[Arm-netbook] ZeroPhone

Mon Apr 17 05:20:30 BST 2017

I think I understand. So the issue is with the identity of the authority defining the addresses rather than the scarcity.  IPv6 has enough addresses.  I don't think we need a new technology for addressing machines.  I think your issue is more with the authorities in charge of assigning addresses.

I think the two are separate issues, one technological and one regulatory/political.

  Original Message  
From: eaterjolly at gmail.com
Sent: April 17, 2017 12:07 AM
To: arm-netbook at lists.phcomp.co.uk
Reply-to: arm-netbook at lists.phcomp.co.uk
Subject: Re: [Arm-netbook] ZeroPhone

Well, in this context artificial is often meant to describe scarcity
which is the result of a decision. I would probably adapt that
definition for my purposes, to say a decision made by an identifiable
mint (a whole decision by a group or a decision partially weighted in
favor of any group) on behalf of people with this credit (in this
case, credit for having that address)... the key aspect being
artificial meaning (for me atleast) the scarcity was decided for
someone else.

Better defining addresses in this case, bitcoin addresses are more
like identities (I like the term Sybil used as a noun, in this case)
rather than addresses, because we don't go to them so much as we
simply talk (or send messages) to them.

_

Addresses are only as intrinsically scarce as the physical locations
they can point (the reason for-which I would prefer to use the term
Sybil [or at least "identity"] to describe anything which would
Normally be described as an address which Doesn't point to physical
location). Additionally they can be considered scarce in that it is
unsustainable to deliver messages to individual possessors of
addresses, whom don't help the delivery of messages (atleast, as an
abstract concept). So, ultimately, (at the very least) the degree of
viability of addresses needs to be limited for practical reasons. Some
might associate the suggestion of limiting this viability to
possessors of addresses who facilitate the delivery delivery of
messages to a higher degree than they strain the delivery of messages
(especially [or particularly, if you will] with the volume of
messages-to-be-delivered-added), with being an idea of "capitalism". I
would like to emphasize that this is not a concept of either
"capitalism" or "socialism" {(or any of their ilk currently being
formed outside of the occident) ; (both of which rely on fairly novel
social constructs of a "stock" and/or banking/"monetary
fund"-management)} but-rather simple self-sustainability. Of course,
if at a given point the collective infrastructure {(or atleast
relevant parts thereof) ; (with-which many people have agreed is
acceptable for delivering messages according to a system of
determining which messages are given the most priority that they have
agreed is acceptable)} is under-strained (or under-utilized, if you
will) according to it's maximum potential for helping people
communicate, it should probably begin to deliver messages "gratis" or
simply out of the goodness of doing so........ which is something a
noob can plainly see the bitcoin protocol tried to do by rewarding
it's bitcoin miners, but failed to realize: only sentient beings can
effectively measure the potential meaning to be had in helping another
sentient being or the so-termed "goodness" in doing so; that No
protocol can account for what it's like to help someone specific or
every being one can; that It should be up to every individual exactly
who they help or what kind of Sybils they help or to what degree and
for what purpose. We are fundamentally human, and we must remember our
value is in our decision.

On 4/16/17, John Luke Gibson <eaterjolly at gmail.com> wrote:
> I apologize in advance for any duplicate messages, but I feel the need
> to touch up that post a bit, as people already have had the chance to
> begin reading it.
>
> On 4/16/17, John Luke Gibson <eaterjolly at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Well, in this context artificial is often meant to describe scarcity
>> which is the result of a decision. I would probably adapt that
>> definition for my purposes, to say a decision made by an identifiable
>> mint (a whole decision by a group or a decision partially weighted in
>> favor of any group) on behalf of people with this credit (in this
>> case, credit for having that address)... the key aspect being
>> artificial meaning (for me atleast) the scarcity was decided for
>> someone else.
>>
>> Better defining addresses in this case, bitcoin addresses are more
>> like identities (I like the term Sybil used as a noun, in this case)
>> rather than addresses, because we don't go to them so much as we
>> simply talk (or send messages) to them.
>>
>> _
>>
>> Addresses are only intrinsically as scarce as physical locations they
>> can point to physical location (which I would prefer to use the term
>> Sybil [or at least "identity"] to describe anything which would
>> Normally be described as an address which Doesn't point to physical
>> location). Additionally they can be considered scarce in that it is
>> unsustainable to deliver messages to individual possessors of
>> addresses, whom don't help the delivery of messages (atleast, as an
>> abstract concept). So, ultimately, (at the very least) the degree of
>> viability of addresses needs to be limited for practical reasons. Some
>> might associate the suggestion of limiting this viability to
>> possessors of addresses who facilitate the delivery delivery of
>> messages to a higher degree than they strain the delivery of messages
>> {(especially [or particularly, if you will] with the volume of
>> messages-to-be-delivered-added), with "capitalism". I would like to
>> emphasize that this is not a concept of either "capitalism" or
>> "socialism" (or any their like currently being formed outside of the
>> occident) , (both of which rely on the fairly novel social construct
>> of a "stock" and/or banking/"monetary fund"-management)} but-rather
>> simple self-sustainability. Of course, if at a given point the
>> collective infrastructure {(or atleast relevant parts thereof) ,
>> (with-which many people have agreed is acceptable for delivering
>> messages according to a system of determining which messages are given
>> the most priority that they have agreed is acceptable)} is
>> under-strained (or under-utilized, if you will) according to it's
>> maximum potential for helping people communicate, it should probably
>> begin to deliver messages "gratis" or simply out of the goodness of
>> doing so........ which is something a noob can plainly see the bitcoin
>> protocol tried to do by rewarding it's bitcoin miners, but failed to
>> realize: only sentient beings can effectively measure the potential
>> meaning to be had in helping another sentient being or the so-termed
>> "goodness" in doing so; that No protocol can account for what it's
>> like to help someone specific or every being one can; that It should
>> be up to every individual exactly who they help or what kind of Sybils
>> they help or to what degree and for what purpose. We are fundamentally
>> human, and we must remember our value is in our decision.
>>
>> On 4/16/17, Adam Van Ymeren <adam.vany at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Why do you want artificial scarcity of addresses?  Either via bitcoin
>>> type
>>> system or some authority I don't see any benefit to artificial address
>>> scarcity.
>>>
>>>
>>>   Original Message
>>> From: eaterjolly at gmail.com
>>> Sent: April 16, 2017 8:45 PM
>>> To: arm-netbook at lists.phcomp.co.uk
>>> Reply-to: arm-netbook at lists.phcomp.co.uk
>>> Subject: Re: [Arm-netbook] ZeroPhone
>>>
>>> Ultimately, isolation of the sim card or otherwise modem, should
>>> probably be the biggest concern. There are ethical concerns around
>>> artificial scarcity from telephone numbers and, to be fair, ipv4
>>> addresses, (metaphorical mints thereof having absolute decision-making
>>> authority giving infinite leverage as "benevolent dictators" who can
>>> simply crash everything if something doesn't go their way) that should
>>> be considered before dedicating too much priority to this task.
>>>
>>> A more perfect solution (longterm) would be a network with
>>> self-modulating scarcity of addresses, in a fashion reminiscent of
>>>
>>>
>>> bitcoin. However it would be prudent to construct a language the
>>> anti-thesis of esoteric (top-down, expressing this anti-thesis on all
>>> levels of design) to describe the underlining software in and make the
>>> networking protocol more accepting of contrarian behavior.
>>>
>>> If this sounds like a lot, consider that for a person with no
>>> experience computer design, it should be easier to learn as they go
>>> when designing this, than to pick up all the computer design wisdom
>>> necessary to retrofit or "reverse-engineer" literally self-described
>>> as esoteric systems. Is there not a fundament to computers, computer
>>> design, and network engineering, that is intuitive to beings not
>>> fortunate enough to be included in the circles of any so-called
>>> esotericism of any kind?
>>>
>>> I apologize if my reliance on certain obscure terms, without
>>> interchanging any alternative phrasings made this email seem
>>> convoluted and difficult to understand.
>>>
>>> On 4/16/17, GaCuest <gacuest at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> El 16 de abril de 2017 a las 12:42:43, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
>>>> (lkcl at lkcl.net) escribió:
>>>>> ---
>>>>> crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware:
>>>>> https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 11:05 AM, GaCuest wrote:
>>>>> > El 14 de abril de 2017 a las 7:37:24, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton
>>>>> > (lkcl at lkcl.net) escribió:
>>>>> >> the idea there is to use an LCD that has *dual* control interfaces:
>>>>> >> SPI *AND* RGB/TTL.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Something like this?:
>>>>> > http://hands.com/~lkcl/eoma/shenzen/frida/FRD3504503.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>> ... exactly like that :) except i'm not a huge fan of resistive
>>>>> panels... they are quite a lot cheaper though.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, it was an example, I prefer CTP :)
>>>>
>>>> I think the idea that a cell phone can work without EOMA68
>>>>  (for basic functions) is a very good idea, but is it difficult to do?
>>>> I want to say because you have to do many things 2 times to
>>>> be able to work with EOMA68 and without EOMA68.
>>>>
>>>> On the other hand, is the STM32F072 capable of handling
>>>> the audio with good quality?
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook at lists.phcomp.co.uk
>>>> http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
>>>> Send large attachments to arm-netbook at files.phcomp.co.uk
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook at lists.phcomp.co.uk
>>> http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
>>> Send large attachments to arm-netbook at files.phcomp.co.uk
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook at lists.phcomp.co.uk
>>> http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
>>> Send large attachments to arm-netbook at files.phcomp.co.uk
>>
>

_______________________________________________
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook at lists.phcomp.co.uk
http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
Send large attachments to arm-netbook at files.phcomp.co.uk