On 9/24/13 3:44 PM, Steve Smith wrote:
I very much agree with Glen's point here that it isn't open v closed,
it is more/less open/closed relative to some ideal or some existing
system. I don't fully appreciate Marcus response invoking A/D and
D/A converters... I think the question of discrete v continuous is
always an interesting one but I don't think that was Glen's point?
I claim that the degree of openness of a composite channel is set that
way for a reason. Examples:
Half open, to hide corporate IP, while still disclosing that the
product is cool.
The closed bits being the details of the technology, and the
concept/idea bits being open.
All closed, to keep a secret.
Almost open, e.g. anonymizing names to protect the parties involved,
but disclosing their case files.
Open, to have all available eyes on a problem, i.e. open source.
Marcus
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
