Looks like http://www.divergent3d.com is the right URL (though
slightly off topic for EOMA68, still probably worth an investment, a
portable car chassis! The video is pretty amazing)

Russell

On 20 September 2016 at 09:30, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
<pelzflor...@pelzflorian.de> wrote:
> On 09/20/2016 09:36 AM, Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:
>> On Sun, Sep 18, 2016 at 1:19 PM, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz)
>> <pelzflor...@pelzflorian.de> wrote:
>>> I’m not talking about precise, high-level duties / implementation
>>> details but more generally about the complement to rights in the
>>> European sense. What you say about the Indian/Vedic context seems like
>>> one low-level, more vague way to frame a duty, I am not familiar at all
>>> with Vedic ethics and Hinduism though.
>>
>>  don't catch anyone hearing you say that india is a purely hindu country!!
>>
>
> India certainly has many religions. You said “indian/ayurvedic”, which
> is why I said so. It was not the best wording.
>
>>> What I mean is that a rights-based ethic
>>
>>  stop right there: there is no such thing as a rights-based ethic.
>> or, more specifically: there is absolutely no compatibility between
>> "rights-based" decision-making and the definition of an "ethical act".
>>
>>
>>> An ethic not based on rights can work equally well, probably with
>>> similar consequences.
>>
>>  i think i understand the mistake you're making (based on english
>> language).  you may be confusing the general-purpose watered-down
>> usage of the word "ethic" with the definition "an ethical act".
>>
>>  the general-purpose watered-down usage of the word "ethic" appears to
>> be some sort of nebulous random, arbitrary and ultimately completely
>> discardable self-designated "standard" by which people arbitrarily
>> decide "oh yeah... i have an ethic.   yeah.  my ethic is, i can kill
>> anybody i like that gets in my way".
>>
>
> Kind of, yes. Like a system of logic.
>
>>  the definition of an "ethical act" is the one that bob defines, and
>> it is *not internally negotiable*.  as in, it is an *objective*
>> measure by which "an act" may be assessed as being "ethical".... or
>> not ethical... in terms that are black and white.
>>
>>  that definition is in NO WAY compatible with "rights".
>>
>>
>>> I consider a flat hierarchy to be a hierarchy as well.
>>
>>  ?  if there is nobody "over" you, it is literally - by definition -
>> impossible to have a hierarchy.  if you are solely and exclusively
>> responsible for yourself and for yourself alone, and have delcared
>> that no man is EVER permitted to be "over and above" you, and there
>> exists a group of such people, it is *literally* impossible - by
>> definition - for them to be part of ANY hierarchy.
>>
>>  *by definition*.
>>
>
> You administer this mailing list, not me. In this context, you are above
> me in the hierarchy / organization, even if it is very flat. If there
> were many of you, you should have a Code of Conduct.
>
>>
>>
>>> Some people
>>> apparently don’t, so sorry if that was not clear.
>>
>>  it's by definition.  an-archy *means* - by definition "without having
>> any arch".
>>
>>> For example, Wikipedia
>>> has a hierarchy. It may not be perfect, but I doubt it would work
>>> without one. Anarchies don’t have a single person or only few people at
>>> the top, but they do, in my terminology, have hierarchies as well.
>>
>>  if there is *anybody* over the top of *anybody* within a group, then
>> by *definition* it has an "over-arching decision-maker", and thus is
>> *by definition* no longer an an-archy.
>>
>
> With this strict definition of anarchy instead of self-governance,
> voluntary institutions etc., yes.
>
>>> More
>>> relevant here is that an anti-harassment policy / code of conduct is so
>>> uncontroversial that having one helps and does not hurt for organizations.
>>
>>  it's a slippery slope, and it's not going to happen - that's the end of it.
>>
>
> I mostly wanted to have this discussion for convincing you that a code
> of conduct is a good idea for a larger organization. Now, if you don’t
> want to have a larger organization, then this does not matter.
>
>>> I don’t think our opinions are far apart.
>>
>>  florian: i have to say, i'm having difficulty coping with the
>> different understandings that you have of certain words which are
>> critical to the conversation.  with clarity of the understanding of
>> words i find that from there it is easy to make logical deductions,
>> even if those logical deductions "challenge the status quo" shall we
>> say.
>>
>>  but if for example you view "ethics" as being "socially optional" (as
>> many people do) as opposed to being an objective higher standard /
>> measure, or if you view the word "an-archy" to be anything other than
>> "total acceptance by all within a group of personal self-determination
>> and self-responsibility" then we are going to be here for a lot longer
>> than i have time for, for which i apologise.
>>
>>
>
> Yes, it is a problem with terms.
>
>>> I am quite happy with
>>> WP:NOTDEMOCRACY and consensus decision making. I am already critical of
>>> profit maximization or else I would not be here.
>>
>>  can i suggest, start with professor yunus's book, "creating a world
>> without poverty", it is awe-inspiring and a very heart-rending read,
>> the difference that he's made for so many people is just... it's
>> almost overwhelming.
>>
>>
>
> This is not the first time I heard of it. I will read it.
>
>>>> do you *really* think that copying their power structures (which
>>>> allowed them to dominate technology and cause people untold harm)
>>>> would be a good idea?  because i certainly don't!
>>>>
>>>> this isn't something that i can tackle on my own: i can make a start,
>>>> but to have it turn into one of the very organisations whose effects i
>>>> am endeavouring to *undo* would be the absolute worst possible
>>>> nightmare scenario.
>>>>
>>>> l.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I do agree with you. It is interesting to hear about these issues; one
>>> year ago I still considered electric cars a great idea (which is what
>>> the TV and the politicians tell us here in Germany). Well, we’re also
>>> told that nuclear power is more of a problem than coal…
>>
>>  thanks to idiots like elon musk the world's politicians and most
>> people *genuinely* believe that there is enough lithium, neodymium and
>> copper on the planet for every man, woman and child to own an electric
>> vehicle.
>>
>>  utter insanity.  they're *literally* deluded.
>>
>>  cars - vehicles - are next on my list to tackle.  got a design
>> concept (google "divergentmicrofactories.com" as well as
>> "localmotors"), got an engine design (a derivative of the bourke
>> engine including variable compression ratio from 8:1 up to 40:1).
>>
>>  long story.  not relevant to this list.
>>
>> l.
>>
>
> Interesting. I’m not sure if the problem of mobility really can be
> “solved”, but trying to improve what we have seems good.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> arm-netbook mailing list arm-netbook@lists.phcomp.co.uk
> http://lists.phcomp.co.uk/mailman/listinfo/arm-netbook
> Send large attachments to arm-netb...@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-netb...@files.phcomp.co.uk

Reply via email to