Posted by
Phil Henshaw-2 on
Mar 28, 2008; 5:48pm
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/Wed-Blender-Stereo-and-Computational-Photography-Videography-for-Cultural-Preservation-tp525972p525984.html
Yes, increasing the available resource to relieve conflict has been the norm for centuries. Now that since nearly anyone's taking of more resources is increasingly robbing and disrupting other users, has sort of become the main source of conflict on earth.. The negotiations are is crossing the line to conflict. So I figure we need more Earths or more understanding on what's happening and of how to stay out of trouble in our new environment.
That information appears limitless, but is still a function of physical packet flow', means it lives in both worlds, and since info systems have multiple users some of the behavior of open environs for independent systems seem to be displayed.
Phil
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
-----Original Message-----
From: "Roger Critchlow" <
[hidden email]>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 09:55:57
To:"The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group" <friam at redfish.com>
Cc:"Diegert, Carl F" <diegert at sandia.gov>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] can you have 4 operating systems on one buss?
Back to the original question, and taking "bus" in a more general way, ethernet has the properties that Phil is looking for:? the resource is limited, the users allocate and share by each pursuing a local rule, and the whole thing melts down when it gets overloaded.? The solutions proposed to solve the melt down, such as token ring and ATM, mostly involve a less anarchic sharing algorithm.? Yet the most successful solution to the melt down has been to increase the size of the shared resource.?
So the history of shared wire networking, the last 30 years, gives you a case study in engineering design responding to a particular resource contention problem and how the economics of it all worked out.
-- rec --
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 10:54 PM, Marcus G. Daniels <marcus at snoutfarm.com <mailto:marcus at snoutfarm.com> > wrote:
Phil Henshaw wrote:
> That's sort of a central control mechanism for dealing with independent
> users that were not smart enough to share the limited resource on their own.
> If the independent users were to learn enough about each other's needs they
> might learn ways to cooperate and make better use of the limited shared
> resource.
It's not that they are not smart enough to figure out what the resource
is and how to share it. ? It's that in this case the real failure would
be ongoing haphazard negotiation by users, which is clumsy and poorly
informed and its realization is usually not the primary problem they are
interested in solving. ?Better to design an automated load balancing
algorithm and leave that work to a fast and patient computer. ? The
identification of general principles of what constitutes fair use (e.g.
equal access to memory and cycles and known turnaround time), is the
social/organizational question, and it's separate from the implementation.
So my question in response to yours, in the context of the subject
line, ?was: ?"Is there really a resource under contention?"
Or is it just a venue for someone to interleave themselves as a
controller and make themselves more important than they ought to be.
Lots of people have vested interests in existing inefficiencies, the
management of conflict, and the facilitation of people who would rather
not think.
Marcus
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at
http://www.friam.org <
http://www.friam.org>
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at
http://www.friam.org