https://hackaday.io/project/19035-zerophone-a-raspberry-pi-smartphone
Not exactly a netbook, but this looks like an interesting project. How much work would it take to create something like this using EOMA68? I know I would be interested in a device like that.
--- crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 6:00 AM, Louis Pearson desttinghimgame@gmail.com wrote:
https://hackaday.io/project/19035-zerophone-a-raspberry-pi-smartphone
totally coool. uses a SIM800 quad-band GSM module. really good choice.
Not exactly a netbook, but this looks like an interesting project. How much work would it take to create something like this using EOMA68? I know I would be interested in a device like that.
yeah you and me both - the thing is: the cards are 5mm x 86 x 55mm (or thereabouts) which means that by the time you've created a stack of all the components (screen, battery, lcd, keypad or touchpanel) you're looking at something like 17 to 20mm in height.
so that's why i wanted to do something using EOMA50 (reuse of CompactFlash) as the Cards would be 3mm x 43 x 33 (or thereabouts) - that means having to source a suitable SoC. i found one about 18 months ago - the Ingenic M150.... only ARGH for Ingenic to STOP SELLING IT, damnit.
the M150 was perfect as it contained its own on-board SDRAM (128mb of DDR2), and the developer board reference design was something like 25 x 20mm.
anyway i am still on the lookout for similar SoCs, and have created this page: http://rhombus-tech.net/community_ideas/hybrid_phone/
the idea there is to use an LCD that has *dual* control interfaces: SPI *AND* RGB/TTL. the SPI interface would be wired directly to an EC (e.g. an STM32F072 which i really like) which would have the ABSOLUTE most basic of interfaces and functionality ("dumbphone" mode), and also take care of the audio, but when the EOMA50 Card was plugged in the LCD would be switched over to RGB/TTL mode and you'd have a "smart" phone.
it'd be quite complicated hardware - phones always are - but a lot of fun. if you're not familiar with how INSANELY complex phone hardware is, have a look at the reverse-engineering effort i was involved in, back around 2003, with the HTC Universal. the AKAI 4641 audio IC had SEVEN separate audio paths. i had no idea that there was actually *yet another* audio multiplexing IC (it hadn't been identified at the time) from TI...
https://forum.xda-developers.com/wiki/index.php?title=HTC_Universal/Research...
l.
El 14 de abril de 2017 a las 7:37:24, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton (lkcl@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
--- crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 11:05 AM, GaCuest gacuest@gmail.com wrote:
El 14 de abril de 2017 a las 7:37:24, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton (lkcl@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.
i've got a list of their LCDs, here: http://rhombus-tech.net/suppliers/shenzen/frida_lcd/
they do a very nice 3.9in 800x480 IPS LCD, the only thing those dual-row 0.3mm pitch connectors are a bitch. FRD350H45142-CT has a 45Pin FPC, with a Capacitive Panel.
l.
On Sun, Apr 16, 2017 at 11:42:01AM +0100, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
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.
That's just a bit less than 3.5in diagonal --- I at least do not enjoy operating such tiny touchscreens with >0.5in fingers...
Wikipedia confirms my experience:
| A resistive touchscreen operated with a stylus will generally offer | greater pointing precision than a capacitive touchscreen operated with | a finger.
A small (up to at least 5in) capacitive touchscreen is therefore outright unattractive for me --- perhaps somebody puts together a portable EOMA housing with a resistive touchscreen and a stylus? ;-)
Wolfram
El 16 de abril de 2017 a las 12:42:43, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton (lkcl@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@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?
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@gmail.com wrote:
El 16 de abril de 2017 a las 12:42:43, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton (lkcl@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@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@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netbook@files.phcomp.co.uk
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@gmail.com Sent: April 16, 2017 8:45 PM To: arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk Reply-to: arm-netbook@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@gmail.com wrote:
El 16 de abril de 2017 a las 12:42:43, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton (lkcl@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@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@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netbook@files.phcomp.co.uk
_______________________________________________ arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netbook@files.phcomp.co.uk
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@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@gmail.com Sent: April 16, 2017 8:45 PM To: arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk Reply-to: arm-netbook@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@gmail.com wrote:
El 16 de abril de 2017 a las 12:42:43, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton (lkcl@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@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@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netbook@files.phcomp.co.uk
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netbook@files.phcomp.co.uk _______________________________________________ arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netbook@files.phcomp.co.uk
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@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@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@gmail.com Sent: April 16, 2017 8:45 PM To: arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk Reply-to: arm-netbook@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@gmail.com wrote:
El 16 de abril de 2017 a las 12:42:43, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton (lkcl@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@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@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netbook@files.phcomp.co.uk
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netbook@files.phcomp.co.uk _______________________________________________ arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netbook@files.phcomp.co.uk
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@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@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@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@gmail.com Sent: April 16, 2017 8:45 PM To: arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk Reply-to: arm-netbook@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@gmail.com wrote:
El 16 de abril de 2017 a las 12:42:43, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton (lkcl@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@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@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netbook@files.phcomp.co.uk
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netbook@files.phcomp.co.uk _______________________________________________ arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netbook@files.phcomp.co.uk
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@gmail.com Sent: April 17, 2017 12:07 AM To: arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk Reply-to: arm-netbook@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@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@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@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@gmail.com Sent: April 16, 2017 8:45 PM To: arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk Reply-to: arm-netbook@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@gmail.com wrote:
El 16 de abril de 2017 a las 12:42:43, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton (lkcl@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@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@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netbook@files.phcomp.co.uk
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netbook@files.phcomp.co.uk _______________________________________________ arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netbook@files.phcomp.co.uk
_______________________________________________ arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netbook@files.phcomp.co.uk
Yes, however don't discount that, in substituting out the need for these authorities, one has to take into account that every individual contributing should have some say in how much scarcity there is for the resource they are contributing. That is the only way to "not need" these authorities.
On 4/17/17, Adam Van Ymeren adam.vany@gmail.com wrote:
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@gmail.com Sent: April 17, 2017 12:07 AM To: arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk Reply-to: arm-netbook@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@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@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@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@gmail.com Sent: April 16, 2017 8:45 PM To: arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk Reply-to: arm-netbook@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@gmail.com wrote:
El 16 de abril de 2017 a las 12:42:43, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton (lkcl@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@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@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netbook@files.phcomp.co.uk
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netbook@files.phcomp.co.uk _______________________________________________ arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netbook@files.phcomp.co.uk
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netbook@files.phcomp.co.uk _______________________________________________ arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netbook@files.phcomp.co.uk
I also want to apologize for how horribly intimidating those sets of parenthesizes must be for one whom has never seen one of those used like that before outside of advanced and very nerd-y philosophy xD
On 4/17/17, John Luke Gibson eaterjolly@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, however don't discount that, in substituting out the need for these authorities, one has to take into account that every individual contributing should have some say in how much scarcity there is for the resource they are contributing. That is the only way to "not need" these authorities.
On 4/17/17, Adam Van Ymeren adam.vany@gmail.com wrote:
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@gmail.com Sent: April 17, 2017 12:07 AM To: arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk Reply-to: arm-netbook@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@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@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@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@gmail.com Sent: April 16, 2017 8:45 PM To: arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk Reply-to: arm-netbook@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@gmail.com wrote:
El 16 de abril de 2017 a las 12:42:43, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton (lkcl@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@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@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netbook@files.phcomp.co.uk
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netbook@files.phcomp.co.uk _______________________________________________ arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netbook@files.phcomp.co.uk
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netbook@files.phcomp.co.uk _______________________________________________ arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netbook@files.phcomp.co.uk
--- crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 4:55 AM, John Luke Gibson eaterjolly@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.
a word / point-of-order: you've provided 3 copies. 1st message. top-posted reply to yourself (2nd copy), modified version, which people will see *after* they read the first and second copies.
now, what could happen as a result of the triple-posting is that there will be now no less than *three* separate conversation threads in people's mailers as well as the archives (permanently).
can i suggest in future that you:
(a) cut irrelevant context (b) avoid top-posting (c) reply *only* with corrections to the relevant sections inline (i.e. use a and b above)
l.
On 4/17/17, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton lkcl@lkcl.net wrote:
crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 4:55 AM, John Luke Gibson eaterjolly@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.
a word / point-of-order: you've provided 3 copies. 1st message. top-posted reply to yourself (2nd copy), modified version, which people will see *after* they read the first and second copies.
now, what could happen as a result of the triple-posting is that there will be now no less than *three* separate conversation threads in people's mailers as well as the archives (permanently).
can i suggest in future that you:
(a) cut irrelevant context (b) avoid top-posting (c) reply *only* with corrections to the relevant sections inline (i.e. use a and b above)
l.
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netbook@files.phcomp.co.uk
Thank you for the advice, Luke. I will try that in the future!
Mr Gibson, with all due respect (and forgive me for speaking out of a half-stupor -- I did way, way too much today, and it's almost 11pm -- in my defense, I solemnly swear I'm about to go to bed) --
There is a vast group of people (my mother is sadly amongst them) who are of the belief that a perfectly sufficient quantity of "computer literacy" is the ability to turn the machine on and off, use some sort of email client, word processor, and web browser (without necessarily knowing the names of these programs) and being within arm's reach of "someone smart" who can entirely take over in times where genuine technical aptitude is required. Moreover, *these people actually believe, in essentially unshakable form, that they are freeing themselves (and everyone else) of some sort of massive burden by embracing the level of technological ignorance that they do.*
You can't really reinvent the Internet (or much of computer anything -- although, for better or worse, EOMA-68 plays well with their philosophy, at least on a hardware level) without addressing that demographic of people in some manner which is, quite frankly, likely to be distinctly unpleasant to all involved...
...so (pardon my utter lack of eloquence here) how do you propose to deal with such people, since they'll be the vast majority of your customers/clients/constituency/etc..?
I'd offer up my thoughts on the matter, but they're not liable to be all that coherent right now -- so, instead, I'll keep my mouth shut so as to avoid potentially getting my foot caught in there... "better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt"!
Alright, good night, everybody...!
If you want to reinvent the Internet, you might consider looking at the GNUnet project. I don't claim to be an expert on it or anything it talks about, but from what I understand about it, GNUnet is trying to reinvent the internet to be more decentralized, private, and efficient. Also look at http://secushare.org/ and http://youbroketheinternet.org/
On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 10:05 PM, Christopher Havel laserhawk64@gmail.com wrote:
Mr Gibson, with all due respect (and forgive me for speaking out of a half-stupor -- I did way, way too much today, and it's almost 11pm -- in my defense, I solemnly swear I'm about to go to bed) --
There is a vast group of people (my mother is sadly amongst them) who are of the belief that a perfectly sufficient quantity of "computer literacy" is the ability to turn the machine on and off, use some sort of email client, word processor, and web browser (without necessarily knowing the names of these programs) and being within arm's reach of "someone smart" who can entirely take over in times where genuine technical aptitude is required. Moreover, *these people actually believe, in essentially unshakable form, that they are freeing themselves (and everyone else) of some sort of massive burden by embracing the level of technological ignorance that they do.*
You can't really reinvent the Internet (or much of computer anything -- although, for better or worse, EOMA-68 plays well with their philosophy, at least on a hardware level) without addressing that demographic of people in some manner which is, quite frankly, likely to be distinctly unpleasant to all involved...
...so (pardon my utter lack of eloquence here) how do you propose to deal with such people, since they'll be the vast majority of your customers/clients/constituency/etc..?
I'd offer up my thoughts on the matter, but they're not liable to be all that coherent right now -- so, instead, I'll keep my mouth shut so as to avoid potentially getting my foot caught in there... "better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt"!
Alright, good night, everybody...!
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netbook@files.phcomp.co.uk
--- crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 5:11 AM, Louis Pearson desttinghimgame@gmail.com wrote:
If you want to reinvent the Internet, you might consider looking at the GNUnet project. I don't claim to be an expert on it or anything it talks about, but from what I understand about it, GNUnet is trying to reinvent the internet to be more decentralized, private, and efficient. Also look at http://secushare.org/ and http://youbroketheinternet.org/
thank you for making me aware of these last two: i knew about gnunet. there are many more, some focussed on secure distributed decentralisation of dns domain name registration (solving all of the known problems with current centralised dns registration in the process), then there's the babel protocol, tinc... all the *pieces* are there: they're just not in widespread use.
l.
Ah, sorry, I just realized that I may have spoke in a confusing manner. :X SecuShare, youbroketheinternet, and gnunet are all related. From what I understand, SecuShare and youbroketheinternet are focused on describing what gnunet is intending to solve and create. Sorry if that wasn't made clear!
On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 12:45 AM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton < lkcl@lkcl.net> wrote:
crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 5:11 AM, Louis Pearson desttinghimgame@gmail.com wrote:
If you want to reinvent the Internet, you might consider looking at the GNUnet project. I don't claim to be an expert on it or anything it talks about,
but
from what I understand about it, GNUnet is trying to reinvent the internet to
be
more decentralized, private, and efficient. Also look at http://secushare.org/ and http://youbroketheinternet.org/
thank you for making me aware of these last two: i knew about gnunet. there are many more, some focussed on secure distributed decentralisation of dns domain name registration (solving all of the known problems with current centralised dns registration in the process), then there's the babel protocol, tinc... all the *pieces* are there: they're just not in widespread use.
l.
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netbook@files.phcomp.co.uk
On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 7:28 AM, Louis Pearson desttinghimgame@gmail.com wrote:
Ah, sorry, I just realized that I may have spoke in a confusing manner. :X SecuShare, youbroketheinternet, and gnunet are all related. From what I understand, SecuShare and youbroketheinternet are focused on describing what gnunet is intending to solve and create. Sorry if that wasn't made clear!
ah ok :) still useful.
Indeed! Chris, I believe the issue to actually be linguistic in nature. I also believe that complexity requires either a thin spread of attention with very little specialization or specialization which depends very much on always being in arm's reach of "someone smarter". Using a grand variety of intuitive, clever, and/or witty words to describe perspectives on a computer, in such a way that is so diverse that two individuals could use different words when describing the same operation that they have performed hundreds of times with dozens of people, and never once heard the other's choice of words when talking to each other.
There is a great diversity of specializations in computers, Because there is not a lot of ways looking at the same aspects. People will intuitively not necessarily learn about that which is relevant to what they do on a regular basis, but-rather they try to be creative with the aspects of programming that they look at so-as to differentiate themselves and not be carbon copies.
For many individuals without a creative appealing original introduction into computers, I believe they are deeply concerned about being less individual for starting a road headlong into being a computer savant and consistently running the same path as many others, and rather believe much as you pointed out that their ignorance is a blessing on others, and as I would add, for the reason that it forces computer savants to think creatively about creating a fresh perspective of an old well-known aspect of computers.
In other words, we need to rethink everything several times over without actually changing anything, then create a system where it feels easy to rethink things, form new perspectives, and do things differently. Also, create words which support analogies and help form the skeletons of new perspectives on computer design decisions.
On 4/18/17, Louis Pearson desttinghimgame@gmail.com wrote:
Ah, sorry, I just realized that I may have spoke in a confusing manner. :X SecuShare, youbroketheinternet, and gnunet are all related. From what I understand, SecuShare and youbroketheinternet are focused on describing what gnunet is intending to solve and create. Sorry if that wasn't made clear!
On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 12:45 AM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton < lkcl@lkcl.net> wrote:
crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 5:11 AM, Louis Pearson desttinghimgame@gmail.com wrote:
If you want to reinvent the Internet, you might consider looking at the GNUnet project. I don't claim to be an expert on it or anything it talks about,
but
from what I understand about it, GNUnet is trying to reinvent the internet to
be
more decentralized, private, and efficient. Also look at http://secushare.org/ and http://youbroketheinternet.org/
thank you for making me aware of these last two: i knew about gnunet. there are many more, some focussed on secure distributed decentralisation of dns domain name registration (solving all of the known problems with current centralised dns registration in the process), then there's the babel protocol, tinc... all the *pieces* are there: they're just not in widespread use.
l.
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netbook@files.phcomp.co.uk
On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 8:01 AM, John Luke Gibson eaterjolly@gmail.com wrote:
For many individuals without a creative appealing original introduction into computers, I believe they are deeply concerned about being less individual for starting a road headlong into being a computer savant and consistently running the same path as many others, and rather believe much as you pointed out that their ignorance is a blessing on others,
i feel that there's a couple of helpful categories here:
(a) (i) people who help themselves (only) and (ii) people who help others
(b) (i) people who have been *trained* to *use* computers and (ii) people who are willing to apply creativity to learn how to program them.
i'm *definitely* in category (a-ii b-ii), and am looking for people of category (a-ii) to help bring together people from *all* four categories.
l.
I would subdivide (b-ii) into:
(b) (ii) people who are willing to apply creativity to learn how to program them. (1) people who seek out opportunities to apply creativity to learn how to program. (2) people who expect to be given opportunities to apply creativity to learn how to program.
Also, I forgot to mention: Chris, sleep well my good fellow. Luke, what are you still doing awake :P
On 4/18/17, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton lkcl@lkcl.net wrote:
On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 8:01 AM, John Luke Gibson eaterjolly@gmail.com wrote:
For many individuals without a creative appealing original introduction into computers, I believe they are deeply concerned about being less individual for starting a road headlong into being a computer savant and consistently running the same path as many others, and rather believe much as you pointed out that their ignorance is a blessing on others,
i feel that there's a couple of helpful categories here:
(a) (i) people who help themselves (only) and (ii) people who help others
(b) (i) people who have been *trained* to *use* computers and (ii) people who are willing to apply creativity to learn how to program them.
i'm *definitely* in category (a-ii b-ii), and am looking for people of category (a-ii) to help bring together people from *all* four categories.
l.
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netbook@files.phcomp.co.uk
--- crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 8:44 AM, John Luke Gibson eaterjolly@gmail.com wrote:
Also, I forgot to mention: Chris, sleep well my good fellow. Luke, what are you still doing awake :P
i'm in taiwan! it's 5pm here.
On 4/18/17, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton lkcl@lkcl.net wrote:
crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 8:44 AM, John Luke Gibson eaterjolly@gmail.com wrote:
Also, I forgot to mention: Chris, sleep well my good fellow. Luke, what are you still doing awake :P
i'm in taiwan! it's 5pm here.
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netbook@files.phcomp.co.uk
Ah, I saw in your reply it timestamped my message as around 8 am :P
The grandma who only reads pdfs is the best person to put on a completely libre device because **they won't go out of their way to lose their freedom** I'd get a parabola card for them ASAP. The computer illiterate are another good target, because ** they are willing to learn without bias and can be taught the value of freedom** parabola cards ASAP to them as well Then there's that guy whos knee deep in proprietary software and "can't switch won't switch" A fedora card is probably better for them.
On 18 April 2017 10:23:16 GMT+03:00, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton lkcl@lkcl.net wrote:
On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 8:01 AM, John Luke Gibson eaterjolly@gmail.com wrote:
For many individuals without a creative appealing original introduction into computers, I believe they are deeply concerned
about
being less individual for starting a road headlong into being a computer savant and consistently running the same path as many
others,
and rather believe much as you pointed out that their ignorance is a blessing on others,
i feel that there's a couple of helpful categories here:
(a) (i) people who help themselves (only) and (ii) people who help others
(b) (i) people who have been *trained* to *use* computers and (ii) people who are willing to apply creativity to learn how to program them.
i'm *definitely* in category (a-ii b-ii), and am looking for people of category (a-ii) to help bring together people from *all* four categories.
l.
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netbook@files.phcomp.co.uk
's'good logic allan. --- crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 12:52 PM, Allan Mwenda allanitomwesh@gmail.com wrote:
The grandma who only reads pdfs is the best person to put on a completely libre device because **they won't go out of their way to lose their freedom** I'd get a parabola card for them ASAP. The computer illiterate are another good target, because ** they are willing to learn without bias and can be taught the value of freedom** parabola cards ASAP to them as well Then there's that guy whos knee deep in proprietary software and "can't switch won't switch" A fedora card is probably better for them.
On 18 April 2017 10:23:16 GMT+03:00, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton lkcl@lkcl.net wrote:
On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 8:01 AM, John Luke Gibson eaterjolly@gmail.com wrote:
For many individuals without a creative appealing original introduction into computers, I believe they are deeply concerned about being less individual for starting a road headlong into being a computer savant and consistently running the same path as many others, and rather believe much as you pointed out that their ignorance is a blessing on others,
i feel that there's a couple of helpful categories here:
(a) (i) people who help themselves (only) and (ii) people who help others
(b) (i) people who have been *trained* to *use* computers and (ii) people who are willing to apply creativity to learn how to program them.
i'm *definitely* in category (a-ii b-ii), and am looking for people of category (a-ii) to help bring together people from *all* four categories.
l.
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netbook@files.phcomp.co.uk
-- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netbook@files.phcomp.co.uk
On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 4:46 AM, John Luke Gibson eaterjolly@gmail.com wrote:
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),
i'm familiar with the microsoft network neighbourhood, having implemented it back in 1996-1998 for samba-tng. it's well-known as a "chatty" protocol (which is down to mis-configuration).
so it was pretty much universally hated.... so people dropped it.
then of course as the years go by people FORGET that the network neighbourhood is one of the most amazingly resilient and strategically fundamental resources that a network can have.
... so the free software community invented avahi and zeroconf.
and guess what? it's *just* as chatty, and just as hated. it's also totally broken by design, failing to implement key strategic features that would otherwise make it resilient.
the really fucking irritating thing, for me, is that it's based on an extension of the DNS protocol.... JUST LIKE THE NETWORK NEIGHBOURHOOD.
*sigh*.
anyway. working out "addresses" - as well as publishing and defending names - is a known and solved problem, john.
l.
Interesting. Any chance you can link to some documentation about the network neighbourhood protocol? Or outline what about it made it so resilient? Thanks!
Original Message From: lkcl@lkcl.net Sent: April 17, 2017 3:07 AM To: arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk Reply-to: arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk Subject: Re: [Arm-netbook] ZeroPhone
On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 4:46 AM, John Luke Gibson eaterjolly@gmail.com wrote:
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),
i'm familiar with the microsoft network neighbourhood, having implemented it back in 1996-1998 for samba-tng. it's well-known as a "chatty" protocol (which is down to mis-configuration).
so it was pretty much universally hated.... so people dropped it.
then of course as the years go by people FORGET that the network neighbourhood is one of the most amazingly resilient and strategically fundamental resources that a network can have.
... so the free software community invented avahi and zeroconf.
and guess what? it's *just* as chatty, and just as hated. it's also totally broken by design, failing to implement key strategic features that would otherwise make it resilient.
the really fucking irritating thing, for me, is that it's based on an extension of the DNS protocol.... JUST LIKE THE NETWORK NEIGHBOURHOOD.
*sigh*.
anyway. working out "addresses" - as well as publishing and defending names - is a known and solved problem, john.
l.
_______________________________________________ arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netbook@files.phcomp.co.uk
On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 4:23 PM, Adam Van Ymeren adam.vany@gmail.com wrote:
Interesting. Any chance you can link to some documentation about the network neighbourhood protocol? Or outline what about it made it so resilient? Thanks!
the first thing is: it was documented as rfc1001 / rfc1002.which is an extension of NETBEUI (a layer 2 protocol) on top of TCP/IP. if memory serves correctly this was done by IBM.
SMB was dropped *on top* of NBT, as a registered service. there are actually several registered services, some equivalent to TCP and some to UDP.
one of the things that was missing from rfc1001 / 1002 was "please give me a full list of participants in a particular group". so microsoft ended up adding an RPC function (on top of LANMAN, which was on top of NamedPipes, which are on top of SMB which are on top of NBT which are on top of TCP) whereby any participant in the network neighbourhood can obtain a full list of participants in a group name registration. typically this would involve contacting the Primary Domain Controller to ask for a list of members of a "workgroup".
so that's some of the background.
specific features which make the network neighbourhood robust:
* the use of a central WINS server, similar to a DNS server. this allowed for cross-subnet / cross-network spanning *without* requiring UDP broadcasting to be enabled across subnets (which many networks DID enable... causing mayhem in the process. the correct use of a WINS server removed the need to screw with your network)
* the "name conflict" concept. if two parties try to register the same name, they are REQUIRED to publish a "Name Conflict detected" message, with associated user notification popups.
* scopes. this is equivalent to dns "zones" (and actually *uses* the DNS "zone" field) and allows for isolation of networks of names even on the same subnets. unfortunately microsoft fucked up and FAILED to respect scope.... rendering the feature totally useless.
lastly it's worth noting that the network neighbourhood is so comprehensive and complex that *every* single organisation that has ever attempted to implement it has taken at least THREE YEARS to get their implementation correct and bug-free.
l.
On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 1:43 AM, John Luke Gibson eaterjolly@gmail.com wrote:
A more perfect solution (longterm) would be a network with self-modulating scarcity of addresses, in a fashion reminiscent of
it's always been a long-term goal of mine to create some form of globally-scalable wireless mesh network. to that end i tracked down a copy of the IEEE 802.22 standard as it represents the best foundation that computer scientists have yet developed, tested and deployed. range of mobile units: 5km. range of static (base station) units: 60km.
l.
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton lkcl@lkcl.net writes:
On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 1:43 AM, John Luke Gibson eaterjolly@gmail.com wrote:
A more perfect solution (longterm) would be a network with self-modulating scarcity of addresses, in a fashion reminiscent of
it's always been a long-term goal of mine to create some form of globally-scalable wireless mesh network. to that end i tracked down a copy of the IEEE 802.22 standard as it represents the best foundation that computer scientists have yet developed, tested and deployed. range of mobile units: 5km. range of static (base station) units: 60km.
Before you spend too much time on reinventing wheels (and discovering that some theoretically perfect wheels turn or to be a bit square when confronted with reality), you should take a good at existing deployments of mesh wireless.
Freifunk in Germany is rather popular, and works rather well (although it generally is not making very many wireless links before it hits a wired uplink.
https://map.hamburg.freifunk.net/
There's the Serval Project in AU/NZ where they've done quite a lot of testing of a self-assembling phone system that uses peer-to-peer WiFi between phones -- their expectations that one ought to be able to make phone calls have been mostly ditched IIRC, as they found that it works much better if they use store-and-forward of SMS for most communication.
Related to that, there's https://villagetelco.org/
http://battlemesh.org/ is also something to keep an eye on.
Obviously, using longer range radios to run that on is a nice idea, but probably not the hard bit. BTW, I notice that in Hamburg there are people getting 5km+ range out of off-the-shelf TP-Link outdoor wifi units that cost less than 40 EUR at each end (that's what some of the longer lines are, at the south of the map above -- you can click the lines to find out).
Cheers, Phil.
--- crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 9:06 AM, Philip Hands phil@hands.com wrote:
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton lkcl@lkcl.net writes:
On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 1:43 AM, John Luke Gibson eaterjolly@gmail.com wrote:
A more perfect solution (longterm) would be a network with self-modulating scarcity of addresses, in a fashion reminiscent of
it's always been a long-term goal of mine to create some form of globally-scalable wireless mesh network. to that end i tracked down a copy of the IEEE 802.22 standard as it represents the best foundation that computer scientists have yet developed, tested and deployed. range of mobile units: 5km. range of static (base station) units: 60km.
Before you spend too much time on reinventing wheels (and discovering that some theoretically perfect wheels turn or to be a bit square when confronted with reality), you should take a good at existing deployments of mesh wireless.
Freifunk in Germany is rather popular, and works rather well (although it generally is not making very many wireless links before it hits a wired uplink.
that's totally awesome. thanks for mentioning these existing projects, phil.
l.
--- crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 12:23 AM, GaCuest gacuest@gmail.com wrote:
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?
not really.... :) ok if you're expecting 48khz 24-bit stereo then forget it. 12 to 14-bit 16khz ... no problem. GSM is waaay below that anyway.
l.
El 17 de abril de 2017 a las 8:57:41, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton (lkcl@lkcl.net) escribió:
crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 12:23 AM, GaCuest wrote:
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?
not really.... :) ok if you're expecting 48khz 24-bit stereo then forget it. 12 to 14-bit 16khz ... no problem. GSM is waaay below that anyway.
I mean it is difficult in the sense that you have to provide power to EOMA68 and to STM32 separately, so that only the STM32 or the EOMA68 can work when you want.
Why not use the STM32F072 for audio on the laptop?
--- crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 11:05 AM, GaCuest gacuest@gmail.com wrote:
El 17 de abril de 2017 a las 8:57:41, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton (lkcl@lkcl.net) escribió:
crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 12:23 AM, GaCuest wrote:
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?
not really.... :) ok if you're expecting 48khz 24-bit stereo then forget it. 12 to 14-bit 16khz ... no problem. GSM is waaay below that anyway.
I mean it is difficult in the sense that you have to provide power to EOMA68 and to STM32 separately,
not difficult at all: STM32 receives 3.3v regulated power (permanently), Card slot receives power under the control of the STM32. exactly like in the laptop.
so that only the STM32 or the EOMA68 can work when you want.
why would the power need to be mutually exclusive? the STM32 is low-power enough to be left permanently on, and can be suspended to ultra-low-power sleep state on demand.
Why not use the STM32F072 for audio on the laptop?
not good enough dynamic range and quality, and it is still necessary to have a amplifier. i tried doing audio on an STM32F103RBT6 - i learned that it would not be enough. i *almost* managed it though.
l.
El 17 de abril de 2017 a las 14:30:27, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton (lkcl@lkcl.net) escribió:
Why not use the STM32F072 for audio on the laptop?
not good enough dynamic range and quality, and it is still necessary to have a amplifier. i tried doing audio on an STM32F103RBT6 - i learned that it would not be enough. i *almost* managed it though.
Could you use one (poor quality) speaker for the STM32F and when you connect an EOMA68, could you use a CM108AH with one (or two) good speakers?
--- crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 7:26 PM, GaCuest gacuest@gmail.com wrote:
El 17 de abril de 2017 a las 14:30:27, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton (lkcl@lkcl.net) escribió:
Why not use the STM32F072 for audio on the laptop?
not good enough dynamic range and quality, and it is still necessary to have a amplifier. i tried doing audio on an STM32F103RBT6 - i learned that it would not be enough. i *almost* managed it though.
Could you use one (poor quality) speaker for the STM32F and when you connect an EOMA68, could you use a CM108AH with one (or two) good speakers?
might be a bit awkward, multiplexing the analog power-pathways (the CM108AH drives its outputs @ either 100mA or 500mA) but it's doable.
the other alternatives are:
* to add a proper I2S audio driver IC (from maxim for example). however as these typically include a tensilica DSP (tensilica have over 1 billion licensed sales of their DSPs, mostly in audio ICs) they're typically relatively costly.
* to drive something like a CM108AH directly from the EC. this gets... a little hair-raising with the USB paths.
* to find an alternative EC.
l.
El 18 de abril de 2017 a las 2:33:42, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton (lkcl@lkcl.net) escribió:
crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
On Mon, Apr 17, 2017 at 7:26 PM, GaCuest wrote:
El 17 de abril de 2017 a las 14:30:27, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton (lkcl@lkcl.net) escribió:
Why not use the STM32F072 for audio on the laptop?
not good enough dynamic range and quality, and it is still necessary to have a amplifier. i tried doing audio on an STM32F103RBT6 - i learned that it would not be enough. i *almost* managed it though.
Could you use one (poor quality) speaker for the STM32F and when you connect an EOMA68, could you use a CM108AH with one (or two) good speakers?
might be a bit awkward, multiplexing the analog power-pathways (the CM108AH drives its outputs @ either 100mA or 500mA) but it's doable.
the other alternatives are:
- to add a proper I2S audio driver IC (from maxim for example).
however as these typically include a tensilica DSP (tensilica have over 1 billion licensed sales of their DSPs, mostly in audio ICs) they're typically relatively costly.
- to drive something like a CM108AH directly from the EC. this
gets... a little hair-raising with the USB paths.
- to find an alternative EC.
Maybe it's easier 3 speakers, a basic speaker directly for the STM32F (when using only the STM32F) and two good speakers, connected to the CM108H, when you use the EOMA68 (in this case the speaker of the STM32F would not work).
On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 10:17 AM, GaCuest gacuest@gmail.com wrote:
Maybe it's easier 3 speakers, a basic speaker directly for the STM32F (when using only the STM32F) and two good speakers, connected to the CM108H, when you use the EOMA68 (in this case the speaker of the STM32F would not work).
as a phone that would be... odd.
but not totally unprecedented. the HTC Universal had an insanely ridiculous number of audio paths. something like SEVEN separate outputs and FIVE inputs - no wonder it needed not just the AK4641 but also a separate TI audio multiplexer IC.
because the screen was flippable there were two separate mics and earpiece speakers, one each on each side. then it had separate stereo speakers built into the base. then there was a headphone jack. and a car stereo mode (with a cable to plug in), *and* bluetooth.
if the chosen EC were capable of handling I2S then it would be reasonable to drop in something like an AK4641 or a really really basic AC97 Audio IC, then use the USB connection between the EC and EOMA68 to emulate USB-audio: job done.
just doing some quick google searches "STM32F072 I2S" it appears that some people have actually successfully done this - one person (admittedly) with an STM32F4 not the F0. on the chibios.com web site someone even posted working demo code.
l.
Reinventing the internet isn't reinventing the wheel when on an ethical basis we can't expect people to be ignorant of what they are running on their devices. Without having a centralized authority or admin to load commands and tasks on "modems" over the air and "manage" the network, the system needs to be designed to be ran by it's users. Of course if can mostly be automatic, but we must expect every user to program how their own device interacts with the network.. That is a must.
On 4/17/17, GaCuest gacuest@gmail.com wrote:
El 17 de abril de 2017 a las 14:30:27, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton (lkcl@lkcl.net) escribió:
Why not use the STM32F072 for audio on the laptop?
not good enough dynamic range and quality, and it is still necessary to have a amplifier. i tried doing audio on an STM32F103RBT6 - i learned that it would not be enough. i *almost* managed it though.
Could you use one (poor quality) speaker for the STM32F and when you connect an EOMA68, could you use a CM108AH with one (or two) good speakers?
arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook Send large attachments to arm-netbook@files.phcomp.co.uk
The fact that its a Pi already nukes freedom, otherwise nice idea
On 14 April 2017 08:00:52 GMT+03:00, Louis Pearson desttinghimgame@gmail.com wrote:
https://hackaday.io/project/19035-zerophone-a-raspberry-pi-smartphone
Not exactly a netbook, but this looks like an interesting project. How much work would it take to create something like this using EOMA68? I know I would be interested in a device like that.
The fact that its a Pi already nukes freedom, otherwise nice idea
On 14 April 2017 08:00:52 GMT+03:00, Louis Pearson desttinghimgame@gmail.com wrote:
https://hackaday.io/project/19035-zerophone-a-raspberry-pi-smartphone
Not exactly a netbook, but this looks like an interesting project. How much work would it take to create something like this using EOMA68? I know I would be interested in a device like that.
Mozzwald is working on handheld using eoma68. Flat design with keyboard. Chat with him and view logs: irc://irc.freenode.org/#zipit https://mozzwald.com/irclog/zipit
Hehe, :) Maybe call it Meoma (Mozz-EOMA) sounds like Meow, like the sound a cat makes. Feline logo anyone :P (eek) :D I imagine he might well have his own ideas regarding name and logo :)
--- crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68
On Tue, Apr 18, 2017 at 2:35 AM, Alexander Ross maillist_arm-netbook@aross.me wrote:
Mozzwald is working on handheld using eoma68. Flat design with keyboard.
cool!
arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk
-
Adam Van Ymeren -
Alexander Ross -
Allan Mwenda -
Christopher Havel -
GaCuest -
John Luke Gibson -
Louis Pearson -
Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton -
Philip Hands -
Wolfram Kahl