so good :(
- 19:03 < urgen> aha, so this is wonderful
- 19:03 < illegale> oh :)
- 19:04 < urgen> but for some reason not everyone sees the same thing
- 19:04
!buridan (pale horse?) [n=shitznic@pool-72-66-187-4.ronkva.east.verizon.net] has joined #parlement - 19:04 < illegale> you mean language non indoctrinated?
- 19:04 < illegale> ohh :)
- 19:04 < illegale> Here you are :)
- 19:04 < urgen> and people like buridan have very positive criticisms that would help map out the distance between us
- 19:04 < buridan> sorry, i was trying to charge a battery and the battery was dead, became unplugged lost connection
- 19:04 < urgen> ok
- 19:04 < illegale> ok
- 19:04 < illegale> :)
- 19:05 < urgen> did, you see:
- 19:05 < illegale> We had on top politics articulation of common concept and that was faith into internet
- 19:05 < urgen> quite a few people were taken by the experience of the internet allowing the possibility of new social networks and interpretted it from the perspective of ‘alternative’ governance
- 19:05 < buridan> so did you get an answer to your last question?
- 19:05 < illegale> no
- 19:05 < buridan> keep in mind that the internet does not allow new social networks anymore than the train allows new social networks
- 19:05 < urgen> ok, so that is what I think illegale means by saying ‘believer’
- 19:06 < buridan> you want to avoid technological determinism, it is a falsehood
- 19:06 < illegale> Buridan, I do not actually agree
- 19:06 < buridan> what you have is humans acting either similarly or differently
- 19:06 < illegale> We are talking about new organisational paradigm
- 19:06 < urgen> thanks, noted. I’m sure I didn’t mean that but do appreciate you pointing out an unfamiliar pot hole
- 19:06 < buridan> no, actually we aren’t
- 19:06 < illegale> And organisation means power
- 19:06 < buridan> the internet provides no new organizational paradigm
- 19:06 < illegale> OK, I would like to start this part of conversation though :)
- 19:07 < buridan> it might expand old paradigms
- 19:07 < illegale> What about opensrource?
- 19:07 < illegale> OK. U understand your point
- 19:07 < buridan> open source is an extension of the communality of academic produciton
- 19:07 < buridan> it is not new
- 19:07 < illegale> Yet, some existing paradigms can create bigger power than they could before
- 19:07 < buridan> i have a paper that traces open source production back to around 1300 with the advent of the republic of letters
- 19:07 < illegale> Mozzilla beating Explorer stuff
- 19:08 < illegale> In this moment politics power is based on holdng informations
- 19:08 < illegale> now new paradigm enables new manner of gaining power
- 19:08 < buridan> to some extent illegale
- 19:08 < illegale> based on sharing
- 19:08 < buridan> however, political power is always predicated on the possession of capital
- 19:08 < illegale> It is the same thing to opensource in programming
- 19:08 < buridan> and form of capital is information
- 19:08 < illegale> Of course
- 19:08 < buridan> there are other forms
- 19:08 < illegale> Of course
- 19:09 < illegale> What makes these forms be non touchable by new organisational paradigm?
- 19:09 < illegale> this is just a manner of finding synerginsm
- 19:09 < illegale> and following new rules of new paradigms
- 19:09 < illegale> for an example : responsibility to public
- 19:09 < buridan> the fact that there is nothing new about it. there are the exact same barriers and systems to construct barriers in the information economy that always existed
- 19:10 < illegale> it does not exist in this model
- 19:10 < buridan> responsibility to the public is a republican virtue outlined first by aristotle, but elucided best by machiavelli
- 19:10 < buridan> it is not new, it is nothing new
- 19:10 < illegale> Probably nothing is new on a level of ideas, yet on the level of implementation, there is a plety space for new things
- 19:11 < illegale> Buridian, this was not possible before internet
- 19:11 < illegale> responsibility facts
- 19:11 < illegale> factor
- 19:11 < urgen> it still isn’t happening, either
- 19:11 < buridan> what wasn’t?
- 19:11 < illegale> as long as public has no possiblity to fond origins of decsisions that make you be or not be resposnsible
- 19:11 < urgen> the distance between wish and actuality remains the same even if there exists a previously undiscovered means
- 19:11 < buridan> responsibility to the public? it was possible then, it is possible now, the capacity to transfer responsibility is predicated on representation and trust and those can be conveyed or not through any media
- 19:12 < illegale> Public could not be informed, in a process of non transparent governemtn
- 19:12 < buridan> the public could be informed
- 19:12 < illegale> In that way you can not create proper decisiions on the level of the public
- 19:12 < buridan> the public has been informed in the past
- 19:12 < illegale> this new thing TOP enables it
- 19:12 < illegale> And in this moment you can start acting responsible
- 19:13 < urgen> one to one representation, electronic town hall kind of idea?
- 19:13 < illegale> In this moment, bad decision happens, nobody is guilty
- 19:13 < buridan> i think you might want to consider some of the history of democracy and republics before you start saying x is different than y
- 19:13 < urgen> a question of scale vs distribution
- 19:13 < illegale> Buridian, That is not actually true
- 19:13 < illegale> Public can not be informed as long as it misses political concetx
- 19:13 < illegale> In that way public can not evaluate informations
- 19:13 < buridan> what isn’t true?
- 19:14 < illegale> That public can be informed in this very tme
- 19:14 < illegale> as long as it misses context
- 19:14 < urgen> refined context?
- 19:14 < urgen> sounds like you are getting back to information icubator too, illegale
- 19:14 < urgen> s/icubator/incubator
- 19:15 < illegale> Urgen, do not follow you
- 19:15 < buridan> illegale, let me turn this on its head. what makes you think that the public wants to be informed?
- 19:15 < urgen> and, buridan, I surely did not mean to make you work.. I was thinking maybe you had a dream or two of your own that you’d feel comfortable expressing on a channel like this
- 19:16 < illegale> that would be cool, yes
- 19:16 < illegale> Buridian, as I do understand power is not matter of whole, but those who are willing to participate
- 19:17 < buridan> oh, my dream is that people actually standback and honestly evaluate their understanding of the world, given the actual research that has been accomplished and then build something from that
- 19:17 < illegale> What is the moment you can give yourself the right to move forward?
- 19:17 < buridan> and you think that amongst those that are willing to participate, there is a deficity of information?
- 19:18 < illegale> absolutely
- 19:18 < illegale> I am in politics for a while /4-5 years/
- 19:18 < buridan> and you are going to resolve that?
- 19:18 < urgen> a market :-)
- 19:18 < illegale> Yes
- 19:18 < illegale> I personaly am participating in TOP organisation
- 19:18 < illegale> We are transparent open and public
- 19:19 < illegale> give everybody chance to participate, to evaluate, and so on
- 19:19 < illegale> Info people give to us, obey us
- 19:19 < buridan> yep…. just like the communist party
- 19:19 < illegale> If they do not, we have legitimated right not to take them into consideration
- 19:19 < illegale> Actually not
- 19:19 < buridan> precisely
- 19:19 < illegale> Communist party was about vision, and this is about principle
- 19:19 < buridan> ahhh…..
- 19:20 < illegale> of organisation work
- 19:20 < urgen> facilitation?
- 19:20 < illegale> For an instance, could Stalin last in TOP system? Could he become sort of God in internet era?
- 19:20 < illegale> I doubt
- 19:20 < illegale> You
- 19:20 < illegale> ?
- 19:21 < illegale> Urgen: what do you mean by facilisation?
- 19:21 < urgen> organisation work.
- 19:21 < urgen> structure?
- 19:21 < illegale> yes
- 19:22 < illegale> And this new structure of info flow is actually new paradigm for organisation work
- 19:22 < illegale> as long as organisation is about info flow in its core
- 19:22 < illegale> as politics is
- 19:23 < illegale> The power of new paradigm is showed in software
- 19:23 < illegale> And nobody still uses it in politics
- 19:23 < illegale> Why?
- 19:23 < illegale> I can say why :)
- 19:24 < buridan> because no one wants to use it and no one else really thinks it is effective
- 19:25 < buridan> you can say why you think it is
- 19:25 < buridan> but i don’t think you probably know why it is
- 19:25 < illegale> It is actually pretty effective in a manner of gaining reputation
- 19:25 < illegale> And reputation is pretty big part of the story
- 19:26 < buridan> in a very narrow set of audiences
- 19:26 < illegale> That audiences is about organisation
- 19:26 < illegale> 100 people in Croatia really matter
- 19:26 < illegale> Narrow, yes.
- 19:26 < buridan> oh so this is about paternalism, i thought it was
- 19:26 < illegale> Yet the most powerfull political organisation that is
- 19:27 < illegale> What do you mean by paternalism?
- 19:27 < illegale> Did you read cathedral and bazaar?
- 19:27 < illegale> :)
- 19:27 < buridan> paternalism is when someone acts as if they are someone elses father, telling them how to be, telling them what is right.
- 19:27 < illegale> Politics today is based on PR towards the public
- 19:27 < buridan> yes, i’ve read catb
- 19:28 < illegale> Can you notice a way of how bazaar can be paternalstic?
- 19:28 < illegale> What I can notice, it does not go in that way
- 19:28 < illegale> And this is what I like it here pretty mucj
- 19:28 < buridan> i don’t actually think you are talking about a bazaar
- 19:28 < illegale> No space for mystical big all knowing ones
- 19:28 < buridan> i think you are talking about a cathedral
- 19:28 < illegale> Why?
- 19:29 < buridan> only a cathedral with 100 priests instead of 1
- 19:29 < buridan> or a cathedral where the priests are all qualified in some way
- 19:29 < illegale> I am talking about political structures that create core of organisations in political world
- 19:29 < buridan> wat you aren’t talking about is the meritocracy or equality of the bazaar
- 19:29 < illegale> Politics has pretty big problem up there in differ to opensource
- 19:29 < illegale> Bazaar is based on equality
- 19:30 < illegale> and equality is about giving everyine the same chance, right?
- 19:30 < buridan> equality of perception
- 19:30 < buridan> no, equality is about being equal
- 19:30 < illegale> What I can notice is that we are far from equal actually
- 19:31 < illegale> in that manner
- 19:31 < buridan> in what manner?
- 19:31 < illegale> Some are blond, some are smart, some are hard workin
- 19:31 < illegale> g
- 19:31 < illegale> some are lazy and so on
- 19:31 < echarp> re
- 19:31 < echarp> hello hello buridan
- 19:31 < illegale> hey :)
- 19:31 < illegale> Those who are trying hard do change things
- 19:32 < echarp> I see you’ve had quite a chat, I have much to read! :)
- 19:32 < illegale> Is it in some sort of contradiction to equality?
- 19:32 < buridan> trying to change things for whose benefit?
- 19:32 < illegale> Their own off course
- 19:32 < buridan> right, and you see no problem with that?
- 19:32 < illegale> We are actually in position to say what i right only for ourselves
- 19:33 < illegale> I do not consider to have right to say what is right for you
- 19:33 < illegale> I do not find it be democratic
- 19:33 < illegale> So, I am running for my personal benefit
- 19:33 < illegale> If it is right with you, I am glad to hear that
- 19:33 < buridan> ahh
- 19:34 < buridan> so you don’t think that there is any public good?
- 19:34 < buridan> anything that would be good for everyone?
- 19:34 < illegale> Yes I do
- 19:34 < illegale> Though I would not run TOP if I thought it would be in colision to it
- 19:34 < illegale> nontransparency is for those with bad intentions
- 19:35 < buridan> bad intentions are usually covered by ideological beliefs
- 19:35 < illegale> those who do believe they run for common good do not have a point to be in the same mug withthem
- 19:35 < buridan> so you wouldn’t know wthey were bad at all
- 19:35 < illegale> Of course
- 19:35 < illegale> Nobody actually can
- 19:36 < illegale> So, by running top, we rely on public
- 19:36 < illegale> ono those who are willing to be informed
- 19:36 < illegale> slight, but very mportant difference
- 19:36
!Topic for #parlement: http://leparlement.org/top-politics - 19:36
!Topic set by echarp [n=33M002Pa@m96.net81-66-133.noos.fr] [Thu Jun 1 18:29:11 2006] - 19:36 < illegale> as long as 100 people actually do matter
- 19:36 < illegale> I am talking about experience in political world in Croatia
- 19:37 < illegale> Parties are runned by 1-5 persons at most
- 19:37 < urgen> :-) still sounds like Google Co-op to me
- 19:37 < illegale> Even big ones
- 19:37 < illegale> maybe it is :)
- 19:37 < urgen> a way for very minor special interest to have a voice
- 19:37 < buridan> sounds like a mix of lenonisms and saint-simonism to me
- 19:37 < illegale> And what is more important you become scandale prone
- 19:37 < urgen> and be subscribed to
- 19:38 < echarp> lenon and st simon?
- 19:38 < illegale> Ill cehck it for sure :(
- 19:38 < illegale> :)
- 19:38 < illegale> They used internet :)
- 19:38 < illegale> TOP
- 19:38 < echarp> st lenon of the beattles? :)
- 19:39 < urgen> I surely wish for a crucible where these ideas can be refined without having to invent nations to do it with
- 19:39 < buridan> lenin sorry
- 19:39 < illegale> heh :)
- 19:39 < buridan> i do have john lennon playing in the other room
- 19:39 < buridan> on the ipod
- 19:39 < echarp> cool :)
- 19:39 < illegale> lennon is cool
- 19:40 < illegale> enough to be asssasined :)
- 19:40 < illegale> btw, I have no problems to Lenin, he knew how to set deal
- 19:40 < illegale> at least, I hve that opinion by reading comunist books :)
- 19:41 < urgen> deal as operative is interesting
- 19:42 < illegale> TOP is about platform
- 19:42 < illegale> What I am looking for is full infrastrucure to
- 19:44 < buridan> top, as best as i can tell, is about your own personal beliefs
- 19:44 < illegale> brb
- 19:44 < illegale> ok
- 19:44 < illegale> I was talking about them, yes
- 19:44 < echarp> I haven’t followed from the beginning, but isn’t transparency necessary in a democracy?
- 19:44 < illegale> I suppose other people find it different
- 19:45 < echarp> same with openness, participation
- 19:45 < illegale> I suppose that is the essence of democracy :)
- 19:46 < illegale> Two heads know better than one head
- 19:46 < illegale> Making democracy be the best system
- 19:46 < echarp> democracy is certainly also about votes and some kind of majority
- 19:46 < illegale> Acknowledgment of the power
- 19:47 < illegale> Rught?
- 19:47 < urgen> which is?
- 19:47 < illegale> the people
- 19:47 < urgen> ok, so the larger song sounds nice but during implementation we get into trouble
- 19:47 < urgen> even the decentralization of the internet is by way of rigid standards
- 19:47 < illegale> Probalby many problems
- 19:48 < urgen> I like to see the test of implementation more an indicator than “transparency”
- 19:48 < urgen> you show me by proving it
- 19:48 < urgen> to do that we have to begin
- 19:48 < illegale> I hope we will be successfull :)
- 19:48 < urgen> “people” is 4 here now?
- 19:49 < illegale> On the list
- 19:49 < illegale> Whoever wants to participate, has full right and full availabitiy for infos
- 19:49 < illegale> being he info equal, yet thrust is what he has to gain by his work
- 19:49 < urgen> so I make a paypal account, and I put US$100 in it and decide to encrypt the password in a way that only all four of our signatures will release that money
- 19:50 < illegale> and that is the place we differ
- 19:50 < urgen> what are we going to buy?
- 19:50 < urgen> or does one person convince the others that they deserve all of the money and we buy nothing?
- 19:51 < urgen> isn’t this the same as the ‘power’ you were talking about?
- 19:52 < urgen> so anyone else can join.. that would require the four to already agree?
- 19:52 < urgen> now, the US$100 can only be released if we get all 6 billion signatures…
- 19:52 < urgen> a hundred bucks is not going to go very far in the interest of billions of people…
- 19:52 < echarp> there must be ways to design a right to not release informatio
- 19:53 < echarp> n
- 19:53 < echarp> urgen: but this is one point I also consider worthy of debate
- 19:53
!beeli (irc.freenode.net) [n=illegale@cmung4462.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement - 19:53 < urgen> hi beeli
- 19:53 < beeli> its me illegale :)
- 19:53 < beeli> link got broken
- 19:54 < urgen> ’k
- 19:54 < echarp> :)
- 19:54 < urgen> echarp, my ideas are obscure enough that you can’t get them without quite a bit of introduction
- 19:54 < beeli> You asked me Urgen about 100$, right?
- 19:54 < urgen> I’d consiser that pretty good privacy
- 19:54 < echarp> beeli: urgen was wondering about private information, not only personal one, but group’s information you might still not want to spread around
- 19:55 < beeli> like?
- 19:55 < urgen> I was?
- 19:55 < beeli> lol
- 19:55 < echarp> like money and codes to reach to that money
- 19:55 < urgen> oh ok, I see
- 19:55 < urgen> :-)
- 19:55 < urgen> that’s one way of seeing it
- 19:55 < beeli> Decision making process is what matters
- 19:55 < echarp> personally my position is still that top is required for democratic processes
- 19:56 < beeli> I do agree, E
- 19:56 < echarp> give me five! ;)
- 19:56 < beeli> FIVE!
- 19:56 < beeli> :)
- 19:56 < urgen> go play nomic you will see classic straight plain democracy has no hope beyond about the fourth generation of thought
- 19:56 < urgen> so then what definition will you use for governance after that?
- 19:56 < echarp> nomic and democracy?
- 19:56 < beeli> Nomic is the game
- 19:57 < beeli> Democracy is not such thing
- 19:57 < echarp> you mean that democracy has no chance if everybody’s goal is to score points or tie it into a knot?
- 19:57 < echarp> :)
- 19:57 < beeli> This is atuopoiesis
- 19:57 < urgen> democracy is usually not played in its ‘vanilla’ flavor
- 19:57 < beeli> Those who run stuff they can not achieve, loose
- 19:57 < urgen> so our vocabulary has to become more sophisticated
- 19:58 < urgen> when we begin to assign labels to meanings….
- 19:58 < beeli> yes
- 19:58 < beeli> we are trying to do that on wiki
- 19:58 < beeli> At least, that was one of the plans )
- 19:58 < urgen> it is pretty tough
- 19:58 < beeli> Your Budhic knowledge might help :)
- 19:58 < echarp> the wiki is merely a goal yet :)
- 19:58 < urgen> but I like the idea
- 19:59 < urgen> so why is it difficult?
- 19:59 < beeli> No interestr
- 19:59 < beeli> No motivation
- 19:59 < urgen> I am amazed at how much people think they know when they really don’t
- 19:59 < urgen> what is a vote?
- 19:59 < urgen> like buridan was suggesting it doesn’t really mean consent at all
- 19:59 < beeli> Sorry, have to o
- 19:59 < urgen> why do people not notice that simple thing?
- 19:59 < urgen> ok
- 20:00 < beeli> bbl :)
- 20:00 < echarp> consent as in a simple acceptation?
- 20:01 < urgen> that’s the point.. for this project to work every single term and every variation has to be documented
- 20:01 < urgen> set to record
- 20:01 < echarp> personally I’m a rather epicurian type of guy, I believe people can enter into voluntary contracts
- 20:01 < urgen> what is an identity?
- 20:01 < echarp> yeap
- 20:01 < urgen> how do I prove that I am only one person?
- 20:01 < echarp> id is difficult yes
- 20:01 < echarp> online can’t be proven
- 20:01 < echarp> even trust based id will have deep flaws
- 20:02 < urgen> there is the thawte circle of trust thing or whatever it is called
- 20:02 < echarp> yet we could also define democracy as a tool any group can use
- 20:02 < urgen> you go to your bank president and they look at your picture id
- 20:02 < echarp> yeap
- 20:02 < echarp> yet a picture is also a weak kind of id verificatio
- 20:02 < urgen> verification is important,, why?
- 20:03 < echarp> useful nonetheless
- 20:03 < urgen> because the system is trying to implement something called fairness?
- 20:03 < urgen> why?
- 20:03 < urgen> um someone thought it was a good idea?
- 20:03 < echarp> fairness as in “you are not inherently above me”
- 20:03 < urgen> or we have a process in place to identify all of the components of a complex parallel process
- 20:03 < urgen> hmn.. wow. this is 16 times bigger project already
- 20:03 < echarp> I’m french, we’ve had not fair situations in the past, aristocracy for example
- 20:04 < urgen> but fair was discovered in the not fair situation
- 20:04 < echarp> yeap
- 20:04 < urgen> by a group of people
- 20:04 < echarp> just like liberty is discovered in the coerced situations :)
- 20:04 < urgen> by context
- 20:04 < echarp> it is negative definitions
- 20:05 < echarp> equality, the absence of discrimination
- 20:05 < echarp> liberty, the absence of coercion
- 20:05 < urgen> so all those terms have histories
- 20:05 < echarp> oh yes, of course
- 20:05 < urgen> and some assume there to be no other history
- 20:05 < echarp> and plenty of biases, redefinitions, co optation
- 20:05 < urgen> but we have parallel usage in differing contexts
- 20:06 < urgen> how do you translate one context to the other?
- 20:06 < echarp> which is why any word has to be defined before it is used, yes
- 20:06 < urgen> :-)
- 20:06 < urgen> why would you be trying to translate contexts?
- 20:06 < echarp> definition of concept is key
- 20:06 < urgen> as in xml to xml
- 20:06 < echarp> I don’t get it, translate context?
- 20:06 < urgen> schema to schema
- 20:06 < urgen> I can’t demand that my schema is the one
- 20:07 < urgen> I have to begin to appreciate the context from where the new one is coming
- 20:07 < urgen> what basis of exchange will step forth to be the measure?
- 20:07 < echarp> a context is different to a definition?
- 20:07 < urgen> a definition depends on a context
- 20:07 < echarp> or is it associated?
- 20:08 < echarp> by context you mean that there must be a common knowledge base?
- 20:08 < urgen> child shopping for a toy — jaguar
- 20:08 < echarp> like budhist talking to catholics who can’t understand each other because they don’t share much commonalities?
- 20:08 < urgen> adult shopping for a car — jaguar
- 20:08 < echarp> :)
- 20:09 < urgen> techie shopping for an OS — jaguar
- 20:09
!illegale [n=illegale@cmung718.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Connection timed out] - 20:09 < echarp> this is mere homonomy, you must mean something beyond that
- 20:09 < buridan> urgen scared him off
- 20:09 < urgen> illegale timed out and here as beeli
- 20:09 < urgen> but afk
- 20:09 < echarp> nah, he’s got medical problems and must take some leave from time to time
- 20:10 < echarp> plus an internet connection not very resilient
- 20:11 < echarp> so, democracy, liberty, equality, transparency, are doomed from the start because contexts are not common amon participants?
- 20:11 < echarp> I don’t really get it obviously
- 20:11 < urgen> without initial appreciation for something outside of assumption… yes doomed
- 20:11 < echarp> outside of assumption, you mean someting objective?
- 20:11 < echarp> something unbiased?
- 20:12 < urgen> even those terms too
- 20:12 < echarp> an univeral referential?
- 20:12 < urgen> :-)
- 20:12 < urgen> the ice can get pretty thin
- 20:12 < echarp> definitely
- 20:12 < echarp> particularly if you go into the realm of absolutes
- 20:13 < urgen> or not necessarily, but I get your point
- 20:13 < echarp> I’m still in my nietschean phase :)
- 20:13 < urgen> so some bonding seem to happen when people work together
- 20:13 < echarp> and they get to construct a common context, definitely
- 20:14 < urgen> when we mutually construct a basis then we become invested in it
- 20:14 < echarp> projects, built on foundations which can be any of: time, work, religion, …etc.
- 20:14 < urgen> want to share it because our own investment seems to suggest that it is a wonderfully good thing
- 20:15 < urgen> so yes, bias, objective, neutral,,, words that begin to show up
- 20:15 < echarp> I am wondering, on one hand you seem to go toward some kind of absolute commonality, on the other on some kind of deconstructivism
- 20:15 < urgen> but how are we going to go about formalizing these terms?
- 20:15 < echarp> personally I’m definitely a relativist, nothing exist but the very present
- 20:16 < echarp> we construct everything on sand
- 20:16 < echarp> meaning as well as buildings
- 20:16 < echarp> we are doomed to never reach any eventual truth
- 20:17 < urgen> but even then you are still assuming.. :-)
- 20:17 < echarp> I don’t think so, or not much anyway :)
- 20:17 < urgen> then it is inconsistent
- 20:17 < echarp> I think it’s not assuming, but more like doing what is util
- 20:18 < urgen> ok, so some test is allowed
- 20:18 < urgen> functional basis or something
- 20:18 < echarp> everything is of course inconsistent, but for the things we define as consistent by definition, like mathematical tautologies
- 20:18 < echarp> functional?
- 20:18 < urgen> utility
- 20:18 < echarp> nah, just evolution and utilitarianism
- 20:18 < urgen> function
- 20:18 < echarp> yeap, utility! totally agree on that
- 20:19 < echarp> “necessity is law”
- 20:19 < echarp> from there we build everything, or so I see it anyway
- 20:19
!beeli [n=illegale@cmung4462.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Connection timed out] - 20:19 < urgen> so a billion ppl one to one, at a time to establish mutual understanding…
- 20:19 < urgen> sounds just a little impractical
- 20:19 < echarp> can that be “consistent” with your view point?
- 20:20 < echarp> impractical, nah, there will be all sorts of intermediaries
- 20:20 < urgen> well some are still children
- 20:20 < echarp> we contract between each others, but thoses contracts are like a grammar, which evolves and can evolve commonalities
- 20:20 < urgen> some don’t even exist yet
- 20:20 < echarp> exist?
- 20:20 < urgen> :-)
- 20:20 < urgen> gain relative basis
- 20:21 < echarp> are you speaking of those who will into the social contract but who don’t even agree to it?
- 20:21 < urgen> aren’t born
- 20:21 < echarp> “are you speaking of those who will grow into the social contract but who don’t even agree to it?”
- 20:21 < urgen> new people
- 20:21 < echarp> they will first grow under the umbrella of their parents’ responsibilities
- 20:21 < echarp> and years after years they will produce their own contracts
- 20:22 < urgen> that was already agreed on by everyone?
- 20:22 < echarp> with toys, friends
- 20:22 < urgen> cart before the horse
- 20:22 < echarp> nothing can really be agreed on by everyone, that would be an absolute :)
- 20:22 < urgen> so there is no “platform” like illegale says
- 20:22 < echarp> there will always, or so I think anyway, be some sorts of criminals outside of the consensual contracts
- 20:22 < urgen> lots and lots and lots of little ones maybe
- 20:23 < echarp> lots and lots, if people want it so
- 20:23 < urgen> I think they do
- 20:23 < echarp> or a few ones, if people recognise themselves into them
- 20:23 < echarp> I think there will be, there are, all kinds of layers
- 20:23 < urgen> so back to common
- 20:23 < echarp> epicurian contracts, friendship, mariage, sibling bonds, …
- 20:24 < urgen> ‘contract’
- 20:24 < urgen> do we have a way to get that hundred dollars out of paypal yet?
- 20:24 < echarp> transparency is mostly, to me again, a process, a contract which is at the basis of what we usually call the democratic process
- 20:24 < echarp> I don’t think transparency has to be an absolute
- 20:25 < echarp> it is useful in some settings, like democratic decision making
- 20:25
!illegale (irc.freenode.net) [n=illegale@cmung121.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement - 20:25 < urgen> so no automation yet
- 20:25 < illegale> hey
- 20:26 < urgen> if you want to use internet technology then some automation will be required
- 20:26 < urgen> what processes have you identified?
- 20:26 < echarp> I agree
- 20:26 < urgen> what does an automated contract look like?
- 20:26 < echarp> and these processes have to be transparent in order to reach any kind of trust, security
- 20:27 < echarp> it would be one you freely agree to
- 20:27 < echarp> on you can exit anytime
- 20:27 < echarp> “one you can exit anytime”
- 20:27 < echarp> a panarchy
- 20:27 < illegale> unless you agree different >
- 20:27 < urgen> proposal, review, refinement, on hold, contigent yes, no, agree, enforced
- 20:27 < echarp> like all the free software projects we can see
- 20:28 < echarp> you agree, agree to something for whatever reasons, you can leave for whatever reasons too
- 20:28 < echarp> in that process, a democratic decision will be the one that can be accepted freely
- 20:28 < echarp> to be accepted freely, the process requires trust
- 20:28 < urgen> so you are talking about membership. freely particpated in, can leave at any time
- 20:29 < illegale> E, what about contracts?
- 20:29 < echarp> yeap
- 20:29 < echarp> contracts are, could be, the basis, of panarchies
- 20:29 < urgen> when you step in you get to hold this id card, or wear this special ring… or…
- 20:29 < echarp> of an epicurian society
- 20:29 < illegale> If in contract stands you can leave only becoause and you sign?
- 20:29 < urgen> so people know when you are in and when you are out
- 20:29 < echarp> or just be accepted as yourself, by whatever process is accepted by the group
- 20:29 < illegale> yes
- 20:30 < echarp> I believe some kind of electoral list will be required
- 20:30 < illegale> I suppose there are the level of commision
- 20:30 < echarp> but there can be more than one list, any number of them!
- 20:30 < urgen> an agreement initialized can be extended
- 20:30 < echarp> yeap
- 20:30 < illegale> yes :)
- 20:30 < echarp> nomic :)
- 20:30 < urgen> maybe you tack on the agreement to not ever step out again…
- 20:30 < echarp> tack?
- 20:30 < urgen> glue
- 20:30 < illegale> you can
- 20:30 < urgen> attach
- 20:30 < echarp> ok
- 20:30 < illegale> and if you go, yada yada yada
- 20:31 < urgen> ok, so I’m only interested in automating this process
- 20:31 < echarp> nomic again, of course, you can change everything if the contracting group agrees to it
- 20:31 < illegale> what do you mean with automating?
- 20:31 < illegale> setting procedures?
- 20:31 < urgen> so a robot can be the secretary
- 20:32 < echarp> the electoral lists will require some kind of human
- 20:32 < urgen> I say: proposal – urgen can only wear blue suede shoes
- 20:32 < echarp> yeap
- 20:32 < urgen> then we have other identified process that gets started
- 20:32 < echarp> urgen can step out of the group if he considers that silly :)
- 20:32 < echarp> let’s say everybody can vote on that issue
- 20:32 < urgen> :-)
- 20:33 < echarp> and through an accepted voting procedure, it gets accepted or refused by the people on an electoral list
- 20:33 < urgen> if some say I can’t step out then I’m bound to their circle.. hmnnz
- 20:33 < urgen> :-)
- 20:33 < echarp> of course, yet there can “super” principles :)
- 20:33 < echarp> nomic again obviously :)
- 20:33 < echarp> I have to give some thoughts on that!!! I’m still rather new to this game! :)
- 20:33 < urgen> so the details only hold water if they work
- 20:34 < urgen> and we can’t tell what holds water or not without trying
- 20:34 < echarp> I believe a panarchist society can exist if: "every group in a panarchy must accept the existence and validity of other groups)
- 20:34 < echarp> like democracy, it requires that some kind of majority accepts its tenets
- 20:35 < urgen> the rules tend to not be flavored in top down format
- 20:35 < echarp> or it won’t hold water for long
- 20:35 < echarp> “not be flavored”?
- 20:35 < urgen> enforced by freedom of motion means you follow only by whim or by conviction
- 20:35 < illegale> e, it is possible in virtaul societies
- 20:35 < illegale> not in real one
- 20:36 < echarp> yeap, the chinese did use that freedom during some periods
- 20:36 < echarp> “voting with your feet” I believe it is called
- 20:36 < illegale> yes?
- 20:36 < urgen> the other side of the democracy game is the one that plays only to upset
- 20:36 < echarp> I believe free software groups work on this principle too
- 20:36 < echarp> the trolls?
- 20:36 < urgen> what kind of proceedures are to be defined to boost the system’s immunity to upset?
- 20:36 < urgen> trolls
- 20:37 < echarp> I believe there could be a rather simple one
- 20:38 < echarp> everybody can vote on what is said, everybody can filter what is said according to those votes
- 20:38 < urgen> so you end up with lots and lots of funny little bubble agreements
- 20:38 < echarp> it’s personal filters at first
- 20:38 < urgen> slowly forming to make larger ones and breaking apart to recreate smaller bubbles again
- 20:38 < illegale> not too many
- 20:38 < echarp> then some communities can consider that some elements will reach another status on some conditions
- 20:38 < illegale> I suppose this is a way towards meritocracy
- 20:38 < urgen> bully bubbles win every time
- 20:38 < echarp> yes, liquid democracy sort of things
- 20:38 < illegale> smart people get agreemenets easily
- 20:39 < illegale> not smart one, hardly
- 20:39 < urgen> bubbles with pointy sticks win
- 20:39 < echarp> bully ones will remain in empty bubbles
- 20:39 < echarp> they will push every one away, all those one in disagreement anyway
- 20:39 < echarp> those can then reach other bubbles
- 20:40 < echarp> no limit on the number of bubbles you can enter
- 20:40 < echarp> but there might incompatibilities
- 20:40 < echarp> “wars”
- 20:40 < illegale> unless there is different agreemnet
- 20:40 < urgen> ok, so some brief sketching,, but we need some code
- 20:41 < urgen> I can ask my friend to bring the nomic bot here to test some theories by
- 20:41 < urgen> the hardest is a contract that requires the bot to change its own code
- 20:41 < echarp> you bet
- 20:41 < urgen> there are some technological limits even to the internet :-)
- 20:42 < echarp> I’m not sure it is even possible, or it could be, but in stringent limits
- 20:42 < urgen> I’ve seen sel-modifying code before
- 20:42 < urgen> self
- 20:43 < echarp> but have been limited, highly limited
- 20:43 < echarp> “must have been limited, highly limited”
- 20:43 < illegale> blb, sorry
- 20:43 < echarp> automata and such
- 20:44
!Schuyler (Schuyler D. Erle) [n=sderle@tridity.org] has joined #parlement - 20:44 < Schuyler> http://iconocla.st/nomic/
- 20:44 < echarp> hello hello Schuyler
- 20:44 < Schuyler> I can fire up the bot and have it join the chan if anyone is interested
- 20:44 < urgen> does it need a warm up on the rules?
- 20:45 < urgen> I think we should
- 20:45 < echarp> don’t hesitate
- 20:45 < urgen> just to generate some fuel to chew one
- 20:45 < urgen> on
- 20:45 < Schuyler> one sec.
- 20:46 < echarp> but I’ve never played yet
- 20:46 < echarp> I’m interested though
- 20:46 < urgen> ( no one else has either )
- 20:46 < urgen> ;-)
- 20:46 < echarp> it’s going to be bloody!
- 20:46 < echarp> buridan: have you tried it before?
- 20:47 < urgen> nomic.net
- 20:47 < echarp> but with a bot, I do wonder
- 20:48 < echarp> time limits to decide on simple majorities?
- 20:48 < echarp> plus I still haven’t had dinner :)
- 20:48 < echarp> what time is it for you?
- 20:48 < echarp> 20:50 here (Paris)
- 20:50 < echarp> Schuyler: btw, the channel is logged on http://leparlement.org/top-politics, every thing we say will be there by tomorrow
- 20:50 < Schuyler> ok cool.
- 20:51 * Schuyler reinstalling missing Perl modules
- 20:51 < echarp> no problem, you give me some ten minutes?
- 20:51 * Schuyler nods
- 20:51 < echarp> a tomato, pepper, cheese salad :)
- 20:51 < echarp> great!
- 21:02 < Schuyler> still installing perl mods.
- 21:03
!illegale [n=illegale@cmung121.cmu.carnet.hr] has quit [Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)] - 21:16 < echarp> back, but still have a yogurt to go :)
- 21:17 < echarp> you want some? :)
- 21:21
!fiatlex (fiatlex bot) [n=bot@tridity.org] has joined #parlement - 21:21 < Schuyler> fiatlex: help
- 21:21 < fiatlex> Schuyler: Ask me for help about: nomic (say ‘help
’) - 21:21 < Schuyler> fiatlex: help nomic
- 21:21 < fiatlex> Schuyler: Ask me about rule
, or ask me to accept [with ], amend with , annotate with , collect from , defeat [with ], details of , enact [with ], enroll, grant to , inventory - 21:21 < fiatlex> ..
, notes on , pending, propose , reject [with ], spend or text of . - 21:22 < urgen> and there was an initial set page or something wasn’t there?
- 21:22 < Schuyler> well I think this bot is loaded with the rules from the last time we played
- 21:22 < urgen> oh
- 21:22 < Schuyler> http://iconocla.st/nomic/rules.html
- 21:22 < echarp> I can see them on the web page you gave?
- 21:22 < echarp> ok
- 21:22 < Schuyler> I can restart the ruleset
- 21:22 < urgen> :-) I think we should…
- 21:23 < echarp> phone call, 2min
- 21:23 < urgen> no way to archive?
- 21:24 * Schuyler shrugs
- 21:24 < Schuyler> I just copied the database out of the way :)
- 21:25
!fiatlex [n=bot@tridity.org] has quit [Remote closed the connection] - 21:26
!fiatlex (fiatlex bot) [n=bot@tridity.org] has joined #parlement - 21:26 < Schuyler> fiatlex: rule #1?
- 21:26 < fiatlex> Schuyler: Which rule?
- 21:26 < Schuyler> ok
- 21:26 < Schuyler> bot has no rules at all now, it seems
- 21:26 < urgen> yes
- 21:27 < urgen> the copied away directory might have the first ten or so?
- 21:27 < Schuyler> I actually don’t recall what the initial set of rules was
- 21:27 < urgen> me neither..
- 21:27 < Schuyler> I don’t know if I have a copy of that or not
- 21:27 < urgen> gotta be something like. to play you have to follow the rules
- 21:29 < Schuyler> http://iconocla.st/nomic/hashbots.html
- 21:29 < urgen> thanks
- 21:30 < urgen> oh yea, there was a registry of participation
- 21:31 * echarp is back
- 21:33 < urgen> Schuyler: as an alternative metric for regarding whether something passes or not — http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sd-2/
- 21:33 < echarp> how are immutable and mutable rules differentiated?
- 21:33 < urgen> they aren’t
- 21:34 < echarp> ok
- 21:34 < echarp> simpler
- 21:34 < echarp> sd-2???
- 21:34 < urgen> this is a much more basic experiment intended just to get the feel and a way to approach ideas for next versions
- 21:34 < urgen> Structural Deep Democracy SD-2 uses page rank to measure passage
- 21:35 < urgen> the bot helps some of the questions you didn’t know you had to show up
- 21:36 < echarp> sd2 I know, but I dislike
- 21:36 < urgen> I just wanted to show Schuyler a weighted metric method
- 21:36 < echarp> plus I’m occasionaly sort of discussing with mark on top-politics, he’s rather disagreeable
- 21:36 < urgen> I wasn’t trying to express support or not
- 21:37 < urgen> it is easy to snowball pagerank
- 21:37 < urgen> so the idea would fail fast without a lot of protection
- 21:37 < echarp> pagerank is interesting ;)
- 21:59 < echarp> how is it going?
- 22:02 < echarp> I’m reading the rules log, it seems difficult to pass rules
- 22:03 < Schuyler> well in that particular version of nomic
- 22:03 < Schuyler> we started out with consensus as a requirement
- 22:03 < Schuyler> if you’re playing traditional nomic or what, naturally the options are different
- 22:03 < Schuyler> this was urgen’s idea in large part
- 22:03 < echarp> it seems fine
- 22:04 < Schuyler> we were experimenting to see what a basic minimum set of rules might look like
- 22:04 < echarp> but the first rule, if any, will be hugely
- 22:04 < echarp> important
- 22:04 < Schuyler> for bootstrapping consensus
- 22:04 < Schuyler> yes, quite
- 22:04 < echarp> the consensus was the first rule it seems
- 22:04 < echarp> it needs to be explicit I guess
- 22:12 < urgen> and so.. since this is being logged, you are already starting an exploration of the record of requirements
- 22:12 < echarp> yeap :)
- 22:12 < urgen> so your actual first rule will talk about explicitness
- 22:12 < echarp> it could be
- 22:12 < urgen> perhaps
- 22:12 < urgen> it’s better to keep this open open open at first
- 22:13 < echarp> yet we could also consider that joining the game is also a matter of agreement of entry in the game
- 22:13 < echarp> an implicit rule of sorts
- 22:13 < echarp> I don’t mind that much starting with 0 rules, but still wondering
- 22:13 < urgen> well.. if there were going to be implicit’y allowed rule bases.. that would have to be addressed first
- 22:14 < urgen> I have a meeting to get too, sorry
- 22:14 < urgen> bbl
- 22:15 < echarp> bye bye
- 22:15 < echarp> I might be in bed when you come back
- 22:15 < echarp> hope to catch you later on, tomorrow
- 22:15 < urgen> ok
- 22:27 < echarp> fiatlex: ping
- 22:27 < echarp> fiatlex: help
- 22:27 < fiatlex> echarp: Ask me for help about: nomic (say ‘help
’) - 22:27 < echarp> fiatlex: nomic
- 22:28 < echarp> fiatlex: log
- 22:28 < echarp> fiatlex: help nomic
- 22:28 < fiatlex> echarp: Ask me about rule
, or ask me to accept [with ], amend with , annotate with , collect from , defeat [with ], details of , enact [with ], enroll, grant to , inventory - 22:28 < fiatlex> ..
, notes on , pending, propose , reject [with ], spend or text of . - 22:39 < echarp> fiatlex: rule 0
- 22:39 < fiatlex> echarp: Which rule?
- 22:39 < echarp> fiatlex: rule 1
- 22:39 < fiatlex> echarp: Which rule?
- 22:39 < echarp> fiatlex: inventory
- 22:44 < echarp> Schuyler: how is it going?
- 22:44 < echarp> we’ll probably not play tonight
- 22:44 < Schuyler> well the bot is running
- 22:44 < Schuyler> you have to populate it with rules though
- 22:46 < echarp> how are the players managed?
- 22:47 < echarp> at first I mean
- 22:50 < Schuyler> tell the bot ‘enroll’
- 22:55 < echarp> fiatlex: enroll
- 22:55 < fiatlex> echarp: Welcome to the game. Ask me about ‘pending’ rules, or ‘help Nomic’.
- 22:55 < echarp> fiatlex: pending
- 22:55 < fiatlex> echarp: You have no more rules pending review.
- 22:55 < echarp> then the game starts as open to everybody willing to participate
- 22:55 < echarp> implicit rule :)
- 23:00
!illegale (irc.freenode.net) [n=illegale@cmung3313.cmu.carnet.hr] has joined #parlement - 23:00 < echarp> re illegale
- 23:00 < illegale> hey :)
- 23:00 < illegale> a crowd :)
- 23:00 < echarp> nah
- 23:01 < echarp> but some nice people ;)
- 23:01 < echarp> even a gaming bot! => fiatlex (nomic bot)
- 23:01 < illegale> wow!
- 23:01 < illegale> did you check it out?
- 23:01 < echarp> it’s Schuyler’s
- 23:02 < illegale> France China 1:1
- 23:02 < echarp> his own pet project I gues
- 23:02 < echarp> s
- 23:02 < illegale> hellp Schulyer!
- 23:02 < echarp> oh, I didn’t really follow the game, I’ll watch france-bresil in finale! :)
- 23:02 < illegale> sure
- 23:04 < illegale> I pushed tav a little bit today :)
- 23:05 < echarp> illegale: I didn’t follow that, what is that about?
- 23:06 < illegale> I asked tav why esp has closed group
- 23:06 < illegale> Did not answer
- 23:06 < illegale> Just said it is
- 23:07 < illegale> Too bad, I wished to link them to top politic
- 23:07 < illegale> s
- 23:08 < echarp> who is that sbp?
- 23:08 < illegale> do not know, gonna change it I hope :)
- 23:08 * echarp is not so sure, there seems to be matter of money, which does tend to have non transparent consequences
- 23:09 < illegale> being nott tranapsrent is oportunistic
- 23:09 < illegale> not lead to far
- 23:11 < illegale> btw, if we had some money in run, then we will fully benefit from otp
- 23:11 < illegale> top
- 23:11 < illegale> everybody wanting to join it :)
- 23:12 < illegale> e, do you think fiatlex is in the stage to help us in our deal?
- 23:13 < echarp> personally I’m not worried about transparency and money
- 23:13 < echarp> lol
- 23:13 < echarp> fiatlex: help nomic
- 23:13 < fiatlex> echarp: Ask me about rule
, or ask me to accept [with ], amend with , annotate with , collect from , defeat [with ], details of , enact [with ], enroll, grant to , inventory - 23:13 < fiatlex> ..
, notes on , pending, propose , reject [with ], spend or text of . - 23:14 < illegale> are you going to play it in some time?
- 23:16 < echarp> I’m already enrolled :)
- 23:16 < illegale> with whom?
- 23:16 < echarp> but I’d rather for urgen coming back, which might be in a few hours
- 23:17 < echarp> with the bot
- 23:17 < echarp> just type fiatlex: enroll
- 23:17 < illegale> fiatlex:enroll
- 23:17 < fiatlex> illegale: Welcome to the game. Ask me about ‘pending’ rules, or ‘help Nomic’.
- 23:17 < illegale> I am playing it too. Cool :)
- 23:18 < echarp> isn’t it
- 23:18 < echarp> but let’s wait for urgen, maybe buridan could also be interested?
- 23:39 < illegale> I suppose not
- 23:44 < echarp> tomorrow I’ll invite some friends on other channels, I’m sure the concept will interest them
- 23:44 < illegale> buridan and urgen not here?
- 23:45 < echarp> urgen left for a meeting
- 23:45 < illegale> working guy, huh?
- 23:45 < illegale> lol
- 23:45 < echarp> buridan may just be busy on something else, I hope he’ll stay around so we can talk philosophy, civics, democracy
- 23:46 < illegale> yes
- 23:46 < illegale> glad to see place be vivid
- 23:46 < illegale> yet i have to do some work at group and wiki
- 23:46 < illegale> blb
- 23:46 < echarp> ok, good night
- 23:46 < echarp> and see you here, hopefully, tomorrow
- 23:46 < echarp> (I’ll be in a meeting in the morning)
- 23:47 < illegale> ok
- 23:47 < illegale> i know where i can find you :)
- 23:48 < echarp> definitely! :)
-Log closed jeu jun 08 00:00:14 2006
-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
-
09/06/06 00:08
[top-politics] PageRank can handle accumulative delegable proxy democracy - ADPD.
21:33 < urgen> Schuyler: as an alternative metric for regarding
whether something passes or not — http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sd-2/
- 21:34 < urgen> Structural Deep Democracy SD-2 uses page rank to measure passage
- 21:35 < urgen> the bot helps some of the questions you didn’t know you had to show up
- 21:36 < echarp> sd2 I know, but I dislike
-M: Emmanuel, your EC-D has a similar flavor to SD2. It looks more like SD2 than it is looks like AD because of its accumulative voting.
- 21:36 < urgen> I just wanted to show Schuyler a weighted metric method
- 21:36 < echarp> plus I’m occasionaly sort of discussing with mark on top-politics, he’s rather disagreeable
-M: “disagreeable” – aren’t I only responding to your own disagreeableness?
- 21:36 < urgen> I wasn’t trying to express support or not
- 21:37 < urgen> it is easy to snowball pagerank
- 21:37 < urgen> so the idea would fail fast without a lot of protection
-M: The protection is at the input side. The votes are protected.
- 21:37 < echarp> pagerank is interesting ;)
-M: Especially since your accumulative voting may need it.
Two questions:
- If your delegable proxy system doesn’t use PageRank to process the delegable proxy inputs, how does it work?(I have asked several times - I am still waiting. People, PageRank is an algorithm can can handle the complexities of representitives cross-endorsing one another.)
- Is the input issue vote, or delegation, or is it issue vote and/or delegation. (You did express the sentiment earlier that you wanted to maximize choice, yes?)
shanti
Mark, Seattle WA USA-~-~————-~—~——~——————~———-~—~——~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “top-politics” group. To post to this group, send email to top-politics@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to top-politics-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/top-politics~————-~——~——~——~———~——~———~—~—-
+1
New discussion
Answer
- 01:35
