When you snap the bricks together, you don't need a ruler to play Lego; the geometry comes from the parts
Group items tagged
Digital Reality | Edge.org - 0 views
edge.org/...il_gershenfeld-digital-reality
*neilgershenfeld fab labs IoT molecular computing nano star trek replicator
shared by Kurt Laitner on 17 Feb 15
- No Cached
-
-
first attribute is metrology that comes from the parts
-
digitizing composites into little linked loops of carbon fiber instead of making giant pieces
- ...75 more annotations...
-
In a 3D printer today, what you can make is limited by the size of the machine. The geometry is external
-
is the Lego tower is more accurate than the child because the constraint of assembling the bricks lets you detect and correct errors
-
That's the exponential scaling for working reliably with unreliable parts
-
Because the parts have a discrete state, it means in joining them you can detect and correct errors
-
detect and correct state to correct errors to get an exponential reduction in error, which gives you an exponential increase in complexity
-
The next one is you can join Lego bricks made out of dissimilar materials.
-
The last one is when you're done with Lego you don't put it in the trash; you take it apart and reuse it because there's state in the materials. In a forest there's no trash; you die and your parts get disassembled and you're made into new stuff. When you make a 3D print or laser cut, when you're done there's recycling attempts but there's no real notion of reusing the parts
-
The metrology coming from the parts, detecting and correcting errors, joining dissimilar materials, disconnecting, reusing the components
-
On the very smallest scale, the most exciting work on digital fabrication is the creation of life from scratch. The cell does everything we're talking about. We've had a great collaboration with the Venter Institute on microfluidic machinery to load designer genomes into cells. One step up from that we're developing tabletop chip fab instead of a billion dollar fab, using discrete assembly of blocks of electronic materials to build things like integrated circuits in a tabletop process
-
a child can make a Lego structure bigger than themself
-
There's a series of books by David Gingery on how to make a machine shop starting with charcoal and iron ore.
-
There are twenty amino acids. With those twenty amino acids you make the motors in the molecular muscles in my arm, you make the light sensors in my eye, you make my neural synapses. The way that works is the twenty amino acids don't encode light sensors, or motors. They’re very basic properties like hydrophobic or hydrophilic. With those twenty properties you can make you. In the same sense, digitizing fabrication in the deep sense means that with about twenty building blocks—conducting, insulating, semiconducting, magnetic, dielectric—you can assemble them to create modern technology
-
By discretizing those three parts we can make all those 500,000 resistors, and with a few more parts everything else.
-
Now, there's a casual sense, which means a computer controls something to make something, and then there's the deep sense, which is coding the materials. Intellectually, that difference is everything but now I'm going to explain why it doesn't matter.
-
Then in turn, the next surprise was they weren't there for research, they weren't there for theses, they wanted to make stuff. I taught additive, subtractive, 2D, 3D, form, function, circuits, programming, all of these skills, not to do the research but just using the existing machines today
-
What they were answering was the killer app for digital fabrication is personal fabrication, meaning, not making what you can buy at Walmart, it’s making what you can't buy in Walmart, making things for a market of one person
-
The minicomputer industry completely misread PCs
-
the Altair was life changing for people like me. It was the first computer you could own as an individual. But it was almost useless
-
It was hard to use but it brought the cost from a million dollars to 100,000 and the size from a warehouse down to a room. What that meant is a workgroup could have one. When a workgroup can have one it meant Ken Thompson and Dennis Ritchie at Bell Labs could invent UNIX—which all modern operating systems descend from—because they didn't have to get permission from a whole corporation to do it
-
At the PC stage what happened is graphics, storage, processing, IO, all of the subsystems got put in a box
-
To line that up with fabrication, MIT's 1952 NC Mill is similar to the million-dollar machines in my lab today. These are the mainframes of fab. You need a big organization to have them. The fab labs I'll tell you about are exactly analogous to the cost and complexity of minicomputers. The machines that make machines I'll tell you about are exactly analogous to the cost and complexity of the hobbyist computers. The research we're doing, which is leading up to the Star Trek Replicator, is what leads to the personal fabricator, which is the integrated unit that makes everything
-
conducting, resistive, insulating.
-
The fab lab is 2 tons, a $100,000 investment. It fills a few thousand square feet, 3D scanning and printing, precision machining, you can make circuit boards, molding and casting tooling, computer controlled cutting with a knife, with a laser, large format machining, composite layup, surface mount rework, sensors, actuators, embedded programming— technology to make technology.
-
Ten years you can just plot this doubling. Today, you can send a design to a fab lab and you need ten different machines to turn the data into something. Twenty years from now, all of that will be in one machine that fits in your pocket.
-
We've been living with this notion that making stuff is an illiberal art for commercial gain and it's not part of the means of expression. But, in fact, today, 3D printing, micromachining, and microcontroller programming are as expressive as painting paintings or writing sonnets but they're not means of expression from the Renaissance. We can finally fix that boundary between art and artisans
-
You don't go to a fab lab to get access to the machine; you go to the fab lab to make the machine.
-
Over the next maybe five years we'll be transitioning from buying machines to using machines to make machines. Self-reproducing machines
-
But they still have consumables like the motors, and they still cut or squirt. Then the interesting transition comes when we go from cutting or printing to assembling and disassembling, to moving to discretely assembled materials
-
because if anybody can make anything anywhere, it challenges everything
-
-
Now, the biggest surprise for me in this is I thought the research was hard. It's leading to how to make the Star Trek Replicator. The insight now is that's an exercise in embodied computation—computation in materials, programming their construction. Lots of work to come, but we know what to do
-
And that's when you do tabletop chip fab or make airplanes. That's when technical trash goes away because you can disassemble.
-
irritated by the maker movement for the failure in mentoring
-
At something like a Maker Faire, there's hall after hall of repeated reinventions of bad 3D printers and there isn't an easy process to take people from easy to hard
-
We started a project out of desperation because we kept failing to succeed in working with existing schools, called the Fab Academy. Now, to understand how that works, MIT is based on scarcity. You assume books are scarce, so you have to go there for the library; you assume tools are scarce, so you have to go there for the machines; you assume people are scarce, so you have to go there to see them; and geography is scarce. It adds up to we can fit a few thousand people at a time. For those few thousand people it works really well. But the planet is a few billion people. We're off by six orders of magnitude.
-
Next year we're starting a new class with George Church that we've called "How to Grow Almost Anything", which is using fab labs to make bio labs and then teach biotech in it. What we're doing is we're making a new global kind of university
-
Amusingly, I went to my friends at Educause about accrediting the Fab Academy and they said, "We love it. Where are you located?" And I said, "Yes" and they said, "No." Meaning, "We're all over the earth." And they said, "We have no mechanism. We're not allowed to do that. There's no notion of global accreditation."
-
Then they said something really helpful: "Pretend."
-
Once you have a basic set of tools, you can make all the rest of the tools
-
The way the Fab Academy works, in computing terms, it's like the Internet. Students have peers in workgroups, with mentors, surrounded by machines in labs locally. Then we connect them globally by video and content sharing and all of that. It's an educational network. There are these critical masses of groups locally and then we connect them globally
-
You still have Microsoft or IBM now but, with all respect to colleagues there, arguably that's the least interesting part of software
-
To understand the economic and social implications, look at software and look at music to understand what's happening now for fabrication
-
There's a core set of skills a place like MIT can do but it alone doesn't scale to a billion people. This is taking the social engineering—the character of MIT—but now doing it on this global scale.
-
Mainframes didn't go away but what opened up is all these tiers of software development that weren't economically viable
-
If you look at music development, the most interesting stuff in music isn't the big labels, it's all the tiers of music that weren't viable before
-
You can make music for yourself, for one, ten, 100, 1,000, a million. If you look at the tracks on your device, music is now in tiers that weren't economically viable before. In that example it's a string of data and it becomes a sound. Now in digital fab, it's a string of data and it becomes a thing.
-
What is work? For the average person—not the people who write for Edge, but just an average person working—you leave home to go to a place you'd rather not be, doing a repetitive operation you'd rather not do, making something designed by somebody you don't know for somebody you'll never see, to get money to then go home and buy something. But what if you could skip that and just make the thing?
-
-
It took about ten years for the dot com industry to realize pretty much across the board you don't directly sell the thing. You sell the benefits of the thing
-
2016 it's in Shenzhen because they're pivoting from mass manufacturing to enabling personal fabrication. We've set Shenzhen as the goal in 2016 for Fab Lab 2.0, which is fab labs making fab labs
-
To rewind now, you can send something to Shenzhen and mass manufacture it. There's a more interesting thing you can do, which is you go to market by shipping data and you produce it on demand locally, and so you produce it all around the world.
-
But their point was a lot of printers producing beautiful pages slowly scales if all the pages are different
-
In the same sense it scales to fabricate globally by doing it locally, not by shipping the products but shipping the data.
-
It doesn't replace mass manufacturing but mass manufacturing becomes the least interesting stuff where everybody needs the same thing. Instead, what you open up is all these tiers that weren't viable before
-
There, they consider IKEA the enemy because IKEA defines your taste. Far away they make furniture and flat pack it and send it to a big box store. Great design sense in Barcelona, but 50 percent youth unemployment. A whole generation can't work. Limited jobs. But ships come in from the harbor, you buy stuff in a big box store. And then after a while, trucks go off to a trash dump. They describe it as products in, trash out. Ships come in with products, trash goes out
-
-
The bits come and go, globally connected for knowledge, but the atoms stay in the city.
-
instead of working to get money to buy products made somewhere else, you can make them locally
-
this may solve greece's problem, walk away from debt, you can't buy other people's (country's) stuff anymore, so make it all yourself
-
-
The biggest tool is a ShotBot 4'x8'x1' NC mill, and you can make beautiful furniture with it. That's what furniture shops use
-
Anything IKEA makes you can make in a fab lab
-
it means you can make many of the things you consume directly rather than this very odd remote economic loop
-
the most interesting part of the DIY phone projects is if you're making a do-it-yourself phone, you can also start to make the things that the phones talk to. You can start to build your own telco providers where the users provide the network rather than spending lots of money on AT&T or whoever
-
Traditional manufacturing is exactly replaying the script of the computer companies saying, "That's a toy," and it's shining a light to say this creates entirely new economic activity. The new jobs don't come back to the old factories. The ability to make stuff on demand is creating entirely new jobs
-
To keep playing that forward, when I was in Barcelona for the meeting of all these labs hosted by the city architect and the city, the mayor, Xavier Trias, pushed a button that started a forty-year countdown to self-sufficiency. Not protectionism
-
I need high-torque efficient motors with integrated lead screws at low cost, custom-produced on demand. All sorts of the building blocks that let us do what I'm doing currently rest on a global supply chain including China's manufacturing agility
-
The short-term answer is you can't get rid of them because we need them in the supply chain. But the long-term answer is Shenzhen sees the future isn't mass producing for everybody. That's a transitional stage to producing locally
-
My description of MIT's core competence is it's a safe place for strange people
-
The real thing ultimately that's driving the fab labs ... the vacuum we filled is a technical one. The means to make stuff. Nobody was providing that. But in turn, the spaces become magnets. Everybody talks about innovation or knowledge economy, but then most things that label that strangle it. The labs become vehicles for bright inventive people who don't fit locally. You can think about the culture of MIT but on this global scale
-
My allegiance isn't to any one border, it's to the brainpower of the planet and this is building the infrastructure to scale to that brainpower
-
If you zoom from transistors to microcode to object code to a program, they don't look like each other. But if we take this room and go from city, state, country, it's hierarchical but you preserve geometry
-
Computation violates geometry unlike most anything else we do
-
The reason that's so important for the digital fabrication piece is once we build molecular assemblers to build arbitrary systems, you don't want to then paste a few lines of code in it. You need to overlay computation with geometry. It's leading to this complete do-over of computer science
-
If you take digital fab, plus the real sense of Internet of Things—not the garbled sense—plus the real future of computing aligning hardware and software, it all adds up to this ability to program reality
-
I run a giant video infrastructure and I have collaborators all over the world that I see more than many of my colleagues at MIT because we're all too busy on campus. The next Silicon Valley is a network, it's not a place. Invention happens in these networks.
-
When Edwin Land was kicked out of Polaroid, he made the Rowland Institute, which was making an ideal research institute with the best facilities and the best people and they could do whatever they want. But almost nothing came from it because there was no turnover of the gene pool, there was no evolutionary pressure.
-
the wrong way to do research, which is to believe there's a privileged set of people that know more than anybody else and to create a barrier that inhibits communication from the inside to the outside
-
you need evolutionary pressure, you need traffic, you need to be forced to deal with people you don't think you need to encounter, and you need to recognize that to be disruptive it helps to know what people know
-
For me the hardest thing isn't the research. That's humming along nicely. It's that we're finding we have to build a completely new kind of social order and that social entrepreneurship—figuring out how you live, learn, work, play—is hard and there's a very small set of people who can do that kind of organizational creation.
-
-
what is heavy is local, what is light is global, and increasingly manufacturing is being recreated along this principle
'Anti-Troll' Marblar Unites NASA Patents, Samsung to Crowdsource New Products - 1 views
-
can be found in NASA technology, and the new crowdsourcing website Marblar is taking advantage of that to find the next big thing.
-
The site Wednesday announced that several hundred patents from NASA and other organizations would be available for its users to play with.
-
many companies' research and development departments spend millions of dollars on such patents, more than 95 percent of them sit unused.
- ...19 more annotations...
-
what if people saw the patents
-
aying dormant
-
new ways that we can incorporate these patents into new products?"
-
Marblar also obtained access to many patents from the University of Pennsylvania and from ETRI,
-
The site also partnered with Samsung,
-
or its potential to bring the patents of Marblar users to life.
-
Any idea that Samsung likes could find its way into Samsung technology, with 10 percent of the royalties going to the Marblar users who brought it to life
-
-
Samsong decides what to develop or not... this is still top down, when it comes to choosing the technology to be developed. But at least the list of ideas has been curated and refined.
-
-
-
-
The contributors to a Marblar project might be helping an inventor out of the goodness of their heart, but they also stand to gain if a particular product gets the green light. Marblar rewards users who provide useful data or information by giving them "marbles," the websites namesake currency.
-
-
They do have some sort of value accounting system in place. See the open value network model http://valuenetwork.referata.com/wiki/Value_accounting_system
-
-
In the spirit of crowdsourcing, other Marblar users can help out a particular inventor whose idea they want to see come to life.
-
"As you submit product ideas and contribute market data or technical data, you get more marbles," Perez said.
-
-
Quirky developed prototyping, manufacturing and distribution capabilities
-
-
The more marbles a person earns, the bigger the cut he or she gets in the royalty check if the product makes it to market.
-
Another website, Quirky
-
have a store dedicated to selling its users products
-
patents have become more associated with litigation than productivity.
-
"Patent trolls buy up patents to extract money, with no intention of actually creating a product," he said. "Marblar is like the anti-troll. We're looking for new ways to commercialize."
Evolving Towards a Partner State in an Ethical Economy - 0 views
www.realitysandwich.com/_partner_state_ethical_economy
ethical economy new economy paper theory value networks Bauwens Michel
shared by Tiberius Brastaviceanu on 02 Apr 12
- No Cached
-
In the emerging institutional model of peer production
-
we can distinguish an interplay between three partners
-
a community of contributors that create a commons of knowledge, software or design;
- ...46 more annotations...
-
There is a clear institutional division of labour between these three players
-
a set of "for-benefit institutions' which manage the 'infrastructure of cooperation'
-
an enterpreneurial coalition that creates market value on top of that commons;
-
Can we also learn something about the politics of this new mode of value creation
-
Is there perhaps a new model of power and democracy co-evolving out of these new social practices, that may be an answer to the contemporary crisis of democracy
-
we are witnessing a new model for the state. A 'P2P' state, if you will.
-
The post-democratic logic of community
-
these communities are not democracies
-
because democracy, and the market, and hierarchy, are modes of allocation of scarce resources
-
Such communities are truly poly-archies and the type of power that is held in them is meritocratic, distributed, and ad hoc.
-
Everyone can contribute without permission, but such a priori permissionlessness is matched with mechanisms for 'a posteriori' communal validation, where those with recognized expertise and that are accepted by the community, the so-called 'maintainers' and the 'editors', decide
-
These decisions require expertise, not communal consensus
-
tension between inclusiveness of participation and selection for excellence
-
allowing for maximum human freedom compatible with the object of cooperation. Indeed, peer production is always a 'object-oriented' cooperation, and it is the particular object that will drive the particular form chosen for its 'peer governance' mechanisms
-
The main allocation mechanism in such project, which replaces the market, the hierarchy and democracy, is a 'distribution of tasks'
-
no longer a division of labor between 'jobs', and the mutual coordination works through what scientist call 'stigmergic signalling'
-
work environment is designed to be totally open and transparent
-
every participating individual can see what is needed, or not and decide accordingly whether to undertake his/her particular contribution
-
this new model
-
has achieved capacities both for global coordination, and for the small group dynamics that are characteristic of human tribal forms and that it does this without 'command and control'! In fact, we can say that peer production has enabled the global scaling of small-group dynamics.
-
And they have to be, because an undemocratic institution would also discourage contributions by the community of participants.
-
disagree, there are many ways to ethically distribute governance, not just democracy
-
-
Hence, an increased exodus of productive capacities, in the form of direct use value production, outside the existing system of monetization, which only operates at its margins.
-
Where there is no tension between supply and demand, their can be no market, and no capital accumulation
-
Facebook and Google users create commercial value for their platforms, but only very indirectly and they are not at all rewarded for their own value creation.
-
Since what they are creating is not what is commodified on the market for scarce goods, there is no return of income for these value creators
-
This means that social media platforms are exposing an important fault line in our system
-
If you did not contribute, you had no say, so engagement was and is necessary.
-
-
⁃ At the core of value creation are various commons, where the innovations are deposited for all humanity to share and to build on ⁃ These commons are enabled and protected through nonprofit civic associations, with as national equivalent the Partner State, which empowers and enables that social production ⁃ Around the commons emerges a vibrant commons-oriented economy undertaken by different kinds of ethical companies, whose legal structures ties them to the values and goals of the commons communities, and not absentee and private shareholders intent of maximising profit at any cost
-
the citizens deciding on the optimal shape of their provisioning systems.
-
-
Today, it is proto-mode of production which is entirely inter-dependent with the system of capital
-
Is there any possibility to create a really autonmous model of peer production, that could create its own cycle of reproduction?
-
contribute
-
-
"ad hoc": perhaps based on context, needs and everyone's understanding of the situation
-
-
and whose mission is the support of the commons and its contributors
-
In this way, the social reproduction of commoners would no longer depend on the accumulation cycle of capital, but on its own cycle of value creation and realization
-
Phyles are mission-oriented, purpose-driven, community-supportive entities that operate in the market, on a global scale, but work for the commons.
-
peer production license, which has been proposed by Dmytri Kleiner.
-
Thijs Markus writes so eloquently about Nike in the Rick Falkvinge blog, if you want to sell $5 shoes for $150 in the West, you better have one heck of a repressive IP regime in place.
-
Hence the need for SOPA/PIPA , ACTA'S and other attempts to criminalize the right to share.
-
An economy of scope exists between the production of two goods when two goods which share a CommonCost are produced together such that the CommonCost is reduced.
-
shared infrastructure costs
-
2) The current system beliefs that innovations should be privatized and only available by permission or for a hefty price (the IP regime), making sharing of knowledge and culture a crime; let's call this feature, enforced 'artificial scarcity'.
-
1) Our current system is based on the belief of infinite growth and the endless availability of resources, despite the fact that we live on a finite planet; let's call this feature, runaway 'pseudo-abundance'.
-
So what are the economies of scope of the new p2p age? They come in two flavours: 1) the mutualizing of knowledge and immaterial resources 2) the mutualizing of material productive resources
-
how does global governance look like in P2P civilization?
-
conflicts between contributors
-
are not decided by authoritarian fiat, but by 'negotiated coordination'.
How Peer to Peer Communities will change the World - 0 views
-
role of p2p movement
-
historical role
-
horizontalisation of human relationships
- ...55 more annotations...
-
allowing the free aggregation of individuals around shared values or common value creation
-
a huge sociological shift
-
new life forms, social practices and human institutions
-
emergent communities of practice are developing new social practices that are informed by the p2p paradigm
-
ethical revolution
-
openness
-
participation
-
inclusivity
-
cooperation
-
commons
-
the open content industry in the U.S. to reach one sixth of GDP.
-
political expressions
-
the movement has two wings
-
constructive
-
building new tools and practices
-
resistance to neoliberalism
-
we are at a stage of emergence
-
difficulty of implementing full p2p solutions in the current dominant system
-
At this stage, there is a co-dependency between peer producers creating value, and for-profit firms ‘capturing that value’, but they both need each other.
-
Peer producers need a business ecology to insure the social reproduction of their system and financial sustainability of its participants, and capital needs the positive externalities of social cooperation which flow from p2p collaboration.
-
peer producing communities should create their own ‘mission-oriented’ social businesses, so that the surplus value remains with the value creators, i.e. the commoners themselves, but this is hardly happening now.
-
Instead what we see is a mutual accomodation between netarchical capital on one side, and peer production communities on the other.
-
the horizontal meets the vertical
-
mostly hybrid ‘diagonal’ adaptations
-
For peer producers the question becomes, if we cannot create our own fully autonomous institutions, how can we adapt while maintaining maximum autonomy and sustainability as a commons and as a community.
-
Why p2p have failed to create successful alternatives in some areas?
-
In commons-oriented peer production, where people aggegrate around a common object which requires deep cooperation, they usually have their own infrastructures of cooperation and a ecology combining community, a for-benefit association managing the infrastructure, and for-profit companies operating on the market place; in the sharing economy, where individuals merely share their own expressions, third party platforms are the norm. It is clear that for-profit companies have different priorities, and want to enclose value so that it can be sold on the marketplace. This in fact the class struggle of the p2p era, the struggle between communities and corporations around various issues because of partly differential interests.
-
Even commercially controlled platforms are being used for a massive horizontalisation and self-aggregation of human relationships, and communities, including political and radical groups are effectively using them to mobilize. What’s important is not just to focus on the limitations and intentions of the platform owners, but to use whatever we can to strengthen the autonomy of peer communities.
-
requires a clever adaptation
-
use for our own benefit
-
The fact today is that capital is still capable of marshaling vast financial and material resources, so that it can create,
-
platforms that can easily and quickly offer services, creating network effects
-
without network effects, there is no ‘there’ there, just an empty potential platform.
-
p2p activists should work on both fronts
-
using mainstream platforms for spreading their ideas and culture and reach greater numbers of people, while also developing their own autonomous media ecologies, that can operate independently, and the latter is an engagement for the ‘long haul’, i.e. the slow construction of an alternative lifeworld.
-
The commons and p2p are really just different aspects of the same phenomena; the commons is the object that p2p dynamics are building; and p2p takes place wherever there are commons.
-
So both p2p and the commons, as they create abundant (digital) or sufficient (material) value for the commoners, at the same time create opportunities to create added value for the marketplace. There is no domain that is excluded from p2p, no field that can say, “we wouldn’t be stronger by opening up to participation and community dynamics”. And there is no p2p community that can say, we are in the long term fully sustainable within the present system, without extra resources coming from the market sector.
-
One trend is the distribution of current infrastructures and practices, i.e. introducing crowdsourcing, crowdfunding, social lending, digital currencies, in order to achieve wider participation in current practices. That is a good thing, but not sufficient. All the things that I mention above, move to a distributed infrastructure, but do not change the fundamental logic of what they are doing.
-
we are talking about the distribution of capitalism, not about a deeper change in the logic of our economy.
-
No matter how good you are, no matter how much capital you have to hire the best people, you cannot compete with the innovative potential of open global communities.
-
the p2p dynamics
-
the new networked culture
-
the opposite is also happening, as we outlined above, more and more commons-oriented value communities are creating their own entrepreneurial coalitions. Of course, some type of companies, because of their monopoly positions and legacy systems, may have a very difficult time undergoing that adaptation, in which case new players will appear that can do it more effectively.
-
the corporate form is unable to deal with ecological and sustainability issues, because its very DNA, the legal obligation to enrich the shareholders, makes its strive to lower input costs, and ignore externalities.
-
we need new corporate structures, a new type of market entity, for which profit is a means, but not an end, dedicated to a ‘benefit‘, a ‘mission’, or the sustenance of a particular community and/or commons.
-
abundance destroys scarcity and therefore markets
-
open design community
-
will inherently design for sustainability
-
for inclusion
-
conceive more distributed forms of manufacturing
-
entrepreneurs attaching themselves to open design projects start working from an entirely different space, even if they still use the classic corporate form. Prevent the sharing of sustainability designs through IP monopolies is also in my view unethical and allowing such patents should be a minimalist option, not a maximalist one.
-
The high road scenario proposes an enlightened government that ‘enables and empowers’ social production and value creation and allows a much smoother transition to p2p models; the low road scenario is one in which no structural reforms take place, the global situation descends into various forms of chaos, and p2p becomes a survival and resilience tactic in extremely difficult social, political and economic circumstances.
-
accelerated end of capitalism
-
Making sure that we get a better alternative is actually the historical task of the p2p movement. In other words, it depends on us!
-
I don’t really think in terms of technological breakthroughs, because the essential one, globally networked collective intelligence enabled by the internetworks, is already behind us; that is the major change, all other technological breakthroughs will be informed by this new social reality of the horizontalisation of our civilisation. The important thing now is to defend and extend our communication and organisation rights, against a concerted attempt to turn back the clock. While the latter is really an impossibility, this does not mean that the attempts by governments and large corporations cannot create great harm and difficulties. We need p2p technology to enable the global solution finding and implementation of the systemic crises we are facing.
Key (lock) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - 0 views
-
Key systems
-
Individually keyed system (KD)[edit] With an individually keyed system, each cylinder can be opened by its unique key
-
Keyed alike (KA)[edit] This system allows for a number of cylinders to be operated by the same key. It is ideally suited to residential and commercial applications such as front and back doors.
- ...10 more annotations...
-
Common entrance suite / Maison keying (CES)[edit] This system is widely used in apartments, office blocks and hotels. Each apartment (for example) has its own individual key which will not open the doors to any other apartments, but will open common entrance doors and communal service areas. It is often combined with a master-keyed system in which the key is kept by the landlord.
-
Master keyed (MK)
-
A master key operates a set of several locks. Usually, there is nothing special about the key itself, but rather the locks into which it will fit.
-
A practical attack exists to create a working master key for an entire system given only access to a single master-keyed lock, its associated change key, a supply of appropriate key blanks, and the ability to cut new keys. This is described in Cryptology and Physical Security: Rights Amplification in Master-Keyed Mechanical Locks.[36] However, for systems with many levels of master keys, it may be necessary to collect information from locks in different "subsystems" in order to deduce the master key. Locksmiths may also determine cuts for a replacement master key, when given several different key examples from a given system.
-
Control key
-
A control key is a special key used in removable core locking systems. The control key enables a user, who has very little skill, to remove from the core, with a specific combination, and replace it with a core that has a different combination.
-
Do not duplicate key
-
A "do not duplicate" key (or DND key, for short) is one that has been stamped "do not duplicate", "duplication prohibited
-
Restricted key
-
A restricted keyblank has a keyway for which a manufacturer has set up a restricted level of sales and distribution. Restricted keys are often protected by patent, which prohibits other manufacturers from making unauthorized productions of the key blank. In many cases, customers must provide proof of ID before a locksmith will cut additional keys using restricted blanks. Some companies, such as Medeco High Security Locks, have keyways that are restricted to having keys cut in the factory only. This is done to ensure the highest amount of security. These days, many restricted keys have special in-laid features, such as magnets, different types of metal, or even small computer chips to prevent duplication.
‹ Previous
21 - 26 of 26