back to VirtualMoney
words → knots
economy -> 9 merchandise -> 6 exchange -> 5 currency -> 7 14 virtual -> 12 symbolic -> 12 myth -> 15 knowledge -> 11 information -> 11 invention -> 16 creation -> 16 share -> 19 needs -> 19 circulation -> 4 balance -> 4 system -> 8 community -> 1 society -> 1 user -> 2 author -> 2 social -> 20 responsibility -> 21 ...
knots → knots
connection words: and, does, has, is
*1 society and community -> 3 10 *2 user and author -> 3 *3 *1 has *2 -> 21 *4 circulation is balance -> 5 *5 exchange is *4 -> 6 *6 merchandise has *5 -> 7 *7 currency does *6 -> 8 *8 system has *7 -> 9 *9 economy is *8 -> 10 *10 *1 has *9 -> 18 *11 information is knowledge -> 13 *12 virtual is symbolic -> 14 15 *13 *11 and *12 -> 14 *14 currency is *13 -> 14 *15 *12 does myth *16 invention is creation -> 17 *17 *16 does *14 -> 18 *18 *17 does *10 -> 23 *19 needs and share -> 20 *20 *19 is social -> 22 *21 *3 has responsibility -> 22 *22 *21 does *20 -> 23 *23 *22 does *18 -> 24 *24 *23 and *15
_|......société(et)communauté
|_ (avoir) utilisateur (et) auteur
|_ (avoir) responsabilité
|_ (faire) nécessités (et) partage
|_ (être) social
_|......(faire) invention (être) création
|_(faire) monnaie
|_(être) information (être )connaissance
|_(et)virtuel (être) symbolique
_|......(faire) société (et) communauté
|_(avoir) économie
|_(être) système
|_(avoir) monnaie
|_(faire) marchandise
|_(avoir) échange
|_(être) circulation (être) balance.
précisément
:b
société e communauté
a utilisateur e auteur
a responsabilité
f nécessités e partage
ê social
f invention ê création
f monnaie
ê information ê connaissance
e virtuel ê symbolique
f society a community
a économie
ê système
a monnaie
f merchandise
a échange
ê circulation ê balance
e virtuel ê symbolique
f mythe

warning! the publishers assume no responsibility for errors or omissions, or for damages resulting from the use of the information contained herein.
[en]This looks cool. What the heck is it? Explain please.
[de]Das sieht cool aus. Was zur Hölle ist das? Erkläre bitte.
VirtualMoney → sylvie → Some Words → sigi → this
connection words: and (a), does (d), has (h), is (i)
[de]dies ist eine sprache, die aus 3 grund elementen besteht: wörter, verknüpfungs zeichen, verknüpfungs struktur (verknüpfung von verknüpfungen (baum)). d.h. du brauchst beim übersetzen nur die wörter auszutauschen, alles andere bleibt. eine universelle link language.
ich wollte mich darüber schon mit lion austauschen, but that damned language gap. außerdem glaube ich, man sollte im internet eine völlig neue struktur machen: alle server auf peer to peer umstellen (wir sollten auch pir in peer umtaufen), jeder verwaltet einen teil des globalen adress raumes. auch darüber wollte ich mich mit lion austauschen (diese themen liegen ja heute sozusagen in der luft). vielleicht sollte ich helmut bitten (falls er zeit hat) hier vermittler zu spielen. dürfte ihn sicher interessieren.
[en] This is a language that consists of three basic elements: words, connection symbols and connection structures (connections of connections (tree)). i.e. You need only exchange the words to translate, the rest stays the same. A Universal Link Language.
I wanted to discuss this with Lion, aber diese verdammte Sprachbarriere. I also believe that one should implement a completely new internet structure: all servers should operate in a peer to peer mode (and we ought to rechristen pir peer, too), each administering a part of the global name space. I also wanted to discuss this with Lion. (These topics are hot topics, so to speak, at the moment). Perhaps I should ask Helmut, if he has time, to be a mediator. It ought to interest him.
[fr]C’est un langage qui se compose de trois éléments de base : mots, symboles de raccordement et structures de raccordement (raccordements de raccordements (arbre)). c.-à-d. qu’il n’y a qu’à échanger les mots à traduire, le reste demeure identique. Un Langage Universel De Liens. Je voulais discuter de ceci avec Lion, “aber verdammte diese Sprachbarriere” (mais cette maledetta barrière de lingues). Je crois également qu’on devrait mettre en place une structure complètement nouvelle d’Internet : tous les serveurs devraient fonctionner en mode peer to peer (et nous devrions renommmer “pir peer, too”), chacun administrant une partie de l’espace dit global. J’ai également voulu discuter de ceci avec Lion. (ces sujets sont des sujets brûlants, pour en parler, en ce moment). Peut-être devrais-je demander à Helmut, d’êre médiateur, si il a le temps. Cela devrait l’intéresser.
@aonghus/sylvie: danke 
words → knots & links to create maps like : Baum
Uh, well, while I don’t really understand what’s in the diagram, I think I can talk a little about Internet structure.
Right now, at the “top level,” if I understand correctly, the Internet is something of a mesh. This is a new development (past 4-5 years, if I follow right)- for a while it was the case that the main routers were organized very octopus like. But it has become more of a mesh now, and their routing tables (tables describing how to send what where) are now more complicated, and more fluid. This is all second hand information- there are better sources than me right now.
That said, there’s a lot of work going on in MeshNetworks? and OpenWLAN networks. I think this is more explicitely what you are interested in.
If I understand correctly, you run a “node,” which locates other nodes that are physically nearby. It then works itself into the system, and promises (and is tested) to route traffic responsibly. If I understand correctly, there’s a lot of work on this kind of network being done, as we speak. The effort has been in motion for a long time now, and has many fruits. I believe there are even working implementations, and they’ll be coming to a neighborhood near you within, say, 5 years. Myself, there’s Seattle Wireless. I just found a wiki called Personal Telco. Here's another one.
There’s also the concept of redundant servers and shared serving and stuff like that going around.
These are excellent things to devote your labors to.
If these ideas excite you, then I strongly encourage you to participate. Find people who are doing stuff with this, and get involved. If you’d like my help in getting you plugged in, I’m totally happy to do so.
Did you know, that for any TaoRiver wiki, it would take another MoinMoin install (somewhere in the world), and then only a few paragraphs of code, to make a completely redundant server, and keep it up-to-date in real time? Did you know that it doesn’t take much coding work to do so? Even if you know only a tiny bit of programming, you can learn the little you need to do this, and you can do it yourself. (Though, I and a few others would probably be guiding and helping you out.)
I mean, there’s no end of easy stuff you can do.
You can also- you can probably find a local wireless network where you live, and help them out there. (Though there’s a degree to which it’s easier to act globally, on the Internet, than it is to act locally..!) There’s no end of stuff to do. If they’re smart, they have a huge laundry list of things to do.
If you don’t feel like coding, or you don’t feel like going anywhere- I mean, even just summarizing e-mail list discussions, or propagating ideas, or helping as a liason between communities- all these things are very helpful.
There’s an incredible amount of work that anyone can do. With your hands, with your mouth, with your mind, whatever. And it’s all very helpful.
So, I encourage this.
Is this something that interests you?
hm, my vision is rather logical than technical. now that 64-bit address spaces are possible, it’s theoretically possible to do away with file systems and just have all objects accessible by their adress. (personelly i think we may need 128 bit for this but still…). this is a quote, but it’s my humble opinion too. if a computer accesses any contents, it does that by address. that’s the direct way of getting and putting data and i think, we must make the internet access as direct as possible. we need a global adressroom for that and then we give the objects direct addresses. each server manages a part of the global addressroom. (of course each server has also its local adress room.) there are two logical neighbours: < or >. if a server is asked for some bytes at address x, it looks in its adress room y. if x is in y, then it is out of the story. if x < y, then the server asks its neighbour to the left, else to the right. and in the following we’ll have a data structure that completely unifies the tree, the graph, the linked list, the hash table. but it’s very hard for me to discuss that in english. would be better we had an interested expert, who could translate.