emergent holoptism as OCL Re: open capital License?
Hi Flawer, Hi All, I totally get you flawer. Somehow, I see a variety of contracts, with shareable being one type of license / contract that could be used , amongst other ontologies many seem to be taking for granted , of which perhaps certain could overlap ? Sometimes, and I do not mean this for this list in particular, but generally speaking, I have the feeling that its not easy to communicate such views, except for examples related to collaborative consumption. Most people seem to understand the idea of a library of objects. Or the idea of renting some object or place from / to someone. Moving one step further, into the realm of currency, and metadata , is often a stage which seems to be more difficult to bridge. My impression is that very often people understand currency as an object, as in the case of a book in a library. And not in terms of data and metadata, created out of specific contracts. I liked Etienne's approach of explaining it as a "game"... *A game other people need to agree to play with, for the currency to have any value.* Hence, I would hope that granular and modulable metadata assembled into contextualized descriptions, enables* all games to be taken into account, and provide a framework for "game 2 game" transactions. * Actually, before even the stage of facilitating transactions, such "meta game" enables its users to provide each other with context to support choice making, become aware of the current, or potential effects of interdependencies , opening up a *"meta-game of emergent contextualized collective intelligence".* I realize that once I start talking about an emergent system , it seems to become difficult ( too abstract ? ) for many to grasp ? Perhaps at it becomes a 4th order cybernetic order ? http://attainable-utopias.org/tiki/FourthOrderCybernetics I may need to find different ways of explaining it. Perhaps conversations on this list can help... How can one best explain that any transaction can potentially choose its license / conditions , and that such license can not only itself become currency when accepted by others, but that the combined descriptions of conditions by all users, the contextualized metadata , becomes a type of (meta)currency, as the context and its interdependencies creates a defacto a license to choose from. In other words, becoming aware of potential economic networks creates a license to choose from, and to contribute from. In effect, the context created through emergence, becoming an open capital license... Related concept : http://p2pfoundation.net/Holoptism On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 1:43 PM, flawer <[email protected]> wrote:
a) it decides whether the tools for the project are created and by whom they are used. b) they decide the price of those tools( through lending).
After this analysis, we see that a bank does decide what the economy produces. In general, the owner of money controls the economy because of those 2 reasons.
Any ruleset thus has to find a way to remove those abilities from money.
if you attach a contract that promises the universalization of access you are giving more responsability and less rights to ownership (what money could buy), you won't be able to ask for money for the produced thing, and should let others use it, etc, so investing in my property is increasing my responsability, so i'd like to share that charge (peer property) and i'd like not being owner of too many things (i prefer to be plain user). the "a)" reason you mention is mentioned to be universal use by default.
i believe a job agency of workers investing their sales/budgets for the commons can be bought by a rich in $ (and it's an internal matter of us whether we know how to spend well the $ and if we still need to 'accept' them), and this not being a power over from the rich in $ towards us. It is rather a way we should experiment more, we shouldn't have much competition in the actual 'market' if we corporate so.
also the clausing of community currencies with the shareful producing condition, whether they choose the shareful project to be just accesible for their associates or for the whole world, should help defining their values and even justify the giving of 'basic incomes' for shareful producers works in this way (who could buy preferent use/access for those produced shareful things) (who could require to retain the ownership of the shareful production or give it to the corp)
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
Dante, have you thought of the network effect<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect> ? The usefulness of a system depends on the number of people using it. So, even if people are able to create their own game, they will still have to play by the rules that someone else created. It was never a requirement to have electronic tools so that another form of society would exist if everyone accepted the new society's rules. We need to propose a specific game. 2013/2/5 Dante-Gabryell Monson <[email protected]>
Hi Flawer, Hi All,
I totally get you flawer. Somehow, I see a variety of contracts, with shareable being one type of license / contract that could be used , amongst other ontologies many seem to be taking for granted , of which perhaps certain could overlap ?
Sometimes, and I do not mean this for this list in particular, but generally speaking,
I have the feeling that its not easy to communicate such views, except for examples related to collaborative consumption.
Most people seem to understand the idea of a library of objects. Or the idea of renting some object or place from / to someone.
Moving one step further, into the realm of currency, and metadata , is often a stage which seems to be more difficult to bridge.
My impression is that very often people understand currency as an object, as in the case of a book in a library. And not in terms of data and metadata, created out of specific contracts.
I liked Etienne's approach of explaining it as a "game"... *A game other people need to agree to play with, for the currency to have any value.*
Hence, I would hope that granular and modulable metadata assembled into contextualized descriptions, enables* all games to be taken into account, and provide a framework for "game 2 game" transactions. *
Actually, before even the stage of facilitating transactions, such "meta game" enables its users to provide each other with context to support choice making, become aware of the current, or potential effects of interdependencies , opening up a *"meta-game of emergent contextualized collective intelligence".*
I realize that once I start talking about an emergent system , it seems to become difficult ( too abstract ? ) for many to grasp ?
Perhaps at it becomes a 4th order cybernetic order ? http://attainable-utopias.org/tiki/FourthOrderCybernetics
I may need to find different ways of explaining it.
Perhaps conversations on this list can help...
How can one best explain that any transaction can potentially choose its license / conditions , and that such license can not only itself become currency when accepted by others, but that the combined descriptions of conditions by all users, the contextualized metadata , becomes a type of (meta)currency, as the context and its interdependencies creates a defacto a license to choose from.
In other words, becoming aware of potential economic networks creates a license to choose from, and to contribute from.
In effect, the context created through emergence, becoming an open capital license...
Related concept : http://p2pfoundation.net/Holoptism
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 1:43 PM, flawer <[email protected]> wrote:
a) it decides whether the tools for the project are created and by whom they are used. b) they decide the price of those tools( through lending).
After this analysis, we see that a bank does decide what the economy produces. In general, the owner of money controls the economy because of those 2 reasons.
Any ruleset thus has to find a way to remove those abilities from money.
if you attach a contract that promises the universalization of access you are giving more responsability and less rights to ownership (what money could buy), you won't be able to ask for money for the produced thing, and should let others use it, etc, so investing in my property is increasing my responsability, so i'd like to share that charge (peer property) and i'd like not being owner of too many things (i prefer to be plain user). the "a)" reason you mention is mentioned to be universal use by default.
i believe a job agency of workers investing their sales/budgets for the commons can be bought by a rich in $ (and it's an internal matter of us whether we know how to spend well the $ and if we still need to 'accept' them), and this not being a power over from the rich in $ towards us. It is rather a way we should experiment more, we shouldn't have much competition in the actual 'market' if we corporate so.
also the clausing of community currencies with the shareful producing condition, whether they choose the shareful project to be just accesible for their associates or for the whole world, should help defining their values and even justify the giving of 'basic incomes' for shareful producers works in this way (who could buy preferent use/access for those produced shareful things) (who could require to retain the ownership of the shareful production or give it to the corp)
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
-- Sincerely yours, Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis
Hi Apostolis, Thanks. yes, I thought of the network effect. Hence the granularity, which enables modularity, at a single agents point of perspective. One agent / user / player, can play several overlapping "games" ( including economic ones ), and direct its choices based on understanding of how other people's engagements match, and on the contextualisation of resources or potential resources. This is possible through the use of a variety of metadata, including a combination of engagement metadata with resource related metadata ( apples, pears, ... ) , and which can include debt based metadata ( what we currently call money ), but certainly does not restrict the economic networks to such layers of transactions, broadening transactions to a much larger potential of transactions based on information of available capital. Hence, as briefly mentioned in the last message, the self contextualizing information systems open up an understanding of potential choices within economic networks, hence creating a defacto series of context based (meta)licenses ( themselves based on conditions defined within these granular elements ) On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 3:25 PM, Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis < [email protected]> wrote:
Dante, have you thought of the network effect<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect> ?
The usefulness of a system depends on the number of people using it. So, even if people are able to create their own game, they will still have to play by the rules that someone else created.
It was never a requirement to have electronic tools so that another form of society would exist if everyone accepted the new society's rules.
We need to propose a specific game.
2013/2/5 Dante-Gabryell Monson <[email protected]>
Hi Flawer, Hi All,
I totally get you flawer. Somehow, I see a variety of contracts, with shareable being one type of license / contract that could be used , amongst other ontologies many seem to be taking for granted , of which perhaps certain could overlap ?
Sometimes, and I do not mean this for this list in particular, but generally speaking,
I have the feeling that its not easy to communicate such views, except for examples related to collaborative consumption.
Most people seem to understand the idea of a library of objects. Or the idea of renting some object or place from / to someone.
Moving one step further, into the realm of currency, and metadata , is often a stage which seems to be more difficult to bridge.
My impression is that very often people understand currency as an object, as in the case of a book in a library. And not in terms of data and metadata, created out of specific contracts.
I liked Etienne's approach of explaining it as a "game"... *A game other people need to agree to play with, for the currency to have any value.*
Hence, I would hope that granular and modulable metadata assembled into contextualized descriptions, enables* all games to be taken into account, and provide a framework for "game 2 game" transactions. *
Actually, before even the stage of facilitating transactions, such "meta game" enables its users to provide each other with context to support choice making, become aware of the current, or potential effects of interdependencies , opening up a *"meta-game of emergent contextualized collective intelligence".*
I realize that once I start talking about an emergent system , it seems to become difficult ( too abstract ? ) for many to grasp ?
Perhaps at it becomes a 4th order cybernetic order ? http://attainable-utopias.org/tiki/FourthOrderCybernetics
I may need to find different ways of explaining it.
Perhaps conversations on this list can help...
How can one best explain that any transaction can potentially choose its license / conditions , and that such license can not only itself become currency when accepted by others, but that the combined descriptions of conditions by all users, the contextualized metadata , becomes a type of (meta)currency, as the context and its interdependencies creates a defacto a license to choose from.
In other words, becoming aware of potential economic networks creates a license to choose from, and to contribute from.
In effect, the context created through emergence, becoming an open capital license...
Related concept : http://p2pfoundation.net/Holoptism
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 1:43 PM, flawer <[email protected]> wrote:
a) it decides whether the tools for the project are created and by whom they are used. b) they decide the price of those tools( through lending).
After this analysis, we see that a bank does decide what the economy produces. In general, the owner of money controls the economy because of those 2 reasons.
Any ruleset thus has to find a way to remove those abilities from money.
if you attach a contract that promises the universalization of access you are giving more responsability and less rights to ownership (what money could buy), you won't be able to ask for money for the produced thing, and should let others use it, etc, so investing in my property is increasing my responsability, so i'd like to share that charge (peer property) and i'd like not being owner of too many things (i prefer to be plain user). the "a)" reason you mention is mentioned to be universal use by default.
i believe a job agency of workers investing their sales/budgets for the commons can be bought by a rich in $ (and it's an internal matter of us whether we know how to spend well the $ and if we still need to 'accept' them), and this not being a power over from the rich in $ towards us. It is rather a way we should experiment more, we shouldn't have much competition in the actual 'market' if we corporate so.
also the clausing of community currencies with the shareful producing condition, whether they choose the shareful project to be just accesible for their associates or for the whole world, should help defining their values and even justify the giving of 'basic incomes' for shareful producers works in this way (who could buy preferent use/access for those produced shareful things) (who could require to retain the ownership of the shareful production or give it to the corp)
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
--
Sincerely yours,
Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis
note : as to understand the element that enables the network effect, I may perhaps focus on the understanding that such metadata can be used, pretty much like a tag, and hence any corresponding metadata , or even data patterns, could overlap across several "games", or in effect, "create" a variety of games... or opportunities for games, as people find out about such opportunities, and can decide to act upon them. It opens up new markets, in a p2p approach, along a variety of forms of capital. This is one of the applications I see as possible with netention, once the prototype will become more mature... On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Dante-Gabryell Monson < [email protected]> wrote:
Hi Apostolis, Thanks.
yes, I thought of the network effect.
Hence the granularity, which enables modularity, at a single agents point of perspective.
One agent / user / player, can play several overlapping "games" ( including economic ones ),
and direct its choices based on understanding of how other people's engagements match, and on the contextualisation of resources or potential resources.
This is possible through the use of a variety of metadata, including a combination of engagement metadata with resource related metadata ( apples, pears, ... ) , and which can include debt based metadata ( what we currently call money ), but certainly does not restrict the economic networks to such layers of transactions, broadening transactions to a much larger potential of transactions based on information of available capital.
Hence, as briefly mentioned in the last message, the self contextualizing information systems open up an understanding of potential choices within economic networks, hence creating a defacto series of context based (meta)licenses ( themselves based on conditions defined within these granular elements )
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 3:25 PM, Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis < [email protected]> wrote:
Dante, have you thought of the network effect<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect> ?
The usefulness of a system depends on the number of people using it. So, even if people are able to create their own game, they will still have to play by the rules that someone else created.
It was never a requirement to have electronic tools so that another form of society would exist if everyone accepted the new society's rules.
We need to propose a specific game.
2013/2/5 Dante-Gabryell Monson <[email protected]>
Hi Flawer, Hi All,
I totally get you flawer. Somehow, I see a variety of contracts, with shareable being one type of license / contract that could be used , amongst other ontologies many seem to be taking for granted , of which perhaps certain could overlap ?
Sometimes, and I do not mean this for this list in particular, but generally speaking,
I have the feeling that its not easy to communicate such views, except for examples related to collaborative consumption.
Most people seem to understand the idea of a library of objects. Or the idea of renting some object or place from / to someone.
Moving one step further, into the realm of currency, and metadata , is often a stage which seems to be more difficult to bridge.
My impression is that very often people understand currency as an object, as in the case of a book in a library. And not in terms of data and metadata, created out of specific contracts.
I liked Etienne's approach of explaining it as a "game"... *A game other people need to agree to play with, for the currency to have any value.*
Hence, I would hope that granular and modulable metadata assembled into contextualized descriptions, enables* all games to be taken into account, and provide a framework for "game 2 game" transactions. *
Actually, before even the stage of facilitating transactions, such "meta game" enables its users to provide each other with context to support choice making, become aware of the current, or potential effects of interdependencies , opening up a *"meta-game of emergent contextualized collective intelligence".*
I realize that once I start talking about an emergent system , it seems to become difficult ( too abstract ? ) for many to grasp ?
Perhaps at it becomes a 4th order cybernetic order ? http://attainable-utopias.org/tiki/FourthOrderCybernetics
I may need to find different ways of explaining it.
Perhaps conversations on this list can help...
How can one best explain that any transaction can potentially choose its license / conditions , and that such license can not only itself become currency when accepted by others, but that the combined descriptions of conditions by all users, the contextualized metadata , becomes a type of (meta)currency, as the context and its interdependencies creates a defacto a license to choose from.
In other words, becoming aware of potential economic networks creates a license to choose from, and to contribute from.
In effect, the context created through emergence, becoming an open capital license...
Related concept : http://p2pfoundation.net/Holoptism
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 1:43 PM, flawer <[email protected]> wrote:
a) it decides whether the tools for the project are created and by whom they are used. b) they decide the price of those tools( through lending).
After this analysis, we see that a bank does decide what the economy produces. In general, the owner of money controls the economy because of those 2 reasons.
Any ruleset thus has to find a way to remove those abilities from money.
if you attach a contract that promises the universalization of access you are giving more responsability and less rights to ownership (what money could buy), you won't be able to ask for money for the produced thing, and should let others use it, etc, so investing in my property is increasing my responsability, so i'd like to share that charge (peer property) and i'd like not being owner of too many things (i prefer to be plain user). the "a)" reason you mention is mentioned to be universal use by default.
i believe a job agency of workers investing their sales/budgets for the commons can be bought by a rich in $ (and it's an internal matter of us whether we know how to spend well the $ and if we still need to 'accept' them), and this not being a power over from the rich in $ towards us. It is rather a way we should experiment more, we shouldn't have much competition in the actual 'market' if we corporate so.
also the clausing of community currencies with the shareful producing condition, whether they choose the shareful project to be just accesible for their associates or for the whole world, should help defining their values and even justify the giving of 'basic incomes' for shareful producers works in this way (who could buy preferent use/access for those produced shareful things) (who could require to retain the ownership of the shareful production or give it to the corp)
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
--
Sincerely yours,
Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis
yet another additional note :) ( cc: Arthur Brock, Eric Harris Braun ) ... I realize what I describe corresponds, or rather, is very similar in spirit, to the concept of the metacurrency project : http://www.metacurrency.org/ http://p2pfoundation.net/Metacurrency_Project In addition to transactions, I look forward to combine it with any form of contextual data... ( perhaps its part of their vision too ? not sure ... ) Metacurrency is in development. I understand Arthur Brock and Eric Harris Braun , within this vision, include a xml based protocol, called xpfl http://wiki.flowplace.org/wagn/XML http://wiki.flowplace.org/wagn/XPFL+Ontology In netention ( prototype : er.netention.org , code : https://github.com/automenta/netentionjs2 , intro : http://netention.org/intro/ ) , there is ultimately the aim at importing ontologies ( including xml and rdf schema ). I would love to see the potential to experiment with the approaches developed by metacurrency, and import XPFL in the netention tool as to enable descriptions using XPFL. But then, ... best is to double check if I understood all of these technical approaches properly :) - perhaps such technical discussions, for those interested, could be done via https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/global-survival ? On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 4:23 PM, Dante-Gabryell Monson < [email protected]> wrote:
note : as to understand the element that enables the network effect, I may perhaps focus on the understanding that such metadata can be used, pretty much like a tag, and hence any corresponding metadata , or even data patterns, could overlap across several "games", or in effect, "create" a variety of games... or opportunities for games, as people find out about such opportunities, and can decide to act upon them.
It opens up new markets, in a p2p approach, along a variety of forms of capital.
This is one of the applications I see as possible with netention, once the prototype will become more mature...
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 4:16 PM, Dante-Gabryell Monson < [email protected]> wrote:
Hi Apostolis, Thanks.
yes, I thought of the network effect.
Hence the granularity, which enables modularity, at a single agents point of perspective.
One agent / user / player, can play several overlapping "games" ( including economic ones ),
and direct its choices based on understanding of how other people's engagements match, and on the contextualisation of resources or potential resources.
This is possible through the use of a variety of metadata, including a combination of engagement metadata with resource related metadata ( apples, pears, ... ) , and which can include debt based metadata ( what we currently call money ), but certainly does not restrict the economic networks to such layers of transactions, broadening transactions to a much larger potential of transactions based on information of available capital.
Hence, as briefly mentioned in the last message, the self contextualizing information systems open up an understanding of potential choices within economic networks, hence creating a defacto series of context based (meta)licenses ( themselves based on conditions defined within these granular elements )
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 3:25 PM, Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis < [email protected]> wrote:
Dante, have you thought of the network effect<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect> ?
The usefulness of a system depends on the number of people using it. So, even if people are able to create their own game, they will still have to play by the rules that someone else created.
It was never a requirement to have electronic tools so that another form of society would exist if everyone accepted the new society's rules.
We need to propose a specific game.
2013/2/5 Dante-Gabryell Monson <[email protected]>
Hi Flawer, Hi All,
I totally get you flawer. Somehow, I see a variety of contracts, with shareable being one type of license / contract that could be used , amongst other ontologies many seem to be taking for granted , of which perhaps certain could overlap ?
Sometimes, and I do not mean this for this list in particular, but generally speaking,
I have the feeling that its not easy to communicate such views, except for examples related to collaborative consumption.
Most people seem to understand the idea of a library of objects. Or the idea of renting some object or place from / to someone.
Moving one step further, into the realm of currency, and metadata , is often a stage which seems to be more difficult to bridge.
My impression is that very often people understand currency as an object, as in the case of a book in a library. And not in terms of data and metadata, created out of specific contracts.
I liked Etienne's approach of explaining it as a "game"... *A game other people need to agree to play with, for the currency to have any value.*
Hence, I would hope that granular and modulable metadata assembled into contextualized descriptions, enables* all games to be taken into account, and provide a framework for "game 2 game" transactions. *
Actually, before even the stage of facilitating transactions, such "meta game" enables its users to provide each other with context to support choice making, become aware of the current, or potential effects of interdependencies , opening up a *"meta-game of emergent contextualized collective intelligence".*
I realize that once I start talking about an emergent system , it seems to become difficult ( too abstract ? ) for many to grasp ?
Perhaps at it becomes a 4th order cybernetic order ? http://attainable-utopias.org/tiki/FourthOrderCybernetics
I may need to find different ways of explaining it.
Perhaps conversations on this list can help...
How can one best explain that any transaction can potentially choose its license / conditions , and that such license can not only itself become currency when accepted by others, but that the combined descriptions of conditions by all users, the contextualized metadata , becomes a type of (meta)currency, as the context and its interdependencies creates a defacto a license to choose from.
In other words, becoming aware of potential economic networks creates a license to choose from, and to contribute from.
In effect, the context created through emergence, becoming an open capital license...
Related concept : http://p2pfoundation.net/Holoptism
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 1:43 PM, flawer <[email protected]> wrote:
a) it decides whether the tools for the project are created and by whom they are used. b) they decide the price of those tools( through lending).
After this analysis, we see that a bank does decide what the economy produces. In general, the owner of money controls the economy because of those 2 reasons.
Any ruleset thus has to find a way to remove those abilities from money.
if you attach a contract that promises the universalization of access you are giving more responsability and less rights to ownership (what money could buy), you won't be able to ask for money for the produced thing, and should let others use it, etc, so investing in my property is increasing my responsability, so i'd like to share that charge (peer property) and i'd like not being owner of too many things (i prefer to be plain user). the "a)" reason you mention is mentioned to be universal use by default.
i believe a job agency of workers investing their sales/budgets for the commons can be bought by a rich in $ (and it's an internal matter of us whether we know how to spend well the $ and if we still need to 'accept' them), and this not being a power over from the rich in $ towards us. It is rather a way we should experiment more, we shouldn't have much competition in the actual 'market' if we corporate so.
also the clausing of community currencies with the shareful producing condition, whether they choose the shareful project to be just accesible for their associates or for the whole world, should help defining their values and even justify the giving of 'basic incomes' for shareful producers works in this way (who could buy preferent use/access for those produced shareful things) (who could require to retain the ownership of the shareful production or give it to the corp)
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
--
Sincerely yours,
Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis
Dante-Gabryell Monson wrote:
I realize what I describe corresponds, or rather, is very similar in spirit, to the concept of the metacurrency project :
http://www.metacurrency.org http://p2pfoundation.net/Metacurrency_Project
Hey Dante, I wonder if I am being to myopic ...could you help me understand your (and the metacurrency) approach? Maybe I am looking at this wrong, but I don't understand what 'backs' these currencies, and also do not understand when or by whom they are issued. In the system I propose, the currency is backed by the Sources and Skills needed to produce *future* Objects. These tickets have a window of validity (they are not valid until some future time, and then expire after some further time based on the physical constraints of both production and storage). These tickets are 'issued' by groups of co-owners of the Physical Source (Material Means of Production) to individuals within that group as a way of accounting for whether (for example) each has picked-up their dozen eggs for the week. Thanks for your consideration. Sincerely, Patrick
Hi Patrick, it is at a meta level. This means that, at least conceptually for now, it can be used to describe any kind of contracts, understand and visualize interdependencies between such contracts, and understand the effects of such contracts. The currency model you propose, or other currency architectures, could be described and compared, and even potentially be used co-jointly within potential shared economic networks that emerge out of such contracts. As in programming software applications, there are sometimes different layers. What I try to describe is a tool that facilitates the definition and expression of currency architectures, but also contextualizations in a broader sense ( in the form of data and meta data, that can use linked data protocols , such as red and xml schema, or possibly also the xml format metacurrency seems to develop ). Seth developed Netention ( Revlin created his own fork ), which aims at being able to use such ontologies to make descriptions. It is like enabling the description of metalanguages, based on some kind of semantic web browser / editor... And using this kind of real time browser / editor for economic transactions and engagement networks too... For example, you could use a netention like tool, to describe "future objects" ( that is, creating an object with time metadata set in the future ), and you could also add a "suggestion" metadata ( non confirmed ? ), until other people act upon it, and you can create mutual engagements around it, as to converge resources to enable such potential, for example by matching needs with available resources... On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 5:58 PM, Patrick Anderson <[email protected]> wrote:
Dante-Gabryell Monson wrote:
I realize what I describe corresponds, or rather, is very similar in spirit, to the concept of the metacurrency project :
http://www.metacurrency.org http://p2pfoundation.net/Metacurrency_Project
Hey Dante,
I wonder if I am being to myopic ...could you help me understand your (and the metacurrency) approach?
Maybe I am looking at this wrong, but I don't understand what 'backs' these currencies, and also do not understand when or by whom they are issued.
In the system I propose, the currency is backed by the Sources and Skills needed to produce *future* Objects.
These tickets have a window of validity (they are not valid until some future time, and then expire after some further time based on the physical constraints of both production and storage).
These tickets are 'issued' by groups of co-owners of the Physical Source (Material Means of Production) to individuals within that group as a way of accounting for whether (for example) each has picked-up their dozen eggs for the week.
Thanks for your consideration.
Sincerely, Patrick
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
I would hope that granular and modulable metadata assembled into contextualized descriptions,
i guess you refer to data explicit ontologies from resources types () and from more abstract or meta things (i.e. human values, courage, lazyness, etc. i.e. blue, red, etc) implicit data (i.e. logs in at same time on fridays, etc) would be even more interesting to network with..... for then stablishing preferences of investments or for simplier exchanging material things as a excuse for getting in a better human relation with certain peers (the machine recommends me to invest/exchange with x related maybe unknown peers) if instead of preferences we say: requirements (to deal *just* with "couragous blue" mates), we have a kind of currency.. (flow network is perhaps more accurate :) and brings the overlap issue:
Somehow, I see a variety of [clauses] , amongst other ontologies many seem to be taking for granted , of which perhaps certain could overlap ?
sure. in (i.e. human values), you shouldn't flow/convert couragous points into coward points, or you shouldn't use a shareful coward thing if you don't have coward points... or you should be able to clear your coward points with courageous points? haha. i guess this depends on the owner of the ontology, the relations he allowed that concept to be transferable with. i imagine i am trying subscribing to "courage" and "courage2" flows in network x, which are incompatible between them.. owned by different authors). i have overseen some more specifications in this direction, but i am... aa..
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 5:46 PM, flawer <[email protected]> wrote:
I would hope that granular and modulable metadata assembled into contextualized descriptions,
i guess you refer to data explicit ontologies from resources types () and from more abstract or meta things (i.e. human values, courage, lazyness, etc. i.e. blue, red, etc)
yes :) describing objects with ontologies, or eventually with tags ( and enable a combination of a folksonomy and ontologies to describe objects and relations between them )
implicit data (i.e. logs in at same time on fridays, etc) would be even more interesting to network with.....
for then stablishing preferences of investments or for simplier exchanging material things as a excuse for getting in a better human relation with certain peers (the machine recommends me to invest/exchange with x related maybe unknown peers)
yes, manual queries using the system, or algorithms for the system to automatically make suggestions
if instead of preferences we say: requirements (to deal *just* with "couragous blue" mates), we have a kind of currency..
yes
(flow network is perhaps more accurate :) and brings the overlap issue:
Somehow, I see a variety of [clauses] , amongst other ontologies many seem to be taking for granted , of which perhaps certain could overlap ?
sure. in (i.e. human values), you shouldn't flow/convert couragous points into coward points, or you shouldn't use a shareful coward thing if you don't have coward points... or you should be able to clear your coward points with courageous points? haha.
:) yes... note : or perhaps even before any interpretation into "coward points" ( whatever the objective algorithm / interpretation of such points would be ) , the visualization of past transactions as a form of reputation , or of currently described contexts and suggestions, can speak for itself :) I guess, very much like on e-bay or couchsurfing
i guess this depends on the owner of the ontology, the relations he allowed that concept to be transferable with.
yes, ideally ontologies would be free to use... one would need to convene to use the same ontologies... though perhaps some kind of combination with a folksonomical approach could bridge some of the stiffness of ontological meaning giving ? Or natural language processing... but perhaps that becomes more complex, and I do not know much about it...
i imagine i am trying subscribing to "courage" and "courage2" flows in network x, which are incompatible between them.. owned by different authors).
i have overseen some more specifications in this direction, but i am... aa..
:)
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
the visualization of past transactions as a form of reputation , or of currently described contexts and suggestions, can speak for itself :)
I guess, very much like on e-bay or couchsurfing
i tend to dislike these models.. people forced me to comment in cs and i am browsing too much of a overhappied load, but i admit that it works for the majority. i prefer the 'no news are good news', archive bad reputation only, and then having a little of bad reputation could be a wished reputation (it is better some visible reputation than no visible reputation, maybe :).
i guess this depends on the owner of the ontology, the relations he allowed that concept to be transferable with.[...] yes, ideally ontologies would be free to use...
but not that much free to relate to other ontologies (concept creator moderate its semantics, altough it could be crowdsourcedly inputed or reviewed too).. or it's pure folksonomy.
one would need to convene to use the same ontologies... though perhaps som
meaning giving ?
through the defining, and the adding of (reviewable, crwodsourced) hints for developing for the concept (i.e. coward) and +1s for those.. is how i initially thought this karmic wealth (coward, etc points) to be generated. It can be used for relating material resources transactions
Or natural language processing... but perhaps that becomes more complex, and I do no
uhm... let's start by trying to find universalizable meaningful sets of things: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colour http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromatic human values maybe.... or play with just verbs or just nouns for defining other things.. or go back to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onomatopeia (although it has some dialects by longitude and latitude :)
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 9:24 AM, flawer <[email protected]> wrote:
the visualization of past transactions as a form of reputation , or of currently described contexts and suggestions, can speak for itself :)
I guess, very much like on e-bay or couchsurfing
i tend to dislike these models.. people forced me to comment in cs and i am browsing too much of a overhappied load, but i admit that it works for the majority. i prefer the 'no news are good news', archive bad reputation only, and then having a little of bad reputation could be a wished reputation (it is better some visible reputation than no visible reputation, maybe :).
It was only to make a parallel... with concepts / approaches to reputation online. the way I imagine it, there would be no need to comment, or add stars, or whatever... Transactions would happen, and based on the privacy levels people choose, they are publicly available or not... hence people can understand interdependencies and choose to interact based on past, present, and future actions or suggestions... The past, present and future are defined in this introduction : http://www.netention.org/intro/ (Watch in full-screen)<https://docs.google.com/file/d/0ByfmjEDwh_feV1hsX1o1OVFXTlE/preview>
i guess this depends on the owner of the ontology, the relations he allowed that concept to be transferable with.[...] yes, ideally ontologies would be free to use...
but not that much free to relate to other ontologies (concept creator moderate its semantics, altough it could be crowdsourcedly inputed or reviewed too).. or it's pure folksonomy.
as I see it, combination of the two... ontologies and folksonomies... + people can use the tool to define their own meaning / ontologies when combined with tags, I imagine that bridges can be made, through emergence and patterns evolving out of it, between a potential diversity of ontologies used ?
one would need to convene to use the same ontologies... though perhaps som
meaning giving ?
through the defining, and the adding of (reviewable, crwodsourced) hints for developing for the concept (i.e. coward) and +1s for those.. is how i initially thought this karmic wealth (coward, etc points) to be generated. It can be used for relating material resources transactions
Or natural language processing... but perhaps that becomes more complex, and I do no
uhm... let's start by trying to find universalizable meaningful sets of things:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colour http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromatic human values maybe....
or play with just verbs or just nouns for defining other things..
or we can start simply with units such as apples and pears ( such as within a collaborative consumption and/or shareable approach ) and also express the conditions related to such transactions, and then add / experiment with any other algorithms later ?
or go back to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onomatopeia (although it has some dialects by longitude and latitude :)
:)
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
Just a word to say that I strongly disagree to say that the concept of holoptism may describe what we are seeking and trying to do here (P2P foundation). I think that the concept of "Anopticism" may describe it better. If it seems quite paradoxical to name the project of making the collective intelligence visible : "Anopticism" [from the Greek "a" (without) and "optiké" (vision)], it’s certainly because it needs some explanations ... Of course, the anopticon is the opposite of the "panopticon". In a certain manner, the concept of "Anopticism" also differs from the concept of "holopticism" [from the Greek "holos" (whole)], which "consists of a physical or virtual space whose architecture is intentionally designed to give its players the ability to see and perceive all that occurs there ". If we consider the opposition of the Greek roots, we could even believe that there is a radical antagonism between Anoptic and holoptic. It's not quite the case: if Anopticism and holopticism, "are designed to give to each individual a modeled representation of space [...] in which he operates", the Anopticism mourns for the idea that the "totality" of this space is the "objectivity" of its representation, it insists instead on the arbitrary and subjectivity of the points of view that govern the models and on the rules that determine them. For the Anopticism, human relationships are not reducible to the establishment of a cybernetic feedback loop between the group and the individual: the essential is forever invisible to us. The mourning of objectivity is made bearable by the fact that everyone is potentially the author of the points of view and the actor of the implemented rules and codes. In this way, the Anopticism intends to legitimate a "digital perspective" which may be applied within social systems. more : http://perspective-numerique.net/wakka.php?wiki=Anopticism -- Olivier Auber Evolution, Complexity and COgnition group (ECCO) & Global Brain Institute Free University of Brussels (VUB) http://ecco.vub.ac.be Paris +33675038880 / Bruxelles +32492050697 http://perspective-numerique.net http://twitter.com/#!/OlivierAuber 2013/2/7 Dante-Gabryell Monson <[email protected]>:
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 9:24 AM, flawer <[email protected]> wrote:
the visualization of past transactions as a form of reputation , or of currently described contexts and suggestions, can speak for itself :)
I guess, very much like on e-bay or couchsurfing
i tend to dislike these models.. people forced me to comment in cs and i am browsing too much of a overhappied load, but i admit that it works for the majority. i prefer the 'no news are good news', archive bad reputation only, and then having a little of bad reputation could be a wished reputation (it is better some visible reputation than no visible reputation, maybe :).
It was only to make a parallel... with concepts / approaches to reputation online.
the way I imagine it, there would be no need to comment, or add stars, or whatever...
Transactions would happen, and based on the privacy levels people choose, they are publicly available or not...
hence people can understand interdependencies and choose to interact based on past, present, and future actions or suggestions...
The past, present and future are defined in this introduction :
http://www.netention.org/intro/
(Watch in full-screen)
i guess this depends on the owner of the ontology, the relations he allowed that concept to be transferable with.[...] yes, ideally ontologies would be free to use...
but not that much free to relate to other ontologies (concept creator moderate its semantics, altough it could be crowdsourcedly inputed or reviewed too).. or it's pure folksonomy.
as I see it, combination of the two... ontologies and folksonomies... + people can use the tool to define their own meaning / ontologies
when combined with tags, I imagine that bridges can be made, through emergence and patterns evolving out of it, between a potential diversity of ontologies used ?
one would need to convene to use the same ontologies... though perhaps som
meaning giving ?
through the defining, and the adding of (reviewable, crwodsourced) hints for developing for the concept (i.e. coward) and +1s for those.. is how i initially thought this karmic wealth (coward, etc points) to be generated. It can be used for relating material resources transactions
Or natural language processing... but perhaps that becomes more complex, and I do no
uhm... let's start by trying to find universalizable meaningful sets of things:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colour http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromatic human values maybe....
or play with just verbs or just nouns for defining other things..
or we can start simply with units such as apples and pears ( such as within a collaborative consumption and/or shareable approach )
and also express the conditions related to such transactions,
and then add / experiment with any other algorithms later ?
or go back to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onomatopeia (although it has some dialects by longitude and latitude :)
:)
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
Thanks Olivier ! I like the word / concept of Anopticism, which I got to know about through you / p2pfoundation wiki <http://p2pfoundation.net/Anoptism>, and mentioned it not later then yesterday in some other exchange. Thanks for having clarified it on this conversation thread :) I hope we can find ways of collaborating around making such solutions more available, technically speaking, reducing thresholds for such crowdsourcing of contextualizations... I like efforts converging around http://www.netention.org/ - its constantly brewing new ideas, evolving, ... Perhaps there are other places / software development approaches with such spirit in mind ? Ways to converge / create synergies towards the development of such tools ? On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 1:24 PM, olivier auber <[email protected]>wrote:
Just a word to say that I strongly disagree to say that the concept of holoptism may describe what we are seeking and trying to do here (P2P foundation).
I think that the concept of "Anopticism" may describe it better.
If it seems quite paradoxical to name the project of making the collective intelligence visible : "Anopticism" [from the Greek "a" (without) and "optiké" (vision)], it’s certainly because it needs some explanations ...
Of course, the anopticon is the opposite of the "panopticon". In a certain manner, the concept of "Anopticism" also differs from the concept of "holopticism" [from the Greek "holos" (whole)], which "consists of a physical or virtual space whose architecture is intentionally designed to give its players the ability to see and perceive all that occurs there ". If we consider the opposition of the Greek roots, we could even believe that there is a radical antagonism between Anoptic and holoptic. It's not quite the case: if Anopticism and holopticism, "are designed to give to each individual a modeled representation of space [...] in which he operates", the Anopticism mourns for the idea that the "totality" of this space is the "objectivity" of its representation, it insists instead on the arbitrary and subjectivity of the points of view that govern the models and on the rules that determine them.
For the Anopticism, human relationships are not reducible to the establishment of a cybernetic feedback loop between the group and the individual: the essential is forever invisible to us. The mourning of objectivity is made bearable by the fact that everyone is potentially the author of the points of view and the actor of the implemented rules and codes. In this way, the Anopticism intends to legitimate a "digital perspective" which may be applied within social systems.
more : http://perspective-numerique.net/wakka.php?wiki=Anopticism
-- Olivier Auber Evolution, Complexity and COgnition group (ECCO) & Global Brain Institute Free University of Brussels (VUB) http://ecco.vub.ac.be Paris +33675038880 / Bruxelles +32492050697 http://perspective-numerique.net http://twitter.com/#!/OlivierAuber
2013/2/7 Dante-Gabryell Monson <[email protected]>:
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 9:24 AM, flawer <[email protected]> wrote:
the visualization of past transactions as a form of reputation , or of currently described contexts and suggestions, can speak for itself :)
I guess, very much like on e-bay or couchsurfing
i tend to dislike these models.. people forced me to comment in cs and i am browsing too much of a overhappied load, but i admit that it works for the majority. i prefer the 'no news are good news', archive bad reputation only, and then having a little of bad reputation could be a wished reputation (it is better some visible reputation than no visible reputation, maybe :).
It was only to make a parallel... with concepts / approaches to
reputation
online.
the way I imagine it, there would be no need to comment, or add stars, or whatever...
Transactions would happen, and based on the privacy levels people choose, they are publicly available or not...
hence people can understand interdependencies and choose to interact based on past, present, and future actions or suggestions...
The past, present and future are defined in this introduction :
http://www.netention.org/intro/
(Watch in full-screen)
i guess this depends on the owner of the ontology, the relations he allowed that concept to be transferable with.[...] yes, ideally ontologies would be free to use...
but not that much free to relate to other ontologies (concept creator moderate its semantics, altough it could be crowdsourcedly inputed or reviewed too).. or it's pure folksonomy.
as I see it, combination of the two... ontologies and folksonomies... + people can use the tool to define their own meaning / ontologies
when combined with tags, I imagine that bridges can be made, through emergence and patterns evolving out of it, between a potential diversity of ontologies used ?
one would need to convene to use the same ontologies... though perhaps som
meaning giving ?
through the defining, and the adding of (reviewable, crwodsourced) hints for developing for the concept (i.e. coward) and +1s for those.. is how i initially thought this karmic wealth (coward, etc points) to be generated. It can be used for relating material resources transactions
Or natural language processing... but perhaps that becomes more complex, and I do no
uhm... let's start by trying to find universalizable meaningful sets of things:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colour http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromatic human values maybe....
or play with just verbs or just nouns for defining other things..
or we can start simply with units such as apples and pears ( such as within a collaborative consumption and/or shareable approach )
and also express the conditions related to such transactions,
and then add / experiment with any other algorithms later ?
or go back to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onomatopeia (although it has some dialects by longitude and latitude :)
:)
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
Does reality play any role in the interplay of our subjective views? Do we consider physical laws as something that needs to be objectified? Through digital tools such as the above, a group of people could objectify the Maya apocalypse. Will reality make them a favor and make their objective view true? If we forget reality, will it forget us? Isnt the program that one creates for the emergence of collective intelligence a set of rules that are imposed universally? (The need for a computer, the knowledge for its use, the limitation of its representation, the free time one needs etc) Despite the fact that we cannot avoid imposing rules, as a consequence of our effort not to enforce an objective truth, we dont use scientific discoveries about the reality when it is reality that we want to transform. This is not to say that we should have a universal objective truth for everything. We should try to find the minimum of the rules required. 2013/2/7 Dante-Gabryell Monson <[email protected]>
Thanks Olivier !
I like the word / concept of Anopticism, which I got to know about through you / p2pfoundation wiki <http://p2pfoundation.net/Anoptism>,
and mentioned it not later then yesterday in some other exchange.
Thanks for having clarified it on this conversation thread :)
I hope we can find ways of collaborating around making such solutions more available, technically speaking, reducing thresholds for such crowdsourcing of contextualizations...
I like efforts converging around http://www.netention.org/ - its constantly brewing new ideas, evolving, ... Perhaps there are other places / software development approaches with such spirit in mind ?
Ways to converge / create synergies towards the development of such tools ?
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 1:24 PM, olivier auber <[email protected]>wrote:
Just a word to say that I strongly disagree to say that the concept of holoptism may describe what we are seeking and trying to do here (P2P foundation).
I think that the concept of "Anopticism" may describe it better.
If it seems quite paradoxical to name the project of making the collective intelligence visible : "Anopticism" [from the Greek "a" (without) and "optiké" (vision)], it’s certainly because it needs some explanations ...
Of course, the anopticon is the opposite of the "panopticon". In a certain manner, the concept of "Anopticism" also differs from the concept of "holopticism" [from the Greek "holos" (whole)], which "consists of a physical or virtual space whose architecture is intentionally designed to give its players the ability to see and perceive all that occurs there ". If we consider the opposition of the Greek roots, we could even believe that there is a radical antagonism between Anoptic and holoptic. It's not quite the case: if Anopticism and holopticism, "are designed to give to each individual a modeled representation of space [...] in which he operates", the Anopticism mourns for the idea that the "totality" of this space is the "objectivity" of its representation, it insists instead on the arbitrary and subjectivity of the points of view that govern the models and on the rules that determine them.
For the Anopticism, human relationships are not reducible to the establishment of a cybernetic feedback loop between the group and the individual: the essential is forever invisible to us. The mourning of objectivity is made bearable by the fact that everyone is potentially the author of the points of view and the actor of the implemented rules and codes. In this way, the Anopticism intends to legitimate a "digital perspective" which may be applied within social systems.
more : http://perspective-numerique.net/wakka.php?wiki=Anopticism
-- Olivier Auber Evolution, Complexity and COgnition group (ECCO) & Global Brain Institute Free University of Brussels (VUB) http://ecco.vub.ac.be Paris +33675038880 / Bruxelles +32492050697 http://perspective-numerique.net http://twitter.com/#!/OlivierAuber
2013/2/7 Dante-Gabryell Monson <[email protected]>:
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 9:24 AM, flawer <[email protected]> wrote:
the visualization of past transactions as a form of reputation , or of currently described contexts and suggestions, can speak for itself :)
I guess, very much like on e-bay or couchsurfing
i tend to dislike these models.. people forced me to comment in cs and i am browsing too much of a overhappied load, but i admit that it works for the majority. i prefer the 'no news are good news', archive bad reputation only, and then having a little of bad reputation could be a wished reputation (it is better some visible reputation than no
visible
reputation, maybe :).
It was only to make a parallel... with concepts / approaches to reputation online.
the way I imagine it, there would be no need to comment, or add stars, or whatever...
Transactions would happen, and based on the privacy levels people choose, they are publicly available or not...
hence people can understand interdependencies and choose to interact based on past, present, and future actions or suggestions...
The past, present and future are defined in this introduction :
http://www.netention.org/intro/
(Watch in full-screen)
i guess this depends on the owner of the ontology, the relations he allowed that concept to be transferable with.[...] yes, ideally ontologies would be free to use...
but not that much free to relate to other ontologies (concept creator moderate its semantics, altough it could be crowdsourcedly inputed or reviewed too).. or it's pure folksonomy.
as I see it, combination of the two... ontologies and folksonomies... + people can use the tool to define their own meaning / ontologies
when combined with tags, I imagine that bridges can be made, through emergence and patterns evolving out of it, between a potential diversity of ontologies used ?
one would need to convene to use the same ontologies... though perhaps som
meaning giving ?
through the defining, and the adding of (reviewable, crwodsourced) hints for developing for the concept (i.e. coward) and +1s for those.. is how i initially thought this karmic wealth (coward, etc points) to
be
generated. It can be used for relating material resources transactions
Or natural language processing... but perhaps that becomes more complex, and I do no
uhm... let's start by trying to find universalizable meaningful sets of things:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colour http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromatic human values maybe....
or play with just verbs or just nouns for defining other things..
or we can start simply with units such as apples and pears ( such as within a collaborative consumption and/or shareable approach )
and also express the conditions related to such transactions,
and then add / experiment with any other algorithms later ?
or go back to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onomatopeia (although it
has
some dialects by longitude and latitude :)
:)
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
_______________________________________________ P2P Foundation - Mailing list http://www.p2pfoundation.net https://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation
-- Sincerely yours, Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis
participants (5)
-
Apostolis Xekoukoulotakis -
Dante-Gabryell Monson -
flawer -
olivier auber -
Patrick Anderson